Box 17, Folder 14, Document 3

Dublin Core

Text Item Type Metadata




Informing the people how
their liberty and property
are being embezzled in

New Orleans Bar


To those who respect Harvard wisdom, listen to
the warning in 1958, of Dr. Mc Ilwain, a Professor
of the Science of Government:

“Never in recorded history, | believe, has the
individual been in greater danger from gov-
ernment than now; never has law been in
greater jeopardy from arbitrary will; and
never has there been such need that we clear-
ly see the danger and guard against it.”’

He does not name all the sources of this danger;
but those most obvious are:

The President, when he commands Federal troops
to invade States; or, for example, issues ‘executive
orders’ threatening to take bread from the mouths
of thousands of working people, by withdrawing
Federal funds appropriated for local projects, till
his commands are obeyed;

AND the Attorney General, who may and does
pin the badge of a U.S. Marshal's authority on
hundreds of bullyboys, and sends them out to in-
timidate local authorities to bring them to his

AND bureaucrats who freely issue “directives”
to control the daily lives of thousands of people,
from one to two thousand miles distant from
Washington; people whose local laws and culture
may be very different, even repugnant, to those of
the area of their upbringing;

AND the Supreme Court commanding obedience
to their indefensible decisions, under threat of un-
limited deprivation of liberty and property for

It is true the Professor relies largely on an ‘‘able,
honest, learned, and independent judiciary” to
protect us from the aggressors, but adds:

‘‘l am not defending indefensible decisions
of our courts. | would not shield them from
the severest criticism.”

It is these lawbreakers and unauthorized law-
makers who are dealt with in the following paper.

New Orleans, Louisiana, July 14th, 1963.

Harry P. GAMBLE, SR.
Of the New Orleans Bar

Note 1: Pertinent provisions of the Constitution are found

in the appendix.
Note 2: All emphasis supplied by the writer.


The parrot cry, “Obey the law,” is heard daily
from Washington. Yet the chief lawbreakers are
there; among them, the President, who issues un-
authorized ‘‘executive orders,” and commands the
Federal army to invade the States.

But the cocks of the roost, are the nine men
on the Supreme Judicial Bench of the United
States. These nine men are uncontrolled. Their
power is supreme, irresistible, and absolute, in
our so-called democracy. Yet in every age in
the long ages of government, it has been dem-
onstrated, in the language of Lord Acton,
often quoted, that:

“‘Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts

There is no authority in our system to check
these nine men; or correct their mistakes, how-
ever grievous; or nullify their seizure of un-
authorized power; or punish their acts of

From time to time the earlier Judges sitting on
that Bench have recognized their freedom from
control, and asserted that it was not their function
to go beyond “judicial review.”

Chief Justice Marshall (1801-1835) briefly defin-
ing this Judicial Review said:

“The Court is merely a legal tribunal for the
decision of controversies brought before them
in legal form.”

Judicial review means in general, that in cases
appealable to the Supreme Court, it will review the
evidence introduced in the lower court, and weigh-
ing the law applicable, will affirm, reverse, or cor-
rect the judgment there rendered. The law ap-
plicable has never been held to mean that the
Court may contrive, forge, or enact a law, which
in its opinion fits the case, but shall render a de-
cision on existing law enacted by the lawmaking
power, constitutionally authorized so to do. If the
law applied to the case below, in the opinion of
the Courts is not constitutionally authorized, then it
applies other existing law; still not contriving one
of its own, either by strained interpretation, or
downright enactment. No one has ever contended


A recent announcement of that limitation by
Chief Justice Vinson (1946-1953) declares:

‘Since we must rest our decisions on the Con-
stitutian alone, we must set aside predilections
on social policy and adhere to the settled
rules which restrict the exercise of our power
to judicial review.” (346 J.S. 240 1953)

Judge Harlan, father of the sitting Judge Harlan,
stated the same thing in this language:

“When the American people come to the con-
clusion that the Judiciary is usurping to itself
the function of the legislative department, and
by judicial construction is declaring what
should be the public policy of the United
States, we will be in trouble."

In referring to the 14th Amendment, fraudulently
adopted in 1868, which has become a bottomless
fish hatchery, from which the Court has hooked
some queer fish, never before suspected of inhabit-
ing those waters, the eminent Judge Holmes (1902-
1938) said:

“| cannot believe that the Amendment was in-
tended to give carte blanc to embody our
economic or moral belief in its prohibitions.”
Referring to the rights reserved to the states in
the 9th and 10th Amendments, he remarked
“There is hardly any limit but the sky
to invalidating these rights if they
happen to strike the majority of this
Court as for any reason undesirable.”
251 U.S. 580 (1930)

And Chief Justice Hughes (1930-1941) com-

“It is not for the Court to amend the Con-
stitution by judicial decree.” This frank
spoken jurist once observed, ‘‘The Consti-
tution is what the Supreme Court says
it is.”

This assertion of a submerged truth did not much
shock the careless American people; though dis-
pleasing to the Court.

Judge Douglas, still sitting, exploded furiously in
the California-Colorado water diversion case,
against the majority decision, saying:

“This case will be marked as the baldest at-

= Ol

Can Southerners aftord to be tight with their money in

tempt by Judges in modern times to spin
their philosophies in the fabric of the law
in derogation of the will of the legisla-
lt will come as a surprise when disclosed that
this same Judge (one of the law school teachers
appointed, maybe a DEAN) in the earlier case of
the Black School decision of 1954, took a con-
trary stand, and agreed to founding the decision
in that case on the mind reading speculations of a
Swede, Gunar Myrdal, and associates, who
figured that it would make the Negro children
feel bad if they could not sit with white chil-
dren in public schools.

In reorganizing their absolute freedom from con-
trol, the Court has frequently stated, to use the
words of Chief Justice Stone (1925-1946).

“The only check on our exercise of power is
our own sense of self-restraint,’ Butler case.

In thus admitting their freedom from control,
they declare they are a super-government.

Such a super-government, not elected by the
people, but appointed for life, is not tolerated
by the great democracies of Europe,—not by
England, nor France, nor Germany, nor Italy.
This fact is unknown to the great mass of the
American people. The continuance of this un-
controllable power in the hands of nine men,
is undeniable proof that a potent segment of
our political leadership does not trust demo-
cratic processes; and have somehow contrived
to surround these mere human beings with a
halo of sanctity not merited in the experience
of life, except by saints; a sanctity which en-
deavors to protect them from criticism, no
matter what.

It is as if assumed and asserted that the appoint-
ment by the President of a politically deserving
friend (or to get rid of an opponent), will make
that politician qualified to sit on the highest
Tribunal in the Nation.

In more than one instance such an appointment
by the President has been charged to this mode of
tidding himself of an active opposition candidate.

President Lincoln appointed Senator Samuel B.
Chase to be Chief Justice in 1864, when Lincoln
was a candidate for re-nomination of the Republi-
can Party, and Chase was an avowed candidaie
for the same nomination.

It has been printed that a political deal was
made at the 1952 Republican National nominating
convention between Governor Warren, who con-
trolled the 72 votes of California, and Eisenhower
managers—Eisenhower to get the votes for a de-
cisive lead to the nomination, and Warren to be
paid off by appointment to the Supreme Court.
This may or may not be true, but since Warren
was appointed shortly after Eisenhower assumed
office—with no visible judicial qualifications for
that high office; low-minded persons could scarcely
be censured for raising their eyebrows.

It may be that a miracle can be performed by
hanging a black cloth on a politician, to forth-
with convert him into a Judge; but few would be-
lieve such a ceremony preceded by a sordid polliti-
cal deal, is a correct method to procure SUPER-
MEN for the Supreme Bench.

It may be accepted as an axiom in government
that once a politician, always a politician. A polli-
tician cannot escape from a lifelong practice of pro-
posing to amend and improve existing law. His
success in politics has been founded on such promise
and performance. That mode of thinking has be-
come second nature. And though politicians are
an honorable necessity in a democracy, with-
out whom it could not function, the highest
tribunal in the land is no place for them. Schoo!
boys know that it is not the business of Judges to
make laws, or amend laws, but to interpret and
apply the laws enacted by the lawmaking power
authorized so to do by the Constitution; and then
only in cases duly brought before them. Relying
on self-restraint by men exercising uncontrollable
power is the zenith of folly—proven in all ages.

Thomas Jefferson who spent fifty years with
public men in public affairs, expressed his distrust
of judicial restraint in these words:

“The Judiciary is the instrument which is fo
press us at last into one consolidated mass. . . .
If Congress fails to shield the States from dan-
gers so palpable and so imminent, the States


Can Southerners afford to be tight with their money in

must shield themselves, and meet the invader
foot to foot."’ (Thomas Jefferson to Archibald
Thweat, 1821)


“The Judiciary of the United States is the
subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly
working underground, undermining the foun-
dation of our constitutional fabric.”

This worldly wise man did not mean to imply
that the men who would serve on the Supreme
Bench were dishonest or traitors; but simply that
their natural bent would be to make the National .
Government of which they were a part, supreme.
In the long history of the Court, not more than one
instance is suspected to have brought the shame of
lack of integrity to the Supreme Bench.

That is not the charge. The charge is that when
appointed they do not know anything about
judicial restraint and are not likely ever to be
much impressed by that limitation. For they are
not appointed on the basis of their judicial train-
ing and learning.

That these men not elected by the people to
reign over them, attain their appointments for
political reasons, and not for their judicial quali-
fications, is abundantly proven by the fact that it is
rare indeed to appoint a member of a state
Supreme Court, or a Judge from the Federal
Judiciary, where men of proven ability and many
years of experience are to be found.

In recent years, in respect to this ‘judicial re-
straint a new note has been interjected by some
now sitting on the Bench, Judge Douglas among
them; that it is within the province of judicial
action to do some IJawmaking; which as we shall
see, they have boldly done—united with its part-
ner, lawbreaking.

This far afield lawmaking and law breaking
in recent years have drawn sharp and unusual
criticism from the official organ of American
lawyers, the American Bar Association; and the
official condemnation of an assembly of Chief
Justices of state Supreme Benches.

Judicial seizure of power has grown so intoler-
able, that an Amendment to the Federal Constitu-
tion is now in process of adoption for holding
them in check, and reducing their powers of super-


government. This Amendment has already been
adopted by several states.


When these nine SUPERMEN do not like a law
enacted by Congress or a State Legislature, they
shatter it. All they have to do is to call it uncon-
stitutional. That it is not authorized, or is pro-
hibited, by the Federal Constitution; and since, in
the words of Chief Justice Hughes, the Constitution
is what they say it is, the law is broken, and any
decision which had before held it to be law is also
broken, however long that decision may have been
held to be law. In our kind of democracy, there is
no remedy.

Often the law is busted by the vote of one of
the SUPERMEN. Four say ‘tis or ‘taint constitu-
tional; and four say ‘taint or ‘tis; then one decides
the question—to make a majority of five to four.
Right here it is easy for the unawed mind to be-
come confused with trying to keep up with the
“now you see it, now you don't,” juggling going
on among the SUPERMEN. For in one decision you
see that five are truly SUPERMEN, and the other
four are bush leaguers; but in the next decision,
the bush leaguers are back in the majors, and
some of the former SUPERMEN are banished to
the minors. These chameleon changes so baffles
one contemplating this coming and going, that he
is likely to head for the nut house. Only a lizard
in the animal world can pass through these
changes without loss of prestige.

When a citizen is told about these things, he is
amazed that a meek Congress does not perform
even the minor checking that the Constitution does
authorize it to do, if it had any spunk.

The highly intelligent men who have made it to
Congress, you may be sure, are not for a moment
smitten with the preposterous idea that hanging a
dozen yards of black cloth on a politician (or a
law school teacher), and giving him a job for life,
will convert him into a SUPERMAN. (The State
Judges are elected for periods of from eight to
twelve years; and generally re-elected, since they
never set up as SUPERMEN.)

But somehow a potent minority who distrust
the people prevails; so we in the great Ameri-
can democracy have our super-government.


Cran Sautharnare affard ta he taht vsith thair manayw_in


It not infrequently happens that an Act of Con-
gress or a state Legislature is charged before the
Courts as being unconstitutional, and therefore,
null. If in its decision the Court of last resort pro-
nounces this law to be constitutional, then it is the
law. Somewhat carelessly, this decision is itself -

sometimes referred to as the law in question.

Then business and government, state and na-
tional, may and often do, expend millions, even
billions, on faith thereof. That to the ordinary
mind seems logical. The questioned law is settled.
Let's go. But to the SUPERMEN, no! Any upcoming
set of SUPERMEN may, and often do, assert that
their predecessors were not the SUPERMEN that
their contemporaries thought. Not at all. That
was a big mistake. They were bush leaguers, or
old fogies who did not know what was what. This
is most extraordinary, since their own claim to
absolute supremacy is founded on the proposition
that as a body they are SUPERMEN. Their puzzling
refusal to regard each other as SUPERMEN, while
demanding that in a body they be so regarded by
the people, is disclosed by the fact that:

“In the brief span of sixteen years, be-
tween 1937 and 1953, this Court has re-
versed itself not fewer than thirty-two
times on questions of constitutional law.”
Kirkpatrick in ‘‘The Sovereign States,’’ p.
270. This work is less than 300 pages, by
a distinguished journalist, quite under-
standable by laymen. Published by Henry
Regnery Co., Chicago.

In every one of these instances, and many more,
before and after, where their predecessors had
presumably settled the question by declaring that
a disputed act of Congress or Legislature is con-
stitutional, and therefore the law, the reversal
broke that law.

In some of these instances, that law had been
settled for many years, in the meantime frequently
referred to and approved by subsequent Supreme
Court decisions.

A case of reversal and breaking, occurring since


the above record of thirty-two times in sixteen
years, is one which will presently be brought un-
der inspection. That was a decision of the Supreme
Court of 1896, declaring an act of the Legislature
to be constitutional law. In the interim of nearly
sixty years, Supreme Courts presided over by such
eminent jurists as Chief Justices White, Taft,
Hughes, and Stone, had quoted that decision with
approval. It was the law.


That law was an act of the Legislature requiring
the separation of the races in passenger transpor-
tation. In a case before the Court in 1896, it was
directly charged that this state law violated the
14th Amendment in not granting equal rights to
Negro travellers. It was there decided that if the
accommodations were equal, the separation of the
races was not prohibited by the Amendment. This
established the so-called doctrine of ‘Separate if
equal; and through the years up to 1954, hun-
dreds of millions have been expended in separate
schools and other construction, and in educating
Negroes in separate schools. This was the case of
Plessy vs. Ferguson; 163 U.S. 537. In referring to

other contemporary laws requiring separation of
the races, not only in the South, but in the North,
it was stated in that decision:

“The most common instance of this is the
establishment of schools for white and colored
children, which has been held a valid exercise
of legislative police power even by Courts
where the political rights of the colored race
have been longest and most earnestly en-

It is true that in public education, which had to
be supported by local taxation, the South was far
behind the more prosperous North, which had
been enriched by the Civil War, as the South had
been impoverished. Added to the ravages of war,
was the ten years of misgovernment and looting
by adventurers from the North—called carpet-
baggers because when they arrived in the South
their whole worldly possessions were contained in
a piece of luggage made of material used in car-
pet making. These were maintained in office by
the votes of the recently enfranchised Negroes,
and thousands of Federal bayonets in each South-


Can Sautherners affard ta he tiaht with their manav_in

ern state. Just as the same self-seeking class of
Northern politicians are doing today, these carpet-
baggers, instead of trying to do something of
economic value for the Negroes, who, when they
were freed by their Northern emancipators, were
turned out to barren fields, without economic aid
from their touted benefactors—these carpetbag-
gers used the Negro vote to maintain themselves
in office, paying off the Negroes with a minimum
of participation in the looting, and a maximum of
sweet talk about sterile ‘equality.’

Among the Southern people, regrettable as it
must be admitted, there was then, as there is to-
day, a relative few who profited by deserting to
the enemy. These, called scalawags, aided the
carpetbaggers and the Negroes; and, with their
descendants, were ostracized for three generations.

When these carpetbaggers were forced to flee
by the bargain of the Southern Democrat leaders
of Louisiana, Florida, and South Carolina, with the
Republican President Rutherford B. Hayes, with-
drawing the Federal troops they left the Negro
in the lurch—just as their modern white models
will do when the Northern white voters turn on
them for exciting the Negroes to insurrection in
those parts.

After the flight of the carpetbaggers, both white
and black had to endure another forty years of
poverty—though gradually decreasing; until in
1915, the European war, demanding cotton, lum-
ber, and other natural resources of the South, per-
mitted a more rapid economic movement upward.
The Second World War accelerated this move-
ment. In 1961 the United States Chamber of Com-
merce published certain conclusions relating to
that development, referring to it as “nothing short
of spectacular.”

Under this improved economic prosperity, the
whites and blacks of the South were making im-
pressive advance in rational partnership when un-
der New York prodding, the SUPERMEN led by
Earl Warren, the astute politician from California,
broke the law of 1896—separate if equal. This
man, with not an hour's training as a Judge, had
just been appointed by President Eisenhower to be
Chief Justice over the other eight who had been
sitting as Judges for several years. This appoint-


ment was not so reprehensible as might first ap-
pear, since of these eight, seven had been put on
the Bench without any Judicial training. It must be
admitted, in all fairness, that one of them, Judge
Black, still there, had been a Justice of the Peace
down in Alabama.

The case before them in 1954, in which they
broke the old law of separate if equal of 1896,
was where some Negroes in Kansas, Delaware,
South Carolina, and Virginia (the cases consoli-
dated) claimed that the segregated Negro schools
of these locations were not equal to the white
schools, and they wanted the advantages of the
white schools for their children. The Court did not
agree that they were not equal, saying:

“The Negro and white schools have been
equalized, or are being equalized, with re-
spect to building, curricula, qualifications and
salaries of teachers, and other ‘tangible

That under the existing law, and its approval by
intervening Supreme Court decisions, should have
ended the case; the Negroes continued in their
equal schools, and the separate if equal doctrine
again affirmed. But the SUPERMEN said “No.”
That did not end the case, they had found some-
thing their predecessors, the White, Taft, Hughes,
Stone, Vincent, Court Judges did not know. The
SUPERMEN said that they had read in a book by
a fellow by the name of Gunar Myrdal, who lived
over in Sweden on the icy Baltic Sea where there
are no Negroes, in which he claimed it would
make the Negro children feel bad if they could
not sit with white children in public schools, though
their own Negro schools might be equal to the
white schools. He was cited as ‘ample authority;’’
an expert, in other words. The Court noted the
names of some half dozen other book writers,
who penned more or less the same sentiments in
their books.

Now something peculiar happened in this case—
something unheard of in judicial procedure where
the opinions of persons alleged to be experts are
introduced to aid the Courts. In such cases it is
common for the alleged ‘expert’ to be brought
into Court so that it may be determined by due ex-
amination, and cross-examination by opposing

counsel, whether the witness is in fact an expert
whose testimony will be of value to the Court.
Unhappily for all concerned, the Judges as well as
others, this was not done in this case.

What a field day a competent cross-examiner
would have had with this Swede; and incidentally,
protecting the Court from embarrassment in their
subsequent exaltation of the opinions of the Swede,
and his Communist tainted associates.

What a joy it would have been to question this
resident of the Arctic regions on how he became
acquainted with what it took to make Negroes feel
bad; what Negroes did he consult; was the feeling
only mental, or also physical; what schools of
medicine did he graduate from; or was he a fol-
lower of the Austrian Freud, who emphasized sex
in evaluating mental operations; or the German
Adler, who stressed fear more than sex in probing
the mind; or had he strayed off with the Swiss
Jung, who had acquired some twists of his own in
thought reading. He could have been required to
state whether his investigations related only to
what made Negroes feel bad, or if he had in-
cluded the yellow Chinese, the brown Malays, and
the red Indians. Especially he could have disclosed
what made white children feel bad, that is if they
were important enough to be included in his roam-
ings; and if by making colored children feel good
by bringing them into association with white chil-
dren, it might make the white children feel bad;
and which, if either, was the more important, to
continue the coloreds in feeling bad, and the
whites not, or make the coloreds feel good at the

expense of the whites?

The examination would have disclosed what we
hope the Judges were ignorant of, when they ac-
cepted the Swede, and his companions, as ‘‘ample
authority," as they said. These authors were rotten
with Communist associations, some with more than
a dozen Communistic front citations. One must
wonder whether, when they approved the Swede
as “ample authority,’ they had read that part of
his book declaring that what the Founding Fathers
did when they confected the Constitution “was al-
most a plot against the common people.” An in-
strument of government which non-Communist
statesmen have acclaimed for one hundred and


seventy-five years. And was he ‘ample authority”
when he asserted that our Constitution “is imprac-
tical and outmoded?”

Having agreed with the Swede that it would
make the Negro children feel bad not to sit with
white children; it was next in order to determine
whether the authors of the 14th Amendment in
1868 had intended by it to turn over to the Federal
Government Public Education in the States. If that
Amendment did not do this then the SUPERMEN
could not seize control of these schools. They con-
cluded, happily for their intent, that from ‘‘ex-
haustive investigation” of the times and what was
then said, the evidence was ‘inconclusive.’ That
opened the way for them to insert in it their own
views of what ought to have been, or might have
been; that is te amend it to suit what they had in
mind—namely, that it did take away from the
States the right to manage their own schools which
they had taxed themselves to support; and turned
over to the SUPERMEN the power to say how they
should be operated.

It is poetic justice that the fraudulent adoption
of that Amendment permits equally fraudulent in-
terpretations—like the one by the SUPERMEN, the
latest and most disastrous—which has resulted in
the bitter interruption of good relations between
the races. That adoption was achieved in an at-
mosphere of rancour, followed by the very same
kind of deception and betrayal of the Negroes by
the carpetbaggers, as is certain to result from simi-
lar conduct of the modern form of carpetbaggery.

Having now so interpreted the Amendment that
they could use it as a basis for their decision to
adopt the Swede's cozy views to bring the white
and colored children together to make the colored
children feel better; that they proceeded to do.
The Court's precise language in agreeing with the
Swede is as follows:

“To separate Negro children from others of
similar age and qualifications solely because
of their race, generates a feeling of inferiority
as to their status in the community that may
affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely

to ever be undone.”
The Court failed to discuss whether if would
‘generate a feeling of inferiority” in the hearts

Can Southerners afford to be tight with their money in

and minds of white children, if forced to sit with
Negro children. Apparently the Swede had no
musing on this point.

The modern mania for equal rights evidently
does not include within its vague crusade, the
white race.

To digress for a moment: Every century or so a
craze unaccountably seizes on the world, as this
egalitarian craze has appeared in our times. In
the 13th century thousands of children were
preached in Europe into a march on Jerusalem to
free the Holy Sepulcher from the infidel Saracens.
These who did not starve or drown before they
reached sea ports, were sold into slavery? The
witch craze of the Middle Ages took the lives of
300,000 men and women in Europe; not forgetting
the seventy-five (75) tortured and executed in Mas-
sachusetts in the 1600s. The South Sea and John
Law Investment Bubbles of the 1700s impover-
ished tens of thousands in France and England.

One which much resembles that of today, was
the St. Vitus Dance mania, in Germany, where
people went prancing about the country in swarms.

Due to the more rapid and far distant communi-
cations, the egalitarian mania of today extends
from Washington and New York to Africa; where
the natives of Angora and Congo "demonstrate"
their claim to equality by perpetrating crimes on
hundreds of white men, women, and children—
priests and nuns—so bestial as to be beyond any
civilized imagination—the women raped before
the eyes of dying men bleeding to death from
unprintable mutilations—being the mildest. Covet-
ous of the riches of Africa, the white nations of
Nato, including our own, hastily sweep these hor-
rors under the rug, and hypocritically toady to the
“ambassadors” from that country.

The brand of hypocrisy is the same; whether the
white politician is bootlicking for the Negro vote
in America; or the international ‘statesmen’ are
kotowing to African ambassadors—the result will
be the same—the black man will end up with his
pockets picked by these self-seeking fakirs.

Writing of the crusades, Wells remarks: ‘From
the very first flaming enthusiasm was mixed with

baser elements.”
Returning to the integration decision; strangely


enough in this case, and all the others which have
followed in respect to adult Negroes, an admission
is inherent in what the Court said, and accepted
by all who agree with the Court, including the
demonstrating’ Negroes, that the Negro is in-
ferior, and the only hope for his advance is
‘forced’ close association with whites. Later dis-
closures of his advancement in a segregated
society, will not support such a contention.


But the Court was confronted with several ap-
parently insurmountable obstacles. How could this
constant association, required to improve the as-
serted inferiority of the Negro children in this case,
and subsequent adult cases; and to make them all
feel better; be achieved in the face of the segre-
gation laws of many states, North and South? The
only answer was for the SUPERMEN to break the
laws requiring segregation. That they just hauled
off and did. They said the WHITE, TAFT, HUGHES
AND VINSON COURTS did not know what they
were talking about when they approved the ‘‘sep-
arate if equal” doctrine. The oldtimers did not
have the benefit of the Swede's discovery that it
would make the Negro children feel bad not to sift
with the whites; and, too, they might not have
been frank and cold enough, to say that the Negro
is inferior, and that the only remedy for that is
constant contact with the white. The knockout
blow came in these precise words:

“Any language in Plessy vs. Ferguson (the old
decision of 1896) contrary to this finding (that
is what they and the Swede had agreed upon)
is rejected.”

It may again be repeated that the man who
wrote this opinion downgrading the old Judges,
had never before his appointment served as a

It may be added here that the practice of ap-
pointing deserving political friends has not ceased.
A little while ago the President appointed Messrs.
White and Goldberg to fill vacancies on the Court.
In these cases, one was the associate of Bobby Sox,
Attorney General, whose judgment of what are
the qualifications of a Supreme Judge, may be
measured by the fact that his first contact with any


public items show