Evening star., 1947-10-06
The Covenants Issue
Both Sides Are Preparing for Supreme Court Argument
On MuchDebated Issue in Washinston
BY Robert K. Walsh

by Negros for many years. Seven of the cove
nanted lots are involved in the proceedings
before the Supreme Court
Raphael G. Urciolo white real estate oper-
ator, sold three of the lots to colored people
He owns three other parcels in the same cove
nanted section. At about the same time Mr.
and Mrs Francis x. Ryan sold one of the lots
to James M. Hurd, who is listed in the petit
tion Mohawk Indian.
Other home owners in that coyenanted part
of Bryant street asked District Court to void
the sales. permanently enjoin Mr. Urciolo and
Mr. Ryan from conveying any of the seven lots
to colored person, and order the purchasers
to vacate the premises.
They won their case in District Court and
the Court of Appeals last May. Justices Clark
lower court principally on the basis OF prior
decisions.
Justice Edgerton dissented on five general
and two special points He held that enforce
ment of the 1906 covenant would defeat its
original purpose because Negroes would pay
more than whites for the property and because
the neighborhood is no longer white. He also
held that the injunctions against both trans
fer and occupancy were broader than the
covenant itself because the covenant did not
expressly forbid use and occupancy.
Mr.. Urciolo, Mr. and Mrs. Hurd and the
Negroes to whom the lots had been sold by
Mr.. Urciolo then appealed to the Supreme
Court Their arguments, as presented in
briefs filed by Attorneys Charles H. Hous-
ton Spottswood W. Robinson III, Phineas
Indritz, Morris P. Glushien and Sidney r.
Rubin, follow the five general grounds men,
toned by Justice Edgerton and also raise ad-
ditional questions.
Argument That Covenants Are Void.
The main arguments as outlined by the
attorneys, are that covenants are void because
they are unreasonable restraints on transfer
of ownership Of property; that they are void
because they are contrary to public policy;
that their enforcement by injunction is
inequitable.
That their enforcement by injunction vio-
lates the due process clause of the Fifth
Amendment; that enforcement by injunction
violates the Civil Acts Right, declaring that
"all citizens shall have the same right as is
enjoyed by white citizens to inherit purchase,
lease, sell, hold and convey real and personal
property"
That it violates the United Nations Charter
to which the United States has adhered by
treaty; that covenant restrictions are based
solely on the race or creed of the buyer; that
enforcement would be "of such discriminatory
character and so inequitable, especially under
present housing conditions that 1t should not
be approved by the courts.
Court cases on restrictive covenants have
been fairly numerous here in recent years.
But the current petitions are the first to go
from the District to the Supreme Court, Mr..
Houston said.
Two cases involving property restrictions OF
this kind were before the court in the past.
Attorneys recalled one was dismissed for want
of jurisdiction and the other was decided solely
on limited point.
The Supreme Court has never ruled on the
main questions in the pending cases. It has
ruled that legislative restrictions on title trans
fers, acquisition and occupancy OF property,
based solely on race, are unconstitutional be-
cause they violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
Opponents Of covenants say in their brief
to the court that racial restrictions which
the Government may not impose through its
Legislature are equally forbidden to the Gov-
ernment acting through It's courts
Mote: A second article OF this series tctH
nnDedr torno7Yo,Dj