◆ SpookStack

2 URISTS ENDORSE : COURT CRITICISM www i £ f t dints about the Supreme Court hool segregation issue, The segregation question, he id, was “quietly embedded in he resolution you are apked to fopt.” “You might as well face that ct," he said. Chief Justice Joseph ein- ab of New Jersey jomned-in Taltac iy saying it was pfortunate that the e prestige ? the conference chief stices should be placed behind «serious an indictment.” “Any man or group of men,” went on, “who choose to ace themselves above the con- tuted authority as determined . the Supreme Court or to out the basic rights as that rt authoritatively finds them Psure to find comfort and sup- rt in the sweeping reflections on the Supreme Court in this Justice \Weintraub told” the & ~ ‘Enference members fhat they fF: : ight disagree with Supreme}: urt Members’ decisions “but cannot impute to them any- less than conscientious ot as a te ate 7: tite Phil SeGibson of Cali 7 apd Chief Justiee F D¢ Condon of Rhode Isia we *Fistice Commer said the Con- « _tdyence of Chief Justices was “a sutative organization—not 2 organization to sit in judg- nt on the highest court in te land.” t ‘Justice Gibson sald the deci- sidns mentioned in, the commit- td report dealt for the most ‘pdrt with the “protection of fundamental rights of the dividual against the power of jg@vernment.”. - _| £An unsuccessful attempt was ra fe by Chief Ju ; AWilliamson o aine to have Zraph of e resolu- tpn stricken. He was dis- tpirbed, he said, by phrases such/ “judicial —self-restraint." : ese phrases occurred In «& t seetion of a resolution widely igoked upon as asking the na- n’s highest tribunal to mend : i ways 5 ‘tice “Theodore. .@. fv is ‘ustice dare. . chit “of Towa noted Justi hool integration case waa th AL_reason pe the Brun Justice McGehee, tion decision.” .-.- The: resolutions committeé @ Brune in as Srfer de- féense of the critical report as- that no personal attacks the honor or integrity of hbd b embers of the Supreme Court been Intended by his com- tees, of ten state chief jus Voting against the resolution fe thus against the report on; ich it was based were Chief tices or their representatixyes alifornia, New Jersey, Penn- AD hy , West Virginia and|.. waii, Those from Nevada and rth Dakota abstained. Absent % 7m a final business session 'y tel here were Connecticut elected . were; first vice-/ ‘president, and Judge Brune, second vice president. I. officers New members elected to. the) ° execitive council for two- “yearh. terms were Chief Justi ;- B tint Bot "Wisconsin. of “Eouisjana and T OF THE nEPaRY . Resolved: - ‘ ; 1. That this conference ap ° proves the Réport of the Com- |”. Anittee on Federal-State Rela- tionships as Affected by Judi- cial Decisions submitted at this meeting. 2, That in the field of Fed- eral-state relationships the di- | f Vision of powers betweem those } granted to the national gov- ernment and those reserved te the state governments thould be tested solely by the rovisions of the Constitution * the United Stateg and the hmendments therete. . 13. That this conference be- aves that our system of fed- ‘¢ralism, under which control 4 matters primarily of na- ipnal concern fs committed. @ our nations! e2overnment + Ona: gCVvVernment. pd control of matters pri-. rily of local concern is re- rved to the severa] states, is nd and should be more aili- ' ryed, aasauy, | ig ore mer ae Pn = inf. the rere: Connecticut i d Indiana, Arkansas was not!™, . ile recognizing arvgiryt the # ar nate of constitutional , changed conditions must be | A ciently flexible’ ast - to: @ such rules adaptable. to conditions, . beHeves” t a fundamental purpose: having a written constitu- tibn is to promote the cere tainty and stabtlity of the’ Brovisions of law set forth in ich a constitution, ” “* Is. That this conferees’! hereby réspecttully urges that 4 tye Supreme Court of the ited States, in exercising - tHe great powers confided to 4 ats the determination of qpestiong as to the allocation afd extent of hational and sfate powers, respectively, - abd ag to the validity under | tN Federal Constitution of * the exercise of powers omved to the states, exe ng, of the gieatest of all jug. os | fial powers ee the power pf dicial self-restraint — recognizing and giving effect to the difference between that - which, on the one hand, the Constitution may prescribe or. permit, and that which, on the other, a majority of the Supreme Court; as from time | to time constituted, may deem desirable or undesirable, to the end that our system of ’ federalism may continue to function with and through the preservation of loca} gelf-_ , government, ton ! 6. That | this conference” . firmly believes that tte sub-- C bd. ject with which the Commit. | tee on Federal-State Relation > 4 | ships as Affected by Judicial’ ecisions has been concerned ~ one of continuing impo ce, and that there shoul a committee appointed t al with the subject in th suing year.