The Omaha guide., 1946-03-09
jim GROW TRAVEL CASE
TO BE ARGUED MIR. 81
Continued from p. ID

March T., according to the move
ment of the calendar.
The case arose from the arrest
of Miss Morgan on July 16, 1914
on a Greyhound bus travelling
from Gloucester County, Va, to
Baltimore, Md She was ordered
to move to the rear of the bus and
refused to do so. She lost in Vir.
ginia courts but NAACP lawyers
finally secured the consent Of the
US supreme court to review by
direct appeal.
In brief, the argument of Att
orneys William H.. HASTE, Leon
A. Ransom, Spottswood w. Rob-
inson, III, and Thurgood Marsh
all is:
For 70 years the decisions and
announcements oft his Court
have consistently condemned the
state statutes attempting to con-
troll or rekuire the segregation OF
Negro passengers moving in in
terstate commerce on public car
riers as unconstitutional invasions
Of an area where national power
under the commerce clause is K
elusive. Unless the reasoning Of
thos cases or is unsound, they
should be followed.
The nature of the subject ma
tier, the direct impact of segre-
cation statutes on the interstate
movemnt of persons in commerce
and the burdensome movement Of
persons in conflicting local enact
ments in this field all indicate the
correctness Of the doctrine which
places this aspect Of interstate
commerce beyond state control.
The transitory status of the in
terstate passenger and the lack
OF any uniform. or consistent CO
verage of Negro travellers in the
segregation laws of tsle sevral
states including Virginia, show
the unsubstantial character Of
the states claim of legitimate
concern with this matter. Such
capricious application Of provin-
cial notions beyond substantial
local needs affords no valid basis
for the regulation of interstate
commerce which Virginia is at
tempting"
In conclusion the brief refers
20 the case of Hall VS.. Occur
ana declares:
Hall VS.. DeCuir was decided
20 years ago, and many of the
cases following it are also pre-
cedents of past generations. To
day, commerce is vas--y increa-
sed. 1t has far greater need than
ever before for freedom nom OBJ
stacles bred of provincialism.
Moreover, Hall vs.. DeCuir was
decided when the Civil War and
Inc racial antagonisms attendant
to it were fresh in the minds and
emotions of men. Even then this
court was quite sure mat the ma
ton to the exclusion of the States
must have control of this aspect
Of interstate travel. Today we are
just emerging from a war in
which all of the people of the US
were united in a death struggle
against the apostles of r.jcism.
We have already recognized by
solemn subscription to the Char
ter of the United Nations, and
particularly Articles one and S.
thereof, u duty, along with out
ASASAAOOAo, " C0O4AGW IdClSlu III our
national life, and to promote uni
versal respect for, and observance
of, human rights and fundamental
freedoms for all without distinc>
ton as to race, sex, language, or
religion. How much clearer, must
it be today, than it was in 1877,
that the national business of in
terstate commerce is not to be
disfigured by descriptive local
practices bred Of racial notions
alien to our national ideals, and
to the solemn undertakings of
the community Of civilized ma
tions as we'll"
This is the first instance which
the US supreme court has been
called upon to rule directly on
the Segregation Of interstate pas
sengers on public carriers.