davidaulloa/AmericanStories huggingface dataset:
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-02-01
BY EASLEY BLACKWOOD

5&1AC UluOlI1S.
South West North East
INT Pass 3NT All pass
The club suit arrangement in
this hand comes along quite fire.
quently-four to the ace-l0 OPP
posite four to the jack.
Mr.. Dale led the. jack of hearts
against the three-no-trump con-
tract and Mr.. Abel won with the
king in dummy. He saw that he
had two quick winners in spades,
three in hearts and two in dia-
monds-a total of seven outside
the club suit. He needed to de-
velop two trick in clubs. How
would you go about it?
Not like Mr.. Abel did. I hope.
he led a small club from dummy
at trick two and f1nessed the 10
spot. This lost to the lone king
and now. since Mr.. Masters still
held Q-9-8 over durnmy'S jack,
there was no chance to win more
than one club.
The correct play in this situa-
ton is to cash the ace first and
then to lead a small card toward
the jack. OF course you have to
be able to afford" the safety
play by having sufficient shoppers
in the other suits, as Mr.. Abel
did in this deal.
Using the play suggested. the
ace would have picked up the
king and the jack would have
lost on the next trick to Mr..
Masters queen. However. this
would have set up Mr.. Abel's 10
as a winner and he would have
made his contract.
The play would have been just
as successful if the defenders
club holdings had been reversed.
In that case Mr.. Masters would
have had the lone king and it
would have fallen under the ace.
A following lead toward dummy's
jack would have made sure of
one more winner.
When one defender has a low
singleton and the other has four
cards including king and queen,
the ace first is still the right play.
You will simply win the first
and fourth tricks in the suit in
stead Of the first and third.
In fact you can take two club
tricks by this play against all FIVE
clubs in either opponents hand,
Try it.
Distributed by McNaught Syndicate. Inc. j
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-02-01
OUR PRESIDENTS
By HONORE M. CATUDAL

1.-The President appointed a
new Secretary of War. SO years
ago today. the man who was to
succeed him in the White House
Who were these two Presidents?
"A former Secretary Of the
Treasury. who married the Presi-
dents daughter while he was q
member of the Cabinet. died in
Washington is years ago today
Who?
3-This was a sad day in q
Springfield dll) home. 107 years
ago; little Eddie" the second
son Of a future President. was
dead. Which President?
tAnswers on Next Page)
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-01-01

Court Of Appeals Of the Fifth
Circuit in Jackson v. Rawdon 8
Cir. 235F. I'd 90. Cert. Den. u. g..
which reversed the action Of a
District judge in refusing an in
junction in a somewhat similar
case.
On Question of Speed
Speaking for the court in that
case. Chief Judge Joseph C.
Hutchinson said:
I'VE think it clear that. upon
the plainest principles governing
cases of this kind, the decision
appealed from was wrong in re-
fusing to declare the constitu-
tional rights of plaintiffs to have
the school board, acting prompt
ly, and completely uninfluenced
by private and public opinion as
to the desirability Of desegrega-
ton in the community, proceed
with deliberate speed consistent
with administration to abolish
segregation in Mansfield's only
high school and to put into effect
desegregation there.
Had the court made such a
declaration and retained the
cause for further orders rleces-
sary to implement it. deferment
to a later time of action on the
prayer for injunctive relief. if
necessary, may we'll have been
within his discretion. The issu-
ance of such a declaration of
rights with retention of the case
would have given the court the
means of effectually dispelling
the misapprehension of the
school authorities as to the ma
ture of their new and profound
obligations and compelling their
prompt performance of them"
The DEGREES here are not harsh
or unreasonable but merely re-
quire that the law be observed
and discrimination on the
ground of race be eliminated.
The Arlington decree expressly
states that local rules as to as
signment to classes. so long as
such rules are not based on race
or color. are to be observed. and
that administrative remedies for
admission to schools must be ex-
hausted before application is
made to the court for relief on
the ground that its injunction is
being violated. While the Char
lottesville decree does not con-
tain this express provision. the
provision is so eminently reason
able that we may safely assume
that enforcement of that decree
will not proceed upon different
principles. AS much was indi-
Gated by the Judge in his re-
marks denying the motion to
dismiss.
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-01-01
Parole Breaker Gets
Added Maryland Term

BALTIMORE, Jan. R.-
Salvatore T. Mollica's arrest in
Frederick cost him an extra %
months in prison yesterday.
Mollica was released from
prison late in 1855 after serving
four months of a three-year
sentence for robbing Baltimore
fur store.
One condition of his parole
was that he stay out of Mary
land for 10 years. He was ar
rested and convicted of burglary
in Frederick last October and
sentenced to 10 years.
Judge Joseph L. Carter added
the IS months of the original
Baltimore sentence because
Mollica broke his parole.
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-01-01

delphia Co. v. Stimson, Supra)
may be restrained and enjoined
from unconstitutional action. we
see no reason why a school
board should be exempt from
such suit merely because it has
been given corporate powers. A
State can act only through
agents; and whether the agent
be an individual ofiicer or q
corporate agency. it ceases . to
represent the State when it at
itempts to use State power in
in violation Of the Constitution
and may be enjoined from such
unconstitutional action.
While no such question was
raised in the cases heard by
the Supreme Court in Brown v
Board of Education, BAT U. S
483 and $40 U. S. 294. the ques-
ton was inherent in the record
in those cases; and it is not
reasonable to suppose that the
Supreme Court would have di-
rected injunctive relief against
school boards acting as State
agencies. If no such relief could
be granted because of the pro-
visions of the Eleventh Amend
ment to the Constitution.
There is nothing to the con.
trary in the decision of this
court in O'Neill v. Early 4 Cir
208 F. I'd 286, which was a suit
against a State agency to esta-
blish a liability payable out OF
public funds controlled by the
agency in its supervision Of the
States educational sysem. We
quoted from the decision of the
Supreme Court, speaking
through Mr.. Justice Reed in
Great Northern Life Insurance
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-01-01

ceeding without the authority of
and one which does not affect
the State in its sovereign or gov
ornamental capacity. It is simply
an illegal act upon the part Of a
State official in attempting by
the use Of the name of the State
to enforce a legislative enact
ment which is void because un-
constitutional. If the act which
the State attorney general seeks
to enforce be a violation Of the
Federal Constitution, the officer
in proceeding under such enact
ment comes into conflict with
the superior authority Of that
Constitution. and he is in that
case stripped of his official or
representative character and is
subject in his person to the
consequences Of his individual
conduct. The State has no
power to impart to him any i'm
munity from responsibility to the
supreme authority of the United
States"
See also Lane v. Watts 234
U. S. SIS, $40; Philadelphia Co.
". Stimson 223 U. S. COS; Colo
RADIO v. Toll 268 U. S. 228, 230;
Ferris v. Wilbur 81 F End 1852;
Appalachian Electric Power Co.
v. Smith 4 Cir. 81 F. I'd 451. asa.
No Grounds for Distinction
1t is argued that the doctrine
thus laid down must be confined
to individuals and may not be
applied to corporate agencies
Of the State such as school
boards. We see no ground for
such a distinction. If high Off
Gals Of the State and of the
Federal Government (see Phila-
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-01-01

suit for such relief is not a
suit against a State within the
meaning Of the 18th Amendment
to the Constitution but is a suit
for the protection Of individual
rights under the Constitution by
enjoining State officers and
agencies from taking action be-
yond the scope Of their legal
powers. The difference between
using the injunctive power OF
the court to direct the exercise
Iof discretion by State officer
and using it to enjoin the viola
ton by him of constitutional
rights under the authority of his
office was pointed out nearly
a half-a-century ago in Elk Parte
Young 209 U. S. 1913. 1890
where the court said:
ut Is contended that the com.
plainants do not complain anc
they care nothing about any
action which Mr.. Young might
take or bring as an ordinary in
dividual, but that he was com.
planned of as an officer. to whose
discretion is confided the use OF
the name Of the State of Mime
sofa so far as litigation is con-
cerned and that when or how he
shall use it is a matter resting in
his discretion and cannot be
controlled by any court.
1.-THE answer to all this is the
same as made in every case
where an official claims to be
acting under the authority of the
State. The act to be enforced
is alleged to be unconstitutional
and If it be so, the use of the
name Of the State to enforce an
unconstitutional act to the in
jury Of compliments is a pro-
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-01-01

leo. v. Read 322 q. S. AZ: "Ef-
forts o force, through suits
against officials, performance oil
promises by a State collide
directly with the necessity that
a sovereign must be free from
judicial compulsion in the carry
ing out of its policies within the
limits Of the Constitution" This
is. of course, a very different
thing from enjoining a State
ofhcer or State agency from
taking action violative Of the
Constitution.
Court Right on Remedies
We think that the court was
CLEARLY right with respect to ex-
haustion Of administration rem
edies. The pupil placement law
recently enacted by the General
Assembly had not become ef-
fective and, in so far as Section
22-27 Of the Code of Virginia is
concerned, that only provided
for petition to a school board
by joint action Of FIVE heads Of
families who felt themselves ag-
Igrieved by action of the board
If it could be held applicable tc
the plaintiffs here, its provisions
we're satisfied by the applications
made to the boards without re-
suit in both cases here before
Jus by counsel acting in behalf Of
plaintiffs. Defendants argue. ir
this connection. that plaintiffs
have not shown themselves en-
titled to injunctive relief be-
cause they have not individually
applied for admission to any
particular school and beer
denied admission. The answer
is that in view Of the announced
policy Of the respective schoo,
boards any such application to q
school other than a segregated
school maintained for colorec
people would have been futile
and equity does not require the
doing Of a vain thing as con.
dition Of relief. Reliance Ii
placed upon our decision in Car
son v. Warlick 4 Cir. F. I'd. Ir
that case. however, an adequate
administrative remedy had beer
prescribed by statute. the plain.
tiffs there had failed to pursue
the remedy as outlined in the
decision of the Supreme Court
Of the State and there wal
nothing upon which a cour
could say that If they had fol-
lowed such remedy their rights
under the Constitution woulc
have been denied them.
There is no basis for the con.
tention that either of the Judge.
below abused his direction il
granting the injunction. 1t hac
. been two years since the frs
decision Of the Supreme Court
in Brown v. Board Of Education
and, despite repeated demands
, upon them, the boards of educa.
ton had taken no steps toward.
removing the requirement o.
segregation in the schools which
the Supreme Court had helc
lviolative of the constitutions
: rights of the plaintiffs. This wa!
mot deliberate speed" in com
. plying with the law as laid dowr
by the Supreme Court. but wal
clear manifestation of an atti.
tude Of intransigence. which jus.
titled the issuance of the injunc.
ton to dispel the misapprehen.
, sion Of school authorities as tt
, their obligations under the Law
!, and to bring about their prompt
compliance with constitutional
requirements as interpreted by
the Supreme Court. Very much
in point is the decision Of the
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-01-01

cHOOlS.
any time. In view of all these
circumstances, it is not seen
where any good can be accom-
plished by deferring the effec-
tive date of the courts decree
beyond the beginning Of the
school session opening this au-
tumn. Even though the time be
limited. it is not impossible that.
at the school session opening in
September of this year. a reas-
enable start be made toward
complying with the decision Of
the Supreme Court"
The Order Is Quoted
The order, which by its terms
was to become effective at the
commencement of the school
term beginning in September
1856, and which retained juris-
6iction of the cause for such
future action as might be nee
essary. restrained and enjoined
the defendants:
From any and all action that
regulates or affects. on the basis
of race or. color. the admission
enrolment or education of the
infant plaintiffs. or any other
Negro child similarly situated
to and in any public school op-
Grated by the defendants.
The Arlington case was heard
upon the pleadings and upon
documentary evidence submitted
to the court on a motion to dis
miss. The judge found from the
documentary evidence and from
the statements of counsel in
open court that there was nc
genuine issue as to any mate
rial fact in the case and that
ION the admissions of record
and the uncontrovertible allega-
tons of the complaint. summary
judgment should be granted the
plaintiffs"
With respect to exhaustion OF
administrative remedies he made
the following finding:
THAT. as appeared from the
said documentary evidence, the
plaintiffs before instituting this
suit had exhausted all admins
trative remedies then and now
available to them, including the
administrative steps set forth
in section 1921 Code of Vir-
GINA 1850. in that. they have
since July %, 1855. in effec:
maintained a continuing re-
quest upon the defendants, the
county school board and the d.
vision superintendent of schools
for admission Of Negro children
to the public schools of Airing
ton County on non-racial
basis. and said request has been
denied, or no action taken there
on, the equivalent of a denial
thereof"
The decree. which was made
effective with respect to ele-
mentary schools at the beginning
of the second semester of the
l950-l957 session and with re-
spect to high schools at the
commencement of the 1857
1858 session. restrained and en-
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-01-01

These are appeals in actions
instituted in behalf of Negro
school children to enjoin school
boards and division superintend-
ents of schools from enforcing
racial segregation. One action
relates to the schools of the City
of Charlottesville. Va. and the
other to the schools of the Coun-
ty of Arlington in that State
1njunctions were granted in both
cases and the school authorities
have appealed. raising practic-
ally the same questions. The
questions presented by the APP
peals are: % Whether the ac-
tons should have been dis
missed as suits against the State,
t2) Whether plaintiffs had failed
to exhaust administrative rem
edieS. and 90 Wether there was
abuse of discretion in entering
the injunctive orders.
With respect to the Charlottes-
vile case. it appeared on a hear
ing duly held that request had
been made to the school author
tiles to take action toward abol-
ishing the requirements of seq
regation in the schools and that
no action had been taken.
The Courts Opinion
The district judge in his opin-
ion. after reciting the pertinent
evidence. summarized his con-
illusions as follows
THE prayer of the complaint
is in substance that the defend
ants be enjoined from continu-
ing to maintain segregated
schools. The defendants have
refused to agree to abandon the
practice of segregation and have
made it plain that they intend,
If possible. to continue it. Under
this state of facts the plaintiffs
are undoubtedly entitled to
maintain this action and to have
the relief prayed for.
1T only remains to be deter
mined as to the time when an
injunction restraining defend
ants from maintaining segre-
gated schools shall become effec-
tive The original decision of the
Supreme Court was over two
years ago. Its supplementary
opinion directing that a prompt
and reasonable start be made to-
ward desegregation was handed
down fourteen months ago. De-
PENDANTS admit that they have
taken no steps toward compli-
ance with the ruling of the Su-
preme Court. They have not re-
Quested that the effective date of
any action taken by this court
be deferred to some future time
or some future school year.
They have not asked for any
extension of time within which
to embark on a program of de-
segregation. On the contrary,
the defense has been one OF
seeking to avoid any integra-
ton Of the schools in either the
near or distant future. They
have given no evidence of any
willingness to comply with the
ruling of the Supreme Court al
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-01-01

Joined the defendants from re-
fIsing on account Of race or
color to admit to. or enroll or
educate in, any school under
their operation, control, direc-
ton. or supervision any child
otherwise qualified for admis-
sion to. and enrolment and
education in, such school,"
Paragraph on Discrimination
The foregoing general Ian
guage of the decree was limited
by paragraph 4 thereof. which
made clear that the court was
not attempting to direct how
the school board should handle
the problem of assigning pupils
but was merely forbidding UNI
constitutional discrimination on
the ground Of race or color. That
paragraph is as follows:
a. The foregoing injunction
shall not be construed as nulli-
flying any State or local rules.
now in force or hereafter pro-
mulgated, for the assignment Of
children to classes. courses OF
study. or schools. so long as
such rules or assignments are
not based upon race or color;
nor, in the event Of a complaint
hereafter made by a child as
to any such rule or assignment.
shall said injunction be con-
Istrued as relieving such child Of
the duty Of first fully pursuing
any administrative remedy now
or hereafter provided by the de-
PENDANTS or by the Common
wealth of Virginia for the hear
ing and decision of such COM
plant before applying to this
court for a decision on whether
ANY such rule or assignment
violates said injunction"
In his memorandum filed al
the time of the entry of the de.
cree. Judge Bryan said:
1T must be remembered that
the decisions of the Supreme
Court of the United States in
Brown VS.. Board of Education,
1854 and 1855. BAT U. S. 483 and
349 U. S 294. do not compel the
mixing of the different races in
the public schools. No general
Ireshuf1ling Of the pupils in any
school system has been COM
manded. The order of the court
is simply that no child shall be
denied admission to a school or
the basis of race or color. Indeed.
just so a child is not through
any form of compulSion or pres
sure required to stay in a GER
tain school. or denied transfer
to another school, because Of his
race or color, the school heads
may allow the pupil, whether
white or Negro. to go to the same
school as he would have at
tended in the absence Of the
ruling of the Supreme Court.
Consequently, compliance with
that ruling may well not neces-
state such extensive changes in
the school system as some antici-
pate"
Explains DEGREES
We see nothing in these de-
icrees of which the defendants
can complain. The DEGREES do
not attempt to direct the school
officials as to how they shall
perform their duties or exercise
the discretion vested in them
by law, but simply forbid them to
discriminate against the plain
tiffs. or other Negro children
similarly situated, on the grounds
Iof race or color, in violation of
their rights under the Constitu-
ton of the United States as de-
Iclared by the Supreme Court. A
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-01-01
Text Of Appeals Decision
Directing Desegregotion

Here the ter OF the decision By the Fourth Circuit
Court OF Appeals yesterday upoldng oDr decisions
directing Arlington County Charlottesville proceed with
desegregation OF their public schools
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-01-01

MRS. LANE TAKES ARL INGTON SCHOOL POST
(rghD
Board yesterday after
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-01-07

and otherwise. pointed out the
danger of prolonged congress
sional debate. Arab leaders are
touchy and unsophisticated, they
explained. Words used by one
Senator to convince another or
to convince the, American public
are often not the words ideally
designed to convince an Arab
that a new policy is not anti
nationalist or imperialist. SEN
ators will have to speak with
care not to have American mo-
tives misunderstood.
Some papers complained about
"vagueness" in the Presidents
speech. The Times complained
that Mr.. Eisenhower did not de-
fine Middle East" or define
controlled by international
communism" These definitions
were left out. others assume, to
give Mr.. Eisenhower broad lee
way to act where and when he
sees fit.
But despite their complaints.
French and British spokesman
generally thought Mr.. Eisenhow-
er was coming around to their
point Of view on the Mideast
and welcomed the shift. The
London Daily Mail said, 1.-THE
New World has thus taken a
tremendous step into the old"
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-01-07
New Doctrine Rouses
Few Cheers in Europe

ing. But the papers and, pri.
vately. government officials
pointed out many problems
which the Eisenhower policy
does not tackle or even recog-
nize.
The Times of London this
morning says editorially that
Mr.. Eisenhower's program is
largely irrelevant to the main
cause of Mideast upheavals,
tensions and dangers" The
Sunday Times "a separately
owned paper provides a neat list
of these problems: Israeli :
Arab enmity, oil purchase and
distribution, Suez Canal opera
ton, Communist subversion and
military aid, political instability,
Arab refugees.
1t is useless to have a policy
on Communist military agrees
sion if you don't have a policy
on these other matters the Sum-
day Times said.
Several commentators, official
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-01-07

thur Radford. chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff. and Di-
rector John HOLSTER of the Eco
.nomic Cooperation Administra-
ton
Most observers agreed, how.
ever, that the Democrats woulC
not take the responsibility fol
killing the resolution. They are
more likely to put some of theil
own ideas into it as amendments
Chairman Gordon of the House
Committee said he wants to
know whether the White House
has IN mind spending S40O mil
Ilion or 5000 million. He said
he also wants to know whether
the administration plans to step
up American armed strength in
the Middle East in advance OF
trouble.
Representative Judd of Mime.
sofa, a veteran Republican or
the committee, said he did moi
think it wise to take any for.
eign aid funds already appropri.
ated for other areas and divert
them to the Middle East. HI
Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-01-07
Pianist GittIi
Cuts His Fingers,
Recital Cancelled

A recital by the young Uru-
guayan pianist Ernesto Gittli,
scheduled for tonight at the
Pan American Union. has been
Cancelled.
The pianist cut his fingers
yesterday while shaving at his
hotel here. The injury was not
serious, but enough to prevent
his playing for several days.
The concert probably will not
be rescheduled. because the en-
gagement calendar of the hall
does not allow for another suit
able date. a spokesman said.