2.         Sit-in Demonstrations

The most effective method of destroying discrimination in places of public
accommodation was the assertion of a right to service by siti-in demonstrations. The
demonstrations created a confrontation with segregation, but the nonviolent nature of the protests
diminished the force of opposition. The courts had established the principle that segregation was
a wrong, even if the constitution only restricted governmental behavior. The protestors asserted
their moral rights as a method of forcing a change. In Maryland, blacks and whites joined
together in a series of demonstrations. Three of these demonstrations went through the court
system and produced some fascinating legal decisions.

In Baltimore County, an integrated group of protesters were arrested when they
challenged Gwynn Oaks Amusement Park's racial exclusion practices. When they were told to
leave, five individuals joined arms and had to be pushed and shoved to be removed. Two
protestors dropped to the ground and had to be carried from the premises. The five men and
women were convicted of acting in a disorderly manner in a place of public resort. On appeal,
the protestors were represented by Francis Murnaghan, Jr.,164 and the brief was signed by Robert
B. Watts, Bob Martineau,165 and Venable, Baetjer & Howard. The Court of Appeals noted that
the amusement park was free to discriminate among customers and to call upon the police to
remove unwanted persons. The enforcement by a police officer of what was, in effect, the policy
of the park did not constitute state responsibility for segregation. Further, the convictions were
for disorderly conduct. On that issue, the Court said

The effect of appellants' behavior on the crowd is shown by the testimony that
some of its members spit and kicked and shouted threats and imprecations, and
that the Park employees feared a mob scene was about to erupt. The conduct of
appellants in refusing to obey a lawful request to leave private property disturbed
the peace and incited a crowd.166

In Montgomery County, another integrated group picketed the Glen Echo Amusement
Park on June 30, 1960. Some of the members of the group left the picket line to enter the park.
Whites purchased tickets for carousel rides and then gave the tickets to blacks who got on the
carousel. The park guard reported their presence to the park manager who told him to arrest the
riders if they refused to leave. The guard notified the riders that they should leave. When they
refused to do so, he arrested them. He took them to a Montgomery County police station where
he swore a warrant for their arrest. The guard had obtained a commission as a Montgomery
County deputy sheriff under special county law that permitted guards employed by companies
who were paid entirely by the company to be deputy sheriffs with the normal powers of such
officers within the premises of their employer. Thus, the form which the guard signed was a
warrant for a police officer. Another group of protestors walked across the park to a restaurant
leased from the park. The guard told them to leave, and followed the same procedures in
arresting them after they had refused to go. The Court of Appeals upheld the convictions of
blacks who got tickets for the carrousel ride from white purchasers, but the convictions of the

145