Evening star., 1953-01-23

Temperance and Prohibition
Council, members could step
out the front or back door a
few steps to places now selling
liquor"
It was Bishop Hammaker who
ton laws were properly local
here.
This argument got q blunt
answer from Judge Stephens and
his supporters who felt the anti
segregation acts are invalid here.
They wrote:
I'VE think such cases (of mu-
nicipal Jim Crow laws) distin-
guiShable from the instant case
because in such cases the ordi-
nances were in accord with a
local custom of racial segrega-
ton on account of color and
were held valid upon the theory
that they were for the purpose of
preserving peace and good order
which would likely be interfered
with by racial association.
Ordinances in aid of the pres
ervation of peace and order are
| indiSputably within municipal
power. The enactments involved
in the instant case were in con-
flict with local custom in respect
of race association and can not
therefore be justified as in aid
of the preservation of peace and
order.
Moreover, the cases cited are
not authoritative in this juris-
diction."
DiSuse of Regulations.
Judge Prettyman, in his inde-
pendent opinion, said that for
the purposes Of the case before
the court, it did not matter
whether the original anti-segre-
gat5Dn acts we're valid or invalid.
Upon proper reasoning from
either view, !" he wrote, "the con.
clusion is reached that the enact
ments are presently unenforce-
able.
What is involved is disuse of
a licensing authority of its own
regulations :. "A municipal body
can abandon it's own once
announced regulations.
THE licensing authorities have
issued hundreds of licenses to
restaurants every year for these
IS years. They must have pur-
ported to advise the licenses.
and the licensees must have
understood or thought they un-
derstood. the conditions upon
which they were to conduct
their licensed businesses
Il think a court would not
enforce a condition which was
imposed upon a business licensee
secretly by the licensing au-
thority and not revealed either
to the public or to the licensee.
We would surely hold such pro-
cedure not to be due process
of law
Social Question Raised.
Judge Prettyman, like Judge
Stephens, raised social as well
as purely legal questions. In ar
guing against enforcement of
the Legislative Assembly acts,
Judge Prettyman wrote:
Suppose they had required
segregation in restaurants.
Suppose that since their enact
ment in 1873, they had never
been applied or even mentioned
and that since that date all
restaurants had served whom
they pleased and many pleased
to serve all well-behaved per-
sons.
Suppose that the municipal
authorities in 1850 suddenly
charged one such restaurant with
violating the old ordinance, and
subjected the licensee to GRIM
inal proceeding which would re-
suit in a forfeiture of license.
Would this court hold the
forgotten regulation applicable? =?
am certain it would not"
Mr.. Donohue voiced his sug-
gestion for new anti-segregation
regulations at a meeting yester-
day of the Commissioners.
At the time of the suggestion,
only one other Commissioner was
present-Brig. Gen. Louis w
Prentiss. The third member,
Renah F. Camalier, was attend
ing another meeting.
| The question of carrying ar
appeal against the courts ruling
to the Supreme Court was raised
at the meeting, but no actor
was taken. since Mr.. Camaliel
was not present to state hi.
views. The Commissioners mex
regular meeting is scheduled fol
Tuesday, and the question prob.
ably will be taken up then.
Negro Leader DeplOres Decision.
Meanwhile DR.. Mary Churcl
Terrell, Negro leader and al
official Of the Committee for tn,
Enforcement of D. C. Anti-Dis
elimination Laws, issued a state
, ment deploring the appellat,
opinion.
II consider today's majorit,
decision in the Thompson Res
laurent case a tragedy for tn,
United States" her statemen
read in part. sThe four-flfth'
Of the worlds population whit
are colored people win be shocked
by this ruling. -"