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

&NOSAA NN44A AASsNS w III
h School.-AP Photo.
trict courts decision. For in.
herent in that ruling is tn,
idea that the constitutions,
rights of some citizens may
be suspended or ignored be-
cause Of the antagoniStic act.
of others.
If constitutional rights coulC
be so easily negated, they would
amount to little. Here, i
should be noted, there is moi
the slightest suggestion tina
the colored children did any.
thing to incite violence or dis.
orderly conduct.
Because they were colored
their mere presence in thu
school led others to engage II
the conduct which the district
court thought to be sufficient
Justification for SuSpending thu
children's constitutional right.
rights which can be enforced
only while they are of schoo
age, so that any Suspension
of their rights is actually &
permanent and irretrievablc
deprivation.
This court has rejected the
claim that a restriction upor
the rights Of Negroes might be
Unsettled as a means of avoid
ing racial disturbance.
That there exists a serious
and difficult problem arising
from a feeling of race hostility
which the law is powerless to
control, and to which it must
give a measure Of consideration,
may be freely admitted" the
court said. But it's solution
cannot be promoted by depriv-
ing citizens of their constitu-
tional rights and privileges"
Buchanan v. Marley.
The court below has stated
In the instant case that it
would create an impossible
situation" if the district courts
order were sustained. every
school district in which inte-
grafton is publicly opposed by
overt acts would have 'justifi-
able excuse to petition the
courts for delay and suspension
In indignation programs. An
aftirmance Of temporary delay
in Little Rock would amount to
an open invitation to elements
in other districts to overly act
out public opposition through
violent and unlawful means"
B. Both the school authori-
ties and the district court can
adopt measures calculated to
protect petitioners cOnstitu-
tiOnal rights.
We believe that the decision
OF the court of appeals is cor
rect in that it recognizes that
the narrow grounds of opposi-
ton, violence and unlawful
acts do not justify a postpone
ment Of the plan.
We point out additionally
that, as in the case of any APP
plication for equitable relief,
the respondents were obligated
to do everything within their
power before they could obtain
relief from the court. Had an
affirmative burden of proving
need for additional time been
assumed and the case proved
on juStif1able and equitable
grounds, the court would have
a different problem before it.
As the court below observed,
the school authorities and the
district court are not without
to deal with the prevail
ing situation and to protect
p e titioner'S constitutional
rights.
/. Respondents can obtain in
junctive relief to protect them
from outside interference with
the performance Of their con-
Stitutional duties.
While it may be true, as the
district court found, that deep
seated popular opposition to
principle of indignation" exists
in Little Rock. it is clear that
he active inStigators Of obStruc-
ton are limited in number.
In response to interrogatories
put to them by petitioners, re-
SpondentS were readily able to
name the individuals and the
primarily respon-
sibIe for the Campaign Of OPP
position" to their plan. Re-
spondents can seek-and, If the
practical necessities require,
they have a duty to seek-in-
junctive relief against this band
Of troublemakers.
This is precisely what was
done by the school authorizes Of
Hoxie School District No. 46,
also in Arkansas, when their
plan Of desegregation met with
n q ssive interference spear
headed by a small group. In
deed, it should be noted that
one Of the defendants against
whom injunctive relief was
sought in that case, Amis Guth-
ridge, is also named by re-
spondents here as being among
the active obstructionists to