Brown v. Rippy Transcript of Record

    TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD.

U N IT E D  S T A T E S

COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH  CIRCUIT.

No. 15,872

CHARLES BROWN, a minor, by his father and next 
friend, WALTER BROWN, JR., ET AL.,

Appellants,
versus

DR. EDWIN L. RIPPY, as President of the Board of 
Trustees of the Dallas Independent School District, 
Dallas County Texas, ET AL.,

Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 
Northern District of Texas.

(ORIGINAL RECORD RECEIVED NOV. 25/55.)

U. s. COURT OF APPEALS

FILED 
JAN 2 8  1956 

#oJU d ' & e e fa *h
J  CLERK



INDEX
PAGE

C a p t io n .................................................................................   1
Complaint ................................................................................... 4
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Prelim inary Injunction . . . . . .  25
Order to Show Cause, entered 9/12/55 ..........................  28
Motion of Defendants, Edwin L. Rippy, et al., to Dis­

miss Complaint ...........................................................  28
Answer of Defendants, Edwin L. Rippy, et al., to

Complaint .....................................................................  30
Transcript of Proceedings ................................................... 38

Case called for hearing, etc..........................................  38
Colloquy between Court and Counsel ....................  38
Statem ent made by Mr. Thuss, Counsel for De­

fendants ...............................................   52
Statem ent made by Mr. M arshall, Counsel for

Plaintiffs ...............................................................  56
Colloquy between Court and C o u n se l......................  59
Statem ent made by the Court ..................................  59

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ......................  63
Judgm ent, entered 9 /1 2 /5 5 ...................................................  66
Notice of Appeal .....................................................................  67
Motion and O rder extending tim e to file Record in

Appellate Court .........................................................  70
A ppellants’ Designation as to Contents of Record on

Appeal .............................................   71
Clerk’s Certificate ...................................................................  75



CAPTION.

BE IT REMEMBERED, th a t at a Special Term  of the 
United S tates D istrict Court in and for the N orthern 
D istrict of Texas, begun and holden at Dallas, Texas, 
on the 12th day of September, A.D. 1955, and which 
said term  of Court is now in session, the Hon. Wm.
H. Atwell, United States D istrict Judge for the 
N orthern D istrict of Texas, presiding, the following 
proceedings w ere had and the following cause came 
on for tria l and was tried, to-wit:

Civil Action No. 6165.

ALBERT BELL, A MINOR, BY HIS STEP-FATHER 
AND NEXT FRIEND, THEODORE D. DORSEY; 
SANDRA LYNETTA BERKINS, A MINOR, BY HER 
MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, (MRS.) CHARLES 
BEKINS, A FEMME SOLE; HILDA RUTH 
BORDERS, A MINOR, BY HER FATHER AND NEXT 
FRIEND, LOUIE BORDERS, JR.; SANDRA CRAIG 
BOSON, AND PAMELA BOSON, MINOR, BY THEIR 
FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, LAWRENCE C. 
BOSON; CHARLES BROWN, A MINOR, BY HIS 
FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, WALTER BROWN, 
JR .; WILLIAM C. BURTON, JR., A MINOR, BY 
HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, WILLIAM C. 
BURTON; SHIRLEY ANN BUSH, A MINOR, BY 
HER FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, FRANKIE L. 
BUSH; RAYFORD COOKS, A MINOR, BY HIS 
FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, ROBERT COOKS; 
BILLIE MARIE COX, A MINOR, BY HER STEP­
FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, VELL SNOWDEN; 
HELEN JEAN GIPSON, A MINOR, BY HER



2

MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, LUENDA GIPSON, 
A FEMME SOLE; CHARLENE GOLDSTEIN, A 
MINOR, BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, 
W ILLIE MAE GOLDSTEIN, A FEMME SOLE; 
OSCAR W ILLIE HAWKINS, A MINOR, BY HIS 
FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, OSCAR HAWKINS; 
CAROL, CHEYEL AND RONALD HURDLE, MI­
NORS, BY THEIR FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, EL­
MER D. HURDLE; OLLIE PEARL IVY, A MINOR, 
BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, IRENE IVY, 
A F E M M E  SO LE; JO H N  A R V IE  LEW IS, A 
MINOR, BY HIS STEP-FATHER AND NEXT 
F R IE N D , G E O R G E  F IE L D S ; M ILTON Mc- 
DANIEL, A MINOR, BY HIS FATHER AND NEXT 
FRIEND, WILLIAM McDANIEL; DIANN MURPHY, 
A MINOR, BY HER GRANDMOTHER AND NEXT 
FRIEND, (MRS.) S. L. NEELY, A FEMME SOLE; 
L. LAWRENCE NELSON, II, A MINOR, BY HIS 
FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, CLYDE D. NELSON; 
ALONZO D. NICKERSON, JR., A MINOR, BY HIS 
FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, ALONZO D. NICK­
ERSON, SR.; ROSA SHARON AND MAUSE LOUIS 
SIMS, MINORS, BY THEIR FATHER AND NEXT 
FRIEND, (REV) PAUL A. SIMS, MARY ANN 
SLIDER, A MINOR, BY HER FATHER AND NEXT 
FRIEND, L. G. SLIDER; DAURITY G. SMITH, A 
MINOR, BY HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, 
LEO M. SMITH; JU LIA  ANN VICKERS, A MINOR, 
BY HER FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, SEARCY 
E. VUCKERS, AND JOE ARTHUR WILLIAMS, A 
MINOR, BY HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, 
HERBERT WILLIAMS,

P lain tiffs ,



3

versus

DR. EDWIN L. RIPPY, AS PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD 
OF TRUSTEES OF THE DALLAS INDEPENDENT 
SCHOOL DISTRICT, DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, 
TEXAS; W. A. BLAIR; ROBERT L. DILLARD, JR.; 
ROBERT B. GILMORE; ROUSE HOWELL; (MRS.) 
VERNON D. INGRAM; VAN M. LAMM; (MRS.) 
TRACY H. RUTHERFORD; FRANKLIN E. SPAF- 
FORD, DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, AS 
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF 
THE DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIS­
TRICT, AND DR. W. T. WHITE, AS SUPERIN­
TENDENT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF THE DAL­
LAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; HOW­
ARD A. ALLEN, AS PRINCIPAL OF THE W. H. 
ADAMSON HIGH SCHOOL; J. H. GURLEY, AS 
PRINCIPAL OF THE MAPLE LAWN ELEMEN­
TARY SCHOOL; W. A. HAMILTON, AS PRINCI­
PAL OF THE MIRABEAU B. LAMAR ELEMEN­
TARY SCHOOL; ELLA E. PARKER, AS PRINCI­
PAL OF THE JOHN HENRY BROWN ELEMEN­
TARY SCHOOL; WILLIAM H. STANLEY, AS 
PRINCIPAL OF THE THOMAS A. EDISON ELE­
MENTARY SCHOOL; RICHARD E. STROUD, AS 
PRINCIPAL OF THE THOMAS J. RUSK JUNIOR 
HIGH SCHOOL, AND, THE DALLAS INDEPEND­
ENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendants.



4

COMPLAINT.

I.

Jurisdiction.

(a) The Jurisdiction of this Honorable Court is in­
voked under T itle 28, Section 1331, of the United States 
Code, this being a civil action in equity tha t arises under 
the Constitution and laws of the United States w herein 
the  m atter in controversy exceeds the sum and value of 
Three Thousand ($3,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interest 
and costs, (62 Stat. 930, June 25, 1948), and, T itle 28, 
Sections 1981 and 1983, of the United States Code, this 
being a civil action in  equity w herein citizens of the 
United States contend th a t they  have been, are now, and 
w ill in the fu ture be deprived under color of law, of their 
rights, privileges and im munities secured to them  as citi­
zens of the United States, by the Constitution and laws 
thereof, (68 Stat. 960, A ugust 30, 1954).

(b) The Jurisdiction of this Honorable Court is fu r­
th e r invoked under Title 28, Section 1343(3), of the 
United States Code, this being a civil action in equity 
to redress the deprivation, under color of a State law, 
statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any 
right, privilege or im m unity secured by the Constitution 
of the United States, or by any act of Congress provid­
ing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons w ithin 
the jurisdiction of the United States, (62 Stat. c. 646, 
June 25, 1948).



5

II.

Injunctive Relief.

The Jurisdiction of this Honorable Court is also invoked 
under T itle 28, Sections 2281 and 2284, of th e  United 
States Code, this being a civil action in equity for an in­
terlocutory or perm anent injunction to restra in  the  en­
forcement, operation or execution of certain statutes of 
the  S tate of Texas, and of certain constitutional provisions 
of the  S tate of Texas, upon the grounds of the  unconstitu­
tionality of such statutes and constitutional provisions, 
(62 Stat. 968, c. 646, June 25, 1948).

III.

D eclaratory Judgm ent.

This is a proceeding under Title 28, Sections 2201 and 
2202, of the U nited States Code, for a declaratory judg­
ment. All of the  parties to the controversy are subject to 
the  jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. P laintiffs seek 
a definition and declaration of the  legal rights and re la­
tions of th e  parties in the  subject m atter of th is controver­
sy, to wit, the question:

(a) W hether the  enforcement, execution or operation 
of A rticle 2900 and Articles 2922-13 and 2922-15, of V er­
non’s Civil S tatutes of th e  S tate of Texas, to th e  extent 
tha t they require or sanction the segregation of students 
in  th e  public schools of Texas on the basis of race or 
color, by th e  defendant Board of Education of the  Dal­
las Independent School D istrict, and the  adm inistrative 
officers of said defendant Board, against plaintiffs, and



6

the class of persons tha t they represent, because of their 
race and color deny to  them  their rights, privileges and 
im munities as citizens of the United States, and the  equal 
protection of laws secured to  them  by the  Fourteenth  
A m endm ent of the  Constitution of th e  United States, or 
of rights and privileges secured to them  by Sections 1981 
and 1983, of Title 42, United States Code, and are, for 
those reasons, unconstitutional and void?

(b) W hether the enforcement, execution or operation 
of A rticle VII, Section 7, of the  Constitution of Texas, 
by the defendant Board of Education of the Dallas In ­
dependent School District, and the adm inistrative officers 
of said defendant Board, against plaintiffs, and the class of 
persons th a t they represent, because of their race and 
color deny to them  their rights, privileges and im m uni­
ties as citizens of the United States, and the equal pro­
tection of laws secured to them  by th e  Fourteenth A m end­
m ent of the  Constitution of the United States, or of 
rights and privileges secured to them  by Sections 1981 
and 1983, of Title 42, United States Code, and are, for 
these reasons, unconstitutional and void.

IV.

Facts.

1. Plaintiffs, and each of them, allege tha t they are 
citizens of the  United States and of the State of Texas, 
domiciled in  the City and County of Dallas, Texas, and 
w ithin th e  Dallas Independent School District; tha t they 
are, each of them, members of the Negro, or “colored” 
race, as defined by Texas law. (Acts of 1905, p. 263, A r­
ticle 2900, Vernon’s Civil S tatutes of the S tate of Tex­
as, Annotated.)



7

2. The plaintiffs, and each of them, allege tha t they 
are m inors between the  ages of six (6) and tw enty-one 
(21) years; tha t they have met all lawful health  and 
medical requirem ents for admission to the public schools 
of the City of Dallas; tha t they are in all m aterial re ­
spects eligible and entitled to attend the public schools 
of the City of Dallas and w ithin the Dallas Independent 
School District, and to  register, enter classes and re ­
ceive instruction in the particular schools set out in 
paragraph 12, hereinafter.

3. The plaintiff Charles Brown is a m inor and he 
brings this action by his father and next friend, W al­
te r Brown, Jr.; the plaintiff Rayford Cooks is a minor 
and he brings this action by his father and next friend, 
Robert Cooks; the  plaintiff W illiam C. Burton, Jr., is a 
m inor and he brings this action by his fa ther and nex t 
friend, W illiam C. Burton; the  plaintiff Alonzo D. Nick­
erson, Jr., is a m inor and he brings this action by his 
father and next friend, Alonzo D. Nickerson, Sr.; the 
plaintiffs Sandra Craig and Pam ela Boson are minors 
and they bring this action by their father and nex t 
friend, Lawrence C. Boson; the plaintiff L. Lawrence 
Nelson, II., is a minor and he brings this action by his 
father and next friend, Clyde D. Nelson; the plaintiff 
M ary Ann Slider is a minor and she brings this action 
by her fa ther and next friend, L. G. Slider; the plain­
tiff Diann M urphy is a minor and she brings this action 
by her grandm other and next friend, (Mrs.) S. L. Nee­
ly, a femme sole; the plaintiff Helen Jean Gipson is a 
minor and she brings this action by her m other and 
nex t friend, (Mrs.) Luenda Gipson, a femme sole; the 
plaintiff Joe A rthur Williams is a minor and he brings 
this action by his father and next friend, H erbert Wil-



8

liams; the plaintiffs Rosa Sharon and Maude Lois Sims 
are m inors and they bring this action by their father and 
next friend, (Rev.) Paul A. Sims; the plaintiff D aurity 
G. Sm ith is a minor and he brings this action by his 
father and next friend, Leo M. Smith; the plaintiff Ollie 
Pearl Ivy is a m inor and she brings this action by her 
m other and next friend, (Mrs.) Irene Ivy, a femme sole; 
the plaintiff Oscar Willie Hawkins is a minor and he 
brings this action by his father and next friend, Oscar 
Hawkins; the plaintiff Milton McDaniel is a minor and 
he brings this action by his fa ther and next friend, 
William McDaniel; the plaintiff Sandra Lynetta Berkins 
is a minor and she brings this action by her m other and 
next friend, (Mrs.) Charles Berkins, a femme
sole; the plaintiffs Carol, Cheyel and Ronald H ur­
dle are minors and they bring this action by 
the ir father and next friend, Elmer D. Hurdle; 
the P laintiff Billie Marie Cox is a minor and she 
brings this action by her step-father and next friend, Yell 
Snowden; the plaintiff John A rvie Lewis is a minor 
and he brings this action by his step-father and next 
friend, George Fields; the plaintiff A lbert Bell is a 
minor and he brings this action by his step-father and 
next friend, Theodore D. Dorsey; the plaintiff Hilda Ruth 
Borders is a minor and she brings this action by her 
father and next friend, Louie Borders, Jr.; the plaintiff 
Charlene Goldstein is a m inor and she brings this ac­
tion by her m other and next friend, (Mrs.) Willie Mae 
Goldstein, a femme sole; the plaintiff Ju lia Ann Vickers 
is a minor and she brings this action by her fa ther and 
next friend, Searcy E. Vickers, and the plaintiff Shir­
ley Ann Bush is a minor and she brings this action by 
h e r fa ther and next friend, Frankie L. Bush, pursuant 
to Rule 17(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.



9

4. Plaintiffs bring this action in their own behalf, 
and in behalf of all other Negro minors who are sim­
ilarly situated, because of their race and color, w ithin 
the  Dallas Independent School District. Plaintiffs say 
tha t they are members of a class of persons who are 
segregated and discrim inated against by the defendants 
because of their race and color; tha t the members of 
the class are so num erous as to make it im practicable to 
bring all of them  before this Honorable Court; tha t they, 
as members of the  class, can and will fairly  and ade­
quately represent all of the  members of the class; tha t 
the character of the right sought to be protected and en­
forced for the class is several, and tha t there is a com­
mon question of law affecting the several rights of all, 
and a common relief is sought. They bring this action 
as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a)(3), Federal Rules 
of Civil Procedure.

5. Plaintiffs allege tha t the defendant Board of Trus­
tees of the defendant Dallas Independent School District 
is a body corporate w ith powers and authority  to sue 
and be sued in its corporate name. (Articles 2748 and 
2772, Ibid.)

6. Plaintiffs allege tha t the defendant Board of T rus­
tees, sometimes referred to as Board of Education, is 
vested w ith power and authority  to m anage and con­
trol the  public schools under its supervision and control. 
(A rticle 2749, Ibid.)

7. Plaintiffs allege tha t the  defendant Board of Trus­
tees of the defendant Dallas Independent School District 
has power and authority  to adopt rules and regulations, 
and by-laws, including the admission of students to pub­
lic schools, to effectuate the  policies of the  said Board



10

w ith  respect to the m anagem ent and control of the pub­
lic schools under its supervision. (A rticle 2780, Ibid.)

8. The plaintiffs allege tha t the defendant Dallas In ­
dependent School District is a political sub-division and 
an instrum entality  of the  State, and tha t it exists p u r­
suant to an Act of the Legislature of the State of Tex­
as. (A rticle 2783, et seq., Ibid.)

9. Plaintiffs allege tha t the defendant (Dr.) Edwin 
L. Rippy is a citizen of the United States and of the 
State of Texas; tha t he is domiciled in the City and 
County of Dallas, Texas, and is subject to the jurisdic­
tion  of this Honorable Court; tha t he is the  duly elected, 
qualified and acting president of the defendant Board of 
Trustees of the  Dallas Independent School District; th a t 
he is an agent and adm inistrative officer of the S tate 
of Texas, and tha t he is sued in his official capacity.

10. Plaintiffs say tha t the  defendants W. A. Blair, 
Robert L. Dillard, Jr., Robert B. Gilmore, Rouse Howell, 
(Mrs.) Vernon D. Ingram, Van M. Lamm, (Mrs.) Tracy 
H. Rutherford and Franklin  E. Spafford are, each of 
them, citizens of the  United States and of the S tate  of 
Texas; tha t they are domiciled in the  City and County 
of Dallas, Texas; tha t they are subject to the jurisdic­
tion of this Honorable Court; tha t they are the duly 
elected, qualified and acting members of the defend­
ant Board of Trustees of the Dallas Independent School 
D istrict; tha t they are agents and adm inistrative offi­
cers of the State of Texas, and tha t they are sued in 
the ir official capacities.



11

11. The plaintiffs allege tha t the defendant (Dr.) 
W. T. W hite is a citizen of the United States and of the 
State of Texas; th a t he is domiciled in  the City and 
County of Dallas, Texas; tha t he is subject to the ju ris­
diction of th is Honorable Court; tha t he is the only desig­
nated, qualified and acting Superintendent of the public 
schools w ithin the defendant Dallas Independent School 
D istrict; tha t he is an agent and adm inistrative officer 
of the State of Texas, and tha t he is sued in his official 
capacity.

12. P laintiffs allege tha t the defendant Howard A. Allen 
is the principal of the W. H. Adamson High School w ithin 
the Dallas Independent School District; tha t the defendant 
R. E. Stroud is the principal of the Thomas J. Rusk Jun ior 
High School w ith in  the Dallas Independent School Dis­
trict; tha t the defendant Ella E. Parker is the principal 
of the John H enry Brown Elem entary School w ithin the 
Dallas Independent School District; tha t the defendant
J. H. G urley is the principal of the Maple Lawn Elemen­
ta ry  School w ith in  the Dallas Independent School District; 
tha t the defendant W. A. Ham ilton is the principal of the 
M irabeau B. Lam ar E lem entary School w ithin the Dallas 
Independent School District; tha t the defendant W illiam 
H. Stanley is the principal of the Thomas A. Edison Ele­
m entary  School w ithin the Dallas Independent School Dis­
trict, and tha t they are, each of them, citizens of the United 
States and of the S tate of Texas, domiciled in the City and 
County of Dallas; tha t they are, each of them, subject to 
the judisdiction of this Honorable Court; tha t they are, 
each of them, agents and employees of the defendant 
Board of Trustees of the Dallas Independent School Dis­
trict, and tha t they are agents and adm inistrative officer 
of the State of Texas. They are, each of them, sued in 
their respective official capacities.



12

13. The plaintiffs Charles Brown, Rayford Cooks, W il­
liam C. Burton, Jr., Alonzo D. Nickerson, J r . Sandra Craig 
and Pam ela Boson, and Lawrence Nelson, II., allege tha t 
on, to wit, the 5th day of September, A. D. 1955, they, and 
each of them, acting in the ir respective individual behalf, 
w ent in person w ith  the ir respective parents, or w ith  
th e ir parents knowledge and consent, to the Maple Law n 
Elem entary School w ith in  th e  Dallas Independent School 
D istrict, during the regular period of registration and ad ­
mission and made application for registration and ad­
mission to the  said Maple Lawn E lem entary School; that 
the  said Maple Lawn E lem entary School was then, and 
is now, the nearest public elem entary school to the ir 
respective homes; tha t they w ere ready and willing to 
submit to and abide by all law ful and reasonable rules 
and regulations of the defendant Board of Trustees of 
the Dallas Independent School District; they w ere in all 
m aterial respects eligible to register, enter classes, and 
receive instruction in the said elem entary school, but for 
the ir race and color, but tha t in spite of the  foregoing 
facts, they  w ere denied and refused admission to the said 
Maple Law n Elem entary School by its principal J. H. 
Gurley, w hile the said J. H. Gurley was acting in con­
cert, conspiracy and a common scheme w ith  the defendant 
W. T. W hite, as superintendent of public schools in the 
Dallas Independent School District, and the defendant 
Board of Trustees of the  Dallas Independent School Dis­
tric t to w ilfully and knowingly deprive plaintiffs and the 
members of the class of persons they represent, because 
of the ir race and color, of rights, privileges and im m uni­
ties secured and guaranteed to them  by Section 1, of the 
Fourteenth  Amendm ent of the Constitution of the United 
States.



13

14. The plaintiffs M ary Ann Slider, Diann M urphy, 
Helen Jean  Gipson, John  Arvie Lewis, A lbert Bell, Hilda 
Ruth Borders, Charlene Goldstein and Ju lia  Ann Vickers 
allege tha t on, to wit, the 5th day of September, A. D. 
1955, they, and each of them, while acting in their 
respective individual behalf w ent in person w ith their 
respective parents or w ith the ir paren ts’ knowledge 
and consent, to the W. H. Adamson High School w ithin 
the Dallas Independent School District during the regular 
period of registration and admission and made applica­
tion for registration and admission to the said W. H. 
Adamson High School; th a t the said W. H. Adamson 
High School was then, and is now, the nearest public 
high school to their respective homes; tha t they  were 
ready and willing to submit to and abide by all lawful 
and reasonable rules and regulations of the defendant 
Board of Trustees of the Dallas Independent School Dis­
tric t; tha t they w ere in all m aterial respects eligible to 
register, en ter classes, and receive instructions in the said 
high school but for their race and color, but th a t in spite 
of the foregoing facts, they w ere denied and refused 
admission to the said W. H. Adamson High School by its 
principal Howard A. Allen, while the said Howard A. 
Allen was acting in concert, conspiracy and a common 
scheme w ith the defendant W. T. W hite, as superintendent 
of public schools in the Dallas Independent School Dis­
trict, and the defendant Board of Trustees of the Dallas 
Independent School District to w ilfully and knowingly 
deprive plaintiffs and the members of the class of persons 
they represent, because of their race and color, of rights, 
privileges and immunities secured and guaranteed to them 
by Section 1, of the Fourteenth Amendm ent of the Con­
stitution of the United States.



14

15. The plaintiffs Joe A rthu r Williams, Rose Sharon 
and Maude Lois Sims, D aurity G. Smith, Sandra Lynette 
Berkins, Carol, Cheyel and Ronald Hurdle, and Billie 
M arie Cox allege tha t on, to wit, the 5th day of Septem ­
ber, A. D. 1955, they, and each of them  acting in their 
respective individual behalf, w ent in  person w ith their 
respective parents, or w ith  the ir parents knowledge and 
consent to the John H enry Brown E lem entary School 
w ithin the Dallas Independent School D istrict, during 
the regular period of registration and admission and made 
application for registration and admission to the said 
John H enry Brown E lem entary School; tha t the said 
John  H enry Brown Elem entary school was then, and 
is now, the nearest public elem entary school to their 
respective homes; tha t they  w ere leady, and willing to 
subm it to and abide by all law ful and reasonable rules 
and regulations of the defendant Board of Trustees of 
the Dallas Independent School D istrict; tha t they w ere 
in  all m aterial respects eligible to register, enter clas­
ses, and receive instruction in  the said elem entary school 
bu t for the ir race and color, bu t th a t in spite of the fore­
going facts, they w ere denied and refused admission to 
the  said John H enry Brown E lem entary School by its 
principal Ella E. Parker, while the said Ella E. P arker was 
acting in concert, conspiracy and a common scheme w ith 
the defendant W. T. W hite, as superintendent of public 
schools in the Dallas Independent School D istrict, and the 
defendant Board of Trustees of the Dallas Independent 
School D istrict to w ilfully and knowingly deprive plain­
tiffs and the members of the class of persons they 
represent, because of the ir race and color, of rights, 
privileges and im munities secured and guaranteed to them  
by Section 1, of the Fourteenth Amendm ent of the 
Constitution of the United States.



15

16. The plaintiffs Ollie Pearl Ivy and Oscar Willie 
Hawkins allege tha t on, to wit, the 5th day of September, 
A. D. 1955, they, and each of them, acting in their re ­
spective individual behalf, w ent in person w ith  their 
respective parents, or w ith their parents knowlelge and 
consent, to th e  Thomas A. Edison Elem entary School 
w ithin the Dallas Independent School District, during 
the regular period of registration and admission and made 
application for registration and admission to the said 
Thomas A. Edison E lem entary School; tha t the  said 
Thomas A. Edison Elem entary School was then and 
is now, the nearest public elem entary school to the ir 
respective homes; th a t they w ere ready and willing 
to submit to and abide by all law ful and reasonable 
rules and regulations of the defendant Board of T rus­
tees of the  Dallas Independent School District; th a t they 
w ere in all m aterial respects eligible to register, enter 
classes, and receive instruction in the said elem entary 
school, bu t for their race and color, bu t th a t in spite of 
the foregoing facts, they w ere denied and refused admis­
sion to the said Thomas A. Edison E lem entary School 
by its principal W illiam H. Stanley, while the said William 
H. Stanley was acting in concert, conspiracy, and a com­
mon scheme w ith  the defendant W. T. W hite, as super­
intendent of the  public schools in the Dallas Independent 
School District, and the defendant Board of Trustees of 
the Dallas Independent School D istrict to  W ilfully and 
knowingly deprive plaintiffs and the members of the 
class of persons they represent, because of the ir race and 
color, of rights, privileges and im m unities secured and 
guaranteed to them  by Section 1, of the Fourteenth 
Amendm ent of the Constitution of the United States.



16

17. The plaintiff M ilton McDaniel alleges tha t on, 
to wit, the 5th day of September, A. D. 1955, he w ent 
in person w ith his father W illiam McDaniel, to the Mira- 
beau B. Lam ar E lem entary School w ithin the Dallas 
Independent School D istrict, during the regular period 
of registration and admission and made application for 
registration and admission to the said M irabeau B. Lam ar 
Elem entary School; tha t the M irabeau B. Lam ar Elemen­
ta ry  School was then and is now, the nearest public 
elem entary school to his home; tha t he was ready and 
willing to submit to and abide by all lawful and reason­
able rules and regulations of the defendant Board of T rus­
tees of the Dallas Independent School District; tha t 
he was in all m aterial respects eligible to register, en ter 
classes, and receive instruction in the said elem entary 
school, bu t for his race and color, bu t tha t in spite of the 
foregoing facts, he was denied and refused admission 
to the said M irabeau B. Lam ar Elem entary School by 
its principal W. A. Hamilton, w hile the said W. A. Ham­
ilton, was acting in concert, conspiracy and a common 
scheme w ith the defendant W. T. W hite, as superinten­
dent of public schools of the Dallas Independent School 
D istrict, and the defendant Board of Trustees of the 
Dallas Independent School D istrict to w ilfully and know­
ingly deprive plaintiffs and the members of the class 
of persons they represent, because of their race and color, 
of rights, privileges and immunities secured and guaran­
teed to them  by Section 1, of the Fourteenth  Amendm ent 
of the United States.

18. The plaintiff Shirley Ann Bush alleges that on, 
to wit, the 5th day of September, A. D. 1955, she 
w ent in person with her m other Mae E. Bush, to the 
Thomas J. Rusk Jun ior High School w ithin the Dallas



.17

Independent School D istrict, during the regular period 
of registration and admission and m ade application for 
registration and admission to the said Thomas J. Rusk 
Junior High School; tha t the said Thomas J. Rusk Junior 
High School was then and is now, the nearest public 
junior high school to her home; tha t she was ready and 
willing to submit to and abide by all lawful and reasonable 
rules and regulations of the defendant Board of Trus­
tees of the Dallas Independent School D istrict; tha t she 
was in all m aterial respects eligible to register, enter 
classes, and receive instruction in the  said junior high 
school, bu t for her race and color, bu t tha t in spite of the 
foregoing facts, she was denied and refused admission to 
the said Thomas J. Rusk Junior High School by its 
principal R. E. Stroud, while the said R. E. Stroud 
was acting in concert, conspiracy and a common scheme 
w ith the defendant W. T. White, as superintendent of 
public schools in the Dallas Independent School District, 
and the defendant Board of Trustees of the Dallas In ­
dependent School D istrict to w ilfully and knowingly de­
prive plaintiff and the members of the class of persons 
she represents, because of their race and color, of rights, 
privileges and im m unities secured and guaranteed to them  
by Section 1, of the Fourteenth  Amendm ent of the Con­
stitution of the United States.

19. The State of Texas has unlaw fully made racial 
segregation in the public schools of the State a part of its 
public policy. By a constitutional provision, it is stated 
that:

“Separate schools shall be provided for the white and 
colored children, and im partial provision shall be made 
for both.” (Art. VII, Sec. 7, Constitution of Texas.)



18

20. Acting pursuant to the aforesaid unlaw ful con­
stitu tional m andate in the organic law  of the State, the 
Legislature illegally enacted laws to im plem ent the un ­
law ful constitutional provision set out in paragraph 19 
hereof. A rticle 2900, V ernon’s Civil S tatutes of the S tate 
of Texas provides:

“All available public school funds of this state shall 
be appropriated in each county for the education alike of 
w hite and colored children, and im partial provisions 
shall be made for both races. No w hite child shall 
attend schools supported for colored children, nor shall 
colored children attend  schools supported for w hite 
children. The term  “colored race” or “colored children” 
as used in this Title, include all persons of mixed blood 
descending from  Negro ancestry.” (Acts of 1905, p. 263.)

21. W hile acting in  fu rth er deference to the illegal con­
stitutional provision set out in paragraph 19 hereof, the 
51st Legislature of Texas, enacted the M inimum Founda­
tion School Program  Act, sometimes called the  Gilmer- 
A ikin Act which became effective June 8, 1949, the  
pertinent portions of the Act provide as follows:

Article 2922-13: The num ber of professional units
allotted for the purpose of this Act to each school dis­
trict, except as otherw ise provided herein, shall be based 
upon and determ ined by the  average daily attendance for 
the  district for the  n ex t preceding year, separate for 
w hite and separate for negroes. Such allotm ents based 
upon w hite attendance shall be utilized in w hite schools, 
and allotm ents based on negro attendance shall be 
utilized in negro schools.



19

A rticle 2922-15: The to tal curren t operating cost for
each school district, o ther than  professional salaries and 
transportation, shall be based upon the  num ber of ap­
proved classroom teacher units and such exceptional child­
ren  teacher units as are utilized for convalescent classes, 
separate for w hite and separate for negroes, ***.

22. Plaintiffs allege th a t the purpose of the Foundation 
School program  act is to guarantee to each child of school 
age in Texas the availability of a minimum foundation 
school program  for nine m onths of the year, and to estab­
lish the eligibility requirem ents applicable to Texas public 
school districts in connection therew ith, and tha t the 
segregation of the  races in  th e  enjoym ent of public school 
benefits was not its prim ary purpose. (Acts of 1949, 
51st Leg., p. 625, ch. 334, Art. 1).

23. P laintiffs allege tha t only so much of th e  Act as 
requires or places state sanction upon racial segregation 
is unconstitutional.

24. P laintiffs allege th a t the  defendant Board of Trus­
tees of the  Dallas Independent School D istrict while 
acting, or purporting to act, pursuant to the  illegal laws 
of th e  State of Texas set out in paragraphs 19, 20, and 21 
hereof, has made adopted and prom ulgated certain rules 
and regulations for the  managem ent and control of the 
public schools under its  supervision, and specifically for 
the m anagem ent and control of the public schools men­
tioned hereinbefore in  paragraphs 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 
18 hereof, which have been enforced against plaintiffs, 
and each of them, and which will be enforced against 
them  in the future, because of th e ir race and color, tha t 
unlaw fully and wrongfully discrim inate against plaintiffs



20

and th e  class of persons th a t they  represent, because of 
the ir race and color and deprive them  of rights, privileges 
and im m unities secured to them  as citizens of the United 
S tates by the Constitution and laws of the U nited States.

25. P laintiffs allege tha t the  defendant Board of 
Education of the Dallas Independent School D istrict, and 
the  defendant W. T. W hite, w hile acting as Superin ten­
dent of public schools of the  Dallas Independent School 
District, and the defendants H owerd A. Allen, Ella E. 
Parker, W illiam H. Stanley, Richard E. Stroud, J. H. 
Gurley, and W. A. Hamilton, as principals of public 
schools m entioned hereinbefore in  paragraphs 13, 14, 15, 
16, 17 and 18, hereof, have conspired, acted in  concert 
and common scheme jointly  to w ilfully and knowingly 
deprive plaintiffs and the  class of persons tha t they 
represent, because of the ir race and color, of rights and 
privileges secured to them  by Section 1, of the Four­
teen th  Amendm ent of the Constitution of the United 
States, and of rights secured to them  by Sections 1981 
and 1983, of Title 28, United States Code, by the  enforce­
m ent and operation of the aforesaid rules and regulations, 
to the great and irreparable harm  and in jury  of plaintiffs 
and the class of persons tha t they  represent.

26. Plaintiffs allege tha t they have no plain, efficient 
or adequate rem edy at law to redress the unlaw ful action 
of the defendants, and each of them, other than  this 
action for declaratory judgm ent and injunctive relief; 
th a t any other rem edy to which they could be rem itted 
would be attended by such uncertainties and delays as 
to am ount to substantial denial of relief; would involve 
a m ultiplicity of suits and would cause plaintiffs fu rther 
irreparable harm  and injury, and occasion undue hard ­
ships, vexations and delay.



21

V.

P ra y e r .

W herefore , the  p re m ise s  considered , p la in tiffs , r e ­
spectfu lly  p ra y  th a t upon th e  filing of th is  C om plaint, 
as m a y  a p p e a r  p ro p e r an d  conven ien t to th e  Court:

1. T h a t a S ta tu to ry  T h ree -Ju d g e  C ourt be  convened 
p u rsu a n t to Sections 2281 and  2284, of T itle  28, U nited  
S ta te s  Code;

2. T h a t th is  cause  be ad v an ced  on th e  docket of 
th is  C ourt and  a  speedy  h e a rin g  be o rd e red  acco rd in g  
to law , and  upon such  p re lim in a ry  h ea rin g , th a t th is  
H onorab le  C ourt issue  a te m p o ra ry  in junction  to 
enjoin  and  re s tra in  th e  d efendan ts , and  each  of them , 
fro m  denying  or re fu s in g  to p la in tiffs  th e  rig h t and 
p riv ileg e  of en tering , and  a tten d in g  c lasses , and  r e ­
ceiv ing  instruc tion  a t  th e  pub lic  school w ith in  the 
D allas  In d ep en d en t School D is tr ic t w hich  is n e a re s t 
to th e ir  hom e, w ithou t being  ass ig n ed  to any  public 
school on th e  b as is  or c la ss ifica tio n  of ra c e  or color, 
and  w ithou t any  d istinctions being  m ad e  as  to th em  
b ecau se  of th e ir  ra c e  and  color;

3. T h a t upon fin a l h e a rin g  of th is  cau se  on its  
m erits , th is H onorab le  Court:

(a ) . E n te r  a  fina l ju d g m en t or d ec re e  th a t  w ill be 
d ec la ra tiv e  and  defin itive of th e  leg a l r ig h ts  and  r e ­
la tions of th e  p a r tie s  in th e  su b jec t m a tte r  of th is 
co n troversy ;



22

(b). E n te r  a  f in a l ju d g m en t, o rd e r  and  d ecree  
w hich  w ill dec lare  th a t Section 7, of A rtic le  V II, of 
th e  C onstitu tion  of T exas is u n co n stitu tio n a l and  void 
fo r the  re a so n  th a t it denies and  d ep riv es  p la in tiffs , 
and  th e  m e m b e rs  of th e  c la ss  of persons w hom  they  
re p re se n t, th e ir  p riv ileg es  and  im m u n itie s  as citizens 
of th e  U nited  S ta tes , and  th e  eq u a l p ro tec tio n  of law s 
secu red  to th em  by th e  C onstitu tion  and  law s of the 
U nited  S ta te s  and  r ig h ts  and  p riv ileg es  secu red  to 
th e m  by Section 1981 and  1983, of T itle  42, U nited  
S ta te s  Code;

(c). E n te r  a  f in a l ju d g m en t, o rd e r  and  d ec ree  w hich 
w ill d ec la re  th a t A rtic le  2900, of V ernon ’s Civil S ta t­
u te s  of th e  S ta te  of T exas, is unconstitu tional and  
void, fo r the  re a so n  th a t it den ies and  dep riv es  
p la in tiffs , and  th e  m e m b e rs  of the  c la ss  of perso n s 
w hom  th ey  re p re se n t, th e ir  p riv ileg es  and  im m u n i­
tie s  as  c itizens of the  U nited  S ta tes , and, th e  equal 
p ro tec tion  of law s secu red  to th e m  by the  C onstitu­
tion  and  law s of the  U nited  S ta tes , and, r ig h ts  and  
p riv ileg es  secu red  to th em  by  Sections 1981 and  1983, 
of T itle  42, U nited  S ta tes  Code;

(d ). E n te r  a  f in a l ju d g m en t, o rd e r and  d ecree  
w hich  w ill d ec la re  th a t  so m u ch  of A rtic les  2922-13, 
and  2922-15, of V ernon ’s Civil S ta tu te s  of the  S ta te  
of T exas, as  m a y  be in te rp re te d  or co n stru ed  to r e ­
qu ire , or san c tio n  the  seg reg a tio n  of s tu d en ts  in the 
pub lic  schools o p e ra ted  by th e  d efendan ts , or any  of 
th em , acco rd ing  to ra c e  a re  u n co n stitu tio n a l and  void, 
fo r th e  rea so n  it den ies and  d ep riv es  p la in tiffs , and  
th e  m e m b e rs  of th e  c lass  of p erso n s w hom  they  re ­
p re sen t, th e ir  p riv ileges an d  im m u n itie s  as  citizens



23

of the  U nited  S ta tes , and, the  eq u a l p ro tec tio n  of 
law s, secu red  to th e m  by the  C onstitu tion  and  law s 
of th e  U nited  S ta tes , and, r ig h ts  and  p riv ileg es  se­
cu red  to th e m  by Sections 1981 and  1983, of T itle  42, 
U nited  S ta te s  Code;

(e). E n te r  a  p e rm a n e n t in junction  to en jo in  and  
re s tra in  th e  d e fen d an ts  E dw in  L. R ippy, W. A. B la ir, 
R o b ert L. D illard , J r . ,  R o b ert B. G ilm ore, R ouse 
Howell, (M rs.) V ernon In g ra m , V an M. L am m , (M rs.) 
T rac y  H. R u th e rfo rd , and  F ra n k lin  E . Spafford , as 
officers and  m e m b e rs  of the  B oard  of T ru s tee s  of the 
D allas  Indep en d en t School D is tric t, and  W. T. W hite, 
as  S u p erin ten d en t of P ub lic  Schools of the  D allas  
In d ep en d en t School D istric t, th e ir  ag en ts , th e ir  s e r ­
van ts, th e ir  em ployees, th e ir  a tto rn ey s , th e ir  suc- 
cesors in office, and  a ll o ther perso n s in  concert w ith  
th em  who sh a ll rece iv e  a c tu a l no tice of th is  jud g m en t, 
o rd e r and  decree , fro m  fu r th e r  execu ting , or en fo rc­
ing a g a in s t p la in tiffs , or any  m e m b e r of th e  c lass  of 
perso n s w hom  th ey  rep re sen t, any  ru le  o r regu la tion , 
or any  o rd e r  or o rd ers , m ade , p ro m u lg a ted , or issued  
p u rsu a n t to, or p u rp o rted ly  issued  p u rsu an t to e ith e r 
Section 7, of A rtic le  VII, of the  C onstitu tion  of T exas, 
or A rtic le  2900 of V ernon ’s Civil S ta tu te s  of the  S ta te  
of T exas, or any  portion  of A rtic le  2922-13 or 2922-15, 
of V ernon ’s Civil S ta tu te s  of th e  S ta te  of T exas th a t 
re q u ire s  or sanctions th e  seg reg a tio n  of s tuden ts  in 
the public schools o p e ra ted  by the  d efen d an t B oard  
of T ru s tee s  of the  D allas  Indep en d en t School D istric t, 
acco rd ing  to ra c e , or color.



24

4. T h a t th is  H onorab le  C ourt allow  p la in tiffs  th e ir
costs h ere in , and, g ra n t such  o th e r and  fu r th e r  re lie f
as m a y  a p p e a r  equ itab le  and  ju s t in the  p rem ises .

W. J . DURHAM ,
(W. J . D u rh am ).

2600 F lo ra  S tree t,
D allas, T exas.

C. B. BU N K LEY , JR .,
(C. B. B unkley, J r . ) .

8141/2 N orth  G ood-L atim er E x p ressw ay ,
D allas, T exas.

LO U IS B E D FO R D ,
(K enneth  H o lbert).

1807% S ingleton B oulevard ,
D allas, T exas.

K E N N E T H  H O LBERT,
(L ouir B edfo rd ).

2531 F o re s t A venue,
D allas, T exas.

U. SIM PSO N  TATE,
(U. S im pson T a te ).

2600 F lo ra  S tree t,
D allas, T exas.

J . L. T U R N E R , JR .,
(J . L. T u rn e r, J r ) .

1723 R outh  S tree t,
D allas, T exas.

R O B E R T  L. C A RTER,
(R o b ert L. C a rte r) .

THURGOOD M ARSHALL, 
(T hurgood  M arsh a ll) .

107 W est 43rd S tree t,
N ew  Y ork City, N ew  Y ork.

A tto rneys fo r P la in tiffs .



25

Certificate of Verification.

County of Dallas 
State of Texas, ss.

I, U. Simpson Tate, one of the A ttorneys for Plaintiffs 
herein, after having been first duly sworn according to 
law, on m y oath depose and say tha t I have read the 
foregoing Complaint by me subscribed and know the con­
tents thereof and tha t the same is true  of m y own 
knowledge, except as to m atters stated to be alleged upon 
inform ation and belief, and as to that, I verily believe 
it to be true.

U. SIMPSON TATE,
(U. Simpson Tate).

Subscribed and Sworn to before me this the 12th day of 
September, 1955.

EDWIN C. WASHINGTON, JR., 
N otary Public in and for Dallas 

(Seal) County, Texas.

PLA IN TIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY IN JU N C­
TION.

(Title Omitted.)

Come now the plaintiffs in the above num bered and 
styled cause, and respectfully move the Court for a 
prelim inary injunction to enjoin and restrain  the defend­
ants W. T. W hite, as superintendent of public schools 
in the Dallas Independent School D istrict; Howard A. 
Allen, as principal of the W. H. Adamson High School;



26

Richard E. Stroud, as principal of the Thomas J. Rusk 
Jun io r High School; Ella E. Parker, as principal of the 
John  H enry Brown Elem entary School; W. A. Hamilton, 
as principal of the M irabeau B. Lam ar Elem entary School, 
J. H. Gurley, as principal of the Maple Lawn Elemen­
ta ry  School, and W illiam H. Stanley, as principal of the 
Thomas A. Edison E lem entary School, each of which 
schools are public free w ithin the Dallas Independent 
School District, and Edwin L. Rippy, as president of the 
Board of Trustees of the Dallas Independent School Dis­
trict, and W. A. Blair, Robert L. Dillard, Jr., Robert B. 
Gilmore, Rouse Howell, (Mrs.) Vernon D. Ingram, Van 
M. Lamm, (Mrs.) Tracy H. Rutherford, and Franklin  E. 
Spafford, as members of the Board of Trustees of the 
Dallas Independent School D istrict, and the  Board of 
Trustees of the Dallas Independent School District, a 
corporation, and each of them, the ir agents, their ser­
vants, the ir employees and their successors in office, their 
attorneys and all other persons in active concert or par­
ticipation w ith them, from assigning plaintiffs, or any 
m em ber of the class of Persons tha t they represent be­
cause of race and color, to any public free school w ithin 
the Dallas Independent School District, or from  refusing 
and denying plaintiffs, or any m em ber of the class of 
persons th a t they represent, because of race or color, the 
right and privilege of registering at, entering and a t­
tending classes, and receiving instruction in the public 
free school nearest to the ir respective homes, at the same 
time, and under the same conditions and circumstances 
th a t all other public free school pupils register, en ter 
and attend classes and receive instruction w ithout any 
distinctions being made as to plaintiffs and the members 
of the class of persons tha t they represent, on the basis 
of race or color.



27

In  support of this Motion, plaintiffs incorporate by 
reference the facts set out in the ir Complaint filed here­
in, in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 
13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26, as 
though they w ere copied and made a p a rt hereof.

P laintiffs would fu rther show to the Court th a t unless 
defendants, and each of them, are enjoined and restrained 
from continuing the unlaw ful action and conduct com­
plained of in th e  Complaint filed herein, plaintiffs w ill 
suffer unlaw ful discrim ination because of the ir race and 
color, in  tha t they will, each of them, be forced to travel 
disproportionate distances and suffer hazards and hard ­
ships of inclement w eather, be away from the ir homes 
and the care, guidance and protection of the ir respective 
families for a longer period of time than  children of the 
w hite or Caucasian race who live near them ; tha t such 
hardships thus placed upon the m inor plaintiffs and their 
parents is real and substantial; tha t plaintiffs have no 
efficient or adequate rem edy at law.

If this prelim inary injunction be granted, defendants 
will suffer no financial loss, or other tangible harm  or 
injury. Therefore, plaintiffs pray tha t no bond be set 
upon the  granting of this motion.

U. SIMPSON TATE,
(U. Simpson Tate),

One of the Attorneys for 
Plaintiffs.

2600 Flora Street, 
Dallas 4, Texas.



28

SHOW CAUSE ORDER.

(Title Omitted.)

The Court having considered the Complaint of P e ti­
tioners filed herein, and, the Application for Tem porary 
Injunction, is of the opinion th a t the same should be set 
for hearing, and the same is set for a hearing on a day 
certain on the  Petitioners’ A pplication for Tem porary In ­
junction on the 16 day of September, 1955, a t 10 o’clock, 
A. M., and the Clerk of this Court is directed to issue 
Notice to the Defendants as the law  requires, to be, and 
appear before this Court at 10 o’clock, A. M., on the 
16 day of September, 1955, in the  Court Room of the 
U nited States Court House at Dallas, Texas, and show 
cause, if any they have, w hy said Tem porary Injunction 
should not be issued.

Dated this 12 day of September, 1955.
WM. H. ATWELL,

United S tates D istrict Judge, 
for the  N orthern D istrict of 

Texas.

MOTION TO DISMISS.

(Title Omitted.)

1 .

The Defendants, Edwin L. Rippy, Robert L. Dillard, 
Franklin  Spafford, Mrs. Tracy Rutherford, Van M. Lamm, 
Mrs. Vernon D. Ingram, Rouse Howell, Robert B. Gilmore,



29

W. A. Blair, Trustees of the Dallas Independent School 
D istrict, the Dallas Independent School District, an educa­
tional facility organized under the laws of the S tate of 
Texas, Richard E. Stroud, W. T. W hite, Ella Parker, 
W illiam Stanley, J. H. Gurley, Howard Allen, and W. A. 
Hamilton, file this their Motion to Dismiss P lain tiffs’ 
complaint.

2 .

The Plaintiffs have failed to join as Defendants in­
dispensable parties hereinafter mentioned, such parties 
being necessary to obtain a final judgm ent and dis­
position of this case. The indispensable parties which 
Plaintiffs have failed to join are the State Comptroller 
of Public Accounts, R. S. Calvert, the State Board of 
Education, provided for in Article 2654-2 V. A. C. S., and 
the State Commissioner of Education, designated under 
the relevant provisions of Article 2654-5 V.A.C.S. The 
State Board of Education is the policy forming and 
planning body concerning all public education in the State 
of Texas, and the S tate Commissioner of Education is 
clothed w ith duties concerning the general adm inistra­
tion of school laws and the superintendency of business 
relating to public education.

W herefore, said suit for the reasons set forth above 
should be dismissed.

A. J. THUSS, JR.,
(A. J. Thuss, J r.) ,

A ttorney for Defendants.

1122 Davis Building,
Dallas 2, Texas.



30

ANSWER.

(Title Omitted.)

The Defendants, Edwin L. Rippy, Robert L. Dillard, 
Franklin  Spafford, Mrs. Tracy Rutherford, Van M. Lamm, 
Mrs. Vernon D. Ingram, Rouse, Howell, Robert B. Gilmore, 
W. A. Blair, Trustees of the Dallas Independant School 
D istrict, the Dallas Independent School District, an 
educational facility organized under the laws of the State 
of Texas, R ichard E. Stroud, W. T. W hite, Ella Parker, 
W illiam Stanley, J. H. Gurley, Howard Allen, and W. A. 
Hamilton file this the ir Answ er to P laintiffs’ Complaint.

1.

All of the  Defendants deny there is any scheme or 
conspiracy to circum vent or evade th e  law  or to deprive 
any child, student or other person of the ir civil rights. 
The principals of the various schools w ere following the 
instructions issued to them  by  the adm inistrative staff. 
The adm inistrative staff and the district trustees are now 
and have been m arking an honest, bona fide, realistic 
study of the facts to m eet the obligations the law  has 
placed upon them  to provide adequate public school 
education and to perfect, as soon as possible, a workable 
integrated system of public education.

2.

The Dallas Public School System, under the  m an­
date of State law  and w ith  th e  approval of Federal 
Courts and Federal law, has for approxim ately ninety 
years operated as a segregated school system. This system



31

was regarded until May 31, 1955, by every Court in the 
land as a legal and valid system and under such system 
budget procedures have been installed for the purpose 
of arriving at the cost of operating said system and 
determ ining the  am ount of funds to be raised by ta x ­
ation, and also under such system a building program  
had been form ulated and bonds authorized and issued. 
The applicable laws required the taking of a yearly 
scholastic census and said census has been subdivided 
into a separate enum eration of negro students and white. 
Such subdivision is still required by S tate authorities.

Such scholastic census fixes the basis for the alloca­
tion of funds from the  S tate of Texas and the allocation 
of the num ber of students to the various school buildings 
and other facilities so tha t there will be a reasonable 
distribution and no overcrowding.

3.

The Suprem e Court of the United States on May 31, 
1955, entered a final order and decree announcing a 
drastic change in legal concept of school adm inistration 
and placed upon the D efendant trustees and officers the 
necessity of changing adm inistrative routine, rules, and 
procedures which had been in existence for m any years, 
certainly from the beginning of the  organization of the 
Dallas School District.

4.

The school budget and the method of collecting sup­
porting data is controlled by requirem ents both of S tate 
law  and the Texas Education Agency of the State of



32

Texas. The budget requires such intensive study and 
the  consideration of abundant supporting data requiring 
th a t statistical analysis be accum ulated commencing in 
Jan u ary  of each year. The budget for the school year 
1955-56 had reached an advanced state of preparation 
w hen it became finally determ ined in May of 1955 tha t 
a drastic change would be required so tha t it was im ­
possible to make adequate re-analysis of the statistical data 
w ithout im pairing the system of public education. W ithin 
the short tim e available it was impossible to re-arrange 
the allocation of teachers and other expenses pertinent 
to a drastic change in the system, and any attem pt to do 
so would have resulted in  financial chaos, confusion and 
in in terruption of public school education.

5.

The distribution of students to school buildings is re ­
lated both to the budget expenditures and estim ated 
costs and also to available physical facilities and calls 
for the study of m any other problems. Accordingly, on 
Ju ly  13, 1955, the President of the Board, issued a sta te­
m ent regarding desegregation and outlined twelve 
problems for study, which are:

“In  order to be prepared for eventualities in this con­
nection, this Board of Education months ago instructed 
Dr. W. T. W hite, the Superintendent of Schools of this 
District, to proceed w ith a detailed study of the problems 
inherent to desegregating a m ajor school system, and these 
studies are in progress in the following areas:

1. Scholastic boundaries of individual schools w ith 
relation to racial groups contained therein.



33

2. Age-grade distribution of pupils.

3. Achievement and state of preparedness for grade- 
level assignment of different pupils.

4. Relative intelligence quotient scores.

5. A daptation of curriculum.

6. The over-all impact on individual pupils scholasti­
cally w hen all the  above items are considered.

7. Appointm ent and assignment of principals.

8. The relative degree of preparedness of w hite and 
Negro teachers; the ir selection and assignment.

9. Social life of the children w ithin the school.

10. The problems of integration of the Parent- 
Teacher Association and the Dads Club organization.

11. The operation of the athletic program  under an 
integrated system.

12. Fair and equitable methods of putting  into effect 
the decree of the Suprem e Court.

6.

A review of scholastic census was im mediately started 
and maps im m ediately prepared to fit the school building 
capacity to the area producing the  students on the as­
sumption of a desegregated basis.



34

Time and study are necessary to properly allocate to 
each school building and facilities the num ber of students 
w hich can properly be taken care of at such locality. The 
distribution of inhabitants throughout the  Dallas School 
D istric t is not uniform  and is fu rth er complicated by the 
fact tha t certain areas, such as commercial and m anu­
facturing areas, produce no students, and it is therefore 
necessary to vary  the  area and th e  lim its of the dis­
tric t w ith in  which students shall be allocated to said 
schools.

7.

The assignment of teachers, both w hite and negro, 
m ust be re-exam ined and no definite conclusion can be 
made until the re-alignm ent of district has been completed 
and the proportion of w hite and negro scholastics de­
term ined w ithin reasonable limits.

8 .

W hite students are not as a m atter of routine policy 
perm itted to go to the nearest school. Assignm ent to 
schools is made upon a basis of population and available 
school facilities, and m ay result in a child going to a 
school other than  the nearest.

The Plaintiffs pray for an injunction requiring that 
negro students be perm itted  to go to the nearest school. 
This, if perm itted, would resu lt in a discrimination against 
w hite  students.

9.

Thirty-five million dollars in bonds have recently been 
authorized to effectuate a school program  for the con­



35

struction of physical facilities such as school buildings 
and other capital improvements. This program  w ill have 
to be re-exam ined and drastically changed in the light 
of desegregated system.

10.

The problem is not a simple one of m erely decreeing 
tha t all negro and w hite children w ithin certain  age limits 
and living w ith in  presently  existing school districts be 
directed to the school which now  serves the particular 
district. Such order would result in overcrowding of 
school facilities or an unbalanced condition in which in 
certain schools there would be very  few  students, and 
the teacher personnel would be inadequate or over­
m anned in certain places. The Dallas D istrict m ain­
tains one hundred tw enty  buildings at which instruction 
is given, and there is inherent in the problem  tha t m any 
negro parents would p refer to send the ir children to 
schools w here there  is no interm ingling of the w hite and 
negro children. This suit is brought for all negro children 
sim ilarly situated and not for the relatively  few directly 
involved as P laintiffs through the ir next friend or parent, 
and means a complete wiping out of the  statistical data 
which has heretofore concerned the  allocation of num ber 
of students to each school building.

11.

The allocation of State Aid is by  law  on a segregated 
basis and notw ithstanding the resolution of S tate  Board 
of Education, the  A ttorney General has ruled funds can 
be allocated only on a segregated basis. If it is assumed 
this law  is invalid, there is nevertheless no authority  
for distribution of S tate Aid money on a non segregated 
basis.



36

12.

Confusion, chaos and a complete breakdow n in public 
school education for both w hite and negro students would 
resu lt if the present system  is not continued until the 
Board has had sufficient tim e to obtain adequate in­
form ation and statistical data to find a w ay to convert the 
system to an educational operation which protects the 
civil and educational rights of all citizens under a new 
concept just announced by the U nited States Supreme 
Court.

13.

A review  of the recent scholastic census now indicates 
there  is taking place a m ovem ent of population w hereby 
the w hite population is moving out of certain  areas in the 
Dallas School District, such m ovem ent being observable in 
those areas w here there is a fairly  heavy density of negro 
inhabitants. The conclusion seems w arran ted  at this 
tim e tha t such movement is caused by the m andate of 
desegregation in public schools. W hether or not the 
problem  is going to be simplified by a continuation of 
this population movement or complicated is too early to 
make a definite statem ent. It is, however, a fact which 
m aterially  enters into the operation of the Dallas Inde­
pendent School system and m ust be taken into considera­
tion in  arriving a t the  cost of operating the school system, 
both in the expenditures relating to m aintenance and 
for capital improvements.

Prayer.

W herefore, premises considered, the Defendants respect­
fully  pray tha t the tem porary injunction as prayed for by



37

the P laintiffs be denied and tha t upon final hearing all 
perm anent injunctive relief be denied, and fu rther that 
no declaratory judgm ent of any kind or character be 
entered, and for such other and fu rth er relief to which the 
Defendants m ay show themselves entitled, and tha t the 
costs of this proceeding be charged to the Plaintiffs.

A. J. THUSS, JR.,
(A. J. Thuss, J r.) ,

A ttorney for Defendants.

1122Davis Building,
Dallas 2, Texas.

Certificate of Verification.

State of Texas 
County of Dallas, ss.

I, A. J. Thuss, Jr., A ttorney for Defendants herein, after 
having been first duly sworn according to law, on my 
oath depose and say tha t I have read the foregoing Com­
plaint subscribed by me and know the contents thereof 
and tha t the same is true  of m y own knowledge, except 
as to m atters stated to be alleged upon inform ation or 
belief, and as to that, I verily believe it to be true.

A. J. THUSS, JR.,
(A. J. Thuss, J r.) ,

Subscribed and Sworn to before me this the 15th day of 
September, A. D. 1955.

NORA REVELLE,
(Seal) N otary Public in and for

Dallas County, Texas.

Filed Sep. 15, 1955.



38

SUIT FOR INJUNCTION.

In  th e  District Court of the United States, for the N orthern 
D istrict of Texas, Dallas Division.

A lbert Bell, a minor, by his step-father and Next Friend, 
Theodore D. Dorsey, and 23 other Plaintiffs,

vs. Civil No. 6165
Dr. Edw in L. Rippy, as President of th e  Board of Trustees 

of the Dallas Independent School D istrict, Dallas 
County, Texas, and 16 other Defendants.

Appearances:

W. J. Durham, C. B. Bunkley, Jr., Louis Bedford, 
K enneth H olbert, U. Simpson Tate, J. L. Turner, 
Jr., Robert L. Carter, all of Dallas, Texas and 
Thurgood M arshall, New York City, No. Y. Fof the 
Plaintiffs;

A. J. Thuss, Jr., Dallas, Texas, For the Defendants.

Be It Rem embered That on the  16th day of September, 
A. D., 1955, the  above styled and num bered cause came 
on to be heard  before the  Honorable W illiam H. Atwell, 
United S tates D istrict Judge, and the  following proceed­
ings w ere had:

Proceedings.

The Court:
A re there form al orders desired by members of the  Bar?



39

Mr. Durham:
Your Honor, I desire to introduce Mr. Thurgood M ar­

shall, a m em ber of the M aryland Bar, and request he he 
given leave to assist me in the tria l of this case.

The Court:
I don’t  know w hat you are saying, Counsel,

Mr. Durham:
Your Honor, I desire at this tim e to introduce Mr. 

Thurgood M arshall who is a m em ber of the  M aryland Bar.

The Court:
Member of the w hat?

Mr. Durham:
Of the  United States Court, Bar, S tate of M aryland, 

and request tha t he be given leave—

The Court:
We don’t adm it here unless adm itted to the Suprem e 

Court of the S tate of Texas, bu t we w ill be very glad to 
allow him to appear in this case.

Mr. Marshall:
Thank you.

The Clerk:
6165, A lbert Bell, a minor, by his step-father and Next 

Friend, Theodore D. Dorsey, and 23 other Plaintiffs, 
versus Edwin L. Rippy, as President of the Board of 
Trustees of the Dallas Independent School District, and 
17 other Defendants; U. Simpson Tate for the  Plaintiffs; 
A. J. Thuss, Jr., for the Defendants.



40

The Court:
W hat says the Plaintiffs?

Mr. Durham:
Your Honor, the Plaintiffs are ready, and if the Court 

w ill perm it me to make this statem ent: we have sub­
m itted a certain  stipulation of fact to Mr. Thuss which 
we—

The Court:
I will get to th a t in a minute. W hat say the  defend­

ants?

Mr. Thuss:
The D efendants are ready, Your Honor.

The Court:
All right.

Mr. Thuss:
W e have a motion to dismiss for w ant of indispensable 

parties having been joined.

The Court:
You w ant to what?

Mr. Thuss:
Motion to dismiss because of the  failure to nam e and 

join certain  indispensable parties.

The Court:
Who are they?



41

Mr. Thuss:
They are the State Comptroller of Public Accounts, 

Mr. Calvert, the State Commissioner of Education, and 
the State Board of Education.

The Court:
You have a right under the Rules to have made them  

parties if you wished; I don’t  th ink  they are indispensable 
parties, and I overrule your motion to dismiss.

Mr. Thuss:
All right. Note our exception.

The Court:
All right. Have you agreed upon your facts, gentlemen? 

Mr. Durham:
Your Honor, we have subm itted to Counsel for the 

D efendant and he has exam ined them, and he has agreed 
to p a rt of them . I think w e could save considerable 
tim e if the Court would give us about th irty  minutes, 
and I th ink  we can agree—

The Court:
About how many minutes?

Mr. Durham:
About th irty .

The Court:
Oh, lets go on w ith  this case, gentlemen, we have had 

a week or so, I set this case for you last Monday.

Mr. Durham:
All right, Your Honor.



42

The Court:
I w ant to ask these questions of you.
Do the  D efendants adm it th a t all of the P laintiffs— 

I believe the P laintiffs nam ed are the students, aren’t 
they?

Mr. Durham:
Yes, Your Honor.

The Court:
—sought admission and w ere denied, is tha t adm itted 

by the  Defendants?

Mr. Thuss:
Yes, Your Honor, I—

The Court:
All right, tha t is all I am asking.

Mr. Thuss:
That is all—I don’t  know tha t those particular ones 

have.

The Court:
Well, do you w ant to put on the proofs for tha t foolish­

ness?

Mr. Thuss:
I don’t  w ant the  proof, Your Honor, and I am adm itting 

th a t some students w ere denied, th a t negro students 
applied and w ere denied, w hether they lived at the 
address which was alleged, I do not know.



43

The Court:
This is your case, somebody m ight w ant to appeal, 

and the Court is try ing  to save you costs.

Mr. Thuss:
Yes, I w ant to conserve all of the time, it is a ra ther 

serious m atter.

The Court:
All I asked of you is do you—

Mr. Thuss:
I  w ant to agree to everything th a t is possible.

The Court:
You have to answ er under the  Rules of the Court. Do 

you agree to tha t allegation?

Mr. Thuss:
Yes I agreed tha t they w ere denied.

The Court:
That is all right, the Rules require  that. Now, gentle­

men, do you agree tha t there is substantially 78 schools 
for w hite people and substantially  18 schools for colored 
people?

Mr. Durham:
We agree, Your Honor.

Mr. Thuss:
Is tha t correct, Mr. W hite?

Mr. White:
Yes, sir.



44

The Court:
I m ay have the figures a little  b it wrong.

Mr. Thuss:
I w ant to get them  absolutely accurate, Your Honor. 

W hat is it? Your Honor, we can state this: th a t there 
are a total of 128 schools, 9 w hite high schools, 1 Junior- 
senior high school; tha t is right?

Mr. White:
Yes.

Mr. Thuss:
9 w hite junior high schools, 1 vocational w hite school.

Mr. White:
W hite school.

Mr. Thuss:
86 w hite elem entary, 2 negro high schools, 19 negro 

elem entary, and 1 evening school, negro.

Mr. White:
Yes.

The Court:
Now, have you any agreem ent among yourselves about 

the num ber of w hite people in  Dallas, students, and the 
num ber of colored people in Dallas?

Mr. Thuss:
You mean to tal population, Your Honor, or scholastics?



45

The Court:
Now, can you agree, gentlemen, on the substantial 

equality, I m ean the teachers and the physical impedi­
m enta of these schools? You see, I have been in the 
schools, I know—

Mr. Thuss:
I can state as a fact—

The Court:
I judicially know tha t they are about the same in ex­

perience,*good teachers in  each, good buildings in each, 
and libraries, and things, seats, and all of tha t sort of 
thing. That is substantially correct, isn’t  it?

Mr. Thuss:
I th ink  tha t is substantially  correct.

Mr. Durham:
We agree, Your Honor, we agree, Your Honor.

The Court:
Substantially correct. All right. Now, I believe tha t 

covers all of the facts, and I would like to hear your 
argum ents now, gentlemen. If you can—about how long 
do you w ant to argue for the Plaintiff?

Mr. Durham:
Your Honor, I don’t  th ink we need over tw enty minutes.

The Court:
How is that?

Mr. Durham:
Your Honor, I don’t  th ink  the P laintiff needs over 

tw enty  minutes.



46

The Court:
Tw enty m inutes for the Plaintiffs.
How much for the Defendants?

Mr. Thuss:
Your Honor, I don’t  need any m ore tim e than  the 

P laintiffs need, take the same time.

The Court:
Well, suppose you take th irty  m inutes on the side, if 

you wish; you don’t  have to take it, if tha t is satisfactory. 
Is th a t satisfactory to both sides?

All right, gentlemen.

Mr. Durham:
Your Honor, the facts are p re tty  clear here; they are 

agreed upon—

The Court:
Well, I have to ask you to speak out because the  

acoustics in th is building, this Courtroom, are not satis­
factory like I would like to have them.

Mr. Durham:
Your Honor, w e are not going to burden the Court 

w ith  m uch argum ent. The facts are undisputed tha t 
these m inor plaintiffs w ere denied on the  account of 
race and color, and th a t there are no efforts being made 
and no sta rt to desegregation in the  public schools of 
Dallas, so we th ink  it is ju st a question of an arb itrary  
refusal to even s ta rt on desegregation. I t  isn’t  a question 
of w here the kid lives, or—the only thing th a t he was 
denied upon was his race.



47

The Court:
Was his w hat?

Mr. Durham:
W as his race and color. They adm it tha t; there  is no 

other claim by the  Defendants, even in the answer, that 
the denial was based upon any other proposition than  
the  race and color of the child. There is no testimony 
and there  is an admission inferentially tha t there is no 
sta rt even made, bu t on the contrary, the  Board has re ­
declared the  policy of segregation and efforts would be 
made in  the light and for the sole purpose of m aintaining 
segregation on the  account of race and color; so, Your 
Honor, I don’t th ink there  is much argum ent to it; the 
Court, Your Honor, is fam iliar w ith  the  decision tha t 
segregation on th e  basis of race and color is unconstitu­
tional, and there is a m andate th a t desegregation be 
started  forthw ith, and in this case, they adm it tha t since 
May 17, 1954, they  w ere cognizant of tha t fact, bu t they 
have made no effort w hatever, but on the  contrary, they 
have—and it is pleaded—they have sent out a declara­
tion declaring th a t segregation w ill continue on the basis 
of race and color.

Mr. Thuss:
Your Honor, we have Dr. Rippy here and the  Court 

m ight be interested in hearing from  Dr. Rippy as to 
w hat acts w ere actually perform ed by Dr. Rippy and the 
Board. The conclusion tha t Mr. D urham  makes is not 
w arranted by any of the facts which we can show to 
the Court. The Court is fam iliar w ith  the  fact, of course, 
the tim e elem ent involved in the Supreme Court’s de­
cision. The answ er sets up, and we can prove, tha t Dr. 
Rippy im mediately w ent to A ustin following th e  May



48

31, 1955, statem ent of the Suprem e Court. He talked to 
the S tate Superintendent of Education—

The Court:
Now, Counsel, you know tha t tha t is not a legitim ate 

argum ent. I asked you if you had any testimony. You 
are telling me now something about testimony.

Mr. Thuss:
I w ant to put on testimony, Your Honor.

The Court:
W hat?

Mr. Thuss:
I w ant to put on testim ony as to w hat has been done, 

and w hat the Board has done, and w ant the Court to 
know w hat has been done in good faith  in an attem pt to 
follow the m andate of the Suprem e Court.

The Court:
Suppose you state w hat Dr. Rippy has done and then 

see if the other side w ill agree to it w ithout putting  a 
witness on.

Mr. Thuss:
All right, Your Honor. In  making these prelim inary 

agreements, I didn’t w ant the Court to understand tha t 
tha t was all tha t we considered to be in the case. I was 
m aking at the outset those admissions which I thought 
would shorten the  trial. W ith reference to Dr. Rippy, 
Dr. Rippy w ent to A ustin in the spring of this year, 
and talked to Mr. Edgar, the State Superintendent. He 
also talked to the A ttorney G eneral of this State, and



49

outlined w hat the  problem  was in Dallas tha t there are 
this large num ber of schools which we have entered in 
the record here, tha t the areas tha t the districts and 
schools from  which the students go to the schools is 
ra th e r irregular, tha t the S tate Law has up to now re ­
quired the  enum eration to be upon a segregated basis. 
The State Law still requires an allocation—an allotm ent 
of the  funds on a segregated basis. The Gilmer-Akin 
Act is a very complicated feature, and it requires—it 
is a State Law th a t requires certain credits for teacher 
units, and so forth, and so on, to make education gener­
ally available to all children in Texas. And he was 
advised at tha t tim e under all of the problems involved, 
and also the S tate Board was requested in June of this 
year to make their request for allotm ent on a segregated 
basis, and after all of those conferences they w ere advised 
tha t it was better required to continue the schools on the 
basis in which they had continued them  and make the 
change, if at all, la ter on.

That is w hat Dr. Rippy would testify to.

The Court:
Well, now, Counsel, you are a practicing lawyer, you 

know you can’t do that. I am asking you, we passed the 
testimony, we agreed on our facts, and the argum ent 
has been entered into.

Mr. Thuss:
Your Honor, I don’t understand.

The Court:
I w ill a sk  th e  o th e r side if you a g re e  to the  s ta te ­

m en t th a t  th e  a tto rn e y  m ad e  th a t D r. R ippy did do 
these  th ings?



50

M r. D urh am ;
Y our H onor, th e  P la in tiffs  w ill a g re e  to a ll of th e  

s ta te m e n t excep t th e  po rtion  th a t  th e re  is a  va lid  
law  in the  S ta te  of T ex as p rov id ing  fo r seg reg a tio n . 
W e w ill a g re e  th a t  th e re  is a  law .

The C ourt:
Of C ourse, th a t  is in  issue  h ere .

M r. D urh am :
Y es.

The C ourt:
All right, go ahead now.

M r. Thuss:
All right, sir.

The C ourt:
L e t’s try  th e  case  acco rd in g  to  law , now, gen tlem en .

M r. Thuss:
Y our H onor—

T he C ourt:
Do you w an t to a rg u e —do you w an t to a rg u e  your 

ca se  now ?

M r. T huss:
No, s ir, I w an t to pu t m y  ev idence on.

T he Court:
W hat ev idence?



51

M r. Thuss:
The evidence tha t th e  Board—the evidence of good 

fa ith  on th e  p a r t  of th e  B oard .

The C ourt:
W ell, th ey  h av e  ag re e d  w ith  you th a t  D r. R ippy 

did th a t.

Mr. Thuss:
Well, I have other evidence than  that, Your Honor; 

I have other things th a t the Board had done. W hat Dr. 
W hite has done.

The Court:
Do you plead tha t in  your pleading?

Mr. Thuss:
Yes, sir, we set it out step by step in our pleading. 

The Court:
Well, do you agree, gentlemen, tha t those facts are 

all right?

Mr. Durham:
Your Honor, we can’t  agree to his pleadings.

The Court:
All right. Thank you. Now, le t’s go on w ith your 

case.

Mr. Thuss:
Well, I would like to know w here I am. I  didn’t 

intend—



52

The Court:
Your are going on w ith  your pleadings as you pleaded 

it. Now, you can understand that, can’t  you?

Mr. Thuss:
Well, Judge, if you just tell me w hat you w ant me to 

do, I will be glad to do it, I have certain evidence which 
I th ink—

The Court:
You have an opportunity, now, to argue your case, 

your statem ent of fact, and your pleadings are considered, 
are agreed to.

Mr. Thuss:
Do they adm it my pleadings? That is fine, tha t is fine.

The Court:
All right.

Mr. Thuss:
Now, Dr. Rippy, in Ju ly—this is in my pleadings, 

Your Honor—in order to prepare, issued this order to all 
personnel: “In  order to be prepared for the eventuali­
ties in connection, this Board of Education m onths ago 
instructed Dr. W hite, the Superintendent of Schools of 
this D istrict, to proceed to make a detailed study of the 
problem  inherent to desegregation of a m ajor school 
system, and these studies are in progress in the following 
areas:” They then  set out, Your Honor, and I w on’t 
read to you, 12 areas of investigation, the scholastic 
boundaries, and the re-arrangem ents of the scholastic 
boundaries, the location of the building, the personnel, 
the relative—the relative population comparison as to 
negroes and w hite, in  some districts, there  are con­



53

siderably m ore negroes than  whites and vice versa, that 
had to be investigated. The m atter of the budget was 
also pled here, and sixty percent, sixty percent of the 
school money spent in  the Dallas D istrict comes from 
the  state. As I had mentioned, and as agreed to, they 
w ere authorized to ask for this state money on a segregated 
basis, and w ere told by the  state to do so. And the  whole 
m atter has been gone into thoroughly, honestly, and 
fairly, to comply w ith the m andate of the Suprem e Court. 
There has, the enrollm ent, I don’t know w hether we 
agreed to this, bu t I th ink  the  Court asked for it, is 
78,000 white, 78691, and 14,593 negro. That is as of 
Septem ber 12. Now, this required  the re-arrangem ent 
of all of these scholastics at various places and w here they 
would be pulled up and should go. They have asked 
in  this case, Your Honor, tha t the—tha t these negro 
children be allowed to go to the school which is closest 
to the ir home. Well, th a t is a rule th a t is not in­
variably followed as to w hite children, because the 
topography and arrangem ent of the school district might 
be such and the population density m ight be such that 
to provide a uniform  or provide a reasonable num ber of 
scholastics in relation to the size of the building, that 
they  would have to go—w hite children would have to go 
to a school fa rther from  their home, tha t is not unusual. 
So even w hat they ask for in this case, tha t these negro 
scholastics go to the school closest to the ir home, is 
not a ru le which is followed as to the w hite scholastics. 
So w ith reference to the facts, good faith, the honesty, 
these good men have been charged, and charged either 
directly or by implication tha t they have made no honest 
effort. In this pleading which is agreed to, it shows 
throughout, Your Honor, tha t they have done everything 
reasonable under the trem endous impact of the ir new 
concept of education, tha t could be done by any Board.



54

Now, it is interesting to note, Your Honor, and while 
it is not m andatory on this Court to follow it, is w hat 
has been done in another case. I th ink  it is interesting 
to note tha t in the case tha t w ent to the Suprem e Court 
th a t arose in Virginia, one of the cases which was de­
cided by the Suprem e Court in October of 1954, and the 
decision which was last w ritten  in May of 1955, shortly 
before this Septem ber of 1955. These same lawyers 
appeared before the Federal Court up there in tha t case. 
I t was before the Suprem e Court th a t had been reversed 
and sent back, and said tha t in tha t case there had been no 
effort to desegregate and tha t it was entirely  too slow, 
and they asked tha t it be desegregated as of the be­
ginning of this te rm  of Septem ber 19, 1955.

A three judge Court, composed of Joe Bell, Circuit Judge 
and two other D istrict Judges, in the case tha t had been 
before the Suprem e Court, held tha t under the fact in tha t 
case, and they  charge—and they charge here tha t those 
m em bers of this School D istrict had adequate time, it was 
more tim e there was more notice given to those school 
trustees in the  Virginia case. The Court held in tha t case 
th a t it was not consistent w ith  the public interest to 
desegregate tha t Virginia school th a t was involved in 
th is Suprem e Court case for the year 1955. I say, Your 
Honor, tha t th a t case is inform ative; it is not m an­
datory th a t this Court follow it, bu t it does show the 
in ten t of th a t Suprem e Court m andate, and it does show 
the  way tha t the Courts, these Federal Courts, are 
looking a t this m atter which is a drastic change. I m en­
tion tha t to Your Honor, tha t it is inform ative, and the 
facts as you m ay know from  reading the opinion in 
th a t case, are much stronger than  they are as shown in 
this case here.



55

Your Honor, I th ink this, I th ink this Court can look 
a t all of the facts, can take judicial knowledge of the 
w ay th a t we have lived for a good m any years, w hat 
would be the impact of try ing to change at this late 
m inute the place to attend school for this large num ber 
of scholastics; they have, for a large num ber of years, 
gotten adequate education, they have agreed tha t they 
are equal. W here is the irreparable damage tha t will occur 
in this case? Gotten an education for a num ber of years, 
and yet the impatience is as of this m inute, and I think 
the ir impatience is not substantiated or supported by the 
facts. They charge here—they charge here tha t there is 
an attem pt to curcum vent the decree of the Federal Court. 
These gentlem en are not guilty of anything of tha t kind 
or character, and all we w ant is tim e to continue to give 
the education to these children which have been re ­
ceiving the education, and which is a trem endous burden 
to do so, w ithout undue—w ithout undue interruption. W hat 
does one year am ount to when we have done so for some 
ninety  years? Added to it, the question and the showing, 
which I think this pleading shows, tha t they have made 
a good faith—made a good faith  attem pt to comply, and 
tha t they have to have tim e to make this change under 
the circumstances, and unless they do, there will be 
confusion. These negro scholastics w ill suffer, as well as 
the w hite scholastics w ill suffer, if they have their way 
about the relief for which they have asked.

I think, Your Honor, the facts which have agreed to, and 
the facts which have been alleged and sworn to in 
this answ er tha t they  have agreed to, and all of the acts 
which have been perform ed by the various members of 
the Board and the staff shows th a t there is no necessity 
for the issuance of this injunction.



56

Mr. Marshall:
May I in terrup t at this point? I th ink we should get 

the  record straight, and tha t is tha t we do not agree that 
the  negro children in Dallas are getting an equal educa­
tion; we agreed tha t there are equal facilities, bu t the 
Suprem e Court, in its May 17th decision, said tha t separa­
tion of the races has, in and of itself, brought about 
inequality. And the interesting thing about the argu­
ment, and I th ink  th a t we should explain the Prince 
Edw ard case, if Your Honor would be interested in it. 
The last ruling of the three judge Court, in the Prince 
Edw ard case, there  was a positive showing tha t the 
County Commissioners of Prince Edw ard County had 
refused to appropriate any money to run  any schools, and 
although I do not know exactly w hat influenced the 
Court on this Septem ber point, I th ink  tha t we should 
understand tha t the injunction tha t was issued ordered 
the School Board to desegregate as rapidly as possible and 
m erely put the  proviso in about September, and I think 
w e should also bear in mind tha t in the South Carolina 
case w ith  Judge Dobie, Judge P arker presiding, w ith 
Judge Dobie and Judge Timmerman, there was no m en­
tion  at all about September, and I th ink  there is a perfect 
exam ple of one D istrict Court and the other D istrict 
Court, and I do not believe it is even persuasive here, 
because as I read it, the Suprem e Court’s decision of 
May 31, I th ink the only significance is the paragraph 
th a t says, “W hile giving weight to these public and pri­
vate considerations, the Courts”—speaking of D istrict 
Courts—“w ill require tha t the Defendants make a prom pt 
and reasonable start tow ard full compliance w ith our 
M ay 17, 1954, ruling. Once such a start has been made, 
the  Court m ay find tha t additional time is necessary.”



57

The condition precedent to all of tha t is tha t a good 
faith  start be made. The answ er in this case points 
out a 12 point program  of study. It also points out that 
under the present ruling of the Board, the Defendants 
in  this case, desegregation w ill not occur until this 12 
point program  is completed to the last m inute detail. Now, 
as to exactly w hat the Supreme Court of the United 
States said, I know the Suprem e Court did not say that. 
The two points, as I understand them, ra th e r there are 
th ree  points tha t are made by the Defendants.

One is tha t there are State Laws tha t will inconvenience 
the transition, and I think in  tha t case, we are rem inded 
by the Suprem e Court’s May 31 decision th a t all S tate 
Laws or m unicipal regulations to the contrary m ust yield, 
so on the basis of that, w hatever the  S tate Law is, if 
it is based on race or color “m ust yield” and can have 
no bearing on the decision at this time.

The next point is tha t there is a question of censusing 
of children and boundary lines. Well, any school board 
in the country can draw  boundary lines and census 
children, they do it every day, and in preparation for this 
school term , the only thing they had to do is make a 
census of the children, draw  the district lines, and for­
get race. I t is tha t easily done.

The th ird  point is tha t we allege—we pray tha t our 
children be adm itted to the  nearest school. That is true, 
bu t it is not necessary to our position. We take the 
position tha t a negro child applies to the school nearest 
to him, and they either accept him or te ll him that 
th is is the  wrong school, you should go to another school, 
bu t they can’t  say, “You m ust go to the negro school.” 
These children w eren’t  denied because they w ent to the



58

w rong school, they w ere denied because they w ent to 
the wrong school, m eaning w hite school. That is the only 
issue here.

We do not w ant to change any regulation, anything of 
the School Board, except the question of race. That can 
be done by one resolution of the Board, m eeting at any 
time. Once tha t is done, tha t is the type of s ta rt tha t 
I am sure the Suprem e Court m eant. That you take off 
race; as to w hatever method of assigning teachers or 
pupils the Defendants w ant to use, we would have no 
objection as long as it is not based on race, all of 
the involved step by step detail tha t is pointed out in 
the ir answer, they could go on or leave, it could make 
no difference, as they  do as has been done in  other 
school systems, and I am not going outside of the  ad­
missible argum ent, because the record of the Supreme 
Court is available and the  D istrict of Columbia case, a 
school system much more involved than  this one, was 
desegregated betw een May 17 of 1954 and September, 
and it was desegregated very  simply. They took the 
word “race” off, tha t was the argum ent tha t appears in 
the record, they w ent to work from  there. If the D istrict 
of Columbia can do it certainly the school district here 
involved, and I do not believe tha t Your Honor misses 
th a t there is any question in this case but th a t the 
Plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction which does not 
at all d isrupt the school system other than  to say tha t 
as you run  the  school system, you m ay use any yard ­
stick, you m ay use any plans, or you may use any 
regulation; the only thing is tha t under the Constitution 
of the United States, as in terpreted  by the Supreme 
Court, race or color cannot be used as a means for de­
segregating.



59

Unless there are any questions, if Your Honor pleases, 
w ith that, the P laintiffs submit, respectfully praying 
tha t the injunction be issued as prayed for.

The Court:
All right. You have had your say, Counsel.

Mr. Thuss:
Your Honor, I do not w ant to say anything fu rther—

The Court:
How is that?

Mr.Thuss:
—except to correct a m isstatem ent tha t I th ink he made, 
if I can m ake that, I would like to, if I can’t, all right.

The Court:
You see, he has his right to make his argum ent last, 

P lain tiff opens and closes.

Mr. Thuss:
I understand it, Judge; I w anted to make the correction. 

The Court:
The suit seeks an injunction against the Defendants 

who are the  principals and officers of the Dallas Public 
Schools, for having refused to perm it the Plaintiffs, who 
are negroes and who sought admission to several dif­
feren t public schools, to m atriculate therein.

The facts, as such facts as are well pleaded in both the 
original petition and the answer, are adm itted in open 
Court, thus saving the introduction of a string of witnesses 
which would take tim e and m ultiplied costs.



60

This suit contains a p rayer for the calling of a three- 
judge Court and used as a basis for tha t call, the uncon­
stitu tionality  of segregation of the  races, w hite and color­
ed, in the schools of the U nited States.

. The tria l judge in the U nited S tates D istrict Court is 
admonished against the  expense and trouble of calling 
tw o other judges to sit w ith  him  in a trial. There is 
no consitutional provision of e ither the  state or the na­
tion, th a t is in controversy in this particular suit.

This same question was presented in the petition in 
the  case of Battle, et al vs. W ichita Falls Junior College 
District, et al, tried  before me on November 27, 1951, at 
W ichita Falls. No attention was paid to the request 
for a three-Judge Court, and the case was tried  by 
myself as the D istrict Judge, alone.

In tha t case, as shown in 101 F. (s.) 82, the Plaintiffs 
w ere colored people who had no such facilities near at 
hand as the W ichita Falls Junior College. That the 
nearest college of sim ilar capacity and teaching was in 
th e  southern part of Texas, approxim ately th ree hundred 
miles distant. The Court, therefore, entered a perem ptory 
injunction requiring the defendant to allow to m atriculate 
the  plaintiffs in  tha t institution. That case was af­
firm ed by the Circuit Court of Appeals and certiorari 
denied by the  Suprem e Court of the  United States. In  
tha t case the  same counsel appeared for the  plaintiffs in 
this case.

Since tha t tim e the Suprem e Court of the United 
S tates has entered a general decision declaring all a t­
tem pted separation of the  races in  the  United States is 
illegal and unconstitutional and directed the school



61

authorities and the low er Courts w ork out a desegretion 
plan Bolling, et al vs. Sharp et al 347 U.S. 497.

The fact in the present case show that there are 78 
elem entary w hite schools in the City of Dallas. That 
there are 18 elem entary schools in the City of Dallas 
for the negro population. I t appears from  the facts, of 
which the Court has judicial knowledge, th a t the premises, 
conveniences, teaching, and efficiency for the colored 
student is furnished by the same Texas and Independent 
School funds as are furnished to the w hite students. 
The num ber of schools for the colored population is a 
slightly higher percentage than tha t furnished for the 
w hite population.

All of the law  as declared by the various Courts, 
appellate and trial, in the  United States, are agreed upon 
the proposition tha t w hen sim ilar and convenient free 
schools are furnished to both w hite and colored tha t there 
then exists no reasonable ground for requiring desegre­
gation. An interesting case is McKissick et al vs. Car­
michael et al, 187 F. (snd) 949. That case cites Sw eatt vs. 
Painter, 339 U. S. 629. Many other cases are also cited 
in B attle vs. W ichita Falls Jun ior College, 101 F. (s) 82.

This is a suit in equity. The facts show, as I have 
already recited, tha t equal school opportunities are fu r­
nished to both colored and white. The direction from the 
Suprem e Court of the  U nited States requires tha t the 
officers and principals of each institution, and the lower 
Courts, shall do away w ith segregation after having w ork­
ed out a proper plan. That direction does not mean that 
a long tim e shall expire before tha t plan is agreed upon. 
I t m ay be tha t the plan contemplates action by the 
S tate legislature. It is not for this Court to say, other



62

than  w hat has been said by the  Suprem e Court in tha t 
decision.

To gran t an  injunction in this case would be to ignore 
the  equities th a t present themselves for recognition and to 
determ ine w hat the Suprem e Court itself decided not to 
determ ine. Therefore, I th ink  it appropiate tha t this case 
be dismissed w ithout prejudice to refile it a t some later 
date.

Give them  some tim e to see w hat they can w ork out, 
and then  we w ill pass upon tha t equity.

P repare an order, if you will, please gentlemen, to be 
OK’d by each side, and if anybody w ants an exception, 
th a t w ill be noted, too.

Now, Mrs. Hamilton, tha t is all we have today?

The Clerk:
That is all, Judge Atwell.

The Court:
C ourt is adjourned until 10:00 o’clock tom orrow  m orn­

ing.



63

SUIT FOR INJUNCTION.

(Title Omitted.

W. J. Durham, C. B. Bunkley, Jr., Louis Bedford, K en­
neth  Holbert, U. Simpson Tate, J. L. Turner, Jr. 
Robert L. Carter all of Dallas, Texas and Thurgood 
M arshall, New York City, N. Y. for the Plaintiffs;

A. J . Thuss, Jr., Dallas, Texas for the Defendants.

This suit seeks an injunction against the defendants who 
are the principals and officers of the Dallas Public 
Schools for having refused to perm it the plaintiffs, who 
are negroes and who sought admission to several dif­
feren t public schools, to m atriculate therein.

The facts, as such facts as are well pleaded in both 
the  original petition and the answer, are adm itted in 
open Court, thus saving the  introduction of a string of 
witnesses w hich would take tim e and multiplied costs.

This suit contains a prayer for the calling of a three- 
judge Court and uses as basis for th a t call, the uncon­
stitutionality  of segregation of the races, w hite and color­
ed, in the schools of the United States.

The Trial Judge in the U nited States D istrict Court 
is admonished against the expense and trouble of calling 
two other judges to sit w ith  him  in a trial. There is no 
constitutional provision of either the state, or, the nation, 
tha t is in controversy in this particular suit.

This same question was presented in the petition in the 
case of Battle, et al vs. W ichita Falls Junior College



64

District, et al., tried  before me on November 27th, 1951 
at W ichita Falls. No attention was paid to the  request 
for a three-judge Court, and the  case was tried  by m y­
self as the District Judge, alone.

In  th a t case, as shown in  101 F. (s) 82, the plaintiffs 
w ere colored people who had no such facilities near at 
hand as the W ichita Falls Jun ior College. That the 
nearest college of sim ilar capacity and teaching, was in the 
southern part of Texas, approxim ately three hundred 
miles distant. The Court, therefore, entered a perem ptory 
injunction requiring the defendant to allow to m atriculate 
the plaintiffs in tha t institu tion That case was offirmed 
by the  Circuit Court of Appeals and certiorari denied by 
the  Suprem e Court of the United States. In  tha t case 
the same counsel appeared for the  plaintiffs as in this 
case.

Since tha t tim e the Suprem e Court of the United States 
has entered a general decision declaring all attem pted 
separation of the races in the United States is illegal and 
unconstitutional directed tha t the school authorities and 
the  lower Courts w ork out a desegregation plan. Bolling, 
et al vs. Sharpe, et al, 347 U. S. 497.

The facts in the  present case show th a t there are 78 
elem entary w hite schools in the City of Dallas. That 
there  are 18 elem entary schools in the City of Dallas for 
the negro population. I t appears from the facts, of which 
the  Court has judicial knowledge, tha t the premises, 
conveniences, teaching, and efficiency for the colored 
student is furnished by the same Texas and Independent 
School funds as are furnished to the w hite students. The 
num ber of schools for the colored population is a slightly



65

higher percentage than  th a t furnished for the w hite 
population.

All of the  law as declared by the various Courts, ap­
pellate and trial, in  the  United States, are agreed upon 
the  proposition tha t w hen sim ilar and convenient free 
schools are furnished to both w hite and colored tha t 
there  then  exists no reasonable ground for requiring 
desegregation. An in teresting case is McKissick et al vs. 
Carmichael et al, 187 F. (2d) 949. That case cites 
Sw eatt vs. Painter, 339 U. S. 629. M any o ther cases are 
also cited in B attle vs. W ichita Falls Junior College, 101 
F. (s) 82.

This is a suit in equity. The facts show, as I have 
already recited, th a t equal school opportunities are fu r­
nished to both  colored and w hite. The direction from  the 
Suprem e Court of the  United States requires tha t the 
officers and principals of each institution, and th e  low er 
Courts, shall do aw ay w ith  segregation after having 
w orked out a proper plan. That direction does not m ean 
th a t a long tim e shall expire before th a t plan is agreed 
upon. I t m ay be th a t the p lan  contem plates action by 
the  state legislature. I t is not for th is Court to say, other 
than  w hat has been said by the  Suprem e C ourt in tha t 
decision.

To gran t an injunction in  th is case would be to ignore 
the  equities tha t present themselves for recognition and 
to determ ine w hat the  Suprem e Court itself decided not 
to determine. Therefore, I th ink  it appropriate tha t 
this case be dismissed w ithout prejudice to refile it a t 
some la ter date.



66

Done at Dallas, Texas, on this the 16th day of Septem ­
ber, 1955.

WM. H. ATWELL,
U nited States D istrict Judge.

On th is th e  16th day of September, 1955, appeared 
the  P laintiffs in person and by the ir attorneys of record 
and also appeared all of the D efendants in  person and 
by the ir attorneys of record, and th e  Motion of the De­
fendants to dismiss the ir cause of action for w ant of neces­
sary  and indispensable parties, having been called to the 
atten tion  of the Court, w as overruled.

The Court having considered the pleadings of the 
parties and the admissions of fact made in open Court 
relative to this controversy is of the  opinion th a t the re  is 
no cause for an injunction as prayed for by the Plaintiffs 
and th a t the  same should be denied.

It Is, Therefore, The Order, Judgm ent and Decree of 
the  Court th a t the  injunctive relief as prayed for by the 
P laintiffs is hereby denied and the case is dismissed w ith ­
out prejudice to the Plaintiffs, and th a t all costs be charg­
ed to said Plaintiffs.

Entered the  17th day of Septem ber, 1955.
WM. H. ATWELL,

Judge of the United States 
D istrict Court for the
N orthern D istrict of Texas.

Approved As To Form:
(S.) U. SIMPSON TATE,

A ttorney  for Plaintiffs,
(S.) A. J. THUSS, JR.,

A ttorney for Defendants.



67

NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE UNITED STATES 
COURT OF APPEALS, FOR THE FIFTH  CIRCUIT, 
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA.

Filed: October 4, 1955.

In  The D istrict Court Of The U nited States For The 
N orthern D istrict Of Texas Dallas Division.

A lbert Bell, A Minor, by his Step Father and N ext 
Friend, Theodore D. Dorsey, et al, Plaintiffs,

vs. Civil Action N um ber 6165 
Edw in L. Rippy, Dr., As President of the Board of 

Trustees of the Dallas Independent School District, 
Dallas, Dallas County, Texas, et al., Defendants.

Notice is hereby given th a t Charles Brown, a 
minor, by his fa th e r and next friend, W alter Brown, Jr,; 
Rayford Cooks, a minor, by  his father and nex t friend, 
Robert Cooks; W illiam C. Burton, Jr., a minor, by his 
fa ther and next friend, William C. Burton; Alonzo D. 
Nickerson, Jr., a minor, by  his father and next friend, 
Alonzo D. Nickerson, Sr.,; Sandra Craig and Pam ela Bo­
son, minors, by the ir fa ther and next friend, Lawrence 
C. Boson; L. Lawrence Nelson, II a minor, by his father 
and next friend, Clyde D. Nelson; M ary Ann Slider, a 
minor, by her father and nex t friend, L. G. Slider; 
Diann M urphy, a minor, by her grandm other and next 
friend, (Mrs.) S. L, Neely, a feme sole; Helen Jean  Gipson, 
a minor, by her m other and n ex t friend, (Mrs.) Luenda 
Gipson, a feme sole; Jos A rthu r Williams a minor, by 
his father and nex t friend, H erbert W illiams; Rosa Sharon 
and Maude Lois Sims, minors, by the ir fa ther and next 
friend, (Rev.) Paul A. Sims; D aurity G. Smith, a minor,



68

by his father and nex t friend, Leo M. Sm ith; Ollie Pearl 
Ivy, a minor, by her m other and nex t friend, (Mrs.) 
Irene Ivy, a feme sole; W illie Hawkins, a minor, by his 
fa ther and nex t friend, Oscar Hawkins; M ilton McDaniel, 
a minor, by his father and nex t friend, W illiam McDaniel; 
Sandra L ynetta Berkins, a minor, by  her m other and 
next friend, (M rs.) Charles Berkins a feme sole; Carol, 
Cheyel and Ronald H urdle, minors, by  their fa ther and 
next friend, Elm er D. H urdle; Billie M arie Cox, a minor, 
by her step-father and nex t friend, Veil Snowden; John 
A rvie Lewis, a minor, by his step-father and nex t friend, 
George Fields; A lbert Bell, a minor, by his step-father and 
next friend, Theodore D. Dorsey; Hilda R uth Borders, 
a minor, by her father and nex t friend, Louis Borders, 
Jr.,; Charlene Goldstein, a minor, by her m other and 
next friend, (Mrs.) W illie Mae Goldstein, a feme sale; 
Ju lia  A nn Vickers, a minor, by her fa ther and next 
friend, Searcy E. Vickers, and Shirley A nn Bush, a minor, 
by her father and nex t friend, F rankie L. Bush, plaintiffs 
in  the above num bered and styled cause hereby appeal 
to the U nited S tates Court of Appeals for the F ifth  
Circuit from  the following judgm ent:

To grant an injunction in this case would be to ignore 
the equities tha t present them selves for recognition and 
to determ ine w hat the Suprem e Court itself decided not 
to determine. Therefore, I think it appropiate th a t this 
case be dismissed w ithout prejudice to refile it at some 
la ter date.

Done at Dallas, Texas, on this the 16th day of Septem ­
ber, 1955.

(S.) United S tates D istrict Judge.



69

Dated this the 1st day of October, 1955.
W. J. DURHAM,

2600 Flora S treet, 
Dallas, Texas.

(W. J. D urham ), 

LOUIS BEDFORD,
(Louis Bedford), 

1807% Singleton Boulevard,
Dallas, Texas.

2600 Flora S treet, 
Dallas, Texas.

U. SIMPSON TATE, 
(U. Simpson Tate),

ROBERT L. CARTER,
(Robert L. C arter),

107 W est 43rd Street,
New York, N. Y.

C. B. BUNKLEY, JR., 
(C. B. Bunkley, J r .) , 

814% N. Good-Latimer Expressway,
Dallas, Texas.

KENNETH F. HOLBERT,

2531 Forest Avenue, 
Dallas, Texas.

(K enneth F. H olbert),

J. L. TURNER, JR.,
(J. L. Turner, J r.) ,

1723 Routh Street, 
Dallas, Texas.

THURGOOD MARSHALL, 
(Thurgood M arshall),

A ttorney for Plaintiffs.
107 W est 43rd Street,

New York, N. Y.



70

PLA IN TIFFS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN 
W HICH TO BRING UP RECORD ON APPEAL.

Filed November 16, 1955.

Come Now A lbert Bell, a minor, and tw enty-three other 
plaintiffs and respectfully move th e  Court to extend 
until the  30th day of November, 1955, the tim e w ith in  
w hich plaintiffs m ay complete the record on appeal on 
th e  grounds th a t plaintiffs w ere delayed in getting the 
transcrip t of th e  record typed and for the fu rther reason 
th a t no previous extension of such tim e has been obtained 
from  the adverse party  or granted by this Court.

U. SIMPSON TATE,
(U. Simpson Tate),

One of the  A ttorneys for the 
Plaintiffs.

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH 
TO BRING UP RECORD ON APPEAL.

Filed November 16, 1955.

The motion of plaintiffs for extension of tim e in 
which to bring up record on appeal having come before 
the  Court and the Court being of the opinion tha t such 
motion is in order and th a t no previous extension of 
such tim e has been obtained from  the adverse party  
or granted by this Court;

I t  Is Ordered, th a t the tim e be, and the tim e is ex­
tended until the 30th day of November, 1955, w ith in



71

which plaintiffs may complete the record in  this cause 
on appeal.

WM. H. ATWELL,
D istrict Judge for the 

N orthern D istrict of Texas.

APPELLANTS’ DESIGNATION OF CONTENTS OF 
RECORD ON APPEAL.

(Title Omitted.)

Come Now A lbert Bell, a minor, by  his step-father and 
next friend, Theodore D. Dorsey; Charles Brown, a minor, 
by his fa ther and next friend, W alter Brown, Jr.; 
Rayford Cooks, a minor, by his father and nex t friend, 
R obert Cooks; W illiam C. Burton, Jr., a minor, 
by  his fa ther and next friend, W illiam C. Burton; Alonzo 
D. Nickerson, J r. a minor, by his father and next friend, 
Alonzo D. Nickerson, Sr.; Sandra Craig and Pam ela 
Boson, minors, by th e ir fa ther and nex t friend, Law rence 
C. Boson; L. Law rence Nelson, II, a minor, by  his fa ther 
and next friend, Clyde D. Nelson; M ary A nn Slider, a 
minor, by her fa ther and nex t friend, L. G. Slider; Diann 
M urphy, a minor, by her grandm other and nex t friend, 
(Mrs.) S. L. Neely, a feme sole; Helen Jean  Gipson, a 
minor, by  her m other and nex t friend, (Mrs.) Luenda 
Gipson, a feme sole; Joe A rthu r Williams, a minor, by 
his fa ther and next friend, H erbert Williams; Rosa Sharon 
and Maude Lois Sims, minors, by  th e ir fa ther and nex t 
friend, (Rev.) Paul A. Sims; D aurity  G. Smith, a minor, 
by his fa ther and next friend, Leo M. Sm ith; Ollie Pearl 
Ivy, a m inor by her m other and nex t friend, (Mrs.) Irene



72

Ivey, a feme sole; W illie Hawkins, a minor, by his fa ther 
adn n ex t friend, Oscar Hawkins; M ilton McDaniel, a 
minor, by his fa ther and nex t friend, W illiam McDaniel; 
Sandra L ynetta Berkins, a minor, by  her m other and 
nex t friend, (Mrs.) Charles Berkins, a feme sole; Carol, 
Cheyel and Ronald Hurdle, m inors, by the ir fa ther and 
nex t friend, Elem er D. H urdle; Billie M arie Cox, a minor, 
by her step-father and next friend, Veil Snowden; John 
A rvie Lewis, a minor, by his step-father and nex t friend, 
George Fields; Hilda R uth  Borders, a minor, by 
her fa ther and nex t friend, Louie Borders, Jr., 
Charlene Goldstein, a minor, by her m other and next 
friend, (Mrs.) W illie Mae Goldstein, a feme sole; Ju lia  
Ann Vickers, a minor, by  her fa ther and nex t friend, 
Searcy E. Vickers, and Shirley A nn Bush, a minor, by her 
fa ther and next friend Frankie L. Bush, A ppellants here­
in, pursuant to Rule 75(a), Federal Rules of Civil Proce­
dure, by and through the ir A ttorneys of Record, and 
designate the following portions of the  record, proceedings 
and evidence adduced at tria l of this case to be placed 
in the record of appeal:

1. P lain tiffs’ Complaint.

2. P laintiffs’ Motion for Prelim inary  Injunction.

3. P lain tiff’s Show Cause Order.

4. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

5. D efendants’ Answer.

6. The E ntire  Proceedings in Open Court.

7. The Court’s Finding of Feet and Conclusions of Law.



73

8. The Judgm ent and O rder of the Court Dismissing 
th e  cause.

9. Notice of Appeal.

Respectfully Subm itted,
W. J. DURHAM,

(W. J. D urham ),
2600 Flora Street,

Dallas, Texas.
LOUIS BEDFORD,

(Louis Bedford),
1807% Singleton Boulevard,

Dallas, Texas.
U. SIMPSON TATE,

(U. Simpson Tate),
2600 Flora S treet,

Dallas, Texas.
ROBERT L. CARTER,

(Robert L. C arter),
107 W est 43rd Street,

New York, N. Y.
C. B. BUNKLEY, JR.,

(C. B. Bunkley, J r.) ,
814% N. Good-Latimer Expressway,

Dallas, Texas.
KENNETH F. HOLBERT,

(K enneth F. H olbert),
2531 Forest Avenue,

Dallas, Texas.
J. L. TURNER, J R ,

(J. L. Turner, J r.) ,
1723 Routh Street,

Dallas,Texas.



74

THURGOOD MARSHALL, 
(Thurgood M arshall),

A ttorney for Plaintiffs.
107 W est 43rd Street,

New York, N. Y.

Certificate of Service.

This is to certify th a t on this day a copy of the  fore­
going A ppellants’ Designation of Contents of Record on 
A ppeal has been m ailed to Honorable A. J. Thuss, Jr., 
A ttorney for Defendants, at his office in the  Davis Build­
ing, Dallas, Texas, postage prepaid.

Dated this the 27th day of October, 1955.
U. SIMPSON TATE,

(U. Simpson Tate),
One of the A ttorneys for 

Appellants.



75

CLERK’S CERTIFICATE.

I, GEO. W. PARKER, Clerk of the United States 
D istrict Court for the N orthern D istrict of Texas, do 
hereby certify th a t the  foregoing is a true  and correct 
transcrip t of th e  Record, and all proceedings in Cause 
No. 6165-Civil, W herein, A lbert Bell, A Minor, by his 
S tep-Father and N ext Friend, Theodore D. Dorsey, et al 
are Plaintiffs, and Dr. Edw in L. Rippy, As President of 
the Board of Trustees of the Dallas Independent School 
District, Dallas, Dallas County, Texas, et al, are Defend­
ants, as fu lly  as the  same now rem ain on file and of 
record in m y office a t Dallas, Texas.

W itness m y hand officially and the seal of said Court
at Dallas, Texas, this the ----- day of November, A. D.
1955.

GEO. W. PARKER,
Clerk.

By LILLIAN HAMILTON,
(Seal) Deputy.



E. S. UPTON PRINTING CO., NEW ORLEANS — 22310