Minneapolis spokesman. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1934-2000, 1948-05-07
Continued from Page 1.


Continued from Page I.
occupied By cOIOrSd fsmilI'" since
Ia82.
The trial court denied the lnjuRc-
ton, but the Missouri Supreme
Court reversed The lower court and
held the agrssmsnt binding.
In tho Michigan case. Mr.. and
Mrs. Orsol MeGhes bought and
moved into premises 4g2S BsakRldt
Ave, Detroit. NsighboTiHg prop
srty OwHsFa hlsd suit In the Circuit
Court Of Wayne County, which en-
tsred q decree directing them 70
move from the property within
ninety days. The Supreme Court
of Michigan upheld the decision Of
the Wayne County Circuit Court
In one Of the District Of Colum.
bia cases Mr.. and MFs. James NJ.
Hurd we're snjoined from occupying
property at ltG Bryant ~. North.
west. In the other Mr.. and Mrs.
Robert n, Rowe, Mr.. and Mrs. Her
W. W. b@NMM@t MuN WNHs FMauHw
u, Stewart purchased property 81
lis, iS4, and 100 Bryant 81 North
west, respectively,
The District Court Tor the Dis
trtet u Columbia declared the deeds
conveying the property 70 the Pc
tltl0naFa null and void and ordered
tham 70 vacnts their homes. The
unitad States Court NJ Appeals for
the DlatEiet Of Columbla affirmed
the decisions.
In deciding the Michigan and Mis-
souFi eases, the court said;
I'VE hold that IN granting Judi.
ClMl enforcement Of the restrictive
agreements In these cases, the
States have denied petitioners ths
equal protection of the laws and
that therefore, the Actlon Of the
state courts cannot stand,
I'VE have noted that freedom
from Discrimination by the States
IN the enjoyment NJ property rights
was among the oblectiVes sought 10
be eHectaated by the trainers 81 the
F0uFteenth Amendment, That such
discrimination has occurred IN these
eaAem IL clear, Because of the race
OF eolora of these petitioners they
have been denied rights ~ owner.
ahip or occupancy enjoyed ~ q
matter af course by other citizens
of different race and color"
The court dismissed the canten,
tl0n uf respondents that since the
state courts stand ready to enforce
restrictive covenants csc I'D n Z
white persona from the ownership
OF occupancy II property covered
by such agreements, enfoFesmsnts
Of covenants excluding rolorsd per,
sons may not be deemed q denial ei
equal pTotection Of the laws 10 the
eolored persons who are affected.
This contention does not bear
scrutiny" Chief Justice Vinsnn de.
elAFetI.
Likewise the court found No
merit IN the suggestion that prop
srty owners who aiwn such agree,
mehta ars dsnisd equal protection
Of the laws u denied access 10 the
courts 10 enforce the tsrms Of ~,
atrietivo covenants and To assert
property rights which the stat,
courts have held 10 he created b.
such agreements.
The Constitution eonfera upoT
no individual the right 90 domant
action by the State witch results
~ the dental II equal protection ri
the laws to ether individuals" III,
eelnien stated
The historical context IN whlel
the Fourteenth Amendment bpcam,
part ~ the Constitution ahouis
not be forgotten" declared Chlsi
Justice vinson.
Whatever else the framsrl
sought 10 achieve, II ID clear tha
the matter Of primary concern wal
the establishment uf equality In thu
sEjeyment of basic civil and polili
\ cal rights and the preservation 81
these rights from Discrimination
asliaH on the part % the atAtai
based on consideration Of race oi
color ScVVRty.hVS years aRo thli
Court aanOuRcrd that the provi
Aions ~ the Amendment are 10 b,
construed with fundamental pur
pose In mind.
"Upon full confederation. VI
have concluded that IN these ease,
the States have acted 10 deny peti
tianeFs the equal protection IL IN
laws guaranteed by tho f0urtssntl
Amendment, Having 80 decided
w. ind II unnecessary to rpnside
- \ a. n.