Respondents Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ — Interstate Commerce Commission v. Mechling (No. 72)

Supreme Court brief1947

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

IN THE.

Supreme Court of the United States

ae | ANG

rR ET

‘ OCTOBER TERM, 1946. =

ee = P, . . } fn.

oxgimnnsnimnene )

J. D. SHELLEY arid. Erer LEE SHELLEY, op as

' His Wife, rat) . . .. Petitioners,

' . ae ‘ ; it ey a ners

vs." $ ; . _S Ng. 1268- 4

? 7.oUIS: KRAEMER and Fern .W. KRAEMER’

» His Wife, «Respondents.

bed ®

Hespondents Brief Opposing lesiininc

ie of Writ of Certiorari

. |

-G. L. SEEGERS, _ / Ben F F. Youx, ;

York & Srecers) 1722 Olive St., St. Louis 3, Mo.,

_", 1722 Olive St., St: Louis 3,Mo., Attorney for. ebatiey A

Wa.ter-H. PoLLMANN, : .

= F06 Chestnut St., St. Louis 1, Mo.,

Of Counsel.

SISSON PRESS, 105 South Ninth Street, St. Louis 2, Mo.—CHestnut $986

{

Va -

‘ = bd . ~ .

‘ e ° : ‘

8 ; i ‘ : ¢ .

. ! ;

‘ “g . é :

. :

‘ é . ‘ <

a 1» tle . o: : ‘

. . . 7

. ° a! ° .

. . . e os .

“ SS . F . ' 7% . -y ,

. +8 . x

- : . . - :

. ‘ ,

’ - . . os :

° : “ ke

are

; °

2 : ea .

= . L

2 ¢ . . « : ?

. bl 3 ¥

. z : , 3

. . " . .

. ” e 4

F ‘ . . . m ° F .

s se

e, & : ’

‘ ad ~ Si 4 > . -

. , ; ; ;

- ad e . ‘ ’

< _ id

| ee ° + * : \ aon

’ z NM

F »

F ’ . ‘ a e

. -

e +]

' o

; 83

. . ts =" 7 . .

F .. * - ,

. Be i ee ¥ : :

. : e °

i ° iy -

™ z

. . 4 ;

; . one -

. 2 ?

a P ¥ _ . .

ry 4 , ‘ :

' 3 1? : @

. «

on °

. ® * : :

5 *

‘ ‘ois

* . ° , =

; 4

“i . ; :

J .

a . ‘ . q bs

eH 0% * . : :

x e

’

. ; i.

INDEX.

Opinion of .Court BElOW. 2... eee eeec cee cceeeesetegeesete. dilegkancs Me

Jurisdiction of This Court............ oe eetes chess resesecepeseere 2

Reasons Urged in Opposition to.Granting of Writ of Certiorari...... -.3

Summary of Argument........... Vauedeescnsaeds Kbbse tev aukbaeanks 8

Argument ..... Peaweewtiscees cons Stee eke dees tre en ee ewe nutans rey 12

- Conclusion si etidadsunecesccsbe res Woes eceesevecdccccces eae thae see = 80

sora ore

'.. » CASES AND AUTHORITIES CITED. * , : |

Amer. Surety Co. vy. Baldwin, 287 U. S. 156, 53S. Ct. 98....... ee

, Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. 8. 27, 28 L. Ed! 923................... mare

Brinkethoff-Faris Co. v. Hill, 281 U. S. 673, 74 L. Ea. 1207........5< 814

, Buchanan ‘v. Warley, 245.U. S. 60, 38 S. Ct. 16, 62 L. Ed: 149... 23

Burkhardt v. Loften, (1944), 63 Cal. App. (2d): 230, 146 P,(2d) 720... 7

Chandler v. Ziegler (1930), 88 Colo. 1, 291 P. eae EE TTT CCE osed: 6

Civil Rights Cases, ‘109 U. S. 3, 3 S. Ct. 18, 27 L. Ed. 836:......... .4, 5, 23

Corrigan v. Buckley, 271 U. 8.323, 46 S. Ct. 521, 70 L. Ed. 969... .5, 6,12, 23

Delmar Jockey Club y. Missouri, 210 U. S. 324, ;

28 S.Ct. 732, 52 L. Ed. 1080..... atehe 4d des ebiven nce we cay cas endce Me

\Doherty. ¥. Rice (1942), 240 Wis. 389, 3 N. W. (2d) 734..... eA aea-ece 6

Rooley v. Savanah Bk. & Tr. Co, (1945), Ga., 34 S. E: (24) 522... aces

_ Edwards v. W. Woodridge Th..Co. (1931), 60 App. D. C. 362, =

Sy ORR. ARO OB sc pcxciccsen sas anne concgsec fadhe One Ss ekebnesd 6

Ennis Water Wks. v. City of Ennis, 233 U. S. 652, : att

34S. Ct. 767,58 L. Ed RAMs 3 55 ea oui awa Pery eee A on re abes - 6

- Godchaux v. Estopinal, 251 U. S. 179, 40 S. Ct. 116, 64 L. Ed. 213..... 4.22.

Gospel Spread. Assn. v. Bennett (1945), 79 App. D, C. 352,

~ SOT, GOOD WR ia ince vcsecc,, oe ghia ed Uda cha hed onus shes 7

Grady v. Garland, 67 App.-D. C. 73, .89 F. (2d) 817; hats

[(Certiorari denied) 302 U.S. 694, 58 S. Ct. | Se a haha hin wks nae

‘Hemsley v. Hough. (1945), Okla., 157 P. (2d) 182....:..... Miandiewae sy

Hemsley ¥. Sage (1944), 194 Okla. 669, 154 P. (2d) 577......... beh 29

Herb v. Gerstein; 41 Fed. supp. 634... ...... SUESAS Hisnseoseickcet ad 7

Hodges y. U. S., 203 U. 8. 1.27 S. Ct. 6, 51.L. Ed. PEGs esniges bins’ +. 5,23

Hundley v. Gorewitz (1942), 77 App. D. C. 48, 132 Fed. (2d Ber ee

In re Chambers Est., 322 Mo. 1086, 18 S.-W. (2d) 30............ nes

Gong Lum _v. Rice, 275 U.S. 78, 48°S. Ct. 91, 72 Li | ee

Koehler ¥. Rowland, 275 Mo. 573, 205 S. W. 217...2................, 4°

Leeper v. Texas, 139 U: 8. 462.......... eheedekewkicc Gui Wee ais 22 °8, 14

_ Lehew v. Brummell, 103 Mo. a tbe Fy SACS S on pea 21

Leonard v. Vicksburg R. R., 198 Y. S. 416, . Sa

25 S. Ct. 780, 49 L. Ed. 1108.../.. 0)... sheniecke leaden 43

Letteau v. Ellis (1932), 122°Caf. App. 5847 10 P. (24) 496....... rie

Levy v. Lewis, 295 U.S. 768, 55 S. Ct. 652, 79-L. Ed. SA ee ey 16° -

Lion’s Head Lake v. Brzezinski, 23 N. J. Mise. R. 290, 43 A. (2d) 729... 7.

= “INDEX. ‘ ae oe

CASES AND AUTHORIPING DFTED—(Contingte). :

Sat

Page

Los Sain Inv. Co. v. Gary, (1919), Cal., RSs 6

Lyons, v. Wallen (1942), 191 Okla. 567, 133 P. (2d) 655.............. 7

Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U. S. 581, 20 S. Ct. 448, 44 L. Ed. 697.........,... 8,20°

Mays v. Burgess, 79 U. S. App. D. C. 343, 147 F. (2d) 861;

(Cert. denied, 325 U. S; 868)....... S EGET Rbk Raa oe ERO paneer ce

* MoPherson v. Blackes, 146 U. S. 1, 13 S. Ct. 3, 36-L. Ed. "869 hanes 3, 4, 17, 23

Meade v., Dennistone (1938), Md., 196 Atl. 380.,..0......eseeeseees

People v. Gallagher, 93 N. Y. 438....... LARA SLELES AS SAA ae SP RnR ENA

People ex rel.. Cisco v. School Board, 161 N, ‘J. 598, 56 N. OS ere 20

Plessy v. Ferguson,’ 163 U: 8. 537, 16S. Ct. 1188, 41 L. Ed. 256...... 3.

Queensbordugh Land Co.\v. Cazeaux (1915), 136 La. 724,67 So. 641... 6

Ridgway v. Cockburn (1937), 163 Mise. 611, 296 N. ¥. Supp. “936...... 6

Russell v. Wallace (1929), 58 App. D. C. 357, 30 F. (24) 981;

(Certidrari denied, 279 U. S. 871, 49 S. Ct. 512, 73, L. Ed. 1007).... 7

Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall 36, 21 L. Ed. 394.....: weleeaee 3, 4, 5, 20, 23

Steward v. Cronin (1940), 105 Colo. 393, 98-P. (2d) 999............-.. 7

Stone v: Jones (1944), 66 Cal. App..(2d) 264, 152 P. (2d) 19...... gee ee

Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 25 L. Bd. 664.............. 18...

Sugerman v. U. S. 249 .U. S. 182, 39 S. Ct. 191, 63 L. Ed. 550...\..... 12

Swain v. Maxwell (1946), Mo:,196 S. W. (2d) 780.......... a epeaeeae oe

* Thornhill v. Herdt (1939), Mo:, 130 S.W. (2d) 178... 000.:...3.0000.0 (97 |.

’ Title Guar. Co. v. Garrott. 42 Cal. App. 152, 183. A 410... ; reer os

Torrey v. Wolfes (1925), 56 App. D. C. 4, 6 F. (2d) 702..:,......-. 7

Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78, 29 S.Ct. 14, 53 L. Ed. 97....... 3, 20

‘United Co-op. R. Co. y. Hawkins (1937), 269 Ky. 563,, ea ®

BOR: DR. WH, SO ioe ns os ns ok oa oa 0k ba rhb Athens Prpmine: v

U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92°U. S. 542; 23 L. Ed. 1 O aiee cba Ni .3, 6, 14, 23.

U. S. v. Harris, 106:U. S. 629, 1S. Ct.-601,-27 L. Ed. 290.............3 5,23

U. S. F. & G. Co. v. State of Okla., 250 U. S. 111, sige

. 89. Ct. 399, 63 L. Ed. B76... \eecstscecceees ixeiate sek hee ae

. , Wall v. Oyster, 36 App. D: C. 50,-31 L-R.A/(N.‘S.) 180.....0.0....,. 20

_ Virginia v.’Rives, 100 U.S. $13, 26 L. Ed. 667.........0...0ccceen es My 5, 23 ©

~.Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90, 23-L. Ed. 678...:............ eens 8,20

' Younger v.-Judah, 111 Mo. 303, 19 S. W. 1109.:.:............ +. 8; 17,20

— Zueht v. King, 240, U. 8. 174, 43 8. Ct. 24, 67 L. Ed. 194... . eee eee ee

J ‘ . : ; . = *

TEXT BOOKS CITED. ries te Be tne EX

(i ee

piidonnndactee calwadeae dele 3

16 C. J.- Sec.y p. 988, Sec. B02... esse elie

e °

‘STATUTES Cc ITED.

ck ial a. =

| Supe om of the United States

ED. Sumizy and Eran. Les Sumizy,

His, Wife, . she 4 x Petitioners,

ae 7 oe yes Ne 1268 |

Louis Kraan and Fann W. KRAEMER, fae

Respondent Brief elon Issuance

| ol Writ at Lertiorari D|

; 2 \"

"OPINION OF COURT BELOW.

The case herein sought to be reviewed was decided by.

the ‘Supreme Court of Missouri, being the highest Court :

__ in which a decision could be had, and was. there entitled

Louis Kraemer and Fern. W. Kraemer, his wife, appel-

, J.D. Shelley and Ethel Lee Shelley, his wife, _ i

and joules Fitz-Gerald, veiendeua The decision and

rulings of the Court below appear in pp. 153 to 159 of

. the. Record filed herein. - - ele Po |

Said i genes is: reported in 198 S. W. (2a). 679.

ea JURISDICTION ‘oF THIS COURT. - 5 ae

Respondents concede that the writ of certiorari, pro-

vided for in Sec. 237 (b), Judicial Code, 36 Stat. 1156; as

amended by Act of February -13, 1925, Chap. 229, Sec. 1,.\

43 Stat. 937, Title 28 U. S. Code, Sec. 344 £b), is the proper -

method of review w by this Court of the instant case, pro-.

_- vided: That ‘a Federal question of substance is supported

by the record made in the lower Courts. ;

Respondents contend, “however, that ithe Record filed

_ herein presents no Federal question of the kind and char--

acter this Court ‘has, .in previous decisions, demanded m4

order to > establish and sustain geucenars

6 ae a 3 | ies a a -*

REASONS. “URGED IN. OPPOSITION TO GRANTING

OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI. : :

re The Record. fails to dtiscices t Petitioners were de--

prived of property without due p of law.

U.’S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 23 L. Ed. 588.

- ‘Leeper-v. Texas; 139.U. S. 462. - 5 Saat

Brinkerhofl-Faris Co v. Hill, 261 U.S. 673,74. Ba. -

1107. Bg es Oe

The Record fails to disclose that Petitioners have been

z denied the equal protection of the laws. si ;

16 C. J.S., p. 988, Sec. 502.. -

Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27, 28 L. Ed. 923.

'Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), 163 U.-S. 537, 551, 16

-S. Ct. .1138, 41 L. Ed. 256. . |

_* MePheison v. Blacker (Mich., 1892), 146 U. S. 1, 39,

18.8. Ct. 3, 36 L.Ed, 869. 3

The Record fails to ‘disclose that the State of Missouri .

has made or enforced any law which abridges the privi- .

_ leges or immunities of the Petitioners as citizens: of the -

United States.

Slau hter House Cases (1875), 16 Wall. (U. 8). 36,

1 L. Ed. 394: ~

Walker vy. Sauvinet, 92 U. S..90, 23.L. Ed. 678.

s 176 U. S. 581, 20 S. Ct. 448, 44

L. Ed. 597:

Twining v. N. Jersey, 211 U. S. 78, 29 S. Ct. 14, 53

L. Ed. 97.

/ Younger v. Judah (1892, Mo), 111 Mo. 308,19 S. W.

ys - 1109. edit Sates. Pee

: ts Se &

° SS \

. \ \.

\ :

' z X

_&s

[ ; x .

? . IV.. sat \ na

(a) The record fails to disclose the .violation of any

("2° sagt of Petitioners. arising from or $3 the statutes, |

treaties, or Constitution of the United St |

Slaughter House Cases (1873),. 16 wan (U. S:) 2, s

ie Ed. 394.

GIES Rights Cases (1883), 109 U. S.: 3, > Ct. 18,

a AS

. McPherson v. Blacker (Mich., 1892), 146 US. 1,

- 39, 13 S. Ct. 3, 36 L. Ed. 869.

_ Virginia v. Rives. (1880), 100 U. S. 313, 25 L.Ed. ‘ia

? | \

shee (b) Question of violatic of teats was not properly \

raised in Court below. Sak Si

_,_- Rule 42-44) Rev-Rules of Sup-C_

3 ‘Godchaux' Co. v. Estopinal; 251 U8 40 S. Ct.

116, 64 L. Ed. 213. 23° | ~

: Amer. Surety Ca, v- Baldwin, 257 U. 8 180

i S.Ct. 98. onl ee 7 OS

: | |

j “ ‘ i

“ ae the actions or

‘Corrigan v v. Buckley (D. C.,. 1926), 271 U. S. $23,

thereunder, are

ments of individuals.

* Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3, 3S: Ct. 18, 27 L. ‘Ed.

835.

_ Slaughter House

46S. Ct. 521, 70 L. Ed. 969. ;

U. S, v. Cruikshank, 92 U: S. 542, 23 L. Ed. 588.

U.S, ¥, Harris, 106 U:$. 629, 1 8. Ct. 601, 27 L, Ba.

. 60.

"Hodges v.'U. 8. (1905), 203 U. S. 1, 27S. Ct. 6, 51

‘L.Ed. 65.

: The’ Fourteenth | intent, and the Statutes enacted :

against State action and not

‘16'Wall (U. S.) 36, 21 L.Ed.

Ae Virginia v. Rives (1880), U. S. 313, 25 L. Ed. 667.

| A Federal question sufficient to. sustain the wangoon ee

of ‘this Court cannot be created by mere. assertions -

jectures . or conclusions unsupported . by the record.

- Ennis. Water ‘Works v. City of ‘Ennis, 233 U. S. 652,

658,34 S. Ct. 767, 58 L. Ed, 1139. ,

. —

U. S. Fid) & Guar. Co. v. State of Oklahoma et al.,_

250 U:’S. 111, 39 S. Ct. 399, 63 L. Ed. 876.

| Zucht v. King et al., 260 U.S. 174, 43 S. Ct. 24, er

‘Eee We,

Delmar Jockey ° ‘Club ‘ v. Missouri (1908),. 210-U. Ss.

“om, 28 S. Ct. 732, 62 L. Ed. 1080...

» en

(a) This Court has denied the existence of a substantial

Federal qnettion on a record such as presented tes this

case’,

- ' . >” Corrigan ¥. Buckley (1926), 21 U.S. 323, 48 8, Ct

St SRB es a 0 Ee / .

(b)- That a Federal iad i ‘aiie not exist in such a’.

_ @ase has been Soe. held _by State and» weders) |

-* Courts. =: :

Letteau v. Ellis. (1982), 122 Cal. App. 54, 10 P:

(2d) 496. 9 * |

Chandler v. Ziegler (1930), 88 Colo. 1, 291 P- 822. -

Edwards v. West Woodridge Theatre Co. (1931),

. 60 App. D. C. 362, 55 F. (2d) 524. |

os" ' United Co-Operative Realty Co. v. Hawkins (1937), :

amp Ky. S68, 100 6. W. (28) 207: ! 2

_ Meade v. ‘Dennistone (1938) (...' Md. :. ), 196°.

| A. 330, 114 ALR. 1 - —

Ridgway v. Cockburn (1987), 163 Misc. 511, 296

N.Y.S. 936. .- :

’ Stone’. v.. Jones. (1944), 66 Cal. App: (24) an

152 P. (2d) 19.

,. Doherty v: Rice (19), ‘240 Wis. 389, 3 N. W.

i (2d)- 7340 ° .

, Los Angeles Investment. Co. v. Gary (19195 (

Cal. ...), 186 Pac. 596, 9 ALR. 115.

Queensborough Land Co. v. Cazeaux (1915), 136

La. 724, L.R.A. 1916B, 1201, 67 So. 641, Ann. ©

Cas.- 1916D, 1248. .

Kohler v. Rowland (1918), 275 Mo. sts, 205 S. as

217, 9 A.L.R. 107. :

Steward ) Vv. - Cronan (1940), "105 ‘Colo. 203,98 |

a : (38) Oe. |

. Dooley v. Savannah Bank & Trust Co. (1945) (

+ Ge. .:), 98S. B. (Sd) GR. s-

’ Lion’s Head Lake v. Brasil, 2-3. J, Mise B.

290, 43-A. (2d) 729. ,

~, Lyons v. Wallen 41942), 191 Okla. , 133 P. (2d) -

Bes

Hemsley vv. ‘Sage (1944), 194. Otela? 669, a.

. (9d) 877...

“He v. Hough (1945) (.,| Okla. :), 157 P.

cn) 1s |

x Sorell Hart (1939), 130 S. W. (2d) 175.

‘ Burkhardt v.. Lofton (1944), 63 Cal. App. (2d)

| 230, 146 P. (2d) 720, is :

Swain v. Maxwell (1946) (. a Re.

(2d) 780. |

' Mays v.. Burgess: (1945); 79 U. ‘S. App. D. C. 343,

Beis 147 F. (2d) ee :

Hundley y. Gorewitz (1942), 77 App. D. C! 48, -

132 F. (2d) 23. :

Gospel Spreading Assn. v. Bennett (1945), 79 App.

| D.:C. 352, 147 F. (2d) 878. °.

-. Torrey v. Wolfes (1925), 56 App. D. c. 4, 6 F.

o(2d) 702. .

Russell v. Wallace (1929), 58 App. D. C. 357, 30 F.

- (2d) 981, Cert. Den. 279 U. S. 871, 49 S. Ct.

512,73 L. Ed. 100%

'”” Grady v. Garland (1937), 67, App. D. C. 73, 89 F.

“&2d) 817, Cost. Den. 302 U. 5. 604,68 8. Ct.

13, 82 L. Ed. 536. ~

_ Herb v. Gerstein (1941), 41 Fed. Supp. 634.

5 “ .

or Be

‘ . oF +S eng ae ‘ f° ; a ‘e > 4 +

. i rey ; 5% . ‘ aS } : | : : . 4X a \\ '

-< : ‘+ 4 7 . ; a a . « . a x

eae Oy: ~. .. SUMMARY. OF ARGUMENT.

. fA Ms ~ " {* ‘ BS ea en ees «bet ; \ . ii 3

Me CS Coca Or ea te aoe ache a F

? x ‘\t “ : oa Ns t. Y Soa see : zi : gc

e-. 2 4 ig AY : - She ieS

1 Wet

—

The. “Courts sslhoie: had uri

~ maatter and the parties. "Phe-triat; )

aK -a €ourt of justice according. to. the: ‘modes. of pr

ae » applicable to such a case under’ the laws of Missouri ¢

Me ts - petitioners had and enjoyed equal: opportunity to be hez

; , ae "and defend. The. laws under which the. tial ‘and review\

= = a _ by. the Missouri Su Supreme Court ‘were had elds on all \

ao citizens alike. eer Ses. } A Dae

AG rears eS S

an Since : no legislative ‘enactment is “here. involved, the °

State of Missouri has not made- or enforced any law which

deprives petitioners. of life, joey or peeper ty toes:

— ak steel of law. \.. 1.

- Phe “equal protection” use of the Foateesth knee

et "ment. was designed to prevent a State from making arbi-..

~ trary or. capricious classifications in the enactment. and

Suserestatet ed ‘ enforcement of regulatory legislation. The Supreme Court”

sua se Missouri, in the: ‘case at’ bar,. Jhas ehforced, by/ equitable

OL 8) ee principles applying equally to’ aly\citizens,: a private con-

ey 1 _ tract of ‘private citizens.. The te of Missouri. ‘afforded —

Sees - ‘respondents a. remedy’ in nfyreing those substantive °

Tes rights. which accrued to re indents by. virtue. of. the -_-

SS solemn contract to which the: ‘State of ‘Missouri-Was not |

tFeard to race volo, or creed. i

= ese a | - ee — :

7 a. }

The’ “equal privileges and | immunities” clause ofthe

- Fourteenth Amendment protects only: against invasion by |

' the State of privileges and immunities. which accrue to

"persons by reason of Federal ‘Citizenship. The privilege ©

. which petitioners: assert is to use and occupy specific pri- *

"vate property which was subject to and burdened with

"an equitable charge of which petitioners had legally suffi-

| cient notice prior to their ‘actual use and occupancy. a

Since this is not a. privilege accruing to petitioners by:

: virtue of their United States citizenship; the State of Mis-

“souri has. not made or enforced any law abridging a Fed-

aly eee = iM ag NG Os, cals

NX na ae ree

cor N Po aa Tee ee

ak \ ra, . ( ‘

“ik ° »

- Siatee petitioners. did. not. ra

~ below, and at the earliest possible stage of the proceed- ee

2 of ‘Article VI of oe eee

ings, the aeaction involving Cla

- Constitution of the United States, they cannot now

_ a consideration of an alleged Srolation of that Article. — a

involved in this case,’

_ Of treaties to: which this government is a signatory was _

-The ‘violation, ‘by the: agreeme ;

- not alleg ed i n he ial C ‘ourt—nor-is it-four a any ere in

the Printed Record herein filed prior to the Motion for

‘Rehearing filed in the Missouri papceme | Court following -

“derision: and + judarient 7. ea

10 ici witless

V. eae

Only State action is violative of the Fourteenth Amend-

ment, and while State action includes legislative, execu-

tive and judicial acts, it is State action of a particular

character which is prohibited. ‘It must be-the State itsetf

acting before the Federal power proclaimed in the Four-_

- teenth Amendment and Statutes enacted thereunder shalt

be brought to “bear. ;

It has been consistently held by: this Court and all the

nation. And the same re e applies to the contracts of =

vate individuals. Such are considered to be the internal —-

__ affairs of_a State, ‘and are subject, exclusively, to State

determination. ; ;

A Court; ‘adjudicating the seuntinsie rights of litigants,

is not acting in the sense of that State action prohibited

i by the Fourteenth Ae,

: we

Pe The ‘¢ententions of petitioners that restrictive agree- .

-ments result in ‘the dire conditions under’ whch some

negroes live in some urban communities are based upon

meré conclusions of petitioners, and are not founded upon

any finding by the Courts below that there is any relation

of cause and effect between’ agreements like the one "here |

involved and the living conditions claimed ae exist.

now *

C Gre

= } o

In the only two “Cases in which restrictive agreements

_ have been before this Court it was felt that ho substantial

federal questign is involved where a contract of private

citizens has been sought to be enforeed.— iorari was

Tecently denied in a similar case. or: Y

| No court, sitting as a State or Federal Tribunal, has

ever held that an agreement such\as the one in this case

i viekgnive of the Fourteenth Amendment or the Statutes

enacted thereunder_On | the contrary, they have consist-

ently held, in line with previous decisions of this Court,

that the private contracts of individuals: are not affectec ~ -

_ by the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment or. the

Statutes thereunder. : :

° _ =

“42

ARGUMENT/

The ‘purpose. of this Arguments to point’ out that the. /

Record in this case fails to re eal any basis for the -

_ Court assuming jurisdiction of / the controversy by graiit- :

my sins its bidet of. Certiorari as i prayed for’ by Petitioners.

If ‘a: substantial: Federal eae is not’ disclosed in

"the Record .then, even though | designated as such by

Petitioners throughout ‘the’ entire proceeding in sre ‘courts

below, the writ should not i issue... ~ ae, 3

— og

—

Corrigan Vv. Buckley (1926), 271 U. S. 323, 46 S. Ct.

521, 70 L. Ed. 969:

And the soni fact that the Supreme Court of Mis-

| souri has decided_a Federal ‘question in its decision will

. not warrant assumption “of jurisdiction. by this Court, -

if the Federal question decided does not appear to haye

been a substantial one.

Sugerman ’ v..U. S., 249 U. S. 182, 184, 39 S. “Ct.

"191, 63 Ly Ed. 550. eae :

. And, further, ‘a Federal civention of siifficiént. color to

sustain the jurisdiction of this Court may be precluded .

by, reason of previous decision, , .

Leonard v. Vicksburg R.: R. Co., 198 U: S. 416,

"422,25 S. Ct. 750, 49 L. Ed. 1108.

Corrigan v. Buckley, —*

Petitioners partially’ “grousd their Litas tie for is- .

_suance of the writ on- the first three clausés of the

Fourteenth Amendment. and on Sections 1977, 78 of the -

Federal Code (now Sections 41 and 42 of Title 8 United

- States Code). These are the Givil Rights Statates and «

were enacted under the authority’ of the Fifth Section of <

3 the Fourteenth Se ‘ ie

13 »

- Since the statutes can go no tie than the Amend-

ment under the authority of ich they were enacted,’ ‘

it will suffice to examine the Record ‘to determine if any

' Federal right —— and by virtue of the Amendment.

is ‘involved. ‘Corrigan v. Buckley, supra: The statutes

merely enumerate fundamental rights referred to gen-

erally in the amendment.

Strauder Vv. 'W. ‘Va., 100 U. S. 303; 25 L. Ed. ia

: The Argument’ of aibicnihaili oi < concern itself with |

~ the —. clauses of. ces aniendment. iy,

as = - 7 - “ -j.° 3

iP The Record fails to disclose that Petitioners were de- |

-prived of property without due . Process of law. |

It j is nowhere ‘sigan specifically i in Petitioners’ Brief

in what manner or by what means théy were “deprived. _

‘of property’ without due process of law.’””. The Record

clearly discloses that thé ruling» of the Supreme Court of ©

Missouri followed a contested trial in the Circuit Court

of St. Louis which, under the laws of the State of Mis- © e

souri, is a duly constituted court of. original jurisdiction :

for the trial of. equitable actions. The defendants were

_accorded-the same rights in the trial ‘of. the case as are

_ afforded’to all citizens of Missouri of whatever race, color -

or creed. The Supreme Court of ’ Missouri reversed the

decision of the trial court by applying. to the facts of .

the litigated controversy. well-known . and long established

equitable principles deeply grounded in the substantive

_ law of Missouri. These principles apply equally to the

citizens of Missouri. Both Courts had jurisdiction over

“the matter and the parties. Both parties were accorded _

every opportunity to defend their conionptiets of the facts

| oe | oad

and of the applicability of the common law: Thus, all the

"essential principles of due process were present. °

U. &. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 23 L. Ed. 588.

. ‘Leeper v. Texas, 139 U. S. 462.

Brinkerhoff-Faris Co. v, Hill, 281 U. S. 673, 14

L.Ed. 1107, :

Petitioners cannot show where; in the Records there

appears any’ deprivation of their property. | The Supreme _

Court of Missouri found that. Petitioners had legally suffi-

_ eient notice of the equitable charge upon the- land which _ .

a resulted from: a solemn and sealed contract having been

. recorded in compliance with the statutory law of. Mis-

souri.: ‘Thus, ‘ Petitioners sought to acquire by purchase,

‘and to use and cecupy, property which they knew was

subject to the equitable charge. What they acquired was

at best’ a defeasible title subject to be. divested by the-

application of rules . of. equity ‘well-established in the -

common. law. of Missouri. ' By , the attempt»g purchase:

they became parties to the contract as if .they had ‘exe

cuted it. They cannot assert a Federal right to the effect

“they were deprived of their, property without due process:

of law.

Before the due process clause of the Fourteenth pane;

ment can be rey srg to bear, it must be shown by the

ord that the act of the State was the subject of the

. controversy. No such conclusion can be drawn from this |

Record. The subject of the controversy . was the act of |

: private individuals of. whom the Petitioners were. one.

“If it should be held that private cltens: cannot control

their. individual private property. by private contract be- ./

cause it might produce a result which the State could not’ —

affect oy nn or if it — be held that a private:

: - 415

; contract stuoitie not be enforced pate. individuals, A

_ though it has for its purpose the denial to, a negro of a’ "

right which he has as a citizen of the State, then no

. contract could be made whereby. ‘@-negro-could-be-re-—-__

fused service. in a restaurant; no contract could be en:

forced the provisions of which denied a negro participa-

tion at a-dance place; no contract could: be made: ‘whereby

a party to it could refuse, ‘because bound by .a contract, §

to admit:a negrp to a private swimyuing pool. No one

_ denies that a fundamental right ‘of man is to work and

earn a living and to make contracts of employment with

-an employer: But the law does. not. forbid an employer My

. the right to refuse to hire a man even though the. re- |

fusal. to do so is based solely, upon the fact. the employer

has entered into a contract to employ » only“ union men.

No man can ‘be forced to. ‘breach his solemn contract un-

less those -contracts are violative of ponte health, safety,

morals or welfare. tre .

“Ifa contract were made by. the terms’ of which the.

facilities of a business or @pterprise set up under the .

contract were to be limited'to males only, could it. be

said.that a female could demand those services or )facil-

ities? Even though she is a citizen of the United /States

she has no right, protected by law, to the services: or

. facilities in general, and those in control of such facilities

* need assign: no ‘reason for their refusing them to her.

But no one doubts that: such contracts can be made, and

when enforced, they; are not violative of the Fourteenth

- Améndment or of the statutes enacted thereunder. . —

If, as above asserted, the Record fails to disclose the .

‘denial to Petitioners, by the State of Missouri, of the

equal protection of its laws, een, on: diessie ground, the

_ Writ should be denied. , i

“3°

{

°3

a aun

While Petitioners rely heavily on the propusition ‘that “\4

the Fourteenth Amendment was not properly applicable |

‘to the restrictions in Corrigan v. Buckley, supra, since the |

case arose in the District. of Columbia; it must certainly

be admitted: that the decision -correctly declares the law

insofar as it holds that-the-due-process clause of the Fifth

Amendment is not violated.

‘Could it be held that entcecement of restrictions by the

Federal courts-is not a denial of due process under the

- Fifth Amendment, but that enforcement by a State court

__ of similar. restrictions‘is a denial. of due process under the -

Fourteenth Amendment? - Sth je Dae

It has been held by :this Court-that the phrase. “id “due_

process of law’ has. the same meaning in both the Fifth --

and Fourteenth Amendments. aoe

\ Levy v. Lewis, 295 U: S. 768, 55 S. Ct. 652, 79 L. Ea.

1709. , s

- » Thus-it snail he clear that: both’ on the, ‘Record hn

‘presented, and the authority of Corrigan v. Buckley,

supra, the State of ‘Missouri did not deprive Petitioners

of ‘Property without due process of law.

ae: is ot as

_ The thecal fails to disclose that. Petitioners have bete

denied the equal protection of the laws.

‘The “eqital protections” : claiee “of .the Fourteenth’ -

Amendment was designed to prevent a State from mak- |

Ee" ing arbitrary or capricious classifications in the enact-

ment and. enforcement of regulatory legislatior..- Nowhere

has it been asserted that a court of competent jurisdic- -

tion deciding a-case, as a Court: of Equity, in which the

e ‘

er P : 7

' f é e \ %

. \

: : 2 VW ~

contract rights of private individuals was the subject

matter, was violating the “equal protections” clause. In

MePherson Vv. Blacker (Mich. 1892),° 146 U. 8. i, 2%. 13...

S. Ct. 3, 36 L, Ed. 869, it is said:

“The inhibition that no State ‘shail Miacben any

_person. within its jurisdiction of the equal. protection

2 the laws was designed to prevent any person .or

class of persons from .being singled .cut as a ‘special

‘subject: for discriminating and hostile legislation”

(emphasis | ours). ;

The Supreme Court of Missouri § in 1992 stated the fol- ;

lowing in Younger v. Judah, 111 Mo. 303, 19 S. W. 1109: :

“These—clauses (privileges and immunities and.

‘equal, protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amend- .

- ment)-do: not undertake to confer new. rights, nor’

do théy. undertake to regulate individual. rights.

_ They are” simply prohibitory of State legislation, and

“- of State antion” ——— ours). |

' The Recotd: discloses. no deecbinliiakae’ legislation in-. .

volved in this case: Petitioners do not. specifically. allege

-in what particular or by ‘what manner or means. they

were denied the equal protection of the-laws of Missouri.

‘As for the allegations in.Petitioners’ Brief; they assert a

denial to them of constitutional ‘and fundamental rights —

without pointing out what°rights were-denied, w re her

or not they are such. rights ss accrue to them by heir

citizenship of the United States, or how there was denied

ts them the equal protection of. the law.. The Record -

discloses there wasno denial or refusal to protect them

equally under the law or to deny to them the application. :

of equal laws. ” oe

"What the. Record rae disclose is that the Supreme

Court of the State of Missouri decided the legal questions

| Ff

au Bos: § ° : . 18

involved in a contested ‘case, and, in its decision, applied

well-established, equitable principles which are applied

equally in Missouri to all citizens regardless of race, color

or creed. The Record discloses no discrimination against

Petitioners in the application of either substantive or

procedural.law. The principles by which the. Court ar-

rived at its conclusions are applied. equally to all citizens

and, while no such | case has arisen, it should be assumed

- that; were the positions of the parties reversed and the

agreement had been one to which. negroes were a party,

a violation by a white person would have been promptly

enjoined by applying to such _a_case-exactly the same

principles employed’ by the Missouri ‘Supreme Court: in -

Rp ee es

For. several generations, following the reasoning of the

_ decisions in the Slaughter House Cases, the Civil Rights

CaseS, and others, an unbroken.chain of State and Fed-

eral decisions have ‘uniformly held that the equal —

tion clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is directed, os

against individuals nor their contracts or .actions,. nt :

against the State or against individuals who, at the time

they act in violation of the rer siete are acting as

and for the ede cenasres

oo vk

The Record fails to disclose that the State of Missouri

has made or enforced any law which abridges the privi- .

_ -leges or immunities of the Petitioners as citizens of the _

United States. at mg

“There is no intimation. i. Petitioners that any “immu-

_. nity” guaranteed to them has been abridged.. It is “privi- —

lege” which they assert has been abridged. It remains to

e , d . “a 4

& a ci ee a we

search the Record to discover what privilege it is that has

_been abridged and whether or’ not: that privilege is one

provecind by the Fourteenth Amendment. a

Corrigan v. Bickley settled the aiiites, that the right

to own specific property was not a right recognized or

’ protected by the laws of the United States orf any theory

of Constitutional limitations. The case came to the United |

States Supreme Court by appeal from the Court of Ap-

peals of the District of Columbia. In the decision ap-

Yealed from_ the Court had said:

_ “Appellant seems to have misconstrued the =

‘question here involved. .-. . The Constitutional right |

* . Of a Negro to acquire property does -not carry with:

it the Constitutional power to compel sale and con-

veyante to him. of any pesticulor. private property.

The United. States Siocon Court, in affirming , ‘the:

judgment, decided:

vhs and, the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Aimend-

ment ‘have reference to State action exclusively, and

~ not to any action of private individuals.’ Virginia v.

Rives, 100\U. S. 313. ‘It is State action of a particular “

_ character that i is prohibited. ° Individual invasion of ©

’ individual rights is not the subject matter of the

right.’ Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3.”

in ruling on ‘Sections 1977; 78 and 79, Revised Statutes

. of the United States (now Sections 41, 42 and 43 of Title

8 of the v. Ss. Code), the United States Supreme Court

said:. - iT pages §

“s * * while they (the statutes) provide, inter. alia.

_ that all persons and citizens shall have equal right -

_ with white persons te make contracts and acquire

property, they,. like the -Constitutional Amendment |

under whose sanction they were enacted, do not in :

» °°: “pwindfig'v. N. ervey, ait U. S.. 78, 2s ct 14,53

BENG ee L, Ed. 97.,

a Oh - Younger v: Judah (192, Mo), ‘HL Mo, 908, 19 s.W.

ee 08.

ie hee {. \ this Court, si may aba hés held-that while the 2

| Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to provide equal :

a. facilities to both whites. and négroes, the Four-.

- teenth Amendment eee qoality gs not a Sent of

rights.

“A BS. Ct. 91, 72, Ex Ed. 172,

ae Js _ Gong tain.et sl. $ Rich eal (1927), 275 U. ‘5. 6,

: Courts in.cases involving efncationsl. ities to white |

‘and colored students, acd

: we :

People v. Gallagher, 93 N. y. 438, 451. naan ogi

Pees aro Fas v8 School Board; 161.N. ¥. 598,

/SON-E GL:

Saas ven Congress as erased parte acl facies

~. in the: District of Columbia. — 2 fe eas

Wall v. Oyster (App. D: C. 1916), 36 App. D. C. 80, °

een a LEA. (NS. 180. | =

phen

"Pie sonia pricy’ hee teen, Snel ay et

Segregation of ne wast Shien cniaiiaiin:.

tional: institutions has‘been the public policy of Missouri

‘ ag set out in the Missouri Constitution of 1865, Section 2,

_ Article IX; Constitution of 1875, Section 3 of Article XI;

_ Constitution of Missuuri 1945,. Section 1 of Article’ IX;

Section 10349, R. S. Mo. 1939; Section 10632, R. S. Mo.

bs 1939. See also Lehew et al. v. ‘Brummell. et al. (Mo. Sup. |

"Ct. 1890), ‘108 Mo. 546, SS. W. 765.

Pabiticaten oul: fraty “to. the ‘suthortty.’ of the

"many decisions of this ‘and the’courts of their own

State and of other States,. that the privilege of: pwning

and acquirin3: property should carry with it rivilege -.

- to own the speciffe property involved or‘ mentioned in

- the Record of this case: ‘Such a holding. would be ‘con-

‘trary to all of the cases above cited snd would bea

-deviatien from an interpretation of the. Constitutional oe

mae that has ‘stood for. Pores.

“On the authority of ‘Contigan’. v.. Buckley, supra, ‘the ©.

Slaughter House Cases ‘and many others, the Writ should —

_be -denied since no. Federally: ‘protected fight or privi- ee 7

ee ee

: rarest ne Hairs clan cones Gees eG

aig

. : = : ’

‘ \ meee

x “ . ae e a <

OS <t es TV: . ° e - is

7 heb . . AF

“The Record fails re disclose. the tyaliias: Pe any right +

. ae. Petitioners ‘arising from or out =. Ahe Constitution, _

haw or treaties of the United States Sae> "

: " The points. ralesdieg }

-- on for Granting Writ 3 (d)”, and found in Appellant’s Pe-

‘tition for Writ. of Certiorari and Brief in Support Thereof,

ac PP. 18‘and 19, and in their Acquseet pp. 39, 40 and 41,

ré “> z 4 . C 3 ors < woe

cae » £

tioners sind: “Reasons Relied’

MY y

\ee

"166, ground No. §).

fo”

Court yiateor nd was in Petitioners’ “Motion for Rehear-

ing” filed in the Supreme. Court. of. Missouri after that |

Court ie nae dawn. ts cgcakon Crete Recor

Bi ANY ho ol ee a !

2 | Neithe? the point. sia the Constitutional Article. seed é

upon were raised by Petitioners.in their amended “Return

‘to Order to Show Cause”, nor in their “Answer” filed in

: the trial Court (Printed Record, pp: 9-16, incl.). It is not

..Yaised in “Extracts from Petitioners’ Brief” filed in the

Missouri Supreme Court and set out in the Printed Rec-

i ‘ord, Pp. 140-152, Teh

| Petitioner? have no Tight 1 to hav poses considered:

now by this Court. -Rule 12 (1), Revised Rules of the Su- .

preme Court; Godchaux Co. v. Estopinal, 251 U. S. 179, ¢

» 40S. Ct.'116, 64 L. Ed. 213; rhein tears Sie v. Bald-

‘win, 287 U. 8. 156,538.CL98° /

| s ’ : 3 ae

The Fourteenth Amendment, sii Cin Sieanebila ‘tnncin.

“thereunder, a1 are directed against State action and. not— re ae

_sgtinat the sctions"ér agreements of indi@iduals — ao

phat. the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment ‘ i

- were directed onjy against the States was first proclaimed ‘

‘by this Court in the Slaughter House Cases (1873), 16 Wall —

36, 21 L. Ed. 394., The Amendment has never been held to.

apply to the acts of individuals whether such acts involve

eva Sanna oe sett. ig

Bw si xinbirobsdn chitin’ of Iazid-mnar, eames 3a Court hes

- steddfastly retained, the interpretation and construction _

proclaimed in the Slaughter House Cases, supra; and such.

construction of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Stat-

“utes enacted under the authority of the Fifth Section of

the ‘Amendment; has never been assailed by any State.

or Federal Court. Following. the leed of: the aaa

House Cases are:

ae United States v. Chukshane, 92 U. S. 542, 23 L. Ed.

Virginia v. Rives (1880), '100 U, S. 313, 25 L. ea or.

ae U. 8. v. Harris, 106 U. $, 629, 639, 118 S. Ct. 601, 27

OR ee 200):

Civil Rights’ Cases. (1883), 109.U. S. 3, 38, Ct. 18,87 ah

‘L. Ed. 836."

‘McPherson v. Blacker (1892), 146 U. S. 1, 39, 13

S. Ct. 3,36 L. Ed. 869.0 =

Hodges v. a 203 U. Ss. 1, 27S. Ct. .

Bae 6, 51 L. Ed. 65; ;

Delmar Jockey.:Ciub v. Mo. gp, 210 U. Ss. _324,

28 S. Ct. 732, 52 L. Ed. 1080.

‘Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U. S. 60, 38 S. Ct. 16, 62

L.Ed.i40.°

“Corrigan v. Buckley (1926, 211 U. S. 323, 46 S. Ct.

521, een

——*

69 94 :

While Petitioners aSem to agree that it is only the action

a State, or of the State acting as a sovereign power,

is forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment, they

. seek, by argument, to. have this Court construe the judi-

cial determination ~of litigants’ rights to be such State

"action. - It is unnecessary to point out that-the cases cited —

ee by Petitioners in support of that contention do not support :

—Petiiiimere ressening: sn onetiaagaler agg thence 8

to expound the }

act, not only through egislativ

J cag ta tecacaiies ss jutich: sqpannaan tees

her repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment, This. argu- .

ment, that enforcement by a State of a private contract —

Amendment, is most effectively answered by the pro-

_Bouncements.of this. Court in. declsione, which have stood

‘In the-Civil Nein Sek supra,” ehié Céurk sald aid? a

25 “Tt is State’ action ‘of & particular characiér that is

- prohihited. Individual invasion: of individual - Tights

at ie ee .

» And on page 13 of the game opinion: AS

“* * * for the prohibitions of the amendment are

against State laws and acts done: under State au- -

thority.” : 3

That the Aincadikean gh not prevent ‘gelvidedls act-

ing singly or in'a group from doing that which might

-result in discrimination is supported by al] of the deci-..

sions above cited. In Virginia v. Rives, supra, it is said:

“The provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment of

the Constitution we have quoted all -have reference _

~.. to Sfate action exclusively art not to any action of |

oe individuals. ‘9 —— we)

Sis ta sited nals te agen: 0 nel rte :

preme Court of Missouri has:recognized the limitations of _

the Federal power under the. Fourteenth Amendment _ "-

ee ee ee ee

18 S, W. (2d) 30, the Court said: ey :

‘Gall Sociiak aleke Sak tee soeviehnn of tbs ae

_ process clause.in the State Constitution and in the

; Seen + ene ae of thelr: ae

‘The judici [ imniinn wad cocaine te

meaning of. Amendment was clearly expressed by the

California Court‘in the case of Title Guaranty and Trust |

eee ee Garrott, 42 Cal. App. 152, 183 P. 470:

“The Fou Amendment-*-*-*- addressed itself». yeaa

=. 40 the Stated tite anatramentalitien t6 7-7" ay

dts legislative, executive and judicial smiteatla and =

_ Hot to contracts between individuals. It is State ac-

_tion of a particuler character that is prohibited. Indi-

vidual inviifion of individual rights is not the subject-

-matter of-the amendment. The Fourteenth Amend-

ment, it is , applies to the judicial as well as the -

Jegislative department of the State Government. But -

the judiciary does not violate this provision of: the

__ Federal Constitution merely because it sanctions dis-

crieninewons that are the outgrowth. of exntrarts made,

_ by individuals * * * The ‘equal protection’ clause of |

the. Fourteenth Amendment ‘makes but one demand

upon the State, and gives to the State but one right. ae :

-Ityis that the State shall make, execute, and intefpret - ee

- its laws without discrimination. It ‘must not grant :

ee ee”

a ee: Hi

“Ya

; is eon Gen eee ane

«- °. Corriganyy. Buckley, supra, and numefoug other decisions

oF thie, Coles Remponte mbit thet either the Four-

most fundamental of such rights,” and the: right to use

.-@ and. dispose of one’s property is the fundamental right -

ie which would havé to be denied to Respondents :if Peti-

_- ‘tioners’ request is to be granted and the ‘well-reasoned

decisions of this Court and all the State'and Federal

¢ Courts overthrown. cries

——$——$$—

Vi, 3.

—, —=s —rs

‘Se ite eer a SV eo eS o's nS Fe WS

id Whicak hacia shmcaclt Sp veaaia Or ketal :

4 __of this Court cannot be.created by‘ mere assertions, con-

Jectures, or conclusiéns unsupported by the record. ae

Petitioners rely heavily.on what they contend to be thé _

living conditions of Negroes’ in urban centers as a basis.

for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court. While it-may

be conceded that some of the cases cited by Petitioners

support the general statement that ‘segregation of Negroes -

sea by the State is not to be condoned, there is nothing in this °

aN MM

= Petitioners ‘can be based. ee

haa

The Petitiongys call to this. Couit's ebbintinin’ toa:

times. the finding’ made by the Chaneelior in the trial

Court below. Fhat finding is set out in full in the Printed .

- .. Record, page 141, being finding No. 7, and reads as follows: ..

_Petdoners quote that Sing throughout :

and assume what is not in the 7 evidence, and —

‘, Chancellor, namely, that the overcrowded condition men- _

tioned ‘by, the Chancellor is the result of this restriction —

agreement or others like it. That therelation of cause arid

effect exists between these private contracts and'the con--

_ ditions under ‘which some Negroes live in large urban

a eee: mption ‘and assertion of’ Peti-

| unsupported by the record or the

Courts findings.

~~ ‘nuscMline ik om Cnt ila eacege assess age.

134, where Petitioners agree that Fannie Cook also testi:

‘ fied, upon cross examination, that white people in St.

“result in’ crime, juvenile delinquency disease; that

John T. Clarke (Record, ‘page 135), ‘that large".

areas in St. Louis. were populated by’ whites who lived in: ,

overcrowded, ‘congested, -and unsanitary conditions, and

_ that great areas in St. Louis were not restricted by: @

‘agreements or otherwise. To the same effect was the Toe

dence. brought out rs cross examination, of. all oe pot ae

tioners’ witnesses. ve

. aa

peat te = }

’ Petitioners tly heavily, too, on ‘he expression ty ay

_ Missouri Supreme Court. (Record, page 159):; | ;

-:.°, “The Chancellor found the Negro saailadions — eee

"St. Louis has greatly increased in recent: years, and _ oe

now nGnAberS in excess of. One Hundred icici a

‘ * nas : yer ‘ °° Oe - sim

p : ie : : : E ‘ mn 2 .

‘ sien . & ie . . RS:

ee : % F

‘ : te

: "have been proved: ‘The Courts below were unable, from

‘" the entire community. Their correction should strik-

- although much -has been written and ,

on the subject from eoast to coast.” eee.‘

In. Petitioners’ “Application and Brief” [pagt

3 (@) }, Petitioners’ actually e. t the agrd

: for its purpose ‘the- esta Ht of rz

ber of. citizens of Missouri; violates |

tends to injure public welfare. No

‘statement by Petitioners of the own ugpre ons ee

-boine ‘out by a finding OF ¢ of the Courts w

'. the matter, is not Sufficient f, , this Court to consider. Pe-

titioners, in their Brief (pége 20/ paragraph 5), reassert

_ allegations contained in “Réturn and Answer,” But

those allegations were ‘not found by the Courts below to +

“the record, to find that the condition under which some

Negroes live in St. Louis is traceable to, or the result of,

| Om’ page 22 of Petitioners’ ciel, rk. the’ setabd jerk

‘oie thereof, Petitioners insert’ much information with

« ‘which the lower Courts were not concerned in’ the adjudi- -

cation: of the case and which are not part of the record

presented ‘to this Court.. .No one disputes the :fact that in

some’ urban comimynities areas populated by Negroes are -

overcrowded. No one — that ill ams joven de

Be x er ie Bai

ord aereiner ome But |

assert that these conditions exist also in

ba areas populated by whites and that Petitioners did

eth re ita Acpesmeertoeae: seme their own

7 will ‘dilive

all the Negroes’ health, crime and m ‘area problems.

The _ below did not so find and s such‘a conclusion -_

cannot _Teached by. ‘this Court aig oaks! by the

ee their Brief ae in.) ens ones I; page ct

"29 (3); p- 38 and 39; page 42 II; page 53-IV; pp. 54, 55; are

and in of the matters therein set out, Petitioners as-

sume, without foundation in the Record oi\jg the findings -

segregation as their purpose; that they have discrimina- a

tion as fheir purpose, and ; result; that-the State of Mis ee

” <6ur is ‘ segregating Negroes into inhealthful environ-

" ments, and that the State of Missouri is discriminating

against Negroes ‘with the result ilt they are. suffering. ae

health and that crime and ind juvenile. delinquency is‘present ;

among them. Most of Petitioners’ Brief is made up of .

“such argument based upon nothing more solid than their ig (tt.

own assumptions and conjectures avithout actual-founda- # 5

“toe iy thin Record or in the findltigs of the Cotirts Se

Nias saith stale tes ei Nas Cae plage this

Court has denied the existence of a substantial Federal.

question and State courts and Federal courts without

exception have followed this Court’s ruling. os

- Corrigan’ v. Buckley, ; : supra; considered a restriction |

"agreement almost exactly like the one involved in this -

éo

3 ey

th ’ . *t

‘“

“- f eee

? — wes

. — —— 30 — ENT

em Sieeds ted dene imspitian

"presented in a case in ng such a contract

ptivate citizens. No. has held that such. = 2)

| Seaaeeemiecdan Gatecromeee ‘ourteent

~ Amendment and the. Statutes enacted thereunder, | t

_ have consistently. ruled that nie Federal S amen of be

ee. &

ak “CONCLUSION. 36

need ten. ett Senn ire al

po Federal question. of aubetance is presented by’ t

a Record and that the Writ of Certiorari should be ¢

| on the ground that the State: of Missouri has not m

7 not enforced any law violating Petitioners’ rights,

ae “that the sbsence of mich right in this kind of éase-h |

_been affirmatively asserted by this Court in pri dees sions.

Wu eee .

‘Wherefor’, respondents urge that the Writ of 2 iora e |

a ' be denied: . : 7 ae

G. L. Sengens, ie Ben F. Yor, , oe

‘ (Voux 6. SEEGERS) . : -. . 1722 Olive St., St. Louis 3; Mo.,

‘ 1722 Olive St:, St: Louis 3,Mo., — for Respondenteg

Watter H. PoLLMANN, a . ee 4 3

. 706 Chestnut St., St. Louis 1,Mo., «> .— e sia ee 22 ae

oe as si oe hae OR RIES

> 2

s ~ \ . mh ° ’

a * A wd tS A Dade ee peer ate ‘ : ‘ . 4 s ‘S Bie : $ .

A Ve : Pats a c £ : < °

. - ‘ é e ‘ > . ? e , id

wn =! bo . m,) . ° & . . . f * ¢ -

: i. +. -@. ae e tins

. . . .

< ‘ / - : as . ‘ 4 .

z .° ‘ +) 2) ° : iS ‘ . . eee oe as

4 See cee Se ae ae ' " . * HE ak : 5 i :

. a ‘ , it . ; . : aS e ” .

’ » 2 i #) .¢ ”

” bd . . be:

: - ies, She tas 2 ¥ td ° .- Eels ‘

y, . . wr re ae

} + ah / gre ‘ s . e ‘ ¢ ? “

tay Pt. . : . es J : < : of

8 ¥ = . a, ‘ ‘ gr iienyss = f i i Sy

; me <! y “ . -?

; E os a ee : ; . : ; s y m » ‘ n :

A eo . 8 . : ; Meets Fi < .

$ , . “ s , Ne ' ad ; . “3

" . e ane 4 > . 7 .

. 5 ‘ ae sk H : ‘ : . ; . = é

Pde tre ots Om See vs . ; net ° Bett <i. @. ‘ . en ae : :

i x : ane @ = ip is : \ ‘ e fae ; o : ‘: so) =

a . . > . . ad . ee. . £ s

. : e e SAE, Rt Rg Bee : : : i Bore : e j , :

>. é < r e * . ie . * . $ . = .

SpE. . . ‘ * ; ~ ta . >

‘ . Sys . ri ety » w\ *» . :

nites Ba ie ie , ee at @ 9 : : ’ \

é . SeNiey 28 i bie. . s te - ¢ .

3 o y i : 5 at ey ; : : - : x

By L a ieee : y .s

. ° . . . s > * - e 4 = ‘ ad

r 7, Ls sS e. . . : ; oem 4

ate : ;

. ° e . . .. ee ‘ ® . . be x ? 2

oo ? ‘ zm : 2 < | ese) e f h

. aia. ae a4 . x ‘ | . : ° .

Pi rf ts a Sic ‘ . : . x \

< e« ° . 7 .. a i | ‘ ‘ . : \

Ze . . ° . ° i

. rs . « | . ‘ Oem . Cg

by ri . . of - . | eae : ws “< * 2

“ : . . , ts . is’ . *: e Me

7 . e Sea <

’ « be: tie . | « .

* . - e e » ¢ . . | . “e 1 . f ‘

2 Ciiewe = - s

u e P .f . ; . P < . = °. . : . j al see i . 27 8 - .

es z : ‘ 2 ‘ ; . . . . . ’ = ‘

. . 04 rc > :

. ‘ 3 e > 6 ahs . * .

2 - . be . > ee oe. . . :

Pa F, ‘ Pe . 5 « . & . Oo 4 $ ’% - Cee

- rs Se : ee - 4 . ° : - . tar *

+? Noe . » F letaye ac . ‘ oe : ‘en say fe PRUE Norte br S Are te.) 8 .

y 3 3 ; : a . . i 5 . ° : es c Z @ * 4 ee

: > € . . . of Pe: tr, “ : ~S = . +6 : < .

ele Bi _ "8 . z =e

. . any oe . : 4

" ‘oe ee +4 . a . $ . . ae , ¥ . . .

. * . . ss

. . . ® . . . * .

i 7, oe *. e ‘ 2 S é ame Sas * ’ - ‘ . 4

, * . + . - rd . s

. t ae, . *

2 ‘7 ‘ =i i 4 ‘ : . < ed ais A . F

: a ; . Vo Lye Seo

x . . e ‘ ° . « ec x ss - . ‘& ~ ‘

e ‘ é ‘ ¢ < ‘ y . - ‘ as e 2

“ f ne x A x . « a 1M bs

. . . ‘ e

aot “ a8 - o S - : 4 re . z \ - ry

: : : ' . ; 8 nie

®, . ° . > ; ; . » i : ,

“ ‘ 8 : . ’ . % .

. z . ‘ ‘ at . “4 at s . " . 7

; 7 4 a * \

Nest ik ' P by ‘ Pte | : 3 6 aes <>: ° \ Rees A s

} ‘ . ‘ . — ° oe 7 ‘ : . » 5

: s 8 eet . , = is ee . . ; EA RS :

o< . a . : ° . x \ ‘ . Mi 5 4 - :

9 “e Ptae Bp 5, x - SES : F < y .

% oy - Y ne . ‘ ‘

5 & 4 th, * ; a i % . . od .

: a6 \ r aN j Pi ; ie ;

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.