# Respondents Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ — Interstate Commerce Commission v. Mechling (No. 72) > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386406_0020%3A04 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Respondents Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ - **Published:** January 1, 1947 ## Text a 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 r { Va - my ‘ = bd . ~ . ‘ e ° : ‘ 8 ; i ‘ : ¢ . . ! ; ® . ‘ “g . é : . : ‘ é . ‘ . - . , ; ; ; - ad e . ‘ ’ 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 A VA y, : ts Se & ° SS \ oi . \ \. \ : ' 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 - ee 6 (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. 4 4 5 “ . id or Be ‘ . oF +S eng ae ‘ f° ; a ‘e > 4 + . i rey ; 5% . ‘ aS } : | : : . 4X a \\ ' - " : " 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 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 ee ——* . ? 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 — is “State action,” within the meaning of the Fourteenth © 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 Bisse roo —rervegghon 1S Wei, ae SANDS upoh 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 — a Ela © te fod te tis Medes Goo : ‘, 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. "Louis live in overcrowded aiid congested conditioris which © “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 ° \ 78 * * ©. and that its enforcement is injurious : "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, rh | 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 - of the Court below, that restriction agreemen ve racial © segregation as their purpose; that they have discrimina- a tion as fheir purpose, and ; result; that-the State of Mis ee ” .— 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 £ : . ? e , id wn =! bo . m,) . ° & . . . f * ¢ - : i. +. -@. ae e tins . . . . . 7 . . 5 ‘ ae sk H : ‘ : . ; . = é Pde tre ots Om See vs . ; net ° Bett . . ad . ee. . £ s . : e e SAE, Rt Rg Bee : : : i Bore : e j , : >. é ‘ . 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 : . ‘ 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 : . sf t a a wy? ° . . ; 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 ‘ : . ; ; . » 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 ; --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386406_0020%3A04. Public record. Not legal advice.