Evening star., 1953-01-23
The Judges Disagree

The Judgment of the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia is that
certain anti-segregation laws enacted by the
old District Legislative Assembly of 1871-74 are
no longer enforceable. The judgment was ar
rived by five OF the nine judges, dividing In
way that leaves important issues undecided.
Chief Judge Stephens and Circuit Judges
Clark, Miller and Proctor concluded first, that
the laws in question were general legislation,
not within the powers of the old Legislative
Assembly to enact. They then decided that
the laws were repealed when Congress approved
the District Code (in which the laws are not
specifically included) in 1901.
Circuit Judges Fahy, Edgerton, Bazelon and
Washington decided the other way on both
points They concluded that the anti-segrega-
ton laws were local regulations, not general
legislation, and that their enactment fell within
the powers of the General Assembly. In their
view, the laws, or regulations, have never been
repealed and are still enforceable
The ninth member Of the court Judge
Prettyman broke this tie by concurring with
the judgment Of Chief Judge Stephens, to the
effect that the laws are no longer enforceable
He reached no expressed conclusion as to
whether the laws were within the powers of the
General Assembly to enact, or whether they
were repealed by the District Code. It seemed
to him that regulatory condition imposed
upon business license by municipal licensing
authority some rs years ago, and never men
toned again or enforced since that time, despite
the PRONUNCIATION of new and complete regu-
lations, must be deemed by the courts to have
been abandoned by the licensing authority"
The question at issue-the existence or the
noneXiStence of certain anti-Segregation laws or
regulations enacted by defunct legislative
Hrelry
been decided by the narrowest of margins An
effort to have the case reviewed by the Supreme
Court will no doubt be made. ~
There are, however, implications In the
three opinions which constitute a sort of in
formal preview of the inevitable litigation that
would arise in Washington under proposed home
rule. One Of the controversies over home rule
involves the extent to which Congress could
validly delegate to city council its powers
of legislation. It could not delegate its powers
of general legislation. There is no argument
about that. The difficulty lies in determining
the precise point at which municipal powers
which can be delegated-merge into the field
of general legislation, which cannot be
delegated.
Eight of the judges argue this point at
length in the present case incidentally, they
have compiled an interesting epitome of what
the courts have held in the past in this con-
nection. 1t is helpful but inconclusive addi-
ton to existing literature on the subject. The
marked disagreement among the judges in
this case, involving an attempt by a municipal
legislative body rs years ago to do away with
segregation in restaurants, bars and soda foun-
tainS has an indirect bearing on Senator Taft's
idea that the elimination of segregation in the
District would be best accomplished under home
rule.
Home rule would at least furnish the judges
with fresh material for argument in segrega-
ton as well as other issues