Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1953-05-01
Constitutional
Issue Raised
In CafeCase
Restaurant Counsel
Doubts Congress
Had Power to Act
By Robert K. Walsh

Congress to delegate broad legis-
lative authority to a District
government was emphatically
denied at Supreme Court hear
ings today on the restaurant
segregation issue in this city.
Ringgold Hart, attorney for
the Thompson restaurant, put
that question squarely before the
court after a Justice Department
spokesman declared that anti
discrimination laws enacted in
1872 and 1873 by the District S
old Legislative Assembly were
valid when passed and had never
been repealed.
"Our position" Mr.. Hart told
the high court, "is that those
laws were void in the beginning
because it was beyond the power
of the legislative assembly to
enact them and that Congress
could not constitutionally dele
gate such authority to a subor-
dinate agency in the District"
Test Case on Refusal.
Mr.. Hart began his argument
shortly after the Supreme Court
reconvened today for further
hearings on a test case resulting
from refusal of a Thompson's
restaurant to give service to
Negroes in 1850. Assistant Cor
poration Counsel Chester H.
Gray, representing the District,
and Philip Elman, special as
siStant to the attorney general,
opened the argument late yester-
day in support of the so-called
"loSt laws" of 1872 and 1878.
The justices closely questioned
Mr.. Elrnan today as to whether
Congress. directly or by implica-
ton, repealed the old laws which
required restaurants to give serv-
ice to patrons regardless of color
or race.
Mr.. Elman commended that
Congress in 1873 and 1901 ex-
pressly ratified and continued
those acts.
Contends They Were Repealed.
Mr.. Hart began his argument
by declaring that even if those
laws were valid when enacted,
they were repealed by the Dis
trict Code Of 1901 and by later
legislation dealing with munich
pal or police regulations.
The laws in question made it
q criminal offense for owners of
eating places and other public
establishments to refuse service
to any Well-behaved person be-
cause Of race or color.
Mr.. Elman told the court yes
terday that a State can delegate
all the power it desires to a city.
Congress, he said, has corre-
spending constitutional author
1ty to delegate to territories as
we'll as to the District a wide
range of authority in self-gov-
eminent.
The same way a State could
grant home rule to a city?"
Justice Burton asked.
Exactly, your honor" the
Justice Department spokesman
replied.
Mr.. Elman emphasized that
point by declaring that in an
organic act passed in 1871, Con-
gress gave the District broad
power to- legislate on local
matters. Mr.. Gray said earlier
along the same line that Con-
gresS could delegate authority to
the District to pass legislation
except as is clearly vested in
Congress, such as the coming of
money.
Cites Historic Background.
The attorneys declared the
exclusive" Jurisdiction of Con-
gress over the District simply
excludes other States from exer-
cising legislative control over the
District.
1T does not necessarily exclude
the idea of legislation by some
authority subordinate to that of
Congress and created by it," they
maintained.
Mr.. Gray took issue with the
appeals court decision which,
he said, did not give sufficient
consideration to the historic
background of the District and
its relationship to Congress. He
declared the founding fathers
assumed" Congress would en-
power the District to enact laws
and that Congress "unquestion-
ably" had such authority to
delegate.