Evening star., 1953-02-21
Supreme Court
Is Asked 10 End
Cafe Race Ban
Appeal Of Ruling /.
Also Seeks Action
On Home Rule
By Jones E. Roper

Washington restaurants - and
incidentally clarity legal aspects
Of home rule.
The city appealed from the de-
cision Of q lower court which
held that the Districts ancient
laws against segregation are in
valid.
The District warned that If
the lower courts decision is al
lowed to- stand, District resi-
dents win be unable to win ef-
fective home rule. The petition
quoted President Eisenhower as
opposing segregation and favor
ing some home rule.
The Supreme Court first must
decide whether to review the
case. This could take months.
If the court agrees to pass on
the merits of the case, more
months Of proceedings might
follow.
Dispute Started in 1850.
The legal dispute started in
1850, when ThompSon'S reStau-
rant, near Fourteenth and New
York avenue NV, refused to
serve three colored persons. They
went to court, citing anti-segre-
cation laws passed in 1872 and
1873 by the Districts old LegiS-
1ative Assembly.
The U. s. Court of Appeals for
the District Of Columbia ruled a
month ago that these laws could
not be enforced.
In carrying the case to the
Supreme Court, the District said
the dispute embraces two sub
jects Of substantial national and
local concern-racial discrimina-
tion and congressional power to
grant home rule.
"The Court of Appeals" the
petition said, biased it's ruling
on the premise that Congress
could not. under the Constitu-
tion. delegate to the Legislative
Assembly authority to legislate
to prohibit acts Of racial dis
elimination. -.
ThreefOld Effect.
The effect of the ruling of the
Court of Appeals is threefold.
First, it freezes the law of
the District of Columbia in the
pattern Of racial discrimination
which the people of the District |
Of Columbia had thrice at
tempted, through their own rep
resentativeS, to reject.
Second, by holding that-'the
enactmentS of the Legislative |
Assembly Of 1872 and 1873 which |
are under question were of the
character of general legislation,
the, power to enact which Con-
gresS could not conStitutionally,
and did not, delegate, to the
Legislative Assembly Court |
of Appeals has erected a barrier
to effective home rule in the |
District of Columbia.
Third, under this decision, |
not only is Congress impotent to |
determine what degree of legis-
lative authority it is wise, ex-
pedient or desirable to delegate,
within the terms of the Consti-
tuition, to a usbordinate District
Of Columbia government, but
every delegation of legis-
lative authority by Congress is
subject to vague, unspecif1ed
standards which could only be
determined after protracted liti-
cation in the courts"
The Districts petition con-
cluded:
I'm every locality in the Unit
ed States except the District of
Columbia, the question whether
or not to prohibit racial discrim-
ination in licensed public eating
houses would be decided in the
American way, by vote of the
people.
Here, in the District Of CO.
lumbia. the views of the majority
must be left to conjecture, for
until Congress provides the
means, the people of the Dis
trict Of Columbia are powerless
to register their will.
No Means for Decision.
1.-THE effect of the decision of |
the U. s. Court of Appeals in
this case is to make it impossible |
: for Congress, until the Constitu-
ton is amended, to provide the |
means for the people of the
District Of Columbia to decide |
this or any other question for
themselves.
For the foregoing reasons,
this petition for a writ Of certi-
orari dor a Supreme Court re-
view Of the case) should be
granted"
Vernon e. West, the Districts |
Corporation Counsel, filed the
20-page appeal for the city. Also
signing it were Chester H. Gray |
and Edward A. Beard, assistants |
to Mr.. West.
Although they emphasized the |
legal problems Of home rule, |
they carefully documented their |
appeal TO reinforcement of the |
old laws against racial segrega-
tion.
They said the Court Of APP
peals neglected to consider Su-
preme Court decisions which |
"show that this (Supreme) Court |
has never doubted that Congress |
has the constitutional power to,
and In fact did. delegate Suf-
flcient authority to the Legisla- |
tive Assembly to enact the &anti-
segregstion). acts"
Exclusive" Authority.
The Constitution gives Con-
gress "exclusive" authority to
pass general legislation for the |
District. Four judges on the |
Court Of Appeals held that this
meant a local governing body |
could not pass general legisla-
kiava x.,RrSn1A kR,ax, soil inOI,,SoA |