Evening star., 1960-03-15
Attorney Generals S Plea

Attorney General Rogers has ap-
pealed indirectly to the House to retain
in its version of a civil rights bill the
provision making it Federal crime will
fully to use force or threats of force to
obstruct Federal court orders in school
desegregation cases. The language used
by the Attorney General is somewhat
surprising, especially in the light of the
debate in the Senate last Friday
Essentially this same provision was
contained in Section l of the admins
tration bill submitted to the Senate.
This section was killed, however, after
the Senate, by vote of IS to 10, had ac-
cepted the LauSche amendment which
made it crime to obstruct any Federal
court order, not merely orders issued in
school desegregation cases.
Why did the Senate adopt the
Lausche amendment by an overwhelm-
ing vote, and then move on to kill all
OF Section l after the LauSche amend
ment had been added to it? In many
respects, we think, this was purely
political performance. But some very
persuasive arguments were advanced
by the administration.
Chief among these was the conten-
ton that it would be unjust, as a mat
ter OF principle, to legislate with respect
to one-and only one-claSS of cases. In
this view, If 1t is wrong to obStruct court
orders in school desegregation cases, it
is equally wrong to obstruct court orders
IN other types of cases. And If such OBJ
struction is to be made crime, the law
should apply evenly to all distractions,
not to just one kind of obstruction. The
political hitch is that organized labor
would bitterly oppose the application of
the LauSche doctrine to court orders in
labor disputes AS matter of principle,
however, it seems to us that the argu-
ment in support of the Lausche propo-
sal cannot be successfully answered.
The Senate vote (49 to 35) to strike
all OF Section / came after the labor
lobbyists had been heard from. But this
action was not entirely result of labor
pressure. Senator Morse, for example,
argued strongly and we thought per-
suasively to the effect that the new
criminal provision in Section l is not
needed. He thought that existing law
plus the power of Federal Judge to
punish for contempt is sufficient.
The Attorney General does not think
that these remedies are adequate. He
believes that the criminal provision is
needed II he is right in this, however,
1t is surprising to us that, in effect he
would be urging the House to ignore the
sentiment of the Senate as expressed in
the 65-to-19 vote on the Lausche amend
ment. The Attorney General, of course,
did not say this in so many words. But
his appeal was strictly and repeatedly
limited to school desegregation cases,
and he even tried, not very successfully,
to draw a distinction between court
orders in school cases and court orders
in other cases. Yet, according to Sen
ator Morse, the Attorney General tes-
tif1ed earlier before Senate committee
that "if Congress feels there are other
ituationS where there is similar need
for this [Section statute, we obvi-
ously would have no objection"
AS of this date, however, Mr. Rogers
apparently wants criminal sanction
applicable only to school desegregation
cases. We think that this, as a mat
ter of principle, is wrong, and we do
not see how the IS Senators who voted
for the Lausche amendment can be
expected to accept, in the House bill,
the very same discriminatory provision
which the Lausche proposal was de-
signed to remedy.