Appeal Two Cases Challenging Maryland Segregation Policy

    “press revease & + 

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 
107 WEST 43 STREET * NEW YORK 36, N. Y. © JUdson 6-8397 

ARTHUR B. SPINGARN THURGOOD MARSHALL 
President Director and Counsel 

WALTER WHITE ROBERT L. CARTER 
Secretary Assistant Counsel 

ALLAN KNIGHT CHALMERS ARNOLD DE MILLE 
Troosvrer Press Relations 

APPEAL TWO CASES CHALLENGING 
MARYLAND SEGREGATION POLICY December 20, 195) 

RICHMOND, VA.--Two cases questioning the validity of Maryland's 

Segregation policy were filed here last week with the U. S$. Court of 

Appeals by NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund lawyers on behalf 

of Negroes who had been denied the use of recreational facilities in 

Baltinore, 

The cases are the results of lower courts! decisions which upheld 

a Jim Crow policy in the segregation of Negroes at two public beaches 

and sought injunctions restraining the operators from sepregating users 

of the beaches because of race, 

One is the Dawson case, brought against the City of Baltimore and 

the corporation operating the city-owned public beach at Fort Smallwood 

Park, in 1950, Robert ivawson and other Megroes were denied the use of 

the beach and facilities solely because of their race. Wo such facil- 

ities were available to groes in Baltimore. On March 2, 1951, the 

courtardered the opera of the beach to cease its discriiination 

against Negroes, but certain days were set aside by the operators for 

the beach to be used vy each racial group. 

However, in 1952, the construction of a segregated beach for 

Negroes was authorized, The Negroes petitioned the court to order Fort 

Smallwood Park be open to all persons without rerard to race or color. 

While the defendants, which inoluded the Mayor and City Director of 

the Department of Recreation and Parks, the Board of Recreation and 

Parks, and the corporation which operated the facilities, acknowledged 

the demand, the beach was completed and has been operatec as a Jim 

Crow set up since, 

Negroes have been refused admittance to the other beach since the 

completion of the one set aside for the exclusive use of Negroes, The 

operator claimed that segregation was consistent with the fourteenth 

Amendment which called for the equality of physical facilities. 



On May 27, 1954, 10 days after the U. S, 

eo 

the School Segregation Cases, a motion for judgment was filed based on 

the fact that segresation is a violation of the Federal Constitution, 

On July 27 the court denied the motion on the ground that the May 17th 

decision did not outlaw segregation in recreational facilities, and on 

August 25, entered final judgment and dismissed the complaint with 

costs. 

The other suit is the Lonesome case which sought an injunction 

against the State Commissioners od Forests and Parks and the Superinten- 

dent of Sandy Point State Park and Beach on the ground that the mainten- 

ance of segregated beaches and bathing facilities constitute a violation 

of the Federal Constitution. 

All facilities in the Sandy Point State Park and Beach, a public 

recreation center owned and operated by the state, are open to all per- 

sons on &@ non-discriminatory basis except the 2each and bathing facili- 

ties. The state operates the South Beach for the exclusive use of white 

persons and the East Beach or Negroes, 

On July |, 1952, Milton Lonesome anc several Negroes sought admis- 

sion to the South Beach but were personally escorted to the Hast Beach 

by employees of the beach, They refused to use the Jim Crow beach on 

the ground that the facilities did rot anc would not "afford complete 

and wholesome recreation." 

On August 8 Lonesome filed his complaint. Park officials answered 

on September 30 claining that the facilities in the segregated beach 

were equal to those at the all white beach, But, on June 2, 1953, the 

court issued a preliminary injunction that the facilities were not 

equal. However, the court smissed the complaint on July 9, claiming 

that the facilities at East Beach were equal to those at South Beach 

due to certain improvements made at the Negro beach, 

In their brief consolicating both cases and filed with the U. S. 

TAACP Legal Defense attorneys argue that state im- Court of Appeals, 

posed restrictions on publicly owned and operated recreational facili- 

ties is forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment, Further, they say, ther 

are no state or city ordinances requiring or specifically authorizing 

the practice of racial segregation anywhere in the state of Maryland. 

The practice and policy of racial serregation are self-delerated, Legal 

Nefense attorneys assert, and do not conflict with any local lav, 



~* ul & @ 
Therefore, the sole issue involved in both cases is whether the auth 

ities have the right to bar Negro bathers from any state or city 

and operated public recreational facilities. 

The lower courts! decisions should be reversed, the lawyers 

their appeal, because their opinions were based on the fal doctrine 

of "separate but equal" which has been denounced by the U. S. Supreme 

Court as outdated and cannot be used as a yardstick for general appli- 

cation, 

The cases will be argued jointly on January 11 in Charlotte, 

North Carolina, 

NAACP Legal Defense attorneys for Dawson and Lonesome are Linwood 

Coger, Jr, and Tucker R. Dearinr, both of Baltimore, and Thurgood 

Marshall, director-counsel, Robert L, Carter and Jack Greenberg of 

Legal Defense staff in New Yor