Memo from Lani Guinier to Napoleon Williams

    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

NO. 73-2002

ANTHONY T. LEE, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,<
Plaintiff-Intervenor 
and Amicus Curiae,

NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Plaintiff-Intervenor,

vs.

MACON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al.,
Defendants,

ANNISTON CITY SCHOOL SYSTEM,

Defendant-Appellee.
---------- 1L----------------- ------- -----------------

PETITION FOR REHEARING 
WITH SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

U. W. CLEMON 
Adams, Baker and de m o n  
1630 Fourth Avenue, North 
Birmingham, Alabama 35203 

JACK GREENBERG 
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019 

Attorneys for Appellants (Petitioners)



IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

NO. 73-2002

ANTHONY T. LEE, et al.,
«

Plaint if fs-Ap'pellan ts,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Intervenor 
and Amicus Curiae,

NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Plaintiff-Intervenor,
vs.

MACON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al.,

Defendants, •
ANNISTON CITY SCHOOL SYSTEM,

Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court 
____ for the Northern District of Alabama

PETITION FOR REHEARING 
WITH SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

Appellants, by their undersigned counsel, respect­

fully pray that this Court grant rehearing of the August 10, 

1973 decision by a panel in this cause. Appellants further



respectfully suggest the appropriateness of a rehearing en 

banc in this matter, should the panel to which this Petition 

is addressed in the first instance decline to disturb its 

judgment, because the panel's decision is in conflict with 

many other school desegregation rulings of this Circuit.

Background of the Appeal
♦This case involves school desegregation in Anniston,

Alabama; the present appeal is the first consideration by this

Court on the merits of desegregation plans for Anniston since

the Supreme Court's decisions in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg

Bd. of Educ♦, 402 U.S. 1 (1971) and companion cases.-

Following the filing of a Motion for Supplemental

Relief by the plaintiff-intervenor United States on March 4,

1971, seeking adoption of a new plan of desegregation, the

district court on October 1, 1971 directed the school board
¥

to produce such a plan. Hearings and further proceedings 

resulted, however, in an August 15, 1972 district court decree 

retaining, with minor modification, the 1970 attendance scheme.
*r

The United States appealed to this Court from that decree,

1/ In 1970, the same panel of this Court approved an Anniston 
plan utilizing "a strict neighborhood system" without trans­

portation, relying upon Ellis v. Board of Public Instruction 
of Orange County, 423 F.2d 203 (5th Cir. 1970). 429 F.2d
1218. See Davis v. Board of School Comm'rs of Mobile County, 
430 F .2d 883 (5th Cir. 1970), rev'd 402 U.S. 33 (1971).

-2-



but that appeal was ultimately remanded on the joint motion

of the United States and the school board to permit "the

Anniston City Board of Education to present and support a

recently adopted plan of student and faculty desegregation

• • • •" Lee v. Macon County Bd. of Educ., No. 72-2982 (5th

Cir., December 20, 1972).
Shortly thereafter, the present appellants (the

private plaintiffs in this litigation) filed objections "to

the plan of desegregation herein before filed or hereinafter

to be filed by the Anniston School Board with the approval of
2/

the United States Department of Justice" (8a).

The objections filed by the private plaintiffs re­

quested that the district court schedule an early evidentiary 

hearing (9a) and also particularized opposition to the plan's 

failure to alter the identifiably black character of the
ii

Cooper and Randolph Park Elementary Schools or the identifiably 

white Norwood and Golden Springs Schools (8a). When the plan 

was formally tendered on February 20, 1973 it was accompanied 

by a joint motion signed by the United States and the school 

board which asserts that it was "in conformity with the require­

ments of Swann v. Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971) . . . ."

Private plaintiffs have never indicated any agreement with that

2/ Citations in this form are to the reproduced Record on 
Appeal in this case, No. 73-2002.

-3-



proposition, but on April 9, 1973 the district court approved 

the board's plan with neither an evidentiary hearing nor any 

discussion of its reasoning (14a-15a). This appeal followed.

The Plan Approved Below

Anniston is a small school system in northern Ala­

bama (see maps attached to Brief for the United States on this 

appeal). In 1972-73 it enrolled 51.3% black students; it 

operated two high schools (25% and 98% black), two junior high 

schools (24% and 98% black), and 11 regular elementary schools: 

four less than 5% black, three over 94.9% black, and one 85% 

black (id.).
For 1973-74 the school board and the United States 

projected a total student body 50.7% black; grade duplication 

at the secondary level was to be ended with all students assigned 

to single attendance centers for grades 7-12. The closing of 

five elementary schools and transfer of their pupils to a for­

mer junior high school would reduce the number of elementary 

grade centers to six; of these, however, two were projected 

all-white and a third more than 97% white, and two over 93% 

black (id.). One black and one white school (Cooper and Norwood) 

are contiguous (see map, id.).

The plan utilizes no pairing (contiguous or non­

contiguous) , grouping, or non-contiguous zoning at the elem­

entary level. 43% of all black elementary students will

-4-



attend the two virtually all-black schools, while 59% of 

white elementary pupils will be assigned to virtually all- 

white schools (id.) . 51% of all elementary students will
attend virtually one-race schools.

The district court simply approved the plan without 
discussing this feature.

The Panel's Ruling

On appeal, the panel affirmed the district court's 
. . . .  . 3/decision m  a per curiam opinion. It ruled that there was 

no error in accepting the board's plan without a hearing since 

ta]il of the facts concerning the several alternatives for 

desegregating the Anniston schools" were developed at prior 

hearings in the case. The opinion further implies that, in 

any event, private plaintiffs waived their right to a hearing 

on their objections to the board's plan because their counsel
a

did not participate in the earlier hearings. Finally, the 

panel sustains the district court's action on the ground that 

it was within the court's "reasonable discretion under the 

circumstances to accept a plan which places a majority of 

elementary students in the Anniston system in schools which 
remain clearly identifiable, one-race schools.

—/ A copy of the panel's opinion is attached hereto as Appendix

-5-



REASONS FOR GRANTING REHEARING
Rehearing should be granted in this case to correct 

the manifest injustice which has occurred, to bring to an 

end as soon as possible the continuation of unconstitutional 

segregation in the Anniston public schools, and to eliminate 

divergent approaches to school desegregation cases among 
different panels of this Court.

1. The panel evidently misconceived the nature of 

the proceedings below in light of the district court's state­

ment that it was modifying the board's plan upon consideration
4/

of plaintiffs' objections. The plan was presented to the

district court as a "compromise" between the United States and 
. . 5/the Anniston school board. Yet despite the expressed objec­

tions of the private plaintiffs, the district court approved 

the plan without an evidentiary hearing, in an order which 

fails to find that the plan satisfies the constitutional re­
quirements .

This Court has recently held such procedures to be

4/ The changes related to reporting and transfers, and did 
not affect the student assignment plan.

5 / The Brief for the United States on this appeal states (p.
18) :

The district court's order should be viewed 
in the context of the prior proceedings and 
negotiations. . . .  Under these circumstances 
each party compromised.

As we note in the text, however, each party did not compromise, 
but private plaintiffs made known their serious objection to 
the plan and their doubt as to its constitutionality.

-6-



inappropriate in school desegregation cases which, like this

one, are class actions brought to protect the constitutional

rights of minor black schoolchildren. Calhoun v. Cook, No.

73-2020 (5th Cir., August 21, 1973):
. . . the entry of an order enforcing
an alleged settlement agreement without 
a plenary hearing is improper. Massa­
chusetts Insurance Company v. Forman,
469 F .2d 259 (5th Cir. 1972). In the 
present case no evidentiary hearing was 
ever conducted to determine that a 
viable compromise embodying a consti­
tutional plan was reached. [slip op. at 
p. 3]

The problem is a particularly serious one in cases 

such as this where the United States seeks to compromise and 

emasculate the constitutional rights of the very students 

whose interests they are allegedly protecting. Cf. Alexander 

v. Holmes County Bd. of Educ., 396 U.S. 19 (1969).

2. Private plaintiffs did not lose their right to

equal protection of the laws because their counsel did not

participate in 1971 hearings in this cause, 

opinion, however, seems to indicate that the 

had no obligation at all to consider private

The panel's 

district court 

plaintiffs 1

objections to the "compromise" desegregation plan:

. . . The district court nevertheless
considered the objections raised by 
appellants and made some changes sug­
gested by them. [slip op. at p. 5] 
[emphasis supplied]

The reason counsel for private plaintiffs had not taken part

-7-



frankly in appellants' Reply Brief (pp. 3-4):

As counsel for the United States, the 
Anniston school board and the court 
below are all well aware, original 
counsel for private plaintiffs herein 
found themselves in the impossible 
position of representing practically 
all of the black school children in 
more than a hundred school systems 
throughout the State of Alabama by 
virtue of the landmark Lee v.'Macon 
County [decision], 267 F. Supp. 458.
Unlike the United States with its 
legions of lawyers, original counsel 
for private plaintiffs could not con­
ceivably be physically present for 
each hearing in every school desegre­
gation case in the three federal 
district courts of the State of Alabama.
In many of these cases, Anniston inclu­
ded, original counsel for private plain­
tiffs were limited to reviewing the 
developments in the cases wherein the 
United States was a party plaintiff- 
intervenor, under the apparently 
mistaken belief that surely after 
Alexander v. Holmes County, [supra], 
the United States would not again 
seek to compromise the present right of 
black schoolchildren to attend unitary 
schools.

Surely Anniston's black pupils did not waive their constitu­

tional rights to object to a 1973 desegregation plan because 

their lawyers did not take part in 1971 hearings on entirely 

different plans, which resulted in interim orders which were,

in fact, appealed by the Department of Justice! The inescapable
6/fact is that private plaintiffs seasonably made known to

in the 1971 district court hearings was set forth fully and

6/ The panel writes that these objections were "prematurely 
filed" [slip op. at p. 3] since the plan was not formally

-8-



the district court, and the parties, their objections to the 

plan agreed to by the school board and the government. What 

happened in 1971 is totally irrelevant to their right to 

have these objections considered by the district court and 

this Court.

3. Nothing in the record supports the panel's 

conclusion that an evidentiary hearing would ‘have proved 

futile. Indeed, the judgment that "[a] further hearing would 

not be productive of any information not already fully 

available to the court as the result of prior hearings" [slip 

op. at p. 5] is not merely speculative, but one which an 

appellate court is hardly in a position to make. Compare 

Calhoun v. Cook, supra■ We pointed out in our Reply Brief

on this appeal that the 1971 hearings did not, in fact, fully 

explore all desegregation alternatives. And it should go 

without saying that the closing of five elementary schools 

gives rise to infinitely greater possibilities which could 

not have been contemplated in 1971.«r*

4. The plan approved by the district court clearly 

fails to meet constitutional standards. As we noted above,

6/ (continued) tendered until February 20, 1973. But the 
plan for presentation of which the prior appeal was 

remanded had been adopted by the school board as early as 
November 15, 1972. See Motion for Extension of Time to File 
Appellant's [United States'] Brief in No. 72-2982, dated 
November 24, 1972.

-9-



Anniston is a small school system. It has traditionally 

utilized bus transportation for student assignments by 

subsidizing the cost of tickets on the transit system in the 

city; in 1969-70, nearly 50% of Anniston students received 

free tickets (Tr. of March 6 , 1970, pp. 18-19 [attached here­

to as Appendix "B"]). Under the order of the district court, 

more than half of all elementary students in the system will 

attend schools which are more than 97% white or 93% black.

One of the white schools and one of the black schools are 

contiguous. Yet the plan does not pair these, or any other, 

schools— nor does it utilize pupil transportation to eliminate 

the remaining one-race schools. If this Court erred in 

failing to consider transportation in Davis v. Board of School 

Comm'rs of Mobile, supra, surely this plan cannot pass 

constitutional muster.
We recognize that the district court's order 

requires further consideration of methods to eliminate the 

two virtually all-black schools for the 1974-75 school year. 

But'the panel's affirmance in no way suggests (quite apart 

from Alexander and Carter difficulties) that these schools, 

and the three white schools, must be desegregated.

5. The panel's ruling conflicts with other decision 

of this Court. While there are differences of opinion among

-10-



the Judges of this Circuit, see United States v. Texas Educ.

Agency, 467 F.2d 848 (5th Cir. 1972) and Cisneros v. Corpus 

Christi Independent School Dist., 467 F.2d 142 (5th Cir. 1972), 

we are aware of no other post-Swann ruling of this Court which 

accepts as constitutionally permissible such an abysmally low 

level of desegregation in a system where more is clearly feasible.

We have discussed above the holding of this Court 

with respect to "compromise" settlements in Calhoun v. Cook.

In its failure to require the use of transportation to 

desegregate the Anniston elementary schools, the Anniston 

decision conflicts with Davis v. Board of School Comm'rs of 

Mobile, supra, among others. Whether or not Anniston previously 

used busing, and to what extent, is irrelevant to the achieve­

ment of the constitutional result. Brown v. Board of Educ. 

of Bessemer, 464 F.2d 382 (5th Cir. 1972); United States v. 

Greenwood Municipal Separate School Dist,, 460 F.2d 1205 (5th 

Cir. 1972). In failing to require even contiguous pairing 

of Cooper and Norwood, the panel retreates from even such 

pre-Swann decisions as Mannings v. Board of Public Instruction 

of Hillsborough County, 427 F.2d 874 (5th Cir. 1970) and 

Allen v. Board of Public Instruction of Broward County, 432 

F.2d 362 (5th Cir. 1970). Its acquiescence in the maintenance 

of both black and white elementary schools stands in sharp 

contrast to such rulings as Harrington v. Colquitt County 

Bd. of Educ., 460 F.2d 193 (5th Cir. 1972).

-11-



These conflicts are serious and important. They 

recall those which existed in this Circuit between the 

decision of Ellis v. Board of Public Instruction of Orange 

County, supra, by the same panel, and Davis v. Board of 

School Comm'rs of Mobile, supra, by the Supreme Court. They 

should be resolved, and the Constitution enforced, by 

reconsideration of this appeal and reversal of the district 

court, consistent with Alexander v. Holmes County Bd. of Educ., 

supra, and Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Bd., 396 

U.S. 290 (1970).

WHEREFORE, appellants respectfully pray that 

rehearing, or rehearing en_ banc, be granted, and that upon 

such reconsideration, the judgment belcrw be reversed and 

the cause remanded to the district court with instructions 

to require submission and implementation by the second 

semester of the 1973-74 school year, of an plan to fully 

desegregate all of the elementary schools in the Anniston 

City School System. Appellants further pray that upon such 

rehearing this Court grant them their costs and an award of 

reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to §718 of the Education 

Amendments of 1972.
Respectfully submitted,c.

U.W. CLEMON
Adams, Baker and demon 
1630 Fourth Avenue, N. 
Birmingham, Ala. 35203

JACK GREENBERG
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Appellants (Petitioners)

-12-



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 6 th day of September, 

1973, I served a copy of the foregoing Petition for Rehearing 

With Suggestion of Rehearing En Banc upon counsel for the 

parties herein by mailing them, air mail special delivery 

postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
♦

Paul F. Hancock
Attorney
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530

Walter J. Merrill
8th Floor
Commercial National Bank Bldg.
Anniston, Alabama 36201

NORMAN J. CHACHKIN

¥

iT

-13-



IN T H E

United States Court of Appeals
FO R  T H E  FIFT H  CIRCU IT

N o .  7 3 - 2 0 0 2

A N TH O N Y  T. LEE, E T  AL.,
P lain tiffs-A ppellan ts,

U N ITED  ST A T E S O F A M ER ICA ,
Plaintiff-Intervenor 
and A m icus Curiae,

N A TIO N A L ED U CATIO N  A SSO CIA TIO N , INC.,
Plaintiff-Intervenor,

versus

M ACON CO UNTY BO ARD O F ED U CA TIO N , E T  A L .,
D efendants,

*  A N N ISTO N  CITY SCH O O L SY STEM ,
D efendant-A ppellee.

Appeal from the United States D istrict Court for the 
Northern District of A labam a

(August 10, 1973)

Before BELL, AINSWORTH and GODBOLD, 
Circuit Judges.



2 L E E , ET AL. V. MACON CTY. ED. OF EDUC 

P ER  CURIAM- This « £ « £ ? £ £ £
appellants involves a Alabama, City Board
desegregation o at3r,roved on April 9, 1973>Of Education which was P pf ^  Board and
the district court, on ]omi 
the United States.
A  short chronological history of this

niston, by our decision in th ^  implemented
1970. See 429 F.2d 12 ■ ph 4 1971, the United
in the 1970-71 schoo year. to require the Board
States moved the dist des ation. A consent or-
to prepare a new p f ̂  "g71 providing for strict
der was entered on ’ es Then, on Oc-
enforcement of attendance zon filing of
tober 1. 1971. the distnccourt o r d e r ^ ^  ^  their
a new plan by October , . ring for
obieStions to H by N ov em b er^ , a n d ^ s e ^ s  ^

November 18 and 19. ■ ^  response thercl0. No
and the United States aooellants. The hear-
objection to the plan was Med J  "  la and 19 and ing was held by the court on November ^
l o e s s e s  testified — Appellants, 
the objection thereto of t hearing. There-
however, did not P ™  *  »  ®  requested an 
after, on December 28, 1971, the pf fte Ap.
order from the- court to ° School Systems
S  p” / occasioned
^ ^ = - - = ^ 0 0  and sub-



mitted a voluminous report which, with a new deseg­
regation plan, was filed by the Board on May 10, 1972. 
A  further hearing was held on June 19, 1972, after the 
United States had filed its response to the alternate 
plan objecting thereto, and testimony was taken. Ap­
pellants did not participate in the heading. §

The district court issued its order approving the plan 
with some modifications on August 15, 1972, and the 
United States appealed on August 30, 1972. Appellants 
who had not participated in any of the hearings l 
not appeal nor did they join the United States i m  s 
appeal.1 While the case was on appeal the United 
States and the Board jointly requested that we vacate 
the August 15, 1972 order and remand the case to the 
district court that a new plan might be presented. We 
granted the motion on December 20, 1972.2

LEE, ET AL. v. MACON CTY. BD. OF EDUC. 3

On January 9, 1973, appellants prematurely filed ob­
jections to the proposed plan, but the plan was not 
actually filed with the court until February 20, 1973

4

,Thc United States asserts in its briet (p. 5) that plaintiffs were 
served copies of all documents filed by the Government and 
vupro notified of each hearing date. 

aAfter the appeal from the August 15, 1572 order was Judged 
with the court, we are informed by the Board and the United 
States that voluntary negotiations were entered into in 
attempt to resolve the questions presented in the appeal. 
After a two-day conference in Anniston an agreemen 
reached resulting in adoption by the Board of a new a 
“ drastically different” plan of desegregation for the 197d-74
school year.



4 LEE, ET AL. v. MACON CTY. BD. OF E

when the Board and the t ^ e d  A^ t
the district court for appr h evidentiary
1973, the district court, " tion and the
hearing, on consideration i te plaintiffs, ap-

proved the plan the private plaintiffs and
by the objections filed y Appellants then
other changes made by the cour
brought this appeal.

Anniston is a city of 31,533 operatcd
are black. In the: last schoM y ^  ( M W
15 SC'blackW The new plan of desegregation approved were black, lhe t much more integration of
by the court prov, dary schools will be com-the school system. The secon » school lo r a ll
pletely integrated by piovi ^  tw0 existed before,
students, black and > tudents where there
and one junior high school ̂  former-
were twobefore. Five elementary s“ °°* ■ b ,he
ly black and tUpoosest in physical con-
Auburn Center Study the stu-
dition in the ^ " ‘̂ ^ L ^ o l s  will be trans-dents white and Ma k, ^  Junior High School
ferred to the torm .. approvedT wo all-black schools —  «  he P ^
by the district court of Apn ^  P
School Board recognizes their omig

appellants ^ ^ ^ 2 0 ,  t h f I d -
copy of the j°int m°  10lhe united States which attaches a 
legation is refuted by 22, 1973, showing service

s? c^ x t s s r - *  u w -ciemon'

I



the racial identity of these schools
E ^ w i l H u T a  refpodrTw«h the United States District

1, 1974, indicating the steps t h a t h a v e ^ i and
achieve further desegregate future.”
detailing the efforts that will be taken,m
Aonellants’ contention that they were entitled to a

further evidentiary hearing on their objections is w  further eviden y^  ̂  concerning the several al­
ternatives for desegregating the Annteton tehoo^have

productive of any
i r f o r "  not Mrefdy fully a t h l e t e  "
as the result of Ihochose not
tended by private plaintiffs^P^^ ^  nevertheless
to participate therei . , , appellants and
considered the objections raise ^ believe
made some f  ̂ T c Z o n  under 
the court has ex t that substantial prog-the circumstances. It is apporen district court
r'ess has been made by the ration ofhas exercised close supervision over the oper^ ^  ^
the plan in the past and we P requirement
in the future, especially in light of the q ^
that the School Distri,ct^nst
court on October 15, 1975 ana students
showing the racial composition o eachi sch .
and teachers, number of transfers
- L ^ d  ̂ t e  —  — ed, and

l e e , EX AL. v. MACON CTY. BD. OF EDUC. 5



whether the Board has sold or abandoned any school 
facility or equipment.

AFFIRMED.

6 LEE, ET AL. v. MACON CTY. BD. OF EDUC.

Adm. Office, U.S. Courts—Scofields’ Quality Printers, Inc., N. O., La.



IN HIE united states district courtFOR THE KIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION

Anthony T. Lee, et al., 
Plaintiffs,

| United States of America,
Pla inti ff-Int erveno r and Amicus Curiae,

!National Education ;Association, Inc.,
Pla in t i f f - Int e rv en o r,

vs
| Facon County Board of Education, et al.,

Defendants.

Civil Action 
No. 604-E.

Cl IT OF ANNISTON SCHOOL SYSTEM .
Proposed modifications of Board 01 Education, filed January 13, 1970, to desegregation plan filed on December 1, 1969, by Office of Education, Department of H.E.W., and amended January 10, 1970, and the objections of the plaintiffs and the National Education Association, Inc., to said plan.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -Jf. * * * * * * ❖ * * * # * * * * *  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  * * * * ̂

Heard Before:
Hon. Richard T. Rives, United States Circuit Judge;Hon. H. H. Grooms, United States District Judge; and Hon. Frank K. Johnson, Jr., United States District Judge.

A t: Montgomery, Alabama, March 6 , 1970.



for 1969-70? , +- repor-t. The number of students.A Yes, sir; as oi tne la^t P
Q And the cost?
A Yes, sir. admitted as Defendant’s

m .  I1ERRILL: Ue as.c that be. act.it

Ibdiibit 4. , do you have any idea
Q Doctor -  or under the suffiested changes,

*at percentage of the cost of this transportation would 

reduced?
A x vould estimate approximately fifty per cent. _ ,

jUDGS CHOCKS: How lone has Anniston been transport

chiMrcn to the schools. ^  a contract
v/XTI'IEfiO: About xive ycur^,

i .rc> oin'll havo this contract, with the local transit company, and *
. JUDGE CROCKS: Yon don't have year own busses.

WITHE3S: No, sir.
JUDGE GllOOiiS: hind of unusual for a city to nav.

i-■m.nsuortation to the schools.
m .  imniaiA: The transportation is for students w o  ^

live two miles away, and we annexed a -  to the city -  territory out
.beyond Fort KcClcllan running north; there is no ^L brin„ then in from that area, and Cobb -  west Annas-on area
’ ' . . tvt is roro than two miles from the Annistonserved by Cobb Avenue; that as more

' 1

High School. VTEESS: About fifty per cent of the students would be



19

tv;o miles or more. I might —  ray I add 
Q Certainly?
A As result of the annexation, and, of course, the promise to

transport those students in, this really cot us in tho transpor­
tation business; and then we had other areas that had not had 
transportation prior to this, old areas that were just as far 
away, so we had to extend the transportation as to all. j

JUDGE GROOMS: County was furnishing transportation
before, I presume?

WITNESS: Yes, sir; I am sure,
Q Doctor, that -  so that there will bo no question about this, j 

as a part of the plan which is adopted by the Anniston City Board 
of Education, nay a majority of any race in any school, a moaberj 
of that majority race, transfer to any other school in the system
that he wishes ̂to? j

A Yes, sir; I believe that is a provision in the II.E.U. plan which
vjg did not object to ,

Q And your faculty, there is no particular objection to that? j
j

A No, sir,
131, MERRILL: I believe that*s all the questions I

| 1
have, your honor,

JUDGE RIVES: All ri^it, gentlemen; you ray cross
examine him; the plaintiffs,

CROSS EXAMINATION:
; BY MR. SEAY:

>

■t
o 

' 
i 

■—
s-

A
—

 ..
. i

to
jb

 .
 

.l
.w

l
jt

.