McCready v Byrd Brief and Appendix of Appellees

    v

I n  T h e

Court of Appeals of Maryland

O cto ber  T e r m , 1949

N o. 139

ESTHER McCREADY, 
minor by

ELIZABETH McCREADY, 
her next friend and parent,

vs.
Appellant,

HARRY C. BYRD,
President, et al.,

Appellees.

A ppeal from the Baltimore City Court

( Sm ith , C.J.)

BRIEF AND APPENDIX OF APPELLEES

Hall Ham m ond ,
Attorney General,

K enneth C. Proctor, 
Assistant Attorney General,

Attorneys for Appellees,
1901 Mathieson Building, 
Baltimore 2, Maryland.

The Daily Record Co., Baltimore 3, Md.



I .<

THE DAILY RECORD, BALTIMORE, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1950

Christoff el Trial Halted Drug Concerns Charged 
For D ecision On With Monopoly In

House Records
Washington, Feb. 9 (U.R)— Former 

union leader Harold R. Christoffel’s 
second perjury trial was halted 
temporarily today until Congress 
decided whether to turn over rec­
ords the Court wants as evidence.

Federal Judge F. Dickinson Letts 
adjourned the trial until tomorrow 
after defense counsel demanded the 
presentation in Court of all House 
Labor Committee records for March 
1, 1947. That is the date on which 
Christoffel is charged with denying 
falsely to the Committee that he 
had Communist connections.

The Committee has offered to let 
the defense examine the records in 
the Committee office, but Letts ruled 
that they “must be here in this 
Court room.”

After denying a defense motion 
for a directed verdict of acquittal, 
the judge asked House Clerk Ralph 
R. Roberts to ask the Committee 
for the records.

The defense contended it has been 
denied access to the Committee’s 
records for that date.

Letts accordingly instructed Rob­
erts to tell the House that the Court 
needs all the Committee records 
that have been requested.

“Of course,” Letts said, “ this 
case cannot proceed to a conclusion 
until the House tells us we can have 
this important evidence. It is diffi 
cult to understand their reluctance.’ 

The House has passed a resolu 
tion leaving it up to its Judiciary 
Committee whether any records 
should be turned over to the Court.

One of the major issues in the 
trial has been whether a majority 
of the Labor Committee was present 
when Christoffel testified before it 
in 1947. His first perjury convic­
tion was overturned by the United 
States Supreme Court because the 
Grovernment did not prove the pres- 
nce of a quorum.

Hard Gelatin
- The 

two 
con-

Washington, Feb. 9 (U.R) — 
Government today charged 
major drug companies with 
spiring to monopolize the hard gel­
atin capsule market.

Attorney-General J. Howard Mc­
Grath announced filing of an anti­
trust civil suit against Parke, Davis 
& Co., Detroit, Mich., and Mi Lilly 
& Co., Indianapolis. The suit was 
filed in Detroit Federal Court.

The Justice Department said both 
companies, in addition to making- 
pharmaceuticals a n d  biologicals, 
make and sell hard gelatin capsules 
used primarily as soluable contain­
ers for drugs and medicines.

The complaint accuses the com­
panies of obtaining control over ma­
chinery used to make and fill the 
capsules and to have used this con­
trol to achieve and maintain the 
alleged monopoly.

They also are charged with price 
fixing through an exclusive patent 
licensing arrangement and with 
leasing filling machinery only to 
those who agree to purchase all 
their capsules.

The Department said that as a re­
sult the companies now make and 
sell over 90 per cent, of all hard gel­
atin capsules.

The Government asked the Court 
to end the alleged illegal control of 
the market by ordering them to sell 
filling machines to any present li­
censee, to lease or sell such ma­
chines. to any other upon fair terms 
and to furnish to any applicant 
the “know-how” for making and 
operating machinery used in manu­
facturing capsules,

The Government also asked the 
Court to prohibit further price fix­
ing, tie-in leases, illegal use of pat­
ents and other restrictive practices.

Notice To Our Readers

T he  D aily  R ecord will not be published on Monday, 
February 13th, a legal holiday in observance of Lincoln’s 
Birthday. Our office will be closed the entire day.

Advertisements and other matter to be inserted in 
Tuesday’s issjue will be received at our office until 2 :30 
P. M. tomorrow.

House Passes Bill Raising 
Postal Rates

Washington, Feb. 9 (U.R)—The 
House today passed by voice vote 
and sent to the Senate a bill rais­
ing postal rates! approximately 
$130,000,000 a year;;

Passage came after the House re­
buffed, 217 to 150 on a roll call, an 
attempt to shunt the bill aside by 
sending it back to committee.

The House met an hour earlier 
than usual today to get final action 
on the measure.

Atomic Appropriation
----- fWashington, Febf 9 (U.R) — The 

House today pass# by voice vote 
and sent to the senate an appro­
priation bill providing extra funds 
to keep the atomic program going 
at top speed for the rest of this 
fiscal year.

Besides a $78,885,COO contract au­
thority for the Atomic Energy Com­
mission, the bill calls for $732,- 
485,500 in cash for other agencies. 
Of the cash. $720,000,000 is ear­
marked for veterans benefits.

'ennsylvania Undertaker 
Settles Suit Involving 

Moving Picture
Philadelphia, Feb. 9 (U.R) — _ A 

Pennsylvania undertaker who claim- 
d he was ridiculed in the motion 

picture, the Miracle of the Bells, 
dropped his Federal Court suits for 
>2,500,000 damages from five motion 
picture companies.

Attorneys for Raymond Polnias- 
zek, Glen Lyons, Pa., and the mo- 
ion picture companies filed “stipu­

lations” in United States District 
Court for the dismissal of the dam­
age actions.

The stipulations said the five suits 
were ended upon payment of Court 
:osts, but did not indicate whether 

a settlement was made by the de­
fendants outside of Court.

The undertaker’s suits in New 
York against R u ssell Janney, author 
of the book on which the picture 
was based, and two publishing com­
panies were settled out of Court 
ast week.

Polniaszek charged he was held 
ip to “public scorn, ridicule and 
shame” by the miserly undertaker, 
)fick Orloff. in the movie. He said 
;he plot closely paralleled the tragic 
stage and movie career of Olga 
Irotski, a native of the small coal 
nining town of Glen Lyon.

’ostmaster Sibley Tells 
Congress Of Need For 

Pay Raise

Judge To Sign Injunction 
Forcing Lewis To Give 

Up Some Demands
Washington, Feb. 9 (U.R)—Federal 

Judge Richmond B. Keecli late to­
day granted an injunction which 
would force John L. Lewis to give 
np several contract demands and 
send striking soft coal miners back 
to work until he does.

It is not a Taft-Hartley 80-day 
injunction, but one asked by Robert 
Denham, general counsel of the Na­
tional Labor Relations Board.

Keech will sign the actual injunc­
tion order tomorrow and it will be­
come effective immediately.

The order will direct the United 
Mine Workers to return to work 
until Lewis drops at least three of 
its 1949-50 contract demands.

The coal industry had complained 
to Denham that several of Lewis’ 
demands were illegal. It asked 
Denham to force Lewis to give Up 
the demands.

They are:
1. The “willing and able” to work 

clause.
2. Demand for union shop em­

ployment, which forces mine owners 
to employ union men only.

3. A welfare and retirement fund 
which pays benefits to no one but 
union members.

The injunction granted by Keech 
has nothing 'to do with the one 
which President Truman is expected 
to seek next Monday, The latter 
would be sought under the national 
emergency section of the Taft-Hart- 
ley law to put the striking miners 
back to work for about 80 days.

Auction Sales Today
Michael Fox:

No. 911 McDonough street, on the 
premises at 3 P. M (Adv. Page 3, 
Col. 6.)
A. J. Billig & So.:

No. 2048 Fount:*! i street, on the 
premises at 2 P. M. (Adv. Page 3, 
Col. 6.)
Louis Fox St Co.:

Sale of Automobile, on the prem­
ises, 1150 East North avenue, at 
9.30 A. M.

Washington, Feb. 9 (U.R)—Post- 
nasters asked Congress today for 
. pay raise. They claim postal 
lerks are making more than they 
ire.

Neal A. Sibley, Baltimore, Md., 
Postmaster, representing the Na- 
ional Association of Postmasters, 
:old the House Post Office Com­
mittee that clerks, carriers, rural 
arriers and supervisors in many 
ases make more money than the 

Postmasters.
* * The Postmaster must fur­

nish the equipment for the Post Of­
fice and perform the custodial, jani­
tor and mail messenger service in 
many cases,” Sibley said. “There 
is no limit to the number of hours 

postmaster may have to work, 
nor is there a minimum wage ap­
plicable to them.”

Chairman Tom Murray, Dem., 
Tenn., said the proposed salary 
boosts would mean a 200 per cent, 
increase since 1945 for some post-

Federal Aid To Education 
Seen Needed But Held 

In Committee

LEGAL NOTICES.

First Insertion.
The STATE TAX COMMISSION OF 

MARYLAND hereby gives notice that 
ARTICLES OF DISSOLUTION of the 

17-25 EAST LEE STREET, 
INCORPORATED

were received for record on January 24, 
1950, in accordance with the provisions 
of Sec. 96 of Art. 23 of the Code (1939 
Edition).

JOS. H. A. BOGAN. 
WILLIAM W. TRAVERS, 

fl0.17,24,mh3 Commissioners.
The STATE TAX COMMISSION OF 

MARYLAND hereby gives notice that 
ARTICLES OF DISSOLUTION of the 

KEYSTONE FOUNDRY, INC. 
were received for record on January 31, 
1950, in accordance with the provisions 
of Sec. 96 of Art. 23 of the Code (1939 
Edition).

JOS. H, A. BOGAN.
WILLIAM W. TRAVERS. 

£10.17,24,mh3 Commissioners.
The STATE TAX COMMISSION OF 

MARYLAND hereby gives notice that: 
ARTICLES OF DISSOLUTION of the 

40 HOPKINS PLACE, 
INCORPORATED

were received for record on January 31, 
1950, in accordance with the provisions 
of Sec. 96 of Art. 23 of the Code (1939 
Edition).

JOS. H. A. ROC AN, 
WILLIAM W. TRAVERS. 

fl0.17,24,mh3 Commissioners.

LEGAL NOTICES.
First Insertion.

Emory R. Cole, Solicitor.
14 East: Pleasant Street.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT NO. 2 OF 
BALTIMORE CITY—(59B—104—1950) 

—’Eddie Allen, 1009 Madison, vs, Helen 
L. Allen, 609 Adams Lane, Raleigh, N. C.

ORDER OF PUBLICATION.
The object of this suit is to procure a 

divorce, a vinculo matrimonii by the 
plaintiff, Eddie Allen, from the defen­
dant, Helen L. Allen.

The bill recites that the parties were 
married on February 3. 1943. by a Jus­
tice of the Peace in Dillon, South Caro­
lina. That plaintiff has been a resident 
of Baltimore, Maryland, for more than 
one year last passed and the defendant 
is a non-resident, living in Raleigh, 
N. C. That plaintiff was always kind, 
loving and faithful companion towards 
the defendant, but that she without 
just cause or provocation, deserted and 
abandoned him on or about the 23rd 
day of September, 1945. That such con­
tinuous abandonment has been the de­
fendant’s unprovoked and final act, and 
there is no hope for reconciliation. That 
there are no children.

It is thereupon ordered this 9th day 
of February, 1950, by the Circuit Court 
No. 2 of Baltimore City, that the com­
plainant Eddie Allen, by causing a copy 
of this order to be inserted in ■ some 
daily newspaper published in Baltimore. 
Maryland, once a week for four succes­
sive weeks on or before the 13th day of 
March, 1950, give notice to the absent 
defendant, Helen L. Allen, o f the object 
and substance of this bill, warning- her 
to appear in this Court on or before the 
28th day of March, 1950, to show cause 
if any she may have why a decree 
ought not to be passed as prayed.

EMORY H. NILES. 
True Copy—:Test:

JOHN S. CLARKE. 
flO, 17,24, mli3 Clerk.

SMALL ESTATE NOTICE.

LEGAL NOTICES.

First Insertion.

John M. Baumann, Attorney,
616 Munsey! Building.

THIS US TO GIVE 1 NOTICE, That the 
subscriber has Obtained from the 

Orphans’ Court of Baltimore City letters 
testamentary on the I estate of 

JAMES CONSTANT DA SHIELDS, 
late of said city, deceased. All persons 
having claims against said deceased 
are hereby warned to exhibit the same, 
with the vouchers thereof legally au­
thenticated. to the subscriber on or 
before the 12th day of August, 1950; 
they may otherwise, by law, be ex­
cluded from all benefit of said estate. 
All persons indebted to said estate are 
requested to make immediate payment. 
Given under my hajnd this 9th day of 
February, 1950. J

.TAM ES R U S S ft -L  D A S H IE L D S , 
flO, 17.24, mh3 Executor.

THIS IS TO GIVE NOTICE, to any 
person having any claim against the 

estate of
ELLA McKAY LINSLEY. 

late of Baltimore City, deceased, is 
hereby warned to exhibit the same, with 
the vouchers thereof duly authenticated, 
to the subscriber on or before March 13, 
1950; they may otherwise, by law, be 
excluded from all benefit of said estate.

ELLEN L. MESSERSMITH, 
2930 Frederick Ave., 

£10 Small Estate Petitioner.
SMALL ESTATE NOTICE.

THIS IS TO GIVE NOTICE, to any 
person having any claim against the 

estate of
PETER ZING-O,

late of Baltimore City, deceased, is 
hereby warned to exhibit the same, with 
the vouchers thereof duly authenticated, 
to the subscriber on or before March 13, 
1950; they may otherwise, by law, be 
excluded from all benefit of said estate.

ANNA PINIECKI.
321 Drew Street,

flO Small Estate Petitioner.

THIS IS TO GIVE NOTICE, to any 
person having any claim against the 

estate of
SAG A TEL ESAHAKIAN, 

late of Baltimore City, deceased, is 
hereby warned to exhibit the same, with 
the vouchers thereof duly authenticated, 
to the subscriber on or before March 13, 
1950: they may otherwise, by law, be 
excluded from all benefit of said estate.

SAM ARUTARIAN,
2316 E. 9 St. Cleveland, Ohio, 

1:10 Small Estate Petitioner.

Harry I. Kaplan, Attorney,
931 Mu nsey(Building.

THIS US TO GIVE NOTICE, That the 
subscribers have obtained from the 

Orphans’ Court of Baltimore City letters 
testamentary on the estate of

JOHN J. BELADA, SR., 
late of said city, deceased. All person® 
having claims against eaid deceased 
aye hereby warned to exhibit the same, 
with the vouchers thereof legally au­
thenticated, to the 'subscribers on or 
before the 12th day of August, 1950; 
they may otherwise. b37 law, be ex­
cluded from all benefit of said estate. 
All persons indebted tO’ said estate are 
requested to make immediate payment. 
Given under our hands this 9th day of 
February, 1950.

JOHN J. BELADA, JR., 
HENRY J. BELADA, 

£10.17,24,mh3 Executors.

Washington, Feb. 9 (U.R)—It ap­
peared unlikely today that the Gov­
ernment’s plea for a Federal aid-to- 
education law would jar the contro­
versial aid bill out of the House 
Education and Labor Committee.

Rep. Samuel K. McConnell, Jr., 
Rep., Pa., ranking minority mem­
ber of the Committee, said United 
States Education Commissioner Ear] 
J. McGrath’s arguments won’t help 
the Committee settle its main prob­
lem : what to do about parochial 
schools.

McGrath had said it does not take 
an “alarmist” to predict “shocking 
disorder and ineffectiveness” for 
the nation’s school system unless 
something is done about the critical 
shortage of teachers and school 
buildings.

“The need for Federal aid to edu­
cation is clear and imperative,’ 
McGrath said in his annual report.

Frank F. Luthardt, Attorney,
2 East Lexington Street.

IN THE ORPHANS!.COURT OF BAL­
TIMORE CITY—February 9. 1950.
Ordered, that the sale of leasehold 

estate of FANNIE E. BELL, deceased, 
made by FRANK F. LUTHARDT. the 
administrator c. t. a. of the said de 
ceased in pursuance of the laws of 
Maryland, vesting the Orphans’ Court 
of said State with the power to order 
the sale of leasehold estate, and this day 
reported to this Court by the said ad­
ministrator c. t. a. be ratified and con­
firmed, unless cause be shown to the 
contrary, on or before the 13th day of 
March. 1950; provided, a copy of this 
order be inserted in some daily news­
paper, published in the City of Balti­
more, at least once]? a week for three 
successive weeks, before the 13th day 
of March, 1950.

The report states the amount of sales 
to be $4,500.

JOHN H. BOUSE, 
Register of Wills for Baltimore City. 

True Copy—'Test: j
JOHN H. BOUSE, 

Register of Wills- fpr Baltimore City. 
flO.17,24 f

SMALL ESTATE NOTICE.

SMALL ESTATE NOTICE.

THIS IS TO GIVE NOTICE, to any 
person having any claim against the 

estate of
ALBERT EDMONDS, 

late of Baltimore City, deceased, is 
hereby warned to exhibit the same, with 
the vouchers thereof duly authenticated, 
to the subscriber on or before March 10, 
1950; they may otherwise, by law, be 
excluded from all benefit of said estate.

JAMES EDMONDS,
1411 W. Lafayette Ave., 

flO Small Estate Petitioner.

U. Theodore Hayes, Solicitor,
14 East Pleasant Street.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT NO. 2 OF
BALTIMORE CITY—(59B—194—1950) 

—Hilda Mae Crim vs. Richard Crim.
ORDER OF PUBLICATION.

The object of this suit is to procure 
a divorce a vinculo matrimonii by Hilda 
Mae Crim from Richard Crim.

The bill recites marriage June 23, 
1945, in Brooklyn, New York; that the 
plaintiff is a resident of Baltimore. 
Maryland, and defendant is a non­
resident of Maryland, last heard from 
at Clinton Prison, Dannemorra, New 
York. That defendant unjustly deserted 
and abandoned plaintiff on or about 
January 5, 1946, that separation has 
continued without interruption more 
than eighteen (18) months immediately 
prior hereto. That it was defendant’s 
final and deliberate act, and that there 
is no hope of reconciliation. That there 
are no children as issue of said mar­
riage.

It is thereupon ordered by the Cir­
cuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City, this 
9th day of February, 1950, that the 
plaintiff by causing a copy of this order 
to be inserted in some daily newspaper 
published in Baltimore City, once a 
week for four consecutive weeks before 
the 13th day of March, 1950, giving- 
notice to the absent defendant of the 
object and substance of this bill and 
warning him to be and appear in this 
Court, in person or by solicitor, on or 
before the 28th day of March, 1950. to 
show cause, if any he may have, why 
a decree should not be passed as prayed.

EMORY" H. NILES. 
True Copy—Test :

f 10,17,24, mh3
JOHN S. CLARKE.

Clerk.
SM ALL ESTATE NOTICE.

J. Britain Winter, Attorney.
2 East Lexington Street.

THIS IS TO GIVE NOTICE, to any 
person having any claim against the 

estate of m
WILLIAM E. PARK, 

late of Baltimore City, deceased, is 
hereby warned to exhibit the same, with 
the vouchers thereof duly authenticated, to the subscriber on or before March 10, 
1950; they may otherwise, by law, be 
excluded from all benefit of said estate.

HATTIE F. PARK,
3719 Woodbine Ave., 

flO Small Estate Petitioner.

Thomas Isekoff, Attorney,
411 Munsey Building.

THIS US TO GIVE NOTICE, That the 
subscriber has obtained from the 

Orphans’ Court of Baltimore City letters 
of administration on the estate of 

ANNIES ALMIRA HALL, 
late of eaid city, deceased. All person® 
having claims against eaid deceased 
are hereby warned to exhibit the same, 
with the vouchers thereof legally au­
thenticated, to the subscriber on or 
before the 12th day of August, 1950; 
they may otherwise, by law, be ex­
cluded from all benefit of said e®tate. 
All persons indebted to said estate are 
requested to make immediate payment. 
Given under my hand this 9th day of 
February, 1950.

THOMAS ISEKOFF, 
fl0,17,24,mh3 Administrator.

Due, Nickerson & Whiteford, Attorneys, 
Title Building.

THIS US TO GIVE NOTICE, That the 
subscriber has obtained from the 

Orphans’ Court of Baltimore City letters 
testamentary on the estate of 

CHARLES B. FRANK, 
late of said city, deceased. All persons 
having claims against said deceased 
are hereby warned to exhibit the same, 
with the vouchers thereof legally au­
thenticated, to the subscriber on or 
before the 12th day of August, 1950; 
they may otherwise, by law, be ex­
cluded from all benefit of said estate. 
All persons indebted to said estate are 
requested to make immediate payment. 
Given under my hand this 9th day of 
February, 1950.

LILLIAN GREEN FRANK, 
f  10,17,24, mh3 Executrix.

I House Passes Bill To Aid 
Korea And Formosa

Washington, Feb. 9 (U.R) — The 
[House today passed a bill to extend 

>,000,000 in economic aid to Korea 
land Formosa.

By a vote of 240 to 134, the House 
I reversed its stand of three weeks 
I ago when a GOP-led bloc killed by 
la  single vote a $60,000,000 aid bill 
|for Korea alone.

The bill passed today extends 
■economic aid through June 30th. 
■Economic help to Korea would other- 
Iwise expire February 15. Already 
Ipassed by the Senate, the measure 
■now goes back there for considera- 
Ition of House amendments.

Economy-minded Democrats and 
(Republicans twice failed to slash 
Ithe aid bill to $20,000,000 during 
(hours-long debate today. A move by 

iep. A. L. Miller, Rep., Neb., to send 
|the bill back to committee failed by 

. roll call vote of 239 to 137.

Robert N. BaeF, Attorney, 
Baltimore Life Building.

IN THE ORPHANSVCOURT OF BAL­
TIMORE CITY—February 9, 1950. 
Ordered, that the;-sale of the real and 

leasehold estate of STEPHEN S. LEE, 
deceased, made by BROOKIE D. LEE 
and ROBERT N, BAER, the executors 
of the last will and testament of the 
said deceased, and this day reported to 
this Court, by the said executors, be 
ratified and confirmed, unless cause be 
shown to the contrary, on or before the 
1.3th day of March. 1950; provided, a 
copy of this order be inserted in some 
daily newspaper published in the City 
of Baltimore, at least once a week, for 
three successive weeks, before the said 
13th day of March, 1950.

The report states the amount of sales 
to be $11,550 being a %th undivided 
interest.

LEO J. CUMMINGS, 
SAMUEL LASCH, 
DHLANY FOSTER, 

True Copy—Test: Judges.
JOHN N. BOUSE,

Register of Wills for Baltimore 'City. 
£10,17,24

William Hoffenberg, Attorney,
1516 Court Square Building.

THIS IS TO GIVE NOTICE, That the 
subscriber has obtained from the 

Orphans’ Court of Baltimore City letters 
of administration c. t. a. on the estate of 

JOHN W. .MULES,
late of said city, deceased. All person® 
having claims, against eaid deceased 
are hereby warned to exhibit the same, 
with the vouchers thereof legally au­
thenticated, to the subscriber on or 
before the 12th day of August, 1950; 
they may otherwise, by law, be ex­
cluded from all benefit of said estate. 
All persons indebted, to said estate are 
requested to make immediate payment. 
Given under my hand this 9th day of 
February, 1950.

WILLIAM HOFFBNBERG, 
£10,17,24,mh3 Administrator, c. t. a.

APPROVE TRYING HIR0HITO

London, Feb. 9 (U.R)—The Chinese 
Communist government has accept­
ed officially the Soviet proposal to 

|set up an international court to try 
3mperor Hirohito and tour Japanese 
generals on bacteriological warfare 
barges, the Communist New China 

Inews agency said today.

IN THE ORPHANS’ COURT OF BAI.
TIMOR® CITY—February 9, 1950.
Ordered, that the sale of the real 

estate of GUS-SIE ROCKSTROH, de­
ceased, made bv MERCANTILE TRUST 
CO. OF BALTO. and ERNEST VOL- 
KART. the executors, of the last will 
and testament of the said deceased, and 
this day reported to this Court, by the 
said executors, be ratified and con­
firmed. unless cause be shown to the 
contrary, on or before the 13th day of 
March, 1950; provided, a copy of this 
order be inserted in some daily news­
paper published in the City of Balti­
more, at least once a week, for three 
successive weeks; before the said 13th 
day of March, 1950.

The report states the amount of sales 
to be $11,190.

LEO J. CUMMINGS,
SAMUEL LASCH.
OTJLANY FOSTER, 

True Copy—Test: Judges.
JOHN N. BOUSE.

Register of Wills for Baltimore City, 
f 10,17,24

G. Everett Siefeert, Solicitor,
100 St, Paul Street.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BALTI­
MORE CITY—(C—8—1950)—Prospect 

Permanent Building & Loan Associa­
tion of Baltimore City, a body corpo­
rate, vs. Catherine M. Zirl.

Ordered, by the Circuit Court of 
Baltimore City this 9th day of Feb­
ruary, 1950, that the sale of the prop­
erty mentioned in these proceedings, 
made and reported by G. EVERETT 
SIEBERT, trustee, be ratified and con 
firmed, unless cause to the contrary 
thereof be shown on or before the 13th 
day of March, 1950; provided, a copy of 
this order be inserted in some daily 
newspaper printed in Baltimore City, 
once in each of three successive weeks, 
before the 6th day of March, 1950.

The report states the amount of sale 
to be $2,900.

HENRY ,T. RIPPERGER, 
True Copy—Test: Clerk.

HENRY J. RIPPERGER, 
fl0,17,24 Clerk.

Israel M. JoMin, Attorney,
220 East Lexington Street.

THIS US TO GIVE NOTICE, That the 
subscriber has obtained from the 

Orphans’ Court of Baltimore City letters 
of administration on the estate of 

THERESA DORNICAK, 
late of said city, deceased. All persons 
having claims against said deceased 
are hereby warned to exhibit the same, 
with the vouchers thereof legally au­
thenticated, to the subscriber on or 
before the 12th day of August, 1950; 
they may otherwise, by law, be ex­
cluded from all benefit of said estate. 
All persons indebted to said estate are 
requested to make immediate payment. 
Given under my hand this 9th day of 
February, 1950.

ISRAEL M. JOBLIN, 
fl0,17,24,mh3 Administrator.
Baldwin, Jarman & Norris, Attorneys. 

Fidelity Building.
THIS IS TO GIVE NOTICE, That the 

subscriber has obtained from the 
Orphans’ Court of Baltimore City letters 
testamentary on the estate of

CHARLES CHAUNCBY WINSOR 
JUDD,

late of said city, deceased. All person® 
having claims against said deceased 
are hereby warned to exhibit the same, 
with the Touchers thereof legally au­
thenticated, to the subscriber on or 
before the 12th day of August, 1950: 
they may otherwise, by law, be ex­
cluded from all benefit of said estate. 
All persons indebted to said estate are 
requested to make immediate payment. 
Given under my hand this 9th day of 
February, 1950.

fl0,17,24.mh3
EVELYN WEBB JUDD, 

Executrix.

OFFICES FOB BEN T.

J. Hooper Edmondson, Solicitor,
Munsey Building.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT NO. 2 OF
BALTIMORE CITY—January Term, 

1950— (20A—478—1911)— Ex parte: Trust 
estate under will of Mary P. Hall, de­
ceased.

Ordered, that the private sale of the 
property mentioned in these proceed­
ings, made to CITY OF BALTIMORE, 
and reported by J. HOOPER EDMOND­
SON, surviving substituted trustee, be 
ratified and confirmed, unless cause 
to - the contrary thereof be shown on 
or before the 18th day of March. 1950; 
provided, a copy o f this order be in­
serted in some daily newspaper, printed 
in Baltimore City, once in each of three 
successive weeks before the ftth dav of 
March, 1950.

The report states the amount o f pri­
vate sate to be $8,900.

EMORY H. NILES. 
True Copy—Test:

JOHN S. CLARKE, 
flO.17,24 Clerk.

343 N. CALVERT STREET 
914 N. CHARLES STREET 

OFFICE SUITES 
IMMEDIATE POSSESSION 

Empire Realty Co., Inc.. 
343 North Calvert Street. 

LB xington 3121.

PRIVATE OFFICE, WAITING ROOM 
and secretarial service. Reasonable 

rent. 18 East Lexington Street. Address 
Box 124, The Daily Record. 
f6,8,10,14,15,17
CENTRALLY LOCATED, WAITING 

room, with secretarial service; ideal 
for real estate broker or attorney. Ad­
dress Box 123. The Daily Record. f8-5t

SALE UNDER B U L K  ACT.

Joseph C. San try, Attorney,
2 Bast Lexington Street.

THIS IS TO GIVE NOTICE, that I have 
“hntraeted to purchase the AUTOMO- 

BUSINESS, STOCK and 
FIXTURES of WILLIAM M. CXITL- 
■COAT and ROBERT CUMBERLAND, 
trading as C. & N. AUTO SERVICE 
located at Nos. 3728-30 Bank Street. 
Anyone having claims will present the 
same at the law office of Joseph C. 
San try, 2 Bast Lexington Street on or 
before Tuesday, February 14, 1950 

CHARLES SANDERS, 
ra''st Purchaser.



United States District Court
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. 

Civil Action No. 4152. 

Filed December 30, 1949.

PHILIP BOYER ET AT,.,
vs.

ROBERT GARRETT ET AL.

Opinion  on D efendant.s ’ Motion to D ism iss  and fob 
Sum m ary  Judgment.

I. Duke Avnet, Edgar Paul Boyko, William H. Murphy and 
Dallas F. Nicholas for plaintiffs.

Thomas N. Biddison, City Solicitor, Allen -4. Davis, John J, 
Ghingher, Jr., Hugo A. Moduli, Assistant City Solicitors, for 
Mayor and City Council of Baltimore.

John Henry Lewin, of Venable, Baetjer & Howard for indivi­
dual defendants.
Segregation Of Races—Facilities Afforded By State For Its Ctiizens— 

Constitutional Exercise Of Police Power.
CHESNUT, District Judge-

Counsel state that this is a test 
case. It differs, however, from the 
ordinary test case in that the lat­
ter is generally brought to estab­
lish some new point of law, while 
the present case seeks to dis-estab- 
lish presently existing law. The 
point of law referred to is the doc­
trine that segregation of races with 
respect to facilities afforded by the 
State for its citizens is within the 
constitutional exercise of the police 
power of the States respectively, 
provided, however, that the separate 
facilities afforded different races are 
substantially equal. This legal prin­
ciple is, of course, not new. It has 
been the established doctrine of the 
Supreme Court of the United States 
for more than fifty years.1

The classic statement of the rule 
is found in Plessy vs. Ferguson, 
(1896) 163 IJ. S. 537, 544, where it 
was said:

“The object of the amendment 
was undoubtedly to enforce the 
absolute equality of the two races 
before the law, but, in the nature 
of things, it could not have been 
intended to abolish distinctions 
based upon color, or to enforce 
social, as distinguished from po­
litical, equality, or a commingling, 
of the two races upon terms un­
satisfactory to either. Law's per­
mitting, and even requiring, their 
separation, in places where they 
are liable to be brought into con­
tact, do not necessarily imply the 
inferiority of either race to the 
other, and have been generally, if 
not universally, recognized as 
within the competency of the state 
legislatures in the exercise of their 
police power. The most common 
instance of this is connected with 
the establishment of separate 
schools for white and colored chil­
dren, which has been held to be 
valid exercise of the legislative 
power even by courts of states 
where political rights of the col­
ored race have been longest and 
most earnestly enforced.” (Italics 
supplied.)
In accordance with this consti­

tutional doctrine the policy and prac­
tice of segregation of the races 
(Negro and white) is now the es­
tablished policy and practice in 17 
of the 48 States, including Mary­
land.3 Thus in Williams vs. Zim­
merman, 172 Md. 563 (1937), the 
Maryland Court of Appeals said: 
“ Separation of the races is normal 
treatment in this State.” In Uni­
versity of Maryland vs. Murray, 
169 Md. 478 (1935) the Court stat­
ed : “Equality of treatment does not 
require that privileges be provided 
members of the two races in the 
same place. A State may choose the 
method by which equality is main­
tained.” Other Maryland cases to 
the same effect are Hart vs. State, 
100 Md. 595: State vs. Jenkins, 124 
Md. 376. and Durkee vs. Murphy, 
181 Md. 259.’

Any consideration of this legal 
principle should sharply distinguish 
between what constitutes the proper 
exercise of constitutional power on 
the one hand, and what is justifi­
able policy on the other. The ques­
tion of constitutional power is for 
the:courts, and is the only matter 
here to be considered. The proper 
policy, that is, whether segregation 
should be required or not, is for 
the legislative department of the 
State or for the executive depart­
ment operating under legislative au­
thority.

The principal argument submit­
ted by counsel for the plaintiffs 
against the legal doctrine that seg­
regation is within the police, power 
of the separate States is based on 
the view now earnestly advanced 
that segregation, by reason of 
changes in economic and other na­
tional conditions, since 1896 when 
Plessy vs. Ferguson was decided, 
has become outmoded. This argu­
ment seems to be addressed to the 
wisdom of State policy rather than 
to the existence of State power.4 
The argument is sought to be forti­
fied by the contention that the 
doctrine of Plessy vs. Ferguson has 
been somewhat weakened or im­
paired by subsequent decisions of 
the Supreme Court;5 hut I am not 
persuaded that the contention is 
correct as it is very clear that the 
doctrine of Plessy vs. Ferguson has 
never been in fact repudiated by 
the Supreme Court, nor, so.far as 
1 have been able to ascertain, is 
the present contention supported by 
any judicial decision, federal or 
state. On the contrary there are 
several very recent decisions ex­
pressly holding that the doctrine 
of Plessy vs. Ferguson is still con­
stitutional law. Certainly that has 
been the understanding of the 
Judges of this court as expressed 
in very recent cases. Mills vs. 
Lowndes, 26 F. Supp. 792, 798; Hen­
derson vs. United States, 63 F. 
Supp. 906, (D. C. Md. 1945) ; Hen­
derson vs. Interstate Commerce 
Commission, 80 F. Supp. 32 (D. C. 
Md. 1948) (now pending on appeal 
to the Supreme Court).8 Even more 
important is the very recent opin­
ion of the Court of Appeals of the j 
Fourth Circuit by Judge Dobie (im-! 
perative authority for me) in Corbin ‘

vs. County School Board (Va.) Nov. 
14, 1949, affirming District Judge 
Barksdale’s opinion in 84 F. Supp. 
253, 254, 255; and to the same effect 
is Day vs. Atlantic Greyhound Corp. 
(4th Cir.) 171 F. 2d. 59 (1948) 
where the court upheld a reasonable 
regulation of an interstate carrier 
with respect to segregation of races. 
In the opinion it was said “This 
question, however, is not open to 
debate in this court. It is fore­
closed by binding decisions of the 
Supreme Court which hold that an 
interstate carrier has a right to 
establish rules and regulations 
which require white and colored 
passengers to occupy separate ac­
commodations provided there is no 
discrimination in the arrangement.” 

However, where the separate facili­
ties afforded by the State have been 
found not substantially equal, this 
court has not hesitated to enjoin 
State officials from unconstitutional 
discrimination. Mills vs. Lowndes, 
26 F. Supp. 792 (D. C. Md. 1939) ; 
Law vs. Mayor & City Council of 
Baltimore, 78 F. Supp. 346 (D. C. 
Md. 1948) Mills vs. Anne Arundel 

I County, 30 F. Supp. 245.
As this case will be appealed it 

may be helpful to briefly analyze 
the pleadings and procedure by 

• which the question to be tested is 
j presented. The procedure is per­
haps a little unusual because, while 

| arising on a motion to dismiss the 
! complaint or for judgment on the 
i pleadings, the facts are to be found 
in a rather lengthy stipulation 

i which in effect, for the purposes of 
| the decision, limit and control, if 
they do not contradict, the rather 

| general and somewhat vague aver- 
| meats in the five separate counts of 
! the complaint.
| The complainants in the second 
amended complaint, are 21 individ­
uals, some adults and some minors, 
some white and some Negroes, who 
sue the seven members of the Board 
of Recreation and Parks of the City 
of Baltimore in their official ca­
pacity as a Board, and also the Mu­
nicipal Corporation, the Mayor and 
City Council of Baltimore. Robert 
Garrett and four other members of 
the Board, constituting a majority, 
are sued both individually and offi­
cially. R. Brooke Maxwell, Director 
of the Board, and Charles A. Hook, 
Superintendent, and other subordi­
nate officials are also joined as de­
fendants but their presence is un­
important in connection with the 
question presented. The object of 
the complaint is to obtain damages 
in the alleged amount of $500,000, 
and also separately an injunction 
against the Board to restrain it 
from enforcing a rule or practice 
which it had heretofore officially 
adopted providing for segregation 
of the races in athletic .activities, 
including the sports of golf, basket­
ball and tennis, in the public parks 
and places subject to the control 
of the Board. The jurisdiction of 
the court is based on certain sec­
tions of the Civil Rights Act, 8 U. S; 
C. A., particularly ss. 43 and 47.7

The complaint embraces five sepa­
rate counts. The first three set 
forth complaints by separate and 
different groups of the 21 plaintiffs, 
each seeking large monetary dam­
ages for alleged deprivation of equal 
rights in public facilities. The 
fourth and fifth counts are based 
on the conspiracy provision in sec­
tion 47 of title 8 U. S. C. A., and 
seek damages in large amount in 
favor of all 21 plaintiffs jointly 
against the several defendants joint­
ly based on the more specific inci­
dents set out in the first three 
counts. More particularly the first 
count seeks damages on behalf of 
two white persons and two Negroes, j 
for the refusal of the defendants 
to permit them to play basketball \ 
as a team consisting of both whites 
and Negroes. In the second count 
another separate and different group 
of the plaintiffs, 14 being named, 
some white and some Negroes, de­
mand damages for being refused 
permission to continue playing inter­
racial tennis on courts in Druid H ill! 
Park, and being forcibly ejected 
therefrom in consequence of their 
refusal to obey the order of the 
Park Police to desist by reason of 
the policy of the Board against in­
terracial tennis in the public parks.8 
In the third count damages are 
claimed by -one of the plaintiffs, a 
white man. for being refused per­
mission to play golf on the Clifton 
Park Municipal Golf Course on a 
particular day on which, by order 
of the Board, the course was re­
served exclusively for use by Negro 
players; and in the same count an­
other plaintiff, a Negro, likewise 
demands damages for similar re­
fusal to be allowed to play golf on 
the same golf course but on a dif­
ferent, day on which, by order of 
the Board, the particular golf course 
was reserved for the use of white 
players only.

All defendants answered the ori; 
inal complaint and all except Balt’ 
more City likewise answered th 
first amended complaint, while th 
City moved to dismiss it on th 
ground that the complaint did no 
negative the existence of equalit 
of treatment. In addition the de

THE DAILY RECORD, BALTIMORE, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1950

fendants Robert Garrett and four 
other members of the Board, con­
stituting the majority, filed a mo­
tion for summary judgment sup­
ported by elaborate affidavits af­
firmatively stating that with re­
spect to all the athletic facilities re­
ferred to in the amended complaint, 
the facilities afforded the separate 
races were substantially equal. 
Thereafter, with leave, the plain­
tiffs filed a second amended com­
plaint on the condition that the de­
fendants’ motion for summary judg­
ment previously filed should like­
wise apply to the second amended 
complaint. The; City again moved 
to dismiss the second amended com­
plaint. Shortly thereafter counsel 
agreed to have the substantial ques­
tion of law herein referred to pre­
sented by a very carefully prepared 
statement of facts filed in the case.

Despite its length (20 typewritten 
pages) and detail it is unnecessary 
in this case to meticulously analyze 
or appraise the facts in the stipula­
tion which seems to have been pre­
pared with sedultus care to present 
only the particular question with 
regard to segregation, putting aside 
any possible inferences of disad­
vantage or prejugice to either party 
with respect to fie  facts stated in­
sofar as they may be important at 
any other possible stage of this case 
or in any other judicial proceeding.

Throughout the case it is im­
portant to bear in mind the very re­
stricted scope of inquiry which this 
federal court has in this particular 
case because its jurisdiction is based 
only on sections 43 and 47 of title 8 
U. S. C. A., the gist of which is to 
give a federal right of action for 
the intentional deprivation of, or 
interference with the exercise of, 
federal constitutional or statutory 
rights. See Snowden vs. Hughes, 
321 U. S. 1; Screw's vs. United 
States, 325 U. S. 91; Lyons vs. Welt- 
mer, 4th Cir. 174 F. 2d. 473. Cf. 
Burt vs. New York, 156 F. 2d. 791. 
The only federal right here involved \ 
is the alleged right of the plaintiffs 
to participate in interracial athletic 
activities under the control of the 
Park Board; that is, anti-segrega­
tion. This, therefore, is the only 
issue in the case. If segregation, 
with equal facilities, is within the 
constitutional police power of the 
State, acting directly or through its 
agencies with legislative authority, 
the complaint in this case- does! 
not state a cause of action either in j 
law or in equity against any -of the; 
defendants. It may be assumed j 
that the second count of the com­
plaint on its face states a cause of 
action, net completely negatived by! 
the agreed statement of facts, which: 
would be cognizable in a court hav- j 
ing general comiion law jurisdic-j 
tion of actions foif assault, false ar-j 
rest or malicious prosecution; but; 
there can be no such jurisdiction! 
here because there is no diversity; 
of citizenship and no jurisdiction 
except under the special federal 
statutes. Therefore the really im-! 
portant .and controlling facts may! 
be briefly stated, j

Among the-atM/tiG-facilities pro- ; 
vided and controlled by the Board; 
are basketball courts, tennis courts j 
and golf courses. (There is no stat-1 
ute of the State of ordinance of the; 
City which specifically prohibits! 
members of the Negro and white 
races from engaging together in 
these athletic activities or using the 
facilities provided and supervised 
by the Board oi Recreation and 
Parks; but it has long been the con­
sistent policy and practice of the 
present Board ancl also of its pre­
decessors to require segregation of 
the races in sues activities. More 
specifically, at a meeting held Janu­
ary 20, 3948, by a majority vote, the 
Board passed a resolution reading 
“That the policy of the Department, 
of Recreation and! Parks of not al­
lowing interracial (athletic activities 
be continued until; further study by 
this Board.”9

It appears that yjvbile this practice 
of the Board in general refusing to 
permit interracial use of certain 
athletic activities under its control 
was known or made known at the 
time to the complainants, the Board 
had not formulated or publicized 
any specific rule of regulation upon 
the subject, except with respect to 
use of the municipal golf course. Its 
failure to do so- could have raised 
the question as to the regularity or 
validity of its exercise of the rule 
making power, which might have 
been of importance in some other 
case involving the subject matter 
as, for instance, ft bill to enjoin the 
enforcement of the rule by a par­
ticular plaintiff who challenged the 
valid existence off such a rule; or 
the point may have been a good de­
fense to a prosecution for violation j 
of a rule which existed only in such ; 
general terms.10

But in this particular case there! 
Is no issue of fact as to the existence 
of the practice or requirement of 
the Board against interracial ath­
letic activities. The complaint does 
not question the existence of the 
rule hut on the contrary asserts it 
and denies its constitutional valid­
ity. And it is this later denial which 
makes the issue of law in this case. 
In fact it is only by reason of the 
rule that this court has jurisdiction 
in the case under sections 43 and 47 
of title 8 U. S. C. A.

An important feature of the agreed 
statement of facts is that, for pur-i 
poses of the question now before- 
the court, the complainants made! 
no contention that the facilities af-J 
forded for the separate races are 
not substantially equal. This being! 
so there can be no question but that I 
under Maryland law the Park Board 
did have the legal authority to re­
quire segregation of the races. In 
Dnrkee vs. Murphy, 181 Md. 259, 265 ; 
(a case involving segregation of I 
white and Negro players on munici-! 
ial golf courses) Chief Judge Bond j 
ifter referring to the relevant sec ] 
ions of the Baltimore City Chartei 
»f 1938 (not substantially differenf I 
’rom those of the present Charte- j 
if 1946) which conferred power; 
ipon the Park Board to make rule: ! 
nd regulations, said:

“ And these provisions must, we j 
conclude, be construed to vest in ) 
the Board the power to assign the | 
golf courses to the use of the one !

race and the other in an effort to 
avoid any conflict which might 
arise from racial antipathies, for 
that is a common need to be faced 
in regulation of public facilities 
in Maryland, and must be implied 
in any delegation of power to con­
trol and regulate. There can be 
no question that, unreasonable as 
such antipathies may be, they are 
prominent sources of conflict, and 
are always to be reckoned with. 
Many statutory provisions recog­
nize this need, and the fact needs 
no illustration, ‘Separation of the 
races is normal treatment in this 
State.’ Williams vs. Zimmerman, 
172 Md. 563, 567, 192 A. 353, 355. 
No additional ordinance was re­
quired therefore to authorize the 
Board to apply this normal treat­
ment ; the authority would be an 
implied incident of the power ex­
pressly given.”
I find no material issue of fact 

in the case presented. With respect 
to the complainants’ claim for mone­
tary damages, the facts stipulated 
do not warrant the inference that 
the motivation of the majority 
members of the Board in enforcing 
its general practice and policy was 
arbitrary, capricious or dictated by 
other than honest conception of the 
public interest involved. If it be 

|assumed that the policy was un­
necessary or tin wise and the result 
of mistaken judgment, it was never­
theless official action authorized by 
legislation, and as; a matter of law 
there was no legal liability therefor 
if the legislative authority so dele­
gated was within the federal consti­
tutional authority of the State of 
Maryland under its police power. 
That being so, it cannot be main- 
tamed that the action was ' taken 
merely under “color” of authority. 
Nor did such honest official action 
of the majority of the Board con­
stitute a conspiracy to injure the 
plaintiffs within the meaning of the 
federal statutes. As to the defen­
dants constituting subordinate offi­
cials of the Board, there is nothing 
in the statement of facts to indicate 
that they were acting other than in 
accordance with superior authority, 
and without personal animus or in­
tentional discrimination.

It is suggested -by counsel for the 
plaintiffs that this case differs from 
tile typical situation in which one 
or more Negroes alone are seeking 
to enforce equality of treatment, be­
cause here they are joined by some 
whites who insist upon the right to 
participate in interracial sports. In 
my opinion the attempted distinc­
tion is unsound. If the Board’s re­
quirement as to segregation was 
valid, it was equally binding upon 
whites and Negroes. Their mutual 
desire to participate together in j 
athletic activities might be a proper 
consideration for the Board in form­
ulating its policy but cannot of itself 
affect the power to make the regu­
lation.

The plaintiffs’ real complaint in 
this case is their dissatisfaction 
with the constitutional doctrine of 
the Supreme Court-as announced in 
Pleasy vs. Ferguson, and many sub­
sequent cases, which continues to be 
the existing law as expressed in the 
recent opinions of the Court of Ap­
peals for this Circuit. In view of 
this imperative authority It follows 
very clearly that this court must 
apply that law in holding that seg­
regation is within the police power 
of the State; which has been duly 
delegated in this respect to and 
exercised by the Board of Recrea­
tion and Parks of Baltimore City. 
The earnest contention of plaintiffs’ 
counsel that the doctrine is now out­
moded is, as I have heretofore 
stated, an argument addressed to 
policy rather than power. Treated 
as policy the decision may vary in 
the States respectively and from 
time to time; but if the constitu­
tional power is denied, then the rule 
becomes fixed and uniform for each 
and all of the 48 States at ail 
times unless and until constitution­
ally changed.

Subsequent to the • filing of the 
agreed statement of facts counsel 
have taken certain depositions of 
witnesses regarding alleged recently 
arising public disorder consequent 
upon the temporary abandonment of 
the policy of segregation in swim­
ming pools in St. Louis, Missouri, 
and other places. The plaintiffs 
object to the admissibility of such 
depositions as irrelevant. I rule 
that they are inadmissible. They 
can have no relevancy with regard 
to the existence of the constitutional 
power. Possibly they might have 
some significance with respect to the 
policy as to segregation in the par­
ticular jurisdiction. But, as- I have 
said, this court cannot deal with the 
propriety of the policy either in this 
jurisdiction or elsewhere, but only 
with the question of constitutional 
power.

I conclude that the motion for 
judgment on the pleadings must be 
granted in favor of the defendants. 
As a matter of strict procedure 
there might possibly be a distinc­
tion between the motion to dismiss 
and the motion for summary judg­
ment but I infer that counsel for 
the plaintiffs do not desire to make 
such a distinction in the particular 
case. I am not unmindful of the 
general undesirability of deciding- 
important constitutional questions, 
if at all debatable, in a summary 
procedural manner; and I am also 
aware of the fact that the Supreme 
Court now has pending before it cer­
tain cases which counsel state may 
involve a further consideration by 
the Court of the constitutional doc­
trine here involved. In fact I sug 
gested to counsel in this case the 
desirability of withholding the ar 
gument or disposition of this case 
pending decisions of the Supreme 
Court in the cases referred to; but 
nevertheless counsel for the plain 
tiffs have asked for a decision hen 
in due course and without awaitin' 
further legal developments. I thinl 
they are entitled to have a promp 
decision. For these reasons the mo 
tions of the defendants will be gram 
ed, and counsel are requested t 
submit the appropriate orders in du 
course.

(1) The doctrine is illustrated by th 
following cases in the Supreme Court

of the United States: Ilall vs. DeCuir.
.1878, 1)5 U, •vS, 48$, 24 l ’ Ed, 47; PltseyVS. ‘Fersruson, .1.896 163 V, S. 537, 36
S. ;t\ 1138, 3140, 41 I,. Ed 256 C morning
vs. Count3 Board of 1/ducat ton. 1899.
175 r. s, 528, 20 S. ?t. 97, 44 1.
Ed 262: McCabe vs, A. T. 4.'Z B\ It
Co. 1934. >35 r . s. 153. 35 S. Ct 69*
39 L. Ed. 169: it emir Emu m  Rice,
192 275 C. 8, 78, 48 8 . Ct 91. 72
’L. Eel. 172 : [Missouri vs , Canada, 1988,
305 IT. S. 137. 59 8. Ct 232. S3 L. Ed.
208; Sipuei vs. Oklahoma, 1948, 08 S, 
Ct. 290, 92, L. Ed. 247.

( 2) For illustration see Maryland An­
notated Code, 1939 Ed., Art. 27, ss. 
440, 445, and 493. regarding intermar­
riage, etc.; Art. 27, ss. 510-526, regarding 
interstate transportation by railroads 
and steamboats: Art. 27. ss. G84, 090. 
729, regarding reformatory and train­
ing schools, and Art. 77. .so. Hi, 192, 
193, ancl Art. 85 (a) s, 1 (Code. 1947 
Ed.), relating to separate schools based 
upon race. The same policy and prac­
tice with regard to separate schools 
prevails in Baltimore City, a municipal 
subdivision of the State. See ss, 8-i 
through 48 of Art. 41 of the Baltimore 
City Code of 1927.

(3) See also Pressman vs-. Mayor & 
City Council of Baltimore, Baltimore 
Daily Record, Dec. 17, 1949,

i-l) See Judge Paul’s discussion of 
the recent segregation case of Simmons 
vs. Atlantic Greyhound Corp. (W. D. 
Va.) 75 F. Supp. 188, 175,

(5) Cases especially referred to in this 
connection are Buchanan vs. Warley, 
245 0. S. 80. (3917) ; McCabe vs. A, T. 
& S. F. R. Co., 235 U. S. 151 (1914); 
Mitchell vs. United States, 313 U. S. SO 
(1941); Missouri ex rel Gaines vs. Can­
ada, 305 U. 'S. 337 (1938) ; Takahashi vs. 
Fish & Game Comm., 334 U. S. 410 
(1948) ; Oyama vs. California, 332 T). S, 
633, 840, 646 (1948) ; and Shelley vs. 
Kraenier, 334 TViS: 1 (1948): Hague vs. 
C. I. O., 307 XI. S. 496 (1939).

(6) In the second Henderson case ISO 
F. Supp. 32, 40) Circuit Judge Soper’s 
dissent was prefaced with the remark 
that—“ It is true that segregation of 
the races is lawful provided ‘substan­
tial equality of treatment of persons 
travelling under like conditions is ac­
corded’.’ ' See also Nash vs. Air Ter­
minal Services (Va.) 85 F. Supp. 545 
(Judge Bryan) ; and Carter vs. School 
Board, (E. D. Va.) Dec. 7, 1949.

(7) Section 43 provides: “ Every per­
son, who, under color of any statute, 
ordinance, regulation, custom or usage 
of any State or Territory, subjects or 
causes to be subjected any citizen of 
the United States or other person with­
in the jurisdiction thereof to the depri­
vation of any rights, privileges or im­
munities secured by the Constitution 
and laws shall be liable to the party in­
jured in an action at law, -suit in 
equity, or other proper proceeding for 
redress.” And section 47 in part im­
poses liability for damages on twro or: 
more .persons who conspire to injure 
persons who are lawfully enforcing or! 
attempting to enforce the right of any; 
person or class of persons to the equal i 
protection of the law's.

(8) This appears to be the same in­
cident which was made the basis of a 
prosecution in the Criminal Court of' 
Baltimore City against some of these 
plaintiffs, resulting in a conviction of 
conspiracy to disturb the public peace. 
The opinion of the Supreme Bench of 
Baltimore City by Judge Tucker in the 
case of Stanley Askin and others, is 
reported in The. Baltimore Daily Rec­
ord for March 7, 1949. On appeal the 
judgment of the Criminal Court of 
Baltimore was affirmed by' the Mary­
land Court of Appeals (The Baltimore 
Daily Record, Dec. 6, 1949). The Court 
of Appeals did not find it necessary to 
consider the validity of the policy' of 
the Board.

(9) The agreed statement pf facts lists 
a number of real or apparent exceptions 
to the consistency of the general policy 
and practice or the Board and its pre­
decessors, but viewing the agreed state­
ment as a whole and interpreting it in 
accordance with my understanding of 
the purpose of counsel in presenting the 
substantial law question, I consider the 
exceptions to be really immaterial. In­
stances of some of the exceptions noted
a r e  a s  - f o l l o w s :  D u r in g -  t h e  w a r  y e a r -s ­
and pending reconstruction and im­
provement of !:he Carroll Park Golf- 
course theretofore reserved exclusively 
for Negro golf players (see Durkee vs, 
Murphy. 181 Md. 259. and Law vs. 
Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 78 
F. Supp. 346) they were allowed to play- 
on other municipal golf courses. The 
Baltimore Stadium is under the control 
of the Board and at times has been! 
leased to amateur or professional base­
ball or football clubs and occasionally 
a visiting baseball or football team has 
had a Negro member, Also during the 
recent war some Cricket matches were 
played in Druid Hill Park between 
teams from crews of British ships and 
the local team consisting mainly of 
Negro play'ers. -but with a few' white 
players. This faet is stated to have 
been known to -the Board of Recreation 
and Parks but it issued no permits 
therefor. 'Certain other instances of in­
terracial athletic activities occurring in 
Baltimore City, not under the particular 
jurisdiction of the Park Board, are also 
mentioned.

(10) The absence of a formally adopt­
ed specific rule with respect to inter­
racial tennis in Druid Hill Park was 
apparently an important consideration 
in the opinion of the dissenting Judges 
of the -Supreme Bench of Baltimore City 
and of .Judge Markell in the Court of 
Appeals of Maryland in the case of 
State of' Maryland vs. Stanley Askin 
and others above mentioned. But in the 
course of the majority opinion of the 
Supreme Bench by Judge Tucker it was 
said: “ The authority of the Park Board 
to make a rule prohibiting interracial 
tennis in the public parks of Baltimore 
City is firmly supported by' decisions of 
the" Court of Appeals in Durkee vs. 
Murphy, 181 Md. 259, 285-6. and W il­
liams vs. Zimmerman. 172 Md. 563, 567. 
The Board had the pow'er to provide 
some tennis courts for Negroes and 
others for whites, and to enforce the 
policy of segregation in the use there­
of. The defendants Askin and Buchman. 
were fully advised of the Board’s policy- 
in this respect; and in our opinion if 
is immaterial that it was not printed 
in a book of rules, or that it may not 
have been w-holly consistent with the 
policy followed in the use of other 
sports facilities.”



I N D E X

Table of Contents

Statement of the Case...........................

Question Presented:

Was Appellees’ Refusal to Admit Appellant 
to the School of Nursing of the University of 
Maryland a Denial to Her of the Equal Pro­
tection of the Laws Guaranteed by the Four­
teenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States? ................................................... 2

Statement of Facts.........................................................  2

A rgument ............................................................................  8

Conclusion ..........................................................................  19

page

1

Table of Citations 

Cases
Boyer, et al. v. Garrett, et al. (Daily Record, Febru­

ary 10, 1950)........................................................  9
Durkee v. Murphy, 181 Md. 259, 285......................... 9
Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek

Ditch Co., 304 U. S. 92, 106, 82 L. Ed. 1202, 1210 14-15
Maryland v. Murray, 169 Md. 478.........................15, 16, 19
Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U. S. 337,

344, 83 L. Ed. 208, 211..................................9,15,16,19
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 41 L. Ed. 258......  9
Poole v. Fleeger, 11 Pet. 185, 9 L. Ed. 680, 690........  14



ii

PAGE
Sipuel v. Oklahoma, 332 U. S. 631, 92 L. Ed. 247

(333 U. S. 147, 92 L. Ed. 605).........................15, 16,19
Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U. S. 502, 517-519, 37

L. Ed. 537, 542-543........................................... 11-13,14

Statutes
Laws of 1949 (Maryland), Chapter 282 (The

Regional Compact) ...........................................  3, 9
United States Constitution, Article I, Section 10,

Clause 3 ..............................................................  10
United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amend­

ment ............................................................. ...... 8

Miscellaneous
Congressional Record, Vol. 95, No. 77, p. 5588........  10

Index to A ppendix
A pp.
page

Testimony r
Dr. Maurice C. Pincoffs—-

Direct ..........................................    1
Cross. ............................................................  12

Mrs. Verne Allen Nesbitt—
Direct ..........................................................  18
Cross ............................................................  22
Redirect ....................................................... 23

Mrs. Angela M. Sh ip ley-
Direct ..........    23,31
Cross ................ .................. .........;•.......26
Redirect ............    27



A pp.
PAGE

Miss Florence M. Gipe—
Direct ..........................................................  27
Cross ............................................................  28

Defendants’ Exhibit A, photograph of Nurses’
Home, Meharry Medical College, Nashville, 
Tennessee ..........................................................  33-34

Defendants’ Exhibit B, photograph of Meharry
Medical College, Nashville, Tennessee.............  35-36

Defendants’ Exhibit, Rating of University of Mary­
land School of Nursing by The Maryland State 
Board of Examiners of Nurses...........................  37

iii



I n  T he

Court of Appeals of Maryland

October Term , 1949

N o. 139

ESTHER McCREADY, 
minor by

ELIZABETH McCREADY, 
her next friend and parent,

vs.
Appellant,

HARRY C. BYRD,
President, et ah,

Appellees.

A ppeal from the Baltimore City Court 
( Sm ith , C. J.)

BRIEF OF APPELLEES

STATEMENT1 OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from an Order of the Baltimore City 

Court dated October 10, 1949, dismissing a Petition for 
Mandamus filed by Esther McCready on behalf of her 
minor child, Elizabeth McCready (herein referred to as 
Appellant) against Harry C. Byrd, President of the 
University of Maryland and others, to compel them to



2

consider and act upon Appellant’s application for admis­
sion to the School of Nursing of the University of Mary­
land and to certify her for entrance to said School with­
out regard to her race or color,

QUESTION PRESENTED
Was Appellees’ Refusal to Admit Appellant to the 

School of Nursing of the University of Maryland a Denial 
to Her of the Equal Protection of the Laws Guaranteed 
by the Fourteenth Amendent to the Constitution of the 
United States?

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

dicted. They may be summarized as follows;

Appellant, a Negro, eighteen years of age, a citizen and 
resident of the State of Maryland and of the United States 
of America, duly filed her application, dated February 
1, 1949, for admission as a first year student in the 
School of Nursing of the University of Maryland (herein 
referred to as “Maryland” ) for the academic year be­
ginning August 8, 1949. That application was received 
by the proper authorities of the University of Maryland 
on February 2, 1949. Said School is the only public insti­
tution offering a nursing education in the State of Mary­
land. Two courses of study are open to students admit­
ted to the School. One is a three year course leading to 
a certificate. The other requires the prior successful 
completion of two years of college and leads to a B. S. 
degree. Three years study is required in each course 
(App. App. pp. 20-21; 6, 8).

The educational and moral qualifications of Appellant 
are equal to, if not superior to, the educational and moral



3

qualifications of at least some of the white students who 
were admitted to the first year class at Maryland for the 
academic year beginning August 8, 1949, and whose 
applications were received by the proper authorities of 
the University of Maryland after the receipt of Appel­
lant’s application. Appellant was ready, able and will­
ing to pay all fees and expenses for her first year course 
of study and was ready, able and willing to conform to 
all lawful rules and regulations governing first year 
students at Maryland. Appellant filed the Petition for 
Mandamus in this case on July 27, 1949 (App. App. pp. 
20-21).

On August 13, 1949, Dr. Edgar F. Long, Director of 
Admissions of the University of Maryland (one of the 
Appellees) wrote to Appellant concerning her applica­
tion (App. App. pp. 11-12). In this letter, Appellant was 
advised of the policy of the State of Maryland that mem­
bers of the white and Negro races should be segregated 
in public educational institutions. She also was advised 
that, in furtherance of said policy, the Governor of the 
State of Maryland had entered into a Compact dated 
February 8, 1948, known as “The Regional Compact” , 
with the Governors of the States of Florida, Georgia, 
Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas, 
North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Oklahoma, West 
Virginia and the Commonwealth of Virginia; that the 
General Assembly of Maryland, by Chapter 282 of the 
Laws of 1949, approved, confirmed and ratified said Com­
pact, the Act of approval being effective June 1,1949; that 
said Compact had been approved by proper legislative ac­
tion by more than six of the aforesaid States and was in 
full force and effect; that The Regional Compact makes 
provision for education in the professional, technologi­



4

cal, scientific, literary and other fields of all citizens of 
the several signatory States, regardless of race or creed, 
at jointly owned and operated regional educational insti­
tutions in the Southern States; that arrangements had 
been made whereby the Meharry Medical College, Nash­
ville, Tennessee, had become a Compact institution to 
which the signatory States will send students for medical, 
dental and nursing education. Appellant was further ad­
vised that arrangements would be made so that she 
could attend the School of Nursing at Meharry Medical 
College (herein referred to as “Meharry” ); that her total 
expenses incident to attending Meharry, including neces­
sary travel and room and board, would not exceed what it 
would cost her to attend Maryland; that she would re­
ceive the same kind and quality of work at Meharry as 
she would receive at Maryland. Appellant was advised 
to contact Dr. Long either at College Park or at Balti­
more so that he could advise her the procedure to be em­
ployed for her admission to Meharry; that it was neces­
sary that her application be certified to Meharry by the 
Director of Admissions of the University of Maryland.

It was stipulated by Appellant’s counsel that the total 
overall cost to her, including living and traveling ex­
penses, incident to her attendance at Meharry would 
not exceed what it would cost her to attend Maryland. 
It was further stipulated that as of October 10, 1949, the 
date on which this case was tried below, The Regional 
Compact had been ratified and approved by the Legisla­
tures of all of the signatory States with the exception of 
Texas, Virginia and West Virginia and that the Compact 
was in full force and effect; also that each of the signa­
tory States has segregated schools (App. App. pp. 21-22).



5

It was stipulated that Appellant’s application for ad­
mission to Maryland was not accepted solely because of 
the fact that she is a member of the Negro race (App. 
App. p. 21).

There was offered in evidence the Contract for Train­
ing in Nursing Education, dated July 19, 1849, between 
the Board of Control for Southern Regional Education 
and the University of Maryland (App. App. pp. 16-20). 
Under this contract, the Board covenants and agrees, 
among other things, to provide the State of Maryland 
with a quota of three places in Meharry Medical College, 
School of Nursing, Nashville, Tennessee, for first year 
students to be selected from applicants certified by the 
State of Maryland; that said quota should continue 
through each succeeding college class until it applies to 
all years of instruction desired by the State of Mary­
land (App. App. pp. 17-18). The State of Maryland, 
among other things, agrees to make certain payments to 
the Board for each student accepted under the Contract 
(App. App. p. 18). The term of the contract is for two 
calendar years from July 1, 1949, automatically renewa­
ble for an additional term of two years and so on unless 
either party gives the other party notice, in writing, of 
its intention to terminate the Contract at least two cal­
endar years prior to the date of termination (App. App. 
p. 19).

At the trial of this case, Appellees offered evidence, 
which was not disputed or contradicted in any way what­
soever by Appellant, tending to show that the educational 
facilities for nursing education afforded at Meharry 
were at least substantially equal to, if not in fact some­
what superior to, the facilities offered at Maryland. Dr. 
Maurice C. Pincoffs, who. for a period of sixteen months



6

prior to the trial of this case had been in policy charge of 
the School of Nursing of the University of Maryland, 
testified in detail regarding the comparison of the facil­
ities of the two Schools (App. pp. 1-18). His conclusion, 
based upon a comparison of available funds, character of 
the student body, character of the faculty, physical facili­
ties (class rooms, laboratories, equipment), curriculum 
and living conditions, was that “if the objective of the 
candidate is education in nursing, Meharry Medical Col­
lege offers at least equivalent, and in my opinion, some­
what better organized instruction in nursing” (App. p. 
12).

Appellees also produced the testimony of Mrs. Verne 
Allen Nesbitt, a graduate of Vanderbilt University and 
the University of Nashville, Tennessee, and a registered 
nurse. She was a white woman, well educated, whose 
husband is a medical doctor presently associated with 
the Johns Hopkins Hospital. At the time of the trial, 
Mrs. Nesbitt was instructor in obstetrics in the School 
of Nursing at Sinai Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland. Mrs. 
Nesbitt taught at Meharry, for one term in the year 
1947. She testified that “Meharry students are a higher 
caliber student than you would see in a hospital school 
of nursing for the reason that they are better prepared, 
and are young people who are seeking a higher course 
in nursing than the three year course” (App. p. 20); 
that the physical facilities offered at Meharry (the 
nurses’ home and the hospital facilities) compared favor­
ably with the facilities at Vanderbilt or Sinai (App. pp. 
20, 21). (For pictures of the Meharry Medical College 
and of the nurses’ home, see App. pp. 33, 35). She fur­
ther testified that she was much impressed with the 
library of the School, which was shared with medical and



7

dental students; also with the opportunity for social life 
afforded the students (App. p. 21).

The State further produced testimony showing that 
Meharry was accredited by the National League of 
Nursing Education, which, in itself, shows that it is a 
first class nursing institution. Although accreditation by 
the League is conditioned upon application by the School 
of Nursing seeking a rating, Maryland had not, up to the 
time of trial, sought such accreditation for the reason 
that its officials did not believe that it could meet the 
rigid standards of the League (App. p. 28).

In taking Tennessee State Board of Nursing examina­
tions, graduates of Meharry compared most favorably 
with graduates of other schools. Out of seven or 
eight subjects, Meharry graduates’ average examination 
grades were higher than the average examination grades 
of graduates of approximately fourteen other schools of 
nursing in Tennessee (App. pp. 10-11). On the other 
hand, the record of graduates of Maryland on examina­
tions conducted by the Maryland State Board of Exami­
ners of Nurses’ does not compare too favorably with the 
record of the graduates of other schools of nursing (App. 
p. 37).

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



8

ARGUMENT
WAS APPELLEES’ REFUSAL TO ADMIT APPELLANT TO THE 

SCHOOL OF NURSING OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND A 
DENIAL TO HER OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS 
GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE 
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES?

As stated, the only question presented in Appellant’s 
brief is whether Appellees’ refusal to admit Appellant 
to Maryland was a denial to her of the equal protection 
of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment 
to the Constitution of the United States.

Under the particular facts presented by this case, this 
question can be rephrased as follows: Did the State 
of Maryland, by virtue of the fact that it is a party to 
The Regional Compact, discharge its duties and obliga­
tions to Appellant under the Constitution of the United 
States when it arranged for her nursing education at 
Meharry Medical College, School of Nursing, Nashville, 
Tennessee? However, we look at the issue involved in 
this appeal, it is partly a question of fact and partly a 
question of law; viz: (a) Are the facilities for nursing 
education offered by Meharry substantially equal to the 
facilities offered at Maryland? (b) Is provision for the 
education of a Maryland citizen at a Compact institution 
legal segregation of the races for educational purposes 
under the purview of the Constitution of the United 
States and the decisions of the Supreme Court of the 
United States and of the Court of Appeals of Maryland?

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

tional purposes is generally accepted throughout the 
States which are parties to The Regional Compact and



9

has been approved by the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 41 
L. Ed. 256. This approval of segregation was again recog­
nized in the case of Missouri, ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 
305 U. S. 337, 344, 83 L. Ed. 208, 211. It was also recently 
recognized by this Court in the case of Durkee v. 
Murphy, 181 Md. 259, 265, and by the United States Dis­
trict Court for the District of Maryland (Chesnut, J.) in 
the case of Boyer et al. v. Garrett, et al. (D. R. February 
10, 1950). The only limitation upon such segregation is 
that substantially equal facilities must be furnished to 
members of the two races.

2.
The Regional Compact (Laws of 1949, Ch. 282), which 

was approved by the State of Maryland, effective June 1, 
1949, was executed by the signatory States for the pur­
pose of the development and maintenance of education of 
the citizens of such States on a regional basis. It is in­
tended to afford greater educational opportunities for 
such citizens than could be provided by the several States 
separately. It applies to all citizens of the States by its 
express provisions. The operations under the Compact, 
up to this point, have, in fact, benefited all citizens re­
gardless of race or creed. The Regional Compact is not, 
either expressly or by necessary implication, aimed at 
segregation of the races. However, it is available as a 
means of effecting such segregation when such means are 
not available within the confines of the several States. 
The Compact, as of the present time, has been ratified by 
proper legislative action of the signatory States, with the 
exception of Texas, Virginia and West Virginia.



10

3.
The Regional Compact is not the type of agreement 

which, under Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Con­
stitution of the United States, must be approved by Con­
gress before it can become effective. When the Federal 
Aid to Education Bill was being debated in the Senate, 
Senator Morse of Oregon, in his remarks concerning a 
proposed amendment to said Bill, discussed the fact that 
he had opposed ratification of The Regional Compact by 
the Senate. His remarks set forth in the Congressional 
Record, Vol. 95, No. 77, page 5588, Tuesday, May 3, 1949, 
show the following reasons for his opposition:

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

“So when the interstate compact was before us 
we had to decide this question, ‘Is this the type of 
compact which requires ratification by the Congress 
of the United States?’ Of course the answer to that 
question was clearly no; and the answer was ‘no’ be­
cause of the second question which we must consider 
in such a situation. The second question is: What 
Federal jurisdiction is in any way encroached upon 
by the proposed compact? It will be recalled that 
during the course of the debate not a single southern 
Senator could point out a single Federal power which 
was encroached upon by the proposed compact. 
Until they could show wherein that southern com­
pact in some way transgressed a delegated Federal 
power under the Constitution of the United States,



11

they were clearly out of court, so to speak, so far as 
the Congress was concerned. They failed to advance 
any sound argument showing that as a matter of 
constitutional duty under the interstate compact 
clause we would have to approve the compact be­
fore it could be put into effect by the States.”

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

“The Constitution provides that ‘no state shall, 
without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of 
tonnage, keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, 
enter into any agreement or compact with another 
state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, un­
less actually invaded, or in such immediate danger as 
will not admit of delay’.

“ Is the agreement made without the consent of 
Congress, between Virginia and Tennessee, to ap­
point commissioners to run and mark the boundary 
line between them, within the prohibition of this 
clause? The terms ‘agreement’ or ‘compact’ taken 
by themselves are sufficiently comprehensive to em­
brace all forms of stipulation, written or verbal, 
and relating to all kinds of subjects; to those to 
which the United States can have no possible objec­
tion or have any interest in interfering with, as well 
as to those which may tend to increase and build up 
the political influence of the contracting states, so 
as to encroach upon or impair the supremacy of the 
United States or interfere with their rightful man­
agement of particular subjects placed under their 
entire control.

“There are many matters upon which different 
states may agree that can in no respect concern the 
United States, If, for instance, Virginia should come



12

into possession and ownership of a small parcel of 
land in New York which the latter state might de­
sire to acquire as a site for a public building, it would 
hardly be deemed essential for the latter state to ob­
tain the consent of Congress before it could make a 
valid agreement with Virginia for the purchase of 
the land. If Massachusetts, in forwarding its ex­
hibits to the World’s Fair at Chicago, should desire to 
transport them a part of the distance over the Erie 
Canal, it would hardly be deemed essential for that 
state to obtain the consent of Congress before it could 
contract with New York for the transportation of the 
exhibit through that State in that way. If the bord­
ering line of two states should cross some malarious 
and disease producing district, there could be no 
possible reason, on any conceivable public grounds, 
to obtain the consent of Congress for the bordering 
states to agree to unite in draining the district, and 
thus remove the cause of disease. So in the case of 
threatened invasion of cholera, plague, or other 
causes of sickness and death, it would be the height 
of absurdity to hold that the threatened states could 
not unite in providing means to prevent and repel the 
invasion of the pestilence without obtaining the con­
sent of Congress, which might not be at the time in 
session. If, then, the terms ‘compact’ or ‘agreement’ 
in the Constitution do not apply to every possible 
compact or agreement between one state and 
another, for the validity of which the consent of 
Congress must be obtained, to what compacts or 
agreements does the Constitution apply? 

* * * * * *
“Looking at the clause in which the terms ‘com­

pact’ or ‘agreement’ appear, it is evident that the 
prohibition is directed to the formation of any com­
bination tending to the increase of political power 
in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere 
with the just supremacy of the United States. Story, 
in his Commentaries (§1403) referring to a previous



13

part of the same section of the Constitution in which 
the clause in question appears, observes that its 
language ‘may be more plausibly interpreted from 
the terms used, “treaty, alliance, or confederation,” 
and upon the ground that the sense of each is best 
known by its association (noscitur a sociis) to apply 
to treaties of a political character; such as treaties 
of alliance for purposes of peace and war; and 
treaties of confederation, in which the parties are 
leagued for mutual government, political co-opera­
tion, and the exercise of political sovereignty, and 
treaties of cession of sovereignty, or conferring in­
ternal political jurisdiction, or external political de­
pendence, or general commercial privileges’ ; and that 
‘the latter clause, “compacts and agreements,” might 
then very properly apply to such as regarded what 
might be deemed mere private rights of sovereignty; 
such as questions of boundary; interests in land situ­
ate in the territory of each other; and other internal 
regulations for the mutual comfort and convenience 
of states bordering on each other.’ And he adds: 
‘In such cases the consent of Congress may be prop­
erly required, in order to check any infringement of 
the rights of the national government; and, at the 
same time, a total prohibition to enter into any com­
pact or agreement might be attended with perman­
ent inconvenience or public mischief’ ” (Italics sup­
plied) .

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

Certainly, interstate problems concerned with health 
(e.g., infectious or contagious diseases, whether of hu­



14

mans or of animals), institutional care (e.g., women’s 
prisons, mental hospitals, homes for aged) conservation 
of natural resources (e.g., oyster and fish conservation 
problems of Maryland and Virginia) and motor vehicles 
(e.g., recognition of license tags of a foreign State) can 
be and have been handled by Compacts between the 
States without the requirement that they receive the 
approval of the Congress of the United States. It is sub­
mitted that this is equally true of interstate compacts 
which are concerned with higher education for citizens 
of the several States.

4.
The Regional Compact is binding upon each of the 

signatory States and upon all of the citizens of such 
States. Virginia v. Tennessee, (L. Ed. p. 545), supra; 
Poole v. Fleeger, 11 Pet. 185, 9 L. Ed. 680, 690; Hinder- 
lider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Company, 
304 U. S. 92, 106, 82 L. Ed 1202, 1210. In the last case 
cited, the Supreme Court of the United States, in discuss­
ing the effect of interstate compacts upon the citizens of 
the signatory States, said as follows:

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



15

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

5.
The Regional Compact does not deprive the Petitioner 

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

Considering this point, it must be borne in mind that 
up to this time none of the decisions, either of the Su­
preme Court of the United States or of the Court of Ap­
peals, have dealt with the exact problem here under 
consideration. In the case of Maryland v. Murray, 169 
Md. 478, the Petitioner was an applicant for admission to 
the Law School. This was likewise true in the case of 
Missouri, ex rel Gaines v. Canada, supra, and in the latest 
case of Sipuel v. Oklahoma, 332 U. S. 631, 92 L. Ed. 247 
(333 U. S. 147, 92 L. Ed. 605). In both the Murray and 
Gaines cases, supra, in contending that the Writ should 
be issued, the Petitioners relied particularly upon the 
special advantages incident to attending a Law School



18

in the State of which one is a citizen and in which one 
intends to practice. (Murray case, page 488; Gaines case, 
L. Ed. page 213 ). The opinion in the Sipuel case was per 
curiam and makes no reference whatsoever to Petition­
er’s contentions therein, the decision being based upon 
the rule laid down in the Gaines case. Appellees admit 
that there are certain advantages incident to attending a 
local Law School over attendance at one outside of the 
State where one proposes to practice. In a local school, 
the emphasis is upon local rules of practice and procedure 
and substantive law peculiar to that State. There is also 
the oportunity of observing the local courts in action. 
However, no such advantages accrue to a student of nurs­
ing. There are no rules regarding nursing which are pe­
culiar to any given State nor is there any practice in the 
nursing profession peculiar to any given State.

An additional ground for the decision in the Murray 
case was the fact that attendance at Howard University, 
in Washington, would have resulted in greater expenses 
to the Petitioner than attendance at the University of 
Maryland Law School even though the Petitioner were 
awarded a scholarship, as proposed in that case. This 
contention cannot be made in the present case. The 
operations under The Regional Compact are such that 
the cost to Appellant at Meharry will be no greater than 
her expenses would be if she attended Maryland. That 
this is true is conceded by Appellant (App. App. p. 21).

Under The Regional Compact, contracts have been en­
tered into between various States, which wish to send 
students out of their own boundaries for educational 
purposes, with the Regional Board and by the Board with 
Colleges and Universities in the various States. It is



17

submitted that, so far as citizens of Maryland are con­
cerned, the effect of these contracts executed under The 
Regional Compact is identically the same as if the edu­
cational facilities were furnished within the State of 
Maryland. For example, if the Maryland State College, 
at Princess Anne, (a division of the University of Mary­
land) afforded facilities for nursing education substan­
tially equal to such facilities provided by the University 
of Maryland, in Baltimore, Appellees could provide such 
education for Appellant at the former institution. No 
question could be raised under such circumstances that 
Appellant’s constitutional rights had been violated. If, in 
lieu of having facilities for nursing education of Negroes 
at Princess Anne, Somerset County, the University of 
Maryland owned a tract of land over the State line in 
Accomac County, Virginia, and there established facili­
ties for nursing education of Negroes substantially equal 
to such facilities at the University of Maryland, the 
same rule would unquestionably apply. Under such cir­
cumstances, equal educational opportunities would be 
afforded to Negroe students by the University of Mary­
land at a division of the University of Maryland. It is 
inconceivable that the mere fact that the physical facili­
ties were located just outside the boundaries of the State 
of Maryland would affect the rule. Instead of adopting 
what would prove to be a most expensive and burden­
some procedure, viz. outright purchase of educational 
facilities so that they would be an integral part of the 
University of Maryland, the State has adopted the alter­
native procedure of contracting for education of Mary­
land citizens in institutions located outside of the State. 
Maryland citizens are protected by the provisions of The 
Regional Compact and of the various contracts executed



18

thereunder. There certainly is no substantial difference 
between such a contractual arrangement for, and actual 
ownership of, the educational facilities. By this method, 
the State of Maryland can maintain its policy of segre­
gation, and, at the same time, provide educational oppor­
tunities for Negroes which are equal to those afforded to 
members of the white race at no additional cost whatso­
ever to the members of the Negro race.

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

6.

The Regional Compact has introduced a new decisive 
factor into the law. The new factor is that the States 
which have ratified the Compact have, for educational 
purposes, eliminated State lines. It is an attempt through 
voluntary agreement and co-operation to provide citizens 
of all the signatory States with unlimited educational 
opportunities. The opportunities proposed by The Reg­
ional Compact have been assured by the execution of 
contracts thereunder. The operations under The Regional 
Compact are distinctly different from those under the



19

out-of-State scholarship plans in vogue in a number of 
States prior to the decision in the Gaines case, suprq. 
The scholarship plans provided only for tuition. The fact 
that the student would incur additional expense, such as 
travel, was not taken into consideration, which, of course, 
resulted in inequality. This is no longer true under The 
Regional Compact plan.

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

few of the Western-Rocky Mountain States are presently 
operating under informal agreements which involve in­
carceration of female prisoners and treatment of mental 
patients and the aged and indigent. In addition to this, 
those States are presently drafting a Regional Compact 
covering medical and dental education similar to that in­
volved in this case. From the foregoing, it will appear 
that there is a trend toward interstate cooperation in 
problems of this kind. This, of course, is dictated by a 
desire to provide adequate and proper care, treatment 
and education for the citizens of the several States in a 
single location. Such a solution is socially and economi­
cally sound. Most assuredly, it does not in any way de­
prive the citizens of the several States of the equal pro­
tection of the laws.

CONCLUSION
It is respectfully submitted that the Gaines, Sipuel 

and Murray cases, supra, are not in point and are not 
controlling in this case; that The Regional Compact is 
valid and binding upon the signatory States and the 
citizens of such States; that the administration under the 
Compact, so far as Appellant is concerned, does not in 
any way abridge any of her constitutional rights; that



20

the Appellant is afforded facilities for nursing education 
which are certainly equal to and possibly better than 
she could obtain at the University of Maryland; that, 
therefore, the judgment of the trial court should be 
affirmed.

Respectfully submitted,

Hall Ham m ond ,
Attorney General,

K enneth C. Proctor,
Assistant Attorney General,

Attorneys for Appellees,
1901 Mathieson Building, 
Baltimore 2, Maryland.



1

APPENDIX TO APPELLEES’ BRIEF NO. 139

(St. Tr. 6-15):
DR. MAURICE C. PINCOFFS,

* * * * * *
DIRECT EXAMINATION 

Question by Mr. Proctor:
Q. Dr. Pincoffs, you, I believe, are a medical doctor? 

A. Yes, sir.
Q. I would like you to state, if you would, please, 

your educational back-ground? Where did you cover 
your under-graduate work? A. University of Chicago, 
with the degree of Bachelor of Science in 1910.

Q. Where did you take your medical degree? A. At 
the Johns Hopkins Medical School in 1912.

Q. And after completion of your medical course where 
did you go for your interneship? A. Presbyterian Hos­
pital in Chicago.

Q. Did you take your residency there? A. No, in the 
City Hospitals of Baltimore for two years.

Q. After completion of your residency have you en­
gaged in the teaching of medicine and medical subjects? 
A. Yes, prior to graduation I taught anatomy in the Uni­
versity of Chicago; I taught later in research capacity in 
the Department of pharmacology at Hopkins, and later 
as assistant instructor in medicine at Hopkins. Since 1922 
I have been Professor of Medicine in the University of 
Maryland Medical School.

Q. Have you had any connection with the School of 
Nursing of the University of Maryland? A. Yes, through­
out the years that I have been chief physician at the Uni­
versity Hospital I have been in very close touch with the



2

nursing and medical service. In the last year and four 
months in which I acted as assistant to the President of 
the University for medical affairs I have been in policy 
charge of the School of Nursing, and in that capacity 
became very well acquainted with the instruction and 
the facilities of that school. Furthermore, I have been at 
various times in World War I and World War II in com­
mand of hospitals, which included, of course, command 
of the nursing facilities in large hospitals. I have been 
instructor of nursing schools intermittently at the Uni­
versity of Maryland and at the Mercy Hospital for the 
last 27 years.

Q. Now, you referred generally to your service in 
World War I and II. What, in general, did you do in 
World War I? A. In connection with the nursing end in 
World War I, I commanded a Red Cross hospital for 
French civilians, which included a wide-spread nursing 
service throughout twenty-seven dispensaries, I suppose 
we would call them, over the province in Northern 
France.

Q. What was particularly your experience in World 
War II? A. Well, in regard to nursing I commanded the 
42nd General Hospital in Australia — in this country and 
Australia.

Q. How large a hospital was that? A. That was a 
thousand bed hospital.

Q. Did your duties include the supervision of nursing 
facilities in the hospital? A. They did. Further in World 
War II for a period of time I held the position known in 
the Army as Chief of the Professional Services in the 
Southwest Pacific, which gave me supervision of the 
nursing corps throughout that theatre.

Q. Now, with what hospitals have you been connected 
or associated as of this year? A. Well, I have been, dur­
ing this last thirty years, chief physician of the Uni­
versity Hospital, of the Mercy Hospital for a long period.



3

and on the attending staffs of a great many other hos­
pitals, Bon Secours, Church Home, West Baltimore, and 
so on.

Q. Now, are you at the present time on a committee 
under the Secretary of Defense, and if so, what is that 
committee? A. I have been a member of what is called 
the Armed Forces Medical Advisory Committee, which 
is an advisory Committee to the Secretary of Defense on 
all medical problems. Among those problems, of course, 
are those affecting nursing in all three of the armed 
forces, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force.

Q. Are you familiar with the Meharry Medical School 
at Nashville, Tenn.? A. Yes, I have rather extensively 
studied Meharry Medical College in Nashville, Tenn., 
both through its published material and by visiting the 
college.

Q. Before we get into that, I would like you to sum­
marize as briefly as you can what you consider the funda­
mentals necessary to proper functioning of a school of 
nursing? A. Well, I think that in my opinion — I think 
there would be general agreement on it — what a school 
of nursing can do for its students depends chiefly on the 
following factors, one — these are not perhaps in order of 
importance but they are all important factors — the 
school’s available funds, the character of the student 
body, character of the faculty, the facilities possessed by 
the school for instruction, that is class-rooms, labora­
tories, clinical facilities, equipment, curriculum, and the 
living conditions provided for the students. I propose on 
the basis of my knowledge of the School of Nursing at 
the University of Maryland and that which forms a part 
of the Meharry Medical College to briefly compare those 
schools in these respects.

(Mr. Houston) If your Honor please, for the record 
I should like to object on the ground that it is irrelevant 
to the issues which are presented in this case.



4

(The Court) Objection overruled.
(Exception granted.)
Q. (Mr. Proctor) Will you compare first the funds 

that are available to the Meharry Medical College and 
the University of Maryland School of Nursing? A. Yes. 
The Meharry Medical College was founded originally 
by a bequest from the Meharry brothers, and is sup­
ported at the present time by the proceeds of a Rocke­
feller endowment and yearly grants from Rockefeller, 
by grants from the Kellogg Foundation, by other gifts 
and grants not specified, and the tuition income. The 
University of Maryland School of Nursing receives with 
the budget of the University of Maryland an allocation 
of funds derived, of course, from the Legislature of the 
State of Maryland, and receives services equivalent to 
funds from the University of Maryland; those services 
are the maintenance of the nursing home, the laundry, 
the food of the nurses, matters of that kind. I was in­
formed by the Director of Medical Education at Meharry 
Medical College that they have available and budgeted 
for this year $108,000 -— I give you a round figure which 
he gave me for the budget of their school of nursing. 
I had prepared by the Director of the University Hos­
pital, Mr. George Buck, an estimate of budget of the 
School of Nursing based on the actual State appropriation 
plus what will be necessary in kind from the University 
of Maryland.

Q. By “in kind” you mean— A. Services.
Q. For contribution? A. Maintenance contribution. 

This estimate is $218,473. This estimate is based on the 
preceding year— it is not a prospective budget for the 
coming year.

Q. (Mr. Houston) Might I ask the question what the 
$108,000 is based on so I can know whether we have the 
same basis of comparison; is that for the past year or the 
prospective budget? A. I believe—I am not certain—-



5

that the budget of $108,000 is their current operating bud­
get. Now, I am not informed as to what their fiscal year 
is, so there may be in that respect a discrepancy. How­
ever, I think I can show that these are comparable from 
the only point of view that it seems to me is important 
to our point.

Q. (Mr. Proctor) May I ask one or two questions first 
before you go into this. You referred to $218,473. A. I 
beg your pardon. May I correct that—no, I am correct, 
two hundred and eighteen. I thought it was thirteen.

Q. That you referred to as an estimated figure? A. 
Yes, sir.

Q. That is only estimated in part; part of it is based on 
an actual budget appropriation? A. Yes, I am sorry. 
Salaries of instructors, for example, is an actual budge­
tary item of $40,960.

Q. The estimated portion is what you referred to such 
as maintenance contribution from the hospital? A. 
That is right, maintenance of students, medical health 
program, maintenance of students including supplies, 
nursing home maintenance, heat and light, food, and so 
on.

Q. Now, one further question, you do have the students 
benefiting from each of these two sums, isn't that cor­
rect? A. Right.

Q. You can get a per student figure? A. The reason 
I went into this with the Director at Meharry and our 
Director at the University Hospital was because I 
thought that the cost per student, the money available 
in each institution and spent on each student bore some 
relation to their equivalent.

*  *  *  *  *  *

(St. Tr. 16-24):
There was expenditure in round figures for Meharry 

for students as given me by the Director according to the 
number of students, say between fifteen .and eighteen



6

hundred dollars. On their present enrollment of 61 stu­
dents and their budgetary item of one hundred and eight 
thousand that figures out at $1,770 per student. On this 
estimated budget of the University of Maryland, which 
was based on 164 students, that is those in residence dur­
ing this past year prior to our present class which has 
just come in, gave Mr, Buck a figure of $1,332.15 per stu­
dent, which indicated to me that at least Meharry was 
not lacking in funds to spend on the training of its stu­
dents. The next point which I wish to take up in this 
comparison was the character of the student body. A 
very important factor, of course, in education is what 
material you have to deal with, standards of admission, 
and so on. Both schools admit two types of students, 
those who are studying for degrees in nursing and who 
have had prior to entering the school at least two years 
of college work, and those who are studying for diplomas 
in nursing, but not a degree, who are required to have 
had at least high-school education. Out of the 61 present 
students at Meharry, thirty, or almost exactly fifty per­
cent have had two years or more of college before en­
trance into that institution. That is an unusually high 
percentage of well educated young men and women be­
fore entering. The remaining thirty-one Meharry stu­
dents have had as a pre-requisite to entrance that they 
stood in the higher third of their high-school class. 
Those are rather rigid requirements. At the University 
of Maryland, I am informed by Miss Gipe, Director of 
the School of Nursing that out of the 202—is it 202 or 204 
—202 present students since admission of the new class, 
only twenty-six, or approximately twelve and one-half 
percent have had two years of college education prior 
to entrance. We require from the others a high-school de­
gree and recommendation from the principal—we do not 
require that they stand in the upper third of their high- 
school class. So that I conclude that in both schools ade­
quate admission standards are maintained, but they are 
higher at Meharry than at the University of Maryland. 
In both schools personal factors, character, morals, apti-



T

tude, are determined by reference, by personal interview, 
and by aptitude tests, and in both a final requirement, 
and important one for admission, is made in passing a 
rather rigid physical examination. The character of the 
faculty: in each of the two schools of nursing the faculty 
falls into three groups, a full time faculty, made up of 
nursing teachers who are nurses, graduate nurses; a 
part-time faculty who are also nurses but give only part 
time to teaching; and what is called either lecturers or 
participating faculty—participating faculty is a better 
term, I think; that is members of other schools in the 
university or college, who in addition to teaching, say 
medical or dental students, also give courses for nurses 
but do not belong to the faculty of the nursing school ex­
cept in that category. Now, in Meharry for 61 students 
there are thirteen full time teachers; that is a little bet­
ter than one for five students. Of those 13, ten hold 
collegiate degrees of Bachelor or higher degrees. At 
the University there are also thirteen full time teachers 
this year for 202 students, and I regret I have not worked 
out that percentage, but it is obvious that thirteen teach­
ers for 202 students as opposed to thirteen for 61 students 
means less individual instruction. It may well be that 
at Meharry they are over-staffed for the number of stu­
dents.

Q. How many of those thirteen full time teachers at 
the University of Maryland have degrees? A. Eleven 
of the thirteen have degrees of Bachelor or higher. The 
part time teachers whom I have defined are those usually 
working in the hospital in charge of floors or wards who 
are also doing teaching to student nurses during that 
part of the training when the student nurse is doing prac­
tical nursing on the wards or floors of the hospital. The 
participating faculty I have already defined. I think it 
would be too laborious—I find it impractical to com­
pare them except to say this, I feel they are fully ade­
quate in both cases. The members of the faculty of the 
University of Maryland Medical School who give time— 
courses and lectures to nurses —- I think have a high



8

standard of ability. I met personally a large number of 
the faculty at Meharry who do similar courses and was 
impressed with them as able men. I think it is better 
organized, I regret to say, at Meharry in this sense, that 
is the salary of the part time teacher, the one who is 
taking charge of a ward and in addition does teaching, 
is entirely paid by the hospital. She receives no salary 
from the training school—the School of Nursing for her 
teaching. There part of her salary is specifically paid by 
the School of Nursing for her teaching, and that is ob­
viously a sounder arrangement, and there are similar dif­
ferences between payment of participating faculty there 
and here. There the participating faculty receive pay 
for what they do—that is only certain ones do, a large 
part of it is a purely voluntary basis, so I conclude from 
this that while the character of the faculty is satisfactory 
in both schools, as shown by their records actually, in its 
organization and in the qualifications of its members, if 
anything Meharry has the edge. I think it is fair to insert 
here, your Honor, that Meharry has been a privileged 
school, that is a school which has had back of it the 
Rockefeller foundation, and there are other foundations, 
who have tried to make it a model for the future devel­
opment of other schools of nursing. I shall not say much 
about the curriculum. The curriculum in the two schools 
is modelled on that advocated by the National League of 
Nursing Education, and is closely parallel in all respects. 
They have developed, I think, a more advanced public 
health teaching program, really an outstanding one, I 
should say. Ours is in process of improvement but is 
not up to their standard as yet. There is one significant 
difference: to a greater extent than we have been able 
to they have been able, with their larger full time teach­
ing faculty and their method of payment of participating 
faculty, to develop, especially in the basic subjects like 
anatomy and physiology and bio-chemistry and bac­
teriology, advanced courses for those who are taking 
their collegiate type of course leading to a degree, some­
what less advanced courses for those who are taking the



9

diploma course. We have not been able to make that 
differentiation to the extent that they have, and I feel 
that we might work toward that. As far as living condi­
tions provided for the students, we have the disadvant­
age, of course, of having grown up and serving our func­
tion in the slums of Baltimore. We have no campus or 
grounds; we are where we can do our work best, but 
the fact remains that as far as living conditions, because 
our nurses have to contend with that fact, which is a 
very tangible thing when it means coming home late at 
night through that very hazardous area. It means also 
no place for out-door recreation without going a consid­
erable distance. Meharry moved, I think in 1926, out 
to the edge of Nashville; they have a land-scaped campus 
of approximately 25 acres, and they are across the street 
from Fiske University, which has also very fine open 
grounds, and that in turn is next to the State College for 
agriculture and industry, I think it is called, which is a 
third Negro institution. These three constitute a real 
educational center for Negroes and they are beautifully 
situated. In addition to this advantage in site, to this very 
beautiful site that they have, they have a very handsome 
nurses’ home in which each student has her own room. 
They share showers, but each student has her own very 
adequate room, I think, which is modelled, I believe 
after the school at Rochester, by the same architect, and 
they have very cleverly arranged social rooms, a gym­
nasium which can serve also as a dance-hall. In addi­
tion to this the girls have out-door tennis courts on the 
campus of Fiske University and the use of a swimming 
pool a block or two away. Furthermore they have a very 
much more normal and very much more satisfactory 
social life in that big educational center, and the major­
ity of them belong to the sororities that are on the 
campus. Their health program is a general health pro­
gram for all three institutions; it is centered in the hos­
pital and it covers not only the nurses but the regular 
students at Fiske and I believe in the State College. It 
certainly conforms to usual standards. I for one will



10

say ours which is specially designed for nurses is a bet­
ter, more complete program. Now, I would point out, 
too, that one has to judge a school not only by its pro­
gram facilities, but what has it accomplished? I was 
privileged to see the otherwise secret report from the 
training school—the School of Nursing at Meharry by 
the State Board of Nurse Examiners.

* * * * * *
(St. Tr. 24-25):

Q. (Mr. Proctor) Let me ask you this question: Is 
the nursing school at the Meharry Medical College ac­
cepted by the State Nursing Board in Tennessee? A. 
It is. The nurses in Tennessee, in addition to being ac­
cepted must be registered, pass an examination. It was 
upon the results of that examination that I wish to com­
ment.

Q. I would like to ask you one further question, and 
do not answer because Mr. Houston will wish to object 
to it: Did you examine an official report showing the 
record made by the graduates of the Meharry Medical 
College School of Nursing so far as the State Board of 
Nursing Examination was concerned? A. I personally 
examined it.

Q. Was that an official report? A. It was an official 
report.

Q. Now, don’t answer this yet: Will you please state 
what that report showed comparing the graduates of 
Meharry with the graduates of other schools?

* * * * * *
(St. Tr. 26-27):

A. The examination results were stated by subject 
and the different schools were shown by the average 
grades in each subject that their graduates had obtained 
in these different subjects in the State examination. 
There were either seven or eight subjects—I am unable 
to remember exactly which. In those in all but two the



11

Meharry graduates average examination grades were 
higher than the average examination grades of any of 
the approximately fourteen other schools of nursing in 
Tennessee who took the examination.

* * * * * *
(St. Tr. 27-37):

Q. (Mr. Proctor) Now, Doctor, wThat is the Na­
tional League of Nursing Education? A. The National 
League of Nursing Education is the body on which are 
operated the schools of nursing of the country and it has 
as its mission to improve nursing education in the coun­
try, and has wide influence in that it advises concerning 
curriculum, it publishes books dealing with nursing edu­
cation, and it accredits schools of nursing after those 
schools of nursing have been visited by representatives 
of the League and surveyed.

Q. What is the general reputation in the nursing field 
of accreditation of a nursing school by the League? A. 
It is that this is a very distinct evidence that they are of 
superior quality. That is evidenced by the fact that out 
of approximately 1,150 schools of nursing in the country 
only approximately 120 are so accredited.

Q. Is Meharry Medical College School of Nursing so 
accredited? A. Meharry Medical College School of 
Nursing as reported to me, as shown in printed form and 
the bulletin of the National League of Nursing Education 
is so accredited.

Q. Is the Nursing School of the University of Mary­
land so accredited? A. I am informed by Miss Gipe 
at the present time our School of Nursing is not so ac­
credited.

Q. Now, one point you have not given us comparative 
information on is the question of physical facilities in the 
two nursing schools, that is laboratories and classrooms 
and so forth? A. They are adequate in both schools.



12

Again I have to give the edge to Meharry, whose build­
ings are all new; with ours only some parts are; certain 
laboratories which are used by the School of Nursing are 
in the old Grann (?) laboratory building that dates back 
some seventy-five years ago when it was built, and are 
passable but they have the edge over us in facilities of 
that kind, and perhaps a slight advantage in equipment. 
I mean by equipment microscopes and other material 
used in teaching, but both are adequate.

Q. Now, Doctor, considering the various factors that 
you have referred to in your testimony, and your knowl­
edge of the two schools of nursing, have you arrived at a 
conclusion regarding the two schools? A. I have ar­
rived at this conclusion, that if the objective of the candi­
date is education in nursing, Meharry Medical College 
offers at least equivalent, and in my opinion, somewhat 
better organized instruction in nursing.

Q. (The Court) How about training for an ultimate 
degree in medicine? A. Their course is better organized 
for that purpose. Both will achieve a degree, but the 
actual process of achieving it is better organized at 
Meharry, as I pointed out in their ability to give spe­
cially advanced work for the degree student.

Q. Then you would say for a nursing diploma the 
course at Meharry is substantially equal to the training 
at the University of Maryland Nursing School, and train­
ing for a degree in nursing it is somewhat superior? A. 
Yes.

CROSS EXAMINATION 
Question by Mr. Houston:

Q. Doctor, how many trips did you make to Meharry? 
A. One.

Q. How long did you stay there? A. Four hours.
Q. When was that? A. Last Thursday.



13

Q. Who did you talk to? A. I talked to the Dean of 
the School of Nursing, who was a Mrs. Anderson, and 
who was with me throughout the four hours. I talked to 
various of her instructors. I would have to refer to notes 
as to their names.

Q. Do you have your notes? A. No, I don’t have them 
with me. I talked to the Professor of Anatomy; I met 
and talked briefly to the Professor of Bio-chemistry. I 
conferred fully two hours on this solidly, and with the 
Director of Education, Dr. Brown.

Q. The School of Nursing? A. He covers the School 
of Nursing and School of Medicine — I am not sure 
whether he does with the School of Dentistry or not. I 
visited all parts of the institution, every floor in the hos­
pital, with the Dean, who showed me her nurses at work. 
I went through the nursing home; I went through all of 
the laboratories of the Medical School, covering those 
used for nursing instruction, as well as many of their 
new projects, because they have grants in new cancer 
work and new heart work.

Q. Now, do you know anything about the financial 
situation of Meharry a year ago? A. No, except that 
it was Rockefeller supported.

Q. Do you know that Meharry was in such desperate 
financial straits that it was afraid it was about to close? 
A. So I was informed, except that Rockefeller came 
again to their help.

Q. Did anybody tell you whether or not there was any 
continuing payment on the part of the Rockefeller Foun­
dation to support Meharry? A. I was told that there 
was. I was told that, I think about three years ago Rocke­
feller gave them an endowment of—sum of $4,000,000 
with the idea that annual grants thereafter would be dis­
continued, but that since then they have each year given 
them annual grants on the demonstrated need for such 
grant, and the attitude of Dr. Brown, who has been work­
ing with the financial aspects of the school, was that he



14

had every expectation of that continuing. He also 
pointed out that they were receiving other considerable 
grants from other directions, notably from the Federal 
Government, and that if this Congress passes the Bill 
for aid to medical education and nursing education, 
which has already been passed by the Senate, and is 
backed by the Administration, their financial situation 
would be on a much steadier basis.

Q. Did he give any figures outside of the four million 
dollars about his grants? A. I don’t believe so. If I 
may refer to some notes I have on that point—a rather 
brief note—no. I have no actual figures on the support 
they are getting from the Kellogg Foundation, nor from 
other sources.

Q. Can you tell us just how this $108,000 is broken 
down? A. No. I can tell you what it covers but I can­
not tell you how it is broken down.

Q. Now, Doctor, any nursing school requires a mini­
mum of equipment outlay regardless of the number of 
students enrolled? A. Right.

Q. A given set of physical facilities will accommodate 
a varied number of students, students within a given 
range of numbers, so that adding students to a physical 
plant, let us say under-manned, or it is not used to 
capacity, would not increase the per capita expenditure 
to students the way it would shoot up if there was a 
small number of students in that same physical plant? 
A. That is, of course, quite right. Even if one had only 
ten students, for sixty students it will still be adequate; 
perhaps it will be adequate for 100 students. The school 
was built there and manned with the idea of 74 students. 
They have 61. I assume that because of the fact that the 
quarters for nurses have quarters for 74 students, and 
that their faculty was evidently based on the assumption 
there would be 74. Only having 61 does increase their 
student cost, but that is not to say that when you have 
202 students with approximately the same faculty that



15

you cannot infer that it is not better to have more faculty 
per student. As to the individual student there is an 
advantage in that extra time that the faculty member 
has to give to the individual.

Q. So that as to student-faculty relationship the 
Meharry Medical College School of Nursing is in a much 
superior position to the University of Maryland? A. I 
would say that in my opinion they could handle a hun­
dred or more students perfectly adequately, but they 
could not handle much more than that adequately. In 
other words, I think we are on the lean side as to faculty 
members; they have more than they need.

Q. That is a superior situation? A. If you have your 
choice by all odds have more than too few.

Q. So it is a superior situation? A. I consider it so.
Q. Now, did you go over and investigate, actually 

make a physical examination of Fiske and the State A. 
& I. College that you referred to? A. No, I drove by 
them merely. I had pointed out to me by Dr. Brown the 
nature of their buildings, which are very handsome 
buildings, by the way. I saw, of course, the campus, but 
I had no need of entering the buildings because I did not 
think that they bore on this topic.

Q. So far as physical conditions are concerned, and 
living conditions, you would say again Meharry is 
superior? Meharry is superior so far as the living condi­
tions of the student nurses is concerned as compared to 
the University of Maryland School of Nursing? A. Yes, 
sir, for the reason I gave as to site, as to single rooms, as 
to social rooms, and so on, I think it is superior.

Q. And the same thing as far as physical facilities are 
concerned including laboratories and class-rooms? A. 
Well, I think both schools have adequate physical facili­
ties, but Meharry has the edge on us.

Q- Still has the edge? A. Has the edge on us.



16

Q. Now, Doctor, are communicable diseases provided 
for in Hubbard Memorial Hospital? A. That is a dif­
ficult term to define. They have no section for permanent 
care of such communicable diseases as diphtheria and 
scarlet fever. They have isolation beds for cases that 
develop but they carry all other types of communicable 
diseases; for example, we saw there a ward full of polio 
victims of the recent epidemic. They have very much 
the same lack as to diphtheria and scarlet fever just 
particularly as we have at the University of Maryland. 
We have no ward adequate for the care of those cases and 
therefore can only handle those that get in by chance.

Q. On the other hand you have arrangements where­
by you get communicable disease nursing at Sydenham 
Hospital here? A. Should we say we have at times, and 
we have no such prospective arrangements because 
Sydenham Hospital is, as we all know, closing.

* * * * *  *
(St. Tr. 38-39):

Q. (Mr. Houston) Now, what provision is there at Me- 
harry for clinical experience of psychiatric nursing? A. 
No more than at the University of Maryland. We have 
affiliation with Sheppard-Enoch Pratt and they have af­
filiation with Cook County Hospital.

Q. What affiliation does Meharry Medical College 
School of Nursing have? A. With Cook County Hos­
pital in Chicago; they send their psychiatric nursing up 
to Cook County. I think you will find that in the cata­
logue, by the way, for the School of Nursing at Meharry.

Q. Now, you say in the public health program train­
ing Meharry has superior organization to the University 
of Maryland? A. Yes, I consider it so.

Q. Now, these hospitals that you administered, Doc­
tor, one had a thousand beds; how many beds did the 
other one have, World War I? A. I couldn’t tell you 
exactly. It was a hospital of approximately 150 beds and 
something like twenty-three or four out patient depart-



17

raents spread over a large Province. The whole was 
operated as a unit and I was in charge of it.

Q. How many beds at the University of Maryland Hos­
pital? * * * * * *
(St. Tr. 40-49):

A. It has 435 beds, 70 bassinets.
Q. How many beds are there in affiliated hospitals 

available to the School of Nursing, University of Mary­
land students? A. I am not aware that outside of our 
sending nurses to the Sheppard-Enoch Pratt for phychi- 
atric training that we send our nurses away, if I might 
ask Miss Gipe to corroborate that?

(Mr. Houston) I have no objection.
(The Witness) Miss Gipe, do we send nurses away 

for affiliated training execpt to Sheppard-Enoch Pratt?
(Miss Gipe) And Sydenham.
(The Witness) And to Sydenham, yes, you are right. 

Sheppard-Enoch Pratt, I cannot give you the census of 
it; it is a large institution; I would estimate it around a 
thousand, at least. Sydenham, as you know, has had a 
patient census of approximately 26 average during the 
last year. For that reason it is closing.

Q. (Mr. Houston) Well, now, do I understand that 
when the students at the University of Maryland, School 
of Nursing want to get psychiatric nursing they simply 
go over to these other hospitals in town—Enoch Pratt 
and Sheppard? A. That is all one hospital. It is called 
Sheppard-Enoch Pratt Hospital. It is situated out near 
Towson.

Q. And the City Hospital? A. They don’t go to the 
City Hospital.

Q. What was the second hospital? A. Sydenham is a 
contagious disease hospital, owned and operated by the 
City, and they went there for contagious disease train­



18

ing, but that is closing up and will not be available in the 
future. Whether any arrangements can be made for such 
training at the City Hospital, which intends to take on 
that function, remains to be seen. I can say that we have 
no arrangement consummated at present.

Q. When the girls from the University of Maryland, 
School of Nursing, go to Sydenham, if Sydenham is open, 
and to Sheppard-Enoch Pratt, do they still continue their 
courses at the University of Maryland while they are do­
ing their clinical work at these hospitals? A. Not to 
my knowledge. The distances are too great.

Q. But they are in school? They still remain in resi­
dency? A. They live away. They live at Sheppard- 
Enoch Pratt during their time.

Q. Is that an assumption or is that your statement of 
fact? A. That is a statement of fact. I see Miss Gipe 
corroborates that.

Q. Now, did you see any white students at Meharry 
College? A. No.

Q. They are all Negro students at Meharry?
(Mr. Proctor) We will agree Meharry Medical Col­

lege is a Negro college.

MRS. VERNE ALLEN NESBITT, 
* * * * * *

DIRECT EXAMINATION 
By Mr. Proctor:

Q. Mrs. Nesbitt, I believe you are a registered nurse, 
is that correct? A. That is correct.

Q. Of what institution are you a graduate? A. Van­
derbilt University and University of Nashville Tennesse.

Q. I believe your husband is a medical doctor, is that 
correct? A. Yes, sir.



19

Q. He is at present at Hopkins Hospital? A. That is 
correct.

Q. Are you familiar with Meharry Medical College, 
School of Nursing? A. I am.

Q. I believe that you taught there for a short time? 
A. Yes, I did.

Q. When did you teach there? A. In 1947.
Q. And for how long in 1947? A. For one term. I 

took the place of a teacher who was sent away from her 
school to get some more training.

Q. Is it the practice at Meharry for outside teachers 
such as you are to come in there and teach part-time sub­
jects? A. It is a practice to replace any instructor re­
moved away from your faculty for any period of time.

Q. Were there any other white instructors in the Col­
lege during that time? A. At the time I was there Mrs. 
Alma Gault was the director of the Nursing School, and 
was white. The other instructors that I remember were 
colored.

Q. Now, can you compare, from what you observed 
while you were at Meharry, the time you were teaching 
at Meharry, can you compare the curriculum that was 
offered at Meharry with what you had at Vanderbilt 
University? A. Vanderbilt is a collegiate school in toto. 
We have no students there who have not completed at 
least two years at college, and for the most part have al­
ready four years of college.

Q. So you had nothing but degree students? A. That 
is correct, we have nothing but degree students at Vander­
bilt. The curriculum at Meharry, the fact it is accredited 
by the National League of Nursing Education attests to 
the fact it is completely—-a complete curriculum in com­
municable diseases, psychiatry affiliation, and all of those 
things.



20

Q. So that accreditation of itself shows that it is a 
first-class nursing institution? A. Yes, it does.

Q. Now, while you were at Meharry what was your 
observation of the students with whom you came in con­
tact? Would you class them as average students, below 
average, or above average? A. The only students that 
I have to compare them with would be students of my 
own school of which I was a part, which would not be 
quite fair. At the present time I am instructor in obste­
trics at Sinai Hospital and have student nurses there, 
who are at the sub-college level, diploma students almost 
completely. I would say Meharry students are a higher 
caliber student than you would see in a hospital school 
of nursing for the reason that they are better prepared, 
and are young people who are seeking a higher course in 
nursing than the three year course.

Q. Did you have an opportunity, while you were there, 
to observe the physical facilities at Meharry—labora­
tories and things of that kind? A. What I taught was 
obstetrics so that I saw a good bit of the obstetric floors, 
the wards where the students got their clinical experi­
ence, the delivery rooms where they assisted with the 
deliveries, and I was in the nurses’ home, which is a very 
fine building, which was erected in 1931, and I was in­
side of the students’ rooms, and their social rooms, where 
they entertain their guests and friends.

Q. How would you describe the nurses’ home, Mrs. 
Nesbitt? A. They are better than Vanderbilt. We have 
a much older building—1925. I was a little bit jealous of 
them because they have one large living, and several 
smaller rooms that amount to parlors—small parlors.

Q. How would you classify the bed-rooms and toilet 
facilities? A. They are the same as you would see at a 
school and the same at about Vanderbilt; with each room 
is minimal of furniture, a bed, dresser, desk, a closet, 
chair, which is always what you find in a nurse’s bed 
room. We always have bath-rooms on the floor, and



21

showers which are shared. I have never been in a dorm­
itory where they had anything other than that.

Q. You have heard Dr. Pincoff’s testimony that only 
one girl was assigned to a bed-room at the nurse’s home? 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was that your obersvation? A. That was my ob­
servation, yes.

Q. I believe you said that you also had an opportunity 
to observe the hospital facilities there. How would you 
compare those with that which you have at Sinai or Van­
derbilt? A. They were comparable. They had a nice 
observation stand in the delivery room so that the stu­
dent nurses were able to sit in a raised position and watch 
the procedures that were demonstrated to them on deliv­
eries. They had semi-private, and private, and ward 
beds on the floor where I did my clinical observation. As 
instructor you meet the student in the class-room and 
teach her and then go in the wards with her and see if 
they apply the theory you have given them by actual 
practice on the scene of the sick bed.

Q. Could you add anything to what you have told us 
about the school? A. I was impressed with their 
library, which in 1947 boasted 10,000 periodicals, 
which is good, and their library is shared by the medical 
students and the dental students. I think the oppor­
tunity for social life and meeting the finest young people 
is at the optimum there. The young men you meet are 
the ones you go out with in social life, and are of very high 
caliber, young men who are going through the college of 
ministry, or medicine, or dentistry. The instructors 
were young doctors, men who have gone far in their 
field. I don’t recall any one personally except one physi­
cian who is quite high in the medical fields. I don’t re­
call his name but he was pointed out to me on one oc­
casion.



22

(The Witness) I have a picture here of the campus if 
any one is interested in seeing it, and the medical school. 

* * * * * *
(St. Tr. 49-50):

A. This is the hospital right here (indicating); this is 
the nurses’ dormitory (indicating). Their religious em­
phasis there is good; they have an active Y. W. C. A. on 
the campus for the nursing students; they are invited to 
join sororities, and participate in the activities of Fiske 
University. They have Sunday services that are very 
nice at Fiske Memorial Chapel, and they have the oppor­
tunity of hearing the Fiske Jubilee singers who are quite 
famous in our part of the country, which is a Negro choir, 
a fine group.

Q. What year is that? A. 1947. That building was 
erected in 1931 (indicating on photograph.)

Q. The building in the fore-front? A. Is the nurses’ 
home, which is about fifty feet from Hubbard Hospital. 

* * * * * *
(St. Tr. 51-58):

CROSS EXAMINATION 
Question By Mr. Houston:

Q. At what hospitals did you have your clinical ex­
perience at Vanderbilt School of Nursing? A. We took 
our psychiatric experience at Murfreesboro, Tennesse 
at a Shriners (?) hospital.

Q. Go ahead. A. And our public health at Ruther­
ford County Health Department in Tennessee.

Q. Go ahead. A. The rest of our course is in the hos­
pital; our communicable is part of Vanderbilt Hospital.

Q. How many beds in Vanderbilt Hospital? A. 
Around 350.

Q. And outside of Vanderbilt Hospital any other hos­
pitals in Tennessee?



23

(The Witness) That I was familiar with?
(Mr. Houston) Except Meharry Medical College?
A. No, sir. I was head nurse at the section of geriatrics 

at Baltimore City hospital for one year.
Q. Now you are at Sinai Hospital? A. That is right, 

supervisor of the nursery and instructor in obstetrics.
Q. Sinai has how many beds? A. I am sorry I don’t 

know.
Q. Baltimore City Hospital has how many beds? A. 

I don’t know that—quite a lot; their infirmary and tu­
berculosis hospital are part of it, but I do not have the 
figures.

Q. Generally speaking in connection with nurses’ 
training a large hospital offers more clinical material 
for the student nurse to observe and work on than a small 
hospital? A. If it is used.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION 
By Mr. Proctor:

Q, Would you say the opportunity for clinical obser­
vation at Hubbard Hospital was ample for proper nurs­
ing training? A. Yes, it is.

MRS. ANGELA M. SHIPLEY, 
* * * * * *
DIRECT EXAMINATION 

Question By Mr. Proctor:
Q. Mrs. Shipley, I believe that you are also a registered 

nurse, is that correct? A. Yes, I am.
Q. Do you have any official position with the State 

of Maryland? A. I am Executive Secretary of the Mary­
land State Board of Nurses Examiners.



24

Q. What do you require for registration as a nurse in 
Maryland? A. According to the law under which we 
operate she must meet at least the minimal requirements 
that are stated for all of the Maryland Schools of nurses.

Q. Do you register on a nurse’s certificate alone or do 
you require examination?

(The Witness) Do you mean for an original registra­
tion?

(Mr. Proctor) Yes.
(The Witness) In Maryland?
(Mr. Proctor) Yes.
A. She must write an examination for an original 

registration.
Q. If she has been registered in some other State you 

do or do not require it? A. We accept the other State’s 
examination.

Q. Has your Board ever had occasion to consider the 
registration of a graduate of Meharry Medical College, 
School of Nursing? A. Yes, we did.

Q. You had one such application or more? A. We 
have had one last December.

Q. What was the name of the applicant? A. Mrs. 
Wilkens. I brought her papers, Mrs. Miriam Austin Wil- 
kens.

Q. Was she registered by the State of Tennessee be­
fore she came here? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Has your Board registered her? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know what she is doing at the present time? 

A. She Is Assistant Director of the School of Nursing at 
Provident Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland.

Q. Now, are you familiar with the National League of 
Nursing Education? A. I am part of it.



25

Q. You are part of it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you tell as briefly as you can just what that 

League does? A. The National League is an organiza­
tion of graduate nurses who are teachers in school nurs­
ing program, in nursing education; we go in as individ­
ual members, as members of our State organization or 
national organization.

Q. Now, does that League accredit nursing schools 
throughout the country? A. It has a committee for ac­
crediting schools. I think I should say that is on a vol­
untary basis, the accreditation and study is made at the 
request of the school.

Q. In other words, the League does not go out and 
rate all schools but only such schools as ask for a rating? 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. For accreditation? A. That is right.
Q. Is Meharry Medical School—Meharry Medical Col­

lege, School of Nursing accredited by the National League 
of Nursing Education? A. It is according to the last 
statement that we have in our office from the National 
League. They issue these small blue pamphlets.

Q. And the date of that is what? A. I have a supple­
ment to it; including supplement it is May, 1948.

Q. May, 1948? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, is the University of Maryland, School of 

Nursing, accredited by the National League of Nursing 
Education? A. No, it is not.

Q. Now, this is a circular put out by the National 
League of Nursing Education that you have handed me, 
is that correct? A. That is correct.

Q. And we have a supplement that is up to May, 1948? 
A. That is right.

* * * * * *



28

(St. Tr. 58-61):
Q. (Mr. Proctor) Let me ask you this: What fac­

tors are considered, if you know, by the National League 
of Nursing Education in accrediting an institution? A. 
Basically the school is accredited on its purposes; I mean 
a hospital school receives the same consideration that 
enters into consideration of a school or collegiate pro­
gram. The school states its purposes. The survey com­
mittee goes into the situation and if they feel that the 
school is meeting the stated purpose, that is one con­
sideration. I think Dr. Pincoffs has given us an excellent 
idea of the way they proceed.

Q. You think the way he based his comparison of 
Meharry and the University of Maryland School of 
Nursing is about the same that the National League of 
Nursing Education goes into the matter? A. I would 
think so, yes, sir, except it is voluntary—voluntary ac­
creditation.

Q. Accreditation by the League is a mark of distinc­
tion so far as a nursing school is concerned? A. We cer­
tainly think so, definitely.

Q. Are you familiar with whether or not the Univer­
sity of Maryland School of Nursing has applied for 
accreditation to the National League of Nursing Edu­
cation? A. As far as I know they never did.

CROSS EXAMINATION 
Question by Mr. Houston:

Q. Mrs. Shipley, you have this little bulletin of the 
National League of Nursing Education, have you not? 
A. I haven’t it in my hands.

(The Court) Here is one.
Q. (By Mr. Houston) In the District of Columbia the 

only accredited schools of nursing is the Providence Hos­
pital and Catholic University, isn’t that right? A. That 
is the only one listed here.



27

Q. That does not mean that the Providence Hospital 
and the Catholic University School of Nursing is the only 
high class school of nursing in the District of Columbia, 
does it? A. No. That is the point I would like to make, 
it is voluntary accreditation and many good schools have 
not asked for it throughout the country.

Q. So without data showing that the University of 
Maryland School of Nursing had asked for accreditation 
and on examination had been refused, there would be 
no imputation from the omission of the University of 
Maryland School of Nursing from this list, would there? 
A. I would think not, no. I think you are correct.

Q. Are you yourself a graduate of the University of 
Maryland School of Nursing? A. No, sir.

Q. Your nursing school is what? A. Johns Hopkins.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
❖  * *  * * *

(St. Tr. 62-64):
Q. (By Mr. Houston) Might I ask this question, as to 

whether your records will show any substantial number 
of graduates of Meharry Medical College School of Nurs­
ing who took the examination in the State of Maryland? 
A. We never had one.

Q. You never had one. A. We had this one nurse last 
year.

Q. She was admitted on reciprocity? A. That is right.

MISS FLORENCE M. GIPE 
* * * * * *
DIRECT EXAMINATION 

Question by Mr. Proctor:
Q. Miss Gipe, you are a registered nurse, I believe? 

A. I am.



28

Q. You are Superintendent at the present time of the 
School of Nursing at the University? A. That is my title 
as Director of Nursing Education and Nursing Service.

Q. Now, you have heard Mrs. Shipley testify that the 
University of Maryland has not asked for accreditation 
by the National League of Nursing Education. Can you 
state why, in the past, application has not been made for 
such accreditation? A. Well, you know the University 
did a splendid piece of work on the nurses’ improvements 
after the war, and after the war and when training was 
made my business I did not think the school was built 
up as it should be in order to pass it.

Q. Is that the reason application was not made? A. 
Recently—within the last year I wrote in to the League 
of Nursing Education and asked to be considered for 
accreditation or survey and they told me that there was 
interim classification of all the schools of nursing to be 
classified, and from the data submitted we would know 
probably—I would know whether we would want survey 
within the next year or so, and that would give me an 
idea to see where we stood to see if we would pass.

CROSS EXAMINATION 
Question by Mr. Houston:

Q. Have you ever sent a first year white student out­
side of the State of Maryland for the purpose of first 
year nursing education? A. No, I haven’t. Do you mean 
in the nursing school?

* * * * * *
(St. Tr. 64-69):

Q. (By Mr. Houston) Do you know of any white 
student of nursing who has been sent outside of the 
State of Maryland to take a first year nursing course 
which was open at the University of Maryland? A. No.

Q. School of Nursing? A. No.



29

Q. Have you ever admitted a Negro student to the 
School of Nursing at the University of Maryland? A. 
No.

Q. (By the Court) Have you had occasion to decide 
whether to admit one or not? A. No.

Q. (By Mr. Houston) You had occasion to decide 
whether to admit the Plaintiff? A. I didn’t get a com­
plete application on that.

(Mr. Proctor) The University did, that is not disputed; 
Miss Gipe did not. It was detained at College Park.

(Mr. Houston) The point is that the level at which it 
was determined not to admit the Plaintiff to the school 
was at a higher level than the level of the School of 
Nursing. That satisfies me.

Q. (By Mr. Proctor) I understand this application of 
Miss Esther McCready is the only application that has 
ever been made to the University of Maryland School of 
Nursing by a colored person—Negro person? A. I did 
not get the application. I got the request for information 
and sent that to her.

Q. Now, do you have any application from anyone 
else of the Negro race? A. No, I recall none. I had some 
inquiries.

Q. (By Mr. Houston) Just a minute, let’s get this clear: 
An inquiry that comes in would not necessarily indicate 
the race of the person making the inquiry, would it? 
It would simply be a letter for information, a letter of 
inquiry asking the School of Nursing for information 
about the courses, and would not necessarily indicate the 
race of the person making the inquiry? A. No, it does 
not necessarily need to.

Q. So that you cannot say that no Negro girl has ever 
made inquiries about nursing at the University of Mary­
land School of Nursing except this Plaintiff? A. No, that 
is right, I cannot.

*  *  *  *  *  *



30

Q. Are there any Negro nurses in the hospital that 
the University of Maryland uses as a training hospital in 
connection with its School of Nursing?

(Witness) Do you mean are there any nurses?
(Mr. Houston) Registered nurses — any registered 

Negro nurses? A. No, sir.
Q. What hospital was it that the School of Nurses uses 

for clinical training for its student nurses? A. Other 
than University, do you mean? Sheppard-Pratt.

Q. All right, Sheppard-Pratt, Sydenham, when it was 
used, and the University of Maryland Hospital itself, is 
that correct? A. Yes.

Q. Now, do any of those hospitals so far as you know 
have Negro registered nurses on their staff? A. I don’t 
think so. I don’t know.

Q. Definitely you would say the University of Mary­
land has no registered Negro nurse on the staff? A. No.

Q. Does the University of Maryland have Negro nurses’ 
aides on the staff? A. We employ Negro nurses’ aides.

Q. How long has that been the practice? A. I should 
say roughly about two or three years.

Q. It is at the present time the practice? A. That is 
correct. * * * * * *
(St. Tr. 88):

(The Court) I think as abundant precaution you ought 
to move to strike out all of the testimony that refers to 
Meharry College.

(Mr. Houston) I do so move at the present time. I was 
going to do that when I started to argue but I suppose 
now is the time. I so move.



31

(St. Tr. 89-90)::
MRS. ANGELA M. SHIPLEY 
* * * * * *
DIRECT EXAMINATION

Question by Mr. Proctor:
Q. You were asked to produce a comparative record 

showing the comparison or record of graduates of the 
University of Maryland School of Nursing with the 
graduates of other nursing schools with the Maryland 
State Board of Examination. Do you have that record? 
A. I have it right here.

Q. Graduates of 45 schools? A. No.
Q. What is that 45? A. That means the University of 

Maryland had forty-five applicants. There were 23 
schools.

Q. 23 schools? A. Yes, sir.

(St. Tr. 89-90):
Q. (By Mr. Proctor) Now, I notice in this record, for 

example, anatomy and physiology, you have the number 
four? A. That means in the examinations written in 
1948 during the calendar year in that one subject anatomy 
and physiology, the average score of University of Mary­
land students rated them fourth in the 23 schools in the 
State of Maryland. There were three schools above them.

Q. There were three schools above them? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That would be the number of each one of those 

courses that you have shown there? A. That is right.
(Mr. Proctor) Now, there is only one other thing the 

State would like to have in evidence and that is that 
there have been two Negro students who have been sent 
from Maryland to Meharry Medical College under the 
Regional Compact plan. They are not nursing students,



32

but two medical or one medical and one dentistry— 
two students have gone down there. Do you want me 
to put Dr. Long on to prove that?

(Mr. Houston) No. I think it is also stipulated that 
there were medical and engineering students and these 
students went to Meharry to take the same courses that 
were offered white students at the University of Mary­
land.



NURSES' HOME— TEHARRY MEDICAL COLLEGE
(H u ld a  M a r g a r e t  L y t t l e  H a l l )  DEFENDANTS1 EX H IBIT  A



'

I
I



DEFENDANTS1
MEHARRY MEDICAL COLLEGE. NASHVILLE. TENNESSEE ^y-Tj T>Irp p





37

DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT F 
Office Of

THE MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS
OF NURSES

1217 Cathedral Street 
Phone, LExing'ton 1758

Baltimore 1, October 10, 1949
Rating of the University of Maryland School of Nursing 

based on mean scores for schools of nursing on the State 
Board Test Pool Examinations Series 747 for candidates 
tested January 1, 1948 through December 31, 1948.

Anatomy and
Cases Physiology Microbiology

45 4 4

Nutrition and 
Diet Therapy

Pharmacology
and

Therapeutics
Nursing

Arts

7 6 9

Communicable 
Disease Nursing

Medical
Nursing

Nursing of 
Children

7 6.5 12

Obstetric
Nursing

Psychiatric
Nursing

Surgical
Nursing

7 2 10

Social Foundations 
of Nursing

5