Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1958-08-28

impede, obstruct and intimi.
date" them from carrying out
a desegregation order of the
court. Kasper v. Britain.
Even in the absence of an
application for injunctive re-
lief on the part Of respondents,
the district court, sitting as q
court of equity, had ample
power to direct that such re.
lief be sought. Faubus v. UniteC
States ct al.
If Intervention by the court
was indeed necessary to deal
with the threat Of interference
then certainly the remedy to
be fashioned was one directed
at the obstructionists, not ir
their favor.
2. Respondents can maintain
f1rmer discipline within Central
High School.
In Paragraph IL Of their
Substituted Petition" re-
spondentS, after reciting the
outside interference which they
have encountered. state:
"a large majority Of the pu-
lpils in Central High School
have exhibited the highest type
of good citizenship in their
daily scholastic activities, but
a small group, with the en-
couragement Of certain adults,
has absorbed the prevailing
spirit of defiance and has al
most daily created incidents
which make it exceedingly diff
cult for teachers to teach and
for pupils to learn. The exist
ing pupil unrest, teacher I'M
rest and parent unrest, like
wise make it difficult for the
district to maintain a satisfac-
tory educational program.
The group of students inter-
fering with the plan numbered
no more than rs. Despite
numerous and repeated in
stances Of smuggling, kicking,
splitting, name-calling and
wanton destruction Of school
property, only two students
were expelled.
Mr.. j. o. Powell, Central
High Schools own vice prin-
cipal Of boys, was convinced
that if the school adopted and
carried out a firm policy of
long-term suspension and, if
necessary, permanent expulsion
OF serious troublemakers, the
problems Of. the past school
year would be considerably re-
duced.
These views were shared by
petitioners two expert wit
nesses, DR.. Rogers, dean of the
School of Education of SYRIA
cuse University, and DR.. Salten,
city superintendent of schools
at Long Beach, N. Y.
3. There has been no show
ing that respondents have in
voked the assistance of other
responsible State agencies.
The primary responsibility for
maintaining order in the COM
munity and taking all other
necessary measures to the end
that the decree Of the District
Court may be duly carried out
rests upon the State and its
officials. See City of Chicago
v. Sturges, Sterling v. ConStan-
tin. Respondents are State
officials and, as such, obligated
under the constitution to adj
minister the public schools of
the district so that public edu-
cation will be available on q
nondiscriminatory basis. Board
OF Education v. Barnette,
Respondents petitioned the
District Court to relieve them
from this obligation on the
ground that opposition to the
admission of colored school
children had assumed serious
proportions. But, according to
the record, they failed to show
that they sought assistance
from other duly constituted au-
thorities of the State to aid
them in the performance of
their duties.
Thus, there is no evidence
in the record to indicate that
determined local authorities
cannot handle, if necessary,
any future disturbance occur
ring in or around Central
High School. There was no
showing that, prior to coming
into court, respondents had
even consulted With local law
enforcement agencies. Nor was
there any showing that they
sought to enlist the aid Of the
Mayor Of Little Rock, the City
Manager, or any other Official
Of the State.