Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1962-11-22

not posting as many For Sal"
signs in front of houses. In
this way they can select the.
people they show the houses.
And disdain itself apparent
ly still takes its toll. Mrs. Con-
! stance Motley. who braved the
mobs of Mississippi as lawyer
for James Meredith. almost
quailed before an agents insults
when seeking an apartment.
One of the two white friends
who accompanied her reported:
Connie said she never would
have put up with the insults if
two of us had not been along"
The friend happened to be
Miss Frances LevenSon, direc-
tor of the National Committee
Against Discrimination in
Housing.
Added Miss Levenson, by
and large, the industry real
estate) is unco-operative, COM
plies reluctantly or resorts to
Subterfuge." |
Proponents Still Hopeful
If the situation has changed |
so little in four years, why are
the proponents of the law still
hopeful?
Harlem is still Harlem, and |
the white community is still the
white community" admitted
Irving Goldaber, deputy direc-
tor of the Commission on HUI
man Rights. But they look diff
ferent than they did"
One official described that
difference as "the trickle- down
effect" A Negro family quietly
moves into Peter Cooper VIII
lage, a group of 5000 middle
high income units on Manhat-
tan. Two Negro families buy
homes in Scarsdale. Even more
important, a Scarsdale citizens
group attempts to find house
owners in the suburb who will
sell to Negroes. Outwardly the
law is not involved.
Slight change perhaps, but
significant. Some real estate
men are obeying the law. The
upper income Negro is gaining
a degree of upward mobility.
And the indignation pattern is
acceptable to the whites in
volved.
Said Alfred j. Marrow. for
mer Chairman of the New York
City Commission on Human
Rights, The chief value of law
is that it sets moral standards
and removes the stigma from
segregated areas"
Tested in Court
But was the law constitution
al? The ink was drying on the
New York City ordinance when
it was tested before the courts.
A real estate agent posted a
sign saying. II am refusing to
show apartments to Negroes on
constitutional grounds"
This case and other similar
ones found real estate men and .
apartment owners claiming the
anti discrimination laws vio-
lated their rights under the
Fourteenth amendment an
amendment made to guarantee
equal rights to the Negro!
The amendment forbids any
law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunitieS of cit
liens" =. or deprive any per-
son of life, liberty or property
without due process of law"
The question was privileges for
whom and liberty to do what?
The Massachusetts, Supreme
Court perhaps best summed up
the argument against the real
estate men, saying: Govern
ment cannot exist if the citizen
may at will use his property to
the detriment of his fellow"
But the courts have not been
consistent in their decisions,
which have fallen into three
categories: On public housing,
on public-financed housing
such as FILA, and on private
housing.
AS the coverage has been ex-
tended, the going in the courts
has become more difficult and
controversial.
In the first category, public
housing, anti discrimination
laws have achieved a general
acceptance in the courts This
is the onl category on which
the United States Supreme
Court has commented.
In a dictum in a 1853 case
involving the District of Co.
lumbia, the Supreme Court said
such laws were a valid exer-
else of police power.
trouble Over U. S. Financing
When the laws extended into
the second category, govern
ment-financed housing, trou-
BILE began. At least three courts |
have ruled such a law consti-
tutional. But one has ruled it
unconstitutional.
The New York State Supreme
Court, in 1858, said such laws
were within the bounds of
police power" And in 1862 a
California court commented:
When one dips ones hands
into the Federal Treasury, a
little bit of democracy neces-
sarily clings to whatever is
withdrawn"
/ The most far-reaching deci-
sion was perhaps the case of
Levitt & Sons Inc. versus the
New Jersey Division Against
Discrimination.
In the ruling against the
huge Levittown development,
the New Jersey Supreme Court
strongly implied that such laws
do not violate the due process
of law guaranteed by the Four
tenth Amendment
But in O'Meara VS.. the Wash
ington State Board Against