State v. Edwards Jr. Transcript of Record

    The State of South Carolina
IN THE SUPREME COURT

A PPEA L FROM RICHLAND COUNTY 
H onorable L egare Bates, Judge

THE STATE, Respondent,  
against

JAMES EDWARDS, JR., ALVESTER PATE, JR., PINCKNEY MOSLEY, MEL­
VIN BROWN, JR., HAROLD EUGENE NIMMONS, W ILLIE  BOYKIN  
JONES, W IL L IAM  PERKINS and BILL A L V IN  SULLIVAN, Appellants.

THE STATE, Respondent, 
against

GEORGE C. FOSTER, JAMES JEROME KIRTON, ISAAC J. CAMPBELL, ISAAC 
WASHINGTON, RONALD J. RHAMES, JOSEPH B. B AILEY, DA VIE  
GREEN and CHARLES F. BARR, Appellants.

THE STATE, Respondent, 
against

JAMES C. WEST, SINCLAIR SALTERS, H EZIKAH JOHNSON, JAMES CLY-  
BURN, W IL L IA M  E. MOULTRIE, D AVID CARTER, BENJAMIN J. 
GLOVER, SAMUEL S. WILLIAMS, ARTHUR W. STANLEY, JR., W EN ­
DELL DAILEY, LENNIE W . GLOVER, D AVID L. PERRETT, JAMES A.  
CARTER, CLIFFORD J. RICE, DELBERT L. WOODS, ALFRED 0. LEMON, 
WILBUR H. W ALK ER , SAMUEL EDWARDS, JAMES W. CANTY, ISAAC  
W. WILLIAMS, CLIFFORD B. BELL. W IL L IA M  H. COOLEY, ROBERT H. 
LaPRINCE, FR AN K  E. GORE, E AR L  PETERS, JR., H ENRY H. HARRIS,  
CHARLES R. MILLER, CHARLES McDEW. M AXINE EPPS, H ENRY  
WILLIAMS, LEROY HOGANS, JIMMIE L. SMITH, JAMES REEDER, JR., 
GEORGE A. ANDERSON, and ANTHONY McFADDEN, Appellants.

THE STATE, Respondent, 
against

CARRIE MAE K E LLY, QUEEN E. RUSH, HAZEL Y. N EW BERRY, BETTY J. 
LINDSEY, SARAH E. McKENZIE, MATTIE THOMAS, BETTY J. CAPERS, 
MINNIE DeWITT, FLOYD A L V IN  GILMORE, MacARTHUR J. BISHOP, 
CHARLES FLEMMING, JOE LEWIS ROBINSON, JOHN J. CAMPBELL, I. 
D. NEWMAN, HAROLD FOSTER, JIMMIE NORSE MOORE, HORACE  
NASH, JOHN W ESLEY MILLER, MARK A. WILLIAMS, CLARENCE MIS­
SOURI, CARL EDW ARD BOOK, CLASSIE R. W ALK ER , BOBBIE JEAN  
YOUNG, W ILLIE  P AUL WORTHY, ROBERT FERGUSON, ALBERT  
ORAGE, JOHN SAW YER, GLENN MANNING, KENNEDY CLAFFL1N,  
JOHN FEDERICK, BOBBY DOCTOR, ALBERTINE M. CONEY, YVONNE  
J. CODLOE, BRENDA J. BURTON, BARBARA ANN MACK. JUDITH D. 
SMITH, EMMA J. JONES, EVE LY N  L. ROBINSON, W IL L IAM  THEODORE 
BOGGS, HENRY EARL THOMAS, JAMES EDW ARD COLEMAN, BER­
NARD NATHANIEL RIGGINS, JESSIE ALFREDIA LOCKHART, BAR- 
/; _  , -I .Y.Y CURRINGTON, SARAH ANN WHARTON, DIANE GWENDO- 
HYNrBLASSINGAME, SOPHIA PEARL LESTER, BETTY JEAN WIDER-  
MAN, W ILLIAM  T. ROBINSON, ROBERT HICKMAN, HERBERT L A W ­
RENCE WILSON, BERNARD HAIRE, LEONARD BRANT, DONALD JE­
ROME SAtLTERS, FREDERICK P. PAGET, ROBERT LEE McBETH, LEW IE  
EIGHTY, BOOKER T. McLEOD, CLAUDE E. MOORE, JOHN I. W ITHER­
SPOON, M ATTH EW  WILLIAMS, HAROLD BARDONVILLE, TRAVIS SIM­
MONS, SHIRLEY STROMON, FLORENCE SMALLS, RAN  L. JONES, JEAN- 
NIE LUE DAVIS, MYRTLE L. W ALK ER , JULIUS B. MOSES, BETTY JEAN  
WILSON, LENNARD L. McCANTS, MARIO DAVIS, SAMMIE PRINGLE, 
CLINTON W. HAZZARD, ROBERT McTEER, JAMES A. ALFORD, GWEN­
DOLYN WATSON. FRANCIS MCDANIELS, JOHN LAND, YVONNE REDD, 
DORIS T). WRIGHT, DEE ANN ANDERSON, M A R Y  NORRIS, RHUNETT  
LINDSEY. JUANITA HALL. GERTRUDE EVANS, SHIRLEY A. GREEN, 
ANNIE MAE RAY , LEOLA CLEMENTS, GERTRUDE SMITH, CATHE­
RINE DUNCAN, JUNIUS L. REED. JAMES K. DAVIS, AL ETHIA BROWN,  
REBECCA WILLIAMS, DOROTHY H. ROBINSON, M A R Y L. ENGLISH, 
W IL L IE  0. JAMISON, JUSTINE SIMONS, LOVENIE GRIGGS, JEANNETTE  
BLACK, JUANITA WADDELL, LUCY SULLIVAN. PATRICIA GREEN, 
AMANDA TOWNSEND, MARGARET McCRAY, BJETTYE MARSHALL, AN­
NETTE EDWARDS, MATTIE GILES, NOVEL NOWLIN, BARBARA EAR- 
LEY, LUCY DAVIS, EDITH JENKINS, BETTYE  .7. KING, BINZER INABI- 
NET, KAT IE  DONALDSON, MARION J. JOHNSON, JEANETTE L. H ART­
W E L L , M A R Y  E. ELLISON, REGINA S. A. CALDWELL. LaVERNE DU­
RANT. CHANGIE M. DRAYTON, 0TT1E R. JARRATT, BOBBIE J. GILES, 
IRENE O’N. GILES, FELICIA Y. YOUNG, FORTIA H. SIZER. KATE  
LEWIS. W ILLIE  E. GRANT. FRANCES E. JOHNSON, EVELYN  BING, 
SHIRT,EY A. KING, LORETTA G. BUSH, BETTIE J. BROWN, GLORIA 
■T. JEFFERSON, and ROSALIE HINES, Appellants.

TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD
Jenkins & P erry.

Columbia, S. C.,
Attorneys for  Appellants. 

D aniel R. McL eod,
Attorney General,

J. C. Coleman. J r.,
Assistant Attorney General, 

Everett N. Brandon,
Assistant Attorney General. 

Columbia. S. C..
Attorneys fo r  Respondent.



INDEX
Page

Statement................................................................... 1

Transcript of Trial Proceedings, March 7, 1961 .. 2
Witnesses for The State:

Irving G. McNayr
Direct Examination..................................  4
Cross Examination ..................................  19
Re-direct Examination ............................. 37
Re-cross Examination............................... 39

L. J. Campbell
Direct Examination..................................  42
Cross Examination ..................................  47
Re-direct Examination ............................. 55

Dan F. Beckman
Direct Examination..................................  57
Cross Examination ..................................  61

A. C. Shorter, Jr.
Direct Examination..................................  66
Cross Examination ..................................  70

Transcript of Trial Proceedings, March 13,1961 .. 18
Witnesses for The State:

Irving G. McNayr
Direct Examination..................................  82
Cross Examination ..................................  95

L. J. Campbell
Direct Examination..................................  102
Cross Examination....................................  106
Re-direct Examination ............................. 115
Re-cross Examination ..............................  116

Dan F. Beckman
Direct Examination..................................  117
Cross Examination ..................................  119
Re-direct Examination ............................. 123
Re-cross Examination............................... 123



INDEX— Continued
Page

A. C. Shorter, Jr.
Direct Examination..................................  124
Cross Examination.................................... 127

Witnesses lor Defendants:
James Jerome Kirton

Direct Examination.................................. 135
Cross Examination .................................. 145

Transcript of Trial Proceedings, March 16, 1961 . 156 
Witnesses for The State:

Irving G. McNayr
Direct Examination.................................. 158
Cross Examination.................................... 166
Re-direct Examination ...........   185

Joseph P. Barnett
Direct Examination..................................  186
Cross Examination.................................... 189

L. J. Campbell
Cross Examination.................................... 196

A. C. Shorter, Jr.
Cross Examination .................................. 197

Dan F. Beckman
Cross Examination....................    198

Witnesses for Defendants:
B. J. Glover

Direct Examination .................................. 202
Cross Examination .................................. 206
Re-direct Examination ............................  213
Re-cross Examination..............................  213

'Transcript of Trial Proceedings, March 27, 1961 . 219
Order of Judge B ates.............................................  232
Exceptions ................................................................ 240
Stipulation ......................    241



STATEMENT
This is an appeal from an Order of Honorable Le- 

gare Bates, dated July 10, 1961, affirming convictions 1 
of the Appellants in Magistrate’s Court.

The Appellants, numbering one hundred eighty- 
seven persons, were charged with the crime of breach 
of the peace. The charges arose out of certain activities 
in which the Appellants were engaged in and about 
the State House Grounds in the City of Columbia on 
March 3, 1961.

The right to trial by jury was waived, and the Ap­
pellants were tried by the Columbia City Magistrate 
of Richland County in four separate trials on the 7th, 2 
13th, 16th and 27th days of March, 1961. It was stip­
ulated that all testimony presented in the first two 
trials would be substantially the same in subsequent 
trials, and such testimony was ordered incorporated in 
the records of the subsequent trials as if repeated 
therein. The same stipulation and order were made as 
to testimony presented in the third trial.

All Appellants were found guilty, and sentences 
ranging from fines of Ten ($10.00) Dollars or service 
of five (5) days to One Hundred ($100.00) Dollars or » 
thirty (30) days were imposed. Thereafter, by stip­
ulation, the appeals from the four trials were consoli­
dated and argued as one case before the Richland 
County Court. In the Order from which appeal is taken, 
the judgment of the Magistrate’s Court was affirmed.
Due and timely notice of appeal from this Order was 
given.

( 1 )



2
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

SUPREME COURT________

TRANSCRIPT OF TESTIMONY
Before Honorable Frank Powell, Magistrate, on 

Tuesday, March 7,1961, Richland County Court House, 
Columbia, South Carolina.

Appearances:
For the State: J. C. Coleman, Esq., E. N. Brandon, 

Esq.
For the Defendants: Matthew J. Perry, Esq., Lin­

coln C. Jenkins, Jr., Esq., Donald James Sampson, 
Esq.

E leanor S. Mackey, 
Reporter.

(Court convened at 10:00 o’clock, a. m. in Circuit 
Court Room, Richland County Court House.)

Judge Powell: I would like to announce the rules 
for this hearing. No. 1, no photographs will be taken 
in the court room. No. 2, as many people who like may 
come here as long as they have a seat. There will be 
no standing up around the walls. There will he no out­
bursts in any fashion; if there is any, you will be cited 
for contempt of court.

The Court has before it a warrant charging the fol­
lowing person for breach of peace here in Richland 
County. A complaint, under oath, has been made by 
L. J. Campbell that at Columbia, in Richland County, 
South Carolina, on March the 2nd, 1961, James Ed­
wards, Jr., Alvester Pate, Jr., Pinckney Moseley, Mel­
vin Brown, Jr., Harold Eugene Nimmons, Willie Boy­
kin Jones, William Perkins and Bill Alvin Sullivan 
did commit a breach of the peace and that the said 
persons, together with others, did assemble to impede 
normal traffic and they failed to disperse upon orders



SUPREME COURT 3
Appeal from Richland County

of the police officers. Whereas, the aforementioned in­
dividuals' bn March 2nd, 1961, on the State Capitol 
grounds, on adjacent sidewalks and streets,'^did com­
mit a breach of the peace in that they, together with a 
large group of people, did assemble and impede the 
normal traffic, singing and parading with placards, 
failed to disperse upon lawful orders of police officers, 
all of which tended directly to immediate violence and 
breach of the peace in view of existing conditions. 
Signed: L. J. Campbell. Sworn to before me on the 
2nd day March, 1961. Frank Powell, Columbia Magis­
trate. Are all of the persons named present?

Mr. Perry: Your Honor, they are present.
The Court: Are these persons represented by an at­

torney?
Mr. Perry: Yes, sir. They are represented by three 

attorneys: Mr. Lincoln C. Jenkins, Jr., Mr. Donald 
James Sampson and myself, Matthew J. Perry. May 
it please the Court, if I may interrupt Your Honor’s 
proceedings momentarily, the defendants have not been 
given copies of the warrant and I wonder if it is pos­
sible, at this time that they might be given copies of 
the warrant?

The Court: Not at this time. The warrant has been 
read individually to them when they were charged. Will 
the defendants please stand and approach the front 
of the court room as I call their names?

Mr. Perry: Just one moment, please. I don’t want to 
be put in the position of interrupting the procedure. 
May we approach the Bench with members of counsel 
for the State?

The Court: Yes.
(Whereupon, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Brandon, Mr. Perry, 

Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Sampson approached the Bench.



4 SUPREME COURT
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Irving G. M cNayr
Mr. Perry requested warrant to examine it before de­
fendants were arraigned.

(Defendants arraigned before the Court.)
The Court: Are these the ones named in the warrant 

charged with breach of the peace, Columbia, South 
Carolina, on March 2nd, 1961?

Defendants: (In unison) Yes, sir.
The Court: Were you released on bonds for appear­

ance in this court?
Defendants: (In unison) Yes.
The Court: How do you plead to the charge, guilty 

or not guilty?
Mr. Jenkins: As counsel for the defendants, may I 

speak? At this time, Your Honor, the defendants each 
enter a plea of not guilty.

The Court: You will all take seats, please. Are the 
defendants ready for trial?

Mr. Perry: The defendants are ready.
The Court: Is the State ready?
Mr. Coleman: The State is ready.

Whereupon, Mr. Coleman called Irving G. M cNayr 
who, being first duly sworn, testified as follows:

Direct Examination
By Mr. Coleman:
Q. Mr. McNayr, I believe you are the City Manager 

of the City of Columbia?
A. I am, sir.
Q. As such, do your duties require you to supervise 

the activities of the Columbia City Police Department?
A. Yes, sir. I have direct supervision of the City 

Police Department.



SUPREME COURT 5
Appeal from Richland County 

Irving G. M cNayr

Q. Do you have anjr personal knowledge of the inci- 
dent alleged in the warrant just read by the Judge, 
which allegedly occurred in the City of Columbia, in 
and around the State House grounds, on March the 
2nd last involving the defendants on trial here today?

A. Yes, sir. I was present all during the proceedings.
Q. Would you please relate to the Court in your own 

words exactly what occurred with regard to any matter 
about which you have personal knowledge, so far as 
this charge is concerned?

A. Yes. At approximately 10:30 on the morning of 
March the 2nd I was called by Chief of Police Campbell 18 
and informed that he had word that a meeting was to 
be held at at the Zion Baptist Church on lower Wash­
ington Street, and that it was understood that students 
attending that meeting would then proceed to the State 
House grounds to demonstrate.

Mr. Perry: We object to that testimony and moved 
that it be stricken on the grounds of hearsay, under the 
rule of hearsay.

Mr. Coleman: The City Manager has not testified 
to the facts; he is merely relating the official informa- is 
tion received from his Chief of Police, which motivated 
his appearance. He has not said that the march had ac- 
tuallv started or there would actually be one. He mere- 
]v stated that it was his information from his Chief 
of Police that there might possibly be a march, merely 
setting out his motivation for his actions.

The Court: We will sustain the objection. In my 
opinion, it would be hearsay which Chief Campbell 
said to Mr. McNayr.

Q. Mr. McNayr, what did you actually do, without 
relating what Chief Campbell or any one might have
told you?

20



6
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

SUPREME COURT_________

Irving (t. McNayr

A. I asked Chief Campbell to pick me ap in the im­
mediate future in his car and drive me to the Zion 
Baptist Church. He did that and we arrived at the 
church at approximately a quarter of eleven. Numer­
ous youths were entering the basement area of the 
church at the time. On the outside was David Carter, 
whom I had known in the street demonstrations here 
over the past months and the past year. I talked with 
David Carter and asked for information as to what 
was going on. I received a completely evasive answer. 
He informed me that they were simply holding a meet­
ing. I asked him—

Mr. Perry: May it please the Court, I object to this 
line of testimony on the grounds that David Carter 
is not among the defendants who are on trial here this 
morning. The conversation with a person not on trial 
at this proceeding is likewise violation of the rule 
against hearsay. If the conversation had been with 
one of these defendants, I think perhaps it would be 
an exception to the hearsay rule, but we respectfully 
urge that this particular testimony is in violation of 
the hearsay rule. We also move that the testimony re­
lating to the full conversation with David Carter be 
stricken.

Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, there has been 
no testimony as to what David Carter said. He is 
merely relating his activities on that day, which had 
generally to do with the demonstration which later 
occurred on the State House Grounds, out of which a 
charge against the defendants arose. We have no de­
sire for him to relate his conversation with David 
Carter.

Mr. Perry: In reply, may I say, Sir, that David Car­
ter, not being on trial, I believe Mr. McNayr has stated



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

7

Irving G. M cNayk

that Carter was evasive and Carter, not being on trial, 
is not in position of defending himself against this 
statement.

Mr. Coleman: We will agree to strike the reference 
to David Carter and the answer being in the evidence.

The Court: Objection sustained on the ground that 
defense has brought out, David Carter is not on trial 
here today. Objection is sustained. Strike that.

A. Mr. Coleman, I ’m going to find it extremely dif­
ficult to give you the chain of events if I ’m not allowed 
to state the actual chain of events.

Q. Mr. McNayr, where did you go after you left 
Zion Baptist Church'?

A. When the group of students, apparent students, 
came out of the church, Chief Campbell drove me to 
the entrance of the State House Grounds. By that time, 
the students had started marching in groups of any­
where from fifteen to twenty-five, just prior to our 
leaving the church area. We, then, stayed on the State 
House grounds and conferred with Mr. Harry Walker 
of the Governor’s Office, awaiting the students and 
they soon appeared walking up Gervais Street. When 
they appeared at the grounds, still coming in groups, 
they were instructed to remain in those groups as they 
stayed on the sidewalk, and Mr. Walker then talked 
with each group and the apparent leader of each group 
and instructed them, in my hearing. He first questioned 
them as to what—

Mr. Perry: May it please the Court, again we object 
to conversation with Mr. Harry Walker with the de­
fendants on the ground that it violates the hearsay 
rule. Mr. Walker may perhaps testify in this proceed­
ing himself. I respectfully submit anything Mr. Mc­
Nayr might have said himself to these persons, by way



8 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Irving G. M cNayr

of giving an official demand, he can say but, very re­
spectfully, any other order that was conveyed to the 
defendants by any other officer or any other person in 
authority would be violation of the hearsay rule.

The Court: Objection sustained. Strike it from the 
record. Go ahead.

Q. Mr. McNaj^r, did you, yourself, have any conver­
sation with these marchers, these defendants, at the
time?

A. Not when they first appeared, no, sir.
Q. What was the general situation when you first 

got there, so far as the crowd around the State House?
Mr. Perry: Objection to the use of the word “ crowd”.
Q. Was there a crowd around the State House?
A. There was not what I would call a crowd when 

we first arrived at the scene.
Q. Who was there ?
A. Primarily, officers of the South Carolina Law 

Enforcement Division, a few State Highway Patrol 
officers, a number of policemen, Mr. Walker, whom I 
mentioned briefly just now.

Q, Did anything thereafter occur which made it in­
cumbent upon you, in your opinion, in your official 
capaeitv, to take any action?

Mr. Perry: I didn’t hear the question.
Q. Did anything occur thereafter, after your arrival 

at the State House grounds, at the horseshoe?
A. Yes.
Q. Anything occur thereafter which made it incum­

bent upon you, in your opinion, in your official capacity 
as City Manager, to take any official action?

A. Yes, it did.
Q. What was it that occurred?
A. The groups were allowed to go in small groups—



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

9

Irving Gf. M cNayr
Q. What groups'?
A. The groups of young Negro students, within 

groups to travel through the State House grounds. I 
did not grant them authority to do that. This will prob­
ably be objected to but Mr. Harry Walker granted that 
authority.

Mr. Perry: We do so object.
Q. What was the approximate size of the crowd of 

young Negro students?
A. I estimated it, at the time, at around 200.
Q. At what time, Mr. McNayr, was it that these stu­

dents first made their appearance in and about the 
State House grounds?

A. They first made their appearance somewhere be­
tween a quarter of twelve and twelve o’clock.

Q. Did you have any conversation with them at that 
time or any one who made himself known to you as 
their leader?

A. Yes, I did, on various occasions during the period 
they were there.

Q. Did you give any official instructions to these 
young Negro students at this time?

A. Yes, I did. I asked them to remain in small groups. 
I asked them not to block the sidewalk or walkways 
or street in any way. I told them they must remain in 
such groups.

Q. What time was this approximately? Do you re­
member?

A. This was approximately between the period of 
their arrival and right around 12:00 o’clock, within 
the first fifteen minutes of their arrival.

Q. Did I understand you to say that they were not 
interefered with at that time?

A. They were not interfered with.



The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Irving G. M cNayr
Q. Did they proceed to walk, march, move about in 

any way in and around the State House grounds ?
A. Yes, they did. They proceeded to walk around the 

State House grounds still in the groups.
Q. How long did this procedure continue?
A. This procedure continued for between a half and 

three-quarters of an hour.
Q. Did anything thereafter occur which caused you 

to take further official action?
A. Yes. Following their proceeding through the 

State House grounds, they then started to gather on
38 the sidewalk.

Q, “ They”—who are you referring to?
A. I ’m referring to approximately 200 students with 

the stated intention of again going through the grounds 
and demonstrating. They gathered on the sidewalks 
and also began to accumulate in front of the drive, the 
horseshoe as you have described it.

Q. That’s where the monument stands right directly 
in front of the State House steps ?

A. Yes. By this time, a large group of bystanders
39 had gathered, not only on the State House side or in 

the horseshoe side but on the opposite side of Oervais 
Street, blocking the walkways where Main enters Ger- 
vais on both sides of Main. It was also a tendency to 
block the walkways leading from the Capitol going 
towards Main Street.

Q. Did you have occasion to observe these onlook­
ers? From where were they coming? Did you see that?

A. They were coming, as nearly as I could deter­
mine, they were coming down Main and collecting on 

 ̂ the other side, near the Wade Hampton Hotel, on my 
left facing Main, also down Main, I can’t remember 
the name of the building. In addition to that, many

10 SUPREME COURT



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

11

Irving Gr. M cNayr

State employees—this was just approximately the 
lunch hour, I assume, for State employees—were com­
ing from the State Capitol building and from the var­
ious office buildings back of the Capitol, moving 
through the horseshoe area on to Main Street.

Q. Did it appear to you that the crowd was being 
attracted by the students?

Mr. Perry: I object to that, Your Honor. I object to 
the question on the grounds that it calls for a conclu­
sion on the part of this witness.

The Court: I didn’t understand the question.
Mr. Coleman: I asked did it appear to Mr. McNayr 

that the activity of the students was attracting by­
standers, the onlookers.

The Court: Objection overruled.
A. There is no question about the fact that they were 

attracting bystanders. Many, I ’m sure, were on their 
way to lunch and I ’m sure the activities taking place 
caused them to stop and watch what was going on.

Q. Mr. McNayr, with reference to this horseshoe or 
place right in front of the State House, are there side­
walks on both sides leading up to the State House and 
State House grounds and is there also a roadway for 
vehicular traffic?

A. There is. There is a roadway used primarily for 
the parking of State Capitol workers and officials.

0. Now, at the time when you first noticed a crowd 
of people—

Mr. Perry: Again we object to the use of the word 
“ crowd” . I move that it be stricken. May I state to the 
Court at this time, the use of the word “ crowd” seems 
to imply certain unlawfulness to the manner of the 
assembly and, therefore, since Your Honor is going to 
be called upon to determine the lawfulness or unlawful-



12 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Irving (I. M cNayr

ness of the various assemblages which occurred on this 
date, the use of the word “ crowd” in counsel promul­
gating the questions tends to set the stage for the par­
ticular flavor, I think, upon which the State is relying 
upon. Now, I request that the Court require counsel 
and the witness to simply say what they saw. They saw 
a group of people standing, they can say that without 
the use of the word “ crowd”. That, at this particular 
time, carries with it an unpleasant connotation, which 
we are attempting to get around.

Mr. Coleman: If Tour Honor please, “ crowd” is a 
perfectly good English word, to my knowledge, and in 
the definition of it, I cannot see any connotation of un­
lawfulness whatsoever. I ’ll admit my intonation may 
be susceptible to some interpretation but not with re­
gard to that word. I do not mind substituting another; 
I think their objection is entirely unbased.

The Court: Objection overruled.
Q. Can you estimate the number of the persons who 

did gather in and around this horseshoe by the time 
that it became apparent to you that some further of­
ficial action on your part would be necessary?

A. I would estimate the number of persons, in addi­
tion to the student groups, to be in the neighborhood 
of 250 to 300 people.

Q. Now, with relation, Mr. McNayr, to the sidewalks 
around the horseshoe and the lane for vehicular traffic, 
how was the crowd distributed, with regard to those 
sidewalks and roadways!

A. Well, the conditions varied from time to time, 
but at numerous times they were blocked almost com­
pletely with probably as many as thirty or forty per­
sons, both on the sidewalks and in the street area.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

13

Irving G. M cNayr

Q. Would you say or state whether or not, in your 49 
opinion, this crowd did impede both vehicular and pe­
destrian traffic along the horseshoe?

A. To the best of my knowledge, I can’t recall a 
vehicle trying to get in or out of the horseshoe. If 
one had attempted to, it would have impeded the en­
trance and exit to the horseshoe.

Q. Did you observe the pedestrian traffic on the 
walkway ?

A. Yes, I did.
Q. What was the condition there?
A. The condition there was that it was extremely 50 

difficult for a pedestrian wanting to get through, to get 
through. Many of them took to the street area, even 
to get through the street area or the sidewalk.

Q. Mr. McNayr, from the time that you first ap­
peared on the scene at the horseshoe at the State House 
and observed the young students and their activities, 
from this time up until the time that you took further 
official action, can you give us approximately the length 
of time involved?

A. It was approximately three-quarters of an hour. 51

Q. In other words, they were permitted to march in 
and around and about the State House grounds for 
approximately three-quarters of an hour without in­
terference?

A. That’s correct.
Q. All right. After this three-quarters of an hour, 

did you take further official action in regard to the 
young students or the crowd or anything else?

A. Yes, I did. As I saw the crowds gathering, the 
sidewalks being blocked and recognizing that the lunch 62 
hour was just starting, I was also aware of the ad- 
jacenc}^ of the University of South Carolina and the



14
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

SUPREME COURT _______

Irving G. M cNayr

possibility of larger groups of students coming forth 
from there and the accumulation of the student groups 
along the sidewalk area, I called for Dave Carter and 
told him that I felt the situation was becoming dan­
gerous and told him that the group would have to be 
dispersed, that they should be dispersed and sent away 
in small groups, as they had arrived, and told him—

Mr. Perry: May it please the Court, we now object 
to this line of testimony on the ground that the same 
is purely conjectural and speculative. Mr. McNayr has 
stated that he realized the possibility of students from 
the University of South Carolina coming and he 
thought of other possibilities and he thought of this 
and that and, therefore, after sifting these various pos­
sibilities through his mind, he decided to take a course 
of action. I respectfully submit that this testimony is 
purely speculative. There is no evidence that any stu­
dent from the University of South Carolina came out 
and attempted to involve themselves with the Negro 
students. There is no evidence, as I understand Mr. 
McNayr’s testimony, of anybody else attempting to do 
them violence and so Mr. McNayr testifies about the 
various possibilities in a purely conjectural manner 
and we are not able actually to pin down the various 
possibilities which he testifies about. I respectfully urge 
that this testimony is objectionable and I submit that 
the Court should strike it from the record.

Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, Mr. McNayr 
was present on the scene as an official of the City of 
Columbia. In his official capacity, he supervises and 
has charge of the City Police Department. Incidents 
occurred in this horseshoe which made it his duty to 
take some action and I ’m merely asking him to relate 
and he had so far related what official action he had



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

15

Irving Gr. M cNayr

taken and why he took it, why he took that action. 
I see nothing speculative and I see no conjecture what­
soever in it.

Mr. Perry: I think, Your Honor, there’s no question 
about Mr. McNayr testifying as to what he did but 
when he says the reason he did it was the possibility 
that someone else was going to come from somewhere 
else and so forth, he enters the realm of conjecture and 
we respectfully submit that that is objectionable.

Q. Mr. McNayr, what action did you take?
A. I instructed Dave Carter to tell each of these 

groups, to call them up and tell each of the groups and 
the group leaders that they must disperse, they must 
disperse in the manner which I have already described, 
that I would give them fifteen minutes from the time 
of my conversation with him to have them dispersed 
and, if they were not dispersed, I would direct my 
Chief of Police to place them under arrest.

Q. What then occurred?
A. Following my instructions, Dave Carter did call 

up each group.
Q. This was within your hearing?
A. This was within my hearing. I was standing ad­

jacent to him and did follow him from place to place as 
he moved about. Rather than give instructions in the 
calm way in which I had given them to him, he har­
angued each group with a religious, chanting type of 
voice—

Mr. Perry: Your Honor, we object to anything on 
behalf of David Carter. David Carter is not a defend­
ant in this case. We respectfully submit that testimony 
with reference to any conversation of David Carter 
violates the hearsay rule.



16 SUPREME COURT
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Irving G. M cNayr

The Court: Objection sustained.
Q. Did you give any instructions to the students who 

were participating in this activity as to dispersal of 
the marching groups'?

A. None other than to their recognized leader, David 
Carter.

Q. With regard to the student groups, which as you 
have testified had marched in and attempted some dem­
onstration on the State House grounds, did you hear 
any unusual noise or anything which made it appear 
to you that further official action should be taken?

A. Yes. We had this chanting, religious type ap­
proach to arousing the group of students.

Q. On the part of you or any police officer, acting 
under your direction, was there a general purpose to 
disperse the entire crowd, which had gathered, or not?

A. Yes.
Q. Then, your purpose, stated briefly, in issuing this 

order—
Mr. Perry: Your Honor, I respectfully submit that 

the City Manager has demonstrated himself as a very 
able -witness and can make his own testimony.

The Court: Objection sustained.
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, surely the wit­

ness, no matter how capable he is, can respond to a 
question. I don’t exactly understand that objection.

Mr. Perry: My objection was that the question was 
leading. I ’m awfully sorry.

Q. Officially, your official action, Mr. McNayr, with 
reference to that, what was your reason for dispersing 
this crowd?

A. My official reason for dispersing the crowd was 
to avoid possible conflict, riot and dangers to the gen-



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

17

Irving G. M cNayr
eral public, and, of course, included in the general pub­
lic, was danger to these various students themselves.

Mr. Perry: Your Honor, may it please the Court, we 
object to the answer of the witness on the ground that 
the same is conjectural and speculative. It is too in­
definite to give these defendants anything to meet in 
the form of real evidence. I think to that extent the 
witness can say what he did. Certainly the rules of evi­
dence will permit him to do so. It is for this Court, we 
respectfully pray, to say whether or not what he did 
was proper. Now, as to what motivated the witness, we 
submit that the answer that the witness has just given 
is conjectural and speculative and we move that it be 
stricken.

Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, the City Mana­
ger took official action as the man in charge of using 
the City Police Department at that time. Certainly 
he has the right to say why he took that action. It is as 
simple as that. He has not speculated on any fact. He 
hasn’t said anything was going to happen. He said it 
appeared to him that in those circumstances that some­
thing could happen. He is really a police official. He is 
charged with the duty of observing all of these circum­
stances and if it should appear to him that there arises 
a danger to public peace, it is his duty to take action 
and I can see absolutely no objection to this witness 
stating why, in his official capacity, as a man in charge 
of the City Police Department, he took the drastic ac­
tion of arrest.

Mr. Perry: Now, Your Honor, if he says that testi­
mony about a riot is not conjectural, my answer to that 
is there is no testimony here that any riot took place, 
so that’s conjectural, purely speculative, if anybody



18
The State v. James Edwards, Jr, et al.
________ SUPREME COURT_________

Irving G. M cNayr
gg talks about a riot at this time. There is no evidence at 

all in this case concerning an inclination on the part of 
anybody to commit a riot or to do violence toward any­
body. I respectfully submit that this witness can testi­
fy  as to what he did. His reasons are his own and 
should not become a part of the record in this case. 
There is further some question about this witness’ 
official capacity to act upon the State House grounds.

The Court: Objection overruled.
Q. Mr. McNayr, did you hear or observe anything 

on the part of these students, that were there in your
70 presence, which indicated to you that there might be a 

possible danger to the community1?
Mr. Perry: That question is leading.
Mr. Coleman: I haven’t said anything about any riot.
Mr. Perry: The question is leading. We object to it.
Mr. Coleman: He can state whether or not he saw or 

heard anything which indicated that official action was 
necessary.

The Court: Objection overruled.
A. Yes, I did.

71
Q. You have already testified, Mr. McNayr, I be­

lieve, that you did order these students dispersed with­
in fifteen minutes ?

A. Yes.
Q. Did they disperse in accordance with your order?
A. They did not.
Q. What then occurred?
A. I then asked Chief of Police Campbell to direct 

his men to line up the students and march them or
72 place them under arrest and march them to the City 

Jail and the County Jail.



Appeal from Richland County

Irving G. M cNayr

Q. They were placed nnder arrest!
A. They were placed under arrest.

Cross Examination
By Mr. Perry:
Q. How long have you served as City Manager of 

Columbia!
A. Approximately five years.
Q. I see. As I understand it, a part of your duties as 

City Manager happens to be the supervision of the 
Police Department!

A. That’s correct.
Q. Now, your duties, as City Manager of the City of 

Columbia, I believe, take in the full boundaries of the 
City of Columbia, do they not!

A. Yes, they do.
Q. Do they take you upon the State House grounds!
A. It is my understanding that they do.
Q. Now, maybe you and I have some difference of 

opinion concerning your jurisdiction, as I understand 
it. Do your City Police police the State House 
grounds!

A. Yes, they have authority to police the State 
House grounds.

Q. Mr. McNayr, to your own knowledge, do you 
know who owns the title to the State House grounds!

A. To the best of my knowledge, the State House 
grounds are owned by the State of South Carolina.

Q. And not by the City of Columbia!
!A. Not by the City of Columbia.
Q. For instance, the City of Columbia does not have 

the right to tax that property!
A. If they have, they have never exercised it.

SUPREME COURT 19



20 SUPREME COURT
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al._______

Irving G. M cNayr
Q. Mr. McNayr, perhaps the Court will make a rul-

77 mg some time later concerning this matter of the right 
of the police to enter upon the State House grounds.

A. Let me clarify that position. You must under­
stand that we were there working in cooperation with 
the State agencies, at the request of the State agencies. 
We feel that we have a cooperative arrangement with 
all State and local agencies here in the City and in this 
area whereby we cooperate fully with the Sheriffs of 
the various counties, with SLED, with State Highway 
Patrol. They were all present and had officers present

78 at this time and we were cooperating fully in this 
action.

Q. I understand, Sir. As to who called who, that 
might also be some matter of—

A. I can clarify that too.
Q. You had information first that there was a meet­

ing at Zion Baptist Church, didn’t you?
A. That is correct.
Q. Sir, did SLED give you that information?
A. I ’m sure that it came through the South Carolina

79 Law Enforcement Division because at the scene there 
were officers from that group.

Q. Did they convey to you—
Mr. Coleman: That is entirely irrelevant.
Mr. Perry: We are on cross examination and we 

have a right to explore this subject.
Mr. Coleman: Cross examination should stick to the 

issues.
Mr. Perry: I submit that this is not irrelevant. I 

think that basically we are dealing with the problem
80 of what motivated the police on this occasion and we 

are entitled to explore it. We ask the Court to permit



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

21

Irving G. M cNayr

us wide latitude on cross examination as the Supreme 
Court of this State has held repeatedly that we are en­
titled to that.

Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, these defend­
ants here are charged with the specific crime of breach 
of the peace. Mr. McNayr has testified as to what he 
did with regard to the circumstances leading up to the 
charge made against these defendants. How could it be 
possibly relevant where Mr. McNayr got his informa­
tion. I think we would be going down a rabbit road to 
try to ferret out all these possible sources of informa­
tion. He may have gotten it from fifty people. He may 
have gotten it over the telephone from some unknown 
individual. I don’t think it makes any difference.

Mr. Perry: May it please the Court, I think along the 
broad issue of Mr. McNavr’s authority to act in a 
policing capacity on this occasion is in issue and we 
respectfully submit that we have the right to cross ex­
amine him.

The Court: Pertaining to the authority on the Capi­
tol grounds, that’s not the question before the Court.

Mr. Perry: I respectfully submit that it is and Your 
Honor will be required to rule on it.

The Court: Objection overruled.
Mr. Coleman: I believe the last question was the 

further questioning along the line of where this infor­
mation came from to Mr. McNayr. The objection now is 
to the further questioning now of Mr. McNayr as to 
the source of the information in regards to this march.

The Court: The objection is sustained. I don’t be­
lieve it pertains to the issue in this case.

Q. ,As I understand it, sir, you cooperated with the 
Columbia City Police Department, the Richland Coun-



22
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

SUPREME COURT_________

Irving G. McNayr
ty Sheriff Department and the South Carolina Law 
Enforcement Division on this occasion?

A. On this and other occasions.
Q. I ’m talking about this occasion.
A. Yes.
Q. On this occasion you cooperated with the South 

Carolina Law Enforcement Division?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. Did the Law Enforcement Division call you or 

did you call the Law Enforcement Division?
Mr. Coleman: Objection.
The Court: The Court has ruled that out, the source 

of information. Rephrase your question, if you can.
Q. Now, when you went over to the State House 

grounds on this occasion, how many police officers of 
the Columbia City Police did you have with you?

A. I can’t give an exact number.
Q. Would you give us an estimate, please, sir, you 

are head of the Police Department, I believe.
A. I would estimate that there were between thirty 

to thirty-five officers over there.
Q. I see. Was the Chief of Columbia Police present?
A. Yes, he was.
Q. Nevertheless, you, as City Manager, were in com­

mand?
A. I don’t particularly like your words “ in com­

mand” . We were working cooperatively together.
Q. Your position is one of authority. You are over 

him.
A. That is correct.
Q. And in matters where both of you see fit to ex­

ercise your duties, one of you obviously has to be in 
charge?



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

23

Irving G. M cNayr

jA. That’s right.
Q. And, in this particular situation then, the City 

Manager would be?
A. Normally, yes.
Q. Was the City Manager in command on this oc­

casion?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, sir, he stated that the group of Negroes 

students entered the State House grounds. Where did 
they first enter? Did they enter, for instance, at the 
horseshoe or down near Assembly Street or near Sum- 98 
ter Street?

A. The primary group entered at the horseshoe.
Q. I see. Now, you speak of the primary group, why 

do you speak of them in that manner? Were they divi­
ded into small groups?

A. They were divided into small groups and I did 
observe one group at the tail end of the larger group 
entering the grounds from the Assembly Street corner.

Q. Approximately what was the size of the various 
groups ? 9i

A. They varied in size from fifteen people to pos­
sibly thirty.

Q. I see. Now, as they were walking along the pub­
lic streets, how were they formed? Were they single 
file or in groups?

A. They were in pairs.
Q. In pairs?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Column of twos, in other words?
A. Column of twos. 92



24 SUPREME COURT
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Irving G. M cNayr
Q. And each group consisted of anywhere from fif­

teen to thirty. Would you estimate the size of the first 
or primary group?

A. When I speak of primary, I ’m talking about the 
larger groups that moved up towards the horseshoe, 
and I would say there were probably 150 of those and 
about thirty that I observed going on the State House 
grounds down below, which I would term a secondary 
group.

Q. I ’m sorry. I don’t believe I understand your testi­
mony. Did not they all enter from the same direction 
or did they enter from different directions'?

A. They entered originally from the same direction..
Q. Did they all enter in from the horseshoe?
A. They did not all enter by the horseshoe, accord­

ing to my observation.
Q. I see. If they did not enter all by the horseshoe, 

where did another group enter?
A. I guess you would describe it as the corner of 

Gervais and Assembly Streets.
Q. I see.
A. I ’m not certain of the original group movement. 

All did not come forward or enter through the horse­
shoe. It may have been that they did and that later on 
I saw a group going back up from the corner of As­
sembly Street into this area.

Q. Where were you stationed at that particular time, 
Mr. McNayr?

A. I was stationed at the entrance to the horseshoe, 
adjacent to Blossom Street. In other words, the west­
ern entrance I guess you would describe it.

Q. I ’m sorry, I ’m a little bit mixed up at the mo­
ment. Did I understand that the State House grounds



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

25

Irving G. M cNayr

are surrounded by Gervais Street on one side of the 
horseshoe, that we speak of enters from the Gervais 
Street side, and near the Post Office you have Sumter 
Street, and to the rear that is Senate Street and, then, 
over on the Eastern side Assembly Street. Now, I ’m 
sorry but I thought I heard you say Blossom Street?

A. If I did, I was in error. I meant Assembly Street. 
I meant to say Assembly Street, which would be the 
Eastern entrance to the horseshoe.

Q. You were at the Eastern entrance?
A. That’s correct.
Q. At the Assembly Street entrance?
A. At the entrance nearest Assembly Street on Ger­

vais, of course.
Q. Is that entrance down near the corner of Gervais 

.and Assembly?
A. No, I ’m talking about the horseshoe, which is di­

rectly opposite Main Street with the monument in the 
center. The entrance that I ’m talking about is that 
eastern most part of the horseshoe, facing Main Street.

Q. Were you inside the horseshoe or were you inside 
the walk or outside?

A. I was on the sidewalk, just outside or on, which­
ever way you want to describe it.

Q. How many officers were in your particular 
group?

A. In the immediate vicinity?
Q. Yes, Sir.
A. Very few, not over two or three.
Q. Was Mr. Henry Walker of the Governor’s Office 

present?
A. Yes, he was.
Q. Was your Chief of Police present?



26 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Irving G. M cNayr

A. Yes, he was.
Q. Were a few other of your officers present?
A. Yes, they were.
Q. I believe you said that the primary group entered 

by the horseshoe and walked around the State House 
grounds. Did you accompany them around the State 
House grounds?

A. You raised an objection previously when I tried 
to tell you the chain of events leading there. I ’d be most 
happy now to do it, if you’d like to hear it.

Q. My question is : did you accompany them?
A. I did not accompany them.
Q. You did not accompany them?
A. That’s right. Before the Court can get the whole 

chain of events, and I ’m sure you want them to have 
the chain of events, I would like very much to tell the 
Court exactly what happened because I ’m interested 
in justice in this case, too.

Q. I ’m certainly happy to know that, Mr. McNayr, 
and if we can get it without undue speculation on any­
body’s part, I ’m sure that His Honor would be in a 
much better position to determine his views.

A. Would you agree to my stating the chain of 
events ?

Q. I would be most happy to have you do so.
A. When the groups approached the State House 

grounds at the horseshoe, they were met by Mr. Harry 
Walker of the Governor’s Office. Mr. Walker pro­
ceeded, in my presence—

Q. Mr. McNayr, you will recognize that we are 
speaking of a legal technicality. It is not my purpose to 
keep you from telling the chain of events but it must 
come of your own observation and not from—



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

27

Irving G. M cNayr

A. This is coming from my own observation and 
within my hearing.

Mr. Perry: Your Honor, previously we have object­
ed to statements made by Mr. Walker and Your Honor 
has ruled on those and I ’m afraid I must stick with my 
objection on that particular point.

The Court: Objection sustained.
Mr. Perry: We’d be glad to have Mr. Walker come 

and I might say we’ve invited Governor Hollings and 
we’d be glad to have him come. I ’m sure that we want 
all of the official light thrown on this case that we could 
possibly have, but we respectfully urge that Mr. Mc­
Nayr can tell what he personally saw.

A. This I did personally see and hear but you seem 
to object to my speaking what I heard and saw.

Q. May I just stick with the line of questioning, Mr. 
McNayr. As I understand it then, you did not personal­
ly accompany the group around the State House 
grounds ?

A. No, I did not.
Q. All right, Sir. Did any of your officers accompany 

the group around the State House?
A. I ’m not certain that any of my officers did. I 

know that there were officers, SLED people, there were 
State Highway Patrol people and I believe that some 
of my officers walked with them, too, around the 
grounds but I can’t state that categorically.

Q. But the group walked in columns of two on the 
sidewalk into the horseshoe, is that correct?

A. That’s right.
Q. Are you able, of your own knowledge, to say what 

course they took as they walked around the State 
House grounds?



SUPREME COURT
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al._______

Irving G. M cNayr

A. No, I ’m not.
Q. Did you see this group at any other time after 

they might have gone around and come back again?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Were you stationed exactly where you had been 

stationed previously?
A. Except across the horseshoe, on the other side of 

the horseshoe, on the public side.
Q. I think I understood you to say, if I ’m wrong cor­

rect me, that some of the young people were carrying 
signs ?

A. You didn’t understand me to say that.
Q. I ’m very sorry, Sir. Were the defendants speaks 

ing to each other?
A. I would assume they were unless there was some 

enmity between them, they were bound to be.
Q. That does not answer my question, Mr. McNayr. 

Of your knowledge, did you observe them saying any­
thing to each other or to anybody?

A. If I may, if it please the Court, the attorney 
seems to be willing to take my word for some hearsay 
and not for others. He objected to what Mr. Walker 
had to say but he’s not objecting to what these people 
had to say.

The Court: If I understand it, the defense attorney 
is not asking what was said. He is asking did you hear 
any words or any noises between the defendants, as I 
understand it.

A. The air was full of noises, of course. People were 
talking and jabbering and carrying on.

Q. That still does not answer my question. Did the 
young people, the young Negroes, make any noises 
among themselves?



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

29

Ibving G. M cNaye

A. Yes.
Q. What did they say?
The Court: The Court will have to rule out that 

question of what they said. As I ruled previously, that 
is hearsay.

Mr. Perry: Yes, Sir.
Q. When they first entered the horseshoe area, I be­

lieve you said that there were only a few officers pres­
ent, not many bystanders, the bystanders later came, 
as the walking ensued?

A. That’s right.
Q. So that you were able to see and observe and hear 

a great deal at that time, which you may not have been 
able to hear when the group became larger?

A. Yes.
Q. Would that be correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Were the Negro college students or other stu­

dents well demeaned? Were they well dressed and were 
they orderly?

A. Yes, they were.
Q. That was really what I was getting to. You re­

gard them as an orderly group of persons?
A. Yes, they were up to the point when I asked them 

to disperse.
Q. I understand. I understand you perfectly. There 

was nothing about their demeanor, their appearance, 
their dress nor their conduct which violated any law 
that you have any knowledge of, was there?

,A. Now, I can’t answer specifically on that. I did not 
originally state that they were carrying placards, but 
they were carrying placards, whether that’s a violation



30 SUPREME COURT
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Irving G. M cNayr
of the law, I ’m not free to say but, other than that, they 
were well demeaned.

Q. You did not observe any boisterous conduct on 
their part?

A. Not initially, no.
Q. Mr. McNayr, I believe you said that you had 

stationed around the State House grounds approxi­
mately thirty officers of the Columbia City Police?

A. I think it would be better to say that Chief Camp­
bell had stationed them around the grounds.

Q. You said that Chief Campbell had about thirty. 
Now, did Chief Strom have a group of officers present?

A. There was a group of officers present from 
SLED.

Q. Would you estimate the size of Chief Strom’s 
group?

A. I ’d find it difficult for many of Chief Strom’s men 
are not known to me personally.

Q. Then, in addition to the thirty Columbia City 
Police, there were a number of South Carolina Law 
Enforcement Division men?

A. That’s right.
Q. Were there also many from the Richland County 

Sheriff’s Department?
A. I ’m not at all certain.
Q. I believe you previously stated that on this oc­

casion you were in touch with the Sheriff’s Office and 
the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division?

A. I said we were cooperating. We have called them 
on this and other occasions.

Q. You do not specifically recall that there were men 
from the Sheriff’s Office present?



SUPBEME COUBT 
Appeal from Bichland County

31

Irving G. M cNayr

A. No, there, again, I ’m not personally familiar with 
the various officers in the Sheriff’s Office.

Q. Now, since this was during the noon hour or ap­
proaching the noon hour, you have stated that during 
the lunch hour many of the people began to congregate 
around the State House grounds?

A. Yes.
Q. Can you describe the apparent attitude of the 

group that congregated as the Negro students walked 
around ? By that I mean, I am quite frankly asking you 
whether or not they were apparently curious or was 
their attitude hostile or was it otherwise?

A. My attorney is not objecting but I ’d like to in­
form the Court that this is the very line of questioning 
which the attorney objected to just a short time ago, 
conjecture on the part of the witness.

Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, I have no ob­
jection to Mr. McNayr answering the question. It’s a 
proper question.

The Court: The witness will answer.
A. I would say initially the crowd could be best de­

scribed as curious as to what was going on.
Q. Initially?
A. Initially.
Q. Are you in a position to estimate the size of the 

group of persons, on-lookers, who congregated around 
the State House during the time the student group at­
tempted to walk around? .

A. I think I have already testified to that. ^  '

Q. I ’m not sure you have.
A. I would estimate it at around 250 to 300 people 

and I’m not an authority on the size of crowds.



32 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Irving G. M cNayr

Q. I believe yon estimated abont 200 Negro students 
walking around?

A. Yes.
Q. I have reference to the group of on-lookers; 

that’s the ones I was asking about.
rA. That’s the group that I have reference to also.
Q. Where did the group of on-lookers congregate? 

Did they congregate at the horseshoe or all around the 
State House grounds?

A. I have previously testified this: that they may 
well have been all around the State House grounds but, 
if they were, they were beyond my observation, and, 
if there were on-lookers on the whole area, the estimate 
of numbers would probably have risen two or three 
times. I don’t know. The people that I saw were con­
gregated right around the horseshoe area, many 
backed up into the driveway, into the horseshoe area, 
across the sidewalk on the lawns adjacent to the horse­
shoe area and across Gervais Street, on the corner of 
Main and Gervais, on both corners of Main and Ger­
vais.

m  Q. Did they block the street?
A. There was blocking of the sidewalks, not the 

streets.
Q. So, the on-lookers blocked the sidewalks?
A. There was blocking of the sidewalks—yes.
Q. Did you take any official action against the on­

lookers who were congregating on the streets?
A. I didn’t have an opportunity to, sir.
Q. You had an opportunity to say something to the 

Negroes?
128 A. Not only to the Negroes, but to the whites on the 

side of the street where I was located.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

33

Irving G. M cNayr

Q. Now, sir, do I understand you to say that you did 
take official action to have the on-lookers move on or 
that you did not?

A. We took official action to have them clear the 
sidewalks in the area adjacent to where we were stand­
ing—yes.

Q. ,As far as you can determine the appearance of 
the group of on-lookers, were they merely curious?

A. You’re talking about as the demonstration went 
on?

Q. Yes, sir.
A. It’s difficult to say. I ’m afraid that curiosity 

changes and brings forth possible elements which could 
create difficulty.

Q. Did you see any of those possible elements?
A. Yes, I did, as I have on every occasion when these 

groups have demonstrated.
Q. Speaking of this particular occasion, did you see 

the possible elements there that day?
A. Yes.
Q. Who were those persons?
A. I can’t tell you who they were. I can tell you they 

were present in the group. They were recognized as 
possible trouble makers.

Q. Did you and your police chief do anything about 
placing those people under arrest?

A. No, we had no occasion to place them under 
arrest.

Q. Now, sir, you have stated that there were pos­
sible trouble makers and your whole testimony has 
been that, as City Manager, as supervisor of the City 
Police, your object is to preserve the peace and law 
and order?



34 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Irving Gr. M cNayr

A. That’s right.
Q. Yet you took no official action against people who 

were present and possibly might have done some harm 
to these people!

A. We took no official action because there was none 
to be taken. They were not creating a disturbance, 
those particular people were not at that time doing 
anything to make trouble but they could have been.

Q. Did you order them off the State House grounds !
A. They were not on the State House grounds, those 

that I observed.
Q. Did you order them off the streets adjacent!
A. They were on public sidewalks and we made them 

clear the sidewalks so that people could get through.
Q. You don’t know who these people were but never­

theless you recognized them as trouble makers!
A. I don’t know them by name—no.
Q. But the minute you spotted them, you knew they 

were trouble makers!
A. I knew there was a possibility of trouble there.
Q. Yet you took no official action against them!
A. The official action I took was to get rid of the 

cause of the possible difficulties.
Q. But you just said the Negro students weren’t 

doing anything wrong, that is, in terms of misde­
meanor!

A. They were not obeying lawful orders, what I con­
sider lawful orders in dispersing. They were the cause 
of the group gathering. The group, the so-called 
trouble makers, would never have appeared had it not 
been for the demonstration taking place.

Q. Did you talk to the trouble makers!
A. No, I did not.

136



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

35

Irving Gr. M cNayr

Q. You don’t know why they appeared, do you!
A. I think it’s quite apparent why they appeared. 

It’s apparent to you and it’s apparent to me and it’s 
apparent to the population of this area why they ap­
peared.

Q. Yet, if it was so apparent that they were trouble 
makers and they had come because of this situation, 
your chief law enforcement official of the City of Co­
lumbia took no official action by placing them under 
arrest?

A. I took official action by moving the cause of the 
possible difficulty. *>

Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, I ’m hesitant to 
interrupt counsel in this cross examination, however, 
if I have counted correctly Mr. McNayr has answered 
that same question four times and I can’t see any 
point in belaboring that point. He said he did not place 
them under arrest, he said he had no reason to and I 
can’t see any purpose in stretching this thing out in­
terminably.

The Court: Objection sustained.
Q. Mr. McNayr, you have stated that you knew one 

man whom you identified as the apparent leader of 
student movements in Columbia!

A. Yes.
Q. Do you know any of the other students who were 

involved!
A. I know them only by sight.
Q. Do you know all of them by sight!
A. No, that would be impossible.
Q. Thank you, sir. Do you know the defendants in 

this case by sight!
A. I don’t believe so, no.



36
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.
_________ SUPREME COURT_________

Irving G. M cNayr

Q. So, you’re not really able to identify them as re­
gards their activity in any particular part or anything 
that might have happened that day?

A. I think I might recognize one or two out of the 
group of eight.

Q. So far as you know, did any of the officers having 
any authority concurrent with yours place any of the 
other persons under arrest, who were recognized as 
trouble makers?

A. Not to my knowledge.
142 Q. So, that no one, not the South Carolina Law En­

forcement Division, the Columbia Sheriff’s Depart­
ment, the Columbia Police Department nor in fact the 
Governor’s Office, took any action against other per­
sons who were recognized by you as being trouble 
makers on this occasion?

A. If I may, I think you may have misunderstood 
what I said. I said they were possible trouble makers. 
If I may continue, I ’m talking about what we described 
as the long-haired kids, who appear on the streets of 
Columbia on these occasions; I ’m talking about some of

143 our rougher element, who tend to appear on the oc­
casions of these demonstrations. I may have misused 
the word “ trouble makers” . They are potential trouble. 
They represent to me trouble.

Q. Mr. McNayr, is it the policy of your administra­
tion, when persons whom you recognize as poential 
makers—

Mr. Coleman: Objection, Tour Honor. We are 
getting into something that has absolutely nothing to 
do with the facts in this case. The policy of the City 
Manager might embrace a hundred factors, which 
would have nothing to do with this case. He has testi-



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

37

Irving G. M cNayr

lied as to the actions; certainly he cannot cross ex­
amine on any part he has testified to only as far as the 
facts and what he has done on the scene. Why get into 
the field of policy and why things are done? That is 
ridiculous.

Mr. Perry: I just wanted to know, Your Honor, 
whether or not a gangster, here on our streets, would 
stop me from walking down the streets and you’d put 
me in jail—why not put the gangster in jail?

The Court: Objection sustained. We’re getting too 
far out as to policy and what would happen under a 
given set of circumstances.

Q. As I understand, sir—
Mr. Perry: Your Honor, do you take judicial notice 

of the fact that the State House grounds are occupied 
by the Executive Branch of the South Carolina gov­
ernment, the Legislative Branch and the Judicial 
Branch, and that, during the period covered in the 
warrant in this matter, to wit: March the 2nd, the 
Legislature of South Carolina was in session. Do you 
take judicial notice of those facts?

Mr. Coleman: We’ll stipulate those facts.
The Court: All right.
Q. Thank you, Mr. McNayr.
By Mr. Coleman:
Q. Just one more question, Mr. McNayr. With refer­

ence to the Legislature being in session at the time of 
this occurrence, the fact which has been stipulated by 
counsel in this case, did that fact have any bearing on 
your actions to keep down a breach of the peace or 
any possible or probable circumstances which, in your 
opinion, might lead to the breach?



The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Irving G. M cNayr
A. Yes, it did. I was informed soon after arriving 

that the House of Delegates was out of session hut the 
Senate was still in session, and certainly that was an­
other of many factors which entered into the decision 
to hold or to stop and disperse this group.

Q. Mr. McNayr, you Avere asked on cross examina­
tion as to the orderliness of the crowd. I assume that 
the crowd there meant the entire group, including the 
students and others. I believe you testified that up to 
a point the students were orderly. Were they orderly 
throughout the time of your presence at the scene?

160 A. No, they were not.
Q. What occurred after the orderliness ceased?
A. There was general singing, stamping of feet, 

tramping, singing in a very loud voice, mostly hymns, 
I would say. And, again, if I may use Mr. Carter’s 
name, Mr. Carter’s talk to them about dispersing—

Mr. Perry: May I inquire of counsel as to whether 
or not he has reference now to before the students were 
placed under arrest or afterwards?

A. My testimony is before they were placed under 
151 arrest, just before.

Q. Did you recognize any?
A. No, I didn’t.
Q. Just two more questions. With regard to the— 

I believe you used the term possible trouble makers— 
were any of those told to move on from the sidewalks?

A. Yes.
Q. Did any refuse to do so?
A. No, they did not.
Q. I believe you have already testified that you asked 

the Negro students to disperse, ordered them to?
A. I did through the recognized leader.
Q. Did they obey that order?

38 SUPREME COURT ________ ______



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

39

Irving Gr. M cNayr

A. No, they did not.
By Mr. Perry:
Q. Mr. McNayr, you said they sang songs, I believe 

you said some of them started songs before they were 
placed under arrest?

A. Yes.
Q. As far as you know, did everybody start singing 

before they were placed under arrest or did only some 
of them?

A. I could say that everyone did.
Q. You did not recognize any of the songs they were 

singing?
A. No, I didn’t. In fact, I wasn’t paying particular 

attention to them. All that I know was that there was 
a good deal of talk and shouting along with the singing.

Q. Did you hear them singing the Star Spangled 
Banner ?

A. Yes, I do recall them singing the Star Spangled 
Banner.

Q. That’s a very pretty song, isn’t it?
A. It is, if properly sung in the right spirit but it 

seemed to me it wasn’t in the right spirit on that oc­
casion.

Q. They weren’t singing in a contemptuous manner, 
were they?

A. Not in a contemptuous manner but in a loud and 
very disorderly manner.

Q. Well, Mr. McNayr, the Star Spangled Banner 
sounds better when it rises so full.

A. Well, maybe I wasn’t in a position to appreciate 
it then.

Q. Possibly that was the case.



40 SUPBEME COUBT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Irving G. M cNayr

The Court: I don’t think we should go into whether 
or not this song was sung or in what manner it was 
sung. What does that have to do with it!

Mr. Perry: My only purpose, of course, is to—coun­
sel asked Mr. McNayr about a point when they turned 
from orderliness to boisterousness and we are now de­
scribing the boisterousness that Mr. McNayr has in 
mind. Now, he said among other things, the Star 
Spangled Banner and I ’m at loss to see anything bois­
terous about the singing of the Star Spangled Banner.

The Court: We’re not talking about the quality of 
the singing.

Q. Mr. McNayr, did you hear them sing America?
A. I didn’t recognize it.
Q. Just as you were not in the mood to hear the Star 

Spangled Banner, they might have sung that?
A. I said I was not in the mood to appreciate the 

way they sang it. Now, you would have to he present, 
sir, to understand what I ’m talking about, the differ­
ence between singing something in an orderly fashion 
and doing it boisterously, stamping your feet and 
shouting and yelling at the same time. That is what 
took place.

Q. Isn’t it a fact that most of the singing took place 
after the arrest was made and during the time the po­
lice were carrying them to the Police Station?

A. There was an awful lot taking place hut this 
took place after David Carter harangued each group 
and I mean harangued—it was a real rabble-rousing 
talk, “Will you do it? Will you not do it? I ’m going 
to jail, will you go to jail?”—that sort of thing.

Mr. Perry: Your Honor, you have ruled out anything 
that was said by David Carter. Will you now direct 
that that he stricken?



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

41

Irving G. M cNayr,
Mr. Coleman: Your Honor, will you instruct counsel 

not to phrase his questions so as to bring out exactly 
what he objected to here earlier?

A. If you don’t want to hear it, don’t ask the ques­
tion.

The Court: The testimony given as to what David 
Carter said is stricken from the record.

Q. Mr. McNayr, the real reason these people were 
placed under arrest was because they walked around 
the State House grounds and, after they were told not 
to go again, they entered again in violation of the or­
ders that were given to them? That was the real reason 
they were placed under arrest?

A. No, indeed. That has not been testified to in any 
wav by me.

Q. That is not the real reason they were arrested?
A. No.
Q. Had they simply walked past this person who 

told them not to proceed again, they would not have 
been placed under arrest?

A. If that person had requested that they be placed 
under arrest, we would have cooperated, but that was 
not the circumstances, so far as I was concerned. You 
will not allow me to give you the circumstances, which 
I  tried to do and you said that was hearsay.

Q. Thank you, Mr. McNayr.
The Court: Court will recess for ten minutes. (11:50

a. m.)
(Court reconvened.)



42 SUPREME COURT
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al._______

Chief L. J. Campbell

]g6 Whereupon, Mr. Coleman called Chief L. J. Camp­
bell who, being first duly sworn, testified as follows;

Direct Examination
By Mr. Coleman:
Q. Mr. Campbell, I believe you are the Chief of Po­

lice for the City of Columbia?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did anything come to your attention on March 

the 2nd last which caused you to make your appearance 
in and around the State House in an official capacity?

166 A. It did.
Q. Will you relate in your own words exactly what 

you did in regard to any matter within your personal 
knowledge ?

A. I received information that a group of students 
were gathering at the Zion Baptist Church and I later 
observed it myself, personally. I informed Mr. McNayr, 
City Manager, and later I picked him up and we both 
went to the Zion Baptist Church on Washington Street, 
Washington and Gadsden Streets. There we found a

167 group of students at Zion Baptist Church.
Q. Where did you go from Zion Baptist Church?
A. We left Zion Baptist Church and went to the 

State House, the horseshoe at the State House.
Q. Did anything occur there?
A. We arrived at the State House a short time ahead 

of the maching group.
Q. What marching group? Would you describe 

them?
A. A group of Negro students.
Q. Where did they make their appearance?
A. They came up Gervais Street, from Gadsden 

Street to Gervais and Gervais up to the State House.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

43

Chief L. J. Campbell

Q. Where were you at that time?
A. I was on the East corner of Gervais and the 

horseshoe, Main Street.
Q. Did you talk to the group?
A. I did not talk to the group at that time.
Q. Were any official instructions given to the group 

at that time?
A. They were.
Q. What was the nature of the instructions?
A. They were instructed that they had a right, as 

a citizen, to go through the State House grounds, as 
any other citizen has, as long as they were peaceful.

Q. What happened then, so far as the activity of 
this group of students was concerned, immediately 
thereafter?

A. Each group was instructed the same. Then they 
proceeded through the State House grounds. They con­
tinued going through the State House grounds.

Q. Did you remain in the horseshoe during this time?
A. In and around the horseshoe.
Q. For how long a period of time did the students 

proceed in and about the State House grounds without 
interference from you?

A. I would say approximately thirty to forty min­
utes before they were given instructions from our City 
Manager that they should disband and they were given 
fifteen minutes to decide whether they wanted to dis­
band or not.

Q. Chief Campbell, to your knowledge, did any police 
officer or anyone else interfere with the students’ ac­
tivities during this thirty or forty minute period, which 
you have just related?

A. They did not.



The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Chief L. J. Campbell

Q. I believe about this horseshoe in front of the 
State House, there are sidewalks on bothe sides and 
lanes for vehicular traffic around the horseshoe and 
back out into Gfervais and Main Street?

A. That’s correct.
Q. At the time the students first made their appear­

ance there, were there numbers of other people in and 
about the State House grounds ?

A. When they first arrived?
Q. Yes.
A. There were a few civilians and several police of­

ficers.
Q. Did you observe this?
A. Yes.
Q. After a period of thirty or forty minutes, that 

you have just stated that the students marched without 
interference, did you observe the crowd at that time? 

A. I did.
Q, Had it increased, decreased or remained the

same?
A. Considerably increased.
Q. Can you estimate the number of the crowd ap­

proximately, including the students ?
A. Across Gervais Street and also on the sidewalks 

and the steps of the State House, there were 300 or 350.
Q. Now, with relation to the sidewalks on both sides 

of the horseshoe, on Gervais Street adjacent to the 
State House grounds and the lanes for vehicular traffic 
around the horseshoe, how was the crowd situated with 
reference to those sidewalks and lanes?

A. They were right crowded and, from time to time, 
we had to ask the pedestrians to move on,

Q. Was the street blocked?

44 SUPREME COURT_________________



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

45

Chief L. J. Campbell

A. We had to place a traffic man at the intersection 
of Gervais and Main to handle traffic and pedestrians.

Q. Was a vehicular traffic lane blocked?
A. It was, that was in the horseshoe.
Q. After a period of thirty or forty minutes in which 

these students were allowed to march without interfer­
ence of any kind, did you then take further official 
action?

A. As I have stated, they were given to about 1:00 
o’clock, or fifteen minutes, to leave and at 1:15 they 
did not leave, and then they were placed under arrest.

Q. You were there, Chief Campbell, and saw the 
crowd of people, students, those who had come upon 
the scene during the thirty or forty minute period, why 
did it appear to you that official action was due to be 
taken ?

Mr. Perry: Your Honor, we object to the question. 
I respectfully submit that you have previously ruled, 
with regard to the testimony of the previous witness, 
that he could tell what he did, but as to his reasons, I 
believe that you did not permit the witness to go too 
much into a speculative area. We submit that the ques­
tion may call for the witness’ conclusions or reasons, 
some of which might be speculative as to what 
prompted them to act. Certainly, Chief can say what 
he did but as to why he did it would be for Your Honor 
to determine.

Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, there is abso­
lutely no element of speculation in Chief Campbell tell­
ing why he did what he did. He’s not speculating as to 
any facts. He has made a criminal charge. He is cer­
tainly entitled to tell why he made it.

The Court: I ’ll have to overrule the objection. In 
view of his experience, the objection is overruled.



46 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Chief L. J. Campbell

A. I would say in my experience over a period of 
years I felt that it was time that action should be taken.

Q. Why?
A. To keep down any type of violence or injury to 

anyone.
Mr. Perry: Now, Your Honor, we object and ask 

that that be stricken on the grounds that the answer is 
speculative and conjectural. Chief says to keep down 
any violence and there is no testimony that any vio­
lence was about to take place.

Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, the Chief is 
testifying as an expert police officer. He has not stated 
that violence would take place. He has said that draw­
ing from his experience as a police officer, during the 
factors which were involved in this situation, it was 
his opinion that there could possibly be violence and 
disorder arising out of this situation. I believe he is 
fully entitled to testify.

The Court: Objection overruled on the same grounds 
as before, his experience, my previous statement as to 
his experience.

Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, may I see the 
warrant?

The Court: I believe counsel for the defendants has 
it. Would you like the Court to have some copies of 
that made?

Mr. Perry: I ’d be most grateful, Judge.
The Court: I ’ll have some made for you.
Q. Chief Campbell, I hand you a paper entitled “Ar­

rest Warrant” , which is signed—the affidavit of which 
is signed by one L. J. Campbell. Would you look at 
that and see if you recognize your signature there?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. You did sign that warrant ?



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

47

Chief L. J. Campbell

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you please look at the names contained in 

the warrant?
A. That is my warrant and that is my signature and 

that is the names.
Q. Do you recognize that warrant as containing the 

names of some of the people who were arrested on 
March the 2nd?

A. I don’t remember all of the names but I would 
say that is the warrant that I signed.

Q. And it contained the names of the students?
A. That’s right.
Q. You don’t recognize, of course, any of these peo­

ple personally?
A. In the whole entire group, I know eight or ten or 

twelve, something like that personally.
Q. Chief Campbell, do you have any statement which 

you would like to make in regard to this situation, re­
garding the facts involved?

A. No, not right at the moment.
Cross Examination

By Mr. Perry:
Q. Chief Campbell, I believe you stated that as the 

various groups went into the State House grounds, you 
personally admonished each group that they had a 
right to go in?

A. I didn’t personally.
Q. I ’m sorry I misunderstood you. Who did this?
A. Mr. Walker.
Q. I see. Do you agree with Mr. McNayr’s estimate 

of the size of the various groups of young people as 
they walked through the grounds? I believe Mr. Me-



48
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.
_________ SUPREME COURT_________

Chief L. J. Campbell

ig9 Nayr stated that they numbered from fifteen to thirty 
persons in each group.

A. I would say that they weren’t quite that large but 
he’s approximately right.

Q. You say they weren’t quite that large?
A. I ’d say twenty to twenty-five to thirty. At times 

the group was larger than others; more would get to­
gether and some would go off to themselves in smaller 
groups and in that period of time, it would vary a 
Avhole lot.

Q. I understand.
190 A. At times, it may have been thirty and then it 

would be twelve or fifteen.
Q. Each group of students walked along in column 

of twos?
A. Sometimes two and I did see some in single-file.
Q. There was ample room for other persons going 

in the same direction or the opposite direction to pass 
on the same sidewalk?

A. I wouldn’t say they were blocking the sidewalk; 
now, that was through the State House grounds.

191 Q. Their demeanor was generally good?
A. At times.
Q. Wouldn’t you say they were well-behaved?
A. At times.
Q. You stated in your affidavit, Chief Campbell, that 

the young people were carrying placards ?
A. They had cards.
Q. I do not believe that you have previously testified 

concerning these placards?
A. No, I haven’t mentioned the cards.

19 Q. But in the affidavit which you signed, before the 
issuance of this warrant, you did make mention of the



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland Comity

49

Chief L. J. Campbell

fact that they assembled, impeded the normal traffic 
and they paraded with placards?

A. I wouldn’t say that all of them had them, but 
some of them did.

Q. Some of them did. Of course, yon do not know 
whether any of the defendants on trial today had 
placards ?

A. I couldn’t swear to that.
Q. What was the nature of the language used on the 

placards ?
A. It was religious verses. I read some of them.
Q. I see. Chief Campbell, have you previously had 

occasion to deal with groups of Negro students on the 
streets of Columbia in recent times?

A. I have.
Q. Are you aware of a widespread student move­

ment which is designed to possibly bring about a 
change in the structure of racial segregation laws and 
custom?

A. I am.
Q. Would you regard the group, which walked 

through the State House grounds on March the 2nd, as 
a group for such a purpose?

A. There was a purpose, I would think.
Q. Were the signs which they carried in any way de­

pict that particular purpose?
A. It resembled that, yes.
Q. Did you confiscate any of those signs, Chief?
A. I did not.
Q. But it suffices to say that the signs dd bespeak 

the general purpose?
A. The signs were taken up but they were not taken 

up by us.



50 SUPREME COURT
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Chief L. J. Campbell

Q. I understand. Of course, you do not regard the 
carrying of signs as breach of peace, do you?

A. Well, it might mean—as to what purpose was 
behind it.

Q. Mr. McNayr has estimated that you had present 
some thirty or more, or possibly a few less, police offi­
cers of the City of Columbia?

A. That is a mistake. Mr. McNayr did not know 
how many officers I had up there.

Q. How many did you have ?
A. I had approximately fifteen.
Q. Were there other officers of authority?
A. There were some State Highway Patrolmen; 

there were some South Carolina Law Enforcement offi­
cers present and I believe, I ’m not positive, I believe 
there were about three Deputy Sheriffs.

Q. So there were a lot of police officers around on 
this occasion. Wouldn’t you agree, Chief Campbell, 
that the presence of a large number of police officers 
serves to attract a lot of on-lookers, perhaps as much, 
if not more so, than the Negro college students walk­
ing around the State House?

A. The two together would create quite a bit.
Q. So, the curiosity-lookers were attracted by police 

officers as well?
A. The two together would create quite a scene.
Q. Did you see, included among the on-lookers, any 

persons whom you regarded as trouble makers?
A. Well, it’s hard to pick out trouble makers all the 

time, you know, with a large group of people; you 
don’t know what might occur and what’s in the mind 
of the people.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

51

Chief L. J. Campbell

Q. But, sir, you did, at one time, after perhaps con­
ferring with other officers, direct the students to dis­
band; you or some other officer did. Is that correct?

A. That order came from the City Manager.
Q. I see. Was any order given to the on-lookers to 

disband?
A. They were asked to move on.
Q. Did all of them move on when they were ordered 

to move on?
A. A lot of them moved on, yes.
Q. Since these young people were generally well- 

demeaned, it was actually the fact that they were walk­
ing around the State House grounds with placards in 
a group, which actually caused their arrest, isn’t it?

A. Well, they were singing and right noisy at times, 
particularly after the order was given to give them fif­
teen minutes to disband.

Q. You said that you observed them walking around 
the State House grounds for some thirty to forty min­
utes; did I understand you correctly?

A. I said approximately.
Q. During this period was there any singing?
A. Yes. There was some singing in the horseshoe and 

there was some singing on the East corner of the horse­
shoe.

Q. I see, and afterwards they were given some fif­
teen minutes to disband and I believe that also came 
from the City Manager?

A. That was approximately at 1:00 o’clock.
Q. They were given fifteen minutes to disband?
A. Yes.
Q. Having not disbanded, you actually placed them 

under arrest? Did you or some other officer?



The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Chief L. J. Campbell

A. All of the officers. I placed some under arrest. 
Other officers placed some.

Q. I have reference to what authority—did the Co­
lumbia Chief of Police or the Director of South Caro­
lina Law Enforcement Division?

A. I have authority on State property under a Spe­
cial Act.

Q. You do have special authority to police the State 
House?

A. Yes, sir, passed by the Legislature.
Q. As I understand you, sir, the various groups of 

students walked through the State House grounds, 
either in single file or in columns of twos, they walked 
in such a manner that it was possible for other per­
sons, using the same sidewalk, to pass either going in 
the same direction or the opposite direction?

A. I would say so—yes.
Q. So that, therefore, the Negro students did not 

block the sidewalks?
A. Not in the State House grounds. I didn’t go in 

the State House grounds. I just observed that from a 
distance. I stayed at the corner of Gervais and Main 
at the horseshoe all during the whole period of time. 
I did not leave there. I did place men over the area, 
back of the State House and over the grounds.

Q. Did they not block anybody?
A. I did not go back into the grounds myself.
Q. Within your own view, did they block anything?
A. At times they blocked the sidewalk and we asked 

them to move over and they did.
Q. They obeyed your commands on that?
A. Yes'.
Q. So that nobody complained that he wanted to use 

the sidewalk and he could not do it?

52 SUPREME C O U R T ___________



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

53

Chief L. J. Campbell

A. I didn’t have any complaints on that.
Q. How about the vehicular traffic, either in the 

horseshoe area or otherwise?
A. The horseshoe area was blocked by the heavy 

traffic on Gervais.
Q. It was blocked by whom? The police?
A. Pedestrians and civilians, policemen and auto­

mobiles.
Q. I see, but not necessarily by these defendants?
A. No. At times, of course, they would block it when 

they were marching across.
Q. Naturally, as they walked across but only for a 

reasonable period of time. That horseshoe area that we 
described, that leads up to the front of the State House 
building, is not really a thoroughfare, is it?

A. No.
Q. It’s a limited parking area used by members of 

the State House of Representatives and other officials 
in the State House building?

A. I think that’s correct.
Q. It’s not your contention then that these defend­

ants blocked anybody’s use of that area?
A. Not to my knowledge. At times, I said, they were 

asked to move and they complied with our request.
Q. Then, their crime, if we can call it a crime, seems 

to be their refusal to disperse when they were given 
orders to disperse?

A. That’s right and the noise.
Q. Wouldn’t you agree that it was their refusal to 

disperse that got them arrested?
A. Well, no, not all together. As I have stated be­

fore, as I have testified, they were moved for reasons 
to avoid trouble. We were afraid that trouble might 
have come.



The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Chief L. J. Campbell

Q. I see. You were afraid trouble might occur; from 
what source?

A. You can’t always tell.
Q. But, if you regarded on this occasion it was suf­

ficiently apparent to require you to arrest them, cer­
tainly you must have had something in mind?

A. It is my duty to try to avoid trouble if I can, as 
a police officer.

Q. I fully appreciate that. I certainly do, but I sim­
ply asked you, where was the trouble ?

A. Actually any trouble hadn’t happened but if you 
can prevent trouble, it is your duty to do so.

Q. I go along with that. Are you able, sir, to say 
where the trouble was?

A. I don’t know.
Q. You didn’t spot it really anywhere, did you?
A. No. We didn’t give it a chance to happen.
Q. Chief, as far as you know, is there any ordinance 

of the City of Columbia regarding groups walking in 
concert on the public streets of the City of Columbia?

A. With a group of over fifteen, you must have a 
permit.

Q. These persons weren’t charged under that ordi­
nance?

A. We have an ordinance where you cannot block the 
sidewalk.

Q. I understand you signed all of the warrants in 
these cases and you signed them under the common 
law offense of breach of peace?

A. Breach of the peace.
Q. You’re not charging the violation of any ordi­

nance?
A. No.
Q. Thank you, Chief.

54 SUPREME COURT_________________



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland Connty

55

Chief L. J. Campbell

By Mr. Coleman:
Q. Yon spoke of certain orders being given by one 

Harry Walker to the students, telling them to disperse 
and directing the activities or attempting to in some 
way; who is Harry Walker?

A. He is with the Governor’s Office.
Q. What is his official capacity?
A. Liaison officer, with the Governor’s Office, I think. 

I ’m not sure.
Q. Did he have charge of the officers there that day?
A. It was my impression that day that he was sub­

stituting for Chief Strom, who was out of the City. 
That was my impression.

Q. I believe you stated that the behavior of the stu­
dents at times was orderly and good. W ere there times 
Avhen it was not ?

A. That’s right.
Q. Would you describe that, please?
A. That’s when instructions were given to the stu­

dents that they had fifteen minutes to make up their 
minds whether to leave or stay.

Q. What was the nature of the activity then?
A. Hollering in a very loud voices.
Q. Did the entire group of students there, including 

these defendants, appear to you to be acting in concert 
as a group, as a whole ?

A. I don’t get your question.
Q. The entire group of marching students, did they 

appear to you to be acting in concert or acting together 
in one common action or purpose?

A. Yes, I would say they were following their leader, 
one leader, each group had a leader and, when instruc­
tions were given by Mr. McNayr as to the fifteen min-



The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Chief L. J. Campbell

Ml lites, they had instructions from the head of the group, 
which we considered him to he the head of the group.

Q. Did it appear to you from what you saw and 
heard that they were all acting together as a group!

A. That’s right.
Q. You were questioned as to the number of officers 

on the scene and the point was made that a large group 
of officers might have attracted the crowd. Ordinarily, 
such a group of officers are not stationed at the State 
House!

A. No, sir.
222 Q. Why were they there that day!

A. To keep order.
Q. Was they being there have any relation to the 

students being there!
A. Yes. That’s why we were there.
Q. Otherwise you would not have been there!
A. No, sir.
Q. No further questions.
By Mr. Perry:

223 Q. Nevertheless, the presence of officers helped at­
tract the crowd, didn’t they, Chief!

A. The presence of the officers and the group of 
students drew the crowd.

Q. May I ask you this, Chief! You, along with other 
officers assisted in making these several arrests, didn’t 
you!

A. I would say I was with the group of thirty to 
forty, something like that.

Q. Wouldn’t you say that all of the students sub-
K4 mitted peacefully to arrest!

A. When I informed them they were under arrest, 
they gave no trouble.

56 SUPREME C O U R T _______________



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

57

Chief L. J. Campbell 
Dan P. B eckman

Q. I believe as a matter of fact you, along with other 
officers, walked with them around with them to the 
Columbia City Jail and the County Jail?

A. I lined them up and put an officer in front and 
instructed them to follow him and put one on each side 
and on the back. I didn’t walk with them. I rode.

Q. That’s the perogative of the Chief, I believe. 
These were just young college and high school stu­
dents, were they not, obviously well-dressed, well-be­
haved, except for their refusal to disperse when the 
officers told them to do so?

A. I think they were all students except a few.
Q. Except a few? Thank you, Chief.
Mr. Coleman: Thank you, sir.
(Witness excused.)

Whereupon, Mr. Brandon called Mr. Dan F. B eck­
m an , who, being first duly sworn, testified as follows

Direct Examination
By Mr. Brandon:
Q. Will you give us your full name, Mr. Beckman?
A. Dan F. Beckman.
Q. What is your official position?
A. Assistant Chief, South Carolina Law Enforce­

ment Division.
Q. How long have you been with the Law Enforce­

ment Division?
A. A little over thirteen and a half years.
Q. Directing your attention to March the 2nd, the 

date in question here, did you have occasion to go to 
the State House grounds?

A. Yes, I did.



58
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

SUPREME COURT_________

Dan F. Beckman

Q. At what time did you arrive there?
A. Shortly after 12:00.
Q. After 12:00 o’clock?
A. Yes.
Q. What were the conditions existing when you got 

there ?
A. There were a large group of college students on 

Gervais Street at the entrance to the horseshoe and, 
as I got there, they started coming, they were going 
through in single file or groups of twos.

Q. Going through the grounds?
A. Going through the grounds.
Q. In what direction?
A. They started down the horseshoe and I observed 

them going around to the right of the building and on 
around and I was informed that they were being per­
mitted to walk through there in a peaceful fashion.

Q. How many do you think would be your estimate 
were in the group at that time, Mr. Beckman?

A. It’s hard for me to tell but I would imagine 
twelve or fifteen in that first group that went through, 
that I had an opportunity to see.

Q. Was there more than one group moving through?
A. At that time, I saw only one group going through.
Q. Could you see any others at any other positions 

around the State House grounds ?
A. Later I did observe other groups going around 

the State House.
Q. Do you know how many defendants were subse­

quently arrested on that occasion?
A. That day?
Q. That day.
A. I believe it was 189 or 190, I ’m not certain.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

59

Dan F. Beckman

Q. How long did this marching continue after you 
arrived there?

A. I would imagine between forty-five minutes and 
an hour.

Q. Thereafter, to your knowledge, were the groups 
advised that they had a certain period of time in which 
to disperse or leave the premises?

A. Yes, sir, by Mr. McNayr. I was over facing Main 
Street, that would be to the right of the horseshoe.

Q. What was the reaction of the groups of Negro 
students at that time, when they were informed of that ?

A. They started singing, hollering and shortly after 
that, I imagine, they decided they didn’t want to go 
back to where they came from and they started back 
through.

Q. What occurred when they started back through?
A. I placed a group under arrest as they started to 

continue on.
Q. Other officers arrested others?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember any particular song that was 

sung by those students?
A. I believe one of them was “ I Shall Not Be 

Moved” . I remember their singing the Star Spangled 
Banner around on the side of the State House; that 
was after they were placed under arrest.

Q. Chief, after you had been there, did or did not 
any other people or groups of people arrive?

A. Yes. I saw the groups of people over in front of 
the hotel and there was a group right at the entrance 
of the horseshoe. From time to time, you had to con­
tinue to ask them to move on.

Q. Did they move on when you asked them?
A. Yes.



60 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Dan F. Beckman
Q. How many do yon think subsequently collected 

there? Give an estimate?
A. I ’d say around 250 to 300.
Q. After you had arrested this group of students, 

did you learn where they had come from or do you, of 
your own knowledge, know where they came from?

A. Yes, I know where they came from. You mean 
how they originally started from?

Q. Not particularly with reference to the marching 
to the grounds, but where were they from? Where were 
their homes?

A. Some of them gave their addresses from all over 
the State.

Q. Did any of them come from any other schools 
other than local schools here in Columbia?

A. Yes, sir. Some came from State A & M, Claflin, 
Sterner, Mathis, Benedict and some of them were high 
school students. I noticed that on the arrest tickets.

Q. High school students?
A. That’s right.
Q. Any of them you know were from high schools 

out of the City of Columbia?
A. No, but I recognized some from Orangeburg, stu­

dents from either one of the two schools there.
Q. The State schools over there? Chief, do you know 

of any other facts in connection with this occurrence 
that 3?ou would like to testify to, that you think is 
relevant ?

A. No, sir.
Q. Answer any questions the other attorney has for 

you.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland Connty

61

Dan F. Beckman 
Cross Examination

By Mr. Sampson:
Q. Your name is Mr. Beckman, I believe?
A. That’s right.
Q. You are the Assistant Chief of SLED, is that 

right?
A. That’s correct.
Q. I ’d like to ask you a simple question, if I may. 

Who was in charge of this arrest?
A. There was several of us that made arrests over 

there. I arrested some. Chief Campbell arrested some, 
and other officers arrested some.

Q. Which one of you gentlemen made the decision to 
arrest these young people?

A. What?
Q. Which one of you gentlemen present made the de­

cision to arrest these young defendants?
A. I made my own decision.
Q. I see. It was based on your decision that the other 

officers acted?
A. No.
Q. As I understand your testimony, as Assistant 

Chief of SLED, you decided that some of them should 
he arrested and other officers of the City of Columbia, 
being present, independently decided that they should 
be arrested, is that right?

A. That was after Mr. McNayr asked them to dis­
perse and gave them fifteen minutes to disperse and 
all that singing and stomping around and hollering 
took place, and he asked them to leave and they didn’t 
leave: they continued to go on.

Q. T see. Was it Mr. McNavr’s judgment that caused 
von to arrest some of these defendants or your own 
judgment?



62 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Dan F. Beckman

A. What I did, I did on my own because I realized 
what possibly could take place.

Q. No conflict of authority between SLED and the 
City of Columbia as to how you should arrest people 
for the breach of peace?

A. No.
Q. How long did you say that you have served as a 

law enforcement officer?
A. Thirteen and a half years.
Q. Do you consider yourself an expert law enforce­

ment officer?
Mr. Brandon: If Tour Honor please, I think the 

prosecution can stipulate that Mr. Beckham is an ex­
pert law enforcement officer.

Q. Do you, sir?
A. What is the question?
Q. Do you consider yourself an expert law enforce­

ment officer?
A. I consider myself a law enforcement officer based 

on experience that I ’ve had.
Q. Had these students been students from the Uni­

versity of South Carolina or similar white schools in 
the State of South Carolina, would you or would you 
not have arrested them based on the same conduct?

Mr. Brandon: Objection, Your Honor. We’re trying 
a case of breach of peace against eight individual Ne­
gro defendants and there’s no relevancy whatsoever as 
to whether or not Chief Beckham would have arrested 
a white person or a person of any color. It is presumed, 
of course, that a law enforcement officer will do his 
duty.

The Court: I am inclined to agree with the objec­
tion but as my policy has been, and will continue to

248



SUPREME COUBT 
Appeal from Richland County

63

Dan F. Beckman

be, to lean over backwards to see that the defendants 
get justice—objection overruled.

Q. Will you proceed to answer the question”?
A. Would you repeat the question, please?
Q. I asked you, if I remember—would the reporter 

repeat the question?
(Reporter repeated the question to counsel and the 

witness.)
A. Yes, I would have. Under the same set of circum­

stances, I would have. You’re exactly correct.
Q. Have you had occasion to arrest any group of 

white students under the same or similar circum­
stances ?

A. No, I haven’t.
Q. You haven’t had any in your thirteen and a half

years ?
A. No, I haven’t.
Q. I ask you again—I ask you this, sir: do you re­

member the recent cancellation of Nixon’s speech in 
the City of Columbia?

A. Recent what?
Q. The cancellation of Nixon’s speech, Vice-Presi­

dent Nixon’s speech, Vice-President Nixon was run­
ning for President and he had a speech cancelled for 
the State House grounds here last fall, I believe?

A. I don’t remember the cancellation but I remem­
ber when he spoke.

Q. You remember that?
A. I don’t remember when it was cancelled hut I 

remember when he spoke.
Q. It was postponed, I believe, from one time to 

another, is that right?
A. I don’t recall that. I remember when he spoke 

here.



64 _________SUPREME COURT_________
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Dan F. Beckman

Q. Do you have any knowledge of whether or not 
there was a demonstration on or about the State House 
grounds at that time?

Mr. Brandon: If Your Honor please, I object. I ob­
ject to counsel referring to any other incident which 
could not possibly have been connected with this. I 
think that we are going far afield. He can probably dig 
up a dozen, if he wants to. It has no bearing on this. 
The exclusion of any testimony in regard to that could 
not possibly prejudice these defendants. When they 
take such action as they choose, they thereby elect to 
take the consequences and whether or not somebody 
else did it or whether or not somebody else was not 
arrested has no bearing on it.

Mr. Sampson: Your Honor, we withdraw the ques­
tion.

Q. Mr. Beckham, can you, of your own personal 
knowledge, identify any of the particular eight defend­
ants on trial here this morning?

A. I didn’t get the chance to see them when they 
were up here. I don’t know whether I could or not, 
except by their names on the arrest tickets that we 
have.

Q. Let me ask you this: Mr. Beckham, since you 
can’t identify them, you don’t know whether they did 
any of these acts alleged in this warrant or not, do you?

A. They were part of the over-all group that were 
up there—yes.

Q. Have you read this warrant?
A. I heard the warrant read to each and every one.
Q. I asked you: have you read this warrant?
A. No, I didn’t read it but I heard it read to each 

one of the defendants.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

65

Dan F. Beckman

Q. When you heard it read this morning, that was 
the first time yon had heard it read, is that right?

A. No, I had heard that warrant read before.
Q. When, sir?
A. When they were at the County Jail or the City 

Jail and in that instance, most of these, with the excep­
tion of probably one, were in that group. They were in 
the City Jail, with the exception of probably one.

Q. Mr. Beckman, this warrant says here that traffic 
was impeded. As to any of these eight defendants, can 
you identify any one of them as having impeded the 
traffic?

A. With the exception that they were in the over-all 
group that was down there.

Q. Then, I understand you to say that these eight, 
if they were apart from the group, they wouldn’t be 
subject to the breach of the peace? Is that right?

A. I don’t understand that.
Q. If these eight defendants were detached from the 

group, they would not be subject to the breach of the 
peace, the allegation of this warrant?

A. They were all together down there. They were all 
a part of the over-all group.

Q. The truth of the matter is that you cannot iden­
tify any of these eight defendants as to whether or not 
they were singing or not, can you?

A. No, I can’t.
Q. It is also true that you cannot identify as to 

whether or not they were boisterous or not? Is that 
right ?

A. They were a part of the over-all group that were 
singing and hollering.

Q. You heard these officers testify, didn’t you?
A. Part of them, yes.



66 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Dan F. Beckman 
A. C. S horter, Jr.

Q. Part of them. From what you heard, state 
whether or not you recall, whether or not any of them 
said anything about any profanity having been spoken 
at all?

A. No, I didn’t hear any profanity at all.
Q. Mr. Beckman, state whether or not you heard 

any of these defendants, these eight defendants, make 
any threats to any of the officers present?

A. I didn’t hear any of them make any threats to 
any one.

Q. I understand that they did not act contemptuous 
at all, is that right?

A. With the exception of when they were given the 
fifteen minutes to disperse and leave and they started 
singing and stomping their feet and shouting.

Q. I see. You don’t recall any of the names of the 
songs, do you?

A. One was “ I Shall Not Be Moved” . I remember 
that and the Star Spangled Banner.

Q. Thank you.
(Witness excused.)

Whereupon, Mr. Coleman called Mr. A. C. S horter, 
Jr., who, being first duly sworn, testified as follows:

Direct Examination 
By Mr. Coleman:
Q. Mr. Shorter, do you have a physical connection 

with any State Agency?
A. Yes, sir, I am Lieutenant with South Carolina 

Law Enforcement Division.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

67

A. C. S horter, Jr.
Q. Did you have occasion on March the 2nd, last, to 

be in the vicinity of the State House, in the City of 
Columbia, on official business?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you relate in your own words anything 

which might have happened, that you saw or heard or 
anything of your own knowledge that occurred there 
that day?

A. I went to the State House, it was a little before 
12:00, and a group of young colored people came up. 
I don’t know whether they were students or not. Some 
of them I know to he students. They came up on Ger- 
vais Street from towards Assembly. I was standing by 
Mr. Harry Walker, Legal Assistant to Governor Hol- 
lings, and—

Q. Just at this point, Mr. Shorter—were you work­
ing under the direction of Mr. Walker?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Go ahead.
A. Mr. Walker told—
Mr. Perry: Your Honor, we have the same objection 

to that.
The Court: Objection sustained. No hearsay.
A. It was in the presence of these defendants and 

the co-defendants, Mr. Walker made certain state­
ments. After these statements were made, the students 
proceeded through the State House grounds, going 
around the State House to the Assembly Street side, 
turning left and starting towards Sumter Street.

Q. You are speaking of this group, this group of 
Negro students, approximately 200 in number, which 
was previously described here today?

A. This was the first part of approximately 200 
group. This group consisted of approximately twenty-



68 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

269

270

271

272

A. C. S horter, Jr.
five or thirty that was headed by another person, who 
is not a defendant here today. On the back side of the 
Capitol, I believe that’s Pendleton Street, is the State 
Highway Department, the Wade Hampton Office Build­
ing and the Calhoun Office Building, all State office 
buildings, in addition to the State House being a State 
office building. The people apparently were disturbed 
and generally disrupted in these buildings; they were 
peering from windows. They were singing, this group, 
in columns of twos, and each sidewalk that crisscrosses 
through the State House grounds, they wanted to go 
through. Those sidewalks are very narrow and would 
not allow over two people, walking side by side, to get 
through. This group of approximately twenty-five or 
thirty wanted to walk through there in columns of 
twos. I asked them to move on. They were very bel­
ligerent about it but did proceed to move on down the 
main sidewalk to the Sumter Street sidewalk and down 
to the Gervais Street sidewalk and back to the horse­
shoe. They were singing, chanting, shouting, all of this 
time, and when they got there, they started back to 
the State House grounds again in the same boisterous 
manner and I arrested the first group. Contrary to 
what was said, all of them were not marched to the 
Jail, some of them were carried in automobiles. This 
particular group was carried in an automobile.

Q. Mr. Shorter, were you in the vicinity of the horse­
shoe at all?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. What time did you first make your appearance 

there ?
A. I was there when this group arrived.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

69

A. C. Shorter, Jr.
Q. With relations to the area of the horseshoe, what 

was the appearance of the horseshoe as to persons 
within that horseshoe?

A. When this group first arrived, there weren’t too 
many bystanders, only the students stretched out 
down Gervais Street. However, the longer that they 
stayed and paraded around, the larger the number of 
bystanders got, until approximately two, or three or 
four hundred—I don’t know how many bystanders 
were there.

Q. How long after you first arrived did these stu­
dents march unmolested?

A. Forty-five minutes to an hour, I would say. I 
didn’t time them.

Q. After this forty-five minutes to an hour period, 
what was the appearance of any person who might 
have been in the horseshoe then? What were the num­
ber of people out there, so far as you were concerned?

A. In addition to the students and the police officers, 
I ’d sav there were two, three or four hundred by­
standers that would come by and we would immediately 
tell them to move on, which most of them did.

Q. Was the street around the horseshoe, the side­
walks around the horseshoe, were they free for traffic?

A. The horseshoe, of course, was blocked. At times, 
when the students would come through, I personally 
told them to not block the street and the sidewalks and 
the horseshoe.

Q. Did you give any personal instructions to any 
of the students to disperse?

A. I did not give any personal instructions to them 
to disperse.

Q. Were any official orders to disperse given to 
these marchers, to these groups ?



The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

A. C. Shorter, Jr.
A. Not in my presence, no, sir.
The Court: We will now recess for lunch. Return 

here at 2 :30 o’clock.
(Afternoon session.)
(Court reconvened at 2:30 o’clock.)
The Court: Does the State wish to put up any more 

witnesses'?
Mr. Jenkins: If Your Honor please, I believe the 

last witness put up by the State before lunch has not 
been cross examined by the defense.

The Court: That’s correct.
Mr. Shorter resumed the witness stand and testi­

fied further as follows:
Cross Examination

By Mr. Jenkins:
Q. Mr. Shorter, I ’m not quite certain I recall the 

detail of your testimony this morning, however, I do 
believe that you testified that you arrested one group, 
didn’t you?

A. I arrested several. I said I arrested the first 
group.

Q. You arrested the first group that was arrested 
on that day?

A. That’s correct.
Q. Now, in what area of the State House grounds 

were you when the first group was arrested?
A. On the front of the State House, in front of the 

main steps of the State House.
Q. Now, were the other groups in this vicinity when 

you arrested this group?
A. This particular group—I do not remember.
Q. You testified this morning, I believe on direct 

examination, that the students that you arrested were 
singing ?

70 SUPREME COURT



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

71

A. C. Shorter, Jr.
A. That’s correct.
Q. Will you state to the Court whether they were 

singing prior to the arrest or whether they began sing­
ing after your arrest?

A. Prior to and afterwards.
Q. How long prior to the arrest, do you recall, did 

the singing begin?
A. I don’t remember exactly. I ’d say it had been 

quite some time.
Q. Was that the first group, all of the group that 

you arrested?
A. All of them that I arrested.
Q. So, it is your testimony then that these persons 

you arrested that day were in the front of the State 
House grounds, singing, prior to the arrest of any of 
them?

A. They were on the State House grounds in front 
of the main steps to the State House.

Q. Is it your testimony that there was general sing­
ing among the whole group prior to the arrest of any 
of them?

A. That is correct.
Q. I believe you testified—correction, please. Mr. 

Shorter, I ’m certain you heard the testimony of Chief 
Campbell and other witnesses this morning.

A. I heard part of the testimony.
Q. Did you hear testimony from these witnesses that 

the persons arrested on March the 2nd had been given, 
in effect, fifteen minutes in which to get off of the State 
House grounds?

A. You’ll have to ask them what they said.
Q. I ’m asking you whether you heard some testi­

mony?



72 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

A. C. S horter, Jr.
^  A. I heard part of it. I don’t recall that particular 

part.
Q. Did you hear them testify as to that?
A. I said I did not remember that particular part 

of it.
Q. Do you know whether or not persons arrested on 

March the 2nd had been, in effect, given fifteen minutes 
to get off of the State House grounds?

A. Do you want hearsay testimony?
Q. I ’m asking you whether you know of any such 

^  limit of time?
A. You want me to tell you what I ’ve been told?
Mr. Jenkins: If Your Honor please, we request that 

the witness be instructed to answer the question.
The Court: Answer the question.
A. Yes.
Q. The testimony of the witness for the State this 

morning, from each of them, with the exception of 
yourself, was to the effect that there was no singing 
prior to these persons, who are now defendants, being 

287 given fifteen minutes, or something to that effect, to 
leave the State House grounds. Now, would you testify 
to that singing?

A. I do not remember such testimony.
Q. Do you recall whether or not there was any sing­

ing on the part of the groups which you arrested, prior 
to their being advised that they had fifteen minutes in 
which to get off the grounds?

A. As I have testified to previously, I do not know 
the exact time that they were given, the time limit to 

2g8 leave, therefore, I cannot say whether or not they were 
singing prior to their instructions to leave or not.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

73

A. C. Shorter, Jr.
Q. The eight defendants, who are on trial today, 

can you identify them or either of them as being in 
uither groups that you arrested?

A. I can identify those as part of the over-all group 
that was arrested at that particular time.

Q. Can you identify any of the eight on trial today 
as participating in any of these specific acts alleged 
in the warrant signed by Chief Campbell?

A. I can identify them as part of the groups, all of 
which were singing and causing general disturbance at 
the State House.

Q. What do you base your identification of these 
■eight defendants on or either of them?

A. All of them were arrested and booked. They have 
answered to their names as called and, if they are tell­
ing the truth, they are eight of the persons that were 
arrested that day.

Q. Other than that, you were not able to identify 
either of these defendants?

A. I doubt seriously that I could pick them out of 
a crowd of three or four thousand people.

Q. Could you pick them out of a crowd of several 
hundred that were on the grounds?

A. I doubt seriously—no.
Q. Mr. Shorter, did you have any conversation with 

any of the persons who were arrested on March the 
2nd?

A. None other than to tell them that they were ar­
rested, to tell them that they could not go double file, 
in groups of thirties, on the narrow sidewalks that 
cross the State House, that it would block traffic and it 
would block the sidewalks, and we could not have that.

Q. Did you discuss with them their purpose for be­
ing on the grounds that day?



74 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

A. C. Shorter, Jr.
A. I was present when the defendants had that dis­

cussed with them. The defendants’ avowed purpose 
there was to demonstrate, to walk around and around 
and around the State House.

Q. Now, when you said the defendants, did you mean 
these eight?

A. These eight plus their co-defendants.
Q. Are you saying to the Court that you heard more 

than 180 persons say to you that their purpose for 
being on the grounds was as you have stated?

A. Each group had a leader. The leader was talked 
to and the rest concurred by going along with their 
leader.

Q. Did you directly talk with either of these groups?
A. I did not directly discuss their purpose for being 

there.
Q. I ’m sorry—
A. I did not directly discuss their purpose for being 

there.
Q. Now, Mr. Shorter, I want to ask you another 

question. The groups that you arrested, state to the 
Court how many times those persons marched around 
the State House?

A. I don’t remember. Several, probably. I didn’t 
count them.

Q. It’s a fact that you didn’t know whether they 
marched around one time or two times?

A. They had been there ample time to march around 
a dozen times.

Q. Your answer is not in response to the question.
A. Would you repeat your question?
Mr. Jenkins: We move, Your Honor, that the wit­

ness’ answer to the previous question be stricken on 
the grounds that it was not responsive to the question.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

75

A. C. Shorter, Jr.
The Court: On the basis of what?
Mr. Jenkins: The answer was not responsive to the 

question that I directed to the witness.
Mr. Coleman: Strike it. It makes no difference.
The Court: Go ahead and strike it.
Q. The question was that you do not know, as a 

matter of fact, whether these persons that you arrested 
had been around the State House one time, two times 
or any number of times?

A. I know, to my own knowledge, that they went 
around at least once; two, three, four or five, I do not 
know.

Q. No further questions.
(Witness excused.)
Mr. Coleman: The State has no further witnesses, 

Your Honor.
Mr. Perry: May it please the Court, at this time, 

the defendants move for a dismissal of the cases 
against them upon the ground that the evidence of the 
State has completely failed to establish the c o r p u s  

d e l i c t i  and, since it has not been shown that any crime 
has been committed, the defendants are entitled to 
have the cases pending against them dismissed.

With Your Honor’s permission, I will now make a 
second motion and I will make one argument as to both 
motions. At this time, the defendants move for a dis­
missal of the cases pending against them on the ground 
that the State has completely failed to prove by com­
petent evidence a p r i m a  f a c i e  case. Now, I shall be glad 
to make a short argument, off the record, unless the 
State has some preference in that regard.

(Arguments followed.)
The Court: The motion is denied.



76 SUPREME COURT
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Mr. Perry: One further motion. At this time the de­
fendants move that the cases against them be dismissed 
on the ground that the evidence shows that by arrest­
ing and prosecuting the defendants, the officers of the 
State of South Carolina and of the City of Columbia 
were using the police power of the State of South Caro­
lina for the purpose of depriving these defendants of 
rights secured to them under the First and Fourteenth 
Amendments of the United States Constitution. I par­
ticularly make reference to freedom of assembly and 
freedom of speech. I shall make no argument on that.

The Court: The motion is denied.
Mr. Perry: May it please the Court, the defendants 

would like not to offer any evidence. We will have no 
testimony. At this time, I would like to renew all mo­
tions for dismissal, which were made at the conclusion 
of the State’s case and I would ask that it be included 
in the record verbatim, as if I were repeating them 
verbatim at this time.

The Court: The motions are denied.
Mr. Perry: Nothing further from the defendants.
Mr. Coleman: Nothing further from the State.
The Court: The Court before reaching the verdict 

will take a ten minute recess.
(Court recessed.)
(Court reconvened.)
The Court: I want to caution everyone within the 

courtroom here that when we began this morning 
I made the first rule that there would be no pictures 
taken. I have information that there is a camera in 
here now and I want to caution you that you will be 
held in contempt of court if any pictures are taken.

Will the defendants please come before the Bench?
(Defendants arraigned before the Court.)



Appeal from Richland County

The Court: Would the attorneys like to say anything 
before the Court renders its verdict?

Mr. Perry: Your Honor, nothing except the motions 
for dismissal which we have made. I understand that 
Your Honor has denied them. However, you have not 
yet made your finding as to whether or not you find 
them guilty or not guilty. We will reserve anything 
we have to say until after you have made your finding.

The Court: It’s a very hard problem that we are faced 
with, all of us, white people and Negroes also. When I 
talk to these eight and look upon the faces of the young, 
actually they are children, some of them, and perhaps 
counsel doesn’t realize—I imagine you do—that I ’ve 
been in office only thirty days. Prior to that, I worked 
with young people, devoted my life to helping young 
people, as the Juvenile Officer of this County. I have 
about as many Negro friends as I have white friends 
and I ’m proud of it, but there is one thing that dis­
turbs me more than anything else, that this fight over 
segregation or integration has nothing to do with chil­
dren because we are the ones, me included, we adults 
are the ones that have caused this problem. I don’t 
think it’s up to me to tell my little baby girl, five years 
old, to fight my battles for me. I don’t think it’s up 
to the people; I don’t think the decent people expect it, 
expect children to fight our battles. My battle, your 
battle, our adults’ battles, whites, Negroes, all of us.

It’s been many a day that I have taken children home 
with me, foundling children. I took off my own shoes 
in my own home and gave them to a boy to go to school.

To me the greatest asset that we have or shall ever 
have is our youth.

(The Court then questioned each defendant individ­
ually as to his age, home address, school, etc.)

SUPREME COURT 77



78 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

To each of you, James Edwards, Jr., Alvester Pate, 
jo9 Jr., Pinckney Mosley, Melvin Brown, Jr., Harold Eu­

gene Nimmons, Willie Boykin Jones, William Perkins, 
Bill Alvin Sullivan, it is the finding of the Court that 
you are guilty without question. No defense was put 
up in your behalf and the sentence of the Court is that 
each of you pay a fine of $100.00 or 30 days in the 
County Jail. However, I ’m going to do something here, 
which the law forbids me to do, but I make it public 
to each one of you minors—-how many of you are 21? 
(Only one, James Edwards, Jr., raised his hand.) To 
each one of you minors, I ’m going to suspend half of

810 that on the payment of a fine of $50.00.
There is something else that has come to my atten­

tion during the hearing of this testimony today. Get­
ting back to we adults using children and minors to 
fight our battles, adults’ battles, Negroes and whites, 
those who would use, misdirect, lead a child into a 
dangerous situation and yes, it’s dangerous. What hap­
pened yesterday? A Negro was stabbed right up here, 
one block from where we are, by a man, a cowardly 
man that he was. It is a dangerous situation. I would

811 pass out if I knew my child was put in a position that 
some violence could happen. We have fanatics in both 
races, extremists.

From the evidence that has come out to me today, 
and the testimony, there are indications from that 
sworn testimony of violations of another State law, 
contributing to the delinquency of a minor. It is Sec­
tion 16-556.1, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1960 
Cumulative Supplement. “ It shall be unlawful for any 
person over twenty-one years of age to knowingly and 
wilfully encourage, aid, cause or to do any act which 
would cause or influence a minor to (1) violate any 
law or municipal ordinance; become and be an incor-



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

79

rigible, ungovernable or habitual disobedient beyond 
the control of his parents, guardian or custodian or 
lawful authority; become a habitual truant without 
just cause and without the consent of his parents, 
guardian or other custodian; repeatedly desert his 
home or place; engage in any occupation which is in 
violation of the law; associate with immoral or vicious 
persons; frequent any place, the existence of which 
is in violation of the law; habitual use of obscene or 
profane language; beg or solicit alms in any public 
place under any pretense or so deport himself as to 
wilfully injure and endanger his morals or health or 
health of others. Any person violating the provisions 314 
of Section 16-556.1 (which I have just read) shall upon 
conviction be fined not more than $3,000.00 or impris­
oned for not more than three years, or both, at the dis­
cretion of the Court.”

Chief Beckham, of the Law Enforcement Division, 
hold that man under immediate arrest until I can issue 
a warrant charging him with contributing to the de­
linquency of a minor, which I will issue. Also, I want 
and request that the State Law Enforcement Division, 
the City Police and the Sheriff Department start an m  
immediate investigation into this whole thing, as to 
who, what, when, where, why and how the adults have 
violated, in my opinion, this section of the law.

I do hope that each one of you, with all my heart, 
will not be placed in this position again or place others 
in this position.

Mr. Perry: May it please the Court, we have several 
more motions we would like to make.

The Court: The defendants may now take their seats.
Mr. Perry: May it please the Court, the defendants 

now, at this time, respectfully move for arrest of judg­
ment or in the alternative, for a new trial upon all



8 0 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

grounds previously noted in the several motions for
sM dismissal. We urge that they be repeated in the record 

as fully as if I were repeating them verbatim here.
Mr. Coleman: The State opposes on the grounds 

set out in the previous argument.
Mr. Perry: We renew the three motions.
The Court: All motions denied.
Mr. Perry: The defendants, at this time, give verbal 

notice of appeal. We will tender written notice. We 
ask that the Court at this time set an appeal bond for 
deliverance.

sis The Court: The appeal bond for each one of the 
defendants will be $100.00.

Mr. Perry: All right, sir. With reference to defend­
ant, James Edwards, Jr., at this time, we ask that 
bond be set for this young man.

The Court: In this instance, it will be $5,000.00.
Mr. Perry: Will you continue the defendants under 

the appearance bonds, which have previously been 
posted until we can handle the administrative prob­
lems necessary to the substitution of the appeal bonds?

819 The Court: When would that be? We will allow until 
Thursday morning at 10:00 o’clock, with the exception 
of the person who is 21 years old, with that one excep­
tion.

(Court adjourned.)
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and cor­

rect transcript of the notes of testimony taken by me 
at the hearing of the above cause.

E leanor S. Mackey.
R e p o r t e r .

390 1



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

81

TRANSCRIPT OF TESTIMONY
Before Honorable Prank Powell, Magistrate, on 

Monday, March 13, 1961, Richland County Court 
House, Columbia, South Carolina.

Appearances:
For the State: J. C. Coleman, Esq.
For the Defendants: Lincoln C. Jenkins, Jr., Esq., 

Matthew J. Perry, Esq.
The Court: I would like to announce the rules of 

the Court. There will be no photographs or pictures of 
any type taken within this courtroom during this hear­
ing. Every one who wishes to attend may attend as 
long as there is a seat available. There will be no stand­
ing up around the walls, cluttering up or any outbursts 
whatsoever.

The State of South Carolina’s court has before it a 
warrant charging the following persons for breach of 
the peace: George Cleveland Foster, James Jerome 
Kirton, Isaac Washington, Roland Johnnie Rhames, 
Joseph B. Bailey, Isaac Jerome Campbell, Davie Green, 
Charles Fulton Barr.

Are these persons present?
Mr. Jenkins: They are present, Your Honor.
The Court: Are they represented by an attorney?
Mr. Perry: They are, sir.
The Court: Will those persons, please, approach the 

Bench?
(Defendants arraigned before the Court.)
The Court: Are you the persons just named charged 

with breach of the peace in Columbia, South Carolina, 
Richland County, on March 2nd, 1961?

Defendants: We are (in unison), yes, sir.
The Court: Take your seats.



82 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Irving G. M cNayr

Mr. Jenkins: At this time, if Your Honor pleases, 
we would like to state that these defendants plead Not 
Guilty.

The Court: Is the defense ready for trial?
Mr. Perry: We are ready.
The Court: Is the State ready for trial?
Mr. Coleman: The State is ready.

Whereupon, Mr. Coleman called Mr. Irving G. Mc­
Nayr who, being first duly sworn, testified as follows:

D i r e c t  E x a m i n a t i o n

By Mr. Coleman:
Q. Mr. McNayr, I believe you are the City Manager 

of the City of Columbia, South Carolina?
A. I am, yes, sir.
Q. As such City Manager, state whether or not the 

law enforcement agency of the City of Columbia, the 
Columbia City Police Department, is under your super­
vision?

A. The Police Department of the City of Columbia 
is under my direct supervision.

Q. State whether or not anything occurred of an 
unusual nature on last March 2nd, which required you 
to he in the vicinity of the State House grounds?

A. On March the 2nd, at about 10:45, I received a 
telephone call from Chief Campbell informing me that 
he had been informed that a meeting was being held at 
the Zion Baptist Church on Washington Street, and 
that, following that meeting, there would be a march 
and demonstration at the State House grounds.

Q. As a result of receiving that information, what 
did you do?



Appeal from Richland County

I rving G. M cNayr

A. I then asked Chief Campbell to pick me up at 
City Hall, to take me to the Zion Baptist Church, which 
he did.

Q. Where did you go from Zion Baptist Church?
A. From Zion Baptist Church, after we saw the 

Negro students beginning to leave the church and 
forming into groups of approximately—oh, fifteen to 
twenty, Chief Campbell then drove me to what is known 
commonly as the horseshoe at the State House grounds.

Q. I see. That is the area immediately in front of 
the front steps of the State House, where the monu­
ment stands?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. What time did you get there?
A. We got there at approximately 11:45—11:30 or 

11:45.
Q. What did you observe at that place?
A. After about a five or ten minute wait, during 

which we observed that there were police officers, those 
from the City of Columbia, from the State of South 
Carolina Law Enforcement Division and some State 
Highway Patrol in that vicinity. We then observed 
the students, the Negro students marching up in 
groups, as I have described, up Gervais Street, moving 
East on Gervais Street toward the Capitol.

Q. Can you estimate the approximate number of the 
Negro students you observed?

A. I estimated at that time something around 200 
Negro students.

Q. Did it appear to you that they were acting in a 
group or in concert, from the physical appearance of 
the students?

A. There was no question in my mind but that they 
were acting as a group and in concert.

________________ SUPREME COURT______________ 83



The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Irving G. M cNayr

Q. Did you have any conversation with the students
333

at that time?
A. Not at that time, no, sir.
Q. What did you do, with regard to the group, at 

that particular time?
A. I did nothing in regard to the group other than 

chat and stand around with Chief Campbell or other 
police officers and with Mr. Harry Walker of the Gov­
ernor’s Office.

Q. You were acting as an observer at that time?
A. Yes, I was.

384 Q. This was what time, again, please?
A. This was approximately 11:45.
Q. What course of action, if any, did the Negro stu­

dents, to which you have just referred, take then?
A. The Negro group then formed along the sidewalk 

between Assembly Street and the horseshoe, on the 
sidewalk adjacent to the Capitol, and each group was 
met by Mr. Walker and received instructions from him.

Q. Did you hear the instructions given to the stu­
dents?

336 A. Yes, I did.
Q. What was the nature of the instructions?
Mr. Perry: May it please the Court, we respectfully 

interpose an objection at this time to any statement 
made by other persons not a defendant on trial in this 
case on the ground that it would be violative of the 
hearsay rule.

Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, I have a par­
ticular purpose for getting this testimony in hut this 
same objection was made last time when we tried a 
group under similar circumstances here and I would 
like to clarify one matter, so far as I am concerned 
and that is about the hearsay rule. If this question is

84 ___________ SUPREME COURT_________________



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

85

Irving G. M cNayr

answered by Mr. McNayr, he is not giving information 
that was passed to him by a third party. The question 
was: were any instructions given these students, which 
you heard yourself. Should he testify, should he an­
swer that question, he is not testifying to something 
which was related to him by a third person. He is tes­
tifying to something which he actually was there and 
heard so, unless there is some other objection, I think 
the question and answer are both permissible so far 
as the hearsay rule goes.

Mr. Perry: May it please the Court, as I understand 
the hearsay rule, I think the matters, about which Mr. 
Coleman has just addressed himself, are precisely the 
matters covered by the hearsay rule. He seeks from 
this witness testimony which would, of necessity, re­
peat words which were spoken by Mr. Walker to the 
individuals who formed the procession about which Mr. 
McNayr is testifying. Obviously, the best source of 
information, which would be available in that partic­
ular regard, would be the person who gave the instruc­
tions. To permit this witness to testify concerning ver­
bal instructions which were given by someone else 
would deprive these defendants of the right to cross 
examine that person concerning the content and nature 
of the instructions and that is precisely what the rule 
against hearsay evidence is predicated upon. We, there­
fore, urge that the testimony, which is now sought to 
be elicited, would he violative of the hearsay rule.

Mr. Coleman: I have nothing further.
The Court: Objection sustained.
Q. Mr. McNayr, what course of action did the Negro 

students take after that, after you met them?
A. After the incident which I described, the Negro 

students were then allowed to walk through the State



86
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.
_________ SUPREME COURT_________

Irving G. M cNayr

House grounds in small groups. They proceeded to do 
that, many of them circling the Capitol Building, some 
few moving down the sidewalk towards Assembly 
Street. The great majority, however, circled through 
the State House grounds and then forming in a pro­
cessional line on the sidewalk—I have my directions 
wrong this morning—I think West of the horseshoe 
area, along Gervais Street.

Q. How long approximately, if you can testify of 
your own knowledge, did this activity take?

A. Approximately three quarters of an hour.
Q. During that three quarters of an hour, did you 

observe whether or not there was any interference with 
the students during that three quarters of an hour?

A. I observed no interference. I believe many of the 
groups were accompanied by police officers, either 
from the City of Columbia or from SLED.

Q. Then, so far as you know, they were allowed to 
proceed for three quarters of an hour without any in­
terference whatsoever?

A. Yes, they were.
Q. All right. After this period of time, what oc­

curred?
A. During the period which they were walking 

through the State House Grounds, a crowd of people 
were gathering, both within the horseshoe area on the 
Capitol side of the street and also on the opposite side 
of Gervais, particularly at the entrance to Main Street, 
the sidewalk area adjacent to the Wade Hampton Ho­
tel and I believe it’s the Palmetto State Life Insurance 
Building on the other corner. I have estimated the 
crowd at somewhere around 300 or 350 people, other 
than the students. This was during the lunch period



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

87

Irving G. M cNayr

and more and more people were proceeding from other 
State office buildings, I assumed, through the State 
House Grounds, also, those persons coming down to 
lunch in the downtown area would be gathering in the 
crowd.

Q. I believe, Mr. McNayr, there are sidewalks on 
each side of the horseshoe?

A. Yes, there are.
Q. I believe, also, there are lanes for vehicular traf­

fic on each side of the monument on each side of the 
horseshoe area?

A. Yes, sir, there are.
Q. These people, whom you have testified had just 

begun to gather within this area, where were they with 
relation to the sidewalks and the streets for vehicular 
traffic?

,A. Many of them were gathering on the sidewalks, 
adjacent to these sidewalks, and into the what would 
normally be the traveled way for cars parking within 
that horseshoe area.

Q. So far as it appeared to you that it might or 
might mot have any affect on the pedestrian and vehic­
ular traffic along those sidewalks and along those ve­
hicular lanes, this crowd or number of people, who had 
gathered, other than the students, did they have any 
affect on that pedestrian and vehicular traffic, so far as 
you could tell?

A. Yes, they did. Chief Campbell had to place an 
officer in the intersection of Gervais and Main to direct 
traffic because a group like that normally would slow 
down traffic anyway, going on Gervais and Main, and, 
in addition to that, we had on numerous occasions to



88 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Irving G. M cNayr

order the people to move out of the pedestrian walk­
ways so that groups could get through.

Q. Did this crowd gather all at once or did it in­
crease over the period of three quarters of an hour?

A. It increased all during that period.
Q. Did it appear to you that it was increasing and 

would increase further at that time?
A. Yes, it did.
Q. All right. What action then, if any, did you take?
A. When the groups, after they came through the 

State Capitol Grounds and started to form on the side­
walk West of the horseshoe area, I then got in touch 
with the recognized leader of the group, David Carter, 
who was in that immediate vicinity and told him that 
because of the gathering of the crowd, because of the 
fact that the sidewalks were being blocked, because 
there was always in a group like that a chance for 
violence and rioting to occur, that I felt that the stu­
dents must be dispersed and asked him to request each 
group to disperse and to go in orderly fashion back to 
their cars or their campus in small groups.

Q. Do you know of your own personal knowledge 
whether or not David Carter did relay this information 
to the various groups ?

A. Yes, I do. I was in his presence, oh, for fifteen 
minutes. I failed to add in my previous testimony that 
I told him that I felt that they should have fifteen min­
utes in which to disperse.

Mr. Perry: May it please the Court, I now offer a 
belated objection to any conversation with a person not 
on trial in this proceeding. Now, I do recognize that the 
witness has identified the person, whom he had this 
conversation with, as the recognized leader of the



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

89

Irving Gf. M cNayr

group. We hasten to add that this person is not today 
on trial and any conversation, which Mr. McNayr had 
with him, is irrelevant to the proceeding against the 
persons on trial this morning. We, therefore, inter­
pose an objection on the grounds of irrelevancy of that 
testimony and we move that all testimony with refer­
ence to the subject be stricken from the record.

Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, we are dealing 
here with a large crowd of people. It is manifestly im­
possible for Mr. McNayr or any one else, even if he 
had done so, to remember giving any instructions to 
the particular defendants on trial here today. He has 
testified that the entire body of students, consisting of 
200, maybe a little more or a little less, were acting in 
concert as a group. These defendants were amongst 
that group. He has testified that this David Carter ap­
peared to him and Avas the recognized leader of that 
group. Any instructions, any information which was 
conveyed by Mr. McNayr could not possibly have been 
conveyed individually to each of the 200 people there. 
As far as it being relevant, I should think it’s probably 
the most relevant point in the case. The students were 
allowed to demonstrate, to march for three quarters of 
an hour. Mr. McNayr has testified that they were al­
lowed to do so entirely unmolested. Nobody bothered 
them. Crowds began to gather, apparently attracted by 
these demonstrations, streets were blocked, sidewalks 
were blocked, it was up to him to give some official in­
structions to this group. He couldn’t go to each one. He 
gave it to the recognized leader. The leader gave it to 
the students in his presence. He is not testifying to 
what anybody told him. We can’t show that and it’s



90
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.
_________ SUPREME COURT_________

Irving Gr. M cNayr
impossible to ever deal in that manner with any crowd 
of people.

Mr. Perry: By way of reply, may I say, first of all, 
that there is no evidence that the eight dedendants on 
trial today were involved in the procession of indi­
viduals on March the 2nd, unless Your Honor con­
siders the fact that they later made bond, while under 
arrest at the City or County jail, as evidence of their 
complicity in the activities of the day previous. I re­
spectfully urge that the fact that they later made bond 
does not show that they engaged in any procession. 
That being the case, the statement made by Mr. Cole­
man in that particular respect that the proferred testi­
mony of Mr. McNayr at this time would tend to show 
that these defendants received a communication is not 
borne out by the logical sequence of the events as the 
evidence now relates them to be. We respectfully show 
that the testimony now sought to be elicited is irrele­
vant because it constitutes a conversation which oc­
curred between Mr. McNayr and the individual whom 
he identified as the recognized leader of the group. It is 
not shown that the conversation was with either of 
these defendants and we, therefore, respectfully sub­
mit that his testimony is irrelevant to the issues of 
this case today.

Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, Mr. McNayr 
has not testified that he and David Carter or anyone 
else gave instructions to these individual defendants. 
The activities of this entire group is the very body of 
the crime with which they are charged and he is tes­
tifying as to official instructions which were given to 
the large group, not the individual defendants.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

91

Irving G. M cNayr

The Court: Objection overruled. The witness will 
answer the question.

Q. Mr. McNayr, will you please proceed with your 
testimony. You had just testified that you had given 
certain instructions to David Carter and David Carter 
had relayed that information to various groups of stu­
dents in your presence?

A. Yes. I stayed with David. Each group was 
brought up and he talked to them. He did not give the 
instructions as I gave them to him. I gave them to him 
in much the same manner as I am speaking at the 
moment—

Mr. Perry: Now, may it please the Court, we respect­
fully object to testimony concerning what David Car­
ter may or may not have stated to other persons. We 
want it included in the objection on the ground that 
that is in violation of the rule of hearsay. Now, my 
previous objection was different. My previous objec­
tion was to any conversation between Mr. McNayr and 
David Carter. Of course, Your Honor has overruled 
that objection but now the objection is to the instruc­
tions, which David Carter may or may not have com­
municated to the other individuals. Now, Your Honor 
has previously ruled out testimony concerning what 
another State official communicated to the defendants 
by way of instructions. I respectfully submit that any 
instructions which David Carter may have communi­
cated wmuld be subject to the same objection, which we 
interposed previously, on the ground that it violates 
the hearsay rule.

Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, since the ques­
tion is not very important, I ’ll withdraw it.



92 SUPREME COURT
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al. ____

Irving G. M cNayr
Q. Mr. McNayr, after your conversation with David 

Carter, would you describe the activities of the Negro 
students, after you approached them yourself, and 
with David Carter?

Q. There developed a singing, chanting, shouting 
response, such as one would get in a religious atmos­
phere ; loud singing, stomping and so on, on the part of 
each group of students and the students as a whole.

Q. Was this audible for some distance?
A. I would guess it was audible all throughout the 

area.
Mr. Perry: I object to that testimony. It is specula­

tive.
A. It is.
Q. Did the students disperse after the chanting, 

which you have just described?
A. No, they did not.
Q. What was the size of the croivd of people in the 

horseshoe area, Mr. McNayr, at that time, with re­
lation to what it had been when you first got there?

A. It had grown from a relatively small group of 
probably 30 to 35 people to something in the neighbor­
hood of a 100 to 150 within the horseshoe area.

Q. What affect, if any, did this gathering of persons 
in or about the horseshoe appear to you to have on 
traffic, say on Gervais Street?

A. It was slowing up traffic on Gervais Street. Any 
loud singing, stomping of the feet and so on, such as 
occurred, would tend, of course, to slow down any 
traffic.

Mr. Perry: Objection. That testimony is speculative.
A. This is not speculative. This I observed.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County-

93

Irving G. M cNayr
Mr. Coleman: The witness has testified as to what 

he saw and it is not speculative.
Mr. Perry: It is not what he is testifying to in re­

sponse to Mr. Coleman’s question as to what effect it 
had on traffic. If the witness is being responsive to Mr. 
Coleman, the witness is testifying as to the effect that 
the singing had on moving traffic.

Mr. Coleman: The question didn’t have anything to 
do with the singing. The question was what effect did 
the gathering of persons in the horseshoe appear to 
have on traffic.

Mr. Perry: There again, Tour Honor, I ’m sure, of 
course, you are familiar with the area described as 
the horseshoe in front of the State House Grounds, and 
the testimony, as I understand it, is that the groups of 
persons were assembled, at least in part, within the 
horseshoe area. There is no testimony that these per­
sons extended out into the intersection of Main and 
Gervais, therefore, testimony on the part of Mr. Mc­
Nayr as to the effect of an assemblage within the 
horseshoe area upon traffic on Gervais Street would of 
necessity be speculative. It involved the giving of a 
conclusion on the part of this witness, which I feel the 
Court, in the interest of the expeditious and impartial 
administration of justice, should not permit. I think 
the answers, which the witness is giving to prove the 
State’s position, they have sought to prove it, except 
that we deny that it constitutes a breach of peace. 
They can prove their case without going into specula­
tive testimony or testimony which tends to represent 
the conclusions of the witness.

Q. Mr. McNayr, have you observed from time to 
time—



94 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Irving G-. M cNayr

Mr. Coleman: Pardon me, did your objection relate 
to the whole testimony?

The Court: As the Court understands your objec­
tion, it is just to the effect what Mr. McNayr saw on 
the traffic that was moving on Gervais Street.

Mr. Perry: As I understood the question, that was 
my objection.

The Court: Objection sustained.
Q. Mr. McNayr, are you familiar with and have you 

observed from time to time the normal flow of traffic 
on Gervais Street?

A. Yes, I have.
Q. Did you observe the traffic on Gervais Street at 

the time you just spoke of when the crowd of persons 
had gathered in the horseshoe?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was it normal?
A. The traffic was very considerably slowed down. 

There was a large volume of traffic but it had slowed 
down considerably.

Q. State whether or not there was any congestion of 
traffic?

A. Yes, there was congestion.
Q. All right, sir. What official action, if any, did you 

take at that time, Mr. McNayr, after the failure of 
the students, as you have testified to, to disperse?

A. I then informed Chief Campbell of my conversa­
tions with David Carter and, after waiting the fifteen 
minute period, he proceeded to arrest all of the Negro 
students in the State House area, both on the sidewalk 
and those still within the State House Grounds. He 
was aided during this period, of course, by the South 
Carolina Law Enforcement Division officers.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

95

Irving G. M cNayr

The Court: Court will take a 15 minute recess.
(Court reconvened.)

C r o s s  E x a m i n a t i o n

By Mr. Perry:
Q. Mr. McNayr, I believe that you have stated that 

you are in charge of the police activities in the City of 
Columbia by virtue of your being City Manager?

A. Yes, I am.
Q. On March the 2nd, how many officers of the Co­

lumbia City Police Department did you have assembled 
in the area around the State House Grounds ?

A. I think you would have to re-word your question: 
how many officers were assembled there. I would guess 
somewhere between twenty and thirty.

Q. I see. May I ask, sir, were they all congregated in 
the area which you describe as the horseshoe or were 
they all scattered around on other parts of the State 
House property?

A. They were not immediately assembled there in 
the horseshoe but they were largely within the horse­
shoe area, yes.

Q. I see. Sir, as you observed the various groups of 
Negro students approaching the State House Grounds, 
I believe you have stated that they approached in 
groups, which were separated from each other but ob­
viously moving in concert?

A. Yes.
Q. Will you describe the size of the various groups?
A. I would say they varied in size, anywhere from 

fifteen to thirty.
Q. I see. Now, those various groups, which you have 

described, were walking, I believe you said, upon the 
sidewalks, first of all, adjacent to the State House



96 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Ibving G. M cNayr

property and later they entered the State House 
Grounds, after having stopped and received some in­
structions from a State Government official?

A. That’s correct.
Q. In what manner were they proceeding? Were 

they, for instance, walking single file or walking two 
abreast or would you describe the manner in which 
they were proceeding?

A. When they moved to the State House originally 
or after receiving instructions?

Q. May I ask you, sir, to touch upon how they were 
walking originally and how they later walked?

A. Originally, they were walking in pairs, two 
abreast. If I recall correctly, they continued to walk 
through the Grounds two abreast.

Q. I see. Now, as I understand, the sidewalks that 
are placed on the State House Grounds are wide 
enough for more than two persons to walk upon them, 
are they not?

,A. Yes, they are.
Q. Was it possible for any persons, other than the 

students engaged in this procession, to walk upon the 
sidewalks at the same time?

A. It was possible but, I would say, difficult be­
cause I am not thoroughly familiar with all of the 
walks of the State House Grounds and they may well 
have broken into single file in order to let others pass.

Q. Now, sir, as you observed the procession of stu­
dents walking, as you say, in separate groups, in col­
umns of twos, to paraphrase what you have said, will 
you describe how far apart each two students were 
walking behind each other? My question really is, were



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

97

Irving G. McNayr
they walking as far apart as arm’s length or were 
they walking farther apart than that?

A. I would say at arm length or closer.
Q. Arm’s length or closer. Now, sir, you were pres­

ent and at least in command of the Columbia City 
Police on this occasion, did you receive any complaint 
from any person who complained of not having been 
able to use the sidewalks or to pass?

A. Yes, I did.
Q. I see. Who was that person?
A. There were a number of persons, I can’t identify 

them as such, they were mostly white ladies coming 
through the State House Grounds from apparently a 
State Office Building on the other side.

Q. Now, may I ask you to comment, sir, upon the 
nature of the complaints that were made to you?

A. The nature generally was very general, to the 
effect that they didn’t think this sort of thing should 
be allowed, that they were having difficulty passing 
through the State House Grounds going to their ac­
customed eating places.

Q. I see, but they obviously were successful in pass­
ing through the State House Grounds. They were not 
prohibited by any conduct.

A. They were successful in getting as far as me. I 
don’t know what happened to them.

Q. Were the persons engaged in the procession well 
dressed and generally well demeaned?

A. Yes, they were.
Q. Except for the fact that at one point, about which 

you have already testified, concerning the fact that 
they started singing, except for the singing itself, was 
their conduct generally well behaved?



98 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Irving Gr. M cNayr

A. I also testified that they were not only singing 
but stamping their feet, shouting, responding to a 
harangue.

Q. Now, at this time—
A. I would not in answer to your question call them 

well behaved at that stage.
Q. Prior to that time, you will agree that they were 

well behaved?
A. Yes.
Q. May I ask you, sir, when in point of time did 

you, acting in your official capacity, either yourself 
or your officers place the persons engaged in the pro­
cession under arrest or directed that they be placed 
under arrest?

A. Which do you want to know? Do you want to 
know when I gave the instructions that they be dis­
persed within fifteen minutes or when they were ac­
tually placed under arrest?

Q. My question had to do with when were they 
placed under arrest?

A. I can answer this one exactly—at exactly a 
quarter past one.

Q. Now, at the time the persons were placed under 
arrest, were they singing?

A. Yes. I think I could add, singing and stomping 
their feet and yelling and shouting.

Q. Now, of course, you do not know whether any of 
these defendants were so engaged, do you,

A. I can identify a few of them by sight. I don’t 
know their names. There were at least three or four 
of them I could place right there at the scene.

Q. What song or songs were they singing?



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

99

Irving G. M cNayr

A. As I testified at the last hearing, there was so 
much noise and shouting and singing going on that at 
first I couldn’t identify. I think you informed me and I 
do recalleet that they were singing the Star Spangled 
Banner; then they had one of their own apparently, the 
hymn sort of thing, “We will not go along” or some­
thing of that nature.

Q. So, they were singing the Star Spangled Banner 
in what you would describe as a loud tone!

A. Loud and boisterous.
Q. Now, sir, you did not say boisterous before. Let’s 

consider—what do you mean by boisterous!
A. Again, loud, flamboyant, all of those synonyms 

describing boisterousness, which you have made.
Q. I ’m afraid that doesn’t describe the term; per­

haps you did not use the term boisterous. I understand 
that you did say they were loud, but do I understand 
that you are accusing them of singing the Star Span­
gled Banner in any manner other than a respectful 
one!

A. Yes, I am, and I meant to imply that, actually. 
They were shouting; they were stomping their feet; 
they were raising their hands, in a manner which I 
would describe as boisterous.

Q. Were they disrespectful to you!
A. Yes, very definitely.
Q. Disrespectful in what manner, sir!
A. In the manner of not following any orderly pro­

cedure, continuing to shout and yell. They had been 
aroused to this pitch. You did not allow me to give the 
testimony of the harangue which raised them up to 
this point but they were aroused to a fever pitch caus­
ing this boisterousness, this singing and stomping.



100 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Irving Gr. M cNayr

Q. Did any of them use any profanity?
A. No, I heard no profanity.
Q. Did any of them act comtemptuous towards you 

or towards any bystanders?
A. Only in the manner of shouting and singing as I 

have described; no leering or anything like that.
Q. The singing of the Star Spangled Banner would 

not express contempt towards you, would it?
A. It was in contempt of my request, yes.
Q. May I ask you, Mr. McNayr, why did you direct 

the arrest of the defendants or the persons involved 
in the procession?

A. Because, in .my judgment, the size of the crowd 
had reached such proportions that I felt that it was 
possible that we might have a riot or other violence in 
the area.

399

Q. Now, what led you to believe that there might be 
a riot?

A. Simply by the size of the crowd, by the activities 
of the students, the rousing of the interest of those 
persons in the crowd to a point where they might well 
have rioted.

Q. Did you observe any persons among the on-look­
ers who tried to do violence or to in any manner in- 
terefere with the persons engaged in the procession?

A. I saw no actual violence. There were in the crowd, 
however, types of people whom we recognize were will­
ing, ready and able and eager to create voilence.

Q. What, if anything, did you do as the Commander- 
in-Chief of the Columbia Police on this occasion to 
interfere with those potential trouble makers, other 
than ordering the arrest of the persons engaged in the 
procession?



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

101

Irving G. M cNayr

A. That was the principal thing to do, to get rid of 
the source of the potential trouble.

Q. Yon have jnst described the persons in the pro­
cession as being generally well behaved up until they 
started singing?

A. Yes.
Q. I believe that you have not sought to testify that 

any of them were of a violent attitude. You said some 
were boisterous but you have not said they were vio­
lent.

A. That’s correct.
Q. You have not said that any of them were poten­

tially trouble makers or of a violent attitude?
,A. I don’t believe I ’ve said that. I don’t recognize 

them as potential trouble makers other than the fact 
that they—

Q. You never arrested the recognized persons 
among the on-lookers who were potential trouble mak­
ers?

A. No.
Q. And yet you did nothing about them?
A. There was nothing that I could do. They were not 

devoloping any activity which could have led to their 
arrest, but the students were.

Q. But you recognized that their mere presence led 
you, if I ’m quoting you correctly, to in your judgment 
to feel that the situation had gone far enough ?

A. That is correct.
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, counsel said 

that Mr. McNayr testified that their mere presence 
created this thing and I ’m quite sure if the testimony 
is read back, it was not their presence but that com-



102 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Irving G. M cNayr 
Chief L. J. Campbell

bined with the activities. I ’m not trying to testify as 
to what the witness said but he is misquoting him there.

Mr. Perry: I did not intend to alter any of Mr. Mc­
Nayr’s testimony. I do apologize.

The Court: Objection sustained.
Mr. Perry: Thank you, sir. No further questions. 
(Witness excused.)

Whereupon, Mr. Coleman called Chief L. J. Camp- 
40* bell who, being first duly sworn, testified as follows:

D i r e c t  E x a m i n a t i o n  

By Mr. Coleman:
Q. Your full name is L. J. Campbell1?
A. That’s right.
Q. Are you the Chief of Police of the City of Co­

lumbia?
A. I am.
Q. Did anything occur of an unusual nature on last 

March the 2nd which caused you to be in the vicinity of
407 the horseshoe of the State House Grounds?

A. Yes. I had information that there would be a 
march on the State House Grounds on the morning of 
March the 2nd.

Q. As a result of that information, did you go to the 
State House Grounds ?

A. I did.
Q. What time did you arrive there?
A. I would say about 11:15 or 11:30, somewhere 

around there.
Q. Where exactly or in what immediate vicinity did 

you station yourself?



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

103

Chief L. J. Campbell

A. At the intersection of the horseshoe and Gervais 
and Main.

Q. Would you state what you observed at that time!
A. When I arrived, I observed a group of students 

coming East on Gervais in the direction of the State 
House from Gadsden Street.

Q. Would you describe the appearance of this group 
of students'?

A. Well, groups of from fifteen to twenty and there 
were several groups travelling in the direction of the 
State House.

Q. Were they Negro students?
A. They were.
Q. How close together, if you can tell us, Chief 

Campbell, were these groups?
A. I believe they were a third of a block apart or 

something like that.
Q. Can you estimate the size of the entire group of 

students ?
A. I thought there was in the neighborhood of 200, 

in my opinion.
Q. What did the students do?
A. They marched on to the corner of the horseshoe 

at Gervais and Main, on the West side. They were ap­
proached there by Mr. Walker, the legal assistant to 
the Governor, and myself and Mr. McNayr, and I be­
lieve Mr. Shorter was there; I don’t remember whether 
Mr. Beckman was there or not. Mr. Shorter was, I 
know.

Q. Did either of the students or anyone acting on 
their behalf with them make any statement in your 
presence at that time?



104 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Chief L. J. Campbell

A. Students? The only statement that was made at 
that time was that they were asked by Mr. Walker, if 
the student who was leading, was he in charge of their 
group.

Q. Do you remember who that student was?
A. No.
Q. All right. Describe the activity, if any, which the 

students engaged in thereafter?
A. Well, they proceeded to go through the State 

House Grounds and they were instructed that they had 
a right to go through the State House Grounds but it 
must he peaceful.

Q. How long did this activity continue?
A. I would say for forty-five minutes or longer, may­

be forty-five minutes.
Q. Chief Campbell, when you first arrived at the 

horseshoe, were there any other people in and about the 
horseshoe except the students?

A. When we first arrived, the students had not ar­
rived.

Q. Were there any other people in or about the 
horseshoe at that time?

A. There were some police officers in and around 
the horseshoe area and a few civilians.

Q. What do you mean by a few?
A. I ’d say fifteen or twenty civilians.
Q. How long did this procedure or this marching or 

walking around the State House Grounds continue ?
A. I ’d say approximately forty-five minutes or 

longer.
Q. Did you remain in the horseshoe during this peri­

od of time?
A. I did.

416



SUPBEME COUBT 
Appeal from Bichland County

105

Chief L. J. Campbell

Q. Describe what you observed as to whether or not 
there were any people in the horseshoe after the forty- 
five-minute period?

A. A  large crowd had assembled.
Q. What were they doing?
A. Mingling around, talking, congesting the inter­

section.
Q. With relation to the sidewalks on either side of 

the horseshoe, the lanes for vehicular traffic, where 
was this crowd of people?

A. Of course, they were crossing back and forth on 
Gervais Street, on the sidewalks, on the horseshoe and 
all around the intersection.

Q. State whether or not this crowd appeared to you 
to be impeding traffic?

A. They did. We placed a man at the intersection to 
handle motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic.

Q. Were any of the Negro students in or about the 
horseshoe at this time?

A. They would cross the horseshoe from the West 
to the East and from the East to the West on the 
sidewalks.

Q. Do I understand you to say that they were in a 
process of continual movements in and about the State 
House Grounds, including the horseshoe?

A. That’s correct.
Q. All right, sir. After the forty-five minute period 

had expired, what action, if any, did you take?
A. Mr. McNayr instructed David Carter, who we 

considered the leader, whom we have dealt with for a 
period of a year, that the crowd was gathering and 
we would like for them to disperse within fifteen min­
utes.



106 SUPREME COURT
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Chief L. J. Campbell

Q. Did they disperse at the end of the fifteen min­
utes?

A. They did not.
Q. What action, if any, did you then take?
A. We arrested them at 1:15.
Q. Chief Campbell, how long have you been a po­

lice officer?
A. Thirty-one years.
Q. All of that time in the City of Columbia?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. State whether or not the presence of these stu- 

422 dents, that you have testified to, the presence of the 
increased crowd of on-lookers, as you have testified, 
had any affect on any official action that you took there 
that day?

A. Yes, it did. When a large group of people gather 
on an occasion of that kind, you never know what’s in 
the mind of people so I felt, for the safety of every­
body concerned, that the demonstration should be dis­
continued.

Q. Was this the reason for your participation in the 
arrest of these students ?

A. That’s correct.
C r o s s  E x a m i n a t i o n

By Mr. Jenkins:
Q. Chief Campbell, I  believe your testimony is that 

the persons on that day were participating in a so- 
called demonstration in walking groups, is that right!

A. That’s correct.
Q. You testified as to the size of the individual 

groups ?
424 A. I ’d say they ran from fifteen to twenty normally. 

At times it was larger groups than that. Now, on the



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

107

Chief L. J. Campbell

State House Grounds, I think probably two groups 
might get together, you know, in shutfling around. I 
would say there were larger groups at times.

Q. I believe you stated that the groups were ap­
proximately one-third of a block apart but walking 
East on Gervais Street towards the State House 
Grounds ?

A. I would say approximately that.
Q. You were present, I believe, at the horseshoe 

when the groups were stopped, the individual groups?
A. That’s right.
Q. Now, when these groups were stopped, did that 

tend to make the second group move closer to the first 
group ?

A. It did.
Q. And perhaps lose its identity as a separate group 

from the first group, is that correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. That was after the group in front had been 

stopped, however, isn’t it?
A. That’s correct.
Q. I believe you testified that each individual group 

was stopped near the horseshoe?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Then they proceeded on to the State House 

Grounds ?
A. That is correct.
Q. I read your affidavit on the warrant and on that 

affidavit you stated that some of these persons in the 
groups were bearing placards, is that correct?

A. That’s correct.
Q. Did you examine any of these placards?
A. I read some of the signs, religious things, words 

referring to demonstration.



108 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Chief L. J. Campbell

Q. Words referring to what, Chief?
A. Demonstration. I ’ve forgotten what was on them; 

seems like it was religions verses, for one thing. I 
couldn’t say.

Q. Do you recall whether or not some placards car­
ried what you would call discrimination slogans?

A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall that some of these placards car­

ried wording to the effect that they were protesting 
against certain conditions?

A. I would say that was the wording. I  couldn’t tell 
you what it was, hut I would say that was what was 
meant.

Q. That’s the general sense?
A. That’s right.
Q. Chief, did you form any opinion as to the purpose 

of that march on that day?
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, that has utterly 

nothing to do with the charge of the breach of the 
peace brought here today, Chief’s opinion on what the 
purpose of the march might have been. We’re getting 
into the socialogical question and that is not involved 
here. We’re dealing here with the activities of these de­
fendants, acting in concert, a large group of students 
and their purpose in being there is not related to the 
question before the Court today.

The Court: Objection sustained.
Q. Chief, did you talk with any of these persons who 

participated in the march on that day?
A. I don’t believe I did, direct. I might have talked 

to Dave Carter, I think I did.
Q. Did you hear—
A. I did talk to Dave Carter, yes.

432



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

109

Chief L. J. Campbell

Q. When these persons walked along in groups, 
were they conversing among themselves?

A. Yes, some.
Q. Do you recall anything which they may have 

said?
A. No, I can’t.
Q. Now, when they were marching East on Gervais 

Street in individual groups approaching the horseshoe, 
did you observe them obstructing any traffic, vehicular 
or pedestrian?

A. Of course, when they stopped, they probably did 
obstruct some traffic. They were two abreast and prob­
ably single file could have gotten by all right. Still, at 
that time, they had not been given instructions.

Q. Prior to being stopped by you and other police 
officers, they had obstructed no traffic?

A. I said they were in pairs and I would say a single 
file could have gotten by all right.

Q. Now, they walked peaceably on to the State House 
Grounds ?

A. That’s correct.
Q. Do you recall whether or not they were carrying 

placards at that time?
A. They were at the beginning.
Q. Do you recall what finally happened as far as 

the placards are concerned?
A. I can’t swear but I think that Dave Carter taken 

up the cards. He did take up some, I know, but whether 
he taken up all, I don’t know.

Q. Did you, Chief, walk around the State House 
Building with any of these persons?

A. I did not. I stayed at the horseshoe. I placed men 
over the grounds.



110 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Chief L. J. Campbell

Q. Did any of yonr men make a report that any of
4 these persons were disorderly in walking aronnd the 

State House Grounds?
A. They did not.
Q. Under normal circumstances your men would re­

port to you when you are at the scene?
A. They should.
Q. Is it reasonable to assume then that there was 

no disorderly conduct on the part of these persons, 
since you received no report from your officers?

A. I would take that for granted, yes.
438 Q. Now, Chief, when these groups of persons were 

stopped there at the horeshoe to be given certain in­
structions, it tended to slow down the whole walk, did 
it not?

A. Slow down the walk?
Q. Slow down the normal manner in which the 

groups were walking, isn’t that true?
A. I couldn’t answer that.
Q. Did all of the various groups of persons go on 

to the State Capitol Grounds?
439 A. They did.

Q. Did they ever at any one time congregate them­
selves together in a massed group ?

A. I don’t know whether you would call it massed; 
I would say that I saw two or three of the groups get 
together when they came out of the State House 
grounds and back up the sidewalk headed West, they 
did cross the intersection at the horseshoe back to the 
West corner.

Q. Do I understand your testimony to be then that 
as they marched around the State House Grounds and

440 came back West, when they got here at the horseshoe 
some of the groups tended to come together?



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

111

Chief L. J. Campbell

A. That’s right.
Q. Were they tending to come together because there 

were other persons standing there around the horse­
shoe?

A. Yes, other people were standing around the 
horseshoe.

Q. I believe, also, you were there stationed with 
other officers and, at this time, gave instructions to 
some of the group as to dispersement?

A. Mr. McNayr did.
. Q. You were present?

A. That’s right.
Q. Was it not at that time, also, that these persons 

tended to come together in larger numbers?
A. No, they would come together in larger numbers 

waiting for the walk light in the traffic lights.
Q. They were, then, observing the traffic regula­

tions ?
A. That’s right.
Q. So that, as any normal group of persons on the 

street tend to do when they come to a street where it 
has a red traffic signal, he would just have to stop?

A. That’s it.
Q. That would normally mean that you would come 

together closer?
A. That’s right.
Q. Your testimony is, Chief, that there never was 

at any time any one grouping of all of these persons 
together?

A. All? No, I wouldn’t say that.
Q. From all appearances, they were trying to keep 

from creating any traffic congestion. Would you state 
that as a fact?



The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Chief L. J. Campbell

445 Mr. Coleman: He can’t state as a fact what these 
students tended to do.

The Court: Objection sustained.
Q. Chief, you have been in law enforcement, I be­

lieve you said for thirty-one years?
A. Yes.
Q. Chief, do you recognize any of these eight de­

fendants today as having been arrested by you or any 
of your officers?

A. I couldn’t identify them, no.
446 Q- Do you recognize any of them as having partici­

pated in any specific act on March the 2nd, which led 
to the arrest of those persons?

A. The only thing I can say here is that they an­
swered to their names when they were called and their 
names are on the arrest record and their fingerprints 
are on the arrest record, but as to identifying one or 
picking out one, I  could not.

Q. As to identifying what any one did, while on the 
State House grounds or in that vicinity, you cannot 

w identify them?
A. I could not.
Q. Now, because of your training, Chief, what you 

had observed would stick in your mind, is that not 
true? Very keenly, isn’t that true?

A. What I observed, yes.
Q. Now, your special training as a police officer 

would make images that you observed stick keenly in 
your mind?

A. What I observed?
Q. Yes.
A. Well, I ’d say a majority of it would, yes.

112 SUPREME COURT________________

448



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

113

Chief L. J. Campbell

Q. Because of your training, incidents which take ^  
place in your presence would register more keenly than 
with a normal person, isn’t that true?

A. Well, it could. Naturally I try to observe.
Q. If you had observed these defendants or any of 

them breaching the peace, that woud have registered 
with you, would it not?

A. Well, it did register.
Q. Yet, Chief, I believe you testified that you had 

no conscious impression of any of these individuals 
participating in any act which led to their arrest? Did 
you not testify to that?

A. They were with a group that carried cards; they 
were with a group that were singing and they were 
with a group which were very loud and boisterous.

Q. That is an assumption, which you yourself have 
testified that you made, because down at Police Head­
quarters they answered to their names, they were fin­
gerprinted, they were charged with the breach of the 
peace?

A. With a group of people, yes.
Q. Chief, do you recall any individual making a com- «i 

plaint to you that they were not able to use the side­
walks or cross the streets because of these persons in- 
voved?

A. I had a couple of people to make the remark 
“Won’t you move these people, they are causing con­
gestion” and so forth. I don’t know who they were.

Q. Chief, I am reading from the official transcript of 
the hearing held on Tuesday, March, the 7th, and I 
am reading from your testimony. “ Q. Within your 
view, did they block anything? A. At times they blocked m  

the sidewalks and we asked them to move over and 
they did. Q. Did they obey your commands on that?



114
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

SUPREME COURT_________

Chief L. J. Campbell

A. Yes. Q. So that nobody complained that he 
wanted to nse the sidewalk and he conld not do it? A. 
I didn’t have any complaints on that.” Do you recall 
that testimony, sir?

A. I don’t remember.
Q. You were here the day that that testimony was 

given?
A. I said that I had remarks from a couple of peo­

ple and they said “Why don’t you move these people 
away from here? They are causing congestion.”

Q. But that was just in general a remark?
454 A. A  general remark. I wouldn’t say who it was, I 

couldn’t tell you who it was.
Q. They didn’t state that they, individually, were 

inconvenienced ?
A. I think I did testify that I did ask pedestrians to 

move on and not block the sidewalks.
Q. I believe you did testify to that. You also testi­

fied that they moved on at your command?
A. That’s right.
Q. Did you arrest on that day, in that area, Chief, 

<55 any one other than the persons who are defendants be­
fore this Court today and other persons charged with 
the breach of the peace?

A. There were 189 or 190 arrested.
Q. They were persons which you say participated 

in the walk through the State House grounds?
A. That’s correct.
Q. You made no arrest of anyone else, other than 

these persons?
A. No.
Q. No persons who were a part of the on-looking 

group was arrested?
A. No.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

115

Chief L. J. Campbell

Q. Thank you. No further questions.
By Mr. Coleman:
Q. Chief, just a moment.
Mr. Coleman: May I see the warrant, Your Honor1?
Tte Court: Yes. (Handing warrant to counsel.)
Q. Chief, I have in my hand a paper entitled “Ar­

rest Warrant” , State against George Cleveland Fos­
ter, James Jerome Kirton, Isaac Washington, Roland 
Johnnie Rhames, Joseph B. Bailey, Isaac Jerome 
Campbell, David Green and Charles Fulton Barr. Do 
you recognize that paper?

A. Yes, sir, that’s my signature.
Q. Do you recognize the persons who are named 

therein as having been within the group of names of 
persons which were arrested on March the 2nd and a 
part of the student group about which testimony has 
previously been given?

A. These names were called.
Mr. Jenkins: If Your Honor please, we will agree 

that the record will show that these eight defendants 
were charged on that warrant, they were arrested and 
that he signed the arrest records and they were finger­
printed, also.

Q. Were any other persons, other than the ones 
brought down to the Police Station and for which war­
rants were issued and which you signed, arrested that 
day in and around the State House grounds, to your 
knowledge?

A. Did I sign warrants against any other group?
Q. Yes.
A. I did.
Q. Any other except the students involved in the 

demonstrations ?
A. No.



116 SUPREME COURT
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al. ___

Chief L. J. Campbell

Q. So, then, the persons named in here were a part 
of the larger group which had been arrested by you 
and other officers and brought to the Police Station 
from the State House grounds?

A. That’s correct. The names were called that night 
by the Judge and they answered to their names in my 
presence.

Q. Chief, you were questioned on cross examination 
at length about the appearance and orderliness of the 
student group. Were they orderly at all times?

A. Not at the last.
482 Q. Would you describe the activities at the last?

A. As I have stated, they were singing and, also, 
when they were getting certain instructions, they were 
very loud and boisterous.

By Mr. Jenkins:
Q. As I understand your answer to the last question 

posed by counsel, you said after they were given cer­
tain instructions they became loud and boisterous?

A. Yes.
Q. Were those the instructions, which previously

463 have been testified to, that they had fifteen minutes, or 
something to that effect, to leave the grounds?

A. I believe your question is was that—
Q. Let me rephrase the question. Chief, we were 

talking about certain instructions given them and after 
them they became loud and boisterous?

A. That is correct.
Q. Now, were those the instructions to the effect that 

they would have a certain length of time in which to 
leave these grounds?

A. That is correct.
464 Q. Chief, I am reading again from your testimony 

the other day and, in answer to a question, you said



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

117

Chief L. J. Campbell 
Dan Beckman

this: “Well, they were singing and right noisy at times, 
particularly after the order was given to give them fif­
teen minutes to disband” . Do you recall that?

A. I just testified to that.
Q. Now, when you said today, in response to ques­

tion from counsel, that they were singing and boister­
ous, you meant the same “ that they were singing and 
right noisy at times” ?

A. That’s right. I think they mean the same thing. 
(Witness excused.)

Whereupon, Mr. Coleman called Mr. Dan Beckman, 
who, being first duly sworn, testified as follows:

D i r e c t  E x a m i n a t i o n

By Mr. Coleman:
Q. Mr. Beckman, what is your occupation?
A. Assistant Chief, South Carolina Law Enforce­

ment Division.
Q. In your official capacity, Mr. Beckman, as a mem­

ber of the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, 
dd you have occasion last March, the 2nd, to be in the 
vicinity of the State House grounds in the City of 
Columbia?

A. Yes, I did.
Q. What time did you arrive that day?
A. Right around noon, maybe a little after.
Q. Could you locate yourself upon arrival as to the 

front, back or side of the State House? Where were 
you with relation to the horseshoe?

A. I got there shortly before noon. There were a 
few officers from the Sheriff’s Department, maybe five 
or six from the Sheriff’s Department, maybe one of



1 1 8

Dan B eckman 
our men, and I went on around to the back of the 
building.

Q. What, if anything, occurred after your arrival!
A. I came around from the back of the building, that 

was around on, I guess, South Main Street side, I  came 
back around and I did observe one or two groups of 
colored people walking around the State House Build­
ing, which would be, facing Main Street, going around 
in this direction (indicating to the right), and other 
groups followed after that. Several police officers were 
around.

470 Q. Did this activity of the students to which you 
refer continue!

A. It continued for forty-five minutes, maybe an 
hour.

Q. Did you observe the area in and around the 
horseshoe upon your arrival at the State House 
grounds!

A. You mean when I first arrived or when the group 
started going through!

Q. When you first arrived!
471 A. It was clear. There wasn’t anybody around there 

at that time. The officers that I observed were stand­
ing up on the State House steps. I didn’t pay any atten­
tion much because I didn’t notice anybody around at 
that time.

Q. Within your personal knowledge, what occurred 
with relation to persons in the horseshoe or the ab­
sence of persons in the horseshoe during that forty- 
five-minute period!

A. Well, there was a large crowd of people in that 
area. It was right around lunch time and I believe I 

412 observed Mr. Walker talking to a group. I was in the 
back part, about middle-ways in there.

SUPREME COURT
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

119

Dan Beckman

Q. With regard to the sidewalks on either side of 
the monument and the lanes for vehicular traffic on 
each side of the horseshoe, where were these crowds 
located?

A. They were up on the corners, the corner of Ger- 
vais and the horseshoe, across the street; there were a 
group of people gathering over there by the hotel and 
I noticed a group of people across from the other cor­
ner, I think that’s the Palmetto Building over there, 
and there were people to the right, on the corner of 
Gervais and the horseshoe, and all around up in front.

Q. Were these people included in the crowd occupy­
ing the streets, the sidewalks?

A. Some of them were. Some were on the sidewalks 
and some were in the front of that horseshoe. I ob­
served some in front of the horseshoe area.

Q. Was the traffic moving in a normal manner or had 
it become stationary, more or less?

A. The traffic was moving slow at that time. If any­
body had tried to get in that horseshoe, certainly they 
would have been held up trying to get in or out at that 
time.

C r o s s  E x a m i n a t i o n

By Mr. Perry:
Q. Lieutenant Beckman, you said if anybody had 

tried to use that road around the horseshoe they would 
have been blocked?

A. I ’m satisfied they would have had difficulty get­
ting in or out.

Q. Did anybody attempt to use that, sir?
A. I didn’t observe anyone trying to use it, any ve­

hicle trying to get out of there.
Q. Thank you, Lieutenant Beckman. Lieutenant 

Beckman, I understand that you, too, were present and



120 SUPREME COURT
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Dan B eckman

observed the students as they walked around the State 
House premises for some time?

A. That’s correct.
Q. Now, Chief Campbell has stated that generally 

the students were well demeaned. Do you agree with 
that statement?

A. To a certain extent.
Q. To a certain point?
A. That’s correct.
Q. I believe, at which time he stated that they 

started singing in what he described as a noisy 
fashion ?

A. That’s right.
Q. Now, sir, Chief Campbell also stated that as he 

observed the students walking through the State House 
grounds, they were at times, some of them, in columns 
of twos and in some instances he observed them single 
file. Did you observe the same thing?

A. That’s correct.
Q. Did you, sir, observe that persons who also 

wanted to use the sidewalks were able to do so?
A. At times the sidewalks were blocked and they 

could not have gone through unless somebody asked 
them to move, I ’ll have to put it that way. The side­
walks were blocked at times.

Q. In that regard, Chief Campbell said that some 
of the persons engaged in the procession of students 
tended to block the sidewalks and, when he directed 
them to move on, they did. Is such your observation?

A. That’s correct.
Q. So, that even if any of the students who were en- 

1 gaged in the procession did tend at times to block the 
sidewalks, whenever you or Chief Campbell or some



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

121

Dan B eckman

other officer directed them to move on and not congest 
the sidewalk, they generally obeyed that command?

A. I didn’t have the opportunity to have to ask any 
of them to move.

Q. I believe that your testimony, just as Chief 
Campbell’s is, is that their behavior was good generally 
until they were told by the authorities to disperse?

A. That’s correct.
Q. Lieutenant Beckman, do you recognize any of the 

eight persons on trial today as having been engaged 
in any particular part of the procession on March the 
2nd?

A. The only way that I could identify them, as part 
of the over-all group, by fingerprints on their cards as 
being eight of the number when they were booked at 
the City Jail.

Q. You cannot definitely, other than by normal 
police methods of identification, identify them?

A. I think there is one, but I wouldn’t want to say. 
I ’m not absolutely positive.

Q. I see. Lieutenant Beckman, were you the ranking 
official from the South Carolina Law Enforcement Di­
vision present that day?

A. I was.
Q. How many other members of your staff were 

present?
A. Two.
Q. I believe you testified the other day that, while 

you were cooperating with the other officials, neverthe­
less you made your decision independently?

A. That’s correct.
Q. At what time did you decide to place any group 

of persons under arrest?



122 SUPREME COURT_________
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Dan B eckman

A. I would say approximately five minutes after Mr. 
McNayr had talked with David Carter.

Q. I see. Were you present at the time that Mr. Mc­
Nayr talked with David Carter?

A. Yes.
Q. Did you remain in the general area where Mr. 

McNayr was or did you move to another area?
A. I moved over, maybe thirty feet.
Q. Did you observe any of the signs that any of the 

students might have been carrying?
A. I saw their signs hut I don’t recall any of the 

wording on any of them, hut I remember looking at 
them, hut I don’t remember what they were.

Q. So far as you were able to observe, the nearly 200 
persons engaged in this procession were generally 
orderly?

A. I would say, yes; hut from then on, no.
Q. From then on what?
A. No, I would say they were disorderly, they were 

noisy.
Q. Now, you say they were noisy? Were they talking 

loud or singing loud?
A. Singing loud, hollering, clapping their hands, 

stomping their feet and that singing continued on, even 
after they had been arrested.

Q. How long did the singing go on before they were 
placed under arrest?

A. I would say about five minutes after Mr. McNayr 
had talked with them, about that long I ’d say.

Q. Did any of the persons involved in this proces­
sion threaten you or any other officer with bodily 
harm?

A. No one threatened me.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

123

Dan B eckman

Q. I see. So far as you were able to observe, did they 
threaten any onlooker?

A. I didn’t hear them threaten any one.
Q. Were any of them armed?
A. Not to my knowledge.
By Mr. Coleman:
Q. Mr. Beckman, getting back just a minute to this 

horseshoe immediately in front of the State House, 
now, at the time the arrests were first begun, the time 
of the first arrest, and immediately preceding that, say 
for five minutes or longer, was that horseshoe in front 
of the State House clear, other than normal traffic, 
where a vehicle wishing to use it could have used it 
without interference?

A. I would say maybe, at times, but it’s narrow up 
in the front there; you don’t have very much room to 
get a car in or out up there and, if a car had wanted 
to come through, probably somebody would have to get 
somebody to move out the way because there were 
people up in there.

Mr. Coleman: No further questions.
By Mr. Perry:
Q. Lieutenant Beckman, the area, which has been 

generally described here as the horseshoe area in front 
of the State House grounds, is not really a thorough­
fare, is it?

A. No, it’s an entrance and exit for those having 
business in the State House.

Q. Wouldn’t you describe that area as a parking 
area instead of a thoroughfare?

A. I ’ve used that as a parking area and I ’ve used it 
to transact business in there, at times.



124 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Dan Beckman 
A. C. Shorter, Jr.

Q. Generally speaking, whenever you have entered 
that area in your automobile, you have been there for 
the purpose of parking your car?

A. To carry on business in there, sometimes I have 
parked in there.

Q. In other words, you just don’t normally drive in 
and around that horseshoe for the purpose of using 
that as a street or getting to any particular point?

A. I used it to get in the State House.
Q. You do not agree that that area is more for park­

ing than for a thoroughfare?
A. It’s used as both.
Mr. Perry: That’s all.
Mr. Coleman: No further questions.
(Witness excused.)

Whereupon, Mr. Coleman called Mr. A. C. Shorter, 
Jr., who, being first duly sworn, testified as follows:

D i r e c t  E x a m i n a t i o n  

By Mr. Coleman:
Q. Mr. Shorter, where are you employed?
A. South Carolina Law Enforcement Division.
Q. Did you have occasion on last March the 2nd to 

carry out any official duty in the vicinity of the State 
House or the State House grounds in the city of Co­
lumbia?

A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. Mr. Shorter, have you ever before had occasion 

to be on the State House grounds in your official
capacity?

A. Yes, sir, I have.



125SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

A. C. Shorter, Jr.
Q. Would you relate what caused you to be there 

that time?
Mr. Perry: I ’m at a loss to understand the relevancy 

of Mr. Shorter’s previous business on the State House 
grounds. I, therefore, interpose an objection.

Q. Mr. Shorter, when you were ordered to make an 
appearance on the State House grounds on last March 
the 2nd, did you do that solely for the purpose of at 
all of preventing any persons from walking in or 
around the State House grounds?

A. I did not do that for any purpose of depriving 
anybody of the use of the State House grounds.

Q. Do you know whether or not, of your own per­
sonal knowledge, any request that has been previously 
made from any organization or any person for any 
demonstration on the State House grounds?

Mr. Perry: I object to that question on the ground 
that I know of no law which requires any one to secure 
permission to use the State House grounds, nor has it 
been made to appear that, even if it is necessary to 
secure the permission, that the permission of Lieuten­
ant Shorter should be secured. Therefore, I object to 
the question on the grounds of its irrelevancy.

Q. Mr. Shorter, we will leave that without going 
into it. What time did you arrive on the State House 
grounds last March the 2nd?

A. Shortly before noon.
Q. Did you observe the horseshoe at that time?
A. I did, sir.
Q. Describe what you saw?
A. When I first arrived, there were several officers 

there. I joined Chief Campbell, City Manager McNayr, 
Mr. Harry Walker and other officers. Shortly after I 
joined them, the group of Negro students, walking



126 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

A. C. Shorter, Jr.
M1 double file, two abreast, approached the west side of 

the horseshoe from the west, on Gervais Street. After 
they approached this horseshoe and, as a result of the 
conversation there, they proceeded through the State 
House grounds, around the west side of the State 
House to Pendleton Street and there east, on the side­
walk of Pendleton Street. They were two abreast and 
approximately thirty in number. As they arrived at 
each very narrow sidewalk there, there is only room 
for about two people to walk abreast; they wanted to 
go through. They were in more or less zig-zag forma-

508 tion. At the first sidewalk, I told them they could not 
go through in that manner, that the sidewalks criss­
cross and that they would block traffic, that they would 
also prevent anyone from passing or meeting them and 
going about their orderly business. I, also, observed 
the State House, the Wade Hampton Office Building 
and the Calhoun Office Building, and in each of these 
there were persons at windows observing this general 
demonstration there on the State House grounds. The 
leader of that group, whom I know, was very belliger-

$os ent in that he would not accept my suggestion on each 
sidewalk, but as he approached each and every side­
walk on Pendleton, Sumter and back on Gervais 
Streets, back to the horseshoe, he again said “We want 
to go through here” . He said nothing about being sin­
gle file or dispersing into smaller groups. He did get 
back to the horseshoe and started back around the 
State House. How many times they went around, I do 
not know. They were singing, shouting, clapping their 
feet and hands and, at that time, I proceeded to make 
some arrests.

504



SUPREME COURT 127
Appeal from Richland County 

A. C. Shorter, Jr.

C r o s s  E x a m i n a t i o n

By Mr. Perry:
Q. Mr. Shorter, do I understand you are Lieutenant 

Shorter ?
A. That is correct.
Q. Are you of equal rank with Lieutenant Beckman 

of the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division?
A. Would you repeat that?
Q. Are you of equal rank with Lieutenant Beckman?
A. Lieutenant Beckman is not Lieutenant Beckman. 

He is the Assistant Chief Beckman.
Q. Thank you for correcting me on that. Then you 

are not of equal rank with Assistant Chief Beckman?
A. I am not.
Q. Was Assistant Chief Beckman in charge of any 

persons, who might have been present from the South 
Carolina Law Enforcement Division?

A. Assistant Chief Beckman was on the State House 
grounds and we were not together at all times. As offi­
cers, we have to make our own decisions. I made mine 
and I ’m sure he made his.

Q. You mean to say you acted independently of As­
sistant Chief Beckman?

A. I was not acting independently of him but work­
ing with him.

Q. You were in cooperation with him?
A. That is correct.
Q. If you were acting in cooperation with him, as 

your superior officer, you were taking orders from him, 
weren’t you ? ,!

A. Not on each individual arrest, no.
Q. But generally speaking, you were subject to his 

command, weren’t you?



128 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

A. C. Shorter, Jr.
A. I was subject to bis command. He ordered that I 

be there to keep the peace and that’s what I tried to do.
Q. Now, sir, nobody has said anything about your 

being there to protect the peace.
A. You asked the question and I answered it.
Q. You were there subject to the command of As­

sistant Chief Beckman?
A. That is a large block, as you know.
Q. Did you see the same thing that he saw?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Were you always in his presence?
A. I don’t know.
Q. You should be able to know that. You know a 

lot more about what happened that day.
A. I know what I did. I don’t know what he did.
Q. Were you in his presence at all times?
A. I don’t know.
Mr. Perry: I respectfully submit, Your Honor, that 

this witness ought to be required to answer that.
The Court: The witness will answer the question: 

were you or were you not in the presence of Assistant 
Chief Beckman?

A. Your Honor, I respectfully submit that I do not 
know whether I was in the presence of Assistant Chief 
Beckman at all times. I ’d say this, I did not see him 
at all times.

Q. All right. Were you in any times in the presence 
o f Chief Campbell of the City Police?

A. I was at times in the presence of Chief Camp­
bell.

Q. Were you in the presence of Mr. McNayr, the 
City Manager?

A. I was at times in the presence of Mr. McNayr, 
the City Manager.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County-

129

A. C. S horter, Jr.
Q. Were you in the horseshoe area, going into the 

State House grounds, at the time the procession of 
students first entered the State House grounds?

A. I believe I arrived prior to their entering the 
State House grounds.

Q. Therefore, you saw the same thing that the other 
officers saw?

Mr. Coleman: I f Your Honor please, he is obviously 
asking a question which he cannot answer. How can 
this witness testify that he saw the same thing as 
somebody else saw? I have let counsel go pretty far 
along this line, but how can a man possibly testify to 
any such thing?

Mr. Perry: Your Honor, I respectfully submit that 
I am on cross examination and you should allow me 
wide latitude with this witness. He obviously has seen 
more than anybody else saw and, therefore, we want 
to cross examine him.

Mr. Coleman: There’s no testimony whatsoever that 
this man saw any more than any other person.

Mr. Perry: You read the record and you will see 
that he says he saw more.

The Court: Objection sustained.
Q. Now, let me ask you this, Lieutenant Shorter. Mr. 

Beckman says that the procession of students were 
orderly in every respect until they were told to dis­
perse. Do you differ from Assistant Chief Beckman’s 
testimony in that regard?

A. I did not hear the students when they were told 
to disperse as I have testified previously. I do not know 
when they were told to disperse.

Q. But your testimony is that when they first en­
tered the grounds they were singing and shouting?



130 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

A. C. S horter, Jr.
A. My testimony is that as they went around the 

State House they were belligerent and trying to go 
through and block the crisscross walkways in the State 
House grounds rather than to follow my suggestions 
to single file and in smaller numbers and that’s what 
I ’m saying.

Q. Who were they belligerent to?
A. To me.
Q. In what manner were they belligerent to you?
A. By not following my suggestions that they would 

block those narrow sidewalks and those crisscross side­
walks in the State House property.

Q. Now, Chief Campbell says the group walked 
through, double abreast, columns of twos and in some 
instances single file. Does your testimony differ from 
that?

A. I ’m telling you what I saw and what I heard. 
Chief Campbell will have to testify for himself.

Q. I ’m just wondering really why did you see some­
thing that Chief Campbell did not see?

Mr. Coleman: Your Honor, I hate to keep interrupt­
ing counsel but, as a basic principle of law, this man 
cannot be put up here to witness and play off incident 
by incident, testimony by testimony, against some 
other witness. He has testified as to what he saw. He 
may be cross examined as to what he said. He may not 
be cross examined as to what somebody else did.

Mr. Perry: He can say whether or not he under­
stands the facts as the other witnesses understood 
them. Your Honor, I respectfully submit now, and be­
fore you make your ruling, I urgently request permis­
sion to proceed to cross examine this witness because 
it is quite obvious that his testimony is varying ma­
terially from other witnesses who have testified in this



SUPREME COURT 131
Appeal from Richland County 

A. C. Shorter, Jr.
proceeding and I think that Your Honor is entitled to 
be made to realize in what manner his testimony varies.

The Court: Objection sustained as to the testimony 
pertaining to what Chief Campbell saw. He can tes­
tify as to what he himself saw and as to what was seen 
by Chief Campbell, we will rule that out.

Q. As I understand you to say, Lieutenant Shorter* 
you said that you heard people singing the first time 
they went around the State House grounds?

A. I did not testify to that.
Q. Just say yes or no.
A. I said that I did not testify to that. You asked 

me—
Q. Did you understand that question? You heard 

them singing when they first went around?
A. I said no.
Q. Now, when you did hear them first singing, what 

were they singing?
A. I don’t remember what they sang.
Q. Would you recognize the Star Spangled Banner 

if you heard it?
A. If it were sung out there, I think I would recog­

nize it.
Q. Was it sung?
A. I don’t remember hearing it.
Q. Now, did you follow the same group of persons 

around the State House grounds at all times or did 
you station yourself at some point on the grounds?

A. I followed one group entirely around the State 
House grounds and then I walked about the State 
House grounds to see that nothing took place out of 
order.

Q. You say you walked about the State House 
grounds to see that nothing took place out of order?



132 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

A. C. Shorter, Jr.
A. Correct.
Q. Did you become aware of the persons as they 

were congregating on the streets adjacent to the State 
House grounds ?

A. I did observe a number of persons.
Q. Do you recognize any of the defendants before 

the Court today as being a part of the procession on 
March 2nd?

A. Would you ask them to stand up?
Q. Well, they are all sitting down. I believe you 

have had an opportunity to observe them?
A. If you’ll ask them to stand up, I will tell you yes 

or no, whether I can recognize them.
Q. You have had an opportunity to observe them.
Mr. Perry: I  respectfully submit, Judge, that this 

man can say whether or not he recognizes any of the 
group, persons, on that day. If he does or he doesn’t, 
he can say.

The Court: The witness from his viewpoint can see 
if he recognizes them. I f he can’t, let him say so.

A. I can recognize some persons in the courtroom.
The Court: This first row here are the eight de­

fendants.
A. No, I cannot recognize any of those eight.
Q. Did any of these defendants on trial today or did 

any person threaten you in any manner?
A. Threaten me?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. Did they attempt to do you bodily harm in any 

way whatsoever?
A. No.
Q. When you placed certain persons under arrest, 

did they submit peaceably to that arrest?



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

133

A. C. Shorter, Jr.
A. I don’t know how peacefully they submitted to the 

arrest.
Q. Did they resist arrest?
A. They were singing and shouting and clapping 

their hands and what not. I don’t consider that to be 
peacefully.

Mr, Perry: Your Honor, that does not respond to 
my question. I move that that answer be stricken and 
that the witness be directed to answer the previous 
question as to whether or not any of the defendants 
resisted his arrest.

Mr. Coleman: Judge, if you please, may I comment 
on this ? Counsel has come pretty close to arguing that 
this man has got to answer the question yes or no in 
all cases. I believe he has adequately described the 
activity, what these people did and why they were be­
ing placed under arrest. It’s hard to tell what resist 
arrest means. Certainly a witness doesn’t have to an­
swer yes or no without any qualification or explanation 
to his answer.

Mr. Perry: Your Honor, he knows whether they re­
sisted or not.

The Court: The question of resisting arrest is not 
before the Court at this time. The question is breach 
of the peace. They were put under arrest and you want 
to know were they peaceful?

Mr. Perry: No, sir, I was really asking whether or 
not they resisted arrest or whether they submitted to 
the arrest without any difficulty.

The Court: The charge is breach of the peace so we 
will assume that they did not resist arrest. The Court 
will assume that.

Mr. Perry: All right, sir. That’s all.
(Witness excused.)



The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Mr. Coleman: We have no further witnesses.
The Court: Court is recessed until 2 :00 o’clock.
(Afternoon session.)
(Court reconvened at 2:00.)
Mr. Perry: May it please the Court, at this time, the 

defendants move to dismiss the cases pending against 
them on the grounds that the State has failed to es­
tablish the c o r p u s  d e l i c t i .  We further move to dismiss 
the case on the ground that the State has failed to 
prove a p r i m a  f a c i e  case. I will make no argument on 
that motion.

Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, sufficient evi­
dence is in the record, sufficient to prove the crime and 
associate the eight defendants here today with that 
crime, breach of peace, and, therefore, we oppose coun­
sel’s motion.

The Court: The motion is denied.
Mr. Perry: May it please the Court, at this time the 

defendants move to dismiss the case against them on 
the ground that, by arrest and prosecution of these de­
fendants, the police powers of the State of South Car­
olina are being used to deprive the defendants of the 
right of freedom of assembly and to freedom of speech 
guaranteed to them by the First Amendment to the 
United States Constitution and further secured to them 
under the able protection and due process clauses of 
the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Con­
stitution, the evidence conclusively showing that at the 
time of their arrest the defendants were included in a 
peaceful and lawful assemblage of persons, orderly in 
every respect upon the public streets of the State of 
South Carolina. That is the motion and there is no 
argument.

Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, the State op­
poses that motion on the ground that, if there ever has

134 SUPREME COURT



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

135

James Jerome K itron

been a case of this nature more clearly shown, the law 
enforcement officers had leaned over backward in or­
der to permit an orderly demonstration and did per­
mit a demonstration. The evidence is clear that they 
were not interfered with until such time as it became, 
in a manner, disorderly. The facts show that circum­
stances surrounding the whole occurrence created a 
breach of the peace, in lieu of a situation which a much 
worse breach would have occurred had it not been 
stopped.

The Court: The motion is denied.

Whereupon, Mr. Jenkins called James Jerome K ir- 
ton, who, being first duly sworn, testified as follows:

D i r e c t  E x a m i n a t i o n

By Mr. Jenkins:
Q. Mr. Kirton, speak loudly enough so that we can 

clearly understand you because your testimony will be 
reported by the Reporter. You are one of the defend­
ants on trial here today?

A. That is correct.
Q. You were arrested with a group of persons on 

the 2nd day of March, 1961, is that correct?
A. I was.
Q. Will you relate to the Court the circumstances 

leading up to your arrest that day?
A. On March the 2nd, 1961, a group of students left 

Benedict College and proceeded to Zion Baptist 
Church; arriving at Zion Baptist Church, we held 
something of a semi-pep rally to reaffirm those things 
which we believe in. We divided up into groups of fif­
teen to eighteen possibly and proceeded to the State 
House grounds. We were stopped near the State House



136 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

James Jerome K itron

grounds, I ’m not familiar with the streets, and we were 
detained by some official, I ’m not certain of his name 
either. Then we proceeded on the grounds and we went 
around once. Then we were detained again by an officer 
and we were asked to disperse and to depart from the 
area.

Q. Now, let’s go back a little bit. You met at Zion 
Baptist Church!

A. That is correct.
Q. Now, you say there were a group of students 

from Benedict College!
A. Yes.
Q. Were there persons from other places as well?
A. I believe there were.
Q. Now, you said that you had a meeting of some 

sort!
A. That is correct.
Q. Will you state the purpose of the meeting!
A. The purpose of the meeting was to reaffirm our 

beliefs concerning segregation and the general prin­
ciple of discrimination in order that we may proceed 
from there and go to the State House grounds.

Q. Now, you walked up the street, I believe you 
said, in groups of fifteen or eighteen!

A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall the appropriate distance between 

the groups of persons!
A. Possibly a half block. You mean between groups!
Q. Between groups!
A. Possibly a half block.
Q. Did you have any particular order or formation 

within the groups themselves!
A. Yes.
Q. Would you care to state how you were walking!



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

137

James Jerome K itron

A. We were two abreast, walking on the appropriate ^  
side of the street.

Q. I would imagine there was some general con­
versation among the persons in the groups?

A. If there was, I didn’t notice it.
Q. You just walked along without talking to each 

other ?
A. Without talking.
Q. Did you carry anything in your hands?
A. Some of us had signs or placards.
Q. Placards?
A. That’s correct. 546
Q. Were you holding them in your hands or how 

were you carrying them?
A. Some had them in their hands and others had 

them around their necks.
Q. Did you have a placard?
A. I did.
Q. What was on it?
A. I am proud to be a Negro.
Q. When you were walking through the streets on 

your way towards the State House grounds, did y o u  547 

observe the regular traffic regulations and so forth?
A. I did.
Q. Incidentally, in what group were you?
A. Second to the last.
Q. When you got to the State House grounds, other 

groups had already gotten there?
A. Yes, they were.
Q. And you said your group was stopped by some 

person at the State House grounds?
A. That is correct. 546
Q. You were allowed to go on to the grounds, is that 

correct?



138 SUPREME COURT
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

James Jerome K itron

A. We were.
Q. Would you care to state your purpose for going 

on to the State House grounds?
A. The purpose was to submit a protest to the citi­

zens of South Carolina, along with the Legislative 
Bodies of South Carolina, our feelings and our dis­
satisfaction with the present condition of discrimina­
tory actions against Negroes, in general, and to let 
them know that we were dissatisfied and that we would 
like for the laws which prohibited Negro privileges in 
this State to be removed.

Q. That was your purpose individually?
A. Individually.
Q. Had you heard a similar purpose stated to others 

of your comrades?
A. That is correct.
Q. Would you care to state if that was the general 

purpose of all of you that participated in this move­
ment?

A. The general feeling of the group was that segre­
gation in South Carolina and discrimination was 
against the general principles of humanity and that 
we would like to see them removed.

Q. Why did you pick the State House grounds to 
go on?

A. Our law officials, our government officials are 
there and they make the laws to represent the citizens 
of this State, and I felt they should be aware of our 
particular feelings.

Q. Why did you pick this particular means of ex­
pressing your grievance?

A. I hoped that this would be an effective one to let 
them know that we, as citizens and as students, did not 
agree with the general principles of segregation and



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

139

James Jerome K itron

we were there to protest in order that they might see 
for themselves that we were in number and that we 
did not and we still do not go along with the principles 
of segregation.

Q. Now, you stated that you had in mind portray­
ing your feelings to members of the State Legislature, 
I believe you testified to that?

A. Yes.
Q. Would you state whether or not you had in mind 

any other persons to impress with your feelings?
A. The Governor, the Legislature and the general 

public of South Carolina.
Q. At the time that you went on the State House 

grounds, were you aware of the fact that it was public 
property?

A. I was.
Q. You have sat in court throughout the morning 

proceedings, is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. You have listened to the testimony from the wit­

nesses for the State?
A. That is correct.
Q. I ’m certain that you heard that there was some 

testimony with reference to singing?
A. I heard the testimony.
Q. By a group of people?
A. That is correct.
Q. Would you care to state for the record what you 

know about the singing which was taking place?
A. Singing occurred after we were arrested. Now, as 

to the boisterousness and the loudness and disrespect 
for the National Anthem and other patriots, I cannot 
agree with those persons who testified earlier.



140 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

James Jerome K itron

Q. Did you personally interfere with anybody in the 
use of the sidewalks and the streets on that day?

A. By no means.
Q. Did you personally interrupt any vehicular traf­

fic on the streets that day?
A. I did not.
Q. Are you aware of any of your comrades who were 

with you on that date who interfered with the use of 
the streets by other citizens?

A. If they did, it was not brought to my attention.
Q. Is it true that a large number of onlookers 

gathered while you were there on the State House 
grounds ?

A. Adjacent to the State House, yes.
Q. Did you pay any particular attention to them?
A. Well, only generally. I just generally saw them.
Q. Did you hear any remarks being made by any 

who may have been in the audience there ?
A. No, I didn’t.
Mr. Coleman: I didn’t catch that question.
Mr. Jenkins: I asked him if he heard any remarks 

being made by any other persons who were in the 
audience that day. I meant by persons in the audience, 
the onlookers, persons not actually engaged in the 
group with you.

A. If they said something, I didn’t hear it.
Q. Did you observe any overt action on their part 

which would put you in fear that you would be in dan­
ger of being injured or anything of that sort?

A. My composure was not hampered by any one.
Q. You mean by that, that nobody frightened you by 

any action?
A. None whatsoever.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

141

James Jerome K itron

Q. Did you observe any of your comrades or per­
sons with you who appeared to be apprehensive that 
they would he attacked by any person?

A. If they felt it, they didn’t show it.
Q. By the group, I mean any of the onlookers who 

may have been there?
A. No.
Q. Did you hear any of your friends or persons with 

you express any opinion—please strike that. You tes­
tified as to what was on the placard which you carried?

A. That is correct.
Q. Do you know who prepared these placards?
A. Students prepared them.
Q. Students. Were you among the group of students 

that prepared them?
A. I was.
Q. Do you know what was on any of the placards 

which were carried?
A. I have a memory of some of the other statements. 

Not all of them.
Q. Would you care to state for the record what some 

of those placards there said?
A. Mine had “ I am proud to he a Negro” . Others 

had statements “ Give me liberty or give me death” . 
“ Down with segregation” . I can’t remember all of them.

Q. Can you state the general expression or tone of 
those placards which you were carrying?

A. The tone of all the placards were in harmony with 
the antisegregation movement in this State.

Q. Do you know what became of those placards? Are 
they in court today?

A. If they are, it’s not to my knowledge.
Q. Do you know what became of them?



142 SUPREME COURT
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Jambs Jerome N itron

A. I do know they were taken up. Some of them 
were taken up by Reverend Carter.

Q. By a member of your group on that day?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You do not now know what have become of them?
A. I do not.
Q. You are a student at Benedict College?
A. I am.
Q. How long have you been a student there?
A. This is my third year. Junior Class.
Q. Would you state whether or not you belong to 

any student group?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Would you say that the persons who were asso­

ciated with you on March the 2nd of 1961, when you 
went on the State House grounds, were members of 
the group of which you are associated?

A. That is correct.
Q. Would you care to state the nature of your or­

ganization ?
A. The general nature of the organization is non­

violent protesting against discriminatory actions 
against Negroes in this State and we adhere to the 
principles of peaceful resistance, and we believe that 
those laws which are unjust, we believe in trying to 
find just means of having them discontinued.

Q. Now, in trying to exert what you consider your 
rights, are you conscious of the fact that other citi­
zens may have equal rights ?

A. I believe that other citizens have equal rights.
Q. Does your organization have any teachings or 

practices with reference to the rights, respective rights 
of other citizens?



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

143

James Jerome K itron

A. It is the general consensus of the organization 
to respect the rights of others as well as to have them 
respect our particular rights.

Q. And you say that non-violence is a part of your 
creed?

A. It is the basis.
Q. Incidentally, where is your native State?
A. This is my native State, South Carolina.
Q. South Carolina. You have lived in South Caro­

lina the majority of your life?
A. All of my life.
Q. This is your third year at Benedict College ?
A. That is correct.
Q. Are you one of the officers in this particular stu­

dent organization at Benedict College?
A. I am not.
Q. Do you regularly attend the meetings?
A. I do.
Q. Do you have any regular meeting time?
A. Not a set date. We meet when we feel it is needed. 
Q. Meet when?
A. We meet when we feel it is necessary.
Q. Do you meet at the call of your officers?
A. Generally, yes.
Q. As a Junior in College, what is your age?
A. I am twenty years old.
Q. Do you know generally the members of your stu­

dent organization?
A. Generally, yes.
Q. Do you know the leaders and officers of your or­

ganization? I
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you in this court on Tuesday of last week? 
A. I was.



144 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

James Jerome K itron

Q. Do you know James Edwards, Jr.?578
A. I do.
Q. Is he a student at Benedict College?
A. He is a Benedict student.
Q. Will you state approximately how long you have 

known him?
A. Since the latter part of January.
Q. January of what year?
A. 1961.
Q. 1961 ? Is that when he first came to Benedict Col­

lege?
874 A. Yes.

Q. Is James Edwards, Jr., a member of your stu­
dent organization, the same organization you have 
previously spoken of?

A. He is a member.
Q. He is?
A. He is.
Q. I believe you said you have known the officers and 

leaders of the student group, is that correct?
A. I do.

ns Q. Is James Edwards, Jr., one of the officers or 
leaders of the student group?

A. He is not.
Q. To your knowledge, is James Edwards, Jr., a 

leader or officer of any student organization group on 
Benedict College campus?

A. He is not.
Q. On March the 2nd, 1961, was James Edwards, 

Jr., a member of the group that went from Zion Baptist 
Church to the State House grounds ?

Mr. Coleman: How far does the Court want this line 
of questioning to go? James Edwards, Jr., is not on 
trial here today.

576



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

145

James Jerome K itrok
The Court: Mr. Coleman, I certainly am interested ^  

in getting to getting to the bottom of this and, in view 
of the fact that Edwards has been tried, for my own 
personal interest and personal knowledge, I would like 
to find out about Edwards, myself.

Mr. Jenkins: I have only a couple more questions 
with reference to this line of questioning.

Q. I believe the question was: on the 2nd day of 
March, 1961, James Edwards, Jr., formed a member 
of the group of you that went on the State House 
grounds!

A. He was with us, yes. 178
Q. Was that as a part of your student group move­

ment!
A. He was there as a part of the movement.
Q. To your knowledge, was James Edwards, Jr., 

one of your leaders on that day?
A. He was not.
Mr. Jenkins: I have no further questions.

C r o s s  E x a m i n a t i o n

By Mr. Coleman:
Q. The Reverend Carter, to whom you made refer- we 

ence a few minutes ago, is that David Carter?
A. That is correct.
Q. Is he in the courtroom?
A. Yes, he is.
Q. Was he a leader of the student group on March 

2nd?
A. He was our recognized leader.
Q. He did direct this demonstration?
A. Yes.
Q. Isn’t it true that your student group was allowed 

to proceed in and about the grounds of the State House 
for approximately an hour?



146 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

James Jerome K itron

A. From forty to sixty minutes, yes.
Q. That was without interference from the police?
A. Without direct interference, yes.
Q. Direct? Did they give you any interference at all?
A. After a certain length of time, we were asked to 

disperse.
Q. That was after forty minutes to an hour that you 

have testified to, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. No interference was put in your way prior to 

that time?
A. No.
Q. I believe that this demonstration, as you call it, 

began about 12:00 o’clock, is that correct?
A. In the neighborhood of 12:00.
Q. Was that designed, so far as you know, to coin­

cide with the convening of the Legislature that day?
A. Not to my knowledge, whether it was actually de­

signed to coincide with that, but certainly the Legisla­
ture, as I previously testified, they are a part of our 
lawmaking body here.

Q. It is common knowledge that the Legislature gen­
erally convenes about eleven or twelve o’clock every 
day?

A. It is.
Q. You knew that?
A. Yes. 1
Q. Don’t you think, if the only purpose of your dem­

onstration that day, was to call attention to the various 
members of the Legislature and any other officials that 
may have been in or out the State House, that two hun­
dred or approximately two hundred Negro students 
marching in and about the grounds with placards would 
have had time in an hour to sufficiently demonstrate



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

147

Jambs Jerome K itron
to any of them, by person, their views or whatever ggg 
views they were expressing by demonstration or call 
attention to themselves?

A. Are yon asking that we could easily have expres­
sed our view to one person instead of—

Q. No. I ’m asking if you don’t think an hour was 
long enough for your purpose?

A. I don’t.
Q. How long did you intend to demonstrate ?
A. Until conscience told me that the demonstration 

had lasted long enough.
Q. Isn’t it true that you were aware of the extra- 586 

ordinary number of people who had congregated in 
this horseshoe in the hour’s period during the time 
the demonstration had occurred?

A. I don’t think there was such an extraordinary 
number.

Q. There was an unusual crowd, wasn’t it? You’re 
not going to tell us it wasn’t, are you? Do you normally 
see such a crowd on the horseshoe?

A. Normally, I don’t visit this particular place, but 
I still say I don’t think it was such an unusual crowd, rer

Q. You don’t think that your activities there during 
this hour period attracted an unusual crowd in and 
around the horseshoe?

A. There were several policemen and other officials 
of that nature.

Q. You’re not deliberately avoiding the question, are 
you?

A. By no means.
Q. Let me ask it again and see if you will answer it.

Do you think—
A. I don’t think.
Q. You don’t think what?

588



148 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

James Jerome K itron

A. I don’t think, as yon put it, that this crowd was 
there. I don’t think it was a crowd.

Q. You don’t think there was a crowd there? Did 
you estimate the number of people there?

A. I can’t because I was in the process of moving, 
a continuous mareh, I wasn’t standing still.

Q. Did you hear the instructions given by the police 
officials to the students to disperse?

A. They were passed along. I didn’t hear the indi­
vidual instructions.

Q. Did you know about them?
A. Yes.
Q. Why didn’t you proceed to disperse?
A. Well, mainly because the State House is public 

property and I thought the Law Enforcement Agency 
had taken a step too far probably, when they asked us 
to leave.

Q. You thought they were wrong?
A. In my judgment, yes.
Q. You thought they shouldn’t have done it. Is it 

also your view, your opinion, along that same line, that 
ssi you should have been allowed, you and the other stu­

dents, to continue indefinitely to this sort of concerted 
effort, a public demonstration, using two hundred stu­
dents, regardless of what might have occurred as a 
result of those demonstrations?

A. When you say “what might have occurred”—I 
don’t know what you mean.

Q. Regardless of the situation which might have 
been created with regard to blocking sidewalks, block­
ing the street, breaching the peace generally?

Mr. Perry: I would like to generally interpose an 
objection to any questions which would call for this 
witness to give an answer based upon speculation. I



SUPREME COURT
Appeal from Richland County

149

James Jerome K itron
note that Mr. Coleman says “ regardless of what might 
have occurred” and there is no evidence that anything 
did occur. I object to the question on the ground that 
it calls for a speculative answer.

Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, the witness 
has testified and admitted that he and other students 
were allowed to demonstrate for an hour. I want him 
to say to what extent he thinks he should have been 
allowed to go in order to carry out this demonstration, 
with regard to the crowd which had developed in and 
around the State House grounds in addition to the 
students and which he saw and of which he has heard 
testimony this morning. If he does not wish to answer 
the question, he can so state and that would be all.

Mr. Perry: First of all, I believe the witness has 
previously said that he though that he should be al­
lowed to go as far as conscience would allow; secondly, 
I should like to note that as to how far the person 
engaged in the procession on March 2nd should have 
been allowed to go would be for Your Honor to say 
and not for the witness. I believe that principally what 
we have here, that Your Honor is being called upon 
to say whether or not on March the 2nd the proces­
sion of individuals had been allowed to go on for 
too long a period of time, as to how far this witness 
feels they had a right to continue to walk through the 
State House premises, I do not believe would be a 
proper subject for cross examination of this witness 
but rather be an issue which counsel might address our­
selves to this Court. In other words, I believe it is 
within the perogative of Your Honor to say exactly 
what the situation was, in the light of all the testi­
mony which has come out of this particular line of 
cross examination and should not be allowed.



150 _________ SUPREME COURT_________
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

James Jerome K itroh

Mr. Coleman: I might say one other word, Your 
Honor. This witness has been quite free to express 
in full at least his idea of the purposes of this group. 
He has stated why he went to the State House grounds. 
He has stated why he thinks that group went, informa­
tion of which he had personal knowledge. He has ad­
mitted that he was allowed to demonstrate for an hour 
there, now, if, after setting forth all of those facts, 
isn’t his opinion and his thoughts and the purposes of 
this group, which seems to he at variance with what 
actually occurred with this persisting demonstration 
for more than an hour—I should like to ask the wit­
ness : do you wish to answer my question?

The Court: Objection overruled. Answer the ques­
tion.

Q. If you do not say so, I will not persist.
A. I think we should have continued as long as con­

science and providence said so.
Q. Night and day, if necessary?
A. If necessary to accomplish the end, yes.
Q. Then, anything that might have been short of 

acts of violence on your part, you think would have 
been justified?

A. Your question seems to mean that there were 
indications of violence, then, I could not answer that 
question.

Q. I said short of violence?
A. As long as violence and the rights of other cit­

izens were not being harmed, it should have been con­
tinued.

Q. You didn’t see any large crowd in the horseshoe, 
is that correct ?

A. No large crowd.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

151

James Jerome K itron

Q. No unusual crowd? Could you estimate the num­
ber?

A. I cannot.
Q. Could you estimate it with relation to the size 

of the student group?
A. There were approximately two hundred students 

and, as I previously stated, we were marching, not 
standing still in the horseshoe, therefore, I don’t know 
what happened at the horseshoe.

Q. Didn’t you pass there from time to time?
A. As I previously stated, I was allowed to only go 

around once.
Q. Did you see the horseshoe at any time during 

that hour ?
A. I did.
Q. Did you see an unusually large crowd there?
A. I didn’t.
Q. Have you been at Benedict for the three years?
A. That is correct.
Q. All three years. I believe you said that you did 

not hold an office in the organization?
A. I do not.
Mr. Coleman: No further questions.
Mr. Jenkins: Unless the Court has some questions, 

we have no further questions.
The Court: The Court has no questions.
(Witness excused.)
Mr. Perry: May it please the Court, at this time the 

defendants would like to stipulate that, if the remain­
ing defendants on trial here today, were to be called 
to the witness stand to testify that their testimony 
would be substantially the same as was the testimony 
of the witness who has just testified.

Mr. Coleman: We will agree to that.



152 SUPEEME COUET 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Mr. Perry: The defendants have no further testi­
mony or evidence.

The Court: Does the State have anything in reply?
Mr. Coleman: The State has no evidence in reply.
Mr. Perry: At this time the defendants respectfully 

renew out motions for dismissal, which were urged 
upon the Court at the conclusion of the State’s case and 
we ask that they be repeated in the record as if I were 
making them verbatim again at this time.

The Court: Any objection?
Mr. Coleman: The State opposes the motions on the 

grounds heretofore set out.
The Court: Motions denied, and that will be entered 

in the record.
Mr. Perry: Nothing further at this time.
Mr. Coleman: Nothing further from the State.
Mr. Perry: We will waive the making of a final argu­

ment, Your Honor, and we call upon Your Honor for 
a ruling based upon the evidence.

Mr. Coleman: Since the defense has no argument, 
we reserve our rights to a final argument.

The Court: The Court will recess for five minutes.
(Court reconvened.)
The Court: I ’m going to call out the names of the 

following defendants in this case. As I call them out, 
I would like for them to approach the Bench, from left 
to right, as I face you.

George Cleveland Foster, James Jerone Kirton, Isa­
ac Washington, Boland Johnnie Ehames, Joseph B. 
Bailey, Isaac Jerome Campbell, Davie Green, Charles 
Fulton Barr.

The Court: George Cleveland Foster, how old are 
you?

George Cleveland Foster: Seventeen.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

153

The Court: You are now seventeen!
George Cleveland Foster: Yes, sir.
The Court: What school do you attend?
George Cleveland Foster: Carver High School in 

Spartanburg, South Carolina.
The Court: James Jerone Kirton.
James Jerone Kirton: Yes, sir.
The Court: I believe you stated on the witness stand 

that you are twenty?
James Jerone Kirton: Yes, sir.
The Court: Isaac Washington.
Isaac Washington: I am eighteen.
The Court: Roland Johnnie Rhames.
Roland Johnnie Rhames: Benedict College. Twenty.
The Court: Joseph B. Bailey.
Joseph B. Bailey: Benedict College. I ’m twenty.
The Court: Isaac Jerome Campbell.
Isaac Jerome Campbell: Benedict College and I ’m 

twenty-one.
The Court: Davie Green.
Davie Green: Benedict College and I ’m eighteen.
The Court: Charles Fulton Barr.
Charles Fulton Barr: Benedict College. Twenty 

years old.
The Court: Would the defense counsel like to say 

anything at this time?
Mr. Perry: Your Honor, of course, by word of miti­

gation, I would like to urge that Your Honor can deter­
mine that these are all young men, high school and 
college age, who, according to their testimony, acted 
as they did in the sincere belief that they were joining 
together in concert for the purpose of expressing their 
grievances toward the public generally. I urge for your 
consideration, the testimony of all of these officers, 
with the possible exception of one, their conduct was



154 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

orderly. It seems that the basic complaint, which rings 
ont in all of the testimony of the officers is the fact 
that they did not disperse when they were ordered to. 
Now, there is other testimony concerning the lond man­
ner of their singing hut I cannot believe that the loud­
ness of the singing was the thing which percipitated 
their arrest. I think it was the fact that they walked 
together in concert and refused to disperse when di­
rected by the officers to do so. Looking at all of the 
testimony, it seems to stand ont in my mind, Your 
Honor, these young men are not of a criminal mind 
or intent and I ask that you he lenient in sentencing 

614 them.
The Court: Would any of the defendants like to 

say anything at this time?
(No reply.)
The Court: The testimony that has come out today 

has certainly thrown a light, a new light, on these pro­
ceedings. As I stated last week, the idea of adults us­
ing youths for the purpose of violating the law is one 
which is a grave concern to all of us. I ’m taking your 
youth into consideration, every one of you. From the 

6i6 testimony of witnesses to date, the actual recognized 
leader is, one David Carter, and that was brought out 
by the State, also by the defendants, by one of the 
witnesses for the defense. I ’m taking that into consid­
eration. I ’m taking your youth into consideration, also, 
but I want to tell you now, if you should ever come 
before me again with anything, that would indicate 
to me a flagrant violation of the law on your part, that 
you had no respect for law and order and I know that 
you do, I have reason to believe that you do for every 
one of you young men know that we have international 
problems, problems of space and heaven knows what 
else to worry about.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

155

To repeat the finding of the Court, I find each and 
every one of yon guilty, each of you now standing be­
fore me.

The sentence of Isaac Jerome Campbell, your age 
was twenty-one, $100.00 or 30 days.

As to you young men under twenty one, the sentence 
of the Court will be $100.00 or 30 days, and, again, I 
suspend half of that sentence upon the payment of 
the fine of $50.00.

Mr. Perry: May it please the Court, at this time, the 
defendants move for arrest of judgment or, in the 
alternative, for a new trial upon all grounds previously 
noted in the several motions for dismissal and we ask 
that they be repeated in the record verbatim as if I 
were so stating them at this time.

The Court: It shall be repeated in the record. All 
motions are denied.

Mr. Perry: May it please the Court, at this time, 
we move for arrest of judgment on the ground that 
the Court erred in finding the defendants guilty, the 
evidence having shown conclusively that the defendants 
were lawfully assembled with other persons upon the 
public streets and property of the State of South 
Carolina for the purpose of giving public expression 
concerning their grievances, a right secured to them 
by the First and Fourteenth Amendment to the United 
States Constitution. That concludes our motion.

The Court: Motion is denied.
Mr. Perry: At this time, may it please the Court, de­

fendants give notice of intention to appeal. We will 
file the written motion within the time required by 
Statute and we ask that Your Honor set the appeal 
bond.

The Court: The appeal bond for each will be $10.00.



156 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Mr. Perry: Tour Honor, it’s so late in the day, the 
actual mechanics of substituting the appeal bonds for 
the recognizance bonds, which are on file, as to each 
one of them, it may take us a day or two.

The Court: The Court will be very glad to grant 
that until Thursday. Court adjourned until 10:00 o’­
clock Thursday morning, March 16, 1961.

I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and cor­
rect transcript of the notes of testimony taken by me 
at the hearing of the above cause.

E leanor S. M ackey,
622 R e p o r t e r .

TRANSCRIPT OF TESTIMONY
Before Honorable Frank Powell, Magistrate on 

Thursday, March 16, 1961, Richland County Court 
House, Columbia, South Carolina.

A p p e a r a n c e s :

For the State: J. C. Coleman, Esq.
For the Defendants: Matthew J. Perry, Esq., Lin­

os* coin C. Jenkins, Jr., Esq., Donald James Sampson, Esq.
The Court: I would like to announce the rules of 

the Court. There will be no pictures taken within this 
courtroom of any type. Any one who wants to attend 
these hearings may do so as long as there is a seat 
available, however, we cannot permit any one standing 
up around the walls.

The Court has before it warrants charging the fol­
lowing persons with breach of the peace. The warrant 
reads in part: State of South Carolina, County of 

624 Richland. Personally appeared before me, Frank 
Powell, Magistrate of the said County and the said



SUPBEME COUBT 
Appeal from Bichland County

157

State, L. J. Campbell, being duly sworn, says that 
James C. West, Sinclair Salters, Hezikah Johnson, 
James Clyburn, William Erick Moultie, David Carter, 
Benjamin James Clover, Samuel S. Williams, and 
others, did, at Coumbia, South Carolina, on March 
2nd, 1961, on the State Capitol grounds and on ad­
jacent sidewalks and streets did commit a breach of 
the peace in that they, together with a large group of 
people, did assemble, impede the normal traffic, sing 
and parade with placards, failed to disperse upon law­
ful orders of police officers, all of which tended to vio­
lation of the breach of peace in view of existing con­
ditions. The Court will now read the persons charged 
on these warrants: James C. West, Sinclair Salters, 
Hezikah Johnson, James Clyburn, William Erick Moul­
trie, David Carter, Benjamin James Clover, Samuel S. 
Williams, Arthur Whitfield Stanley, Jr., Wendell Dai­
ley, Lennie William Glover, Samuel Edwards, David 
Laurence Perrett, James Allen Carter, Clifford James 
Bice, Delbert Leon Woods, Wilbur Harrison Walker, 
Alfred Odell Lemon, James W. Cantey, Isaac W. Wil­
liams, Clifford B. Bell, William H. Cooley, Bobert 
Henry LaPrince, Prank E. Gore, Earl Peters, Jr., 
Henry H. Harris, Charles B. Miller, Charles McDew, 
Maxie Epps, Henry Williams, Leroy Hogans, Jimmy 
Lee Smith, James Beeder, Jr., George Allen Ander­
son, Thomas D. Hornsby and Anthony McFadden.

Are these persons present?
Mr. Jenkins: They are present in person or by coun­

sel. One or two persons may not be present. One is 
Benjamin J. Glover and William Moultrie from Cam­
den, also, is not here. Those defendants, if Your Honor 
please, they are represented by counsel. We would 
like the record to show that counsel has agreed that 
these defendants may be tried in their absence and



158 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Irving G. M cNayr

629 they will be bound by whatever rules and decisions 
that are made by the Court. Is that agreeable by coun­
sel?

Mr. Coleman: Yes.
The Court: Are these persons represented by coun­

sel?
Mr. Jenkins: Yes, they are.
The Court: As I call the names of these persons out, 

will they appear before the Bench?
(The Court called the names of all defendants.)
Defendants arraigned before the Court.
The Court: Are you the persons named in this war­

rant before the Court charged with the breach of the 
peace in the City of Columbia, County of Richland, on 
March 2nd, 1961 and were you released on bond to 
appear before this Court today?

Defendants: Yes, sir (in unison).
The Court: How do the defendants plead?
Mr. Jenkins: They plead not guilty.
Defendants returned to seats in courtroom.

63i The Court: Is the defense ready for trial?
Mr. Jenkins: Yes, Your Honor.
The Court: Is the State ready for trial?
Mr. Coleman: Yes, Your Honor.

Whereupon, Mr. Coleman called Irving G. M cN ayr 
who, being first duly sworn, testified as follows:

D i r e c t  E x a m i n a t i o n

By Mr. Coleman:
Q. Mr. McNayr, you are the City Manager of Co­

lumbia, I believe?
A. Yes, I am.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

159

Irving G. M cNayr
Q. As such City Manager, do yon have direct snper- m  

vision of the activities of the Columbia City Police 
Department?

A. Yes, I do.
Q. Did yon have occasion on March the 2nd last to 

be in the vicinity of the State House grounds in the 
City of Columbia?

A. Yes, I did.
Q. What time did you arrive there?
A. At the State House grounds, I arrived at approx­

imately a quarter of twelve.
Q. What did you observe when you got there?
A. When we arrived there, when we first arrived, I 

observed a number of police officials, both from the 
City of Columbia and the State Law Enforcement Di­
vision, possibly some Deputy Sheriffs from the Coun­
ty, standing generally around what is known as the 
horseshoe area.

Q. Would you describe the horseshoe area so far 
as pedestrian traffic lanes and vehicular traffic lanes 
are concerned?

A. Yes. The horseshoe area is used primarily for 635 
the parking of State official’s cars, that is, the macadam 
area there. There is some passage in and out of vehic­
ular traffic by people entering and leaving the State 
Capitol Building. In addition to that, you have the 
main sidewalk areas leading into the State Capitol 
on either side of the horseshoe area.

Q. Others than the persons you have just mentioned, 
the police officers and yourself, were there any other 
persons in or about the horseshoe? I

A. None, to my knowledge, at the time of my arrival. 4jg 
There may have been a few others standing around 
but I didn’t pay any particular attention to them.



160 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Irving G. McNayr
687 Q- What, if anything, occurred thereafter to make 

you think possibly whether or not some official action 
on your part should be taken?

A. We were forewarned that there would be a march 
or a procession on the State Capitol and a demonstra­
tion at that point. Soon after we arrived, we observed 
groups of Negro students marching up Gervais Street.

Q. Could you estimate the size of the group?
A. I estimated it at that time at approximately 200.
Q. Did they enter the horseshoe?
A. They moved up the sidewalk towards the horse-

638 shoe and they were met, just before entering the 
grounds, by Mr. Harry Walker of the Governor’s of­
fice.

Q. Were you present at that time?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Do you remember that any of the defendants 

named today were in the group ?
A. Yes, I recognized probably three or four of those 

people who are here today.
Q. Can you name one possibly?

639 A. I recognized the recognized leader, David Carter.
Q. Did you have any conversation with David Carter

at that time?
A. Not at that immediate time when he arrived, no.
Q. What official position, if any, does Harry Walker 

have?
A. Mr. Harry Walker is the representative, the legal 

representative of the Governor of South Carolina and 
was apparently in charge of the SLED officers present 
at that time, and in general charge of the State House

640 grounds, in general control of it.
Q. State whether or not you have any personal 

knowledge of whether any official instructions from a



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Ricliland County

161

Irving G. M cNayr
police officer were given to any one or all of these de- 
fendants.

Mr. Jenkins: If Your Honor please, at this time we 
object on the ground that the best evidence would be 
the testimony from the officer which may have given 
such instructions, that is, testimony directly from this 
officer, and we object to this witness testifying as to 
instructions given by anyone else.

Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, any instruc­
tions given to any of these defendants here, within the 
hearing and presence of this witness, I think it’s ad­
missible and, if it’s hearsay, it’s an exception to the 642 

hearsay rule.
Mr. Jenkins: We submit, if Your Honor please, that 

the best evidence would be the officers themselves, pres­
ent to testify as to what instructions they may have 
given. There is no showing to be made in the court why 
the officers themselves are not here to testify and we 
object to any testimony along that line.

The Court: The Court feels that, in this particular 
instance, the defendants here have been identified by 
the witness and, in this case, the objection is overruled, sis

A. Would you repeat your question?
Q. Did you, yourself, have any conversation with 

any one of these particular defendants here today?
A. I did not, at the time in question. All the conver­

sation and instructions were between Mr. Walker and 
some of the defendants.

Q. Did you hear Mr. Walker give any official in­
structions to any particular defendant here today?

A. Yes, I did.
Q. Do you remember which defendant? ^
A. Well, I know Carter was one of those who re­

ceived instructions.



162 SUPEEME COUBT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Irving G. M cN ayr

Q- Were these instructions given in your presence?
A. They were, if I may describe the manner m which 

they were given I think it would he helpful to the 
Court. As the groups moved forward, and these Negro 
students were in groups of anywhere from fifteen on 
up to thirty, Mr. Walker selected the lead student, on 
the left coming up Gervais, thinking in terms of that 
person leading the group, and he gave instructions di­
rectly to that person. He first questioned him as to 
his name, purpose for being there, whether or not he 
was leading the group and then instructed them on 

648 the fact that he did have the privilege, he and his small 
group, of going through the State House grounds, just 
as any other citizens would have. He further instructed 
him that there should be no demonstration, in each 
case, in my hearing, that the State law allowed no dem­
onstrations. I heard the defendants, the leaders, reply 
that they were there for the purpose of demonstrating 
and fully intended to do so. Mr. Walker then instructed 
them that they could go through the State House 
grounds and they did proceed to do so. I believe he 

Mr also told them they would be allowed to go through 
the State House grounds one time for purposes of ob­
servation.

Mr. Jenkins: Your Honor, at this time, I ’d like to 
renew my objection as to all of this line of questioning 
and the testimony that is in answer to the question 
which has been presented here and I ask that they be 
stricken from the record. I am repeating my objection. 
That is strictly hearsay and violates the well known 
rule of law against hearsay evidence on the ground 
that the best evidence would require that Mr. Harry 

648 Walker, who is the person who gave the instructions, 
to be present and testify for the record as to the



SUPREME COURT 163
Appeal from Richland County 

Irving G. M cNayr

instructions he gave. The record will show that the 
witness has testified as to what he thinks the opinion 
of Mr. Walker was in giving such instructions. We re­
new our objection to this entire line of questioning and 
we respectfully request that the answer be stricken 
from the record.

Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, I don’t remem­
ber any evidence of Mr. McNayr’s opinion.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. McNayr said that in pointing out 
the person on the left, taking that person to be a leader 
or something to that effect.

Mr. Coleman: We are perfectly willing, if there was 
any opinion in the evidence in regard to the opinion 
of Mr. Walker, that it be stricken. I don’t remember 
that.

The Court: The Court is under the impression that 
was an opinion and that will be stricken from the rec­
ord. As to the previous objection, that is overruled.

Q. Mr. McNayr, what course of action, if any, did 
the group of students then take?

A. They then proceeded to go through the State 
House grounds, usually accompanied by a police of­
ficer or officers.

Q. How long did this continue?
A. I would say for somewhere between fifteen—a 

half hour.
Q. Where were you during this time? Were you in 

the vicinity of the horseshoe or were you moving about 
the State House grounds?

A. I was not moving about the State House grounds. 
I remained in the vicinity of the horseshoe, moving 
back and forth, primarily between from in front of the 
statue, then west to the other side of the horseshoe.

Q. Then, you were in the horseshoe all of this time?



164 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Irving G. M cNayr

A. Yes.
Q. State whether or not yon noticed or saw any 

change in the size of the number of persons who might 
or might not have been within the horseshoe area?

A. Yes. Soon after the Negro students arrived at 
the entrance to the horseshoe, crowds began to gather. 
This was in the neighborhood of twelve o’clock, noon, 
just prior to twelve o’clock, noon, and more and more 
people gathered within that area to the point where 
they were blocking both of the driveway entrances 
and the sidewalk area. They had to be told to move 
along, not to impede the sidewalk traffic, and it was nec­
essary to station a policeman in the intersection of 
Gervais and Main Streets in order to keep traffic mov­
ing, because, again, a large group of persons attracted 
the passers-by in automobiles.

Q. Did you note the traffic, if any, which was on 
Gervais Street, immediately adjacent to the horseshoe?

A. Yes, I did.
Q. Are you familiar with the normal flow of traffic 

on that street?
A. Yes, I ’m quite familiar with it.
Q. Was the traffic flow at that time normal?
A. It was not normal—no, it was greatly slowed up. 

It had to be kept moving by a police officer. It was 
greatly slowed up, again, being attracted by the large 
group on the State House grounds. Normally, the 
lights control the traffic quite well.

Q. After a period of approximately a half hour or 
during that period, did any police officer or any one 
else, to your knowledge, interfere with this group of 
students ?

A. Not to my knowledge, no.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

165

Irving G. M cNayr

Q. After the period of a half an hour, approximately 
a half an hour, which you have just mentioned, what 
action, if any was taken by you?

A. Following the students marching through or 
walking through the State House grounds, they, then, 
or a great number of them, came around from the back 
of the State House or the side of the State House and 
started to forming groups to come down Gervais Street, 
heading each towards the horseshoe, and by that time 
a great number of people had gathered in the horse­
shoe area, along the State House grounds in that im­
mediate vicinity, particularly across the street on both 
sides of Main Street, facing the horseshoe area. It was, 
at that time—now, I can be exect in my time—it was 
just about a quarter to one when the students began 
to gather there. The crowd had reached such propor­
tions and there were numerous people coming through 
the State House grounds, apparently from the State 
Office buildings in the rear of the Capitol itself, who 
were being impeded in getting through, a number of 
them stopping as a result of it, so, that, in my judg­
ment, I felt that the conditions were such that the stu­
dents, who were the main attraction to all of these peo­
ple, should disperse. I, then, was in touch with David 
Carter, the recognized leader of this group, and I in­
structed him that I felt that the conditions were such 
that the students should disperse in small groups from 
the area and that I felt that the conditions were such 
that they should be dispersed within the next fifteen 
minutes. These instructions were given at approxi­
mately five minutes of one. Carter, then, as each group 
moved forward, did not carry out my instructions in 
the manner in which I gave them. He used the occasion 
to harangue the students, to raise them to a fever pitch,



166
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

SUPREME COURT_________

Irving G. M cN ayr

using a chant, a religious type method for arousing 
the students to stay in line, to be arrested, if that was 
their chosen line.

Q. Did you hear any singing, chanting or anything 
of that nature from the student group?

A. Yes.
Q. Describe that as best you can.
A. With the harangues, which I have just described, 

witnessed frankly by everyone present and in this area, 
the students began answering back with shouts. They 
became boisterous. They stomped their feet. They sang 

662 in loud voices to the point where, again, in my judg­
ment, a dangerous situation was really building up.

Q. Did the students disperse after the instructions 
were given to them?

A. No, they did not.
Q. What course of action was then taken by you?
A. I then instructed the Chief of Police, Chief Camp­

bell, to proceed to arrest all of the students. I might 
add that the SLED officers were working in conjunction 
with and in cooperation with the City Police officers, 

ess and they, too, moved under those general instructions.
Q. I see. Your witness.

C r o s s  E x a m i n a t i o n

By Mr. Jenkins:
Q. You have stated, Mr. McNayr, that you had ad­

vanced warning that these students would move on the 
State House grounds on that particular day?

A. Yes, I did.
Q. Would you state how much advance warning you 

had ?
664 A. Yes. I received a telephone call from Chief Camp­

bell at approximately 10:30 that morning informing



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

167

Trying G. M cNayr

me that the students were then in the process of meet­
ing at the Zion Baptist Church and that, his informa­
tion was, that they planned to proceed from there to 
the State House grounds for the purpose of demon­
stration.

Q. And they actually proceeded to the State House 
grounds possibly how long after 10:30?

A. I would say they came out of the church at some 
time between quarter past eleven and half past eleven, 
then proceeded to walk.

Q. You had approximately an hour’s notice?
A. Yes.
Q. You had ample time, didn’t you, to get ample po­

lice protection, if you thought such was needed on the 
State House grounds, didn’t you?

A. Yes, we did.
Q. So, if there were not ample police protection 

there, it was the fault of those persons in charge of 
the Police Department, wasn’t it?

A. There was ample police protection there.
Q. There was ample police protection and there was 

no need for the arrests which were made, isn’t that 
true ?

A. No, that is not true.
Q. I believe that the testimony has been that you 

arrested these persons because a dangerous situation 
was about to take place or something to that effect?

A. In my judgment.
Q. You also stated that, in your judgment, you had 

ample police protection to handle the situation?
A. That’s correct.
Q. So it wasn’t necessary to arrest these students 

that were on the Grounds?



168 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Irving G. M cN ayr

A. Yes, it was necessary to arrest them. Simply be­
cause we had ample policemen there for their pro­
tection and the protection of others, is no reason for 
not placing them under arrest when they refused a 
lawful request to move on.

Q. We are not charged with refusing an order.
A. You are charged with a breach of the peace and it 

occurred during this period.
Q. Breach of peace being merely that the students 

came on the grounds and there registered certain pro­
tests which they had; that, in your mind, is a breach of 
the peace?

A. No, that isn’t what I testified.
Q. Now, I believe your testimony was to the effect 

that no police officer interfered in any manner with the 
students or something to that effect?

A. I said, to the best of my knowledge, that they did 
not. You must understand that they were moving 
around the State Capitol Grounds.

Q. That’s what I was getting at. You confined your 
activities mostly to the horseshoe area?

A. Yes, I did.
Q. And since the State House Grounds cover ap­

proximately two blocks by one block—
A. Probably about two blocks square.
Q. There was ample opportunity for other police 

officers to really interfere with these students and you 
know nothing about it?

A. That is true.
Q. You observed the students coming eastward on 

Gervais Street or approaching the State Capitol?
A. Yes.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

169

Irving G. M cNayr
Q. At that time, you said they were marching in 

groups, small groups?
,A. They were marching in groups of from fifteen, 

the largest approximately thirty.
Q. They were walking two abreast or single file?
A. Two abreast.
Q. Do you recall the approximate distance between 

each group?
A. Well, as they were walking, I would say certainly 

at arm’s length or possibly a greater distance. I think 
the distances were varying.

Q. The distances between the groups themselves— 
let us say, the first group and the second group and 
the second and the third?

A. As they were marching up, they could have been 
five feet or ten feet apart.

Q. I believe your testimony on previous occasions 
said they were from a quarter to a third of a block 
apart, the groups, do you recall that?

A. I don’t recall any testimony by me to that effect. 
They may well have been, however, but it would vary 
as they marched along.

Q. Now, each group was stopped, I believe you testi­
fied, up near the horseshoe area?

A. That’s correct.
Q. They were stopped by an official of the Governor 

of South Carolina?
A. That’s correct.
Q. You were also present at that time as an official of 

the City of Columbia?
A. Yes.



170 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Irving Gr. M cN ayr
Q. Was the effect of your stopping these groups of

377 '*•' istudents to make the second group, let us say, push up 
into the first group or at least get nearer?

A. Yes, to move up.
Q. That would make the third group move up to 

where the second group was?
A. Again, I think they kept a normal distance.
Q. It is a fact, is it not, that by the interference of 

you and other officials you created the very situation 
that you said you were trying to prevent?

A. No, that is not true.
678 '

Q. You have testified to the congestion of the area 
of the horseshoe?

A. Yes.
Q. Had these students been allowed to continue in 

the manner in which they had approached the horse­
shoe area, this congestion would not have been there, 
would it?

A. That I can’t answer because they were not al­
lowed to continue by Mr. Walker.

679 Q- So, you certainly, by your actions, contributed to 
whatever congestion there may have been there in that 
area?

A. I think you misunderstood my testimony. I did 
not have anything to say to the students or instruct 
them in any way at that point.

Q. When I say “you” I mean the official action by 
someone, instructing these groups of students in the 
horseshoe area, there would not have been this con­
gestion ?

A. Yes, there would have been congestion. A group
680 of students, such as this, moving in with signs and



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

171

Irving G. M cNayr

placards as they carried, would cause congestion just 
naturally.

Q. There was no congestion among the groups of 
students themselves, was there, prior to the official ac­
tion stopping them in the horseshoe?

A. No.
Q. Now, then, your testimony here is that the groups 

were allowed to walk through the area of the State 
House Grounds without further molestation, as far as 
you are concerned?

A. That was not a molestation; that was simply 
stopping them to give them instructions on the part of 
Mr. Walker.

Q. Here again, we are involved in the use or the 
meaning of words—according to which side of the 
fence you are on, the meaning of it?

A. I wanted to get across my interpretation of it.
Q. Yes, sir. Now, then, they walked perhaps through 

the area of the State House Grounds—did they end up 
down near the area of Sumter Street?

A. Yes, as nearly as I could determine, they moved 
down Sumter Street and then back on to Gervais and 
down.

Q. Then started westward on Gervais back towards 
the horseshoe area?

A. Yes.
Q. Still in these relatively small groups, they started 

Avest ?
A. Yes.
Q. Once they approached the horseshoe area, as a 

matter of fact, as they got to the horseshoe area the 
second time that is Avhen you gave instructions to ar­
rest them ?



The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Irving G. M cNayr
A. No, that was when I informed their leader, David

686 JCarter, that they should he dispersed, that, in my judg­
ment, the situation was becoming tense and then I 
asked him to instruct them that they were given fifteen 
minutes and then they should disperse.

Q. That’s when each group was stopped again?
A. Yes, they had moved down on the sidewalk and 

stopped.
Q. But the various groups were stopped again, 

that’s the second time they were stopped as they got 
back to the horseshoe area!

6;S A. On that occasion, I wouldn’t say they were 
stopped. They apparently stopped voluntarily. Now, 
Carter may have stopped them. I was adjacent to him.

Q. You certainly stopped Carter in the first group 
that he was leading at that time, didn’t you?

A. Carter was not leading the group. Carter was 
also situated in the area where I was standing. He was 
moving back in that area. To my knowledge, he did 
not proceed through the State House Grounds with any 
group.

187 Q. At any rate, you gave him instructions to give 
to the groups of students?

A. Yes, I did.
Q. And, following your instructions, he then stopped 

the groups?
A. Each group.
Q. Here, again, if there were a congestion of the 

students, it came about at that time, isn’t it true?
A. Yes.
Q. So, because of your interference there was this 

congestion which you now say you were trying to pre­
vent, is that not right?

172_____________ SUPREME COURT________________



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

173

Irving G. M cNayr

jA. That is not true. Yon are attempting to nse words 
again which are not given the true connotation. As the 
lawful officer of the City of Columbia, as City Manager, 
I felt it my duty to see that this situation, as created by 
the students themselves, be dispersed for their safety 
and for the safety of the general public of Columbia. 
Now, I don’t believe the word “ interference” is at all 
a sound and useful word in this case.

Q. I have no quarrel with why you acted, no quarrel 
with that at all, I ’m merely trying to get the results of 
your action and you have testified that they were ap­
proaching in relatively small groups and, after you 
gave certain instructions to be relayed to them, they 
were then stopped and the end result was the various 
groups lost their identity and comingled as one large 
group !

A. No, I ’m not testifying to that at all.
Q. What are you saying!
A. I ’m saying that they retained their identity in 

groups in that area, in small groups still, to the best 
of my knowledge, and then in those small groups, after 
being harangued, they burst into singing, shouting and 
stomping and so on.

Q. They still remain in small groups!
A. Relatively small groups but more closely bunched 

than in the past.
Q. Prior to the time when you gave your instructions 

to David Carter, there had been no singing or loud 
noises from the students, is that true!

A. Not to my knowledge. Again, these were out of 
earshot, as far as I was concerned.



174 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Irving 0 . M cNayr

Q. This stomping, which you have talked about, and 
shouting, prior to your giving instructions to David 
Carter, there had been none of that?

A. Again, not to my knowledge.
Q. So, that, to your knowledge, the groups of stu­

dents, prior to this time, were orderly and peaceful?
A. Yes.
Q. All indications were that they would have con­

tinued to be orderly and peaceful had they not stopped 
David Carter and given him certain instructions to be 
relayed to them? Was that a normal thing?

A. That’s purely conjectural on your part.
Q. Would you agree to that conjecture?
A. No. I have no idea whether they would have been 

or not.
Q. There was no evidence to the contrary, prior to 

that time, was there?
A. No evidence to the contrary in any other manner 

as to how they would react.
Q. Nevertheless, they had been peaceful and quiet 

prior to that time?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, would you care to state for the record what 

caused anxiety on your part for the safety of these 
students and for the safety of the general public?

A. Yes, I ’d be quite willing to. As I observed the 
crowds gathering, both in the horseshoe area, on the 
State House Grounds, I would estimate that in ad­
dition to the students there were 200 to 250 people in 
the general horseshoe area. On the other side of Ger- 
vais, the two entrances to Main coming into Gervais, I 
would estimate that there were probably a like number 
beginning to congregate over there. Traffic was being



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

175

Irving G. M cNayr

slowed np and becoming congested. I observed in the 
group around the area what I would describe as pos­
sible trouble making people and it was my judgment 
and remains my judgment that we might well, had the 
conditions been allowed to continue, were the students 
allowed to again march through the State House 
Grounds, had they been allowed to remain on the side­
walk area, we might well have had violence.

Q. You base that only on the fact that you saw 
trouble makers in the area, potential trouble makers!

A. Not only saw trouble makers but I know that 
whenever you have a large group gathering, all that 
is necessary is one minor incident or one minor spark 
and this could have resulted in a real race riot in that 
area.

Q. Have you ever observed Armed Forces Day when 
there was a parade down Main Street and the large 
number of Whites and Negroes together there!

A. Yes, indeed.
Q. Did you expect any race riot then!
A. None whatsoever.
Q. Much larger groups than you had here so it 

wasn’t the fact that you had Negroes and Whites there 
together that you were expecting a riot.

A. The facts were that you had these students and 
you had a congestion during the parades you have dis­
cussed when Negroes and Whites were mingling to­
gether with a common purpose; this was not a common 
purpose for which they were gathering on this day.

Q. Did you observe any placards which the students 
were carrying! A

A. I did.



176 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Irving G. M cNayr

m Q. Would you care to say what the general tone or 
wording on the placards was?

A. I really can’t remember what they were.
Q. Generally, would you say that those placards ex­

pressed some feelings or opinions in regards to cer­
tain conditions that existed?

A. Yes.
Q. Those conditions were conditions of segregation 

and discrimination as felt by the students?
A. As felt by the students.

702 Q. Is it not a fact that you feared violence because 
you feared there may be persons in the group ivho dis­
agreed with the opinion expressed by those Negro 
students ?

A. No, that wasn’t the basis for my action. My fear 
was that there would be violence because of the feel­
ings of many of the people in the groups against the 
demonstrations themselves, not necessarily what they 
were protesting against.

Q. You don’t mean that you feared there would be 
T03 violence because of disagreement of certain persons 

in the area with the fact that there were Negro stu­
dents in that area?

A. In the manner in which they were there. I ’m sure 
that Negro students have gone through the State 
House Grounds over the years but not in this manner 
and not with the intent of collecting a crowd and 
demonstrating.

Q. And not with the evident intent of protesting 
against certain policies and practices? Would you also 

704 say that?
A. Yes.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

177

Irving G. M cNayr

Q. Does it not follow that each potential trouble 
maker in the area perhaps also disagreed—

Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, I don’t 
like to object. How could Mr. McNayr possibly know 
what thoughts were in the minds of the people in the 
crowd? We could go on forever with this. He has al­
ready stated that, thinking that the demonstration 
should be stopped after a long period of time, and 
going into a continuous line of questioning, which 
involves the thoughts of the people in the crowd, is 
just utterly ridiculous.

Mr. Jenkins: If Your Honor pleases, this witness is 
on cross examination, stating his reasons for making 
certain arrests and I ’m merely questioning him as to 
his reasons and trying to find out what laid the basis 
for these arrests. We submit that, as an official of the 
government of the City of Columbia, being in charge 
of the Police Department, he has certain rights. He has 
the right to see that these conditions, which he thinks 
may have arisen, do not arise but certainly he cannot 
just form that opinion just out of a clear blue sky, so 
to speak. He must base it upon some knowledge which 
has come to his attention or some opinion which he may 
form and we submit that on cross examination we have 
a right to delve into these matters.

Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, may I sav one 
more word? There is no objection whatever to counsel 
cross examining Mr. McNayr with regard to the rea­
sons but he is now asking Mr. McNayr to go into the 
minds of the crowd out there and tell us what that 
crowd was thinking. It’s fantastic.



178 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Irving G-. M cNayr
The Court: The Court has previously overruled a 

few minutes ago that opinions be stricken from the 
record—

Mr. Jenkins: Before you rule, Your Honor, I should 
like to state this, the witness on the stand has testi­
fied, both in direct and on cross examination, that he 
acted to prevent certain occurrences which he thought 
may take place. His whole action was based upon 
thought. Now, thought based on what? He has not testi­
fied to any overt act on anybody in the crowd. He has 
testified that he acted because he thought they may do 
something and certainly I am bound to question him as 
to what gave him reasons to believe that these would 
take place.

The Court: The Court is of opinion that you can 
cross examine the witness hut as to the opinions of 
other people, I believe that was your objection, that is 
sustained.

Q. It was testified, Mr. McNayr, that on occasions, 
such as, the parade, I believe you were talking about, 
there were persons both White and Negro acting with a 
common purpose and everything was peaceful?

A. Yes.
Q. Do you mean to state now that whenever there 

is a common purpose, on the part of Negroes, that 
there are some Whites around, that violence will nec­
essarily follow? You don’t mean to say that, do you?

A. I ’m afraid you’re trying to twist the whole thing.
Q. Certainly, I ’m not. I ’m trying to get in the record 

what led to the arrest of these persons on that day and 
the arrest certainly interfered with certain rights 
which they had. That’s what I ’m trying to get out.

A. May I answer in my own words?



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

179

Irving Gr. M cNayr

Q. Certainly.
A. I think I have stated the reasons. There is in ex­

istence in this city, in this area, at the present time, 
well known to yon and to these Negro students a feel­
ing of tenseness in the racial situation. This was known 
to these students prior to their coming to town. I have 
discussed this with the recognized leader, David Car­
ter, on numerous occasions. They were fully aware of 
these conditions. They are fully aware of the fact that 
when a crowd gathers, such as gathered on this oc­
casion, on the basis of this demonstration, that they 
are subjecting themselves to violence, as well as the 
people in the immediate area. Mr. Attorney, you know 
that as well as I do. Under these conditions, at higli 
noon on that day, those people moving out of the State 
Offices, people going to lunch generally, the possibility 
of University students being let out at that time and 
coming through that area, I acted and I think I acted 
soundly and in the best interest of the citizens of Co­
lumbia and the students, and that is the basis for my 
action.

Mr. Jenkins: If Your Honor please, I did not stop 
Mr. McNayr when he was expressing opinions which 
I have and thoughts which I had and which these stu­
dents on that day had and, in view of Your Honor’s 
rulings, otherwise we respectfully submit that all of 
that answer should be stricken from the record because 
it was based strictly on conjecture as to what Mr. Mc­
Nayr thinks and what I thought and what he thinks 
and what the public thinks.

Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, counsel has 
expressed some objection to something that is a techni-



ISO

The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.
_________ SUPREME COURT_________

Irving G. M cNayr

cal point. Are you objecting to the testimony which 
you drew out of the witness?

Mr. Jenkins: I still, if Your Honor please, move that 
the answer be stricken.

Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor pleases, this question 
was not asked by me on direct examination. Counsel 
asked the question. He could have objected at any time. 
I have never in my life heard of any procedure in any 
courtroom where counsel elicits an answer from a wit­
ness, listens to it without objection and then turns 
around and asks that the answer be stricken. To my

718 knowledge, there’s no such rule of law. I ’d like to be 
educated to that.

The Court: Objection overruled.
Q. Would you acknowledge that the students on that 

day acted with a common purpose, the students that 
you arrested?

A. They were acting with a common purpose.
Q. Would you agree that their common purpose was 

to protest against what they considered racial dis­
crimination?

7 1 9  A -VTA. Yes.
Mr. McNayr, did you see any overt act on the part 

of any of these persons in the crowd which would tend 
towards violence?

A. No, I saw no overt act.
Q. Did you hear any remarks from any members of 

the crowd which would lead you to believe that there 
may be violence on the part of any of these students ?

A. Not to my personal knowledge.
O. Now, you have testified that you can identify 

some of the present defendants as having been in-



SUPREME COURT 181
Appeal from Richland County 

Irving G. M cNayr

volved in the situation on March the 2nd, which led to 
the arrest of all of them?

A. Yes.
Q. There are, I believe, thirty-six defendants before 

the Court today. They are sitting generally on the first 
three or four rows of this are of the courtroom. (In­
dicating.)

A. Yes.
Q. Would you care to point out those defendants 

among this group that you recognize as having been 
involved in this situation on that day?

A. I cannot identify all of them by name. I can iden­
tify them as having seen them there.

Q. You can identify thirty odd of these defendants 
as you have a conscious recollection of having seen 
them on that day?

A. No, I did not testify in that manner at all. I have 
testified that out of this group I recognize two or three 
as having been there.

Q. I wonder if you would care to point out those two 
or three in this group that you recognize as having 
participated in the activities on the day in question?

A. Yes. I can point out David Carter, who is 
thoroughly familiar to me. He is smiling now. I can 
pick out the very young fellow in the hack, second from 
the left, up there in the fourth row and I can pick out 
this fellow—well, I can pick out four or five. This 
youn fellow sitting on the front, on the left, and also 
I can pick out Williams, I believe he’s a defendant this 
morning.

Q. Sitting near to Reverend Carter?
A. Oh, yes, he’s sitting behind the other attorney.



182 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Irving Gr. M cNayr

Q. That’s about five or six. That’s about three more 
than I thought you could.

A. I ’m doing very well.
Q. Now, you have testified as to activities of David 

Carter on that day. Now, would you care to testify as 
to what specific acts you saw these other persons doing 
that you were able to pick out ?

A. The others were in these relatively small groups 
with the exception of—I can’t recall whether Williams 
was in a group or whether he was something of Car­
ter’s Chief Lieutenant, and I believe he was moving

726 around, maybe he was one of the Captains, I don’t 
know.

Q. I think you know Reverend Carter and Williams 
quite well!

A. I do. I ’ve seen a great deal of him and I ’ve also 
seen Williams, too.

Q. Now, can you pick out Williams as having been 
singing and yelling and stomping his feet and shout­
ing?

A. I don’t think I can. Again, he was so active in
727 carrying out instructions, I guess, that I can’t identify 

him as being one of a group.
Q. Now, the other four or five students, can you 

point out specifically any acts of shouting, screaming, 
yelling?

A. On the part of those individuals?
Q. Yes.
A. No, I cannot.
Q. So, then, you cannot find any of these defendants

72g as having done any of these specific acts which you 
have described, which led to the charge of breach of the 
peace on March the 2nd?



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

183

Irving 0 . M cNayr
A. Yes, I can. Carter.
Q. With the exception of Carter?
A. Very definitely, but the others I can only identify 

them as being in these various groups who did this 
sort of thing, but not as individuals.

Q. Insofar as the defendant Carter is concerned, the 
misconduct on his part was that he harangued, did 
you say?

A. He was a very active fellow that morning, in 
addition to organizing, keeping them all in line, issuing 
instructions, generally, to them upon my instructions 
to him, to have the group dispersed, then he proceeded 
with his harangue or whatever you wish to call it.

Q. I don’t like that word “harangue” , but I don’t 
know a better word to use.

A. I think that describes it pretty well.
Q. I take no exception to that. Prior to that time, 

was David Carter apparently trying to keep the peace, 
to keep down confusion among the persons in his 
group? You say he was generally issuing instructions?

A. Yes. Again, if I may use my own words, these 
people came to the Grounds in orderly fashion—I ’ve 
testified to this. They were reasonably well dressed. 
There was no profanity, no jeering. They had ap­
parently been well instructed as to how they should be­
have. I assume that Dave Carter was seeing to it that 
they kept that way during this parade.

Q. That was the impression he gave you?
A. That was the impression he gave me on this oc­

casion and on previous occasions.
Q. The situation, then, so far as he and his group 

were concerned, got out of his hand after you had is­
sued certain instructions?



184 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Irving G. M cNayr

A. After I had told him that in my judgment the 
group must he dispersed and apparently that really set 
him off.

Q. You did not identify any of these defendants as 
having crowded anyone else off the sidewalk or having 
blocked any vehicular traffic?

A. Not as individuals, no, but on occasions they were 
filing back and forth across these areas and I ’m cer­
tain some people were blocked out.

Q. There is, then, a possibility that some of these 
defendants may have been bystanders rather than ac­
tive participants in the so-called gathering?

A. Oh, there is that possibility. Again, we have po­
lice arrest records, identification cards on each one of 
these people. It would be impossible for me to identify 
these individuals.

Q. The records which you have are based only on 
records—in fact, they are the original records at the 
arrest of these individuals when they were carried 
down to City Jail?

A. Yes.
Q. Now, you, on that day, in this situation, you made 

no arrest of any one except these student defendants?
,A. That’s right.
Q. With the exception of one young man’s name?
A. Yes, of my own knowledge, I knew nothing of the 

arrest of that boy, really, until very late in the evening.
Q. Frankly, you don’t know whether he participated 

the activities or not?
A. No, I don’t. I never saw him, as a matter of fact.
Q. Now, with reference to some of these potential 

trouble makers, there was no arrest of any of them?
A. No, there was not.



Appeal from Richland County

Irving G. M oNayr

Q. Of your own knowledge, do you know of any of 
these Negro defendants in this group or other groups 
who you would call trouble makers'?

A. Not in the sense that I was using the word pre­
viously, No.

Q. You don’t know, of your own knowledge, of any 
instance when they have participated in any act of 
violence?

A. No.
Q. Do you know of any instance where they have 

urged any act of violence?
A. No, I do not.
Q. I believe you are generally familiar with the 

overall movement, as expressed by these defendants, 
throughout the City of Columbia for the past year?

A. I am quite familiar with it.
Q. Do you know, of your own knowledge, of any vio­

lence on the part of any of those Negro participants in 
those activities?

A. No, I do not.
Q. And would you say that these defendants are 

typical of the other persons involved in the same 
group, in your experience throughout the past year?

A. Yes, I would.
Mr. Jenkins: No further questions.
By Mr. Coleman:
Q. Counsel has very skillfully drawn from you part 

of your reasoning, part of the reasons behind your 
action in having to do with the arrest, which was that 
you feared possible violence there, but there was other 
testimony that you just gave as to the blocking of the 
streets and the sidewalks. Did these factors enter into 
your decision to stop the demonstration?

SUPREME COURT 185



186 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Irving G. M cNayr 
Joseph Barnett 

A. Yes, they did.
Q. Materially!
A. Yes, very materially.
(Witness excused.)
The Court: We will take a five minute recess. 
(Court reconvened.)

Whereupon, Mr. Coleman called Joseph Barnett 
who, being first duly sworn, testified as follows:

742 Direct Examination
By Mr. Coleman:
Q. Mr. Barnett, what is your full name, please!
A. Joseph P. Barnett.
Q. Are you a resident of Columbia!
A. I am.
Q. What is your occupation?
A. I am a Reporter for The State newspaper.
Q. Did you have occasion—
A. First, Mr. Coleman, I ’d like to point out that I 

7«  was subpoenaed to appear here today.
Q. Yes, you were subpoenaed by the Attorney Gen­

eral’s Office, by me, is that correct!
A. That is correct.
Q. Did you have occasion on last March the 2nd, at 

any time during the day, to be in the vicinity of the 
State House grounds in the City of Columbia!

A. Yes, sir.
Q. At what time did you arrive, if you remember?
A. I arrived there probably at 12:35, probably 12:33 

or 12:34 or 12:35.
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, would counsel 

agree that I might refer to the group of students, here-

744



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

187

Joseph Barnett

tofore identified, about which there has been testimony, 
without going into the full thing?

Mr. Jenkins: Go ahead.
Q. Did you see the group of students about which 

previous witnesses have testified on the grounds that 
day?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you see any placards being carried by these 

students ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember what any of the placards said 

or one or none at all?
A. Two of them stand out in my mind.
Q. I notice that you are using notes, Mr. Barnett. 

Were those notes made by you?
A. They were made by me. I was acting as a re­

porter at that time.
Q. Made by you at the time?
A. At the time. One girl, Negro girl, was carrying a 

plac which got my attention and I wrote it down. It 
said: “You may jail our bodies but not our souls” .

Q. Do you remember any other placards?
A. There was another placard, of which I ordered a 

photograph to be taken, which said words similar to 
that about going to jail for freedom and I had a pho­
tograph of that placard made.

Q. At what point of time approximately, with ref­
erence to the arrival of these students on the State 
House grounds, did you observe the two signs, if you 
remember? Was it when they first got there or after­
wards ?

A. I can determine that very closely from my notes 
because my notes have times in them, and I wrote down 
that placard “You may jail our bodies but not our



188 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Joseph Barnett

m  souls” within two or three minutes after I wrote down 
12:35, and 12:35 was the time that this group arrived 
at the horseshoe for what ensued.

Q. Were you in and about the horseshoe the entire 
period of time in which the students were on the State 
House grounds?

A. I was. I left when a large group was marched off 
to the City Jail. I left in an automobile at that time.

Q. Did you observe the horseshoe area itself from 
time to time?

A. I was in it, around it, all over it.
™ Q. Would you describe the area with reference to 

the presence or absence of any large number of per­
sons?

A. As has been previously testified, this was near 
lunch time and there were a lot of State employees 
there; there were a lot of shoppers and there was this 
large group, which I had previously counted down at 
Zion Baptist Church as being 188 in number, but I 
must have miscounted, but they were on the grounds, 
all in the horseshoe area, all at one time there. They 

m  were met at the entrance to the horseshoe as they came 
up from Zion Baptist Church and there were groups 
of them coming up as another group was coming 
around. They were all over the area there.

Q. Mr. Barnett, with regard to the presence or ab­
sence of any other persons who did not appear to be 
included in the student group, describe your observa­
tions as to them, if there were any?

A. I noticed over on the corners by the Carolina Life 
Building and by the Wade Hampton Hotel, I noticed 

T52 that there were a number of white persons beginning 
to congregate. I noticed the traffic policeman, that the 
City Manager has testified to, had been placed in the



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

189

Joseph Babnett

intersection. The automobiles were slowing down at 
the intersection and the monument, that is in the mid­
dle of the horseshoe, there were probably fifteen to 
twenty-five people standing on the little steps that 
lead up to the monument getting an overall view. There 
were State officials, police, State employees in the 
horseshoe area. There were many State employees up 
on the State House porch on both sides, both the North 
Main Street and the South Main Street sides.

Q. With regard to the sidewalks along each side of 
the horseshoe and the lanes for vehicular traffic on 
each side of the monument, would you describe any 
persons, if there were any in those areas ?

A. The parking lot itself was full with automobiles 
leaving very little space on the driving portion for 
people but there were people congregating there. There 
were persons congregating on the sidewalks them­
selves, just standing by watching.

C r o s s  E x a m i n a t i o n

By Mr. Sampson:
Q. Mr. Barnett, did you notice any other signs, 

other than the two that you mentioned a moment ago?
A. I made an estimate, at the time, and I estimated 

that probably in these groups, there were probably 
three signs to a group of fifteen or twenty, which car­
ried all sorts of slogans, some were big and some were 
small. They were all generally handwritten, looked 
like they had been made in a hurry.

Q. Did it have anything to do with discrimination 
or anything about that?

A. Oh, yes.
Q. Let me ask you this, sir. Were you present when 

the first case was tried on March the 7th, I believe, of 
this year?



190 SUPREME COURT
_______The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

J oseph B arnett
757 A. I was. The first case, I was present.

Q. Did I understand yon to say that yon are a news­
paper reporter?

A. Right.
Q. What paper do you work for?
A. The State newspaper.
Q. Are you familiar with the policy of The State 

newspaper?
A. Generally, yes.
Q. Is it their policy generally to permit—
Mr. Coleman: If Tour Honor please, that is entirely

7"s irrelevant and I object on that ground.
Q. I ’ll withdraw that. Did you or did you not write 

an article for this newspaper having to do with this 
aft air ?

A. Yes.
Q. So the truth of the matter is you had a judgment 

before you appeared here now as a witness, a pre­
judgment?

A. I am here to testify as to what I saw and ob­
served. I have no pre-judgment.

759 Q. Isn’t it fair to say that you had a pre-judgment 
of this matter because you had formed an opinion on 
it before you were subpoenaed to appear here as a 
witness? Isn’t that right?

Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, I hate to keep 
interrupting but the witness has not attempted to 
qualify himself as an expert. He has given no opinion 
in the evidence. He has merely testified to the physical 
things that he saw there that day. I fail to follow the 
questioning on his judgment.

760 Mr. Sampson: May it please the Court, I under­
stand what Mr. Coleman is objecting to but I ’d like to 
remind him that this is cross examination and I have



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

191

J oseph B arnett
a perfect right to ask him any question that might 
show a bias or a pre-formed opinion. It’s on cross ex­
amination and this is a reporter and he wrote about it 
and we had a trial before he appeared here as a wit­
ness and I think it’s perfectly competent to ask him 
whether or not he had any pre-judgment about this 
case before he appeared.

The Court: The witness has answered that he did 
not. Objection sustained.

Q. How long have you been a reporter in Columbia, 
Mr. Barnett?

A. I started with The State in 1945.
Q. 1945?
A. I took off three years for a little Army duty.
Q. You have had numerous occasions to observe the 

horseshoe area at the State House grounds, haven’t 
you?

A. Many times.
Q. And would it be fair to say that you are familiar 

with the general traffic lights and signals in that area?
A. Yes.
Q. To your knowledge, they normally function per­

fectly, don’t they, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. And, to your knowledge, I ask you whether or 

not on this particular occasion were they functioning 
normally?

A. That I can’t say. To watch those lights there, 
you’d have to go to about five different positions to see. 
if they were functioning normally.

Q. You have no reason to believe that they were not 
functioning normally?

A. Oh, no.
Q. You’re not a traffic expert, are you?



192
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.
_________ SUPREME COURT_________

J oseph B arnett
A. No.
Q. Would it be reasonable to assume that the lights 

were functioning normally at the time you observed 
this group or crowd, as you say?

A. It would be reasonable.
Mr. Coleman: That calls for an assumption on the 

witness’ part by the words of the question itself. I will 
stipulate that the traffic signals were working normally.

Mr. Sampson: At the time he was judging them? Is 
that right?

Mr. Coleman: Yes.
Q. I ask you again: you were present at the first 

trial, is that right?
A. Right.
Q. To the best of your recollection, did you or did 

you not or do you or do you not recall any witness for 
the State on that occasion saying that the traffic signals 
were not observed?

A. Were not observed by the motorist?
Q. That’s right.
A. I generally remember somebody saying that traf­

fic was not flowing at its normal rate, which would 
mean that they were not being observed but that’s an 
assumption on my part.

Q. The lights were not observed. By the way, this 
was at a lunch hour, wasn’t it? This was during their 
lunch hour?

A. Right.
Q. This is a heavily travelled intersection, isn’t it?
A. Right.
Q. Normally, the traffic is heavier then?
A. I presume it was just as normal as any other 

lunch hour.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

193

J oseph B arnett
Q. Isn’t it fair to say that the traffic at that time was 

normal for that particular area?
A. Probably so.
Q. Now, since you’ve been here since 1945, what is 

the largest crowd that you have observed on the State 
House grounds in this area?

A. I think that would be Vice-President Nixon’s 
rally, if I ’m not mistaken, at which he spoke.

Q. Last year?
A. Right. Prior to the election.
Q. You didn’t have any breaches of the peace aris­

ing out of that, did you?
A. No, I think they had the Governor’s permission 

to use the State House grounds.
Q. How large would you estimate that crowd to be,

sir?
A. I don’t remember exactly what it was. I flew over 

it in an airplane.
Q. Would you say the traffic was under control on 

that occasion, sir?
A. If I recall, the streets were blocked off at that 

time.
Q. Oh, I see. By the way, this parking lot which you 

observed as being full, isn’t it true that that parking 
lot is normally full at that time of day?

A. With automobiles, yes.
Q. Now, let me ask you this, Mr. Barnett, do you 

recall having seen any of these particular defendants 
blocking the traffic or the sidewalks?

A. Oh, yes.
Q. Could you identify them?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Would you care to identify them by pointing out 

and having them stand up?



194 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

J oseph B arnett
A. Well, I can identify Carter and his lieutenant or 

captain, Charles McDew, back there, the Reverend 
Glover.

Q. Any more?
A. By name, I think that’s all I  can recall right 

now, but by face, I think I could give you ten or twelve 
more.

Q. Now, I ask you, how were they blocking the side­
walks or the traffic?

A. They were blocking the sidewalks on two occa­
sions that I recall; first, when they arrived at the State 
House and then after they had walked through the 
State House grounds, they blocked it again just across 
the horseshoe on Gervais.

Q. Did you observe any of these particular defend­
ants doing that?

A. Oh, yes.
Q. Let me ask you this: when they arrived there, it 

is my recollection of the testimony that they were given 
permission to go around the State House grounds?

A. Right. They were given permission—this would 
be hearsay testimony but Mr. Walker told them they 
could go through the State House grounds once but— 
this is a direct quote from my notes—“walking around 
and around is a breach of the peace. You have no right 
to go on these grounds for demonstration” . He told 
that to Charles McDew, who I understand is a defend­
ant today, at 12:35. After he had told those words to 
Charles McDew, McDew then said “May I pass?”

Q. Other than the defendants which you named a 
moment ago, did you observe any of the others block­
ing traffic?

A. Like I say, on the two occasions when they first 
arrived then after they had walked through the State



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

195

J oseph B arnett
House grounds, they sort of back-logged up there on 
the Gervais Street end.

Q. Did you observe them they were in groups and 
an officer was by each group?

A. Well, yes, that was generally after arrest that 
the officer was by them. They were still in groups, some 
large and some small, after arrest.

Q. You wouldn’t say that they were blocking the 
traffic then in the custody of an officer?

A. Well, I think they were all generally lined up 
single file and single file doesn’t black the traffic of the 
State House walkways.

Mr. Sampson: That’s all. Thank you.
Mr. Coleman: No further questions.
(Witness excused.)
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, the State has 

three more witnesses, Mr. L. J. Campbell, Chief of 
Police of the City of Columbia, Mr. Dan F. Beckman, 
Assistant Chief of South Carolina Law Enforcement 
Division, Mr. A. C. Shorter, Jr., who is a member of 
the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division. These 
three men have testified at the two previous trials aris­
ing out of this occasion and, with Your Honor’s per­
mission, counsel has agreed to stipulate that their tes­
timony here today would be substantially the same as 
their previous testimony, including testimony by Chief 
Campbell with regard to, I think, the vacation of the 
warrants, the names contained in those warrants being 
the names of persons arrested in the City of Columbia 
on last March 2nd and who were a part of the group 
of students. With Your Honor’s permission, counsel 
will offer that testimony as stipulated testimony and 
I will ask Chief Campbell to take the stand for one 
question on cross examination.



196 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Chief  L. J. Campbell
Mr. Jenkins: If it is agreeable with Your Honor, we 

will so stipulate.
The Court: All right.

Whereupon, Chief L. J. Campbell was duly sworn 
and testified as follows:

C r o s s  E x a m m a t i o n

By Mr. Jenkins:
Q. Chief Campbell, would you identify, if any, every 

one of these particular defendants present today who 
"* committed any of the acts of blocking traffic, vehicular 

and pedestrian and otherwise committing a breach of 
the peace on March the 2nd, 1961?

A. Of course, I know a couple of them very person­
ally, Dave Carter and Williams. Of course, the faces 
are familiar and I would say that they were in the 
group of the Negro students on March the 2nd.

Q. Are these two, whom you have named, those are 
the only ones that you can positively identify?

A. That I could swear that they were there, except 
tbs as their names were called on the warrants and they 

appeared.
Mr. Jenkins: No further questions.
(Witness excused.)
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, do you have a 

copy of the warrants of the previous trials ?
The Court: I can get them.
Mr. Coleman: I thought possibly we should read in 

the record the trial that we had in mind. If Your Honor 
please, I should like to place in the record that, with 

7g4 regard to the stipulation of testimony, one of the trials 
to which reference is made and in which testimony was 
given by the three witnesses named was entitled T h e



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

197

Chief L. J. Campbell 
A. C. S horter, Jr. tob

S t a t e  v e r s u s  G e o r g e  C l e v e l a n d  F o s t e r ,  J a m e s  J e r o m e  

K i r  t o n ,  I s a a c  W a s h i n g t o n ,  R o l a n d  J o h n n i e  R h a m e s ,  

J o s e p h  R .  B a i l e y ,  I s a a c  J e r o m e  C a m p b e l l ,  D a v i d  G r e e n  

a n d  C h a r l e s  F u l t o n  B a r r ,  the trial of which case was 
held in this court room on Tuesday, March the 13th, 
and including also the first trial which arose out of 
this matter involving these defendants and other Ne­
gro students of the City of Columbia on March the 2nd, 
1961. Is that agreeable?

Mr. Jenkins: The first trial was held on March 7th, 
1961. 786

Mr. Coleman: One of the trials, the first, to which 
reference is made in this stipulation, was entitled T h e  

S t a t e  v e r s u s  J a m e s  E d w a r d s ,  J r . ,  A l v e s t e r  P a t e ,  J r . ,  

P i n c k n e y  M o s e l e y ,  M e l v i n  R r o w n ,  J r . ,  H a r o l d  E u g e n e  

N i m  m o  n s .  W i l l i e  B o y k i n  J o n e s ,  W i l l i a m  P e r k i n s ,  B i l l  

A l v i n  S u l l i v a n ,  the trial of which was held in your 
court on March 7th, 1961. The State has no further evi­
dence, Your Honor. If Your Honor please, we did 
agree that the other two witnesses would take the stand 
for this same question that was asked of Chief Camp- n r  

bell.

Whereupon, Mr. A. C. S horter, Jr., was duly sworn 
and testified as follows:

C r o s s  E x a m i n a t i o n  

By Mr. Jenkins:
Q. Mr. Shorter, I want to ask you if you will iden­

tify any of the particular defendants on trial today 
who you remember having taken part in the activities 
on March the 2nd, 1961 and, if in the event you iden­
tify any of these defendants, as having done any of



198 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

A. C. Shorter, Jr.
Dan F. B eckman

these specific acts leading towards the charge of breach 
of the peace against them, yon will state that also for 
the record?

A. I can identify David Carter, McDew, his first 
name I do not know offhand; I can pick him out if 
yon like.

Q. These defendants are present?
A. McDew attends school in Orangeburg and he’s on 

the third seat, hack on the left. I can identify him as 
particularly breaching the peace. He led the first group 
and was very belligerent as he went around, wanting 
to go through the walkways, crisscross, in double file, 
which I asked him not to do. He stopped on each walk­
way and insisted that he do so. I told him he could go 
through single file, in smaller groups, that’s McDew.

Q. I believe you also pointed out David Carter as 
having done specific acts.

A. You asked me if I knew any of them by name and 
I said I knew David Carter by name. I don’t remember 
any specific act that David Carter did.

Q. Then, you know of no specific act that any of the 
other individual defendants did on that date?

A. I can’t pick them out.
Mr. Jenkins: I have no further questions.
Mr. Coleman: No questions.
(Witness excused.)

Whereupon, Chief D an F. B eckman  was duly sworn 
and testified as follows:

C r o s s  E x a m i n a t i o n  

By Mr. Jenkins:
Q. Chief Beckman, I know in the beginning you will 

recognize at least two of the defendants on trial today.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Ricliland County

199

D an P . B eckman
Now, I ask you this question, if you will point out to 793 

the Court, each individual defendant here today that 
you can identify as having participated in the activi­
ties on March the 2nd, 1961 and state specifically what 
each of those that you identify did which led towards 
the charge of breach of the peace being placed against 
that individual?

A. Charles McDew, hack there, and the young man 
sitting to his left, and the one with the patch over his 
eye. I recognize those three. Of course, I recognize 
David Carter and Williams.

Q. Now, then, are those all that you recognize?
A. I recognize this elderly man over here. Is he one 

of the defendants in here?
Q. What row?
A. In the first row, next to the end.
Q. I may be in error hut I think you have reference 

to Reverend Glover.
A. That’s perhaps the only one.
Q. The second part of my question was, Chief Beck­

man, if you will point out to the Court, specifically, 
what each of the persons you have identified did on 795 

March the 2nd which led to the charge of breach of the 
peace against him?

A. Of course, all of them were part of the overall 
group that participated in the general singing and 
stomping of the feet.

Q. Specifically, can you identify each of these per­
sons as having stomped their feet and sung?

A. I saw McDew as he was coming through the 
circle.

Q. Tell us what McDew did? 79g
A. That was shortly after Mr. McNayr gave them 

fifteen minutes to disperse, this group came through.



2 0 0 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

D an F. B eckman
I ’d say fifteen to twenty people in that group and I 
asked him if he wanted to disperse his group and go 
back, and I spoke to the entire group and I told them 
that if they didn’t go back, we would have to arrest 
them and charge them with breach of the peace and I 
had to get David—

Q. Let me ask you, did McDew go back?
A. No, he didn’t.
Q. That’s what McDew did? The fellow with the 

glasses on, tell me what he did?
A. He was in the group that I saw there. He was a 

party participant.
Q. Now, I believe, Captain Beckman, you have told 

what Charles McDew did and you have said that you 
didn’t remember anything specific that Reverend 
Glover had done, you pointed out that you could rec­
ognize Anthony McFadden, he’s the one who is seated 
immediately to the left of Charles McDew—

A. To my right?
Q. Yes. Specifically, what do you recognize him as 

doing?
A. He was a part of the over-all group that was 

arrested there that day.
Q. George Anderson is the man with the patch on 

his eye. What specifically did he do?
A. He was a part of the over-all group.
Mr. Jenkins: No further questions.
(Witness excused.)
Mr. Coleman: That completes the State’s testimony, 

Your Honor.
Mr. Jenkins: If Your Honor please, I ’d like to make 

a couple of motions. No. 1, we move that the charge 
against each of these defendants be dismissed on the 
ground that the State has failed to establish the c o r p u s



SUPREME COURT 2 0 1

Appeal from Richland County

d e l i c t i .  The 2nd motion is, we move that the charge 
against each of the defendants present this morning 
and on trial here today be dismissed on the ground 
that the State has failed to prove a p r i m a  f a c i e  case. 
The 3rd motion for dismissal is upon the ground that 
by the arrest and prosecution of these defendants, each 
of them, the police powers of the State of South Caro­
lina are being used to deprive each defendant of the 
right of freedom of assembly and freedom of speech 
guaranteed to each by the First Amendment to the 
United States Constitution and further secured to each 
by the equal protection and due process clauses of the 
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitu­
tion, the evidence of the State showing that, at the time 
of their arrest, these defendants were included in a 
peaceful, lawful assemblage of persons, orderly in 
every respect upon the public streets and properties 
of the State of South Carolina. These are the three 
motions for dismissal.

Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor pleases, the State op­
poses all three motions. Opposes, first, on the ground 
that there is ample evidence establishing the crime 
committed. There is ample evidence to establish the 
crime was committed by these defendants. I believe 
that would cover all of our objections.

The Court: All three motions denied.
Mr. Jenkins: At this time, may it please the Court, 

the defendants would like, with Your Honor’s permis­
sion, for the record to show that, if these defendants 
before the Court today, were each placed on the stand, 
each would testify substantially, both on direct exami­
nation and on cross examination, the same as the wit­
ness and defendant, James Jerome Kirton, testified 
during the trial here before Your Honor on Tuesday 
of this week, Tuesday, March the 13th, 1961.



2 0 2 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

R everend B. J. Glover 
Mr. Coleman: The State is agreeable to that.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Jenkins: Further, Your Honor, on behalf of the 

defendants, we should like to place on the stand just 
two witnesses, just a short examination.

Whereupon, Mr. Jenkins called R everend B. J. 
Glover, who, being first duly sworn, testified as fol­
lows :

D i r e c t  E x a m i n a t i o n

By Mr. Jenkins:
Q. You are the Reverend Benjamin J. Glover?
A. That’s right.
Q. Reverend Glover, I know that you do not nor­

mally speak very loudly, but today would you raise 
your voice just a little bit so we can hear you clearly? 
You are a defendant today?

A. That’s right, sir.
Q. Reverend Glover, will you tell to the Court, in 

your own words, what you know about the cause on 
March 2nd, 1961, leading to the arrest of these present 
defendants, your participation, if any, in the occur­
rence which led to your arrest, just in your own words?

A. I came to Columbia accompanied by several stu­
dents from my area to a student meeting and, in that 
meeting, the students discussed, in part, racial dis­
crimination as existed in South Carolina and particu­
larly in Columbia. They also discussed the fact that 
the Legislators were in session, at that time, and de­
cided to point out their feelings, as it relates to segre­
gation, by a procession to the State Capitol. In that 
procession they walked orderly and peacefully and I 
feel that most of these students are peaceful, to point



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

203

R everend B. J. Glover
out either a feeling of resentment or a feeling of that g09 

relation. I followed the group—
Q. May I interrupt you? Were you a part of what 

you characterized a procession?
A. I followed the group—yes, not as a student but 

as a person in any advisory capacity to some of the 
students, who were assigned to me as their parents 
permitted them to come because of my company. Cer­
tainly I had to see that they were protected or that 
they followed what I felt was the reasonable rights 
and, in doing so, they proceeded to the Capitol and, I 
might say, that they walked from the place where they 810 

assembled to the Capitol with no intention of being 
arrested or molested or of violating a law. It was my 
understanding, from their discussion, that this was 
public property and they had a right; in fact, they 
asked me, the students that I brought with me, and I 
told them that I felt that it was public property and 
that they had a right, as a citizen, to move in a peace­
ful manner and at no time, I can say to this Court, did 
these students that I know about, were they disorderly 
or acting in a boisterous manner because every one sn 
that I know are Christians. I knew that they would be­
have according to certain ethical and moral codes. The 
group went to the State grounds, at least through the 
grounds, but in the group that I followed, we were 
stopped by an officer stating his position and I must 
confess that I was never able to make a second round 
and many of the other who followed, and they said 
“around and around”, I ’ve heard it testified here that 
it was a continuous situation, but the officer said that 
this was not the thing to do and certainly I wouldn’t gl2 

have done it, because on that particular day, by being 
arrested, and I certainly was arrested not knowing



204 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

R everend B. J. Glover
what I was arrested for, I asked the officer but I was 
given no particular charge, and he repeated again 
“You are under arrest” , and Your Honor, I certainly 
would have made arrangements to have been able to 
ride back to the jail because I walked further that day 
than I have in four years. I ’m not permitted to walk 
more than three blocks. I certainly would not have 
gone there with the intention of being arrested with 
an idea of walking that far, but I went there only as an 
observer with the students, as they approached the 
State Capitol, and I would like for the Court to know 
that, to my knowledge, there was no singing or demon­
stration, as far as overt expressions were concerned, 
or actions, until after the arrest was made.

Q. Reverend Glover, did you pay any particular at­
tention to the on-lookers, who perhaps were around 
that area?

A. Most of them, as I observed, some faces were 
smiling, perhaps a gesture of good faith, and on one 
occasion two or three persons approached with an 
intention of shaking hands and I believe one person 
was arrested on that account.

Q. Did you observe any indication on the part of 
any bystander—-

Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, I ask that the 
remark of the witness be stricken, the one that had 
reference to other persons be arrested because they 
attempted to shake hands.

Mr. Jenkins: We will agree, if Your Honor, please, 
that that be stricken.

The Court: Strike it from the record.
Q. Reverend Glover, did you observe on the part of 

any of the by-standers any act or any conduct, which



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

205

R everend B. J. G-lover
to your mind, brought on a possibility of bodily harm 
to you or any of those persons under your charge?

A. I did not.
Q. Did you observe any of the persons, who took 

part in this expression that day, that any of these de­
fendants who impeded, other than the use of the side­
walks ?

A. I did not.
Q. Did you observe any of them creating a bottle­

neck in the vehicular traffic anywhere around where 
they were?

A. The only time that I noticed any obstruction of 
the traffic or the slowing up of movement, was when 
an officer spoke to us, either by the State or City or 
some person who identified himself as an officer or he 
wore the uniform of an officer, at that time, he stopped 
persons from saying something to them but the officer 
that stopped me stated that “You are under arrest” 
and, in questioning him, the groups began to come up 
and, if there was a congestion—however, in that par­
ticular instance, he stated that we must single file and 
the single file was to the outer side of the street, so, 
that, assuming that a person would be able to pass, 
and it certainly was not the acts of the students to vio­
late or to hinder the traffic.

Q. You made some comment on the distance that you 
had walked and you had not walked that distance for 
some time. Would you state for what reason you have 
not walked?

A. I ’ve been confined to the hospital with a muscu­
lar ailment.

Q. Do you think of anything further that you would 
like to say with regard to the incidents on that day?



206 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

R everend B. J. Glover
A. Attorney, the only thing I could possibly say is 

that there was no intention in the minds of the stu­
dents—

Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, I object to his 
stating the intentions in the minds of the students.

A. There was no expression, as relates to arrest or 
a violation of a law, or at least the purpose for which 
I followed them was to show to the Legislators or other 
persons, with whom we might he able to converse, that 
there is a deep-seated resentment on this matter of 
racial inequalities and segregation and I felt that there 
was no better time or place to demonstrate it than on 
the Capitol, which is the center of our total policy 
makers.

Mr. Jenkins : I have no further questions.
C r o s s  E x a m i n a t i o n

By Mr. Coleman:
Q. Reverend Glover, you walked from the Zion Bap­

tist Church to the State House grounds?
A. I did.
Q. Hid you inform any police officer about any phys­

ical disability of yourself?
A. I did not.
Q. You were there the entire period during which 

these students were on the State House grounds, with 
them?

A. Yes.
Q. For how long a period were they allowed to walk 

in and about the State House grounds ?
A. I would say that it was in the area of fifteen to 

thirty minutes.
Q. Were you directing a group or did you have a 

supervisory capacity over them that day?



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

207

R everend B. J. Glover
A. No, supervisor, except for the young people I 

brought with me.
Q. You were, though, a part of the over-all group 

that was conducting the demonstration? You are not 
a student, I understand that, but you were a part of 
the group, is that correct?

A. Yes, I became involved.
Q. Do you not think that a reasonable time was 

given to you and the other students in which to express 
whatever you wanted to express that day?

A. No, I feel that a person expressing a resentment 
or any feeling has to be guided by his conscience.

Q. How long or do you know how long you would 
have stayed there had there been no acts on the part 
of the police officers?

A. That would be determined by the conscience of 
the group of the individual.

Q. Then, you are saying that there would be no 
limit, is that correct ?

A. Conscience always has a limit, sir.
Q. What is it in your case?
A. In my case—
Q. As to the demonstration?
A. That I am unable to tell. We did not have an 

opportunity to let conscience be the guide.
Q. You have stated that you felt that you and the 

others had the right to go upon the State House 
grounds. Tesimony has shown that you were allowed 
to go on the State House grounds. Did you see any­
thing of the other factors which the testimony has 
shown were involved in this case? Such as, the gather­
ing of a crowd of on-lookers, the impeding of traffic on 
the sidewalks, the impeding of vehicular traffic on the



208 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

R everend B. J. Clover
lanes around the horseshoe and on Gervais Street, did 
you observe any of that?

A. I did not observe any abnormal impediment un­
til the time that the group—it was stated that we were 
under arrest and the line of the procession stopped 
moving because of the statement made by the officer.

Q. Do you remember whether or not there were any 
or none or many people, other than the students, in the 
horseshoe when you first arrived there?

A. To be frank, sir, I did not notice any unusual 
number.

Q. At that time?
A. At that time.
Q. Did you notice any unusual number immediately 

prior to the time when the arrests were made?
A. When the officers stopped the group that I was 

following, there appeared to be individuals coming 
near, such as, reporters or officers, as I can remember, 
and perhaps civilians but the point that I would like 
for the Court to remember is that, as far as I was con­
cerned, there was no unusual congregation or persons 
until after the arrests were made.

Q. After the arrests? All right. You have stated that 
you felt and the reason you went there was that every 
person has a right to walk in and about the State 
House grounds and demonstrate, is that right?

A. I don’t think I used the word demonstrate.
Q. What term did you use?
A. I said I thought every person had the right to 

point out his feelings in the manner as the young peo­
ple were participating.

Q. Do you think that that right extends to a large 
group of two hundred people?



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

209

R everend B. J. Glover
A. Yes, as individuals, and I believe that the group 

—at least I acted as an individual because I chose to 
follow them.

Q. You were acting in concert, were you not?
A. Yes.
Q. If it’s all right for a group of two hundred, would 

it be all right for a group of four hundred?
A. It would be all right, if they acted under the same 

circumstances under which we acted.
Q. Would it he all right for a group of ten thou­

sand?
A. I haven’t ever assembled ten thousand.
Q. You have stated what your beliefs were as to 

your rights, I ’m merely trying to reach the point where 
you think something maybe could be done to control 
it. Is there such a limit in your mind?

A. A limit to action?
Q. A limit to the number of persons which might act 

in concert and demonstrate on a public place?
A. When you come to the truth, everybody should be 

convinced of the truth.
Q. I didn’t understand you.
A. When it comes to truth, everyone should be—it is 

my belief and I spend my whole life trying to advo­
cate truth and righteousness.

Q. I ’m in favor of truth also, but that does not an­
swer my question. Is it your position that any number, 
an unlimited number of people, acting in concert, might 
parade in and about a public place for more than an 
hour without any interference, for whatever reason, 
would that be in violation of constitutional rights?

A. Would you mind my asking just one question to 
clarify an answer?

Q. All right.



The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

R everend B. J. Glover
A. Are you saying that the group demonstrated 

more than an hour at the Capitol?
Q. Oh, no. I ’ll tie it to the exact period of time.
A. That would depend on the circumstances.
Q. What circumstances?
A. What’s involved.
Q. You say it would depend on the circumstances? 

What circumstances might he involved? Do you think 
congestion of traffic might come into it, along the pub­
lic streets?

A. Oh, no.
Q. You do not? I thank you for that answer. Do you 

feel that this group of students were arrested because 
they were Negroes only? Do you feel that there was 
no other reason for their arrest? You were one of the 
leaders, you were one of the advisers, do you feel that 
way?

A. The only point that I could possibly see that they 
were arrested, I feel that there was no violation as to 
their rights. You would have to ask the person who 
signed the warrants for their arrest as to the reasons 
we were arrested.

Q. All right. Did you know that it is a matter of 
common knowledge that a group of people wishing to 
bring the Evangelist Billy Graham to the State House 
grounds were refused such permission?

Mr. .Tonkins : If Your Honor please, we realize this 
is cross examination, I dislike to interrupt counsel but 
the question does not seem pertinent to the issue before 
the Court at this time.

Mr. Coleman: Normally, I would agree that it was 
not pertinent but throughout all of these trials there’s 
been innuendoes, there’s been inference, there’s been 
direct testimony that these people, these students were

210 SUPREME COURT ________



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

2 1 1

R everend B. J. Glover
arrested because they were Negroes. I see no reason 
why the State cannot show, if they can upon cross ex­
amination, that other groups, which had no identifica­
tion with the Negro race, have been refused repeatedly 
the use of the State House grounds for purposes of 
rallies, demonstrations or things of that sort.

Mr. Jenkins: If Your Honor please, the defense has 
advanced no reason, to my recollection, as to why these 
defendants were arrested and I may further point out 
that in the first trial, in the series of cases, effort was 
made on behalf of the defense to question police offi­
cials with reference to a rally which took place as the 
result of the cancellation of the speaking engagement 
of Mr. Nixon and the State vehemently opposed such 
questioning and Your Honor ruled it as having nothing 
to do with the case at issue. I repeat my objection and 
I think we are going far afield to question this wit­
ness with respect to action taken by the Police Depart­
ment with reference to other assemblages in or about 
the State House grounds.

Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, I ’d like to re­
mind both the Court and counsel that the defense coun­
sel brought out from a State witness here in this trial 
today testimony with regard to the Nixon speech held 
on the State House grounds without my objection.

The Court: Objection overruled.
Q. If you don’t know of it, just say so. Do you want 

me to repeat the question ?
A. Please.
Q. Do you know that it is common knowledge that a 

group of persons attempting to get permission to have 
the Evangelist Billy Graham come to Columbia and 
stage a rally on the State House grounds was refused!



2 1 2

The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.
SUPREME COURT_________

R everend B. J. Glover
A. Yes, I have that knowledge but I ’d like to add 

that the student procession was not classified as a 
rally.

Q. Well, not by you. It was classified as a demon­
stration. Is that correct?

A. Yes.
Q. Do you know that it’s common knowledge that an 

organization, properly known as the Klu Ivlux Klan, 
has been refused upon many occasions the use of the 
State House grounds for purposes of a rally or a dem­
onstration or anything of that nature?

A. I believe that’s true.
Q. Then, with that information, how can you pos­

sibly conclude that this action was taken against the 
people merely because they were Negroes?

Mr. Jenkins: If Your Honor please, I do not believe 
this witness has testified that this action was taken 
against him or any other defendant because they were 
Negroes.

Mr. Coleman: I withdraw the question. No more 
question.

The Court: The Court would like to get something 
clarified in his own mind. Reverend Glover, I sympa­
thize with the muscular trouble that you are having, 
but you testified that you were not permitted to walk 
but three blocks and then you testified that you had 
walked from Zion Baptist Church down to the Capitol 
Building. If I ’m not mistaken, that’s about six blocks. 
How did that happen, if you’re not supposed to walk 
but three blocks?

A. Your Honor, I would like to make this statement. 
I intended to have stated that I have not walked more 
than three blocks in approximately four years. I did 
not say—the thing that I wanted clear was the fact



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

213

R everend B. J. Glover
that I had been advised not to over-exercise and, dur­
ing that period, I had not walked more than three 
blocks at any continuous walking, at one time and, 
when I left Zion Church, I really didn’t know that the 
State House was that far. When I started walking, it 
was an opinion as to how I felt or as to whether I 
would continue to walk. After getting to the Capitol 
grounds and being arrested, I had to walk whether 
I wanted to or not.

The Court: How many times have you been here in 
Columbia, Reverend Glover?

A. Numbers of times.
The Court: You weren’t familiar with where the 

Capitol Building was located with reference to Zion 
Church?

A. No, sir.
The Court: I see.
Mr. Jenkins: I should like to ask the witness one 

question.
Q. You said, Reverend Glover, that you did know 

something about permission being refused Billy Gra­
ham to hold a meeting here on the State House 
grounds ?

A. Yes.
Q. Do you know that the reason for that was that it 

would be an integrated meeting?
A. Yes.
By Mr. Coleman:
Q. I believe you answered my question with regard 

to permission sought by the Klu Klux Klan for such a 
demonstration, you did know that, and it’s common 
knowledge that such groups have been refused per­
mission to use the grounds?

A. Yes.



The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

R everend B. J. Glover
Q. Would the Kin Klux Klan have been an inte­

grated meeting?
A. I don’t know.
Q. It is common knowledge—you said it was common 

knowledge that the Billy Graham meeting might be 
integrated?

A. Yes, it was.
Q. Would the same apply to the Klu Klux Klan

meeting ?
A. No, it would not.
Q. Yet they were also refused permission, is that 

864 correct ?
A. Yes.
Mr. Coleman: Thank you.
(Witness excused.)
The Court: The Court will recess until 2 :30 o’clock 

for lunch.
(Afternoon session.)
Mr. Jenkins: If Your Honor pleases, the defense does 

not, at this time, propose to put any further witnesses 
on the stand. We have concluded our case other than 

855 we have a few motions, at this time, that we would 
like to make.

(At this time, the defendants move for a dismissal 
of the charges against them, and each of them, on the 
same grounds as heretofore set forth and we respect­
fully request that the record would show that these 
three motions have been made, as though set out word 
for word at this time.

The Court: It is so ordered.
(The motions are denied.)
Mr. Coleman: Nothing further from the State.
Mr. Jenkins: Nothing further from the defendants.
The Court: Any closing remarks ?

214 SUPREME COURT



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

215

Mr. Jenkins: Insofar as the defendants are con­
cerned, we do not at this time care to make any argu­
ment whatsoever, following whatever ruling Your 
Honor may make with reference to the cases, we may 
have something further to say then.

Mr. Coleman: The State has no argument at this 
time.

The Court: The Court would like for all of the de­
fendants to stand in front of the Bench with no par­
ticular reference as to order.

(Defendants arraigned before the Bench.)
The Court: The Court finds you guilty as charged 

for breach of the peace. Would the attorneys like to 
say anything before I sentence them?

Mr. Jenkins: If Your Honor please, we have been 
through similar trials on two occasions. The same re­
marks, which we have previously made, you are fa­
miliar with and I do not believe it is for any good 
purpose to further delay these proceedings, therefore, 
we have nothing further to say.

Mr. Coleman: Nothing further.
The Court: I would like for each of you defendants 

who have not reached your 17th birthday to please 
raise your hands (eight hands raised), and I want you 
to come over here (indicating the left side of the court 
room in front of Bench). What is your name?

A. Delbert Leon Woods.
The Court: Next, and on down the line.
A. Isaac Williams, Alfred Odell Lemon, Robert 

Henry LaPrince, Wilbur Harrison Walker, William H. 
Cooley, James William Cantey, Clifford B. Bell.

The Court: How old are you, Delbert Woods?
A. Sixteen.
The Court: Where are you from?
A. Charleston.



216 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

The Court: Do you go to school?
A. Yes, sir.
The Court: What school?
A. Tenth rade.
The Court: Next one. What grade are you?
A. Tenth rade.
The Court: Where do you go to school?
A. Charleston.
The Court: Your name is what?
A. Isaac Williams.
The Court: Next?
A. I ’m sixteen, Tenth Grade, Sterling High School, 

Greenville, Alfred Odell Lemon.
The Court: Next.
A. Robert LaPrince, Kirk High School, Charleston. 

16 years old.
The Court: Next.
A. Sixteen, Tenth Grade, Greenville, South Carolina. 

Wilbur Harrison Walker.
The Court: Next.
A. Sixteen, Eleventh Grade, Greenville, South Caro­

lina, William Cooley.
The Court: Next.
A. James William Cantey, Sixteen, Eleventh Grade, 

Columbia.
The Court: Next.
A. Clifford Bell, Sixteen, Senior, Mathis Academy.
The Court: I have given considerable thought to the 

matters of young people working, young people vio­
lating the laws and I have devoted most of my life try­
ing to help and trying to lead them in the right direc­
tion. Regardless of any we may do something or why 
we may be led into something is only something that 
you in your own heart can justify. The Court certainly 
is going to take notice of the fact that you are not just



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

217

minors, but you are really children. Some day you will 
grow up to be a grown man and have problems that we, 
ourselves, are faced with right now. I just hope that 
when you become a man that you won’t use children to 
fight your battles or my battles, as you have been used.

The Court fines each one of you eight the minimum 
under the law, $10.00 or five days in jail. Now, if you 
eight will sit down over there, we can proceed.

Next, I would like for the defendants from seven­
teen up to twenty-one years old to stand over on this 
side. (Defendants line up as directed.)

The Court: None of you have reached your twenty- 
first birthday?

A. No. (In unison.)
The Court: What is your name?
A. Anthony McFadden.
The Court: Your name?
A. Clifford James Rice.
The Court: Next—
A. Sinclair Salters.
A. Hezikah Johnson.
A. James Allen Carter.
A. Thomas D. Hornsby.
A. Henry Williams.
A. Maxine Epps.
A. Frank E. Gore.
A. George A. Anderson.
rA.. Arthur Whitfield Stanley, Jr.
A. Earl Peters, Jr.
A. Wendell Dailey.
The Court: To each of you thirteen defendants, the 

sentence of the Court is $100.00 or thirty days in jail. 
I ’m going to suspend half of that upon payment of a 
$50.00 fine. Take your seats, please.



218
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.
_________ SUPREME COURT________

Mr. Jenkins: In his absence, William from Camden, 
17 years of age; also James Clyburn, I do not know his 
age but I understand he is less than twenty-one; he is 
twenty years of age. He, also, is one of those tried in 
his absence.

The Court: All right.
Mr. Jenkins: I ’m just wondering whether or not the 

sentence you have meted out to these others applied, 
as far as these two persons are concerned, pending 
your checking their ages?

The Court: That’s right. It certainly will. For the 
other thirteen defendants, the Court has absolutely no 
sympathy because each one of you are grown men, who 
have led children to the point where now they have a 
record, a police record. To get children to fight your 
battles and my battles is unheard of in a decent civili­
zation.

The Court fines each one of you $100.00 or thirty 
days in County Jail.

Mr. Jenkins: If Your Honor please, at this time, on 
behalf of all of the defendants, we move for arrest of 
judgment or, in the alternative, for a new trial based 
upon the motions made previously for a dismissal of 
the actions and we respectfully request that rather 
than spelling them out word for word, at this time, that 
the record will show the same as though we had re­
peated those motions again.

The Court: The records will show that.
(Motions denied.)
Mr. Jenkins: Now, then, at this time, if the Court 

pleases, we serve notice of intention to appeal within 
the statutory time. We will file with the Court written 
notice along with exceptions. We would further re-



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

219

quest that the Court would set appeal bonds in each 
case.

The Court: The appeal bond for each one that has 
just been tried and found guilty will be $100.00.

The Court would like, before we adjourn, to say, with 
reference to the young people under twenty-one, it is 
customary with me, if they come back before me the 
second time, it would show that they have a complete 
disregard for the law and justice as we know it, and 
the Court will not look upon their age as a factor with 
any future sentences you might have.

Mr. Jenkins: That’s all, Your Honor.
The Court: The court will be adjourned until Mon­

day, March the 27th, when we will try the remaining 
137 defendants who are charged in this particular ease.

(Court adjourned.)
I hearby certify that the foregoing is a true and cor­

rect transcript of the notes of testimony taken by me at 
the hearing of the above cause.

E leanor S. Mackey,
Reporter.

TRANSCRIPT OP TESTIMONY
Before Honorable Prank Powell, Magistrate, on 

Monday, March 27, 1961, Court Room at Columbia 
Police Headquarters, Columbia, South Carolina.

A p p e a r a n c e s :

For the State: J. C. Coleman, Esq.
For the Defendants: Lincoln C. Jenkins, Jr., Esq., 

Matthew J. Perry, Esq., Donald James Sampson, Esq.
The Court: I would like to announce the rules of the 

Court. There will be no pictures taken within the court-



2 2 0 SUPBEME COUBT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

room at any time, of any type. As many people who 
like may attend the hearing this morning, if they have 
a seat, but no one will be allowed to stand up around 
the walls. Any outburst of any type will not be tolera­
ted and the court will take into consideration, if this 
happens, that the members present will be in contempt 
of court.

The Court has before it a warrant charging the 
following persons with the crime of breach of the 
peace:

Mr. Perry: May it please the Court, I wonder if it 
wouldn’t expedite matters to have the defendants 
stand and indicate whether they are present as you 
read the names.

The Court: Yes. As I call out the names, as each 
name is called, will you stand up and indicate whether 
you are here or not. Answer “Present” loud and clear 
when you stand up.

Betty Jean Capers—Present.
Minnie DeWitt—Present.
Dorris D. Wright—Present.
Dee Anne Anderson—Present.
Mary Norris—Present.
Bhunett Lindsey—Present.
Juanita Hall—Present.
Bettie Jean King—Present.
Benzer Inabinett—Present.
Carrie May Kelly—Present.
Hazel Yvonne Newberry—Present.
Betty Jean Lindsay—Present.
Sarah Elizabeth McKenzie—Present.
Mattie Thomas—Present.
Queen Ester Bush—Present.
Choncie Mae Drayton—Present.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

2 2 1

Ottie Ruth Jarrott—Present.
Dorothy Helen Robinson—Present. 
Mary Louise English—Present.
Willie Oma Jamison—Present.
Bobbie Jeane Giles—Present.
Irene O’Neal Giles—Present.
Felicia Yvonne Young—Present. 
Leola Clements—Present.
Gertrude Smith—Present.
Katherine Duncan—Present.
Marion Jeanette Johnson—Absent. 
Jeanette Louise Hartwell—Present. 
Mary Elizabeth Ellison—Present. 
Junius Leverne Reed—Present. 
James K. Davis—Present.
Leonard Lewis McCants—Present. 
Mario Davis—Present.
Sammie Pringle—Present.
Clinton Warren Hazzard—Present. 
Robert McTeer—Present.
James Kenneth Alford—Present. 
Gwendolyn Watson—Present.
Yvonne Redd—Present.
Frances McDaniel—Present.
John Land—Present.
Hallain Sizer—Present.
Kate Lewis—Present.
Willie Evelyn Grant—Present. 
Frances Elizabeth Johnson—Present. 
Evelyn Bing—Present.
Shirley Ann King—Present.
Alethia Brown—Present.
Rebecca Williams—Present.
Mary Doe—Present.



222 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Albertine Myrtis Coney—Present. 
Yvonne J. Goodloe—Present. 
Brenda Janet Burton—Present. 
Barbara Ann Mack—Present. 
Judith Delores Smith—Absent. 
Emma Jean Jones—Present. 
Evelyn L. Robinson—Present. 
Julius Duke Moses—Present. 
Janet Louise Black—Present. 
Juanita Waddell—Present. 
Justine Simmons—Present.
Bettye Jean Machack—Present. 
Mattie M. Giles—Present.
Annette Edwards—Present.
Betty Jean Wilson—Present. 
Amanda Townsend—Present. 
Novel Nowlin—Present.
Barbara Early—Present. 
Louvenia Griggs—Present. 
Gertrude Evans—Present.
Shirley A. Greene—Present. 
Annie Mae Ray—Present.
Loretta Gertrude Bush—Present. 
Bettie Jean Brown—Present. 
Gloria Jean Jefferson—Present. 
Rosalee Hines—Present.
Edith Jenkins—Present.
Florence Smalls—Present.
Mary Lou Sullivan—Present.
Rae L. Jones—Present.
Lucy Davis—Present.
Jenny Lou Davis—Present. 
Myrtle L. Walker—Present. 
Patricia Green—Present.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

223

Frederick E. Hart—Absent.
Margaret A. McCray—Present.
Rupert Hickman—Present.
Herbert Lawrence Wilson—Present.
Bernard Haire—Present.
Leon Bryant—Present.
Donald Jerome Salters—Present.
Frederick Paul Padgett—Present.
Robert Lee McBeth—Present.
Louie Lighty-—Absent.
Mr. Jenkins: Louie Lighty is the one who had to 

report to his Draft Board this morning.
The Court:
Floyd Alvin Gilmore—Present.
McArthur Juke Bishop—Present.
Charlie Flemming—Present.
Joe Louis Robinson—Present.
John Josiah Campbell—Present.
I. D. Newman—Present.
Harold Foster—Absent.
Mr. Perry: Harold Foster is from Spartanburg and 

I think he is on a trip from his school, either in Wash­
ington or New York.

The Court:
Jimmy Norz Moore—Present.
Jessie Alfreda Lockhart—-Present.
Barbara Ann Cureton—Present.
Sarah Ann Wharton—Present.
Dianne Gwendolyn Blassingame—Present.
Sophia Pearl Lester—Present.
Laverne Durant—Present.
Bettye Jean Wideman—Present.
William T. Robinson—Present.
William Theodore Boggs—Present.



224 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Henry Earl Thomas—Present.
James Edward Coleman—Present.
Bernard Nathaniel Riggins—Present.
Horace Nash—Present.
John Wesley Miller-—Present.
Mark A. Williams—Present.
Clarence Missouri—Present.
Carl Edward Brook—Present.
Classie R. Walker-—Present.
Robbie Jean Young—Present.
Regina Shirley Ann Caldwell—Present.
Bookertee McLeod—Present.
Claude E. Moore—Present.
John I. Witherspoon—Present.
Matthew Williams—Present.
Harold Bardonville—Present.
Travis Simon—Present.
Shellie Stroman—Present.
Willie Paul Worthy—Present.
Robert Ferguson—Present.
,Albert Orage—Present.
John Sawyer—Present.
Glenn Manning—Present.
Kennedy Claflin—Present.
John Frederick—Present.
Bobby D. Doctor—Present.
The Court: Defendants be seated. Are these per­

sons represented by counsel?
Mr. Jenkins: They are all represented by counsel. 
The Court: How about Frederick Hart? Is he repre­

sented by counsel?
Mr. Jenkins: He is not represented by counsel here. 
The Court: (To Bailiff) Go outside and cry out his 

name three times and report back to me.



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

225

Mr. Jenkins: If Your Honor please, the following 
defendants, while not physically present in court this 
morning are present by counsel: Dee Anne Anderson, 
Marion Jeanette Johnson, Judith Delores Smith, Louie 
Eighty, Harold Foster, Paul Doctor, and it is agreed 
that these persons, though absent, are represented by 
counsel and will be bound by whatever rules and de­
cisions are made by the Court this morning.

The Court: Mr. Bailiff?
Bailiff: No response, Your Honor.
The Court: The Court would like to have it in the 

record that attempt has been made, the Bailiff cried 
out the name of Frederick Hart three times outside of 
the courtroom; he is not present and is not represented 
by an attorney. The Court has also written the father 
of this hoy last week informing him, as a courtesy, of 
the hearing to be held here this morning at 1 0 : 0 0  o’­
clock, to which the Court did not receive a reply. The 
Court will try Frederick E. Hart in his absence this 
morning.

Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, may we move 
to sever the trial of Frederick Hart?

Mr. Jenkins: We will so agree, and we would ask 
that the record show that the defendant Hart will be 
severed from the other defendants in the trial this 
morning.

The Court: It is agreed. Without the necessity of 
going back and calling out the names of each one of 
you, whom I have just called out, each one of the one 
hundred and thirty and some odd, who was present be­
fore me now, you have been charged on a warrant, to- 
wit: “Personally appeared before me, Frank Powell, 
Magistrate of the said County and said State, L. J. 
Campbell who, being duly sworn, says that Bookertee



226 SUPREME COURT
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

McLeod, Pauline Moore and others, before me now, at 
Columbia, South Carolina, on March 2nd, 1961 on the

901 State Capitol Grounds and on adjacent sidewalks and 
streets did commit a breach of the peace in that they, 
together with a large group of people, did assemble, 
impede the normal traffic, sing and parade with pla­
cards, failed to disperse upon lawful orders of police 
officers, all of which tended directly to immediate vio­
lence and breach of the peace in view of existing condi­
tions. Signed, L. J. Campbell. Sworn to before me this 
2nd day of March, 1961. Frank Powell, Columbia Mag­
istrate.” The Court also would like it entered into the

902 record that each one of you on March the 2nd, when the 
warrants were taken out, was read the charge indi­
vidually by me to you, including those who are absent 
today, Frederick E. Hart and others.

Are you the persons just called and were you re­
leased on bond on a charge of the breach of the peace 
to appear in court today?

Mr. Perry: The defendants will answer that question 
in the affirmative by counsel.

The Court: How do you plead?
903 Mr. Perry: Each of the defendants pleads Not 

Guilty.
The Court: Is the defense ready for trial?
Mr. Perry: The defense is ready.
The Court: Is the State ready for trial?
Mr. Coleman: The State is ready. Your Honor, at 

this time, I wish to announce to the Court that counsel 
for the defendants and counsel for the State has stipu­
lated, if it please the Court to accept such stipulation, 
that the testimony, which would be offered here today

904 and the witnesses who would appear here today, are 
the same witnesses that have appeared in a trial in



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

227

your Court last March the 16th. If Your Honor please, 
may I look at the docket?

The Court: Yes.
Mr. Coleman: That trial being entitled State against 

James C. West, Sinclair Salters, Hezikah Johnson, 
James Clyburn, William Moultrie, David Carter, Ben­
jamin James Glover, Samuel S. Williams, Arthur W. 
Stanley, Jr., Wendell Dailey, Lennie William Glover, 
Samuel Edwards, David Lawrence Perrett, James 
Allen Carter, Clifford James Rice, Delbert Leon 
Woods, Alfred Odell Lemon, Wilbur Harrison Walker, 
James W. Cantey, Isaac W. Williams, Clifford B. Bell, 
William H. Cooley, Robert Henry LaPrince, Frank E. 
Gore, Earl Peters, Jr., Henry H. Harris, Charles R. 
Miller, Charles McDew, Maxine Epps, Henry Williams, 
Leroy Hogans, Jimmy Lee Smith, James Reeder, Jr., 
George Allen Anderson, Thomas D. Hornsby, Anthony 
McFadden, being the intention of counsel to stipulate 
that the same witnesses for both the State and the de­
fense would be presented here today and that the evi­
dence given by those same witnesses at the trial pre­
viously identified, which took place in your court last 
March the 16th, would be substantially the same if 
they were presented here today, including testimony 
by Chief Campbell, that the names appearing on the 
warrants, which you have just read, were the names 
given to the Police Station here in Columbia by per­
sons who were engaged in certain demonstrations on 
the State House Grounds last March the 2nd and who 
were arrested on charge of breach of the peace that 
day. The State is also stipulating that recognizance 
bonds posted for these defendants would be offered in 
evidence and will be placed in evidence by stipulation.



228 SUPREME COURT
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

Mr. Perry: May it please the Court, the defendants 
will agree to the stipulation as stated by counsel for the 
State, with the exception that the defendants would 
like also to have the testimony, which was received by 
the Court in the very first trial, the date of which has 
escaped me at this moment, wherever it is deemed ap­
plicable to be considered, also as a part of this stipu­
lation. In other words, I understand that we have had 
three trials and where applicable the testimony which 
was offered in all of the preceding trials would be in­
cluded in the stipulation, which has just been stated.

Mr. Coleman: That’s agreed.
The Court: The Court agrees and it is so ordered.
Mr. Perry: Particularly emphasizing each of the 

preceding trial as a part of that stipulation.
Mr. Coleman: It is agreed.
Mr. Perry: At this time, may it please the Court, the 

defendants respectfully move for a dismissal of the 
cases pending against them upon all the grounds pre­
viously noted in the several trials, which have been 
held before Your Honor. We will omit any argument 
on those motions and we ask that you consider them 
and make ruling on them at this time.

Mr. Coleman: The State opposes the motions upon 
the same grounds as was set forth in previous trials.

The Court: Motions denied.
Mr. Perry: At this time, may it please the Court, the 

defendants offer to stipulate that if they offer evidence 
in this trial, that the testimony, which was adduced in 
the two previous trials, to wit: the trial on March 13th 
and the trial on March 16h, which was held before Your 
Honor, that the testimony, which would be presented 
on behalf of the defendants, would be substantially the



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County-

229

same as was the testimony offered in the trials of 
March 13 and March 16.

Mr. Coleman: We agree.
The Court: It is so ordered.
Mr. Perry: The defendants hereupon renew all mo­

tions for dismissal upon the same grounds as pre­
viously noted.

Mr. Coleman: The Sate opposes the motions upon 
the same grounds.

The Court: Motions denied.
Mr. Perry: Your Honor, I believe you will see fit 

at this time to make your findings.
The Court: The Court will have a five minute recess 

and I’d like for the State’s attorney and the defense at­
torneys to come back in the Chambers.

(Recess.)
The Court: The Court finds each one of you guilty 

as charged with the crime of breach of the peace.
The Court wants each person who has not as yet 

reached his Seventeenth birthday to stand. Horace 
Nash, Judith Smith—-

Mr. Perry: She’s absent.
The Court: Emma Jean Jones, Katherine Duncan, 

Jessie Lockhart, Barbara Ann Cureton, Sarah Ann 
Wharton, Dianne Blasingame, Brenda Janet Burton, 
F. P. Padgett, James Alford, Carl E. Brooks, Rebecca 
Williams, Leonard McCants. The sentence of the Court 
to each of you standing here and for the one absent— 
the Court has taken into consideration your youth this 
time—and is going to fine you the minimum under the 
law, $1 0 . 0 0  or five days in jail. I want to caution you 
now, however, if you should come back before this 
court again, that your youth will not be taken into con­
sideration. Be seated.



230 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

All of those who are twenty-one years or older 
stand: Patricia Green—this is those who were twenty- 
one as of March 2nd of this year—Barbara Giles, John 
Campbell, DeQuincy Newman, Clarence Missouri, Al­
bert Orage, Mattie Thomas, Harold Bardonville, Jr., 
Herbert Wilson, Rupert Hickman, Matthew Williams, 
John Frederick, John Land, Shellie Stroman, Booker- 
tee McLeod, Donald Jerome Salters, Evelyn Robinson, 
Barbara Early, Betty Jean Mashack, Irene O’Neal 
Giles. The Court will check the ages of each one of you, 
the twenty, I believe, that have just stood up. For you 
twenty, the Court has absolutely no sympathy what­
ever. The Court sentences you to $100.00 fine or thirty 
days in jail. Be seated.

The remainder of you stand up. To each of you, the 
Court sentences you to $100.00 fine or thirty days in 
jail. I ’m going to suspend half of that on a payment 
of a fine of $50.00. To each one of you, I repeat, that, 
if you should come back before this Court on any mat­
ter, your youth will not be taken into consideration and 
the Court cannot emphasize enough the fact that once 
you reach twenty-one years old, whether you intend it 
or not, you become a man and a woman in the State of 
South Carolina and must accept the responsibilities of 
a man and a woman. There’s a law in the State of 
South Carolina that no person over twenty-one can in­
terfere whatsoever with a child or a minor, which is 
under twenty-one years old, if that minor or any law 
is violated. I hope that you will take this into con­
sideration and realize the seriousness of how close 
some of you came to getting into very serious trouble.

Mr. Perry: May it please the Court, at this time the 
defendants all move for arrest of judgment or in its 
alternative for a new trial. This motion is based upon



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

231

all grounds previously noted in the several motions 
for dismissal in former trials. I will omit any argument 
thereon.

Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, the State op­
poses the motion upon the grounds set forth in the pre­
vious trials.

The Court: Motion denied.
Mr. Perry: At this time, the defendants give verbal 

notice of appeal. We will serve the written notice with­
in the time required by statute and we ask that the 
Court set an appeal bond.

The Court: The appeal bond for each one that was 922 

tried today will be $1 0 0 .0 0 .
The Court will now go into the case of Frederick E. 

Hart.
Mr. Jenkins: May it please the Court before that 

trial, I should like to say to all of the defendants here, 
with the Court’s permission, will you please remain 
in here until we dismiss you because you will have to 
sign appeal bonds. I wonder if there could be some 
notation made by the Reporter that the trial of Fred­
erick Hart will be a separate trial from a procedural 923 
standpoint.

The Court: The Frederick Hart case will not be in­
cluded with the other cases.

Trial of above case closed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and 

correct transcript of the notes of testimony taken by 
me at the hearing of the above cause.

E leanor S. Mackey,
Reporter. 924



232 SUPREME COURT
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

ORDER
This is an appeal from conviction in magistrate’s 

court of the common law crime of breach of the peace. 
There are almost 200 appellants, who were convicted 
by the magistrate, City of Columbia, Richland County, 
in four trials, trial by jury having been waived by the 
appellants in each case. By stipulation between coun­
sel for the appellants and the counsel for the State, 
the appeals will be treated here as one since the facts 
and applicable law were substantially the same in each 
case. The trial Magistrate imposed fines upon each of

914 the appellants ranging from $10.00 to $100.00. Due 
and timely notice of appeal from conviction was served 
and oral arguments were heard before me in open 
court. At my suggestion and with the agreement of 
counsel for both sides, written briefs were filed.

The appellants except to the finding of the Magis­
trate’s Court and the fines imposed as a result of such 
finding of guilt upon the grounds that the State by 
the evidence failed to establish the c o r p t i s  d e l i c t i ,  that 
the State failed to prove a p r i m a  f a c i e  case, that the

927 evidence showed that the police powers of the State of 
South Carolina were used against the appellants to 
deprive them of the right of freedom of speech guar­
anteed by the Constitution of the United States and 
the Constitution of South Carolina, and that the evi­
dence presented before the Magistrate showed only 
that the appellants at the time of their arrests were 
engaged in a peaceful and lawful assemblage of per­
sons, orderly in every respect upon the public streets 
of the State of South Carolina.

Testimony before the Magistrate sets out the fol-
928 lowing series of events which culminated in the arrest 

of the appellants and the issuance of warrants charg-



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

233

ing them with breach of the peace. Shortly before noon 
on the third day of March, 1961, the appellants, acting 
in concert and with what appeared to be a preconceived 
and definite plan, proceeded on foot along public side­
walks from Zion Baptist Church in the City of Co­
lumbia to the State House grounds, a distance of ap­
proximately six city blocks. They walked in groups 
of twelve to fifteen each, the groups being separated 
by a few feet. Testimony shows that the purpose of 
this assemblage and movement of students was to walk 
in and about the grounds of the State House protest­
ing, partly by the use of numerous placards, against 
the segregation laws of this State. The General Assem­
bly was in session at the time.

Upon their approach to an area in front of and im­
mediately adjacent to the State House building, known 
as the “horseshoe”, the Negro students were met by 
police authorities of the State and the City of Colum­
bia. After brief conversation between the leader of the 
students and police officers, the students proceeded to 
walk in and about the State House grounds displaying 
placards, some of which, at least, might be termed in­
flammatory in nature. There is some evidence also that 
a few groups of students were singing during this 
period. Such activity continued for approximately 45 
minutes during which the students met with no inter­
ference from anyone. Testimony from city and state 
authorities was to the effect that during this period 
of time, while the students were marching in and about 
the grounds without hindrance from officers, large num­
bers of onlookers, evidently attracted by the activity 
of the students, had gathered in the “horseshoe” area, 
entirely blocking the vehicular traffic lane and inter­
fering materially with the movement of pedestrian 
traffic on the sidewalks in the area and on city side-



234
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

SUPREME COURT________

walks immediately adjacent. Testimony of city and 
state authorities was that vehicular traffic on the busy 
downtown streets of Gervais and Main, one running 
alongside the grounds and the other “dead-ending” at 
the State House, was noticeably and adversely affected 
by the large assemblage of students and onlookers 
which had filled the “horseshoe” area and overflowed 
into Gervais and Main Streets. Some testimony dis­
closed that in and about the “horseshoe” area it was 
necessary for the police to issue increasingly frequent 
orders to keep pedestrian traffic moving, even at a slow 
rate.

The Chief of Police of the City of Columbia and the 
City Manager of the City of Columbia testified that 
they recognized in the crowd of onlookers persons 
whom they knew to be potential troublemakers. It was 
at this time that the police authorities decided that the 
situation had become potentially dangerous and that 
the activities of the students should be stopped. The 
recognized and admitted leader of the students was 
approached by city authorities and informed that the 
activities of the students had created a situation which 
in the opinion of the officers was potentially dangerous 
and that such activities should cease in the interest of 
the public peace and safety. The students were told 
through their leader that they must disperse in 15 min­
utes. The leader of the students, accompanied by the 
City Manager of Columbia, went from one group of 
students to the other, informing them of the decision 
and orders of the police authorities.

The City Manager testified that the leader of the 
students refused to instruct or advise them to desist 
and disperse but that instead he “harangued” the stu­
dents, whipping them into what was described by the 
City Manager as a semi-religious fervor. He testified



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

235

that the students, in response to the so-called harangue 
by their leader, began to sing, clap their hands and ^  
stamp their feet, refusing to stop the activity in which 
they were engaged and refusing to disperse. After 15 
minutes of this activity the students were arrested by 
state and city officers and were charged with the crime 
of breach of the peace.

With regard to the position taken by the appellants 
that their activities in the circumstances set forth did 
not constitute a crime, the attention of the Court has 
been directed to several of our South Carolina cases 
upon this point, one of them being the case of S t a t e  v .  

L a n g s t o n ,  195 S. C. 190, 11 S. E. (2d) 1. The defend- 988 

ant in that case was a member of a religious sect known 
as Jehovah’s Witnesses. He, with others, went on a 
Sunday to the homes of other persons in the com­
munity and played records on the porches announcing 
his religious beliefs to anyone who would listen. He 
also employed a loud speaker mounted on a motor ve­
hicle to go about the streets for the same purpose. 
Crowds of persons were attracted by this activity. No 
violence of any kind occurred. Upon his refusal to obey 
orders of police officers to cease such activity, the de- 939 

fendant was arrested and convicted for breach of the 
peace. The Court in upholding the conviction said:

“It certainly cannot be said that there is not in 
this State an absolute freedom of religion. A man 
may believe what kind of religion he pleases or no 
religion, and as long as he practices his belief 
without a breach of the peace, he will not be dis­
turbed.

“In general terms, a breach of the peace is a 
violation of public order, the disturbance of public 
tranquility, by any act or conduct inciting to vio­
lence.



236 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

“ It is not necessary that the peace be actually 
broken to lay the foundation of prosecution for 
this offense. If what is done is unjustifiable, tend­
ing with sufficient directness to break the peace, 
no more is required.”

With further reference to the argument advanced by 
the appellants that they had a constitutional right to 
engage in the activities for which they were eventually 
charged with the crime of breach of the peace, regard­
less of the situation which was apparently created as 
a result of such activities, this Court takes notice of 
the New York State case of P e o p l e  v .  F e i n e r ,  300 N. Y. 
391, 91 N. E. (2d) 319. In that case the Court of Ap­
peals of the State of New York wrote an exhaustive 
opinion in a case which arose in that State in 1950, the 
factual situation being similar in many respects to 
the cases presently before this Court upon appeal.

Feiner, a University student, stationed himself upon 
one of the city streets of the City of Syracuse and pro­
ceeded to address his remarks to all those who would 
listen. The general tenor of his talk was designed to 
arouse Negro people to fight for equal rights, which 
he told them they did not have. Crowds attracted by 
Feiner began to fill up the sidewalks and overflow into 
the street. There was no disorder, but in the opinion 
of police authorities there was real danger of a dis­
turbance of public order or breach of the peace. Feiner 
was requested by police to desist. He refused. The ar­
rest was then made and Feiner was charged and con­
victed of disorderly conduct.

In upholding the conviction, the New York Court 
quoting from C a n t w e l l  v .  S t a t e  o f  C o n n e c t i c u t ,  310 U. 
S. 296, 60 S. Ct. 900, 84 L. Ed. 1213, 128 A. L. R. 1352, 
said:



SUPREME COURT
Appeal from Richland County

237

“The offense known as breach of the peace em­
braces a great variety of conduct destroying or 
menacing public order and tranquility. It includes 
not only violent acts, but acts and words likely 
to produce violence in others. No one would have 
the hardihood to suggest that the principle of free­
dom of speech sanctions incitement to riot or that 
religious liberty connotes the privilege to exhort 
others to physical attack upon those belonging to 
another sect. When clear and present danger of 
riot, disorder, interference with traffic upon the 
public streets or other immediate threat to public 
safety, peace or order appears, the power of the 
State to prevent or punish is obvious.”

The appellants in the present case have emphasized 
repeatedly in the trials and in their arguments before 
the Court and in their Brief that no one of them indi­
vidually committed any single act which was a viola­
tion of law. It is their contention that they had a right 
to assemble and act as they did so long as they did 
no other act which was in itself unlawful. Apparently 
they reject the proposition that an act which is lawful 
in some circumstances might be unlawful in others. The 
New York Court in answering a similar contention 
made by the defendant in the F e i n e r  c a s e  said:

“We are well aware of the caution with which 
the courts should proceed in these matters. The 
intolerance of a hostile audience may not in the 
name of order be permitted to silence unpopular 
opinions. The Constitution does not discriminate 
between those who ideas are popular and those 
whose beliefs arouse opposition or dislike or 
hatred—guaranteeing the right of freedom of 
speech to the former and withholding it from the 
latter. We recognize, however, that the State must



238 SUPREME COURT 
The State v. James Edwards, Jr. et al.

protect and preserve its existence and unfortunate 
as it may be, the hostility and intolerance of street 
audiences and the substantive evils which may fol­
low therefrom are practical facts of which the 
Courts and the law enforcement officers of the 
State must take notice. Where, as here, we have 
a combination of an aroused audience divided into 
hostile camps, an interference with traffic and a 
speaker who is deliberately agitating and goading 
the crowd and the police officers to action, we think 
a proper case has been made out under our State 
and Federal Constitutions for punishment.”

In the present case the appellants were not pre­
vented from engaging in their demonstration for a 
period of approximately an hour, nor were they hin­
dered in any way. After such activity had gone on for 
approximately 45 minutes, police officers saw that 
streets and sidewalks had been blocked by a combina­
tion of students and a crowd of 200 or 300 onlookers 
which had been attracted by their activities. They rec­
ognized potential troublemakers in the crowd of on­
lookers which was increasing by the minute. State and 
city authorities testified that in their opinions the sit­
uation which had been created by the students had 
reached a point where it was potentially dangerous to 
the peace of the community. Instead of taking pre­
cipitous action even at this point, police authorities 
ordered the students to cease their activities and dis­
perse, giving them the reasons for such order. The stu­
dents were told that they must cease their activities 
in 15 minutes. The students refused to desist or to dis­
perse. There is no indication whatever in this case 
that the acts of the police officers were taken as a 
subterfuge or excuse for the suppression of the ap­
pellants’ views and opinions. The evidence is clear that



SUPREME COURT 
Appeal from Richland County

239

the officers were motivated solely by a proper concern 
for the preservation of order and the protection of 
the general welfare in the face of an actual interference 
with traffic and an imminently threatened disturbance 
of the peace of the community.

Petitioning through the orderly procedures of the 
Courts for the protection of any rights, either invaded 
or denied, has been followed by the American people 
for many years. It is the proper and the correct course 
to pursue if one is sincerely seeking relief from op­
pression or denial of rights. While it is a constitutional 
right to assemble in a hall to espouse any cause, no 
person has a right to organize demonstrations which '"A  

any ordinary and reasonable thinking citizen knows or 
reasonably should know would stir up passions and 
create incidents of disorder.

The State of South Carolina, the City of Columbia, 
and the County of Richland in the exercise of their 
general police powers of necessity have the authority 
to act in situations such as are detailed in the evidence 
in these cases and if the conduct of their duly appointed 
officers of the law is not arbitrary, capricious and the 
result of prejudice hut is founded upon clear, convinc- 965 
ing and common sense reasoning, there is no denial of 
any right.

All exceptions of the appellants are overruled and 
the convictions and sentences are affirmed.

/ s /  L egare B ates,
Senior Judge, Richland Cormty 

Court.
Columbia, South Carolina, 
July 10th, 1961. 966