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 . .
