The Enterprise. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 192?-1930, 1928-08-30
Court Decision VIII
Staggering Blow ]
To Colored Race

SAN FRANCISCO, CAL, Aug. 20.
-(SpeciaD-The Supreme Court of
California in decision handed down
today dealt a staggering blow to col
ored people respecting their right to
occupy property with a restrictive
clause in the title. BY its decision
the Supreme Court upholds the right
of white property owners to enter an
agreement restricting the sale Of
property to Negroes. The case de-
cided today by the Supreme Court
was that of A. d. Kinchlow, colored,
who was contesting his right to oc-
cupy real estate at 2245 w. 30th
street in Los Angeles.
The restriction which finally found
its way for decision in the Supreme
Court read as follows:
"We the owners of real estate in
the Crestmore Subdivision in the
City of Los Angeles, Cal, agree to
bind ourselves for period of
twenty-five (25) years to the fol-
lowing restrictions:
"That we will not permit occu-
pancy of our land by any person
other than of the Caucasian race and
that this restriction shall be incor-
porated in all deeds of transfer of
this property.
"This covenant runs with the land
until January, 1850"
The white owner, one Fred II.
Stewart, who signed this agreement,
afterwards repudiated it and sold
his property to A. d. Kinchlow and
Matte Kinchlow, his wife, without
Incorporating any such restriction
upon the occupancy of it in the deed.
The white neighbors who had
signed the agreement contested the
sale and Kinchlow and Stewart were
defended by Attorney Willis o. Ty-
Ter, who won two decisions in the
superior court of this county in
favor of the Kinchlows. The Neigh
| borhood Association carried the case
to the supreme court and the appall-
! ing word now comes that the supreme
| court has sustained the contention of
| the white neighborhood agreement.
Inasmuch as the Republican ad-
ministrations have elected the judges
to the supreme court and Negroes OF
the state have been a loyal and help
full element in all of the civic and
economic affairs of the state, it is a
great blow to the colored people to
be denied the right to occupy and
use property which they buy for
residential purposes.
1t is thought advisable to say that
these cases have nothing to do with
the Fourteenth and Fift e IN t h
Amendments to the Constitution for
that point has often been decided
against the contention of the color
ed people. In fact the Supreme Court
of the United States has never passed
decision which went any further
than to affirm the decision of the
Supreme Court in the State of Geor-
gia, in the famous case of Carey
against the City of Atlanta. In that
case the city council of Atlanta at
tempted to zone Negroes by ordin-
ance and the Supreme Court of Geor-
gia held that the council could not
do this because it was part of the
state legislative system. This is the
basis of the decision in the Supreme
Court of the United States. 1t left
the gate wide open, however, for in
dividuals to do so and the supreme
court decisions merely say in effect
that while city councils and state
legislatures cannot pass ordinances
limiting the places where Negroes
are to live, yet individuals are free
to do so either in their deeds or by
neighborhood agreement.
In the Kinchlow case, the property
is not lost. for an adjustment of the
price was made pending appeal to
the supreme court. It is the occu-
pancy of the property only that is
involved and which the Kinchlows
lose by this last appalling decision.