Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1958-08-29
Views of High Bench

ing the current supreme
Court, and for this / should
like to congratulate you.
I refer specifically to your
support of the Mallory bill,
your comments favoring the
two-and-a-half- year stay Of
indignation granted Little
Rocks Central High School,
and especially your editorial
of August %, dealing in more
general terms with the sub
ject of the high court, and
its loss of prestige under the
present regime.
Of course, no intelligent,
informed person who believes
in the original concept Of
government as written in the
Constitution could fail to see
the dangerous direction taken
by Mr.. Warren and his as
sociates in recent years. 1t is
to be hoped that through
such editorial enlightenment
as your paper is now dis
playing with increasing force
fitness the great American
public can still be brought to
action in time. For if the
drift away from sovereign
States in a sovereign Nation,
from the balance triad Of
government, and from free
enterprise should continue,
then God save America!
Everette Severe.
Your editorial, August %,
headed supreme Court
Critics" is, in my view, out
standing. 1t should be read
over and over, and committed
to memory by all the people
of the United States who are
loyal to and revere the judi
cial department of our Gov
eminent under the ConStitu-
ton of the United States.
The Constitution is not
self-executing, but is self
restraining; and it is de-
signed primarily to protect
the sovereign rights reserved
to the States, or the people
thereof, not therein expressly
granted to the Government
of the United States. The
reserved rights are as much
the supreme law of the
land" as those granted, and
that fact should never be
forgotten or overlooked by
anyone occupying high places
of Government.
1t has been well said by
judges of our courts that "out
of the facts, the law arises,
and if there be no evidence
OF the facts, there can be no
question of law"
When the statutory law of
a State is to be stricken
down as being in conflict
with the Constitution and
statutory law of the United
States, the evidence of what
the rights of a person are
under the conflicting laws is
of the essence; and when
such evidence is found and
declared by the highest
State court, the Constitution
of the United States makes
such finding binding on the
Supreme Court of the United
States.
The conflict that has re-
Gently arisen between the
judiciary of national and
State governments is due to
errors and mistakes of Con-
gress in extending the judi
cial powers of inferior Fed
eral courts to cases or con-
troversies Of an administra-
tive character, wherein a
"declaratory Judgment" may
be rendered; and because of
the appellate jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court of the
United States. the sovereign
rights of a State to be i'm
mune from suits in any court,
without its consent, have been
indirectly invaded in viola
ton of Article III of the
Constitution of the United
States.
Notwithstanding the basic
error in the so-called segre-
cation cases is to be LODGED
against Congress, the Su-
preme Court is subject to
severe criticism for taking
appellate jurisdiction of those
cases for the purpose of in
vading the sovereign rights
of a State where, otherwise,
it is prohibited from doing
so under Article III Of the
Constitution of the United
States.
The issue in such cases is
of minor significance; and
the real harm is that through