Evening star., 1953-12-08
High Court Segregation Power
Subject of Hearing Today
Continued From First Page.)

Continued From First Page.)
Congress that approved the
amendment refused to pass bills
to ban school segregation in this
city.
It submit" he said, that any
member of Congress who voted
for a constitutional amendment
shearing a State of its powers
to Segregate schools, but at the
same time voted to keep segre-
CATION in the Nations Capital
would have had quite an ex-
pIanation to make when he got
home to his constituents. . In
deed, the overwhelming prepon-
derance of evidence shows that
the Congress which approved
the 14th Amendment and the
States that ratified it did not
understand or contemplate that
1t would abolish segregation"
11ItS db dlEdCys
While his mention of the JUS
tice Department brief was only
In passing, Mr.. Davis left no
doubt he disagreed with Attor-
ney General Brownell'S stand
that the court has authority
under the 14th amendment to
strike down school segregation
in the States and in the District.
Mr.. Davis used such terms as
"lame and impotent" and "fal-
lacy" in his brushing aside the
briefs conclusions that the leg
islative history of the 14th
amendment was "inconcluSive." "
The trend of queries from the
bench indicated several justices
wanted especially detailed dis
cussion of the courts power to
construe the amendment as for
bidding State-imposed separa-
ton of Negro and white school
children.
There were signs. too, that the
court may ask more questions
today on how to integrate white
and Negro schools most swiftly
and successfully in event of a
decision declaring segregation
unconstitutional.
Mr.. Davis and T. Justin Moore,
Richmond attorney associated
with Virginia Attorney General
j. Lindsay Almond, jr., in that
States case, touched on that
point late yesterday.
Court Role Questioned.
eff schools are to be mingled
in South Carolina" Mr.. Davis
asked, "who would be best to
say how that could be done? For
instance, in one school district
there might be a situation where
27z Negro and three white chill
dreIf would be enrolled in the
same school. Would that make
the children any happier? Would
the white child be apt to get a
distorted idea of race relations?
NO" exclaimed Mr.. Davis, his
voice choking. IF schools are
to be altered, your honors do
not and cannot sit as a glorified
board of education. Neither this
court nor any other court. I sub
NIT, can sit in the chairs of the
Legislature of South Carolina
and mold its educational sys-
tenn"
Mr.. Davis assured the tribunal
that the State of South Carolina
"does not come here in sackcloth
and ashes" to apologize for school
segregation. He said the State
refused to assume any role as a
defendant against charges that
the State constitutions provision
for such segregation violates the
Federal Constitution or funda-
mental rights of any one.
THE State of South Carolina
is convinced that school segraga-
tion does not violate the Consti-
tuition of the United States" he
concluded. I'VE are convinced
that it helps equality of the
races. Happiness, progress and
welfare of these children are best
promoted in segregated schools.
A return to the experiment of
non-segregation would promise
no more chance of success today
than it did when it was written
into the State constitution for a
short time after the War Be-
tween the States and during a
period I choose to call the tragic
era.
MIR. Moore complained that
Mr.. Marshall and Mr.. Robinson
did not discuss the facts of the
case"
You can't talk of the situation
as if it were in a vacuum" he
said. "The II States that have
segregated public schools have
one-third of the population of
this country. Virginia and South
Carolina have demonstrated that
theV are able and willing to DrO-