Andor D. Skotnes, The Black Freedom Movement and the Worker's Movement in Baltimore, 1930-1939, Rutger's PhD, 1991,
Image No: 328
   Enlarge and print image (60K)            << PREVIOUS   NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space


 

Andor D. Skotnes, The Black Freedom Movement and the Worker's Movement in Baltimore, 1930-1939, Rutger's PhD, 1991,
Image No: 328
   Enlarge and print image (60K)            << PREVIOUS   NEXT >>
328 School into a first-rate institution and was emerging as a top lawyer and leader in the national Black freedom movement. Houston's acceptance of the position of chief defense counsel for Ades greatly legitimized the case as a cause to be supported to many movement activists. However, from Houston's point of view, there was some risk in accepting this case. As historian Genna Rae McNeil points out in her excellent biography of Houston, he "was putting himself on the line. The ILD was considered too radical for a temperate liberal." Houston, after all, was deeply involved in the NAACP's national legal work, and the NAACP and ILD had been in conflict for several years over a number of cases, including the Scottsboro Boys. But Houston, as McNeil reveals, was a man of rare personal integrity; politically he was both thoughtfully cautious and open-minded, with deeply radical tendencies. Earlier, while some NAACP leaders were furious over the ILD's role in the Scottsboro case, Houston marched with his students in ILD-sponsored Scottsboro support demonstrations, and helped the ILD with fundraising efforts around the case. And in May 1933, Houston openly denounced NAACP leader William Pick ens for the latter's intemperate criticism of the ILD defense of the Scottsboro Boys.50 In terms of the Ades case, Houston believed that the: real basis for the attack on Ades [was] Ades' insistence on exposing officials with a dual standard of public morality - one for whites and one for blacks.... They cannot stand publicity and maintain their respectability therefore they want to remove Ades from the bar so they can rest in their hypocrisy.^1 Therefore, when the ILD requested that he defend Ades, Houston replied that he would be honored to do it. It would have been surprising if any number of national NAACP leaders had stepped forward to support Ades; for Charles Houston, such a move was entirely in character.^ Houston and his associates, primarily Thurgood Marshall, defended Ades in U.S. District Court phase of his case before Judge Soper. In their defense they