Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1958-09-04
VARIED VIEWS
To the Editor Of The Star:


Your editorial August 80 on
Judicial 'Hairsplitting'," in
which you join the mob Of
critics Of our court system,
is less than judicious. You
apparently approve Of the
statement of FBI Director
j. E. Hoover that some judges,
in striving to protect the in
nocent, seem guided by q
tendency to be overly solicit
tous of criminals" This is
name-calling and invites the
retort that some law-enforce-
ment officers in striving to
apprehend criminals seem
guided by a tendency to be
impatient of inalienable rights
of suspected individuals who
may be innocent.
Some of them turn out to
be guilty. Does that mean
that before this mas. been
finally determined. it was
wrong to have been solicitous
of their rights under the law?
What may seem a mere
technicality of procedure"
magnified out of proportion
may be a device set up by
law which does on occasion
protect the innocent. even
though on other, perhaps
more, occasions 1t makes it
more difficult to convict the
guilty. 1t is not a fair crfti-
cism to cite instances of how
the technically" does the
latter without pointing out
that this is the price society
must pay, namely. making
law-enforcement officers work
harder for their pay, for the
sake of preventing wrong
done to innocent people. What
would Mr.. Hoover haye-that
a man he knows" is guilty
should be convicted without
further ado?
The courts are getting 1t
in the neck now from every
direction. Here we see them
criticized for an excessive re-
gard for mere technicalities
of procedure" that is for be-
ing too legalistic. But they
are also criticized for not be-
ing 'legalistic" enough, espe-
cially in connection with
school desegregation. We are
told that instead of sticking
to the law, they stray into the
fields of psychology and soci-
ology.
"And if thine eye offend
thee, pluck it out. and cast 1t
from thee" What do we need
the courts for? Let's have a
"do-it-yourself" system. AL
ready Tom. Dick or Harry
feels free to declare a de-
cision of the Supreme Court
null and void" as far as he
is concerned. Isn't it one OF
the rights our boys fought
and died for in fighting for
freedom, the right to throw
bottles at the umpire?
Stephen Rock.
Your August "a editorial
Little Rock Stay" expressed
the common sense opinion
that, 1.-THE only question in
volved in the Little Rock
maneuvering now under way
is whether that city's Central
High School is to open or
an integrated or segregated
basis" You further state thai
this question sis important
to individuals who in the i'm
mediate sense are involved,
and is not in the larger sense
the important issue.
I agree with you. Sinc'
Justice, like charity, begins
at home and spreads abroad
and since "all mankind'S con
Germ is charity" the impor'
tant consideration centerI
around Little Rock, as thu
starting point of justice. I
justice cannot be found there
then it is expected that lega
procedures will be instituted
at the source of justice, TIN
Supreme Court, in order II
prevent injustices from
spreading to other areas
This, in the final analysis, /
the overall issue at stake
Mindful Of the sacred doc
trine, Elm as much as you d.
it unto the least Of them yol
do it unto me-" and of tn
observations of a great Pres
ident who said, 'lawlessnes
breeds lawlessness," we ar
rive at the conclusion tina
the real issue vitality con
Germs the prevention of
precedent being set up on
segregation pattern. Fo
would not such a patter
serve as an overture to a
impending tragedy? Whethe
the prelude or the "two-and
one-half year" interlud
would be followed by furthe