Evening star., 1954-05-17
Separate
Doctrine Out in
Historic Decision

Historic Decision
Continued From First Page.)
i startling suddenness, despite
suspense that had been building
e up constantly in recent weeks.
: Dozens Of newspaper reporters
; gathered as usual in the Supreme
. Court press room where printed
opinions in several other cases
were distributed when the mem
ber Of the court began reading
them in the courtroom upstairs.
The reporters then were told
that the reading of opinions in
the segregation cases would be-
gin in a few moments. They
hurried to the courtroom but
? were not given the copies or
allowed to leave the room until
Chief Justice Warren concluded
the reading.
The District school segregation
case was decided basically the
same as were those in the
+ specific States. Chief Justice
!. Warren, however, in the separate
opinion, noted that the legal
issues were somewhat different
because the opponents Of segre-
CATION had declared that the sys-
TEN deprived Negro children OF
due process of law under the
Fifth Amendment. The attack
on the State systems was brought
under the Fourteenth Amend
merit.
The "great segregation de-
bate"-one of the most momen-
tous in Supreme Court history
on constitutionality of racial
segregation in public schools was
heard by the justices on two
separate occasions.
Hear Separate Cases.
They listened for 10 hours in
December, 1852, to arguments
on cases from the District and
the four States. They adjourned
In June, 1853, without handing
June, 1858, without handing
down a decision.
Early last December, they gave
ear to another 10 hours Of a4gu-
mentS on specific questions.
Those dealt with intent of the
trainers of the 14th Amendment.
power of the court to interpret
that amendment as banning such
segregation and the most ap-
propriate and effective method
of putting into operation any
possible order for integration Of
white and Negro schools.
On each occasion, the respec-
tive appeals from lower court
decisions involved special cir
cumStances and some differences
in legal approach. But the crux
OF the problem was whether the
Supreme Court should sustain
the separate but equala doctrine
stated in an 1896 decision or de-
clare that such racial segregation
violates constitutional rights
even if facilities in schools were
otherwise equal for Negro and
white pupils.
Watched Nationally.
The Supreme Courts final de.
cision was awaited with partic-
ular interest in the District and
II States which require segrega-
ton in their public school sys-
TENS. and to three other States
that permit it. While the even
tual decisions were expected to
apply directly to the District and
the four States presenting the
cases at issue. it was certain to
be OF national Importance.
In the arguments last Decem-
Der. the debate in the four State
cases Swirled principally around
the 14th amendment, which
provides that no State may de-
prive any person of due process
or equal rights under the law
because of race. In the District
case, it centered on the 5th
amendment. which says no one
shall be deprived of life, liberty
or property without due process
Of law.
Opponents of segregation
contended that the 14th amend
ment bars segregation under any
conditions. A Justice Depart
ment spokesman told the court |
that. although the legislative |
history Of the amendment was
"inconcluSive" as to specific in
tent Of the trainers, there was
no question that the tribunal
has the power and duty" to rule
that segregation violates the
amendment.
Equal Theory Pleaded.
Attorneys for the States, es-
pecially Virginia and South Car
olina, contended that Congress
and the ratifying States did not
intend the 14th amendment to
prohibit racial segregation in
schools. They maintained that
such segregation is constitu-
tional so long as both races have
substantially equal facilities. In
any event, they said, abolition of
segregation is q matter for the
States. or Congress in the case
OF the District, and not for the
courts to decide.
Lawyers for the District pre-
sented somewhat different
argument. They informed the
court they were not arguing for
or against segregation as such.
But they contended segregation
in the school system here was
being legally enforced in accord
ance with a mandatory and
constitutional act Of Congress.
AS had been indicated by the
questions it propounded in ad-
vance Of arguments, the Su-
preme Court last December