City of New Orleans v. Barthe Record on Appeal
Public Court Documents
December 2, 1963
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. City of New Orleans v. Barthe Record on Appeal, 1963. 910ae16a-bf9a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/5a769686-3b65-4e14-aa6f-5f410352d44b/city-of-new-orleans-v-barthe-record-on-appeal. Accessed July 01, 2025.
Copied!
IN THE
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 21,072
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET AL,
Appellants,
versus
EVANGELINE BARTHE, ET AL,
Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana.
RECORD ON APPEAL
U. S. Court of Appeals
Filed Dec 2 1963
Edward W. Wadsworth, Clerk
U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, RECEIVED NOV. 29, 1963
NEW ORLEANS, LA.
U. S. COURT OF APPEALS
f i l e d
FEB 3 Wcl-
Edward w. wabsworth
INDEX
PAGE
Request that Designated Portions of the Record be
Printed_______________________________________ 2
Complaint_________________________________________ 6
Order to Convoke Three Judge District Court_______ 22
Answer with Defenses_____________________________ 24
Answer to Request for Admission of Facts__________ 29
Answer to Interrogatories__________________________ 32
Objections to Interrogatories_______________________ 34
Request for Admission of Facts____________________ 37
Request for Admission_____________________________ 39
Request for Admission_____________________________ 41
Interrogatories_______________________________________43
Interrogatories____________________________________ 45
Answers to Interrogatories_________________________ 50
Motion for Preliminary Injunction_________________ 79
Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of Motion for
Preliminary Injunction________________________ 82
Notice of Motion___________________________________ 87
Answers to Interrogatories_________________________ 88
Motion to Dismiss Parties Defendant_______________ 93
Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction_____________________________________ 95
Affidavit.______________________ ______ ______ _____ 97
Opinion of the Court_______________________________ 103
Injunction Bond___________________________________ 107
Judgment__________________________________________ 109
Motion to Fix Bond________________________________ 112
IN DEX— ( Continued)
ii
PAGE
Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of the
United States_________________________________ 115
Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit__________________ 121
Cost Bond on Appeal______________________________ 123
Cost Bond on Appeal______________________________ 131
Transcript of Testimony___________________________ 136
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
IN THE
No. 21,072
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET AL,
Appellants,
versus
EVANGELINE BARTHE, ET AL,
Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana.
RECORD ON APPEAL
U. S. Court of Appeals
Filed Dec 2 1963
Edward W. Wadsworth, Clerk
U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, RECEIVED NOV. 29, 1963
NEW ORLEANS, LA.
2
U. S. Court of Appeals
Filed Dec 2 1963
Edward W. Wadsworth, Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
NO. 21,072
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET ALS.,
Appellants
VS.
EVANGELINE BARTHE, ET ALS.,
Appellees
REQUEST THAT DESIGNATED PORTIONS
OF RECORD BE PRINTED
Appellants, the City of New Orleans; Victor H.
Schiro, Mayor of the City of New Orleans; Lester J.
Lautenschlaeger, Director, Department of Recreation of
the City of New Orleans; Joseph Giarrusso, Superintend
ent of Police of the City of New Orleans; New Orleans
Parkway and Park Commission; Felix Seeger, Superin
tendent of the New Orleans Parkway and Park Commis
sion; Herman E. Farley, Wilson S. Callender, A. L. Nor
ris, Max Scheinuk, Herbert Jahncke, Lester J. Lauten
schlaeger, L. A. Malony, Sr., J. P. Gentilich, M. E. Poi
son, Mrs. Joe W. Brown and Mrs. S. M. Blackshear, as
members of the New Orleans Park and Parkway Com
mission, believing that the whole of the record herein is
not necessary to be considered by the Court, request that
only the following designated portions of the record be
printed.
(1) The petition of Evangeline Barthe, et als., for a
declaratory judgment and an injunction to enjoin the en
forcement of L.S.A.-R.S. 33:4558.1 as same is contrary
to the due process and equal protection clauses of the
3
Constitution of the United States, filed on 20 December,
1962.
(2) Answer with defenses of the City of New Orleans,
Victor H. Schiro, individually and as Mayor of the City
of New Orleans; James E. Fitzmorris, Jr., Joseph V. Di-
Rosa, Henry B. Curtis, Walter F. Marcus, Clarence 0.
Dupuy, John J. Petre, Daniel L. Kelly, individually and
as Councilmen of the City of New Orleans; Lester J.
Lautenschlaeger, individually and as Director, Depart
ment of Recreation of the City of New Orleans; Joseph
Giarrusso, Individually and as Superintendent of Police
of the City of New Orleans, New Orleans Parkway and
Park Commission; Felix Seeger, Superintendent; Herman
E. Farley, Wilson S. Callender, A. L. Norris, Max Schei-
nuk, Herbert Jahncke, Lester J. Lautenschlaeger, L. A.
Malony, Sr., J. P. Gentilich, M. E. Poison, Mrs. Joe W.
Brown and Mrs. S. M. Blackshear, individually and as
members of the New Orleans Park and Parkway Commis
sion, filed on March 4, 1963.
(3) Interrogatories propounded by the plaintiffs to the
defendants filed on 6 May, 1963.
(4) Request for admissions propounded by the plaintiffs
to the defendants and filed on 6 May, 1963.
(5) (6) Request for admission propounded by the
plaintiffs to the defendants and filed on 6 May, 1963.
(7) Request for Admission of Facts propounded by the
plaintiffs to the defendants and filed on 6 May, 1963.
(8) Answer to request for Admission of Facts filed by
defendants on 30 April, 1963.
(9) Objections to Interrogatories filed by defendants on
30 April, 1963.
(10) Answer to Interrogatories filed by defendants on
30 April, 1963.
(11) Interrogatories propounded by the plaintiffs to the
defendants and filed on 17 May 1963.
(12) Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of Motion for
4
Preliminary Injunction filed on 31 May, 1963.
(13) Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by plain
tiffs on 31 May, 1963.
(14) Notice of Motion for preliminary injunction filed
on 31 May, 1963.
(15) Answers to Interrogatories by defendants filed on
5 June, 1963.
(16) Answers to Interrogatories by defendants filed on
10 June, 1963.
(17) Order appointing three judge Court to hear this
matter signed by Chief Judge Elbert P. Tuttle on 14
January, 1963.
(18) Affidavit of Mr. Anthony Ciaccio dated 21st day of
June, 1963, and filed on 24 June, 1963.
(19) Exhibit “A” , Exhibit “B” , Exhibit “ C” , and, Ex
hibit “D” each dated June 17, 1963, prepared by the
Louisiana State Board of Health, Division of Public
Health Statistics, Tabulation and Analysis Section, and,
annexed to the foregoing affidavit.
(20) Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction filed by the defendants on 24 June, 1963.
(21) Motion to Dismiss Parties Defendant filed on 24
June, 1963.
(22) Opinion of the Court dated July 31, 1963 and filed
on 1 August, 1963.
(23) Declaratory judgment and injunction dated Sep
tember 27, 1963, filed on 27 September, 1963.
(24) Transcript of testimony taken in this matter at
hearing on June 26, 1963.
(25) Notice of appeal filed by the various defendants
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Cir
cuit and, the Supreme Court of the United States with
designation of record on appeal, filed on the 25th day of
October, 1963.
5
(26) Bond of Edwin J. Barthe, as principal, in the sum
of $500.00 filed on 14 August, 1963.
(27) Cost bond on appeal by the various defendants-
appellants in the sum of $250.00 filed on the 25th of
October, 1963.
(28) Motion and order to fix the cost bond on appeal
of Mrs. Joe W. Brown in the sum of $250.00 filed on the
4th of November, 1963.
(29) Cost bond on appeal by the defendant-appellant
Mrs. Joe. W. Brown in the sum of $250,000 filed on the
27th November, 1963.
ALVIN J. LISKA,
City Attorney
ERNEST L. SALATICH,
Assistant City Attorney
Room 2W23— City Hall
New Orleans, Louisiana
CERTIFICATE
I certify that a copy of the above and foregoing Re
quest that Designated Portions of the Record be Printed
has been sent to opposing counsel-of-record by mailing
same in the United States mail, postage prepaid.
ERNEST L. SALATICH
New Orleans, Louisiana
----------------------------- , 1963.
6
U. S. District Court
Eastern District of Louisiana
Filed Dec. 20 1962
A. Dallam O’Brien, Jr., Clerk
DHF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NEW ORLEANS DIVISION
EVANGELINE BARTHE, a minor,
by EDWIN BARTHE, her father and
next friend; DEBRA E. BURNS,
GARY M. BURNS, LENETTE P.
BURNS, minors, by LEONARD L.
BURNS, their father and next friend;
WILLIAM S. BRADLEY, III, a minor,
by WILLIAM S. BRADLEY, JR., his
father and next friend; WILLARD
W. CASTLE, JR., MYRON CASTLE,
JERRY CASTLE, ERIC CASTLE,
KEITH CASTLE, VALLERY CAS
TLE, ROBIN CASTLE and PATSY
ANN CASTLE, minors, by WILLARD
W. CASTLE, SR., their father and
next friend; SONJA P. COOK, MARY
C. COOK, OLGA C. COOK and JAN
ICE M. COOK, minors, by HOWARD
B. COOK, their father and next
friend; MONICA DE ROUEN and
GLENN DE ROUEN, minors, by
HORACE DE ROUEN, their father
and next friend; YVONNE ELLIS,
LINDER MARIE ELLIS, GWENDO
LYN ELLIS and CLARDIE L. EL
LIS, JR., minors, by CLARDIE L.
ELLIS, SR., their father and next
friend; BARBARA J. FLETCHER,
SHARON A. FLETCHER, MICHA
EL E. FLETCHER and RICKY S.
FLETCHER, minors, by ARTHUR T. ”
FLETCHER, SR., their father and
7
next friend; ISAIAH L. HARRIS,
JR., LINDA M. HARRIS, MICHAEL
W. HARRIS, GREGORY L. HARRIS,
GARY L. HARRIS, GAIL L. HAR
RIS and VAL D. HARRIS, minors,
by ISAIAH L. HARRIS, their father
and next friend; CHESTER C.
HORN, III, DOLORES C. HORN,
JERALD M. HORN, ADRIAN C.
HORN, CHERYL M. HORN, minors,
by CHESTER C. HORN, JR., their
father and next friend; JOSEPH L.
JAMES JR., BOBBIE J. JAMES,
BEVERLY M. JAMES, CONNIE 0.
JAMES, RHONDA F. JAMES and
IONE M. JAMES, minors, by JO
SEPH L. JAMES, SR., their father
and next friend; WILLIE A. MASON,
YVONNE A. MASON, HIRAM L.
MASON, DEBRA Y. MASON, PAUL
A. MASON and PHILIP C. MASON,
minors, by WILLIE L. MASON, their
father and next friend; JUDITH G.
NELSON, MORRIS J. NELSON, JR.,
minors, by MORRIS J. NELSON,
their father and next friend; RU
DOLPH J. ROUSSEAU, III and MI
CHELLE ROUSSEAU, minors, by
RUDOLPH J. ROUSSEAU, JR., their
father and next friend; LOIS M.
SMITH, MONROE W. SMITH, JAN
ICE M. SMITH and JUDY A.
SMITH, minors, by ARTHUR L.
SMITH, their father and next friend;
DONALD SONIAT and CYNTHIA
SONIAT, minors, by LLEWELYN J.
SONIAT, their father and next
friend; ALPHONSE J. SONIAT, III,
CLAUDE T. SONIAT, GLENN A.
SONIAT, DOUGLAS P. SONIAT and
WAYNE M. SONIAT, minors, by AL-
8
PHONSE J. SONIAT, JR., their
father and next friend; JEANNIE
E. SPENCER and LESLIE V. SPEN
CER, minors, by HENRY V. SPEN
CER, their father and next friend;
KEITH TAPLETTE and PATRICIA
TAPLETTE, minors by PETER TAP
LETTE, their father and next friend;
ARNESTA C. TAYLOR, GREGORY
J. TAYLOR, KATHY L. TAYLOR
and BOBBY B. TAYLOR, minors, by
ARNESTA W. TAYLOR, JR., their
father and next friend; JUDITH
THOMAS, a minor, by GERALD H.
THOMAS, her father and next friend;
WESTLEY W. THOMPSON, a mi
nor, by WILLIE W. THOMPSON, his
father and next friend; CLAUDIA
VONTOURE, VANESSA VON-
TOURE, LUCIEN VONTOURE, JR.,
and TRINA VONTOURE, minors, by
LUCIEN VONTOURE, their father
and next friend; GWENDOLYN
WASHINGTON, KENNETH WASH
INGTON and MAURICE WASHING
TON, minors, by ANDERSON V.
WASHINGTON, their father and
next friend; WANDA N. WEBB, a
minor, by WILLIE C. WEBB, her
father and next friend; CHERYL E.
WEBSTER, CYRIL H. WEBSTER
and DWANE D. WEBSTER, minors,
by ALBERT M. WEBSTER, their
father and next friend; and EDWIN
BARTHE, LEONARD L. BURNS,
WILLIAM S. BRADLEY, JR., WIL
LARD W. CASTLE, SR., HOWARD
B. COOK, HORACE DE ROUEN,
CLARDIE L. ELLIS, SR., ARTHUR
T. FLETCHER, SR., ISAIAH L.
HARRIS, CHESTER C. HORN, JR.,
9
JOSEPH L. JAMES, SR., WILLIE
L. MASON, MORRIS J. NELSON,
RUDOLPH J. ROUSSEAU, JR., AR
THUR L. SMITH, LLEWELYN J.
SONIAT, ALPHONSE J. SONIAT,
JR., HENRY V. SPENCER, PETER
TAPLETTE, ARNESTA W. TAY
LOR, JR., GERALD H. THOMAS,
WILLIE W. THOMPSON, LUCIEN
VONTOURE, ANDERSON V.
WASHINGTON, WILLIE C. WEBB
and ALBERT M. WEBSTER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, a Muni
cipal Corporation of the State of Lou
isiana; VICTOR H. SCHIRO, indi
vidually and as Mayor of the City of
New Orleans; JAMES E. FITZMOR-
RIS, JR., JOSEPH V. DI ROSA,
HENRY B. CURTIS, WALTER F.
MARCUS, CLARENCE 0. DUPUY,
JOHN J. PETRE, DANIEL L. KEL
LY, individually and as Councilmen
of the City of New Orleans; LESTER
J. LAUTENSCHLAEGER, individu
ally and as Director, Department of
Recreation of the City of New Or
leans; JOSEPH GIARRUSSO, indi
vidually and as Superintendent of Po
lice of the City of New Orleans; NEW
ORLEANS PARKWAY AND PARK
COMMISSION; FELIX SEEGEI^ Su
perintendent; HERMAN E. FAR
LEY, WILSON S. CALLENDER, A.
L. NORRIS, MAX SCHEINUK, HER
BERT JAHNCKE, LESTER J. LAU
TENSCHLAEGER, L. A. MALONY,
SR., J. P. GENTILICH, M. E. POL-
SON, MRS. JOE W. BROWN and
MRS. S. M. BLACKSHEAR, individu-
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 12,968
DIVISION D
10
ally and as members of the New Or
leans Park and Parkway Commission,
Defendants.
......FEE $15.00 Pd. DJ
......PROCESS....................
X CHARGE HAM
......INDEX N
......ORDER.........................
...... HEARING...................
DOCUMENT NO. 1
COMPLAINT
1.
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under Title
28, United States Code, Section 1331, this being a civil
action arising under the Constitution and laws of the
United States, to wit, the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, Section 1, and Title
42, United States Code, Section 1981, wherein the matter
in controversy exceeds the sum of Ten Thousand and
no/100 Dollars ($10,000.00), exclusive of interest and
costs.
2.
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under Title
28, United States Code, Section 1343(3). This action is
authorized by Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983,
to be commenced by any citizen of the United States or
other person within the jurisdiction thereof, to redress
the deprivation under color of a state law, statute, ordi
nance, regulation, custom or usage of rights, privileges
and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of
the United States, to wit, the Fourteenth Amendment to
the Constitution of the United States, Section 1, and
Title 42, United States Code, Section 1981, providing for
the equal rights of citizens and all other persons within
the jurisdiction of the United States.
3.
The jurisdiction of this Court is also invoked under
Title 28, United States Code, Section 2281. This is an
action for an interlocutory and permanent injunction,
11
restraining, upon the grounds of their unconstitutionality
under the due process and equal protection clauses of the
Constitution of the United States, the enforcement of
LSA-R.S. 33:4558.1, a statute of the State of Louisiana
as more fully appears hereinafter.
4.
This is a proceeding for a permanent injunction en
joining defendants from enforcing any law, ordinance or
regulation, custom or usage prohibiting Negro citizens
and residents of the City of New Orleans, State of Lou
isiana, the use and enjoyment of all of that City’s public
parks, recreation centers, playgrounds, community cen
ters and other recreational facilities and programs and
denying to them solely because of their race and color,
the right to visit, use and enjoy all of the public parks,
recreation centers, playgrounds, community centers and
other recreational facilities and programs on a basis of
equality with other citizens of the City of New Orleans,
State of Louisiana.
5.
This is a proceeding for a declaratory judgment under
Title 28, United States Code, Sections 2201 and 2202, to
declare the rights and legal relations of the parties in the
matter in controversy, to wit:
Whether the enforcement, execution or operation
of LSA-R.S. 33:4558.1 which requires separate
public parks, recreation centers, playgrounds, and
community centers for Negro and white citizens,
denies to plaintiffs and all other Negro citizens
their rights, privileges and immunities as citizens
of the United States, due process of law and equal
protection of the laws as secured by the Four
teenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States, and rights and privileges secured
to them by Title 42, United States Code, Sections
1981 and 1983, and whether the enforcement, exe
cution and operation of the said statute is for the
aforesaid reason unconstitutional and void.
12
6.
This is a class action brought by the plaintiffs on
behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated
pursuant to Rule 23(a) (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. The class consists of Negro citizens of the
United States and the State of Louisiana who reside in
New Orleans, Louisiana. All members of the class are
similarly affected by the laws, ordinances, regulations,
customs and usages of the defendants which prevent
Negroes from using and enjoying public parks, recrea
tion centers, playgrounds, community centers and ether
recreational facilities and programs without restrictions
based solely upon considerations of race and color; said
persons constitute a class too numerous to be brought
individually before this Court, but there are common
questions of law and fact involved, a common grievance
arising out of a common wrong and a common relief is
sought for each plaintiff and for each member of the
class, as hereinafter more fully appears. The named
plaintiffs fairly and adequately represent the members of
the class on behalf of which they sue.
7.
The minor plaintiffs are Negroes and citizens of the
United States and the State of Louisiana. The adult
plaintiffs are Negroes and citizens of the United States
and the State of Louisiana, and the parents of the minor
plaintiffs. All plaintiffs are presently living and residing
in New Orleans, Louisiana. Plaintiffs, but for their race,
which restriction violates their constitutional rights as set
forth elsewhere herein, are qualified to use all of the
public parks, recreation centers, playgrounds, community
centers and other recreational facilities and programs of
the City of New Orleans, which are under the jurisdic
tion, management and control of the defendants. Plain
tiffs are ready, willing and able to abide by all rules and
regulations of defendants with respect to the use and
enjoyment of such facilities which are applicable alike to
all persons desiring to use and enjoy such facilities.
13
8.
(a) Defendant City of New Orleans is a municipal
corporation in the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana
and is organized and exists under the laws of the State
of Louisiana.
(b) The defendant Victor H. Schiro is a resident of
the City of New Orleans, State of Louisiana, and is Mayor
of the City of New Orleans. James E. Fitzmorris, Jr.,
Joseph V. DiRosa, Henry B. Curtis, Walter F. Marcus,
Clarence 0. Dupuy, John J. Petre, and Daniel L. Kelly
are residents of the City of New Orleans, State of Lou
isiana, and are all members of the City Council of New
Orleans. This action is brought against the defendants
named above as individuals and in their official capaci
ties in which they are vested with power to regulate the
use of and/or establish by ordinance, rules and regula
tions to govern the use and enjoyment of public parks,
recreation centers, playgrounds, community centers, other
recreational facilities and programs in the City of New
Orleans.
(c) The defendant Lester J. Lautenschlaeger is a
resident of the City of New Orleans, State of Louisiana,
and is Director of the Department of Recreation of the
City of New Orleans and is vested with the authority
and power to administer, manage, operate, supervise and
direct the activities of the Department of Recreation of
the City of New Orleans, which Department has under its
control recreation facilities, playgrounds, community cen
ters and other recreational facilities and programs.
(d) The defendant Joseph Giarrusso is a resident
of the City of New Orleans, State of Louisiana, and is
Superintendent of Police of the City of New Orleans.
This action is brought against the above named defend
ant, individually and in his official capacity, in which he
is vested with the power to enforce the ordinances of the
City of New Orleans and all laws, and prevent their vio
lation, pursuant to Section 4-501, Home Rule Charter of
the City of New Orleans.
14
(e) The defendant New Orleans Park and Park
way Commission is a board of the City of New Orleans
and has the power to administer, control and manage all
parks and to designate portions of parks and other areas
under its control for activities under the direction of the
Department of Recreation of the City of New Orleans.
(f) The defendants Felix Seeger, Herman E. Far
ley, Nelson S. Callender, A. L. Norris, Max Scheinuk,
Herbert Jahncke, Lester J. Lautenschlaeger, L. A. Ma-
lony, Sr., J. P. Gentilich, M. E. Poison, Mrs. Joe E.
Brown and Mrs. S. M. Blackshear, constitute the superin
tendent and members of the New Orleans Park and Park
way Commission.
9.
LSRA-R.S. 33:4558.1 provides as follows:
“A. All public parks, recreation centers, play
grounds, community centers and other such facili
ties at which swimming, dancing, golfing, skating
or other recreational activities are conducted shall
be operated separately for members of the white
and colored races. This shall not preclude mixed
audiences at such facilities, provided separated
sections and rest room facilities are reserved for
members of white and colored races. This pro
vision is made in the exercise of the state’s police
power and for the purpose of protecting the public
health, morals and peace and good order in the
state and not because of race.
“B. ‘Public’ parks and other recreational fa
cilities as used herein shall mean any and all rec
reational facilities operated by the state of Louisi
ana or any of its parishes, municipalities or other
subdivisions of the state.
“'C. Any person, firm, or corporation violat
ing any of the provisions of this Section shall be
deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon convic
tion therefor by a court of competent jurisdiction
for each such violation shall be fined not less than
15
five hundred dollars nor more than one thousand
dollars, or sentenced to imprisonment in the parish
jail not less than ninety days nor more than six
months, or both, fined and imprisoned as above, at
the discretion of the court.”
10.
(a) On or about June 8, 1962, approximately 1,000
Negroes, including the adult plaintiffs, submitted for
themselves and on behalf of their children, the minor
plaintiffs, a formal written petition signed by each of
them to the Mayor, Councilmen of the City of New Or
leans, and the Director, Recreation Department of the
City of New Orleans. The petition referred to facilities
and programs of the Recreation Department of the City
of New Orleans and recited that the said facilities and
programs are presently operated on a racially segregated
basis. The petition prayed that all facilities and pro
grams of the New Orleans Recreation Department be
available to all the citizens of New Orleans without re
gard to race, color or creed.
(b) The defendants Mayor of the City of New Or
leans, City Councilmen of the City of New Orleans, and
the Director, Recreation Department of the City of New
Orleans have not acknowledged nor replied to plaintiffs’
request contained in the said petition.
(c) The failure of defendants Mayor of the City of
New Orleans, City Councilmen of New Orleans, and the
Director, Recreation Department of the City of New Or
leans, to acknowledge or reply to plaintiffs’ request is
tantamount to a denial of plaintiffs’ request and is due
solely to plaintiffs’ race and color and constitutes a denial
of plaintiffs’ right under the Constitution and laws of
the United States to the equal protection of the laws and
of equal treatment before the law.
11.
(a) On or about October 31, 1962, plaintiffs sub
mitted a copy of said petition to the New Orleans Park
way and Park Commission.
16
(b) Defendant, New Orleans Parkway and Park
Commission informed plaintiffs via letter to Arthur J.
Chapital, Sr., that the facilities listed in the said petition
were under the jurisdiction of the New Orleans Recrea
tion Department.
12.
That the public parks, recreation centers, play
grounds, community centers, recreational programs and
facilities of the City of New Orleans are still operated by
defendants on a racially segregated basis, plaintiffs and
all other Negro citizens of the City of New Orleans being
denied their use in the same manner as white residents
of the City of New Orleans. Said operation by defendants
under color of state law, ordinance, custom, policy and
usage constitutes a denial to these plaintiffs and to those
similarly situated of the equal protection of the laws and
of equal treatment before the law guaranteed to them by
the Constitution and laws of the United States.
13.
Plaintiffs and all other Negro residents of the City
of New Orleans have been compelled to use and enjoy
segregated public parks, recreation centers, playgrounds,
community centers, recreational programs and facilities,
and have suffered great injury, inconvenience, and hu
miliation as a result of the denial to them of their con
stitutional rights to use and enjoy the said facilities and
programs on an unsegregated basis without fear or in
timidation, and possible arrest, conviction, fine and/or
imprisonment.
14.
Plaintiffs and all other Negro residents of the City
of New Orleans are threatened with irreparable injury
by reason of the conditions herein complained of. They
have no plain, adequate or complete remedy to redress
these wrongs other than by this suit for an injunction.
Any other remedy would be attended by such uncertain
17
ties and delays as to deny substantial relief and would
involve a multiplicity of suits and cause further irrepara
ble injury, damage and inconvenience to plaintiffs and
all other Negro residents of the City of New Orleans.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that:
(1) The Court advance this complaint on the docket
and order a speedy hearing thereof according to law and
that upon such hearing the Court enter a temporary in
junction to enjoin and restrain the defendants and each
of them from enforcing LSA-R.S. 33:4558.1 of the State
of Louisiana, and any and all customs, ordinances, prac
tices and usages pursuant to which plaintiffs and all
other Negro citizens of the City of New Orleans are com
pelled to use and enjoy segregated public parks, recreation
centers, playgrounds, community centers, recreational fa
cilities and programs, on the ground that such statute is
null and void and in violation of the Fourteenth Amend
ment to the Constitution of the United States.
(2) The Court enter a temporary injunction to en
join and restrain the defendants, and each of them, from
denying to plaintiffs, and to those similarly situated, the
use and enjoyment of public parks, recreation centers,
playgrounds, community centers, recreational facilities
and programs under the direction and administration of
the defendants or either of them in the same manner and
under the same terms and conditions as white residents of
the City of New Orleans.
(3) The Court, upon a final hearing of this cause,
will:
(a) Enter a final judgment and decree that
will declare and define the legal rights of the parties in
relation to the subject matter of this controversy.
(b) Enter a final judgment and decree that
will declare that LSA-R.S. 33:4558.1 of the State of Lou
isiana is unconstitutional and therefore null and void in
that it denies to plaintiffs, as individuals, and all other
Negro citizens of the City of New Orleans, privileges and
immunities of citizens of the United States, due process
18
of law and equal protection of the laws secured by the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States and the rights and privileges secured to them by
Sections 1981 and 1983 of Title 42, United States Code.
(c) Enter a final judgment and decree enjoin
ing the defendants, and each of them, their agents, serv
ants and employees, from enforcing the aforesaid stat
utes on the ground that they are unconstitutional and
therefore null and void.
(d) Enter a final judgment and decree enjoin
ing the defendants, their agents, servants and employees
from denying to plaintiffs and others similarly situated
the use and enjoyment of public parks, recreation centers,
playgrounds, community centers, recreational facilities
and programs under the direction and administration of
the defendants or either of them in the same manner and
under the same terms and conditions as white residents
of the City of New Orleans.
(4) The Court allow plaintiffs their costs and that
plaintiffs have such other and further relief as may ap
pear just and proper in the premises.
Respectfully submitted,
/ s / ERNEST N. MORIAL
A. P. TUREAUD
ERNEST N. MORIAL
A. P. TUREAUD
1821 Orleans Avenue
New Orleans 16, Louisiana
JACK GREENBERG
10 Columbus Circle
New York 19, New York
A. M. TRUDEAU, JR.
1821 Orleans Avenue
New Orleans 16, Louisiana
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
19
VERIFICATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA
PARISH OF ORLEANS
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, person
ally came and appeared:
LEONARD L. BURNS
who, being first duly sworn, did depose and say:
That he is one of the petitioners in the above and
foregoing petition; that he has read the same and that all
facts and allegations contained therein are true and cor-
!*0ct
/ s / LEONARD L. BURNS
LEONARD L. BURNS
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE
ME THIS 20th DAY OF DECEMBER,
1962.
/ s / A. P. TUREAUD
NOTARY PUBLIC
PLEASE SERVE:
(1) CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, through
Hon. Victor H. Schiro, Mayor
City Hall
New Orleans, Louisiana
(2) HON. VICTOR H. SCHIRO, Mayor
City of New Orleans
City Hall
New Orleans, Louisiana
(3) HON. JAMES E. FITZMORRIS, JR.
Councilman, City of New Orleans
City Hall
New Orleans, Louisiana
(4) HON. JOSEPH V. DiROSA
Councilman, City of New Orleans
City Hall
New Orleans, Louisiana
20
(5) HON. HENRY B. CURTIS
Councilman, City of New Orleans
City Hall
New Orleans, Louisiana
(6) HON. WALTER F. MARCUS
Councilman, City of New Orleans
City Hall
New Orleans, Louisiana
(7) HON. CLARENCE 0. DUPUY
Councilman, City of New Orleans
City Hall, New Orleans, Louisiana
(8) HON. JOHN J. PETRE
Councilman, City of New Orleans
City Hall
New Orleans, Louisiana
(9) HON. DANIEL L. KELLY
Councilman, City of New Orleans
City Hall
New Orleans, Louisiana
(10) LESTER J. LAUTENSCHLAEGER,
Director
Department of Recreation of the
City of New Orleans
City Hall, New Orleans, Louisiana
(11) JOSEPH GIARRUSSO
Superintendent of Police
City of New Orleans
2700 Tulane Avenue
New Orleans, Louisiana
(12) NEW ORLEANS PARKWAY and PARK
COMMISSION, through
Felix Seeger, Superintendent
2829 Gentilly Avenue
New Orleans, Louisiana
(13) FELIX SEEGER
2829 Gentilly Avenue
New Orleans, Louisiana
21
(14) HERMAN E. FARLEY
3333 Gentilly Avenue
New Orleans, Louisiana
(15) WILSON S. CALLENDER
Queen & Crescent Bldg.
New Orleans, Louisiana
(16) A. L. NORRIS
1309 Seville Street
New Orleans, Louisiana
(17) MAX SCHEINUK
2600 St. Charles Avenue
New Orleans, Louisiana
(18) LESTER J. LAUTENSCHLAEGER
Carondelet Building
New Orleans, Louisiana
(19) L. A. MOLONY, SR.
Richards Building
New Orleans, Louisiana
(20) J. P. GENTILICH
720 Lafayette Street
New Orleans, Louisiana
(21) M. E. POLSON
919 Gravier Street
New Orleans, Louisiana
(22) MRS. JOE W. BROWN
5400 Bancroft Srive
New Orleans, Louisiana
(23) MRS. S. M. BLACKSHEAR
623 Bourbon Street
New Orleans, Louisiana
(24) HON. JACK P. F. GREMILLION
Attorney General
State of Louisiana
Louisiana Supreme Court Building
New Orleans, Louisiana
(25) HON. JIMMIE H. DAVIS
Governor, State of Louisiana
State Capitol
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
22
U. S. District Court
Eastern District of Louisiana
Filed Jan 15 1963
A. Dallam O’Brien, Jr., Clerk
FCM
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NEW ORLEANS DIVISION
EVANGELINE BARTHE, a minor,
by EDWIN BARTHE, her father and
next friend, et al,
Plaintiffs,
—versus—
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, a Muni
cipal Corporation of the State of Lou
isiana; VICTOR H. SCHIRO, indi
vidually and as Mayor of the City of
New Orleans, et al,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION
'NO. 12968
The Honorable Robert A. Ainsworth, Jr., United
States District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisi
ana, to whom an application for injunction and other
relief has been presented in the above-styled and num
bered cause, having notified me that the action is one
required by act of Congress to be heard and determined
by a district court of three judges, I, Elbert P. Tuttle,
Chief Judge of the Fifth District, hereby designate the
Honorable John Minor Wisdom, United States Circuit
Judge, and the Honorable Herbert W. Christenberry,
United States District Judge for the Eastern District of
Louisiana, to sit with Judge Ainsworth as members of,
and with him to constitute the said court to hear and
determine the action.
WITNESS my hand this 14th day of January, 1963.
/ s / Elbert P. Tuttle
Elbert P. Tuttle
Chief Judge
Fifth Circuit
23
U. S. District Court
Eastern District of Louisiana
Filed Mar 4 1963
A. Dallam O’Brien, Jr., Clerk
FCM
......FEE.......................
......PROCESS.............
X CHARGE HAM
...... INDEX.................. .
V ORDER SMR
......HEARING............
DOCUMENT NO. 6
24
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NEW ORLEANS DIVISION
EVANGELINE BARTHE, ET ALS
Plaintiffs
VS
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET ALS
Defendants
NO. 12968
- CIVIL ACTION
DIVISION “ D”
ANSWER WITH DEFENSES
Now into Court, through undersigned Counsel, comes
the City of New Orleans, Victor H. Schiro, individually
and as Mayor of the City of New Orleans; James E.
Fitzmorris, Jr., Joseph V. Di Rosa, Henry B. Curtis,
Walter F. Marcus, Clarence 0. Dupuy, John J. Petre,
Daniel L. Kelly, individually and as Councilmen of the
City of New Orleans; Lester J. Lautenschlaeger, individ
ually and as Director, Department of Recreation of the
City of New Orleans; Joseph Giarrusso, individually and
as Superintendent of Police of the City of New Orleans,
New Orleans Parkway and Park Commission; Felix
Seeger, Superintendent; Herman E. Farley, Wilson S.
Callender, A. L. Norris, Max Scheinuk, Herbert Jahncke,
Lester J. Lautenschlaeger, L. A. Malony, Sr., J. P. Gen-
tilich, M. E. Poison, Mrs. Joe W. Brown and Mrs. S. M.
Blackshear, individually and as members of the New Or
leans Park and Parkway Commission, sought to be made
defendants herein and with full reservation and without
waiving in any manner whatsoever any and all motions
and defenses of every nature, heretofore filed by them
and which may be available to them, who in answer to
the complaint filed herein make the following defenses
and answers thereto said answer in no way to be con
strued as a waiver of defenses:
......f e e .................................. .
......PROCESS........................
X CHARGE HAM
...... INDEX.............................
......ORDER.............................
......HEARING.......................
DOCUMENT NO. 9
25
DEFENSES
I.
That this Honorable Court lacks jurisdiction over the
subject matter.
II.
That the complaint filed by the complainants herein
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
III.
Defendants deny the allegations contained in Article
1 of the complaint.
IV.
Defendants deny the allegations contained in Article
2 of the complaint.
V.
Defendants deny the allegations contained in Article
3 of the complaint.
VI.
Defendants deny the allegations contained in Article
4 of the complaint.
VII.
Defendants deny the allegations contained in Article
5 of the complaint.
VIII.
Defendants deny the allegations contained in Article
6 of the complaint.
IX.
Defendants deny the allegations contained in Article
7 of the complaint.
26
IX.
Defendants deny the allegations contained in Article
7 of the complaint.
X.
Defendants admit the allegations contained in Article
8(a) of the complaint; defendants admit that Victor H.
Schiro is Mayor of the City of New Orleans and that
James E. Fitzmorris, Jr., Joseph V. DiRosa, Henry B.
Curtis, Walter F. Marcus, Clarence 0. Dupuy, John J.
Petre, and, Daniel L. Kelly are members of the City Coun
cil of New Orleans, but deny that the members of the
City Council of New Orleans can give the petitioners
the relief they seek in this matter; defendants admit that
Lester J. Lautenschlaeger is Director of the Department
of Recreation of the City of New Orleans; defendants
admit that Joseph I. Giarrusso is Superintendent of the
New Orleans Police Department; defendants admit that
the New Orleans Park and Parkway Commission is a
board of the City of New Orleans; the defendants admit
that Felix Seeger, Herman E. Farley, Nelson S. Callen
der, A. L. Norris, Max Scheinuk, Herbert Jahncke, Lester
J. Lautenschlaeger, L. A. Malony, Sr., J. P. Gentilich,
M. E. Poison, Mrs. Joe W. Brown and Mrs. S. M. Black-
shear, constitute the superintendent and members of the
New Orleans Park and Parkway Commission.
XI.
Defendants admit that L.S.A.-R.S. 33:4558.1 reads
as set out in the complaint at Article 9.
XII.
Defendants the Mayor, Councilmen of the City of
New Orleans and the Director, Recreation Department
of the City of New Orleans, and the Director, Recreation
Department of the City of New Orleans, admit that a
petition was submitted to them to de-segregate the facili
ties mentioned herein, but deny the remaining allegations
of Article 10 of the complaint.
27
Defendant the New Orleans Parkway and Park Com
mission admit the allegations of Article 11 of the com
plaint.
XIII.
XIV.
The defendants admit that the public parks, recrea
tion centers, playgrounds, community centers, recreation
al program and facilities of the City of New Orleans are
operated on a racially segregated basis, but deny the re
maining allegations of Article 12 of the Complaint.
XV.
The defendants deny the allegations of Article 13 of
the complaint.
XVI.
The Defendants deny the allegations of Article 14 of
the complaint.
WHEREFORE, your respondents herein respectfully
urge that this Honorable Court dismiss these proceedings
at plaintiffs’ cost.
And for all general and equitable relief.
/ s / ALVIN J. LISKA
ALVIN J. LISKA
City Attorney
/ s / ERNEST L. SALATICH
ERNEST L. SALATICH
Assistant City Attorney
Room 2W23— City Hall
New Orleans, Louisiana
28
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that a copy of the above and fore
going answer has this date been served on the plaintiff
herein by sending the same to their attorneys through
the United States mail, postage prepaid.
/ s / ERNEST L. SALATICH
ERNEST L. SALATICH
Assistant City Attorney
New Orleans, Louisiana
March 4, 1963.
29
U. S. District Court
Eastern District of Louisiana
Filed Apr 30 1963
A. Dallam O’Brien, Jr., Clerk
HAM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NEW ORLEANS DIVISION
EVANGELINE BARTHE, ET ALS, 1
Plaintiff
VS.
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET ALS.
NO. 12,968
- CIVIL ACTION
DIVISION “ D”
Defendants
ANSWER TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF FACTS
Defendants, City of New Orleans, Victor H. Schiro,
individually and as Mayor of the City of New Orleans;
James E. Fitzmorris, Jr., Joseph V. DiRosa, Henry B.
Curtis, Walter F. Marcus, Clarence 0. Dupuy, John J.
Petre, Daniel L. Kelly, individually and as Councilmen of
the City of New Orleans; Lester J. Lautenschlaeger, in
dividually and as Director, Department of Recreation of
the City of New Orleans; Joseph Giarrusso, individually
and as Superintendent of Police of the City of New Or
leans, New Orleans Parkway and Park Commission; Fe
lix Seeger, Superintendent; Herman E. Farley, Wilson S.
Callender, A. L. Norris, Max Scheinuk, Herbert Jahncke,
Lester J. Lautenschlaeger, L. A. Malony, Sr., J. P. Gen-
tilich, M. E. Poison, Mrs. Joe W. Brown and Mrs. S. M.
Blackshear, individually and as members of the New
Orleans Park and Parkway Commission, make the follow
ing statement in response to the request for admission of
facts served upon them by the plaintiffs on April 19,
1963, as follows:
1) Defendants admit that no answer, other than
the letter sent to Arthur J. Chapital, Sr., and re
ferred to in paragraph 11 of the complaint, has
been given to the petition submitted to the defend
ants Mayor, Councilmen of the City of New Or
leans, and the Director, Recreation Department of
the City of New Orleans on or about June 8, 1962,
30
and submitted to the defendant New Orleans Park
way and Park Commission on or about Octoner 31,
1962.
2) Defendants admit that no action has been tak
en to grant the request in the petition that all rec
reational facilities of the New Orleans Recreation
Department in the City of New Orleans be made
available to all persons without regard to race,
creed or color.
3) Defendants admit the genuineness of the let
ter, attached to the request for admission, to Ar
thur J. Chapital, Sr., in answer to a petition sent
on or about October 31, 1962, which letter stated
that the facilities listed in said petition were under
the jurisdiction of the New Orleans Recreation De
partment.
4) Defendants admit the genuineness of the pe
tition, attched to the request for admission, pray
ing that all facilities and programs of the New
Orleans Recreation Department be available to all
the citizens of New Orleans without regard to race,
color, or creed a copy of which was received by
the New Orleans Parkway and Park Commission
on or about October 31, 1962.
5) Defendants admit the genuineness of the pub
lication entitled NORD Facilities, attached to the
request for admission, which lists the recreational
facilities of the New Orleans Recreation Depart
ment, available to white and Negro persons, for
the year 1962.
/ s /
N
......FEE..................................
......PROCESS........................
X CHARGE HAM
...... INDEX............................
......ORDER............................
......HEARING.......................
DOCUMENT NO. 10
HAM
ALVIN J. LISKA
ALVIN J. LISKA
City Attorney
ERNEST L. SALATICH
ERNEST L. SALATICH
Assistant City Attorney
Room 2W23— City Hall
New Orleans, Louisiana
31
VERIFICATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA
PARISH OF ORLEANS
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally
came and appeared:
ERNEST L. SALATICH
who, after being by me duly sworn did declare: That he
is one of the attorneys for the defendants named in the
above and foregoing matter; that he has prepared the
above and foregoing answer to request for admission of
facts and that the facts therein set out are true and cor
rect to the best of his information and belief.
/ s / ERNEST L. SALATICH
ERNEST L. SALATICH
Assistant City Attorney
Sworn to and subscribed
before me this 29th day
of April, 1963.
/ s / ALVIN J. LISKA
NOTARY PUBLIC
CERTIFICATE
I certify that a copy of the above and foregoing an
swer to request for admission of facts has been served
upon Attorneys for Complainants, Ernest N. Morial and
A. P. Tureaud, by mailing same to their office, 1821 Or
leans Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana, and, on Jack
Greenberg, James M. Nabrit, III, and, George B. Smith,
by mailing same to their office, 10 Columbus Circle, New
York 19, New York, on this 29th day of April, 1963.
/ s / ERNEST L. SALATICH
ERNEST L. SALATICH
Assistant City Attorney
32
U. S. District Court
Eastern District of Louisiana
Filed Apr 30 1963
A. Dallam O’Brien, Jr., Clerk
NBJ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NEW ORLEANS DIVISION
EVANGELINE BARTHE, ET ALS,
Plaintiffs
VS.
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET ALS
Defendants
NO. 12,968
- CIVIL ACTION
DIVISION “ D”
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORIES
Defendants, City of New Orleans, Victor H. Schiro,
individually and as Mayor of the City of New Orleans;
James E. Fitzmorris, Jr., Joseph V. Di Rosa, Henry B.
Curtis, Walter F. Marcus, Clarence 0. Dupury, John J.
Petre, Daniel L. Kelly, individually and as Councilman
of the City of New Orleans; Lester J. Lautenschlaeger,
individually and as Director, Department of Recreation
of the City of New Orleans, Joseph Giarrusso, individu
ally and as Superintendent of Police of the City of New
Orleans, New Orleans Parkway and Park Commission;
Felix Seeger. Superintendent; Herman E. Farley, Wilson
S. Callender, A. L. Norris, Max Scheinuk, Herbert Jahn-
cke, Lester J. Lautenschlaeger, L. A. Malony, Sr., J. P.
Gentilich, M. E. Poison, Mrs. Joe W. Brown and Mrs.
S. M. Blackshear, individually and as members of the
New Orleans Park and Parkway Commission, answers
the Interrogatories served upon them by Plaintiffs here
in on April 19, 1963, as follows:
1) In answer to Interrogatory No. 4, defendants
state that there is no publication similar to that
entitled NORD Facilities, a copy of which is at
33
tached to the Interrogatories, for the year 1963,
nor, is there any similar or later publication.
/ s / ERNEST H. GOULD
ERNEST H. GOULD
New Orleans Recreation Department
Executive Assistant Director
Sworn to and subscribed
before me, Notary, this
30th day of April, 1963.
/ s / ERNEST L. SALATICH
ERNEST L. SALATICH,
Notary Public
CERTIFICATE
I certify that a copy of the foregoing Answer to In
terrogatories was this date served on counsel for plain
tiffs, Ernest N. Morial and A. P. Tureaud, by mailing
same to their offices at 1821 Orleans Avenue, New Or
leans, Louisiana, and, on Jack Greenberg, James N.
Nabrit, III, and, George B. Smith, by mailing same to
their offices at 10 Columbus Circle, New York 19, New
York, through the U. S. Mails, postage prepaid.
New Orleans, Louisiana
30 April, 1963
/ s / ERNEST L. SALATICH
ERNEST L. SALATICH
......FEE..........................
......PROCESS........... ....
X CHARGE HAM
......INDEX....................
......ORDER...................
......HEARING..............
DOCUMENT NO. 11
WBJ
34
U. S. District Court
Eastern District of Louisiana
Filed Apr 30 1963
A. Dallam O’Brien, Jr., Clerk
NBJ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NEW ORLEANS DIVISION
EVANGELINE BARTHE, ET ALS,
Plaintiffs
VS.
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET ALS,
Defendants
NO. 12,968
> CIVIL ACTION
DIVISION “ D”
OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES
Defendants, City of New Orleans, Victor H. Schiro,
individually and as Mayor of the City of New Orleans;
James E. Fitzmorris, Jr., Joseph V. Di Rosa, Henry B.
Curtis, Walter F. Marcus, Clarence 0. Dupuy, John J.
Petre, Daniel L. Kelly, individually and as Councilmen
of the City of New Orleans; Lester J. Lautenschlaeger,
individually and as Director, Department of Recreation
of the City of New Orleans, Joseph Giarrusso, individu
ally and as Superintendent of Police of the City of New
Orleans, New Orleans Parkway and Park Commission;
Felix Seeger, Superintendent; Herman E. Farley, Wilson
S. Callender, A. L. Norris, Max Scheinuk, Herbert Jahn-
cke, Lester J. Lautenschlaeger, L. A. Malony, Sr., J. P.
Gentilich, M. E. Poison, Mrs. Joe W. Brown and Mrs.
S. M. Blackshear, individually and as members of the
New Orleans Park and Parkway Commission, object to
Interrogatories served upon them by plaintiffs herein as
follows:
1) Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 1 on the
ground that as propounded, it calls for a list of all of the
public parks, recreation centers, playgrounds, community
35
centers, and other recreational facilities in the City of
New Orleans, many of which parks, etc., are not under
the control of the defendants herein and the plaintiffs
thereby seeks information which is not the subject of this
suit and is therefore irrelevant to the issues.
2) Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 2 on the
ground that as propounded, it calls for a list of all of the
public parks, recreation centers, playgrounds, community
centers, and other recreational facilities in the City of
New Orleans and which of these are used by whites and
which by negroes, whereas many of these parks, etc., are
not under the control of the defendants herein and the
plaintiffs thereby seek information which is not the sub
ject of this suit and is therefore irrelevant to the issues.
3) Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 3 on the
ground that, as propounded it calls for the manner in
which all of the public parks, recreation centers, play
grounds, community centers, and other recreational facili
ties in the City of New Orleans are identified for use by
the white and negro races, whereas many of these parks,
etc; are not under the control of the defendants herein
and the plaintiffs thereby seek information which is not
the subject of this suit and is therefore irrelevant to the
issues.
WHEREFORE, your defendants, move the Court
that they be relieved of the duty of responding to the
aforementioned interrogatories.
/ s / ALVIN J. LISKA
ALVIN J. LISKA E.L.S.
City Attorney
/ s / ERNEST L. SALATICH
ERNEST L. SALATICH
Assistant City Attorney
Attorneys for Defendants
Room 2W23— City Hall
New Orleans, Louisiana
36
......FEE..........................
......PROCESS...............
X CHARGE HAM
...... INDEX....................
......ORDER...................
V HEARING M
DOCUMENT NO. 12
WBJ
NOTICE
Please take notice that at 10:00 o’clock on the 8th
day of May, 19,63, or as soon thereafter as counsel can
be heard, the defendants set out in the hereinabove ob
jections to interrogatories will present to this Court at its
Court Room, 400 Royal Street, New Orleans, Louisiana,
the aforesaid objections to Interrogatories served upon
them by plaintiffs herein.
/ s / ERNEST L. SALATICH
ERNEST L. SALATICH
Assistant City Attorney
CERTIFICATE
I certify that a copy of the foregoing objections to
Interrogatories have been served upon Attorneys for Com
plainants, Ernest N. Morial and A. P. Tureaud, by mail
ing same to their office, 1821 Orleans Avenue, New Or
leans, Louisiana, and on Jack Greenberg, James M.
Nabrit, III, and, George B. Smith, by mailing same to
their office, 10 Columbus Circle, New York 19, New York,
on this 30th day of April, 1963.
/ s / ERNEST L. SALATICH
ERNEST L. SALATICH
Assistant City Attorney
37
U. S. District Court
Eastern District of Louisiana
Filed May 6 1963
A. Dallam O’Brien, Jr., Clerk
NBJ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NEW ORLEANS DIVISION
EVANGELINE BARTHE, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET AL.,
Defendants.
No. 12968
Civil Action
Division rrD”
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF FACTS
TO: Alvin J. Liska, City Attorney
Ernest L. Salatich, Assistant City Attorney
Room 2W23, City Hall
New Orleans, Louisiana
Attorneys for Defendants
Please take notice that the plaintiffs hereby request
the defendants, pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, to admit within 10 days after service
of this request, for the purposes of the above-entitled
action only, and subject to all pertinent objections to ad
missibility which may be interposed at the trial, the truth
of the following facts:
1. That no answer, other than the letter sent to
Arthur J. Chapital, Sr. and referred to in paragraph 11
of facilities listed in said petition were under the juris
diction of the New Orleans Recreation Department.
/ s / ERNEST N. MORIAL
ERNEST N. MORIAL
A. P. TUREAUD
1821 Orleans Avenue
New Orleans 16, Louisiana
38
JACK GREENBERG
JAMES M. NABRIT, III
GEORGE B. SMITH
10 Columbus Circle
New York 19, New York
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that the undersigned, counsel for
the plaintiffs, has this day served each of the attorneys
of the defendants in this action, Alvin J. Liska and
Ernest L. Salatich, a copy of the foregoing request for
admission by placing in the United States Mail, postage
prepaid, and directing that they be sent to Room 2W23,
City Hall, New Orleans, Louisiana.
April 18, 1963
/ s / ERNEST N. MORIAL
Attorney for Plaintiffs
......FEE..........................
-...PROCESS..............
X CHARGE HAM
...... INDEX....................
......ORDER...................
......HEARING..............
DOCUMENT NO. 13
39
U. S. District Court
Eastern District of Louisiana
Filed May 6 1963
A. Dallam O’Brien, Jr., Clerk
NBJ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NEW ORLEANS DIVISION
EVANGELINE BARTHE, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET AL.,
Defendants.
No. 12968
Civil Action
Division “ D”
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION
TO: Alvin J. Liska, City Attorney
Ernest L. Salatich, Assistant City Attorney
Room 2W23, City Hall
New Orleans, Louisiana
Please take notice that the plaintiffs hereby request
that defendant New Orleans Parkway and Park Commis
sion, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 36 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, within 10 days after service of
this request, admit for the purpose of this action only
and subject to all pertinent objections to admissibility
which may be interposed at the trial, the genuineness of
the letter, attached hereto, to Arthur J. Chapital, Sr. in
answer to a petition sent on or about October 31, 1962,
which letter stated that the complaint, has been given to
the petition submitted to the defendants Mayor, Council-
men of the City of New Orleans, and the Director, Recre
ation Department of the City of New Orleans on or about
June 8, 1962, and submitted to the defendant New Or
leans Parkway and Park Commission on or about October
31, 1962.
2. That no action has been taken to grant the re
quest in the petition that all recreational facilities in the
40
City of New Orleans be made available to all persons
without regard to race, creed or color.
/ s / ERNEST N. MORIAL
ERNEST N. MORIAL
A. P. TUREAUD
1821 Orleans Avenue
New Orleans 16, Louisiana
JACK GREENBERG
JAMES M. NABRIT, III
GEORGE B. SMITH
10 Columbus Circle
New York 19, New York
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CERTIFICATE OP SERVICE
This is to certify that the undersigned counsel for
the plaintiffs has this day; served each of the attorneys
of the defendants in this action, Alvin J. Liska and
Ernest L. Salatich, a copy of the foregoing Request for
Admission of Facts by placing same in the United States
Mail, postage prepaid, and directing that they be sent to
Room 2W23, City Hall, New Orleans, Louisiana.
/ s / ERNEST N. MORIAL__________
Attorney for Plaintiffs
April 18, 1963
......FEE...................................
......PROCESS........................
X CHARGE HAM
...... INDEX.............................
......ORDER.............................
......HEARING.......................
DOCUMENT NO. 14
WBJ
41
U. S. District Court
Eastern District of Louisiana
Filed May 6 1963
A. Dallam O’Brien, Jr., Clerk
NBJ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NEW ORLEANS DIVISION
EVANGELINE BARTHE, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET AL.,
Defendants.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION
TO: Alvin J. Liska, City Attorney
Ernest L. Salatich, Assistant City Attorney
Room 2W23, City Hall
New Orleans, Louisiana
Attorneys for Defendants
Please take notice that the plaintiffs hereby request
that defendants, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 36 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, within 10 days
after service of this request admit, for the purpose of
this action only and subject to all pertinent objections to
admissibility which may be interposed at the trial, that
the following documents, exhibited with this request, are
genuine:
1. A petition praying that all facilities and pro
grams of the New Orleans Recreation Department be
available to all the citizens of New Orleans without re
gard to race, color, or creed and submitted to and received
by the Mayor, Councilmen of the City of New Orleans,
and the Director, Recreation Department of the City of
New Orleans on or about June 8, 1962, a copy of which
was submitted to and received by the New Orleans Park
way and Park Commission on or about October 31, 1962.
No. 12968
- Civil Action
Division “ D”
42
2. A publication entitled NORD Facilities which
lists the recreational facilities available to both white and
Negro persons in New Orleans.
/ s / ERNEST N. MORIAL
ERNEST N. MORIAL
A. P. TUREAUD
1821 Orleans Avenue
New Orleans 16, Louisiana
JACK GREENBERG
JAMES M. NABRIT, III
GEORGE B. SMITH
10 Columbus Circle
New York 19, New York
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that the undersigned, counsel for
the plaintiffs, has this day served each of the attorneys
of the defendants in this action, Alvin J. Liska and
Ernest L. Salatich, a copy of the foregoing request for
admission by placing same in the United States Mail,
postage prepaid and directing that they be sent to Room
2W23, City Hall, New Orleans, Louisiana.
/ s / ERNEST N. MORIAL
Attorney for Plaintiffs
April 18, 1963
......FEE.................................. .
......PROCESS........................
X CHARGE HAM
...... INDEX.............................
......ORDER............................
......HEARING.......................
DOCUMENT NO. 15
WBJ
43
U. S. District Court
Eastern District of Louisiana
Filed May 6 1963
A. Dallam O’Brien, Jr., Clerk
NBJ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NEW ORLEANS DIVISION
EVANGELINE BARTHE, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET AL.,
Defendants.
No. 12968
Civil Action
Division “ D”
INTERROGATORIES
TO: Alvin J. Liska, City Attorney
Ernest L. Salatich, Assistant City Attorney
Room 2W23, City Hall
New Orleans, Louisiana
The plaintiffs request that the above named defend
ants answer under oath in accordance with Rule 33 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the following inter
rogatories :
1. List all public parks, recreation centers, play
grounds, community centers, and other recreational fa
cilities in the City of New Orleans.
2. State which of these facilities are for use by
whites and which of these facilities are for use by Ne
groes.
3. State how these facilities are identified by race—
by sign at the facility, rule or resolution of the Recrea
tion Department or Park Commission, by publication of
any document, or any other means.
4. State whether a publication similar to that en
titled NORD Facilities, a copy of which is attached here
to, has been made for the year 1963 or whether any simi
44
lar and later publication has been made by the defend
ants.
/ s / ERNEST N. MORIAL
ERNEST N. MORIAL
A. P. TUREAUD
1821 Orleans Avenue
New Orleans 16, Louisiana
JACK GREENBERG
JAMES M. NABRIT, III
GEORGE B. SMITH
10 Columbus Circle
New York 19, New York
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that the undersigned, counsel for
plaintiffs, has this day served each of the attorneys of
the defendants in this action, Alvin J. Liska and Ernest
L. Salatich, a copy of the foregoing interrogatories by
placing same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid,
and directing that they be sent to Room 2W23, City Hall,
New Orleans, Louisiana.
/ s / ERNEST N. MORIAL
Attorney for Plaintiffs
April 18, 1963
......FEE...................................
......PROCESS-.....................
X CHARGE HAM
......INDEX.............................
......ORDER.............................
......HEARING.......................
DOCUMENT NO. 16
WBJ
45
U. S. District Court
Eastern District of Louisiana
Filed May 17 1963
A. Dallam O’Brien, Jr., Clerk
FCM
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NEW ORLEANS DIVISION
EVANGELINE BARTHE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, et al.,
Defendants.
INTERROGATORIES
TO: ALVIN J. LISKA, City Attorney
ERNEST L. SALATICH, Assistant City Attorney
Room 2W23
City Hall
New Orleans, Louisiana
The plaintiffs request that the above named defend
ants answer under oath in accordance with Rule 33 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the following inter
rogatories :
1. List all public parks, recreation centers, play
grounds, community centers, and other recrea
tional facilities in the City of New Orleans under
the control, management, or administration of
the defendants.
2. State which of the recreational facilities in the
City of New Orleans under the control, manage
ment, or administration of the defendants are for
use by whites and which facilities are for use by
Negroes.
3. State how the recreational facilities in the City
CIVIL ACTION
-NO. 12,968
DIVISION “ D”
46
of New Orleans which are under the control,
management, or administration of the defendants,
are identified by race—by sign at the facility,
rule or resolution of the Recreation Department
or Park Commission, by publication of any docu
ment, or by any other means.
4. List all special recreational activities and events
sponsored, administered, managed, or controlled
by the defendants, said special activities and
events being in operation now, and/or planned
for the year 1963, such as Soap Box Derbies, fish
ing rodeos, archery competitions, bowling compe
titions, tennis tournaments, presentation of plays,
etc., and designate those special activities avail
able to Negroes.
(a) In the absence of such information, list
all such special activities carried on for the year
1962 and designate those available to Negroes.
5. List any special classes, workshops or the like
carried on, sponsored, administered, managed, or
controlled by the defendants in addition to regu
lar recreational programs, such classes being in
struction in art, ballet, ceramics, other crafts,
fencing, opera, piano instruction, tap dancing,
tumbling, etc., which are being carried on now
or planned for the year 1963 and designate those
classes, workshops, etc., available to Negroes.
(a) In the absence of such information, list
all such special classes for the year 1962 and des
ignate those available to Negroes.
6. List any tours or field trips undertaken or spon
sored by the defendants during the year 1962
and/or planned for the year 1963. Such trips
would include trips to public buildings, museums,
etc.
(a) Designate those in which Negroes could or
can participate.
47
7. List all recreational facilities owned by the City
of New Orleans and located in the City of New
Orleans.
8. List all of the recreational facilities under the
control, management, or administration of the de
fendants which are leased or loaned to the City
of New Orleans or any other defendant for recre
ational purposes, such leases being formal leases
which have been signed, or written or oral agree
ments.
9. State whether any Negro employees, other than
maintenance employees, are employed at any of
the white recreational facilities under the control,
management, or administration of the defendants.
(a) If so state in what positions— supervisor,
park teacher, etc.
10. State whether any white employees, other than
maintenance employees are employed at any of
the Negro recreational facilities under the con
trol, management, or administration of the de
fendants.
(a) If so state in what positions— supervisor,
park teacher, etc.
11. List all recreational facilities under the control,
administration, or management of the defend
ants used or operated on a seasonal basis, and
designate them by race.
12. List all white recreational facilities under the
management, control or administration of the
defendants known as complete community centers
and otherwise designated as AA type facilities.
13. List all Negro recreational facilities under the
management, control or administration of the
defendants and known as complete community
48
centers and otherwise designated as AA type
facilities.
Respectfully submitted,
/ s / ERNEST N. MORIAL
ERNEST N. MORIAL
A. P. TUREAUD
1821 Orleans Avenue
New Orleans, Louisiana
JACK GREENBERG
JAMES M. NABRIT, III
GEORGE B. SMITH
10 Columbus Circle
New York 19, New York
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
49
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NEW ORLEANS DIVISION
EVANGELINE BARTHE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION
-NO. 12,968
DIVISION “D”
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that I served a copy of the plain
tiffs’ Interrogatories upon Alvin J. Liska, Esq., and
Ernest L. Salatich, Esq., Room 2W23, City Hall, New
Orleans, Louisiana, by depositing copies addressed to
them as indicated, in the United States Mail, postage pre
paid, this 16th day of May, 1963.
/ s / ERNEST N. MORIAL
Attorney for Plaintiffs
......FEE..........................
......PROCESS................
X CHARGE HAM
...... INDEX.....................
......ORDER....................
......HEARING...............
DOCUMENT NO. 18
M
50
U. S. District Court
Eastern District of Louisiana
Filed Jun 5' 1963
A. Dallam O’Brien, Jr., Clerk
FCM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NEW ORLEANS DIVISION
EVANGELINE BARTHE, ET ALS, '
Plaintiffs
VS.
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET ALS
NO. 12,968
- CIVIL ACTION
DIVISION “ D”
Defendants
ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES
Defendants, City of New Orleans, Victor H. Schiro,
individually and as Mayor of the City of New Orleans;
James E. Fitzmorris, Jr., Joseph V. Di Rosa, Henry B.
Curtis, Walter F. Marcus, Clarence 0. Dupuy, John J.
Petre, Daniel L. Kelly, individually and as Councilmen
of the City of New Orleans, Lester J. Lautenschlaeger,
individually and as Director, Department of Recreation
of the City of New Orleans, Joseph Giarrusso, individu
ally and as Superintendent of Police of the City of New
Orleans, answers the Interrogatories served upon them
by Plaintiffs herein on May 20, 1963, as follows:
NORD FACILITIES
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY #1
1. ALVAR CENTER
2601 Alvar St.
2. ANNUNCIATION PLAYGROUND
Race, Annunciation, Chippewa & Orange Sts.
51
3. ART DEPARTMENT
2711 Dauphine St.
4. AUDUBON PARK BALL DIAMOND &
TENNIS COURTS
River Road & Zoo Drive
5. BEHRMAN HEIGHTS
Square 22, McArthur, Mercedes &
Halsey Sts.
6. BEHRMAN MEMORIAL CENTER
2529 Gen. Meyer Ave. (Algiers)
7. BODENGER PLAYGROUND
Hudson, Memorial Park Dr.,
Nevada & Kansas Sts. (Algiers)
8. BOE PLAYGROUND
Hibernia St. & St. Roch Ave.
9. BONART PLAYGROUND
Forstall, Marais, Lizardi & Urquhart Sts.
10. BROADMOOR PLAYSPOT
Gen. Pershing & Broad Sts.
11. BUNNY FRIEND PLAYGROUND
Desire, Gallier, N. & S. Bunny Friend Sts.
12. CABRINI PLAYGROUND
Barracks, Dauphine & Burgundy Sts.
13. KERRY CURLEY PLAYGROUND
Dwyer Rd., Camelot & Knight Sts.
14. CARVER PLAYGROUND
Lowerline & Prytania Sts.
15. CHILDREN’S MUSEUM
1218 Burgundy St.
16. CITY PARK BALL DIAMONDS
Harrison & Marconi Sts.
17. CLAY PLAYGROUND
Chippewa, Second & Annunciation Sts.
52
18. COLISEUM PLAYGROUND
Camp, Coliseum, Race Sts. & Melpomene Ave.
19. CONRAD PLAYGROUND
Hamilton, Edinburgh, Mistletoe & Olive Sts.
20. COSTUME DEPARTMENT
907 Terpsichore St.
21. CUCCIA-BYRNES PLAYGROUND
Waldo Burton Memorial Home, Olive &
Forshey Sts.
22. CURTIS PLAYGROUND
Lake Ave. & Yacht Harbor
23. DANNELL PLAYGROUND
St. Charles, Octavia & Dannell
24. DELCAZEL PLAYGROUND
Opelousas, Verret & Seguin Sts. (Algiers)
25. DELGADO CENTER
Navarre & Gen. Diaz Sts.
26. DESIRE PROJECT GROUND
Alvar & Florida Sts.
27. DESMARE PLAYGROUND
Esplanade Ave. & Moss St.
28. DEVORE PLAYGROUND
Newton, Brooklyn & Diana Sts.
29. DiBENEDETTO PLAYGROUND
Chef Menteur Hwy., Prentiss, Pressburg &
Papania Sts.
30. DIGBY PLAYGROUND
Dwyer, E. Hermes & Virginia Sts.
31. DONNELLY PLAYGROUND
Wildair Dr., Burbank & Wingate Sts.
32. DREYFUS PLAYSPOT
Stroelitz & Mistletoe Sts.
33. DUBLIN PLAYGROUND
Dublin, Hampson & Maple Sts.
53
34. DULCICH PLAYSPOT
Rear of Behrman Memorial Stadium
(Algiers)
35. EASTON PARK
Toulouse, N. Lopez, St. Peter &
N. Rendon Sts.
36. ELEONORE PLAYGROUND
Eleonore, Annunciation & Alonzo Sts.
37. EQUIPMENT WAREHOUSE
2540 N. Prieur St.
38. ESPENAN PLAYGROUND
Trafalgar & Beauvoir Sts.
39. EVANS PLAYGROUND
Soniat, LaSalle, Dufossat & S. Liberty Sts.
40. FILMORE PLAYGROUND
Rapides St., Wildair & Wingate Drs.
41. FOX PLAYGROUND
Whitney Ave. & Lamarque St. (Algiers)
42. NORD THEATRE
545 St. Charles Ave.
43. GATTO PLAYGROUND
Windsor & Wildair Drs.
44. HALL PLAYGROUND
Milton & Davey Sts.
45. HARDIN PLAYGROUND
Allen, N. Dorgenois, New Orleans & Law Sts.
46. HARRIS PLAYGROUND
4983 Louisa Dr.
47. HAYNE-LAKESHORE PLAYSPOT
Hayne Blvd., Alabama, Wales & Lamp Sts.
48. INDEST PLAYGROUND
Alabo & Chartres Sts.
49. JEFF DAVIS PLAYGROUND
S. Jeff Davis Pkwy., D’Hemecourt, S. Clark
'& Baudin Sts.
54
50. N. JEFF DAVIS PLAYSPOT
N. Jeff Davis Pkwy., Canal & Iberville Sts.
51. S. JEFF DAVIS PLAYSPOT
S. Jeff Davis Pkwy., Canal & Cleveland Sts.
52. JUNO PLAYSPOT
5100 Gen. Meyer Ave. (Algiers)
53. KELLER PLAYGROUND
S. Robertson & Felicity Sts.
54. KIRSCH-ROONEY STADIUM
Gen. Diaz & Greenwood Sts.
55. KIWANIS PLAYSPOT
Pelican & Verret Sts. (Algiers)
56. LAKELAND TERRACE PLAYGROUND
Seawood St., Read Rd., Dwyer Canal
57. LAKE VISTA PLAYSPOT
Spanish Ft. Blvd., Central Park, Breeze Park
58. LARKIN PLAYGROUND
Amann, Delaronde & Bauman Sts. (Algiers)
59. LAWRENCE PLAYSPOT
Adjacent to Napoleon Ave. & Magazine
Branch Library
60. LAWRENCE SQUARE
Magazine & Camp Sts.
Napoleon Ave.
61. LEE PLAYGROUND
N. Miro, Andry & Tonti Sts.
62. LEMANN PLAYGROUND
Lafitte, N. Claiborne & Marais Sts.
63. LEMANN PLAYGROUND
Lafitte, N. Claiborne & N. Prieur Sts.
64. LEWIS PLAYSPOT
St. Bernard & London Ave.
N. Prieur St.
55
65. LITTLE FLOWER PLAYGROUND
Monroe & Palmetto Sts.
66. LYONS MEMORIAL CENTER
624 Louisiana Ave.
67. MAGAZINE PLAYSPOT
Magazine St. & Sophie Wright Place
68. MAGAZINE STREET WAREHOUSE
1043 Magazine St.
69. MAINTENANCE WAREHOUSE
830 Julia St.
70. MANDEVILLE CENTER
718 Mandeville St.
71. MARGARET PLAYSPOT
Camp, Clio & Prytania Sts.
72. McCUE PLAYGROUND
Franklin Ave., Florida, Law & Eads Sts.
73. McDONOGH MEMORIAL PARK
Yerret, Bermuda & Alex Sts. (Algiers)
74. McDONOGH PLAYGROUND
Teche, Ptolemy, Brooklin & Lawrence Sts.
(Algiers)
75. McDONOGH PLAYSPOT
Toledano & Prytania Sts.
76. McKAY PLAYGROUND
Mound, Woodlawn Ave., Rosemary PI.
77. McNEELY PLAYGROUND
Patterson & Elmira Sts. (Algiers)
78. MILNE PLAYGROUND
Odin, Arts, Music, Mithra & Filmore Sts.
79. MILTENBERGER PLAYGROUND
Peoples & Filmore Aves.
80. MIRABEAU PLAYSPOT
Chatham & Chase Drs.
56
81. MORRISON AVENUE PLAYSPOT
Congress & Morrison Sts.
82. MUNY PARK
8420 Olive St.
83. NORD ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
Room l-W-16, City Hall
84. NORD-CITY PARK CASTING PIER
City Park near Harrison Ave. & Marconi Dr.
85. NORD STADIUM
S. Claiborne Ave., Leonidas St.
Sycamore PI.
86. NORMAN PLAYGROUND
Eton St., Berkley Dr. & McArthur Blvd.
(Algiers)
87. OAK PARK PLAYGROUND
Perlita, Riviera & Cartier Sts.
88. PHILIP PLAYGROUND
Philip & Saratoga Sts.
89. PIETY-ROYAL PLAYGROUND
Piety & Royal Sts.
90. PLUM ORCHARD PLAYGROUND
Prentiss, Camelia, Tulip & Dreux Sts.
91. PONTCHARTRAIN PARK STADIUM
Haynes Blvd., Caddie Rd. & Montegut Dr.
92. PRATT PARK
Prentiss Ave., Pratt & Chatham Drs.
93. RIVER PARK PLAYGROUND
Foot of Tullis St. & Pittari PI.
94. ROBERT PLAYGROUND
Lonely Oak Dr., Rhodes & Selma St.
95. ROBIN PLAYGROUND
Peoples Ave. & Hibernia St.
96. ROEHM PARK
Abundance, Pauger, Agriculture
57
97. ROEHM PLAYSPOT
Agriculture & Pauger Sts.
98. ROME PLAYSPOT
Hibernia & St. Anthony Sts.
99. ROSENWALD CENTER
Earhart Blvd., S. Broad & Clio Sts.
100. ST. FRANCES CABRINI
1500 Prentiss Ave.
101. ST. JAMES PLAYGROUND
St. Roch Ave., Filmore, Music & Mithra Sts.
102. ST. MARY CENTER SWIMMING POOL
Gov. Nicholas & Chartres Sts.
103. ST. PATRICK PLAYGROUND
St. Patrick, Baudin & S. Bernadotte Sts.
104. ST. PIUS X PLAYGROUND
6600 Spanish Fort Blvd.
105. ST. ROCH PLAYGROUND
St. Roch Ave., N. Johnson & N. Roman Sts.
106. SAMPSON PLAYGROUND
Louisa, Treasure, Piety & Benefit Sts.
107. SAMUEL PLAYSPOT
2001 Napoleon Ave.
108. SAMUEL SQUARE
2000 Napoleon Ave.
109. SCHABEL PLAYGROUND
Iroquois & Hiawatha Sts.
110. SHAKESPEARE CENTER
Freret, Third, LaSalle & Washington Sts.
111. SKELLY BASEBALL PARK
Pacific, Lamarque, Elmira & DeArmas Sts.
(Algiers)
112. SKELLY GYM
Pacific, Lamarque, Elmira & DeArmas Sts.
(Algiers)
58
113. SORAPARU PLAYGROUND
Soraparu & Tchoupitoulas Sts.
114. STALLINGS CENTER
St. Claude Ave., Lesseps & N. Rampart Sts.
115. STALLINGS PLAYGROUND
Gentilly, Lapeyrouse & Paul Morphy Sts.
116. TAYLOR PLAYGROUND
Washington Ave., S. Derbigny &
S. Roman Sts.
117. UNION PLAYGROUND
St. Roch Ave., Fairmont Dr. & Elder St.
119 WASHINGTON PLAYGROUND
Elysian Fields Ave., Royal Frenchman &
Dauphine Sts.
119. WERNER PLAYGROUND
300 Werner Dr.
120. WISNER PLAYGROUND
Lauel, Lyons & Upper line Sts.
59
NEW ORLEANS RECREATION DEPARTMENT
WHITE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY #2
1. ANNUNCIATION PLAYGROUND
Race, Annunciation, Chippewa & Orange Sts.
2. AUDUBON PARK BALL DIAMONDS &
TENNIS COURTS
River Road & Zoo Drive
3. BEHRMAN HEIGHTS
Square 22, MacArthur, Mercedes &
Halsay Sts.
4. BODENGER PLAYGROUND
Hudson, Memorial Park Dr., Nevada &
Kansas Sts. (Algiers)
5. BOE PLAYGROUNND
Hibernia St. & St. Roch Ave.
6. BONART PLAYGROUND
Forstall, Marais, Lizardi & Urquhart Sts.
7. BUNNY FRIEND PLAYGROUND
Desire, Gallier, N. & S. Bunny Friend Sts.
8. CABRINI PLAYGROUND
Barracks, Dauphine & Burgundy Sts.
9. KERRY CURLEY PLAYGROUND
Dwyer Rd., Camelot & Knight Sts.
10. CITY PARK BALL DIAMONDS
Harrison & Marconi Sts.
11. CLAY PLAY GROUNND
Chippewa, Second & Annunciation Sts.
12. COLISEUM PLAYGROUND
Camp, Coliseum, Race Sts., &
Melpomene Ave.
13. CUCCIA-BYRNES PLAYGROUND
Waldo Burton Memorial Home, Olive &
Forshey Sts.
60
14. CURTIS PLAYGROUND
Lake Ave., & Yacht Harbor
15. DANNELL PLAYGROUND
St. Charles, Octavia & Dannell Sts.
16. DELCAZEL PLAYGROUND
Opelousas, Verret & Seguin Sts. (Algiers)
17. DESMARE PLAYGROUND
Esplanade Ave., & Moss St.
18. DeBENEDETTO PLAYGROUND
Chef Menteur Hwy., Prentiss, Pressburg &
Papania Sts.
19. DIGBY PLAYGROUND
Dwyer, E. Hermes & Virginia Sts.
20. DONNELLY PLAYGROUND
Wildair Dr., Burbank & Wingate Sts.
21. DUBLIN PLAYGROUND
Dublin, Hampson & Maple Sts.
22. EASTON PARK
Toulouse, N. Lopez, St. Peter &
N. Rendon Sts.
23. ELEONORE PLAYGROUND
Eleonore, Annunciation & Alonzo Sts.
24. ESPENAN PLAYGROUND
Trafalgar & Beauvoir Sts.
25. PILMORE PLAYGROUND
Rapides St., Wildair & Wingate Drs.
26. GATTO PLAYGROUND
Windsor & Wildair Drs.
27. HARRIS PLAYGROUND
4983 Louisa Dr.
28. INDEST PLAYGROUND
Alabo & Chartres Sts.
29. JEFF DAVIS PLAYGROUND
S. Jeff Davis Pkwy., D’Hemecourt, S. Clark
& Baudin Sts.
61
30. LAKELAND TERRACE PLAYGROUND
Seawood St., Read Rd., Dwyer Canal
31. LARKIN PLAYGROUND
Amann, Delaronde & Baumon Sts. (Algiers),
32. LAWRENCE SQUARE
Magazine & Camp Sts., Napoleon Ave.
33. LEMANN PLAYGROUND
Lafitte, N. Claiborne & Marais Sts.
34. LITTLE FLOWER PLAYGROUND
Monroe & Palmetto Sts.
35. McCUE PLAYGROUND
Franklin Ave., Florida, Law & Eads Sts.
36. McDONOGH MEMORIAL PARK
Verret, Bermuda & Alex Sts. (Algiers)
37. McDONOGH PLAYGROUND
Teche, Ptolemy, Brooklyn & Lawrence Sts.
(Algiers)
38. McKay PLAYGROUND
Mound, Woodlawn Ave., Rosemary PI.
39. McNEELY PLAYGROUND
Patterson & Elmira Sts. (Algiers)
40. MILNE PLAYGROUND
Odin, Arts, Music, Mithra & Filmore Sts.
41. MILTENBERGER PLAYGROUND
Peoples & Filmore Aves.
42. NORD THEATRE
545 St. Charles
43. NORMAN PLAYGROUND
Eaton, Berkley Dr. & McArthur Blvd.
(Algiers)
44. OAK PARK PLAYGROUND
Perlita, Riveria & Cartier Sts.
45. PIETY-ROYAL PLAYGROUND
Piety & Royal Sts.
62
46. PLUM ORCHARD PLAYGROUND
Prentiss, Camelia, Tulip & Dreux Sts.
47. PRATT PARK
Prentiss Ave., Pratt & Chatham Drs.
48. RIVER PARK PLAYGROUND
Foot of Tullis St. & Pittari PI.
49. ROBIN PLAYGROUND
Peoples Ave. & Hibernia St.
50. ST. FRANCES CABRINI
1500 Prentiss Ave.
51. ST. JAMES PLAYGROUND
St. Roch, Filmore, Music, Mithra Sts.
52. St. MARY CENTER SWIMMING POOL
Gov. Nicholas & Chartres Sts.
53. ST. PATRICK PLAYGROUND
St. Patrick, Baudin, S. Bernadotte Sts.
54. ST. PIUS X PLAYGROUND
6600 Spanish Fort Blvd.
55. ST. ROCH PLAYGROUND
St. Roch Ave., N. Johnson & N. Roman Sts.
56. SCHABEL PLAYGROUND
Iroquois & Hiawatha Sts.
57. SORAPARU PLAYGROUND
Soraparu and Tchoupitoulas Sts.
58. STALLINGS PLAYGROUND
Gentilly, Lapeyrouse & Paul Morphy Sts.
59. TAYLOR PLAYGROUND
Washington Ave., S. Derbigny &
S. Roman Sts.
60. UNION PLAYGROUND
St. Roch Ave., Fairmont Dr. & Elder St.
61. WASHINGTON PLAYGROUND
300 Werner Dr.
63
62. WISNER PLAYGROUND
Laurel, Lyons & Upperline Sts.
63. WERNER PLAYGROUND
300 Werner Dr.
64. SAMUEL SQUARE
2000 Napoleon Ave.
65'. ALVAR CENTER
2601 Alvar St.
66. BEHRMAN MEMORIAL
2529 Gen. Meyer
67. DELGADO
Navarre, Gen. Diaz & Delgado Trade School
68. LYONS MEMORIAL
624 Louisiana Avenue
69. MANDEVILLE
718 Mandeville
70. NORD STADIUM
S. Claiborne Ave., Leonidas & Sycamore
71. SKELLY
Pacific, Lamarque, Elmira & DeArmas Sts.
72. STALLINGS
St. Claude Ave., Lesseps & N. Rampart
73. KIRSCH-ROONEY STADIUM
Gen. Diaz at Greenwood St.
74. MUNY PARK
8420 Olive
75. NORD CASTING PIER
City Park
76. ROEHM PARK
Agricultural at Touro
77. SKELLY PARK
Pacific, Lamarque, Elmira, DeArmas Sts.
78. BROADMOORE PLAYSPOT
S. Broad at Fontainebleau
64
79. DREYFUS PLAYSPOT
Stroelitz at Mistletoe
80. DULCICH
Rear of Behrman Stadium
81. HAYNE-LAKESHORE
Hayne, Alabama, Wales, Lamb
82. N. JEFF DAVIS
N. Jeff Davis, Canal, Iberville
83. S. JEFF DAVIS
S. Jeff Davis, Canal, Cleveland
84. JUNO PLAYSPOT
5100 Gen. Meyer Ave. (Algiers)
85. KIWANNIS
Pelican, Verret
86. LAKE VISTA
Spanish Fort, Central Park, Breeze Park
87. LAWRENCE
Napoleon at Magazine
88. MAGAZINE
Magazine at Sophie Wright
89. MARGARET
Camp, Clio, Prytania
90. McDONOGH
Toledano, Prytania
91. MIRABEAU
Chatham, Chase
92. ROEHM
Pauger at Agricultural
93. ROME
Hibernia at St. Anthony
94. SAMUEL SQUARE
2001 Napoleon
65
NEW ORLEANS RECREATION DEPARTMENT
NEGRO FACILITIES
1. CARVER PLAYGROUND
Lowerline, Prytania
2. CONRAD PLAYGROUND
Hamilton, Edinburgh, Mistletoe, Olive
3. DEVORE PLAYGROUND
Newton, Brooklyn, Diana
4. FOX PLAYGROUND
Whitney, Lamarque
5. EVANS PLAYGROUND
Soniat, LaSalle, Duffossat & S. Liberty
6. HALL PLAYGROUND
Milton at Davey
7. HARDIN PLAYGROUND
Allen, N. Dorgenois, New Orleans, Law
8. KELLER PLAYGROUND
South Robertson & Felicity Sts.
9. LEE PLAYGROUND
N. Miro, Andry, Tonti
10. PHILLIP PLAYGROUND
Philip & Saratoga
11. ROBERT PLAYGROUND
Lonely Oak, Rhodes, Selma
12. SAMPSON PLAYGROUND
Louisa, Treasure, Piety, Benefit
13. MORRISON AVENUE PLAYSPOT
Congress at Morrison
14. ROSENWALD CENTER
Earhart Blvd., S. Broad & Clio
15. SHAKESPEARE CENTER
Freret, Third, LaSalle & Washington
16. PONTCHARTRAIN PARK STADIUM
Haynes, Caddie, Montegut
66
17. DESIRE PROJECT
Alvar & Florida Sts.
18. LEE PLAYGROUND
N. Miro, Andry & Tonti Sts.
19. LEMANN PLAYGROUND
Lafitte, N. Claiborne & N. Prieur Sts.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY #3
By rule of the Recreation Department and by
publication of 1962 facility list.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY #4
Following are the recreational activities and events
carried on or planned by the New Orleans Recrea
tion Department for 1963:
Basketball, Track & Field, Golf Clinic, Softball,
Baseball, Swimming, Tennis, Archery, Football,
Fishing Rodeo, Volleyball, Bowling, Day Camp,
Dancing Recitals, Soap Box Derby, Skatemobile
Derby, Miniature Carnival Parade & Ball, Travel
ing Theatre, Charm School, Puppet Demonstra
tions, Children’s Theatre, Visit Your Center Night,
Seasonal Parties, Annual Mother’s Day Program,
Playground Youth of the Year, Christmas Pro
gram, Fine Arts Festival, Drama Workshop.
The activities herein above mentioned are available
to negroes and whites with the exception of the
Soap Box Derby and the Skatemobile Derby. The
Soap Box Derby is for white only, and the Skate
mobile Derby is for negroes only.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY #5
Following are the special classes, workshops, etc.,
carried on or planned by the New Orleans Recrea
tion Department for 1963:
Art Classes, Ballet Classes, Baton Classes, Ceramic
Classes, Craft Classes, Drama Classes, Fencing
67
Classes, Fun Club, Golden Age, Interpretive Danc
ing Classes, Library, Movies, Opera Workshop,
Orchestra, Piano Classes, Rangers, Rangerettes,
Square Dancing Classes, Tap Dancing, Tumbling
Classes, Variety Workshop, Social Dancing, Doll
Shows.
The activities herein above mentioned are avail
able to negroes and to whites.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY #6
The tours or field trips during the year 1962
and/or planned for 1963 are as follows:
Golden Age Tours, Ranger Camp-Outs, Rangerette
Camp-Outs, Square Dancer Tours, Athletic Team
Trips, Day Camp Tours.
Tours and field trips such as the above can be
participated in by Negro groups whenever initi
ated in their program.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY #7
NORD FACILITIES
CITY OWNED
ANNUNCIATION PLAYGROUND
Race, Annunciation, Chippewa & Orange Sts.
ART DEPARTMENT
2711 Dauphine St.
BEHRMAN HEIGHTS
Square 22, MacArthur, Mercedes & Halsey Sts.
BEHRMAN MEMORIAL CENTER
2529 Gen. Meyer Ave. (Algiers)
BODENGER PLAYGROUND
Hudson, Memorial Park Dr., Nevada & Kansas Sts.
(Algiers)
BOE PLAYGROUND
Hibernia St. & St. Roch Ave.
68
BONART PLAYGROUND
Forstall, Marais, Lizardi & Urquhart Sts.
BROADMOOR PLAYSPOT
Gen. Pershing & So. Broad Sts.
BUNNY FRIEND PLAYGROUND
Desire, Gallier, N. & S. Bunny Friends Sts.
CABRINI PLAYGROUND
Barracks, Dauphine & Burgundy Sts.
KERRY CURLEY PLAYGROUND
Dwyer Rd., Camelot & Knight Sts.
CHILDREN’S MUSEUM
1218 Burgundy St.
CLAY PLAYGROUND
Chippewa, Second & Annunciation Sts.
COLISEUM PLAYGROUND
Camp, Coliseum, Race Sts. & Melpomene Ave.
CONRAD PLAYGROUND
Hamilton, Edinburgh, Mistletoe & Olive Sts.
COSTUME DEPARTMENT
907 Terpsichore St.
CURTIS PLAYGROUND
Lake Ave. & Yacht Harbor
DELCAZEL PLAYGROUND
Opelousas, Verret & Seguin Sts. (Algiers)
DESMARE PLAYGROUND
Esplanade Ave. & Moss St.
DEVORE PLAYGROUND
Newton, Brooklyn & Diana Sts.
DI BENEDETTO PLAYGROUND
Chef Menteur Hwy, Prentiss, Pressburg &
Papania Sts.
DIGBY PLAYGROUND
Dwyer, E. Hermes & Virginia Sts.
69
DONNELLY PLAYGROUND
Wildair Dr., Burbank & Wingate Sts.
DUBLIN PLAYGROUND
Dublin, Hampson & Maple Sts.
DULCICH PLAYSPOT
Rear of Behrman Memorial Stadium (Algiers).
ELEONORE PLAYGROUND
Eleonore, Annunciation & Alonzo Sts.
EQUIPMENT WAREHOUSE
2540 N. Prieur St.
EVANS PLAYGROUND
Soniat, LaSalle, Dufossat & So. Liberty Sts.
FILMORE PLAYGROUND
Rapides St., Wildair & Wingate Drs.
FOX PLAYGROUND
Whitney Ave., & Lamarque St. (Algiers)
GATTO PLAYGROUND
Windsor & Wildair Drs.
HALL PLAYGROUND
Milton & Davey Sts.
HARDIN PLAYGROUND
Allen, N. Dorgenois, New Orleans & Law Sts.
HARRIS PLAYGROUND
4983 Louisa Dr.
JEFF DAVIS PLAYGROUND
S. Jeff Davis Pkwy., D’Hemecourt, S. Clark &
Baudin Sts.
KELLER PLAYGROUND
S. Robertson & Felicity Sts.
KIWANIS PLAYSPOT
Pelican & Verret Sts. (Algiers)
LARKIN PLAYGROUND
Amann, Delaronde & Bauman Sts. (Algiers)
70
LAWRENCE PLAYSPOT
Adjacent to Napoleon Ave. & Magazine Branch
Library
LAWRENCE SQUARE
Magazine & Camp Sts., Napoleon Ave.
LEE PLAYGROUND
N. Miro, Andry & Tonti Sts.
LEMANN PLAYGROUND
Lafitte, N. Claiborne & Marais Sts.
LEMANN PLAYGROUND
Lafitte, N. Claiborne & N. Prieur Sts.
LEWIS PLAYSPOT
St. Bernard & London Ave., N. Prieur St.
LYONS MEMORIAN CENTER
624 Louisiana Ave.
MAGAZINE PLAYSPOT
Magazine St. & Sophie Wright Place
MAGAZINE STREET WAREHOUSE
1043 Magazine St.
MAINTENANCE WAREHOUSE
830 Julia St.
MANDEVILLE CENTER
718 Mandeville St.
McCUE PLAYGROUND
Franklin Ave., Florida, Law & Eads Sts.
McDo n o u g h p l a y g r o u n d
Teche, Ptolemy, Brooklyn & Lawrence Sts.
(Algiers)
McKAY PLAYGROUND
Mound, Woodlawn Ave., Rosemary PI.
MILNE PLAYGROUND
Odin, Arts, Music, Mithra & Filmore Sts.
MILTENBERGER PLAYGROUND
Peoples & Filmore Aves.
71
MIRABEAU PLAYSPOT
Chatham & Chase Drs.
MUNY PARK
8420 Olive St. Part City Owned
NORD ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
Room l-W-16, City Hall
NORMAN PLAYGROUND
Eton St., Berkley Dr. & McArthur Blvd. (Algiers)
OAK PARK PLAYGROUND
Perlita, Riviera & Cartier Sts.
PHILIP PLAYGROUND
Philip & Saratoga Sts.
PLUM ORCHARD PLAYGROUND
Prentiss, Camelia, Tulop & Dreux Sts.
PONTCHARTRAIN PARK STADIUM
Haynes Blvd., Caddie Rd. & Montegut Dr.
PRATT PARK
Prentiss Ave., Pratt & Chatham Drs.
RIVER PARK PLAY GROUND
Foot of Tullis St. & Pittari PI.
ROBERT PLAYGROUND
Lonely Oak Dr., Rhoes & Selma Sts.
ROBIN PLAYGROUND
Peoples Ave. & Hibernia St.
ROEHM PARK
Abundance, Pauger, Agriculture & Touro Sts.
ROEHM PLAYSPOT
Agriculture & Pauger Sts.
ROME PLAYSPOT
Hibernia & St. Anthony Sts.
ROSENWALD CENTER
Earhart Blvd., S. Broad & Clio Sts.
ST. JAMES PLAYGROUND
St. Roch Ave., Filmore, Music & Mithra Sts.
72
ST. PATRICK PLAYGROUND
St. Patrick, Baudin & S. Bernadotte Sts.
ST. ROCH PLAYGROUND
St. Roch Ave., N. Johnson & N. Roman Sts.
SAMPSON PLAYGROUND
Louisa, Treasure, Piety & Benefit Sts.
SAMUEL SQUARE
2000 Napoleon Ave.
SCHABEL PLAYGROUND
Iroquois & Hiawatha Sts.
SHAKESPEARE CENTER
Freret, Third, LaSalle & Washington Sts.
SKELLY BASEBALL PARK
Pacific, Lamarque, Elmire & DeArmas Sts.
SKELLY GYM
Pacific, Lamarque, Elmira, & DeArmas St.
(Algiers)
SORAPARU PLAYGROUND
Soraparu and Tchoupitoulas Sts.
STALLINGS CENTER
St. Claude Ave., Lesseps & N. Rampart Sts.
STALLINGS PLAYGROUND
Gentilly, Lapeyrouse & Paul Morphy Sts.
TAYLOR PLAYGROUND
Washington Ave., S. Derbigny & S. Roman Sts.
UNION PLAYGROUND
St. Roch Ave., Fairmont Dr. & Elder St.
WASHINGTON PLAYGROUND
Elysian Fields Ave., Royal, Frenchman &
Dauphine Sts.
WERNER PLAYGROUND
300 Werner Dr.
WISNER PLAYGROUND
Laurel, Lyons & Upper line Sts.
73
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY #8
NORD FACILITIES
LOANED
ALVAR CENTER
2601 Alvar St.
(Hsg. Authority)
AUDUBON PARK BALL DIAMONDS &
TENNIS COURTS
River Road & Zoo Drive
(Audubon Pk. Board)
CARVER PLAYGROUND
Lowerline & Prytania Sts.
(U.S. Ind. Chem. Co.
CITY PARK BALL DIAMONDS
Harrison & Marconi Sts.
(City Park Bd.)
CUCCIA-BYRNES PLAYGROUND
Waldo Burton Memorial Home
Olive & Forshey Sts.
(Waldo Burton Mem. Home)
DANNELL PLAYGROUND
St. Charles, Octavia & Dannell Sts.
(Pkwy. Comm.)
DELGADO CENTER
Navarre & Gen. Diaz Sts.
(Delgado Board)
DESIRE PROJECT GROUND
Alvar & Florida Sts.
(Hsg. Authority)
DREYFUS PLAYSPOT
Stroelitz & Mistletoe Sts.
(Geo. Dreyfus)
EASTON PARK
Toulouse, N. Lopez, St. Peter & N. Rendon Sts.
(Orleans Par. Schl. Bd.)
74
ESPENAN PLAYGROUND
Trafalgar & Beauvoir Sts.
(Orleans Par. Schl. Bd.)
NORD THEATRE
545 St. Charles
(N.O. Center Cultural Comm.)
HANYE-LAKESHORE PLAYSPOT
Hayne Blvd., Alabama, Wales & Lamb Sts.
(Haynes-Lakeshore Improv. Ass’n.)
INDEST PLAYGROUND
Alabo & Chartres Sts.
(N.O. Butchers)
N. JEFF DAVIS PLAYSPOT
N. Jeff Davis Pkwy, Canal & Iberville Sts.
(Parkway Comm.)
S. JEFF DAVIS PLAYSPOT
S. Jeff Davis Pkwy., Canal & Cleveland
(Pkwy. Comm.)
JUNO PLAYSPOT
5100 Gen. Meyer Ave. (Algiers)
(Univ. of N.O.)
KIRSCH-ROONEY STADIUM
Gen. Diaz & Greenwood Sts.
(Delgado Board)
LAKELAND TERRACE PLAYGROUND
Seawood St., Read Rd., Dwyer Canal
(Leased from L. P. Smith)
LAKE VISTA PLAYSPOT
Spanish Ft. Blvd., Central Park, Breeze Park
(Orleans Levee Bd.)
LITTLE FLOWER PLAYGROUND
Monroe & Palmetto Sts.
(Catholic Diocese)
MARGARET PLAYSPOT
Camp, Clio & Prytania Sts.
(Pkwy. Comm.)
75
McDONOGH MEMORIAL PARK
Verret, Bermuda & Alex Sts. (Algiers)
(Pkwy. Comm.)
McDONOGH PLAYSPOT
Toledano & Prytania Sts.
(Pkwy. Comm.)
McNEELY PLAYGROUND
Patterson & Elmira Sts. (Algiers)
(Orleans Par. School Bd.)
MORRISON AVENUE PLAYSPOT
Congress & Morrison Sts.
(Pkwy. Comm.)
MUNY PARK
8420 Olive St.
V2 owned by City
V2 Lnd. by Waldo Burton
NORD-CITY PARK CASTING PIER
City Park near Harrison Ave. & Marconi Dr.
(City Pk. Bd.)
NORD STADIUM
S. Claiborne Ave. Leonidas St. Sycamore PI.
(S & W B.)
PIETY-ROYAL PLAYGROUND
Piety & Royal Sts.
(Catholic Diocese)
ST. DOMINIC PLAYGROUND
Vicksburg & Bragg Sts.
(Catholic Diocese)
ST. FRANCES CABRINI
1500 Prentiss Ave.
(Catholic Diocese)
ST. MARY CENTER SWIMMING POOL
Gov. Nicholas & Chartres Sts.
(Lnd. by Catholic Diocese)
ST. PIUS X PLAYGROUND
#6600 Spanish Fort Blvd.
(Catholic Diocese)
76
SAMUEL PLAYSPOT
2001 Napoleon Ave.
(Catholic Diocese)
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY #9
There are no Negro employees employed as super
visors, park teachers, etc., at any of the white rec
reational facilities.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY #10
There are no white employees employed as super
visors, park teachers, etc., at any of the Negro rec
reational facilities.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY #11
FOLLOWING ARE THE RECREATIONAL FA
CILITIES USED OR OPERATED ON A SEA
SONAL BASIS:
DESIRE PROJECT NEGRO
Alvar & Florida St.
HYNES SCHOOL WHITE
990 Harrison Ave.
LAWTON SCHOOL NEGRO
1131 Odeon St.
WILLIAMS SCHOOL NEGRO
3120 Thalia St.
CITY PARK DIAMONDS WHITE
City Park
AUDUBON PARK DIAMONDS WHITE
Audubon Park
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY #12
FOLLOWING ARE THE WHITE RECREA
TIONAL FACILITIES DESIGNATED AS AA
TYPE FACILITIES.
77
STALLINGS CENTER
St. Claude, Lesseps & N. Rampart
LYONS MEMORIAL CENTER
624 Louisiana Ave.
BEHRMAN MEMORIAL CENTER
2529 Gen. Meyers Ave. (Algiers)
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY #13
FOLLOWING ARE THE NEGRO RECREA
TIONAL FACILITIES DESIGNATED AS AA
TYPE FACILITIES
ROSENWALD CENTER
Earhart Blvd., S. Broad, Clio St.
......FEE...................................
......PROCESS...................... ..
X CHARGE HAM
...... INDEX..............................
......ORDER.......................... ..
......HEARING.......................
DOCUMENT NO. 19
M
78
STATE OF LOUISIANA
PARISH OF ORLEANS
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally
came and appeared:
ERNEST H. GOULD
of the full age of majority, who after being sworn by me
did depose and state: That he is the Executive Assistant
Director of the New Orleans Recreation Department and
that the foregoing answers to interrogatories propounded
are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, infor
mation and belief.
/ s / ERNEST H. GOULD
ERNEST H. GOULD
Executive Assistant Direcor
New Orleans Recreation Department
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED
BEFORE ME THIS 5th DAY OF
JUNE, 1963.
/ s / ERNEST L. SALATICH
ERNEST L. SALATICH,
Notary Public
CERTIFICATE
I certify that a copy of the foregoing Answer to
Interrogatories was this date served on counsel for plain
tiffs, Ernest N. Morial and A. P. Tureaud, by mailing
same to their offices at 1821 Orleans Avenue, New Or
leans, Louisiana, and, on Jack Greenberg, James M.
Nabrit, III, and, George B. Smith, by mailing same to
their offices at 10 Columbus Circle, New York 19, New
York, through the U. S. Mails, postage prepaid.
New Orleans, Louisiana
5 June, 1963
/ s / ERNEST L. SALATICH
EKINEST L. SALATICH
79
U. S. District Court
Eastern District of Louisiana
Filed May 31 1963
A. Dallam O’Brien, Jr., Clerk
NBJ
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NEW ORLEANS DIVISION
EVANGELINE BARTHE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION
-NO. 12,968
DIVISION “ D”
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Plaintiffs move the Court for a preliminary injunc
tion enjoining the defendants, their agents, servants, em
ployees and attorneys and all persons in active concert
and participation with them, pending the final hearing
and determination of this action, from acting pursuant to
LSA-R.S. 33:4558.1 and from denying to plaintiffs, and
to those similarly situated, the use and enjoyment of pub
lic parks, recreation centers, playgrounds, community
centers, recreational programs, and all other recreational
facilities under the control, direction, and administration
of the defendants on the grounds that:
1) Unless restrained by this Court defendant will
perform the acts referred to;
2) Such action by the defendants will result in
irreparable injury, loss and damage to the
plaintiffs, as more particularly appears and
will further appear in the complaint, and other
pleadings and documentary evidence filed in
this case, and ore terms and documentary evi
dence which plaintiffs will present at the hear
ing of this motion;
3) The issuance of a preliminary injunction here
in will not cause undue inconvenience or loss
80
to defendants but will prevent irreparable in
jury to plaintiffs.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that the motion for
preliminary injunction be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
/ e / ERNEST N. MORIAL
ERNEST N. MORIAL
A. P. TUREAUD
1821 Orleans Avenue
New Orleans, Louisiana
JACK GREENBERG
JAMES M. NABRIT, III
GEORGE B. SMITH
10 Columbus Circle
New York 19, New York
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
......f e e ..........................
......PROCESS........... .
X CHARGE HAM
......INDEX....................
......ORDER.................
V HEARING M
DOCUMENT NO. 20
WBJ
81
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NEW ORLEANS DIVISION
EVANGELINE BARTHE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION
- NO. 12,968
DIVISION “ D”
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that I served a copy of the plain
tiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Notice of Mo
tion, and Memorandum in Support of Motion for Prelim
inary Injunction upon Alvin J. Liska, Esq. and Ernest
L. Salatich, Esq., Room 2W23, City Hall, New Orleans,
Louisiana, by depositing copies addressed to them as in
dicated, in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, this
31st day of May, 1963.
/ s / ERNEST N. MORIAL
Attorney for Plaintiffs
82
EVANGELINE BARTHE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, et al.,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
1. On January 14, 1963, Chief Judge, Elbert P.
Tuttle, of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit des
ignated a three-judge court to hear the above-entitled
case. He acted pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281 and
2284. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2281 requires the designation of
a three-judge court in an action for “an interlocutory or
permanent injunction restraining the enforcement, opera
tion or execution of any State statute by restraining the
action of any officer of such State in the enforcement or
execution of such statute * * * upon the ground of the
unconstitutionality of such statute. * * * ” Title 28
U.S.C. § 2284 requires the chief judge of the circuit to
designate two other judges to hear and decide, along with
the district judge to whom application for injunction is
made, any case which falls within the provisions of 28
U.S.C. § 2281. It is submitted that several court decisions
render a three-judge court unnecessary in this case.
Where, as here, there is no serious question of the
unconstitutionality of a state statute, a three-judge court
need not be designated to hear the case. Turner v. Mem
phis, 369 U.S. 350; Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U.S. 31;
Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board, 138 F. Supp. 336
(E.D. La. 1956) leave to file petition for mandamus de
nied, 351 U.S. 948; Willis v. Walker, 136 F. Supp. 181
(W.D. Ky. 1955). The lack of a substantial constitution
al question may appear either because the claim of con
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NEW ORLEANS DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION
-NO. 12,968
DIVISION “ D”
83
stitutionality “ is obviously without merit or because its
unsoundness so clearly results from the previous decisions
of the Supreme Court as to foreclose the subject.” Willis
v. Walker, Id. at 183; Turner v. Memphis, 369 U.S. at
353. When such a clearly unconstitutional statute is at
tacked, no three-judge court is required since “ the policy
behind the three-judge requirement—that a single judge
ought not to be empowered to invalidate a state statute
under a federal claim—does not apply.” Bailey v. Patter
son, 369 U.S. at 33.
It is now settled beyond question that enforced racial
segregation in the public parks of a city is in violation of
the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the
United States. Dawson v. the M ayor and City Council
of Baltimore City, 220 F. 2d 386 (Fourth Circuit 1955),
aff’d 350 U.S. 877; Holmes v. C ity o f Atlanta, 124 F.
Supp. 290 (N.D. Ga. 1954), aff’d 223 F.2d 93 (Fifth
Circuit 1955) reversed 350 U.S. 879; Shuttlesworth v.
Gaylord, 202 F. Supp. 59 (N.D. Ala. 1961), aff’d 310
F.2d 303 (Fifth Circuit 1962) ; Gilmore v. City o f Mont
gomery, Alabama, 176 F. Supp. 776 (M.D. Ala. 1959),
aff’d 277 F.2d 364 (Fifth Circuit 1960) ; Department o f
Conservation and Development, Division o f Parks, Com
monwealth o f Virginia v. Tate, 231 F. 2d 615 (Fourth
Circuit 1956) , aff’d 352 U.S. 838; City o f St. Petersburg
v. Alsup, 238 F. 2d 830, (Fifth Circuit 1956) Moorehead
v. City o f F ort Lauderdale, 152 F. Supp. 131 (S.D. Fla.
1957), a ff’d 248 F.2d 544 (Fifth Circuit 1957) ; Fayson
v. Bell, 134 F. Supp. 379 (E.D. Texas 1955) ; W ard v.
City of Miami, Florida, 151 F. Supp. 593 (S.D. Fla.
1957) ; Willie v. Haley County, Texas, 202 F. Supp. 549
(S.D. Texas 1962) ; Bohler v. Lane, 204 F. Supp. 168
(S.D. Fla. 1962). As the Supreme Court said on April
29, 1963 in Johnson v. Virginia, 31 U.S. Law Week
3353, ___ , “ it is no longer open to question that a State
may not constitutionally require segregation of public
facilities.”
Moreover legislation “ authorizing discriminatory
classification based exclusively on color clearly violates
84
the Fourteenth Amendment.” Burton v. Wilmington
Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715, 727 (concurring opin
ion of Mr. Justice Stewart). Consistently in area after
area the Supreme Court has held that race is not a legiti
mate means of legislative classification by the state. Race
has been disapproved as a determining factor in the right
to follow a lawful occupation, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118
U.S. 356; the right to serve on juries, Carter v. Texas,
177 U.S. 442; the right not to be excluded from residential
areas, Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60; the right to par
ticipate in primary elections, Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S.
536; and the right to attend public schools, Brown v.
Board of Public Instruction, 347 U.S. 443.
The foregoing cases clearly establish that LSA-R.S.
33:4558.1 which requires that recreational facilities in the
State of Louisiana “shall be operated separately for mem
bers of the white and colored races” is unconstitutional.
2. As admitted by defendants in their answer, the
public parks, recreation centers, playgrounds, community
centers, recreational programs, and facilities of the City
of New Orleans are operated by them on a racially seg
regated basis. On or about June 8, 1962 approximately
1,000 Negroes including the adult plaintiffs submitted a
formal written petition to the Mayor, Councilmen of the
City of New Orleans, and the Director of the Recreation
Department of the City of New Orleans. This petition
prayed that all the facilities and programs of the New
Orleans Recreation Department be available to all the
citizens in New Orleans without regard to race, color, or
creed. A copy of the said petition was submitted to the
New Orleans Parkway and Park Commission on or about
October 31, 1962. The only communication that the plain
tiffs have received from the defendants since submitting
the petition is a letter, referred to in paragraph 11 of the
complaint, from the New Orleans Parkway and Park
Commission to Arthur J. Chapital, Sr. stating that the
facilities listed in the said petition were under the juris
diction of the New Orleans Recreation Department. De
fendants have admitted that they have sent no other
85
reply and have admitted that no action has been taken
to grant the reqest in the petition that all the recreational
facilities of the New Orleans Recreation Department in
the City of New Orleans be made available to everyone
with regard to race, creed, or color. The latest publi
cation of the New Orleans Recreation Department listing
the recreation facilities in New Orleans and designating
them by race, a publication entitled “ NORD facilities,”
shows that as of 1962 some 152 recreational facilities in
the City of New Orleans were operated on a segregated
basis.
3. A Court has no discretion to deny relief by pre
liminary injunction to a person who clearly establishes
that he is being denied a constitutional right. H enry v.
Greenville A irport Commission, 284 F.2d 631, 633 Fourth
Circuit 1960; Clemons v. Board o f Education o f Hillsbor
ough, 228 F.2d 853, 857 Sixth Circuit 1956, Board o f Su
pervisors o f Louisiana State University v. Wilson, 340
U. S. 909. In Adams v. City o f N ew Orleans, 208 F.
Supp. 427 (E.D. La. 1962), which was a suit to enjoin
segregation of the races in certain airport facilities,
Judge Christenberry, after finding unconstitutional state
action, issued a preliminary injunction. There can be no
question that state enforced segregation in recreational
facilities is unconstitutional. Here there is no question
that segregation of recreational facilities is required by
LSA-R.S. 33:4558.1 in violation of the Fourteenth Amend
ment. It is equally clear that public recreational facili
ties in the City of New Orleans are segregated on a racial
basis and are under the control and administration of the
defendants. Since the statute is plainly unconstitutional
and since the plaintiffs are being denied a constitutional
right it is submitted that the three-judge court should be
dismissed, and that upon hearing and determination of
the matter by the resident district judge a preliminary
injunction should be issued restraining the defendants
from enforcing LSA-R.S. 33:4558.1 and from engaging
in any form of racially discriminatory practice in connec
tion with the recreational facilities as prayed in the com
plaint.
86
Respectfully submitted,
/ s / ERNEST N. MORIAL
ERNEST N. MORIAL
A. P. TUREAUD
1821 Orleans Avenue
New Orleans, Louisiana
JACK GREENBERG
JAMES M. NABRIT, III
GEORGE B. SMITH
10 Columbus Circle
New York 19, New York
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
87
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NEW ORLEANS DIVISION
EVANGELINE BARTHE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION
- NO. 12,968
DIVISION “ D”
NOTICE OF MOTION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed
motion and the matters referred to herein, the plaintiffs
will move this Court at the United States Court House,
New Orleans, Louisiana, on the 26th day of June, 1963
at 10:00 A.M. or as soon thereafter as counsel can be
heard, for an order granting a preliminary injunction
against defendants upon the ground stated therein.
/ s / ERNEST N. MORIAL
ERNEST N. MORIAL
A. P. TUREAUD
1821 Orleans Avenue
New Orleans, Louisiana
JACK GREENBERG
JAMES M. NABRIT, III
GEORGE B. SMITH
10 Columbus Circle
New York 19, New York
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
TO: Alvin J. Liska, City Attorney
Ernest L. Salatich, Assistant City Attorney
Room 2W23, City Hall
New Orleans, Louisiana
88
U. S. District Court
Eastern District of Louisiana
Filed Jun 10 1963
A. Dallam O’Brien, Jr., Clerk
FCB
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NEW ORLEANS DIVISION
EVANGELINE BARTHE, ET ALS,
Plaintiffs
VS.
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET ALS,
Defendants
NO. 12,968
i CIVIL ACTION
| DIVISION “ D”
J
ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES
Defendants, City of New Orleans, Victor H. Schiro,
individually and as Mayor of the City of New Orleans;
James E. Fitzmorris, Jr., Joseph V. Di Rosa, Henry B.
Curtis, Walter F. Marcus, Clarence 0. Dupuy, John J.
Petre, Daniel L. Kelly, individually and as Councilmen
of the City of New Orleans; Joseph Giarrusso, individu
ally and as Superintendent of Police of the City of New
Orleans, New Orleans Parkway and Park Commission;
Felix Seeger, Superintendent, Herman E. Farley, Wilson
S. Callender, A. L. Norris, Max Scheinuk, Herbert Jahn-
cke, Lester J. Lautenschlaeger, L. A. Malony, Sr., J. P.
Gentilich, M. E. Poison, Mrs. Joe W. Brown and Mrs.
S. M. Blackshear, individually and as members of the
New Orleans Park and Parkway Commission, answers
the Interrogatories served upon them by Plaintiffs here
in on May 20, 1963, as follows:
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY #1
Recreational centers under the jurisdiction of the
Parkway & Park Commission are: Lake Pontchartrain
Park and Golf Course, and John P. Brechtel Memorial
89
Park. In all other parks, squares, triangles, places, other
than City Park and the Audubon Park, the Commission’s
responsibility is maintenance of grounds; that is, mowing
of grass, care of trees and shrubbery.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY #2
Lake Pontchartrain Park is segregated park and
golf course, for colored only. Brechtel Park has been used
on a small scale by negroes.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY #3
No signs or marking of any type are placed in the
Lake Pontchartrain Park for negro use, nor any sign for
use of concession house and playground equipment. Same
applies to Brechtel Park. In the Lake Pontchartrain
Park, it was the ruling of the Parkway & Park Commis
sion when this park was developed for negro use to ban
the white people from using it.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY #4
No recreational activities are sponsored or adminis
tered by the Parkway & Park Commission.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY #5
No special classes, work shops, etc. are sponsored or
administered by the Parkway & Park Commission.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY #6
No field trips, etc. are sponsored or administered by
the Parkway & Park Commission.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY #7
All recreational facilities, except those in Lake Pont
chartrain Park, Brechtel Park and West End Park, are
under the jurisdiction of the New Orleans Recreation
Department.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY #8
No recreational facilities other than the Lake Pont
chartrain Park Golf course is controlled or administered
90
by the Parkway & Park Commission.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY #9
White recreational facilities in various parks are not
controlled or administered by the Parkway & Park Com
mission.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY #10
In Lake Pontchartrain Park and Golf Course, the
Golf Pro and Assistant are negroes and all employees are
negroes. Concessions are leased to negroes. The Main
tenance Repairman is a white employee.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY #11
Recreational facilities operated on a seasonal basis
are not controlled or administered by the Parkway &
Park Commission.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY #12
White recreational facilities are not controlled or ad
ministered by the Parkway & Park Commission.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY #13
Negro community centers are not under the control
or administered by the Parkway & Park Commission.
STATE OF LOUISIANA
PARISH OF ORLEANS
91
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally
came and appeared:
FELIX SEEGER,
of the full age of majority, who after being sworn by me
did depose and state: That he is the Superintendent of
the Parkway & Park Commission of the City of New
Orleans and that the foregoing answers to interrogatories
propounded are true and correct to the best of his knowl
edge, information and belief.
/ s / FELIX SEEGER
FELIX SEEGER
Superintendent of
Parkway & Park Commission
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED
BEFORE ME THIS 6th DAY OF
JUNE, 1963.
/ s / ERNEST L. SALATICH
ERNEST L. SALATICH
Notary Public
CERTIFICATE
I certify that a copy of the foregoing Answers to
Interrogatories was this date served on counsel for plain
tiffs, Ernest N. Morial and A. P. Tureaud, by mailing
same to their offices at 1821 Orleans Avenue, New Or
leans, Louisiana, and, on Jack Greenberg, James M.
Nabrit, III, and, George B. Smith, by mailing same to
their offices at 10 Columbus Circle, New York 19, New
York, through the U. S. Mails, postage prepaid.
New Orleans, Louisiana
92
7th June, 1963
/ s / ERNEST L. SALATICH
ERNEST L. SALATICH
......FEE...........................
......PROCESS................
X CHARGE HAM
......INDEX......................
......ORDER.................... .
......HEARING...............
DOCUMENT NO. 21
M
93
U. S. District Court
Eastern District of Louisiana
JUN 24 1963
A. Dallam O’Brien, Jr., Clerk
FCB
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NEW ORLEANS DIVISION
EVANGELINE BARTHE, ET ALS, 1
Plaintiffs
VS
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET ALS
NO. 12,968
[-CIVIL ACTION
| DIVISION “ D”
Defendants J
MOTION TO DISMISS PARTIES DEFENDANT
Now into Court through undersigned counsel comes
James E. Fitzmorris, Jr., Joseph V. Di Rosa, Henry B.
Curtis, Walter F. Marcus, Clarence 0. Dupuy, John J.
Petre, and, Daniel L. Kelly. Individually and as Council-
men of the City of New Orleans, sought to be made de
fendants herein and, appearing herein solely for the pur
pose of this motion, reserving all of their rights to file
appropriate further pleadings herein, and without waiv
ing in any manner whatsoever any and all defenses of every
nature, which may be available to them, move the Court
for an Order dismissing them as party defendants herein
on the ground that none of them individually or collectively
ly are able to give the complainants the relief sought by
complainants.
/ s / ALVIN J. LISKA
ALVIN J. LISKA
City Attorney
/ s / ERNEST L. SALATICH
ERNEST'L. SALATICH
Assistant City Attorney
Room 2W23— City Hall
New Orleans, Louisiana
94
CERTIFICATE
I do here by certify that the above and foregoing
Motion was filed in good faith and not merely for the
purpose of delay and that a copy of same was served
upon opposing counsel of record by depositing same in
the United States mail addressed to counsel at their last
known address.
/ s / ERNEST L. SALATICH
ERNEST L. SALATICH
Assistant City Attorney
New Orleans, Louisiana
24th June, 1963
NOTICE
TO: MESSRS:
ERNEST N. MORIAL
A. P. TUREAUD
Attorneys at Law
1821 Orleans Avenue
New Orleans, Louisiana
MOTION
JACK GREENBERG
Attorney at Law
10 Columbus Circle
New York 19,
New York
OF
Please take notice, that the undersigned will bring
on the above motion to dismiss for hearing before this
Court at the United States Court House, 400 Royal
Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, on the 26th day of June,
1963, at 10:00 o’clock in the forenoon of that day or as
soon thereafter as counsel can be heard.
/ s / ALVIN J. LISKA
ALVIN J. LISKA, E.L.S.
City Attorney
/ s / ERNEST L. SALATICH
ERNEST L. SALATICH
Assistant City Attorney
Room 2W23— City Hall
New Orleans, Louisiana
......f e e ..................................
......PROCESS.......................
X CHARGE HAM
...... INDEX.............................
......ORDER...........................
M
DOCUMENT NO. 23(23)
95
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NEW ORLEANS DIVISION
EVANGELINE BARTHE, ET ALS, '
Plaintiffs
Versus
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET ALS
Defendants
NO. 12,968
CIVIL ACTION
DIVISION “ D”
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Now into Court, through undersigned counsel, comes
the City of New Orleans, Victor H. Schiro, individually
and as Mayor of the City of New Orleans; James E.
Fitzmorris, Jr., Joseph V. Di Rosa, Henry B. Curtis,
Walter F. Marcus, Clarence 0. Dupuy, John J. Petre,
Daniel L. Kelly, individually and as Councilmen of the
City of New Orleans; Lester J. Lautenschlaeger, individ
ually and as Director, Department of Recreation of the
City of New Orleans; Joseph Giarrusso individually and
as Superintendent of Police of the City of New Orleans,
New Orleans Parkway and Park Commission; Felix
Seeger, Superintendent; Herman E. Farley, Wilson S.
Callender, A. L. Norris, Max Scheinuk, Herbert Jahncke,
Lester J. Lautenschlaeger, L. A. Malony, Sr., J. P. Gen-
tilich, M. E. Poison, Mrs. Joe W. Brown and Mrs. S. M.
Blackshear, individually and as members of the New
Orleans Park and Parkway Commission, sought to be
made defendants herein, reserving all of their rights to
file other appropriate motions and pleadings herein, and
without waiving in any manner any and all defenses of
every nature which may be available to them, oppose the
granting of a preliminary injunction herein for the fol
lowing reasons:
1) The complaint fails to state a claim upon which
the relief sought can be granted.
96
2) The complaint fails to show the jurisdiction of
this Court.
3) The complaint fails to show a basis for relief be
cause of the facts shown in the counter affidavits
which are annexed hereto and made a part hereof
as if written herein in full.
WHEREFORE, the defendants hereinabove set out
pray that the motion for preliminary injunction herein
be denied.
/ s / ALVIN J. LISKA
ALVIN J. LISKA
City Attorney
/ s / ERNEST L. SALATICH
ERNEST L. SALATICH,
Assistant City Attorney
Room 2W23—City Hall
New Orleans, Louisiana
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that a copy of the above opposition
to plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction has
been served on opposing counsel of record by sending
them a copy of same through the United States mail at
their last known address.
/ s / ERNEST L. SALATICH
ERNEST L. SALATICH
Assistant City Attorney
New Orleans, Louisiana
24th June, 1963.
97
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NEW ORLEANS DIVISION
EVANGELINE BARTHE, ET ALS,
Plaintiffs
Versus
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET ALS,
Defendants
NO. 12,968
- CIVIL ACTION
DIVISION “ D”
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA
PARISH OF ORLEANS
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally
came and appeared:
ANTHONY CIACCIO
of the full age of majority, who after being sworn by me
did depose and state:
1) That he is the Director of the Division of Public
Health Statistics of the Louisiana State Board of Health.
That as such the records of his office have the reports
of the causes of death and causes of morbidity in Orleans
Parish.
2) That from the reports received by his office as to the
causes of death in Louisiana and Orleans Parish the at
tached table marked Exhibit “A ” shows the deaths as to
white and non-white persons attributable to syphilis for
the years 1960, 1961, and 1962.
3) That when in those instances that private physicians
turned in reports to his office and from the reports filed
with his office from public clinics, the attached table
98
marked Exhibit “B” , “C” and “ D” shows the causes of
morbidity in Orleans Parish as to white and non-white
persons attributable to the diseases therein set out.
/ s / ANTHONY CIACCIO
ANTHONY CIACCIO
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED
BEFORE ME THIS 21st DAY
OF JUNE, 1963.
/ s / ERNEST L. SALATICH
NOTARY PUBLIC
SYPHILIS MORTALITY
STATE OF LOUISIANA AND ORLEANS PARISH
EXHIBIT “A”
LOUISIANA
YEAR TOTAL
NUMBER RATE
WHITE
NUMBER RATE
NON-WHITE
NUMBER RATE
1960 102 3.1 14 0.6 88 8.4
1961 105 3.2 24 1.1 81 7.6
1962 96 2.8 20 0.9 76 7.0
3 YEAR TOTAL 303 3.0 58 0.9 245 7.6
ORLEANS
YEAR
1960 46 7.3 6 1.5 40 17.0
1961 34 5.3 8 2.0 26 10.8
1962 35 5.4 8 2.0 27 11.0
3 YEAR TOTAL 115 6.0 22 1.8 93 12.9
Rates per 100,000 population.
Louisiana State Board of Health
Division of Public Health Statistics
Tabulation and Analysis Section
Jun 17 1963
EXHIBIT “ B”
PRINCIPAL CAUSES OF MORBIDITY
ORLEANS PARISH
1960
TOTAL
DISEASES NO. RATE
All diseases 7132 1136.5
1. Syphilis 2954 470.7
2. Gonorrhea 1957 311.9
3. Cancer 1570 250.2
4. Tuberculosis, all forms 346 55.1
5. Lymphopathia venereum 56 8.9
6. Streptococcal infections 55 8.8
7. Chancroid 41 6.5
8. Measles 36 5.7
9. Amebiasis 28 4.5
10. Rheumatic fever 24 3.8
All other diseases 65 10.4
WHITE
NO. RATE
NON-WHITE
NO. RATE
2012 512.2 5120 2181.5
493 125.5 2461 1048.6
261 66.4 1696 722.6
977 248.7 593 252.7
161 41.0 185 78.8
— — 56 23.9
50 12.7 5 2.1
7 1.8 34 14.5
24 6.1 12 5.1
15 3.8 13 5.5
6 1.5 18 7.7
18 4.6 47 20.0
Rates per 100,000 population.
Louisiana State Board of Health
Division of Public Health Statistics
Tabulation and Analysis Section
Jun 17 1963
100
PRINCIPAL CAUSES OF MORBIDITY EXHIBIT “ C”
ORLEANS PARISH
1961
DISEASES
TOTAL
NO. RATE
WHITE
NO. RATE
NON-WHITE
NO. RATE
All diseases 6646 1044.7 1924 485.5 4722 1968.8
1. Syphilis 2290 360.0 309 78.0 1981 826.0
2. Gonorrhea 2053 322.7 270 68.1 1783 743.4
3. Cancer 1649 259.2 1022 257.9 627 261.4
4. Tuberculosis, all forms 322 50.6 147 37.1 175 73.0
5. Streptococcal infections 83 13.0 76 19.2 7 2.9
6. Infectious hepatitis
(and serum) 74 11.6 46 11.6 28 11.7
7. Lymphopathia venereum 48 7.5 2 0.5 46 19.2
8. Meningococcal infections 29 4.6 14 3.5 15 6.3
9. Chancroid 21 3.3 10 2.5 11 4.6
10. Measles 16 2.5 12 3.0 4 1.7
11. Poliomyelitis (paralytic and
non paralytic) 15 2.4 4 1.0 11 4.6
12. Diphtheria 12 1.9 1 0.3 11 4.6
All other causes 34 5.3 11 2.8 23 9.6
Rates per 100,000 population.
Louisiana State Board of Health
Division of Public Health Statistics
Tabulation and Analysis Section
Jun 17 1963
101
PRINCIPAL CAUSES OF MORBIDITY EXHIBIT “D”
ORLEANS PARISH
1962
DISEASES
TOTAL
NO. RATE
WHITE
NO. RATE
NON-WHITE
NO. RATE
1.
All diseases 6073* 941.2 1826 456.4 4246 1732.1Gonorrhea 2120 328.6 298 74.5 1822 743.22. Syphilis 1754 271.8 239 59.7 1515 618.03. Cancer 1542 239.0 999 249.7 543 221.54. Tuberculosis, all forms 356 55.2 158 39.5 198 80.85. Measles 57 8.8 34 8.5 23 9 46.
7.
Lymphopathia venereum
Infectious hepatitis
55 8.5 1 0.2 54 22.0
(and serum) 47 7.3 25 6.2 22 9 08. Streptococcal infections 46 7.1 41 10.2 5 2 09. Chancroid 39 6.0 12 3.0 27 11 010. Meningococcal infections 13 2.0 5 1.2 8 3.3All other diseases
* Includes 1 rabies in animals.
44 6.8 14 3.5 29 11.8
Rates per 100,000 population.
Louisiana State Board of Health
Division of Public Health Statistics
Tabulation and Analysis Section
Jun 17 1963
103
(ORIGINAL)
U. S. District Court
Eastern District of Louisiana
Filed Aug 1 1963
A. Dallam O’Brien, Jr., Clerk
NBJ
EVANGELINE BARTHE, a minor,
by EDWIN BARTHE, her father and
next friend, et als.
Plaintiffs
versus
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, a Muni
cipal Corporation of the State of Lou
isiana, et als.
Defendants
Present: Attorneys for Plaintiffs:
Ernest N. Morial
A. P. Tureaud
Attorneys for Defendants:
Alvin J. Liska
Ernest L. Salatich
Before WISDOM, Circuit Judge, and CHRISTENBER-
RY and AINSWORTH, District Judges.
The plaintiffs in this action are adult Negro resi
dents of New Orleans. For themselves and their children,
and for other Negroes in New Orleans and their children,
they petition for the desegregation of city-owned or op
erated parks and other recreational facilities.
The City of New Orleans has an extensive recrea
tional and cultural program for its citizens, children and
grownups. It is a model program under the direction of
the New Orleans Recreation Department (NORD), which
has an operating budget of $685,000 for this year. In
great part, NORD’s success is attributable to the imagi
nation, energy and efficiency of Mr. Lester J. Lauten-
schlaeger, who has been the unpaid Director of the De
, NO. 12968
"CIVIL ACTION
104
partment since it was established twelve or fifteen years
ago.
The evidence is undisputed that the playgrounds,
community centers,, other public facilities and NORD’s
program are segregated.1 This policy is practiced under
the Louisiana Anti-Mixing Statute, LSA-RS 33:4558, as
well as by long-standing custom. The evidence is also
undisputed that the playgrounds and recreational facili
ties for Negroes are by no means equal to those available
to white persons. There are only 19 Negro playgrounds
as against 100 white playgrounds.
“It is no longer open to question that a State may
not constitutionally require segregation of public facili
ties.” Johnson v. Virginia, 1963, 373 U. S. 61, S. Ct.
, L. Ed. 2d . To the extent that the City relied
on the Louisiana Statute, LSA-RS 33:4558, the City re
lied on law unconstitutional on its face.
Nor can a City by ordinance, policy or custom main
tain segregated facilities. On facts similar to those in
this case, the Supreme Court recently held that the City
of Memphis must immediately desegregate its public play
grounds and municipal recreational facilities. Watson v.
City of Memphis, 1963, 373 U. S. , S. Ct. ,
L. Ed. 2d
So that there will be no misunderstanding, we hold that
the City of New Orleans must forthwith desegregate its
parks, playgrounds, community centers, and all its recre
ational and cultural facilities and activities, including all
programs directed or supervised by the New Orleans Rec
reation Department. We recognize that some private
groups and organizations also use public facilities. They
may continue to do so as private groups or individuals,
1 In New Orleans City Park Improvement Ass’n v. Detiege, 5 Cir.,
<?52oF‘ 2d 122, 358 U‘ S‘ 54> 79 S’ Ct- 99 0 9 5 8 ) , 358 U. S. 913, 7y S. Ct. 288 (1958), the New Orleans City Park Improvement Associa-
ti°n was permanently enjoined from denying plaintiffs and other Ne-
^>°^s matter, solely on account of their race or color, the use
of the facilities of the New Orleans City Park.
105
provided that the alleged privacy and claim to freedom of
association are not in fact cloaks for state or city action
to continue segregation of public facilities and activities.
The first and primary consideration of such matters lies
within the sound judgment of the single district judge to
whom the case was originally assigned.
Here, as in McCain v. Davis, 1963, F. Supp. ,
it might be said there is so little substance to the Consti
tutional questions the City raises that a three-judge court
should not decide the case. In the interest of expediting
justice, however, we adopt the procedure used in McCain
v. Davis, 1963, F. Supp. ; United States v. Man
ning, 1962, W. D. La., 206 F. Supp. 623; and United
States v. Lassiter, 1962, W. D. La., 203 F. Supp. 20.
Under the circumstances, therefore, the motion for a
preliminary injunction in behalf of plaintiffs and against
defendants will be issued on plaintiffs post
ing bond in the sum of $500.
/ s / John Minor Wisdom
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT
JUDGE
/ s / Herbert W. Christenberry
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE
/ s / Robert A. Ainsworth, Jr.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE
New Orleans, Louisiana
July 31, 1963
......FEE...........................
......PROCESS................
X CHARGE HAM
...... INDEX......................
V ORDER ECR
V HEARING M
DOCUMENT NO. 26
8 /1 /63
HM
BOND FOR COSTS I>. C. Form No. 88
United States HtBtrirt Court
FOR THE
EaSTSRN district of Louisiana
• «; v* ... . N :
... ~ . -w r -:.-w
•* c* r* o ihO,i
M 4 NGE L I M . B AR T KE >___ET__ A L S *
vs.
5 .irY _.0P __N E W „ OR LEANS _E T . ALS.
C i v i l A c t io n
No. 12-9.6-8.________
A. DALLAM O’B
CLERK
K N O W A L L M E N B Y T H E SE PR ESEN TS, That Edwin J . B er the as p r i n c i p a l ,
and A r t h u r J . C h e p i t a l , S r .
a r e held and firmly bound unto A. Dallam O 'B r i e n , C l e r k o f the Uni ted S t a t e s
D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r the E a s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f L o u is ia n a
h i s executors, administrators, or assigns, in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED AND NO/lOO ($£00 .00)
dollars, lawful money of the United States of America, to be paid unto the said A. Dallam O' B r i e n
h i s executors, administrators, or assigns, to which payment well and truly to be made, they do
bind and oblige th em se lv es , t h e i r heirs, executors, and administrators, jointly and severally by
these presents.
Sealed with th e seal and dated this 12 t h day of August , A . D. 1963
WHEREAS, the above-named Edwin J . B e r th e
heretofore s citizen of the State of L o u is ie r a commenced an action in
the United States District Court, in and for theEa S t e r n District of Louis iaaa
against the said C i t y of New O r l e a n s , e t s i s
N O W T H E R E F O R E T H E C O N D IT IO N OF T H IS O B LIG A T IO N is such that if the above-named
E d w in J . B e r t h e
in the said action shall pay on demand, all costs that may be adjudged, or awarded against h im
_FEE-
as aforesaid in said action; then this obligation shall be void, othajSffiffifcjiffi
X CHARGE......ffyg
same shall be and remain in full force and virtue. ____INDEX_____
-ORDER-
Sealed and delivered in the presence of—
U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A
E a s t e r n D istrict of L o u is ia n a A r th u r J . C h a p i t a l , Sr,
being severally duly sworn, each for himself, doth depose and say, that he is a resident and freeholder within
the State of , and that he is worth the sum of F IV E HUNDRED AND N O /lO O
($ 5 o o .o o ) doUar8>
over and above all his just debts and liabilities, which he owes or has incurred, and in property not exempt
from execution.
Sworn and subscribed to before me this 1 2 t h day of A u g u s t > A . D . 19 6 3
NOTARY PU BLIC
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
E a s t e r n D istr ict of L o u is ia n a
88. Anderson V. W ashington , J r .
being severally duly sworn, each for himself, doth depose and say, that he is a resident and freeholder within
the State of L o u is i a n a , and that he is worth the sum of F I V E HUNDRED AND N O /lO O
( $ 5 0 0 . 0 0 ) dollars,
over and above all his just debts and liabilities, which he owes or has incurred, and in property not exempt
from execution.
Sworn and subscribed to before me this
£
t O W $
g 2 S T 3
Is
JW: 5 < < e
cn to OS
u
♦5 i o o© H 0Q u , .S
8S
4* U.
a
n ^
M
■♦a
I(ft
S o
>
O
Im
Q ,
a
aS/a Q ca >w
7 3 o
ft*
44 2 cu a!
S O o* ajp
M» 1 0Q < «3f*
109
U. S. District Court
Eastern District of Louisiana
Filed Sep 27 1963
A. Dallam O’Brien, Jr., Clerk
NBJ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NEW ORLEANS DIVISION
EVANGELINE BARTHE, A MI
NOR, BY EDWIN BARTHE, HER
FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, ET
ALS.,
PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS NO. 12968
" CIVIL ACTION
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, A MU
NICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE
STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET ALS.,
DEFENDANTS
JUDGMENT
This cause came on for hearing on application of
plaintiffs for a declaratory judgment and a preliminary
injunction. The Court, having carefully considered the
arguments of counsel and the record made in this cause,
and being of the opinion that plaintiffs should be granted
the relief prayed for in their complaint and for the
written reasons formerly entered by this Court on July
31, 1963;
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED
that L.S.A.-R.S. 33:4558.1, of the State of Louisiana is
unconstitutional insofar as it attempts to prohibit the
plaintiffs, as individuals, and all other Negro citizens of
110
the City of New Orleans, from the use and enjoyment of
public parks, recreation centers, playgrounds, community
centers, recreational facilities and programs under the
direction and administration of the defendants or either
of them in the same manner and under the same terms
and conditions as white residents of the City of New Or
leans.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED and
DECREED that:
THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS;
VICTOR H. SCHIRO, individually and as Mayor of
the City of New Orleans;
LESTER J. LAUTENSCHLAEGER, individually
and as Director, Department of Recreation of the City
of New Orleans;
JOSEPH GIARRUSSO, individually and as Superin
tendent of Police of the City of New Orleans;
NEW ORLEANS PARKWAY AND PARK COM
MISSION:
FELIX SEEGER, Superintendent of the New Or
leans Parkway and Park Commission;
HERMAN E. FARLEY, WILSON S. CALLENDER,
A. L. NORRIS, MAX SCHEINUK, HERBERT JAHN-
CKE, LESTER J. LAUTENSCHLAEGER, L. A. MA-
LONY, SR., J. P. GENTILICH, M. E. POLSON, MRS.
JOE W. BROWN and MRS. S. M. BLACKSHEAR, in
dividually and as members of the New Orleans Park and
Parkway Commission,
their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys,
and their successors in office, and those in concert with
them who shall receive notice of this order, be, and they
are, hereby restrained and enjoined from enforcing and
I l l
applying the provisions of L.S.A. R.S. 33;4558.1, of the
State of Louisiana, and from acting under its force, sanc
tion and authority in denying plaintiffs and other Ne
groes similarly situated, the use and enjoyment of public
parks, recreation centers, playgrounds, community cen
ters, recreational facilities and programs under their
direction and administration, or under either of their direc
tion and administration, manner and under the same
terms and conditions as white residents of the City of
New Orleans.
Jurisdiction of these causes is retained for the pur
pose of giving full effect to this judgment and for the
purpose of making such further orders and decrees, or
the taking of such further action, if any, as may become
necessary and appropriate to carry out and enforce the
judgment of this Court.
The preliminary injunction shall become effective
upon the furnishing by plaintiffs of a bond in the sum
of $500.00 conditioned as provided by law.
New Orleans, Louisiana, September 27, 1963.
/ s / John Minor Wisdom
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT
JUDGE
/ s / Herbert W. Christenberry
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE
/ s / Robert A. Ainsworth, Jr.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE
___ FEE..............................
......PROCESS.......................
X CHARGE HAM
...... INDEX.............................
V ORDER ECR
......HEARING.......................
DOCUMENT NO. 28
M
112
U. S. District Court
Eastern District of Louisiana
Filed Nov 4 1963
A. Dallam O’Brien, Jr., Clerk
FCM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NEW ORLEANS DIVISION
EVANGELINE BARTHE, ET ALS., '
Plaintiffs #12,968
VS. V CIVIL ACTION
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET ALS., | DIVISION “D”
Defendants J
MOTION TO FIX BOND
Now into Court, through undersigned counsel, comes
Mrs. Joe W. Brown, one of the defendants in the above
numbered and titled matter, and, shows to this Court,
that:
I.
On the 25th day of October, 1963, a Notice of Appeal
to the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir
cuit was filed in this matter on behalf of your mover and
the other defendants, as to the opinion, and decree entered
in this matter on the 27th day of September, 1963.
II.
That on the filing of this Notice of Appeal there was
filed at the same time a cost bond on appeal in the sum
of $250.00.
III.
That your mover did not sign said cost bond on
appeal and your mover now wishes to file her cost bond
113
on appeal in this matter pursuant to Rule 73(e) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in the sum of $250.00.
WHEREFORE, defendant, Mrs. Joe W. Brown,
moves the Court for an order fixing the amount of the
cost bond on appeal she is to supply in this matter in the
sum of $250.00 and authorizing said bond to be filed with
this Court as her cost bond on appeal.
/ s / ALVIN J. LISKA
ALVIN J. LISKA,
City Attorney
/ s / ERNEST L. SALATICH
ERNEST L. SALATICH,
Assistant City Attorney
City of New Orleans
Room 2W23— City Hall
Attorneys for Dependant
ORDER
Considering the above and foregoing motion and the
facts therein set out it is hereby ordered that;
Defendant, Mrs. Joe W. Brown, is hereby authorized
to file with this Court her cost bond on appeal in this
matter in the sum of $250.00.
New Orleans, Louisiana
Nov. 4, 1963.
/ s / Robert A. Ainsworth, Jr.
JUDGE
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that a copy of the above motion was
served on opposing counsel of record by sending them a
114
copy of the same to their offices through the United
States mails, postage prepaid.
/ s / ERNEST L. SALATICH
ERNEST L. SALATICH
Assistant City Attorney
New Orleans, Louisiana
4th November, 1963
...... f e e ..........................
......PROCESS................
X CHARGE HAM
...... INDEX....................
V ORDER ECR
..... .HEARING..............
DOCUMENT NO. 29
MK
115
U. S. District Court
Eastern District of Louisiana
Filed Oct 25 1963
A. Dallam O’Brien, Jr., Clerk
FCM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NEW ORLEANS DIVISION
EVANGELINE BARTHE, ET ALS., '
Plaintiffs
VS. \
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET ALS., i
Defendants j
#12,968
CIVIL ACTION
NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
I.
Notice is hereby given that the City of New Orleans;
Victor H. Schiro, Mayor of the City of New Orleans;
Lester J. Lautenschlaeger, Director, Department of Rec
reation of the City of New Orleans; Joseph Giarrusso,
Superintendent of Police of the City of New Orleans;
New Orleans Parkway and Park Commission; Felix See-
ger, Superintendent of the New Orleans Parkway and
Park Commission; Herman E. Farley, Wilson S. Callen
der, A. L. Norris, Max Scheinuk, Herbert Jahncke, Les
ter J. Lautenschlaeger, L. A. Malony, Sr., J. P. Gentilich,
M. E. Poison, Mrs. Joe W. Brown and Mrs. S. M. Black-
shear, members of the New Orleans Park and Parkway
Commission, defendants, in the above numbered and en
titled matter hereby appeal to the Supreme Court of the
United States from the final judgment by a three (3)
Judge Court in the above numbered and entitled matter,
which judgment is an injunction against the enforcement
of the provisions of L.S.A.-R.S. 33:4558.1 of the State of
Louisiana, declaring said statutory provisions as being
unconstitutional and which judgment issued in this mat
116
ter on September 27, 1963. This appeal is taken pursu
ant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1253.
II.
That the Clerk will please prepare a transcript of
the record of this cause for transmission to the Clerk of
the Supreme Court of the United States and include in
said transcript the following:
(1) The petition of Evangeline Barthe, et als., for a
declaratory judgment and an injunction to enjoin the en
forcement of L.S.A.-R.S. 33:4558.1 as same is contrary
to the due process and equal protection clauses of the
Constitution of the United States, filed herein on 20 De
cember, 1962.
(2) Answer with defenses of the City of New Orleans,
Victor H. Schiro, individually and as Mayor of the City
of New Orleans; James E. Fitzmorris, Jr., Joseph V.
Di Rosa, Henry B. Curtis, Walter F. Marcus, Clarence
0. Dupuy, John J. Petre, Daniel L. Kelly, individually
and as Councilmen of the City of New Orleans; Lester
J. Lautenschlaeger, individually and as Director, Depart
ment of Recreation of the City of New Orleans; Joseph
Giarrusso, individually and as Superintendent of Police
of the City of New Orleans, New Orleans Parkway and
Park Commission; Felix Seeger, Superintendent; Herman
E. Farley, Wilson S. Callender, A. L. Norris, Max Schei-
nuk, Herbert Jahncke, Lester J. Lautenschlaeger, L. A.
Malony, Sr., J. P. Gentilich, M. E. Poison, Mrs. Joe W.
Brown and Mrs. S. M. Blackshear, individually and as
members of the New Orleans Park and Parkway Commis
sion, filed on March 4, 1963.
(3) Interrogatories propounded by the plaintiffs to the
defendants and filed on 6 May, 1963.
(4) Request for admissions propounded by the plaintiffs
to the defendants and filed on 6 May, 1963. 5
(5) (6) Request for admission propounded by the plain
tiffs to the defendants and filed on 6 May, 1963.
117
(7) Request for Admission of Facts propounded by the
plaintiffs to the defendants and filed on 6 May, 1963.
(8) Answer to request for Admission of Facts filed here
in by defendants on 30 April, 1963.
(9) Objections to Interrogatories filed herein by defend
ants on 30 April, 1963.
(10) Answer to Interrogatories filed herein by defend
ants on 30 April, 1963.
(11) Interrogatories propounded by the plaintiffs to the
defendants and filed herein on 17 May 1963.
(12) Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of Motion for
Preliminary Injunction filed herein on 31 May, 1963.
(13) Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed herein by
plaintiffs on 31 May, 1963.
(14) Notice of Motion for preliminary injunction filed
herein on 31 May, 1963.
(15) Answers to Interrogatories by defendants filed
herein on 5 June, 1963.
(16) Answers to Interrogatories by defendants filed
herein on 10 June, 1963.
(17) Order appointing three judge Court to hear this
matter signed by Chief Judge Elbert P. Tuttle on 14
January, 1963.
(18) Affidavit of Mr. Anthony Ciaccio dated 21st day of
June, 1963, and filed herein on 24 June, 1963.
(19) Exhibit “A ” , Exhibit “ B” , Exhibit “C” , and, Ex
hibit “ D” each dated June 17, 1963, prepared by the
Louisiana State Board of Health, Division of Public
Health Statistics, Tabulation and Analysis Section, and,
annexed to the foregoing affidavit.
118
(20) Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary-
Injunction filed by the defendants herein on 24 June,
1963.
(21) Motion to Dismiss Parties Defendant filed herein
on 24 June, 1963.
(22) Opinion of the Court dated July 31, 1963 and filed
herein on 1 August, 1963.
(23) Declaratory judgment and injunction dated Sep
tember 27, 1963, filed herein 27 September, 1963.
(24) Transcript of testimony taken in this matter at
hearing on June 26, 1963.
(25) Notice of appeal filed by the various defendants to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
and, the Supreme Court of the United States with desig
nation of record on appeal, filed herein on th e______ day
of _________________ , 1963.
(26) Bond of Edwin J. Barthe, as principal, in the sum
of $500.00, filed herein on 14 August 1963.
The following questions are presented by this appeal:
(1) Are the provisions of the Louisiana Revised
Statutes of 1950, L.S.A.-R.S. 33:4558.1 providing:
(a) the segregation of the races in all public
parks, recreation centers, playgrounds, community cen
ters and other such facilities at which swimming, dancing,
golfing, skating or other recreational activities are con
ducted,
and also providing:
(b) that mixed audiences shall not be precluded
at such facilities, provided separated sections and rest
room facilities are reserved for members of the white and
colored races, unconstitutional on its face or is the law
valid and pursuant to the police powers of the State of
119
Louisiana for the purpose of protecting the public health,
morals and the peace and good order in the State.
(2) The validity of the injunction rendered against
The City of New Orleans; Victor H. Schiro, individually
and as Mayor of the City of New Orleans; Lester J.
Lautenschlaeger, individually and as Director, Depart
ment of Recreation of the City of New Orleans; Joseph
Giarrusso, individually and as Superintendent of Police
of the City of New Orleans; New Orleans Parkway and
Park Commission; Felix Seeger, Superintendent of the
New Orleans Parkway and Park Commission; Herman
E. Farley, Wilson S. Callender, A. L. Norris, Max Schei-
nuk, Herbert Jahncke, Lester J. Lautenschlaeger, L. A.
Malony, Sr., J. P. Gentilich, M. E. Poison, Mrs. Joe W.
Brown and Mrs. S. M. Blackshear, individually and as
members of the New Orleans Park and Parkway Com
mission.
(3) Have the plaintiffs individually shown that the
statute involved has been enforced against them so that the
predicate has been laid for a class action.
/ s / ALVIN J. LISKA
ALVIN J. LISKA,
City Attorney
/ s / ERNEST L. SALATICH
ERNEST L. SALATICH,
Assistant City Attorney
City of New Orleans
Room 2W23—City Hall
Attorneys for Defendants
CERTIFICATE
I, Alvin J. Liska, one of the attorneys for the defend
ants herein, and a member of the Bar of the Supreme
Court of the United States, do hereby certify that on the
25th day of October, 1963, I served copies of the forego
ing Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of the United
120
States on all parties in this cause, by mailing a copy in a
duly addressed envelope, with postage paid to counsel of
record for said parties.
New Orleans, Louisiana
25 October, 1963
/ s / ALVIN J. LISKA
ALVIN J. LISKA,
OF COUNSEL FOR
DEFENDANTS
FEE
......PROCESS
X CHARGE
...... INDEX.....
ADO
HAM
......ORDER............................
......HEARING..............
DOCUMENT NO. 30
M
121
U. S. District Court
Eastern District of Louisiana
Filed Oct 25 1963
A. Dallam O’Brien, Jr., Clerk
FCM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NEW ORLEANS DIVISION
EVANGELINE BARTHE, ET ALS., '
Plaintiffs
VS. [ #12,968
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET ALS. CIVIL ACTION
Defendants
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Notice is hereby given that the City of New Orleans,
Victor H. Schiro, as Mayor of the City of New Orleans;
Lester J. Lautenschlaeger, as Director, Department of
Recreation of the City of New Orleans; Joseph Giarrusso,
as Superintendent of Police of the City of New Orleans;
New Orleans Parkway and Park Commission; Felix
Seeger, Superintendent of the New Orleans Parkway and
Park Commission; Herman E. Farley, Wilson S. Callen
der, A. L. Norris, Max Scheinuk, Herbert Jahncke, Les
ter J. Lautenschlaeger, L. A. Malony, Sr., J. P. Gen-
tilich, M. E. Poison, Mrs. Joe W. Brown, and Mrs. S. M.
Blackshear, as members of the New Orleans Park and
Parkway Commission, defendants above named, hereby
appeal to the United States Court of Appeal for the Fifth
Circuit from the opinion and decree entered in this action
on the 27th day of September, 1963.
/ s / ALVIN J. LISKA_______________
ALVIN J. LISKA,
City Attorney
122
/ s / ERNEST L. SALATICH
ERNEST L. SALATICH,
Assistant City Attorney
Room 2W23— City Hall
New Orleans, Louisiana
Attorneys for Defendants
CERTIFICATE
I certify that a copy of the above and foregoing
notice of appeal has this day been served on counsel for
appellees by mailing a copy hereof to them at their re
spective offices by United States mail, postage prepaid.
/ s / ERNEST L. SALATICH
ERNEST L. SALATICH
New Orleans, Louisiana
25th October, 1963.
MJH
V FEE $5.00
V PROCESS AP
X CHARGE HAM
...... INDEX.....................
......ORDER....................
......HEARING..............
DOCUMENT NO. 31
M
123
U. S. District Court
Eastern District of Louisiana
Filed Oct 25 1963
A. Dallam O’Brien, Jr., Clerk
FCM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NEW ORLEANS DIVISION
EVANGELINE BARTHE, ET ALS.,
Plaintiffs
VS.
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET ALS.
Defendants
, #12,968
' CIVIL ACTION
COST BOND ON APPEAL
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS—That
we, The City of New Orleans; Victor H. Schiro, as Mayor
of the City of New Orleans, Lester J. Lautenschlaeger, as
Director, Department of Recreation of the City of New
Orleans; Joseph I. Giarrusso, as Superintendent of Police
of the City of New Orleans; New Orleans Parkway and
Park Commission; Felix Seeger, Superintendent of the
New Orleans Park and Parkway Commission; Herman E.
Farley, Wilson S. Callender, A. L. Norris, Max Scheinuk,
Herbert Jahncke, Lester J. Lautenschlaeger, L. A. Malony,
Sr., J. P. Gentilich, M. E. Poison, Mrs. Joe W. Brown and
Mrs. S. M. Blackshear, as members of the New Orleans
Park and Parkway Commission, as principals, and, Mary
land Casualty Company as surety, are held and firmly
bound unto the Clerk of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans Divi
sion, his successors, executors, administrators and assigns,
in the sum of TWO HUNDRED FIFTY AND NO/lOO
124
($250.00) DOLLARS for the payment hereof we bind our
selves, our heirs, executors and administrators firmly by
these presents, dated in the City of New Orleans, on this
23rd day of October, 1963.
WHEREAS, the above bounden, The City of New
Orleans; Victor H. Schiro, as Mayor of the City of New
Orleans; Lester J. Lautenschlaeger, as Director, Depart
ment of Recreation of the City of New Orleans; Joseph I.
Giarrusso, as Superintendent of Police of the City of New
Orleans; New Orleans Parkway and Park Commission;
Felix Seeger, Superintendent of the New Orleans Park
way and Park Commission; Herman E. Farley, Wilson S.
Callender, A. L. Norris, Max Scheinuk, Herbert Jahncke,
Lester J. Lautenschlaeger, L. A. Malony, Sr., J. P. Gen-
tilich, M. E. Poison, Mrs. Joe W. Brown and Mrs. S. M.
Blackshear, as members of the New Orleans Park and
Parkway Commission, have filed Notice of Appeal from
the decree entered against them in the above captioned
matter.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CONDITION OF THE
ABOVE OBLIGATION IS SUCH that if the above boun
den, The City of New Orleans; Victor H. Schiro as Mayor
of the City of New Orleans; Lester J. Lautenschlaeger,
as Director, Department of Recreation of the City „of
New Orleans; Joseph I. Giarrusso, as Superintendent of
Police of the City of New Orleans; New Orleans Park
way and Park Commission; Felix Seeger, Superintendent
of the New Orleans Parkway and Park Commission; Her
man E. Farley, Wilson S. Callender, A. L. Norris, Max
Scheinuk, Herbert Jahncke, Lester J. Lautenschlaeger,
L. A. Malony, Sr., J. P. Gentilich, M. E. Poison, Mrs. Joe
W. Brown and Mrs. L. M. Blackshear, as members of the
New Orleans Park and Parkway Commission, shall prose
cute said appeal to effect and shall pay all cost if the
appeal is dismissed or the judgment affirmed, or such
cost as the Appellate Court may award if the judgment
is modified; then this obligation shall be null and void;
otherwise to remain in full price and effect.
125
/ s / VICTOR H. SCHIRO
THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS
VICTOR H. SCHIRO,
AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF
NEW ORLEANS
/ s / LESTER J. LAUTENSCHLAEGER
LESTER J. LAUTENSCHLAEGER
AS DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT
OF RECREATION OF THE
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS
/ s / JOSEPH I. GIARRUSSO
JOSEPH I. GIARRUSSO,
AS SUPERINTENDENT OF
POLICE OF THE CITY OF
NEW ORLEANS
/ s / FELIX SEEGER
FELIX SEEGER,
SUPERINTENDENT OF THE NEW
ORLEANS PARKWAY AND
PARK COMMISSION
NEW ORLEANS PARKWAY AND PARK COMMIS
SION BY:
/ s / HERMAN E. FARLEY
HERMAN E. FARLEY,
COMMISSIONER, AND, AS MEMBER
OF THE NEW ORLEANS PARK AND
PARKWAY COMMISSION
/ s / WILSON S. CALLENDER
WILSON S. CALLENDER,
COMMISSIONER, AND, AS MEMBER
OF THE NEW ORLEANS PARK AND
PARKWAY COMMISSION
/ s / A. L. NORRIS,
A. L. NORRIS,
COMMISSIONER, AND, AS MEMBER
OF THE NEW ORLEANS PARK AND
PARKWAY COMMISSION
126
/ s / MAX SCHEINUK
MAX SCHEINUK,
COMMISSIONER, AND, AS MEMBER
OF THE NEW ORLEANS PARK AND
PARKWAY COMMISSION
/ s / HERBERT JAHNCKE
HERBERT JAHNCKE,
COMMISSIONER, AND, AS MEMBER
OF THE NEW ORLEANS PARK AND
PARKWAY COMMISSION
/ s / LESTER J. LAUTENSCHLAEGER
LESTER J. LAUTENSCHLAEGER,
COMMISSIONER, AND, AS MEMBER
OP THE NEW ORLEANS PARK AND
PARKWAY COMMISSION
/ s / L. A. MALONY
L. A. MALONY, SR.,
COMMISSIONER, AND, AS MEMBER
OF THE NEW ORLEANS PARK AND
PARKWAY COMMISSION
/ s / J. P. GENTILICH
J. P. GENTILICH,
COMMISSIONER, AND, AS MEMBER
OF THE NEW ORLEANS PARK AND
PARKWAY COMMISSION
/ s / M. E. POLSON,
/ s / M. E. POLSON
COMMISSIONER, AND, AS MEMBER
OF THE NEW ORLEANS PARK AND
PARKWAY COMMISSION
MRS. JOE W. BROWN,
COMMISSIONER, AND, AS MEMBER
OF THE NEW ORLEANS PARK AND
PARKWAY COMMISSION
127
/ s / MRS. S. M. BLACKSHEAR
MRS. S. M. BLACKSHEAR,
COMMISSIONER, AND, AS MEMBER
OF THE NEW ORLEANS PARK AND
PARKWAY COMMISSION
SIGNED, SEALED and DELIVERED IN THE
PRESENCE OF MR. JOHN C. THOMAS, JR., Agent
for Maryland Casualty Company.
BY:
/ s / John C. Thomas, Jr.
MARYLAND CASUALTY
COMPANY
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
......FEE..........................
......PROCESS...............
X CHARGE HAM
......INDEX.................... .
......ORDER...................
......HEARING..............
DOCUMENT NO. 32
128
CERTIFIED COPY
Know all Men by these presents: That MARYLAND
CASUALTY COMPANY, a corporation created by and
existing under the laws of the State of Maryland, of Balti
more City, Maryland, in pursuance of the authority set
forth in Section 13 of Article V of its By-laws, from
which the following is a true extract, and which section
has not been amended nor rescinded:
“The Chairman of the Board or the President or
any Vice-President may, by written instrument un
der the attested corporate seal, appoint attorneys-
in-fact with authority to execute bonds, policies,
recognizances, stipulations, undertakings, or other
like instruments on behalf of the Corporation, and
may authorize any officer or any such attorney-
in-fact to affix the corporate seal thereto; and may
with or without cause modify or revoke any such
appointment or authority,”
does hereby nominate, constitute and appoint H. J.
BREMERMANN, JR., RICHARD B. KLINGLER, KARL
M. NEBEL, HELEN L. CUNNINGHAM, JAMES B.
TARLETON, JR., JOHN C. THOMAS, JR., and FRED
J. DUDEK, each with full power to act alone, of NEW
ORLEANS State of LOUISIANA its Attorney s-in-Fact
to make, execute, seal, and deliver on its behalf as Surety,
and as its act and deed, any and all bonds, recognizances,
stipulations, undertakings, and other like instruments.
Such bonds, recognizances, stipulations, undertakings,
or other like instruments shall be binding upon said Com
pany as fully and to all intents and purposes as if such
instruments had been duly executed and acknowledged and
delivered by the authorized officers of the Company when
duly executed by any one of the aforesaid attorneys in
fact.
This instrument supersedes power of attorney granted
H. J. Bremermann, Jr., Richard B. Klingler, Karl M.
Nebel, Helen L. Cunningham, Douglas L. McKinley,
James B. Tarleton, Jr. and John C. Thomas, Jr., dated
September 21st, 1961.
129
In Witness Whereof, MARYLAND CASUALTY
COMPANY has caused these presents to be executed in
its name and on its behalf and its Corporate Seal to be
hereunto affixed and attested by its officers thereunto
duly authorized, this 4th day of October, 1962, at Balti
more City, Maryland.
MARYLAND CASUALTY
COMPANY
By (Signed) Albert H. Walker
Vice-President.
ATTEST:
(CORPORATE SEAL)
(Signed) Rose E. Lutz
Assistant Secretary.
STATE OF MARYLAND
BALTIMORE CITY
y ss.
On this 4th day of October, A.D., 1962, before the
subscriber, a Notary Public of the State of Maryland, in
and for Baltimore City, duly commissioned and qualified,
came Albert H. Walker Vice-President, and Rose E. Lutz
Assistant Secretary, of MARYLAND CASUALTY COM
PANY, to me personally known, and known to be the of
ficers described in, and who executed the preceding instru
ment; and they each acknowledged the execution of the
same; and, being by me duly sworn, they severally and each
for himself deposed and said that they respectively hold the
offices in said Corporation as indicated, that the Seal af
fixed to the preceding instrument is the Corporate Seal of
said Corporation, and that the said Corporate Seal, and
their signatures as such officers, were duly affixed and
subscribed to the said instrument pursuant to all due cor
porate authorization.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
hand and affixed my Official Seal, at Baltimore City, the
130
day and year first above written.
(Signed) Clagett R. Reimer
Notary Public.
(NOTARIAL SEAL)
My commission expires May 6, 1963
CERTIFICATE
I, an Assistant Secretary of the Maryland Casualty
Company, do hereby certify that I have compared the
aforesaid copy of the Power of Attorney with the original
now in file among the records of the Home Office of the
Company and in my custody, and that the same is a full,
true and correct copy, and that the Power of Attorney
has not been revoked, amended or abridged, and is now
in full force and effect.
Given under my hand as Assistant Secretary, and the
Seal of the Company, at Baltimore City, Md., this 25th
day of October A.D., 1963.
/ s / Rose E. Lutz
Assistant Secretary.
(SEAL)
131
U. S. District Court
Eastern District of Louisiana
Filed Nov 27 1963
A. Dallam O’Brien, Jr., Clerk
FCM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NEW ORLEANS DIVISION
EVANGELINE BARTHE, ET ALS.,
Plaintiffs
VS.
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET ALS.,
Defendants
#12,968
\ CIVIL ACTION
I DIVISION “ D”
COST BOND ON APPEAL
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS— That
we, New Orleans Parkway and Park Commission, Mrs.
Joe W. Brown, as member of the New Orleans Park and
Parkway Commission, as principals, and, Maryland Cas
ualty Company, as surety, are held and firmly bound
unto the Clerk of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans Division,
his successors, executors, administrators and assigns, in
the sum of TWO HUNDRED FIFTY and No/100 DOL
LARS for the payment hereof we bind ourselves, our
heirs, executors and administrators firmly by these pres
ents, dated in the City of New Orleans, on this 27th day
of November, 1963.
WHEREAS, the above bounden, New Orleans Park
way and Park Commission, Mrs. Joe W. Brown, as mem
ber of the New Orleans Park and Parkway Commission,
have filed Notice of Appeal from the decree entered
against them in the above captioned matter.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CONDITION OF THE
ABOVE OBLIGATION IS SUCH that if the above boun-
132
den, New Orleans Parkway and Park Commission, Mrs.
Joe W. Brown, as member of the New Orleans Park and
Parkway Commission, shall prosecute said appeal to ef
fect and shall pay all cost if the appeal is dismissed or
the judgment affirmed, or such cost as the Appellate
Court may award if the judgment is modified; then this
obligation shall be null and void; otherwise to remain in
full force and effect.
NEW ORLEANS PARKWAY AND
PARK COMMISSION
BY:
/ s / MRS. JOE W. BROWN
MRS. JOE W. BROWN
COMMISSIONER AND AS
MEMBER OF THE NEW
ORLEANS PARK AND PARK
WAY COMMISSION
SIGNED, SEALED ‘ and DELIVERED IN THE
PRESENCE OF JOHN C. THOMAS, JR., Agent for
Maryland Casualty Company.
BY:
/ s / John C. Thomas, Jr.
MARYLAND CASUALTY
COMPANY
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
......FEE...................................
......PROCESS.......................
X CHARGE HAM
...... INDEX.............................
......ORDER............................
...... HEARING......................
DOCUMENT NO. 33
M
133
CERTIFIED COPY
Know all Men by these presents: That MARYLAND
CASUALTY COMPANY, a corporation created by and
existing under the laws of the State of Maryland, of Balti
more City, Maryland, in pursuance of the authority set
forth in Section 13 of Article V 0f its By-laws, from
which the following is a true extract, and which section
has not been amended nor rescinded:
“ The Chairman of the Board or the President or
any Vice-President may, by written instrument un
der the attested corporate seal, appoint attorneys-
in-fact with authority to execute bonds, policies,
recognizances, stipulations, undertakings, or other
like instruments on behalf of the Corporation, and
may authorize any officer or any such attorney-
in-fact to affix the corporate seal thereto; and may
with or without cause modify or revoke any such
appointment or authority,”
does hereby nominate, constitute and appoint H. J.
BREMERMANN, JR., RICHARD B. KLINGLER, KARL
M. NEBEL, HELEN L. CUNNINGHAM, JAMES B.
TARLETON, JR., JOHN C. THOMAS, JR., and FRED
J. DUDEK, each with full power to act alone, of NEW
ORLEANS State of LOUISIANA its Attorney s-in-Fact
to make, execute, seal, and deliver on its behalf as Surety,
and as its act and deed, any and all bonds, recognizances,
stipulations, undertakings, and other like instruments.
Such bonds, recognizances, stipulations, undertakings,
or other like instruments shall be binding upon said Com
pany as fully and to all intents and purposes as if such
instruments had been duly executed and acknowledged and
delivered by the authorized officers of the Company when
duly executed by any one of the aforesaid attorneys in
fact.
This instrument supersedes power of attorney granted
H. J. Bremermann, Jr., Richard B. Klingler, Karl M.
Nebel, Helen L. Cunningham, Douglas L. McKinley,
James B. Tarleton, Jr. and John C. Thomas, Jr., dated
September 21st, 1961.
134
In Witness Whereof, MARYLAND CASUALTY
COMPANY has caused these presents to be executed in
its name and on its behalf and its Corporate Seal to be
hereunto affixed and attested by its officers thereunto
duly authorized, this 4th day of October, 1962, at Balti
more City, Maryland.
MARYLAND CASUALTY
COMPANY
By (Signed) Albert H. Walker
Vice-President.
ATTEST:
(CORPORATE SEAL)
(Signed) Rose E. Lutz
Assistant Secretary.
STATE OP MARYLAND
BALTIMORE CITY
y ss.
On this 4th day of October, A.D., 1962, before the
subscriber, a Notary Public of the State of Maryland, in
and for Baltimore City, duly commissioned and qualified,
came Albert H. Walker Vice-President, and Rose E. Lutz
Assistant Secretary, of MARYLAND CASUALTY COM
PANY, to me personally known, and known to be the of
ficers described in, and who executed the preceding instru
ment; and they each acknowledged the execution of the
same; and, being by me duly sworn, they severally and each
for himself deposed and said that they respectively hold the
offices in said Corporation as indicated, that the Seal af
fixed to the preceding instrument is the Corporate Seal of
said Corporation, and that the said Corporate Seal, and
their signatures as such officers, were duly affixed and
subscribed to the said instrument pursuant to all due cor
porate authorization.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
hand and affixed my Official Seal, at Baltimore City, the
135
day and year first above written.
(Signed) Clagett R. Reimer
Notary Public.
(NOTARIAL SEAL)
My commission expires May 6, 1963
CERTIFICATE
I, an Assistant Secretary of the Maryland Casualty
Company, do hereby certify that I have compared the
aforesaid copy of the Power of Attorney with the original
now in file among the records of the Home Office of the
Company and in my custody, and that the same is a full,
true and correct copy, and that the Power of Attorney
has not been revoked, amended or abridged, and is now
in full force and effect.
Given under my hand as Assistant Secretary, and the
Seal of the Company, at Baltimore City, Md., this 27th
day of November A.D., 1963.
/ s / Rose E. Lutz
Assistant Secretary.
(SEAL)
136
U. S. District Court
Eastern District of Louisiana
Filed Nov 26 1963
A. Dallam O’Brien, Jr., Clerk
FCM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NEW ORLEANS DIVISION
EVANGELINE BARTHE, A Minor, '
by EDWIN BARTHE, HER Father NO. 12,968
and Next Friend, et als. CIVIL ACTION
VS. I DIVISION “ D”
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, et als. J
Proceedings taken in open court, on June 26, 1963
......FEE..................
......PROCESS.......
X CHARGE........
..... .INDEX............
......ORDER...........
— HEARING—
DOCUMENT NO
137
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NEW ORLEANS DIVISION
EVANGELINE BARTHE, A Minor
by EDWIN BARTHE, Her Father and
Next Fried, et als.
VS.
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, et als.
NO. 12,968
CIVIL ACTION
DIVISION “ D”
Proceedings taken in the above numbered and titled
cause on June 26, 1963, in open court, The Honorable
Judges John Minor Wisdom, Robert A. Ainsworth, Jr.,
and Herbert W. Christenberry, presiding.
APPEARANCES:
A. P. Tureaud and Ernest N. Morial,
Attorneys for Complainants
Alvin J. Liska and Ernest L. Salatich,
Attorneys for Respondents
INDEX TO ORAL TESTIMONY
Lester J. Lautenschlaeger____________ Page 12
Felix Seeger _______________________ Page 48
Herman E. Farley __________________..Page 54
A. L. Norris ________________________Page 55
Joseph Giarrusso _______ ~__________ Page 61
Dr. Leonard L. Burns __________ Page 64
Herbert L. Green ___________________ Page 72
Horace Bynum _____________________ Page 79
Norris Brown ___________________ Page 82
Lionel Newton__________________ Page 88
Walter McCoy _____________________ Page 90
Morris F. X. J e f f____________________Page 92
Willard Castle_______ ~______________Page 105
Willie L. Mason _______________ Page 109
Gerald H. Thomas __________________ Page 111
Llewelyn J. Soniat___________________Page 113
Presly J. Trosclair, Sr. ______________Page 115
138
THE COURT: Are counsel for plaintiffs prepared?
MR. MORTAL: We are, Your Honors.
THE COURT: How about the defendants?
MR. LISKA: We are ready.
THE COURT: Mr. Liska, you have certain motions
you filed here. If it is agreeable with you, the Court can
accept them at this time, and consider them in the argu
ment after the evidence, if any, has been presented. How
do you feel about that?
MR. LISKA: We have no objection to the Court’s
hearing the motions after the evidence has been put in,
provided all our rights are preserved.
THE COURT: All right, it will be understood that
it is with full preservation of all your rights.
MR. LISKA: There is one other thing, if the Court
please, the Mayor has been subpoenaed in this matter,
and he is standing by now in the event he is called to
testify, and I was wondering if we might be able to stip
ulate what the Mayor would testify to.
THE COURT: I think you might be able to do that.
How about that, Mr. Tureaud?
MR. TUREAUD: We can stipulate, and we will
stipulate now if you are ready.
MR. LISKA: That as the Mayor of the City of New
Orleans, these facilities are operated under his adminis
trative supervision and control. Is that agreeable?
MR. TUREAUD: And that he subscribes to their
policies?
MR. LISKA: Well, he subscribes to their policies
only insofar as obeying the laws as they are written.
MR. TUREAUD: What about their policies?
MR. LISKA: Well, there are no separate policies
other than those established by law.
THE COURT: Are you referring to the policies of
139
the departments of the City government?
MR. TUREAUD: Yes, Your Honor, those adminis
trative agencies that are under his administration.
THE COURT: You are asking that there be a stip
ulation that he subscribe to the policies of these agencies?
MR. TUREAUD: Of these particular agencies that
are now involved in this litigation, any policies made by
these agencies— that he has to approve them, and in ap
proving them indicating that they are his policies also.
THE COURT: Well, it is his duty as the Mayor of
the City of New Orleans to enforce the law, and it is his
duty to carry out the policies of the City with regard to
playgrounds and recreational facilities. I think you are
going too far when you ask for a stipulation to the effect
that the Mayor agrees with all the policies of the City’s
departments.
All right, what is the stipulation that you would pro
pose, Mr. Liska? Let’s get that in the record.
MR. LISKA: If it please the Court, we would agree
to stipulate that if the Mayor were called to testify, that
he would testify that he is the Mayor of the City of New
Orleans, that he is Victor H. Schiro, and that if he were
to testify, he would testify that it is his duty and his
job as the Mayor to enforce the laws as they are written,
that he has given such instructions to the Police Force.
THE COURT: Mr. Tureaud, unless you feel that it
is necessary to call the Mayor, I take it you will go along
with that stipulation?
MR. TUREAUD: Yes, sir, Your Honors, we will so
stipulate.
THE COURT: I see no reason then why the Mayor
should not be excused. Is that agreeable with you gentle
men?
MR. LISKA: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. TUREAUD: Yes, sir.
140
MR. LISKA: If the Court please, we have filed
copies of the affidavits filed in the case of No. 12,439,
and we would like to file copies thereof. Unless the Court
would prefer to have new ones made, we will offer the
affidavits as introduced in the other case, No. 12,439.
THE COURT: Any objection to the introduction of
those affidavits, or copies?
MR. TUREAUD: We have no objection.
THE COURT: Well, the affidavits then will be ad
mitted into the record.
MR. TUREAUD: If the Court please, there were
certain interrogatories propounded and admissions that
we would like to offer and introduce in evidence at this
time. Would Your Honors like us to read the interroga
tories into the record?
THE COURT: Have you given sufficient copies to
the Court?
MR. TUREAUD: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Then suppose you just offer them in
evidence.
MR. TUREAUD: They are already in the record,
Your Honor. May I see the record to make sure they are
in the record?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. TUREAUD: We want to offer at this time in
evidence answers to requests for admissions of facts filed
in these proceedings on April 30, 1963, being the admis
sions made by the City Attorney, and Mr. Salatich on be
half of the party defendants. We also offer and introduce
in evidence the answers to interrogatories filed on April
30 on behalf of Mr. Ernest H. Gould, of the New Orleans
Recreational Department.
We also offer and file in evidence the interrogatories
propounded to the Honorable Alvin J. Liska, City Attor
ney, filed in these proceedings on May 17, 1963, and we
offer, introduce, and file in evidence the answers to in
141
terrogatories filed in these proceedings on June 5, 1963,
on behalf of the defendants, and signed and sworn to by
Ernest H. Gould, who is executive assistant director of
the New Orleans Recreational Department, together with
the lists and exhibits attached to the answers to the in
terrogatories.
We offer, file, and introduce in evidence the answers
to interrogatories filed in these proceedings on June 10,
1963, and sworn to by Felix Seeger, superintendent of the
Parkway Commission.
That’s all the offers we have at this time, may it
please the Court.
MR. LISKA: Your Honors, in connection with the
motions filed, I believe, in the hotel case and the Audi
torium case, we have filed motions to dismiss the council-
men on the ground that the councilmen are the legislative
body and not members of the administrative body, and
therefore we are asking that they be dismissed from the
claim.
THE COURT: Does the council fix the policy of the
Recreational Department?
MR. LISKA: No, sir.
THE COURT: It does not?
MR. LISKA: No.
THE COURT: What is the chain of command?
MR. LISKA: The chain of command is that all the
park boards are under the jurisdiction of the Mayor. The
only function that the councilmen would have with refer
ence to parks and playgrounds would be in connection
with the budget, the control of their budget.
Mr. Lautenschlaeger is the head of the Department
of Recreation which, of course, operates the parks and
playgrounds.
THE COURT: Your chain of command then would
be from the parks and playgrounds to the director of the
Recreation Department, to the Mayor?
142
MR. LISKA: Well, they are in two separate cate
gories actually. The Parkway Commission actually has
supervision over the parks as such, while the recreational
facilities are under the jurisdiction of the recreational
director, who is Mr. Lautenschlaeger.
THE COURT: Does that appear in the admissions
in the answers?
MR. LISKA: That’s set out in the answers, yes, sir.
We will admit to that organization, or chain of command,
as the Court put it.
As far as the members of the City Council are con
cerned, we have always held that they are legislative and
not administrative, and counsel have abided by that, to
the effect that they are strictly a legislative body, and
they don’t have any administrative functions, and it is
so set out in the charter.
THE COURT: Mr. Liska, let me ask you this ques
tion. This isn’t clear to me, because in the recent con
troversy between Mr. Marcus and Mr. Shalett of the Avi
ation Board, I got the impression that at least Mr. Mar
cus thinks that the council does exercise control over
these Boards.
MR. LISKA: Well, Mr. Marcus has been told that
he only has legislative authority by me. Several ordi
nances that Mr. Marcus tried to introduce which would
have given the council administrative functions, have been
declared illegal by me, and they have not been passed.
The rest of the council has abided by that. Very defi
nitely the City Council has only legislative and advisory
functions.
THE COURT: Is that in the charter itself?
MR. LISKA: Yes, sir, that’s in the charter itself.
THE COURT: Very well. You may proceed now,
Mr. Tureaud.
MR. TUREAUD: We would like to call Mr. Lauten
schlaeger as an adverse witness on cross examination, if
the Court please.
143
MR. LISKA: I don’t understand that Your Honors
have acted on the motion to dismiss the councilmen.
THE COURT: Well, we will take that motion along
with the rest of the case, and decide it all at one time.
LESTER L. LAUTENSCHLAEGER, after first be
ing duly sworn, testified as follows:
CROSS EXAMINATION
MR. MORIAL:
Q. Would you state your name and your duties with
the New Orleans Recreational Department?
A. Lester J. Lautenschlaeger; that’s L-A-U-T-E-N-
S-C-H-L-A-E-G-E-R, and I am director of the Depart
ment of Recreation, which incidentally is one of the thir
teen major departments in the City of New Orleans.
Q. How long have you been director of the New
Orleans Recreation Department?
A. Since January 1, 1947, with the beginning of the
department.
Q. Would you kindly tell us what your duties and
responsibilities are as director of that department please?
A. I direct the entire department, and act directly
under the Mayor. I set out the policies and the program
and the setup of the department, generally speaking.
Those would constitute my duties, at least my primary
ones.
Q. How many playgrounds are operated by the City
of New Orleans Recreational Department?
A. We talk of operating from about 140 different
spots, but that includes the school grounds, which will
vary at times as to their playgrounds that are owned
or leased by the City—roughly 120, I would say.
Q. How many of these are presently operating for
Negroes?
A. 19, I believe, are known under the program as
144
playgrounds for Negroes, and I think 95 are listed as
playgrounds for whites, and the other facilities—six, if
my mathematics are correct, are used as maintenance
department, art department, and costume department
facilities, things of that nature, and are operated for
both.
Q. What are the programs that come under the
auspicous of the New Orleans Recreation Department
other than playgrounds?
A. Well, under the charter we really have the chore,
you might say, of providing all of the public recreation
programs for the entire City of New Orleans, and we
have the right to ask City Park and Audubon Park to
make their facilities available to us for various of our
programs.
We like to brag of having programs for everyone
from grandpa on down, which includes every form of
cultural and athletic competition and like events that we
can think of.
Q. Are these programs operated presently on a s eg-
regated basis?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that by law, custom, or policy of your depart-
ment?
A. Well, we consider it by law and by custom and
by policy of the department.
Q. Do you conduct under your auspicis any art
classes?
A. Art classes?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. Ballet classes?
A. Yes.
Q. Baton twirling?
A. Yes.
Q. Ceramics?
145
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Charm school?
A. Yes.
Q. Children’s hour?
A. Yes.
Q. Crafts?
A. Yes.
Q. Drama classes?
A. Yes.
Q. Fencing?
A. Yes.
Q. Golden Age Club?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Opera workshop?
A. Yes.
Q. Orchestra?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Variety workshop?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Piano instruction?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Rangerettes?
A. Yes.
Q. Square dancing?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Tap dancing?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Tumbling?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Baseball?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Bowling?
A. Yes, sir.
146
Q. Day camp?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Horsy tail softball?
A. Yes; that’s for girls.
Q. You said you have a charm school, I believe?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Tennis?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is there any swimming at the present time?
A. No.
Q. Beauty contests?
A. Beauty?
Q. Yes.
A. Not as such, no.
Q. Queens’ contests?
A. Well, in connection with the soap box derby.
They elect a queen for that.
Q. Well, isn’t that under the auspices of the New
Orleans Recreation Department?
A. Yes. You might say that everything of that
nature is under the auspices of the New Orleans Recrea
tion Department generally.
Q. Mr. Lautenschlaeger, are any of these programs
that you have just listed available to Negroes at the pres
ent time?
A. Everything is available to Negroes except the
soap box derby. That hasn’t been made available to Ne
groes.
Q. But these others that you have named are avail
able on a segregated basis; isn’t that right?
A. Everything, yes.
Q. How many supervisors are employed in the Ne
gro division of the New Orleans Recreation Department?
A. I don’t have the exact figures, but it is predom-
inantely more white than Negro. However, I think most
of the Negro playgrounds are supervised, where all the
147
white playgrounds are not. But those figures would be
easily gotten. Mr. Gould has them.
Q. Did your department public an ad in the June 8
issue of the New Orleans States-Item?
A. Our department?
Q. Yes.
A. Not as such, that I know of.
Q. I show you this advertisement and ask you if
that is not in connection with the summer NORD pro
gram—the NORD summer program?
A. I know it’s not a paid ad by our department. If
anybody paid for that our of our department, I am sur
prised, but that is an ad authorized by NORD, yes.
Q. It was authorized by NORD?
A. Yes. It’s for the information of the general
public.
Q. You say this ad was for the information of the
general public?
A. Yes.
Q. Does that mean Negroes as well as whites?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have a publicity department?
A. Yes, sir—not a publicity department as such,
but J. Hanemann is the publicity director, but he carries
the title of secretary to the department, which is allowed
in the City government, as you know. He does all the
master of ceremony duties at functions throughout the
year, and he also keeps all records of the department in
that respect. He handles all the mechanics that go along
with the various trips.
THE COURT:
Q. If you do have a publicity department, how
much does it cost a year?
A. About $9,000 a year, but it’s not actually a pub
licity department. We keep the records within the depart
ment and do not necessarily furnish publicity for the city.
148
MR. MORIAL:
Q. Mr. Lautenschlaeger, you said that this ad was
for the information of the general public; is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That would include Negroes, would it not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you say that any of these activities listed
here in this ad were offered at Negro playgrounds during
1962, as listed here?
A. Yes, art, ballet.
Q. Are there any Negro playgrounds listed in that
ad?
A. Shall I read through all of them?
Q. Yes, you may, please.
THE COURT: Read them to yourself.
A. I haven’t seen any Negro playgrounds listed in
the ad, no, sir, but programs of that sort, whether adver
tised or not, are available in the Negro division of the
program.
THE COURT:
Q. I take it the material contained in that ad was
submitted by NORD, was it not?
A. It had to be submitted by NORD, yes, sir.
MR. MORIAL: In connection with the witness’ tes
timony, if the Court please, we offer, file, and introduce
in evidence this newspaper ad.
MR. LISKA: What’s the purpose? The reason I’m
asking that is that all of these programs are available, of
course, to Negroes in the Negro centers.
THE COURT: With the exception of that one, the
soap box derby.
MR. LISKA: That’s right, Your Honors. I would
like to know the purpose of this type of testimony. Is it
for the purpose of impeaching the witness’ testimony?
149
MR. MORIAL: No, we are just attempting to show
that publication was issued to the general public, that
Negroes were not included, and that this ad shows that
these programs were available at white recreational facili
ties and not at Negro facilities.
MR. LISKA: May I ask some questions before I
make an objection to this offer, if the Court please?
THE COURT: I guess so, yes.
MR. LISKA:
Q. Mr. Lautenschlaeger, at the bottom of this ad,
doesn’t that indicate that this is in connection with the
Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co.?
A. Yes, sir, that’s a paid ad by the Pepsi-Cola Com
pany, which donated it to NORD, and it’s obviously for
the white program.
Q. NORD did not pay for this ad, in other words,
did it?
A. No.
Q. It was solicited?
A. Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Mr. Liska, I thought you were go
ing to ask questions for the purpose of making an objec
tion, but I think now you are going into the kind of tes
timony that you can bring out on your examination of
the witness.
MR. LISKA: That’s all the questions I have.
THE COURT: Let the ad be admitted in evidence.
MR. MORIAL: We will mark it P-1 for identifica
tion.
THE COURT: It is accepted.
MR. MORIAL:
Q. Mr. Lautenschlaeger, how are the parks and
playgrounds designated as to their use?
A. As to Negroes and whites?
150
Q. Yes.
A. There are no markings in the playgrounds them
selves, but when we advertise in progress reports and
things of that nature, we have a listing of playgrounds
that are so-called Negro playgrounds and so-called white
playgrounds. We don’t have such a publication in ’63, I
don’t believe. The last one we had was for ’62.
Q. What are your instructions to the supervisors
of the playgrounds with regard to their use by Negroes?
A. Play spots and playgrounds are, I believe, used
by both Negroes and whites in many instances without
any objection whatsoever, as far as the games and pro
grams there without the necessity of there being any
segregation.
Q. But what instructions do you give the supervi
sors of those playgrounds in regard to their use by Ne
groes and whites?
A. They have instructions that in games, if Negroes
— first of all, the playgrounds are listed one way or the
other, and are scheduled for ball games and things of
that nature, and we have definite instructions as to those,
but just to go on playgrounds and play spots to play on
swings and things of that sort, there are no instructions
of any real kind to put anybody off, or anything like
that, but if some group would try to use the playgrounds,
say while another ball game was being played, they have
instructions to put them off, and if they don’t get off, to
call help to get them off, but we haven’t had any occasions
of that kind.
Q. Mr. Lautenschlaeger, is the NORD program di
vided into two divisions, a Negro division and a white
division?
A. Yes.
Q. How many persons are employed in the Negro
division?
A. Many fewer than the white division.
Q. You don’t know the number?
A. Not offhand, no. All told, we have about 250
151
employees in the NORD program, and I would say 50
to 60 of them would be Negroes, and the balance would
be whites.
Q. What are the categories and job designations of
the Negroes employed by the Recreation Department?
A. None in the administration end. In the super
visory end, the categories are the same as in the other
centers. They are under Civil Service.
THE COURT:
Q. I don’t understand something that you said. You
said earlier that these facilities were operated on a seg
regated basis under law, custom, and policy, and yet you
just testified, as I understand it, that no instructions
have ever been given to supervisors as to operating these
facilities, that is to say, that they have never been in
structed not to permit Negroes from using white play
grounds, for example; is that what you said?
A. They have never been instructed to force Ne
groes off the playgrounds was what I intended to say,
and until now, except in one instance that I can recall
across the river some years ago, at the McDonogh Play
ground, was there any occasion to close a playground be
cause of Negroes forcing the issue on a so-called white
playground.
Q. In other words, Negroes have not attempted to
use the white facilities; is that what you mean?
A. Well, in play spots and on swings, yes, they
have used the white facilities. I know in one place in
particular, out on Eleonore and Prytania Streets, I have
ridden by there perhaps three or four times a week, and
I find Negroes on that spot as often as I find whites.
Actually the supervisors have no instructions to tell
whites or colored not to go on white or colored play
grounds, just as such. Now, if as I say, there is a ball-
game going on on a so-called white playground and Ne
groes attempt to use it, then instructors do have instruc
tions to tell them that the playground is reserved for the
scheduling of the white game.
152
Q. Well, that’s true whether a game is going on or
not, isn’t that right?
A. That’s right.
MR. MORIAL:
Q. Mr. Lautenschlaeger, you made reference a mo
ment ago to a playground over the river; is that Algiers?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that playground presently in operation?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it closed at the time of this incident that
you referred to?
A. Yes.
Q. Why?
A. Right across the street from a so-called white
playground is a Negro school, and there was no objection
to the school children going on the playground during a
morning hour, but then it got to be a noon and then an
afternoon, affair and then rather than have any commo
tion about it, we closed it.
THE COURT:
Q. You say it’s across from a Negro school?
A. Yes, sir, right across the street.
Q. And rather than let the Negroes use it, it was
closed?
A. At the hours when the whites were to be playing
there, yes, sir, it was closed.
Q. How close is the nearest white school, do you
know?
A. I presume a few blocks away, at least a few
blocks away, but the playground was there first, remem
ber, and then the Negro school was built right across
from it. This playground had been there in this so-called
white neighborhood for many years, and NORD, by pol
icy, acknowledges situations of that kind.
MR. MORIAL:
Q. Where is the Taylor Playground located?
153
A. The Taylor Playground is up on Washington
Avenue, and it has been and still is classified as a play
ground for whites, but that in itself is almost a ridicu
lous thing, because again you go by anytime and you find
Negroes there more often than you will find whites.
THE COURT:
Q. Where is that location?
A. Washington Avenue, about three or four blocks
from Claiborne, on the lake side of Washington Avenue.
MR. MORIAL:
Q. Is that playground near a public school?
A. A public school was built right across from that
playground too.
Q. Is it across the street or adjacent to?
A. Well, really, it’s on the far end, on the lake side
of the street, adjacent to it.
Q. Doesn’t the property of the school and the prop
erty of the playground abut?
A. Yes.
Q. Are the children who are students in this school
permitted to play on the playground?
A. They do play on the playground, yes.
Q. Are they permitted to?
A. Yes, they are permitted to, but not for scheduled
ball games.
Q. To your knowledge, have there ever been any
arrests of Negroes playing in that playground?
A. Over the years, yes.
THE COURT:
Q. When you say “scheduled ball games,” I’m not
sure what you mean. Suppose a bunch of kids, Negro
kids, got up a game and wanted to play on that diamond,
would they be permitted to play?
A. Well, they do during the day, but not for sched
uled games.
154
Q. Well, I believe there are still may ball games
that are not what you call scheduled. When I was a boy,
they were not scheduled in the strict sense of the word,
except we would schedule them ourselves, on the spur of
the moment sometimes.
A. Well, at the present there are Negro ball games
played there, but they are unscheduled. There are no
scheduled ball games on that playground. It is classified
as a playground at night for the commercial Athletic
Association, and they do play scheduled games under the
lights at night, but during the day Negroes do play there,
and I don’t know if there has been any objection, from
NORD or anyone else, and no arrests.
Q. If there were boys in that playground, or dia
mond, who had, we’ll say, previously arranged for sched
uling of a ball game, and they wanted to play the ball
game using that diamond, would they have priority over
the Negroes who might be using it?
A. You mean white boys?
Q. Yes.
A. Well, up until now it has been a white play
ground, yes, sir, and they have had priority. As a matter
of fact, part of the Taylor Playground is loaned out to
various high schools, like Redemptorist, to practice foot
ball. I don’t know if they still practice there, but they
are one of the schools that have practiced there, and they
would go all the way from Redemptorist to that location
to practice football, and that was a scheduled event.
Q. Isn’t that a predominantly Negro neighborhood?
A. Now it is, yes.
Well, it has been for some time, hasn’t it?
A. According to the time when it was first started
in 1947, it wasn’t quite as predominantly Negro as it is
now, but now there is no doubt about it. I would say it
has been predominantly Negro for the past ten years.
MR. MORIAL:
Q. Does NORD sponsor the soap box derby?
A. Yes, sir.
155
Q. What is the comparable event in your program
for Negroes?
A. We have none comparable to the actual soap box
derby. Are you referring to the roller derby, which is
put on for the Negroes?
Q. Yes; is that called a Skatemobile?
A. A Skatemobile, yes.
Q. And where is that conducted?
A. In various places. I don’t know where it was
conducted last year. I didn’t attend.
Q. As director you didn’t attend?
A. I have never attended a Skatemobile Derby.
And you don’t know where these activities are con
ducted?
A. I don’t know where this one was conducted.
Q. Where was it conducted in ’61?
A. I don’t know.
Q. You mean you don’t know where that activity is
ever conducted?
A. I can’t tell you where that activity has been con
ducted, no— in the City of New Orleans, of course, and I
know it is generally sponsored by the Sunbeam Bakery
people, and it’s just for Negroes.
Q. Isn’t it part of the NORD program, supervised
by NORD?
A. Yes.
Q. Doesn’t it have to get NORD’s approval?
A. Yes.
Q. As the director, do you give that approval?
A. Yes.
Q. But you don’t know where it is conducted?
A. That’s right.
Q. Is it conducted for Negroes only?
A. Yes.
156
Q. Does it compare with the soap box derby in any
way?
A. Well, it’s not of international fame; it’s not of
State fame, as the soap box derby is.
Q. How do the awards compare with those given to
the successful participants in the soap box derby?
A. I would say favorably, except for the trip to
Akron, Ohio, where the winner of the soap box derby is
sent, and the possibility of a boy winning a scholarship if
he wins there, which unfortunately for us, we have never
won at Akron, Ohio.
Q. Doesn’t the winner of the soap box derby here
in New Orleans have an opportunity to compete in other
competition?
A. In Akron, Ohio, yes.
Q. When the Skatemobile is held, does the winner
have an opportunity to participate in any other competi
tion?
A. No, not of national importance, that I know of.
Q. This is purely a local event?
A. That’s right.
Q. Mr. Lautenschlaeger, have any Negroes ever ap
plied for participation in the soap box derby?
A. I think so.
Q. And was he refused?
A. That’s right.
Q. Why?
A. Because it was classified as a program for the
whites in New Orleans, and incidentally, as you know, it
was sponsored then by the States-Item, and by Chevrolet
and by NORD.
Q. Who makes the final determination as to who the
participants will be in the soap box derby?
A. It has been agreed that it will be done under the
policies of NORD.
Q. Do you have a director of the NORD-All Ameri
can Baseball League?
157
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have any comparable league for Negroes?
A. No.
Q. Where is the charm school for Negroes?
A. I doubt that they have one, but it is available if
they would like one.
Q. When you say “ It is available,” what do you
mean? Would you explain that, sir?
A. That’s what makes up the planning in the entire
program of NORD. I mean, if there is a demand, we try
to meet the demand where possible. NORD, as a City
organization, holds itself out to cooperate with anybody
in the recreation field, and NORD will provide the facili
ties, and in many cases the instructions and the coaches.
THE COURT:
Q. Would you say that all the programs that you
have enumerated began as a result of requests on the part
of the citizenry?
A. Right; that’s really the way NORD has come up
from its beginning, when it was the Junior Sports Associ
ation of the City of New Orleans, in May of 1944, when
we first organized.
MR. MORIAL:
Q. Do you conduct a fine arts festival for Negroes?
A. No, sir.
Q. But you do conduct one for the whites?
A. Yes, because groups have asked us to.
Q. Do you conduct a golf clinic for Negroes?
A. A golf clinic for Negroes?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes. I am chairman of the Pontchartrain Park
subcommittee—for the record, I am a member of the
Parkway Commission, and ex-officio member, as director
of the Department of Recreation for the City of New
Orleans, and the Parkway Commission has named me as
chairman of a three-man committee—the others are Mr.
158
Lawrence Malony, and Herbert Jahncke, and we super
vise, you might say, the golf clinics that are held at Pont-
chartrain Park, and I might say also that the golf course
there is comparable to any golf course in the City.
Q. Are there any Negroes on this committee that
you made reference to?
A. No, there are no Negroes on the Parkway Com
mission and none on this particular three-man committee,
no.
Q. Did you say that that Park, Pontchartrain Park,
is designated for Negroes?
A. That’s right.
Q. Are whites permitted to go in that park?
A. Well, they are permitted to go in the park, but
they are not permitted to buy tickets and play golf.
Q. Have whites ever attempted to play golf there?
A. Yes.
Q. They were refused?
A. Yes.
Q. Why?
A. Because it is the rule of the Parkway Commis
sion that it is for Negroes only.
Q. Is that park located near a white residential sec
tion?
A. Yes, it’s surrounded by Negro residences though,
and a very beautiful residential section, with Southern
University right next to it.
Q. Do you have a children’s theatre for Negroes?
A. The children’s theatre is really a Junior League
program and the Junior Leaguers take part in these
shows and I feel sure that they perform for Negro chil
dren.
THE COURT: That wasn’t his question. He wants
to know if the Negro children perform.
A. No, sir, that’s not the way it’s done. You see,
the children’s theatre is carried on by the Junior Lea
159
guers, and they do the performing. They put on the
shows for various schools and various groups when asked.
MR. MORIAL:
Q. Do they use the NORD facilities?
A. That’s right. NORD cooperates with them as
NORD cooperates with anybody. That has been the pur
pose of NORD from its beginning.
Q. Do they use NORD supervisors and NORD per
sonnel?
A. That’s one of NORD’s functions too, yes.
Q. And do they use NORD’s funds in maintaining
their operations?
A. Well, most of their funds are their own, but they
do use NORD’s facilities and supervisors. NORD owns
the facilities and the City of New Orleans holds itself out
as cooperating with people who want to put on shows of
that kind.
Q. Do you happen to know if when these shows are
conducted, whether the audience is segregated by seating?
A. No, I wouldn’t say that there’s any form of seg
regated seating whether it’s on a white playground or a
Negro playground.
Q. I was not thinking so much of playgrounds as I
was of the theatre.
A. Well, to my knowledge, the theatre has made no
real effort to segregate the audience, in an affair of that
kind, and honestly I don’t know, but I am pretty sure we
have had some Negroes in to see the shows at the Lyons
Center, and I am equally sure that we have had some
whites go to Booker T. Washington School, at least at one
time, I believe, but you see, that’s a Junior League func
tion, and they get the cooperation of NORD, just as other
private organizations do, and as I said, that’s one of the
functions of NORD, to cooperate with these various
groups in their efforts.
Q. Does NORD conduct any art classes for Ne
groes?
160
A. If they don’t, I am greatly surprised. I know
they are available.
THE COURT:
Q. When you say “they are available,” do you mean
that if such a group of Negroes were to ask for an art
class or the formation of an art class, that that would be
provided? Is that what you mean?
A. That’s right. In fact, I would assume that we
do have an art program for Negroes, but the director of
the Negro program would be more familiar with that
than I would.
MR. MORIAL:
But if you did have an art program for Negroes, it
would be on a segregated basis; is that right?
A. Right.
MR. MORIAL: I have no further questions.
THE COURT:
Q. Mr. Lautenschlaeger, what is the NORD budget?
A. In round figures, $685,000 for operational pur
poses. That’s per year, of course, which is about a dollar
and some few cents per capita, and I would like to add
that that is sort of lower than almost any big city com
parable to New Orleans in the United States. It runs a
dollar and a few cents per capita, I would say, and by
comparison it runs in other cities of comparable size to
New Orleans at about $3— and some cents, as I under
stand it.
Q. Can you give us some idea of how much of that
is spent on the Negro division, and how much on the
white division, roughly?
A. I would say at least two-thirds white, and one-
third Negro, generally speaking.
Q. Well, the disparity between the number of white
playgrounds and the number of Negro playgrounds is
greater than that, isn’t it?
A. Yes.
161
Q. Why is there such a great disparity?
A. Well, there shouldn’t be any disparity. That’s
about three-fourths to one-fourth, so it should be about
the same.
Q. Is the administration of the NORD program sep
arate from the administration of the Parks?
A. Yes, sir. Under the charter, the Department of
Recreation is one of the thirteen major departments of
the city, entirely separate from the two parks. Audubon
Park is entirely separate.
Q. But it makes its facilities available to NORD on
your request?
A. Yes, sir, at my request.
MR. MORIAL:
Q. Do you have any Negro employees in a super
visory capacity?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. How many?
A. The exact number I don’t know, but about one-
fourth of the entire supervisory group are Negroes.
Q. Is there a supervisor over the Negro division?
A. Yes.
Q. Is he a full time or part time employee?
A. He gets a full time salary, but he is a part time
worker. He works for the Sewer Board too.
THE COURT:
Q. What do you mean, he works part time and
draws a full time salary?
A. He holds down two jobs, and no one has ever
complained, because I believe everybody has knowledge
of his ability to be a director of NORD, and we are all
familiar with his background in every respect.
MR. MORIAL:
Q. Do you mean that the time devolved to NORD
Negro activities is part time?
A. It’s full time.
162
Q. Full time?
A. Yes, sir.
THE COURT:
Q. What does he do for the School Board? When
does he work for them?
A. Well, he will have to answer that.
Q. What’s his name?
A. Morris Jeff.
Q. What do you mean when you say “full time” ?
A. Well, full time in the eyes of NORD. I guess
that’s a better way to put it. As you know, I am the
dollar-a-year head of the department, and the recently
departed Gerner Brown was my executive assistant, and
now Mr. Ernest Gould is my executive assistant.
THE COURT:
Q. Is Mr. Gould a full-time employee of NORD, or
does he work for somebody else?
A. He draws a full-time salary from NORD.
Q. When Mr. Brown was at the time coaching at
Jesuit, was he not?
A. Not coaching, but he sometimes taught at Jesuit
High School, but that’s not unusual. We are glad to let
people who have the ability do things like that, but he
didn’t hold another job actually. He just might filled in,
you might say. These people don’t actually get what
they should get for doing the type of work they do.
Q. Are you familiar with the type of facilities
available to the Negro program and what type supervi
sion they have?
A. Well, Morris Jeff, as I said, is the supervisor,
and everybody is pleased with his work. He has been
with us, if I am not mistaken, since the beginning of
NORD. I have never received any complaints that I
know of, except from one person at one time—he com
plained about Morris, but that was the only complaint I
have ever had about Morris Jeff.
Q. Are these Negro sponsored activities daytime as
well as evening activities?
163
A. Yes.
Q. And does Morris Jeff supervise the daytime ac
tivities as well as the evening activities?
A. I think Morris is not at a loss in delegating
authority, and he does have some very competent people
with him, I presume.
Q. What are his duties as required by you as direc
tor of the department, Mr. Lautenschlaeger?
A. He is in charge of the entire Negro program,
just as Buck Seeger is in charge of the white program,
and of course, Mr. Gould is in charge of the entire pro
gram.
Q. So Morris Jeff, you would say, is the director
of the entire Negro pgrogram?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the job requires him to perform full time;
is that right?
A. Yes.
THE COURT:
Q. It’s a full-time job, then, you are saying?
A. Yes, sir.
MR. MORIAL:
Q. Is there any standard set by the New Orleans
City Planning Commission for the acquisition of land on
the basis of population for recreational facilities?
A. Nothing definite. There’s always talk at the
Planning Commission meetings, and generally I attend
these meetings, because we have eviddnced hopes, you
might say, of buying land with every new subdivision,
but one of the falicies there is that the Commission can
set aside and require a new development, let’s say, to
set aside playground land, but for only two years
The developer has to be told that if, at the end of two
years the City does not buy the land, then they can sell
it, and we have never had a fund set aside to buy land
of that kind. Therefore, we don’t buy as much land as
I would like to buy.
164
Q. To your knowledge, has the City Planning Cm-
mission approved 1.33 acres per 1,000 population as a
minimum recreation area?
A. In exact figures, no, but that sounds accurate
to me, yes.
Q. Do you know the population areas served by the
Negro playgrounds?
A. No, I haven’t broken that down, but I know it
would be below that.
Q. In other words, you are saying that the acreage
in the Negro playgrounds is below minimum standards?
A. Right, I am sure it is.
Q. Is this true of the white playgrounds?
A. Yes.
Q. Is this disparity in the same degree in what is
presently designated as white playgrounds as with the
Negro playgrounds?
A. No, I think there’s a bigger need for more Negro
playgrounds, and I have always said so. When NORD
started, I don’t think we had one Negro swimming pool,
which was admittedly a horrible situation.
THE COURT:
Q. You don’t have any now, do you?
A. Right, we have no white or Negro swimming
pools now.
THE COURT: That’s what I thought.
MR. MORIAL: No further questions.
EXAMINATION BY MR. LISKA:
Q. Mr. Lautenschlaeger, would you explain to the
Court what you mean by sponsorship of these teams, and
how these teams are particularly formed, and by whom?
A. May I answer that in this way: first off, as to
the softball fields and the baseball fields, I didn’t realize
util I asked Ernest to give me a list, but we have some
63 different organizations that schedule games on the
NORD playgrounds, and that’s just for whites, I believe—
165
63 different organizations such as the Commercial Athel-
tic Association, which is just one of the organizations.
Now, they might actually have 100 or more, as far as
I know, but we have 63, I think it is, listed. We have
various churches and leagues that schedule games on our
playgrounds, and they may do so just by written request,
and we issue permits, so when I say we have a full sched
ule of use of these playgrounds, it is true. Now, most of
the time I know we can take care of the situation. NORD
has always held itself out as having the facilities so that
people make written request, they may have them for use,
and if they need supervision, we also are able to provide
the supervision. Actually, about nine-tenths of that pro
gramming itself is done by boosters clubs and by differ
ent organizations that ask NORD to provide the facilities
and supervision.
THE COURT:
Q. Of course, it still remains a fact that if a Negro
church organizes a baseball team and wants to schedule
games on a white playground, they would not be per
mitted to do so, regardless of where the playground was;
isn’t that right?
A. Up until now, if a playground was designated
as white, that’s right, but I have never seen the time
when we did not have a good playground or good ball
field to schedule games on. There haven’t been that many
requests for that source, and we have beautiful ball parks
for both white and colored. Of course, I might also point
out that NORD only furnishes the balls and the bats and
the catcher’s equipment. The rest of it is bought by the
boosters, by these private organizations which organize
their own teams, and that’s not new. That’s the way it
always has been.
MR. LISKA:
Q. Who purchases the uniforms for the Bunny
Friend Boosters?
A. The people in the neighborhood.
Q. The city doesn’t purchase the uniforms?
A. The city doesn’t spend a nickel on uniforms. I
166
might say that at the beginning the city did buy football
equipment for the football teams, both colored and white,
but now we are getting the boosters and other organiza
tions to pay for that, in other words, to make it an ex
pense borne by the sponsoring group rather than the city.
We furnish the baseball and bats and the facilities,
like lights, and so forth, and of course the catcher’s equip
ment and we handle the publicity usually. Now, actually
NORD has no objection to this mixing situation if teams
come from church leagues and there is a situation of
mixed races, even before this law suit.
Q. In other words, it is your position that if the
teams come from church leagues and they have mixed
races, that you would have no objection?
A. No objection whatsoever, even before this law
suit.
THE COURT:
Q. You know, of course, that the State law forbids
mixed entertainment and mixed athletic contests, do you
not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You are familiar with that Statute?
A. Yes, I am familiar with that Statute and with
the, you might say, problems that many of us have had
recently.
THE COURT: Any further questions, Mr. Liska?
MR. LISKA: I have no further questions.
A. In matters of that kind, the policymakers may
say that there can be no mixing, but I honestly am say
ing that if some Negro child had been on a church team
in some league, I wouldn’t object to his playing in a
game where the races were mixed, as a result of that.
THE COURT:
Q. Let’s not take a church league; let’s take a non
church league. Would you have any objection to a Negro
playing on a team outside of a church league against
white teams?
167
Q. You have a league of junior football teams in the
NORD program, do you not?
A. For different age groups, yes, sir.
Q. For different age groups?
A. Yes, age and weight, both.
Q. That’s for white teams?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have a league for Negroes too?
A. Yes.
MR. LISKA:
Q. Isn’t it true that all facilities and all programs
have been offered to both races?
A. Right, with that one exception, the soap box
derby. It has not been offered to both races.
MR. LISKA: That’s all the questions I have.
A. No objection, no, sir. Any group who goes to
one of our playgrounds, if they have an organized team,
then I have no objection. I mean, NORD wouldn’t object.
FELIX SEEGER, after first being duly sworn,
testified as follows:
CROSS EXAMINATION
MR. TUREAUD:
Q. Mr. Seeger, what is your occupation?
A. Superintendent of Parks and Parkway Commis
sion.
Q. As superintendent, do you have any playgrounds
or parks, public parks, under your administration?
A. Yes, the only thing we have under our jurisdic
tion. Yes, sir, we have the golf course at Pontchartrain
Park under our supervision. That’s an 18-hole course
with some paved areas, and it’s strictly a colored play
ground.
Q. Do you have the West End Park?
168
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That comes under your supervision?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have anything to do with City Park?
A. No, sir.
Q. Audubon Park?
A. No, sir.
Q. Those are the only parks you have, the West
End Park and the Pontchartrain Park, and that involves
cutting the grass, trimming the trees, and so forth?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are these facilities racially identified as for
white or for Negroes?
A. I think so, yes.
Q. Which ones are for white and which ones for
Negroes?
A. Well, the only Negro park we have is Pontchar
train Park.
Q. Are whites permitted to play on the golf course
there?
A. No, sir.
Q. Have you had occasion to stop the playing of
golf on this course by whites?
A. About three or four times in the last five years.
Q. Personally?
A. I went out there myself personally and talked
to the people that were trying to play on the golf course,
yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember who these people were?
A. No, sir, I don’t.
Q. Was one of them a priest, a Catholic priest?
A. I think so. This has been a while ago.
Q. Did you ascertain with whom he was playing at
the time?
A. No. We have a report at the office, but I don’t
know.
169
Q. Did he not write a letter concerning this matter?
A. He wrote a letter, and went direct to the com
mission once, at one of our Board meetings.
Q. Did he identify himself as a Catholic priest, and
that he was pastor of the St. Raymond Church?
A. That’s right.
Q. Do you remember also that he was playing with
some of his parishioners?
A. I don’t know, he probably was.
Q. Do you know that the St. Raymond Church is,
by reason of its location, the purpose for which it was
organized, was for Negro Catholics?
A. It probably was.
Q. And did you personally ask him to leave?
A. Leave the park?
Q. Yes, because it was for Negroes?
A. Yes, sir, for Negroes strictly.
Q. Have you had a similar request from anyone in
connection with that sort of thing?
A. Two or three in the last five years, I guess,
somewhere in there.
Q. Do you recall Mr. Welsh?
A. No, I don’t.
Q. Did you know personally that Mr. Welsh was
a member of the faculty of Xavier University?
A. No, I didn’t.
Q. But you did deny him the right to play on that
golf course; is that right?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And you say about five or six persons have
similarly been denied in the last five years, the right to
play on that golf course?
A. Somewhere in there. I just don’t remember the
exact number, but it has been several.
Q. Have you given any instructions to the profes
sional or to the person who is responsible for maintaining
170
and operating this golf course, with respect to white
persons playing on it?
A. Our rules are that it is strictly for colored, and
we forbid the whites to play on it. We don’t sell them
tickets, so the only thing they could do would be to go
out and play without paying their fees, and if they do
that we order them off the course.
Q. What facilities do you maintain at the West
End Park?
A. Well, it’s practically a park out there, and it has
strictly been white for all these years, for the last thirty
years or so, I’d say.
Q. It’s right on the lake front, is it not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And is bathing permitted out there?
A. There is no bathing in this area, no, sir.
Q. No bathing?
A. No.
Q. What kind of play facilities do you have there?
A. There are a few swings, but other than that, not
much. There isn’t as much as some other parks have
around the city.
Q. Have you given any instructions to those em
ployees or attendants in that park?
A. No, there isn’t much supervision to be done
there. That’s strictly a park area for people to go out
there with basket lunches, and so forth.
Q. Do you permit Negroes with basket lunches
there?
A. Well, we have never had them out there, so I can
truthfully say that they were never stopped from going
in that area.
Q. You have never had occasion to see any Negroes
out there?
A. No.
Q. Are there any signs out there indicating wheth
171
er it is for whites or for colored?
A. No.
Q. Where is the John Brechtel Memorial Park?
A. Well, that’s an area we have been developing
recently. It’s out on what we call the Behrman Highway,
out in that area. There is very little going on out there
just now.
Q. Have you determined as of now the policy of
that park with respect to its use by whites or Negroes?
A. Not up to this present time, no.
Q. Your directives with respect to the use of these
facilities to your employees, are they directives which
you formulate yourself, or do these come from some
higher authority?
A. Well, we have a Board of eleven members, and
they visit the place and decide on its use.
Q. This Board determines the use of the facility?
A. That’s correct, they do.
Q. Do they determine the racial identity as to the
use of these facilities?
A. Well, if it is going to be a colored park, we go
right along with the Board, whatever they designate the
park’s use to be, whether it be for white or for Negro.
Q. You abide by their determination?
A. That’s right.
Q. You have no activities at City Park; is that
right?
A. That’s right.
Q. You don’t have anything to do with City Park?
A. That’s an entirely different Board, and the Au
dubon Park is also a different Board.
THE COURT:
Q. Mr. Seeger, you are aware of the decision of
this Court, and which was affirmed by the Supreme
Court, requiring the City Park golf course to offer its
facilities to whites and Negroes equally, are you not?
172
A. Yes, sir, I am familiar with that.
Q. And you don’t think that would apply to parks
under your jurisdiction?
A. Not up to the present time, no, sir.
Q. Do you consider that you have been carrying
out the instructions of your superiors?
A. Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Very well, proceed, Mr. Tureaud;
any more questions?
MR. TUREAUD: No more questions, Your Honors.
HERMAN E. FARLEY, after first being duly
sworn, testified as follows:
CROSS EXAMINATION
MR. TUREAUD:
Q. Mr. Farley, are you presently president of the
New Orleans Park & Parkway Commission?
A. No, sir, not at the present time.
Q. Are you a member of the Board?
A. I am a Board member, yes, sir.
Q. You are a Board member?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you president at the time this suit was
filed?
A. Yes, sir, I was president of the Park & Parkway
Commission from December, 1960, to December, 1962.
Q. You are a member of the Board now?
A. I am a member of the Board, yes, sir.
Q. I will ask you to state who is the president at
the present time.
A. Mr. A. L. Norris.
Q. Is he here?
A. Yes, sir.
173
MR. TUREAUD: May it please the Court, I think
I will excuse Mr. Farley and call Mr. Norris instead.
THE COURT: All right, you are excused. Have
Mr. Norris come forward and be sworn.
A. L. NORRIS, after first being duly sworn, testi
fied as follows:
CROSS EXAMINATION
MR. TUREAUD:
Q. Mr. Norris, you are the president of the New
Orleans Park & Parkway Commission at present; is that
right?
A. Yes.
Q. How long have you been a member of the Park
way Commission, Mr. Norris?
A. About six years, I believe it is.
Q. During your period of membership, have there
been any rules and policies made with respect to the use
of the facilities under the supervision of the Park &
Parkway Commission?
A. No, not as such.
Q. Have you given any instructions, or have you
participated in any Board action which resulted in direc
tions being given to the employees of the Park & Park
way Commission with respect to the use of these facili
ties on a racially segregated basis?
A. Well, the only thing that might be related to this
is that it has been the policy, when these occasions arise,
and they have been mentioned already, we, the Board,
simply go along with the rulings, and we continue to
abide with the rulings until we are further notified.
Q. Did you approve the actions taken by Mr. Seeger
when he denied the use of the Pontchartrain Park facili
ties to white persons who wanted to use the golf course?
A. Yes, sir.
174
Q. Is your policy formulated by directors of some
other authority in the City of New Orleans, like the
Mayor or the Commission Council?
A. No, when I came into the organization, the pol
icies were set, and they haven’t been changed.
Q. Has your Commission ever adopted any ordi
nance with respect to the use of these facilities with re
spect to violating the use of these facilities?
A. No, not to my knowledge.
Q. You have no special ordinance that would fine
or cause the arrest of any person who did not use these
facilities properly?
A. I believe the policy is that if a person doesn’t
leave the premises who isn’t supposed to be on the prem
ises, we would call for aid by whatever means the person
involved determined was necessary.
Q. That would be the New Orleans Police Depart
ment; is that right?
A. Well, not necessarily. Maybe one of Mr. Seeger’s
employees might call him, and he might go and straighten
it out. In other words, it just depends upon the situation.
Q. Do you know of any occasions like that during
your administration?
A. No, I do not.
THE COURT:
Q. Do you know about the decision which has been
affirmed by the Supreme Court holding that City Park
was required to furnish its golf facilities on an unsegre
gated basis?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was that opinion and finding discussed in for
mulating the policy by your Board?
A. As I recall, the policy that was being followed
was the one that it was determined would be the same
as we had previously been operating. Maybe that isn’t
too clear, but what I am trying to say is that there wasn’t
any change. We were operating as we had previously.
175
Now, I might say this, that when the Court ruling came
in pertaining to City Park, well, as I recall, the Court
ruling pertained only to City Park, and not to Pontchar-
train Park, so if it just pertained to City Park, then we
saw no reason for us to be concerned pertaining to Pont-
chartrain Park.
THE COURT: Very well; proceed, Mr. Tureaud.
MR. TUREAUD:
Q. Do you solicit the opinion of the City Attorney
regarding the validity of your actions when it relates to
matters of that kind?
A. Yes, I am sure that is done. I haven’t person-
ally, but I am sure that some of the other members have.
Q. Do you have a legal adviser especially assigned
to the Park & Parkway Commission?
A. Yes, sir, we do.
Q. And is he consulted on matters of this kind?
A. Yes.
Q. Is he a member of the City Attorney’s office?
A. No.
Q. He is specially employed?
A. Yes.
Q. By whom is he paid?
A. I’m sorry— I didn’t hear you.
Q. By whom is he paid?
A. He is not paid, and he is not paid by the city.
He is just a volunteer, just like I am.
Q. You do have a voluntary counsel for the Park
& Parkway Commission?
A. Yes, sir, we do.
Q. By what authority do you have a voluntary
counsel?
A. No authority that I know of. He’s just a volun
teer, and he just advises the Board.
Q. Is he a member of the Board?
176
A. Yes, sir.
Q. He is a member of the Board?
A. Yes, sir, I think I misunderstood your question.
Q. He’s a member of the Board, and gives you legal
opinions whenever matters arise in connection with the
Board’s activities is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. But he doesn’t serve as counsel for the Board?
A. Well, no, not as such. Oh, he might talk it over
with the City Attorney’s office or something like that,
but he doesn’t actually represent the Board.
MR. TUREAUD: That’s all the questions I have.
THE COURT:
Q. Was his opinion sought in connection with the
possible effect of the desegregation of the City Park golf
course, and what effect it would have on the operation of
other golf courses within your jurisdiction?
A. Yes.
MR. LISKA: I would call the Court’s attention to
the fact that the City Park case was decided prior to the
enactment of this Statute of 1956. The City Park case
was way ahead of this, so I don’t think that it’s relevant,
as to what happened in the City Park case. This is an
entirely different matter.
THE COURT: Do you think the Louisiana Statute
overruled the Supreme Court?
MR. LISKA: I do, yes, sir, until otherwise declared.
MR TUREAUD: I think the City Park case was
decided subsequent to this Statute.
THE COURT: Well, it was decided by this Court
in 1958, and the Statute was in 1956, and it was affirmed
by the Supreme Court a year later. However, let’s get on
with the evidence, and you can argue that later.
MR. TUREAUD: I have no further questions.
177
JOSEPH GIARRUSSO, Superintendent of the New
Orleans Police Department, after first being duly sworn
testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
MR. TUREAUD:
Q. Mr. Giarrusso, are you the Superintendent of
Police for the City of New Orleans?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Am I speaking loud enough for you to hear, sir?
A. Yes, sir, you are.
Q. Is it your responsibility to see that all the laws
are enforced in the city and to avoid or to prevent the
violation of laws in the City of New Orleans?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And wherever there is an indication of a viola
tion of any law, it is your responsibility then to act; is
that right?
A. Take the necessary action, yes, sir.
Q. How long have you been Superintendent of Po
lice, Mr. Giarrusso?
A. Since August 15, 1960.
Q. Are you familiar with the Louisiana Statute
which, in substance, prohibits or which requires the oper
ation of public parks, playgrounds, and community cen
ters in the city on a segregated basis?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you ever had occasion to make any arrests
of persons who were charged with violation of this Stat
ute?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Do you recall any occasion where any Negro
children have been removed from playgrounds because
they were violating the Statute?
A. No, sir, I don’t recall any such incident.
Q. You don’t recall any arrest that was made in
that connection at all?
178
A. No, I don’t. I am not saying that there weren’t
any, but I don’t recall them if there were.
Q. Could there have been some arrests in that con
nection, and you not know about it?
A. There could have been.
Q. Your records would reflect it if there were any
such arrests, if they were called to your attention, would
they not, sir?
A. Yes, sir, that’s right.
Q. Do you know of any arrests of any Negroes on
any white playgrounds at any time during your adminis
tration?
A. No, sir, I don’t recall of any.
Q. Do you recall any incident involving a play
ground across the river in Algiers which is the so-called
McDonogh Playground?
MR. LISKA: I suggest that counsel establish a rea
sonable time if he is going to ask a question like that.
This man has been the Superintendent only since 1960,
and incidents may have arisen before his time.
THE COURT: I assume he means subsequent to his
becoming superintendent. Is that right?
MR. TUREAUD: Yes, Your Honors.
Q. I mean within a reasonable time, and within the
period that you have been Superintendent of Police, at
any time during your administration.
A. No, sir, I don’t recall any.
Q. You don’t recall?
A. No.
Q. You were always a member of the police force,
were you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Prior to your position as Superintendent?
A. Yes, since July, 1946.
Q. And during that time, do you recall any arrests
179
of anyone on playgrounds in Algiers?
A. No, sir, I don’t. I never did work that area, so
I wouldn’t be familiar with that.
MR. TUREAUD: That’s all the questions I have.
MR. LISKA: I have no questions.
DR. Leonard L. Burns, after first being duly sworn,
testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
MR. TUREAUD:
Q. You are Dr. Leonard L. Burns?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you are the father of Debora E. Burns,
Gary M. Burns, and Lenette P. Burns; is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you are among the plaintiffs in this case;
is that right, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you state your occupation, Dr. Burns?
A. Chiropodist.
Q. Dr. Burns, are you engaged in civic activities in
this community?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Participating in many programs offered in the
community as a citizen and as a leader?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are any of your children in school?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many?
A. All three of them.
Q. What schools do they attend?
A. They are presently attending the St. Francis
Cabrini Elementary School.
182
A. The participants were in the center, on the
green of the track field.
Q. You knew him to be a participant, did you?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
THE COURT:
Q. Did he have a trophy when you saw him?
A. No, sir, he didn’t have a trophy. If I may say
something?
Q. Yes, go right ahead.
Q. He was ejected from the field.
Q. Do you know that of your own knowledge?
A. No, sir, I don’t.
MR. LISKA: I object to that testimony, because ob
viously that’s either hearsay or a conclusion on the part
of the witness, and is not admissible in evidence.
THE COURT:
Q. Did you discuss this with any representative of
NORD?
A. No, sir, I did not with NORD, but with repre
sentatives of his school I did.
Q. With representatives of the school?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You can tell what you did, then.
A. Well, as a result of the information I received
from my son, it caused a great concern on my part to
have him be affected emotionally as he was. He was
clearly an embarrassed and emotionally upset child. I
then sought information from the school representatives,
who sponsored the activity at that time, and I was in
formed—you might consider this hearsay, but I was in
formed then that—
MR. LISKA: I am going to object to any hearsay
testimony, if the Court Please.
THE COURT: Well, there is no Jury hearing this
183
evidence. We are three Judges sitting here, and I think
we are all qualified to evaluate the weight to be given the
testimony, but to preserve your rights, we will consider
that you are objecting to anything that is said by the
witness which you might consider hearsay.
MR. LISKA: May my objection be general to this
line of testimony, if the Court please?
THE COURT: Yes, your objection will be made
general, without the necessity of repetition.
MR. LISKA: Thank you, sir.
THE COURT:
Q. Do you know the name of the NORD representa
tive, the woman, to whom you referred a few minutes
ago?
A. No, sir, I don’t know the name of the woman,
but I was told the name of the official that refused to
allow my son to participate— Mr. Beter.
MR. LISKA: The same objection, Your Honors.
THE COURT: I don’t think merely furnishing the
name of the one he thinks did it constitutes hearsay.
Q. You are only saying who you thought did it; is
that right?
A. That’s right. I know he was an official of
NORD.
THE COURT:
Q. Do your children use the playgrounds and parks
in New Orleans?
A. Yes, Your Honor.
Q. Do you happen to know of your own knowledge
whether the parks and playgrounds in use are segregated?
A. Yes, sir, they are.
Q. What parks and playgrounds have they used
particularly, or play spots?
A. They have used the Hardin Playground.
Q. Is that a Negro playground?
184
A. Yes, sir.
MR. TUREAUD:
Q. What playground do you live nearest to now?
A. Well, there are no official playgrounds near
where we live; there are play spots. There is one on
Chatham Drive, around the 4500 block. I know it’s on
Chatham Drive, right on the other side of Mirabeau.
Q. I asked you before if you were one of the plain
tiffs in this suit, and your answer was that you are; is
that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I now ask you, are you a Negro?
A. I am a Negro.
MR. TUREAUD: That’s all the questions I have.
CROSS EXAMINATION
MR. LISKA:
Q. Are you a member of the NAACP, Dr. Burns?
A. Yes, sir, I am.
Q. You have appeared as a plaintiff in other cases
of this nature, have you not?
A. No, sir, I have not.
Q. You were a witness in the case involving the
Municipal Auditorium, were you not?
A. I don’t think so.
Q. You were not?
A. No, sir.
Q. St. Francis Cabrini is located where?
A. It is located on Crescent, Paris, Mirabeau, and
Perlita. That’s the whole square. It’s an elementary
school and a church.
MR. LISKA: I have no further questions.
185
HERBERT L. GREEN, after first being duly sworn,
testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
MR. TUREAUD:
Q. How old are you?
A. Fourteen.
Q. Are you a student in any school of this city?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Which school?
A. Andrew J. Bell.
Q. What is that, a senior high school or a junior
school?
A. It’s a junior high school.
Q. Do you understand what you are doing when
you take an oath to tell the truth?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know what will happen to anyone who
tells a falsehood after taking an oath?
A. No, I don’t.
Q. If you took an oath, what would be the purpose
for your taking that oath?
A. To tell the truth.
Q. You understand you are to tell the truth?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And if you didn’t tell the truth, you understand
that you would be subject to penalties?
A. Yes, sir.
MR. TUREAUD: I submit him as qualified to tes
tify.
THE COURT: We will accept him.
MR. LISKA: I have no objection.
MR. TUREAUD:
Q. Where do you live?
186
A. 3922 Buchanan Street.
Q. Are there any playgrounds in that area where
you live?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is the name of it?
A. Lemann Park.
THE COURT:
Q. Where is Buchanan Street?
A. Right off St. Bernard Avenue.
MR. TUREAUD:
Q. Have you ever applied to participate in any pro
gram sponsored by NORD?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What program was that?
A. The soap box derby.
Q. You applied to enter the soap box derby?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How did you apply? How did you get in the
soap box derby?
A. I asked Mr. Bynum to sponsor me, and he did,
and I applied.
Q. Who is Mr. Bynum?
A. He owns the drug store in the area where I live.
Q. And he could sponsor you?
A. Yes.
Q. With his sponsorship, you could enter the soap
box derby, is that one of the rules?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you get him to sponsor you?
A. Yes, sir, I got him to sponsor me.
Q. What happened after that?
A. Well, I went up to get my application with my
father, but the person who was supposed to give it to us
wasn’t there at the time.
187
Q. Did you get the application?
A. No.
Q. What did they tell you?
A. They told me the person that was in charge of
that wasn’t in the place at the time.
Q. Did you go back?
A. No. After that, we went to Mike Persia.
Q. Did you get an application?
A. We got an application.
Q. What did you do with it?
A. Signed it and sent it in.
THE COURT:
Q. You got the application from Mike Persia?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then you sent it in?
A. Yes, sir.
MR. TUREAUD:
Q. Did you hear from them with regard to your
application?
A. I didn’t hear from it directly; the sponsor heard
from it.
Q. Who was your sponsor?
A. Mr. Bynum.
Q. Do you understand that the answer that he re
ceived was to your application for participation?
A. Yes, sir. They said I wasn’t—
MR. LISKA: I object to this hearsay testimony now,
if the Court please.
THE COURT: Well, he may have seen the answer
that Mr. Bynum received.
MR. LISKA: But he is a witness. He is not a plain
tiff in this case, and I think the rule as to hearsay ap
plies as to him.
188
Q. Did you see the answer that Mr. Bynum re
ceived?
A. No, sir, I didn’t see it.
Q. You did not?
A. No.
THE COURT: Then the objection is sustained.
MR. TUREAUD: I have no further questions.
CROSS EXAMINATION
MR. LISKA:
Q. Did you send in the application that you re
ceived from Mike Persia?
A. No, Mr. Bynum did that.
Q. Mr. Bynum sent it in?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you see Mr. Bynum put it in the mailbox?
A. No, I didn’t see him put it in the mailbox.
Q. Then you didn’t actually see him send it in, did
you?
A. No, but he received, you know, the information
about it.
Q. You didn’t see anything he received, did you?
A. No, I didn’t see it.
Q. Did you see him fill out the information that he
sent in?
A. My father filled it out.
Q. You say your father filled out the application?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. But after that, you didn’t hear from the authori
ties at all yourself, did you?
A. No, I didn’t myself.
MR. LISKA: Thank you, that’s all.
THE COURT:
189
Q. Do you play on the playgrounds or play spots in
New Orleans, and the parks?
A. Yes, sir, I do.
Q. And are those places where you play operated
on a segregated basis?
A. Yes, sir, they are.
Q. Do you participate, or did you participate, in
any activities that NORD sponsored?
A. No, sir, I do not.
Q. Any special programs, such as football or base
ball?
A. No.
Q. Basketball?
A. No.
Q. Track?
A. No.
MR. LISKA:
Q. What playgrounds and parks do you play on?
A. Lemann Park and Willie Hall Park.
Q. Where is Lemann Park located?
A. Right around the project there.
Q. Where is the other one?
A. Willie Hall?
Q. Yes, where is that located?
A. On Milton Street.
MR. LISKA: That’s all the questions I have.
THE COURT:
HORACE BYNUM, after first being duly sworn,
testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
MR. TUREAUD:
Q. What is your name, please?
190
A. Horace Bynum.
Q. What is your occupation, sir?
A. Pharmacist.
Q. Do you know Herbert Green?
A. Yes, sir, I do.
Q. How long have you known him?
A. From birth.
Q. Have you had occasion to solicit in his behalf
acceptance in any athletic activities sponsored by NORD?
A. Yes, sir. He wanted to enter the soap box derby,
and I said I would sponsor him. I agreed to do it.
Q. What was the result of that?
A. The result was that I gave him a check for $35,
which was to cover the entrance fee, and he took it to
Mike Persia, who helped to fill out the application. That
was on the 20th. of May— correction, on the 19th. of May,
and on the 20th. of May Mr. Gould called me.
Q. He called you?
A. Yes, sir, he called me by phone and told me that
he was the executive assistant director of NORD, and
that Herbert’s application was rejected because NORD
operates a segregated program, and that I would receive
my check back the next day in the mail, which I did.
THE COURT:
Q. What sort of envelope did you receive the check
in?
A. I have it right here, Your Honor.
Q. Let me see it. You say you had the check en
closed in here?
A. It’s in there, yes, sir.
Q. This is the check that you sent to NORD?
A. Yes, sir, I made it out to NORD.
Q. And they sent it back by certified mail?
A. Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Very Well; proceed, Mr. Tureaud.
191
Q. This check which you have just identified was
made payable to the New Orleans Recreational Depart
ment; is that right, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And it is dated May 16, 1963?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And it is made out in the sum of $35?
A. Right.
Q. And it is signed by you, Horace Bynum; is that
right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you have an endorsement on the check, “For
Herbert Green;” is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And this is the envelope in which this check was
returned?
A. It is.
MR TUREAUD: I offer, file and introduce in evi
dence the envelope addressed to Mr. Horace Bynum from
the City of New Orleans Department of Recreation, cer
tified No. 370371, dated May 21, 1963, and I ask that it
be marked P-2 for identification, and I also offer and
file in evidence, with leave of the Court to have a photo
static copy substituted in place of the original, this check
which was identified by the witness, as being the one that
he sent to NORD, and I ask that it be identified as P-3.
THE COURT: They will be admitted into evidence.
MR. TUREAUD: That’s all the questions I have.
MR. LISKA: No questions.
THE COURT: You are excused. We will take a ten-
minute recess.
(Recess taken.)
MR. TUREAUD:
192
NORRIS BROWN, after first being duly sworn, tes
tified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
MR. TUREAUD:
Q. Speak loudly so we can all hear your testimony,
now. Do you understand?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is your name?
A. Norris Brown.
Q. How old are you, Norris?
A. Fourteen.
Q. Where do you live?
A. 2606 So. Derbigny.
Q. Do you live near a playground?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What playground is that ?
A. Taylor Park.
Q. Have you had occasion to go into that park?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did anything unusual happen to you when you
played there?
A. Yes, sir. We were playing a game there, and
the police came, and they stopped us, and they sent a
patrol truck to pick up the boys, and they took our names
and told us to go.
Q. They let you go?
A. Yes.
Q. Were any other boys there that were arrested
on that occasion in that park?
A. Yes, sir, there were seventeen arrested.
Q. Were they whites or Negroes?
A. Negroes.
193
Q. What kind of game were you playing?
A. Baseball.
Q. Baseball?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many were playing in the park with you
at that time?
A. Eighteen.
Q. Eighteen?
A. Yes, sir, there were two teams.
THE COURT: Very well, you may proceed.
MR. TUREAUD:
Q. Was there a full team on each side?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you seek permission to use that park for
this baseball game?
A. No, sir.
Q. You lived in the neighborhood?
A. Yes, sir, right across the street.
Q. And you just organized a baseball team, and
you played another team, is that it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You did not have anybody supervising the game,
did you?
A. No, sir.
THE COURT:
Q. Were there any supervisors in the park that
day?
A. Yes, sir, there was a supervisor on the other
side of the park.
Q. On the other side of the park?
A. Yes.
Q. Was he white or colored?
A. White.
THE COURT:
194
MR. TUREAUD:
Q. Were there any games being played in the park
at that time besides yours?
A. Yes, sir, they had some white boys playing on
the other side.
Q. Some white boys?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What time of day was that?
A. About one-thirty.
Q. One-thirty in the day?
A. Yes, sir.
THE COURT:
Q. Was there any separation in the park between
the two sides?
A. Yes, sir, they had a fence that goes across there.
Q. A fence?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did that divide the park itself?
A. Yes, sir.
MR. TUREAUD:
Q. Is that because of the ball games being played
by different teams, or is that to separate the races?
A. Well, no, that’s a backstop for the players to use.
Q. A backstop?
A. Yes, sir.
THE COURT:
Q. Was there enough room for both of these games
to be going on at the same time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. There was room for the game being played on
the other side and on your side too?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Both games could be played without one inter
fering with the other?
A. Yes, sir.
195
Q. Have you ever played in that same park at other
times other than this time?
A. Yes, sir, we played football and baseball.
Q. Who would organize those games when you
would play?
A. Nobody; we would just get together.
Q. Just the neighborhood team, so to speak?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. There was no trouble about that, was there?
A. No, sir.
Q. Nobody had any fights or anything? There was
no mob ever standing out there, was there?
A. No.
Q. Nobody threatened you or threatened to put you
out of there, did they?
A. No.
MR. TUREAUD: That’s all.
CROSS EXAMINATION
MR. LISKA:
Q. How many diamonds were on that playground?
A. They just had one diamond.
Q. Who was playing on that one diamond on the
day in question, the one you just referred to a few min
utes ago?
A. When this happened?
Q. Yes.
A. Only the white boys.
MR. LISKA: That’s all.
THE COURT:
Q. You were playing on the other side of the park
on a makeshift diamond, then; is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
MR. TUREAUD:
196
Q. The area of this park where you were playing
is not normally used for baseball games, is it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. It is?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. They normally play ball on both sides of that
park?
A. Yes, sir.
MR. LISKA: No further questions.
MR. LISKA:
LIONEL NEWTON, after first being duly sworn,
testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
MR. TUREAUD:
Q. What is your name?
A. Lionel Newton.
Q. Where do you live, Mr. Newton.
A. 3231 Second Street.
Q. How old are you?
A. Fifteen.
Q. Are you in school?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What grade are you in?
A. Eighth grade.
Q. Do you live near a playground or park?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What’s the name of it?
A. Taylor Park.
Q. Have you had occasion to go into Taylor Park?
A. Yes, sir.
197
Q. And have you played games there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. With whom?
A. With a smaller boy—some other boys.
Q. Did you ever have anything unusual happen
while you were in that park?
A. Yes, sir, the police came and ran us out.
Q. Why did they say they were running you out?
A. They said we wasn’t supposed to play there.
Q. They didn’t tell you why you weren’t supposed
to play there?
A. No, sir.
Q. They didn’t tell you it was because you are
Negro?
A. No, sir.
THE COURT:
Q. When was this?
A. That was Good Friday.
Q. On Good Friday?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Which year?
A. 1962.
Q. That’s a year ago?
A. Yes, sir.
MR. TLREAUD:
Q. Were you playing in there that day with Norris
Brown?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was that the same occasion that he was relating
here in the court?
A. Yes, sir.
MR. TUREAUD: That’s all the questions I have.
MR. LISKA: No questions.
198
WALTER McCOY, after first being duly sworn, tes
tified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
MR. TUREAUD:
Q. Are you a student?
A. No, sir, I work.
Q. How old are you?
A. Twenty.
Q. Do you live near a park or playground?
A. Yes, sir, two of them, Rosamond and Taylor
Park.
Q. Have you had occasion to play in Taylor Park?
A. Well, the last time I was there, I was arrested.
Q. When was the last time that you were there
when you were arrested?
A. In ’61.
Q. In 1961?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why did they arrest you?
A. Well, my brother and I, both of us were playing
basketball, and police came and arrested me.
Q. Did you go to trial?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What finding did the court make?
A. No, we didn’t go on trial.
Q. What happened?
A. I don’t believe the police showed up that day.
Q. The police didn’t show up?
A. No, sir.
Q. The case was dismissed against you?
A. Yes.
MR. TUREAUD: That’s all the questions we have.
MR. LISKA: I have no questions.
199
THE COURT:
Q. When you were arrested, you were taken to the
police station?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How were you released? Did you make bond?
A. I believe so.
Q. Who paid your bond? Who got you out?
A. I was an NAACP official. My mother called up,
I think.
Q. They went your bond?
A. They paid the bond, yes, sir.
Q. How much later were you called to court?
A. When the police didn’t show up?
Q. Yes.
A. The next day or the one after that, I think.
THE COURT: Very well, you are excused.
MORRIS F. X. JEFF, after first being duly sworn,
testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
MR. TUREAUD:
Q. Mr. Jeff, what is your occupation?
A. I am a teacher, and I work for the Recreation
Department as recreational supervisor.
Q. Where do you teach?
A. In fact, I am a consultant in the Public School
system, and I work with the teachers.
Q. You are employed by the Orleans Parish School
Board as a consultant?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you regularly required to consult with
teachers?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Or, they consult with you?
A. Yes.
Q. In what area of education would you say that is,
Mr. Jeff?
A. In the elementary area.
Q. And in what academic field do you consult with
them?
A. Physical education.
Q. Physical education?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You are also employed by the New Orleans Rec
reation Department; is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is your payroll title with them?
A. Recreation supervisor three.
Q. Are there any other Negroes employed by the
New Orleans Recreation Department?
A. Yes, there are.
Q. Are they in superior in position to you, or are
they subordinates to you?
A. They are subordinate to me.
Q. Are you the highest ranking Negro employee of
the New Orleans Recreation Department?
A. Yes, sir, I am.
Q. How long have you been employed in this posi
tion?
A. Since January 15, 1947.
Q. As supervisor, what are your responsibilities?
A. I coordinate the activities of the Negro play
grounds.
Q. Is that a full-time responsibility?
A. It is full time in scope, but in work it isn’t. I
mean, I don’t work full time as such. In fact, I am not
paid full time, but I work full time.
Q. You work full time on a part-time basis?
200
201
A. Yes, sir.
THE COURT:
Q. Now, wait a minute. You said it’s a full time
job in scope, but that you don’t work full time, and then
you said you don’t get paid full time, but you work full
time. Could you explain what you mean by that?
A. In other words, Your Honor, it is supposed to be
a full time job with the Recreation Department, and ac
tually I put in more than forty hours a week, but I am
only paid as a part-time worker. That’s what I mean.
Maybe I wasn’t too clear on that.
Q. How many hours do you put in with the Orleans
Parish School Board?
A. I work from eight forty-five to three with the
Orleans Parish School Board.
Q. Where is your office, as the consultant with the
Orleans Parish School Board? Where is that located?
A. At the Andrew J. Bell High School.
Q. Where is your office as a NORD supervisor lo
cated?
A. It is located at the Rosenwald Youth Center.
Q. Is the Rosenwald Youth Center the usual place
where the principal activities of NORD for Negroes are
conducted?
A. I would say yes.
Q. What are the activities that NORD provides for
Negroes?
A. You say what are the activities?
Q. Yes, what are the activities?
A. Baseball, basketball, at one time swimming,
dancing, arts and crafts, and miscellaneous activities.
Q. Are these activities supervised?
A. Yes, sir, they are supervised.
Q. By whom?
A. By the recreational supervisors, the Negro super
visors.
202
Q. Do they work under your supervision?
A. Yes, sir, they do.
Q. How many people do you have under your super
vision?
A. It ranges from thirty-one to sixty, or maybe
seventy. We have regular workers, and we have what
we call part-time workers.
Q. Now, as to the regular workers first, what num
ber of hours are they employed as such?
A. Well, it’s hard to break that down in the num
ber of hours, but I can tell you that we do have thirty-
one regular workers.
Q. You call that full-time employment; is that
right?
A. Yes, sir. I don’t know the exact number on this
right offhand, but I know we have about two-thirds of
our workers full time and one-third part time, about.
Q. And you have the responsibility of supervising
these employees; is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All of them?
A. Yes.
Q. They don’t work under any other person, under
the supervision of any other person?
A. Oh, yes, we all work under the supervision of
Mr. Gould, and the new program director, Mr. Seeger.
Q. Is there an in-service training program for these
supervisors?
A. Yes, there is.
Q. Where is that conducted?
A. We usually have an in-service training program
at the Rosenwald Youth Center.
Q. Is that for Negroes only?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who conducts that in-service training program?
A. I do.
203
Q. Do any other personnel who are under the super
vision of Mr. Gould participate in these in-service train
ing programs?
A. No, they don’t.
Q. You conduct them as strictly a segregated ac
tivity under the NORD program?
A. That’s right.
Q. Do you have any Negro supervisors assigned to
any of the playgrounds?
A. Most of the Negro supervisors, in fact, all of
them help out in that, yes, sir.
Q. Are they full-time workers?
A. The great majority of them are, yes, sir.
Q. How many playgrounds does that represent?
A. It represents about fourteen; I don’t know ex
actly.
Q. Around fourteen playgrounds?
A. Yes.
Q. Are these full regulation playgrounds, or play
centers and play spots?
A. They are regulation playgrounds.
Q. And what are the activities that are supervised
at these playgrounds?
A. Oh, football, baseball, softball, things of that
sort.
Q. I show you what purports to be an advertisement
of the summer program by NORD and ask you if you can
recognize these activities as being available to Negroes?
A. We don’t have all of these activities. Now
whether they are available, I don’t know, because this is
an administrative thing, and someone else would have to
answer that.
Q. How is the program sponsored by NORD under
Negro supervision?
A. I don’t understand your question.
Q. To get an activity under the sponsorship of
204
NORD, must it initiate with the people in the community
who want it, or by NORD?
A. Maybe both.
Q. Do you have any sponsorships that are entirely
by NORD?
A. The great majority of activities, if that’s what
you mean when you say sponsorship, yes.
Q. They are from NORD, those that are supervised?
A. If I understand your question, yes.
THE COURT: Are you talking now about how they
are initiated?
MR. TUREAUD: Yes, sir, that’s right.
THE COURT:
Q. Do you understand the question?
A. Yes, sir, I understand the question.
Q. Are all NORD’s programs initiated by NORD
partly and party by the individuals.
A. That’s right.
MR. TUREAUD:
Q. What activities do you have, if any, that are
initiated just by individuals, or groups of people?
A. I can’t recall any.
Q. You don’t know of any activity that individuals
have responsibility for having initiated?
A. I know we have had a bathing beauty contest
that was initiated by an outside group. We have had
other groups come in with things like yo-yo contests, and
those were sponsored by outside groups. Those are about
the only instances I can recall where NORD didn’t initi
ate the program.
Q. You don’t sponsor any soap box derby, do you?
A. It hasn’t been available to our program.
THE COURT:
Q. Is the art school available to your program?
A. We have arts and crafts, yes, sir.
205
Q. Is this ballet school available?
A. We have a dance teacher.
Q. You have a dance teacher?
A. Yes, sir, and this teacher is supposed to teach
ballet, twirling, and other things.
Q. Do you have a charm school too?
A. No, we don’t have.
MR. TUREAUD:
Q. Do you have any bowling activities?
A. No, we don’t under our program.
Q. Not under your supervision?
A. No.
Q. Do you have a traveling theatre?
A. No, we don’t have a traveling theatre. At one
time we did, but we don’t have now.
Q. Do you have tennis at this time?
A. On an individual basis, yes, sir.
Q. Is that sponsored by NORD?
A. It’s a NORD activity. It’s sponsored by NORD
and supervised by NORD.
Q. Do you have a civic orchestra?
A. No, we don’t have.
Q. Do you have ceramics?
A. Yes, sir, we do.
Q. Where?
A. At the Rosenwald Center.
THE COURT:
Q. Those children theatre plays for Negro audi
ences, are they held at the Rosenwald Center?
A. Yes, sir, they are at the Rosenwald Center.
MR. TUREAUD:
Q. Have you had any directives issued to you as to
the use of facilities on a non-discriminatory racial basis?
206
A. No, not a directive as such, not a written direc
tive, no.
Q. Who determines if a facility is for whites only?
A. Well, I mean, it’s just by custom, I guess, but
I don’t ever remember getting a directive about any of
them being used as such.
Q. When you were first employed, you were told
that you were to conduct Negro activities; is that right,
and to supervise them?
A. Yes, sir, that was my assignment.
Q. And you were not to initiate any activities that
were not approved by NORD; isn’t that right?
A. That’s right.
Q. What kind of activity is a skatemobile?
A. The skatemobile it a teen activity in which chil
dren race with skates.
Q. Where?
A. Along the streets of New Orleans, on and around
various playgrounds.
Q. It’s not an organized activity, is it?
A. What do you mean?
Q. I mean like being held any particular month, or
anything like that?
A. A skatemobile is just like a track meet. They
can be held any time.
Q. When was the last one conducted?
A. The last one was conducted on last Tuesday at
one of the playgrounds.
Q. Inside the playground, or outside?
A. It was alongside the playground, in the asphalt
area.
Q. Are the winners of that permitted to participate
in any regional or national skatemobile?
A. No, the skatemobile is strictly a local activity.
Q. How long has that been operating, that program?
A. About twelve years.
207
Q. Do you know how it was initiated?
A. Yes, I do. It was first started as a project of
the Orleans Parish School Board, when we were asked
to conduct races with skatemobiles, and we did, and from
that particular point on, we developed it into our derby.
MR. TUREAUD: I think that’s all.
CROSS EXAMINATION
MR. LISKA:
Q. You have been in the courtroom all morning, and
you heard Mr. Lautenschlaeger testify, did you not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do any of the Negro boys buy their own uni
forms in forming leagues among themselves?
A. Yes, sir, many of our baseball teams are spon
sored by Negro businesses and they buy the uniforms.
Q. The uniforms and equipment are generally pur
chased by these particular team sponsors, are they not,
and not by NORD?
A. NORD furnishes catcher’s equipment and um
pire’s, but sponsored teams must have the equipment and
suits.
Q. Do I understand from that, then, that the facili
ties are open to anyone who wants to participate and
have leagues?
A. Just about, yes, sir.
THE COURT:
Q. You mean any Negro teams, don’t you?
A. Oh, yes, sir. Well, that’s my job, working with
the Negroes, and I am speaking from that standpoint.
That’s my job.
MR. LISKA:
Q. There is no prohibition as to the amount of acti
vity that you may provide these people if they come and
ask you to initiate it, is there?
A. Provided it is sponsored by the Recreation De
partment.
208
Q. And all festivities other than the soap box derby
have been offered to the Negroes, have they not?
A. The activities that I named were the ones that
have been offered.
MR. LISKA: I have no further questions.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION
MR. TUREAUD:
Q. You can’t initiate an inter-racial activity, can
you?
A. Well, I don’t know, because since my job is to
coordinate the Negro activities, I don’t see any need for
my initiating.
Q. But in answer to a question by Mr. Liska, you
said that you do initiate activities or supervise them; isn’t
that correct?
A. Provided the activity is approved by NORD, yes.
THE COURT:
Q. How do the Negro NORD football teams get
their equipment?
A. We have in our league, Your Honor, twelve
teams and of those twelve teams eight were privately
sponsored and four were sponsored by NORD.
Q. That means that NORD furnished football uni
forms and equipment for those four teams, then; is that
right?
A. No, sir, just the footballs and suits.
Q. And football suits?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And as to the other eight, where did they get
their equipment and uniforms?
A. They have to get their equipment and uniforms
from their private sponsor.
Q. Were those Negro sponsors?
A. Yes, sir, business houses and so forth.
THE COURT: All right, any more questions?
209
MR. LISKA: I have no further questions.
WILLARD CASTLE, after first being duly sworn,
testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
MR. TUREAUD:
Q. What is your occupation, Mr. Castle?
A. Longshoreman.
Q. Do you have a child who has used the public
playgrounds of this city?
A. Well, he has tried to.
Q. Which playground do you have reference to now,
sir?
A. The St. Bernard Playground.
Q. Did anything unusual happen there?
A. Yes.
Q. What happened?
A. The police came from the Fifth Precinct—they
came down and taken the kid and carried him down to
the police station.
MR. LISKA: I’m going to object to any testimony
by this witness as to what was told to him, and I wish
that the Court would so instruct the witness.
THE COURT: You are instructed to answer only
matters that are within your own knowledge. Do you
understand?
A. Yes.
MR. TUREAUD:
Q. You said the police came to the playground and
took your son to the police station?
A. Among others, yes, sir.
Q. There were other children also taken away from
the playground?
210
A. Yes, sir, three of them. Seven of them were
there.
THE COURT:
Q. Did you see them at the precinct?
A. No, sir, I was coming from work. I come from
work, and my wife told me that they had the kid down
there, that they were in jail.
MR. LISKA: I am going to object to what his wife
told him, if the Court please.
THE COURT: Well, he is just telling what hap
pened. The objection is overruled. Go ahead.
MR. TUREAUD:
Q. Did you go down and see them at the jail?
A. No, I didn’t go down. My brother-in-law went
down to get them. He drove the automobile.
Q. Are you a plaintiff in this case? Are you one
of the parties who joined in this suit?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have any personal experience with the
police in connection with these public playground activi
ties?
A. Yes.
Q. But you have never been arrested in connection
with a situation like this, have you?
A. No, not me.
Q. Have you ever been charged with any violation
of any law with regard to playgrounds or playground
activities?
A. No, I never have.
Q. Now tell us about this incident in which you
were involved, as you recall it.
A. One evening last year I worked a half-day, and
around about two-thirty I was coming home, and the po
lice were chasing a couple of kids, and as they were com
ing around the corner, I could see they were trembling
and nervous, and one of the kids had cut his feet— a kid
211
named McHilleny, and they said the police—
MR. LISKA: I object to any hearsay testimony,
Your Honor.
THE COURT:
Q. Did you see these boys leave the playground?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you see the police officers leave the play
ground?
A. No, I didn’t.
THE COURT: Well, that objection is sustained. We
only want to know what you know of your own knowl
edge.
Q. When you said your brother-in-law went to get
the boys at the police station, did those boys have to go to
Juvenile Court?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you go to court?
A. No, I didn’t go. In fact, I don’t have an auto
mobile.
Q. You mean you can’t go anywhere without an
automobile?
A. No, he went.
MR. TUREAUD:
Q. Were you served with a notice to appear in
court?
A. No.
Q. Were they your children?
A. Yes, sir, they were my kids.
Q. Your children did use this playground, did they
not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you know that of your own knowledge?
A. Yes.
MR. TUREAUD: No further questions.
212
THE COURT: You are excused. Call your next
witness.
WILLIE L. MASON, after first being duly sworn,
testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
MR. TUREAUD:
Q. Mr. Mason, what is your occupation?
A. I am a longshoreman.
Q. Do you live near the St. Bernard Playground?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you had occasion to use this playground
personally?
A. No, I’ve had no occasion to use it myself.
Q. Do you have children?
A. I have children.
Q. Did you have one of your children involved in
an incident in that playground that you recall?
A. Well, the only thing that I know is that he came
home and told me that the police ran them off.
THE COURT:
Q. Is that a white playground or a Negro play
ground?
That’s a white playground, but this was really a lot
across the street from the playground, and the police
came and ran them off, and you know kids, they don’t
have sense not to go on the white playground.
MR. TUREAUD:
Q. You say that’s a vacant lot, rather than the play
ground itself?
A. Yes, sir, it’s a vacant lot.
Q. It’s not part of the playground?
A. No, it’s not part of the playground.
Q. You are a plaintiff in this case, are you not, sir?
213
You are bringing this suit on your own behalf, and on
behalf of your children?
A. Yes, sir, that’s right.
Q. Are you also representing anyone else interested
in this matter, any other people in the community who
have children?
A. Well, I figure if I can help out the other people,
I will do so.
Q. So you are bringing this suit not only in your
own behalf and on behalf of your children, but also in
behalf of other children as well?
A. Yes, sir.
MR. TUREAUD: That’s all the questions I have.
MR. LISKA: No questions.
THE COURT: You may step down. Call your next
witness.
MR. TUREAUD: We have other witnesses, if the
Court please, but I was just wondering if maybe we could
stipulate.
MR. LISKA: I will stipulate that if called, they
would all testify along the same line as the witnesses we
have already heard, if that’s what you want to stipulate.
THE COURT: Well let’s get clear on what you are
stipulating.
(Discussion off the record)
THE COURT: Then you can’t stipulate. You had
better call your next witness since you can’t agree on the
stipulation.
GERALD H. THOMAS, after first being duly sworn,
testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
MR. TUREAUD:
Q. What is your occupation, Mr. Thomas?
214
A. United States clerk, retired.
Q. Are you the father of Judith Thomas?
A. I am her father, yes, sir.
Q. Do you have occasion to use the public play
grounds of this city?
A. My daughter has occasion to use them, particu
larly the one in our neighborhood.
Q. Is that particular playground designated for
Negro use?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you white or Negro?
A. I am a Negro.
Q. Where do you live, Mr. Thomas?
A. 2020 Pleasure Street.
Q. Is there a playground near where you live?
A. There is a playground in that area, yes, sir.
Q. Do you bring this suit on your own behalf and
on behalf of your child?
A. I do.
Q. Do you in any way represent any other persons
on whose behalf you bring this suit?
A. I hope to make it available for all colored people
in the City of New Orleans who use public playgrounds.
MR. TUREAUD: That’s all the questions I have.
MR. LISKA: I have no questions.
LLEWELYN J. SONIAT, after first being duly
sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
MR. TUREAUD:
Q. What is your occupation, Mr. Soniat?
A. I am a clerk in the United States Post Office.
215
Q. Do you live near a playground?
A. Yes, I live near a playground. I live in the Car
rollton area, and there is a playground there.
Q. Is that playground designated for white or col
ored?
A. For white.
Q. Have you had occasion to try to use that plav-
ground?
A. The only time I used that was when I was a boy
many years ago.
THE COURT:
Q. Was it at that time a white playground?
A. It has always been white.
Q. But you say you used it?
A. Yes, but nobody said anything about it then.
MR. TUREAUD:
Q. Are you the father of Donald Soniat and Cyn
thia Soniat?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You bring this suit on their behalf, as well as
on your own behalf?
A. I do.
Q. And you also bring this suit on behalf of any
other Negroes who are similarly situated?
A. I do. There are many Negroes who are in the
same situation, and I would like to represent them too.
Q. Have you ever been asked by anybody, any other
Negroes, to do whatever you could to remove the segrega
tion policies with respect to playgrounds in this city?
MR. LISKA: I think that’s hearsay, if the Court
please, and I object to any testimony along this line. He
can’t testify as to what people asked him to say here in
court. If he wants to call those other people, then that’s
another thing, but it’s strictly hearsay for this man to
testify as to what somebody else might have asked him
to do.
216
MR. TUREAUD: I will withdraw the question.
THE COURT: Then there’s no question before the
Court. Proceed.
MR. TUREAUD: I have no further questions.
THE COURT:
Q. Have your children used the playgrounds in the
City of New Orleans, or some of them?
A. My children have used two playgrounds.
Q. Which playgrounds are those?
A. The Rosenwald Center, and the Shakespeare
Park Playground.
Q. Are those restricted to Negroes?
A. They are restricted to Negroes, yes, sir.
Q. How far are those parks from your home?
A. Anywhere from five to eight miles.
Q. Isn’t there a nearer playground where the chil
dren could play other than this white playground near
your home?
A. Well, you see, because of this activity that they
take part in, swimming, that playground will not do, and
so they have to go miles in order to be able to learn to
swim, and that’s why they have to use those other parks
so far away.
THE COURT: All right, thank you. Call your next
witness.
MR. TUREAUD: That’s our case, if the Court
please. We rest.
PRESLY J. TROSCLAIR, SR., after first being
duly sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
MR. LISKA:
Q. Please state your name and by whom you are
employed.
217
A. Presly Trosclair, Sr., and I am a police officer
with the New Orleans Police Department.
Q. Were you present in the City of New Orleans
at an incident when many Negro students of Southern
University were arrested, and if so, state what place and
w7hat time this occurred?
A. Yes, sir, I was present. This was on a Monday,
December 18, 1961.
THE COURT: Did you say Southern University?
MR. LISKA: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. LISKA:
Q. What was the occasion of this incident, Mr.
Trosclair?
A. There were approximately 254 arrests made on
the uptown side of Canal Street between So. Derbigny
and So. Roman.
Q. Were they white persons, or were they Negroes?
A. Well, there were several white persons in the
group, but predominantly they were Negroes.
Q. At my instructions, did you examine the records
of that particular arrest?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
MR. TUREAUD: If the Court please, I object to
this line of questioning, because it’s irrelevant to the
matter before the Court.
MR. LISKA: I am trying to lay the foundation.
THE COURT: Then we will defer ruling on the
objection and see what he is leading up to.
MR. LISKA:
Q. Did you bring with you a photograph which
shows the various instruments that were confiscated at
that time?
MR. TUREAUD: I am going to object, Your Honor.
218
THE COURT: What’s the purpose of this line of
questioning, Mr. Liska?
(Argument to the Court.)
THE COURT: The Court will withhold ruling on
the objection, and we will let you proceed, because you
want you to make up your record as fully as you think
necessary.
MR. LISKA:
Q. In connection with this matter that you have
testified to, did you bring with you a photograph from
the records of the case?
A. Yes, sir, I have a photograph taken from the
records.
Q. What does this photograph reflect? Wait a min
ute. Let me show it to opposing counsel first.
MR. TUREAUD: I would like to determine before
he testifies concerning this, Your Honors, whether he
made this photograph himself.
THE COURT: Why don’t you ask him?
MR. TUREAUD:
Q. Did you make that photograph?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Were you present when it was made?
A. No, I didn’t see any of those weapons.
Q. Was it made pursuant to orders from you?
A. No, I just obtained it from the records, as I
said.
Q. From the records in this case?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And which case are you talking about, the ar
rests that were made?
A. The arrests that were made on December 18,
1961, yes, sir.
Q. Have any of these parties involved in this arrest
219
been tried and convicted in a court?
A. No, sir, this is a Municipal Court case.
Q. They have not been tried, and they have not
been convicted?
A. No, sir, they have not, not to my knowledge.
MR. TUREAUD: I object to the admissibility of
this photograph then, if the Court please.
THE COURT: Under the circumstances the Court
feels that it is inadmissible, but you may go ahead and
make up your record. It is understood that the Court’s
ruling is that Mr. Liska will be permitted to make an
offer of proof, and that the photograph and Mr. Tros-
clair’s testimony along that line will be made a part of
the record as an offer of proof. The objection is main
tained by the Court as to the offer of the photograph The
Court feels that it is not admissible. However, your offer
of proof will be made a part of the record, and the Court
so rules.
MR. LISKA:
Q. Were you present when these arrests were made?
A. I was present when the arrests were made, sir.
If the weapons that were confiscated are in that picture,
then I have firsthand knowledge of that, but I don’t know
this of my own knowledge whether they are the ones, as
I previously testified.
MR. LISKA: In connection with the witness’ testi
mony, I offer, file, and introduce into evidence the docu
ment marked D-l for identification.
MR. TUREAUD: To which we object for the record.
THE COURT: Well, it’s part of his offer of proof.
We will let it in for that purpose.
MR. LISKA: I have no further questions.
MR. TUREAUD: We have no questions.
THE COURT: All right, gentlemen, do you want to
argue at this time?
(Argument heard by the Court.)
220
I do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and
correct transcript of the proceedings had in the above
titled and numbered cause taken by me on June 26, 1963,
to the best of my ability and understanding.
/ s / Robert L. Lee
Robert L. Lee, Official Reporter
United States District Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Office of the Clerk
Eastern District of Louisiana
New Orleans, Louisiana
CLERK’S CERTIFICATE
I, A. DALLAM O’BRIEN, JR., Clerk of the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisi
ana, do hereby certify that the foregoing 302 pages con
tain and form a full, true and complete record in the
cause entitled: No. 12968— Civil Action
EVANGELINE BARTHE, a minor, by
Edwin Barthe, her father, etc, et als
VS.
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, a Municipal
Corp., etc., et al
WITNESS MY HAND and the seal
of said Court at the City of
New Orleans, Louisiana, this
29th day of November, 1963
A. DALLAM O’BRIEN, JR., CLERK
B y :/s / A. F, Page, Jr.___________________
Deputy Clerk