Evening star., 1948-01-17
Separated D. {.
Covenant Ruling
Held Possible
High Court Studies
Issues After Hearing
Arguments z Days
By Robert K. Walsh

bOoAA cAASc al 1o01 Su11C CA1O SdoCo
wondered today whether the tri-
bunal might hand down a sep
arate ruling on two cases from
the District.
The court took the issues under
advisement late yesterday For two
afternoons the Justices heard argu-
ments of attorneys for covenant
holders and opponents in the Dis
trict, st. Louis and Detroit.
- Basic questions are whether pri-
vate covenants to keep nonwhites
out Of white neighborhoods violate
the Constitution and whether they
can be enforced legally by Federal
and State courts through injunc-
tions, contemps citations or similar
orders.
Special Points Stressed.
Special points, involving such con-
Congress, the status Of property
law" and Federal court opinions in
Washington and public policy and
prevailing public opinion here, were
stressed in arguments on the District
cases.
This led some of the attorneys to
theorize today on the possibility
that the covenants covering property
on Bryant street NV. might come
in for special mention in whatever
determination the Supreme Court
makes.
Neither side in the four cases, how
ever, would hazard a guess on how
soon the court will give its decision
or what 1t will be.
The fact that Associate Justices
Reed, Jackson and Rutledge dis
qualified themselves. leaving only
six justices considering the cases
made the lawyers especially wary
of predicting the outcome of the
historic legal battle.
Questions Give No Hint.
Moreover" one of the lawyers
remarked, the court not only asked
unusually few questions, but the
questions it did ask gave none of us
a hint as to the possible feeling of
individual justices"
The present term of. the court
continues to June, but there was no
certainty that ruling will be
handed down even then. After "de-
cision day" Monday, the court will
not sit again until February 2. Off,
cials explained, however, that there
is no rule against" decisions being
announced at any time.
The District covenant cases were
brought to the Supreme Court by
several Negroes and petitioner de-
scribing himself as an Indian and
by Raphael Urciolo, white real
estate man. Mr. Urciolo, who had
sold some of the Bryant street cove
nanted lots to the colored people,
joined with the petitioners in ask
ing the high court to overule deci-
sions by the District Court and the
United States Court of Appeals her
Buyers Ordered Out.
Those lower court decisions up
held the covenants, ordered the
colored people to vacate the lots
and enjoined Mr.. Urciolo from SELL
ing covenanted property to nom
whites.
Charles H. Houston, Washington
colored attorney, and Phineas In
dritz, an Interior Department at
torney, represented those petitioners
at yesterdays oral arguments. !
Henry Gilligan, who served for IL
years on the District Board of Edu-
cation, and James A. Crooks, former
chief counsel for the District Rent
Control Board, spoke for the cove
nant holders. Mr.. Gilligan told the
court he not only lives near Bryant
street but has been active for more
than 81 years in defense of cove
nants.
Citizens of the white or Cau
casian race" Mr.. Gilligan declared
shave invested, in the great major
ity of cases, their entire financial
capital and borrowing ability in
their homes Gn the District.
They have done this, not be-
cause of race hatred but to live their
home lives among people of their
own choosing, unhampered by the
greedy devices of unscrupulous real
estate spectators, posing as friends
of the Negro race, while mulcting
them of large sums of money and
subjecting them to litigation to re-
tain covenanted properties pur-
chased by them with full knowledge
of the restrictions"
Mr.. Houston and Mr. Indritz
pointed out that covenants not only
are aimed at Negroes but at Jews,
Indians and other minority groups.
1T is a misnomer to call them
covenants" Mr.. Indritz said They
are corspiracies against our fellow
man."
The District anti-covenant law
yers rested their case on the follow
ing specific grounds:
That the existence, spread and
court enforcement of covenants cre-
ates dangerous social and economic
conditions especially in view OF
housing conditions here.
That the District covenant hold
ers, in their original petition for an
injunction, produced no evidence Of
having suffered injury.
That the Government cannot step
in and prevent, by court order, a
property sale between willing
buyer and a willing seller.
That the court injunction un-
Justly interfered with Mr.. Urciolos
right to sell real estate.
Hold Constitution Violated.
That covenants in the District
violate particularly the Fifth
Amendment to the Constitution,
which provides that no person shall
be deprived of life, liberty and prop
erty without due process.
That this application of the Fifth
Amendment puts the District cases
In something of a special category,
whereas covenants such as those
from Missouri and Michigan are
affected more directly by the
Fourteenth Amendment which pro-
vides that no State shall deprive a
person of such those rights.
That the ol,Slawing of covenants
will not cause havoc but, on the
contrary, will allow the natural
laws" of property holding to
operate.
That ooy~. ,,ts are "cor1n1llntty