In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

7 State versus Federal Control The rerouting of the demonstrators was in direct violation of Judge Simpson ’s order allowing night demonstrations. I immediately contacted Governor Bryant and reported to him why we had taken this action.The next day he issued an executive order banning night demonstrations in St. Augustine .1 The text of the order was important. After recounting his duties as the supreme executive under the constitution of the state of Florida, the governor said he was charged with the duty “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed and [had] the dominate interest in protecting the people against violence.” The findings of facts contained in the executive order were premised on a number of factors: “that the physical layout of the routes used by these demonstrations consists of narrow streets bordered by shrubbed and wooded areas without sufficient light dangerous to persons, property, and lives of the citizens in this area; . . . that the law enforcement has been strengthened to its maximum since June 9,and that additional enforcement sent into this area would not in any way alleviate the circumstances creating the danger to peace and order; . . . that the Grand Jury of St. Johns County, after having met and attempted to conscientiously find a solution to the problem . . . there was no good faith effort on behalf of some to attempt to find a solution.” He then decreed that “it shall be unlawful for any person to . . . march, parade, . . . or assemble between the hours of 8:30 p.m. and sunrise in St. Johns County.” 2 The order set the stage for a direct confrontation between the power of 126 / Dan R.Warren the governor as the state’s chief executive and the authority of the federal court as manifested in Judge Simpson’s order permitting night marches. It was a classic First Amendment confrontation: the state’s right to control purely local law enforcement matters versus those rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. We would soon have to defend the governor ’s understanding of his authority under Florida’s constitution versus those of Judge Simpson’s under the U.S. Constitution. There was no question in my mind of the need to suspend night marches through the old city. I was ready to defend the order I had given Sheriff Davis to divert demonstrators from marching past Klansmen gathered in the park and perhaps hidden throughout the old city. Senator Verle Pope welcomed the governor’s action. Holding a press conference on Saturday, June 20, 1964, he told assembled newsmen that he had asked the governor “to invoke full provisions of a 1954 emergency act which gives the governor authority to halt demonstrations and marches, establish curfews and regulate meetings and demonstrations.”3 Not everyone in the city approved of the action taken by the governor or the local senator urging the governor to take such action. This was especially true of the mayor.Expressing surprise that a press conference had been held without his knowledge, he lashed out at Pope. “Senator Pope’s move is entirely politically motivated in an effort to second guess local officials.” He added that “evidently Senator Pope did not feel city and county officials were capable of handling the situation with[out] the help of the governor.”4 The St. Augustine Record ran an editorial titled “A Clear and Present Danger?” For nearly a month now our city has been plagued with nighttime demonstrations that have incited normally peaceful citizens to riot or near riot. Federal judge Bryan Simpson has refused on two separate occasions to allow the city or the state to prohibit further night-time marches and demonstrations. Evidently the judge feels that there exists no “clear and present danger to life and property .” We submit that if Judge Simpson had accompanied Negro or white marchers during the past several weeks down some of our darker streets abutting totally darkened alleys and houses, his judg- State versus Federal Control / 127 ment would be completely reversed. Racial agitator M. L. King has refused to accept in behalf of local Negro citizens a 30-day cooling off period at the end of which the county Grand Jury will reconvene to appoint a 10-man bi-racial committee.Yet King continues to cry that a bi-racial committee is what he wants. . . . However he insists that he shall dictate the terms. Perhaps in Birmingham, Oxford[, Miss.], and, maybe even Washington, D.C., King is a big man with a...

Share