Evening star., 1962-07-01
NO Law BUT PROFESSIONS
Supreme Court Ruling on Prayer-What Next?

Editors note Fourteen
years ago this month The Star
printed, by permission, the ac-
cOmpanying editorial from the
American Bar Association Jour-
nal. It commented on the then
recent decision in the McCOl-
Ium case, interdicting religious
instruction in the public schools
of Champaign, Ill. We are re-
printing it here again as apt
comment on the Supreme
Courts decision last Monday,
which found unconstitutional
the recitation in New York
public schools of an officially
approved prayer. The Bar As
sociatiOn Journals editorial
now seems even more prophetic
of things yet to come in the
courts broadening interpreta-
ti0n of the establishment"
clause in the First Amendment
than it did when it first ap-
peared.)
In our May issue we commented
on what appears to be tendency
in the Supreme Court to invali-
date under the First and Four
teenth Amendments State laws
and State law enforcement meas
ures which have worked we'll in
the States for many years and
have long been upheld, as valid
under the same constitutional
provisions, by the highest courts
of law in the States. We here
comment on another propensity,
inStanced by the decision in Il
linois ex rel McCollum VS.. Board
of Education cthe Champaign
County school caSeD, decided on
March 8, to invalidate and pro-
scribe local and State practices
embedded in our society by many
years of experience" not expressly
contained in State statutes al
though carried on under their au-
thority and expressly upheld by
the State courts as valid under
the constitutional provisions now
held to outlaw them.
In the McCollum case, Mr.. JUS
tice Jackson, who concurred with
the eight-to-one majority in re-
versing the Supreme Court of IL
linois, wrote that: "It is idle to
pretend that this task is one for
which we can find in the Consti-
tuition one word to help us as
judges to decide where the secular
ends and the Sectarian begins in
education. Nor can we find guild
ance in any other legal source.
1t is a matter on which we can
find no law but our own pre-
possessions" He avowed that:
I'VE should place some bounds on
the demands for interference with
local schools that we are en-
powered or willing to entertain"
And Mr.. Justice Reed, who alone
dissented, warned that: This
court cannot be too cautious in
practices embedded in
our society by many years Of ex-
perience. A State is entitled to
have great leeway in its legisla-
ton when dealing with the i'm
portant social problems of its
population. A definite violation of
legislative limits must be estab-
liShed. Devotion to the great
principle of religious liberty
should not lead us into rigid
Interpretation of the constitu-
tional guarantee that conflicts
with accepted habits of our
people"
"A FotefuI Decision"
The McCollum case may be one
of those fateful decisions which is
ignored at the time and regretted
in the future. 1t deserves thorough
consideration now. The people
should have the assistance of
lawyers in coming to an under
standing of its effect and impli-
cations. The latent consequences
of the ruling could hardly be
overemphaSized. 1t is a pronounce
ment by our Supreme Court on
a fundamental principle, not only