Evening star., 1953-12-09
Reply by Norman
In School Case Is
Accepted by Court
CONTINUED From First Page.)

NCOublnueQ from r1TSC Eage.J
the District case argument
late yesterday that the con-
greSsional enactmentS do not
require school segregation But
even if those laws should be
found to compel such segrega-
ton they are unconstitutional,
the lawyers declared.
Legal Position.
Mr.. Norman began by making
clear that the Corporation
Counsel's ONCE was not discuss
ing the rightness or wrongness
of segregation. His strictly legal
position, he explained. was that
the statutes under which the
segregated schools are conducted
here are lawful and constitu-
tional.
If change in those laws seems
desirable or necessary because of
changed conditions or other
factors since their enactment
almost century ago. Mr.. Kor-
man said, the decision should be
ordered by Congress and not the
courts.
Unlike the So-called 'lost
laws" which the Supreme Court
last June ruled require restau-s
rants here to serve patrons re-
gardless of race, Mr.. Norman
continued. the laws providing for
separation of the races in public
schools of the District have never
been dormant. They have re-
peatedly been legislated on by
Congress and cit appears they
are still valid" he stated.
Justice Frankfurter broke in to
ask whether he spoke for the
Board of Education. Mr.. Kor-
man conceded he had not inter-
viewed the members on the
sociological issue" He explained
that he did not deem this nee
essary from the standpoint Of
the legal issue relating to defense
Of the congregational enact
mentS.
Justice Frankfurter observed
that the Corporation Counsel's
Office, as with attorneys in the
other cases, must represent in
dividual clients before the court.
Mr.. Norman insisted that he
spoke for the board in the orig
inal arguments last December
and again this week.
Mr.. Norman said that, al
though the board now has an
almost ( completely different
membership than it had last
year, nevertheless it knew of the
legal position and never notified
the corporation counsel of a
change in that regard. He de-
clared, moreover, that the
Corporation Counsel's Office has
an order from the Commission
ers to represent the board and
other respondents in the case.
This exchange, which involved
Justices Jackson and Black as
well as Justice Frankfurter. oc-
CURED during the last few min
utes before court adjourned for
the day. It apparently came as
no great surprise to George E. C.
Hayes and James M. Nabrit, jr.,
attorneys in behalf of the Negro
children and the Consolidated
Parents. Inc.
Mr.. Nabrit; in his earlier argu-
ment. told the court that the
District school officials lacked
authority to require school seq
regation under the laws. So
far as the Board of Education
was concerned, he said, it was
difficult to pin down responsible
ity because members were ap-
pointed by the judges of the Dis
trict Court for the District Of
Columbia and not by the Com
missioners or Congress. He de-
scribed this as "a very unusual
procedure.
Finds No Authorization.
He. and Mr.. Hayes contended
that the laws say nothing about
school segregation being COM
pulsory here. Nor is there any
authorization for the Board OF
Education or District officials in
general to require segregation.
But the issue is far bigger and
broader than that, the lawyers
said. Mr.. Hayes declared that
what the Supreme Court will say
about school segregation will be
of concern not merely to II
States and the District, but to
the entire world. Mr.. Nabrit
emphasized that under the Sys-
tenn Of legalized segregation
lAglZ&A Z&AZRlzAlZgl MIC