Evening star., 1953-06-20
Continued From First Page.)

pating in the overall majority
opinion.
Meanwhile. attorneys for the
Rosenbergs spent a feveriSh and
fruitless afternoon trying to
obtain execution stay orders
from individual justices. Justice
Black sent word, through Su-
preme Court Clerk Harold VIII
ley, that he would not see the
lawyers. Justice Burton listened
to them in his chambers but
would not grant a stay. Justice
Jackson declined to see them or
to act. Justice Frankfurter, they
said, expressed willingness to
talk with them but emphasized
he would not take any action.
Even before these rebuffS by
the various justices, Attorney
Emanuel H. Bloch, chief counsel
for the Rosenbergs, attempted in
vain to have the full court give
him more time for what he
hoped would be a personal inter-
view with President Eisenhower
Similar motions were made by
Fyke Farmer, Nashville (Tenn0
attorney, who came into the case
only a week ago and put forth
the legal point on which Justice
Douglas based his order to Stay
the execution.
The justices retired from the
bench to consider those moves.
They returned about an hour
later to announce denial. Then
they officially closed the special
term that convened at noon
Thursday to hear arguments on
a Justice Department applica-
ton for overturn Of Justice
Douglas stay order.
The full bench listened and
asked questions for three hours
and deliberated another three
hours that day. They met again
in closed conference at 1890
am. yesterday and came out at
noon to hand down the decision
Douglas Power Upheld.
The 300-word opinion of the
court, read slowly and solemnly
by the Chief Justice, said Justice
Douglas unquestionably had
power to grant the stay because
he believed a substantial point
Of law deserved further judicial
determination.
Instead Of having the question
wend its way through lower Fed.
eral courts, the opinion noted
the Supreme Court considered II
Immediately on it's merits. And
the tribunal decided that it was
mot substantial" that further
proceedings to litigate it were
'unwarranted," and that, accord
ingly, the stay order of Justice
Douglas was vacated.
The lengthy disSentS then read
by Justices Douglas and Black
held especially rapt attention o1
the crowded courtroom. But the
opinions issued later by Justices
Jackson and Clark. concurrine
with the majority decision, at.
tracted equally great public in.
tereSt.
Legality Is Upheld.
Justice Jackson declared thai
the voiding of the stay should
not be construed "as indorsine
the wisdom or appropriateness tc
this case Of a death sentence.
He added that the sentence new
ertheless was clearly permitted
by law and could not be revised
by the Supreme Court.
The Jackson opinion made
clear that the Douglas stay order
was not based upon any doubt
that the Rosenbergs were legally
convicted under the Espionage
Act Of 1917. Justice Jackson de-
clared the 1946 Atomic Energy
Act "does not, by text or inten-
ton, supersede the earlier Es-
pionage Act" He said if the Gov
ernment had prosecuted the
Rosenbergs under the Atomic
Energy Act the case "in all prob
ability" would not have stood up
in court.
Justice Jackson showed he and
most of his colleagues were
troubled by the irregular" man.
ner in which the Atomic Energy
Act issue was brought back into
the case by attorneys who did
not represent the Rosenbergs.
He recalled that the Douglas
stay order was issued solely on a
petition in behalf of Irwin Edel-
man, a Los Angeles man whose
intervention, Justice Douglas
said, was unauthorized by the
Rosenbergs and originally op-
posed by their counsel"
The raising of the last-minute
question by attorneys for Edel-
man did not stop the Supreme
Court from considering it. JUS
tice Jackson indicated. But he
criticized 'it as IAN important
procedural matter of which we
diSapprove."
"The lawyers who have ably
and courageously fought the
Rosenbergs' battle throughout
then listened at this bar to the
newly imported counsel make an
argument which plainly implied
lack Of understanding or zeal on
the part Of the retained counsel
(for the Rosenbergs)" Justice
Jackson declared, They simply
had been elbowed out of the con-
troll of their case. That such
disorderly Intervention Is more
likely to prejudice than to help
the representation of accused
persons in highly publicized cases
is self-evident. We discounte-
nance this practice"
Justice Clark's concurring
opinion dealt mainly. with the
prolonged litigation that brought
the Rosenberg case into the Su-
preme Court on seven occasions
since last October.
Denies Scant Study,