Federal Court Ends Segregation in Local Bus

    PRESS RELEASE @ bd 

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 

ROBERT L. CARTER pslerllen els Aion! Coon 
ALLAN KNIGHT CHALMERS ARNOLD DE MILLE 
Treasurer Press Relations 

FEDERAL COURT ENDS SEGREGATION 
IN LOCAL BUS July 15, 1955 

RICHMOND, VA., July 1).--Southern statutes providing for the 

separation of races on city buses, trolley cars and other means of 

transportation suffered a severe setback today. 

In an unprecedented and unanimous decision the U. 3. Court of 

Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that the age-old "separate but 

equal" doctrine has been laid to rest by recent Supreme Court decisions 

and "can no longer be regarded as a correct statement of the law" in 

the field of interstate commerce. It declared that the recent Supreme 

Court decision should apply to segregation on city buses within the 

state. 

It was handed cown in a suit brought by NAACP Legal Defense and 

Educational Fund on behalf of a Negro woman, Mrs. Sarah Mae Flemming, 

of Columbia, S. C, and against the South Carolina Gas and Electric Co. 

Mrs. Flemming brought suit against the Sompany to recover damages 

resulting from being ejected from the bus end a blow she received in 

the abdomen struck by the driver, Mrs. Flemming took a seat in the 
the driver 

white section of the bus and was ordered by into the rear of the bus 

in loud, abusive and threatening language and tone, She became 

frightened and feared further humiliation and bodily harm and at the 

next corner she attempted to follow a white passenger out of the 

front door. The driver ordered her to leave by the rear door and 

struck her in the stomach to further force her to obey his order, 

The case was originally dismissed by U. S. District Judge George 

Bell Timmerman on the ground that the separate but equal doctrine of 

Plessy v. Ferguson was still in control as to interstate comerce and 

that the decision of the U. S. Supreme Court in the school segregation 

cases did not apply in the area of transportation. 

Attorney for the bus company argued that federal jurisdiction was 

not applicable because the South Carolina statute made the bus driver 

an officer of the state. When he was enforcing the segregation 



regulation on the bus he was not acting for the company but as an 

EY 

officer of the state. 

South Carolina statutes provides for the segregation of the races 

on motor vehicles in both city and intrastate carriers and empowers 

bus drivers or operators with special police authority to arrest per- 

sons who violate the bus segregation laws. 

Attorney Robert L. Carter who argued the appeal on behalf of 

Mrs, Flemming declared that there could be no question as to the juris- 

diction of the federal court. He contended that the bus driver in 

enforcing the state segregation stetute was acting as both bus driver 

and officer of the state. Mr. Carter contended also that the bus 

company was charged by the South Carolina statute with the duty to 

enforce the law. He argued further that the recent Supreme Court 

decisions had swept away all support for the separate but equal doctrine 

even as applied to intrastate commerce. 

In handing down the decision today, the Fourth Circuit Court of 
Appeals struck down the South Cerolina state segregation statute, 
reversing the district court's decision and remanded it back to the 
lower court. 

The decision in this case is highly significant in thet it means 
that segregation in local streetcars, buses and other means of trens- 
portation can no longer be enforced. The Fourth Circuit Court of 
Appeals has jurisdiction over the states of South Carolina, North 
Cerolina, West Virginia and Maryland. Unless the U. S. Supreme Court 
reverses this decision in these states, the circuit court ruling of 
today can be applied, 

=30= 

Icc ASKED TO END SEGREGATION 
IN INTERSTATE TRAVEL July 15, 1955 

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 1).--The segregation of Negro passengers 

traveling through states which have enforced bias laws is an "unwar- 

ranted misuse" of the Interstate Commerce Act, Robert L. Carter, First 

Assistant Counsel of the NAACP's Legal Defense and Hducational Fund, 

told eleven members of the Commission here today. 

Congress has empowered the Commission with the authority to 

overrule any railroad's regulation which calis for the separation of 

passengers because of race or color, Mr. Carter said. He called upon 

the Interstate Commerce Commission to use this power and put an end to 

the railroad! long practice of racial segregation in interstate travel, 

In what is regarded as a direct attack on segregation in railroad 

coaches, waiting-room fecilities and eating places in railroad termin- 

als, Attorney Carter appeared before the Interstate Commerce Commission 

in behalf of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored 



# @ 
-3- 

People and 21 individuals who brought discrimination charges against 

eleven railroads, the Richmond (Va.) Terminal Railway Co., and the 

Union News Co., operator of the eating facilities at the Broad Street 

Station in the Richmond Terminal, 

Following the filing of the charges with the Commission, an ICC 

Examiner, Howard Hosmer, in a proposed report claimed that the rail- 

roads! segregation practice "subjected Negro passengers to unreasonable 

disadvantages in violation of Section 3(1) of the Interstate Commerce 

Commission Act." His report asked for the end of segregation in 

interstate travel, 

In the matter of restaurant facilities, however, Examiner Hosmer 

held that the Interstate Commerce Commission does not have jurisdic- 

tion and cannot order an end to discriminetory policy in respect to 

the use of these facilities. 

The proposed report brought sharp exceptions from the eleven 

railroads and the Richmond Railway Terminal. Each asked for time to 

argue before the Interstate Commerce Commission, but only attorneys 

for the Richmond Terminal Company, Illinois-Central and the Texas and 

Pacific Railroads appeared today. 

NAACP Legal Defense attorneys took exception to that phase of the 

Examiner's report which held that the Interstate Commerce Commission 

did not have jurisdiction over the eating facilities at the Broad 

treet Station, and that the Commission did not have the power to 

order the Union News Co. to cease its Jim Crow practices. 

In this connection, Mr. Carter argued that the eating facilities 

at the Station do come under the Interstate Commerce Commission's 

jurisdiction since it is a part of the property owned and operated by 

the Richmond Railway Company for the convenience of passengers. The 

Terminal Company must abide by the ICC's regulation ond so should the 

Union News Co., attorney Carter said. 

Attorney for the Richmond Terminal Company, Charles C, Reynolds, 

contended that the lease granted the Union News Company "keeps the 

Terminal Company from being liable." 

Attorney Reynolds defended the Terminal's maintenance of signs 

designating "white" and "colored" waiting and restrooms. He said there 

is no required segregation. Attendants have been “instructed not to 

interfere" with Negroes using either, he asserted, 



* @ 
he 

In answer to the Commission's question as to the purpose of the 

"colored" and "white" signs, Attorney Reynolds said they were to give 

the Negro people a chance to associate with each other. 

"We believe that colored persons desire to associate with persons 

of their own race and white persons desire to associate with persons of 

the white race," he replied. 

In reply to this remark, Mr, Carter said thet the theory that 

Negroes wanted to be segregated has no basis. As to this contention, 

it is immaterial because even if the railroads were correct the right 

to equal treatment is a personal right to each individual which cannot 

be limited in any way by what Negroes do or want to do. 

Attorneys for the Illinois-Central and the Texas and Pacific 

Railroads asked the Commission to dismiss the charges against them 

because of the lack of substantial evidence. 

This case is considered one of the most far-reaching and signifi- 

cant attacks on segregation since the school segregation cases. The 

Commission may hand down its decision early this fall. 

SARAH KEYS 

Heard also today was the complaint of Miss Sarah Keys, a former 

member of the Women's Army Corps who was abused and arrested in Roanoke 

Rapids, N. C,, in 1952 for refusing to move from a bus seat when ordered 

by a driver. 

She was traveling in uniform and was en route from Fort Dix, N.J., 

where she was stationed, to her home in Washington, N.C, A joint line 

ticket was issued to her for transportation over three bus lines, Safe- 

way Trails, Virginia-Trailways and the Carolina Coach Co. She had no 

difficulty until she reached Roanoke Rapids, a station stopping point, 

at 12:20 a.m. on August 2, 1952, where there was a change of bus driver. 

Upon noticing that she was sitting in the third seat from the 

front, the driver ordered her to move to the back and sit in a seat 

occupied by a white Marine, She insisted that the seat was quite 

comfortable and maintained that she had a right to retain her seat. 

The driver then consulted with the dispatcher regarding the sit- 

vation, He returned and told all of the other: passengers to leave the 

bus and board another. He told Miss Keys: "Just keep your seat." 

When she tried to board the second bus, the driver blocked the 

door and refused to let her on. Pleas to local authorities for aid 

resulted in her arrest and a fine for disorderly conduct. 



@ @ 
age 

Following payment of the fine, a civil action was filed against 

the Cerolina Coach Company in the U, S. District Court for the District 

of Columbia. The action was thrown out on the theory that the bus 

company was not doing business in the District of Columbia. On 

September 1, 1953, the complaint against the bus company was filed with 

the Interstate Commerce Commission. 

A hearing was held on May 12, 1954, before ICC Examiner Isadore 

Freidson. On September 30, he dismissed the complaint with the ruling 

that the Carolina Coach Co, did not subject Miss Keys to "any unjust 

discrimination or undue and unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage" 

and did not violate the Interstate Commerce Act. 

At the hearing this morning, NAACP Legal Defense attorney Frank 

D, Reeves said that this is a “very clear case of discrimination." 

The basic and fundamental issue is whether the company's regula- 

tion which segregates passengers because of race is a violation of the 

Interstate Commerce Act, Mr, Reeves indicated. The "separate but 

equal” doctrine has nothing to do with the issue whatsoever, he said. 

"That doctrine has now been laid to rest by the United States Supreme 

Court." 

He asked the Commission to reconsider Examiner Freidson's dis- 

missal of the complaint and give a new opinion in light of the recent 

Supreme Court decisions. 

The arguments ended at 12:43. The Commission did not indicate 

when it might render its ruling. 

The complaint against the railroads was filed on December 1), 1953, 

by NAACP Legal Defense attorneys in behalf of the N.A.A.C.P. and 21 

individuals, The attorneys were Thurgood Marshall, Director-Counsel, 

and Mr. Carter, Attorneys for Miss Keys were Frank D. Reeves, Dovey J. 

Roundtree and Julius W. Robertson of Washington, D. C. 

=30-