Meredith v. Fair Transcript of Record Vol. V
Public Court Documents
March 5, 1962

Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Meredith v. Fair Transcript of Record Vol. V, 1962. 5a3f897b-bd9a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/1d7c7c71-c429-4b5b-9589-32604488f8c2/meredith-v-fair-transcript-of-record-vol-v. Accessed April 27, 2025.
Copied!
\TRANSCRIPT _2.. __ OF RECORD, UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS F I F T H C I R C U I T No. JAMES H. MEREDITH, VERSUS APPELLANT CHARLES DICKSON FAIR, ETC., ET AL, APPELLEES VOLUME V Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson Division I N D E X Page No. Testimony of Derrick A. Bell, Jr. (Continuing) 643 Defendant's Exhibit 7: Deposition of James Howard 648 Meredith Testimony of Robert B. Ellis 651 Defendant's Exhibit 8: Letter from Attorney General's 662 Office Affidavit (Milton Burt) 664 Affidavit (S. L. Brown) 666 Affidavit (Henry Newell) 667 Affidavit (L. L. Keaton 668 Affidavit (Lannie Meredith) 669 Defendant's Exhibit 9: Affidavit (L .L . Keaton) 699 Affidavit (Milton Burt) 700A Affidavit (Henry Newell) 700 Affidavit (S. L. Brown) 703 Testimony of Edward L. Cates (rebuttal) 706 Opinion of the Court 722 Order 732 Notice of Appeal 733 Opinion of The Gourt of Appeals 734 Judgment 740 Designation of Contents of Record on Appeal 741 Motion for Transmittal of Exhibits 742 Letter Objecting to Transmittal of All Exhibits 743 Letter Sustaining Objection to Transmittal of all Exhibits 744 Order Sending Up Original Exhibits 745 Clerk's Certificate 748 Certificate of Service 749 (Testimony of Derrick A. Bell, Jr., continues) FURTHER EXAMINATION B5T M S . MOTLElI Q. When you examined these records yesterday afternoon, did you examine all the records that the registrar brought from the University? A. Xes. Q. How many were there all told? A. I believe I either counted or had counted all the re cords, and there were approximately 759 records, and this includes inactive files as well. Q. Were those records examined to determine the race of each applicant? A. Xes, they were. Q. What was the race of those 759 applicants? A. With only a few exceptions all of the applicants indi cated that they were of the white or Caucasian race. The few exceptions — and there nay be a few others — but I have a few of them here. — File number 47552, Mr. S-h-u-c - C-h-u-e-n-c-h-a-n indicated he was Chinese. File number 47570, Miss Davidson, there was no race given. And there may be a few others like this, but there was a photograph at tached, and it would be my opinion that the photo graph was of a person of the white race. MR. CLARKs We object to the witness* answer and move it be striken on the grounds it is not confined 643 644 to a period of time prior to the commencement of this lawsuit and furnishes this Court no sufficient information of a factual nature on any issue in this proceeding and is based upon opinion and conjecture of this witness, because my recollection is that the question was as to the race of the applicants, and there is no showing that he has ever seen or known these people. THE COURTS Overrule the objection. A. Pile number 47379 was from a Mary Dong, D-o-n-g. She indicated her race was Mongolian. MR. CLARK? May the objection continue without the necessity of repeating? THE COURT? (To witness) What was the date of that application? THE WITNESS? I believe each of these applications that I have been reading from were in those grouped with the first semester of 196l-*62. THE COURT? Overrule the objection. You may have a continuing exception and objection, Mr. Clark. A. With those exceptions, all of the other files of the applicants indicated they were of the white or Caucasian race 645 FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR. CLARK? Q. Do I understand you did not make any kind of examination of the files of persons who had been admitted as students that you did see to compare their status with your opinion of the status of this plaintiff? A. I guess the simple answer is that we didn’t have time to completely review all the applicants who had been admitted for the purpose of determining whether there were any who had the plaintiff’s status. Q. Thank you. (Witness excused) MRS. MOTLEY? With that, the plaintiff rests. THE COURT? Whom will you have for the defendants? MR. CLARK? Defendants now move to exclude the evi dence offered by the plaintiff and particularly move to exclude the evidence produced under defendants’ continuing objections, in order to comply with the Court’s request that the objection and motion to exclude be renewed at the time the plaintiff rested. But further and beyond that, we also move to exclude all of the evidence offered by the complainant and to direct a verdict for the defendants on the grounds that there is no competent proof in this record which would authorize this Court in the awarding of any relief to this plaintiff against any of the de fendants in this lawsuit. We think that there has 646 been no showing whatsoever that at the time the registrar of the University of Mississippi acted to deny the application of James Howard Meredith for admission to the University of Mississippi the race or color of said applicant had anything whatsoever to do with the action taken by the registrar with regard to his application. Having failed in making that proof or any proof which would let this Court draw any inferences that such had taken place, the plaintiff has failed to prove his case, and the defendants and each and all of them are entitled to a directed verdict at this stage. And I would like, for the purpose of saving time in this record, to have this Court consider that motion as independently made by each separate defendant, as well as made jointly on behalf of all of the defendants. Cer tainly as to the Board of Trustees of Institutions of Higher Learning this is positively so, as it is to the chancellor of the University of Mississippi and Dean Lewis. We ask lour Honor, for the sake of time and rather than specifying individuals, that the motion be considered both as individually made by the separate defendants on their own sole behalf and as jointly by all the defendants. THE COURT. I will overrule the motion at this time, each one of them. I will adhere to my ruling upon 647 the admissibility of the evidence to which objection ■was made, and I will permit it to go in and overrule the motion to exclude that. And I will overrule the motion as to each defendant and all the defendants to exclude all the evidence and direct a judgment for the defendants at this time. I think it is a case where the evidence all should be placed in the record before the Court is called upon to rule upon the various motions. BY MR. CLARKS We would like to offer in evidence on this trial the deposition of the plaintiff^ James Howard Meredith, taken June 8, 1961, at Meridian, Mississippi, and ask that the deposition be identi fied into this record by reference to the same number that it bore in the record on the Motion for Pre liminary Injunction. THE COURTS Very well. That may be received in evi dence, but I was under the impression that it had gone into evidence already. MR. CLARKs Not his deposition? his testimony. THE COURTS The deposition. I understand. Very well, that will be received in evidence. Is a copy of that in the record? I expect you had better let the court reporter mark it so it will be understood what you are offering. MR. CLARKs For the record, let me state it shows 646 "Defendants9 Exhibit 26." (Same was received in evidence and marked as Defendants9 Exhibit No. 7. This instrument is not copied here, but is being made a part of this record and sent up in a separate volume.) ME. CLARKs I would like to ask permission to change the numbering on this exhibit and let it be marked in sequence with the defendants9 exhibits on this particular hearing on the merits, wherefore I offer the deposition of James Meredith as aforesaid as Defendants9 Exhibit 7 in this hearing. THE COURTS Very well. It is so marked. (Same was so marked) MR. CLARKs Next, if lour Honor please, I offer all parts of the testimony of all parties and all wit nesses at the time of the hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction which are not now a part of this record, and I offer all exhibits to the testi mony of all of those witnesses which are not now a part of this record by virtue of previous offer of plaintiff. THE COURTS Do you know what that consists of? MR. CLARKs We are offering the following, as indi cated by pages in the reporter9s previous transcript of these hearings? All of pages 225 through 255 of said record, together with all exhibits mentioned in 649 the testimony of that witness, who was your orator here. MRS. MOTLEIs We object to the admission of that testimony in evidence on the grounds that the testi mony of this witness had to do with the plaintiff’s Army records, which the witness testified was se cured in August, 1961, after the registrar denied the plaintiff’s admission to the University; and that the Army record is therefore not relevant or material to any of the issues in this case. THE COURTS Overrule the objection. (Same received in evidence as a defendants’ exhibit. Said exhibit is not copied here, as it appears as a part of the transcript of Motion for Preliminary Injunction which is being made a part of this record in a separate volume.) MR* CLARKs We next offer in evidence the testimony of the deputy circuit clerk of Hinds County, Mr. J. R. McLeod, which commences at Page 291 of the transcript and continues to Page 314 of the trans cript, together with all exhibits made to that witness’ testimony. MRS. MOTLEYS We object to the admission of the tes timony of that witness because the registrar did not testify that he had denied the plaintiff’s admission 650 on the ground of anything testified to by that wit ness, and the testimony of that witness is therefore irrelevant and immaterial to the issues in this case. THE COURT? Overrule the objection. MR. CLARK? lour Honor, in view of counsel’s objection I would like to ask the Court’s permission to with draw my offer of Mr. McLeod’s testimony, and I do not offer it at this time, if I may withdraw it from consideration. THE COURTS Very well. You introduced it and you have the right to withdraw it, and X will permit that to be done. MR. CLARK? Out of an abundance of precaution, I would like at this time to offer by reference all of defendants’ exhibits except the defendants’ exhibits to the testimony of the witness J, R. McLeod that were introduced at the hearing on the preliminary injunction in this cause. I believe they are already in the record, but, as I say, 1 want to be positive that they are, and X now make that offer to the Court. THE COURT? Very well. Let such documents and so forth be received in evidence. (Same received in evidence and appear as a part of the trans cript of Motion for Preliminary Injunction, which is being made a part of this record in a separate volume.) 651 MR, CLARK? We would like to call Mr. Robert B. Ellis as a witness. At this time I*d like for Mr. Ellis to make a note of some files that I wish him to pull at a time during the afternoon when it will not cause any delay, perhaps at the afternoon recess. ROBERT B. ELLIS, called as a witness by the defendants and having previously been duly sworn, testified as follows; EXAMINATION BY MR. CLARK? Q. At your earliest opportunity, please produce the file of Thomas William Blankenship, Ronald Albert Drake, Sharon Elaine Grant, Jesse Tyrone Moore, Lewis S. Monsio, and Linda Mae Sotel. Mr. Ellis, what is your interpretation of a profes sional accrediting association within the meaning of the action of the Committee on Admissions taken in May of 1961? A. A professional organization, professional accrediting organization, is one that has been established to evaluate and to accredit the institutions or pro grams of a professional nature, such as law, medicine, engineering, education, pharmacy, and so on. Q, Do you know whether or not the college accrediting com mission that operates in the State of Mississippi operates under the jurisdiction of the Board of 652 Trustees of the Institutions of Higher Learning? A. To my knowledge, it does not. Q. Have you ever acted or considered — acted upon or con sidered the merits or demerits of the application of James Howard Meredith for admission to the University of Mississippi as a student? A. I have not. Q. Since your letter to the plaintiff of May 25, 1961, have you received any correspondence from him? A. No, Q. — requesting that you do or not do anything with regard to his application? A. I have had no further correspondence from the plaintiff. Q. Have you received any subsequent transcripts of grades or credits concerning his work, if any, elsewhere since the date of your letter to him May 25, 1961? A. No. Q. Do you know whether or not at the time that James Mere dith first applied to the University of Mississippi, the bulletin that was then current — which is the I960 General Catalogue and is in evidence here as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 42, and I refer your attention to Page S3 providing that students could be ad mitted from an approved institution -— Do you know 653 whether or not that was so? A. I’m not sure I understand the question, Counsel. Q. What did the General Catalogue or bulletin for the Uni versity of Mississippi provide on the date that James Meredith’s application was received, which was I believe some time at or about the first day of February, 1961, with regard to the quality or character of institutions from which students would be admitted as transfer students to the University? A. This catalogue contains a statement which I reads nStudents may be admitted from other approved insti tutions of higher learning upon the presentation of official transcripts of credit which certify honor able dismissal and eligibility for immediate read mission. rt That is a statement that has appeared in our cata logue over a period of years. Q. While you still have the catalogue, I’d like to ask you this questions I wish you would turn to Page 116 and tell me what the catalogue requires or tell me with or without the catalogue what the University of Mississippi requires in the way of attendance at the University of Mississippi before a person may acquire a degree at the college, regardless of the amount of credits or standing of credits sought to be trans ferred. 654 A. In the event a student transferred and met all degree requirements and had a surplus of credits, the very minimum requirement would be as follows? — And P d like to read this statement from our catalogue — ”No application for a degree in any undergraduate school or college of the University will be consid ered for approval unless the student has spent the equivalent of at least one full academic year in residence on this campus and has earned at least 30 semester hours of such residence credit in the school or college recommending the degree.” This statement has been carried essentially the same in our catalogue ever since I have been registrar. Q. Is the regulation or is the same rule still current? A. Absolutely. Q. And in substantially the same form? A. In the very same, as I recall. Q. Since May 25, 1961, have you periodically reviewed James Meredith’s file to determine whether or not his application could be considered? A. No. Q, Why haven’t you done so? A. The application was denied and it became a closed file as far as I was concerned. Q. What did his race or color have to do with your action in this regard? 655 MRS. MOTLEXs We object to these leading questions of his own witness. THE COURT? Overrule that objection. A. The matter of race or color did not enter into the de cision taken on this application. Q. How do you handle rejected applications in your office? Applications, I mean, now that have been denied for any reason. MRS. MOTLEYs Just a moment. He is asking him how he now handles applications that have been denied. I think the only question he could ask is how he handled such applications before this suit was filed. If he has changed his rule since this suit was filed, I don’t think that is applicable to this case. MR. GLARES 1*11 be glad to so limit my question. Q. Consider the question with that limitation during the period of time when James Meredith*s application was filed on May 25, 1961, and until this suit was filed. What was the policy or the practice you followed as registrar with regard to the consideration of appli cations that had been denied? A. Our practice has been to take a file, take a record from the current files, staple the materials together 656 and file them in an inactive fil% and keep those inactive files, roughly, for a period of a year, and then destroy them. Q. Was this a new policy that you instituted on May 25, 1961? A. No. Q . Had it ever been your policy before? A. It had been our policy before. Q. Have you added anything, any material of any kind, to James Meredith’s file since the 25th day of May,1961? A. les, I have received some statements from the Attorney- General’s office which have been included with that file. Q. Would you get those statements, please? (Witness does same) Q. Mr, Ellis, were you made aware of the fact that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in its Preliminary Injunction ruling in this cause questioned the right of the University to require from this applicant recommenda tion by five University alumni? A. les, I was made aware of that. Q. What did this ruling have to do with your placing these statements in this file of James Meredith? A. Well, it seemed to me the ruling at most took us back to the point where the application was considered in the beginning. It meant that we had to strike out 657 the requirement of alumni recommendations, but it still left the question of some way of getting some information about the moral character of this indi vidual. Q. We would like for you to produce the instruments that you are talking about. The statements. MR. CLARKs We now offer in evidence the letter from the Attorney-General’s office and the accompanying five sheets to that letter as Defendants* Exhibit 8. MRS. MOTLEY; Would the Court like to see these? (Same are handed to the Court) MR. CLARKs I notice there are several carbon copies accompanying the covering letter. I don’t care to offer anything but the covering letter. MRS. MOTLEY; We object to the admission of this letter with the attached affidavits in evidence for the following reasons; First, this is an attempt to get into the record the testimony of witnesses by affidavit who are not here to be cross examined by the plaintiff’s counsel. Moreover, the letter from the Attorney-General to the registrar clearly states that one of these persons refused to execute the affidavit. In addition, we object for the reason that the letter clearly shows that what we have here is an attempt by the Attorney-General to amend the 65$ rules of the University of Mississippi. Now, as we understand it, those rules can only be made by the Board of the Institutions of Higher Learning, and what the Attorney-General may think the Fifth Circuit’s opinion holds is not relative or material in this case. What his opinion might be is his opinion, and what the Fifth Circuit’s opinion holds is for this Court to construe and not the Attorney- General of the State of Mississippi. And this is an amendment of the rules of the University to say that in the case of James Howard Meredith they could get affidavits to his good moral character from other sources, and these are not affidavits of good moral character anyway. It is an attempt to repudiate the letters of recommendation sent in to the registrar by these people, and none of these affi davits say he is not a person of good moral character. Now, the alumni certificate requirement has been eliminated, as this Court knows, by the Fifth Cir cuit’s decision with respect to Negroes, and what we have here is simply an attempt to have those signers repudiate their signatures on the ground they didn’t know what they were signing. The point is that alumni certificates are no longer required, and those are no longer involved in this case in any event. These affidavits were received by the 659 registrar, according to this letter dated January 16, 1962, after the registrar just testified that he closed the plaintiff’s file. Now, either he has closed it or he hasn’t closed it. If he has closed it, he can’t now consider these affidavits which are an attempt to repudiate letters received from these persons. I think they have to make up their minds whether this file is opened or closed. And then it doesn’t appear who secured these affidavits. It doesn’t tell us who typed this affidavit. Obviously it was not typed by the affiant, and obviously it appears these are not the statement of affiant but the statement of the person who drew the affidavit. We can prove members of the White Citizens Council have been down there to interview these people. If they want to stipulate these were secured by the members of the White Citizens Council, we will agree they go in evidence, THE COURT? I won’t require any stipulation since the testimony of the registrar says they are a part of this file. I think they are competent to be ad mitted in evidence for such weight as the Court desires to give them. Of course, I have not heard argument on the questions that could be presented on the final hearing of this cause, but I have foreseen the possibility of two or three different types of 660 judgment that could be entered. If the Court were to find after all the testimony was in that this applicant was denied admission because of race, then the question necessarily would arise whether or not it would be the duty of the Court to have to order him admitted, or would it be the duty of the Court to remand it to the University for determination of whether or not he was a suitable applicant for admission to the University of Mississippi. If he should be denied admission to the University of Mississippi by the Court after a full hearing, then the question could arise as to whether or not it was because of his race or because of factors other than his race; and since the general rule of law is that documents taken from the personal file which are made a part of the file are admissible for such weight as the Court desires to give to them, I think under that rule of law they are competent evidence, and particularly In view of the fact that these are affidavits from the very people whose names were submitted by the plaintiff himself and who now, one of whom, particularly, repudiates the affidavit or certificate of good moral character. The others make the statement, in substance, that they have not known him since 1949 and at this time were unable to certify one way or the other as to his good moral 661 character. So I think the documents are admissible in evidence for such weight as the Court may decide to give to them when all the facts are in. MR. CLARKs Would you permit the striking of that portion of counsel’s remark with reference to members of the White Citizens Council took these affidavits? THE COURTS 1*11 not strike it from the record. I think it certainly is not testimony and will be dis regarded as having any weight one way or the other. MRS. MOTLEY? I think the record ought to show by whom these affidavits were secured. That doesn’t appear from what is introduced in evidence. THE COURT? It appears from the signature of the justice of peace before whom it was sworn, so I think it could be ascertained if it becomes necessary or relevant. (Same were received in evidence and marked as Defendants’ Exhibit No. 8. Same are copied on the following pages?) 662 # # $ * * DEFENDANTS* EXHIBIT MO. 8 19475STATE OF MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE JACKSON 5 January 16, 1962 Joe T. Patterson Martin R. McLendon Wade H. Creekmore G. Garland Lyell, Jr. Edward L. Cates Delos H. Burks Attorney General Matthew Harper, Jr. Dugas Shands J. R. Griffin Assistant Attorneys General Assistant Attorneys General Mr. Robert B. Ellis, Registrar University of Mississippi University, Mississippi In Re? Meredith vs. Fair, Et A1 U. S. D. C. S. D. Miss. C. A. #3130 Dear Mr. Ellis? Since the Fifth Circuit has seriously questioned the requirement of alumni certificates of recommendation based upon good moral character of negro applicants we have, in order to assist you in determination of the good moral character and background of James H. Meredith, contacted those persons allegedly certifying to James H. Meredith*s good moral character in recommending him for admission to the University of Mississippi. We enclose herewith the executed affidavits of Milton Burt, S. L. Brown, Henry Newell and L, L. Keaton which are self-explanatory. You will note that the enclosed affidavit of Lannie Meredith is not executed. Lannie Meredith read over the 663 affidavit, stated in our presence, that such was true and correct and was then sworn by Daulton Frazure, Justice of the Peace of the First District of Attala County, Mississippi, that the information contained in the affidavit was true and correct, but Lannie Meredith refused to execute this affi davit. We know that you want these affidavits for your file on James H. Meredith. lours sincerely, JOE T. PATTERSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL BY? /s/ Edward L. Cates_____ EDWARD L. CATES ELC/mb Encs. # # * STATE OF MISSISSIPPI COUNTY OF ATTALA AFFIDAVIT Personally appeared before me the undersigned autho rity in and for said county and state the within named Milton Burt, who after being by me first duly sworn states on oath as follows to-wits On the 29 day of January 1961, James Meredith re quested me to sign a certificate as to his good moral character. I had known James Howard Meredith as a high school boy but having seen very little of him since he left 664 Kosciusko in 1949. I know nothing of his activities since 1949 and could not therefore certify to any of his activities since that date but because I was told that the certificate was to be used to help him find a job I was willing to help him. On March 26 1961 the said James Howard Meredith again requested that I sign a certificate as to his good moral character which he had previously prepared. I executed this certificate at his request but the certificate which I executed had nothing therein in regard to the University of Mississippi, and I had no idea nor was I advised that this certificate would be used in connection with application to enter the University of any other college. Since I know nothing of James Howard Meredith’s moral character and activities since 1949, I could not now certify to his good moral character nor could I recommend him for admission to the University of Mississippi or any other college. Witness my signature this the 15th day of January, 1962. /s/ Milton Burt _____ (SEAL) Sworn to and subscribed to before me this the 15th day of January, 1962. /q/ Daulton Frazure _______ Daulton Frazure Justice of the Peace District # 1 # * * 665 a f f i d a v i t Personally appeared before me the undersigned autho rity in and for said county and state the within S. L. Brown, who after being by me first duly sworn states on oath as follows, to-wits On the 29th day of January 1961, James Howard Mere dith came to my house and requested that I sign a certificate certifying to his good moral character* This certificate had been previously prepared and at his request I signed the same. I knew James Howard Meredith as a school boy but I have known nothing of his activities or character since 1949. On the 29th day of March, 1961 the said James Howard Meredith again came to my house and requested that I sign a certificate as to his good moral character and since I had previously executed such a certificate, I executed the one which he had previously prepared, dated March 29, 1961. I was not advised that this certificate carried any recommendation for his admission to the University of Mississippi or any other college. I did not read the certi ficate but merely signed the same at his request. Since I have seen him only occasionally since 1949 and know nothing of his activities or character since that date I could not now recommend him for admission to the STATE OF M ISSISSIPP I COUNTY OF ATTALA 666 University of Mississippi or any other school. Witness my signature this the 15th day of January, 1962. /s/ S. L. Brown___________ Sworn to and subscribed to before me this the 15th day of January, 1962. (SEAL) /s/ Daulton Frazure________ -Ne?AR¥-PUBL£G- Justice of the Peace My commission expires on the 15 day of Jan. 19 64 Attala County Beat One # # sfs STATE OF MISSISSIPPI COUNTY OF ATTALA AFFIDAVIT Personally appeared before me the undersigned authority in and for said county and state, the within Henry Newell, who after being by me first duly sworn states on oath as follows, to-wits On the 29 day of January, 1961, James Meredith re quested me to sign a certificate as to his good moral character. I had known James Howard Meredith as a high school boy but having seen very little of him since he left Kosciusko in 1949# 1 know nothing of his activities since 1949 and could not therefore certify to any of his activi ties since that date but because I was told that the 667 certificate was to be used to help him find a job I was willing to help him. On March 26, 1961 the said James Howard Meredith again requested that I sign a certificate as to his good moral character which he had previously parpared. I exe cuted this certificate at his request but the certificate which I executed had nothing therein in regard to the Uni versity of Mississippi, and I had no idea nor was I advised that this certificate would be used in connection with application to enter the University or any other college. Since I know nothing of Jame Howard Meredith*s moral character and activities since 1949, I could not now certify to his good moral character nor could I recommend him for admission to the University of Mississippi or any other college. Witness my signature this the 15th day of January, 1962. /s/ Henrv Newell Sworn to and subscribed to before me this the 15th day of January, 1962. (SEAL) /s/ Paul ton Fra sure________ _M9?AR¥-PUBLlS Justice of the Peace - District #1 My commission expires the ____day ofJan 19 64 # # * 663 STATS OF M ISSISSIPP I COUNTY OF ATTALA AFFIDAVIT Personally appeared before me the undersigned authority in and for said County and State, L. L. Keaton, who after being by me first duly sworn states on oath as follows to-wits That he was requested by James Howard Meredith to execute a letter certificate January 29, 1961 certifying to his good moral character but without specifying for what purpose or under what conditions this certificate was to be used. He later on 26 day of March, 1961 requested me to execute another certificate of good moral character prepared by me. I have only seen him on intermittent times since 1949 and I am therefore not fully aware or apprised of his moral character and therefore could not recommend him to be admitted to the University of Mississippi or to any other school. Witness my signature this the 15th day of January, 1962 /s/ L. L. K e a t o n _______ Sworn to and subscribed before me this the 15th day of January, 1962. (SEAL) /a/ Sara G« Chennault_________ NOTARIPUBLIC My Commission Expires July 19, 1965 # * * 669 AFFIDAVIT Personally appeared before me Lannie Meredith, who after being duly sworn states on oath that the following is true and corrects That on 29 January, 1961, James Howard Meredith who is my first cousin, came to see me with a prepared certifi cate certifying to his moral character which certificate I executed. James Howard Meredith later came to see me on 26 March, 1961, with a prepared statement and requested me to sign this statements at the time of the signing of this statement I knew full well and was aware of the purpose for which such certificate was to be executed. I am not now nor have I ever been in any serious trouble or convicted of any crime or misdemeanor. In Witness Whereof I set my hand and seal, this the 15th day of January, 1962. Sworn to and subscribed before me this January 15, 1962. ~ NOTARY1 PUBLIC My commission expires on _____ SEAL day of -------- 19---- STATE OF M ISSISSIPPI COUNTY OF ATTALA * * * * * * * * * 670 (Mr. Clark continues examination of Mr. Elliss) Q. Mr. Ellis, when you receive letters or correspondence or communications of any kind concerning a person who had been an applicant and whose application had been rejected or denied, what do you do with such correspondence? A. We combine it with the inactive file. Q. In what way or manner did you treat this correspondence, this letter from Mr. Cates and the accompanying affidavits differently than you normally would treat such information? A. No difference at all. Q. Mr. Ellis, if you were asked to review your prior de cision of May 25, 1961, with regard to the rejection of James Meredith*s application today, what would be your action as the registrar of the University of Mississippi? A. I would have no choice but to deny the application. I*m convinced that the Board»s requirement requires that we investigate applicants* moral character to at tempt to select students of good moral character, and from what I have learned in the trial, in the deposition that has been taken of the plaintiff, even from what I have read in the newspaper, this fellow is a trouble maker. 671 MRS. MOTLEX? We move to strike what he read in the newspapers, and we move to strike the characteriza tion that he is a trouble maker. THE WITNESS? This is my opinion. THE COURT? I will overrule that motion. I will exclude that part in which he refers to the news papers and let him answer after striking that. I will let him give his opinion. Q. What would good or even outstanding academic marks have to do with your determination of such an applica tion? And I wish you would consider the question as framed to cover an application from a person of any race. A. Well, it would be an unusual case to have an outstanding student and have the background which this case indicates. If we should have such a case, we still would not admit him. Q. What would the race or color of such an applicant have to do with your action? A. It would have nothing to do with our decision, with my decision. Q. Mr. Ellis, are you aware of the fact that this Court in its opinion on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction came to the conclusion that legally James Meredith was a resident of Attala County, Mississippi? 672 A. I am aware of that decision. However -- Q. — What does that have to do with James Meredith’s status as a resident or non-resident when you con sider his application for admission to the University of Mississippi? A. It has nothing to do with the decision on whether or not he will be accepted. Q. Does the University of Mississippi have regulations that define the residence or non-residence of appli cants for the purpose of your consideration in pro cessing their applications? A. Yes, we do. The residence regulations of the University are established to determine an additional fee that non-residents must pay. We feel that since the University is a tax supported institution, non residents who do not help support the State of Mississippi should pay a differential. Further, we felt obligated to closely define who is a non resident because the mere fact of legal residence as such doesn’t quite meet the needs in classifying our students. By example, we might have an adult student who enrolled and was in school for a year as a non-resident. He could acquire legal status in that time and be a resident for fee purposes next year unless we more closely prescribe what a resi dent student is for our purposes. 673 Q. What is the University*s classification of a person who moves to the State of Mississippi or comes to the State of Mississippi for the purpose of going to school? When does that person become in the eyes of the University a resident for admission purposes? MRS. MOTLEX; We object to that question. This Court has already ruled that the plaintiff is a resident of the State of Mississippi. MR. CLARK? This is the very point we make here. I don’t think that his legal residence is controlling of his residence for the purpose of applying the University regulations to him. And that is exactly the reason I am pursuing the line of questions with the registrar at this time. THE COURT; Overrule the objection at this time. I doubt whether it could be superseded by a regulation of an institution, but in order to keep my rulings as they arise, X will overrule the objection and let him testify. It is my thought that residence as it is used in going to state institutions is the same as legal residence. It may be that there are authorities to the contrary on that. I seem to re call having read some to the contrary on it. 674 So for that reason I will let the evidence in at this time with the right of counsel for plaintiff to re new it on final argument. (The last question was read by the reporter) MRS. MOTLEX? We object unless that is limited to the time when the plaintiff applies for admission. THE COURT? Very well, let it be so entered. A. Such a person would be classified as a non-resident, and so long as that person continued to be enrolled in an educational institution, as far as the University is concerned, he would be considered as being in the state to gain an education and not being in the state to earn citizenship or acquire citizenship. Q. What did the race or color of James H. Meredith have to do with any action you have ever taken at any time with regard to his application for attendance at the University of Mississippi? A. Meredith*s race or color has had no influence on the decisions which I have taken. MR. CLARK? These will be all the questions I would have with him on direct except to take up with him the particular records that I want him to pull. There are about eight files I would like for him to secure and bring to this court and be examined about 675 as a part of his direct examination. THE COURT? Very well. Do you desire to cross examine about the features of his testimony already gone into, or would you rather wait until the direct testimony is completed? MRS. MOTLEYs I*d rather examine now with reference to the testimony just given, and when he gives that I think it would be better to cross examine him then and it wouldn»t be so confusing. THE COURTS Very well. Cross examine him now, if you desire. EXAMINATION BY MRS. MOTLEXs Q. What do you consider the plaintiff’s residence to be? A. As far as the regulations of the University of Missis sippi, he is a non-resident. Q. What state is he a resident of? A. In the determination I have made, I believe he is a resident of Michigan. Q. How do you figure that? A. In checking into the records of Meredith, I find that on his transcripts of credits from these other in stitutions where he voluntarily gave information to those institutions, in one or more cases he has listed his home address — I’ve forgotten the number but Arndt Street, Detroit, Michigan. 676 Q, When was that? A. This was one of the periods when he was in the Air Force. Q. Was that in the last five years? A. I’m not, without having the record before me, in a position to tell you which specific year. If you’d like to show me the transcript, I’d be glad to identify the year. Q. What transcript are you talking about? A. I believe either the Washburn transcript or the one from the University of Kansas. From my investigations of this man, I have the very definite information that he was at one time registered with the Selec tive Service Board in Detroit* -- I have one transcript here. I have a copy of it from Washburn University. Q. What is the date of it? A. He was in attendance in Washburn University in 1953 and 1954* Q. Was he in the Air Force at this time? A. Air Force, second semester. He gives on this transcript his Topeka address, as the 321st Strategic Recon naissance 5 he gives the street address as Arndt Street, Detroit, Michigan. And I felt like there was no compulsion to give other than correct infor mation to the authorities at that institution, that he gave a correct home address. So this is an 677 indication to me that the man actually did consider his residence elsewhere while he was in service. Q. How many years ago was that? A. This was during 1954. Q. How many years ago is that? A. So that would be about six or eight years ago. Q. On that basis you determined he was a resident of Michigan? A. On that basis P m convinced that he isnft a resident of Mississippi. Q. Do you have any other basis for determining that he is not a resident of Mississippi? A. Only my suspicions from his activities in the Air Force. Q. Did you hear him testify that he owns three farms in Attala County? A. I heard him testify that, yes. Q. What weight do you give to that in determining his home? A. I»d like to read to you from Page 121 our regulations which define non-resident students, and Paragraph 3 says, nOwnership of property in Mississippi does not affect the above classifications.51 So while owner ship of property may be indicative, it in itself proves nothing as far as our regulations are con cerned. Q. So you gave no weight to the fact that he purchased three farms in Mississippi, Attala County, while he 678 was stationed in the Army? A. If we gave weight to such a situation, we would have a great many people in New Orleans, Memphis, whose children come to the University enrolling as resi dents of Mississippi when in fact they are not resi dents. Q, I am asking you what weight you gave to the fact that he owns three farms in Mississippi which he pur chased with his own money while he was in the Air Force. A. Well, I don’t know whose money he used. All I’m doing is trying to interpret the regulations of the Uni versity, and I give this the primary weight, and it says, "Ownership of property in Mississippi does not affect the above classifications." Q. In other words, you give no weight to the fact that he owns three farms? Is that what you are saying? A. That’s exactly what I’m saying. Q. Did you hear the plaintiff testify that he has been in Mississippi since the summer of I960 and that he registered in Jackson State College in September of I960? A. I believe so, yes. Q. What weight do you give to that? A. What weight? 679 Q. With respect to determining his residence? A. Well, my thesis is that he is a non-resident when he came into the state, and so long as he is enrolled as a student he is in the state for the purposes of acquiring an education, and he can’t acquire a resi dence in Mississippi. Q. Now, did you hear the deputy clerk testify on this pre liminary hearing? MR. CLARKs We object to the witness’ comments about a witness not in the record. THE COURT! Overrule that objection. A. Xes. Q. Did you hear him testify that plaintiff was qualified to register in Hinds County? MR. CLARK! May we have a continuing objection about all questions asking this witness to comment on what the witness J. R« McLeod said on the previous testimony? THE COURTS Sustain the objection, because the testi mony shows he was not a resident of Hinds County at the time he registered. Plaintiff himself admitted that he made a false oath before the court, and as this Court held, he is not a citizen of Hinds County and never was; but as a matter of law, as far as citizenship and domicile were concerned, he was a citizen of Attala County, and I think I still adhere to that ruling that he was and is now a citizen of Attala County, Mississippi. Any relevant matter about which you cross examine this witness, I am going to let you go into — as contemplated by the University and as contemplated by law — as to citizenship; but as to what he heard the voters of Hinds County testify, that is not competent. MRS. MOTLEYS We*d now like to offer in evidence the testimony of the deputy clerk on the prior hearing in this case. MR. CLARK? So the record be consistent, we now make the same objection to plaintiff’s offering this testimony of J. R. McLeod as when I offered it and she objected and I withdrew it. THE COURT? I will overrule the objection and let it be marked as an exhibit. MRS. MOTLEY? That is pages 291 to 314 of the testimony of J. R. McLeod, deputy circuit clerk of Hinds County. (Same received in evidence as plaintiff’s exhibit, but is not copied here as it appears as a part of the transcript of Motion for Preliminary Injunction, which is made a part of this record in a separate volume.) 631 (Mrs. Motley continues?) Q, When in your opinion did the plaintiff move his Missis sippi residence? A, Well, I think he was a resident of Mississippi at the time he was a minor, in Attala County, in the house hold of his father. I don’t know at what time he became adult, but my records do indicate that he left the State of Mississippi and was under the guardianship of someone else while he was still a minor in Florida. Then at some time subsequent to that, he enlisted in the Air Force. Then he estab lished his own home, and somewhere in that periodwhen he enlisted in the Air Force I am convinced he es tablished his residence in a place other than the State of .Mississippi. Q. And it is your view he can’t reestablish residence in Mississippi? A. Beg pardon? Q. Did he ever establish his residence in Mississippi? A. I certainly accept this Court’s ruling that he is a legal resident of Mississippi, but I insist an individual cannot come to this state and enroll in an institution of higher learning and acquire resi dence status for purposes of entering my institution. I contend that Meredith is in this state as a student to go to school, and our regulations provide 682 that when a student comes into the state and is enrolled in an educational institution, he cannot become a resident within our definition of the term. Q. Does that regulation say he can’t be admitted to the University of Mississippi? A. We’re not talking about admission. We are talking about residence status. Q. Well, I’m talking about admission now. A. It has nothing whatsoever to do with admission. Q, In other words, he could be admitted despite the fact you think he is a resident of Michigan? A. Surely. I’ll say thiss that the residence regulations have nothing to do with admission one way or the other. Q. The regulation only determines the fee to be paid? Isn’t that right? A. That’s right. Q. Now, what is there about the plaintiff’s good moral character that you say prevents his admission now to the University of Mississippi? A. Are you referring to the period since I have written to him or — Q. Any period. /A. Well, I think perhaps we had better start from the be ginning. At the time I received the application, it was incomplete because the recommendations that he 6B3 submitted did not meet the requirements which I am obligated to apply. Then after the lawsuit began, then it was a matter of investigating this applicant 1 further. From the deposition that was taken of Meredith, I am convinced that he is a man who is trying to make trouble simply because he is a Negro. From the records which we received from the United States Air Force, there is an indication that the man does have psychological problems in connection with his race. I have seen some of the material to which he testified that he had knowledge and that he participated in the publication, which indicates to me a man that is not trying to be a student for the sake of learning a profession or getting an edu cation, but a man who has got a mission in life to correct all the ills of the worlds so I am con vinced this man is a trouble maker and I think he would be a very bad influence at my institution. Q. Now, name the white students you have applied all these tests to before admitting them to the University. A. Well, Counsel, 1*11 say thiss Any time I get involved in a lawsuit after I have made a decision on the ad mission of a student, I learn everything I can about him, and will use it in my defense. Q. Would you name all the white students to whom you have applied these tests you have just enumerated as to 634 Meredith before you admitted them to the University? A. Normally when we have an application we don’t have occasion to question the certificates of good moral character. It is only when there is some occasion to check into it that we do. And offhand, I don’t know of any that we have checked into recently. Q. lou can’t name any? Is that right? A. Well, I don’t handle each one of these applications separately, and there are too many of them for me to try to memorize. Q. Name one, Mr. Ellis. Just one. A. There was a case this last fall. I can’t recall the boy’s name. This boy failed to include the name of all the institutions he had attended on the applica tion for admission, and we actually had issued a certificate of admission to him. When I learned of the situation, we confirmed it with the registrar at the University of Arkansas. We called the young man in, cancelled his certificate for admission, and sent him home. This was before he was permitted to register. This was an evidence of bad moral charac ter, in my estimation. So I felt that the action we took had to be taken. Q. Now, how many veterans have you investigated to see whether their Army records indicate they have psycho logical problems? 685 A. I think I can recall of one. I can’t recall the name — of a man whose health record indicated that he had some problems. Q. What problem did he have? A. This man had psychological problems. Q. What psychological problems? A. I certainly don’t qualify as an expert on psychological problems. Q. lou are excluding this man because you say he has psychological problems, and I want to know who else you are excluding because he has psychological problems. MR. CLARK? We object to the question as phrased. She said, nXou have excluded this man because of psychological problems«.n That is not the testimony of this registrar and has never been the testimony of this registrar in the trial, and if she is going to pose a question to him, she should pose it to him in fairness to the testimony. THE COURT? Sustain the objection to that form of question. Q. What was your testimony regarding the psychological problems of this plaintiff? A. May I ask the court reporter to read my testimony? 636 Q. I doubt if he can find it now. What were you saying about the psychological problems of the plaintiff? Why are you taking that into consideration? A. Well, I’m going to take into consideration anything I can learn about any individual who is applying for admission to the University at any stage of that application. I think it is incumbent upon me to do this. Q. How many other people have you investigated to find out whether they have had psychological problems before you admitted them? A. I can’t tell you without making an exhaustive search of files for ten or eleven years. There have been some cases. Q. Name them. A. I can’t. jvr. CATES s I think we object to the form of the question. I think the proper question would be, coupled with those who have the psychological prob lems, those who have brought lawsuits in addition to the psychological problems. THE COURTS Overrule the objection. Q. Name the people you have investigated prior to admission and to find out whether they have psychological 637 problems. A. Counsel, here and now I can’t recall a single name. Q. As a matter of fact, you don’t investigate students prior to admission to find out if they have psycho logical problems, do you, Mr. Ellis? A. Well, now, Counsel, if I have some indication that there are psychological problems, I certainly do. Q. Now, name those you have such indication on and have investigated. A. Here again I don’t have all the files of the University right here. Q. Name one. A. I cannot think of a name offhand. Q. Can you think of a case? A. I can think of a case. I mentioned one. Q. W^at was the case? A. This was a case of a veteran who had a medical record with the Veterans Administration. Q. Was this before or after his admission? A. This was before, as I recall it. Q. How did you get it before he got admitted? A. The Veterans Administration supplied us with it. We had another illustration two or three years ago of a youngster — this was a non-resident — who had been involved in an automobile accident and had a brain injury. This was obtained from the 666 recommendations. One of the individuals who recom mended him was a doctor, and on the basis of his information we checked into it, and we determined that this youngster really was not capable of fitting himself into the environment of the Univer sity. So we denied this application. There have been cases. It is just difficult to enumerate all of them. Q. What do you say the plaintiff’s psychological problem is? A. Beg pardon? Q. What do you say the plaintiff’s psychological problem is? A. I have forgotten the exact words that are contained on his Air Force records, but there is something to do with compulsive or obsessive neurosis. Q. Do you know what that is? A. I have an idea what that is. Q. What is it? A. It means he is compelled to be upset about certain things. The records indicate he was upset when the problem of race was before him. Q. How many white students have you Investigated to see whether they are not similarly upset by the problem of race? A. As a matter of fact, Counsel, I have never known very many white people that were worried about their race. I just don’t know. 639 Q. Have you investigated any students at the University of Mississippi to see if they are obsessed with the question of race? A. We will investigate and have investigated the applica tions of anybody at any time when we have felt that there was information which would make them an undesirable student. Q. Can you name any, Mr. Ellis, that you have investigated whom you think are obsessed with the question of race? A. You and I both know it is virtually impossible to just, on a witness stand, list names of people, of students that I have worked with over a number of years. Q. And you also know, don’t you, that you haven*t investi gated anybody at the University of Mississippi that you thought was obsessed on the question of race? A. To my knowledge, Meredith is the only case that I have dealt with that was obsessed with race. Q. That is what X thought. A. We are in agreement with that. Q. Now, who secured these affidavits that you got from the Attorney General’s office? A. I don’t know exactly who acquired them. They were transmitted to me by Mr. Cates. Q. Did Me. Cates secure those affidavits? 690 A. As I said before, I don’t know who actually obtained them. q. You don’t know that Mr* Cates went down to Attala County and investigated those people and had them to sign those affidavits? MR. CATESs We object. THE COURT; Overrule the objection. A. All I know is that I have a letter dated January 16, 1962, signed by Mr. Cates, which transmitted these affidavits and which I accepted. Q. Did you investigate to see whether those people freely signed those affidavits? A. I did ask Mr. Cates that specific question because I was concerned --- Q. — So Mr. Cates did secure them? A. — I»m not through. I asked Mr. Cates that specific question, and he told me these people did give these affidavits of their own free will. Q. How did he know that? A. I didn’t ask him that. Q. You didn’t investigate to see if they made it of their own free will? A. I accepted my attorney’s answer. Q. Without investigation? Isn’t that right- 691 A. His answer satisfied me. Q. Did you make any investigation? A. No, sir, I personally did not make any investigation. Q. So that you can’t say of your own knowledge that these signatures were freely given, can you? A. All I can say is that the counsel told me in answer to my question that those signatures were freely given. And I accepted the statement. Q. Did you read on here that Lannie Meredith refused to execute that affidavit? A. I was told that Lannie Meredith under oath did make a statement but that he refused to sign the state ment later. Q. Did you investigate to see why he refused to sign it? A. I told you what I have done about these certificates before. I made no investigation on any of them. Q. All right, Xou know that the Attorney General has investigated this plaintiff, don’t you? A. Xes. Q. What did they find out about his moral character that precludes you from admitting him to the University? A. I believe I have already enumerated that. What I know has come from the deposition, from the testimony, from the application itself. Q. In addition to the plaintiff’s moral character, what other reasons do you know of for not admitting him 692 to the University? A. As far as P m concerned, it all goes back to the letter that I wrote to him in May denying, for all the reasons in that letter. Q. In that letter you said you denied him because he didn’t have the alumni certificates. Isn’t that right? A. I don’t know what I said at the moment, without looking at the letter. I told Mr. Meredith that, S!I regret to inform you in answer to your recent letters that your applica tion for admission must be denied. The University cannot recognize the transfer of credits from the institution you are now attending since it is not a member of the Southern Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools. Our policy permits the transfer of credits only from member institutions of regional associations. Furthermore, students may not be accepted by the University from those institutions whose programs are not recognized. As I am sure you realize, your application does not meet other requirements for admission. lour letters of recommendation are not sufficient for either a resident or a non-resident application. I see no need for mentioning other deficiencies.” Q* Did you have reference to the alumni certificates when 693 you said that"your letters of recommendation are not sufficient for either a resident or non-resident applicant"? A. If I were considering him as a resident, the alumni letters at that time would have been a considera tion. Q, Well, you know that the Fifth Circuit has said that the alumni certificates are inapplicable to Negroes. A. Yes, I do. Q. You know the institution he is now attending was not a member of the association? A. That was one of the reasons. Q. Jackson State College is now a member of the Southern Association? A, It was made a member of the Southern Association in the December, 1961, meeting of the Southern Associ ation. Q. You have received students, haven’t you Strike that. Let me show you Defendants* Exhibit 4 for Identi fication and ask you to read that letter. A. (Witness reads Defendants’ Exhibit No. 4.) Q* So you do accept students who have attended non-member institutions if they subsequently or in addition attend accredited institutions, don’t you? A. Yes. We will not accept students who wish to transfer from institutions that are not members of a 694 regional accrediting association. q. But if they subsequently become members, you accept them, don’t you? A. This is a question which the committee on admissions would have to decide. Q. Let me show you your letter to Albert H. Martin, Dean of the Bloom Township Community College. First, read Mr. Martin*s letter to you and then your reply to him. That is Defendants* Exhibit 2 for Identification. A. This is a letter from Albert H. Martin, Dean of the College, Bloom Township High School and Community College, Chicago Heights, Illinois, and is addres sed to me as registrar. (Witness reads from Defendants* Exhibit No. 2.) Q. Now, do you want to read your letter to Mr. Martin? A. This is a letter dated December 12th to Mr. Albert H. Martin, Dean, Bloom Township Community College, Chicago Heights, Illinois. (Witness reads same from Defendants* Exhibit No. 2.) Q. So you would accept the transfer of credits from that institution which is not yet a member of its regional accrediting association? A* I didn’t say that. All I have told the dean of this institution is that if this boy wished to apply again in the fall, we*d be glad to have him apply. 695 Incidentally, Counsel, I have informed the boy himself what our policy is. Q, Read that last part again about your crowded conditions. A. This isn’t the last part of the letter. Q. Well, whenever it was. Read that again. A. "Finally, our own crowded situation makes it mandatory to admit only those transfer students who have demonstrated the ability to successfully pursue college work.'* Q. So that this man was denied admission, in addition, because he hadn’t demonstrated any ability to pur sue college work at that point, had he? A. Mo, this man was denied admission to the University because he applied as a transfer from Bloom Town ship Community College. I was simply writing a letter to an associate in the field of education and trying to sympathize with him and at the same time apply the regulations that my institution has. Q. So that is saying that your crowded conditions applied to the transfer student who has not demonstrated college ability, isn’t It? A. Well, our housing conditions are always a consideration in the development of admission policies. Q» Now, let me show you again Defendants’ Exhibits 3* 5, 1 and 6 for Identification. 696 THE COURT? I believe we will take a ten minute recess, and while we are at recess the witness can see if he can find those files Mr, Clark requested. (Whereupon the court was recessed for ten minutes) After Recess (Mrs. Motley continues?) Q. Let me show you Defendants* Exhibits 4, 3, 5 -- A. — Counsel, before you get into those, in view of the questions you asked me about the previous statements that had been added to Meredith’s file, at the recess my lawyer, Mr. Clark, has presented me with these additional affidavits which I will include with that file. Q. Well, I think your lawyer can bring that out on redirect examination. THE COURTS Tes, I think so. After she finishes her cross examination, then Mr. Clark can examine him. Q* Let me take these one at a time. Let me show you Defendants* Exhibit 1 and ask you if the applicant William Michael Condor, who was denied admission because he was seeking to transfer from a non member school, attended more than one institution. 697 A. As far as the record here indicates, he has attended only one institution beyond the high school level, and it is the institution which is not acceptable or was not acceptable at this time to the Univer sity. Q, Let me show you Defendants* 31 file °f Linda Mae Sotel, and ask you whether this applicant,who was denied admission because she sought to transfer from a non-member school, attended more than one institution. A. According to the application which M s s Linda Mae Sotel submitted, she had been in attendance at only one institution beyond the high school level, Southern Seminary Junior College, and that institution is not a member of the regional accrediting associa tion, and therefore this student should not be accepted. Q. Let me ask you the same question as to Defendants* 6 regarding the application of John Bogoslofski. A* It appears -- the application for admission submitted by John Richard Bogoslofski indicates he had at tended only one institution beyond the high school level. That was Holyoke Junior College, which is not a member of a regional accrediting association, so we could not accept him as a transfer from that institution. 698 Q. Now, let me show you Defendants* Exhibit 5, which is the application of Pamela Mullin Lane, and ask you if she attended more than one institution. A. The application of Pamela Mullin Lane indicates that she attended the Southern Seminary and Junior College only after graduation from high school, and since that institution was not and is not a member of the Southern Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, we could not accept her as a transfer from that institution. MRS. MOTLEYs I think that is all the questions of this witness. THE COURTS Very well, Mr. Clark, any redirect? MR. CLARKs Yes, Your Honor. FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR. CLARKS Q. Mr, Ellis, would you please produce the four instruments in affidavit form that I handed you at the recess? (Witness hands to counsel) MR. CLARKs We offer these four instruments in evi dence as Defendants* Exhibit 9 to the examination of this witness. MRS. MOTLEYS We object to the admission of these affidavits for the same reason we assigned to the 699 prior affidavits. THE COURTS I will let these be marked as exhibits, but I will exclude them from consideration for the reason that the effect of it would be to bolster up the affidavits heretofore made at a time when there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that any coersion or pressure was put upon the signers at the time they signed the original affidavits which were transported by the Attorney Generalfs assistant, Mr. Cates, to the registrar and which are a part of the registrar’s files at this time and were introduced in evidence prior to this time during the early part of the afternoon. These tendered affidavits are simply bolstering up the original affidavits by the same deponents, so I think they are incompetent, and I will let them be given an exhibit number and be excluded from consideration in reaching my judgment. (Same were marked as Defendants* Exhibit No. 9, and are as follow’ ) DEFENDANTS* EXHIBIT.N0°J2. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI COUNT! OF ATTALA. AFFIDAVIT Personally appeared before me the undersigned Notary Public in and for said county and state the within named 700 L. L. Keaton, who after being by me first duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, states on oath as follows; This affidavit is made as a part of and an addition to the affidavit I made before Justice of the Peace Daulton Frazure in Attala County, Mississippi on Monday, January 15, 1962, about the certificate that James Meredith got me to sign back in 1961. In that other affidavit I was asked to tell about how I came to sign those certificates that James Meredith brought to me. I was then, and still am, completely willing to tell the full truth about both of the times James Meredith brought papers to me and got me to sign them and I did do that in my affidavit of January 15* 1962, and I have also done that in this present affidavit. Nobody in any way bothered me, scared me or forced me to make either that other affidavit of January 15, 1962, or this affidavit and nobody promised me any money or anything else for making either one of them. I made and make both of these affidavits freely and voluntarily because I was and am willing to tell the full truth about what I know about what is in both of these affi davits. No person has ever bothered me or threatened me or put any pressure of any kind against me or my business or any member of my family or even tried to do any of these things for signing certificates for James Meredith on January 29, 1961, and later on March 26, 1961. 700 -A Witness my signature this the 20th day of January, 1962. /s/ L. L« Keaton____________ Sworn to and subscribed to before me this the 23rd day of January, 1962. (SEAL) /s/ David E. Crawley. Jr. Justiee-ef“Peaee^-Bist^-Mq t -1 . % Com. expires Notary Public 29 Mar. 1963. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI COUNTY OF ATTALA. AFFTOAVIT Personally appeared before me the undersigned Notary Public in and for said county and state the within named Milton Burt, who after being by me first duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, states on oath as follows, to-wits This affidavit is made as a part of and an addition to the affidavit I made before Justice of the Peace Daulton Frazure in Attala County, Mississippi on Monday, January 15, 1962, about the certificates that James Meredith got me to sign back in 1961. In that other affidavit I was asked to tell about how I came to sign those certificates that James Meredith brought to me. I was then, and still am, completely willing to tell the full truth about both of the times James Meredith brought papers to me and got me to sign them and I did do that in my affidavit of January 15, 1962, and I have 701 also done that in this present affidavit. Nobody in any way bothered me, scared me or forced me to make either that other affidavit of January 15, 1962, or this affidavit and nobody promised me any money or anything else for making either one of them. I made and make both of these affidavits freely and voluntarily because I was and am willing to tell the full truth about what I know about what is in both of these affidavits. No person has ever bothered me or threatened me or put any pressure of any kind against me or my business or any member of my family or even tried to do any of these things for signing certificates for James Meredith on January 29, 1961, and later on March 26, 1961. Witness my signature this the 20th day of January, 1962. /s/ Milton Burt______ Sworn to and subscribed to before me this the 20th day of January, 1962. (SEAL) /s/ Daulton Frazure________ My Com. Exp. Jan. 1964 Justice of Peace, Dist. No. 1. ## s!o!< STATE OF MISSISSIPPI COUNTY OF ATTALA. AFFIDAVIT Personally appeared before me the undersigned Notary Public in and for said county and state the within named 702 Henry Newell, who after being by ne first duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, states on oath as followss This affidavit is made as a part of and an addition to the affidavit I made before Justice of the Peace Daulton Frazure in Attala County, Mississippi on Monday, January 15, 1962, about the certificates that James Meredith got me to sign back in 1961. In that other affidavit I was asked to tell about how I came to sign those certificates that James Meredith brought to me. I was then, and still am, completely willing to tell the full truth about both of the times James Meredith brought papers to me and got me to sign them and I did do that in my affidavit of January 15, 1962, and I have also done that in this present affidavit. Nobody in any way bothered me, scared me or forced me to make either that other affidavit of January 15, 1962, or this affidavit and nobody promised me any money or anything else for making either one of them. I made and make both of these affidavits freely and voluntarily because I was and am willing to tell the full truth about what I know about what is in both of these affidavits. No person has ever bothered me or threatened me or Put any pressure of any kind against me or my business or any Camber of my family or even tried to do any of these things for signing certificates for James Meredith on January 29, ■*•961, and later on March 26, 1961. 703 Witness my signature this the 20th day of January, 1962. bL Henry Newell Sworn to and subscribed to before me this the 20th day of January, 1962. My Com. Exp. Jan 1964 (SEAL) /s/ Daulton Frazure______ _ Justice of Peace, Dist. No. 1. STATE OP MISSISSIPPI COUNTY OF ATTALA. AFFIDAVIT Personally appeared before me the undersigned Notary Public in and for said county and state the within named S. L. Brown, who after being by me first duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, states on oath as follows? This affidavit is made as a part of and an addition to the affidavit I made before Justice of the Peace Daulton Frazure in Attala County, Mississippi on Monday, January 15, 1962, about the certificate that James Meredith got me to sign back in 1961. In that other affidavit I was asked to tell about how I came to sign those certificates that James Meredith brought to me. I was then, and still am, completely willing to tell the full truth about both of the times James Meredith brought papers to me and got me to sign them and I did do that in my affidavit of January 15, 1962, and I have also done that in this present affidavit. Nobody in any way 704 bothered me, scared me or forced me to make either that other affidavit of January 15, 1962, or this affidavit and nobody promised me any money or anything else for making either one of them. I made and make both of these affidavits freely and voluntarily because I was and am willing to tell the full truth about what I know about what is in both of these affidavits. No person has ever bothered me or threatened me or put any pressure of any kind against me or my business or any member of my family or even tried to do any of these things for signing certificates for James Meredith on January 29, 1961, and later on March 26, 1961. Witness my signature this the 20th day of January, 1962. /s/ S. L. Brown___ Sworn to and subscribed to before me this the 20th day of January, 1962. (SEAL) /s/ Paulton Frazure Justice of Peace, Dist. No. 1. (Mr. Clark continues%) Q» Mr. Ellis, how many lawsuits have been entered against you with regard to your actions as registrar at the University of Mississippi? This is the only one I have ever been a party to. 705 MR. CLARK; If lour Honor could give me just one minute to confer, I believe we can rest the defen dants* case. THE COURTS Very well. You had withheld the question about some files that were to be drawn or were drawn by Mr. Ellis while he was out on recess. MR. CLARKs Yes, sir. I*d like to confer with my associates. My present plans are just to rest now, but I»d like a minute to confer to decide whether or not to introduce those, and some other elements. THE COURTS Very well, I will give you a few minutes. MR. CLARKs The defendants rest. THE COURTS You are through with this witness? MR. CLARKs Yes, sir. (Witness excused) THE COURTS Whom will you have next, Mrs. Motley? MRS. MOTLEY; We*d like to put Mr. Cates on in rebuttal. THE COURT; The defendants have rested? FIR. CLARKs Yes, sir. THE COURTS Anything in rebuttal? MRS. MOTLEY; Mr. Cates, Your Honor. 706 EDWARD L. CATES, called as a witness in rebuttal and having been duly sworn, testified as follows? EXAMINATION BI MRS. MOTLEY? Q, Please state your full name for the record. A. Edward L. Cates. Q. Are you one of the attorneys for the defendants in this case? A. I am. Q. I*d like to show you Defendants* Exhibit 8, which is the letter from the Attorney General*s office to the registrar, attached to which are the affidavits of five persons, and ask you who secured those affi davits. A. These affidavits were secured by me. Q. Did the affiants approach you? A. No, they did not approach me. I saw them and asked them would they mind giving me an affidavit, to which they said they would be delighted. Q« Who did you tell them you were? A. I informed them I was Edward L. Cates, Assistant Attorney General for the State of Mississippi, that I was an attorney for the state in the lawsuit of Meredith versus Fair. Q. Were all these people Negroes that signed those affi davits? 707 A. I suppose so. The only purpose they were gotten for, because they were the people who had previously, as you know, Counsel, had previously given certificates. What the actual date is, I don’t know, but were originally attached to the original application. Then subsequently they were persons who gave subse quent certificates of good moral character to the plaintiff, which were later sent in to the registrar. Q. Were they Negroes or white, Mr. Cates? A. I could not tell you definitely whether they were Negro or white. Q. What did they appear to be? A. They appeared to be Negro. Q. When did you secure those affidavits? A. On the date that the affidavit shows. Q. Where was that affidavit typed? A. The affidavit was typed in a bank — to be specific as to the name of the bank in Kosciusko, Mississippi, I could not give you that information. Q. Did the affiants come to the bank to sign those, or did you take them to their homes? A. The affiants were requested to come to the law office of Mr. John Clark Love, which they did on their voluntariness -- they came of their own volition. When they arrived there, they were interviewed in the presence of the Justice of Peace and in one 703 instance by the notary who was there present. They were asked various questions as to the good moral character of the plaintiff. They were asked under what conditions had the previous or the first certificates which accompanied the application — under what conditions were those asked. And they replied that he stated that he was attempting to get a job and that was the reason the certificates were asked. Q. Which applicant said that? A. Which affiant? Q. Which affiant. I’m sorry. A. Milton Burt is one. Henry Newell is another. Those two. Q. Did the affiant draw the affidavit or did you draw it? A. The affidavit, as I stated — — Let me go back. As I stated, the affiant in each and every one of these instances was present when various questions were asked, as I was indicating a moment ago, and after the termination of the interview with the affiant, the affiant was asked would he mind giving a state ment or an affidavit to the effect of which we had discussed. Each one of the affiants, with the in clusion of Lannie Meredith, stated they would not mind. Whereupon, he was requested, each and every one of them was requested to pay close attention 709 while the affidavit was being dictated by me. Upon the termination of the dictation of the affidavit, each and every one of the affiants and including Meredith who did not — or I should say, refused to execute his affidavit — stated that such was true and correct. Q. Were these people -- A. — If you don’t mind, let me finish. Q. Sorry. A. After the affidavit was drawn up, the affidavit was then given to the affiant for his reading. L. L. Keaton, I know, read it completely immediately and held it for some time in his hand before the notary had come back into the office. Lannie Meredith read it com pletely and swore that it was correct. The justice of the peace held up his hand and he swore it was true, and then he said, "I don’t believe I want to sign it.” And I said, "Why? Wasn’t it true?" And he said, "Yes, it was true,” but he didn’t want to sign it. Well, that was perfectly all right with us. Then Milton Burt read the affidavit --- I read the affidavit to Milton Burt and asked him if that was correct, and he said it was, and whereupon he was sworn. Then he executed it immediately. Henry Newell was out at his garage or paint shop, body paint shop, and he was read the affidavit since it 710 was outdoors, and he said it was true and correct and was sworn by the justice of peace that it was true and correct, and then he executed it. I don’t know whether that answered your question or not, but I endeavored to do so. Q. You mean these people were not able to read and write, which you had sign those papers? A. No. As I tried to do, Counsel, I have tried to explain to you under the varying conditions which they were done. As I pointed out, for instance, with Newell, we were in and outdoors, and it was read over to him in the outdoors. We were in Mr. John Clark Love’s office when L, L. Keaton read it completely himself, and as I pointed out, he had it in his hand for some time and was asked long prior to the notary coming back into the office whether or not this was true and correct, and he said it was. So if he had any objections to it, he could have changed it or done anything. And any of these other people could have done the same thing. Q. In other words, they were able to read? Right? A. I would say that they could read, yes. Q. Okay. Now, who is Mr. Love? A. Mr. John Clark Love is an attorney from Kosciusko, Mississippi. Q. Isn’t it a fact that Mr. Love is a member of the State 711 Sovereignty Commission? A. I couldn’t answer that, Counselor. I frankly don’t know. Q. You know he is a member of the State Sovereignty Com mission? A. I do not. I frankly do not know. I couldn’t tell you, but perhaps two of the members of the State ---- Q. — You wouldn’t swear on the witness stand that he is not, would you? A. I couldn’t answer one way of the other. If I don’t know, I can’t swear he is not and I can’t swear that he is. I don’t know, Counsel. Q. You know he is a member of the White Citizens Council? A. No, I don’t. Q. You are a member, aren’t you? A. I certainly am not, and I do not belong to the John Birch Society, and I do not belong to any other society. Q. Mr. Love also went around and asked these people to sign, didn’t he? A. Mr. Love accompanied us, yes. Mr. Love, as I pointed out previously, Counsel, was at the entire pro ceeding. I mean by that *•-- Q. What was — A. _ If you don’t mind, Counsel. Why I used Mr. Love’s office, I didn't have a typewriter or anything. 712 I didn’t know these people. They were completely, utterly strangers to me. Mr. Love lives in the community, and I assumed he knew them, and he did, and he went with us to talk to these people and ask them would they come in. Q. Didn’t he go to visit these people before you got there and asked them? A. I think that he went in one or two instances. Whether he went in all, I couldn’t say yes or no. Q. Isn’t there some official listing of the members of the State Sovereignty Commission, Mr. Cates? A. There might be. I couldn’t tell you whether there is or not an official list of them. Q. You mean there would be a commission in this state and nobody would know who was on the commission? You are in the Attorney General’s office, aren’t you? MR. CLARK? I can save counsel some trouble. There is an official record somewhere in the state of who is on the Sovereignty Commission, and we will do our best to get it and furnish it to counsel, and Mr. John Clark Love, a senator from Attala County, is not a member of the Sovereignty Commission. MRS. MOTLEY? We’d like that information furnished and made an exhibit in the case when you get it, Mr. Clark. 713 MR. CLARKs We might stipulate that might be done as soon as it is obtainable. I will find out who their secretary or record-keeping personnel are and I will furnish that statement. THE COURTS Very well. Q. I show you Defendants* Exhibit 9 and ask you who se cured those affidavits? A. Mr. Charles Clark. Q. When did you secure those affidavits. Are those the ones that were excluded? A. That is correct. THE COURTS I was going to say, if you go into that, — and I*m not stopping you from going into it, but I ruled they were not admissible. MRS. MOTLEYS That»s right. I forgot those were not admitted in evidence. Q. Is Mr. Love an employee of the State Sovereignty Com mission? A. I couldn’t answer that, Counsel. I don’t even know whether he is a member. Q. Well, there would be some record of the employees of the State Sovereignty Commission, wouldn’t there? A. I would suppose there would be, yes. 714 MRS* MOTLEX; We'd like to secure that information also, lour Honor, and have it made a part of the record of this case. THE COURT; Very well, if that can be done. BX THE WITNESS; Well, we object to that. BX MR. CLARK; Not by agreement, lour Honor. I will be glad to try to find whether or not Mr. John Clark Love is an employee of that commission, and if he is I will furnish that information, but I don't see how any other information could be pertinent to the matters in issue here. THE COURT; As I understand, Counsel is willing to take your word, and if you can find out and stipu late it — MR. CLARK; I will try to get a certificate — I'll say this; The Attorney General is a member of the Commission. MR. JOE T. PATTERSON; If I could make a statement to the Court— ? THE COURT; Xes, sir, I will let you make a state ment. MR. PATTERSON; I make the statement upon my honor and obligation to this Court as an attorney and a public official. The law that provided for the creation of the State Sovereignty Commission pro vides that the Attorney General shall be ex-officio 715 a member, and I state that Senator Love is not a member of the State Sovereignty Commission. He has been in the past up until the beginning of this present administration in I960, but he is not a member of the Commission now and is not an employee of the Commission. THE COURTS V e r y well, Counsel. Xou have heard the statement. Is that satisfactory? lou can accept it, but if you want -— MRS. MOTLEY? — That is satisfactory, lour Honor. (Mrs. Motley continues?) Q. The Attorney General’s office has investigated this applicant for admission to the University of Missis sippi, hasn’t it? A. I don’t believe I quite understand what you mean by *»has investigated5*him. I think that whatever you ask would be privileged because we have naturally in any lawsuit endeavored to find out whatever evidence is necessary in any lawsuit, and I don’t think that is a proper question, if I might object to it myself. THE COURT? I will overrule the objection as to whether you have investigated him since the lawsuit was filed or before. I will let you answer that 716 question. A. Counsel, did you have reference to prior to the time that the lawsuit was filed or subsequent? If you’d give me some sort o f --- Q. Both. A. No to prior. After the lawsuit was filed, naturally. This was a live case. I think that any lawyer would be remiss in not investigating any case whether it included the investigation of the plaintiff or any witness that he possibly would bring. I certainly can’t say we have not investigated the lawsuit since the filing of it. MRS. MOTLEYS That is all the questions of this wit ness. THE COURTS Any cross examination? MR. CLARKs No, sir. (Witness excused) MRS. MDTLEIs The plaintiff rests. THE COURTS Very well. It is now 4s20. I believe I’ll recess the case until 9?30 tomorrow morning and I will hear oral arguments at that time. MRS. MOTLEYs I’d like to say that the plaintiff is willing to waive oral argument. We have been on this trial for several days and, frankly, I don’t think I have the strength to reargue this case 717 tomorrow. I think we argued it previously and we briefed it, and for me to reargue it now, I would only be boring the Court with an argument which I’ve already made in this case, and we would be glad to submit to the Court a copy of the brief which we have filed in the Court of Appeals, which I think goes over the testimony previously in this case which has already been admitted again in this case, and I wouldn’t want to bore the Court with a brief which is repetitious of what we have already done. THE COURTS Counsel, I of course have not had an opportunity to look at this case since tried. This is one case where I think oral argument would help the Court, and I sincerely think that. I really wanted a full argument, an hour or hour and a half to the sides but I certainly donft want to impose upon you, though I would really like to get the contentions and an argument of the evidence and of possible judgments to be reached in this case. With my uninformed mind at this time, I see the possibil ity of two or three judgments that could be rendered in this case. I may be wrong about it, but if you don’t mind arguing it tomorrow morning — If it will be an imposition on you, I will put it over until Monday morning, if you’d rather do that. Or I would let you waive your argument® let you come and sit and let opposing counsel argue it, I would like to have a review of all this case. This testimony started up last June, and naturally X haven’t had an opportunity to look at it since then. Frankly, I haven’t had an opportunity to really study the opinion of the Court of Appeals, and I intend to study that overnight and more carefully than I have. I have read it, you might say, hurriedly one time and fairly accurately another time, but with only a few moments to reflect on it at the time, so I do believe argument would be very helpful to this Court. If it would suit you better, I could let the other side open, or I could postpone it until Monday morning. MRS. MOTLEY? I’d rather do it tomorrow than Monday, so we will come back tomorrow and I’ll do the best I can, but, as I have indicated, it will be largely repetition of what we have already argued. MR. CLARK? Before we close the record, on behalf of the defendant we’d like to renew all motions we have made to exclude evidence on the basis of con tinuing objections to all witnesses in this cause. Secondly, I want to offer in evidence again at this time Defendants’ Exhibit 9, which are the supple mental affidavits with regard to the lack of any force, threats or intimidation or holding of reward 719 to any of these persons who made affidavits that were part of the registrars files* THE COURT? Well, I will adhere to my ruling I made on excluding them from consideration, but I will re serve ruling upon the other motions until I hear the argument. MR. CLARK? Will we waive them by failing to renew them later? THE COURT? No, I am going to let you argue them tomorrow and P m reserving ruling on them. I may rule on part of them tomorrow at the conclusion of the argument or I might take them along with the case. MR. CATES? Could we have a ruling with regard to the remaining part of the records subpoenaed from the University? Mr. Ellis has transportation for them to be taken back. They are valuable documents and we*d like to get them back. Those are the ones that have not been introduced. THE COURT? Tes, you may take those back which were not introduced in evidence. Those that have been introduced in evidence, later on you may have photo static copies made and take the originals back. MRS. MOTLEY? Excuse me. We have had copies made of the plaintiff’s newspaper exhibits which were marked for identification and which we placed in the 720 record in place of the originals. THE COURTS That may be done. I guess the exhibit numbers are photostated? MRS. MOTLEYS Xes. We photostated the exhibit numbers. THE COURTS Very well. That may be done and the originals withdrawn. Is there anything further? MRS. MOTLEYs Nothing further. THE COURTS Court is recessed until 9s30 tomorrow morning. (Whereupon the court was recessed until the following morning) SATURDAY, JANUARY 27, 1962, AT 9s30 A.M.s THE COURTS Very well, Gentlemen. I will allow an hour to the side* You won*t have to use the full hour unless you want to, but 1*11 allow an hour. Mrs. Motley, you indicated yesterday you might waive your opening argument. You may do so if you want to. MRS. MOTLEYs Mr. Bell will make the opening argument and I will reply to defendants * argument. THE COURTS Very well. Mr. Bell, you may proceed. (Whereupon Mr. Bell presented opening argument for the plaintiff.) (Mr. Clark then presented argument for the defendants} # * * * # 721 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI, JACKSON DIVISION JAMES H. MEREDITH, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, Vs. CHARLES DICKSON FAIR, et al, Defendants * COURT REPORTERfS CERTIFICATE I, D. B. JORDAN, Official Court Reporter for the Southern District of Mississippi, do hereby certify that the foregoing pages constitute a true and correct transcript of the testimony and proceedings had upon the trial of the above-entitled cause before the Honorable Sidney C. Mize, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi, at Jackson, Mississippi, on the 16th day of January, 1962, and subsequent days. WITNESS MY SIGNATURE, this the 2nd day of March, 1962. D. B. JORDAN * * * # # * * 722 OPINION OF THE COURT FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ( Title omitted - Filed Feb. 3, 1962} Plaintiff, James Howard Meredith, is a member of the Negro race and a citizen of Mississippi. He filed this suit against the mem bers of the Board of Trustees of State Institutions, the Chancellor of the University of Mississippi, the Deamof the College of Liberal Arts, and the Registrar of the University. He alleged that he sought admis sion to the University of Mississippi as a resident, under-graduate, transfer student to that Institution and that he was denied admission solely because of his race. The complaint was answered by the Defen dants, denying that he was refused admission solely because of his race. A motion for preliminary injunction was filed and a full and complete hearing upon the motion for the preliminary injunction to enjoin the Defendants from refusing to admit him was had by the Court and on December 12, 1961 his motion for preliminary injunction was denied and the Court set the case for final hearing on January 15, 1962. After fully hearing all the evidence and considering the record on the motion for a preliminary injunction the Court held that the Plaintiff was not de nied admission because of his race. The Plaintiff filed his notice of appeal from that judgment on December 14, 1961 to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which appeal was heard on January 9,1962 and the opinion rendered by the Court of Appeals on January 12, 1962, af firming the judgment of the District Court, and the Court of Appeals 723 denied the motion of the Plaintiff to order the District Court to enter a preliminary injunction in time to secure the Plaintiff’ s admission to the February 6 term of the University. The statement of the pleadings and the background of the facts leading up to the filing of the suit are contained in the opinion of the District Court which was filed on December 12, 1961 and which is re ported in Federal Supplement (not yet reported). The opinion of the Court of Appeals is not yet reported, but will appear in the Advance Sheets of the Federal Reporter in the near future. The style of the case in the Court of Appeals is "James H. Meredith, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated versus Charles Dickson Fair, President of the Board of Trustees of the State Institutions of Higher Learning, et al". The only question now posed for decision is whether or not the Plaintiff was denied admission to the University of Mississippi solely because of his race or color and only a question of fact appears for de termination. After the Mandate came down from the Court of Appeals a hear ing of the controversy was begun in the District Court on the final mer its on the 17th of January and was concluded on the 27th of January, and after oral argument was submitted to the Court for decision. During this hearing many additional witnesses testified, principally the parties to the suit, and in addition thereto all the testimony that was given on the hearing for the preliminary injunction was introduced into evidence 724 along with all of the exhibits, and several questions of law relative to procedure were raised. The Plaintiff obtained a subpoena duces tecum addressed to the Registrar of the University to bring with him certain records pertain ing to the admission and denial of all the transfer students from the summer term to the date of the trial. The Defendants moved to quash the subpoena duces tecum, which was overruled, and the Plaintiff mov ed for an inspection of the documents to be produced under the subpoena duces tecum before placing the Registrar on the witness stand. The Defendants objected to this procedure on the ground that the only way Plaintiff could obtain inspection of the documents was by motion under Rule 34, showing good cause for the inspection and production. The Court overruled this objection and stated that in this particular instance it was permissible to look through the shell of the subpoena to bring with him the documents and go to the substance and that rather than de lay the trial to permit a motion under Rule 34, the Court would require the Registrar to bring the applications and all correspondence pertain ing thereto with reference to all students from the summer school up to the date of the trial, and would permit the Plaintiff to inspect those doc uments without making a motion under Rule 34, for the reason that it was apparent that there was sufficient good cause appearing that the Plaintiff would be entitled to inspect the documents with reference to transfer students situated as was the Plaintiff. Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, of course, requires that when one is in 725 possession of documents that are material to the issues in a lawsuit, he may be required to produce them on motion and on showing of good cause, but in this particular case it was proper and not error for the Court to rule as it did. Plaintiff alleges and contends that he was de nied admission solely because of his race. Defendants categorically deny that he was denied admission because of his race and aver that his race had no bearing at all on the rejection of his application for admis sion. As held on the hearing on motion for preliminary injunction, the evidence overwhelmingly showed that the Plaintiff was not denied ad mission because of his race. The Plaintiff, during this hearing on the merits, called as adverse witnesses nearly every member of the Board of Trustees, who testified unequivocally and definitely that at no time had the question of the race of a party ever been discussed at a meet ing of the Board of Trustees or at any other place and that so far as the members of the Board of Trustees was concerned, all policies and regulations were adopted and followed without regard to race, creed or color, and that at no time was the application of James Meredith, the Plaintiff, ever discussed by any members of the Board of Trustees. The Registrar, who also had testified on the motion for preliminary injunction, again testified to the effect that the question of the race of the Plaintiff was not discussed or considered in any way whatsoever when his application for admission to the University was being consid ered. All of the other officials of the University testified to substan- 726 tially the same thing, One member of the Board of Trustees was not used, in addition to a few members who were not called because of ill health. The effect of this additional testimony heard during the trial on the final merits strengthens the former finding of the Court that the Plaintiff was not denied admission because of his race, rather than weakens it. The proof shows on this trial, and I find as a fact, that there is no custom or policy now, nor was there any at the time Plaintiff's application was rejected, which excluded qualified Negroes from enter ing the University. The proof shows, and I find as a fact, that the Uni versity is not a racially segregated institution. Prior to the decision in the case of Brown, et al v. Board of Education of Topeka, et al, 347 U. S. 403, there was such a custom which was required by the sta tutes of the State of Mississippi and the Court takes judicial notice of that custom as outlined by the statutes prior to the trial of the Brown case. This custom or doctrine had been approved by the doctrine of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Plessy v. Fergu son, 163 U. S. 537. Prior to the Brown decision this was a legitimate and lawful custom and it was within the province of the Legislature to pass those Acts. The proof in the instant case on this hearing fails to show that the application of any Negro or Chinaman or anyone of any other race has been rejected because of his race or color. Under the proof in this case judicial notice, while considered, and properly so, is not enough to meet the burden of proof cast upon Plaintiff to show that he was denied admission because of his race. Judicial notice of facts is not conclusive on factual matters, but is considered along with all the other evidence in the case. Shopleigh v. Mier, 299 U. S. 468; Words & Phrases, Permanent Edition, Vol. 23, p. 294, and the 1961 pocket part. The Court takes judicial notice of Sec. 4065.3 of the Mississippi Code of 1942 as amended. This was passed in 1956 and the Act re quires the officers to use any lawful, peaceable or constitutional means to prevent the implementation of or the compliance with the integration decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Legislature in passing that Act had in mind to use every legitimate means to pre vail upon the Supreme Court of the United States to return to the doc trine of Plessy v. Ferguson, but nowhere are any of the officers re quired to disobey the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. There is nothing in the Act that obligates or casts a burden up on any official to disobey or disregard the decisions of the .Supreme Court of the United States or to use any unlawful methods to prevent compliance. All the proof in this case, considered in the light of the opinion of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of this Court and denying the preliminary injunction, but holding that it was improper to consider the failure to furnish certificates from the alumni of the Uni versity, demonstrates clearly that the Plaintiff was not denied 728 admission because of his race. I have weighed the testimony carefully in the light of the decision of the Court of Appeals and have rejected, in weighing it, the evidence to the effect that he had failed to furnish certificates of the alumni, and have taken judicial notice of the statutes affecting the custom of segregation, and am of the opinion, and find as a fact, that he was not denied admission because of his race. It is rather difficult to determine the weight to be given to judicial notice of facts as differentiated from judicial notice of laws, but giving full con sideration to the judicial notice that the policy prior to the decision in the Brown case was to segregate the races, and considering that policy along with all the evidence in this case as of 1961 and 1962, I conclude that the evidence is insufficient to hold that that policy is now in effect. The burden of proof was upon the Plaintiff to prove by a prepon derance of the evidence that there was a policy at the time of his appli cation of denying entry to the University of Mississippi because of race, and to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that such policy was applied to the Plaintiff in order to produce discrimination. The Plain tiff failed entirely to meet that burden, but on the contrary the evidence shows rather conclusively that he was not denied admission because of his race. In the trial on the merits every witness called by the Plain tiff testified that the race of the Plaintiff was not discussed or consid ered at all in passing on his application for admission. Each member of the Board of Trustees who was called testified that the question of race was not at any time discussed with any other member of the Board 729 of Trustees concerning the admission of applicants to the University of Mississippi. It is a well accepted rule of law that sworn positive testi mony, unless so unreasonable as to be unbelievable, or unless denied by sworn testimony, is to be accepted as true. Since all of the evidence and all of the exhibits that were intro duced into evidence on the trial of the motion for preliminary injunction is now before this Court upon this trial on the merits, I adopt the find ing of fact that was made in my opinion of December 12, 1961 as my finding of fact herein, and in addition thereto I find as a fact from all of the additional evidence that was offered on this trial, when consider ed with all of the evidence offered on the former trial that the Plaintiff was not denied admission because of his race and that the evidence tak en in its entirety shows clearly that there was no denial of admission because of his race or color. In adopting the finding of fact which I made in my opinion of December 12, 1961, I am making the same find ing after having disregarded those features of it that were eliminated by the Court of Appeals in its decision affirming my judgment. The Registrar, on cross examination by attorney for Plaintiff, testified that if the application filed by the Plaintiff for admission were considered as still a pending application for admission that he would not accept the application of the Plaintiff, but that his rejection of the application for admission would be based not in the slightest on his race, but that the same rule would be applied if the applicant had been a white person; that the race of the Plaintiff did not enter into his judgment. 730 The Registrar gave as his reason for this statement that credible evi dence had been furnished to him since Plaintiff's applications had been presented and rejected that Plaintiff was a rather unstable person; was depressed at times and of a highly nervous temperament; that the Plain tiff had sworn falsely before the Gircuit Clerk of Hinds County in mak ing application to register as a voter, swearing that he was a citizen of Hinds County when, as a matter of fact he knew he was a citizen of Attala County, Mississippi and that through this false affidavit Plaintiff had procured himself to be registered as a voter by the Circuit Clerk of Hinds County, Mississippi; that Plaintiff had filed five certificates by citizens of Attala County, certifying that he was of good moral char acter and recommending him for admission to the University, but that subsequent investigation showed that in procuring these certificates Plaintiff made false representations to the signers as to the purpose for which he intended, to use them, stating to two of the signers in substance that he was without a job and needed these statements to help him get a job. Some of this evidence was objected to, but was tentatively receiv ed in evidence. Since the main question before me is whether the Reg istrar, an administrative officer of the State of Mississippi, had acted in good faith in his rejection of Plaintiff's application for reasons other than race and since these facts were not known to the Registrar at the time the application was rejected, I have concluded that this testimony should not be considered and have not considered it in reaching my 731 conclusions. There is one other question of law which was raised prior to the beginning of the trial on the merits that should be commented upon. A motion was filed by the Defendants for the organization of a three-judge court to pass upon the constitutionality of the requirement of the Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning that every applica tion for admission to any state institution must be accompanied by re commendations of five alumni. I did not pass upon this question in con sidering the application for a temporary injunction because of the uni versal rule that constitutional questions will not be considered if a de cision can be reached on non-constitutional questions. In that decision I denied the application for temporary injunction solely on the finding of fact that Plaintiff's application had not been rejected because of his race. Under the laws of Mississippi this Board of Trustees Is a consti tutional body and its duties are fixed by Articles V, et seq, Title 24, Vol. 5, Recompiled, of the Mississippi Code, being set forth in Sec tion 6724 and the following sections of that chapter. The Registrar in acting on Plaintiff's application was engaged in the enforcement of an order made by an administrative Board acting under the statutes of Mississippi, but I overruled the motion, declining to request that a three-judge court be convened because the Court of Appeals had, In its opinion, declared these requirements of Mississippi law unconstitution al. 732 Inasmuch as Plaintiff has failed to meet the burden by showing by a preponderance of the evidence that he was denied admission to the University of Mississippi solely because of his race, the complaint must be dismissed. The Plaintiff undertook to bring the action as a class, acting under Rule 23 (a) (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Proce dure, but since Plaintiff failed to maintain this action in his own behalf, he cannot maintain it as a Class Action. This the 3rd day of February, 1962. / s / S. C, Mize ________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE O. B. 1962 pp 55, 56, 57, 53, 59, 60 and 61. O R D E R (Title omitted-Filed Feb. 5,1962) This cause having come on for final hearing before the Court on its merits and the Court having heard all the testimony and considered the record, is of the opinion that the complaint should be dismissed and the relief sought denied. It is therefore Ordered by the Court that the complaint be and the same is here by dismissed and the relief sought therein is denied, all In accord with the Opinion of the Court heretofore filed in this cause, which Opinion 733 is made a part hereof. ORDERED, this the 5th day of February, 1962. / s / S, C. Mize__________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE O. B. 1962, Page 62. NOTICE OF APPEAL (Title omitted-Filed Feb. 5,1962) The plaintiff, James Howard Meredith, hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from the final order entered in this cause on the 5th day of February, 1962, dismissing his complaint and denying a permanent injunction. / s / Constance Baker Motley Constance Baker Motley Derrick A. Bell, Jr. 10 Columbus Circle New York 19, New York R. Jess Brown 1105 1/2 Washington Street Vicksburg, Mississippi Attorneys for Plaintiff 734 (272a) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _________________________ (Filed Feb* 13, 1962) NO. 19,475 JAMES H. MEREDITH, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Appellant, versus CHARLES DICKSON FAIR, President of the Board of Trustees of the State Institutions of Higher Learning, Et Al, Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi ON MOTION FOR INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL. (FEBRUARY 12th, 1962) Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, RIVES and WISDOM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:- £/ Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S. Code, Sec. 1651 y and Rule 62(g), F .R .C .P ., the appellant moves the Court 735 T y "Write— (a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and princi ples of law. "(b) An alternative writ or rule nisi may be issued by a justice or judge of a court which has jurisdiction. June 25, 1948, c. 646, 62 Stat. 944, amended May 24, 1949, c. 139, p 90, 63 Stat. 102." 2 7 "Rule 62(g) Power of Appellate Court Not Limited. The provisions in this rule do not limit any power of an appellate court or of a judge or justice thereof to stay proceedings during the pendency of an appeal or to suspend, modify, restore, or grant an injunction during the pendency of an appeal or to make any order appropriate to preserve the status quo or the effectiveness of the judg ment subsequently to be entered. As amended Dec. 29,1948, eff. Oct. 20, 1949." for an injunction during the pendency of this appeal, enjoining the appel lees from refusing to admit appellant to the Liberal Arts College of the University of Mississippi for the semester which commenced February 6, 1962, and as to which admissions can be received no later than 736 February 15, 1962, on the ground that such injunction is necessary in aid of this Court’s jurisdiction of this appeal which, according to ap pellant, would otherwise be defeated through mootness of this appeal. The district court's judgment was entered on February 5, 1962, and the testimony taken before the district court is not yet available to this Court. Hearing on the motion for injunction pending appeal was had before this Court on Saturday, February 10, 1962. The ground upon which appellant claims that this appeal will be come moot before it can be heard and decided in normal course is that, prior to such time, the appellant will graduate from Jackson State Coll ege, and will then lose any right to be admitted to the Liberal Arts College o f the University of Mississippi. The appellees point out that it is within the appellant's power to avoid that result by his non-attend - ance on Jackson State College for one quarter of a school year. The IfT It seems to us, also, that the appeal would not be mooted if appellant did not in fact graduate from Jackson State College because of being per mitted to choose subjects of study other than those leading to his graduation. appellees insist, and assure this Court, that such non-attendance would not prejudice the appellant’s claim to a right to be admitted to the Lib eral Arts College of the University of Mississippi. While we appreciate the hardship which such non-attendance may 737 impose on the appellant, when that hardship is balanced against other possible irreparable damages which might be suffered by the appellant himself and by the appellees from the issuance of the mandatory injunc tion prayed in the event that the judgment of the district court should ultimately be affirmed, such hardship is not sufficient to permit us to issue the mandatory injunction prayed without an opportunity to study the full record and testimony on the hearing before the district court. At this time we express no views on the merits of this appeal. By expediting the hearing of this appeal, it can be decided on its merits before the beginning of the next college term. The Clerk of this Court and the parties are therefore directed to take all necessary and proper steps to expedite the hearing of this appeal on its merits, and the motion for injunction pending appeal is denied. The Clerk is direct ed to issue the mandate forthwith. No. 19475 - James H. Meredith, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Appellant, -vs- Charles Dickson Fair, President of the Board of Trustees of the State Institutions of Higher Learning, Et Al, Appellees. TUTTLE, Chief Judge, I respectfully dissent. I think the record already submitted, without the benefit of the record in the trial on the merits, calls for our granting the injunction 738 pending appeal. Undisputed facts, of which we have already taken cognizance when this case was here on appeal from denial of an interlocutory injunction show that the appellant was denied admission on the stated grounds: (1) that he had failed to furnish recommendations from six alumni of the University; (2) that the University policy (adopted after Meredith originally applied for transfer) prevented a transfer from an unaccre dited institution (Jackson State College was at that time unaccredited); (3) the letter then stated: "I see no need for mentioning any other de ficiencies. " In view of our holding in the earlier opinion that "We take judicial notice that the state of Mississippi maintains a policy of segregation in its schools and colleges", and our holding that the requirement of alum ni recommendations was unconstitutional as to Negro applicants and in view of the failure of the defendants to assign any other reason for re jecting appellant's application for transfer, I am convinced that there is sufficient likelihood that this Court will reverse the trial court's finding that Meredith was not denied admission on racial grounds that I would grant the injunction pending appeal. Jackson State College is now fully accredited, and there is thus now no bar to appellant's transfer on that ground. Nor is there any evi dence, even on the trial on the merits, that Meredith would necessarily lose any credits which he has already earned at Jackson State College. 739 If Meredith continues as a student at Jackson State College, which he must do in order to continue to be entitled to his G. I. educational benefits for himself and his family, he will graduate in June of this year and he cannot thereafter enter the University of Mississippi as a candidate for a bachelor’ s degree. I do not believe that he should be required to leave college at the beginning of his final term to prevent his appeal from becoming moot. Unless he is admitted to the Univer - sity by February 15, just three days hence, he cannot transfer until the next term, Therefore, if he is denied the injunction and does not quit school for a term (to keep from graduating) he will be forever denied the right to enter his state university as a candidate for an undergrad uate degree, which right I think this Court may well ultimately decide he is entitled to. I do not think this Gourt ought to concern itself with any possible damage to the appellant by granting his motion for injunction. He does not need for us to help him decide whether he really wants what he is here fighting so hard to get. I therefore respectfully dissent. 74D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October Term, 1961 _______________ (Filed Feb. 13,1962) No. 19, 475 JAMES H. MEREDITH, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, versus Appellant, CHARLES DICKSON FAIR, President of the Board of Trustees of the State Institutions of Higher Learning, Et A l., Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. ON MOTION FOR INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL Before Tuttle, Chief Judge, and Rives and Wisdom, Circuit Judges. J U D G M E N T This cause came on to be heard on the motion of appellant for injunction pending appeal, and was argued by counsel; ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, It is now here ordered and adjudged by this Court that said motion for injunction pending appeal in this cause be, and the same Is hereby, denied in accordance with the opinion of the Court. The Clerk of this Court and the parties are 741 directed to expedite the hearing of this appeal on its merits. "Tuttle, Ghief Judge, Dissents." February 12, 1962 Issued: Feb 12 1962 A true copy Test: EDWARD W. WADSWORTH Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit Bv /s / Clara R. James_________ Deputy New Orleans, Louisiana FEB 12 1962 O, B. 1962, Page 73. * * * * * sic* * * ** * * * * DESIGNATION OF CONTENTS OF RECORD ON APPEAL (Title omitted-Filed Feb. 16, 1962) Plaintiff hereby designates the contents of the entire record of this Court for inclusion in the record on appeal including all pleadings, transcripts of testimony and exhibits. R. Jess Brown 1105 1/2 Washington Street Vicksburg, Mississippi / s / Derrick A Bell Jr.___________ Constance Baker Motley Jack Greenberg Derrick A. Bell, Jr. 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York Attorneys for Plaintiff (This instrument carries proper certificate of service which is not copied here.) ************* 742 MOTION FOR TRANSMITTAL OF EXHIBITS (Title omitted-Filed Feb. 16, 1962) Plaintiff moves the Court for an order that all exhibits of plain tiff and defendants introduced at the trial of this action, be sent to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Gircuit in lieu of copies thereof, except the transcript of the testimony on the hearing on the preliminary injunction which will be reproduced by the Court Reporter as a part of the transcript of the trial testimony. R. Jess Brown 1105 1/2 Washington Street Vicksburg, Mississippi / s / Derrick A Bell Jr.__________ Constance Baker Motley Jack Greenberg Derrick A. Bell, Jr. 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York Attorneys for Plaintiff (This instrument carries proper certificate of service which is not copied here.) 743 LETTER OBJECTING TO TRANSMITTAL OF ALL EXHIBITS (Letter Head Omitted - Filed Feb 23* 1962) February 16* 1962 Honorable Sidney C. Mize United States District Judge Federal Court Building Biloxi, Mississippi In Re: Meredith v. Fair, Civil Action No. 3130 U .S.D .D ., S«D. - Miss. Dear Judge Mize: We are in receipt of a Motion in the above captioned matter on behalf of the Plaintiff that all exhibits of Plaintiff and Defendants intro duced at the trial be sent to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in lieu of copies thereof. We take this means to oppose such motion for we do not feel that this motion comports with the recent Instructions of Judge Elbert P. Tuttle of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. We believe that all exhibits should be copied with the exception of those which are not susceptible to being copied. We are forwarding copies of this letter to counsel opposite. Sincerely yours, JOE T. PATTERSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL ELC/mb cc: R. Jess Brown BY: / s / Edward L. Cates________ Constance Baker Motley EDWARD L. CATES :|es|c 9 )^ $ $ $ 744 LETTER SUSTAINING OBJECTION TO TRANSMITTAL OF ALL EXHIBITS, (Letter Head Omitted - Filed Feb. 23,1962) February 21, 1962 Mrs. Constance Baker Motley 10 Columbus Circle New York 19, 1962 Mr. R. Jess Brown 1105 1/2 Washington Street Vicksburg, Mississippi Mr. Joe T. Patterson Attorney General Jackson, Mississippi Re: Meredith v. Fair, et al Civil Action No. 3130--Jackson Gentlemen: I am in receipt of Mr. Cates' letter of February 16 objecting to all of the exhibits being sent up in the original form rather than cop ied into the record and in reply thereto will say that I am compelled to sustain the objection since the Rules of the Court of Appeals of this Cir cuit provide that all exhibits susceptible of being copied must be copied into the record, but those which are not susceptible of being copied may be sent up in the original form. As to those not susceptible of being copied, I am entering an order directing that they be sent up in the original form and am enclos ing copy of this order. This includes, of course, the newspapers that were tendered into evidence and the cards and applications that were 745 offered in evidence, and such other exhibits of this type as are not really susceptible of being copied. I am directing that the record be prepared in this way. Yours very truly, / s / S. C. Mize S. G. Mize Chief Judge * * He * * * ORDER SENDING UP ORIGINAL EXHIBITS (Title Omitted - Filed Feb. 23, 1962) It appearing to the District Court and the Court being of the opinion that certain exhibits in the original form should be inspected by the Appellate Court in lieu of copies thereof, it is ordered by the Court that the Clerk of this Court be and the Clerk hereby is directed and or dered to safely transport and send up with the original record the follow ing original exhibits: Exhibit "D" to separate answer of Defendant, Robert B. Ellis,Registrar, being Application for Admission to University, etc. Plaintiff's Exhibit 28 on Temporary Injunction: Poll Tax Exemption Cert. 29 Application for regis tration to vote 30-40 Application to Ole Miss, etc. 41 Bulletin of Ole Miss-1961 42 " " " 1960 746 Exhibit Plaintiff’s Exhibit 43 "Accredited Higher Insti tutions "thru page 108 44 "Accredited Higher Insti tutions" 45-48 Transcripts from prior colleges 49-53 Application to Ole Miss with correspondence con cerning Carol L. Collins 54 Application file of George Pittman 56 Admission file of Anna Marie Barnes 11 on Temporary InjunctiomPoll Tax Exemption Cert 2 Application for Registra tion to vote 3-4 Medical Examination (at tached to Meredith’s application) 7-8 Portions of Army Record 9 MIAS Circular "Brain washed" 10-13 Portions of Army Record 14-24 Application to Ole Miss with letters 25 Letter of Jany 31, 1961 26 Certified Army Record 4 to Trial on the Merits: Meredith's application file to Ole Miss 19 Newspaper 20-22 Newspapers 23 Newspaper 24-25 Newspapers 26-27 Newspapers 29 Application file of James Robert Rhodes, Jr. 30 do Mary Suzanna McCullough 31 do Harriet McGee Long 32 do Frances Jean Dunn 33 do Derry Patricia Flynt 34 do Valerie McCoppin 35 Photocopy of Meredith’s 747 Defendant’ s Exhibit 1 to Trial on the Merits: Copy of letter cancelling application for admission 2 Copy of letter denying ad mission to Edward Alessi 3 Letter denying admission to Linda Mae Sotel 4 Letter denying admission to Floyd E. Moore, Jr. 5 Letter denying admission to Pamela M. Lane 6 Letter denying admission to John Richard Bogoslof- ski ORDERED, this the 21st day of February, 1962. / s / S, C. Mize___________________ CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT O. B. 1962, Pages 85 & 86. * 5(S * S(C S)t * * * * S|« * * * * 748 C L E R K ' S C E R T I F I C A T E UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI I, LORYCE E, WHARTON, Clerk of the United States District Court in and for the Southern District of Mississippi, do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing pages contain a true and full transcript of the record in the case of JAMES H. MEREDITH versus CHARLES DICKSON FAIR, e tc ., ET AL, Civil Action No. 3130, made up pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, as the same now remains of record and on file in m y office at Jackson, in the Jackson Division of this District. GIVEN under my hand and seal of office, this the 5th day of March LORYCE E. WHARTON Clerk, United States District Court Southern District of Mississippi (SEAL) 749 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Theresa Herbert, hereby certify that, having made up the appeal record in the case of JAMES H. MEREDITH versus CHARLES DICKSON FAIR, e tc ., ET AL, Civil Action No. 3130 in the Jackson Division of the Southern District of Mississippi, I have, acting for Mrs. Constance Baker Motley, of counsel for Appellant, served upon Honorable Joe T. Patterson, Attorney General of the State of Mississippi, of counsel for Appellees, three copies of the record, in accordance with the Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, by sending same to him via Railway Express, addressed to New Capitol Building, Jackson, Mississippi. THERESA HERBERT