Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1962-11-08
|. States at Fault
|. In Sit-|ns,
!. U. 5. Contends
BY DANA BULLEN
Star Staff Writer

Solicitor General Archibald
Cox has urged the Supreme
Court to reverse sit-in conyic-
tons now before it or the mar
row ground of improper State
inducement of discrimination.
Mr.. Cox, who spoke yester-
day as the court ended three
days of arguments in sit-in
cases, said the court need not
rule now on Negro rights to
service at lunch counters.
He commended that States
have significantly involved"
themselves in discrimination by
the lunch counter operators be-
cause of State race laws or
State segregation policies.
Mr.. Cox's argument is geared
closely to the Fourteenth
Amendments provision that no
State may deny citizens equal
protection of the laws. The
amendment does not mention
private action.
Narrow VS.. Broad Ruling
In suggesting narrow grounds
for reversing the cases now be-
fore the court, Mr.. Cox was
outlining a way for it to fol-
low its traditional policy of
avoiding making broad rulings.
Lawyers for individual DEM
onstrators hope for a broader
ruling. They have argued wide
issues of civil rights, free speech
and a proprietor's obligation to
serve everyone.
Cases may come, Mr.. Cox told
the court, in which the broader
constitutional issues must be
faced, but these are not such
cases. He took no position on
the broader questions.
Mr.. Cox said he was assum-
ing for purposes of the present
cases only that store owners do
have a right to choose their
customers for whatever worthy
or unworthy reasons they like.
But, he said, the sit-in cases
now before the court did not
involve any substantial prop
erty right of the store owners
or their right to decide whom
they would exclude.
He said the department
stores involved have solicited
Negro customers in other de-
partments and only sought to
subject them to a social stig-
ma of inferiority" at eating IA
cilitieS.
In four of the cases before
the court, he said, local ordi-
nances required restaurant seq
regation. In a fifth case, he
said, a mass of State statutes
set similar policies.
Mr.. Cox said the impact of
these ordinances and of per
vasive" State policies was so
linked to the actions of the
proprietors that they were de-
prived of their freedom OF
choice.
State Responsibility
| 1.-THE State can't insulate it.
self from responsibility for dis
elimination by requiring somt
private individuals to do its
dirty work for it," the Solicitor
General asserted.
Justice Goldberg asked II
customs might not exert q
stronger influence than the or
dinances. Mr.. Cox said there
was a difference between State
supported customs and customs
lacking this backing.
Mr.. Cox was asked by Justice
Stewart whether his argument
might not mean that a pro-
prietor in Montana, which lacks
such laws, could discriminate,
while a Southerner could not.
Justice Stewart asked Mr..
Cox whether his whole position
might be brushed away" if
States with segregation laws or
policies should simply repeal
them.
"That would not be an in
consequential result" Mr.. Cox
said.
Cites Right of Choice
Another lawyer, j. M. Breck-
enbridge. representing Birm-
ingham, o told the justices:
Owners of private property
have the right to serve the
people they want. That's part
of the American system"
Mr.. Breckenridge, after JUS
tice Black stated that leading
Southerners had called the
courts 1854 school ruling I'M
constitutional, agreed that
some Southerners had been
somewhat critical of the deseg-
regation decision.
That's the understatement
of the week." Justice Douglas
said.
The seven cases the Supreme
Court now has under advise
ment come from five Southern
States and Maryland. They in
volve appeals by an initial few
of 5000 persons convicted in
cik u, IoV,a0,o cfro ft0s1c