The Omaha guide., 1946-06-29
| OUR
GUEST
Column
Edited by Verna p. Harris
A CRACK IN THE WALL
BY Charles S. johnson, Dir
ectOr of Social Science Inst
tute Fisk University.

Some unfinished business left
behind by Judge William HASTE
when he went to the Virgin Is
ands a few weeks ago to become
the islands first Negro Governor
was cleared up On June 3. The
Supreme Court of the United
States handed down it's decision
in the Morgan case, which Mr.
HASTE argued before the Court,
involving the constitutionality OF
a state law segregating Negro
passengers on vehicles passing
thru the state. Like so many de-
cisions of far-reaching Importance
the announcement came quietly
and with the casualneSS of court
routine.
Miss Irene Morgan, a Negro,
was fined $40 in the Virginia
courts for refusing to move into
a Jim Crow section when the bus
on which she was riding crossed
the state line from Maryland into
Virginia. The requirement that she
move was in accordance with a
Virginia state law making man.
datory racial segregation on all
public vehicles passing through
the state. The decision of the SUI
preme Court was that Miss Nor
gan should get her ten dollars
back-the state law was unconsti-
tutional.
In recent years, the Supreme
Court has shown an increasing
disposition to strengthen Federal
protection of the rights of the Ne
gro and other minorities under
the fourteenth amendment, which
forbids a state to deny to any per-
son within its borders the equal
protection of it's laws. However,
cases decided under this clause
have never called segregation it
self seriously into question. The
in~sistence has been upon substan-
tial equality Of treatment-a futile
hope, as demonstrated by the well
nigh universal and persistent pol
icies of discriminatory segrega-
ton. The fact that in general Pull
man passengers in interstate ira
vel have not been segregated has
been due rather to the expense and
consequent unwillingness of the
roads to provide separate Pullman
cars for the small number of Ne
gro Pullman passengers than to
any prohibition against segrega-
ton. Thus. the Supreme Courts
decision in the Morgan case is the
first of the Courts decisions to
question segregation itself.
Interestingly enough, the decls-
ion i nthis case was not based up
on the fourteenth amendment, nor
was it based upon any hardshlps
to Negro passengers resulting
from the segregation requirement
The law was unconstitutional, the
decision declared, because in the
absence of any general Fedora
regulation on the subject, the lack
of uniformity of state laws gov
erning racial association place.
an undue burden on interstate
commerce. Said Justice Stanley +
Reed in writing the majority opin-
ion. as no state law can reach its
own border nor bar transported
ion of passengers across boundar-
les. diverse seating requirements
for the races in interstate journeys
result (from state efforts at re-
e11lation). 1t seems clear to us
that seating arrangements for the
different races in interstate mo-
tor travel require a single UNIFORM
dule to promote and protect ma
tional travel. Consequently we
hold the VirSinia statute IN con-
troversy invalid.
The lone dissenting judge re-
marked that he could find no IN
due burden, since neither the Fed.
eral government nor any state nae
complained. Literally, he may
have a point, but actually he All
ed in his incorporation OF the
role which the Supreme Court IN
creasingly is called upon to assn,
me This body, at one time thougn'
of as the conservator n protect,
or of legal principles, has founc
itself often in recent years aheae
IF custom in many parts OF the
country although not ahead OF the
facts of modern relationships. Il
has become, even than the
conservator, the interpreter O
principles in the light of an active
dvnamic democracy, and OF gooe
sound national policy.
What the Court has done n III
case has been to formulate l lie
cal terms relationships that des
pite custom and rationalizations o