Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1958-05-25

tween use Of the word "efiicient"
In the original placement law and
is definition In other State anti
migration statutes was one fac
tor In adverse court decisions
against the first law.
With these changes. the State
has answered some Of the objec-
tons raised by Federal judges TO
the original placement law.
But the courts have raised other
objections that are still TO be
met. Federal Judge Walter Hoff-
man In the Norfolk and Newport
News cases pointed 10 q statement
Of policy by the General Assembly
that the mixing of races In the
public schools constitutes a clear
and present danger affecting and
endangering the health and well
fare Of the children and citi-
zens ." He also took note Of
the fund cutoff and school-closing
measures as evidence the original
placement law was not q bona
fide answer TO the Supreme Court
decision.
Judge Bryan said last Septem-
Der in the Arlington case that
submission TO the original place.
ment law amounts almost TO as
sent TO a racially segregated
school," He said the placement
board actually deliberated on q
racial question, under threat Of
loss Of State money to the appli-
cant's school II children Of differ
ent races are taught there"
Policy: No Indignation
It is still the States avowed
policy-backed up by laws-that
there shall be no indignation any
where. The school closing law
and fund cutoff measure are still
intact, the former in somewhat
stronger terms than it was when
originally adopted in 1856. 1t
would seem, therefore, that the
new placement law hardly has an
even chance of surviving any bet
ter than the first one did.
But at least it gives the State
something new to go into court
and talk about. And after all, it
took the better part o: two years
to scuttle the original law-with
no indignation in the meantime.
State strategy presumably is to
contend that Negro students have
to use the new placement law
when they try to enter white
schools in the fall. AS soon as this
happens, attorneys for the Negro
students are expected to go right
back in court again and claim
the new law represents no more
compliance with the Supreme
Court edict than the old one did.
On Friday night q civil rights
lawyer told the Citizens Commit
tee for School Improvement in
Arlington that "there Is little
doubt" that a Federal court would
grant them an injunction to pro-
hibit Gov. Almond from closing
the schools.
The attorney, Harry B. Merican
of Washington, said also that he
believed q taxpayers suit to pre-
vent county schools from being
denied State funds probably
would succeed"
Its the taxpayers money" Mr..
Merican observed.
What the State cannot bank
on is that the patience Of the Fed
eral courts will endure. Stay after
stay has been granted while the
original placement law worked its
way through the courts. With
each decision, the courts have in
dicated what type of placement
program would be acceptable.
Judge Bryan in one order went
so far as to say the answer might
we'll be a State agency-such as
placement board operating with
out handicaps like the fund
cutoff.
But apparently the courts are
not going to be satisfied with any
program that boldly bars any pos
sibility of integration-and that
is what Virginia still is striving to
do. The next time Virginia asks
for a postponement, the Federal
Courts may not be as generous as
they have been in the past.