Evening star., 1950-10-08

way To Tie supreme court IOT
further attacks on enforced sepa-
ration of the races in schools and
elsewhere.
AS recently as last Tuesday the
Baltimore City Court. in a matter
that may land finally in the Su-
preme Court. told the University
of Maryland to admit it's first
Negro student to classes at Col
lege Park.
AS early as tomorrow noon the
Supreme Court may grant or re-
ject petition for review of a
Maryland Court of Appeals direc-
tive that a Negro girl be allowed
to attend the university's school
Of nursing.
Less than a month ago a Negro
enrolled in the graduate law school
Of the University of Virginia at
Charlottesville. A special three
judge Federal court had granted
his appeal September and thus
ended the university's all-white
tradition. The State has not
asked the Supreme Court to inter-
vene.
While interesting in themselves,
the cases form part of a legal
and social historical pattern that
has been taking shape for more
than half a century in this coun-
try. with far faster developments
in the last few years.
Not Thoroughly Settled
The trend in racial segregation
lawsuits indicates considerable
change in sectional custom as well
as judicial reasoning. It also can
warn against jumping at con-
clusions. The fundamental prob
lem has not been thoroughly or
satisfactorily settled, even in the
courts. And every long standing
legal doctrine on segregation has
not gone by the boards.
The 14th amendment, especial
y its guarantee of equal protec-
ton under State law no less than
Federal statutes. has been a key
factor from the start in cases af-
fecting rights of Negroes.
Racial segregation laws were
enacted from time to time in
Southern States. A major test
came in 1896 when the Supreme
Court upheld a Louisiana statute
requiring separation of the races
on trains. That gave rise to the
separate but equal" doctrine that
spread to segregation in many
other fields.
The 1896 decision declared that
enforced separation of the races,
as applied to the internal COM
merce of the State, neither
abridges the immunities of the
colored man nor denies him the
equal protection of the laws,
within the meaning of the 14th
amendment"
A dissenting opinion by Justice
Harlan, a Kentuckian, contended
that ''our Constitution is not
color-blind and neither knows nor
tolerates classes among citizens. 4"
He predicted that the decision
would "in time prove quite as per-
nicious as the decision made by
this tribunal in the Dred Scott
case"
During the last 54 years the
Supreme Court has gradually
limited racial segregation in vari-
Gus spheres and outlawed it in
some respects. But even in the
Texas and Oklahoma cases last
June the tribunal did not invali-
date the doctrine that Negroes
and whites can be segregated in
schools, public conveyances and
other places so long as Negroes
receive substantial equality of
treatment and facilities.
Dining Car Issue
In 1888, in the Gaines case that
originated in Missouri, the court
ruled that a State must give
Negroes educational facilities equal
to those provided for whites. That
was interpreted as permitting q
State to provide a separate col
lege or professional school for
Negroes or pay their tuition in
such schools In some other State
In 1948 in the Sipuel case that
came up from Oklahoma the court
ordered the State to admit a
woman to the State university law
school unless separate law school,
was set up.
Last June in the McLaurin case
that also began in Oklahoma the
court held that Mr.. McLaurin, q
Negro who had been admitted te
a graduate school of the State
university but had to sit apart
from white students. must be giver
equality of treatment.
The court decided also on the
same day that the University ol
Texas must admit a Negro to its
law school because equal facilitie.
were not available at a State Law
school set up for Negroes.
Similarly, in third case, the
court struck down racial segre.
cation on railroad dining cars.
The decisions. the court ex-
planned, applied only to the cir.
cumstances Of the particular cases
AS for the plea that the court
declare the separate but equal
doctrine unconstitutional, Chief
Justice Vinson wrote:
"We have frequently reiterated
that this court will decide consti.
tutional questions only wher
necessary to the disposition of tht
case at hand, and that such de-
ciSions will be drawn as narrowly
as possible. ."
Thus the court did not act or
constitutionality of the doctrine
that grew out of the 1896 de.
cision. Yet. its opinions in tht
Oklahoma and TeYaS coSes anr