Tonkins v. City of Greensboro Appendix to Appellants' Brief
Public Court Documents
January 1, 1958
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Tonkins v. City of Greensboro Appendix to Appellants' Brief, 1958. 36297153-c69a-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/5eab2a1d-64ca-4f45-b277-b798467fb025/tonkins-v-city-of-greensboro-appendix-to-appellants-brief. Accessed August 19, 2025.
Copied!
In the
Intfpfr Gkmrt of Appeals
F or t h e F ourth C ircu it
No. 8025
D eloris T o n k in s , et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
■—v.—
C it y of G reensboro, et al., and T h e G reensboro P ool
C orporation, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
APPENDIX TO APPELLANTS’ BRIEF
J. K e n n e t h L ee
M ajor S. H igh
427 Bembow Eoad
Greensboro, North Carolina
C. 0 . P earson
203% East Chapel Hill Street
Durham, North Carolina
C onstance B aker M otley
T hurgood M arshall
10 Columbus Circle
New York 19, N. Y.
Attorneys for Appellants
INDEX TO APPENDIX
Pages of
Original Printed
Record Page
Final Judgment and Decree ................. la
Supplemental Opinion of Stanley, D.J.
Dated August 13, 1959 ............. 3a
Opinion of Stanley, D.J. Dated May
23, 1958 ................................................. 11a
Depositions of II. L. Coble, R. M. Talia
ferro, Carroll 0. Weaver, William B.
Burke, William Folk, Jr., Tom E.
Brown, D. Newton Farnell, Jr., A. F.
Stevens, Jr., E. R. Zane, J. M. Denny,
Elbert F. Lewis, George H. Roach,
James R. Townsend Dated June 27,
1958 ........................................................ 29a
Testimony of Dr. R. M. Taliaferro 3-66 31a
Testimony of II. L. Coble ............ 70-91 75a
Testimony of Carroll 0. Weaver - 92-135 91a
Depositions of H. L. Coble, R. M. Talia
ferro, Carroll 0. Weaver, William B.
Burke, William Folk, Jr., Tom E.
Brown, D. Newton Farnell, Jr., A. F.
Stevens, Jr., E. R. Zane, J. M. Denny,
Elbert F. Lewis, George H. Roach,
James R. Townsend Dated July 18,
1958 ...................................................... . 124a
Testimony of Elbert Lew is........... 138-170 125a
Testimony of George H. Roach .... 173-228 147a
11
Testimony of Dr. E. M. Taliferria and
Pages of
Original
Record
Printed
Page
C. 0. Weaver Dated February 26,
1959 .......................................... ............. 165a
Stipulations....................................... 30 166a
Witnesses for Defendant
Greensboro Pool Corp.
Dr. E. M. Taliferria
Cross ......................................... 49-57 167a
Eedireet ....... ............................. 58 173a
Eecross....................................... 58-59 173a
C. 0. Weaver
Cross.......................................... 72-81 175a
A P P E N D I X
Final Judgment and Decree
In th e
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
F oe th e M iddle D istrict of N orth Carolina
G reensboro D ivision
Civil Action Number C-61-G-58
D eloris T o n k in s , R uby P. T aylor, J ohn S need, M able
J ackson , J ambs W ebster, A dam S tew art , H ershey
Cr e n sh aw , and J ulia H olly , on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
— v.—
T h e C ity oe Greensboro, N orth Carolina, a m unicipa l
corporation, and J ames R. T ownsend , City Manager
of the City of Greensboro, North Carolina,
The Greensboro Pool Corporation, a business corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of
North Carolina, and the three officers of said corpora
tion: Dr. R. M. T aliaferro, President, Carroll 0 .
W eaver, Secretary and Treasurer, and H. L. Coble,
Vice-President,
Defendants.
This cause coming on to be heard before the undersigned
Judge of the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina upon the complaint of Plaintiffs
as amended and supplemented, and their Motion for a
Preliminary Injunction, and upon the Defendants’ Motion
2a
Final Judgment and Decree
to Dismiss the Complaint for Failure to State a Claim
Upon Which Any Relief Can Be Granted;
And it appearing to the Court from the Pleadings,
Affidavits, Depositions, Briefs, and Arguments of Counsel
for all parties that the Defendants’ motion should be
granted for reasons set forth in the two Opinions hereto
fore filed in this cause by the undersigned Judge, in ac
cordance with findings of fact and conclusions of law set
forth in said Opinions;
Now, THEREFORE, XT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED :
1. That the complaint of Plaintiffs, as amended and
supplemented, is hereby dismissed;
2. That the relief sought by Plaintiffs in this cause is
hereby denied, and this action is hereby finally dis
missed as to all Defendants; and
3. That Defendants shall have and recover the costs of
this action from Plaintiffs, including deposition
costs.
United States District Judge for the
Middle District of North Carolina
Order entered Sept. 11,1959.
3a
I n th e
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
F or th e M iddle D istrict of N orth Carolina
Greensboro D ivision
No. C-61-G-58
[ same tit l e ]
Supplemental Opinion of Stanley, D.J.
Dated August 13, 1959
S tan ley , District Judge:
In the original complaint the plaintiffs sought to en
join the City of Greensboro and its City Manager, James
R. Townsend, from refusing to permit plaintiffs, Negro
citizens of the City of Greensboro, to use the Lindley Park
Swimming Pool, a municipally owned recreational facility,
and to enjoin said defendants from selling the pool for
the sole purpose of denying the plaintiffs their constitu
tional rights.
In an opinion filed on May 23, 1958, this court concluded
that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the relief sought,
but deferred the entry of a decree dismissing the action
for a period of 30 days after the sale of the swimming
pool had been confirmed by the City of Greensboro, to
give the plaintiffs an opportunity to show that the sale
was not bona fide in the sense that there was collusion
between the City of Greensboro and the successful bid
der regarding the future operation or use of the pool.
Tonkins v. City of Greensboro, 162 F. Supp. 549 (M. D.
N. C. 1958).
Following the facts and events recited in the opinion
referred to above, the Lindley Park Swimming Pool was
4a
sold at public sale on June 3, 1958, when the Greensboro
Pool Corporation became the last and highest bidder for
the sum of $85,000.00.
The City Council of the City of Greensboro met on
June 5, 1958, and adopted the following resolution:
“ R esolution A ccepting B id op G reensboro P ool
C orporation for th e B indley P ark S w im m in g P ool
W hereas, at the public sale held on 3 June 1958,
Greensboro Pool Corporation placed the high bid on
the Lindley Park Swimming Pool in the amount of
$85,000, which bid, in the opinion of the City Council,
should be accepted;
Now, T herefore, Be It R esolved by th e C ity C oun
cil of th e C ity of Greensboro :
That the bid of Greensboro Pool Corporation in
the amount of $85,000 for the Lindley Park swimming
pool is hereby accepted, and the sale of the pool in
accordance with the bid is hereby authorized, and
the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to
execute and deliver a conveyance of the property.”
After having been given an extension of time to file
written motion for leave to show that the sale was not
bona fide in the sense that there was collusion between
the defendants and the successful bidder regarding the
future use or operation of the pool, the plaintiffs, on Au
gust 12, 1958, filed a motion for leave to file supplemental
complaint making the Greensboro Pool Corporation and
its three principal officers additional defendants. This
motion was granted by order entered on September 5,
Supplemental Opinion of Stanley, D.J.
Dated August IS, 1959
5a
1958. Thereafter, copies of the supplemental complaint
were served upon all the defendants. The defendants filed
answers denying the material allegations in the supple
mental complaint.
The supplemental complaint alleges a. number of rea
sons why the Greensboro Pool Corporation is not a bona
fide purchaser of the Lindley Park Swimming Pool, and
prays that all the defendants be enjoined from refusing
to permit the plaintiffs and members of their class to use
the Lindley Park Swimming Pool upon the same terms
and conditions applicable to the white citizens of the city.
When evidence in regard to the allegations contained
in the supplemental complaint was heard the parties were
afforded an opportunity to file proposed findings of fact
and conclusions of law and briefs in support of their re
spective positions.
After carefully considering all the evidence, together
with the briefs and requests for findings of fact and con
clusions of law submitted by the parties, it is concluded
that the plaintiffs have wholly failed to sustain the alle
gations in their supplemental complaint.
It conclusively appears that the sale was duly and
regularly advertised and conducted in accordance with
the provisions of the General Statutes of North Carolina
and the Charter of the City of Greensboro relating to the
sale of municipally owned property, and that the pro
cedures followed in advertising and selling the property,
including the terms extended for the payment of the pur
chase price, were identical with that which has been regu
larly followed by the City of Greensboro over a period of
many years in connection with the sale of city-owned real
estate having an appraised value in excess of $15,000.00;
Supplemental Opinion of Stanley, D.J.
Bated August 13, 1959
6a
that all persons, regardless of race, were afforded an equal
opportunity to bid at the sale, and that none of the defen
dants, or anyone acting on their behalf, did anything to
discourage or prevent others from bidding against the
Greensboro Pool Corporation at the sale; that no officer
or employee of the City of Greensboro obtained or at
tempted to obtain from the Greensboro Pool Corporation,
or anyone acting on its behalf, any agreement, commit
ment or assurance that anyone would be excluded from
the Lindley Park Swimming Pool by reason of race or
color; that neither the City of Greensboro, nor any of its
officers or employees, have influenced or attempted to
influence the formulation of plans and policies for the
operation of the swimming pool by the Greensboro Pool
Corporation; that neither the Greensboro Pool Corpora
tion, nor any of its officers, directors or employees, nor
anyone else acting on its behalf, took any part in formulat
ing the terms and conditions upon which the Lindley Park
Swimming Pool was offered for sale by the City of Greens
boro; that the City of Greensboro did not reserve or
attempt to reserve any supervision or control over the
operation of the Lindley Park Swimming Pool by the
Greensboro Pool Corporation, other than by the applica
tion of uniform municipal zoning and other law’s and
ordinances; that the pool is located in a residential area,
and the land upon which it is located has long been sub
ject to a zoning ordinance restricting the operation of any
business to a non-profit or non-commercial basis, and the
City of Greensboro refused to re-zone the property prior
to the time the pool was offered for sale; that the pool
property is listed for municipal and county ad valorem
tax purposes for $59,500.00, which is 70% of the sale price
Supplemental Opinion of Stanley, D.J.
Dated August 13, 1959
7a
of $85,000.00, and is the customary method of evaluating
real property for ad valorem tax purposes; and that the
Greensboro Pool Corporation has never claimed or at
tempted to secure any concession or exemption of any
kind from the City of Greensboro or any other govern
mental authority with respect to any municipal or govern
mental function or service, including water rates, ad
valorem taxes, franchise taxes, income taxes, or any other
applicable tax of any kind.
The facts recited above are based upon the uncontra
dicted testimony of responsible officers and officials of the
City of Greensboro and the Greensboro Pool Corporation.
The plaintiffs contend, however, that the testimony of
these officers and officials should not be accepted in arriving
at the true relationship between the parties, for the rea
son that the record discloses a series of events, none of
which are of great significance standing alone, but all of
which, when considered together, point to a wholly differ
ent conclusion. For example, the plaintiffs point to the
fact that Dr. Taliaferro, the President of the Greensboro
Pool Corporation, is also a member of the Parks and Rec
reational Commission of the City of Greensboro, and
originally insisted that the city continue to operate the
pool on a segregated basis; that the Mayor, City Manager
and members of the City Council of the City of Greensboro
knew that the officers of the Greensboro Pool Corporation
had publicly stated that the pool, if acquired, would con
tinue to be operated for the sole use of the white citizens
of the City of Greensboro; that the first bid of $75,000.00
was rejected in order to give the Greensboro Pool Corpo
ration time to raise additional funds; that the city refused
to change a zoning ordinance which required the pool to
be operated on a non-profit basis, thereby eliminating
Supplemental Opinion of Stanley, D.J.
Dated August 13, 1959
8a
many potential bidders; that the city extended liberal
terms for the payment of the purchase price of the pool
to the Greensboro Pool Corporation so as to make the
purchase easier; and that the city has retained control
over the future operations and use of the pool by the
Greensboro Pool Corporation by naming one of its attor
neys the trustee in a deed of trust securing the unpaid
balance of the purchase price. While these contentions of
the plaintiffs have support so far as they relate to facts
appearing in the record, the conclusions the plaintiffs at
tempt to draw from these facts are wholly without merit.
The fact that Dr. Taliaferro, one of the organizers of the
Greensboro Pool Corporation, happened to also be a mem
ber of a city commission which supervises public recrea
tional facilities, certainly does not indicate, in the face of
overwhelming testimony to the contrary by responsible
citizens, that there was some secret and undisclosed agree
ment between the city and the Greensboro Pool Corpora
tion concerning the future use and operation of the pool.
Certainly no inference adverse to the defendants can be
drawn from the fact that the city, refused to amend a
zoning ordinance so as to permit a commercial operation
to be carried on in a residential district. Neither does it
behoove the plaintiffs to urge the court to disregard the
evidence and hold that the sale was not bona fide by
reason of the fact that the Greensboro Pool Corporation
was permitted to pay the purchase price over a period
of five years, and the fact that an assistant city attorney
was named trustee in a deed of trust securing the balance
of the purchase price, in light of the stipulations that this
was the normal procedure that had been followed in the
sale of municipally owned property over a period of many
years. Perhaps some point could have been made if the
Supplemental Opinion of Stanley, D.J.
Dated August 13, 1959
9a
city had adopted a procedure different from that cus
tomarily followed. The function of a trustee in a deed of
trust is to foreclose and sell the property when there has
been a default, and when requested to do so by the holder
of the note. The plaintiffs theorize that where the city
retains the option to declare the entire debt due upon the
failure to pay any annual installment within the time
prescribed, and one of its attorneys is the trustee in the
deed of trust, this gives the city the power to control the
manner in which the pool will be operated. This theory
presupposes that the owner of the pool will default in its
obligation and be compelled to request an extension of
time for the payment of the annual installments called
for in the deed of trust, and that the city, the owner of the
note, will grant the extension only if the owner of the
pool agrees that the city may have the right to formulate
all policies concerning the use and operation of the facility,
and that the city will then impose the obligation that the
facility be operated on a discriminatory basis. There is
absolutely nothing in the record upon which to base such
conclusions. Courts are not permitted to decide legal
issues on the basis of unsupported theories. There is no
credible evidence in the record to support the contention
that the Greensboro Pool Corporation will either default
in its payment, be granted an extension of time to pay the
annual installments, or that the city would re-purchase
the property at any foreclosure sale. It will be time
enough for the plaintiffs to complain in the event the
property is again acquired by the City of Greensboro and
it attempts to operate the pool on a discriminatory basis.
The plaintiffs make the additional contention that the
sale could not be bona fide since the Greensboro Pool
Supplemental Opinion of Stanley, D.J.
Dated August 13, 1959
10a
Corporation publicly announced before the sale that if it
acquired title to the pool same would be operated for the
exclusive use of the white citizens of Greensboro. This
contention is based on the novel legal theory that munici
palities may only sell recreational facilities upon the con
dition that the purchaser will operate the facility on an
integrated basis. No authority is cited in support of this
contention.
Since it has previously been held that the City of Greens
boro had a legal right to close and sell its swimming pool
facilities at bona fide sales, this opinion is limited to a
determination of whether or not the completed sale of the
Lindley Park Swimming Pool was bona fide in the sense
that the city divested itself of all control over the future
use and operation of the pool.
It is concluded that the plaintiffs have failed to sustain
the burden of showing that the sale was not bona fide, or
that the City of Greensboro has any agreement of any
kind with the Greensboro Pool Corporation relating to
the future ownership, use or operation of the pool. It
necessarily follows that the complaints should be dismissed
and that the plaintiffs should pay the costs of this action.
This supplemental opinion, together with the original
opinion above referred to, constitutes findings of fact and
conclusions of law pursuant to the provisions of Rule 51,
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Counsel for the defendants will prepare and present
to the court for signing a judgment in conformity with
this opinion.
This the 13th day of August, 1959.
E d w in M. S tan ley
United States District Judge
Supplemental Opinion of Stanley, D.J.
Dated August 13, 1959
11a
I n t h e
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
F ob th e M iddle D istbict oe N obth Carolina
GbEENSBOBO DIVISION
Opinion o f Stanley, D.J. Dated May 23, 1958
[ s a m e t i t l e ]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs:
C onstance B ak es M otley and
T hubgood M arshall
of New York, New York;
C. 0 . P eaeson
of Durham, North Carolina;
J. K e n n e t h L ee and
M ajor S. H igh
of Greensboro, North Carolina.
Attorneys for Defendants:
H. J. E l a m III,
J ohn F. Y eattes, Je. and
J. L. W arren
of Greensboro, North Carolina.
S tan ley , District Judge:
This is an action for a declaratory judgment and in
junction brought by several Negro citizens and residents
of the City of Greensboro, North Carolina, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, against the City
of Greensboro and its City Manager, in which the Court is
12a
asked to issue a preliminary injunction, pending the final
determination of the cause, and a permanent injunction
upon its final determination, (1) enjoining defendants
from refusing to permit plaintiffs, and members of the
class which they represent, to use the Lindley Park Swim
ming Pool in the City of Greensboro, North Carolina,
solely because of the race and color of the plaintiffs and
members of their class, and (2) enjoining defendants from
selling the Lindley Park Swimming Pool for the sole pur
pose of avoiding their duty to operate same on the same
terms and conditions for both Negroes and white citizens
and for the sole purpose of denying the constitutional
right of plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, to use
said pool under the same terms and conditions applicable
to white persons. The jurisdiction of the Court is invoked
under Title 28 USC Section 1343 (3).
With their original complaint, which was filed on March
31, 1958, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunc
tion alleging that defendants were seeking to dispose of
the Lindley Park Swimming Pool by sale on April 1, 1958.
The motion came on for hearing on April 8, 1958. On that
date plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and defendants
filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that complaint
failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
It was agreed, in open court, that the motion to dismiss
might be heard at the same time as plaintiffs’ motion for
a preliminary injunction, and that the defendants’ motion
would be directed to the complaint as amended. In sup
port of their motion to dismiss, the defendants introduced
all the resolutions and minutes of the City Council of the
City of Greensboro regarding this controversy and it was
stipulated that these documents might be considered by the
Court in support of plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary
injunction.
Opinion of Stanley, D.J. Dated May 23, 1958
13a
The basic facts are not in dispute.
In about 1937, the City of Greensboro constructed the
Noeho Park Swimming Pool which has, since the date of
its construction, been operated exclusively for the use of
the Negro citizens of the city. During the winter of 1954-
1955, the City of Greensboro constructed the Lindley Park
Swimming Pool, which was first opened to the public in
May, 1955. This pool, which is the subject of the present
controversy, has been operated for the exclusive use of
white citizens of the City of Greensboro.
The cost of constructing the Nocho Park Swimming
Pool is not available, but the cost of constructing and
equipping the Lindley Park Swimming Pool was $214,-
958.31, which does not include any valuation on the land.
During the past three seasons the City has realized rev
enue from the operation of the Nocho Park Swimming
Pool of $5,254.90, and revenue from the operation of Lind
ley Park Swimming Pool of $48,220.04. During the same
period the City expended $12,635.70 in the operation of the
Nocho Park Swimming Pool and $33,412.56 in the opera
tion of the Lindley Park Swimming Pool. The expendi
tures do not include such items as depreciation, return on
investment, administrative costs, tax losses, and the like.
At a meeting, on July 15, 1957, of the City Council of the
City of Greensboro, Mayor George H. Roach noted that a
petition, dated June 27, 1957, and signed by some 26 Negro
citizens of the city, had been filed requesting that the
Greensboro Public Library and Lindley Park Swimming
Pool be opened to Negroes. The Mayor then read to the
Council the following resolution which had been adopted
by the Board of Managers of the Greensboro Public Li
brary at its meeting held on July 3, 1957:
Opinion of Stanley, D.J. Dated May 23, 1958
14a
“ The Board of Managers of the Greensboro Public
Library states that the facilities of the library are
available to any citizens of Guilford County who can
present satisfactory identification.”
The following resolution with respect to the operation
of city-owned swimming pools was then adopted:
“ R esolution D eclaring a P olicy as to P ublic S w im
m in g P ools
“ W hereas, a petition has been presented to the City
Council requesting that members of the Negro race
be allowed to use the Lindley Park swimming pool,
which is now used by members of the white race only;
and
“ W hereas, in the opinion of the City Council, joint
use of the pool at this time might disrupt relations
between the races which have been harmonious until
now; and
“ W hereas, the City Council is charged with the duty
of preserving the public peace in Greensboro, without
which there are no civil rights for any of its citizens;
“ Now, T herefore, Be I t R esolved by th e C ity
C ouncil of th e C ity of Greensboro :
“ That it be declared to be the policy of the City
Council to maintain and operate the public swimming
pools of the City for the remainder of the 1957 season
in the same manner as they are presently being used;
provided, however, that the City Council will, before
the 1958 season, give earnest consideration to the
problems raised in the petition mentioned above.”
Opinion of Stanley, D.J. Dated May 23, 1958
15a
Pursuant to the foregoing resolution, the Lindley Park
Swimming Pool was operated on a racially segregated
basis for the remainder of the 1957 season, and on October
7, 1957, the Council adopted the following resolution:
“ W hereas, a petition has been presented to the
City Council requesting that members of the Negro
race be allowed to use the Lindley Park swimming
pool, heretofore used by members of the white race
only; and
“ W hereas, the City Council resolved to maintain
and operate the swimming pools of the City for the
remainder of the 1957 season in the same manner as
theretofore; provided however, that it would give
earnest consideration to the problems raised in the
said petition before the 1958 season; and
“ W hereas, upon the most earnest consideration, it
now appears that the joint use of the swimming pools
owned by the City at any time in the foreseeable
future would inevitably and gravely disrupt the ex
isting harmonious relations between the races, and
the present investments in such facilities might more
beneficially be liquidated and reinvested in a type
of recreational facility offering service and enjoyment
to a greater portion of the population of the City than
that now benefiting from the operation of the swim
ming pools;
“ Now, T herefore, .Be It R esolved by th e C ity
C ourtoil of th e C it y of Greensboro :
“ That a public hearing be held on October 21, 1957,
at 4:00 P. M. in the Council Chamber, City Hall, for
Opinion of Stanley, D.J. Dated May 23, 1958
16a
the purposes of obtaining the views of the residents
of the City of Greensboro as to :
“ 1. Their concurrence in the discontinuance of
the operation of swimming pools as a function of
the City Government and their disposal as property
of the City.
“ 2. The type of recreational facility or activity
most widely desired, if any, in substitution thereof.”
On October 21, 1957, in accordance with the foregoing
resolution, a public meeting was held at which a number
of citizens expressed their views regarding the Council’s
proposal to discontinue the operation of swimming pools
as a function of the city government and their disposal
as public property, and the type of recreational facilities
or activities most widely desired in substitution of the
swimming pools. Most of the persons who appeared and
spoke at the public hearing favored the sale of the swim
ming pools.
Thereafter, on November 18, 1957, the City Council
adopted the following resolution:
“ W hereas, a public hearing was called and held by
the City Council on October 21, 1957, for the purpose
of obtaining the views of the people of the City of
Greensboro concerning the operation of the public
swimming pools and the substitution of other facili
ties if discontinued, and the City Council has earn
estly considered the views expressed at that hearing,
which was attended by a large number of citizens, the
problems involved in the continued use and operation
of the pools, the capital investments therein, and the
public use and benefits therefrom; and
Opinion of Stanley, D.J. Dated May 23, 1958
17a
“ W hereas, the City Council is of the opinion that
it is in the best public interest that public swimming
pools be no longer operated by the City of Greensboro,
and therefore the Lindley Park and Nocho Park swim
ming pools are no longer required for the needs, pur
poses and uses of the City, and their disposition
should be undertaken by the City Council; and
“ W hereas, the City Council is of the opinion that
in order to provide the greatest benefit for the most
people that any funds received from the sale of said
properties should be used for other recreational uses
and purposes;
“ Now, T herefore, Be I t E esolved by th e C ity
C ouncil op th e C ity of Greensboro :
“ 1. That the City of Greensboro no longer operate
public swimming pools.
“ 2. That the disposition of the Lindley Park and
Nocho Park swimming pools be undertaken by the
City of Greensboro.
“3. That the City Manager is directed to submit
to the City Council proposed advertisement for the
sale of said properties and he is further directed
to recommend to the Council the amount of land
which should be included in each sale in order to carry
out the purposes of this resolution.”
On January 22, 1958, the City Council adopted a resolu
tion declaring that the City of Greensboro had no govern
mental or other need for the Nocho Park Swimming Pool
and the Lindley Park Swimming Pool and that, in the
opinion of the City Council, the best interest of the City
Opinion of Stanley, D.J. Dated 'May 23, 1958
18a
would be served by the sale of these facilities. The reso
lution then provided for the sale of both pools to the last
and highest bidder at public auction on the 18th day of
March, 1958. All legal formalities with respect to adver
tising the sale were observed and the City Council re
served the right to reject any or all bids received. By
resolution adopted on February 3, 1958, the date of sale
was postponed from March 18, 1958, to April 1, 1958.
At the public sale on April 1, 1958, a high bid of $75,000.
was received for the Bindley Park Swimming Pool, and
a high bid of $9,550. was received for the Noeho Park
Swimming Pool. The City Council met on April 8, 1958,
and adopted a resolution rejecting both bids as inadequate.
At a meeting of the City Council held on April 30, 1958,
a formal resolution was adopted providing for the public
sale of both swimming jjooIs , subject to confirmation by
the City Council, on June 3, 1958, and directing that the
sale be advertised in accordance with the provisions of the
Charter of the City of Greensboro and the General Stat
utes and Private Laws of North Carolina.
Based on the foregoing facts, none of which are in seri
ous dispute, the following questions are presented to the
Court for determination: (1) whether defendants may
continue to refuse to permit plaintiffs, and other Negroes
similarly situated, to use Lindley Park Swimming Pool
solely because of their race and color; (2) whether defen
dants may sell Lindley Park Swimming Pool for the sole
purpose of avoiding the duty imposed upon them to permit
use of the pool by both Negro and white residents of
Greensboro under like terms and conditions, and for the
sole purpose of defeating the constitutional rights of
plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, to use the swim
ming pool under the same terms and conditions applicable
Opinion of Stanley, D.J. Dated May 23, 1958
19a
to white citizens; and (3) whether the complaint should
be dismissed for failure to state claim upon which relief
can be granted. These questions will be discussed in the
order listed.
I
Whether defendants may continue to refuse to permit
plaintiffs, and other Negroes similarly situated, to use
Lindley Park Swimming Pool solely because of their race
and color.
With respect to the right of the plaintiff's, and other
Negroes similarly situated, to use the Lindley Park Swim
ming Pool on the same terms and conditions applicable
to white citizens, this would appear to be a moot question.
The City of Greensboro, through its City Council, is firmly
committed to a permanent closing and sale of the pool.
In the resolution adopted on November 18, 1957, the City
Council resolved “ that the City of Greensboro no longer
operate public swimming pools, and that the disposition
of the pools owned by the city be undertaken.” Mayor
Roach has filed an affidavit with the Court stating “ that
the Lindley Park Swimming Pool is now closed by an
order of the City Council and is not and will not be avail
able for use by any person.” Counsel for the plaintiffs
stated in their brief that it is the present intention of the
defendants to sell the pools or leave them closed, and that
the only question which the plaintiffs’ actions squarely
presents is whether, after having received a petition from
certain Negro citizens asking that they be permitted to
use the Lindley Park Swimming Pool, the defendants had
the right to elect to sell or close the pools rather than to
carry out their duty and permit joint use. Further, the
Opinion of Stanley, D.J. Dated May 23, 1958
20a
defendants concede in their brief that if a municipality
chooses to operate public swimming facilities it must oper
ate such facilities without any racial discrimination, and
that the City recognizes that if it reopens its public swim
ming facilities it cannot discriminate against any of its
citizens on the grounds of race. These concessions are in
accord with the uniform holding of the courts in recent
years. Clark v. Flory, 4 Cir., 237 F. 2d 597 (1956).
In light of the declared policy of the City of Greensboro
to no longer operate public swimming pools, and to under
take the sale of the swimming facilities which it presently
owns, and the concessions made by the plaintiffs and the
defendants in their briefs, there is no occasion for the
entry of a declaratory judgment with reference to the
rights of the plaintiffs, and other Negroes similarly situ
ated, to use the Lindlev Park Swimming Pool. The pool
has been closed and there is no basis for the issuance of
an injunction in regard to its use. A declaratory judgment
is never granted unless there is an actual and substantial
controversy before the court. In this case, there is no
present necessity for a judgment declaring the constitu
tional rights of the plaintiffs to use the Lindley Park
Swimming Pool, for there is no controversy. Federal
Courts have no power to render advisory opinions or to
decide in advance constitutional issues not based on pres
ent necessity therefor or issues not presented in actual
cases. The Court can only enjoin future actions, not past
actions. An almost identical situation was presented in
Clark v. Flory, 141 F. Supp. 248 (E. D. S. C., 1956), aff’d,
Cir. 4, 237 F. 2d 597 (1956). While the action was pending
in the district court, the State Legislature passed a statute
providing that the State Park in controversy be closed
until further action be taken by the Legislature with regard
Opinion of Stanley, D.J. Dated May 23, 1958
21a
thereto. The district court found no occasion for the entry
of declaratory judgment and dismissed the complaint since
the issues had become moot by the closing of the park.
In reaching this conclusion, which I conceive to be in
accord with firmly established principles of law, I am
assuming that if the City of Greensboro should at some
time in the future undertake the operation of public swim
ming pools, it will do so on a non-discriminatory basis, as
it has conceded it must do.
Opinion of Stanley, D.J. Dated May 23, 1958
II
Whether defendants may sell Lindley Park Swimming
Pool for the sole purpose of avoiding the duty imposed
upon them to permit use of the pool by both Negro and
white residents of Greensboro under like terms and con
ditions, and for the sole purpose of defeating the constitu
tional rights of plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, to
use the swimming pool under the same terms and condi
tions applicable to white citizens.
This question seems to present the real controversy
involved in this case. If the plaintiffs are not entitled to
an injunction to prevent a bona fide sale of the Lindley
Park Swimming Pool, it necessarily follows that they have
failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The plaintiffs allege and contend that the facts, when
viewed realistically, conclusively show that the City of
Greensboro resolved to close its swimming pools and un
dertake their sale for the sole purpose of avoiding their
duty to operate the pools on a racially integrated basis,
and for the sole purpose of defeating the rights of plain
tiffs to use the Lindley Park Swimming Pool under the
same terms and conditions applicable to white persons.
The defendants on the other hand contend that the facts
22a
simply show that the City Council, recognizing that if it
continued to operate public swimming facilities it must
operate them on a racially integrated basis, and being of
the opinion that racial integration of such facilities would
disrupt the existing harmonious relationship existing be
tween the two races, and would seriously impair the use
fulness and economic value of these properties, and might
lead to public disorder, decided that it was in the best
public interest to close and sell these facilities at public
auction and use the proceeds for other recreational uses
and purposes which would be of more benefit to a greater
number of its citizens.
I am inclined to accept the resolutions adopted by the
City Council at their face value. However, I do not believe
that the inferences and conclusions which might be drawn
from the resolutions of the City Council in deciding to
close and sell its swimming pools are determinative of the
legal principles involved. For this reason, the Court feels
it unnecessary to belabor the point.
It is well established that the ecpial protection clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States imposes upon public officials the duty to
operate publicly owned facilities without restrictions based
upon the race and color of the users. Brown v. Board of
Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954); 349 U. S. 294 (1955);
Muir v. Louisville Park Theatrical Association, 6 Cir., 202
F. 2d 275 (1953), vacated, 347 U. S. 971 (1954); Dawson v.
Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City, 4 Cir., 220 F.
2d 386 (1955), aff’d, 350 U. S. 877 (1955); Holmes v. City
of Atlanta, 5 Cir., 223 F. 2d 93 (1955), rev’d, 350 U. S. 879
(1955); Browder v. Gayle, 142 F. Supp. 707 (M. D. Ala.,
1956), aff’d, 352 U. S. 903 (1956); Simkins v. City of
Greensboro, 149 F. Supp. 562 (M. D. N. C., 1957), aff’d,
Opinion of Stanley, D.J. Dated May 23, 1958
23a
4 Cir., 246 F. 2d 425 (1957). The legal principles enunci
ated in these cases are not challenged, but they do not
support the plaintiffs’ theory in this case because they all
deal with facilities that were being operated. The ques
tion here presented is whether the defendants have the
right to close or sell the Lindley Park Swimming Pool
rather than to operate it on an integrated basis. The
plaintiffs contend that the answer to this question depends
upon whether there is a duty imposed upon the defendants
to support the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution
of the United States. There is no question but that the
defendants do have a positive duty to support the Four
teenth Amendment and other provisions of the Constitu
tion of the United States, as these provisions are inter
preted by our courts, but the question still remains as to
whether or not the Constitution of the United States im
poses upon a municipality the positive duty to own and
operate recreational facilities.
The plaintiffs concede that this is the first case in which
the right of a state or municipality to close or sell public
facilities has been challenged as violative of the Consti
tution of the United States. Under these circumstances,
they are unable to cite any authority in direct support of
their position. They seek to establish as a legal theory
the proposition that there is a denial of equal rights where
the purpose of the closing or sale is to avoid the necessity
of operating the facilities on a racially integrated basis.
The Court is not aware of any law in North Carolina
which requires a municipality to construct or operate
swimming pools or other recreational facilities. Section
160-156, General Statutes of North Carolina, declares that
the creation, establishment and operation of a recreation
system is a governmental function and a necessary ex
Opinion of Stanley, D.J. Dated May 23, 1958
24a
pense as defined by Article VII, section seven, of the
Constitution of North Carolina. This declaration only
qualifies recreational facilities as a necessary expense in
order that funds derived from ad valorem taxes may be
expended on such facilities without the necessity of a vote
of the people. It does not impose any obligation on govern
mental units to establish recreational facilities but is
simply an enabling law.
Section 160-59, General Statutes of North Carolina, con
tains the following provisions relative to the sale of munic
ipal property:
“ The mayor and commissioners of any town shall
have power at all times to sell at public outcry, after
thirty days’ notice, to the highest bidder, any prop
erty, real or personal, belonging to any such town,
and apply the proceeds as they may think best.”
Further, the City of Greensboro has specific legislative
authority for selling the property in question. Section 79
(g) of the City Charter, which is Chapter 37 of the Private
Laws of North Carolina, 1923 Session, as amended by
Chapter 960, 1957 Session Laws of North Carolina, pro
vides as follows:
“ 79(g). Sale of real property conveyed to City of
Greensboro for parks, recreation and playgrounds.
The city council may sell, as provided in Section 79
(c) any part of any real property heretofore or here
after conveyed to the city for parks, or recreation or
playgrounds; provided, that nothing herein shall have
the effect of altering the terms or conditions of any
agreement with the city or conveyance to the city
relative to the use of property.”
Opinion of Stanley, D..J. Dated May 23, 1958
25a
No contention is made that the City of Greensboro does
not have ample authority under the laws of the State of
North Carolina to sell the facility in question, or that all
the laws relating to the sale of municipal property have
not been complied with. Neither is there any allegation or
contention that there has been any understanding or agree
ment between the City and any prospective purchaser
whereby the City expects to retain any control whatever
over the future operation of either of the swimming pools.
In the final analysis, the plaintiffs can only complain of
discrimination or unequal treatment. If the swimming
pools are closed to all, or disposed of through a bona fide
public sale, there can be no unequal treatment and, there
fore, no racial discrimination. No citizen of Greensboro
will have access to municipal swimming facilities.
Unless persons under the same circumstances and con
ditions are treated differently there can be no discrimina
tion. No person has any constitutional right to swim in a
public pool. All citizens do have the right, however, if a
public swimming pool is provided, not to be barred there
from solely because of race or color. If the swimming
pools are closed or sold, the rights of all groups will be
equal, and it must follow that the closing or sale will not
discriminate against anyone.
The assumption that the Lindley Park Swimming Pool
will be purchased by white persons and operated for white
persons only is not supported by any evidence. At a public
sale, persons of all races, including residents and non
residents, are permitted to bid.
The position of the defendants seems to be sustained by
two recent Fourth Circuit decisions. In Clark v. Flory,
141 F. Supp. 248 (E. D. S. C., 1956) aff’d, 4 Cir., 237 F.
2d 597 (1956), where action was brought to restrain en
Opinion of Stanley, D.J. Dated May 23, 1958
26a
forcement of segregation statutes in use of state park,
the Court stated:
“ No one contends that this Court has the power to
require the State of South Carolina to operate any
park. This Court cannot by mandamus order the re
opening of the closed park.”
In Simkins v. City of Greensboro, 149 F. Supp. 562
(M. D. N. C. 1957), it was held that a municipality was
not required to furnish a golf course for its citizens but
if it undertakes to do so out of public treasury, it cannot
constitutionally furnish such facilities to a part of its
citizens and deny them to others similarly situated. The
decree provided that the city could only dispose of the
golf course property by a bona fide sale. In affirming
the order of the district court, the Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit, in City of Greensboro v. Simkins, 4
Cir., 246 F. 2d 425 (1957), used the following language:
“ Complaint is made of the provision of the order
forbidding disposition of the golf course except by
bona fide sale. It is clear, however, that this provision
was inserted merely to prevent evasion of the court’s
order forbidding racial discrimination in the opera
tion of the property; for it was followed by a reser
vation retaining jurisdiction and the power to modify
the provision upon application of any of the parties.
As pointed out in the Tate case, supra, the right of
citizens to use public property without discrimination
on the ground of race may not be abridged by the
mere leasing of the property. The city may, however,
under the terms of the order, part with the ownership
of the property by bona fide sale; and the court,
Opinion of Stanley, D.J. Dated May 23, 1958
27a
under the power reserved, will doubtless approve
other dispositions if they will not result in unlawful
discrimination against citizens on the ground of race
or color. Any error in the exercise of the power thus
reserved will, of course, be subject to review by this
court.”
Assuming that the Lindley Park Swimming Pool will
be sold at public auction to the highest bidder, and that
there will be no collusion between the City of Greensboro
and the successful bidder relating to the future operation
or use of the swimming pool, except uniform restrictions
imposed under zoning and other similar laws which do
not restrict the class of persons entitled to use the facility,
the Court is of the opinion and concludes that the plaintiffs
are not entitled to either a preliminary or permanent in
junction enjoining the sale of the Lindley Park Swimming
Pool.
Opinion of Stanley, D.J. Dated May 23, 1958
Ill
Whether the complaint should he dismissed for failure
to state claim upon which relief can he granted.
In view of the conclusions reached with respect to the
rights of the plaintiff to an injunction enjoining the sale
of the Lindley Park Swimming Pool, it necessarily fol
lows that the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, and that the suit should be
dismissed.
The Court will, however, defer the entry of a decree
dismissing the suit for a period of 30 days after the sale
of the Lindley Park Swimming Pool has been confirmed.
If within that period the plaintiffs feel they can show
that the sale was not bona fide in the sense that there was
28a
Opinion of Stanley, D.J. Dated May 23, 1958
collusion between the defendants and the successful bid
der regarding the future use of the pool, the Court will,
upon written motion of the plaintiffs, advance the case
on the docket and hear the evidence and determine the
rights of the parties in accordance with the facts pre
sented.
This 23rd day of May, 1958.
E d w in M. S tan ley
United States District Judge
29a
Depositions of H. L. Coble, R. M. Taliaferro, Carroll 0 .
Weaver, William B. Burke, William Folk, Jr.,
Tom E. Brown, D. Newton Farnell, Jr., A. F.
Stevens, Jr., E. R. Zane, J. M. Denny,
Elbert F. Lewis, George H. Roach,
James R. Townsend
I n th e
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
F ob th e M iddle D istrict of N orth C arolina
Greensboro D ivision
[ same tit l e ]
I, R ufus W. R eynolds, certify that as Special Master
appointed in this cause as the person to take depositions
by an order entered on the 20th of June, 1958, by the
Honorable E. M. Stanley, U. S. District Judge, a copy of
which is attached hereto, and pursuant to notice issued by
the attorneys for the Plaintiffs for the taking of said depo
sitions, a copy of which is attached hereto, did on the 27th
day of June, 1958, starting at 10:00 A. M., in the Grand
Jury Room, Post Office Building, Greensboro, North Caro
lina, take the depositions of the witnesses hereinafter
listed; that each witness was duly sworn by me and the
following is a true record of the testimony of said wit
nesses as given before me on the said date and which was
recorded by a Court Reporter under my direction.
30a
Depositions o f June 87, 1958
Appearances
A p p h a b a h c e s :
M bs. C onstance M . M otley ,
10 Columbus Circle, New York City;
C. 0. P earson , Esq.,
203% E. Chapel Hill Street,
Durham, North Carolina;
J . K e n n e t h L ee,
B ox 645, Greensboro, North Carolina;
M ajor S. H ig h ,
Box 1196, Greensboro, North Carolina,
Attorneys for the plaintiffs.
J ohn P . Y eattes, J r ., E sq .,
City Hall, Greensboro, North Carolina;
J esse W arren ,
City Hall, Greensboro, North Carolina,
Attorneys for the Defendants.
W illie H. H olderness, Esq., Attorney for
Dr. A. M. Taliaferro, 2311 Lafayette Avenue,
Greensboro, North Carolina.
H. L. Coble, 3101 W. Market,
Greensboro, North Carolina;
Carroll O. Weaver, 504 Hillwood Court,
Greensboro, North Carolina,
Witnesses.
Sla
D epositions o f June %7, 1958
Testimony of Dr. B. M. Taliaferro
— 3 —
# * # # m
Dr. R. M. T aliaferro b e in g first d u ly sw orn , testified as
f o l lo w s :
By Mrs. Motley:
Q. Dr. Taliaferro, do you have any connection with the
Greensboro Pool Corporation? A. Yes, at present I am
the president.
Q. Do you know when the Greensboro Pool Corporation
was formed? A. We had an organizational meeting back
in March of this year. The exact date, I believe, was March
the 6th, if I am not mistaken. I will refer here to my
minutes on that, but anyway it was in March of this year.
It was actually March 4. The organizational meeting was
actually, we held it at four p. m., March 4, 1958.
Q. When were you elected president? A. Actually at
this particular organizational meeting.
Q. Now, who else was elected at that meeting an officer
of the corporation? A. Mr. C. 0. Weaver, secretary and
treasurer, and Mr. H. L. Coble as vice-president.
Q. Did you have any other officers? A. No, that is the
only officers that we had at that time.
— 4—
Q- you have any other officers? A. No, that is all
we have at this time.
Q. Who are the directors of the corporation? A. At
the present time we are the directors.
Q. Now, what is the purpose of this corporation? A.
The purpose of this corporation was to raise funds with
the idea of buying Lindley Park Pool, to keep it open.
Q. Do you know what the total authorized capital stock
of the corporation is? A. $100,000.
32a
Q. Do you know liow much of that has been subscribed
today? A. I can probably clarify that in the form of
the subscriptions that we have, I have a copy of that that
you can see, that we were issuing for the potential pur
chase of stock, provided the organization was, or did
become, that is, if we were the successful bidders. We
have approximately in the range of $37,000 actually sub
scribed. That, however, is not actually to be paid at one
lump sum to the organization, as you have probably seen
in the paper in your clippings before.
Q. This $37,000 is not yet paid! A. Actually it is sub
scriptions to stock, provided the corporation did become
a corporation.
Q. Does the corporation have any other assets? A.
No, none.
— 5—
Q. How much of the $30,000 has actually been paid in?
A. Let me see. Around $23,000 or $24,000, in round figures.
Q. Now, when the corporation was formed, had the
City of Greensboro, the City Council of Greensboro, an
nounced its intention to sell the pool at that time? A.
Yes. The announcement, I think, as well as I remember,
was back in the fall, I think probably around November
of last year, that the city made its decision to sell, and
announced it, and actually our meetings were not held
until in April, the first time a group got together, or
came to us with a discussion of the possibility of organizing
this particular corporation.
Q. A group came to you? A. A group of individuals.
Q. Who are these individuals? A. Well, the particular
ones, you mean, you want the names?
Q. Yes. A. Dr. J. W. Beavers; Dr. Thomas Cochran;
Mr. J. T. Glynn; those are the only ones I remember in
that first group meeting that we had.
D epositions o f June %7, 19S8
Testimony of Dr. R. M. Taliaferro
33a
Q. The March meeting? A. No, that was back in April,
the latter part of April, we had an informal meeting to
get together to discuss the possibility of this, of forming
a corporation.
Q. I thought you said the first meeting— A. The or-
— 6—
ganizational meeting was held March 4.
Q. After that in April, do you know the date in April?
A. No, I am sorry, I have been putting April prior to
March, my mistake; February is what I meant when I
have been saying April. That was my mistake, yes; be
cause the group informally discussed the possibility of
the organization of this corporation prior to this organi
zational meeting which was held on March 4, the latter-
part of February.
Q. So that in the latter part of February, 1958, you,
Mr. Coble, Mr. Weaver, Mr. Beavers, Mr. Cochran, and
Mr. Glynn met? A. Right.
Q. For the purpose of discussing the formation of a
corporation? A. That’s right.
Q. To keep Lindley Park Pool open? A. That’s right.
Q. Now, are those the only persons who have any con
nection with this corporation? A. Officially so, in the
formation, and somewhat, we might say, in the drive, and
yet we have many others who are in connection in the form
of stockholders and interested persons in Greensboro.
Q. Did you bring a list of the stockholders with you?
A. Yes.
— 7 —
Q. May we see the list of stockholders? A. Yes.
Q. These are all of the stockholders? A. Those are
all at present.
Q. Do you have any minutes of the February meeting
D epositions o f June 87, 195S
Testimony of Dr, R, M. Taliaferro
34a
that you referred to? A. No, we do not because that
was an informal discussion at that time.
Q. Do you have any minutes of the March 4th meeting?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. You have those? A. Yes, I have those with me.
Q. Now, have you had any other meetings of the corpora
tion since the February and March 4 meetings? A. No.
Q. You have not had any meetings of the corporation
since March 4, 1958? A. No, no official meetings. We
have contacted each other over the telephone. We are in
business. Time is rather limited. What has been neces
sary we have been able to discuss among ourselves over
the telephone. So, we have had no further meetings.
Q. Well, when was it determined that the corporation
would purchase the pool, if you have had no meetings
— 8—
since March 4, 1958? A. Actually at our organizational
meeting.
Q. How much money did the corporation have on March
4, when you decided to purchase the pool? A. I don’t
know that I could answer that, because I have not kept
a day-by-day account of how much money was coming in.
I don’t think I could answer that question.
Q. You don’t have any records which would show the
financial status of the corporation on March 4? A. No,
I am sorry I do not. The only thing I have is actually
these stock subscriptions which have come in. You can
see the form of this. Actually as to a day-by-day account,
I couldn’t possibly answer you.
Q. Could you estimate how much money the corpora
tion had at that time? A. No, I can’t truthfully answer
that question. I would be absolutely guessing at that.
I think I could further answer that. These dates some
D epositions o f June %7, 1958
Testimony of Dr. R. M. Taliaferro
35a
what escape me on this thing, but actually as of March
4, we didn’t have any money then, because of course that
was when we authorized, even though we had discussed
the potential of the thing, that was the organizational
meeting, that is when we authorized actually our stock
subscriptions to go out. So, on March 4, there would have
been no money in hand, other than those individuals who
had expressed an intent to various ones of us there at our
organizational meeting on March 4. So, actually, to your
—9—
question, in going back, there was no money in hand at
that time.
Q. Where did you get the money to pay for the charter,
if you didn’t have any money? A. That was out of our
own pockets.
Q. Have you been reimbursed by the corporation since?
A. We have not.
Q. At the meeting on March 4, did you decide how much
you were going to bid for the pool, or what the maximum
bid might be? A. Yes, we discussed the various possi
bilities of what might be accepted by the City on the bids,
how much we thought we might could go to; we were
authorized $100,000; we decided, knowing not what the
future held as to the income of the pool, whether it could
maintain itself, and so on, we would go to a top of $85,000,
and that was i t ; on the basis that if we raised the $100,000,
that that would leave us something that we could run on,
contingencies and so on.
Q. What did you estimate the value of the pool to be?
A. We ourselves did not estimate the value of the pool.
Q. Did you have any idea of what the p»ool had cost the
City of Greensboro? A. The papers had often quoted it
as $225,000.
D epositions o f June B 7 ,1958
Testimony of Dr. R. M. Taliaferro
36a
Q. Did that include the cost of the land? A. That I
cannot answer. I don’t know the circumstances of that.
The lands apparently were given as a deed, the land was
— 10-
given as a deed apparently, as a recreation park, at one
time. That I don’t know. I don’t know that technicality.
Q. The only figures that we have seen in the paper was
$225,000. Now, when the pool was first offered for sale,
for public auction, how much did your corporation bid
at that time! A. We bid $65,000 and stopped.
Q. I thought you said you authorized a bid of $85,000.
A. We did, but at that time I had been given the authority
to bid. I had Mr. Weaver with me at the time, but we
found someone else was bidding $75,000 to keep that pool
open. Our prime interest originally, and still is, was to
keep the pool open, and we had no desire particularly to
be owners of that pool, provided it was kept open. It was
unbeknownst to us that morning, until five minutes until
eleven, that there was another bidder, we had no idea,
we didn’t know what the situation would be, whether there
would be other bidders or not. So, when someone else
bid $75,000, we felt that $65,000 was as high as we wanted
to go. So we let it drop.
Q. So that you weren’t really interested in buying a
pool, you were just interested in knowing that the pool
would continue in operation! A. That’s right. We wanted
to see the pool in operation.
Q. So that your corporation wasn’t really formed for
the purpose of buying a pool, then, was it! A. Yes.
— 11—
Q. I thought you said your only interest in the pool
was to see that it was kept open! A. Well, it was, but
if it was not necessary for our corporation to be in exis
D epositions o f June 87, 1968
Testimony of Dr. R. M. Taliaferro
37a
tence, if someone else bought it and kept it open, then
there was no purpose for us to—
Q. How did you know this person was going to buy it
for the purpose of keeping it open; maybe he was going
to buy it and put a board over it, and make a dance hall
out of it. A. That person came to us at five minutes until
eleven and told us that he was going to buy the pool, and
he wanted us to know that he was going to bid on the
pool.
Q. Who was that? A. Mr. Sanet of Mount Airy.
Q. He came to you and told you he was going to buy
the pool? A. Right, that he was going to bid on it, that is.
Q. Why did you keep bidding against him, if you knew
he was going to buy it and keep the pool open, you didn’t
have to bid at all, then? A. The reason for that was that
when he said he was going to try to make money out of
it, and that was the difference as far as we were concerned.
Frankly, we were not interested in making any money.
We merely wanted to see that the facilities were kept open.
Q. Is this a non-profit corporation? A. I would just
- 12-
have to answer that by intent. As far as we citizens are
concerned, we are not attempting to make any profit out
of it. So, on that basis, I would call it a non-profit organi
zation. However, as to what the tax. people might say,
that I don’t know, but the intent is that it is a non-profit
organization.
Q. Does your charter say that you are non-profit? A.
I will have to ask my attorney on that.
Special Master Reynolds: Do you have a copy
of the charter there?
Mr. Holderness: It does not.
The Witness: It does not.
D epositions o f Jwne 27, 1958
Testimony of Dr. R. M. Taliaferro
38a
Depositions of June 87, 1958
Testimony of Dr. R. M. Taliaferro
By Mrs. Motley:
Q. Does this charter say you are a business corporation,
the very first paragraph of your charter? A. Yes, busi
ness corporation, yes.
Q. Does it say anything anywhere in there about being
non-profit? A. I don’t know. I would have to read it.
Special Master Reynolds: Take your time to read
it.
(Witness reads document.)
The Witness: No, it does not say it is non-profit.
As I intimated, as far as I was concerned, in intent,
when I speak of that, that is personal intent.
By Mrs. Motley:
— 13—
Q. But when you sold the stock subscriptions, it was on
the basis of your charter, and not on your personal intent,
wasn’t it? A. No. I wouldn’t say so, not as far as, again I
say, intent, if I went to individuals, of course we have got to
sell it on the basis of the charter, that is true, I assume,
legally. However, our list of stockholders are not expecting
dividends. They realize this is merely a community effort
to help the community, and it was sold on that basis and not
with the idea of returning dividends.
Q. So that your charter says business corporation, but
you represented to these subscribers that they would not
receive any profit, is that it? A. That is correct, in the
approach to them, yes.
Q. Did that have anything to do with the fact that the
City announced they would not change the zoning regula
tions in the area in which the pool is located to permit the
39a
pool to be operated for profit? A. My personal opinion is
no. Frankly, I do not know the reasoning of the City Coun
cil for their decision.
Q. But you knew that the City Council refused to change
the zoning regulations to permit the operation of the pool
for profit, did you not ? A. Yes, I knew that that particular
zoning ordinance existed prior to the sale on May 3rd;
— 14—
that Mr. Sanet did not know that, and that is where I felt
that Mr. Sanet was probably going to find out he was
wrong in his purchase, because we went to the $65,000 and
yet if he was willing to buy it and keep it open, again, as I
say, our organization was established merely as a com
munity project, to attempt to keep the pool open. If he
bought the thing, that was fine.
Now, as to the reason the City Council did not change
the zoning ordinance, so I understand, I would assume was
in fairness to local areas in making this a recreation park,
with merry-go-rounds, ferris wheels, etc., and quite a noisy
area.
Q. Did Mr. Sanet tell you that he was going to keep it
open and operating as it had been operated in the past?
A. He intimated to me that he was. We did not discuss
any details at that time, because I had never seen him
before. He just merely introduced himself to me, and says,
“We are going to try to keep it open as you are.”
Q. Did he intimate it, or did he say that he was going
to keep it open? A. He told me he was keeping it open. He
said that he was going to try to do the same as “you are.”
Now, you will have to decide whether that was intimating
or telling me. That is about what he said exactly.
Q. Did he tell you also that he was going to operate it
on the same basis on which it had been operated before?
D epositions o f June 87, 1958
Testimony of Dr. R. M. Taliaferro
40a
A. He didn’t use the same words, though I would assume
—15—
that was what he meant.
Q. What words did he use? A. He said, “ We are going
to try and do the same thing you are trying to do,” and I
remarked to him, “ If that is true, you are trying to keep
it open, we would just as soon fold our tents and go home.
We won’t bid.”
Q. You mean Mr. Sanet came here from out of the city
for the purpose of keeping this pool open for the residents,
the white residents, that is, of Greensboro, is that what
you want us to believe? A. That, and to make money.
That was the difference between the two groups. And
that was the difference he brought out that morning.
Q. He told you he was interested in making money? A.
Right.
Q. Now, your corporation, you say, is not interested in
making any money on this pool, you just want to keep it
open for the citizens of Greensboro? A. That’s right.
Q. Is that for all the citizens of Greensboro, or just the
white citizens? A. The white citizens, and I might take
it a little further back, if you will bear with me on that,
to show our position again; I notice in the previous hear
ing you had newspaper clippings and so on as regards this
— 1 6 -
whole affair; the Greensboro Swimming Association, of
which I am a member, is interested in swimming in this
town for both races, the Greensboro Swimming Associa
tion offered publicly through the newspapers to assist any
groups that would come forward with the idea of trying
to raise money to keep these pools open, and we said pools,
not the Lindley Park Pool, both pools.
D epositions o f June S7, 1958
Testimony of Dr. R. M. Taliaferro
41a
Now, from that particular move, that is how we have
come about, and we, I personally, went to one of the colored
race, Dr. J. E. Smith, of Richardson Hospital, by name,
and proposed to him that our group, the Swimming Associa
tion; not the Pool Corporation, now, but the Swimming
Association, would be willing to apply their manpower,
their efforts, to help them also raise money to keep their
pool open.
Q. Help who? A. The colored, to help keep their pool
open too.
Q. Did the colored people have a swimming association?
A. No, they did not. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Did they have a corporation organized for the purpose
of buying a pool? A. Not to my knowledge, but the point
I was bringing out was that the Swimming Association of
fered their services to any group who would make an effort
to keep the pools open.
We did not advocate integrated pools; we advocated
segregated pools, because we felt that that would be the
only way it would work. Therefore, since no one would
—17—
come forward, and on my second approach to Dr. Smith
to see if there had been any person who could, any takers,
he said, “ No” ; we were left no alternative but to move for
ward with the Lindley Park Pool, which we did, and we
organized the Greensboro Pool Corporation, as you see
here, to try to raise money to purchase it.
Q. But you weren’t interested in keeping the Nocho Park
Pool open, your corporation? A. No.
Q. Just Lindley Park? A. That’s right.
Q. Did Dr. Smith represent any organized group at all?
A. No. Merely my belief in Dr. Smith as a real leader
in the community there, and having worked with Dr.
Smith—
D epositions o f June %7, 1958
Testimony of Dr. R. M. Taliaferro
42a
Q. What group does he lead? A. Dr. Smith in my mind,
and most of the physicians in this town feels that Dr.
Smith holds a very important part in the colored section of
this town. He is respected and looked up to, and that is
the reason I approached him as a beginning.
Q. Did you make your position known to members of the
City Council, that your purpose was to keep Lindley Park
open for whites? A. Not the City Council, no, but to the
newspapers, yes.
Q. You did not tell any member of the City Council that
your purpose was to purchase or keep Lindley Park open
for whites, is that your testimony? A. I can’t remember
— 18—
unless possibly to Mr. Elbert Lewis, who is a member of
the City Council; both Mr. Lewis and I have been inter
ested in swimming; he was formerly head of the Recrea
tion Commission, and was very instrumental in obtaining
the Lindley Park Pool; and our conversation possibly in
the past year; we discussed that if, we discussed that we
would be keeping it open as white, but we have made no
attempt to say to the City Council as such, no individual
members, that we were going to run it as that; we have
gotten it out for the newspapers for publicity, yes, on an
appeal for raising money, definitely.
Q. You say Mr. Lewis was instrumental in helping to
get the pool? A. No. Mr. Lewis was instrumental in
Lindley Park Pool originally being gotten for the City
of Greensboro; he was on the Commission at that time,
and also Mrs. Sykes, Mrs. Henry Sykes, one of the other
very active workers for securing Lindley Park originally.
Q. So Mr. Lewis is one of the people in Greensboro who
was responsible for getting Lindley Park Pool originally?
D eposition s o f June 2 7 ,1 9 5 8
Testimony of Dr. R. M. Taliaferro
43a
A. I would say that he was, yes, he was on the Recreation
Commission, and it came in during his tenure of office.
Q. At the time you were interested in purchasing the
pool, you discussed it with him and made known to him
that your purpose would he to keep it open? A. No, I
would say not; no to that question, because I have made no
—1 9 -
attempt to go directly to him, or to any of the City Council
in that regard, no. I would say no to that question.
Q. So that your previous answer is incorrect. As I under
stood you, you said that you told Mr. Lewis that you were
interested in keeping it open for whites. Now, you say
that you did not tell him— A. You asked me if I had ever
talked to any; on occasion you can pass an individual up
town, or run into them, and discuss something.
Now, your question to me, the intent of going directly to
the City Council to discuss with them; no, is the answer to
that; yes, to the other, that in the past we mentioned some
thing of that regard. When I say that, I am truthfully an
swering you yes, that maybe sometime or another that
conversation had passed.
Q. Now you are saying yes, you did discuss with Mr.
Lewis the purchase of the pool for the purpose of keeping
it open for whites? A. In some passing manner, at some
time or another, 1 expect that I have.
Q. Now you say Mr. Lewis was the Chairman of the
Recreation Commission when the Lindley Park Pool was
obtained? A. I believe I am correct time-wise there. I
would have to see the records to prove exactly he was Chair
man on that date.
Q. Is Mr. Lewis a member of the Swimming Association?
A. No.
Q. Has he ever been a member? A. No.
D epositions o f June %7, 1958
Testimony of Dr. B. M. Taliaferro
44a
D epositions o f June 27, 1958
Testimony of Dr. R. M. Taliaferro
— 20—
Q. Is he one of the stockholders in this corporation? A.
No.
Q. Has he contributed any money to it? A. No.
Q. Has he attended any of the meetings? A. No.
Q. Is he a member of any City Council committee at this
time? A. That I do not know. I know none of the functions
of the City Council in that regard.
Q. Now, have you ever appeared before the City Council
in connection with the Lindley Park matter at all? A. No.
Q. Have you appeared before any committee for the
Council? A. No. Wait a minute. I am thinking about it
now. I went to a public meeting at their regular meeting
once, and asked a question of the City Council after their
first turn-down of the May 3rd bid.
Now, if you are classifying that as an appearance, yes, I
was at that open regular Thursday meeting and asked a
question as regards the legality and so on, again not know
ing what would happen suppose that we were the high
bidder, as individuals contributing this money and some
thing legal-wise went wrong with the sale of the pool,
would the money be refunded. I did appear before them
— 21—
there at the regular meeting, and asked that question, but
that was a public meeting where the usual zoning ordi
nances and everything else came up, and so, I did appear
then.
Q. What did they say in answer to your question? A.
They delayed it.
Q. Have they answered it yet? A. No, it is not, as far
as I know, except on the day of the sale, the next sale, I
approached Mr. Jack Elam and asked him in the presence
45a
of General Townsend whether or not that question could
be answered, and he said that was, as far as he was con
cerned, there was no need for the answer in that if it were
not a bona fide sale, then, of course, the money ’would be
returned to the purchaser. So, that was that. That satisfied
xny question when I asked that that date, which was on this
last auction. That was the only answer we have gotten.
Q. Now, at this public hearing, did you indicate that
this corporation was interested in purchasing the pool to
keep it open and operate it as it had in the past? A. Which
public hearing are you speaking about?
Q. The one you spoke out and asked that question. A.
No. This was just a regular Thursday afternoon meeting,
and at that time it was to be decided whether or not the City
Council changed the zoning ordinance, and because of my
interest in it, I went to see what was said, and it wras
referred to the Finance Committee that afternoon.
— 22—
Q. Did you want the City Council to change the zoning—
A. It was no matter to me what they did, we were merely
interested in what they were going to do.
Q. If the City Council had changed it to a profit-making
zone, would you still be interested? A. Yes, it didn’t mat
ter to us whether it was one way or the other.
Q. How many Council meetings did you appear before?
A. That is the only one I can think of. The other one I
went to in the swimming pool regard was to the open hear
ing back in the fall of last year that I recently mentioned,
otherwise there have been none.
Q. You went to the public hearing which was held last
fall on the question of whether the City should sell the
pool? A. That’s right.
D epositions o f June £7, 1958
Testimony of Dr. R. M. Taliaferro
46a
Q. Did you speak at that meeting? A. I did.
Q. Were you in favor of the City selling the pool? A. I
was. There were two assumptions made at that time. “ We
will either close it or sell it,” When I say “ it” I mean both
pools, and we were advocating sale of both pools, because
they left no alternative but that they were going to close
the pools.
Q. And you advocated that they should sell the pool?
A. That’s right.
—23—
Q. Why were you interested in the pools being sold if you
were interested in swimming? A. They had left, the other
alternative was “We are going to close the pools.”
Q. But if they sold the pools, a purchaser might have
purchased the pools and closed them also, is that not cor
rect? A. Not likely. I couldn’t very well picture someone
purchasing a pool to close it.
Q. Could you picture someone purchasing that pool and
making a private club out of it ? A. I guess they possibly
could, yes.
Q. So that in advocating sale of the pool, you weren’t
interested in keeping it open for the citizens of Greensboro
to swim, then? A. That it seems to me you are putting
a statement in my mouth there. Yes, we were interested
in the swimming facilities being available, and as we in
terpreted it, the only way they could be made available was
for the pool to be sold, and therefore we advocated the sale.
Q. Well, now, explain to me how you conceived that by
the City selling these pools, that they would be kept open
for the citizens of Greensboro? A. Merely the same way
we are trying to do it right now, if some group of citizens
would come forward and keep the pools open. We felt that
the interest in swimming had so grown in Greensboro and
D eposition s o f June S7, 1958
Testimony of Dr. R. M. Taliaferro
D epositions o f June 27, 1958
Testimony of Dr. R. M. Taliaferro
— 24—
nationally and would continue to grow, not only from a
competitive standpoint, but the water safety program, that
we felt that it was a necessity to keep them open, and it
never entered our minds that anybody would buy the pools
to close them.
Q. Was it ever in your mind that someone might buy the
pool and restrict the admission as if it were a private
club? A. No, it had frankly never entered our minds; the
first intimation that we ever got that that might have oc
curred was when it came out, Mr. Sanet’s proposed way
of running it after he had made the purchase that particular
morning, and that he was going to run it as a private club.
Q. Was Mr. Lewis in favor of the sale of the pool? A.
That I do not know.
Q. Did he vote for the sale of the pool? A. I don’t
remember anything, in fact, I don’t even know if they voted
that night; I question that they did.
Q. Now, did you discuss the sale of this pool with Mr.
Elam, the City Attorney, at any time? A. No, never had;
the only time I discussed it with him was on the morning
of the last auction, just about five minutes before the auc
tion began. At that time was when I asked him the ques
tion that I have previously mentioned.
Q. What question was that ? A. In regard to the return
ing of the money in case that any time in the future, one,
— 25—
two, twenty years, that the sale was found not to be a bona
fide sale, or either they threw it out, whatever the cir
cumstances of that; in other words, I was interested in these
people that had contributed their money. I wanted to know
if the money could be returned.
48a
Q. What kind of deed did you accept from the City for
this pool, didn’t the City give you a quit-claim deed? A.
You are talking over my head there. I would have to refer
to my attorney on that.
Q. You have the deed with you? A. No, I don’t. That
I left in the office. I never even thought about bringing
that.
Do you have a copy of that? We can obtain it. I believe
the City Attorney has a copy of that.
Mr. Yeattes: I don’t have a copy with me.
By Mrs. Motley:
Q. Then you don’t know what kind of deed you have to
the property? A. No, I sure don’t.
Q. With relation to— A. I deal in personalities, with
people; not legalities.
Q. But you were concerned about whether you would get
your money back in case the sale was void? A. Yes.
Q. Does the deed, as far as you know, protect you in that?
— 26—
A. No, not to my knowledge. I don’t think there is any
thing in there about it.
Q. So actually you can’t get your money back, can you,
if it is declared void? A. Only on the basis of what the
City Attorney and the City Manager assured me that morn
ing, that it would just be an accepted thing.
Q. Now did you know that a lis pendens had been filed
in the State Court? A. What?
Q. Did you know that a notice had been filed in the State
Court that a suit had been brought in the Federal Court
concerning the City’s right to sell this pool? A. No, only
what I see in the paper do I know.
D eposition s o f June 27, 1958
Testimony of Dr. R. M. Taliaferro
49a
Q. Tour lawyer didn’t tell yon that? A. No.
Q. That a suit, that a notice had been filed in State Court
involving the City’s— A. No.
Q. Eight? A. No.
Q. Do you have your title search certificate? A. I as
sume that is it. We had the title searched, yes.
Q. You didn’t bring those papers with you? A. No, I
—27—
brought everything else I could think of.
Q. You brought all the papers concerning the corporation
except the deed to the pool, the title search, and wdiat else?
A. That is all I can think of.
Q. How about the mortgage of the deed of trust, did you
bring that with you? A. The only thing I have got is a
little piece of paper that is so big, it tells me how much
more we owe, and when it is due, on July 1, 1959, at six
per cent interest, that is it.
Q. How much is the total amount due? A. Well, let me
see. It is $85,000, and we paid them twenty-one two fifty.
So, it is that difference; sixty-three or sixty-seven; anyway;
sixty-three seven fifty.
Q. How is it payable, how are you going to pay them? A.
How are we going to pay it ? That is to be determined, but
we have to pay it each year, July 1st.
Q. How much each year? A. It can be in five equal
installments, with six per cent interest, so it figures some
where, the principal, up in terms of twelve thousand some-
odd dollars, twelve thousand and some-odd dollars plus
interest.
Q. $12,000 a year? A. $12,000 plus, just how much I
don’t remember from that particular slip of paper.
Q. Where do you plan to get $12,000 a year to pay that?
D epositions o f June 27, 1958
Testimony of Dr. R. M. Taliaferro
50a
D epositions o f June 87, 1958
Testimony of Dr. R. M. Taliaferro
— 28—
A. Through public subscribers, either stocks or bonds, and
that, I might bring out, is that this thing whether we would
be the high bidder and purchaser, we have never known.
We didn’t know whether this organization would be func
tioning or not, which is borne out by the fact that we have
not had any stock printed yet. We didn’t even have a seal,
and we have been endeavoring, you asked me a question in
regard to the payment of the charter, we have been en
deavoring to keep the cost down as much as possible, be
cause if you will note on that copy I gave you saying that
June 30, 1958, if the organization is not necessary, our pro
ceeds would be returned one hundred per cent on the dollar.
Now, we are going to have to raise this money from
either stocks, bonds, contributions and so on. That we have
got to determine as we go along.
Q. You testified earlier that you had actually paid in by
way of stock subscriptions $24,000? A. Twenty-one two
fifty.
Q. That is what you have paid the city? A. Yes.
Q. But in stock subscriptions, you had a total of $24,000?
A. I am giving you that total for what I have now. In fact,
I have got some right here in my pocket that hasn’t been
deposited yet. I gave you that figure as I can figure it today.
— 29—
Q. How much money do you have now actually in the
corporation; do you have $12,000? A. No, definitely not.
Q. Does the corporation have a seal? A. Yes.
Q. Didn’t you tell me a minute ago that you didn’t even
have a seal yet? A. That is the reason we didn’t open
the pool on Wednesday morning. We did not have a seal.
It had not arrived from Richmond. Therefore, we could
51a
not carry out the completion of the deed and transfer
and so on until the seal came. We now have a seal, and
that of that has been properly carried out.
Q. And you say the seal arrived when? A. Thursday
morning of last week, I believe. It was Thursday when
we opened the pool, wasn’t it?
Special Master Reynolds: Just testify to what you
know.
The Witness: I am sorry.
Special Master Reynolds: Just what you know
about a seal.
The Witness: Yes.
By Mrs. Motley:
Q. Now, when did you get the deed to the property? A.
It was last Thursday.
Q. When did you say you got your seal? A. Thursday
—3 0 -
morning or Thursday afternoon.
Q. That is the day you got your deed? A. That’s right,
Q. Now, on the deed of trust, do you know who the
trustee is? A. I don’t know.
Q. Now, in your corporation, what classes of stock do
you have? A. A and B.
Q. What is the difference between the A and B stocks?
A. The Class “ B” is the voting stock.
Q. The Class “A ” is non-voting? A. Non-voting, yes.
Q. This list you handed me— A. There are two, let me
see, just a moment, you have got; Weaver’s; these that you
have there are Class “ B ” .
Q. Everybody else is Class “ A ” ? A. Class “A ” , right.
D epositions o f June %7, 1958
Testimony of Dr. R. M. Taliaferro
52a
Q. Class “B ” includes you, Mr. Weaver and Mr. Coble?
A. Bight.
Q. In other words, three of you can’t vote? A. No.
Q. You are the only voting— A. We have the only vot
ing stock.
Q. Do any of the members of the City Council own any
—3 1 -
stock? A. Not at the present time, no. We would certainly
try to sell them some if we could, because we need the
money.
Q. Have any of the members of the City Council put
any money in this, whether a loan or gift to the corpo
ration? A. No, not to the corporation, no.
Q. To any individual in the corporation? A. You mean,
of these particular people listed here? Were there—I
couldn’t answer that, whether any of these people listed
here have obtained loans of money through members of
the City Council. That I don’t know. Out of these people
I know well, now, now that I have got dealings with some
of them, I know fifty per cent of them; some of them I have
never even seen.
Q. How about you? Have any members of the City
Council given you any loans or gifts of money? A. To
the corporation, no.
Q. To get the corporation started? A. No, not to me.
Q. Did any member of the City Council own any stock
at any time? A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Now, do you know whether the City owns any land
around the pool property that you have purchased? A. I
would assume that they own all of that park land. I don’t
have the map with me. I guess that is another piece of
paper I should have brought, but I presume around the
D epositions o f June 87, 1958
Testimony of Dr. R. M. Taliaferro
53a
D epositions o f June 87, 1958
Testimony of Dr. R. M. Taliaferro
—3 2 -
entire platte that we now own, that the City does own
that park land; of course, the street above, and the street
here, of course the City owns.
Q. And the City presently operates it as a park? A.
There is just besides the pool, there is a small playground
that has a sliding board, a couple of little climbing para
phernalia; other than that, that is all.
Mrs. Motley: We would like to take a five-minute
recess, Mr. Reynolds.
Special Master Reynolds: All right. We will take
a short recess.
(A short recess was taken.)
By Mrs. Motley :
Q. Mr. Taliaferro, do you have with you the actual stock
subscription showing how much each person on this list
has paid in? A. Yes, I have these right here. Of course,
these are my records.
Q. You don’t have any list showing how much they paid—
A. No, I just copied the list from these.
Q. Those have the amounts— A. Yes, these all have
the amounts.
Mr. Holderness: They will agree to supply that if
you want it.
Airs. Motley: Yes, we want the names with the
amounts of each.
—33—
The Witness: Do you want the amounts sub
scribed or how much they have paid?
54a
Mrs. Motley: When I get through with you, you
can read that off into the record. He can write it
down there.
By Mrs. Motley:
Q. Now, Dr. Taliaferro, how many members of the City
Council are members of the Swimming Association? A.
None.
Q. Have any of them ever been members of the Swim
ming Association? A. No; none.
Q. Are you an officer in the Swimming Association? A.
I am on the executive committee of the out-going president
of this year. I was president of the Swimming Association
up until this year. I am now on the Executive Committee.
Q. Who is the president now? A. Mr. C. 0. Weaver is
president now.
Q. Is Mr. Coble on the Executive Committee of the
Swimming Association? A. No, and not even a member
of the Swimming Association.
Q. Is the Lindley Park Pool in operation? A. Yes.
Q. Now? A. Yes.
Q. Has, how long has your corporation been operating
—34—
it? A. Since last Thursday evening about five-thirty.
Q. Are you personally operating the pool, or do you
have— A. No, we have a manager.
Q. Who is the manager? A. Mr. Clyde Tesh.
Q. Is that the man that has been managing it all along?
A. No, he is principal of the Wiley School.
Q. Do you pay Mr. Tesh’s salary? A. Yes.
Q. What is his salary? A. We pay him $350 a month.
Q. Has he ever worked with the City Recreation Depart
ment? A. Not to my knowledge, no.
D epositions o f June 27, 1958
Testimony of Dr. B. M. Taliaferro
55a
Q. Do you have any other people employed out there at
the pool? A. Yes, we have a manager of the concessions,
of the concession stand, Mr. Frank Bontanella, then we
have 8 other employees, the names I can’t give you right
off. I can give you two or three if you want. They are
lifeguards, checkers for clothing and so on, basket room,
two of the youngsters are working in the concession stand,
and that is it.
Q. So that you have about ten employees? A. We have
ten employees, yes.
Q. Have, how many of them have been working there all
—35-.-
along? A. We have one that I know of that worked there
last year. That is a young girl by the name of Sue
McIntyre, a young college girl.
Q. What does she do? A. She is one of the lifeguards.
She has a Safety Water Director’s certificate, and so on.
Q. What does your payroll a month amount to? A. We
figure on paying the lifeguards at a basis of $1.50 an
hour, and the youngsters in the basket room and the con
cession stand, an hour, and we have thus far met
our first payroll last weekend, which is a total of around
of round figures of $340, something of that sort, not count
ing the manager, Mr. Tesh, and Mr. Bontanella, that is
the best I can tell you, because we have only been in op
eration since last Thursday. We paid them off on Saturday
evening.
Q. What was the income from the first week’s operation?
A. The first week’s operation; I will have to approximate
that for you; I ’m sorry; we had 982 paid admissions,
and it figures out about $350, including the concessions, a
day, if you have got a good day.
D epositions o f June %7, 1958
Testimony of Dr. R. M. Taliaferro
56a
Q. So the first week you took in $360? A. That was on
Friday, a good hot day, the temperature about 92.
Q. What was the other days ? Did you have any income ?
A. Well, Saturday and Sunday, we would have had income,
—36—
I can’t tell you those particular days, because those days
were dreary, with rain, and I was just sitting at home
worrying about whether the money was coming in. So,
we didn’t do so well those two days.
Q. You don’t have any idea of what— A. I couldn’t
tell you the exact figures on that. It was a little bit early
to have any idea of where you are.
Q. Who is keeping these books? A. Mr. Tesh and I are
co-signing the checks. We have the accounts as two sepa
rate accounts; we have an account which is the Greensboro
Pool Corporation, Security National Bank uptown for the
capital funds, if that is the proper term; and we have
a so-called Greensboro Pool operating account, with both
of us co-signing the checks, and that is deposited in the
Lee Street Security National Bank, with a night depository
lock and so on, so we can deposit it each night.
Q. What is Mr. Bontanella’s salary? A. Mr. Bontanella
gets $250 a month.
Q. What does he do? A. He is assistant manager and in
direct control of the concession stand.
Q. You have about eight other employees whose salaries
come to about $350 a week? A. I would have to sit down
and figure out the number of hours’ work. We have only
worked part of a week, and I know I have signed checks
for a total of about $340 for those youngsters. We did
—3 7 -
have a couple of men cleaning up the grounds and so
D epositions o f June 87, 1958
Testimony of Dr. R. M. Taliaferro
57a
forth earlier, which added maybe ten or fifteen or twenty
dollars.
Q. Now, what does your Board of Directors plan to do
with any surplus realized at the end of the year; do you
plan to distribute that among yourselves or what? A. Far
from it. As we just talked about, there is something in the
range of $60,000 which is owed the City of Greenboro.
We are hoping to pay that off.
Q. Assuming you have a surplus at the end of the year,
and you have paid all of your notes for the year to the City
and what not; what do you plan to do with the surplus?
A. Well, the question of surplus, I don’t think has ever-
entered the minds of the Board of Directors. It certainly
hasn’t mine.
Q. Have you made any provision— A. None whatso
ever.
Q. How long is your note with the City? A. For five
years, five installments.
Q. What are you going to do with any surplus that you
have after you pay off the note? A. After we finish paying
off the note?
Q. Yes. A. We have a long-term plan of improving the
property and enclosing the pool, making it a permanent
affair, year-round, so that we can have what we call an
■—38—
indoor-outdoor type of pool. That, however, that is way
off. That is years.
Q. Then after you get that all set up, what do you do
with the surplus? A. You have thought way ahead of us.
That is something, that is only, the future only can answer
that. I don’t know.
Q. Now, did you know the terms of the sale at the time
you bid on this property, did you know what terms the City
D epositions o f June 27, 1958
Testimony of Dr. B. M. Taliaferro
58a
was requiring with, respect to payment? A. Well, quite
well.
Q. How did you know that? A. It has been published in
the paper innumerable times.
Q. What were those terms? A. Twenty-five per cent
down, five per cent down payment at the time of the bid,
twenty-five per cent the first one, each installment for five
years thereafter at six per cent.
Q. And you have paid your twenty-five per cent? A.
Eight.
Q. What did that amount to? A. Twenty-one two fifty.
Q. And at that time you had about $24,000 in the corpo
ration? A. Not at that time, no; when I gave you that
figure, as I told you before, I was trying to give you to
day’s figure when you asked me the amount. I have some
more here to be deposited. That would be about what
we had in the capital fund. I am not talking about the
—39—
operating fund, as to what is in the operating fund.
Q. But as to the time you made this $85,000 bid, how
much money did you have? A. Actually in hand, then, let
me see now, I would assume we had in the range of probably
$15,000 to $17,000 actually in hand; wait a minute; no;
at that time because that was prior to the date of the
bid, I would say we had probably $8,000 in hand then, but
again—
Q. $8,000? A. $8,000, but if you will notice on this
particular form here, we have a place where you can sign
the tenth of each month or quarter beginning May 10; and
May 3rd was the first b id ; during that time everything was
quite quiet; as you well know, no one knew what was going
to be done, and so on. Then the other bid came out, and
we heard a lot about standing ones; the day the bid was
D eposition s o f June 27, 1958
Testimony of Dr. R. M. Taliaferro
59a
approved by the City Council as far as the Greensboro
Pool Corporation is concerned, my efforts went to work
calling, and checks began to flow in, and that got us up to
where we could pay off.
Q. In other words, when you bid $85,000, you didn’t have
twenty-five per cent to pay down? A. Not at that time, no,
not when we made the bid, no. We had it here and due,
but not in hand, for the simple reason I, who was doing
this through my office, trying to keep down paper work
—40—
and expenses likewise, there was no point in my getting
these in if this whole thing wasn’t going through, if we
were not the successful high bidders, that meant that much
more money I had to refund to people.
Q. Well, you knew you had to have twenty-five per cent
and if you were the high bidder, you would have to pay
that twenty-five per cent, wouldn’t you? A. Yes, right.
There was no concern in my mind but that we could.
Q. How is that if the money actually hadn’t been paid
in? A. Good faith.
Q. Good faith? A. Good faith on the subscriptions.
Q. You just went ahead on— A. On faith, good faith
and belief—
Q. That the people would pay? A. That’s right.
Q. How much did you pay at the time of the sale, the day
you bid? A. Five per cent of the $85,000.
Q. That was how much? A. That was a little over forty,
forty-two fifty, I believe, I wrote a check for $4,250.00, which
actually was an over-payment of $250. It didn’t figure out
to that. So, we got credit for that $250; instead of having
—41—
to pay them $17,250 when I wrote the check it was actuallv
$17,000.
D epositions o f June H 7,1958
Testimony of Dr. R. M. Taliaferro
60a
Q. Now, you paid them $4,250, as I understand you? A.
That’s right.
Q. You had $8,000 in cash? A. That’s right.
Q. On that day? A. Yes.
Q. Is that right? A. Yes.
Q. Now, on this subscription, these shares of stock, it
says “ If the company fails to acquire title to Lindley Park
Swimming Pool, now owned by the City of Greensboro, on
or before June 30, 1958, this subscription shall become null
and void and the full amount thereof paid by the under
signed in connection herewith shall be refunded to the
undersigned immediately without any deduction from or
charge against the same.”
Now, if you were not able to raise the additional twenty
per cent, how had you planned to repay the $8,000, having
paid the City $4,000? A. Well, certainly if we were not
successful, I assume, and I am no lawyer, but if I pay down
$4,250, I certainly don’t think that the City keeps that.
That comes back to me and is refunded just as it says
here.
Q. What makes you think the City is going to give you
—4 2 -
back that $4,000? A. Well, as I say, I am no lawyer, but
I just assumed, and I sure would have been up there
raising something to get it back; I have only bought one
home, but I found out if something, some legality, would
foul the matter up, that money certainly would not stay
in the hands of the City.
Q. Suppose you got a car and paid $500 down, would
you assume that the seller is going to give you back $500—
A. It is a little different situation. I haven’t the use of
that pool, but I would have used that car.
D eposition s o f June 27, 1958
Testimony of Dr. B. M. Taliaferro
61a
Q. Suppose you hadn’t used the car, it just sat there in
your garage, do you think the fellow would give you your
$500 back? A. Wait a minute. You are making a different
tack. I see what you are talking about. I am sorry. I
misunderstood you. I had it assured, yes, to someone who
would loan us the difference if we needed to make it up if we
did not have cash in hand.
Q. Who was that ? A. Mr. Coble.
Q. He was going to loan you the money? A. Yes, to
make up the difference. Yes, I am sorry, I misunderstood
your question.
Q. Was he going to give you his personal money? A.
That I don’t know. I didn’t ask Mr. Coble whether he was
giving his personal money or what.
—43—
Q. Did he put that in writing? A. It was not neces
sary. What you are talking about; I assumed you meant
if the sale did not go through.
Q. Well— A. May I clarify my—
Special Master Reynolds: Well, go ahead and
clarify it.
The Witness: I assumed you meant that the bid
had been rejected. I was not assuming you meant
they had accepted our bid, and we could not raise
the money. As I mentioned previously, there was
no question in my mind about raising the money,
and as was just brought out, we were guaranteed
the money to make up that difference if we needed
it.
D epositions o f June 2 7 ,1958
Testimony of Dr. R. M. Taliaferro
62a
Depositions of June 27, 1958
Testimony of Dr. R. M. Taliaferro
By Mrs. Motley:
Q. But you didn’t have any guarantee in writing of that?
A. As I stated before, we didn’t need it in writing.
Q. Were there any witnesses to Mr. Coble’s agreement
to make a loan to you in case you needed it? A. Not that
I was aware o f ; as I say, we didn’t—
Q. How were you going to prove that in case you needed
a loan and he refused to give it, how did you plan to make
him, make him make that loan to you? A. Certainly Mr.
Coble is a reputable business man, and an honest one,
and one of the incorporators of the group, the same as
I, and it seems to me that there is no problem.
—44—
Q. Now7, who represented you in your sales transaction
with the City? A. In the deed of trust and so on?
Q. Yes. A. Mr. Holderness.
Q. Is he the lawyer for the corporation? A. Yes.
Q. Did the corporation pay Mr. Holderness a fee to
represent it in that proceeding? A. No.
Q. You don’t plan to pay him? A. No.
Just like the president, he wasn’t getting paid either.
Q. Now, Dr. Taliaferro, getting back to this meeting
of the City Council last fall, I think the date was October
21st, the meeting at which they discussed the proposition
of whether they would sell or close the pool or vdiat they
would do with it; you say you attended that meeting? A.
That’s right.
Q. Now, at this meeting, I am going to read you a state
ment from a copy of the minutes of that meeting. A. Is
that the City Council meeting?
Q. Yes, the City Council meeting. We have a copy of
the minutes of the meeting of that date; and the minutes
state that you said the following:
63a
D epositions o f June 87, 1958
Testimony of Dr. B. M. Taliaferro
—45—
“ Dr. Taliaferro stated that some people had the idea
that the Swimming Association was a group interested
primarily in competitive swimming, but that is not
true; that the group is concerned with swimming for
all, swimming for safety and swimming for fun; that
the Association feels that the pools will have to be
operated on a segregated basis; that they want to
keep both pools open and are ready to do anything
that they can to help the Council keep them oj)en,
whether it be by sale at public auction or by gift to
some organization that will keep them open.”
Did you say that? A. I assume that I did. I notice
that you depend a lot on the Council, actually we were
speaking to the group and to the Council like gentlemen.
The gift I can certainly clarify, because there had been
a question among some of us; in fact, one of the men
who spoke had the idea that if the pools could be pur
chased from the City, that Nocho be given to Hayes
YMCA—
Q. What is that? A. Hayes is a colored YMCA here,
and also the Lindley Park Pool to the other YMCA, the
white YMCA. That is in regard to when they say gift
there.
Q. So that you were there for the purpose of working
with the City Council in keeping the pools open? A. No,
I was not. I was there in the interest of the people of
—46—
Greensboro, that we wanted the pools kept open, and it
seemed like the only way; they had two assumptions; they
were either going to sell the pools or close them. There
64a
fore, we were advocating selling them, because that meant
to keep them open, to us.
Q. You were there for the purpose of convincing the
City Council that they ought to be kept open on some
basis? A. Definitely.
Q. And your plan was that they should be sold? A.
If they were going to otherwise close them.
Q. And if they weren’t going to sell them, you suggested
they ought to make a gift to the “Y ” ? A. Eight.
Q. Now, did you say whether the following:
“ Dr. Taliaferro further stated that the neighbor
hood pools, such as Guilford Hills and 0. Henry Oaks,
which are completed or in process of being planned,
will take revenue from the Lindley Park Pool; that
if the pool is integrated, revenue will be even less
and the pool will operate at a loss, and that the Asso
ciation does not see how the City can operate the pools
under these conditions.”
Did you say that? A. I probably did, if you have it in
the minutes, I probably did, because that was certainly
my feeling.
Q. Now, did you ever appear at a City Council meeting
—47—
and ask them to make suggestions as to how you could
get other income to purchase the pool? A. Definitely
not.
Q. Did the local newspapers report you had appeared
before the City Council and made a request as to whether
there wasn’t some way they could help you raise money
for the pool! A. No, the only thing I think you would
be hitting at, and I don’t know, if you have a piece of
D epositions o f June 27, 1958
Testimony of Dr. B. M. Taliaferro
65a
paper there stating said appearance, it is improper re
porting, and what they may possibly have been referring
to was the afternoon that I mentioned to you on the
Thursday regular meeting, when we asked that particular
question about refunding the money; because they were
discussing at that particular time the question of the
sale of Coca-colas and so on, as to whether you had to
sell it at cost, or whether you could add some profit to
it, in other words, to maintain the pool. That is the only
thing I know of that could have been—
Q. You say that was at the meeting you were asking
about the refunding of the money? A. I think that’s
right. That was Mr. Newton Farnell, who was discussing
the sale of coca-colas at cost, or whether or not a profit
could be made, which we, of course, were interested in if
we were the high bidders and successful bidders; we have
got to pay the salaries we have just discussed, and the
only way we could do it was by making some profit on the
coca-colas. Now, that is the only thing that I can think
—48—
of that the paper could have referred to.
Q. You were also concerned about getting your money
back if the pool was declared— A. Definitely.
Q. What did they say, that you could get your money
back? A. No. No answer was given to me at the City
Council meeting that afternoon. So, I left. The whole
financial situation of the pool was referred to the Finance
Committee. They then came out later as regards they
would not change the zoning. That was the recommenda
tion of the Finance Committee. But we had not appeared
before any City Council trying to obtain ways of increasing
the income, definitely not.
D epositions o f J im e 27, 1958
Testimony of Dr. R. M. Taliaferro
66a
Q. Not increasing income, but raising money with which
to purchase the pool? A. No. Definitely not.
I might interject at this point. I don’t know whether
it is apropos or not, but we treated them like a sore
thumb, frankly, the City Council, we stayed as far away
from the City Council as we possibly could.
Q. Why is that? A. Just for this very same reason.
Q. What same reason? A. That there would be no
reason for us to communicate with them in regards to
the pool. As I say, we stayed well away from them.
—49—
Q. Didn’t you say you were at this meeting on the 21st?
A. That was a perfectly public hearing at which anyone
in this crowd could go out of pure simple interest in any
city-wide project, and the pool situation was to be brought
up, and I merely attended as an interested citizen to see
what their decision was.
Q. You were really more than an interested citizen,
since you had formed a corporation to purchase the pool?
A. This was not a recognized appearance by appointment
or talk or anything.
Q. Let me ask you this. You were more than an in
terested citizen, since you are the president of a corpora
tion which was formed for the sole purpose of buying this
pool if possible? A. Correct; but that particular meet
ing, you don’t have to go with an appointment or make
an appointment to speak or anything.
Q. I understand that. Now, going back to the meeting
of October 21st again, referring again to the minutes, at
that meeting did you say the following:
“Dr. Taliaferro stated that the Greensboro Swim
ming Association is interested in keeping both pools
D epositions o f June 2 7 ,19 5 8
Testimony of Dr. B. M. Taliaferro
open, that they would like nothing better than for
the City to be able to operate the pools, but that they
feel that the time has come when something else will
have to be done; that selling the pools would not be
a backward step. Dr. Taliaferro stated that additional
—50—
athletic fields, community centers, and parks can be
progress in recreation, but that this one particular
issue is now falling out of municipally operated recrea
tion programs.
“ Dr. Taliaferro further stated that the Lindley Pool
has been making expenses, and making up the loss
incurred in the operation of the Nocho Pool.”
Did you say that? A. I probably did.
Q. So that you did appear before the City Council, did
you not, and make known that you felt the pool would have
to be operated on a segregated basis? A. I will answer
that in that I was one of about 700 people that appeared
before the City Council to discuss it, in the form of a
public hearing.
Q. And at that public hearing, you made known to the
City Council that you felt the pool would have to be
operated on a segregated basis? A. That’s right.
Q. So that the City Council knew that, from your state
ment there, that you were going to continue to operate
the pool on a racially segregated basis, didn’t they? A.
Yes, we have made no effort to hide that.
Q. And it was in the local newspaper that your corpora
tion was being formed for the purpose of purchasing the
- 5 1 -
D epositions o f June 27, 1958
Testimony of Dr. R. M. Taliaferro
pool, wasn’t it? A. Eight.
68a
Q. Was there any other local group organized for the
purpose of purchasing Lindley Park Pool? A. Not to
my knowledge. If they were, they did not show up.
Q. So that everybody knew that you were the only cor
poration locally interested in purchasing that pool? A.
To the best of my knowledge, yes.
Q. Now therefore you were surprised when Mr. Sanet
appeared at the first bidding, weren’t you? A. Yes.
Q. You didn’t expect anyone else? A. We didn’t know
whether there would be anybody else or not. We had no
idea.
Q. Actually you did not expect anyone, since no other
corporation had been formed to purchase the pool? A.
Obviously not, of the type of ours, no.
Q. Did you know the City Council turned down Mr.
Sanet’s bid of $75,000 as inadequate? A. Eight.
Q. Now, what made you think that $85,000 would there
fore be adequate? A. We didn’t know whether it would,
but that was the top we thought we could go. If that
didn’t buy it, and we were the high bidder, and they re-
— 52—
jected it, we had done all we could. We had agreed that
was the best we could do, and we had set our figure at
$85,000 and that was that.
Q. Now, who, in addition to you and Mr. Coble and
Mr. Weaver, knew your top bid would be $85,000? A.
No one else other than Mr. Holderness and Mr. Daniel.
Q. Who is Mr. Daniel? A. Mr. Daniel is another lawyer
with Mr. Holderness.
Q. Do you have any by-laws for your corporation? A.
Yes, we do.
Q. Does your corporation hold a tax-exempt status of
any kind? A. No.
D eposition s o f June 2 7 ,19 5 8
Testimony of Dr. R. M. Taliaferro
69a
Q. Have you applied for one! A. No.
Q. Do you have any idea of what your taxes are going
to be a year? A. No, we do not. We know we have got
to pay the 1958 ones, though.
Q. What are they? A. Apparently they have not been
determined as yet.
Q. Do you plan to apply for a tax-exempt status? A.
That has not been determined by the Board of Directors.
I cannot answer that.
Q. That is important, isn’t it, if you don’t plan to make
—53—
any profit, how do you plan to pay taxes, if you are not
making any profit? A. Well, I can refer to the figures
that we had to use as an average from 1955 through ’57
under paid admissions there, taking into consideration
that the private pools will probably decrease the income
somewhat.
For instance, take the figure for 1957, we had a grand
total take there of actually $15,104.52. When I say “ we” ,
I mean the City had that. Don’t misunderstand me when
I say that.
Q. Yes. A. That included paid admissions and the con
cessions’ profit for Bindley Park in 1957.
Your actual expenses ran, it was rather difficult to find
it through the City, because of their bookkeeping, electric,
water, and so on, being all mixed in, but the highest figure
they could bring out would be in terms of around $13,000
and some odd dollars. So, you see you are making a profit
of about four or five thousand dollars tops.
Now again they were running on the basis of 17 and 19
employees. We are running adequately on the basis of
ten employees. We hope to tighten the reins considerably,
D epositions o f June 27, 1958
Testimony of Dr. R. M. Taliaferro
70a
and make this thing pay itself out. It is going to have
to maintain itself. That is the reason I stated, as I did
earlier, in the October meeting, there is a difference in the
Nocho Park Pool and the Lindley Park Pool.
—54—
Q. The City wasn’t paying any taxes, was it? A. No.
The City, of course, was not paying any taxes.
Q. The people who used the pool, did they have to pay
an admission? A. Yes.
Q. That is, they do pay an admission? A. Yes.
Q. Now, is that open to any white person who pays an
admission ? A. Right.
Q. What is the admission fee? A. Fifteen cents, thirty
and fifty ; fifteen cents for the twelve and under, thirty for
the teen-agers, and fifty for the adults.
Q. What did the City charge? A. Ten, twenty-five and
forty. We have upped it a nickel, a nickel and ten.
Q. Why did you up it? A. Just the same question—
Q. If you are not interested in making any profit? A.
Just the same question you asked earlier, how are we
going to pay for the taxes and so on. We have got these
expenses that they did not have: water, lights, and so on.
Q, The City made a profit charging a lower fee, didn’t it?
■—55—
A. Right, but they did not have three other community
pools, with anywhere from 150 to 200 member families in
each of them. You see, that takes in quite a segment of
swimmers too.
Q. They didn’t have what? A. You see, a year ago, and
prior to this year, your community pools, each of which
are being opened or have been opened, which have a mem
bership of anything from 125 to 200 members—
Q. These are private pools? A. Yes, and if you take
D epositions o f June 27, 1958
Testimony of Dr. B. M. Taliaferro
71a
the private pools, and you have got two or three kids
in a family, and the adults and so on, many of those, I am
quite certain, make up this particular list of paid ad
missions. They have been since 1955 and so on. So there
fore I anticipate a smaller attendance, and again back to
your question as to what we have made thus far, it is too
early to tell.
Q. How many of the private pools are in operation now?
A. They have Guilford Hills, Lawn Dale, it is supposed to
have been opened up this month, and also the 0. Henry
Oaks Pool. I believe the proper name is referred to* in
that testimony. And there are others on the drawing board,
three have opened or will be opened within, say, a week.
Q. This is the only one in which any white person can
go, is it not? A. That is correct.
—56—
Q. Do these people who come to your pool have to pay an
admission tax? A. No, we just charge them a flat fee.
Q. Who is going to pay the admission tax? A. We will.
Q. You say you will not be seeking any tax-exempt status ?
A. I said that has not been determined at this time.
Q. But the chances are you probably will try to get a
tax exemption? A. That I cannot answer.
Q. Well, what do you think about it as a member of the
Corporation, do you think they ought to have a tax exemp
tion ? A. Frankly, I haven’t given it much thought at this
time. We have been trying to get the pool open, and frankly,
that is something that is off in the future. I have given it
no thought in that regard.
Q. Now, do you have any agreement with the City to
defer any of these payments which are due? A. Defi
nitely not.
Q. What do you plan to do if you can’t meet the payment
when it is due? A. Borrow the money, I guess. We will
D epositions o f Jim e 87, 1958
Testimony of Dr. R. M. Taliaferro
72a
meet the payment when the time comes. That is July of
1959. That is quite a considerable time between now and
then.
Q. Do you have any correspondence with the City Coun
cil now? A. No.
— 57—
Q. How about the City Manager, do you have any cor
respondence with him? A. No.
Q. How about Mr. Elam? A. No.
Q. Your corporation hasn’t had any correspondence with
the City on this? A. No, we haven’t had occasion to. As
I told you before, we have stayed away from them.
Q. Now, were Mr. Coble and Mr. Weaver at that public
meeting in October, 1957? A. Mr. Weaver was. Mr. Coble
was not that night, no.
Q. Did Mr. Weaver speak at that meeting? A. I don’t
remember whether he did or not. It has been some time. I
don’t remember. There were about eight or nine different
people that got up and spoke. I don’t remember whether
he was one or not.
Q. Have you had any correspondence with Mayor Roach
about this pool? A. I wrote to Mayor Roach once, asking
him about the possibility of deferral of the date of the sale.
Again, as I say, I have stayed away; and the question of
the time of the sale came up, and I wrote, was there any
possibility of the change of date of sale.
-—58—
Q. The first or second sale? A. The first sale.
Q. What was Ms reply? A. No.
Q. He couldn’t change the date? A. That’s right.
Q. Why did you -want the date changed? A. Again we
were trying to raise money, and as far as we knew we were
the only ones bidding.
Q. Do you have a copy of that letter? A. No, 1 do not.
D epositions o f June 27, 1968
Testimony of Dr. R. M. Taliaferro
73a
Q. Weren’t you asked to bring all of the papers relating
to this? A. Right, and I went through, and I did not have
a copy of it. I do not have it in the office.
Q. Do you have a copy of the letter the Mayor sent you?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Who keeps the records of the corporation? A. I do.
Q. You don’t have the correspondence? A. No, because
as far as I am concerned, it was certainly nothing official
correspondence with that. We only got one other letter
here, which is in the form of correspondence, this letter
to the Raleigh office in regard to the corporate tax. Beyond
—59—
that, there are no other letters.
Q. You mean to say you don’t consider the corporation’s
letters relating to this business important? A. There have
been no other letters of business.
Q. Since you only had one or two— A. There was only
one.
Q. You mean you are unable to keep up with one or two
letters ? A. That is correct, if you want to put it that way.
There is a letter to Mr. Hughes, Director of the Corporate
Income Tax and Franchise Tax Division. I have a copy in
answer to my letter, if you want that.
Mrs. Motley: I think we will take a copy of that if
you have it.
The Witness: Here is the original. I would like to
have a copy of it myself.
# # # # #
—63—
Mrs. Motley: Now, this letter you sent to the
Mayor, you are saying for the record you don’t have
a copy of it?
D epositions o f June 27, 1958
Testimony of Dr. R. M. Taliaferro
74a
The Witness: No, I do not. The sum and substance
of that letter, I wrote to him and said that if a delay
conld be had of, say, a week, if it would not hurt the
sale of the pool, it would help us in trying to raise
more money. We were trying to raise money, and
as I said before, as far as we knew, we didn’t know
whether there were any other purchasers; got a let
ter back from him saying no. It was not an official
letter or anything of that sort, because when I tell
you what I told you before about not going to them,
that is correct.
# # # = & #
—64—
By Mrs. Motley:
Q. Dr. Taliaferro, you remember the approximate date
on which you wrote your letter to Mayor Roach, asking that
the sale date be postponed? A. Yes, the approximate
date would be about the latter part of March, because we
have only about three weeks there with this organization;
so, it would have been before the first sale; the first sale
was April 1. I believe I am correct on that. So, it would
have been about four or five days before that. So, that
was your approximate date.
Q. At that time had the City changed the date of the
sale? A. No. That was still your April 1 date.
Q. But the sale was originally scheduled for March 18,
—65—
wasn’t it? A. I don’t remember. I was thinking it was
April 1. That is the reason I said, if I am not mistaken
on the date of the first sale. I was figuring back on it from
the time of the first sale. They did not change the date of
D epositions o f June 27, 1958
Testimony of Dr. R. M. Taliaferro
75a
the first sale, not to my knowledge. That was set up, I
thought, April 1.
Yes, it was the 18th day of March. You are correct. So,
it was just before that that I wrote him. I was thinking
April 1 was the date of the sale.
Q. So you wrote to the Mayor prior to March 18? A.
Eight. It was about a week.
Q. And asked if the sale date couldn’t be changed? A.
Eight. Delayed a week.
Q. A week beyond April 1? A. Whatever the first date
that was set. In other words, the date they had the sale,
what date did they have the sale, was it March 18?
Q. It was scheduled for March 18? A. If that is the
date they had the first auction over there, it was during
that week prior to that.
Q. And then after that the City Council changed the
date to April 1? A. I don’t remember. Your first sale,
as I remember it, was on time as scheduled, if I am not
mistaken. Then you had a change of date, I think, in your
second sale. I don’t remember any change of date in the
— 66-
first sale.
# # # # #
— 70—
H. L. C oble b e in g first du ly sw orn, took the stand and
testified as fo llo w s :
By Mrs. Motley:
Q. Mr. Coble, do you have any connection with the
Greensboro Pool Corporation? A. Yes.
Q. What is your connection with them? A. Vice-presi
dent,
D epositions o f June 2 7 ,19 5 8
Testimony of II. L. Coble
76a
Q. Are yon one of the share-holders? A. Yes.
Q. In fact, yon are the largest share-holder in the cor
poration? A. I think there is another one that equals
mine.
Q. Who is that? A. Blue Bell, Inc.
Q. Blue Bell? A. Blue Bell.
Q. Do you know what kind of company that is? A. Yes,
it manufactures work clothes, men’s overalls and various
work clothes.
Q. Are you in business yourself? A. Yes.
—71—
Q. What business are you in? A. General contracting
business; building.
Q. Do you have any contracts with the City of Greens
boro? A. Building one or two bridges at the present time.
Q. What are the amounts of those contracts ? A. One of
them, I think, is $48,000, and some-odd dollars, and the
other I think is around fifty-two something.
Q. Fifty-two what? A. Fifty-two thousand. One of
them is forty-eight something. I am going by memory. I
would have to check with the office on that.
Q. Have you done any other work for the City of Greens
boro in the last five years? A. I think we had an altera
tion job up in City Hall some three or four years ago.
Q. What did that contract amount to? A. There again
I couldn’t tell you that. We had a man at that time who
looked after what we called our small operations, Mr.
Johnnie Barker. He is no longer with us. It was a very
small contract. It was an alteration job. I just don’t recall
now.
Q. Did you do anything else for the City in the last five
years? A. That is the only thing I can recall.
D epositions o f June 27, 1958
Testimony of II. L. Coble
77a
Q. You now have two contracts with the City! A. Two
—7 2 -
small bridge contracts obtained on competitive bidding in
the last two months.
Q. Within the last two months? A. Yes.
Q. Did you have anything to do with the construction
of Lindley Park Pool? A. No.
Q. What is your interest in swimming? Are you a mem
ber of the Swimming Association? A. No.
Q. How did you happen to get tied up in the corporation
which was formed for the purpose of buying the pool? A.
I was interested in seeing the pool remain open and in
operation.
Q. Were you at this meeting on October 2st at which
time the City Council discussed with the citizens the prop
osition as to whether the pool should be sold or closed,
or what should be done with it? A. I was not at the
meeting.
Q. Were you at any City Council meeting regarding the
pool? A. No.
Q. When did you first become aware that the City was
going to sell the pool? A. Well—
—73—
Q. If you weren’t at any of the meetings? A. I guess
from some announcement in the newspaper, some article,
some news article.
Q. With whom did you discuss the sale of the pool? A.
I talked to Dr. Taliaferro, I believe, first, and Mr. Weaver.
Q. That is all that you— A. There were a number of,
I would say, Greensboro citizens, that just in general con
versation when you would meet them there would be some
mention of it. I don’t recall who they were. I had some
conversations in connection with the proposed sale.
D epositions o f June 8 7 ,1958
Testimony of H. L. Coble
78a
Q. Do you know Mr. Lewis on the City Council? A. Ido .
Q. Did you talk to him about it? A. No.
Q. Did you know that Dr. Taliaferro had talked to Mr.
Lewis about the pool? A. I did not.
Q. Did you tell Dr. Taliaferro that you would loan the
corporation money in the event that the corporation was
unable to raise the remainder of the down payment after
having bid on the pool? A. I did.
Q. When did you tell him that? A. I couldn’t tell you
—'74—
the date to save my life. I don’t recall the date.
Q. Now, how did it happen that you told him that, how
did you arrive at that agreement to loan money to the
corporation? A. I do not recall what actually gave rise to
the conversation.
Q. Do you know what you told him? A. Yes, I told him
that I knew that there were a lot of commitments to dif
ferent people, and we discussed the interest, and he had a
lot of, I assume you would call them commitments, they
are the things you are checking over there; and I felt that
the people would come through all right. I told him that
if he was short at the time of the closing, at the time he
wanted to make this first installment, this first payment,
so that the pool could start in operation, I told him I
would loan him the difference.
Q. Do you know any of these stockholders? A. I know
some of them. I don’t know. I haven’t seen that list.
Q. You haven’t seen the list? A. I haven’t gone over
that complete list, no.
Q. Do you want to take a look at it and let me know if
you know any of those people at all? A. I know Dr. Apple.
I know Barket-Cochran Construction Company.
D epositions o f June %7, 1958
Testimony of H. L. Coble
79a
D epositions o f June %7, 1958
Testimony of II. L. Coble
—75—
I know Blue Bell, Inc.; Gofer; Hagen; Henson, if that is
the person I am thinking of.
Dr. Taliaferro: That’s right.
The Witness: Kinney-Keesee Office Supply; Lam
bert; Lupton; A. Iv. Moore; A. H. Parker; Mrs. L.
Richardson Prver; I know several of these, but I
don’t remember their initials.
Mr. Arnold Schiffman.
I am not sure which is Reede, which Reede this is.
I know several of these, but I am not sure of their
initials.
Starr Electric Company.
Mrs. W. W. Stevenson. That Stevenson, I know
so many of them by their first names. Do you know
who W. W. is?
Stout, Mr. and Mrs. Ralph D. Stout.
Dr. Taliaferro, who is here, and it is obvious I
know him.
Toler, M. D .; Mr. Weaver. Of course he is here;
L. P. McLendon.
I have myself listed here. That seems to be about
all I can identify.
Q. But you would say the majority of the people on here
you don’t know, then? A. Well, yes, a majority, I guess,
I called out less than a majority.
Q. So that a majority of these people are not known to
you? A. Not by their initials as described there. There
—7 6 -
may be some more that I don’t know by their initials. If
80a
they had their first names there, I might know them. The
answer is that a majority of them I do not know.
Q. So that yon told Dr. Taliaferro that yon would make
a loan to him because you felt these people were going to
pay up, but a majority of them you don’t even know? A.
Well, there were two reasons; Dr. Taliaferro and Mr.
Weaver both knew a lot of these people, and they had con
fidence in them, and therefore I had confidence in them.
Q. How long have you been in business? A. 27 years.
Q. You then know the difference between a business cor
poration and one that is not in business, one that is not in
the business of making money? A. I think I do.
Q. Is it your understanding that this is a non-business
corporation? A. I don’t know how you would answer that.
We were trying to raise enough funds to open a pool and
keep it in operation for the benefit of the people of Greens
boro. We thought it was needed. To my mind, I was never
concerned with other than it would pay its own way. I was
hoping it would do that.
Q. By paying its own way, what do you mean? A. Well,
that there would be enough people who would make con-
—77—
tributions and buy stock, and what we would take in from
the revenue out there, to maintain the maintenance of it.
Q. Do you know that the certificate of incorporation says
this is a business corporation? A. That’s right.
Q. And ordinarily that means a corporation for profit,
doesn’t it? A. That is exactly right. I have been in a num
ber of offices in the last year or so. They have a sign there
saying, “ This is a non-profit organization, but it wasn’t
intended that way.”
Q. But you do know the difference between a profit cor
D eposition s o f June 27, 1958
Testimony of H. L. Goble
81a
poration and a non-profit one, don’t you! A. I have begun
to wonder now, since I have been in business 27 years.
Q. What I want to get straight is what your understand
ing is as to the type of corporation this Greensboro Pool
Corporation is that you are the vice-president of. Do you
know what kind of corporation it is? A. It is a business
corporation. At least I believe that is the position of the
charter. May I ask my attorney if that is correct?
Special Master Reynolds: You have to testify, Mr.
Coble.
By Mrs. Motley:
—78—
Q. How much money does your 250 shares represent?
A. How much money?
Q. Yes. A. I believe the shares are listed at $100. I
may be incorrect about that. I have not kept up wdth the
details, I might add.
Q. You don’t know how much money you put in this
corporation? A. $2500 was the actual amount of stock
that I expected to receive there, $2500. I made a loan of
six thousand two hundred and some-odd dollars, I believe.
Q. To this corporation? A. I made a loan to the Cor
poration in addition to the stock that I agreed to buy.
Q. What was the purpose of the loan? A. As I de
scribed before, to help open the pool as soon as i3 0 ssible
before some of this money came in that had been sub
scribed.
Q. Do you have any evidence of the loan? A. None at
all, except probably a cancelled check by this time.
Q. Was that loan .made without interest? A. I don’t
recall whether we went into the details of interest or not.
D epositions o f June % 7,1958
Testimony of II. L. Coble
82a
Q. "Were you paid any interest? A. Well, it would not
—79—
be due, of course. It would not be determined until the
length of time, I mean, interest could not be determined,
the amount could not be determined until the time the
money was repaid.
Q. When did you make this loan? A. There again I
do not remember the date. It was a few days prior to the
signing up and getting the deed to the property.
Q. And you don’t have anything to show for the loan,
that you made a loan, other than the cancelled check? A.
That would be all.
Q. Does the check say on there, this is a loan? A. Yes,
the stub, all of our checks have a stub on them, and the
stub shows what it is for.
Q. On the face of the check— A. Ours, actually is, I
guess you would call it, a kind of a check and voucher,
the stub goes along and went with the check, down at the
bottom, which is attached, it stated on there that it was
a loan to the Pool Corporation.
Q. Was this your personal money or the Construction
Company money? A. My Construction Company.
Q. So your corporation made a loan to the Swimming
Pool Corporation? A. That’s right.
—80—
Q. Do you know of anyone else who has made a loan
to the Corporation? A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. You are the only one? A. The only one as far as
I know.
Q. You and Dr. Taliaferro and Mr. Weaver are the
only persons who have any right to vote in the Swimming
Pool Corporation? A. That’s right, at the present time.
Q. Do you expect other people to be able to vote in
D epositions o f June 27, 1958
Testimony of H. L. Coble
83a
the future? A. I think we will appoint additional direc
tors.
Q. How many voting shares were authorized by you,
were authorized by your certificate of incorporation? Do
you know? A. I am sorry, I do not.
Q. Class A voting shares, it it? Class B voting shares.
You don’t know how many were authorized? A. Voting-
shares I don’t recall.
Q. Would it have been sixty? A. As I said, I am not
sure. I believe that amount was testified to this morning,
but I—
Q. Now, how come you and Dr. Taliaferro and Dr.
Weaver were the only ones interested in the whole City
of Greensboro in controlling the swimming pool situation?
A. I am afraid I don’t know how to answer that one.
—81—
Q. You said you didn’t attend any of the Council meet
ings at which time it was discussed what should be done
with the pool, is that right? A. That’s right.
Q. Who got you involved in this corporation? A. Well,
it was due to a personal interest in seeing that the pool
was kept open. I read the articles. I earlier testified
that I had talked to Dr. Taliaferro and Mr. Weaver about
it.
Q. Did they call you and say, “ Let’s form a corporation
and buy a pool?” A. Well, we first had a meeting, and
I think all the men were listed here that were at the meet
ing. At that time we just formed the corporation.
Q. What men, Dr. Beavers, Mr. Cochran and Mr. Glynn?
A. The ones that were listed this morning, yes.
Q. Are they among the stockholders? A. I don’t know
whether they are listed as stockholders or not.
D epositions o f June $7, 1958
Testimony of H. L. Coble
84a
Q. What happened to them, they were at the original
meeting, yon say, for the purpose of discussing the forma
tion of this corporation— A. They were interested in
one being formed just like the other three, and at that
time it was suggested that we three form the corporation.
— 82—
Q. Who suggested it? A. That I don’t recall.
Q. Did you and Mr. Weaver authorize Dr. Taliaferro to
go, or bid, rather, at the sale? A. Yes.
Q. For the purchase of the pool? A. Yes.
Q. When did you do that? A. Some time prior to the
bidding. I don’t remember the actual date, but it was
prior to the advertised date of the bidding.
Q. What did you authorize him to bid? A. We author
ized him to bid a maximum of $85,000.
Q. Do you know whether he bid that at the first sale
or not? A. No. At the first sale, I think he bid $65,000.
I was not at either sale.
Q. But he was authorized to bid 85 at the first sale? A.
I don’t recall what the authorization was for the first sale.
Q. You mean there were different amounts authorized?
A. I am not saying that. I just stated that prior to the
last bidding he was authorized to bid $85,000. It might
have been the same thing the first. I don’t recall that.
It has been too far back.
Q. Did you know what the City had spent on the pool
—83—
at the time you authorized him to bid $85,000? A. Nothing
except what I read in the newspapers.
Q. What did you read in the newspapers? A. I think
it was about $225,000. I think there was some article to
that effect. I am not just sure of that.
D epositions o f June 87, 1958
Testimony of TI. L. Coble
85a
Q. Tell me how did you determine that $85,000 would be
a good bid on a $225,000 pool? A. We had no idea whether
the bid would be accepted. We just felt that that was as
high as wTe could go.
Q. Why did you feel that that was as high as you could
go? A. Well, we didn’t feel we could operate it and pay
for it, just like buying a home.
Q. Why not? Why didn’t you think you could raise it
to $100,000, since that was your total authorization? A.
Well, we thought we needed some difference, a cushion in
there for maintenance and unforeseen things that develop
on any piece of property or building. We thought 85 was
as high as we could go.
Q. That didn’t occur to you to be a kind of small amount
of money to be bidding on a pool that was reportedly
worth over $200,000? A. I will answer personally by
saying that that had no bearing on what the pool cost.
—84—
Q. WThat was that? A. I say, personally I would say
that to me our bid had no bearing on what the pool cost.
If it cost a million and if we thought that we could only
bid so much and operate it and pay for it, why, that would
be the figure.
Q. You mean that if the pool was worth $1,000,000, you
would go there— A. I am just giving you that as an
illustration, that the price of the pool, the reported cost,
had no bearing on our bidding, not so far as I saw it
personally.
Q. But you felt sure that you could probably get it for
about $85,000, didn’t you? A. I had no idea what they
would do about it.
Q. You formed the corporation for the purpose of get
ting that pool, you weren’t just spending time— A. We
tried to get the pool.
D epositions o f June 27, 1958
Testimony of H. L. Coble
86a
Q. So your effort was a serious one to try to get the
pool, wasn’t it? A. Certainly we were serious about it.
Q. So that you felt pretty sure, did you not, that you
could get it for about $85,000? A. No, indeed, we didn’t
know whether somebody else would outbid us, or whether
the bid we placed would be accepted or not. We had no
way in the world of knowing.
Q. You realized, did you, that your bid was kind of low,
didn’t you, for a pool worth over $200,000?
—85—
The chances were that somebody was going to outbid
you, weren’t they? A. Well, if they did, then they would
have had the pool.
Q. But you felt that that wasn’t going to happen? A.
I had no idea what was going to happen.
Q. Did you know whether there were any other corpora
tions in the City formed for the purpose of securing this
pool? A. I did not know. As far as I knew, there were
none. I had no idea whether there were going to be any
other bidders or not.
Q. You did not know, yet you were forming a corpora
tion for the purpose of purchasing a pool, and you want
to tell me that you had no idea whether there was any
body else in the City interested in the pool? A. We didn’t
know. How would we know? How would we know there
were some other bidders on the pool?
Q. Well, this was your business, wasn’t it, you formed
a corporation for a particular business, the business being
the purchase of the Bindley Park Pool, is that right? A.
That’s right.
Q. You had no interest in whether there was anybody
else forming a corporation or trying to purchase this
D eposition s o f June 27, 1958
Testimony of H. L. Coble
87a
pool? A. I don’t know exactly what you mean by that
question.
Q. I mean this. I f you were seriously in business for
the purpose of purchasing a pool, it seems to me that you
would make some kind of inquiry to find out whether any
— 86—
other corporation was interested in purchasing the pool,
other persons, so that you would have some idea as to your
chances of going into such a business? A. I personally
made no investigation whatsoever. If anyone else made
one, I do not know.
Q, You made no investigation? A. I made none what
soever.
Q. To determine whether this was a sound business or
a profitable business? A. I made no survey as to whether
or not somebody else was going to bid.
Q. No, I am asking you whether you made any investiga
tion to determine whether this was a good business for
you to go into, to put your money in it. A. I never viewed
it from the angle of whether it was good business. I
viewed it from the angle that something was important
to our town, to keep the only public pool open for the
public.
Q. So that your answer is that you made no investiga
tion to determine whether there was anybody else interested
in purchasing this pool? A. I personally did not make
any investigation.
Q. Do you know whether or not Dr. Taliaferro made any
investigation to find out if there were other people forming
- 8 7 -
corporations ? A. I do not know whether he did.
Q. Do you know whether Mr. Weaver made any investi
gation to see whether anybody else was going to take this
Depositio7ts o f June 27, 1958
Testimony of H. L. Coble
88a
over for the purpose of keeping it open for the citizens'?
A. I do not. They may have made such investigations.
If so, I am not aware of it.
Q. But you say your only interest in it was to see that
the people of Greensboro had a pool? A. Had a public
pool, not a private pool.
Q. So that if some other corporation had come along
and said they were going to purchase this pool, and operate
it as in the past, for the benefit of the people of Greens
boro, you wouldn’t have been interested, that would have
satisfied your interest in this pool? A. Personally, yes.
Q. But you made no investigation to determine whether
there was any such corporation? A. I have already an
swered that. I did not.
Q. Bid you investigate to see whether any of the “ Ys”
were interested in purchasing the pool? A. I did not.
Q. Were you in on this proposition that the City might
make a gift to the “ Y ” of these pools? A. I was not.
— 88—
Q. Bid you at any time advocate that the City sell the
pools? A. No.
Q. Now, did you hear Dr. Taliaferro’s testimony this
morning regarding what he said at the meeting on October
21, the public meeting at the City Council? A. I heard
you read some of his testimony of what he said at the
meeting.
Q. Bo you agree with what he had to say at that meet
ing? With regard to the pools? A. Yes, I am in agree
ment.
Q. Now, did you hear his testimony concerning his in
terest in giving this money back if the sale should be
declared void? A. I did hear his testimony.
D epositions o f June 2 7 ,1958
Testimony of H. L. Coble
89a
Q. What was Ms testimony? A. Well, Ms testimony
was that if the sale was not confirmed, that the money
would he refunded. That was Ms opinion.
Q. What was Ms opinion based on? A. Surely on the
normal way to do business in this town, and State.
Q. You have that understanding with the people you do
business with in connection with this pool? A. I didn’t
talk to very many of the people that made these pledges.
I did talk to a few of them.
Q. What people that made what pledges? A. This list
—89—
you have.
Q. No, I don’t mean those people. I mean the officials
of the City. You said that is the way you do business
in this town. That is your understanding? A. What I
mean by that is that, if we go out and make a bid on some
thing, and if it isn’t accepted, why, whatever the deposit
that was put up is, it will be refunded.
Q. I am not talking about that. I am talking about the
pending action in this case. This ease in which you are
testifying in connection with today, pending in the Federal
Court. If the Federal Court should hold that the City did
not have power to sell this pool, is it your understanding
that you are going to get that $85,000 back? A. You are
talking about over a period of five years?
Q. Whatever you have put in. A. I have no under
standing whatsoever. I would assume that any time that
it is declared that the City had no right to sell the pool,
that we will be refunded our money.
Q. That is your understanding? A. Well, that is my
thought on the matter. There has been no understanding
with anyone on that basis. There has been no understand
D epositions o f Jwne 27, 1958
Testimony of H. L. Coble
90a
ing with anyone on the basis that I know of. That is iny
feeling about it.
Q. What is that feeling based on? You must have some
thing which leads you to believe that you might get your
—9 0 -
money back? A. Fair dealings; faith in people.
Q. What people? A. Anybody you are dealing with, no
matter who it is.
Q. Who are you dealing with in this connection? A.
We are dealing with the City.
Q. And you believe that if the sale should be declared
void, the City will give you your money back? A. Well,
we are hoping so.
Q. Now, what if the City doesn’t give you your money
back, are you going to pay all of these people back the
m on ey that they put into this corporation? A . That would
be a detail that would have to be worked out.
Q. Do you intend to pay them back? A. I could not
answer you that now. I don’t know what the decision would
be.
Q. You mean you didn’t promise in the stock certificate
to pay these people back if it didn’t go through? A. If
the sale did not go through, yes. So far as the long-term
thing you are referring to, as far as I know, there were
no commitments made.
Q. That would relate to the original sale, wouldn’t it,
if the Court should hold that they didn’t have a right to
sell it to you, you would have to pay all of these people
their money back, wouldn’t you? A. I think that would
- 9 1 -
have to be answered by some legal person, not by a layman
like myself.
D epositions o f June 27, 1958
Testimony of H. L. Coble
91a
Q. Do you agree with this limitation which Dr. Talia
ferro indicated this morning, that this pool is limited to
white citizens only? A. I do.
Q. And you say that you participated in the corpora
tion for the purpose of assuring that the pool would re
main open and continue to be operated for white persons
only?
# # # # #
D epositions o f June 27, 1958
Testimony of Carroll 0. Weaver
—92—
Carroll 0 . W eaver b e in g first du ly sw orn , took the
stand and testified as fo l lo w s :
By Mrs. Motley.
Q. Mr. Weaver, do you have any connection with the
Greensboro Swimming Pool Corporation? A. Greensboro
Pool Corporation, yes, secretary-treasurer.
Q. Are you in business here in the City of Greensboro?
A. Yes.
Q. What business are you in? A. Real estate.
Q. How long have you been in the real estate business?
A. About six years.
Q. Since you are in the real estate business, you would
probably know then whether it is customary for cor
porations to purchase property without having the title
searched, is that the customary practice? A. That is not
a customary practice, no.
Q. How come you permitted this corporation, of which
you are the secretary and treasurer, to purchase property
without having the title searched? A. It was not cus-
—93—
tomary, but it is done on such things as property, some
92a
developments where the title has been searched before,
such as the Starmount Company, and other things, and
I think this would come under that category.
Q. But in such cases, you usually get a warranty deed,
don’t you? A. That is true.
Q. In this case, your corporation didn’t get any warranty
deed, did it? A. That is correct.
Q. You didn’t have any title search? A. No, but I do
understand that this property went through the Legisla
ture some years back, and the City was given the right
to sell it at that time. I don’t know the details of it, but
I do know that that happened.
Q. Do you know what a lis pendens is? A. No.
Q. Did you know at the time that your corporation
purchased this pool that there was a suit pending in the
Federal Court involving the City’s right to sell it? A.
I knew that. I didn’t know the details of it, just what I
saw in the papers.
Q. You bought the pool knowing that there was some
litigation as to the right of the City to sell it? A. That
is correct.
—94—
Q. What is your understanding as to the effect of that
litigation if it should be declared that the City didn’t have
the right to sell it, what effect do you understand that it
would have on your purchase of this pool? A. I think the
City would have to refund the money.
Q. What makes you think that? A. Because I think
that if they do not have the right to sell the pool, the deed
would have to revert back to the City. I don’t think they
could keep the purchase price. That is my own opinion.
Q. They didn’t give you any warranty deed, did they?
A. No.
D epositions o f June %7, 1958
Testimony of Carroll 0. Weaver
93a
Q. Is it your understanding, you are saying that it is
your understanding that if the Federal Court should hold
that the City didn’t have the right to sell this, that you
would get your money back? A. I think that they would
have to return the money, if they didn’t have the right to
sell the pool.
Q. That is your understanding? A. That is my under
standing.
Q. What? A. That is my understanding of what I would
consider they would have to do.
Q. Is that the understanding of the Board of Directors
of this corporation? A. Well, I don’t know that we had
-—95—
any understanding; as far as the Board of Directors, I
know that Dr. Taliaferro and myself have talked it over
informally, and that is certainly the opinion we had, that
they would have to, I think they would be forced to, whether
they wanted to or not.
Q. Did you ask your lawyer about it? A. No.
Q. What did Dr. Taliaferro tell you about it? A.
I don’t remember in exact words. I remember we discussed
the situation as far as our thinking on it.
Q. Did he tell you that he had discussed it with anyone?
A. No, he did not tell me he had discussed it with anyone.
Q. But it is just your feeling that you would get this
money back? A. That is my feeling.
Q. As far as you know, that is Dr. Taliaferro’s under
standing too? A. Well, according to our conversation, I
would take it from what we discussed, that was both of our
feelings on the matter. We did not have any understanding
to that effect.
Q. You discussed, right? A. That’s right.
D epositions o f June 2 7 ,1 9 5 8
Testimony of Carroll 0. Weaver
94a
Q. Did you discuss it with Mr. Coble? A. No, I don’t
believe Mr. Coble happened to be in the group. This was a
-—96—
meeting where we happened to meet, it was not a planned
meeting or Directors’ Meeting, or anything like that,
Q. Were you at this meeting of October 21st when the
City Council discussed with the public the sale of the pool!
A. I was.
Q. Did you speak at that meeting? A. I did not.
Q. What were you doing at that meeting? A. I was
listening.
Q. What were you there for, just to listen? A. To listen
and get the reaction of the folks and see what was going on,
to show my interest in it.
Q. Did you hear Dr. Taliaferro speak? A. Yes, I heard
him.
Q. Did you agree with what he said? A. If what he said,
now, I don’t remember word by word what he said, but what
you read this morning, if that is what he said, I agree with
it, if that is what he said, it has been quite a while, I don’t
remember what he said at that particular time.
Q. Are you a member of the Swimming Association. A.
Yes.
Q. What is that? A. Greensboro Swimming Associa
tion?
Q. Yes. A. It is a group that has been organized some
years, to promote swimming in Greensboro, competitive
swimming, safety programs, a general swimming program
—97-—
among the folks of Greensboro, instructions and other
things.
Q. How did you happen to get involved in this corpora
tion? A. Well, I had been interested in swimming in
D epositions o f June 27, 1958
Testimony of Carroll 0. Weaver
95a
Greensboro for a long, long time, and through my inter
est in swimming in Greensboro, wanted to see it con
tinued in Greensboro, and there being only one pool be
sides Lindley that competitive swimming could be held at,
that was not my only interest, but also my feeling that
the City needed such a pool, where the people could have
a place to go swimming in, for recreation as well as com
petitive swimming.
Q. How did you happen to get together with Dr. Talia
ferro and Mr. Coble on this? A. Well, it was through
a mutual interest as far as Dr. Taliaferro and myself are
concerned, we have both been interested in swimming for
years in Greensboro, with others, and we talked it over,
we both talked to Mr. Coble, as he testified, and we talked
to a lot of other folks about it, and we hoped that swimming
facilities could be kept in Greensboro.
Q. How did you happen to talk to Mr. Coble, he isn’t
in the Swimming Association? A. Well, he is just a friend.
If you will look through your list of stockholders, we
talked to a lot of people, because all of those are inter
ested too.
Q. Yes, but you three are the Board of Directors of this
—98—
corporation? A. That is correct.
Q. You own all of the voting shares? A. That’s right.
Q. The three of you? A. That’s right.
Q. You are the only people who have the right to vote?
A. That’s right.
Q. And decide what is going to be done with this cor
poration? A. That is correct.
Q. Now, I want to know how you managed to get Mr.
Coble, who had no interest in swimming, tied up in a
swimming corporation? A. Well, Mr. Coble is very civic-
D epositions o f June B7, 1958
Testimony of Carroll 0. Weaver
96a
minded. His interest was to keep the swimming pool open.
I am sure that our interest as far as the swimming pro
gram itself is concerned, is deeper than his, but if you
would like to put it in this fashion, maybe we were able
to sell Mr. Coble on the idea that the children of Greens
boro need swimming facilities, and being the type of per
son he was, he agreed; he lived in that section of town, and
he went along to help us all he could.
Q. Is it your understanding that this is a non-profit
corporation? A. Well, the charter says it is a business
corporation. I think it is through necessity, I think it is
- 9 9 -
going to be through necessity non-profit, because I cannot
see its making much money.
Q. Do you know the difference between a business cor
poration and a non-profit corporation? A. No, except
I would assume one would be operated for profit and
would make money, and the other would not be operated
for profit.
Q. Suppose you made a profit on this after you paid off
the city; what do you plan to do with the profit? A. I
think it has been mentioned before that we have a long-
range plan of probably enclosing it, and doing other things
there that would cost considerable money. It would take
a number of years to do that.
Q. So that it is your understanding that in, that a non
profit corporation is one that doesn’t make money, is that
what you are saying? A. Well, I would think a non-profit
would be one that did not make any money. I would say
that is correct, yes.
Q. Now, what did you say that your position with the
Greensboro Swimming Association is? A. I don’t believe
you asked me, but it is president.
D epositions o f June 27, 1958
Testimony of Carroll 0. Weaver
97a
Q. You are the present president? A. Yes.
Q. Were you the president on October 21, 1957? A.
I don’t remember what date the election was, but that is
close to the time. I am not sure, though.
— 100—
Q. You were a member, though, of this Association?
A. Yes, I have been in it since its inception.
Q. Do you know Mr. Roy Booth? A. Yes.
Q. Was he authorized to speak for the Association at
that meeting on October 21st? A. I do not know.
Q. Did you hear him speak at the meeting? A. He
might have. I don’t remember. There were several who
spoke.
Q. Let me read you an excerpt from the minutes, and
you try to recall wdiether this is wdiat Mr. Booth said.
The minutes state the following:
“ Mr. Roy Booth, representing the Greensboro
Swimming Association, expressed appreciation to the
group for setting this public hearing so that the
citizens might be heard on this matter.
“ Mr. Booth stated that the Swim Association con
curs one hundred per cent in the action that the Coun
cil as already indicated, that the swimming pool can
no longer be administered by the City, and that it
will be necessary for some other step to be taken.
“ Mr. Booth then introduced Mr. Glynn, secretary of
the Swim Association, Dr. Taliaferro, president of
the Association, and Mr. Arnold Sehiffman, who is
— 101—
very much interested in the Association.
“ Mr. Glynn stated that the Greensboro Swim Asso
ciation was organized in 1955 for the sole purpose of
D epositions o f June 27, 1958
Testimony of Carroll 0. Weaver
98a
building better youths through swimming, that the
organization is known throughout the southeast be
cause of its activities, its connection with the large
swim meets, which are held here.
“ Mr. Glynn further stated that the group has studied
the problem carefully, and that they do not feel that
the City can operate a pool at a profit because of the
fact that attendance would drop off if the pools are
integrated. It is for this reason they are of the opinion
that the pools should be offered at public auction.”
Do you remember Mr. Booth saying that at the meeting?
A. I think you said Mr. Glynn said that.
Q. Mr. Glynn, I am sorry. A. I don’t remember what
he said.
Q. Did the Swim Association discuss this before— A.
He was speaking as an individual of the Swim Association,
not as an official.
Q. It says here Mr. Glynn stated that the Greensboro
Swim Association was organized, and so forth. Mr. Glynn
further stated that the group, referring to the Swim
Association, has studied the problem carefully. Did the
Association study this business of whether the pool could
be operated on an integrated basis? A. I was not an
— 102-
officer. I don’t know what they studied.
Q. You were a member, weren’t you? A. I was a mem
ber, but I did not have anything to do with any study.
Q. Now, what about Mr. Roy Booth’s statement, that
the Swimming Association agreed one hundred per cent
with the action taken by the City Council? A. You mean
to sell the pools ?
D epositions o f June 8 7 ,19 5 8
Testimony of Carroll 0. Weaver
99a
Q. Yes. A. Yes, because there were only one or two
alternatives, either sell them or close them.
Q. Now, Mr. Glynn, Mr. Joe Glynn, is he the same Mr.
Glynn that met with you and Dr. Taliaferro and Dr.
Coble and Dr. Weaver and Dr. Cochran to form this asso
ciation f A. That is correct.
Q. Is Mr. Glynn one of the stockholders? A. I do not
know. I don’t remember.
' Q. What happened to Mr. Glynn on this deal, he was
the one that wanted the City Council to sell it, and he met
with you to form this corporation, and he doesn’t even
own any stock? A. You can see there. I don’t think so.
Q. What about Mr. Cochran? A. I think he owns some
stock. Yes, I am sure he does.
Q. Is he the same Cochran, of the Bartet-Cochran Con
struction Company? A. No.
— 103^-
Q. Were these people solicited to buy stock? A. Some
of them were and some of them called in voluntarily.
Q. Who did the soliciting? A. Well, we had several of
us that would see folks. Some of the ladies helped. Mrs.
Dan Gill helped with several ladies, and several of the
rest of us who were interested in the project.
Q. Did you solicit any of these people? A. Yes. I
probably had twenty or twenty-five that just called me and
volunteered.
Q. Did you solicit any? A. Yes, I solicited some, as
far as talking to to them.
Q. How many would you say you had solicited? A.
Oh, I don’t know. About 20, fifteen or twenty.
Q. What did you tell these people when you asked them
to buy stock? A. You mean as far as the profit angle?
D epositions o f June 27, 1958
Testimony of Carroll 0. Weaver
100a
Q. That’s right. A. I told them that there probably
would not be any dividends, that we were trying to keep
the pool open on the basis it had been open before, to the
white citizens of Greensboro, and that if they wanted to
buy stock on that basis, we would like to sell them some.
Q. Didn’t you also tell some of these people that if there
— 104—
were any profits, they would make money on their invest
ment f A. I did not.
Q. Did you tell them that it was a business corporation
or non-profit corporation? A. I don’t think I told them
either one. I was very particular to state that there prob
ably would be no dividends whatsoever, and they all seemed
to be agreed on that.
Q. Did you give them any brochures of the corporation,
or anything which would tell them what it was they were
putting their money in? A. No, I think through the news
paper they all knew what they were putting their money
in. The newspaper certainly covered it amply.
Q, What do you mean, the newspapers covered what,
the kind of corporation it was? A. Yes, it had that in
there. It had also about the selling of stock. Even ran
an ad in there at one time, so that we would try to work
out some way of stock or bonds, or whatever the case
might be, and I think most people knew about it through
the newspapers, and those that did not read the news
papers, if they had questions we would answer them.
Q. But these people never received any brochure or
statement from the corporation indicating that— A. The
only thing they did get was a receipt for their money,
stating as you have a copy of it there.
D epositions o f June 27, 19S8
Testimony of Carroll 0. Weaver
101a
D eposition s o f June 27, 1958
Testimony of Carroll 0. Weaver
—105—
Q. What about all of these business corporations that
bought stock, did they understand that they were not going
to be given any return on their investment! A. Abso
lutely.
Q. How do you know that? A. Well, the ones I talked
to.
Q. Which ones? A. Well, you have got a couple of
real estate concerns. I know how they feel. I talked to
them. You mentioned Blue Bell. Mr. Cobles says they
certainly understand. I know all the ones I have talked
to understand.
Q. What about this Slater Realty and Mortgage Com
pany; did you solicit them? A. I did not solicit them. I
talked to them.
Q. What did you talk to them about? A. The question
of the pool and the stock certificate.
Q. Is it customary for realty and mortgage companies
to invest money in enterprises without expecting any re
turn? A. No, it is not customary, but I think this is an
unique situation. It is not customary.
Q. What is unique about this? A. To keep the pool
open where it was going to be closed and so forth. I think
it was done on a civic basis more than on anything, more
than on a stock or business basis.
Q. Now, are you familiar with the fact that the City
— 106—
Council considered changing the zoning regulations in the
area where the pool is located to see whether the regula
tions couldn’t be changed to make it a profit, to permit
rather a profit-making organization to operate the pool?
A. Am I familiar with what?
102a
Q. With the fact that the City Council considered chang
ing the zoning regulations to make this area, to permit
profit-making in the area? A. I am only familiar with
what I read in the paper about it.
Q. What did you read in the paper about it? A. I read
in the paper that it was discussed and they voted not to
do it.
Q. They voted not to permit a commercial or profit
making organization to operate the pool? A. I think they
voted, what they voted was not to change the zone, and
the zoning would prohibit it.
Q. And the present zoning prohibits a profit-making en
terprise in that area? A. That is correct.
Q. Yet this corporation that you are the secretary-trea
surer of is a business corporation? A. That is correct.
Q. How is it that the City permits your corporation to
—1 0 7 -
go in there? A. I don’t think we are going to make any
money.
Q. What? A. I don’t think we are going to make any
money.
Q. The city doesn’t know that, does it? The city made
money on it. A. Yes, but if it is a violation of the City
ordinance, of the zoning, well, until we are in violation,
I don’t believe they would take any action.
Q. You are in violation, because your charter says “ Busi
ness Corporation.” It doesn’t say non-profit, does it? A.
That’s right.
Q. So that you are there in violation of the City Zoning-
Ordinance, aren’t you? A. No, not my understanding.
Q. What is your understanding? A. My understanding
was that the zoning was to be kept as it was before, which
is residential zoning.
D epositions o f June 2 7 ,1 9 5 8
Testimony of Carroll 0. Weaver
103a
Q. And no business corporation was to be permitted
there, right? A. No profit-making organization.
Q. You are a profit-making organization, according to
your charter, you can make a profit. There is nothing
that is going to prevent you from, making a profit? A.
Not if we make a profit.
Q. You are a business corporation in a zone which the
—1 0 8 -
City says should be limited to a non-profit corporation,
aren’t you? A. Well, our charter is a business charter,
yes.
Q. So that you are there in violation of the City zoning,
aren’t you? A. Not my understanding of it.
Q. What is your understanding? A. My understanding
is that it would have to be a non-profit type of business,
which I think it will be non-profit.
Q. But your charter does not say non-profit? A. No,
it does not.
Q. So that you are there in violation, of that understand
ing, aren’t you, that only non-profit organizations are to
be in that area? A. No, my understanding was—
Q. Who did you have this understanding with? A. You
asked me my understanding.
Q. You must have it with someone. A. I do not have
it with anyone. That is my understanding, my thinking on
it.
Q. You haven’t discussed it with the City, the fact that
you are a business corporation in an area where the City
says that there shall be no profit-making or business cor
poration? A. I haven’t discussed it with them.
Q. What are you going to do if the City says you can’t
— 109—
operate this pool since you are a business corporation?
D epositions o f June 27, 1958
Testimony of Carroll 0. Weaver
104a
A. I presume we will have to make some arrangements
then otherwise.
Q. What kind of an arrangement? A. I don’t know. It
depends on what they tell us.
Q. Does the City know you are a business organization?
Or are they under the impression that you are non-profit?
A. I do not know. I haven’t discussed it with them.
Q. Has the City permitted you to make a profit on the
concession there at the pool? A. We have only been there
a week. I don’t think you can determine whether that is
a profit or a loss.
Q. No, I mean, has it permitted you to make a profit on
that concession, or must that also be non-profit? A. I
don’t know what you mean by permitting. We haven’t
been there long enough to be permitted or not to be per
mitted.
Q. You can charge higher prices or whatever you wish?
A. We are not charging any higher prices.
Q. You are not charging any higher prices at the con
cessions? A. No.
Q. How about the admissions to the pool? A. The ad
missions to the pool, we are. We also have more expenses
than the City had.
Q. How do you figure out that you are not going to make
— 110—
a profit by the rates which you have charged, which are
higher than the City, how do you arrive at the conclusion
that you are not going to make any profit out of it? That
is what I don’t understand. A. I think the City made
about $1500 last year on swimming. I don’t know what the
water rent will be. I don’t think anyone else would know,
because the City just put water in. We have no way of
D eposition s o f June 27, 1958
Testimony of Carroll 0. Weaver
105a
finding that out. If the water costs us $1500 more, we will
break even on it. We have taxes to pay. Without the raise
in the revenue from the swimmers, we could probably
lose money.
Q. You don’t plan to lose any money, do you! A. We
hope not.
Q. You plan to make a profit, then, don’t you! A. No.
We don’t know what we will do. There is no way of know
ing.
Q. Do you sell the Coca-colas at cost! A. No, we do
not sell them at cost. If we did, we would lose money
instead of breaking even.
Q. So you are selling the coca-colas and whatever else
you sell at the stand at a profit then! A. That is true.
Q. You are charging a higher rate for admission than
the City did, aren’t you! A. That is correct.
—Ill—
Q. Now, you want to say you are doing that, and you
still call yourself a non-profit corporation! A. Yes, be
cause we have expenses they did not have. We also think
we are going to have considerable less swimmers than they
had.
Q. You have got about half as many employees as the
City had! A. No, we have got more than half. We have
some less, but we are also paying the ones we have a little
more than the City paid.
Q. You haven’t, as Director of this corporation, you
haven’t figured out how you are going to meet these bills,
whether you are going to make a profit or enough money to
pay them! A. There is no one who can humanly estimate
until the thing is over, what your bills are going to be.
Q. You mean to tell me that business corporations oper
ate without having any idea of how they are going to pay
D epositions o f June 87, 1958
Testimony of Carroll 0. Weaver
106a
their bills and what money is going to come in? A. I do
not mean to tell you that. Just as I stated before, this is
a unique set-up, in that we have taken a situation on the
basis that it takes in so many swimmers, we have added
expenses which we do not know what they will be now; you
would say that we would be bound to take in more money,
but we immediately have a $500 plumbing bill which the
— 112-
City would not pay. There is a lot of little things that
come in the operation of the pool which will probably take
a fifth of what you could hope to have.
Q. How did you arrive at your determination that you
should charge whatever you are charging for admission,
forty, twenty-five, and fifteen, whatever it is, how did you
arrive at that determination? A. Because we anticipated
we would have less folks, and we would have considerable
more expense, we would have to charge some more to break
even.
Q. You didn’t make any budget or anything like that,
itemizing— A. It is impossible to make a budget at this
stage.
Q. What are you charging for Coca-cola? A. Ten cents.
Q. How did you arrive at that determination? A.
Well
er Why aren’t you charging seven cents? A. Well,
that is the usual charge. That is what the City has been
charging. That is what other pools charge.
Q. But you are making those charges in order to make a
profit on the Coca-cola above the cost. What does it cost
you a bottle? A. We don’t buy it by the bottle. We sell it
fountain. We naturally are going to have to make a profit
D epositions o f June 87, 1958
Testimony of Carroll 0. Weaver
D epositions o f June 27, 1958
Testimony of Carroll 0. Weaver
— 113—
if we expect to break even, because people have got to be
paid. The people who work there have got to be paid.
Q. So that you are a profit corporation, aren’t you? A.
Yes, but I think by the same token, a non-profit organiza
tion certainly hopes to break even. They can charge ten
cents for Coca-colas and still they have got to pay their
costs.
Q. A nonprofit corporation usually has a deficit, like the
YMOA. They end up at the end of the year with a deficit,
and then they get people to contribute to make up the defi
cit, don’t they? A. That is not true. That is not true of
the YMCA.
Q. Well, most non-profit corporation, don’t they end up
with a deficit; if they made a profit, they wouldn’t be able
to solicit funds from the public? A. You mentioned the
“ Y” . I know they don’t. I don’t know of any other.
Q. You don’t know of any non-profit corporations that
end up with a deficit? A. I don’t know of any non-profit,
not a deficit or what they end up with. I just don’t know.
Q. Now, you said the last year the City made a profit
of $1500. How do you know that? A. Well, that is what
they say. I don’t happen to know it.
— 114—
Q. Who said that? A. I notice the statement you have
got there. I think I read it or somewhere I heard it, that
that was made on the swimming, or part of it.
Q. Where did you read that statement? A. I heard it.
Q. You heard it on the radio? A. I don’t whether it
was when they had this October meeting, maybe it was, I
heard it at one time.
Q. Do you know Mr. Lewis on the City Council? A. Yes,
I know him.
108a
Q. Did you talk to Mm about tMs ? A. I did not.
Q. You didn’t talk to Mr. Lewis about the pool? A. No.
Q. Have you talked to any City Councilman about the
pool, or how much they made on it or anything like that?
A. I have not talked to any of them about what they made
on it. I spoke to them several times.
Q. About the pool? A. No, not about the pool. I have
had dealings before the City Council in a real estate way,
not about the pool.
Q. You have had dealings before the City Council in
volving real estate? A. Yes, I said that I was interested
in, not that I personally was selling for them, what I wanted
—1 1 5 -
information on, I have been to a few meetings, one of them
zoning.
Q. Have you ever appeared before the City Council on
these real estate matters? A. No.
Q. Have you ever had any financial dealings with the
City? A. No, except to pay them money.
Q. Now, do you consider that this swimming corporation
that you are connected with has had a hard time raising
this money to buy the pool, or has the money been just
flowing in? A. It has not been flowing in. I think the
people have been very generous. I don’t know what you
would regard it, whether you would regard it as being a
hard time or not.
Q. You are the treasurer. How much money do you
have in the treasury now? A. Dr. Taliaferro has been
helping, because he has a staff, and his girl has been doing
that for us. I do not have a secretary such as he has.
Q. You are the treasurer, and you don’t know how much
money is in the treasury? A. I know approximately.
D epositions o f June %7, 1968
Testimony of Carroll 0. Weaver
109a
Q. How much! A. I think when we finally paid the City
$21,250, I think we had approximately $100, and we have
gotten in some checks since then that have not been de
posited. How much they amount to, I don’t know.
—116—
Q. You had $100 left after you paid the City? A. Just
about approximately a hundred. We have gotten other
checks since then that have come in. I don’t know what they
amount to.
Q. Has the corporation had any meetings recently? A.
No, except the ones that were talked about this morning.
Q. You mean you have got $100 in the Treasury; you
have got to pay a note to the City at the end of the year
of $12,000? A. I didn’t say there was $100 in the treasury.
I said that at the time we paid the City the $21,250, we
had approximately $100 in the treasury.
Q. How much do you have now? A. I don’t know. We
have gotten in some checks. I know there is one for $500,
and another one for $50, and there are several—
Q. Would you say that you have $5,000? A. No. We do
not have $5,000.
Q. And you have got a $12,000 note to meet at the end
of the year, and your corporation hasn’t even met— A.
That is next July.
Q. Next July? A. Yes.
Q. Whenever it is. A. We have got a year.
Q. You have got a year, but you haven’t had any meet-
—117—
ings since March? A. No.
Q. And you have got less than $5,000 in the bank? A.
That’s right. I don’t think we will have any trouble meeting
the note.
D eposition s o f June %?, 1958
Testimony of Carroll 0. Weaver
110a
Q. In fact, you have got less than $1,000, haven’t you?
A. No, we have more than $1,000.
Q. How much have you got then? A. I do not know
exactly.
Q. Have you got as much as $2,000? A. I don’t know
what these checks amount to, that we have gotten in.
Some of them haven’t even been deposited yet.
Q. Who has the checks? A. Dr. Taliaferro has most of
them.
Q. And you don’t know, you are the treasurer and you
don’t know what checks he has? A. As I told you, his
girls there have the facilities for it, and they have been
keeping records on the stock. We have been more or less
in the process of getting set up on the details out at the
pool and other things.
Q. Are you keeping the minutes of the corporation?
Or is Dr. Taliaferro doing that too? A. The only ones
we have are the ones you saw, and I have got those.
Q. Did the corporation pass a resolution authorizing Dr.
—118—
Taliaferro to bid on the pool? A. Yes.
Q. Did they pass a resolution authorizing him to enter
into a deed of trust with the city? A. We discussed all of
that with our attorney. I don’t remember about the legal
end of it.
Q. Don’t you take the minutes at the meetings? A. We
have only had one meeting.
Q. At that one meeting, did the Corporation, the Board
of Directors of which you are one of three Directors, did
the Board of Directors adopt a resolution authorizing the
corporation or Dr. Taliaferro or anybody to enter into a
deed of trust with the City? A. I do not remember if we
did. I didn’t take the minutes.
D epositions o f June 37, 1958
Testimony of Carroll 0. Weaver
111a
Q. Don’t you have the minutes? A. I don’t believe 1
have any.
Special Master Reynolds: That has already been
admitted. Do you want to see those?
The Witness: That was the same meeting.
By Mrs. Motley.
Q. What is your answer, did the Corporation or not
authorize him? A. We did authorize him.
Q. Do you know what that is, a deed of trust? A. Yes.
—119—
Q. Do you know what is involved? A. Yes, I know what
a deed of trust involves.
Q. What is involved in the deed of trust that you have
with the City? A. Well, we have payments, I believe it
is $63,750.00 to pay over a five-year period with six per cent
interest.
Q. Has the City named a trustee ? A. I don’t remember.
1 presume that one of the city attorneys would be the
trustee. I didn’t even notice.
Q. When did the corporation plan to meet again? A.
Before July, not before too long, but we haven’t set a
definite date.
Q. Had you had any prior experience as a director of a
business corporation? A. No.
Q. Do you know whether Dr. Taliaferro has? A. I do
not.
Q. So you don’t know very much about this, do you? A.
Well, we have acted on the advice of our counsel mostly.
We told him what we wanted, and got his opinion, and he
fixed it up.
D epositions o f June 27, 1958
Testimony of Carroll 0. Weaver
112a
Q. Who is that, Mr. Holderness? A. Yes.
Q. Did you hear Dr. Taliaferro’s statement this morning
that he hadn’t planned to pay Mr. Holderness ? A. I heard
— 120—
him say that.
Q. Do you agree with that! A. Well, I don’t know
whether I agree with that or not. Mr. Holderness has been
mighty nice working with us. If he presents us with a bill,
I imagine we will pay it.
Q. But you have no agreement to pay? A. No, we have
no agreement not to pay.
Q. You say you don’t have an agreement with Mr. Holder
ness not to pay him? A. That’s right.
Q. So that it can be assumed he is going to be paid,
since ordinarily in the absence of an agreement he will not
be paid, he is to be paid, isn’t that right? A. I don’t know
if that assumption would be correct in this case or not.
Q. Ordinarily when you go to a lawyer, you expect to
pay him, or do you expect him to do your work free of
charge, is that customary in Greensboro? Is that another
custom here, that lawyers work for nothing? A. Most of
them, I think, get paid.
Q. Well, actually your arrangement with Mr. Holderness
is not the usual one, that he is not to be paid by anybody?
A. What do you mean, not the usual one?
Q. Well, your assumption he is not going to be paid or
that he is just doing this to help you out, that is not
— 121—
customary? A. Well, he has done considerable work to
help us. If he presents us with a bill, I am sure we will
pay him. If he doesn’t, I am sure he will donate his time.
Q. Well, did you ask Mr. Holderness to do this for you,
D epositions o f June 27, 1958
Testimony of Carroll 0. Weaver
113a
or was he just a volunteer? A. I don’t know who asked him
first, whether it was Dr. Taliaferro or Mr. Coble. It was
not me.
Q. One of the Directors asked him? A. I presume so.
Q. Do you know that a Board of Directors of a Corpo
ration is supposed to run the corporation and make the
decisions as to what people will be hired, and what people
will not be hired? A. Yes. I assume that is correct.
Q. But you don’t know who hired Mr. Iiolderness? Is
that what you are saying? A. That’s right. When Mr.
Holderness started with us, we were not even a corpo
ration.
Q. What were you? A. We just had an informal get-
together to discuss the situation.
Q. Who was there? Outside of Dr. Beavers and Mr.
Cochran and Mr. Graham and you— A. That is correct.
Q. And Mr. Holderness was there also? A. That’s right.
—122—
Q. Who else was there? A. That is all I remember. I
said Mr. Holderness. Now, I am not sure. No, I don’t be
lieve he was there. I just don’t remember. I believe Mr.
Coble arranged the meeting place. I don’t remember. I
did not know them all at that time.
Q. Where was the meeting? A. Down at the Brown
Building.
Q. The Brown Building? A. Yes.
Q. Is that a private office building? A. Yes.
Q. And who was present at that time? A. Those six
were there, and I am not sure whether Mr. Holderness
was there or not. I am not sure as to anybody else. There
might have been some others.
Q. Mr. Holderness’ office is in that building? A. Yes.
D epositions o f June 87, 1958
Testimony of Carroll 0. Weaver
114a
Q. Now, did you know anything about this letter that
Dr. Taliaferro wrote to the Mayor, asking him to post
pone— A. I just know what Dr. Taliaferro told me about
it.
Q. What did he tell you? A. He just asked him to post
pone the sale, he just said that he asked to postpone the
sale, and he had been refused.
Q. Did you know the City Council then postponed the
sale? A. They did not postpone the sale then, because they
—123—
refused to postpone it. I don’t remember the dates, but
at the time they were asked to postpone it, they would not
postpone it.
Q. Have you seen the letter? A. No, but you asked about
my conversation with Dr. Taliaferro. That is what he
said.
Q. But you never saw the letter. A. No.
Q. Who does the correspondence for the Corporation?
A. There has been very little correspondence. I think
there has been one letter to the Revenue Department, and
that is about it. There hasn’t been too much correspondence.
Q. What did it cost you to incorporate this corporation?
A. I believe $25 or $30. The attorney can answer. I don’t
remember.
Q. Did you pay your attorney anything for his services
in incorporating the corporation? A. We haven’t yet.
Q. What about in representing you in connection with the
purchase of this pool, did you pay the attorney anything
in that connection? A. The same thing as the other.
Q. Now, you said that you knew Mr. Lewis. A. I know
them all to speak to them.
Q. He is one of the Counciloren? A. That’s right.
D epositions o f June 27, 19S8
Testimony of Carroll 0. Weaver
D epositions o f June 27, 1958
Testimony of Carroll 0. Weaver
— 124—
Q. You don’t know any of them personally! A. Oh, I
know all of them to speak to, but I do not visit any of them
in their homes.
Q. And your statement is that you never discussed this
with any Council members! A. Except in a casual way;
I did with one of them when I was leaving a meeting; he
asked me how I was getting along with raising the money
for the pool, and I said, “Pretty good.”
Q. What councilman was that! A. Tom Brown.
Q. Did Mr. Brown ask you how much you had raised!
A. No.
Q. What meeting was that that you met him at! A. We
both were at a real estate board meeting. We were leaving
there, and in the hall we had a conversation, we were
leaving through the hotel. Mr. Brown asked me that as
we were both leaving the meeting.
Q. Are you both members of the Real Estate Board?
A. That is correct.
Q. Isn’t Mr. Brown the one who voted against the sale
of the pool? A. That is correct.
Q. He was interested in how well you were raising money
to buy it, is that what you are saying? A. He just asked
a question in idle conversation, I am sure, just as we were
— 125-
passing.
Q. Did either of you discuss Elam? A. I don’t think I
did directly, maybe indirectly once. After the City Council
had approved the bid, asked them, I don’t think it was
Mr. Elam; it was one of the Council members, I think
Mr. Zane; I asked him when we could get a deed to the
property, when we could get possession of the pool, and
116a
lie said we had to see City Manager Townsend, which I
did. He said when the deed was transferred. He was sure,
but that he would check it with Mr. Elam. I don’t think
I asked Mr. Elam about it. I might have.
Q. Hid you ask him to rush the date of getting the pool?
A. I did not. I asked for information, and he gave it to me,
and that was it.
Q. Now, did you authorize Mr. Taliaferro to bid for the
pool at the time it was sold? A. That’s right. We all three
agreed that Hr. Taliaferro would be the bidder for the
corporation.
Q. What did you authorize him to bid? A. Up to $85,000.
Q. How did you arrive at that determination? A. Well,
we felt that that was all we could afford to pay even if
we could raise as much as $100,000, we did not know then
that we could raise that or not, because we knew we were
going to need the extra money for other things. Frankly,
—126—
that was all we were interested in putting in.
Q. Were you really serious about getting the pool? A.
Yes. The evidence of that is that we have it.
Q. Well, didn’t you consider that $85,000 was pretty low
for a pool worth over $200,000? A. No, not when we had
to run it, and knowing what the pool was bringing in.
Q. Hidn’t you investigate to see whether the pool was
making a profit or losing money or anything? A. We knew
about what it was making.
Q. How did you know that? A. Well, I just told you.
I think it was stated at an open meeting. I am not sure.
I have heard it before, about what it was making.
Q. You say you didn’t make any investigation to deter
mine what the pool was making yourself, to verify— A.
D epositions o f June 27, 1958
Testimony of Carroll 0. Weaver
117a
I had seen or heard at that time exactly what it took in
and what it paid out, and I knew it was in the neighborhood
of around $5,000.
Q. But you didn’t make any cheek to see whether or not—
A. I didn’t examine their books. I took it as being re
liable.
Q. Where did you say you got that information! A. I
think I got that at a public hearing. I asked someone on
the Council or someone.
— 127—
Q. Asked who! A. The City Council held this public
hearing that was referred to.
Q. Yes. A. And I think at that time, the Council told
us what each pool did, somebody asked the question.
Q. Well, that is not in the minutes. A. Well, I don’t
know that. Someone told me.
Q. There must have been another meeting of the Coun
cil. A. No, I didn’t discuss it at these other meetings.
I don’t remember how I came by it.
Q. In other words, you as a member of the Board of
Directors of the Corporation, determined you were going
to buy the swimming pool without making any investiga
tion to determine that the swimming pool was making
money? A. Well, it was stated in the paper, and as I
said here, I had heard that it was making around $5,000
a year before.
Q. My question is whether you made any investigation.
A. I had the information as far as I personally wanted.
Q. Where did you get the information? A. I either
heard it at some meeting there, or saw it in the paper, I
don’t remember, but I remember having the information.
D epositions o f June 27, 1958
Testimony of Carroll 0. Weaver
118a
Q. But you didn’t check that? A. No, I did not go
down and examine their books.
Q. That was kind of careless, wouldn’t you say, just to
- 1 2 8 -
read something in the newspaper and decide that that is
correct? A. Well, not in this case. It has been in the
newspaper constantly the last several months.
Q. Let me show you this affidavit submitted by Mr.
Townsend, City Commissioner, to which he attaches figures
concerning what the pool made. Are those the figures you
saw? A. No. This shows $3,000. I think what they have
done is, these figures must involve some other expenses
than the one I saw before, because this is twelve thousand
one forty-two seventy-eight, and there is no doubt but that
Mr. Townsend is correct—
Q. A while ago you said they made $1500. Do you re
member that? A. I said on the swimming.
Q. On the swimming? A. Yes. They made some on
concessions, too. This is probably lumped together.
Q. I see. A. I said the swimming.
Q. But you didn’t go down and ask Mr. Townsend what
the swimming pool actually was making, is that right? A.
No, I did not.
Q. So that you were sort of buying the thing blind, then,
weren’t you, isn’t that right, you didn’t have any idea of
what it was making really? A. This was never bought
— 129—
on a business basis. It was bought to keep the swimming
pool open, and frankly, if we broke even, that is all we
ever expected. We really weren’t concerned too much—
Q. Isn’t that because you had all kinds of assurances
that you would get certain assistance from the City in the
D epositions o f June %7, 1958
Testimony of Carroll 0. Weaver
119a
form of deferring payments or whatever was necessary to
see that that pool was operated by your corporation, isn’t
that the basis on which you went into this! A. Well—
Q. Without any investigations? A. It was not. In fact,
we were assured by the City that our payments would be
there within ten days of the time, or they would foreclose.
It was read to us not once, but twice.
Q. So that you are saying that you went into this busi
ness venture, but that you did not even investigate, with
no assurances from the City, to go into a business to
operate it, to operate a swimming pool about which you
know nothing, and have had no previous experience in a
business corporation, without any assurances, that is
what are you saying? A. Without any assurances from
the City, you mean ?
Q. Or anybody? A. Well, I wouldn’t say from not
anybody.
Q. Who did you get assurances from? A. I think we
have enough assurances from the people who bought stock
— 130—
and other things—
Q. Do you think the people who bought stock know you
are operating a corporation that you don’t know anything
about whether it will make any profit on a pool, or on the
pool, and where you have had no experience, do you think
those people know that? A. I am sure they do.
Q. How do they know that? A. Because they know, the
ones that have been involved in it, they know the situa
tion completely of what has been going on.
Q. What has been going on? A. Well, as far as the way
the stock was sold, we have gone into what they have been
told, here.
D eposition s o f June £7, 1958
Testimony of Carroll 0. Weaver
120a
Q. AVhat have they been told? A. They were told that
we were buying a swimming pool to keep it open for white
citizens of Greensboro because we felt like swimming
facilities were needed, and they bought it on that basis,
not expecting to make any (money.
Q. They were just giving this money, is that right? A.
That is more or less what I think it will probably wind
up to be, and they realized it. It has never been misrepre
sented.
Q. You say that these people who are on this list under
stand that they are just putting their money into a cor
poration with no expectation of receiving any return, and
— 131—
that it is a corporation operated without any knowledge on
the part of the Directors as to how the thing operated with
the City in control, without any investigation as to whether
it was making a profit or anything of that kind, you say
those people understand that? A. You have asked me
about my knowledge. I don’t know about the knowledge of
Dr. Taliaferro and others as far as the operation of the
City. They may have information on it. I do not. I am
sure there was some information there.
Q. Well, he would discuss it with the Board of Direc
tors, wouldn’t he? A. We have only had one meeting,
which was an organizational meeting. We haven’t had time
to have another meeting. We have come into this right now
a week after this pool is opened, we haven’t had time to
make plans or anything else. If we could come back two
months from now, we could probably answer you intel
ligently on these things.
Q. But you have already purchased the pool, you can’t
get out of that, can you, if it turns out that it was a bad
D epositions o f June £ 7 ,1 9 5 8
Testimony of Carroll 0. Weaver
121a
thing to be in, then yon are too late, aren’t you! A. Yes.
I don’t think it can be a bad thing as long as we can keep
it open. I don’t think it can be a bad thing as long as we
can keep it open so that the children will have a place to
swim.
Q. What makes you say that! A. Because I think it
would be a good thing, regardless of whether it loses
—132—
money.
Q. How can you determine that, you haven’t made any
investigation— A. You can’t determine it otherwise
either, until we go into it and find out.
Q. In connection with your business as a real estate
man, do you have any occasion to make appraisals? A.
Sometimes.
Q. Have you ever made any appraisals? A. Yes, on
real estate I have, and furniture appraisals.
Q. Furniture appraisals ? A. Yes.
Q. How about land appraisals ? A. No.
Q. But you have appraised real estate! A. Yes. Of
course, land is involved in that, I imagined when you said
land you meant farm acreage.
Q. Yes. A. No.
Q. What would be your appraisal of the value of this
pool? A. I have no idea in the world, unless I get into
details with the contractor or somebody who could give me
a price on machinery and other things.
Q. You mean to say you are the Director of a eorpora-
— 133—
tion formed for the purpose of buying and operating
a swimming pool, and you have no idea of what that pool
D epositions o f June 27, 1958
Testimony of Carroll 0. Weaver
122a
is worth? A. I know what they say it cost, but I have
no idea of what it is worth.
Q. You have no opinion? A. I believe it is worth just
what it will bring. That is all I would know.
Q. Now, what about the land on which the pool is
situated. Did you know whether the City owned that land
or not? A. 1 understood it was given to the City years
ago.
Q. By whom? A. I think it was a Lindley.
Q. Lindley? A. Yes.
Q. Do you know whether there was a provision in the
deed giving it to the City relating to that land, if the City
no longer used it for a swimming pool, it would revert to
the Lindleys? A. I didn’t know about a swimming pool.
I don’t think it could be a swimming pool, because when the
deed was given there wasn’t a swimming pool there.
Q. Or public use? A. It probably could have been that.
I have heard of such a thing.
Q. But you don’t know? A. I don’t know of my own
—1 3 4 -
knowledge.
Q. And you have made no investigation to determine
whether the City had the right to sell that land? A. I un
derstood that it went through the Legislature and they
got the right to give a quit-claim deed or whatever was
necessary from Lindley so that they could sell.
Q. When did that happen? A. Oh, several years ago.
It was not recently.
Q. Do you know whether the City ever got the quit
claim deed? A. I am sure they did. It was my under
standing that they did.
Q. How are you sure? A. Well, I think one of the boys
D eposition s o f June 27, 1958
Testimony of Carroll 0. Weaver
123a
down at the Legislature was telling me about it at the
time. It has been several years ago.
Q. How many years ago would you say! A. Three,
three and a half, four. I don’t remember.
Q. Don’t you know as a fact that the City just got that
deed this year! A. I don’t know when they got it. I
know it went before the Legislature before this last year,
at least when I heard of it.
Q. Do you have any idea of how much stock has actually
been subscribed today! To date! A. Well, some has
—135—
come in recently. I think we had about thirty thousand in
round figures when we bid or more, but I don’t remember
what has come in since that time until now.
Q. Were you a member of the Recreation Commission of
the City at one time! A. 1 was not.
■u. -.y- ja. -M*w w w x
D eposition s o f June 27, 1958
Testimony of Carroll 0. Weaver
124a
Depositions of H. L. Coble, R. M. Taliaferro, Carroll 0 .
Weaver, William B. Burke, William Folk, Jr.,
Tom E. Brown, D. Newton Farnell, Jr., A. F.
Stevens, Jr., E. R. Zane, J. M. Denny,
Elbert F. Lewis, George H. Roach,
James R. Townsend
— 1 3 6 -
I n THE
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
F oe th e M iddle D istrict oe N orth Carolina
Greensboro D ivision
[ same t it l e ]
I, R ufus W. R eynolds, certify that as Special Master
appointed in this cause as the person to take depositions
by an order entered on the 20th of June, 1958, by the
Honorable E. M. Stanley, U. S. District Judge, a copy of
which is attached hereto, and pursuant to adjournment,
did on the 18th day of July, 1958, starting at 10:00 A. M.,
in the District Court Room, Post Office Building, Greens
boro, North Carolina, take depositions of the witnesses here
inafter listed; that each witness was duly sworn by me and
the following is a true record of the testimony of said
witnesses as given before me on the said date and which
was recorded by a Court Reporter under my direction.
A p p e a r a n c e s :
As heretofore noted, with the following additions:
Jack Elam, Esq., appearing for the Defendants.
125a
D epositions o f July 18, 1958
Testimony of Elbert Lewis
# # # # #
Elbert Lewis being first duly sworn, took the stand and
testified as follows:
# # # # #
— 138—
By Mrs. Motley:
Q. Are you Mr. Elbert Lewis? A. Yes.
Q. Are you a member of the City Council for the City
of Greensboro? A. Yes, lam .
Q. How long have you been a member of the City Coun
cil? A. Not quite a year.
Q. At the time that the Lindley Park Pool was con
structed, did you have any official connection with the
City of Greensboro? A. I was Chairman of the Parks and
Recreation Commission at that time.
Q. Were you a member of the City Council in October,
1957? A. Yes.
— 139—
Q. Were you present at a meeting of the Council on
October 21, 1957, which I believe was a public hearing on
the question of whether Lindley Park and Nocho Park
pools should be sold or closed or otherwise disposed off
A. Yes, I was.
Q. At that meeting, did you hear Dr. Taliaferro speak?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall now whether Dr. Taliaferro was in
favor of the sale of the pool, or whether he was against
the sale of the pool? A. I believe he spoke in favor of
the sale of the pool.
126a
Q. Let me ask you this. Do you know Dr. Taliaferro?
A. Yes.
Q. How long have you known Dr. Taliaferro? A. Oh,
four or five years, I suppose. I know of him.
Q. Have you been associated with Dr. Taliaferro in the
Greensboro Swim Association? A. When they put on the
Eastern Regional Meet and 1 was Chairman of the Parks
and Recreation Commission, we worked with him at that
time and helped him stage i t ; and in putting on the meet we
worked with him, we of the Recreation Commission.
Q. Were you ever a member of the Swim Association?
A. No, I am not; never have been.
Q. Now, were you one of the councilmen that voted for
the sale of the Lindley Park pool? A. Yes.
—140—
Q. Were you present at the Council meeting on the day
on which the City Council turned down the bid of $75,000
made by Mr. Samet at the time of the first auction? A.
Yes.
Q. Now, in turning down the bid made by Mr. Samet at
that meeting of the Council, on what basis did you turn
down that bid?
Mr. Elam: I object. He didn’t turn it down.
* # # # #
— 141—
# # * #
Special Master Reynolds: Let the record show
that there is an objection. The witness will proceed
to answer the question.
Now, we are not trying or admitting into evidence.
This is in the nature of discovery. Some of it may
D epositions o f J u ly 18, 1958
Testimony of Elbert Lewis
127a
be used, or may not be used. As a result, you ought
to be heard upon it whenever it is offered. It is
automatically subject to being objected to when it is
offered.
Mr. Elam: I believe that this proceeding is
limited to questions which are relevant, and she
asked him why he turned the bid down, and it has no
relevancy to this proceeding whatsoever, and I think
we are entitled to a ruling that the question is not
proper.
Special Master Reynolds: I think that is closely
related enough. She asked why the bid was turned
down, he voted against it. I direct you to answer
the question.
The Witness: May I have the question!
Special Master Reynolds: Mr. Reporter, read the
— 1 4 2 -
question back.
(Question read.)
A. I concurred in the opinion of the City Council and
the words of the ordinance, which stated the bid was in
adequate.
By Mrs. Motley:
Q. On what basis did you determine that the bid was
inadequate! A. One basis that would make it inadequate
was that the price was not adequate.
Q. How did you arrive at that determination that that
price was not adequate?
Mr. Elam: I object.
Special Master Reynolds: Let the record indicate
the defendant objected. Go ahead.
D eposition s o f July 18, 1958
Testimony of Elbert Lewis
128a
A. I can only give you my own opinion. At the time I
thought we could get more for the pool than that bid.
By Mrs. Motley:
Q. What made you think you could get more for it!
A. Because it apparently was worth more.
Mr. Elam: Mr. Reynolds, excuse me for interrupt
ing, I don’t want to be objecting to each of these
questions. So, if I may, I would like to state my
basis for all of these objections and then be granted
an automatic objection.
The City takes the position that the thinking of
an individual councilman in arriving at his vote on
— 1 4 3 -
certain matters is irrelevant to the matter of whether
or not there has been collusion between- the purchaser
and the City in regards to the sale of this pool. Mr.
Lewis’ motive or the motive of any other council
man has nothing to do with whether or not there
has been such collusion. The record speaks for it
self. The City Council passed a resolution setting
forth why they took the action that they did.
Special Master Reynolds: You desire the record
to indicate, then, that you are objecting to this line
of questioning, and that each question is objected
to as fully as if set out?
M r.Elam: Yes.
Special Master Reynolds: Let the report show
that.
You see, this is discovery. Many of these ques
tions would not be competent if they are being
D eposition s o f J u ly 18, 1958
Testimony of Elbert Lewis
129a
offered on the issue, but the plaintiff has got a wide
latitude and probably will resort to a wide latitude
in her interrogation.
Mr. Elam: My purpose in taking this line of ob
jection is to save the Special Master having to
grant a continuance in order for us to take the
matter before the Judge.
Special Master Reynolds: Well, 1 think she is
still within her bounds.
Mrs. Motley: Would you read the last question,
please.
(Record read.)
A. It was only my judgment.
—144—
By Mrs. Motley.
Q. How much did you think the pool was worth? A.
Well, in my own mind, what did I think we could get for
it? I had in mind that we could get around $100,000 for it.
Q. On what did you base that determination that you
thought you could get $100,000 for it? A. I don’t believe
I could give you any specific reason why.
Q. You just pulled that figure out of the air, $100,000?
Was it related to the money spent by the Council or the
City on that pool? A. It could have been. It could have
been based on what somebody would be able to pay for it,
and be able to operate it on.
Q. What somebody would be able to pay for it? A. Pay
for it, and then be able to pay back their investment.
Q. How did you know what other people might be able
to pay for it? A. I didn’t know. It was my opinion only.
D eposition s o f July 18, 1958
Testimony of Elbert Lewis
130a
Q. It was your opinion that other people would only be
able to pay $100,000 for it? A. That was my judgment.
Q. Now, did you vote to accept the payment of $85,000
made by the Greensboro Swimming Pool Association? A.
- 1 4 5 -
Yes, I did.
Q. The Greensboro Pool Corporation? A. Yes.
Q. You know what corporation I mean? A. Yes.
Q. The one that bid $85,000. A. Yes.
Q. You voted to accept that? A. Yes.
Q. On what basis did you determine that was acceptable?
A. We had advertised the pool’s price, and it was quite
evident that that was all we were going to be able to get
for it.
Q. How was it evident to you? A. We had advertised
the price and that was the highest bid we got in two adver
tisings. I didn’t see that another advertising would in
crease our bid on it at all.
Q. Did you make any investigation to determine that,
that that was all that you could get? A. No.
Q. Then you didn’t have any basis really for determin
ing that that was all that you could get ? A. My own opin
ion only. To my own satisfaction.
Q. But you made no investigation to determine whether,
as a matter of fact, you could get more for the pool, sir, is
— 146—
that right? A. No. When we had advertised twice, in my
own opinion, I felt like to advertise again would be useless.
More than that, there were other pools being built in
Greensboro; when opened up and put in operation, obviously
bids would be lower in the future, in my opinion, rather
than be raised.
D epositions o f July 18, 1958
Testimony of Elbert Lewis
131a
Q. In other words, if the highest bid you had gotten on
the second sale was $75,000, yon would have accepted that?
A. No, I don’t think so.
Q. Why not? A. I felt like we should have gotten more
than $75,000. In fact, I made a motion in the Council
chamber that the bids start at $75,000. It was voted down.
Q. Didn’t you say a minute ago that you felt, after the
second sale, that that was the highest you could get? A.
In my judgment.
Q. Whatever came out of the second sale? A. That was
my judgment.
Q. So that if the second sale, if the highest bid was
$75,000, you would have accepted that? A. I might have
had to, being the second bid; as I say, the other pools
were opening up, and it was obvious that the price would
be lowered instead of raised in the future.
Q. Did you or the Council ever have any appraisal made
— 147—
of the value of the pool? A. Not that I know of.
Q. How long were you the head of the Recreation Com
mission? A. About four years. I was Chairman about
four years.
Q. Are you still a member of the Recreation Commis
sion? A. No.
Q. Now, does the Recreation Commission have jurisdic
tion over all recreational facilities in Greensboro? A. Yes.
Q. Now, over all the recreational facilities in the city,
which of the recreational facilities would you say was used
most frequently by residents of the city? A. You mean
frequently during the year?
Q. During the year. A. I think the Centers are used
more during the year than anything else.
D eposition s o f July 18, 1958
Testimony of Elbert Lewis
132a
Q. Now— A. Or playgrounds. I wouldn’t know which.
Q. Would you say that the swimming pool was used
more by a larger number of people than say, the play
grounds? A. Are you talking about for a year? Are you
talking about the period of a year?
Q. That’s right. A. No, the swimming pools would not
be used by a larger number during the period of a year.
Q. Now, during the time that the swimming pool is gen-
—148—
erally open, which I gather is during the summer months,
would you say that during the time you were Chairman of
the Recreation Commission that the Lindley Park Pool was
used by more residents than any other single recreational
facility during the summer months? A. When you say
single, are you limiting it to parks, or—
Q. I don’t want to lump all parks together. That is,
that the pool was used more than any other single or indi
vidual facility. A. If you take the parks separately, I
presume I would say so, yes.
Q. Now, did you talk to Dr. Taliaferro at any time re
garding the sale of the Lindley Park Pool? A. Yes.
Q. What was your conversation with Dr. Taliaferro?
A. I talked with Dr. Taliaferro three times, as I remember
it, about Lindley Park Pool. The first time was last fall,
I believe in November, before anything was started by the
Greensboro Swimming Association. It was a general dis
cussion and he was doing most of the talking about what
he was going to do in the sale of stock by the Greensboro
Pool Corporation. That was, I would say, some time in
November of last year.
I talked to him, I saw him again at the hospital, I be
lieve. It was not in the office. I saw him somewhere, and
D eposition s o f July 1 8 ,19 5 8
Testimony of Elbert Lewis
133a
lie told me then, the conversation then was about the East
ern Invitational Swimming Meet which was held here last
—1 4 9 -
week that had come up—this was in January, 1958—that
had come up, and he had scheduled it tentatively at Lindlev
Park, with a secondary location at the High Point Pool in
case the Lindley Park Pool was not open.
In none of these cases did I give him any advice, or tell
him what the City Council would do or what I would do on
the City Council.
The third time I talked to him was about March 20, about
ten days before the first sale date, at which time he asked
me, this was over the telephone, whether or not the City
Council could postpone the sale date. I told him to direct
that question to the Mayor in a letter. That constitutes—
Q. Do you know whether he wrote the Mayor concerning
that? A. Yes, I think he did.
Q. Do you know what the Mayor replied? A. That we
could not.
Q. Isn’t it a fact that the sale date was changed by the
City Council? A. Yes, and having read your other deposi
tion here, I think that needs clearing up, and with your
permission, I would like to clear that up.
Q. All right. A. That first date was set March 18th.
I believe that is correct, and that date was set, oh, in Feb
ruary some time. I don’t know the date when we set it.
— 150—
After that date was set on March 18, Mr. Elam and Gen
eral Townsend went to Ealeigh in the interest of a sale of
some sewer and water bonds, and the State Department
in charge of the sale of bonds advised them, worked it out
that March 18 was the date on which this sale should be
D epositions o f July 18, 1958
Testimony of Elbert Lewis
134a
set, and it was the only workable date that they could name
for it. They came back and reported to the City Council,
and we put the sale off until April 1, and that was the rea
son for it.
Q. Is that in the City Council minutes! A. I am sure
it is. I can’t answer that, but it should be.
Q. And it was after you postponed the date of the sale
that Dr. Taliaferro approached you! A. Yes.
Q. And he wanted a further postponement! A. Yes.
Q. And the sale was not then postponed after that! A.
It was not postponed.
May I also say, with your permission, that it is not un
usual for me to be talking to people who have recreation
matters before the city. Although I am off of the Com
mission, they often come to me and talk with me, and I like
to know about them, because I might be able to help the
City Council in their decisions on it.
I talked to the Garden Club when the Parks policy was
— 151—
coming up, and I attend Little League meetings so that I
know what is going on, and it is not unusual for me to be
talking with people with recreation problems.
Q. Were you interested in seeing that Lindley Park Pool
was kept open? A. Yes.
Q. Well, if you were interested in seeing that the park
was kept open, why did you vote to sell the park? A. I
think that is better explained in the ordinance the Council
passed. My think was along with that. I would be glad
to read that to you.
Q. Well, I have that. Tell me in your own words. A.
Because I think it was to the best interest of the City.
Q. Did you conceive that through the sale of the pool
that it might continue to remain open? A. Yes.
D eposition s o f J uly IS, 1958
Testimony of Elbert Lewis
135a
Mr. Elam: I am still objecting.
Special Master Reynolds: Note the objection.
By Mrs. Motley.
Q. Now, when you spoke to Dr. Taliaferro in November,
I believe you said, the first occasion you had a conversa
tion with bim about the pool, you said that he discussed
with you his plans for— A. Dr. Taliaferro was doing most
of the talking.
— 152—
Q. And he was talking about his plan to purchase the
pool? A. Yes.
Q. And to keep it open? A. Yes.
Q. And to operate it? A. Yes.
Q. Are you answering? A. Yes.
Q. He also said he was going to continue to operate it
as it had been in the past and so forth? A. Yes.
Q. Now, were there any discussions at any time in the
City Council with regard to changing the zoning regula
tion in the park area? A. Yes, that was brought up.
Q. Would you tell me in your own words what the dis
cussion concerned? A. I don’t know that I could exactly
tell you the circumstances of that or not. It was quite
technical.
Q. What was the problem involved? A. Buildings being
200 feet from the property line, was the way the thing
started. I can’t quite outline this ordinance and the change
they asked to be made.
Q. Let’s start this way. What is the existing ordinance
there, what is the scope of the existing ordinance? What
- 1 5 3 -
does it refer to, that is, with respect to whether any enter
D eposition s o f July 18, 1958
Testimony of Elbert Lewis
136a
prise may be in the area for profit or not for profit? A.
Non-profit. I can answer that much of it.
Q. In other words, there is an existing ordinance which
says that the only enterprise which may be in the pool
area must be a non-profit enterprise? A. No, I don’t think
there is an existing ordinance to that effect. If I could
have the minutes of the meeting there.
Here is your ordinance. “ Grounds and facilities for open
air games or sports limited to not more than 100 spectators
operated on a non-profit basis. This item is permitted in
institutional and residential zones.”
Q. As I understood the reading of that, any facilities
in that area may be operated for 100 persons. A. “ Grounds
and facilities for open air games or sports limited to not
more than 100 spectators operated on a non-profit basis.”
Q. Does that apply to the Lindley Park Pool? A. I am
sure it does.
Q. So that the only enterprise which could operate Lind
ley Park Pool under that ordinance would be a non-profit
enterprise, is that right? A. No.
Q. What is the situation? A . “ Grounds and facilities for
open air games or sports limited to not more than 100
spectators operated on a non-profit basis.” It doesn’t say
— 154—
a non-profit organization. It says operated on a non-profit
basis.
Q. What is a non-profit basis? A. I presume one that
does not make profits.
Q. How about one that makes profit, but the profit is
not distributed among any individuals? A. It is put back
into facilities?
Q. That’s right. Isn’t that what you mean by a non
profit basis? A. That’s right.
D eposition s o f J u ly 18, 1958
Testimony of Elbert Lewis
137a
Q. Now, you voted against changing that regulation,
didn’t you? A. Yes.
Q. What was your reason for voting against it? A. For
the good of the people in the neighborhood.
Q. What good were you concerned about? A. Well, if
you put a profit-making organization in there, I am certain
we would have had plenty of complaints from the neigh
borhood.
Q. Don’t you know that the Greensboro Pool Corporation
is a business corporation? A. I don’t think that makes too
much difference, if they operate on a non-profit basis.
Q. How do you know it is operated on a non-profit basis?
A. I can’t conceive of their making any profit from the
— 1 5 5 -
operation of the pool. That is my personal idea about it.
Q. How is that? A. I just don’t think that they could
make any money. It is not a profit-making business.
Q. On what do you base that, that they can’t make any
money on it? A. I know the revenue from the pool, and I
know the expense of the pool when the City operated it,
and I don’t see how you can make any money out of it.
Q. The City made a profit? A. Oh, no.
Q. The City made a profit— A. No, no, I object to that.
We did not make a profit.
Q. You did not make money in excess of your expenses?
A. That’s right. We did not pay a lot of expenses that
a profit corporation would have to pay.
Q. Well, now, let me ask you this. How do you know
that the Greensboro Pool Corporation isn’t going to make
any profit, did they tell you they were not going to make
any profit? A. I don’t think anyone can make a profit out
of it. That is my personal opinion.
D eposition s o f July 18, 1958
Testimony of Elbert Lewis
138a
Q. Bat you don’t know that as a fact? A. Of course I
don’t.
Q. So that in violation of that ordinance, you approved
a sale to a business corporation which obviously can make
— 156—
a profit under its charter?
Mr. Elam: I object to that. Mr. Reynolds, don’t
you think she is rather far afield? We are still sup
posed to be talking about collusion—
* # * #
— 158—
-X- 'X* ■H* -X~
The Witness: Let me say first I didn’t know it
was a profit-making business. That has never been
called to our attention at all.
By Mrs. Motley.
Q. Didn’t Mr. Taliaferro tell you that he was going to
sell stock, didn’t you say that a minute ago, that he told
you he was going to sell stock? A. Yes.
Q. Then you knew that he was planning a profit-making
corporation, didn’t you? A. No, the implication to me and
- 159-
all through it, was a non-profit organization.
Q. How did you get that implication? A. Conversations
I had heard.
Q. Heard? A. The Greensboro Swimming Corporation
has operated as a non-profit organization.
Q. I am not talking about the Greensboro Swimming
Pool Association. I am talking about the corporation which
purchased this pool. You mean you talked to other people
D eposition s o f J u ly 1 8 ,19 5 8
Testimony of Elbert Lewis
139a
other than Dr. Taliaferro about this corporation! A. No,
I don’t remember talking to anyone in that corporation.
I want to make that clear for the record, that I didn’t talk
to Mr. Weaver or Mr. Coble or any other directors or
any other members of it.
Q. Tell me how you got the implication if you didn’t
talk to anybody, how did you get the implication? A. I
think it was very well covered in the paper.
Q. What paper? A. News articles.
Q. What paper? A. Greensboro Daily News and the
Greensboro Record. One or the other.
Q. These papers said that this was a non-profit corpora-
—160—
tion? A. I am sure that was mentioned several times.
That was in my mind the whole time, that it was a non
profit organization.
Q. But now that you know it is a profit corporation,
what have you done about it? A. Nothing, because it can
be a profit organization operating without a profit and that
complies with the ordinance.
Q. That is very interesting. How can a profit corpora
tion operate without a profit? A. A corporation that is
allowed to make a profit, but operating on a non-profit
basis.
Q. You don’t know that they are operating on a non
profit basis, you just said you don’t know anything about
this corporation. How do you know that they are? That
they are operating on a non-profit basis? A. I told you
a while ago I didn’t think anybody could operate that pool
on a profit basis and make reasonable charges for admis
sion.
D eposition s o f J uly 18, 1958
Testimony of Elbert Lewis
140a
Q, What is the basis for that, how do you know that? A.
From my experience.
Q. What experience? A. Parks and Recreation Com
mission.
Q. Now, if you find out that they are making a profit,
what do you intend to do about it? A. I don’t know. I
would have to give it further study.
Q. In other words, you made no investigation to deter-
— 161—
mine whether the sale of the pool was to a non-profit cor
poration in accordance with that zoning ordinance, did you?
You just knew that the Greensboro Pool Corporation
bought it, and as far as you were concerned, that was the
end of it. A. No, I think we were depending* on our City
Attorney to give us advice.
Q. What advice did he give you? Did he tell you that
they were non-profit? A. No, I don’t think he specifically
said that, but he didn’t vote of course, but he concurred in
the sale of the pool to the Greensboro Pool Corporation.
Q. He concurred in it? A. Well, he was sitting there and
advising us, if we go wrong legally he should advise us,
and he does.
Q. Did he give you the impression that they were non
profit? A. He did by not telling us that they were a profit-
making organization.
Q. I am going to show you a copy of an affidavit pre
pared by and signed by Mr. Townsend. Do you know Mr.
Townsend? A. Yes.
Q. In which he gives the figures relating to the revenue
and expenditures of the Lindley Park Pool for the past
three years. Do you see those figures on there? A. Yes.
D eposition s o f July 18, 1958
Testimony of Elbert Lewis
D eposition s o f J uly 18, 1958
Testimony of Elbert Lewis
—162—
Q. Now, does that indicate that the revenues exceeded
expenditures? A. Yes.
Q. Now, on what basis are you saying that you know that
nobody could operate that pool and make a profit? A. In
these expenses, as you know, there was not any charge for
water, taxes, obsolescence, maintenance; well, the main
tenance hadn’t started yet, because the pool was new. Now
they are big factors.
Q. What do they amount to? A. I don’t know. The
water bill amounted to $1500.
Q. What else? A. I don’t know what the taxes would be,
and depreciation.
Q. Could you estimate what the taxes would be? A. No,
I don’t believe I could right quick.
Q. But you think that those expenditures would be
greater then the revenue, the excess revenue? A. That is
correct.
Q. How do you arrive at that? A. Well, now, the first
year there was a big profit in there for some reason, I
don’t know why, but it leveled out in the later years, and
the last year was $3,000.
Q. What year was that? A. 1957. It was only $3,000
between revenue and expenditures, and in my opinion,
1958 will be a smaller year, because we have now three
- 1 6 3 -
pools open and more being talked of. Private pools will be
springing up all around. They are springing up.
Q. Ho you know whether they have had more people out
there since this corporation took it over than they had last
year? A. I don’t know.
Q. Do you know if this corporation is charging more for
142a
admission to the pool than the city charged? A. Yes, they
are charging five and ten cents, I believe it is ; ten cents
more for adults forty to fifty, and a little more for chil
dren.
Q. Do yon know that they are charging more for coca-
colas than the city charged? A. No, I didn’t know that.
Q. Now, at the City Council meeting at which the Coun
cil considered the advisability of changing that zoning
regulation which limits the area to non-profit enterprise,
or to non-profit enterprises, wasn’t there one councilman
who said that he could not in good conscience vote to retain
that ordinance, because by doing so you would eliminate
really anyone interested in purchasing that pool? A. I
think there was.
Q. Do you agree with his statement? A. There was.
Q. Do you agree with his statement? A. No, I did not.
—164—
Q. Why did you not agree with his statement? A. The
paramount thing to me was to keep profit-making indus
tries out of that area on account of the residents around
there.
Q. You didn’t think by continuing that ordinance this
would be eliminating people who might be interested in
purchasing the pool? A. I didn’t think so.
Q. Why didn’t you think so? A. That was my opinion,
my judgment.
Q. Didn’t you conceive that there might be a number of
individuals or corporations that might want to buy that
pool and make a profit, like any other business ? A. I think
there would have been objections from the neighborhood.
Q. But when the City Council decided to sell the pool,
D eposition s o f J uly 1 8 ,1 9 5 8
Testimony of Elbert Lewis
143a
they were just interested in selling it to anybody who would
make the highest bid, weren’t they? A. That’s right.
Q. Well, in that case, if you were interested in the highest
bid, by continuing this regulation you were eliminating
business and profit-making corporations who might have
bid $150,000? A. It might have been, but in my opinion
it would have jeopardized the well-being of the residents
— 1 6 5 -
in the community there.
Q. But you recognize, don’t you, that by continuing the
non-profit regulation you were thereby eliminating busi
ness corporations that might have bid $150,000? A. Well,
I didn’t see any reason to change it. We had had that ordi
nance there before, and my vote was not to change the
ordinance.
Q. In other words, you weren’t interested in getting the
highest bid for it, you were just interested in disposing of
that pool? A. Getting the highest bid we could get in com
pliance with our zoning ordinance, I was interested in that.
Q. But you recognized in connection with the zoning
ordinance that you would be eliminating a lot of people
who could bid more money? A. It was a question of
whether we wanted more money or to change the zoning
and jeopardize the zoning. It could have been a question
of that. My vote was to keep the zoning.
Q. So that you weren’t really interested in selling the
pool, you were just interested in keeping the zoning, is
that it? A. I was interested in selling the pool at the
highest price that we could get in compliance with our zon
ing ordinances.
Q. Have you gotten any protests from the people in that
area against changing the regulations? A. On the zoning?
D eposition s o f July 18, 1958
Testimony of Elbert Lewis
D epositions o f J u ly 18, 1958
Testimony of Elbert Lewis
—166—
Q. That’s right. A. No, I don’t think people in the area
knew what was up.
Q. Well, then, you didn’t have any basis for deciding
that the people objected? A. Yes, I had, from previous
experience from people in the area; and when the pool was
located there and the statements of residents around in the
area made at a public hearing that we had—
Q. What public hearing was that? A. This was one,
not in connection with the sale of the pool, this was when
the pool was located in Lindley Park. The Park and Recre
ation Commission had a public hearing.
Q. At that time they protested against a profit-making-
organization? A. Well, the feeling of the people that this
was just a step toward establishing carnivals and enter
tainments of that type out there, and we assured them
that it was not.
Q. But in connection with the sale of Lindley Park Pool,
you did not receive any protests from anyone in that area
against changing the regulations, is that right? A. That’s
right. I don’t think the people in the area knew that that
was up for discussion.
Q. Didn’t you say all of this was published in the news-
— 1 6 7 -
papers over and over again about the Lindley Park Pool
and the sale? A. Yes, but I don’t think the rezoning was
published.
Q. You don’t think the rezoning was published? A. I
don’t think it received anything like the attention that the
sale of the pool did.
Q. How do you know that? A. I don’t know that. I
didn’t say I knew that. I didn’t think that.
145a
Q. Are you saying that there were no articles in the
newspapers about the zoning issue? A. No, no, no, I am
not saying that.
Q. So that you voted against changing the regulation
without even a single protest from anybody in that area,
is that right? A. You may deduce that, yes.
Q. When you were Chairman of the Recreation Commis
sion, what other members of the commission were there,
their names? A. What year, if you would be specific?
Q. You were Chairman four years, is that right? A.
Yes. They changed somewhat on it.
Q. Could you name, for instance, the people who were
on the Commission with you? A. Kirby Moore, who is
now Chairman; Mrs. Woltz, who was Vice-chairman of the
Commission; Mrs. Hagan; Mr. Hitchcock; Mr. Noah. Dr.
— 168—
Davis.
Q. Were there any present members of the City Council
on there with you? A. No.
Q. Well, do you recall Dr. Taliaferro appearing before
a City Council meeting and requesting the City Council
to tell him whether he would be able to get his money back
if the Federal Court should hold that the City was without
power to sell the pool? A. Yes, I do.
Q. What was your answer to Dr. Taliaferro in that con
nection? A. He didn’t get any answer.
Q. Why didn’t he get any answer? A. I believe it was
referred to the Finance Committee. I am not quite sure
of that. There was no answer given to Dr. Taliaferro.
Q. Now, in connection with the sale of the Lindley Park
Pool, were you aware of the fact that the Greensboro Swim
ming Corporation was the only corporation that was mak
• D eposition s o f July 18, 1958
Testimony of Elbert Lewis
146a
ing any attempt or showing any interest whatsoever in
purchasing this pool? A. No, I was not aware of it.
Q. Yon were not aware that this was the only corpora
tion locally interested? A. No, I was not.
— 169—
Q. Were yon a member of the City Council? A. That’s
right.
Q. Yon voted for the sale of the pool? A. That’s right,
Q. Were yon interested in seeing that this pool was dis
posed of? A. Yes.
Q. Yet you say yon were not aware of the fact that this
was the only corporation locally interested? A. No, I
heard rumors. I put nothing in rumors. There was no
reason why I should know or should not know. I heard
other rumors that other people were interested.
Q. Was there any discussion in the newspapers that
other people were interested? A. I think there was.
Q. Who did they say was interested, other than this
corporation? A. I thought at one time that they said
the YMCAs were interested in it.
Q. The newspaper said that? A. I thought they did.
That was a rumor which came from somewhere.
Q. Who else did they say was interested? A. I don’t
know, but there were other bidders at the sale. Mr. Stout
—1 7 0 -
bid on it.
Q. How many other bidders were there? A. A man
named Gamble. I am quite sure of that.
Q. Was this at the first or second sale? A. Second sale.
I remember those bidders.
Q. Do you know how many people bid at the first sale?
A. Mr. Samet and Dr. Taliaferro’s group, I believe.
D epositions o f J uly IS, 1958
Testimony of Elbert Lewis
147a
Q. Those were the only bidders? A. I believe that’s
right.
Q. But at the second sale, there were other bidders? A.
Yes, there were more people.
Q. How many others would you say? A. I think Mr.
Gamble bid in the lower brackets, and Mr. Stout bid in
the lower brackets, and the Pool Corporation.
# # * # *
—173—
̂ #
G e o r g e H. E o a c h being first duly sworn, testified as
follows:
By Mr. L ee :
Q. For the record, will you state your name? A. George
H. Eoach.
Q. Are you connected with the City of Greensboro in
any capacity? A. Yes.
Q. If so, what? A. I am Mayor.
Q. When were you elected Mayor? A. May, 1957.
Q. And you have served in that capacity— A. Continu
ously since then.
Q. Were you a member of the City Council prior to that
time? A. 1955. May of 1955 until May, 1957.
Q. You have been a member of the Council continuously
since May of 1955? A. That is correct.
—174—
Q. Mr. Eoach, were you present at a meeting of the
Council some time back, I don’t remember the exact date,
but when a petition was presented by some Negro citizens
D epositions o f July 18, 1958
Testimony of George H. Roach
148a
for permission to use Lindley Park Swimming Pool? A.
I was.
Q. Can you tell us what action was taken on that petition?
A. As I remember it, it was referred to a committee. The
record will show.
Q. What happened after it came back from the Com
mittee? What action was taken? A. The Committee made
a recommendation to the Council, and as I remember it,
the Council said, set a policy.
Q. What was the recommendation of the Committee and
the policy? A. I will have to get that from the City Attor
ney.
Q. All right. A. “ Resolution declaring a policy as to
public swimming pools.
“Whereas a petition has been presented to the City
Council requesting that members of the Negro race be
allowed to use the Lindley Park Swimming Pool, which
is now used by members of the white race only;
“ Whereas in the opinion of the City Council, joint
use of the pool at this time might disrupt relations
between the races which have been harmonious until
now;
—175—
“ And whereas the City Council is charged with the
duty of preserving the public peace in Greensboro
without which there are no civil rights for any of its
citizens;
“ Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council
of the City of Greensboro: that it be declared to be
the policy of the City Council to maintain and operate
the public swimming pools of the City for the re
D eposition s o f July 1 8 ,19 5 8
Testimony of George H. Roach
149a
mainder of the 1957 season in the same manner as they
are presently being used;
“ Provided, however, that the City Council will, be
fore the 1958 season, give earnest consideration to
the problems raised in the petition mentioned above.”
Q. Now, subsequently, I believe the City Council passed
a resolution finding there was no further need for the
Lindley Park Swimming Pool or the Nocho Park Swimming
Pool. A. I believe that is correct.
Q. How did you vote on that resolution? A. I voted
“ Aye.”
Q. In other words, you concurred in the finding that
there was no need for either of the swimming pools? A.
That’s right.
Q. What was the basis of your finding? A. May I see
the resolution?
I would like to read one paragraph from the resolution
“ Whereas, upon the most earnest consideration it
now appears that the joint use of the swimming pools
—176—
owned by the City at any time in the foreseeable future
would inevitably and gravely disrupt the existing har
monious relations between the races and the present
investment in such facilities might more beneficially
be liquidated and reinvested in a type of recreational
facility offering services and enjoyment to a greater
proportion of the population of the City than that
now benefiting from the operation of the swimming
pools.”
D eposition s o f July 1 8 ,19 5 8
Testimony of George II. Road
That is my opinion.
150a
Q. So that the reason for voting to sell the pool was
to keep those harmonious relations, and you thought that
the harmonious relations would no longer exist if the pools
were integrated? A. Yes.
Q. Then actually that was the reason for your voting to
sell the pool, it was to keep it from being integrated? A.
To maintain harmonious relations in Greensboro.
Q. And you believed that those harmonious relations and
preservation of the peace could not be had with an inte
grated swimming pool? A. That is correct.
Q. Now, you were present, I believe, at a meeting of the
Council when Dr. Taliaferro spoke? A. No, I was not
present, and that was not a Council meeting. It was a
—1 7 7 -
committee meeting.
Q. "Wasn’t that an adjourned meeting of the Council
held in the Court House? A. No, it was not. My recollec
tion is that it was a Committee meeting, and I was not
present.
Q. That was a meeting that was held over in the Court
House? A. Oh, I am sorry.
Q. That was the one— A. The public hearing? That was
not a Council meeting.
Q. That was an adjourned meeting— A. That is right.
You are right.
Q. You were present at that meeting? A. I was, yes.
Q. And you heard Dr. Taliaferro speak at that meeting?
A. Yes.
Q. You heard him express the intent of the Corpo
ration was? A. Yes.
Q. You heard him expressed the intent of the Corpo
ration to operate the pool on a segregated basis the same
D eposition s o f J uly 18, 1958
Testimony of George H. Roach
151a
as it had been operated, if they were the successful bidder?
A. Yes.
Q. And all the members of the Council were present at
—178—
that meeting? A. As far as I recall.
Mr. Elam: Just a minute, Mu'. Lee. I believe
Mayor Roach wants to read something.
The Witness: Dr. Taliaferro stated that some
people had the idea that the Swim Association was
a group interested primarily in competitive swim
ming, that this is not true; that that group was
concerned in swimming for all; swimming for safety
and swimming for fun.
That the Association feels that the pools will
have to be operated on a segregated basis; that
they want to keep both pools open and are ready
to do anything that they can to help the Council keep
them open, whether it be by sale at public auction
or gift to some organization that will keep them open.
Dr. Taliaferro further stated that the neighbor
hood pools, such as Guilford Hills and 0. Henry
Oaks, which are completed or in the process of
being planned, will take revenue from the Lindley
Park Pool; that if the pool is integrated, revenue
will be even less and the pool will operate at a loss;
and the Association does not see how the City can
operate the pools under these conditions. That was
what Dr. Taliaferro stated at the meeting.
By Mr. L ee :
Q. So that when you voted to confirm the sale to the
Greensboro Pool Corporation, you knew the intention of
D eposition s o f J uly IS, 1958
Testimony of George H. Roach
152a
the Corporation was to operate the pool as it had been
—179—
operated on a segregated basis? A. All I know is what he
had said here, and what had been carried in the press.
Q. All that indicated that it would be operated on a seg
regated basis? A. Yes.
Q. You had no reason to believe that the Greensboro
Pool Corporation would integrate the pool? A. No.
Q. Now, you have had certain correspondence with Dr.
Taliaferro in reference to the sale of this pool, have you
not? A. I had one letter from Dr. Taliaferro.
Q. Do you have that letter? A. No, I do not.
Q. Do you have a copy of the subpoena that was served
on you? A. No, I don’t.
Q. Do you recall whether or not the subpoena asked you
to bring in the correspondence? A. It did not.
Q. What was the nature of that correspondence, the
letter you received from him and the one you wrote back
to him? A. On March 27, Dr. Taliaferro sent me a memo
randum asking that the April 1 date of the pool sale be
delayed, that they were trying to raise money. His pros-
—180—
pects were out of town, and that was what he said.
Q. And what was in the letter that you wrote back to
him? A. I don’t recall, other than it was turned down.
Q. Now, the sale of the pool was continued from the
18th of March to the 1st of April? A. The date of the
sale of the pool was tentatively set or approximately set
March 18. The local Government Commission at Raleigh
set the bond issue at $12,000,000 for March 18. The Coun
cil did not want both of those on the same day. So they
set the sale of the pool for April 1.
D eposition s o f J u ly 18, 1958
Testimony of George H. Ro'acJi
153a
Q. What was the date of Dr. Taliaferro’s letter to you!
A. It was the 27th or 28th.
Q. Of what month? A. March.
# # # # #
•—188—
Q. Now, there was a lot of discussion as to rezoning the
area, at the meeting of the Council, before it was put up
for sale again? A. That is correct.
Q. Did you vote to rezone? A. I did not.
Q. You voted to keep the zoning as it was? A. Yes.
Q. Your understanding of the present zoning restrictions
is that no business should operate there for profit? A.
That’s right.
Q. Do you understand that the present occupants, the
Greensboro Pool Corporation, operate the pool for profit?
A. Technically they possibly are; actually, no.
Q. Technically they are but actually no? A. Yes.
—189—
Q. Now, explain that a little bit. A. What I mean by
that, I don’t believe it is humanly possible to make a profit
in an operation like that.
Q. Then it wouldn’t have made much difference whether
it was sold to a profit or a non-profit organization? A. It
had to be sold according to the zoning regulations.
Q. It is not being used according to the zoning regula
tions. A. I contend that it is.
Q. The zoning regulations says that you can’t sell soft
drinks and peanuts? A. No, that is not correct.
Q. I am referring to, I am reading from page 387 of
the April, 1958, minutes, and I am reading a statement
that was reportedly made by Mr. Parnell— A. Excuse me
just a moment. May I read along with you?
D eposition s o f J u ly 1 8 ,19 5 8
Testimony of George II. Roach
154a
Q. The first page, second paragraph, starting there,
“ Councilman Farnell made the following statement, ‘I am
not opposed to selling the pool, but I cannot in good con
science vote for the proposed resolution. The neighborhood
of the pool should be fully protected by proper regulations.
‘The present zoning regulations which were originally
adopted to regulate private and private-club pools in resi
dential districts are being applied to the sale of the two
public swimming pools. This, of course, is wholly un
realistic. In the sale of public pools for example, one of
—190—
the Committee . . . it may be used for . . . purposes. There
is nothing in the Committee . . . that I have been able to
find . . . the sale of soft drinks or the sale of anything.’
“ Then there is the requirement that if the pools be
operated, they must be operated on a non-profit basis.
What does that mean? . . . if they sold soft drinks and
it was permitted under the zoning, which I say it is not,”
and so forth. Did you hear him make that statement? A.
Yes, I did.
Q. Did you take issue with him that soft drinks would
be permitted to be sold under the present ordinance? A.
I do not agree with him.
Q. Did you raise that issue? A. Yes.
# # * # *
—192—
# # # * *
Q. You made no effort to see whether the pool was being
operated on a non-profit basis? A. It is not my respon
sibility. The State law gives the Building Inspector the
responsibility of enforcing the zoning laws. It is up to
him.
Q. If you knew that a non-lawful use was being made
D epositions o f July 18, 1958
Testimony of George H. Roach
155a
of the pool, would you take any action? A. I would cer
tainly discuss it with the Building Manager, but no atten
tion, it has not been brought to my attention in any way,
shape or form.
Q. Now, have you read the depositions that were taken
from Dr. Taliaferro? A. Yes, I have.
Q. Did you see from those depositions that the Greens
boro Pool Corporation was a profit corporation? A. It so
stated in there, I believe, in his statement.
Q. And the purpose of not changing the zoning ordi
nance was to prevent a profit organization from operating
the swimming pool? A. In order to have a profit-making
organization, it would entail industrial zoning.
Q. But I said the purpose in not changing the ordinance
was to prevent a profit-making corporation or organization
or individual from purchasing the pool, wasn’t it? A. No.
—1 9 3 -
Read that question. I didn’t get it.
Special Master Reynolds: Read the question.
(Question read.)
The Witness: The answer is no.
By Mr. Lee:
Q. Now, if the ordinance had been changed, is it your
opinion that the pool would have brought a higher price?
A. It is not my opinion.
Q. You don’t think it would have made any difference
at all? A. No, I do not.
Q. What was the purpose in keeping the ordinance in
its present form? A. As I said a while ago, in order to,
D eposition s o f July 18, 1958
Testimony of George H. Ro'ach
156a
it would have entailed industrial zoning, and I would not
have consented to that in the middle of a residential sec
tion.
Q. Didn’t the refusal of the Council to change the ordi
nance decrease the number of bidders, or possible bidders'?
A. Not in my opinion.
Q. Was that opinion expressed by several members of
the Council? A. By seven members?
Q. By several, that failure to change the ordinance would
cut down on the number of bidders ? A. I believe my recol-
—194—
lection is that two members so stated.
Q. You did not agree with that? A. I did not agree.
Q. Why didn’t you agree? A. It was my opinion that
it is not a money-making proposition. The receipts and
disbursements for the first three years’ operation clearly
indicated that it could not be made a profit-making venture.
Q. But there were people who had different opinions and
one person willing to gamble $75,000 on his opinion? A. I
do not know his motive at all.
Q. Didn’t he express his intention or motive? A. Not to
me.
Q. Did you read in the paper any account of it? A. I
don’t recall.
Q. Did you think he was going to operate it as a non
profit venture? A. He would have to operate it in ac
cordance with the existing zoning ordinances.
Q. It is not being operated now in accordance with the
existing zoning ordinances? A. In my opinion it is.
Q. Upon what do you base that? A. Non-profit.
—195—
Q. You are of the opinion that the Greensboro Pool Cor
poration is a non-profit corporation? A. Yes.
# -&E- -M, -JJ- .SI,I f W » W
D eposition s o f J u ly 18, 1958
Testimony of George E. Roach
D eposition s o f J uly 18, 1958
Testimony of George H. Roach
—196—
By Mr. Lee:
Q. Mr. Roach, in spite of the fact that the officers of
the Corporation testified that it was a profit corporation,
and yon have read their sworn testimony, is that correct!
A. That it was a profit corporation!
Q. Yes. A. Not thoroughly.
Q. Now—
Mr. Elam: Do you want to explain that answer!
You have the right to explain any of your answers.
The Witness-: That it was incorporated as a profit
corporation!
By Mr. L ee:
Q. Let me put it this way. Maybe I can get it a little
better. You say you have read the record of the former
depositions which were taken here in Greensboro. I believe
that that record shows that the officers testified that the
Greensboro Swim Corporation was a profit corporation,
—1 9 7 -
incorporated as a profit corporation, is that your under
standing! A. Yes.
Q. What I wanted to know is, you say you were of the
opinion that it was a non-profit corporation! A. Not actu
ally.
Q. I say that you have that opinion, in spite of the
testimony of the officers of the corporation that it was
a profit corporation! A. Yes.
158a
D eposition s o f J uly 18, 1958
Testimony of George H. Roach,
—199—
# # # # #
By Mr. Lee:
Q. Mr. Mayor, the bid for the Nocho Pool was rejected,
I believe you said? A. That’s right.
Q. Did you vote to reject it? A. Yes.
Q. What disposition will be made of the Nocho Pool?
A. It has not been decided.
Q. What use at present is being made of it? A. As far
as I know, it is standing.
Q. Is any use of it being made? A. I presume that use
is being made of the grounds around it. There is no use
being made of the pool, the pool itself, as far as I know.
Q. Why was the bid on the Nocho Pool rejected? A. As
being inadequate. Which one are you talking about?
Q. Both. A. Both bids? Are you talking about both bids?
Q. I will ask you about both. Both of them were re
jected because they were inadequate? A. In my opinion.
—200—
Mr. Elam: Would you like to see this?
The Witness: The Farrington bid was rejected
because he did not put up a good-faith deposit. He
did not consummate his bid.
By Mr. Lee:
Q. His bid was not rejected because of inadequacy? A.
That is correct. I am sorry.
Q. Do you know whether or not any plans have been made
as to what disposition will be made of Nocho Pool? A. No.
Q. That has not been brought up before the Council? A.
Not to my knowledge.
Q. How long has it been since the rejection of the Nocho
bid? Let me ask you this. Was the rejection at the same
159a
time the Lindley Park bid was confirmed? A. We had no
bid on it.
Q. I thought you said there was. A. A bid was placed
on it, but it was never consummated.
Q. Didn’t the Council reject it at the same time the
Lindley bid was confirmed? A. That’s right.
Q. Does the Council and you as Mayor have any real in
terest in the closing, any real concern about the disposition
—201—
of the Nocho Park Pool? A. The Council has taken no
action toward it.
Q. Have you as Mayor taken any action at all ? A. Would
you like my opinion?
Q. Well, I would like, if you would, for you to tell me
if you have taken any action. A. We have not taken any
action.
* # # # #
—222—
# = # # #
By Mr. Lee:
Q. Mr. Mayor, I show you a copy of the letter dated
March 31, 1958, and ask you if that is a copy of the letter
sent by you to Dr. Taliaferro? A. It is.
# * # #
Q. Now, do you have a copy of the letter that was sent
to you by Dr. Taliaferro? A. No, I do not.
Q. Do you have the original letter sent to you by Dr.
Taliaferro? A. I do not.
Q. Do you know where it is or what happened to it? A.
No.
Q. Do you remember exactly what was in that letter?
—223—
A. He asked for an extension of time, because so many
D epositions o f July 1 8 ,19 5 8
Testimony of George H. Roach
160a
people were out of town. That was all that was in the
letter.
Q. Becanse so many people were out of town? A. So
many of his prospects, in raising his money.
Q. That was all that was in the letter? A. Yes.
Q. Do you keep a file at City Hall of records that relate
to the office of Mayor— A. The City Clerk keeps those
records.
Q. Was his letter turned over to the City Clerk? A. I
don’t remember.
Q. The original letter to Dr. Taliaferro? A. I don’t re
member.
D eposition s o f J uly 18, 1958
Testimony of George H. Roach
Mr. Elam: Which letter are you talking about?
Mr. Lee: The letter from Dr. Taliaferro to the
Mayor.
The Witness: May I see that?
I handed that letter back to Dr. Taliaferro.
By Mr. L ee :
Q. You handed it back to Dr. Taliaferro? A. I asked
him to write a memorandum. It was a memorandum as to
his reasons for wanting to postpone the sale, and I handed
it back to him.
Q. What was the purpose in handing it back to him? A.
It was for his personal information.
Q. You say that is the only thing that that letter con-
—224—
tained, a request to postpone the sale because so many
people were out of town? A. That is correct. He had not
had sufficient time to raise money to bid on the pool.
161a
Q. In your letter to him, you state in paragraph one,
“ The end result can be accomplished without delaying
the proposed sale.”
What did you mean by that! A. I have often wondered
myself what I meant. It was that I wanted everybody
to have an opportunity to bid on the pool.
Q. And what did you mean by “ the end result would be
accomplished without delaying the proposed sale!” A.
That result, that I wanted everybody to have an oppor
tunity to bid.
Q. And the only thing he wanted in his letter was to
wait until some of these people got back in town! A. He
said he didn’t have a sufficient amount of subscriptions
to start, as I recall it, to make a bid.
Q. What did you mean by “ the end result would be ac
complished without delaying the sale!” A. I don’t know.
The language is rather ambiguous. I wanted everybody
to have an opportunity to bid on the pool.
Q. This letter that you received from Hr. Taliaferro,
was sent to you through the mail! A. No, it was not. They
—225—
sent it by the office.
Q. Who sent it by ! A. I don’t know. It was delivered
to the City Clerk. I don’t know who delivered it. It was
delivered to my office, and the City Clerk accepted it.
Q. It was delivered to your office and the City Clerk
accepted it! A. Or the secretary, I am not sure which.
Q. And after that you say you gave it back! A. I
handed it back to him.
Q. Is that the normal procedure of your office? A. It
could be.
D eposition s o f July 18, 1958
Testimony of George H. Roach
162a
Q. Is that the normal procedure of your office? A. No,
I would not say it was normal.
Q. Do you know why this was handled differently from
the normal procedure of the office? A. I don’t recall.
Q. You read Dr. Taliaferro’s testimony in his deposi
tion? A. Yes.
Q. Did you read what he said in reference to the letter?
A. Yes, I read it.
Q. As you recall it, what did he say about the letter?
A. He said he didn’t have a copy of it, as I remember.
Q. Did he make mention of the fact of having received
—226—
it back? A. I don’t recall.
Q. From you or anybody? A. I don’t recall.
Q. He said he didn’t know where it was and didn’t know
where a copy was, as I recall. A. I recall that he said he
didn’t have a copy of it.
Q. He said he didn’t even know what the original was.
A. I don’t remember that.
Q. I am going to read from the record, around page 58,
the testimony of Dr. Taliaferro, starting with page 57.
The first question from the bottom is :
“ Q. Have you had any correspondence with Mayor
Roach about this pool? A. I wrote to Mayor Roach
once, asking him about the possibility of deferral of
the date of the sale. Again, as I say, I have stayed
away; and the question of the time of the sale came
up, and I wrote, was there any possibility of the change
of date of sale.
“ Q. The first or second sale? A. The first sale.
“ Q. What was his reply? A. No.
D eposition s o f J uly 18, 1958
Testimony of George H. Roach
163a
“ Q. He couldn’t change the date! A, That’s right.
“ Q. Why did you want the date changed! A. Again
—227—
we were trying to raise money, and as far as we knew
we were the only ones bidding.
“ Q. Do you have a copy of that letter! A. No, I
do not.
“ Q. Weren’t you asked to bring all of the papers
relating to this? A. Eight, and I went through, and I
did not have a copy of it. I do not have it in the office.”
Now, there was no mention of your having given the
letter back to Dr. Taliaferro in the record. A. I see none.
Q. He stated he did not have the original and he did not
have a copy. A. That’s right,
Q. You say in the second paragraph here, “ the end re
sult can be accomplished without delaying the proposed
sale.” What did you really mean? A. All I meant was
that I wanted everybody to have an opportunity to bid.
Q. Before you wrote to Dr. Taliaferro, you had a tele
phone conversation with him, is that correct? A. No, I
did not; before I wrote him?
Q. Yes. A. I called him and told him the Council had
said no.
Q. And did Dr. Taliaferro at that time ask you to return
—228—
his letter to him? A. No, he did not.
Q. In your letter to him, you say, “ As stated to you on
the telephone Friday night, I am enclosing the letter which
you wrote concerning the swimming pool”— A. I believe
I told him I was sending it back to him.
Q. Why was the letter sent back to him? A. Because I
D eposition s o f July 18, 1958
Testimony of George H. Roach
164a
asked him for information as to why he wanted the post
ponement, and I discussed it with the Council and handed
it back to him.
Q. Was it necessary to return the letter for that pur
pose? A. Not necessarily, no.
Q. Then why was the letter returned to him? You
stated that is not normal procedure in the office. A. I
don’t recall.
Q. That letter now is not available from any source?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Have you talked to Dr. Taliaferro about it? A.
Yes.
Q. What did he say to you? A. He said he didn’t have
it.
Q. Does he admit you sent it back to him? A. I be
lieve he does, yes.
Mr. Lee: I believe that is all.
# # =& #
D epositions o f July 1 8 ,19 5 8
Testimony of George H. Roach
165a
Testimony of Dr. R. M. Taliferria and
C. O. Weaver
—5—
I n th e
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
F oe th e M iddle D isteict of N obth Carolina
G reensboro D ivision
[ same title ]
This cause coming on to be heard and being heard be
fore the Honorable Edwin M. Stanley, United States Judge
for the Middle District of North Carolina, in the court
room of the federal building at Greensboro, North Caro
lina on Thursday, February 26, 1959, the following pro
ceedings were had:
A p p e a r a n c e s :
For Plaintiffs:
M rs. C onstance B aker M otley , Esquire
J. K e n n e t h L ee, Esquire
C. 0. P earson, Esquire
For Defendants City of Greensboro, et al. :
H. F. E l a m , III, City Atty.
J o h n F. Y eattes, Jr., Asst. City Atty.
For Defendants Greensboro Pool Corporation, et al.:
W. IT. H olderness, Esquire
* * # # #
166a
February %6, 1959
Stipulations
—30—
Mrs. Motley: Now, Your Honor, those are all
of the plaintiffs’ exhibits which we are offering.
Now, in addition, Your Honor, there are two other
matters which we have stipulated. The first one is
Dr. Richard M. Taliferria, who is the president of
the Greensboro Pool Corporation, a defendant in this
case, is a member of the Parks and Recreation Com
mission of the City of Greensboro and has been a
member of that Commission continuously since
September 16, 1957 until the present.
The Court: September the 16th, ’57?
Mrs. Motley: That’s right.
The Court: All right,
Mrs. Motley: Now the next stipulation is that
Mr. A. K. Moore, Jr. is a member of the Parks and
Recreation Commission of the City of Greensboro
and is also listed as a stockholder in the Greensboro
Pool Corporation.
The Court: All right.
Mrs. Motley: Now the final stipulation that we
have is that Mrs. Charles T. Hagan, Sr., is a member
of the Parks and Recreation Commission of the City
of Greensboro and her son, Charles T. Hagan, Jr., is
listed as a stockholder of the Greensboro Pool Cor
poration. I believe that’s all, Your Honor.
167a
Testim ony F ebruary 26, 1959
Dr. R. M. Taliferria—for Deft. Greensboro Pool
—Cross
—31—
# # % * #
Dr. R. M . T aliferria , Witness for the defendant, the
Greensboro Pool Corporation, being first duly sworn,
testified.
# # % # #
—49—
# # # # *
Cross Examination by Mrs. Motley:
Q. Dr. Taliferria, I understood you to say that the City
had not agreed to pay any of the cost and expenses of this
litigation, is that correct? A. That is correct.
Q. As a matter of fact, the Greensboro Pool Corpora-
—50—
tion hasn’t paid any cost and expenses of this litiga
tion, has it? A. Not as to date, no.
Q. Now, who paid for the copy of the transcript of the
depositions in this case ? A. I don’t know. I have no idea.
Q, But your lawyer has a copy of them, hasn’t he ? A. I
assume that he does, yes.
Q. Does your corporation have any money on hand at
the present time with which to pay legal expenses? A.
We have some money on hand. I don’t know how much the
legal expenses would be so I can’t answer that question.
Q. How much money do you have on hand in cash? A.
In cash we have approximately $300.00, $315.00, something
of that sort.
Q. Is that included on the financial statement that we
have offered in evidence? A. No. That includes some
checks that have come in since then. We have had a bank
statement since that time as deposits to be made.
168a
Q. Did I understand you to say that you ran in local
newspapers an advertisement pointing out the fact that
this corporation would operate as a non-profit corporation
and would operate the pool on a segregated basis, that is,
for white citizens only—was that your testimony? A. I
believe that’s correct. You have copies of those particular
—5 1 -
ads and so on that were in the paper.
Q. Now what paper was that in? A. That was the
Greensboro Daily News and The Record.
Q. Did the corporation pay for those ads? A. Now,
when you speak of ads, we ran ope ad to be paid for,
yes, that was the original thing that was sent out to see
who was interested in establishing any group that might
try to purchase the pool. That was the only ad as you
call by the term “ ad” . After that, there were several
articles that were written for which there was no charge,
that’s purely publicity in the sense of reporting, reporters
coming to us and asking us what are you doing.
Q. Now that one ad that you referred to a moment ago,
in what local newspapers did that appear? A. That, as
well as I remember, was The Record, I believe, I am not
certain on that.
Q. And what was the approximate date? A. That I
could not tell you. I would have to guess at that. You
have got probably in your papers or I can show you a copy
of it, I have a thermofax copy of that particular ad, yes.
Q. Do you have a copy of it? A. Yes.
Q. Now, in that—I ’m sorry, strike that—has the cor
poration had any meetings since the organizational meet-
—52—
ing of March 4, 1958, about which you testified on your
deposition on June 27, 1958? A. No, it has not.
Testim ony F ebruary $6, 1959
Dr. R. M. Taliferria—for Deft. Greensboro Pool
—Gross
169a
Q. So who is making the policies of the corporation
since there have been no meetings! A. Mr. Weaver and
myself largely who are two of the three directors.
Q. The corporation hasn’t adopted any policies or any
thing since they have not had any meetings! A. No, that’s
correct. We have made the policies.
Q. Now yon were appointed to the Parks and Recrea
tion Commission September the 16th, 1957 by the City
Council, weren’t you! A. I assume that’s the proper—
Mr. Elam: (interrupting) I object to that on the
grounds of irrelevancy as to the City, Your Honor.
The Court: Objection overruled.
The Witness: I assume that is the proper date.
By Mrs. Motley:
Q. But you were appointed by the City Council, weren’t
you! A. Yes, I had been appointed by the City Council.
Q. Now I believe you stated that the corporation paid
the real property tax on the pool? A. That’s correct.
— 53—
Q. What valuation was placed on the pool for tax pur
poses? A. I think that would have to be referred to in
the notes. I couldn’t give you that. That’s in the financial
statement I think, certainly the amount that we paid both
to the City and the County is there, so you can figure it out
from that. I can’t give you the exact amount.
Q. But the amount which appears in the financial state
ment represents the full payment of the taxes due? A.
That is correct, yes. Full payment to the City and County
for 1958.
Testim ony F ebruary 86, 1959
Dr. R. M. Taliferria—for Deft. Greensboro Pool
—Cross
170a
Testim ony F ebru ary 26, 1959
Dr. B. M. Taliferria—for Deft. Greensboro Pool
■—Cross
By the Court:
Q. Did you pay a full year’s taxes or a part of a year!
I don’t know how this is handled. A. Your Honor, all I
got was the bill and we paid it. What it goes from, from
when to when, I cannot answer.
Mr. Holderness: If Your Honor please, I believe
our records will reveal that the Greensboro Pool
Corporation was required to pay the full year, the
full 1958 taxes.
The Witness: I know the deed said that we were
required to pay the taxes, but I did not know when
it was from.
Mr. Holderness: If there is any question about it,
we can get that, I am sure.
— 54—
By Mrs. Motley:
Q. In addition to the one newspaper ad which you re
ferred to which appeared in the Record, did you have any
advertisement on the radio or the television regarding your
corporation? A. No.
Q. Was there any reporting on the local radio or the
television— A. (interrupting) That I do not know.
Q. You don’t know about that? A. That I do not know,
whether it was a matter of news, I do not know.
Q. But you do know that the local newspapers ran many
articles describing that your corporation would operate as
a non-profit organization and would operate the pool as a
segregated pool? A. Certainly as segregated but as to your
making a point of non-profit, I don’t know what—
171a
Q. (interrupting) As to both, non-profit and for use
of whites only. A. I haven’t read any of those articles,
that’s been back a year or so ago. I would have to refresh
my memory as to whether it said non-profit. That’s in there,
we can read those and see.
Q. You keep saying some papers are in the record, you
— 55—
don’t mean in this Record? A. I have them in mine. We
had them for you-all Monday to go through everything.
We had them in Mr. Holderness’s office. Copies of all of
that was available.
Q. I see. Now, you testified that there was no agree
ment to your knowledge between you or any other officer of
the corporation and the City of Greensboro regarding any
aspect of the operation of this pool, is that correct? A.
That is correct.
Q. Now there may be agreements that you don’t know
anything about, isn’t that right? A. No, I don’t think so.
I don’t think there would be agreements, not with three
Board of Directors and men who have worked on it. I don’t
think the other two would have a secret from me, no.
Q. Well, if it were a secret, you wouldn’t know about it?
A. No. It would be secret, I wouldn’t know about it if it
would be secret.
Q. Now, with regard to the non-profit operation of the
pool by your corporation, you recall that the City of Greens
boro just prior to the sale of the pool to your corporation
refused to change an ordinance regarding non-profit opera
tion of the facilities, do you recall that? A. Yes.
Q. Did you know that on November 3, 1958, the City
Testim ony F ebruary 86, 1959
Dr. R. M. Taliferria—for Deft. Greensboro Pool
—Cross
172a
Testim ony F ebru ary 26, 1959
Dr. R. M. Taliferria—for Deft. Greensboro Pool
—Cross
—5 6 -
Council of the City of Greensboro changed or amended an
ordinance which affects your corporation and its operation
out there? A. No. That’s not to my knowledge. I did not.
Mrs. Motley: We would like to get from Dr. Tali
ferria the copy of the ad from the newspaper he
called the Record which he referred to in his testi
mony.
The Witness: Do I step over and get it for them
from my briefcase or do I wait on that?
The Court: Yes, go ahead.
(Witness hands paperwritings to Mrs. Motley.)
Mrs. Motley: We would like to have this marked
for identification.
The Court: That is a copy of this ad here?
Mrs. Motley: Yes, sir.
The Court: All right. Let it be marked for iden
tification as Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 19. Do you want
to offer that, I know it is not your time to offer evi
dence.
Mrs. Motley: Yes, sir.
The Court: There is no objection, gentlemen?
— 57—
Mr. Elam: None by the City.
The Court: Well, let it be received in evidence
for fear we forget it. Let it be received in evidence
at the proper time as Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 19.
All right, you may go ahead.
173a
Testim ony F ebruary $6, 1959
Dr. B. M. Taliferria—for Deft. Greenboro Pool
—Redirect—Recross
By Mrs. Motley.
Q. Dr. Taliferria, I want to ask you a question about
this ad—now this advertisement doesn’t say anything about
your corporation operating as a non-profit corporation,
does it? A. (examining paperwriting) No.
Q. So that your testimony to the effect that you adver
tised “ non-profit” is not correct? A. I am sorry if I may
say so, you are incorrect, I said I would have to review
and that it was not said in there “ non-profit” , that we would
get this out and review it because I didn’t remember that
it said it was non-profit.
Mrs. Motley: Thank you. I believe that’s all.
Mr. Elam: No questions.
Redirect Examination by Mr. Holderness:
Q. Dr. Taliferria, this ad that was in the paper was run
by whom? A. Actually this was run by the Greensboro
—5 8 -
Swimmers Association and not the Greensboro Pool Cor
poration.
Q. Had the Greensboro Pool Corporation been organized
at the time this ad was run? A. It had not. It was merely
an idea as seen here.
Recross Examination by Mrs. Motley:
Q. Let me ask you this, Dr. Taliferria. The Greensboro
Swimmers Association, was that the organization that
started the Greensboro Pool Corporation? A. No, defi
nitely not. There are members, if I may elucidate, many of
174a
your members and stockholders are parents, and so on,
who are members of the Grensboro Swimmers Association.
That is an entirely different organization. This particular
swimming association was established in 19o5 in September
in order to promote a swimming program in the City of
Greensboro, and I might add that that’s how I happened
to be appointed, I am quite sure, to the Eecreation Commis
sion because of my interest in this over-all program.
Q. But the money which was solicited by this ad was
turned over to the Greensboro Pool Corporation, wasn’t it!
A. The money that was solicited was no money. There was
no money transactions. If you will notice there, you will
note it says, “ I am willing to make an investment of” and
that’s all. We merely took this little clipping that came
back and we had a meeting with those people that sent back
— 59—
and out of that we had the idea and went on as you see the
organization meeting of March 4, I believe was the correct
date, of 1958.
Q. So that whatever information you got from that ad,
you turned it over to the corporation, is that right! A.
Right, yes.
Q. The Greensboro Pool Corporation! A. Yes, right.
* # # * #
Testim ony F ebruary 26, 1959
Dr. B. M. Taliferria—for Deft. Greenboro Pool
—Recross
175a
C. 0. W eaver, Witness for defendant, Greensboro Pool
Corporation, being first duly sworn, testified.
# # * #
—72—
# * * # #
Cross Examination by Mrs. Motley:
Q. Mr. Weaver, you are a member of the Swimmers
Association, aren’t you? A. That’s right.
—73—
Q. And you are secretary and treasurer of this corpora
tion? A. The Pool Corporation, yes.
Q. The Pool Corporation, that’s right. A. Yes.
Q. Has the Pool Corporation had any meetings since
March 4, 1958, about which you testified on your deposition
on June 27, 1958? A. We have not.
Q. So that actually you haven’t been functioning as a
secretary, you have had no minutes to keep or anything of
that nature? A. Had no minutes, we have not had a meet
ing so there have been no minutes kept.
Q. Now what about the money, you are the treasurer,
are you not? A. That’s right.
Q. Now who has been handling the money, you or Hr.
Taliferria? A. Dr. Taliferria handles most of it.
Q. Dr. Taliferria co-signs all of the checks for the ex
penses of the operation of the pool, doesn’t he? A. That’s
correct.
Q. Did you know that E. L. Costello and Company pre
pared a financial statement of your corporation as of De-
—74—
Testim ony F ebruary 26, 1959
C. 0. Weaver—for Deft. Greensboro Pool—Cross
cember 31, 1958? A. I did.
176a
Q. Did you hire Mr. Costello’s company to make that
financial statement! A. He was hired, yes.
Q. Did you hire him! A. I did not personally hire him.
Q. Who hired him! A. Dr. Taliferria called him. He
has been handling things in the Swimmers Association for
us. He is a member of that and naturally we called on him
to come and do this work here.
Q. But as treasurer, you didn’t have anything to do with
that financial statement! A. What do you mean “ to do with
it” !
Q. You didn’t help prepare it! A. That’s right.
Q. Or you didn’t hire the accountant! A. I did not hire
the accountant, no.
Q. Dr. Taliferria did all of that? A. That’s right.
Q. Now, I believe that you testified a moment ago that
you had no dealings with the City with respect to the swim
ming pool or the swimming pool corporation other than
signing the Deed of Trust—is that right? A. And the note
and what went with that transaction.
—75—
Q. What was that? A. I said whatever went with the
transaction of preparing the note and Deed of Trust, I
think there were two signatures to it.
Q. And other than that, you have had no dealings with
the City? A. Pertaining to the Pool Corporation, that’s
correct.
Q. So that if there were any agreements between Dr.
Taliferria or Mr. Coble or anyone else regarding the Pool
Corporation and how it was to be operated and so forth,
you wouldn’t know about it, not having had any dealings
with the City, would you? A. I think I would know.
Q. How would you know? A. Well, there’s only three
Testim ony F ebru ary 26, 1959
C. 0. Weaver—for Deft. Greensboro Pool—Gross
177a
of us and I just do not think it would be possible, certainly
not practical that there would be any agreement that we
would know of between the others.
Q. But you haven’t had any meetings of the corporation
to discuss anything, have you? A. Not since March, we
haven’t.
Q. So that if anything went on between the corporation
and the City, you wouldn’t necessarily know about it since
you haven’t had any meetings to discuss anything, have
you? A. Well, I would know it as an individual if I
—76—
wouldn’t know it as an officer of the corporation because I
see both of them quite frequently. We have talked over
swimming and other things and I am certain that I would
know about it.
Q. Now, you haven’t had any meetings at which any
policies regarding operations of the pool were established,
have you? A. No.
Q. Since the March meeting? A. That’s right.
Q. You haven’t had any meetings to determine how the
pool should be operated or anything like that, have you?
A. No, not any official meetings. Of course, we have met,
as I say, from time to time as individuals.
Q. How many meetings have you had with Dr. Taliferria?
A. You mean how many times have I seen the man and
spoke to him?
Q. No, how many times have you met with Dr. Taliferria
regarding the swimming pool? A. Well, I don’t know that
I have had any specific meetings regarding the swimming
pool, but I see Dr. Taliferria quite frequently and we most
of the time talk swimming and also about the swimming
pool.
Testim ony F ebruary 26, 1959
C. 0. Weaver—for Deft. Greensboro Pool—Cross
178a
Q. Now, at the March 4, 1958, meeting, which was the
first and only meeting of your corporation, I believe yon
testified on your deposition in June that Dr. Taliferria was
authorized at that time to bid $85,000.00 for the pool—is
—77—
that right? A. I think that’s right.
Q. $85,000.00 was the bid accepted by the City, wasn’t it?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And you testified, I believe, that this property has
been valued at $85,000.00 for tax purposes—is that correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Mr. Weaver, have you had any dealings with the City
which do not relate to the Pool Corporation, any other
business dealings with the City? A. Well, I pay them
taxes, water rent and such things, but as far as routine
matters, I have received permits, building permits, and I
have had discussion with some parts of the City about
water and sewer and things of that nature.
Q. Water and sewer in connection with what? A. Well,
in connection with building, construction, yes, houses.
Q. Are you in the construction business? A. I build a
few houses, yes.
Q. Have you ever sold any property for the City? A.
No, I don’t think so.
Q. Have you ever bought any property from the City?
A. I think I have in the past. It has been quite a while ago,
some lots probably.
—78—
Q. Have you ever purchased any property for the City?
A. No.
Q. As treasurer of this corporation, exactly what funds
have you actually handled? A. Well, mostly in the raising
Testim ony F ebruary $6, 1959
C. 0. Weaver—for Deft. Greensboro Pool—Cross
179a
of funds, cheeks and cash to be deposited, that’s about what
I have handled.
Q. Who actually makes the deposits, do you make them
or does Dr. Taliferria make the deposits? A . Well, the
deposits, as far as the pool operation, are usually made
by the pool manager.
Q. No, I am speaking of the subscriptions. A. Well,
that was carried out quite a while ago and Dr. Taliferria
made those deposits.
Q. When was the last time that you have got in any
subscriptions, your corporation? A. I don’t know when
was the last one, I don’t know when the last check come in.
We get some of them constantly on payments. Those go to
Dr. Taliferria’s address, that’s the address that we estab
lished for them to be mailed to.
Q. Did you hear Dr. Taliferria’s testimony regarding the
ad in the Eecord, the local newspaper? A. I did.
Q. Are you familiar with that ad? A. I was at the time,
I had forgotten what was in it as far as word for word.
—79—
Q. Now, on that ad, you are listed as president of the
Swimming Pool Association, aren’t you? A. That’s cor
rect.
Q. Did you receive any response to that ad as president
of the Swimming Association? A. We did.
Mr. Holderness: May I correct that. It was the
Greensboro Swimmers Association.
Mrs. Motley: I ’m sorry. That’s right.
Q. You are listed there as president of the Greensboro
Swimming Association? A. That’s correct, I was reading
it on the page.
Testim ony F ebruary 26, 1959
C. 0. Weaver—for Deft. Greensboro Pool—Gross
180a
Q. Now that is a separate organization from the Greens
boro Pool Corporation? A. It’s separate.
— 80—
T estim ony F ebru ary 26, 1959
C. 0. Weaver—for Deft. Greensboro Pool-C ross
By Mrs. Motley:
Q. I believe the last question I asked you related to the
response to that advertisement, did you receive any re
sponse to that advertisement? A. We did.
Q. What kind of response did you receive, letters, or
checks, or what? A. Well, this was, in this ad, if you will
notice, there is a little blocked off space that is to be mailed
back. Several of those were mailed back. That is what we
were after.
Q. Now, what did you do with those blanks that were
mailed back to you? A. We took into account how many
we had and what we thought the interest would be and
then as a result of that, the Greensboro Pool Corporation
was formed.
Q. Now does that ad say anything about the operation
of the pool on a non-profit basis? A. It says nothing
about the operation of the pool on any basis.
Q. Did you read any of the newspaper articles in the
local press regarding the Greensboro Pool Corporation
—81—
and how it would operate the pool? A. I ’m sure I did. I
don’t remember them as far as what they said. I can’t
remember them.
.y. .v.•W1 w T? TP
181a
F ebru ary 26, 1969
Colloquy
Mr. Holderness: If Your Honor please, in view
—110—
of the time element in this ease, which we all recog
nize is necessary, there is one matter I would like
to present to the Court for either one or two pos
sible solutions. I don’t know whether the Court
would want to hear it now or fix some other time
for hearing it. The pool corporation has indicated
by the evidence on deposition that it raised the money
to make its original down payment on this pool by
subscription. The testimony of all the parties is
that they did not intend to operate this pool where
there would be any income from the pool sufficient
to make further payments and that they intended to
raise ahead of time the money necessary to meet
those payments when they came due. Under the
terms of the note and Deed of Trust there will be
a payment of approximately $17,500.00 due accord
ing to the terms of that Deed of Trust on July 1,
1959. In view of the fact that we have been made
parties to this suit we haven’t discussed this with the
City at all, nor with anybody, but in view of the
fact that we have been made parties to this suit
since the original note and Deed of Trust was given,
we feel that since we will undoubtedly be prejudiced
in our efforts to raise money while this suit is pend
ing that some time, what amount and what other
date can be agreed upon, we would like for the Court
to hear us on the question of whether or not we are
entitled under these circumstances to have the Court
—109—
182a
direct that any further payment to the City shall be
- I l l -
extended until this matter is disposed of.
The Court: Well, I don’t know what power I ’ve
got to direct that.
Mr. Holderness: Well, we are all parties in this
suit which has attacked the sale, the sale which they
made to us has been questioned.
Mr. Lee: If the Court pleases, the status of this
thing is exactly the same as the day the pool was
bought. They were parties for that purpose the
day it was bought. That case was filed in the State
court long before the Greensboro Pool Corporation
entered into it and when they bought it they bought
it with full knowledge of this pending suit.
The Court: Well, I assume—this is the first time
I have heard anything about it—but I assume that
what Mr. Holderness is saying but maybe he didn’t
want to say it in this way, that maybe the City
wouldn’t insist on it except for the fact that they
would be hesitant to extend any time with this litiga
tion pending.
Mr. Holderness: Well, Your Honor, that’s the
reason we wanted to—
The Court: (interrupting) And that they would
be hesitant to go to them, and that they would be
—112—
hesitant to do anything if they felt like they were
justified in doing anything. Now, I don’t know that
I could order the suspension of those payments, but
the evidence discloses and if the City saw fit—I
F ebruary %6, 1959
Colloquy
183a
don’t see how you could do anything now that would
affect something that was done last year.
Mr. Holderness: Well, that was the second point
that I was going to make, if the Court cannot order
it—we don’t want to approach the City to ask for
anything. There has been no request, we don’t want
to ask for anything that is going to prejudice our
position in this case or that’s going to look like
we are going back to them and wTe don’t know that
we’ve got to but if it can’t be ordered in the thing
and there’s any way that we can do it without preju
dice to our position in this case now we would like
to know it, that we could go to the City and under
the circumstances arrange for an extension of time
until this matter is disposed of. As I say we haven’t
discussed this with the City at all.
The Court: Well, let’s ask the plaintiffs what
would be, if the City felt so disposed to extend the
payments for ninety or until after this matter is
settled. Would the plaintiffs be disposed to try and
show that that wTas some evidence of collusion?
Mrs. Motley: Well, I think, Your Honor that the
whole contention of the City has been that this cor-
— 113—
poration purchased this pool in good faith. One of
the allegations in the Complaint was that this is
just a paper corporation and that they had no money
with which to purchase this pool and that they were
relying on just such a situation that the City would
extend the time of the payments and make other con
cessions to make it possible for them to secure the
pool and that’s exactly what’s happening, that’s an
allegation of the Complaint.
F ebruary 26, 1959
Colloquy
184a
Mr. Holderness: Let me make it plain that that is
not happening because we haven’t asked for any ex
tension and if it is going to have any bearing on this
case we don’t intend to ask for any.
Mrs. Motley: Well, I think that’s the heart of
the case, Your Honor, that this corporation was a
paper corporation and was not in any position to
purchase this pool.
The Court: Well, Mrs. Motley, aren’t you in this
position? Your evidence has either tended to show
that or not. Now down to this time—what I am ask
ing you, I suppose these people could go if they
wanted to they could go to the bank, they say that
due to the uncertain status that people are reluctant,
what I get from him, that people are reluctant to
subscribe to shares of stock due to the uncertain
status of this litigation, that they expected to sell
stock and not depend on revenue and with this litiga-
— 114—
tion until some degree of finality is established it
makes it more difficult for them. Now they are put
in the position of either having to have the City to
extend or else go to the bank and place their per
sonal resources to get the money to meet their
obligation to the City. Now what they are making
inquiry about—I don’t know that I can require the
City to extend anything, certainly without some
amended pleadings here, but they say that they would
certainly be reluctant to approach the City and they
assume the City if they felt disposed would feel
reluctant to grant an extension if there would be an
effort made to re-open the case and say that that is
F ebruary 26, 1959
Colloquy
185a
more evidence, that there was some sort of an un
derstanding. As I say, it seems that your case is
going to have to rise or fall—I have no idea what
is in your depositions because I opened them here
this morning. I don’t know a thing about this litiga
tion. I don’t know what you have established by
your evidence but it would certainly seem to me if
you have established your case why then you pre
vail and then there will probably be an appeal, what
ever happens, I assume there will be an appeal and
this thing might be in litigation for another year
or two years, I don’t know. What they would like
to have is an understanding that the litigation is
from what has happened in the past down to today
rather than in some agreement that the City might
reach with them at some future time. Can we have
such a stipulation?
— 115—
Mrs. Motley: No, Your Honor, I don’t think we
could stipulate to that.
* * # # #
F ebruary 86, 1959
Colloquy