St. Paul Recorder

The Shadows Cast Before

Alabama newspaperman E. L. Holland, writing on this page two months ago. attributed much of the tension and alarm over the desegregation issue to failure in the South to discern the signs of the times.

Yet the signs have been many. At least as far back as 1950 the Supreme Court showed awareness that a show-down on the constitutionality of segregation was approaching. And in its opinions it appeared to be preparing the country. Noting this, this newspaper prepared its own readers.

That year three suits were pending before the court-two involving state universities in Oklahoma and Texas, one dining car seating in a "Jim Crow" state. We warned editorially on April 12, 1950, "it is contended in the three pending cases that segregation in practice makes equality impossible and that segregation per se does violate the Constitution."

Two months later, when the court decided these cases in favor of the Negro plaintiffs. we noted it did so without specifically, passing upon the "separate but equal" doctrine and that it "hinted it did so purposely."

On June 23, 1952, this newspaper told its readers, "The court has agreed to rule on segregation itself in two cases where failure to provide equal facilities is not the major complaint." On November 15 we warned "the momentous decision" was still on the docket; on December 12, that counsel in one of the cases abandoned "any claim of constitutional inequality except segregation itself."

The following June the Supreme Court asked counsel on both sides of these cases to submit arguments on whether Congress or the court should interpret the 14th Amendment on this question. and whether the court could "in the exercise of its equity power permit an effective gradual adjustment" from a segregation to a nonsegregated system.

And we observed, "This further delay can hardly please those who have hoped week by week for a sweeping anti-segregation decision."

In December the Justice Department filed a brief against legally required segregation as arguments before the high tribunal opened.

And this newspaper went on record that the probabilities pointed to a decision declaring segregation per se unconstitutional but providing an "effective gradual adjustment from the old to the new situations.

Not until six months later came the momentous decision of May 17. 1954—it's months later the implementing decrees.

What moderates might have accomplished during these four years toward building biracial preparedness, how much convinced segregationists might have saved themselves from shock- these now are matter only for conjecture. But the Supreme Court can hardly be charged with springing any sudden surprise upon an unsuspecting nation.-Christian Science Monitor