Resolution of "Sit In" Issue to be Sought Through 'Rights Act'

    10 Columbus Circle 
New York, N.Y. 10019 
JUdson 6-8397 

NAACP 

Legal Defense and Educational Fund 
PRESS RELEASE 
President 

Dr. Allan Knight Chalmers 
Director-Counsel For Release 

Jack Greenberg Monday 
Associate Counsel October 12, 1964 

Constance Baker Motley 

RESOLUTION OF “SIT IN" ISSUE TO 
BE SOUGHT THROUGH 'RIGHTS ACT' 

NAACP Legal Defense Fund Seeks Ruling On Three Year Problem 

WASHINGION---The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments today 
calling for enforcement of the Civil Rights Act by overturning two 

1960 "sit-in" convictions. 

The high court has not, as yet, rendered a decisive ruling on 
the issue of “sit-in" demonstrations when used as a tactic to 
encourage racial integration. 

Jack Greenberg, director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense 
Fund will argue the case of Arthur Hamm of Rock Hill, S.C. 

Constance Baker Motley, associate counsel of the Legal Defense 
Fund will argue the case of Frank James Lupper of Little Rock, Ark. 

The Legal Defense Fund attorneys will also argue that the 
U.S. Constitution, even without the Civil Rights Act, prohibits 
individual states from convicting peaceful "sit~in" demonstrators 
when they seek service at places of public accommodation which 
bar Negroes. 

This argument has been made by the Legal Defense Fund in 
previous “sit-in" cases before the high court. In June of this 
year, three justices took each side of the issue and three others 

expressed no view. 

Fund attorneys maintain that the Negro petitioners in these 
two cases, have been subjectedeto official state action which sought 
to enforce segregation. 

This, they say, is contrary to the equal protection clause of 

the 14th Amendment. _— 

The main thrust of these cases turns on Title II of the Civil 
Rights Act; the public accommodations section. 

Section 201 of Title II states that "all persons shall be = 
entitled to full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, 
facilities, privileges} advantages, «nd accommodations of any place 
of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without 
discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, 
religion, or Reet ee Another provision prohibits 
punishing any je) for exercising zcights protected by the law. 

ThegEund's brief said, "the 'offense' with which the Negro ee 
petitioners are charged is now removed, by the paramount federal ae 

authority, from the category of punishable crimes. 

"The Civil Rights Act, besides being paramount national law, 
is part of the law of every state. . . ." the brief said. 

(more) 

Jesse DeVore, Jr., Director of Public ion—Night Number 212 Riverside 9-8487 Ss 



Resolution Of ‘Sit In* Issue To-2- October 12, 1964 
Be Sought Through ‘Rights Act’ 

In addition, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund asserts that the 
laws of South Carolina and Arkansas, which the Negro demonstrators 
are alleged to have violated, do not forbid such demonstrations. 

Mr. Greenberg was assisted by a battery of 17 attorneys from 
six states in preparation of the Fund's brief. 

Both cases, that of Mr. Hamm and the late Rev. C.A. Ivory of 
Rock Hill and that of Mr. Lupper and Thomas Robinson of Little Rock, 
were pending when the Civil Rights Act was signed on July 2nd. 

Rev. Ivory, a widely respected community leader and an 
invalid, was seated in his wheel chair when denied service at the 
lunch counter of his local McCrory's variety store. 

Specifying their position in the state action portion of their 
argument, the Legal Defense Fund attorneys. point. out that South 
Carolina and Arkansas, “as a matter of well known history, have 
lent state power to support the custom of segregation," 

“Both states," for example, they say, “still retain on their 
statute-books extensive Jim Crow codes." 

Thus, the lawyers emphasize, Negroes are being denied equal 
protection of law. 

The attorneys also stressed the vagueness of the South 
Carolina and Arkansas laws and proceedings under which the peti- 
tioners were convicted. 

They cited the case of Rev. Ivory and Mr. Hamm, in which they 
argue that the demonstrators were denied due process of law by: 

* the inappropriateness of the language of statutes used to 
convict in light of evidence presented, 

* the refusal of the prosecutor to specify the law under which 
they (Rev. Ivory and Mr. Hamm) were charged, 

* the refusal of the trial judge to specify the law under which 
they were charged, 

* the consequent vagueness of the law set forth in the instructions 
to the jury, 

* the difference between the law charged the jury and the law used 
as the basis for the appellate court's sustaining of the lower 
court's conviction. 

Joining Mr. Greenberg and Mrs. Motley in preparation of the 
cases were James M. Nabrit, III, of the Fund's New York City head- 
quarters; Charles L. Black, Jr. of New Haven, Conn.; Matthew J. 
Perry and Lincoln C. Jenkins, of Columbia, S.C.; Donald James 
Sampson and Willie T. Smith, Jr., of Greenville, S.C.; Harold B. 
Andersonysof DADS mi) Tere and Wiley A, Branton, of Pine 
Blutt; Ack. = 7 Nr DR FE 8 PG LES 

Additional counselswere Anthony G. Amsterdam and William T. 
Coleman, Jr., of Philadelphia, Pa.; and Marvin E. Frankel, Michael 
Meltsner, Frank Heffron, Leroy D, Clark and George B. Smith, of ¥ 
New York City. ‘ i ; 

= 90: =