Byrd v McCready Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Brief and Appendix in Support of Brief

    I n  T h e

Supreme Court of the United States

O ctober  T e r m , 1950

No.

HARRY C. BYRD, President, et al.,
Petitioners,

vs.

ESTHER McCREADY, minor, 
by ELIZABETH McCREADY, 

her next friend and parent,
Respondent.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND BRIEF 
AND APPENDIX IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Hall Ham m ond ,
Attorney General of Maryland, 

Attorney for Petitioners, 
1901 Mathieson Building, 
Baltimore 2, Maryland.

K e n n e t h  C. P ro cto r ,
Assistant Attorney General of Maryland,

Of Counsel,
1901 Mathieson Building,
Baltimore 2, Maryland.

The Daily Record Co., Baltimore 3, Md.



I N D E X
(Petition for Writ of Certiorari)

Table of Contents

PAGE
I. Su m m a ry  Statement of the Matter Involved 2

II. Jurisdictional Statement .................................  4

III. Question Presented ......................................  6
IV. Reasons for Granting the W rit...........  6

V. Transcript of Record and Supporting Brief 7

Table of Citations 

Cases
Hinderlider v. LaPlata River & Cherry Creek Ditch

Co., 304 U. S. 92, 106, 82 L. Ed. 1202, 1210.......... 5, 6
Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U. S. 337, 83 L.

Ed. 208 ...................................................................  5,7
Poole v. Fleeger, 11 Pet. 185, 9 L. Ed. 680, 690 5
Sipuel v. Board of Regents of the University of Okla­

homa, 332 U. S. 631, 92 L. Ed. 247......................... 5
University of Maryland v. Murray, 169 Md. 478 5
Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U. S. 502, 517-519, 37 L. Ed.

537, 542-543 ........................................................ 5, 6
Wharton v. Wise, 153 U. S. 155, 171-173, 38 L. Ed.

669, 676 6

Statutes
Constitution of the United States, Fourteenth Amend­

ment ......................................................................  5,6
Laws of 1949, (Maryland) Chapter 282 2, 7
United States Code, Revised Title 28, Section 1257 (3) 4



11

I N D E X
(Brief)

Table of Contents

pa g e

Opinion in  the Court Below ............................................ 9

Jurisdiction ............................................................................ 10

Jurisdictional Statement .............................................. 10

Statement of Facts ........................................................... 11

Errors Below Relied on He r e .......................................... 17

A rgument :

Did the Offer to Provide Nursing Education for 
Miss McCready at Meharry Medical College, 
Nashville, Tennessee, Under the Regional Com­
pact, Afford to Her the Equal Protection of the 
Laws Guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amend­
ment to the Constitution of the United States? 17

Conclusion .............................................................................. 28

Table of Citations 

Cases
Hinderlider v. LaPlata River & Cherry Creek Ditch

Co., 304 U. S. 92, 106, 82 L. Ed. 1202, 1210 11, 24-25
Maryland v. Murray, 169 Md. 478................................  11, 29
McCready, minor, by Elizabeth McCready, etc. v.

Harry C. Byrd, President, et al, Court of Ap­
peals of Maryland, October Term 1949, No. 139,
73 A. (2) 8 .............................................................  9

McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, No. 34, Octo­
ber Term, 1949 ......................................................  18



Ill

PAGE
Missouri, ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U. S. 337, 83

L. Ed. 208 ........................................... 10, 11, 18, 26, 28, 29
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 41 L. Ed. 256 18
Poole v. Fleeger, 11 Pet. 185, 9 L. Ed. 680, 690 11, 24
Sipuel v. Board of Regents of the University of Okla­

homa, 332 U. S. 631, 92 L. Ed. 247..............10-11, 26, 29
Sweatt v. Painter, et al, No. 44, October Term, 1949 18
Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U. S. 502, 517-519, 37 L. Ed.

537, 542-543 .................................................. 11,21-23,24
Wharton v. Wise, 153 U. S. 155, 171-173, 38 L. Ed.

669, 676 .................................................................  11,23

Statutes
Constitution of the United States:

Article I, Section 10, Clause 3............................  19
Fourteenth Amendment .....................................  10,17

Laws of 1949, (Maryland) Chapter 282 ....................  13, 18
United States Code, Revised Title 28, Section 1257 (3) 10

Miscellaneous
Congressional Record, Volume 95, No. 77, page 5588,

Tuesday, May 3, 1949 ...........................................  20
Conference Proceedings, 1949, page 69, National Asso­

ciation of Attorneys General................................  19
Report of Interstate Compact Committee—Penna.

Bar Assn., June, 1950...........................................  24



In The

Supreme Court of the United States

October Term, 1950

No.

HARRY C. BYRD, President, et al.,
Petitioners,

vs.

ESTHER MeCREADY, minor, 
by ELIZABETH MeCREADY, 

her next friend and parent,
Respondent.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT 
OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND

To the Honorable, the Justices of the Supreme Court 
of the United States:

The Petitioners, Harry C. Byrd, President of the Uni­
versity of Maryland, Edgar F. Long, Director of Admissions, 
Florence Meda Gipe, Director of the School of Nursing, and 
William P. Cole, Jr., et al, constituting the Board of Regents 
of the University of Maryland, respectfully pray that a writ 
of certiorari may issue to review the final decision of the 
Court of Appeals of Maryland in this matter:



2

I .

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF THE MATTER INVOLVED
On February 8, 1948, the Governor of the State of 

Maryland entered into a Compact, known as “The Regional 
Compact” with the Governors of the States of Florida, 
Georgia, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Ark­
ansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Oklahoma, 
West Virginia and the Commonwealth of Virginia. The 
General Assembly of Maryland, by Chapter 282 of the Laws 
of 1949 (Appendix to Brief, pp. 31-38), approved, con­
firmed and ratified the Compact. As of October 10, 1949, 
the date on which this case was tried below, the Compact 
had been ratified and approved by the Legislatures of all 
the signatory States with the exception of Texas, Virginia 
and West Virginia and was in full force and effect (R. 18*).

The Regional Compact provides for education in the 
professional, technological, scientific, literary and other 
fields for all citizens of the several signatory States, re­
gardless of race or creed, at regional educational institutions 
in the Southern States. Under the Compact, the Board of 
Control for Southern Regional Education and the Univer­
sity of Maryland (hereinafter referred to as Maryland) en­
tered into a contract for Training in Nursing Education, 
dated July 19, 1949 (R. 14-17).

On February 2, 1949, the application of Esther McCready 
for admission as a first year student in the School of 
Nursing was received by the University of Maryland. 
Miss McCready is a Negress, a citizen and resident of the

* The term “ Record”  and the symbol “ R ”  will be used to refer to 
the printed portions of the record filed by the Petitioners with this 
Court.



3

State of Maryland and of the United States of America. 
At the time of filing said application, she was eighteen 
years of age. Miss McCready’s educational and moral 
qualifications were conceded to be at least equal to the 
educational and moral qualifications of at least some of the 
white students who were admitted to the Nursing School 
class to which she had applied for admission. She was 
concededly ready, able and willing to pay all fees and 
expenses for her first year course of study and to conform 
to all lawful rules and regulations governing first year 
students at said School (R. 17). Not having been advised by 
Maryland of any action on her application, on July 27, 
1949, Miss McCready filed the Petition for Mandamus in 
this case.

On August 13, 1949, Dr. Long, Director of Admissions 
at Maryland, wrote Miss McCready concerning her appli­
cation. She was advised of the existence and effect of The 
Regional Compact. She was further advised that arrange­
ments would be made so that she could attend the School 
of Nursing at Meharry Medical College, Nashville, Tennes­
see (hereinafter referred to as Meharry), the school at 
which nursing education was to be provided under the 
contract dated July 19, 1949, referred to above; that her 
total expenses incident to attending Meharry, including 
necessary travel and room and board, would not exceed 
what it would cost her to attend Maryland; that she would 
receive the same quality and kind of work at Meharry as 
she would receive at Maryland. Miss McCready was further 
advised that she should contact Dr. Long, who would in­
form her of the procedure to be followed in applying for 
admission to Meharry (R. 10-11).

It was stipulated at the trial of the case that the total 
overall cost to Miss McCready, including living and travel- *

*



4

ing expenses incident to her attendance at Meharry, would 
not exceed what it would cost her to attend Maryland 
(R. 18). Evidence offered by Petitioners at the trial below 
showed clearly that the educational facilities for nursing 
education afforded at Meharry were at least equal to, if not 
in fact superior to, the facilities offered at Maryland (R. 
39-46; 53-55; 57-59). This evidence was not disputed or 
contradicted in any way whatsoever by Miss McCready. 
Miss McCready’s application for admission to Maryland 
was not accepted solely because of the fact that she is a 
member of the Negro race (R. 17).

II.
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

Petitioners bring this Petition pursuant to Section 
1257(3) of Revised Title 28 of the United States Code.

A writ of certiorari is sought to review the final decision 
entered on April 14, 1950, by the Court of Appeals of 
Maryland, which is the highest Court of the State of Mary­
land, in the case in the October Term, 1949, entitled No. 
139, Esther McCready, minor, by Elizabeth McCready, her 
next friend and parent v. Harry C. Byrd, President, et al 
(R. 67-72).

The facts of the case and the rulings below which bring 
the case within the jurisdictional requirement of Section 
1257(3) are these:

The Petitioners, relying upon The Regional Compact 
and the evidence adduced in the trial below, contended 
that provision for Miss McCready’s nursing education at 
Meharry would afford separate but equal facilities for 
such education; that such provision did not in any way 
deprive Miss McCready of the equal protection of the laws 
and, therefore, did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment



<

of the Constitution of the United States. Miss McCready 
contended that sending her to Meharry would deprive her 
of the equal protection of the laws and, therefore, abridged 
her constitutional rights.

The Court of Appeals of Maryland sustained the position 
of Miss McCready by its decision filed on April 14, 1950. 
Its decision was based solely upon the construction it placed 
upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of Missouri, 
ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U. S. 337, 83 L. Ed. 208, and 
Sipuel v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 
332 U. S. 631, 92 L. Ed. 247. As a matter of fact, the decision 
of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, except for a recital of 
the facts and for a passing reference to the case of Univer- 
sity of Maryland v. Murray, 169 Md. 478, consists entirely of 
quotations from the decision of this Court in Missouri, ex 
rel. Gaines v. Canada, supra.

The decision of the Court of Appeals of Maryland was 
based upon dictum in Missouri, ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 
supra, indicating that separate but equal facilities must be 
afforded within the jurisdiction of which the person seeking 
such facilities is a citizen. The Court of Appeals of Mary­
land incorrectly assumed that such dictum is an absolute 
rule of law applicable in every case; that The Regional 
Compact cannot, within the limits of the Constitution of 
the United States, afford a means of providing “separate 
but equal” educational facilities for members of the Negro 
race. This decision was made in the face of declarations of 
this Court to the effect that Compacts between the States 
are binding upon all the citizens of such States. Virginia 
v. Tennessee, 148 U. S. 502, 517-519, 37 L. Ed. 537, 542-543; 
Poole v. Fleeger, 11 Pet. 185, 9 L. Ed. 680, 690; Hinderlider 
v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Company, 304 
U. S. 92, 106, 82 L. Ed. 1202, 1210. This is the type of

5



6

Compact between the States which does not require the con­
sent of Congress before it can be effective and binding. 
Virginia v. Tennessee, supra, Wharton v. Wise, 153 U. S. 
155, 171-173, 38 L. Ed. 669, 676.

III.
QUESTION PRESENTED

The question for review upon certiorari is:

Did the Offer to Provide Nursing Education for Miss 
McCready at Meharry Medical College, Nashville, Tennes­
see, Under The Regional Compact, Afford to Her the Equal 
Protection of the Laws Guaranteed by the Fourteenth 
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States?

The Court of Appeals of Maryland, in reversing the 
judgment of the Baltimore City Court answered this ques­
tion in the negative. In this finding and conclusion, it is 
submitted, there is error.

IV.
REASON FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

The reason relied on for the allowance of a writ of 
certiorari in this case is summarized as follows:

The Court of Appeals of Maryland decided a Federal 
question of substance not theretofore determined by this 
Court. It was that in offering to provide nursing education 
for Miss McCready at Meharry under The Regional Com­
pact the University of Maryland was denying her the equal 
protection of the laws; that a group of States cannot com­
bine in a Compact for the purpose of providing regional 
education and under such Compact effect segregation of 
the races; that the latter statement is true even though 
admittedly, as in this case, the facilities afforded at the



7

out-of-State institution are at least equal to the facilities 
provided in the home State. It is true that this Court has 
indicated by dictum in Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 
supra, that to effectuate segregation of the races for 
the purpose of education the equal facilities should be 
provided in the jurisdiction of which the person seeking 
an education is a citizen. However, it is equally true that 
this Court has, on a number of occasions, held that such 
segregation may be effected if equal facilities are pro­
vided for the education of both races. Likewise, this Court 
has held on a number of occasions that Compacts between 
the States, if valid, are binding upon all of the citizens 
of the several signatory States. This was held even though 
such Compact was in derogation of the private rights of 
such citizens. There is a pressing need for an adjudication 
by this Court of the conflicting claims of the State of Mary­
land and the Respondent as to the effect of The Regional 
Compact and the offer of the University of Maryland to 
afford nursing education for the Respondent at Meharry.

V.
TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD AND SUPPORTING BRIEF

Petitioners have already submitted to this Court a certi­
fied copy of those portions of the record which were printed 
for the use of the Court of Appeals of Maryland and of 
the record of proceedings of said Court. Petitioners submit 
herewith a brief in support of this Petition, and as an 
appendix to said brief, for the convenience of this Court, 
Chapter 282 of the Laws of 1949 of the State of Maryland.

W herefore, your Petitioners respectfully pray that a 
writ of certiorari be issued out of and under the seal of 
this Honorable Court, directed to the Court of Appeals of 
Maryland, commanding that Court to certify and to send 
to this Court for its review and determination, on a day



8

certain to be therein named, a full and complete transcript 
of the record and all proceedings in the case numbered 
and entitled on its docket as No. 139, October Term, 1949, 
Esther McCready, minor, by Elizabeth McCready, her next 
friend and parent v. Harry C. Byrd, President, et al; and 
that the said judgment of the Court of Appeals of Mary­
land may be reversed by this Honorable Court and that 
your Petitioners may have such other and further relief 
in the premises as to this Honorable Court may seem meet 
and just.

And your Petitioners will ever pray.

Hall Ham mond ,
Attorney General of Maryland, 

Attorney for Petitioners,
1901 Mathieson Building, 
Baltimore 2, Maryland.

K enneth C. Proctor,
Assistant Attorney General of Maryland,

Of Counsel,
1901 Mathieson Building,
Baltimore 2, Maryland.



9

In The

Supreme Court of the United States

October Term, 1950

No.

HARRY C. BYRD, President, et al.,
Petitioners,

vs.

ESTHER McCREADY, minor, 
by ELIZABETH McCREADY, 

her next friend and parent,
Respondent.

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT 
OF CERTIORARI

OPINION IN THE COURT BELOW
The Opinion of the Court of Appeals of Maryland has not 

as yet been reported officially. It appears at 73 A (2d) 8 
and at pages 67-72 of the Record.* The Opinion of the 
Baltimore City Court was an oral one and appears at pages 
27-34 of the Record.

* The term “ Record” and the symbol “ R ”  will be used to refer to 
the printed portions of the record filed by the Petitioners with this 
Court.



10

JURISDICTION
The statutory provision is Section 1257(3), Revised Title 

28, United States Code.

The final decision of the Court of Appeals of Maryland 
reversing the judgment of the Baltimore City Court was 
entered on April 14, 1950. The Court of Appeals of Mary­
land is the Court of last resort for the State of Maryland 
and, as such, meets the test of Section 1257(3), Revised 
Title 28, United States Code and Rule 38 of this Court.

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
The nature of the case and the rulings below which bring 

the case within the jurisdictional requirement of Section 
1257(3) appear from the following:

The Petitioners, relying upon The Regional Compact 
and the evidence adduced in the trial below, contended that 
provision for Miss McCready’s nursing education at Me- 
harry would afford separate but equal facilities for such 
education; that such provision did not in any way deprive 
Miss McCready of the equal protection of the laws and, 
therefore, was not in violation of the Fourteenth Amend­
ment of the Constitution of the United States. Miss Mc­
Cready contended that such provision would deprive her 
of the equal protection of the laws and would, therefore, 
abridge her rights under that Amendment.

The Court of Appeals of Maryland sustained the position 
of Miss McCready by its decision filed on April 14, 1950. 
Its decision was based solely upon the construction placed 
by it upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of 
Missouri, ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U, S. 337, 83 L. Ed. 
208, and Sipuel v. Board of Regents of the University of



11

Oklahoma, 332 U. S. 631, 92 L. Ed. 247. As a matter of fact, 
the decision of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, except 
for the recital of the facts involved and for a passing refer­
ence to the case of University of Maryland v. Murray, 169 
Md. 478, consists entirely of quotations from the decision 
of this Court in Missouri, ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, supra.

The decision of the Court of Appeals of Maryland was 
based upon dictum in Missouri, ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 
supra, indicating that separate but equal facilities must 
be afforded within the jurisdiction where the person seek­
ing such facilities is a citizen. The Court of Appeals of 
Maryland incorrectly assumed that such dictum is an abso­
lute rule of law applicable in every case; that The Regional 
Compact cannot, within the limits of the Constitution of 
the United States, afford a means of providing “separate 
but equal” educational facilities for members of the Negro 
race. This decision was made in the face of declarations 
of this Court to the effect that Compacts between the 
States are binding upon all the citizens of such States. 
Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U. S. 502, 517-519, 37 L. Ed. 537, 
542-543; Poole v. Fleeger, 11 Pet. 185, 9 L. Ed. 680, 690; 
Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Com­
pany, 304 U. S. 92, 106, 82 L. Ed. 1202, 1210. This is 
the type of Compact between the States which does not re­
quire the consent of Congress before it can be effective and 
binding. Virginia v. Tennessee, supra; Wharton v. Wise, 
153 U. S. 155, 171-173; 38 L. Ed. 669, 676.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
The facts in this case are either admitted or uncontra­

dicted. They may be summarized as follows:
Esther McCready (herein referred to as “Respondent” ), 

a Negress, eighteen years of age, a citizen and resident of 
the State of Maryland and of the United States of America,



12

duly filed her application, dated February 1, 1949, for ad­
mission as a first year student in the School of Nursing of 
the University of Maryland (herein referred to as “Mary­
land” ) for the academic year beginning August 8, 1949. 
That application was received by the proper authorities of 
the University of Maryland on February 2, 1949. This 
School is the only public institution offering a nursing edu­
cation in the State of Maryland (R. 17-18). Two courses of 
study are open to students admitted to the School. One is a 
three year course leading to a certificate. The other re­
quires the prior successful completion of two years of 
college and leads to a B. S. degree. Three years study is re­
quired in each course (R. 8).

The educational and moral qualifications of Respondent 
are equal to, if not superior to, the educational and moral 
qualifications of at least some of the white students who 
were admitted to the first year class at Maryland for the 
academic year beginning August 8, 1949, and whose appli­
cations were received by the proper authorities of the 
University of Maryland after the receipt of Respondent’s 
application. Respondent was ready, able and willing to 
pay all fees and expenses for her first year course of study 
and to conform to all lawful rules and regulations gov­
erning first year students at Maryland (R. 17-18). Respon­
dent filed the Petition for Mandamus in this case on July 
27, 1949.

On August 13, 1949, Dr. Edgar F. Long, Director of Ad­
missions of the University of Maryland (one of the Peti­
tioners), wrote to Respondent concerning her application 
(R. 10-11). In this letter, Respondent was advised of the 
policy of the State of Maryland that members of the white 
and Negro races should be segregated in public educa­
tional institutions. She also was advised that, in further­



13

ance of said policy, the Governor of the State of Mary­
land had entered into a Compact dated February 8, 1948, 
known as “The Regional Compact”, with the Governors of 
the States of Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Alabama, Missis­
sippi, Tennessee, Arkansas, North Carolina, South Caro­
lina, Texas, Oklahoma, West Virginia and the Common­
wealth of Virginia; that the General Assembly of Mary­
land, by Chapter 282 of the Laws of 1949, approved, con­
firmed and ratified said Compact, the Act of approval be­
ing effective June 1, 1949; that said Compact had been ap­
proved by proper legislative action by more than six of the 
aforesaid States and was in full force and effect; that The 
Regional Compact makes provision for education in the 
professional, technological, scientific, literary and other 
fields of all citizens of the several signatory States, regard­
less of race or creed, at regional educational institutions in 
the Southern States; that arrangements had been made 
whereby the Meharry Medical College, Nashville, Tennes­
see, had become a Compact Institution to which the signa­
tory States will send students for medical, dental and 
nursing education. Respondent was further advised that 
arrangements would be made so that she could attend the 
School of Nursing at Meharry Medical College (herein re­
ferred to as “Meharry” ) ; that her total expenses incident to 
attending Meharry, including necessary travel and room 
and board, would not exceed what it would cost her to at­
tend Maryland; that she would receive the same kind and 
quality of work at Meharry as she would receive at Mary­
land. Respondent was advised to contact Dr. Long either 
at College Park or at Baltimore so that he could advise her 
the procedure to be employed for her admission to Meharry; 
that it was necessary that her application be certified to 
Meharry by the Director of Admissions of the University 
of Maryland.



14

It was stipulated by Respondent’s counsel that the total 
overall cost to her, including living and traveling expenses, 
incident to her attendance at Meharry would not exceed 
what it would cost her to attend Maryland (R. 18). It was 
further stipulated that as of October 10, 1949, the date on 
which this case was tried below, The Regional Compact 
had been ratified and approved by the Legislatures of all 
the signatory States with the exception of Texas, Virginia 
and West Virginia and that the Compact was in full force 
and effect; also that each of the signatory States has segre­
gated schools (R. 18).

It was stipulated that Respondent’s application for ad­
mission to Maryland was not accepted solely because of 
the fact that she is a member of the Negro race (R. 17).

There was offered in evidence the Contract for Training 
in Nursing Education, dated July 19, 1949, between the 
Board of Control for Southern Regional Education and the 
University of Maryland (R. 14-17). Under this contract, 
the Board covenants and agrees, among other things, to pro­
vide the State of Maryland with a quota of three places 
in Meharry Medical College, School of Nursing, Nashville, 
Tennessee, for first year students to be selected from ap­
plicants certified by the State of Maryland, that said quota 
should continue through each succeeding college class until 
it applies to all years of instruction desired by the State of 
Maryland (R. 15). The State of Maryland, among other 
things, agrees to make certain payments to the Board for 
each student accepted under the Contract (R. 16). The 
term of the contract is for two calendar years from July 1, 
1949, automatically renewable for an additional term of 
two years and so on unless either party gives the other 
party notice, in writing, of its intention to terminate the 
Contract at least two calendar years prior to the date of 
termination (R. 16).



15

At the trial of this case, Petitioners offered evidence, 
which was not disputed or contradicted in any way what­
soever by Respondent, showing clearly that the educational 
facilities for nursing education afforded at Meharry were 
at least substantially equal to, if not in fact somewhat 
superior to, the facilities offered at Maryland. Dr. Maurice 
C. Pincoffs, who for a period of sixteen months prior to the 
trial of this case had been in policy charge of the School 
of Nursing of the University of Maryland, testified in detail 
regarding the comparison of the facilities of the two Schools 
(R. 39-46). His conclusion, based upon a comparison of 
available funds, character of the student body, character 
of the faculty, physical facilities (class rooms, laboratories, 
equipment), curriculum and living conditions, was that 
“if the objective of the candidate is education in nursing, 
Meharry Medical College offers at least equivalent, and in 
my opinion, somewhat better organized instruction in nurs­
ing” (R. 46).

Petitioners also produced the testimony of Mrs. Verne 
Allen Nesbitt, a graduate of Vanderbilt University and 
the University of Nashville, Tennessee, and a registered 
nurse. She is a white woman, well educated, whose hus­
band is a medical doctor presently associated writh the 
Johns Hopkins Hospital. At the time of the trial, Mrs. 
Nesbitt was instructor in obstetrics in the School of Nurs­
ing at Sinai Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland. Mrs. Nesbitt 
taught at Meharry, for one term in the year 1947 (R. 52-53). 
She testified that “Meharry students are a higher caliber 
student than you would see in a hospital school of nursing 
for the reason that they are better prepared, and are young 
people who are seeking a higher course in nursing than the 
three year course” (R. 53-54); that the physical facilities 
offered at Meharry (the nurses’ home and the hospital



16

facilities) compared favorably with the facilities at Vander­
bilt or Sinai (R. 54-55). She further testified that she was 
much impressed with the library of the School, which was 
shared with medical and dental students; also with the op­
portunity for social life afforded the students (R. 55).

Petitioners further produced testimony showing that 
Meharry was accredited by the National League of Nurs­
ing Education, which, in itself, shows that it is a first class 
nursing institution (R. 58). Although accreditation by the 
League is conditioned upon application by the School of 
Nursing seeking a rating, Maryland had not, up to the time 
of trial, sought such accreditation for the reason that its 
officials did not believe that it could meet the rigid standards 
of the League (R. 58, 61).

In taking Tennessee State Board of Nursing examina­
tions, graduates of Meharry compared most favorably with 
graduates of other schools. Out of seven or eight subjects, 
Meharry graduates’ average examination grades were 
higher than the average examination grades of graduates 
of approximately fourteen other schools of nursing in 
Tennessee (R. 45). On the other hand, the record of 
graduates of Maryland on examinations conducted by the 
Maryland State Board of Examiners of Nurses’ does not 
compare too favorably with the record of the graduates of 
other schools of nursing (R. 64-66).

Up to the time of trial, only one graduate of Meharry had 
applied for registration in the State of Maryland. She is 
Mrs. Miriam Austin Wilkens, at present Assistant Director 
of the School of Nursing at Provident Hospital, Baltimore, 
Maryland. She was registered by the Maryland Board on 
the basis of her Tennessee registration (R. 57-58).



17

ERRORS BELOW RELIED ON HERE
Petitioners rely on the following point:

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States does not prevent the State of Maryland from 
effecting segregation of the white and Negro races for the 
purpose of education, provided the facilities offered are 
substantially equal; that the offer by the University of 
Maryland under The Regional Compact to provide nursing 
education for Respondent at Meharry Medical College, 
School of Nursing, Nashville, Tennessee, would afford equal 
facilities for the education of Respondent; that, therefore, 
there has been no abridgement of the Respondent’s consti­
tutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws. This 
point was decided by the Baltimore City Court in favor of 
the Petitioners and was decided by the Court of Appeals 
of Maryland erroneously in favor of the Respondent.

ARGUMENT
DID THE OFFER TO PROVIDE NURSING EDUCATION FOR MISS 

McCREADY AT MEHARRY MEDICAL COLLEGE, NASHVILLE, 
TENNESSEE, UNDER THE REGIONAL COMPACT, AFFORD TO HER 
THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS GUARANTEED BY THE 
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE 
UNITED STATES?

Under the particular facts presented by this case, the 
only question presented is as follows: Did the State of Mary­
land, by virtue of the fact that it is a party to The Regional 
Compact, discharge its duties and obligations to Respondent 
under the Constitution of the United States when it ar­
ranged for her nursing education at Meharry Medical Col­
lege, School of Nursing, Nashville, Tennessee? This issue 
is partly a question of fact and partly a question of law; 
viz: (a) Are the facilities for nursing education offered by 
Meharry substantially equal to the facilities offered at



18

Maryland? (b) Is provision for the education of a Maryland 
citizen at a Compact institution legal segregation of the 
races for educational purposes within the purview of the 
Constitution of the United States and the decisions of this 
Court?

1.
The policy of segregation of the two races for educational 

purposes is generally accepted throughout the States which 
are parties to The Regional Compact and has been ap­
proved by this Court in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 
U. S. 537, 41 L. Ed. 256. This approval of segregation was 
again recognized in the case of Missouri, ex rel. Gaines v. 
Canada, 305 U. S. 337, 344, 83 L. Ed. 208, 211. Finally, by 
the very recent decisions of this Court in the cases of 
Sweatt v. Painter, et al., No. 44, October Term, 1949, and 
McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, No. 34, October 
Term, 1949, this Court refused to reexamine the “separate 
but equal” doctrine enunciated in Plessy v. Ferguson, supra, 
although requested to do so by the Solicitor General of 
the United States.

2.

The Regional Compact (Laws of 1949, Ch. 282), which 
was approved by the State of Maryland, effective June 1, 
1949, was executed by the signatory States for the purpose 
of the development and maintenance of education of the 
citizens of such States on a regional basis. It is intended 
to afford greater educational opportunities for such citizens 
than could be provided by the several States separately. 
It applies to all citizens of the States by its express pro­
visions. The operations under the Compact, up to this 
point, have, in fact, benefited all citizens regardless of 
race or creed. For example, the State of Maryland, under



19

The Regional Compact, has sent several white students of 
veterinary medicine to the University of Georgia and two 
Negro students of medicine to Meharry.

In his remarks before the 1949 Conference of the National 
Association of Attorneys General, (Conference Proceedings, 
1949, p. 69) Solicitor General William F, Barry, of Tennes­
see, made the following remarks on this point:

“Under these arrangements 207 white students and 
180 Negro students will receive training in 1949-50. 
These services are being paid for by a budget of approx­
imately one and one-half million dollars. The Central 
Control Office operations (located in Atlanta) carry 
an annual budget of approximately $85,000.

“The program officially began in September, 1948. 
In less than a year, therefore, regional planning in 
graduate and professional education grew from a pro­
posal to a program. The Board of Control has begun 
to serve as an agency through which the states and in­
stitutions of the compact area can broaden the base 
of planning and support so that the opportunities for 
training leadership in the South can match or exceed 
opportunities anywhere in the nation.”

The Regional Compact is not, either expressly or by 
necessary implication, aimed at segregation of the races. 
However, it is available as a means of effecting such segre­
gation when such means are not available within the con­
fines of the several States. The Compact, as of the present 
time, has been ratified by appropriate legislative action 
of the signatory States, with the exception of Texas, Vir­
ginia and West Virginia.

3.
The Regional Compact is the type of agreement which, 

under Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution of 
the United States, does not require approval by Congress 
before it can become effective. When the Federal Aid to



20

Education Bill was being debated in the Senate, Senator 
Morse of Oregon, in his remarks concerning a proposed 
amendment to said Bill, discussed the fact that he had 
opposed ratification of The Regional Compact by the 
Senate. His remarks set forth in the Congressional Record, 
Vol. 95, No. 77, page 5588, Tuesday, May 3, 1949, show the 
following reasons for his opposition:

“First, is this the type of compact which the Con­
stitution requires the Congress to ratify? I shall not 
repeat my argument of last year at any length, other 
than to point out that I am satisfied now, as I was then, 
that the interstate compact offered by the 16 Southern 
States was not the type of interstate compact that the 
Congress of the United States, under the Constitution, 
is required—and I underline the word ‘required’—to 
ratify.

“So when the interstate compact was before us we 
had to decide this question, ‘Is this the type of compact 
which requires ratification by the Congress of the 
United States?’ Of course the answer to that question 
was clearly no; and the answer was ‘no’ because of 
the second question which we must consider in such 
a situation. The second question is: What Federal 
jurisdiction is in any way encroached upon by the 
proposed contract? It will be recalled that during the 
course of the debate not a single southern Senator 
could point out a single Federal power which was 
encroached upon by the proposed compact. Until they 
could show wherein that southern compact in some 
way transgressed a delegated Federal power under 
the Constitution of the United States, they were clearly 
out of court, so to speak, so far as the Congress was 
concerned. They failed to advance any sound argu­
ment showing that as a matter of constitutional duty 
under the interstate compact clause we would have to 
approve the compact before it could be put into effect 
by the States.”



21

That this Compact is not the type which requires Con­
gressional approval is further supported by the case of 
Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U. S. 502, 517-519, 37 L. Ed. 
537, 542-543. The applicable rule is stated by the Supreme 
Court to be as follows:

“The Constitution provides that ‘no state shall, with­
out the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, 
keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into 
any agreement or compact with another state, or with 
a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually 
invaded, or in such immediate danger as will not ad­
mit of delay’.

“Is the agreement made without the consent of Con­
gress, between Virginia and Tennessee, to appoint 
commissioners to run and mark the boundary line 
between them, within the prohibition of this clause? 
The terms ‘agreement’ or ‘compact’ taken by them­
selves are sufficiently comprehensive to embrace all 
forms of stipulation, written or verbal, and relating 
to all kinds of subjects; to those to which the United 
States can have no possible objection or have any 
interest in interfering with, as well as to those which 
may tend to increase and build up the political influ­
ence of the contracting states, so as to encroach upon 
or impair the supremacy of the United States or inter­
fere with their rightful management of particular 
subjects placed under their entire control.

“There are many matters upon which different states 
may agree that can in no respect concern the United 
States. If, for instance, Virginia should come into 
possession and ownership of a small parcel of land in 
New York ivhich the latter state might desire to ac­
quire as a site for a public building, it would hardly 
be deemed essential for the latter state to obtain the 
consent of Congress before it could make a valid agree­
ment with Virginia for the purchase of the land. If 
Massachusetts, in forwarding its exhibits to the World’s 
Fair at Chicago, should desire to transport them a 
part of the distance over the Erie Canal, it would



22

hardly be deemed essential for that state to obtain 
the consent of Congress before it could contract with 
New York for the transportation of the exhibit through 
that State in that way. If the bordering line of two 
states should cross some malarious and disease pro­
ducing district, there could be no possible reason, on 
any conceivable public grounds, to obtain the consent 
of Congress for the bordering states to agree to unite 
in draining the district, and thus remove the cause of 
disease. So in the case of threatened invasion of 
cholera, plague, or other causes of sickness and death, 
it would be the height of absurdity to hold that the 
threatened states could not unite in providing means 
to prevent and repel the invasion of the pestilence 
without obtaining the consent of Congress, which might 
not be at the time in session. If, then, the terms ‘com­
pact’ or ‘agreement’ in the Constitution do not apply 
to every possible compact or agreement between one 
state and another, for the validity of which the con­
sent of Congress must be obtained, to what compacts 
or agreements does the Constitution apply?

“Looking at the clause in which the terms ‘compact’ 
or ‘agreement’ appear, it is evident that the prohibition 
is directed to the formation of any combination tend­
ing to the increase of political power in the states, 
which may encroach upon or interfere with the just 
supremacy of the United States. Story, in his Com­
mentaries (§1403) referring to a previous part of the 
same section of the Constitution in which the clause in 
question appears, observes that its language ‘may be 
more plausibly interpreted from the terms used, 
“ treaty, alliance, or confederation,” and upon the 
ground that the sense of each is best known by its 
association (noscitur a sociis) to apply to treaties of 
a political character; such as treaties of alliance for 
purposes of peace and war; and treaties of confedera­
tion, in which the parties are leagued for mutual 
government, political co-operation, and the exercise 
of political sovereignty, and treaties of cession of



23

sovereignty, or conferring internal political jurisdic­
tion, or external political dependence, or general com­
mercial privileges’ ; and that ‘the latter clause, “com­
pacts and agreements,” might then very properly ap­
ply to such as regarded what might be deemed mere 
private rights of sovereignty; such as questions of 
boundary; interests in land situate in the territory 
of each other; and other internal regulations for the 
mutual comfort and convenience of states bordering 
on each other.’ And he adds: ‘In such cases the con­
sent of Congress may be properly required, in order 
to check any infringement of the rights of the national 
government; and, at the same time, a total prohibition 
to enter into any compact or agreement might be at­
tended with permanent inconvenience or public mis­
chief.’ ” (Italics supplied).
See also:

Wharton v. Wise, 153 U. S. 155, 171-173; 38 L. Ed.
669, 676.

It is obvious that The Regional Compact in no way tends 
“to increase and build up the political influence of the con­
tracting State, so as to encroach upon or impair the su­
premacy of the United States or interfere with their 
rightful management of particular subjects placed under 
their entire control” .

Certainly, interstate problems concerned with health 
(e.g., infectious or contagious diseases, whether of humans 
or of animals), institutional care (e.g., women’s prisons, 
mental hospitals, homes for aged) conservation of natural 
resources (e.g., oyster and fish conservation problems of 
Maryland and Virginia) and motor vehicles (e.g,. recogni­
tion of license tags of a foreign State) can be and have 
been handled by Compacts between the States without the 
requirement that they receive the approval of the Con­
gress of the United States.



24

The Report of the Interstate Compact Committee of the 
Pennsylvania Bar Association in June, 1950, states as 
follows:

“There is now under consideration in eleven western 
States a proposal to establish a regional institution 
for care of mentally deficient juvenile delinquents. 
There has been recommended also creation of regional 
schools for the deaf and blind on a four-state basis 
(Utah, Idaho, Wyoming and Nevada). It is not known 
at the present time whether the States sponsoring 
these institutional facilities intend to request the con­
sent of the Congress to such plans.

“On the basis of precedents indicating that it is con­
sidered unnecessary to secure approval of the Congress 
with respect to agreements between States when those 
agreements do not tend to increase political power of 
the States or encroach on Federal supremacy under 
the United States Constitution, States are beginning to 
utilize the compact method for providing services as 
to which the Federal government has not heretofore 
asserted authority. Until recently the best known in­
stances have been the arrangements between Virginia 
and West Virginia for the use of an educational insti­
tution in Richmond and between Vermont and New 
Hampshire for a joint state penitentiary to serve both 
States.”

It is submitted that this is equally true of interstate com­
pacts which are concerned with higher education for citi­
zens of the several States.

4.
The Regional Compact is binding upon each of the signa­

tory States and upon all of the citizens of such States. 
Virginia v. Tennessee, (L. Ed. p. 545), supra; Poole v. 
Fleeger, 11 Pet. 185, 9 Ed. 680, 690; Hinderlider v. La Plata 
River & Cherry Creek Ditch Company, 304 U. S. 92, 106,



25

82 L. Ed. 1202, 1210. In the last case cited, the Supreme 
Court of the United States, in discussing the effect of inter­
state compacts upon the citizens of the signatory States, 
said as follows:

“Whether the apportionment of the water of an in­
terstate stream be made by compact between the upper 
and lower States with the consent of Congress or by 
a decree of this Court, the apportionment is binding 
upon the citizens of each State and all water claimants, 
even where the State had granted the water rights 
before it entered into the compact. That the private 
rights of grantees of a State are determined by the 
adjustment by compact of a disputed boundary was 
settled a century ago in Poole v. Fleeger, 11 Pet. 185, 
209, 9 L. ed. 680, 690, where the Court said:

‘It cannot be doubted, that it is a part of the general 
right of sovereignty, belonging to independent nations, 
to establish and fix the disputed boundaries between 
their respective territories; and the boundaries so 
established and fixed by compact between nations, 
become conclusive upon all the subjects and citizens 
thereof, and bind their rights; and are to be treated, 
to all intents and purposes, as the true and real bound­
aries. This is a doctrine universally recognized in the 
law and practice of nations. It is a right equally be­
longing to the states of this Union; unless it has been 
surrendered under the Constitution of the United 
States. So far from there being any pretense of such a 
general surrender of the right, that it is expressly 
recognized by the Constitution and guarded in its ex­
ercise by a single limitation or restriction, requiring 
the consent of Congress.’ ”

5.
The Regional Compact does not deprive the Respondent 

of any rights guaranteed to her by the Constitution of the 
United States.



26

Considering this point, it must be borne in mind that 
up to this time none of the decisions of this Court have 
dealt with the exact problem here under consideration. 
In the case of Missouri, ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, supra, 
the Petitioner was an applicant for admission to the Law 
School. This was likewise true in the case of Sipuel v. 
Oklahoma, 332 U. S. 631, 92 L. Ed. 247 (333 U. S. 147, 92 L. 
Ed. 605). In the Gaines case supra, (L. ed. p. 213) in con­
tending that the Writ should be issued, the Petitioners 
relied particularly upon the special advantages incident 
to attending a Law School in the State of which one is a 
citizen and in which one intends to practice. The opinion 
in the Sipuel case was per curiam and makes no reference 
whatsoever to Petitioner’s contentions therein, the decision 
being based upon the rule laid down in the Gaines case. 
Petitioners admit that there are certain advantages incident 
to attending a local Law School over attendance at one 
outside of the State where one proposes to practice. In 
a local school, the emphasis is upon local rules of practice 
and procedure and substantive law peculiar to that State. 
There is also the opportunity of observing the local courts 
in action. However, no such advantages accrue to a student 
of nursing. There are no rules regarding nursing which are 
peculiar to any given State nor is there any practice in the 
nursing profession peculiar to any given State.

An additional factor in the present case is that the 
operations under The Regional Compact are such that the 
cost to Respondent at Meharry will be no greater than 
her expenses would be if she attended Maryland. That this 
is true is conceded by Respondent (R. 18).

Under The Regional Compact, contracts have been en­
tered into between various States, which wish to send 
students out of their own boundaries for educational pur-



27

poses, with the Regional Board and by the Board with 
Colleges and Universities in the various States, It is sub­
mitted that, so far as citizens of Maryland are concerned, 
the effect of these contracts executed under The Regional 
Compact is identically the same as if the educational facil­
ities were furnished within the State of Maryland. For 
example, if the Maryland State College, at Princess Anne,
(a division of the University of Maryland) afforded facil­
ities for nursing education substantially equal to such 
facilities provided by the University of Maryland, in Balti­
more, Appellees could provide such education for Respond­
ent at the former institution. No question could be raised ' N o  
under such circumstances that Respondent’s constitutional 
rights had been violated. If, in lieu of having facilities for 
nursing education of Negroes at Princess Anne, Somerset 
County, the University of Maryland owned a tract of land 
over the State line in Accomac County, Virginia, and there 
established facilities for nursing education of Negroes sub­
stantially equal to such facilities at the University of Mary­
land, the same rule would unquestionably apply. Under 
such circumstances, equal educational opportunities would 
be afforded to Negro students by the University of Mary­
land at a division of the University of Maryland. It is in­
conceivable that the mere fact that the physical facilities 
were located just outside the boundaries of the State of 
Maryland would affect the rule. Instead of adopting what 
would prove to be a most expensive and burdensome pro­
cedure, viz. outright purchase of educational facilities so 
that they would be an integral part of the University of 
Maryland, the State has adopted the alternative procedure 
of contracting for education of Maryland citizens in institu­
tions located outside of the State. Maryland citizens are 
protected by the provisions of The Regional Compact and 
of the various contracts executed thereunder. There cer-



28

tainly is no substantial difference between such a con­
tractual arrangement for, and actual ownership of, the 
educational facilities. By this method, the State of Mary­
land can maintain its policy of segregation, and, at the 
same time, provide educational opportunities for Negroes 
which are equal to those afforded to members of the white 
race at no additional cost whatsoever to the members of 
the Negro race.

That the facilities for nursing education offered at Me- 
harry are substantially equal to those offered at Maryland 
is obvious, and in fact uncontradicted, in the present 
case so that in that respect this case meets the require­
ments of all the decisions on this subject. It is clear from 
a consideration of the careful analysis by Dr. Pincoffs 
of the two Schools, the testimony of Mrs. Nesbitt and 
the other evidence offered by Petitioners that a student 
at Meharry receives an education in nursing certainly equal 
to that afforded at Maryland. In fact, the conclusion that 
Meharry, considering all factors, offers better educational 
facilities can reasonably be drawn from the evidence.

6.

The Regional Compact has introduced a new decisive 
factor into the law. The new factor is that the States 
which have ratified the Compact have, for educational 
purposes, eliminated State lines. It is an attempt through 
voluntary agreement and cooperation to provide citizens 
of all the signatory States with unlimited educational 
opportunities. The opportunities proposed by The Regional 
Compact have been assured by the execution of contracts 
thereunder. The operations under The Regional Compact 
are distinctly different from those under the out-of-State 
scholarship plans in vogue in a number of States prior 
to the decision in the Gaines case, supra. The scholarship



29

plans provided only for tuition. The fact that the student 
would incur additional expense, such as travel, was not 
taken into consideration. This, of course, resulted in 
inequality. This is no longer true under The Regional 
Compact plan.

7.
The Court’s attention is directed to the fact that a few 

of the Western-Rocky Mountain States are presently oper­
ating under informal agreements which involve incarcera­
tion of female prisoners and treatment of mental patients 
and the aged and indigent. In addition to this, those States 
are presently drafting a Regional Compact covering medi­
cal and dental education similar to that involved in this 
case. From the foregoing, it will appear that there is a 
trend toward interstate cooperation in problems of this 
kind. This, of course, is dictated by a desire to provide 
adequate and proper care, treatment and education for the s’ Q 
citizens of the several States in a single location. Such a 
solution is socially and economically sound. Most as­
suredly, it does not in any way deprive the citizens of 
the several States of the equal protection of the laws.

CONCLUSION
It is respectfully submitted that the Gaines, Sipuel and 

Murray cases, supra, are not in point and are not con­
trolling in this case; that The Regional Compact is valid 
and binding upon the signatory States and the citizens of 
such States; that the administration under the Compact, 
so far as Respondent is concerned, does not in any way 
abridge any of her constitutional rights; that Respondent 
is afforded facilities for nursing education which are cer­
tainly equal to and possibly better than she could obtain 
at the University of Maryland; that, therefore, the judg-



30

ment of the Court of Appeals of Maryland should be re­
versed.

Respectfully submitted,

Hall Ham m ond ,
Attorney General of Maryland, 

Attorney for Petitioners, 
1901 Mathieson Building, 
Baltimore 2, Maryland.

K enneth C. Proctor,

Assistant Attorney General of Maryland,
Of Counsel,
1901 Mathieson Building,
Baltimore 2, Maryland.



31

APPENDIX TO BRIEF

LAWS OF 1949 
CHAPTER 282 

(Senate Bill 432)
A n  A ct to approve, confirm and ratify a certain Compact 

entered into by the State of Maryland and other Southern 
States by and through their respective Governors on Feb­
ruary 8, 1948, as amended, relating to the development and 
maintenance of regional educational services and schools in 
the Southern States in the professional, technological, 
scientific, literary and other fields, so as to provide greater 
educational advantages and facilities for the citizens in the 
several States here recited in such region, and to declare 
that the State of Maryland is a party to said Compact, as 
amended, and that the agreements, covenants and obliga­
tions therein are binding upon said State.

W hereas, on the 8th day of February, in the Year of Our 
Lord One Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty-eight, the 
State of Maryland, and the States of Florida, Georgia, 
Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas, Vir­
ginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Oklahoma 
and West Virginia through and by their respective Gov­
ernors, entered into a written Compact relative to the 
development and maintenance of regional educational 
services and schools in the Southern States in the profes­
sional, technological, scientific, literary, and other fields, so 
as to provide greater educational advantages and facilities 
for the citizens of the several States who reside within 
such region; and

W hereas, the said Compact has been amended in certain 
respects, a copy of which Compact as amended is as follows:

THE REGIONAL COMPACT 
(As Amended)

W hereas, The States who are parties hereto have during 
the past several years conducted careful investigation look-



32

ing toward the establishment and maintenance of jointly 
owned and operated regional educational institutions in 
the Southern States in the professional, technological, 
scientific, literary and other fields, so as to provide greater 
educational advantages and facilities for the citizens of 
the several States who reside within such region; and

W hereas, Meharry Medical College of Nashville, Ten­
nessee, has proposed that its lands, buildings, equipment, 
and the net income from its endowment be turned over to 
the Southern States, or to an agency acting in their behalf, 
to be operated as a regional institution for medical, dental 
and nursing education upon terms and conditions to be 
hereafter agreed upon between the Southern States and 
Meharry Medical College, which proposal, because of the 
present financial condition of the institution, has been ap­
proved by the said States who are parties hereto; and

W hereas, The said States desire to enter into a compact 
with each other providing for the planning and establish­
ment of regional educational facilities;

Now, Therefore, in consideration of the mutual agree­
ments, covenants and obligations assumed by the respective 
States who are parties hereto (hereinafter referred to as 
“States” ), the said several States do hereby form a geo­
graphical district or region consisting of the areas lying 
within the boundaries of the contracting States which, for 
the purposes of this compact, shall constitute an area for 
regional education supported by public funds derived from 
taxation by the constituent States and derived from other 
sources for the establishment, acquisition, operation and 
maintenance of regional educational schools and institu­
tions for the benefit of citizens of the respective States re­
siding within the region so established as may be deter­
mined from time to time in accordance with the terms and 
provisions of this compact.

The States do further hereby establish and create a joint 
agency which shall be known as the Board of Control for 
Southern Regional Education (hereinafter referred to as 
the “Board” ), the members of which Board shall consist



33

of the Governor of each State, ex officio, and three addi­
tional citizens of each State to be appointed by the Gov­
ernor thereof, at least one of whom shall be selected from 
the field of education. The Governor shall continue as a 
member of the Board during his tenure of office as Gov­
ernor of the State, but the members of the Board appointed 
by the Governor shall hold office for a period of four years 
except that in the original appointments one Board member 
so appointed by the Governor shall be designated at the 
time of his appointment to serve an initial term of two 
years, one Board member to serve an initial term of three 
years, and the remaining Board member to serve the full 
term of four years, but thereafter the successor of each 
appointed Board member shall serve the full term of four 
years. Vacancies on the Board caused by death, resigna­
tion, refusal or inability to serve, shall be filled by appoint­
ment by the Governor for the unexpired portion of the 
term. The officers of the Board shall be a Chairman, a 
Vice-Chairman, a Secretary, a Treasurer, and such addi­
tional officers as may be created by the Board from time 
to time. The Board shall meet annually and officers shall 
be elected to hold office until the next annual meeting. 
The Board shall have the right to formulate and establish 
by-laws not inconsistent with the provisions of this com­
pact to govern its own actions in the performance of the 
duties delegated to it including the right to create and ap­
point an Executive Committee and a Finance Committee 
with such powers and authority as the Board may delegate 
to them from time to time. The Board may, within its 
discretion, elect as its Chairman a person who is not a 
member of the Board, provided such person resides within 
a signatory State, and upon such election such person shall 
become a member of the Board with all the rights and 
privileges of such membership.

It shall be the duty of the Board to submit plans and 
recommendations to the States from time to time for 
their approval and adoption by appropriate legislative ac­
tion for the development, establishment, acquisition, opera­
tion and maintenance of educational schools and institu-



34

tions within the geographical limits of the regional area 
of the States, of such character and type and for such 
educational purposes, professional, technological, scientific, 
literary, or otherwise, as they may deem and determine to 
be proper, necessary or advisable. Title to all such educa­
tional institutions when so established by appropriate legis­
lative actions of the States and to all properties and facili­
ties used in connection therewith shall be vested in said 
Board as the agency of and for the use and benefit of the 
said States and the citizens thereof, and all such educa­
tional institutions shall be operated, maintained and 
financed in the manner herein set out, subject to any pro­
visions or limitations which may be contained in the legis­
lative acts of the States authorizing the creation, establish­
ment and operation of such educational institutions.

In addition to the power and authority heretofore grant­
ed, the Board shall have the power to enter into such 
agreements or arrangements with any of the States and 
with educational institutions or agencies, as may be re­
quired in the judgment of the Board, to provide adequate 
services and facilities for the graduate, professional, and 
technical education for the benefit of the citizens of the 
respective States residing within the region, and such 
additional and general power and authority as may be 
vested in the Board from time to time by legislative enact­
ment of the said States.

Any two or more States who are parties of this compact 
shall have the right to enter into supplemental agreements 
providing for the establishment, financing and operation 
of regional educational institutions for the benefit of citi­
zens residing within an area which constitutes a portion of 
the general region herein created, such institutions to be 
financed exclusively by such States and to be controlled 
exclusively by the members of the Board representing such 
States provided such agreement is submitted to and ap­
proved by the Board prior to the establishment of such 
institutions.



35

Each State agrees that, when authorized by the Legis­
lature, it will from time to time make available and pay 
over to said Board such funds as may be required for the 
establishment, acquisition, operation and maintenance of 
such regional educational institutions as may be authorized 
by the States under the terms of this compact, the contri­
bution of each State at all times to be in the proportion that 
its population bears to the total combined population of the 
States who are parties hereto as shown from time to time 
by the most recent official published report of the Bureau 
of the Census of the United States of America; or upon 
such other basis as may be agreed upon.

This compact shall not take effect or be binding upon 
any State unless and until it shall be approved by proper 
legislative action of as many as six or more of the States 
whose Governors have subscribed hereto within a period 
of eighteen months from the date hereof. When and if six 
or more States shall have given legislative approval to 
this compact within said eighteen months period, it shall 
be and become binding upon such six or more States 60 
days after the date of legislative approval by the Sixth 
State and the Governors of such six or more States shall 
forthwith name the members of the Board from their 
States as hereinabove set out, and the Board shall then 
meet on call of the Governor of any State approving this 
compact, at which time the Board shall elect officers, adopt 
by-laws, appoint committees and otherwise fully organize. 
Other States whose names are subscribed hereto shall 
thereafter become parties hereto upon approval of this 
compact by legislative action within two years from the 
date hereof, upon such conditions as may be agreed upon 
at the time. Provided, however, that with respect to any 
State whose constitution may require amendment in order 
to permit legislative approval of the Compact, such State 
or States shall become parties hereto upon approval of this 
Compact by legislative action within seven years from the 
date hereof, upon such conditions as may be agreed upon 
at the time.



36

After becoming effective this compact shall thereafter 
continue without limitation of time; provided, however, 
that it may be terminated at any time by unanimous action 
of the States and provided further that any State may 
withdraw from this compact if such withdrawal is ap­
proved by its Legislature, such withdrawal to become ef­
fective two years after written notice thereof to the Board 
accompanied by a certified copy of the requisite legislative 
action, but such withdrawal shall not relieve the withdraw­
ing State from its obligations hereunder accruing up to 
the effective date of such withdrawal. Any State so with­
drawing shall ipso facto cease to have any claim to or 
ownership of any of the property held or vested in the 
Board or to any of the funds of the Board held under the 
terms of this compact.

If any State shall at any time become in default in the 
performance of any of its obligations assumed herein or 
with respect to any obligation imposed upon said State 
as authorized by and in compliance with the terms and pro­
visions of this compact, all rights, privileges and benefits 
of such defaulting State, its members on the Board and its 
citizens shall ipso facto be and become suspended from 
and after the date of such default. Unless such default 
shall be remedied and made good within a period of one 
year immediately following the date of such default this 
compact may be terminated with respect to such default­
ing State by an affirmative vote of three-fourths of the 
members of the Board (exclusive of the members repre­
senting the State in default), from and after which time 
such State shall cease to be a party to this compact and 
shall have no further claim to or ownership of any of the 
property held by or vested in the Board or to any of the 
funds of the Board held under the terms of this compact, but 
such termination sha.ll in no manner release such default­
ing State from any accrued obligation or otherwise affect 
this compact or the rights, duties, privileges or obligations 
of the remaining States thereunder.

In W itness W hereof this Compact has been approved 
and signed by Governors of the several States, subject to



37

the approval of their respective Legislatures in the manner 
hereinabove set out, as of the 8th day of February, 1948.

STATE OF FLORIDA 
By M illard F. Caldwell 

Governor
STATE OF MARYLAND 
By W m . Preston Lane, Jr.

Governor
STATE OF GEORGIA 
By M. E. Thompson 

Governor
STATE OF LOUISIANA 
By J. H. Davis 

Governor
STATE OF ALABAMA 
By James E. Folsom 

Governor
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 
By F. L. W right 

Governor
STATE OF TENNESSEE 
By Jim  M cCord 

Governor
STATE OF ARKANSAS 
By Ben L aney 

Governor
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
By W m . M. Tuck 

Governor
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 
By R. Gregg Cherry 

Governor
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 
By J. Strom Thurmond 

Governor



38

STATE OF TEXAS 
By Beauford H. Jester 

Governor
STATE OF OKLAHOMA 
By Roy J. Turner 

Governor
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 
By Clarence W. M eadows 

Governor
now, therefore,

Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of 
Maryland, That the said Compact is hereby approved, con­
firmed and ratified, and that as soon as the said Compact 
shall be approved, confirmed and ratified by the Legisla­
tures of at least six of the States signatory hereto in ac­
cordance with the provisions of the Compact, thereupon 
and immediately thereafter, every paragraph, clause, pro­
vision, matter and thing in the said Compact contained 
shall be obligatory on this State and the citizens thereof, 
and shall be forever faithfully and inviolably observed and 
kept by the government of this State and all of its citizens 
according t9 the true intent and meaning and provisions 
of the said Compact.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That, upon the ap­
proval of this Compact by the minimum requisite number 
of States, as provided in said Compact, the Governor is 
hereby authorized and directed to sign an engrossed copy 
of the Compact and sufficient copies thereof, so as to pro­
vide that each and every State approving the Compact 
shall have an engrossed copy thereof.

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That this Act shall 
take effect on June 1, 1949.
Approved April 22, 1949.