Evening star., 1952-12-10
Virginia Pleads Case
On Race Segregation
In Supreme, Court
Continued From First Page)

saw AAO AA4AAV Va SCIlC1d1 dSIGG"
ment or about the ultimate ruling.
Lawyers for opponents of segre-
cation made clear that. despite
different legal facets in each Of
the five cases. they want the court
to outlaw the so-called separate
but-equal doctrine. Fundamentally,
they urge the court to hold that
racial segregation. as such, in
public schools in any part of this
country violates the Constitution
and civil rights of citizens.
In packed courtroom and
with more than 300 standees re-
maining outside all afternoon, the
justices opened the sessions yes
terday by listening to a Kansas
case. This involved a State per-
misSive law allowing larger cities
to set up separate schools for
Negro and white children through
the sixth grade.
The attack on the South Caro-
lima mandatory segregation sys-
tenn was launched by Thurgood
Marshall, special counsel for the
National Association for the Ad-
vancement of Colored People.
He struck not merely at that
States segregation requirement
and its operation in Clarendon
County, where the case at issue
arose. He hammered also at con-
stitutionality of segregation as
such. He contended it was illegal
discrimination that denied equal
protection of law, as well as equal
ity of educational opportunity to
Negroes.
Cites misunderstanding.
Mr.. Marshall, Negro attorney,
who often has appeared before the
high court in recent years in ra-
cial relations cases, said there has
been a popular misunderstanding
that the school segregation cases
hinge on claims of inequality of
facilities.
He believes that the separate
but equal pronouncement laid
down in an 1896 case should be
reversed. he said. But, the big
need, on constitutional and other
lgrounds. is to strike down segre-
cation as such because it harms
children. denies fundamental
rights and is a form of discrimi-
nation that violates the constitu-
tional guarantee of equal protec-
ton under the law, he declared.
He recalled that the Supreme
Court invalidated racial segrega-
ton in public transportation. He
contended there were at least
equal reasons why racial segrega-
ton in education, whether at the
college level or in high or grade
schools. should be voided.
Justice Frankfurter raised a
Question as to possible conse-
quences of elimination of segrega-
Ition laws. sz.
Mr.. Marshall replied that he
did not believe there would be
trouble or great administrative
difficulty. The important thing,
he suggested, is to get the anti
segregation principle established
nationally. rs
'We are asking only that the
State imposed segregation be
taken off," he explained. 1.-THE
matter Of adjusting school dis
trict lines and assigning children
to schools would be problems for
the various school authorities to
work out. They would assign
children on any reasonable basis
they wanted to, provided that such
assignments were not on the basis
of race"
Frankfurter Interrupts.
Justice Frankfurter interrupted
to remark: Nothing could be
worse than for this court to make
an abstract declaration and then
have it evaded by tricks"
Mr.. Marshall responded that any
attempt at evasion of a court
ruling against segregation could
be met by further appeals to the
court.
The District situation popped
up briefly in the exchange be-
tween Justice Frankfurter and
Mr.. Marshall. The attorney COM
mented that ban on segregation
in the District probably would
result in operation of wholly in
Itegrated schools in this city.
AS for South Carolina and some
of the 16 other States with
mandatory segregation at this
time, he added, some assignment
system might be established,
whereby all-white or all-Negro
schools might continue in some
places on a voluntary classifica-
Clon or olStrlcClng system.
In an effort to refute South
Cardinals contention that the
Federal Constitution reserves
matters. such as school establish
ments, to the States, Mr.. Marshall
dug up an 1923 Supreme Court
opinion concerning sailor held
in Jail in South Carolina while
his ship remained in Charleston
harbor. The State contended i'll
had a right to detain him to
prevent trouble in the town. The
court held that his constitutional
rights were above that.
Individual rights" Mr.. Mar
shall said, referring to avowed
fears that elimination of segrega-
ton would cause social upheavalsl
or bitter retaliation, cannot be
subjected to what groups might
do"