Gegner Barber Shop Discrimination Controversy in Yellow Springs, Ohio (Part B)

All five demonstrators kept picketing. So Sheriff Bradley read the injunction in the Court of Common Pleas Greene County are pussycats you're doing and the gang is probably up to 55 Illini NAVL a Springbok case number three for 993. I never responded very slowly and agree on a bill to repeal Michaela strange odd point A.I. Civil Rights Commission State Office Building Room 550 for 22 weeks gave me when the matter comes before the court on the affidavit and on the motion of the plane or failing that a restraining order issue and joining the second person from this meeting and continued made acts of bounce impressed face on about plaintiff respond premises like a dipshit five senior Avenue Yellow Springs Ohio consideration of the court. Said motion is well taken and is therefore ordered that all persons refrain from committing acts of bounce and crash by said premises and it is ordered that if they get enough said premises be restricted to no Neverland for pickets at any one time

and see young sign and also a kind of line at the order as I would like to say to people I would prefer not to make any. And if you would cut the baggage just so they will not see any arrests made. If they're not I have no other alternative. You arrest one of us are going to be all able to deal. I make no difference to. The West I mean we're left almost in the back of the line. I'm wondering Piccolo were you saying just Or I'm sure you're signing up because you left the picket line over to make sure that I get the one on the picket line. So now if your people are going back here I had to fill that out here to save the bacon and I am the two groups of demonstrators pro Gagner an anti Gagner began singing an onlooker threaten to destroy a newsman's camera.

I am I am not even me I am the two groups of demonstrators each sang different songs. The local civil rights demonstrators sang We Shall Overcome The Battle Hymn of the integration movement. The National Association for the Advancement of White people countered with God Bless America. Ah and where no one dropped out of the picket line. All five demonstrators were arrested they were loaded into a Yellow Springs police car for the trip to the Green County Jail in Xenia. Arrested William F. Miller executive secretary of the National Association for the Advancement of White people to Columbus members of his group. Flynn Harvey and Robert Levy and two negro members of the Yellow Springs civil rights group Al Bennett and Mrs. Faye Williams I am I am. We.

Saw. The five demonstrators were taken to the Greene County Jail in SR for booking. While they are Miller held a press conference he told reporters that his life had been threatened. I've been under a very bad. Training. It's not very. Good have you like. It. Or not that's going to hurt. I'm not a. Prude but I was not on the right enough to want to that. However. I made my decision when I started that I realize the gravity of it. And I'm. Fine. Miller was asked if he was the fifth person who joined the picket line outside gangers Barbershop. I was not the person I was going to be conducting the only girl began to find I would be detective I was nothing and there is never you you set them right. That's really really good at your feet if you give me yes me. He asked me not to bring with him there were bigots and I told him I would abide by his wishes to

serve me that if I broke the law. Will look at the other side would be the one with the brain full of life and it would not live the moment. I'm not violating the law which is made of. Any good law. That comes after several hours the five demonstrators arrested for violating the court order restricting picketing at the barbershop were released. Sheriff Bradley freed them on the advice of assistant county prosecutor John Netherton. The sheriff was unable to locate gangers attorney Harry Kyle of Xenia. So charges cannot be filed against the five picketers Khan was on vacation and didn't return until Monday. The judge who issued the court order limiting picketing at the barbershop couldn't be reached when the arrests took place either. But Judge Warren S. Young told W why a slow news Monday that he couldn't have cited the five demonstrators for contempt of court anyway. The function of the court. Anybody for contempt of court.

Gagner Well on that day and there probably will be a song to come by when it comes to Cork gardening. Miley wanted a court and then we do it again and if there is a showing that there have been a violation of that Louis governor's attorney Harry Connell was back at his desk Monday following his vacation. Wy a slow news asked if a complaint would be filed against all five demonstrators including those who had picketed in support of the barber collar replied I don't know. Kyle filed the complaint on Thursday charged with violating the injunction or William F. Miller executive secretary of the National Association for the Advancement of White people to members of his group and two yellow springs negroes. The complaint was lodged despite Miller's pledges of financial support from the National Association for the Advancement of White people for the barber has incurred mounting legal expenses resulting from the

barbershop controversy. The five demonstrators will be given a hearing in Greene County common pleas court on September 24th and so the barbershop battle continues in the courts. The men on the front line are rarely able to stand back and see the entire battlefield. They're too involved with the day to day skirmishes and so it is with the Yellow Springs barber shop battle. The local civil rights demonstrators are mainly concerned with integrating Gagner barber shop. As for the Barber himself he just wants to run his business as he sees fit with no outside interference. But much is at stake in this local barber shop controversy not only for the barber and civil rights partisans but for the citizens of Ohio and perhaps the entire nation. Many court cases have stem from the battle at gangers barber shop. But the case with the broadest legal implications concerns Barbara Lewis Gagner a Yellow Springs negro. Paul Graham and the Ohio Civil Rights

Commission. At stake the constitutionality of the Barbershop sections of the state's major anti discrimination legislation. The Ohio Public Accommodations Act. The case began some two years ago in late 1061 Yellow Springs negro Paul Graham filed a complaint with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission Graham charged Barbour Lewis Gagner with discrimination under the newly enacted State Public Accommodations Act. The Civil Rights Commission investigated the charge and held a hearing. The Hearing Board found Gagner guilty of discrimination. After that the Civil Rights Commission issued a cease and desist order against the Barbour Gagner appealed the decision. The case went to Judge Warren C. YOUNG of Lebanon who was sitting on assignment with the Green County Common Pleas Court. The case sat on Judge Young's desk for over a year. Finally on May 3rd 963 Judge Young ruled on the matter. The judge ruled in gangers favor he struck down sections of the state Public Accommodations Act applying to barbershops

Judge Young ruled that it violates a Barbara civil rights under both the Ohio and U.S. Constitutions to force him to cut Negro hair if he doesn't know how Gagner claims he doesn't know how. The judge cautioned the courts and the legislature against getting carried away in their enthusiasm to wipe out racial economic and religious prejudice. Judge Young said the government should not restrict the freedom of individuals to operate their trades or professions in the process of trying to eliminate prejudice. The Ohio Revised Code had to find barber shops as places of public accommodation. It states that no citizen shall be denied the full enjoyment of a place of public accommodation except for reasons applicable alike to all citizens and regardless of color or race. It states that no person shall aid or incite the denial of public accommodations facilities to any citizen but Judge Young ruled that this didn't apply to barber shops because it restricted the inherent freedom of persons to operate their own trade and professions. Judge Young's decision had some unexpected side effects. It also invalidated a 1948 Yellow Springs public accommodations ordinance

like the state public accommodations law. This ordinance too had to find barber shops as places of public accommodation. The ordinance was not written to stand if one section was declared invalid. Following judge Young's May 3rd decision the village of Yellow Springs operated for nearly four months without any anti discrimination legislation. Then on August 20th the Yellow Springs Village Council passed unanimously a comprehensive measure banning discrimination in employment housing and public accommodations. Significantly the new Yellow Springs anti discrimination ordinance defined barber shops as places of public accommodation. Even though Judge Young had ruled that they weren't perhaps for this reason the village is now one of the interested parties that have filed friend of the court briefs in the appeal of Judge Young's May 3rd decision the decision which struck down sections of the state Public Accommodations Act applying to barbershops is being appealed by Yellow Springs negro Paul Graham. The Ohio Civil Liberties Union has filed a friend of the court brief in the case and the state of Ohio is expected to file one shortly

to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission. A party to the case originally wanted to appeal judge Young's decision directly. But in late May the attorney general's office which acts as the legal representative of the commission discovered that the state is prohibited by law from appealing in cases of this sort. The commission had voted to appeal judge Young's decision but now there was a legal roadblock. So on May 30 first wy a slow news asked Ellis Ross executive director of the Civil Rights Commission if he thought the findings of the attorney general's office were correct correct. Well you know I heard him. It is culpable for the mayhem that he has read here and there. Correct. Since Judge Young's May 3rd decision couldn't be appealed directly the Ohio Civil Rights Commission asked the attorney general's office to file an Amoco security I or friend of the court brief. To date however brief has not been filed. Well we could go w some

news asked Laurie Snyder chief counsel to the attorney general if his office would file a brief. I know that we know it will be a court or the court can take the matter of advisement. Frankly don't make any difference. In our mind when you have. How do you get in there honey. But there may not be plenty of time. On September 4th John Duda the Cleveland attorney representing Yellow Springs negro Paul Graham filed a motion asking the Second District Court of Appeals to hear Graham's appeal of Judge Young's decision as soon as possible. The court sitting in Xenia begins its fall session on October 21st. Graham's appeal would normally come up sometime in late October or early November. But Graham's attorney John Duda hopes to have it heard before then Duda says he has a right to ask for an early hearing because the case is one of great public interest and something in which the public has a great stake in the court of appeals has not so far ruled on DUDAS motion to advance

the hearing date. Earlier this month newsman David Gregory interviewed Cleveland attorney John Duda about the Graham appeal. What do you think the chances are for you winning the case at the appellate level and if necessary going on to the Ohio Supreme Court in the U.S. Supreme Court. Well of course as a lawyer I can never make any predictions with any certainty as to whether or not we'll win or lose. I am confident that we will have a favorable decision in the 2nd District Court of Appeals. If we win a second district court of appeals there's no doubt in my mind that Mr. Gagner will have his attorneys appealed to the Supreme Court of the state of Ohio. Again I'm confident that we will win at that stage. However there are some complications about whether or not we'll get into the Supreme Court of the United States. If he loses somewhere along the line whether or not Mr. Graham will have his case raised as a federal question there must be a federal question before we can get to the Supreme Court of the United States. And one of the

parties must have a federal right which has been deprived either Mr. Gagne or Mr. Graham if you lose the case at the appellate level. Must the Ohio Supreme Court take the case. The Ohio Supreme Court need not take all cases it has the right to refuse under the law to hear certain cases the way a case gets to the Supreme Court is by what we call a motion to certify the record. The losing party in the court of appeals whether it be Mr. Graham or Mr. Gainer will file a motion to certify the record. They'll file that motion in Supreme Court of Ohio it will be argued. The court will decide whether or not it will allow the case and for a hearing on the merits. If one of the parties in the 2nd District Court of Appeals lose the case three to zero there are three judges on the court of appeal that's quite likely. But the Supreme Court of Ohio might refuse to

certify the record on the grounds that the decision has been made so unanimously in the court of appeals that it ought not to be tampered with by the Supreme Court. That I can't say for sure. I'm just saying that it's a probability that it might happen that way too in the case of the appellate level. Must you have the unanimous decision of the judges. No we need not only have a majority decision two to one if there is a dissent there will be a dissenting opinion written probably by the judge who dissents from the court's opinion how binding is Judge Young's decision of May 3rd in cases brought before courts in other Isle counties. Judge Jones decision as to the constitutionality of the Ohio public accommodations law regarding barbershops is binding conclusively only in Greene County. It is however strong influence as to legal precedent and all of the 88 counties in the state of Ohio. But no judge in other than Green County need follow that precedent. Likewise the 2nd

District Court of Appeals decision one way or the other in this case will be binding only in the 2nd District Court of Appeals. The counties that that encompass the decision will be statewide and have a completely conclusive statewide effect. Only when it is decided by the Supreme Court of the state of Ohio. However as I say it is a very strong influence and a persuasive device to be used in other cases in other counties by persons trying to rely on the same basis or the same legal arguments that Mr. Ganger relies upon. As you know it's being relied upon by the barbers union in the District of Columbia as a legal precedent for the reason why they ought to be allowed to discriminate in barbershops in the district. In your professional opinion is the public accommodation section barring discrimination in barbershops constitutional or not. Yes I think it

is a constitutional matter. It is constitutional in my opinion for several reasons the first of which is that it is a lawful enactment under the state's police power. The police power is not a power of the legislature to simply maintain a police force. That's not the meaning of the police power. The police power is the state's power to enact legislation to guard and protect the health morals safety and general Welfare of the people of Ohio. Under that power the legislature of the state the general assembly can act and the legislation which does not infringe upon a constitutionally protected right. In this case the legislature has enacted a law which prohibits racial discrimination in places of public accommodation particularly barbershops by enacting that law. The legislature has infringed upon no

right protected by the Constitution on to a Biber such as Mr. Gager. There is no right on the part of a barber to refuse to cut the hair of a negro because of race. There is no right for him to keep out a negro out of his barber shop. The Constitution of the United States particularly the Bill of Rights casts its weight in favor of the protection of privacy. It allows us to live in our homes without unlawful searches and seizures. It allows us to say who we can come into our home and who cannot. And it protects us protects our privacy but it does not in any way protect the owner or keeper or manager of a place of public accommodation. So there is no demonstrated way at least none that has been shown in this case by counsel for Mr. Gager or no demonstrated way that I know of that this barber has been

denied a constitutionally protected right. This not having been shown that I think the courts are bound to find the law as a constitutional act when under the police bar it is a lawful an act meant that does not infringe upon any constitutionally protected right. That was John Duda the Cleveland attorney who was representing Yellow Springs negro Paul Graham in the appeal of Judge Warren C. Young's May 3rd decision. That decision struck down sections of the state Public Accommodations Act applying to barbershops. Legally judge Young's decision applies only to Greene County Ohio just one out of eight Ohio counties. But the effect of Judge Young's decision is more widespread. Young's decision was cited by Washington D.C. barbers in an attempt to halt the integration of barber shops in the nation's capital. The problem of racial discrimination in barber shops is particularly embarrassing there since African diplomats like to get haircuts too. In Ohio Young's decision applies in one county green. In all the seven other Ohio counties the Civil Rights Commission is currently enforcing the sections of the state Public Accommodations

Act banning barber shop discrimination. This reporter talked with Robert coats director of the Civil Rights Commission in southwestern Ohio a regional office in Cincinnati on Friday. Coats was asked how many other barbershop cases besides the Gagner case the commission has handled and I don't I don't. I have a number. Throughout the day we have four other barbershop cases in this region with the southwestern part of Ohio. And we're proceeding with them in fact we can tell you that all of them have you been getting in these cases. Yes everybody shop case we've had compliance if there's been probable cause every day so obviously the counsel for the commission that's fairly crude. Combination of all those could throw in a violation of our Barbershop. We have conciliated every case. What do you think the effect would be if Judge Young made their decision or allowed to stand

in the higher courts of Ohio. Well I don't know it might have to be taken even higher than that. And I'm thinking in the court but in fact when the section of the law dealing with poverty Bob. And we would have a difficult time. And so the ending and perhaps not even trying to get fired up. I think there are some here you hear the turnabout. The picketers in this case were and they claim he cannot because they have a new. One of the 5 or so I can cut the hair of the Negro but I just am not going to cut his hair because he's a negro. This I would say that the order of Judge Young would not. Would not have applied because that is not the case. Same is the case. So it's difficult to project that type

thing. For you personally that. Would apply in the situation and. We could. Someday see the barbershops and I would cut the hair of a person that was Robert coats director of the Ohio Civil Rights Commission's regional office in Cincinnati. The constitutionality of the Barbershop sections of the state public accommodations law will be decided in the courts. There is now an appeal before the state's 2nd District Court of Appeals. The case may ultimately have to be decided by the Ohio Supreme Court or even the United States Supreme Court. It may be a long while before a final decision on the matter is reached. You've been listening to a special report on the Yellow Springs barbershop controversy. This program was written and directed by Bruce havens programme production director as well of the staff reporters David Gregory and Dan were a show technical assistant for a field recording special thanks to Larry Reuben for equipment used in pre recording sections of this program in the field.

This has been a special presentation of WY Oiseau radio news. Bruce has been speaking. Good night.