Evening star., 1949-09-02
Segregation Upheld
As Judge Dismisses
Part Of Airport Suit

Part Of Airport Suit
Segregation does not violate the
Constitution or acts OF Congress
Federal Judge Albert v. Bryan
ruled in Alexandria yesterday in
dismissing part of a damage suit
by a Washington colored woman
In memorandum opinion
Judge Bryan dismissed five counts
of a suit against Air Terminal
Services, Inc, operator of the
restaurant at the Washington Ma
tional Airport, and Eastern Ali
Lines. The suit was filed last
year by Mrs. Helen Nash of 1880
Thirteenth street NV. who
claimed damages because she said
she was refused service at the
airport dining room and coffee
shop February II. l947.
Judge Bryan refused to dismiss
one count in the suit which
charges that ATS failed to provide
her eating facilities equal to those
provided for white patrons. This
count, which asks $4,000 dam
ages. will go to trial.
$4,000 Charges Dismissed.
The counts that were dismissed
on motion of the defendants asked
total of $4,000. Yesterday S
action leaves ATS the only re-
naming defendant in the case.
In throwing out the major por-
ton of the suit, Judge Bryan said
the issues hinged on allegations
that segregation of Negroes is in
valid.
SEGREGATION is not violative OF
the Federal Constitution or OF any
act of Congress-" Judge Bryan
said.
The incident which prompted
the suit, according to Judge
Bryan, "arose at a time when
segregation was enforced at the
airport on instructions OF the
civil aeronautics administrator.
Judge Bryan declared that at
that time the ATS contract with
the Government specifically pro-
vided for a separate cafeteria for
Negroes. The same contract.
Judge Bryan added, stipulated
that ATS should i comply with
State or local laws.
This meant that Virgiria's seq
regation laws applied. Judge
Bryan said. -
Segregation Mandatory.
On December 27. 1948, the Civil
Aeronautics Administration is
sued a regulation ending segrega-
ton at the airport. ATS brought
a test case to court and Judge
Bryan upheld the legality Of that
regulation.
On the date complained OF in
Mrs. Nash's suit, however, "segre-
CATION was mandatory at the air.
port" and ATS could have been
penalized for failing to enforce
segregation at that time. Judge
Bryan observed.
In asking that all six be dis
missed, ATS had claimed that it
was not obligated to serve any one
and that without reason 1t could
refuse any one service.
Judge Bryan said he did not
believe such a principle was ap-
plicable in the case because ATS
operates facilities on public prop
erty in a public building. For this
reason, Judge Bryan said ATS
should have provided facilities for
Negroes substantially equal" to
those for white people.
Suit Against Line Dismissed.
If Mrs. Nash was deprived of
equal facilities, Judge Bryan said,
this would constitute a violation
of the fifth amendment Of the
Constitution.
In dismissing a count against
Eastern Air Lines, Judge Bryan
said he could not find in the COM
plant that the airline was aware
of any inequality in accommoda-
tions that may have existed.
Mrs. Nash claimed that she was
an Eastern Air Lines passenger
and was sent to eat at the airport
after a delay in a flight to New
Orleans.
Two similar suits brought by
colored airline passengers have
been dismissed after CAA issued
the non-segregation order.
Yesterdays action came only a