Evening star., 1953-03-27
Home Rule Not Tied
To Segregation Ban,
High Court Is Told

HuSu SVWII - 1V1V
The Supreme Court studied a
contention today that Congress
could give the District home rule,
even if the tribunal refused to
outlaw racial segregation in res
taurants here. *
Attorneys for a Washington
restaurant urged rejection of a
District government and Justice
Department request for review of
a lower court ruling, which de-
clared invalid the 1923 anti
segregation enactments of the
old District Legislative Assembly.
The reply in behalf of John
r. Thompson Co., Inc, a res
taurant chain that refused serv-
ice to Negroes in a test case here
in 1850, was the final brief on
the review petition. District
authorities recently asked the
Supreme Court to announce on
April 6, If possible, whether the
review would be granted and
arguments heard before the cur
rent term ends in June.
The home rule question and
Constitutionality of racial segre-
cation affecting eating places in
the District were emphasized in
earlier briefs by District officials
and Attorney General Brownell.
Mr.. Brownell contended espe-
cially that the decision of the
U. S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia against
the 1923 enactments raised
fundamental doubts about the
power of Congress to grant home
rule powers to the District.
Sees Limitation to ID. C.
The company's brief stated
that neither this nor any other
question raised by the petitioners
merits a Supreme Court review.
1t declared that the case does
not contain a Constitutional
question. 1t urged that the de-
clsion be left with the appeals
court because the case involves
Interpretation of a statute linn
tied in its operation to the
District.
THE decision of the Court of
Appeals" the company said.
dealt only with the present
enforceability of long-forgotten
acts of a governing body which
was abolished in 1874. It did
not deal with the power of Con-
gress, the legislature for the
District of Columbia, to enact
anti-Segregation if it so desired.
segregation was not in issue.
The decision of the Court of Ap-
peals would have been the same,
and its significance would have
been no less, if the acts of the
Legislative Assembly in question
had fixed the rate of charges by
auctioneerS for selling real es-
tate.
ut should also be emphasized
that this is not a case wherein
the local government was at
tempting to enforce segregation
through governmental power, as
petitioner (the District) now does
in its schools. This case involved
only the question of whether or
not old acts which sought to
compel citizens to practice nom
segregation, are still enforce
able"
Freeze of Law Denied.
The company's brief, filed by
Attorneys Ringgold Hart, John
j. Wilson and 10 v. Morgan, de-
nounced as completely unjuSti-
fed" the assertion that the ap-
peals court decision freezes a
pattern of segregation in the law
for the District. It denied a
further contention that the ap-
peals court ruling practically
barred home rule for the Dis
trict.
"The ruling does not freeze
the law in any pattern what
ever" the brief said. "On the
contrary, it leaves the people of
the District free to determine as
individuals what their course of
conduct will be.
"AS a result of the decision,
there IS no law in the District
that compels any man to dis
criminate or not discriminate.
Moreover, there is nothing in
the decision which would prevent
the Congress. if it so desired.
from enacting civil rights legis-
lation for the District.
"The ruling erected no barrier
to effective home rule in the Dis
trict.' The principle applied by
the court is not inconsistent with
home rule. The Court of Ap-
teals decided only that Congress