Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1963-07-23
Rule of Law

again, AS b IOTIHCT ASSOCldCS
Justice complained about q
lawyer, Mr.. Lawrence has run
his argument into the
ground. He Is experienced
and knowledgeable. Surely
he is sophisticated enough
to know that the events in
Oxford and Tuscaloosa are
different from those In
Maryland or New York.
There were reasons for send
ing troops to Mississippi
which do not cover Cam
bridge, Md. Mr.. Lawrence does
not deserve a step by step
refutation for his column Of
July IS, but his readers may
not suspect that his know
how does not always protect
him against exaggeration.
The functioning Of an In
tricate political system is
not easy to pin down with
a precise description. Even
under a government Of laws,
political agencies must live
through human beings. A
written constitution does not
paralyze political growth. In
the United States we have
had to learn the hard way
that local sovereignty must
be conditioned by the in
terests Of the national COM
munity.
Most often In this coun.
try we have proSpered poll
tically because we have
known that much of the
meaning behind the Rule Of
Law stems from our willing
ness to reconcile conflicts
through the decisions of peo-
pie in authority. We can
fight 1t out In a committee
hearing and on the floor of
a legislative house. We can
argue about interpretations
in court. But we expect q
decision. We may not like
what we get, but the bill is
passed, the judge decides,
and that decision Is affirmed
or reversed.
Somebody did all of that
before oxford and before
Tuscaloosa. The arguments
we're finished. The conflicts
had been resolved In the de-
cision Of Q court. It was that
simple, as Mr.. Lawrence must
know. That Is not the case
in Maryland, In New York, in
Georgia or in q dozen other
places where demonstrations
are now going on.
Mr.. Lawrence makes much
Of the 14th Amendment, as
well he should. Once argu-
ments about Its scope are re-
solved in a judgment, the
focus shifts. Not always, per-
haps not often will the l4th
Amendment condition q
court Judgment, but behind
every Judgment Of every Fed
eral court are all the powers
Of the Chief Executive. That
too gives meaning to the
Rule of Law.
Vernon X. Miller,
Dean, School Of Law,
Catholic University
I was interested in reading
Dean Miller's views In a copy
OF his letter to The Star.
It's true that the President
gave as the legal reason fol
his action In Mississippi the
obligation Of the Unite {
States Government to secure
enforcement of q court order
but the President himself. ir
his special report over radio
and television on the Missis-
sippi situation. said that the
reason for federalizing tn
Mississippi National Guarc
and dispatching troops wal
Ito preserve law and order
while the United States mar
shals carried out the order;
Of the court" The marshal'
were there TO carry out theii
legal function OF enforcing
court orders, but the troops
we're sent TO preserve Law
and order" though there hac
been no disorder when the
Guard was federalized anc
regular troops moved into the
area.
In any event. my point
was that there was no lega
right TO send troops TO Mis-
sissippi any more than there
would be a legal right to dis.
patch Federal forces TO Mary
land or anywhere else u
quell disturbances. But II the
Federal Government is COINS
TO assert a right TO sen
troops Ito preserve law anc
order" then II should b.
logical and consistent anc
apply the same rule In al
instances OF disturbances OF
threatened disturbances.
incidentally, I didn't refer