Evening star. [volume], May 04, 1948, Page A-4, Image 4

About Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972

Image provided by: Library of Congress, Washington, DC

                
Property Trusteeships Seen
As Racial Covenant Substitutes
First reaction to the Supreme
Court decision crippling restrictive!
covenants pointed today to "con
servation agreements" and •'trus
teeships'’ as possible successors to
the home owner pacts.
Tins was the long-range effect ex
pected by some real estate dealers,
title insurance experts, attorneys and
others studying the unanimous
opinion holding that racial cove
nants are not enforceable in the
courts.
Real estate dealers were divided
tn assessing the possible economic
effects, but most agreed that the
"border" areas, those where white
and colored neighborhoods now
met. would’ be most likely to de
teriorate in property value
Trusteeships Are Possibility.
Most experts agreed the Supreme
Court left nothing to the Imagina
tion In declaring the state would
not lend its authority to perpetuat
ing agreements held in violation of
the Civil Rights Art of 65 years ago.
The possibility of trusteeships to
replace covenants was raised by
William C Taylor and Mrs Charles
Collins, attorney members of the
Dupont Circlp Citizens' Association.
"I think that our property can be
protected bv a trusteeship in which
the trustees would have legal con
trol of the property owned bv all
members of the trust." Mr Taylor
said Mrs. Collins agreed that a
"solution" might be found along
those lines.
It was believed that deeds would
not be voided or titles clouded bv
the action
Could Clear Sales.
The principal difference in prar
tire would be that title companies
could clear all sales without con
sidering whether a prospective buy
er Is white or whether the resi
dential property in question is
covered by covenant.
Specifically. Supreme Court ban
on court enforcement of covenants
In the District means that the
colored people who bought the
houses in the 100 block of Bryant
street may keep them and live in
them. Attorneys explained also
that, as a practical matter, several
other suits pending in District Court.
in an effort to void sales of cove
nanted property to Negroes would
be dropped
Adopting a "wait and see-' atti
tude. real estate dealers and others
noted that an owner could still sell
or refuse to sell property ns he saw
fit But, if he sold hitherto cove
nanted property to a colored person,
the sale could not be blocked by
court injunction asked by other
property owners. Nor could he be
held subject to any penalty such as
the *2.000 specified in the Bryant
street covenant,
With covenants nonenforceable,
it was explained, former covenant
holders might turn to "community
conservation agreements. ’ This
plan has made headway in various
cities, especially Chicago, and re
portedly Is proving satisfactory to
both sides in the covenant contro
versy.
Under a "conservation agreement,"
a group of owners promises to main
tain certain "standards of use" for
their residential properties. Such
standards would require, for in
stance. that each house be limited
to a certain number of families. th3t
it hate adequate sanitation facilities
and that it be maintained in good
condition.
A leading opponent of covenants
here said restrictions based on race
or similar considerations do not
protect property from deterioration.
Conservation agreements might
prove more effective and at the
same time overcome legal and pub
lic policy objections to racial dis
crimination, he declared.
Half of Residential Area Affected.
As to the percentage of District
land covered by covenants, District
officials as well as Washington Real
Estate Beard spokesmen and others
give only general and often widely
varying estimates.
An unofficial survey bv the Fed
eration of Citizens' Associations in
dicated that about half of the resi
dential area of the city is covered
by covenants.
This, however, is a comparatively
small part of the District. District
tax and zoning officials and the
recorder of deeds office note that
the Federal Government controls
about 50 per cent of the area.
About 20 per cent of the remain
ing is classified generally for busi
ness. The other 30 per cent is
largely residential, but it has many
shopping centers. Many dwellings
also are in buildings occupied by
ground-floor stores.
The greater part of "old Wash
ington," the area roughly south of
Florida avenue and Including
Georgetown, is not covenanted.
Covenants blanket most, other sec
tions, particularly the Northwest,
and most, subdivisions developed in
the last 20 years, officials explained
It would be "a tremendous Job" to
determine the exact number and
extent., they declared. The great
bulk of covenants apply to rela
tively small areas, sometimes only
a few blocks.
Covenant Ruling Reaction Runs
From Silence to Jubilation '•
The Supreme Court's ruling that
restrictive covenants are not en- j
forceable in the courts has drawn1
a reaction of tight-lipped silence or
sharp criticism from the procoven
ant forces, whilp those who fought
the property restrictions are hail- i
Ine the decision as a ‘'victory for
democracy."
From the citizens' association*,
man'- of which have- fought con
slstently to maintain covenants,
came the majority of the adverse
comments.
Harry N Stull, past president of;
the Federation of Citizens' Associa-1
tions, told a meeting of the Stanton
Park Citizens' Association he was
‘'inclined to think that a special
meeting of the federation will be
called about this thing.”
Attorneys Jubilant.
From th» attorneys who carried
the covenant cases to the Supreme
Court and won. as wrell as from
Npgro groups and spokesmen for or
ganizations which entered the cases
as friends of the court." the reac
tion was one of gratitude and
Jubilation.
Several of the antienvenant
spokesmen regarded the decision as
a potent w-eapon against com
munism. Others saw the ruling as
a practical application of President
Truman's civil rights program.
Inevitably the decision was dis
cussed at some of the citizens'
association meetings last night, with
varying degrees of acrimony.
To Follow “AA'ord of Honor.”
At the National Gateway Citizens'
Association Norman M Murray,
president, of the Greater Woodridge
land Covenants Association, said
his group will follow a "word of
honor" covenant plan as soon as .
possible
'This area is strictly white and
T think we can keep it white," he
said.
Gilbert C. Vincent, president of
the National Gateway group, rie
scribed Mr. Murray's remarks as
"conciliatory" and declared:
T feel that the white race today
Is the victim of partisan politics.
I'm confident, however, that we'll
find wavs and means to throw it,
bank in'n the Supreme Court and
they will reverse their decision
There will once again be white
supremacy "
After the Dupont circle Citizens'
Association meeting. Harral Mul
liken, first vice president, com
mented "It's a shame that citizens
cannot band together to protect
their property."
Calls Ruling 'Ridiculous’.
At the Forest Hills Citizens' As
sociation meeting George T Bow
man. the president, called the de
ct ion "ridi'uiious and announced
he plans to rail his executive com
mittee togethei to appoint a special
committee to look into the matter.
Mrs. T.e lie R Wright, arting sec
retary- of the group, expressed the
opinion that little ran be done now"
and that "unscrupulous real estate
dealers will still benefit."
Although the regularly scheduled
meeting of the Bellevue Citizens' As
sociation was not held, members of
the group who assembled at the
meeting place criticized the decision.
Glenn Day. the association's treas
urer said lie could not speak for
•be group hut he felt personally |
that, "if a majority of the citizens
in a given area voted hr democra'ic
procey-.r.-. to place restriction.- on
hs use the courts should back them
ur>."
Victory for Democracy.
Hailing the derision as a "victory
for genuine democracy." the Rev
A Fowell Davies, pastor of All Souls
Unitarian Church predicted the de
rision will "increase the confidence
of all decent. Americans in the Su
preme Court Moreover, there is
now one less American hypocracy
for the Communists to shoot at."
The Unitarian Church was one of
the groups which entered the case
as a "friend of the court.”
Robert Nathan, consulting econo
mist and member of the national
planning and national administra
tive groups ^>f the American Vet
frans' Committee, termed the tie- [
cision "real evidence of democracy j
in action,” He said the rulingI
carries the President's civil rights1
program into practical operation
and predicted it will have the effect |
of affording much more equitable j
distribution of housing facilities.1
The A VC also filed an anti-covenant
brief as "friend of the court."
Raphael G. Urciolo, white real
estate dealer, who sold three cove
nanted lots to Negroes, called the
decision "sensible" and commented:
"It's not a manVcolor that makes
or breaks a neighborhood but the
type of property built and the type
of people to whom you sell.”
“Help* National Unity."*
Charles H. Houston, one of the
attorneys for the anti*-covenant,
group, said the decision strengthens
this country's position in the eyes
of the world and helps to build na
tional unity. He regarded the case
as a "demonstration of what liberal^
anq progressives can accomplish
when they combine their efforts to
a common end ” He pointed out
that more groups filed briefs in the
covenant cases than in any other
case within the memory of Supreme
Court officials.
"There's absolutely no cause for
panic,” Mr. Houston added "The
decisions doesn't force anybody to
sell, but it does give all citizens
an equal right under the law to
purchase property on the open
market.”
Caution against people "getting
panicky or losing their heads" also
came from a spokesman for the pro- |
covenant forces, Clifford Newell,'
past president of the Federation of
Citizens' Associations, who said he
had been "identified with segrega
tion here for years and believes it's
the best thing for colored people
as well as whites."
Way Will Be Found.
"The court has been kind enough
to say that, as long as we don’t
come into court, we can make ar
rangements for ourselves to protect
our property and our environment
for our families." Mr. Newell said.
“I feel a way will be found to enablp
the white propip to be recognized
by our Constitutional and Civil
Rights Amendment, just the same
as the Supreme Court is now recog
nizing the colored people."
Woolsey W Hall, president of the
Federation of Civic Associations,
exclaimed. "What a grand Supreme
Court we have! This brand of de
mocracy is one of the very best
antidotes we can have for com
munism.”
Others reacted as follows:
John H Connaughton. president
of the Federation of Citizens' Asso
ciations: "No comment "
“Constructive Derision.”
Dr Modecai Johnson, president
of Howard University: "This is one
of the great constructive decisions
in American law. It removes a bar- i
Tier which has for many years -
operated greatly to injure citizens!
who are members of minority j
groups. It will be a heartening and
inspiring derision to Negro people
and will greatly deepen their affec
tion for their country.”
Mrs. Ernest W. Howard, president
of the Columbia Heights Citizens'
Association: "No comment.”
Phineas Indritz, one of the attor
neys representing the anti-covenant
forces: "I'm very happy the decision
was unanimous because it shows'
clearly there was no doubt on the
question. Tills case is a milestone j
in the progress of all minorities'
itoward recognition of their human
' rights because it establishes that an
arm of government of all of the
people cannot be used to enforce
racial discrimination against some
l of the people."
Fred S. Walker, president of the
Parkview Citizens' Association: “A
covenant is a contract, and a con
tract certainly ought to be enforce
able”
Indian Head Holds Election
Roland J. Carpenter, Charles E
W'right and William C Abell were
elected town commissioners of In
dian Head. Md.. yesterday. They
will take oij^ce on June 1.
Supreme Court Opinion in Covenant Cases
j Following is the opinion in the
I two District covenant cases de- '
livered by Chief Justice Vinson
and joined in by Justices Black, ,
j Douglas. Murphy and Burton.
Petitioners in one case were
James M. Hurd and Mary I. \
Hurd, and in the second. Raphael
G. Urciolo. Robert H. Rowe,
Isabelle J. Rou e, et al. Respond
, ents in both cases were Frederic
E. Hodge. Lena A Murray Hodge,
Pacguale de Rita, et al. Foot
notes to the opinion are repro
duced in agate type at places
in the text to which they refer.
These are companion cases to
Shelley v. Kraemer and McGhee v
Sipes, ante, and come to this court
on certiorari to the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia.
In 1906. 20 of 31 lots in the 100
block of Bryant street N.W.. in the
city of Washington, were sold sub
ject to the following covenant :
“* * * that said lot shall never be
rented, leased, sold, transferred or
conveyed unto any Negro or colored
person, under a penalty of two
thousand dollars iS2.000'. which
shall be a lien against said prop
erty."
The covenant imposes no time
limitation on the restriction.
Lots Owned by Whites.
Prior to the sales which gave rise
to these cases, the 20 lots which are
subject to the covenants were at all
times owned and occupied by white
persons, except for a brief period
when three of the houses were oc
cupied by Negroes who were even
tually induced to move without legal
action. The remaining 11 lots in
the same block, however, are not
subject to a restrictive agreement
and, as found by the District Court,
were occupied by Negroes for the
20 years prior to the institution of
this litigation.
All of the residential property In the
block is on the south side of the street,
the northern side of the street pro
viding t boundary for a public park.
These cases involve seven of the
20 lots which are subject to the
terms of the restrictive covenants.
In No. 290, petitioners Hurd, found
by the trial court to be Negroes,1
purchased one of the restricted prop
erties from the white owners.
Petitioner Jimes M. Hurd maintsined
thar he is not a Negro but a Mohawle
Indian.
In No. 291, petitioner Urciolo, a
white real estate dealer, sold and
conveyed three of the restricted
properties to the Negro petitioners
Rowe, Savage, and Stewart. Peti
tioner Urciolo also owns three other
lots In the block subject to the cove
nants. In both cases, the Negro pe
titioners are presently occupying as
homes the respective properties'
which have been conveyed to them.
Suits were instituted in the Dis
trict Court by respondents, who own
other property in the block subject
to the terms of the covenants, pray
ing for injunctive relief to enforce
the terms of the restrictive agree
ment. The cases were consolidated
for trial, and after a hearing, the
court entered a Judgment declaring
null and void the deeds of the Negro
petitioners; enjoining petitioner Ur
ciolo and one Ryan, the white prop
erty owners who had sold the houses
to the Negro petitioners, from leas
ing, selling or conveying the prop
erties to any Negro or colored per
son; enjoining the Negro petitioners
from leasing or conveying the prop
erties and directing those petitioners
"to remove themselves and all of
their personal belongings" from the
premises w’ithin 60 days. - j
Affirmed by Appeals Court.
The United States Court of Ap
peals for the District of Columbia.
' with one Justice dissenting, affirmed
the judgment of the District Court.
—U S App. D. C—, 1«2 F. 2d 233
(1P47>
The majority of the court, was of
Covenants
(Continued From First Page >
the Issue cautioned, however, that
there was no cause for ' panic." as
a result of the Supreme Court de
cision.
Solicitor General Philip B. Perl
man. w7ho last January took part
in the Supreme Court oral argu
ments and opposed covenants, re
fused to speculate today on whether
yesterday's decision meant that
covenants excluding persons on re
ligious grounds were also rendered
unenforceable by the courts.
The National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People de
scribed the decision as a "blow
against segregation.”
Real Estate Association men
voiced no alarm. Robert T. Fur
man, jr.. vice president of the Na
tional Real Estate Clearing House,
said In New7 York:
"People will and are entitled to
choose their associates and will con
tinue to do so. It need not be a
matter of law. Any good real estate
broker endeavors to locate his
clients w7here they will be happy,
and he does not consciously detract
from a neighborhood by introducing
either an undesirable structure or
resident.”
Three Jurists Disqualified Selves.
Attorneys and other active here in
the fight against covenant praised
the decision variously as a means
of checking Communism, strength
ening the American form of Gov
ernment and advancing the posi
tion of the United States in world
affairs.
Associate Justices Reed. Jackson
and Rutledge did not take part in
the consideration of decision of the
covenant cases. At the time of the
oral arguments they disqualified
themselves but gave no reason.
It was repoited that Justices Jack
son and Rutledge may have stepped
down because they live in homes
in covenated areas.
Not Legally Enforceable.
The decision of Chief Justice Vin
son and Associate Justices Black.
Frankfurter. Douglas, Murphy and
Burton dealt with court enforce
ability of covenants. It held that
covenants, standing alone as private
agreements, do not run contrary to
law.
But to all practical purposes,
covenants are now inoperative be
cause the high court ruled Federal
and State courts cannot legally
enforce them by injunctions or
similar judicial orders. .
The Supreme Court opinion did
not pass specifically on further
claims that the individuals were
deprived of property without due
process of law or denied privileges
of citizens of the United States.
The court judged that the 14th
Amendment to the Constitution
and the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
applying especially to the District,
prohibit State and Federal courts
from acting to deny citizens equal
protection of the laws and equal
rights to acquire and hold property.
Essentially Government Action.
It stated that court enforcement
is essentially Government action.
It declared that In the case of cov
enant restrictions on the basis of
!race or color, such State court en
| the opinion that the action of the1
' District Court was consistent with
earlier decisions of the Court of
Appeal* and that those decisions
i should be held determinative in
these cases.
Petitioners have attacked the ju
; dicial enforcement of the restrictive
covenants in these cases on a wide
variety of grounds. Primary' reli
ance, however, is placed on the
contention that such governmental
action on the part of the courts of
; the District of Columbia is forbidden
by the due process clause of the 5th
Amendment of the Federal Consti
tution.
Other contention* made by petition
er* include the following Judicltl eifr
foicement of the covenant* 15 contrary
to * in:8 of the Revised Statutes de- j
rived from the Civil Right* Act of 1888
and to treatv obligation* of the United
States contained In the United Nation*
Charter; enforcement of the covenants
is contrary to the public policy; en
forcement of tbe covenant* Is inequit
able.
Whether Judicial enforcement of
racial restrictive agreements by the
Federal courts of the District of
Columbia violates the 5th Amend
ment has never been adjudicated by
this court. In Corrigan v. Buckley,
271 U. S. 323 < 1926 >, an appeal was
taken to this court from a judgment!
of the United States Court of Ap
peals for the District of Columbia
which had affirmed an order of the
lower court granting enforcement to
a restrictive covenant. But as was
pointed out in our opinion in Shelley
v. Kraemer. supra, the only consti
tutional issue which had been raised
in the lower courts in the Corrigan
case. and. consequently, the only ,
constitutional question before this
court on appeal, related to the valid- j
ity of the private agreements a*
such. Nothing in the opinion of this
court in that case, therefore, may
properly be regarded as an ajudica
tion of the issue presented by peti
tioners in this case which concerns, i
not the validity of the restrictive!
agreements standing alone, but the
validity of court enforcement of the
restrictive covenants under the due
process clause of the 5th Amend
ment. See Shelley v. Kraemer,1
supra.
Prior to the present litigation. th§
United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbi* ha* considered
vases involving enforcement of racial
restrictive agreements on at least eight
occasion* Corrigan v. Buckley. 56
App D C. 80. 299 F 899 (1924);
Torrey v Wolfe*. 58 App D C. 4. 8 F
2d 702 <1925*. Russell v. Wallace. 58
App D C. 85:. 80 F 2d 9HI (1929*.
Cornish v O Donoghue. 58 App D C.
859 80 F 2d 988 (1929); Grady v
Garland. 87 App D C 78. 89 F. 2d
817 (1987): Hundley v Gorewltz. 7?
U 8 App D C 48. 182 F. 2d 28
M942> v Burges*. 79 U 9 App
D C 843. 147 F 2d 889 <1945': May*
▼ Burges*. 80 U 8. App. D. C. 238. 152
F 2d 128 < 1946*.
In Corrigan ▼. Buckley, aupra the
first of thF case* decided by the United
State* Court of Appeals and relied on
in mo*t of the subsequent decision*,
the opinion of the court contain* no
consideration of the specific issue* pre
sented to this court in these ra*es. An
appeal from the decision in Corrigan
v Buckley, was dismissed by thi* court.
271 U. S 828 <1928) See discussion
supra In Hundley v Gorewltz. supra,
the United State* Court of Appeals re
fused enforcement of a restrictive
agreement where changes in the charac
ter of the neighborhood would have
rendered enforcement inequitable.
Ordinances Invalid.
This Court has declared invalid
municipal ordinances restricting oc
cupancy in designated areas to per
soi* of specified race and color as j
denying rights of white sellers and j
Negro purchaser? of property, guar- j
anteed by the due process clause of
the 14th Amendment. Buchanan v
Warlev. 245 U, S. 60 (J917); Harmon
v. Tyler, 273 U. S 668 (1927'; Rich
mond v. Deans. 281 U. 8 764 (1936'.
Petitioners urge that Judicial en
forcement of the restrictive coven
ants by courts of the District of
Columbia should likewise be held to
deny rights of white sellers and
Negro purchasers of property, guar
anteed by the due process clause
of the 5th Amendment. Petitioners
point out that this court in Hira
bayashi v. United States. 320 U. S.
81, 100 (1943'. reached its decision
in a case in which issues under the
forcement is against the due process
clause of the 14th Amendment and
Federal Court enforcement in the
District is against the Civil Rights
Act of 1866.
Chief Justice Vinson wrote the two
opinions. A 20-page opinion over
ruled Michigan and Missouri Su
preme Courts that upheld covenants
in Detroit and St. Louis. A 10-page
opinion overturned the United
States Court of Appeals here which!
by a two-to-one vote last May up-;
held covenants on dwellings in the
100 block of Bryant street N.W. |
Justice Miller and Clark sustained:
the original ruling of District Court |
Justice Letts in favor of the cove-|
nants. Justice Edgerton. In dis
senting. raised the issue that coven
ants could not be legally enforced
by courts.
Boy, 9, Finds His Mother
And Man Slain in Home
ty th* Aliociatod Pr*l«
DUBLIN. Ga„ May 4—A 9-year
old boy returning home from school
yesterday found his mother shot to
death, her body blocking the front
door. ,
A few feet away was the body of
a man, a bullet through the head
Nearby was a .38-caliber pistol.
Deputy Sheriff Judson Jackson
said the two were Mrs. Grady Cul
lens, about 30. and Doy Joiner,
about 34, members of prominent
families.
The deputy added that Mrs. Cul
lens' son returned Irom school but
could not get into the house be
cause the door would not open. He
looked through a window and saw
the bodies,
! The lad's father, Grady Cullens.!
was summoned. He crawled through
the window to verify the tragedy.!
The Cullens and Joiner families
had shared a duplex house. Joiner, j
I the deputy sheriff reported, was
I divorced last week
9 G. 0. P. Senators Meet
To Discuss Party Policy
By th« Asiociat*d Pr««s
Nine Republican Senators who
want to keep the party's national
convention from doing anything
“reactionary” or “isolationist” met
last night, but they kept to them
selves what strategy they might
have devised.
Senator Baldwin of Connecticut
was host to the others at a dinner
meeting.
The primary interest of the nine,1
one of them has said, is not so much i
in presidential candidates, but in
issues.
“We want to do what we can to
make certain that the Republican
Party doesn't take any backward
steps on either domestic or foreign
issues." this Senator said.
Others at the dinner beside Sen
ator Baldwin were Senators Know
land of California, Ives of New York,
Gurney of South Dakota. Saltan
stall ol Massachusetts,' Smith of New
Jersey, Thve of Minnesota. Flanders
of Vermont and Lodge of Massa
chuse^s.
5th Amendment were presented, on
the assumption that “racial discrimi
nations are in most circumstances
irrelevant and therefore prohibited
* * *” And see Korematsu v. United
States. 323 U. S. 214, 216 (1244).
Upon full consideration, how
ever. we have found It unnecessary
to resolve the constitutional issue
which petitioners advance; for we
have concluded that judicial en
forcement of restrictive covenants1
by the courts of the District of Co
lumbia is improper for other rea
sons herein stated.
It if a well-established principle that
this court will not decide constitu
tional Questions where .other grounds
*re available and dispositive of the i
issues of the case. Recent expression*
of that policy are to be found in Alma
Motor Co. r. Tinken-Detroit Axle Co,
370 U 8 17P <104«»: Rescue Army v.
Municipal Court, 331 U. 8 640 <1047).
Section 1978 of the revised stat
utes. derived from »1 of the Civil
Rights Act of 1866 17» provides:
“All citizens of the United States
shall have the same right, in every
State and Territory, as \s enjoyed
by white citizens thereof to inherit,
purchase, lease, sell, hold and con
vey real and personal property.**
tU. S. C. 42.)
14 8tat. 77. Section 1 of the act
provided: "• • • That all parties born
in the United States and not subject i
to any foreign power, excluding In
dians not taxed, are hereby declared to !
be citizens of the United States: and
such citizens, of every race and color,
without regard tc any previous condi
tion of alavery or involuntary servitude,
except as a nunishment for crime
whereof the party shall have Deen duly
convicted, shall have the same right,
in every State and Territory in the
United States, to make and enforce
contracts, to sue. ba parties and give
evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease,
aell hold, and convey real and personal
property and to full and equal bene
fit of all laws and proceedings for the
security of person and property, as is
enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be
subject to like punishment, pains, and
penalties, and to none other, any law,
statute, ordinance, regulation or cus
tom to the contrary notwithstand
ing 1
The Civil Rights Act of 1 was re
enacted in §18 of the act of May
31. 1870. itt Stat. 144. passed subse
ouent to the adoption of he Fourteenth
Amendment. Section 1077 of the re
vised statutes <8 U. 8 C. 141). de
rived from §10 of the act of 1870
which in turn was patterned after §1
of the Civil Rights Act of I8RH. pro
vides: ‘ All persons within Jurisdiction
of the United 8tates shall have the
same right in every 8tate and Terri
tory to make and enforce contracts,
to sue. be parties, give evidence and to
the full and equal benefit of all laws
and proceedings for the security of
persona and property as is enjoyed
by white citizens, and shall be sub
ject to like punishment, pains, pen
alties. taxes, licenses and exaction*
of every kind, and to no other."
Government Action Involved.
All the petitioners in these cases,
as found by the District Court, are
citizens of the United States. We
have no doubt that, for the pur
poses of this section, the District of
Columbia is included within the
phrase “every State and Territory.’\
Cf Talbott Silver Bow Counts,
ISP U 8 4:1X444 I1XP11.
Nor can there be doubt of the
constitutional power of Congress to
enact such legislation with reference
to the District of Columbia (lOi.
Se* Keller v*. Potomac Electric Pow
•r Co.. 7fll U. 8 478.447-443 (1073).
We may start with the proposi
tion that the statute does not in
validate private restrictive agree
ments so long as the purposes of
those agreements are achieved by
the parties through voluntary ad
herence to the terms. The action
toward which the provision of the
statute under consideration is di
rected as governmental action. Such
was the holding of Corrigan vs.
Buckley, supra.
i In considering whether Judicial
enforcement of restrictive covenants
is the kind of governmental action
which the first section of the Civil
Rights Act of 1866 was intended to
prohibit, reference must be made
to the scope and purposes of the
fourteenth amendment: for that
statute and the amendment were
closely related both in inception and
in the objectives which Congress
sought to achieve.
Both the Civil Rights Act of 1866
and the joint resolution which was
later adopted as the 14th Amend
ment were passed in the first ses
sion of the 39th Congress.
. Thf Civil Rights Act of 1888 became
law on April ». 1 868 The Joint Reso
lution submitting the 14th Amend
ment to the 8tates passed the House of
Representatives on June 13. l 888. hav
ing previously passed the Senate on
June * Cone. Globe 39th Cona , 1st
Sess. 3148-3149. 3042.
Frequent references to the Civil
Rights Act are to be found in the
record of the legislative debates on
the adoption of the amendment.
See e. Cong Globe. 39th Cong,
1st Sess 2459 2401. 2402. 2486, 2487,
2498. 2608. 2511. 2538. 2838. 2981.
It. Is clear that in many signifi
cant respects the statute and the
amendment were expressions of the
same general congressional policy.
Indeed, as the legislative debates
reveal, one of the primary purposes
of many members of Congress In
supporting the adoption of the 14th
Amendment was to incorporate the
guaranties of the Civil Rights Act
of 1866 in the organic law of the
land.
Thus. Mr. Thayer of Pennsylvania,
speaking in the House of Representa
tives. stated: As I understand it. it is
but incorporating In the Constitution
or the United States the principle of the
civil rights bill which has lately be
come a law. ... in order . . . that that
provision so necessary for the equal ad
ministration of the law. so just In its
operation, so necessary for the protec
tion of the fundamental rights of citi
xenship. shall be forever incorporated in
the Constitution of the United States"
Cong, Globe. .".9th Cong.. 1st Sess.
2485. And note the remarks of Mr.
8tevens of Pennsylvania in reporting to
the House the Joint resolution which
was subsequently adopted as the 14th
Amendment. Id. at 2459. See also
Id. at 2482. 2898. 2981. That such
was understood to be a primary pur
pose of the amendment Is made clear
not only from statements of the pro
ponents of the amendment but of Its
opponents. Id. at 2487. 2538 See
Flack. The Adoption of the 14th Amend
ment 94-98.
Others supported the adoption of
the amendment in order to eliminate
doubt as to the constitutional va
lidity of the Civil Rights Act as ap
plied to the States.
No doubts were expressed as to the ‘
constitutionality of the Civil Rights
Act In Us application to the District o-f I
Columbia Senator Poland of Vermont 1
stated: "It certainly seems desirable
that no doubt should be left existing
as to the power of Congress to enforce
principles lying at the very founda
tion of all republican government tf
they be denied or violated by the
8tates. and I cannot doubt but that
every Senator will rejoice in aidinR to
remove all doubt upon this power of
Congress " Cong Globe. 39th Cong .
1st Sess. 2981. See also Id at 2461,
2498, 2508, 2511, 2898, 3036.
Right to Acquire Property.
The close relationship between ? 1
of the Civil Rights Act and the 14tli
Amendment was given specific rec
ogiUtion by this court In Buchanan
v. Warley, supra at 79. There, the
court observed that, not only
through the operation of the 14th
Amendment, but also by virtue of
i the "statutes enacted In further
j ance of its purpose," Including the
provisions here considered, a colored
man is granted the right to acquire
property free from interference by
discriminatory State legislation. In
Shelley v. Kraemer, supra, we have
held that the 14th Amendment also
forbids such discrimination where
imposed by State courts in the en
forcement of restrictive covenants.
That holding is clearly indicative of
the construction to be given to the
relevant provisions of the Civil
Rights Act in their application to1
the courts of the District of Co
lumbia.
Moreover, the explicit language)
employed by Congress to effectuate1
its purposes, leaves no doubt that!
judicial enforcement of the restric- j
tlve covenants by the courts of the
District of Columbia is prohibited
by the Civil Rights Act. That
statute, by its terms, requires that i
all citizens of the United States
shall have the same right "as is;
enjoyed by white citizens * • * to
inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold,
and convey real and personal prop*
erty." That the Negro petitioners
have been denied that right by
virtue of the action of the Federal
courts of the District is clear. The
Negro petitioners entered into
contracts of sale with willing sellers
for the purchase of properties upon
which they desired to establish!
homes. Solely because of their race j
and color they are confronted with !
orders of court divesting their titles
in the properties and ordering that
the premises be vacated. ' White
sellers, one of whom is a petitioner
here, have been enjoined from sell
ing the properties to any Negro or j
colored person. Under such circum
stances, to suggest that the Negro
petitioners have been accorded the
same rights as white citizens to pur
chase, hold, and convey real prop
erty is to reject the plain meaning
i of language. W'e hold that thej
action of the District court directed j
against the Negro purchasers and
j the white sellers denies rights in
tended by Congress to be protected
by the Civil Rights Act and that,
consequently, the action cannot
stand.
Other Considerations.
But even in the absence of the
statute, there are other considera
tions which would Indicate that en
forcement of restrictive covenants;
in these cases is judicial action con
trary to the public policy of the
United States, and as such should
be corrected by this Court in the
exercise of its supervisory powers
over the courts of the District of
Columbia.
See Unlfpd 8tate* ▼ Hutchenson, 1
342 U S M9. 233 «1941>. Johnson v.
United State?, l d3F 30..v: <1908i.
Section 34o(a1 of the Judicial Code.
4.3 Sr at. 93K. 2H U S C § 347 *a>,
provides: “In any case, civil or criminal,
in a circuit court of appeals, or in
the Court of Appeals of the District
of Columbia, it shall be competent for
the Supreme Court of the United States,
upon the petition of any party hereto,
whether Government or other litigant,
to require by certiorari, either before or
after a judgment or decree by such
low pr court that the cause be certified
o the Supreme Court for determina
I tl03. br •* with »»m» now»r ant
authortty. and with Ilka affect, ai If
the cause had been brought there by
| unrestricted writ ef error or appeal.
The power of the Federal court*
to enforce the terms of private
agreements Is at all times exercised
subject to £he restrictions and limi
tations of the public policy of the
United States as manifested la tha
Constitution, treaties. Federal stat
utes. and applicable legal prece
dents.
Muschany r Unftrd Btatn. 3*4 U 8.
49 88 '1945). And ser Ucena* Tai
Cases. 5 Wall. 402. 489 <18«t).
Where the enforcement of private
agreements would be violative of
that policy. It Is the obligation of
courts to refrain from such exertions
of judicial power.
Cl Kennrtt r Chamber!. 14 How.
SS (1852); Tool Co. v Norris. 2 Wall.
45 (18851. Sprott v United States, 20
Wall. 459 (18741: Trtst v Child. 21
Wall 411 (1875) Oscanykn v Arms
Co 103 U. S. 261 U881): Burt v.
Union Central Life Insurance Co., 1ST
U S 382 (1902): Sage v Hantpe. 235
U S 99 (19141 And see Beaaley v.
Texas Si Pacific R. Co., 191 U. S. "491
m 1903),
We are here concerned with ac
tion of Federal courts of such a
nature that if taken by the courts
of a State would violate the piio
hibitory provisions of the 14th
Amendment. Shelly v. Kraemer,
supra. It is not consistent with the
public policy of the United States
to permit Federal courts in the Na
tion's Capital to .exercise general
equitable powers to compel action
denied the State courts where such
State action has been held to be
violative of the guaranty of the
equal protection of the laws.
Cl Gandolfo r. Hartman, 49 F. 181.
183 (1892).
We cannot presume that the pub
lic policy of the United States mani
fests a lesser concern for the pro
tection of such basic rights against
discriminatory action of Federal
courts than against such action
taken by the courts of the States.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Reed, Mr. Justice?
Jackson, and Mr. Justice Rutledge
took no part in the consideration"
or decision of these cases.
Frankfurter’s Opinion.
The concurring opinion of Jus
tice Frankfurter follows:
In these cases, the plaintiffs ask
equity to enjoin white property
owners who are desirous of selling'
their houses to Negro buyers simply
because the houses were subject to'
an original agreement not to have
them pass into Negro ownership.
Equity is rooted in conscience. An
injunction Is, as It always has been,
"an extraordinary remedial process
which is granted, not as a matter
of right but in the exercise of a'
sound judicial discretion.” Morri
son v. W'ork, 266 U. S. 481, 490 In
good conscience, It cannot be “the
exercise of a sound Judicial discre
tion" by a Federal court to grant
the relipf here asked for when the
authorization of such an injunction
by the States of the Union violates'
the Constitution—and violates It,
not for any narrow technical reason,
but for considerations that touch
rights so basic to our society that,
after the Civil War, their protection
against Invasion by the States wa»
safeguarded by the Constitution.
This is to me a sufficient and con
clusive ground for reaching the
Court's result.
THE NEW ESSO Oil BURNER
FEATURES THE EXCLUSIVE
ECONOMY CLUTCH!
•>>4*****>~ "'** *
If your present oil burner is old ... if it
wasted hard-to-get heating oil last winter
—ryou can replace it note with the revolu
tionary Esso Oil Burner featuring the
patented Economy Clutch!
The amazing, exclusive Economy Clutch
will bring greater heating efficiency to
your home — greater fuel economy.. •
cleaner operation.
* ★ *
Because of the present oil supply situation
—Esso Oil Burners are being sold only to
replace old oil burners. And for the present
no new fuel oil customers can be accepted. •
Oil burner owners—Help improve
next winter's fuel oil supply:
^ Install a larger storage tank and have it filled.
] nsulate your house and have it fitted with J
storm windows and doors. §
^ If you are not installing a new Esso Burner *
be sure to have your present burner inspected
and adjusted for peak operating efficiency.
Proporo now for officiont and economical oil hooting
next wintor by getting in touch with u« now.
OIL BURNER
ESSO STANDARD OIL COMPANY
261 CONSTITUTION AVE. N.W., WASHINGTON 13, D. C. National 9032
Or boo your local Classified Telephone Directory