Evening star., 1951-05-25

his real name as Uanlel ". sega
mon prices charged by him, her,
or them, as contained in said
printed cards or papers. any arti-
Gle or thing kept for sale by him.
or her, or them, to any well-be-
haved and respectable person or
persons who may desire the same,
|or any part or parts thereof, and
serve the same to such person or
persons in the same room or rooms
lin which any other Well-behaved
person or persons may be served
or allowed to eat or drink in said
place or establishment. :"
The penalty set forth in an
other section for violation of this
law was a fine of 500 and for
Ifeiture of the license for one year
No Record of Prosecution.
There are no records Of any
prosecutions under the 1873 act
Several cases were prosecuted un-
der the act of 1872.
The Municipal Court Of Ap-
peals decision actually sent the
case against Thompson's Restau-
rant back to the Municipal Court
for trial.
However, the case will not &c
to trial until after the higher
courts rule on the validity of the
lost act. Mr.. Hart had the choice
of seeking a rehearing from the
Municipal appellate court or 60
ing straight to the United States
Court Of Appeals.
The United States Court of Ap-
Ipeals incidentally, does not have
to hear the case. 1t hears cases
from the Municipal Court OF
Appeals only if a new ques-
tion of law is raised, if the
case is not in accord with its own
decisions in other cases or If ii
is contrary to Supreme Court de-
ciSions. If it refuses to hear the
Thompson case, the mandate of
the Municipal appellate court rul-
ling restaurant segregation out will
stand as law.
Other Places Specified.
Judge Cayton, in his opinion
pointed out that Congress, in 1871
set up the Legislative Assembly
as the governing body of the Dis
trict. In 1872, the assembly en-.
acted a law stating that restau.
rants, hotels, ice cream parlorS
barber shops and bathing house!
could not refuse service to per.
sons because of race. color or pre-
|vious condition of servitude.
In 1873, further legislation wa!
enacted with lengthier section
dealing with the conduct of res
Itaurants, eating houses and SINH
liar establishments. This Law
made it a violation of law to re-
fuse to serve "any well-behavet
and respectable person or person
who may desire the same"
Judge Cayton said that nothing
in subsequent legislation showet
that the two acts had been re
Ipealed by implication or otherwise
He also rebutted the argumen
that, even if the acts were valit
in their inception, they are nj
longer valid because they hav'
become obsolete and have not beer
enforced.
Failure Doesn't Change Law.
"a failure to enforce the Law
does not and cannot change 1t,
he declared.
I Concerning the right of the Leg
islative Assembly to enact the tw'
laws, Judge Cayton said:
II think that in passing the act
, here in question, the assembly wa
not creating new rights, as tn
, defendant contends, but was mere
lily, by local regulation, defnin
and assuring the observance Of ex
/ listing rights of citizens within tn
local Jurisdiction"
/ Judge Clagett, in his decision
E said that, until and unless Con
e eIgress acts specifically, I believ
i the 1873 act of the Legislativ
- Assembly must stand"
He said he felt the 1873 &C
= definitely repealed the 1872 az
), because, although they were gen
: orally similar, they differed i
material respects
He pointed out that the 1877
d act made no reference to barbe
= shops or bathing houses, as di
the 1872 act; that the 1873 a,
Required service to any "respecta
: BILE, well-behaved person" where
~ - as the older act referred to rae
= : and color.
. Judge Hood, in his dissent, sal
:, he felt the Legislative power c
" the Legislative Assembly wa
limited to the passage of polio
ST regulations and municipal or
dinances."
u Judge Hood cited various cou
S, decisions in which acts of the o.
q Legislative Assembly were held il