Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1958-09-30
Intecrution Debate

In the current sad con-
troversy brought on by the
Supreme Court choosing to
negate time-honored de-
cisions by their great prede-
cessors, I cannot fail to
recall the different actions Of
two Presidents Of the United
States.
When the Chief Justice
tried to write some claw Of
the land" taking away the
rights of the State Of Geor-
gia, President Andrew Jack
son said: John Marshall
has made his decision. now
let him enforce it,"
When our present Chief
Justice tried to take away
the rights Of Arkansas and
Virginia, President Dwight
Eisenhower not only acts as a
meSsenger-boy for the Su-
preme Court, but is even
willing to sabotage the gov
ernments of those two States
by imploring their citizens to
resist and overthrow their
authorities whom the people
elected by vast majorities.
The American people will
Judge which was the Sounder
position. My belief is that in
the long run the Jacksonian
approach will prevail.
COnstitutionaliSt.
+ ~
Local attitude with respect
to compliance with the May
II, 1854, decision Of the Su-
preme Court is so wide and
varied in Southern States
that none can say what the
final outcome will be. In most
parts it seems so remote
you'd have to describe it as
wishful thinking.
Read a New York newspa-
per and you'll get the impress
sion there is a great clamor,
among Southern Negroes, for
Indignation. Get down to the
actual scene and you'll find
great forests in Alabama
where there are no homes at
ALPHABETICALLY in the Tai
ladega foreSts-where you'd
better I'LL your gasoline tank
before you drive through.
Not even a gas pump for
miles. Only the industrial
area Of Alabama may face
indignation for a century or
more. A Yankee from Wis
consin, editing the Memphis
Commercial Appeal, has per-
haps picked the word that
best describes the Supreme
Court opinions. Following its
most recent decision denying
a 30-month delay in the Little
Rock Central High School
case, this paper carried an
editorial headed "Unrealistic
Again" The editorial never
implied the decision was IL
legal. Just unrealistic. It
would be to any other Yankee
who lived in the South for
Is years.
E. H. Alexander.
y
John Koontz introduces a
difficult and important view
point when he argues the
Indignation problem from
the Christian premises. I
think, in view of our Lords
public life, Mr.. Koontz was
unintentionally ironical.
Without getting into the
tempting but fruitless pas
time Of cancelling out BiblE
cal texts, for and against
segregation, let us recall the
reaction of those who are
direct ancestors for Mr..
Koontz's "God-fearing men"
who for racial. linguistic,
and national lines" opposed
Jesus Christ. The Pharisees,
too, we're interested in MAIN
tanning "a social pattern in
their churches and commu-
mites"
At first they were content
to heckle and question the
authority of Christ. But, as
the conversion of large num-
bers to the gospel Of love
and humility began to make
serious inroads on the social
pattern" the Pharisees had
the heartbreaking decision Of
accepting the Lord or cling
ing to their racial, linguis-
tic, and national lines"
When they chose to renounce
love they had taken the first
step on the path that led
irresistibly down to utter de-
SPAR: "Is it not expedient
that one man should die,
that our nation may live?"
And lest we forget that the
action Of the diehards can
reach out to ensnare Us al,