Exhibit I - Partial Transcript

    '
14 35

•  •

If it’s tomorrow it's tomorrow.
. •

We again emphasize that our aim is 
equal and quality education.

THE COURT: Mr. Sachs, do you wish to
make any comments?

MR. SACHS: They would not be germane
to the pending matters, your Honor.

THE COURT: The Court recognizes
at is the position of the new intervenors that since 
the Court has made no factual or evidentiary finding 
that individual school districts in the metropolitan 
area surrounding the City of Detroit have been guilty 
of acts of segregation and it has no legal power to 
include them in any plan of desegregation and they go 
further than that, I take it it is their position that 
not only does the Court lack the power to go beyond* 
the confines of the City of Detroit in ordering 
desegregation but that it would be educationally 
unsound and unwise to do so.j ■

• j
We concede that the Supreme Court of 

the United States has not as yet had occasion to !
deal with a situation precisely such as ours. That 
tact, however, does not relieve this Court of the j
duty of resolving the problem presented.

EXHIBIT I
f  '

LiJ’nfl Rcjmrlin<i Service
. o s s  ■ i  j j  aLafayette Building

Detroit, .Michigan dSdd6





Our decision to proceed with the
metropolitan remedy arises from the evidence in this 
—case and from what the Supreme Court has said and done 
in school desegregation cases- that it has considered.

What we have said is not to be taken 
to mean that our view of the law is infallible. We do 
not claim to have perfect legal vision. If we have 
erred in our view of the lav/ those v/ho are opposed to 
our exposition of it already, through their pleadings, 
have the benefit of it.

Our appellate procedures are designed 
to deliver litigants from the evil of trial court error 
whenever it occurs. -Parenthetically we might note that 
in looking to a metropolitan solution for our school 
problems we are doing nothing new and nothing more . 
than the people in the greater Detroit area have done 
for years and are doing now.

Local units of government in the 
metropolitan area have not hesitated to join together 
for the purpose of providing better solutions to ' : 
problems confronting them. In such instances various 
units of government have cither disregarded local - 
boundaries or have concluded that the problems v/ere such 
as to call for a metropolitan solution. In some cases

Luzotl I'r/mrtirig Service .
9  (i 2 - 1  1 7  (> Detroit, Michigan -IS



1487
they have created overlay organisations.

An example of such is SEMCOG and 
recreational authorities come to mind. Only recently 
the press carried reports of a tri-county sewage system 
whose current expansion is being concentrated in the 
counties of Wayne, Oakland and Macomb. It is expected . 
that it will eventually be expanded to part of Monroe, 
Washtenaw and St. Clair Counties. It is reported that * 
when completed the project will serve 72 communities 
and x̂ ore than 3 million people.

The Detroit Water System, for example, 
is a metropolitan system providing service to - „
municipalities beyond the City of Flint.

In the field of health the Emergency 
Care Commission of the Greater Detroit Area Hospital 
Council has lately presented a plan calling for 
32 area hospitals to provide service in emergencies

s. •in the metropolitan area.
These steps for meeting metropolitan 

problems by calling upon metropolitan resources in 
instances mentioned where it does not appear that 
the protection of basic constitutional rights required 
such action only serve to fortify our conclusion that __ 
where we are concerned with the basic constitutional

I.afuycte Building
Luzuri Reporting Service

9 (i i! - 1 1 7 6 Detroit, Michigan ■ISdL’d





243 8
right to equal educational opportunity and wo find that 
it is not and cannot bo provided on a local basic we 
must look to a metropolitan solution.

Education is our greatest industry in 
this nation. Is there any reason why it should not be 
dealt with on a full community or metropolitan basis. 
Allusion has been made to comments I have made on 
previous occasions in this case. I do not consider 
my rulings or my present course as inconsistent with 
my prior rulings or statements.

With respect to the matter of time 
and at what pace or what leisure we should proceed 
'the Court of /appeals in Cincinnati has not, to put 
it mildly, suggested a pause in these proceedings.
I think part of the difficulty of the legal problems 
presented in connection with the inclusion of suburban 
areas in a plan of desegregation while not directly 
considered were disposed of some months before I was 
born by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Let me quote, this is from Hunter v. 
City of Pittsburgh, 207 U.S., at pages 178 and 179.

"We think the following principles 
have been established by them and have become ' .
settled doctrines of this court, to be acted

I

ytltt Building
Luzud Re pm tintj Service

v  a  2  - 1 i  7 a Detroit, Michigan -ISiiJti



■■■>



14 83
upon wherever they are applicable.
Municipal corporat-on3 are political
subdivisions of the State, created as
convenient agencies for exercising 3uch of
the governmental powers of the State as nay \

be entrusted to then. For the purpose of jj
executing these powers properly and efficiently
’they usually are given the power to acquire,
hold, and manage personal and real property. __
The number, nature and duration of the powers
conferred upon these corporations and the'
territory over which they shall be exercised - -

• ■ ■ . 
rests in the absolute discretion of the State.
Neither their charters, nor any law conferring
governmental powers, or vesting in then j
property to be used for governmental purposes,
or authorizing them to' hold or manage such jj
.property, or exempting them from taxation upon
it, constitutes a contract with the State
within the meaning of the Federal Constitution.
The State, therefore, at its pleasure may modify
or withdraw all such powers, may take without
compensation such property, hold it itself, or
vest it in other agencies, expand or contract

rayette Building
Luzod Rrjmrtinn Service

9 (> 2 - 1 1  7 6 Detroit, Michigan 4H'J'2(i



2490
the territorial area, unite the whole or a 
part of it with another municipality, repeal 
the charter and destroy the corporation. All 
this may be done, conditionally or unconditionally 
with or without tlie consent of the citizens, • 
or even against their protest. In all these 
respects the State is supreme, ana its legislative 
body, conforming its action to the state 
constitution may do as it will, unrestrained 
by any provision of the Constitution of the 
United States. Although the inhabitants and 
property owners may by such changes suffer - , 
inconvenience, and their property may be 
lessened in value by the burden of increased 
taxation, or for any other reason, they have 
no right by contract or otherwise in the 
unaltered or continued existence of the 
corporation or its powers, and there is nothing 
in the Federal Constitution which protects them 
from these injurious consequences. .The power is 
m  the State and those who legislate for the State 
are alone responsible for any unjust or oppres­
sive exercise of it."

As I indicated earlier in this set

Lafayette Building
LitZod Rcpurtinc; Service

9  a  2 - i ' i  7 a Detroit, Michigan dWJL’ti





#
1431

of hearings what we are about is drafting and implementation 
of a plan of desegregation in the metropolitan area.
Now, more particularly and specifically to the offer 
of proof I make the following rulings:

With respect to the proffered or 
offered testimony of David Armor, his deposition may 
be taken at a place to be agreed upon by the parties, 
absent which it is to be taken in the City of Detroit. •

. Upon the Court's perusal of his 
testimony if it becomes evident that his testimony * 
should be taken orally in court on those aspects of 
his deposition as may be pertinent to our proceeding 
the Court will order it done.

The intervenors may present affidavits 
as they have suggested they would like to do on the 
history of the various possibly affected suburban ■ 
school districts, the capacity data they mentioned 
and the historical and statistical data having to do 
with- transportation.

By doing this the new intervenors 
will have the benefit of a record in support of their 
contentions and it will provide a base for them upon 
which to ask the Court to make appropriate findings and 
conclusions.

Lafayette Buileiinj’
Luzod AVfar ting Service 

962-11 76 Deleoit, Michigan -ISlLtti

; • •• t e r  v Tftrr—c  < xa*cn»-?r~ * r  . v "71* f r «