Troops in Alabama

The events in Selma and Montgomery have brought attention to two problems faced by the Negro in the South. The first is the deprivation of his right to vote. The second is the denial of his constitutional privilege to demonstrate peaceably without the interference of canes, clubs, horses, whips, or tear gas.

Something is being done about the first problem. Congress is presently debating a bill which, if passed, will go a long way toward abolishing racial discrimination of voters. In the strongest speech on civil rights ever made by an American President, Lyndon Johnson called for quick passage of the bill and promised the American people that equal voting rights will soon be extended to all citizens.

The President was less forceful when he spoke of the second problem, the protection of Americans exercising their right of peaceful protest. He warned State and local officials in Alabama not to interfere with future protests conducted in an orderly fashion, but in the few days since he gave that warning, many more law-abiding demonstrators have been clubbed and whipped. Because Alabama officials are not protecting--and in many cases are abusing--the rights of American citizens, the burden of protection and of enforcement of the law now falls on the unwilling shoulders of President Johnson.

Section 333 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code gives the President the power to use Federal force to suppress domestic violence in a state "if any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity or protection named in the Constitution...and the constituted authorities of that state are unable, fail or refuse to protect that right . . . ."

This clearly is the case in Selma. And there is considerable precedent for the invocation of Section 333. On no less than 55 occasions have United States Presidents used Federal force to quell domestic violence after State officials proved unable or unwilling to act. But states-righters--and there are many of them--moan and wail about a "Federal Police Force" in any state. Their complaints must not make us lose sight of the real issue here: Will justice be administered in Alabama? And in any case, the mere presence of Federal power in that state does not mean that Federal officials would be preempting the local policemen's duties. The Federal representatives would be in Alabama only to ensure that those duties are performed, and they would take an active role in the performance only as prescribed by Section 333.

It is of great importance that Federal presence, in the form of Federal Marshals, activated National Guardsmen, or members of the Armed Forces, be established in Selma now. The 50-mile Selma-to-Montgomery march, delayed almost two weeks by police brutality and a Federal court injunction, is scheduled to begin shortly, and unless some agency of the United States government is on the scene to protect the demonstrators, there are certain to be more beatings and more whippings.

President Johnson is understandably worried about upsetting the balance of Federal and State authority. But he has the legal power to dispatch Federal forces and a considerable precedent for the exercise of that power. Most important, he has the moral responsibility to act now. The welfare and perhaps the lives of the thousands who will make this march are at stake, and if the President hesitate, America is the loser.