Evening star., 1947-10-06
(This is the first OF t,uo articles. }

Both sides in the controversy over restrictive
covenants to prevent colored people from mov-
ing into white neghborhoods are looking to the
Supreme Court this term for clear-cut ruling
on the issue.
Two Washington cases have been taken on
petition to the high court for the october term.
One involves sale of covenanted property to
Negroes. The other relates to similar sale to
an Indian. Three cases centering on the same
basic question have also been filed from St.
Louis, Detroit and Columbus, Ohio. Still an
other is repeatedly on its way from California.
The five cases before the Supreme Court at
this time differ only in comparatively incidental
considerations or argument emphasis. The
Ohio case, for instance, concerns efforts of a
Negro church trustees to enable their pastor
to live on the church premises in white neigh
borhood.
The District cases reached the Supreme
Court on appeal from the United States Court
of Appeals which last May by two to one
decision, upheld District Court finding in
favor of the white covenant signers.
Appeals in the other cases resulted from
State court actions. In some of them owner
ship is stressed to a greater extent than oc-
cupancy. Others call special attention to pub
lie policy" aspects of such restrictions The
District cases, moreover, deal not only with
Negroes and an Indian but also with the claim
of a white person that restrictive covenants un-
duly limit his right to sell property.
But the fundamental question in all these
cases. as seen by advocates and opponents, is
whether covenants are constitutional and can
legally be enforced through the courts by in
junction.
Defended rs Economic Necessity"
Spokesman for most of the 63 citizens asso-
Citations Of white home owners in the District
defend the covenant as legal device based on
economic necessity. They report its use has
grown greatly since the war.
Spokesmen for the 26 Negro civic units and
OF national organizations here attack the cove
nant as undemocratic, a cause as we'll as an
effect of racial prejudice. and threat to social,
moral and economic welfare of the community
and the Nation.
Attorneys for covenant signers hold those
agreements are legitimate contracts and there
fore can properly be enforced through the
judicial branch of the Government. They say
the weight of legal precedent is with them.
Counsel, white as we'll as Negro who are
fighting the covenants, contend such property
arrangements are unconstitutional and "artii-
cial" They declare all covenants should be
voided as contracts because they run contrary
to public policy.
They cite legal precedents to support their
claim that contract cannot stand up in court
If 1t rests on fundamentally illegal ground.
Nor, as in the case of the Supreme Court deci-
sion on the gold clause, can it be enforced If
it is affected by materially changed conditions.
The District cases are before the Supreme
Court in the form of consolidated petition
for writs of certiorari to review the judgments
OF the lower courts. The Supreme Court al
ready has granted writs of certiorari to review
the Missouri, Michigan and Ohio cases.
Bryant Street as an Example.
In the 100 block of Bryant street NV. are
81 lots and dwellings on the south side of the
street The north side bounds public park.
Twenty OF the lots were sold in 1905 under a
deed or ground covenant which stated: Said
lot shall never be rented, leased, sold, trans
ferred or conveyed unto any Negro or colored
person under penalty Of 81 900 which shall be
lien against said property"
The remaining II lots In the block are not
oovenanted and have been owned and occupied