Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1958-08-28
Mr.. Roqers to the Bor

In his address to the American Bar
Association, the Attorney General has
given preview of the approach which
the Department of Justice will take in
seeking to obtain compliance with the
Supreme Courts school decision.
Mr.. Rogers spoke with restraint. His
words we're carefully chosen. He stressed
the primary responsibility which rests
in this matter upon the States and
local authorities, and he appealed to
those authorities to follow a course of
action which would make Federal inter-
vention unnecessary. The Attorney Gen.
eral made it clear, however, that his
department and the President, if con-
fronted with forcible and unlawful de-
flance of final court indignation order,
will use the means at their disposal to
obtain compliance. He indicated that
his department, in such situation,
would assist in obtaining injunctions
and in prosecuting contempt cases for
violation of those injunctions. He did
not refer specifically to the use of troops.
But he did say that if mob violence we're
obstructing a lawful Indignation order
sit may not be enough to go back to the
courts for further relief in the form of
an injunction, a process which is neces-
Sarily time consuming. A mob does not
always wait"
II Mr.. Rogers has any plans for
coping with resistance to or defiance of
the Supreme Court ruling by what is
known in the South as legal" means,
he did not mention them.
In this category come such things
as the school closing laws which have
been enacted in Virginia and other
States. President Eisenhower said at his
news conference yesterday that it would
be terrible outcome" if schools were
closed, but he seemed to feel that the
problem of closed schools is something
that would have to be dealt with by the
people in the various States, presum-
ably through suits in the State courts.
There is nothing in Mr.. Rogers speech
to indicate that he feels otherwise, and
1t is doubtful, to say the least, that he
would have any authority to initiate
injunctive or contempt proceedings
against State officials who might close
schools.
Mr.. Rogers also refrained from any
specific reference to the situation in
Little Rock. He made one statement,
however, which bears on the Little Rock
problem, and which may be of some
significance. He said that the Supreme
Court, in its school decision, cleft the
method of change and the length OF
time required to meet the test of all
deliberate speed with due regard for
varying local conditions, to the local
school boards under the supervision of
the local Federal courts" The crux of
the matter, he added, is one of "inten-
tion"-Whether a reasonable effort has
been made in good faith to comply with
the ruling.
There can be no doubt about the
relevance of this observation to Little
Rock. No one doubts that the Little
Rock school authorities tried in good
faith to put their court-approved plan
of deSegregation into effect. They tried
for year-a year marked by violence,
Illustration and chaos in the city's fine
high school. After that year the school
authorities came back to the local Fed
eral court and asked for a 212-year
poStponement. The local Federal Judge,
after full hearing, granted the request,
finding that it had been made in good
faith and that local conditions justified
the delay He was reversed on appeal,
however, the Circuit Court holding that
to grant a delay in Little. Rock would
be tantamount to yielding to violence
and threats of violence.
Despite all of this, including Mr.
Rogers statement, the Department of
Justice brief filed today with the Su-
preme Court supports the NAACP posi-
ton. 1t is difficult to understand why.