Meredith v. Fair Transcript of Record Vol. V

    \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