You have in here some quotes uh from a brief
that Elman wrote in uh I think it was the
Henderson case and I must say that uh that
is among the most beautiful writing that I
have uh ever read in a brief and you know
the point always was that he was a fantastic
writer absolutely a fantastic writer would
you mind reading the bottom of page two and
the top of page three which is uh what you're
quoting here is from what Elman wrote and
uh this is sixty five years later or so and
yet uh you know this this says it all as to
what had to be said in those days and nobody
else is really saying this appeared in the
brief that you're talking about right right
in Henderson against the Interstate Commerce
Commission which is a nineteen fifty case
right and uh and I think it's accurate to
say that it was the first brief filed by any
party in front of the court since uh Plessy
that squarely and directly asked that Plessy
which was the case that stood for separate
uh but equal that case be reversed that that
was eighteen ninety six that was an eighteen
ninety six case yeah and so it was the government
in Henderson and it was Phil writing the brief
because he could a gentleman couldn't eat
as I remember he couldn't eat in the dining
car this was a this was a government employee
who was an African American who was denied
service in a dining car because uh because
the table at which he would've sat was occupied
by Whites and uh there was a curtain and uh
hwas he went back to his dining car he went
back from the dining car having not been served
he later brought a suit uh the case was extraordinary
because the Interstate Commerce Commission
responded by saying that those are separate
but equal is a policy of the and the Commerce
Commission supports the policy and it is the
law of the country and uh they won below and
they won at the appellate level and then it
came to Phil's desk and Phil looked at this
and he said this is wrong this is just not
right and uh and he convinced his superiors
to uh uh that that they should confess error
we'll talk about maybe confession of error
right that means admit that we were wrong
all the time and rule against us yeah so here
the Interstate Commerce Commission had won
below yeak and now it gets to the Supreme
Court and the Supreme Court's the lawyer for
the government says no we're not going to
agrue that in the Supreme Court and so the
ICC had to argue it itself and the and Phil
uh representing the Solicito General wrote
the brief and the and the brief said segregation
of Negroes as practiced in this country is
universally understood as imposing on them
a badge of inferiority that type of segregation
imposed by the railroads regulation is humiliating
to those subjected to it that it is is so
obvious as scarcely to need documentation
this message of humiliation comes not as a
single voice but with all the reverberations
of the entire pattern of segregation and discrimination
of which it is part it's bad enough for the
Negro to have to endure the insults of individuals
who look upon him as an inferior it is far
worse to submit to a formalized an institutionalized
enforcement of this concept particularly when
as in this case it carries the sanction of
an agency of government that's probably the
finest writing I have ever read uh in the
Civil Rights field and it was the early among
the earliest yes it was I mean that's amazing
stuff that's amazing stuff This excerpt is
brought to you by the Massachusetts School
of Law
