Evening star., 1953-01-23

DuA0AAOS N0AAVy 4AVA WAWAg W. OAN
on Curly Smith, and MelOdye
Clark, WILDER K. Miller and
James Proctor.
Four Judges Dissent.
A dissent came from Judge
Charles Fahy, backed by Judges
Henry w. Edgerton, David Baze-
Ion and George T. Washington.
They argued that the anti
segregation acts were local in
nature and thus proper for the
Legislative Assembly to pass.
The judges said:
ity, the serving of food at a fixed
location within the District. This
is the sort of thing which in the
several states, unless there is
| state wide law to the contrary, is
appropriately left to municipal
! authority.
"This is so not merely because
the law applies only to a local
area: it is local by other stand
ards as well. Such a regulation
is one which the immediate gov
erning body of municipality, a
city council for example. is likely
| TO make it's own concern. q
Higher authority. either a
State Legislature or, as here, Con-
gress, may legislate upon the
subject, but until it does local
initiative may deal with it In ac-
cordance with the local point Of
view as to what is conducive to
the peace, order, morals or well
fare of the community"
These judges pointed out that
a number of cities have so-called
Jim Grow laws for separation
of white and colored groups.
The judges reasoned that if seq
regation laws were properly local
in some cities, then anti-segrega-
ton laws were properly local
here.
Local Customs Cited.
This argument got a blunt
answer from Judge Stephens and
his supporters who felt the anti
segregation acts are invalid here.
They wrote:
"We think such cases (of lnu-
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
kindisputably within municipal
power. The enactments involved
in the instant case were in con-
f1ict 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-
cation acts were 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 its 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
II think a court would not
enforce a condition which was
imposed upon q business ncensee
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, lilse 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
lment In 1879. they had never
|