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

. II the Supreme Court has left any
loopholes for States evasion or avoid
Rnce of the deSegregation decision four
years ago, they are not visible to. the
naked eye. Directed specifically to the
Little Rock case, which 1t decided on
September IL, yesterdays written opin-
Ion embodying that decision covers
far wider area The court pointedly re-
aff1rmS that "the law of the land" is Just
that and must be obeyed.
Here is its potent summation:
In short, the constitutional rights Of
children not to be Disseminated against
in school admission on grounds of race or
color declared by this court in the BroiDn
case can neither be nullifled openly and
directly by State legislators or State exec
utives or judicial officers. nor nullified in
directly by them through evasive schemes
for segregation whether attempted in
geniouSly or ingenuously.'
Virginia's body of laws to maintain
massive resistance" to desegregation;
the laws of Arkansas and other States
designed to effect the same purpose are
not, Of course, automatically invalidated
by this announcement. They each may
be tested by the detailed processes Of
the courts. But to all intents and
purposes they are dead as doornail,
and the lawyers who drafted them
surely must know it, The only choices
apparently left to the States by this
opinion are compliance; withdrawal of
all State funds in support and control
of segregated public education, or repeal
by two-thirds vote of House and Senate,
and three-fourthS of the States, Of the
14th Amendment as interpreted.
The circumstances of the Little
Rock case invited the courts preoccu-
patton with the broader aspects Of its
decision. That case, in the courts Ian
guage, "raises questions Of the highest
Importance to the maintenance Of our
federal system of government" One Of
those questions involves "a claim by the
Governor and Legislature of State
that there is no duty on State officials
to obey Federal court orders resting on
this courts considered Interpretation Of
the United States Constitution" That
claim the court strikes down, uncondi-
tionally.
The court does retrace its past
steps, with the possible intent of clari-
flying its own oft-quoted phrase with
all deliberate speed" A district court,
the opinion explains, after analysis of
the relevant factS-"i0hich, of course,
excludes hostility to racial desegregG-
tion"-might find Justification for not
requiring the present nonSegregated
admission of all qualified Negro chill
dren." But, says the opinion, a school de-
segregation program must be examined
to make sure that it is pointed toward
t'the earliest practicable completion of
desegregation," with appropriate steps
to put the plan into effective operation.
at was made plain" the opinion says,
''that delay in any guiSe in order to deny
the constitutional rights of Negro chill
dren could not be countenanced, and
that only prompt start, diligently and
earnestly pursued, to eliminate racial
segregation from the public schools
COulu COAloIAUuVC 6OOu 4d1tAl CO11AEAAdAASCs
Aside from Little Rock, the opinion
is highly significant for its possible
bearing on two recent Federal court de-
cisions in Virginia. A reasonable infer
ence is that Judge Hutcheson's seven
year delay of desegregation in Prince
Edward County is out of the window, re-
CARELESS OF the consequences; and that
Judge Bryan, in the Arlington case, has
in fact found design for decision"
that seems to stand up, in the light of
what the Supreme Court says it had in
mind all along.
The opinion does tend to eliminate
certain "ifs" and "butS" that have
clouded the picture. It could be accepted
as striking a note of greater finality if
it eliminated other things that 60 to the
heart of the problem itself-and into
the hearts of the people who are
wrestling with 1t.