Minneapolis spokesman. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1934-2000, 1948-05-07
Covenants
Continued from Page I.

| "GHFtSH " NVtetNH haHhSS Hhf%~
1872.
The trial court denied the iniunc-
ton. but the Missouri Supreme
Court reversed tbs lower court and
held the agreement binding.
In the Michigan case, Mr.. and
Mrs. Ofsol MeGhse bought and
moved into premises 4526 SeAhAldt
Ave. Detroit. NsiEhb0Fing prop
srty owners fled suit 10 the Circuit
Court Of Wayne County, which gu.
tered . decree directing them 20
move from the property within
ninety days. The Supreme Court
Of Michigan upheld the decision u
the Wayne County Circuit Court.
In one Of the District Of coIum.
bla eases Mr.. and Mrs. James VI.
HuFd were snjolnsd from occupying
property at iig Bryant ~. North
west. In the ether Mr.. and Mrs.
Robert u. Rowe. Mr.. and Mrs. Her
bert %. Savage. and Mrs, Pauline
u. Stewart purchased property at
u.s. l94. and 100 Bryant SE. North.
west respectively.
The District Court for the Dis.
tEict Of Columbia declared the deeds
conveying the property 10 the Pc
titl0nerH null and void and ordered
thsm 70 varAta their homes. The
United States Court Of Appeals for
the District II Columbia affirmed
the decisions.
In deciding the Michigan and Mis-
souFi cases, the court said.
I'VE hold that In granting judi.
eiAl enforcement 0f the restrictive
agreements IN these cases, the
States have denied petitioners tho
equal protection Of the laws and
that, therefore, the action Of the
state courts cannot stand.
we have noted that freedom
from discrimination by tho States
In the enjoyment ~ property rights
was among the obIegtiVeH sought tO
be eRectuatsd by the trainers 81 the
Fourteenth Amendment. That such
discrimination has occurred In these
cases IL clear, because II the race
or coloFa Of these petitioners they
have been denied rights II owner
Ahip or occupancy enjoyed a. d
matter 0f course by other citizens
Of different race and color"
The court dismissed the conten
ton Of respondents that sinca the
state courts stand ready to snfoFct
restrictive covenants KeludI ms
white persona from the ownership
or occupancy II property eovsrsC
by such agreements, enforcement
of covenants excluding coloTsd per
soma may not be deemed y dental al
equal protection 81 the laws 10 III,
cOlaFsd persons who are affected.
This contention does not heal
: scrutiny" Chief Justice Vlnson de
ClaFed.
i Likewise the court found ~
mpFit IN the suggestion that prop
eTty owners who alRn such agree
menta are denied equal protsctio,
u the laws n denied access 10 IN,
courts 10 enforce the tsrmA ~ &c
stFtstiVr covenants and 10 aaAuF
property rights which the stat,
courts have held TO he created b,
such agreements,
The Constitution eonfsra upoi
no individual the right 10 demRn,
action BY the State which result
~ the denial 20 equal protect ton q
the laws 10 other individuals" tn
opinion stated.
The historical context In whicl
the Fourteenth Amendment becam
= part 81 the Constitution shout,
not he forgotten" declared Chic
Justice Vlnson.
Whatever else the framsr
sought 10 achieve, Il IL clear tina
the matter 81 primary concern wa
the establishment ~ equality In Oh,
enjoyment " basic civil and politi
cal rights and the preservation q
these rights from Discrimination,
action on the part % the State
based on consideration Of race o
color, seventy Ave years ago thi
Court announced that the pravi
aions af the Amendment are 90 b
construed with fundamental pur
posp In mind.
Upon full confederation, "
have concluded that In these ease
the States have acted ~ duny peti
TONERS the equal protection ~ IN
laws guaranteed by the Fuurtsent
Amendment Having 81 decide,
5 ~ ind II unnecessary TO COpsidr
4 whether petitioners have also bee
deprived 81 property without ia
pTOcess II law or dsuted privilege
. and immun,tiss Of cittAens ot IN
United States,
For the reasons stated. IN
Judgment ~ the Supreme Cou,
. ~ Missouri and the Judgment d
. the Supreme Court Of Michiga
must hc reversed
IN the Iwo pistrict 81 Columb,
cases. Justice Ninsan said the deC
s,on IN tho companion MtChtEa
and Missouri cases - clearly "
dicatiVs IL the construction e. b
J given to the relevant provisions q
the civil Etvhta At la thar ami