Evening star., 1958-09-25
The Rule of Law

HC NUtC VI IuW
The Attorney General of
the United States should stop
preaching respect for law.
Respect for a law" you
say in your September 10
editorial, THE Rule of Law"
depends on what the law
says and is by no means
automatic or in every case
even desirable" In other
words, according to The
Star. if you don't like a law
or a court judgment, your
first impulse should not be
to submit to its tyranny"
but to hunt high and low
through the law books for
whatever legal lodges you can
find which will support
legal resistance. Not for
The Star is that aura of
reverence which some try to
place around the law, not for
us those powdered wigs and
gowns with which the English
courts bedeck their judges;
it's strictly a business prop
osition and those capable Of
mastering the best litigious
talents should receive the
laurels of righteousness. "Au-
tomato" predisposition to
obey the law before calcula-
ton on other laws, which can
generally be found on inde-
fatigable search, with which
to fuzz the issue, has been
built into many of us by our
education and religion; but
now not even this. Is sacred
to those people who, accord
ing to The Star. are simply
resisting what they may
think is wrong" am curious
as to what moral principle
they have to counterbalance
the principle that every in
dividual should be judged as
an individual and not as a
member of a group, racial or
otherwise. What moral prin-
ciple do they have higher
than the one that there is
only one human race,
created in the image OF
God" and that no man
should be forced to do any
thing. because he is a Negro.
a Jew, a. Catholic or any
thing else? For 1t is to be
presumed that if you en-
courage continuous litigation,
so that.there is never a show
down or final settlement, it
must be for some great moral
principle.
The Supreme Court did not
introduce what you call a
new definition" of the "law
of the land" In the dissent
ing opinion of Plessy VS.. Fer
guson, of May IS, 1896, JUS
tice Harlan said: "In view OF
the Constitution, in the eye
Of the law, there is in this
country no superior, domi-
nant, ruling class of citizens.
There is no caste here. Our
Constitution is color blind,
and neither knows nor toler-
ates classes among citizens.
In respect of civil rights, all
citizens are equal before the
law" Segregation of some
citizens from others by law,
according to Justice Harlan
sis inconsistent with the
guarantee given by the Con-
stitution of a republican form
of government, and may
be stricken down by con-
gressional action, or by the
courts in the discharge OF
their solemn duty to main
tain the supreme law of the
land, anything in the con-
stitution or laws of any State
to the contrary notwithstand-
ing" We honor the dissenting
opinions of Justices Holmes
and Brandeis as harbingers
of what eventually is accepted
by the majority as right; we
should not neglect the great
dissenter, who led them all, a
Kentucky gentleman and
former slaveowner, Justice
Harlan.
But David Lawrence 9TH
Star, September 18), referring
to the Plessy VS.. Ferguson
decision, tried to mislead his
readers who did not look
closely that the 7-to-1 vote
was due to the fact that one
justice, Justice Brewer, did
not participate and not to the
fact that there was a great
dissenting opinion, which de-
serves to be more widely
known. Sidney Koretz.
Editors Note: Mr., Koretz
accurately sums up the bur-
den of The Star editorial in
his recitation of how one
"law of the land" PlesSy VS..
Ferguson, was repealed by
the Supreme Court after a
good many people who didn't
like its tyranny" hunted
high and low through the
law books" to support their
illegal resistance" and f.
nally persuaded the Supreme
Court to pass another "law
Of the land.")