Sold For:  or Sign In to see what it's worth.

This is a vintage lot of Prince hall Masonic Masons Supreme Court Transcript books on the arguments over the Ancient Egyptian Arabic Order Nobles Of The Mystic Shrine name and likeness used. White Masonic Shriners sued Negro Masons over this and all is documented in these books. These books were only given to Prince Hall Grandmasters around the country and possibly belonged to the great Georgia Civil Leader Grandmaster John Wesley Dobbs. These books are all original with dated 1926 -1928, Books have some intelligent arguments between the two organizations. T are seven in all with some having over 900 pages of arguments. Books are in vintage used condition, One of the bigger ones have a loose cover and one has the top part showing some tearing but all are in overall good readable condition with no loose pages inside books. Please ask questions on condition if unsure before bidding. Shipping for these rare books will be $10.00, PayPal or money order only, Thanks.
The case in Texas began in 1918 when a Houston temple of the white Shrine applied for an injunction based on claims of âeoefraudulent deceptionâe against an African American temple in the same city. Given that the black temple was only a year old, laches would not apply. The next year, Watkins and White, working with local attorneys in Texas, voluntarily added the Imperial Council of the black Shrine as a party to the suit in defense of its local branch. The case remained undecided until March 1922, when a district court in Texas granted a temporary injunction against the Houston lodge of the black Shrine. By December the Imperial Council of the white Shrine also joined the suit, and the courts issued an injunction against the black Imperial Council as well. A federal District Court made these injunctions permanent in 1924, a decision upheld by the Court of Civil Appeals in 1925 ( Burrell v. Michaux , [1925], Burrell v. Michaux , [1926]). As in Georgia, these decisions were made on the basis of general legal principles concerning fair competition rather than specific laws. Unlike the case in Georgia, however, because of the involvement of the Imperial Council of the black Shrine, Watkins and White attained a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1929 , claiming jurisdiction based on the federal incorporation of both Imperial Councils and the Pythian precedent.

Having achieved federal jurisdiction, however, Watkins and White still had to persuade the Supreme Court that the substance of the Texas court decisions was in error. Working with two white attorneys from Boston (one of whom was Moorfield Storey, president of the NAACP), they argued that injunctions against the African American Shriners were racially motivated and hence violations of their Fourteenth Amendment rights. Aware of the legal and political climate, they likely held more hope in the efficacy of their racially neutral claims about laches and federal jurisdiction. Citing the 1912 Pythian case, they made the same argument of laches: the white Shriners, having known about the existence of the parallel order for years, had lost their right to sue. They also argued that their clients were not trying to defraud anyone into confusing the two organizations and denied that the whites had an exclusive right to the name, asserting that it was widely known and accepted that t were separate black and white orders.

The Court agreed on both counts. They found the white Shriners guilty of laches, which now barred them âeoefrom asserting an exclusive right, or seeking equitable relief, as against the negro order.âe And although the Justices did not rule in favor of arguments about the Fourteenth Amendment, they were more candid about the importance of race than their predecessors in the 1912 decision. In their ruling, they openly wrote of the role of race, denying any âeoefraudulent intentâe on the part of the African American Shriners, agreeing that both organizations made it clear that they were only open to members of one race ( AE...

Items in the Worthopedia are obtained exclusively from licensors and partners solely for our members’ research needs.

Flag item for content or copyright.