Evening star., 1953-06-09
1873 Restaurant Law
Will Be Enforced
After tomorrow
Continued From First Page.)

Continued From First Page.)
old Assembly in 1873 and 1872.
Another footnote indicated
this provision might have been
superseded by the present Ii
censing law and special acts of
Congress. Mr.. West and Assistant
Corporation Counsel Chester H.
Gray will study this question.
The commissioners indicated
that refusal to serve Negroes
would be a misdemeanor and,
in all likelihood, lead to suspen-
sion Of the license of the restau-
rant. Prosecutions would be
made in Municipal Court, he
said.
The Supreme Court opinion,
written by Justice Douglas, with
Justice Jackson not taking part,
did not rule on the question
whether the act of 1872 was re-
pealed by the 1873 law. Both
enactmentS were essentially the
same. The 1872 measure in
cluded hotels, barber shops and
bathing houses.
In oral arguments before the
Supreme Court last April, the
spokesmen for the District and
the Justice Department urged
the high court to hold that the
1872 and 1873 laws were valid
when passed and are still en-
forceable.
ReverSeS Appeals Court.
The Supreme Courts decision
reversed a finding by the U. S.
Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia that the laws were
illegally enacted or otherwise
unenforceable. The test case
originated in July, 1850. when
two Negroes were refused serv-
ice in a restaurant operated by
the John R. Thompson, Co., Inc.
The ruling in the restaurant
case was regarded as applying
only to the District. It affects
licensed establishments as dis
tinguished from private clubs or
similar eating places.
Moreover, the 3,5O0-word de-
cision did not rule on racial seq
regation as such. 1t determined
merely that at least the 1873
enactment Of the old Legislative
Assembly is still valid in the
District.
1--WE conclude" Justice Doug
las wrote, that Congress had
authority, under Article I, Sec
ton 8. Clause IT, of the Consti-
tuition to delegate it's lawmaking
authority to the Legislative As
Se1nbly of the municipal corpora
tion which was created by the
Organic Act of 1871 and that the
rightful subjects of legislation
within the meaning of that act
was as broad as the police power
of a State so as to include law
prob biting determinations
against Negroes by the owners
and managers of restaurants in
the District of Columbia"
Territorial Powers.
Justice Douglas declared that
"the power of Congress to grant
Self-government to the District
of Columbia under the Consti-
tuition would seem to be as great
as its authority to do so in the
case of territories"
He called attention to earlier
Supreme Court decisions that
the power of Congress over the
District relates not only to ma
tional power but Ito all the pow
erS Of legislation which may be
exercised by a State in dealing
with its affairs"
Justice Douglas remarked that
Congress at any time could have
repealed the 1872 and 1873
enactmentS Of the short-lived
Legislative Assembly of the Dis
trict, but it never did so.
He also said Congress has had
authority all along to delegate
power to a District governing
body to change or repeal acts of
the Legislative Assembly. This
raised the possibility that the
District Commissioners have
such delegated power.
Power Withdrawn in 1878.
The Organic Act of the Dis
trict. approved in 1878. withdrew
powers from the municipal gov
ernment," Justice Douglas ex-
planned. "In 1892, the Commits
sioners were given legislative
power as respects reasonable and
usual police regulations. That
legislative authority could have
been employed to repeal the acts
Of 1872 and 1873.
Regulation of restaurants is
plainly within the scope of police
regulations. But the Commits
Sioners passed no ordinances
dealing with the rights Of
Negroes in the restaurants of the
District. It is argued that their
power to do so was withdrawn
by Congress in the Code of
1901. ...
I'VE find it unnecessary to re-
solve that question. For, even if
we assume that after the Code
Of 1901, the Commissioners had
authority to replace these anti
discrimination laws with other
ones, we find no indication that
they ever did So"
AS to the contention that the
1872 and 1873 laws died because
they were never enforced, JUS
tice Douglas commented: Ceases
Of hardship are put where GRIM