◆ SpookStack

iin = 4 ‘tng the arguments. Then It} ments to show that th | became apparent thet the} line did own the terminal and t Sack of one fact in the record could be connected with te } In the argument yesterday, | et the trial mey force the| Testaurent. '} Court to decide # constitu- tional question it might other- ‘wise have avoided. 2, | The case involves a trip to ‘his home in Selma, , that a How Law School student, [2 Typ Brace oynton, started just pf When he got to Richmond, “Boynton climbed off the Trail. ? terminal to eat. t . When the bus left, he was fot aboard because he had in- gisted that “a had a legal right to eat the restau- rent inside ae terminal, which was reserved for whites. refused to go to a similar ccs for Negroes and ! wab convicted of trepassing| i fined $10, Jished that the restaurant op. erated under a lease from the Trailways Bus Terminal, Inc. { But nothing was introduced te evidence to show who reed the. tertainal corpora- iL tion, ' Aw the case made its way ito the Supreme Court, Boyn- _ton's lawyers argued that the ‘gtate-had illegally helped the Christmas in 195g._ bus company Ls Jt tis trial, it was = contended. Walter E. Rogers of Richmond, special counsel for Virgigia, admitted that if the bus cam- pany operated the restauramt it could not refuse % serve Negroes. He argue a e had no controt over the: restaurant and tife restaurant, as a pri ways bus and went into the we pass: can nit i iicooo Even if the bus company did own the terminal, a fact Rogers argued the Court can- not conisder since it was not before the lewer courts, the restaurant still has a right to discriminate ufiless it is total- fie controlled by the termins!, Thurgood Marshall, chief counsel for the National Agso- elation for the Advancement of Colored People, arguing Boynton's case, contended that any restaurant set up for th pipose of serving food + sengers in interstate co ree cannot discriminate. he bus terminal is as mu in imt «. interstate commerce a8 is et — - ‘restaurant discriminate the bus, Marshal) argued. He | against him when the arrest relied on an old Supreme ; was made and that the refusal |lCourt decision that held un- ‘of the restaurant to serve him was an unconstitutional bur- den on interstate commerce. They abandoned « claim they made in the trial eourt at the Interstate Commerce! Act also outlawed the restau- rant’s refusal to serve him. that although the Act orders! . ‘bus lines not to discriminate, . there was nothing in the trial! . record te show that the bus a col uran ee aE 2 00794 100N in { j ~~ | serious! th ' "The reason !t was dropped was! pipiens ering the Jus @ , r constitutional a Virginia law requiring segregated seating on interstate buses. Tt became ciear as the argu- ment progressed that the absence of any record of who owned the bus terminal was a ‘ awe _@ - ~ J Tolson Mo “a Belfiont a¢ cyiatan ZZ Malone McG Guine SIE Rosen i aa Tamm Trotter W.C. Sullivan — Tele. Room ___ Ingram Gand t Ex 12 NOT RECORDED 149 OCI 10 10c¢~- ee Fi a The Washington Poat ana! Times Herald The Washington Daily News The Evening Star New York Herald Tribune New York Journal~Americaon —_ New York Mirror New York Daily News New York Post The New York Times —____. - The Worker The New Leader —_.___+_ The Wall Street Joumal —_—— Date — _ —— gcti 5 1960