Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1962-06-14
By MIRIAM GUTENBERG
Star Staff Writer


ment parks or Fairgrounds.
A decision by the Supreme
Court on whether it win take
any Of them is expected before
the term ends. It could decide
to review some and hold the
others in allegiance. Or 1t could
vacate the convictions, and re-
mand the cases to the courts
where they came from for re-
consideration IN the light of
its one stein decision.
The earlier decision, however,
dealt with convictions under
Louisiana's breach-of -the-peace
statute. Most Of the cases now
before the court are convic-
tons for trespaSsing.
The argument running
through most Of the cases CEN
tiers on the contention that con-
stitutional rights were violated
by State action to enforce pri-
vate discrimination. 3 ~ "a
Broad Issue Avoided 2,
When the court handed
down its only decision In sit-in
cases last December, it DELHI
erately avoided the broad con-
stitutional question Of whether
the arrests Of Negroes who re-
fuse to leave white eating IA
cilities violates the equal pro-
lection clause Of the 18th
Amendment.
Instead, the court ruled only
that the convictions In the case
before It all from Louisiana
were so devoid Of supporting
evidence that they were uncon-
stitutionaI under the due proc
ess clause OF the I4th Amend
ment.
The decision to reverse the
convictions was unanimous, al
though some Of the Justices
wanted the court to go further.
Justice Douglas, for instance,
took the view that restaurants,
although private enterprises,
are public facilities In which a |
State may not enforce a policy |
Of racial segregation.
Most Of the concurring opin-
ions with their broader views
Of the problem have been
quoted by the NAACP Legal
Defense and Education Fund,
which represents the majority |
Of those seeking high court
review.
State Courts Firm
The concurTing opinions,
however, apparently had less
impact on the high courts Of
the States, which continued to
uphold sit-in convictions after
the Supreme Court acted.
The Maryland Court Of APP
peals, for instance, in affirm
ing the trespass convictions Of
a dozen Negro students for a
sit-in demonstration in q Balti-
more restaurant, said it had
carefully considered the high
courts opinion in the Louisiana
cases.
without further light upon
the subject" the Maryland
court said, it would abide by
the position 1t took earlier in
two Maryland amusement park |
cases, one Of them at Glen
Echo. The Maryland courts
position was that operators Of
most enterprises, in the alb
sence Of q law forbidding dis
elimination, can pick and
choose their patrons for any
reason they decide on, includ-
ing the color Of their skin.
Virginia View
virginia's high court has
taken q similar view. In its sit
in cases, it has held that the
purpose Of judicial process is
to protect the rights Of the
proprietor and punish the tres
passer, irrespective OF race or
color.
The Supreme Court Of North
Carolina ruled that since there
was no anti-discrimination law,
the operator Of q privately
owned restaurant In a private
ly-owned building had "the
right to select the clientele he
will serve and to make such
selections based on color, race
or white people in company
with Negroes or vice versa, If he
so desires"
The Supreme Court Of Louis
lana, upholding convictions for
criminal mischief" said the
convictions were in reality the
result Of the demonstrators
Town continuance and mis-
chief" and not attributable to
State action.
Maryland Cases
Thus attorneys for the dem
onstratorS have argued that
the State decisions conflict with
the Supreme Courts prohibit
ton against racially discrimin-
atory State action. And the
highest courts Of the States
have ruled that State authori-
ties are simply protecting the
rights Of private owners.
ADVERTISEMENT
WAKE UP
RARIN ,Tncn'