Evening star., 1948-05-03
High Court Bars
Action in State
.0rU. S. Courts
60 Decision UphoIds
Rights of CoIored
Property Owners
BY the Associoted Press

The Supreme Court ruled. so.
today that restrictive real estate
agreements which bar colored
persons from all-white neigh
borhoodS cannot be enforced by
State or Federal courts.
Chief Justice VinSon wrote two
opinions upholding in full the rights
OF colored property owners. One
opinion dealt with State court &C
TONS the other with Federal court
cases.
Justices Jackson, Reed and Rut-
ledge took no part in the case.
Joining with Chief Justice Vinson
we're Justices Black, Frankfurter,
Douglas, Murphy and Burton.
The six justices at the same time
refused to declare that such restric-
tive agreements are themselves in
valid, Justice Vinson wrote that so
long as the agreements are volun-
tarily adhered to, without enforce
ment assistance by Federal or State
courts, they violate no law.
In the case of State courts,
Justice Vinson said the Historical
context in which the l4th Amend
ment became part of the Consti-
tuition must not be forgotten.
Property Interests Limited.
The amendment was adopted
shortly after the Civil War. Justice
Vinson said:
Whatever else the trainers (of
the Constitutions sought to achieve,
1t Is clear that the matter of pri-
mary concern was the establish
ment of equality in the enjoyment
of basic civil and political rights
and the preservation of those
rights from discriminatory action
on the part of the State based on
consideration of race or color.
The Constitution confers upon
no individual the right to demand
action by the State which results in
the denial of equal protection of the
laws to other individuals. And it
would appear beyond question that
the power of the State to create and
enforce property interests must be
exercised within the boundaries de-
fined by the l4th amendment"
Considered Since January.
Since mid-January the Supreme
Court has had under consideration
the two cases from the District and
one each from st. Louis and Detroit.
Oral arguments, including those of
Solicitor General Philip B. PERL
man outlining the Justice Depart
ments opposition to covenants, were
heard January Is and 16.
Issues in the four cases were es-
sentlally the same. The types of
covenants differed somewhat and
the legal attack on the District
property restrictions contained spe-
cial arguments on Federal jurisdic-
ton and the attitude of Congress-"
Covenants in the District cases.
affecting lots in the 100 block of
Bryant street NV, are not limited
to time. In each of the deeds for
that covenanted area. established
originally in 1906, is a written ban
on sale to or ownership by colored
people. The ban also provides $1,000
penalty for such sales.
Four Lots Involved.
Petitioners who sought to break
the covenants were James w. and
Margaret I. Hurd, Raphael G. Urci-
olo, Robert H. and Isabel j. Rowe.
Herbert B. and Georgia NJ Saw
age. and Paul B. Stewart. Respond
ents were Frederic E. and Lena A.
Hodge. Pasquale and Victoria De
Rita, Constantine and Mary Marche-
giani and Balduino and Margaret
Giancola
Mr.. Urciolo, white real estate
dealer sold three of the covenanted
lots in 1945 to Negroes. A property
owner in the covenanted area sold
another lot to Mr. Hurd who claimed
in court he was a Mohawk Indian.
Mr.. Hodge and others asked Dis
trict Court to void the sales, order
the buyers to vacate the property,
and permanently enjoin Mr.. Urciolo
and others from conveying any OF
the covenanted lots to colored peo-
pie.
! Justice F. Dickinson Let's in Dis
trict Court decided in favor of the
tSee COVENANTS, Page A-60