Watkins v. City of Wilson Statement as to Jurisdiction

    I n  t h e

Satpram' (Court of tlrr luitrii fttatra
October T erm, 1961 

N o/

T. A . W atkins,
Appellant,

City  of W ilson,
a body corporate and politic, et al.,

Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

STATEMENT AS TO JURISDICTION

R omallus 0 .  M urphy 
557 East Nash Street 
Wilson, North Carolina

Samuel S. M itchell

507 East Martin Street 
Raleigh, North Carolina

Counsel for Appellant



I N D E X

PAGE

Opinion B elow .....................................................................  1

Jurisdiction .......       2

Question Presented ............................................................ 9

Statement .................................. ,.............................. ............  10

The Question Presented Is Substantial ....................... 16

Conclusion ................................................................. .......  17

A ppendices :

A : Judgment of State Supreme C ourt................  la

B : Opinion of State Supreme C ourt....................  3a

C -l: Order to Show Cause (Superior Court) ........  8a

C-2: Order Denying Restraining Order (Superior
C ourt)..........................................................   10a

C-3: Order Denying Motion to Declare Election
Void (Superior Court) ..................................  11a

C-4: Judgment of the Superior C ourt.................... 13a

D: Complaint ...........................................................  15a

E : Motion of May 3, 1961 ...................................  27a

F : A nsw er................................................................  38a

G : Assignments of E rror ....................   41a

H : Notice of A ppea l...............................................  46a

I : Proof of Service of Notice of A ppeal............ 50a

J : Portion of the Charter of the City of
Wilson .............................................    52a



11

Cases Cited

PAGE

F edekal:

Abie State Bank v. Bryan, 282 U. S. 765, 51 S. Ct.
252, 75 L. ed. 690 .......................................................... 6

Brown v. Western Railroad of Alabama, 338 U. S. 294,
70 S. Ct. 105, 94 L. ed. 100 ..........................................  7

Cohen v. Hurley, 366 U. S. 117, 81 S. Ct. 954, 6 L. ed.
156 .....................................................................................  5-6

Coleman v. Miller, 307 U. S. 433, 59 S. Ct. 972, 88 L. ed.
1385 ...................................................................................  8

Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U. S. 22, 44 S. Ct. 13, 68 L. ed.
143 .....................................................................................  6, 7

Ex Parte Levitt, 302 U. S. 633, 58 S. Ct. 1, 82 L. ed. 493 4

First National Bank of Guthrie Center v. Anderson,
269 U. S. 341, 46 S. Ct. 135, 70 L. ed. 295 ................... 7

Hamilton v. Regents, 293 U. S. 245, 55 S. Ct. 197, 79 
L. ed. 343 .........................................................................  6

International Association of Machinists v. Street, 367 
U. S. 740, 81 S. Ct. 1784, 6 L. ed. 2d 1141 ...........5,16,17

Lathrop v. Donohue, 367 U. S. 820, 81 S. Ct. 1826, 6
L. ed. 2d 1191..........................................................5, 6,16,17

Lesser v. Garnett, 258 U. S. 130, 42 S. Ct. 217, 66 L. ed.
505 .....................................................................................  8

Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U. S. 444, 58 S. Ct. 666,
82 L. ed. 949 7



I l l

PAGE

McCollum v. Board of Education, 330 U. S. 203, 68
S. Ct. 461, 92 L. ed. 648 .................................................5,16

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 43 S. Ct. 625, 67 L. ed.
1040 ................................................................................... 5,16

National Association for the Advancement of Colored 
People v. State of Alabama, ex rel. Patterson, 357 
U. S. 449, 78 S. Ct. 1163, 2 L. ed. 2d 1488 ................... 8

Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, 45 S. Ct. 571,
69 L. ed. 1070 ..............................................................5, 8,16

Smith v. Cahoon, 283 U. S. 553, 51 S. Ct. 582, 75 L. ed.
1264 ..............................................................................  7

Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U. S. 1, 64 S. Ct. 397, 88 L. ed.
497 .....................................................................................  5

Staub v. City of Baxley, 255 U. S. 313, 78 S. Ct. 277,
2 L. ed. 302 ....... ....... .................................................. . 6, 7

Traux v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33, 36 S. Ct. 7, 60 L. ed. 131.... 8

Ward v. Board of County Commissioners, 253 U. S. 17,
40 S. Ct. 419, 64 L. ed. 751 ............................................  6

West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnett, 319 U. S.
624, 63 S. Ct. 1178, 87 L. ed. 1628 .............................. 5,16

State :

Harris v. Miller, 208 N. C. 746, 182 S. E. 663 ...........  7
Hill et al. v. Lenoir County et at., 176 N. C. 572, 97

S. E. 498 ........................................................................... 7

Spruill v. Bateman, 162 N. C. 588, 77 S. E. 768 ............... 6
State ex rel. Harris v. Scarboro, 110 N. C. 232, 14 S. E.

737 6



IV

Swaringer v. Poplin, 211 N. C. 700,191 S. E. 746 ........... . 7

Van Amringe v. Taylor, 108 N. C. 196, 12 S. E. 1005 .... 7

Watkins v. City of Wilson, 255 N. C. 510, 121 S. E. 2d 
861 .....................................................................................  6

F ederal Constitutional P rovisions Cited

1st and 14th Amendments to the Federal Constitution
5, 7, 9,10,15

S tatute Cited

Title 28, United States Code, Section 1257(2) ...........4,17

PAGE



I n  t h e

(Emtrt of the United States
October T erm, 1961 

No..............

T. A. W atkins,

Appellant,
—v.—

City oe W ilson,
a body corporate and politic, et al.,

Appellees.

APPEAL PROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

STATEMENT AS TO JURISDICTION

The Appellant, pursuant to United States Court Rules 
13(2) and 15, files this his statement of the basis upon 
which it is contended that the Supreme Court of the 
United States has jurisdiction on a direct appeal to review 
the Judgment and Opinion of the Supreme Court of the 
State of North Carolina.

Opinion Below

The Opinion of the Supreme Court of North Carolina 
is found in the following publications: 225 N. C. 510, 121 
S. E. 2d 861, and was filed October 11, 1961. The said 
Opinion is attached to this Statement as Appendix B hereof.



2

Jurisdiction

The action, upon which the instant appeal is based, was 
instituted in the Superior Court of Wilson County, North 
Carolina, as a civil action in which appellant, as a citizen, 
voter and as a candidate for public office, sought injunc­
tive and declaratory relief against the enforcement by 
defendants-appellees of a portion of Section 4 of the Char­
ter of the City of Wilson, North Carolina (Appendix D, 
this Statement). Section 4 of the Charter of the City of 
Wilson deals with the elections of municipal officials, in­
cluding the elections of six commissioners biennially and 
who constitute the governing body of the municipality of 
Wilson, North Carolina (State Record, pp. 45-47). The 
particular portion of Section 4 of the Charter of the City 
of Wilson, which is offensive to appellant and which he 
sets up in his complaint as injurious to him upon constitu­
tional grounds, reads as follows:

“ No ballot for Commissioners shall be valid unless 
as many candidates shall be voted for as there are 
vacancies to be filled.”

The instant appeal is from the Judgment of the Su­
preme Court of North Carolina, which was dated and 
entered on the 23rd day of October, 1961, and which af­
firmed the Judgment of the Superior Court of Wilson 
County (Appendix A, this Statement). The Superior 
Court of Wilson County, North Carolina, had entered a 
final Judgment against appellant’s claim of the unconstitu­
tionality of the provision quoted above on the 27th day 
of June, 1961 (Appendix C-4, this Statement). The opin­
ion of the Supreme Court of North Carolina was filed on 
the 11th day of October, 1961 (Appendix B, this State­
ment). Appellant filed no petition to re-hear following the



3

Opinion and Judgment of the Supreme Court of North 
Carolina. On the 9th day of January, 1962, appellant filed 
Notice of Appeal to this Court in the Supreme Court of 
North Carolina, along with proof of service of said Notice 
upon counsel for appellees (Appendices H and I, this State­
ment).

In his Complaint, which was filed in the Superior Court 
of Wilson County on the 12th day of April, 1961, and which 
was immediately thereafter served upon appellees as de­
fendants, appellant sought to restrain and enjoin and to 
have declared void the portion of Section 4 of the Charter 
of the City of Wilson which is quoted in paragraph one 
above. Appellant alleged that appellees were preparing to 
and had announced their intention to enforce and apply 
the impleaded portion of the City Charter to the biennial 
City elections which were to be held on May 2, 1961, and 
at which time City Commissioners were to be elected (Ap­
pendix D, this Statement). As will be shown subsequently 
in this Statement as to Jurisdiction, prior to the City 
election of May 2, 1961, and immediately thereafter appel­
lant, without avail, sought several remedies in his pending 
action in order to prevent injury to him by virtue of the 
enforcement and application of the impleaded portion of 
Section 4 of the City Charter (Appendices C-l through 
C-4, this Statement). In his complaint and in all subse­
quent pleadings, motions and petitions, appellants had 
alleged that his rights as a citizen and voter of the City 
of Wilson and as a candidate for office as a City Commis­
sioner, were abridged by the impleaded provision of the 
City Charter, which particularly refers to and which ap­
pellees were enforcing in respect to the elections of City 
Commissioners. The Charter of the City of Wilson is a 
law of the State of North Carolina which was enacted and 
amended by the General Assembly of the State of North 
Carolina (Appendix J, this Statement).



4

Appellants have appealed to this Court from the final 
Judgment of the Supreme Court of North Carolina pur­
suant to Section 1257 (2) of Title 28, United States Code 
(28 U. S. C. 1257 (2 )), this being an action wherein the 
constitutionality of a state statute is drawn into question 
and the decision below being in favor of constitutionality 
and against appellant.

Decisions of this Court squarely and indubitably support 
appellant’s conclusion that this Court has jurisdiction of 
this appeal pursuant to 28 U. S. C. 1257 (2). The Opinion 
of the Supreme Court of North Carolina is based, in part, 
upon the spurious proposition that where the impleaded 
portion of Section 4 of the City’s Charter is actually en­
forced and applied, over appellant’s timely protests and 
diligent efforts to prevent the same from being enforced 
and applied to the election in which he was both a voter 
and a candidate, his failure to show that his tally of votes, 
after the election, plus a count of discarded ballots would 
have given him enough votes for election depletes him of 
standing to question the constitutionality of the statutory 
provision. In short, the State Supreme Court has held 
that in order for a candidate to be heard to question the 
constitutionality of the statutory provision in all aspects 
of its enforcement and operation he must first suffer its 
application and then prove that he was actually elected in 
spite of the application of the void and unconstitutional 
statute (Appendix B, this Statement). And the Court cites 
this Court’s Opinion in Ex Parte Levitt, 302 U. S. 633, 58 
S. Ct. 1, 82 L. ed. 493, for this shocking proposition. This 
is but another way of saying that the impleaded statutory 
provision could only injure a candidate who is “ elected” 
but for the operation of the statute and that no candidate 
can assert the right to campaign or run for office as a City 
Commissioner, free of the coercions and effects of the stat­



5

ute or the right to have his constituents and supporters 
favor him upon their ballots without being coercively re­
quired to similarly favor five of his opponents.

But this Court has never recoiled from the task of pro­
tecting natural persons from the legislative coercions which 
inevitably tend to mould our society “ into patterns of con­
formity which satisfy the majority.” See Mr. Justice Doug­
las, dissenting in Lathrop v. Donohue, 367 U. S. 820, 
81 S. Ct. 1826, 6 L. ed. 2d 1191. See also, McCollum v. 
Board of Education, 330 U. S. 203, 68 S. Ct. 461, 92 L. ed. 
648; Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, 45 S. Ct. 
571, 69 L. ed. 1070; Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 43 
S. Ct. 625, 67 L. ed. 1040; West Virginia Board of Educa­
tion v. Barnett, 319 U. S. 624, 63 S. Ct. 1178, 87 L. ed. 1628. 
The fact that one of the rights involved, to wit, the right to 
seek a municipal office, is a state created right (see Snowden 
v. Hughes, 321 U. S. 1, 64 S. Ct. 397, 88 L. ed. 497), does 
not exempt the state from the strictures of the 1st and 14th 
Amendments in regard to the imposition of unwarranted 
curtailments of the liberties of conscience or freedoms of 
choice. Compare the several Opinions in International As­
sociation of Machinists v. Street, 367 U. S. 740, 81 S. Ct. 
1784, 6 L. ed. 2d 1141. Nor has this Court ever denied 
that a party who is personally aggrieved by the denial of 
1st Amendment rights through state legislative enactments 
has standing to assert those rights on review by this Court 
of the Judgment of a state Court. See McCollum v. Board 
of Education, supra. It is not perceived that the state has 
or could have such interest in the offices of elected officials, 
in the individual voter’s ballot and in the several candi­
dates whose names appear upon a particular ballot as will 
justify the state’s attempted regimentation, conscription 
and restriction of voter’s choices in the manner as required 
by Section 4 of the Charter of the City of Wilson. (Com­
pare Cohen v. Hurley, 366 U. S. 117, 81 S. Ct. 954, 6 L. ed.



6

156; Lathrop v. Donohue, supra. Compare, also, Hamilton 
v. Regents, 293 U. S. 245, 55 S. Ct. 197, 79 L. ed. 343.)

The Supreme Court of North Carolina all but admits 
that appellant’s capacity as a candidate for office as a 
City Commissioner gave him standing to question the va­
lidity of the impleaded statutory provision. The Opinion 
of the State Court reads, in part, as follows:

“ On the admitted facts plaintiff is not in position 
to call for a determination of the constitutionality of 
the statutory provision. Even if credited with all re­
jected ballots, he would not have enough votes to 
change the results. The court correctly dismissed the 
action.” Watkins v. City of Wilson, 255 N. C. 510, 
121 S.E . 2d 861.

Thus it is seen that the state appellate court, upon its own 
motion, has transformed appellant’s attack upon the im­
pleaded statute into a contest for the right and title to 
office. Compare Spruill v. Bateman, 162 N. C. 588, 77 S. E. 
768; State ex rel. Harris v. Scarboro, 110 N. C. 232, 14 S. E. 
737. This manner of interpreting appellant’s action, in the 
face of his protracted and timely effort to enjoin the ap­
plication of the impleaded statute to the May 2, 1961, elec­
tions and to have the statute declared void and in the face 
of his complaint (Appendices A and C-l through C-4, this 
Statement), is an inexcusable evasion of the federal issue 
which was clearly before the Court, Staub v. City of Bax­
ley, 255 U. S. 313, 78 S. Ct. 277, 2 L. ed. 302; Ward v. Board 
of County Commissioners, 253 TJ. S. 17, 40 S. Ct. 419, 64 
L. ed. 751; Abie State Bank v. Bryan, 282 U. S. 765, 51 
S. Ct. 252, 75 L. ed. 690; Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U. S. 22, 
44 S. Ct. 13, 68 L. ed. 143. And it is not amiss to recall 
at this point that appellant had at all times asserted that 
the application of the imprecated section of the Charter of



7

Wilson prevented the elections of City Commissioners dur­
ing the May 2, 1961, elections from being valid in view of 
asserted constitutional rights (Appendices D and E, this 
Statement), and that the courts of the State of North Caro­
lina have always been open to litigation where the issue 
has been the validity of an election. See Harris v. Miller, 
208 N. C. 746,182 S. E. 663; Swaringer v. Poplin, 211 N. C. 
700, 191 S. E. 746; Van Amringe v. Taylor, 108 N. C. 196, 
12 S. E. 1005; Hill et al. v. Lenoir County et al., 176 N. C. 
572,97 S. E. 498.

But this Court holds that it will not accept as final a 
state court’s interpretation of allegations in a complaint 
asserting a federal question, Brown v. Western Railroad 
of Alabama, 338 U. S. 294, 70 S. Ct. 105, 94 L. ed. 100; 
Davis v. WecJisler, supra; First National Bank of Guthrie 
Center v. Anderson, 269 U. S. 341, 46 S. Ct. 135, 70 L. ed. 
295.

Again, to say, as the state appellate court has said, that 
appellant has no standing to object to the application of a 
statute to an election in which he is a candidate, is to say 
that appellant must endure the burdens, inconveniences 
and disadvantages of the operation and application of a 
void and invalid statute but that he can have relief, of a 
salvage nature, after the statute has wrought its final dev­
astation. This Court has never been so parsimonious in 
the granting of relief against void enactments. See cases 
holding that, where enactments are void on their face, as 
violative of First Amendment rights under the 14th Amend­
ment to the Federal Constitution, a failure to apply for a 
license which the enactments require does not preclude a 
review by this Court, Staub v. City of Baxley, supra; 
Smith v. Cahoon, 283 U. S. 553, 51 S. Ct. 582, 75 L. ed. 
1264; Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U. S. 444, 58 S. Ct. 666, 
82 L. ed. 949.



8

Finally, appellant’s right as a candidate gives him stand­
ing to assert the rights of voters who desire to list appel­
lant as one of their choices for City Commissioner on their 
ballots but who do not choose to list as many as six candi­
dates. See National Association for the Advancement of 
Colored People v. State of Alabama, ex rel. Patterson, 357 
U. S. 449, 78 S. Ct. 1163, 2 L. ed. 2d 1488; Traux v. Raich, 
239 U. S. 33, 36 S. Ct. 7, 60 L. ed. 131; Pierce v. Society of 
Sisters, supra. It is observed that in this case the right of 
appellant, as a candidate, to campaign for and receive the 
votes of electors, who wish to vote free of the coercions 
and restrictions of a statute which is obviously designed to 
coerce the voter’s approval of candidates for whom he has 
no affinity, is an integral of his rights and of the rights of 
all such electors, Traux v. Raich, supra; National Associ­
ation for the Advancement of Colored People v. State of 
Alabama, ex rel. Patterson, supra. And appellant stand­
ing, as an injured citizen and as an injured voter, to appeal 
to this Court is vouchsafed by such decisions as Coleman 
v. Miller, 307 U. S. 433, 59 S. Ct. 972, 88 L. ed. 1385; 
Lesser v. Garnett, 258 U. S. 130, 42 S. Ct. 217, 66 L. ed. 
505.



9

Question Presented

Section 4 of the Charter of the City of Wilson requires 
that each elector who votes for city commissioners must 
vote upon six candidates and his failure to vote for six 
candidates is a circumstance which requires that his ballot 
be discarded. This requirement, by its terms and by its 
operation, outlaws the “ single shot” vote whereby a mi­
nority group of electors seek to give their candidate a 
plurality by withholding votes from other candidates. The 
requirement also outlaws the “ short ballot” whereby a 
group of less than six candidates are singled out for favor 
upon ballots of voters having like cleavages and municipal 
attitudes and aspirations. By its necessary operation the 
requirement “ presses” a voter to give his stamp of ap­
proval upon candidates whose images are lackluster in 
his evaluation in order that the voter be enabled to ex­
press himself upon a candidate or candidates whose images 
are appealing to him (Appendix J, this Statement).

Beginning with his complaint and upon each stage of this 
proceeding in the State Superior and Supreme Courts ap­
pellant, who is a Negro citizen, has contended that the 
impleaded section of the City Charter was unconstitutional 
when measured by the standards of the State Constitution 
and when measured by the standards of the 14th Amend­
ment to the Federal Constitution (Appendices D, C-l, C-2, 
C-3, C-4, E, G and H). Among other things, appellant 
contended in his complaint and at each stage of the pro­
ceedings in the State Superior and Supreme Courts that 
the impleaded section of the City Charter was repugnant 
to the Privileges or Immunities, the Due Process and the 
Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment to the 
Federal Constitution “by reason of the circumstance that 
the provision is an invasion and subversion of a voter’s



10

right of choice as to what candidate he wishes to favor 
with his ballot and of a voter’s right of choice as to what 
candidate or candidates the voter wishes to exclude from 
his ballot” (Appendix B, this Statement). The Opinion 
of the State Supreme Court and the statement of the case 
as therein contained conclusively indicates that the Federal 
Question was raised and preserved in the manner and form 
as indicated above. This appeal presents a single question 
which can be stated as follows:

1. Is Section 4 of the Charter of the City of Wilson, 
North Carolina, as quoted in this S tatement as to J uris­
diction, valid and constitutional when measured by the 
standards of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States?

Statement

On the 12th day of April, 1961, appellant filed an action 
in the Superior Court of Wilson County as plaintiff against 
the several defendants who are listed in the above styled 
entitlement and caused each defendant to be served, im­
mediately thereafter, with copy of summons and complaint. 
Appellant brought his action as a registered voter who was 
qualified to participate in the May 2, 1961, biennial elections 
for the City of Wilson and as a candidate for membership 
upon the governing body of the City of Wilson, to wit, the 
six man board of City Commissioners. In his verified Com­
plaint appellant alleged, in substance, that the Charter of 
the City of Wilson contained the following provision in 
reference to the election of City Commissioners:

“ No ballot for Commissioners shall be valid unless 
as many candidates shall be voted for as there are va­
cancies to be filled.”



1 1

In Ms Complaint, appellant alleged that the above quoted 
provision of the Charter of the City of Wilson was void 
and unconstitutional when measured by the standards of 
both the State and Federal Constitutions. In his Complaint 
appellant requested relief as follows:

“ W herefore, plaintiff prays the Court as follows:

(1) That a temporary injunction immediately issue, 
temporarily restraining defendants and each of them 
from applying so much of the Charter of the City of 
Wilson, as is first quoted in paragraph 3 above, to the 
May 2, 1961, elections of city commissioners.

(2) That a permanent injunction issue, permanently 
enjoining defendants and each of them from applying 
so much of the Charter of the City of Wilson, as is first 
quoted in paragraph 3 above, to the May 2, 1961, elec­
tions of city commissioners.

(3) That this Court conclude as a matter of law that 
so much of Section 4 of the Charter of the City of 
Wilson, as is first quoted in paragraph 3 above, is 
unconstitutional by reason of the state and federal con­
stitutions, as is indicated in paragraph 6 of this 
complaint.

(4) That this Court conclude that any election for 
this biennium, to which is applied so much of Section 4 
of the Charter of the City of Wilson, as is first quoted 
in paragraph 3 above, is null and void and without 
effect for the vesting of office.

(5) That this Court grant to plaintiff the right to 
participate in the elections for which he has filed, the 
freedom from the burden of the provision which is 
alleged in this complaint to be unconstitutional.



12

(6) That this Court read this verified complaint as 
an affidavit in support of the injunctive relief herein 
prayed for.

(7) For such other and further relief as to the Court 
may seem just and proper.

(8) For the cost of Court to be taxed against de­
fendants” (Appendix H, this Statement).

Following the filing of his complaint and prior to the 
May 2, 1961, elections for the City of Wilson, appellant 
sought relief from the alleged invalid and impleaded pro­
vision of the Charter of the City of Wilson in the following 
manner:

(a) On the 21st day of April, 1961, and prior to the 
May 2, 1961, elections, as indicated by Appendix C-l, this 
Statement, appellant applied for and secured from Hon­
orable Leo Carr, Judge Presiding over the Wake County 
Superior Court, an Order to show cause. The Order to 
show cause directed the defendants, as named in appel­
lant’s complaint, to show cause before Honorable Henry 
L. Stevens, Jr., on the 25th day of April, 1961, as to why 
the temporary restraining order, as prayed by appellant 
in his complaint, should not be granted.

(b) On this 25th day of April, 1961, and prior to the 
May 2, 1961, elections for the City of Wilson, the Order 
above mentioned was returned before Honorable Henry L. 
Stevens, Jr., Judge then presiding over the Term of Su­
perior Court for Edgecombe County and who was currently 
holding the terms of Superior Court for Wilson County. 
After hearing upon the Order to show cause and upon ap­
pellant’s motion for the temporary injunction, such as was 
prayed by appellant in his complaint of April 12, 1961, 
Honorable Henry L. Stevens, Jr., denied appellant’s re­
quest for temporary relief (Appendix C-2, this Statement).



13

On the day following the May 2, 1961, elections for the 
City of Wilson, to wit, on May 3, 1961, appellant sought 
to preserve his rights as a voter, candidate and participant 
in the campaign for City Commissioner in the following 
manner:

(a) Appellant filed a verified motion in his cause of 
action in which he entreated the Superior Court of Wilson 
County to, among other things, declare and conclude that 
the so-called May 2, 1961, “ elections of City Commissioners 
are null and void and of no effect.” In his verified motion 
appellant also entreated the Superior Court of Wilson 
County to grant to him “ such other and further relief as 
will assure him the right to participate as a voter and as 
a candidate in elections for City Commissioners for this 
biennium” (State Transcript, pages 28 to 38).

(b) In the verified motion above mentioned, which is 
dated May 3, 1961, appellant alleged that election officials 
did in fact apply the impleaded provision of the city charter 
to the May 2, 1961, elections for City Commissioners and 
placed the alleged invalid requirements of the provision 
upon every ballot issued for the elections of City Com­
missioners. Appellant also alleged that voters’ compliance 
with the alleged illegal and unconstitutional provision of 
the impleaded portion of the Charter of the City of Wilson 
was urged by the sole local daily newspaper through its 
editorial columns prior to May 2, 1961, which newspaper, 
prior to May 2, 1961, had printed a sample ballot which 
bore, among other inscriptions, the following:

“ 2. For legal ballot, vote for six candidates” (State 
Transcript, pages 28 to 38).

On the 11th day of May, 1961, appellees, as defendants, 
filed answer to appellant’s complaint. The answer of ap­
pellees specifically admits the allegations contained in



14

paragraphs 1 through 4 of appellant’s complaint. These 
admissions alone are conclusive of all of the facts necessary 
for resolution of all of the several questions of constitu­
tional law which appellant raised in his complaint and these 
specific admissions left no questions of fact to he found by 
a judge or a jury for disposal of the entire controversy 
between appellant and appellees (State Transcript, pages 
38 to 40).

On the 15th day of May, 1961, the following proceedings 
were held in this cause in the Superior Court of Wilson 
County during the May, 1961, Term of Court:

(a) The verified motion which was filed by appellant on 
the 3rd day of May, 1961, and which is mentioned in para­
graph 3 above, was presented to the Superior Court of 
Wilson County below by counsel for appellant. Other than 
a reference to said motion, which appears in the last para­
graph of Appellees’ Further Answer, appellees offered no 
contradiction of the factual matter set out in appellant’s 
verified motion. The motion was denied by the court and 
an entry to that effect was endorsed thereon by the Judge 
Presiding (Appendix C-3, this Statement).

(b) Immediately following the presentation of the above 
mentioned motion, appellant, through his counsel, moved 
the Superior Court of Wilson County in writing for judg­
ment on the pleadings. The motion was denied by the court 
and an entry to that effect was endorsed thereon by the 
Judge Presiding (Appendix C-3, this Statement).

On the 19th day of May, 1961, and before the entry 
of Judgment in this cause, appellant petitioned the Supreme 
Court of North Carolina, pursuant to local practice, for 
a Mrit of Certiorari in order to review the proceeding 
which had been held in the Superior Court of Wilson 
County (State Transcript). On the 23rd day of May, 1961,



15

the Supreme Court of North Carolina entered an Order 
in which it denied the Petition for Writ of Certiorari (State 
Transcript).

Appellant’s action was tried on the 27th day of June, 
1961, before Honorable Henry L. Stevens, Jr., Judge Pre­
siding, upon an Agreed Statement of Facts, both parties 
waiving a jury trial. The Court (the Superior Court of 
Wilson County), entered Judgment against appellant and 
against his claim that the impleaded statutory provision 
was repugnant to the 14th Amendment of the Federal Con­
stitution (Appendix C-4, this Statement).

Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of North Caro­
lina, and his appeal was heard during the fall term, 1961, 
and resulted in the Judgment and Opinion which are men­
tioned above under the section of this Statement entitled, 
J urisdiction.

The facts of this case, as admitted by pleadings and as 
stipulated by the parties also indicate the following mat­
ter:

“ 1. The plaintiff herein, T. A. Watkins, a Negro, is 
now a resident of the City of Wilson, North Carolina; 
that plaintiff is a registered voter of the City of Wilson 
and was entitled to vote in the municipal election held 
on the 2nd day of May, 1961.

“ 5. In the election held May 2nd, 1961, the official 
ballot for Commissioners had printed on its face the 
following:

‘For legal ballot vote for six candidates.’

“ 6. 761 ballots cast in the election were not counted 
because of failure to vote for as many as six candidates. 
The plaintiff received 211 votes and his name appeared



16

upon a substantial number of the 761 ballots not 
counted. Other names also appeared on the 761 ballots 
not counted, but on none of them as many as six 
names appeared.

“ The candidates declared elected and the votes re­
ceived by each were as follows:

T. J. Hackney, Jr. 2,036
Edgar Norris 1,897
W. A. Peters 1,885
H. P. Benton, Jr. 1,835
W. B. Clark, Jr. 1,831
C. E. Raines 1,332”

(State Record, page 52).

The Question Presented Is Substantial

As indicated in a preceding section of this S tatement as 
to J urisdiction, that is, in the matter discussed in indicat­
ing this Court’s jurisdiction, the question here presented 
involves the presumed power of the state to require con­
formity of a minority with the majority’s will. See Inter­
national Association of Machinists v. Street, supra; Mr. 
Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas, dissenting, Lathrop 
v. Donohue, supra; McCollum v. Board of Education, 
supra; Meyer v. Nebraska, supra; Pierce v. Society of 
Sisters, supra; West Virginia State Board of Education v. 
Barnett, supra. But this case goes further in that the 
statute becomes an instrument for the collection of coercive 
votes against the will of electors. See Mr. Justice Black, 
dissenting in International Association of Machinists v. 
Street, supra. Coerced and compelled exercise of the fran­
chise is as inimical to a free society as its denial. Finally, 
the instant case presents a more flagrant case of compul­
sive support than do cases which deal with “ compelled”



17

contribution to causes which the “ captive” supporter finds 
repulsive to him. Compare the Street and Lathrop cases 
supra. The instant case presents the strange spectacle of 
a “ captive and frustrated” elector, should he abide by the 
dictates of the statute, or a disenfranchised elector, should 
he refuse to abide by the commands of the statute, (1) 
either by declining to vote at all, (2) or by suffering his bal­
lot to be discarded by his favoring only those candidates for 
whom he has affinity. In any event the statute is replete with 
the certainty of the regimentation and conscription of 
“ captive and frustrated” electors who are electing candi­
dates to office against their will and with the disenfran­
chisement of electors who know what they wish but can­
not be heard. The question here raised is one of moment 
and raises the precise point which all Opinions in the Street 
and Lathrop cases would assume to be settled, beyond argu­
ment, in appellant’s favor.

CONCLUSION

As indicated in the foregoing S tatement as to Jurisdic­
tion, this Court has Jurisdiction of this appeal pursuant 
to 28 U. S. C. 1257(2) and a substantial federal question is 
presented which should be resolved by this Court.

Respectfully submitted,

R omallus 0 .  M urphy 
557 East Nash Street 
Wilson, North Carolina

Samuel S. M itchell

507 East Martin Street 
Raleigh, North Carolina

Attorneys for Appellant



A P P E N D I C E S



A P P E N D IX  A

Judgment of State Supreme Court

SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

Fall Term 1961 

No. 248—Wilson

T. A . W atkins,

— v .—

City of W ilson, a body corporate and politic; J ohn W ilson, 
Mayor and Chairman of the Board of Commissioners 
of the City of Wilson; T homas W atson, J r., T. F. H ack­
n ey , W inette P eters, H. P. B enton , Jr., E arl B rad­
bury and E dger N orris, Serving as the Board of Com­
missioners of the City of Wilson; M rs. Cecil N ewberry, 
M rs. T. L. N oe, M rs. A lbert T homas, W. F. P eabody, 
M rs. J ohn G. A she, Jr., M rs. M. W. S utton , Jr,, all 
being Precinct Registrars appointed for the May 2,1961, 
Elections of the City of Wilson; M rs. George T homas 
D aniels, M rs. W. F. T hrasher, W. L. M orris, Gary T. 
F ulgh u m , J ohn H arriss, M rs. A nnie  B ishop, Janie 
L iverman, M rs. D overy W atson, M. D. James, M rs. 
R ussell L anden, M rs. H. T. B arkley, M rs. R obert 
P earce, all being Precinct, Election Judges appointed 
for the May 2, 1961, Elections of the City op W ilson.

This cause came on to be argued upon the transcript of 
the record from the Superior Court of Wilson County: 
Upon consideration whereof, this Court is of opinion that



2a

there is no error in the record and proceedings of said 
Superior Court.

It is adjudged by the Court here that the opinion of the 
Court be certified to the said Superior Court to the intent 
that the judgment is affirmed.

And it is considered and adjudged further that the plain­
tiff and sureties to the appeal bond, Charles D. James and 
Gr. K. Butterfield, do pay the costs of the appeal in this 
Court incurred, to wit, the sum of Twenty and 05/100 
($20.05) Dollars, and execution issue therefor. Certified 
to Superior Court this 23rd day of October, 1961.

A drian J. N ewton

Clerk of the Supreme Court

By S arah B. H anner

Sarah B. Hanner, Deputy Clerk

Appendix A
Judgment of State Supreme Court

A  T rue Copy

[S eal]



3a

A P P E N D IX  B

Opinion of State Supreme Court

SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

Fall Term 1961 

Docket No. 248

T. A . W atkins,

— v.—

City of W ilson, a body corporate and politic; John W ilson, 
Mayor and Chairman of the Board of Commissioners 
of the City of W ilson; T homas W atson, J r., T. F. H ack­
ney , W inette P eters, H. P. B enton , Jr., E arl B rad­
bury and E dger N orris, Serving as the Board of Com­
missioners of the City of W ilson; M rs. Cecil N ewberry, 
M rs. T. L. N oe, M rs. A lbert T homas, W . F. P eabody, 
M rs. J ohn G. A she , Jr., M rs. M. W. S utton , Jr., all 
being Precinct Registrars appointed for the May 2, 1961, 
Elections of the City of Wilson; M rs. George T homas 
D aniels, M rs. W. F. T hrasher, W. L. M orris, Gary T. 
F ulghum , John H arriss, M rs. A nnie  B ishop, Janie 
L iverman, M rs. D overy W atson, M. D. James, M rs. 
R ussell L anden, M rs. H. T. B arkley, M rs. R obert 
P earce, all being Precinct, Election Judges appointed 
for the May 2, 1961, Elections of the City of W ilson.

(Filed 11 October, 1961.)

A ppeal by plaintiff from Stevens, J June 1, 1961 Civil 
Term of W ilson.



4a

This action was begun on 12 April 1961 when plaintiff 
filed his complaint alleging the charter of the City of Wilson 
as amended in 1957 prescribing the manner for electing 
city officials was unconstitutional and void, adversely affect­
ing plaintiff’s rights as an elector and candidate for the 
office of city commissioner at an election to be held on 2 May 
1961.

The governing officials of the city are, by charter provi­
sion, a mayor and six commissioners. Nonpartisan elections 
are held in May in odd numbered years for the election of 
these city officials. Commissioners are elected at large by 
qualified voters of the city. A  single ballot is provided con­
taining the names of all who have given notice of their 
candidacy for the office of commissioner. The six candi­
dates receiving the highest number of votes are the elected 
commissioners.

Section 3 of the Act of 1957 amending the charter pro­
vides: “No ballot for Commissioners shall be valid unless 
as many candidates shall be voted for as there are vacancies 
to be filled.”

Plaintiff alleged: He was a candidate for the office of 
commissioner at the election to be held on 2 May 1961; he 
and many other electors were unwilling to comply with the 
requirements of the city charter and vote for a sufficient 
number of candidates to fill all vacancies; election officials 
would treat as invalid and refuse to count those ballots 
where the elector did not vote for six commissioners.

He asked the court to declare the statute requiring elec­
tors to vote for six commissioners void, and for an order 
requiring the officials to show cause why they should not be 
enjoined from complying with the statute.

The motion for the restraining order was presented to 
Judge Carr 21 April 1961. He, on that date, issued an order

Appendix B
Opinion of State Supreme Court



5a

directing defendants to appear on 25 April before Judge 
Stevens, regularly assigned to hold the courts of the Sev­
enth District. Judge Stevens heard the parties but declined 
to enjoin compliance with the statute. The election was held 
in accord with the statutory provision. The official ballot 
contained thirteen names, including plaintiff’s. It informed 
electors:

“ 1. To vote for a candidate on the ballot make a cross x 
mark in the square at the left of his name.

“ 2. For legal ballot, vote for six candidates.

“ 3. I f you tear or deface or wrongfully mark this ballot, 
return it to registrar and get another.”

The election officials declared the six whose names were 
marked on ballots conforming to the statute duly elected. 
They received 2036, 1897, 1885, 1835, 1831, and 1332 votes 
respectively on complete ballots.

Plaintiff received a total of 211 votes on complete ballots, 
that is, ballots for six commissioners. There were a total 
of 761 ballots not counted for any commissioner because 
of the failure of the elector to vote for the requisite num­
ber. Plaintiff’s name appeared upon a substantial number 
of the 761 ballots not counted. Other names also appeared 
on the 761 ballots not counted, but on none of them as many 
as six names appeared. Subsequent to the election, plaintiff 
moved the court to declare the election void and the quoted 
statutory provision invalid because of asserted conflict with 
sections 10 and 37 of Art. I and sections 1 and 6 of Art. VI 
of the North Carolina Constitution and the Fourteenth 
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

At the hearing the parties stipulated the facts as sum­
marized above. Judge Stevens, being of the opinion that

Appendix B
Opinion of State Supreme Court



6a

the Act was constitutional, dismissed the action. Plaintiff 
appealed.

Romallus 0. Murphy, Samuel S. Mitchell, and George R. 
Greene for plaintiff appellant.

Lucas, Rand and Rose for defendant appellees.

P er Curiam . The power and duty of a court to declare 
an act of the Legislature void because it violates some 
constitutional provision was recognized in North Carolina 
as early as 1787. Bayard v. Singleton, 1 N.C. 42. Courts 
do not, however, exercise this power at the behest of one not 
adversely affected by the statute. They act only when nec­
essary for the protection of some right guaranteed by the 
Constitution.

The rule was succinctly stated and aptly applied when the 
right of Mr. Justice Black to serve as a member of the 
Supreme Court of the United States was challenged. The 
Court, in denying the right to question the appointment, 
said: “ It is an established principle that to entitle a private 
individual to invoke the judicial power to determine the 
validity of executive or legislative action he must show that 
he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining 
a direct injury as the result of that action and it is not 
sufficient that he has merely a general interest common to 
all members of the public.” Ex parte Albert Levitt, 302
U.S. 633, 58 S. Ct. 1, 82 L. ed. 493. We have consistently 
applied the rule so stated. Greensboro v. Wall, 247 N.C. 
516, 101 S.E. 2d 413; Fox v. Comrs. of Durham, 244 N.C. 
497, 94 S.E. 2d 482; Turner v. Reidsville, 224 N.C. 42, 29 
S.E. 2d 211; Leonard v. Maxwell, 216 N.C. 89, 3 S.E. 2d 
316; Netvman v. Comrs. of Vance, 208 N.C. 675, 182 S.E. 
453; Sprunt v. Comrs. of New Hanover, 208 N.C. 695, 182

Appendix B
Opinion of State Supreme Court



7a

S.E. 655; Hill v. Comrs. of Greene, 209 N.C. 4, 182 S.E. 709; 
Yarborough v. Park Comm., 196 N.C. 284, 145 S.E. 563.

On the admitted facts plaintiff is not in a position to call 
for a determination of the constitutionality of the statutory 
provision. Even if credited with all rejected ballots, he 
would not have enough votes to change the result. The 
court correctly dismissed the action.

Affirmed.

Appendix B
Opinion of State Supreme Court



8a

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

N oeth Carolina 

W ilson County

A P P E N D IX  C -l

Order to Show Cause (Superior Court)

T. A. W atkins,

—vs.—

City of W ilson, et al.

Plaintiff,

This cause coming on to be heard before the undersigned, 
upon a Petition for an Order to show cause why a tempo­
rary restraining order should not be granted in the above 
entitled cause, and it appearing to the court that the said 
Order should be granted; it further appearing to the court 
that the Order to show cause should be returnable before 
Honorable Henry L. Stevens, Jr., the Judge holding the 
courts for the Seventh Judicial District at the Superior 
Court in Tarboro, North Carolina, on the 25th day of April, 
1961, at 2:30 PM, or as soon thereafter as counsel may be 
heard;

And it further appearing to the court that a copy of this 
order should be served upon the attorney for the City of 
Wilson.



9a

Appendix C -l

Order to Show' Cause (Superior Court)

Now, T herefore, the defendants are hereby directed to 
appear before Honorable Henry L. Stevens, Jr., on the 
25th day of April, 1961, at 2:30 PM, at Tarboro, North 
Carolina, and show such cause, if any they have, as to why 
the temporary restraining order prayed for in plaintiff's 
complaint should not be granted.

L eo Carr 
Judge Presiding



1 0 a

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT 

N orth Carolina 

W ilson County

A P P E N D IX  C-2

Order Denying Restraining Order (Superior Court)

T. A. W atkins,

—vs.—

City or W ilson, et at.

Plaintiff,

This cause coming on to be heard before His Honor 
Henry L. Stevens, Jr., Judge holding the Courts of the 
Seventh Judicial District in the Courthouse in Tarboro, 
North Carolina, on the 25th day of April, 1961, at 2:30 PM, 
upon the return of the order directing the defendants to 
show cause why a temporary restraining order should not 
be granted pending final determination of this action and 
being heard upon the complaint, motion, affidavits and argu­
ments of counsel, and it appearing to the Court, upon such 
hearing, that the plaintiff is not entitled to said restraining 
order;

I t I s N ow , T herefore, Ordered, A djudged and Decreed 
that the plaintiff’s motion for restraining order as prayed 
for in his motion and complaint be and the same is hereby 
denied.

This 29th day of April, 1961.

H enry L. S tevens, Jr.
Judge Holding the Courts of the 

Seventh Judicial District



11a

Order Denying Motion to Declare Election Void
(Superior Court)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT 

N orth Carolina 

W ilson County

A P P E N D IX  C-3

T. A . W atkins,

—vs.—
Plaintiff

City of W ilson, et al.

This cause coming on to be heard before His Honor 
Henry L. Stevens, Jr., Judge holding the Courts of the 
Seventh Judicial District in the courthouse of Wilson, North 
Carolina, on the 15th day of May, 1961, on motion of plain­
tiff that the municipal election held by the City of Wilson 
on May 2,1961, be declared null and void and on the further 
motion of plaintiff for judgment on the pleadings, both of 
said motions being as shown on the record herein; and the 
Court being of the opinion that both of the plaintiff’s mo­
tions should be denied.

I t I s N ow , T herefore, Ordered, A djudged and D ecreed :

1. That plaintiff’s motion that the municipal election held 
by the City of Wilson on May 2, 1961, be declared null and 
void be and the same is hereby denied.



12a

Appendix C-3

Order Denying Motion to Declare Election Void 
(Superior Court)

2. That plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings 
be and the same is hereby denied.

This 16th day of May, 1961.

H enry L. S tevens, J r. 
Judge Holding the Courts in the 

Seventh Judicial District



13a

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT 

N orth Carolina 

W ilson County

A P P E N D IX  C-4

Judgment o f  the Superior Court

T. A. W atkins,

Plaintiff,

— YS.—

City of W ilson, et al.

This Cause is heard before Honorable Henry L. Stevens, 
Jr., Judge Presiding at June 1961 Civil Term for the Su­
perior Court of Wilson County. It is heard without the 
intervention of a jury, by stipulation of the parties, and is 
heard upon stipulated facts and upon the Record.

The Court, being of the opinion that the election law 
of the City of Wilson, which is under attack, is valid and 
constitutional, it is upon motion of defendants ordered and 
adjudged that this action be and the same is hereby dis­
missed, and that the plaintiff and the surety upon his 
prosecution bond pay the costs as taxed by the Clerk.

H enry L. S tevens, Jr.
Judge Presiding



14a

Appendix C-4

Judgment of the Superior Court 

APPEAL ENTRIES

To the signing and entry of the foregoing Judgment, the 
plaintiff, in due time and in open court, excepts and gives 
notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of North Carolina. 
Appeal Bond fixed at $200.00.

This June 27, 1961.

H enry L. S tevens, Jr. 
Judge Presiding



15a

APPENDIX D 

Complaint

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT 

N obth Carolina 

W ilson County

T. A . W atkins,

-vs.—
Plaintiff,

City of W ilson, a body corporate and politic; J ohn W ilson, 
Mayor and Chairman of the Board of Commissioners 
of the City of Wilson; T homas W atson, Jr., T. P. H ack­
ney , W inette P eters, H. P. B enton , Jr,, E arl B rad­
bury and E dger N orris, Serving as the Board of Com­
missioners of the City of W ilson; M rs. Cecil N ewberry, 
M rs. T. L. N oe, M rs. A lbert T homas, W. P. P eabody, 
M rs. J ohn G. A she , Jr., M rs. M. W. Sutton , Jr., all 
being Precinct Registrars appointed for the May 2,1961, 
Elections of the City of Wilson; M rs. George T homas 
D aniels, M rs. W. F. T hrasher, W. L. M orris, Gary T. 
F ulghum , J ohn H arriss, M rs. A nnie  B ishop, Janie 
L iverman, M rs. D overy W atson, M. D. James, M rs. 
R ussell L anden, M rs. H. T. B arkley, M rs. R obert 
P earce, all being Precinct, Election Judges appointed 
for the May 2, 1961, Elections of the City of W ilson.

Plaintiff, complaining of defendants, respectfully alleges 
and says:

1. That plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the City of 
Wilson, Wilson County, State of North Carolina; that plain­



16a

tiff is also a registered voter of Wilson County and of the 
City of Wilson, North Carolina, and is entitled to vote in 
the elections to be held for city officials on the 2nd day of 
May, 1961; that plaintiff is a candidate for the office of 
Commissioner on the six man Board of Commissioners, 
which is the governing body of the City of Wilson and 
which six man board is scheduled to be elected during the 
City elections of the 2nd day of May, 1961; that plaintiff 
has been a citizen, resident and voter in and of the City 
of Wilson, North Carolina, continuously for more than eight 
years next preceding the tiling of this complaint; that 
plaintiff files this complaint in his capacities as a registered 
voter of the City of Wilson and as a candidate for the office 
of Commissioner on the six-man Board of City Commis­
sioners.

2. That the defendants and their capacities in this litiga­
tion are as follows:

(a) The defendant City of Wilson, North Carolina 
is a body corporate and politic and has such authority, 
powers and privileges as have been conferred upon 
it by the constitution and laws of the State of North 
Carolina, and which are not inconsistent with the fed­
eral and state constitutions. The defendant City of 
Wilson, North Carolina is authorized under its Charter 
to conduct and provide for the elections for certain of 
its city officials, including the election of its governing 
body, the Board of Commissioners. The defendant City 
of Wilson, North Carolina is joined in this action by 
reason of its presumed power under its charter to con­
duct and provide for elections for members of its Board 
of Commissioners and is hereafter referred to as the 
City of Wilson.

Appendix D
Complaint



17a

(b) Defendant John Wilson is the duly elected 
Mayor of the City of Wilson and serving and acting as 
Mayor of the City of Wilson and as Chairman of the 
Board of City Commissioners of said city, pursuant to 
the 1959 city elections, and Defendant John Wilson is 
herein joined by reason of his official capacities as such 
Mayor and Chairman of the said Board.

(c) Defendants Thomas Watson, Jr., T. J. Hackney, 
Winette Peters, H. P. Benton, Jr., Earl Bradbury and 
Edger Norris are acting and serving as members of 
the Board of Commissioners, presumably pursuant to 
“ election” during the 1959 city elections. Under the 
Charter of the City of Wilson, the Board of Commis­
sioners is charged with the duty of providing for city 
elections and the machinery for the same. The defen­
dants named in this sub-paragraph are joined in this 
complaint by reason of functions which they are pre­
suming to discharge as City Commissioners and by 
reason of the functions which they are presuming to 
discharge, as those functions relate to the city elec­
tions of the City of Wilson of May 2, 1961. The defen­
dants named in this sub-paragraph are hereinafter 
referred to as “ defendants commissioners” .

(d) Defendants Mrs. Cecil Newberry, Mrs. T. L. 
Noe, Mrs. Albert Thomas, W. F. Peabody, Mrs. John 
G. Ashe, Jr., and Mrs. M. W. Sutton, Jr. have been 
named as Precinct Registrars for the city elections 
of the City of Wilson for the May 2, 1961, elections 
and each of the said defendants is joined in this com­
plaint in the capacity as Precinct Registrar. The de­
fendants named in this suh-paragraph are hereinafter 
referred to as “ defendants registrars.”

Appendix D
Complaint



18a

(e) Defendants Mrs. George Thomas Daniels, Mrs. 
W. F. Thrasher, W. L. Morris, Gary T. Fnlghum, John 
Harriss, Mrs. Annie Bishop, Janie Liverman, Mrs. 
Dovey Watson, M. D. James, Mrs. Russell Landen, 
Mrs. H. T. Barkley and Mrs. Robert Pearce have been 
named as Precinct Election Judges for the city elec­
tions of the City of Wilson for the May 2, 1961, elec­
tions and each of the said defendants is joined in this 
complaint in the capacity as Precinct Election Judge. 
The defendants named in this sub-paragraph are here­
inafter referred to as “ defendants judges.”

that all of the individual defendants are citizens and resi­
dents of the City of Wilson and of the State of North 
Carolina; that all of the defendants are concerned with the 
conduct of and the machinery for the May 2, 1961, city elec­
tions of the City of Wilson and with the conduct of and the 
machinery for the election of members of the Board of 
City Commissioners in particular.

3. That Section 4 of the Charter of the City of Wilson, 
as amended by the General Assembly of North Carolina 
in H. B. 64, Chapter 13, on March 1, 1957, reads, in part, 
as follows:

“ No ballot for Commissioners shall be valid unless 
as many candidates shall be voted for as there are 
vacancies to be filled” .

that under Section 4 of the Charter of the City of Wilson 
six commissioners are elected each biennium to the six man 
board of city commissioners; that since its adoption in 
1957 and including the biennial city elections of 1957 and 
1959 for the City of Wilson, the provision of Section 4 of

Appendix D
Complaint



19a

the Charter of the City of Wilson, as quoted above, has 
been applied by city election officers and officials ; that prior 
to each of the above mentioned elections, City election 
officers and officials have made public their intention to 
act under the quoted provision; that during the biennial 
city elections of 1957 and 1959 all ballots which were cast 
for city commissioners, upon which less than six commis­
sioners were voted for, were not counted in the tally of votes 
and were discarded by election officers and officials; that 
the act which amends Section 4 of the Charter of the City 
of Wilson, specifically provided the following:

“All laws and clause of law in conflict with the pro­
vision of this act are hereby repealed.”

That H. B. 64, Chapter 13 of the 1957 Session Laws of 
North Carolina and Section 4 of the Charter of the City 
of Wilson, North Carolina, are asked to be read as a part 
of this paragraph to the same effect as if herein specifically 
set out.

4. That plaintiff is informed, believes and has every right 
and cause to believe and so alleges that the defendants com­
missioners, registrars and judges will make public their 
intention to discard all ballots for city commissioners upon 
which less than six candidates are voted for in the May 2, 
1961, city elections; that plaintiff is informed, believes and 
has every right and cause to believe and so alleges that 
defendants commissioners, registrars and judges will fol­
low their practice in the May 2, 1961, city elections of dis­
carding all ballots for city commissioners upon which less 
than six candidates are voted fo r ; that plaintiff is informed 
and believes and verily alleges that the City of Wilson and 
defendants commissioners are presently causing ballots to

Appendix iD
Complaint

>



20a

be prepared in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 
of the Charter of the City of Wilson which is quoted first 
in paragraph 3 above.

5. That plaintiff desires to cast a ballot for city com­
missioners during the May 2,1961, city election for the City 
of Wilson but does not desire and will not vote upon as 
many as six candidates; that plaintiff knows many other 
persons who wish to cast a ballot for city commissioners 
during said elections but who do not desire to vote for six 
candidates and who wish to vote for fewer than six candi­
dates ; that plaintiff is aware of organized effort and aspira­
tions on the part of groups of voters in behalf of plaintiff’s 
candidacy who wish to employ the minority technique of a 
“ short ballot” in order to assure that plaintiff may secure 
as favored a ranking as possible in the tally of votes for 
city commissioner in the May 2, 1961, city elections for the 
City of Wilson; that, in this regard, the following allega­
tions are pertinent:

(a) Plaintiff is a Negro and as such is a member of 
a minority group of citizens and voters who have com­
mon grievances and problems peculiar to Negro people 
and Negro voters in the City of Wilson, North Carolina. 
As stated in paragraph 1 above, plaintiff is a candidate 
for the city office of city commissioner during the city 
elections of May 2, 1961. The requirements of the pro­
vision of Section 4 of the Charter of the City of Wilson, 
which is quoted first in paragraph 3 above, has the 
effect of frustrating the efforts of minority voters and 
of Negro voters in particular, in obtaining the voice of 
one of their members on the city’s governing body. 
The provision also has the effect of excluding from the 
city’s governing body the presence of any member of

Appendix D
Complaint



21a

a minority group whose voice is not pleasing to the 
majority group of voters, to wit, to white voters.

6. That the provision of Section 4, of the Charter of 
the City of Wilson, which is quoted first in paragraph 3 
above and which purports to require that plaintiff and all 
other voters in the May 2, 1961, city elections for the City 
of Wilson vote for six candidates for the offices of city 
commissioners, is invalid and unconstitutional by reason 
of the following matter:

(a) The said provision is invalid and unconstitu­
tional because of its conflict with Article I, Sections 10 
and 37 and Article VI, Sections 1 and 6 of the North 
Carolina Constitution and other provisions of the 
North Carolina Constitution, by reason of the circum­
stance that the provision is an invasion and subversion 
of a voter’s right of choice as to what candidate he 
wishes to favor with his ballot and of a voter’s right 
of choice as to what candidate or candidates the voter 
wishes to exclude from his ballot.

(b) The said provision is invalid and unconstitu­
tional because of its conflict with the Privileges or 
Immunities, the Due Process and the Equal Protection 
Clauses of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States, by reason of the same matter al­
leged in sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph, which 
appears immediately above.

(c) The said provision is invalid and unconstitu­
tional because of its conflict with Article I, Sections 
10 and 37 and Article VI, Sections 1 and 6 of the North 
Carolina Constitution, and other provisions of the 
North Carolina Constitution, by reason of the circum­

Appendix D
Complaint



22a

stance that the provision oppressively and arbitrarily 
denies to a minority voter, and to a Negro Voter such 
as plaintiff in particular, a democratic technique in 
which he may participate—along and in association 
with other voters of his group or race with like aspira­
tions and problems—in his effort to secure the voice of 
one of his group on the governing body of his munici­
pality. The provision also conflicts with the above 
mentioned constitutional Sections of the State Con­
stitution by reason of the circumstances that the pro­
vision tends to oppressively and arbitrarily exclude 
from the municipality’s governing body the presence of 
any member of plaintiff’s racial group, to wit, the Negro 
race, or the presence of any other member of a minor­
ity group of voters and the presence of plaintiff in 
particular, unless plaintiff’s voice or the voice of the 
member of the minority group, is pleasing to the ma­
jority group of voters, to wit, to white voters.

(d) The said provision is invalid and unconstitu­
tional because of its conflict with the Privileges or 
Immunities, the Due Process and the Equal Protection 
Clauses of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States, by reason of the same matter al­
leged in sub-paragraph C of this paragraph, which 
appears immediately above.

7. That the application of the provision of Section 4 
of the Charter of the City of Wilson, as first quoted in 
paragraph 3 above, is fatally injurious to the rights of 
plaintiff as a candidate for public office in the following 
particulars:

(a) A  large number of persons who are interested 
in plaintiff’s candidacy and who are not interested in

Appendix D
Complaint



23a

the candidacy of five other candidates will vote for 
plaintiff and less than five other candidates as mem­
bers of the Board of City Commissioners. Under the 
provisions of the City Charter, as it is written, plain­
tiff must lose these votes in his final tally of votes, 
unless enforcement of the provision is restrained by 
this Court.

(b) A  large number of persons who are interested 
in plaintiff’s candidacy and who are not interested in 
the candidacy of five other candidates will decline to 
vote at all or will decline to vote for members of the 
Board of City Commissioners because of the presence 
of the said provision and because of unwillingness to 
vote for candidates against their will. Because of the 
application of the provision, plaintiff will be deprived 
of these votes in his final tally of votes, unless enforce­
ment of the provision is restrained by this Court.

(c) A  large number of persons who are interested 
in plaintiff’s candidacy only or who are interested in 
plaintiff’s candidacy and the candidacy of less than five 
other persons will unwillingly help to defeat plaintiff 
by unwillingly bestoring votes upon plaintiff’s nearest 
competitors.

that the application of the said provision, which is invalid 
and unconstitutional, as indicated in paragraph 6 above, 
is fatally injurious to the rights of plaintiff as a candidate 
for public office, in that, the statute appropriates plaintiff’s 
chances for election for the benefit of plaintiff’s competitors 
for the same office.

8. That because of the application of the impleaded 
provision of Section 4 of the Charter of the City of Wilson

Appendix JD
Complaint



24a

to the May 2, 1961, city elections and to the election for 
members of the Board of City Commissioners, plaintiff has 
suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm and 
damage in his candidacy for the public office for which he 
has filed; that the nature of the damages and harm to 
plaintiff, which results from the application of the said 
provision, is beyond measure and the said damages and 
harm can not be redressed in an action at law or in an 
action for damages; that other than an equitable action 
for injunctive relief, plaintiff is without a remedy for the 
protection of his franchise and for the protection of his 
candidacy for public office; that the passage of each day 
between the present and the date of the election increases 
and further aggravates the irreparable harm and damage 
to plaintiff and to his franchise and candidacy; that the 
threatened and impending application of the application of 
the said impleaded provision of Section 4 of the Charter 
of the City of Wilson is a present irreparable harm to 
plaintiff, as indicated in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 above and 
as set out in paragraphs 6 and 7 above.

9. That, by virtue of the matter set out in paragraphs 4, 
5, 6, 7 and 8 above, plaintiff is entitled to an immediate and 
temporary injunction, restraining defendants and each of 
them from applying or attempting to apply, or from making 
public any intention to apply the impleaded provision of 
Section 4 of the Charter of the City of Wilson to the May 2, 
1961, elections of members of the Board of City Commis­
sioners ; that, by virtue of the matter set out in paragraphs 
4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 above, plaintiff is entitled to a permanent 
injunction, permanently restraining defendants and each 
of them from applying or attempting to apply, or from 
making public any intention to apply the said provision of

Appendix JD
Complaint



25a

the Charter above mentioned to the elections also mentioned 
above; that, by virtue of the matter set out in paragraphs 
4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 above, plaintiff is entitled to have the im­
pleaded provision of Section 4 of the Charter of the City 
of Wilson, as it purported to require a voter to vote for six 
candidates for the offices of City commissioners, to be 
declared null and void and unconstitutional; that plaintiff 
is also entitled to have the elections of May 2, 1961, declared 
null and void, as they relate to the offices of City Commis­
sioners, if the impleaded provision of the Charter of the 
City of Wilson is applied to the said elections; that plain­
tiff is entitled to vote and participate as a candidate in an 
election which is free of the operation of the impleaded 
provision of Section 4 of the Charter of the City of Wilson.

10. That plaintiff respectfully requests that this verified 
complaint be read as an affidavit in support of the tempo­
rary and permanent injunctive relief hereinafter prayed 
for.

W herefore, plaintiff prays the Court as follows:

(1) That a temporary injunction immediately issue, tem­
porarily restraining defendants and each of them from 
applying so much of the Charter of the City of Wilson, 
as is first quoted in paragraph 3 above, to the May 2, 1961, 
elections of city commissioners.

(2) That a permanent injunction issue, permanently en­
joining defendants and each of them from applying so much 
of the Charter of the City of Wilson, as is first quoted in 
paragraph 3 above, to the May 2, 1961, elections of city 
commissioners.

(3) That this Court conclude as a matter of law that 
so much of Section 4 of the Charter of the City of Wilson,

Appendix X>
Complaint



26a

as is first quoted in paragraph 3 above, is unconstitutional 
by reason of the state and federal constitutions, as is indi­
cated in paragraph 6 of this complaint.

(4) That this Court conclude that any election for this 
biennium, to which is applied so much of Section 4 of the 
Charter of the City of Wilson, as is first quoted in para­
graph 3 above, is null and void and without effect for the 
vesting of office.

(5) That this Court grant to plaintiff the right to par­
ticipate in the elections for which he has filed, the freedom 
from the burden of the provision which is alleged in this 
complaint to be unconstitutional.

(6) That this Court read this verified complaint as an 
affidavit in support of the injunctive relief herein prayed 
for.

(7) For such other and further relief as to the Court may 
seem just and proper.

(8) For the cost of Court to be taxed against defendants.

R omallus 0 . M urphy 
Romallus 0. Murphy 
557 East Nash Street 
Wilson, North Carolina

Samuel S. M itchell 
Samuel S. Mitchell 
507 East Martin Street 
Raleigh, North Carolina 

Counsel for Plaintiff

Appendix D
Complaint

Duly Verified 
4-12-61



27a

APPENDIX E

Motion of May 3 , 1961

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT 

N orth Carolina 

W ilson County

T. A. W atkins,

—vs.—
Plaintiff,

City of W ilson, et al.
---- -------------------------------------------------------

Now Comes P laintiff, through, and by his attorneys, 
and respectfully shows unto the Court the following matter:

1. That on the 12th day of April, 1961, plaintiff filed 
the complaint in this cause; that on the 21st day of April 
Honorable Leo Carr signed an order requiring defendants 
to show cause as to why the temporary injunction prayed 
for by plaintiff should not be granted; that on the 25th day 
of April, 1961, counsel for plaintiff along with plaintiff, and 
counsel for defendants appeared before Honorable Henry 
L. Stevens, Jr., pursuant to the order to show cause, in 
the Superior Court of Edgecombe County; that on the 
29th day of April, 1961, Honorable Henry L. Stevens, Jr., 
entered an order in which he denied plaintiff’s motion and 
application for the temporary injunction prayed for by 
plaintiff in his complaint in this cause; that plaintiff has 
duly excepted from the order of Honorable Henry L.



28a

Stevens, Jr., which denied his motion and application for 
a temporary injunction.

2. That in his complaint in this cause plaintiff had 
sought to restrain the application of Section 4 of the Char­
ter of the City of Wilson to the May 2, 1961, Election of 
member of the Board of Commissioners for the City of 
Wilson; that the impleaded portion of the said provision 
of Section 4 of the Charter of the City of Wilson reads as 
follows:

“ No ballot for Commissioners shall be valid unless as 
many candidates shall be voted for as there are vacan­
cies to be filled.”

That in his complaint in this cause, in paragraph 6 thereof, 
plaintiff alleged and asserted that the above quoted section 
of the Charter of the City of Wilson is unconstitutional 
and invalid, as compared with the standards of Sections 10 
and 37 of Article I and Sections 1 and 6 of Article VI of 
the Constitution of the State of North Carolina and as 
compared with the standards of the Privileges or Immuni­
ties, the Equal Protection and the Due Process Clauses of 
the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States.

3. That the May 2, 1961, elections for City Commis­
sioners of the City of Wilson have now been held; that, 
notwithstanding plaintiff’s complaint and the allegations 
and prayers therein contained, defendants have applied to 
the said elections the provision quoted in Paragraph 2 
above; that at the top of each ballot for City Commis­
sioners, which was given to each voter who participated in

Appendix E
Motion of May 3, 1961



29a

the May 2, 1961, elections for the City of Wilson, the fol­
lowing matter was printed:

“ OFFICIAL BALLOT 
FOR THE CITY OF WILSON ELECTION

May 2, 1961

FOR COMMISSIONERS

1. To vote for a candidate on the ballot make a cross 
(x) mark in the square at the left of his name.

2. For legal ballot vote for six candidates.

3. I f you tear or deface or wrongfully mark this ballot, 
return it to registrar and get another.”

That a facsimile of the said ballot was reproduced in The 
Wilson Daily Times, the sole local daily newspaper on May 
1, 1961, and a copy of said facsimile is attached to this 
Motion as “ Exhibit A ” hereof.

4. That when the votes were counted in each of the six 
precincts of the City of Wilson, the precinct election official 
discarded and failed to count all ballots for City Commis­
sioners upon which less than six candidates were voted fo r ; 
that plaintiff’s name, as a candidate for City Commissioner, 
was upon nearly all of the ballots so discarded and not 
counted in the tally of votes for City Commissioners; that 
plaintiff is informed, believes and has every right to believe 
that more than seven hundred ballots were discarded and 
not counted by reason of the fact that the voters depositing 
said ballots had voted for less than six of the listed candi­
dates for office.

5. That plaintiff was present at the meeting of the 
Board of Canvassers, which was held on May 3, 1961, when

Appendix E
Motion of May 3, 1961



30a

the precinct ballots for City Commissioners were canvassed; 
that plaintiff made the following request in writing before 
the said Board of Canvassers:

“ To the Chairman and each of the several members 
of the Board of City Canvassers:

This is to request that all ballots discarded as illegal 
ballots, by reason of the fact that the voter voted for 
a number less than six of the candidates listed for 
the offices of City Commissioners be counted and that 
the candidates who were favored on such discarded 
ballots be given credit for the same in their tally of 
votes.

Filed with the Chairman in Wilson at the May 3, 1961, 
meeting of the Board of the City Canvassers at 
12:05 PM.

This 3rd day of May, 1961.

/ s /  T. A. W atkins

Candidate for Board of City 
Commissioners during May 2, 
1961, elections.”

That, notwithstanding plaintiff’s request, the said discarded 
ballots were not counted; that each member of the Board 
of Canvassers is a party-defendant to this action and has 
been served with a copy of the complaint in this cause and 
with a copy of the order of Honorable Leo Carr, which 
is mentioned in paragraph 1 above; that the City Board 
of Canvassers is composed of precinct election officials, as 
provided by Section 9 of the Charter of the City of W ilson; 
that it is respectfully requested that the said section of the 
Charter of the City of Wilson be read as an integral part

Appendix E
Motion of May 3, 1961



31a

Appendix E

Motion of May 3, 1961

of this paragraph to the same effect as if herein specifically 
set out; that the said Board of City election Canvassers 
has already purported to declare the results of the elections 
for City Commissioners and plaintiff, the movant herein, is 
not among those who have been declared elected by the 
Board of Canvassers.

6. That plaintiff is informed and believes and so alleges 
that if the provision of the Charter of the City of Wilson, 
which is quoted in paragraph 2 above, had not been applied 
to the elections for City Commissioners that he would have 
been elected; that plaintiff received 211 votes upon ballots 
which were not discarded; that plaintiff was favored upon 
nearly every one of the 700 ballots or more which were 
discarded and not counted by reason of the fact that less 
than six candidates were voted upon; that the six candidates 
which were declared elected were credited with the following 
tally of votes in the order listed below:

Names of Candidates No. of Votes

1. T. J. Hackney, Jr. 2036
2. Edgar Norris 1897
3. W. A. Peters 1885
4. H. P. Benton, Jr. 1835

That plaintiff is informed and believes and so alleges that 
many voters who would have voted for him declined to vote 
at all because of the oppression of their will by the illegal 
requirement that they must vote for six candidates; that 
plaintiff is informed and believes and so alleges that many 
voters who were primarily interested in his candidacy voted 
for him willingly and unwillingly for some of his competi­

5. W. B. Clark, Jr.
6. C. E. Raines

1831
1332



32a

tors who have been declared elected by the Board of Can­
vassers ; that, in particular, the sole daily newspaper of 
the City of Wilson has seen fit to use its editorial columns 
to urge voters to comply with the illegal requirement that a 
voter must vote for six candidates to have his vote counted; 
that on April 27, 1961, on page 4 of “ The Wilson Daily 
Times” , in column 2 thereof, the following editorial ap­
peared:

“ ELECTING A  BOABD

This newspaper has never tried court cases in the 
news columns. We do not consider this the duty of 
the press. The court cases are reported as accurately 
as possible with the desire to inform.

The decision affecting the election of the Wilson Board 
of City Commissioners offers many interesting points 
that concern the people. Judge Stevens ruled that the 
people were electing a body politic of which there are 
six members in this case. The law that was upheld 
says that you must vote for six for your ballot to be 
counted. This is certainly reasonable and fair. There 
are 13 fine citizens running for the six seats on the 
board. This is choice enough for anyone.

We are not arguing for or against anyone, but for an 
interest in the full board. We contend you should find 
out what each candidate stands for and select the six 
men from the list of 13 you think will render the best 
service to city government. You are not voting for a 
board of one member but for a six member board. 
The interest of all our people will be served by this 
board.

I f it were legal for you to vote for only one man on 
the board you could find some members elected by a

Appendix E
Motion of May 3, 1961



33a

small majority of those voting. This could lead to many 
evils, the greatest being the centering of interest on 
one point or person to the detriment of all others.

In fact, we doubt if one shot voting could always be 
counted on to accomplish the objective. This being the 
election of one member. It is not legal so the judge 
ruled. And it is easy to understand the reasoning. 
The objective is to elect six commissioners and for 
the six to receive the highest number of votes among 
the 13. To accomplish this, six places must be marked 
on the ballot. Otherwise, you are voting for a man 
or a member of the board. You are not exercising your 
right of choice for a board of six.

When our citizens offer their service to government 
they should feel, when elected, it is by the people. The 
old rule of majority holds true. It would not if one 
shot voting were allowed.

You take your choice of six among 13, not one or two 
or three among 13. For there are six men who will 
sit on the board.

All the publicity on the subject is good. For every 
ballot cast is important. Therefore remember to mark 
the six names you consider best qualified to serve on 
the City Board of Commissioners when you vote on 
May 2.

We hope there will not be any “ spoiled” ballots or 
ballots marked with less than six names.”

On April 29, 1961, on page 4 of said daily newspaper, 
in columns 1 and 2 thereof, the following editorial ap­
peared:

Appendix E
Motion of May 3, 1961



34a

Appendix E

Motion of May 3, 1961 

“ THE CITY ELECTION

Those who will direct the government of our city will 
be elected on Tuesday, May 2. The six elected will 
mold the type of government this city will have for 
the next two years.

We are concerned because of the apparent lack of 
interest in the election. We have never known so little 
discussion on such an important subject.

The City of Wilson is big business. It has more than 
a three million dollar a year budget. The men you 
select on Tuesday will run this budget. The progress 
of the city is in their hands.

You have 13 candidates from which to choose six. Be 
certain to mark your ballot for six or it will not be 
counted. As you are electing a board of six.

Bo you know the candidates, what they stand for, 
their attitude toward government, their interest in 
civic affairs?

All favor good, progressive government we are certain. 
But how do they plan to accomplish this. Five of the 
13 are running for re-election. Then there are eight 
other candidates who desire to serve their city govern­
ment as members of the Board of City Commissioners. 
Therefore it is important to find out as much as pos­
sible about each candidate. Because, you the voter, 
will decide the six you consider will give this city the 
best government.

Talk about the election, become interested, discuss the 
candidates with your friends and associates, know what 
they stand for and advocate. Then vote on Tuesday.



35a

We have a fine city. It must grow and prosper. It 
will as long as the citizens are interested in its govern­
ment. Yon select the lawmakers when you go to the 
polls to vote. If you do not exercise this privilege 
you are neglecting your most precious heritage.”

That “ The Wilson Daily Times” has a wide and large cir­
culation among voters of the City of Wilson and has a 
correspondingly great influence upon the conduct of local 
readers; that the tremendous effect of the two editorials set 
out in this paragraph in coercing and frustrating the will 
of voters and in forcing their acceptance of the disputed 
provision of the city’s charter is beyond measure or cal­
culation.

7. In his complaint in this cause plaintiff has alleged 
among other things the following matter:

“ that, by virtue of the matter set out in paragraphs 4, 
5, 6, 7 and 8 above, plaintiff is entitled to have the 
impleaded provision of Section 4 of the Charter of the 
City of Wilson, as it purported to require a voter to 
vote for six candidates for the offices of City Commis­
sioners, to be declared null and void and unconstitu­
tional; that plaintiff is also entitled to have the elec­
tions of May 2, 1961, declared null and void, as they 
relate to the offices of City Commissioners, if the im­
pleaded provision of the Charter of the City of Wilson 
is applied to the said elections; that plaintiff is entitled 
to vote and participate as a candidate in an election 
which is free of the operation of the impleaded provi­
sion of Section 4 of the Charter of the City of Wilson.”

That in his prayers for relief plaintiff prayed, among 
other prayers, as follows:

Appendix E
Motion of May 3, 1961



36a

“ (3) That this Court conclude as a matter of law that 
so much of Section 4 of the Charter of the City of 
Wilson, as is first quoted in paragraph 3 above, is 
unconstitutional by reason of the State and Federal 
Constitutions, as is indicated in paragraph 6 of this 
complaint.

(4) That this Court conclude that any election for this 
biennium, to which is applied so much of Section 4 of 
the Charter of the City of Wilson, as is first quoted in 
paragraph 3 above, is null and void and without effect 
for the vesting of office.

(5) That this Court grant to plaintiff the right to 
participate in the elections for which he has filed, the 
freedom from the burden of the provision which is 
alleged in this complaint to be unconstitutional.”

That, as indicated in paragraph 3 above, the notation upon 
each of the ballots which purports to require a voter’s choice 
of six candidates rendered each ballot illegal and infected 
with the unconstitutionality complained of in plaintiff’s 
complaint; that, as indicated in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 above, 
the unconstitutionality referred to in plaintiff’s complaint 
has actually been applied to the May 2, 1961, election by 
election officials to plaintiff’s detriment; that, as indicated 
in paragraph 6 above, newspaper editorializing has given 
widespread momentum to the unconstitutional coercion 
upon voters which is complained of in plaintiff’s complaint; 
that, as indicated in plaintiff’s complaint and in this motion, 
the election of May 2, 1961, for City Commissioners for the 
City of Wilson is null and void and of no effect; that plain­
tiff is still entitled to the relief for which he prayed in the 
prayers of his complaint, as set out in this paragraph; 
that in order to obtain this relief and in obtaining this 
relief plaintiff is entitled to have the City elections of

Appendix E
Motion of May 3, 1961



37a

May 2, 1961, declared null and void as they pertain to the 
election of City Commissioners for this biennium.

8. That plaintiff has verified this motion and respectfully 
request that it be read as an affidavit in support of the 
relief hereinafter requested.

W herefore, plaintiff-movant respectfully moves the 
Court:

(1) That the Court now grant the relief prayed for in 
prayers number (3), (4) and (5) of plaintiff’s original 
complaint;

(2) That, as an ancillary remedy in the granting of the 
above mentioned relief, this Court declare and conclude 
that the May 2, 1961, elections of City Commissioners is 
null and void and of no effect.

(3) That this Court read and accept this verified motion 
as an affidavit in support of the relief prayed for;

(4) That this Court grant to plaintiff-movant such other 
and further relief as will assure him the right to partici­
pate as a voter and as a candidate in elections for City

Commissioners for this biennium.
This 3rd day of May, 1961.

R omallus 0 . M urphy

Wilson, North Carolina

Samuel S. M itchell

Raleigh, North Carolina

Attorneys for Plaintiff
(Duly verified)

Appendix E
Motion of May 3, 1961

(Motion denied. E xception. May 15, 1961 Henry L. 
Stevens, Jr., Judge Presiding.)



38a

APPENDIX F 

Answer

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT 

N orth Carolina 

W ilson County

T. A. W atkins,

—vs.—

City of W ilson, et al.

Plaintiff,

Defendants answering the complaint of plaintiff, allege:

1. Section one of the complaint is admitted.

2. Section two of the complaint is admitted.

3. Section three of the complaint is admitted.

4. Section four of the complaint is admitted.

5. In the manner and form as alleged, section five of 
the complaint is denied, but it is admitted that plaintiff 
does not want to vote for anyone except himself.

6. Section six of the complaint is denied.

7. Section seven of the complaint is denied.

8. Section eight of the complaint is denied.



39a

Appendix F

Answer

9. Section nine of the complaint is denied.

10. Section ten of the complaint requires no answer.

F urther A nswering the Complaint oe Plaintiff, D e­
fendants A llege:

1. Insofar as the May 2nd election related to the election 
of Commissioners of the City of Wilson, it was an election 
to elect a Board of Six Commissioners rather than any one 
particular Commissioner.

The City as a body politic cannot function without a 
Board of Commissioners and the election of one Commis­
sioner would not constitute a Board of Commissioners. The 
provision of the election law requiring each voter to vote 
for six is a valid legislative determination of the method 
of selecting a Board of Commissioners and merely requires 
the full exercise of the right to vote instead of permitting 
a “ one shot” vote. The so-called “ one-shot” voting is a 
pernicious attempt on the part of an organized minority 
to impose its will without regard to the wishes of a majority 
of the voters.

2. Insofar as this action is instituted by plaintiff as a 
candidate, it now presents entirely a moot question. The 
plaintiff received only 211 votes, or valid ballots. There 
were 761 ballots which were not counted because of failure 
to vote for six candidates, or for other valid reasons. If the 
plaintiff had received the exclusive vote of the entire 761 
invalid ballots, and the name of C. E. Raines had not ap­
peared upon any of the 211 ballots, then the total vote of 
the plaintiff for Commissioner would have been 972 votes; 
whereas, if 211 votes were subtracted from the vote for 
C. E. Raines, he would still have received a total of 1,121



40a

Appendix F

Answer

votes, which would have been a clear plurality over the 
vote for the plaintiff.

The allegation of the plaintiff in his Motion filed herein 
to the effect that many voters who would have voted for 
him alone did not vote at all on account of the manner of 
conduct of the election is pure speculation and conjecture 
and is not based on any demonstrable fact.

W herefore, defendants pray that the method of counting 
ballots as now provided by law be declared valid;

That this action be dismissed, and that the defendants 
have and recover their costs of the plaintiff, as taxed by 
the Clerk; and for such other and further relief as to the 
Court may seem just and proper.

L ucas, R and & R ose 
Attorneys for Defendants

(Duly verified)



41a

APPENDIX G

Assignments of Error

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT 

N orth Carolina 

W ilson County

T. A. W atkins,

—vs.—

City of W ilson, et al.

Plaintiff,

Plaintiff groups his exceptions and assigns error as 
follows:

1. The trial Court committed prejudicial and reversible 
error by upholding the validity of Section 4 of the Charter 
of the City of Wilson, as amended by the North Carolina 
General Assembly in 1957, in House Bill 64, Chapter 13, 
and which reads, in part, as follows:

“ No ballot for Commissioners shall be valid unless as 
many candidates shall be voted for as there are vacan­
cies to be filled.”

Said error was committed because the provision is invalid 
and unconstitutional because of its conflict with Article I, 
Sections 10, 17 and 37 and Article VI, Sections 1 and 6 of 
the North Carolina Constitution and other provisions of 
the North Carolina Constitution, by reason of the circum­
stance that the provision is an invasion and subversion



42a

of a voter’s right of choice as to what candidate he wishes 
to favor with his ballot and of a voter’s right of choice as 
to what candidate or candidates the voter wishes to exclude 
from his ballot. This error is pointed up by plaintiff’s 
E xceptions 1, 2, 3 and 4.

2. The trial Court committed prejudicial and reversible 
error by upholding the validity of Section 4 of the Charter 
of the City of Wilson, as amended by the North Carolina 
General Assembly in 1957, in House Bill 64, Chapter 13, 
and which reads, in part, as follows:

“ No ballot for Commissioners shall be valid unless as 
many candidates shall be voted for as there are vacan­
cies to be filled.”

Said error was committed because the provision is invalid 
and unconstitutional because of its conflict with the Priv­
ileges or Immunities, the Due Process and the Equal Pro­
tection Clauses of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution 
of the United States, by reason of the circumstance that 
the provision is an invasion and subversion of a voter’s 
right of choice as to what candidate he wishes to favor 
with his ballot and of a voter’s right of choice as to what 
candidate or candidates the voter wishes to exclude from 
his ballot. This error is pointed up by plaintiff’s E xceptions 
1, 2, 3, and 4.

3. The trial Court committed prejudicial and reversible 
error by upholding the validity of Section 4 of the Charter 
of the City of Wilson, as amended by the North Carolina 
General Assembly in 1957, in House Bill 64, Chapter 13, 
and which reads, in part, as follows:

Appendix G
Assignments of Error



43a

“ No ballot for Commissioners shall be valid unless as 
many candidates shall be voted for as there are vacan­
cies to be tilled.”

Said error was committed because the provision is invalid 
and unconstitutional because of its conflict with Article I, 
Sections 10, 17 and 37 and Article VI, Sections 1 and 6 of 
the North Carolina Constitution and other provisions of 
the North Carolina Constitution, by reason of the circum­
stance that the provision oppressively and arbitrarily de­
nies to a minority voter, and to a Negro Voter such as 
plaintiff in particular, a democratic technique in which he 
may participate— alone and in association with other voters 
of his group or race with like aspirations and problems— 
in his effort to secure the voice of one of his group on the 
governing body of his municipality. The provision also 
conflicts with the above mentioned constitutional Sections 
of the State Constitution by reason of the circumstances 
that the provision tends to oppressively and arbitrarily 
exclude from the municipality’s governing body the pres­
ence of any member of plaintiff’s racial group, to wit, the 
Negro race, or the presence of any other member of a 
minority group of voters and the presence of plaintiff in 
particular, unless plaintiff’s voice or the voice of the mem­
ber of the minority group, is pleasing to the majority group 
of voters, to wit, to white voters. This error is pointed up 
by plaintiff’s E xceptions 1, 2, 3 and 4.

4. The trial Court committed prejudicial and reversible 
error by upholding the validity of Section 4 of the Charter 
of the City of Wilson, as amended by the North Carolina 
General Assembly in 1957, in House Bill 64, Chapter 13, and 
which reads, in part as follows:

Appendix G
Assignments of Error



44a

“ No ballot for Commissioners shall be valid unless as 
many candidates shall be voted for as there are vacan­
cies to be filled.”

Said error was committed because the provision is invalid 
and unconstitutional because of its conflict with the Priv­
ileges or Immunities, the Due Process and the Equal Pro­
tection Clauses of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution 
of the United States, by reason of the circumstance that 
the provision oppressively and arbitrarily denies to a 
minority voter, and to a Negro Voter such as plaintiff in 
particular, a democratic technique in which he may par­
ticipate—along and in association with other voters of his 
group or race with like aspirations and problems—in his 
effort to secure the voice of one of his group on the govern­
ing body of his municipality. The provision also conflicts 
with the above mentioned constitutional Sections of the 
United States Constitution by reason of the circumstances 
that the provision tends to oppressively and arbitrarily ex­
clude from the municipality’s governing body the presence 
of any member of plaintiff’s racial group, to wit, the Negro 
race, or the presence of any other member of a minority 
group of voters and the presence of plaintiff in particular, 
unless plaintiff’s voice or the voice of the member of the 
minority group, is pleasing to the majority group of voters, 
to wit, the white voters. This error is pointed up by plain­
tiff’s E xceptions 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Respectfully submitted

R omallus 0 .  M urphy 
S amuel S. M itchell 
B y : R omallus 0 . M urphy 

Counsel for Plaintiff

Appendix G
Assignments of Error



45a

Service of the above Statement of Case on Appeal, con­
sisting of six pages, is hereby accepted by me this 11th 
day of July, 1961, and receipt of a copy of same is hereby 
acknowledged.

L ucas, R and and R ose

By: Oliver Gr. R and

Counsel for Defendants.

Appendix G
Assignments of Error



46a

APPENDIX H 

Notice of Appeal

No. 248 Seventh D istrict

SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA 
Fall Term, 1961 

From Wilson

T. A . W atkins, 

—vs.—

City of W ilson.

N otice of A ppeal to the S upreme Court of the U nited 
S tates:

1. Notice is hereby given that T. A. Watkins, appellant 
above named, hereby appeals to the Supreme Court of the 
United States from the Final Judgment of the Supreme 
Court of the State of North Carolina, tiled on the 23rd day 
of October, 1961, and which affirmed the judgment of the 
Superior Court of Wilson County, entered in this action 
on the 27th day of June, 1961, and in which latter mentioned 
judgment appellant, as defendant in the Superior Court of 
North Carolina, was denied the relief against a section of 
the Charter of the City of Wilson which appellant con­
tended and still contends to be invalid and unconstitutional. 
Notice is further hereby given that appellant hereby appeals 
to the Supreme Court of the United States from the Final 
Judgment above mentioned of the Supreme Court of the 
State of North Carolina, which affirmed the judgment of 
the Superior Court of Wilson County, as above mentioned, 
for that, in the latter mentioned judgment, appellant was 
denied constitutional rights by virtue of state court’s up­
holding the validity of the impleaded provision of the



47a

Charter of the City of Wilson against appellant’s conten­
tion that the same was unconstitutional and had denied to 
him certain constitutional and fundamental rights, as are 
set out in the pleadings in the Record in this action.

2. Notice is also hereby given that appellant hereby 
appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States from 
the Final Judgment above mentioned of the Supreme Court 
of the State of North Carolina, which affirmed the judg­
ment of the Superior Court of Wilson County, as above 
mentioned, for that, in the latter mentioned judgment, a 
provision of the Charter of the City of Wilson, a legisla­
tive enactment of the General Assembly of North Carolina, 
to wit, Section 4 of the Charter of the City of Wilson, was 
held to be valid and constitutional over appellant’s objection 
that the same was unconstitutional as affecting his right as 
a voter and candidate for office as a city commissioner.

3. This appeal is taken pursuant to 28 U. S. 1257.

4. The Clerk will please prepare a transcript of the 
record in this cause for transmission to the Clerk of the 
Supreme Court of the United States and include in the said 
transcript the following:

(a) The Record in this cause as filed and printed for the 
use of the Supreme Court of North Carolina during the 
Fall Term, 1961, number 248, and which Record indicated 
and included all of the proceedings which were held before 
the Superior Court of Wilson County, State of North 
Carolina.

(b) The Opinion of the Supreme Court of North Caro­
lina, which was filed the 11th day of October, 1961.

(c) The mandate or judgment of the Supreme Court of 
North Carolina, which was entered upon and following the

Appendix E
Notice of Appeal



48a

Opinion of the Supreme Court of North Carolina on the 
23rd day of October, 1961.

(d) Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of the United 
States, with attached Certificate of Service of Notice of 
Appeal.

5. The following questions are presented by the Appeal:

(a) Is Section 4 of the Charter of the City of Wilson, 
North Carolina, and which reads as follows:

“ No Ballot for Commissioners shall be valid unless as 
many candidates shall be voted for as there are vacan­
cies to be filled.”

Appendix H
Notice of Appeal

valid and constitutional as against appellant’s contention 
that the same is an unconstitutional and unreasonable in­
vasion of appellant’s 14th amendment rights as a voter 
to favor on or exclude from his ballot the names of such 
candidates as he chooses, in accordance the liberty guar­
anteed to appellant, as a voter, by the Due Process and the 
Privileges or Immunities Clauses of the 14th Amendment 
to the federal constitution?

(b) Is Section 4 of the Charter of the City of Wilson, 
North Carolina, and which reads as follows:

“ No ballot for Commissioners shall be valid unless as 
many candidates shall be voted for as there are vacan­
cies to be filled.”

valid and constitutional as against appellant’s contention 
that the same is an unconstitutional and unreasonable inva­
sion of appellant’s 14th amendment rights as candidates, 
as well as, a voter and vote solicitor, to urge among electors 
the favoring on or the exclusion from ballots the names of



49a

such candidates as appellant or his supporters may choose, 
in accordance with the liberty guaranteed to appellant, as 
a candidate for public office, as well as a voter and a vote 
solicitor, by Due Process and the Privileges or Immuni­
ties Clauses of the 14th Amendment to the federal Con­
stitution?

(c) Was Section 4 of the Charter of the City of Wilson, 
North Carolina, and which reads as set out above, uncon­
stitutional as applied to appellant’s rights as a voter and 
as a candidate and as applied upon the instant record?

(d) Did the application of Section 4 of the Charter of 
the City of Wilson, North Carolina, and which reads as 
set out above, unconstitutionally deprive appellant of the 
rights, privileges and immunities of a voter and of a can­
didate, as are guaranteed by the 14th amendment to the 
federal Constitution?

This 8th day of January, 1962.

R omallus 0 . M urphy

557 East Nash Street 
Wilson, North Carolina

Samuel S. M itchell

507 East Martin Street 
Raleigh, North Carolina

By: Samuel S. M itchell

F I L E D  11:20 A.M.
January 9, 1962

In the Office of the 
Clerk of Supreme Court of

N orth Carolina

Appendix H
Notice of Appeal



50a

APPENDIX I

Proof of Service of Notice of Appeal

No. 248 S eventh D isteict

SUPREME COURT OP NORTH CAROLINA 

Fall Term, 1961 

From Wilson

T. A. W atkins,

—-vs.—

City of W ilson.

F I L E D  
11:20 am 

Jan  9 1962

I n  the Office of 
Cleek S upbeme Couet 

of N oeth Caeolina

I, Samuel S. Mitchell, one of the attorneys for T. A. 
Watkins, the appellant herein, and a member of the Bar 
of the Supreme Court of the United States, hereby certify 
that, on the 8th day of January, 1962, I served copies of 
the foregoing Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of 
the United States on the appellee, the City of Wilson, North 
Carolina, by mailing a copy in a duly addressed envelope,



51a

Appendix I

Proof o f ,Service of Notice of Appeal

with ordinary postage prepaid, to Messrs. Lucas, Rand 
and Rose, attorneys for appellee, City of Wilson, North 
Carolina and to Honorable T. W. Bruton, Attorney General 
of the State of North Carolina, all in full compliance of Rule 
33 (1) of the Revised Rules of the Supreme Court of the 
United States.

This 8th day of January, 1962.

Samuel S. M itchell 
Of Counsel for Appellant



52a

APPENDIX J

Portion of the Charter of the City of Wilson

Sections— Charter City of Wilson

Sec. 4. Election of mayor, commissioners, etc.; compen­
sation of commissioners, etc.

For the purpose of electing a mayor, a commissioner for 
each ward, and a judge of the municipal recorder’s court, 
all of the City of Wilson, North Carolina, there shall be held 
in said city on Tuesday after the first Monday in May, one 
thousand nine hundred and forty-three and biennially there­
after, a nonpartisan election. The officials so elected shall 
hold their office until their successors are elected. One com­
missioner shall he elected by the voters of each ward in said 
city. The mayor and judge of the municipal recorder’s 
court shall he voted for in each ward. The commissioners 
shall reside in the ward for which they are elected, and 
each commissioner shall be paid for his services twenty- 
five dollars ($25.00) per month and, in addition thereto, 
shall receive five dollars ($5.00) for each special meeting 
of the board attended by him. (Priv. Laws 1907, c. 408, §4; 
SL 1943, c. 536, §1; SL 1951, c. 471, §1; SL 1951, c. 481, §1.)

Sec. 4A. Application of general election laws to city 
elections.

Said elections shall be conducted, as far as practicable, 
in all things and in all details in accordance with the gen­
eral election laws of the state, unless otherwise provided 
by this act, and all general laws of the State of North 
Carolina, relating to elections, generally, now in force or 
hereafter enacted, which govern elections, not inconsistent 
with this act, shall apply as fully to such elections and the 
acts and things done thereunder, as to general elections



53a

unless different provision is made in this act; and all acts 
made criminal, if committed in connection with a general 
election shall likewise he criminal, with same punishment 
when committed on an election held hereunder. (SL 1943, 
c. 536, §2.)

Sec. 4B. Declaration of candidacy for election as mayor, 
etc., required; contents; when to be filed; fee.

Any person desiring to become a candidate for election 
as mayor, or judge of the municipal recorder’s court, or 
commissioner of the City of Wilson shall on or before 
twelve o’clock, noon, of the first Monday in April preceding 
any election held hereunder file with the City clerk his or 
her declaration of candidacy for election to any such office 
and in such declaration shall state his or her name, age, 
place of residence, length of time a resident of the ward 
in which he or she resides, and at the time of such filing 
pay to the City of Wilson a fee equal to one per cent of his 
salary for the term of his office. (SL 1943, c. 536, §3; SL 
1951, c. 471, §1.)

Sec. 4C. Preparation, distribution and contents of bal­
lots; method of voting.

When the time for filing the declaration for candidacy 
hereunder has expired the board of city commissioners 
shall cause to be prepared, for use in such election, ballots 
for each elective office. A  sufficient number of ballots shall 
be furnished judges of election of each ward for the use 
of all qualified voters. The names of the opposing candi­
dates, or the candidate, for each respective office shall be 
placed on the same ballot with a blank square to the left 
of each name. Voters shall place in said square opposite 
the name of the person such voter desires to cast the ballot

Appendix J
Portion of the Charter of the City of Wilson



54a

for a cross mark, and no other method of marking the ballot 
by the voter shall be required. No names of candidates 
shall be printed on the official ballots than the names of 
those who in apt time tiled notice of their candidacy. The 
ballot may contain sufficient explanatory matter to des­
ignate the purpose thereof. There shall be voted in the 
said elections only the official ballots furnished, as herein 
provided for, and if other ballots be voted they shall not 
be counted. (SL 1943, c. 536, §4; SL 1951, c. 471, §1.)

Sec. 4D. Number of votes necessary for election to each 
office; procedure when there are more than two candidates 
and neither receive a majority.

The election for each office shall be determined by a 
majority vote. In the event more than two persons are 
candidates for the same office and neither receive a majority 
of the votes cast for such office the person receiving the 
highest number of votes cast for such office shall be declared 
elected unless the candidate receiving the second highest 
number of votes cast shall within forty-eight hours after 
the result of the election shall have been canvassed and 
declared demand by writing filed with the city clerk for a 
second election, which demand must be accompanied by a 
payment to the City of Wilson of the sum of twenty-five 
dollars to the use of said city, and the commissioners shall 
thereupon call and arrange a second election to be held on 
the fourth Tuesday after the first Monday in May following 
the election for the purpose of electing an officer as between 
the two high candidates. Only the candidates receiving the 
largest and second largest vote in the first election shall be 
voted on in the second election. (SL 1943, c. 536, §10; 
SL 1951, c. 471, §1.)

Appendix J
Portion of the Charter of the City of Wilson



55a

1957 Session L aws— Chapter 13, Pages 37, 38

A n  A ct to A mend the Chaetee of the City of W ilson 
So as to P eovide foe the E lection of M unicipal Officials, 
and to Fix T heie T eems of Office.

The General Assembly of North Carolina do enact:

Section 1. That Chapter 408, Private Laws of 1907, as 
amended by Chapter 536, Session Laws of 1943, and as 
further amended, constituting the Charter of the City of 
Wilson, be and the same is hereby further amended by re­
writing Section 1 of Chapter 536, Session Laws of 1943, 
the same being Section 4 of the Charter of Wilson, to read 
as follows :

“ Section 1. For the purpose of electing a Mayor, a 
Board of six Commissioners, and a Judge of the Mu­
nicipal Recorder’s Court, all of the City of Wilson, 
there shall be held in said City, on Tuesday after the 
first Monday in May, 1957, and biennially thereafter, 
a nonpartisan election. The officials so elected shall 
hold their offices until their successors are elected and 
qualified. The Commissioner shall be elected at large 
by the qualified voters of the City.”

Sec. 2. That Section 10 of Chapter 536, Session Laws 
of 1943, be and the same is hereby rewritten to read as 
follows:

“ Sec. 10. The election for mayor and judge of the mu­
nicipal recorder’s court shall each be determined by a 
majority vote. In the event more than two persons 
are candidates for either of said offices and neither 
candidate receives a majority of the votes cast for 
such office, the person receiving the highest number of

Appendix J
Portion of the Charter of the City of Wilson



56a

votes cast for such office shall he declared elected un­
less the candidate receiving the second highest number 
of votes cast shall, within forty-eight hours after the 
result of the election shall have been canvassed and 
declared, demand by writing filed with the town clerk 
for a second election, which demand must be accom­
panied by a payment to the Town of Wilson of the sum 
of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) to the use of said Town, 
and the Commissioners shall thereupon call and pro­
vide for the conduction of a second election to be held 
on the fourth Tuesday after the first Monday in May 
following the first election, for the purpose of choosing 
a mayor or judge of the municipal recorder’s court as 
between the two highest candidates for such office. 
Only the candidates receiving the largest and second 
largest vote for such offices in the first election shall 
be voted on in the second election. The six candidates 
receiving the highest number of votes for membership 
on the Board of Commissioners shall be declared 
elected, and there shall be no second election for any 
of such offices.”

Sec. 3. No ballot for Commissioners shall be valid unless 
as many candidates shall be voted for as there are vacan­
cies to be filled.

Sec. 4. Each Commissioner shall receive for his services 
the sum of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) per month to be 
paid from the General Fund of the City; and in addition 
thereto he shall receive five dollars ($5.00) for each special 
meeting of the Board attended by him, to be paid also from 
said General Fund.

Appendix J
Portion of the Charter of the City of Wilson



57a

Sec. 5. All laws and clauses of laws in conflict with the 
provisions of this Act are hereby repealed.

Sec. 6. This Act shall be in full force and effect from 
and after its ratification.

In the General Assembly read three times and ratified, 
this the 1st day of March, 1957.

Appendix J

Portion of the Charter of the City of Wilson

S tipulation

It is hereby stipulated and agreed by the counsel for 
plaintiff and the counsel for the defendants that the above 
cited provisions are true and exact copies of Sections 4, 
4A, 4B, 4C and 4D as they appear in the Charter of the 
City of W ilson; that the above quoted provision of Chapter 
13 is a true and exact copy of the amendment to the Charter 
of the City of Wilson as the same appears on pages 37 and 
38 of the 1957 Session Laws.

This 18 day of May, 1961.

B omallus 0 . M urphy and 
Samuel S. M itchell

B y : B omallus 0 . M urphy 
Counsel for Plaintiff

L ucas, B and & B ose

B y : Oliver G. B and

Counsel for Defendants



" ^ H ^ ' 3 8