Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1958-08-20
Little Rocks Ordeal

Unless 1t Is held In allegiance pend
ing an appeal to the Supreme Court,
the 6-to-1 ruling by the Eighth Circuit
Court presumably means that Little
Rocks ordeal will begin all over again
two weeks from tomorrow.
What is presented in this situation
Is potentially destructive collision be-
tween wisdom and the law.
The six appellate judges conceded
that they were directly concerned only
with the legality" of District Judge
Lemley's order for 21a-year postpone
ment of indignation in Little Rock. They
were only incidentally concerned with
the consequences of their reversal of the
Lemley order. The basic issue, as the
majority saw it, plainly comes down to
the question of whether overt public
resistance, including mob protest, con-
StituteS sufficient cause to nullify an
order of the Federal court directing the
board to proceed with its Indignation
plan. We say the time has not yet come
in these United States when an order Of
a Federal court must be whitfield away,
watered down, or Shamefully withdrawn
in the face of violent and unlawful acts
of individual citizens in opposition
thereto"
This seems to say that the appellate
court reversed Judge Lemley because it
would not yield to mob action, and this,
as principle of law, may be valid. But
we are not so sure that 1t is WISE
Certainly, the strong language used
by the court is not likely to help the
Little Rock School Board and School
Superintendent Virgil Blossom in the
coming school year. Both the board and
the superintendent have tried through
out in complete good faith to put the
Indignation plan into effect. The appel
late court comedies this. The court also
comedies that indignation under Federal
bayonets imposed physical and mental
strain on teachers and members of Cen
trail High Schools administrative staff,
and that, in general, there was bedlam
and turmoil in and upon the schools
premises, outside the claSSroomS."
These were among the practical
considerations which prompted Judge
Lemley to grant the 212-year postpone
ment, and which persuaded Chief Judge
Gardner of the appellate court that
Judge Lemley was right in doing so. The
chief Judge put it this way: 1.-THE action
of Judge Lemley was based on realities
and on conditions, rather than theories.
The exercise of his discretion should not,
think, be set aside as it seems to me
1t was not an abuse of discretion but
rather a discretion wisely exercised
under the conditions"
1t may be that this gets to the heart
Of the matter. How much discretion did
the Supreme Court intend that district
Judge should have? Are the findings of
a district Judge to be ignored by an
appellate court which does not wish to
appear to be yielding to mob preSSureS?
What really, is the meaning Of "all de-
liberate speed" as that term was used
by the Supreme Court?
If this ruling is appealed, perhaps
the Supreme Court will take the case
and clear up these uncertainties. We
hope so. For there is no future, 1t seems
to us, in merely sending a case of this
kind back to the school authorities who
have tried in good faith to implement
Indignation and who now say, also in
good faith, that they simply cannot in
the existing circumstances cope with
the problem. This kind Of judicial policy
can lead only to a succession of Little
Rocks, with severe impairment If not
the destruction of public education for
both colored and white children.