Evening star., 1950-06-05
High Court Bars
Segregation in
Rail Dining Cars
Separate but Equal
Rule Not Touched on
In 80 Decision
By Robert K. Walsh

Without ruling on constitution
atty of the separate but equal"
doctrine of racial segregation, the
Supreme Court held. 8 to 0. today
that a railroad violated the Inter-
state Commerce Act by segregat-
ing Negroes in dining cars.
Justice Clark did not participate
In the case.
The court, planning to wind up
its current term. indicated it
would hand down rulings later to-
day on two companion cases
based on complaints of racial seq
regation at Texas and Oklahoma
State University Law Schools.
The ruling in the dining car
segregation case involved Elmer
w. Henderson, 1929 Jay street
NE, now director of the Amer
ican Council for Human Rights.
The case dates back to May, 1912,
when he was unable to get a meal
on a Southern Railway dining
car while travelling from Wash
ington to Birmingham. Ala.
In his appeal to the Supreme
Court, Mr.. Henderson urged the
tribunal not only to outlaw the
dining car segregation practice
but to strike down the entire
theory that there is no racial
discrimination if Negroes are given
separate but equal accommoda-
tions to those provided for whites.
Sent Back to Lower Court.
The opinion written by Justice
Burton confined itself to a section
Of the Interstate Commerce Act
and did not touch on "the Con-
stitutional or other issues sug-
gested."
It sent the case back to the
Federal District Court in Balti-
more and directed that the Inter-
state Commerce Commission order
which dismissed Mr.. Henderson, S
original complaint be set aside.
The ruling also stated that the
ICC must take further proceed
ings in conformity with this
opinion"
The decision also was based on
an earlier opinion which provided
that Negro passenger on a rail-
road had been subjected to an
unreasonable disadvantage" by
being excluded from a pullman
car.
THE similarity between that
case and this is inescapable," JUS
tice Burton wrote. "The appellant
here was denied a seat in the
dining car although at least one
seat was vacant and would have
been available to him under the
existing rules if he had been
white. The issue before us is
whether the railroads current
rules and practices cause passen-
gers to be subjected to undue or
unreasonable prejudice or disad-
vantage in violation of Section 3
of the Interstate Commerce Act.
We find that they do"
Different Treatment Emphasized.
Justice Burton added that the
arrangement whereby dining car
tables were partitioned off for
Negroes merely emphasizes the
artiflciality of a difference in
tt eatment which serves only to call
attention to racial classification
of passengers holding identical
tickets and using the same public
dining facility"
Mr.. Henderson won an early
legal round in 1914 when Federal
District Court in Baltimore found
that the dining car regulations
failed to provide substantial
equality Of treatment" The rail-
road then adopted a policy of set
ting aside a table or two for Ne
groes in a curtained section of
dining cars.
This arrangement was approved
by the Interstate Commerce Com
mission. It did not satisfy Mr.,
Henderson. He pressed his fight
against such separate facilities
and contended that segregation
is discrimination because inequal-
ity invariably accompanies segre-
cation"
The Federal District Court in
Baltimore and the United States
Court of Appeals in Richmond
(See SEGREGATION. Page A-6,)