Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-10-07
Low of the Land

agreement with the right OF
David Lawrence to put for
ward in his column any
opinion he may have, it i.
my opinion that Mr.. Law
renee does not have the right
to misrepresent the facts,
either deliberately or other
wise. 1t seems TO me that
The Star owes a duty to its
readers TO correct any mis-
statement OF facts that may
appear in Mr.. Lawrence S
column.
I direct attention specifi-
cally to Mr. Lawrence's COL
umn OF September 30. in
which he stated For there
is no provision OF law which
authorizes the President TO
use the Army for the purpose
he outlined Mr.. Lawrence
further states that the Act Of
1873. known as the Posse
Comitatus Act" does the fol-
lowing 1t limits and re-
stricts an earlier law passed
in 1871 which the President
cited in his official proclama-
ton last week as justification
for sending the Federal
troops into Arkansas.
Mr.. Lawrence citations
are completely in error. The
President cited and used Title
10. U. S. c, A.. sections 1872,
1888. and 1874. as his authority
for his action in sending
troops into Little Rock. Ark
These particular sections Of
Title 10. U. S. c. A.. we're
codified Into the United
States Code on August 10,
1856.
Title 10. U. S. c. A.. Sec.
1872. reads as follows: use of
militia and armed forces to
enforce Federal authority
Whenever the President con-
siders that unlawful obstruc-
lions. combinations. or as
Semolages. or rebellio n
against the authority Of the
United States. make it i'm
practicable to enforce the
laws Of the United States IN
any State or Territory by the
ordinary course of judicial
J proceedings. he may call INTO
Federal service such OF the
militia OF any State. and use
such Of the armed forces, as
he considers necessary TO en-
force those laws or to- sup
press the rebellion.
Further, Nj Lawrence
fails to point out that the
Posse ComitatuS Act Of
1873 was changed and codi-
fed into Title 10. Sec. 1902,
u S CA. on August 10. 1856.
That Mr.. Lawrence column
would be misleading to the
general public seems to be
quite clear when l as a law
yer was disturbed at what he
had written l Immediately
began TO check the various
statutes involved in the
Little Rock matter. 1t was
then l discovered that Mr..
Lawrence had incorrectly in
formed the public regarding
the legal authority for the
actions OF the President.
II seems TO me that
whether one agrees or dis
agrees with the Presidents
action in sending troops into
Little Rock. certainly II
should not be broadcast TO
the general public that he
has acted in clear violation
OF law when the facts are
clearly to the contrary. l
definitely feel that the true
authority for the action OF
the President should be made
public so as to clear up any
misunderstanding that might
arise as a result Of Mr..
Lawrences column,
Andrew T. Altman.
I wonder II some OF us
who are so explicit and elo-
quent IN sanctlfying the
phrase the supreme law OF
the land actually know
what We are talking about.
wonder If many OF us have
ever bothered enough to ac-
tually learn what the cur
rent controversy Is all about.
instead Of mimicking the
meaningless phrases and
underlined edicts OF the SUI
preme Court. II all OF us
were to expose ourselves to
the facts concerning the rat
ification Of the Fourteenth
Amendment, which are a
matter Of history, We would
discover that no such
amendment was ever legal
~ ratified by thrce-fourthS
of the States OF the Union.
as required by the Constitu-
ton itself. and that this in
valid article is responsible
for the now famous Supreme
Court decision OF 1854. The
means employed by the Fed