Slade v Harford County BOE Brief and Appendix for Appellant

    Hutted States (Hourt of Appeals
For the Fourth Circuit

No. 7752

ROSALIND SLADE,
Appellant,

v.

SCHOOL BOARD OF HARFORD COUNTY,
Appellee.

BRIEF AND APPENDIX FOR APPELLANT

T hurgood Marshall,
107 West 43rd Street, 

New York, N. Y.,
T ucker R. D earing,

627 Aisquith. Street, 
Baltimore, Md.,

Juanita J. M itchell,
1239 Druid Hill Avenue, 

Baltimore, Md.,
R obert B. W atts,

1520 E. Monument Street, 
Baltimore, Md.,

Jack Greenberg,
107 West 43rd Street, 

New York, N. Y.,

I rma R obbins F eder,
of Counsel.

Counsel for Appellant.



INDEX TO BRIEF
PAGE

Question Presented ......................................................
Statement ........................................................................
Argument .......................................................................

Table of Cases

Aaron v. Cooper, 243 F. 2d 361 (C. A. 8th 1957) ..
Booker v. Tennessee Board of Education, 240 F. 2d

689 (6th Cir., 1957) ................................................
Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294 ..............
Clemons v. Board of Education of Hillsboro, 228 F. 

2d 853 (6th Cir., 1956), cert, denied 350 U. S. 
1006 ..............................................................................

Dunn v. Board of Education of Greenbrier, 1 R. Rol. 
L. Rep. 319 (S. D. W. Va. 1956) .............................

Garnett v. Oakley, 2 R. Rel. L. Rep. 303 (W. D. Ky.,
1957) ............................................................................

Gordon v. Collins, 2 R. Rel. L. Rep. 304 (W. D., Ky., 
1957) ............................................................................

Jackson v. Rawdon, 235 F. 2d 93 (5th Cir., 1956), 
cert, denied 352 U. S. 925 .........................................

Kelley v. Board of Education of the City of Nash­
ville, 2 R. Rel. L. Rep. 21 (M. D. Tenn., 1957)___

Mitchell v. Pollock, 2 R. Rel. L. Rep. 305 (W. D. Ky., 
1957) ............................................................................

Pierce v. Board of Education of Cabell County 
(S. D. W. Va, 1956, unreported) .........................

School Board of the City of Charlottesville v. Allen, 
240 F. 2d 59 (4th Cir., 1957), cert, denied 353 U. S. 
910 ................................................................................

1
2

9

11

11
9

11

10

11

11
v

13

12

11

10

9



11

PAGE

School Board of the City of Newport News v. Adkins,
246 F. 2d 325 (C. A. 4th, 1957), cert, denied 
— U. S. — ................................................................  9

Shedd v. Board of Education of County of Logan,
1 R. Eel. L. Rep. 521 (S. D. W. Va. 1956).............. 10

Taylor v. Board of Education of County of Raleigh,
1 R. Rel. L. Rep. 321 (S. D. W. Va. 1956) .......... 10

Willis v. Walker, 136 F. Supp. 177 (W. D. Ky., 1955) 10

Other Authority

Black, Paths to Desegregation, New Republic, Octo­
ber 21, 1957 ................................................................  13

INDEX TO APPENDIX

PAGE

Judgment ........................................................................  la
Opinion of November 23, 1956 .........................................  4a
Opinion of June 20, 1957 ................................................  16a
Excerpts from Testimony ..............................................  26a

Charles W. Willis:
Direct ............................................................ 26a, 36a

David G. Harry:
Cross ...................................................................  35a

Excerpts from Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1-a ......................... 40a



Question Presented

Whether appellants were denied rights secured by the 
Fourteenth Amendment when the court below permitted 
appellees’ school system to defer desegregation of certain 
schools and grades for one to three years and prolong high 
school desegregation until 1963 on a “ stair step”  basis 
(except for Negro students who might be admitted imme­
diately upon passage of special examinations) where appel­
lees did not sustain the burden of demonstrating the neces­
sity for such delay?



o

Statement

This cause commenced with an earlier (separate) action. 
See 146 F. Supp. 91, brought on behalf of some of the 
appellants here to desegregate the schools in Harford 
County. Two days before that cause came to trial appellees 
adopted a resolution stating that

“ any child regardless of race may make individual 
application to the Board of Education to be admitted 
to a school other than the one attended by such child, 
and the admissions to be granted by the Board of 
Education in accordance with such rules and regula­
tions as it may adopt and in accordance with the 
available facilities in such schools, effective for the 
school year beginning September, 1956.”  146 F. 
Supp. at p. 93.

Counsel for the Board asserted that “ Since that plan 
embraces the relief prayed for, I think that takes care of 
that . . . ”  Id. at p. 94. Relying on the Resolution, appel­
lants agreed to dismiss the action, and believed the con­
troversy concluded. Ibid. (The court concurred in their 
interpretation and later, in a fresh suit (the instant one) 
to require desegregation of the county’s schools, wrote that 
“ plaintiffs were justified in believing, as I did, that appli­
cations for transfer would be considered without regard 
to the race of the applicant.”  152 F. Supp. at p. 119. The 
Court therefore held appellees estopped to prevent admis­
sion without regard to race of individual named plaintiffs 
in the first suit. Id. at 119-120. The estoppel phase of the 
suit is not at issue here and is set forth as background.)

On June 6, 1956 the Board announced its “ Transfer 
Policy.”  It reserved “ the right during the period of 
transition to delay or deny the admission of a pupil to any 
school, if it deems such action wise and necessary for any 
good and sufficient reason.”  146 F. Supp. at p. 94.

On August 1,1956 it adopted a “ Desegregation Policy.”  
Citing studies which allegedly indicated “ lowering of



3

school standards”  upon desegregation and experience of 
other areas with “ bitter local opposition”  which prevents 
“ orderly transition . . . and also adversely affects the 
whole educational program.”  146 F. Supp at p. 95, the 
Board announced that it would only permit Negro appli­
cants for transfer to attend the first three grades of two 
elementary schools in the county. Id. at p. 95. The reason 
for selection of these schools was that they were, with 
some slight exception, allegedly “ the only elementary 
buildings in which space is available for additional pupils 
at the present time.”  The Board relied, too, on “ [s]ocial 
problems posed by the desegregation of schools. . . . ”  These, 
it opined “ can be solved with the least emotionalism when 
younger children are involved. The future rate of expan­
sion of this program,”  it concluded “ depends upon the 
success of these initial steps.”  Ibid.

Altogether sixty Negro children had applied for trans­
fer under the impression that no racial distinctions were 
to be made. There were, at the time, about 1,400 Negro and 
12,600 white children in the school population. Of the 
sixty applicants fifteen were admitted and forty-five re­
jected pursuant to the “ Desegregation Policy”  (App. pp. 
26a-27a).

Appellants, therefore, on August 28, 1956, filed a fresh 
suit alleging that defendants were under constitutional 
duty to desegregate completely and that they were estopped 
from retreating from their original resolution. (The Court 
found an estoppel as to named plaintiffs, but held that the 
County policy, generally, could not be fixed by estoppel. 
Applicants here urge only their constitutional position.) 
The trial court remitted appellants to an administrative 
remedy before the State Board of Education.

The appellants (including intervenors who were granted 
leave to intervene, 152 F. Supp. at p. 115) filed an appeal 
with the State Board. While it was pending appellees



4

changed their policy once more on February 6, 1957. The 
new policy provided that:

Applications for transfer will be accepted from 
pupils who wish to attend elementary schools in the 
areas where they live, if space is available in such 
schools. Space will be considered available in schools 
that were not more than 10% overcrowded as of 
February 1, 1957. All capacities are based on the 
state and national standard of thirty pupils per 
classroom. 152 F. Supp. at p. 116.

Under the then newest plain five elementary schools 
and the sixth grade in two schools were opened. Ibid.

The State Board held that the plan had been adopted in 
good faith and constituted a reasonable start. Ibid.

At a hearing of this cause on April 18, 1957 the plan of 
February 6 was amplified to include ten elementary schools 
and the .sixth grade in one school; as well as three elemen­
tary schools as of September 1958, when contemplated con­
struction was projected to be completed. Three elementary 
schools and the sixth grade of a high school would commence 
receiving Negroes’ applications in September 1959.

As a normal result of the plan, the Board observed, 
sixth grade graduates would have been ‘ ‘ admitted to junior 
high schools for the first time in September, 1958 and 
would proceed through high schools in the next higher 
grade each year. This will completely desegregate all 
schools of Harford County by September, 1963.”  152 F. 
Supp. at p. 117.

At the April, 1957 hearing, the Court ruled tentatively 
that the plan was “ generally satisfactory for the elemen­
tary grades but not for the high school grades.”  Ibid.

Another hearing was scheduled for June 11, 1957. On 
June 5th, the Board changed its plan once more and noti­
fied the parties of the change just before the hearing. 
(App. p. 39a). The new plan—consisting of additions to



5

the old would permit Negro children to' enter high school 
by a route additional to that of the earlier plan (whereby 
they could enter only through normal promotions from 
desegregated elementary schools). It would permit Negro 
children to take .special examinations and be specially 
evaluated for admission to nonsegregated high schools, 
152 F . Supp. at 117; white children, and Negro children 
entering via the high school plan designed to evolve during 
1958-1963, would not be required to take these tests. Under 
the revised plan complete desegregation of the seventh 
grade, however, was still deferred until September, 1958. 
152 F. Supp. at 119.

The reason given for the scheme of desegregating the 
high schools over a period of four years in conjunction 
with the right of .specially qualified Negro applicants to 
enter starting immediately, as summarized by the Court, 
was:

. . . when a child transfers to a high school from 
another high school he faces certain problems which 
do not arise when he enters the seventh grade, which 
is the lowest grade in the Harford County high 
schools. After a year or so in the high schools so­
cial groups, athletic groups and subject-interest 
groups have begun to crystallize, friendships and at­
tachments have been made, cliques have begun to 
develop. A child transferring to the school from 
another high school does not have the support of a 
group which whom he has passed through elementary 
school. A Negro child transferring to an upper grade 
at this time would not have the benefit of older 
brothers, sisters or cousins already in the school, or 
parents, relatives or friends who have been active 
in the P. T. A. High school teachers generally, with 
notable exceptions, are less ‘ pupil conscious’ and 
more ‘ subject conscious’ than teachers trained for 
elementary grades, and because each teacher has 
the class for only one or two subjects, are less likely 
to help in the readjustment. 152 F. Supp. at p. 118.

The pertinent parts of the plan of the school board, 
viewed as a whole, as of the last hearing, and as embodied



G

in the Court’s order from which plaintiffs appeal, are now 
as follows:

1. Defendants now and hereafter shall accept 
applications for admission or transfer to all ele­
mentary classes under their control (except in the 
schools named in paragraph 2 as to which applica­
tions will be accepted as described in that para­
graph), in accordance with rules and regulations set 
forth in paragraph 3 and every Negro child’s ap­
plication to classes governed by the instant para­
graph shall be considered and granted on the basis 
upon which it would be considered and granted if 
he were white.

2. Defendants shall accept Negro children’s ap­
plications for admission or transfer to Old Post Road, 
Bel Air and Highland elementary schools for the 
school year 1958-1959 and thereafter; and shall ac­
cept Negro children’s applications for admission or 
transfer to Forest Hill, Jarrettsville and Dublin ele­
mentary schools and the sixth grade at Edgewood 
High School for the school year 1959-1960 and there­
after. Every Negro child’s application to the schools 
named in this paragraph for the respective school 
years specified herein and thereafter shall be con­
sidered and granted on the basis upon which it would 
be considered and granted if he were white.

3. All applications for transfer to elementary 
classes shall be made during the month of May on a 
regular application form furnished by the Board of 
Education and must be approved by the applicant’s 
classroom teacher and the principal of the school the 
applicant attends. Such applications will be re­
viewed at the regular June meeting of the Board of 
Education. Applicants and their parents will be in­
formed of the action taken on applications prior to 
the close of school in June of each year. In no event 
shall a Negro child’s application for admission or 
transfer be rejected if it would have been granted 
had he been white.

4. A Negro child’s application for admission or 
transfer to seventh grade classes commencing Sep-



7

tember, 1958, and thereafter, under defendant’s con­
trol shall be considered and granted on the basis upon 
which it would be considered and granted if he were 
white. Such applications to the following classes 
shall be so treated during and after the year set forth 
alongside the class, as follows:

eighth grade — 1959 
ninth grade — 1960 
tenth grade — 1961 
eleventh grade — 1962 
twelfth grade — 1963

In 1963 and therafter all Negro applicants to all 
classes shall be admitted on the same basis upon 
vilich they would be admitted if they were white.

5. Commencing September, 1957 applications for 
admission or transfer by Negro children not qualified 
for admission or transfer under paragraph 4 to high 
schools under defendants’ control will be considered 
and granted if the applicants fulfill special qualifica­
tions pertaining to the probability of success of each 
individual pupil. These qualifications will be mea­
sured by_ intelligence and achievement tests, grade 
level achievements and other similar matters to be 
adjudged by a committee consisting of the principals 
of the schools from which the pupil is transferring 
and the school to which he desires to transfer, the 
Diiectoi of Instruction and the county supervisors 
working in these schools. Apart from the fact that 
these conditions may be applied only to Negro stu­
dents not qualified for admission under paragraph 4 
no i acial distinction is to be made in the administra­
tion of these tests and evaluations. Such applications 
may be made to the Board of Education between July 
1 and July 14 of 1957 and years following in which 
these tests may be given.

»  *  *

7. No racial distinctions whatsoever shall be 
made by defendants in treating Negro children who 
have been admitted to schools pursuant to this decree 
(App. la-3a)

*  *  *



8

The record reveals that problems of overcrowding, 
pupil adjustment, etc., would not stand in the way of free 
transfer for white children who had never attended the 
Harford County schools before and who moved into the 
county:

“ Q. (By Mr. Greenberg) If white persons moved 
from Delaware or Virginia or elsewhere, moved into 
Harford County, that is at the present time, such 
as to work in an industrial plant, would their children 
be admitted to the schools at the present time?

A. (By Mr. Willis, Superintendent of Schools) 
Yes, sir, they would.”  (App. p. 29a)

See also App. 28a.

Moreover, whatever may be said of overcrowding it 
was not so severe that the Subcommittee on Facilities of 
appellees’ Citizens Consultant Committee on Integration 
could not conclude: “ the committee is of the opinion that 
provision can be made to accommodate such colored 
students as apply for admission to Harford County public 
schools for the year 1956-57.”  (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1-a, 
App. p. 44a)

The record further shows that deferring desegregation 
of the seventh grade is without even purported justifica­
tion:

“ The Court: Why can’t you admit a child to
the seventh grade in 1957?

“ The Witness: (Mr. Willis) I can’t say why,
your Honor, but the policy was moving forward 
three years, and that was all.”  (App. pp. 35a-36a)

* # #
“ The Court: It is a policy reason and there is 

no administrative reason why you say the seventh 
grade in 1958 and not the eighth grade also, that it 
is only policy reasons.

‘ The Witness (Mr. W illis): The only extension 
of the policy that has been accepted for the reasons 
that have been given.

“ The Court: And no administrative reasons?
“ The Witness: Well, I won’t say none, but at 

the moment I don’t think of any big one, let’s put it 
that way.”  (App. pp. 36a-37a)'



9

The Board’s plans were based not only on the alleged 
considerations set forth above, but on apprehension that 
proceeding otherwise might provoke public demonstrations 
or opposition like some which occurred in Delaware and 
elsewhere. (App. pp. 30a, 37a, see 146 F. Supp. at p. 95.)

Argument

Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294 sets forth 
the only standards concerning what constitutes “ deliberate 
speed” : (a) “ plaintiffs’ . . . admission to public schools 
as soon as practicable on a nondiscriminatory basis ’ ’ ; and 
(b) that “ [t]he burden rests upon the defendant to estab­
lish that such [additional] time is necessary in the public 
interest and is consistent with good faith compliance at 
the earliest practicable date.”  349 U. S. at p. 300. While 
the need to solve administrative problems may be occasion 
for delay, and plans in the first instance are to be formulated 
by school boards, “ the vitality of these constitutional 
principles cannot be allowed to yield simply because of 
disagreement with them.”  Ibid.

The second Broivn opinion has been considered by 
District Courts and Courts of Appeals on a number of 
occasions. In this Circuit, district courts have ordered 
complete desegregation by the next school year or term 
in Charlottesville,1 2 Arlington,- Newport News 3 and Nor­
folk,4 where local school officials had taken no steps what­
ever towards desegregation, and, this Court has affirmed. 
Moreover, in a series of West Virginia District Court cases 
in this Circuit involving plans, overcrowding, fiscal prob­
lems, and time for consideration, have been rejected as 
grounds for delay when it was clear that Negro children

1 School Board of the City o f Charlottesville v. Allen, 240 F. 2d 
59 (4th Cir., 1957); cert. den. 353 U. S. 910.

2 Ibid.
3 School Board o f the City o f Newport News v. Adkins, 246 

F. 2d 325 (C. A. 4th, 1957) ; cert. den. — U. S. —.
4 Ibid.



10

could be admitted notwithstanding the preferred reasons 
for deferment. Shedd v. Board of Education of County 
of Logan, 1 R. Eel. L. Rep. 521 (S. D. W. Va. 1956); Dunn 
v. Board of Education of Greenbrier, 1 R. Rel. L. Rep. 319 
(S. D. W. Va. 1956); Taylor v. Board of Education of 
County of Raleigh, 1 Rel. L. Rep. 321 (S. D. W. Va. 1956); 
Pierce v. Board of Education of Cabell County (S. D. 
W. Va. 1956, unreported). These cases have treated over­
crowding not as a racial problem but as a spatial one. 
I f there were to be a shortage of space, admissions could 
be conditioned on room being available— but not on a 
racial basis as appellees have done.

(Of course, such decisions did not outlaw the application 
of normal transfer criteria. But, in this case, the Negro 
children barred by the Harford plan may not use normal 
transfer procedure.)

Other jurisdictions which have reviewed plans divide 
into two principal categories: on the one hand, cases in­
volving plans of districts in Kentucky, Ohio and the state 
colleges of Tennessee; on the other, plans.involving schools 
in Arkansas and Nashville. The first group of cases has 
uniformly rejected delay based upon overcrowding, fiscal 
problems, transportation difficulties and other administra­
tive considerations where it could not be shown that these 
actually were a bar to admitting Negro applicants.

In other words, the courts held that it was not enough 
that problems existed; they could not defer desegregation 
unless the burden of showing why time was required could 
be met. In Willis v. Walker, 136 F. Supp. 177 (W. D. Ky., 
1955) the court pointed out that “ no white children either 
before or after the application for admission of the plain­
tiffs, were denied admission”  and that “ good faith alone 
is not the test. There must be ‘ compliance at the earliest



11

practicable date. ’ ”  136 F. Supp. at p. 181. Desegregation 
was ordered by the next school year.5

Moreover in Clemons v. Board of Education of Hillsboro, 
228 F. 2d 853 (6th Cir., 1956) cert, denied 350 U. S. 1006, 
the Court of Appeals held that where as here, white chil­
dren were not rejected during alleged overcrowding de­
segregation could not be delayed for that reason. See also 
Booker v. Tennessee Board of Education, 240 F. 2d 689 
(6th Cir., 1957) cert. den. 1 L. Ed. 2d 915 reaffirming that 
race may not be used as a standard to deal with crowded 
conditions.

The second group of cases has approved plans running 
into perhaps six years on the basis of a recital of problems 
in school administration. But there has been no effort by 
appellees in the instant case to catalogue in detail as prob­
lems in Harford Comity the list of avowed reasons for delay 
proffered in Aaron v. Cooper, 243 F. 2d 361 (C. A. 8th, 
1957) one of the cases justifying delay:

Foremost among the problems of the Little Rock 
School District are those of finances, structural or­
ganization, enrollment, and the selection and train­
ing of an adequate staff. These problems are not 
new, but they will be greatly accentuated by integra­
tion. By its plan the School Board is seeking to in­
tegrate its schools and at the same time maintain or 
improve the quality of education available at these 
schools. Some of its objectives are to provide the 
best possible education that is economically feasible, 
to consider each child in the light of his individual 
ability and achievement, to foster sound promotion

5 See also Gordon v. Collins, 2 R. Rel. L. Rep. 304 (W . D. Ky. 
1957) (court rejecting alleged reasons for delay which included 
overcrowding, transportation difficulties, reallocation problems, need 
for time to study the problems, unfavorable social conditions; the 
position of defendants is unreported) ; Mitchell v. Pollock, 2 R. Rel. 
L. Rep. 305 (W . D. Ky., 1957) (rejecting similar grounds for de­
lay) ; and see, for the same considerations and holding Garnett v. 
Oakley, 2 R. Rel. L. Rep. 303 (W . D. Ky., 1957).



12

policies, to provide necessary flexibility in the school 
curriculum from one attendance area to another, to 
select, procure, and train an adequate school staff, 
to provide necessary in-service training for the 
school staff, to provide a necessary educational pro­
gram for deviates (mentally retarded, physically 
handicapped, speech correction, etc.), to provide the 
opportunity for children to attend school in the at­
tendance area where they reside, to foster sound ad­
ministrative practices, to maintain extra-curricular 
activities, to attempt to provide information neces­
sary for public understanding, acceptance and sup­
port, and to provide a “ teachable’ group of chil­
dren for each teacher. With regard to the later ob­
jective, it is the policy of the Board to group chil­
dren with enough homogeneity for efficient planning 
and classroom management. 143 F. Supp. at p. 
860.6

Appellants submit that the alleged impedimenta prof- 
ferred by appellees for delay herein have not only been 
rejected in the largest number of cases where considerd by 
the courts, but in those cases where reasons for delay have 
been held sufficient the barriers have surpassed in com­
plexity those advanced here.

The appellees are not in the dark as to how many Negro 
applicants they may expect: about 60 in a school system 
of 14,000 children; at least 15 of these already have been 
admitted.

Their argument about overcrowding becomes meaning­
less in view of this small number, when at the same time 
they concede that comparable white children transferring

8 The Nashville ( Kelley v. Board o f Education of the City of 
Nashville), 2 R. Rel. L. Rep. 21 (M . D. Tenn. 1957) delay was found 
to have been justified by “ numerous administrative problems, in­
cluding increased difficulty in procuring and retaining teachers, teach­
ing adjustments required because of differences in achievement 
levels o f students among Negro and white children, problems arising 
from a liberalized student transfer system supplanting a strict 
transfer system, as well as other problems . . .”



13

from out of the jurisdiction will be admitted. As to de­
ferring desegregation of the seventh grade they are at a 
loss even to advance a reason. With respect to the high 
schools they urge only that high school work is so alien 
from earlier educational experience that Negroes must he 
introduced a few at a time so that there will be others with 
whom they can associate. But white children too meet novel 
situations in high school, and it defies experience to deny 
that Negro children will make friends with their white 
classmates.

The chief administrative problem that appellees have 
experienced has been the formulation and reformulation 
of so many plans. The clear inference from the record 
has been that the sole reason for delay has been reluctance 
to admit Negro children, not difficulties recognized by the 
Supreme Court’s decision. Indeed appellees have stated 
on a number of occasions that they have put off desegrega­
tion because of fear of opposition. But compare, Jackson 
v. Rato don, 235 F. 2d 93 (5th Cir. 1956), cert. den. 352 
U. S. 925. While one may not view lightly the attitudinal 
conflict that may accompany revision of school procedures 
to comply with the Fourteenth Amendment, still the law 
has recognized some and rejected other grounds for delay. 
It does not recognize reluctance or social difficulties. More­
over, as Professor Charles Black, probably the most per­
ceptive commentator on the subject has demonstrated, 
submitting to community opposition does not create the 
acquiescence that purports to justify deferring or denying 
the rights of rejected Negro children pending the delay. 
Black, Paths to Desegregation, New Republic, October 21, 
1957, p. 10.

W herefore it is respectfully submitted that the judg­
ment below be reversed and appellees be required to cease



14

denying appellants their constitutional rights by the 
beginning of the next school term.

Respectfully submitted,

T hurgood Marshall,
107 West 43rd Street,

New York, N. Y.,

T ucker R. Dearing,
627 Aisquith Street, 

Baltimore, Md.,

Juanita J. M itchell,
1239 Druid Hill Avenue, 

Baltimore, Md.,

R obert B. AVatts,
1520 E. Monument Street, 

Baltimore, Md.,

Jack Greenberg,
107 AVest 43rd Street,

New York, N. Y.,
Counsel for Appellant.

Irma R obbins F eder,
of Counsel.



la

APPENDIX

Judgment

This cause having come on for final hearing by the court 
without a jury on June 11, 1957 and the court having heard 
all the evidence adduced and being fully advised in the 
premises, it is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed as 
follows:

1. Defendants now and hereafter shall accept applica­
tions for admission or transfer to all elementary classes 
under their control (except in the schools named in para­
graph 2 as to which applications will be accepted as 
described in that paragraph), in accordance with rules 
and regulations set forth in paragraph 3 and every Negro 
child’s application to classes governed by the instant para­
graph shall be considered and granted on the basis upon 
which it would be considered and granted if he were white.

2. Defendants shall accept Negro children’s applica­
tions for admission or transfer to Old Post Road, Bel Air 
and Highland elementary schools for the school year 1958-
1959 and thereafter; and shall accept Negro children’s 
applications for admission or transfer to Forest Hill, 
Jarrettsville and Dublin elementary schools and the sixth 
grade at Edgewood High School for the school years 1959-
1960 and thereafter. Every Negro child’s application to 
the schools named in this paragraph for the respective 
school years specified herein and thereafter shall be con­
sidered and granted on the basis upon which it would be 
considered and granted if he were white.

3. All applications for transfer to elementary classes 
shall be made during the month of May on a regular 
application form furnished by the Board of Education and 
must be approved by the applicant’s classroom teacher and



2a

Judgment

the principal of the school the applicant attends. Such 
applications will be reviewed at the regular June meeting 
of the Board of Education. Applicants and their parents 
will be informed of the action taken on applications prior 
to the close of school in June of each year. In no event 
shall a Negro child’s application for admission or transfer 
be rejected if it would have been granted had he been 
white.

4. A  Negro child’s application for admission or transfer 
to seventh grade classes commencing September, 1958, and 
thereafter, under defendant’s control shall be considered 
and granted on the basis upon which it would be considered 
and granted if he were white. Such applications to the 
following classes shall be so treated during and after the 
year set forth alongside the class, as follows:

eighth grade — 1959 
ninth grade —  1960 
tenth grade — 1961 
eleventh grade — 1962 
twelfth grade — 1963

In 1963 and thereafter all Negro applicants to all classes 
shall be admitted on the same basis upon which they would 
be admitted if they were white.

5. Commencing September, 1957 applications for admis­
sion or transfer by Negro children not qualified for admis­
sion or transfer under paragraph 4 to high schools under 
defendants’ control will be considered and granted if the 
applicants fulfill special qualifications pertaining to the 
probability of success of each individual pupil. These 
qualifications will be measured by intelligence and achieve­
ment tests, grade level achievements and other similar 
matters to be adjudged by a committee consisting of the



3a

Judgment

principals of the schools from which the pupil is transfer­
ring and the school to which he desires to transfer, the 
Director of Instruction and the county supervisors work­
ing in these schools. Apart from the fact that these condi­
tions may be applied only to Negro students not qualified 
for admission under paragraph 4 no racial distinction is 
to be made in the administration of these tests and evalua­
tions. Such applications may be made to the Board of 
Education between July 1 and July 15 of 1957 and years 
following in which these tests may be given.

6. Infant plaintiff Moore shall be admitted to the 
sixth grade at the Bel Air School. Infant plaintiff Spriggs 
shall be admitted to the eighth grade at Edgewood High 
School.

7. No racial distinctions whatsoever shall be made by 
defendants in treating Negro children who have been 
admitted to schools pursuant to this decree.

8. This Court retains jurisdiction for the purpose of 
granting any other relief that may become necessary.



4a

T homskn, Chief Judge.

This action, brought by four Negro children seeking ad­
mission to certain public schools in Harford County, Mary­
land, present: (1) the usual questions under Brown v.
Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 
873; Id., 349 U. S. 294, 75 S. Ct. 753, 99 L. Ed. 1083; (2) 
the same questions of law which were raised by the de­
fendants in Robinson v. Board of Education, D. C. D. Md., 
143 F. Supp. 481; and (3) a problem of equitable estoppel 
arising out of a previous action brought by the plaintiffs 
herein and others against the defendants herein, which was 
dismissed by the plaintiffs in reliance upon a resolution 
adopted by the defendants, the Board of Education of Har­
ford County.

F acts

Harford County is predominately rural, but in the 
southern portion of the county there are two large govern­
ment reservations, the Aberdeen Proving Ground at Aber­
deen, and the Army Chemical Center at Edgewood. On 
these reservations there are non-segregated housing de­
velopments.

There are approximately 12,600 white students and 1,400 
Negro students in the public schools of Harford County. 
The defendant Board of Education operates a 6-3-3 sys­
tem; that is, 6 years of elementary school, 3 years of jun­
ior high and 3 years of senior high. The white high schools, 
at Bel Air, Bush’s Comer (North Harford), Edgewood, 
Aberdeen, and Havre de Grace, are combination junior- 
senior high schools; the colored schools, at Hickory and 
Havre de Grace, are “ consolidated schools” , comprising 
elementary, junior high and senior high classes.

Opinion of November 23, 1956



5a

On June 30, 1955, just one month after the second opin­
ion in Brown v. Board of Education, the Board of Educa­
tion of Harford County selected a Citizens Consultant Com­
mittee of thirty-six members from all sections of the county, 
five of whom were Negroes, to consider the problem of 
desegregation of the public schools in Harford Comity 
and to make reconnnendations to the Board of Education.

On July 27, 1955, a group of Negro parents petitioned 
the Board of Education, calling upon them “ to take imme­
diate steps to reorganize the public schools under your 
jurisdiction on a nondiscriminatory basis.”

The Citizens Consultant Committee held its first meet­
ing on August 15, 1955, and was split up into a number of 
sub-committees, to consider facilities, transportation and 

. social relationships respectively. A member of the staff 
of the Board of Education served as consultant to each sub­
committee. The sub-committees met at various times dur­
ing the rest of the year 1955 and the first two months of 
1956.

On November 29, 1955, the four infant plaintiffs in the 
instant case, together with seventeen other Negro children, 
through their parents and next friends, brought suit in this 
court against the defendants herein (Civil Action No. 8615), 
alleging that the Board had “ refused to desegregate the 
schools within its jurisdiction and has not devised a plan 
for such desegregation,”  and praying that:

“ 1. The court advance this cause on the docket 
and order a speedy hearing of the application for 
preliminary injunction and the application for per­
manent injunction according to law and that upon 
such hearings:

“ 2. The Court enter preliminary and permanent 
judgments that any orders, customs, practices, and 
usages pursuant to which said plaintiffs are segre­

Opinion of November 23, 1956



6a

gated in tlieir schooling because of race, violate the 
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Con­
stitution.

“ 3. The Court issue preliminary injunctions or­
dering the defendants to promptly present a plan 
of desegregation to this Court which will expedi­
tiously desegregate the schools in Harford County 
and forever restrain and enjoin the defendants and 
each of them from thereafter requiring these plain­
tiffs and all other Negroes of public school age to 
attend or not to attend public schools in Harford 
County because of race.

“ The Court allow plaintiffs their costs and such 
other relief as may appear to the Court to be just. ”

On February 27, 1956, the Citizens Consultant Commit­
tee held a meeting, at which all of the sub-committees pre­
sented their final reports, and the full committee unani­
mously adopted the following resolution:

“ To recommend to the Board of Education for 
Harford County that any child regardless of race 
may make individual application to the Board of Ed­
ucation to be admitted to a school other than the 
one attended by such child, and the admissions to be 
granted by the Board of Education in accordance 
with such rules and regulations as it may adopt and 
in accordance with the available facilities in such 
schools; effective for the school year beginning Sep­
tember, 1956.”

On March 7, 1956, the Board of Education of Harford 
County adopted the resolution as submitted by the Citizens 
Consultant Committee.

Opinion of November 23, 1956



Opinion of November 23, 1956

On March 9, 1956, Civil Action No. 8615 came on for 
hearing before me on defendants’ motion to dismiss the 
complaint, pursuant to Rule 12(b), Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 
28 U. S. C. A. At the beginning of the hearing, counsel for 
defendants advised the court that the Board of Education 
of Harford County had “ approved or adopted”  the recom­
mendation offered by the Citizens Consultant Committee 
and read the resolution into the record. lie then said: 
*1 Since that plan embraces the relief prayed for, I think 
that takes care of that, and I want to call that to Your 
Honor’s attention.”  Counsel for plaintiffs then said: 
“ We are in a position to enter into a consent decree em­
bodying the terms of this resolution. We would like to 
discuss it, but I do not think there is any need for further 
litigation.”  Counsel for the defendants replied: “ I do 
not think that the Court should enter a consent decree when 
the relief prayed for is the policy adopted by the Board. 
I think the complaint should be dismissed in open court 
because there is really nothing before the Court to effectu­
ate.”  I then left the bench so that counsel could discuss 
the matter more freely. When court reconvened the fol­
lowing colloquy took place:

“ Mr. Greenberg: We discussed this resolution
that has been adopted by the School Board and we 
have told counsel for the defendants that we are sure 
they are proceeding in good faith and this plan is 
acceptable to us, and we will dismiss our suit and 
make that a matter of record in open court, and file 
this.

“ Mr. Barnes: That’s agreeable to the defend­
ants, your Honor.

“ The Court: I think it would be well to have the 
record show that in view of the fact that you have 
been presented with this you olfered to dismiss the 
suit, and attach this paper as an exhibit.



8a

“ Mr. Greenberg: Yes, sir.
“ The Court: I am very happy this has worked 

out in a very satisfactory way.”

The following stipulation, signed by counsel for all par­
ties, was filed in the case on the same day:

“ Dismissal of Action
“ 1. This cause came to be heard in this Court on 

motion to dismiss the 9th day of March, 1956.
“ 2. Defendants, by their counsel, presented to 

the Court the attached Resolution of the Harford 
County Citizens Consultant Committee, adopted by 
the Harford County Board of Education, as sub­
mitted, at its regular meeting on March 7, 1956.

“ 3. Relying upon said resolution, as adopted, 
plaintiffs hereby withdraw their complaint, and pray 
that the same be dismissed, costs to be paid by 
plaintiffs.”

To this stipulation was attached a certified copy of the 
resolution recommended by the Citizens Consultant Com­
mittee and adopted by the Harford County Board of Edu­
cation.

On June 6,1956, the Board of Education adopted the fol­
lowing “ Transfer Policy” , which all parties agree was 
reasonable:

“ I f a child desires to attend a school other than 
the one in which he is enrolled or registered, it will 
be necessary for his parents to request a transfer. 
Applications for transfer are available on request. 
These requests should be addressed to the Board of 
Education, c /o  Superintendent of Schools, Bel Air, 
Maryland. Applications will be received by the

Opinion of November 23,1956



9a

Board of Education between June 15 and July 15, 
1956. All applications for transfer must state the 
reason for the request, and must be approved by 
the principal of the school which the pupil is now 
attending.

“ Applications for transfer will be handled 
through the usual and normal channels now operating 
under the jurisdiction of the Board of Education and 
its executive officer, the Superintendent of Schools.

“ While the Board has no intentions of compel­
ling a pupil to attend a specific school or of denying 
him the privilege of transferring to another school, 
the Board reserves the right during the period of 
transition to delay or deny the admission of a pupil 
to any school, if it deems such action wise and neces­
sary for any good and sufficient reason.

“ All applications for transfer, with recommenda­
tions of the Superintendent of Schools, will be sub­
mitted to the Board of Education for final considera­
tion at the regular meeting of the Board on Wednes­
day, August 1, 1956. When requests for transfer are 
approved, parents must enroll their child at the 
school on the regular summer registration date, 
Friday, August 24, 1956.”

The transfer policy was advertised in all newspapers 
published in Harford County. Sixty applications for trans­
fer of Negro pupils were submitted within the time specified.

On August 1, 1956, the Board of Education of Harford 
County adopted a “ Desegregation Policy” , embodied in a 
document which recited the appointment of the Citizens 
Consultant Committee, the recommendation made by that 
Committee, the resolution adopted by the Board of Educa­
tion on March 7, 1956, and the transfer policy adopted by 
the Board in June. The statement of Desegregation Policy 
continued as follows:

Opinion of November 23, 1956



10a

“ The Supreme Court decision, which required 
desegregation of public schools, provided for an or­
derly, gradual transition based on the solution of 
varied local school problems. The resolution of the 
Harford County Citizens Consultant Committee is 
in accord with this principle. The report of this 
committee leaves the establishment of policies based 
on the assessing of local conditions of housing, 
transportation, personnel, educational standards, 
and social relationships to the discretion of the 
Board of Education.

“ The first concern of the Board of Education 
must always be that of providing the best possible 
school system for all of the children of Harford 
County. Several studies made in areas where com­
plete desegregation has been practiced have indi­
cated a lowering of school standards that is detri­
mental to all children. Experience in other areas has 
also shown that bitter local opposition to desegre­
gation in a school system not only prevents an 
orderly transition, but also adversely affects the 
whole educational program.

“ With these factors in mind, the Harford County 
Board of Education has adopted a policy for a 
gradual, but orderly, program for desegregation of 
the schools of Harford County. The Board has 
approved applications for the transfer of Negro 
pupils from colored to white schools in the first 
three grades in the Edgewood Elementary School 
and the Halls Cross Roads Elementary School. 
Children living in these areas are already living in 
integrated housing, and the adjustments will not 
be so great as in the rural areas of the county where 
such relationships do not exist. With the exception 
of two small schools, these are the only elementary 
buildings in which space is available for additional 
pupils at the present time.

Opinion of November 23,1956



11a

“ Social problems posed by the desegregation of 
schools must be given careful consideration. These 
can be solved with the least emotionalism when 
younger children are involved. The future rate of 
expansion of this program depends upon the suc­
cess of these initial steps.”

Pursuant to the Desegregation Policy so adopted, 
fifteen of the sixty applications were granted, and forty- 
five, including those of the infant plaintiffs in the instant 
case, were refused. On August 7, 1956, the defendant 
Charles W. Willis, Superintendent of Schools, sent the 
following letter to the parents of each of the infant plain­
tiffs :

“ The Board of Education, at its regular August 
meeting, adopted a policy for the desegregation of 
Harford County schools. Under the provisions of 
this policy your child will not be allowed to transfer 
from his present school. Your request for a trans­
fer has been refused by the Board of Education.

“ A  copy of the desegregation policy is enclosed.”

Neither the infant plaintiffs nor their parents appealed 
to the State Board of Education from the action of the 
County Superintendent denying their requests for transfer. 
Nor have any appeals been filed by or on behalf of any of 
the other Negro children whose requests for transfer were 
refused.

On August 28, 1956, the four infant plaintiffs by their 
parents and next friends filed the instant suit, pursuant to 
Rule 23(a)(3), “ for themselves and on behalf of all other 
Negroes similarly situated” , alleging most of the facts set 
out above and other facts, some of which are disputed, 
which need not be detailed at this time.

Infant plaintiff Moore seeks transfer from the Central 
Consolidated Elementary School in Hickory to the elemen­

Opinion of November 23,1956



12a

tary school in Bel Air, where he resides; Spriggs seeks 
transfer from the school in Hickory to the High School 
(junior high) in Edgewood, where he resides; Slade and 
Garland seek transfer from the Havre de Grace Consoli­
dated School to the Aberdeen High School (9th and 11th 
grades respectively). They pray that:

“ 1. The Court advance this cause on the docket 
and order a speedy hearing of the application for 
preliminary injunction and application for perma­
nent injunction according to law and that upon such 
hearing;

‘ ‘ 2. The Court enter preliminary and permanent 
judgments, that any orders, customs, practices and 
usages pursuant to which said plaintiffs are each of 
them, their lessees, agents and successors in office 
from denying to plaintiffs and other Negro residents 
of Harford County of the State of Maryland admis­
sion to any Public School operated and maintained 
by the Board of Education of Harford County, on 
account of race and color.”  (sic)

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pur­
suant to Rule 12(b), raising substantially the same points 
which were considered in Robinson v. Board of Education 
of St. Mary’s County, supra. I overruled that motion on 
October 5, 1956. Defendants filed their answer on October 
24, and the case was set for hearing on November 14. Both 
sides offered testimony and documentary evidence. From 
the testimony it appears that most, but not all, of the schools 
in Harford County are overcrowded if the “ standards”  
or “ goals”  set out by the State are considered, namely, an 
average of 30 per class in elementary schools and 25 per 
class in secondary schools. But defendants conceded that 
any white children moving into the county would be ad­
mitted to the appropriate white school, however crowded.

Opinion of November 23,1956



13a

The factors considered by the Board of Education in adopt­
ing the August 1 Desegregation Policy were discussed at 
some length. The President of the Board of Education and 
the County Superintendent testified that they did not con­
sult counsel before adopting the August 1 Desegregation 
Policy, but that they thought this policy was in accord 
with the recommendation of the Citizens Consultant Com­
mittee and with the March 7 resolution adopted by the 
Board.

Plaintiffs ’ counsel do not charge bad faith against either 
the Board or the Superintendent, but contend that:

“ I. The Harford County School Board Resolu­
tion of March 7, 1956, meant that from the follow­
ing school year and thereafter there would be no 
legally compelled racial segregation of school chil­
dren in Harford County;

‘ ‘ II. The defendants are estopped from any fur­
ther delay in complete integration by their action in 
causing plaintiffs to withdraw plaintiffs’ original 
suit in reliance on the Board’s resolution, which 
resolution was expressly incorporated by reference 
into the court’s order of dismissal;

“ III. Plaintiffs are entitled to judicial rather 
than administrative relief at this time in view of 
the history and facts of this case;

“ A. Defendants, by their actions, are estopped 
from asserting the doctrine of administrative ex­
haustion as a defense;

“ B. Even if defendants were not estopped from 
raising the defense of the doctrine of administrative 
exhaustion, the defense would neverthelss fail as the 
doctrine is not here applicable;

“ IV. Even if defendants could validly raise the 
questions of necessary administrative delay, their

Opinion of November 23, 1956



14a

own actions clearly demonstrate the fact that no 
additional time is needed to solve administrative 
problems;

“ A. Defendants are administratively ready to 
effectuate desegregation;

“ B. ‘ Community unreadiness’ constitutes no 
legal justification for continued segregation.”

D iscussion

[1] The Maryland statutes and decisions were analyzed 
in Robinson v. Board of Education of St. Mary’s County, 
supra, 143 F. Supp. at pages 487-491. I adhere to that 
analysis, and it need not be repeated here. It is clear that 
some of the factors considered by defendants in the instant 
case when they adopted the August 1 Desegregation Policy, 
and some of the points argued by counsel for plaintiffs in 
opposition thereto, involve administrative problems, over 
which the State Board of Education has jurisdiction, and 
which should be appealed to that Board under the Maryland 
authorities. Some of the other factors and points involve 
legal questions, which under Maryland law are for the 
courts. Most, if not all, involve both administrative and 
legal problems. Even the estoppel point is a mixed ques­
tion, because the March 7 resolution leaves open at least 
the question of available facilities, whatever other matters 
may have been foreclosed.

Whether the court should attempt to segregate the legal 
questions and decide them at this time, or should defer any 
decision until the State Board has been given an oppor­
tunity to pass on the problem as an integrated whole, is a 
matter of comity and discretion. Since, at the time of the 
hearing in the St. Mary’s County case, the State Board 
assured the court that it will give prompt attention to any

Opinion of November 23,1956



15a

appeal filed by or on behalf of Negro students, I am satisfied 
that I should not make a final decision in this case until 
the plaintiffs have appealed to the State Board from the 
action of the County Superintendent denying their applica­
tions for transfer. Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 
294, 75 S. Ct. 753; Hood v. Board of Trustees of Sumter 
County School District No. 2, 4 Cir., 232 F. 2d 626; Carson 
v. Board of Education of McDowell County, 4 Cir., 227 F. 
2d 789; Robinson v. Board of Education of St. Mary’s 
County, D. C. D. Md., 143 F. Supp. 481. However, the final 
decision in this court, if one is necessary after the State 
Board has acted, should be rendered within such time that 
the losing parties may have an appeal heard by the Court 
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit at its June, 1957 term.

Conclusions

[2] 1. The appointment of the Citizens Consultant 
Committee in the summer of 1955, its study, resulting in 
its recommendation to the Board of Education, and the 
resolution adopted by the Board on March 7, 1956, were 
a prompt and reasonable start toward compliance with 
the Supreme Court ruling.

2. I intimate no opinion at this time with respect to 
the sufficiency or propriety of the Desegregation Policy 
adopted by the Board on August 1, 1956.

3. I will enter a decree dismissing this action unless 
the plaintiffs appeal to the State Board of Education on 
or before December 15, 1956, from the action of the County 
Superintendent refusing their applications for transfer. 
I f plaintiffs enter such an appeal, I will stay further pro­
ceedings in this case until the State Board shall have 
decided the appeal or shall have delayed decision for an 
unreasonable time; provided that after the State Board 
shall have rendered its decision, or after March 1, 1957, 
whichever is earlier, either plaintiffs or defendants may 
request the court to set this case for further argument 
and prompt decision.

Opinion of November 23, 1956



16a

T homsen, Chief Judge.
This action was brought by four Negro children, on 

their own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, 
seeking admission to certain public schools in Harford 
County, Maryland. The background and first stages of 
the case are detailed in an opinion filed herein on Novem­
ber 23, 1956, D. C., 146 F. Supp. 91.

Following that opinion, the four plaintiffs and eight 
other children, who have asked and been granted leave 
to intervene in this case, filed appeals with the State Board 
o f Education from the refusal of the Superintendent of 
Schools of Harford County to grant their applications for 
transfer from consolidated schools for colored children to 
various white schools which were not desegregated in Sep­
tember, 1956.

While those appeals were pending before the State 
Board, on February 6, 1957, the Harford County Board 
adopted the following “ Extension of the Desegregation 
Policy for 1957-1958” :

“ Applications for transfers will be accepted from 
pupils who wish to attend elementary schools in the 
areas where they live, if space is available in such 
schools. Space will be considered available in 
schools that were not more than 10% overcrowded 
as of February 1, 1957. All capacities are based on 
the state and national standard of thirty pupils 
per classroom.

“ Under the above provision, applications will be 
accepted for transfer to all elementary schools ex­
cept Old Post Road, Forest Hill, Bel Air, Highland, 
Jarrettsville, the sixth grade at the Edgewood High 
School, and Dublin. Such applications must be 
made during the month of May on a regular applica­
tion form furnished by the Board of Education, and

Opinion of June 20, 1957



17a

must be approved by both the child’s classroom 
teacher and the principal of the school the child is 
now attending.

“ All applications will be reviewed at the regular 
June meeting of the Board of Education and pupils 
and their parents will be informed of the action 
taken on their applications prior to the close of 
school in June, 1957.”

After a hearing, the State Board dismissed the appeals, 
finding that “ the Harford County Board acted within the 
policy established by the State Board” , that “ the County 
Superintendent acted in good faith within the authority set 
forth in the August 1, 1956, Desegregation Policy adopted 
by the County Board” ,1 that the Desegration Policy was 
adopted in a bona fide effort to make a reasonable start 
toward actual desegregation of the Harford County pub­
lic schools” , and that “ this initial effort [the desegrega­
tion of three grades in two elementary schools] has been 
carried out without any untoward incidents” . The State 
Board also took ‘ ‘ cognizance of the resolution of the County 
Board of February 6, 1957” , set out above herein, “ as well 
as the testimony to the effect that the proposed Harford 
County Junior College, which is to be established in Bel Air 
in the fall of 1957, will open on a desegregated basis, and 
also the testimony to the effect that the present program 
of new buildings and additions will make further desegre­
gation possible” .

After the decision of the State Board, plaintiffs set this 
case for further hearing, as provided in the earlier decree, 
146 F. Supp. at page 98. That hearing was held on April 
18, 1957. Charles W. Willis, the Harford County Super­
intendent, explained and amplified the February 6, 1957 
resolution of the County Board. The President of the

Opinion of June 20, 1957

1 See 146 F. Supp. at page 95.



18a

Board and its counsel accepted that interpretation. So 
explained and amplified, the plan was substantially the 
same as the plan which was later adopted by the County 
Board on May 1, 1957, as follows:

“ The Board reviewed its desegregation policy 
of February 6, 1957. In accordance with this plan, 
the following elementary schools will be open in all 
six grades to Negro pupils at the beginning of the 
1957-1958 school year:

“ Emmorton Elementary School 
“ Edgewood Elementary School 
“ Aberdeen Elementary School 
“ Halls Cross Roads Elementary School 
“ Perryman Elementary School 
“ Churchville Elementary School 
“ Youth’s Benefit Elementary School 
“ Slate Ridge Elementary School 
“ Darlington Elementary School 
“ Havre de Grace Elementary School 
“ 6th Grade at Aberdeen High School 
“ Schools now under construction or contem­

plated for construction in 1958, if no unforeseen 
delays occur, will automatically open all elementary 
schools to Negro pupils by September, 1959. As a 
result of new construction, the elementary schools 
at Old Post Road, Bel Air, and Highland will accept 
applications for transfer of Negro pupils for the 
school year beginning in September, 1958. Forest 
Hill, Jarrettsville, Dublin and the sixth grade at 
the Edgewood High School would receive applica­
tions for the school year beginning in September, 
1959.

“ As a normal result of this plan, sixth grade 
graduates will be admitted to junior high schools 
for the first time in September, 1958 and will pro-

Opinion of June 20, 1957



19a

ceed through high schools in the next higher grade 
each year. This will completely desegregate all 
schools of Harford County by September, 1963.

“ The Board will continue to review this situation 
monthly and may consider earlier admittance of 
Negro pupils to the white high schools if such seems 
feasible. The Board reaffirmed its support of this 
plan as approved by the State Board of Education.”

At the April, 1957 hearing. I ruled tentatively that 
the plan was generally satisfactory for the elementary 
grades, but not for the high school grades, and suggested 
that the parties attempt to agree on a modified plan. Con­
ferences between counsel were held, but no agreement was 
reached. The County Board, however, on June 5, 1957, 
modified the plan as follows:

“ The Board reaffirmed its basic plan for the 
desegregation of Harford County Schools, but agreed 
to the following modification for consideration of 
transfers to the high schools during the in terim 
period while the plan is becoming fully effective.

“ Beginning in September, 1957, transfers will be 
considered for admission to the high schools of Har­
ford County. Any student wishing to transfer to a 
school nearer his home must make application to the 
Board of Education between July 1 and July 15. 
Such application will be evaluated by a committee 
consisting of the high school principals of the two 
schools concerned, the Director of Instruction, and 
the county supervisors working in these schools.

“ These applications will be approved or disap­
proved on the basis of the probability of success and 
adjustment of each individual pupil, and the commit- 
tee will utilize the best professional measures of both 
achievement and adjustment that can be obtained 
in each individual situation. This will include, but

Opinion of June 20, 1957



20a

not be limited to, the results of both standardized 
intelligence and achievement tests, with due con­
sideration being given to grade level achievements, 
both with respect to ability and with respect to the 
grade into which transfer is being requested.

“ The Board of Education and its professional 
staff will keep this problem under constant and con­
tinuous observation and study.”

The modified plan was presented to the court at a hear­
ing on June 11, 1957. It was made clear that when an 
elementary school has been desegregated., all Negro chil­
dren living in the area served by that school will have the 
same right to attend the school that a white child living 
in the same place would have, and the same option to attend 
that school or the appropriate consolidated school that a 
white child will have. The same rule will apply to the high 
schools, all of which operate at both junior high and senior 
high levels, as they become desegregated, grade by grade. 
Of course, the County Board will have the right to make 
reasonable regulations for the administration of its schools, 
so long as the regulations do not discriminate against 
anyone because of his race; the special provisions of the 
June 5, 1957 resolution will apply only during the transition 
period.

[1] Willis also testified that the applications which will 
be made pursuant to the June 5, 1957 modification will be 
approved or disapproved on the basis of educational fac­
tors, for the best interests of the student, and not for other 
reasons. I have confidence in the integrity, ability and 
fairness of Superintendent Willis and of the principals, 
supervisors and others who will make the decisions under 
his direction. In the light of that confidence, I must decide 
whether the modified plan meets the tests laid down in the

Opinion of June 20, 1957



21a

opinions of the Supreme Court and of the Fourth Circuit,2 
with such guidance as may be derived from other decisions.3 
The burden of proof is on defendants to show that a delay 
during a transition period is necessary, that the reasons 
for the delay are reasons which the court can accept under 
the constitutional rule laid down by the Supreme Court, and 
that the proposed plan is equitable under all the circum­
stances. In considering whether defendants have met that 
burden, the court must recognize that each county has a 
different combination of administrative problems, tradi­
tions and character. Many counties are predominantly 
rural, others suburban; some have large industrial areas 
or military reservations. See 146 F. Supp. at page 92.

[2] Eleven out of the eighteen elementary schools in 
Harford County will be completely desegregated in Sep­
tember, 1957, three months from now. Three more will be 
completely desegregated in 1958, and the remaining four 
in 1959. The reason for the delay in desegregating the 
seven schools is that the county board and superintendent 
believe that the problems which accompany desegregation 
can best be solved in schools which are not overcrowded and 
where the teachers are not handicapped by having too 
many children in one class. That factor would not justify 
unreasonable delay; but in the circumstances of this case 
it justifies the one or two years delay in desegregating the 
seven schools.

Opinion of June 20, 1957

2 Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294, 75 S. Ct. 753, 
99 L. Ed. 1083; Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483, 74 
S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873; Carson v. Warlick, 4 Cir., 238 F. 2d 724; 
Carson v. Board of Education of McDowell County, 4 Cir., 227 
F. 2d 789.

3 Aaron v. Cooper, D. C. E. D. Ark., 143 F. Supp. 855; Kelley 
v. Board of Education of the City of Nashville, M. D. Tenn., 2 Race 
Rel. L. Rep. 21 (1957). Cf Mitchell v. Pollock, W. D. Ky„ 2 Race 
Rel. L. Rep 305 (1957).



22a

With respect to the high schools, other factors are 
involved. Superintendent Willis testified that when a child 
transfers to a high school from another high seiiool he 
faces certain problems which do not arise when he enters 
the seventh grade, which is the lowest grade in the Harford 
County high schools. After a year or so in the high schools 
social groups, athletic groups and subject-interest groups 
have begun to crystallize, friendships and attachments have 
been made, cliques have begun to develop. A  child trans­
ferring to the school from another high school does not have 
the support of a group with whom he has passed through 
elementary school. A Negro child transferring to an upper 
grade at this time would not have the benefit of older 
brothers, sisters or cousins already in the school, or parents, 
relatives or friends who have been active in the P. T. A. 
High school teachers generally, with notable exceptions, 
are less “ pupil conscious”  and more “ subject conscious” 
than teachers trained for elementary grades, and because 
each teacher has the class for only one or two subjects, are 
less likely to help in the readjustment. The Harford County 
Board had sound reasons for making the transition on a 
year to year basis, so that most Negro children will have a 
normal high school experience, entering in the seventh grade 
and continuing through the same school. But I was un­
willing in April to approve a plan which would prevent all 
Negro children now in the sixth grade or above from ever 
attending a desegregated high school.

However, the modified plan adopted on June 5, 1957, 
permits any Negro child to apply next month for transfer 
to a presently white high school, and if his application is 
granted, to be admitted in September, 1957, three months 
hence. This plan is different from any to which my atten­
tion has been called or about which I have read. It is an 
equitable way of handling the transition period. My only 
doubt is whether it is necessary to postpone until September,

Opinion of June 20, 1957



23a

1958, the complete desegregation of the seventh grade. But 
I am not charged with the responsibility of administering 
the Harford County public school system. Although I 
think the reasons given for the delay of one year are less 
satisfactory than the reasons given for the rest of the 
plan, a federal court should be slow to say that the line 
must be drawn here and cannot reasonably be drawn there, 
where the difference in time is short and individual rights 
are reasonably protected, during the transition period, 
as they are by the June 5, 1957 modification.

[3] Plaintiffs are obviously worried whether the June 
5 plan will be carried out in good faith, or whether it will 
be used as a means of postponing the admission of Negro 
children into the high schools without proper justification. 
Although, as I have said, I have confidence in Superin­
tendent Willis and his staff, plaintiffs’ doubts are not un­
reasonable in view of the past history of this litigation. 
I will, therefore, enter a decree which will spell out the 
rights of individual children under the plan, and will 
retain jurisdiction of the case, so that if any child or his 
parents feel that his application has been rejected for a 
reason not authorized by the modified plan, a prompt hear­
ing may be granted.

There remains the question of estoppel, based upon 
the resolution adopted by the County Board on March 
7, 1956, and the interpretation of that resolution by its 
counsel in open court in the earlier Harford County case, 
as a result of which the plaintiffs therein dismissed their 
action. The facts on this point are set out fully in 146 
F. Supp. 93 et seq.

[4] The March 7, 1956 resolution was somewhat 
ambiguous, but, as it was interpreted by defendants’ coun­
sel in open court, plaintiffs were justified in believing, as 
I did, that applications for transfer would be considered 
without regard to the race of the applicant. The County

Opinion of June 20, 1957



24a

Board interpreted it differently in the statement entitled 
“ Desegregation Policy”  adopted on August 1, 1956; see 
146 F. Supp. at page 95. I cannot accept the interpreta­
tion adopted by the County Board, but I fold that it was 
adopted as a result of a mistake and not as the result of 
any bad faith on the part of the Board, the Superintendent, 
or their counsel. The Board adopted the Desegregation 
Policy of August, 1956, in the honest belief that it was to 
the best interests of all of the children in the County. 
Pursuant to that policy the Superintendent admitted 
fifteen Negro children to two previously white schools, 
but denied admission to forty-five others, including the 
infant plaintiffs herein.

There is grave doubt whether a governmental agency 
such as a county school board can be estopped from adopt­
ing a policy, otherwise legal, which it believes to be in the 
best interests of all the people in the County. In the instant 
case it would be inequitable and improper, on the ground 
of estoppel, to require the County Board to open all schools 
to Negroes immediately, as requested in the complaint. 
The County Board should not be foreclosed by the facts 
which I have found from taking.such actions, and adopt­
ing and modifying such policies, as it believes to be in the 
best interest of the people in the County, so long as those 
actions and those policies are constitutional.

[5] The individual plaintiffs in the earlier case, how­
ever, were prevented from pressing their individual rights 
in this court and on appeal by the adoption of the March 
7, 1956 resolution and by what took place in this court 
in that case. See 146 F. Supp. 93 et seq. Two of those 
infant plaintiffs are before the court in this case, and their 
counsel urge that their individual rights, as well as any 
class rights, be enforced. The reasons which prevent an 
estoppel against the County Board so far as its general

Opinion of June 20, 1957



25a

Opinion of June 20, 1957

policies are concerned, do not apply with equal force to 
the individual claims of those two children. It would not 
be equitable to delay any further the enforcement of their 
individual rights.

I will, therefore, include in the decree a provision 
enjoining the County Board from refusing to admit Stephen 
Moore and Dennis Spriggs to whatever school would be 
appropriate for them if they were white.



26a

Excerpts from Testimony

*  #  *

Direct testimony of Charles W. W illis, Superintendent 
of Schools.

[15 j Q. How many Negro children applied? A. We had 
59 applications, and there was a mix-up on one that we 
later admitted.

[16] Q. Well, approximately? A. That made 60.
Q. How many Negro children are there in the County 

School System altogether? A. A little over 1400 at the 
present time.

Q. How many white children are there in the County 
School System? A. About 12,600, roughly ten percent Ne­
gro children, about 14,000 children.

Q. That is 60 children of the total school population 
out of how many ? A. 14,000.

Q. And how many Negro children were admitted? A. 
Fifteen.

Q. Now, what was the reason for admitting fifteen and 
rejecting the other forty-five? A. The main reason why 
was we had facilities in the areas where the children were 
admitted, and we had integrated housing in those areas, 
and we felt that we would have less social adjustment prob­
lems in the lower grades, and this was the beginning of 
the plan of gradual integration, and we felt that that would 
work in our System.

We had studied all we could find out about previous at­
tempts and we had found out that trouble usually arose in
[17] rural areas, quite a bit more from rural areas, and 
we had committees from these rural areas, protest any 
action on the part of the Board, and this seemed like the 
most workable plan.



27a

Q. Was there an absence of facilities to admit the forty- 
live who desired admission? A. In some places, yes.

Q. For how many places? A. Well, I can’t exactly say 
specifically because I don’t know just where the applica­
tions were from, which schools they were made from.

Mr. Barnes: Maybe you had better ask him
about a specific school. Ask him about a specific 
school.

The Court: Eventually 1 want to know about the 
four applications as well as the others.

By Mr. Greenberg:

Q. Now, in what instances was there an absence of facil- 
itiesities— that is, tell us in something more than just gen­
eral terms—with respect to not admitting any of these 
forty-five applicants who desired admission. A. That was 
from the area in Bel Air, Havre de Grace, Aberdeen. Jar- 
rettsville, Highland, Churchville, Youth Benefit.

Mr. Greenberg: Should I give him the list?
The Witness: Yes, sir, 1 better look at it to be 

sure.
Old Post Road, Einmerton, Aberdeen, Youth 

Benefit, Forest Hill, Churchville, Bel Air.
[18] The Court: Jarrettsville.
Mr. Greenberg: Churchville.
The Witness: Highland. Dublin, Havre de

Grace. Those are Elementary Schools,
The Court: Well, Aberdeen Elementary, Bel Air 

Elementary.
The Witness: All of those are Elementary.
The Court: All of those Elementary?
The Witness: Yes, not high schools. Bel Air.

Charles W. Willis—Direct



28a

The Court: A matter of facilities?
The Witness: Yes. North Harford. Edgewood.
The Court: Jarrettsville.

By Mr. Greenberg:

Q. Mr. Willis, are you aware that the Citizens Consult­
ant Committee reported that there is an excess of space in 
the Havre de Grace Elementary and High School? A. 
No, I was not aware they reported on the Havre de Grace 
Elementary School, no.

Q. Well, look at page 4. A. Well, this is a four-room 
affair, and we had this abandoned school building, and this 
is used for purposes of special education.

Q. What about the high school? A. The high school I 
didn’t list.

[19] The Court: You just said.
The Witness: The Havre de Grace High School, 

no, I didn’t include that.

By Mr. Greenberg:

Q. You listed about fifteen schools in which there was 
supposed to be an absence of facilities; is that correct? A. 
Yes, sir, according to the standards that are used na­
tionally.

Q. That would be an average of about three Negro chil­
dren out of the total in those schools, and if there were 
white children that moved into the area, would they be 
admitted? A. They would be admitted.

Q. So it is not the absence of facilities but the fact 
that the children were Negro; is that correct? A. I would 
say that is not exactly it, no. We have to consider a lot 
of factors including the transportation factor, which is one

Charles W. Willis—Direct



29a

of the big things in the County, as we transport over 14,000 
children, and I think there is the plan, 1 mean tire idea of 
adjusting the tiling and if you wish, let me explain it.

Q. Not at this time, no.

The Court: 1 think you should let him explain 
it if he wishes to do so.

The Witness: Now, I would like to describe it 
in this way, your Honor. When tire original opin­
ion, the original [20] opinion of the Supreme Court 
came out in 1954, the first opinion, the members of 
tire Board of Education felt about these clearly in 
needed facilities in the schools and were approached 
by a great many people particularly in our rural 
areas about how impossible it was at the time for us 
to do anything along these lines.

The Court: In the matter of—
The Witness: In the matter of integration, and 

it was the thought that if we would do it gradually in 
a matter of starting off in one area which was bet­
ter prepared for the integration program than in 
another area we should do it that way, we would 
have a better chance of success in these schools.

By Mr. Greenberg:

Q. If white persons moved from Delaware or Virginia 
or elsewhere, moved into Harford County, that is at the 
present time, such as to work in an industrial plant, would 
their children be admitted to the schools at the present 
time? A. Yes, sir, they would.

*  *  *

[33] Q. Why did you and the Board integrate the first 
three grades in Bel Air Elementary— Edgewood Elemen­
tary School and [34] Hall Cross Roads School and not

Charles W. Willis—Direct



30a

the other grades in these and the other schools in Har­
ford County? A. For these reasons: One reason was
that space was limited in these schools; two, the people 
were used to living together in integrated housing and 
working together in areas of industrialization, and we also 
had been informed by Mr. Wilson, our attorney, that the 
suggestion to begin with a control area had been made last 
year, and we got the impression that the feeling was that 
if we could start in an area of decontrol than any other 
place we had a much better chance of success.

Q. Well, were there any other reasons that moved the 
Board? A. One was that in these specific areas we found 
that little children had no prejudices; they can adjust more 
easily than older children who have fixed prejudices, or as 
adults, and also there is the problem that if you begin with 
children putting them together that their social adjust­
ments are much easier, they can adjust themselves more 
readily, and are more emotionally stable, and this seemed 
a more favorable climate in which to work, and our experi­
ence has shown that what we have done is working satis­
factorily, and the children are getting along all right and 
satisfactorily.

Q. And it was for those reasons that the Board an­
nounced [35] its desegregation policy of August 1st, 1956 
that you denied these applications on August 7th, 1956? A. 
I had no other reason except this that—

Q. Yes. A. —that the Board is primarily concerned 
with the educational problem, and they were interested in 
everyone getting the best possible education and also1 in the 
non-interference with the advancement or extension of the 
whole educational program, and we read in the papers, 
principally in Delaware and other places that these things 
have caused problems, trouble with the integration prob­
lem, which was something that could affect the whole school 
system.

Charles W. Willis—Direct



31a

Mr. Greenberg: 1 move to strike out this testi­
mony, Your Honor, problems in Delaware, and so 
on, there is no eveidence that any of those things 
have any effect here, and in addition to that, I sub­
mit that it is totally irrelevant.

The Court: Well, if it is one of the things that 
influenced them it may be an important considera­
tion. That was one of the points you are making.

# • *

[47] The Court: As to the next question, I will 
allow [48] either side to object if they wish to object 
because it is pretty close to what the Court has to 
decide, but I take it that a decision on these ques­
tions involves what might be called administrative 
factors and policy factors, and that in any final de­
cision they may be mixed.

What administrative reasons were there for re­
fusing the transfer of each of these four children?

Mr. Barnes: Your Honor, don’t we have to define 
what an administrative reason is or factor is?

The Court: Well, what he has said was that in 
the case of two of the children there was an over­
crowded condition in the Bel Air School. There 
was an overcrowded condition in the Edgewood 
school. There was no overcrowded condition in 
Aberdeen.

Perhaps this is the way to put it: In making
your decision with respect to these sixty children, 
did you consider the overcrowded condition of a 
school, that is, an individual school, as a reason for 
or a reason against transferring children, or was the 
consideration of the overcrowded condition of the 
individual school simply one of the factors considered 
in adopting the general policy?

The Witness: I think there is a yes or no answer 
which requires an explanation. I think the over-all

Charles W. Willis—Direct



32a

policy was predicated upon the things that I have 
just mentioned [49] before which restricted the per­
mission to transfer the first three grades, and within 
that policy facilities were considered.

The Court: So that confining it to the first three 
grades was a question of—

The Witness: Facilities.
The Court: —facilities.
The Witness: Yes, no—
The Court: No, so the question of confining it 

to the first three grades was a question of policy. 
That is, in the first three grades facilities were con­
sidered?

The Witness: That is correct. That is what I 
meant to say.

The Court: Was the decision to limit it to the two 
schools, yours or the School Board’s?

The Witness: Well, I guess we come back to the 
other statement that it was a matter of facilities in 
the early schools that were available.

The Court: Were they the only two schools that 
had the facilities available or were there a number 
of other schools in which had facilities been available 
to which a child might have been admitted if he had 
applied ?

The Witness: There were two other schools, one 
in Perryman and Darlington.

The Court: Two other schools were not over­
crowded ?

[50] The Witness: That is correct.
The Court: And they were—and you say no

applications for Perryman?
The Witness: No.
The Court: And there was one application for 

Darlington?

Charles W. Willis—Direct



33a

The Witness: Yes.
The Court: And that was refused?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: For policy reasons?
The Witness: Policy reasons I would say out­

side of the original policy, yes.
The Court: Because it was a particularly sen­

sitive spot?
The Witness: Yes, it is a very rural area, one 

of our most rural areas.
The Court: I think that is all I have.
If either side wishes to ask any further questions 

based upon the line I have opened up, you are wel­
come to do so.

By Mr. Greenberg:

Q. When you speak of “ overcrowding”  what do you 
mean by overcrowding? What is your definition of over­
crowding? A. Over thirty in an elementary and over 
twenty-five in a high school.

[51] Q. Then in each of these schools when they have 
that many they are overcrowded? A. No, you can’t say 
that because in a high school you might have in one 
class eight or ten or in another forty or forty-five.

Q. So you mean the over-all average? A. That is cor­
rect. Those are the standard figures used in practically 
all school analyses.

The Court: I think that is a fact that the Court 
would have to find that you will have to use another 
method of calculating crowding in the high and ele­
mentary because there is a difference in courses.

The Witness: Yes.

Charles W. Willis—Direct



34a

Charles W. Willis—Direct 

By Mr. Greenberg:

Q. Now, in passing upon the application of each ap­
plicant for transfer, did you look at the school to which he 
applied, the grade in which he was applying and determine 
that it was crowded or not crowded! A. Yes.

Q. You did that? A. Yes.
Q. And it turned out that the only two schools in Har­

ford Comity that weren’t crowded were these two schools 
to which the plaintiffs, or the two schools to which certain 
applicants were seeking admission?

[52] The Court: I thought he said four.
The Witness: Yes.

By Mr. Greenberg:

Q. But if a white child had applied to any of the so- 
called overcrowded schools he would have been admitted? 
A. That’s correct.

The Court: Were there Negro schools in these 
overcrowded also?

The Witness: Slightly, yes, but they are both
combination schools, part high and part elementary, 
and you have to use both standards on them, but 
they are just slightly over capacity.

The Court: Are they more overcrowded or less 
overcrowded than white schools, or are they some 
one way and some the other?

The Witness: I would say it would be about like 
some of the others, your Honor, but I would like to 
answer your question specifically this way that they 
would have about a ten percent over their—they 
would be about ten percent over their capacity based 
upon the figures that we discussed before.



35a

David G. Harry—Cross

The Court: You are talking about the Hickory 
Consolidated?

The Witness: Yes.
[53] The Court: Is about ten percent?
The Witness: About that point.
The Court: How about the Bel Air High school?
The Witness: That is about thirty-five percent. 

It has a capacity of 690, and it ’s something like 800.
The Court: Is the Bdgewood High School any 

more overcrowded than the Hickory Consolidated 
School?

The Witness: I don’t think so. I think they are 
probably about the same.

The Court: The other three were a matter of 
policy?

The Witness: Yes.
# • •

Cross-examination of David 6 .  H arry, President of 
School Board.

[62] Q. You say these rural areas are sensitive areas; 
is that correct? A. That is correct.

Q. And if these people moved in you would still refuse? 
A. Well, it is part of the process of the educational system 
in rural areas and when you find it is working in one part 
of the County you have to work it out as a County System 
and not as an individual system, and when you find it is 
working in one part of the County you can move it to the 
other parts of the County, but it was my opinion and the 
opinion of the Board that we must limit it to the areas 
which are at the present time integrated in housing and in 
areas where the requests were greatest.

Q. So your reason was based on the fear that there 
might be conflict or racial difficulties? A. That is my 
feeling.

•  *  *



36a

[104] The Court: Why can’t you admit a child to the 
seventh grade in 1957 ?

The Witness: (Mr. Willis) 1 can’t say why, your Honor, 
but the policy was moving forward three years, and that 
was all.

The Court: Is there any administrative reason as dis­
tinguished from the considerations which may legally be 
applied under the plan—I don’t want to limit the question; 
I want to get everything—but what is the reason or reasons 
why children cannot be admitted to Junior High School 
in the fall of 1957 ?

You see, I am not in passing upon your plan passing 
upon the validity of the reasons that you offer for that 
plan. Some reasons I presume are valid; some reasons 
are invalid.

I am not saying what the reasons are. Each one must 
be applied to the facts of the particular case.

What is the reason why you can’t admit people to the 
seventh grade?

The Witness: The only thing that I can say is that in 
extending the policy it was a gradual, a policy of gradual 
desegregation, and the Board in discussing it planned only 
to extend it three years at this time.

The Court: That’s a matter of policy rather than [105] 
a matter of administrative necessity.

The Witness: Or administrative convenience, and your 
policy reasons have been stated in the evidence.

The Witness: Yes.
The Court: I want to be sure that when you have ad­

ministrative reasons that they may be considered sepa­
rately.

Now, I take it that you are allowing a child to enter the 
seventh grade there, would you permit a transfer to the 
eighth and ninth grades?

The Witness: The policy has not been extended beyond 
that.

The Court: Well, are there administrative reasons for 
saying that at the high school level children should start

Charles W. Willis—Direct



37a

at the seventh grade in junior high and the tenth grade in 
senior high?

The Witness: I think nothing but policy reasons.
The Court: Nothing but policy reasons?
The Witness: That is correct.
The Court: It is a policy reason and there is no admin­

istrative reason why you say the seventh grade in 1958 
and not the eighth grade also, that it is only policy reasons.

The Witness: The only extension of the policy that
has been accepted for the reasons that have been given.

[106] The Court: And no administrative reasons?
The Witness: Well, I won’t say none, but at the mo­

ment, I don’t think of any big one; let’s put it that way.
• # •

[157] Mr. Barnes: Well, here is what I am afraid of. 
If you push this thing too fast, as my brother wants me 
to do, you are going to have some incidents among the stu­
dents themselves in these high schools until after this whole 
problem has been developed in the lower grades when you 
are not likely to have those problems, and the Board can 
say honestly, “ We have tried it in the lower grades and 
it worked well and there have been no incidents” , and you 
go in with an entirely different atmosphere, not only from 
the public viewpoint, and I think myself it ’s perfectly 
absurd to say that you can’t give any consideration to 
the public reaction in the public schools, but however that 
may be, the reaction of the children themselves because, 
if your Honor please, you can’t get away from the fact, 
can’t help but reflect the attitudes of their parents par­
ticularly in the adolescent age, and it ’s nonsense to say, 
well because you don’t fear riots it has no effect upon the 
pedagogical system of the county. It works on the minds 
of the children.

If these colored children are not accepted, if they are 
rejected, whether it be by cold indifference or by active 
hostility, it is going to adversed affect their education.

Charles W. Willis—Direct



38a

[158] The Court: Well, isn’t that just what the Su­
preme Court has said you can’t consider?

Mr. Barnes: No, I don’t think so, because that has to 
do with the pedagogical system of education.

The Court: Well, if you can continue this prejudice 
forever, then you will never get anywhere.

Mr. Barnes: No, not that.
The Court: You will never get anywhere.
Mr. Barnes: No, I agree you couldn’t continue it for­

ever, that I am quite willing to concede; but where you 
are making a bona fide effort to do it reasonably and ration­
ally and to meet that problem, which we never have, cer­
tainly within a reasonable time to my way of thinking. 
This segregation situation has been with us for over a 
century.

The Court: AVhat is going to be better in 1958 than 
in 1957 ?

Mr. Barnes: Because you will have your complete ele­
mentary schools practically completely integrated.

The Court: No, not completely integrated.
Mr. Barnes: No.
The Court: You will have two or three children who 

will have graduated from the elementary schools, two or 
three, or maybe a dozen, Negro children who will have had 
one or two years in the elementary schools.

[159] Mr. Barnes: That is very important, it seems 
to me.

The Court: And that’s all you are going to have.
Mr. Barnes: That’s true, and that’s important, it

seems to me.
The Court: And most of them are going to have one 

year.
Mr. Barnes: Well, that’s so, because you have a prag­

matic system as against a theoretical because the thing is, 
will it work?

Charles W. Willis—Direct



39a

If I were going to theorize about this, I would say, 
“ Well, nothing has ever happened, nothing is going to 
happen” , and then it happens, what then?

Now, we have this system that has been adopted—
• • •

[175] Mrs. Mitchell: Your Honor, there has just been re­
ceived this last resolution, and it is the first knowledge we 
have received of any action of the Board of Education of 
Harford County, and we would like to have the opportu­
nity to go over the contents of the resolution which was 
enacted on June 5, 1957, because we have not had an oppor­
tunity to confer about it.

The Court: Well, a copy was given to me about five 
minutes ago; so we are in about the same situation.

• • *

Charles W. Willis—Direct



40a

Aberdeen, Maryland 
December 29, 1955

Excerpts from Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1-a

From: Subcommittee on Facilities
To: Harford Consultant Committee on Integration

Ernest H. Volkart, Chairman

I. A uthority

On September 23, 1955, a subcommittee consisting of 
Harold Baker, Chairman, Mrs. Norman J. Schnepfe and 
Mr. Paul Beatly Harlan, Associate Members, was ap­
pointed to investigate and report on the various facilities 
at the disposal of the Board of Education of Harford 
County, particularly with reference to buildings, class­
rooms, and pertinent training aids. The subcommittee 
interpreted its mission to be : To establish a definite rela­
tionship between the number of classrooms available 
throughout the county, and the number of pupils enrolled, 
using as a standard the optimum figures set by qualified 
National and State authorities, and also, insofar as pos­
sible, to preview conditions in the school year 1956-57. (See 
Appendix I)

II. A ctivities

The subcommittees began its investigations on Septem­
ber 28, 1955 and concluded them on November 29, 1955. 
Each of the twenty-three schools was visited by one or other 
member of the group. Neither principals nor teachers re­
ceived advance notice of intended visits, thus assuring 
observation of the normal routine of operations.

Duration of examinations, depending upon the size of 
the unit, varied from one-half hour to two hours. Attention 
was directed toward condition (both external and internal)



41a

of buildings. Heating and lighting facilities were carefully 
noted. Cafeteria equipment and management, shops and 
laboratories, domestic science rooms and equipment, safety 
and health provisions, recreational and athletic space and 
equipment, locker rooms, toilets, and all other adjuncts 
pertinent to the comfort and well-being of teachers and stu­
dents were inspected. Special attention was focused upon 
classrooms with a view to determining whether the number 
of occupants exceeded or fell short of the standard (twenty- 
five high school or thirty elementary students per class­
room) as determined by established authority. (See Ap­
pendix II)

III. F indings

1. Buildings (General). In the Harford school sys­
tem there are only three buildings of frame construction. 
These include the elementary plants at Emmorton, Perry­
man, and a four-room structure at Havre de Grace pur­
chased for the use of primary pupils who could not be ac­
commodated at Havre de Grace Elementary School. All 
other buildings are of brick-concrete construction, and are 
either new, or in such state of preservation as to warrant 
alteration or addition to meet the demands of increased 
enrollment or new activities. All buildings are in safe 
condition.

2. Heating plants. These are, in the main, adequate. 
Where practicable, coal-burning units are being replaced 
by fuel oil systems.

3. Light. Window area, in proportion to wall area, con­
forms to conventional specifications. Lighting systems are 
adequate; fixtures are, for the most part, advantageously 
located.

4. Cafeterias. All except two schools, Emmorton and 
Perryman, have some provision for cafeteria service. The

Excerpts from Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1-a



42a

newer buildings incorporate complete, modern dining rooms, 
kitchens, and food-storage space and equipment. Meals 
are adequate, of high quality, and designed to supply the 
nourishment required by the growing child. In many cases, 
mothers of attending pupils volunteer for service in the 
cafeterias. In buildings in which the cafeteria was not in­
cluded in the original layout, gymnasiums, auditoriums, and 
other adaptable rooms serve the purpose. All cafeterias 
are clean, orderly, and well-staffed.

5. Domestic Science Rooms, Laboratories and Shops. 
These facilities are confined to high schools and consoli­
dated schools. Increasing interest in ‘ 1 do-it-yourself ’ ’ proj­
ects, together with the already existing trend in that direc­
tion, is reflected in the increasing demand for such train­
ing. Some shop units have been added in the current year; 
others are in the process of construction. Additional shop 
space and equipment is necessary in several schools. The 
same may be affirmed of Domestic Science facilities.

6. Recreation and Athletics. All schools have made 
such provision for recreation and athletics as space and 
funds will permit. In some cases students themselves have 
raised funds or performed the manual labor necessary to 
expand athletic facilities and programs.

7. Safety and Health. All schools have, in such mea­
sure as space, personnel, and equipment will permit, estab­
lished some system looking to the elimination of safety haz­
ards, and to the promotion of first-aid treatment. First- 
aid kits, cots, stretchers, and other equipment are at hand. 
Where enrollment justifies such action, part-time or full­
time nurses are employed.

8. Classroom—Enrollment Ratios, 1955-1956. Data 
gathered through investigations of the subcoirunittee, sup­
plemented by figures supplied by the Board of Education,

Excerpts from Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1-a



43a

indicate that during the current school year (1955-56), 
7,808 elementary pupils are occupying 217 classrooms, an 
average of 36 per room; that 5,479 high school students are 
housed in 154 classrooms, an average of approximately 
35.7 per room.

9. Current Classroom Construction. In anticipation of 
increased enrollment, thirty-four additional classrooms are 
in the process of construction, and are expected to he avail­
able for use at the beginning of the 1956-57 school year. 
These are located as indicated below.

H igh S chools E lementary S chools

Bel Air 16 Halls Cross Hoads 4
Aberdeen 6 Edgewood 4
Edgewood 4

10. Classroom—Enrollment Ratios 1956-57. The esti­
mated elementary enrollment for the coming year (1956-57) 
is 8,290. To accommodate these pupils, 225 classrooms are 
available—an average of approximately 36.8 pupils per 
room. High school registration is expected to total 5,930 
for which 188 classrooms are provided—an average of ap­
proximately 31.5 per room.

11. Observations (General). While the averages de­
termined in the above paragraph exceed the figures gener­
ally conceded to be ideal, they do indicate an improvement 
over 1955-56 conditions especially as they apply to high 
schools. During the prosecution of the mission with which 
it was entrusted, your subcommittee has observed that while 
in certain cases executive and teaching personnel has been 
sorely taxed, the challenge has been promptly and efficiently 
met. Facilities have been exploited to the utmost without 
sacrificing any part of the educational or cultural training 
to which the pupil is entitled.

12. Unused Capacities. In Appendix IV, Column 4, it 
will be noted that eight schools are not expected to be filled 
to capacity in 1956-57. These are as follows:

Excerpts from Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1-a



44a

Excerpts from Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1-a

E lementary H igh
Emmorton
Edgewood

Aberdeen 
Havre de Grace

Halls Cross Roads 
Slate Ridge 
Darlington
Havre de Grace (special)

It is also apparent that these eight schools can accom­
modate 510 more students than they expect to receive. This 
condition may be attributed either to the fact that class­
rooms have been added or that population in certain specific 
areas has decreased. It should not be construed as affect­
ing in any degree the averages established in Paragraph 10. 
What it actually indicates is an unequal distribution of 
pupils, since it can be seen by referring to Appendix IV, 
Column 3, that the seventeen schools not mentioned in 
Paragraph 12 will have 1,050 pupils in excess of their 
capacities. It also points to the fact that the schools listed 
in Paragraph 12 above may add to their rosters by admit­
ting colored students residing in the area in which the 
school is located, or near enough to such area as to make 
use of existing transportation facilities. Such action 
would materially reduce the pressure on other schools whose 
facilities are sorely taxed.

IV. Conclusions. After carefully considering all fac­
tors at its disposal, the committee is of the opinion that 
provision can be made to accommodate such colored stu­
dents as apply for admission to Harford County public 
schools for the year 1956-57.

Respectfully submitted,

M rs. N orman J. S chnepfe,
M r. Paul B eatly H arlan,
M r. G. H arold B aker, Chairman.



Supreme Printing Co., I nc., 54 L afayette Street, N. Y. 13, BEekman 3-2320

(1467)