Evening star., 1952-01-08
Appeals Court
Judges Weigh
Cafe Bias Case
Validity Of District
Acts of 1928
Are Put TO Test

The assembled judges of the
United States Court of Appeals
yesterday heard arguments in the
case involving refusal of a Thomp-
son restaurant at 725 Fourteenth
street NV. to serve Negroes.
Put to a test in the case is
the validity of acts passed by
the Legislative Assembly, then the
Districts local governing body, in
1872 and 1873, which required
restaurants to serve all "well be-
haved" persons regardless of race.
Counsel for the restaurant chain
contended the acts were illegal
in that they constituted general
legislation. rather than purely
municipal regulations, such as fall
within the realm of the local
government.
The District, through the. Of
flee of the Corporation Counsel,
argued that the laws were in the
nature of local ordinances for
the regulation of public eating
houses.
| Third Viewpoint Presented.
A third viewpoint was presented
by % organizations, acting as
friends of the court or interested
parties, which held that, even if
the acts were not essentially
municipal ordinances, they were
valid because their enforcement
did not extend beyond the
boundaries of the District.
Attorney Ringgold Hart, repre-
sentlng the restaurant chain, cited
Supreme Court rulings that the
District has no power to legislate.
but only to make reasonable DO
lice regulations. He continued
with the contention that "they
(the actS) propose to impose new
duties on restaurant proprietors
and are dealing really with
civil rights"
He cited regulation proposed at
one time that would have required
property owners to remove snow
and ice forming in front of their
properties and called attention to
a ruling holding such regulation
was actually legislation because it
imposed a new duty on the prop
erty owner.
Points to Theater Ruling.
Referring to former act, which
proposed to require theater oper-
ators to grant a seat to any one
holding ticket. he declared that
act was held unlawful interference
with the rights of private property
and the rights of a man to con-
DUCT his business as heesees best.
Even if the 1872 and 1873 acts
were legal, Mr.. Hart contended.
they were repealed by implication
when the District Code of 1901
was adopted.
Tne opposite side of the case
was presented by Chester H. Gray.
principal assistant corporation
counsel.
He told. of the regulation OF
tavernS in the District during the
early days of it's development
when many such establishments
ran rife with gaming and drinking.
\ He declared that the purpose of
congress in creating a Govern
ment for the Capital was to relieve
congress of the minutiae of detail
incident to running a city of ever
increasing size" Consequently. he
said, Congress gave the District
power to regulate establishments
such as restaurants.
He denied the acts of 1872 and
1873 constituted general legisla-
ton and declared that, with the
changing status of Negroes, all
the city government did Gin pass.
ing the disputed acts) was to mod.
lily regulations to bring them in
line with established national
policy :"
Attorney Walter Shine, of the
commission on Law and Social
Action of the American Jewish
congress, who told the court he
represented % interested organi-
cations. argued that the acts. even
II they were construed as legisla-
ton were valid in that their au-
thor1ty did not extend beyond the
bounds of the District.
Taken Under Amusement.
Following hearing of the argyll
ments in crowded courtroom, the
appellate judges took the matter
under advisement.
Both the District Government
and the restaurant had brought
the case before the appellate court.
The District is appealing from a
Municipal Court of Appeals opin-
ion, which held that the 1873 act
supplanted the 1872 act from
which it differed to a degree. Ac-
cording to Mr.. Gray a clear cut
decision is sought covering both
acts.
The restaurant chain is appeal
ing from the lower court finding
because the 1873 act affects it as
much as did the one of 1872.