Jackson v. State

³¹² Ubneb, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. It is not necessary to decide whether the * ordinance before us, providing for the segregation -of races in the City of Baltimore, obviates the specific objections on account of which a prior ordinance, having the same object in view, was held -invalid by this Court in the case of State v. Gurry, 121 Md. 534 . Since the decision of that case the Supreme Court of the United States, in Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U. S. 60 , has declared regulations of this character to be in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment "to the Federal Constitution. This conclusion was announced with particular reference to an ordinance of the City of Louisville, but the principle of the decision applies with equal force to the ordinance here under consideration.

The two enactments are essentially alike in theory and purpose. Both were designed to promote the segregation of the white and colored races by restrictions and prohibitions imposed upon the exercise, under certain conditions, of the ordinary rights of citizens in the purchase and occupancy of property. The Louisville ordinance provided, in effect, that no. member of either race should occupy as a residence any-house in a city block in which the majority' of the houses were inhabited by members of the other race, while the Baltimore ordinance forbids the occupancy by a member of one of the races of a house in a block in which members of the other race were the only residents. In each instance an exception was made in favor of property rights already vested.

In the case involving the Louisville ordinance, the Supreme Court, in its opinion as delivered by Me. Justice Day, said: “The concrete question here is: May the occupancy, and, necessarily, the purchase and sale of property of which occupancy is an incident, be inhibited by the States, or by one of its municipalities, solely because of the color of the proposed occupant of the premises? That one may ³¹³ dispose of his property, subject only to the control of lawful enactments curtailing that right in the public interest, must be conceded. The question now presented makes it pertinent to inquire into the constitutional right of the white man to sell his property to a colored man, having in view the legal status of the purchaser and occupant.” After referring to cases in which the effect of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments was discussed, the opinion proceeded: “In giving legislative aid to these constitutional provisions, Congress enacted in 1866, Ch. 31, Sec. 1, 14 Stat. 27 (Rev. Stats.

Sec. 1978), that: All citizens of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real and personal property.’ “And in 3870, by Ch. 114, Sec. 16, 16 Stat. 344 (Rev. Stats. Sec. 1977), that: All persons within the jurisdiction •of the United States shall have the same right in every State .and Territory 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 persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses and exactions of every kind, and no other.’ “In the face of these constitutional and statutory provisions, can a white man be denied, consistently with due process of law, the right to dispose of his property to a purchaser by prohibiting the occupation of it for the sole reason that (he purchaser is a person of color intending to occupy the premises as a place of residence? “The statute of 1866, originally passed under sanction of the Thirteenth Amendment, 14 Stat. 27 , and practically re-enacted after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, 16 Stat. 14 -4, expressly provided that all citizens of the United States in any State shall have the same right to pur ³¹⁴ chase property as is enjoyed by white citizens. Colored persons are citizens of the United States and have the right to purchase property and enjoy and use the same without laws discriminating against them solely on account of color. Hall v. DeCuir, 95 U. S. 485, 508 .

These enactments did not deal with the social rights of men, but with those fundamental rights in property which it was intended to secure upon the same terms to citizens of every race and color. Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3, 22 . The Fourteenth Amendment and these statutes enacted in furtherance of its purpose operate to qualify and entitle a colored man to- acquire property without State legislation discriminating against him solely because of color.” Reference is made in the opinion to cases in which laws were sustained which “separated the races on the basis of equal