NAACP v. Harrison Record Nos. 5096, 5097

    Records Nos. 5096,5097
In th e

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia 
at Richmond

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE 
ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, ETC.

v.
A. S. HARRISON, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF VIRGINIA, ET AL.

N.A.A.C.P. LEGAL DEFENSE AND 
EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.

v.
A. S. HARRISON, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF VIRGINIA, ET AL.

FROM T H E  CIRCUIT COURT OF T H E  CITY OF RICHM OND

RULE 5:12—BRIEFS.

§5. N umber of Copies. Twenty-five copies of each brief shall 
be filed with the clerk of the Court, and at least three copies 
mailed or delivered to opposing counsel on or before the day 
on which the brief is filed.
§6. S ize and T ype. Briefs shall be nine inches in length and 
six inches in width, so as to conform in dimensions to the 
printed record, and shall be printed in type not less in size, as 
to height and width, than the type in which the record is 
printed. The record number of the case and the names and 
addresses of counsel submitting the brief shall be printed on 
the front cover.

HOWARD G. TURNER, Clerk.

C ourt opens a t 9 :3 0  a. m .; Adjourns at 1 :00 p. m.



NOTICE TO COUNSEL
This case probably will be called at the session of court to 

be held. p . ]  ~ '
You will be advised later more definitely as to the date. 
Print names of counsel on front cover of briefs.

Howard G. Turner, Clerk

Record No. 5096

VIRGINIA:

In the Supreme Court of Appeals held at the Supreme 
Court of Appeals Building in the City of Richmond on 
Wednesday the 14th day of October, 1959.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT 
OF COLORED PEOPLE, ETC., Appellant,

against

A. S. HARRISON, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
VIRGINIA, ET AL., Appellees.

From the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond

Upon the petition of National Association for the Advance­
ment of Colored People, a corporation, an appeal and super­
sedeas is awarded it from a final order entered by the Cir­
cuit Court of the City of Richmond on the 25th day of Feb­
ruary, 1959, in a certain chancery cause then therein depend­
ing wherein the said petitioner Avas plaintiff and Albertis 
S. Harrison, Jr., Attorney General of Virginia, and others 
were defendants, Chancery Case No. B-2869; upon the pe­
titioner, or some one for it, entering into bond AAnth sufficient 
security before the clerk of the said circuit court in the 
penalty of three hundred dollars, with condition as the Iuav 
directs.



IN THE

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
AT RICHMOND

Record No. 5096

VIRGINIA:

In the Supreme Court of Appeals held at the Supreme 
Court of Appeals Building in the City of Richmond on 
Wednesday the 14th day of October, 1959.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT 
OF COLORED PEOPLE, ETC., Appellant,

against

A. S. HARRISON, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
VIRGINIA, ET AL., Appellees.

From the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond

Upon the petition of National Association for the Advance­
ment of Colored People, a corporation, an appeal and super­
sedeas is awarded it from a final order entered hv the Cir­
cuit Court, of the City of Richmond on the 25th day of Feb­
ruary, 1959, in a certain chancery cause then therein depend­
ing wherein the said petitioner was plaintiff and Albertis 
S. Harrison, Jr., Attorney General of Virginia, and others 
were defendants, Chancery Case No. B-2869; upon the pe­
titioner, or some one for it, entering into bond with sufficient 
security before the clerk of the said circuit court in the 
penalty of three hundred dollars, with condition as the law 
directs.



IN THE

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
AT RICHMOND.

Record No. 5097

VIRGINIA:

In the Supreme Court of Appeals held at the Supreme 
Court of Appeals Building- in the City of Richmond on 
Wednesday the 14th day of October, 1959.

N. A. A. C. P. LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL 
FUND, INC., Appellant,

against

A. S. HARRISON, JR,, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
VIRGINIA, ET AL., Appellees.

From the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond

Upon the petition of N. A. A. C. P. Legal Defense and Edu­
cational Fund, Incorporated, an appeal is awarded it from a 
final order entered by the Circuit Court of the City of Rich­
mond on the 25th day of February, 1959, in a certain chan­
cery cause then therein depending wherein the said petitioner 
was plaintiff and Albertis S. Harrison, Jr., Attorney General 
of Virginia, and others were defendants, Chancery Case 
No. B-2870: upon the petitioner, or some one for it, entering 
into bond with sufficient security before the clerk of the said 
circuit court in the penalty of three hundred dollars, with 
condition as the law directs.



RECORD NO. 5096

Note: The Record in Case No. 5097 commences on page 42.



4

RECORD

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia

Filed in the Clerk’s Office the 20th day of May, 1958. 

Teste:

LUTHER LIBBY, JR., Clerk 
By E. M. EDWARDS, D. C.

IN CHANCERY 
NO. B-2869.

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, 
a corporation, Complainant,

v.

Albertis S. Harrison, Jr., Attorney General of Virginia, Su­
preme Court Building, Richmond, Virginia, T. Gray 
Haddon, Commonwealth’s Attorney for the City of Rich­
mond, Virginia, 3818 Hermitage Road, Richmond, Vir­
ginian, William L. Carleton, Commonwealth’s Attorney 
for the City of Newport News, Virginia, 959 Shore Drive, 
Newport News, Virginia, Linwood B. Tabb, Common­
wealth’s Attorney for the City of Norfolk, Virginia, 1118 
North Shore Road, Norfolk, Virginia, William J. Hassan, 
Commonwealth’s Attorney for the County of Arlington, 
Virginia, 5906 Ninth Road, North Arlington, Virginia, 
Frank N. Watkins, Commonwealth’s Attorney for the 
County of Prince Edward, Virginia, Farmville, Vir­
ginia. Defendants.

BILL OF COMPLAINT.

To the Honorable E. W. Hening, Jr., Judge of said Court:

Complainants respectfully shows the following case:

page 2 }■ 1. This is a suit for a judgment declaratory of
the constniction and interpretation of Chapters 33 

and 36 of the Acts of the General Assembly of Virginia, 
Extra Session 1956, being Sections 54-74, 54-78 and 54-79, 
as amended, and Sections 18-349.31 and 18-349.37, inclusive, 
of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as they may affect the com­
plainant, its affiliates, officers, members, contributors, volun­



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Ya. 5

tary workers, attorneys engaged by it or to whom it may 
contribute monies, or litigants receiving its assistance in 
cases involving racial discrimination, because of the acti­
vities of complainant in the past or the continuance of like 
activities in the future, in the light of complainant’s conten­
tions that enforcement thereof would deny complainant, its 
Virginia State Conference of Branches, its branches, officers, 
members, contributors, voluntary workers, attorneys en­
gaged by it or to whom it may contribute monies, or litigants 
receiving its assistance, their liberty and property without 
due process of law and the equal protection of the laws 
secured by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution 
of the United States.

2. Complainant ’s basic aims and purposes are to secure the 
elimination of all racial barriers which deprive Negro citi­
zens of the privileges and burdens of equal citizenship rights 
in the United States. In its Articles of Incorporation (at­
tached hereto as complainant’s Exhibit No. 1 and made a 
part of this Complaint), its principal objectives are de­
scribed as follows:

* * * voluntarily to promote equality of rights and eradi­
cate caste or race prejudice among the citizens of the United 
S tates; to advance the interest of colored citizens; to secure 
for them impartial suffrage; and to increase their oppor­
tunities for securing justice in the courts, education for their 
children, employment according to their ability and complete 

equality before the law.
page 3 }> “ To ascertain and publish all facts bearing upon 

these subjects and to take any lawful action there­
on ; together with any kind and all things which may lawfully 
be done by a membership corporation organized under the 
laws of the State of New York for the further advancement 
of these objects.”

Complainant has registered with the State Corporation 
Commission and has complied fully with state laws relating 
to foreign corporations which were in force prior to the 
enactments here being contested. By virtue of its activities 
through the 49 years of its existence in its efforts to secure 
equal rights and equal opportunities for colored citizens of 
the United States, complainant has become regarded as a 
chief instrument through which colored citizens of the United 
States and of the State of Virginia may act in their effort 
to remove the burdens and penalties imposed by restrictions 
based upon race and color.

Prior to the enactment of the laws herein complained of,



6

the activities of complainant have been recognized and re­
garded by the public, public officials and the courts in Vir­
ginia as a normal American procedure for the redress of 
grievances.

3. In accord with its charter and national constitution 
(attached hereto as Complainant’s Exhibit No. 2 and made 
a part of this Complaint), complainant has chartered various 
branches in Virginia for the purpose of carrying on the work 
of the organization in Virginia. These branches are in­
dependent unincorporated associations subject only to such 
control by complainant-corporation as is set out in the na­
tional constitution and constitution and by-laws for branches 
(attached hereto as Complainant’s Exhibit No. 3 and made a 
part of this Complaint).

In addition to the various branches, there is a state-wide 
organization of branches known as the Virginia 

page 4 }- State Conference of Branches maintained by the 
branches through which they seek to act in concert 

and pool their strength on issues of state-wide interest. Its 
chief activity is to acquaint the people of the State with the 
facts regarding segregation and discrimination and to inform 
Negroes as to their legal rights and to encourage the asser­
tion of those rights when they are denied. This program is 
carried out through public meetings, speeches, press releases, 
news letters and other media.

4. Complainant, its Virginia State Conference of Branches,
its branches and members, have worked jointly and severally 
in concert to secure the eradication of enforced racial segre­
gation pursuant to governmental authority and the elimina­
tion of all other forms of racial discrimination imposed by 
law. This effort has been pursued in various ways: (1)
by apprising the public of the adverse effects of discrimina­
tion; (2) by seeking to secure the passage of federal and local 
legislation barring racial discrimination in various facets of 
American life and by seeking these results through executive 
action wherever possible; (3) by encouraging Negro citizens 
to assert their constitutional rights and seek redress in the 
courts wherever necessary; (4) by advocating the removal 
of all racial barriers to the full participation in community 
life of Negro citizens; (5) by contributing to the payment of 
fees or expenses incident to the prosecution of litigation in­
volving the constitutionality of racially discriminatory gov­
ernmental action; (6) bv aiding in defraying expenses of 
such litigation from funds raised by public solicitation.

This has been the manner in which complainant has sought 
to give aid in the overall struggle in the United States for

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



a society in which considerations of race and color 
page 5 will have no part and proposes to continue such 

activities in the future. No questions were ever 
raised concerning the legality of complainant’s activities in 
Virginia or elsewhere until the Supreme Court decision on 
May 17, 1954, outlawing segregation in public schools. Since 
that decision, state officials have been seeking to find ways 
and means to avoid its implementation, and have concluded 
that complainant must be destroyed if segregation is to be 
preseryed in this state.

Thus, the General Assembly, at its said special session 
in 1956 which was devoted almost solely to finding wavs 
and means of preserving segregation in the public schools, 
enacted Chapters 33 and 36, specifically intended to bar com­
plainant, its A irginia State Conference, its branches or mem­
bers from assisting others in court tests of the legality of 
governmental action preserving segregation in the state’s 
public school. By this legislation, Negro citizens are in 
effect denied access to the courts in Virginia to seek redress 
against state officials for deprivation of their constitutional 
rights.

5. Defendant Albertis S. Harrison, Jr., is Attorney General 
of Virginia and as such is the chief executive officer of the 
Department of Law of the Commonwealth of Virginia and is 
charged with enforcement of all laws of the Commonwealth 
including the statutes aforesaid.

6. Defendants T. Gray Haddon, William J. Carlton, Tan- 
wood B. Tabb, Jr., William J. Hassan and Frank N. Watkins 
are the Commonwealth’s attorneys for the cities of Richmond, 
Newport News, and Norfolk, and the counties of Arlington 
and Prince Edward, Virginia, respectively, and are each

charged with the enforcement of the laws aforesaid, 
page 6 f- i. Chapter 36 of the Acts of the General As­

sembly of A irginia, Extra Session 1956, being now 
Sections 18-349.31 to 18-349.37, of the Code of Virginia of 
1950, makes it unlawful for any person not having a personal 
or pecuniary right or liability in the proceedings to promise, 
give, offer, receive or solicit any money, personal services, 
‘/ ° r  any other thing of value, or any further assistance, or an 
inducement to any person to commence or to prosecute 
further any original proceeding in any court of this State, or 
before any board or administrative agency which the said 
State, or in any United States Court located within the said 
State against the Commonwealth of Virginia, any department, 
agency oi political subdivision thereof, or any person acting 
as an officer or employee for either or both or any of the 
foregoing; * * *”  (Sec. 1-a), or for any person “ not related

N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 7



8

by blood or marriage or wlio does not occupy a position of 
trust or a position in loco parentis to one who becomes llie 
plaintiff in a suit or action, who has no direct interest in 
the subject matter of the proceeding and whose advice has 
not been sought in accordance with the Virginia canons of 
legal ethics, to advise, counsel or otherwise instigate the 
bringing of a suit or action against the Commonwealth of 
Virginia, any department, agency or political subdivision 
thereof, or any person acting as an officer or employee for 
either or both or any of the foregoing.” (Sec. 1-b). “ Per­
son” is defined to include “ person, firm, partnership, corpo­
ration, organization or association,” and “ direct interest” 
as “ a personal right or a pecuniary right or liability.” (Sec. 
1-c). Doubts have arisen as to the application of the 

provisions of this statute to the activities of corn- 
page 7 plainant, its officers, members, contributors and 

voluntary workers, and attorneys engaged by or 
to whom they may contribute monies, and litigants as herein­
before set forth.

8. Chapter 33 of the Acts of the General Assembly of Vir­
ginia, Extra Session 1956, amended Sections 54-74, 54-78 and 
54-79, of the Code of Virginia of 1950 and defines the ele­
ments and. penalties of unprofessional conduct on the part 
of an attorney and the offenses of “ running” and “ capping.” 
In its original form, Section 54-74 (6) defined “ unprofes­
sional conduct” as including the “ improper solicitation of 
any legal or professional business or employment, either di­
rectly or indirectly.”  Chapter 33 amended this subsection to 
extend this definition to include “ the acceptance of employ­
ment, retainer, compensation or costs from any person, part­
nership, corporation, organization or association with knowl­
edge that such person, partnership, corporation, organiza­
tion or association has violated any provision of Article 7 
of this Chapter * * *” which includes Sections 54-78 and 
54-79. The former, as amended by Chapter 33, now pro­
vides :

“ (1) A ‘runner’ or ‘capper’ is anv person, corporation, 
partnership or association acting in anv manner or in any 
capacity as an agent for an attorney at law within this State 
or for any person, partnership, corporation, organization or 
association which employs, retains or compensates anv at­
torney at law in connection with anv judicial proceeding in 
which such person, partnership, corporation, organization 
or association is not a partv and in which it has no ueouniarv 
right or liability, in the solicitation or procurement of busi­
ness for such attorney at law or for such person, partnership,

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 9

corporation, organization or association in connection with 
any judicial proceedings for which such attorney or such per­
son, partnership, corporation, organization or association is 

employed, retained or compensated * * * 
page 8 }> “ (2) An ‘Agent’ is one who represents another

in dealing with a third person or persons.”

Section 54-79, as amended by Chapter 33, now reads in 
p a r t:

‘‘It shall he unlawful for any person, corporation, part­
nership or association to act as a runner or capper as defined 
by Sec. 54-78 to solicit any business for an attorney at law 
or such person, partnership, corporation, organization or 
association * * * in any public place * * * or upon private 
property of any character whatsoever.”

9. In places wherein defendants have a legal duty to en­
force said statutes, and elsewhere in the Commonwealth, the 
complainant has (a) contributed, and proposes to continue 
to contribute, upon request, the services of attorneys, expert 
and scientific data which illuminate the ravages of racism, 
monies toward counsel fees and the expenses of litigation in 
cases initiated or pending which raise question for decision 
concerning the legality of racially discriminatory conduct 
with respect to the use and availability of public facilities; 
(b) afforded, and proposes to continue to afford, advice and 
counsel to persons requesting the same with respect to mat­
ters involving their civil rights; and (c) informed, and pro­
poses to continue to inform, citizens through public meet­
ings, speeches and other media, as to their civil rights, and to 
encourage the assertion of those rights when denied.

10. On November 29, 1956, complainant instituted in the 
United States District Court for the Eastern District of 
Virginia, Richmond Division, Civil Action No. 2435, against 
tbe defendants herein, seeking a declaratory judgment as 
to, and an injunction restraining tbe enforcement of, certain 
laws enacted at tbe 1956 Extra Session of tbe General As- 
semblv of Virginia, including Chapters 33 and 36, on tbe 
ground that tbe enforcement of said statutes against com­

plainant, its Virginia State Conference, its branch-
page 9  ̂ es, officers, members, contributors or voluntary 

workers, attorneys engaged by it or to whom it 
might contribute monies, or litigants to whom it might lend 
assistance, because of its activities in the past or the con­
tinuance of like activities in the future, would deny com­
plainant, its Virginia State Conference, its branches, mem­



bers, contributors and voluntary workers, attorneys engaged 
by it or litigants to whom it might lend assistance their liberty 
and property without due process of law and the equal pro­
tection of the laws secured by the Fourteenth Amendment 
of the Constitution of the United States, as is more fully 
shown by its complaint therein, a copy of which is at­
tached hereto as Exhibit 4. The Court, in an opinion filed 
January 21, 1958, a copy of which is attached hereto as 
Exhibit 5, concluded that Chapters 33 and 36 were too vague 
and ambiguous to enable it to pass upon their constitutional­
ity and by a judgment entered April 30, 1958, a copy of which 
is attached hereto as Exhibit 6, ordered that the complaint 
therein be retained for a reasonable time pending the deter­
mination of such proceedings in the courts of the Common­
wealth of Virginia as complainant might see fit to bring to 
secure an interpretation of Chapters 33 and 36 as they may 
affect complainant because of its activities in the past or the 
continuance of like activities in the future.

11. The activities of complainant, its Virginia State Con­
ference, its branches, members, contributors and attorneys 
engaged by it, have been investigated by two committees 
created by the General Assembly and in the judgment of these 
committees the activities of the complainant and its sub­
ordinates in urging citizens to challenge in courts the con­
stitutionality of Virginia’s segregation laws, and raising and 

expending monies to defray the costs and ex­
page 10 f- penses of litigation designed to eradicate racial 

segregation, particularly segregation in the public 
schools of this Commonwealth, violate the provisions of 
Chapters 33 and 36 of the Code of 1950 as well as activities 
of attorneys engaged by it to prosecute or defend cases in 
which questions concerning constitutionality of racially dis­
criminatory state action were raised. The aforesaid legisla­
tive committees have recommended that proper officials take 
appropriate action under these statutes to enforce the pen­
alties provided therein against complainant, its Virginia 
State Conference, its branches, members and attorneys en­
gaged by it.

Tn the case in the district court as mentioned in paragraph 
10, the defendants attempted to establish that complainant’s 
aforesaid activities violated the statutes under a fair inter­
pretation of the scope and meaning of the statutes, that the 
statutes constitute a valid exercise of the state’s police power 
and that the district court should sustain 'the statutes as 
constitutional and hold for defendants on the merits. More­
over, complainant believes and so alleges that said statutes 
would have been enforced against complainant but for the

10 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



fact that an injunction issued on them in the federal court. 
Therefore, complainant is faced with imminent and imme­
diate threat of irreparable injury to itself, its liberty and 
property, and to its Virginia State Conference, its branches, 
members, voluntary vrorkers, contributors and attorneys en­
gaged by it and their liberty and property by virtue of the 
fact that defendants and other state officials charged with the 
enforcement of these statutes have manifested an intention to 

apply the statutes and their penalties to complain- 
page 11 ant.

12. As demonstrated by the above allegations 
this creates an actual controversy and an actual antagonistic 
assertion and denial of rights between complainant and the 
defendants, they being the ones charged by law with the 
assertion of the governmental position, with regard to 
whether or not the activities of the complainant as heretofore 
set forth violate the provisions of Chapters 33 and 36 afore­
said, or either of them, and with regard to the proper in­
terpretation of said statutes.

N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 11

WHEREFORE, complainant prays that this court render 
a declaratory decree and make a binding adjudication of 
right that the activities of the complainant, its Virginia 
State Conference, its branches, members, voluntary workers, 
contributors and cooperating, attorneys—through political 
activity before governmental bodies, by expending monies 
to defray the costs and expenses, in whole or in part, of liti­
gation designed to eradicate racial segregation from govern­
mental or public functions, by the solicitation of funds for 
such purposes, and by assisting litigants in their efforts seek­
ing to secure equal rights and justice for colored citizens by 
persuading them to exercise and assert their constitutional 
rights through redress in the courts—and the actions of 
litigants in seeking, receiving or accepting the assistance of 
complainant are legitimate functions in which complainant, 
its Virginia State Conference, members, voluntary workers, 
contributors and cooperating attorneys and litigants re­
ceiving or accepting the assistance of complainant may parti­
cipate under rights guaranteed it and them by the due process 
and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to 
the Constitution of the United States, and do not violate 

the provisions of said statutes or either of them; 
page 12 }• o,r, if these do violate the statutes, that said stat­

utes violate the due process and equal protection 
clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States 
Constitution, and their enforcement against the complainant, 
its Virginia State Conference, its members, voluntary work­



12

ers, contributors and cooperating attorneys and litigants 
seeking, receiving or accepting its assistance be permanently 
enjoined as being in derogation of its and their constitution­
ally secured rights; and that this court award complainant 
its costs in this behalf expended.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR 
THE ADVANCEMENT OF 
COLORED PEOPLE, A CORPORA­
TION, Complainant,

By OLIVER W. HILL
Of Counsel for Complainant.

• • • • •

page 18 f-
«  • • • •

Received and filed Jun 9, 1958.

LUTHER LIBBY, JR., Clerk 
By E. M. EDWARDS, D. C.

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, 
a Corporation, Plaintiff,
v.

Albertis S. Harrison, Jr., Attorney General of Virginia, 
et ah, Defendants.

ANSWER.

To the Honorable E. W. Hening, Jr., Judge of said Court:

The answer of Albertis S. Harrison, Jr., T. Gray Haddon, 
William L. Carleton, Linwood B. Tabb, Jr., William J. 
IJassan, and Frank N. Watkins to a bill of complaint filed 
against them in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, 
Virginia, by National Association for the Advancement of 
Colored People, a corporation.

These defendants for answer thereto, or to so much thereof 
as they be advised that it is material they should answer, 
answer and say:

1. They are not advised as to whether the activities of the 
plaintiff violate the provisions of Chapters 33 and 36 of the 
Acts of the General Assembly of Virginia, Extra Session,

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 13

1956 (Sections 54-74, 54-78 and 54-79, as amended, and Sec­
tions 18-349.31 and 18-349.37, inclusive, of the Code of Vir­

ginia). It is the contention of the defendants that 
page 19 }• the said Chapters 33 and 36 do not violate the 

equal protection clause or the due process clause 
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States.

2. They are not advised as to the allegations contained in 
paragraphs 2 and 3 of the bill of complaint, and call for 
strict proof of said allegations.

3. They deny the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of 
the bill of complaint, and call for strict proof of said allega­
tions.

4. They admit the allegations contained in paragraphs 5 
and 6 of the bill of complaint.

5. They are not advised as to the allegations contained 
in paragraphs 9 and 11 of the bill of complaint, and call for 
strict proof of said allegations.

6. They admit the allegations contained in paragraph 10 
of the bill of complaint.

7. They deny the allegations contained in paragraph 12 
of the bill of complaint concerning any denial of rights of the 
plaintiff, and call for strict proof of said allegations.

And now, having fully answered the plaintiff’s bill, these 
defendants pray to be hence dismissed with their reasonable 
costs by them in this behalf expended.

ALBERTIS S. HARRISON, JR., 
T. GRAY HADDON,
WILLIAM L. CARLETON, 
LINWOOD B. TABB, JR., 
WILLIAM J. HASSAN,
FRANK N. WATKINS, 

Defendants.

C. F. HICKS
Assistant Attorney General of Virginia, 
Supreme Court Building,
Richmond, Virginia.

DAVID J. MAYS 
HENRY T. WICKHAM 

1407 State-Planters Bank Bidding, 
Richmond, Virginia.

Attorneys for the Defendants.



14 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia

page 21 }•
• • • • •

Received and filed Nov. 6, 1958.

LUTHER LIBBY, JR,, Clerk 
By E. M. EDWARDS, D. C.

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People,
Complainant,

v.

Albertis S. Harrison, Jr., etc., et al., Defendants.

N. A. A. C. P. Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Incor­
porated, Complainant,

v.

Albertis S. Harrison, Jr., etc., et al., Defendants.

STIPULATION.

It is hereby stipulated by and between the complainants 
and the defendants in each of these suits, by their respective 
counsel, that

1. Any party may offer, for admission into evidence in 
these suits, or either of them, any portion of the record in 
either of the actions respectively originally styled “ National 
Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. J. 
Lindsay Almond, Jr., etc., et al.” and “ N. A. A. C. P. Legal 
Defense and Educational Fund, Incorporated, v. J. Lindsay 
Almond, Jr., etc., et al.,” and being, respectively, Civil 
Actions Nos. 2435 and 2436 formerly pending in the United 
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, 
Richmond Division, including any of the evidence, testimonial 
or documentary, introduced in either of said actions.

2. Matter offered pursuant to this stipulation shall, if 
otherwise admissible, be admitted into evidence in these 
suits, by introduction of a copy thereof without the necessity 
of further authentication than the certificate of counsel for 
the party introducing the same that it is an accurate copy of



a portion of the record in either of said actions, to the same 
extent that it would be admitted were the entire record in 
said actions, properly authenticated, introduced into evidence 

in these actions.
page 22 f- 3. Matter offered pursuant to this stipulation 

shall be admitted subject to any proper objection 
on grounds of incompetency, irrelevancy or immateriality 
arising from any circumstance other than lack of authenti­
cation in a manner other than that specified in paragraph 2 
hereof.

4. No party should be precluded by this stipulation from 
offering in these suits any evidence, testimonial or docu­
mentary, as may be desired, whether or not introduced in 
said actions.

5. Neither complainant, by entering into this stipulation, 
waives its legal position that the determinations made in 
said actions are conclusive in these suits.

OLIVER W. HILL 
Of Counsel for National Asso­
ciation for the Advancement of 
Colored People, Complainant.

SPOTTSWOOD W. ROBINSON, III 
Of Counsel for N. A. A. C. P. Legal 
Defense and Educational Fund, In­
corporated, Complainant.

HENRY T. WICKHAM 
Of Counsel for Defendants.

N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Attv. Gen. of Va. 15

• • • •

page 23 \

Received and filed Feb. 25, 1959.

LUTHER LIBBY, JR., Clerk 
By E. M. EDWARDS, D. C.

CIRCUIT COURT 
of the

CITY OF RICHMOND 
(Zone 19)

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA

November 3, 1958.



Mr. Oliver W. Hill 
Attorney at Law 
118 East Leigh Street

Mr. Spottswood W. Robinson, III
Attorney at Law
623 North Third Street

Mr. C. F. Hicks 
Assistant Attorney General 
Supreme Court Building

Mr. David J. Mays
Attorney at Law
State Planters Bank Building

Mr. Henry T. Wickham
Attorney at Law
State Planters Bank Building

Re: (1) National Association for the Advancement 
of Colored People v. Albertis S. Harrison, 
Jr., etc., et al., Chancery Case No. B-2869 

(2) N. A. A. C. P. Legal Defense and Educa­
tional Fund, Inc., v. Albertis S. Harrison, 
Jr., etc., et al., Chancery Case No. B-2870

Gentlemen:

The above styled cases are before the Court on the Bills of 
Complaint and' exhibits filed therewith, the Answers of the 
Defendants, and upon the written memorandum and oral 

argument of counsel for the parties, 
page 24 }■ The preliminary question presents the issue of 

what effect, if any, do the facts as found by United 
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, 
Richmond Division, in the case of National A ss’n. for Ad­
vancement of Coloreds People v. Patty, 159 F. Supp. 503 
(1958) have on this litigation.

Upon the consideration whereof the Court is of the opinion 
that under the pleadings and circumstances in the instant 
cases the District Court’s determinations are not conclusive 
in the present litigation by reason of 28 U. S. C. Sec. 1738. 
The Court is of the further opinion that the Doctrine of Res 
Judicata is not applicable to the present litigated cases.

I t  seems to the Court that the principle of law to be con­
sidered by the Court is the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel.

1G Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 17

This doctrine does not extend to matters unessential to the 
determination of the prior case. Otherwise stated, a judg­
ment is not binding or conclusive as to facts or findings of 
law, although put in issue and actually tried and expressly 
determined by a court in the prior action, where such matters 
were immaterial or unessential to the determination of the 
real and essential issues. Yates v. United States, (1957) 
354 U. S. 298, 1 L. Ed. (2d) 1356; Russell v. Place, 94 U. S. 
606, 24 L. Ed. 214; Petrus v. Robins, 196 Va. 322 (1954), and 
cases there cited.

In view of the above, the burden is upon the complainants 
to point out those facts found by the three-judge Federal 
Court which were essential to its judgment and thus binding 
upon the parties in this litigation. However, this burden 
would not be applicable to the facts conceded by the defend­
ants to have been essential to the judgment of the three- 
judge Court and enumerated on page 16 of defendant’s 
brief.

Very truly yours,

EDMUND W. 1IENING, JR., Judge.

ec: Clerk’s Office 

page 25 }■
• • • • •

Received and filed Feb. 25, 1959.

LUTHER LIBBY, JR., Clerk 
By E. M. EDWARDS, D. C.

CIRCUIT COURT 
of the

CITY OF RICHMOND 
(Zone 19)

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA

January 21, 1959.
Mr. Oliver W. Hill 
Attorney at Law 
118 East Leigh Street

Mr. Spottswood W. Robinson, III
Attorney at Law
623 North Third Street



18 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia

Mr. C. F. Hicks 
Assistant Attorney General 
Supreme Court Building

Mr. David J. Mays
Attorney at Law
State Planters Bank Building

Mr. Henry T. Wickham
Attorney at Law
State Planters Bank Building

Be: (1) National Association for the Advancement 
of Colored People v. Albertis S. Harrison, 
Jr., etc., et al., Chancery Case No. B-2869 

(2) N. A. A. C. P. Legal Defense and Educa­
tional Fund, Inc., v. Albertis S. Harrison, 
Jr., etc., et al., Chancery Case No. B-2870

Gentlemen:

These two suits, jointly heard and jointly considered, are 
before the Court on the Bill of Complaint of the respective 
complainants with accompanying exhibits, upon the answers 
of the defendants, upon the evidence, exhibits and stipula­
tions introduced at the hearings on November 10, 11 and 

12, 1959, upon the deposition of Edwin Bancroft 
page 26 }- Henderson duly taken on November 24, 1958, and 

filed on December 17, 1958, upon the written briefs 
of counsel for the parties and upon oral argument of counsel 
for the parties.

The Bill of Complaint of the N. A. A. C. P. Legal Defense 
and Educational Fund, Inc. (hereinafter called Fund), is sub­
stantially similar to the Bill of Complaint by the National 
Association for the Advancement of Colored People (herein­
after called NAACP), in that each seek a declaratory judg­
ment of the construction and interpretation of Chapter 33 
and Chapter 36 of the Acts of the General Assembly of 
Virginia, Extra Session 1956, being Sections 54-74, 54-78 and 
54-79, as amended, and Sections 18-349.31 to 18-349.37, in­
clusive, of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, as they 
may affect each complainant, its officers, members, affiliates, 
contributors, voluntary workers or attorneys retained or 
employed by it or to whom it may contribute monies, or liti­
gants receiving its assistance in cases involving racial dis­
crimination because of the activities of each complainant in 
the past or the continuation of like activities in the future.



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Attv. Gen. of Ya. 19

NAACP contends, in addition to the above, that if the above 
referenced statutes are applicable to its activities, the statute 
is invalid as depriving NAACP of liberty and property 
without due process of law as secured by the Fourteenth 
Amendment of the U. S. Constitution.

The following basic questions are raised:

(1) Do the activities of the NAACP or the Fund amount 
to the solicitation of business as provided by Chapter 33?

(2) Do the activities of NAACP or the Fund amount to 
an inducement to others to commence or further prosecute 
a law suit as provided by Chapter 36?

(3) Do the provisions of Chapters 33 and 36, as applicable 
to the activities of NAACP, violate the Fourteenth Amend­
ment to the U. S. Constitution?

In oral argument made by Attorney Robinson on behalf 
of both organizations, he stated that NAACP is an activity 
organization and Fund helps to supply assistance in making 
a combined effort of the two for supplying assistance.

Without endeavoring to review the evidence in any detail, 
the Court will make brief references thereto.

NAACP is organized as a non-profit corporation under the 
laws of New York and has been described as a political as­
sociation opposing racial discrimination (Complainants’ 

Brief, page 20).
page 27 The Virginia State Conference is an unincor­

porated association and a unit of the NAACP and 
is subject to NAACP’s control to the extent NAACP presides 
over the functions of the local branches throughout the 
country and the State Conference branches. (Federal Court 
Tr., p. 65 and exhibits 2 and 3 filed with NAACP Bill of Com­
plaint). Attorneys Hill and Robinson are members of the 
Legal Committee of NAACP as well as being members of the 
Legal Committee of the Virginia State Conference.

Fund was organized as a corporation in New York and 
one of its purposes i s :

“ To render legal aid gratuitously to such Negroes as may 
appear to be worthy thereof, who are suffering legal in­
justice by reason of race or color and unable to employ and 
engage legal aid. and assistance on account of poverty.” 
(Italics supplied)

The Director and Counselor for the Fund carries out the 
policies of its Board with the assistance of a legal staff 
of six (6) fidl time lawyers in New York City, in addition



to which there are lawyers in other sections of the country. 
Robinson is retained at $6,000 as counsel for the Southeast 
region which includes Virginia. (Federal Tr., pp. 252, 254)

Fund is operated in accord with the policy that it will 
furnish legal assistance in the form of either helping in the 
payment of lawyers’ fees to those people who can not afford 
to pay for the litigation. However, the Fund Director testi­
fied that he knew of no instance in which an investigation 
was made on this point. (Marshall’s testimony Federal 
Court Tr., pp. 254 through 256, 271, 312, 314) This same 
witness admitted that if a plaintiff owned real estate at a 
fair market value of $15,000, free and clear, he Avould be in 
pretty good shape to finance his own law suit.

The evidence at the hearings on November 11, 1958, in­
dicates that the income of nineteen of the litigants of Vir­
ginia school cases ranged from a low of $3,500 to an estimated 
high of between $13,000 and $17,000 and that ten of the 
litigants in the Virginia school cases owned real property 
valued from a low of $12,000 to a high of $87,000, or an 
average of $35,000 for each litigant.

With regard to the operations of NAACP, the evidence 
indicates that it does not ask a person if he wishes to chal­
lenge a law but it does state publically that it believes that 
a certain law is invalid and should be challenged and Negroes 
are urged to challenge such laws and if one comes forth, 

NAACP agrees to assist. Pre-prepared author- 
page 28 }• ization forms are available and prospective plain­

tiffs are referred to Attorney Hill as Chairman of 
the legal staff and the plaintiff makes his appearance when 
Hill recommends “ a legitimate situation that the NAACP 
should be interested in.”  (Federal Court Tr., pp. 39, 84, 
86). When Attorney Hill decides that the case is a proper 
one within NAACP policies and with the automatic con­
currence of the President, Hill selects a lawyer and refers 
the case to a member of the legal staff in the area from which 
the party came. (Federal Court Tr., pp. 47, 131-135) For 
other references to testimony of a similar nature see Trans­
cript of the evidence at the hearings on November 10, 11 
and 12, 1958, pages 75, 117, 122, 130, 142 through 148. 365 and 
pages 4, 5, 9, 11 of the Henderson deposition taken November 
24,1958.

Generally, plaintiffs in the school segregation cases do 
not contribute toward payment of legal fees and expenses 
(Tr., p. 35) with the exception of fees of Attorney Robinson, 
which are paid by Fund in the form of an annual retainer. 
The State Conference pays the expenses and fees of its law­
yers in each case and since July 1956, has paid out for serv-

20 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



ices and expenses approximately $12,378 and expects to re­
ceive additional outstanding bills. (Tr., pp. 99, 103, 285, 
and Defendants’ Exhibit D-3). Attorney Hill as Chairman 
of the legal staff approves every item of expense and legal 
fees paid by the Conference and the President automatically 
approves same. (Tr., pp. 75-77) The Legal Committee con­
trols the list of lawyers on this Committee almost to the 
extent of perpetuating itself. (Tr., pp. 89, 92)

There is ample evidence that the State Conference did 
sponsor cases as long as the litigants adhered to the prin­
ciples and policies of the Conference that a school case must 
be tried as a direct attack on segregation, and hence, NAACP 
maintains almost absolute direction and control. (Tr., p. 
108, Exhibits D-7 and D-9) This was true to such an extent 
that the Executive Secretary of the Conference and Attorney 
Hill proclaimed that NAACP was not a Legal Aid Society, 
(Exhibits D-4, D-10, Tr., pp. 10, 163, 165), and to the extent 
that Attorney Hill recommended against NAACP’s partici­
pation in a labor suit (Exhibits D-10), and to the further 
extent, that NAACP was not interested in assisting an 
Amelia County effort for consolidation of Negro elementary 
schools (Exhibit D-9) or assist in securing separate but equal 
facilities. (Exhibit D-7)

Defendants’ Exhibits D-l, D-2 and D-8 point directly to 
the manner in which litigation in the school cases was so­
licited and induced. For instance, a portion of the Action 
Letter of May 26, 1954, from the Executive Secretary of the 
Virginia Conference stated in part that:

page 29 }• “ It is of utmost importance that your branch 
retain the leadership in all actions engaged in in 

your community.”

And the following excerpt from the June 16, 1954, letter 
of the Executive Secretary stated in connection with the 
distribution of suitable petition forms:

“ The Conference is proceeding with the development of 
its plan and will advise you thereof as soon as this work is 
completed.” (Italics supplied)

Also, parts of the confidential directive of June 30, 1955, 
from the President and Executive Secretary with regard to 
the handling of petitions stated:

“ Petitions will be placed only in the hands of highly trusted 
and responsible persons to secure signatures of parents or 
guardians only.”  and

N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 21



“ The signing of the petition by a parent or guardian may 
well be only the first step to an extended Court fight. There­
fore, discretion and care should be exercised to secure pe­
titioners who will—if need be—go all the way.” * * *

“ The Education Committee’s Chairman will forward com­
pleted petitions to the Executive Secretary of the State Con­
ference.”  * * #

“ Following the above procedure, it becomes apparent that 
the faster your branch acts the sooner will your school board 
be petitioned to desegregate your schools. Every act of our 
branch and State Conference officials from this point on 
should be considered as emergency action, and must take 
precedence over routine affairs—personal or otherwise.”

Defendants’ Exhibit D-8, being a directive to the Branches 
contained, in part, these instructions:

“ Organize the parents in the community so that as many as 
possible will be familiar with the procedure when and if law 
suits are begun in behalf of plaintiffs and parents.” * * *

“ If no plans are announced or no steps towards desegrega­
tion taken by the time school begins this fall, 1955, the time 
for a law suit has arrived. At this stage court action is 
essential because only in this way does the mandate of the 

Supreme Court that a prompt and reasonable 
page 30 \ start towards full compliance become fully opera­

tive on the school boards in question.” * * *
“ At this stage the matter will bo turned over to the Legal 

Department and it will proceed with the matter in Court.”

Defendants’ Exhibti D-2 shows a continuation of the 
method of operation of NAACP and the Virginia State 
Conference where reference is made to :

“ UP TO DATE PICTURE OF ACTION BY NAACP 
BRANCHES SINCE MAY 31.

“ A. Petitions filed and replies

“ A total of 55 branches have circulated petitions.

“ B. Where suits are contemplated

“ Petitions have been filed in seven (7) eounties/cities.
“ Graduated negative response received in all eases.

“ C. Readiness of lawyers for legal action in certain areas

22 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 23

Selection of suit sites reserved for legal staff. State legal 
staff ready for action in selected areas.

“ D. Do branches want legal action

“ The majority of our branches are willing to support legal 
action or any other program leading to early desegregation 
of schools that may be suggested by the National and State 
Conference offices. Our branches are alert to overtures by 
public officials that Negroes accept voluntary racial segrega­
tion in public education.”

The following references to testimony by various litigants 
in the school cases here is made to indicate the nature of the 
so-called attorney-client relationship:

Witness James E. Manson at page 191 of the Transcript.

“ Q. But you don’t know the names of your attornevs?
“ No.
“ Q. You never had any personal contact with them?
“ A. I  do not know.”

page 31 f- “ Q. Well, how did you first learn about the law­
suit?

“ A. From the papers I imagine.
“ Q. You have had no contact with any attorneys'?
“ A. No.”

Witness Josie F. Pravad at page 231 and 232 of the Trans­
cript :

“ Q. Who represented you in that case, or who is rep­
resenting you?

“ A. Who is representing me? I haven’t a lawyer rep­
resenting me, if that is what you mean.”

• • • • •

“ Q. And you are being represented bv the N. A A C P ■? 
“ A. Yes.”  ’ "

Witness Harry Strother at page 241 and page 242 of the 
Transcript:

“ Q. Who is your attorney in that case?



24 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia

“ A. My lawyers—I don’t know—we had the N. A. A. C. P. 
lawyers, I don’t know which one it is.”

• • • • •

“ When did you first—when did they first get in contact 
with you?

“ A. I don’t think—they have never been in contact with 
me.”

Witness Moses C. Maupin at page 271 of the Transcript:

“ Q. Did you ever have any personal contact with Mr. 
Hill?

“ A. No I haven’t .”
• • • • •

“ Q. Well, have you seen before today—have you seen Mr. 
Hill since that time, since he came to this meeting?

“ A. No, sir.
“ Q. You have had no contact with him?

“ A. No, sir.
page 32 } “ Q. No communication with him of anv kind?

“ A. No, sir.”

Under the facts before the Court there are two (2) broad 
legal principles to be applied. First, the State has the right 
to require high standards of qualification for those who 
desire to practice law within its borders and may revoke or 
suspend the license to practice law of attorneys who are 
guilty of unethical conduct. Schacare v. Board of Bar Exam­
iners, 353 IT. S. 232; Richmond Association of Credit Men v. 
Bar Association, 167 Va. Campbell v. Third District Commit­
tee, 179 Va. 244.

The practice of law or any other profession is not a right 
but is a privilege conferred by the State with great discre­
tion and is normally not one of the privileges and immunities 
guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. McClosky v. 
Tobin, 252 U. S. 107; In Be: Isserman, 345 U. S. 286; In Re: 
Lockwood, 154 U. S. 116; Bradwell v. Illinois, 16 Wall 130; 
Sharp v. Ducky, 148 F. Supp. 8. For other cases regulating 
other professions see also Bernier v. Oreqon State Board, 294 
IT. S. 608 (Dentist); Barskey v. Board of Reyents of New 
York, 347 U. S. (phvsician); Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 
346 U. S. 483 (optician).

The second principle is that although penal statutes must



be construed strictly, nevertheless in constructing such 
statutes the Legislative intent should be found by giving 
words ordinary and usual meaning. Tiller v. Commonwealth, 
193 Va. 418; Board of Supervisors v. Boaz, 176 Va. 126; 
Gates and Sons v. Richmond, 103 Ya. 702.

Defendants admitted in their brief that Chapters 33 and 
36 do not prohibit the complainants freedom to speak or to 
join as such nor prevent the raising of funds as such.

The Court is of the opinion from the evidence in these 
cases that certain hereinafter enumerated activities of the 
complainants and those connected with them amount to im­
proper solicitation of legal or professional business or em­
ployment within the provisions of Chapter 33, by reason of 
the following authorities:

Richmond Association of Credit Men v. Bar Association, 
supra, Canons 47 and 35 of the Canons of Professional Ethics 
adopted and promulgated by the Supreme Court of Appeals 
of Virginia; Opinions 10, 41, 43 and 45 of the Virginia State 
Bar; McClosky v. Tobin, supra; Re: Maclub of America Inc. 
(Mass.) 3 N. E. (2d) 272; People ex rel Courtney v. Associa­
tion of Real Estate Tar/payers, 4 111. 102, 187 N.E. 823; People 
ex rel Chicago Bar Association v. Chicago Motor Club, 362 
111. 50 199 N. E. 1 (1935); Dorghty v. Grills, 37 Tenn. App. 
63, 260 S. IV. (2d) 379; Ililebrand v. State Ba,r of California, 
225 Pa. (2d) 508; Atchison, Topeka & Sante Fe Railway Co. 
v. Jackson, 235 F. (2d) 390; In Re: Brotherhood of Railroad 

Trainmen, 13 111. (2d) 391, 150 N. E. (2d) 163. 
page 33 J- The Court is of the further opinion from the 

evidence in these cases that certain hereinafter 
enumerated activities of complainants and those connected 
with them amount to an inducement to commence or prose­
cute law suits without a direct interest in the subject matter 
of the proceeding and as to which professional advice has 
not been sought in accordance with the Virginia Canons of 
Legal Ethics, and hence such activities are within the pro­
visions of Chapter 36. In addition to the authorities cited in 
the preceding paragraph, see:

International Brotherhood v. N. L. R. B., 341 U. S. 694; 
LaPage v. United States, 146 F. (2d) 536; People v. Drake, 
(Cal.) 310 P. (2d) 977; Commonwealth v. Mason, (Pa.) 106
A. (2d) 877; Restatement of Torts, Section 766; Blackstone’s 
Commentaries, Book 44, p. 135; Wickham v. Conklin, 8 Johns 
X. Y. 220; Nichols v. Bunting, 3 Hawks (N. C.) 86; McIntyre 
v. Thompson, 10 F. 531 (W. D. N. C .); Thurston v. Percivel, 
18 Mass. (1 Pick.) 415.

N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Ya. 25



26

Counsel for NAACP has cited cases to support its con­
tention that the application of Chapters 33 and 36 to any of 
its activities violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth 
Amendment but none of these cases are directly in point on 
the facts or on legal principle. They further overlook the 
priniple that a statute does not violate the equal protection 
clause for failure to be applicable to the whole field of abuses, 
as a State may direct a law against what it deems evil as it 
actually exists without covering the whole field of possible 
abuses. Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., supra; U. S. v. Câ ro- 
lene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144; Hughes v. Superior Court 
of California-, 339 U. S. 460; U. S. v. Petrills, 332 U. S. 1; 
Railroad Express Agency v. Neiv York, 336 U. S. 106.

In the light of the above discussion, the Court is of the 
opinion that the following activities, where conducted by 
either of the complainants, are not within the purview of the 
provisions of Chapters 33 or 36:

1. Political activities before governmental bodies.
2. Mere solicitation of funds.
3. Mere receipt of contributions of funds made to the com­

plainants.
4. Mere publication or general dissemination of facts, data, 

statistics and information and the results of factual, scientific 
and legal research* and investigation respecting various as­
pects of racial segregation or discrimination. (*legal research

is to be distinguished from legal advice.) 
page 34 }- 5. Mere publication and general dissemination

by means of speeches, meetings or other media, 
of information respecting legal rights* and matters, cases 
and procedures involving the issue of racial segregation or 
discrimination (inform ation respecting legal rights is to be 
distinguished from legal advice.)

6. Mere advocacy* that persons subjected to any form of 
racial segregation or discrimination assert their legal rights 
in an appropriate case or proceeding. (*Mere advocacy 
is to be distinguished from advice or inducement to do so.)

7. Unconditional contribution to persons and groups, upon 
request of such persons and groups of mere service of ex­
perts and of mere facts, data, statistics and information and 
the mere results of factual, scientific and legal research* and 
investigation. (*Legal research is to be distinguished from 
legal advice, memo or opinion.)

8. Acceptance by an attorney of employment by either 
complainant for purposes of rendering legal services to the 
complainant of a character not prohibited by A, B, C, D & E 
below.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 27

provided that any of the above activities are not connected 
directly or indirectly with or made a part of those activities, 
hereinafter enumerated, which are prohibited by said Chap­
ters.

The following activities, whether conducted separately or in 
conjunction with the permitted activities listed above, of 
either of the complainants, are prohibited by the provisions 
of Chapters 33 or 36.

A. Contribution by either complainant to any person or 
group, of advice respecting his or its legal rights in a matter, 
case or proceeding involving an issue of racial segregation 
or discrimination or any other issue.

B. Expending by either complainant of monies to defray 
the costs and expenses, in whole or in part, of litigation in­
volving an issue of racial segregation or discrimination, or

any other issue.
page 35 }> C. Assisting litigants in such litigation, cases 

or proceedings by persuading them to express and 
assert legal rights by receiving or accepting assistance in 
the nature of advice and monies, within the contemplation 
of A & B above. .

D. Contributions by either complainant, to any person or 
group, of monies toward counsel fees and other expenses of 
litigation or the services of attorneys in a matter, case or 
proceeding involving an issue of racial segregation or dis­
crimination, or any other issue.

D. (1) Acceptance by an attorney of assistance from the 
complainants in the form of legal advice, monies toward coun­
sel fees and other expenses of litigation in a matter, case or 
proceeding involving an issue of racial segregation or dis­
crimination, or any other issue;

(2) Acceptance by an attorney of employment by a person 
or group for the purposes of rendering legal service to such 
person or group in a matter, case or proceeding in which 
either complainant has furnished or xvill furnish assistance 
in the nature of advice, monies toward counsel foes and 
other expenses within the contemplation of A, B, D. and E
(1) above.

(3) Acceptance by an attorney of employment by either 
complainant for purposes of rendering legal services to a 
person or group desiring his service in a matter, case, or 
proceeding involving an issue of racial segregation or dis­
crimination, or any other issue.

It follows, that those activities prohibited to either of the 
complainants are likewise prohibited to complainants’ officers,



members, voluntary workers, or others within the control of 
complainants, on the recognized legal maxim of that which 
cannot be done directly by the principals cannot be done in­
directly by the agents of, or those under control of, the 
principals.

Counsel are requested to prepare and present an order in 
accordance with the above opinion of the Court.

Very truly yours,

EDMUND W. HENING, JR.

28 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia

page 36 }>
• • • • •

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, 
a Corporation, Plaintiff,

v.

Albertis S. Harrison, Jr., Attorney General of Virginia, et al.,
Defendants.

N. A. A. C. P. Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Incor­
porated, a corporation, Plaintiff,

v.

Albertis S. Harrison, Jr., Attorney General of Virginia, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER.

These cases came on to be jointly heard and considered 
upon the bills of complaint, with accompanying exhibits, 
seeking declaratory judgments of the construction and inter­
pretation of Chapters 33 and 36 of the Acts of the General 
Assembly of Virginia, Extra Session, 1956, as they may 
affect each complainant, its officers, members, affiliate's, con­
tributors, voluntary workers, attorneys retained or employed 

by each, or to whom each may contribute monevs, 
page 37 }> or litigants receiving assistance, in light of com­

plainants’ contentions that the enforcement there­
of because of any of their activities would deny them their 
liberty and property without due process of law and the equal 
protection of the laws secured by the Fourteenth Amendment



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 29

of the Constitution of the United States and in light of the 
further contention of complainant, NAACP, that Chapters 
33 and 36, if applied to its activities, deprive it of due pro­
cess and equal protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth 
Amendment; upon the answers of the defendants; upon the 
preliminary question of what effect, if any, do the facts as 
found by United States District Court for the Eastern Dis­
trict of Virginia, Richmond Division, in the case of National 
A ss’n. for Advancement of Colored People v. Patty, 159 F. 
Supp. 503 (1958) have on these cases; upon the evidence, 
exhibits, stipulations and deposition introduced by the 
parties; and upon the briefs and arguments of counsel.

Upon consideration thereof the Court, having found the 
facts and reached the conclusions of law stated in its written 
opinions, dated November 3, 1958 and January 21, 1959, 
and previously filed and made a part of the record in these 
cases, does Adjudge, Order and Decree:

1. That the complainants have failed to point out those 
facts found by the three-judge federal court in NAACP  v. 
Patty which were essential to its judgment and thus binding 
upon the parties in these cases;

2. That the provisions of Chapters 33 and 36 do not pro­
hibit the complainants’ freedom to speak or to join as such 
and do not prevent complainants from the raising of funds as

such;
page 38 }• 3. That the following activities, when conducted

by either of the complainants, their affiliates, 
officers, members, voluntary workers or attorneys, are not 
within the purview of the provisions of Chapters 33 and 36:

(1) Political activities before governmental bodies.
(2) Mere solicitation of funds.
(3) Mere receipt of contributions of funds made to the 

complainants.
(4) Mere publication or general dissemination of facts, 

data, statistics and information and the results of factual, 
scientific and legal research (as distinguished from legal 
advice) and investigation respecting various aspects of racial 
segregation or discrimination.

(5) Mere publication and general dissemination by means 
of speeches, meetings or other media, of information re­
specting legal rights (as distinguished from legal advice) 
and matters, cases and procedures involving the issue of 
racial segregation or discrimination.

(6) Mere advocacy that persons subjected to anv form 
of racial segregation or discrimination assert their legal



rights in an appropriate case or proceeding. (Mere advocacy 
is to be distinguished from advice or inducement to do so.)

(7) Unconditional contributions to persons and groups, 
upon request of such persons and groups of mere service 
of experts and of mere facts, data, statistics and information 
and the mere results of factual, scientific and legal research 
and investigation. (Legal research is to be distinguished 
from legal advice, memo or opinion.)

(8) Acceptance by an attorney of employment by either 
complainant for purposes of rendering legal services to the 
complainant of a character not prohibited by subparagraphs 
A, B, C and D of paragraph 4 and paragraph 5.

4. That the following enumerated activities of complain­
ants, and those persons or attorneys connected 

page 39 }- with them, when conducted in the manner shown by 
the evidence in these cases, amount to either an im­

proper solicitation of legal or professional business or em­
ployment within the provisions of Chapter 33 or an induce­
ment to commence or prosecute law suits within the prohibi­
tions contained in Chapter 36, or both, whether conducted 
separately or in conjunction with the permitted activities 
hereinbefore mentioned:

A. Contribution to any person or group, of advice respect­
ing bis or its legal rights in a matter, case or proceeding in­
volving an issue of racial segregation or discrimination or 
anv other issue.

B. Expending of monies to defray the costs and expenses, 
in whole or in part, of litigation involving an issue of racial 
segregation or discrimination, or any other issue.

C. Assisting litigants in such litigation, cases or proceed­
ings by persuading them to express and assert legal riejits bv 
receiving or accepting assistance in the nature of advice and 
monies, within the contemplation of A & B above.

T). Contributions to any person or group, of monies' toward 
counsel fees and other expenses of litigation or the serv­
ices of attorneys in a matter, case or proceeding- involving 
an issue of racial segregation or discrimination, or any other 
issue.

5. That the following enumerated activities of attorney's, 
when conducted in the manner shown by the evidence in these 
cases, amount to a violation of the provisions of Chapter 
33:

E. (1) Acceptance by an attorney of assistance from the

30 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 31

complainants in the form of legal advice, monies toward 
counsel fees and other expenses of litigation in a matter, 
case or proceeding involving an issue of racial segregation 
or discrimination, or any other issue.

(2) Acceptance by an attorney of employment by a person
or group for the purposes of rendering legal serv- 

page 40 }- ice to such person or group in a matter, case or 
proceeding in which either complainant lias fur­

nished or will furnish assistance in the nature of advice, 
monies toward counsel fees and other expenses within the 
contemplation of subparagraphs A, B and D of paragraph 
4 and E (1) above.

(3) Acceptance by an attorney of employment by either 
complainant for purposes of rendering legal services to a 
person or group desiring his service in a matter, case, or 
proceeding involving an issue of racial segregation or dis­
crimination, or any other issue.

6. That those activities prohibited to either of the com­
plainants are likewise prohibited to the complainants’ 
affiliates, officers, members, attorneys, voluntary workers, or 
others within the control of complainants;

7. That the application of Chapters 33 and 3(5 to the 
activities of the complainant, National Association for the 
Advancement of Colored People, their affiliates, officers, mem­
bers, attorneys or voluntary workers listed in paragraphs 4 
and 5 hereof, does not deny them due process of law or equal 
protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amend­
ment to the Constitution of the United States; and

8. That in view of the position and contention of the com­
plainant, N. A. A. C. P. Legal Defense and Educational Fund, 
Inc., that the pleadings in this proceeding do not raise or 
present for determination by this Conrt the question of 
whether or not the provisions of Chapter 33 and 36, as ap­
plicable to the activities of said complainant, violate the pro­
visions of the 14th amendment of the United States Con­
stitution, this Court makes no ruling or adjudication on said 
question.

9. That the defendants recover their costs in these cases 
from the complainants.

To which action of the Court, with the exception of para­
graphs 2, 3 and 8 above, the complainants object and ex­
cept. The defendants object and except to paragraph 8.

E n ter: 2/25/59.

EDMUND W. HENING, JR., Judge.



32 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia

page 41 }

Received and filed Apr. 24, 1959.

LUTHER LIBBY, JR., Clerk 
By E. M. EDWARDS, D. C.

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, 
a Corporation, Complainant,

v.

Albertis S. Harrison, Jr., Attorney General of Virginia, et al.,
Defendants.

NOTICE OP APPEAL AND ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR.

Complainant, National Association for the Advancement 
of Colored People, hereby gives notice of its appeal from the 
final order of the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, Vir­
ginia, entered on the 25th day of February, 1959, in the 
above-captioned case, declaring that Chapters *33 and 36 of the 
Acts of the General Assembly of Virginia, Extra Session of 
1956 (Sections 54-74, 54-78 and 54-79, as amended, and Sec­
tions 18-349.31 to 18-349.37, inclusive, of the Code of Vir­
ginia of 1950), construed and interpreted in the light of the 
constitutional contentions theretofore made by complainant 
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District 
of Virginia, Richmond, Division, in the action styed “Na­
tional Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. 
Kenneth C. Patty, Attorney General for the Commonwealth 
of Virginia, et al.,’f being civil Action No. 2435, and restated 
in its complaint in this case, viz., that enforcement of such 
statutes would violate rights secured by the Due Process 
and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment 

of the Constitution of the United States, apply to 
page 42 }- and prohibit certain of the customary activities of 

complainant, its affiliates, its officers, members, 
contributors, voluntary workers, attorneys engaged by it or 
to whom it may contribute monies or services, and litigants 
receding its assistance; and further declaring that the ap­
plication of the provisions of said Chapters 33 and 36 and the 
prohibitions contained therein do not deny complainant, its



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Ya. 33

affiliates, its officers, members, contributors, voluntary work­
ers, attorneys engaged by it or to whom it may contribute 
monies or services, and litigants receiving its assistance due 
process of law or the equal protection of the laws secured to 
it and them by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitu­
tion of the United States; and failing and refusing to grant 
an injunction as prayed; and complainant designates the 
following

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR.

First: The Court erred in ruling that the findings, con­
clusions and determinations of the United States District 
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Divi­
sion, in the cases styled “National Association for the Ad­
vancement of Colored People v. Patty, et al.,” being Civil 
Action No. 2435, and “N. A. A. C. P. Legal Defense and 
Educational Fund, Incorporated v. Patty, 'et al.,” being Civil 
Action No. 2436, with respect to the constitutional validity 
of Chapters 31, 32 and 35 of the Acts of the General Assembly 
of Virginia, Extra Session 1956, were not, by reason of Sec­
tion 1739 of Title 28 of the United States Code, made con­
clusive and binding upon the Court in this case.

Second: The Court erred in its application of the doctrine 
of collateral estoppel by refusing to rule that the 

page 43 J- findings, conclusions and determinations of the 
United States District Court for the Eastern Dis­

trict of Virginia, Richmond Division, in the above-mentioned 
cases with respect to the constitutional validity of Chapters 
31, 32 and 35 of the Acts of the General Assembly of Vir­
ginia, Extra Session 1956, were conclusive and binding in 
this case.

Third: The Court erred in declaring that contribution
by an attorney engaged by, or associated with, complainant 
or its affiliates of advice to a person or group, respecting his 
or its legal rights in a matter, case or proceeding involving 
an issue of racial segregation or discrimination amounts to 
either an improper solicitation of legal or professional busi­
ness or employment within the provisions of Chapter 33, 
or an inducement to commence or prosecute law suits within 
the prohibitions contained in Chapter 36, or both, for the 
reason that (1) neither of said statutes, properly construed 
in the light of complainant’s constitutional contentions under 
settled rules of statutory construction, applies to or prohibits 
said activities, or (2) if said activities are included within 
the prohibitions of said statutes, or either of them, then said 
statutes or statute, as the case may be, deny complainant, its



affiliates, its officers, members, contributors, voluntary work­
ers, attorneys engaged by it or to whom it may contribute 
monies or services, and litigants receiving its assistance their 
liberty and property secured to them by the Due Process 
and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment 

to the Constitution of the United States, 
page 44 }- Fourth: The Court erred in declaring that the 

expenditures of monies by complainant or its 
affiliates to defray the costs and expenses, in whole or in part, 
of litigation involving an issue of racial segregation or dis­
crimination amounts to either an improper solicitation of 
legal or professional business or employment within the pro­
visions of Chapters 33, or an inducement to commence or 
prosecute lawsuits within the prohibitions contained in Chap­
ter 36, or both, for the reason that (1) neither of said statutes, 
properly construed in the light of complainant’s constitu­
tional contentions under settled rules of statutory construc­
tion, applies to or prohibits said activities, or (2) if said 
activities are included within the prohibitions of said statutes, 
or either of them, then said statutes or_ statute, as the case 
may be, deny complainant, its affiliates, its officers, members, 
contributors, voluntary workers, attorneys engaged by it or to 
whom it may contribute monies or services, and litigants 
receiving its assistance, their liberty and property secured 
to them by the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of 
the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States.

Fifth: The Court erred in declaring that assistance by
complainant, its affiliates, its officers, members or voluntary 
workers, or attorneys engaged by, or connected with, it or its 
affiliates, to litigants in litigation, cases or proceedings in­
volving an issue of racial segregation or discrimination by 
persuading them to express and assert legal rights by receiv­
ing or accepting assistance in the nature of advice respecting 
their legal rights therein and monies to defray the costs and 
expenses thereof amounts to either an improper solicitation 

of legal or professional business or employment 
page 45 }• within the provisions of of Chapter 33, or an in­

ducement to commence or prosecute law suits 
within the prohibitions contained in Chapter 36, or both, 
for the reason that (1) neither of said statutes, properly con­
strued in the light of complainant ’s constitutional contentions 
under settled rules of statutory construction, applies to or 
prohibits said activities, or (2) if said activities are included 
within the prohibitions of said statutes, or either of them, 
then said statutes or statute, as the case may be, deny com­
plainant, its affiliates, its officers, members, contributors,

34 Supremo Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 35

voluntary workers, attorneys engaged by it or to whom it 
may contribute monies or services, and litigants receiving its 
assistance, their liberty and property secured to them by the 
Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth 
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Sixth: The Court erred in declaring that contributions
by complainant or its affiliates to a person or group of monies 
toward counsel fees and other expenses of litigation or of the 
services of attorneys in a matter, ease or proceeding involv­
ing an issue of racial segregation or discrimination amounts 
to either an improper solicitation of legal or professional 
business or employment within the provisions of Chapter 33, 
or an inducement to commence or prosecute law suits within 
the prohibitions contained in Chapter 36, or both, for the 
reason that (1) neither of said statutes, properly construed 
in the light of complainant’s constitutional contentions under 
settled rules of statutory construction, applies to or pro­
hibits said activities, or (2) if said activities are included 
within the prohibitions of said statutes, or either of them, 

then said statutes or statute, as the case may be, 
page 46 }- deny complainant, its affiliates, its officers, mem­

bers, contributors, voluntary workers, attorneys 
engaged by it or to whom it may contribute monies or serv­
ices, and litigants receiving its assistance, their liberty and 
property secured to them by the Due Process and Equal 
Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the 
Constition of the United States.

Seventh: The Court erred in declaring that acceptance by 
an attorney of assistance from complainant or its affiliates 
in the form of legal advice, monies toward counsel fees and 
other expenses of litigation in a matter, case or proceeding 
involving an issue of racial segregation or discrimination 
amounts to a violation of the provisions of Chapter 33, for 
the reason that (1) said statute, properly construed in the 
light of complainant’s constitutional contentions under set­
tled rules of statutory construction, does not apply to or 
prohibit said activities, or (2) if said activities are included 
within the prohibitions of said statute, then said statute de­
nies complainant, its affiliates, its officers, members, contri­
butors, _ voluntary workers, attorneys engaged by it or to 
whom it may contribute monies or services, and litigants 
receiving its assistance, their liberty and property secured 
to them by the Due Process and Enual Protection Clauses 
of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the 
United States.

Eighth: The Court erred in declaring that acceptance by 
an attorney of employment by a person or group for the pur-



pose of rendering legal service to such person or group in a 
matter, ease or proceeding involving an issue of racial segre­
gation or discrimination wherein complainant or its affiliates 

have furnished or wall furnish assistance in the 
page 47  ̂ nature of advice respecting his or its legal rights 

therein, or monies toward counsel fees, or costs 
and other expenses thereof amounts to a violation of the pro­
visions of Chapter 33, for the reason that (1) said statute, 
properly construed in the light of complainant’s constitu­
tional contentions under settled rules of statutory construc­
tion, does not apply to or prohibit said activities, or (2) if 
said activities are included within the prohibitions of said 
statute, then said statute denies complainant, its affiliates, 
its officers, members, contributors, voluntary workers, at­
torneys engaged by it or to whom it may contribute monies 
or services, and litigants receiving its assistance, their liberty 
and property secured to them by the Due Process and Equal 
Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Con­
stitution of the United . States.

Ninth: The Court erred in declaring that acceptance by 
an attorney of employment by complainant or its affiliates 
for the purpose of rendering legal services to a person or 
group desiring his services in a matter, case or proceeding 
involving an issue of racial segregation or discrimination 
amounts to a violation of the provisions of Chapter 33, for 
the reason that (1) said statute, properly construed in the 
light of complainant’s constitutional contentions under settled 
rules of statutory construction, does not apply to or pro­
hibit  ̂ said activities, or (2) if said activities are included 
within the prohibitions of said statute, then said statute de­
nies complainant, its affiliates, its officers, members, contri­
butors, voluntary workers, attorneys engaged by it or to 
whom it may contribute monies or services, and litigants re­

ceiving its assistance, their liberty and pronertv 
page 48 J- secured to them by the Due Process and Equal 

Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment 
to the Constitution of the United States.

Tenth: The Court erred in adjudicating that the applica­
tion of Chapters 33 and 36, or both, to the activities of the 
complainant, its affiliates, officers, members, attorneys or 
voluntary workers in making a contribution to anv person 
or group, of advice respecting his or its legal rivhts in a 
matter, case or proceeding involving an issue of racial segre­
gation or discrimination does not deny them due nrocess of 
law or the equal protection of the laws in violation of the 
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States, for the reasons that the application of Chapters 33

36 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Attv. Gen. of Va. 37

and 36, or either of them, to prohibit such activities (1) de­
prives them of their right to freedom of expression, free 
access to the courts, freedom of association with others, free- 
to pursue a profession free of arbitrary governmental re­
straint, and of their liberty and property, secured by the Due 
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Con­
stitution of the United States; and (2) denies to them the 
right to assist in the litigation of others in matters of racial 
discrimination where the State permits, by exemptions or 
otherwise, others similarly situated to foster, counsel and 
participate financially and otherwise in litigation in non- 
racial matters, and the right to counsel others and to advo­
cate the institution of litigation to eliminate racial segrega­
tion where the State permits, by exemptions or otherwise, 
others similarly situated to counsel persons or groups and to 
advocate the elimination of restrictions and prohibitions im­
posed by governmental action or custom and usage in non- 
racial matters, secured by the Equal Protection Clause of the 
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States.
page *19 }- Eleventh: The Court erred in adjudicating that 

the application of Chapters 33 and 36, or both, to 
the activities of complainant, its affiliates, officers, members, 
attorneys or voluntary workers in expending of monies to 
defray the costs and expenses, in whole or in part, of litiga­
tion involving an issue of racial segregation or discrimina­
tion does not deny them due process of law or the equal 
protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amend­
ment to the Constitution of the United States, for the reasons 
that the application of Chapters 33 and 36, or either of them, 
to prohibit such activities (1) deprives them of their right 
to freedom of expression, free access to the courts, freedom 
of association with others, freedom to pursue a profession 
free of arbitrary governmental restraint, and of their liberty 
and property, secured by the Due Process Clause of the 
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States; and (2) denies to them, the right to assist in the 
litigation of others in matters of racial discrimination where 
the State permits, by exemptions or otherwise, others simi­
larly situated to foster, counsel and participate financially 
and otherwise in litigation in non-racial matters, and the 
right to counsel others and to advocate the institution of 
litigation to eliminate racial segregation where the State 
permits, by exemptions or otherwise, others similarly situated 
to counsel persons or groups and to advocate the elimination 
of restrictions and prohibitions imposed by governmental 
action or custom and usage in non-racial matters, secured by



the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment 
to the Constitution of the United States, 

page 50 J- Twelfth: The Court erred in adjudicating that 
the application of Chapters 33 and 36, or both, to 

the activities of complainant, its affiliates, officers, members, 
attorneys or voluntary workers in assisting litigants in such 
litigation, cases or proceedings by persuading them to ex­
press and assert legal rights by receiving or accepting as­
sistance in the nature of advice and monies to defray the 
costs and expenses thereof, in any matter involving racial 
segregation or discrimination, does not deny them due pro­
cess of law or the equal protection of the laws in violation 
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States, for the reasons that the application of 
Chapters 33 and 36, or either of them, to prohibit such activi­
ties (1) deprives them of their right to freedom of expres­
sion, free access to the courts, freedom of association with 
others, freedom to pursue a profession free of arbitrary 
governmental restraint, and of their liberty and property, 
secured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amend­
ment to the Constitution of the United States; and (?) de­
nies to them the right to assist in the litigation of others in 
matters of racial discrimination where the State permits, by 
exemptions or otherwise, others similarly situated to foster, 
counsel and participate financially and otherwise in litigation 
non-racial matters, and denies to them the right to counsel 
others and to advocate the institution of litigation to elimi­
nate racial segregation where the State permits, by exemp­
tions or otherwise, others similarly situated to counsel per­
sons or groups and to advocate the elimination of restrictions 
and prohibitions imposed by governmental action or custom 

and usage in non-racial matters, secured by the 
page 51 }• Thirteenth: The Court erred in adjudicating

that the application of Chapters 33 and 36, or both, 
to the activities of complainant, its affiliates, officers, mem­
bers, attorneys or voluntary workers in making contributions 
to any person or group, of monies toward counsel fees and 
other expenses of litigation or the services of attorneys in a 
matter, case or proceeding involving an issue of racial segre­
gation or discrimination, does not deny them due process of 
law or the equal protection of the laws in violation of the 
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States, for the reasons that the application of Chapters 33 
and 36, or either of them, to prohibit such activities (1) 
deprives them of their right to freedom of expression, free ac­
cess to the courts, freedom of association with others, free­
dom to pursue a profession free of arbitrary governmental

38 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 39

restraint, and of their liberty and property, secured by the 
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States; and (2) denies to them 
the right to assist in the litigation of others in matters of 
racial discrimination where the State permits, by exemptions 
or otherwise, others similarly situated to foster, counsel and 
participate financially and otherwise in litigation in non- 
racial matters, and the right to counsel others and to advo­
cate the institution of litigation to eliminate racial segrega­
tion where the State permits, by exemptions or otherwise, 
others similarly situated to counsel persons or groups and to 
advocate the elimination of restrictions and prohibitions im­
posed by governmental action or custom and usage in non- 
racial matters, secured by the Equal Protection Clause of the 
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States.
page 52}- Fourteenth: The Court erred in adjudicating

that the application of Chapter 33 to the activities 
of complainant, its affiliates, officers, members, attorneys or 
voluntary workers, wherein there is an acceptance by an 
attorney of assistance from the complainants in the form of 
legal advice, monies toward counsel fees and other expenses 
of litigation in a matter, case or proceeding involving an 
issue of racial segregation or discrimination, does not deny 
them due process of law or the equal protection of the laws 
in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitu­
tion of the United States, for the reasons that the applica­
tion of Chapter 33 to prohibit such activities (1) deprives 
them of their right to freedom of expression, free access to 
the courts, freedom of association with others, freedom to 
pursue a profession free of arbitrary governmental restraint, 
and of their liberty and property, secured by the Due Process 
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution 
of the United States; and (2) denies to them the right to as­
sist in the litigation of others in matters of racial discri­
mination where the State permits, by exemptions or other­
wise, others similarly situated to foster, counsel and parti­
cipate financially and otherwise in litigation in non-racial 
matters, and the right to counsel others and to advocate 
the institution of litigation to eliminate racial segregation 
where the State permits, by exemptions or otherwise, others 
similarly situated to counsel persons or groups and to advo­
cate the elimination of restrictions and prohibitions imposed 
by governmental action or custom and usage in non-racial 
matters, secured by the Equal Protection Clause of the Four­

teenth Amendment to the Constitution of the 
page 53 }- United States.

Fifteenth: The Court erred in adjudicating



40 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia

that the application of Chapter 33 to the activities of com­
plainant, its affiliates, officers, members, attorneys or volun­
tary workers, wherein there is an acceptance by an attorney 
of employment by a person or group for the purposes of 
rendering legal service to such person or group in a matter, 
case or proceeding in which either complainant has furnished 
or will furnish assistance in the nature of advice, monies to­
ward counsel fees and other' expenses in any matter in­
volving racial segregation, does not deny them due process 
of law or the equal protection of the laws in violation of the 
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States, for the reasons that the application of Chapter 33 to 
prohibit such activities (1) deprives them of their right to 
freedom of expression, free access to the courts, freedom of 
association with others, freedom to pursue a profession free 
of arbitrary governmental restraint, and of their liberty 
and property, secured by the Due Process Clause of the 
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States; and (2) denies to them the right to assist in the litiga­
tion of others in matters of racial discrimination where the 
State permits, by exemptions or otherwise, others similarly 
situated to foster, counsel and participate financially and 
otherwise in litigation in non-racial matters, and the right to 
counsel others and to advocate the institution of litigation to 
eliminate racial segregation where the State permits, by 
exemptions or otherwise, others similarly situated to counsel 
persons or groups and to advocate the elimination of re­
strictions and prohibitions imposed by governmental action 
or custom and usage in non-racial matters, secured bv the 
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the 

Constitution of the United States, 
page 54 }> Sixteenth: The Court erred in adjudicating

that the application of Chapter 33 to the activities 
of complainant, its affiliates, officers, members, attorneys or 
voluntary workers, wherein there is an acceptance by an 
attorney or employment by complainant for purposes of 
rendering legal services to a person or group desiring his 
service in a matter, case, or proceeding involving1 an issue 
of racial segregation or discrimination, does not denv them 
due process of law or the enual protection of the laws in 
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution 
of the United States, for the reasons that the application of 
Chapter 33 to prohibit such activities (1) deprives them of 
their right to freedom of expression, free access to the courts, 
freedom of association with others, freedom to pursue a



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 41

profession free of arbitrary governmental restraint, and of 
their liberty and property, secured by the Due Process Clause 
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States; and (2) denies to them the right to assist in 
the litigation of others in matters of racial discrimination 
where the State permits, by exemptions or otherwise, others 
similarly situated to foster, counsel and participate finan­
cially and otherwise in litigation in non-racial matters, and 
the right to counsel others and to advocate the institution of 
litigation to eliminate racial segregation where the State 
permits, by exemptions or otherwise, others similarly situated 
to counsel persons or groups and to advocate the elimination 
of restrictions and prohibitions imposed by governmental 
action or custom and usage in non-racial matters, secured by 
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment 

to the Constitution of the United States, 
page 55 }- Seventeenth: The Court erred in its failure

and refusal to award complainant an injunction 
as prayed, for the reason that the evidence clearly demon­
strated that the application of Chapters 33 and 3(5 to the 
activities of the complainant or its affiliates, its officers, 
members, contributors, voluntary workers, attorneys en­
gaged by it or to whom it or its affiliates mav contribute 
monies, or litigants receiving its assistance, would deny them 
their liberty and property without due process of law and 
the equal protection of the laws secured to them by the Four­
teenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOP 
THE ADVANCEMENT OF 
COLORED PEOPLE, Complainant 

By OLIVER W. HILL
Of Counsel for Complainant.

OLIVER W. HILL 
118 East Leigh Street 
Richmond, Virginia.

ROBERT L. CARTER 
20 West 40th Street 
New York 18, New York.

Counsel for Complainant.



RECORD NO. 5097

Filed in the Clerk’s Office the 20th day of May, 1958.

42 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia

Teste: # B-2870

LUTHER LIBBY, JR., Clerk 
By E. M. EDWARDS, D. C.

N. A. A. C. P. Legal Defense and Educational Fund, In­
corporated, Complainant,

v.

Albertis S. Harrison, Jr., Attorney General of Virginia, Su­
preme Court Building, Richmond, Virginia, T. Gray 
Haddon, Commonwealth’s Attorney for the City of Rich­
mond, Virginia, 3818 Hermitage Road, Richmond, Vir­
ginia, William L. Carleton, Commonwealth’s Attorney 
for the City of Newport News, Virginia, 959 Shore Drive, 
Newport News, Virginia, Linwood B. Tabb, Common­
wealth’s Attorney for the City of Norfolk, Virginia, 1118 
North Shore Road, Norfolk, Virginia, William J. Hassan, 
Commonwealth’s Attorney for the County of Arlington, 
Virginia, 5806 Ninth Road, North, Arlington, Virginia, 
Frank N. Watkins, Commonwealth’s Attorney for the 
County of Prince Edward, Virginia, Farmville, Vir­
ginia, Defendants.

BILL OF COMPLAINT.

To the Honorable E. W. Hening, Jr., Judge of said Court:

Complainant respectfully shows the following case:

1. This is a suit, pursuant to Sections 8-578 to 8-585, in­
clusive, of the Code of Virginia of 1950, for a judgment de­
claratory of the construction and interpretation of Chapters 
33 and 36 of the Acts of the General Assembly of Virginia, 
Extra Session 1956, being Sections 54-74, 54-78 and 54-79, as 
amended, and Sections 18-349.31 to 18-349.37, inclusive, of 
the Code of Virginia of 1950, as they may effect complain­
ant, its officers, members, contributors or voluntary work­

ers, or attorneys retained or employed by it or to 
page 2 }> whom it may contribute monies, because of the 

activities of complainant in the past or the con­
tinuance of like activities in the future, in the light of com­



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Ya. 43

plainant’s contentions that enforcement thereof would deny 
complainant, its officers, members, contributors or voluntary 
workers, or attorneys retained or employed by it or to whom 
it may contribute monies, their liberty and property without 
due process of law and the equal protection of the laws 
secured by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution 
of the United States.

2. Complainant is now, and since March 20, 1940 has been, 
a non-profit membership corporation incorporated under 
the laws of the State of New York, and is now, and since 
October 30, 1956 has been duly authorized by the State Cor­
poration Commission to function as a foreign corporation 
in Virginia. As set forth in its articles of incorporation, a 
copy of which is filed herewith as Exhibit “ A,” its principal 
purposes are as follows:

(a) To render legal aid gratuitously to such Negroes as 
may appear to be worthy thereof, who are suffering legal in­
justices by reason of race or color and unable to employ and 
engage legal aid and assistance on account of proverty.

(b) To seek and promote the educational facilities for 
Negroes who are denied the same by reason of race or color.

(c) To conduct research, collect, collate, acquire, compile 
and publish facts, information and statistics concerning 
educational facilities and educational opportunities for 
Negroes and the inequality in the educational facilities and 
educational opportunities provided for Negroes out of public 
funds; and the status of the Negro in American life.

3. Defendant Albertis S. Harrison, Jr., is Attorney General 
of Virginia and as such is the chief executive officer of the 
Department of Law of the Commonwealth of Virginia. De­
fendants T. Gray Haddon, William. L. Carleton, Linwood P>. 
Tabb, Jr., William J. Hassan and Frank N. Watkins are 
the Commonwealth’s Attorneys for the Cities of Richmond, 
Newport News and Norfolk, and the Counties of Arlington 
and Prince Edward, Virginia, respectively. Each is au­
thorized to enforce the laws aforesaid.

4. Complainant has pursued its authorized corporate ob­
jectives, in Virginia (1) by conducting research and collect­
ing, collating and compiling facts, information and statistics 
concerning the extent of racial segregation and discrimina­
tion, the lack of scientific basis therefor, and the benefits of

desegregation to humanity, our society and govern- 
page 3 J- ments, State and Federal: (2) by compiling scienti­

fic data bearing upon racial and other minority dis­
crimination within the United States; (3) by obtaining legal



44

research by lawyers, law school professors and others in the 
field of constitutional law, with particular reference to civil 
rights of individuals; (4) by rendering, upon request, legal 
aid and assistance to litigants seeking redress for the denial 
of civil rights by reason of race or color, when the litigant is 
financially unable to bear the cost of the litigation; and (5) 
by informing citizens, through public meetings, speeches, 
lectures and other media, as to their legal rights. Its pro­
gram is financed solely by voluntary contributions solicited 
from individuals and organizations in Virginia and elsewhere.

5. In the prosecution of this program, complainant em­
ploys a full-time staff of attorneys in its office in New York 
City, retains on an annual retainer basis five additional at­
torneys outside of New York, including one in Richmond, 
Virginia, engages local attorneys for investigation, research 
and other legal services in particular cases, and utilizes the 
voluntary services of approximately one hundred attorneys 
and a large number of social scientists throughout the United 
States, some of whom are in the Commonwealth of Virginia. 
It has contributed monies, legal services, data, and the results 
of expert studies in a large number of civil rights cases liti­
gated both within and without Virginia, including nearly 
every major litigation since 1940 involving a question of the 
validity of governmental action predicated upon race. By 
virtue of its efforts to secure equal rights and opportunities 
for Negroes in the United States, complainant has become 
regarded as an instrument through which individuals may 
act in their efforts to combat unconstitutional color re­
strictions.

6. Chapter 36 of the Acts of the General Assembly of Vir­
ginia, Extra Session 1956, being now Sections 18-349.31 to 
18-349.37, of the Code of Virginia of 1950, makes it unlawful 
for any person not having a direct interest in the proceedings 
to promise, give, offer, receive, or solicit any money, per­
sonal services, or any other thing of value, or any other as­
sistance, as an inducement to any person to commence or to 
prosecute further any original proceeding in any court of the 
Commonwealth of Virginia, or before any board or ad­
ministrative agency within the said Commonwealth, or in any 
United States court located within the said Commonwealth

against the Commonwealth of Virginia, any de­
page 4 }> partment, agency or political subdivision thereof,

or any person acting as an officer or employee for 
either or both or any of the foregoing, or for any person 
not related by blood or marriage or who does not occupy a 
position of trust or a position in loco parentis to one who 
becomes the plaintiff in a suit or action, who has no direct

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 45

interest in the subject matter of the proceeding and whose 
advice has not been sought in accordance with the Virginia 
canons of legal ethics, to advise, counsel or otherwise insti­
gate the bringing of a suit or action against the Common­
wealth of Virginia, any department, agency or political sub­
division thereof, or any person acting as an officer or em­
ployee for either or both or any of the foregoing. “ Person” 
is defined to include “ person, firm, partnership, corporation, 
organization or association,” and “ direct interest” as “ a 
personal right or a pecuniary right or liability.” A con­
troversy has arisen between complainant and defendants as 
to whether the provisions of this statute apply to the activi­
ties of complainant, its officers, members, contributors or 
voluntary workers, or attorneys engaged by it or to whom 
it may contribute monies, as hereinafter more fully appears.

7. Chapter 33 of the Acts of the General Assembly of Vir­
ginia, Extra Session 1956, amended Sections 54-74, 54-78 and 
54-79, of the Code of Virginia of 1950 which define the ele­
ments and penalties of unprofessional conduct on the part of 
an attorney and the offenses of “ running” and “ capping.” 
In its original form, Sections 54-74(6) defined “ unprofes­
sional conduct” as including “ the improper solicitation of 
any legal or professional business or employment, either 
directly or indirectly.” Chapter 33 amended this subsection 
to extend the definition to include “ the acceptance of employ­
ment, retainer, compensation or costs from any person, part­
nership, corporation, organization or association with knowl­
edge that such person, partnership, corporation, organization 
or association has violated any provision of Article 7 of this 
Chapter,” which includes Sections 54-78 and 54-79. The 
former, as amended by Chapter 33, now provides:

(1) A “ runner” or “ capper” is any person, corpora­
tion, partnership or association acting in any manner or in 
any capacity as an agent for an attorney at law within this 
State or for any person, partnership, corporation, organiza­
tion or association which employs, retains or compensates 
any attorney at law in connection with any judicial proceed­
ing in which such person, partnership, corporation, organiza­
tion or association is not a party and in which it has no 

pecuniary right or liability, in the solicitation or 
page 5 }- procurement of business for such attorney at law 

or for such person, partnership, corporation, or­
ganization or association in connection with any judicial pro­
ceedings for which such attorney or such person, partnership, 
corporation, organization or association is employed, re­
tained or compensated * * *



46 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia

(2) An “ Agent” is one who represents another in dealing 
with a third person or persons.

Section 54-79, as amended by Chapter 33, now reads in 
part:

It shall be unlawful for any person, corporation, partner- 
ship or association to act as a runner or capper as defined in 
§54-78 to solicit any business for an attorney at law or such 
person, partnership, corporation, organization or association 
* * * in any public place * * * or upon private property of 
any character whatsoever.

A controversy has arisen between complainant and de­
fendants as to whether the provisions of this statute apply 
to the activities of complainant, its officers, members, contri­
butors or voluntary workers, or attorneys engaged by it or to 
whom it may contribute monies, as hereinafter more fully 
appears.

8. In cities and counties wherein defendants are authorized 
to enforce said statutes, and elsewhere in the Common­
wealth, complainant (a) contributes, upon request, the serv- 
ives of attorneys, the results of expert studies and scientific 
data, and monies for defraying counsel fees and expenses of 
litigation, in cases pending therein, or affecting public 
officials, agencies or facilities therein; (b) affords advice and 
counsel to persons requesting the same with respect to mat­
ters involving their civil rights; and (c) informs citizens, 
through public meetings, speeches and other media, as to 
their civil rights.

9. On November 29, 1956, complainant instituted in the 
United States District Court for the Eastern Disti-ict of Vir­
ginia, Richmond Division, Civil Action No. 2436 against the 
defendants herein, seeking a declaratory judgment as to, 
and an injunction restraining the enforcement of, certain 
laws enacted at the 1956 Extra Session of the General As­
sembly of Virginia, including Chapters 33 and 36, on the 
ground that the enforcement of said statutes against com­
plainants, its officers, members, contributors or voluntary 
workers, or attorneys, retained or employed by it or to whom 
it might contribute monies, because of complainant’s activi­
ties in the past or the continuance of like activities in the 
future, would deny them their liberty and property without

due process of law and the equal protection of the 
page 6 }- laws secured by the Fourteenth Amendment of 

the Constitution of the United States. In its com­
plaint, a copy of which is filed herewith as Exhibit “ B ,” com-



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Ya. 47

plainant alleged, and in their answer, a copy of which is filed 
herewith as Exhibit “ C,” defendants denied, that Chapters 
33 and 36 applied to the activities of complainant and that 
said statutes were on that account unconstitutional and 
void. The Court, in an opinion rendered January 21, 1958, 
a copy of which is filed herewith as Exhibit “ D,” concluded 
that Chapters 33 and 36 were too vague and ambiguous to 
enable it to pass upon their constitutionality and by a judg­
ment entered April 30, 1958, a copy of which is filed herewith 
as Exhibit “ E ,” ordered that the complaint therein be 
retained for a reasonable time pending the determination of 
such proceedings in the courts of the Commonwealth of Vir­
ginia as complainant might see fit to bring to secure an in­
terpretation of Chapters 33 and 36 as they may affect com­
plainant because of its activities in the past or the con­
tinuance of like activities in the future.

10. The provisions of Chapters 33 and 36 are susceptible 
to the construction that they render illegal complainant’s 
principal activities and functions in Virginia, and subject 
to severe penalties the complainant, its officers, members, 
contributors, voluntary workers and attorneys associated 
with its functions, if such activities are continued. The 
operation of said statutes to produce these consequences 
would destroy the rights of complainant, its officers, mem­
bers, contributors, voluntary workers and attorneys asso­
ciated with its functions, to freedom of expression, access to 
the courts, and equality of treatment, and would deny them 
their liberty and property without due process of law and 
the equal protection of the laws secured by the Fourteenth 
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and 
would be unconstitutional and void.

Wherefore, complainant prays that this Court enter a de­
cree declaratory of the construction and interpretation of 
Chapters 33 and 36 of the Acts of the General Assembly of 
Virginia, Extra Session 1956, as they may affect complain­
ant, its officers, members, contributors or voluntary workers, 
or attorneys retained or employed by it or to whom it may 
contribute monies, in the light of complainant’s contentions 
that enforcement thereof because of either of said activities 
would deny complainant its liberty and property without due 
process of law and the equal protection of the laws secured 
bv the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the 
United States, because of any of the following activities:

page 7 }- 1. Publication or dissemination, by complainant
_ to any person or group, of facts, data, statistics or 

information, or the results of factual, scientific or legal re-



search or investigation, respecting any aspect of racial 
segregation or discrimination.

2. Publication or dissemination, by complainant to any 
person or group, by means of a speech, meeting or other 
medium, of information respecting legal rights in any matter, 
case or proceeding involving an issue of racial segregation 
or discrimination.

3. Advocacy, by complainant to any person or group, that 
persons subjected to any form of racial segregation or dis­
crimination assert their legal rights in a case or proceeding 
appropriate thereto.

4. Contribution by complainant to any person or group, 
upon request of such person or group, of advice respecting 
his or its legal rights in a matter, case or proceeding in­
volving an issue of racial segregation or discrimination to 
Avhich such person or group is, but complainant is not, a 
party or in which such person or group may have, but com­
plainant does not have, some personal or pecuniary right or 
liability.

5. Contribution by complainant to any person or group, 
upon request of such person or group, of (a) monies toward 
counsel fees and other expenses of litigation, (b) the services 
of attorneys, (c) the services of experts, or (d) facts, data, 
statistics or information, or the results of factual, scientific 
or legal research or investigation, in matters, cases or pro­
ceedings involving an issue of racial segregation or dis­
crimination to which such person or group is, but complain­

ant is not, a party or in which such person or
page 8 group has, but complainant does not have, a 

pecuniary right or liability.
6. Solicitation by complainant, its officers, members or 

voluntary workers, of money or services to be employed for 
either of the purposes specified in paragraphs 1 to 5, in­
clusive, of this prayer.

7. Contribution to complainant, by an officer, member, 
contributor or voluntary worker, of money or services to be 
employed for either of the purposes specified in paragraphs 
1 to 5, inclusive, of this prayer.

8. Acceptance by an attorney of (a) assistance by com­
plainant of the character specified in paragraph 5 of this 
prayer, (b) employment by a person or' group for purposes 
of rendering legai services to such person or group in a 
matter, ease, or proceeding in which complainant has fur­
nished or will furnish assistance of the character specified 
in paragraph 5 of this prayer, (c) employment by com­
plainant for purposes of rendering legal services to a person 
or group desiring his services in matters, cases or proceed-

48 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



ings involving an issue of racial segregation or discrimina­
tion, or (d) employment by complainant for purposes of 
rendering legal services to the complainant of a character 
other than that specified in paragraph 5 of this prayer.

and that this Court award complainant its costs in this behalf 
expended.

N. A. A. C. P. LEGAL DEFENSE 
AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, IN­
CORPORATED, Complainant,

By SPOTTSWOOD W. ROBINSON, III 
Of Counsel for Complainant.

• • • • •

page 15 l

N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., A tty. Gen. of Va. 49

• • •

Received and filed Jun. 9, 1958.

LUTHER LIBBY, JR., Clerk 
By E. M. EDWARDS, I). C.

N. A. A. C. P. Legal Defense and Educational Fund, In­
corporated, a Corporation, Plaintiff,

v.

Albertis S. Harrison, Jr., Attorney General of Virginia, ct ah,
Defendants.

ANSWER.

To the Honorable E. W. Hening, Jr., Judge of said Court:

The answer of Albertis S. Harrison, Jr., T. Gray Haddon, 
William L. Carleton, Linwood B. Tabb, Jr., William J. 
Hassan, and Frank N. Watkins to a bill of complaint filed 
against them in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, 
Virginia, by N. A. A. C. P. Legal Defense and Educational 
Fund, Incorporated, a corporation.

These defendants for answer thereto, or to so much there­
of as they be advised that it is material they should answer, 
answer and say:



1. They are not advised as to whether the activities of the 
plaintiff violate the provisions of Chapters 33 and 36 of the 
Acts of the General Assembly of Virginia, Extra Session, 
1956 (Sections 54-74, 54-78 and 54-79, as amended, and Sec­
tions 18-349.31 and 18-349.37, inclusive, of the Code of Vir­

ginia). It is the contention of the defendants that
page 16 J- the said Chapters 33 and 36 do not violate the 

equal protection clause or the due process clause 
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States.

2. They admit the allegations contained in paragraphs 
2 and 3 of the bill of complaint.

3. They are not advised as to the allegations contained 
in paragraphs 4, 5 and 8 of the bill of complaint, and call 
for strict proof of said allegations.

4. They admit the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of 
the hill of complaint.

5. They deny the allegations contained in paragraph 10 
of the hill of complaint, and call for strict proof of said 
allegations.

And now, having fully answered the plaintiff’s hill, these 
defendants pray to be hence dismissed with their reasonable 
costs by them in this behalf expended.

ALBERTIS S. HARRISON, JR., 
T. GRAY HADDON,
WILLIAM L. CARLETON, 
LINWOOD B. TABB, JR., 
WILLIAM J. HASS AN,
FRANK N. WATKINS, 

Defendants.
C. F. HICKS

Assistant Attorney General of Virginia,
Supreme Court Building,

DAVID J. MAYS 
HENRY T. WICKHAM

1407 State-Planters Bank Building,
Richmond, Virginia.

Attorneys for the Defendants.
* * • • •

50 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia

page 37 \



Received and filed Apr. 21, 1959.

LUTHER LIBBY, JR., Clerk 
By E. M. EDWARDS, D. C.

IN CHANCERY 
No. B-2870

N. A. A. C. P. Legal Defense and Educational Fund, In­
corporated, Complainant,

v.

Albertis S. Harrison, Jr., Attorney General of Virginia, et al.,
Defendants.

N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Attv. Gen. of Va. 51

NOTICE OF APPEAL AND ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR.

Complainant, N. A. A. C. P. Legal Defense and Educational 
Fund, Incorporated, hereby gives notice of its appeal from 
the final order of the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, 
Virginia, entered on the 25th day of February, 1959, in the 
ahove-captioned case, declaring that Chapters 33 and 36 of 
the Acts of the General Assembly of Virginia, Extra Session 
of 1956 (Sections 54-74, 54-78, 54-79, as amended, and Sec­
tions 18-349.31 to 18-349.37, inclusive, of the Code of Vir­
ginia of 1950), construed and interpreted in the light of 
the constitutional contentions theretofore made by com­
plainant in the United States District Court for the Eastern 
District of Virginia, Richmond Division, in the action styled 
“N. A. A. C. P. Legal Defense and Educational Fund, In­
corporated, v. Kenneth- C. Patty, Attorney General for the 
Commonwealth of Virginia, et al.,” being Civil Action No. 
2436, viz., that enforcement of such statutes would infringe 
rights secured by the Due Process and Equal Protection 
Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of 
the United States, apply to and prohibit certain of the cus­
tomary activities of complainant, its officers, members, con­
tributors, voluntary workers, and attorneys employed or 
retained by it or to whom it may contribute monies or serv­
ices; and complainant designates the following.

page 38 \ ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR.

First: The Court erred in ruling that the findings, con­
clusions and determinations of the United States District 
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Divi-



sion, in the cases styled “National Association for the Ad­
vancement of Coloured People v. Kenneth C. Patty, Attorney 
General for the Commonwealth of Virginia, et al.,” being 
Civil Action No. 2435, and “N. A. A. C. P. Legal Defense and 
Educational Fund, Incorporated, v. Kenneth C. Patty, Attor­
ney General for the Commonwealth of Virginia, et al.,” being 
Civil Action No. 2436, with respect to the constitutional 
validity of Chapters 31, 32 and 35 of the Acts of the General 
Assembly of Virginia, Extra Session 1956, were not, by 
reason of Section 1738 of Title 28 of the United States Code, 
made conclusive and binding upon the Court in this case.

Second: The Court erred in its application of the doctrine 
of collateral estoppel by refusing to rule that the findings, 
conclusions and determinations of the United States District 
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Divi­
sion, in the above-mentioned cases with respect to the con­
stitutional validity of Chapters 31, 32 and 35 of the Acts of 
the General Assembly of Virginia, Extra Session 1956, were 
conclusive and binding in this case.

Third: The Court erred in declaring that contribution by 
an attorney employed or retained by, or associated with, com­
plainant of advice to a person or group, respecting his or its 
legal rights in a matter, case or proceeding involving an is­
sue of racial segregation or discrimination amounts to either 
an improper solicitation of legal or professional business 
or employment within the provisions of Chapter 33, or an 
inducement to commence or prosecute law suits within the 
prohibitions contained in Chapter 36, or both, for the reason 
that neither of said statutes, properly construed in the liaht 
of complainant’s constitutional contentions under settled 
rules of statutory construction, applies to or prohibits said 
activities.

Fourth: The Court erred in declaring that the expendi­
ture of monies by complainant to defray the costs and ex­
penses, in whole or in part, of litigation involving an issue 

of racial segregation or discrimination amounts to 
page 39 either an improper solicitation of legal or pro­

fessional business or employment within the pro­
visions of Chapters 33, or an inducement to commence or 
prosecute law suits within the prohibitions contained in 
Chapter 36, or both, for the reason that neither of said 
statutes, properly construed in the light of complainant’s 
constitutional contentions under settled rules of statutory 
construction, applies to or prohibits said activities.

F ifth : The Court erred in declaring that assistance by
complainant, its officers, members or voluntary workers, or 
attorneys employed or retained by, or connected with, it, to

52 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 53

litigants in litigation, cases or proceedings involving an issue 
of racial segregation or discrimination by persuading them 
to express and assert legal rights by receiving or accepting 
assistance in the nature of advice respecting their legal rights 
therein and monies to defray the costs and expenses thereof 
amounts to either an improper solicitation of legal or pro­
fessional business or employment within the provisions of 
Chapter 33, or an inducement to commence or prosecute law 
suits within the prohibitions contained in Chapter 36, or 
both, for the reason that neither of said statutes, properly 
construed in the light of complainant’s constitutional con­
tentions under settled rules of statutory construction, ap­
plies to or prohibits said activities.

Sixth: The Court erred in declaring that contributions by 
complainant to a person or group of monies toward counsel 
fees and other expenses of litigation or of the services of 
attorneys in a matter, case or proceeding involving an issue 
of racial segregation or discrimination amounts to either an 
improper solicitation of legal or professional business or em­
ployment within the provisions of Chapter 33, or an induce­
ment to commence or prosecute law suits within the prohibi­
tions contained in Chapter 36, or both, for the reason that 
neither of said statutes, properly construed in the light of 
complainant’s constitutional contentions under settled rules 
of statutory construction, applies to or prohibits said 
activities.

Seventh: The Court erred in declaring that acceptance
by an attorney of assistance from complainant in the form of 
legal advice, monies toward counsel fees and other expenses 
of litigation in a matter, case or proceeding involving an 

issue of racial segregation or discrimination 
page 40 }- amounts to a violation of the provisions of Chapter 

33, for the reason that said statute, properly con­
strued in the light of complainant’s constitutional conten­
tions under settled rules of statutory construction, does not 
apply to or prohibit said activities.

Eighth: The Court erred in declaring that acceptance by 
an attorney of employment by a person or group for the 
purpose of rendering legal service to such person or group 
in a matter, case or proceeding involving an issue of racial 
segregation or discrimination wherein complainant has 
furnished or will furnish assistance in the nature of advice 
respecting his or its legal rights therein, or monies toward 
counsel fees or costs and other expenses thereof amounts to 
a violation of the provisions of Chapter 33, for the reason 
that said statute, properly construed in the light of com­
plainant’s constitutional contentions under settled rules of



statutory construction, does not apply to or prohibit said 
activities.

Ninth: The Court erred in declaring that acceptance by 
an attorney of employment by complainant for the purpose of 
rendering legal services to a person or group desiring his 
services in a matter, case or proceeding involving an issue 
of racial segregation or discrimination amounts to a viola­
tion of the provisions of Chapter 33, for the reason that said 
statute, properly construed in the light of complainant’s con­
stitutional contentions under settled rules of statutory con­
struction, does not apply to or prohibit said activities.

N. A. A. C. P. LEGAL DEFENSE 
AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, IN­
CORPORATED, Complainant 

By SPOTTSWOOD W. ROBINSON, III 
Of Counsel for Complainant.

54 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Attv. Gen. of Va. 55

RECORDS NOS. 5096  AND 5097

Transcript of Testimony
•  •  •  •  •

page 5 }•
• • • • •

Mr. Robinson: If your Honor please, there has been a
stipulation made between counsel for the complainants and 
the defendants in both cases. A copy of that stipulation ap­
pears in the file in one or the other of the two cases.

Under the stipulation either-party may offer for ad­
mission in evidence in these cases any portion of the record 
in either of the two actions previously involving the same 
parties that were recently pending in the U.S. District 
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The stipulation 
extends to any portion of the record in either of the two 
actions respectively known as Civil Action Nos. 2435 and 
2436, formerly pending in the Richmond Division of the 
United States District Court for the Eastern District of 
Virginia. This extends to any of the evidence, whether it 
was testimonial or documentary, introduced by either party 

to the actions.
page 6 }* The stipulation further provides that in lieu of 

any other kind or manner of authentication, any 
portion of the record in either of these cases might be in­
troduced upon the certificate of counsel for the party intro­
ducing that portion that it is an accurate copy of the portion 
of the record that it purports to be.

The stipulation further provides that any such evidence 
or any such portions of the record offered for this purpose 
will be admitted subject to any proper objection on the 
grounds of incompetency, irrelevancy or immateriality, ex­
cept lack of authentication in a manner other than as pro­
vided in the stipulation.

It further provides that neither party shall be precluded 
from offering additional evidence by reason of this stipu­
lation.

And lastly, it provides that neither of the complainants 
by entering into the stipulation waives his legal position 
that the determinations as made by the District Court are 
conclusive here.

I don’t suppose there is anything more that need be 
done with reference to that stipulation. It is signed by coun-



sel for both sides. It was filed with the Clerk a few days 
ago.

The Court: The Court has the stipulation, you refer to in
hand. I t has been marked “ Received and filed” 

page 7 }- November 6 in the Clerk’s office in each case, and 
the Court has read the stipulation, and considers 

it part of the record.
Mr. Robinson: Now, if Your Honor please, pursuant to

that stipulation, we do have portions of the record in these 
two actions that Ave would now like to introduce here.

I think it would consist—we have a certificate conform­
ing with the stipulation, and I suppose it might save a little 
time if I presented the Court with a copy of the certificate, 
and counsel for the defendants.

The Court: Has counsel for the defendants received a 
copy of this certificate?

Mr. Robinson: No, they have not. I will give them copies 
right now.

The Court: Mr. Robinson, in the papers handed to me 
with the certificate, which lists R-l through R-22, I  find no 
R-9.

Mr. Robinson: If Your Honor please, that is a four-
volume transcript that we have here at the counsel table. I 
would like to explain that we are getting ready to make use 
of it in just a moment. But as the certificate states, it is a 
transcript of the trial proceedings in the District Court con­
sisting of four volumes.

Perhaps I should add a further word concerning this 
certificate. As the Court has undoubtedly already seen, there 

were some exhibits when the actions were tried 
page 8 }> in the District Court that were attached to the 

complaints in those actions, and also were in­
troduced in evidence at the hearing. And whether that was 
true, as the middle paragraph, the first full paragraph on 
the second page indicates, we did not undertake to supply 
duplicate copies of those exhibits, but simply in the certifi­
cate pointed out for the information of the Court that they 
Avere the same exhibits, with the result that the Court Avould 
have the only data that I  have just passed up to the Court, 
AAuth no duplication.

I AATould also like to point ont that the documents that 
appear as R-l to R-22, inclusive, comprise all of the record 
on appeal in the Supreme Court of the United States in 
those actions.

The Court: R-l through AArh a t?
Mr. Robinson: R-l through R-22—comprise the entire 

record as it is in the Supreme Court of the United States, 
Avith the exception of the five items that appear at the end

56 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



oi

of the certificate. While these five exhibits are not here 
supplied, the character of each of those exhibits, we submit, 
sufficiently appears either from the transcript of the trial 
proceedings or from the majority opinion ot the District 
Court.

Mr. Mays: I might say, if Your Honor please, as to the 
evidence that has just been offered, while we have grave 

doubt as to the materiality of some of the items, 
page 9 }- we have, of course, no jury, so we have no concern 

about that, and so have no objection to race.
Mr. Robinson: We would like to introduce that in evi­

dence from the transcript of the trial proceedings in the 
District Court. In other words, we would like to introduce, 
pursuant to the stipulation and the certificate, those portions 
of the testimony as given in the District Court in evidence 
in the two cases now being heard by this Court.

This is the testimony of the following persons:—and I 
will also give for purposes of the record the pages of the 
transcript at which the testimony in each instance appears 
—W. Lester Banks, pages 8 through 16; Roy W ilkins, pages 
61 through 130; Oliver W. Hill, pages 130 through 169; 
Jack C. Orndoff, O-r-n-d-o-f-f, so it is spelled in the tran­
script, pages 170 to 175; Robert D. Robinson, pages 176 
through 183; Sarah B. Brooks, 184 through 192; Mildred 
D. Brown, pages 193 through 203; Edith Burton, pages 204 
through 206; Margaret I. Finner, F-i-n-n-e-r, pages 207 
through 215; Barbara S. Marx, M-a-r-x, pages 218 through 
226; Thurgood Marshall, pages 248 through 321; Martin A. 
Martin, pages 321 through 329; Roland D. Ely, pages 329 
through 335; S. W. Tucker, pages 336 through 341; Otis 
Scott, pages 575 to 579; Viola A. Xeal, X-e-a-1, pages 580 
to 588; George P. Morton, pages 589 through 600; and Guy 

R. Friddell, F-r-i-d-d-e-1-1, pages 600 through 603; 
page 10 }■ C. Harrison Mann, M-a-n-n, Jr., pages 500 

through 541.
Mr. Mays: May I make an inquiry of counsel! As I 

understand it, this entire record to which he referred is 
nowT a part of this proceeding. T did not know whether lie 
had in mind having the matter he just adverted to copied 
in the record separately or not. But isn’t it all before the 
Court without any specific designation?

Mr. Robinson: Yes, Your Honor, T think it is all before 
the Court. What we tried to do here is produce the current 
record in the District Court. However, while all of the tran­
script and all the testimony in the District Court is here, 
I simply wanted to offer this for the purposes of these cases 
as evidence coming from the complainants in these cases in

N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Ya.



order to save the necessity of having to put the same witness 
on to testify to the same thing. In other words, while all of 
the testimony in the District Court is here, at the same time 
only the portions that we are offering for evidentiary pur­
poses, as distinguished from the purpose of having the 
entire record here, are the portions of the evidence that I 
have just enumerated.

To answer the second part of Mr. May’s inquiry, it was 
not our purpose to have the reporter copy into the tran­
script here the portions of the testimony to which I have 
just referred. It seems to me that having introduced that 

testimony for our purposes in this case, and the 
page 11 } Court having the entire transcript before it, that 

the evidence is before the Court to the same 
extent that it would he either if the witnesses themselves 
testified in these cases, or to the same extent that it would 
he if we had the reporter copy out of the transcript over 
in the District Court into the transcript in this Court.

Mr. M ays: Can it he understood, sir, that that is tm e
of the Avhole record and not of those portions just desig­
nated? Otherwise, we will have to come up and designate 
the rest.

Mr. Robinson: Certainly, is it all right with us. The
point I  am trying to make is this, that the only portions of 
the testimony that we are introducing as our own evidence 
in these two cases before the Court here today are the 
portions that I enumerated. So far as the balance of the 
record is concerned, if the defendants want to introduce it 
in evidence, they would certainly have that privilege.

Mr. Maj^s: The point is, Your Honor, it is already there.
That is the point I  want to get clear.

The Court: The point I raised as to R-9, I understand 
that you are going to offer the transcript in the prior pro­
ceedings consisting of 600 pages, and I understand it has 
been received without objection.

Mr. Robinson: In the record without objection in this 
proceeding. But the point I am making is this: We don’t 

consider ourselves bound by the testimony they 
page 12 put in over at the District Court. So consequently, 

while all of the transcript is in the record here 
and may be referred to by another side, we are offering, in 
lieu of having those people come back and testify here, their 
testimony over in the District Court, we are offering that 
as our testimony. We do not offer as testimony emanating 
from us, and which will be binding upon us, other portions 
of the transcript. That is the point I am trying to make.

The Court: If that were true, then, why didn’t you, as

58 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



part of R-9 offer just the pages you rely on out of the 
transcript in the District Court?

Mr. Robinson: We thought, if Your Honor please, that 
it would be desirable to have before this Court, in view of 
the position that we have taken with reference to the effect 
of the District Court’s determinations in these actions, to 
have the full record from the District Court here, and that 
was the purpose in offering the entirety of the transcript, 
just as we undertook to offer as far as we were able to get 
copies of them the balance of the record in those actions 
as it appears in the Supreme Court. In other words, in 
introducing the transcript along with the other exhibits, 
along with the other papers marked R-l through R-22, what 
Ave were trying to do is to get here the complete record as 
it Avas in the District Court in order that this Court would 
be in position to make a determination as to how far those 

findings and conclusions OA7er in the District 
page 13 } Court might have a bearing or might have a 

conclusive effect here. That Avas the purpose of 
trying to put the Avhole thing in.

The Court: But I believe Mr. Mays’ point is, put the 
AA’hole record of the District Court in here.

Mr. Robinson: Put the Avdiole record in here. But I 
Avouldn’t consider that because aco undertook to supply 
in these cases the full record in the District Court that 
our actions in doing so would have the same effect as it 
would have if Ave offered the testimony. For example, as I 
adverted to a feAV minutes ago, I don’t think that simply 
by getting the entire record here, bringing it over for 
the purposes that I have just mentioned, that Ave would be 
bound by evidence of the defendants themselves introduced 
in the District Court. We are perfectly willing to be bound 
by the testimony of the Avitness whom I enumerated a feAV 
minutes ago. But I don’t think that Ave Avould be bound as 
though they Avere our own witness by other witnesses avIio 

testified for the defendant in the District Court. That is the 
only point I am trying to make.

The Court: Do you gentlemen care to be hoard from ?
Mr. Mays: No, sir. We will let the record, speak for 

itself.
The Court: Well, the entire record has been placed in on 

your offer under this certificate under R-9, and without 
objection by the defendants, the Court considers 

page 14 J- the entire record in. And yet so far as the letter 
“ R ” is concerned, if you believe the evidence 

of these witnesses might possibly carry your point, that is 
another thing. But when you offer the record here to the

N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 59



Court and it is accepted without objection, the Court con­
siders the entire record received, subject to any irrelevancy.

(The certificate and items R-l through R^22 listed were 
received in evidence.)

Mr. Robinson: The only point I want to make is, I don’t
want to be bound by the testimony of witnesses who testi­
fied for the defendants other than those who were enum­
erated in my earlier statement.

If we are over that, if the Court please, I would like to 
request the Court to take judicial notice of certain things 
that I think would be within the realm of the Court’s 
capacity to judicially notice that we believe would have a 
bearing upon the essential problem before the Court in these 
cases, and that is the construction of the two statutes in­
volved.

In this regard I would like to ask the Court to take 
judicial notice of chapters 34 and 37 of the extra session 
of the General Assembly of Virginia, of 1956, these being 
two statues that were enacted by the same session of the 
General Assembly enacting chapters 33 and 36 which are 

the subject of construction here, 
page 15 }- I would also ask the Court to take judicial 

notice of chapters 56 through 71, inclusive, of 
the acts of the General Assembly at the extra session of 
1956.

Next the report of the Virginia Commission on Public 
Education, which is Senate Document No. 1 of the General 
Assembly of Virginia at the regular session, 1956; next, 
the Act of the General Assembly approved on December 3,
1955, submitting to the qualified electors of Virginia the 
question whether there should be a convention to revise 
Section 141 of the Constitution of Virginia.

Next, the Act of the General Assembly approved January 
19, 1956, providing for the election of delegates to the Con­
stitutional Convention, and related matters.

Next, Senate Joint Resolution No. 3 of the regular session,
1956, of the General Assemblv, which was adopted February 
1, 1956.

Next, the Ordinance of March 7, 1956, of the Constitu­
tional Convention ordaining a revision or amendment of 
Section 141 of the Constitution of Virginia.

Next, House Joint Resolution No. 97 of the General As­
sembly of Virginia at the regular session, 1956, adopted 
March 10, 1956.

And lastly, Senate Document No. 1 at the extra session,

60 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 61

1956, of the General Assembly, which is the message of the 
Governor to the General Assembly of Virginia at 

page 16 the 1956 extra session.
I would also like to say for the information of 

the Court that all of the documents to which I have made 
reference appear as exhibits 4 through 12, inclusive, at­
tached to the complaint in Civil Action No. 2435 in the U.S. 
District Court, and copies of all of those documents appear 
in the record from those two actions as earlier submitted 
this morning.

Just one other preliminary matter, if Your Honor 
please—

The Court: Just a moment.
Is there any objection to that?
Mr. Mays: What is already in the record—and I don’t 

mean here to debate anything—of course, our position is 
and will be, that is, to the matter of motive. And we are 
not concerned with motive but merely what the statute itself 
provides. I merely point out that difference of view.

Mr. Robinson: If Your Honor please, I would like the
record to be clear as to why we introduce them. AVe intro­
duce them as an aid to the Court in interpreting chapters 
36 and 32 as introduced here, and we do submit that they 
have an important bearing on the meaning of the two 
statutes involved here, being contemporaneous legislature 
and contemporaneous public action of an executive char­
acter.

The final preliminary matter that I would like 
page 17 [ to take up with the Court is th is: The complain­

ants in each of the two cases involved here except 
to the action of the Court, to the ruling of the Court as 
contained in the Court’s letter of November 3, 1958, to 
counsel, insofar as that ruling is predicated upon the con­
clusion that the determinations of the U.S. District Court 
for the Eastern District of A7irginia in civil actions No. 
2435 and 2436 are not conclusive in this action by reason 
of Title XXA7III, U.S. Code, Section 1738. Tn other words, 
to the extent the Court ruled that 28 U.S.C., Section 1738, 
does not afford a basis for a conclusive effect of those de­
terminations here, each of the complainants respectfully ex­
cepts.

Mr. Mays: Your Honor, in Mr. Robinson’s closing re­
marks he referred to the fact that the objection he just 
made related to both cases. He, as counsel, is really for 
only one of the two. May we understand that everything 
that has gone before relates to both cases as well?

Mr. Robinson: Yes, sir, that is entirely agreeable.



W. Lester Banks.

The Court: That is agreeable with you, Mr. Hill?
Mr. Hill: Yes, sir. We don’t see any need for duplica­

tion.

62 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia

W. LESTER BANKS,
was recalled as a witness, and having been previously duly 
sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION, 

page 18 }- By Mr. Hill:
Q. Will you state your name, address and oc­

cupation for the record, please?
A. My name is W. Lester Banks. I live at 1613 Ontario 

Avenue, Richmond, Virginia. I am employed as Executive 
Secretary for the Virginia State Conference of the National 
Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Q. You have testified previously in cases in the Federal 
District Court which you just referred to, have you not?

A. I have.
Q. You were Executive Secretary of the Virginia State 

Conference of N.A.A.C.P. branches long prior to 1956, were 
you not?

A. Yes, I  was.
Q. Is there any difference in the operation of the Vir­

ginia State Conference of N.A.A.C.P. branches and the 
N.A.A.C.P. in Virginia now than there was September 1, 
1956?

A. No, there is no difference. The Virginia State Con­
ference and its member branches operate today just as they 
did on September 1, 1956.

Q. And is that also true of the N.A.A.C.P., the National 
Association for the Advancement of Colored People, insofar 

as the overall organization operations in the State 
page 19 J- of Virginia are concerned?

A. Yes, it is true of the National Association, 
for the subsidiary branches, and for the State Conference.

Mr. H ill: That is all.

CROSS EXAMINATION.

By Mr Mays:
Q. Mr. Banks, did you have anything to do with the 

making of contacts between the Arlington County plaintiffs 
and their counsel? .



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 63

W. Lester Banks.

A. Did I have anything to do with that?
Q. Yes. Did the matter come through you, or did it go 

directly to counsel?
A. Well, in the Arlington County case, as I understand, 

the contacts were made directly with counsel.
Q. They did not come through you at all?
A. Not the original contacts.
Q. What about the Prince Edward case?
A. The same thing is true of the Prince Edward case.
Q. The Charlottesville case?
A. The same thing is true of Charlottesville.
Q. Arlington?
A. You just asked me about Arlington.
Q. I beg your pardon. I take it your view has not 

changed ?
A. No.

page 20 Q. The Newport News case?
A. The same thing would be true in Newport

News.
Q. How about the new ease in Warren County?
A. That would be true in Warren County, also.
Q. The Norfolk case?
A. That would be true there, too.
Q. You recall at the hearing to which Mr. Hill adverted, 

you testified concerning the manner in which those cases are 
handled, and on page 35 of the testimony that was taken as 
to September 16, 1957, when you were asked about getting 
lawyers for these cases, you replied: “ In that particular situ­
ation, when a complaint comes in, if the complaint comes into 
a local branch, the local branch in many instances will bring 
that complaint to me as Executive Secretary. In other in­
stances the complaints come directly from the individual. The 
first thing that I attempt to do is to ascertain whether or not 
the complaint falls within the general classification of the 
things that the Association is interested in, that is, cases in­
volving discrimination.”

Now, I take it that that is something set up for the record, 
but not something that operates in practice?

A. I can’t see how you could take it in that manner, sir.
Q. In none of these instances you referred to in the 

specific cases I mentioned, did it come through 
page 21 }- you to counsel, isn’t that true?

A. I  so testified.
Q. Has there been, as far as you know, any compensation 

paid to counsel in any of those cases as of this time, or



64 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia 

W. Lester Banks.

would you. know!
A. Yes, there has been.
Q. And to whom and in what amounts and for what case, 

as far as you can recall.
A. I  wouldn’t, Mr. Mays, be able to recall the amounts 

paid by the State Conference to any particular attorney 
without referring to the records.

Q. Would you mind getting that information and supply­
ing that to us at a later time during the course of the 
hearing?

A. I  would be glad to.
Q. Have you set up any kind of special fund within the 

Conference of branches to meet these legal expenses?
A. Yes and no. I suspect what you have reference to— 

you have reference to, at one time we had a special legal 
fund within the Virginia State Conference which was in 
actuality a general fund, and then it was set aside and 
designated as a general fund. Freedom funds are set up for 
the general operations of the Conference.

Q. When was that first set up?
A. When you say that, what do you refer to?

Q. That special fund.
page 2 2 \ A . I  ju s t  t e s t if ie d  th a t  I  su s p e c t  y o u  h a v e  

r e fe r e n c e  to  a d e s ig n a t io n  o f  a  le g a l  fu n d  w h ich  
Avas in  r e a l i ty  p a r t  o f  o u r  o v e r a ll  fu n d . B u t  a s  fa r  a s  th e  
C o n fe r e n c e  is  co n cern ed , A\7h a t  w e  d e s ig n a te d  a s  a D e fe n s e  
F u n d  Avas se t  u p  in  1947.

Q. And you still have that?
A. No, that has now become known as a Freedom Fund.
Q. You still have that ?
A. Yes, avc do have a Freedom Fund.
Q. Is there set up in that Freedom Fund a reseiwe to take 

care of the accumulating counsel fees in the several cases I 
have referred to?

A. At one time there Avas special fund, as I just referred 
to, known as the Legal Fund. That fund has changed over 
to the General Fund.

Q. Have you in any manner set up a reserve to take care 
of accumulating legal fees in these cases I have referred to?

A. At the present time Ave have no reserve to take care 
of the accumulated legal fees; it is all a part of our Free­
dom Fund activities.

The Court: You do or do not?
The Witness: I  say, at the present time Ave haAre no



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. llarrison, Jr., Atty. Gon. of Va. 65

IF. Lester Banks.

special reserve set aside to take care of the accumulated fees. 
It is all a part of the Freedom Fund activities.

page 23 ) By Mr. Mays:
Q. Do you recall sending out a letter over your 

signature as Executive Secretary for the Fund, a letter 
under date of May 26, 1954, addressed to N.A.A.C.P. branch 
offices, lay members, and members of the legal staff and 
Executive Board of Virginia State Conference, N.A.A.C.P.?

A. I don’t know. I would have to see the letters, sir.
Q. I will broaden the questions to ask about three, and 

show them to you at one time. You may recognize these 
as copies. If  not, I will ask you to produce a copy.

The other was a communication addressed by you to 
“ Dear Branch Officer” , dated June 16, 1954, and the third 
a confidential directive dated June 30, 1955, which is ad­
dressed to “ Member Branches of the Virginia State Con­
ference, N.A.A.C.P.” . For your further information, I may 
say that the letters to which I refer were developed in 
testimony before one of the legislative committees, and were 
published in their report, that is, the Committee on Offenses 
Against Administration and Justice, the first of those letters 
appearing on page 45. I might say that if you could identify 
those we might put them in evidence from the report, other­
wise, I would ask you to produce the letters themselves 
for the introduction.

A. I would like to see them.
Q. Surely.

page 24 J- A. Incidentally, Mr. Mays, those letters were 
not developed in testimony. Those letters came 

as a part of some material that we submitted to the com­
mittee.

Mr. Mays: Will you read the question, please.

(Question read.)

The Witness: Yes, we recognize those letters.

By Mr. Mays:
Q. As far as you know, they are correct copies of the 

letters?
A. From a casual observation, they seem to be copies. I 

couldn’t swear to them.
Q. Then we will ask you, if you are not certain these are



W. Lester Banks.

copies, we will ask you to produce the letters from your 
files. Will you do that?

Mr. H ill: I think the witness was as fair as he could be,
Judge. He said they appeared to be.

Mr. Mays: If he will admit these are copies, that is all 
I  want to know. If he is not certain, that is another matter. 
If he feels these are correct copies, I would like to introduce 
them in evidence.

By Mr. Mays:
Q. Do you feel they are?
A. As far as I can ascertain, they are correct copies, Mr. 

Mays.
Q. Certainly they are correct in substance? 

page 25 }> A. They are correct in substance, as far as I 
can ascertain.

The Court: How much time do you need to ascertain that
they are correct copies?

The W itness: I  would certainly need to read them over.
The Court: We will take a five-minute recess to enable

you to read them through.

(Recess.)

The Court: Mr. Banks, during the recess have you had 
an opportunity to examine these letters you were being 
questioned about?

The W itness: I  have, sir.
The Court: Counsel may proceed with his examination.

By Mr. Mays :
Q. And you find that they are correct copies of the letters 

you sent out?
A. Yes, Mr. Mays, I do find that they are correct copies. 

Mr. Mays: Thank you.
I ask, if Your Honor please, that they be marked in 

evidence, and I may further identify them as pages 47, 48, 
49 and 50 of the appendix of the pamphlet to which I  re­
ferred, in which they are designated respectively, as ap­
pendices 10, 11 and 12.

The Court: How do you suggest that be 
page 26 J- marked, as defendants’ exhibits?

Mr. Mays: I t  would be our first exhibit. I

66 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 67 

ITT. Lester Banks.

don’t know whether you want to use letters or numbers for 
that.

Mr. Hill: Are you submitting them as one exhibit?
Mr. Mays: As one exhibit.

The Court: Will you mark them defendants’ exhibit D-l?

(The document was marked Defendants’ Exhibit D-l for 
identification, and received in evidence.)

By Mr. Mays:
Q. Mr. Banks, what was your first contact with the plain­

tiffs in the Charlottesville case?
A. As plaintiffs in the Charlottesville case, Mr. Mays, it 

is hard to say what the first contact was. I have, as Execu­
tive Secretary, perhaps known one or more of them for a 
number of years as individuals.

Q. What was your first contact, then, with the Charlottes­
ville school situation?

A. Well, my first knowledge of the Charlottesville school 
situation was when a recommendation through the presi­
dent came to the attention of the Conference that the 
Charlottesville situation was a situation that needed Con­
ference assistance.

Q. Do you know how that came to the attention of the 
president?

A. I  imagine through the usual procedure, sir. 
page 27 [• Q. What do you mean by you imagine it was 

the usual procedure?
A. T think you alluded to it a moment ago—the usual 

procedure on matters coming to the official attention of the 
Conference comes about either where an individual who 
thinks that he or she have been aggrieved will come directly 
to a branch officer, or will come directly to the Conference 
official, come directly to me as the Executive Secretarv, or 
that same individual might take his complaint directly to a 
member of the legal staff or the staff.

Now, if the_ individual complaint comes to me in the 
first instance, if there is indication that a legal question is 
involved, then without a determination of that particular 
complaint it is immediately referred to the chairman of our 
legal staff, Mr. Oliver W. Hill. If Mr. Hill is unavailable, 
then the individual would go to another member of the 
staff. If Mr. Hill, after consideration of the matter, deter­
mines that it is a matter in which the N.A.A.C.P.’ should 
interest itself in, then he makes a recommendation to the



W. Lester Banks.

president of the State Conference, and the president and 
Mr. Hill concurring, that action is referred to the State 
Conference Assembly. So that would be the point where 
I would officially have knowledge of the situation as far as 
the Charlottesville situation is concerned.

Q. And you say you imagine that is what hap- 
page 28 J- pened in the Charlottesville case?

A. I would imagine that is what happened in 
the Charlottesville situation.

Q. Actually, that was the general gist of your testimony 
which I read into the record a while ago, but which seems 
not to have been followed in practice in any case that I 
mentioned. Do you have any clearer recollection than that 
of the Charlottesville case, as to how it came to your atten­
tion?

A. Well, I am pretty certain that that is the way the 
Charlottesville case came to my attention, through action 
that had been concurred in by the president of the Con­
ference and by the chairman of the legal staff. I might add, 
Mr. Mays, that you only asked me about five or six specific 
cases, and there are just any number of complaints that 
come to the N.A.A.C.P.

Q. Did I miss any of the school cases?
A. I don’t know whether you did or not, sir.
Q. Do you know of any school case that you handled 

through the usual channels you have just described?
A. I don’t recall any of the school cases coming directly 

to me.
Q. Now, in the Charlottesville case, you knew nothing 

about it, I  understand, until you ascertained it from the 
president and the chairman of the legal staff? 

page 29 \ A. In the Charlottesville case, I  think that is 
correct.

Q. You had no participation in it at all before you heard 
from them?

A. Before the chairman of the legal staff and the presi­
dent recommended that Conference report, that is right, I 
am pretty positive of that.

Q. Do you know whether it came first through the presi­
dent or first through the chairman of the legal staff?

A. I  don’t understand your question, sir.
Q. Who was the first one as far as you yourself know, 

who handled the Charlottesville situation? Was it the presi­
dent of the Conference or the chairman of the legal staff?

A. The president of the Conference wouldn’t handle a

68 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 69

W. Lester Banks.

situation at all. I think—I intended to testify, I thought T 
testified that if the matter was brought directly to the chair­
man of the legal staff, then the chairman of the legal staff 
after studying the matter would make recommendation to 
the president, and they jointly would make recommendation 
to the Conference.

Q. I understand the general theory. What T am trying to 
find out is what happened? How did the Charlottesville 
case first come to your attention ? Did it come from the 

chairman of the legal staff? Did it come from the 
page 30 president of the Conference, or somewhere else?

A. Well, the president of the Conference and 
the chairman of the legal staff would jointly concur in see­
ing that the Charlottesville situation was a situation that 
merited the consideration of the N.A.A.C.P., and that is 
when it would be officially before the Conference.

Q. But aside from when it was officially before the Con­
ference, when did it come to your individual attention first, 
the Charlottesville school situation?

A. I am trying to say, sir, officially I  couldn’t say the 
date or the hour, but it officially came to my attention when 
the situation in Charlottesville had been discussed by the 
chairman of the legal staff and the president, and they 
jointly made recommendation to the Conference.

Q. That it take over the case and pay the bills?
A. That it would support the Charlottesville action.
Q. Right.
Now, that is when it came officially to your attention. But 

l  am talking now about a man named Lester Banks, when 
did he first hear about the Charlottesville case?

A. Well, Lester Banks officially heard about it when that 
was brought to my attention, sir.

Q. Well, can we just forget about you being an official 
for a minute, and think about you as being a man, 

page 31 and with that thought, tell me when you first 
heard about the school situation in Charlottes­

ville, and how you heard about it?
A. Mr. Mays, I would have to ask you again—and I am 

not trying to be evasive, I  am trying to keep our thinking 
together—when you say about the school situation, I inter­
pret that as being something different from a Charlottes­
ville case.

Q. All right. Of course, certain things had to be done by 
the officials of N.A.A.C.P. or the fund or the Conference or 
the legal staff before there was a case. But at some stage,



W. Lester Banks.

I assume, this didn’t come from heaven. I assume that at 
some stage somebody in Charlottesville got in touch with 
somebody in one of the organizations I mentioned, or that 
somebody in one of those organizations I mentioned got in 
touch with somebody in Charlottesville. Now, does that make 
clear what I am trying to bring out? When did that begin? 
"Who got in touch with you first? "Who started it?

A. Well, let me try to answer your question this way. 
Every situation where there is a public school in the State 
of Virginia, and certainly where there are discriminations 
existing in those public school, those things come to the 
attention of the community, and certainly I was aware as 

an individual and as Executive Secretary that 
page 32 }- there were conditions in Charlottesville that 

needed to be rectified. And I suspect on more 
than one occasion I have spoken at public mass meetings 
and urged the citizens of Charlottesville to look about them 
and see whether or not there were discriminatory condi­
tions. If  you are distinguishing between that situation and 
the actual filing of the case, then, oh, a number of years ago 
the situation in Charlottesville came to my attention.

Q. You suspect you appeared there and spoke to them. 
Don’t you know?

A. Oh, yes, I suspect that I have spoken more than once 
to the citizens of Charlottesville.

Q. So far as your contact with Charlottesville is con­
cerned, the first thing that happened is, you appeared and 
spoke to groups of aggrieved parents, is that right?

A. Not necessarily spoke to groups of aggrieved parents, 
I have spoken on any number of occasions to citizens of 
Charlottesville, which in all probability included some of 
the aggrieved parents.

Q. What was the next thing that happened so far as 
Charlottesville is concerned after you made one more of 
your speeches leading up to this litigation?

A. Leading up to the litigation?
Q. Yes.

A. Now, what I  have said thus far, we have 
page 33 spoken to groups in Charlottesville on any num­

ber of occasions, and certainly not only those 
conditions in Charlottesville have been pointed out, but 
conditions throughout Virginia have been pointed out. I 
mean that is a part of the program: of the Association.

Q. Yes, I understand that. You appeared on several oc-

70 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 71

TP. Lester Banks.

casions in Charlottesville and made speeches before anybody 
importuned you to take any action, isn’t that right?

A. No one has importuned me to take any action, sir.
Q. All right. You say “ we” . "Who else included in that 

pronoun “ we” appeared there?
A. When I use the pronoun “ we”  I speak of the 

N.A.A.C.P.
Q. Can you name any other individuals other than your­

self?
A. Well, I don’t know. We had a convention in Char­

lottesville that included 45 or 50 individuals. I wouldn’t 
attempt to name any other individuals, but I am certain 
that other persons who are members of the State Con­
ference have spoken from time to time in Charlottesville.

Q. Well, you couldn’t name any other individuals.
A. Well, I could name, just run down—T imagine Mr. 

Hill has spoken in Charlottesville. I imagine Dr. Henderson, 
who was then president of the Conference, spoke one or 
more times in Charlottesville.

Q. When you say you imagine, . please leave 
page 34 that out. Do you know?

A. I would say yes, that they have spoken.
Q. Was that before 1956, when these cases were started?
A. Yes, I am certain that they spoke before 1956.
Q. Now, when was it, as far as you know, that the next 

event took place leading up to litigation after these several 
speeches were made? Did you or somebody from your organ­
ization contact some of the parents or children, or did they 
contact you?

A. I am pretty certain—let me he more specific—the pa­
rents of the children did not make any contact with me. As T 
said a moment ago. my first official knowledge of the actual 
suit came through the chairman of the legal staff and presi­
dent as a recommendation. Put I suspect that the parents con­
tacted a member of the staff, perhaps the chairman of the 
staff.

Q. You don’t know?
A. I don’t know.
Q. So any contacts that were made by the parents or the 

children in Charlottesville were not made with you? That 
would come through some official ?

A. Thev were not made through my office, no.
Q. And, therefore, it came through some other officials to 

you, in the first instance you had no previous contacts except 
through the speeches with the parents of the children?



W. Lester Banks.

A. As far as the case itself is concerned, yes, 
page 35 that officially came to me in that manner.

Q. Now, when it came to you, was it with the re­
quest that the Conference approve this as litigation which it 
would endorse and aid ?

A. Yes. There is a general policy, Mr. Mays, that if matters 
such as the matter under consideration have been given 
thought by the chairman of the. legal staff and his conclusions 
have been concurred in by the president of the Conference, 
then a recommendation is made to the State Conference that 
necessary assistance be given.

Q. And that was done in that instance?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you or anyone representing the. Conference as far as 

you know have any understanding with any of the parents of 
the children in Charlottesville as to how the fees and expenses 
of litigation would he paid?

A. No, there was no understanding as far as I  know with 
the members of the branch, other than the fact that the State 
Conference would be responsible for the fees and expenses.

Q. Did any of those parents indicate to you that they were 
prepared to make contributions toward the expenses and costs 
of litigation?

A. As plaintiffs, I  would say no. As members of 
page 36 }- the Charlottesville community, yes, I am certain 

that the plaintiffs were among the many, many per­
sons in Charlottesville who made contributions to the Free­
dom Fund, which is generally used to defray the legal ex­
penses involved.

Q. Was that aimed at the legal expenses merely in that suit, 
or is it a general fund for the purpose, of handling this type of 
litigation?

A. Their contributions came as contributions to what was 
then known as the Freedom Fund, which is designed to help 
defray the legal expenses, help programming, and the overall 
activities of the Conference, generally.

Q. It was not aimed at that particular litigation?
A. That is correct.
Q. Has it come to you attention in any way that any of the 

plaintiffs in Charlottesville have made any arrangements, ten­
tative or othei'wise, to reimburse the Association or Confer­
ence or counsel for expenses and legal fees?

A. As far as I know, that hasn’t come to my attention.
Q. There is some litigation now pending, rather recent liti-

72 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., A tty. Gen. of Ya. 73

TTT. Lester Banks.

gation in Warren County. When did that situation first come 
to your attention?

A. I think it came to my attention, oh, it must have been 
mid-summer.

Q. When?
page 37 }- A. In mid-summer.

Q. Of this year?
A. You mean the litigation itself ?
Q. I am trying to get the antecedents of the litigation. I am 

perfectly willing to start with the end and work back chrono­
logically, hut I would rather start at the beginning and get a 
continuous story. You knew there was some problem existing 
in Warren County. I wonder when that first came to your at­
tention.

A. We will separate that from the actual litigation. Yes, 
Mr. Mays, there has existed a problem in Warren County as 
far as Negro education is concerned always, because there has 
never been a high school there. And we were very positive and 
aware of the situation in Warren County.

Q. What do you mean by “ we” and what do you mean by 
“ positive” ?

A. Again, I am speaking of the N.A.A.C.P-, and I should 
use the pronoun “ I ” . I was aware of the situation in Warren 
County. I was aware of the problems that the Negro high 
school children were facing. I  was aware of the problems 
that the Negro elementary children had faced over the years, 
not only in 1958, that has been a problem of long standing.

Q. In any event it culminated in litigation this past sum­
mer?

A. Yes.
page 38 }- Q. As the immediate antecedent of that litiga­

tion,who got in touch with who, in order to get it 
initiated? Did it come from your organization? Did it come 
from the parents, or where did it come from? Do you know?

A. I think it came from the parents, sir.
Q. You don’t know?
A. In that particular instance, it is the same as the Char­

lottesville situation. It came officially to the Conference on 
recommendation, but in talking to some of the parents, I  think 
that they did contact the chairman of the legal staff in that 
instance.

Q. Was that done at your suggestion, or did they go to him 
directly themselves without any suggestion from you?

A. Well, I was certain they went, because they as citizens 
felt that they had certain constitutional rights, and those 
rights were being violated, sir.



W. Lester Banks.

Q. Did you go up there and make any speeches in Warren 
County, too, as you did in Charlottesville?

A. Over the years I have appeared in Warren County.
Q. In the last few years, would you say?
A. In the last few years—I was in Warren County—I was 

in Warren County, not to make a speech, hut I was in Warren 
County maybe, the latter part of June. I don’t recall the date, 
but I was in Warren County this year.

Q. We, will come back to that. But what I am try- 
page 39 J- ing to get out now, and it must be obvious, is just 

how the parents who became plaintiffs got in touch 
with counsel in that case, do you know?

A- I would say, to be exact, I don’t know how they got in 
touch with counsel. I would think that the chairman of the 
legal staff would have to answer that question.

Q. He will be given his chance, but I was wondering if vou 
knew.

A. No, I couldn’t swear just what the procedure: was.
Q. In any event, it came to you from Mr. Hill, chairman of 

the legal staff, with a recommendation that the Conference 
back up that litigation and take care of the expenses and legal 
fees, is that right?

A. It came jointly from Mr. Hill and the president of the 
Conference.

Q. And who was the president at that time?
A. Mr. Phillip W. Wyatt, of Fredericksburg, W-y-a-t-t.
Q. He is president of the whole Conference, of the entire 

Conference?
A. He is president of the Virginia State Conference, yes.
Q. And you have no further knowledge as to how the repre­

sentation came about, it simply came to you in your official 
capacity, and you said yes?

A. It wasn’t a matter of my saying yes, it was a matter of 
the Conference concurring in that, 

page 40 }- Q. And the Conference did concur?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you passed that concurrence on to Mr. Hill?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you mentioned being up there in June. Have you 

been present in any of the meetings of the parents in the W ar­
ren County situation ?

A. The meeting that I referred to in June, Mr. Mays, was 
a Freedom Fund dinner, if I recall correctly—I couldn’t know 
whether it was June or July. Actually—I was present as an 
official of the Conference, and at that time Mr. Hill was the

14 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Attv. Gen. of Va. 75

W. Lester Banks.

principal speaker. That, I believe, preceded the litigation, and 
1 have been in Warren County since the institution of the suit.

Q. Were there any speakers other than Mr. Hill on that 
occasion?

A. Well, yes, I had my Assistant Executive Secretary with 
me who made remarks and greetings, I believe. As I recall, 
there were one or two other persons who made remarks, such 
as the—oh, I think there was a Reverend present who made 
some remarks, but it was simply a banquet procedure.

Q. As a part of the banquet procedure, did any of the speak­
ers urge or suggest to any of those present that litigation 
be instituted in connection with the segregation situation in 

Warren County?
page 41 J- A. I don’t recall that any suggestions as to the 

institution of litigation were made. I think that the 
individuals were told as to what their constitutional rights 
were.

Q. And were they urged to give effect to those constitu­
tional rights by whatever means were necessary?

A. I can’t recall the exact words of the speech, but I am 
pretty certain that that was recommended, urged, as anybody 
would urge thefitizens to assert their constitutional rights.

Q. And was it urged upon them that the only effective way 
to do it was in the federal courts?

A. I don’t recall that. I have a copy of the speech. I could 
get it.

Q. Copy of whose speech?
A. The major speech that was delivered.
Q. Was that delivered by Mr. Hill ?
A. He did deliver the major speech.
Q. Will you produce that for us so we may have it tomor­

row?
A. T will check and see what I  can find.
Q. I understood you to say you could produce it.
A. Let me clarify myself. I have had, let me say, a copy of 

the speech as it was recorded in the Sentinel. Whether that 
has been thrown away I don’t know, 

page 42 Q. You say as it was reported. Did you have a 
speech from which Mr. Hill read, or did you have a 

stenographic transcript of the speech as it was made?
A. As it was reported. I don’t have a copy of his speech.
Q. Reported where?
A. In the Sentinel, which is one of the local papers.
Q. That, I suppose, is available in libraries, is it not, or do 

you know ?



W. Lester Batiks.

A. T don’t know whether it is or not.
Q. And you will make a search and let us know?
A. I will try to find it.
Q. And will you make a search and tell us whether you can 

find it?
A. As T say, I can’t tell whether it was the latter part of 

June or the first of July.
Q. You don’t keep a memorandum of your activities?
A. I can tell you when I went there.
Q. It was when you went there that you heard it?
A. That is right.
Q. If you can give us some information as to this report 

and when you went there and heard it, we will appreciate it.
A. I will try, sir..

Q. If that was the Freedom dinner, when did you 
page 43 }• go back to Warren County?

A. I think that my next visit to Warren County 
must have been in August.

Q. Can you fix the date reasonably well as to what part of 
August?

A. No, I would have, to refer to my calendar.
Q. What was the occasion of that trip? *
A. Well, the occasion was to—it was just a routine trip as 

Executive Secretary to oblige.
Q. No one asked you to go?
A. Nobody but the branch, and I acted in the capacity of 

Executive Secretary, yes.
Q. Who went with you on the trip?
A. Mr. Brooks, I  believe, accompanied me on the; trip.
Q. Who is that?
A. Mr. Brooks is the National Registration Voter Director 

of the N.A A.C.P.
O. None of the legal staff went with you ?
A. No, none of the legal staff.
Q. And who was present when you had whatever conference 

you did have in Warren County.
A. Oh, a number of citizens were present, sir.
Q. Did you at that time give them any advice or suggestions 

as to litigation ?
A. As I recall, this particular trip occurred after 

page 44 }- the case had been tried in Warren County—I mean 
the Warren County case had been tried in District

Court.
Q. But you had some discussion of the case with these 

plaintiffs, did you not?

76 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 77

IF. Lester Banks.

A. Some discussion of the case—not necessarily a discus­
sion of the case. We had certainly a discussion of the decision 
that had been rendered by Judge Paul.

Q. When you went up there in August, wasn’t that before a 
decision by Judge Paul? Didn’t that come in September?

A. As I said before, sir, I went to one either in the latter 
part of June or July, to attend a Freedom dinner. My next 
visit to Warren was the date that I have mentioned, and that 
came after the decision of Judge. Paul.

Q. Did you arrange for the plaintiffs to meet you on that oc­
casion? Did they know you were coming up in advance?

A. Did the plaintiffs know that I was coming in advance? 
Xo, they didn’t know that I was coming in advance. The sec­
retary of the branch knew that I was coming.

Q. And he called them together when you came?
A. She called some of the. parents together, yes.
Q. And what was your discussion with them on that occa­

sion!
A. Oh, I can’t recall my discussion. But I would imagine 

that the discussion certainly centered around— 
page 45 }- first of all, I suspect as an individual I commended 

them.
Q. For having brought suit ?
A. No, not for having brought the suit.
Q. For what?
A. Having strengthened democracy, having given evidence 

of one more thing toward making democracy stronger in Vir­
ginia and the United States. I imagine that is what perhaps 
came out in the discussion.

Q. What evidence are you speaking of? In giving evidence, 
how was it given?

A. Well, in my opinion, sir, these individuals were citizens 
of Warren County, State of Virginia, and the United States. 
And when I say individuals, I am not only talking of the plain­
tiffs, but these individuals know that they had certain rights, 
and they asserted those rights, and they had for the first time 
been given promise of having their children educated within 
the political confines of the county. And in so doing, that cer­
tainly was in accord with the interpretation of the courts. And 
that is why I suspect that we congratulated them.

Q. Why can’t we all save a lot of time here? Isn ’t it true 
that the evidence they had given was a willingness to go into 
the litigation to accomplish their purpose, and you were con­
gratulating them on having shown that evidence? That was



W. Lester Banks.

the only evidence they had shown, wasn’t it! 
page 46 }- A. No, not necessarily to be litigants. I was 

there congratulating them because they had exer­
cised their constitutional prerogatives.

Q. Where was that particular meeting held?
A. I don’t think that it was a particular meeting. We went 

with several groups, but it wasn’t—we met in several of the 
homes.

Q. Now, I understand you went up there on one occasion 
after Judge Paul’s decision, which you placed in August. You 
went there on one occasion. Did you go to several homes on 
that occasion, or was there one meeting?

A. We visited several homes on that occasion.
Q. How numerous were they?
A. Oh, I don’t know. I visited the secretary’s home, I vis­

ited the president’s home. I think I visited the treasurer’s 
home, and maybe one or two others.

Q. The plaintiffs’?
A. No, I am talking about branch officials now.
Q. All right.
Where was your meeting with the plaintiffs ?
A. Well, I think that at the treasurer’s home there were 

quite a number of the plaintiffs, parents who were present who 
were incidentally plaintiffs and who were also members of the 
branch.

Q. Was that true of the homes of the other officials?
A. Well, at the secretary’s home, as I  recall it, 

page 47 \ there was at least one plaintiff present who hap­
pens to live at this home.

Q. But most of them turned up at the treasurer’s home?
A. Yes.
Q. And he had them assembled as far as you know in order 

to meet with you?
A. Yes, I think so.
Q. And where does the treasurer live in Warren County?
A. He lives in Front Royal.
Q. At what time of day or night was that meeting?
A. Late afternoon or early evening, I  think.
Q. Not later than early evening?
A. No, late afternoon or early evening.
Q. Now, at that time, was there any effort being made to 

get the plaintiffs to give up their litigation? Had you heard 
of any effort being made to induce them to voluntarily relin­
quish pressing their suit?

A. Yes, I  had heard of such.

78 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Attv. Gen. of Ya. 79

W. Lester Banks.

Q. Was there any discussion of that situation with the 
plaintiffs when you met with them at the treasurer’s?

A. Yes, I think that there was some discussion. I don’t re­
call the exact line of it. \

Q. Do you know whether you or anyone else, while you were 
present there, urged them to stand by their guns 

page 48 and not drop the litigation?
A. I don’t recall, sir, but I am positive if I said 

anything to them I urged them to stand on their constitutional 
rights.

Q. Which, of course, meant stick with the litigation in the 
Federal Court. It could have meant nothing else, could it?

A. Actually, the litigation was accomplished, an accom­
plished fact so far as I was concerned, the Court had decreed 
that they had been deprived of their rights, and the Court had 
ordered them admitted to the Warren County high schools.

Q. You do understand, however, don’t you, that plaintiffs 
can retire from litigation when they choose, you knew that?

A. Certainly.
Q. And didn’t you know that an effort was being made by 

somebody to get these plaintiffs to quit, just give up?
A. It had been called to my attention—in fact, it was 

brought to my attention while I was there—
Q. By whom ?
A. By some of the members of the branch.
Q. You didn’t know that was true before you went there?
A. Officially, no.
Q. Well, did you know in advance? Did you know it as an 

individual, as a man ?
page 49 A. As an individual, no, I  didn’t officially know 

it.
Q. Well, if we will leave out the official, Executive Secretary 

Banks, and talk about that man Banks again, when did you 
first find out that some effort was being made to get these 
people out of the case in the Federal Court?

A. I believe that it first came to my attention when it was 
published in the Times Dispatch that some of the plaintiffs 
had been contacted. I am just guessing there, but I  remember 
reading it in the paper. And I think that perhaps was the first 
instance that I had heard it.

Q. Now, seeing it in the Times Dispatch, your first informa­
tion on the subject came very shortly before your trip up to 
Warren County, didn’t it?

A. Yes, it did.
Q. And didn’t that inspire your trip to Warren County?



W. Lester Banks.

A. I am positive that it did, sir.
Q. That it did!
A. Yes.
Q. And did you not go there for the express purpose of put­

ting some steel in them so they would stick in the litigation?
A. No, not in those terms, sir. I think as Executive Secre­

tary, we went to Warren County to find out whether or not the 
newspaper accounts had any—whether there was any truth 

to them, and to find out how the people generally 
page 50 J- felt.

Q. Well, you did somewhat more than that, 
didn’t you, after you got there? Didn’t you urge; them as you 
say to exercise their constitutional rights, and wasn’t the only 
way to do it in the Federal Court as they had been doing?

A. No, that wasn’t the only way, sir. I did urge, not only 
the parents and plaintiffs but the citizens generally, as we al- 
ways do, to exercise their constitutional rights. We urged, 
as we would do elsewhere, that the problems were not insur­
mountable, that there should be communication between the 
elements of the community, and that sort of thing.

Q. Well, quite aside from all the general speeches and con­
versation, didn’t you specifically ask at least one or more 
people up there not to get out of that case? •

A. No, I can very truthfully say, Mr. Mays, that I didn’t ask 
anyone not to get out. I think that a question was raised gen­
erally, how do you feel about the situation. But as far as ask­
ing somebody not to get out, that was the individual’s per­
sonal prerogatives.

Q. That I well know. But I am merely asking you what you
did? .

A. No, I can truthfully say that I didn’t ask any plaintiff 
not to withdraw. I might have asked whether or not they were 
going to, or something of that sort.

Q. Did you tell them that it was their duty to 
page 51 \ their race'to stick in that litigation and carry it 

through to a conclusion ?
A. T don’t recall telling them that, hut I think that had jt 

come to my mind I would have told them that it was their 
duty to their race to do so.

Q. Yon don’t deny having said it in any event?
A. I don’t deny having said it on more than one occasion, 

that if an individual is being denied something, he should cer- 
tainly do it for himself and for America.

Q. We are going back to general occasions. I am not talking

80 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gon. of Va. 81

W. Lester Bonis.

about what you said generally, but what you said up there. 
You don’t deny having said that up there?

A. I don’t deny it, but I don’t recall.
Q. When did that meeting break up, the one at the treas­

urer’s house?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Did it last well into the night?
A. I don’t recall just how long.
Q. You were home that night, I take, from Warren?
A. No, I stayed in Warren that evening.
Q. Did you have occasion to go up there again ?
A. Yes, I was in Warren County again.
Q. When was that?
A. I think that I Avas in Warren County on the day—I be­

lieve I Avas in Warren County on the Saturday be- 
page 52 }- fore the schools A\-ere officially to be opened.

Q. That Avas the next trip after your meeting 
with the plaintiffs at the home of the treasurer?

A. No, let me correct myself. I was in Warren County on a 
Saturday, on the Saturday after the case, I believe. That was 
before this trip.

0. Well, I hope you are no Avorse confused than I am. I 
understood the first trip you took Avas the time you met Avith 
these plaintiffs at the treasurer’s home.

A. No, T didn’t mean to imply that, sir. The first trip in 
1958 that I made to Warren County aâ s during June and 
July to the Freedom Fund dinner.

Q. There was no other trip hetAÂ een that and the time you 
met with the plaintiffs at the treasurer’s home, is that right?

A. That is what T am trying to correct. I Avas in Warren 
County prior to that, and if I recall correctly, it was on a 
Saturday

Q. You don’t knoAv Avhat month that Avas?
A. No, I don’t recall. But it AATas immediately, I believe, 

after the Court decision.
Q. After the Court’s injunction?
A. I think so.
Q. That A\ras a temporary injunction, and Avasn’t that Sep­

tember Avhen that took place, or do you remember? 
page 53 }• A. I don’t remember, but I think it was.

Q. And that was the only time you were there 
betAveen the Freedom Fund dinner trip and the trip when you 
Avent to see the plaintiffs at the treasurer’s home?

A. Yes, sir. I wouldn’t Avant you to refer to it as seeing the 
plaintiffs at the treasurer’s home—I have memorandums



TF. Lester Banks.

of the communications, including memorandums of the branch, 
which also included some of the plaintiffs’.

Q. I am not trying to pin you down as to who was there, but 
identifying the occasion. You have described an occasion when 
you went up and saw various officers of the local branch?

A. That is right, sir.
Q. And you spent an afternoon or evening or both with 

some plaintiffs at the home of the treasurer. And the nest 
time, as T understand it, you went up was just after the tem­
porary injunction, which was on a Saturday. What happened 
on that occasion ?

A. What I  am trying to correct, sir, after the temporary 
injunction, if it was a temporary injunction, I was trying to 
include that I was in Warren County, not twice, but three 
times, and I think that was the Saturday preceding the meet­
ing that we have been discussing at length.

Q. All right. What happened on that Saturday?
A. Well, I think that the parents went to the school board’s 

office in the presence of their attorney, and there 
page 54 J- was some conversation in the school board office. I  

was more or less a spectator in that situation.
Q. How did you happen to go up? How did it come to your 

attention that the meeting was to take place?
A. Well, I knew from—I think that Mr. Hill told me that.
Q. Did he suggest you go up ?
A. No, if I remember correctly, we were, traveling in the 

same car.
Q. He told you there was going to be such a meeting, but he 

did not suggest you go to it ?
A. It wasn’t a meeting as such. I think Mr. Hill met the 

plaintiffs at the courthouse.
Q. Well, it was understood, wasn’t it, that he was coming to 

see the plaintiffs at the courthouse?
A. I  imagine that the plaintiffs knew that he was coming.
Q. Mr. Hill informed you that he was going up for the pur­

pose, is that correct?
A. Mr. Hill informed me that he was going to Front Royal, 

and, of course, as I was driving, it Avas necessary—
0. Necessary what?
A. I said, I Avas driving, so I had to go along Avith him.

Q. Did Mr. Hill ask you to go?
page 55 [- A. No, I  don’t think it Avas asking at all, Mr.

Mays, I just think it Avas a matter of being—I think 
avc Avere in Harrisonburg. I am trying to recall this. I think we 
were in Harrisonburg at the trial, and we came from Harri-

82 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Attv. Gen. of Va. 83

TF. Lester Bonis.

sonbnrg, if I recollect correctly, and then went over to Front 
Royal.

Q. And you went to the Judge’s office or came straight over 
there to meet the plaintiffs ?

A. I don’t know whether it was from the Judge’s office or 
not.

Q. You were in Harrisonburg, weren’t you there on the oc­
casion of the hearing before t-he Court ?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. And when that was concluded then you went with Mr. 

Hill on over to Front Royal in order to have a discussion with 
the plaintiffs, isn’t that correct?

A. Mr. Hill had business in Front Royal, and since I was 
driving, of course we went together.

Q. I understand by now that you went together, but I  am 
trying to understand why it was that you went at all to Front 
Royal. Why did Mr. Banks go to Front Royal at all?

A. Well, I went to Front Royal, one, because I was inter­
ested in Front Royal. Front Royal was one of the areas where 
we were sponsoring litigation, or assisting in the sponsorship 

of litigation. I  was interested in Front Royal be- 
page 56 cause of the branch there.

Q. W eren’t you specifically interested in Front 
Royal because there was to be a meeting of plaintiffs there 
that day?

A. Not necessarily, sir. It wasn’t that day, sir. As I re­
call, the Court convened on Friday, and we went over that 
evening, and the plaintiffs went to the courthouse Saturday 
morning.

Q. Then you and Mr. Hill drove over on Friday evening 
after the Judge’s decision, and met with the plaintiffs at the 
courthouse the following morning in Front Royal?

A. I think that is the way it was.
Q. Why did you happen to go to Front Royal? Was it a 

general visit, or did you go with the expectation of such a 
meeting?

A. Again, sir, I went with Mr. Hill.
Q. Yes, I know that. Did he ask you to go with him? Did he 

ask you to drive him ?
A. No, Mr. Mays, he didn’t ask me to drive him. He was 

riding in my car.
Q. He was a passenger in your car?
A. Yes, he was in my car.
Q. But for some reason you went to Front Royal at that 

time ?



84 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia 

W. Lester Banks.

A. Yes.
page 57 Q. And wliat activated your going? Was it sim­

ply just general curiosity about the state of the chap­
ter, or did you expect to meet with the plaintiffs in that liti­
gation?

A. I didn’ expect to meet with the plaintiffs. Perhaps Mr. 
Hill was going to meet with the plaintiffs.

Q. Did you understand there was going to be a meeting of 
the plaintiffs?

A. I don’t remember whether I understood that or not.
Q. What did you understand was going to happen at Front 

Royal, that day or the next day?
A. I think that it was tacitly understood perhaps that there 

would be a meeting with the plaintiffs, but as to being told 
that, I don’t recall that. I am trying to be truthful about it, 
because I don’t remember.

Q. I certainly want you to be, but we are having a slow time. 
There was a tacit understanding. I suppose you mean by that 
that in some way or another you understood that Mr. Hill was 
going over to Front Royal in order to confer with the plain­
tiffs? In some way or another you had that impression, how­
ever you got it ?

A. That is right.
Q. And isn’t it true that you got that impression from Mr. 

Hill?
A. In all probability, I did, sir.

Q. Was there anybody else in the car with you? 
page 58 }- A. I don’t recall. I am trying to remember 

whether or not—I believe that—it seems to me 
that a Mr. Ray was with us.

Q. Who is that?
A. Mr. Ray is a newspaper reporter—it seems to me that 

he was with us at that time. I wouldn’t swear to it.
Q. When you and Mr. Hill arrived at Front Royal, what 

happened that evening that had any relation at all to the
case?

A. I think that there was a meeting that evening.
Q. Where, and who attended ?
A. Oh, I imagine most of the citizens of Front Royal at­

tended.
Q. Most of the citizens?
A. I imagine they did—it might have been a meeting purely 

of the plaintiffs.
Q. Were you there?
A. Yes, I was there.



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 85

W. Lester Banks.

Q. Do you know how numerous the gathering was?
A. Well, as I recall, the little church was pretty well filled.
Q. Can you estimate the number of people there?
A. Oh, I would think maybe 50, 60 or 70, something like 

that.
page 59 }■ Q. Well, you said most of the citizens of Front 

Royal. You meant colored citizens, I  take it?
A. Yes.
Q. Were the plaintiffs among them?
A. Yes, sir, I  am sure that they were.
Q. Do you know who called that meeting?
A. No, I don’t know who called the meeting.
Q. At what time was it held?
A. It was held in the evening.
Q. Was it very long after your arrival?
A. If I remember correctly, Mr. Mays, the meeting was in 

progress when we arrived. I think it was.
Q. So you and Mr. Hill went straight to the meeting?
A. I think that we did.
Q. What was going on there when you arrived?
A. I believe when we arrived there was a workshop in prog­

ress.
Q. What character of workshop?
A. Well, I think it was a community coordination educa­

tional workshop.
Q. Put on by the Conference?
A. No, not put on by the Conference.
Q. Put on by whom?
A. By the local branch.

Q. And what was the subject of discussion in the 
page 60 }- workshop?

A. Well, I think that—we missed, I think, the 
greater portion of it—but I think the general tenor of the dis­
cussion was community coordination, and that sort of thing.

Q. In connection with the educational situation?
A. In connection with the educational situation, and com­

munity living generally.
Q. Now, when you and Mr. Hill arrived on the scene with a 

court reporter, you immediately participated in the meeting?
A. No, I think the proceedings continued, and then at the 

proper time there were introductions and we did participate.
Q. Now, did you address that meeting?
A. I  think I  made remarks at that meeting, sir.
Q. What kind of remarks did you make insofar as the liti­

gation is concerned?



W. Lester Banks.

A. Oh, I don’t think I pinpointed my remarks to the litiga­
tion.

Q. At that time you did not—it was not at that time that 
you urged them to go on with the litigation?

A. I don’t think that I have ever urged them to go on with 
the litigation.

Q. You urged them to exercise their constitutional rights?
A. I  believe that that came about when, as I 

page 61 }- said a while ago, that some of the parents—
Q. At the treasurer’s house, which we have now 

identified as the third meeting?
A. That is right.
Q. Did Mr. Hill address this third meeting?
A. The third meeting?
Q. The Front Royal meeting.
A. Mr. Hill spoke at that meeting, yes.
Q. What were his comments on the school case?
A. I don’t recall, sir.
Q. You don’t remember whether he urged them to buck up 

and see it through or not?
A. I don’t recall.
Q. Did anyone else address a meeting on this subject?
A. I don’t think they did. I just don’t remember.
Q. Now, you stayed at the meeting until it adjourned?
A. Yes.
Q. And it was in the afternoon or the evening?
A. It was in the evening.
Q. After that did anything further happen in connection 

with the school case or with the plaintiffs until the following 
morning, as far as you know?

A. As far as I know, no.
Q. Now, when did you understand that there 

page 62 \ would be a meeting of plaintiffs the following day?
When did you first learn about it?

A. I think I learned that at the meeting that evening.
Q. And were the people at the meeting who were plaintiffs 

urged to be present at the meeting the next day?
A. I don’t recall definitely, but I think they were urged by

their counsel to be present.
Q. And do you know who urged them to be there?
A. I imagine counsel.
Q. But you don’t know?
A. I imagine Mr. Hill urged them.
Q. Well, don’t you know that ?

86 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 87 

TV. Lester Banks.

A. Well, I can’t say for sure that he did, but I imagine that 
he did.

Q. Well, you are pretty sure that he urged all of the parents 
to be present, all of the plaintiffs to be present at the meeting 
the next day, there was something vital for them to hear. You 
remember that, don’t you?

A. I don’t remember whether he did or whether he didn’t.
Q. Well, now, the meeting was held the next morning, 

wasn’t it?
A. It wasn’t a meeting as I understand it, sir.
Q. Some people got together, didn’t they?

A. If I remember the situation correctly, Mr. 
page 63 Hill met the parents and the children at the* court­

house, and they went in to see the superintendent. 
I wasn’t in that particular meeting, and I don’t know what 
transpired.

Q. And that was the only thing, the only contact you had 
on the following day, that is, a Saturday, with the parents, 
you saw them go with Mr. Hill?

A. Yes, they went into the superintendent’s office, as I re­
call, and the superintendent conversed with them, and then 
after a meeting with the superintendent, I think the group 
went over to, I believe it was, the Methodist Church, and Mr. 
Hill talked to the plaintiffs there.

Q. Now, did you accompany Mr. Hill and the plaintiffs to 
the meeting with the superintendent?

A. I went to the courthouse, yes.
Q. Was it indicated by Mr. Hill or the plaintiffs, any of 

them to you, the purpose of the meeting with the superintend­
ent?

A. Oh, I had a general knowledge of why they were meeting 
with the superintendent, yes.

Q. And why was that ?
A. I think that it was to ascertain whether or not enroll­

ment would be affected.
Q. Now, you did not participate in the discussion, as I un­

derstand it, you were outside?
A. That is correct, sir.

Q. And was there any further discussion with 
page 64 }- Mr. Hill or the plaintiffs in your presence after 

they came outside, and if so, on what subject?
A. Well, as I said, after they left the courthouse, after they 

left the superintendent’s office, if I recall correctly, the group 
retired to the Methodist Church.

Q. Was that at your request or Mr. Hill’s or whose?



W. Lester Banks.

A. Oh, I had nothing to do with it. I t wasn’t my meeting. 
It was Mr. Hill’s action with these plaintiffs.

Q. When you came away from that meeting with the super­
intendent, as I understand, the folks who were there ad­
journed to the Methodist Church, and you went along?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. And Mr. Hill went along?
A. That is right, sir.
Q. Were you present at the Methodist Church during the 

entire meeting, or however you want to describe it, gathering 
of people?

A. Yes, I was, either inside or outside.
Q. Were you inside during the most of the meeting?
A. Oh, I think I was.
Q. You were not outside a great deal?
A. Well, I said I was in and out of there.
Q. You were in enough to know pretty much what was going 

on ?
A. Yes, I knew Mr. Hill was talking to the plaintiffs.

Q. What did he say?
page 65 A. I don’t recall just exactly what it was. I 

couldn’t for the life of me—I don’t know what he
said.

Q. Did he discuss the case?
A. I am positive that the case was being discussed, hut I 

don’t know what he said.
Q. Do you know whether at that time there were any plain­

tiffs who had been asked to get out of the litigation?
A. Had been asked to?
Q, Yes, that it had been suggested that any of them get out 

as of that time?
A. I don’t know. T think that there had been some that had 

withdrawn from the case, as I understand it, hut I  don’t know 
whether they were asked or not,

Q. Did Mr. Hill make any comment on that in his talk to 
those people?

A. I don’t recall whether he made any specific comment.
Q. Do you remember anything at all that Mr. Hill said at 

that meeting?
A. To quote Mr. Hill verbatim—
Q. No, what was the burden of it.
A. As I said before, Mr. Mays, I  am positive that Mr. Hill 

was talking to the parents and the children in reference to the 
school situation.

Q. I  am sure of it, but what did he say, in substance?

88 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 89

W. Lester Banks.

A. That is what I don’t know. I couldn’t recall 
page 66 J- what he said in substance. I don’t know what he 

said in substance.
Q. Did anybody else speak to them?
A. No, I don’t think so.
Q. You realized when you went there with Mr. Hill there 

was some real purpose in having such a meeting?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you understand what that purpose was?
A. I understood that Mr. Hill was to advise—I assumed, I 

didn’t understand, I assumed that Mr. Hill had conversed 
with the superintendent of schools, and I assumed that Mr. 
Hill, since all of the plaintiffs were not in the superintendent’s 
office, I assumed that Mr. Hill did not want to clutter up the 
courthouse corridor, so he simply used the Methodist Church 
as a convenient place of gathering to impart whatever infor­
mation had been discussed between the superintendent and 
himself.

Q. You don’t know whether there was any plan of future 
action there at all, whether anything was said about the. next 
step to be taken?

A. No, I don’t.
Q. You don’t know of any requests he made of the plain­

tiffs one way or the other?
A. I don’t recall.

page 67 Q. Did you have any discussion with the plain­
tiffs, any of them, about footing the bills, that is, 

the legal expenses and the court costs in the litigation there?
A. As individual plaintiffs, no.
Q. Well, as a group?
A. No more than as members of the branch, not at this par­

ticular meeting, but certainly as merrjbers of the N.A.A.C.P. 
branch, the member of a legal community.

Q. Making general considerations?
A. That is correct.
Q. But you had not had any discussion or any knowledge as 

to what arrangements might have been made concerning the 
plaintiffs in this ease as to costs and expenses in this partic­
ular case?

A. No, as far as I was concerned, there was no discussion, 
as far as I know there had been no discussion.

Q. Did you have information from Mr. Hill or any of the 
other lawyers as to whether there were any arrangements, 
tentative or otherwise, with the plaintiffs ?

A. No, we didn’t have any information to that extent.



W. Lester Banks.

Q. Now, we have had reference made to three different vis­
its you had up there, and the last of those visits have been 
described, and the third one was at the home of the treasurer 
when you met with some of the plaintiffs. Did you have occa­

sion to make further visits to Warren County? 
page 68 lr A. No, I think that was my last visit down there.

Q. Did any of the Warren County plaintiffs meet 
with you elsewhere ?

A. Yes. I have had occasion since that time to see 18 of the 
plaintiffs.

Q. Where was that?
A. That was at our state convention in Hampton.
Q. When
A. October 10,11 and 12.
Q. And at that time was the case in Warren County dis­

cussed?
A. No, it wasn’t discussed. In other words, they were a part 

of the overall convention program.
Q. You mentioned 18, and I wonder whether or not at that 

time you had a separate meeting with the plaintiffs of the 
Warren County case at the convention?

A. No, we didn’t. I mentioned 18 only because the number, 
Mr. Mays—it was necessary for me to know how many plain­
tiffs were present, because it was my responsibility to arrange 
housing and food accommodations for them.

Q. T can appreciate that. But there was no meeting of that 
group of plaintiffs as such?

A. No, they were a part of the general convention pro­
ceedings, the 23rd Annual State Convention proceedings.

Q. Did anyone admonish them then to keep the 
page 69 \ litigation going?

A. No, not as such. I wasn’t able to attend all the 
sessions, but I imagine they were certainly given plenty of 
accolade for being pioneers.

Q. Were they pioneers? Hadn’t there been right many 
school cases in Virginia before then? They were the lastcom- 
ers, weren’t they?

A. I don’t know whether they were or not, sir. I don’t think 
they were.

Q. I don’t think we need to go into that. I think the record 
must be replete with Norfolk and Newport News and many 
other places.

Did Mr. Hill address them on that occasion?

90 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 91

W. Lester Banks.

A. When yon say “ them” , you are talking about the plain­
tiffs? No, I am positive that Mr. Hill didn’t.

Q. Did he address the convention?
A. Mr. Hill had remarks before the convention.
Q. Did he or anyone urge upon these people to continue to 

exercise their constitutional rights?
A. Oh, I imagine every speaker at the convention urged 

upon not only those, but everybody in Virginia to exercise 
their constitutional rights.

Q. Don’t you think your imagination is pretty good? Don’t 
you think it is a fact that they did urge them to continue to 

exercise their constitutional rights? 
page 70 A. I don’t think they pointed out those 18, that 

is what I am trying to say. I am positive that every 
convention speaker urged that everyone exercise his full con­
stitutional rights.

Q. Have you had any other meeting with the plaintiffs there 
except the four instances you have referred to, the plaintiffs 
in warren County?

A. I don’t think that we have, sir. And may T say again, 
it wasn’t necessarily a meeting with the plaintiffs themselves; 
probably in two of those instances the plaintiffs were present.

Q. Do you know of any other meetings in which you your­
self were not a participant that took place among the W ar­
ren County plaintiffs ?

A. Oh, no, T don’t know officially of any particular ones.
Q. Unofficially, do you know of any meetings that were held 

by the Warren County plaintiffs other than those you have 
described?

A. I  know of some meetings that were held earlier in the 
year, not of the Warren County plaintiffs, no.

Q. T am talking about the Warren County plaintiffs.
A. No, I  don’t recall.
Q. When they were held early in the year, that was long be­

fore the litigation? 
page 71 A. Yes.

Q. Now, I suppose you are aware that in these 
various school cases there is a considerable accumulation of 
court expense and per diem time which the lawyers ultimately 
will have to be paid for because of the undertakings of the 
Conference, do you not?

A. I  am very aware of the expenses involved, sir.
Q. Are you advised from time to time, at least approxi­

mately how these expenses have accumulated?



W. Lester Banks.

A. Yes, I receive statements periodically from the chair­
man of the legal staff.

Q. How often do those statements come?
A. Oh, they come—I couldn’t say how often they come.
Q. Well, you have a practice, don’t you?
A. I imagine that the statements—it is no set time for a 

statement to come in.
Q. Do they come with any frequency?
A. Let me put it like th is: I think that it has been the ex­

perience of the members of the staff to submit their state­
ments as quickly as they can, and as frequently as they can, 
time permitting.

Q. Those statements, do they cover legal fees, or just legal
expenses?

A. The statements coming from the attorneys 
page 72 \ cover legal fees and expenses.

Q. How near up to date are they?
A. Oh, I don’t think that many of them are at all up to date.
Q. What do you mean by that? Are we talking about two 

years, two months, two weeks, or what?
A. Well, I think that they were within a 12-month period, I  

assume that.
Q. In other words, the lawyers who participated in these 

various school segregation cases have got to have their state­
ments current up to within sometime in the last year?

A. Yes, I should think so.
Q. And some of them were pretty well up to date, and some 

not?
A. As far as I  know, yes.
Q. Have you paid he expense items as they came in ?
A. As far as the Conference has been able to pay them.
Q. As long as they had money?
A. As long as we have been able to meet the statements we 

have tried to pay them.
Q. Which means as long as you had money in the treasury 

for the purpose ?
A. That is correct.

Q. Now, have you paid any of the legal fees as 
page 73 such quite as distinguished from the legal ex­

penses? I understand you have paid some. Have 
you paid the greater portion of the legal fees?

A. No, I  think that when a statement comes in, a statement 
is made including legal fees and expenses, and a payment is

92 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



made on the general statement. I was trying to segregate them 
into fees and expenses.

Q. Now, there are 13 members of the legal staff, as you un­
derstand it ?

A. No, we have more than that, sir.
Q. More than 13 on the legal staff as such?
A. Yes.
Q. Since you testified last year before the three Judge Fed­

eral Court, you have added lawyers to the legal staff?
A. That is correct.
Q. You may remember at that time you said it was 13, but 

you named only 12. There is a lawyer from Petersburg who is 
now a member of the legal staff, but was not then, isn’t that 
true?

A. I don’t recall, but there is a lawyer in Petersburg.
Q. Will you give us his name, and that will round it out.
A. Mr. Bobert H. Cooley, Jr.
Q. And he was a member of the legal staff in September of 

last year?
page 74 J- A. That is correct.

Q. You have added to the legal staff since, I  un­
derstand. What gentlemen have been added to the staff, their 
names and addresses?

A. Mr. James Overton has been added to the staff, he re­
sides in Portsmouth, Virginia. Mr. Otto Tucker has been 
added to the staff since he testified last September.

Q. And is he related to the Tucker in Emporia?
A. Yes, he is a brother. He lives in Alexandria. Those two 

have been added to the staff since we testified last year.
Q. Have any others been added?
A. No, 1 think those are the only two.
Q. Has anybody been subtracted from the legal staff since 

the September hearing of last year?
A. No, sir, there haven’t.
Q. They still have them all ?
A. They still have them all.
Q. Are they all now in active practice?
A. As far as I know, they are.
Q. Ts Mr. Brown still on the staff?
A. Mr. Brown, as far as I know, is still a member of the 

staff.
Q. Is he active at the present time?

A. I don’t know whether he is active at the 
page 75 }- present time or not.

Q. Do you know where he is at the present time?

N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 93

IF. L e s t e r  B a n k s .



W. Lester Banks.

A. I imagine he is at home in Washington. I haven’t heard 
from him.

Q. You know nothing to the contrary?
A. I know nothing to the contrary.
Q. Now, you mentioned these various members of the staff, 

who now seem to be 16 in number, sending in their statements. 
Is that true of all of them? Do they all send them in from time 
to time?

A. Maybe I could answer that, sir, by giving you the pro­
cedure that is followed. A member of the staff submits a state­
ment of fees and expenses to the chairman of the staff, and 
the chairman of the staff, after consulting with other mem­
bers, either approves or disapproves the expense item. I t is 
transmitted by voucher to the office, and in turn with the ap­
proval of the president and the chairman of the staff, that par­
ticular expense item is ordered paid.

Q. Well, if it receives the. approval of the chairman of the 
legal staff, it is paid on that recommendation in every in­
stance, isn’t it?

A. No, it must also receive the approval of the president.
Q. But hasn’t the president approved it in every instance?

A. I don’t know of an instance that the presi- 
page 76 }- dent has not approved it.

Q. Now, who approves the bill of tbe chairman 
of the. legal staff himself when he bills for services and ex­
penses?

A. Well, that is approved by the president, and the chair­
man of the staff. I  imagine the vice chairman comes into play 
in that particular instance.

Q. Do you have on hand now any substantial number of bills 
unpaid as to amounts?

A. Yes, I  do have a substantial number pending.
0. Well, will your record indicate just what bills have been 

paid and what bills have not been paid growing out of the 
school segregation cases as of this time?

A. Yes, my records will indicate that, sir.
Q. Will you produce those for me so that we can see pre­

cisely what those items are?
A. I would be glad to.
This question that you are asking now, Mr. Mays, is akin to 

the question that you asked for information earlier, is it not?
Q. What I would like you to bring are your books of account 

and the receipted vouchers, receipted statements that you 
have paid, and those which have been billed to you but 
which have not been paid.

94 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. ol“ Ya. 95

TT7. Lester Banks.

A. Affecting the attorneys?
page 77 J- Q. Affecting the attorneys in the school litiga­

tion case. Will you do that?

Mr. Hill: May it please the Court, I have gone along with 
a lot of questions I still don’t see any relevancy to, and I 
would like to ask, what is the relevancy of submitting financial 
statements of what the Conference has paid the attorneys or 
what they have not paid? There is no question about the fact 
that the Conference has paid the money. I am asking what 
is the relevancy in this case to determine the exact amounts.

Mr. Mays: Your Honor, we have three statutes here in­
volved, having to do with running and capping and mainte­
nance and related subjects, and I can’t imagine anything being 
more relevant than the information I am now seeking. We are 
trying to find ont who hires the lawyers, who approves the 
lawyers’ bills, who pays them, in what cases they are paid, 
and if this is not relevant, sir, I don’t know what can be rele­
vant in this type of litigation.

Mr. Hill: May it please the Court, the question as to 
whether or not the lawyers are paid and who pays them cer­
tainly is relevant. Who employs the, lawyers is relevant. But 
all we are asking now—he has asked this witness to produce 
certain statements between the lawyers and the Conference, 
and all I am asking is, what is the relevancy of these indi­

vidual statements? Not the question, the overall 
page 78 \ question as to whether or not the Conference is 

bearing those expenses, that is admitted. We don’t 
need to have any evidence on that. We admit that. My own 
question is whether or not this witness is hound to produce 
the statements from any of these individual lawyers.

Mr. Mays: May we respond to that, Your Honor?
The Court: Yes, you may.
Mr. Mays: One of the things developed in the hearing in

the Federal Court, the record of which has been put in by Mr. 
Robinson, had to do with the cost of litigation. What does it 
cost to take a case through the higher court, now_ that the 
principle has been established in 1954, what does it cost to 
take it up on appeal, the number of plaintiffs involved, their 
capacity to pay—all of those things are quite relevant things 
here. Now, as Your Honor will find in going through the 
record in the Federal Court, the Conference has undertaken 
to pay legal fees and expenses in a number of cases, and we 
need to go through that whole background in order to find out



W. Lester Banks.

how it actually operates, not what the By-laws say, but how 
it operates, how the lawyers function, how the plaintiffs 
function, and how the officers of these various units, the 
N.A.A.C.P., the Fund and the Conference and the staff fund.

Now, with that information before us we can get a picture, 
and without it we haven’t even a frame. It seems to 

page 79 J- me highly relevant, and I can’t understand how 
that objection can be raised.

The Court: I am going to overrule the objection raised by 
the counsel for the complainants.

Now, do you have an answer to this to the extent, that he 
was going to produce it, or did the objection come before 
that ?

Mr. Mays: I think the objection came before.

96 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia

By Mr. Mays:
Q. I have indicated to you what I would like with respect to 

the Conference hooks and accounts, the records of paid bills 
receipted by the lawyers and the unpaid bills rendered by you 
in the school litigation cases, and I have a'sked you to pro­
duce them here tomorrow morning.

Will you be able to do that ?
A. For what period?
Q. From the time school litigation began. I  would say it 

was about 1951, that starts with the Prince Edward case. You 
know the names of the others, don’t you? Or shall we enu­
merate?

A. I think I have a general knowledge.
Q. I am pretty sure you do.

Mr. H ill: Before we get too far, we would like to take ex­
ceptions to the ruling of the Court with respect to this partic­

ular evidence.
page 80 }- Mr. Mays: We have no further questions.

The Court: Mr. Banks, on this last series of 
questions, I understand that you now know what records of 
receipted bills and bills on hand unpaid that Mr. Mays has re­
quested in the school litigation cases, and I want to make sure 
that the record is clear. Did you say you were going to pro­
duce those or not?

The Witness: He is asking, Your Honor, for records of
fees paid to attorneys dating back to 1951. To pull those state­
ments out of the recoi’ds is not going to be an easy job.



Mr. Mays: To facilitate things, I don’t want to put counsel
or the witness to any more trouble than it is necessary. We 
will eliminate the Prince Edward case entirely from the pic­
ture, that is, before 1956, and disregard any entries in the 
Prince Edward ledger sheet prior to that time.

By Mr. Mays:
Q. Wouldn’t that simplify things considerably for you, the 

other cases came up later?
A. Yes, that -would simplify it.
Q. Will you do that ?
A. It would be simpler, I mean it would further simplify it 

if we -were able to produce the statements, as far as we have 
them, the vouchers and counsel checks covering that partic­

ular period, if that would satisfy your inquiry, 
page 81 }- Q. You have the books in which the entries were 

made? I ask for that, too. You have the books of
accounts ?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. When you produce them, will you be able to testify con­

cerning them, or will we need the treasurer, too?
A. I think I would be able to testify as to any payments 

paid to counsel.
Q. As to any unpaid bills as well?
A. As far as they are in my possession, yes.
Q. When you say, “ in your possession” , they are in the 

possession of the Conference, aren’t they?
A. What I am trying to say, Mr. Mays, is that it might be 

that there might be a bill for $2,000 that hasn’t been submit­
ted, so it wouldn’t be in my possession.

Q. I am not speaking of that. But when you say in your 
possession, you have in your possession whatever has been 
submitted to the Conference?

A. That is correct.
Q. To distinguish you from the treasurer or some other 

official ?
A. That is right.
Q. Whatever has come in you would have and be able to 

produce?
A. Yes, sir.

N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., A tty. Gen. of Va. 97

W .  L e s t e r  B a n k s .

Mr. Mays: That is what I  am asking, 
page 82 Thank you.

The Court: Does that complete your cross- ex­
amination?



IF. Lester Banks.

Mr. Mays: Yes, sir.
The Court: Any re-direct?

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION.

98 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia

By Mr. Hill:
Q. Mr. Banks, is it not a fact that at conferences and branch 

meetings—

Mr. Mays: This is his witness Your Honor, and we think 
the leading ought to stop somewhere.

Mr. Hill: I asked a particular question, whether or not
the N. A. A. C. P. were still doing the same thing as they 
were before all this other evidence was adduced in response 
to the questions asked by Mr. Mays.

The Court: We will still follow the usual ways of asking 
the questions.

Suppose you rephrase the question in full. I  am not sure I 
understood the question. *
. Mr. Hill: Mr. Mays was anticipating it.

By Mr. Hill:
Q. What types of problems are discussed at branch meet­

ings and conferences of the State Conference?
A. Problems that generally affect the legal status of Negro 

ciitzens, their enjoyment of full constitutional rights, and 
whether or not there are denials of these rights, 

page 83 }- and so forth.
Q. Can you particularize as to the types of dis­

crimination that are discussed?
A. Yes—educational discrimination, transportation, hous­

ing, employment, right straight on down the line, all types of 
discrimination are the general topics of discussion at branch 
meetings in the Conference.

Q. And has there been discussion of these types of prob­
lems in branches or by members of particular branches at 
State Conferences in communities where suits have not been 
instituted?

A. Yes, Mr. Hill. In fact, the only existence, the only 
reason for existence of the branch, I  would sav, is to make 
the general public aware of the fact that these discriminations 
exist, and whether there is action in that particular area is 
perhaps only incidental.



Q. Had there been any discussion of the school situation 
in any of those communities where suits are now pending 
prior to the institution of suits?

A. Oh, yes, I would say yes.
Q. So far as you know, when did the Conference first start 

an active program with reference to educational facilities 
for Negro children in Virginia?

A. To my knowledge, Mr. Hill, the concerted program was 
started in 1947.

page 84 \ Mr. H ill: That is all.
Mr. Mays: Nothing further.

The Court: All right, you may step down.

(Witness temporarily excused.)

Mr. Hill: Your Honor, may Ave ha\m a free minute recess 
to determine vdiether or not Ave have anything more?

The Court: All right. Five minute recess.

(Recess taken.)

Mr. Hill: We rest, Your Honor.
The Court: I take it that both complainants are resting?
Mr. Robinson: That is correct, sir.
The Court: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Your Honor, before calling our first AA-itness, 

I AATould like to make this observation.
When this matter was heard in September of last year be­

fore the three-Judge Federal Court, seAreral of counsel for 
the other side testified in those cases. At that time avc Avere 
perfectly billing for them to do so without severing their 
participation, and that is still our view. T AA-ant to call Mr. 
Hill as a AAdtness noAv, and I don’t AArant him to feel that he 
Avould be precluded from acting as counsel if it be your plea­
sure to let him continue to do so.

The Court: All right, that will be satisfactory to the
Court.

Mr. Mays: Mr. Oliver Hill.

page 85 [ OLIVER W. HILL,
was called as a witness, and having been first duly 

sworn, was examined and testified as folloAvs:

N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 99

O l i v e r  W .  H i l l .



100 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia

Oliver W. Hill.

DIRECT EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Mays:
Q. Mr. Hill, please state your full name, residence and 

occupation.
A. Oliver W. Hill, 107 Overbrook Road, Richmond, Vir­

ginia. I am an attorney at law.
Q. And will you state what, if anything, is your connection 

with the Virginia Conference of the N. A. A. C. P .!
A. I  am chairman of what is known as the legal committee, 

legal staff, of the Virginia State Conference of the N. A. A. 
C. P. branches.

Q. Do you have any connection with the Conference other 
than that, officially, I mean!

A. Well, no.
Q. Do you have any connection with the N. A. A. C. P. it­

self, the corporation!
A. Well, I  am a registered agent for the corporation.
Q. For the State of Virginia! »
A. For the State of Virginia, yes.
Q. Are you on the legal staff of the N. A. A. C. P.!
A. No—except that I  have been retained as counsel for the 

N. A. A. C. P.
page 86 J- Q. In individual cases, hut are you a member 

of the legal staff of N. A. A. C /P .t
A. Well, of the National Legal Committee with the 

N. A. A. C. P. Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and I 
have been a member of that committee for several years.

Mr. Robinson: Here is Mr. Banks again.
Mr. Hill: He can go ahead and get the exhibits ready,

if he wants.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Banks is back in the courtroom, and I

heard some colloquy as to whether he should stay. We may 
need him to testify again, and I think he should be excluded, 
as much as I  regret to have him excluded, and he might utilize 
this time to get this information together this afternoon.

The Court: So I will know, is he leaving, asking to be
excused for the day, or is he being excluded under the ex­
clusion rule!

Mr. Mays: It would greatly help the case if he would find 
that material and get it back in the case.

Mr. Hill: My understanding Avas that Mr. Mays wasn’t
going to call him back any time soon, and Ave AÂ eren’t going 
to call him. He AA7as going to be excused to get the material.



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Attv. G.en. of Ya. 101

Oliver W. Hill.

Mr. Mays: I thought he could, and if it could he produced
without a hardship on the witness he could bring it back and 

get it in the record of this hearing today. I had 
page 87 }- requested it for tomorrow. If it can be secured 

earlier, it will be better.
The Court: The Court will excuse Mr. Banks with the

understanding that he will try to secure the records that 
have been called for sometime during the day if he can. I 
wish he would let the Court know at periodic intervals from, 
say, starting at 2 :30, by phoning the Sheriff or my secretary 
as to whether he can produce them this afternoon, and if so, 
approximately what time, so we will know whether we can 
cover the rest of your testimony today, or whether we will 
have to wait until tomorrow.

You are excused, Mr. Banks.

By Mr. Mays:
Q. Mr. Hill, from former testimony I have understood that 

there is a legal committee which is also called legal staff of 
the Virginia Conference of branches, that is correct, is it 
not?

A. That is right, yes.
Q. And Mr. Banks testified that there were 13 members, 

and has named those members, and you have heard his testi­
mony about three others being added since that time?

A. Two.
Q. Two others. Is that correct to the best of your knowl­

edge?
A. Yes.

page 88 }> Q. Do you remember when the legal staff was 
first set up as an official legal staff?

A. Well, as I stated before, it was set up sometime during 
the war years while I was in the Army, and I was made 
chairman—I don’t know whether it was actually the first 
meeting of it, or whether I was made chairman in absentia— 
but it was very close anyway.

Q. Now, when did it begin to function? Let’s get at it in 
that fashion. I understand it was set up during the Avar, 
and you \Arere not here?

A. That is right.
Q. And \\dio set it up, do you know?
A. Well, prior to going in the Army we had discussed the 

situation—put it this Avay— prior to going in the service I 
had been very active in this same type of matter involving 
teachers’ salaries, bus transportation for Negro children in



Oliver W. Hill.

rural areas, and things of that nature. In some of these 
cases Mr. Martin, who was at that time practicing in Dan­
ville, worked with me.

Q. That is Martin W. Martin?
A. Martin A. Martin.
Q. Martin A. Martin?
A. That is right. During this time younger lawyers 

started coming into the state. As I was going in the army 
Mr. Robinson was taking the examination, and we 

page 89 }• had agreed to set up a partnership . Mr. Cooley 
had worked with us on some of the cases, and Mr. 

Valentine. So there had been discussion about working to­
gether on the cases. I t grew out of that. As I say, I don’t 
know who called them together or anything, but I know there 
was a background to it, and that is the way the committee 
got together.

Q. It started out as an informal meeting of lawyers who 
had a common purpose, I  take it, and a common interest?

A. That is correct.
Q. When did the legal staff become the official legal staff of 

the Virginia Conference?
A. To the best of my knowledge, somewhere around 1945 

or 1946.
Q. And that was just about the time you came out of the 

service ?
A. Yes.
Q. So it began to function then as an actual legal staff 

right after the war, and you were the chairman of it from 
the inception, were you not?

A. That is right—I might say that there was a general re­
organization of the State Conference and all that sort of 
thing. We employed an Executive Secretary, and sort of 
built up an organization around that time.

Q. When you say “ we employed a secretary,” you mean 
the State Conference? 

page 90 }- A. The State Conference, yes.
Q. And that Avas Mr. Banks, was it?

A. Mr. Banks was the first person employed.
Q. So he has been the executive secretary of the Virginia 

Conference of branches since 1945, and you have been—
A. No, since 1947.
Q. 1947— and you have been chairman of the legal staff 

since it began right after the war.
A. That is right.

102 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Attv. Gen. of Va. 103

Oliver W. Hill.

Q. Do you remember the personnel of that legal staff As 
of the time it was first created ?

A. Well, as best I can recall, Martin A. Martin, Spotswood 
W. Robinson, III, Robert Cooley, and I think Edward Brown 
was one of the earlier ones, I can’t just—those were in the 
earlier group, anyway.

Q. Yes. And then you added to that from time to time 
until it got to its present size?

A. Another fellow, Walker, Wendell Walker, from New­
port News.

Q. When did he come into it?
A. Oh, I am sure he was in the earlier group.
Q. Now, as I understand it, this legal staff is elected at the 

annual convention of the Virginia Conference 
page 91  ̂ of branches?

A. That is right.
Q. And who nominates them?
A. The nominating committee of the State Conference.
Q. And the nominating committee gets its recommenda­

tion from whom?
A. It gets its recommendation from the legal staff.
Q. So that I take it at the inception, this informal group 

of lawyers was formally nominated as the legal staff or legal 
committee of the Conference and was elected at an annual 
meeting somewhere around 1946 or 1947?

A. Somewhere back there, but initially the members were 
just nominated the same as any other officers were nominated. 
It was subsequently that the nominating committee sort of 
took the recommendation of the legal staff.

Q. Well, back over a period of, shall we say, seven or 
eight years anyway, it has been the practice, basil’t it, for the 
nominating committee to put up the names of those that the 
legal staff itself recommends?

A. That is right.
Q. And so you as chairman, I take it, informed the nomi­

nating committee that you wanted to re-elect the same staff, 
or make whatever changes you would like to make, and then 
they put these people’s names in nomination, and they are 
duly elected?

A. That is right.
page 92 }- Q. As a matter of fact, they never have any 

additional nominations from the floor in any of 
these cases either, do they?

A. You mean with respect to the—
Q. For the legal staff.



Oliver W. Hill.

'A. To the legal staff?
Q. Yes.
A. Not in a long number of years, to my recollection.
Q. So that the legal staff can in a sense perpetuate itself 

by telling the nominating committee who it is they want to 
continue to have on it?

A. That is correct.
Q. Now, do people come to you from time to time, or as far 

as you know, to other members of the staff, and suggest that 
other lawyers be added to it?

A. Suggestions may have been made from time to time, 
and other lawyers have been added from time to time.

Q. Do those suggestions come from laymen, or do they 
come from some of the lawyers who would like to be members 
of the legal staff?

A. Well, they principally come from the branches, the 
lawyers spoke to the branch president, I don’t know.

Q. How the lawyer gets into it you don’t know, but the 
branch president will talk to the nominating committee or 

talk to you, rather, to find out whether you would 
page 93 like him added to the staff.

A. That is one way. And there have been 
suggestions emanating from the existing members on the com­
mittee as to lawyers who have demonstrated an interest and 
willingness to devote the time and understanding vagary 
phases incident to this type of activity.

Q. Well, now, could you on any occasion reject those who 
seek places on the legal staff?

A. I can recall on one occasion where a suggestion was 
made for the inclusion of a person that never was included. 
Now, I said it that way because there have been others 
whom it has been suggested be put on the legal staff, and may­
be this year or next year they wouldn’t, but subsequently 
they have been, but this particular individual, he never 
was.

Q. I don’t want in the slightest way to embarrass you with 
names. I  don’t want to do that. I feel that if I were sitting 
where you are I  might not like to go into the names of those 
who were rejected, but when you do turn a lawyer down, 
either suggested by somebody else or yourself, is that due to 
incompetence, or you have enough lawyers already, or what 
would be the controlling reason?

A. Well, in this particular case I have in mind, the lawyer 
that never was accepted, there was a strong feeling on the

104 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. G,en. of Va. 105

Oliver W. HUl.

part of several of the members, maybe, that he 
page 94 }- was incompetent, that had a whole lot to do with 

it. Well, it has been a cooperative, good-working 
relationship, and we didn’t feel that he would add anything 
to it.

Q. I t wasn’t due to the fact that he was so geographically 
located that he would cut in on somebody else?

A. I don’t think that has even been any consideration. 
You don’t have that many lawyers who are active and in­
terested. As a matter of fact, I know that has never hap­
pened—you say cut in on somebody else. I assume you 
mean—

Q. Getting his share of legal business.
A. All right—for this reason, that is no factor, because 

usually in communities where there are more than one, if 
they are interested in participating, they will all participate 
anyway.

Q. You mean that anybody who is in a community affected 
can get in that wants to get into a pending case?

A. No, what I mean to say is that usually in a pending 
case, if there are two or three lawyers in a particular com­
munity, they usually do get into it, that is what I mean to 
say.

Q. In other words, if any lawyer in a community wants to 
get into a case pending in that area, he gets in, and there is 
no question asked about that, is that true?

A. I don’t know, because I don’t know whether T am fol­
lowing your question correctly, 

page 95  ̂ Q. Let me be more specific. I thought we under­
stood each other. A case involving education is 

brought, say, in a community in which there is more than 
one lawyer on the staff. That might be Richmond, it might 
be Norfolk, and one of those lawyers is given a job to do. 
Is the other lawyer always free to get into that case if lie 
so desires?

A. Well, let’s try to describe it a little differently. As 
a practical matter, in the cases that we have had up to the 
present time, anyway, either working in conjunction with 
some of the other lawyers, one of the other lawyers brings 
him in, or people consult the two lawyers or three lawyers, 
as the situation may be in that situation, all together. In a 
community that is the usual situation. Say either the first 
lawyer brings the other one in, or they happen to coincide.

Q. It is pretty well understood, isn’t it, or is it, that any



Oliver W. Hill.

lawyer in a locality where litigation is pending, if he is on the 
legal staff, can get into the case if he wishes?

A. What I  am hedging about is—
Q. I notice that, hut I  don’t want you to do it any more.
A. What I  am hedging about is the approach you seem 

to be taking. The one who has it draws the other one in 
rather than saying, you have got a case, let me in it.

Q. Anyway, lie winds up in it ?
A. Yes.

page 96 Q. It is usually understood in a community that 
when one lawyer gets in a case he brings in the 

other staff lawyers in that community? Can you think of 
any exceptions?

A. I  can’t say—well, there haven’t been that many cases 
in the respective communities to be of—yes, I  can think of 
one—no, I can’t, I can’t think of any.

Q. As far as you now remember—and if you think of an 
instance later, bring it up and tell us—as far as you now 
remember, whenever one of these school cgses gets started 
in a community that has more than one lawyer, all will be in 
it?

A. T can think of one instance right now. You take the 
present Norfolk case. Mr. Overton is in that area. He is 
not counsel in the case, although he and Mr. Ashe all have 
been in it prior.

Q. When did Mr. Overton go on the staff?
A. Last year.
Q. That was when the case was brought, wasn’t it?
A. Yes, hut he wasn’t brought in on the case.
Q. So far as existing members of the staff are concerned, 

if you have a case in the community where there is more 
than one staff lawyer, then they all get in?

A. Well, the only thing I can say is that they are all 
in.

Q. 0. K. Have any of the members of the staff 
page 97 }■ who were originally members or who subsequently 

came on the staff been dropped?
A. No, sir—yes.
Q. Who?
A. One lawyer.
Q. Who is that?
A. Well, it is a lawyer in the Tidewater area.
Q. Is he a lawyer you have not enumerated?
A. You mean—
Q. Whose name has not come up?

106 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



X.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. G,en. of Va. 107

Oliver W. Hill.

A. Oh, yes, I have mentioned his name.
Q. If he has been enumerated in the picture, who is lie!
A. Mr. Wendell Walker from down at Newport News. He 

was dropped.
Q. And when was that?
A. He withdrew, oh, seven years ago.
Q. Was that at whose instance?
A. Well, I think it was at the legal committee’s instance. 

He became inactive. He was not doing anything.
Q. Well, now, you have had some litigation in Newport 

News. Who are the counsel of record in that case, the school 
case?

A. W. Hale Thompson, and Philip Walker.
Q. Aren’t you in it?

page 98 }- A. I say, I haven’t completed.
Q. I am sorry.

A. The residents in Newport News, Spotswood Robinson 
and myself.

Q. How did you come into it?
A. At the request of Mr. Thompson.
Q. How did Mr. Robinson come into it?
A. At the request of Mr. Thompson.
Q. Through you or directly to Mr. Robinson?
A. Directly to Mr. Robinson.
Q. I take it that in that case there were written authoriza­

tions for counsel to appear?
A. I  was so advised.
Q. Have you seen them?
A. T don’t think I have.
Q. Do you know to whom the authorization ran?
A. To Mr. Thompson and Mr. Walker.
Q. As individuals?
A. As individuals, and I am almost certain that the au­

thorizations authorize them to associate with other counsel.
Q. Rut you don’t know, do you?
A. I wouldn’t want to take an oath that T read it, because 

I haven’t.
Q. What understanding did you have with reference to the 

compensation in that case as to yourself? 
page 99 V A. In the Newport News case?

Q. Yes.
A. Oh. it was sponsored hv the Conference, and I expect 

the Conference to compensate me.
Q. Have the expenses that you have advanced been re­

imbursed ?



Oliver W. Hill.

A. I think that in Newport News all of them have.
Q. And what about fees for the handling of the case, has 

any part of them been paid?
A. Yes.
Q. The greater part?
A. Offhand, I don’t remember an individual case in that 

situation, but I  know that I have been compensated.
Q. Now, did you have any understanding, or as far as you 

know did any other counsel in the case have any understand­
ing, with the plaintiffs as to who would pay the expenses and 
legal fees?

A. Will you repeat that, Mr. Mays?

Mr. Mays: Will you repeat the question, Mr. Reporter?

(The question was read.)

The W itness: All counsel except Mr. Robinson had an
understanding, and at least expected the Conference to com­
pensate.

By Mr. Mays:
Q. Mr. Robinson. Didn’t they propose to call you on re­

tainer from the N. A. A. C. P.? 
page 100 f A. That is right. Tn a lot of these cases these 

statutes were inactive, and before anyone had an 
opportunity to study them, there was quite a problem as to 
what effect these statutes would have on an attorney attempt­
ing to assert the constitutional rights of Negroes upon the 
questions. I  am positive that he did, because I advised him 
so to do, and in the other case that I  had at that time I did 
contact the plaintiffs and advised them of the action of the 
Legislature of Virginia in its efforts to keep the N. A. A. C. P. 
from functioning, and pointed out to them that it might, 
if these statutes were to be held constitutional, it would, of 
course, prohibit the N. A. A. C. P. from functioning in the 
fashion in which it was functioning, and that counsel would 
have to look to these individuals for the reimbursement of 
the expenses and some compensation.

I know that insofar as my personal statements to the 
people were concerned, I  assured them that any requests for 
compensation would be very meager, if anv at all.

Q. Now, in the Charlottesville ease, will you tell us just 
how you came into that, who the counsel were?

A. I  came into it when Mr. Ferguson—put it this way—

108 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



the immediate step leading up to it, Mr. Ferguson eame by 
my office one day and said that he wanted me to come up and 
talk with the parents.

Q. Will you identify him! 
page 101 }- A. He is Dr. George Ferguson.

Q. What was he!
A. He was the president of the Charlottesville branch at 

that time.
Q. Is he a physician!
A. No—when I said “ doctor,” I am sorry. He is not a 

doctor, Mr. Ferguson, he is the funeral director.
Q. Right.
A. But let me say this. It is hard to say in a large number 

of these communities just what was the initial contact. You 
take a situation like Charlottesville. It was one of the areas 
which was involved in discussions with respect to teachers’ 
salaries. There have been a lot of meetings and things. 
You talk with people. You know what the problem is in a 
particular community. Now, at some stage somebody or 
something occurs, and they write you about the case, but 
just to say what was the initial contact makes it a little 
difficult.

But I  do happen to recall that the thing that got me to 
Charlottesville to meet with the group of parents, at which 
time I was authorized to represent, was the call from Mr. 
Ferguson.

Q. Now, you appeared there and had a meeting with the 
prospective plaintiffs in response to his call?

A. With respect to his visit.
page 102 }• Q. Yes. And then you obtained from those 

people written authorizations running to your­
self to handle the litigation?

A. That is right.
Q. I believe I heard someone suggest at some time that 

some of those were in blank, is that correct?
A. The authorizations were written up in blank, they were 

prepared not only for my use, but for the use of any attorney 
that had need for such written authorization. In some of the 
authorizations people filled my name in. Some of them they 
left blank and my name was subsequently typed in at my 
office. I  think I  so testified.

Q. I  assume that you put your name in in the firm belief 
that the people intended you to be the lawyer growing out 
of that meeting. You expected that everybody intended you 
to be their counsel?

N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gon. of Va. 109

O l i v e r  W .  H i l l .



Oliver W. Hill.

A. Oh, yes. I had discussed the situation with people. I 
told them I could only act upon some written authorization— 
there were a number of reasons for having written authoriza­
tions ; as you well appreciate.

Q. I can fully appreciate that.
Now, did they give written authorizations to any other at­

torneys ?
A. There was no other attorney present, and so far as I 

know, for a long period of time no other attorney met with 
the parents as a group except myself, 

page 103 Q. Now, did they at any time in Charlottes­
ville give written authorization to any attorney 

other than you?
A. Only in that the authorizations they signed authorized 

me and such other attorneys as I may associate with them.
Q. Is this a proviso, that you were free to authorize others ?
A. That is right.
Q. Now, who else did you bring into the case?
A. Well, at first Mr. Robinson, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Martin 

and Mr. Ely, because it was one of the first ones that we 
instituted after the Supreme Court decision. But actively 
participating in the case it would only be Mr. Robinson and 
Mr. Tucker, and Mr. Carter was down at the trial of the 
case in Charlottesville in 1956.

Q. Now, these various lawyers you mentioned became coun­
sel of record within a reasonably short time after the suit 
was brought, did they not?

A. Yes—well, if they were counsel of record at the time, 
of course.

Q. Now, Mr. Robinson, and did you mention Mr. Martin?
A. Yes.
Q. And both of those are partners in your law firm. Now, 

was Mr. Robinson still in your law firm at the time that suit 
was brought?

page 104 }- A. L et’s see. That suit was instituted—no, at 
the time that suit was instituted we had several 

in the partnership.
Q. Now, you brought Mr. Ely in, and where does he re­

side?
A. In Richmond.
Q. And Mr. Tucker, he came from Emporia?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And who was the other lawyer?
A. Mr. Martin.
Q. There were five altogether?

110 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



A. Yes.
Q. Now, did Mr. Tucker make any contribution to the 

case, any unusual contribution to the case, or was he simply 
there as reinforcement?

A. At what stage are you talking about?
Q. At any stage.
A. Oh, yes, sir, he is actively participating in the case.
Q. I notice you brought him from quite a distance, and 

ordinarily you confine this to the people in the general 
locality, don’t you?

A. Well, there were no lawyers in the county in which 
Charlottesville is located.

Q. Yes, but there were some in Richmond and 
page 105 }- Emporia, some distance away.

A. Another 60 miles.
Q. And I wonder if there was any particular reason for 

bringing him up there when you had some other lawyer?
A. Well, I can’t say that we couldn’t have done without 

him.
Q. Then why did you have him?
A. T am trying to recall now—to the best of my recollec­

tion, the situation had begun to develop to where it had be­
gun to appear that you were not going to be able to arrive 
at desegregation in any cooperative fashion such as we had 
anticipated in the beginning, but that it would have to be 
brought about by litigation, and in discussion of the matter 
I think it was felt that it would be advisable and helpful if as 
many as possible of the lawyers who were in a particular 
community had some participation in the cases.

Q. So he hadn’t been in one of those cases before, had 
he?

A. Not to my recollection.
Q. So that he was brought in so that he could sort of 

got tbo feel of things for future cases?
A. T think that was sort of the idea.
Q. In other words, it was sort of a school for lawyers ?
A. If  you want to call it that.

Q. Yes, I do. Well, he was to be compensated, 
page 106 }- wasn’t he, for being there?

A. He would have been compensated had he 
been active at that time.

Q. He has participated in some degree?
A. He has participated, yes.
Q. And learned something?
A. I  hope so.

N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. I l l

O l i v e r  W .  H i l l .



Oliver W. Hill.

Mr. Mays: I am willing to go on as long as you want to, 
Your Honor.

The Court: I normally adjourn at one o’clock.
Suppose we take a recess until 2:15.

(Recess for lunch was taken from 1:07 p. m. until 2:15 
p. m., the same day.)

page 107 } AFTERNOON RECESS.

(The trial was resumed pursuant to noon recess at 2:15 
p. m.)

The Court: Mr. Mays, you may proceed.

OLIVER W. HILL, 
resumed his testimony as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION. (Continued)

By Mr. Mays:
Q. Mr. Hill, in connection with the Charlottesville case, 

did you have any understanding with any of the plaintiffs 
as to the payment of counsel fees and expenses!

A. I  think I told you this morning, Mr. Mays, that after 
the enactment of the statute I met with the plaintiffs in the 
Charlottesville case, and advised them of the passage of these 
statutes, and the possible interpretations that could be put 
upon them, in my opinion, and that in the event that they 
Avere held to be constitutional, in such an event the State Con­
ference would no longer be able to sponsor litigation in the 
manner in which it has sponsored it heretofore, and in the 
case of such a contingency, then we would have to look to 
them individually for the reimbursement of the expenses 
that had been incurred.

Q. And that was agreeable to them?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You had no understanding prior to that time with those 

people?
page 108 } A. Other than that it was generally expected 

that the State Conference would sponsor the
case.

Q. Indeed, is it not a fact that the State Conference held 
itself out to sponsor any school cases as long as the plaintiffs 
in those cases adhere to the principles and policies of the

112 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



Conference, that is, that the ease would he tided as to a direct 
attack on segregation rather than equal facilities!

A. Now, at what time are you talking about?
Q. I am talking about from the time of the Supreme Court 

decision in 1954.
A. After the Supreme Court’s decision in 1954 T don’t 

think there was ever the contemplation of anyone that any 
of the so-called separate or equal facilities cases would be 
brought.

Q. But to answer my specific question, at least I thought I 
had made it specific, the answer is that the Conference would 
not stand in back or aid any cases unless they went all the 
way under the Supreme Court decision ?

A. That is true.
Q. And in those communities where the parents wanted 

to bring those suits, in each instance the Conference would 
pay the expenses of the litigation?

A. That is true.
Q. And that was generally known as far as you 

page 109 }- know?
A. I think so.

Q. And it was brought home by you and others to prospect­
ive litigants from time to time ?

A. Not only brought by me and others in the public press, 
but in our conventions and in branch meetings—it was widely 
known.

Q. In other words, the word was out, and as far as you 
know it was well understood that the staff was there to 
render service for them when they needed it in that type of 
case, and that the expense would be borne by the Conference?

A. Upon request, yes.
Q. And was it not further understood, or did not you mem­

bers of the staff and the officers of the Conference further 
inform them that it would have to be done by counsel with 
members of the staff themselves, rather than by independent 
counsel?

A. I  don’t know that that was generally understood.
Q. Well, as far as you know, whether it was generally 

understood or not, as far as you know, you gave that im­
pression, didn’t you, in talking with these people?

A. No.
Q. Very well. Turning now to the Norfolk case, were you 

in that?
A. Yes, sir.

page 110 J- Q. What other lawyers were?
A. Victor J. Ashe, and J. Hugo Madison,

N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 113

O l i v e r  W .  H i l l .



Oliver W. Hill.

Spotswood W. Robinson, I was in it, and there was also Mr. 
Joseph Jordan.

Q. Mr. Ashe and Mr. Madison, they are Norfolk lawyers? 
A. That is right.
Q. Were they first in the case?
A. Yes.
Q. And did they obtain, or one or more of them obtain 

written authorizations from the plaintiffs!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did both get the authorizations, or one?
A. I am not in a position to say.
Q. You don’t know?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Do you know whether those authorizations ran to other 

lawyers than those two?
A. I would have to say it like I said as to the Newport 

News situation, I am positive that they did, although I 
couldn’t say it of my own knowledge.

Q. Maybe you are saying more than you intend to say. 
L et’s be quite certain. What you mean by that is that those 
two lawyers in Norfolk had authorization, and in turn bad 
authority to bring you in, rather than you with respect to 

them ?
page 111 }- A. I doubt it.

Q. Were you first brought into that case after 
the two Norfolk lawyers were employed?

A. I didn’t understand you.
Q. Were you the first lawyer brought in from the outside 

to participate in that case after the Norfolk lawyers were 
employed?

A. I  couldn’t say whether I was first or Mr. Robinson was 
first.

Q. You were both called on about the same time?
A. I would imagine about the same time.
Q. You wouldn’t know for certain?
A. I  couldn’t say.
Q. Do you know who brought you into the case?
A. Mr. Ashe.
Q. Now, when did the other lawyers come in?
A. You mean Mr. Jordan?
Q. Yes.
A. He came in as an intervenor—as an attorney for some 

intervenors in the summer.
Q. He was employed by them and came in to intervene 

for them?

114 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



A. He came in representing them.
Q. And is lie to be paid by the Conference, as far as you 

know, or by the intervenors?
page 112 A. There wasn’t any understanding about the 

Conference.
Q. As far as you know, he was employed by the inter­

venors ?
A. As far as I know.
Q. And the intervenors will pay him?
A. He has never requested any compensation, but to be 

technical about it, I don’t know, it will have to be considered.
Q. How many intervenors did he represent approximately?
A. In Norfolk?
Q. Yes.
A. You are talking about Mr. Jordan?
Q. That is right.
A. I don’t recall the exact number.
Q. I meant approximately.
A. Frankly, Mr. Mays, that came in at such varied times 

and in such fashion that I  just couldn’t remember.
Q. I fully appreciate that difficulty. Could you approxi­

mate the number of plaintiffs in the Norfolk suit?
A. Well, there were, I would say, about 50.
Q. Now, these intervenors represented by Mr. Jordan, 

did they come in of their own volition, or was it suggested 
by the Conference that further intervenors come in?

A. I am sure they came in of their own voli- 
page 113 J- tion. In other words, Mr. Ashe and Mr. Madison 

had intervened other people. When they got to­
gether about it I  don’t know. There was no problem about 
the case becoming moot or anything of that nature unless 
somebody else came in.

Q. Do you know whether the counsel in that case other 
than Mr. Jordan, who represented any intervenors, had 
been paid wholly or in part for their services?

A. In the Norfolk case?
Q. Yes.
A. They have been paid in part.
Q. And when was that payment made, do you recall?
A. I  don’t recall the time. They submitted a bill, and I 

know they have received payments on account, I know that.
Q. At the time you testified in September of last year in 

the three-Judge Federal Court, I think very few payments 
had been made?

A. That is true.

N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 115

O l i v e r  W .  H i l l .



Oliver W. Hill.

Q. And is it fair to say that any payments that have been 
made since have been made since April of this year?

A. Well, I wouldn’t recall exactly about fixing April as the 
beginning, but certainly they have been made this year.

Q. Well, they have been made either in the spring or sum­
mer of this year? 

page 114 }■ A. That is right.
Q. In other words, isn’t it true that the pay­

ments that were made to counsel in those cases were made 
after the decision of the three-judge Court, which I believe 
was in April?

A. I  would think that—I wouldn’t want to say that no 
payments were made prior to that time, but I would think 
that the majority of them were made after that time.

Q. I  take it that counsel felt sufficiently encouraged by the 
Federal Court decision that there might not be any trouble 
if they accepted the payments thereafter?

A. I certainly think that strengthened their belief.
Q. Yes.
Now, if we might turn for a little while to the Arlington 

cases. Who are the counsel in that case—in those cases?
A. Well, now, in Arlington there have been what could be 

described as two cases, one, the original case, was an equal 
facilities case. And that one was Mr. Robinson and Mr. 
Leon A. Eansom. Since the Supreme Court decision there 
has been another case in which there have been the original 
plaintiffs and then subsequent intervenors. In that ease—

Q. As a separate case?
A. Yes, as a separate case. I  said there were two cases.

Q. Yes.
page 115 J- A. Now, in the case since the Supreme Court 

decision, there was Mr. Edwin Brown, Mr. Robin­
son, Mr. Otto Tucker, Mr. Frank Reeves.

Q. Otto Tucker, he is the brother of the Tucker in Emporia, 
isn ’t he?

A. That is right.
Q. Are all of those five counsel still in the case?
A. Well, Mr. Robinson, Mr. Reeves, Mr. Tucker, and I am 

still in the case. I don’t know just what the status with 
reference to Mr. B ro w  is. I  met with some of the plaintiffs 
early in the spring, and they had no wish about it one way 
or the other. They didn’t commit themselves. They didn’t 
make any request about it. So he hasn’t  been dropped. On 
the other hand, he hasn’t been active.

Q. Well, he is not in active practice now, I  think.

116 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Ya. 117

Oliver W. Hill.

A. That I am not certain about.
Q. Who first came to the Arlington case? I mean the school 

segregation case, what counsel first came into that case?
A. Mr. Brown.
Q. By himself.
A. Yes.
Q. And did he get the customary authorizations as far as 

you know?
A. Yes, sir.

page 116 }- Q. You haven’t yourself seen them?
A. I have a vague recollection that I did see 

some of them, but I am not certain of it, I don’t remember.
Q. As a matter of fact, I have the impression somehow 

that you have, and I wonder if that refreshes your memory?
A. W ell, I will put it this way. I prepared an authoriza­

tion form that only required the information with respect to 
the parents, children, schools involved, and the attorneys.

Q. But you didn’t handle it beyond that point?
A. That is right.
Q. Now, can those particular authorizations in the Arling­

ton case have the usual clause that you referred to author­
izing the lawyer specifically named to bring in an associate 
counsel?

A. I am reasonably certain they did.
Q. Is that the kind of form you used in all these cases?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you use that same form in the Prince Edward 

case?
A. I am inclined to think that we did not. As I recall, 

the authorizations really went to Hill, Martin and Robinson.
Q. And after that you amended the form so that you 

could authorize other lawyers?
A. Yes.

page 117 J- Q. And, as far as you know, except in the 
Prince Edward case you used this amended

form?
A. I wouldn’t say except the Prince Edward case, since 

the Prince Edward ease, we will say.
Q. Very well.
Who did Mr. Brown bring into the case first after he be­

came counsel?
A. Mr. Robinson and me.
Q. Did he get directly in touch with you or Mr. Robinson?
A. My recollection is that he got in touch with Mr. Robin­

son first. But put it this way: He probably talked to Spot



Oliver W. Hill.

over the telephone one day, and he talked to me the same 
day or later, but my recollection is—

Q. I happen to know what you mean by “ Spot” , but tell 
the Court.

A. Mr. Robinson.
Q. In other words, it is pretty well understood that if 

they got one the other was going to be in right away any­
way, isn’t that true?

A. Well—
Q. That is the way it worked!
A. That is the way it worked, beyond a doubt.
Q. Well, you two came in, and who came into the case 

next?
page 118 }• A. Well, that case went to the Supreme Court.

And this year—I don’t know which one came in 
first, whether it was Mr. Reeves or Mr. Tucker. I don’t 
recall right now. The reason I said I don’t recall, some of 
the intervenors contacted Mr. Tucker, and some of them 
contacted Mr. Reeves. Just which was first I don’t recall 
right now.

Q. Then Mr. Tucker and Mr. Reeves were brought in by 
intervenors and not brought in by counsel already in the case ?

A. Well, so far as Mr. Tucker was concerned, some people 
spoke to me, and I suggested to them that they talk to Mr. 
Tucker, so I was responsible for Mr. Tucker becoming in­
volved in that. Some of these people talked to Mr. Reeves, 
and he contacted me relative to the fact that these people 
had discussed the situation with him, as to my position, and 
he invited me in.

Q. In either case, did you go to him to suggest bringing 
in intervenors?

A. They came to me with the intervenors.
Q. And that was the first you knew about the proposed 

intervenors?
A. No, sir.
Q. What was your first knowledge?
A. Well, we intervened, the plaintiffs, a year ago, and 

they were ordered admitted. And as you know, 
page 119 J- the case was appealed, the admission was 

stayed. Several people in Arlington from time 
to time have contacted me. And as I  say, we have met with 
a number of the original plaintiffs, and other people who 
were interested, in the spring. Now, some of those people, 
some of the people that Mr. Reeves and Mr. Tucker—I can’t

118 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



say all of them are different, some of them are the same 
people.

Q. Now, wasn’t it the policy in these cases as far as 
you know, when people came to seek intervention in a 
case, to require them to employ their own counsel, or didn’t 
you on occasion become the attorney for them and intervene 
for those parties yourself!

A. Will you read that back? I didn’t get the purport of 
that.

(The question was read.)

A. Well, on several occasions we have intervened for 
people ourselves.

Q. When you were already in the case?
A. Already in the case, yes.
Q. Did you have some particular reason for having these 

two lawyers intervene in Washington rather than appear 
as counsel for the parties yourself?

A. The only reason for it was approximate to the people, 
that was the primary reason.

Q. Where does Mr. Reeves live? 
page 120 A. In Washington.

Q. And what is his full name?
A. Frank D. Reeves.
Q. And where does this particular Mr. Tucker live?
A. In Alexandria.
Q. And you wanted them, in because they lived nearby?
A. Well, remember, now, Mr. Tucker was right there in 

Alexandria.
Q. I say, they lived nearby the Court?
A. That is right.
Q. Had this Mr. Tucker been in any of these cases before?
A. No.
Q. Had Mr. Reeves been in any of them before?
A. He had been in school desegregation cases before, yes,
Q. W asn’t it at least in part true that you brought in this 

particular Mr. Tucker for the same reason you did his 
brother who lives in Emporia, so he could get his feet wet 
and get familiar with this type of litigation ?

A. No. As I say, the primary reason was that he was right 
in that locaty.

Q. Did you bring in any other lawyers in other cases for

N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 119

O l i v e r  W .  Hi l l .



Oliver W. Hill.

that reason so that they could get familiar with the thing, 
that type of litigation, for future use? 

page 121 }- A. No, I can’t say that.
Q. Only the Tucker in Emporia?

A. Well, he is the only one at any distance that has been 
involved in any cases.

Q. You mentioned a moment ago that the authorization 
for the Prince Edward case was different from that in the 
other cases, in that I think it designated the particular 
lawyer who was to function, but did not authorize him to 
bring in associates; that is right, isn’t it?

A. It has been a long time since I have seen one of those 
forms, but to the best of my recollection it did not authorize 
us to include anyone else, although I wouldn’t want to 
say that it did for positive. I  just don’t have any recol­
lection of doing so. In other words, if I had to make a guess 
about it, I would guess that it just said, “ Hill, Martin and 
Robinson. ’ ’

Q. I am sorry about that, because you were testifying 
positively a few minutes ago as to the difference, as I 
remember your testimony.

A. Well, I haven’t varied from it, to my recollection.
Q. Very well.
Now, who was named in the authorization for Prince 

Edward’s County?
A. Hill, Martin and Robinson.
Q. Were any other lawyers associated thereafter?

A. No local lawyers.
page 122 }• Q. Well, have any other lawyers been associ- 

. ated, local or otherwise?
A. Well, in the trial of the case Mr. Carter was presen t^  

I  was trying to remember whether Mr. Marshall was down 
or not. I don’t think he was. I think it was Mr. Carter.

Q. And who brought him in the case?
A. I  did.
Q. There was no specific authorization for that, I take it?
A. Not that I recall at the present time.
Let me say this, Mr. Mays, so that you may understand 

our position about this thing. We don’t regard the prosecu­
tion of a person’s constitutional rights in the same strictness 
that you would regard, say, handling a contract litigation 
for a particular individual client. This is something that 
the N.A.A.C.P. was sponsoring. These people are actively 
connected with the N.A.A.C.P. and known to be, and these 
people whose rights we are trying to protect and assert are

120 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



interested in getting the vindication of their rights, and 
they are not as much concerned about the particular lawyers 
in the majority of instances—as to the number of lawyers, 
put it that way—as a client would be who was involved in 

a particular single piece of private litigation, 
page 123 J- Q. I am keenly aware of that, and I am glad 

to have you state it so clearly. As a matter of 
fact, the members of N.A.A.C.P. understand, do they not, 
that if they have this sort of problem they are entitled to 
have, without any financial liability on their part, repre­
sentation by counsel from the staff?

A. No, sir, I wouldn’t say that, not as being members of 
the N.A.A.C.P., as being members of a disfranchised and 
disadvantaged minority. It is pretty well understood that 
the N.A.A.C.P. will do this.

In other words, put it this way. You don’t have to say,
4‘I am a member of the N.A.A.C.P.” to get the N.A.A.C.P. 
to defend you in any particular area in which it renders 
legal assistance. I mean, they do it on the basis of racial 
discrimination.

Q. When you say “ area,” you are not talking about geo­
graphical area, but area of discrimination?

A. That is right.
Q. Now, of course, you understand, do you not, that we 

have a person coming in to have a constitutional right 
vindicated, that person is asserting the right as it applies 
to him as an individual!

A. That is true.
Q. So that, of course, it doesn’t matter how many people 

are involved in the litigation, everyone is as- 
page 124 } serting his own individual right and not some­

one else’s?
A. He is asserting his own individual right, but in the 

assertion of his individual right, and in getting, say, a 
statute declared unconstitutional, we recognize it not only 
affects him as an individual, but it affects all other Negroes 
in similar situations.

Q. Yes, but it is his individual constitutional rights in 
any instance?

A. True.
Q. Now, you were counsel also, were you not, in this 

relatively new case in Warren County?
A. That is true.
Q. When did that situation in Warren County first come

N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Ya. 121

O l i v e r  W .  H i l l .



122 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia 

Oliver W. Hill.

to your attention? Maybe I am. too indefinite when I say 
the situation—

A. Yes, because I have been aware of the situation for a 
long time.

Q. You have been aware of this for a long time, but the 
time did come when you and certain people that became 
plaintiffs came together in the Warren County case?

A. I think I can answer it this way.
Q. Very well.
A. This year, as best I can recall, sometime in April, 

a committee from the P.T.A. up there, I think it was— 
anyway, they came down, they made an appoint- 

page 125 ment on a Saturday and came down and dis­
cussed their situation, and stated they wanted 

to do something about it, that they had talked to the 
superintendent. He told them that they weren’t going to let 
them go to the schools there. They had their choice, and 
they were going to give some of them a choice to go to 
Berryville or over to Warrenton, and they wanted to know 
whether something could be done about it.

Q. For the Court’s information, is the situation this: 
There were no colored schools in the county. They were 
being transported by bus to schools in other counties.

A. That is right. There were no high schools for Negroes 
in Warren County. The children were being sent to the 
regional school in Manassas, or some of them were sent to 
Berryville up in Winchester County. .

Q. And they came to Richmond to consult you about that 
situation ?

A. That is right.
Q. And you had no contacts with them before that?
A. I had no contacts.
Q. As far as you know, had any member of the legal 

staff had any prior contact with them in connection with 
that immediate problem?

A. I am not sure, but so far as I can recall right now, 
no—I wouldn’t want to say that nobody talked to them.

Mr. Brown may have talked to them, or they 
page 126 }- may have talked to somebody else, I don’t know.

Q. Would you answer me the same as to the 
officers of the Conference, so far as you know they had not 
been in touch with them either?

A. I wouldn’t want to say that, Mr. Mays. I  wouldn’t be 
a bit surprised if they hadn’t talked to somebody in State



Conference, because a lot of these people travel around, and 
they talk.

Q. I am talking about officers of the State Council, as 
far as you know, had they talked about these prospective 
plaintiffs before they saw you, as far as you know?

A. I don’t know.
Q. You had never heard it?
A. I have no recollection.
Q. Your first impression was this meeting of the P.T.A. 

people who came to see you, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you fix that time a little closer?
A. Well, I know it was in April, and the reason I know 

it was in April was because we set up a subsequent meeting 
for May 17, and I know it was several weeks.

Q. Now, was that meeting held on May 17?
A. Yes.
Q. Were there any meetings or conferences between you 

and these prospective plaintiffs in the meantime?
A. No.

page 127 Q. Or as far as you know, were there any 
conferences involving them and officers of the 

Conference?
A. Not so far as I know.
Q. Or the staff?
A. Not so far as I know.
Q. And the next thing that happened was on May 17?
A. That is right.
Q. Where was that and what happened?
A. Well, for the first time I went to Front Royal and 

met with—you see, a committee came to see me, and I met 
with the group of parents at the church there, and there 
were also about two or three people present that apparently 
weren’t parents and didn’t have any children involved.

Q. It wrns an open meeting, I take it?
A. No, apparently it had not been—it was a meeting of 

people from out in what they call the Happy Creek Section; 
the reason I mentioned the fact that there were one or two 
other people there, they mentioned the fact that had they 
known about it they were certain that other people would 
have been there.

Q. What I meant by open meeting, nobody was excluded 
from it?

A. So far as I know, no.

N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 123

O l i v e r  TF. H il l .



Oliver W. Hill.

Q. Did you address that meeting! 
page 128 J- A. Yes.

Q. What did you tell them?
A. I explained to them, the constitutional—what the im­

port of the Supreme Court decision was, and what their 
constitutional rights were. We were talking about a par­
ticular situation that had reference to sending the children 
out the county. I pointed out to them that nearly ten years 
ago, in Pulaski County, the Court of Appeals, even under 
the old separate but equal doctrine, had declared that such 
action was an unconstitutional infringement of the rights 
of the children involved, and statements along that line. 
I also pointed out to them the vices of segregated educa­
tion, that in my opinion children, Negroes, would always be 
disfranchised as long as they were segregated, and the 
necessity of making a contribution to the development of 
democracy by breaking down segregation in the respective 
communities.

Q. Did you specially urge any course of action on them?
A. No, I didn’t urge any course of action. I made a talk 

about the situation. I had already been contacted with 
reference to doing so, and I explained to them the steps 
that would be taken.

Q. When you were contacted about doing something, did 
the people at that time indicate what they wanted you 

to do?
page 129 J- A. The committee?

Q. The first meeting. The committee meeting.
A. Yes.
Q. What did they say they wanted you to do?
A. Well, they asked me what could be done, and I ex­

plained to them what could be done, and they showed their 
assent, that they were willing to do that. That • is all. In 
other woi’ds, nobody said, “ I want you to bring the suit 
right now” , or anything of that nature, but they did state 
that they wanted to be petitioners in this matter. They gave 
me authorizations while they were here at Richmond, and 
then I gathered other authorizations at this May 17 meeting.

Q. The committee was here in Richmond in April, you 
advised them what their legal rights were, and you then 
obtained from those present authorizations to act from 
them?

A. Yes.
Q. To do what?
A. To take such steps as may be necessary to secure for

124 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



them non-discriminatory public school education for their 
children.

Q. There was no question in the minds of you and those 
plaintiffs as far as you were concerned, was there, that what 
you were going to do was to file a prompt suit in the Federal 

Court?
page 130 }• A. Well, it depends upon your definition of 

prompt, but I advised them that before anything 
could be done we would have to petition the school board 
to give them an opportunity to do something.

Q. And if the petition were rejected, as you suspected, 
you would then go to the Federal Court?

A. That is right.
Q. And did you not tell them also that you would not be 

interested in getting in the case, nor would the Conference 
be interested in getting into the case, unless they went all 
out to abolish the segregated schools?

A. Well, I  am certain that—I don’t know that it was put 
in just the way you expressed it, but I am certain they 
were advised that the Conference would not support any 
other type of litigation.

Q. And you were not interested in getting into it?
A. As a matter of fact, I wouldn’t have gotten into it.
Q. In other words, to put it plain, in all of these situations 

didn’t you tell parents who wanted to get some redress that 
you and the Conference would not get into it unless it went 
all the way?

A. I don’t like the use of your words “ all the way” .
Q. Stop at any point you want.

A. Let me explain. I pointed out to them that 
page 131 }- the only—T would consider it a waste of my 

time and of their effort to seek so-called separ­
ate but equal facilities, and consequently, if they wanted 
to put forth the effort to abolish racial segregation, which 
ultimately would be of some benefit to them and their chil­
dren, why I would be willing to work, and T was certain 
that we would get the Conference to support that type of 
litigation, if that answers your question.

Q. I think we are getting along now. Fine. When they 
came in to see you in April, did they have any of the 
officials of the Conference with them ?

A. No, sir.
Q. Did they have any officials of the legal branch with 

them?
A. No, sir.

N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Ya. 125

O l i v e r  IF. H il l .



Oliver W. Rill.

Q. And no one came except the parents?
A. That is right. As a matter of fact, Mr. Mays, the 

president of the legal branch complained on May 17 be­
cause she had no knowledge of this thing until she came to 
that meeting, or somebody advised her.

Q. She hadn’t consulted with them before she came to 
see you in April?

A. Apparently not.
Q. And no other official of the local branch had as far 

as you know?
page 132 }> Q. Now, after you got those authorizations, 

when they first came to you in April, did you 
tell them that you ought to have more plaintiffs in that?

A. No, I didn’t tell them that. They wanted to talk, to 
report back to the group that sent them, and the suggestion 
was made that they arrange a meeting up there, and as a 
matter of fact they went back, and I don’t know whether 
they called me or not, but we finally arrived at May 17.

Q. How many authorizations approximately did you get 
at that May 17 meeting?

A. I don’t know. I think it must have been somewhere in 
the neighborhood of 16 or 17. I figure we had around 20 all 
together, or 23.

Q. Then you had three or four that come down to Rich­
mond?

A. There were only four.
Q. Now, did you have any arrangement with those people 

about compensation other than that the Conference itself 
cleared ?

A. No.
Q. When was the next meeting you had with them after 

the 17th of May with the plaintiffs or any of them?
A. It was this dinner meeting that Mr. Banks spoke of.
Q. That Freedom dinner?

A. They had—as an outgrowth of the meeting 
page 133 }■ on the 17th, they said they would like for me to 

come hack, and they arranged a Freedom dinner 
meeting. And as a matter of fact, I know it was in the latter 
part of July.

Q. And you addressed that dinner?
A. I was the principal speaker, yes.
Q. Did you indicate to the people there substantially what 

you have mentioned a while ago, that litigation was being 
carried on the basis of the Conference paying for it pro-

126 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 127

Oliver TT\ Hill.

vided it went to the defeat of segregation in the schools? 
Was that made clear to that group?

A. No, sir.
Q. You didn’t discuss that?
A. I don’t think we went into anything of that nature, 

no.
Q. W hen after that Freedom dinner did you next meet 

with the plaintiffs in the Warren County case?
A. I met such of the plaintiffs as journeyed to Harrison­

burg on September 5.
Q. They were there, spectators, I imagine, at the hearing 

at Harrisonburg, is that right?
A. No, that was the date of the application for a pre­

liminary injunction.
Q. Did you have any conference with them then?
A. Yes.

Q. How many plaintiffs did you have? 
page. 134 }■ A. I didn’t count them, but they had a large 

number of their children with them, and we 
pretty well filled up the juryroom there.

Q. Had you asked them to come ?
A. Yes, I had advised them that we had that date for 

the application.
Q. Well, I  assume that they were there to let the Court 

know their intent?
A. They were there to testify or to do anything that a 

plaintiff would normally do.
Q. You didn’t have any discussions with them on that 

occasion, did you, the time you appeared before Judge Paul 
in Harrisonburg?

A. You say I didn’t—
Q. You didn’t have any discussion with them as a group 

about the case, did you?
A. Well, T talked with them prior to going into the court­

room, the normal type of conversation that you would carry 
on with plaintiffs, and I advised them that they might be 
called on to testify, and suggested that maybe we would 
just use two or three of them, and that type of thing.

Q. The normal type of conversation that a lawyer has 
with his clients?

A. That is right.
Q. Now, after the court hearing, I understand 

page 135 }- from Mr. Banks that you went on later that 
day to Front Royal?

A. Well, Mr. Banks had his dates a little confused. We



Oliver W. Hill.

got the preliminary—we had the hearing for the preliminary 
injunction, that was on a Friday. In the meantime, we were 
involved in the Charlottesville school case, and we had a 
hearing set for September 8 , which was on a Tuesday, or 
maybe a Monday, I don’t recall right this minute myself.

Q. It was the following week?
A. It was the following week, anyway. So Judge Paul said 

for us to prepare the order and present it on, it must have 
been Monday, present it on Monday. On Monday he entered 
the order. Now, that would be the 8 th. Either General 
Harrison or Mr. McEhvain called up Chief Judge Soboloff 
and made an engagement with him for Thursday, and they 
advised him then that they were going to have this hearing 
in Baltimore for an application for a stay, and Judge Paul 
refused to grant a stay.

On that particular Thursday, which was the same day 
that the Supreme Court was hearing the Little Bock case 
the first time it came back after the recess, we met in 
Baltimore, and Judge Soboloff refused to grant a stay. At 
the conclusion of the hearing the attorney for the Warren 
County School Board, I can’t recall his name—Phillips— 
Mr. Phillips contacted me and said, “ Well, now, couldn’t 

we handle this thing without a whole lot of any- 
page 136 }- thing that would be likely to create a disturb­

ance?”
And I asked him what did he have in mind.
And he said, “ Well, rather than have the children go to 

the white school, since it has been threatened that Governor 
Almond would close the schools, couldn’t we agree to bring 
the children to the superintendent’s office?”

I told him we would be happy to cooperate in any way, 
the only thing we were interested in was getting the children 
in school, we weren’t interested in creating any disturbance. 
That was on Thursday.

Mr. Banks Avas in my company in Washington, and when 
I came hack here on Friday, for reasons of mine, I didn’t 
want to drive, and I asked him to drive me up there. He 
carried me up to Front Boval, and I met the plaintiffs and 
advised them of what had occurred in Baltimore, and why 
I had contacted them and asked them to meet then and 
explained to them what we proposed to do, and arranged 
for them to meet with me the next morning, to meet at the 
courthouse rather than any parade of students and parents 
walking down the streets, and that sort of thing—that was

128 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



all the Conference—and we went to the superintendent’s 
office.

Q. Now, you had a meeting on a Friday night?
A. That is true.
Q. And, of course, the parents knew you were coming I 

suppose ?
page 137 }• A. I had contacted them.

Q. You went by appointment?
A. Yes.
Q. And a large number of parents were there on that par­

ticular occasion?
A. I think all of the plaintiffs were there. All of the 

plaintiffs were there, I am reasonably certain, and there 
were other parents who wanted to get in the case.

Q. Then you had another meeting the next morning?
A. At the superintendent’s office.
Q. Did you have any other?
A. Yes. Well, in the meantime the school board in Warren 

County had changed its mind about enrolling them, and 
the Governor had issued his proclamation, or what-not, and 
they were refused at that time. And then I carried them 
back over to the church and explained to them what had 
occurred, and I left to rush to Harrisonburg for the entry 
of the order in the Charlottesville case.

Q. Now, at that meeting in the church on Saturday morn­
ing, you didn’t admonish them to do any particular thing 
one way or another, did you ? Or did you ?

A. Oh, I advised them to keep the children off the streets, 
advised them not to let people get them involved in any 
brawls, or anything, not to get disturbed by remarks made 

by people, or anything of that sort, yes. 
page 138 }- Q. When did you meet with the plaintiffs 

again ?
A. At Harrisonburg on a motion for further relief, I 

have forgotten the date.
Q. Did you have any conference with them other than the 

usual one you have Avith clients?
A. No.
Q. Did you have most of the plaintiffs there at Harrison­

burg?
A. I had a goodly number. No, they all weren’t there.
Q. Did you have any meeting with them other than at the 

court itself?
A. Well, we met in the jurvroom. T mean T had a private- 

discussion with them before the hearing.

N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 129

O l iv e r  W . H il l .



130 Supremo Court of Appeals of Virginia 

Oliver W. Hill.

Q. Before the hearing?
A. And after the hearing.
Q. What was the nature of the discussion after the hear­

ing?
A. I advised them with respect to what had transpired, 

and what the implications of it were, and as far as I could 
at that time what we proposed to take as future steps, and 
that sort of thing.

Q. And when did you next meet with the plaintiffs?
A. I haven’t met with them since.
Q. You haven’t had occasion to go up there and see them 

at all except on the occasions mentioned? 
page 139 }- A. No, I haven’t been to Front Royal since 

we carried the children.
Q. Well, have you met with the plaintiffs in any way?
A. I say, except on the occasion at Harrisonburg.
Q. And other than the occasions you have enumerated 

you haven’t met with them at all?
A. Well, it seems to me that on some other occasion of 

some hearing several of them came down. A committee, say, 
came down to Hari'isonburg. I don’t remember the exact 
date, but anyway I haven’t met with the plaintiffs as a group 
since presenting them to the school board.

Q. Now, what other lawyers were associated with you 
in that case?

A. Mr. Robinson and Mr. Tucker.
Q. Which Tucker?
A. Otto Tucker.
Q. He is the one from the northern part of the state?
A. I am sorry, S. T. Tucker.
Q. And why was he brought into it from Emporia ?
A. Well, we were working on matters at that time.
There were some ideas that I had, and I got him to do 

some work on them, and that was the reason for it.
Q. That was the second occasion now?

A. That is right.
page 140 }• Q. Did you have any difficulty, or did at any 

time any of the plaintiffs in the Warren case 
indicate a desire to withdraw as plaintiffs?

A. No, sir.
Q. You never heard of any such instance as that?
A. Not of any plaintiffs, no, sir. Now, may we get straight­

ened out with this? The first step taken, of course, was to 
file a petition with the school board. After that petition 
was filed—and I couldn’t know whether it was before the



school board acted or—I don’t recall right at this minute 
whether it was before the school board applied or after— 
but at some period between the time we filed a petition 
for the school board and the time the suit was instituted, 
two of the parents requested that their names be withdrawal, 
and w7hen the suit was filed, their names were withdrawn— 
I mean, no effort was made in their behalf.

Q. No effort w7as made in their behalf in the court?
A. That is right. I t was too late to do anything, the 

petition w'as already filed.
Q. Did you urge them to remain as petitioners?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did anyone else, as far as you know', urge that they 

stay on as petitioners?
A. Not as far as I know: As a matter of fact, 

page 141 }- one of the husbands, father, rather, of the chil­
dren, asked that his child’s name he withdrawn. 

On the occasion when I wras in Front Royal after the grant­
ing of the temporary injunction w'hen we w7ere making the 
application to the school board, the mother of the boy and 
the boy himself, the boy himself and his mother, came up 
and asked me to represent them. I told them that if they 
got together, the family unit, about it, I would be in­
terested in including them, but I thought they ought to get 
together about it, but I left it up to them. What they have 
done I don’t know7.

But I can say this, that we have never put forth any 
effort to keep somebody in the case that wanted to get out 
of it.

Q. And that goes for all cases?
A. Yes, that goes for all cases.
Q. When you say ‘Sve”—
A. I was talking about the attorneys, so far as I know.
Q. You don’t know of any case of anybody on the legal 

staff that tried to keep somebody in the case when they 
wanted to get out?

A. No, sir.
Q. And I suppose that observation would apply with equal 

force to the officers of the Conference of branches?
A. I  assume so, I  can’t imagine any—

Q. Well, you know7 nothing to the contrary? 
page 142 }■ A. I  know nothing to the contrary.

0- Mr. Hill, Mr. Banks has testified as to the 
method of handling fees and expenses, and T believe you did 
up to, prior to September of last year. I take it that all

N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 131

O l iv e r  W . H i l l .



Oliver W. Hill.

of those bills from other lawyers associated with the staff 
come to you, and then you pass on those bills and send 
them for payment. That is a correct procedure, is it not?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that is true of bills for services for yourself and 

your partners as well?
A. Well, put it this way. I actually have no partner in a 

sense that I don’t voluntarily submit a fee, but my bills are 
passed on by members of the staff, too—the members of the 
staff pass on the bills.

Q. Now, I had understood that you as chairman pass on 
the bills?

A. I do, yes, sir.
Q. So that you pass on all bills, yours, your partner’s or 

anybody else’s?
A. That is right.
Q. And when you O.K. them they go on then to whom?
A. To the president.
Q. And if the president O.K.’s them, they go to the 

treasurer for payment? 
page 143 [• A. That is right.

Q. And are paid?
A. That is right.
Q. Have you known of any case at all in which the presi­

dent refused to approve a bill that you had approved?
A. No, sir.
Q. Mr. Hill, T have a photostat, three pages, of a docu­

ment which is headed “ Exhibit Hill, B-17, September 13, 
1957” , and I pass this on to you, and ask you whether 
or not you are familiar with it, and Avhether that is a 
photostat of the original document?

A. Put it this way, Mr. Mays. The only thing I can say 
about it is that it appears to be a photostat of some material 
that was submitted to the Committee on Offenses Against 
Administration of Justice or the Thompson Committee, I 
don’t know which, in pursuance to a subpoena, and it was 
delivered by me. Now, the reason I am saying that is be­
cause I know the exhibits to the Boatwright Committee Avere 
labeled such as this is labeled.

Q. Now, to clarify the thing for this present record, Avhen 
you refer to the Boatwright Committee and the Thompson 
Committee, Avere they named after the chairman of tAvo 
committees appointed by our General Assembly tAvo years 
ago?

A. That is true.

132 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



X.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Ya. 133

Oliver W. Hill.

Q. Two years ago? 
page 144 )• A. Yes.

Q. Well, you think this is an accurate copy of 
the document you supplied at that time?

A. I would think so, yes, sir.
Q. And do you know to whom these were sent?
A. Let me read it and see.
Q. Take your time. I don’t want to hurry you through it.

The Court: Suppose we take about a five-minute recess.

(Recess.)

By Mr. Mays:
Q. Mr. Hill, have you been able during the recess to 

identify the document which I showed you?
A. As I say, Mr. Mays, I see Mrs. Pole’s initials up there. 

I know that I  presented certain evidence to the Boatwright 
Committee in response to a subpoena, and I  know that it 
was labeled such as this is labeled “ Exhibit Hill” , and so 
on. And based on that, and the fact that it deals with 
N.A.A.C.P. activities, I  assume it is all right. Now, there 
is some writing in, whether that was on the exhibit as sub­
mitted or not I  don’t know. I  can’t read it in the first place.

Q. I can’t either. You identify the typewritten part as 
accurate, but so far as what is put in by pen is concerned, 

you do not?
page 145 }- A. I say, I assume it is accurate.

Q. You have no reason to think it is not?
A. I  say, I assume it is accurate.
Q. Do you remember the occasion for which this is pre­

pared ?
A. No, sir. I  am certain there must have been some kind— 

T really don’t know—it appears to be a report of some 
kind.

Q. And a report that you made?
A. That I made?
Q. Yes. Or who made it?
A. I  don’t know, I imagine Mr. Banks made it, or some­

body out of his office. No, sir, I have no personal knowledge 
about it at all, other than what T have stated. I mean, in 
other words, this didn’t come—this wasn’t labeled “ Hill 
Exhibit” because it has something that I furnished, this 
was labeled “ Hill Exhibit” merely because I was the mes­
senger, so to speak, that carried the material from the State 
Conference to the Boatwright Committee.



Oliver W. Hill.

Mr. Mays: Your Honor, the witness has not been able 
to identify the document further than that, and I, of course, 
cannot offer it in evidence.

Since I have examined the witness on it I  should like to 
mark it for identification so that we may proceed further 

with another witness. The witness has testified 
page 146 } to it, and I will probably have it in through 

another witness.
The Court: Defendants’ Exhibit D-2.

(The document was marked Defendants’ Exhibit D-2 for 
identification.)

The Court: Gentlemen, I have just received a message
from my secretary, and the reports that Mr. Banks called 
in about. He called a few moments ago and stated that he 
didn’t think he would be able to get together the information 
requested by counsel this afternoon, but that he would call 
in again shortly before five and advise us positively.

By Mr. Mays:
'Q. Mr. Hill, there was introduced, you may recall, in the 

Federal Court in September of last year a copy of a letter 
from you to Mr. Walkley Johnson, Clerk, dated October 7, 
1957, in which you enclose a document which counsel had 
asked you to produce. And that document was a memoran­
dum which I will describe by this notation at the top :

“ In response to the question of Mr. Gravatt, transcript 
page 54 , we submit herewith excerpt from the minutes of 
the Executive Board of the Virginia State Conference of 
N.A.A.C.P. branches, February 4, 1951, fixing fees for the 
employment and compensation of attorneys” .

Of course, that was handed in after you had testified in 
the case. I notice that in the last paragraph— 

page 147 }- would you like to refresh your memory—
A. Yes, sir.

Q. I  notice in the last paragraph it is stated:
“ The Conference agreed to pay $60 per diem to attorneys 

so long as such attorneys adhere strictly to N.A.A.C.P 
policy. ’ ’

That was adopted at this particular meeting of the Con­
ference, as I understand it. Has there been any change of 
policv since that time as to per diem pay?

A. That was adopted at the board meeting. No, sir, they

134 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



still pay the same rate of compensation now as they paid 
as of that time, which was in 1951.

Q. And is the policy still the same, that they get paid 
as long as they adhere strictly to the N.A.A.C.P. policy?

A. Well, there was quite a bit of discussion at that par­
ticular board meeting as to whether or not fees should be 
handled on an equalization basis, inasmuch as an attack 
had been made on segregation per se, whether or not the 
Conference should undertake to compensate. And as a result 
of that discussion, that action was taken, yes, sir.

Q. Well, as you understand it then, as I think it hears 
out, the Conference would not pay the lawyers unless they 
followed N.A.A.C.P. policy?

A. That is true.
Q. And, of course, the policy, the main policy 

page 148 \ was to go for desegregation in the schools ?
A. Well, that is one of the policies.

Q. But insofar as that particular segment of law is con­
cerned, that is definitely the policy, isn’t it?

A. There isn’t any question about it.
Q. So that in those cases, if the plaintiffs decided on some 

other courses of action, of course counsel could not follow 
the plaintiff’s direction and expect compensation from the 
Conference?

A. Not and expect compensation from the Conference no.
Q. And as matter of fact, in every instance they have 

gone along with the direction of the Conference, haven’t 
they, so as to get the $60 per diem, or at any rate have 
always gone along with the policy of the Conference?

A. Well, I  would say that the plaintiffs—well, the Con­
ference had never undertaken to sponsor any case in which 
the plaintiffs at the outset were not seeking to establish 
their rights by the elimination of segregation.

Q. I think you have answered me. I do notice in the 
second paragraph of that document which you sent to Mr. 
Johnson, the clerk, and I quote from the minutes of the 
meeting:

“ Mr. Hill pointed out how each case has helped our cause, 
and then he made the following recommendations” .

page 149 What was meant by that observation, Mr. 
Hill?

This might refresh your recollection.

N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Ya. 135

O l iv e r  W .  H U l.



Oliver W. Hill.

(Handing a document to the witness.)

A. Well, as best I can recall right now, the Chance case—
Q. What case?
A. Chance—it was a case against the Atlantic Coastline 

Railroad for forcing passengers—as a matter of fact, the 
passenger refused to move and they took him off down 
in Emporia and arrested him—that established the principle 
the same as the Morgan case that where a person is in 
interstate commerce they could not require him to change, his 
seat in compliance with any regulations of the railroads 
for the segregation of passengers.

These other cases—I don’t particularly recall right now 
what, if any, principle of law was established—I moan, I 
know that no principle was established in the Martinsville 
case— it was just a general revulsion at the mass execution 
of some people in a particular case that got us involved in 
that—hut as I say, the other two cases I don’t recall at this 
time. But since you have submitted this memorandum to 
me, I would like to call attention to one item in it which is 
labeled “ Subsection A ,” that was one of recommendations 
on that particular date, that greater emphasis be placed 

on activities of a non-legal nature by our mem- 
page 150 }- her branches.

In other words, I  know that at that time, but 
not only at that time, but subsequent times, I  have urged 
people to do things that would achieve their constitutional 
rights without resort to court, to court action.

Q. Well, that is not in response to my question, but I 
don’t mind the observation.

You refer to the Martinsville case as a revulsion of people 
and the execution of seven people. I  take it to mean they 
should have drawn straws as to which one should be ex­
ecuted?

A. No, I  didn’t mean that.

Mr. Mays: That is all.
• • • • •

136 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia

• • • • •

page 155 }•



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Ya. 137 

JAMES W. HARRIS,
was called as a witness and, having been duly sworn, was ex­
amined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. A ill you state your name and address?
A. James W. Harris, 618 - 33rd Street, Newport News, Vir­

ginia.
Q. What is your occupation ?
A. Brakeman, railroad brakeman.
Q. Were you a plaintiff in the Newport News segregation 

suit that was brought in 1956?
A. That is right.
Q. Who were the attorneys that represented you in that 

suit?
A. Thompson.
Q. Is he the only one?
A. Philip Walker.
Q. They are the only two ?

A. Yes.
page 156 Q. Did you sign a written authorization for 

them to represent you?
A. Did I sign one? No.
Q. You just told them verbally that you wanted to be repre­

sented by them?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you authorize them to employ additional counsel?
A. No. ‘
Q. You did not authorize your attorneys to employ ad­

ditional counsel?
A. No.
Q. Do you own any real estate in the City of Newport

News?
A. I am buying.
Q. Buying a home?
A. A home.
Q. What was your income for the year 1956?
A. About $5,000.
Q. Approximately $5,000?
A. Yes.
Q. Is your wife employed?
A. Yes.
Q. Wliere does she work?
A. She works in the Newport News Shipbuilding Dry Dock



James W. Harris.

Company, she works for the government, 
page 157 }- Q. Approximately what was her income? 

A. About $3500.

Mr. Wickham. We have no further questions.

CROSS EXAMINATION.

138 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia

By Mr. H ill:
Q. Mr. Harris, you met with Mr. Thompson and Mr. Wal­

ker at various times, did you not ?
A. That is right.
Q. Did you ever sign a sheet of paper?
A. Yes, I  did.
Q. Now, when you were asked, did you sign an authoriza­

tion, what did you understand by authorization?
A. Repeat your question, again.
Q. Counsel asked you, did you sign an authorization. What 

did you understand him to mean when he said an authoriza­
tion?

A. He asked me, did I sign an authorization for them to 
represent me.

Q. Yes.
A. I  thought maybe, did I sign a paper saying, did I  want 

them to represent me.
Q. Did you sign such a paper ?
A. Yes, I  did.
Q. Do you remember the terms of the paper?

A. No, I can’t recall exactly.
page 158 J- Q. You had a place for the attorney’s name in­

serted, or it was already written in, isn’t that
true ?

A. Yes.
Q. And do you recall whether or not this paper also said 

that such attorney might associate other attorneys with him? 
A. I don’t know.

Mr. Wickham: I object to that question, Your Honor.
The Court: The witness has already answered before the 

objection was made. He said he doesn’t recall.

By Mr. H ill:
Q. But you do recall signing a paper?
A. Yes.



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 139

James W. Harris.

Q. One other question. Did you attend the hearing in New­
port News?

A. No, I didn’t.
Q. Did you have any objection to your attorney securing 

other lawyers ?
A. No.

Mr. H ill: That is all.

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Mr. Harris, what was your understanding with your at­

torneys concerning the payment of expenses and attorney’s 
fees?

page 159 }• A. Jlepeat your question again, now.
* Q. What was your arrangement with your at­

torneys concerning the payment of expenses and attorney’s 
fees in the lawsuit?

A. Well, I decided that-—there was more; than one of us 
signed it for them to represent us, and I said, whatever the 
cost was I would pay my share.

Q. Did you know that the N.A.A.C.P. was going to sponsor 
that particular suit ?

A. No, I didn’t.
Q. And you didn’t look to the N.A.A.C.P. or anyone else to 

pay any part of the expenses or the attorney’s fees in that 
suit ?

A. No.
Q. Have you paid any attorney’s fees to date?
A. No, I  haven’t.
Q. Has a bill been submitted to you?
A. No, not yet.
Q. And this suit was started when?
A. 1956.
Q. 1956?
A. Yes.

Mr. Wickham: No further questions.
The Court: Do you want this witness excused?

Mr. Robinson: Your Honor, we would like to 
page 160 }- have this witness held for possible further cross- 

examination at a later time today.
The Court: Who summoned this witness here ?
Mr. Wickham: We did, Your Honor.
The Court: Why are we holding the witness ?



Ernest C. Downing.

Why is it that you can’t cross-examine, him now?
Mr. Robinson: There was testimony given by this witness

both on direct and cross-examination concerning an authori­
zation. We have asked that that authorization be gotten from 
Newport News and Richmond. WTe expect to have it before the 
end of the day, and we would like this witness before leaving 
the case to identify the authorization with a view to possibly 
putting that authorization in.

Mr. Wickham: Is that the only reason for holding this wit­
ness?

Mr. Robinson: Yes.
Mr. WHckham: If Your Honor please, we would like to sug­

gest, if this witness is going to be recalled by the complain­
ants, that bis examination be limited only to the question con­
cerning the written authorization.

The Court: Well, I will keep that motion under advise­
ment to see if nothing else develops in the case. I  won’t rule 
on it at this time.

Mr. Harris, you can step down from the witness stand. You 
will have to remain outside. Do not discuss with 

page 161 }> any of the other witnesses the questions you were 
asked or the answers you gave.

(Witness temporarily excused.)

The Court: Next witness.
Mr. Wickham: Ernest C. Downing.

ERNEST C. DOWNING,
was called as a witness and, having been first duly sworn, was 
examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Will you please state your name and address?
A. Dr. E. C. Downing, 1229 - 27th Street, Newport News,
Q. V7hat is your occupation ?
A. Phvsican and surgeon.
Q. Doctor, were your children plaintiffs in the Newport 

News segregation suit that was brought in 1956?
A. Yes.
Q. You were not, is that right?
A. I?

140 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



Q. Were you actually a plaintiff, or was your wife a plain­
tiff!

A. My wife.
Q. And your children?

A. Yes.
page 162 }- Q. Who were your attorneys?

A. Lawyer Thompson and his associates.
Q. Who are his associates ?
A. Lawyer Walker.
Q. And that is all, sir?
A. That is all, Lawyer Thompson and his staff.
Q. You don’t know the members of his staff?
A. I know Lawyer Walker.
Q. What arrangements did you and your attorney make as 

to the payment of expenses and attorneys’ fees?
A. Well, there weren’t any definite arrangements made. 

They were to take the case, and so far as any financial arrange­
ments, they were to be made after it was brought to court and 
decided on.

Q. Has a bill been rendered to this date?
A. No bill has been rendered.
Q. Doctor, I find from the land books of Newport News that 

you own three parcels of land with the appraised value of 
thirty thousand eight hundred and sixty-odd dollars, is that 
right ?

A. That is about correct.
Q. Are there anv liens on those parcels?
A. No.
Q. Is it free and clear?

A. Free and clear.
page 163}- Q. What was your income in 1956?

A. I don’t recall just what it was.

Mr. Hill: Your Honor, I don’t see the pertinency of ask­
ing about his personal business. This is not supposed to he any 
prosecution under these statutes, as to whether or not the 
N.A.A.C.P. is violating these statutes. I t certainly doesn’t 
necessitate the inquiry into all these people’s personal affairs. 
It is just for the persecution of these people.

The Court: Mr. Wickham, do you wish to be heard?
Mr. Wickham: If Your Honor please, Chapter 36, which 

is involved in this litigation, provides for the exemption of 
legal aid societies, and under any deviation of a legal aid so­
ciety, you must find that the particular client is unable to pay 
for the litigation, and, therefore, we feel that this line of

N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Attv. Gen. of Va. 141

E r n e s t  C. D o w n in g .



Ernest C. Downing.

questioning is very pertinent to the inquiry before the Court.
The Court: Objection overruled.
Mr. Hill: May I say one other thing, Your Honor.
We have not contended that we have complied with legal 

aid society requirements of this statute. We haven’t asked for 
any approval of the Bar Association and all such things as 
required by the statute. And so that still affords no basis for 
the type of examination these witnesses are being subjected 

to.
page 164 J- The Court: The Court understands the his­

tory of these cases. The first one is whether or not 
the activities of the N.A.A.C.P. or the Virginia Conference of 
it or the Defense Fund or any of its member branches and 
sections have violated any of these sections of the Code.

Mr. H ill: That is right.
The Court: And consequently until I know what the activ­

ities are and in what manner the employment was made it 
seems to me the Court would not have sufficient information 
to rule on.

Mr. Hill: There is no denying the fact that we do the
thing that the statutes say you can’t do. We don’t contend 
that we have been conforming with this statute. We admit 
that the State Conference has been sponsoring all this litiga­
tion and paying the attorney’s fees. There is no denial of that. 
They are trying to prove something that isn’t denied, and to 
prove it they are prying into a lot of people’s personal af­
fairs. If  we were denying that we were doing a lot of these 
tilings, I would submit that these questions would be per­
tinent. But we admit that we paid the expenses for these 
cases. We paid the expenses of the attorneys. We paid the 
expenses. There is no denial of it. The only question is 
whether or not we can do these things, whether this statute 
in prohibiting us from doing it, attempting to prohibit us from 

doing it, violates the constitutional rights of the 
page 165 national office and the State Conference and local 

branches.
Mr. Wickham: If Your Honor please, it is not a question 

of whether or not the plaintiffs are doing it or not. It is a 
question of whether or not the particular plaintiffs can afford 
to pay or not afford to pay.

Mr. Carter: That is not the issue in this litigation, Your
Honor. The only question in this litigation is as to the con­
struction of these statutes. There is no allegation made here 
that either of these organizations has sought the approval of

142 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



the Virginia Bar Association, which is the only issue of weigh­
ing the statute, that a legal aid society is exempted from the 
provisions of this statute.

The question is whether or not the association and the fund 
can do the things it has done, whether or not it comes within 
the statute, whether or not the statute is constitutional or can 
he enforced, or reaches our activities.

The Court: All right. The Court will adhere to the same 
ruling.

Go ahead with the examination.
Mr. H ill: We note an exception, Your Honor.
Mr. Robinson: If Your Honor please, the complainant 

that I represent will also note an exception.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Will you estimate your income for 1956? 

page 166 }> A. Well, I don’t know the exact amount it was 
because my income fluctuates, and I can’t give an 

exact amount. It is exact in the U. S. Internal Revenue 
return.

Q. Can you estimate your income for last year?
A. I would say it was perhaps $12 or $16 thousand, or 

something like that.
Q. Would there be any substantial change from the pre­

vious year?
A. Well, it wouldn’t be any substantial change.
Q. Do you expect to receive a hill for services rendered 

from your attorneys in this Newport News case?
A. What was that question?
Q. I say, do you expect to receive a bill for services ren­

dered by your attorneys in the Newport News case?
A. That was the understanding.

Mr. Wickham: That was your understanding.
No further questions.
The Court: Do you want him excused?
Mr. H ill: Just one moment, Doctor.

CROSS EXAMINATION.

N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Ya. 143

E r n e s t  C . D o w n in g .

By Mr. H ill:
Q. Doctor, you were not a plaintiff in that case? 
A. Just what do you mean by that?



Louis Thompson.

Q. Was your name listed as one of the plaintiffs, or was it 
just your wife? 

page 167 }- A. My wife.
Q. Who played the leading role in this thing 

so far as your family is concerned?
A. My wife.

Mr. H ill: That is all.
The Court: Is there any objection to his being excused 

now?
Mr. Wickham: No, sir.
The Court: All right, you are excused. You may go back 

to your community.

(Witness excused.)

Mr. Wickham: Louis Thompson.

LOUIS THOMPSON,
was called as a witness and, after being first duly sworn, was 
examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Will you please state your name and address?
A. Louis Thompson, 829 - 21st Street, Newport News, Vir­

ginia.
Q. What is your occupation?
A. A mechanic in the shipyard.
Q. Were you a plaintiff in the suit that was brought in New­

port News in 1956 concerning the integration of the schools? 
A. Yes.

page 168 }- Q. And who are your attorneys?
A. Phillip Walker, W. Hale Thompson.

Q. Did you authorize them personally to represent you in 
this suit?

A. Not personally, but I did.
Q. What do you mean by not personally? Who authorized 

them?
A. I did.
Q. How did you do it? You said you didn’t do it person­

ally. How did you do it?
A. Well, suppose I say I  did it personally.
Q. Now, is that going to be your story now, that you did it 

personally?

144 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



X.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. G,en. of Va. 145

Louis Thompson.

A. Yes, I did personally sign my name for them to rep­
resent me.

Q. Did you have any personal contact with the attorneys? 
A. Yes.
Q. When was the first time you had that personal contact?
A. I don’t remember what day it was.
Q. Where was the contact first made?
A. In the City of Newport News.
Q. Where in the City of Newport News?

A. I  don’t really remember that, it might have 
page 169 }- been in the office or the street or meeting. I don’t 

remember.
Q. What type of meeting would it have been if it was at a 

meeting?
A. I wouldn’t know particularly. I do remember in their 

office. I remember that distinctly.
Q. You met with them in their office?
A. That is right.
Q. Did you also meet them at a N.A.A.C P. meeting held in 

Newport News?
A. Oh, I have met with them several times and others.
Q. At the N.A.A.C.P. meeting?
A. Many times.
Q. Is that when you personally authorized them to rep­

resent vou?
A. No.
Q. What was your income in 1956?

Mr. H ill: We raise the same objection, Your Honor.
The Court: Same ruling.
Mr. H ill: Exception.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. What was your income in 1956 ?
A. Right offhand, let’s see. I don’t know. I am a mechanic, 

and, of course, I maybe—what do you mean, total amount of 
income ?

Q. That is correct.
page 170 \ A. I can’t just say right offhand.

Q. Was it over $5,000?
A. I imagine it was around $5,000.
Q. You think it was around $5,000?
A. I  think it was. That sounds pretty good.
Q. Do you own any real estate in the City of Newport 

News?



146 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia 

Louis Thompson.

A. Yes, sir.
Q. The land books indicate you own three parcels of land in 

the City of Newport News, is that correct?
A. I guess so, if it shows that, must do.
Q. Don’t you know?
A. Well, I do—it could be more or less, but I  know that I 

own some real estate.
Q. Do you know what the value of your real estate is?
A. Right offhand, I don’t.
Q. Do you have any liens on your real estate, any mort­

gages ? Do you owe any money on yoitr real estate ?
A. Yes, there are some liens against it.
Q. How much?
A. That is another question I can’t answer you accurately. 

I  know there are some liens, just howr much I  can’t answer.
Q. Roughly how much?
A. Roughly, a couple of thousand dollars or maybe more.

Q. But you don’t have any idea of what the ap- 
page 171 [- praised value of your real estate is?

A. No, I really don’t know just what the ap­
praised value is.

Q. Would you say $15,000?
A. To me I would say that, yes.
Q. I mean, would you sell your real estate for $15,000?
A. I most certainly wouldn’t.
Q. You would not? ,
A. I would not.
Q. H owt much would you sell it for?
A. I wouldn’t sell it.
Q. How much do you think it would be worth to somebody

else?
A. Worth to them? I don’t know.
Q. If you had to sell it, what would you sell it for ?
A. Well, now, if I had to sell it, I don’t know what I  would 

sell it for.
Q. $15,000?
A. I  am sure not.
Q. More than $15,000?
A. Well, I wouldn’t want to sell it, but if I had to sell it I 

would be asking more than that for it.
Q. Did you have an arrangement with your attorneys con­

cerning the payment of legal fees and expenses in 
page 172 } the Newport News segregation case?

A. Well, they haven’t sent me a hill or anything
like that.



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Attv. Gen. of Va. 147

David W. Morris.

Q. Do you expect to receive a bill!
A. Well, I hope so. I usually receive bills for all attornevs* 

fees.
Q. You didn’t know that the N.A.A.C.P. was going to pay 

the expenses and attonieys’ fees in this litigation?

Mr. Robinson: If Your Honor please, I have been rather 
patient on this matter of leading. This is Mr Wickham’s wit­
ness, and I think he has gone right far in leading this witness 
so far.

The Court: Will you read the last question ?

(Question read.)

The Court: I will sustain the objection to the foi'm of the
question.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Did yon know whether or not the N.A.A.C.P. was going 

to pay the expenses and legal fees in the case to which we are 
referring?

A. Did I know?
Q. Yes.
A. No, I don’t know that.
Q. You have no information concerning that?
A. No, I really don’t.

page 173 J- Mr. Wickham: No more questions.
The Court: Any cross-examination?

Mr. H ill: No questions.
Mr. Wickham: He may be excused as far as the defend­

ants are concerned.
The Court: All right, Mr. Thompson, you are excused. 

You are free to leave and go home. If you remain outside, 
don’t discuss with any other witnesses what questions you 
were asked and what answers you gave.

The W itness: Thank you.

(Witness excused.)

Mr. Wickham: I will call David W. Morris.

DAVID W. MORRIS,
was called as a witness and, after being first duly sworn, was 
examined and testified as follows:



David W. Morris.

DIRECT EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Will you state your name and address, please?
A. My name is David W. Morris. I  live at 1818 Marshall 

Ave., Newport News, Virginia.
Q. Did you have a child or children that were plaintiffs in 

the Newport News segregation case that was brought in 1956?
A. I  did.

Q. What is your occupation ? 
page 174 A. I am a restaurant and hotel keeper.

Q. Does your wife help you in this business ?
A. That is right.
Q. The land books of the City of Newport News reveal 

that you own two parcels of land with the appraised value of 
something over $53,000, is that correct?

A. I imagine it is about correct. I  couldn’t say the exact 
figure.

Q. You say that it would be approximately correct?
A. Well, I  couldn’t tell you that.
Q. Well, what is the value of the property, in your opinion?
A. Well, I  am unable to tell you that.
Q. Well, would you sell it for $50,000?
A. No, I  wouldn’t.
Q. You would sell it for something more than $50,000?
A. Well, I  would get as much as I could.
Q. And you think you would get something more than $50,- 

000 for it?
A. Well, I  don’t know.
Q. Who are your attorneys in the Newport News segrega­

tion case, or the attorneys of your children?
A. Well, Mr. Thompson has been my attorney ever since I 

have been in business since 1938.
Q. Well, you actually -weren’t a plaintiff in the 

page 175 Newport News suit, were you? W asn’t it your 
wife or both of you ?

A. My wife.
Q. And children ?
A. I  am subpoenaed here.
Q. But actually your wife and children were the plaintiffs 

in the; Newport News case, you weren’t actually a party to 
that suit? Or were yon? I don’t know.

A. I  just don’t quite understand what you mean there.
Q. I mean, were you a plaintiff in the Newport News segre­

gation suit that was brought in 1956? As I  recall, only your

148 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. G,en. of Va. 149 

David W. Morris.

wife and children were actually named in the lawsuit, is that
correct?

A. Well, I am with my wife in anything she attempts to do. 
I will go along with her, whatever she does.

Q. Can you estimate what your income was in 1956?

Mr. H ill: Same objection, Your Honor.
The Court: Same ruling.
Mr. H ill: Exception.
The W itness: No, I couldn’t.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Can you estimate what your income was in 1957 ?

Mr. H ill: Your Honor, I would also like to make a further 
objection in this particular instance, because it has not been 

established that this man was a party to the suit, 
page 176 }- Mr. Wickham: Your Honor, the children were 

parties to the suit, and I am sure the children 
have a right to look to the parents for the payment of the at­
torney’s fees.

The Court: Objection overruled.
Mr. H ill: T note an exception.
Mr. Robinson: To save the frequent interruption of the

examination, I wonder if it could be understood that each 
plaintiff objects to testimony in response to questions of the 
type that Mr. Wickham has just asked, and we note an excep­
tion to the ruling by the Court on those objections. Or would 
the Court prefer us to make the objection each time?

The Court: Suppose, to keep the record straight, you just
say “ same objection” to each question, and the Court will say 
“ same ruling” .

Mr. Robinson: All right. May I have this understanding, 
that the objection made by each complainant, and the exception 
take from any ruling on that objection would apply equally to 
both complainants, so it woiild save; the necessity for each 
complainant making the same objection and obtaining the 
same exception?

The Court: Understood.

Bv Mr. Wickham:
Q. Do you have any liens on the real estate that you own?

A. I certainly do.
page 177 J- Q. From what amounts?

A. Well, T can’t say definitely. I imagine about 
in the neighborhood of $20,000 , approximately.



Thomas W. Selden.

Q. Now, did you make any arrangements with your attor­
neys concerning the payment of expenses and legal fees in the 
segregation case?

A. No, I have not.
Q. Do you expect to pay your share of expenses and legal 

fees?
A. Well, if there is any fee attached I would be expected to, 

but I haven’t been billed for such.
Q. You don’t expect to be billed?
A. I don’t know, I couldn’t answer that.
Q. You never discussed that with your attorneys?
A. No.
Q. Can you tell us whether or not the N.A.A.C.P. is paying 

the expenses, your share of the expenses and legal fees in this 
case?

A. How was that, now
Q. Could you tell us whether or not the N.A.A.C.P. is pay­

ing your share of the expenses and legal fees in the Newport 
News ease

A. Not that I know of; I couldn’t answer that question.

Mr. Wickham: No further questions, 
page 178 J- The Court: Cross-examination?

Mr. H ill: No.
The Court: You are now free to leave, Mr. Morris. You 

ai’e excused for the day. If you want to return to Newport 
News, you may do so.

The W itness: Thank you.
The Court: Do not discuss the case with any witnesses on

the way out as to questions you were asked or the answers you 
gave.

The W itness: Thank you.

(Witness excused.)

The Court: Next witness ?
Mr. Wickham: Thomas W. Selden.

THOMAS W. SELDEN,
was called as a witness and, after being first duly sworn, was 
examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Will you state your name and address, please?

150 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 151

Thomas W. Selden.

A. Thomas W. Selden, 3100 Madison Avenue, Newport 
News.

Q. Will you state your occupation?
A. Physician.
Q. Were you a plaintiff—are you a plaintiff in the Newport 

News segregation case that was started in 1956? 
page 179 A. Yes.

Q. Who were your attorneys?
A. Lawyer Hale Thompson and LaAvver Phillip Walker.
Q. Have you made any arrangements with them as far as 

the payment of expenses and attorneys fees?
A. No, I haven’t.
Q. Do you expect to make anv arrangements with them?
A. No.
Q. Who do you expect to pay the expenses and attorneys’ 

fees in this case ?
A. The N.A.A.C.P.
Q. Doctor, the land hooks of Newport News show that you 

own two parcels of land at an appraised value of somewhat 
over $21 ,000 , is that correct?

A. At one time it was correct.

Mr. H ill: Same objection, Your Honor.
The Court: Same ruling.
Mr. H ill: Exception.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. In 1956, wasn’t that correct, at the time you brought this 

lawsuit?
A. 1955 or 1956,1 am not certain which.
Q. Since then you have sold your real estate?
A. No, I had one of the dwellings to burn down in December 

of last year.
page 180 }> Q. What was your income in 1956?

Mr. H ill: As I stated, Your Honor, the objections go to all 
this line of testimony.

The W itness: I don’t remember the exact figure.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Estimate what your income was in 1956?
A. I would say around $19,000.
Q. Around $19,000.

No further questions.



Marie E. Patterson.

The Court: Any cross-examination ?
Mr. H ill: No, sir..
The Court: All right.
Dr. Selden, you are now excused by the Court. You are free 

to return to Newport News if you care to. Please do not dis­
cuss with any witnesses on the way out any questions you 
were asked or any answers you gave.

(Witness excused.)

The Court: Next witness.
Mr. Wickham: Marie E. Patterson.

MARIE E. PATTERSON,
was called as a witness and, after being first duly sworn, was 
examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Will you please state your name and address?

A. Marie E. Patterson, 751 - 26th Street, New- 
page 181 [ port News, Virginia.

Q. Were you a plaintiff in the Newport News 
segregation suit brought in 1956?

A. Yes.
Q. What is your occupation?
A. Housewife, and then I assist my husband. He is self- 

employed.
Q. What is his business ?
A. Laundry business. We have a small laundry.
Q. You mean your husband owns this laundry and operates 

it also ?
A. Yes, he does.
Q. Who were your attorneys in the lawsuit that was 

brought in Newport News in 1956?
A. Lawyer Thompson.
Q. Did you have any other lawyers ?
A. Do you mean likely, just likely?
Q. Well, likely or otherwise.
A. Well, we gave him the right to get anyone to help him 

Avliom he thought would be suitable for the case.
Q. Do you know who he got ?
A. Phillip Walker.

152 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Ya. 153

Marie E. Patterson.

Q. Did he get anyone else?
A. I am not too familiar with the others, 

page 182 J- Q. Did he inform you who he was going to get?
A. I asked him—this was all my idea. He didn’t 

tell me anything at all. You see, Mr. Thompson is my hus­
band’s legal adviser, and naturally when something came up 
about the schools, having had contact with him, I thought 
about him first of all, and knowing that he was a very capable 
person, I left the rest of it to him.

Q. What arrangements did you make with him concerning 
the payment of expenses and legal fees?

A. Arrangements? As far as I know, no arrangements have 
been made for any legal fees.

Q. Who was supposed to pay the expenses and legal fees?
A. I didn’t discuss that with him, it was just understood 

that he would handle the case for us, because he had done this 
sort of work before, and to really be frank with you, I don’t 
see how Mr. Thompson is making it, because as far as I know, 
he hasn’t received anything.

Q. You don’t expect to pay him anything?
A. Well, we can’t ever tell what may happen in the future. 

If the case, goes on long enough and his situation gets bad 
enough, I am hoping that we will have to give him something. 
But as far as I know now, I don’t expect to pay him any spe­
cial fee.

Q. Well, suppose the suit stopped right this 
page 183 }> minute, would you expect to pay anything up to 

date?
A. If the suit stopped right this minute, I would first like to 

know why it stopped, because as long as there is segregation, 
there will be a necessity for a suit, and if the suit stops, then 
my first problem would be to find out why it stopped, and then 
I would look to God for the money or whatever would be nec­
essary to take care of the other steps in the case.

Q. Well, now, will you answer my question, please? I asked 
you if the lawsuit in Newport News was completed today, 
would you expect to pay your lawyers’ attorneys’ fees and 
expenses incurred in that suit ?

A. No.
Q. Do you know whether or not the N.A.A.C.P. has stated 

that they would pay the expenses and attorneys’ fees?
A. No.
Q. You have no recollection on that at all?
A. No. We haven’t talked about money too much.
Q. Did you and your husband file a joint tax return in 1956?



Marie E. Patterson.

A. Yes.
Q. Can you estimate the income, your husband’s income 

and your income for that year!

Mr. H ill: Same objection, Your Honor.
The Court: Same ruling, 

page 184 Mr. H ill: Exception.
The Court: Read the question, Mr. Reporter.

(Question read.)

The W itness: For the year 1956?

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Yes.
A. That would be very difficult for me to do, and we have a 

bookkeeper, and lie works very close with my husband.
Q. How about 1957 ?
A. I am not too familiar with any of the financial state­

ments that have been made.
Q. Don’t you file a joint return, you stated?
A. My husband and I have been married 21 years, and he 

seems to be a pretty reliable fellow, and I just thought I 
would go along with that he does.

Q. I say, did you file a joint return?
A. We always file joint returns.
Q. And you signed it?
A. Yes.
Q. And you don’t know what you signed?
A. No.
Q. And you don’t know—
A. I know it must be accurate, because my children are 

still having clothes, and I am still eating, and we 
page 185 J- are still living in the same home, so lie must be 

making something, so I don’t pay too much at­
tention to that.

Q. Can you estimate approximately what he is making?
A. Let me see now. He allots himself so much a week. He 

allots himself between $50 and $60 a week for the family, and 
then I guess that is about as close as I can come to it. You 
can sort of figure out from that, maybe.

Q. You don’t have any idea what your husband makes?
A. Well, I would like to be perfectly frank with you, and 

as I  said before, T am not so familiar with that side of the 
business, but if you would rather that I make up a figure—I

154 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Ya. 155

Jerry C. Fauntleroy.

will have to try to think of one, I guess—suppose we say—I 
would have to look on the income tax statement. I don’t think 
it would be fair for your records if I give you a wrong figure. 
You are trying to have exact records, aren’t you?

Q. No, just an estimate of what your husband and you 
make. You work with your husband in this business, do you 
not?

A. I go down occasionally and help with the supervisory 
part of the work, hut I don’t do any office work.

Q. And you filed a joint return with vour husband?
A. Yes.
Q. And you signed the return?

A. Oh, yes.
page 186 ) Q. And you have no idea what the return said, 

or what your husband made?
A. It is in the thousands.
Q. In the thousands?
A. Just say $15,000.
Q. Would that be within $2,000 of his income, either way? 
A. That would be within $2,000 either way.

Mr. Wickham: No further questions.
The Court: Any cross ?
Mr. H ill: No.
The Court: Mrs. Patterson, you are excused. You may

leave. Please don’t discuss the case with any witness.
The W itness: Thank you.

(Witness excused.)

The Court: Next witness.
Mr. Wickham: Jerry C. Fauntleroy.

JERRY C. FAUNTLEROY,
was called as a witness and, having been first duly sworn, 
was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Will you state your name and address, please?
A. Jerry Cornelius Fauntleroy, 3303 Roanoke Avenue, 

Newport News.
page 187 }> Q. What is your occupation?

A. I  am a rigger in the Newport News dry
dock.



156

Jerry C. Faimtleroy.

Q- ere you a plaintiff in the Newport News segregation 
suit that was brought in 1956?

A. Yes, I was.
Q. Are you married?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Does your wife work?
A. Yes, she does.
Q. Who are your attorneys in that litigation?
A. Attorney W. Hale Thompson.
Q. Only Mr. Thompson?
A. And Phillip Walker.
Q. They are the only two representing you?
A. That is right.

. Q; -D° y°u know of any other attorneys representing you 
m that case?

A. No, I can’t say definitely. I know I hired those two 
to represent me, I secured their services for my benefit.

Q. Did you authorize them to secure other attorneys to be 
associated with them?

A. What?
Q. Did you authorize them to obtain other lawyers to work 

with them in the case? 
page 188 } A. Oh, yes, to get justice.

Q. I say, did you authorize them?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What attorneys did you authorize?
A. Any that they saw fit that could help them.
Q. And what arrangements did you make with your at­

torneys with regard to the payment of legal fees‘and ex­
penses?

A. Well, I  agreed to pay them after the case was brought 
to a completion, finished, there wasn’t no particular—
. Q- You have agreed to pay expenses and attorneys’ fees 
is that correct?

A. That is right.
Q. Do you know whether or not the N. A. A. C. P. has also 

agreed to pay those expenses and attorneys’ fees?
A. No, I can’t say definitely on that.
Q. You don’t know?
A. Not definitely.
Q. What was the income—your income and the income of 

your wife for 1956?

Mr. Hill: Same objection, Your Honor.
The Court: Same ruling.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. G,en. of Va. 157

Jerry C. Fauntleroy.

Mr. Hill: Exception.
The Witness: Do you want me to answer that?

By Mr. Wickham: 
page 189 }- Q. Yes.

A. Approximately—I can’t say definitely, be­
cause I don’t have m37 income tax report with me—but it was 
approximately $8 ,100.

Q. In 1956?
A. That is right.

Mr. Wickham: No further questions.

CROSS EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Hill:
Q. Mr. Fauntleroy, you haven’t paid anything to your 

lawyers, have you?
A. Not yet.
Q. You knew the N. A. A. C. P. was sponsoring the case, 

did you not?
A. Oh, yes.

Mr. H ill: That is all.

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. One further question. You said that you knew the 

N. A. A. C. P. was sponsoring the case. What do you under­
stand that to mean?

A. Well, for one thing, I know that the N. A. A. C. P. 
lawyers are just about the best in the world, and naturally 
I wrant the best that can be afforded me, for the opportunity 

I am seeking.
page 190 Q. Do you expect to pay the N. A. A. C. P. 

lawyers?
A. Oh, yes, when they present their hill.
Q. Do you expect them to present their bill?
A. I am. expecting my hill to come from the attorney I 

hired, hut that is up to them.

Mr. Wickham: No further questions.
The Court: May this witness he excused?
All right, you are excused. You may leave and return



158 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia 

James E. Mans on.

to Newport News. Please do not disucss the case with any 
witnesses who have not testified.

(Witness excused.)

Mr. Wickham: James E. Manson.

JAMES E. MANSON,
was called as a witness and, after being first duly sworn, 
was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Please state your name and address.
A. James E. Manson, 3808 Marshall Avenue, Newport 

News, Virginia.
Q. Were you a plaintiff in the Newport News segregation 

suit that was brought in 1956?
A. Yes.
Q. What is your occupation?

A. Contractor.
page 191 Q. Do you work for yourself?

A. Yes.
Q. Who were your attorneys in the Newport New-s segrega­

tion case?
A. I do not knowr.
Q. You do not know?
A. No.
Q. How did you come to be a plaintiff in the case?
A. I t was a community project.
Q. A community project?
A. Yes.
Q. Who contacted you?
A. Someone in the community.
Q. You don’t remember w-ho contacted you?
A. I don’t remember.
Q. But you do know- that you w-ere a plaintiff in the 

case ?
A. I  do.
Q. But you don’t know the names of your attornevs’
A. No.
Q. You never had any personal contact with them?
A. I  do not know-.



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 159

James E. Mattson.

Q. You mean you don’t know whether you have had any 
personal contact with your attorneys or not?

A. No.
page 192 }- Q. Are you a member of the N. A. A. C. P. ?

A. I am affiliated with it.
Q. Is that why you became a plaintiff in the case?
A. I t was a community project.
Q. Well, how did you first learn about the lawsuit?
A. From the papers, I imagine.
Q. You have had no contact with any attorneys?
A. No.
Q. And who do you expect to pay the expenses of the 

litigation?
A. The community, I imagine, would pay some of it.
Q. What do you mean by the community, the N. A. A. C. P.? 
A. No—the community met, and they discussed it with 

me, and that is what I meant.
Q. Who in the community, what people are you talking 

about ?
A. Neighbors and friends—I couldn’t call the name, be­

cause I  don’t know.
Q. But you just told a person in your community to put 

your name down, is that right?
A. It was discussed in the community.
Q. You never authorized anybody, though, to represent 

you?

Mr. Bobinson: If Your Honor please, I object to that as 
leading—I certainly think that last question was 

page 193 }> particularly leading.
The Court: The objection is sustained as to

the form of the question.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Did you authorize anyone to bring a lawsuit for you in 

the City of Newport News?
A. I signed the affidavit.
Q. Well, who brought you that affidavit?
A. The community, neighbor.
Q. A neighbor?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know the name of that neighbor?
A. I  don’t.
Q. "What was your income in 1956?



James E. Manson.

Mr. H ill: Same objection, Your Honor.
The Court: Same ruling.
Mr. Hill: Exception.
The Court: You may answer the question.
The Witness: I can’t remember that.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Do you know what your income was last year?
A. I can’t remember.
Q. Do you own any real estate in the City of Newport 

News?
A. Yes.

page 194 }- Q. How many parcels of real estate do you 
own in the City of Newport News?

A. I  do not know.
Q. Can you estimate the value of the real estate you own 

in the City of Newport News?
A. I  cannot.
Q. The land books in the City of Newport News show that 

you own five parcels of land, is that correct?
A. Maybe so.
Q. You don’t know?
A. Not offhand.
Q. Could it be four parcels of land?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Do you own any personal property?
A. I reckon so.
Q. I  say, do you own any personal property, answer yes 

or no.
A. I imagine so.
Q. How many trucks do you own in your business?
A. Four.
Q. Do you own a station wagon?
A. I do.
Q. Do you have any income from renting any real estate? 
A. Yes.

Q. How much ?
page 195 }- A. I do not know.

Q. Can you estimate what your income will be
this year?

A. I  cannot.
Q. You can’t estimate what it was last year?
A. I can’t remember.
Q. Would you say that your income was approximately 

$60,000?

160 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



X.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 161

James E. Mans on.

Mr. Robinson: If Your Honor please, the witness has
been asked more than once just what his income is, and he 
says he doesn’t remember. I don’t see any point in pursuing 
the line of questions that the defendants are pursuing just 
to try to reach up into the air and get the figure.

The Court: I overrule the objection, Mr. Robinson. He 
said he couldn’t estimate it, and I think the attorney ought to 
be allowed to come to it generally if he couldn’t get it specifi­
cally.

I want you to answer the question as near as you can, 
nobody may know to the exact penny or dollar.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Would you say your income was approximately $60,000 

in 1956?
A. I would not, because I can’t remember.
Q. Was it within a thousand dollars of that figure?
A. I can’t remember.

page 196 The Court: Now, Mr. Wickham, I would rule 
that insofar as estimating this year’s income, he 

can do that. I think when he says that he just can’t remem­
ber about 1956 and 1957, that probably ends it.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Can you estimate what your income will be this year?
A. I imagine about $4,000, four or five.
Q. Four or five?
A. I imagine.
Q. And you can’t remember what it was last year?
A. No, I cannot.
Q. Now, as to your real estate, would you say that the 

value of your real estate was $30,000?
A. I have never had it checked.
Q. What would you sell your real estate for?
A. I have never thought about it.
Q. Think about it. Tf you had to sell it today, what would 

you sell it for?

Mr. Hill: Your Honor, that question is ridiculous, the
man said that he has never thought about selling it. What 
a person would sell his real estate for would depend on a 
lot of circumstances. How can he tell that? He might sell 
it for a hundred thousand dollars if he wanted to.



James E. Mam on.

Mr. Robinson: Your Honor, what this man
page 397 might take for his real estate certainly doesn’t 

represent the fair market value of it.
The Court: Well, we are not in a condemnation case, and 

we are not establishing fair market value as a test, but it is 
a pretty unusual person who hasn’t got an idea of the fair 
market price of his property.

The Court is going to overrule the objection.
Mr. H ill: Exception.

By Mr. Wickham,:
Q. Would you say that the appraised value of your real 

estate was as much as $25,000?
A. I would.
Q. As much as $30,000?
A. I  imagine it would be, I  would have to figure it up 

first.
Q. More than thirty?
A. I imagine around thirty.

Mr. Wickham: No further questions.

CROSS EXAMINATION.

162 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia

By Mr. H ill:
Q. Mr. Manson, did you attend a meeting with some of 

the other parents at either Mr. Thompson’s office or the 
Presbyterian Church or the Cosmos Inn?

A. No.
Q. Did you attend any meeting with other parents?

A. We met at the Newport News school board, 
page 198 f- Q. You met at the Newport News school board? 

A. Yes.
 ̂Q. Did you attend any meetings other than at the Newport 

News school board?
A. I have attended meetings, yes.
Q. Back in 1956 or just before this suit was filed, leading 

up to the filing of this suit?
A. Yes.
Q. At one of those meetings did vou sign an authorization? 
A. I did.
0- Authorizing Mr. Thompson and others to represent 

you?
A. Yes.
Q. Just one other question.



X.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Ya. 163

James E. Hanson.

Have you personally paid any money for attorneys’ fees 
or expenses or anything- in this suit ? '

A. No.

Mr. Wickham: One further question.

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. "Who was your attorney in the case?
A. I  just signed the proclamation. I didn’t know who all of 

them was, I didn’t know all the names.
Q. Didn’t you know anybody’s name? 

page 199 A. I knew one of them names.
Q. What was his name?

A. Lawyer Thompson.
Q. Did Lawyer Thompson give vou the paper to sign?
A. No, he didn’t.
Q. And you had no personal contact with Lawyer Thomp­

son?
A. No, a neighbor gave me the paper.

Mr. Wickham: No more questions.

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION.

By Mr. H ill:
Q. Mr. Manson, did I understand you to say you had no 

personal contact with Mr. Thompson?
A. Yes, I have had personal, sure, I have had personal 

with him.
Q. And was Mr. Thompson present at this meeting?
A. Yes, he was present at one meeting, but we didn’t sign 

the authorization then.
Q. You didn’t sign the authorization then?
A. No.
Q. You didn’t discuss this matter at the time?
A. Yes.

Mr. Hill: That is all.
The Court: Any objection to this man being excused?
Mr. Wickham: None, Your Honor.

The Court: All right, Mr. Manson, you are
page 200 }• excused. You are free to leave now. You may 

go back to your work.



164 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia 

Arthur L. Price.

(Witness excused.)

Mr. Wickham: Arthur L. Price.

ARTHUR L. PRICE,
was called as a witness and, having been first duly sworn, 
was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Will you state your name and address, please?
A. Arthur L. Price, Arthur Leonard Price, 3012 Marshall 

Avenue, Newport News.
Q. Will you state your occupation?
A. I am a machinist, Newport News Shipbuilding Dry 

Dock.
Q. Are you a plaintiff in the Newport News segregation 

case that was brought in 1956?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you married?
A. Yes.
Q. Does your wife work?
A. No.
Q. She does not.
Who are your attorneys in that lawsuit?
A. Mr. Thompson, Hale Thompson, and Mr. Phillip 

Walker.
Q. Did you make any arrangements with them 

page 201 as to the payment of expenses and legal fees?
A. I  don’t quite understand what you mean,

arrangements.
Q. Well, have you discussed with your attorneys who would 

pay the cost of the lawsuit?
A. Well, in a way, yes.
Q. In what way?
A. Well, I  understand that we are to pay for the suit, the 

complainants.
Q. Have you paid anything to date?
A. Paid anything to date?
Q. Yes.
A. No, I haven’t paid anything.
Q. Do you expect to pay something?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. But your attorneys have not billed you anything?



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Attv. G.en. of Va. 165

Harold M. Johnson.

A. No, they haven’t billed anything. I am under the 
impression that it all comes—under the impression that it all 
comes under the N. A. A. C. P. of which. I am a legal member. 
I think it comes under that heading.

Q. Well, do you expect the N. A. A. C. P. to pay the ex­
penses?

A. I  would think it would.
Q. Because you are a member of the N. A. A. C. P.?

A. I think that is reasonable enough, 
page 202 }- Q. What was your income in 1956?

Mr. Hill: Same objection, Your Honor.
The Court: Same ruling.
Mr. Hill: Exception.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Approximately.
A. Approximately?
Q. Yes.
A. Approximately $6,000.
Q. The land books of the City of Newport News show that 

you own some real estate with an appraised value of some­
thing over $12 ,000 , is that correct?

A. I guess so.

Mr. Wickham: No further questions.
Mr. Hill: No questions.
The Court: All right, Mr. Price, you are excused. You 

are free to go back to Newport News if you wish, but don’t 
discuss the case with any other witnesses.

(Witness excused.)

The Court: Next witness.
Mr. Wickham: Harold M. Johnson.

HAROLD M. JOHNSON,
was called as a Avitness and, after being first duly sworn, 
was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION.

page 203 }■ By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Will you state your name and address,

please?



Harold M. Johnson.

A. Harold M. Johnson, 2901 Lexington Street, Arlington, 
Virginia.

Q. What is your occupation?
A. A physician.
Q. Were you a plaintiff in the Arlington County school 

segregation suit that was brought in 1956?
A. No, 1957.
Q. You intervened in 1957?
A. 1957; I was not in in 1956.
Q. Who were your attorneys?
A. Mr. Edmund C. Brown was the man whom I engaged 

to represent me.
Q. Did you have any understanding with him concerning 

the payment of expenses and legal fees?
A. I  did.
Q. What was that understanding?
A. Well, I sent him a check for $100 at the time that I 

wrote him a letter asking him to represent me on behalf 
of my two daughters, who had applied to Washington and 
Lee High School.

Q. Have you received any further bills, or any bills from 
him since that time?

A. No, I  have not.
page 204 } Q. Is he still representing you in that case?

A. No.
Q. Who is representing you now?
A. Now, did you say? Well, I don’t have a legal counsel 

now, so far as that goes. I am not in the case any longer. 
I withdrew in 1958.

Q. You withdrew?
A. When one of my daughters went on to college, and I 

chose to carry the other daughter on to school where she 
had been going prior to the time we elected to seek admission 
to the high school.

Q. When you employed Mr. Brown to represent you, did 
you have any understanding, or did you know that he would 
engage other counsel to assist him?

A. At the time, I did not.
Q. And you had not authorized him to do so?
A. At the time I sent him the check I  had not done so.
Q. Well, when did you do so?
A. Shortly thereafter.
Q. And who did you authorize him to associate himself 

with ?

166 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. G,en. of Va. 167

Harold M. Johnson.

A. Well, the firm of Robinson, Hill and Martin.
Q. The land books of Arlington County show that you 

own 14 parcels of land, is that correct?
A. I  don’t know. I would have to count them.

page 205 \ Mr. Robinson: I make the same objection, if 
5 our Honor please, to that question.

The Court: Same ruling.
Mr. Robinson: Exception.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Well, would that be approximately correct?
A. I have no idea. I would really have to count them.
Q. Well, the land books also show that the appraised value 

of your real estate is something over $87,000, is that correct? 
A. I  don’t know what the land records show, sir.
Q. Well, would you say that was a fair value of the land 

you own in Arlington County?
A. I would have to stop and make a list and put my own 

personal values on it.
Q. W ell, would you say that the value of the land vou own 

in Arlington County is worth more than $80,000?
A. I really wouldn’t know without making a list, sir.
Q. Would you say it was worth more than $70,000?
A. I still Avouldn’t know until I made a list of the things 

that I  have in Arlington County.
Q. Would you say it was worth more than $60,000?

Mr. Robinson: T object, Your Honor. This question has 
been asked three or four times. The witness 

page 206 \ says he doesn’t know, and he can’t say until he 
makes a list and puts his own appraisal of the

value on it.
The Court: All right, I sustain the objection.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. How long would it take you to make up a list and esti­

mate the value of your real estate in Arlington County?
A. Well, I would have to go home and get mv tax blanks 

and figure out what I had. T can mail it to you.
Q. How long would it take you to do that?
A. Well, I will do it tonight and put it in the mail, and 

you will have it tomorrow or the day after tomorrow.



Harold M. Johnson.

Mr. Hill: Your Honor, that seems to be a ridiculous re­
quirement, to make this witness send a list of his real estate. 
What difference does it make whether he owns $50,000 worth 
of real estate or $200,000  worth of real estate?

That has no pertinency to any issue in this case.
The Court: Objection overruled.
Mr. Hill: I note an exception.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Will you then as soon as possible, Doctor, send us the 

number of parcels of real estate you own in Arlington County 
and the appraised value of those parcels ?

A. The appraised value?
Q. Well, you can either get it off the land books or you 

can estimate it yourself.

page 207 Mr. Hill: Your Honor, I  want to make a
further objection to it. This witness is no party 

to any litigation here. He is under subpoena by these de­
fendants, and they can’t force him to take the stand and do 
a whole lot of things outside the Court. They have got the 
land book records. They have public records. They can go 
up there and get them and bring them. down. They have got 
copies of them, I assume. If they want to introduce the land 
book records or introduce copies of them or something of that 
sort, they can. But I  submit it is an imposition to require 
this witness to go back and get some land records and send 
them back here when all he is is a witness in this case.

The Court: Let me ask you th is: Do you think a witness 
cannot be compelled to furnish information to the Court 
when requested?

Mr. H ill: Of course, under certain circumstances a witness 
can be compelled to submit information, that is perfectly 
obvious. But I am pointing out to the Court that where 
the defendants have subpoenaed a man to come here and 
testify—now, he came here under their subpoena, he is not a 
party to this litigation or anything else, and for them to 
require him to go back and make up some record of his ap­
praisal of his property which has no pertinency whatsoever 
to any issue in this case, I  submit that that is an imposition 

on this witness.
page 208 }- The Court: Do you care to be heard?

Mr. Wickham: No, Your Honor, I  think Your 
Honor has already ruled as to the materiality of this evi­
dence, and we have nothing further to say.

168 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Attv. Gen. of Va. 169

Harold M. Johnson.

The Court: "Well, the Court has already ruled on the
materiality of the evidence in this type case. And having 
done so, and since this witness was unable to give any 
opinion at all as to the real property he owned, but said he 
could prepare a list, the Court expects him to furnish such a 
list.

Dr. Johnson, would you state to the Court within what 
time you can prepare a list as requested by counsel?

The Witness: Let me state this now. I am a very busy 
person. We have a lot of people who are sick, I just got 
back Friday from being away where I went out to bury my 
mother, and coming here I  found this little subpoena tacked 
on my door the night before last, a thing of that size, and I 
just resent the intimidation involved here.

Now, I will make out the list as soon as T can. I think it 
is most unfair, but I shall certainly comply with the Court’s 
request on this thing. I will get it to you sometime this 
week, as soon as I  possibly can.

The Court: What date would counsel like to have it? It 
can be submitted as part of the evidence at any time coming 

in as an exhibit in connection with his testimony, 
page 209 }- Mr. Wickham: Any time this week, I  think.

The Court: Dr. Johnson, will you be able to 
prepare it by Friday or Monday of next week?

The Witness: I think I can possibly get it by that time, 
after I get caught up with my work and can go to the court­
house. I  may be short a tax blank, I don’t know.

The Court: Suppose we give you until Monday of next
week.

The Witness: Will someone tell me where I can send it?
The Court: You can forward it to the Clerk of this court. 

The Clerk will give you a self-addressed envelope.
The Witness: What am I supposed to do?
The Court: You have been requested to prepare an as­

sessed valuation on your parcels of land that you own in 
Arlington.

The Witness: On the parcels of land that I own—
Mr. Wickham: Not the assessed value, either the ap­

praised value or the fair market value—the assessed value— 
I don’t care, either one or the other.

The Witness: They have on the tax blank the amount of
money they are taxing me on, is that what you want me to 
put down ?

Mr. Wickham: I want the appraised value.



Harold M. Johnson.

The Witness: But the appraised value is not 
page 210 on the book.

Mr. Wickham: Well, you show whatever is
on the blanks that you have or on the books.

The Witness: What is on the blank, that is what you
want?

Mr. Wickham: That is correct.
The W itness: That is in my name ?
Mr. Wickham: That is correct.
The W itness: All right.
The Court: Mr. Hill, in view of your position on this,

perhaps I might ask you whether you would be willing to 
stipulate that this could come in from the Office of the Trea­
surer, or possibly the Finance Officer?

Mr. Hill: Certainly. That would certainly seem to me
to be a better way of doing it, Your Honor. I still don’t 
agree that the evidence is pertinent or relevant, but so far 
as what the figures show, as I  said, we are perfectly willing 
to stipulate with respect to those, if they say they are correct 
figures.

The Court: I mean obviously we are all familiar with the 
land book and what it shows, and, of course, if you think it is 
such a hardship, rather than have the witness doing it, I 
mean you could simply file it by stipulating to admitting 
whatever the Treasurer of Arlington County’s land books 
would show.

Mr. Hill: If they will submit the figures, we 
page 211 would be perfectly willing to stipulate that those 

are the figures—if Mr. Wickham says they are 
accurate, I will stipulate that they are accurate. Of course, 
we don’t waive any objection to the evidence.

The Court: To the materiality, I  understand.
In view of the stipulation, Dr. Johnson, you don’t have 

to furnish anything.
Any further questions of this witness?
Mr. Wickham: No.
The Court: Any cross examination of this witness ?
Mr. Hill: No.
The Court: Doctor, you are excused. You may return to 

Arlington.

(Witness excused.)

Mr. Wickham: Barbara S. Marks.
The Court: How many witnesses do you have for today?
Mr. Wickham: Eleven, I  think.

170 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 171 

BARBARA S. MARKS,
was called as a witness and, after being first duly sworn, 
was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Will you please state your name and address?

A. My name is Barbara S. Marks, 6897 North 
page 212 }- Washington Boulevard, Arlington.

Q. Mrs. Marks, were you a plaintiff in the 
Arlington school segregation cases brought in 1956?

A. I  was.
Q. Are you a member of the Caucasian race?
A. I assume you would say so. I question these race defi­

nitions, but I assume you would say so.
Q. What is your occupation?
A. Housewife.
Q. Do you hold any office in the local branch of the 

N. A. A. C. P. in Arlington County?
A. I am the vice president.
Q. You are today?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you in 1956?
A. Yes.
Q. How did you become a plaintiff in this suit?
A. I became a plaintiff in this suit because I object strongly 

to my children attending segregated schools, and I would 
like to see schools desegregated in Arlington.

Q. How did you become a plaintiff in this suit?
A. I signed a petition which was presented to the school 

board on July, 28tli, requesting Arlington school board to 
cease assigning children on a basis of race, 

page 213 }- Q. Where did you obtain that petition?
A. I think that the branch received a copy of 

that petition probably through the mail from Richmond.
Q. From the State Conference?
A. Probably.
Q. And what did that petition say?
A. Well, I am sure you have seen a copy of it. I don’t 

have it here, but it requested that the Arlington school board 
reorganize their school system so that assignment would not 
be based on race, and it was a petition to be signed by 
parents of school-age children, and it was presented on July 
28th to the Arlington school board at a school board meet­
ing.



Barbara S. Marks.

Q. Well, what action did the school board take on that 
petition ?

A. The school board said they were going to follow in­
structions they had received from the State Department of 
Education, I guess it was, and continue the segregated setup 
for the following school year.

Q. Did you say you received that petition as an officer 
of the N. A. A. C. P., local branch of the N. A. A. C. P.?

A. I don’t think the petition was sent to me, it was sent 
to the president.

Q. To the president?
A. We discussed it in Executive Committee 

page £14 }> meeting, and I signed it in Executive Committee 
meeting.

Q. And then did you help circulate that petition?
A. I helped circulate that petition.
Q. Now, after the school board refused to grant the re­

quest contained in the petition, what step did you take next, 
leading up to the bringing of the lawsuit?

A. Well, I think in conversation with Attorney Hill and 
Attorney Robinson I asked if we were not going to do some­
thing to follow up on that petition after it had been refused.

Q. What was Attorney Hill and Attorney Robinson—how 
did you happen to be talking to them?

A. I met them at the State Convention of the N. A. A. C. P. 
in Charlottesville, and asked them if we couldn’t follow up 
in Arlington, that was in October 1950, if we couldn’t follow 
up as long as the school board had refused to do anything 
on our petition.

Q. What capacity did Mr. Hill and Mr. Robinson hold?
A. Well, you knew that Mr. Hill was chairman of the State 

Legal Staff.
Q. And Mr. Robinson?
A. Well, he is on the legal staff, too.
Q. So this was—was this discussed, you say, at the State 

Conference?
A. It was discussed very fleetingly, because 

page 215 } they were very busy, and they said they would 
get in touch with us later.

Q. Well, did you expect to employ Mr. Hill and Mr. Robin­
son to represent you?

A. Well, I  knew that when the time came to file the suit 
that they would be the ones who would probably prepare 
the brief, and I was trying to urge them to do something

172 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 173 

Barbara S. Marks.

about Arlington soon, because I had been very impatient to 
get the Arlington schools desegregated.

Q. Did you personally employ them to represent you, 
or did you work through the local branch of the N. A. A. C. P. 
either as a member or as an officer?

A. No, I realized that the setup was that the suit was 
not brought by the branch, that the suit was brought by the 
plaintiffs as individuals, but I knew that they would be the 
lawyers who would be drawing up the brief when it was 
finally drawn up.

Q. You mean that they would be the attorneys to represent 
all the plaintiffs in the case?

A. Yes.
Q. You knew that before you had obtained the plaintiffs?

Mr. Robinson: If Your Honor please, that is a forked
question. I think that Mr. Wickham should reframe it. 
He has got two questions in one there, and I don’t think it 

is proper to ask this witness that kind of a ques- 
page 216 }- tion.

The Court: I  overrule the objection.
Mr. Robinson: I except, Your Honor.
The Court: Read the question back, please.

(Question read.)

The Witness: I did not obtain any plaintiffs. I obtained 
some signatures to a petition. Later some of those people 
became plaintiffs, some of them didn’t.

By Mr. Wickham :
Q. Well, you became a plaintiff later?
A. Yes, I became a plaintiff. I signed an authorization 

when the time came and became a plaintiff.
Q. And who did you employ to represent you?
A. I signed an authorization for Attorney Edwin C. Brown, 

and I think the authorization form stated “ and other at­
torneys’’ but the authorization I signed in the presence of 
Attorney Brown.

Q. Did you have any arrangement with Attorney Brown 
as to the payment of expenses and legal fees?

A. No, because I knew that in cases of this kind that the 
State Conference would finance the suit, and I made con­
tributions to the N. A. A. C. P., but there was never any 
legal fee, except I  did pay, I  think it was, $15 to have a



Barbara S. Marks.

brief, printing the brief when the suit came up in Baltimore 
before the Fourth Circuit Court.

Q. Did you have ample means to help defray 
page 217 }• the expenses of the litigation?

M}r. Hill: Objection. The question is leading, Your
Honor.

The Court: Will you read the question, please ?

(Question read.)

The Court: I overrule the objection.
Mr. Robinson: Your Honor, I further object to that same 

question on the ground that we have objected to questions 
of the same character.

The Court: Objection overruled.
Mr. Robinson: Exception.
The Witness: In Mr. Thompson’s report he tells you

what my income is. They went down to the courthouse and 
looked at my divorce decree, and they tell you that I got 
$4,000 a year alimony. That isn’t enough to go up to the 
Supreme Court and back twice.

174 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Do you own any real estate in Arlington County?
A. Yes, I own the house in which I live.

Mr. Hill: Same objection, Your Honor.
The Court: Same ruling.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. What is the value?
A. I t  is assessed, I think, at around $31,000.

Q. If you knew that the Arlington case was not 
page 218 to be financed by the State Conference, would you 

have been a plaintiff in that suit or continue the 
prosecution of that suit?

Mr. Hill: I  object to that, Your Honor. That is specula­
tion. Here it is two or three years later.

Mr. Wickham: If Your Honor please, again I  refer to
Chapter 36, which uses the word “ inducement,” and the 
prohibition of the provisions of that chapter prohibit anyone 
who has no financial interest in the litigation from inducing 
another person to litigate against the state or an agency



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 175 

E. Leslie Hamm.

thereof. Therefore, I think it is very material that it be 
determined whether or not Mrs. Marks was induced by the 
financial aid offered by the State Conference.

The Court: Read the question again, please?

(Question read.)

Mr. Hill: We would also like to state, Your Honor, before 
you rule, that not only is this question speculative, but also 
this is the defendants’ witness, and he is asking those specu­
lative questions.

The Court: I am going to overrule the objection.
The W itness: I would certainly have started in this suit, 

whether I would have gotten up to the Supreme Court and 
back again on my own finances, I doubt, but I certainly 
would have started and gone as long as I could have financed 

it.
page 219 }• Mr. Wickham: No more questions.

The Court: You are excused. You may re­
turn, if you like, to Arlington, or wherever you care to go, 
but don’t discuss the case with any other witnesses.

(Witness excused.)

The Court: We will recess until ten minutes to eleven. 

(Recess.)

page 220 The Court: Next witness.
Mr. Wickham: We call E. Leslie Hamm.

Whereupon,

E. LESLIE HAMM,
was called as a witness and, after being first duly sworn, 
was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Will you state your name and address, please.
A. E. Leslie Hamm, 1900 North Camden Street, Arlington, 

Virginia.
Q. And what is your occupation?
A. Architectural draughtsman.



E. Leslie Hamm.

Q. Are you a plaintiff in the Arlington Segregation Case? 
A. I  am.
Q. Are you one of the original plaintiffs that brought suit 

in 1956?
A. Yes.
Q. Who were your attorneys in that suit?
A. Edwin C. Brown represented me.
Q. No other attorney?
A. Well, he had associates, Mr. Bobinson and Mr. Hill.
Q. Did you have any understanding with Mr. Brown con­

cerning the payment of expenses or legal fees? 
page 221 A. We didn’t discuss payment of fees.

Q. Did you know whether or not if the 
N. A. A. C. P. would bear the expenses and the legal fees in 
that litigation?

A. I did not.
Q. You did not know?
A. No.
Q. Have you received a bill from Mr. Brown or any other 

attorney for services rendered to date in that case?
A. No, I haven’t.
Q. Do you expect to?
A. Well, I don’t know, we haven’t discussed it as I said; 

if they present a bill I will have to be obligated to them, I 
suppose.

Q. What was your income in 1956?

Mr. Hill: Same objection, Your Honor.
The Court: Same ruling.
Mr. H ill: Exception.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Can you estimate just approximately what your income 

was in 1956?
A. Approximately $5,000.
Q. Are you married?
A. Yes. ‘
Q. Are you separated?

A. No.
page 222 }- Q. Does your wife work?

A. Yes.
Q. Could you estimate what her income was in 1956?

Mr. Hill: Same objection.
The Court: Same ruling.

176 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 177

Echvard D. Strother.

Mr. H ill: Exception.

By Mr. AVickham:
Q. Could you estimate what her income was in 1956?
A. I would estimate $3,000.
Q. Do you own any real estate in Arlington County?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it your home?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you estimate the value of your home in dollars?
A. I would estimate $18,000.

Mr. AATiekham: No further questions.
The Court: Any cross examination?

(No response.)

The Court: Mr. Hamm, you are excused, and you may go 
back to Arlington if you wish.

(AVitness excused.)

Mr. AA7ickham: Edward D. Strother.

AA^hereupon,

EDAVAKD D. STROTHER, 
was called as a witness, and having been first 

page 223 \ duly sworn, was examined and testified further 
as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION.

By Mr. AA7ickham:
Q. AA7ill you state your name and address, please.
A. My name is Edward D. Strother, 2819 South 18th 

Street, Arlington.
Q. What is your occupation?
A. I  am a horseshoer.
Q. Do they have any horses left in Arlington County?

A. AVe don’t have too many in Arlington, I have got to go 
out and get them.

Q. Were you a plaintiff in the Arlington Segregation Case 
that was brought in 1956?



178 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia 

George L. Nelson.

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you married?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Does your wife work?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you estimate—first of all, do you and your wife 

file joint returns, tax returns?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Could you estimate tlie total income for 1956?

Mr. Hill: I  object, Your Honor.
The Court: Same ruling.
Mr. Hill: Exception.

page 224 By Mr. Wickham:
Q. You may answer the question.

A. What did you say?
Q. Could you estimate the total income for yourself and 

your wife in 1956?
A. Oh, my income tax, about $8,000.

Mr. Wickham: No further questions.
Mr. Hill: No questions.
The Court: Mr. Strother, you are excused, you may leave 

and return to your home or your business, or if you care to, 
you may still stay in the courtroom.

(Witness excused.)

The Court: Next witness.
Mr. Wickham: George L. Nelson.

Whereupon,

GEORGE L. NELSON,
was called as a witness, and having been first duly sworn, 
was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Will you state your name and address, please.
A. George L. Nelson, 2005 North Camden Street, Arling­

ton.
Q. What is your occupation?



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Attv. Gen. of Va. 179

George L. Nelson.

A. I am a policeman in Washington, D. C. 
page 225 }■ Q. Were you a plaintiff in the Arlington 

segregation suit?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you still a plaintiff in that suit?
A. Yes, I  am.
Q. Will you approximate your income for the year 1956?

Mr. Hill: I  object.
The Court: Same ruling.
Mr. Hill: Exception.
The Court: Repeat the question.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Will you estimate your income for the year 1956?
A. About $4,990.
Q. Are you married?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Does your wife work?
A. No, she doesn’t.
Q. You estimate it at $4,990. Is that after social security?
A. No, that was my base salary at the time the social 

security and taxes are taken out.
Q. That is your base salary, you get more for overtime?

A. If I worked overtime, yes, sir. 
page 226 Q. Did you work overtime in 1956?

A. I worked a little overtime.
Q. So you might say that your income possibly was over 

$5,000 in 1956?
A. It could have been.
Q. Do you know whether or not the State Conference of

the N. A. A. C. P. was going to pay the expenses in this
litigation, and the attorneys’ fees?

A. Do I know—
Q. Do you know whether or not the State Conference of

the N. A. A. C. P. was to pay the expenses and attorneys’
fees in the Arlington segregation case?

A. Well, I don’t know—I don’t—I wouldn’t say that I 
knew.

Q. Who Avas your attorney?
A. Mr. BroAvn, Mr. Reeves.
Q. Did you have anv other attorneys?
A. No. '
Q. Did von ever make any arrangements with Mr. Brown



Audrey T. Newman.

and Mr. Reeves as to the payment of the expenses in this 
litigation !

A. Well, I  never approached them.
Q. And they never approached you about it!
A. No. Well, the case isn’t over, is it!

Q. Do you expect them to render a bill for 
page 227 }- their services!

A. If they render a bill I would try to pay it, 
sir.

Mr. Wickham: No further questions.
The Court: You are excused now, and you may either

leave, or if you care to, you may sit in the room.

(Witness excused.)

The Court: Next witness.
Mr. Wickham: Audrey T. Newman.

Whereupon,

AUDREY T. NEWMAN,
was called as a witness, and having been first duly sworn, 
was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Will you state your name and address, please.
A. Audrey T. Newman, 5554 Lee Highway, Arlington.
Q. Are you a plaintiff in the Arlington segregation suit 

that began in 1956!
A. Yes.
Q. What is your occupation!
A. Housewife.
Q. Are you married!
A. Yes.
Q. What is the occupation of your hsband?

A. He works for the Federal Government, 
page 228 Q. Do you all file a joint income tax return!

A. Yes.
Q. Could you estimate what that income was in 1956!

Mr. H ill: Same objection, Your Honor.
The Court: Same ruling.

180 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 181 

Audrey T. Newman.

Mr. H ill: Exception.
The Witness: Well, I  couldn’t tell you what m3' husband 

makes, I don’t question him on it.

By' Mr. Wickham:
Q. Well, did you file a joint income tax return?
A. That is right.
Q. Did you sign it?
A. I  signed it.
Q. But you didn’t  read it?
A. But he takes care of it, and I trust him.
Q. You did not read it?
A. I don’t read it all, he takes care of the bills.
Q. So you don’t know what your income was ?
A. Not exactly, I couldn’t say exactly.
Q. Could }mu estimate it? Just approximately what was 

the income? Was it over $6,000?
A. No, it wasn’t.
Q. Was it over $5,000?
A. I just can’t say exactly what it is.

Q. Well, could 3'ou estimate it in 1957, this last 
page 229 }- year?

A. It runs about the same each  ear, but I  
don’t guess it is over $4,000.

Q. You don’t know what your husband makes?
A. Not exactly, I do not know the exact figures he makes, 

because I  don’t ask him about it.
Q. Who were your attorney's in this case, in the Arlington 

School case?
A. Well, what do 3’ou mean?
Q. Who represented a-ou—your children were also plain­

tiffs, weren’t they?
A. One boy.
Q. One bov?
A. Yes.
Q. Who represented y-ou and your child?
A. Well, that was more than one—I didn’t talk to any 

certain lawyer, they gave us some advice, and we had a 
meeting, T didn’t talk to them until after I  filed my pupil 
placement report.

Q. You say they gave you some advice at a meeting, was 
that a meeting of the N. A. A. C. P.?

A. This was a meeting of mothers first.
Q. And then when Avas the next meeting?



Josie F. Pravad.

A. I don’t know exactly when it was, it was some time 
during this summer.

page 230 }- Q. What went on at that meeting?
A. We decided that we wanted our children to 

go to school, the one that was nearest us.
Q. Do you know whether or not the State Conference of 

the N. A. A. C. P. is to pay the expenses of this litigation? 
A. I can’t say for sure.
Q. You don’t have any knowledge of that at all?
A. Not exactly.
Q. What do you mean by “ not exactly” ? Do you expect 

to pay any part of the expenses in the litigation ?
A. No, I  don’t. I do know the N. A. A. C. P. will help us 

in legal advice, I don’t expect to pay.

Mr. Wickham: No further questions.

CROSS EXAMINATION.

182 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia

By Mr. H ill:
Q. You haven’t paid anything to your lawyers, have you? 
A. None whatsoever, I  haven’t paid one cent.

Mr. H ill: That is all.
The Court: All right, Mrs. Newman, you may be excused 

now, you may leave and return to your home, or sit in the 
courtroom if you like.

(Witness excused.)

Mr. Wickham: We call Josie F. Pravod.
9

page 231 }- Whereupon,

JOSIE F. PRAVAD,
was called as a witness, and having been’first duly sworn, 
was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Will you state your name and address, please.
A. Josie F. Pravad, 2900 South 20th Street, Arlington 

Virginia.
Q. What is your occupation?



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 183 

Josie F. Pravad.

A. File clerk in the government.
Q. Are you married?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Does your husband work?
A. Yes, he does.
Q. Where is he employed ?
A. Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D. C.
Q. Were you a plaintiff in the Arlington School segrega­

tion case that was brought in 1956?
A. Yes.
Q. Who represented you in that case, or who is repre­

senting you?
A. Who is representing me? I haven’t a lawyer repre­

senting me, if that is -what you mean.
Q. You do not? 

page 232 A. No, I don’t.
Q. How did you become a plaintiff?

A. How did I become a plaintiff? Well, because education 
in Arlington, Virginia, is so very unequal, until I decided 
that I  would like for my daughter to go to either school 
where she would have equal opportunity in education. And 
so I decided to try to enter her. And when she was turned 
down, I  understood that I could be represented by the Na­
tional Association for the Advancement of Colored People, 
who had a case, and consequently I did go under—well, as I 
said, I sent my child to the school and she was turned down, 
that is all I know.

Q. And you are being represented bv the N. A. A. C. P.?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you and your husband file a joint income tax re­

turn in 1956?
A. We did.
Q. Could you estimate the income in that year?
A. I  am sorry—

Mr. H ill: Same objection.
Tlie Court: Same ruling.
Mr. Hill: Exception.
The Witness: I couldn’t any way.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Could you estimate it in 1957? 

page 233 A. I could not, because we carried our W-2 
forms to a woman and she fills them out, and we 

have a joint return, that is all I know.



Josie F. Pravad.

Q. Where are you employed?
A. I am employed with the Justice Department, Bureau 

of Prisons, Washington, D. C.
Q. Don’t you have an annual salary from your employer?
A. Yes, of course, government salary.
Q. What is your salary?
A. I really couldn’t  tell you, I am a GrS-4, and you would 

have to look at the table, I wouldn’t know.
Q. You couldn’t estimate?
A. I would be afraid to.
Q. And you have no idea what your hasband makes?
A. None whatever.
Q. You couldn’t estimate what your salary was within 

$1,500?
A. Hardly, I would be afraid to. You have a table, there 

is a (xS-4 Table that would tell you that.
Q. G-S-4 Table?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, do you know what rating your hasband has with 

the governemtn?
A. I  really don’t.

Q. Is it higher than a GS-4?
page 234 }- A. They don’t go by that, they go by levels, 

and I am not sure about that, I don’t know.
Q. You don’t know what level?
A. No.
Q. Would you be surprised if you and your husband made 

more than $7,000 a year?
A. I  am sorry, I  can’t say that, because I don’t fill out 

my forms, I tell you; Ave go to a woman, she puts the things 
in and we send them in, I  do know that we filed the forms, 
but as to the amount T couldn’t tell you that.

Q. Would you be surprised if you and your husband made 
more than $5,000 a year?

A. If  we do we don’t see it. But I couldn’t tell you, T am 
sorry.

Mr. Wickham: No more questions.

CROSS EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Robinson:
Q. Mrs. Pravad, did you attend some meetings that were 

held with reference to the school situation in Arlington some

184 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Attv. Gen. of Va. 185

Ruth M. Rout.

time during the summer of this year, the summer of 1958? 
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And other parents of Negro children in Arlington 

County also attended? 
page 235 }- A. Yes, they did.

Q. Did you know about how many such meet­
ings you did attend?

A. Well, to be frank with you, I only attended one, be­
cause we went on our vacation around that time, and I was 
not available.

Q. Do you know attorney Frank D. Reeves from Washing­
ton?

A. Yes, I  do.
Q. Was Mr. Reeves present at that meeting?
A. Yes, he was.
Q. Do you know Attorney Otto L. Tucker from Alexan­

dria?
A. T have met him.
Q. Was he present at that meeting?
A. I think he was, I  am not too sure.
Q. W asn’t it at this meeting that you authorized Mr. 

Reeves and/or Mr. Tucker to represent you in litigation con­
cerning your child in the schools of Arlington County?

A. Yes, I did.
Q. And that was during the summer of 1958?
A. Yes.
Mr. Robinson: That is all.

The Court: You may be excused, you are free to leave 
and return hom.

(Witness excused.)

page 236 } Mr. Wickham: Ruth M. Rout.

Whereupon,

RUTH M. ROUT,
was called as a witness, and having been first duly sworn, 
was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Will you state your name and address, please.



Ruth M. Rout.

A. Ruth Rout, 3011 Seventeenth Road, Arlington, Vir­
ginia.

Q. What is your occupation?
A. Government clerk.
Q. From what department?
A. Army, Department of Defense.
Q. In Washington?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you a plaintiff in the Arlington School Segregation 

case?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you married?
A. Yes.
Q. What is the occupation of your husband?
A. Government clerk.
Q. And where does he work?

A. Department of Defense, Washington, D. C. 
page 237 Q. Does he work at the same place you work? 

A. Yes.
Q. What type of job do you do there, what type of work? 
A. I am a clerk-typist.
Q. And what does your husband do there?
A. He is a clerk.
Q. What type of work?
A. Supervisor.
Q. Clerk-supervisor?
A. Yes.
Q. Is he your supervisor?
A. No.
Q. He is not in the same office?
A. No.
Q. When did you become a plaintiff in the Arlington 

School case?
A. Just this year.
Q. 1958?
A. Yes.
Q. Who is your attorney in that suit?
A. Mr. Tucker, Mr. Reeves.
Q. Did you go to them and retain them—did you go to 

them and get them to represent vou in this suit?
A. Yes.

page 238 J- Q. Where does Mr. Reeves—where is his office?
A. I didn’t go to his office, we parents of the 

children, we decided that we would get help from the at­
torney.

186 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 187

Ruth M. Rout.

Q. Well, what arrangements did you make with Mr. Reeves 
and Mr. Tucker as to the payment of expenses and attor­
ney’s fees?

A. Payments?
Q. Yes.
A. We didn’t make any arrangement for payment.
Q. Well, you don’t expect to pay anything?
A. No.
Q. Do you know whether or not the N. A. A. C. P. is going 

to pay for the expenses in that suit?
A. That is the usual—they usually do.
Q. Did you and your husband file a joint return, income 

tax return in 1956, or 1957 ?
A. Joint?
Q. Yes.
A. We filed this year for last year joint, yes.
Q. Can you estimate what the income is?

Mr. Hill: Same objection, Your Honor.
The Court: Same ruling.
Mr. H ill: Exception.
The Witness: I can’t recall.

page 239-240 } By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Are you on slary with the government?

A. Yes.
Q. Do you know what your salary is with the government? 
A. Yes.
Q. What is your salary?
A. I  didn’t work for a whole year in 1957.
Q. Well, what is your salary in 1958?
A. T am sorry, I  can’t tell you exactly now.
Q. Can you approximate it within $500?
A. I can’t see Avhat that has to do with this. I can’t recall 

it exactly.
Q. I say, can you approximate it?
A. It is about $3,400.
Q. Did your husband make more than you?
A. He makes more, yes.
Q. He makes more than you do?
A. Yes.

Mr. Wickham : No further questions.
Mr. Hill: No questions.
The Court: All right, you are excused, you may leave.



188 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia 

Harry Stother.

(Witness excused.)

The Court: Next witness.
Mr. Wickham: Harry Stother.

page 241 }• Whereupon,

HARRY STOTHER,
was called as a witness, and having been first duly sworn, 
was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Will you state your name and address, please.
A. Harry Stother, 2102 North Dinwiddie Street.
Q. What is your occupation?
A. I am a cab driver.
Q. How long have you been a cab driver?
A. Since April of this year.
Q. What was your employment before that time?
A. Washington Terminal, Washington, D. C.
Q. What did you do there?
A. Coach cleaner at the terminal.
Q. Are you a plaintiff in the Arlington School segrega­

tion case?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. When did you become a plaintiff in that ease?
A. Well, either in July or August, I don’t remember 

exactly.
Q. Of this year?
A. Of this year.

Q. Who is your attorney in that case? 
page 242 ) A. My attorney—I don’t know—we had the 

N. A. A. C. P. lawyers, I don’t know which one
it is.

Q. The N. A. A. C. P. attorneys are your attorneys, rep­
resenting you?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. When did you first—when did they first get in contact 

with you?
A. I  don’t think—they have never been in contact with 

me.
Q. Well, how did you become a party to the suit?



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 189 

Harry Stother.

A. Well, the group of parents got together in a meeting 
and said that our children should go to the nearest school to 
where they lived, and the lawyers said they would represent 
us if we had to go to court.

Q. When did they tell you that?
A. At one of the meetings.
Q. Well, what meeting was this?
A. The meeting of the parents at the church.
Q. Well, were the N. A. A. C. P. attorneys present at that 

meeting?
A. When they told us that they were?
Q. Do you know how they got to that meeting?
A. No, sir, I do not.
Q. Did you ask them to come to the meeting?

A. No, I didn’t.
page 243 }• Q. I know it would be hard as a taxicab driver, 

hut can you estimate what your income is going 
to be this year?

Mr. Hill: Same objection, Your Honor.
The Court: Same ruling.
Mr. Hill: Exception.
The Witness: I couldn’t estimate.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. What was your income in 1957?
A. As well as I can remember, a little over $3,800.
Q. Does your wife work?
A. No, sir.
Q. She does not work.

Mr. Wickham: We have no further questions.
The Court: Any cross?
Mr. Hill: No questions.
The Court: All right, Mr. Stother, you are excused, you 

are free to leave and go back to your business, if you like.

(Witness excused.)

The Court: Next witness.
Mr. Wickham: Alex M. Davis.

"Whereupon,



190 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia

ALEX M. DAVIS,
was called as a witness, and having been first duly sworn, 
was examined and testified as follows:

page 244 }■ DIRECT EXAMINATION".

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Will you state your name and address, please.
A. Alex M. Davis, 607 10y* Street, Northwest, Charlottes­

ville, Virgina
Q. What is your occupation?
A. Carpenter.
Q. How long have you been a carpenter?
A. Since September 15.
Q. Of this year?
A. Of this year.
Q. What was your occupation before that time?
A. I was a general field superintendent for an insurance 

company.
Q. You -were what?
A. General field superintendent for an insurance com­

pany.
Q. I  see. As a carpenter, have you got your own business, 

or are you employed by someone else?
A. I  am employed by private people.
Q. Are you a plaintiff in the Charlottesville Segregation 

case that was brought in 1956?
A. I  am.
Q. What was your occupation at that time?

A. I  was a district superintendent in the Char- 
page 245 }- lottesville district for the insurance company.

Q. Did you have any other job on the side at
that time?

A. No.
Q. Are you married?
A. I am married.
Q. Does your wife work?
A. No.
Q. Will you estimate what your income was in 1956?

Mr. Hill: Same objection, Your Honor.
The Court: Same ruling.
Mr. H ill: Exception.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. What was your income in 1956, approximately, just an 

estimate?



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Attv. G.en. of Va. 191 

Alex M. Davis.

Tlie Witness: Your Honor, I object to that question.
The Court: Your attorney has already objected to it, and 

I have already overruled it. The Court wants the informa­
tion in the record. So if you have the information or can get 
approximately the figure—

The Witness: I don’t have it, I don’t know.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Would you say it was more than $5,000?
A. I  couldn’t say.

Q. Would you say it was more than $4,000? 
page 246 }- A. I couldn’t say.

Q. You have no idea?
A. I  think that is my personal affair, T refuse to answer 

the question.

Mr. Wickham: If Your Honor please, I believe the wit­
ness knows the answer to the question, and he is refusing 
to answer. I  think that he should he made to answer the 
question. He keeps saying it is not anybody’s affair hut his 
own.

The Court: Mr. Davis, the question regarding the income 
of you and the other witnesses this morning has been ruled 
material by the Court to the proceeding here, and although 
objection has been made by the complainants’ lawyers in 
each case to this question, the Court has required it to be 
given in each case. So you are requested to furnish the 
Court with such information as you have, an approximation 
of the figures of your income for the period in question.

State the question again.
I

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Would you approximate vour income for 1956?
A. For 1956?
Q. That was the year in which you became a plaintiff in 

the Charlottesville School Segregation case.
A. Approximately $3,500.

Q. No more than that?
page 247  ̂ A. That is as close as I can get to it offhand.

Mr. Wickham: We have no further questions.
Mr. H ill: No questions.
The Court: You are excused, you may leave.

(Witness excused.)



Eugene Williams.

The Court: Next witness.
Mr. Wickham: Eugene Williams. .

Whereupon,
EUGENE WILLIAMS,

was called as a witness, and having been first duly sworn, 
was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Will you please state your name and address?
A. Eugene Williams, 620 Ridge Street, Charlottesville, 

Virginia.
Q. What is your occupation.
A. District manager for Richmond Beneficial Insurance 

Company.
Q. Is that a life insurance company?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you a plaintiff in the Charlottesville segregation 

case that was brought in 1956?
A. Yes—well, not in 1956, because my children weren’t 

old enough to enter school, 
page 248 }> Q. When did you become a plaintiff?

A. Last summer.
Q. In 1958 of this vear?
A. Yes.
Q. Who are your attorneys in that suit?
A. I  used the attorneys of the N.A.A.C.P.
Q. Who are they?
A. Well, I  wouldn’t know all of them, I  know the chief 

counsel, Mr. Oliver Hill, and Spotswood Robinson.
Q. Are there any others that you can think of?
A. As I say, I wouldn’t know all of them.
Q. Do you know a Mr. Tucker?
A. I  know Mr. Tucker, yes.
Q. Is he one of your attorneys in that suit?
A. I am using the lawyers of the N.A.A.C.P., was my 

answer.
Q. Have you made an arrangements with those lawyers 

as to the payment of expenses or attorney’s fees?
A. Well, if the N.A.A.C.P. failed to pay them, well, I 

have agreed that I  would accept the bill.
Q. How did you come to be a plaintiff in the School case? 
A. I  came to be a plaintiff because, number one, I  have

192 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Ya. 193 

Eugene Williams.

never believed in separate but equal education, and after 
May 17, 1954, that affirmed my belief, 

page 249 [ Q. What was your first contact with your at­
torneys?

A. Well, my first contact with my attorneys was that I 
told them of my action, that I had made application for my 
children to enter Johnson Elementary School, and, well, 
there it went on.

Q. Where did you tell your attorneys this, did you come 
to Richmond to tell them that?

A. I don’t remember.
Q. You don’t remember?
A. I  don’t remember if I came to Richmond, or if I talked 

to them in Charlottesville.
Q. Well, if you told them in Charlottesville, where would 

that place have been?
A. I don’t remember where I told them.
Q. Do you remember talking to them?
A. Sure.
Q. But you don’t remember where?
A. You see, my home office is here in Richmond, I am in 

Richmond as much as in Charlottesville, so I don’t remem­
ber.

Q. If it was in Charlottesville, where would it have been? 
A. I don’t remember where I told them, it could have been 

in the street, it could have been in church, I don’t re­
member.

page 250 }• Q. Will you state what your income was the 
last year?

Mr. Hill: Same objection.
The Witness: No, I would not state that.
The Court: Overruled.
Mr. H ill: Exception.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. What was your income in 1957?
A. I would not state it.
Do I have to state it?

The Court: Yes, the Court has ruled that material as 
far as you and the rest of the witnesses are concerned in 
the proceeding.

The Witness: Well, I don’t remember my income either;



Eugene Williams.

I am under oath and I don’t remember it.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. You can’t estimate your income?
A. I can estimate it.
Q. What is your estimate?
A. Maybe as much as $4,000.
Q. It wouldn’t be as much as $6,000?
A. I just told you I didn’t remember, and you asked me 

to estimate.
Q. Would it be as much as $6,000?
A. I don’t remember.

Mr. Robinson: Your Honor, I  object, I  think 
page 251 [> the witness is right about this, he said he 

couldn’t state definitely, and he estimated it 
when he was asked, and I think that is all the witness can 
be expected to do.

The Court: Objection sustained.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Have you got your W-2 form?
A. No.
Q. Have you got it available?
A. Not as far as the Federal Government—
Q. Have you got it at home?
A. T don’t know that.
Q. Didn’t you state a few minutes ago that you had the 

W-2 form?
A. I don’t know, if not, I can get it from the Federal 

Government.
Q. Did you have any income other than as manager of 

the insurance company?
A. No.
Q. Could you call your office here in Richmond and find 

out what your income was in 1957?
A. They may have it.
Q. Wouldn’t they have it?
A. I  work in Charlottesville, I don’t know what they have 

in Richmond.
Q. Did you get paid out of Richmond or out 

page 252 of Charlottesville?
A. I  get paid out of Charlottesville; I  make 

up my own pay-roll.

194 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 195

Eugene Williams.

Q. You make up your own pay-roll, and yet you don’t 
have any idea of what your income is?

Mr. Hill: Your Honor, the Avitness estimated his income.
Mr. Robinson: This is Mr. Wickham’s witness, and he is 

not on cross-examination.
The Court: I sustain the objection.
Mr. Wickham: If Your Honor please, I would like to 

subpoena this witness’ income tax return for 1956 and 1957, 
unless he can furnish us with the amount of his income for 
those years.

The Court: I don’t believe that question has ever been 
put to them, has it? I don’t know that any precise question 
has ever been put to them as to whether he can furnish it.

Mr. Wickham: I will put it to him.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Mr. Williams, can you furnish the Court with your 

income for 1956 and 1957?
A. I  will try.
Q. I would like to have a “ yes” or “ no” answer on that.

A. I  will try to set it, that is the best I can do. 
page 253 Q. Well, when do you think you could obtain 

that information, if you can obtain it?
A. In the next two or three days.
Q. You couldn’t obtain it today from the Richmond office?

Mr. Hill: Your Honor, the witness said he would try to 
get it, he would get it in the next two or three days, he said 
he didn’t know whether he could get it from the Richmond 
office; obviously he wouldn’t know that.

Mr. Wickham: He didn’t say he would get it yet.
Mr. H ill: He said he would try.
The Court: At what time can you obtain the figures on

your 1956 and 1956 income?
The W itness: I will try to have it in the next two or

three days.
Mr. Wickham: We have no further questions, Your 

Honor.
Mr. Robinson: If  Your Honor please, the Court under­

stands that we object to this witness being required to sup­
ply this information on the same basis that we madje 
objections to questions that were asked for testimony con­
cerning his income, that is. the income of this witness, and 
the same question asked of other witnesses.



Marshal T. Garrett.

The Court: The objection is overruled.
Mr. Robinson: Exception.

page 254 The Court: Mr. Williams, would you use that 
envelope, or at least that address, which is the 

collection address, a self-addressed stamped envelope, and 
try to obtain that information, and could you get the letter 
here by Monday morning?

The Witness: Yes.
The Court: All right.

(Witness excused.)

Mr. Wickham : Marshal Garrett.
Mr. Hill: May it please the Court, let the record show 

the witness was excused.
The Court: All right. The last witness was excused. 

Whereupon,
MARSHAL T. GARRETT,

was called as a witness, and having been first duly sworn, 
was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Will you state your name and address, please?
A. Marshal T. Garrett, 320 West Main Street, Charlottes­

ville, Virginia.
Q. What is your occupation?
A. Physician.
Q. Are you a plaintiff in the Charlottesville School segre­

gation case that was brought in 1956? 
page 255 }- A. I  was.

Q. Who are your attorneys?
A. Mr. Hill and Mr. Robinson.
Q. Are you an officer in the local chapter of the 

N.A.A.C.P?
A. I  was.
Q. You were in 1956?
A. Yes, 1956.
Q. And you are no longer an officer?
A. No.
Q. What arrangements did you make with your attorneys 

as to the payment of expenses and attorneys’ fees in the 
Charlottesville case?

196 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Attv. G,en. of Va. 197 

Marshal T. Garrett.

A. Well, the arrangement was that we would pay the 
costs of the Court if the School Board or State didn’t take 
care of our expenses.

Q. Will you repeat that? I don’t quite understand what 
you mean by the School Board.

A. I meant that someone else would take care, the one 
that would bring the charges against would pay for it—

Q. You mean that the court costs would be assessed 
against the School Board?

A. Or someone, I don’t know.
Q. But that you would bear the expenses if they were 

assessed against the plaintiff? 
page 256 A. That is right.

Q. How about the attorneys’ fees?
A. That is the same thing, that would be taken care of.
Q. But you would pay the attorneys’ fees?
A. Yes, if necessary.
Q. Well, have you ever been billed for any services ren­

dered by your attorneys?
A. Not yet, no.
Q. But you expect to be billed?
A. Well, maybe, I can’t say.
Q. Do you know whether or not the State Conference of 

the N.A.A.C.P. is financing the litigation?
A. Well, they were supposed to help out with it, but I 

canT say; my understanding was that if someone had to 
pay it, and it came down to a final basis, I  would be re­
sponsible for it.

Q. For your share?
A. For my share.
Q. Doctor, do you own any real estate in the city of 

Charlottesville?
A. Yes, a little bit.
Q. How much?

Mr. Hill: Same objection, Your Honor.
The Court: Same riding, 

page 257 }• Mr. Hill: Exception.
The Witness: Do I answer?

The Court: Yes.
The Witness: Well, I guess my holdings would be ap­

proximately $50,000.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. And what was your income in 1956?



198 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia

G e o rg e  R . F e r g u s o n .

A. $7,000.

Mr. Hill: Same objection.
The Court: Same ruling.
Mr. Hill: Exception.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. What was it?
A. $7,000.
Q. Are you married?
A. Yes.
Q. Is your wife employed?
A. Yes.
Q. What is her occupation?
A. Teacher.
Q. Where is she employed?
A. Burley.
Q. In the city of Charlottesville?
A. Yes, joint high school.

Q. Was she employed in 1956? 
page 258 }- A. Yes.

Q. Is she still employed there?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you estimate your wife’s income for 1956?
A. I think about $4,000.
Q. And it has been about the same in 1957?
A. Yes.

Mr. Wickham: That is all, thank you.
The Court: You are excused, Doctor, you are free to

leave.

(Witness excused.)

The Court: Next witness.
Mr. Wickham: George R. Ferguson.

Whereupon,
GEORGE R. FERGUSON,

was called as a witness, and having been first duly sworn, 
was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Will you state your name and address, please?



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Attv. G,en. of Va. 199 

George R. Ferguson.

A. George R. Ferguson, 702 Ridge Street, Charlottesville, 
Virginia.

Q. What is your occupation?
A. Mortician.

Q. Were you a plaintiff in the Charlottesville 
page 259 School Segregation case that was brought in 

1956?
A. Yes.
Q. A\ ho represented you in that case, or who is represent­

ing you?
A. Mr. Hill and Air. Robinson.
Q. Are you an officer in the local branch of the N.A.A.C.P?
A. I am.
Q Were you an officer in 1956?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you president?
A. Yes.
Q. In 1956?
A. Yes.
Q. And you still are president?
A. Yes.
Q. What arrangements have been made between you and 

your attorneys as to the payment of expenses and legal fees 
in that school case?

A. Well, when the State put up these N.A.A.C.P. laws, 
the parents agreed to pay the attorneys whatever fee they 
charged, when the law went into effect.

Q. You are talking about the laws that were passed by 
the extra session of 1956?

A. That is right.
page 260 J- Q. Before that time, what was the arrange­

ment with your attorneys?
A. The arrangement was that the N.A.A.C.P. would 

handle it.
Q Bear the expenses and attorneys’ fees?
A Yes, that is right.
Q. You say you are a funeral director in the city of 

Charlottesville ?
A. Yes.
Q. What was your income last year?

Air. Hill: Same objection, Your Honor.
The Court: Same ruling.
Air. Hill: Exception.
The AYitness: You mean my net income?



200 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia

G e o rg e  R . F e r g v s o n .

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. That is right—are you in business by yourself?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, what is your income from all sources, after the 

expenses of operating your business, of course? In other 
words, I am not asking you how much gross you took in 
in your business, naturally you have got expenses to offset 
that gross amount, and I am trying to find out what your 
adjusted gross income was in 1957.

A. I don’t know whether I could give you an accurate 
answer on that.

page 261 Q. Could you estimate it?
A. I would say around $1800.

Q. $1800. And that is including your income from your 
business as funeral director?

A. That is the only income I have.
Q. As a funeral director?
A. That is right.
Q. Do you have a hearse?
A. Yes.
Q. How many hearses do you have?
A. One.
Q. Do you own your own home?
A. I am buying it.
Q. Buying it?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you estimate what your income may he for 1958? 
A. That is impossible to do.
Q. Well, don’t you have to file quarterly returns with the 

Federal Government?
A. No.
Q. You do not?
A. No.
Q. Are you married?

A. Yes.
page 262 }• Q. Is your wife employed?

A. Yes.
Q. Where does she work?
A. Albemarle County School Board.
Q. Is she a teacher?
A. Yes.
Q. How long has she been a teacher in the Albemarle 

School system?
A. Since 1942.
Q. And she is still employed there?



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 201 

William M. Smith.

A. Yes.
Q. What is her income as a school teacher?
A. I would say around $3600 a year.

Mr. Wickham: AYe have no further questions.
The Court: Any cross?
Mr. Hill: No questions.
The Court: All right, you are excused, you are free to 

return to Charlottesville.

(AVitness excused.)

The Court: Next witness.
Mr. AATickham: AVilliam M. Smith.

AYhereupon,
WILLIAM M. SMITH,

was called as a witness, and having been first duly sworn, 
was examined and testified as follows:

page 263 } DIRECT EXAMINATION.

By Mr. AATckham:
Q. Will you state your name and address, please?
A. AYilliam M. Smith 1709 Preston Avenue, Charlottes­

ville, ATirginia.
Q. AATiat is your occupation?
A. I am a government worker, railway transportation 

clerk.
Q. I didn’t hear you.
A. Railway transportation clerk.
Q. For the U.S. Government?
A. That is right.
Q. Is that in the Post Office Department?
A. That is right.
Q. Are you a plaintiff in the Charlottesville School Seg­

regation case?
A. I am.
Q. AA7ere you one of the original plaintiffs when the suit 

was brought in 1956?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you married?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Does your wife work?
A. No, she doesn’t.



William M. Smith.

Q. Who are your attorneys in the Charlottesville case?
A. To my knowledge, Mr. Hill and Mr. Robin- 

page 264 }- son.
Q. How did you come to retain them or em­

ploy them?
A. Well, I felt that since the group—you say how did 

I come to retain them?
Q. Yes.
A. Well, we just got together and felt that they would be 

the capable lawyers to support us.
Q. Are you a member of the local branch of the 

N.A.A.C.P?
A. I am.
Q. And Avhen you refer to “ we,” do you mean other mem­

bers of the local branch?
A. The plaintiffs in the case.
Q. When you refer to “ we,” do you mean all of the 

plaintiffs in the case?
A. No, the group of plaintiffs that were filing this—
Q. The group to which you refer, I am trying, Mr. Smith, 

to identify that group. I say, this group to which you refer, 
are they members of the local branch of the N.A.A.C.P?

A. To my knowledge.
Q. They were?
A. As far as I know.
Q. And so you all decided to employ the counsel of the 

N.A.A.C.P? 
page 265 A. Yes.

Q. Did you make any arrangements with your 
c o u n se ls  to the payment of expenses and attorneys’ fees?

A. Well, we knew that if they ever came up we would 
reimburse them.

Q. Reimburse them for what?
A. For the services.
Q. If it ever came up, what do you mean if it ever came 

up?
A. I mean, if they ever presented a bill we would pay 

for it.
Q. Do you expect them to present a bill?
A. I  couldn’t tell you.
Q. Have they told you?
A. I  couldn’t tell you, whenever they do we will have 

to pay it.
0. They haven’t told you that they were going to present 

a bill?

202 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. G,en. of Va. 203

J. Russell Arnett.

A. They said if it was necessary they would, so I suppose 
they will.

Q. If it was necessary?
A. Not if it was necessary, but in the due course of time 

I expect we m il get a bill.
Q. You don’t know if the N.A.A.C.P. will pay the bill?

A. Well, from what I have read in the paper, 
page 266 }• I assume they will, but I am one of a group, and 

I expect to pay my share.
Q. What was your income, Mr. Smith, in 1956?

Mr. H ill: Same objection.
The Court: Same ruling.
Mr. H ill: Exception.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. You may answer the question.
A. 1956—I don’t recall exactly, but around $5,000, I im­

agine.

Mr. Wickham: We have no further questions, Your 
Honor.

Mr. Hill: No questions.
The Court: You are excused, Mr. Smith, you are free 

to leave.

(AVitness excused.)

The Court: Next witness.
Mr. AATckham: J. Russell Arnett.

Whereupon,
J. RUSSELL ARNETT,

was called as a witness, and having been first duly sworn, 
was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. AArill you please state your name and address.

A. J. Russell Arnett, Route 5, Box 152 A.B. 
page 267 J- Charlottesville.

Q. AYhat is your occupation?
A. Life insurance salesman.



J . Russell Arnett.

Q. For what company?
A. For North Carolina Mutual.
Q. A\ ell, were your wife and children the original plain- 

lottesville School Segregation case?
A. We were until we moved out of the city limits, sir.
Q. And when did you move out of the city?
A. We moved out of the city limits in September.
Q. September of this year?
A. That is right.
Q. TV ell, were your wife and children the orignal plain­

tiffs in the case back in 1956?
A. That is correct.
Q. And they have now withdrawn from the suit?
A. Yes, they are withdrawn, I suppose, because we moved 

out of the city.
Q. But you haven’t done anything to take them out of 

the suit, nobody has done anything to get their names off 
as plaintiffs, have they?
_ A. I don’t think we were listed as plaintiffs the last 

time—
Q. But you haven’t seen the court papers? 

page 268 }- A. No.
Q. You yourself were not actually a plaintiff?

A. No. I was not in town at the time they gave the at­
torneys the authority.

Q. You were not in town?
A. So my wife signed, that is right.
Q. Do you know what attorneys are representing your 

children ?
A. Do T know?
Q. Do you know, or do you not know?
A. Yes.
Q. Who are they?
A. T knew Mr. Hill, and Mr. Robinson.
0- Have any arrangements been made to pay the expenses 

and the attorneys’ fees in the litigation?
A. Well, she was told from the beginning that possibly 

the plaintiffs might have to pay for the litigation.
0- You don’t know if they might have to pay?
A. Well, at that time we didn’t know whether the law 

would prohibit the N.A.A.C.P from paying the costs.
Q. You mean the N.A.A.C.P. was going to pay the ex­

penses and attorney’s fees if they could legally?
A. I  don’t know whether they said it like that or not.

204 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. G,en. of Va. 205

Moses C. Maupin.

Q. But that is your understanding! 
page 269 ) A. That is the understanding.

Q. The laws to which you refer are certain 
laws which were passed by the Extra Session of the General 
Assembly in 1956!

A. That is right.
Q. What was your income in 1956!

Mr. Hill: Same objection, Your Honor.
The Court: Same ruling.
Mr. Hill: Exception.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. You may answer the question.
A. About $5900, I think it was.
Q. Does your wife work!
A. Part time, yes, sir.
Q. Did she work part time in 1956!
A. Yes, sir, part time.
Q. Where does she work, or what does she do!
A. She does beautician work.
Q. Could you estimate what her income would be in that 

type of work!
A. No, I couldn’t very well estimate it, because it is just 

a part time thing, and she doesn’t do it regularly.

Mr. Wickham: We have no further questions, Your 
Honor.

The Court: All right, you are excused, you 
page 270 }• are free to return to your business.

(Witness excused.)
The Court: Next witness;
Mr. Wickham: Moses C. Maupin.

Whereupon,
MOSES C. MAUPIN,

was called as a witness, and having been first duly sworn, 
Avas examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Wickham:
Q. Will you state your name and address, please.



Moses C. Maupin.

A. Moses C. Maupin, 915 Henry Avenue, Charlottesville, 
Virginia.

Q. What is your occupation?
A. I am a cashier down in my hotel.
Q. Are you a plaintiff—were you a plaintiff in the Char­

lottesville School case that was started in 1956?
A. Yes.
Q. Who were your attorneys in that case?
A. Who were they?
A. Yes.
A. Well, we asked Mr. Hill to represent us.
Q. Who is “ we” ?
A. The parents of the children in Charlottesville.

Q. But you have,—you say that you and other 
page 271 }- patrons, school patrons, asked Mr. Hill to rep­

resent you?
A. We asked him to represent us.
Q. Did you ever have any personal contact with Mr. 

Hill?
A. No, I  haven’t.
Q. Well, how did you ask him?
A. Well, we asked Mr. Hill to come and give us some 

advice as to what to do, and he explained to us, he did 
come and explain to the group what we might do for our 
legal rights. And therefore we sent for Mr. Hill to repre­
sent us in this case.

Q. Well, have you seen before today—-have you seen Mr. 
Hill since that time, since he came to this meeting?

A. No, sir.
Q. You have had no contact with him?
A. No, sir.
Q. No communication with him of any kind?
A. No, sir.
Q. You haven’t received a letter from him?
A. No, sir.
Q. You have made no arrangements with Mr. Hill to pay 

any expenses of this suit, have you, of that law suit?
A. No, he explained to us that if the N.A.A.C.P. law did 

not pass, that there would be a little fee. 
page 272 }- 0. Would be what?

A. A little fee.
Q. A little fee?
A. Yes, sir. He didn’t say what it would be or anything.
Q. A little fee?
A. A little fee.

206 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Attv. Gen. of Va. 207 

Moses C. Maupin.

Q. If the N.A.A.C.P. law did not pass?
A. If it failed.
Q. Now, what law is that, do you know?
A. That was when we had this Boatwright Committee, 

I was here on that.
Q. You mean some laws that they passed in 19")6 at the 

Extra Session of the General Assembly?
A. No, if the Court didn’t grant the N.A.A.C.P. laws to 

let the children go to school mixed, then we would get the 
people, Mr. Hill, to represent us in the case.

Q. If the laws failed, then there would be no fee?
A. He didn’t say.
Q. What was your understanding about that?
A. My understanding was that if the law said that the 

children could go to school together, there wouldn’t be 
any fee, it was done with then.

Mr. Wickham: We have no further questions, Your 
Honor.

page 273 } CROSS EXAMINATION.

By Mr. H ill:
Q. I t was generally understood that the N.A.A.C.P. was 

going to finance the case, was it not?
A. Oh, yes; sure.
Q. Were you present at the meeting in the basement of 

the church, I  don’t know which church it was.
A. I wasn’t there.
Q. Was your Avife there?
A. I  assume she was, I  don’t know.

Mr. Hill: That is all.
The Court: Mr. Maupin, you are excused, you are free 

to leave and go about your business.

(Witness excused.)

Mr. Mays: Your Honor, these are all the witnesses on 
this phase of the case, and I wonder whether Mr. Banks 
is with us now with the information we sought?

Mr. H ill: He was here, Your Honor.
The Court: I  want to excuse all witnesses that want to 

leave except the ones you are counting on for further 
testimony.



James W. Harris.

Mr. Mays: There was one they were going to call back 
after he got the authorization.

Mr. Robinson: That was James W. Harris.
The Court: The Court wants to take a re­

page 274 J- cess in order for the counsel for the complain­
ants to see where Mr. Banks is, and how long it 

will be before we can continue his testimony.
Mr. Mays: We had summoned also for today Mr. Griffin 

and Mr. Henderson. I don’t know whether they are here. 
Mr. Wickham: They were summoned for 2 :00 o ’clock.
Mr. Mays: I beg your pardon, they were summoned for

2 :00.
The Court: What I want to do is excuse and let go any 

witnesses who have already testified and are not going to 
be needed. And there is one witness, Mr. Harris, that he 
wanted to stay. We will take a recess, and during that 
interval I would like for the witness and counsel to find 
out whether Mr. Banks will be here. He might be downstairs 
some place.

(At this point a recess was taken.)

Mr. Hill: May it please the Court, we ask that a witness 
be retained so that we could ask one or two questions.

We would like to complete our examination of Mr. Harris 
now. It will take only a few minutes.

The Court: You may recall him for cross-examination.

Whereupon,
JAMES W. HARRIS,

was recalled as a witness, and having been previously duly 
sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:

page 275 \ CROSS EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Hill:
Q. Mr. Harris, I show you a sheet of paper entitled “ Au­

thorization,” and ask you to look at it and see if you recog­
nize that paper.

A. Yes, I  do.
Q. The name James W. Harris is written down there, is 

that your signature?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And is this the authorization that you signed for Mr. 

Thompson to represent you?

208 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 209

James W. Harris.

A. Yes, I did.

Mr. Hill: May it please the Court, we would like to 
introduce this, but in order that we may retain the original, 
we would like to substitute a copy. This is an authorization 
for Mr. Thompson and his associate to represent Mr. H arris’ 
child in the segregation case.

Maybe we could just read it in the record.
The Court: Do you gentlemen have any objections to

substituting a photostatic copy or any other authenticated 
copy?

Mr. Mays: Not the slightest, sir. We would have put it
in if they hadn’t, and a photostatic copy is quite satisfactory.

Mr. Hill: If the reporter will mark it, it can
page 276 }• on the copy.

I think this would be Complainants’ Exhibit 1.
Mr. Wickham: If Your Honor please, the first exhibit

was introduced, the transcript and complaints and answers 
in the Federal case would be Exhibit No. 1, would they not”

The Court: Actually this certificate with these various 
references on it, are 1 through 22, has never actually been 
identified as Complainants’ Exhibit No. 1. AVe can do so at 
this time, if that is what the intention was.

Mr. Hill: Yes, sir.
The Court: AVe would identify this first as Complain­

ants’ Exhibit No. 1, and this other as Complainants’ Ex­
hibit No. 2.

(The certificate with references R-l through R-22 were 
marked Complainants’ Exhibit 1 for identification, and re­
ceived in evidence.)

(The document entitled “ Authorization” was marked Com­
plainants’ Exhibit No. 2 for identification and received in 
evidence.)

Mr. Hill: We have no further questions of this witness, 
Your Honor. I think he may be excused.

Mr. Wickham: AVe have no questions, Your Honor.
The Court: You are excused, you are free to leave.

(Witness excused.)

Mr. Mays: I understand that Mr. Banks has returned.
Mr Hill: Yes, he is here, he is calling him now.



page 277 1 Whereupon,
W. LESTER BANKS,

was recalled as a witness, and having been previously duly 
sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION—resumed.

By Mr. Mays:
Q. Mr. Banks, yesterday I requested you to produce cer­

tain documents. Have you been able to find them?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you have them with you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. May I see them?

Mr. Mays: Your Honor I had asked to see the docu­
ments and Mr. Banks said he wanted to explain them to me. 
I take it the explanation ought to be for the record. It 
occurred to me that when I looked at them it might be we 
would request the Court to indulge us until after adjourn­
ment, because we might save the Court a great deal of time 
by examining the documents first and determining a method 
to put them in evidence.

The Court: Do you want to recess to do that ?
Mr. Mays: I would suggest that. And it might be Your 

Honor would want to carry it on until after lunch and put 
Mr. Banks on thereafter.

I might say this, Your Honor, because of the 
page 278 }- time element, and I know you have that under 

consideration. We have two witnesses this after­
noon in addition to Mr. Banks, and we have one or two items 
of very formal proof which would require very little time. 
And we had thought that that would take up practically all 
of the day. We had not wanted to inconvenience anyone, 
and we had summoned Mr. Tucker, the attorney from Em­
poria for tomorrow. As I see it, we should conclude this 
case tomorrow morning, so far as the taking of evidence is 
concerned. And since we have made that much progress, it 
occurred to me that the Court might feel it wise for us to 
recess until after lunch, then we could go into all of these 
documents and determine how readily we might put the 
evidence in.

The Court: Do you gentlemen concur that that might be
a time-saving factor in this?

Mr. Mays: May I correct one thing, Your Honor? Mr.
Wickham advises me that one or two witnesses are sum-

210 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Ya. 211

IF. Lester Banks.

moned for 2:00 o’clock tomorrow, but we will certainly 
conclude tomorrow.

The Court: Is it possible by any chance to get your 2 :00 
o’clock witnesses in in the morning tomorrow, by phone 
call or otherwise?

Mr. Mays: We will endeavor to do so.
The Court: If possible, you might consider it, if it doesn’t 

work out, I am available to be here at any time, 
page 279 }- Mr. Mays: We will get them here if we can.

The Court: Since we are recessing early for
lunch, I understand, Mr. Mays, that you are going to con­
sult Mr. Banks in regard to this in order to expedite putting 
in the proof this afternoon.

Mr. May: With Mr. Banks, and with counsel?
The Court: With counsel, of course.
Mr. H ill: May I inquire th is: I notice that Mr. Mays 

said he had one or two brief witnesses for tomorrow at 2:00 
o ’clock.

Mr. Mays: That is what I am informed, and he requested 
that they come at this time.

Mr. Hill: What I was wondering, I  could get on the
phone and try to get Mr. Tucker this afternoon, in case you 
can get to him.

Mr. Mays: We will try.
Mr. Hill: I thought maybe you could try to get the 

other witness in the morning, and it might save a half a 
day of the Court’s time.

Mr. Mays: The question is whether we can get those 
other witnesses in earlier. Mr. Tucker is for tomorrow 
morning. And that won’t take very long.

Mr. Hill: In other words, if you can get your afternoon 
witnesses in in the morning, vou will take Mr. Tucker.

Mr. Mays: That is right. We are trying to 
page 280 }• cause counsel as little inconvenience as possible.

I fear we may impose on the Court, but that 
is not what we intended.

The Court: We will take a recess, then, until nine min­
utes after two.

("Recess for lunch was taken from 12:27 p.m. until 2:09
p.m.)

AFTERNOON SESSION.

(The trial was resumed pursuant to noon recess at 2:09 
p.m.)



W. Lester Banks.

Mr. Mays: I would like to call Mr. Banks.
Mr. Robinson: If Your Honor please, while we are wait­

ing, I would like to say that during the luncheon hour I made 
photostatic copies of the documents appearing as Plaintiffs’ 
Exhibit No. 2, and I have shown the photostatic copy to 
counsel that I  would propose to put in the record in sub­
stitution of the original.

The Court: Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

"Whereupon,
W. LESTER BANKS,

was recalled as a witness and, having been previously duly 
sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION—resumed.

Mr. Mays: I  think, Your Honor, that in the three quarters 
of an hour session since we bad the recess, we have clarified 
much, and I think we can save a great deal of time.

page 281 \ By Mr. Mays:
Q. Mr. Banks, I will ask you whether or not 

you have prepared a summary sheet of expenses and legal 
fees expended by the conference?

A. Yes.
Q. Beginning with July 28, 1956, and extending through 

September 26, 1958, have you prepared such a sheet?
A. Yes, sir, I  have.
Q. Do you have it in your hand?

Mr. Hill: Mr. Mays, will you let the record show that
this was in school cases?

Mr. Mays: I am not done yet. I don’t mind the inter­
ruption at all.

By Mr. Mays:
Q. I have just handed, Mr. Banks, to His Honor a sheet 

of paper which I believe is the original of the document you 
hold in your hand.

A. Yes, sir.
Q. And they have conformed, so that what you are testi­

fying from is exactly what His Honor has. If  you will look 
at that you will note four typewritten columns. The first 
column is headed “ Date.”  Does that indicate date of pay­
ment of the individual checks?

212 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 213 

W. Lester Banks.

A. Yes.
Q. And the second column is “ Amount,” and 

page 282 that is the amount of the individual checks?
A. Yes.

Q. And the third column is headed “ Paid to.” Does that 
indicate the pages, the individuals?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the last column is headed “ Description.” Does 

that indicate the individual school cases in connection with 
which these checks were expended?

A. I t  does, sir.
Q. Now, if you will notice first, in the second column, and 

item under June 30, 1958, it was originally typed $1,000, 
and has been changed in pencil to $2,000. That was your 
change, was it not?

A. Yes, it was, sir.
Q. Will you state to the Court just why that change was 

made?
A. Your Honor, that was a typographical error that I 

discovered, and I made the change accordingly.
^Q. Now, at the bottom you had also totalled in pen $11,- 

378.61, and drawn a line through that, and put in a new 
total of $12,378.61. Was that to take care of the thousand 
dollar error just mentioned?

A. Yes, it was, sir.
Q. So that this sum of $12,378.61 is an exact total of 

that column as corrected? 
page 283 }- A. That is right, sir.

Q. Now, if you will look between the third and 
fourth columns, that is, the third and fourth typewritten 
columns, you have made some pen insertions after each 
item. Were those insertions to indicate the amount of money 
paid for expenses and the amount of money paid to fees?

A. They were, sir.
Q. So that as we look down that column “ Expenses and 

Fees,” they give that explanation?
A. That is right, sir.
Q. Now, if you will observe the item under June 17, 1957, 

after the name “ Victor J . Ashe,”  you have $170 expenses. 
I take it the rest was fee?

A. That is right, sir.
Q. And the next item “ Paid to J. Hugo Madison,” you 

have noted $28 expenses, I  take it the rest of that was fee?
A. That is correct, sir.



W. Lester Banks.

Q. Now, if you will notice the fourth column, that is, 
under “ Description,” the fourth item, June 6, 1957, $495.75, 
paid to Lawyers Publishing Company, and Holay, Court 
Reporter, that does not identify the case, will you state to 
the Court what case that was, or do you know?

A. I don’t know, sir.
Q. Now, if you will look again to that $2,000 

page 284 }- item, under date of June 30, 1958, to Oliver W.
Hill, you have an asterisk following that item. 

Will you please explain to the Court just what that asterisk 
means?

A. Yes, just a minute. If Your Honor please, the asterisk 
opposite the item of June 30, of $2,000, that amount was 
paid on account submitted to us which included $1,407.86 in 
expenses, and $5,020 in fees. The $2,000 item was prorated 
in the following manner:

$991.01 was charged to expenses in School cases, $816.85, 
expenses other than School cases, and $592.14 is credited to 
fees, out of that $2,000 item.

Q. I take it that the payees of all of the checks on this 
summary sheet from which you are testifying are members 
of the legal staff of the Conference?

A. That is correct, sir.
Q. No payments were made during this period to any 

other lawyers, were there?
A. No, sir.
Q. Now, do you have in hand any unpaid bills, which 

of course would not be reflected here?
A. I do, sir.
Q. Can you summarize for the Court, without detailing 

each bill, the amount of fees and expenses owed to each 
lawyer by name?

A. I can, sir.
page 285 }- Q. Will you do that, please?

A. If your Honor please, the fees and expenses 
as submitted are as follows:

Attorney Frank H. Reeves, expenses, $368, and fees, $960.
Attorney Victor J. Ashe, expenses, $9.50, fees $300.
Attorney J. Hugo Madison, fees, $100.
Attorney S. W. Tucker, expenses, $182.04, fees, $600.
Attorney Otto L. Tucker, expenses, $61.28, fees, $270.
Attorney Martin A. Martin, fees, $90.
Attorney Roland D. Ely, fees, $90.
Attorney Oliver W. Hill, expenses, $934.52.

214 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 215

W. Lester Banks.

Q. Now, does that include all legal charges that you 
expect to receive from Mr. Hill?

A. No, sir, it does not.
Q. Has he indicated to you any approximation as to what 

the unpaid balance is as of this time?
A. No, he hasn’t, sir.
Q. As far as you know, is that the total amount due the 

other lawyers whose names you just read out?
A. As far as I know, sir.
Q. Now, are those lawyers whose bills are now unpaid all 

members of the legal staff of the conference? 
page 286 } A. They are, sir—I beg your pardon, Mr.

Mays. They are all members of the State Con­
ference of Attorneys, Frank H. Reeves.

Q. Frank H. Reeves?
A. Frank D.
Q. And in what case was he engaged?
A. Attorney Reeves has been engaged in the Arlington 

County case, as far as I know.
Q. Now, this sheet from which you have been testifying is 

captioned “ Statement of Legal Fees and Expenses in 1956, 
1957 and 1958.”

Does that mean that no fees and expenses were paid from 
the first of January, 1956 until July twenty-eight, the first 
item which appears on it?

A. As far as School cases are concerned, yes sir.

Q. I take it that all of these charges are School fee cases, 
and none of it involves committee appearances before the 
legislative groups and things like that?

A. That is right, sir.
Q. That is entirely independent of this?
A. That is right.

Mr. Mays: Your Honor, we would like to mark that in 
evidence, please.

The Court: That will be Defendants’ Exhibit D-3.
Does the Court have the original here? 

page 287 Mr. Mays: Yes, sir; the Court has the orig­
inal.

(The document was marked Defendants’ Exhibit D-3 for 
identification.)



216 Supremo Court of Appeals of Virginia 

W. Lester Banks.

By Mr. Mays:
Q. Mr. Banks, this exhibit which has just been offered in 

evidence was prepared by you personally, was it not?
A. Yes; it was, sir.
Q. Since you were asked on yesterday to produce the 

records?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And I take it of course that the records from which 

this was produced are in exactly the same form they were 
before your original testimony was given in the case?

A. That is correct, sir.
Q. I believe you testified, or I believe you stated to me 

that your secretary is out sick, the person normally in 
charge of the records, is that correct?

A. That is correct, sir.
Q. You may remember that when you were testifying on 

yesterday I asked you to produce a copy or cite to us the 
exact reference to an address made by Mr. Hill which was 
published in the Sentinel. Did you have an opportunity to 
check for that?

A. No, I didn’t, sir.
Q. Well, we are going to be here tomorrow 

page 288 } morning, I  am sorry to say, and I wonder if you 
could have it then?

A. I Avill try to get it.

Mr. Mays: Unless Mr. Hill has been able in the mean­
time to get it.

Mr. H ill: Mr. Mays, I know the reporter made a running
account of my speech in the Sentinel, which a weekly pub­
lished in Front Royal. I could determine the date of it, and 
I am sure that you could get a copy of it from the newspaper.

Mr. Mays: Maybe after the hearing today we could get
together on that and save the Court some time.

Mr. Mays: Yes.

By Mr. Mays:
Q. Mr. Banks, on yesterday, Mr. Hill was asked a question 

about one document which apparently should be shown to 
you rather than to him. It was put in evidence, I think, 
marked for identification as D-2. I t is a three-page document 
which is headed “ Exhibit Hill, B-17.”

I show you, Mr. Banks, a photostate of that document of 
three pages, which was put in evidence as Defendants’ Ex­
hibit D-2, and I will ask you to look at that, since Mr. Hill



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 217

W. Lester Banks.

could not identify it, and tell us whether or not that was 
something which you prepared in your capacity as executive 
secretary of the Conference?

A. Yes, sir.
page 289 }- Q. Now, if you will look at the third page— 

and I might say that as I understand it, the 
first two and a half pages were a factual summary of events 
that have taken place, sent out to your members, is that 
correct?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. To whom was this circulated, all of your branches?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. That is, all the branches in the State of Virginia?
A. That is right, sir.
Q. Was it circulated to any other persons as far as you 

know, any other persons or organizations?
A. As far as I know, it wasn’t. It of course went to our 

Executive Board.
Q. Yes, of course. Now, if you will look at the third page, 

please, slightly below the middle, there is a sub-heading 
“ IV ,” and the heading is “ Up-to-date picture of Action 
by N.A.A.C.P. Branches since May 31.” Under that you 
have a heading “ A,” “ Petitions filed and replies,” showing 
that a total of fifty-five branches have circulated petitions. 
Were those petitions total School Boards in those localities? 
What did you mean by petitions there?

A. They were petitions to School Boards.
Q. Now, the next subheading is “ B ” , and that is entitled 

“ Where suits are contemplated.” Will you state to the 
Court what was meant by that heading “ suits 

page 290 contemplated” ? Were you referring to suits not 
already pending?

A. I think that refers to the fact that petitions had been 
presented to the School Board, and negative replies had 
been received.

Q. Well, is it a fair question to ask whether you meant 
that the suits would follow automatically if the school 
superintendents refuse to honor the petitions?

A. No, we didn’t mean that suits would follow auto­
matically.

Q. What did you mean? You say “ Where suits are con­
templated.”

A. That was meant where individuals had asked for relief, 
and they had been denied relief, and it was an assumption 
that a suit might be contemplated.



W. Lester Banks.

Q. It was your expectation that those suits would be 
brought if the school superintendents did not comply with 
your request?

A. May I say, Mr. Mays, it wasn’t a request from the 
N.A.A.C.P., it was a request from the individual parents?

Q. Well, who was contemplating the suits? Did you have 
in mind the individual parents were contemplating the suits?

A. Yes, that it was a contemplation.
Q. And that the N.A.A.C.P. would not be involved?

A. The N.A.A.C.P. would not be involved any 
page 291 [ more than it would normally be.

Q. Well, normally—let’s get what we mean by 
that—what was normal for them?

A. By that I mean that if requests had been made to the 
N.A.A.C.P., in all probability financial aid .would have been 
forthcoming.

Q. Well, the probability would be a certainty, wouldn’t it, 
if in those suits the parties were insisting on doing away 
with integration in the schools, it would be a certainty then, 
wouldn’t it?

A. That aid would be forthcoming, sir?
Q. Yes.
A. If the chairman of the legal staff and the president 

concurred in recommending to the Conference, aid would be 
forthcoming.

Q. Now, you will notice in the next subheading, “ C” , 
‘‘Readiness of lawyers for legal action in certain areas.” 
What was meant by that observation?

A. By that was meant that if there were individuals who 
desired to bring action, then the N.A.A.C.P. was willing to 
offer financial aid.

Q. Now, you mentioned in certain areas, what was the 
significance of that adjective “ certain” ?

A. Well, I  don’t actually recall, Mr. Mays, what the 
significance was, but I imagine that there were 

page 292 certain areas that would have made the request 
more readily than other areas.

Q. Well, you were ready to go in any area, were you not, 
as long as the people bringing the suits were conforming to 
the N.A.A.C.P’s established policy?

A. If  that were recommended, we were ready to offer 
financial assistance.

Q. Then the word “ certain” had no significance insofar 
as your willingness was concerned?

A. I don’t recall that it had any particular significance.

218 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 219

TP. Lester Banks.

Q. The next sentence states “ Selection of suit site re­
served for legal staff.”

What was the meaning of that particular sentence?
A. I actually don’t know what I meant by that, Mr. Mays.
Q. I t seems fairly plain to me, but I wondered if you had 

any independent recollection?
A. No, I don’t.
Q. It means you were leaving it to the lawyers, didn’t it, 

to pick the places where the suits would be brought?
A. Well, I think it did in that particular—looking at it 

from that standpoint.
Q. Well, look at it from any other standpoint you like, 

wouldn’t it be the same thing? 
page 293 }• A. Well, it seems to me, Mr. Mays, that that 

might have a very definite connection with the 
fact that before N.A.A.C.P. would offer assistance, then the 
situation would have to be concurred in by the chairman of 
the staff and the president. So that might be what that 
meant.

Q. Yes, but it didn’t say that here. What it said here Avas 
that the legal staff would be the one that picked the cite of 
the suit.

A. Maybe that was a poor choice of Avords on my part, sir.
Q. It seems a rather clear choice to me, but I Avondered 

if there AATas any other construction in your mind?
A. I don’t think so.
Q. If you will look to the next line it states, “ State legal 

staff readA7 for action in selected areas.”
What did you have in mind with reference to selected 

areas?
A. That would be back to mv first question, I  mean by 

that my first ansA\Ter, sir, if the Conference concurred in 
supporting the request, that would have been a selected area.

Q. Well, is it a fact that after the decision in the BroAvn 
case in 1954, the policy of the N.A.A.C.P. and its affiliated 
associations, that is, the Conference and branches here in 

Virginia, it had as a fixed policy to go into cases 
page 294 where integration in the schools Avas to be ac­

complished, and segregation to be avoided, that 
is quite true, isn’t it?

A. Yes, that is true.
Q. And isn’t it true that after that decision, when the 

course of action seemed clear from the standpoint of the 
Confernce of branches, that it was expected that suits would



W. Lester Banks.

be brought anywhere where the parents wanted to do away 
with a segregation in the Schools?

A. Would you mind stating that again, sir.

(The question as recorded was read by the reporter.)

The Witness: That is correct, sir.
By Mr. Mays:

Q. Going back to the financial arrangements, did you have 
occasion at any time, or did the branches have occasion, 
Conference of branches have occasion at any time to reim­
burse parents for any fees or expenses advanced in con­
nection with any school case?

A. No, sir, not to my knowledge.

Mr. Mays: Your Honor, I  asked on yesterday that this
be put in for identification, since it had not been identified. 
I ask now, sir, that it be marked as an exhibit.

The Court: We referred to it on yesterday as Defend­
an t’s Exhibit D-2, and subject to its identification made by 

the witness who prepared it. It is now formally 
page 295 designated by the Court as Defendants’ Exhibit 

D-2.

220 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia

(The document previously marked Defendants’ Exhibit 
D-2 for identification was received in evidence.

By Mr. Mays:
Q. Mr. Banks, I show you a photostat of a document which 

has at the head, “ Exhibit Hill, B-14, September 13,”  and I 
can’t make out the year—I take it to be 1957-—and it is a 
photostat of a letter dated July 1st, 1953, addressed to Mr. 
Jones B. Smith, 22 Court Street, Hampton, Virginia, and 
signed—or rather, it is not signed, but obviously was pre­
pared for the signature of the secretary. I  ask you whether 
or not that was a letter which was prepared by you?

A. I t appears to be, sir; this copy is rather indistinct.
Q. Take a good look, isn’t that a letter you wrote?
A. I say, it appears to be. Isn ’t your copy a little more 

legible ?
Q. Mine is the same. And it was before one of the State 

committees that this came out. And all I have, therefore, is 
the photostat?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, was that written in response to a request for



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 221

W. Lester Banks.

help on the part of the Conference from Jones 
page 296 J- B. Smith, financial help?

A. It appears as if it were.
Q. I will call your particular attention to the fourth 

paragraph in which you say “ not having details of your 
particular case, I cannot properly classify it. However, from 
the content of the first page of your letter, it is apparent that 
your particular case will not fit any of the above-mentioned 
limitations.”

Will you state to the Court in general what the character 
of that problem was?

Q. Would you re-state your question, sir?

Mr. Mays: Will you please read it.

(The question, as recorded, was read by the reporter.)

The Witness: I don’t recall what the particular problem 
was that Mr. Smith was complaining of, sir.

By Mr. Mays:
Q. Well, this letter of July 1st, 1953 did in any event 

reflect the policy of the Conference branches?
A. As it was stated in the third paragraph.
Q. Well, as stated in the letter as a whole, didn’t you have 

some statement in the second paragraph, too?
A. Yes, we did, sir.
Q. In other words, the letter, to the extent that it went, 

correctly reflected the policv of the Conference?
A. I would think so, with perhaps an ex­

page 297 }> ception of paragraph 5.
Q. Well, will you state to the Court what 

exception that is?
Ho you mean the exception as stated in the letter, or that 

you have a reservation in your mind?
A. No, I  don’t have a reservation in mind, hut in reading 

the letter, reading the last paragraph, it seems to say that 
the N.A.A.C.P., the Virginia State Conference, was obli­
gated to appoint an attornev. I don’t think that was the 
policy, or that it has ever been the policy. That was an 
error.

Q. No. vou misread your letter. The letter says the State 
of Virginia is obligated to appoint an attorney.

A. Oh, yes—
Q. You are speaking obviously of a public defender who



W. Lester Banks.

would be appointed for someone who didn’t have funds.
A. I see. It was indistinct, I thought that was the Virginia 

State Conference.
Q. So that the letter then does correctly reflect the policy 

of the Conference?
A. I would say so.

Mr. Mays: If Your Honor please, would you like to mark
that in evidence?

The Court: Yes, that may be marked Defendants’ Ex­
hibit D-4 for identification.

page 298 }- (The document referred to was marked Defend­
ants’ Exhibit D-4 for identification and received

in evidence.

By Mr. Mays:
Q. During the course of your testimony, Mr. Banks, you 

referred to rendering financial aid to litigants. Did that mean 
just money, or did it mean furnishing the services of the at­
torneys as such ?

A. Oh, it meant furnishing the services of attorneys as 
such.

Mr. Mays: Your Honor, that is all we have of the witness
at this time. We don’t wish to excuse him from the case be­
cause we still have one or two unfinished items. But we are 
done for the present, and certainly we would have very little 
more. Part one depends upon the introduction of other testi­
mony which is not yet forthcoming.

CROSS EXAMINATION.

222 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia

By Mr. Hill:
Q. Mr. Banks, referring back ot the memorandum which 

was designated Defendants’ Exhibit No. 2, I ask you, can you 
tell from the document when it was prepared?

A. I don’t see anything that would indicate when it was 
prepared, Mr. Hill.

Q. Well, in view of the fact that you refer to things during 
the school term 1955-1956, is it not a fair assump- 

page 299 }- tion that it was prepared at least the latter part 
of 1955 or early 1956, on the third page in “ I ”  I 

have reference to.
A. From that statement it would appear that it was pre­

pared along that time.



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Ya. 223

W. Lester Banks.

Q. Now, directing your attention to the latter part of 1955, 
after the Supreme Court’s decision implementing the decision 
of May 17,1954,1 ask you, was it not a fact—

Mr. Mays: I object to the form of the question, Your 
Honor.

Mr. H ill: Your Honor. I am asking some questions on 
cross-examination now, I think I am entitled to ask the ques­
tions in the form I wish.

Mr. May: He was brought here as their witness, Your
Honor—we certainly ought not to have any difficulty about it, 
for he certainly knows how to ask the questions properly, he 
has been doing it a long time.

The Court: Objection sustained.

By Mr. Hill:
Q. What was the state of feeling among Negroes after that 

decision ?
A. You refer to the implementation decision of 1955?
Q. Yes.
A. I think it was generally felt by those persons that I 

came in contact with, as well as others, that there would be 
ready compliance with the decision throughout 

page 300 the state.
Q. During the course of your duties as Exec­

utive Secretary of the Virginia State Conference, will you 
state whether or not you know, or whether it was called to your 
attention, the amount of interest among Negroes in desegre­
gation?

A. Yes. In my capacity as Executive Secretary, and as a 
lay citizen, it was increasingly evident that the vast majority 
of Negroes in Virginia were vitally interested in desegre­
gation in the public schools.

Q. After the Governor and State Board of Education had 
declared its policy to be the continuance of segregation, was 
it contemplated that there might be a large number of suits?

A. Contemplated by whom, sir?
Q. Well, the people with whom you came in contact.
A. I think that the people, that is the Negroes of Virginia, 

were anxious to have the schools and the school officials to 
comply with the law, and that meant exhausting all of our 
legal rights; I suppose that is what it would mean.

Q. Let me ask you this. Considering the interest that had 
been manifested, was there any feeling among the State Con-



224 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia 

W. Lester Banks.

ference officials that they may have more requests for assist­
ance than they could reasonably furnish? 

page 301 }> A. Yes, there was a definite feeling on the part 
of the State Conference officials, because of the 

widespread interest in compliance with the law, that there 
would be more requests than the Conference could reasonably 
handle.

Mr. H ill: That is all.

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION..

By Mr. Mays:
Q. You are saying that the Conference expected there 

would be more requests than they could reasonably handle. 
What do you mean by “ requests” ?

A. The request for assistance.
Q. Of what sort, with the superintendents of the schools, or 

in the courts ?
A. Well, I imagine it would have been both, perhaps.
Q. I  gathered the burden of the examination a moment ago 

was to show that compliance was to be expected in Virginia 
as of the time this memorandum was sent out. Did you indi­
cate in your reply that that was your understanding, that the 
people in Virginia were going to comply?

A. We confidently expected Virginia to comply with the 
decision, sir.

Q. As of the time this memorandum from which you are 
now testifying was issued ?

A. We still had hoped that Virginia would comply.
Q. I call your attention again to the third page 

page 302 \ under heading “ IV ,” subheading 2, where it was 
said, and I quote, “ Petitions have been filed in 

seven counties. Graduated negative response received in all 
cases. ’ ’

So that all said no, didn’t they?
A. To a degree.
Q. Well, had any of them to any degree said yes, they were 

going ahead and comply?
A. I don’t know whether any of these had said it, sir, but 

there were a number of instances in Virginia where the school 
authorities had indicated that they would comply with the 
decision

Q. Well, you had at least several here, didn’t you, that said 
no, and you were on notice at that time?



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va.

L . F r a n c is  G riffin .

225

A. That there were several who had said no in varying de­
grees.

Mr. H ill: No further questions.
The Court: Step down, Mr. Banks, please.
Did I understand counsel to say that they expected to con­

fer before the day was out with regard to this address by Mr. 
Hill that appeared in this Sentinel!

Mr. Mays: Yes, sir; we thought that he might be able to
put his hand on it and save time.

The Court: Before we conclude for the day, then we will 
get Lack on that and see within what time that is expected 

to he forthcoming. In view of the fact that that 
page 303 }> first request was made through Mr. Banks for that 

material, he is now excused, subject to recall.
Mr. Mays: We would like to have him back in here tomor­

row morning, because there are one or two documents which 
may come in on which we will need his testimony.

The Court: Subject to those qualifications, may Mr. Banks
he excused for the rest of the day until 9:00 o’clock tomorrow! 

Mr. Mays: Yes, sir.

(Witness temporarily excused.)

Mr. Mays: We would like, sir, to call Edwin B. Hender­
son.

The Bailiff: He doesn’t respond, Your Honor, to a call.
Mr. Mays: We don’t know whether he has been served, s ir : 

the offices are closed, and they have no report on him, and 
probably will not until the first thing in the morning.

The Court: He would be a local witness !
Mr. Mays: No, s ir ; Falls Church, Virginia.
The Court: Well, with the Clerk’s offices closed, I guess 

we will have no way of knowing. We will just have to reserve 
the question for tomorrow, I suppose.

Mr. Mays: I  should like to call Mr. L. F. Griffin. Where­
upon,

page 304 ) L. FRANCIS GRIFFIN,
was called as a witness, and having been first duly 

sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION.
By Mr. Mays:

Q. Will you give your full name to the reporter.
A. L. Francis Griffin.



L. Francis Griffin.

Q. And your address.
A. 116 Ely Street, Farmville.
Q. And I believe you are a minister?
A. That is right.
Q. What church?
A. First Baptist Church, Farmville, Virginia.
Q. You were living there, were you not, in 1951, at the time 

the School Segregation matter began to develop?
A. That is right.
Q. Do you recall having occasion to send out any kind of 

communication to parents of children in that area?
A. Yes, I recall having sent them.
Q. I don't have a copy except as it appears in another hear­

ing, hut I believe you testified before the so-called Thompson 
Committee some months ago ?

A. That is right.
Q. And I think the question then was propounded to you 

as to whether you had put out such a letter, and 
page 305 }- it was put in the record. I will show to you in 

Volume II of the transcript of that hearing what 
purports to be a communication sent out by you, which begins 
on page 199 and extends over through the first line of page 
200, and ask you whether or not that is a correct copy of the 
letter which you sent out ?

The Court: We will take a five-minute recess.

(At this point a five-minute recess was taken.)

Mr. Mays: Should we proceed without Mr. Robinson?
Mr. H ill: I think you can go ahead.
Mr. Mays: That is agreeable with me.
The Court: Let us let the Sheriff check on him, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays • All right, sir
The Court: Here he is now.
Will you proceed.

By Mr. Mays:
Q. Mr. Griffin, I  show you Volume II  of the transcript of 

the Thompson Committee hearing beginning on page 199, I 
believe it is, and there is set forth what purports to be a letter 
which you have addressed to parents in the Prince Edward 
County. You have had an opportunity to look at that tran­
script, have you not?

A. That is right.

226 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia

/



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Attv. Gen. of Va. 227

L. Francis Griffin.

Q. And that does correctly state what you had in your 
letter?

page 306 }• A. As far as I can recall.
Q. Well, you have no reason to think that that 

isn’t a correct copy ?
A. No.

Mr. Mays: Your Honor, I don’t want to remove pages 
from that transcript. It occurred to me, sir, that either the 
witness might read the letter directly into the record, or I  
will read it and the witness might follow it and state whether 
or not I have correctly read from the record. If you gentle­
men are satisfied with the copy, I will put that in.

Mr. Robinson: If you tell us it is O.K., that is all right 
with us.

Mr. Mays: I will tell you I think so, I am not a witness.
Mr. Robinson: It is ail right, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Your Honor, counsel has suggested on our 

side of the table that we read it into the record rather than 
put it in as an exhibit, if it is agreeable, and if the witness will 
follow me and let me know at the end whether I  have read it 
correctly—or he may if he likes—shall I read?

“ This letter is relative to the emergency at the Robert R. 
Moten High School.

“ The National Association for the Advance- 
page 307 ment of Colored People has been requested to 

take action in this matter, and its attorneys are 
now working on the problem. You are requested to keep your 
children absent from the Robert R. Moten High School until 
you are further advised to send them back to school.

“ In making this request we are following the advice of our 
attorneys, and no changes should be made in our plans until 
our attorneys advise us to make them.

“ We must all cooperate fully to get results, and this re­
quest must be followed at all costs.

“ An important emergency meeting of the County-wide 
PTA will be held Thursday evening, May 31, 1951 at 8:00 
o ’clock p.m., at the First Baptist Church, South Main Street, 
Farmville, Virginia.

“ It is important that as many parents and patrons as pos­
sible be present at this important meeting. Our attorneys, 
Hill, Martin and Robinson, will be present to meet with you 
and discuss the procedures necessary for securing our Con­
stitutional rights.



L. Francis Griffin.

“ It is necessary that all of us support the efforts being 
made to get our just rights.

“ We shall expect you to be present and bring others with 
you.

“ Remember, the eyes of the world are on us. The intelli­
gent support we give our cause will serve as a 

page 308 }• stimulant for the cause of free people every­
where. We shall expect you to comply with our 

request, and to be present at the First Baptist Church on 
Thursday evening, May 3rd, at 8 :00 o ’clock p.m.

“ Sincerely yours, L. F. Griffith, Coordinator of N.A.A.C.P. 
for Prince Edward County.”

Is that a correct reading of your letter?
A Yes.
Q. Now, will you state briefly to the Court how it was that 

you decided to writothat particular letter?
A. I think it was in order to stimulate interest in the 

meeting.
Q. I  take it that it was your position and not someone 

else’s?
A. That is right.
Q. Did anyone request you to write the letter ?
A. No.
Q. I noticed in it, and I think it must be an error that you 

referred to a meeting to be held on Thursday evening May 
31st, 1951. Do you recall whether the suit in Prince Edward 
had already been brought then?

A. No, I don’t.
Q. So when the letter went out you can’t say for certain 

whether the litigation had actually begun?
A. No.

page 309 Q. Had you been in communication with any of 
the students of Moten High School or the parents 

of the students of the High School before the letter went out?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you familiar with the strike which students had 

there at Moten High School ?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have occasion to talk with those students?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did they ask your advice ?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. And what advice did you give?
A. Well, I can’t point out specific instances, I  mean, but

228 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



I do recall that I gave them advice on anv number of occa­
sions.

Q. We expect that. But I wonder, did you suggest at the 
time of the strike what they should do about legal represen­
tation?

A. No, indeed.
Q. There was no discussion between you and the children 

concerning the employment of lawyers ?
A. No, indeed.
Q. No discussion between you and the parents of the chil­

dren on the employment of lawyers ?
A. No, indeed.

page 310 J- Q. So insofar as their contact with counsel was 
concerned, you had nothing to do with it at all?

A. That is rig’ht.
t Q- I notice that you signed the letter as coordinator of the 

N.A.A.C.P., of Prince Edward County. Did you have com­
munication with the branches or any other society affiliated 
with N.A.A.C.P?

A. Association did you say? I didn’t hear your question.
Q. Let me state it again, maybe it wasn’t a good question. 

I say, I notice here that you signed this in your capacity as 
coordinator of N.A.A.C.P. for Prince Edward County.‘Did 
y°u confer with any other persons who was affiliated with 
N.A.A.C.P., or its affiliated organizations concerning the sub­
ject matter of the letter?

A. No, as I  recall, it was hastily done, and I did it on my 
own accord.

Q. I mentioned that word “ coordinator,” what does that 
mean? Is that actually what you had?
, A- Y ell, in that particular county, you see, it is divided into 

six units, a unit in each district.
Q. You mean there are six different chapters—
A. No, no, units.
Q. I see. What is a unit?
A. It is one branch, Prince Edward County branch.

Q. And you have six units in the branch ? 
page 311 I- A. That is right.

Q. And you are the coordinator for all six ?
A. That is right.
Q. And that is an official title that you have?
A. That is right.
Q. And who confers that?
A. Well, I mean that it was the title between the secretary 

and myself.

X.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 229

L . F r a n c is  G riffin .



230 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia 

S. JV. Tucker.

Q. That is something that you decided on?
A. That is right.

Mr. Mays: No further questions.
Mr. H ill: We have no questions, Your Honor.

• • • • •

page 315 }-
• • •

S. W. TUCKEE,
was called as a witness, and having been first duly sworn, 
was examined and testified as follows:

D IEECT EXAM INATION.

By Mr. Mays:
Q. Will you please give the reporter your full name and 

address.
page 316 }- A. I am S. W. Tucker, of 111 East Atlantic, 

Emporia, Virginia.
Q. And state, please, your business or profession.
A. I am an attorney at law.
Q. Qualified to practice in Virginia ?
A. Yes.
Q. And since what time ?
A. 1934 ,1 believe it was.
Q. Do you have any connection with the legal staff of the 

N.A.A.C.P., that is to say, the conference of branches of Vir­
ginia ?

A. I am a member of the legal staff of the Virginia State
Conference of the N.A.A.C.P.

Q. Whep did you become a member of the legal staff?
A. I don’t recall exactly, it was possibly in 1947 or 1948 or

thereabouts.
Q. Can you recall how it was you become a member ot the 

staff?
A. I beg your pardon?
Q. Can you recall how it was you became a member of the

* A^Well, I have always had a tremendous interest in Civil 
Eights litigation, as a matter of fact I engaged in some of it 
even before I  was a member of the legal staff, even before



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 231

S. W. Tucker.

World War II interrupted by legal practice, and 
page 317 }- so I suppose it was no problem at all for my being 

nominated and taken on the legal staff.
Q. I am not suggesting in the slightest that there was any 

problem, but I wondered how it came about, either you spoke 
to somebody or somebody spoke to you, and I wonder just 
how the relationship was established?

A. To get the detail on it, to be specific about that would 
be very difficult, Mr. Mays. The lawyers that were working 
in this program were friends of mine, some of us met in col­
lege, and our interests are known, hut just as to the mechanics 
of it I wouldn’t be able to say.

Q. What did you understand your duties to he as a member 
of the legal staff?

A. In a nutshell, I  would say it would he to do whatever 
was necessary to advance our program. That would entail a 
study of cases, preparation of cases, trial of cases.

Q. Do you have any other connection with the N.A.A.C.P. 
or any of its branches other than membership in the 
N.A.A.C.P., which I suppose you have?

A. I have membership in the N.A.A.C.P., I have no office 
as such, other than a possibility, I am never certain of it, at 
least I  function as such, whether I am officially named as such, 
as a member of the Executive Board or Committee of the 
legal branch.

Q. As a member of the Executive Committee 
page 318 J- of your legal branch—which I think is the Green­

ville Branch, is that correct ?
A. That is correct.
Q. —what are your duties there?
A. Actually the Executive Committee might function in the 

absence of a meeting of the branch. As a matter of fact, I 
don’t even recall a specific committee meeting, a formal spe­
cific committee meeting, for the last two or three years, that is 
the reason I express doubt as to whether I am officially named 
as such.

Q. I think you have a brother on the legal staff, too, do you 
not?

A. Otto L. Tucker.
Q. And when did \\e become a member of the legal staff?
A. A year ago, I think.
Q. Was that at your suggestion, or do you know whose 

suggestion that was?
A. I  don’t recall at whose suggestion, I am sure it was not 

at my suggestion.



S. TV. Tucker.

Q. Before you became a member of the legal staff, were you 
employed by the Conference in any of its litigation?

A. By the Conference?
Q. Yes.
A. I do not recall that I was ever employed by the Confer­

ence; I do recall being employed on doing some work at the 
instigation of our local branch.

page 319 [ Q. Before you became a member of the local 
staff were you compensated by the Conference 

for any of the work you did in connection with Civil Rights?
A. I think not.
Q. Were you compensated by the local branch?
A. I wouldn’t want to positively say one way or another, I  

probably was, it bas been so long ago, and everything was of 
such little consequence, it turned out there was so little I  could 
do about it—it was quite serious, but I  wouldn’t want to at 
this time say whether I  was or wasn’t.

Q. Bid they at any time take up collections for the benefit 
of people who had Civil Rights problems for the payment of 
counsel at your Greenville local branch?

A. I don’t recall any that the Greenville branch itself was 
interested in. I  can remember some times probably for some 
other defense, but I don’t recall any collections in which I 
was personally interested.

Q. Do you remember taking up collections for local defense 
at the Greenville branch?

A. T will say raising funds, yes; whether it was done in the 
way of taking up collections, I  don’t know.

Q. I don’t mean to use a disparaging term, what I am try ­
ing to get at in one way or another, is didn’t the Greenville 
branch raise funds in order to aid people in defenses in crim­

inal actions?
page 320 }> A. The Greenville County branch raises funds 

and makes contributions to the State Conference 
for the legal program just like all the branches do.

Q. Do they make any direct contributions to the defense of 
people charged with crime?

A. Direct contributions ?
Q. In other words, if somebody is in trouble in Greenville 

County, does the Greenville branch ever raise money for his 
defense, whether the money is paid directly to him or his 
counsel?

A. I think I understand your question. I  am trying to re­
call. As a practice, I  can definitely say no.

Q. You mean as a regular practice?

232 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 233

S. W. Tucker.

A. As a regular practice, no.
Q. But you don’t know in specific instances whether they 

did or not?
A. There was one case that was handled in Greenville in 

which I wouldn’t want to say whether the branch did or not, 
it is possible that the branch made some direct contributions. 
That is the only exception I recall, that is the reason for my 
hesitancy.

Q. What was the name of the person involved there?
A. That was the case of Jodie Bailey.
Q. J-o-d-i-e B-a-i-l-e-y?

A. That is right.
page 321 \ Q. Were you counsel for him?

A. I was counsel.
Q. Was he a man charged with murder in Greenville 

County?
A. That is correct.
Q. Can you fix the approximate time of the commission of 

that offense?
A. It has been something like five or six years ago, maybe 

more.
Q. I think it has been several years ago, maybe forty-five or 

fifty. When did you first hear of the commission of the crime?
A. I suppose about fifteen minutes after it happened.
Q. What day of the week, do you recall?
A. I  think it was a Saturday.
Q. And what time of day?
A. Oh, something like three or four o’clock in the after­

noon. It happened right in front of my office.
Q. And you heard about it about fifteen minutes later. You 

were employed in the case?
A. Yes. ‘
Q. And by whom ?
A. By Bailey’s wife initially.
Q. Do you remember her name?
A. I do not.

Q. Well, how long after the offense was it when 
page 322 }- she made contact with you?

A. Possibly the same day, I am not sure, within 
twenty-four hours or less than twenty-four hours.

Q. When did you first begin to function in the case?
A. After she contacted me.
Q. It was not within minutes after the crime, then, it was 

hours or days afterwards, is that correct?
A. Within twenty-four hours—I say I heard about it within



8. W. Tucker.

fifteen minutes, but I didn’t start working within fifteen min­
utes.

Q. That is what I am trying to develop. When was it that 
she got in touch with you for the first time?

A. To the best of my recollection it was on the same day.
Q. And you don’t know how much later it was after the 

commission of the offense!
A. No, it could have been a couple of hours, it could have 

been longer.
Q. Of course, it could have been two or three months?
A. I know it wasn’t two or three months, because I know I 

was working on the case within twenty-four hours.
Q. Now, what did you first do in connection with the case?
A. Well, the first thing I did was try to contact my client, 

who had been spirited away from the county be- 
page 323 }- cause the sheriff feared that there might be a 

lynching party.
Q. Well, where was he taken?
A. To Lawrenceville.
Q. And when did you first see him?
A I believe it was on the following Monday; I think I spent 

Saturday afternoon and Sunday and part of Monday trying 
to find out where he was.

Q. Did you make any effort to have him removed there for 
his safety?

A. No, I said, I spent that time trying to find out where he 
was.

Q. Now, did anyone else see you in connection with em­
ploying you ? Was it just the wife who saw you ?

A. Before I saw him?
Q. Yes.
A. That is all.
Q. Was anyone accompanying her when she talked to you 

about it ?
A. No, not that I remember—you are taxing my memory 

on something five or six years ago.
Q. I don’t expect you to stand an examination on every pos­

sible thing, but I am trying to develop it as far as your mem­
ory goes.

A. If  someone was with her, it was some member of the 
family or a close friend.

page 324 }- Q. Where did you meet her, at your office?
A. At my office.

Mr. Carter: This is all very interesting, it seems to me,

234 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. G.en. of Va. 235

S. W. Tucker.

but it is going very far away, and it is not before the Court.
Mr. Mays: The witness has indicated that this was one of

the cases in which the Conference participated fundwise, and 
I am trying to develop how he became counsel in the case and 
get the entire background. This is the one case, Your Honor, 
in which he was connected with the Conference, and therefore 
I would like a few minutes to develop what this case is about. 
I think it is quite relevant insofar as these particular statutes 
are concerned.

Mr. Carter: If the Court please, I think that there is a 
possibility in terms of relevancy with respect to Mr. Tucker’s 
connection with this case in respect to the Virginia State Con­
ference, but it seems to me that we have not touched upon the 
connection with the Conference for the last fifteen minutes in 
terms of questions, and how Mr. Tucker was engaged, and 
who accompanied Mrs. Bailey or whatever the person’s name 
was, seems to me to have no relevancy in terms of this at all.

Mr. Mays: Our position is simply this, Your Honor, and
we are not going into this because it is interesting to opposing 
counsel, we are going into this because here is a specific case 

which has been brought to our attention by the 
page 325 witness, and of which he had plenty of knowledge, 

in which he has indicated that the Conference 
itself came in as an interested party in order to contribute to 
the cost, and we are trying to develop how that case was 
created and exactly how the Conference functions in con­
nection with this type of case. It comes squarely under the in­
terpretation of the statute on running and capping, it comes 
squarely under the one that has to do with maintenance. And 
if we interpret those statutes, it has to do with how the cor­
poration functions.

Your Honor will remember that at the very outset in coun­
sel’s position it was stated first of all that N.A.A.C.P. and its 
affiliates were not bound by those statutes, and if they were, 
they were unconstitutional. The first contention they make is 
that the statutes do not apply to them, and I want to show the 
Court they do, and I am taking this as a case. There are a 
number of others I could go to, but I am taking just this par­
ticular one that the witness himself has adverted to.

The Court: Insofar as any details of the case, of course, 
the Court would sustain any objection of immateriality in 
regard to that, but insofar as anything leading to his employ­
ment in it with relationship to the Virginia Conference with 
him or with the party involved would be admissible.

Mr. C arter: I will take an exception.



236 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia 

S. W. Tucker.

By Mr. Mays:
Q. Did you ever send any bills for services or 

page 326 } expenses to Bailey or his wife?
A. When I was first employed in the case 

Bailey had his week’s pay check, as I recall, something like 
$45.00 that was paid to him.

Q. He endorsed that over ?
A. Yes. I don’t recall that I ever billed him and his wife 

since, because frankly, it would have been a waste of postage.
Q. Your compensation, therefore, came either from the 

branch or from the Conference, is that correct?
A. What compensation I drew—I don’t actually think I was 

compensated, I may have called on the branch or Conference 
for expenses. That case went to the Court of Appeals twice, 
as I recall.

Q. T am not speaking of whether you feel you were ade­
quately compensated, but you did receive some payment?

A. T received something from either the Conference or the 
branch or maybe both, yes.

Q. In this particular instance, was there a meeting of the 
branch in order to seek funds in order to aid in the defense ?

A. I don’t recall any special meeting for that purpose, no.
Q. Now, von are in some of the school cases, are you not?
A. That is correct.

Q. Which ones?
page 327 }■ A. Of record, in the Charlottesville and W ar­

ren County.
Q. Did you go into the Warren County case initially at the 

time it was first brought ?
A. Yes.
Q. At whose instance was that?
A. Mr. Hill.
Q. Did you go into the Charlottesville case at the time that 

was first brought?
A. I think I am of record on the initial papers in that.
Q. And who brought you into that?
A. Mr. Hill.
Q. Did he tell you why?
A. No more than a lawyer would associate another lawyer 

in a case.
Q. I understand. Well, you were living at Emporia?
A. That is correct.
Q. And you have the members of the legal staff scattered 

over the state, and I wonder if he gave you any particular



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 237

S. W. Tucker.

explanation as to why you were brought into the Charlottes­
ville case ?

A. No, Mr. Mays—the relationship between Mr. Hill and 
myself dates back so far and so long and has been so pleasant 
and so profitable, that he wouldn’t have to tell me why he 
would want me to do anything.

Q. I am sure it has been pleasant and profit- 
page 328 J- able, and I am wondering if there was any par­

ticular statement made at the time of your em­
ployment as to the reason for bringing you in from Emporia?

A. If course, I don’t know whether it was so profitable. No, 
I couldn’t say there was any particular reason for it, Mr. 
Mays.

Q. You were getting the $60 per day per diem, of course, 
for services rendered ?

A. I don’t think that I have gotten any of it yet.
Q. Well, you understand you will get it, from the Confer­

ence?
A. That is the possibility, yes.
Q. Isn ’t there on the part of a man named Tucker a very 

reasonable expectation of that?
A. There is the hope, sir.
Q. Do you know why you were brought particularly into the 

Warren County litigation?
A. Well, I can recall Mr. Hill and T worked out the papers, 

deeds, memorandum, and what have you. I myself feel that I 
was brought into it because it was something to which I could 
contribute—I like to feel that way anyhow—as a matter of 
fact, unless I  feel there is something I can contribute, I don’t 
bother to submit a bill.

Q. I  can appreciate that. Rut what I have in mind, and you 
can realize this, that Warren County gets pretty 

page 329 \ close to the Arlington and Alexandria area, and 
alreadv counsel in Richmond are in that area, 

and I wondered if there was any particular reason that you 
know7 of that you wTere brought up from Emporia to be asso­
ciated with counsel there?

A. Mr. Mays, that wasn’t strange, even since I have been in 
Emporia, I have handled cases in various parts of the state, 
it is known that I just have a willingness to do whatever is 
necessary to be done, where I can do it.

Q. Now7, you are speaking of general law practice, aren’t 
you, not as being associated wuth the staff of the Conference?

A. That could be both.
Q. Well, is it both? In other words, did you go all over the



S. W. Tucker.

state as a member of the staff, in eases other than the school
cases?

A. I see what we are getting into—

Mr. Carter: I would like, to raise an objection to that. I 
think that the question as to the reasons why Mr. Tucker came 
to a case or whether he has been all over the state, it seems to 
me, if Your Honor please, that has nothing to do with the 
issues before this Court. The issue before this Court is in 
terms of whether the reach of the statute, whether or not the 
N.A.A.C.P. brought counsel from California, or why they 
brought him down has nothing to do with the issues before 
this Court.

The Court: Do you gentlemen care to be heard
page 330 }- on that objection?

Mr. Mays: No, sir. I think that the purpose of
the question is perfectly clear. I don’t care to pursue it in­
definitely, Your Honor.

The Court: Well, I overrule the objection at this stage. 
You may continue.

Mr. Mays: Will you repeat the question, Mr. Reporter.
Mr. C arter: I note an exception to that.

(The question, as recorded, was read by the reporter.)

By Mr. Mays:
Q. May I clarify that, In connection with litigation, I  am 

not talking about the speeches you made, I am not interested 
in that, but just in litigation.

A. My answer now is going to involve cases that I have 
handled in different parts of the state.

Q. I am not asking you to go into the detail in any of them, 
I want to know whether or not that is a fact.

A. Whether what is a fact, sir.
Q. Whether or not you went about in other parts of the 

state as a member of the legal staff in handling cases inde­
pendent of the school cases?

A. Yes, I have handled cases in other parts of the state as a 
member of the legal staff, yes.

Q. And compensated by the Conference for that service?
A. I wouldn’t want to pinpoint that I was corn- 

page 331 }- pensated by the Conference, I may have been com­
pensated by a local branch, I may have been com­

pensated by the Conference—well, if they were handled for the

238 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 239

S. W. Tucker.

N.A.A.C.P., either by the Conference or the local branch—or 
I may not have been compensated at all.

Q. Since we don’t know whether you were compensated at 
all we won’t pursue those cases. I will ask you one thing more 
about Jodie Bailey. Was there more than one trial?

A. Jodie’s case went to the Court of Appeals, was re­
versed, and went back to the Circuit Court of Greenville 
County and was tried, went to the Court of Appeals again, a 
petition of certiorari was denied, habeas corpus was sought 
from the U.S. District Court, and an appeal from the refusal 
was taken to the U.S. Court of Appeals, and the District Court 
was sustained, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari.

Q. Now, who controlled that litigation?
A. I did.
Q. You did? Were you instructed to take those several 

steps by the Conference, by the local branch, or by Jodie 
Bailey?

A. I can’t say I was instructed by any of them. I advised 
Bailey, of course, and naturally a man in prison for life would 
consent to anything his lawyer is willing to do for him, but 
so far as anybody else instructing me, no.

Q. Were you told by anybody, independent of 
page 332 }- any advice you may have given, were you told by 

somebody what course of action to pursue after 
you had given that advice?

A. I had Bailey’s authority, if that is what you are speak­
ing of.

Q. That is what I am asking, in other words, Bailey in­
structed you to do it in that way?

A. Bailey trusted his lawyer to do whatever'his lawyer 
could do to get him out of trouble for good.

Q. My only question is, what you did was pursuant to the 
instruction or the say-so or whatever general words you want 
to use that came from Bailey?

A. On the consent of my client, yes.

Mr. Mays: All right.
No further questions.
The Court: Do you care to cross-examine?
Mr. H ill: No, we have no questions.
The Court: Is there any reason why Mr. Tucker cannot be

excused?
Mr. Mays: No reason at all.
The Court: All right, Mr. Tucker, you are excused.



240 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
• • •

page 341 }-

Mr. Mays: We can use the Court’s time with stipulations.
Your Honor, Mr. Carter and I are prepared to enter into a 

stipulation, which I shall state, and trust it is agreeable the 
way I stated it to him.

page 342 }- There is a publication put out by the 
N.A.A.C.P., called “ The Crisis.”  And there is 

an article in Volume 28 beginning on page 228 which is en­
titled “ The Virginia School Fight—a Clarification.”

I have four of these, Your Honor, and I can put them in as 
four exhibits, or one, as Your Honor pleases.

The Court: Is it contemplated that they would be read in 
the record ?

Mr. Mays: No, we contemplated putting them in as ex­
hibits and saving the Court’s time.

The Court: Let us make them separate exhibits.
Mr. Mays: Verv well. This will be Defendant’s Exhibit 

D-5.

(The volumes were marked Defendants’ Exhibit D-5 for 
identification and received in evidence.)

Mr. Mays: I call attention to the fact that that is an article 
over the signature of Spotswood IV Robinson, III, Regional 
Special Counsel for N.A.A.C.P., southeast region, and dated 
January 29, 1951. I think Mr. Robinson will state for the rec­
ord that that was an article prepared by him.

Mr. Robinson: I wrote that as a letter, if Your Honor
please, as I recall, to the editor of “ The Crisis,” and it is at 
least a substantial copy of it, I think one word at least 
was misprinted, but I will stipulate that I wrote that let­

ter.
page 343 }- The Court: Thank you.

Mr. Mays: Then in “ The Crisis,”  the same
volume, that is, Volume 28, at page 5 there was an article with 
the caption, “ Virginia Schools: A Study in Frustration,” 
written by Marvin Caplan, an article to which Mr. Robin­
son’s letter just put in evidence referred. We will ask, sir, that 
that be marked in evidence as Defendants’ Exhibit D-6.

The Court: D-6.



(The article referred to was marked Defendants’ Exhibit 
D-6 for identification and received in evidence.)

Mr. Mays: In the same volume of “ The Crisis,” Volume 
28, beginning at page 475, there is a publication of “ Reso­
lutions adopted by the Forty-Second Convention of the 
N.A.A.C.P., at Atlanta, Georgia, June 30, 1951,” and I ask 
that that be marked as Defendants’ Exhibit D-7.

The Court: It will be so marked.

(The document referred to was marked Defendants’ Exhibit 
D-7 for identification and received in evidence.)

Mr. Mays: And in Volume 62 of “ The Crisis,” beginning 
at page 339, there is a publication of what is described in the 

caption as “ Directives to the branches adopted by 
page 344 J- emergency south-wide N.A.A.C.P. Conference.” 

And I ask that that be marked as Defendants’
Exhibit D.8.

The Court: What was the volume and page number1?
Mr. Mays: The volume is 62, and the beginning page is

339.

The Court: It is received as Defendants’ Exhibit D -8.

(The document referred to was marked Defendants’ Exhibit 
D-8 for identification and received in evidence.)

Mr. Mays: Your Honor, I should like to have marked in 
evidence a printed report of the meeting of the Board of 
Directors of the National Association for the Advancement 
of Colored people, held on October 9, 1950, this has been 
printed as “ Appendix 8,” in a state document, and is Ap­
pendix 44 of that document, the title of which is, that is of 
the document, it is, “ Report of the Committee on Offenses 
against the Administration of Justice,” and I understand 
that Mr. Hill is prepared to stipulate that as a part of the 
record.

Mr. Carter: So that the record will be accurate, that is
an excerpt from the minutes of the Board of the particular 
date that you referi’ed to.

Mr. Mays: Very well, then I will call that excerpt, if 
Your Honor please.

I call Your Honor’s attention to the fact that 
page 345 ) on the reverse side of the page as “ Appendix 

7” is a letter of Mr. Robinson, which I am not 
offering in evidence.

N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 241



242

Your Honor, I have before me this page 43 which I said 
I was not offering in evidence, hut I have presented Mr. 
Robinson with a photostat of the letter itself which he says 
is agreeable for me to put in. I therefore will ask the Court 
to consider this “ Appendix 7” , which is Appendix 43, and 
on the reverse side of the excerpt of the minutes of the 
Board, as part of the evidence, to be a part of that same 
exhibit.

The Court: That would be Defendants’ Exhibit D-9.
Mr. Mays: That is right.
Mr. H ill: In other words, 43 and 44 are both going to be 

Exhibit 9?
Mr. Mays: That is right, being one document 'will be 

much simpler.
The Court: I will actually mark both sides of it, gentle­

men.
Mr. Mays: Very well.

(The document referred to was marked Defendants’ Ex­
hibit D-9 for identification and received in evidence.)

Mr. Mays: I wish to offer in evidence, if Your Honor
please, a photostat of a letter from Mr. Oliver W. Hill, to 
Mr. W. Lester Banks, Executive Secretary, Virginia State 
Conference, N.A.A.C.P., and the caption is “ Re Common­

wealth v. Robert Edwards and Willie Savage,” 
page 346 }- a letter dated April 6, 1950, and ask that that be 

marked in evidence as Defendants’ Exhibit D-10.
The Court: It will be so marked.

(The document referred to was marked defendants’ Ex­
hibit D-10 for identification and received in evidence.)

• • • • •

Supi’eme Court of Appeals of Virginia

page 347 f-
• • • • •

Mr. Wickham: If Your Honor please, it will be recalled 
that Dr. Harold Johnson, of Arlington, Virginia, testified 
that he did not know the number of parcels of real estate 
that he owned in Arlington, nor the value of his real estate. 
I t  has been agreed with counsel for the plaintiff that the 
following may be read into the record and treated as a part 
of the record.



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Ya. 243

Oliver IF. Hill.

The Court: Which witness, now, was this?
Mr. Wickham: Hr. Harold Johnson, of Arlington, Vir­

ginia.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Wickham: The land hooks of Arlington County show

that fourteen parcels of real estate are in the name of the 
witness Harold Johnson, and the records in the real estate 
division of the offices of the Commissioner of Revenue in 
Arlington, Virginia, indicate that assessors in that office 
have placed appraised value on these fourteen parcels in 
the amount of $87,650.

Mr. Hill: Well, the only thing I would like to state, Your 
Honor, is that we do not object to anything Mr. Wickham 

has stated in the record, hut of course we do not 
page 348 [ waive any of our objections to the material 

quality of the evidence, nor do we agree to any­
thing other than that which the public records in Arlington 
show.

The Court: The Court understands your position on that,
Mr. Hill, it has been made for the record numerous times.

•  •  • •  •

page 360 }•
• • • • •

COVER W. HILL,
was recalled as a witness, and having been pre­

page 361 viouslv duly sworn, was examined and testified 
further as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Mays:
Q. Mr. Ilill, you heard the testimony on yesterday of Mr. 

Banks about the payment of counsel fees?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And I take it that the statement that he made as to the 

payments to you by the Conference of expenses and counsel 
fees were correct?

A. You mean that I  have received the money that he said? 
Q. Yes.
A. I  am sure I did.



TT7. Lester Banks.

Q. My present question is, did you receive compensation 
in any of the school cases from the N.A.A.C.P., itself?

A. From the national office?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. Did you receive any compensation from the N.A.A.C.P. 

legal education fund?
A. From what period?
Q. From the middle of 1956 on down through 1958, the 

period of his account?
A. Not that I  recall.

Q. Well, you would remember, would you not? 
page 362 f- A. Put it this way. I am certain that 1 haven’t 

received anything in the way of fees; it could 
have been in connection with some of these matters I re­
ceived some money as expenses or some lawyers’ services, 
or something of that sort.

Q. And would the same answer be true of individual 
branches of the N.A.A.C.P.?

A. Oh, I haven’t received anything from any of the in­
dividual branches that was not reported to the Conference 
and reflected as Conference fees.

Q. And you would expect no compensation in the future 
as far as you know in these cases, except for the the Con­
ference itself?

A. Except as I stated to you on yesterday, that after the 
passage of these laws I did contact the plaintiffs in Char­
lottesville, and I so instructed fellow counsel in the other 
localities to reach a similiar understanding Avith their re­
spective plaintiffs with respect to the payment of fees and 
expenses, in the event that these laws should be held con­
stitutional and w7e were prohibited from functioning as Ave 
functioned in the past.

Mr. Mays: That is all. Thank you.

(Witness excused.)

Mr. Mays: We recall Mr. Banks.

Whereupon,
page 363 \ W. LESTEB BANKS,

was recalled as a witness, and having been pre­
viously duly sAvorn, Avas examined and testified further as 
folloAvs:

244 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia



N.A.A.C.P. v. A. S. Harrison, Jr., Atty. Gen. of Va. 245

IP. Lester Banks.

DIRECT EXAMINATION—resumed.

By Air. Mays:
Q. Mr. Banks, I have one question. There was put in evi­

dence during your absence from the courtroom a photostat 
of what is designated as Directives to the branches adopted 
by the emergency south-wide N.A.A.C.P. Conference. If you 
are not quite familiar with that directive, I will ask you to 
take a look at it, please.

The Court: Exhibit number what?
Mr. Mays: Exhibit No. D-8.

By Mr. Mays:
Q. You are familiar with that?
A. I think I have seen it, yes.
Q. My question is whether or not the Virginia Conference 

has substantially followed the directive which you have .just 
read. Has it been the policy of the Virginia Conference to 
follow that in its operations?

A. Generally speaking, yes.
Q. Do you know of any specific exceptions?
A. As I recall, that sample petition was not used in Vir­

ginia.
Q. Otherwise the directives that came out of 

page 364 Atlanta have been followed by the Conference of 
Virginia ?

A. As a general policy.

Mr. Mays: That is all.
Mr. Hili: No questions.
The Court: Step down, Mr. Banks.

(Witness excused.)

Mr. Mays: The Defendants rest, Your Honor.
• • • • •

Mr. Robinson: On Monday morning I requested the Court 
to take judicial notice of certain material, including certain 
of the statutes that were enacted at the 1956 Extra Session 
of the General Assembly of Virginia. As I recall, in making 
that request I  failed to specifically request that judicial 
notice be taken of Chapters 31, 32 and 35, enacted at that



session. I  would now ask the Court to take judicial notice of 
those three statutes in addition to the other materials to 
which the request made on Monday pertained, for the same 
purpose that we ask the Court to judicially notice the other 

materials.
page 365 }• With that, if Your Honor please, the Com­

plainants rest.
• • • • •

246 Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia

A Copy—Teste:

H. G. TURNER, Clerk.



INDEX TO RECORD

Pago
Appeal and Supersedeas Awarded—Record No. 5096 .. 1
Appeal Awarded—Record No. 5097 ......................................  2
Record No. 5096 ....................................................................  3

Bill of Complaint ............................................................. 4
Answer ............................................................................. 12
Stipulation .......................................................................  14
Opinion, letter—November 3, 1958 .............................   15
Opinion, letter—January 21, 1959 .............................. 17
Order—February 25, 1959 ............................................. 28
Notice of Appeal and Assignments of Error ........... 32

Record No. 5097 ...................................................................  42
Bill of Complaint ............................................................ 42
Answer ............................................................................. 49
Notice of Appeal and Assignments of E r r o r .............  51

Transcript of Testimony—Records No. 5096 and 5097 .. 55
Proceedings ...........................................................55, 240, 245
Witnesses:

W. Lester B anks...............................................62, 210, 244
Oliver W. H i l l ........................................................ 99, 243
James W. Harris ...................................................137, 208
Ernest C. Downing ....................................................... 140
Louis Thompson ............................................................. 144
David W. Morris ........................................................... 147
Thomas W. Selden ........................................................150
Marie E. Patterson ....................................................... 152
Jerry  C. E auntlerov ........................................................155
James E. Manson ........................................................... 158
Arthur L. Price ............................................................... 164
Harold M. Johnson ....................................................... 165
Barbara S. Marks ........................................................... 171
E. Leslie H am m ............................................................... 175
Edward D. Strother ....................................................... 177
George L. Nelson ........................................................... 178
Audrey T. NeAvman ....................................................... 180
Josie F. Pravad ........................................................... 182
Ruth M. R o u t ...................................................................185
Harry Stother ............................................................... 188
Alex M. Davis ............................................................... 190
Eugene Williams ............................ '. ........................... 192
Marshal T. Garrett ........................................................196
George R. Ferguson ........................................................198
William M. Smith ........................................................... 201
J. Russell Arnett ........................................................... 203
Moses C. Maupin ........................................................... 205
L. Francis Griffin ............................................................225
S. W. Tucker .......................................................... 230



RULE 5:12—BRIEFS
81. Form and Contents of Appellant’s Brief. The opening brief of appellant shall con-

tain:
(a) A subject index and table of citations with cases alphabetically arranged. The 

citation of Virginia cases shall lie to the official Virginia Reports and, in addition, may refer 
to other reports containing such cases.

(b) A brief statement of the material proceedings in the lower court, the errors assigned
and the questions involved in the appeal.

(c) A clear and concise statement of the facts, with references to the pages of the 
printed record when there is any possibility that the other side may question the statement. 
When the facts are in dispute the brief shall so state.

(d) With respect to each assignment of error relied cn, the principles of law, the argu­
ment and the authorities sliall be stated in one place and not scattered through the brief.

(c) The signature of at least one attorney practicing in this Court, and his address.
§2. Form and Contents of Appellee’s Brief. The brief for the appellee shall contain:
(a) A subject index and table of citations with cases alphabetically arranged. Citations 

of Virginia cases must refer to the Virginia Reports and, in addition, may refer to other 
reports containing such cases.

(b) A statement of the case and of the points involved, if the appellee disagrees with 
the statement of appellant.

(c) A statement of the fact3 which are necessary to correct or amplify the statement in 
appellant’s brief in so far as it is deemed erroneous or inadequate, with appropriate ref­
erences to the pages of the record.

(d) Argument in support of the position of appellee.
The brief shall be signed by at least one attorney practicing in this Court, giving his 

address.
§3. Reply Brief. The reply brief (if any) of the appellant shall contain all the authori­

ties relied on by him not referred to in his opening brief. In other respects it shall conform 
to the requirements for appellee’s brief.

§4. Time of Filing. As soon as the estimated cost of printing the record is paid by the 
appellant, the clerk shall forthwith proceed to have printed a sufficient number of copies of 
record or the designated parts. Upon receipt of the printed copies or of the substituted 
copies allowed in lieu of printed copies under Rule 5:2, the clerk shall forthwith mark the 
filing date on each copy and transmit three copies of the printed record to each counsel of 
record, or notify each counsel of record of the filing date of the substituted copies.

(a) If the petition for appeal is adopted as the opening brief, the brief of the appellee 
shall be filed in the clerk’s office within thirty-five days after the date the printed copies of 
the record, or the substituted copies allowed under Rule 5:2, are filed in the clerk’s office. 
If the petition for appeal is not so adopted, the opening brief of the appellant shall be filed 
in the clerk’s office within thirty-five days after the date printed copies of the record, or the 
substituted copies allowed under Rule 5:2, are filed in the clerk’s office, and the brief of the 
appellee shall be filed in the clerk’s office within thirty-five days after the opening brief of the 
appellant is filed in the clerk’s office.

(b) Within fourteen days after the brief of the appellee is filed in the clerk’s office, the 
appellant may file a reply brief in the clerk’s office. The case will be called at a session of the 
Court commencing after the expiration of the fourteen days unless counsel agree that it be 
called at a session of the Court commencing at an earlier time; provided, however, that a 
criminal case may be called at the next session if the Commonwealth’s brief is filed at least 
fourteen days prior to the calling of the case, in which event the reply brief for the appel­
lant shall be filed not later than the day before the case is called. This paragraph does not 
extend the time allowed by paragraph (a) above for the filing of the appellant’s brief.

(c) With the consent of the Chief justice or the Court, counsel for opposing parties 
may file with the clerk a written stipulation changing the time for filing briefs in any case; 
provided, however, that all briefs must be filed not later than the day before such case is to 
be heard.

§5. Number of Copies. Twenty-five copies of each brief shall be filed with the clerk of 
the Court, and at least three copies mailed or delivered to opposing counsel on or before the
day on which the brief is filed.

§6. Size and Type. Briefs shall be nine inches in length and six inches in width, so as 
to conform in dimensions to the printed record, and shall be printed in type not less in size, 
as to height and width, than the type in which the record is printed. The record number of 
the ease and the names and addresses of counsel submitting the brief shall be printed on the 
front cover.

§7. Effect of Noncompliance. If neither party has filed a brief in compliance with the 
requirements of this rule, the Court will not hear oral argument. If one party has but the 
othrr has not filed such a brief, the party in default will not be heard orally.