Howe and Freund Attack Press for Misinter pretation

Two law professors yesterday attacked as a total misinterpretation press reports that a Supreme Court order Monday had ended all racial segregation in public transit systems.

The order was a refusal to hear the appeal of a damage suit against a South Carolina bus company for enforcing the segregation laws of that state. The presumed implications of the order led to immediate desegregation of the buses in 13 southern cities.

Mark DeWolfe Howe, Jr. '28, professor of Law, and Paul A. Freund, Charles Stebbins Fairchild Professor of Law, said that the significance of this refusal, and the precedent on which it was based, was misunderstood by reporters not educated in the law.

Several law professors agreed that it was ironical that a legal mix-up had "led to a social revolution."

Refusal Misinterpreted

The reporters thought the blunt refusal was an indication that the Supreme Court felt the "separate but equal" doctrine so dead that no further argument about it was necessary. Actually, Howe and Freund said, the precedent case the Court cited forbids appeals until the lower court has completely disposed of a case.

Howe said the Supreme Court has not ruled on "the merits" of the bus case at all. He added that the case was legally very involved. "It may be impossible to sue someone for damages for abiding by the law," he said.

Luther A. Huston, Supreme Court reporter for the New York Times, said in Washington yesterday that "probobly if we had been a little more diligent one of us would have come up with the answer."

Court Criticized

He criticized the Court, however, for not thinking about the layman's reaction to its brief orders. "If they would take pains to clarify the significance of some of them," Huston said, "there would be a great deal fewer mistakes."

Freund felt, however, that this week's mix-up illustrated the need for specially-trained legal reporters, like music critics. Huston disagreed.