New Orleans, LA., Nov. 30

    PRESS RELEASE® 

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 
107 WEST 43 STREET « NEW YORK 36, N. Y. ¢ JUdson 6-8397 
ARTHUR B, SPINGARN oa 
President 

ROY WILKINS 
Secretary 

ALLAN KNIGHT CHALMERS 
Treasurer 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 

THURGOOD MARSHALL 
Director and Counsel 

ROBERT L. CARTER 
Assistant Counsel 

ARNOLD de MILLE 
Press Relations 

December 7, 1956 

NEW ORLEANS, LA., Nov. 30,--A United States Court of Appeals last 

week ruled that the federal Public Housing Administration cannot duck 

its responsibility as a government agency bound by statutory obliga- 

tions or be excluded as a party subscribing to segregation policies 

which bar Negroes from local public housing projects. 

The ruling was rendered by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the 

Fifth Circuit on November 30, in a case brought by 18 Negro families 

in Savannah, Ga. who sought admittance to an all-white public housing 

project erected on the site of the "Old Fort," which was formerly an 

old Negro residential area. The Negro families had been displaced from 

the "Old Fort" to make way for the project. Families displaced to make 

way for such a project have a federal statutory preference for admis- 

sion to federally-aided public housing anywhere in the city. However, 

Negroes were refused admission to Fred Wessels Homes, the public hous 

ing project erected on the site of the "Old Fort," solely because of 

their race, 

While the Public Housing Administration has not been directly 

charged by Congress with the duty of preventing discrimination in hous- 

ing project units, the Court said, the dity nevertheless stems from 

the requirements of the Fifth Amendment to the federal Constitution 

which prohibits the federal government 

ting. 

and its agencies from segrega- 

The case was originally filed with the U. S. District Court for 

Southern Georgia on May 20, 1954 by attorneys for the NAACP Legal 

Defense and Educational Fund on behalf of the 18 Negro families. Named 

in the suit were the PHA, the Atlanta Field Office Director, the 

Savannah Housing Authority and its officers. The suit was dismissed 

on October 21, 1955 on motion of the PHA and its Atlanta director on 

the ground, among others, that the court lacked jurisdiction and the 



224 

PHA had fulfilled its statutory obligation by placing in its contract 

with the Savannah Housing Authority a provision regarding the statu- 

tory preferences and on the ground that the PHA had nothing to do with 

the segregation policy. 

The court held that if the facts alleged in the complaint are 

proved, they "show a failure on the part of the PHA to comply with the 

' and this would constitute a above statutory tenant selection policy,' 

violation of plaintiffs' rights to due process under the Fifth Amendment. 

"The view thus expressed is in accord with the Supreme Court deci- 

sion in Bolling v. Sharpe [the Washington, D. C. School Segregation 

Case]," the court said. "In view of our decision that the Constitution 

prohibits the states from maintaining racially segregated public 

schools, it would be unthinkable that the same Constitution would impose 

a lesser duty on the federal government." 

The Court also pointed out that although the segregation policy 

was initiated by the Savannah Housing Authority it was approved by the 

federal agency. 

In addition, the lower court's dismissal of the action against the 

Savannah Housing Authority and its officers was reversed by the Court 

of Appeals and the entire case sent back to the lower court for trial 

on the merits. 

NAACP Legal Defense attorneys for the Negroes were Thurgood 

Marshall, director-counsel of Ie gal Defense and Constance Baker Motley, 

both of New York, and Frank Reeves of Washington, D. C. and A. T. 

Walden of Atlanta, Gea gia. 

= 30 = 

N. C. SUPERIOR COURT 
OPENS GOLF COURSE TO NEGROES Dec. 7, 1956 

CHARLOTTE, N.C., Dec. .--The City of Charlotte today lost a five 

year court battle in its efforts to prevent Negro citizens from using 

the city's only golf course when a Superior Court judge granted an 

injunction permanently enjoining the Charlotte Park and Recreation 

Commission from excluding Negroes from the Bonnie Brae links. 

The injunction was sought on behalf of 16 Negroes who were refused 

use of the golf course in December 1951. It was issued in the more 

recent of two suits in which the validity of the Commission's acts was 

involved, 



=3< 

The first suit was brought by the Commission, itself, immediately 

after the Negroes protested to it. Sought in that suit was a declara- 

tory judgment as to the validity of certain provisions in the deeds 

conveying the property on which the golf course is located on the con- 

dition that the land would revert if non-whites used the recreational 

facilities. And named as defendants, along with the land grantors, 

were the original Negro complainants. 

Several days later the Negroes themselves filed a suit, seeking an 

injunction restraining the Commission from denying them use of the park 

on the ground that such exclusion was a denial of their constitutional 

rights, This suit, however, was continued pending final disposition 

of the earlier attion and, therefore, did not come to trial until 

today. 

In granting the injunction today, Superior Court Judge Susie Sharp 

was not persuaded by the fact that the city possibly stands to lose 

one-third of the property which comprises Revolution Park because of 

the decisions in the earlier case and sustained the validity of the 

reverter provision. Judge Sharp, however, delayed the effective date 

of the injunction for 90 days to allow the city tim to acquire or 

regain possession of the property affected by the reverter clauses. 

Appearing on behalf of the Negroes throughout the litigation were 

Spottswood W. Robinson, III of Richmond, Va., Southeast Regional Coun- 

sel of the Legal Defense Fund and T, H. Wyche of Charlotte. 

a0 =.