Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1929-05-11
Segregation Case Is Argued
Before u. 9. Court.
Judge D. Laurence Gr0ner POsfpOnes His Decision.
Constitutional Rights Brilliantly ArSued

Judge D. Lawrence Groner took
under advisement Friday, May 3rd,
the petition OF Richmond Negroes
Tor an injunction to forbid enforce
nent OF. the city's new segregation
ordinance, following three hours of
a..gu:nent by counsel in United States
District Court here. Judge Groner
said he would try TO render a decision
within thirty days.
The principal question at issue is
whether the ordinance contravenes
the Federal Constitution 1t pro.
vides that no one may occupy
house on any block in the city where
the majority of the residents on that
block are persons With whom he or
she is forbidden to marry, under the
State racial integrity act.
City Attorney James E. Cannon
and Assistant City Attorney Lucius
Cary appeared in opposition to the
petition for an injunction, and AL
fred E. Cohen and J. R. Pollard ar
gued in favor Of it. The court room
was we'll filled during the hearing,
most Of those present being Negroes.
Charges Law Unconstitutional
Counsel for the petitioners con-
tended that the ordinance is contrary
to the thirteenth and fourteenth
amendments to tie Federal Consti-
tuition, since Il is based en- race and
color and abridges the constitutional
rights Of citizens, and that it calls
for an unwGrYantable exercise Of the
police power. Counsel for the de-
PENDANTS argued that the ordinance
is constitutional.
Attorney Pollard contended that
the United States Supreme Court,
in Harmon VS.. Tyler, case involv-
ing residential segregation ordi-
nance in New Orleans, held the or
dinance to be unconstitutional be-
cause it was based on race and color,
and on an unreasonable exercise of
the police power.
"The law cannot recognize distinc-
ton on account of race or color" he
declared. "This Richmond ordinance
is purely a race segregation ordi-
nance. and is based on race and col
or. The United States Supreme
{ Court has held that such a law is
void"
Declares Two Alike
Mr.. Cohen declared that there sis
no substantial difference" between
an ordinance enacted in Louisville,
and declared unconstitutional by the
Supreme Court in 1917, and the
Richmond ordinance now under con-
sideration.
This case, Mr.. Cohen said, was
styled Buchanan versus Marley, and
! it "was said by its defenders to be
designed to preserve racial purity"
He stated that the supreme tribunal,
I! in a unanimous decision, declared it
to be unconstitutional.
"There is absolutely nothing ad-
vanced in the Richmond case which
was rot advanced in the Louisville
case" he declared. "The Louisville
ordinance had more substantial rela-
tions to racial integrity than the
Richmond ordinance"
! Mr.. Cary contended, on the other
hand, that the Louisville ordinance
"did not deal with an attempt to pro-
hibit the amalgamation of the races,
as does the ordinance in the instant
case"
Relation to Property
.. "All of the court decisions in the
segregation of race uses of property
,, have turned on the same constitu-
tional question, to-wit: whether or
not the fourteenth amendment pro-
, tects the free use of property" he
said. "The purpose and legal prin-
, ciples are TIE same, that is, in the
(Continusd on page 81