Wright v. Council of the City of Emporia Appendix

    APPENDIX

Supreme Court of the U nited States

OCTOBER TERM, 1971

No. 70-188

PECOLA ANNETTE WRIGHT, ET AL., 

PETITIONERS,

— v . — •

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EMPORIA, ET AL.

ON W R IT  OF CERTIORARI TO T H E  U N ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR TH E  FO U R TH  CIRCUIT

CERTIORARI GRANTED OCTOBER 12, 1971 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED MAY 20, 1971



I N D E X

Docket Entries ............ ..... ............. ........... ...... ....... .....  la

Complaint [filed March 15, 1965] _______________2a

Answer [filed June 1, 1965] ______ _____ _________  12a

Memorandum of the District Court [filed January 27,
1966] ---------------------------.............. ...... ..................... -  15a

Order of District Court [filed January 27, 1966] .... 29a

Excerpts from Minutes of Meeting of Board of Su­
pervisors of Greensville County, Virginia, Novem­
ber 27, 1967 .......... ......................... ......... ................. . 30a

Minutes of Special Meeting of the Board of Super­
visors of Greensville County, March 19, 1968 ..... . 31a

Agreement Between City of Emporia and County of
Greensville Dated April 10, 1968 ....... .... ..............  32a

Motion for Further Relief [filed June 21, 1968] .......  37a

Report and Motion [filed January 31, 1969] ...........  38a

Plaintiffs’ Proposed Plan for Desegregation [filed
March 18, 1969] ......... ...... ......... ....................... ........  46a

District Court Oral Decision, June 23, 1969 ...........  49a

Order of District Court [filed June 25, 1969] ...........  54a

Letter from Council of the City of Emporia to Hon.
Rufus Echols, Chairman and Members of Greens­
ville County Board of Supervisors Dated July 7,
1969 ........................................... ..... ............... - ............  56a

PAGE



11

Minutes of the Council of the City of Emporia for 
July 9, 1969 .... .............................................................. 61a

Minutes of the Council of the City of Emporia for 
July 14, 1969 ........ -....................................................... 62a

Minutes of Meeting of County School Board of
Greensville County, July 16, 1969 ............... ...........  67a

Minutes of School Board of the City of Emporia for 
July 17, 1969 ..................................................... ._.... . 70a

Minutes of the Council of the City of Emporia for 
July 23, 1969 ..............................................................  73a

Motion to Amend Judgment [filed July 23, 1969] .... 76a

Minutes of the School Board of the City of Emporia 
for July 30, 1969 ........................................................  80a

Registration Notice of School Board of City of Em­
poria [dated July 31, 1969] ......................................  82a

Order of District Court [filed August 1, 1969] ...........  83a

Supplemental Complaint [filed August 1, 1969] .... . 84a

Minutes of Meeting of School Board of City of Em­
poria—August 5, 1969 ............................................... 88a

District Court Proceedings of August 8, 1969 ____ 90a

Sam A. Owen, for Plaintiffs

Direct Examination .......................   90a

Cross Examination .......................    102a

PAGE



I l l

Redirect Examination ....................................  109a

Recross Examination ..........      109a

George F. Lee, for Plaintiffs

Direct Examination ....      110a

Cross Examination ......... .......... ......... ..........  118a

Redirect Examination .....    126a

Recross Examination .................      130a

E. V. Lankford, for Plaintiffs

Direct Examination .......      138a

Cross Examination ...............   145a

George F. Lee, for Defendants

Direct Examination .... .......... ................. ..... . 158a

Cross Examination ..... ........... ......... .......... . 168a

Redirect Examination .... ............ ..... .............  178a

Oral Decision of District Court ........................... 181a

District Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions 
of Law [filed August 8, 1969] ..................................  190a

Order of District Court [filed August 8, 1969] .......  195a

Answer of Defendants to Supplemental Complaint
[filed August 15, 1969] ............. ...... ............... ..........  196a

Excerpts from Minutes of State Board of Educa­
tion, August 19-20, 1969 .................... .............. .........  198a

PAGE



IV

Minutes of Meeting of School Board of City of Em­
poria, December 3, 1969 and Attachments Thereto 200a

Minutes of Meeting of School Board of City of Em­
poria, December 10, 1969 ................ — ...... ...... -....  224a

District Court Proceedings of December 18, 1969 .... 226a

Edward G. Lankford, for Defendants

Direct Examination _________     226a

Cross Examination .......... ........ ..... .......... . 253a

Redirect Examination ......................     254a

Recross Examination ............................    265a

Neil H. Tracey, for Defendants

Direct Examination .........   266a

Cross Examination ................ ......... .......... . 281a

George P. Lee, for Defendants

Direct Examination ...............    287a

Memorandum Opinion of District Court [filed March
2, 1970] ........................................ ....... ........................ 293a

Order of District Court [filed March 2, 1970] _____  310a

Opinions of Court of Appeals [March 23, 1971] ....... 311a

Judgment of Court of Appeals .......................... .......  348a

PAGE



Jury demand date:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Cese sotV 
0*; m e r its :. 
On r;c V.on

D . C . Form  S o .  IOC Rev.

TITLE OF CASE J. S. 5 ATTORNEYS

For plaintiff: Tucker and Marsh
214 East Clav Street

PEC OLA ARNETTS WRIGHT, LAV5RNE WRIGHT,
JAMES E. WRIGHT, JR., and COLA K. WRIGHT,
infajnts, by Jarr.es E. Wright and Magg.ie Wri ght,
t heir father and mother and next f r iends,_et al

»A> * t'7 T.'v-I-, t:

vs

V* s//COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF GREENSVILLE COUNTY, VA.
‘ CARY P. FLYTHE, _  ' DecTd . ____________

^ADOLPHUS G. SLATE 
j/LANDON S. TEMPLE 
y /J . B. ADAMS

■ #

ANDREW G. WRIGHT (no longer with School Board) an<̂
COUNCIL OF THE CITY 0? EKPOR T A ______ ' ' ' "  ’ '  '~~

.GaflItGE_M^-LEE._________!______________________________________
S G L
‘ vtrJSekBRFxk >£ ta ss x&et ioazxz sufcfc

For defendant:

L. R_. BROTHERS, JR.
' / F r ederick T. Gray, W illiam s, _Mullen_ &

WILLIAM H. LIGOM
JULIAN C. WATKINS 
T. CATO TILLAR
M, L. NICHOLSON, JR.
FRED A. MORGAN
THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY OF KM̂ nDTA

Christian. State Planters Bank Bids, 
/{ „  1 I ' 7T •

D. Dortch Warrin e r _ E s q u ir e _________
332 South Mai n S tree t .  Emporia. Va.

E. V. LANKFORD
JULIAN P. MITCHELL
P. C. TAYLOR________
G. B. LIGON

6-20-66 Plan approved -  retained on docket

v  / / - / 7  - i f / -
N
J

J

SCHOOL’ CASE..........  ,
CT A S S  STATISTICAL RECORD

 ̂ action, 1SUSCI331 - 14th COSTS
Amendment

DATE NAME OR 
RECEIPT NO. REC. DISB.

J.S. 5 mailed Clerk
'3 ./S Z 6 S / s ' o

c  / o y - y AT <d> «■»
V -v f .L l G C5 <D

J.S. 6 mailed Marshal j rr [V--YVV.O s‘w / “ '/* Sr /V*> A ’ C.' X -a w
Basis of Action: Docket fee V-L'.-d/ y / D t a

j -z o ~ 7 o
Witness fees (T-'/ZZ g5l 9 o

C\

Action arose at: Depositions

'

r 'n



i • ' : • * • • .

No ' U263 Docket Entries Page 1

DATE
r. 1965

PROCEEDINGS • jDate (.
ad; me.

March 12 Comolnint f : led summons issued. ....... ..... _ ___ ___
, m 29 M arshal's return on summons as to a l l  d e f ts .  executed and f i le d  ................ . ........
_Apr.^_5____ Motion to dismiss f i le d  bv County School Board of Greensville Co. Va_, Ca_ry_P•

m ^ r ’no AHnl-v-nc c: Blr.te, T.andon S. Temple..and JL—B. Adams_^_ind. & as
n„ph0rq of the Cnunt.v_SLch.QQ-l_B.QarxLand_An.dreiAJL,_IIri.ght ,_Divt,—Suj>iL» or

Morion for consolidation of motion to dismiss with hearing on m erits , for .........---JaHJ.—j.-------
0 11 i.TPirif̂ nt o f  answer 6 v defts  2nd fox di.xi.ns o f  ti.Xi.3_l. dnt̂ G—fLiJLi=jd—b_y—pl._X_fs_x------------

"  5 Order deferring ruline on motion to dismiss; d irecting Clerk to c a l l  case at
next docket c a l l " e n t . 5 -5 -6 5 .  Copies mailed as d ir e c te d !*  D efts . to answer

on or before 6 -1 -6 5 .
May 7 Interrogatories f i le d  by p l f .

24 Order extending time to 6 -8 -6 5  for d e ft .  School Boar..d_to f i l e .answers.. !.Q...... ... ...._ _
interrogator ies 3 ent. 5 -2 4 -6 5 .  Copies mailed counsel... of. record.--------------------------------

June 1 y Answer f i le d  by d e fts .
" 18 Answer of County School Board of Greensville C o ,,  Va. to in terrogatories .

f i l e d ,  with ex h ib its .
S errfc - 8 Derositi on o f Andrew Graham W right, received

Nov. 3 Li'st o f  witnesses o l t f s  expect to c i l l  and l i s t  o f  exhibits s l t f s .  expect to
introduce f i l e d .  ... ................

Nov. 5 L is t  of witnesses d e f t s .  expect to c a l l  and l i s t  of exhibits they expect to
introduce f i le d

"  9 Depositions of Wm. I .  Reavis & H. E. Wright received
______11___16-

Nov. 17 TRIAL PROCEEDINGS: Butzner. J . : Atraearances: Parties bv counsel. P la m tx x f
adduced evidence, P l a i n t i f f  r e s t s .  Defendant adduced evidence, rested . ............ .
Feeh side to  ore sent b r ie fs  and court to decidd case uoon receip t  o f  b r i e f s .

Nov. 17 P l a i n t i f f ' s  statement of n o sit io n  and summary of fa c t s  f i l e d  in open court.
"  18 Reporter's transcript o f  testimony o f Dr. Bruce W. Welch f i l e d .
"  29 Reporter's transcript of proceedings of 11-17-65  f i le d .

B rief on behalf o f  d e fts .  r e c 'd .
Dec. 15; B rie f  fo r  p l a i n t i f f s ,  received

1966
Jan. 19 Copy o f  le t t e r  from Acting U. S. Commissioner o f Education announcing approval

of Greensville  Countv School plan bv Department of Health, Education &

1 W elfareT f i l e d .
} Jan. 27 ■ Memorandum of the Court f i le d

II II Order that defts  motion to dismiss be denied; P l t f s .  prayer for an iniunction
restrain ing  school construction and the purchase of school sStes denied
D efts . granted 90 days to submit amendments to their  plan which D i l l
provide for employment and assignment of the s t a f f  on a non ra cia l b a s is .
Pending receipt of these amendments, the Court w i l l  defer approval of the
plan and consideration of other xh injunctive r e l i e f ;  P lt fs  motion for

---------------- — „ c o u n s c l  fees, denied; ..Case. to_be...retained...on..docket with ..leave, granted., to,any.____
. party to p etitio n  for further r e l i e f ; ..P lt fs  shall__.rccover_. their costs ...to date..

ent. 4 f i le d ;  Copies mailed as directed

—

___ApE _̂_2_Z_
Hay li

Supplement Faculty plan f i le d
TRIAL PROCEEDINGS-Butzner,  J . :  Parties appeared by counsel. Issues jo ined .

Erceotior.s to plan supplement f i l e d  b y .p l a i n t i f f s .  Case....argued.
.......... ( r.nn further prneoerii m~s at; page 2 j .........

i

v v1~r.K—12-1 tf-ct- 24m - 29*1

19°.



i ' ; 0 .  L \ £ 0 3  V X JL X e
£> c. n o  He*/. Civil D ocket C ontin uation Docket Entries J?age_2_

D A  ITS
1 9 6 X I

'_Hay_JL3.

procusdixcs

..Memorandum. of - the. court ..with, appendix plan_of-the-County-School Board-of____
—  Goochland .County, . Virginia,_.to_dasegrega.te_lts_school--faculties, - attached,_
--idle d_ May_13-. _12o£________
xOrdar--granting_dei!endantsxten-days Jo_subini.t_am.endTi8n ts_to —their-plan-jurhich- 
.— .trill_pro3d.de^ar^a^oya£uit_aad_assignrrient_ja£_tha_s±af£_on_a_non-»racdLal___

-hasis-and-de£&rring_approva!]__oiL.pl an_nnd...oonsi daration of  other i  n  j n - n c t - i  v p

-jrelief*_en.t.ered_and_.iXl<2jiXliy_18—19.66—.(-Cepij5.s_nX..m£mnrandi™ and nf th e___

-2CL

a _June_lC.
"  20

_J_L9.68_
_Jurvfi_

July 3
8

-ordaixdeii-'vr' redxt a_counssX)_
Motion—fair—le>vo—to—f i l e —and—request—for—;approval—o f—a—plan—supplement_f i l e d —by__ L
------- Coun ty -S  c-11 oo -1—Bo a-r-d—of—Gr e e n s v-i-lle-Co,-------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- X
IN OPEN COURT-Butzner. J . : Plan discussed by counsel . Court to  approve Plan. {

Memorandum of the Court f i l e d ,
-9x.d e.r_.ap.px.QyJ.nK_pJLan_Jad.o.p.t.e.<i_hy_Gr.e.ens.vJLU.e_C_o.un t y_ S choo 1 _B oar.d.;_r e t a in inj; 
—_..casc...on_dockc.t,_ent.*_6-2.0-.66___Copics._mailed_couns.el*._______ _________________

_Jnterr03atories  f i le d  by pit. f .
Notice o f  Motion f i le d  by p l t f . '
Motion for further r e l i e f  f i le d  by p l t r .
D efts . response to dninnrnnntDuX in terrogatory #3 received & f i le d
Order that d e fts .  f i l e  plan for desegregation on or before 9 -8 -6 8 ,  ei 

Copies mailed coun se l .
7 -8 -6 3 .

10 jOrder vacating order o f  7 -8 -6 8 ;  d e ft s .  sh a ll  on or before 7 -3 0 -6 8  advise the
I

court
i f  they are in compliance with plan for desegregation o f  pu b lic  school 

svstem as enunciated 7T n--,-. c,,.

22

sa court xn i t s  aecisioa  or b-x/'-oc
i f  de f t s .  cannot properly f i l e  r eport o f  compliance , they sh a ll  f i l e  on or ' 
before 8 -9 -6 8  a plan for desegrega t ion o f  the pub lic  school sys t em whic h _thcy~ 
contend w i l l  b rin g them in compliance with the 5 -2 7 -68  decision aforesaid"; j
p l f s .  sh a ll  f i l e exceptions i f  any to any such pIans w ithin 3 days_th e re a fte r ,

Copies m ailed counsel. !en t. 7 -10 -68 .
Answers to interrogatories f i le d  by County School Board o f  Greensville  Co.

Aug. 8 Report and Motion f i le d  by County School Board o f Greensville C o .,  as directed
by order o f  7 -1 0 -6 8 .

"  13____ Executions to Report f i le d  by p l f s .  .
__Aux*—14... IN OPEN COURT; Karhige, J. Appearances: Parties by counsel. Waived opening.

Deft adduced evidneee. rested , p l a i n t i f f  adduced no evidence. Case taken undar
advicerxnt.

J Sept. 16 Report and Plan o f  County School Board o f  G reensville Co. and S. A, Cwen
Div. Supt. o f  Schools, r e c 'd  and f i l e d .

_Sen*_XLA___ P r e - t r ia l  in open court-Merhiee, J.
-XSnKxrhxxx ^SrderxShnSxpiUfsxxfiiaxHHyxEXEEnrinnsx^ihiEkxthExxEisyxhnvExSnxHaidxnianxxifxnnv

yri shinx frhisx days
—Dec. 4 _ _Drden.that D efts . granted un til  Jan. .20. 1969 , to f i l e  plan; that said o l t f s .

__f i l e  any exceptions which they may have-to said plan, i f  any. within five davs
thereafter ent. A f i l e d :  copies mailed as directed .

Jan. 23

d "v x r
V J -
_.Feb. H
_Xeb.*_25_.

Mar. 18

Motion for extension o f time to Jan. 31, 1969 for - f i l ing plan for desegregation  
ordered f i le d  by d e ft s .

and Kotion ^ith_proposed_vodificaXipns„pjL.frecdcn_of_..choicc plan <Exh
_______ f i le d  by County School Board._______________ ______  H "A'jy

.Exceptions to report and motion f i l e d by p l f s .
,.IR.IAh_£RQCElh)ING.Sj—M ctrJ iige^J ._A ppearances : P a r t i e s  by cou n se l . Defendant adduced
.evidence^__reste_cL—.—Deufen.dar.tXs_p la n "A " reje c te d . Plan “ Alterpaj;e " taken under
.ad v i semen tr._Caae ...con tXnue d_gen e r a l ly .

^Proposed Plan for Desegregation f i le d  by p l f s .
~~lTune 5 jOrder "that a l l  part ies  appear on 6"-17-69 at 3 P. f l ~  IJTperson"or“bY T oSnsel7“ £or

purposes -o f-co n sid erin g -d efts4—rep o rt-a n d -m o tlo n -h ereto fo ro -fi led , as~woi1
p lfs  proposed plan for desegregationy?e n t , 6 -5 -6 9 .  Copies mailed counsel.

‘as*



i C . A, 4263 - Wright v» Greensville C-o.-Sch Ed P f\ G Z R
'« •

i '

j —— 1 ■ ’
DATE

1969__
PROCEEDINGS j I)ate Cj Juĉ r.iu

j « „ »"v Oi t̂UVUi ___
1

TRIAL PROCEEDINGS: Kerhige. J. Apoaarances: Parties by counsel. Opening statement's. 
Defendant adduced evidence . Rested, Finding o f  fact and conclusions o f law stated

1 from b4nch. Defendants plan as submitted is  re je cte d , and p l a i n t i f f ' s  plan is  to 1
i be put into edcect.
! June 23 Minutes o f  the court f i l e d .
, ". 25
i '. . •

Order denying clefts' proponed use o f  freedom o f  choice plan, e t c ;  d e f ts '  proposed 
use o f  a lternative plan net forth in Exhibit A is  denied; enjoining d e fts .

1 permanently, e tc .  to d is e sta b lish  e x is t in g  dual system of r a c ia l ly  id e n tlf ic b le
public schools being operated in G reensville  C o ., and to replace that system

I of schools with a unitary system; dn-joining d e f t s .  mandatorily to take necessaryi -j steps to the end that proposed plan for desegregation f i le d  by p l f s .  under date
» of 3 -1 8 -69  be put into e f fe c t  commencing with the school term beginning in
i Sept. 1969; d e fts .  to report to th is  court by no la ter  than 8 -1 5 -6 9  their
\ actions in compliance with th is  decree, e t c . ,  e n t . 6 -2 5 -6 9 .  Copies mailedi| counsel o f  record and delivered to  U. S. Marshal for service  on each o f the
i defendants herein. f  /  • p-- /  <f . )

July 1 Marshal’ s return on ooove order executed, f i l e d .
{ "  23 Notice o f  Motion to amend judgment f i le d  by d e f t s .

tl IS Motion to amend judgment toge£her with plan for operation f i le d  bv d e fts .
Julv 25 .. NOTICE OF APPEAL f i l e d  by County School Board o f G reensville Countv
Jclv 25 Undertaking on appeal f i l e d

| ___July_3I_ _jrRL-i__PSOCESDIKGSr_JEerhige_. ^ _App.ear.ancccs_i__.Parties bv cbunsel. Arguments heard L
_on proposed plane Decision withheld.1 I * --------------------

! _ .Julv 3U..JHinutes_ of._.court f i l e d .  .
Aug.l i le  .supplemental complaint and for in ter ! orntory injnn^t-inn f i ' le j

by p1 f s . v
If ft

• Statement o f  Authorities f i le d  bv n l f .
IS f t Oi. dor r i l in g —supplernGntnl ccmolain£ n_n.d__djizic_ci.in̂  conip^ t.ti fh rrmy nf n>-io[p2 ]_

... complaint, co_p_y o f  c o u r t 's  order o f 6-25-69nnd this  m-Her Kp ■ csnrpi Wv tho
U. S. Marshal on each o f  the w e ft s . ;  said d e fts .  m  answer
complaint. within 15. days ..after service thereof: p l f s  motion for in h p r .' L
locutory injunction is  .set for hearing on 8 -8 -6 9 .  at- 10  4 . M ent r_ i ftj
Comes delivered to U,__.S, Marshal and mailed counsel .

Aug.l Supplemental complaint f i l e d .
i  "  4 Marshal's return on supplemental complaint executed, f i l e d .

" 8 Motion fo r  amendment of order rendered on July 31, 1969, f i l e d .
Au? 8 TRIAL P?.CC3EDH'!GS -  Kerhige, J. Aorearances: P arties by counsel. P la in t i f f[! * adduced evidence, rested . Defendant .adduced evidence, re ste d . FFCL stated rfrorr.

i vue nenen. Motion fo r  in terlo cu to ry  in junction  .granted. Case continued to
f Dscamoar lb ,  19o5j for hearing on issuance o f permanent in ju nction .
| —Aug.—i.S._.rindings_.of_fa.c_t _ f i  led1) If l Order... enjoin ing..& .restraining E. V. Lankford. Julian P. M itc h e ll ,  P. S. Tavlor
1 G. B.JLigor., William H. Ligon, L. R. Brothers. J r . .  T. Cato T i l l e r .  Fred A. Morga n,
ii —----------------- Julian C. Wat:kins_, S . G. Keedwell, M. L. Nicholson, J r . .  Robert F. Hutcheson
\ —etc . from, any action which would in terfere  in any manner whatsoever with the

...-.Implementation o f the Court's Order heretofore entered in reference to the

|
i

. operation of public .schools jEor. the..studont population o f  G reensville  Countv
&. the City .o f  Emnor inj___Order to be e f  feetiye_ upon p it  f s .  giving secur i ty  in
sunt .of .$1C0. 00__fpr_j>ayTRent..o f  costs and damages & Order to remain in fu l l  force

| — ------------- _& effect..for 140 days, unless sooner modified, enlarged or d i s s o lv e d ' ; denying
motion for stay , Ent. & f i l e d ;  Copies turned over to Marshal for service

—

j . Aiig._15.__ 
i --Aug. 26

..Answer of d e f t s . . . f i le d  .....
ORDER extending time fu l l  90 days for docketing appeal, en t. & f i le d

Aug, 26, 1969. Clerk mailed copies to counsel and to (reporter
j (SEE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AT PAGE 4) "  .“ ... ................

i
.... ... .......  9  0



NO. 4263

DATE
1 9  6

/ FILINGS— PROCEEDINGS
7

CLERK’S FEES AMOUNT REPORTED it EMCLUMENV RETURNSPLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

__ (Ic.tL._9__
I f  1)

Notice o f Notion & Motion to dismiss supplemental compl aint iilec by dc fts
Statement o f  authorities  f i le d .b y  d e ft s .

__oct i ; Iff 0?LC:1 COURT: Msrhipe. Jr. Appearances.: P arties by conns
— 
1*1 „

Motion to  dismiss supplemental complaint, argued.

Taken 'under advisement.

Oct 1? Minutes o f  the court f i l e d .

- O c t .20 Order denying motion to dismiss and dismissing supplem jn ta l :.cmp l.alnt

f i le d  herein on the grounds that the Court lacked iuri r r r ^jd i c t i >n. Conie y m r iled
as d irected , to counsel o f  record.

Oct 22 ' ORDER extending time for docketing appeal to Nov 24 19 69. er tere:!d bv
U S Court o f  Appeals S et . 21 , 1969, revd & f i le d  Oct. 22, IS 69

_j0cjL__2.4_ — MQtJ_o:n_tr5__xetmujx_part_ii£ record in D is tr ic t  Conr t-. pend no- pdhpn 1
by d e ft s .

Oct. 27 ORDER that clerk is directed to retain  in this  Court tlie fo l lowi ig par zsi
o f record, subject to the request o f  the Court o f  Apnea

r—
lls 1

1. P it f  s .  Notice o f motion to f i l e  supplemental copinle'1n t : t i ad 1
and tor an interlocutory injunction f i le d  Aug. 1, 1965 3

2. P l a i n t i f *s . statement o f  a u th o r it ie s ,  Filed Au«. 1, 1 969.
3 . P l t f ’ s .  supplemental complaint f i le d  Aug. 1, 1969

; 4 . Findings o f fact & conclusions o f law, f i le d  Aug. 8 , 1969
5 . ORDER granting temporary in junction , f i le d  Aug. 8 , 1969 J

' 6 . Answer o f  d e f t ' s ,  , Council o f  the City o f  Emporia ar d i ts mem' 3ers & Sck ool
Board o f  the City o f  Emporia & i t s  members, f i le d  Aut . 14, 196 ).

7. Notice o f  motion and motion o f  d e f t ' s . ,  Council of tl e Cit' of Empor .a <S
School Board of the City o f  Emporia Sc i t s  members to ~7 . TT dismu s s ipplem! mta 1
complaint, f i le d  Oct. 8 , 1969.

8 . ORDER denying d e f t ' s ,  motion, f i le d  Oct. 21, 1969

♦ 9. Motion, o f  d e f t ' s . ,  Council o f  the City o f  Emporia anc i t s  ilembv:rs & 1̂ chc ol Boa':d c
School poard o f the City o f  Emporia Sx. i t s  members to retail pa:*t of !record
in D is tr ic t  Court pending appeal.

lu . Any ocher pleadings, orders, or documents re latin g  t o the pr :cedin ;s on

p l t f ' s .  supplemental complaint, including transcript! s .
FUTKSR ORDERED that c lerk  sh a ll  transmit copy o f thi! s 0RD5:r ti USC A for the
Fourth Circuit e n t . & f i l e d ;  Notice to counsel

Nov. 19 1 Original and one copy o f Reporters Transcript dated Fob . 25, 1965
~r • 

. f i le d
Nov. 19 j Original and cone copy o f  Reporters Transcript dated Jiric  23, Julv '315 1968

August 14 , 196S and Aug. 8 , 1969, f i l e d .

___
r>. c. no ......- "(r - ----- ---— -....... - --- ----— — — ---------

201



DOCKET ENTRIESNO. 4263 -  G r e e n s v i l l P a g e  3
■

---------------  - - *
CLERK’ S FEES a m o u n tRCPORTEO IN

DAT E

1969
PLAINTirK DEFENDANT

EMOLUNURETURN

Nov . 1^ APPEAL RECORD, Vols. 1 -V II  end e x h ib its ,  delivered to Cl erk ,
USCA. (see le tte r  in case f i l e )  j

Dec. 3
.............................................. ....................................  ■ - ..- j

Defendant's l i s t  of witnesses and e x h ib its ,  r e c 'd ,  f i l e 1 .
i

i

Dec. 18 TRIAL PROCEEDINGS: Merheqe, J. Appearances: Parties by counsel PI ai n t i f f adduced

evidence rps ! pd Defendant addiiI^d__£Vid£JlC£... D£SiiLcL_
1 !

Case , . im undeA ___
!

3uV4 S€n]8n-L—uy oour-w
r n n  v't* f  i 1 pH . .. .................................................

Dec 31 APPEAL RECORD VOLS 1-V II & ex h ib its  revd from Clerk'USCA

Dec 31 Copy of order of USCA dismissing appeal, f i le d

1970
Rebuttal B rie f  of Council and School Board o f  Emporia t P la i1nt i f f 1 s Met.o : i led  bV

Men 2 MEMORANDUM OPINION o f  the Court da", id March 2, 1970, f i l ed. Cl erk ma i 1 e t
copies to counsel

Men 2 ORDER on memorandum of March 2 . /1 9 7 0 ,  denying motion of the dc f  enc'ants .------------------------------------------- ' ~ - ......... ....  ....... ". ' ' ^
council of the City o f  Emporia and the members the r e o f , and the

-------------- Sttitd-ot—uaaT‘cr~oT~'ulre-_U T t y  OjT slnpc7l  l a a i T a c n e  tne/.iDers c n e t
dissolve the Court's in iuucticnihex£iAx£case_eiitex£dLcLrL-Av

- u- ; to
■>. 1 Qnc

and decreeing that said order sh a ll  remain in fu l l force anc| e f fe c t
----------tmtnHrThxrtireT or cror; denying notion or (The dereno

the Ci tv of Emnoria to 'nodi Fv the decree o f  this D
ant Be
onrf c

noo. boar c 
ted_am

or

June 25, 1969, as modified on July 30, 1969, ent. L f i le d  Merch 2 .
-  t9T0T“Clerk mailea copies to counsel

Mch 19 NOTICE 0? APPEAL from order entered on March 2 , 1970 f i l ed by da fcindent t >
Council o f  the City or Emporia and the members thereo f and

S-o&ic
the School

•cal
Rule 31 issued by c le r k .

Men 19 Appeal undertaking $250 f i l e d

n ^ i  creation of Parts o f  Transcriot to be ir.dlcuded in Recoi jd atid Stat eae nt of

Issues f i le d  by d e ft .

March 24 ‘ ORDER- that entire nrQceiejiirisaJbirljd_jon_^/a/6fl A^12-AlS-/6-9—exc
I—J

:ept- ooerrir
& closing arguments bv counsel be trarscribed for tho—an

3 /2 4 /7 0  and f i l e d .  Cony d eliv er  to Court reo o rter . A1 maile.d_tc nttyt 1

Apr 7 Reporter's transcript o f  hearing or. Dec. 18, 1969, f i le d Mch. .970

_____ ...____

?02



la

Docket Entries



2a

Complaint

[filed March 15, 1965]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

F ob t h e  E astern D istrict  of V irginia 

Richmond Division 

Civil  A ction  No. 4263

P ecola A nnette W righ t , L averne W righ t , J am es E. 
W rig h t , J r ., and Cola M. W rig h t , infants, b y  James 
E. Wright and Maggie Wright, their father and mother 
and next friends, et al.,

vs.
Plaintiffs,

Co u nty  S chool B oard 
of G reensville  C o u n ty , V irgin ia , et al.,

Defendants. I

I

1. (a) Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under Title 
28, United States Code, Section 1331. This action arises 
under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States, Section 1, and under Title 42, United States 
Code, Section 1981, as hereafter more fully appears. The 
matter in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, ex­
ceeds the sum of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00).

(b) Jurisdiction is further invoked under Title 28, United 
States Code, Section 1343(3). This action is authorized by 
Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983 to be commenced



3a

by any citizen of the United States or other person within 
the jurisdiction thereof to redress the deprivation under 
color of state law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom 
or usage of rights, privileges and immunities secured by 
the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States and by Title 42, United States Code, Section 
1981, providing for the equal rights of citizens and of all 
persons within the jurisdiction of the United States, as here­
after more fully appears.

Complaint

II

2. Infant plan tiffs are Negroes, are citizens of the United 
States and of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and are resi­
dents of and domiciled in the political subdivision of Vir­
ginia for which the defendant school board maintains and 
operates public schools. Said infants are within the age 
limits or will be within the age limits to attend, and possess 
or upon reaching such age limit will possess all qualifica­
tions and satisfy all requirements for admission to, said 
public schools.

3. Adult plaintiffs are Negroes, are citizens of the United 
States and are residents and taxpayers of and domiciled in 
the Commonwealth of Virginia and the above mentioned 
political subdivision thereof. Each adult plaintiff who is 
named in the caption as next friend of one or more of the 
infant plaintiffs is a parent, guardian or person standing 
in loco parentis of the infant or infants indicated.

4. The infant plaintiffs and their parents, guardians and 
persons standing in loco parentis bring this action in their 
own behalf and, there being common questions of law and 
fact affecting the rights of all other Negro children attend­



4a

ing public schools in the Commonwealth of Virginia and, 
particularly, in the said political subdivision, similarly situ­
ated and affected with reference to the matters here in­
volved, who are so numerous as to make it impracticable 
to bring all before the Court, and a common relief being 
sought as will hereinafter more fully appear, the infant 
plaintiffs and their parents, guardians and persons stand­
ing in loco parentis also bring this action, pursuant to Rule 
23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as a class 
actilon on behalf of all other Negro children attending or 
who hereafter will attend public schools in the Common­
wealth of Virginia and, particularly, in said political sub­
division and the parents and guardians of such children 
similarly situated and affected with reference to the mat­
ters here involved.

5. Further, the adult plaintiffs bring this action pursuant 
to Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as a 
class action on behalf of those of the citizens and taxpayers 
of said political subdivision who are Negroes; the tax 
raised contribution of persons of that class toward the 
establishment, operation and maintenance of the schools 
controlled by the defendant school board being in excess of 
$10,000.00. The interests of said class are adequately repre­
sented by the plaintiffs.

Complaint

H I

6. The Commonwealth of Virginia has declared public 
education a state function. The Constitution of Virginia, 
Article IX, Section 129, provides:

“Free schools to be maintained. The General As­
sembly shall establish and maintain an efficient system 
of public free schools throughout the State.”



5a

Pursuant to this mandate, the General Assembly of Virginia 
has established a system of public free schools in the Com­
monwealth of Virginia according to a plan set out in Title 
22, Chapters 1 to 15, inclusive, of the Code of Virginia, 
1950. The establishment, maintenance and administration 
of the public school system of Virginia is vested in a State 
Board of Education, a Superintendent of Public Instruc­
tion, Division Superintendents of Schools, and County, City 
and Town School Boards (Constitution of Virginia, Article 
IX, Sections 130-133; Code of Virginia, 1950, Title 22, Chap­
ter 1, Section 22-2).

C omplaint

IV

7. The defendant School Board exists pursuant to the 
Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia as 
an administrative department of the Commonwealth, dis­
charging governmental functions, and is declared by law 
to be a body corporate. Said School Board is empowered 
and required to establish, maintain, control and supervise 
an efficient system of public free schools in said political 
subdivision, to provide suitable and proper school build­
ings, furniture and equipment, and to maintain, manage and 
control the same, to determine the studies to be pursued and 
the methods of teaching, to make local regulations for the 
conduct of the schools and for the proper discipline of stu­
dents, to employ teachers, to provide for the transportation 
of pupils, to enforce the school laws, and to perform nu­
merous other duties, activities and functions essential to 
the establishment, maintenance and operation of the public 
free schools in said political subdivision. (Constitution of 
Virginia, Article IX, Section 133; Code of Virginia, 1950, as 
amended, Title 22.) The names of the individual members 
of the defendant School Board are as stated in the caption



6a

and they are made defendants herein in their individual 
capacities.

8. The defendant Division Superintendent of Schools, 
whose name as such is stated in the caption, holds office pur­
suant to the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of 
Virginia as an administrative officer of the public free 
school system of Virginia. (Constitution of Virginia, Article 
IX, Section 133; Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, Title 
22.) He is under the authority, supervision and control of, 
and acts pursuant to the orders, policies, practices, customs 
and usages of the defendant School Board. He is made a 
defendant herein as an individual and in his official capacity.

9. A  Virginia statute, known as the Pupil Placement Act, 
first enacted as Chapter 70 of the Acts of the 1956 Extra 
Session of the General Assembly, viz, Article 1.1 of Chapter 
12 of Title 22 (Sections 22-232.1 through 22-232.17) of the 
-Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, confers or purports to 
confer upon the Pupil Placement Board all power of enroll­
ment or placement of pupils in the public schools in Vir­
ginia and to charge said Pupil Placement Board to per­
form numerous duties, activities and functions pertaining 
to the enrollment or placement of pupils in, and the deter­
mination of school attendance districts for, such public 
schools, except in those counties, cities or towns which elect 
to be bound by the provisions of Article 1.2 of Chapter 12 
of Title 22 (Sections 22-232.18 through 22-232.31) of the 
Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended.

10. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that in executing 
its power or purported power of enrollment or placement 
of pupils in and determination of school districts for the 
public schools of said political subdivision, the Pupil Place­

Complaint



ment Board will follow and approve the recommendations 
of the defendant School Board unless it appears that such 
recommendation would deny the application of a Negro 
parent for the assignment of his child to a school attended 
by similarly situated white children.

11. The procedures provided by the Pupil Placement Act 
do not provide an adequate means by which the plaintiffs 
may obtain the relief here sought.

V

12. Notwithstanding the holding and admonitions in 
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) and 349 
U.S. 294 (1955), the defendant School Board maintains 
and operates a biracial school system in which certain 
schools are designated for Negro students only and are 
staffed by Negro personnel and none other, and certain 
schools are designated for white students or primarily for 
white students and are staffed by white personnel and none 
other. This pattern continues unaffected except in the few 
instances, if any there are, in which individual Negroes 
have sought and obtained admission to one or more of the 
schools designated for white students. The defendants have 
not devoted efforts toward initiating nonsegregation in the 
public school system, neither have they made a reasonable 
start to effectuate a transition to a racially nondiserimina- 
tory school system, as under paramount law it is their duty 
to do. Deliberately and purposefully, and solely because of 
race, the defendants continue to require or permit all or 
virtually all Negro public school children to attend schools 
where none but Negroes are enrolled and none but Negroes 
are employed as principal or teacher or administrative as­
sistant and to require all white public school children to

7 a

C omplaint



8a

attend school where no Negroes, or at best few Negroes, are 
enrolled and where no Negroes teach or serve as principal 
or administrative assistant.

13. Heretofore, petitions signed by several persons 
similarly situated and conditioned as are the plaintiffs with 
respect to race, citizenship, residence and status as tax­
payers, were filed with the defendant School Board, asking 
the School Board to end racial segregation in the public 
school system and urging the Board to make announcement 
of its purpose to do so at its next regular meeting and 
promptly thereafter to adopt and publish a plan by which 
racial discrimination will be terminated with respect to 
administrative personnel, teachers, clerical, custodial and 
other employees, transportation and other facilities, and 
the assignment of pupils to schools and classrooms.

14. Representatives of the plaintiff class forwarded said 
petitions to the defendant School Board with a letter, copy 
of which was sent to each member of the defendant School 
Board, part of which is next set forth :

“ * * * In the light of the following and other court de­
cisions, your duty [to promptly end racial segregation 
in the public school system] is no longer open to 
question:

Brown v. Bd. of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954);
Brown v. Bd. of Education, 349 U.S. 294 (1955);
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958) ;
Bradley v. School Bd. of the City of Richmond, 

317 F.2d 429 (4th Cir. 1963);
Bell v. Co. School Bd. of Powhatan Co., 321 F.2d 

494 (4th Cir. 1963).

Complaint



9a

“We call to your attention the fact that in the last cited 
case the unyielding refusal of the County School Board 
of Powhatan County, Virginia, to take any initiative 
with regard to its duty to desegregate schools resulted 
in the board’s being required to pay costs of litigation 
including compensation to the attorneys for the Negro 
school children and their parents. We are advised that 
upon a showing of a deliberate refusal of individual 
school board members to perform their clear duty to 
desegregate schools, the courts may require them as 
individuals to bear the expense of the litigation.

“In the case of Watson v. City of Memphis, 373 U.S. 526 
(1963) the Supreme Court of the United States ex­
pressed its unanimous dissatisfaction with the slothful­
ness which has followed its 1955 mandate in Brown v. 
Board of Education, saying': ‘The basic guaranties of 
oirr Constitution are warrants for the here and now 
and, unless there is an overwhelmingly compelling rea­
son, they are to be promptly fulfilled.’ ”

15. More than two regular meetings of the defendant 
School Board have been held since it received the petitions 
and letter above referred to. Neither by word or deed has 
the defendant School Board indicated its willingness to end 
racial segregation in its public school system.

VI

16. In the following and other particulars, plaintiffs suf­
fer and will continue to suffer irreparable injury as a 
result of the persistent failure and refusal of the defendants 
to initiate desegregation and to adopt and implement a 
plan providing for the elimination of racial discrimination 
in the public school system.

Complaint



10a

17. Negro public school children are yet being educated 
in inherently unequal separate educational facilities spe­
cially sited, built, equipped and staffed as Negro schools, in 
violation of their liberty and of their right to equal protec­
tion of the laws.

18. Negro adult citizens are yet being taxed for the sup­
port and maintenance of a biracial school system the very 
existence of which connotates a degrading classification of 
the citizenship status of persons of the Negro race, in viola­
tion of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

19. Public funds are being spent and will be spent by 
the defendants for the erection of schools and additions to 
schools deliberately planned and sited so as to insure or 
facilitate the continued separation of Negro children in the 
public school system from others of similar age and quali­
fication solely because of their race, contrary to the provi­
sions of the Fourteenth Amendment which forbid govern­
mental agencies, whether acting ingeniously or ingenu­
ously, to make any distinctions between citizens based on 
race.

20. This action has been necessitated by reason of the 
failure and refusal of the individual members of the defen­
dant School Board to execute and perform their official duty, 
which since May 31,1955 has been clear, to initiate desegre­
gation and to make and execute plans to bring about the 
elimination of racial discrimination in the public school 
system.

V II

W herefore, p la in tiffs  resp ectfu lly  p r a y :

A. That the defendants be restrained and enjoined from 
failing and refusing to adopt and forthwith implement a

Complaint



11a

Complaint

plan which will provide for the prompt and efficient elimi­
nation of racial segregation in the public schools operated 
by the defendant School Board, including the elimination of 
any and all forms of racial discrimination with respect to 
administrative personnel, teachers, clerical, custodial and 
other employees, transportation and other facilities, and 
the assignment of pupils to schools and classrooms.

B. That pending the Court’s approval of such plan the 
defendants be enjoined and restrained from initiating or 
proceeding further with the construction of any school 
building or of any addition to an existing school building 
or the purchase of land for either purpose to any extent 
not previously approved by the Court.

C. That the defendants pay the costs of this action in­
cluding fees for the plaintiffs’ attorneys in such amounts 
as to the Court may appear reasonable and proper and that 
the plaintiffs have such other and further relief as may be 
just.

S. W . T u cker  
Of Counsel for Plaintiffs

S. W . T ucker  
H enry  L. M arsh , III 
W illard H . D ouglas, J r .

214 Bast Clay Street 
Richmond, Virginia 23219

J ack  G reenberg 
J am es M. N abrit , III

10 Columbus Circle, Suite 2030 
New York, New York 10019



12a

Answer

[filed June 1, 1965]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

F oe th e  E astern  D istrict  of V irginia  

Richmond Division

The undersigned defendants for Answer to the Com­
plaint exhibited against them say as follows:

1. These defendants deny that the amount in contro­
versy herein exceeds the sum of Ten Thousand Dollars 
($10,000.00) as alleged in paragraph 1 (a) of the Com­
plaint.

2. These defendants deny that this Court has juris­
diction under Title 28, United States Code, Section 1331 
or Title 28, United States Code, Section 1343(3) or Title 
42, United States Code, Section 1983 to grant any of the 
relief prayed for in the Complaint.

3. The allegations of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Com­
plaint are neither admitted or denied but the defendants 
believe the allegations to be essentially true.

4. These defendants specifically deny that there are 
questions of law and fact affectvng the rights of all other 
Negro children attending public schools in the said political 
subdivision and call for strict proof thereof and of the 
fact that it is impracticable to bring all before the Court 
who desire the relief being sought. These defendants af­
firmatively allege that, as will hereinafter more fully ap­
pear, the Constitutional and statutory rights of all children 
in the said political subdivision, in so far as public schools



13a

Answer

are concerned, are protected by the defendants and the 
desire for the relief being sought is common only to the 
named plaintiffs.

5. These defendants deny that grounds for a class action 
exist as alleged in paragraph 5 of the Complaint and deny 
that those constituting the group seeking relief herein 
contributed taxes in excess of $10,000.00 and call for 
strict proof.

6. The allegations of paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the 
Complaint are admitted insofar as they assert the existence 
of various Constitutional and statutory provisions of the 
Commonwealth of Virginia. These defendants are not re­
quired and therefore do not admit or deny the accuracy 
of the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the provisions of law 
to which reference is made.

7. These defendants believe the allegations of para­
graph 10 to be correct except that they believe that the 
Pupil Placement Board would refuse to follow any recom­
mendations which denied an application due to the race 
of the applicant whether the applicant be Negro or white.

8. These defendants, in answer to paragraph 11 of the 
Complaint, assert that the assignment procedures available 
to the plaintiffs afford an adequate means for obtaining 
all rights to which they are entitled.

9. The allegations of paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 
17, 18, 19 and 20 are denied except that the defendants 
admit having received the petition and letter referred to 
in paragraphs 13 and 14.



14a

Answer

10. Infant plaintiffs and all others eligible to enroll in 
the pupil schools in the political subdivision are permitted, 
under existing policy, to attend the school of their choice 
without regard to race subject only to limitations of space.

W herefore, defendants pray to be d ism issed  w ith their 
costs.

C o u nty  S chool B oard of G reensville 
Co u n ty , V irginia

Cary P. F l y t h e  
A dolphus  G. S late 
L andon S. T em ple  
J. B. A dams

Individually and as members 
of the County School Board of 
Greensville County, Virginia

A ndrew  G. W r ig h t ,
Division Superintendent of 
Schools of Greensville County, 
Virginia

By: F rederick T. G ray 
Of Counsel

H. Benjamin Vincent 
Emporia, Virginia

Frederick T. Gray 
Williams, Mullen & Christian 
1309 State-Planters Bank Building 
Richmond, Virginia

# # # * *

[Certificate of Service Omitted in Printing]



15a

[filed January 27, 1966]

The infant plaintiffs, as pupils or prospective pupils 
in the public schools of Greensville County, and their 
parents or guardians have brought this class action ask­
ing that the defendants be required to adopt and imple­
ment a plan which will provide for the prompt and effi­
cient racial desegregation of the county schools, and that 
the defendants be enjoined from building schools or addi­
tions and from purchasing school sites pending the court’s 
approval of a plan. The plaintiffs also seek attorneys’ 
fees and costs.

The defendants have moved to dismiss on the ground 
that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief 
can be granted. They have also answered denying the 
material allegations of the bill.

Greensville County is a rural county located on the 
North Carolina line. Approximately 4,500 pupils attend 
county schools, about 2,700 are Negro and 1,800 are white. 
Its school board operates one white and four Negro ele­
mentary schools, and separate Negro and white high 
schools. Both white schools are located in Emporia, a 
town near the center of the county. Homes of Negro and 
white persons are scattered throughout the county.

Prior to September 1965, the county operated segre­
gated schools based on a system of dual attendance areas. 
The white schools in Emporia served all white pupils in 
the county. The four Negro elementary schools were geo­
graphically zoned, and the Negro high school served all 
Negro pupils in the county.

Until April 1965 the county operated under the Virginia 
Pupil Placement Act, §§ 22—232.1, et seq., Code of Vir­

Memorandum of the District Court



16a

ginia, 1950, as amended. During that time only one Negro 
applied for admission to a white school, and she withdrew 
her application.

In April 1964 Negro citizens petitioned the school board 
to adopt a plan to desegregate the schools. The board did 
not comply with their request, and this suit was filed on 
March 15, 1965.

On April 21, 1965 the school board adopted a plan to 
comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 
U.S.C. § 2000.d-l, et seq. This plan has been amended 
several times. It was approved by the United States Com­
missioner of Education on January 12, 1966 after the 
hearing in this case.

In September 1965, 72 Negro pupils were transferred, 
upon their applications, to white schools—35 to Emporia 
Elementary School and 37 to the high school. One or more 
Negro pupils are in every grade from the first through 
the tenth.

There are no white teachers in the Negro schools and 
no Negro teachers in the white schools. The board has 
held integrated faculty meetings. Last summer an inte­
grated faculty conducted a “Head Start” program in a 
Negro school, which was attended by 97 Negro children.

The Greensville County plan provides:

“The Greensville County School Board has adopted 
a policy of complete freedom of choice to be offered 
annually in all grades of all schools without regard 
to race, color or national origin.

“ S ection  I. A ssignm ent  of P upils

“ A form letter will be sent home by every child 
containing provisions of the freedom of choice plan

Memorandum of the District Court



17a

with a placement form at least 15 days before the date 
when the form must be returned. This procedure will 
be followed annually.

“A. Pre-Registration of First Grade Pupils for Fall 
of 1966

“ Pre-registration of pupils planning to enroll in first 
grade for the fall 1966 semester will take place in all 
of the elementary schools on Friday, May 13. Under 
policies adopted by the Greensville County School 
Board parents or guardians may go directly to the 
school of their choice wherein they wish to send their 
child to school next year. At the time of pre-registra­
tion a choice may be expressed by filling in a Greens­
ville County pupil placement form. The assignment 
will be made wfithout regard to race, color, creed, or 
national origin. In the event of overcrowding prefer­
ence will be given without regard to race to those 
choosing the school who reside closest to it. No choice 
submitted prior to the deadline will be rejected for 
any reason other than overcrowding of facilities.

“ Pupils who fail to register on May 13 may be reg­
istered at the school of their choice on August 26th 
immediately prior to the opening of schools for the 
1966 fall semester, but first preference in choice of 
schools will be given to those who pre-register in the 
spring period.

“B. Pupils Entering Other Grades

Each parent will be sent annually a letter, the text 
of which is attached, explaining the provisions of the 
plan, together with a choice of school form, the text

Memorandum of the District Court



18a

of which is also attached, at least 15 days before the 
date when the choice form must be returned. Choice 
forms and letters to parents will also be readily avail­
able to parents or students in the school offices during 
regular business hours.

“ The choice of school form must either be mailed or 
brought to the school or to the Superintendent’s office 
within 15 days from the date the forms were initially 
sent home by that school. The annual date for send­
ing these forms home shall be May 1st or the closest 
school day thereto. Anyone not registering his choice 
by that date must file his choice of school form at the 
time of registration when school opens. Pupils and 
their parents or guardians are required to exercise 
their choice of schools and no pupil will be admitted 
or readmitted to any school until such a choice has 
been made as herein specified.

“ This choice is granted to parents, guardians and 
their children. Teachers, principals, and other school 
personnel are not permitted to advise, recommend or 
otherwise influence choices. They are not permitted 
to favor or penalize children because of choices.

“ C. Overcrowding

All choices of pupils, their parents or guardians for 
every grade in the Greensville County School System 
will be subject to the following qualification:

“In the event, overcrowding of a school would result 
if all choices to attend that school were granted, prior­
ity shall be given without regard to race, color or na­
tional origin, and with no preference for previous at­
tendance at the school, to those children choosing the

Memorandum of the District Court



19a

school who reside closest to it. In the case of ele­
mentary schools those whose choices to attend a school 
are denied on this basis will be notified and permitted 
to make a choice of another formerly all white or all 
Negro school. In the case of high schools those whose 
choices to attend a school are denied on this basis 
will be assigned to the other school in the system at 
which the grade is taught. Otherwise, all choices will 
be granted; none will be denied for any reason other 
than overcrowding. The standards prescribed by the 
Virginia Department of Public Instruction as to over­
crowding shall be used in determing [sic] whether 
overcrowding exists with respect to any application 
which is denied.

“D. Any newly enrolled pupil who moves into the 
county may secure placement forms from the prin­
cipal of the school of their choice necessary to com­
plete registration and enrollment. The same detailed 
instructions mentioned above regarding their right 
of free choice of schools will be furnished to them at 
this time.

“ E. This system will not accept non-resident students, 
nor will it make arrangements for resident students 
to attend schools in other school systems, where either 
such action would tend to preserve segregation or 
minimize desegregation. Any arrangement made for 
non-resident students to attend schools of this sys­
tem, or for resident students to attend schools in an­
other system, will assure that such students will be 
assigned without regard to race, color or national 
origin, and such arrangement will be fully explained 
in attachment made a part of this plan.

Memorandum of the District Court



20ai

“ S ection II. Bus R outes

Transportation will be provided on an equal basis 
without segregation or other discrimination because of 
race, color or national origin. The right to attend any 
school in the system will not be denied because of 
lack of school system transportation from the pupils 
home to the school chosen and the pupil or his family 
may have to provide their transportation if the school 
system is not required to provide it under the next 
sentence of this paragraph. To the maximum extent 
feasible, buses will be routed so as to serve each pupil 
choosing any school in the system. In any event, every 
student eligible for bussing shall be transported to 
the school to which he is assigned as a provision of 
this plan if his first choice is either the formerly white 
or the formerly Negro school nearest his residence.

“ S ection  III. E xtra-C urricular A ctivities,
F acilities and S ervices

There shall be no discrimination based on race, color, 
or national origin, with respect to any services, facil­
ities, activities and programs sponsored by or affil­
iated with the schools of this system.

“ Section  IV. S taff  D esegregation

A. The Greensville County School Board will as­
sign all teachers on the basis of objective criteria such 
as certification, overall preparation and qualification 
for the position desired. In the case of each teacher 
employed by the school system in the 1964-65 school 
year who is not now employed, the race, color or na­
tional origin of such teacher was not a factor in the

Memorandum of the District Court



21a

decision not to continue his or her employment. Steps 
shall be taken starting with the 1965-66 school year 
for the desegregration of faculty, at least including 
such actions as joint faculty meetings and joint in- 
service programs. Commencing immediately the fol­
lowing steps will be taken toward the elimination of 
segregation of teaching and staff personnel:

“ 1. The pre-school in-service countywide teachers 
meetings will be held on a completely integrated 
basis.

2. All countywide staff meetings will be completely 
integrated.

3. All in-service classes will be open to all teachers 
regardless of race, color or national origin.

“ B. This school system will not demote or refuse 
to re-employ principals, teachers, and other staff mem­
bers who serve pupils on the basis of race, color or 
national origin. Any reduction in staff which may be 
required as a result of a decrease in enrollment will 
be accomplished without regard to race, color or na­
tional origin.”

The school board has prefaced its plan by stating it has 
adopted a policy of complete freedom of choice for assign­
ments.

Freedom of choice is a term frequently used when speak­
ing of school desegregation. It has several meanings which 
should not be confused. It may refer to enrollment of pupils 
in segregated schools with the aid of state tuition grants 
in preference to attendance at public desegregated schools. 
See Griffin v. School Board, 377 U.S. 218, 222 (1964); Dure,

Memorandum of the District Court



2 2 a

Individual Freedom versus “State Action,”  38 Va. Q. Rev. 
400 (1962); Dillard, Freedom of Choice and Democratic 
Values, 38 Fa. Q. Rev. 410 (1962).

In its plan the county uses the phrase, “ freedom of 
choice,” in an entirely different context. It employs the 
term to describe its method of assigning pupils to the 
public schools. The phrase probably was adopted from, “A 
General Statement of Policies under Title VI of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 Respecting Desegregation of Elemen­
tary and Secondary Schools,” published by the Department 
of Health, Education and Welfare.

The term freedom of choice has been used to describe 
various methods of assigning pupils. One method initially 
assigns pupils on a racial basis and allows freedom of 
choice to transfer from the initial assignment. This system 
of assignment is not sanctioned in this Circuit. In Bradley 
v. School Board of the City of Richmond, Va., 345 F.2d 310, 
319 (4th Cir. 1965) vacated and remanded on other grounds, 
34 U.8.L. Week 3170 (U.S. Nov. 15, 1965), Judge Hayns- 
worth said:

“In this circuit, we do require the elimination of dis­
crimination from initial assignments as a condtion of 
approval of a free transfer plan.”

Cf. Bowditch v. Buncombe County Bd. of Educ., 345 F.2d* 
329 (4th Cir. 1965); Nesbit v. Statesville City Bd. of Educ., 
345 F.2d 333 (4th Cir. 1965); Buchner v. County School 
Bd. of Greene County, Va., 332 F.2d 452 (4th Cir. 1964).

Freedom of choice also has been used to refer to a non- 
restrictive assignment system. Judge Haynsworth de­
scribed this method of assignment in Bradley v. School Bd. 
of the City of Richmond, Va., 345 F.2d 310, 314 (4th Cir.

Memorandum of the District Court



23a

1965), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 34 U.S.L. 
Week 3170 (TJ.S. Nov. 15, 1965):

“ [E]very pupil initially entering the Richmond school 
system, or his parents for him, is required to state his 
choice as to the school he wishes to attend. He is as­
signed to the school of his choice. Every pupil pro­
moted from any elementary school in Richmond, or his 
parents for him, is required to make a similar choice, 
and he is assigned to the school of his choice, as are 
those promoted from junior high school to senior high 
school. Every other pupil is assigned to the school he 
previously attended, but he may apply for a transfer 
to any other school, and, since transfer requests are 
routinely granted without hearings or consideration of 
any limited criteria, he is assigned to the school of his 
choice.”

The Richmond plan was approved tentatively in Bradley. 
The pupil assignment features of the Greensville County 
plan are similar in material respects to those found in the 
Richmond plan. Greensville County requires a mandatory 
choice to be made annually by both white and Negro pupils. 
In this respect it satisfies a more strict interpretation of 
the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment than that 
which was applied to the Richmond plan. In Bell v. School 
Board of the City of Staunton, Va., No. 65-C-H (W.D.Va., 
Jan. 5, 1966), Judge Michie disapproved a plan which did 
not contain a provision for annual mandatory choice in all 
grades.

The principal attack leveled by the plaintiffs against the 
plan is its failure to assign pupils on a geographical basis. 
They contend that a freedom of choice plan does not satisfy 
the school board’s obligation to eliminate racial segregation 
from the school system.

Memorandum of the District Court



24a

In this circuit both freedom of choice plans and geograph­
ical zoning plans have been found constitutional. Bradley v. 
School Board of the City of Richmond, Va., 345 F.2d 310 
(4th Cir. 1965) vacated and remanded on other grounds, 34 
U.S.L. Week 3170 (U.S. Nov. 15, 1965) (freedom of choice 
p lan); Gilliam v. School Board of City of Hopewell, Va., 
345 F.2d 325 (4th Cir. 1965) vacated and remanded on other 
grounds, 34 U.S.L. Week 3170 (U.S. Nov. 15, 1965) (geo­
graphical zoning plan).

The school authorities have the primary responsibility 
for initiating plans to achieve a lawful school system. 
Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 299 (1955). 
This circuit has recognized that local authorities should be 
accorded considerable discretion in charting a route to a 
constitutionally adequate school system. Freedom of choice 
plans are not in themselves invalid. They may, however, be 
invalid because the “freedom of choice” is illusory. The 
plan must be tested not only by its provisions, but by the 
manner in which it operates to provide opportunities for 
a desegregated education. In this respect operation under 
the plan may show that the transportation policy or the 
capacity of the schools severely limits freedom of choice, 
although provisions concerning these phases are valid on 
their face. This plan, just as the Richmond plan approved 
in Bradley, is subject to review and modification in the 
light of its operation. Mr. Justice Stewart in Abington 
School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 317 (1963 (dissenting 
opinion) said:

“A  segregated school system is not invalid because its 
operation is coercive; it is invalid simply because our 
Constitution presupposes that men are created equal, 
and that therefore racial differences cannot provide a 
valid basis for governmental action.”

Memorandum of the District Court



25a

The Court recognizes that great weight should be given 
the approval of the plan by the United States Commissioner 
of Education. Singleton v. Jackson Municipal School Dist., 
348 F.2d 729 (5th Cir. 1965). The plan also must be tested 
by pertinent court decisions. Some of these have been pub­
lished since the plan was adopted. In general, the plan con­
tains adequate provisions for transition of the Greensville 
County school system.

The plan, however, is defective in one respect. Its provi­
sions for staff desegregation are too limited. A satisfactory 
freedom of choice plan must include provisions for the 
employment and assignment of staff on a. non-racial basis. 
Bradley v. School Board of the City of Richmond, Fa., 34 
U.S.L. Week 3170 (U.S. Nov. 15, 1965); Rogers v. Paul, 34 
U.S.L. Week 3200 (U.S. Dec. 6,1965); Kier v. County School 
Bd. of Augusta County, Va., No. 65-0-5-H (W.D.Va. Jan. 5, 
1966).

The primary responsibility for the selection of means to 
achieve employment and assignment of staff on a non-racial 
basis rests with the school board. Witnesses for the plain­
tiffs and the defendants were in general agreement about 
the steps that must be taken to satisfactorily resolve this 
problem. They were not in agreement on the time table for 
taking these steps. The time may vary from community to 
community. The court is of the opinion that in the first 
instance the board should have the opportunity to ap­
praise realistically the time and methods required. Several 
principles must be observed by the board. Token assign­
ments will not suffice. The elimination of a racial basis for 
the employment and assignment of staff must be achieved 
at the earliest practicable date. The plan must contain well 
defined procedures which will be put into effect on definite 
dates. The board will be allowed ninety days to submit

Memorandum of the District Court



26a

amendments to its plan dealing with staff employment and 
assignment practices.

The plaintiffs request that the defendants be restrained 
from proceeding with the construction of new school build­
ings and additions or purchasing new school sites iintil an 
adequate plan has been adopted. In their pre-trial brief, 
filed November 17, 1965, the plaintiffs urge that the court 
should require the school board to eliminate the segregated 
character of the school system by locating new schools in 
the system so as to promote integration. Little evidence 
was introduced concerning new construction. Apparently 
the school board plans to add additional classrooms to both 
high schools. It also plans to construct a Negro elementary 
school with fifteen classrooms to serve grades one through 
seven with a capacity for approximately 450 pupils. This 
construction is designed to rid a Negro school, known as 
the G-reensville County Training School, of its outdated 
frame buildings.

This court is loathe to enjoin the construction of any 
schools. Virginia, in common with many other states, needs 
school facilities. New construction, however, cannot be used 
to perpetuate segregation. White pupils in the county have 
not transferred to Negro schools. Greensville County’s 
recent experience shows that Negro pupils seek transfers 
to white schools. This could cause overcrowding of white 
schools coupled with vacancies in Negro schools. Denial 
of requests for transfers to white schools under these cir­
cumstances could require a geographical zoning plan or 
some other equitable means of assignment. The problem is 
recognized in Wheeler v. Durham City Bd. of Educ., 346 
F.2d 768, 774 (4th Cir. 1965), where Judge Boreman said:

“ [4] From remarks of the trial judge appearing in 
the record, we think he was fully aware of the pos­

Memorandum of the District Court



27a

sibility that a school construction program might be so 
directed as to perpetuate segregation. At the same 
time, he was reluctant to enter an order determining 
the location and size of new school facilities or what ex­
isting facilities should be enlarged. He clearly indi­
cated his cognizance of the multitude of factors in­
volved, such as the availability and cost of sites, the 
concentration of population, the present overcrowded 
conditions, etc. However, he was not unmindful of the 
responsibility of the Board in this area and he made 
known his conclusion that the burden would be on the 
Board to reasonably justify its actions and to demon­
strate its good faith. Without specific or binding direc­
tion, the court expressed the hope that there would be 
some consultation between the parties to the litigation 
concerning the expansion program. The order last 
entered stated that the court has the assurance of the 
Board that its construction program would not be de­
signed to perpetuate, maintain, or support desegrega­
tion. It has been held that a school construction pro­
gram is an appropriate matter for court consideration. 
Conceivably the determination of the extent to which a 
busy court might or should undertake to formulate, 
direct, supervise, or police such a program would pose 
many problems. In view of the numerous factors in­
volved in determining what, how, where and when new 
facilities are to be constructed or what old facilities may 
best be enlarged and renovated to meet pressing needs, 
the court’s reluctance to issue a specific injunction is 
understandable, particularly since the Board was still 
subject to the provisions of the order of January 2, 
1963, by which any and all acts that regulate or affect 
the assignment of pupils on the basis of race or color 
were enjoined.”

Memorandum of the District Court



28a

The primary responsibility concerning the selection of 
school sites and the construction of schools is the board’s. 
This responsibility includes the obligation of not thwarting 
the county’s freedom of choice plan by new construction.

The court concludes that new construction should not 
be enjoined. The evidence does not show that the plain­
tiffs will suffer irreparable harm. A  new school building 
in itself cannot defeat the plaintiffs’ choice of a desegre­
gated education. The use, however, to which new facilities 
are put by the school board could cause a freedom of choice 
plan to become invalid. Then it will be necessary to modify 
the plan.

The plaintiffs’ motion for the allowance of counsel fees 
will be denied. At the time the suit was filed no Negro 
pupils were being denied transfers to white schools. The 
case primarily involves a plan of desegregation. The situa­
tion is similar to that found in Bradley v. School Board 
of the City of Richmond, T7a., 345 F.2d 310, 321 (4th Cir. 
1965) vacated and remanded on other grounds, 34 U.S.L. 
Week 3170 (U.S. Nov. 15, 1965), where counsel fees were 
not allowed for that part of the litigation pertaining to 
consideration of a plan.

The court concludes that defendant’s motion to dismiss 
the complaint for failure to state a claim should be over­
ruled. Cf. Rogers v. Paul, 34 U.S.L. Week 3200 (U.S. 
Dec. 6, 1965).

Memorandum of the District Court

/ s /  J o h n  D. B u tzn er , J r .
United States District Judge

January 27, 1966



29a

Order of District Court

[filed January 27, 1966]

ORDER

For reasons stated in the Memorandum of the Court 
this day filed, it is A djudged and Ordered :

1. The defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied;

2. The plaintiffs’ prayer for an injunction restraining 
school construction and the purchase of school sites is 
denied;

3. The defendants are granted ninety (90) days to sub­
mit amendments to their plan which will provide for em­
ployment and assignment of the staff on a non-racial basis. 
Pending receipt of these amendments, the court will defer 
approval of the plan and consideration of other injunctive 
relief;

4. The plaintiffs’ motion for counsel fees is denied;

5. This case will be retained upon the docket with leave 
granted to any party to petition for further relief.

The plaintiffs shall recover their costs to date.
Let the Clerk send copies of this order and the Memo­

randum of the Court to counsel of record.

/ s /  J ohn  D. B u tzn er , J r .
United States District Judge

January 27, 1966



30a

Excerpts from Minutes of Meeting of Board of 
Supervisors of Greensville County, Virginia, 

November 27 , 1967

[Defendants’ Exhibit E-A to District Court 
Proceedings of December 18, 1969]

Now, T herefore, be it resolved by the Board of Super­
visors of Greensville County that:

1. The County of Greensville will not approve any joint 
operation of the county and city school systems.



31a

[Defendants’ Exhibit E-B to District Court 
Proceedings of December 18, 1969]

Minutes of Special Meeting of the Board of
Supervisors of Greensville County,

March 19, 1968

“ R esolved :

That special counsel for the County, Robert C. Fitzgerald, 
is hereby authorized to submit to the City of Emporia or 
its counsel an agreement providing for the basis of services 
to be provided by the County to the citizens of the City and 
the payment therefor, together with other matters regard­
ing transition in the form and words as approved by this 
Board this date.

Be it further resolved that upon agreement on the part of 
the Council of the City of Emporia and the School Boards 
of the City and County the Chairman and Clerk of this 
Board are hereby authorized to execute such agreement on 
behalf of the County of Greensville.

Be it further resolved that if this agreement is not agreed 
to and executed by all parties by April 30th, all services 
furnished by the county to the city not required by law 
shall terminate.

The above is excerpt taken from the minutes of the Board 
of Supervisors meeting held on 19th day of March, 1968.

A  Copy

Teste :

Robert C. Wrenn, Clerk
By / s /  M ary D. L ee, Deputy Clerk



32a

Agreement Between City of Emporia 
and County of Greensville

Dated April 10, 1968

[Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 7 to District 
Court Proceedings of August 8, 1969]

T h is  A greem ent, made and entered into this 10th day 
of April, 1968, by and between:

The Council of the City of Emporia, Virginia, herein­
after referred to as “ the City,” party of the first part; and

The Board of Supervisors of Greensville County, Vir­
ginia, hereinafter referred to as “ the County,” party of the 
second part; and

The School Board of the City of Emporia, party of the 
third part; and

The School Board of the County of Greensville, party of 
the fourth part;

W hereas, on July 31, 1967, the Town of Emporia be­
came a city of the second class by transition and thereby 
became obligated by law to provide public schools for chil­
dren within its boundaries, to provide health and welfare 
services and the necessary facilities therefor, to the citizens 
of the City of Emporia, and

W hereas, the Code of Virginia, Section 15.1-1005 re­
quires that the costs and expenses of the Circuit Court, the 
Clerk, the Commonwealth’s Attorney, and the Sheriff of the 
County shall be determined and apportioned as provided by 
said Section, and



33a

W hereas, the County of Greensville has continued  to 
provide the citizens of Emporia with said facilities and 
services, and the City of Emporia is obligated to compen­
sate the County therefor.

W hereas, the County of Greensville is willing to con­
tinue to provide said facilities and services to the City of 
Emporia for the period hereafter provided conditioned on 
the City of Emporia paying to the County of Greensville a 
proportionate share of the cost of providing said facilities 
and services periodically as billed.

W it n e s s e t h : That for and in consideration of the
promises set forth hereinabove and benefits to each party 
hereto, the City and County agree as follows:

1. That the County will continue to provide public 
schools, health and welfare services through its boards and 
departments and necessary facilities for such to the citizens 
of the City of Emporia in the same manner as when the 
City was a town and to the same extent as provided to 
the citizens of the County.

2. That the City will pay to the County as billed its 
proportionate share of the local cost of such services and 
the parties agree that the City’s share is 34.26 percentum 
of the local cost of the County. In making such computa­
tion, all federal and state funds and other funds received by 
the County and the City applicable to such shared expendi­
tures shall be taken into account; provided, however, the 
portion of the state sales and use tax distributable to the 
County and City under the provisions of 58-441.43 of the 
Code of Virginia, shall not be considered in making such

Agreement Between City of Emporia
and County of Greensville



34a

computation of local costs. Provided, however, that the 
City shall pay to the County 38 percentum of the debt serv­
ice on the debt of the County existing on August 1, 1967, 
and the County agrees that if the City establishes a sepa­
rate school system that any amount paid by the City on 
the principal of such debt shall be credited to the City on 
the purchase price of any schools within the City purchased 
by the City.

3. The parties agree that the costs and expenses of the 
Circuit Court, the Clerk, Commonwealth’s Attorney, and 
the Sheriff of the County shall be determined and appor­
tioned as provided by Section 15.1-1005 of the Code of 
Virginia, The parties further agree that the City’s share of 
such is 34.26 percentum.

4. The City agrees to pay promptly all accrued charges 
conforming to this Agreement and all future bills tendered 
by the County for services rendered in accordance with the 
terms of this Agreement within ten (10) days of receipt 
thereof. The City agrees that bills may be based on budget 
estimates provided that adjustment shall be made between 
the parties after the end of the fiscal year based on actual 
expenditures as shown by audit.

5. The City agrees that if any permanent improvements 
or additional facilities, including real property, buildings, 
and improvements used in providing such services to the 
City and County become necessary in the judgment of the 
County, that it will pay 34.26 per cent of the costs thereof 
or pay 34.26 per cent of the debt service on the costs thereof. 
It is agreed that the City will pay 34.26 per cent of the 
construction of the Training School located in the City.

Agreement Between City of Emporia
and County of Greensville



35a

6. It is further agreed that on any joint capital improve­
ment or additional facilities, including real property and 
improvements, purchased or made by the City and County 
after the execution of this Agreement, that the equity of 
the City and County therein shall be in proportion to their 
respective contributions of 34.26 per cent and 65.74 per cent.

7. It is further agreed that the parties shall hold in 
abeyance further negotiation or action concerning the 
equities and ownership of all property belonging to the 
County or any agency or board thereof and all funds as 
of the date of the transition and the equities of each in 
said property and funds and the debt, if any to be assumed 
by the City, during the continuation of this Agreement or 
until notice of termination. The parties agree that any 
determination of such matters shall be governed by the law 
at the time of transition of Emporia to a city of the second 
class.

8. The City and County agree that the provisions of 
this Agreement concerning the furnishing of services and 
payment therefor shall remain in effect for a period of 
four (4) years and thereafter will continue until notice is 
given by either party to the other by December 1 of any 
year upon the condition that the notice of termination shall 
be for the termination of the Agreement on July 1 of the 
second year following the giving of said notice. The parties 
agree that should any territory of the County be annexed 
to the City during the life of this Agreement, that this 
Agreement shall terminate on the effective date of any 
such annexation unless this Agreement be modified by 
mutual agreement of the parties prior thereto.

Agreement Between City of Emporia
and County of Greensville



36a

9. The parties of the third and fourth parts join in this 
Agreement for the purpose of agreeing to the provisions 
hereof relating to school facilities and the operation of 
such.

I n W itness W hebeoe, the City of Emporia and the 
County of Greensville have caused this Agreement to he 
executed by their proper officers thereto duly authorized 
and their seals be affixed to this Agreement, which is exe­
cuted in duplicate.

Agreement Between City of Emporia
and County of Greensville



37a

Motion for Further Relief

[filed June 21, 1968]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

F oe th e  E astern  D istrict  oe V irginia  

Richmond Division

The plaintiffs move that in the light of the opinion of the 
Supreme Court in Green vs. County School Board of New
Kent County, Virginia,------ - U .S .------ , 36 L.W. 4476 (No.
695 October Term 1967) decided May 27, 1968, the Court 
will reconsider its action herein and that thereupon the 
Court will require the defendant school board forthwith to 
put into effect a method of assigning children to public 
schools which will promptly and realistically convert the 
public schools within the jurisdiction of the defendants into 
a unitary non-racial system.

F urther , the plaintiffs move that the Court will award a 
reasonable fee for their counsel to be assessed as costs.

S. W . T ucker  
Of Counsel for Plaintiffs

S. W. T u cker  
H en ry  L. M arsh , III 
H il l , T u cker  & M arsh  

214 East Clay Street 
Richmond, Virginia 23219

J ack  G reenberg 
J ames M . N abrit, III

10 Columbus Circle, Suite 2030 
New York, New York 10019

Counsel for Plaintiffs
* * * * #

[Certificate of Service Omitted in Printing]



38a

Report and Motion

[filed January 31, 1969]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

F ob th e  E astern  D istrict  of V irginia  

Richmond Division

1. The County School Board of Greensville County, Vir­
ginia and S. A. Owen, Division Superintendent of schools, 
report that a thorough study of the school system has failed 
to alter their belief that continued operation of the freedom 
of choice plan, with the modifications set forth in Exhibit 
“A ” , would be in the best interest of all school age children 
in the county.

2. The County School Board of Greensville County, Vir­
ginia and S. A. Owen, Division Superintendent of schools, 
file herewith as Exhibit “A ” a proposed alternative plan of 
reorganization of the public schools of Greensville County, 
which they regard as the most educationally acceptable 
alternative to freedom of choice.

W herefore, the defendants move that the Court approve 
the continued use of the freedom of choice plan with the 
modifications set forth in Exhibit “ A ” or, in the alternative,



39a

Report and Motion

that the Court approve the proposed alternative plan set 
forth in Exhibit “A ” .

Respectfully submitted,

Co u n ty  S chool B oard of 
Greensville: C ou nty  
F rederick T. G ray

Of Counsel

Frederick T. Gray 
Williams, Mullen and Christian 
State Planters Bank Building 
Richmond, Virginia 23219

# * # #

[Certificate of Service Omitted in Printing]



40a

P roposed M odifications of F reedom of Choice P lan

As ordered by the Federal District Court, the Greensville 
County School Board has to the best of its ability studied 
its school needs and hereby states its intention to offer an 
educational program of the highest quality to every school 
child in its system.

During the time allotted to devise a plan of compliance 
with the above mentioned order, the administration, as di­
rected by the School Board, has sought the advice of many 
individuals and agencies it felt were competent in dealing 
with matters of this nature.

Representatives of the Department of Health, Education 
and Welfare at both the State and National level ottered 
suggestions. Consultants from several colleges and uni­
versities, well versed in these areas, have devoted their time 
and talents to help visualize more fully a program of study. 
School administrators in other school divisions have been 
■most cooperative in pointing out pitfalls to be avoided in 
situations of this type; and specialists in various phases 
of curriculum representing the Virginia. State Department 
of Education, have made worthwile contributions to help 
devise a plan which would be educationally sound.

Locally each teaching vacancy which has occurred since 
August, 1968, has been filled with a person of a minority 
race with regards to the faculty and student body at the 
school to which assigned. In-service education classes have 
been established on a racially integrated basis to help 
teachers prepare themselves to work with students with 
different ethnic backgrounds.

Through all of the above, the main objective has been to 
plan for an educational program which best meets the needs

Exhibit “A”



41a

of the youngsters of the Greensville County School System, 
and at the same time, comply with the directives of the 
Federal District Court.

Additional plans call for consultation with industrial 
leaders, employment agencies, and civic leaders at various 
levels to better ascertain possible specifics of the best pro­
gram to offer. To date these studies are incomplete.

At the outset, the Board wishes to affirm that the facts 
of this study clearly indicate that the freedom of choice plan 
presently in use is the only plan by which it can achieve the 
best possible educational results for all children regardless 
of race, color or national origin. Under this plan no child 
has been denied the right to attend the school of his choice. 
School records show the increasing use of interracial faculty 
in the school system. The high morale of the school ad­
ministration, faculty, and students makes possible the ex­
cellent spirit of cooperation in existence under the freedom 
of choice plan.

To abandon this plan would inevitably thwart the efforts 
and achievements of the entire school community. In addi­
tion, students forced to leave the school of their choice 
would find themselves robbed of the positions and honors 
they had earned at their former schools.

The freedom of choice plan has produced a situation 
which involves peaceful integration involving more Negroes 
than the number in most of the Virginia counties that are 
totally integrated but which have a very small Negro enroll­
ment.

In seeking to comply in the best way possible with the 
federal injunction, the Greensville County School Board 
petitions to continue its freedom of choice school plan with 
the following revision:

Exhibit “A ”



42 a

1. That the school administrators and faculty members 
be permitted to counsel children and parents regarding 
choice of schools.

2. I f  substantial desegregation does not occur at the 
elementary level as a result of freedom of choice children 
will be assigned to take special classes in schools in which 
they will be in the racial minority. Transportation will be 
provided.

3. Courses offered at the two high schools will be varied 
to such extent that numerous students will be required to 
attend both facilities to obtain the courses desired.

4. Faculties will be reassigned so that there will be no 
less than 25% of either the white or the Negro race on the 
faculty of any school.

P roposed A lternative  P lan

Many plans or reorganization have been considered by 
the Greensville County School Board and each plan which 
was in compliance with the Court directive had features 
which were educationally unsound.

However, as it was ordered to do, the Greensville County 
School Board has devised a plan of school reorganization 
which the board does not recommend over the freedom 
of choice plan for the reasons previously stated. I f or­
dered to do so, however, the board will attempt to the 
best of its ability to administer the plan herewith presented.

H igh  S chools

The faculty at each high school will be reassigned in 
such manner that there will be no less than 25% of either 
the white or the Negro race on the faculty of either school.

Exhibit “A ”



43a

The Division Superintendent has made a detailed study 
of the geographical school area, the county school plant 
and physical facilities, the teaching and administrative 
personnel, and the students in the school system. Students 
have been or are being tested to determine the level of 
their intellectual ability and achievement. On the basis of 
this study, it has been determined that reorganization can 
best be accomplished by the assignment of each high school 
student to one of the two buildings in our system that are 
designed for high school curriculum offerings. This as­
signment will be made solely on the basis of what cur­
riculum each student is pursuing; it will provide an equal 
opportunity to all school children without regard to race, 
color, or national origin.

The high school program will include a broad choice of 
curriculum offerings including college preparatory, gen­
eral, vocational-technical and terminal degree categories. 
The academic college preparatory curriculum will be 
housed in one building; the vocational-technical and ter­
minal degree curricula will be housed in the other. A 
student, though assigned to one of the buildings because 
of his curriculum choice, can elect to take a course given 
at the other building. General courses and physical educa­
tion will be taught at both schools because neither school 
has the capacity to take care of the total high school needs 
in these areas.

I f  curriculum choice assignment results in overcrowding 
at either school the pressure will be relieved by assigning 
more of the general curriculum subjects to the uncrowded 
school plant and thereby equalize the school population in 
each building.

Exhibit “A ”



44a

This plan will provide the best possible instruction for 
each individual because each curriculum will be strength­
ened, and in some cases expanded to meet needs not 
presently being met. New vocational subjects will be 
taught, and practical work experience like that presently 
given in Distributive Education will be given in every 
vocational course that lends itself to such work experience.

It is the purpose of this program to improve the training 
of the college bound student and at the same time to train 
non-college-bound students so that upon graduation they 
will be immediately useful to an employer in the vocation 
of their choice or be well qualified to enter a vocational- 
technical school if they choose.

This system will not accept non-resident students, nor 
will it make arrangements for resident students to attend 
schools in other school systems, where either such action 
would tend to preserve segregation or minimize desegre­
gation. Any arrangement made for non-resident students 
to attend schools in another system will assure that such 
students will be assigned without regard to race, color, 
or national origin.

Exhibit “A ”

E lem en tary  S chools

The Court having determined that Greensville County 
is operating a dual system composed of “white” and “Ne­
gro” students the School Board has resolved to dismantle 
the dual system by eliminating those factors which have 
caused some of the schools to be characterized as “Negro” .

Faculties will be reassigned in such a manner as to de­
stroy racial identity of the schools with a substantial de­
gree of such reassignment being made in September 1969. 
(Use of specific percentages is avoided because the nature



45a

of the student assignment changes hereinafter set forth 
makes such determination extremely difficult)

Elimination of the dual system will further he accom­
plished commencing in September 1969 by the transfer, 
at attained grade levels, to former “white” schools, of 
individual Negro students on the basis of standardized 
testing of all students.

Details of the proposed plan are still the subject of 
study and will be made the subject of more intensive study 
and refinement upon approval of the general plan. The 
School Board would expect to file interim progress reports 
to the court if the broad principle is sanctioned.

aK; -it At- ̂ 7? 'ft- 'ft

Exhibit “A ”



46a

Plaintiffs5 Proposed Plan for Desegregation

[filed March 18, 1969]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

F ob th e  E astern  D istrict oe V irginia  

Richmond Division

Pursuant to direction by the Court, counsel for the plain­
tiffs offer the following plan for desegregation:

1. All pupils in “primary” grades (e.g., grades 1 and 2) 
living south of the Meherrin River will be assigned to the 
Zion School. All pupils in the “ lower elementary” grades 
(e.g., grades 3 and 4) living south of the Meherrin River will 
be assigned to the Moton School.

2. All pupils in “primary” grades living north of the 
Meherrin River will be assigned to the Training School. 
All pupils in the “lower elementary” grades living north of 
the Meherrin River will be assigned to the Belfield School.

3. Ail pupils in the “ intermediate” grades (e.g., grades 
5 and 6) will be assigned to the Emporia Elementary School.

4. All pupils in the “ junior” high school grades (e.g., 
grades 7,8 and 9) will be assigned to the Wyatt High School.

5. All pupils in the “ senior” high school grades (e.g., 
grades 10, 11 and 12) will be assigned to the Greensville 
County High School. 6

6. Within the foregoing basic framework, the grades to 
be taught at a given school may be adjusted as required 
by consideration for the number of pupils in certain grades 
and the relative capacities of the affected schools.



47a

Plaintiffs’ Proposed Plan For Desegregation

7. Special education classes will be boused in Emporia 
Elementary School or in such other school as space may 
permit.

8. Each elementary school teacher will be assigned to a 
school wherein will be housed the grade now being taught 
by her.

9. Teachers presently employed in the high schools will 
be assigned so that the numbers of white and Negro teachers 
in Wyatt School will be approximately equal and the num­
bers of white and Negro teachers in Greensville -County 
High School will be approximately equal.

10. Vacancies will be filled by qualified teachers without 
regard to the race of the applicant or the race of the teacher 
previously assigned to the position. 11

11. There will be no distinction based on race in any of 
the categories of employment, in the assignment of children 
to classes or classrooms, or in any of the facilities or ser­
vices offered in any school, including extra curricular 
activities.



48a

Plaintiffs’ Proposed Plan For Desegregation

Respectfully submitted,

S. W . T u cker  
Of Counsel for the Plaintiffs

S. W . T u cker  
H en ry  L. M arsh , III 
H ilt., T u cker  & M arsh  

214 East Clay Street 
Richmond, Virginia 23219

J ack  Greenberg 
J am es M. N abrit , III

10 Columbus Circle, Suite 2030 
New York, New York 10019

Counsel for Plaintiffs

*  *  # # *

[Certificate of Service Omitted in Printing]



49a

1281 (June 23, 1969) (Monday at 4 o’clock)

The Clerk: Civil Action No. 4263, Pecola Annette Wright, 
et al., versus the County School Board of Greensville 
County, et al.

S. W. Tucker and Henry Marsh, III, represent plain­
tiffs. Mr. Fred T. Gray represents defendants.

The Court: All right, gentlemen.
j/. -az, m. .v,w  ■7S' w  ^

[60] * * *
The Court: Gentlemen, I think in this ease we ought 

to get to the findings from the Bench so we won’t delay 
any longer.

I reserve the right to correct any grammatical errors 
and put in appropriate citations should it be necessary 
to have this typed up. This matter is a typical segrega­
tion suit which has been pending in this court since 1965. 
The County School Board in Greensville County, Virginia, 
the Court finds from the interrogatories and the admis­
sions, had been operating their school system under what 
is known as a freedom of choice plan.

Shortly after the opinion of the United States Supreme 
Court in the Green and New Kent case this matter came 
on before this Court on plaintiffs’ motions for further 
relief. That motion was filed over one year ago. Inter­
rogatories were filed and answers to interrogatories were 
likewise filed.

The anwers to interrogatories show that there were 
seven schools in the Greensville County school system. 
Two of the schools, Greensville County High School had 
719 [61] white students and 50 Negro. The Emporia Ele­
mentary had 857 white students and 46 Negro students.

District Court Proceedings



50a

The other five schools were composed of completely Negro 
student bodies. The student enrollment of 809. 552, 255 
439.

On July 10, 1968 this Court entered an order vacating 
the Court’s order of July 8, 1968, and the matter came on 
before the Court. At that time, that is on July 10, 1968, 
this Court entered an order directing that the defendants 
if they could not file a report of compliance with the man­
date of the principles enunciated in the case of Green v. 
County School Board of Neiv Kent County they would file 
on or about August 19, 1968, a plan for desegregation of 
the public school system, which they contend would bring 
them within the requirements of the New Kent ease.

This matter was brought on for hearing and the defen­
dants were directed to file such a plan on or before the 
9th of August. The defendants did file a plan called “Plan 
of Reorganization” dated August 8, 1968, which indicated 
that their preliminary studies were such that they felt 
compliance with the requirements of law to be attained by 
a geographic zoning, by a pairing of grades, by a combina­
tion of geographic zoning and pairing of grades. The 
School Board directed the Division Superintendent to de­
velop a detailed plan of [62] reorganization. In short no 
definite plan was submitted to this Court. Just another 
plan of study.

This Court at that time, or shortly after receiving the 
report and the motions, indicated either by formal order 
or correspondence with counsel, or discussion with counsel 
that the Court would not insist upon a plan to be effective 
as of this past September, feeling that the time was too 
close, and particularly in view of the fact that the Super­
intendent of Schools had just assumed his responsibilities 
in Greensville County. A  plan was finally, after one or

District Court Proceedings



51a

two delays at the request of the defendants, was filed some 
time, I believe, in February, 1969.

That plan asks the Court to approve the continued— 
as a matter of fact in January 31, 1969, the School Board’s 
plan was to ask this Court to approve the freedom of 
choice plan with certain minor modifications.

On March 18 plaintiffs submitted a proposed plan for 
desegregation. The Court heard the testimony on Feb- 
bruary 25, 1969, at the behest of the defendants at which 
Mr. Owen testified and Mr. Stone and Dr. Curtis G. Kissee, 
who testified as to certain testing procedures that could 
be used and the effects of the results of the tests, but no 
results were had at that time. There wasn’t anything for 
the Court to give [63]’ any consideration to and the matter 
was continued to the end that the defendants could make 
their tests as suggested by Dr. Kissee and report to the 
Court with definitive figures.

On June 5 this Court ordered a hearing for this day 
for the purposes of considering the defendants’ report. 
The Court finds that defendants suggest a plan which would 
substitute a segregated— one segregated school system for 
another segregated school system and that is all it is.

The Court has no confidence whatsoever in the testing 
procedures that apparently were used in this instance, based 
solely upon the numbers and based upon the testimony of 
Mr. Owen to the effect that one of the large facets in con­
nection with this proposed plan is the securing of certain 
Federal funds that are given to people who are economically 
depressed. It is fairly obvious from the testimony here that 
if a little over 50' per cent of the population of Greensville 
County are in that economic situation that any meaningful 
plan of desegregating the schools will not preclude the 
county from securing these funds, but even if it did that is

District Court Proceedings



52a

not constitutionally viable and there is no reason to delay 
the desegregation of schools, with little hope from what this 
Court sees from these figures, and I am disappointed in it 
because I thought I had bent over backwards with Greens­
ville County, and [64] I thought they were going to come 
up with a meaningful plan, but it is patently obvious to this 
Court that a substitution of one segregated system for an­
other segregated system will not work, and the Court so 
finds.

The Court finds that the suggestion that a vocational 
school be commenced is in fact for the purpose of continuing 
a segregated system of schools as evidenced by the report 
that any such school system would contain, or any such 
school would contain, I believe—let me get the figures cor­
rect—the following student population. I might as well go 
through all of them. Emporia Elementary School is con­
templated would have 549 white students and 281 Negro 
students for a total student body of 830.

Zion would have 227 white students and 111 Negro stu­
dents. The training school would have 41 white students 
and 399 Negro students. Belfield would have 39 white 
students and 313 Negro students. Moton would have 47 
white students and 462 Negro students.

In the secondary school system Wyatt would have 800 
Negro school population and 140 white. The other high 
school, which would presumably have the college course, 
would have 472 white and 175 Negro.

The Court finds that the purpose of that is to [65] put 
in effect the tracking system that was criticized by Judge 
Skelly Wright in the decision by his court.

The Court rejects the plan as being not constitutionally 
permissible in accordance with the Green case.

District Court Proceedings



53a

District Court Proceedings

The Court directs therefore that the proposed plan of 
desegregation submitted by the plaintiffs is to be put in 
effect and a mandatory injunction directing the School 
Board to put that plan in effect commencing September 
would be entered.

Now, the Court will consider any amendments to it so 
as not to preclude a better plan, but so there is no further 
delay and so we don’t come up in August and say, “Well 
now, we have got a plan but can’t do it for a year,” the 
School Board is directed today, now, to commence their 
work to do whatever is necessary to put in effect the plan for 
desegregation submitted by the plaintiff.

Thank you, gentlemen.

(The hearing in the above matter was concluded at 5 :15.)



54ai

Order o f  District Court 

[filed June 25, 1969]

For the reasons stated from the bench at the conclusion 
of the hearing on June 17, 1969, and deeming it proper so 
to do,

It is A djudged, Ordered and D ecreed :

1. That defendants’ proposed use of the freedom of 
choice plan with the modifications set forth in Exhibit A  be, 
and the same is hereby, denied.

2. That the defendants’ proposed use of the alternative 
plan set forth in Exhibit A  be, and the same is hereby, 
denied.

It appearing to the Court that the defendants have failed 
to submit a proposed plan for the assignment of students 
in accord with the principles contained in the case of Green 
v. County School Board of New Kent County, it is 
A djudged, O rdered and D ecreed that:

1. The defendants herein, their successors, agents and 
employees, be, and they hereby are, xnandatorily enjoined, 
permanently, to disestablish the existing dual system of 
racially identifiable public schools being operated in the 
County of Greensville, Virginia, and to replace that system 
of schools with a unitary system, the components of which 
are not identifiable with either “white”  or “ Negro” schools.

2. The Court having considered the proposed plan for 
desegregation filed by the plaintiffs herein, and being of 
the opinion that same will lead to a unitary system of 
schools, the components of which are not identifiable with 
either “white”  or “ Negro”  schools, the defendants herein,



55a

their successors, agents and employees, be, and they hereby 
are, mandatorily enjoined to take the necessary steps to 
the end that the proposed plan for desegregation filed by 
the plaintiffs with the Court under date of March 18, 1969, 
be put into effect commencing with the school term begin­
ning in September 1969.

3. The defendants are ordered and directed to report 
to this Court by no later than August 15, 1969, their actions 
in compliance with this decree, including therein the antic­
ipated racial composition of the student bodies of each 
school being operated by the defendants in Greensville 
County, Virginia, as well as the racial composition of the 
teachers in each of the schools aforesaid.

Let the Clerk send copies of this order to all counsel of 
record. It is further ordered that copies of this order be 
served by the United States Marshal on each of the defen­
dants herein.

Order of District Court

June 25, 1969.

/%/ R obert R . M erhige, J r.
United States District Judge



56*

Letter from  Council o f the City of Emporia to Hon. 
Rufus Echols, Chairman and Members of Greensville 

Comity Board of Supervisors Dated July 7, 1969

[Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 6 to District Court Proceedings 
of August 8, 1969]

The Honorable Rufus Echols, Chairman and Members of 
Greensville County Board of Supervisers; The Honorable 
Adolphus Slate, Chairman and Members of Greensville 
County School Board; and H. B. Vincent, Esquire, Com­
monwealth’s Attorney

Gentlemen:

In 1967-68 when the then Town of Emporia, through its 
governing body, elected to become a city o f  the second class, 
it was the considered opinion of the Council that the edu­
cational interest o f Emporia Citizens, their children and 
those o f the citizens and children of Greensville County, 
could best be served by continuing a combined City-County 
school division, thus giving students from both political 
subdivisions full benefits o f a larger school system.

The Council was not totally unaware o f a Federal Court 
suit against Greensville County existing at that time, re­
garding school pupil assignments, pupil attendance, and etc., 
but they did not fully anticipate decision by the court which 
would seriously jeopardize the scholastic standing and gen­
eral quality o f education affecting City students attending 
the combined school system.

The City Council’s action, in remaining in the combined 
school system, was taken with sincere intent o f cooperation, 
in good will and in order not to prejudice the Federal Court 
case. This action delayed the urgency for a division of 
County assets, monies or other property o f value as pro­
vided by law.



The pending Federal Court action, at the time of Em­
poria’s transition from a town to city, was finally decided 
by the court on June 23, 1969. The resulting order R e­
q u ir e s  massive relocation of school classes, excessive 
bussing of students and mixing o f students within grade 
levels with complete disregard o f individual scholastic ac­
complishment or ability.

An in-depth study and analysis of the directed school ar­
rangement reflects a totally unacceptable situation to the 
Citizens and City Council o f the City o f Emporia. The 
directed plan becomes even more unpalatable when the 
school records reflect those students of the City who attend 
the combined school system are not contributing to the 
“ inbalance”  which apparently led the court to order school 
class relocations, bussing and etc.

The court decision, school enrollment figures, public laws 
and other information concerning public schools, is not re­
stricted to the eyes of governmental or political officials. 
Such facts, and possible reaction measures or avenues of 
relief, are well known to responsible citizens, both within 
and without the City. The City Council cannot escape their 
responsibilities to the Citizens and taxpayers of the City; 
they must concern themselves primarily with the best means 
possible to provide quality education, at reasonable costs, for 
their children.

Various approaches to the problem have carefully been 
explored and after very serious discussion, the Mayor and 
Council have unanimously concluded that the City can best 
discharge its duty and responsibility to educate the children 
of Emporia by a City School System which shall be es­
tablished as a unitary system, the components of which are 
not identifiable with either white or black schools, effective 
August 1, 1969.

Letter from Council of the City of Emporia



58a

The Council realizes it is incumbent upon them to take 
this only logical course open to them; this action is done 
with extreme reluctance and sincere compassion for the 
Citizens, School Board and Governing Body o f Greens­
ville County. It is anticipated there will be complete co­
operation between the governing bodies and administering 
school boards for the common good of all citizens.

In unofficial, preliminary joint City-County conferences, 
the mechanics regarding establishment of a City School 
System were discussed and more particularly, how a divi­
sion would affect City-County financial agreements, the 
geographical lines of the political subdivisions and student 
school distribution. In these preliminary meetings, the City 
expressed a sincere need for an increase in its geographical 
boundaries through extensive annexation in order to pro­
vide an adequate tax basis to support an independent school 
system. The Council is of the opinion annexation o f por­
tions of land beyond the City Limits is most desirable in 
the interest o f the people involved and the City. A  careful 
preliminary study, including all facets o f school operation 
and with particular attention to objections raised by County 
Officials, has been conducted and the facts indicate that it 
may be feasible to operate a City School System without 
immediate annexation.

To offset the revenue loss resulting from refraining from 
immediately initiating annexation procedures, however, 
existing unresolved City-County financial division, property 
division and other unsettled matters must be adjusted 
without delay to effect an orderly effective and economical 
transition o f school affairs.

The following matters are considered urgent, and it is 
respectfully proposed:

I. The existing City-County agreement for joint serv­
ices be terminated in the best cooperative manner.

Letter from Council of the City of Emporia



59a

II. Re-negotiate a new City-County agreement between 
the governing bodies excluding contractual school 
arrangements and establishing a procedure for an 
equity settlement as provided hereafter.

A. Continue present agreement providing for exist­
ing expense-sharing formula for the offices 
o f Commonwealth’s Attorney, Sheriff, Clerk, 
Courts and Judges, Agricultural Services, Wel­
fare Services, and Jail Services on present basis.

B. Add that contractual fire services shall be pro­
vided by the City to the County on the same 
percentage basis.

C. Adjust “ Buildings and Grounds” portion to pro­
vide City participation in office expense of only 
those offices shared by City and County.

D. Provide for an immediate adjustment procedure 
to contractual arrangement as a result o f :

1. Decennial Federal Census

2. Annexation or de-annexation by local enu­
meration procedures

3. Request of either governing body for an 
enumeration at their expense, at any time

E. Include procedure for equity settlement, au­
thorizing :

1. Joint employment o f a Certified Public Ac­
countant, independent of official City or 
County association, to determine financial 
equity o f both governing bodies in fund bal­
ances and other monies held by the County at 
time o f City transition.

Letter from Council of the City of Emporia



60a

2. Joint employment of a professional appraisal 
organization, independent o f any City or 
County association, to determine values (and 
required adjustments thereto) o f real and 
personal property held by the County and/or 
School Board at the time o f transition.

III. Transfer immediately, title of all real school property 
together with School furnishings and equipment 
contained therein, in the Corporate Limits from the 
County and/or School Board to the City of Emporia.

A. Any adjustments in equitable ownerships after 
appraisal as provided in E-2 above to be mutually 
agreed upon.

IV. The City will accept on a first come, first serve, no 
transportation basis, any and all students residing 
in Greensville County who wish to complete or con­
tinue their education in City schools. Out-of-City 
students will be required to pay a tuition fee, based 
on present pupil operating cost, less financial aids 
collectible from the Commonwealth.

C it y  C o u n c il  o f  t h e  C i t y  o f  E m p o r ia

Letter from Council of the City of Emporia



81a

Minutes Of The Council Of The City Of Emporia 
For July 9, 1969 And July 14, 1969

July 9, 1969
The City Council o f the City of Emporia met in special 

meeting at 7 :30 P.M. on the above date in the Council 
Chamber of the Municipal Building with Mayor George F. 
Lee presiding. The following members o f Council were in 
attendance and answered to the roll call:

Minutes o f City Council. July 9. 1969

William H. Ligon 
L. R. Brothers, Jr. 
T. Cato Tillar 
Fred A. Morgan

Julian C. Watkins 
S. G. Keedwell 
M. L. Nicholson, Jr. 
Robert F. Hutcheson

Also present were: D. Dortch Warriner, City Attorney 
Robert K. McCord, City Manager

The Mayor appointed the City Manager as Acting Qerk 
for the meeting and then announced the purpose of the 
meeting was for “ establishing a City School System.”  On 
motion by Mr. Brothers which was seconded by Mr. Mor­
gan, the Council unanimously moved to convene in Execu­
tive Session. A  motion by Mr. Tillar which was seconded 
by Mr. Keedwell was unanimously passed on roll call vote 
that the Council re-convene into the special meeting. A  brief 
discussion o f school matters was held, after which Mr. 
Hutcheson’s motion which was seconded by Mr. Morgan 
was unanimously adopted that “ the City Council o f the City 
o f Emporia have a special meeting, Monday, July 14, 1969, 
7:30 P.M. in the Council Chamber of the Municipal Build­
ing and take final action on the establishment o f a City 
School System.”

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned.
G eorge  F. L ee , Mayor

Robert K. McCord, Acting Clerk



62a

July 14, 1969

Minutes ©f City Council, July 14, 1969

The City Council o f the City of Emporia met in special 
meeting at 7 :3Q P.M. on the above date in the Council 
Chamber o f the Municipal Building with Mayor George
F. Lee presiding.

The following members o f Council were in attendance 
and answered to the roll call:

William H. Ligon 
L. R. Brothers, Jr. 
T. Cato Tillar 
Fred A. Morgan

Julian C. Watkins 
S. G. Keedwell 
M. L. Nicholson, Jr. 
Robert F. Hutcheson

Also present were: D. Dortch Warriner, City Attorney 
Robert K. McCord, City Manager 
Nell M. Mitchell, City Clerk

Mayor Lee called the meeting to order and welcomed the 
citizens. Mayor Lee stated this is a very important meeting, 
and the Council has been meeting constantly in the past 
week. The purpose of the meeting is to take action on the 
establishment of a City School System, to try and save a 
school system for the City o f Emporia and Greensville 
County. It is most important to maintain a public City 
School System and a superior school system for the ap­
proximately 1400 students inside the City. The Mayor said, 
“ when Emporia became a City o f Second Class, we could 
have taken on our school system, but we entered into an 
agreement with the County.”  Mayor Lee also stated, “ it’s 
ridiculous to move children from one end o f the County to 
the other end, and one school to another, to satisfy the 
whims o f a chosen few.”  He said, “ The City of Emporia 
and Greensville County are as one, we could work together 
to save our school system.”



63a

Mayor Lee told the citizens that the City School Board 
was Represented by E. V . Lankford, Jr.

Mr. McCord then read a report from the committee ap­
pointed to study a suit entered by H. L. Townsend.

Mr. Lankford gave a plan based on Judge Merhige’s 
ruling, and percentages o f Negroes in each school for the 
first seven grades.

Mayor Lee explained that the City’s total enrollment of 
students is 31% and we are paying 34.64% of the school 
budget, plus 38% of School Debt. In his opinion a City 
School System wouldn’t cost any more, and we could take 
in County Students on a tuition basis.

Mayor Lee then read a letter from County Board of 
Supervisors as follows:

“ Your letter o f 10 July 1969 has been received and 
thoroughly considered by the Board of Supervisors.

As you are aware, the Greensville County School Board 
is presently under Federal Court order to place county and 
city students in all schools owned by the county in accord­
ance with the plan adopted by the Court.

The Board of Supervisors for Greensville County and the 
School Board for the County are advised that they are 
legally obligated to provide all school facilities for the 
county children, and the city children, if they elect to attend, 
in order to comply with the court order.

Therefore, it will be impossible for the Board o f Super­
visors and the School Board to sell, or lease, the school 
buildings situate within the City without placing themselves 
in contempt of the Federal Court order.

This is the legal position we have been placed and until 
the Court order has been altered, amended or vacated, we 
cannot honor your request to convey the school buildings 
to the City.”

Mvrmtes of City Cowncil, July 14, 1969



64a

City Attorney Warriner stated that we have requested 
the County to give us title or lease to us the three schools 
in the City Limits.

The County advised us, according to law there is still 
an unitary school system and they had to comply with the 
law. Mr. Warriner also stated that it is the feeling of 
Council that it would be a step forward to have our City 
School System, and the decision must be made by Council.

A  discussion followed concerning the termination o f the 
contract with the County. Mr. Warriner pointed out the 
contract could be terminated through mutual agreement o f 
both parties, or annexation by the City.

Councilman Morgan stated that he had talked over this 
situation with citizens and also the Board of Supervisors, 
and he sincerely believes the Board would like to cooperate 
but are in a bind. He would suggest annexation, or work out 
something together to terminate the contract.

Mr. William Robinson, a county resident, appeared be­
fore Council and told them a meeting was held with resi­
dents o f the county from three districts and presented a 
resolution to the County Board of Supervisors for them to 
work out a negotiable agreement with the City on the 
school situation. Mr. Robinson said, “ the County Board 
replied they couldn’t work out anything right now.”

After a discussion on the City’s equity in the schools, 
Councilman Watkins stated he agreed wholeheartedly, we 
do have equity.

Councilman Keedwell stated we all realize and are con­
cerned about quality of education. Mr. Keedwell also stated 
that going to City School System would be better than the 
system proposed by the Judge. Councilman Keedwell said 
“ if annexation is unopposed by County, we could reason­
ably assume the effective date to be January 1, 1970, which 
is 4 months o f school. W e have to do something now to 
be ready by Sept. 1.”

Mirmtes of City Council, July 14, 1969



65a

Mr. Warriner pointed out that the City should attempt 
by all means to obtain possession of school buildings in the 
City to start school in September.

Councilman Morgan stated we are under an injunction 
right now to provide schools for City children.

Councilman Brothers stated that equity should be estab­
lished immediately to determine what is rightfully ours.

Mr. C. E. Saunders, a city resident, said, “ if we have to 
wait until January to start school, we would be better off.” 
He has three children going in three directions, 2 miles 
apart under the present court order.

Councilman Morgan said, “ let’s start something tonight.”
Councilman Keedwell stated we could use temporary 

buildings if it means temporary buildings.
Mr. Don Tillar, a city resident, stated the City Council 

is concerned about the welfare of city and county children, 
when we go out of here we’ve got to sell the idea to all 
the people.

Mr. Lankford, Chairman o f the City School Board, ex­
plained we could go in two directions:

1. To ask State Board of Education to create a division 
of City and County Schools and share School Super­
intendent, or

2. Ask State Board of Education to create separate 
school division and we have our own school Super­
intendent.

Mr. Lankford also told the Council that under a planned 
budget that approximately 500 county children could attend 
city schools if the city obtained the buildings wanted. He 
stated with temporary buildings the greatest problem would 
be equipment, and there would be no room for students from 
the county.

Minutes nf City Council, July 14, 1969



66a

After further discussion, a motion made by Councilman 
Ligon, that the City School Board be instructed to im­
mediately take all steps to establish a school division for 
the City o f Emporia, and that the City Attorney be in­
structed to take immediate steps to determine the equity 
of the City of Emporia in all property, including cash, in 
which the City and County of Greensville have joint owner­
ship. His motion was seconded by Councilman Morgan and 
on roll call vote was passed by all eight (8 ) members o f 
Council voting aye.

There being no further business the meeting was ad­
journed.

George F. Lee, Mayor

Minutes of City Council, July 14, 1969

Nell M. Mitchell, City Clerk



67a

[Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 1 to District Court 
Proceedings of August 8, 1969]

A  called meeting of the County School Board of Greens­
ville County was held in the school board office on Wednes­
day, July 16,1969 at 11:00 o’clock.

Members present—Adolphus G. Slate, Chairman 
Landon S. Temple 
Dr. J. B. Adams 
Billy B. Vincent 
Supt. S. A. Owen, Clerk

Mr. Fred Gray, school board attorney, Mr. Benjamin 
Vincent, Commonwealth’s Attorney, and Mr. Rufus Echols, 
chairman of Greensville County Board of Supervisors were 
also present.

The Board reconsidered plans approved on July 8, 1969 
and instructed Adolphus G. Slate, chairman of School 
Board to release the following information:

During the past several days there have been a number 
of statements made and rumors circulated regarding the 
future of the Greensville County Public Schools including 
those in the City of Emporia.

The Greensville County School Board, in order to clarify 
the situation and set the record straight as to its actions 
and intentions issues the following statement:

1. It has been and will continue to be the intention of the 
Greensville County School Board to provide the 
highest quality education possible to every child in 
Greensville County and Emporia.

Minutes ©£ Meeting ©I County School Board
of Greensville County, July 16, 1969



68a

2. On June 25,1969, Judge Robert R. Merhige, Jr. of the 
United States District Court of the Eastern District 
of Virginia entered an order directed to the School 
Board and their successors requiring them to “dis­
establish the existing dual school system” and to put 
into effect in September the plan proposed by the at­
torneys for the N.A.A.C.P.

3. The School Board has instructed its attorney to appeal 
from the order of June 25, 1969.

4. Immediately after June 25,1969 the School Board con­
sidered the N.A.A.C.P. plan and determined that it is 
impractical and immediately began a study of a plan 
to desegregate the schools which will comply with the 
court’s order that the board “ disestablish the existing 
dual school system” but at the same time be practical 
in operation.

5. The School Board has now completed its study and 
has prepared a plan for the operation of the schools 
for all of the children in Greensville County and the 
City o f Emporia. The Board will request the District 
Court to approve this plan and substitute it for the 
N.A.A.C.P. plan. This request will go forward as 
soon as the court can hear the matter. 6

6. The School Board has been advised that the City of 
Emporia is taking steps to set up a separate school 
system for the children of Emporia and, on a tuition 
basis, for all children of Greensville County who de­
sire to attend the Emporia School System to the ex­
tent that the facilities will accommodate them.

Minutes of Meeting of County School Board
of Oreeneville County, July 16,1969



69a

7. The School Board of Greensville County fully under­
stands the motives of those seeking to establish a 
separate system for Emporia and will not attempt to 
interfere with their activities since it is apparently 
their sincere belief that they are acting in the best 
interest o f the children of Emporia, however, because 
this Board believes that such action is not in the best 
interest of the children in Greensville County we can­
not and we will not assist in the separation of the 
school system, we have not and presently do not plan 
to transfer any school facilities to the City and we 
have not and will not agree to dissolve the contract 
now existing between the County and the City.

8. It is the opinion of the School Board that until the 
State Board of Education creates a separate school 
district this school board is responsible for the educa­
tion of all children in the County and the City.

Minutes of Meeting of County School Board
of Greensville County, July 16, 1969



70a

Minutes Of The School Board Of The City Of Emporia 
For July 17,1969

The Emporia School Board met on the above date in the 
City Manager’s office in the Municipal Building at 4 P.M. 
with Chairman E. V. Lankford, Jr. presiding.

The following members were present and answered to the 
roll call :

E. V. Lankford, Jr., Chairman 
G. B. Ligon 
Julian Mitchell
Robert K. McCord, Acting Clerk

Chairman Lankford reported to the School Board on re­
cent activities o f a Council appointed committee to study 
City school matters, the committee consisting of Mayor 
George Lee, the City Attorney, Mr. Dortch Warriner, 
City Manager, Mr. Robert McCord, and himself.

In his report, Mr. Lankford advised the board that the 
final action of the committee was reported to the City 
Council on Monday, July 14, 1969; after which the follow­
ing motion was unanimously adopted by the City Council:

“A  motion made by Councilman Ligon, that the City 
School Board be instructed to immediately take all steps 
to establish a school division for the City of Emporia, 
and that the City Attorney be instructed to take im­
mediate steps to determine the equity of the City of 
Emporia in all property, including cash, in which the City 
and County o f Greensville have joint ownership.”

In view of the action of the City Council, Mr. Lankford 
requested the reaction o f the School Board and after a com­

Minutes of City School Board, July 17, 1969



71a

plete discussion the following resolution, introduced by 
Mr. Ligon, seconded by Mr. Mitchell was unanimously 
passed by the City School Board.

T h a t  W h e r e a s  by motion unanimously adopted by 
the City Council for the City of Emporia on Monday, 14 
July 1969, the School Board for the City o f Emporia was 
directed to take all necessary and proper steps to estab­
lish a school division for the City; and 
W h e r e a s  the Board is o f the unanimous opinion that 
the future well-being o f the children of this community 
requires that the Board proceed immediately to establish 
such a school division; and

W h e r e a s  it is the considered opinion o f the Board that 
the requirements under the decree of the Federal District 
Court for the Eastern District o f Virginia in a suit to 
which the County of Greensville is a party will result in 
a school system under which the school children of the 
City of Emporia will receive a grossly inadequate educa­
tion ; and

W h e r e a s  under the decree aforementioned, there will 
be substantial overloading of certain school buildings 
and substantial underuse of other school buildings at an 
excessive cost to both the County and the City, the cost 
of school transportation will be exaggerated out of all 
need in that pupils will be assigned to schools on a basis 
other than that o f proximity, the City’s contribution 
toward education will be substantially increased without 
any additional benefit in education to its children, and 
the School Board has been sued by certain taxpayers and 
students o f the City o f Emporia to prevent such disrup­
tion of the educational processes; and

W h e r e a s  it is the duty and responsibility o f the Board 
to provide to the children o f the City an efficient school 
system in which they may obtain quality education;

Minutes of City School Board, July 17, 1969



72a

W h e r e a s  it is a considered belief of the Board that 
this can be accomplished only by means o f a separate 
school division for the City of Emporia,

Now T h e r e f o r e  be it R esolved  by the School Board 
for the City of Emporia, Virginia, in special session as­
sembled this 17th day o f July, 1969, that the State Board 
of Education favorably consider this application for the 
creation of a separate school division for the City of 
Emporia, Virginia, so as to enable the Board to proceed 
promptly to furnish public education to the students of 
the City of Emporia in the fall o f 1969.

Chairman Lankford was authorized to seek an immediate 
meeting with the State Department o f Education to present 
the above resolution and other resolutions o f the City 
Council.

A  brief discussion was continued regarding registration 
and the dates of July 28 through August 1 were established 
as tentative dates for registration for City Schools.

/ s /  E. V. L a n k f o r d , Jr . 
Chairman

/ s /  R o b e r t  K. M cC ord 
Clerk

Minutes of City School Board, July 17, 1969



73a

Minutes Of The Council Of The City Of Emporia 
For July 23,1969

The City Council o f the City of Emporia met in special 
meeting at 12 Noon on the above date in the Council Cham­
ber o f the Municipal Building with Mayor George F. Lee 
presiding.

The following members o f Council were in attendance 
and answered to the roll call:

Julian C. Watkins 
Lyman R. Brothers, Jr.
T. Cato Tillar 
M. L. Nicholson, Jr.
Fred A. Morgan 
Robert F. Hutcheson

Also present were: D. Dortch Warriner, City Attorney 
Robert K. McCord, City Manager 
Nell M. Mitchell, City Clerk

Mayor Lee stated the purpose of the meeting is to con­
sider and adopt a resolution to be presented to the State 
Board of Education.

Mr. McCord read the following resolution :
T h a t  W h e r e a s  T h e  City o f Emporia is a City of the 

second class situate entirely within the County of Greens­
ville ; and

W h e r e a s  T h e  City contains approximately 1,400 school 
children who have heretofore been enrolled in the public 
schools o f Greensville County under a contractual arrange­
ment under which the City shares in the cost o f the schools 
but does not participate in the management thereof; and

W h e r e a s  as a result o f recent decisions in  a  case pend­

Minutes of City Council, July 23, 1969



74a

Minutes of City Council, July 23, 1969

ing before the Federal District Court for the Eastern Dis­
trict o f Virginia in which the County School Board for 
Greensville County is a party, the residents of Emporia do 
not believe that the County will be able to furnish school 
children an acceptable level o f education; and

W h e r e a s  Council concurs in this opinion and is willing to 
assume its primary obligation to provide the children resid­
ing within the City of Emporia a secondary education; and 

W h e r e a s  certain taxpayers and school children of the 
City o f Emporia have filed suit to require the City to pro­
ceed immediately to establish a separate school division for 
the reasons, among others, that the City has no control over 
the function o f the school division and that City school chil­
dren will be bussed out of the City to attend classes; and 

W h e r e a s  it is the firm intent and purpose o f the Council 
to provide the best possible education to all the children of 
the City in complete compliance with the letter and the spirit 
of the Constitution of the United States and all applicable 
decisions o f the Federal Courts interpreting the same; and 

W h e r e a s  the Council has reached the conclusion that a 
failure on the part of Council to take all necessary and 
proper action to establish a separate school division would 
adversely affect the prosperity, growth and vitality o f the 
community in a most serious degree; and

W h e r e a s  the intent of the Council to  establish a sepa­
rate school division has the near unanimous support o f the 
citizenry of the City of Emporia and it is deemed necessary 
and essential that the City proceed immediately to that end.

Now T h e r e f o r e  be it R eso lved  by the City Council for 
the City o f Emporia in special session assembled this 23rd 
day of July, 1969, that the State Board o f Education be, 
and it hereby is, respectfully requested to authorize the 
creation of a school division for the City of Emporia,



75a

Virginia, in order that a public school system may be in­
stituted in the fall o f 1969,

After brief discussion, a motion was made by Councilman 
Morgan to adopt the resolution as read and that it be for­
warded to the State Board of Education. His motion was 
seconded by Councilman Tillar and unanimously passed. 

There being no further business the meeting adjourned.

Minutes of City Council, July 23. 1969

N e l l  M . M it c h e l l  
City Clerk

G eorge  F . L ee  
Mayor



76a

M otion to Amend Judgment 

[filed July 23, 1969]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

F oe t h e  E astern  D istrict of V irginia  

Richmond Division

The County School Board of Greensville County, Virginia 
moves that the Court amend paragraph 2 of the order en­
tered herein on June 25, 1969 for the following reasons:

1. The plan submitted by the plaintiffs and approved 
by the Court is unduly disruptive, would require trans­
portation facilities not currently available and over­
crowds some schools.

2. The defendants submit herewith a plan which will 
provide a unitary school system, eliminates the un­
necessary movement o f children and make a more ef­
ficient use of existing facilities.

(See exhibits A and B)

Wherefore, the defendants move that the plan herewith 
submitted be approved and the judgment amended to ac­
complish that result.



77a

Motion to Amend Judgment

Respectfully submitted,

County  S chool B oard of 
G reensville C o u n ty , V irginia ' 
F rederick T . G ray

of counsel

Frederick T. Gray 
Williams, Mullen and Christian 
Courthouse Square 
Chesterfield, Virginia, 23832

• • • • •

[Certificate of Service Omitted in Printing]



78a

Exhibit “ A”

P lan  F ob Operation  of U nitary  S chool S ystem  B y 
G reensville C ou nty  S chool B oard

All children attending schools of Greensville County 
School Board will be assigned in accordance with the follow­
ing plan commencing with the opening of schools in Sep­
tember, 1969.

I. All children attending grades 10, 11 and 12 will 
attend Greensville County High School.

II. All children grades 8 and 9 will attend former 
Wyatt High School.

III. All children In grades 1 through 7 will attend 
school according to the following zones (see map at­
tached Exhibit B)

a. Moton Elementary School— all children resid­
ing in Hicksford Magisterial District.

b. Greensvile Training School—all children North 
of but not on Route 58 and East of but not on 
Route 301.

c. Emporia Elementary School—all children living 
in the City of Emporia and not within the zone of 
Training School and all children living East of 
Route 301 and along and South of Route 58 and not 
within Hicksford Magisterial District.

d. Belfield Elementary School— all children in 
Nottoway Magisterial District and all children in 
Belfield Magisterial District not included in the
Greensville Training School or Emporia Elemen­
tary School Zone.



79a

Exhibit “A ”

IV. Special Education Classes will be offered as re­
quired at the Zion Elementary School facility.

V. Faculties shall be completely integrated and Board 
will report to the Court on or before August 15, 1969 
the proposed racial composition of the faculty at each 
school.

[Exhibit “B” Omitted in Printing]



80a

Minutes Of The School Board Of The City Of Emporia 
For July 30,1969

The Emporia City School Board met in the City Man­
ager’s office on the above date. The following members were 
present and answered to the roll call:

Mr. E. V. Lankford, Jr., Chairman 
Mr. G. B. Ligon 
Mr. Julian Mitchell 
Dr. Paulus Taylor
Mr. Robert K. McCord, Acting Clerk

Mr. E. R. Reidel was also present.
Chairman Lankford reported to the School Board on 

various activities which have taken place in the school 
matters since the last meeting, July 16, 1969.

Mr. Lankford described the meeting held in Richmond 
with the State School Board, State Superintendent, and 
Administrative Personnel. He advised the Board that the 
resolution o f the School Board, adopted on July 16, 1969, 
was presented to the State Board of Education, together 
with a similar resolution from the City Council.

Mr. Lankford advised no final action on our petition 
would be forthcoming from the State until after their 
regular meeting August 18, 1969. He did, however, note 
that Emporia is at the present time a separate school district 
in all phases except that the existing plan o f operation re­
quires joint participation, both financially and administra­
tively, in the office of the local School Superintendent.

Mr. G. B. Ligon exhibited the proposed school registra­
tion forms to be used for the year 1969-70. Doctor Taylor 
submitted a list o f volunteers to assist in the registration, as 
did Mr. Ligon.

Minutes of City School Board, July 80, 1969



81a

A  motion prevailed that the school registration take place 
from August 4 through 8, 1969, Registration is to take 
place in the Municipal Building between the hours of 9 
A.M. and 5 P.M.

The Board discussed the possibilities and probabilities of 
temporary school facilities for use in the event the city was 
not successful in obtaining adequate existing school build­
ings or equipment. The acting clerk was instructed to con­
tact the local churches and to investigate available vacant 
buildings for use as educational facilities.

There being no further business the meeting was ad­
journed.

/s /  E. V. L a n k f o r d , Jr .
Chairman

/s /  R obert  K. M cC ord

Clerk

Minutes of City School Board, July 30, 1969



82a

Plm»tiffs’ Exhibit No. S3 
Notice—Re: Registration for City School Pupils

C ITY  OF EM PO R IA 
M u n ic i p a l  B u il d in g  

E m p o r ia , V ir g i n ia  23847
July 31, 1969

T o : A l l  C it iz e n s  a n d  R e s id e n t s  of  t h e  
C i t y  o f  E m p o r ia

School registration for the 1969-70 season will be held 
at the Municipal Building on Budd Street during the week 
o f August 4-8, 1969. Registration will be held daily be­
tween the hours of 9 A.M. and 5 P.M.

All parents, with school age children, residing in the City 
of Emporia MUST  register their children during this 
period, even though they may have attended school in 
previous years.

Children who will be six (6 ) years of age on or before 
October 1,1969, will be eligible for first grade registration. 
Those who will be six (6 ) years of age after October 1, 
1969 will not be eligible. Immunization records and birth 
certificates MUST  be made available for registration o f 
first grade children.

Applications for out-of-City students who desire to at­
tend Emporia City Schools on a tuition, no transportation 
basis, will also be received during the week of August 4-8, 
1969. Required information for this group will be the same 
as for City students.

If there are any questions, please call 634-3332 prior to 
registration date.

Very truly yours,

C it y  o f  E m p o r ia  S c h o o l  B oard

I t  Is R e q u e s te d  T h a t  C o m m e r c ia l  A n d  I n d u s t r ia l  
E m p l o y e r s  P l e a s e  P ost  T h is  L e t t e r  O n  T h e ir  P e r ­
s o n n e l  B u l l e t in  B o a r d .



83a

Order of District Court

[filed August 1, 1969]

This day came the plaintiffs by counsel pursuant to notice 
to the defendants and moved the Court for leave to file a 
supplemental complaint and to add parties defendant.

It is Ordered that said supplemental complaint be filed 
and that a copy thereof, together with a copy of the original 
complaint herein, a copy of the Court’s order herein entered 
on June 25,1969, and a copy of this order be served on each 
of the additional defendants named in the Supplemental 
Complaint, v iz : the Council of the City of Emporia, George 
W. Lee, S. G. Keedwell, L. R. Brothers, Jr., William H. 
Ligon, Julian C. Watkins, T. Cato Tillar, M. L. Nicholson, 
Jr., Fred A. Morgan, The School Board of the City of 
Emporia, E. Y. Lankford, Julian P. Mitchell, P. C. Taylor, 
and G. B. Legon, all of whom are made parties defendant 
hereto.

The said defendants shall answer said supplemental com­
plaint within 15 days after service thereof. The plaintiffs’ 
motion for interlocutory injunction is set for hearing on 
August 8, 1969, at 10:00 A.M.

Enter this 1st day of August, 1969.

/ s /  R obert R. M erhige , J r .
U nited  S tates D istrict J udge



Supplemental Complaint

[filed August 1, 1969]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

F oe th e  E astern  D istrict of V irginia  

Richmond Division

1. The original complaint herein filed on March 15, 1965, 
is by this reference made a part hereof.

2. The City of Emporia is a city of the second class and 
is located entirely within the boundaries of the County of 
Greensville. George W. Lee is the Mayor of the City of 
Emporia; S. G. Keedwell, L. R. Brothers, Jr., William II. 
Ligon, Julian C. Watkins, T. Cato Tillar, M. L. Nicholson, 
Jr., and Fred A. Morgan are members of the Council of the 
City of Emporia.

3. E. V. Lankford, Julian P. Mitchell, P. C. Taylor, and 
G. B. Ligon are members of and collectively constitute The 
School Board of the City of Emporia.

4. During and prior to the 1968-69 school session, and 
at all times during the pendency of this action, the County 
School Board of Greensville County operated the public 
school system for all children of public school age residing 
in the County of Greensville, including those residing in 
Emporia; the City of Emporia, since its incorporation in 
1967, having contributed its proper share of the budget of 
the County School Board. The School Board of the City of 
Emporia has never operated public schools. Prior to its in­
corporation as a city, the town of Emporia was not a sep­
arate school district and was not separately represented 
on the County School Board of Greensville County.



85a

5. By order herein, dated and filed June 25, 1969, the 
County School Board of Greensville County was enjoined to 
disestablish the dual system of racially identifiable public 
schools being operated in the County of Greensville and to 
replace that system of schools with a unitary system, the 
components of which are not identifiable with either “white” 
or “Negro” schools. Said order further directed said County 
School Board to put into effect commencing with the school 
term beginning in September 1969, a certain plan by which 
children would be assigned to public schools located in the 
County of Greensville and in the City of Emporia according 
to the respective grades of said children and in some in­
stances the location of their residences, and in all events 
without regard for their race.

Supplemental Complaint

6. After the entry of said order, to-wit, on July 30, 1969, 
this Court ruled that the said plan would be modified so as 
to require the County School Board to assign children to 
public schools located within the County of Greensville or 
to public schools located within the City of Emporia in 
accordance with the attained grades of the children, v iz :

Grades School

1-2-3 Emporia Elementary
4-5 R. R. Moton Elementary
5-6 Belfield Elementary
7 Zion Elementary
8-9 Junior High
10-11-12 Senior High
Special
Education Greensville County

Training

L ocation of S u ch  School

City of Emporia 
County of Greensville 
County of Greensville 
County of Greensville 
County of Greensville 
City of Emporia

City of Emporia



86a

7. After the entry of said order of June 25, 1969, the 
Council of the City of Emporia determined that it will no 
longer contribute to the budget of the County School Board 
of Greensville County and Council directed the School 
Board of the City of Emporia to establish and operate pub­
lic schools for children of school age residing within the 
City of Emporia.

8. Withholding of funds by the Council of the City of 
Emporia from the County School Board of Greensville 
County and execution of the Council’s directive by The 
School Board of the City of Emporia will frustrate the 
execution of this Court’s order and the efforts of the County 
School Board of Greensville County to implement the 
above mentioned plan for the operation of the public school 
system which heretofore has served children residing in the 
County of Greensville and children residing in the City of 
Emporia.

W herefore, the plaintiffs pray that, pending this Court’s 
further order, the Council of the City of Emporia and the 
members thereof and the School Board of the City of Em­
poria and the members thereof be joined as parties-defen- 
dant and be restrained and enjoined forthwith from estab­
lishing a system of public schools in the City of Emporia 
other than that heretofore established and operated by the 
County School Board o f Greensville County and from doing 
any act which will prevent or interfere with the operation of 
public schools located within the County of Greensville or

Supplemental Complaint



87a

within the City of Emporia by said County School Board in 
accordance with the orders of this Court.

H en ry  L. M arsh  III 
Of Counsel for Plaintiffs

Supplemental Complaint

S. W . T ucker  
H en ry  L. M arsh , III 
H il l , T u cker  & M arsh  

214 East Clay Street 
Richmond, Virginia 23219

J ack  Greenberg 
J ames M . N abrit, III

10 Columbus Circle, Suite 2030 
New York, New York 10019

#  *  *  #

[Jurat Omitted in Printing]



88a

[Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 23 to District Court Proceedings 
of August 8, 1969]

The Emporia City School Board met in the office of the 
Superintendent of schools on the above date. The following 
members were present and answered to the roll call:

Mr. E. Y. Lankford, Jr., Chairman
Mr. C. B. Ligon
Mr. Julian Mitchell
Dr. Paulus Taylor
Mr. Robert K. McCord, Acting Clerk
Mr. S. A. Owens, School Superintendent

The minutes of the previous meeting were presented to all 
members, and there being no objections the chairman stated 
they would stand approved.

Chairman Lankford announced to the City School Board 
that there was no need to introduce Mr. Owens as the City 
of Emporia School Superintendent, as Mr. Owens is well 
known to all members of the board.

A  general discussion took place with regard to school 
operations for the year 1969-70.

After each member of the board had commented, Mr. 
Owens advised the board of certain requirements, adminis­
trative processes, etc.

Mr. Owens was requested to ascertain and determine a 
policy for the distribution of the costs of administering the 
joint administration office. Such figures would be used for 
budget purposes in the current school year.

After a discussion of school assignments with the Super­
intendent, the following motion was introduced by Mr.

Minutes of Meeting of School Board of
City of Emporia— August 5, 1969



89a

Ligon and seconded by Dr. Taylor that, “ . . . the Emporia 
School Board assigns the present Emporia Elementary 
School for attendance of all City School Children, of all 
races, from first through seventh grades and redesignates 
the Greensville County High School on Harding Street as 
the Emporia High School and assigns all City School Chil­
dren, of all races, attending grades eight through twelve to 
that school.” It was further resolved “ . . . that both the 
Emporia Elementary School and High School be operated 
in full compliance with the Constitution of the United States 
and the interpretation of the courts of same, in relation to 
students and faculty.” It was further resolved, “ . . .  if the 
above designated schools are not made available to the City 
that any and all other buildings used to teach and house 
the school children of Emporia, be on a completely non- 
segregated basis.” Mr. Ligon’s motion was unanimously 
adopted.

Chairman Lankford advised the board that just prior to 
today’s meeting he had been subpoenaed to appear in Fed­
eral Court regarding school matters, August 8, 1969. A 
motion prevailed that the City Attorney, Mr. Dortch War- 
riner, together with such assistance as he might require, be 
authorized to represent the City of Emporia School Board, 
and its members in any matters requiring court ap­
pearances.

There being no further business the meeting adjourned.

B obert K . M cC ord 
Clerk

Minutes of Meeting of School Board of
City of Emporia—August 5, 1969



90a

C 69 3 P roceedings

(August 8, 1969) (Friday at 10 o’clock)

The Clerk: 4263, Pecola Annette Wright and others 
versus County School Board of Greensville County of 
Virginia, and others.

S. W. Tucker and Henry Marsh, III, represent the plain­
tiffs.

Mr. Fred T. Gray, D. Dortch Warriner and John Kay 
represent the defendants.

Counsel ready?
* ■ # # # #

[71] * * *
S am  A. Ow e n  w as called as a w itness b y  and on  beh a lf 

o f  the p la in tiffs , and h av in g  been first du ly  sw orn, w as ex­
am ined and  testified  on his oath  as f o l lo w s :

Direct Examination by Mr. Marsh:

Q. Mr. Owens, would you state your name and address 
and occupation, sir? A. Sam A. Owen, Superintendent of 
Schools, Greensville and Emporia.

Q. Mr. Owen, I believe you were subpoenaed to bring 
certain minutes and information by the plaintiff. Do you 
have that information? A. Yes, sir, I have those.

Q. Is this a copy of it? A. Right.
Q. Would you give us the names of the present members 

of the County School Board, sir ? A. Mr. Slate, Dr. Adams, 
Mr. Vincent, Mr. Temple.

[72] Q. What is Mr. Vincent’s first name? A. Mr. Billy 
B. Vincent.

Q. Were these gentlemen members of the Board on June 
— as of June 1st? A. Right, Yes, sir.

Proceedings of August 8, 1969



Sam A. Owen—for Plaintiffs—Direct

Q. Now, I believe you have attended several meetings 
pertaining to the efforts of the city to form a separate 
school system, is that correct? A. I  have attended one 
meeting with the Emporia City School Board. That was on 
Tuesday, I think it was.

Q. Which Tuesday, sir? A. This past Tuesday.
Q. That would be August 5 ? A. August 5 if that is the 

date.
Q. Who was present at that meeting, sir? A. Present 

at that meeting were the members of the Emporia City 
School Board.

Q. Emporia City School Board? A. Emporia City 
School Board.

Q. Was anyone else present? A. No one else.
Q. No members of the City Council ? A. No members of 

the City Council.
C73] Q. Have you attended any meetings with the mem­

bers of the Emporia City Council? A. No meetings.
Q. Have you had any discussions with members of the 

Emporia City Council relating to the forming of a separate 
school district? A. No discussions with them in reference 
to this.

Q. Has the—have you attended the meetings of the 
County School Board, sir? A. I have attended all meet­
ings since I have been there with the County School Board.

Q. Has the County School Board discussed the proposal 
of the City Council and the City School Board to form a 
separate school district? A. It was discussed at the one 
meeting at which time the minutes will show the action 
taken by the Greensville County School Board, of which 
you have a copy.

Q. On or about that one meeting do you recall any dis­
cussions during the Board meetings? A. No discussions.



Q. Have you prepared any tentative plans to implement 
the proposal to form a separate school district? A. No 
plans have been formulated other than the plans [743 pre­
sented here to this Court except in the beginning when we 
were working over various plans to comply with the New 
Kent decision. At that time we considered many different 
plans.

Q. Have you supplied figures to the city officials? A. I 
have figures open to anybody who would come in and want 
them.

Q. Have you prepared specific groups of figures in re­
sponse to a request from city officials? A. The only 
things—

The Court: Just a moment.
Yes, Mr. Gray?
Mr. Gray: May it please the Court, I am not cer­

tain Mr. Marsh knows, and I think the Court is going 
to get a distorted view unless it knows that Mr. Owen 
is also the Superintendent of Schools for the City of 
Emporia.

The Court: I understood his testimony was that 
he said he was Superintendent of Schools of Greens­
ville and Emporia. I understand that.

Mr. Gray: All right, sir.
Mr. Marsh: Go ahead.
The Court: The question was, were you asked to 

supply any figures?
The Witness: No figures have been prepared for

[75] anyone other than the figures we had in the o f­
fice that anybody could get. We have prepared no 
additional.

Sam A. Owen—for Plaintiffs—Direct



93a

The Court: Who asked for them? That is the 
question. Did anybody from Emporia School Board, 
or the mayor, or the council, or anybody, did they ask 
for them?

The Witness: Yes, sir, the Chairman of the City 
School Board asked for the figures.

The Court: Find out when and what figures he 
wanted, Mr. Marsh.

Mr. Marsh: Bight, sir. That was my next ques­
tion, sir.

By Mr. Marsh:

Q. When did he request these figures? A. This I am 
not sure. About two or three weeks ago.

Q. Now, what figures were they? A. They were figures 
showing the number of students in the county and in the 
city.

Q. By school? A. I  think they were by grades.
Q. By grades and by race? A. By grades and by race 

as we had to have them for this Court.
Q. Was there a breakdown between pupils who resided

[76] in the city and those who resided in the county? A. 
That’s right. We have them broken down that way.

Q. Do you have those figures with the information we 
requested? A. I don’t think those figures were requested 
there. I believe in the School Board minutes I think we have 
or they may have been in the School Board minutes.

Q. Mr. Owen, I show you from the information you sup­
plied me what purports to be a copy of the School Board 
minutes dated July 8, 1969, with figures attached to the 
minutes of July 16, 1969, with the statement attached and 
minutes of July 29, 1969. I ask you if you will identify 
those as being copies of the School Board minutes for those 
particular dates? A. Bight, yes, sir.

Sam A. Owen—for Plaintiffs—Direct



94a

Mr. Marsh: Your Honor, we would like to have 
those introduced as Plaintiffs’ Exhibits.

The Court: So ordered.
Mr. Marsh: That will be one exhibit, I suppose. 

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1.

(The documents referred to were received into
[77] evidence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 1.)

Mr. Warriner: May I see the exhibit, if  Your 
Honor please?

The Court: Yes, indeed.
Mr. Marsh, don’t hand the witness anything until 

counsel has seen it.
Mr. Marsh: Yes, sir. I  am sorry. I just received 

the document from counsel.
The Court: I understand.
Mr. Warriner: I understand that this is one

exhibit ?
The Court: That is correct, sir.

By Mr. Marsh:

Q. Mr. Owen, I hand you what purports to be a number 
of pupils residing in the City of Emporia who attended, or 
who were expected to attend the public schools in Greens­
ville for the years 1967-68, 68-69, and 69-70. I have shown 
this to counsel. I  would like to ask if you will identify that 
as the record prepared by you? A. Yes, sir, this record 
was prepared by me. The figures for 1968-69 are exact 
figures as of January of this year.

The figures for 69-70 is based on those figures [78] and 
the census that was made for pre-school students. To the 
best o f my knowledge the figures are correct as to the 
number of children as of the dates indicated.

Sam A. Owen—for Plaintiffs—Direct



95a

Q. Now, for 1968-69, the current school year, coming 
school year, those are based on the pre-school census! A, 
Bight. 68-69 is based on actual membership and enrollment 
as of January of this year taken from teacher reports.

Q. What about 69-70! A. 69-70 are those figures, as­
suming those in the 12th grade would graduate and based 
on census figures for the first grade coming in.

Q. When was the census taken? A. The school census 
was taken just last summer. August or September of last 
year.

Q. Do you have a pre-school, pre-registration in the 
spring? A. We have pre-school registration, however, the 
first graders never are all of those registered. We cannot 
rely on those figures. We revert to the census figures as to 
the number of children that should be there.

Q. But you did conduct pre-school registration this 
past— A. Bight.

[79] Q. Do you have those! A. I don’t have those 
figures, but those figures woxild be less than this for the 
first grade because so many don’t get in to register.

Q. Bight. You have subsequent registration in the fall? 
A. Bight.

Mr. Marsh: We would like to have that introduced 
as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 2.

The Court: So ordered.

(The document referred to was received in evi­
dence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 2.)

By Mr. Marsh-.

Q. Mr. Owen, I have here what purports to be a statement 
of amount of reimbursement from the City of Emporia to

Sam A. Owen—for Plaintiffs—Direct



96a

the County of Greensville for the operation of schools for 
several years.

I have shown this to counsel. I ask you if this was pre­
pared by you, sir? A. This figure was prepared by Mr. 
Cox, our auditor, who was down at your request. So 1 asked 
him to complete it for us. These are the figures from which 
I would have to base my judgment.

[80J Mr. Marsh: We would like to have this in­
troduced as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 3.

The Court: So ordered.

(The document referred to was received in evi­
dence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 3.)

By Mr. Marsh:

Q. Mr. Owen, I have here what purports to be a state­
ment concerning the expenditures that relate to the schools 
physically located in the City of Emporia. I would like to 
ask you if you prepared that statement, sir? A. Yes, sir, 
I  did. It is almost virtually impossible to answer that ques­
tion since we don’t keep records by individual schools but 
keep them by the entire system.

Q. That is your response to that particular request under 
subpoena? A. Sight. Yes, sir.

Mr. Marsh: We would like to have this introduced 
as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 4.

(The document referred to was received in evi­
dence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 4.)

By Mr. Marsh:

Q. Mr. Owen, I have here what purports to be an excerpt 
of the minutes from the special meeting of the City [81]

Sam A. Owen—for Plaintiffs—Direct



97a

Council and letters of transmittal. I would like for you to 
identify that. A. This letter was sent to the Chairman of 
the School Board, yes, sir.

Mr. Marsh: Your Honor, we would like to have 
that introduced as Plaintiffs’ No. 5.

The Court: All right, sir.

(The document referred to was received in evi­
dence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 5.)

By Mr. Marsh:

Q. Mr. Owen, I have here a letter of transmittal of what 
purports to be an option by the County Board and City 
Council of Emporia and several letters that I would like 
to ask you to identify those documents, sir. A. These are 
the documents in our file relative to correspondence with 
the Town of Emporia and correspondence we received from 
the County Board, received from the city school.

Q. Other than those documents was there any other cor­
respondence between the County Board and the City Coun­
cil or the Town Board! A. No correspondence.

Mr. Marsh: We would like to have that introduced 
as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 6, I believe.

[82] The Court: So ordered.

(The documents referred to were received in 
evidence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 6.)

By Mr. Marsh:

Q. Mr. Owen, when were you employed as superintendent 
of the Emporia school system? A. Approximately August 
15 last year.

Sam A. Owen—for Plaintiffs—Direct



98a

Q. August 15? A. Approximately. I have forgotten the 
exact date.

Q. 1968? A. ’68. This is my first full session there.

The Court: Yes, that’s right.

By Mr. Marsh:

Q. This is for the city now, not the county? A. I was 
employed by the City School Board and County Board.

Q. At the same time? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, how many meetings of the City School Board 

have you attended, sir? A. The 'City School Board met 
with the County School Board prior to my coming there. 
Since being there they met jointly, the two Boards met 
jointly and they employed another [83] superintendent. 
One joint meeting and I have met once with the City School 
Board. I have met monthly with the County School Board 
with the exceptions of special meetings that were called 
which would be shown in the minutes.

Q. Now, when was the joint meeting, sir? A. The joint 
meeting I would have to look back at the date to see. It 
was prior to July 1st. It was prior to July 1st.

The Court: What did you say the purpose of that 
meeting was, Mr. Owen?

The Witness: The purpose of that was that the 
two Boards get together and had the joint responsi­
bility of employing a superintendent was the purpose 
of that meeting.

The Court: For what year?
The Witness: This was this year.
The Court: Superintendent of what schools?
The W itness: Of Greensville County and Emporia.

Sam A. Owen—for Plaintiffs—Direct



99a

The Court: I  thought you had been employed on 
August 1, 1968.

The Witness: Yes, sir, that was a one-year
contract.

The Court: I see. This was for the next year.
The Witness: Yes, sir.

[84] By Mr. Marsh:

Q. That was the first meeting that you had attended, the 
meeting that was some time prior to July 1st? A. Eight.

Q. It was the first meeting of the City Board that you had 
attended? A. Eight. Now, when I first came down, as well 
as I recall, the two Boards met together for a little while, 
but it would have been for the same purpose.

Q. Of confirming your contract? A. Eight.
Q. And the meeting this year was some time prior to 

July 1st? A. Eight. Some time prior to.
Q. Did you meet with the City Board any time in be­

tween? A. I met with the City School Board none in be­
tween and only once as a City Board.

Q. When wras the one meeting you had with the City 
School Board? A. That, then, I believe was August 5 we 
determined that date to be the first Tuesday.

Q. August 5 of this year? [85] A. Yes.
Q. I believe you said only the City Board? A. Members 

of only the City Board were present.
Q. Have you performed any functions for the City School 

Board since you have been employed by them, sir? A. 
None—would you repeat that question, please? The whole 
time that I have been there I have been directly responsible 
from a superintendent’s capacity for the children both in 
the City of Emporia and in the county.

Q. My question was: have you performed any functions 
for the City School Board? A. No, sir, other than just

Sam A. Owen—for Plaintiffs■—Direct



100a

give them figures that we have in the office for anybody that 
wants.

Q. Mr. Owen, I have here what purports to be an agree­
ment between the City of Emporia, Virginia, and the Board 
of Supervisors of Greensville County, Virginia. I would 
like to ask you if you can identify this document, sir!

Mr. Warriner: If Tour Honor please, Mr. Owen 
had nothing to do with this contract. I will be glad 
to stipulate that is a copy. I assume it is a copy.

The Court: All right. So ordered. Exhibit 7.

(The document referred to was received in evi­
dence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 7.)

[86] The Court: Do you have many more docu­
ments, Mr. Marsh?

Mr. Marsh: We are checking, Your Honor.
The Court: Well, the only reason I ask is that it 

seems to me that counsel are probably going to he 
in a position to stipulate that they are true copies, 
if they are really, and we could save some time. We 
can take a short recess if you have many more and 
you could get together.

Mr. Marsh: I think that would help.
The Court: All right, we will take a short recess.

(The witness stood aside.)

(A  recess was taken at 10:25 to reconvene at 10:50.)

(The witness resumed the stand.)

The Court: All right, Mr. Marsh.
Mr. Marsh: Your Honor, we have reached an 

agreement as to the exhibits. We have three more ex­
hibits which were furnished by the superintendent.

Sam A. Owen—for Plaintiffs—Direct



101a

The Court: All right, if  you pass them up to the 
clerk they will be marked.

Mr. Marsh: Let me read off what they are.
The Court: Exhibit 8 or 9?
[873 Mr. Marsh: Eight will be the School Board 

budget for the three years 67-68, 68-69, 69-70.

(The document referred to was received in evi­
dence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 8.)

Mr. Marsh: Nine will be the average daily at­
tendance figures for 1960 and for 1967-68, 68-69, and 
69-70.

(The document referred to was received in evi­
dence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 9.)

Mr. Marsh: Ten will be the suit papers of a suit 
that was filed in the Circuit Court of the County of 
Greensville against the County School Board and 
City School Board and the County Board of Super­
visors and the County School Board.

Mr. Warriner: If Your Honor please, I believe 
that one has to do with the budget and does not in­
clude 69-70.

The Court: It will speak for itself, but it is the 
School Board budget.

(The document referred to was received in evi­
dence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 10.)

Mr. Marsh: Your Honor, we have no more ques­
tions of Mr. Owen.

The Court: Very well.
Any cross-examination, gentlemen?

Sam A. Owen—for Plaintiffs—Direct



1 0 2 a

[883 Cross Examination by Mr. Warriner:

Q. Mr. Owen, could the superintendent’s office readily 
draw a plan complying with the requirements of the Con­
stitution and the orders of this Court excepting the city 
school children and the former elementary children in the 
elementary school? A. We have all the figures showing the 
number of students in each grade. We have other figures 
showing the number of rooms in each of the buildings that 
we are now using. It would be a matter of arithmetic to sit 
down and figure buildings that would be used. A  plan could 
be worked out, yes, sir.

The Court: You mean like when you say a matter 
of arithmetic, you mean a matter of a couple hours’ 
or days’ work?

The Witness: A  day’s work as far as figuring from 
the arithmetic part of it.

The Court: Well, the question was, could you 
readily draw a plan. Now, let’s have a yes or no 
answer.

The Witness: Yes, sir, I can draw a plan physically 
putting children in to be presented to the Board for 
their approval.

[893 The Court: Now, I would like to know how 
long it would take you to draw that plan. When you 
say readily, that could mean anywhere from a day 
to five months.

The Witness: I could sit down and draw a plan, 
but then that plan we drawed out to be presented to 
the Boards would depend upon the Boards’ approval.

The Court: Never mind the Board. The question 
was could you readily draw a plan that would be

Sam A, Owen—for Plaintiffs—Cross



103a

consistent with, the requirements of law. That is 
what counsel meant.

The Witness: Yes, sir.

By Mr. Warriner:

Q. Would that he a day’s work or two days’ work, or a 
morning’s work? A. As far as placing numbers in class­
rooms, a day’s work.

Q. And then the rest of it is what you have to do with 
regard to the Board, is that correct! A. Yes, sir.

Q. Would these figures—would this plan render available 
to the city school system Emporia Elementary School and 
Greensville High School?

The Court: I am afraid I didn’t understand that 
question, Mr. Warriner.

[903 By Mr. Warriner:

Q. Could such a plan render available to the city school 
system the Emporia Elementary School building and the 
Greensville County High School building? A. If the city 
children were not going with the county children and a new 
plan were presented, buildings would be empty.

Q. Would there also be a surplus of teachers in the 
county school system? A. Naturally if you lose 12 or 1300 
students it would be more teachers than the Greensville 
County school system would need for these children.

Q. Is your contractual relationship with your faculty such 
that they could be released and hired by the city school 
system if the bodies so agreed? A. If the—

The Court: That is true of any contract, isn’t it, 
Mr. Warriner? If everybody agreed you could abro­
gate it.

Sam A. Owen—for Plaintiffs—Cross



104a

Sam A. Owen—for Plaintiffs—Cross 

By Mr. War rimer:

Q. Speaking of the two bodies and not the teachers 
agreeing, but the two governmental bodies agreeing. Of 
course, the teachers would have to agree also? A. On 
agreement between teachers and the School Board [91] the 
contract can be broken in 15 days. The teachers can be re­
leased. Fifteen days notice with agreement between the 
two parties.

Q. The figures that you furnished to Mr. Langford, the 
Chairman of the Emporia City School Board, were these 
figures the same figures that you had submitted to the 
Court in this case in compliance with the Court’s request? 
A. I did not submit those figures in the exact form, how­
ever, in our office as of January we worked up the figures 
in every conceivable manner in which they might be asked 
so we could go to the one source and use these. They are 
figures we have copies laying in there, as I mentioned be­
fore, we would furnish anybody at their request.

Q. In the Exhibit B, I believe it was, Exhibit 2, this is 
a sheet of paper, as I recall it, in which you project the 
attendance to the county schools for the year 1969-1970'. 
In that exhibit are you assuming that all children who at­
tended county schools last year will attend county schools 
this coming year without any withdrawings or other acts 
being taken by the parents? A. That’s right. With no 
action taken by parents and no withdrawings, then that is 
the number of students we would expect approximately. A  
small percentage one way or the [92] other.

Q. Mr. Owen, do you consider as an educator the plan 
advanced by the city a feasible plan for the education of 
the city children in the year 1969-1970? A. The plan as 
presented to the Court now, I only know what I read in the 
paper about that, and reading in the paper I read right



105a

many wrong things in the paper lately. I would like to see 
the plan and study it over before answering that.

Q. If the city’s plan included the education of city school 
children in the Emporia Elementary School for grades one 
through seven and in Greensville County High School 
buildings for grades eight through twelve in the year 1969- 
1970, assuming some 1,350 to 1,400 students, assuming- 
teachers are available and assuming that the equipment 
presently in the school is available, would that he a feasible 
educational plan for the education of the children for the 
-City of Emporia? A. It would be, I  think.

Q. Could such a plan be implemented for the school year 
1969-1970, in your opinion, as an educator! A. If the 
School Board’s buildings are provided by the-—

Q. Leaving out the policy question, sir. I want to [93] 
know the physical facts. A. Yes, sir, if we have got the 
teachers and the buildings we can educate the children.

Q. All right, sir.
It appears that some suggestion is being made of col­

lusiveness by someone. I ask you, Mr. Owen, whether I have 
conferred with you about this ease other than over a cup of 
coffee, and about a half a cup!

The Court: I  don’t want him to answer that. You 
are an officer of this Court, Mr. Warriner. You need 
not protect yourself, sir.

Mr. Warriner: Thank you, sir.
No further questions.
The Court: Mr. Gray?
May I find out who is representing who here?
Mr. Gray: If Your Honor please, I am still repre­

senting the County School Board of Greensville

Sam A. Owen—for Plaintiffs—Cross



106 a

County. Mr. Warriner and Mr. Kay are representing 
the School Board for the City of Emporia.

The Court: All right, sir.

Cross Examination by Mr. Gray :

Q. Mr. Owen, there has been introduced into evidence 
E94] as Exhibit 1 the minutes of several Board meetings 
commencing with July 8. One of those was the meeting of 
July 16,1969, to which is attached a statement of the Board 
minutes that say that the Board reconsidered plans ap­
proved July 8 and instructed Adolphus G. Slate, Chairman 
of the School Board, to release the following information. 
And there follows a statement with respect to the position 
of the County School Board and the matter that is now be­
fore the Court with respect to the withdrawal of the stu­
dents.

I ask you, sir, was that the position that the County 
School Board took at that time with respect to this matter? 
A. Yes, sir, that is the position the County School Board 
took.

Q. Well, has there been any change in the position of 
the County School Board to your knowledge? A. No, sir, 
to my knowledge there has been no change.

Q. Mr. Owen, with respect to the question on the drawdng 
of the plan. I ask you if in conjunction with the efforts of 
the County School Board to come up with a plan for this 
Court have you compiled statistics as to where all the chil­
dren live, and do you have maps showing the location of 
the children, spot maps I believe you call them? A. Yes, 
sir. We have spot maps.

[95] Q. You have broken these down into various zones? 
A. Yes, sir.

Sam A. Owen—for Plaintiffs—Cross



107a

Q. And you have broken them down as between the 
county and the city? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Had you not done all of that groundwork would you 
be able to say to the Court you could draw a plan in a day? 
A. No, sir.

The Court: You knew how many lived in the city 
all the time, didn’t you, Mr. Owen? If you are going 
to use two schools in the city what would be so dif­
ficult? You knew how many children lived in the 
city, didn’t you?

The Witness : Yes, sir.
The Court: You didn’t need a spot map for that, 

did you?
The Witness: I had to go back through the figures 

to find out where the children lived. When the Courts 
come in to us in one direction without going back 
and getting the additional information. So I couldn’t 
tell.

The Court: What you are saying is that you could 
readily draw a plan by virtue of the work you had 
already done as Superintendent of the Schools for 
all of the children?

The Witness: Yes, sir. And compiling that [96] 
information that I would need.

The Court: And under the plan that you could 
draw, or as contemplated or suggested by counsel, 
the City School Board would be doing what the 
County Board had been doing, is that correct? They 
would be acting in their place in reference to the 
city children?

The Witness: They would be acting with regard 
to the city children.

Sam A. Owen—for Plaintiffs—Cross



108a

The Court: They would be the successors to the 
School Board of the County insofar as those children 
are concerned, is that correct? They would be do­
ing the same thing?

The Witness: The county under the proposed 
plan, as I understand it, the County School Board to 
be responsible for the education of children in the 
county and the city would be responsible—

The Court: Right. And before it the county was 
responsible for the city and county children?

The Witness: Yes, sir. By agreement.
The Court: Insofar as the city children are con­

cerned, the new Board, that is the Board that is going 
to begin to act now, because they haven’t acted 
before-—

The Witness : In selection of superintendent.
The Court: That is all. But then they would be 

[97] doing what the County Board has been doing?
The Witness: For the Chairman in Emporia.
The Court: If that is not a successor I don’t know 

what is.
Co ahead.

By Mr. Gray:

Q. With respect to the—maybe I misunderstood the ques­
tion that was asked previously, but my understanding was 
that if you respond you could draw a plan for the county 
children because of the information that you now have 
also, is that correct? A. Yes, sir, I have the figures now 
that we would need, yes, sir.

Q. And I believe we told the Court when the last plan 
was approved by the Court that in the event the city chil­
dren should be withdrawn that we would ask the Court

Sam A. Owen—for Plaintiffs—Cross



109a,

to indulge us in the preparation of a different plan because 
we would be dealing with about half the number of chil­
dren? A. Yes, sir. At least we requested that.

Mr. Gray: All right.

Redirect Examination by Mr. Marsh:

Q. Mr. Owen, you say you have the breakdown between 
E98] the city and the county. What is the general racial 
breakdown between the children in the county and again 
the children in the city? A. This is approximate. I don’t 
have the figures in front of me. In the over-all it is approx­
imately 63 per cent Negro over-all. Approximately 50 per 
cent Negro in the city.

Q. And what is the approximate percentage in the coun­
ty? A. It would be greater than 63 per cent. On up to 69, 
68, or 70. Somewhere along in there.

Q. And what is the approximate number of children we 
are talking about in the city, and approximately the num­
ber in the county? A. Approximately 1,300 in the city and 
approximately 2,900 in the county.

Mr. Marsh: No further questions.
The Court: Any further examination, gentlemen?

Recross Examination by Mr. Warriner:

Q. Mr. Owen, the City School Board for the City of 
Emporia pre-existed the attempt to form this school, city 
school, is that correct? WThen was the City School Board, 
City [99] of Emporia, instituted? A. It was there prior 
to my coming.

Q. You are familiar, of course, with the operation of 
the state schools and state school rules and regulations.

Sam A. Owen—for Plaintiffs—Redirect—Recross



1 1 0 a

Is the City of Emporia required by law to have a City 
School Board! A. Yes, sir, they must have a City School 
Board.

Q. Is this City School Board required by law and by the 
Constitution of Virginia to see to the education of children 
of the City of Emporia? A. They are charged with that 
responsibility, yes, sir.

Q. Do they receive that responsibility as successors to 
the County School Board or in their own right under the 
statute and under the Constitution ? A. My understanding 
is under the statute and the Constitution the School Board 
in a locality is responsible for the education of the children 
in this jurisdiction.

Q. Thank you.
Nothing further.

The Court: Anything else, gentlemen!
Mr. Marsh: No questions.
The Court: You may step down.
[100] Thank you, Mr. Owen.

(The witness stood aside.)

The Court: Call your next witness.
Mr. Marsh: Mr. Lee.

George F. L ee was called as a witness by and on behalf 
of the plaintiffs, and having been first duly sworn, was 
examined and testified on his oath as follows:

Direct Examination by Mr. Marsh:

Q. Would you state your name and address, and occupa­
tion, please, sir? A. My name is George F. Lee. I am

George F. Lee—for Plaintiffs—Direct



lllei

Mayor of Emporia. I run a retail jewelry store. I live at 
Emporia, Virginia.

Mr. Marsh: Tour Honor, we have shown the ex­
hibits which we hope to put in by Mr. Lee to counsel 
and by agreement they can be admitted. We would 
like to present them all at the same time.

The Court: All right, sir. Fine.
Mr. Warriner: Mr. Marsh, are those exhibits you 

are introducing now all of the exhibits you sub­
poenaed or a selection from the exhibits you sub­
poenaed?

Mr. Marsh: They are selections, I believe.
The Court: Put them all in.
[101] Mr. Warriner: I understand they should all 

go in.
The Court: They are all in. Put them in.
Mr. Marsh: We only left out one.
The Court: Put it in anyway.
The Clerk: These are considered one exhibit?
Mr. Marsh: No. We would like to have them 

marked separately.
The Court: As separate exhibits ?
Mr. Marsh: Yes, sir.
The Court: All right. You prepare the list, then.
Mr. Marsh: All right, sir.
First will be a copy of the minutes of the City 

Council of Emporia.
Mr. Gray: Is that No. 11?
The Court: That will be 11. Start with 11 and 

you mark them in pencil, Mr. Marsh. Then you pre­
pare a list for the clerk.

George F. Lee—for Plaintiffs—Direct



112a

(Tile document referred to was received in evi­
dence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 11.)

Mr. Marsh: Your Honor, there are three or four 
minutes that are pertinent to this issue. We have 
prepared £1023 those as a separate exhibit for con­
venience.

The Court: Very well.
Mr. Marsh: That includes the meeting of July 9, 

July 14, July 23rd.
The Court: Now, are these exhibits being marked 

11!
Mr. Marsh: Those will be 12.
The Court: 12. All right.

(The document referred to was received in evi­
dence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 12.)

Mr. Marsh: And July 29. These will be No. 29.
The Clerk: Merely additional minutes?
Mr. Marsh: No, sir. All of the additional minutes 

will be 11, the earlier minutes. The later minutes 
beginning with July 9 will be No. 12.

The budget of the Town of Emporia for 1967-68 
will be Exhibit No. 13.

(The document referred to was received in evi­
dence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 13.)

Mr. Marsh: The budget for the City of Emporia 
for 1968-69 will be No. 14.

(The document referred to was received in evi­
dence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 14.)

[103] Mr. Marsh: The budget for the City of 
Emporia for 1969-1970 will be No. 15.

George F. Lee—for Plaintiffs—Direct



113a

(The document referred to was received in evi­
dence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 15.)

Mr. Marsh: The payments to the county by the 
Town of Emporia for the operation of schools for 
the city children will be No. 16.

(The document referred to was received in evi­
dence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 16.)

The Court: You refer to the Town of Emporia 
and the City of Emporia. Somebody better explain 
it to me before we are through.

Mr. Marsh: I think the Mayor can explain that.
The payments for 1968 appear to be payments for 

1968-69 and will be No. 17.

(The document referred to was received in evi­
dence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 17.)

Mr. Marsh: Payments for 1967-68 will be No. 18.

(The document referred to was received in evi­
dence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 18.)

Mr. Marsh: Statement of the expenditures of the 
City of Emporia will be No. 19.

(The document referred to was received in evi- 
£1043 dence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 19.)

The Court: No, that is 20.
Mr. Marsh: The last one I had was 18.
The Court: What was the last one? 18?
Mr. Marsh: The last I had was 18.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Marsh: The statement showing the expendi­

tures should be No. 20.

George F. Lee—for Plaintiffs—Direct



114a

The Court: Have you seen these before? Do you 
know whether you want them or not? It appears to 
me you haven’t seen them.

Mr. Marsh: They insisted they all go in.
The Court: Then put them in and make up the 

list. I want to finish before tomorrow.
Mr. Marsh: 21 will be the letter dated July 29 

from the City School Board.

(The document referred to was received in evi­
dence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 20.)

(The document referred to was received in evi­
dence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 21.)

Mr. Marsh: Your Honor, there is a telegram, Your 
Honor, sent by Mr. Lee, purportedly. I would like 
to have that introduced as 22. It is in the Court’s 
file, sir.

[1053 (The document referred to was received in 
evidence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 22.)

Mr. Marsh: I don’t believe counsel has seen it. 
May I show this to counsel?

The Court: With the note attached placed there 
by the Court. While they are looking at it, Mr. Lee, 
I hope you understood the Court’s position as to why 
I could not read it until counsel had acquiesced.

The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: Is that the way you wrote it, Mr. 

Warriner?
Mr. Warriner: If Your Honor please, I am not 

certain.
Mr. Marsh: Mr. Lee, I would like to show you 

what purports to be a telegram. Would you see if 
you can identify it, sir?

George F. Lee—for Plaintiffs—Direct



115a

The Witness: Yes, sir, I understand there was 
some misspelling in it.

Mr. Marsh: Other than the misspelling this is it?
The Witness: Yes, sir, this is the telegram.
The Court: Careful now, Mr. Lee. You look at 

it real close.
The Witness: I will have to read it, Your Honor, 

[1063 if you please.
The Court: I will tell you what you are going to 

get to is that part where you intend to operate 
schools with regard to race.

The Witness: That is what I meant. This, of 
course, was completely erroneous and was not our 
intent, naturally.

The Court: Sorry, Mr. Marsh. You have got to get 
them on the wing.

The Witness: Thank you, sir.

Direct Examination by Mr. Marsh:

Q. Now, Mr. Lee, I believe you were present at the meet­
ing of the City Council at which this matter was discussed? 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And I believe this idea of forming a separate school 
district, according to the minutes, was formed after the 
Court’s order of June 25? This meeting was in July? A. 
On this specific plan, yes, sir.

Q. Do you know which schools the county planned to, or 
the city planned to use to operate their plant? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Which schools? [1073 A. We would propose to use 
what is presently now the Greensville Elementary School 
located on Main Street for all of the children between one 
and seven. We would propose to use the high school as 
located on Harding Street for all of the children between 
the ages or the grades of eight through twelve.

George F. Lee—for Plaintiffs—Direct



116a

Q. What other buildings, sir? A. That is all, sir.
Q. Now, I believe those two particular buildings are 

buildings that were formerly the all-white high school and 
the all-white elementary schools, is that correct? A. That 
is correct, sir.

Q. And presently they are being used to house predomi­
nantly white populations, is that correct? A. That is cor­
rect. That is correct, sir.

Q. Only Negroes who have elected to choose out by free­
dom of choice are enrolled there? A. Yes, sir.

Q. May I have the exhibits?
Mr. Lee, I believe you were Mayor when the Town of 

Emporia became the City of Emporia? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you explain to the Court how that came about, 

[108] sir, and when? A. Sir?
Q. And when? A. All right, sir. Actually the Court 

decreed that we would become a city on July 31, 1967, a city 
of the second class. Our reason— did you ask me the reason 
for it? How it came about?

Q. I said how it came about. A. We just went through 
the regular court proceedings of having an enumeration 
and the statute I believe states that if you have 5,000 in 
population or more you may become a city of the second 
class. We elected to become a city of the second class. It 
was made effective after we had proven to the Court that 
we did have in excess of 5,000 population on July 31, 1967.

Q. I believe you are familiar with the agreement between 
the county and the city? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Are you familiar with paragraph 8 dealing with the 
methods for terminating the agreement? A. Generally. I 
would have to read it. I was in on the negotiating, but, of 
course, I believe the method would be for annexation pro­
ceedings or something of that nature.

George F. Lee—for Plaintiffs—Direct



117a

Isn’t that correct, sir!
[109] Q. Would you check the agreements, sir? A, All 

right, sir.
Q. Would you indicate the notice that has to be given by 

your party in order to terminate the agreement? A. All 
right, sir.

It is a four-year agreement.
Q. And when was it entered into, sir? A. It was, I be­

lieve, in April of 1968. I believe April, 1968, the parties 
agree—you don’t want me to read this ?

Mr. Warriner: This is in evidence and it speaks 
for itself.

The Court: It speaks for itself.
Mr. Marsh: I was asking the witness if he knew 

the provisions for terminating?
The Witness: Yes, sir. I know them.
Mr. Marsh: What kind of notice?
The Court: Why don’t you lead him? Say, “ Isn’t it 

true that the agreement requires so much notice?” 
See if that doesn’t help, Mr. Marsh.

By Mr. Marsh:

Q. Is it true that you have to give more than a year’s 
notice to terminate the provisions of the agreement, Mr. 
Lee? [110] A. That is one of the provisions. There is an­
other provision. The parties also agree that if annexation 
proceedings should start then that would immediately ter­
minate the agreement.

Q. It would terminate by the commencement of the pro­
ceedings? A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Warriner: I f  Your Honor please—

George F. Lee-—for Plaintiffs—Direct



118a

The Court: I will read it, Mr. Marsh, really.
Mr. Marsh: Very well.

By Mr. Marsh:

Q. Mr. Lee, prior to the meeting in July there had been 
no discussion about the City Council with respect to operat- 
ing’ a separate school district. It doesn’t appear in the 
minutes. A. There has been many, many discussions, sir, 
on it.

Q. But not in the meeting? A. No, sir.

Mr. Marsh: I have no further questions of this 
witness, Your Honor.

The Court: Any cross-examination?
Mr. Warriner: I f  Your Honor please, I may have 

[1113 been a bit hasty when Mr. Owen was a witness. 
I was cross-examining Mr. Owen reserving the right 
to recall him as a witness.

The Court: Oh, of course. Of course.

Cross Examination by Mr. Warriner:

Q. I would reserve the right with all our witnesses.
Mr. Lee, the school district for the City of Emporia was 

formed, as I understand it, on the 1st of August, 1967. Is 
that correct? A. That is correct. Yes, sir.

Q. And has been existing since the 1st of August, 1967? 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. The School Board for the City of Emporia was ap­
pointed in August of 1967? A. Yes, sir, that is correct.

Q. And has been in existence since August of 1967? A. 
Yes, sir.

Q. The City of Emporia discharged its obligation to edu­
cate its children by means of payments of some sums of

George F. Lee—for Plaintiffs—Cross



119a

money to the County of Greensville in return for which the 
County of Greensville agreed to educate the children with­
out tuition [112] charge to their parents, is that correct! 
A. That was part of the agreement we made, yes, sir.

Q. Was this agreement entered into immediately in Au­
gust of 1967! A. No, sir.

Q. Were there any problems in connection with getting 
such an agreement and did those problems include the 
probability of the City of Emporia at that time operating 
its own school system! A. Yes, sir.

Q. Go ahead, sir. A. We met many, many times after 
we became a city of the second class attempting to establish 
equities in the school buildings in order to operate. We 
were turned down flat by the county in every instance. 
Finally they even threatened to not let our children go to 
the schools, and this is why we were forced into an agree­
ment a year later almost.

Q. This was in the middle of the school year 1967-1968 
they threatened to make your children withdraw from 
school? A. Yes, sir, if we didn’t pay for them.

Q. It was at that time and under those circumstances 
that you entered into the contract of April 1st or April 4, 
1967, or 1968? [1133 A. 1968, yes, sir.

Q. Did you at that time contemplate that the contract 
might be terminated under its terms and the city form its 
own school system? A. From the day that the contract 
was made we attempted-—we contemplated breaking it, yes, 
sir.

Q. I asked you whether you contemplated terminating it 
by its own terms.

The Court: It sounds like a fair arrangement,

George F. Lee—for Plaintiffs—Cross



120a

George F. Lee—for Plaintiffs—Cross 

By Mr. Warriner:

Q. Mr. Lee, the school buildings which you have stated is 
according to the School Board’s plan would be the schools 
operated by the city. Are those buildings also located with­
in the City of Emporia? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is there another school building located within the 
City of Emporia? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is that building needed in order to educate the chil­
dren of the City of Emporia? A. No, sir.

Q. Is that building as well equipped and as modern a 
building as the Main Street one which you are choosing? 
£1143 A. No, sir.

Q. Should the City of Emporia take on the obligation of 
operating and maintaining along with the upkeep of that 
building when it doesn’t need it? A. No, sir, the building 
is in bad shape.

Mr. Marsh: Your Honor, I have tried to bear with 
the leading but I think it is getting a little far out 
now. I would suggest that counsel not lead the wit­
ness quite so far.

The Court: You object?
Mr. Marsh: Yes, sir.
The Court: Overruled.
Go ahead. Let’s get moving.

By Mr. Warriner:

Q. Now, Mr. Lee, did you or the City of Emporia, I 
should say, have any control here to say who was sent to 
which school and for what reasons? A. None whatsoever.

Q. Was it a part of the policy of the City of Emporia to 
maintain segregated schools, de facto segregated schools,



12,1a

pseudo segregated schools, or any other type of segregated 
schools! A. No, sir.

Q. Has the City of Emporia at any time ever had an 
[1153 opportunity to officially present its position as to 
what type of schools should he operated within the City of 
Emporia! A. Never had the opportunity.

Q. Is it the purpose of the City of Emporia in operating 
its schools beginning in 1969-70 to have a unitary school 
system both with respect to the pupils and with respect to 
the faculty and administration, and is it the purpose of the 
School Board of the City of Emporia to have such a system 
in compliance with the Constitution of the United States 
and all decisions applicable to the operation of the public 
schools! A. Absolutely.

Q. Will the School Board and the City of Emporia di­
rectly or indirectly deprive any citizen of Emporia of his 
rights under the Constitution of the United States and the 
court decisions interpreting same? A. Of course not, no, 
sir.

Q. A  question was raised, Mr. Lee, on direct examination, 
as to whether the implication was as to whether the actions 
taken by the city was a direct result of the decree entered 
by this Court on the 25th of June, 1969. Would you explain 
to the Court what precipitated the action on the part of the 
city including reference to that decree? A. Well, there is 
no question that this decree caused [116] the city to try and 
act with haste. I am absolutely opposed to private school 
systems, and a movement started immediately. I fought it. 
I am opposed to it. I feel we have an obligation to the 
citizens and the children in Emporia on a complete non- 
racial basis. We can operate. The way it is now a child 
starting in the first grade in the City of Emporia will have 
to be bussed to six different schools before he leaves high

George F. Lee—for Plaintiffs—Cross



122a

school. I feel that all of our children, and it is a money 
thing too—we are paying more than our share. We have 
one-third of the pupils in the county live in the City of 
Emporia, but we are paying 38 per cent of the county debt 
services and we are paying 34.26 per cent of the total cost 
of the schools. Included in that is bussing in which a 
majority of the children of Emporia don’t receive this 
transportation business.

So I feel that if we could be allowed by the courts to oper­
ate a complete non-segregated school system and lump all 
of our children from this group into one school age group 
into this group and this age group for high school in the 
other school we can save on transportation, save the tax­
payer’s money, and we can have a better system by having 
more curriculum than is presently furnished our children, 
which we have no control over. And I think our people 
deserve a better school program, black and white. This is 
why we decided this was the [117] time to go and kill this 
private school business before it got started, and serve all 
the citizens of the City of Emporia.

Q. Mr. Lee, did the City of Emporia have the leadership 
and the will to make the transition from a largely segre­
gated school system to a completely unitary school system? 
A. Absolutely. We have our city and our town has a non- 
racial hiring practice. I f  I might elaborate for a moment, 
Your Honor.

Q. If you will. I want you to answer this question that 
has to do with the will to go to a unitary school system and 
then if you want to elaborate. A. Absolutely and without 
question. And our citizens are 100 per cent, I say, behind 
us on it.

Q. Does the city have any question about the county’s 
ability to operate a unitary school system? A. I do, yes, 
sir. I don’t know about the city. I say that I do.

George F. Lee—for Plaintiffs—Cross



123a

Q. You are Mayor and preside at the Council meetings? 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you have any impressions from that? A. We have 
never been able to get cooperation from the County Board 
of Supervisors, and that is who our contract is with. And 
that is who we are paying the money to. We are £1183 not 
paying it to the School Board. And so it is a question in 
my mind, yes, sir. I think it is a question in the minds of 
the members of the City Council.

Q. Is it the opinion of the City of Emporia that in order 
to have a well-functioning, working unitary system in the 
heart of southside Virginia that it will take the leadership 
of the city government and of the leading city members and 
the members of Council and so forth in order to provide the 
children with the best possible education? A. Yes, sir. Our 
educational system needs to be improved, and I think under 
this system we can improve it.

Q. Mr. Mayor, what reasons prompted the city—I 
shouldn’t say reasons—what were the factors which the city 
took into account in making its determination to become a 
city of the second class in August o f 1967? A. The in­
equities involved, again, prior to this agrement. This agree­
ment that we reached.

Q. No, sir. A. Okay, excuse me.
Q. What factors prompted the city to become a city of the 

second class in August of ’67? A. Well, the sales tax is one 
thing. The other was the inequities we were sharing with 
the county at that time. [119] We were paying about 49 
per cent of the operating cost of the county at that time.

Q. By what— A. 39, I  am sorry.
Q. Speaking of the citizens of the Town of Emporia? 

A. With one-third of the population we had no say-so in 
assessments or reassessments in appointing these groups

George F. Lee—for Plaintiffs—Cross



124a

and we were haggled. We tried to set this straight. This 
contract helped some, bnt it still didn’t equalize the inequi­
ties. But when the state passed the sales tax and did not 
put it back to the point of collection and let the county over­
rule the towns on it then we became a city of the second 
class.

Q. Would it be correct to say in summary there were 
economic reasons? A. Very definitely.

Q. Mr. Mayor, in your opinion can the City of Emporia 
commencing in the school year 1969-1970 provide for all 
of the children of the City of Emporia a unitary school 
system which complies with the statutes and the laws and 
with the Constitution, which will give them a substantially 
superior education to what you can reasonably contemplate 
would be received from the county school system? A. 
Without question, yes, sir.

[120] Q. Is that your primary motive in seeking the 
separate school district operation of schools? A. Abso­
lutely. Without question.

Mr. Warriner: Would Your Honor excuse me for 
one minute ?

By Mr. Warriner:
Q. Mr. Mayor, what has been the history of the race re­

lations in the City of Emporia over the past—how many 
years have you been connected with the city government? 
A. About 12.

Q. Over the past 12 years? A. Our race relations have 
been excellent. We have appointed long ago a bi-racial 
committee. When we became a city we were then under the 
Constitution, as I was advised by our attorneys, were sup­
posed to appoint a Justice of the Peace from each ward,

George F. Lee—for Plaintiffs—Cross



125 a

first established wards. We have a distinguished citizen 
of our city, Dr. Paul Taylor, a Negro, who was one of the 
first appointees to the City School Board. We appointed a 
distinguished citizen as Justice of the Peace in that par­
ticular ward.

We only had at that time a seven-man police force and 
we have hired two Negroes. We only have one working now. 
We applied for a dispatcher and we didn’t apply for race, 
creed, [1213 or color. We just hired recently a Negro lady 
who is a dispatcher for the city police.

"We have never had a demonstration. Our city instituted 
the action that built a $25,000 Olympic pool in the Negro 
district. I  ran Norman Lincoln Rockwell out of town be­
cause he came in to stir things up. The Court later freed 
him, but I didn’t let him speak in Emporia, and I found 
out later by the Courts that I was illegal in getting him out. 
But we have a non-racial hiring- practice and I think our 
industry in the area are the same way.

We have got a new industry in town that has got a Negro 
foreman working predominantly white people. This has 
never been a concern of mine or the citizens in the city.

Q. When did you institute your non-racial hiring prac­
tice for police, police dispatchers and the like? A. Well, 
this has been going on for several years. I couldn’t tell you 
exactly.

Q. Do you believe—I don’t suppose you could speak as 
an expert— A. No, sir.

Q. —but: do you have reason to believe that your action 
in instituting a separate school system for the city has the 
support of both the black community and the white com­
munity [122] in the City of Emporia? A. I think we have 
a majority of the support of all the citizens in Emporia.

Q. Do you believe that both communities have the con­

George F. Lee—for Plaintiffs—Cross



126a

fidence in your ability and your willingness to have a com­
pletely unitary school system that will be operated without 
regard to race? A. I think all of the citizens in Emporia 
trust me, if  I said that is the way it would be.

Q. Do you also have the confidence in the School Board 
for the City of Emporia that they will carry out the direc­
tions of the City Council? A. Yes, sir, absolutely.

Q. Are you aware of the racial composition of the city 
schools? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you know what the percentage would be, or ratio? 
A. I could only say roughly 50-50. It would be larger in 
the elementary schools and less in the high school, but just 
a few percentage points. I don’t know what they are. The 
judge has them, I am sure, sir.

Mr. Warriner: Thank you, Mr. Lee.
[123] Mr. Gray: No questions.
The Court: Redirect?

Redirect Examination by Mr. Marsh:

Q. Mr. Lee, you are aware of the litigation that has been 
pending since 1965 to desegregate the schools? A. Yes, sir.

Q. It is the fact that your Council and almost everyone in 
town is aware of that litigation, wouldn’t you say? A. 
Yes, sir, I would. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, did your Council ever publicly declare its con­
cern that the school systems be completely integrated? A. 
No, sir. We have never had the opportunity to confront or 
meet with the Board of Supervisors that just built a bridge 
across town.

Q. Did you ever state publicly a resolution or make a 
speech? A. When we became a city?

George F. Lee—for Plaintiffs—Redirect



127a

Q. Saying that you wanted to completely integrate the 
school system? A. I could not say. I  would have to answer 
“no” to that question. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, the only high school left in the county, if [1243 
the Greensville school would he used by the city, the only 
high school left would be the Wyatt High School, is that 
correct? A. Yes, sir, which is identical to the other school.

Q. Has any white children ever attended the Wyatt 
School, sir? A. Except in a summer program I don’t be­
lieve so.

The Court: Isn’t that the building that you said 
was in such bad shape ?

The Witness: No, sir. No, sir.

By Mr. Marsh:

Q. 'That is known as a Negro high school though, isn’t it? 
A. Basically, yes, sir. Yes, sir. That is correct.

The Court: Let me get it straight now. I thought 
you said one was in deplorable condition.

The Witness: Your Honor, if you please, there is 
inside the city in the last few years the county has 
built all the new schools outside of the city. But there 
is in the City of Emporia an elementary school that 
was used as a Negro school that is in bad shape. This 
Wyatt High School, because all of the new buildings 
have been built surrounding the county, and all dis­
tricts have a new school, the Wyatt High School he is 
speaking of was built the same way as the identical 
plan to the [125] white high school insofar as a plant 
building is concerned, and is in excellent condition.

The Court: What you are saying is there would 
only be one high school left in the city available for

George F. Lee—for Plaintiffs—Redirect



128a

use by the county, but there will be elementary 
schools ?

The Witness: No, sir, there would be a high school 
in the city and a high school in the county that are 
identical.

The Court: I want to know what is left after you 
used what you want to use available to the county in 
the city.

The Witness: There is this old physical plant that 
needs a lot of renovation.

The Court: That was an elementary school?
The Witness: It just had some renovation done 

and the Superintendent of Schools—
The Court: There would be two physical plants 

in the city that would still be available to the county, 
is that correct?

The Witness: No, sir, only one.
The Court: Only one?
The Witness: Yes, sir. I am sorry.
The Court: What is the name of it?
The Witness: That would be the Greensville

County [126J Training School I believe is the name 
of it, isn’t that correct ? Yes, sir.

By Mr. Marsh:

Q. That is an elementary school? A. Yes, sir.
Q. So the only high school left in the entire county would 

be the Negro high school, the Wyatt High School? A. Yes, 
sir. It is a present high school. That is what it is used as 
now.

Q. Now, did the School Board or Council ever attempt to 
intervene in the litigation that was pending? A. No, sir. 
We have never been asked to a meeting, sir.

George F. Lee—for Plaintiffs—Redirect



129a

Q. I am sorry. I didn’t understand. A. No, sir, we have 
never been asked to a meeting, I  don’t believe.

Q. I wasn’t speaking of a meeting. I said, did you ever 
attempt to intervene in the litigation? A. Oh, no, sir. No, 
sir.

Q. In this court? A. No, sir.

The Court: You weren’t looking for trouble, were 
you?

[1273 The Witness: No, sir.

By Mr. Marsh:

Q. So really you didn’t avail yourself of the opportunity 
to present your views to this Court? A. No, sir.

Q. You indicated that you could comply with all the de­
cisions of the Court. You said you were aware of the order 
entered by this Court providing for the desegregation of the 
schools? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Under your plan you would not be able to comply with 
that order? A. Not the order of this Court as presented 
for the county plan, but we would send all of our children, 
black and white, to the one elementary school, and all chil­
dren, black and white, to the high school. That plan has 
never been presented to this Court, I don’t believe.

Q. I am speaking of an order that was entered by this 
Court which prompted you to act. Under your plan you 
would not be able to comply with that order as it is written? 
A. Oh, no, sir. No, sir.

Q. I believe you were aware of that when you started 
your plan, that you wouldn’t be able to comply with that 
order? [1283 A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Marsh: No further questions.

George F. Lee—for Plaintiffs—Redirect



130a

Recross Examination by Mr. Warriner :

Q. Mr. Lee, in order to try to straighten out the question 
about the school business, is it not correct that there are 
three elementary school buildings located in the county? 
A. There are more, aren’t there? Yes, three new ones, yes, 
sir.

Q. Are all of those three elementary school buildings 
newer than any school building located within the city? A. 
Absolutely.

Q. Have they all been built within the past five or six 
years? A. Yes, sir.

Q. One of them in fact was just completed last year? 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is there one, the county high school building which is 
newer than any school building within the city? A. It is 
the same age.

Q. Same age? A. Yes. I mean both were built at the 
same time [129] brick by brick, plan by plan. Identical plan 
in both of them.

Q. Is the city then attempting to take the best from the 
county in the way of physical facilities, or is it instead 
taking only that which is within the city? A. That is all. 
That is correct, yes, sir.

Q. Now, there remains one other school, the Greensville 
County Training School, which is within the city. A. Yes, 
sir.

Q. Is that building, regardless of its condition, is that 
building needed by the city? A. No, it is not needed and 
it has a new addition to it that was just built onto it, but it 
is not needed by the city, no, sir.

Q. Is it as big as the Emporia Elementary School? A. 
No, sir.

George F. Lee—for Plaintiffs—Recross



131a

Q. Could you use that instead of the Emporia Elementary 
School? A. No. No, sir, it would not be large enough to 
handle the children.

Q. Would there be any need to divide the children between 
Greensville County Training and Emporia Elementary 
School? A. I wouldn’t want to divide the children in race. 
£1303 I would want to put them all together.

Q. Even if they weren’t divided by race? A. I f  we 
didn’t have them together to give them the very best educa­
tion we can.

Q. Now, Mr. Lee, you are aware, I believe you answered 
on direct examination, you are aware of the purposes of 
the Court’s order of the 25th of June, 1969, are you not? A. 
Yes, sir.

Q. And I believe that the purpose of that order as stated 
in the order is to have a unitary non-racial, non-racially 
identifiable, neither black nor white, just schools? A. Yes, 
sir.

Q. Has the City of Emporia done anything of any nature 
to frustrate the effect of that order? A. No, sir.

Q. Has it been the intent, the purpose—well, I  suppose 
intent and purpose are not proper for inquiry, but do you 
know of any desire on the part of the City of Emporia to 
frustrate the order of the Court? A. We asked at a meet­
ing, and asked by letter, for the county to inform the judge 
of it prior to his entering this order, of what we wanted to 
do and the reasons why.

Q. After he entered the order? £131] A. It was after he 
entered the order, right. That came back from an appeal, 
right.

Q. Did you ask the county to request the Court to so draw 
a plan that you could take or you could be accommodating 
to his order? A. Yes, sir.

George F. Lee—for Plaintiffs—Recross



132a

Q. In having- a unitary system in the City of Emporia? 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you know whether the county did that? A. As far 
as I know they did not.

Q. Did you then attempt to advise the Court yourself 
by telegram? A. I did, sir.

Q. So that the Court would know that the purpose of the 
actions of the City of Emporia were to accommodate too 
and carry out his order rather than to frustrate it? A. Yes, 
sir.

Mr. Warriner: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Tucker: If Your Honor please, I know Mr. 

Marsh has examined the witness before, but there are 
two or three things that my familiarity with Greens­
ville County would assist in if I could be permitted 
to examine.

The Court: Only if there is no objection.
[132] Gentlemen, any objection?
Mr. Warriner: No, sir.

Further Examination by Mr. Tucker:

Q. Mr. Lee, the Emporia Elementary School is located on 
South Main Street right across from the post office, isn’t 
it? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Main part of the town? A. Yes, sir.
Q. The Belfield School is located something like two or 

three miles north of the town and back off an established 
road probably about a quarter or half of a mile? A. Yes, 
sir, I  think that is correct.

Q. It was the last school that was built? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And it has never been populated by anyone but Negro 

children, I mean no white children have attended that 
school? A. I don’t know, but I think that is correct.

George F. Lee—for Plaintiffs—Recross



133a

Q. Isn’t it generally considered that the school was built 
as a Negro school? A. Yes, I think it is, yes, sir.

£133] Q. All right, let’s look at the Zion located some­
thing like a mile and a half southeast of Emporia. A. Yes, 
sir.

Q. In the county.
Are you familiar with that site ? A. Yes, sir.
Q, Are you familiar with the fact that it was a very low 

piece of ground, a swampy type ground that was selected 
by the School Board to build a school on for— A. County 
School Board, yes, sir. Yes, sir. I agree it is a poor site.

Q. Very poor site.
Then the other school was located to the west of Emporia 

about a mile or so south of a subdivision known as Washing­
ton Park, which I believe might stir some memories in His 
Honor’s mind, I don’t know. As a matter of fact it was off 
an established road also? A. Yes, sir.

Q. So that a roadway had to be cut through to even get 
to the school? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, that was also built as a former Negro school? 
A. Yes, sir.

[134] Q. Zion District School built for Negro school? 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. So that really they are all inferior sites? A. Yes.
Q. And in back out-of-the-way places, that is a fact? 

A. I would say that was a fact.
Q. Now, comparing even the plants themselves with Em­

poria Elementary School, is there anything that compared 
about these schools, elementary schools, that would be re­
lieved for the county that at all compare favorably with 
the Emporia Elementary School? A. They are newer 
buildings. I visited all of them when they had dedications. 
I  have made talks at each one.

George F. Lee—for Plaintiffs—Recross



134a

Q. Newer buildings, but are they as attractive? A. Well, 
you mean from a physical thing!

Q. From appearance? A. I would say no, because they 
are not as large, of course.

Q. As a matter of fact Emporia Elementary School is the 
only Emporia Elementary School that has an auditorium? 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Which also doubles for civic functions and the [135] 
like? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And Greensville County Training School has an audi­
torium? A. Yes, sir.

Q. No other school in the county has an auditorium? 
A. Greensville County is the one that we would not need.

Q. But that is the one you say is in very bad condition? 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. For all practical purposes the only real serviceable 
auditorium is in the Emporia Elementary School? A. Yes, 
sir.

Q. Is there any facility that the Emporia Elementary 
School does not have that a modern elementary school 
should have? A. I couldn’t answer that because I am not 
an educator. The other schools are certainly more modern 
in Emporia.

Q. More modern in the sense they have been built re­
cently? A. Cleaner, lights, all that business.

[136] Q. In the sense of having the equipment and so 
forth? A. I am sure they have the equipment. It would 
be the same.

Q. I see.
I think that is enough.

The Court: Any other examination ?
Mr. Warriner: One other.

George F. Lee—for Plaintiffs—Recross



135a

Further Examination toy Mr. Warriner:

Q. Will you, Mr. Mayor, by utilizing Emporia Elementary 
School deny any citizen of the City of Emporia on account 
of his race any right? A. Absolutely not. This is what we 
hope to accomplish.

Q. Thank you.

The Court: Mr. Lee—-
The Witness: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
The Court: —I take it from what you have said, 

and I hope I am not simplifying it too much, that you 
have little confidence in the Board of Supervisors of 
the county?

The Witness: Very definitely, sir.
The Court: I gathered that you feel the same wTay 

about the School Board because, if I understood you 
correctly, [1373 you said you doubted their ability 
to operate a unitary system?

The Witness: No, sir. I have a great deal more 
respect and confidence in the School Board. I haven’t 
much for the county. In fact one of them just had to 
leave his seat.

The Court: But you still don’t believe they can 
operate a unitary school system ?

The Witness: Not an efficient one, no, sir.
The Court: Now, you obviously, as everybody in 

the world apparently knew, this matter has been be­
fore the court for well over a year ?

The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: You knew that the people affected in­

cluding the citizens of your city and students were 
going to be involved in a change of school plans for 
over a year?

George F. Lee—for Plaintiffs—Recross



136a

The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: Isn’t that correct, sir?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: And did you know that the Superinten­

dent of Schools had asked for an extension to pre­
pare a plan stating that he couldn’t get it up?

The Witness: Yes, sir. We read that in the papers, 
yes, sir. I was quite aware of that, yes, sir.

The Court: How many times did your School 
Board [1383 meet with the School Board of the 
county, or ask to meet with them in discussing the 
plan to be submitted to this Court commencing hack 
in whenever we met last year, which I believe was 
June or July, perhaps August?

The Witness: Since it was a moot Board I don’t 
believe they have ever discussed it.

The Court: When you say a moot Board, the truth 
of the matter is, whether it be by virtue of your con­
tract or not, your School Board for all practical 
purposes—

The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: —lias functioned only because you 

were required by law to have a School Board?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: Is that— can I stop right there?
The Witness: Yes, sir, that is correct.
The Court: That is the only purpose.
The Witness: Well, because we could not establish 

equities with the county. That is correct, yes, sir.
The Court: I understand.
Now, where would you get a Superintendent of 

Schools ?

George F. Lee—for Plaintiffs—Recross



137a

The Witness: Well, sir, we have an application 
right now before the State Board. They meet in 
Williamsburg on [139] the 20th of this month, I be­
lieve, to try, and I might get my terminology wrong, 
there is a difference between a division and a district.

The Court: I don’t understand it myself.
The Witness: Under the state law we can operate 

our system with the County School Superintendent 
working for us as well as working for the county.

The Court: You would need his cooperation to do 
that! You would need the County School Board’s 
cooperation and perhaps even the supervisors’, is 
that correct?

The Witness: Yes, sir, we need the School Board. 
I  think we will get that.

The Court: They have got to help you to take it ?
The Witness: Yes, sir. We will need their help, 

and I think we can get that.
The Court: The same about teachers. Have you 

got teachers now?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: Now, you already have them?
The Witness: No, we don’t have them now, but we 

have teachers available, sir.
The Court: Did you know, or did your School 

Board know, that this plan that was approved by 
the Court is subject [140] to change at any time? 
Did you know that, sir, or did you all?

The Witness: No, sir.
The Court: Or are you under the erroneous im­

pression that that is it?
The Witness: I am a layman and I thought that 

was it.

George F. Lee—for Plaintiffs—Recross



138a

The Court: You think the School Board is under 
that impression too?

The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: It is erroneous.
The Witness: Thank you, sir.
The Court: All right, gentlemen.
Did the Court’s questions prompt any other exami­

nation of the witness?
Thank you.

(The witness stood aside.)

Mr. Marsh: Mr. Lankford.

E. V. Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Direct

E. V. L ankford , J r . was called as a witness by and on 
behalf of the plaintiffs, and having been first duly sworn, 
was examined and testified on his oath as follows:

Direct Examination by Mr. Marsh:

[1413 Q- Would you state your name and address? A. 
My name is E. V. Lankford, Jr. I live in Emporia, Vir­
ginia.

Q. Mr. Lankford, what is your position with the Emporia 
City School Board? A. I am a member of the School 
Board and was duly elected Chairman of the School Board.

Mr. Marsh: Your Honor, counsel have agreed that 
the three items requested of Mr. Lankford could be 
admitted. I think the next number is 23.

It will be the minutes of the meeting of the Em­
poria City School Board of July 17, the meeting of 
the Emporia City School Board of July 30, 1969, and 
the meeting of the Emporia School Board of August 
5, 1969.



139a

(The document referred to was received in evi­
dence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 23.)

Mr. Kay: All one exhibit.
Mr. Marsh: No. 24 would be a letter addressed to 

Mr. Slate, Chairman of the County School Board, 
from you, Mr. Lankford, as Chairman of the City 
School Board as No. 24.

(The document referred to vras received in evi­
dence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 24.)

Mr. Marsh: I show you, which was not furnished 
[142] by you, a copy of a notice to all citizens of 
Emporia, and to residents, indicating that children 
who live out of the city and want to attend a city 
school could be admitted. This would be No. 25.

(The document referred to was received in evi­
dence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 25.)

Mr. Warriner: If Your Honor please, I am not 
sure of the implication. Was that this was requested 
and refused!

The Court: No, I gathered this is not—
Mr. Marsh: It was not requested.
Is that a notice that your Board caused to be 

issued, sir?
The Witness: Yes, sir, this wns sent to all the 

water customers of the City of Emporia.

By Mr. Marsh:

Q. That would be 25 ? A. I say the water customers be­
cause that was the only mailing list available.

Q. Mr. Lankford, other than those three meetings for 
which wTe have minutes did your Board have any other 
meetings, sir? A. Yes, sir.

E. V. Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Direct



140a

[1433 Q. TV hat other meetings? A. We were appointed 
some time during the month of August, 1967. We met, I 
can’t recall whether it was officially or not, whether it was 
unofficial, but we met on numerous occasions to attempt to 
seek a separate school system for the City of Emporia.

The Court: Commencing when?
The Witness: Commencing as soon as possible, 

sir.
The Court: I mean when did you first meet for 

this purpose, to establish a separate school system?
The Witness: Some time in the latter part and 

during the latter part of 1967.

By Mr. Marsh:

Q. Did 1 request you, sir, to bring copies of complete 
minutes of each meeting since January 1, 1968? A. Yes, 
sir.

Q. The only minutes you brought were the minutes of 
those three meetings which were just admitted? A. Those 
are the only ones in the file.

Q. Have you had any meetings for which you did not 
bring the minutes, sir? A. The only official meeting that 
could have been had was a joint meeting with the County 
School Board to carry out our [144] appointment of a 
superintendent.

The Court: Mr. Lankford, I think the point that 
we are trying to establish, I may be wrong, but has 
the Board met for the purpose of attempting to 
operate a separate school system, and if you met I 
assume you take minutes, and that is what we are 
talking about. Have you clone that prior to this liti­
gation?

E. V. Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Direct



141a

The Witness: I say we did in the latter part of 
’67.

The Court: Then you would have minutes of that 
meeting, would you not ?

The Witness: I assume the minutes are in the 
files.

The Court: Who keeps the minutes!
The Witness: The clerk.
The Court: Would the Superintendent of Schools 

have been there, or anybody else?
The Witness: No, I do not think the superinten­

dent would have been there.
The Court: But you don’t have those minutes 

with you?
The Witness: No, sir.

By Mr. Marsh:

[145] Q. But you did not meet during 1968? A. Ap­
parently not. There are no minutes in the file.

Q. You did not meet during 1969 until the first date which 
was in July? A. That is correct. Except there had to be 
a meeting jointly with the County School Board to reexecute 
Mr. Owen’s contract.

The Court: Wouldn’t Mr. Lee have been at these 
meetings that you are referring to about meeting 
for a separate school system, Mr. Lankford?

The Witness: Not that I know of, sir.
The Court: The Mayor wouldn’t be there?
The Witness: Not as a matter of course.
The Court: But all the School Board members 

would be there?
The Witness: Should be there, yes, sir.
The Court: All right, sir.

E. V. Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Direct



142a

E. V. Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Direct 

By Mr. Marsh:

Q. Mr. Lankford, you are aware of the schools that 
would be remaining in the county! A. Yes, sir.

Q. If your City School Board took the Emporia Ele­
mentary School and the Greensville County School— [1463 
A. If we, yes, sir.

Q. You are aware of the fact that the only high school 
would be the Negro high school! A. The Wyatt High 
School.

The Court: Mr. Lankford, are you aware if you 
all do this it is going to have an effect on the Greens­
ville County School System! It is bound to, is it 
not!

The Witness: Yes, sir, we remove pupils and 
money.

The Court: It is going to make it rough on them, 
isn’t it?

The Witness: Well, we would be removing pupils 
and financial support.

The Court: It is going to have an effect?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: An adverse effect, isn’t that correct?
The Witness: I can’t speak for everyone.
The Court: You are going to take some of their 

teachers, aren’t you?
The Witness: Surplus, yes, sir.

By Mr. Marsh:

Q. As a matter of fact you presented in the figures to 
the joint meeting, you presented the figures showing the 
1147] percentages and the number of Negroes and white 
pupils in both jurisdictions, is that correct? A. Both in 
a county system as currently and in the city system.



143a

Q. Those figures showed that the percentage of Negroes, 
if the city withdrew its pupils, the percentage of Negroes in 
the remaining system would be about 70 per cent, sir, it 
would increase the percentage of Negroes in the remaining 
county system? A. I would think that would be true, yes.

Q. Would it reduce the percentage of experienced now 
by the city pupils under the Court’s order? A. It would 
reduce to some extent.

Q. I believe the percentage is about 50 per cent the 
Mayor testified in the city, is that your recollection? A. 
We believe it to be 50-50. May I add something to that?

Q. Certainly. A. We do not know how many white 
children have been lost to the private schools so we have 
no way of determining the exact number of children for 
that matter that will attend.

Q. And your understanding of the percentage in the 
county is it is about 70 per cent? [148] A. That would 
remain in a pure county system. I assume that would be 
approximately correct.

The Court: Mr. Lankford, before I forget. When 
do you contemplate opening school?

The Witness: As soon as possible. Of course in 
September.

The Court: Well, do you have a specified date?
The Witness: The specified date, as I understand 

it for the school system is—
The Court: I mean for the new system that you 

are contemplating.
The Witness: Your Honor, of course our primary 

obstacle is the buildings into which, the city build­
ings into which to house the system. I f  those build­
ings were to become available to us prior to the end

E. V. Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Direct



144a

of August I would estimate we could have a school 
system in operation by the end of September.

The Court: What you are telling me is everything 
is iffy because you don’t know whether you are going 
to have the buildings and you don’t have the teachers, 
you don’t have a Superintendent of Schools. Isn’t 
this correct!

The Witness: We have a Superintendent of
Schools, yes, sir.

The Court: You have hired one?
[149] The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: Who have you hired?
The Witness: The City of Emporia and the 

County of Greensville is a single school division. 
Now, a school division has a superintendent who is 
Mr. Owen.

The Court: "Who could perhaps three or four dif­
ferent school systems if they happened to be in the 
division, is that correct?

The Witness: As I understand it, yes, sir.
The Court: So you feel that you have a superin­

tendent?
The Witness: We know we have a superintendent, 

yes, sir.
The Court: But you don’t have the first school 

teacher?
The Witness: No, sir, not on contract.
The Court: You don’t have the first building?
The Witness: Not designed for a school, no, sir.
The Court: You don’t have the remotest idea what 

date these children will start to go to school?
The Witness: That is correct.
The Court: All right, sir.

E. V. Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Direct



145a

E. V. Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Cross 

By Mr. Marsh:

[150] Q. Mr. Lankford, I don’t think you testified to 
this. Did your Board, the School Board, seek to intervene 
in the pending litigation in Federal Court which has been 
pending since 19651 A. No, sir, we were not. As a School 
Board we had nothing to do with the County School Board. 
We would never meet. The only two times that the Boards 
ever acted jointly is to hire the superintendent.

Q. You and the members of your Board were aware of 
this litigation! A. As individuals, yes, sir. I am reason­
ably sure the rest did.

Q. Did your Board ever in any of its meetings ever pass 
any resolutions pertaining to asking the County Board to 
bring about complete integration of the school system, to 
bring about a unitary school system? A. No, sir. We had 
nothing to do with the county system.

Q. Have you or any members of your Board publicly 
advocated an integrated school system and abolition of 
freedom of choice? A. No, sir, not that I recall.

Q. Have you as an individual ever advocated that [151] 
publicly, sir?

Mr. Warriner: If Your Honor please, I think this 
is going beyond the scope of the inquiry as to what 
this individual might have advocated somewhere else. 
He is not here as an accused.

The Court: I think so too, Mr. Marsh. I think I 
understand the situation.

Mr. Marsh: No further questions of Mr. Lankford.

Cross-Examination by Mr. Warriner:

Q. Is it not correct, Mr. Lankford, that you, the Mayor, 
the City Council, have publicly, at public meetings with the



14:6a

press present and with citizens present stated your pur­
pose, your desire and your intent to form a unitary school 
system for the City of Emporia operated without regard to 
race? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Has this been covert or overt, open and outwardly? 
A. Open and outwardly.

Q. Have you attempted to hide it? A. No, sir.
Q. You were asked a question by Mr. Marsh which I 

understood your answer to be contrary to that, if my under­
standing was correct, or were you incorrect? [1523 A.
I can’t recall the question at the moment.

Q. I believe he asked you whether you had ever pub­
licly advocated a unitary school system, and my question 
was have you not publicly stated your intent and purpose 
to operate a unitary system? A. Yes, sir.

The Court: That is since this Court order, isn’t 
that correct? Isn’t that what you mean?

The Witness: Publicly as a member of the local 
City School Board.

The Court: Since this Court ordered it, just in the 
last month?

The Witness: Yes, sir.

By Mr. Warriner:
Q. The Mayor has also done that? A . Yes, sir.
Q. The mailing list for that registration notice for the 

city schools, was that mailed to any select list, that is any 
racially select list? A. No, sir. They were the water cus­
tomers, which is an automatic mailing system.

Q. Was that information also published over the radio? 
[1533 A. Yes, sir.

E. V. Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Cross



147a

Q. I assume that is also a non-racial beam from the 
radio? A. Yes, sir.

Q. There has been no attempt, I take it then on the part 
of your School Board to make any plea or ploy or other 
act which is racial in its effect insofar as registering for 
the school system? A. No, sir.

Q. I understood from your testimony that in the early 
part of your existence, from August, September, October, 
1967, that your School Board met formally and informally, 
to the best of your recollection for the purpose of consid­
ering the formation of a separate school system? A. Yes, 
sir. We are charged by state law to establish a school sys­
tem. And as we were appointed we met to that end.

The Court: Well, what made you so happy until 
now? You were satisfied. You have been charged 
with that since 1967. You just turned it over to the 
Greensville County and you didn’t complain. What 
happened now that you have decided at this last 
minute ?

The Witness: I personally, and I think my School 
[1543 Board since we were formed two years ago 
have never been happy.

The Churt: But you didn’t do anything about it?
The Witness: True. The contract was signed.
The Court: Tell me why now? What is it now that 

you decided that you all ought to do something?
The Witness: We feel that within the City of Em­

poria we can operate a consolidated system within 
two buildings.

The Court: Haven’t you felt that for two years?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: But you didn’t do anything about it?

E. V. Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Cross



148a

The Witness: We were forced into a contract.
The Court: Well, you still have that contract, 

haven’t you?
The Witness: Yes, sir, we do.
The Court: What has changed then, Mr. Lank­

ford? That is what I want to understand.
The Witness: The fact that our pupils in this 

city will go to six different school buildings before 
they finish school.

The Court: You mean assuming the plan is never 
changed ?

The Witness: Assuming the plan is never changed.
[155] The Court: Of course you knew the plan 

had been changed in a matter of several weeks re­
cently. You knew one plan was ordered and then 
another plan submitted and approved, so you knew 
it was subject to change?

The Witness: I suppose it is subject to change, 
yes, sir.

The Court: All right, sir.
The Witness: But we knew nothing but what had 

been publicized.
The Court: Did you ever go to the Public School 

Board and say, “Here, consider this plan” ? You all 
didn’t do anything, did you?

The Witness: We are not legally a part of the 
school. You mean as an individual did I go?

The Court: Well, even as an individual. But I am 
not concerned with that. I am concerned with you as 
a School Board. Did the School Board ever meet 
and say, “Let’s suggest this to the superintendent.”
I understood from your statement that he works for 
you?

E. V. Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Cross



149a

The Witness: No, sir, we did not. State law pro­
vides that we shall meet only to hire the superin­
tendent.

The Court: Then you really haven’t been a School 
Board except for purposes of hiring a superinten­
dent?

£1563 The Witness: In a sense that has been the 
only official action except for signature on a contract.

The Court: If you did it now you would become 
a School Board all of a sudden?

The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: And it is going to have a deleterious 

effect on the students of Greensville County because 
you are going to take some of their superintendents 
and he will be responsible to two Boards and take 
buildings that they have been using, isn’t that cor­
rect?

The Witness: That is correct.
The Court: You consider that neighborly, Mr. 

Lankford?
The Witness: In a sense I suppose not, Judge.
The Court: As a matter of fact it is going to 

change the racial composition of the student popu­
lation of Greensville County, which let’s call it what 
it is, that is one of the problems in segregating 
schools, isn’t it?

The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: All right.
Thank you.

By Mr. Warriner:

Q. Mr. Lankford, if the city forms its own school £1573 
system will there be more teachers under contract to the 
county than the county needs? A. Yes, sir.

E. V. Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Cross



150a

Q. Would it be a benefit or a detriment to the county to 
relieve them of the obligation of paying those teachers’ 
salaries? A. Financially I certainly feel it would be bene­
ficial.

Q. If the city forms a school system will the county have 
more school buildings than they need! A. I  assume that 
they will.

Q. Would it be a benefit or a detriment to the county to 
relieve them of the obligation of maintaining those school 
buildings? A. It would be a benefit.

The Court: These are all subject to the teachers 
agreeing to have their contracts abrogated?

The Witness: That is correct.
The Court: But it could be a detriment if the 

teacher said, “You hired me and you are going to 
pay me” ?

The Witness: That is true, yes, sir.

By Mr. Warriner:

Q. Do you have any reason to believe that there would 
[158J be a substantial number of teachers, in fact any 
teachers who would say, “You hired me, you pay me. I am 
going to stay here whether you need me or not.” Do you 
have any reason to believe there would be teachers that 
would behave that way? A. No, sir. Now, I am not on the 
County School Board.

Q. You know teachers and you know people. Do you 
think people would behave that way in your city of Em­
poria? A. No, sir.

The Court: Well, your city then is different than 
the county, I take it. The county hasn’t treated you 
fairly. Do you feel that way?

E. V. Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Cross



151a

The Witness: Pardon!
The Court: Do you feel the county has not treated 

the city fairly?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: Do you think folks in Emporia are 

different than the folks in Greensville County?
The Witness: They are all human beings. They 

may act differently on occasions.

By Mr. Warriner:

Q. Now, I want to know, sir, what adverse effect, what 
adverse effect are you talking about when you say that 
[159] there would be an adverse effect on the county? A. 
I don’t know that I could answer that. The adverse effect. 
The question to which I answered that this would be an 
adverse effect I would like to have repeated if possible.

Q. It can be repeated. The Judge asked you whether it 
would have an adverse effect or a detrimental effect and 
you agreed with him. I want to know what are the adverse 
effects? A. Well, as you have pointed out if the county has 
a surplus of school teachers and these teachers are willing 
to terminate their contract to come to the city then there 
would be no adverse effect insofar as teachers are con­
cerned.

If the county has a surplus of buildings and the build­
ings are no longer needed by the county and the city is 
willing to assume those buildings, that is no adverse effect.

Q. Leaving out the ifs, will the county have a surplus 
of teachers and will the county have a surplus of build­
ings? A. In my opinion, yes, sir.

Q. All right, sir.
Then you would have no adverse effect on the county? 

A. No, sir.

E. V. Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Cross



152a

[160] Q. What would there be unneighborly about your 
act? I assume that we all mean the same thing by “ un­
neighborly.” A. I am not sure. I don’t know.

The Court: He means do unto others as you would 
hope they would not do unto you.

By Mr. Warriner:

Q. I want you to, if there is anything that is unneigh­
borly to the County of Greensville, I want you to state it. 
A . The only adverse effect as asked by His Honor, the 
Judge, would be the racial ratio remaining in the county.

Q. Now, at the present time I believe you testified that 
the ratio is approximately 60-40 in the county? A. Yes, 
sir, to my knowledge that is about right.

Q. And if the city formed the city school system your 
testimony is it would be approximately 50-50? A. Approxi­
mately.

Q. In the city? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is this a matter of great moment to the City of Em­

poria? A. No, sir.
Q. Is that the motivating influence of the City of [161] 

A. No, sir.
Q. Did you or anyone in the City of Emporia create the 

racial mix that exists in Emporia and Greensville? A. 
No, sir.

E. V. Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Cross

The Court: What you are really saying, Mr. Lank­
ford, everybody has been at you, the Council and 
myself and I don’t mean to, but I want to get it 
straight. What you are really saying is that the 
reason that precipitated this, and the primary rea­
son, is the fact that your children and all the chil­



153a

dren have got to transfer schools more frequently 
than they have in the past and you consider that to 
be bad?

The Witness: I consider that to be bad, yes, sir, 
and the—

The Court: I am certainly in accord with you that 
it is not the best thing, but that is really the reason, 
is it not?

The Witness: That is the basic reason that we 
wish to operate our city school.

By Mr. Warriner:

Q. Well, what are some of the other reasons? A. The 
economies that would result from the lack of transportation 
necessity would certainly allow us to afford a better quality 
of education with more teachers and guidance [1623 
counsellors, etc.

Q. Do you have, Mr. Lankford, have confidence in the 
ability of the county government successfully to operate a 
unitary school system? A. No, sir, I do not. Successfully.

Q. Of course you understand that they are going to 
comply with the order and obey the law? A. City?

Q. The city. Your contention is then that operating in 
southside Virginia in the City of Emporia and the County 
of Greensville a unitary school system requires something 
more than mere obedience to the law? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What are some of the other things it requires? A. I 
would think a firm leadership is required.

Q. Do you think the county has firm leadership toward 
creating a unitary school system? A. I do not.

Q. Do you think the city has? A. I do.
Q. Go ahead, sir. A. It will have the people.

E. V. Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Cross



154a

Q. Do you think the people in the county of Emporia 
[163J have the will to create a unitary school system? A. 
You mean the city?

Q. Do you think the people in the county have the will 
you deem necessary to create a successful unitary school 
system? A. No, sir, not to the extent that in the city 
exists.

Q. Sir? A. Not to the extent that it will in the city.
Q. Do you think the people in the city have the will to 

create a successful unitary school system? A. That has 
been demonstrated with comments to me and others, yes, 
sir.

Q. Go ahead, sir. A. That is all. I think they do.
Q. Are there any other reasons why you want to tell 

the Court why, or whether or not you want to tell the Court 
why the City of Emporia believes that it is in the better 
interests of the children in the City of Emporia to have a 
unitary non-racial school system in the City of Emporia? 
A . The consolidation, as the Judge mentioned. The unitary 
system. The betterment of educational opportunity due 
to economies that will be a result of our school system is 
wThat £1643 I have to say.

Q. Do you have any opinion as to whether the citizens 
of the City of Emporia would be more willing to subject 
themselves to higher taxes for the use of the schools than 
might be true in the county? A. Yes, sir, I  think that is a 
definite possibility.

Q. Now, the Court mentioned that there were certain ifs, 
or that this was an iffy situation. Can those ifs be resolved 
here today? A. I would think so, yes, sir.

Q. How would they be resolved? A. It has been ex­
pressed by those officials of the county that they are un­
willing to release any buildings that are currently included

E. V. Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Cross



155 a

within the Federal Court ordered plan. If such a plan can 
be revised to include the placement or the assignment of 
the county pupils to certain buildings then we feel that the 
county will then be in a position to allow the buildings 
that we want to utilize to be used by us.

Q. In other words, if the Court were to enter an order 
today denying injunctive relief and giving leave to the 
county to file a plan which would use these schools located 
in the county or leave at least the two schools that are 
needed by the city free for use by the city, if negotiations 
could be [165] successfully reached then do you see any 
reason why you would not be able to proceed to have a 
school system in the City of Emporia starting operations 
some time by the first of October ? A. I see no reason, sir.

Q. In other words, all of the ifs hinge actually on the 
action of the Court here today? A. Apparently so, yes, 
sir.

E. V. Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Cross

The Court: When is school scheduled to start
now, Mr. Lankford?

The Witness: The county school system?
The Court: Yes, sir.
The Witness: I believe it is the day after Labor 

Day. The third of September, I believe.

By Mr. Warriner:

Q. You could have your school operating then within 
two or three weeks after that? A. I would certainly think 
so, which will allow us sufficient time for the state required 
180 days of education.

Q. To get 180 days of education in before the middle of 
next summer? A. Before the hot weather anyway, yes,
sir.



156 a

Q. And if the Court enters that order today do you have 
any question in your mind that you could obtain the [166] 
t©cicli6rs necessary? .A., I  (Jo not.

Q. You are familiar with the people involved! A. Yes, 
sir.

Q. How big is Emporia? A. Population-wise approxi­
mately 6,000, I  would say.

Q. Do you know most all of those people? A. I feel I 
have lived there all of my life and I don’t know them, but 
they know me or I think I do.

Q. Do you believe that you know most or all of the teach­
ers in the Emporia school system, black and white? A. I 
probably don’t know as many black as I do white. I know 
most of the white teachers.

Q. Do you know a substantial number of the black? A. 
I know several of the black ones, yes, sir.

Q. Do you have any reason to believe that they would, 
if  m covering that again, could you sit here today and set a 
reasonable date for the commencement of school provided 
you get an order from the Court permitting the City of 
Emporia to operate a city school system? A. Once that 
Court order is established our only time element between 
would be, as I see it, a teacher contract which, as expressed 
by the superintendent, has a 15-day [167] termination 
clause. So that there would be at least 15 days before a 
new contract.

The Court: What do you mean 15 days’ termina­
tion? You mean by mutual agreement?

The Witness: Yes, sir, as I understand it, sir.
The Court: All right.
Rather than 30 days. I  think it was 30 days last 

year and it is 15 days this year, possibly.

E. V. Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Cross



157a

E. V. Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Cross 

By Mr. Warriner:

Q. Have you had any indication from any teachers that 
they would be willing to transfer to the Emporia city 
school system provided they were released from their con­
tract f A. I have, sir.

Q. You know that you are charged under the statute 
with the responsibility of operating the city school system 
and to a large extent they will be a success or a failure 
depending upon whether or not you discharge your duty. 
Are you confident that you and your School Board, if given 
leave to do so by the Court, can operate an efficient, effec­
tive city school system for the City of Emporia commencing 
in the fall of ’69? A. I am confident of that, sir.

Q. Thank you.

[168] The Court: Gentlemen, any further exam­
ination of Mr. Lankford?

Mr. Marsh: No. We have no examination.
The Court: Thank you, Mr. Lankford. You may 

step down, sir.

(The witness stood aside.)

Mr. Marsh: Your Honor, the plaintiffs rest.
The Court: Very well.
Do you have any evidence, gentlemen ?
Mr. Warriner: Wouldn’t you pardon us one sec­

ond.
The Court: I f  it would make it easier I could 

recess for lunch at this time while you formulate 
your plans. I will he glad to accommodate you. We 
will recess for one hour for lunch.

(A recess was taken at 12:25.)



158a

Mr. Warriner: If Your Honor please, we would 
like to call Mayor Lee as the respondents’ witness.

The Court: Come around, Mr. Lee, please, sir. 
You are still under oath.

George F. Lee—for Defendants—Direct

George F. L ee resumed the stand and testified further as 
follows:

Direct Examination by Mr. Warriner:

[169] Q. Mayor Lee, under the presently existing system 
would you state whether or not the city government or the 
citizens of the city have any control over the operation of 
the school system to which their children would be sent? 
A. Absolutely none. May I add to this, sir?

The Court: All right, sir.
The Witness: This is a problem. We have no con­

trol over the curriculum and no control over how the 
program is going to operate. We have no control 
over the hiring of the teachers. Absolutely no con­
trol whatsoever.

By Mr. Warriner:

Q. Do you have any control in the selection of the mem­
bers of the Board of Supervisors? A. Absolutely none.

Q. Do you have any control over the selection of the mem­
bers of the School Board? A. No, sir.

Q. Do you have any control over the setting of the tax 
levy? A. No, sir.

Q. Do you have any control over the setting of the school 
budget? A. None whatsoever. In fact we pay our bill to 
the [170] county and not to the School Board itself. We



159a

assume it goes, some of it goes for schools, but, of course, 
a portion goes for our share of health, welfare, etc. But we 
have no control. We have a blanket bill from the county.

Q. Now, completely aside from the question of whether 
or not you have any legal control or opportunity to be 
heard, just a minute and I will revise that. I use the word 
“control.” I will go back and say, “ Do you have any vote 
in any of these matters? ” A. We can’t even vote for the 
members of the Board of Supervisors.

Q. Can you vote on any of the other matters I have 
enumerated? A. Absolutely no control whatsoever.

Q. Completely aside from your opportunity to vote or 
exercise any control or influence, do you have over and 
beyond political lines of command, do you have any influence 
that you can exert over the operation of the schools by the 
county? A. None whatsoever. Unfortunately we do not 
have a line of communication from the County Board of 
Supervisors. In fact we had a reassessment this past year 
and we attempted to go over, since we are a city of the 
second class and we did [1713 not have the records and 
the land books. We attempted to go over and send our 
crew to get those records. We were refused by the Com­
mission of Revenue and had to get a Court order from the 
Attorney General in order to get public records. This is 
the line of communication we have, which is available to 
anybody.

Q. But was not made available to the city? A. No, sir.
Q. Is there an active atmosphere of antagonism between 

the county government and the city government? A. Ab­
solutely.

Q. How long has this persisted? A. This has been going- 
on for the past eight years, I would say, unfortunately.

Q. That has hampered the city government and before 
that the town government in attempting to exert a beneficial

George F. Lee—for Defendants—Direct



160a

influence on the county government! A. Yes, sir, it has 
very definitely.

Q. I will leave out the word “beneficial influence.” Has 
it had any influence on the county government? A. Yes, 
sir. There is no line of communication, unfortunately.

Q. Now, Mr. Mayor, all of these things were true on 
[172] the 24th of June as well as on the 26th of June, is that 
not correct? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, would you explain to His Honor why the fact 
that there was an order entered in this case between the 
County School Board and the N.A.A.C.P., why that acted 
as an agency which moved?

The Court: Wait a minute. Let me get this 
straight. What is this N.A.A.C.P.? They are not 
parties to this suit as far as I know. All I know about 
the N.A.A.C.P. is something that I read in the paper, 
frankly.

Mr. Warriner: There are large numbers of names 
of people and it is our understanding that their 
counsel are employed by some legal defense fund 
of the N.A.A.C.P. and it is a shorthand way of saying 
the whole bunch of names.

The Court: What is the materiality of it? I want 
to get it straight because I did read something about 
this Court approving the plan of the N.A.A.C'.P. If 
they are parties, I don’t know it.

Mr. Warriner: The purpose of the use of the 
term was for identification.

The Court: Who are you attempting to identify?
Mr. Warriner: Identifying the suit between [173] 

certain people starting off with a Miss Pecola Ann­
ette Wright.

George F. Lee—for Defendants—Direct



161a

The Court: You mean between the plaintiffs and 
the defendants?

Mr. Warriner: That is correct.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Warriner: That is certainly—
The Court: I don’t think it is material one way 

or the other, but I heard something about N.A.A.C.P. 
and I wanted the record to show this Court doesn’t 
know anything about it.

Mr. Marsh: N.A.A.C.P. is not a party to this.
The Court: I didn’t think so, but I wanted it 

straight for the record.
All right, sir.

By Mr. Warriner:

Q. Between the plaintiffs and the defendants, who are 
Miss Pecola Annette Wright and the County School Board, 
what was it about the order that was entered that changed 
the situation which galvanized the city into action? A. 
Which order are you talking about, Mr. Warriner? The 
first order or the second order?

Q. The order entered on the 25th of June, I think it was. 
[1743 A. Is that the first one or the second one?

Q. Maybe I better check it.
It was the order that was filed with the supplemental 

complaint.

Mr. Tucker: June 25.
The Court: Isn’t that the order that approved 

the plan submitted by the Greensville County School 
Board?

Mr. Warriner: If Your Honor pleases, as I under­
stand it I assume Your Honor is asking, as I under­

George F. Lee—for Defendants—Direct



162a

stand the Greensville County School Board merely 
made some physical rearrangemnts of the order that 
was submitted or directed by the Court in order to 
accommodate children to classrooms and—

The Court: That may have been the result, but 
weren’t we in court when they appeared here and 
asked the Court to approve their plan, which this 
Court did? And that was done on June 25. That is 
the plan, as I understand it, that was submitted by 
the School Board. Is that correct, Mr. Kay?

Mr. Kay: It would appear to me from this Court 
having considered the proposed plan filed by the 
plaintiffs here and being of the opinion that the 
same will lead to a unitary system—

The Court: That is the order of the 25th?
Mr. Gray: That is the plaintiffs’ plan.
[1751 The Court: That is not the plan we are 

operating under now. We are operating under a plan 
submitted by the Greensville County School Board.

Mr. Gray: That was much later.
The Court: You are talking about the first plan, 

in any event, which was approved and then ulti­
mately amended at the request of the defendants?

Mr. W arriner: I think that perhaps the best thing 
to do is just use the dates, the 25th of June.

The Court: I think so.
Mr. W arriner: Because it was some time shortly 

after the 25th of June that the city started taking 
action.

Now, what I want to know, was what was there 
about the nature of the occurrences in the suit be­
tween the plaintiffs and the defendants, and you 
know what suit I  am referring to—

George F. Lee—for Defendants—Direct



163a

The Witness: Yes, sir.

By Mr. Warriner:

Q. —that resulted in action being taken by the city! A. 
The city has never been happy with the school system 
period. And a member of the School Board, not the Chair­
man, but at the first meeting he went and informed the 
[176] School Board, and he is present in this courtroom 
today, informed the County School Board, the full County 
School Board in 1967 or 8, whenever he went, that he wanted 
to work, and he was going to make efforts to malm a sepa­
rate system. We have never been happy with the system, 
but our children were going to school, all of our children 
in close proximity to where they lived. And this is what 
precipitated this action because now with this transporta­
tion problem and two or three buses picking up children—

The Court: You mean none of the children in 
Emporia went out into the county to school?

The Witness: Yes, sir, some did. Yes, sir, but 
this was—we are talking about, sir, less than a mile.

By Mr. Warriner:

Q. Mr. Mayor, the R. R. Moton, the high school which 
was formerly an all-Negro school, is located on the very 
edge of Emporia to the north, is that correct ? A. Yes, sir.

Q. But outside? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the other high school which is the Greensville 

County High School, which was a formerly all-white school, 
is located on the very edge of Emporia to the south but 
inside ? [177] A. Well, in fact part of the playground is 
in the county.

George F. Lee—-for Defendants—Direct



164a

Q. And so far as their proximity to the center of Em­
poria, there is practically no difference? A. Very little.

Q. And if any children, I think perhaps emphasis was 
made, that there may have been some Negro children who 
traveled outside of the city to school. If they did it was 
on the immediate edge of the city to the high school? A. 
I  would assume that, yes, sir.

Q. During the course of the examination and cross- 
examination, Mr. Mayor, there have been a number of 
reasons stated to the Court why the city would be better 
off having its own city school system and its children would 
be better off. I take it from your answer then that all of 
these reasons apply and the precipitating act was the fact 
that the schooling was being fragmented into groups of 
two and three grades in a school building requiring ex­
cessive transportation of city children, is that correct? A. 
That is correct. And if the Judge would allow me to elab­
orate and present an. example.

The Court: Go ahead, sir.
The Witness: You will take for instance we have 

[178] in Emporia and Greensville County an ex­
cellent band program. I f  we had all o f the children 
between the ages of school ages of first grade 
through seventh grade in one school then we can 
have one band director, for instance, and he can 
direct each one of those children. They have a little 
band. He can direct each one of these children and 
we can have an excellent band program. I use that 
as one item. But if he is, that one man, we have to 
have five to go from school to school to school just 
to have this extracurricula type of thing. And I 
think this is why we need to keep all of the children

George F. Lee—for Defendants—Direct



165a

in the city together. And then we can have expanded 
programs that we don’t presently enjoy. And we 
have had no voice whatsoever in the programs that 
have existed in the past.

By Mr. Warriner;

Q. I assume, Mr. Mayor, that you read the newspaper? 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that you were aware one plan after another and 
various modifications of these various and sundry plans 
were being presented to the Court in this case according, 
at least, to the newspapers? A. Yes, sir.

The Court: But we already know they are not 
[1793 accurate because they said something about 
N.A.A.C.P. and I saw that, and that is not true. Don’t 
hold this witness to the newspapers’ responsibilities. 
Don’t hold him responsible.

The Witness: No, sir.
Mr. Warriner: I don’t intend to, Your Honor. 
The Witness: Thank you, sir.

By Mr. Warriner:

Q. I ask whether or not you read it? A. Yes, sir, I read 
them all.

Q, Was it also your understanding from a reading of 
the newspaper that the Court finally finished up with a plan 
that was a final plan? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Were you a-ware of the fact that the Court always 
reserves the right to change an order? A. No, sir. This 
was a surprise to me. No, sir.

Q. Did you have any reason after the reading of the 
history of the case as it went through court to believe that

George F. Lee—for Defendants—Direct



166a

after finally deciding on this order that the Court was 
going to change it? A. No, sir, I had none whatsoever.

Q. Were yon required then to act upon the facts in 
behalf of the City of Emporia as they existed and as they 
[180] appeared to you? A. Absolutely.

Q. Is that the reason— A. That is absolutely.
Q. — or the basis upon which the Council acted as far 

as you know? A. I thought this was the final and com­
plete action and couldn’t be changed.

Q. Are you asking the Court now to change it in order 
for the City of Emporia to have a school system? A. Your 
Honor, I am pleading with the Court. If I can elaborate 
again.

The Court: Mr. Lee, let me say that I don’t want 
to cut you off and I am going to let you do it.

The Witness: All right.
The Court: I am sure what you are saying you 

are perfectly sincere in.
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: Let’s call a spade a spade.
The Witness: All right, sir.
The Court: It is a little late. That is the prob­

lem. It took me from August until about a month 
ago to even get the Superintendent of Schools of 
your division to [1813 submit a plan.

The Witness: But, Your Honor, sir, we didn’t 
have any control over that. None whatsoever.

The Court: I know that.
The Witness: Never have we been asked or con­

sulted on a plan.
The Court: Go ahead, sir.
The Witness: All right, sir.

George F. Lee—for Defendants—Direct



167a

The Court: I didn’t mean to interrupt. I wanted 
to let you know what the problem was.

The Witness: I am concerned first of all with the 
public school system, and this is the only answer. 
We can’t go back to the dark ages. This is not a 
threat from me because I would never allow my 
child to attend one period, regardless of the outcome 
of this case or any other case. But I am thinking 
further. It has been quoted in the papers, correct 
here, our area is a growth area in southside and we 
have been getting big industry there and we think 
this school turmoil has so frustrated things that it 
is going to hurt us economically. We are going to 
be a dying community. But if we can have a dynamic 
system, school system in the City of Emporia, we 
are going to continue to grow and move.

I don’t think this is going to hurt the county one 
[1823 bit any more than the present plan is going 
to hurt the county. I don’t think it will affect the 
county because we have got to consider right down, 
when you talk these things over, there is a fact that 
there are several hundred, I don’t know how many, 
and it may be 100 or 200 county white children that 
are being bussed out to Brunswick County to go to 
a private academy, which I am against, but this 
thing, if we are not allowed to have at least one 
system in Greensville County for all of the citizens 
to go to it is going to hurt Greensville County as 
well as Emporia. And I don’t think this plan that 
we are proposing will affect adversely the County of 
Greensville and it can be put into effect next month, 
Tour Honor, sir, with your approval, sir.

George F. Lee—for Defendants—Direct



168a

Cross-Examination by Mr. Tucker:

Q. Mayor Lee, do you know Mr. Dolphus Slate, one of 
the members of the Greensville County School Board? A. 
Yes, sir.

Q. Where does he live? A. He lives on Church Street, 
I believe.

Q. In the city? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Temple, another member, where does he live? 

[183] A. He lives in the Town of Jarrett, I believe.
Q. J. D. Adams, a member of the County School Board? 

A. He lives in the city.
Q. Mr. Vincent? A. Mr. Vincent lives in Skippers.
Q. Two of the four members of the County School Board 

live within the City of Emporia? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know who the members of the School Trustee 

Electoral Board are? A. I don’t any more. I sure don’t, 
no, sir.

Q. All right.
Now, you testified that Wyatt was on the very edge of 

the town limits. Wyatt is about half to three-quarters of a 
mile north of the town limits? A. Yes, sir, I would say 
close.

Q. It is easily? A. I say half a mile.
Q. Half a mile? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Negro children living in Emporia in the southside of 

Emporia? A. Yes, sir.
[184] Q. Who did not elect under freedom of choice to 

attend the Emporia Elementary School were assigned to 
school where, if you know? A. I really don’t know be­
cause we have had no control whatsoever over those mat­
ters.

Q. As Mayor of the city you never concerned yourself 
as to where the Negro children in the southside of Emporia

George F. Lee—for Defendants—Cross



169a

attended school, whether they attended Zion or Moton 
School or Belfield School? A. Yes, sir, I have been con­
cerned with the white and black children in Emporia ever 
since I have been Mayor.

Q. But you don’t know where the Negro— A. I am sure 
they go to the Greensville Training School. Those that did 
not elect to go to the Greensville Elementary School.

Q. Elementary school? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How about the Negro children that attended or lived 

in the south part of the city, attended Zion School or Bel- 
held School? A. Oh, I am sure some did, but again—

Q. I meant Zion School or Moton. A. Moton School, 
yes, sir. Certainly they did attend [185] right. It was in 
close proximity to areas of residence, so I am sure they 
attended those schools.

Q. I see.
Now, you elaborated upon an advantage of having the 

children of the city all in one building. And you made 
reference to the band. Your idea would contemplate two 
high schools, one for the city and one for the county. Two 
high schools for the area? A. Definitely.

Q. But both those high schools would be very small 
population-wise? A. Well, no, sir. I don’t think so, sir.

Q. At least if  they were together there would be a larger 
population in the high school? A. Well, actually, sir, if 
they were together they couldn’t accommodate the students. 
The schools were built only for approximately 800 and you 
would have 600 in them. So that takes care of future growth.

Q. That is all right.
I noticed in the minutes of the City Council minutes of 

your last meeting, the matter came up with the residents of 
the Virginia Lee Baker subdivision seeking annexation 
into the city and Virginia Lee Baker subdivision is [1863 
located south of the city? A. Yes, sir.

George F. Lee—for Defendants—Cross



170a

Q. Tell me whether that is populated by white or Ne­
groes? A. There are three homes, Negroes—I mean white 
homes. Three homes in the area.

Q. Three homes in the area? A. Just three, yes, sir.
Q. Then there is a new subdivision being developed, is 

that what it is? A. Yes, sir. 1 don’t think many lots have 
been sold.

Q. I notice that they are referred to as acreage. A. I 
think around 47.

Q. As a resident of the city do you know whether lots in 
that subdivision are being offered to sale to Negro people?

Mr. Warriner: I f  Your Honor please, the law re­
quires they be offered to sale to anyone without re­
gard to race, and I am sure counsel knows that.

The Court: Objection overruled.

By Mr. Tucker-.

Q. As a matter of fact— A. I have no idea.
Q. — do you know who is selling them? Who is [1873 

promoting it? A. I know the attorney that handles the 
case, but that is the fact, something that has never come up 
as far as I am concerned. So I could not answer that.

Q. All right.
Now, I am assuming that in the several steps that the 

Council has made you have had advice of counsel? A. Yes, 
sir.

Q. Now, did your counsel advise you that the Court or­
dered plans to be revised and so forth as time went along?

Mr. Warriner: I think it would be properly objec­
tionable as to what counsel advised them.

George F. Lee—for Defendants—Cross



171a

The Court: I think that objection is well taken.
Mr. Tucker: I withdraw the question.

By Mr. Tucker:

Q. The minutes of the Council and the registration notice 
that was published by the School Board within recent days 
both refer to the fact that out of the city students may at­
tend the city schools on a tuition basis. Do you know what 
the amount of tuition will be? A. It has been calculated 
based on the budget we received from the County School 
Board or from the county, rather, approximately. I f  any 
child decided to come in I would [1881 say approximation 
of $170 a year.

Q. Both elementary and high school children? A. Yes, 
sir.

Q. Now, I believe you testified, and correct me if I am 
wrong— A. All right, sir.

Q. —that if the two buildings that the city wants, the 
school buildings that the city wants could be released that 
the County Board would cooperate, or that you would have 
no difficulties or foresee any difficulties in establishing the 
school system. A. I don’t believe we will have any diffi­
culties at all with the County School Board. Unfortunately 
the Board of Supervisors don’t realize that the Board con­
trols the property. If the Court releases them we wouldn’t 
have any problem at all working that out with the County 
School Board.

Q. Who would make the decision, let us say, for instance 
as to what teachers would go to the city and what teachers 
would go to the county system? A. Then I think here, as 
I have said repeatedly, it would be a complete unitary sys­
tem. Then our City School Board then would be empowered 
to hire.

George F. Lee•—for Defendants—Cross



172a

Q. You don’t understand me. £189] A. All right, sir.
Q- I am conceiving of the teachers presently under con­

tract by the County School Board as being the pool from 
which the county teachers and the city teachers would be 
drawn. A. Yes, sir.

Q. I am asking you how would the decision be made as to 
which teachers would go to the city system and which would 
remain in the county? A. Two School Boards to have to 
go together and decide.

Q. Have you assurances from the County School Board 
they would get together? A. Tacit approval, yes, sir. I 
don’t think we would have any problem.

Q. What do you mean “tacit” ? Do you mean you have 
talked with members of the County School Board on the 
subject? A. I have talked with the County Superintendent 
on the subject and I have talked with one member of the 
School Board on the subject. I don’t think that would be 
a problem at all, sir.

Q. What member of the School Board did you talk to? 
A. Talked with Dr. Adams.

Q. And your conversation with Dr. Adams led you to 
[190] believe there would be no difficulty at all in appor­
tioning teachers between the county and the city? A. Yes, 
sir.

Q. All right.
May I venture to guess that you agreed that Mr. Wood 

would be able to make the selection and both Boards would 
ratify his selection? A. Yes, sir.

Q. That is your understanding of the way it would work 
out? A. Yes, sir. I think you would have to take it on a 
complete non-racial basis, and I am sure our School Board, 
and I am sure the county would take that recommendation 
with, of course, some suggestion.

George F. Lee—for Defendants—Cross



173a

The Court: I f  you got along so good with the 
School Board why didn’t you go and help them make 
a plan and make suggestions to them!

The Witness: Yes, Your Honor, sir, we have been 
dealing and we don’t even send our check to the 
School Board.

The Court: But you talked to Dr. Adams and have 
tentatively agreed that you will get the teachers you 
need from what you said!

The Witness: Yes, sir.
[191] The Court: What I don’t understand is why 

didn’t your School Board, Emporia, sit down and talk 
to Dr. Adams and the other members and say that 
you wanted to talk to them about this plan that was 
being submitted to the Court!

The Witness: Frankly, Your Honor, sir, they have 
never been instructed by the Council to do so and I 
think the School Board is not at fault. I think the 
Council is at fault, but we weren’t happy with the 
system we had. We were living with it, but I don’t 
think the School Board is at fault.

The Court: What I don’t understand is that you 
all haven’t done anything all this time and now all of 
a sudden in a matter of days you want this Court to 
disrupt the plan that has taken—it was like pulling 
teeth—

The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: —to get it out of Greensville County 

School Board.
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: And you want us to take it now and 

run the risk of injuring the children of Greensville 
County in their education.

George F. Lee—for Defendants—Cross



174a

The Witness: I don’t believe, sir, that as the 
superintendent stated— excuse me, maybe I shouldn’t 
say that.

The Court: Go ahead. Isn’t that what you are 
[1923 asking this Court to do!

The Witness: Yes, sir, but I don’t think it is going 
to injure the system. As the superintendent stated it 
is a matter of half a day since he already has your 
pairing plan and it has been agreed upon there is no 
problem.

The Court: Let’s get it straight. It is not my 
pairing plan. It is the plan submitted by the Greens­
ville County School Board.

The Witness: Yes, sir, excuse me, sir.
The Court: I mean I will take credit and blame, 

and it is there.
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: But I want it straight that this Court 

approves the School Board plans whenever it is pos­
sible to do it.

The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: Because they now presumably know 

more about it than I do.
The Witness: This can be handled and our chil­

dren won’t have to go to school, white and black, 
with so far away from home. They can be close to 
their families. This is all we are asking, without 
harm—any harm to the county whatsoever. And the 
superintendent stated—

[193] The Court: You state there is no harm, but 
Mr. Lankford thinks there will be harm.

The Witness: I disagree with Mr. Lankford.

George F. Lee—for Defendants—Cross



175a

The Court: Between you and I, I do too. Go 
ahead.

The Witness: All right. I don’t think-—I mean 
what is the difference between 60-40 and 50-50 ratio! 
What is the difference! There is none. We have 
never talked about the race. There is no race in­
volved.

The Court: I am not thinking about the race 
situation.

The Witness: I don’t think that plan, our plan, 
will do any harm. I f  there is any harm to be done 
any more than is already done then the present plan 
will do.

The Court: All right, sir.

By Mr. Tucker:

Q. I assume this conversation with Dr. Adams took place 
after the Council’s action in July of this year, or determina­
tion in July of this year to form a separate school system! 
A. Frankly I am sure it was. It was an off-the-cuff type of 
thing and, of course, it was my saying, I don’t know whether 
I mentioned it to another member of the School Board or 
[194] not, “ If we could just get those city school buildings 
we could operate a plan with no problem.”

And they said, that under this Court order maybe it has 
been since that they were negotiating or having plans back 
and forth, presenting it in the meeting with the Courts, and 
there is nothing they could do, really. Their hands were 
tied until something had been done. It is an off-the-cuff 
type of statement that I couldn’t answer, really.

Q. Well, July 9 was the first special meeting that the 
Council had at which you announced the purpose of the

George F. Lee—for Defendants—Cross



176a

meeting was for, “Establishing a city school system” ? A. 
Yes, sir.

Q. And yon have had several meetings subsequent? A. 
Yes, sir, we sure have.

Q. Now, what I am saying is that this conversation you 
had with Dr. Adams was some time after this July 9 meet­
ing? A. I really couldn’t say about that and I have no 
assurance. I couldn’t assure you, if this is what you are 
saying, we would get those school buildings, but I have 
enough confidence in all of the members of the School 
Board that if it is agreeable that we can operate our city 
school system and we would have no problem getting the 
School Board because the superintendent said there would 
be surplus property.

[1953 Q. You are not suggesting that before you took the 
matter to the Council on July 9 with the purpose of estab­
lishing a city school system that you talked this over with 
Dr. Adams before you talked it over with Council? A. No, 
sir.

Q. So your conversation with Dr. Adams had to be after? 
A. I am sure of that, yes, sir.

Q. Sure.
Now, have you talked with any of the other County School 

Board members since July 9? A. No, sir. I can’t tell you 
—we have had several meetings with the Chairman of the 
Board of Supervisors. These were informal meetings. The 
Commonwealth’s Attorney, a couple members of the Board 
of Supervisors, excuse me, the Chairman of the School 
Board, the superintendent, our attorney, and myself.

Q. Chairman of the County School Board? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Slate? A. Yes, sir.
Q. So you have had a meeting with him? A. We have 

had meetings, and may I ask my attorney when those meet­

George F. Lee—for Defendants—Cross



177a

ings were? We met in Vincent’s office to try to [196] get 
them to present a plan that would be helpful.

Mr. Warriner: You may ask, but I can’t answer.
The Court: You can answer in argument if you 

wish, Mr. Warriner.
The Witness: Excuse me. I am sorry, sir.

By Mr. Tucker:

Q. Let me ask you, was that meeting at which Mr. Slate 
was present before or after July 9 when you called the 
special, first special meeting of the Council for the purpose 
of establishing a school system? A. I honestly cannot 
answer.

Q. All right.
Well, at this meeting of which Mr. Slate was present was 

there discussed your formation or a proposed formation of 
a separate school? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Can we say that that was within a month, one way or 
the other, of July 9? A. Yes, sir, I would say so, yes, sir.

Q. Well, can we say it was before or after June 17 when 
this Court—when the District Court here announced that 
it was going to approve the plaintiffs’ plan? A. I believe 
that would be correct, sir. Yes, sir.

[1973 Q. What would be correct? A. That it would be 
after.

Q. It was after that? A. Yes, sir, I  would say that.
Q. Now, I suppose you read in the newspaper on June 

18 that the Court had announced it was going to approve 
the plaintiffs’ plan? A. You are tying me down to dates, 
sir. But it was prior.

Q. You read that in the newspaper? A. Yes, sir.

George F. Lee■—for Defendants—•Cross



178 a

Q. So it was after your reading in the newspaper that 
the Court had announced from the Bench it was going to 
approve the plaintiffs’ plan that you had this meeting at 
which Mr. Slate was present? A. It was an informal meet­
ing in Mr. Vincent’s office.

Q. Will you just run over what other things have been 
discussed between you and Mr. Slate, you and Dr. Adams, 
you and other members of the School Board which is the 
basis of your testifying that if the matter of the buildings 
could be solved that you would have no other problems in 
establishing a school system? [1983 A. Well, this is the 
whole sum and substance of that particular meeting. And 
I reported back to the Council after that meeting that mem­
bers of the Board of Supervisors were there and in fact 
the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors was at that 
meeting, and this is what I was instructed by the Council 
to go and propose that when their finalized plan came in 
to establish or to put all the city children in the city and 
have a pairing plan for the county for the rest, just what 
we are asking for today. And it didn’t get done.

Q. In other words, the city, is it fair to say, that in an 
informal manner the result of your conversation with mem­
bers of the School Board, specifically Mr. Slate and Dr. 
Adams, that you had been given the understanding that if 
you can get the matter of the buildings solved that the rest 
of it could be worked out? Is that a fair summation? A. 
I think so, yes, sir. All right, I would say that, yes, sir.

Mr. Tucker: Nothing further.

Redirect Examination by Mr. Warriner:

Q. Mr. Lee, are you led to believe from what you have 
heard in conversation and gatherings and so forth that that

George F. Lee—for Defendants—Redirect



179a

is a unanimous view from the part of the School Board and
[199] Board of Supervisors? A. No, sir, no official action 
whatsoever.

Q. Is it a unanimous viewpoint that the city can have the 
schools or are there those that say the city will have the 
schools over their dead bodies and so forth? A. That is 
correct. And we have heard it to be a fact that we will not, 
that we have no equity in the schools.

Q. Now, is your opinion that as a practical matter you 
will get the schools based upon a feeling that exists, a great 
deal of good will and comity between the two governments 
or as a practical matter that they don’t have any use? 
A. I think it is because they don’t have any use for the 
schools, yes, sir.

Q. And with respect to the teachers, is it because they 
love you and they will give you teachers or they won’t have 
any use and can’t afford them to do nothing? A. No, sir. 
And frankly the teachers would rather teach in our system 
because they know it is going to be a better one.

The Court: It is the same superintendent, isn’t it? 
The Witness: Yes, sir, but we will have a School 

Board also.

[200] By Mr. Warriner:

Q. Will this School Board be under the complete control 
of the citizens of Emporia, their government and their 
School Board? A. Yes, sir.

Q. How is the School Board in the city selected? A. 
They were selected by the City Council.

Q. How is the School Board of the County of Greensville 
selected? A. I believe by a trustee appointed by the Court. 

Q. Pretty far removed from the people, then? A. Yes,

George F. Lee—for Defendants—Redirect

sir.



180a

Colloquy

The Court: You wouldn’t think so if you saw my 
mail.

Mr. Warriner: Sir?
The Court: You wouldn’t think Courts were so 

far removed if you saw my mail.
Mr. Warriner: No.
The Circuit Court, the statute says, if Your Honor 

please, that the General Assembly elect the judges 
and the judges select the school trustee, the Electoral 
Board and the school trustee, and the Electoral 
Board select the School Board, and if you can get 
the people in that it is a long reach. [201] Of course 
we hope to change that.

The Court: Any other examination of the witness, 
gentlemen?

Thank you, sir.

(The witness stood aside.)

The Court: Call your next witness, gentlemen.
Mr. Warriner: We rest, if Your Honor please.
The Court: Do you wish to put on any evidence, 

Mr. Gray?
Mr. Gray: We have no witnesses, Your Honor.
The Court: Gentlemen, any rebuttal?
Mr. Marsh: We have no rebuttal evidence, Your 

Honor.
The Court: I will be glad to hear from you, 

gentlemen.

(Mr. Tucker made a closing statement to the 
Court.)

(Mr. Warriner made a closing statement to the 
Court.)



181a

(Mr. Gray made a closing statement to the Court.)

(Mr. Marsh made a closing statement to the Court.)

(A  recess was taken at 2:55 to reconvene at 3:30.)

[2023 The Court: Gentlemen, this matter is of 
such urgency that I think the Court ought to give its 
findings from the Bench so that everybody will know 
what the situation is, reserving the right to correct 
my grammatical errors and add citations that I deem 
appropriate.

I am going to try to make it as brief as I can, re­
serving the right to expand my findings and my con­
clusions of law. This will be brief so that if anybody 
is unhappy they can get it written up and go from 
here as quickly as they can. I will cooperate with any­
body to that extent.

This matter comes before the Court today by vir­
tue of an announced intention by the School Board 
of the City of Emporia who have been made addi­
tional parties to this suit to operate for the first time 
their own school system within the City of Emporia.

The Court adopts and takes judicial notice of its 
previous findings of fact and conclusions of law in 
this case and points out that this matter has been 
pending since 1965.

In June or July of 1968 the instant plaintiffs 
moved the Court for further relief. A  hearing was 
had in connection therewith and in spite of the fact 
that everybody knew that the schools of Greensville 
County, which included the City of Emporia, that 
those were physically located in the City [203] of 
Emporia were operated by the then defendants who 
have to operate them in a unitary manner. At the 
behest of the original defendants the School Board

Oral Decision



182a

of Greensville County and in view of their statement 
which was made as a matter of fact exactly one year 
from today, and I quote, “In view of the short period 
of time remaining before the opening of the schools 
reorganization of the system for 68-69 school year is 
virtually impossible administratively and would be 
disruptive and detrimental to the education program 
of the pupils.” This Court extended the time for the 
filing of a plan and directed, as a matter of fact gave 
them until January 20. Even then that wasn’t suf­
ficient time, according to the then defendants. So 
they asked for an extension until January 31.

In short it was not until June of this year that a 
hearing was had on the proposed plan of operation 
for the schools. There had been one interim hearing 
in which it had been suggested that a certain testing 
program would be considered, and the Court heard 
evidence on that and gave leave for the then defen­
dants to bring in further information.

In any event it wasn’t until June that it was con­
sidered, some 10 months after the first report and 
some 12 or 13 months after, I  believe, they were 
directed to file an appropriate plan or at least that 
they knew they would have [204] to file an appropri­
ate plan.

Now, I mention this because the Court finds that 
the City School Board and the Council of the City 
of Emporia have known all during that period of 
time what was required under the law. The Court 
finds that they made no effort whatsoever to com­
municate their wishes or their desires to the County 
School Board of Greensville County, nor did they 
give the Superintendent of Schools, from the evi-

Oral Decision



183a

deuce before the Court, any assistance in attempting 
to formulate an appropriate plan.

The Court finds that after this Court’s order of 
June 25, 1969, a meeting of the Council was held, 
according to the minutes contained in Plaintiffs’ Ex­
hibit 12, and the Mayor of the City of Emporia stated 
to the Council his opinion concerning the plan that 
had been approved by this Court. Without quoting 
him it certainly evidenced a disagreement with it.

The Court finds at that time a member of the 
School Board reported to Council the percentage of 
Negroes in each school for the first seven grades. 
It is apparent that therein was borne the idea that 
this School Board had never functioned as a School 
Board except for purposes of discussing with the 
School Board of Greensville County the salary of the 
[205] superintendent and selection, who had never 
functioned, had been created only because the law 
required that there be a School Board in the city, 
they then decided that they would operate a school.

Now, the Court finds that it has taken all this time 
to formulate a plan. The plan that is approved by 
this Court was a plan submitted by the Greensville 
School Board. That any disruption of same would 
not only enure to the detriment of the students, but 
would be a violation of the constitutional rights of 
the students of Greensville County. Education of the 
children must be protected.

The mere fact that there is a Board that, for all 
practical purposes, is a moot Board for the city and 
there is a county contiguous thereto, the process of 
desegregation ought not and cannot be thwarted by 
drawing a line between Emporia and Greensville 
County.

Oral Decision



184a

It occurs to the Court that a political subdivision 
can be pierced to protect the pupils. It would seem 
appropriate, where necessary—and I don’t think it 
is necessary under these facts at this time—that lines 
may be pierced to protect children’s education.

The harm to the remaining students, if the Court 
did not issue an injunction, would be incalculable. 
And this [206] must be considered. See Hobson v. 
Hansen 269 F. Sup 401.

Under the New Kent decision this School Board 
had an obligation and a duty to take steps to see to 
it that a unitary system was entered into. All they 
have done up until now, and the Court is satisfied 
that while their motives may be pure, and it may he 
that they sincerely feel they can give a better educa­
tion to the children of Emporia, they also have con­
sidered the racial balance which would he roughly 
50-50 which would reduce the number of white stu­
dents to, under the present plan, would attend the 
schools as presently being operated.

The Court finds that under Brown v. Board of 
Education 349 U.S. 294 that these defendants, all of 
them, have an obligation that they are going to abide'
by-

In short, gentlemen, I might as well say what I 
think it is. It is a plan to thwart the integration of 
schools. This Court is not going to sit idly by and 
permit it. I am going to look at any further action 
very, very carefully. I don’t mind telling you that I 
would be much more impressed with the motives of 
these defendants had I found out they had been at­
tempting to meet with the School Board of Greens­
ville County to discuss the formation of a plan for 
the past year. I  am not impressed when it doesn’t

Oral Decision



185a

happen until they have reported to [207] them the 
percentage of Negroes that will be in each school.

I find that if this were permitted—and not only is 
it not feasible and detrimental and a violation of the 
constitutional rights of the students, it really isn’t 
anything. They don’t have the first school teacher. 
They don’t have a School Superintendent. They don’t 
have the first building. They don’t have the first 
book.

The injunction will issue.
Let there be no doubt that this injunction runs not 

only to the named defendants but every person within 
the jurisdiction of this Court that in any manner 
whatsoever attempts to interfere with the plans that 
are theretofore approved. The Court will be de­
lighted to entertain motions for amendment of the 
plan at any time.

I think that covers it, gentlemen. If there are any 
questions or any doubt about what the Court is ruling 
please speak up. I will hold the motion for contempt 
in abeyance.

Yes, Mr. Kay.
Mr. Kay: If the Court please, I take it that the 

Court will set this down for hearing on the permanent 
injunction!

The Court: Yes, indeed.
Mr. Kay: And in the meantime I take it that the

[208] Court will require a bond?
The Court: I am requiring a $100 bond. That is 

what I am requiring.
Mr. Kay: You won’t hear any—-
The Court: What do you suggest it ought to be, 

Mr. Kay?

Oral Decision



186a

Colloquy

Mr. Kay: We are suggesting that considerable 
damage will result if the Court is in error and if this 
injunction stays in effect from the necessity of ex­
pending funds to transport students throughout the 
county which otherwise would not be necessary. And 
from that standpoint we think the bond should be 
substantially in excess of $100.

The Court: All right, sir. Since I have no con­
crete evidence of that the bond will be $100.

Mr. K ay: Now, sir, as to the date for a permanent 
or for a hearing on the permanent injunction. Does 
the Court want to set that now?

The Court: Well, I will be glad to do it. No, I 
don’t have my next year’s docket, Mr. Kay. Let me 
tell you. It is going to be some other Court that de­
stroys this. Until I have a better one in front of me 
I can’t do it. So there is no rush for it.

This Court’s injunction is going to enter today.
[209] It is going to enter now as of 3:45.

Mr. K a y : Before we can determine what future 
course there should be perhaps we should get the rec­
ord into shape that will be necessary to pursue that 
course. We would like to have a hearing at a reason­
able prompt time. We realize that as a practical mat­
ter the Court’s ruling today takes care of it.

The Court: It can be appealed in 15 minutes.
Mr. Kay: Yes, sir. But this is a temporary in­

junction and we want to get the record in proper 
form. We had very little notice.

The Court: Let the record show that I will co­
operate with you so that you may appeal this, because 
it does go to the real issue.



187a

Colloquy

Mr. Kay: Yes, sir. But if we would prepare to 
expand upon the record to some extent and follow 
the course—

The Court: All right, sir. What date do you sug­
gest, Mr. Kay?

Mr. Kay: Well, I would hope some time in 
September.

The Court: No. We can’t do it.
Mr. Kay: We would want the earliest date.
The Court: I doubt seriously if the Court—is

[ 210] there any limitation on a temporary injunc­
tion, gentlemen?

Mr. Kay: There is on a restraining order.
Mr. Tucker: There is none on the injunction.
The Court: There is none. It will have to be 

after the first of the year for a hearing. I have got 
one in September that I believe you may be involved 
in, Mr. Kay. In any event starting in September I 
go into a series of cases which are rather lengthy. I 
start a 13-week’s case in October.

Mr. Kay: We would like to pursue this in an 
orderly manner.

The Court: I want to give you all the time you 
want, but I don’t see how I can do it. I must tell you 
I think you have had, you know, a long time to be 
heard. Well, Mr. Kay, I can give you a date in 
November, but I see here—I mean December. I have 
a case that if it is not finished I have it marked down 
here for going into the 40th day. Now, if it gets 
through then that is fine. We have a case here on 
December 15th that you are in which is supposed to 
take two days. Do you think that will take two days ?



188a

Colloquy

Mr. Kay: Yes, sir, if it is tried, which it appears 
it will be, it will take two days.

The Court: I can hear you December 18. How 
about that?

[ 211] Mr. Kay: If that is the earliest time then 
I would like to reserve that date and then we will 
take whatever action in the meantime that we are so 
advised.

The Court: All right, sir.
Mr. K ay : Keeping that date in mind.
The Court: Do you have a sketch of the injunction, 

Mr. Tucker ?
Mr. Tucker: Well, the sketch that I passed up that 

Mr. Kay objected to.
The Court: I will meet with counsel in Chambers 

in reference to the form of it at the conclusion of 
this hearing.

Anything else, gentlemen?
Mr. Tucker: I would like to make one further mo­

tion. A  matter of housekeeping, sir. That in the 
same suit, that is that Mr. Sam A. Owen should be 
substituted in the papers for Andrew 0. Wright, 
Superintendent of Schools, and Billy B. Vincent 
should be substituted for Cary P. Flagg.

The Court: So ordered.
Mr. Warriner: I f  Your Honor please, a matter of 

housekeeping. I think that the papers might want 
to show George F. Lee is the Mayor and Robert F. 
Hutcherson and Gordon Harrison are additional 
conncilmen not served.

£212] The Court: Thank you.
Mr. Gray: Could I inquire? Looking at the sup­

plemental complaint there is nothing in the prayer 
of this complaint relating to contempt. Your Honor



189a

Colloquy

said that the motion for contempt would be kept 
under advisement.

The Court: It was an oral motion, if nothing else.
Mr. Cray: What I want to inquire into is the scope 

of Your Honor’s considerations, whether or not the 
County School Board of Greensville County is in any 
way subject to a inquiry as to contempt.

The Court: Yes. Yes, I will tell you now. They 
are. I  am not so sure of informal conversations and 
so forth and so on, but that goes to anybody, Mr. 
Gray. I don’t need counsel to—I am not critical, but 
I don’t need Mr. Tucker or Mr. Marsh to suggest to 
the Court that anybody is under contempt if it comes 
to the Court’s attention then I will handle it as I 
think I ought to.

Mr. Gray: Okay, sir.
Mr. Warriner: If Your Honor please, I don’t want 

my clients to be before the Court and I take it my 
clients are free to continue what legal action they 
may be privileged to take.

[213] The Court: Absolutely. Just as long as it 
does not interfere with the operation of the plan.

Now, I am not going to tell you, certainly, how you 
ought to advise your clients. I just say that this 
plan may be amended at any time, that anybody can 
come in and show that there is a better way of doing 
it. I  will be delighted to hear them. I am not going 
to take any steps now that is going to permit any­
body to interfere with the operation of this plan, 
whether they are named defendants or strangers to 
the suit. If I have reason to believe they are inter­
fering with it they are going to be heard, and if it is 
found then I am going to take the appropriate action. 

# # * # #



190a

[Filed on August 8, 1969]

This cause came on to be heard on the verified supple­
mental complaint and the plaintiffs’ motion for an inter­
locutory injunction as prayed in the supplemental com­
plaint; and having heard oral evidence and received ex­
hibits in open court, the Court makes the following

F indings of F act

This action, seeking the racial desegregation of the pub­
lic school system of Greensville County, was commenced 
March 15, 1965.

On July 31, 1967, the Town of Emporia became a city 
of the second class known as the City of Emporia.

In recognition of its obligation to provide certain services 
and facilities including public schools for children within 
its boundaries, the said City by the Council thereof on 
April 10, 1968 entered into and signed an agreement with 
the surrounding County of Greensville acting through the 
Board of Supervisors thereof, whereby the County would 
continue to provide public schools to the citizens of the 
City of Emporia in the same manner as when the City was 
a town and to the same extent as provided to the citizens of 
the County, and the City would pay as billed its contractual 
share, ascertained at 34.26 percentum, of the local cost to 
the County. Said agreement provides for its continuing 
effectiveness for a period of four years and thereafter until 
notice will be given by either party to the other by Decem­
ber 1 of any year that said agreement would be terminated 
on July 1 of the second year following such notice. The 
contract provides for other contingencies in reference to 
termination.

District Court’s Findings o f Fact and
Conclusions o f Law



191a

On June 17, 1969, this Court stated from the bench its 
findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the plain­
tiffs’ motion for further relief and indicated that an order 
would be entered requiring the County School Board of 
Greensville County to implement the plan for desegregation 
filed by the plaintiffs which proposed the use of two school 
buildings located near but outside the City limits for all 
children in primary and lower elementary grades living 
south of the Meherrin River, the use of a school building 
located within the City and one located near but outside the 
City limits for all children in primary and lower elementary 
grades living north of the Meherrin River, the assignment 
of all pupils in intermediate grades to Emporia Elementary 
School located within the City of Emporia, the assignment 
of all pupils in the junior high school grades to Wyatt High 
School located near but outside the City limits, and the 
assignment of all pupils in the senior high school grades to 
Greensville County High School located within the City 
limits. The only two schools in the system which white 
children have ever attended are within the City.

On June 24, 1969, Bruce Lee Townsend, an infant, etc., 
et al, residents of the City of Emporia, filed in the Circuit 
Court of the County of Greensville a petition (which on the 
same day was served on the respondents thereof, v iz : City 
Council of City of Emporia, School Board of City of Em­
poria, Greensville County Board of Supervisors, and 
Greensville County School Board) seeking, inter alia, judi­
cial dissolution of the above mentioned agreement of April 
10, 1968, and an injunction preventing any pupils residing 
within the City from being assigned to schools not located 
within the City. Each of the respondents demurred to said 
petition on July 15, 1969.

On July 9, 1969, William H. Ligon, L. R. Brothers, Jr., 
T. Cato Tillar, Fred A. Morgan, Julian C. Watkins, S. G. 
Keedwell, M. L. Nicholson, Jr., and Robert F. Hutcheson,

District Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law



192a

constituting the Council of the City of Emporia; George F. 
Lee, Mayor of the City; D. Dortch Warriner, City At­
torney ; and Robert K. McCord, City Manager, convened 
in a special meeting, the purpose of which was for “ estab­
lishing a City School system.”

Under date of July 10, the Mayor sought cooperation 
from the County Board of Supervisors, specifically the sale 
or lease of the school buildings located within the City.

At the July 14 meeting of the same City officials, the 
Mayor evidenced his dissatisfaction with the plan which this 
Court had ordered to be executed to accomplish school 
desegregation. The Council heard purported percentages of 
Negroes who would be in each school for the first seven 
grades under the plan approved by this Court, and there 
was evidenced a view that the plan was educationally un­
sound. The chairman of the City School Board advised the 
Council that approximately 500 County children could at­
tend City schools if the City obtained the buildings wanted,
i.e., the Emporia Elementary School and the Greensville 
County High School which white children of the County 
and City have traditionally attended. The Council unani­
mously decided to instruct the School Board of the City 
of Emporia to immediately take all steps to establish a 
school division for the City of Emporia.

At a special meeting held July 23, 1969, the Council 
adopted a resolution requesting the State Board of Educa­
tion to authorize the creation of a school division for the 
City of Emporia.

The City School Board notified the County School Board 
that a separate school system for the City will be operated, 
that no City school children will attend the County system 
during the year 1969-70 and thereafter, and that the City 
would no longer pay a share of the cost of operating the 
County schools. The notification solicited the cooperation of 
the County School Board in making this transition which

District Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law



193a

was characterized as being “ for the benefit of the entire 
community.”

The City School Board has caused to be circulated and 
posted a notice dated July 31, 1969, requiring all parents of 
school age children residing in the City to register such 
chidren during the week of August 4-8 and inviting appli­
cations from out-of-city students who desire to attend Em­
poria City schools on a tuition, no transportation basis.

The City School Board’s proposed operation of the 
schools would afford those students residing in the County 
the opportunity to attend a City school upon payment of 
certain tuition fees.

Certain members of the County School Board and mem­
bers of the Board of Supervisors had knowledge of the 
foregoing events as and when they occurred and have met 
with members or representatives of the City Council and of 
the City School Board and discussed the plans of the City 
to withdraw from the County school system.

The Court further finds that a failure of this Court to 
enjoin the defendants would result in incalculable harm to 
those students residing in the County and would be disrup­
tive to the effectiveness of the Court’s previous order.

The Court further finds that the members of the School 
Board of Emporia have not functioned as such except for 
the purpose of consulting with the County Board in the 
selection of a superintendent of schools. They never acted 
in any manner for purposes of offering their assistance to 
the County Board in reference to a school plan to be sub­
mitted to this Court.

On the basis of the foregoing, the Court makes the fol­
lowing

District Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

C onclusions of L aw

1. As a successor to the County School Board with re­
spect to the duty to educate children of school age residing



194a

in the City of Emporia, the City School Board would be 
and is hound by this Court’s order requiring the County 
School Board to disestablish racial segregation in the pub­
lic school system which it controlled and operated both 
when this suit was commenced and when said order was 
entered and to do so in accordance with the plan approved 
by this Court.

2. As persons in participation with the County School 
Board with respect to the cost of the school system, and 
they having received notice of this Court’s said order, the 
Council of the City of Emporia, the members thereof, the 
Mayor of the City, the School Board of the City of Em­
poria, the members thereof, the County Board of Super­
visors of Greensville County and the members thereof were 
and are bound by this Court’s said order.

3. The establishment and operation of a separate public 
school system by the City of Emporia and the consequent 
withdrawal of children residing in that City from the public 
school system of Greensville County would be an imper­
missible interference with and frustration of this Court’s 
said order.

4. The Council of the City of Emporia may not with­
hold its appropriate share of financial support for the 
operation of public schools by the County School Board of 
Greensville County when such would defeat or impair, the 
effectuation of the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs 
in the manner which this Court has directed.

Dated: 8-8-69

District Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

/s /  R obert R. M erhige, Jr.
United States District Judge



195a

Order of District Court

[Entered and Filed on August 8, 1969]

For the reasons assigned in the Court's Findings of Fact 
and the Conclusions of Law, and deeming it proper so to 
do, it is A djudged , O rdered and D ecreed that the School 
Board of the City of Emporia and the members thereof, 
viz: E. Y. Lankford, Julian P. Mitchell, P. S. Taylor and 
G. B. Ligon, and their successors, and the officers, agents, 
servants, employees and attorneys of said Board, as well 
as George F. Lee, as Mayor of the City of Emporia, and 
his successors, and the Council of the City of Emporia 
and the members thereof, viz: William H. Ligon, L. R. 
Brothers, Jr., T. Cato Tillar, Fred A. Morgan, Julian C. 
Watkins, S. G. Keedwe.il, M. L. Nicholson, Jr., and Robert 
F. Hutcheson, and their successors, and the officers, agents, 
servants, employees and attorneys of said Council, be, and 
they hereby are, enjoined and restrained from any action 
which would interfere in any manner whatsoever with the 
implementation of the Court’s order heretofore entered in 
reference to the operation of public schools for the student 
population of Greensville County and the City of Emporia.

This order shall be effective upon the plaintiffs’ giving 
security in the sum of $100.00 for the payment of such 
costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by any 
party who is found to have been wrongfully enjoined; and 
shall remain in full force and effect for a period of 140 days 
unless sooner modified, enlarged or dissolved.

Let the United States Marshal serve copies of this order 
upon each of the named defendants.

Dated: August 8, 1969 
3 :45 P.M.

/ s /  R obert R. M erhige, J r.
United States District Judge



196a

Answer o f Defendants t© Supplemental Complamt 
Filed on August 15, 1969

1. The complaint fails to state a claim against these 
defendants upon which relief can be granted.

2. The Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter 
o f the claims stated in the complaint.

3. Defendants admit the allegations contained in para­
graph 2 o f the complaint, except that they deny that the 
City of Emporia is located entirely within the boundaries 
o f  the County of Greensville. Though the City is sur­
rounded by said County, it is independent of and not in­
cluded in said County.

4. Defendants admit the allegations o f paragraph 3 of 
the complaint. 5 6

5. Defendants admit the allegations of the last two sen­
tences o f paragraph 4 of the complaint. With respect to the 
first sentence of said paragraph, Defendants admit that 
during and prior to the 1968-69 school session, children of 
public school age residing in the City o f Emporia have 
attended the public school system operated by the School 
Board of Greensville County and that, since its incorpora­
tion in 1967, the City has contributed to the general fund of 
said County a share of the costs of all the services provided 
by the County to the City, including schools. It denies the 
allegations of the first sentence of paragraph 4  o f the com­
plaint to the extent such allegations are inconsistent with 
the preceding sentence of this answer.

6 . In response to the allegations of paragraphs 5 and 
6 o f the complaint, Defendants state that the orders and 
rulings of the Court speak for themselves.



197a

Answer of Defendants to Supplemental Complaint

7. Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 7 of 
the complaint.

8 . Defendants deny the allegations of pargaraph 8  of 
the complaint.

/ s / J o h n  F. K a y , Jr .
O f Counsel for Council of the City 
of Emporia and the members there­
of, and the School Board of the City 
o f Emporia and the members 
thereof

D. Dortch Warriner 
Warriner and Outten 
332 South Main Street 
Emporia, Virginia

John F. Kay, Jr.
Mays, Valentine, Davenport & Moore 
1200 Ross Building 
Richmond, Virginia 23219



198a

Defendants’ Exhibit E-I
Excerpts From Minutes Of State Board Of Education 

Meeting Held August 19-20, 1969

“ R e q u e s t  F or  T h e  C r e a t io n  Of A  N e w  
S c h o o l  D iv is io n  F or  E m p o r ia  C it y

“ Dr. Wilkerson reported that resolutions had been re­
ceived from the school board and city council o f the City of 
Emporia requesting the establishment o f a school division 
consisting of the city. The Greensville County school board 
has passed and submitted a resolution opposing the dissolu­
tion of the present school division consisting o f the county 
and the city. . . .

“ Mr. Lankford presented the following statement: . . . .
“ After a thorough discussion, the Board upon motion 

duly made and adopted, tabled the request o f the City of 
Emporia in light of matters pending in the federal court.”

I certify that the above is a true copy of excerpts from 
the minutes of the State Board of Education meeting held 
on August 19-20,1969.

/ s /  W oodrow  W . W il k e r s o n  
Woodrow W. Wilkerson, Secretary 
State Board of Education



199a

[THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY]



200a

Minutes of Meeting of School Board of City of 
Emporia December 8, 1969 and Attachments Thereto

[Defendants’ Exhibit E-G to District Court Proceedings 
of December 18, 1969]

The School Board, City of Emporia, met on the above 
date at 4 P.M. in the City Manager’s (Clerk’s) Office of 
the Municipal Building with Chairman E. V. Lankford, 
Jr. presiding. The following members were present:

Dr. P. C. Taylor 
Mr. Julian Mitchell 
Mr. G. B. Ligon

Also present was Mr. Robert K. McCord, Clerk.
The Chairman reported that in accordance with the 

School Board’s actions of November 19, 1969, Dr. H. I. 
Willet had been instructed to prepare and submit a pro­
posed estimated budget for Emporia City School Opera­
tion for the school year 1970-71. The Chairman further 
advised that Dr. Willett felt that it would be inappropriate 
at this time to develop the actual school curricula. There­
fore, this portion was eliminated from his work.

Mr. Lankford then submitted the estimated proposed 
school budget for the City of Emporia for the schoool year 
1970-71. Said budget is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

The Board carefully examined the budget as submitted 
together with the budget message presented, and on mo­
tion by Mr. Mitchell which was seconded by Dr. Taylor, 
the Board adopted the estimated proposed school budget.

Mr. Lankford advised that he would appreciate the Board 
Members’ attendance at an informal meeting with the City 
Council December 4 in order to inform Council in detail 
on the proposed estimated school budget. He further ad­



201a

vised that final action on the estimated budget would be 
dependent on City Council at their regular meeting De­
cember 5, 1969.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned.

E. V. L ankford , J r . 
Chairman

R obert K . M cCord 
Clerk

Minutes of School Board of Emporia of December 3, 1969

This is to certify the above is a 
true copy of the minutes of the 
Emporia City School Board Meet­
ing held on the above date.

R obert K . M cCord 
Clerk



202a

EXHIBIT A 

Minutes 12/3/69

City of Emporia

E stimate of P roposed S chool B udget 

1970-1971

[Emblem] Virginia Commonwealth University 

Mr. E. V. Lankford
Chairman of the Emporia School Board 
Emporia, Virginia

Dear Mr. Lankford:

I am submitting herewith a proposed schoool budget for 
the City of Emporia for the session 1970-1971, which has, 
hopefully, been kept within the general guidelines that 
were set up. In our discussion at the proposed joint meet­
ing of the school board and the City Council, we can go 
into more detail concerning the priority that should be 
assigned certain specific items.

The cost of teacher salaries in the proposed budget is in 
harmony with the average of the $7500 that you had pro­
posed. However, this item causes me some concern since 
it will not permit an increase in the teacher salary sched­
ule beyond the anticipated $300 increase in the teacher 
salary schedule for 1970-1971. A  further increase in the 
teacher salary schedule merits careful consideration and 
may well deserve a higher priority than some items now 
included in the proposed budget. I  will be glad to work 
out some proposals for consideration if you so desire.

Minutes of School Board of Emporia of December 3 1969



203a

I wish to express my appreciation for your cooperation 
and help in developing this proposed budget which I trust 
will supply the necessary information for a full discus­
sion with the school board, the City Council, and the City 
Manager. I will, of course, be happy to assist with any 
revisions that may be proposed.

Very sincerely yours,

/ s /  H . I . W illett  
H. I. Willett

Minutes of School Board of Emporia of December 3, 1969

November 28, 1969 
HIW  :ca



204a

Minutes of School Board of Emporia of December 3, 1969 

City of Emporia
Estimate op Proposed School Budget 

1970-1971

INDEX
Page

School Budget Message .............................................   1

Some Basic Factors and Assumptions ...................  1
Enrollment Projections ..      1
Estimates of Revenue ...............     1
Factors Affecting Cost .        2

Budgetary Conditions Relating to Quality................ 4
Kindergarten Program ....................   4
Teacher-pupil Ratio ...............  5
Leadership ...........     6

Some Factors Relating to Quality ..................    7

Revenue ...........................................................................  10
State Funds ................................................................  10
Federal Funds .......................................................    10
Other Funds .......................................................    10
City Funds ...............................................................  10

Disbursements ................................................................  11
Administration .........................................    11
Instruction .............................................................   11
Other Instructional Costs ................   11
Attendance and Health Services ............................... 12
Pupil Transportation .......................   12
School Food Services .................................................  12



205a

Minutes of School Board of Emporia of December 3, 1969 

INDEX (Continued)
Page

Operation of School Plant ....................................  12
Maintenance of School Plant ............................... ......  12
Fixed Charges  .............................................................. 13
Summer School  ........................ ........................  13
Adult Education ........................................  .........  13
Capital Outlay .............................................................. 13
Other Educational Programs ........................................  13

Budget Summary .....................................      14

A ddenda ......................................................      15

Estimated Pupil Enrollment ...............................     15
Estimates Applied to State Distribution Formula .... 15
Data From Virginia Tax Commission ...... ..... ..........  16
Some Comparative D a ta ..................................    16



206a

Minutes of School Board of Emporia of December 3, 1969

B udget M essage

1—

Some Basic Factors and Assumptions

I. The enrollment projections are based on enrollment 
figures supplied by Greensville County Administra­
tion as of September 30, 1969 for the City of Em­
poria. These grade by grade enrollment figures 
were moved up one grade and increased by ap­
proximately 10 percent on the expectation that some 
pupils now attending other schools would return 
to a city-operated school system.

The Averaged Daily Attendance figure used is 
based on 92 percent attendance, which was the 
percentage of attendance figure for Greensville 
County for the session 1968-69. Otherwise the en­
rollment figures appear reasonably stable for the 
next several years, except as the school system 
would increase its holding power as the result of 
an improved educational program that is more 
relevant to the needs of its pupils in today’s world. II.

II. The estimates of revenue are based in part upon 
the relationship of pupils enrolled in school from 
the City of Emporia to the total enrollment of 
pupils in the Greensville County school system. 
The basic State appropriation was derived from 
applying the State formula and using the 1968 
true values as prepared by the State Tax Com­
mission. The $300 increase in the State teacher 
salary schedule for 1969-70 was worked into the



207a

—2—
budget plus an assumption that the General Assem­
bly would approve another $300 increase in the 
minimum basic teacher salary schedule for 1970-71. 
There was also an assumption that the City would 
provide for a kindergarten program and that some 
bus transportation would be essential from a prac­
tical viewpoint and that otherwise some pupils 
would probably have to travel a distance to school 
that would place them beyond the requirements to 
enforce a compulsory school law.

A very important quality item for children from 
low income families is the provision for adequate 
health services. Consequently, funds have been in­
cluded for the development of a health program 
including the part-time services of a physician and 
two nurses. A part of this cost can be supplied 
through Federal funds since the service of nurses 
in particular would also be needed for special Fed­
eral projects. The health service could possibly be 
tied in closely with a city-wide health program.

Estimates of Federal funds are at best a guess at 
this time; however, the same pupil ratio of city 
pupils to county pupils from poverty target areas 
was assumed. The same availability of Federal 
appropriations was also assumed. III.

III. There are several important factors that will affect 
the cost of operating a separate and independent 
school system for the City of Emporia.

1. It is more costly to operate a quality education

Minutes of School Board of Emporia of December 3, 1969



208a

— 3 — -

program for a system with less than 1500 pupils 
than in a considerably larger school system.

2. Since Emporia City will have more wealth per 
child in terms of true real estate values than 
Greensville County, it can expect to receive rela­
tively less money from the State under the 
category of Supplemental State Share.

3. The stated reason for desiring to operate a 
separate and independent school system for the 
City of Emporia is to provide a better quality 
education program; consequently the cost can 
be expected to rise.

4. This budget is being proposed for 1970-71 which 
is two years later than the last year for which 
we have comparable figures for the per-pupil 
cost of operation. Consequently, costs can be 
expected to rise in other school divisions as the 
result of improved programs, inflation, and 
higher salaries. The following table shows the 
increase in per-pupil cost of operation for 1968- 
69 over 1967-68 in several school systems of the 
State:

Minutes of School Board of Emporia of December 3, 1969



209a

Minutes of School Board of Emporia of December 3, 1969

1967-68
p.p.c.

1968-69
p.p.c. Increase

Abingdon $436 $528 $ 92
Colonial Beach 517 570 53
West Point 516 526 10
Buena Vista 463 557 94
Lexington 571 607 36
Falls Church 838 982 144
Greensville Co. 452 505 53
State of Virginia 

Median 458 511 53

If the same yearly rate of increase were to occur, 
the per-pupil cost of operation in 1970-71 would be

— 4—

$611 in Greensville County and $617 for the State 
of Virginia. In 1965-66, the per-pupil cost of opera­
tions in Greensville County was $299, compared 
with the $505 per-pupil cost in 1968-69. This repre­
sents an average yearly increase of approximately 
$68 for the three-year period in per-pupil cost of 
operation.

Specific Budgetary Conditions that Relate to Quality

I. The provision for a kindergarten program repre­
sents one of the most important quality items in 
the budget. The United States has been behind 
European nations in providing adequate early 
childhood education, and Virginia has lagged be­
hind much of the Nation. Now that the State of 
Virginia supports a kindergarten program on the 
same basis that it supports the rest of the elemen­



210a

tary school, this important foundation of education 
should expand rapidly.

The program is needed for pupils from homes 
where the child is highly motivated and is needed 
even more urgently for pupils from the disad­
vantaged segment of society. With the wide range 
in abilities, interests, and motivation now found 
in most schools, it becomes increasingly important 
to reach the child at any early age to compensate 
for the neutral and negative factors to be found 
in too many homes. American educators studying 
the Soviet system of education report that the most 
important advantage to be found in the Soviet 
Union is in the area of Early Childhood Educa­
tion.

Recent experiments and psychological studies em-
—5—

phasize the importance of Early Childhood Educa­
tion as the foundation for all later education. For 
example, Professor Bloom of the Chicago Univer­
sity reports on his studies which indicate that 
approximately 50 percent of a child’s capacity to 
learn develops by the time he is four years of age, 
and 80 percent by the time he is eight years of age. II.

II. The per-pupil cost of education is closely related 
to the teacher-pupil ratio and the services that are 
provided. The quality of education is also related 
to these same factors. The size of class is important 
in meeting the needs of disadvantaged pupils and 
some small classes will be essential for the most 
gifted college bound pupils, especially in a small

Minutes of School Board of Emporia of December 3, 1969



211a

high school if the pupils are to have a variety of 
courses to prepare them for continuing education 
at institutions of higher learning. The same prin­
ciple also applies to vocational training of those 
pupils for whom high school education is terminal, 
at times before graduation.

Consequently, quality education in the City of Em­
poria will require some very small classes and a 
generally low pupil-teacher ratio which is fairly 
typical of small school systems as illustrated in the 
following table which gives the pupil-teacher ratio 
for certain school systems for the session 1968-69:

Minutes of School Board of Emporia of December 3, 1969

School D ivision E nrollm ent

E lem entary
pupil-teacher

ratio

H igh School 
pupil-teacher  

ratio

Abingdon 1080 22.5 17.4
Buena Vista 1530 26.5 17
Colonial Beach 500 28 14.9
Highland Co. 594 19.8 17.4
Lexington 1229 22 20
West Point 859 23.5 15.2
Greensville Co. 4261 24.7 21.6
State of Virginia •— 25.59 19.36

This budget proposal provides for
•—6—■ 

a favorable
pupil-teacher ratio, but one that is comparable 
with other smaller school systems.

Specific provision is made for special education 
which is most important for a quality program.



212a

III. A  small school system with a capable, intelligent 
and innovative staff under dynamic leadership has 
a good opportunity to achieve excellence in part 
because its size presents favorable conditions for 
experimentation and research that will more quickly 
identify and implement desirable changes.

The administrative and supervisory positions in­
cluded in this proposed budget are designed to 
create an environment and atmosphere of expecta­
tion that will stimulate the staff, pupils, and com­
munity to become involved in developing and main­
taining programs of education that have meaning 
for both pupils and adults.

The School Board is committed to demonstrating 
that a small city school system can have quality 
education at a cost that is within the means of an 
intelligent, involved and informed citizenry. The 
approximate 50-50 racial mix in the proposed city 
school system presents a challenge and opportunity

-—7—
that can have significant implications not only for 
Emporia and Greensville County, but also for the 
State.

The provision for expanded adult education, after 
school pupil programs, health and attendance ser­
vices, the use of more teacher aides, pupil trans­
portation, a low teacher-pupil ratio, guidance ser­
vices, expanded high school programs, and kinder­
garten represent some tangible evidence that the 
School Board, the City Council, and the citizens 
of Emporia are committed to the development of

Minutes of School Board of Emporia of December 3, 1969



213a

quality education programs to serve all tlie pupils 
of the city.

Some Factors Related to Quality

There are certain quality features in an educational pro­
gram that will not necessarily be reflected specifically in 
budgetary figures. The plan of school organization can 
have an important impact on the quality of the program. 
Non-graded primary organizations are no more costly and 
yet they offer some encouraging possibilities in dealing 
with children in accordance with their varying interests, 
abilities, and rate of development.

It is no longer realistic to expect a sixth-grade teacher to 
keep on the cutting edge of what is happening in all the 
subject areas that she is expected to teach in a self-con­
tained classroom. Consequently, team teaching, where a 
group of teachers work together in better using the deeper 
knowledge of individual teachers in specific subjects, af­
fords much promise. The group planning stimulates the 
teacher and insures the pupils of more exciting presenta-

— 8 —

tions and discussions that contribute to a more effective 
learning environment.

Expanded work experience with related course work in 
high schools along with short training courses permit entry 
into skilled and semi-skilled jobs that hold some pupils 
until graduation and permit other pupils who may not 
graduate to get jobs, rather than roam the streets aim­
lessly.
More emphasis or independent study develops the pupil’s 
ability to think and work independently. It also presents

Minutes of School Board of Emporia of December 3, 1969



214a

a plan for better meeting the pnpil’s needs in a small 
high school where classes tend to be very small in specific 
areas.

Community volunteers offer a rich resource of talent to 
aid the teacher in individualizing instruction and keeping 
the materials and techniques relevant to the best that we 
know.

Small school systems need the same general services and 
should perform the same general functions and offer the 
same opportunities that are found in larger systems. There­
fore, it becomes even more important to select personnel 
with the training and experience to render these services. 
This means that one administrator or supervisor may have 
to perform functions in several areas. Consequently, the 
administrative and supervisory staff must be selected to 
be a part of the team that can render total services and 
perform all the functions that are essential in a school 
system.

A  good in-service program for all employees will cost 
some money but its success relates more to morale and

— 9—

enthusiasms of staff members than to the amount of money 
spent. This is another reason that the school board places 
great value upon the quality of leadership. Federal funds 
are available for in-service training and many other pur­
poses, and universities can be very helpful in supplying 
leadership, etc. to a small school system that necessarily 
will have some staff limitations.

The school board proposes to utilize such services in dis­
charging its responsibility in providing quality education. 
The Board will place emphasis upon setting up priorities

Minutes of School Board of Emporia of December 3, 1969



215a

in program development that relate to the most urgent 
needs of pupils in this community. It will give close super­
vision to insure wise use of all dollars made available for 
education and it will seek the quality of administrative 
leadership that can implement its goals and purposes.

It should be pointed out that this budget proposal includes 
no increase in the teacher salary schedule beyond the 
anticipated $300 increase in the State minimum salary 
schedule. The Greensville County salary schedule for 1969- 
70 ranges from $6100 to $7700, with $100 annual increments 
for teachers with a Bachelor’s degree. Among the 139 
school systems in the State, 72 have a beginning salary 
of $6100 or less, while 27 have a maximum salary of $7700 
or less for the Bachelor’s degree.

There are 72 instructional jobs in the proposed budget on 
the teacher salary schedule. Therefore, each $100 increase 
would cost $7200. The size of the annual increments is 
also entirely too small to remain competitive in the State. 
I f  we are to attract and hold top level teachers, some early 
consideration must be given to the teacher salary schedule.

Minutes of School Board of Emporia of December 3, 1969



216a

- 10-

City of Emporia

E stimate  of P roposed S chool B udget 

1970-1971

R evenue

S tate F unds

Basic Appropriation $287,418
Driver Education 650
Foster Home Children 720
Free Textbooks 2,500
Guidance Counselors 2,400
In-Service Training 700
Local Supervision 2,500
Pupil Transportation 7,200
Special Education 2,500
Summer School 500
Supervising Principals 1,000
Teacher Sick Leave 1,000
Educational Television 1,200
Vocational Education 12,000

Minutes of School Board of Emporia of December 3, 1969

Total State Funds $322,288

F ederal F unds

Adult Basic Education 4,400
Elementary & Secondary Act 120,000
N.D.E.A. 1,500
School Food Program 8,500

Total Federal Funds $134,400



217a

Minutes of School Board of Emporia of December 3, 1969 

R evenue (Continued)

Oth er  F unds

Donations, Tuition, Rebates, etc. $ 4,200
T otal C ity  F unds $426,212

T otal R evenue $887,100
— 11-

D isbursements

A dministration

Board Members $ 2,400
Superintendent 15,000
Secretaries 8,000
Audit Expense 500
Postage, Telephone, etc. 1,200
Travel 1,000
Contractual Services 1,000
Office Supplies 600
Census, Surveys, etc. 500

Total Administration $ 30,200
I nstruction

Compensation of Teachers
(68 x 7500) 510,000

Two Librarians 16,000
Two Guidance Counselors 17,000
One Elementary Principal 11,000
One High School Principal 12,000
One Assistant Principal 10,000
One Supervisor 10,000
Substitute Teachers 3,000

Total Instruction $589,000



218a

Minutes of School Board of Emporia of December 3, 1969

D isbursem ents (Continued) 

O th er  I nstructional  Costs

Clerical Services $ 12,000
Instructional Aides 25,000
Travel 1,500
Educational Television 2,500
Other Instructional Costs 5,000
Library Books 10,000
Free Textbooks 10,800
In-Service Training 1,500

Total Other Instructional
Costs

A ttendance and H ealth  S ervices

Visiting Teachers $ 8,000
Nurses 12,000
Physician (part time) 10,000
Medical Supplies 1,000

Total Attendance & Health

P u pil  T ransportation

Transportation to School 12,000
Miscellaneous 2,000

Total Pupil Transportation

S chool F ood S ervices

School Lunch and Milk Fund 10,000

$ 68,300 
— 12—

$ 31,000

$ 14,000

Total School Food Services $ 10,000



219a

Minutes of School Board of Emporia of December 3, 1969

D isbursements (Continued)

O peration oe S chool P lant  

Compensation of Custodial Staff $ 18,000
Electrical Services 4,500
Telephone Services 800
Water Services 600
Custodial Supplies 3,000
Fuel 7,500
Other Expense 600

Total Operation of Plain $ 35,000

M aintenance  of S chool P lant

Compensation of Maintenance 
Personnel 5,000

Repair & Replacement of 
Equipment 5,000

Contractual Services 300
Building Materials, etc. 3,100
Other Expense 100

Total Maintenance School 
Plant

F ixed Charges

Fire Insurance 
Workman’s Compensation 

Insurance
Employer’s Contributions

$ 13,500 
— 13—

$ 2,000

1,000
5,500

Total Fixed Charges 
Total Cost of Operation—Regular 

Day Schools

$ 8,500 

$779,500



220a

Minutes of School Board of Emporia of December 3, 1969

D isbursem ents (Continued)

S u m m e r  S chool

Compensation Instructional 
Personnel $ 3,600

Total Summer School $ 3,600

A dult E ducation

Basic Adult Education 5,000
General Adult Education 1,000

Total Adult Education $ 6,000

Capital  O u tlay

Furniture and Equipment 6,000
School Buses 12,000

Total Capital Outlay $ 18,000

O th er  E ducational P rograms

Clerical Services 1,000
Aides 15,000
Custodial Services 2,000
Instructional Personnel 25,000
Equipment & Supplies 4,000
Books and Supplies 3,000
Other Costs 10,000

Total Other Educational 
Programs $ 60,000

T otal D isbursem ents $887,100



221a

Minutes of School Board of Emporia of December 3, 1969

Revenue

BUDGET SUMMARY
State F unds

Basie Appropriations $287,418
Other State Funds 34,870

-1 4 -

Total State Funds
F ederal F unds 
Other F unds (Local)
City F unds

Total Revenue

D isbursements

Administration
Instruction
Other Instructional Costs 
Attendance & Health Services 
Pupil Transportation 
School Food Services 
Operation of Plant 
Maintenance School Plant 
Fixed Charges

Total Cost of Operation 
Regular Day Schools

Other Educational Programs

$322,288
134,400

4,200
426,212

$887,100

Percentage

30,200 3.8
589,000 74.2
68,300 8.8
31,000)
14,000) 5.8
10,000)
35,000 4.5
13,500 1.8
8,500 1.1

779,500 100
60,000

Total Disbursements $887,100



222a

— 15—
ESTIMATED PUPIL ENROLLMENT

Minutes of School Board of Emporia of December 3, 1969

Grade No. of P u p ils Teachers

Kindergarten 110 5
1 120 5
2 120 5
3 90 4
4 120 5
5 96 4
6 100 4
7 115 5

Total Elementary 871 37 A.D.A. 801—Based on .92
attendance; average class 
size 23.5; State Teacher 
Units 27

8 110)
9 100)

10 90) 28 Based on Pupil-Teacher
11 100) Ratio—17
12 70) Including librarian &
Spec. Ed. 26 3 counselor—15.67

Total High School 496 31 A.D.A. 456—Based on .92
attendance; State Teacher 
Units—20

Totals 1367 68 A.D.A. 1257—Teacher
— Units—47

Salaries

312,879

Estimates applied to State Distribution Formula
ADA

ADA x 115
1257 144,555

M inim um  .60— 1968 Sta te Supplem ental
Program  V alues Share State Share

457,434 170,016 187,727 99,691



223a

—1 6 -
City of Emporia

D ata F rom V irginia  T ax C ommission  

1968—Estimated True Value

Real Estate $25,565,000
Public Service Corporation 2,771,000

Minutes of School Board of Emporia of December 3, 1969

Total

1968—Assessed Value

$28,336,000

Real Estate $ 3,783,590
Tangible Personal Property 1,682,565
Machine & Tool 431,171
Merchants Capital 571,361
Public Service Corporation 944,203

Total $ 7,412,890

Som e Com parative Da,ta

Greensville County 1968 True Values—33.6 in Emporia City 
Greensville County, Sept. 30, 1969 Enrollment—29.9 in Emporia City 
Greensville County 1967—1968 Per Pupil Cost of Operation—$452 
Greensville County 1968—1969 
Abingdon “  “
Colonial Beach 
Poquoson 
West Point 
Highland County “
Lexington “
Fairfax City 
Falls Church 
Buena Vista “
Median per-pupil cost 1968-1969-
Cities 575—State 511. Estimate Emporia 1970-1971, 620.

a u it a tt 505
a tt a a it 528
tt tt a a it 570
a tt a a a 484
tt a a a a 526
tt a a tt a 592
tt tt a a u 607
u tt a tt a 671
tt it a tt a 982
it tt a a a 557
—Towns 503, Counties 503



224a

Minutes of Meeting of School Board of City of Emporia, 
December 10, 1969

The School Board of the City of Emporia met on the 
above date at 5 P.M. in the Municipal Building with Chair­
man E. V. Lankford, Jr. presiding. The following members 
were present:

Dr. P. C. Taylor 
Mr. Julian P. Mitchell 
Mr. Gr. B. Ligon

Also present were City Attorney D. Dortch Warriner 
and Robert K. McCord, Clerk.

Mr. Lankford reported to the School Board that the 
proposed estimated school budget for City School Opera­
tion for the school year 1970-71 had been unanimously 
adopted by the City Council at their regular meeting De­
cember 5, 1969.

Mr. Lankford introduced the following Resolution, which 
after considerable discussion by the Board, was unan­
imously adopted:

If permitted by the United States District Court to 
operate its own school system, the School Board of the 
City of Emporia will do so according to the following 
plan:

1. Assignment of pupils and faculty shall be made 
on a completely racially integrated basis resulting in a 
racially unitary system. All pupils of the same grade 
in the system shall be assigned to the same school, 
with the possible exception of those pupils assigned 
to a special education program which program will

Defendants’ Exhibit E-F



225a

be conducted on a racially integrated basis. It is con­
templated that all grades, kindergarten through the 
sixth grade, shall be located and conducted in one 
building (the former Emporia Elementary School to 
be renamed B. E. Moton Elementary School) and all 
grades, seventh through twelfth, shall be located and 
conducted in one building (the former Greensville 
County High School to be renamed Emporia High 
School).

2. The schools will sponsor and support a full range 
of extra-curricular activities and all activities con­
ducted by or in the public school system will be on a 
racially integrated basis.

3. Any bus transportation that is provided will be 
on a racially integrated basis.

4. No students will be accpted from other school 
divisions or districts until approval is first obtained 
from the United States District Court.

/ s /  E. V. L ankford , Jr.
Chairman

Defendants’ Exhibit E-F

/s /  B obert K. M cC ord 
Clerk



226a

[ 1 ]  H earing B efore

T he  H onorable R obert R . M erhige, J r., 
U nited S tates D istrict J udge,

F or th e  E astern  D istrict o f  V irgin ia , 
At R ich m o n d , V irgin ia ,

18 D ecember 1969.

Proceedings of December 18, 1969

[12] * # *

E dward G-. L ankford , having been called as a witness 
was duly sworn by the Clerk and testified on his oath, 
as follows:

Direct Examination by Mr. Warriner:

Q. What is your name, please? A. My name is Ed­
ward Gt. Lankford, Junior.

Q. What is your age? A. 45.
Q. And your occupation? A. I am in the general in­

surance business.
Q. And your place of residence? A. 505 Laurel Street, 

Emporia, Virginia.
Q. With respect to the School Board of the City of 

Emporia, what office, if any, do you hold? A. I am a 
member of the School Board and I was elected as its 
Chairman.

Q. When was this City School Board constituted? A. 
Shortly following the transition of Emporia to a City in 
July, I received a call from the Mayor and in late August, 
while I was on vacation.

[13] Q. What year? A. August of 1967.
Q. When did the City undergo a transition from a town 

to a City? A. July 31, 1967, I believe.



227a

Q. After the School Board was—for the City of Em­
poria, was constituted in August of 1967, what activity, 
if any, did the School Board enter into? A. We found 
ourselves in a rather difficult situation. Here we were a 
four-man school board, with no previous school admin­
istrative experience. So, we had to seek advice from what­
ever direction we could find it. We realized, of course, 
that these children from the City had already entered into 
the County School system with no formal agreement of 
any kind. We met and discussed several things. I  met, 
personally, with the Superintendent of Schools. I met with 
the Chairman of the School Board informally and he and 
I discussed it. It seemed to me, we had three alternatives; 
we could operate an independent system, completely sepa­
rate from the County of Greensville; we could try to estab­
lish a jointly operated system, whereby the school opera­
tion would be vested in a single school board; with equal, 
not equal, but proportionate representation [14] on the 
part of the County and the City systems and the third 
alternative was to contract with the County to educate 
the City pupils.

Q. Did you seek to effectuate any of these alternatives? 
A. I believe, personally, ultimately, I felt an independent 
operation would be the best way, but practically speaking, 
at that time, knowing the attitude of the County govern­
ment, we were more inclined, after my discussions with 
Mr. Slate, who is the Chairman of the School Board, and 
Mr. Wright, who is or was, Superintendent at that time, 
were more,—I was personally, more inclined to go along 
with a joint operation.

Q. Did you have the support of your School Board in 
this? A. Yes, sir.

Edward G. Lankford—for Defendants—Direct



228a

Q. Did you have the support of the County School Board 
in this f A. I can’t say officials. Those officials—with those 
I talked to, I believe that they were agreeable to a jointly 
operated system.

Q. Were you able to obtain a jointly operated system? 
A. No, sir.

Q. Why not? A. A jointly operated system., according 
to the State law, has to be approved by both school boards 
and [153 the City-Council and the Board of Supervisors. 
On this 17th of November, I believe, 1967, the Board of 
Supervisors adopted a resolution, one paragraph of which 
firmly stated that they would not agree to any joint opera­
tion of schools.

Q. Mr. Lankford, I show you a photostatic copy of a 
piece of paper and I ask you if you recognize it? A. Yes, 
sir.

Q. What is the date on it? A. The 27th day of No­
vember 1967.

Q. What does it purport to be? A. It is a resolution on 
the operation of schools from that special meeting of the 
Board of Supervisors of the Greensville County?

Q. Did you receive a copy of this resolution in the course 
of your duties as Chairman of the City School Board? A. 
Yes, sir.

Q. Would you read paragraph number one of that res­
olution into the record? A. “ The County of Greensville 
will not grant approval of any joint operation of the County 
and City schools systems.”

Q. If Your Honor Please, I present this in evidence. I 
don’t know what number, whether you continue the num­
bers from the last time or not.

Edward G. Lankford—for Defendants—Direct

The Court: Any objections?



229a

[16] Mr. Tucker: No objections.
The Court: It is admitted into evidence.

(Clerk marked Defendant’s Exhibit E-A)

Q. Now, following this notice, did you seek legal advice 
in an attempt to persist in this effort to obtain a joint 
school system, or an independent school system? A. Yes, 
sir, of course, the City had at its—at that time, as it attor­
ney, Mr. C. D. Hendrick and I went to Mr. Hendrick and 
we discussed these problems. Mr. Hendrick had, I believe, 
at that time, already indicated to City Council that he pre­
ferred not to represent the City in any litigation between 
the City and County over this transition. Which, I as­
sumed, meant that he—well, he told me—

Mr. Marsh: Your Honor, this is hearsay. It is 
alright, but now he has assumed what Mr. Hendrick 
had in mind. I think he is going too far.

The Court: You had an objection?
Mr. Marsh: Yes, sir, objection to the question 

and the answer.
The Court: As being hearsay, or, going too far?
Mr. Marsh: Your Honor, on hearsay, all on the 

assumption of what Mr. Hendrick had had in mind.
The Court: Objection sustained.

[17] Q. Were you able to obtain representation on the 
part of the School Board by Mr. Hendrick? A. No, sir.

Q. Did you obtain representation of the School Board by 
any other counsel? A. Yes.

Q. Who? A. The City retained Mr, Harold Towmsend 
as counsel.

Edward G. Lankford—for Defendants—Direct



230a

Q. Did you, in the course of representation by Mr. Town­
send, have any conferences or other conferences or cor­
respondence, with him? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What instructions did you give Mr. Townsend, with 
respect to the type of school operation that you wanted 
him to obtain for you? A. The instructions, as I recall, 
were more or less guided by this resolution that the County 
had passed. I felt that the operation of the joint system 
had been stymied at that time. The only other alternative 
that we could go to would be a contractual arrangement 
and we felt that a—if we could negotiate a contract with 
the County for the continued operation, or continued edu­
cation of the City pupils, that we could possibly buy a 
little time. We attempted, or I asked him in the agreement, 
to come up with maybe a one-year contract, with a [18] 
six month’s termination clause. So that at the end of that 
time, we could either renegotiate a contract, the completion 
of the political make-up of the Board of Supervisors may 
have changed by that time. We could, we would have a 
little bit more free hand.

Q. Did your Council submit various and sundry pro­
posals in an attempt to effectuate either a joint School 
Board or a contract that would replace it by you some 
time so that you could set up your own system? A. Yes, 
sir.

Q. I show you a sheet of—consisting of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5—6 
different groups of papers stapled together and ask you to 
—if you recognize them? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What are they? A. These are at least six different 
contracts that were drawn up, either by our attorney, Mr. 
Townsend, or by the County’s attorney, Mr. Fitzgerald and 
I say at least six. There may have been more, but this is 
all I  have in my file.

Edward G. Lankford—for Defendants—Direct



231a

Q. I ask that these be accepted into evidence as one 
exhibit.

Edward G. Lankford—for Defendants—Direct

The Court: All right.
Mr. Tucker: We object to the introduction of the 

papers in evidence. They are totally [193 immaterial 
to what—

The Court: Let me ask you—the admissibility of 
evidence depends upon the purpose. What is the 
purpose?

Mr. Warriner: The purpose is to show, if Your 
Honor please, these people did not suddenly, in June 
1969, become interested and involved in their school 
system.

The Court: It is not really necessary if that is 
your purpose, to plug the record with papers. The 
witness testified that—that is what he is testifying 
to now.

Mr. Warriner: If that is acceptable, Your Honor, 
I withdraw those.

The Court: Objection sustained.

Q. Now, in the Spring of let’s say, I ’ll go to March of 
1968, had you, at that time, been able to effect a joint school 
system, a separate school system, or a contract system? 
A. No, sir.

Q. Did you, in March of 1968, receive any notice from 
the County, that, with respect to the operation of the 
schools? A. Yes, sir, we received a copy of a resolution 
they passed.

[203 Q. I show you a paper writing and ask you if you 
recognize it? A. Yes, sir.



232a

Q. What is it? A. This is an extract of the Minutes 
of the Board of Supervisors meeting, held in the County, 
on Tuesday, March 19, 1968.

Q. Would you read into the record the substance of that 
resolution, word-for-word? A. “Resolved that Special 
Counsel for the County, Mr. Robert C. Fitzgerald, is hereby 
authorized to submit to the City of Emporia, or its Counsel, 
an agreement providing for the basis of services to be 
provided by the County to the Citizens of the City, and 
the payment therefor, together with other matters regard­
ing transition in the form and word as approved by this 
Board this date. Be it further resolved that upon agree­
ment on the part of the County and the City of Emporia 
and the School Board City and County, the Chairman and 
Clerk of this Board are hereby authorized to execute such 
agreement on behalf of the County of Greensville. Be it 
further resolved that if this agreement is not agreed to 
and executed by all parties by April 30, all services fur­
nished by the County to the City not required by law, shall 
terminate.”

[213 Q. What was the date of that? A. This is an ex­
cerpt of the Minutes of the School Board Meeting of March 
19, 1968.

Q. I ask that that be accepted in evidence, if Your Honor 
please.

Edward G. Lankford—for Defendants—Direct

The Court: So ordered.

(Clerk marked Defendant’s Exhibit E-B)

Q. Now, Mr. Lankford, after receiving that ultimatum in 
March of 1968, when did you enter into a contract with the 
City? A. The final contract was signed on the tenth day 
of April 1968.



233a

Q. I show yon a paper writing and ask you if you rec­
ognize it? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is that the contract of April tenth, 1968? A. Yes, sir.
Q. I ask that this be accepted in to evidence.

The Court: So ordered.

(Clerk marked Defendant’s Exhibit E-C)

Mr. Tucker: That’s already in evidence.
Mr. Warriner: I ’m sorry. Is that your recollec­

tion?
Mr. Tucker: Yes, sir.
Mr. Warriner: I hope that Your Honor will per­

mit us to take it and if not, withdraw it.
[22] Mr. Tucker: Plaintiff’s Exhibit #7  at the 

last hearing.
The Court: All right.

Q. Now, Mr. Lankford, why did you enter into that con­
tract? A. I  think it’s previously been stated it was sort 
of a shot-gun arrangement; we had our backs against the 
wall the children were in school, the County had stated 
that if something wasn’t agreed to, they would be turned 
out on the 30th day of April. We attempted in every way 
we could, to get a contract that was more palpable, or 
more palatable than this one, that we finally ended up with, 
certainly, we didn’t want any four-year “purity” involved.

Q. Were you satisfied with the contract? A. No, sir.
Q. In June of 1969, did you obtain new, or different coun­

sel, legal counsel, for your school board? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did your new legal counsel, who was that? A. It was 

Mr. Dortch Warriner.
Q. Me? A. Yes, sir.

Edward G. Lankford—for Defendants—Direct



234a

Q. Did your legal counsel, at that time, advise you as to 
whether or not this contract was enforceable! A. He ad­
vised me at that time, that the contract in [23] his opinion, 
was illegal.

Q. On what ground? A. On constitutional ground, in 
that we had signed and what was in effect, a blank check 
for the City of Emporia. We had obligated the City to an 
undetermined amount of debt, which is illegal.

Q. Now, what was your plan at the time you entered 
into the contract? What was your long-range plan for edu­
cation of the City children? A. Well, as I previously said, 
I  personally felt an independent system would be the most 
satisfactory thing. The joint operation could have been 
acceptable—could have been agreeable to us, if we could 
have had the joint operation, where we have, would have 
had some say so as to the money and the type of education 
our pupils were going to get.

Q. Now, in the period prior to June of 1969, was the 
school system, the joint schools,—wait a minute—a joint 
school with the school system of Greensville continued to 
operate in compliance with the Constitution of the United 
States? A. Yes, sir.

Q. So, as far as you know, was the system under which 
they operated, one that had been approved by The Honor­
able Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Judge of this Court? [24] 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. I understand you are not a lawyer? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you, at any time, attempt to interfere with the 

plan that had been approved by Judge Merhige? A. No, 
sir.

Q. Did you, at any time, attempt to have them change 
the plan that had been approved? A. “Them” , you mean 
the County School Board?

Edward G. Lankford—for Defendants—Direct



235a

Q. Yes, sir. A. No, sir.
Q. Did you feel called upon to ask them to change the 

plan to some other type of plan! A. No, sir.
Q. Did your school board ask that you do that? A. No, 

sir.
Q. Were you satisfied with the education that the chil­

dren from the City of Emporia, were receiving! A. We 
felt that with the plan that had been approved by this 
Federal Court, that the County was able to operate a rea­
sonably effective school system, and was able to put in the 
necessary funds to give a reasonably effective education to 
the children.

The Court: I take it you felt that the children 
were getting a good education!

A. At that time, with the money that the County was 
[25] spending, yes, sir.

Q. Were you planning on renegotiating your contract, 
your four-year contract, that you had! A. No, sir, I don’t 
think I was planning to. No, sir.

Q. Did you think that your school board intended to 
renew it! A. I believe they felt the same way that I did.

Q. What do you intend to do, or what did you intend to 
do at the termination of that contract! A. To proceed in 
your own school system.

Q. Have you given notice to the City to the County, that, 
whether or not the pending suit, to have the contract de­
clared void, is successful, that you intend to terminate 
that contract at the earliest possible day! A. Our counsel 
has given—

Q. At your request! A. At our request, yes.
Q. I show you a paper and ask you if you recognize it! 

A. Yes, sir.

Edward G. Lankford—for Defendants—Direct



236a

Q. What does it purport to be? A. This is a letter from 
the County, the Council, the City School Board and City 
Council, addressed to the Board of Supervisors, Greens­
ville County and County School Board of Greensville 
County, stating [26] its position in the contractual ar­
rangement and that they will be terminated effective July 
31, 1971.

Q. I ask that this notice be accepted into evidence.

(Defendant’s Exhibit E-C)

Q. Now, Mr. Lankford, in June of 1969, the Court en­
tered an Order changing its prior plan and instituting a 
new plan for mixing in the schools. It was after this Order 
was entered that your School Board took action to set up 
a separate, independent school system for the City of Em­
poria. Why did this Order precipitate action on your part? 
A. We felt confident that with the complete change in school 
systems to a unitary system, we felt that the County, par­
ticularly the County Board of Supervisors, was not able 
to successfully operate such a unitary system. We felt that 
with the cost of transportation increasing, with certain 
things that should be done in a unitary system to improve 
educational opportunities and quality, monies would have 
to be expended. We felt that the County Board who con­
trols the purse strings of the County School Board, were 
not willing to expend these monies to be—to establish ex­
cellence in the school system. We felt that they had no 
desire to effect the assimiliation of the races in the unitary 
system.

[27] Q. Did your School Board have such a desire? A. 
Yes, sir.

Edward G. Lankford—for Defendants—Direct



237a

Q. Did your School Board, was your School Board, able 
to do this work? A. We believe so, yes, sir.

Q. WThy didn’t you wait until the expiration of the con­
tract period? A. Having been advised that the contract 
was illegal, we felt the time to move was immediately.

Q. What steps did you take? A. First of all, we made 
application to the State Board of Education, to establish 
the City of Emporia as a separate School Division. This 
will enable us to have our own superintendent, responsible 
just to the City, rather than sharing a superintendent with 
the County of Greensville as it is now set up. Second of 
all, we will participate in asking the Council for the City 
to file suits in the Circuit Court to establish the equity in 
our school buildings that we feel are properly ours. We 
ask that they file suit in the Circuit Court to void the con­
tract due to its being illegal. We then felt that we wanted 
to, if we were going to go independent, we wanted to put 
excellence in our system. W7e wanted to make a system 
which would attract people to our community, [28] rather 
than draw them out. We wanted a system whereby our 
industrial relations people in the City could say here, 
we’ve got one of the finest systems in the south side of 
Virginia, when they are talking to industry. We wanted 
a system that would hold the people in public school edu­
cation, rather than drive them into a private school, or, 
making them drop out before their education terminated.

We sought the best advice that we could get. So we 
communicated with Dr. Wilkerson.

Q. Well, let me ask you this, would the type of school 
program that you envisioned and that you have outlined 
in brief, to the Court, would that be in the best interests of 
the school children for whom you are responsible? A. Yes, 
sir.

Edward G. Lankford—for Defendants—Direct



238a

Q. Let me ask you, Mr. Lankford, was race a factor in 
your decision to create an independent school system? A. 
Yes, sir, it was a factor, but not in the sense that we wanted 
to perpetuate a segregated school system. Race, of course, 
effected the operation of the schools by the County and I 
again say, I do not think, or we felt that the County was 
not capable of putting the monies in and the effort and 
the leadership into a system that would effectively make 
a unitary system work and result with quality education, as 
[29] well.

Q. Since August of 1969, have you attended any of the 
meetings of the County School Board? A. Yes, sir, I have 
attended three, I believe. I was formally invited by the 
Chairman of that School Board on the first day of October.

Q. I show you a paper writing and ask you if you rec­
ognize that? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What does it purport to be? A. It is a letter ad­
dressed to me, signed by S. A. Owen, Superintendent.

Q. The date of it? A. October 1, 1969.
Q. What does this letter say? A. In substance, well, 

you want me to read it?
Q. Go ahead. A. Mr. Lankford: The Greensville Coun­

ty School Board would like to—

Mr. Tucker: Let me see that.

A. “Dear Mr. Lankford, The Greensville County School 
Board would like to invite you to attend monthly school 
board meetings anytime you see fit. Regular monthly meet­
ings are held the second Tuesday of each month at 1 :30 
o’clock in the school board [30] “ office.”

Q. What’s the date of that? A. October 1, 1969.

Edward G. Lankford—for Defendants—Direct



239a

Q. I ask that this be accepted into evidence. Pursuant to 
that invitation, if you can call it such, did you attend school 
board meetings? A. Yes.

Q. At these school board meetings, was your opinion 
requested on any matters which arose? A. No, sir.

Q. Were you permitted to vote on any matter?

Mr. Tucker: If Your Honor please, all this is after 
the fact. That letter is September?

Q. October First.

The Court: I don’t see the relevancy of this.

Q. I see where it is relevant in this case. The only rele­
vancy, Your Honor, is that at the last hearing Your Honor 
cross examined witnesses closed on the question of their 
attempt to work with the County School Board. I was 
attempting to show to Your Honor that these attempts 
before and after the fact are fruitless. This is the purpose 
of it.

Mr. Marsh: Your Honor, the minutes of the meet­
ing would be evidence of what happened at [31] the 
meeting. I don’t think the witness’ testimony as to 
his attempt to questions and refusals is—

The Court: Yes, I think that is true. I don’t know. 
Are you through, Mr. Marsh?

Mr. Marsh: Yes.
The Court: I  don’t know the materiality. I think 

I see the point but you are not getting at, but you 
have been there for some time, Mr. Warriner, that 
the City and County is just, the City and the County 
just haven’t been able to work things out, I don’t 
mind, actually, but I am distressed, disturbed, that

Edward G. Lankford—for Defendants—Direct



240a

the County has no position in this matter. I am very 
much disturbed about that and I view it in fairness, 
I must say I do it rather skeptically that they have 
no position. It is not your fault, I know, so in view 
of that, in fairness, I want you to go ahead and put 
in within reason, what you want.

Q. I am sure Your Honor means both of the things, Your 
Honor says you are skeptical of it and you know it is not 
our fault. That is only part, the only part that concerns 
me. I don’t want Your Honor to believe that I consciously, 
or that somebody—

The Court: I want you to put in the record, within 
reason, the City’s attitude. I think [323 I under­
stand what the evidence shows thereafter, to be.

Q. We would like to show evidence that there is no col­
lusion between these two political bodies; if there is any 
question in the Court’s mind.

The Court: Why don’t you just ask him. I know 
what he will say, of course, knowing ahead, but ask 
him and I am sure he will say it sincerely and truth­
fully.

Q. As long as Your Honor understands that he is saying 
that I—

Edward G. Lankford—for Defendants—Direct

The Court: You don’t want to clutter it up, let 
me say this, now, before we go too far. I think the 
matter now is in a different posture and less difficult 
in the calmness of December than it was. Hopefully, 
all o f these matters can be considered in a calm



241a

atmosphere. There are a lot of matters I am dis­
turbed about. I am disturbed about the thought that 
the brief you and Mr. Kay filed, was an excellent 
brief. I am not disturbed by it, it is very helpful 
to the Court and I will ultimately get one from the 
other side. It is an excellent one. One of the best 
briefs that I have ever seen, but there are a lot of 
things I am not sure of. It is the duty of this Court 
to order £33] children, and I don’t mean, yes, I  am 
skeptical that the big push comes. Not integrated 
schools, unitary schools, didn’t really happen before. 
Mr. Warriner, you go ahead and put in what you 
want.

Q. I think in candor that work is almost wholly the 
work of Mr. Kay. I hate to have to say that.

The Court: It really is excellent.

Q. Mr. Lankford, directly has there been any collusion 
between the County and the City in the matter of the sep­
arate school system! A. No, sir, in fact, there’s been very 
little communication between the two bodies.

Q. Have they assisted you in any way to set up an inde­
pendent school system! A. No.

Q. Have they cooperated with you to that end! A. No, 
sir.

Q. Has their attitude been cooperative or antagonistic! 
A. Certainly has not been cooperative.

Q. Describe their attitude. A. It’s been sort of taking 
no position in the matter.

Q. In the matters which are being presently litigated in 
the State courts, so far as that your School Board is in­
volved in, have they been acquiescent in the effort on the

Edward G. Lankford—for Defendants—Direct



242a

part of the City? A. No, sir, they’ve been fighting us 
every inch of the [34] way.

Q. Do you have, with respect to the children that you 
are sponsoring, their instructions; do you have any—any 
of your Board have any control of the hiring of the teach­
ers? A. No, sir.

Q. Do you have any control over the setting of the sal­
aries? A. No, sir.

Q. Do you have any control over the curriculum? A. 
No, sir.

Q. Do you have—

The Court: Mr. Lankford, excuse me. You may 
have already testified what action, if any, besides 
talking to lawyers, did you—what legal action did 
you all attempt so that you would get, so you could 
say something about the teachers and curriculum? 
Were you all just a Board discussing this or were 
you—

A. Our efforts were directed after the, or, originally di­
rected toward establishing some type of a joint operation, 
where we could have co-operation.

The Court: It came to pass because of the lack of 
co-operation on the part of the County?

A. Well, one of these contracts that I think we had, indi­
cates that we would have.

[35] The Court: But you never went to Court 
about the contract until now, isn’t that the truth?

Edward G. Lankford—for Defendants—Direct

A. That’s correct, sir.



243a

Edward (?. Lankford—for Defendants—Direct 

The Court: All right.

Q. Wen did you obtain a lawyer who advised you that 
the contract was illegal or violative of the Constitution? 
A. In June, I would say, June of this year, June of 1969.

Q. Did your prior counsel give you any such advice? 
A. No, sir.

Q. Did your prior counsel cease his employment as a 
result of the Order from Judge Merhige in this suit? A. 
No, sir.

Q. What reason did he cease his employment? A. He 
was hired—

Mr. Tucker: Excuse me, I hate to interrupt; I 
don’t think it is material.

Q. I think it is material because His Honor has indi­
cated, if Your Honor please, that it is a matter with which 
you are concerned.

The Court: He was discharged as prior counsel 
is that what you want to get in the record?

A. Prior counsel is deceased—died.
Q. It had nothing to do with having to do with the 

schools? A. No, sir.
Q. He just died of his own accord? [36] A. Yes.
Q. If Your Honor please, this is fact.

The Court: I am not laughing. I know it is a 
serious matter but dying of his own accord—

Q. I am afraid that I should not have stated it that 
way. A. Passed away because of natural causes.



244a

Q. That’s correct. Now, would you have—you have out­
lined briefly, I think, the steps that you have taken in order 
to obtain a right to have an independent school system if 
the Court would permit you to do so, in taking of these 
steps, Mr. Lankford, have you sought the advice of counsel 
as to whether the steps that you have taken would be vio­
lative of His Honor’s injunction? A. Absolutely.

Q. Have you been advised by counsel that you were vio­
lating the injunction, or the, that you were not violating 
it? A. That we were not in violation of the injunction.

Q. Now, what is the status of your application to the 
■State Board of Education for a separate school division? 
A. We submitted a resolution to them on the 20th of Au­
gust. Their action at that meeting in Williamsburg was 
that they would table the resolution.

[37] Q. For what reason? A. Until this pending liti­
gation was cleared up in Federal Court.

Q. Now, even if your application for a separate school 
division is denied by the State Board of Education, are 
you legally in a posture under which you can operate a 
straight school system? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, explain to His Honor how that comes to be. 
How that is a fact.

The Court: I think I can. That is a matter of law, 
isn’t it.

Q. It is a matter also, if Your Honor please, it is a 
matter of operation of schools in Virginia but, if  Your 
Honor please, if Your Honor is aware of that law, then, 
there is no problem.

The Court: Well, let’s see what your position is.

Edward G. Lankford—for Defendants—Direct



245a

Mr. Tucker: My position is that it is a matter of 
State law. The witness is not an expert as to what 
is legal. It is, I  think, a matter of law.

Q. They can discuss it in briefs, if they want. I show 
you a paper writing, December 7, 1967, and I ask you if 
you recognize it. A. Yes, sir.

[38] Q. Who is it to and who is it from? A. It is ad­
dressed to A. G. Slate, Greensville County School Board 
and me, Edward Y. Lankford, Jr., incorrectly, as the Chair­
man of the Emporia City School Board.

Q. And, who is it from? A. From Woodrow W. Wilker- 
son, Superintendent of Public Instruction of the Common­
wealth of Virginia.

Q. What is that date? A. December 7, 1967.
Q. Is there any portion of that letter having to do with 

the operations of the separate school division, or separate 
school district, excuse me? A. I am not sure of the ques­
tion.

Q. Is this letter, does it pertain to the operation of a 
separate school district? A. For the City of Emporia?

Q. Yes. A. There is reference in here, yes.

Mr. Tucker: Excuse me one second.

Q. Would you read that letter? A. Dear Messrs Slate 
and Lankford: This is to advise that the State Board of 
Education at its meeting last Friday, established a new 
school division consisting of Greensville County and the 
City of [39] Emporia, effective December 1, 1967. This 
means that each political sub-division has its own school 
board and one superintendent will serve both boards. In 
this connection, I would call your attention to Section 22-34

Edward G. Lankford—for Defendants—Direct



246a

of the Virginia School Code which provides that the school 
boards of a school division shall meet jointly for the pur­
pose of electing a superintendent. I take this opportunity 
to express to you the desire of the department to render 
every assistance possible in connection with your efforts 
to further strengthen your educational programs for the 
boys and girls of the County and City.”

Q. Now, Mr. Lankford, whether or not you operate as 
a separate school district or a separate school division. 
Has your school board adopted a school assignment plan? 
A. Yes, sir.

(Defendant’s Exhibit E-E, marked for identifi­
cation)

The Court: Let me just make this suggestion, in 
the interest of keeping this record down, Mr. War- 
riner, it occurs to me that there are two issues in 
this case at the moment. One, is the right of the 
City of Emporia to just operate [40] their own 
school system. There doesn’t seem to be too much 
argument about that. If we didn’t have other fac­
tors involved. Then, the second one is, what effect 
does it have on the plan that’s been approved, that 
is Greensville County plan, because Emporia is now 
a party to this suit. I believe it appears to. It sure 
feels like they are.

Q. Yes, Your Honor.

The Court: They are a party to this suit and I am 
satisfied that assuming this injunction is lifted and 
they go forward with the plans, they are going to 
present a plan to the Court to be considered and

Edward G. Lankford—for Defendants—Direct



247a

approved or disapproved. I don’t see the materiality 
of what their plan is, at this time, I am willing to 
take representations of counsel, if counsel are at 
least satisfied that it conforms to the requirements 
of the Constitution.

Q. I think it would be helpful to Your Honor if we put 
it right into evidence. I have it here, it is just very brief.

The Court: The main thing that I am concerned 
with in this case, is the effect it has on the plan that 
is already in effect. So, you’ve got to balance the 
legal rights of Emporia and then we’ve got the equi­
table problem. This is a matter [41] of equity. 
There isn’t any doubt from the evidence I have heard 
before, so I do think this plan is going to be amended 
somewhat before my opinion would have violated, 
absolutely, the Greensville plan.

Q. We have a witness who will testify immediately after 
Mr. Lankford, on the question of what the present system 
is ; its advantages and disadvantages and how the City sys­
tem would be an improvement over that. I think that, I 
think that Your Honor will be able to compare then the 
questions that are in your mind about what effect does it 
have.

The Court: Well, the purpose, what is the pur­
pose of introducing this evidence, to show that these 
people want quality education?

Q. The prime purpose if Your Honor please, it is to 
show they will not have to, they do not intend to deprive 
any person of his rights under the Constitution of The 
United States and we believe that once we show that, the

Edward G. Lankford—for Defendants—Direct



248a

inquiry ends, but once we show that no one is being de­
prived of his Federal protective rights the inquiry of this 
Court ends. We understand that is not the Court’s posi­
tion, therefore,—

The Court: I don’t know, I have no position on it, 
as I said before, this is a much—a more different 
situation than it was in August.

[423 Q. August 8.

The Court: Well, at least these are very difficult 
times. I  don’t know about you all, but it certainly 
was for the Court, on a daily basis, very, very dif­
ficult times and all the internal things we were told 
were to come to pass, didn’t come to pass.

Q. We didn’t put any evidence in the—

The Court: Well, others did.

Q. We want to be judged by the evidence we put in.

The Court: The evidence I had, I was satisfied at 
that time, I would have scuttled the Greensville plan 
and would have made it impossible but this was then 
and now it is a different time. I am not sure this 
matter is material at this stage.

Q. May we put it in the record for whatever it might be 
worth?

The Court: All right.

Q. Mr. Lankford, will you read to the Court the plan that 
has been adopted by your City School Board for the oper-

Edward G. Lankford—for Defendants—Direct



249a

Edward G. Lankford—for Defendants—Direct

ation of the schools? A. This is a certified copy of the 
minutes. Do you want me to read the entire minutes, or 
the plan?

The Court: Hand it up to me and I will [433 just 
read it.

Q. I would like for it to be in evidence, please. (Handed 
same to the Court).

(Defendant’s Exhibit E-F).

The Court: All right sir, I have looked at it.

Q. Now, Mr. Lankford, in order to effectuate the plan 
that His Honor has just read, what practical steps have 
you taken insofar as setting up the budget and a school 
assignment plan and that type of budget and that type 
of thing?

Mr. Tucker: If Your Honor please, we have been 
quite patient with all this prospective business, but I 
think all this is immaterial to the issue that is before 
this Court to decide as to whether we are permitted 
to go—

The Court: That is what I say. I am satisfied 
to let the other side complain. I am satisfied that if 
this injunction is lifted that there is reasonable pros­
pects that the children of Emporia will be, well, I am 
satisfied because I think they want to do, to operate 
within the law. The school system. But, they will, 
in any event, because this Court has not got to 
approve any plan. That is not the issue. The issue 
is, what effect does it have on Greensville and is that



250a

legally [441 material, that is, I  think that is the 
issue. Do you know what is material about this letter. 
Let the record show they contemplate a system 
whereby there will be 50% of the student popula­
tion, will be the Negro race and 50% will be the Cau­
casian race. Isn’t that what it is going to be?

Q. That is roughly the population of the City. It will be 
nothing artificial about it, it will be what naturally lies 
there.

The Court: "Well, I don’t want to clutter this 
record with a plan that we may have to go in to in 
some detail, if this injunction is lifted, as well as 
having to go in some detail and I don’t think it is 
material except to say that I am satisfied that the 
City of Emporia will operate, they will operate it as 
required under the Constitution.

Q. And, it is the desire of the officials, they want to do 
that, but if they did want to, or if they didn’t want to do it, 
any way. It makes a difference whether they wanted to or 
not. At least it seems that way to me.

The Court: Well, we’ll get around to that plan, 
but I think they do.

Q. Would you give me two minutes to cover this and 
confer [453 with my co-counsel?

The Court: If you think I am wrong, legally, tell 
me, but I don’t see any sense in cluttering up the 
record at this time. Mr. Marsh, let me say this 
because if the Court determines that it is material 
to the legal problem that we have here, I will let

Edward G. Lankford—for Defendants—Direct



251a

Edward G. Lankford—for Defendants—Direct

you put on anything you want, but I have another 
hearing for that purpose.

Mr. Marsh: Well, I think that would, frankly, 
if Your Honor please, what we are attempting to do, 
was to answer the questions that the Court raised 
at the last hearing. The Court pointed out several 
times that the atmosphere is somewhat different now 
and I would say this, as long as the Court-—

The Court: If you want to examine, examine as 
to what effect the, the legal effect it will have on 
Greensville, if it is approved; maybe not, but I think 
that is it.

Mr. Marsh: I would propose to do it at any time 
since it appears Your Honor is satisfied as to the 
good faith and motives of the City and of their 
desire to effectuate a school system in Greensville, 
or excuse me, in compliance with the Constitution. 
I would like to submit the budget.

The Court: Well, this is not to say that £463 
I am satisfied that the Courts—I don’t want to inti­
mate I am satisfied that all of this desire was pre­
cipitated just by a desire. I think the school plan, 
the Court’s plan Greensville has something to do 
with this desire. I do, but that may be completely 
immaterial, as a matter of fact, Mr. Lankford has 
said that it was one factor and he’s given—

Mr. Marsh: Well, of course—
The Court: — and it is understandable and I don’t 

think it is bad, but I don’t want you to misinterpret 
my remarks. I  think the school’s plan,—I’m not sat­
isfied yet, that this would have come to pass, had 
not Green vs. New Kent been decided and had not 
other actions been decided, but that might not be



252a

legally bad. People have the right and they want 
the best education for their children.

Mr. Marsh: Well, with the understanding that it 
will be developed at a later time that these matters, 
inquiries into not only what the motives were, but 
how it was actuated, if that becomes pertinent, with 
the understanding wTe can put on more evidence, I 
will put on the budget.

The Court: I think the people have legal rights 
of motivation but it may not be a factor the [473 
—it may not be a factor for the Court to even con­
sider.

Edward G. Lankford—for Defendants—Direct

Q. Mr. Lankford, I show you a paper writing that pur­
ports to be a budget for the City of Emporia schools and 
I ask you if you recognize it. A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was this budget adopted after consultation? A. Yes, 
sir.

Q. With whom did you consult? A. We consulted with 
the Dr. H. I. Willett.

Q. Was this budget adopted by the School Board of 
Greensville County? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was the budget adopted by the City Council of the 
City of Emporia? A. No, they stated that they could 
adopt such a budget.

Q. I ask that this budget be accepted into evidence.

Mr. Tucker: I just want to remark that we don’t 
see the materiality to it.

The Court: I understand but I am not going to 
examine it at this time.

(Defendant’s Exhibit E-G, marked for identifi­
cation)



253a

Q. By agreement of counsel we are also putting into 
evidence tlie additional exhibit in evidence having to do 
with the State Board of Education. I have no further 
direct examination at this time.

[48] Cross Examination by Mr. Tucker:

Q. Mr. Lankford—excuse me.

(Defendant’s Exhibit E-H, Letter from Super­
intendent of Public Instruction, Mr. Woodrow 
W. Wilkerson, to Mr. E. V. Lankford, Jr., 
Chairman, Emporia City School Board, Em­
poria, Virginia, dated 22 September 1969; 
Defendant’s Exhibit E-I, Excerpts from Min­
utes of State Board of Education Meeting 
held August 19-20, 1969, certified by Woodrow 
W. Wilkerson, Secretary State Board of Edu­
cation)

Q. Mr. Lankford did Mr. Warriner give you a written 
opinion as to the constitutionality of the contracts between 
the City and the County? A. No, sir.

Q. Was that Opinion given to the Council in an open 
meeting? A. I do not attend ail of the City Council meet­
ings.

Q. When were you apprised of Mr. Warriner’s opinion? 
A. Verbally, some time during the month of June in a 
discussion that we had.

Q. During the month of June? A. I can say that to the 
best of my recollection, it was some time during the month 
of June; I can’t recall the exact date.

Q. You are certain it was then at the July 14th meeting of
[49] the Council at which, according to the Minutes of the

Edward G. Lankford—for Defendants—Cross



254a

meeting, Mr. Warriner pointed out that the contract could 
he terminated through mutual agreement of both parties, 
or an “annexation” by the City, it was before that July 
14 meeting? A. I assume it was, yes, sir.

Q. He gave you that Opinion speaking to you as one 
individual, not to a group? A. As I recall, yes, sir.

Q. Not in the form of a council meeting? A, No, sir.
Q. No further questions.

Redirect Examination by Mr. Warriner:

Q. Did I  at any subsequent time, furnish you with a 
written opinion? A. I believe there is, after that ques­
tion was answered, I think I ’ve got something in my file 
as to the written.

Q. Would you check your file, please? A. You may check 
your file, too.

The Court: Why don’t you lead him a little, Mr. 
Warriner ?

Mr. Warriner: Sir?
The Court: Don’t you have a copy of that?
Mr. Warriner: I  am going to put it in [50] evi­

dence since the question was raised by counsel for 
the plaintiff.

The Court: Give Mr. Lankford the date of your 
letter so he can find it.

A. I have it.
Q. Yes, is that the Memorandum of Authority which I 

gave you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. I ask that this be accepted in evidence.

Edward G. Lankford—for Defendants—Redirect

The Court: What is the date of that?



255a

Mr. Tucker: What is the date! That is what I 
want.

The Court: What date did Mr. Lankford get it, 
that is what we are after.

Mr. Warriner: It would have been some time in 
November, I guess, I don’t want to explore the sig­
nificance of the date, I don’t understand that.

The Court: That is what material that is the only 
thing the counsel was making inquiry about, was 
the date. He wasn’t taking inquiry as to your cor­
rectness of your Opinion.

Mr. Warriner: Well, I would like to put this in 
evidence, since he’s raised the question as to whether 
I put one in.

Mr. Tucker: I ’d like to see it before it is offered 
into evidence.

[51] Mr. Warriner: I ’m sorry.
The Court: You all take your time and look at it 

some time during the recess and we will get back 
to it.

Mr. Tucker: I can state the objection; it has no 
date; I object to its being entered.

The Court: Is there any further examination! I 
think the objection is well taken, the materiality is 
the date and doesn’t seem to be a date. Is there any 
further examination of the witness?

Mr. Warriner: No, if Your Honor please.
The Court: Now, Mr. Lankford, let me ask you, 

you all plan on offering contracts to any teachers 
that are now teaching in the Greensville County? A.

Edward G. Lankford—for Defendants—Redirect

We will, employ teachers as needed.



256a

The Court: Well, will you employ somebody who 
is going to leave Greensville to come with you?

A. I think so, yes, sir.

The Court: Now', unquestionably, that might well 
have an effect on their school system as it now oper­
ates under the Court-approved plan, would it not?

A. They have, they would have a surplus of teachers £52] 
that they would not employ any longer.

The Court: But you would be, in effect, in com­
petition to some extent, in hiring teachers?

A. Yes, sir.

The Court: And have you all given any consid­
eration to the fact that you would get some teachers 
from that system?

A. No, sir.

The Court: Haven’t given it any consideration?

A. Haven’t given it any consideration, well, haven’t talked 
to any teachers on an individual basis.

The Court: Has your School Board?

A. Well, realizing they would have a surplus of teachers 
in the County, we will be able to hire them.

The Court. Would it effect your plan if you could 
not, in fact, or law, hire any of those teachers? Would 
that have any basis on what you all plan on doing?

Edward G. Lankford—for Defendants—Redirect



257a

A. Good teachers are hard to come by. I would think our
budget contemplates a reasonably high salary schedule and
would probably attract teachers from outside of that area.
Whether we would have an adequate number, I can’t say.

The Court: Do you have any alternate plan if 
you burn your budget, so to speak, and you are 
[533 not getting along with the County, do you have 
any reason to believe that if this doesn’t work out, 
what is going to happen to the children of Emporia, 
would you continue on with the County?

A. You mean, when the contract is terminated?

The Court: Yes.

A. I would certainly hope so, but of course, the current—

The Court: You are ready to pay more money?

A. Certainly—definitely.

The Court: It is in the record as to how many 
children will be taken out of the system and the 
racial composition of each?

A. I think it is.

The Court: Yes, it is on the record.
Mr. Tucker: Yes, Your Honor.
The Court: What is the significance, or lack of 

significance of approval by the State, of making you 
a division or a district, or what? What is so im­
portant about that?

Edward G. Lankford—for Defendants—Redirect



258a

A. Well, we feel that to establish the excellency of an 
educational system that we would have to have a super­
intendent that we can call our own; that we don’t have to 
share him with anyone else.

[54] The Court: You have to be what, to get 
that?

A. We have to be a School Division.

The Court: So, as long as this suit is pending, 
as I understand it, the State is going to permit you 
to be a School Division?

A. No, sir, they tabled it.

The Court: I don’t want to discontinue you, but 
this suit is going to be pending here for an inter­
pretation of the law for many years.

Mr. Warriner: If the Court Please, I don’t be­
lieve it is, because the pendency of the suit, it is 
because of the injunction.

Mr. Gray: In August, that—
The Court: Well, if you are a Division, you can 

hire your own Superintendent?

A. Yes, sir.

The Court: You all discuss that, as to whether 
you would take a superintendent, the superintendent 
over in Greensville.

A. No, sir, we haven’t discussed any particular super­
intendent; we have included it in the budget, the amount 
of money that would secure a qualified superintendent.

Edward G. Lankford—for Defendants—Redirect



259a

The Court: It would be your superintendent, 
[553 alone, not—

A. It would be our superintendent, alone.

The Court: And you would not share him with 
anyone else!

A. No, sir.

The Court: Did the Court’s questions prompt 
any additional questions?

By Mr. Warriner:

Q. Mr. Lankford, do you contemplate any sort of a 
raid on the faculty of Greensville County School system! 
A. No, sir.

Q. What do you—are you going to go for the Greensville 
County School system? A. No, sir.

Q. What do you—are you going to go for the Greensville 
County School system or are you going to be in the open 
market for school teachers? A. Well, in the open market 
for qualified teachers fits into our system, which we feel 
will be for excellent teachers.

Q. Have you set up a teachers’ salary scale that would 
attract— A. We think.

Q. Which will attract a qualified Superintendent of 
Schools? A. We fell we have, sir.

Q. And, have you discussed with your consultant, Dr. 
Willett, the type of superintendent that you would need 
and the type of faculty that you would need? A. Yes, sir.

[56] Q. Do you have set up any particular programs 
within your system that would help you effect a transition

Edward G. Lankford—for Defendants—-Redirect



260a

to a unitary system and the maintenance of a qualified 
system of school excellence! A. Yes, sir, we have, and 
because of that, we feel that we are going to have to pay 
slightly higher salaries to attract people who have ex­
perience in non-graded primary schools, kindergarten, 
and so forth.

Q. What’s that! A. Non-graded, primary-type schools.
Q. What is that! A. It is a system of school, a school 

system which is becoming effective in some areas. Now 
that takes, first of all, our budget excludes a kindergarten 
operation which hasn’t been tried in the south side of 
Virginia yet, so take the kindergarten, 1, 2, 3 grades and 
call it a non-graded primary level of education. Realizing 
that, environment, background motivations of—are dif­
ferent for all children coming into our system. We feel 
that this non-graded system will allow those highly- 
motivated children, to go through this so-called four-year 
level.

The Court: You can object for the record [57] but 
this, I want to hear. I think I will take back what 
I said. It may be very material. Go ahead.

A. The primary, kindergarten, 1, 2, 3 grades would be a 
really, a four-year level for the average child, because 
in such a level of education, their learning is, they are 
learning the tools with which to further their training. 
They are learning reading, writing, arithmetic, basically, 
and by the time they get through the third grade and into 
the fourth grade, then they begin to use these tools to 
study particular subjects. So theoretically, you would 
want to have all children, when they go in the fourth grade, 
somewhat equal in their abilities with these tools of 
education. So, if you confine it to a particular graded

Edward G. Lankford—for Defendants—Redirect



261a

system, it seems to me that does not work quite as well 
as a non-graded system. Non-graded systems, as I say, 
the average child may go through the four years. Those 
are highly motivated, may go through in three years.

Q. You mean the bright ones are in one class and the 
others in other classes'? A. No, I am no expert in educa­
tion. This is what I have been told and been advised.

Q. By whom? A. By Dr. Willett, who is—

[58] The Court: You mean, is that your under­
standing ?

A. I think so, essentially, that is what it—it brings, 
attempts to bring, everyone up to the same degree of 
ability.

The Court: That will continue what, through
just through the first?

A. Through the first three grades, including kindergarten.
Q. Is this kind of a system., something new? A. It is 

in our area, yes, sir.
Q. Is this something recommended by Dr. Willett to 

help assimilate a unitary school system? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, you mention some other advantages to help 

you in a transition to a unitary school system, what are 
they? A. Vocational education, of course, is quite im­
portant because of the drop-out level in the higher grades 
of school. Individual study should be stressed in more 
areas. We, in our budget, we have included $25,000,00 
I believe, for aids.

Q. Teachers’ aids ? A. Teachers’ aids which will relieve 
a teacher of day-to-day school burden of school work, 
such as grading papers and allow the teacher to spend

Edward G. Lankford—for Defendants—Redirect



262a

more time with the pupils. The teacher-pupil ratio is some­
what [59] lower than exists down there. We feel this 
would be a great asset. We realize we will have a small 
school system.

Q. How many would you have, altogether? A. Approxi­
mately 12, 1300. But a small school system is easily 
adaptable to these areas that we feel are excellent, in 
some cases, are really experiments in new types of 
education.

Q. What about the field of health, medical— A. The 
budget includes the sum of $31,000.00 for two full-time 
nurses and part-time physician to give continuing health 
examinations, treatments, and so forth, to all children that 
come in the school. I  think this is most valuable in a 
unitary system because so many of the children will not 
have the advantage of health examinations.

Q. To your knowledge, is Dr. Willett, has he had any 
experience in the field of education in transition to a 
unitary school system? A. He was Superintendent of the 
Richmond City Schools for twenty-two years and I believe 
that he can successfully try to make the transition to such 
as this.

Q. Is Dr. Willett continuing as a consultant to your 
school system in an effort to attempt a successful [60] 
unitary school system? A. Tes, sir.

The Court: What, is that your opinion?

Edward G. Lankford—for Defendants■—Redirect

Q. Yes.

The Court: I  have ruled it out.

Q. All right sir. You mention vocational education, 
what does that mean? A. That means training the student



263a

who would expect to go no further than the high school 
education; training him to go out into the community with 
knowledge to get a good job.

Q. Mr. Lankford, if the Court permits you to do some­
thing—

Edward G. Lankford—for Defendants•—Redirect

The Court: Let me retract my previous thinking. 
I am going to let you put the plan in. I now have 
changed my mind, I think it may he very material 
to the Court’s ultimate decision.

A. I might say that the budget has an element in it that 
includes most of these things that we have discussed.

Q. It is, to a certain extent, in evidence, hut I ’d like 
for Mr. Lankford to explain it. Go ahead and tell the 
Court what you plan to do for the children. A. We plan 
to offer them the school system with a degree of excellence 
that nobody has been before in our area of Virginia. We 
feel that we can make a unitary system work to such an 
extent that people [61] will say, “ Now, look, this com­
munity has got a system that works and this should be 
applied throughout the South.” We feel that we can do it.

Q. Explain this non-graded concept as best as you can. 
A. I ’ll try to. Maybe I left out a few things. To me, in the 
unitary system, it would be an ideal thing, because those 
children who may be slow to learn may take five years to 
go through this non-graded area. The average children 
in four years and the brighter children, in three years. 
But, at the time they get to the four grade, they should, 
theoretically, all of them, have all of these tools ready to 
continue their education and then not be continually 
dropped back from grade-to-grade, as they may fail. The 
present system, of—



264a

Q. Let me ask you this, does this mean that that child 
who is doing poorly in one subject is held back in that 
subject, or that he is held back in all subjects? A. No, 
he is not held back in all subjects. They stress the sub­
jects that he may be a poor reader and they devote a lot 
of time to his reading and let him move ahead as his ability 
goes.

Q. Does this non-graded system mean that there will 
be segregation on the account of color! A. No, sir.

Q. Even any some sort of a DeFacto segregation on 
account [623 of color! A. No, sir.

Q. Is there any part of this non-graded system that 
relates to the fact that children by being in contact with 
others, that are moving more rapidly, obtain the desire 
to move more rapidly themselves! A. I believe that would 
be correct.

Q. So you would roughly, have children from kinder­
garten through the third grade, working together? A. 
Yes, sir.

Q. All four grades working together to obtain the level 
of fourth grade, is that the idea? A. Yes, sir.

Q. That system, this whole system that you are relating 
to the Court, I assume, costs money? A. Yes, sir. Now, 
the non-graded primary area, in effect, doesn’t cost a great 
deal more money. You may have the same number of 
teachers as you would in the normal grade, but the teachers 
each would probably have to be paid more because they 
would have to have some experience in this type of educa­
tion.

Q. What indication do you have of the willingness to pay 
this money? A. It will be reported, we have a record 
in the budget, [63] the budget indicates that for the year 
1970-1971, the local funds necessary to come from the

Edward G. Lankford—for Defendants—Redirect



265a

City is I believe, $26,000.00. That is nearly twice as much 
as the City paid under the current contract year of 1967- 
1968. The School Board presented this budget and it was 
unanimously adopted to present to the City Council. The 
City Council unanimously accepted it for inclusion in this 
budget and when the time comes. I believe that indicates 
that the Council is willing to—■

Q. Do you believe that the City, the citizenry, the tax 
payers, would support this budget? A. Yes, sir, I think so.

Q. If permitted by the Court to do so, Mr. Lankford, 
can you make a unitary school system work in a City? 
A. Yes, sir, I firmly believe we can, with a great degree 
of excellence.

Q. Thank you.

The Court: Mr. Tucker?
Mr. Tucker: I have two or 3 questions.

Examination by Mr. Tucker:

Q. Do you have any idea, Mr. Lankford, as to what 
percentage of the teachers in the present system live 
within the City of Emporia? A. I don’t, sir. I really 
don’t, but there is a great [643 number; I would guess 
half, at least.

Q. We will assume half of the teachers in the— A. 
Yes, sir.

Q. System are living in Emporia; probably a lot more 
than that? A. Possibly so.

Q. I see, and you expect to be paying teachers higher 
salaries than the County will be offering? A. Our budget 
contemplates the increase provided by the State. I  don’t 
know specifically, of course, they haven’t, the County 
hasn’t set their budget; I don’t know specifically whether

Edward G. Lankford—for Defendants—Recross



266a

it will be higher. We feel we will be in range to attract 
desirable teachers that we need.

Q. You won’t refuse to hire a teacher because he or she 
has been previously, or is presently, or has been previously 
employed by the County School Board? A. No, sir, if 
she was qualified and made application.

The Court: All right, you won’t give any thought 
of amending your plan to include a provision that 
you would not hire any teachers with any,—from 
the County system?

A. Yes, we would give thought to that if it meant we 
would be free to move in the direction we want to go.

[653 The Court: All right. Anything else? Mr. 
Gray?

Mr. Gray: I want to make it clear to the Court 
that any counsel that have been waiting— (Went 
off record)

This trial then at 11:30 A.M., recessed until 11:5Q 
A.M., at which time it was reconvened.

Neil H. Tracey—for Defendants—Direct

N eil  H. T kacey, having been called as a witness, was 
duly sworn by the Clerk, and testified on his oath as 
follows:

Examination by Mr. K a y :

Q. Doctor Tracey, would you please state your full name 
and address? A. Neil H. Tracey, 415 Richfield Road, 
Chapel Hill, New York, Professor of Education at the 
University of New York.



267a

Q. And, were, where were you born, Doctor, Tracey? 
A. North Dakota.

Q. And how long did yon live there? A. Twenty-two 
years.

Q. Would you briefly outline to the Court, your educa­
tional background? A. I received a Bachelor of Science 
Degree at North Dakota State University in mathematics 
and my Master of Education Degree at the University 
of South Dakota in School Administration; my Doctorate 
Degree at the University of Colorado in School Adminis­
tration.

[66] Q. And when did you receive your Doctorate? 
A. 1958.

Q. Before obtaining your Doctorate, would you relate 
your occupational experience for the Court? A. Teacher 
of Mathematics and Science in high school; I was a teacher 
in high school for about three years; high school principal 
for three years; Superintendent of Schools for five years 
and part-time instructor in School Administration at the 
University of South Dakota, then the University of Col­
orado and then to the State Teachers College which is 
in South Dakota.

Q. Where did you do your teaching and where are you 
at present and where are you to be in September? A. In 
South Dakota.

The Court: The Doctor is qualified in this field.
Mr. Warriner: No objections.

Q. When did you come to the University of New York? 
A. In 1958.

Q. And in what capacity have you served there? A. 
Basically I am a teacher and have gone through the ranks

Neil H. Tracey—for Defendants—Direct



268a

of professorship, assistant professor, associate professor 
and full professor.

Q. What are your duties as Professor of Education? 
A. I teach school Administration classes primarily in 
£67] Central Office Administration, that is school finance 
planning, and so forth. Direct field studies dissertations 
for graduate students in school administration and in­
cidentally, I  am chairman of the administration curriculum 
group at the School of Education.

Q. And, as part of your duties or Professor of Educa­
tion, do you do any consultation work in the public school 
system in New York? A. Yes, do you want me to give 
you a short run down on that?

Q. Give us a short run down of what type of consulta­
tions. A. All right, the, about—three, there are about 
three kinds of consultations which have been involved. One 
has to do with the curriculum studies in the Waynesboro 
schools in New York; curriculum studies in the Ridge- 
ment area in New York and in Orange County which is 
the home county of Chapel Hill, School survey, which is 
examination of school organization and operation for plan­
ning purposes in Rockingham, New York, Orange County, 
Chapel Hill and Perrin County and two or three other 
places.

Q. Have you worked as a consultant outside of the State 
of New York. A. Yes, primarily in Virginia, with the 
administration organization pattern for Portsmouth and 
with the [68] annexation cases in Alexandria and Rich­
mond and with a similar court situation in Portsmouth.

Q. Now sir, at the request of the City of Emporia, did 
you make a study of the school system of Greensville 
County? A. Yes, I examined certain elements of the 
evidence and visited the school system there.

Neil H. Tracey—for Defendants—Direct



269a

Q. What was the purpose of this study! A. The major 
purpose of the study was to examine the organizational 
pattern and the effects on that organizational pattern of 
the separate, or possible separate school systems for 
Emporia.

Q. Now, sir, at the time that you were approached to 
accept this assignment, did you place any conditions on 
your acceptance! And if so, what were they! A. Yes, 
I placed this basic condition on acceptance of any such 
assignment, that the intent of the people involved, the 
Emporia people in this instance, should be specifically not 
related to any attempt to resegregate or to avoid desegre­
gation or to avoid integration.

Q. And, if you had ascertained that this was the intent, 
what was your undertsanding with the City! A. My 
understanding was that I would not serve in this, capacity, 
at all.

[69] Q. All right, sir, now, would you describe briefly 
how you approached the study that you made in Emporia! 
A. (No response)

Q. In Greensville County! A. Well, basically I started 
out with the idea of examining the pattern of education as 
it existed in the County. The organizational pattern as the 
Court has ordered and is now operative, the financing, the 
budgetary considerations that in effect, support and direct 
the program that a school system might have and beyond 
that, some of the school visitations were to determine what 
conditions existed in the schools and in examination of cer­
tain facilities therein, to determine their sufficiency or ef­
fectiveness.

Q. Would you state whether or not, in your opinion, that 
the effect of historic segregation of races in the public 
schools, i.e., should be eliminated purely by proportionate

Neil H. Tracey—for Defendants—Direct



270a

mixing of the races? A. No, my basic contention is and 
has been, that elimination of the effects ot segregation must 
be an educational solution to the problem and that no par­
ticular pattern of mixing has in and of itself, has any desir­
able effect.

Q. Would you elaborate a little bit on what you conceive 
to educational solutions to this problem? [703 A. Well, as 
the Court held much earlier, separation was inherently un­
equal. Separation has produced an inbred system as to 
speak both for white and for the negro group. The inbred 
systems have become different. So the problem is to permit 
difference and the Negro system is unfortunately, has be­
come inferior. The problem is to permit the Negro child 
to integrate into society both in terms of general social 
problems and in terms of economic patterns. The educa­
tional system as it, as the means to this end and therefore 
particular educational programs have to be set up and put 
into operation in order that this may be that this integra­
tion may be completed.

Q. What types of special programs do you have reference 
to? A. Well, there are several items that characterize 
these programs. The first is a basically early access to edu­
cational resources.

Mr. Tucker: Excuse me, I didn’t hear that.

A. Early access to educational resources there is character­
ized, while I would not like to point to the success of Head- 
Start, because it hasn’t been completely successful, charac­
terized by the ideas of Head-Start, characterized by the idea 
of this kind, characterized by a whole series of community 
[713 action programs that are intended to involve the child 
in an integrated social and educational society quite early 
in his development. The need in this same context, the 
child who is to be functional in an integrated society needs

Neil H. Tracey—for Defendants—Direct



271a

an early contact with the inter-races complex of the society, 
rather than being removed or separated. Becanse, there is 
an educational deprivation to overcome. The child usually, 
in this case, is Negro, but any other child or any other kind 
of isolated child such as an Appalachian child, or in many 
cases, simply a rural child in a relatively slow-moving rural 
community, needs the special attention to his particular 
set of problems and in this context, this is one of the pur­
poses or intents of the ungraded pattern. Beyond that, ex­
cepting fulfillment of the general skills patterns of the 
elementary education, the person needs an opportunity to 
develop some kind of specifically saleable skill. Something 
that he can use when he moves into society. In that sense 
the school program has to provide him this opportunity so 
that he doesn’t argue the point of irrelevance of the school 
program, but sees on the contrary, what opportunity he has 
is particularly relevant to what he wants to do, or [72] 
may be able to find to do in his community.

Q. Is a special effort required by locality and school of­
ficials to provide such system, in your opinion? A. Yes, 
special effort. There are two kinds of high level support 
and a particular orientation on the part of the public and 
the school officials to meet each child in this way.

Q. Have you studied the existing systems in Greensville 
County sufficiently to have formed an opinion as to whether 
it is providing this special effort in support necessary to 
the system that you have described? A. Well, my study 
was not in sufficient detail so that I could oh, pursue it down 
to the most minute point, but there are several items that 
are important. The first is, that the school system has an 
average county school system, which means it is supported 
on the average level, it has approximately average pupil- 
teacher ratio. It has no special organization pattern that

Neil H. Tracey—for Defendants—Direct



272a

would help integration. It has no special vocational pro­
grams that would help integration. It has a left-over as 
many school systems do, in agricultural programs that only 
does not help integration but it does’nt help anybody else. 
Several things that have of this [73] nature, it has com­
paratively limited library facilities and the organizational 
pattern that now exists,’ is essentially inflexible and the 
consequence of that, is that the range of opportunity is 
limited for a child, say, operating in a single building in a 
sixth grade, only.

Q. Well, sir, you are now alluding to the plan under which 
the County is operating, the so-called pairing plan, is that 
correct? A. (No response)

Q. That, of course, is part of the organizational pattern 
of the schools? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Would you tell the Court your opinion, from an edu­
cational standpoint, of the so-called “pairing plan” that is 
in effect in Greensville County? A. Well, if we start from 
the point of pairing, as such, I think we would have to say 
that Greensville County doesn’t have a precisely, a pairing 
plan. That usually implies you have one school which has 
been predominantly for Negro and one school predomi­
nantly for White, and you now put them together and divide 
the population approximately in half, by grade levels. The 
Greensville County organization has, in effect, taken all of 
the students and then have allotted them in the [74] with­
out regard to race or place of residence. Now, the effect of 
either of these, in the elementary school where it is par­
ticularly important with where it is most often used, is to 
divide the elementary school as a totality K  through 5, K  
through 6, 7.

Q. By K, you mean, Kindergarten? A. Kindergarten, 
yes, or One through 6, 7 or 8, into two or more levels. Now,

Neil H. Tracey—for Defendants—Direct



273a

what that does, usually, is to place both the teaching and 
the resources of support teachers, the text materials, the 
library materials, the various supplementary instructions 
or instructional materials of a variety of kind on that 
limited level, but the children, in any given grade, have an 
instructional, well, I shouldn’t say instructional, have an 
achievement range of about double the number of years as 
the grade designation, for instance, as you will ordinarily 
find in a group in the third grade, classified basically, ac­
cording to age, having achievement level all the way from 
first grade on through to the sixth grade. You will find 
students in the fifth grade having an achievement level of 
all the way from the late first grade on through to about the 
tenth grade. When you shorten the range of resources to 
that group, you apply the resources primarily to the center 
of [75J the group, and you ignore either end. Greensville 
County is currently moving to try to reorganize this library 
system and it is reorganizing its libraries according to the 
plan that is in effect. That is in the elementary school, which 
is grades 1, 2, 3, it is going to put materials, primarily 1,
2, 3 and in the school, in the next school up the line, grades
3, 4 or 4, 5, I beg your pardon, is going to put materials, 
primarily grades 4 and 5 and this kind of thing means that 
if children remain basically classified by age, that in any 
one of these schools, the range of materials and consequently 
the range of instructional and independent opportunities 
available will be shortened for them.

Q. With what effect? A. Well, with the basic effect, 
opposite to that which I initially said was desirable. I said 
that it is desirable to be tried to provide for each child an 
instructional program as close to his next step in achieve­
ment as possible. If his achievement level is comparatively 
high for the age classification and the materials and the in-

Neil E. Tracey—for Defendants-—Direct



274a

structional resources are shortened, this can’t be provided. 
Correspondingly, if achievement level is substantially at a 
low level, relative to his age classification and the [76J 
instructional material apply for shortened, then the student 
doesn’t exist, or is reduced.

Q. Does the pairing plan have any adverse economic effect 
on the operation of the school system? A . Well, ordinarily, 
it, the item of transportation is implied and if the school 
system does not add to its budget in order to overcome the 
transportation problem, then this money will have to be 
taken from some other resource, that is within the budget. 
Otherwise,—furthermore, it implies, as transportation does, 
and if it is a fairly long time from the time the child is 
required to leave home until he gets back, much of this time 
on the bus, or waiting for the bus, has no useful educational 
purpose, and the consequences of course, are that it is es­
sentially wasted time and energy on the part of the chil­
dren. If the school system were inclined to do so, going 
back to these instructional resources, it might, within a 
given grade group, say one through three, provide the 
necessary range of instructional resources, but if this does 
not appear in the budget, then an assumption is that it has 
not been provided and it requires an extra effort to provide 
this.

Q. Then you found no such error in the present budget? 
[77] A. No, the Greensville budget is an increase of ap­
proximately $20.00 per year, per child, for 1969 and 1970, 
over the operating budget for 1968-1969. This won’t keep 
up with inflation, but, let alone add any kind of services. 
As a matter of fact, looking at the budget, it appears that 
certain services that were provided, are not now being pro­
vided and some monies have been transferred from various 
kinds of programs into the, particularly the transportation 
program, at this time.

Neil E. Tracey—for Defendants—Direct



275a

Q. Was there an increase in the transportation budget 
in 1969-1970 over that of the preceding year! A. Yes, sir, 
there is a basically, $10,000.00 increase in the budget in the 
past four years; transportation costs have gone up from 
$81,708, approximately $3,100.00, $89,700 and now to 
$102,300.00 for this year. This is an estimate based upon 
the school system’s figures.

Q. Now sir, have you studied the plan and estimated 
budget prepared by Dr. Willett for the City of Emporia, 
which has been approved insofar as possible, for the next 
school year? A. Yes, I have looked at this budget and con­
sidered and secured the budget message.

Q. Would you—I would ask you if you have an opinion 
and £78] if so, would you tell us what your opinion is, with 
respect to whether this system, as proposed by the City, 
provides, or has the potential for providing the educational 
solutions that you previously referred to? A. Well, two 
things are involved in this. One is the basic change and 
organization and the other is the budget itself. The budget 
has explicit provision for attracting teachers who, in terms 
of the budget message, would be effective in both the un­
graded primary and team teaching pattern. It has the ad­
dition of Kindergarten and it has by relief to some degree, 
a lesser proportion total budget indicated to the transporta­
tion, it has the addition of the health services, it has the 
addition of the certain County services. This does not say 
the County has some of these, but the budget provides for 
more proportionately of these services to each child. It 
has a provision not in specific, but in general terms, for a 
lower pupil-teacher ratio and a higher per pupil cost, in the 
undergrades, to permit an effective vocational program, 
than the vocational program now currently defines, I would 
say, as a general statement, that the intent, underlying this

Neil H. Tracey—for Defendants—Direct



276a

budget, is entirely supportive of the basic original [79] 
points on, well, good education for everybody, not simply 
the, with the integration, but a good opportunity for every­
one.

Q. Will you, sir, explain to the Court, just what the con­
cept team teaching embraces and how it works? A. Team 
teaching is, well, unfortunately, has several definitions, 
depending on who happens to be claiming it, at the moment. 
But in the idea sense, or the rationale for team teaching, 
you have seen the idea that a group of teachers each will 
take the responsibility before a group, usually, of upper 
elementary aged students. Now, the group of teachers 
consists of the group of four or five and the students then 
associated with this, would be the pupil-teacher ratio, in 
a group of, say 100 to 125 pupils. Now, the teachers are 
expected to, and provide time for planning for the educa­
tional program for these students. Then, in terms of what 
they perceive to be the necessary educational response to 
the conditions of these children, that is their achievement 
level and so they sub-divide the group to provide their 
instruction, or, they provide opportunity for students who 
are in need of individualized instruction for that, or in 
need of independent study for that, or they provide for 
opportunity for the group [80] to meet as an entity, as to 
an entirety for certain instructional situations. The argu­
ment about team teaching is that the team of teachers, 
because of the inter-relationships that they develop, can 
plan more effectively than one one teacher for the group 
involved. That, second, the team consists of persons who 
have different kinds of specializations, different kinds of 
talents and that then they may be used in the area of their 
foremost and greatest effectiveness and finally, that the 
group, as a group, is flexible in its changing sub-divisions

Neil H. Tracey—-for Defendants■—Direct



277a

and nature so that it may be most effectively taught, more 
effectively taught in any one of these.

Q. Is it true that a person in one of these non-graded, 
I used the word “team-teaching,” but I guess it is a combi­
nation of non-graded system; it doesn’t say I am in the 
first grade, or the second grade or the third grade, but 
it says I am in the primary grade? Basically, is that how 
it works, or is that an oversimplification of it? A. It 
is not quite an over-simplification, it is probably a goal. 
It is one not yet achieved, because we have a provision 
for tri-grade levels, but to switch from team teaching to 
the ungraded level. Now, they have much the same connota­
tion as the group of students [81] who will be assigned 
to a group of teachers. The teachers will then be pro­
vided planning time, resources—the broad range of re­
sources and so on so that they may sub-divide this group, 
or treat it as a whole when the occasion demands. In the 
ungraded primary, the idea is that each child is progressing 
at his own rate of, achievement. This obviously requires 
that this rate of achievement be assessed regularly. There 
are as many school systems that have set up to operate 
this assessment on a weekly basis; this seems not to take 
advantage of the teacher’s capability for adapting to the 
situation, so, probably, on a bi-weekly, or monthly basis, 
reassessment occurs. The progress rate of the child is 
determined and in a reorganization within the basic group, 
if it is required, then this is permitted, or, it is withn 
the realm of possibility. It involves the idea that teacher- 
ers teach, will teach what is necessary to whomever needs 
it within this total age range. That each child is going 
through a progressive pattern leading to a competency 
that will permit him to enter the next grade level which 
is different. Usually the fourth grade then. Then it has no

Neil H. Tracey—for Defendants—Direct



278a

connotation for prior classification. In the sense of, say, 
an intelligence test, or last £823 year’s achievement test, 
or some such thing as this, except that at some early time, 
some kind of assessment must be made in order that the 
teachers respond to the child’s particular educational suc­
cess. In other words, a child may be strong in mathematics 
and not have to be held back at all, but be weak in English 
and have to be in a different subject group for that.

Q. I see, he may not have to be held back for that one 
subject, is that it! A. Yes..

Q. Correct! A. In the case of a child in that situation, 
he might be progressing at what you might classify as 
normally in one area, and slower in another and more 
rapidly in another. Most people have achievement profiles, 
and while it is, as a matter of fact, the case of an extremely 
able student who is probably doing fairly well in every­
thing and an extremely poor student is probably not doing 
very well in anything. For the greater portion of the 
people, there is a profile, that for a young lady, for ex­
ample, this is partially culturally determined, o f course, 
she will be doing quite well in reading and literature and 
relatively poorly in mathematics.

£833 Q. And this provides a means by which she can 
get special attention and instruction that she is weak in! 
A. Basically the whole argument is that it provides a 
means by which the student gets help where he needs 
it, at great freedom to move independently when he doesn’t 
need help.

Q. And this is a— state whether or not this is an educa­
tional device that is used in all schools whether they are 
all in the same race or segregated or integrated! A. Yes, 
it started out, well, first defined by the California educa­
tion professor by the name of John G-oodland and it has

Neil H. Tracey—for Defendants—Direct



279a

spread, the ungraded primary has spread all the way across 
the United States in all kinds of schools, with the possible 
exception that schools in more traditional areas have not 
adopted this pattern very rapidly. High schools with poor 
support levels who could not give the teacher the extra 
time or the support system, have not adopted this pattern 
and in general, rural schools have been less willing to 
adopt it than city schools.

Q. Now, does the budget, estimated budget and budget 
message and plan, proposed by the City of Emporia, pro­
vide what you consider to be the necessary support to 
effectuate these programs that you have [84] mentioned! 
A. Well, as the budget is now constituted, it has specific 
provisions for these items and it is argued, of course, if 
the City continues this orientation, it should be able to 
fulfill this program demands.

Q. And if Emporia does what it has contemplated it is 
to do, in your opinion, will its system be superior to the 
existing system in Greensville County? A. Yes, this 
doesn’t deny Greensville from doing this, or that they 
could do this, but it would be substantially superior.

Q. Will it, in your opinion, provide the programs that 
are necessary and desirable to make a unitary system work 
in the true sense of the word, work, in your opinion? A  
Yes, providing programs that are good and the budget, as 
it is currently constructed, indicates that the attitude, a 
good attitude on the part of the people involved is good, 
it does exist, and if again continued, will be able to pro­
vide those programs. It is basically a matter of intent to 
concern ourselves about the child and not about his color.

Q. All right sir, the Court has expressed concern as to 
the effect of the separation of the City of Emporia, from 
the school system that it is presently a part [85] of, and

Neil H. Tracey—for Defendants—Direct



280a

specifically, the effect on the remaining system. Would 
you care to, or would you express your opinion to as far 
as you can, as to what that effect might be? A. Well, 
there are about four effects that seem important at the 
moment and some others that are dependent upon either 
a change or a continuing of the condition. First, the effect 
will be to reduce the number of separate school entities 
for the Greensville organization. Which should permit 
Greensville to function a little more effectively on the school 
organization and on transportation. I don’t know that it 
will, but it should permit this. The effect on, in one sense, 
might be to provide to Greensville, an opportunity to watch 
Emporia to see if it in fact does what it is claiming to do 
and therefore, emulate it. This is largely contingent upon 
Greensville’s willingness to build a budget similar to that 
of Emporia.

Q. Do you know of their intent to do so? A. No, I 
have no knowledge of such an intent. I was listing the 
questions about teachers and so on and I would suppose 
that the two school systems existing side by side, would 
be in some competition for teachers. However, Greens­
ville will have teachers that it has no use for. That is, 
cannot employ, [86] in terms of the remainder of the school 
system and some of these might well wish to move to 
Emporia and probably actually live there, because it is 
not the case of very few teachers who function in the 
County Schools, actually live outside of your barn or 
suburban areas, they live in the urban area and, of course, 
these schools are all right surrounding the urban areas so 
the chance is good that most of the teachers in Greensville 
County do live in Emporia. If Greensville teachers are 
seeking positions, and Emporia offers more money, and 
the Greensville teachers are qualified, there is a possible

Neil H. Tracey—for Defendants■—Direct



281a

effect of training over the better teachers from Greens­
ville, by putting them in Emporia. I would presume that 
this could be specifically overcome in one of two or three 
ways and I would also presume that the teachers in the 
Greensville County System, at this time, might not be 
oriented to or meet the qualifications desired in terms of 
team teaching and ungraded primary that Emporia is 
trying to get in its teaching staff. Basically, I would think 
that would be about the set of effects that I could discern.

Q. Do you know what the effects on the educational 
process would be in the County, because of an increase of, 
£873 in the ratio of Negro to White children of 70-30, as 
compared to the existing 60-40? A. I don’t know. I spe­
cifically spent some time examining the information to 
find out if any studies had been made that dealt with par­
ticular educational effects associated with particular pro­
portions of Negroes and Whites in the schools systems 
and no real information exists that I know of that deals 
with this kind of explicit question. As to whether it would 
make a difference if it is 50-50, 45-55, 40-60 or what have 
you.

Q. To your knowledge, no objection has been made, or, 
has anybody made a study that would lead to any con­
clusions on that question? A. (Nodded head negatively.)

Q. Thank you, sir. No study has been made? A. No 
study has been made and I would not conjecture.

Examination by Mr. Tucker:

Q. Doctor Tracey, to move to the other extreme of the 
public educational system, when you talk about high schools, 
what is your opinion as to the advantages of a, of having 
larger high schools, as against smaller high schools? I 
mean, so far as numbers of children are concerned? A.

Neil R. Tracey—for Defendants—Cross



282a

Well, there are two or three basic advantages in increas­
ing the size in high schools. The first [88] advantage is 
that if you offer, or wish to offer particular programs for 
particular groups, you will have a larger base group on 
which to operate. Now, let me make that a little more clear. 
Supposing you want to offer an instrumental music pro­
gram involving a fair amount of individualized instruction 
and you want to offer this for the purpose of giving poten­
tial musicians a musical education in a given population. 
Only about 15 percent are potentially effective musicians 
so if the less population on which you could base this kind 
of thing would probably be a population of a hundred or 
so that would provide you with one class. If you talk only 
about fiddle players, you would have to have a population 
of much greater than that to provide you with one basic 
class of fiddle players. This would also apply to various 
other kinds of special interest patterns. On either end of 
the scale, whether this was special remediation or a talent 
development. Now, that is the major value of a large as 
opposed to a comparatively small school. However, to a 
degree and not completely, this kind of thing may be built 
in, to a school, if more money is provided and smaller 
pupil teacher ratios are accepted. What it amounts to is, 
that if you can get a population large enough so that 15 
percent of the approximately, or 15 to 20% [89] provides a 
continuing instructional group and are willing to pay for 
the teachers for just 15 students. You have the same basic 
advantage, if you are willing to pay the teachers, you 
don’t get the advantage until you have enough flexibility 
in the large school to assign a teacher.

Q. Over the years, I have heard all kinds of answers 
from educators as to what they consider an ideal size for 
high schools. What figure, in your estimation, makes or

Neil E, Tracey—for Defendants—Cross



283a

approaches the ideal size for a high school? A . All right, 
I  understand why you have heard all of these figures, 
because in the first place, they tend to change over the 
times. A  few years ago, actually in the 1930’s, when most 
high schools were exceedingly small.—

The Court: Excuse me, Mr. Tracey, let’s answer 
the question directly, if you will please; just tell us 
your idea of an ideal size of a high school.

A. All right, I think that for the maximum flexibility, and 
the less loss of, of identity on the part of the individual 
children, that a high school probably should be in the 
1200-1500 range. That is the optimum that is not maximum 
or minimum; it is the optimum.

[90] Q. And the senior class of that high school, would 
probably be, about how many? A. Well, this senior class 
is going to have to be some place in the neighborhood 
in that setting, of 500, if it is a 10-12 school, or, going on 
down the line, since the high school might be organized 
on a 7 through 12 basis, to about 150.

The Court: Again that is optimum?

A. Yes, again, that is the optimum, in the center of the 
oroginal figure that you asked me for, because, a high 
school, if you follow me, a high school is not a fixed set 
of grades. There are Senior High Schools; four-year high 
schools; five-year high schools and six-year high schools.

Q. All right, four-year high school in that setting, would 
have a senior class of about 300.

Q. And a five-year high school would be? A. About
500.

Neil H. Tracey—for Defendants—Cross



284a

Q. About 500? A. Less than 500, 500, well, actually 
about 400 and something, considering the attrition over 
the three grades.

Q. Now, in your studying of it, did you give thought 
to—strike that. Did you give consideration to a better
[91] organization of the entire school system? I mean, 
with the County and the City being in one school system? 
A. Not in the sense that I have studied it carefully enough 
to know what I would propose as an organization, in the 
sense that if I were to propose an organization, it would 
consist at least of elementary schools operating K  through 
5, or K  through 6. Now, however, those attendant areas 
were—I don’t know if they were considered or not. I do 
not know, because that is the part I haven’t examined. 
I don’t accept the idea of fragments of the elementary 
pattern.

Q. All right, I recall your testimony that a child needs 
contact with the entire range of society, rather than being 
separated and one of the illustrations you pointed out was 
that of the rural child in the slow-moving rural commu­
nities? A. Yes.

Q. Now, let’s project that the people of this area in­
volved desired and were allowed that if the City of 
Emporia became a school system and the County became 
another school system, would that not diminish the range 
of society to which the rural child would be exposed? 
A. I think I would have to say that it would, and, we will 
just leave it at that.

[92] Q. In other words, you are aware that you could 
not help but notice that Emporia is the mercantile center 
of the cement business in the center of the county and 
that it is essentially rural? A. That’s right.

Q. I f  we take the isolated,—If we isolate the City

Neil 11. Tracey—for Defendants—Cross



285a

children we will actually be taking away from the rural 
children valuable contacts that they should be connected 
to? A. You would take some part of the range away.

Q. Yes, as an educator, and if you had the job to 
desegregate or organize the two systems, rather than 
having the job to organize one system, that is, organizing 
the combined system, which alternative would offer you 
the better opportunity of doing the better job? A. This 
is dependent upon a prior condition. This is dependent 
upon the basic willingness of the system to support and 
the willingness of Greensville system to support it ap­
parently has been deteriorating in terms of its budget 
figures. I f  we could assume that Greensville County would 
move its support level up to the point where it would 
provide these programs, then I would be arguing for the 
entire system. But, you cannot now, that is the important 
part.

Q. Did you make any study to determine if there was 
any [93] basic difference between the people who live 
wtihin the City of Emporia and those who live outside 
of the City of Emporia in the County, any basic differ­
ences in their attitudes? A. No.

Q. You are not prepared to say that the people are 
any different in their basic attitude than the people within 
the City will give support to people without the City, will 
without support if their leaders are demanding it? A. No.

Q. All right.

Mr. Gray: Your Honor, may I have one, I  one 
moment to ask a question I think I may have to 
ask the Doctor?

The Court: Yes, certainly.

Neil E. Tracey—for Defendants—Cross



286a

Mr. Gray: Dr. Tracey, you have several times 
spoken of willingness to up the budget?

A. That’s correct.

Mr. Gray: Meet the needs, as the ability to up 
the budget also important. The wealth of the 
citizens, is that important, too?

A. This is important, but it is basically the case that 
in the southeast Virginia included and south side Virginia 
including that level of effort which is the amount of money 
per capita as related to per capita [94] income, is only 
at the average or below average for the United States- 

Q. Did you make any studies in Greensville County, ex­
clusive of Emporia, as to the ability of the economic state 
or status, in the— A. No.

Q. So, you have no knowledge of this ability? A. No.

Mr. Gray: Thank you.
Mr. Kay: No questions.
The Court: Thank you, Doctor, you may be

excused.

(The witness, having been excused, withdrew 
from the stand.)

Neil H. Tracey—for Defendants—Cross



287a

George F. Lee—for Defendants—Direct

Geobge F. L ee, having been called as a witness, was duly- 
sworn by the Clerk, and testified on his oath, as follows:

Direct Examination by Mr. Warriner:

Q. Mr. Lee, you have been previously identified as being 
George F. Lee, Mayor of the City of Emporia! A. Yes, 
sir.

Q. Your age place, and your place of residence are al­
ready in the record? A. (Nodded head)

Q. Preliminarily, Mr. Lee, I hand you a sheet of paper 
and ask you if you recognize them? [95] A. Yes, sir.

Q. What is the paper? A. This is a letter from your 
firm.

Q. To whom? A. To the City of Emporia and myself, 
specifically.

Q. What is the date on it? A. July 18, 1969.

Mr. Tucker: No objections.
Q. What is this letter? It speaks for itself but I would 

like to put this letter in evidence; it has to show, if Your 
Honor please, it has to do, with the contract, dated July 18, 
1969.

(Defendant’s Exhibit E-J, marked for identifi­
cation)

Q. Mr. Lee, under your leadership and that of the City 
Council of Emporia, has a budget and a plan for the 
operation of the City schools, along the lines proposed 
by Mr. Willet, approved by the City School Board, been 
adopted? A. Yes, sir.

Q. When was it adopted? A. It was adopted at a meet­
ing two weeks ago, I believe.



288a

Q. This was the first meeting held of the formulation of 
this budget? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, Mr. Lee, you have heard the testimony here 
today [96] about the problems with respect to a County 
School system needing and meeting and overcoming the 
challenge of a unitary school system. Are you a life-long 
resident of Greensville County and Emporia? A. Well, 
I  came there in 1938.

Q. Where did you come from? A. From 15 miles away. 
South Hampton.

Q. Are you familiar with the leadership, present leader­
ship of Greensville County? A. Very much so.

Q. Does Greensville County-—

Mr. Marsh: Excuse me, Your Honor, we want 
to object. This testimony was gone over very thor­
oughly in the first hearing. We don’t think it adds 
anything, it is part of the evidence in the case al­
ready, these very questions were asked.

The Court: I think so. Try not to repeat.
Mr. Warriner: I  will limit it to one more ques­

tion, Your Honor.

Q. In your opinion, will the present leadership of Greens­
ville County adequately support a school system which 
will bring about a working unitary school system? A. In 
my opinion,—

The Court: Just a moment.
Mr. Tucker: I am just wondering what [971 the 

basis of opinion, whether that is a matter for his 
opinion, the Court, or anybody else.

George F. Lee—for Defendants—Direct



289a

George F. Lee—for Defendants—Direct 

The Court: That may go to the weight of it.

Q. Very well.

The Court: Objection over-ruled. You don’t think 
they can do it ?

A. No, sir.

Mr. Warriner: I will develop the weight of it, 
if Your Honor Please. How long have you been 
Mayor ?

A. More than ten years.
Q. Before that, did you serve on the City Council? A. 

Yes, sir.
Q. Are you engaged—

The Court: Let me get it straight. You think 
they can’t do it or you think they don’t want to do 
it?

A. I think they are willing to do it. I know they have the 
financial background to do it, if they would.

Q. How long did you serve on the City Council? A. 
Four years.

Q. Are you a business man in that area? A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Up until 1967, were you a resident of the County of 

E98] Greensville ? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you had in your official capacity and in your 

private capacity, had dealings with the Board of Super­
visors of Greensville County? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you know each of them officially and personally? 
A. Yes, sir.



290a

Q. Do you know how long* they have been serving on 
the Board of Supervisors'? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Have they been elected and reelected? A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Do you have confidence, based upon your experience 

with these people? I have that question, I think I have 
given some background as to how he can form an opinion. 
Now, are you also familiar with the leadership of the City? 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. How long have you been associated with the—with 
that leadership?

The Court: All of his life.

A. Yes, sir. Ever since I moved from Adams Drove.
Q. Even since you moved from Adams Grove?

The Court: I understood he was the leader.
[99] Q. Is that correct? Do you believe that the leader­

ship of the City of Emperia has the will to make a unitary 
school system work? A. Absolutely.

Q. What, in your opinion, would be the alternative to an 
independent school system for the City of Emporia? A. 
Your Honor, may I elaborate just a bit?

The Court: All right, sir.

A. Last year, after we left your Court and we went back 
home and I was determined and the members—

Q. Excuse me, Mr. Lee, it may seem like last year, it 
was last summer. A. Last summer, I  was determined to 
follow your instructions by the letter of your instructions 
and your instructions certainly have nothing to do with 
any systems other than the systems you have outlined.

George F. Lee—for Defendants—Direct



291a

However an upsurge came for a private school system. 
On the quietus, I did my best to insure the citizens of 
Emporia that they are the only people I deal with; don’t 
jump into a thing like this. Let’s give it an honest trial. 
And, our people in Emporia, by and large, have done this. 
However, they pulled out of the County systems as a 
whole and in wholesale lots and I am afraid that you are 
going to see so much of the exodus if we don’t provide 
an equality for all of [1003 our children. Let me say the 
ghettos are located in Emporia, the poor people are located 
in Emporia, the wealth of Emporia is not in Emporia, the 
wealth of our area is in Greensville County, not in the 
City. It would be an extra effort for the City to raise the 
money and we published a, in our paper, this was very bad 
politically, last week, that in order to support this system 
that we adopted, our taxes would have to be increased 
30% next year. Our people will do it. We have less of the 
wealth in the County. Well, I am afraid our children will 
not have, in effect, all our children, will not have an effec­
tive public school system, because next year, this year 
was bad, so as far as interest, I am afraid my influence will 
not hold them in next year. We are going to see a de­
grading County or public school system and this is the 
last thing I want to see.

Q. No further questions.

The Court: Any cross-examination?
Mr. Tucker: No questions.
The Court: Thank you, Mr. Lee.

(The witness, having been excused, withdrew from 
the stand.)

Mr. Warriner: Defendant City, rests.

George F. Lee—for Defendants—Direct



292a

The Court: The Defendant County, have any evi­
dence to put on?

Mr. Gray: No evidence.
[1013 The Court: Does the Plaintiff have any 

rebuttal?
Mr. Tucker: Nothing further.

George F. Lee—for Defendants—Direct



293a

Memorandum Opinion o f  District Court 

[Filed March 2, 1970]

M erhige , District Judge.

The plaintiffs in this action filed a supplemental complaint 
on August 1, 1969, alleging that the added defendants, the 
City Council and the School Board of the City of Emporia, 
had taken steps to establish a city school system indepen­
dent of the Greensville County system, then under a de­
segregation order in this suit. Emporia, a city of the second 
class since 1967, is surrounded by Greensville County. 
Through the school year 1968-69 public school pupils resi­
dent in Emporia had attended schools operated by Greens­
ville County; the city had been reimbursing the county for 
this service under a contract of April 10, 1968.

On August 8, 1969, the added defendants were tempo­
rarily enjoined by this Court from any steps which would 
impede the implementation of the outstanding desegrega­
tion order. Subsequently the Emporia officials answered, 
denying the allegation that the plan for separation would 
frustrate the efforts of the Greensville County School 
Board to implement the plan embraced by the Court’s order. 
The matter was then continued until December 18, 1969, for 
a hearing on whether the injunction should be made perma­
nent.

The original action seeking relief from alleged racial 
discrimination in the operation of the Greensville County 
School System, was filed in March of 1965. Emporia was 
not a city under Virginia law until July 31, 1967; until that 
time the county was alone responsible for the public educa­
tion of those within its borders. Under the contract of 
April 10,1968, the county continued this service in exchange 
for the payment of 34.26% of the cost of the system.



294a

On June 21, 1968, the plaintiffs moved for additional re­
lief, Up to that point the county-administered system had 
operated under a free-choice plan which, plaintiffs asserted, 
had not achieved constitutional compliance under Green v. 
County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 480, 
88 S.Ct. 1969, 20 L.Ed.2d 716 (1968). The 1967-68 enroll­
ment figures show the racial distribution then prevailing:

Memorandum Opinion of District Court

Students Faculty
School W N W  N
Greensville County High 719 50 391/2 1
Emporia Elementary 857 46 34i/2 2
Wyatt High 0 809 41/2 32i/2
Moton Elementary 0 552 0 22%
Zion Elementary 0 255 1 12%
Belfield Elementary 0 419 3 14
Greensville County Training 0 439 0 16

The two schools then attended by all the white students 
were and still are in the city of Emporia, as is the training 
school; others are in the county.

The county proposed the extension of the free choice 
plan for another year while a zoning or pairing plan was 
developed. The plaintiffs took exception. The Court or­
dered the county to file a pupil desegregation plan bringing 
the system into compliance with Green by January 20,1969. 
The county again proposed that the free choice plan be re­
tained with certain changes, principally involving transfers 
out of a pupil’s regular school for special classes and faculty 
reassignment. As an alternative, if the first proposal were 
rejected, the county suggested a plan under which the high 
school population would be divided between the two facili­
ties on the basis of curriculum pursued, academic or voca­
tional. Faculties would be reassigned to achieve at least a



295a

75%-25% ratio in each school. Elementary school desegre­
gation would be achieved by the transfer of individual 
Negroes to white schools “ on the basis of standardized test­
ing of all students.”

The plaintiffs suggested the assignment of all students on 
the basis of grades attained to specific schools; pairing, in 
other words, the entire system. Elementary teachers were 
to follow their classes as reassigned, and high school teach­
ers were to be shifted so that the racial balance in the Wyatt 
School and Greensville County High would be approxi­
mately the same.

A  hearing was held on June 17,1969, and this Court stated 
its findings and indicated its intention to order that the 
plaintiffs’ plan be adopted.

By order of June 25, 1969, this Court rejected the defen­
dants’ proposals and ordered the plaintiffs’ plan put into 
effect. Subsequently the plan was modified slightly on de­
fendants’ motion; the pupil assignments ordered on July 
30, 1969, were as follows:

Memorandum Opinion of District Court

School Grades

Greensville County High 10, 11, 12
Junior High (Wyatt) 8, 9
Zion Elementary 7
Belfield Elementary 5, 6
Moton Elementary 4, 5
Emporia Elementary 1, 2, 3
Greensville County Training Special Education

On July 9, 1969, the city council met especially to formu­
late plans for a city school system. On July 10th the mayor 
sought the cooperation of county officials in selling or 
leasing school facilities located in Emporia. On July 14th 
the council instructed the city school board to take steps 
to create a city school division. On July 23 rd the council



296a

requested the state board of education to authorize the 
establishment of such a division, which request has been 
tabled by the State Board “ in light of matters pending 
in the federal court,” defendants’ Ex. E-l. The Emporia 
school board in the meantime advised the county officials 
that the contract would no longer be honored and that city 
pupils would not attend the county system in the forth­
coming school year. A notice of July 31, 1969, published 
by the city school board, required that school age children 
resident in Emporia be registered and invited applications 
from non-residents on a tuition basis. The injunction of 
August 8, 1969, however, resulted in a continuation of city 
pupils attending the county system for the present school 
year.

At a hearing on December 18, 1969, the city took the 
position that the contract was void under state law (see 
defendants’ Ex. E-J) ; this question is the subject of pend­
ing litigation brought by the city on October 1, 1969, in the 
state courts. The evidence shows that the city on Septem­
ber 30, 1969, notified the county of its view that the con­
tract is invalid and its intention to terminate the contract 
under its terms, in any case, effective in July, 1971. Pay­
ments, however, were continued through the date of the 
December hearing. Emporia officials also have assured 
the Court that they have no intention of entertaining 
applications from nonresidents until so permitted by this 
Court.

At the hearing the county, unfortunately, took no 
position.

A resolution of the city school board of December 10, 
1969, defendants’ Ex. E-F, outlines the city’s plan. Ele­
mentary levels through grade six would be conducted in 
the Emporia Elementary School building; grades seven 
through twelve would be housed in the Greensville County 
High School. Defendants’ Ex. E-G includes budgetary

Memorandum Opinion of District Court



297a

projections for the new system. The city projects enroll­
ment figures for the system at about ten percent above 
the number of city residents now in the public system “on 
the expectation that some pupils now attending other 
schools would return to a city-operated school system,” 
defendants’ Ex. E-F, at 1.

The city clearly contemplates a superior quality educa­
tional program. It is anticipated that the cost will be such 
as to require higher tax payments by city residents. A  
kindergarten program, ungraded primary levels, health 
services, adult education, and a low pupil-teacher ratio 
are included in the plan, defendants’ Ex. E-G, at 7, 8.

The county has filed, at the Court’s request, a statistical 
breakdown of the students and faculty in the county- 
administered schools, now in operation under this Court’s

Memorandum Opinion of District Court

order of July 30, 1969. The table below shows the current 
racial makeup of the seven schools:

School Students Faculty

W N W N

Emporia Elementary 
Grades 1-3

283
30.1%

655
69.9%

17 18

Hicksford (Moton) 
Grades 4—5

238
37%

405
63%

11 13

Belfield 
Grade 6

107
30.6%

243
69.4%

7 11

Zion 
Grade 7

127
34.8%

238
65.2%

7 7

Junior High 
Grades 8-9

215
32.6%

443
67.4%

19 21

Senior High 
Grades 10-12

346
44.9%

424
55.1%

31 14

Training School 10 63 1 8
13.7% 86.3%



298a

Memorandum Opinion of District Court

By comparison, the county reported the following racial 
characteristics for the 1968-69 school year:

School Students Faculty

W N W N

Greensville County High 720 45 39 1
Wyatt H.S. (present Jr. High) 0 829 5 34
Emporia Elementary 771 53 33 3
Moton (present Hicksford) 0 521 5 18
Zion 0 248 1 13
Greensville County Training 0 387 0 17
Belfield 0 427 2 16

The procedural status of the case at present needs 
clarification. The plaintiffs contend that no one has made 
application to this Court that its order of June 25, as 
modified on July 30, be amended. This is the outstanding 
desegregation order addressed to “ the defendants herein, 
their successors, agents, and employees.” They contend 
that this Court is therefore limited to the inquiry whether 
the city officials threaten to interfere with the implementa­
tion of the order and therefore should be permanently 
enjoined.

Some passages in the city officials’ briefs support this 
contention. In their rebuttal brief they state that the 
city is not seeking any sort of judicial relief excepting that 
the injunction of August 8, 1969, be lifted. They contend 
that any change in the existing desegregation order would 
be “a matter to be resolved by the Court, the plaintiffs and 
Greensville County, and would not involve the city.” 
[Rebuttal brief of January 23, at 3.] Such a position, 
however, is inconsistent with that taken by counsel at 
the December 18th hearing. Issues explored went beyond 
the question whether the city’s initiation of its own system 
would necessarily clash with the administration of the



299a

existing pairing plan; indeed there seems to be no real 
dispute that this is so. The parties went on to litigate 
the merits of the city’s plan, developing the facts in detail 
with the help of an expert educator. Counsel for the 
city stated that “ at the conclusion of the evidence today, 
we will ask Your Honor to approve the assignment plan 
for the 1970-71 school year and to dissolve the injunction 
now, against the city, effective at the end of this school 
year,” Tr., Dec. 18, at 11.

It seems clear that the supplemental complaint sought 
to join the city officials not so much as successors, in full 
or in part, to the official powers and interests of the original 
defendants, hut rather as persons who intended to use 
state powers to interfere with the plaintiffs’ enjoyment of 
their constitutional right to unsegregated public education. 
Ample precedent exists for authority to grant relief in such 
a case. Faubus v. United States, 254 F.2d 797 (8th Cir., 
1958); Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, 231 
F.Supp. 743 (M.D.Ala. 1964). Indeed such orders have 
issued against private parties, on occasion, even at the 
instance of state officials, Kasper v. Brittain, 245 F.2d 
92 (6th Cir. 1957); Brewer v. Hoxie School District No. 46, 
238 F.2d 91 (8th Cir. 1956). Plaintiffs did not specifically 
request then or since that the city officials be joined or 
substituted as parties defendant pursuant to Fed.Rules 
Civ.Proc., Rule 25(c), or Rule 25(d), 28 U.S.C.

Nevertheless, this Court has concluded that the plaintiffs’ 
failure to so move was, under the circumstances, excusable 
and indeed unnecessary. The city defendants, by their 
actions, have made it clear that, according to state law, 
they have succeeded to the powers of the county board 
members over public school students resident in the city. 
They now desire to exercise these latent powers and have 
asked this Court to amend its orders to enable them to 
so do. A word about the Virginia education law aids in 
understanding this aspect of the case.

Memorandum Opinion of District Court



300a

When Emporia became a city the duty fell upon it to 
establish a school board to supervise public education in 
the city. §§ 22-2, 22-93, 22-97, Ya.Code Ann., 1950. State 
law permits, however, the consolidation of a city with a 
county to form a single school division, with the approval 
of the State Board of Education, § 22-30, Va.'Code Ann., 
1950. In such a case a single school board may be estab­
lished with the approval of both governmental units. 
§ 22-100.2, Ya.Code Ann., 1950; the individual boards 
would then cease to exist, § 22-100.11, Ya.Code Ann., 1950. 
Alternatively, the two boards might remain in existence and 
meet jointly to choose a division superintendent, § 22-34, 
Ya.Code Ann., 1950. There is provision as well for the 
establishment of jointly owned schools, § 22-7, Ya.Code 
Ann., 1950. When a city contracts with a county for the 
provision of school services, moreover, there is specific 
provision that the county board shall include representa­
tives of the city, § 22-99, Ya.Code Ann., 1950. Therefore, 
once it became a city, there is no doubt that Emporia 
succeeded to the state-law powers and duties of actively 
administering public schools for its residents under one 
of these statutory schemes. It has not, however, until 
recently sought to exercise that power. Only after the June 
order did the city move to assume the powers that it had, 
by contract, delegated to the county, plaintiffs’ exhibit 12.

Under federal practice, an injunction may not issue 
against and bind all the world. The persons whose con­
duct is governable by court order are defined by rule:

Every order granting an injunction # # is binding
only upon the parties to the action, their officers, 
agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and upon 
those persons in active concert or participation with 
them who receive actual notice of the order by per­

Memorandum Opinion of District Court



301a

sonal service or otherwise. Fed. Rules Civ.Proc., Rule
65(d), 28 U.S.C.

This rule fixes the scope of valid orders, and terms in a 
decree exceeding the rule are of no effect, Swetland v. 
Curry, 188 F.2d 841 (6th Cir. 1951); Alemite Mfg. Co. v. 
Staff, 42 F.2d 832 (2d Cir. 1930); Baltz v. The Fair, 178 
F.Supp. 691 (N.D. 111. 1959); Chisolm v. Caines, 147 F.Supp. 
188 (E.D.S.C. 1954). In general, only those acting in con­
cert with, or aiding or abetting, a party can be held in con­
tempt for violating a court order. One whose interest is 
independent of that of a party and who is not availed of 
as a mere device for circumventing a decree is not subject 
to such sanctions, United Pharmacal Corp. v. United States, 
306 F.2d 515, 97 A.L.R.2d 485 (1st Cir. 1962). The law 
exposes to summary punishment only those who have 
already had their rights adjudicated in court. Consistent 
with these limitations, a court will only order a public 
official to perform or refrain from certain acts which are 
within the powers conferred upon him by law, Bell v. School 
Board of Powhatan County, 321 F.2d 494 (4th Cir. 1963), 
and will deny relief when those parties before it are not 
fully empowered, under state law, to take the action re­
quested, Thaxton v. Yaughan, 321 F.2d 474 (4th Cir. 1963).

Under these precedents one might conclude that, be­
cause the city officials were not parties to any of the pro­
ceedings in this case prior to the filing of the supple­
mental complaint, they are therefore not bound by decrees 
in that litigation. But a line of cases involving public 
officers has also evolved holding that a decree may bind one 
who succeeds to the powers exercised by the officer who was 
a party to the original suit. In Regal Knitwear Co. v. N. L. 
R. B., 324 U.S. 9, 65 S.Ct. 478, 89 L.Ed. 661 (1945), the 
Supreme Court recognized that a decree might bind “suc­
cessors” to a private litigant, at least if  they came within

Memorandum Opinion of District Court



302a

the usual “privity” doctrines. Lucy v. Adams, 224 F.Supp. 
79 (N.D.Ala.1963), held that the successor to a state uni­
versity dean of admissions was bound by a decree against 
his predecessor so long as he had notice of the injunction. 
In Lankford v. Gelston, 364 F.2d 197, 205 n. 9 (4th Cir. 
1966), an injunction against a police official or his successor 
was expressly endorsed. The injunction of June 25, 1969, 
as mentioned above, issued against the county officials or 
their successors. No one contests that the city officers had 
notice of the decree. The Emporia officials in a very real 
sense appear now to have succeeded, under state law, to 
the part of the county officers’ powers and thus are amen­
able to the decree.

It is irrelevant that the city officials hold positions that 
differ in name from those of the original parties. Substi­
tution in analogous situations has been effectuated under 
Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. Rule 25(d) 28 U.S.C., when the rele­
vant functions have been moved from one office to another, 
Fleming v. Mohawk Wrecking & Lumber Co., 331 U.S. 111, 
67 S.Ct. 1129, 91 L.Ed. 1375 (1947); Toshio Joji v. Clark, 
11 F.R.D. 253 (N.D.Cal.1951) ; Porter v. American Dis­
tilling Co., 71 F.Supp. 483 (S.D.N.Y. 1947), cf. Skolniek v. 
Parsons, 397 F,2d 523 (7th Cir. 1968).

The city might have moved for substitution under Fed. 
Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 25(d), but its failure to do so is quite 
excusable. The county officials were under contract to 
operate the schools, and the question of the validity of that 
instrument was not raised. Greensville County officials 
were in possession of the schools whereas the city board 
was by all indications asserting no control. The county 
board, when ordered to take certain steps in the exercise of 
its power over the public school pupils of the city and the 
county, did not protest its lack of power. It may yet possess 
power over both city and county residents, at least for the 
term of the contract. But the city’s actions subsequent to

Memorandum Opinion of District Court



303a

the pairing decree, and in particular the pending suit to 
declare the contract void, cast great doubt on the county’s 
authority under state law. To all appearances the city 
board, but for and subject to the decree of this Court 
ordering non-interference, now has the power under state 
law to administer schools for the city residents. Certainly 
it must have such power, even if the contract is valid, com­
mencing July 1, 1971.

As a successor in interest to a party to the original 
decree, it would seem that the city school board now has 
sufficient standing under Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., Rule 60(b), 
28 U.S.C., to move to amend the outstanding decree. Those 
cases holding such relief to be unavailable to nonparties 
concern chiefly the applications of persons who did not 
have an interest in the judgment identical to that of the 
original party, Mobay Chemical Co. v. Hudson Foam 
Plastics Corp., 277 F.Supp. 413 (S.D.N.Y. 1967); United 
States v. 140.80 Acres of Land, 32 F.R.D. 11 (E.D.La, 
1963); United States v. International Boxing Club, 178 
F.Supp. 469 (S.D.N.Y.1959). The present standing of the 
city board members is still problematical because the valid­
ity of the contract has not been finally adjudicated. But 
it is clear that they will enjoy the relevant powers at least 
in the 1971-1972 school year, and sooner if they succeed in 
their litigation; this puts them in a position to move to 
modify the decree.

The Court therefore must proceed to the merits of the 
city’s plan, treating the school board’s application, as dis­
cussed above, as a motion under Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., Rule 
60(b), 28 U.S.C.

The county board has provided data on the composition 
of the student body of each school as currently operated, 
broken down by race and by place of residence. The tables 
below are based upon that information:

Memorandum Opinion of District Court



304a

Memorandum Opinion of District Court

Overall System, September 1, 1969 
Students by race and residence:

White Negro Total % White % Negro
County: 728 1888 2616 27.8% 72.2%
City: 543 580 1123 48.3% 51.7%
Total 1282 2477 3759 34.1% 65.9 % J

The establishment of separate systems would plainly cause 
a substantial shift in the racial balance The two schools 
in the city, formerly all-white schools, would have about a 
50-50 racial makeup, while the formerly all-Negro schools 
located in the county which, under the city’s plan, would 
constitute the county system, would overall have about 
three Negro students to each white As mentioned before, 
the city anticipates as well that a number of students would 
return to city system from private schools. These may be 
assumed to be white, and such returnees would accentuate 
the shift in proportions.

The city contemplates placing grades one through six 
in the Emporia Elementary School building. Such a school 
would have 314 Negro students and 270 white; 46.2% white 
and 53.8% Negro. A city high school incorporating grades 
seven through twelve would have 252 Negro students and 
271 white; this would make for a ratio of 51.8% white to 
48.2% Negro pupils. 1

1 Figures secured from Greensville County school system; total 
students include 11 white and 9 Negro, who apparently reside out­
side both county and city.



305a

The impact of separation in the county would likewise 
be substantial, The distribution of county residents, by 
grade and race, is as follows:

Memorandum Opinion of District Court

White Negro
Grades 1-3 167—26.3% 468—73.7%
Grades 4-5 142—31.1% 314—68.9%
Grade 6 57—23.5% 185—-76.5%
Grades 7-9 192—27.5% 506—72.5%
Grades 10-12 161—30.6% 365—69.4%

These figures should be compared with the current per­
centages reported by the county, given in a table above. 
At each level the proportion of white pupils falls by about 
four to seven percent; at the high school level the drop is 
much sharper still.

The motives of the city officials are, of course, mixed. 
Ever since Emporia became a city consideration has been 
given to the establishment of a separate city system. A  
second choice was some form of joint operating arrange­
ment with the county, but this the county would not assent 
to. Only when served with an “ultimatum” in March of 
1968, to the effect that city students would be denied access 
to county schools unless the city and county came to some 
agreement, was the contract of April 10, 1968, entered into. 
Not until June of 1969 was the city advised by counsel that 
the contract was, in all probability, void under state law. 
The city then took steps to have the contract declared void 
and in any event to terminate it as soon as possible.

Emporia’s position, reduced to its utmost simplicity, was 
to the effect that the city leaders had come to the conclusion 
that the county officials, and in particular the board of su­
pervisors, lacked the inclination to make the court-ordered 
unitary plan work. The city’s evidence was to the effect that 
increased transportation expenditures would have to be



306a

made under the existing plan, and other additional costs 
would have to be incurred in order to preserve quality in 
the unitary system. The city’s evidence, uncontradicted, 
was to the effect that the board of supervisors, in their 
opinion, would not be willing to provide the necessary funds.

While it is unfortunate that the county chose to take no 
position on the instant issue, the Court recognizes the city’s 
evidence in this regard to be conclusions; and without in 
any way impugning the sincerity of the respective witnesses’ 
conclusions, this Court is not willing to accept these conclu­
sions as factual simply because they stand uncontradicted. 
Assuming arguendo, however, that the conclusions afore­
mentioned are indeed valid, then it would appear that the 
Court ought to be extremely cautious before permitting any 
steps to be taken which would make the successful opera­
tion of the unitary plan even more unlikely.

The Court does find as a fact that the desire of the city 
leaders, coupled with their obvious leadership ability, is and 
will be an important facet in the successful operation of any 
court-ordered plan.

Dr. Tracey, a professor of education at Columbia Uni­
versity, felt that the county budget had not even been in­
creased sufficiently to keep up with inflation in the 1969-1970 
year, and that it seemed that certain cutbacks had been 
made in educational programs, mainly to pay for increased 
transportation costs. In Dr. Tracey’s opinion the city’s 
projected budget, including higher salaries for teachers, a 
lower pupil-teacher ratio, kindergarten, ungraded primary 
schooling, added health services, and vocational education, 
will provide a substantially superior school system. He 
stated that the smaller city system would not allow a high 
school of optimum size, however. Moreover, the division of 
the existing system would cut off county pupils from ex­
posure to a somewhat more urban society. In his opinion as 
an educator, given community support for the programs he

Memorandum Opinion of District Court



307a

envisioned, it would be more desirable to apply them 
throughout the existing system than in the city alone.

While the city has represented to the Court that in the 
operation of any separate school system they would not 
seek to hire members of the teaching staff now teaching 
in the county schools, the Court does find as a fact that 
many of the system’s school teachers live within the geo­
graphical boundaries of the city of Emporia. Any separate 
school system would undoubtedly have some effect on the 
teaching staffs of the present system.

Dr. Tracey testified that his studies concerning a possible 
separate system were conducted on the understanding that 
it was not the intent of the city people to “ resegregate” 
or avoid integration. The Court finds that, in a sense, race 
was a factor in the city’s decision to secede. This Court 
is satisfied that the city, if permitted, will operate its own 
system on a unitary basis. But this does not exclude the 
possibility that the act of division itself might have fore­
seeable consequences that this Court ought not to permit. 
Mr. Lankford, chairman of the city school board, stated:

Bace, of course, affected the operation of the schools 
by the county, and I again say, I do not think, or we 
felt that the county was not capable of putting the 
monies in and the effort and the leadership into a 
system that would effectively make a unitary system 
work * * *, Tr.Dec. 18, at 28.

Mr. Lankford stated as well that city officials wanted a 
system which would attract residents of Emporia and “hold 
the people in. public school education, rather than drive 
them into a private school * * Tr.Dec. 18, at 28.

Under Monroe v. Board of Commissioners, 391 U.S. 450, 
88 S.Ct. 1700, 20 L.Ed.2d 733 (1968), and under prin­
ciples derived from Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S.

Memorandum Opinion of District Court



308a

483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954), federal courts cannot 
permit delay or modification in plans for the dismantling 
of dual school systems for the purpose of making the public 
system more palatable to some residents, in the hopes that 
their flight to private schools might be abated. The inevi­
table consequence of the withdrawal of the city from the 
existing system would be a substantial increase in the pro­
portion of whites in the schools attended by city residents, 
and a concomitant decrease in the county schools. The 
county officials, according to testimony which they have 
permitted to stand unrebutted, do not embrace the court- 
ordered unitary plan with enthusiasm. I f  secession occurs 
now, some 1,888 Negro county residents must look to this 
system alone for their education, while it may be antici­
pated that the proportion of whites in county schools may 
drop as those who can register in private academies. This 
Court is most concerned about the possible adverse impact 
of secession on the effort, under Court direction, to provide 
a unitary system to the entire class of plaintiffs. This is 
not to say that the division of existing school administra­
tion areas, while under desegregation decree, is impermis­
sible. But this Court must withhold approval “ if it cannot 
be shown that such a plan will further rather than delay 
conversion to a unitary, nonracial, nondiscriminatory 
school system,” Monroe v. Board of Commissioners, supra, 
391 U.S. 459, 88 S.Ct. 1705. As a court of equity charged 
with the duty of continuing jurisdiction to the end that 
there is achieved a successful dismantling of a legally im­
posed dual system, this Court cannot approve the proposed 
change.

This Court’s conclusion is buttressed by that of the dis­
trict court in Burleson v. County Board of Election Com­
missioners, 308 F.Supp. 352 (E.D.Ark., Jan. 22, 1970). 
There, a section of a school district geographically separate 
from the main portion of the district and populated princi­

Memorandum Opinion of District Court



309a

pally by whites was enjoined from seceding while desegre­
gation was in progress. The Court so ruled not principally 
because the section’s withdrawal was unconstitutionally 
motivated, although the Court did find that the possibility 
of a lower Negro population in the schools was “a powerful 
selling point,” Burleson v. County Board of Election Com­
missioners, supra, 308 F.Supp. 357. Rather, it held that 
separation was barred where the impact on the remaining 
students’ right to attend fully integrated schools would be 
substantial, both due to the loss of financial support and 
the loss of a substantial proportion of white students. This 
is such a case.

I f  Emporia desires to operate a quality school system 
for city students, it may still be able to do so if it presents 
a plan not having such an impact upon the rest of the area 
now under order. The contractual arrangement is ended, 
or soon will be. Emporia may be able to arrive at a system 
of joint schools, within Virginia law, giving the city more 
control over the education its pupils receive. Perhaps, too, 
a separate system might be devised which does not so 
prejudice the prospects for unitary schools for county as 
well as city residents. This Court is not without the power 
to modify the outstanding decree, for good cause shown, 
if its prospective application seems inequitable.

Memorandum Opinion of District Court



310a

[filed March 2, 1970]

For the reasons assigned in the memorandum of the 
Court this day filed, and deeming it proper so to do, it is 
A djudged and Obdeked :

1, That the motion of the defendants, council of the 
City of Emporia and the members thereof, and the School 
Board of the City of Emporia and the members thereof, 
to dissolve the Court’s injunction heretofore entered on 
August 8, 1969, be, and the same is hereby, denied, and 
deeming it proper so to do it is further A djudged, Obdesed 
and D eceeed that said order of August 8, 1969, shall re­
main in full force and effect until further order of this 
Court.

2. That the motion of the defendant School Board of 
the City of Emporia to modify the decree of this Court 
entered on June 25, 1969, as modified on July 30, 1969, 
be, and the same is hereby, denied.

Let the Clerk send copies of this order to all counsel of 
record.

Order o f District Court

March 2, 1970.

/ s /  R obebt R. M ebhige, Jb. 
United States District Judge



311a

United States Court o f Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

No. 14552

P ecola A nnette W right, et al., appellees

v.

Council op the City op E mporia and the Members 
Thereof, and School B oard op the City op E mporia 
and the Members T hereof, appellants

Appeal from  the United States District Court for the 
Eastern District o f Virginia, at Richmond

R obert R. Merhige, J r., District Judge

Argued October 8,1970— Decided March 23,1971

Before H aynsworth, Chief Judge, B oreman, B ryan, 
W inter, and Craven, Circuit Judges sitting en 
bane*
John F . K a y , Jr., and D. D ortch  W a rrin er  (TVar- 

riner, O utten , Slagle & B a rr e tt ; and M ays, V alentine, 
D a ven p ort & M oore  on brief) for Appellants, and S. 
W . T u cker  ( H en ry  L . M arsh, I I I ,  and H ill, T u cker  
& M arsh ; and Jack G reenberg, Jam es M . N abrit, I I I ,  
and N orm an Chachkin  on brief) for Appellees.

CRAVEN, C ircuit J u d ge: In  this case and two 
others now under submission en banc we must deter­
mine the extent o f the power o f state government to

* Judge Sobeloff did not participate. Judge Butzner disqualified 
himself because he participated as a district judge in an earlier 
stage of this case.

Opinions ©I Court of Appeals



312a

redesign the geographic boundaries o f school dis­
tricts.1 Ordinarily, it would seem to be plenary but 
in school districts with a history o f racial segregation 
enforced through state action, close scrutiny is required 
to assure there has not been gerrymandering for the 
purpose o f perpetuating invidious discrimination.

Each of these cases involve a county school district 
in which there is a substantial majority o f black students 
out of which was carved a new school district comprised 
of a city or a city plus an area surrounding the city. In 
each case, the resident students of the new city unit are 
approximately 50 percent black and 50 percent white. 
In each case, the district court enjoined the establish­
ment o f the new school district. In this case, we reverse.

I
I f  legislation creating a new school district produces 

a shift in the racial balance which is great enough to 
support an inference that the purpose o f the legisla­
tion is to perpetuate segregation, and the district 
judge draws the inference, the enactment falls under 
the Fourteenth Amendment and the establishment of 
such a new school district must be enjoined. See 
Gom illion  v. L ig h tfoo t, 364 U.S. 399 (1960). Cf. 
H an ey  v. C ounty B oard  o f  E ducation  o f  S evier  
C ounty, 410 F. 2d 920 (8th Car. 1969) ; B u rleson  v. 
C om ity B oard  o f  E lection  Com m issioners o f  J efferson  
C ounty, 308 F . Supp. 352 (E.D. Ark.) a ff’d —  F. 2d — , 
No. 20228 (8th Oir. Nov. 18, 1970). But where the 
shift is merely a modification o f the racial ratio rather 
than effective resegregation the problem becomes more 
difficult.

Opinions of Court of Appeals

1 The other two cases are United States v. Scotia,nd Neck City 
Board of Education, — F. 2d —, Nos. 14929 and 14930 (4th 
Cir. —, 1971) and Turner v. Littleton-Lake Gaston School Dis­
trict, — F. 2d —, No. 14990 (4th Cir. 1971).



313a

The creation of new school districts may be desir­
able and/or necessary to promote the legitimate state 
interest o f providing quality education for the state’s 
children. The refusal to allow the creation of any new 
school districts where there is any change in the racial 
makeup of the school districts could seriously impair 
the state’s ability to achieve this goal. At the same 
time, the history o f school integration is replete with 
numerous examples o f actions by state officials to im­
pede the mandate o f Brown  v. Board o f Education, 
349 IT.S, 294 (1955) (Brown I I ) .  There is serious 
danger that the creation of new school districts may 
prove to be yet another method to obstruct the transi­
tion from racially separated school systems to school 
systems in which no child is denied the right to attend 
a school on the basis of race. Determining into which 
of these two categories a particular ease fits requires a 
careful analysis of the facts o f each case to discern the 
dominant purpose o f boundary realignment. I f  the cre­
ation o f a new school district is designed to further 
the aim of providing quality education and is attended 
secondarily by a modification o f the racial balance, 
short o f resegregation, the federal courts should not 
interfere. I f, however, the primary purpose for creat­
ing a new school district is to retain as much of sepa­
ration o f the races as possible, the state has violated 
its affirmative constitutional duty to end state sup­
ported school segregation. The test is much easier to 
state than it is to apply.

Opinions of Court of Appeals

I I

Emporia became a city of the so-called second class 
on July 31, 1967, pursuant to a statutory procedure 
established at least as early as 1892. See 3 Va. Code 
§ 15.1-978 to -998 (1950) ; Acts of the Assembly 1891- 
92, ch. 595. Prior to that time it was an incorporated



314a

town and as such was part o f Greensville County. A t 
the time city status was attained Greensville County 
was operating public schools under a freedom o f 
choice plan approved by the district court, and G reen  
v. C ounty  School B oard  o f  N ew  K e n t  C ounty, 391 
U.S. 430 (1968), invalidating freedom of choice unless 
it “ worked,”  could not have been anticipated by Em­
poria, and indeed, was not envisioned by this court. 
B ow m an  v. C ou n ty  School B oard  o f  Charles C ity  
C ounty, 382 E. 2d 326 (4th Cir. 1967). The record does 
not suggest that Emporia chose to become a city in 
order to prevent or diminish integration. Instead, the 
motivation appears to have been an unfair allocation 
o f tax revenues by county officials.

One o f the duties imposed on Emporia by the V ir­
ginia statutes as a city o f the second class was to 
establish a school board to supervise the public educa­
tion o f the city’s children. Under the Virginia statutes, 
Emporia had the option o f operating its own school 
system or to work out one o f a number o f alternatives 
under which its children would continue to attend 
school jointly with the county children. Emporia con­
sidered operating a separate school system but decided 
it would not be practical to do so immediately at the 
time o f its independence. There was an effort to work 
out some form o f joint operation with the Greensville 
County schools in which decision making power would 
be shared. The county refused. Emporia finally signed 
a contract with the county on April 10, 1968, under 
which the city school children would attend schools 
operated by the Greensville County School Board in 
exchange for a percentage o f the school system’s oper­
ating cost. Emporia agreed to this form of operation 
only when given an ultimatum by the county in March 
1968 that it would stop educating the city children 
mid-term unless some agreement was reached.

Opinions of Court of Appeals



315a

At the same time that the county was engaged in its 
controversy with Emporia about the means o f  educat­
ing the city children, the county was also engaged in 
a controversy over the elimination o f racial segrega­
tion in the county schools. Until sometime in 1968, 
Greensville County operated under a freedom of 
choice plan. At that time the plaintiffs in this action 
successfully urged upon the district court that the 
freedom of choice plan did not operate to disestablish 
the previously existing dual school system and thus 
was inadequate under G reen  v. C ounty School B oard  
o f  N ew  K e n t  C ounty, supra. A fter considering various 
alternatives, the district court, in an order dated June 
25, 1969, paired all the schools in Greensville County.

Also in June 1969, Emporia was notified for the 
first time by counsel that in all probability its contract 
with the county for the education o f the city children 
was void under state law. The city then filed an action 
in the state courts to have the contract declared void 
and notified the county that it was ending its con­
tractual relationship forthwith. Parents o f city school 
children were notified that their children would at­
tend a city school system. On August 1, 1969, the 
plaintiffs filed a supplemental complaint seeking an 
injunction against the City Council and the City 
School Board to prevent the establishment o f a sepa­
rate school district. A  preliminary injunction against 
the operation o f a separate system was issued on Au­
gust 8, 1969. The temporary injunction was made 
permanent on March 3,1969.2

The Emporia city unit would not be a white island 
in an otherwise heavily black county. In fact, even in

2 The decision of the court below is reported as W rig h t v. 
C ou n ty  S c h o o l B o a rd  o f  G reensville C oun ty, 309 F. Supp. 671 
(E.D. Va. 1970).

Opinions of Court of Appeals



316a

Emporia there will be a majority ot black students 
in the public schools, 52 percent black to 48 percent 
white. Under the plan presented by Emporia to the 
district court, all of the students living within the city 
boundaries would attend a single high school and a 
single grade school. At the high school there would 
be a slight white majority, 48 percent black and 52 
percent white, while in the grade school there would 
be a slight black majority, 54 percent black and 46 
percent white. The city limits o f Emporia provide a 
natural geographic boundary for a school district.

The student population of the Greensville County 
School District without the separation o f the city unit 
is 66 percent black and 34 percent white. The stu­
dents remaining in the geographic jurisdiction o f the 
county unit after the separation would be 72 percent 
black and 28 percent white. Thus, the separation o f 
the Emporia students would create a shift o f the 
racial balance in the remaining county unit o f 6 per­
cent. Regardless o f whether the city students attend 
a separate school system, there will be a substantial 
majority o f black students in the county system.

Not only does the effect o f the separation not de­
monstrate that the primary purpose o f the separation 
was to perpetuate segregation, but there is strong evi­
dence to the contrary. Indeed, the district court found 
that Emporia officials had other purposes in mind. 
Emporia hired Dr. Neil H. Tracey, a professor of 
education at the University o f North Carolina, to 
evaluate the plan adopted by the district court for 
Greensville County and compare it with Emporia’s 
proposal for its own school system. Dr. Tracey said 
his studies were made with the understanding that it 
was not the intent of the city to resegregate. He testi­
fied that the plan adopted for Greensville County 
would require additional expenditures for transpor­

Opinions of Court of Appeals



317a

tation and that an examination of the proposed budget 
for the Greensville County Schools indicated that not 
only would the additional expenditures not be forth­
coming but that the budget increase over the previous 
year would not even keep up with increased costs due 
to inflation. Emporia on the other hand proposed in­
creased revenues to increase the quality o f education 
for its students and in Dr. Tracey’s opinion the pro­
posed Emporia system would be educationally su­
perior to the Greensville system. Emporia proposed 
lower student teacher ratios, increased per pupil ex­
penditures, health services, adult education, and the 
addition o f  a kindergarten program.

In  sum, Emporia’s position, referred to by the dis­
trict court as “ uncontradicted,”  was that effective 
integration o f the schools in the whole county would 
require increased expenditures in order to preserve 
education quality, that the county officials were un­
willing to provide the necessary funds, and that 
therefore the city would accept the burden of educat­
ing the city children. In this context, it is important 
to note the unusual nature of the organization o f city 
and county governments in Virginia. Cities and coun­
ties are completely independent, both politically and 
geographically. See City o f Richmond v. County 
Board, 199 Va. 679, 684 (1958) ; M urray v. Roanoke, 
192 Va. 321, 324 (1951). When Emporia was a town, 
it was politically part o f the county and the people of 
Emporia were able to eleet representatives to the 
county board o f supervisors. When Emporia became a 
city, it was completely separated from the county and 
no longer has any representation on the county board. 
In  order for Emporia to achieve an increase in school 
expenditures for city schools it would have to obtain 
the approval of the Greensville County Board of

Opinions of Court of Appeals



318a

Supervisors whose constituents do not include city 
residents.

Determining what is desirable or necessary in terms 
of funding for quality education is the responsibility 
o f state and school district officers and is not for our 
determination. The question that the federal courts 
must decide is, rather, what is the primary purpose 
o f the proposed action o f the state officials. See D evel­
opm ents in  the L aw — E qual P ro tec tion , 82 Harv. L. 
Rev. 1085 (1969). Is the primary purpose a benign 
one or is the claimed benign purpose merely a cover- 
up for racial discrimination? The district court must, 
o f course, consider evidence about the need for and 
efficacy of the proposed action to determine the good 
faith o f the state officials’ claim of benign purpose. In 
this case, the court did so and found explicitly that 
“ [t]he city clearly contemplates a superior quality 
education program. It is anticipated that the cost will 
be such as to require higher tax payments by city resi­
dents.”  309 F. Supp. at 674. Notably, there was no 
finding o f discriminatory purpose, and instead the 
court noted its satisfaction that the city would, i f  per­
mitted, operate its own system on a unitary basis.

W e think the district court’s injunction against the 
operation o f a separate school district for the City of 
Emporia was improvidently entered and unnecessarily 
sacrifices legitimate and benign educational improve­
ment. In his commendable concern to prevent resegre­
gation—under whatever guise— the district judge 
momentarily overlooked, we think, his broad discretion 
in approving equitable remedies and the practical flex­
ibility recommended by B row n I I  in reconciling 
public and private needs. W e reverse the judgment o f 
the district court and remand with instructions to dis­
solve the injunction.

Opinions of Court of Appeals



319a

Because of the possibility that Emporia might insti­
tute a plan for transferring students into the city sys­
tem from the county system resulting in resegregation,3 
or that the hiring o f teachers to serve the Emporia 
school system might result in segregated faculties, the 
district court is directed to retain jurisdiction.

Opinions of Court of Appeals

R eversed  and remanded.

SOBELOFF, S en ior C ircuit Judge, with whom 
W IN TE R , C ircu it Judge, joins, dissenting and con­
curring specially: In respect to Nos. 14929 and 14930, 
U nited S tates  v. Scotland N eck  C ity  B oard  o f  E duca­
tion, ~  P. 2d — (4t.h Cir. 1971), and No. 14990, 
T urn er  v. L ittleton -L a ke Gaston School D istrict, — 
F. 2d —  (4th Cir. 1971), the two eases in which I  par­
ticipated, I  dissent from the court’s reversal in S cot­
land N eck  and concur in its affirmance in L ittleton - 
L ake Gaston. I would affirm the District Court in each 
o f those cases. I  join in Judge W inter’s opinion, and 
since he has treated the facts analytically and in 
detail, I find it unnecessary to repeat them except as 
required in the course o f discussion. Not having partic­
ipated in No. 14552, W rig h t  v. Council o f  C ity  o f  
E m p w ia , —  F. 2d —  (4th Cir. 1971), I  do not vote 
on that appeal, although the views set forth below 
necessarily reflect on that decision as well, since the 
principles enunciated by the majority in that ease are 
held to govern the legal issue common to all three of 
these school eases.

3 A notice of August 31, 1969, invited applications from the 
county. Subsequently, the city assured the district court it 
would not entertain such applications without court permission.



320a

Opinions of Court of Appeals

I

The history o f the evasive tactics pursued by white 
communities to avoid the mandate o f B row n  v. B oard  
o f  Edtication, 349 U.S. 294 (1955), is well documented. 
These have ranged from outright nullification by 
means o f massive resistance laws 1 and open and oc­
casionally violent defiance,1 2 through discretionary 
pupil assignment laws3 and public tuition grants in 
support of private segregated schools,4 to token in­
tegration plans parading under the banner “ freedom-

1 S ee D u ck w o rth  v. Jam es, 267 F. 2d 224 (4th Cir. 1959); 
B u sh  v. O rleans P a r ish  S ch o o l B d ., 188 F. Supp. 916 (E.D. La. 
1960), aff'd  p er curiam , 365 U.S. 569 (1961); B u sh  v. 
O rleans P a rish  S ch o o l B d ., 187 F. Supp. 42 (E.D. La. 1960), 
a ff'd  P e r  curiam , 365 U.S. 569 (1961); A a ro n  v. M c K in le y , 173 
F. Supp. 944 (E.D. Ark. 1959); a ff'd  sub n om ., F a u b u s  v. 
A a ron . 361 U.S. 197 (1959): Jam es x. A lm o n d , 170 F. Supp. 
331 (E.D. Va. 1959), app. dis., 359 IJ.S. 1006 (1959); H a rrison  
v. D a y , 200 Va. 439, 106 S.E. 2d 636 (1959) (decided the same 
day as Jam es v. A lm o n d , su p ra ).

2 S ee C ooper v. A a ron , 358 U.S. 1 (1958); A rm stro n g  x. 
B o a rd  o f  E d u ca tio n  o f  C ity  o f  B irm in g h a m , A la ., 323 F. 2d 
333 (5th Cir. 1963), cert, den ied  sub nom ., G ibson  x. H a rris, 376 
U.S. 908 (1964): B rew er x. H o x ie  S ch o o l D istr ic t  N o. JJ>, 238 
F. 2d 91 (8th Cir. 1956) ; H olm es x. D anner, 191 F. Supp. 394 
(M.D. Ga. 1961), stay denied, 364 U.S. 939 (1961).

3 See N orthcross v. B o a rd  o f  E d u ca tio n  o f  C ity  o f  M em phis, 
302 F. 2d 818 (6th Cir. 1962) ; M a nn in g  v. B o a rd  o f  P u b lic  
In stru ction . 277 F. 2d 370 (5th Cir. 1960); G ibson  v. B oa rd  
o f P u b lic  In stru ction , D a d e C o u n ty , F la ., 272 F. 2d 763 (5th 
Cir. 1959) ; Orleans P a rish  S ch o o l B o a rd  v. B u sh , 242 F. 2d 
156 (5th Cir. 1957); U n ited  S ta tes C om m ission on C iv il  
R ig h ts . C iv i l  R ig h ts  U S A — P u b lic  S ch o o ls, S o u th ern  States, 
2-17 (1962).

4 S ee Griffin v. C ou n ty  S ch o o l B o a rd  o f  P rin ce  E d w a rd  
C oun ty. 377 U.S. 218 (1964) ; H a ll x. S t . H elen a  P a r ish  S ch o o l  
B oard. 197 F. Supp. 649 (E.D. La. 1961, a ff'd , 368 U.S. 515 
(1962).



321a

of-choice.” 5 One by one these devices have been con­
demned by the Supreme Court :

[T ]he constitutional rights o f children not to be 
discriminated against in school admission on 
grounds o f race or color declared by this Court 
in the Brow n  case can neither be nullified 
openly and directly by state legislators or state 
executive or judicial officers, nor nullified in­
directly by them through evasive schemes for 
segregation whether attempted “ ingeniously 
or ingenuously.”  Cooper v. Aaron. 358 U.S. 1, 
17 (1958).

Neither these agencies, nor school boards, nor local 
communities have the right to put roadblocks in the 
way o f effective integration. The Court has declared 
that “ the obligation of every school district is to ter­
minate dual school systems at once and to operate now 
and hereafter only unitary schools.” Alexander v. 
Holm es County Board o f Education , 396 U.S. 19, 20 
(1969).

Today, I  fear, we behold the emergence o f a further 
stratagem—the carving out o f new school districts in 
order to achieve racial compositions more acceptable 
to the white community. The majority frankly ac­
knowledges the “ serious danger that the creation o f 
new school districts may prove to be yet another 
method to obstruct the transition from racially sepa­
rate school systems to school systems in which no 
child is denied the right to attend a school on the basis 
of race,” Emporia, supra at 4. However, the court 
fashions a new and entirely inappropriate doctrine to 
avert that danger. It directs District Courts to weigh 
and assess the various purposes that may have moved

5 S e e  G reen  v. C ou n ty  S ch o o l B o a rd , 391 U.S. 430 (1968); 
R a n ey  v. B o a rd  o f  E d u ca tio n , 391 U.S. 443 (1968); M onroe v. 
B oa rd  o f  Com m issioners, 391 U.S. 450 (1968).

Opinions of Court of Appeals



322a

Opinions of Court of Appeals

the proponents o f the new school district, with the ob­
jective o f determining which purpose is dominant. 
District Courts are told to intercede on ly  if  they find 
that racial considerations were the prim ary  purpose in 
the creation o f the new school units.8 I  find no pre­
cedent for this test and it is neither broad enough nor 
rigorous enough to fulfill the Constitution’s mandate. 
Moreover, it cannot succeed in attaining even its in­
tended reach, since resistant white enclaves will 
quickly learn how to structure a proper record—shrill 
with protestations o f good intent, all consideration of 
racial factors muted beyond the range o f the court’s 
ears.6 7

I f  challenged state action has a racially discrimina­
tory effect, it violates the equal protection clause un­
less a compelling and overriding legitimate state in­
terest is demonstrated. This test is more easily ap­
plied, more fully implements the prohibition o f the 
Fourteenth Amendment and has already gained firm 
root in the law. The Supreme Court has explicitly ap­
plied this test to state criminal statutes which on their 
face establish racial classifications. In 1964, striking 
down a Florida criminal statute which forbade a man 
and woman o f different races to “ habitually live in 
and occupy in the nighttime the same room,”  the 
Court stated in an opinion written by Justice W hite:

6 The majority’s test as stated, in Emporia, supra, is as fol­
lows: “Is the primary purpose a l»nign one or is the claimed 
benign purpose merely a cover-up for racial discrimination ?”

7 The impracticability of the majority’s test is highlighted by
the dilemma in Which the District Judges found themselves 
in Scotland Neck! “In ascertaining such a subjective factor as 
motivation and intent, it is of course impossible for this Court 
to accui ately state what proportion each of the above reasons 
played in the minds of the proponents of the bill, the legisla­
tors or the voters of Scotland Neck * * *. United States v. 
Halifax County Board of Education, 314 F Supp 65 72 
(E.D.N.C, 1970).” ’



323a

Normally, the widest discretion is allowed the 
legislative judgment * * *; and normally that 
judgment is given the benefit o f  every conceiv­
able circumstance which might suffice to char­
acterize the classification as reasonable rather 
than arbitrary and invidious. [Citations] But 
we deal here with a classification based upon 
the race o f the participants, which must be 
viewed in light o f the historical fact that the 
central purpose o f the Fourteenth Amendment 
was to eliminate racial discrimination emanat­
ing from official sources in the States. This 
strong policy renders racial classifications “ con­
stitutionally suspect,” B olling  v. Sharpe, 347 
U.S. 497, 499; and subject to the most “ rigid 
scrutiny,”  K orem atsu  v. U nited States, 323 
U.S. 214, 216; and “ in most circumstances irrel­
evant”  to any constitutionally acceptable legis­
lative purpose, H irabayashi v. U nited States, 
320 U.S. 810,100.

M cLaughlin  v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 191-92 (1964). 
Thus, the Court held that the proper test to apply in 
that case was “ whether there clearly appears in the 
relevant materials some overrid ing  statutory purpose 
requiring  the proscription of the specified conduct 
when engaged in by a white and a Negro, but not 
otherwise.” Id . at 192 [emphasis added]. To the fur­
ther argument that the Florida statute should be up­
held because ancillary to and serving the same pur­
pose as an anti-miscegenation statute presumed valid 
for the purpose o f the case, the Court replied:

There is involved here an exercise o f the state 
police power which trenches upon the constitu­
tionally protected freedom from invidious offi­
cial discrimination based on race. Such a law, 
even though enacted pursuant to a valid state 
interest, bears a heavy burden o f justification, 
as we have said, and will be upheld only if  it is

Opinions of Court of Appeals



324a

necessary, and not merely rationally related, to 
the accomplishment o f a permissible state pol­
icy. Id . at 196 [emphasis added].

There were no dissents in the M cLaughlin  case. The 
two concurring opinions serve to underline and but­
tress the test applied by the majority. Justice Harlan, 
joining the Court’s opinion, added:

I  agree with the Court * * * that necessity, 
not mere reasonable relationship, is the proper 
test, see ante, pp. 195-196. N A A C P  v. Alabam a, 
377 U.S. 288, 307-308; Saia  v. N ew  Y ork , 334 
U.S, 558, 562; M artin  v. S truthers, 319 U.S. 
141, 147; Thornhill v. Alabam a, 310 U.S. 88, 96; 
S chneider  v. S tate, 308 U.S. 147, 161, 162, 164; 
see M cG ow an  v. M aryland, 366 U.S. 420, 466- 
467 (Frankfurter, J., concurring).

The fact that these cases arose under the 
principles o f the First Amendment does not 
make them inapplicable here. Principles o f free 
speech are carried to the States only through 
the Fourteenth Amendment. The necessity test 
which developed to protect free speech against 
state infringement should be equally applicable 
in a case involving state racial discrimination— 
prohibition o f which lies at the very heart o f the 
Fourteenth Amendment.

Id. at 197. Justice Stewart, speaking for himself and 
Justice Douglas, expressed the view that the major­
ity’s test did not go far enough as applied to a crim i­
nal statute because no overriding state purpose could  
exist.

* * * I  cannot conceive o f a valid legislative 
purpose under our Constitution for a state law 
which makes the color of a person’s skin the 
test o f whether his conduct is a criminal o f­
fense. * * * I  think it is simply not possible 
for a state law to be valid under our Constitu­
tion which makes the criminality of an act de­
pend upon the race o f the actor.

Opinions of Court of Appeals



325a

Id . at 198.
Three years later the Court dealt with a Virginia 

statute prohibiting interracial marriages. The statute 
was determined to be unconstitutional under the M c­
Laughlin  test, expressed here in these terms:

A t the very least, the Equal Protection Clause 
demands that racial classifications, especially 
suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the 
“ most rigid scrutiny,”  K orem atsu  v. U nited  
States, 323 U.S. 214, 216 (1944), and, if  they 
are ev er  to be upheld, they must be shown to be 
necessary  to the accomplishment o f some per­
missible state objective, independent o f the ra­
cial discrimination which it was the object of 
the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate. * * * 

There is patently no legitimate overriding  
purpose independent o f invidious racial dis­
crimination which justifies this classification.

L ovin g  v. V irginia, 388 U.S. 1, 11 (1967) [emphasis 
added]. Justice Stewart filed a separate concurring 
opinion—reiterating his belief that there could never 
be a sufficiently compelling state purpose to justify a 
criminal statute based on racial classification. Id . 
at 13.

Although M cLcmghlin  and L oving  dealt with crim­
inal statutes and express racial classifications, numer­
ous lower court decisions apply the strict “ compelling”  
or “ overriding”  purpose standard in the civil area as 
well as the criminal, and extend its application to 
facially neutral state action which, in reality, is 
racially discriminatory in its effect. The definitive case 
is Jackson  v. Godwin, 400 F. 2d 529 (5th Cir. 1968), in 
which Judge Tuttle meticulously and exhaustively 
examines the lower court cases, including those “ which 
have struck down rules and regulations which on their 
face appear to be non-discriminatory but which in 
practice and effect, i f  not purposeful design, impose a

A22-400— 71— — i

Opinions of Court of Appeals



326a

heavy burden on .Negroes and not on whites, and oper­
ate in a racially discriminatory manner.”  Id . at 538- 
39 [emphasis added]. He concludes his analysis with 
this formulation o f the constitutional standard:

In both the areas of racial classification and 
discrimination and First Amendment freedoms, 
we have pointed out that stringent standards 
are to be applied to governmental restrictions 
in these areas, and rigid scrutiny must be 
brought to bear on the justifications for en­
croachments on such rights. The State must 
strongly show some substantial and controlling 
interest which requires the subordination or 
limitation o f these important constitutional 
rights, and which justifies their infringement, 
[citations]; and in the absence o f such compel­
ling justification the state restrictions are 
impermissible infringements o f these funda­
mental and preferred rights. Id . at 541.

The most recent application o f the “ compelling and 
overriding state interest”  test is to be found in the 
Fifth Circuit’s decision in H aw kins  v. Tow n o f  Shaw, 
F. 2d (5th Cir. 1971). The plaintiffs, Negro resi­
dents o f Shaw, Mississippi, alleged racial discrim­
ination by town officials in the provision o f various 
municipal services. The District Court dismissed the 
complaint, applying a test akin to that used by the 
majority in this case: “ I f  actions o f public officials 
are shown to have rested upon rational considerations, 
irrespective o f race or poverty, they are not within the 
condemnation o f the Fourteenth Amendment, and 
may not be properly condemned upon judicial review.”  
H aw kins v. Tow n o f  Shaw, 303 F. Supp. 1162, 1168 
(N.D. Miss. 1969). The Fifth Circuit reversed, point­
ing to the standard set forth in Jackson  v. Godwin, 
supra, and stating, “ In applying this test, defendants’ 
actions may be justified only i f  they show a compel­

Opinions of Court of Appeals



327a

ling state interest.”  H aw kins  v. Town o f  Shaw, F. 2d 
(5th Cir. 1971) (slip opinion at 3).

In  H aw kins  the Fifth Circuit specifically considered 
the relevance of the defendant’s “ intent,”  or “ pur­
pose”  as the majority in our ease would label it. Con­
ceding that “ the record contains no direct evidence 
aimed at establishing bad faith, ill will or an evil 
motive on the part o f the Town of Shaw and its public 
officials,”  Id . at (slip opinion at 12), the court held: 
“ Having determined that no compelling state interests 
can possibly justify the discriminatory results o f 
Shaw’s administration of municipal services, we 
conclude that a violation of equal protection has 
occurred.”  Id . at (slip opinion at 13) [emphasis in 
original text].

Just as Shaw’s administration o f municipal serv­
ices violates the constitutional guarantee o f equal pro­
tection, so too does the creation o f the new Scotland 
Heck School District.8 The challenged legislation 
carves an enclave, 57% white and 43% black, from a 
previously 22% white and 77% black school system.9 
Ho compelling or overriding state interest justifies the 
new district, and its formation has a racially dis­
criminatory effect by allowing the white residents of 
Scotland Heck to shift their children from a school 
district where they are part of a 22% minority to one 
where they constitute a 57% majority.

The prevailing opinion draws comfort from the fact 
that the new school district, because all children in 
the same grade will attend the same school, will be 
“ integrated throughout.”  I  dare say a 100% white

8 Since even the majority concedes that the Littleton-Lake 
Gaston School District must be enjoined as a racially discrimi­
natory scheme in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, I do 
not discus the facts of that case.

s One percent of the pupils in Halifax County are Indians.

Opinions of Court of Appeals



328a

school district would also be “ integrated throughout.” 
The relevant question is what change in degree o f in­
tegration has been effected by the creation o f the new 
district. Here the change is an increase in the per­
centage o f white pupils from 22% to 57%. The Con­
stitution will no more tolerate measures establishing a 
ratio o f whites to blacks which the whites find m ore 
acceptable than it will measures totally segregating 
whites from blacks. The 35% shift here is no less dis­
criminatory because it is a shift from 22% to 57% 
than i f  it were one from 65% to 100%.10

The majority opinion makes the puzzling conces­
sion that:

I f  the effect o f this act was the continuance 
o f a dual school system in Halifax County or 
the establishment o f a dual system in Scotland 
Neck it would not withstand challenge under 
the equal protection clause, but we have con­
cluded that it does not have that effect.

The situation here is that the Act sets up in Halifax 
County two school systems, one with a 50: 43 white 
to black ratio and the other with a 19: 80 white to 
black ratio, in place of one school system with a 
22:77 white to black ratio. Thus, the Act constructs 
a dual school system in Halifax County by the simple 
expedient o f labeling the two sets o f schools as 
separate districts. The majority does not explain * I,

10 Judge Winter properly emphasizes in his separate opinion 
that the effect of the new school districts must be measured by 
comparing “the racial balance in the preexisting unit with that 
in the new unit sought to be created, and that remaining in the 
preexisting unit after the new unit’s creation.” Focusing, as do
I, on the 35% increase in the white student population of the 
new Scotland Neck School District, he quite correctly notes that 
“ [a] more flagrant example of the creation of a white haven, 
or a more nearly white haven, would be difficult to imagine.”

Opinions of Court of Appeals



329a

why the Act can create  a dual school system in Hali­
fax County if  it could not continue a dual system 
there. Nor do they explain why the Act can establish  
a dual school system in Halifax County if it could not 
establish  one in Scotland Neck. Obviously no explana­
tion is possible and the legislation severing the Scot­
land Neck School District fails to meet the test of the 
equal protection clause.

Opinions of Court of Appeals

I I

Even if  I  accepted the majority’s formulation as 
the proper doctrine to control these cases, which I 
certainly do not, I  think their test is misapplied in 
Scotland N eck . The court accepts at face value the 
defendants’ assertions that local control and increased 
taxation were the dominant objectives to be fulfilled 
by the new district, with the ultimate goal o f provid­
ing quality education to the students o f Scotland 
Neck. The facts plainly are to the contrary and 
demonstrate that, in projecting the new district, 
race was the primary consideration. The District 
Court specifically found that a significant factor in 
the creation o f the new school district was

a desire on the part of the leaders o f Scotland 
Neck to preserve a ratio of black to white 
students in the schools of Scotland Neck that 
would be acceptable to white parents and 
thereby prevent the flight of white students 
to the increasingly popular all-white private 
schools in the area.

U nited States v. H a lifa x  C ounty B oard  o f  Education, 
314 P. Supp. 65, 72 (E.D.N.C. 1970). The defendants 
do not contest this finding.11

11 The defendants assert- instead that the prevention of white 
flight is a legitimate goal. However, the Supreme Court in



330a

W hat starkly exposes the true purpose impelling the 
redistrieting adventure and belies the professions of 
lofty objectives is the transfer plan initially adopted 
by the Scotland Neck City Board o f Education.32 
Under that plan, parents residing within Halifax 
County but outside the newly fashioned district could 
place their children in the Scotland Neck Schools by 
paying a fee ranging from $100 to $125. The use of 
transfer plans o f this nature as devices to thwart the 
mandate o f B row n  v. B oard  o f  E ducation , supra, has not 
been uncommon,1" and the majority here has no diffi­
culty in recognizing that the Scotland Neck transfer 
plan was a contrivance to perpetuate segregation. 
Initial applications for transfer under the plan were 
received from 350 white and only 10 black children 
in Halifax County. The net result would have been a 
racial mix of 74% white, 26% black in the Scotland 
Neck School District, contrasting with 82% black, 
17% white, 1% Indian, in the rest o f Halifax County. * 12 13

Monroe v. Board of Commissioners, 391 U.S. 450, 459 (1968), 
has directly addressed itself to this argument, and rejected it 
out of hand: “We are frankly told in the Brief that without 
the transfer option it is apprehended that white students will 
flee the school system altogether. But it should go without say­
ing that the vitality of these constitutional principles cannot be 
allowed to yield simply because of disagreement with them.” 
Brown II, at 300.
See also Brunson v. Board of Trustees of School District No. 1 
of Clarendon County, 429 F. 2d 820 (4th Cir. 1970); Anthony v. 
Marshal County Board of Education, 409 F. 2d 1287 (5th Cir. 
1969). The defendants’ candid admission serves only to empha­
size the dominant racial considerations behind the whole scheme.

12 Although the School Board later abandoned the transfer 
plan, its initial adoption nevertheless reflects the Board’s in­
tentions.

13 See Monroe v. Board of Commissioners, 391 U.S. 450 
(1968); Gross v. Board of Education, 373 U.S. 683 (1963).

Opinions of Court of Appeals



331a

Thus the transfer plan would have operated directly 
contrary to the obligation to desegregate the schools 
o f Halifax County and distinctly evidences the design 
o f the Scotland Neck School Board to bring into 
existence a white haven.

Curiously enough, despite its condemnation of the 
transfer plan, the court declares the plan not relevant 
in assessing the intent o f the North Carolina legisla­
ture in enacting Chapter 31, since there is no evidence 
in the record to show that the legislative body knew 
a transfer plan would be effected. This reasoning is 
fallacious for legislators are not so naive and, in any 
event, are chargeable with the same motivations as the 
local communities concerned. The relevant inquiry 
under the majority’s test is into the purposes for 
which state action was taken and, as Judge Winter 
observes in his separate opinion, when dealing with 
statutes designed to affect local communities, one must 
look to the localities to determine the purposes 
prompting the legislation.14

The size o f the new school district in Scotland Neck 
is also a crucial factor to be taken into account in 
judging the genuineness o f the alleged goal of quality 
education. The Report o f the Governor’s Study Com­
mission on the Public School System of North Caro­
lina favors the consolidation  o f school districts to 
increase efficiency in the operations o f the publie schools,

Opinions of Court of Appeals

14 Moreover, as the District Court noted, local newspapers, 
including the Raleigh News and Observer, suggested that racial 
considerations, and not a concern for better educational, motivated 
the legislation. For example, on February 14, 1969, a month 
before Chapter 31 was enacted, the Raleigh Netvs and Observer 
commented editorially that the bill provided for an “educa­
tional island” dominated by whites and on February 22, 1969, 
suggested that if the bill passed, it would encourage other 
school districts to resort to similar legislation.



332a

and suggests 9,000-10,000 as a desirable pupil popu­
lation, with 3,500 to 4,000 as a minimum. Scotland 
Neck’s minuscule new school district for 695 pupils— 
one fifth o f the suggested minimum—is an anomaly 
that runs directly counter to the recommendation of 
the Study Commission that schools be merged into 
larger administrative units. Moreover, if  quality edu­
cation were the true objective and Scotland Neck 
residents were deeply concerned with increasing rev­
enue to improve their schools, one might have expected 
that in-depth consideration would have been given to 
the financial and educational implications o f the new 
district. However, the District Court found that:

[tjhere were no studies made prior to the intro­
duction o f the bill with respect to the educa­
tional advantages of the new district, and 
there was no actual planning as to how the 
supplement would be spent although some 
people assumed it would be spent on teachers’ 
supplements.

U nited S tates v. H a lifa x  C ounty B oard  o f  E ducation, 
314 F. Supp. at 74.

Also highly relevant in assessing the dominant pur­
pose is the timing o f the legislation splintering the 
Halifax County school system. During the 1967-68 
school year the Halifax County School District main­
tained racially identifiable schools, and only 46 of 
the 875 students attending the Scotland Neck school 
were black. The next school year, under prodding by 
the Department of Justice, the Halifax County Board 
of Education assigned to the Scotland Neck school 
the entire seventh and eighth grades from an adjacent 
all-black county school, and promised to desegregate 
completely by 1969-70. A  survey by the North Caro­
lina State Department of Education in December 1968 
recommended an integration plan which provided that

Opinions of Court of Appeals



333a

690 black and 325 white students should attend the 
Scotland Neck school. It was only then that the bill 
which later became Chapter 31 was introduced in the 
General Assembly o f North Carolina in 1969. The 
fact that the Scotland Neck School District was not 
formed until the prospects for a unitary school system 
in Halifax County became imminent leads unmistak­
ably to the conclusion that race was the dominant 
consideration and that the goal was to achieve a de­
gree o f racial apartheid more congenial to the white 
community.15

I l l

The court’s incongruous holdings in these two 
cases, reversing the District Court in Scotland N eck, 
while affirming in the twin case, L ittleton -L a ke Gaston, 
cannot be reconciled. The uncontested statistics pre­
sented in Scotland N eck  speak even louder in terms 
o f race than the comparable figures for L ittleton -L ake  
Gaston. The white community in Scotland Neck has 
sliced out a predominantly white school system from 
an overwhelmingly black school district. By contrast, 
the white community in Littleton-Lake Gaston was 
more restrained, gerrymandering a 46% white, 54% 
black, school unit from a county school system that 
wTas 27% white, 67% black,16 The majority attempts 
to escape the inevitable implications of these statistics 
by attributing to the North Carolina legislature, which 
severed the Scotland Neck School District on March 3, 
1969, benevolent motivation and obliviousness to the

15 It is also noteworthy that while the Scotland Neck commu­
nity claims that it had not been accorded a fair allocation of 
county school funds over a period of years, this apparently 
became intolerable only when the Department of Justice 
exerted pressure for immediate action to effectuate integration.

16 Six percent of the pupils in Warren County are Indian.

Opinions of Court of Appeals



334a

racial objectives o f the local white community. Yet 
the majority unhesitatingly finds a discriminatory 
purpose in the similar excision o f the new Littleton- 
Lake Gaston School District by the same legislators 
only one month later, on April 11, 1969. The earlier 
statute no less than the later provided a refuge for  
white students and maximized preservation o f segre­
gated schools. The record and the District Court’s 
opinion in Scotland N eck , no less than the record 
and the opinion in L ittle t on -L ake Gaston, are replete 
with evidence o f discriminatory motivations. On their 
facts the two eases are as alike as two peas in a pod.

Judge Bryan soundly recognizes the discordance in 
the two holdings o f the majority. The resolution he 
proposes is to reverse in both cases. This would in­
deed cure the inconformity, but at the cost o f com­
pounding the error. The correction called for lies in 
the opposite direction—affirmance in both cases.

IY

I f, as the majority directs, federal courts in this 
circuit are to speculate about the interplay and the 
relative influence o f  divers motives in the molding of 
separate school districts out o f an existing district, 
they will be trapped in a quagmire o f litigation. The 
doctrine formulated by the court is ill-conceived, and 
surely will impede and frustrate prospects for success­
ful desegregation. Whites in counties heavily popu­
lated by blacks will be encouraged to set up, under 
one guise or another, independent school districts in 
areas that are or can be made predominantly white.

It is simply no answer to a charge o f racial discrim­
ination to say that it is designed to achieve “ quality 
education.”  Where the effect of a new school district 
is to create a sanctuary for white students, for which

Opinions of Court of Appeals



335a

no compelling and overriding justification can be 
offered, the courts should perform their constitutional 
duty and enjoin the plan, notwithstanding professed 
benign objectives.

Racial peace and the good order and stability o f 
our society may depend more than some realize on a 
convincing demonstration by our courts that true 
equality and nothing less is precisely what we mean 
by our proclaimed ideal o f  “ the equal protection o f 
the laws.” The palpable evasions portrayed in this 
series o f cases should be firmly condemned and en­
joined. Such examples of racial inequities do not go 
unheeded by the adversely affected group. They are 
noted and resented. The humiliations inflicted by such 
cynical maneuvers feed the fires o f  hostility and ag­
gravate the problem of maintaining peaceful race 
relations in the land. In this connection it is timely 
to bear in mind the admonition o f the elder Mr. Jus­
tice Harlan, dissenting in P lessy  v. F ergu son , 163 U.S. 
537, 560 (1896) :

The destinies o f the two races, in this country, 
are indissolubly linked together, and the in­
terests o f both require that the common gov­
ernment of all shall not permit the seeds o f 
race hate to be planted under the sanction of 
law.

I  dissent from the reversal in Nos. 14929 and 14930, 
U nited  S tates  v. Scotland N eck  C ity  B oard  o f  E duca­
tion , —  F. 2d — (4th Oir. 1971), and concur in the 
affirmance in No. 14990, T u rn er  v. L ittleton -L ake Gas­
ton  School D istrict, —  F. 2d —  (4th Cir. 1971).

Opinions of Court of Appeals

A LB E R T Y. BRYAN , C ircuit Judge, dissenting: 
For me there is here no warrant for a decision dif­
ferent from the Scotland N eck  and E m poria  deter­



336a

minations. This conclusion derives from the majority’s 
exposition o f the fact parallel o f these cases with the 
circumstances o f L ittle t on-Lake Gaston. The identi­
calness irresistibly argues a like disposition— reversal 
o f the judgment on appeal.

Opinions of Court of Appeals

W IN T E R , C ircuit Judge, dissenting and concurring 
specially: I  dissent from the m ajority’s opinion and 
conclusion in No. 14,552, W righ t v. Council o f  C ity  
o f  E m poria , —  F. 2d —  (4 Cir. 1971), and in Nos. 
14929 and 14930, U nited  S tates v. Scotland N eck  C ity  
B oard  o f  E ducation , —  F. 2d — (4 Cir. 1971). I  con­
cur in the judgment in No. 14990, T urn er  v. L ittleton - 
L a ke Gaston School D istr ict, —  F. 2d —  (4 Cir. 1971), 
and I  can accept much o f what is said in the major­
ity’s opinion. There is, however, a broader basis of 
decision than that employed by the majority on which 
I  would prefer to rest.

Because the majority makes the decision in E m poria  
the basis o f decision in Scotland N eck  and distin­
guishes them from L ittleton -L a ke Gaston, I  will dis­
cuss the cases in that order. I  would conclude that the 
cases are indistinguishable, as does my Brother Bryan, 
although I  would also conclude that each was decided 
correctly by the district court and that in each we 
should enjoin the carving out o f a new school district 
because it is simply another device to blunt and to 
escape the ultimate reach o f B row n  v. B oard  o f  E du­
cation, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), and subsequent cases.

I
While the legal problem presented by these cases is 

a novel one in this circuit, I  think the applicable legal 
standard is found in the opinion o f the Supreme Court 
in Green v. County School Board o f New Kent



337a

County, 391 U.S. 430 (1968). In  rejecting a “ freedom 
of choice”  plan under the circumstances presented 
there, the Court articulated the duties of both a school 
board and a district court in implementing the man­
date o f B row n :

The burden on a school board today is to come 
forward with a plan that promises realistically 
to work, and prom ises realistically to w ork now. 

* * * * *
Where the court finds the board to be acting in 
good faith and the proposed plan to have real 
prospects for dismantling the state-imposed 
dual system “ at the earliest possible d a te ”  then 
the plan may be said to provide effective relief. 
O f course, the availability to the board of other 
more promising courses o f action may indicate 
a lack o f good faith; and, at the least it places 
a heavy harden upon the hoard to explain its 
p referen ce  fo r  an apparently less effective  
m ethod, [emphasis added.]

391 U.S. at 439.
In each o f the instant cases, following a protracted 

period o f  litigation, a plan designed finally to institute 
a unitary school system was jeopardized by the at­
tempt o f a portion o f the existing school district to 
break away and establish its own schools. I  think 
the advocates o f such a subdivision bear the “heavy 
burden” o f persuasion referred to in G reen  because, 
as in that case, the dominant feature o f these cases is 
the last-minute proposal o f an alternative to an exist­
ing and workable integration plan. Factually, these 
cases are not significantly dissimilar from Green. 
Each act o f secession would necessarily require the 
submission and approval of new integration plans for 
the newly-created districts, and thus each is tanta­
mount to the proposal of a new plan. And while the 
act giving rise to the alternative approach here is

Opinions of Court of Appeals



338a

state legislation rather than a proposal o f the local 
school board, the fact remains that the moving force 
in the passage o f each piece o f legislation1 was of 
local origin. Few who have had legislative experience 
would deny that local legislation is enacted as a result 
o f local desire and pressure. It  is, therefore, to local 
activities that one must look to determine legislative 
intent.

Application o f the “ heavy burden” standard of 
G reen  to the instant cases is also supported by con­
siderations o f policy. In  an area in which historically 
there was a dual system o f schools and at best grudg­
ing compliance with B row n , we cannot be too careful 
to search out and to quash devices, artifices and tech­
niques furthered to avoid and to postpone full com­
pliance with B row n. W e must be assiduous in detect­
ing racial bias masking under the guise o f quality 
education or any other benevolent purpose. Especially 
must we be alert to ferret out the establishment o f a 
white haven, or a relatively white haven, in an area 
in which the transition from racially identifiable 
schools to a unitary system has proceeded slowly and 
largely unwillingly, where its purpose is at least in 
part to be a white haven. Once a unitary system has 
been established and accepted, greater latitude in re­
definition o f school districts may then be permitted.

Given the application o f the G reen  rationale, the 
remaining task in each o f these cases is to discern 
whether the proposed subdivision will have negative 
effects on the integration process in each area, and, 
if so, whether its advocates have borne the “ heavy 
burden”  of persuasion imposed by G reen.

1 In Emporia, the implementing legislation for the separation 
already existed; however, the local people alone made the 
choice to exercise the option which the statute provided.

Opinions of Court of Appeals



339a

Opinions of Court of Appeals 

I I

EMPORIA SCHOOL DISTRICT

The City o f Emporia, located within the borders 
o f Greensville County, Virginia, became a city of 
the second class on July 31, 1967, pursuant to a sta­
tutory procedure dating back to the 19th Century. 
While it had the state-created right at that time to 
establish its own school district, it chose instead to 
remain within the Greensville County system until 
June, 1969. It is significant that earlier in this same 
month, more than a year after it had invalidated a 
“ freedom of choice”  plan for the Greensville County 
system, the district court ordered into effect a “pair­
ing”  plan for  the county as a further step toward 
full compliance with B row n  and its progeny.

The record amply supports the conclusion that the 
creation o f a new school district for  the City o f Em­
poria would, in terms of implementing the principles 
o f B row n, be “ less effective”  than the existing “pair­
ing”  plan for the county system. In  the first place, 
the delay involved in establishing new plans for the 
two.new districts cannot be minimized in light o f the 
Supreme Court’s statement in G reen  that appropriate 
and effective steps must be taken at once. See also 
G arter  v. W e st Feliciana  School B oard , 396 U.S. 290 
(1970); A lexan d er  v. H olm es C ounty B d. o f  E d 396 
U.S. 19 (1969). Secondly, as the district court found, 
the separation o f Emporia from  Greensville County 
would have a substantial impact on the racial balance 
both within the county and within the city. Within the 
entire county, there are 3,759 students in a racial ratio 
o f 34.1% white and 65.9% black. Within the city 
there are 1,123 students, 48.3% o f whom are white and 
51.7% are black. I f  the city^is permitted to establish



340a

its own school system, the racial ratio in the remainder 
o f the county will change to 27.8% white and 72.2% 
black.2 To me the crucial element in this shift is not 
that the 48.3%-51.7% white to black ratio in the town 
does not constitute the town a white island in an 
otherwise heavily black county and that a shift of 6% 
in the percentage o f black students remaining in the 
county is not unacceptably large. Whenever a school 
area in which racial separation has been a historical 
fact is subdivided, one must compare the racial bal­
ance in the preexisting unit with that in the new unit 
sought to be created, and that remaining in the pre­
existing unit after the new unit’s creation. A  substan­
tial shift in any comparable balances should be cause 
for deep concern. In  this case the white racial per­
centage in the new unit will increase from 27.8% to 
48.3%. To allow- the creation o f a substantially whiter 
haven in the midst o f a small and heavily black area is 
a step backward in the integration process.

And finally, the subdivision o f the Greensville 
County school district is “ less effective”  in terms of 
the principles of B row n  because o f the adverse psy­
chological effects on the black students in the county 
which will be occasioned by the secession o f a large 
portion o f the more affluent white population from 
the county schools. I f  the establishment o f an Emporia 
school district is not enjoined, the black students in

2 As part of the establishment of the new system, the Emporia 
school board proposed a transfer plan whereby Emporia will 
accept county students upon payment of tuition. The record 
does not contain any projection of the number of county stu­
dents who would avail themselves of the plan although in argu­
ment counsel was candid in stating that only white parents 
would be financially able to exercise the option. The transfer 
plan was quickly abandoned when it became apparent that it 
might not earn the approval of the district court.

Opinions of Court of Appeals



341a

the county will watch as nearly one-half the total 
number o f white students in the county abandon the 
county schools for a substantially whiter system. It 
should not be forgotten that psychological factors, and 
their resultant effects on educational achievement, 
were a major consideration in the Supreme Court’s 
opinion in B row n.

In my mind, the arguments advanced by the resi­
dents o f Emporia in support of their secession from 
the county school system do not sustain the “ heavy 
burden”  imposed by G reen. The essence o f their posi­
tion is that, by establishing their own schools over 
which they will exercise the controlling influence, they 
will be able to improve the quality o f their children’s 
education. They point to a town commitment to such 
a goal and, in particular, to a plan to increase educa­
tional revenues through increased local taxation. They 
also indicate that they presently have very little voice 
in the management of the county school system. A l­
though, as the district court found, the existence of 
these motives is not to be doubted, I  find them insuffi­
cient in considering the totality of the circumstances.

While the district court found that educational con­
siderations were a motive for the decision to separate, 
it also found that “ race was a factor in the city ’s deci­
sion to secede.”  Considering the timing o f the decision 
in relation to the ordering into effect o f the “ pairing”  
plan, as well as the initial proposal o f a transfer plan, 
this finding is unassailable. G reen  indicates that the 
absence of good faith is an important consideration in 
determining whether to accept a less effective alterna­
tive to an existing plan of integration. The lack of 
good faith is obvious here.

When the educational values which the residents of 
Emporia hope to achieve are studied, it appears that 
the secession will have many deleterious consequences.

Opinions of Court of Appeals

422-400—71---- 5



342a

As found by the district court, the high school in the 
city will be o f less than optimum size. County pupils 
will be cut off from  exposure to a more urban society. 
The remaining county system will be deprived of 
leadership ability formerly derived from the city. It 
will suffer from loss of the city’s financial support, 
and it may lose teachers who reside in the city. To me, 
these consequences, coupled with the existence of the 
racial motive, more than offset the arguments ad­
vanced by the residents o f Emporia. The separation, 
with its negative effects on the implementation o f the 
principles of B row n , should be enjoined.

I l l

SCOTLAND NECK SCHOOL DISTRICT

As the m ajority’s opinion recites, the history of 
resistance to school desegregation in the Halifax 
County school system parallels the history o f the at­
tempts on the part o f the residents o f Scotland Neck 
to obtain a separate school district. The significant 
fact is that in spite of otherwise apparently cogent 
arguments to justify a separate system, the separate 
system goal was not realized until, as the result of 
pressure from the United States Department of Jus­
tice, the Halifax County Board agreed to transfer the 
seventh and eighth grade black students from the pre­
viously all-black Brawley School, outside the city 
limits o f Scotland Neck, to the Scotland Neck School, 
previously all-white. Chapter 31 followed thereafter 
as soon as the North Carolina legislature met. It is 
significant also that the Halifax County Board re­
neged on its agreement with the Department o f Jus­
tice shortly before the enactment of Chapter 31.

The same negative effects on achieving integration 
which are present in the Emporia secession are present

Opinions of Court of Appeals



343a

here. Although the City o f Scotland Neck has already 
submitted a plan for its school district, delay will 
result in devising such a plan for the remaining por­
tion o f Halifax County. The racial balance figures 
show that the existing county system has 8,196 (77% ) 
black students, 2,357 (22% ) white students, and 102 
(1 % ) Indian students. W ithin the city system, there 
would be 399 (57.4%) white and 296 (42.6%) black, 
while the remaining county system would be comprised 
o f 7,900 (80% ) black, 1,958 (19% ) white and 102 
(1 % ) Indian. The difference between the percentage 
o f white students within the existing system and the 
newly-created one for Scotland Neck is thus 35%. A  
more flagrant example o f the creation o f a white 
haven, or a more nearly white haven, would be diffi­
cult to imagine. The psychological effects on the black 
students cannot be overestimated.

The arguments advanced on behalf o f Scotland 
Neck are likewise insufficient to sustain the burden 
imposed by G reen. Even if  it is conceded that one 
purpose for the separation was the local desire to 
improve the educational quality of the Scotland Neck 
schools, the record supports the conclusion o f the 
district court that race was a major factor. I f  the 
basic purpose o f Chapter 31 could not be inferred 
from the correlation of events concerning integration 
litigation and the attempt to secede, other faets make 
it transparent. As part o f its initial plan to establish 
a separate system, Scotland Neck proposed to accept 
transfer students from outside the corporate limits 
o f the city on a tuition basis. Under this transfer 
system, the racial balance in the Scotland Neck area 
was 749 (74% ) white to 262 (26% ) black, and the 
racial balance in the rest o f Halifax County became 
7,934 (82% ) black, 1,608 (17% ) white, and 102

Opinions of Court of Appeals



344a

(1 % ) Indian.3 This proposal has not yet been finally 
abandoned. In  oral argument before us, counsel would 
not tell us forthrightly that this would not be done, 
but rather, equivocally indicated that the proposal 
would be revived if  we, or the district court, could 
be persuaded to approve it. I  cannot so neatly com­
partmentalize Chapter 31 and the transfer plan as 
does the majority, and conclude that one has no rele­
vance to the other. To me, what was proposed, and 
still may be attempted, by those who provided the 
motivation for the enactment of Chapter 31 is persua­
sive evidence o f what Chapter 31 was intended to 
accomplish.

In  terms of educational values, the separation of 
Scotland Neck has serious adverse effects. Because 
Scotland Neck, within its corporate boundaries, lacked 
sufficient facilities even to operate a system to ac­
commodate the only 695 pupils to be educated, it 
purchased a junior high school from Halifax County. 
This school is located outside o f the corporate bound­
aries o f Scotland Neck. The sale deprives the students 
o f Halifax County, outside o f Scotland Neck o f a 
school facility. The record contains abundant, per­
suasive evidence that the best educational policy and 
the nearly unanimous opinion o f professional eduea-

3 There is apparent error in the computations made by the 
district court in this regard. The district court found that the 
net effect of the transfer plan would be to add 350 white stu­
dents to the city system. Added to the resident white students 
(399), the total is 749, not 759 as indicated in the opinion of 
the district court. The district court’s figure of 262 black 
students in the city under the transfer plan (a net loss of 34) 
appears correct. But when these two totals are subtracted from 
the figures given for the existing county system in 1968-1969 
(2,357 white, 8,196 black and 102 Indian), the effects on the 
county are as shown above.

Opinions of Court of Appeals



345a

tors runs contrary to the creation o f a small, separate 
school district for Scotland Neck. A  study by the 
State o f North Carolina indicates that a minimally 
acceptable district has 3,500-4,000 pupils.

On the facts I  cannot find the citizens o f Scotland 
Neck motivated by the benign purpose o f providing 
additional funds for their schools; patently they seek 
to blunt the mandate o f B row n. Even i f  additional 
financial support for schools was a substantial motive, 
the short answer is that a community should not 
be permitted to buy its way out o f B row n. Here 
again, the “ heavy burden” imposed by G reen  has not 
been sustained.

IV

LITTLETON-LAKE GASTON SCHOOL DISTRICT

The majority’s opinion correctly and adequately 
discloses the legislative response to court-ordered 
compliance with B row n  and its progeny. That re­
sponse was the creation o f the Warrenton City School 
District and the Littleon-Lake Gaston School District. 
The overall effect of the creation o f the Littleton- 
Lake Gaston district, the proposed tuition transfer 
plan, and the creation of the Warrenton City district 
(an act enjoined by the district court and not before 
us) would be to permit more than 4 out o f  5 white 
students to escape the heavily black schools o f Warren 
County. Even without the transfer plan, the racial 
balance in the Littleton-Lake Gaston district would 
show nearly 20% more white students than in the 
existing Warren County unit. To permit the subdi­
vision would be to condone a devastating blow to the 
progress of school integration in this area.

Despite the assertion o f the benign motives of 
remedying long-standing financial inequities and the

Opinions of Court of Appeals



346a

preservation o f local schools, I agree with the ma­
jority  that the “ primary” purpose and effect of the 
legislation creating the Littleton-Lake Gaston school 
district was to carve out a refuge for white students 
and to preserve to the fullest possible extent segre­
gated schools. Aside from questions o f motivation, 
the record shows that the new district was established 
to accommodate a total o f only 659 students, despite 
state policy to the contrary and expert opinion that 
its small size rendered it educationally not feasible. 
And, as the majority indicates, there is no evidence 
that the residents o f the Littleton area have been 
deprived of their proportionate voice in the operation 
o f the schools o f Warren County. In short, there is a 
complete absence o f persuasive argument in favor 
o f the creation of the new district.

W hile I  agree that the injunction should stand, 
I  disagree that injunctive relief should be granted 
only when racial motivation was the “ primary” motive 
for the creation o f the new district. Consistent with 
G reen , we should adopt the test urged by the govern­
ment in Scotland N eck , i.e., to view the results of the 
severance as i f  it were a part of a desegregation plan 
for the original system— that is, to determine whether 
the establishment o f a new district would, in some 
way, have an adverse impact on the desegregation of 
the overall system. B y this test the injunction would 
stand in the L ittleton -L a ke Gaston  case, as well as 
in each of the two other cases, because in each of the 
three there is at least some racial motivation for the 
separation and some not insubstantial alteration of 
racial ratios, some inherent delay in achieving an 
immediate unitary system in all of the component 
parts, and an absence of compelling justification Cor 
what is sought to be accomplished.

Opinions of Court of Appeals



347a

BUTZNER, C ircuit J u d ge: This appeal involves 
the same case in which I  decided questions concern­
ing the school hoard’s compliance with the Fourteenth 
Amendment when I  served on the district court.* 
While the details differ, the same basic issues re- 
main—-the validity of measures taken to disestablish a 
dual school system, to create a unitary system, and to 
assign pupils and faculty to achieve these ends.

Title 28 U.S.C. §47 provides: “ No judge shall 
hear or determine an appeal from the decision 
of a case or issue tried by him.”

Recently, Judge Craven carefully examined this 
statute and the cases and authorities which cast light 
on it. He concluded that he should not sit on an appeal 
of a case in which he had participated as a district 
judge when the ultimate questions were the same: 
“ what may a school board be compelled to do to dis­
mantle a dual system and implement a unitary one, 
or how much school board action is enough?”  See 
Swann v. Charlotte-Meeklenburg Bd. of Ed., 431 F. 
2d 135, (4th Cir. 1970). Following the sound precedent 
established by Judge Craven, I  believe that I  must 
disqualify myself from participating in this appeal.

* See Wright v. County School Bd. of Greensville County, 
Va., 252 F. Supp. 378 (E.D. Va. 1966). Two other opinions 
were not published.

Opinions of Court of Appeals



348a

Jedgment

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

F oe th e  F ourth  C ircuit  

No. 14,552

P ecola A nn ette  W eigh t , et al.,
Appellees,

v.

Council  oe th e  C ity  of E mporia and  th e  members thereof, 
and S chool B oard of th e  C ity  of E mpoeia and the

M E M B E R S  T H E R E O F ,

Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 
Eastern District of Virginia.

This cause came on to be heard on the record from the 
United States District Court for the Eastern District of 
Virginia, and was argued by counsel.

On consideration whereof, It is now here ordered and ad­
judged by this Court the the judgment of the said District 
Court appealed from, in this cause, be, and the same is 
hereby, reversed; and the case is remanded to the United 
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, 
at Richmond, with instructions to dissolve the injunction; 
and because of the possibility that Emporia might institute 
a plan for transferring students into the city system from 
the county system resulting in resegregation, or that the 
hiring of teachers to serve the Emporia school system 
might result in segregated faculties, the district court is 
directed to retain jurisdiction.

/ s /  S am uel  W. P h illips

Clerk



MEILEN PRESS INC. —  N. Y. C. 219