Jackson advocate. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1939-current, 1950-04-15

| oeHooi ol IeXaS state University
which was established while tn,
case was pending in the STATE
courts.
Chief Justice Vinson wanted t
know whether the school had beer
found to meet the requirements Of
the American Association of Law
Schools but action had been de-
ferred pending disposition of tn.
case.
Mr.. Marshall said the executive
committee had acted but its report
had not been approved by the as.
ISOLATION and there were objections
among the membership to its APP
prevail.
Durham Opens
The argument for Sweat was
opened by Mr.. Durham, who re-
lated the facts of the case and ar
gued that distinctions by statute,
based on race, are unconstitutional.
Mr.. Marshall also told the court
he resented the argument of the
eleven southern Attorneys General
who filed brief as friends of the
court, who asked the court to up
hold the South's segregated school
system. The NAACP attorney
said these Attorneys General had
so little faith in the people of the
South as to say they will not abide
by what the court determines the
law to be.
He was referring to their pre-
diction that violence would follow
similar to the disturbances which
took place last summer in SWIM
ming pools in St. Louis and Wash
ington.
Pointing out that there had been
similar predictions made during
consideration of the Texas pri-
mary cases, Mr.. Marshall said the
court decided that colored people
could not be excluded from primar-
les in Texas "and not a single
thing happened" He added that
colored people are now voting in
Texas and are part and parcel of
the political machine in that State
just as if they had been voting
there for 100 years.
Mr.. Marshall said the Sweat
case was different from the prev
ious cases the court has decided.
I'VE have in our record % evil
dence that shows that segregation
creates inequality, and (2) COM
petent testimony of competent ex-
perts that you cannot get an equal
legal education in a separate law
school,"
Declaring that the issue of the
constitutionality of laws requiring
separate education of white and
colored pupils was not involved in
either the Gaines case or the Sipuel
case, Mr.. Marshall said:
eve have been thirty years try
ing to get that issue before this
court in such a way as to have it
clear that this court has jurisdic-
ton to pass on segregation issue"
Both the Gaines and the Sipuel
cases, he said, involved the issue
of exclusion. In the latter case,
he added the case was remanded
to Oklahoma courts and three
years later while it was on APP
peal, Mrs. Ada Lois Sipuel Fisher
was admitted to the University
of Oklahoma Law School.
Texas Constitution
Attorney General Daniel argued
that the Texas constitution and
laws required the segregation of
| colored and white students in state
supported institutions. He said
the reasonableness of such laws
has already been settled. But if
the court should re-examine its
previous decisions, it will find they
are correct he contended.
What Mr.. Marshall brought be-
fore the court is a question of pol
icy, which is not matter for the
court to determine he said. He
added that it was up to the State
legislature.
The Texas Attorney General
quoted from pamphlet, which he
said has been written by DR.. Am
brose Caliver specialist in Negro
education in the United States Of
flee of Education, to the effect
that it was necessary in certain
states to have separate facilities
But in his rebuttal argument
Mr.. Marshall contended that the
article quoted had not been writ
ten by DIR. Caliver but was in a
miscellaneous volume on national
survey of higher education of col
cred people.
Answering the argument of Mr.
Daniel that some colored persons
preferred Separate facilities, Mr.
Marshall said:
Answering the argument of Mr.
Daniel that some colored persons
preferred separate facilities, Mr.