About Southern school news. (Nashville, Tenn.) 1954-1965 | View Entire Issue (March 3, 1955)
PAGE 14—March 3, 1955—SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS South Carolina COLUMBIA, S.C. tjOUTH Carolina’s fight to main tain racially separate public schools and to retain a full measure of local control over the public school establishment currently is re flected in legislative developments in both the state and the national capitals. The fight took on national impli cations when the state’s new gov ernor, George Bell Timmerman Jr., called upon Congress to curb the authority of the United States Su preme Court in matters affecting the public schools. He first made that recommendation in his inaugural message of Jan. 18 and a week later reiterated it in his first message to the general assembly. Since then, several bills proposing to put his suggestions into effect have been introduced in Congress by members of the South Carolina Congressional delegation, which stands solidly behind Gov. Timmer man’s proposal. SIX BILLS DEBATED Meanwhile, the state legislature is deliberating over the passage of six separate pieces of legislation rec ommended by a special committee which has been studying the segre gation problem and endorsed by the governor. The most crucial of these, and the one prompting most concern among legislators, would repeal the state’s present compulsory school at tendance law. The wisdom of repealing that sec tion drew considerable debate in the state senate and can be expected to occasion an equal or greater amount of discussion in the House of Repre sentatives. When the particular bill came to a vote in the Senate, how ever, it passed by a vote of 40 to 1, with five senators not recorded as voting. (South Carolina has one senator from each of its 46 counties.) The six school bills do not suggest a means of solving the school segre gation problem, but are considered preparatory steps and were so rec ommended in the second interim report of the South Carolina School Committee (of five senators, five representatives and five appointees of the governor). Both the governor and the committee have cautioned against any effort to adopt anything purporting to be a final plan of ac tion prior to the Supreme Court’s formulation of a specific decree or decrees implementing its 1954 deci sion barring legal separation of the races in public schools. COMPULSORY ATTENDANCE These are the six bills in question, along with a statement as to how they fared in the State Senate: 1. A bill to repeal the compulsory school attendance law. Proponents of the repealer (notably Sens. L. Marion Gressette of Calhoun Coun ty, and James Hugh McFaddin of Clarendon County, both members of the special School Committee) argued that repeal of the law was essential in order to assure the peo ple of South Carolina that they would not be forced by law to send their children to mixed schools. The opposition, voiced chiefly by Sen. W. Lewis Wallace, of York County, contended that there was no con nection between integration and compulsory school attendance. The relatively few who spoke against the bill vigorously stated their own be lief in separate schools but ex pressed the fear that abandonment of the school attendance law would hurt the cause of public education without helping the segregation is sue. When the vote came, however, Sen. Wallace cast the only dissenting vote. 2. A bill to establish a system of “visiting” teachers in lieu of the at tendance teachers who operate under the existing compulsory at tendance law. Such “visiting” teach ers would be charged with using reason, influence and persuasion in obtaining school attendance. There was no opposition to the intent of the bul, and at the instigation of senators from the more populous counties of the state, it was amended so as to provide for one visiting teacher for each 10,000 children en rolled in the public schools of a given county. 3. A bill to spell out the authority of local school trustees to manage and control local educational inter ests “with the exclusive authority to operate or not operate any public school” and “to transfer any pupil from one school to another so as to promote the best interests of educa tion and to determine the school within its district in which any pupil shall enroll.” The bill was passed by the Senate without opposition. 4. A bill authorizing school trus tees to lease as well as sell school property. This was amended so as not to conflict with existing laws concerning disposition of abandoned school buildings and was passed without opposition. 5. A bill permitting the transfer of pupils from one county to another without the necessity of having the parent own property in the county into which the pupil might be trans ferred. This was passed without op position. 6. A bill repealing a code section providing that county boards of edu cation shall regulate the opening and closing of school terms. This was passed without opposition. CONCERN VOICED Near the deadline for this issue of Southern School News, the six bills were in the House Committee on Education & Public Works. As in the Senate, various members of the House are privately expressing concern over the advisability of eliminating the compulsory school attendance law, although here also is no wavering in determination to preserve racially separate schools to the maximum degree possible. Meanwhile, some agencies, edu cators, civic leaders and other indi viduals have counseled against repeal of the attendance law. Among them have been the Women’s Coun cil for the Common Good, and of ficials such as Dr. W. F. Loggins, superintendent of the Greenville School District, and Mrs. John F. Welbom, president of the Greenville Young Women’s Christian Associa tion. Mrs. Welbom wrote this in a letter to the editor of the Greenville News: “The repeal of this law will do nothing definite about solving our racial problems and will be detri mental to the welfare of South Carolina’s children. We are not equipped with ready solutions for the problems confronting us at this point in history but we know the answer is not increased ignorance. In our opinion, repeal of the com pulsory school attendance law will lead to just that.” GOVERNOR’S VIEWPOINT Gov. Timmerman, meanwhile, has expressed himself in these words concerning the changes in the school laws: “It is impossible to offer a solution to a problem until that problem is known. Therefore, we must await a final decree from the Supreme Court of the United States in the school segregation cases to learn what our final problem will be in maintaining separate schools. Any action toward the establishment of a final plan would be premature and may well hamper our future course of action when the Court’s decree is known. “However, the suggested changes contained in the Second Interim Re port of the South Carolina School Committee would clarify our pres ent law and increase the efficiency of present administration.” WOULD CURB COURT The governor’s suggestion to the legislature concerning possible limi tation of Supreme Court powers was couched in these words: “The greatest constitutional prob lem facing the American people to day is how to curb the presently uncontrolled authority of the Su preme Court of the United States. “The Congress of the United States, in the exercise of the power granted to it by Article III of the Constitution, can return to the states their rightful and constitutional prerogatives, including the tradi tional right to regulate and control SEN. L. MARION GRESSETTE Heads S. C. Study Commission their schools. The Congress may do this by the enactment of a simple piece of legislation limiting the ap pellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the jurisdiction of the other Courts of the United States. “I, therefore, recommend that you memorialize Congress to exercise its power for this purpose. “We cannot expect others to speak for us if we are unwilling to speak for ourselves. And we can never ex pect others to stand with us unless we are first willing to take a stand.” Subsequently, the governor told a press conference that there was con siderable sympathy throughout the nation for the point of view he ex pressed in calling for a curb upon the Supreme Court’s authority. He also said that enactment of such legisla tion by Congress would be easier than passing a constitutional amend ment to insure the rights of states to control their school affairs. RESOLUTION OFFERED The governor’s recommendation was given prompt attention by two members of the Greenville county legislative delegation, Reps. Frank Eppes and Rex L. Carter, who spon sored a concurrent resolution read ing as follows: “Whereas, Federal Courts and more particularly the United States Supreme Court have through nu merous opinions and decisions in vaded the fields of the legislative and executive branches of govern ment; and, “Whereas, through numerous opin ions and decisions Federal Courts and more particularly the United States Supreme Court have invaded the field of government which should be left to the control of the several states of the Union; and, “Whereas, Congress is authorized under the Constitution of the United States to control and limit the ap pellate jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court and the juris diction of other Federal Courts; Now, therefore, “Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concur ring: “That Congress be memorialized to enact legislation limiting the appellate jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court and the juris diction of other Federal Courts so that the fields of government of the executive and legislative branches and that of the several states shall not be invaded, but shall remain separate and distinct. “Be it further resolved, that copies of this Resolution be forwarded to the President of the United States, to each United States Senator from South Carolina, each member of the House of Representatives of Con gress from South Carolina, the Sen ate of the United States and the House of Representatives of the United States.” UNANIMOUS APPROVAL The concurrent resolution was passed without dissenting voice in either house of the South Carolina General Assembly and forwarded to Washington. Meanwhile, even before it reached the nation’s capital, all members of the South Carolina congressional delegation had de clared their support of the gover nor’s position, although they were pessimistic over chances of gaining sufficient non-southern support in Congress to gain passage of such leg islation. Since then, each of South Caro lina’s two senators, Olin D. Johnston and Strom Thurmond, have intro duced separate but similar bills which would limit the appellate jurisdiction of federal courts in pub lic school matters. The Thurmond bill (S.1016) reads as follows: “Neither the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States nor the appellate jurisdiction of the United States courts of ap peals shall extend to or be applicable in the case of any action, suit, or proceeding where there is drawn into question the validity of a State constitutional provision, statue, or regulation relating in any manner to the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the public schools in any State, on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, for any reason other than substantial inequality of physical facilities and other tangible factors.” Rep. L. Mendel Rivers, of South Carolina’s First Congressional Dis trict, has introduced a bill which would deny all federal courts juris diction over matters involving pub lic schools operating under provi sions of state constitutions. THURMOND STATEMENT Sen. Thurmond issued this state ment upon introducing his bill: “The Supreme Court’s decision of May 17, 1954, overturned all of the legislative action and judicial deter mination on the subject during the past 90 years, both Federal and State. Under that decision local school authorities are required, as the price of operating public schools, to attempt to engage in a most dif ficult sociological experiment. “The Supreme Court recognized in its decision the large variety of local conditions to which the decision must be applied. Presumably its im plementation will be left by that court to the district courts which sit in the different localities and are familiar with the problems that they face. “The situation would not be helped by a flood of appeals from the district courts in school cases. Such appeals will only clog the ap pellate courts and dissipate the time and resources of the school authori ties. “I have been studying the problem for some months, and believe that Congress can help in a difficult sit uation by limiting the appellate ju risdiction of the Federal Courts to cases involving public schools in which inequality of a tangible na ture is claimed to exist. “The Constitution in Article III, Section 1 vests judicial power in the Supreme Court and ‘in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.’ “In Section 3 of the same article, the Constitution specifically provides that the Congress has the power to make certain exceptions to the ap pellate power of the courts. It says: “ ‘In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such excep tions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.’ “Thus, it is clearly within the power of the Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, as I propose in this bill. “The enactment of this bill will strengthen the hands of both the district courts and the school au thorities in dealing with the prob lems now before them. This step has been recommended by the Governor of my State, and endorsed unani mously by the South Carolina Gen eral Assembly, in the interest of preserving efficient public school education for all of our people. “I propose this bill because I be lieve it to be in the best interests of all people of the United States.” Meanwhile, other members of the South Carolina Congressional dele gation had expressed themselves in these terms concerning the pro posal by Gov. Timmerman: Sen. Olin D. Johnston: “I regret this action by the Supreme Court and would support any Constitu tional action or legislation to main tain segregation in our schools . . . I must call to your attention the fact that all Congressmen and Senators living north of the Mason-Dixon line, which amount to about 70% in each House, have always voted to break down segregation so we are facing tremendous odds in this fight. The Republicans have voted at least 85% in both Houses to break down segregation, so with all these odds, I cannot assure you what the outcome will be.” Rep. L. Mendel Rivers, of the First Congressional District: “We have only felt the sting of the Su preme Court’s arrogated powers in South Carolina recently, neverthe less, the time to act is now and I am ready to act now ... I shall be most happy to forthwith introduce legislation to stop the antics of the Court which has lost the respect of so many of us . . .” Rep. John J. Riley, of the Second District: “Sharing, as I do, com pletely the thoughts and feelings of the people of South Carolina on this matter, I am in full agreement that passage of such legislation would be most desirable and I would heartily support it. However, I do feel that now would be a most difficult time to get Congress to consider such leg islation as I am of the opinion that it will take a lot of educational work and that the matter must be brought home, in a vivid manner, to the states outside the South before an aroused citizenry from the rest of the nation, or the leadership of either political party, will support such legislation.” Rep. W. J. Bryan Dorn, of the Third District: “I have long thought that some such legislation should be enacted, not only curbing the power of the Federal Courts, but keeping the people of the executive branch of the Federal Government and the President’s Cabinet from making recommendations to and appear ances before the court, which I con strue as executive meddling with the prerogatives of the Supreme Court. The only difficulty about getting such legislation passed through Congress is that most Republicans and practically all northern Demo crats would vote against it. The simple truth is that in Congress they have us outnumbered on this score. However, an effort should be made to present such legislation to Congress.” Rep. Robert T. Ashmore, of the Fourth District: “I am in full accord with Gov. Timmerman’s suggestions and I hope Congress will be able to curb the authority of the Supreme Court in matters concerning our public schools . . . However, the big problem will be the passage of this bill. This is not a party question, be cause many Congressmen and Sena tors in both the Democratic and Re publican party favor the non-segre gation decision of the Supreme Court. The desire to control the Ne gro and foreign element vote in the big cities had great influence on this problem from its inception. It still is a tremendous force. I will do all within my power to pass the pro posed legislation . . . but I have very little hope of success.” Rep. James P. Richards, of the Fifth District: “It is my purpose to support (such legislation). Whether or not we southern members can get enough support in our position from members from other parts of the country is another matter ... I cer tainly think that education and the public schools should be made one of the exceptions to the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.” Rep. John L. McMillan, of the Sixth District: “I have always felt that the Supreme Court was en croaching on States’ rights when the Court issued an order abolishing segregation in the public schools in this country. I certainly feel that H the individual states cannot handle their own school problems without interference from the Federal Gov ernment, they had just about as well dissolve and return their charters. “I am certain the segregation problem could have been adjusted at a state level more satisfactorily than by an order from the Supreme Court. The colored and white peopl e :ful continue to live together on peace and satisfactory terms without out' side interference ... A bill of this nature would get only the 100 votes from the southern states and, ® course, if it should eventually pa ss e Congress, it would be vetoed by President . .
