Brown v. Board of Education Brief of John Ben Shepperd, Attorney General of Texas, Amicus Curiae

    IN THE

€msrl nf tfa  States
OCTOBER TERM, 1954 

Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4

OLIVER BROWN, ET AL.,
Appellants,

v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA, SHAWNEE 

COUNTY, KANSAS, ET AL.,
On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for  the District of Kansas

HARRY BRIGGS, JR., ET AL.,
Appellants,

v.
R. W. ELLIOTT, ET AL.

On Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the Eastern District of South Carolina

DOROTHY E. DAVIS, ET AL.,
Appellants,

v.
COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD 

COUNTY, VIRGINIA, ET AL.
On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Virginia

FRANCIS B. GEBHART, ET AL.,
Petitioners,

v.
ETHEL LOUISE BELTON, ET AL.

On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Delaware

BRIEF OF JOHN BEN SHEPPERD, 
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, AMICUS CURIAE

JOHN BEN SHEPPERD 
Attorney General of Texas 

BURNELL WALDREP 
BILLY E. LEE 
J. A. AMIS, JR.
L. P. LOLLAR 
J. FRED JONES 
JOHN DAVENPORT 
JOHN REEVES 
WILL DAVIS 

Assistants 
Amicus Curiae



TABLE OF CONTENTSl

Page
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT-___________________  2

Variance of Degree in Which Different Areas 
Would be Affected_____________________________  6

Texas Public School System______________________  9

QUESTION FOUR________________________________  12

Argument_______________________________________  12

QUESTION FIVE_________________________________  24

Argument ______________________________________ 25

CONCLUSION ____________________________________ 28

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX I
Map showing concentration o f Negro population 
by counties as shown by the 1950 Federal census.

APPENDIX II
Map showing the number and percentage of 
Negro scholastics in each county as shown by the 
1954-1955 scholastic census.

APPENDIX III
Map showing the concentration of Negro scholas­
tics in general areas, as shown by the 1954-1955 
scholastic census.

APPENDIX IV
Questionnaire and evaluated answers relating to 
views of public school administrators on the prob­
lems involved in integration.

APPENDIX V
Alphabetical listing of counties, showing relation­
ship of Negro to white scholastics as based on 
the 1954-1955 scholastic census.

i.



TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES: Page
Addison v. Holly Hill Co., 322 U.S. 607 (1944)_____  27
Alabama Public Service Commission v. Southern Rail­

way Company, 341 U.S. 341 (1951)---------------------- 22
Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27 (1885)-----------------  23
Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1942) 26
Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315 (1943)_______  22
Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education,

175 U.S. 528 (1899)_____________________________  3
Far Eastern Conference, United States Lines Co.,

States Marine Corporation, et al. v. United States 
and Federal Maritime Board, 342 U.S. 570 (1952) 22

Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co., 240 U.S. 650 (1916) 21
Hatcher v. State, 125 Tex. 84, 81 S.W. 2d 499 (1935) 14
International Salt Company v. United States, 332 

U.S. 392 (1947)_________________________________  27
Love v. City of Dallas, 120 Tex. 351, 40 S.W. 2d 20l 

(1931) _________________________________________  14
Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586 

(1940) _________________________________________  26
New Jersey v. City of New York, 283 U.S. 473 (1931) 21
Northern Securities Company v. United States, 193 

U.S. 197 (1904) _________________________________  21
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)____________ 3
Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Company,

312 U.S. 496 (1941)_____________________________  21
Southwestern Broadcasting Company v. Oil Center 

Broadcasting Company, 210 S.W. 2d 230 (Tex. Civ.
App,, 1947, error ref. N .R.E.)_____________________ 13

Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911) 21
United States v. American Tobacco Co., 221 U.S. 106

(1911) _________________________________________  20
ii.



A uthorities

Page
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) ___ 5
United States v. Paramount Pictures, 334 U.S. 131 

(1948) --------------------------------------------------------------- 22
University Interscholastic League v. Midwestern Uni­

versity, ___Tex_____, 255 S.W. 2d 177 (1953)_____  13

STATUTES AND CONSTITUTION:
Texas Constitution (Vernon 1948) Art. VII, Sec. 1__ 25
Texas Constitution (Vernon 1948) Art. VII, Sec. 7__ 2
Texas Civil Statutes (Vernon 1948) Articles 2745,

2749, 2775, 2780._________________________________  13
Texas Civil Statutes (Vernon 1948) Articles 2750a,

2781 ____________________________________________ 14
Texas Civil Statutes (Vernon 1948) Article 2784e__ 13
Texas Civil Statutes (Vernon 1948) Article 2786__ 13
Texas Civil Statutes (Vernon Supp. 1950) Article 

2922-11 et seq ._____________________________   9

MISCELLANEOUS:
Texas Poll, September 12, 1954______________________  16
Texas State Board of Education Resolution, July 5,

1954 ___________________________________________  19
The Dallas Morning News, June 9, 1954_____________  14
U. S. News and World Report, August 27, 1954_____  10

iii.



IN THE

ffruprm? (Cmirt nf thr Inttrii States
OCTOBER TERM, 1954

Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4

OLIVER BROWN, ET AL.,
Appellants,

v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA, SHAWNEE 

COUNTY, KANSAS, ET AL.,
On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Kansas

HARRY BRIGGS, JR., ET AL.,
Appellants,

v.
R. W. ELLIOTT, ET AL.

On Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the Eastern District of South Carolina

DOROTHY E. DAVIS, ET AL.,
Appellants,

v.
COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD 

COUNTY, VIRGINIA, ET AL.
On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Virginia

FRANCIS B. GEBHART, ET AL.,
Petitioners,

v.
ETHEL LOUISE BELTON, ET AL.

On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Delaware

BRIEF OF JOHN BEN SHEPPERD, 
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, AMICUS CURIAE



■2-

TO THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF THE 
UNITED STATES:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

John Ben Shepperd, Attorney General of Texas, 
pursuant to request for leave to appear amicus curiae 
and file a brief, submits this amicus curiae brief to 
the Court upon the condition that such appearance 
will not have the effect of making the State of Texas 
or any of its officers or agencies parties to this litiga­
tion.

In compiling data for this brief a sincere effort 
has been made to obtain a correct cross section of 
views of educators, legislators and others with knowl­
edge of the subject matter under consideration. Sur­
veys have been made, public opinion has been sam­
pled, and composite views of groups best acquainted 
with the segregation problem have been obtained. 
The Texas Education Agency has been most helpful 
in furnishing pertinent materials which have been 
used in this brief. We will attempt to present the 
true Texas picture as reflected from this research.

The public school system in Texas from its incep­
tion has been operated and maintained on a segre­
gated basis, and has existed for more than eighty 
years under the authority of Section 7 of Article VII 
of the Texas Constitution (1876)1 and statutes en­
acted pursuant thereto. This constitutional and stat­
utory authority creating separate but equal facilities

1 Section 7 of Article VII o f the Texas Constitution pro­
vides : “ Separate schools shall be provided for the white and 
colored children, and impartial provision shall be made for 
both.”



in the public school system of Texas was the direct 
and continuing result of the expressed will of the 
people of Texas. This Honorable Court in many of 
its decisions has held that the states may provide 
education at their own expense for the white and 
Negro students in separate schools so long as equal 
facilities and advantages are offered both groups. 
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), and related 
cases. Stability and harmony in the law, particularly 
in the constitutional law, is a primary requirement 
in an effective and efficient government. When the 
courts have announced, for the guidance and govern­
ment of individuals and the public, certain con­
trolling principles of law, they should not be changed, 
because the law by which men are governed should be 
fixed, definite and known, particularly when millions 
of dollars have been spent in reliance thereon. At­
tending a public free school is a privilege extended 
by the state. It is not a right of a citizen of the United 
States. Gumming v. Richmond County Board of Edu­
cation, 175 U.S. 528, 545 (1899). So long as the 
privileges extended to all groups are equal no one 
is deprived of the equal protection of the law. The 
decisions of this Honorable Court have recognized 
that, where necessity exists, the teaching of white 
and Negro students in separate classrooms is a rea­
sonable exercise of the state’s police power. To pre­
serve the public peace, harmony and the general wel­
fare, the people of Texas in their Constitution, and 
the Legislature by statutes have declared that such 
a necessity exists in Texas. There is no discrimina­
tion on the part of the State of Texas in administer­
ing its public school system, only separation of the



4-

races. It is the belief of the people of this State that 
discrimination against the individual can best be 
eliminated by segregation of the races in the educa­
tional system. It is the evil of discrimination and not 
segregation per se that is condemned by the United 
States Constitution.

Section 7 of Article VII of the Texas Constitution 
and related statutes provide that the State shall fur­
nish equal education to its Negro and white students. 
The State of Texas has been operating under the as­
sumption that the power of states so to classify and 
the reasonableness of the classification had been 
settled as a matter of law since 1896 and was not 
violative of the equal protection clause of the Four­
teenth Amendment.

{However, if the occasion arises whereby we are 
compelled to abolish segregation in Texas, it should 
be by a gradual adjustment in view of the complexi­
ties of ‘ the problem.f Such complexities include the 
unwillingness of tEe Texas people immediately to 
abide by the decision, the varying degrees in which 
different areas of the State of Texas would be af­
fected, and the result such a decision would have on 
the State’s public school system which has been main­
tained on a segregated basis for generations.

Legal action which bears upon the folkways of 
nearly one-fourth of the nation’s population cannot 
be effective unless the affected group is largely will­
ing to abide by it. No individual can be forced against 
his will to accept, associate, or cohabit with another 
not of his own choosing. The Fourteenth Amendment 
to the United States Constitution prohibits only



“State action” which is discriminatory because of 
race, creed or color, not the prejudices or discrimina­
tion evidenced by individuals toward their fellow 
man. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 
(1876). And while it has been determined that equal 
but separate facilities maintained in the public free 
school systems of the states involved in this litiga­
tion is “ State action” in violation of the Fourteenth 
Amendment, still this Court should consider that 
such a decision also affects the individual rights, 
mores and beliefs of the Southern people. To insure 
that the people of the South accept the decision and 
make moral decisions of their own commensurate 
with the end of bettering the Negro race, some way 
must be found to protect the constitutional rights 
of the minority without ignoring the will of the ma­
jority. The underlying thought implicit in the Court’s 
decision in these cases is that a feeling of inferiority 
is generated in the Negro child, resulting not from 
actual attendance in a segregated school, but from 
the legal requirement under which the Negro child 
is forced to attend separate schools. From the stand­
point of principle, there is no real difference between 
compulsory segregation and compulsory integration. 
Compulsion can only arouse resentment, individual 
discrimination, and, as experience has demonstrated 
in other states, violence. The objectives reached by 
the War between the States left a scar of bitterness 
and resentment that is visible even now in some parts 
of the South. Such, we hope, will not be the result of 
this Court’s May 17th decision.



Variance of Degree in Which Different Areas 
Would Be Affected

In order that this Honorable Court have the full 
assistance of all parties and amici curiae in formu­
lating decrees, these cases were restored to the docket 
for the presentation of further argument upon the 
following questions:

“4. Assuming it is decided that segregation 
in public schools violates the Fourteenth Amend­
ment

(a) would a decree necessarily follow pro­
viding that, within the limits set by normal 
geographic school districting, Negro children 
should forthwith be admitted to schools of their 
choice, or

(b) may this Court, in the exercise of its 
equity powers, permit an effective gradual ad­
justment to be brought about from existing seg­
regated systems to a system not based on color 
distinctions?

5. On the assumption on which questions 4 
(a) and (b) are based, and assuming further 
that this Court will exercise its equity powers 
to the end described in question 4 (b ),

(a) should this Court formulate detailed de­
crees in these cases;

(b) if so, what specific issues should the de­
crees reach;

(c) should this Court appoint a special mas­
ter to hear evidence with a view to recommend­
ing specific terms for such decrees;

(d) should this Court remand to the courts 
of first instance with directions to frame de­



crees in these cases, and if so, what general di­
rections should the decrees of this Court include 
and what procedures should the courts of first 
instance follow in arriving at the specific terms 
of more detailed decrees?”

The following factual information is submitted 
which we believe to be pertinent insofar as the State 
of Texas is concerned.

The State of Texas has a total population of seven 
million, seven hundred eleven thousand, one hundred 
ninety-four (7,711,194), of whom nine hundred 
seventy-seven thousand, four hundred fifty-eight 
(977,458), or 12.7%, are colored.2 The concentration 
of the Negro population is shown by counties on the 
map designated “Appendix I.” There are one million, 
seven hundred eighty-six thousand, nine hundred 
eighteen (1,786,918) persons of scholastic age enum­
erated in the scholastic census for the 1954-1955 
school year, of whom two hundred thirty thousand, 
five hundred forty-six (230,546), or 13%, are col­
ored. The concentration of the Negro scholastic popu­
lation is shown by counties on the map designated 
“Appendix II.”  Texas has two hundred fifty-four 
(254) counties. There are located in the northeastern 
forty-five counties of this State 50% of the colored 
scholastics of Texas, and in four of these counties the 
Negro scholastics comprise a majority of the coun­
ty’s scholastics. In the forty-three counties adjacent 
to and immediately west of the northeastern block of 
counties above referred to, another 40% of the col­
ored scholastics reside. Thus, in Texas today ap­

2 This population is based on the 1950 Federal Census.



proximately 90% of the total Negro scholastics are 
located in the eighty-eight counties comprising the 
northeastern quadrant of the State. Forty-one Texas 
counties do not list a single Negro scholastic. There­
fore the remaining 10% of the colored scholastics of 
Texas are scattered throughout the remaining one 
hundred and twenty-five counties. A map evidencing 
this factual information is attached and designated 
“ Appendix III” , to which particular reference is 
made. A study of this map reveals that the segrega­
tion problem in Texas is not state-wide, but is of 
serious import and of vital concern to our local school 
districts.

Of the two hundred and thirteen Texas counties 
listing Negro scholastics, one hundred forty-six coun­
ties offer a complete Negro high school, twenty-one 
counties offer some Negro high school, but not twelve 
grades, and thirty-six counties offer only Negro 
elementary school. Ten counties operate no school for 
Negroes; however, these counties have ten or fewer 
Negro scholastics. Negro scholastics in counties not 
having a complete twelve grades are transported at 
State expense to other schools. Texas in 1953-54 had 
a total of one thousand, nine hundred fifty-three 
(1,953) active school districts, two hundred ninety- 
two (292) of which offered a full twelve grade school 
for both white and Negro. One hundred twenty-five 
(125) districts maintained a Negro school but did 
not have a white school. A total of nine hundred fifty- 
six (956) districts provided Negro schools. The dis­
tricts that did not maintain a school for Negroes 
were primarily in areas that did not contain Negro 
scholastics.



— 9—

Texas Public School System

Pursuant to the constitutional authority, the Texas 
public school system is administered under what is 
commonly called “ The Minimum Foundation School 
Program.” 3 Under this very effective program, edu­
cation of the Texas school child is provided on an 
equal but separate basis, with millions of dollars be­
ing spent each year. Under the Minimum Foundation 
Program, as administered by Texas’ twenty-one- 
member elective State Board of Education, all pos­
sible control and responsibility are left to local school 
administrators and local school boards to provide 
school programs to meet the needs of the children 
in their communities. As the name implies, the Mini­
mum Foundation Program guarantees to every 
school-age child in Texas, regardless o f race, creed, 
color, economic status or place of residence, at least 
a minimum of a full nine months of schooling each 
year, thereby spreading the State’s financial re­
sources available for public education as equally as 
possible among all the people. The Program has been 
in effect for five years, and during that time the aver­
age daily attendance of school-age children actually 
attending school has risen from 73.77% in 1948-49 
to 80.85% during 1953-54. 79.31% of the Negro 
school-age children were in average daily attendance 
in 1953-54.

The Minimum Foundation Program provides a 
system of financing which guarantees to local school 
districts that State funds will be available to pay the

Art. 2922-11, et seq., Tex. Civ. Stat. (Vernon’s, 1948).



- 1 0 -

cost of a minimum school program when local funds 
are insufficient.

A number of the Texas school districts do not need 
a supplemental appropriation from the Legislature. 
A majority of the Texas schools have surplus money 
derived from local taxation with which to enrich the 
local school program beyond the minimum program 
prescribed by the State. Expenditures from surplus 
funds provide adult and kindergarten classes for 
students not included in the scholastic census age 
brackets, classes for exceptional children, supple­
mental expenditures on salaries, maintenance and 
capital costs, and any other authorized school costs. 
The State funds are provided in proportionate equal­
ity to all school districts, for the benefit of all scholas­
tics, irrespective of race, creed or color. If a school 
program superior to the minimum requirements is 
desired in any district, it may be paid for by the 
taxes voted, levied and collected from the taxpayers 
of the district.

As a result of the Minimum Foundation Program, 
teachers’ and school administrators’ salaries have 
risen from twenty-ninth in the nation to sixteenth. 
97.1% of the Texas teachers now have college de­
grees. Only the State of Arizona exceeds this mark. 
There are approximately eight thousand, five hun­
dred (8,500) Negro teachers and school administra­
tors in Texas. This number is nearly equal to the 
total number of Negro educators in the thirty-one 
Northern and Western States which practice non­
segregation. According to the U. S. News and World 
Report, August 27, 1954, only one out of every 
seventy-three teachers in those thirty-one states



— 11— -

maintaining an integrated system is a Negro, while 
in Texas, one out of every five is a Negro. These posi­
tions are believed to be the most secure and best paid 
employment the Negro has today. The effect of this 
decision upon the teaching profession is speculative, 
and any decree which would disrupt the stability and 
security of teachers should be avoided.4

Under the Minimum Foundation Program, the 
public school system of Texas has greatly raised its 
standards, teachers have been benefited by salary in­
creases and retirement plans, and every school-age 
child in Texas, without regard to his race, creed or 
color, has been offered the opportunity of education. 
The State has not discriminated in its appropria­
tions, such being provided equally to all races and 
persons, with the privilege and authority in each 
local district to go further if it is so desired. But the 
program does provide for separate schools, segregat­
ing the races and contemplating an equalization of 
facilities for all scholastics. Integration would re­
quire alteration of the Minimum Foundation Pro­
gram.

The establishment of an integrated system is not 
a problem which would apply equally to West or 
South Texas, where there is only a small percentage 
of the Negro population, and to Northeast Texas, 
where the concentration of the Negro population is 
the heaviest. No equitable general decree could ever 
be formulated for the entire State of Texas. Specific 
decrees could be made only after a particular school

4 Texas at the present time has no tenure statute for 
teachers in the public free schools. Employment is through 
the local school boards.



12—

district was before this Court and the facts relevant 
to that district were presented. It would be impos­
sible to get enough facts before the Court in one 
isolated case upon which the Court could enter a 
general decree which would apply equally to all parts 
of this State or to all the states practicing segrega­
tion. Since we do not know the various fact situa­
tions as they exist in these cases, we are in no posi­
tion to advise the Court as to the type of decree that 
should be entered.

QUESTION FOUR

4. Assuming it is decided that segregation in 
public schools violates the Fourteenth Amendment

(a) Would a decree necessarily follow 
providing that, within the limits set by 
normal geographic school districting, Negro 
children should forthwith be admitted to 
schools of their choice, or

(b) May this Court, in the exercise of its 
equity powers, permit an effective gradual 
adjustment to be brought about from exist­
ing segregated systems to a system not 
based on color distinctions?

Argument

This Court has recognized the complexities in­
volved in the formulation of a decree in these cases 
because problems of different characteristics are pre­
sented. Evidently all states were invited to appear



— 13—

because each should have an opportunity to demon­
strate the obstacles to adjustment in compliance with 
any decision that might be rendered in the future 
affecting the individual states.

It is respectfully submitted that this Court is au­
thorized to permit an effective gradual adjustment 
toward integration and, unquestionably, if the oc­
casion arises, the administration of this program in 
Texas must be left to the local school districts. The 
education system in Texas is predicated upon a num­
ber of local, self-governing school districts, with full 
authority to administer the school system. The basic 
and historic concept of public free schools is based 
upon the democratic and salutary principle of local 
self-government. The schools in Texas are operated, 
maintained and controlled by local school boards 
elected by the people of the individual school district.5 6 
Operational and maintenance costs are provided by 
local taxation voted by the taxpayers of the district6 
and supplemented by the Legislature under the Mini­
mum Foundation Program.7 Capital expenditures 
are made through bond issues voted by the taxpayers 
of the district.8 All personnel of the school, with the 
exception of the elected officials, are employed by local

5 Southwestern Broadcasting Company v. Oil Center 
Broadcasting Company, 210 S.W. 2d 230 (Tex. Civ. App., 
1947, error ref. N.R.E.) ; University Interscholastic League
v. Midwestern University, ___ Tex. ___, 255 S.W. 2d 177
(1953) ; Arts. 2745, 2749, 2775 et seq., and 2780, Tex. Civ. 
Stat. (Vernon’s, 1948).

6 Art. 2784e, Tex. Civ. Stat. (Vernon’s, 1948).
7 See discussion of the Texas Public School System in this 

brief.
8 Art. 2784e and Art. 2786, Tex. Civ. Stat. (Vernon’s, 

1948).



- — 14- —

officials and work under such officials’ supervision.9 
It is thus seen that the schools in Texas constitute 
almost a complete local autonomy controlled by the 
taxpayers of the individual school districts and their 
locally elected school board. In fact, the courts of 
Texas have repeatedly held that these school districts 
are local public corporations of the same general 
character as municipal corporations.10 Any decree of 
the Court that might affect Texas must leave this 
administration in the local school districts unham­
pered. The problems with which we are confronted 
can best be resolved at the local level in this manner.

As a basic premise for showing the need for a tran­
sition period, the following is typical of the feeling 
of Texas citizens and school administrators on the 
vital subject now before this Court.

In an article appearing in The Dallas Morning 
News on June 9, 1954, Dr. J. W. Edgar, Texas Com­
missioner of Education, stated:

“ Texas has 2,000 problems as a result of the 
Supreme Court’s decision. We have 2,000 school 
districts, and they vary from totally white to 
totally Negro.

“ The final decree by the Court ought to per­
mit continued management of local districts by 
local boards. Schools must be run on a commun­
ity basis. They can’t be run successfully from 
Washington or even from Austin (Texas).

“ Experience in separating children on a lan­
guage basis has proved to us that where the re­

9 Art. 2750a and Art. 2781, Tex. Civ. Stat. (Vernon’s, 
1948).

10 Hatcher v. State, 125 Tex. 84, 81 S.W. 2d 499 (1935) ; 
Love v. City of Dallas, 120 Tex. 351, 40 S.W. 2d 20 (1931).



15—

sponsibility is put upon the local community, 
they work honestly to resolve differences.

“Anything which schools do effectively must 
be done with local support. We don’t care to tell 
others how to run their schools, but we certainly 
believe that our 2,000 problems can be resolved 
best if the Supreme Court leaves control in local 
districts.”

In a statement made to the Texas Commission on 
Higher Education, Dr. R. O’Hara Lanier, Negro 
president of Texas Southern University, stated:

“ In spite of the U. S. Supreme Court’s anti­
segregation ruling, Negro schools will be needed 
more than ever in the future. It would be a nar­
row position for the state to get rid of Negro 
schools for if the Negroes are given equal fa­
cilities there is nothing to worry about from seg­
regation.

“ For many years to come there will be shown 
a great desire and preference on the part of the 
Negro student to attend an institution equal in 
every respect, where there will exist many op­
portunities for development for qualities of 
leadership and where full participation in every 
phase of college life will be assured.

“ Because of human behavior and social back­
grounds and patterns long existent, the large 
majority of such students will come to us (the 
Negro schools) because they prefer to do so.
_ “ Such students very likely will prefer to con­

tinue to study with homogeneous groups and 
will feel strongly that more sympathetic atten­
tion will be given to them in our institutions 
than in some other schools.”

Dr. E. B. Evans, Negro president of Prairie View 
A. & M. College, expressed similar views to the Com­
mission.



— 16—

(_The latest state-wide survey of the Texas Poll11 
on September 12, 1954, indicates:

“ 1. 71% of the Texas people are definitely op­
posed to the Supreme Court’s decision. The 
breakdown on the decision is like this:

Approve Disapprove Undecided
Negroes 60% 33% 7%
Latins 49% 37% 14%
Other Whites 15% 80% 5%
Entire Public 23% 71% 6%

“ 2. What should be done about the problem? 
7 % favor putting the Court’s ruling into effect 
immediately, and another 23% believe plans 
should be made to bring the races together in 
the schools within the next few years. A ma­
jority of 65% goes on record in favor of con­
tinued segregation notwithstanding the Court’s 
decision. The breakdown on this problem is:

Go Pew Keep Un­
Now Years Apart decided

Negroes 27% 40% 26% 7%
Latins 20% 37% 33% 10%
Other Whites 3% 19% 74% 4%
Entire Public 7% 23% 65% 5%
In the entire public, Negroes account for about 
12% of the population; Latins, about 11%; and 
other whites, about 77%.”

In a recent questionnaire forwarded by the At­
torney General of Texas to approximately one hun- 11

11A long-established Texas organization operated by Joe 
Belden who periodically and systematically conducts a scien­
tific sampling, or polling, and reporting thereon, of public 
opinion in Texas on current events.



— 17—

dred fifty-two Texas school administrative officials, 
seventy-seven reported that 85% or more students 
would continue attending the same school if they 
had free choice. Of this number, fourteen answers 
were from Negro administrators. Only three an­
swered that students in their districts would prefer 
attending integrated schools, and all three reports 
were from Negro administrators. The questions pro­
pounded and the answers received by the Attorney 
General are compiled in a report which is attached as 
“Appendix IV.”j

Many plans have been advanced to alter the public 
school system of Texas as a result of the May 17th 
decision. Some go so far as to suggest the complete 
abolition of the free public school system, while 
others advocate turning the State schools into pri­
vate schools. The decision of the United States Su­
preme Court is to the effect that segregation in public 
schools maintained by compulsion of law is uncon­
stitutional as being in violation of the Fourteenth 
Amendment. Many suggest that it does not neces­
sarily follow that integration of the white race with 
the colored race in the field of education is compelled 
by the Constitution. If, under the Fourteenth Amend­
ment, all citizens are entitled to equal protection of 
the law, which was the premise for the Supreme 
Court’s decision, then integration can no more be 
compelled than can segregation. Provision for do­
mestic tranquility in the exercise of the police pow­
ers of the State premised the original laws requiring 
segregation. To maintain public peace, good order 
and the domestic tranquility, these same police pow­



■18—

ers of the State could be exercised, calling for another 
and different provision relating to public education.

Realizing this, and that the need for compulsion no 
longer exists, another plan suggests that the section 
of the law which provides for compulsory education 
should be repealed and the laws providing that the 
State furnish free education to all should be left 
undisturbed. Then the present laws should be 
amended to allow the parent or guardian of the child 
desiring to take advantage of free education to ex­
press his own desires and preferences as to the type 
of school the child should attend. The parent or 
guardian could select a school in which the majority 
of the other pupils are of the same race as the child, 
or he could select a school in which the other pupils 
are of both races, thereby providing equality of op­
portunity and freedom of individual choice.

This change would remove the unconstitutional 
“ compulsion” of segregation, and at the same time 
the State would be in a position of honoring the in­
dividual preferences of its people.

Another plan advanced is that of allowing volun­
tary transfers between school districts, and it is 
based upon the same principle as the foregoing.

In complying with the mandatory duties placed 
upon the Legislature of the State of Texas by the 
Constitution of the State of Texas, the Legislature 
has by general law established, supported and main­
tained a segregated public free school system. These 
laws of the State of Texas are not before the Court 
in these causes, and the State Board of Education has 
ruled that the schools of Texas should continue to 
be operated in the same manner until otherwise di­



— 19—

rected.12 Since the end of World War II, Texas, to­
gether with many of our states, has been confronted 
with the enormous task of providing adequate school 
housing for a shifting and rapidly increasing popu­
lation. In areas predominantly populated by white 
students schools have been built to house these stu­
dents. In areas predominantly populated by colored 
students schools have also been built to house them. 
Utilization of all present school housing to the fullest 
extent in this State will be an absolute necessity. 
Texas is also confronted with the difficult problem 
of providing adequate facilities for the anticipated 
increase in its scholastics in the interim between now 
and 1960. Statistics reveal that at the close of the 
1958-1959 school year, eight hundred forty-nine mil­
lion, three hundred forty-four thousand, nine hun­
dred twenty-two dollars ($849,344,922) will be 
needed over and above the present needs to care for 
the increase in population and replacement costs on 
existing facilities. Of this amount, only three hun­
dred ninety-four million, eight hundred fifty-eight 
thousand, fifty-two dollars ($394,858,052) can be 
anticipated from local funds, leaving a balance of 
four hundred fifty million, four hundred eighty-six

12 On July 5, 1954, the State Board of Education passed 
the following resolution: “ Since the recent United States 
Supreme Court’s decisions on segregation in public schools 
are not final, the State Board of Education of Texas is of 
the unanimous opinion that it is obligated to adhere to and 
comply with all of our present state laws and policies provid­
ing for segregation in our public school system and to con­
tinue to follow these present laws and policies until such 
time as they may be changed by a duly constituted authority 
of this State. If in the future, the Texas laws should be 
changed then each local district should have sufficient time 
to work the problem out. . . .”



- 2 0 -

thousand, eight hundred seventy dollars ($450,486,- 
870) which must be derived from another source to 
care for the needs of the school children for the school 
year of 1960. The school system is presently over­
crowded with certain school-age groups being sep­
arated into morning and afternoon classes to offset 
this condition. It can readily be seen that if Texas 
attempted an immediate integration, the perplexi­
ties confronted in accomplishing the same would be 
overwhelmingly multiplied. Additional facilities are 
needed and will have to be supplied by local bond 
issues. It is highly speculative as to whether such 
bond issues would be voted to house an integrated 
school system which an overwhelming majority of 
the people oppose. The election calls for freedom of 
choice and no mandamus action could be maintained 
to force an affirmative vote. At this time it would be 
highly impracticable to eliminate any of the present 
school housing, and great consideration must be given 
to the natural and presently existing boundary lines 
which, of course, is the prime consideration for the 
Legislature or the local school board.

A gradual transition to an integrated public school 
system is not a denial of relief or of the constitu­
tional rights enunciated by the Court. The Court has 
previously permitted a transition period in analogous 
situations, particularly in the antitrust and nuisance 
cases. In United States v. American Tobacco Co., 221 
U.S. 106 (1911), the Supreme Court determined that 
the defendant had violated the Sherman Anti-Trust 
Act. Recognizing the need for adjustment to its de­
cree, the Court, in order to avoid and mitigate any 
possible injury to the interest of the general public,



■21

remanded the case to the lower court to hear the par­
ties and to ascertain and determine a plan for dis­
solution of the combination. To accomplish this end, 
the Court allowed sufficient time (eight months) to 
carry out its decree. In Georgia v. Tennessee Copper 
Co., 240 U.S. 650 (1916), the Court entered a final 
decree in a case in which the State of Georgia had 
sued the Tennessee Copper Company to restrain the 
discharge of irritating gases into Georgia. The case 
had involved three lawsuits and covered a span of 
nine years in which the Court allowed considerable 
time and discretion to devise ways and means of 
subduing and preventing the escape of the noxious 
fumes. In Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman 
Company, 312 U.S. 496 (1941), the Pullman Com­
pany brought suit in the Federal Court against the 
Railroad Commission of Texas attacking a regula­
tion of the Commission as being in violation of the 
Federal Constitution and unauthorized by the Texas 
statutes. The Court remanded the case to the lower 
court, with directions to retain the bill pending a 
determination of proceedings, to be brought within 
a reasonable time in the state court to determine a 
definite construction of the state statute.13

The use of administrative discretion and its limits 
has been spelled out often by the Court in the areas 
of administrative agencies. The Court has empha­
sized consistently that supervision and discretion 
should lie with the administrative agencies in con­
ducting their functions as economic and political gov­

13 See also: New Jersey v. City o f New York, 283 U.S. 473 
(1931) ; Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 
(1911) ; Northern Securities Company v. United States, 193 
U.S. 197 (1904).



— 22—

erning boards.14 Such emphasis is closely related also 
to the administrative discretion which exists in 
school boards. In United States v. Paramount Pic­
tures, 334 U.S. 131 (1948), Mr. Justice Douglas re­
viewed a decree in an injunction suit by the United 
States under the Sherman Act to eliminate or qualify 
certain business practices in the motion picture in­
dustry. A  provision in the decree that films be li­
censed on a competitive bidding basis was eliminated 
by the Supreme Court as not likely to bring about the 
desired end and as involving too much judicial super­
vision to make it effective. This elimination was held 
to require reconsideration by the district court of 
its prohibition of the expansion of theatre holdings 
by distributors and provisions for divesting exist­
ing holdings.

The Court at page 163 stated:

“ It would involve the judiciary in the admin­
istration of intricate and detailed rules govern­
ing priority, period of clearance, length of run, 
competitive areas, reasonable return and the 
like. The system would be apt to require as close 
a supervision as a continuous receivership, un­
less the defendants were to be entrusted with 
vast discretion. The judiciary is unsuited to 
affairs of business management; and control 
through the power of contempt is crude and

14 See Alabama Public Service Commission v. Southern 
Railway Company, 341 U.S. 341 (1951) ; Burford v. 
Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315 (1943) ; and Far Eastern Con­
ference, United States Lines Co., States Marine Corpora­
tion, et al. v. United States and Federal Maritime Board, 
342 U.S. 570 (1952).



— 23—

clumsy and lacking in the flexibility necessary 
to make continuous and detailed supervision ef­
fective.”

The implications in the Court’s opposition to ju­
dicial administration of intricate and detailed rules 
in the economic field apply with greater force to the 
social relationship and problems created by these 
cases in the field of public education. Furthermore, 
the amount of capital involved in the Paramount 
case is minute when compared with the wealth in­
vested in the public school systems of the South.

The Court, in Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27 
(1885), speaking of the Fourteenth Amendment, 
stated at page 31:

“ But neither the amendment— broad and 
comprehensive as it is— nor any other amend­
ment, was designed to interfere with the power 
of the State, sometimes termed its police powTer, 
to prescribe regulations to promote the health, 
peace, morals, education and good order of the 
people. . . .”  (Emphasis supplied.)

A tremendous portion of the wealth of these states 
has been invested in capital expenditures for their 
public schools. The only practical method of estab­
lishing an integrated system calls for a period of 
implementation in our present dual system. This 
Court in the exercise of its equity powers has ample 
authority to permit the parties to adjust gradually 
from their existing segregated systems to an inte­
grated one. The instant cases affect millions of indi­
viduals and the entire public in some seventeen states. 
By reason of the great number of people affected by



— 2 4 —

the decree and by reason of the vast amount of 
money invested in capital expenditures, and because 
of the necessity to make use of all present buildings 
in the operation of an efficient system of public edu­
cation, this Court should permit the states to adjust 
their dual systems gradually into an integrated sys­
tem. It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that this 
Honorable Court has sufficient authority to permit 
a gradual adjustment to an integrated school system 
with sufficient time given for local school officials 
to accomplish this purpose by the exercise of their 
administrative authority.

QUESTION FIVE

5. On the assumption on which Questions 4 (a) 
and (b) are based, and assuming further that this 
Court will exercise its equity powers to the end de­
scribed in Question 4 (b),

(a) Should this Court formulate detailed 
decrees in these cases;

(b) If so, what specific issues should the 
decrees reach;

(c) Should this Court appoint a special 
Master to hear evidence with a view to 
recommending specific terms for such de­
crees ;

(d) Should this Court remand to the 
courts of first instance with directions to 
frame decrees in these cases, and if so, what 
general directions should the decrees of this



- 2 5 -

Court include and what procedures should 
the courts of first instance follow in arriving 
at the specific terms of more detailed de­
crees?

Argument

The information contained in the introductory 
statements and in Appendix III clearly demonstrates 
that the problem of establishing a public school sys­
tem not based on race is a localized problem in 
Texas, not a state-wide problem. This is further evi­
denced in Appendix V, which is a compilation of 
scholastic population by counties. It is not a problem 
in which the remedy voluntarily adopted in West 
Texas or South Texas would be equally applicable 
and effective in Northeast Texas. For that reason 
no equitable general decree could be formulated 
which would be appropriate for every part of the 
State of Texas. Specific decrees would have to be 
provided for each case, based on the facts and con­
ditions then presented to the Court which are shown 
to exist in the locality involved in a proper case.

Section 1 of Article VII of the Constitution of 
Texas imposes the duty on the Legislature to estab­
lish, support and maintain our system of public free 
schools.15 This Court announced on May 17, 1954, 
that segregation in public education is a denial of the

15 Section 1 of Article VII of the Constitution of Texas 
provides: “ A general diffusion of knowledge being essential 
to the preservation of the liberties and rights of the people, 
it shall be the duty of the Legislature of the State to estab­
lish and make suitable provision for the support and main­
tenance of an efficient system of public free schools.”



- 2 6 -

equal protection of the laws. Since that time the 
Texas Legislature has not met in session, and it is 
not known at this time what action the Legislature 
will take, if any.

In Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 
586 (1940), this Court stated that it did not want to 
become the school board for the entire country. At 
page 598 the Court stated:

“ But the courtroom is not the arena for de­
bating issues of educational policy. It is not our 
province to choose among competing considera­
tions in the subtle process of securing effective 
loyalty to the traditional ideals of democracy, 
while respecting at the same time individual 
idiosyncrasies among a people so diversified in 
social origins and religious alliances. So to hold 
would in effect make us the school board for the 
country. That authority has not been given to 
this Court, nor should we assume it.”  (Emphasis 
supplied.)

Keeping the control of public education close to the 
local people is perhaps the strongest tradition in 
American education. One of the predominant char­
acteristics of American education is the variation in 
local policies and procedures in terms of unique local 
conditions. The Texas Legislature has the right and 
duty to maintain public safety and good order. This 
Court, in the Gobitis case,16 * 18 supra, recognized its

16 That portion of the Gobitis case dealing with the valid­
ity of a statute requiring a compulsory flag salute was over­
ruled in Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S 624
(1942).



- 2 7 -

limitations and the authority of the state legisla­
tures when it said at page 597:

“ The precise issue, then, for us to decide is 
whether the legislatures of the various states 
and the authorities in a thousand counties and 
school districts of this country are barred from 
determining the appropriateness of various 
means to evoke that unifying sentiment without 
which there can ultimately be no liberties, civil 
or religious. To stigmatize legislative judgment 
in providing for this universal gesture of re­
spect for the symbol of our national life in the 
setting of the common school as a lawless inroad 
on that freedom of conscience which the Con­
stitution protects, would amount to no less than 
the pronouncement of pedagogical and psycho­
logical dogma in a field where courts possess no 
marked and certainly no controlling compe­
t e n c e . (Emphasis supplied.)

Other decrees have been held in abeyance until an 
appropriate action could be taken by the proper 
agency. See Addison v. Holly Hill Co., 322 U.S. 607 
(1944), and Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pull­
man Company, 312 U.S. 496 (1940).

This Court has the authority to remand these cases 
to the courts of first instance, instructing them to 
enter decrees implementing the principles enunciated 
in the Court’s opinion of May 17, 1954. See Inter- , 
national Salt Company v. United States, 332 U.S. 
392 (1947). If this decision stands, then on remand 
the courts of first instance would be familiar with 
local conditions and could provide a continuing su­
pervision over the program of non-discrimination.



— 28—

They could recognize and adjust the equities between 
the parties, bringing individual rights into equality 
without unduly hindering the public 'school program.

CONCLUSION

Since our position before the Court is that of 
amicus curiae only and not that of a party, ordinarily 
we would not assume to state specifically the scope 
of the decrees to be entered by the Court in these 
cases. If the Court attempted to formulate a general 
decree applicable to all school districts and States, it 
would be prejudging a multitude of cases not before 
the Court. However, in entering appropriate decrees 
the Court should consider the following suggestions 
which are respectfully submitted at the request of 
the Court:

(1) In formulating a decree or decrees, the Court 
should recognize the long established traditions and 
usages which have prevailed in those States main­
taining a segregated school system, such as Texas, 
under the separate but equal doctrine as predicated 
upon the principles announced in Plessy v. Ferguson, 
supra. These traditions and usages should not be 
suddenly and abruptly destroyed. A period of orderly 
transition will insure that a decree will meet with 
no more than passive resistance by the public.

(2) In formulating a decree or decrees, this Court 
must preserve the democratic and salutary principle 
of local self government inherent in our public school 
systems. Any decree or decrees entered by the Court 
should protect this principle. In this manner the de­
crees could appropriately be implemented by the local



■ 2 9 -

school authorities as a legislative and administrative 
matter.

(3) The Court, in formulating a decree or de­
crees, should preserve the right of free selection and 
choice by the patrons of public schools in selecting 
the school which will be patronized.

Respectfully submitted,

JOHN BEN SHEPPERD 
Attorney General of Texas

BURNELL WALDREP
BILLY E. LEE
J. A. AMIS, JR.
L. P. LOLLAR
J. FRED JONES
JOHN DAVENPORT
JOHN REEVES
WILL DAVIS 

Assistants
Amicus Curiae



APPENDICES



TOTAL POPULATION 
TOTAL 1950 NON-WHITES 

977,458
Source.- Reports o f U .S , Bureau of the Census, 1950

PERCENT OF NON-WHITE POPULATION, 1950
LEGEND

50% and over 
Less than 1 %
40% -49%
30% -39%
20% -29%
10% -19%
5%  -9 %
1 % -4%
None



1954-55 SCHOLASTIC
(Children between 6-17 inclusive as of September 1, 1954, Residence as of February 1, 1 954)

DALLAM SHERM AN HANSFORD O C H ILT R EE LIPSCO M B
iZ - O O O

. 7 9 ° °
o

h a r t l e y MOORE. HUTCHINSON R O B E R T S
1

HEM PHILL 1
o

° 1 ,6 9 !
o

° ° ° J
\ OLDHAM P O T T E R C A R S O N G R A Y W H EELER  1

i
I O I O 9 1 S O 6 ,

* 4 , o
. .

2 .7 3 . 0  1
1

! D EA F S M IT H R A N D A LL ARM STRONG D O N L E Y jCOLLINGS WORTh!

7 ° o 7 S
' «  i

.3 o O . 6 . 4
L  9:2 J

1 1 1 j j

Number of Negro Children 
in County and Percent of Negro 

Children of all Scholastic 
Census Enumerations

Source: Official Scholastic Census Rolls 
and Reports for 1954-55 on file in 
the Texas Education Agency.

! 6.1 j
■ ■ ... j H

BA 1LEV j LAMB H A LE ! F L O Y D M O T L E Y | C O T T L E  1

60 1 403 4  5"6 1 6 6 6 6 1 3 6  j "

!  2 . 9
L  . „

1

! 77
S .7 6 8 4 . 4

!

i " 8  1

j C O C H R A N j! H O CKLEY LU BBO CK C R O S B Y d i c k e n s j K IN G  |
| 6 9 j 2 9 1 2001 2 3 6 6 4 i - 2

L r _
5 .0 - 9 . S 4 4 i t e

9 .3  iw iLBARuCR p  
X -  - \ 3 8 2  j WICHiTA

‘o,-D i 9.9

; VO A K U M  | T E R R Y

j ' i 8'
| .. j 2.J-I_  _.l______

L Y N N  j 6 A R Z A
I i 4-5“

4 .4 -  i J . l

K E M t  jSTONE WALL j HASKELL 

1 1 61

TMROCHMORrONj YOUNG- 
O j 2<-

o  1 .7

1 M ONTAGUE j  '  i f  I  O R A V S O N

I  O j  C O W L

1 ° ! 'Z  p ar_
| W IL L  j  DCNTON 1 COLLIN

j | 5 - . Y  i  K > M

I U  i 7 .3  I ' I . B

_________ 1-

G A IN E S

4 6

1.6

d a w s o n

2 2 4

T . 7

B O R D E N

o

o

5 C U R R Y

9 S

2.1
I F IS H E R .

i  i » 3  

1 6 . 0

A n d r e w s M ARTIN HOWARD M ITCHELL j N O L A N

3 0 7 8 - a a r f 9 2 i i~ 7 o

1 .6 6 . 3 4 . 2 0 .9 i 4 . 0

" U hAk ILFORO  ! STEPH ENS i « L O  PlNTOj

, . — J I 1 KV_
| TARRANT I D A L L A S  ,
I i n  9 4 - 3  i KAUFMAN | i f  *

WINKLER 
♦  9  
2.0

! ECTO R
_  J________________
! M IDLAN D GLASSCOCK s t e r l i n g ]  C O K E  I R U N N E L S  j

| 5 *62 ! 8 9 7 - 2  j o  ] 1 0 6  j

! 4 . 2
J________

| 8 . 9 1 .9
- 6  j .  ~ i

, . o  ;

____ ___.____ ---------------------------------1-------- \ HOOD |
CALLAHAN j EASTLAND | LRATH \  *• I 3 9 7

0 \ »* J «  W '. l  JO-"
J

CRANE. J UPTOfN 

6 6  j 7 4

i 6 ,2  I

_jTOM  GREEN L -

IRION

I x X  -7------------^COM ANCHE \  -  BO SQ U E
B R O W N . o  V y  \  f  0 3

i • «  \  °  / V  \

i 2-7 rXCX X~o S; «MtLL6 \  O . X  \  <,v-/  o  \ S * ?  \f ^6o

2 8 .9  /

.e n d e r s o m  
1,2.80  
Z f  9

' a n o e r ^ n  
Z + 7 S  77S

v 3 } r j r e  

J 2 .S

T or log i J

T  /  PANOLA .
(  J & 0 9  I

3 6 .7  j

I9 6 0
28.8

SHtLBV

X  C u«> \
1 ,7 4 9

31.1

X

j MENARD j 

- 12

O \  X  \ '  ,X " \  .  V "  LEON

"  >  \ ”  X  ,7 < >  \  \  ’ / >  1 5 1 0

, —   ̂ *• * *  x  ♦«
a  3 0  \ .  /  8ELL \  a e ' 7

I U -l—-Y v -  \
I w lAn o

i ^i •*
\ .

HOUSTON

t w o
/

> ANGELINA
/sA B IN E  v
• r i e

9 96

MASON

_4 10
^ L E  ’ i

o  L —   -----------------------------1— l^ O
| G i l l e s p i e  j Bl a n c o  /  t r a v i s

9 8 2
X 7 S 9

/  X j - Z X
HAR«'t>‘

I f  91
22. 9

j E D W A R D S  i H E R R  i

j • r~S 'Z _
i ^ - 4  ^  v  x y  (|J# _ oar

B E X A R  GUADALUPE » GONZALES f  2 0  6  /  4 . \  *9 ^ 3
^  a » 4 -  /  LAVACA x

l3 > */  / f 6 l  \  ■'" Sv V V

^  . / t r in it y

/  6 5 - 8 /
.• 3 0 .  t /  P O L K  \ fV l

38 92i^~y^ NTV'/  11,2 ' 7f>5*. ^ -^ W A L K E R  ] V  \ 2 f9
H 9 9 \ y  t 0«.MEs\ 1865- j 9e7\ '
2J,« /yin ios /C6?V. r1,1 |r».2 i __\ /  \ 4-3,0 \ 7-----l o»H ---LT.OO.N

. ^ C b u O l E L O ^  \28. i s j  '  C' ’-FCo l  V  \  7 0 ,

/ <  , I I 9 4 I  \ \  1 ^ . 6  ,/  V  U E £  \  \  ; __  \  \  H o o a n G e
/ v 776 -  /'---------\ 2 4 .8  \ 15-91 ----'  Y l * " 9

\ 2,2.9 i

S __________ i . ,  /1 . 2 4 7

V  W  l«>S
V  X  /  , , , 2 * L y y  BEND ^

j  ( ^ l v ^ t o n ,“t>7* 1 ^
ft,

i  s  / S j : ;

j \  X  2 J 4  X \  7 3 6 .7 /  FAYETTE \  * “ T h T t / 4 6 . 3 \

h i r 11 v x * 1 A n  /| *» /  COMAL ^  X  6 8 6  <“<, ‘  ’

* h j  -

E/ ! K- 8,4 / ---- ------------ / 5,A  „\  A  \

2 4 7

APPENDIX II
\ ZAVALLA i " F R iO

i 2 6 1 2 3

i  . e
j

i -

. 8

1-----------1 D IM M IT 1 L A S A L l E

13 i o

i i

- 4

o

X  A / vr-
■ ATA9COE.A \  / X  (  ' *  V
I \  ✓  X  \  . V  /  VICTORIA
I 6 6  V *  1 *
| 1 ,2  X  3 , 7  / o o u e d L

I5TZ3
t o , /

/ 7  ‘ 7 4 0  X

rV.Z'.L._^
i_____________I L_ __

2A PATA  1-JlM HOOG i  B R O O K S j KENNEDY

9  i -  i  ?  i °
O  i <7 j .1  j o

j-------- L.7----j
j " T  i i_____ j

°  /  O J.
f  X  r  WILLALV

"  *  8 4  2 1  K  ft

'A  j CAMERON 5



43 COUNTIES 45 COUNTIES
50 % of Negro Populotion 

116,107 Negroes 
381,244 Whites 

23%  of Population, Negro
High Percent: Marion County, 59.5 
Low Percent Brazoria County, 10.1 

Counties over 50 %

RANDALL

■HARDEMAia—

County over 50%HALE

J L L A Y
{**33 o a v l R  fINTfcCiOCj"

c o o j r l
K N O X '

0C1.TA

HUNT

TARRANT
;a<j f m a n .

BORDEN i YAf-« ZANOT

in  f, jO w H - jO N .

CALLAHANM ARTIN

X'JjAVARHO

WARD

IR IO N
y$« tN tT V

LAMPASAS.
RODERTSOH;

:l a n o

jAN JACtHtO

ORANGE

m NFT!

. M a t a g o r d a

jMCHUllEN l OAK

D U VAL

KEN NEDY,J iM HOGGZAP ATA

2 5 4  C O U N T I E S
13 % of Population Ages 6-17 inclusive is Negro

230,546 Negroes, 1,556,372 Whites —  1,786,913 Total Population

HANSFORD - OCHILTREE t LIPSCOMB

moore jyuTCHiyse?rj.

^^^4^47QJMegrge«rir^rirzrz 
' -i554-,±9 :̂WMtes::-_-_r--rin

W H EELER  —- |  —  --------------

■ Yr  “ltu:
~_i~-Z~szs~-̂ zs~^zs~— 40%  of Negro Population 

.C ap ntigsiTTffi^ ^  92,969 Negroes
520,920 Whites

TThere are-m a r e Negroes, %  - 15% of Population, Negro 
T32,539,in HarrS County -̂- -  High Percent: Freestone

County, 51.1 
Low Percent: Burleson 

County, 2.7

88 COUNTIES
90%  of Total Negro Population, age 6-17 inclusive 

209,076 Negroes 
902,173 W hites

19%  of Population, age 6-17 is N egro

- |—MftfcL---jemtORCS-^szszzzrzsz^

: BflILEV 1 U H B ____

--------_jJO M --G R E

TV
_ X _ m A so.£L-

--------[ --CUWATRO?-------I TTF-R-n.---- | ____

APPEN DIX II!

DATA
from

OFFICIAL SCHOLASTIC CENSUS REPORTS
for school year 1954-55 on file in the Texas 
Education Agency. Enumeration includes chil­
dren ages 6-17 inclusive as of September 1, 
1954. Residence is as of February 1, 1954. 
Possible errors due to duplicate enumera­
tions: 4.6% .



- 3 1 -

APPENDIX IV

Educators’ Views on Integration

On July 30, 1954, the Attorney General of Texas 
directed a questionnaire to one hundred and fifty- 
two Texas school administrative officials. One hun­
dred two questionnaires were mailed to white ad­
ministrators and fifty questionnaires were mailed to 
Negro administrators. Twelve of the questionnaires 
were directed to county superintendents, fifty were 
directed to school principals and ninety were directed 
to district superintendents. Responses were received 
in eighty-two instances, eighteen of which were from 
Negro educators.

The questionnaire and evaluated responses are:
“ We are in the process of compiling data to deter­

mine the feasibility of filing an amicus curiae brief 
in the United States Supreme Court relative to the 
recent segregation decisions which affects our pub­
lic school system. Our school system operates under 
legislative authorization, and the Legislature will 
not convene in Regular Session until January to con­
sider the problem arising by reason of the Supreme 
Court decision. Consequently, if any brief is filed, it 
should contain a cross-section of the views of educa­
tors and the public generally in Texas in an effort to 
see what impact the decision has made on our public 
school system and customs.

“ By reason of your long familiarity with the field 
of education throughout the State we would like to 
have an expression of your views on the following 
questions:



- 3 2 -

“ 1. In the event of legislative or Supreme Court 
direction, what, in your opinion, would be a reason­
able minimum period of time for working out an in­
tegrated system in your district?”

In evaluating responses, a period of five years was 
arbitrarily set as a division. Thirty-six replied that 
a period of five years or less would be sufficient. 
Forty-two replied that a longer time than five years 
was necessary. Nineteen answers volunteered replies 
favoring a twelve year plan of integration (begin­
ning with the first grade and adding a new grade 
each year). Ten of the Negro replies favored a five 
year or less program, while five thought a longer 
program was necessary. Two Negroes volunteered 
that they favored the twelve year plan.

“ 2. Do you consider the local problem more acute 
than the problem on a state-wide basis?”

Thirty-nine answered that the local problem was 
not more acute, as compared to forty-one replies that 
the local problem was more acute. The Negro replies 
were eleven affirmative, seven negative.

“ 3. Do you think that the established precedent 
of separate schools would seriously handicap the op­
eration of integrated schools in your area?”

Sixteen responses did not believe the operation of 
integrated schools would be handicapped by the pre­
cedent of separate schools, but sixty-four did believe 
a handicap would exist. Eleven Negroes replied there 
would be no handicap, and seven replied there would 
be difficulty with an integrated system.



— 33—

“ 4. (a) In the event of an integrated system, 
could all school buildings be utilized ?”

Forty-eight responses believed all present school 
buildings could be used in an integrated program. 
Thirty-three thought that there would be a loss of 
use in an integrated system. Ten Negroes replied 
that all buildings could be used and seven thought 
that all buildings could not be used in an integrated 
system.

“ 4. (b) To what extent are present school build­
ings situated so that natural zones could be estab­
lished that would continue to serve substantially the 
same student body in attendance at the same schools 
as under present operations?”

Forty replies stated that natural boundaries sep­
arated the two races and the schools for each race. 
Thirty-eight responded that no natural boundaries 
existed in their locality. Of the Negro educators, 
eleven replied that natural boundaries existed, while 
five answered that natural boundaries did not exist 
in their locality.

“ 4. (c) If any existing buildings would be un­
usable in an integrated program, estimate the pres­
ent value of such buildings.”

Forty answered that there would be no loss of 
buildings in operating an integrated school system. 
Thirty-eight answered that there would be some loss 
within their district. Of the Negro educators nine re­
plied there would be no loss, while six answered that 
there would be some loss.



“ 5. How will an integrated public school system 
affect the school teachers in your area?”

Fifteen responded that there would be no affect 
on school teachers in their districts. Fifty-six an­
swers believed the Negro teachers would be adversely 
affected by an integrated school program. Some re­
plies thought white teachers in their districts would 
refuse to teach in an integrated school. The Negro 
replies seeing no affect within their districts num­
bered seven, while three feared an adverse affect.

“ 6. If the patrons of your district, both negro 
and white, were given free choice, what per cent 
would send their children to the same school now at­
tended?”

Seventy-seven replied that 85% or more would 
continue attending the same school if  they had free 
choice. Of this number fourteen answers were from 
Negro administrators. Only three answered that stu­
dents in their districts would prefer attending inte­
grated schools, and all three replies were by Negro 
administrators.



APPENDIX Y

W hites on Negroes on

County
1954-1055
Scholastic

Census

1954-1955
Scholastic

Census

%  o f 
Negroes

1 . Anderson 4,127 2,473 34.5
2. Andrews 1,885 30 1.6
3. Angelina 6,645 1,398 17.4
4. Aransas 1,154 14 1.2
5. Archer 1,541 0 ___
6. Armstrong 381 0
7. Atascosa 5,266 66 1.2
8. Austin 1,977 789 28.5
9. Bailey 1,994 60 2.9

10. Bandera 725 0 ___
11. Bastrop 2551 1,477 36.7
12. Baylor 1,297 60 4.4
13. Bee 4,831 134 2.7
14. Bell 11,788 1,760 13.0
15. Bexar 109,453 5,997 5.2
16. Blanco 806 22 2.7
17. Borden 176 0 ___
18. Bosque 2,263 103 4.3
19. Bowie 10,895 3,805 25.9
20. Brazoria 13,514 1,523 10.1
21. Brazos 5,437 2,132 28.17
22. Brewster 1,460 9 .6
23. Briscoe 688 64 8.5
24. Brooks 2,336 3 .1
25. Brown 4,994 140 2.7
26. Burleson 1,791 1,063 37.6
27. Burnet 1,794 34 1.9
28. Caldwell 3,743 686 15.5
29. Calhoun 2,933 151 4.9



— 36—

County

W hites on 
1954-1955
Scholastic

Negroes on 
1954-1955 
Scholastic

30. Callahan
Census

1,690
Census

0
31. Cameron 34,957 117
32. Camp 1,153 822
33. Carson 1,613 0
34. Cass 4,018 2,400
35. Castro 1,458 11
36. Chambers 1,649 447
37. Cherokee 4,905 1,980
38. Childress 1,649 113
39. Clay 1,861 14
40. Cochran 1,503 69
41. Coke 826 0
42. Coleman 2,761 94
43. Collin 7,950 1,062
44. Collingsworth 1,692 172
45. Colorado 2,827 1,134
46. Comal 3,916 83
47. Comanche 2,408 0
48. Concho 940 2
49. Cooke 4,783 186
50. Coryell 3,518 179
51. Cottle 919 36
52. Crane 994 66
53. Crockett 893 12
54. Crosby 2,168 236
55. Culberson 606 0
56. Dallam 1,638 12
57. Dallas 119,280 18,943
58. Dawson 3,695 224
59. Deaf Smith 2,456 7
60. Delta 1,416 219

%  o f 
Negroes

.3
41.6

37.4
.7

21.3
28.8

6.1
.7

4.4

3.3
11.8

9.2
28.6
2.1

.2
3.7
4.8
3.8 
6.2 
1.3
9.8

.7
13.7

5.7
.3

13.4



— 37-

County

W hites on 
1954-1955 
Scholastic

Negroes on 
1954-1955 
Scholastic

% ot 
Negroes

61. Denton
Census

7,220
Census

567 7.3
62. De Witt 4,901 798 14.0
63. Dickens 1,380 64 4.4
64. Dimmit 3,505 13 .4
65. Donley 1,087 75 6.4
66. Dnval 4,533 0
67. Eastland 4,110 64 1.5
68. Ector 12,923 562 4.2
69. Edwards 541 1 .2
70. Ellis 6,570 2,875 30.4
71. El Paso 45,775 719 1.6
72. Erath 2,927 20 .7
73. Falls 3,191 1,978 38.3
74. Fannin 4,900 708 12.6
75. Fayette 3,492 982 21.9
76. Fisher 1,777 113 6.0
77. Floyd 2,291 166 6.8
78. Foard 742 90 10.8
79. Fort Bend 6,304 1,803 22.2
80. Franklin 783 126 13.9
81. Freestone 1,675 1,749 51.1
82. Frio 2,785 23 .8
83. Gaines 2,796 46 1.6
84. Galveston 21,504 5,036 19.0
85. Garza 1,397 45 3.1
86. Gillespie 2,137 0
87. Glasscock 255 5 1.9
88. Goliad 1,302 151 10.4
89. Gonzales 3,357 960 22.2
90. Gray 5,727 159 2.7
91. Grayson 12,366 1,303 9.5



■38-

County

W hites on 
1954-1955 
Scholastic

Negroes on 
1954-1955 
Scholastic

%  ot 
Negroes

92. Gregg
Census

10,895
Census

3,739 25.5
83. Grimes 1,911 1,563 45.0
94. Guadalupe 5,228 814 13.5
95. Hale 7,618 456 5.7
96. Hall 1,770 228 11.4
97. Hamilton 1,790 0
98. Hansford 989 0
99. Hardeman 1,769 181 9.3

100. Hardin 4,268 791 15.6
101. Harris 156,638 32,559 17.2
102. Harrison 5,059 6,042 54.4
103. Hartley 233 0
104. Haskell 2,892 161 5.3
105. Hays 4,332 234 5.12
106. Hemphill 803 0
107. Henderson 3,657 1,280 25.9
108. Hidalgo 4,511 84 .2
109. Hill 4,792 1,308 21.4
110. Hockley 5,391 281 5.0
111. Hood 1,054 18 1.2
112. Hopkins 3,595 666 15.6
113. Houston 2,511 2,110 45.7
114. Howard 6,423 285 4.2
115. Hudspeth 868 0 ___
116. Hunt 6,188 1,436 18.8
117. Hutchinson 7,511 116 1.5
118. Irion 355 0
119. Jack 1,534 23 1.5
120. Jackson 3,221 418 11.5
121. Jasper 3,834 1,540 28.7
122. Jeff Davis 415 0



—39

County

W hites on 
1954-1955 
Scholastic

Negroes on 
1954-1955 
Scholastic

%  of
Negroes

123. Jefferson
Census

34,353
Census

11,297 24.7
124. Jim Hogg 1,340 0 —

125. Jim Wells 7,757 55 .7
126. Johnson 6,595 397 5.7
127. Jones 4,137 325 7.3
128. Karnes 3,724 143 3.7
129. Kaufman 4,288 2,222 34.1
130. Kendall 1,311 11 .8
131. Kenedy 142 0 —

132. Kent 236 6 2.5
133. Kerr 2,602 104 3.8
134. Kimble 868 0
135. King 169 12 6.6
136. Kinney 471 60 11.3
137. Kleberg 5,443 172 3.1
138. Knox 2,069 157 7.0
139. Lamar 6,644 1,692 20.3
140. Lamb 4,855 403 7.7
141. Lampasas 1,852 30 1 .6

142. La Salle 2,800 0
143. Lavaca 3,484 561 13.9
144. Lee 1,582 776 32.9
145. Leon 1,517 1,310 46.3
146. Liberty 5,368 1,591 22.9
147. Limestone 2,822 1,654 36.9
148. Lipscomb 725 0
149. Liveoak 2,334 4 .8
150. Llano 904 2 .2
151. Loving 20 0
152. Lubbock 22,164 2,001 8.3
153. Lynn 2,240 104 4.4



_ _ 4 0 —

County

W hites on 
1954-1955 
Scholastic

Negroes on 
1954-1955 
Scholastic

% o f
Negroes

154. Madison
Census

978
Census

622 38.9
155. Marion 896 1,314 59.5
156. Martin 1,160 78 6.3
157. Mason 893 10 1.1
158. Matagorda 4,537 1,149 20.2
159. Maverick 3,430 0
160. McCulloch 2,184 84 3.7
161. McLennan 21,888 5,260 19.4
162. McMullen 200 0
163. Medina 4,730 31 .6
164. Menard 685 12 1.7
165. Midland 9,143 897 8.9
166. Milam 4,249 1,199 22.0
167. Mills 1,024 0
168. Mitchell 2,570 192 6.9
169. Montague 3,515 0
170. Montgomery 4,680 1,541 24.8
171. Moore 3,562 0
172. Morris 1,816 1,018 35.9
173. Motley 633 66 9.4
174. Nacogdoches 4,218 3,278 36.0
175. Navarro 6,076 2,475 28.9
176. Newton 1,604 996 38.3
177. Nolan 4,083 170 4.0
178. Nueces 45,914 1,748 3.7
179. Ochiltree 1,114 0
180. Oldham 653 0
181. Orange 10,179 1,209 10.6
182. Palo Pinto 3,694 125 3.3
183. Panola 2,542 1,809 41.6
184. Parker 4,768 89 1.8



— 41—

County

W hites on 
1954-1955 
Scholastic

Negroes on 
1954-1955 
Scholastic

%  o f
Negroes

185. Parmer
Census

1,867
Census

27 1.4
186. Peeos 2,699 35 1.3
187. Polk 2,568 1,112 30.2
188. Potter 19,370 1,010 4.9
189. Presidio 1,536 0
190. Rains 729 114 13.5
191. Randall 1,316 0
192. Reagan 780 41 5.0
193. Real 480 0
194. Red River 3,155 1,173 27.1
195. Reeves 3,842 133 3.3
196. Refugio 2,522 275 9.8
197. Roberts 197 0
198. Robertson 2,439 2,141 46.7
199. Rockwall 938 539 36.5
200. Runnels 3,437 106 3.0
201. Rusk 5,439 3,154 36.7
202. Sabine 1,336 518 27.9
203. San Augustine 1,222 844 40.8
204. San Jacinto 666 967 59.2
205. San Patricio 12,143 190 1.5
206. San Saba 1,599 9 .6
207. Schleicher 654 40 5.8
208. Scurry 4,236 93 2.1
209. Shackelford 840 16 1.9
210. Shelby 3,623 1,622 30.9
211. Sherman 574 0 ___
212. Smith 11,385 5,558 32.8
213. Somervell 493 0
214. Starr 5,053 0
215. Stephens 1,646 60 3.5



— 42—

County

W hites on 
1954-1955 
Scholastic

Negroes on 
1954-1955 
Scholastic

216. Sterling
Census

308
Census

2
217. Stonewall 681 36
218. Sutton 895 15
219. Swisher 2,318 47
220. Tarrant 74,977 8,904
221. Taylor 13,248 594
222. Terrell 656 0
223. Terry 3,122 81
224. Throckmorton 634 0
225. Titus 3,207 733
226. Tom Green 11,538 621
227. Travis 27,111 4,761
228. Trinity 1,524 658
229. Tyler 2,121 705
230. Upshur 2,965 1,533
231. Upton 1,598 74
232. Uvalde 4,307 44
233. Val Verde 4,440 80
234. Van Zandt 4,086 451
235. Victoria 8,502 733
236. Walker 1,786 1,865
237. Waller 1,367 1,178
238. Ward 2,870 39
239. Washington 2,333 1,778
240. Webb 16,089 5
241. Wharton 7,504 2,087
242. Wheeler 2,104 66
243. Wichita 17,203 1,219
244. Wilbarger 3,490 382
245. Willacy 5,490 21
246. Williamson 6,851 1,357

%  o f 
Negroes

.6
5.0
1.6
2.0

10.6
4.3

2.5

18.6
5.1

14.9
30.1
24.9
34.1 

4.4 
1.0 
1.8
9.9
7.9

51.1 
46.29

1.3
45.2

.1
21.8

3.0
6.6
9.9 

.4
16.5



•— 43—

County

W hites on 
1954-1955 
Scholastic

Negroes on 
1954-1955 
Scholastic

% of
Negroes

247. Wilson
Census

3,634
Census

95 2.5
248. Winkler 2,415 49 2.0
249. Wise 3,096 34 1.1
250. Wood 3,932 744 15.9
251. Yoakum 1,465 1 .1
252. Young 3,405 24 .7
253. Zapata 1,035 0
254. Zavala 3,293 26 .8

TOTALS 1,556,372 230,546 12.9