Evening star., 1953-11-30
Supreme Court
Challenged on
School Power
South CoroIino Says
Bench Cont Direct
End Of Segregation
BY Robert K. WoIsh

The State of South Carolina
contended today that even if
the Supreme Court had power
to declare public school segre.
cation unconstitutional it could
not constitute itself super
board of education to direct
operation of the States schools
according to judicially devised
plan"
In a brief filed with the high
court in preparation for oral
arguments next week on cases
from four States and the Dis
trict, South Carolina clung to
its earlier claim that racial segre-
cation in the schools in con-
stitutional.
Defending the separate but
equal" doctrine. the State in
sisted that it is doing every
thing possible to remove all in
equalities between white and
colored schools.
Among the attorneys who pre-
pared the South Carolina brief
was John w. Davis, 1924 Demo.
cratic presidential nominee. Mr..
Davis argued the South Carolina
case at original hearings before
the Supreme Court last Decem-
Der and is expected to do so
again next week.
The State of Kansas also filed
its briefs with the high court
today. 1t explains that it nei-
ther advocates nor defends the
policy of racial segregation in
public schools.
Policy Determination Sought.
I'VE advocate only a concept
of constitutional law which per-
mits determinations of State and
local policy to be made on State
and local levels" the brief stated.
Kansas authorities contended
that the trainers of the 18th
amendment did not contemplate
that any Federal authority.
either legislative or judicial.
could abolish segregation with
out further grant of constitu-
tional power. The brief added,
however, that if segregation were
found to be within the field Of
Federal authority, Congress and
not the courts would have the
power to change or eliminate the
system.
The Supreme Court expected
to receive later today briefs from
the District government defend
ing legality of the dual system
here and also from Virginia State
authorities. 1t already has briefs
from District, Virginia, South
Carolina, Kansas and Delaware
groups as well as from the Justice
Department, urging that school
segregation be abolished.
Legal Evidence Cited.
In reply to further specific
questions asked by the Supreme
Court. the South Carolina brief
declared:
l. The overwhelming prepon-
derance of historical and legal
evidence demonstrates that Con-
gress and the States, in submit
ting and ratifying the 14th
amendment. did not contemplate
it would abolish segregation in
public schools.
2. Nor was it the understand
ing of that Congress and those
States that any future Congress
could rely on the 18th amend
ment to abolish Segregation in
I public schools.
8. 1t is not within the power
OF the courts to construe the
l4th amendment as abolishing
such segregation.
Could Permit Adjustment"
4. Assuming, however, that
segregation were found to vio-
late the 14th amendment, the
Supreme Court conceivably could
/ permit IAN effective gradual ad-
justment" to end segregated sys-
TENS, but would not be obliged
to order that segregation be
ended forthwith"
S. Assuming again that segre-
cation were found unconstitu-
tionel, the Supreme Court could
not properly hand down a de-
tailed decree as to the precise
method of integrating white and
colored schools. The court