Evening star., 1948-01-11

SOLICITOR GENERAL
PERLMAN
To Open Arguments.
These dwellings are across the street
from Mcmillan Park and the Gov
ernment reservoir, and west of First
street NV.
Covenant Covers 20 Let's.
Twenty of the 81 lots in that block
were sold in 1906 under deed cove
nant which stated: Said lot shall
never be rented, leased. sold, trans
ferred or conveyed unto any Negro
or colored person under penalty of
50 900 which shall be lien against
said property
The remaining II lots in the block
were not covenanted and have been
owned and occupied by Negroes for
several years. Mr.. Urciolo, a white
real estate operator, sold three of
the covenanted lots in l945 to col
ored people. Another of the cove
nanted lots was sold by Mr. and Mrs.
Francis x. Ryan, who are not direct
parties in the pending suits, to Mr..
Hurd who, claimed in the court Pc
tition that he was Mohawk In
dian.
Mr.. Hodge and other property
owners in the covenanted part OF
Bryant street asked District Court
to void the sales, permanently en-
join Mr.. Urciolo and Mr. Ryan from
conveying any of the lots to colored
people, and order the purchasers to
vacate the premises.
Justice F. Dickinson Let's in Dis
trict Court in 1916 decided IN favor
of the covenant holders. The anti
covenant group went to the Court
of Appeals but lost again by a two
to one decision last May. Justices
Clark and Miller upheld the cove
nant, while Justice Edgerton dis
sented.
The cases then were carried to the
Supreme Court on petition for a
writ of certiorari. That court agreed
to review the issue and scheduled
oral arguments for December 8. Be-
cause of the illness of Justice Frank
Murphy, arguments were post
poned until this week. !
The District cases are not the
first to go through the lower courts
here or the first of their kind to be
heard by the Supreme Court. At
torneys say, however, the Supreme
Court has never ruled on the pre-
else points involved in these Dis
tricts, Michigan and Missouri cases.
In 1922 the court dismissed a Dis
trict covenant case on the ground
of lack of Jurisdiction. That was
the case OF Corrigan VS.. Buckley.
Attorneys for the anticovenant
group in the present cases declare
the court action at that time ap-
piled to greatly limited considera-
tions and did not pass on funda-
mental issues presented now.
Never "Wholly Invalidated."
Counsel for the covenant holders
not only offer Corrigan VS.. Buckley
in support of their stand but they
declare that court decisions every
where favor their claims. They say
courts in 10 States as we'll as the
District have ruled or indicated"
that racial restrictive covenants of
one kind or another are enforceable
by the courts, and that in no juris-
diction has covenant been wholly
invalidated."
Denying that racial discrimination
or political or social conditions are
the true issues" in the current
cases, the 25-page brief filed in be-
half of the covenant holders as
serts:
THE restrictive covenant here in
volved is a valid and subsisting
property right; it is not prohibited
~ the Constitution or invalidated
by any acts of Congress-; 1t is not
an undue restraint or alienation
degal transfer of property or re-
pugnant to the public policy of the
District of Columbia. and hence is
entitled to enforcement by oappro-
pirate judicial decree on applica-
ton of parties whose rights are
involved"
The covenant holders center their
argument largely on the issue of
enforcability of contracts. They
deny that racial prejudices is at
the root of the matter. They hold
that covenants are proper contracts
and that a decision ruling them
unconstitutional would strike at the
root of contracts in general.
| Petitioners punctuate every point
with the cry of prejudice, discrimi-
nation. denial of fundamental
rights" the covenant holders brief
argues. They assume that only by
casting aside established principles
of law can their conception of right
be attained. They ignore rights Of
others-not the least the funda-
mental right to contract and obtain
(court) enforcement of those con-
tracts.
How else can one enforce, by
peaceful means, a valid contract
save by seeking his legal rights in
court of competent jurisdiction?'
Attorneys on both sides ask the