St. Paul recorder. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1934-2000, 1953-12-18
Supreme Court
Hears Jimcro
School Cuses
Continued from page a

- fA-1
mitted that he had not polled each
individual member Of the board.
He further stated that all Of the
members Of the present board ex-
cept one had been appointed since
the case was originally filed.
Obviously thinking of the blast
Galley s. Dec IS
which had recently been let out by
DR., Margaret Butcher. one Of the
Negro members of the Board.
stating that she definitely opposed
segregation and has not been
queried by the corporation counsel
on her views in this matter, Kor-
man stated that according to the
press some members of the board
felt that the time had come to in
tegrate schools in the District.
Since the District government
attorney had not talked with in
dividual members of the board of
education on this matter, at least
two of the Justices felt that he
was not certain whether the board
wished him to represent II or not.
He was, therefore, ordered to poll
these members before returning to
court the following day.
Again facing the court wednes-
day morning, Norman said Melvin
Sharp, president Of the board had
authorized him to represent them.
He said that 100 percent of the
board wanted the case presented
to the high court for the purpose
of determining the validity and
constitutionality OF segregated
schools in the District of Column
bia.
Five Not Polled
Five members OF the 9-member
board admitted that they had
never been polled on the question.
but stated that the Corporation
Counsel was representing the
board and not individual members.
Mrs. Butcher said she was oppos-
ed to segregation in schools but
did not want the issue delayed
further by having to obtain an
other counsel.
George z. c. Hayes and James
Nabrit had presented the District
case to the Court Tuesday prior
to Korman's appearance. Hayes
gave the early history of separate
schools in the District while Ma
brit talked about tn legal and
moral aspect Of segregation in
this great capitol Of free world.
Nabrit, an instructor in the law
school at Howard University.
pointed out that there is no tech
nical question involved in the Dis
trict of Columbia, this is just
federal government dealing with
federal citizens.
The District statute does not
authorize compulsory segregation.
continued Nabrit, therefore, such
practice is violation Of the civil
rights acts. a violation Of public
policy and violation OF the due
process clause" of the 5th amend
ment.
Hayes had already told the
court in his review OF the early
history of the District that Con-
gress had never enacted legisla-
ton for a mandatory dual school
system. The system came into
being through circumstances
chiefly fortuitous.
The statutes were "permissive
and voluntary" declared Hayes.
and the school board has used
them to compel segregation. II
the court finds that the statutes
are compulsory, said Hayes, then
1t should hold them unconstitu-
tional.
Nabrit reminded the Justices
that no constitutional question
was raised In the ID. G. case, all
the court needed to do Is to rule
that the statute did not compel
segregation, "and that's all
there Is TO it,
In his rebuttal on Wednesday he
stated specifically that IL the court
found segregation unlawful and