Evening star., 1953-01-22
Appeals Court
Cafe
Segregation
5-4 Decision Holds
Old District Lows
Are lnvuIid Now
By Howard [. Dutkin


The United States Court Of
Appeals today ruled in effect that
District restaurants could refuse
service to Negroes.
BY a 5-to-4 decision in the
Thompson's Restaurant case, the
court held that laws of 1872 and
1873 are invalid. These laws for
bade restaurants and similar
establishments from discriminate
ing against persons because Of
race or color.
The court held that the Legis-
lative Assembly, governing body
Of the District at the time, was
not empowered to enact the laws.
The court held further that in
any event, they were repealed in
a 1901 codif1cation of the laws.
The case is expected to go to
the Supreme Court.
The Appeals court made clear
today that it was ruling solely
on the question of validity and
was not venturing an opinion on
the wisdom of the segregation
policy. 1t said the latter is for
congressional determination.
The case stemmed from re-
fuSal OF a THOMPSON Restaurant
here to serve a group of Negroes
in 1850.
The restaurant was charged
with violation of laws passed in
1872 and 1873 by the Legislative
Assembly. The 1872 law made
it a misdemeanor calling for a
500 fine and suspension of
license for refusal to serve any
respectable, well-behaved" per.
son without regard to race.
Complaint Appeal.
The 1873 law dictated that
restaurants, bars and similar es-
tablishments must sell at their
usual prices" to any well-be-
haved person. The Municipal
Court quashed the complaint on
the ground that the enactments
had subsequently been repealed.
The case was then appealed to
the Municipal Court of Appeals.
That court upheld the lower
court as far as the 1879 law was
concerned. but ruled that the
1873 law was valid.
But today, the United States
Court of Appeals went down the
line in backing the Municipal
Court and reversing the Munich
pal Court Of Appeals in their
view regarding the 1873 law.
In today's opinion, the court
declared the enactmentS in
question were mot within the
power Of the Legislative Assem-
bly, >. and they were repealed"
Social Policy Reflected.
The court further stated:
-. we think it appropriate
to comment, in this connection,
that the enactments having lain
unenforced for 78 years. in the
face Of a custom of race dis
association in the District, the
decision of the municipal au-
thorities to enforce them now,
by the prosecution Of the instant
case, was. In effect. a decision
legislative in character. That is
to say, it was a determination
that the enactments reflect a
social policy which is now cor
rect. although it was not correct
ELSE the enactments would have
been enforced heretofore.
"Such a decision were better
left. we think, to the Congress.
and in ruling that the enact
ments of 1872 and 1873 cannot,
because not within the power Of
the Assembly, and because re-
pealed, support the present
prosecution, this court rules upon
the question of their validity
alone and not upon the question
of the wisdom Of the policy
which they reflect. That ques-
ton is not within the proper
province Of either the municipal
authorities or the courts; it is for
congressional determination"
Stephens Writes for Majority.
The majority opinion was writ.
ten by Chief Judge Harold M.
Stephens and concurred In by
Judges Bennett Champ Clark,
Wilbur K. Miller. James Proctor
and E. Barrett Prettyman. Judge
Prettyman, while concurring In
the result of the opinion. wrote
a separate opinion.
The dissent was written by
Judge Charles Fahy and con-
CURED in by Judges Henry w.
Edgerton. David A. Bazelon and
George T. Washington.
Chester Fl. Gray, principal
District Corporation
Counsel, quoted Corporation