Gray v. University of Tennessee Board of Trustees Brief for Appellants

    UNITED STATES
COURT of APPEALS

F I F T H  C I R C U I T  

No.

SAMUEL BAILEY, ET AL,

APPELLANTS
VERSUS

JOE T. PATTERSON, ET AL,
APPELLEES

Volume I

Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the Southern District of Mississippi, 

Jackson Division

MIMEOGRAPHED RECORD



I N D E X
Samuel Bailey, It A1
Versus
Joe T. Patterson, Et A1
Volume I Page No
Caption
Amended Complaint
Amended Motion For Temporary Injunction
Order Designating Three-Judge Court
Answer of Illinois Central Railroad Company to 

Request For Admission of Facts
Order of Three-Judge Court
Answer of Continental Southern Lines, Inc. to The 

Amended Complaint
Answer of The Greyhound Corp. to The Amended Complaint
Answer of Defendant Illinois Central Railroad
Answer of Defendant, Jackson City Lines, Inc.
Answer of Defendant, Cicero Carr, Jr.
Order
Answer on Behalf of The Defendants, The City of

Jackson,Miss., Allen 0. Thompson,Mayor, D.L.Luckey, 
Commissioner, Thomas B. Marshall,Commissioner, and 
V. D. Rayfleld, Chief of Police, to the Amended 
Complaint

Answer of Defendant Joe T. Patter sen, Attorney General, 
to Amended Complaint

Transcript of Testimony
Testimony of JOSEPH BROADWATER 

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1: Letter
" " 2: Letter
" " 3: Letter
" " 4: Letter
" " 5: Letter
" " 6: Letter
" " 7: Letter
" " 8: Letter

Testimony of BURNETT L. JACOB 
Testimony of SAMUEL BAILEY 
Testimony of EVERETT RENEGAR 
Testimony of P. A. DOBBINS

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 9: Plaintiffs’ Interroga­
tories to The Continental Southern Lines

°r 8^1057!W
of 8/19/57 
of 3/16/57 
of 
of

12
17
2021
23
26

30

48
50
51

54
66

97

9§
98
99 
99

Ilf
156
175
179

Plaintiff’s Exhibits 10 through 20: Answer 179 
to the Interrogatories

Testimony of G. E. PICKLE 190
Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 21,22,23 & 24: Interroga- 195 

tories,Answer, Request for Admission of Facts,
& Answer to Request for Admission of Facts 
served on Illinois Central Railroad Co.



MEMORANDUM FOR CLERK, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI, JACKSON DIVISION

SAMUEL BAXLEI, ET AL, 

VERSUS APPELLANTS

JOE T. PATTERSON, ET AL,

APPELLEES

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS:
R. Jess Brown, llOSlr Washington Street 

Vicksburg, Mississippi 
Constance Baker Motley, 10 Columbus Circle 

New York 19, New York 
Derrick Bell, 10 Columbus Circle

New York 19, New York 
Robert Owens, U. S. Department of Justice 

Washington, D. C.
Harold II. Greene, U. S. Department of Justice 

Washington, D. C.
Howard A. Glickstein, U. S. Department of Justice 

Washington, D. G.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES:
Joe T. Patterson, New Capitol Building 

Jackson, Mississippi
J. Will Young, Deposit Guaranty Bank Building 

Jackson, Mississippi 
Robert G. Nichols, Lamar Life Building 

Jackson, Mississippi 
W. E. Gore, Jr., Lamar Life Building 

Jackson, Mississippi
Robert C. Cannada and Junior 0*Mara, Petroleum 
_ TT r Building, Jackson, MississippiTom H. Watkins, Plaza Building

Jackson, Mississippi 
J. A. Travis, Jr., Electric Building 

Jackson, Mississippi
Rubel L. Phillips, Deposit Guaranty Bank Building 
Tr „ Jackson, Mississippi
bence S. Cerne, 135 East Eleventh Place 

Chicago 5, Illinois



(R-331)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI 
JACKSON DIVISION

SAMUEL BAILEY, JOSEPH BROADWATER and 
BURNETT L. JACOB, on behalf of themselves ) 
and others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs
)V.
)JOE T. PATTERSON, Attorney General of the 

State of Mississippi, Jackson, Mississippi) 
and

THE CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI, a Munici-) 
pal Corporation organized and existing 
under the laws of the State of Mississippi,) 
Serve; Allen C. Thompson, Mayor of the City
of Jackson, )anc|
ALLEN C. THOMPSON, Mayor, of the City of )
Jackson, Mississippi,

and )
DOUGLAS L. LUCKEY, Commissioner of the City 
of Jackson and THOMAS B. MARSHALL, Com- )
missioner of the City of Jackson, Missis­
sippi, )oncl
W. D. RAYFIELD, Chief of Police in the )
City of Jackson, Mississippi,Q J
JACKSON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, a 
public body corporate, Serve: T. A. Turner, 
Secretary and Manager of the Jackson )
Municipal Airport Authority, c/o Jackson 
Municipal Airport, Jackson, Mississippi, )

and
CONTINENTAL SOUTHERN LINES, INC., Serve: )
J. T. Vickers, 201 East Pascagoula Street, 
Jackson, Mississippi, )

and
SOUTHERN GREYHOUND LINES, a division of )
GREYHOUND CORP. Serve; Everett Renegar,
219 No. Lamar Street, Jackson, Mississippi,) 

and

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 3133

(Filed - Jul 17, 
1961 )



3
(R-331)
ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD, INC., Serve: )
H. T. Lewis, or any other agent, at 
Illinois Central Passenger Station, )
500 ¥. Capitol Street, Jackson, Missis­
sippi, )

and
JACKSON c m  LINES, INC. Serve: Alton )
B. Smith, 800 West Monument Street,
Jackson, Mississippi, )

and
CICERO CARR, Serve: Cicero Carr at )
Cicero’s Airport Restaurant, Jackson 
Municipal Airport, Jackson, Mississippi. )

Defendants ) 

_____________)

(R-332)
A M E N D E D  C O M P L A I N T

1. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant 
to provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 1343(3). 
This action is authorized by law, Title 42, United States 
Code, Section 1983. This action is brought to redress the 
deprivation of rights, privileges and immunities secured to 
plaintiffs by the Constitution and laws of the United States 
(due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth 
Amendment and Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, the Commerce 
Clause of the Constitution and Title 49, United States Code, 
Section 3(l) (Railroad and Pipeline Carriers) and Section 
316(d) (Motor Carriers)). Plaintiffs have been deprived of 
these rights, privileges and immunities by the defendants 
while acting under color of state statutes, city ordinances, 
state custom and state usage, as hereinafter more fully



(R-332)
appears.

4

2. The jurisdiction of this Court is also invoked pur­
suant to provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 
2281 and Section 2284. This is an action to enjoin the en­
forcement of certain statutes of the State of Mississippi 
requiring racial segregation on common carriers, and in wait­
ing room and rest room facilities utilized by common carriers, 
and providing criminal penalties for carriers and persons 
refusing to abide by such segregation. The statutes sought
to be enjoined are Title 11, Sections 2351* 2351.5 and 2351-7, 
and Title 28, p.p.7784, 7785, 7786, 7786-01, 7787, 7787.5, 
Mississippi Code Annotated (1942), and any other statute of 
the State of Mississippi requiring or permitting such segre­
gation.

3. This is a proceeding for a preliminary and permanent 
injunction enjoining defendants and each of them, their agents, 
employees, attorneys, successors and all persons in active 
concert and participation with them from:
(R-333)

a) continuing to enforce certain statutes of the 
State of Mississippi requiring racial segregation on common 
carriers, in waiting rooms used by common carriers, and rest 
room facilities maintained by common carriers, i.e., Title 11, 
Sections 2351, 2351.5 and 2351.7, and Title 28, p.p.7784, 7785, 
7786, 7786-01, 7787, 7787.5, Mississippi Code Annotated (1942), 
and any other statute of the State of Mississippi requiring 
or permitting such segregation.



(R-333)
5

b) continuing to enforce ordinances of the City of 
Jackson, Mississippi, requiring racial segregation in waiting 
rooms and rest room facilities owned and/or maintained and/or 
utilized by common carriers.

c) continuing to enforce/a policy, practice, cus­
tom, regulation or usage, under color of state law or city 
ordinance, of segregating Negro and white passengers on common 
carriers and in the facilities and services of the depots, 
stations, terminals, owned and/or operated and/or utilized by 
common carriers in connection with their businesses of trans­
porting interstate and intrastate passengers for hire.

d) continuing to enforce a policy, practice, cus­
tom and usage of segregation in the facilities and services 
of the Jackson Municipal Airport including but not limited 
to the airport restaurant owned and/or operated and/or con­
trolled by the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority or owned 
and leased by the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority to a 
private individual for the benefit of airline passengers and 
the general public.

e) continuing (under color of state law, city 
ordinance, state policy, custom, usage, or regulation) to 
arrest, harass, intimidate, threaten or coerce the plaintiffs, 
and members of their class, in connection with the exercise 
of their federally protected right to use interstate and in­
trastate transportation facilities and services without se­
gregation or discrimination against them solely because of 
race and color.



6
(R-334)

f } continuing to post, or permit to be posted, 
signs designating facilities set aside for colored and white 
passengers on the doors, walls, sidewalks, or other places 
connected with or in the terminals, depots, stations, rest 
rooms, waiting rooms, lunch rooms or any other passenger 
facility or service.

4. This is a class action brought by the plaintiffs on 
behalf of themselves and on behalf of other Negroes similarly 
situated and affected by the statutes, ordinances, policies, 
practices, customs, regulations and usages complained of 
herein. This class action is brought pursuant to provisions 
of Rule 23(a) (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The class is composed of Negro citizens and residents of the 
State of Mississippi and other states who utilize the facili­
ties and services of the defendant carriers located in the 
City of Jackson, and located in other cities of the State of 
Mississippi, and who travel in both intrastate and interstate 
commerce. The members of the class on whose behalf plaintiffs 
sue are too numerous to be brought individually before this 
Court, but there are common questions of law and fact in­
volved, common grievances arising out of common wrongs, and
a common relief is sought for each plaintiff and for each 
member of the class, as hereinafter more fully appears. The 
named plaintiffs fairly and adequately represent the members 
of the class on behalf of which they sue.

5. The plaintiffs are: Samuel Bailey, Joseph Broad­
water, and Burnett L. Jacob. Each plaintiff is an adult



7
(R-324)
Negro citizen of the United States and of the State of 
Mississippi, presently residing in Jackson, Mississippi.
Each plaintiff has utilised the facilities and services de­
signated for use by "colored" passengers of the Illinois 
Central Railroad Terminal, the Trailways bus depot, the Grey­
hound bus depot, and the Jackson Municipal Airport terminal 
(except the restaurant facility where Negroes are not served 
food) located in the City of Jackson.
(R-335)
Each plaintiff has regularly ridden the buses operated by the 
defendant Jackson City Lines in the City of Jackson. Plaintiff 
Bailey has used the facilities and services utilized by de­
fendant Continental Southern Lines, Inc., (Trailways) in the 
City of Meridian, Mississippi. Plaintiff Jacob has utilized 
the facilities and services of the defendant Greyhound Corpo­
ration located in Edwards, Mississippi. Plaintiff Bailey has 
traveled by Greyhound bus from Jackson, Mississippi to St. 
Louis, Missouri, and by Illinois Central Railroad to St.
Louis and Chicago. Plaintiff Broadwater has traveled by 
Illinois Central Railroad to Chicago and Cleveland.

6. The defendants in this case are: Joe T. Patterson, 
Attorney General of the State of Mississippi, the chief law 
enforcement officer of the State; the City of Jackson, a 
municipal corporation, organized and existing under the laws 
of the State of Mississippi; Allen C. Thompson, Mayor of the 
City of Jackson and chief law enforcement officer of the City; 
Douglas L. Luckey, a Commissioner of the City of Jackson;



e

(R-535)
Thomas B. Marshall, a Commissioner of the City of Jackson;
W. D. Rayfield, Chief of Police of the City of Jackson; the 
Jackson Municipal Airport Authority, a public body corporate; 
Cicero Carr, operator of Cicero’s Airport Restaurant, Jackson 
Municipal Airport, Jackson, Mississippi; Continental Southern 
Lines, Inc., also known as Continental Trailways, a Louisiana 
Corporation doing business in Jackson, Mississippi, an inter­
state motor carrier; Southern Greyhound Lines, a division of 
Greyhound Corporation, an Illinois corporation doing business 
in Jackson, Mississippi, an interstate motor carrier; Jackson 
City Lines, Inc., a Mississippi corporation organized and 
existing under the laws of the State of Mississippi, an intra­
state motor carrier doing business in the City of Jackson, 
Mississippi; Illinois Central Railroad Company, Inc., an 
Illinois corporation doing business in the State of Missis­
sippi, an interstate railroad carrier.
(R-336)

7. Plaintiffs allege, on information and belief, that 
Continental Southern Lines, Inc., owns and/or operates the 
Trailways bus depot located at 201 E. Pascagoula Street in 
the City of Jackson, Mississippi, and utilizes this depot 
in connection with its business of transporting interstate 
and intrastate motor passengers for hire.

8. Plaintiffs allege, on information and belief, that 
the Greyhound Corporation owns and/or operates the Greyhound 
bus depot located at 219 No. Lamar Street in the City of 
Jackson, Mississippi, and utilizes said depot in connection



7
(R-334)
Negro citizen of the United States and of the State of 
Mississippi, presently residing in Jackson, Mississippi.
Each plaintiff has utilized the facilities and services de­
signated for use by "colored" passengers of the Illinois 
Central Railroad Terminal, the Trailways bus depot, the Grey­
hound bus depot, and the Jackson Municipal Airport terminal 
(except the restaurant facility where Negroes are not served 
food) located in the City of Jackson.
(R-535)
Each plaintiff has regularly ridden the buses operated by the 
defendant Jackson City Lines in the City of Jackson. Plaintiff 
Bailey has used the facilities and services utilized by de­
fendant Continental Southern Lines, Inc., (Trailways) in the 
City of Meridian, Mississippi. Plaintiff Jacob has utilized 
the facilities and services of the defendant Greyhound Corpo­
ration located in Edwards, Mississippi. Plaintiff Bailey has 
traveled by Greyhound bus from Jackson, Mississippi to St. 
Louis, Missouri, and by Illinois Central Railroad to St.
Louis and Chicago. Plaintiff Broadwater has traveled by 
Illinois Central Railroad to Chicago and Cleveland.

6. The defendants in this case are: Joe T. Patterson, 
Attorney General of the State of Mississippi, the chief law 
enforcement officer of the State; the City of Jackson, a 
municipal corporation, organized and existing under the laws 
of the State of Mississippi; Allen C. Thompson, Mayor of the 
City of Jackson and chief law enforcement officer of the City; 
Douglas L. Luckey, a Commissioner of the City of Jackson;



8
(R-335)
Thomas B. Marshall, a Commissioner of the City of Jackson;
¥. D. Hayfield, Chief of Police of the City of Jackson; the 
Jackson Municipal Airport Authority, a public body corporate; 
Cicero Carr, operator of Cicero’s Airport Restaurant, Jackson 
Municipal Airport, Jackson, Mississippi; Continental Southern 
Lines, Inc., also known as Continental Trailways, a Louisiana 
Corporation doing business in Jackson, Mississippi, an inter­
state motor carrier; Southern Greyhound Lines, a division of 
Greyhound Corporation, an Illinois corporation doing business 
in Jackson, Mississippi, an interstate motor carrier; Jackson 
City Lines, Inc., a Mississippi corporation organized and 
existing under the laws of the State of Mississippi, an intra­
state motor carrier doing business in the City of Jackson, 
Mississippi; Illinois Central Railroad Company, Inc., an 
Illinois corporation doing business in the State of Missis­
sippi, an interstate railroad carrier.
(R-336)

7. Plaintiffs allege, on information and belief, that 
Continental Southern Lines, Inc., owns and/or operates the 
Trailways bus depot located at 201 E. Pascagoula Street in 
the City of Jackson, Mississippi, and utilizes this depot 
in connection with its business of transporting interstate 
and intrastate motor passengers for hire.

8. Plaintiffs allege, on information and belief, that 
the Greyhound Corporation owns and/or operates the Greyhound 
bus depot located at 219 Wo. Lamar Street in the City of 
Jackson, Mississippi, and utilizes said depot in connection



9
(R-336)
with its business of transporting interstate and intrastate 
motor passengers for hire.

9. Plaintiffs allege, on information and belief, that 
defendant Jackson City Lines, Inc., maintains an office at 
800 West Monument Street in the City of Jackson.

10. Plaintiffs allege, on information and belief, that 
the Illinois Central Railraod Company, Inc., owns and/or 
operates the Illinois Central Passenger Station located at 
300 West Capitol street in the City of Jackson, Mississippi, 
and utilizes said station in connection with its business
of transporting interstate and intrastate passengers for 
hire.

11. Plaintiffs allege that the Jackson Municipal Air­
port Terminal is owned and operated by the defendant Jackson 
Municipal Airport Authority, which Authority has direct 
supervision and control over the said airport and its termi­
nal. Plaintiffs allege that the rest rooms and other facili­
ties at said terminal are segregated and that Negroes are 
denied food service in the airport terminal restaurant. 
Plaintiffs allege, on information and belief, that the 
Jackson Municipal Airport Authority has leased to one Cicero 
Carr, an individual, the space in the airport terminal 
allotted for a restaurant facility and that this restaurant 
facility is operated by said individual under said lease for 
the use and benefit of airline passengers and the general
(H-337)public using the airport. Plaintiffs allege that said Cicero



10
(R-337)
Carr refuses to serve food to Negro airline passengers and 
Negro members of the public who use the airport terminal pur­
suant to the statutes, ordinance, policy, custom and usage 
complained of herein.

12. Plaintiffs allege that defendant Joe Patterson, as 
Attorney General of the State of Mississippi, is under a duty 
to enforce Title 11, p.p.2351, 2351.5 and 2351-7 and Title 28, 
p.p.7784, 7785, 7736, 7786-01, 7787 and 7787-5 of the Missis­
sippi Code Annotated (l92!-2), and threatens to enforce such 
laws against plaintiffs and the defendant carriers if said 
laws are violated by the plaintiffs or the defendant carriers. 
Plaintiffs allege that these statutes (requiring separate 
railroad cars, separate partitions on buses, separate rest 
room facilities, separate waiting rooms, and the posting of 
signs designating the separate facilities assigned to the 
Negro race and the separate facilities assigned to the white 
race) are unconstitutional on their face.

13- Plaintiffs allege that each defendant carrier, ex­
cept Illinois Central Railroad Company, is enforcing segrega­
tion of white and Negro passengers transported by it on its 
transportation facility and that each defendant carrier, in­
cluding Illinois Central, is enforcing segregation in the 
depots, stations, or terminals owned and/or operated by each 
carrier and utilized by it, pursuant to the statutes, ordi­
nance, policy, custom and usage complained of herein, in the 
following particulars:

a) defendant Continental Southern Lines, Incorpo-



11
(B-357)
rated and defendant Greyhound Corporation maintain and operate
two separate waiting rooms above and/or on the outside door
to each of which said carriers have placed or allowed to be
placed a sign, one of which reads: "COLORED WAITING ROOM -
INTRASTATE PASSENGERS", and the other reads "WHITE WAITING
ROOM - INTRASTATE PASSENGERS." On the sidewalk in front of
each of the aforementioned separate waiting rooms, there is(R-338)
a sign one of which (R-338) reads: "WAITING ROOM - FOR 
COLORED ONLY, BY ORDER POLICE DEPT.", and the other reads 
"WAITING ROOM - FOR WHITE ONLY, BY ORDER POLICE DEPT.".

b) defendants Continental Southern Lines, Inc., 
and Greyhound Corporation enforce and perpetuate separation 
of the races on their buses through their employees, particu­
larly the bus drivers or operators, who request and/or require 
Negro passengers to sit toward the rear of the bus, and re­
quest and/or require white passengers to sit toward the front 
of the bus.

c) defendant Jackson City Lines, Inc., enforce and 
perpetuate a policy of separation of the races in their buses:

(1) by the posting of signs in each bus di­
recting that Negro passengers seat from 
the rear, and that white passengers seat 
from the front.

(2) through their employees, particularly the 
bus drivers or operators, who require 
Negro passengers to comply with the signs 
requiring separation of the passengers by



12
(R-338)

race.
(5 ) through their employees, particularly the 

bus drivers or operators who follow a 
procedure, policy or practice of halting 
the bus if a passenger refuses to comply 
with the segregation policy and obtaining 
the assistance of a city police officer to 
assist in obtaining such compliance.

d) defendant Illinois Central Railroad Company, 
Inc., maintains and operates two separate waiting rooms on 
the sidewalk in front of each of which is a sign, one of 
which reads; "WAITING ROOM - FOR COLORED ONLY, BY ORDER 
POLICE DEPT.", and the other reads: "WAITING ROOM - FOR 
WHITE ONLY, BY ORDER POLICE DEPT." Similar signs are placed 
in the railroad terminal at the bottom of the stairs leading 
from the trains.
(R-339) e) defendants Continental Southern Lines, Inc., 
Greyhound Corporation and Illinois Central Railroad Company, 
Inc., each arrest and prosecute or permit to be arrested and 
prosecuted all passengers who fail to obey the aforementioned 
signs and seek to use the waiting room and facilities of said 
waiting rooms on a nonsegregated basis.

14. Plaintiffs allege that the defendant city officials 
are under a duty to uphold and enforce the provisions of a 
city ordinance requiring segregation in waiting rooms and 
rest rooms maintained by common carriers (ordinance adopted



13
(R-339)
January 12, 1956, and recorded in Minute Book "FP” p. 149). 
Plaintiffs allege that this ordinance is unconstitutional on 
its face. These defendants have threatened to enforce this 
ordinance against the plaintiffs and members of their class 
if they violate said ordinance.

15. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants, and each of 
them, acting under color of the laws of the State of Missis­
sippi, referred to herein, and under color of p.p. 2087.5, 
2087.7, and 2089.5 of* the Mississippi Code Annotated (1942) 
as amended in i960, and under color of the ordinance of the 
City of Jackson, referred to herein, have pursued and are 
presently pursuing a policy, practice, custom and usage of 
segregating Negro and white persons on common carriers in the 
State of Mississippi, and in all depots, stations and terminals 
utilized by common carriers in the State of Mississippi, in­
cluding the rest room and restaurant facilities of the air­
port terminal in Jackson, Mississippi.

1.6. Plaintiffs and members of their class have suffered 
and shall continue to suffer irreparable injury as a result 
of the enforcement or threat of enforcement of the state sta­
tutes referred to herein, the city ordinance referred to 
herein, and the policy, practice, custom and usage complained 
of herein, until such irreparable injury is enjoined by this 
Court. The plaintiffs have no other speedy or adequate remedy 
at law to redress the deprivation of rights, privileges and 
(340)
immunities complained of herein. Any other remedy to which



14
(R-340)
the plaintiffs might he remitted would be attended by such 
uncertainty and delay as to result in further irreparable 
injury and would lead to frustration and vexation of the 
plaintiffs and the defendants as public officials and public 
carriers.

17. The segregation complained of herein subjects 
plaintiffs and members of their class to daily public incon­
venience, harassment, embarrassment, and arrest, and violates 
rights secured to plaintiffs and members of their class by the 
due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth 
Amendment to the Federal Constitution and Article 1, Section 
8, Clause 3 (Commerce Clause) of the Federal Constitution and 
by the laws of the United States, Title 49, United States 
Code, p.p.3(l) and 316(d).

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that this Court will take the 
necessary steps to convene a three judge court as required by 
Title 28 U. S, C. p.2284, and will advance this case on the 
docket and order a speedy hearing of this action, and will 
grant a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining the de­
fendants and each of them, their agents, employees, attorneys, 
successors and all persons in active concert and participa­
tion with them, from:

a) continuing to enforce certain statutes of the 
State of Mississippi requiring racial segregation on common 
carriers, in waiting rooms used by common carriers, and rest 
room facilities maintained by common carriers, i.e., Title 11, 
Sections 2351, 2351.5 and 2351.7, and Title 28, p.p. 7784,



15
(R-340)
7785, 7786, 7786-OI, 7787, 7787.5, Mississippi Code Annotated 
(19^2), and any other statute of the State of Mississippi re­
quiring or permitting such segregation.

b) continuing to enforce ordinances of the City of 
Jackson, Mississippi, requiring racial segregation in waiting 
rooms and rest room facilities owned and/or maintained and/or 
utilized by common carriers.
(r -341)

c) continuing to enforce a policy, practice, cus­
tom, regulation or usage, under color of state law or city 
ordinance, of segregating Negro and white passengers on com­
mon carriers and in the facilities and services of the depots, 
stations, terminals, owned and/or operated and/or utilized by 
common carriers in connection with their businesses of trans­
porting interstate and intrastate passengers for hire.

d) continuing to enforce a policy, practice, custom 
and usage of segregation in the facilities and services of the 
Jackson Municipal Airport including but not limited to the 
airport restaurant owned and/or operated and/or controlled
by the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority or owned and leased 
by the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority to a private indi­
vidual for the benefit of airline passengers and the general 
public.

e) continuing (under color of state law, city 
ordinance, state policy, custom, usage, or regulation) to 
arrest, harass, intimidate, threaten or coerce the plaintiffs, 
and members of their class, in connection with the exercise



16
(R-341)
of their federally protected right to use interstate and 
intrastate transportation facilities and services without 
segregation or discrimination against them solely because of 
race and color.

f ) continuing to post, or permit to be posted, 
signs designating facilities set aside for colored and white 
passengers on the doors, walls, sidewalks, or other places 
connected with or in the terminals, depots, stations, rest 
rooms, waiting rooms, lunch rooms or any other passenger 
facility or service.

Plaintiffs also pray that this Court will grant them 
their costs herein and grant them such other, additional, 
or further reliefs as may appear to the Court to be equitable 
and just.

K, JESS BR'Cfl'TN
11Q5S Washington Street
Vicksburg, Mississippi

/s/ Constance Baker Motley 
O T S T M T e! BAKER MOTIeS  
THJRGOOD MARSHALL 
DERRICK A. BELL 
10 Columbus Circle,
Hew York 19, Hew York

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
NORMAN C. AMAKER 

Of Counsel

* * * * *



(R-343)
AMENDED MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION 
(Title Omitted - Filed July 17, 1961)

17

Plaintiffs, upon the annexed complaint, move this 
Count for a temporary injunction, pending the final disposi­
tion of this cause, and as grounds therefor rely upon the 
allegations of their complaint and show the following:

1. Plaintiffs1 constitutional rights to be free 
from enforced segregation to interstate and intrastate 
carriers and in the use of bus, railroad and airline terminal 
facilities in the City of Jackson and State of Mississippi 
are being violated by the statutes, ordinances, policy, prac­
tice, custom, and usage complained of in the complaint.

2. Plaintiffs have a constitutional right to be 
free from arrest or threat of arrest in the exercise of their 
rights and cannot be required by state law, policy, custom
or usage to submit to such arrest, fines or imprisonment.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that this Court will take 
the necessary steps to convene a three judge court as required 
(R-32̂ )
by Title 28 U. S. C. p.2284, and will advance this case on 
the docket and order a speedy hearing of this action, and 
will grant a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining 
the defendants and each of them, their agents, employees, 
attorneys, successors and all persons in active concert and 
participation with them, from:

a) continuing to enforce certain statutes of the 
State of Mississippi requiring racial segregation on common



18

(R-344)
carriers, in waiting rooms used by common carriers, and rest 
room facilities maintained by common carriers, i.e., Title 11, 
Sections 2351* 2351.5 and 2351.7, and Title 28, p.p.7784,
7785j 7786, 7786-OI, 7787, 7787.5* Mississippi Code Annotated 
(19^2), and any other statute of the State of Mississippi 
requiring or permitting such segregation.

b) continuing to enforce ordinances of the City of 
Jackson, Mississippi, requiring racial segregation in waiting 
rooms and rest room facilities owned and/or maintained and/or 
utilized by common carriers.

c) continuing to enforce a policy, practice, cus­
tom, regulation or usage, under color of state law or city 
ordinance, of segregating Negro and white passengers on com­
mon carriers and in the facilities and services of the depots, 
stations, terminals, owned and/or operated and/or utilized
by common carriers in connection with their businesses of 
transporting interstate and intrastate passengers for hire.

d) continuing to enforce a policy, practice, cus­
tom and usage of segregation in the facilities and services 
of the Jackson Municipal Airport including but not limited 
to the airport restaurant owned and/or operated and/or con­
trolled by the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority or owned 
and leased by the Jackson Municlapl Airport Authority to a 
private individual for the benefit of airline passengers and 
the general public.

e) continuing (under color of state law, city 
ordinance, state policy, custom, usage, or regulation) to



19
(R-3W)
arrest, harass, intimidate, threaten or coerce the plaintiffs, 
and members of their class, in connection with the exercise 
of their federally protected right to use interstate and 
intrastate transportion facilities and services without 
(R-345)
segregation or discrimination against them solely because of 
race and color.

f) continuing to post, or permit to be posted, 
signs designating facilities set aside for colored and white 
passengers on the doors, walls, sidewalks, or other place 
connected with or in the terminals, depots, stations, rest 
rooms, waiting rooms, lunch rooms or any other passenger 
facility or service.

Plaintiffs also pray that this Court will grant 
them their costs herein and grant them such other, additional, 
or further reliefs as may appear to the Court to be equitable 
and just.

R. Jess Brown
1105”! Washington Street
Vicksburg, Mississippi

/s/ Constance Baker Motley 
Constance Baker Motley 
Thurgood Marshall 
Derrick A. Bell, Jr.
10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19 > New York

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Norman C. Maker 

Of Counsel
* * * *



(R-559)
20

ORDER DESIGNATING THREE-JUDGE COURT 
(Title Omitted - Piled July 22, 1961)

On the 19th day of June, 1961, the undersigned 
designated himself and the Honorable Claude F. Clayton, to 
serve with the Honorable Sidney C. Mize, to constitute a Dis­
trict Court of three-judges to hear and determine this action. 
The undersigned now resigns as a member of said District Court 

Therefore, I, Elbert P. Tuttle, Chief Judge of the 
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, do hereby designate 
the Honorable Richard T. Hives, United States Circuit Judge, 
and Honorable Claude F. Clayton, United States District Judge, 
Northern District of Mississippi, to serve with Judge Mize 
as members of, and with him to constitute, the District Court 
of three judges to hear and determine all further matters in 
the above styled action.

This 21st day of July, 1961.

/s/ Elbert P. Tuttle 
Chief Judge 

Fifth Circuit
Minute Book 1961 at page 455

* * * *



21

(R-407)
PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT "24"

ANSWER OP ILLINOIS CENTRAL 
RAILROAD COMPANY TO REQUEST 

FOR ADMISSION OF FACTS

(Title Omitted - Filed July 27, 1961)

Illinois Central Railroad Company, one of the De­
fendants in the above entitled action, makes the following 
statement in response to the request for admission of facts 
served upon it by Plaintiffs on or about July 19# 1961:

1.
Fact No. 1 is true as stated in the request.

2.
The Illinois Central Railroad Company has no bus 

depots within the City of Jackson, but assuming that the re­
quest for admission of facts No. 2 was meant to deal with 
this Defendant’s depot and terminal facilities as to its 
railway passenger operations, answers as follows: That its 
waiting rooms at Jackson, Mississippi, contain no lunch coun­
ter facilities. One waiting room contains a ladies restroom. 
The other waiting room contains two restrooms separated as 
to male and female. Each waiting room has a water fountain 
located therein and likewise a ticket counter located therein.

3.
Fact No. 3 is true except that said sign is not 

owned by the Illinois Central Railroad Company, was not



22

(R-407) (R-408)
placed at said (R-408) location by this Defendant, and this 
Defendant has no maintenance, supervision or control thereas- 
to.

Fact No. 4 is true except that said sign is not 
owned by the Illinois Central Railroad Company, was not 
placed at said location by this Defendant, and this Defendant 
has no maintenance, supervision or control thereasto.

5.
Fact No. 5 is true except that said signs are not 

owned by the Illinois Central Railroad Company, were not 
placed at said location by this Itefendant, and this Defendant 
has no maintenance, supervision or control thereasto.

ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY
By /s/ Thomas D. Fogarty. Jr.

TEbiSinr Fogarty^'" Trl------

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 
COUNTY OF HINDS

Personally appeared before me, the undersigned 
authority in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, Thomas D. 
Fogarty, Jr., personally known to me to be Special Agent of 
Illinois Central Railroad Company, who upon oath stated that 
the matters and facts set forth in the foregoing Answer to 
Request for Admission of Facts are true and correct to the 
best of his knowledge, information and belief.



23
(R-408)

/s/ Thomas D. Fogarty, Jr,_______
’“Thomas D. Fogarty, Jr,

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me, this the 27th 
day of July, 1961.

/s/ Sydney A. Smith, Jr. 
Notary Public

(SEAL) My commission expires; 2/2/64

(R-409)
(This instrument carries proper certificate of service, 
which is not copied here.)

* * * * * *

(R-451)

ORDER OF THREE-JUDG-E COURT
(Title Omitted - Piled Aug. 8, 1961)

BEFORE RIVES, CIRCUIT JUDGE, MIZE AND CLAYTON, DISTRICT JUDGES:

UPON THE HEARING of this cause on this day, the 
following orders are entered:

1. The Amended Complaint filed on the 17th day 
of July, 1961, is allowed and the Plaintiffs are allowed to 
join as an additional party defendant the Jackson Municipal 
Airport Authority, a public body corporate. The Plaintiffs 
shall cause service to be made upon said additional party 
defendant within two (2) days from this date.

2. All motions to dismiss for lack of indispensable



24
(R-451)
parties are denied.

3. All motions for more definite statements are 
denied upon the following conditions to which the Plaintiffs 
agreed in open court:

(a) That Paragraph 15 of the Amended Complaint be 
further amended by inserting after the words “Negro and white 
persons on common carriers’1 in said paragraph the following
11 (Except Illinois Central Railroad Company)".
(R-452)

(b) That within ten (10) days from this date the 
Plaintiffs furnish to the Defendant Jackson City Lines, Inc., 
or its attorney of record the names and addresses of all per­
sons having any knowledge of and of all persons who will be 
used as witnesses to prove the allegations of Paragraph 13
(c) (3) of the Amended Complaint.

4. That the motion to require the Plaintiffs to 
furnish security for costs is denied upon the condition that 
the Plaintiffs’ counsel, Mrs. Constance Baker Motley shall 
within five (5) days from this date file with the Clerk of 
this Court a statement that N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense and 
Educational Fund, Inc., agrees to pay any and all costs of 
court which may be taxed against the Plaintiffs in this case, 
which in open Court Mrs. Motley agreed to do.

5. It is further ordered that the Jackson Munici­
pal Airport Authority is required to file any motions which 
it may desire to file within ten (10) days from the date of 
service of the Amended Complaint upon it and that such motions



25
(R-452)
will be promptly considered by the Court without the necessity 
of further hearings or arguments and that in the event such 
motions should be denied, the Jackson Municipal Airport Autho­
rity will be required to file its answer promptly so that 
such answer shall be filed within approximately twenty (20) 
days from this date.

6. It is further ordered that all of the other 
Defendants in this case are required to file their several 
answers to the Amended Complaint within twenty (20) days from 
this date.

7. It is further ordered that the motion to dis­
solve the Three-Judge Court, all motions to dismiss and all 
motions to abstain, are carried with the case for later dis- 
(R-452)
position, but shall not interfere with the hearing of this 
case on the date to which It is passed.

8. It is further ordered that the parties are 
granted permission to file briefs on all matters carried 
with the case and on all matters which can be anticipated
to arise on the merits of the case, such briefs to be filed on 
or before September 1, 1961, and that reply or supplemental 
briefs may be filed by any party at any time up to the date 
of the hearing of this case.

9. It is further ordered that the request of the 
Plaintiffs to be heard on this date on their motion for pre­
liminary injunction is denied in view of the broadening of the 
issues by the Amended Complaint filed on July 17, 1961, and



26

(E-455)
of the bringing in on this date of a new party defendant, and 
that the hearing of the motion for preliminary injunction is 
passed until 9:30 A.M. on the 25 day of September, 1961, This 
action of the Court is taken over the Plaintiffs' objection,

10. It is further ordered that on said date the 
Court will hear this action both on the motion for preliminary 
injunction and on the prayer for a permanent injunction. The 
Court expects finally to dispose of this cause following the 
hearing set for 9:30 A.M. on September 25# 1961.

DONE this the 7th day of August, 1961.

/s/ Richard T. Rives,
ur^ririFc'uit Tudge;----------------

/s/ Sidney C. M i z e _______________
TTT S. Dist. Judge

/s/ Claude F. Clayton__________ _
’Tf. "~ST"' Sis"t'.’ Judge "

0. B. 1961, Pages 379# 380 & 581.

* * * * *

(R-466)
ANSWER OF CONTINENTAL SOUTHERN LINES, INC. 
______ TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT_____________

(Title Omitted - Filed August 16, 1961)

Now comes the defendant, Continental Southern Lines,



27
(R-466)
Inc., and for its answer to the amended compalint exhibited 
against it says:

1.
This defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 1 of 

the amended complaint insofar as same pertain in any way to 
this defendant.

2.
This defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 2 of 

the amended complaint insofar as same pertain in any way to 
this defendant.

3.
This defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 3 and 

all sub-paragraphs thereunder of the amended complaint insofar 
as same pertain in any way to this defendant.

4.
This defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 4 of 

the amended complaint insofar as same pertain in any way to 
this defendant.
(R-467)

5.
This defendnat is without knowledge or information suffi­

cient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in 
Paragraph 5 of the amended complaint, except this defendant 
admits the allegations of residence of the plaintiffs.

6.
This defendant admits the allegations of fact pertaining



28
(R-467)
to it in Paragraph 6 of the amended complaint.

7.
This defendant admits the allegations of fact in Paragraph 

7 of the amended complaint.

8.

This defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations 
of Paragraph 8 of the amended complaint since there are no 
allegations pertaining to this defendant therein.

9.
This defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations 

of Paragraph 9 of the amended complaint since there are no 
allegations pertaining to this defendant therein.

10.
This defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations 

of Paragraph 10 of the amended complaint since there are no 
allegations pertaining to this defendant therein.

11.
This defendant is without knowledge or information suffi­

cient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in 
Paragraph 11 of the amended complaint.

12.
This defendant is without knowledge or information suffi­

cient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in 
(M 6 8 )
Paragraph 12 of the amended complaint.



29
(r -468)

13.
This defendnat denies the allegations in Paragraph 13 

and in the sub-paragraphs thereof which pertain to it and is 
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 
as to the truth of the allegations in said paragraph and the 
sub-paragraphs thereof which pertain to the other defendants 
herein, except this defendant admits there is a sign over 
one waiting room door at its terminal in Jackson, Mississippi 
which reads "Colored Waiting Room-Intrastate Passengers" and 
a sign on one waiting room door which reads "White Waiting 
Room -Intrastate Passengers" and that on the outside of the 
terminal building there is a sign which reads "Waiting Room- 
Por White Only, By Order Police Dept." and another sign which 
reads "Waiting Room- For Colored Only, By Order Police Dept*", 
This defendant avers said signs on said doors were so placed 
pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 258, Laws of 1956, 
Mississippi Legislature, Regular Session. This defendant 
further avers the signs on the outside of the terminal build­
ing were not placed by it nor are said signs maintained or 
controlled by this defendant.

14.
This defendant is without information or knowledge suffi­

cient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in 
Paragraph 14 of the amended complaint.

15.
This defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 15



(R-468)
of the amended complaint

30

16.
This defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 16 of 

(R-469)
the amended complaint.

17.
This defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 17 

of the amended complaint.
/s/ Robert C. Cannada

Robert C. Canada, Attorney 
700 Petroleum Building 
Jackson, Mississippi

/s/ Junior Q*Mara_____ _____
'Junior' O'Mar a,’ Attorney 
700 Petroleum Building 
Jackson, Mississippi

OP COUNSEL:
BUTLER, SNOW, 0 f MARA, STEVENS & CANNADA 
ATTORNEY'S AT LAW 
700 PETROLEUM BUILDING 
JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI

(This instrument carries proper certificate of service, 
which is not copied here.)

* * * *

(R-470) ANSWER OP THE GREYHOUND CORPORATION 
TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Title Omitted - Piled August 16, 1961)
Now comes the defendant, The Greyhound Corporation, and



31

(R-470)
for its answer to the amended complaint exhibited against it 
says:

1.
This defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 1 of 

the amended complaint insofar as same pertain in any way to 
this defendant,

2.
This defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 2 of 

the amended complaint insofar as same pertain in any way to 
this defendant.

3.
This defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 3 and 

all sub-paragraphs thereunder of the amended complaint insofar 
as same pertain in any way to this defendant.

4.
This defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 4 of 

the amended complaint insofar as same pertain in any way to 
(R-471)this defendant,

5.
This defendant is without knowledge or information suffi­

cient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in 
Paragraph 5 of the amended complaint, except this defendant 
admits the allegations of residence of the plaintiffs.

6.
This defendant avers it is a Delaware Corporation and not



32
(R-471)
an Illinois Corporation as alleged in Paragraph 6 of the 
amended complaint and admits it is doing business in Jackson, 
Mississippi as an interstate motor carrier.

7.
This defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations 

of Paragraph 7 of the amended complaint since there are no 
allegations pertaining to this defendant therein.

8.
This defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 8 

of the amended complaint, except it denies it is the owner 
of the bus depot mentioned therein and avers that it only 
uses said bus depot.

9.
This defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations 

of Paragraph 9 of the amended complaint since there are no 
allegations pertaining to this defendant therein.

10.
This defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations 

of Paragraph 10 of the amended complaint since there are no 
allegations pertaining to this defendant therein.
(R-472) 11.

This defendant is without knowledge or information suffi­
cient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in 
Paragraph 11 of the amended complaint.



(R-472)
33

12.

This defendant is without knowledge or information suffi­
cient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in 
Paragraph 12 of the amended complaint.

13.
This defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 13 and 

in the sub-paragraphs thereof which pertain to it and is with­
out knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as 
to the truth of the allegations in said paragraph and sub- 
paragraphs thereof which pertain to the other defendants here­
in, except this defendant admits there is a sign over one wait­
ing room door at the terminal in Jackson, Mississippi used by 
this defendant which reads "Colored Waiting Room-Intrastate 
Passengers" and a sign over one waiting room door which reads 
"White Waiting Room-Intrastate Passengers" and that on the 
sidewalk and outside one waiting room there is a sign which 
reads "Waiting Room-For White Only, By Order Police Dept.".
This defendant avers said signs over said doors were so 
placed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 258, Laws of 
1956, Mississippi Legislature, Regular Session. This defen­
dant further avers the sign on the sidewalk was not placed 
thereon by it nor Is said sign maintained or controlled by 
this defendant.

14.
This defendant is without information or knowledge suffi­

cient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in



34
(R-473)
Paragraph 14 of the amended complaint,

15.
This defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 15 

of the amended complaint.

16.
This defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 16 

of the amended complaint.

17.
This defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 17 

of the amended complaint.

/s/ Junior 0*Mara
Junior 0 ‘Mara, Attorney 
700 Petroleum Building 
Jackson, Mississippi

/s/ Robert C. Cannada
Robert C. Cannada, Attorney 
700 Petroleum Building 
Jackson, Mississippi

OP COUNSEL:
BUTLER, SNOW, 0 f MARA, STEVENS & CANNADA 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
700 PETROLEUM BUILDING 
JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI

(This instrument carries proper certificate of service, 
which is not copied here,)

* * * *



( R - W )
35

ANSWER 
OF DEFENDANT

ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD
(Title Omitted - Filed Aug. 25, 1961)

NON comes the Defendant, Illinois Central Railroad 
Company, by its attorneys of record, and for answer to the 
complaint herein against it filed, states as follows;

1.
This Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 

1 of the complaint, denies that this Defendant has deprived 
the Plaintiffs or members of their class of any rights, pri­
vileges and immunities, and denies redress is needed as to 
this Defendant.

2.
This Defendant denies that it has anything to do 

with the enforcement of the statutes set forth in Paragraph 2.

3.
Answering Paragraph 3 of the complaint, this Defen­

dant denies that Plaintiffs have any right to any preliminary 
or permanent injunction against this Defendant because this 
Defendant had no power either to enforce or prevent the 
enforcement of the statutes, ordinances and practices or 
conduct of or arrests made by the civil authorities as re­
ferred to in said paragraph and because this Defendant was 
not guilty of or responsible for the matters alleged in said 
(R-A95)paragraph. All of the charges made or implied in said para-



36
(R-495)
graph against this Defendant either as to action or permission 
are specifically denied,

4_
This Defendant denies knowledge or Information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations of 
Paragraph 4 of the complaint and, therefore, denies all of 
said allegations,

5.
This Defendant admits that the Plaintiffs are 

Samuel Bailey, Joseph Broadwater and Burnett L. Jacob but 
as to the other allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of 
said complaint, this Defendant is without knowledge or 
information sufficient to form a belief and therefore denies 
them.

6.
This Defendant admits the allegations contained 

in Paragraph 6 of the complaint.
7.

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of 
the complaint, this Defendant states that it is without know­
ledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 
truth thereof, and therefore denies all of the allegations in 
said paragraph.

8, 9.
As to the allegations contained in Paragraphs 8

and 9 of the complaint, this Defendant states that it is 
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief



37
(R-495)
as to the truth thereof, and, therefore, denies all the 
allegations of said paragraphs.

10.
The Defendant admits the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 10 of the complaint.
(R-496) 11.

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 
11 of the complaint, this Defendant states that it is without 
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 
truth thereof, and therefore denies all the allegations of 
said paragraph.

12.
Defendant admits the legal duty alleged in the 

first sentence of Paragraph 12, but is without sufficient 
knowledge and information as to the alleged threats, and, 
therefore, denies the same; but this Defendant denies the 
last sentence of said paragraph for the reason that the same 
is a legal conclusion.

13.
This defendant denies that it is in any way 

enforcing segregation in the depots, stations or terminals 
owned and operated by it, or utilized by it. As to subpara­
graph (d) relating to this Defendant, it admits the existence 
of two separate waiting rooms, but denies any implication that 
the same are maintained by it on a segregated basis; it ad­
mits the existence of the signs alleged to exist, but denies



38
(R-496)
that the same were placed by it or that it has any control 
over said signs, but alleges they were so placed by others 
over whom this Defendant has no control. As to subparagraph 
(e), this Defendant denies each and every allegation as to 
it contained therein. As to subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c), 
this Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information 
to form a belief and therefore denies same.

14.
This Defendant neither admits nor denies the 

allegations contained in the first sentence of Paragraph 
14 of the complaint for the reason that it is without 
(R-497)sufficient knowledge and information in order to form a 
belief. It denies the allegation that the ordinance is 
unconstitutional on its face for the reason that the same 
is a legal conclusion. It denies that it has threatened to 
enforce any ordinance nor has it enforced any ordinance 
against these Plaintiffs or members of their class.

15.
This Defendant denies all of the allegations of 

Paragraph 15, as amended in open court, insofar as the same 
allege any acts on the part of this Defendant,

16.
This Defendant denies that Plaintiffs or members 

of their class have suffered or will suffer any irreparable 
injury as the result of anything that this Defendant has 
done or is doing. This Defendant denies that the Plaintiffs



39
(R-497)
have any right to any remedy either at law or at equity as 
to this Defendant In order to redress any deprivation by this 
Defendant of rights, privileges, or immunities complained of, 
this defendant denying that it has engaged in any such de­
privation with regard to these Plaintiffs or members of their 
class.

17.
This Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 

17 insofar as the same affect or relate to this Defendant, 
this Defendant averring that it is in no wise engaging in 
segregation complained of therein.

18.
This Defendant denies that the Plaintiffs are en­

titled to a preliminary injunction or to a permanent injunc­
tion enjoining this defendant from any of the acts complained 
of in Paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) of the prayer 
(R-498)
for relief insofar as the said paragraphs in said prayer 
pray for a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction 
against this Defendant, this Defendant averring that it is 
in no wise engaged In the acts sought to be enjoined prelimi­
narily and permanently.

19.
Further answering, this Defendant further alleges 

that it is a common carrier by railroad subject ot the 
provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act (49 United States 
Code, Sec. 1, et seq.), and, as such, is subject to the



40
(R-498)
jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission, ihis 
Defendant further specifically avers that as to interstate 
passengers, it is subject to Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the 
Interstate Commerce Act, which prohibits and enjoins any 
and all unjust, unreasonable, unduly prejudicial and unjustly 
discriminatory policies, practices, customs, regulations, 
and usages in connection with the conduct of its business as 
such common carrier by railroad, and that it is now in com­
pliance with each and every order, rule and regulation issued 
and promulgated by the Interstate Commerce Commission under 
the aforesaid sections as well as other sections of the 
Interstate Commerce Act with respect to the subject matter 
covered by the instant complaint.

AND NOW, having answered, this Defendant, Illinois 
Central Railroad Company, prays that this complaint be dis­
missed as to it with its cost.

/s/ Sydney A. Smith. Jr.
Attorney for Defendant,
Illinois Central Railroad Company 
918 Electric Building 
Jackson, Mississippi

WISE, SMITH AND CARTER
918 Electric Building 
Jackson, Mississippi
OP COUNSEL

(This instrument carries proper certificate of service,



41
(R-499)
which is not copied here,)

* # # * #

(R-486)
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT,
JACKSON C m  LINES, INC,

(Title Omitted - Filed Aug. 25, 1961)

Comes now the defendant, Jackson City Lines, Inc., 
by its attorneys of record, and for answer to the amended 
bill of complaint herein against it filed, states as follows:

1.
This defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 

One of the amended bill of complaint, denying that this action 
is brought to redress the deprivation of rights, privileges 
and immunities secured to plaintiffs in that this defendant 
has not deprived the plaintiffs or members of their class of 
same, and there being no deprivation, no redress is needed as 
to this defendant.

2.
This defendant denies the rights of plaintiffs to

invoke the jurisdiction of this Court as to this defendant,(R-487)
and denies further that this defendant has anything to do 
with the enforcement of the statutes set forth in said Para­
graph Two of the amended bill of complaint.



(R-487)
42

3.
As to the allegations contained in Paragraph Three 

of said amended bill of complaint, this defendant denies the 
right of plaintiffs to bring an action for a preliminary and 
permanent injunction as to it in that it is not, and has not 
done any of the acts complained of in sub-paragraphs (a), fb), 
(c), (d), or (e), but this defendant admits that there is 
posted within its buses a sign 4n x 9" as required by Section 
7785# Mississippi Code of 1942, as amended, and that this 
defendant operates under a franchise granted to it by the 
governing authorities of the City of Jackson, State of 
Mississippi, which franchise requires this defendant to comply 
with the laws of the State of Mississippi, and the Ordinances 
of the City of Jackson, Mississippi.

4.
This defendant denies that as to Paragraph Pour of 

the amended bill of complaint that this is a class action 
brought by the plaintiffs, and denies that it is brought on 
behalf of other Negroes similarly situated and denies that 
these plaintiffs have the right to bring this suit under Rule 
23 (a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This de­
fendant denies that there are common grievances arising out 
of common wrongs committed by this defendant as to these 
plaintiffs, or to members of the class which they seek to 
represent. This defendant denies that the named plaintiffs
(R-488)
fairly and adequately represent the members of the class on



45
(R-488)
behalf of which they sue.

5.
This defendant admits that the plaintiffs are 

Samuel Bailey, Joseph Broadwater, and Burnett L. Jacob, but 
as to the other allegations contained in said Paragraph Five 
of the amended bill of complaint, this defendant neither 
admits nor denies said allegations for the reason that it is 
without sufficient knowledge and information in order to 
form an opinion.

6,
This defendant admits that it is a Mississippi cor­

poration, organized and existing under the laws of the State 
of Mississippi, and that it is an intrastate motor carrier 
doing business in the City of Jackson, Mississippi, but it 
neither admits nor denies the other allegations of said Para­
graph Six of the amended bill of complaint in that it is 
without knowledge or information sufficient to either admit 
or deny said allegations.

7.
As to the allegations contained in Paragraph Seven 

of the amended bill of complaint, this defendant states that 
it is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a 
belief as to the truth thereof.

8.
As to the allegations contained in Paragraph Eight



44
(r -488)
of the amended, hill of complaint, this defendant states that
(R-489)
it is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a 
belief as to the truth thereof.

9.
This defendant admits the allegations contained in 

Paragraph Nine of the amended bill of complaint.

10.
This defendant admits the allegations contained in 

Paragraph Ten of the amended bill of complaint.

11.
This defendant admits the allegations contained in 

Paragraph Eleven of the amended bill of complaint.

12.
As to the first part of the allegations contained in 

Paragraph Twelve of the amended bill of complaint, this de­
fendant is without sufficient knowledge and information with 
which to formulate an answer, but this defendant denies the 
last sentence of said paragraph for the reason that the same 
is a legal conclusion.

13.
This defendant denies that it, as a common carrier, 

is or has been enforcing segregation of white and negro 
passengers transported by it on its facilities and it denies 
that it itself owns, operates or controls any depots, stations



(R-489)
or terminals, but this defendant admits that there are signs 
posted in its buses in conformity with Section 7785, Missis­
sippi Code of 19^2, as amended, but this defendant denies 
that through their employees, particularly the bus drivers 
(R-490)
or operators, are requiring negro passengers to comply 
with said signs, but this defendant admits that it, through 
its employees, bus drivers, has adopted a policy or practice 
of halting the bus if in the opinion of the driver there is a 
reasonable probability that a breach of the peace is imminent, 
and that this practice or policy has been established so as 
to avoid litigation or tort actions against this defendant 
corporation.

14.
This defendant neither admits nor denies the allega­

tions contained in the first sentence of Paragraph 14 of the 
amended bill of complaint for the reason that it is without 
sufficient knowledge and information in order to form an 
opinion. It denies the allegations that the ordinance is un­
constitutional on its face for the reason that the same is a 
legal conclusion. It denies that it has threatened to enforce 
any ordinance nor has it enforced any ordinance against these 
plaintiffs or members of their class.

15.
This defendant denies all of the allegations of 

Paragraph Fifteen of the amended bill of complaint insofar as 
the same allege any acts on the part of this defendant.



(R-490)
46

16.
This defendant denies that the plaintiffs or mem­

bers of their class have suffered any irreparable injury as 
the result of the enforcement or threat of enforcement by 
this defendant of state statutes referred to in the amended 
bill of complaint, and denies that the plaintiffs or members 
of their class will suffer (R-491) irreparable injury on 
(R-491)
account of anything that this defendant has done or is doing. 
This defendant denies that the plaintiffs have any right to 
any remedy, either at law or at equity, as to this defendant 
in order to redress any deprivation of rights, privileges, 
or immunities complained of, this defendant denying that it 
has engaged in any such deprivation with regard to these 
plaintiffs, or members of their class.

17.
This defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 

Seventeen of the amended bill of complaint Insofar as the 
same affect or relate to this defendant, this defendant aver­
ring that it is in no wise engaging in segregation complained 
of therein.

18.

This defendant denies that the plaintiffs are en­
titled to a preliminary injunction or to a permanent injunction 
enjoining this defendant from any of the acts complained of
in sub-paragraphs a, b, c, d, e, or f of the prayer for relief 
insofar as said paragraphs in said prayer pray for a prelimi-



47
(R-491)
nary injunction and a permanent injunction against this de­
fendant, this defendant averring that it is in no wise engaged 
in, nor has it been engaged in, the acts sought to be en­
joined preliminarily and permanently in that this defendant, 
being a Mississippi corporation, and being in operation under 
a franchise granted by the City of Jackson, Mississippi, is 
required to post signs in its buses as required by the 
aforesaid Section 7785* Mississippi Code of 1942, as amended,
and that this defendant has no alternative whatsoever as to 
(R-492)
the posting of said signs, and that an injunction rendered 
against it would create confusion and chaos among the many 
operators of this defendant's motor vehicles.

19.
Further answering, this defendant further alleges 

that its only operation is conducted within the City of Jack- 
son, Mississippi, that it operates only under a franchise 
granted by the City of Jackson, Mississippi, and under the 
statutes of the State of Mississippi, and that it is now 
acting in compliance with the laws of the State of Mississip­
pi and the ordinances of the City of Jackson, Mississippi, 
and that if an Injunction is to be issued, it should not be 
Issued against this defendant.

And now, having fully answered, this defendant, 
Jackson City Lines, Inc., prays that this amended bill of 
complaint be dismissed as to it, with its costs.



48
(R-492)

/s/ J, ¥111 Young _____
J. Will Young 
Attorney for Defendant, 
Jackson City Lines, Inc.

J. WILL YOUNG
1309 Deposit Guaranty Bank Building 
Jackson, Mississippi
RICKETTS AND YOUNG
1615 Deposit Guaranty Bank Building
Jackson, Mississippi
OP COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT,
JACKSON CITY LINES, INC.

(This instrument carries proper certificate of service, 
which is not copied here.)

* * * * #

(R-501)
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, CICERO CARR, JR.
(Title Omitted - Filed Aug. 23, 19&1)

Now comes Cicero Carr, Jr., and, in answer to so 
much of the amended complaint herein filed against him as 
he is advised it is necessary to answer, says:

1.
He admits that he has under Lease from the Jackson 

Municipal Airport Authority a restaurant and cafe located in 
the Jackson Municipal Airport Terminal at Jackson, Mississip­
pi, known as "Cicero^ Airport Restaurant".



(R-501)
49

2.
He admits that he operates this restaurant for the 

use and benefit of the general public, which includes airline 
passengers.

3.
Defendant denies that he, or any of his employees 

acting under his orders, has refused to serve food to negro 
airline passengers or negro members of the general public 
applying for service at said restaurant.
(R-502)

4.
Defendant denies that he has ever been instructed 

by the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority, or any of its 
officers, to refuse to serve food to negroes, or to anybody 
else; and further answering, defendant shows that he operates 
said restaurant as his own private individual enterprise, 
exercising sole and complete control thereover; that he has 
in the past, and still does, directed the seating of custo­
mers in his place of business, which he maintains and avers 
that he has a right to do as the individual operator of a pri­
vate enterprise. Defendant denies that there are any signs 
of any type or description posted in his restaurant with re­
gard to the race of any party. Defendant further denies that 
he enforces any policy, practice, custom, regulation or usage 
concerning the race or color of his patrons by virtue of, or 
under color of, state law or city ordinance, but avers the 
facts to be that he conducts his business as an individual



50

(R-502)
enterprise in accordance with his own personal judgment with 
reference to the conduct thereof as owner and operator thereof.

AND NOW, having fully answered the complaint and 
amendment thereto for a preliminary and permanent injunction 
insofar as it pertains to him and his employees, defendant 
prays that the same be denies and dismissed as to him and 
that he be discharged with his reasonable costs.

/s/ Colin L. Stockdale“o t x f i r w ® --------- — "
209 Barnett Building 
Jackson, Mississippi,

Attorney for Cicero Carr, Jr., Defen­
dant

(This instrument carries proper certificate of service, 
which is not copied here.)

* * * * *

(R-500)
O R D E R

(Title Omitted - Filed Aug. 25, 1961)

Before RIVES, Circuit Judge, and MIZE and CLAITON, District 
Judges.

The motions filed on behalf of Jackson Municipal 
Airport Authority, that is, the motion to dismiss the amended



51
(R-500)
complaint and the motion to dissolve the three-judge court, 
like other similar motions under Paragraph No. 7 of the 
Order entered August 7, 1961, are carried with the case for 
later disposition and will not interfere with the hearing 
of this case on the 25th day of September 1961. Jackson 
Municipal Airport Authority should file its answer promptly, 
not later than ten (10) days after the entry of this order. 

Done this the 22nd day of August 1961.

/s/ Richard T. Hives_________
United States Circuit Judge

/s/ Sidney 0. M i z e ______
United States District 'Judge

/s/ Claude P. Clayton____________
UnTted States District Judge,

0. B. 1961, Page 409

* * * * *

(R-509)
ANSWER ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS, 
THE CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI, 
ALLEN C. THOMPSON, MAYOR, D. L. 
LUCKEY, COMMISSIONER, THOMAS B. 
MARSHALL, COMMISSIONER, AND ¥, D. 
RAYFIELD, CHIEF OF POLICE, TO THE 
AMENDED COMPLAINT _________
(Title Omitted - Filed Aug. 25, 1961)

FIRST DEFENSE
The amended complaint fails to state a claim 

against these defendants upon which relief can be granted.



(r -509)
52

SECOND DEFENSE

This three-judge Court is without jurisdiction 
over the parties hereto or the subject matter hereof for 
the following reasons:

(1) The amended complaint filed herein 
raises primarily factual issues which may not 
properly be addressed to a three-judge Court.

(2) The primary issues raised by the amended 
complaint involve the arrests of the so-called

(R-510)
"freedom riders" under Section 2087.5 and 2089.5 of 
the Mississippi Code of 1942, as amended, but does 
not attack the constitutionality of said statutes.

(5) The primary issues raised by the amended 
complaint involve the alleged policy, custom, practice 
and usage of said defendants in allegedly segregating 
the races under color of said statutes, the con­
stitutionality of which statutes is not attacked.

(4) Although the amended complaint does attack 
the constitutionality of certain segregation statutes, 
it now affirmatively appears that none of the plain­
tiffs have ever been arrested under said statutes 
and that in fact no arrests have been made under 
said statutes for more than ten years.

THIRD DEFENSE
This Court should dismiss the amended complaint



53
(R-510)
or refrain from determining the issues raised by the amended 
complaint involving Sections 2087.5 and 2089.5 of the 
Mississippi Code of 194*2, and amendments thereto, until 
such issues have been presented to and considered by the 
Supreme Court of Mississippi for the reason that said issues 
raise controversies involving unsettled questions of State 
law which should be decided in the tribunals of the State of 
Mississippi, and the plaintiffs should be remitted to the State 
Courts for a determination of said issues.

FOURTH DEFENSE
. The amended complaint should be dismissed as to
(R-511)
the City of Jackson, a municipal corporation, for the reason 
that said corporation is an agency and a governmental sub­
division of the State of Mississippi and as such is legally 
incapable of violating any of the statutes or constitutional 
provisions relied upon by plaintiffs as the basis for the 
relief sought, and said municipal corporation cannot be 
legally enjoined from performing any or all of the acts 
complained of in the amended complaint filed herein.

FIFTH DEFENSE

Said defendants deny the allegations contained 
in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4- and 5 of the amended complaint.
Said defendants admit the identity of said defendants as 
described in paragraph 6 of the amended complaint, but 
allege that they are without knowledge or information suffi-



54
(R-511)
cient to form a belief as to the other allegations contained 
in paragraph 6 of the amended complaint. Said defendants 
allege that they are without, knowledge or information suffi­
cient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations con­
tained in paragraphs 7> 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the amended 
complaint. Said defendants deny the allegations of paragraphs 
14, 15, 16 and 17 of the amended complaint, and deny each and 
every other allegation contained in the amended complaint.

E, ¥. STENNETT 
J. A. TRAVIS, JR*
ROBERT G. NICHOLS, JR.
TOM H. WATKINS

By /s/Tom H. Watkins ______
Attorneys for the* City of Jackson, 
Allen C. Thompson, D. L. Luckey, 
Thomas B. Marshall and W. D. 
Rayfield

(R-512)
(This instrument carries proper certificate of service, 
which is not copied here.)

* # # *
(R-513)

*

ANSWER OP DEPENDANT 
JOE T. PATTERSON, ATTORNEY- GENERAL, 

TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
(Title Omitted - Piled Aug. 26, 1961)

FIRST DEFENSE
I.

This defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 1



(R-513)
of the Mended Complaint,

55

II.
This defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 2 

of the Mended Complaint, except that this defendant admits 
that the Mississippi Code of 1942 (Annotated) contains sections 
in Title 28, Chapter 6 numbered 7784, 7785# 7786, 7786-01,
7787# and 7787*5; and further admits that said Mississippi 
Code of 1942 (Annotated) in Title 11, Chapter 1 thereof con­
tains Sections 2351# 2351*5 and Section 2351*7 tut asserts 
that said sections themselves constitute and contain the best 
evidence of their respective contents.

III.
This defendant denies that plaintiffs, or all, or 

any of them are entitled to a preliminary or a permanent in­
junction against this defendant or any defendants in this 
cause for any of the relief particularly described in sub- 
paragraphs a, b, c, d, e, and/or f of Paragraph 3 of the 
Mended Complaint, or to any other injunctive relief.

IV.
This defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 4 

of the Amended Complaint.

V.
This defendant admits the allegations of the first 

sentence of Paragraph 5 of the Mended Complaint. This 
defendant denies all other allegations of said Paragraph 5*



56
(R-514)
All other allegations after the first sentence of Paragraph 5 
of the Amended Complaint relate to matters of and about which 
this defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient 
to form a belief as to truth.

VI.
This defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 6 

of the Amended Complaint.

VII.
This defendant alleges and avers that interrogato­

ries and requests for admission of facts have been addressed 
in this cause to Continental Southern Lines, Inc., Greyhound 
Corporation and the Illinois Central Railroad Company, Inc. 
(R-515)and that responses to said pleadings have been filed by said 
defendant corporation. This defendant denies the allegations 
of Paragraph 7 of the Amended Complaint. This defendant is 
without knowledge or information, other than what is contained 
in the abovesaid responsive pleadings, sufficient to form a 
belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph
7 of the Amended Complaint.

VIII.
This defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph

8 of the Amended Complaint. This defendant is without know­
ledge or information, other than what is contained in the 
abovesaid responsive pleadings referred to in Paragraph VII. 
above, sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the



57
(R-515)
averments contained in Paragraph 8 of the Amended Complaint,

IX.
This defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph

9 of the Amended Complaint. This defendant is without know­
ledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 
truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 9 of the Amended 
Complaint.

X,
This defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph

10 of the Amended Complaint. This defendant is without know­
ledge or Information, other than what is contained in the 
abovesaid responsive pleadings (referred to in Paragraph VII. 
above), sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the 
averments contained in Paragraph 10 of the Amended Complaint. 
(R-516)

3a.
This defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph

11 of the Amended Complaint except that defendant admits the 
allegations of the first sentence of said Paragraph 11.
This defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient 
to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in 
the third sentence of said Paragraph 11.

XII.
This defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph

12 of the Amended Complaint, but says that this defendant is 
the duly elected and qualified Attorney General of the State of



58
(R-516)
Mississippi and. is charged only with the duties, responsibili­
ties and obligations imposed upon him by, and has the preroga­
tives granted him in the Constitution, law and Statutes of the 
State of Mississippi.

XIII.
This defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 

13 of the Amended Complaint in its entirety. Except as shown 
and set out by the answers to interrogatories and responses to 
requests for admission of fact now on file in this cause, this 
defendant is without knowledge or information concerning the 
averments of Paragraph 13 and/or any of the sub-sections 
a. through e. thereof. Defendant is without knowledge or 
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of 
said averments.

XIV.
All allegations and averments of Paragraph 14 of 

the Amended Complaint are denied, except as hereinbelow 
admitted or qualified. This defendant alleges and avers that 
(R-517)the provisions of the ordinances and minutes of the City 
Council of the City of Jackson, Mississippi, constitute and 
contain the best evidence of the meaning, provision and 
interpretation of the ordinances and minutes of such city.
This defendant has no knowledge or information sufficient to 
form a belief as to the truth of the averment of Paragraph 14 
of the Amended Complaint with regard to threats made by the 
Defendant City Officials.



(R-517)
59

XV.
This defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph

15 of the Amended Complaint, This defendant is informed and 
believes, and on the basis of such information and belief 
alleges and avers that all acts and actions taken by the City 
Officials of the City of Jackson, Mississippi, under and 
pursuant to the statutes enumerated in Paragraph 15 of the 
Amended Complaint were done and taken to preserve the peace, 
good order and domestic tranquility in the State of Mississip­
pi.

XVI.
This defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph

16 of the Amended Complaint and avers that this paragraph 
contains impertinent and scandalous matter in that it casts 
insults and aspersions upon the court system of the sovereign 
State of Mississippi and should and ought to be stricken from 
the Amended Complaint by order of this Honorable Court.

XVII.
This defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph

17 of the Amended Complaint.

XVIII.
This defendant says that plaintiffs are not entitled 

to any relief whatsoever, and denies that plaintiffs or any of 
them are entitled to a preliminary and/or a permanent injunc­
tion enjoining this defendant or any of the defendants on all 
or any of the grounds set out in sub-paragraphs a. through f.



60

(R-517)
of the prayer part of said Amended Complaint.
(R-518)

SECOND DEFENSE
This Defendant has previously moved this Court to 

abstain from proceeding with the issues raised by the original 
Complaint and the Amended Complaint filed in this cause. This 
Defendant respectfully readopts., realleges and reavers the 
allegations of said Motions to said original and Amended Com­
plaint as to such proper abstention. Additionally, this De­
fendant would respectfully ask this Honorable Court to dismiss 
the Amended Complaint or, in the alternative, to refrain from 
determining the issues raised in said Amended Complaint until 
such issues have been properly presented to and considered by 
the state courts of the State of Mississippi, for the reason 
that said Amended Complaint raises factual and legal contro­
versies involving unsettled questions of state law which 
should properly be decided first in the tribunals of the State 
of Mississippi in order for this Court to avoid unnecessarily 
deciding constitutional questions.

Under the laws of the State of Mississippi, a proper, 
full, orderly and adequate procedure exists in the tribunals 
of this state for the Plaintiffs, or any of them, to have all 
relief, hearings and rights of appeal necessary to fully 
protect the rights, privileges and immunities which they 
assert or to which they are or may be entitled.

None of the Sections enumerated in the Amended 
Complaint have yet been presented to the highest Appellate



61

(R-518)
Court of the State of Mississippi for its final ruling and 
determination, nor have the acts or actions of any of the 
Defendants under said statutes been similarly presented
(R-519)or ruled upon or decided. This Court of the United States 
of America should not pass upon the meaning or constitutional­
ity or application thereof or acts thereunder, until the same 
shall have been determined by the said highest Appellate Court 
of the sovereign State of Mississippi. Cases directly in­
volving said statutes are now in the process of appeal to 
said Court.

THIRD DEFENSE

The Amended Complaint makes a defendant your res­
pondent, Joe T. Patterson, in his capacity as the Attorney 
General and Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the State of 
Mississippi and not in his individual capacity as a citizen 
of said state. This action is, therefore, in effect, an 
action against the State of Mississippi, which under the pro­
visions of the 11th Amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States of America cannot be sued without its consent; 
and this consent to be sued on behalf of the sovereign State 
of Mississippi is not and has not been given. This Court is 
therefore without jurisdiction of this cause as to this De­
fendant.

FOURTH DEFENSE
This .Defendant, Attorney General of the State of



62
(R-519)
Mississippi, is a constitutional officer of the State of 
Mississippi, and thereunder and under the statutes of the 
State of Mississippi, is vested with judicial authority, and 
to grant the relief prayed for by Plaintiffs against him or 
any relief upon the allegations of the Complaint is an effort 
to control the actions, judgment and discretion, all or 
either, of a constitutional officer of the State of Mississip­
pi, which in this cause upon the complaint would he improper 
and beyond the (R-520) authority and jurisdiction of this

FIFTH DEFENSE

Plaintiffs* Amended Complaint attacks the effect 
and enforcement of parts of the criminal laws and statutes 
made and provided by the State of Mississippi in its sover­
eign capacity as a state of the United States of America, 
for the purpose of protecting all persons within its juris­
diction against domestic Violence and to insure domestic 
Tranquility; and the acts and actions of the duly constituted 
law enforcement authorities of the City of Jackson and State 
of Mississippi acting thereunder, to-wit: p.p.2087.5* 2087.7 
and 2089.5, Mississippi Code of 1942. No application is or 
has been made by the legislative branch or by the executive 
branch of the government of the sovereign State of Mississippi 
under Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United 
States of America as therein made and provided.



(R-520)
63

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States of America specifically and expressly provides that 
the powers not prohibited to the states by the said Constitu­
tion are reserved to the said states or to the people and, 
likewise, said amendment expressly provides that the United 
States of America possesses only such powers as are specifi­
cally delegated to it by said Constitution,

Therefore, inasmuch as the said Constitution speci­
fically limits the acts and actions of the United States re­
garding the protection of states and the peoples thereof 
(P-521)
against domestic Violence to occasions when application has 
been made by the legislative or executive branch of the 
government of such sovereign state, this Court, as an agency 
of the judicial branch of the United States of America, is 
clearly without constitutional jurisdiction to try or consider 
the validity of the issues solely and directly related to 
internal questions of state action which are involved here.

SIXTH DEFENSE
Plaintiffs, and each and all of them in this 

action, come into this Court with unclean hands and, for that 
reason, have no standing herein to maintain this action.

SEVENTH DEFENSE
This action constitutes an attempt to control the 

law enforcement officials of the City of Jackson and the 
State of Mississippi in and about the exercise of valid,



64
(B-521)
legal, discretionary power and authority; and, to accord the 
relief sought here, actually demands injunctive orders by 
this Court in a form which is equivalent to mandamus against, 
not only the executive law enforcement branch of said State 
and City government, but also, must necessarily be directed 
to an act upon and against the judiciary and judicial offi­
cers thereof, including county attorneys, district attorneys, 
city magistrates (who are ex-officio justices of the peace), 
justices of the peace, county judges, circuit judges, justices 
of the Supreme Court of the State of (R-522) Mississippi, 
(R-522)the mayor and commissioners of the City of Jackson and this 
Defendant, the Attorney General of the State of Mississippi,
No relief by injunction or otherwise can or should be granted, 
this Defendant respectfully submits, by this Honorable Court 
in respect to the authority and/or discretion granted to 
these officers and officials.

EIGHTH DEFENSE

This action constitutes and seeks to have this Court, 
by an indirect form of mandatory injunction, commit an un­
constitutional and unlawful violation and invasion of the 
rights secured under the Constitution of the United States 
of America and the Constitution of the State of Mississippi 
to innumerable persons protected by such documents to ini­
tiate proceedings, if a criminal law be violated, in the 
courts of the sovereign State of Mississippi to bring about



65
(R-522)
the proper enforcement of such criminal law. To grant Plain­
tiffs the injunctive relief sought would, this Defendant 
submits, constitute an interference with criminal procedure 
or criminal proceedings involving state law and action only, 
and which interference is and would be beyond the right, 
power and jurisdiction of this Honorable Court in this cause. 
(R-523) M D  NOW having fully answered the Mended Complaint 
exhibited against him, Joe T. Patterson, Attorney General of 
the State of Mississippi, prays that said Mended Complaint 
be dismissed with full prejudice to Plaintiffs* rights there­
in at Plaintiffs* cost.

JOE T. PATTERSON, ATTORNEY' GENERAL 
OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DUGAS SHANDS and EDWARD L. CATES, 
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY'S GENERAL OF THE 
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
PETER M. STOCKETT, JR. and CHARLES 
CLARKSPECIAL ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS GENERAL 
OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

BY /s/ Charles Clark _______
Office & Post Office Address:

New Capitol Building 
Jackson, Mississippi

(This instrument carries proper certificate of service,
which is not copied here.)
# * # *



(R-857)
66

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN 
DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI, JACKSON DIVISION

SAMUEL BAILEY, JOSEPH BROADWATER and 
BURNETT L. JACOB, on behalf of themselves 
and others similarly situated,

V. Plaintiffs
Civil

JOE T, PATTERSON, Attorney General of the No. 3133
State of Mississippi, Jackson, Mississippi, 
et al,

Defendants
TRANSCRIPT OF TESTIMONY 
(Filed Nov. 24, 1961)

APPEARANCES:
Mrs. Constance Baker Motley, 10 Columbus Circle,

New York, N. Y.;
Hon. Derrick A. Bell, 10 Columbus Circle,

New York, N. Y.;
Hon. R. Jess Brown, Vicksburg, Mississippi;

For Plaintiffs.
Hon. Joe T, Patterson, Attorney General, State 

of Mississippi, Jackson, Mississippi;
Hon. Dugas Shands, Assistant Attorney General,

State of Mississippi, Jackson, Mississippi;
Hon. Edward Cates, Assistant Attorney General,

State of Mississippi, Jackson, Mississippi;
Hon. Charles Clark, Special Assistant Attorney 

General, State of Mississippi, Jackson,
Mississippi;

Hon. Peter Stockett, Jr., Special Assistant 
Attorney General, State of Mississippi,
Jackson, Mississippi;

- For State of
Mississippi.

Hon. Thomas H. Watkins, Watkins & Eager,
Jackson, Mississippi; For City of Jackson.

Hon. Junior O ’Mara and Hon. Robert C. Cannada,
Butler, Snow, O ’Mara, Stevens & Cannada,
Jackson, Mississippi; For Greyhound Corp.

& Continental Southern.



67
(r -858)

Hon. J. ¥111 Young, and Hon. James L. Young, 
Jackson, Mississippi!

For Jackson City Linea
Hon. Colin L, Stockdale, Jackson, Mississippi;

For Cicero Carr.
Hon. Wence F. Cerne, 135 East 11th Place,

Chicago, Illinois;
For Illinois Central 
Railroad Company.

Hon. Rubel Phillips, Jackson, Mississippi;
For Jackson Municipal 
Airport Authority.

Hon. Howard A. Glickstein, United States Department 
of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Washington, D.C.,

Amicus Curiae.

BE IT REMEMBERED that on, to-wit, September 25, 1961, 
the above-entitled cause came on for hearing at Jackson, 
Mississippi, in the Jackson Division of the Southern District 
of Mississippi, before a three-judge court consisting of 
Honorable Richard T. Rives, Chief Judge of the Court of 
Appeals, Fifth Circuit, Montgomery, Alabama; Honorable Sidney 
C. Mize, United States District Judge, Southern District of 
Mississippi; and Honorable Claude F. Clayton, United States 
District Judge, Northern District of Mississippi, and the 
following proceedings were had and entered of record:

______# # _  _



68
(R-861)

BY JUDGE RIVES: Call the case of Samuel Bailey, et al, 
against Joe T. Patterson, Attorney General of Mississip­
pi, As the court announced at the time of the last 
hearing in this case on the 7th of August, it is the 
intention of the court on this hearing to hear the 
action both on Motion for Preliminary Injunction and the 
Prayer for Permanent Injunction. That will be done.
Is the plaintiff ready?
BY MRS. MOTLEY: The plaintiffs are ready, Your Honor,
BY JUDGE RIVES: Are the defendants ready?
BY MR. SHAKOS: The Attorney General, Joe T. Patterson, 
makes a restrictive announcement. It is here and I 
would like to add on behalf of the Attorney General 
he has an observation and announcement to make to the 
Court. The Order of this Court last entered with refe­
rence to the hearing of this matter, which was drawn 
by the Court and put of record, provides in Section 9 —  

This is for the record, Your Honor, so that the Attorney 
General's position may be completely clear and on the 
record —  that the hearing will be on the preliminary 
injunction. Paragraph 10 of the Order further provides 
that the hearing will be on both the Motion for the 
Temporary Injunction and for a Permanent Injunction,
The attitude and position of the Attorney General with 
no elaboration is that as long as there is a Motion for
a Preliminary Injunction pending, that and that alone 
should be proceeded with by this Court, and not a



69
(R-862)

consolidation of the Motion for a Temporary Injunction 
and for a Permanent Injunction, in the absence of any 
agreement by the Attorney General to that effect. The 
Attorney General has not agreed to a hearing both on the 
Preliminary Injunction and on the Permanent Injunction. 
We want the record, please, to contain that announce­
ment, and we think the only matter that should be pro­
ceeded with here is on the Preliminary Injunction.
BY JUDGE RIVES: The Court notes the objection of the 
Attorney General to hear the case both on the Prelimi­
nary Injunction and on the Prayer for a Permanent In­
junction, and the objection is overruled, so that your 
point is preserved.
BY MR, WATKINS: The City of Jackson and the other 
officials are ready.
BY JUDGE RIVES: Very well, Gentlemen, I presume the 
next thing would be to call your witnesses.

(All the witnesses of the plaintiff were duly sworn.)
HI JUDGE RIVES: Is the rule invoked?
BY MR. WATKINS: Yes, sir.
BX MR. SEANDS: So does the Attorney General ask the 
rule to be invoked.
BY JUDGE RIVES: All witnesses not parties to the case 
will retire from the courtroom and will not enter the 
courtroom during the trial of the case nor will you 
discuss your testimony with each other, either the



70
(R-863)

testimony you propose to give or the testimony you have 
given. You may discuss your testimony with the attor­
neys in the case but only one by one, not in the presence 
of other witnesses.
BY MR, J, WILL YOUNG: My name was called as a witness, 
and I am an attorney for Jackson City Lines. I have had 
no subpoena served upon me. Mr. Smith is a witness.
He is a representative of my defendant, and I ask the 
Court tokeeo him in the courtroom so we may handle the 
defense against the Jackson City Lines.
BY JUDGE RIVES: Any objection?
BY MRS, MOTLEY: No objection.
BY MR, PHILLIPS: Your Honor, counsel has agreed the 
witness Captain Turner, who represents the Airport 
Authority, may return to his office with the approval 
of this Court, and we could have him here on thirty 
minutes’ notice, and she has agreed that is permissible. 
BY MRS. MOTLEY: Yes, sir.
BY JUDGE RIVES: Very well.
BY MR, YOUNG: May I ask the Court to ask counsel for 
plaintiff why she called me as a witness?
BY JUDGE RXVES: Do you intend to use the attorney in 
the case?
BY MRS, MOTLEY: Yes, I do plan to call you as a witness. 
BY JUDGE RIVES: He will, of course, be excused from the 
rule as an officer of the court.
BY MRS. MOTLEY: Yes, sir.



71
(r -864)
- BY JUDGE RIVES? The witnesses, subject to the direc­

tions of the Court as given, may retire from the court­
room. If the defendants have any witnesses who may 
be coming in —  I'm addressing these remarks to the 
defendants' counsel. I presume the plaintiff invokes 
the rule as to the defendants* witnesses?
BY MRS. MOTLEY: Yes, but not as to counsel.
BY MR. SHARDS: As we understand the announcement of the 
Court, the rule does not apply to the parties defendant. 
BY JUDGE RIVES: That is correct.
BY MR. WATKINS: We request Captain Bayfield be released 
subject to call, and we will have him here in thirty 
minutes.
BY JUDGE RIVES: I presume there is no objection?
BY MRS. MOTLEY: Yes, that is all right.
BY JUDGE RIVES: Very well.
BY MR. CLARK: May it please the Court, I think It would 
probably be appropriate to make one other observation 
for the record, again with regard to necessary parties, 
because I am looking toward the time when an order 
would be issued from this Court and presuming the worst 
of the order against the interest of ray client. I am 
concerned because the Answer to Interrogatories and 
other depositions and other discovery procedure taken 
since the time the Court overruled the motion to bring
in the other indispensable parties, indicate that this is 
going to be a statewide proceeding. We have terminals



72
(R-865)

in 15 Mississippi cities listed as being terminals in 
which practices are complained of or usages are com­
plained of, if this Court should issue an injunction and 
that injunction sought to operate on municipal authori­
ties who might have varying ordinances in other cities, 
would the simple service of a copy of this injunction, 
though it is directed by its terms to the City of Jack- 
son, have the effect of precluding the necessary regula­
tory authority of other cities in this state who have 
never been before this Court, whose ordinances have never 
been viewed by the Court —  or I think that they are par­
ties with a joint interest under the statute,
BY JUDGE RIVES: The Court has ruled on the parties, 
and of course that point will have to be taken care of 
when we reach it. Let's proceed with the examination.
BY MRS. MOTLEY: The Court may recall at the last hearing 
the plaintiffs were requested to furnish the Greyhound 
and the Trailways with the names of persons we proposed 
to use as witnesses. I believe we did that, but I would 
like to point out that two of the persons who have been 
sworn as proposed witnesses were not among those listed 
with respect to Greyhound; that is, proposed witnesses 
against Greyhound, and we'd like to advise them of that 
so that they would have that information. The first one 
is Mrs. Vera Pigee, and the other is Mrs. Helen G. O'Neal.
One of the names which was given —  Just a moment. The 
first one is Mrs. Vera Pigee - P-i-g-e-e, and the second



73
(R-866)

is Miss Helen Jean O'Neal.
BY MR. O'MARA: We would like to object to the use of 
those witnesses and furnishing their names at this late 
hour.
BY JUDGE RIVES: That is not in compliance with the 
Court's order that those names be furnished.
BY MRS, MOTLEY: Yes, we understand that.
BY JUDGE RIVES: And unless there is some particular 
reason why the Court's order should not be complied with 
I think the Court will sustain that objection.
BY MRS. MOTLEY: I just would like to point out the only 
reason we did that was that two people we had planned to 
use as witnesses were unavailable, and so at the last 
minute we decided to substitute these two people, but, of 
course, if there is objection and the Court sustains it, 
there is nothing we can do about that.
BY JUDGE RIVES: I think we would have to sustain the ob­
jection.

JOSEPH BROADWATER, called as a witness and having been duly 
sworn, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MRS. MOTLEY;
Q* State your name for the record.
A. My name is Joseph Broadwater.
Q- Are you one of the plaintiffs in this case?
A. I am.



74
(R-867)
Q. Do you live here in the City of Jackson?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. How long have you lived in the State of Mississippi?
A. All my life.
Q, Mr. Broadwater, do you have occasion to use the local 

buses of the City of Jackson?
A. Once occasionally,
0,. Have you used the Illinois Central Railroad?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Have you ever used the Greyhound bus?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Have you ever used the Continental Trailways?
A. Yes.

BY MR, SHARDS: When either Mr. Clark or I make an objec 
tion or an announcement, may the record show that we 
are doing that on behalf of Mr. Patterson, the Attorney 
General of the State of Mississippi, who is a party de­
fendant, without having to take up time of the Court 
and clutter the record each time that we are speaking in 
his behalf?
BY JUDGE RIVES: It is so understood.
BY MR. SHARDS: Our objection is, "Dias he ever used it?" 
We think it ought to be brought down to when he used it 
rather than just covering since the beginning of time.
BY MRS. MOTLEY: I plan to, Your Honor, if I can get 
started.



75
(R-868)
(continaing:)
Q. Mr*. Broadwater, when did you last use the Illinois Cen­

tral?
A. I believe in 1957* sometime in July.
Q. Where did you go on the Illinois Central?
A. My destination was Detroit, but I only went as far as 

Chicago on the Illinois Central.
Q. And you boarded the train here in Jackson?
A. Yes.

BY MR. SHAKOS: Let the record show on behalf of the 
Attorney General we object to all of this testimony as 
being admissible against him in the use of the carrier 
that he is defending.
BY JODGE RIVES: The objection is overruled. You have a 
right to renew it from time to time.

Q. Have you ever used the Illinois Central at any other 
time?

A. No other time.
Q* Have you ever had occasion to write to the Illinois Cen­

tral concerning any of its policies or practices?

BY MR. SHAND3: We object to that. That calls for a 
conclusion, first. Second, it would be hearsay evidence 
insofar as the Attorney General is concerned and there 
has been no proof of any policy that she asks in the con-



76
(r-868)

elusionary summation of this witness, and we object to 
that.
BY JUDGE RIVES: Objection overruled.

(R-869)
Q, Have you ever had occasion to write to the Illinois Cen­

tral concerning any of its policies or practices?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Do you remember approximately when that was?
A. I believe it was 1957 in August, I believe.
Q. And you say the trip which you made on the Illinois Cen­

tral was in July, 1957? Is that right?
A. That is correct.

BY MR. SHANDS: May we have a running objection to these 
questions without having to renew the objection?
BY JUDGE RIVES: Yes.

Q. Mr. Broadwater, I want to show you a letter dated August 
5, 1957, and ask you if you can identify this letter.

A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. What is it?
A. You care for me to read it?
Q. Just a minute. (Hands to counsel opposite)

BY MR. SHAKDS: We would like to add an objection, since 
seeing the letter, that it is chock full of self-serving 
declarations. I think the Court will so find upon



77
(R-869)

examination of the letter,
BY JUDGE RIVES: May we see the letter?
(Same is handed to the Court)
BY JUDGE RIVES: The Court will overrule the objection so 

(R-870)
far as the Illinois Central Railroad Company is concern­
ed. As to the other defendants, the Court sustains the 
objection.
BY MR. SHARDS: Thank you, Your Honor.

Q. Mr, Broadwater, when you took your trip on the Illinois 
Central to Detroit, were you subject to any segregation 
on the train itself?

BY MR. SHARDS: We object to that. That Is a complete 
conclusion of law. In addition to that, the question is 
leading. Whether he was or was not subjected. This is 
an objection fromthe standpoint of the Attorney General, 
and certainly it is not admissible as to him for any 
purpose, and the question is leading and also calls for 
a conclusion,
BY JUDGE RIVES: The testimony, based upon that letter, 
would be restricted tothe Illinois Central Railroad.
EY MR. CERRE: In behalf of the Illinois Central, I 
would like to enter an objection to this line of testi­
mony on the basis It is rather remote in point of time 
and therefore Immaterial, as well as calling for a con-



78
(R-870)

elusion of the witness.
BY JUDGE RIVES: The objection is overruled.

Q. Do you want to answer the last question? That is: When

(R 871)U t00k y0Ur trip t0 Detroit on the 111:121013 Central,
were you subjected to any segregation on the train itself?

BY MR. SHARDS: We understand our objection to that con­
clusion was overruled?
BY JUDGE RIVES: I think it is plain enough by what we 
mean by "subjected." We will get the facts and the 
Court will overrule.

A. In the terminal there was restricted signs ----

BY MR. WATKINS: We object to that. Counsel said on the 
train itself, and he started talking about terminals.

A. In loading on the train, I observed that the porter would 
point you to the car and to the white and colored, the 
colored take one coach, which you find out was predomi­
nantly segregated, and the whites* was likewise.

BY MR. SHANDS: If the Court please, we make a further 
objection to that. He is undertaking to tell what a 
porter did or said. Someone else did this, and there 
is no connection with the Attorney General of the State 
of Mississippi in this.



79
(R-871)

BY JUDGE RIVES: As I understand it, this testimony is 
going in against the Illinois Central.
BY MR, SHARDS: Only?

(R-872)
BY JUDGE MIZE: That is right, and excluded to all the 
other defendants.
BY MR, CERNE: May I have a running objection to this as 
being remote in point of time?
BY JUDGE RIVES: You may.

Q. Directing your attention to the train itself, on the train, 
as you were riding on the train in 1957, was there any 
segregation of Negroes and white passengers on the train? 

A, I observed no close segregation on the train, no more
than in loading where he was trying to load white in one 
car and Negro in another.

Q. Did you observe any signs of any kind at the Illinois 
Central Railroad terminal in 1957 when you boarded the 
train?

A. Yes, there was race restricted signs in the terminal, 
designating white and colored waiting rooms and rest 
rooms.

Q* Let me show you this letter again dated August 5* 1957# 
and ask you if that is a letter written by you to the 
Illinois Central.

A. Yes.



80
(R-872)

BY MR. SHARDS: Is that the same letter we had a moment 
ago?
BY MRS. MOTLEY: That's right.

0. Is that also a letter you furnished to the court reporter
(R-872)

who took your deposition back in June of this year?
A. That is correct.
Q, Were you asked to produce that letter by the attorney for 

the City, Mr. Watkins?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you produce the letter?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you receive a reply from the Illinois Central Railroad 

to that letter?
A. Yes, ma'am.

BY MRS. MOTLEY: I ’d like to point out these letters are 
all attached to the deposition, which I presume the 
attorneys for defendants have seen and have read, and 
this is not new material for the first time. They have 
been attached to the depositions for about two months.
BY JUDGE RIVES: The response would be it is accepted 
also against the Illinois Central Railroad Company, but 
not as against the other defendants.

0* Did you receive this letter dated August 12, 1957* in 
response to your letter to the Illinois Central, which



81
(R-873)

you just identified?
A, Yes, ma'am.
Q. Is that the same copy of a letter from the Illinois Cen­

tral that is attached to your deposition in this case?
A. That Is correct.
Q. Did Mr. Watkins ask you to produce that letter?
(R-874)
A. Yes, he did.
Q. And you did?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Have you had occasion to ride any of the Greyhound buses? 
A. Yes, I have.
Q. When was the last time you rode the Greyhound, if you re­

call?
A. That was in '58.
Q. What?
A. The early part of '57, I believe, in January.
Q. What trip did you make on the Greyhound?
A. I went down to New Orleans.
Q. Went to New Orleans?
A. Yes.
Q. Prom Jackson, Mississippi?
A. Yes,

BY JUDGE RIVES: Witness, speak out.
BY THE WITNESS: Down in New Orleans, in January.



82
(R-874)
Q. Did you board the Greyhound bus in the City of Jackson, 

Mississippi?
A, Yes,
Q. Did you go to the Greyhound bus depot here?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Did you notice at that time any signs on the Greyhound 

bus depot?
A. Yes, there was.
(R-875)BY MR, SHARDS: Ve object from the standpoint of the 

Attorney general.
BY JUDGE RIVES: We will reserve the ruling on that 
objection.
BY MR, SHAKOS: May the basis of the ruling be broadened 
and may I give my reasons therefor? Which is, that 
there is no showing at this point that the Attorney Gene­
ral of the State of Mississippi had anything to do with 
what he is testifying about; no predicate laid for that 
at this point.
BY JUDGE RXVES: Of course, the whole case cannot be 
made out at one time.
BY MR, SHARDS: I understand that, Your Honor.
BY JUDGE RIVES: We reserve the ruling on that.
BY MR. O'MARA: If the Court please, the Greyhound Corpo­
ration objects to that question because of the remoteness 
in time.
BY JUDGE RIVES: That objection will be overruled.



83

(R—375)
Q. Did you observe any signs at all on the Greyhound bus 

depot in Jackson?
A. That is correct. I observed some.
Q. What was the nature of those signs?
A. Race restricted si@is placed at the terminal there, desig-

ting white and colored waiting rooms.
Q. Have you ever had occasion to write the Greyhound Corpo- 
(R-876)

ration concerning any of its policies and practices?
A. I have.

HI JUDGE RIVES: Unless this letter has been brought 
to the attention of the other defendants, the ruling is 
similar to the ruling in the Illinois Central; it is 
confined to Greyhound.

Q. I show you the letter dated August 5, 1957, addressed to 
Mr. A. S. Geuet, President, Greyhound Bus Company, Chica- 
to, Illinois, and ask you if you can identify that.

A. That is correct. This is the letter.
Q. That is a copy of a letter you wrote to the president 

of Greyhound?
A. That is correct.
Q* Is that the same letter as the letter attached to your 

deposition?
A. That is correct.
Q* Did. you produce that letter pursuant to a request made 

by Mr. Watkins, attorney for the City of Jackson?



m

(R-876)
A. Yes, ma'am,
Q. Mr. Broadwater, did you receive a reply from the Grey­

hound Bus Company to your letter of August 5, 1957, to 
the president?

A. That is correct.
Q, I show you a letter dated August 8, 1957, signed by Mr, 

Arthur S. Genet, and ask you if that is a copy of the 
reply which you received.

(K-877)
A. That is correct.
Q,. Now, I show you a letter dated August 19, 1957, signed

by Mr. H. Vance Greenslit of Southeastern Greyhound Lines 
in Lexington, Kentucky, and ask you if that is the 
letter which you received.

A. That is correct,
Q. Are these two letters attached to your deposition?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you produce these letters at the request of Mr. Wat­

kins?
A. Yes, I did.
Q* I show you a letter dated August 16, 1957> signed by Mr. 

Everett Renegar, to Mr. H. Vance Greenslit, and ask you 
if this is a copy of a letter which was enclosed in the 
letter which you received from Mr. Greenslit dated 
August 19, 1957.

A- That is correct.
Q* Is that letter attached to your deposition?



85
(R-877)
A, Yes, it is.
Q. Mr*. Broadwater, have you ever had occasion to ride the 

Trailways buses?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. When was the last time you rode the Trailways?
A. I believe in 1956 and ‘57.

BY JUDGE RIVES: 1956 and '57?
BY THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

(R-878)
Q, What trips did you make on those occasions?
A. To Albany, Georgia, in *57/ and in *56 I came from Magee, 

Mississippi, on a Trailways bus.

BY MR. SHARDS: Did he say that was the last time he 
rode it or he rode it at that time?
BY MRS. MOTLEY: In *56 and f57 he rode the Trailways.
BY MR. SHARDS: The only time?

Q. Well, is that the only time?
A. That's right.

BY JUDGE RIVES: The witness will speak up.
BY THE WITNESS: Thank you.
BY JUDGE RIVES: You are simply identifying these letters 
at this time?
BYMRS. MOTLEY: Yes, we plan to offer them, Your Honor.



86
(R-878)

BY JUDGE HIVES: Have counsel all seen these letters?
BY MRS. MOTLEY: They are all attached to the deposi­
tions.
BY JUDGE RIVES: We want to save as much time —
BY MR. O'MARA: We don't know what they are, Your Honor. 
BY JUDGE RIVES: All Right. That's all right. You may 
proceed.

Q. When you went to the Trailways bus depot here in Jackson, 
did you notice any signs on the depot itself?

A. Yes, I did.
(B-879)

BY MR. SHANDS: Is this evidence being received only 
as to the defendant Trailways here now? We have a run­
ning objection to this as to the Attorney General.
BY JUDGE RIVES: The Court is somewhat divided on that, 
as to whether a thing simply done purposely would be 
admissible against all. We are agreed the things in 
response to these letters are confined to the person to 
whom the letters are written. We will let the witness 
answer to the other and reserve ruling as to whether 
that evidence has any probative value against anybody 
except the Trailways.
BY MR, SHARDS: May I add to that, the signs would be 
the best evidence from a technical standpoint?
BY MR. CAMADA: On behalf of Continental Southern, we'd 
like to object to this testimony on two grounds: the



87
(R-879)

first ground being the remoteness of time; secondly, 
the signs themselves would be the best evidence; that 
this testimony is hearsay and has no probative value 
and should be excluded.
BY JUDGE RXVES: The Court reserves ruling,

Q. Do you remember the last question?
A. Yes, regarding the signs. They had race restriction 

signs placed at the Continental Trailways depot also.
Q. With respect to —
A. —  Colored and white.
Q. Colored and white?
(R-880)
A. Waiting rooms and rest rooms.

BY MR, CLARK: I cannot hear him.
BY JUDGE RIVES: Please speak up. Repeat the last ans­
wer.

A. They would have race restricted signs at the Continental 
Trailways in regard to white and colored.

BY MR, CANNADA: In behalf of Continental, we object to 
It as pure conclusion. If it is admissible testimony, 
it must be restricted to what he saw, what signs were 
there, where they were, and we object to his making and 
move to strike the last answer.



88
(R-880)

BY MR, O fMARA: The witness has answered a question just 
previously propounded to him with regard to signs at 
the Greyhound station where he says that he saw race 
restricted signs at that station. That is the one in 
Jackson. We object to that answer and move to exclude 
it for the same reasons that have been assigned as re­
gards to Trailways.
BY MR* SHANDS: May we have a further objection, if the 
Court please. This witness has either inadvertently or 
carefully refrained from stating what is on the sign, 
and this is a question of fact, and we ask and add to 
our objection that the witness, instead of talking about 
seeing signs, let him tell what is on the signs. And 
further, we adopt the objection additionally made by Mr. 

(R-881)
Cannada on behalf of Trail ways.
BY JUDGE RIVES: The Court reserves ruling on that.
BY MR. O rMARA: Is that the ruling on Continental and 
Greyhound also?
BY JUDGE RIVES: Yes.

(Mrs. Motley continues:)
Q. Do you recall where these signs were located?
A. They was located around the doors.
Q. Do you remember what they said?
A. I believe it said "WAITING ROOM FOR COLORED" and "WAITING 

ROOM FOR WHITE INTRASTATE PASSENGERS."



89
(R-881)

BY MR. SHARDS: We object. We are asking for fact.
This Is a very important point in the lawsuit, and we 
don’t want it carried beyond that.
BY JUDGE RIVES: The Court reserves ruling.

Q. Did you ever have occasion to write the Trailways Bus 
Company regarding any of its practices?

A. Yes, I did.
Q. Do you remember when that was?
A. That was in ’57 also.
Q. Let me show you this letter dated August 5, 1957, and ask

I
you if that is a copy of a letter which you wrote to 

I the president of Trailways Company.
I A. That is correct.

(R-882)
Q. Is that letter attached to your deposition?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Did you receive a reply to that letter?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Let me show you a letter dated September 4, 1957# signed 

by Mr. L. C. Jaynes, and ask you if that is a copy of 
the reply you received?

A. That is correct.
Q* Is that letter attached to your deposition?
A* Yes, ma’am.

BY JUDGE RIVES: That is in evidence against Trailways



90
(r-882 )

and not as against the other defendants.
BY MRS. MOTLEY": May it please the Court, the deposition 
of this plaintiff was taken by the defendant City of 
Jackson and its officials, and we would like at this 
time to offer in evidence the deposition of this plain­
tiff, to which is attached all of the letters which he 
has just identified. Of course, we have made a number 
of objections during the course of this deposition, 
which are noted here and which we advised the Court on a 
prior hearing that we would like a ruling on, and we are 
offering it subject to our objections as indicated.
BY JUDGE MIZE: Is this offered by agreement?
BY MRS. MOTLEY: No, the plaintiff is now offering this 
deposition.
BY JUDGE CLAYTON: That is a rather new idea to me. I 

(R-883)
understood the rule to be when the witness was available 
the deposition was not admissible.
BY JUDGE MIZE: If there is an objection to it, I think 
the rule is clear that plaintiff cannot offer the depo­
sition, but the defendants could.
BY MR. WATKINS: The City does object to it. The let­
ters were furnished later, and we certainly object to 
the letters and to the deposition in its entirety.
BY MRS. MOTLEY: I'd like to calithe Court's attention 
to Rule 26d, which I believe provides a party can offer 
the deposition upon a hearing or a trial for any purpose.



91
(R-883)

The reason we are offering this deposition is because 
they have already examined this man as to his residence 
and other matters which, to repeat at this time, would 
take up a lot of time.
BY JUDGE RIVES: Does that rule provide any party may 
offer it?
BY MRS. MOTLEY: It says upon the trial or the hearing 
of a motion or an interlocutory proceeding, any part or 
all of the deposition so far as admissible under the 
rules of evidence may be used against any party who was 
present or represented at the taking of the deposition 
or had due notice thereof in accordance with "any of the 
following provisions..11 And 3 provides, — - 1 provides: 
"Any deposition may be used by any party for the purpose 
of contradicting or impeaching the testimony of deponent

(R 884) 8 witness' 2' T 1 ' i e  deposition of a party or any one 
who at that time of the taking of the deposition was 
an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or 
private corporation, partnership or association which 
is a party may be used by an adverse party for any pur­
pose. 3, The deposition of a witness, whether a party 
or whether or not a party, may be used by any party for 
any purpose if the Court finds the witness is dead or 
(2) that the witness is at a greater distance than a 
hundred miles from a place of trial or hearing or is out
of the United States unless it appears the absence of 
the witness was procured by the party offering the depo-



92
(R-884)

sition, or (3 ) the witness is unable to attend or testi­
fy because of age, sickness, infirmity or imprisonment, 
or (4) the party offering the deposition has been unable 
to procure the attendance of the witness by subpoena, 
or (5 ) upon application and notice that such exceptional 
circumstances exist that make it desirable in the in­
terest of justice and with due regard to the importance 
of presenting the testimony of witnesses orally in open 
court to allow the deposition to be used. 4, If only 
part of a deposition is offered in evidence by a party, 
an adverse party may require him to introduce all of it 
which is relevant to the part introduced, and any party 
may introduce any other parts. Substitution of parties 
does not affect the right to use depositions previously 
taken, and, when an action of any court of the United 

(R-885)
States or of any state has been dismissed and another 
action involving the same subject matter is brought 
between the same parties or their representatives or 
successors in interest, all depositions lawfully taken 
and duly filed in the former action may be used in the 
latter as if originally taken therefor."
BY MR, WATKINS: If It please the Court----
BY JUDGE RIVES: %  understanding is it may be offered 
by the adverse party, or if the person is not available 
there are certain circumstances when it may be offered, 
but it may not be offered by the party whose testimony



93
(R-885)

was taken.
BY MR, WATKINS: May it please the Court, I wanted to say 
that we have no objection to the deposition except with 
respect to the correspondence attached. Insofar as the 
balance of the deposition is concerned, we have no objec­
tion.
BY JUDGE RIVES: It probably would save time if you have 
no objections.
BY MR, WATKINS: We have no objection except as to the 
correspondence attached.
BY MR, SHANDS: The Attorney General has no objection 
except as to the letters.
BY JUDGE RIVES: With the understanding the letters are 
being confined to the persons who wrote and received 
them, couldnft the deposition be received?
BY MR, WATKINS: As far as the City of Jackson is con­
cerned.

(R-886)
BY MR. SHMDS: What was that?
BY JUDGE RIVES: With the understanding the ruling as 
to the letters with the statement that the Court has made 
on this hearing, being confined as to admissibility to 
the parties who received and sent them, there is no fur­
ther objection to it?
BY MR, SHANDS: On that basis.
BY MR. CERNE: I believe this is improper procedure, and 
in any deposition discovery is the primary objective of



94
(r-886)

the party taking the deposition. Objections are not 
made on the basis that evidence is —
BY JUDGE RIVES: —  Very well. If it is objected to, 
you will have to proceed and go on with the witness.
BY MR, YOUNG: Jackson City Lines objects to the intro­
duction of the deposition. I was present at the taking 
of the deposition —
BY JUDGE RIVES: The objection has been sustained, so I 
don’t see why there is any need of putting —
BY MR. YOUNG: —  Yes, sir, but now it looks like it is 
going to be introduced by agreement, and I want an oppor­
tunity to examine this witness insofar as any testimony 
affecting Jackson City Lines is concerned.
BY MR, O ’MARA: As I understand the ruling, the deposi­
tion is not being admitted.
BY JUDGE RIVES: The deposition is not being admitted. 
Counsel would be permitted, however, to take the original 
letters from the deposition and offer them in evidence, 
if you wish to do so.

(R-887)
BY MRS, MOTLEY: We could do that. We have copies of all 
the letters, If there is no objection.
BY JUDGE RIVES: Are they photostatic copies?
BY MRS. MOTLEY: Yes, they are.
BY JUDGE RIVES: The photostatic copies may be intro­
duced in lieu of the original.
BY MRS. MOTLEY: I ’d like the reporter to mark these



95
(R-887)

letters then for Identification.
BY JUDGE RIVES: (They will be received subject to the 
former ruling of the Court.
BY MR, O'MARA: If she will introduce them so that we 
night make whatever objections we have, there are some 
objections that are rather simple that we possibly 
might not object to, and on others possibly we will. 
Instead of introducing them as a group, if she will in­
troduce them separately —
BY JUDGE RIVES: ¥111 you proceed with each letter and 
let the reporter mark it as an exhibit.
BY MRS, MOTLEY: Yes, sir. The first letter is dated 
August 5, 1957f and is addressed to Mr, Wayne Johnson, 
President, Illinois Central Railroad Company, Chicago, 
Illinois, signed by Joseph Broadwater, President, Jack- 
son Branch, HAACP.
BY MR. CERRE: Can I make my objection? I object on 
the basis I believe it has no probative value as evi­
dence. The letter was written; of course, we don’t deny

( that. But I believe the statements contained are obser- \R-ooo)
vations of the witness at that time, his conclusions as 
to what the law is or what the law should be, and that 
it further relates to a time at least four years ago, and 
for those reasons I believe it immaterial to the issues 
now before this Court.
BY JUDGE RIVES: We will reserve ruling upon the objec­
tion.



96
(r -888)

BY MR. WATKIBS: It Is ray understanding we need not ob­
ject as far as the other defendants. It Is not being 
admitted against the other defendants.
BY JUDGE RIVES; That was the Court’s announcement. It 
is not being admitted against any defendants except the 
defendant concerned.

(Same was received in evidence and marked as Plaintiff's 
Exhibit Bo. 1. This exhibit is not copied here because 
upon order of the Court all original exhibits are sent up 
with the mimeographed record.)

BY MRS, MOTLEY; The first letter is marked as plain­
tiff’s exhibit 1. As I understand it, this letter is 
received in evidence as against the Illinois Central?
BY JUDGE RIVES: Subject to the rulings of the Court. 
The Court reserves its ruling as to its probative value 
and whether the evidence is properly admitted.
BY MRS, MOTLEY; The next letter Is a letter dated 
August 12, 1957# to Mr. Broadwater, signed by ¥. A. 
Johnson, President of the Illinois Central Railroad 
Company. Plaintiff would like to offer this letter 
in evidence.
BY MR. CERBE: My objection relates to the letter to

(R-889)
which this letter Is in response.
BY JUDGE RIVES: Same ruling.



97
(R-889)
(Same received in evidence and marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 
#2. This exhibit is not copied here because upon order of 
the Court all original exhibits are sent up with the mimeo­
graphed record.)

BY MRS. MOTLEY: The next letter is dated August 5, 1957 
and is addressed to Mr. A. S. Geuet, President, Grey­
hound Bus Company, Chicago, and is signed by Mr. Broad­
water, President of the NAACP. Plaintiff would like to 
offer this letter in evidence.
BY MR. O'MARA: The Greyhound Bus Company objects to the 
introduction of this letter for the reason that it 
contains and is of no probative value. The letter con­
tains hearsay remarks that other people have made to 
the writer of the letter, which the writer has no perso­
nal knowledge of j the letter is self-serving, and is 
too remote in period of time.
BY JUDGE RIVES: The Court reserves ruling.

(Same received in evidence and marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 
#3. This exhibit is not copied here because upon order of 
the Court all original exhibits are sent up with the mimeo­
graphed record.)

BY MRS. MOTLEY: The next letter is dated August 8, 1957#
to Mr. Joseph Broadwater, and is signed by Arthur S. 
Genet, President of the Greyhound Bus Company. Plaintiff



98
(R-889)

would like to offer that letter in evidence,

{Same received in evidence and marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 
#4. Phis exhibit is not copied here because upon order of 
the Court all original exhibits are sent up with the mimeo­
graphed record.)
(R-89O)

BY MRS, MOTLEY: The next one is a letter dated August 
19* 1957* to Mr. Broadwater, signed by H. Vance Greenslit, 
Southeastern Greyhound Lines, Lexington, Kentucky, We'd 
like to offer that in evidence.

(Same received in evidence and marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 
#5. This exhibit is not copied here because upon order of 
the Court all original exhibits are sent up with the mimeo­
graphed record.)

BY MRS. MOTLEY: The next is a letter dated August 16, 
1957* to Mr, H. Vance Greenslit, President of Southeas­
tern Greyhound Lines, and signed by Everett Renegar.
We’d like to offer this letter in evidence.

(Same received in evidence and marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 
#6. This exhibit is not copied here because upon order of 
the Court all original exhibits are sent up with the mimeo­
graphed record.)



99
(R —8 9 0 )

BY MRS. MOTLEY: The next is a letter dated August 5, 
1957* to Mr. M. L. Jaynes, President, Continental Trail- 
ways Company, Washington, D. C., signed by Mr. Broad­
water. We’d like to offer this in evidence.
BY MR. O ’MARA: Continental objects to the introduction 
of that letter for the same reasons as assigned by the 
Greyhound Bus Company with regard to the letter pre­
viously objected to.
BY JUDGE RXVES: The Court carries the ob jection with the 
case.

(Same received in evidence and marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 
#7. This exhibit is not copied here because upon order of 
the Court all original exhibits are sent up with the mimeo­
graphed record.)
(R-891)

BY MRS. MOTLEY: The next is a letter dated September 4, 
3-957* signed by L. C. Jaynes, Major General, U. S. Army 
Retired, President of Trailways Company, to Me. Joseph 
Broadwater. W e ’d like to offer this in evidence.

(Same received in evidence and marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 
#8. This exhibit is not copied here because upon order of 
the Court all original exhibits are sent up with the mimeo­
graphed record.)

(Mrs. Motley continues:)



100

(R—891)
Q. Mr. Broadwater, have you ever had occasion to fly out of 

Jackson, Mississippi, on any of the airlines?

BY MR, SHANDS: We object to that, "Has the man ever had 
occasion to fly on an airline.,! There is not an airline 
made party defendant to this lawsuit. Secondly, from the 
beginning of time, when he was old enough, has he ever 
done it.
BY JUDGE HIVES: I understand she will tie it down as 
she did the other testimony.
BY MR, SHAKOS: We object from the standpoint of the 
Attorney General that nothing in that connection would 
be admissible against him and would be hearsay, and on 
other grounds.
BY MRS. MOTLEY: I ’ll withdraw the question and rephrase 
it, Your Honor.

Q. Have you ever had occasion to use the Jackson Municipal 
Airport?

(R-892)
A. Yes, I have.
Q* When was that?

BY MR, SHARDS: With the understanding you fix the time, 
BY MRS. MOTLEY: I ’m asking when it was.

0* When was that?



101
(R-892)
A. I believe that was In '59 I had occasion to travel to New 

York by Delta Airlines,
Q. When you went to the Jackson Municipal Airport, did you 

notice any signs of any kind?
A. Well, at the rest room facilities there was designated race 

restricted signs there.
Q. Were there any other signs?
A. That's the only o n e s ----And the water fountains.
Q. Any others?

BY MR, SHANDS: Do we have a running objection?
BY JUDGE RIVES: I think the witness should answer as 
nearly as he can what the signs say, rather than race 
restricted signs.
BY MR. SHANDS: Does the Court sustain our objection on 
that point?
BY JUDGE RIVES: Yes, sir.

A. It says, "REST ROOM FOR WHITE ONLY" or "COLORED ONLY."
And the same over the water fountains, "FOR WHITE ONLY" 

(R-893)
and "FOR COLORED ONLY."

Q,. Were there any other signs?
A. That's the only ones I observed.

I believe you testified earlier that you have had occasion 
to ride the Jackson City Lines?

A* I have.



102
(R-893)

Q, Have you ever noticed any signs on any of the buses of the 
Jackson City Lines?

A. I observed a sign on the top of the bus.
Q. Is that on the inside or the outside of the bus?
A. On the inside.
Q. Do you remember what the sign said?
A. I believe it was "COLORED SEATS FROM THE REAR" and "WHITE 

SEATS FROM THE FRONT" —

BY MR. SHANDS: We object to this witness* speculating 
and guessing.
BY JUDGE RIVES: And he hasn*t fixed the time.
BY MR. SHANDS: We want the facts.

Q. Do you recall any specific day on which you have ridden a 
bus of the Jackson City Lines?

A. I believe I rode one last year, that I observed that. I 
don’t think this particular bus had a sign on it, but 
they were seating from the rear, the colored was, and 
the whites was seating from the front.

(R-894)
BY JUDGE RXVES: Would the witness speak out distinctly? 
Did I understand you to say that was in i960?
BY THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
BY JUDGE RIVES: You did not get down the exact wording 
of the sign?
BY MR. SHANDS: He said there were none on that bus.
BY JUDGE RIVES: You said there were no signs?----



103
(R-894)

BY THE WITNESS: On that particular bus.
BY JUDGE RIVES: There were no signs in i960?
BY THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

Q. Did you ride any other time other than i960?
A. Well, occasionally, yes, I ride. Once upon a time I*ve 

seen them on the bus. That was in *57 or *58 they had 
some signs at that time in the top of the bus designating 
—  In other words, designating that the sign was the 
dividing line for the white and colored.

BY MR. SHANDS: We object tothe conclusion, "dividing 
line." Let him state what the facts are.
BY JUDGE RIVES: Sustain the objection. Let him state 
as nearly as he can what the sign says.
BY MR. SHANDS: We ask that it be excluded.

Q. In 1957 was there a physical separation of the races on 
the buses?

(R-895)
BY MR, WATKINS: We object to that as calling for a 
conclusion. Let him describe what was there.
BY MR. SHANDS: The Court has ruled that he should 
state the facts.
BY JUDGE RIVES: I think he should state the facts and 
let us draw the conclusions.



104
(R-895)
Q. Do you recall the physical arrangements of the buses?

BY MR, SHAHDS: We object to that. She asked about 
signs, and if the signs are there —
BY JUDGE RIVES: We overrule that objection.

A. There were those signs in the top of the bus designating 
the line, the margin where the colored and white was 
divided.

BY MR. SHARDS: We object to that, if the Court please.
He is undertaking to draw conclusions and not stating 
facts.

A. To my understanding it was where it could be adjustable.

BY MR. SHAHDS: He is talking about what his understand­
ing is.
BY JUDGE RIVES: I think we will have to get what you 
actually saw. Describe the facts as near as you actually

(R-896)
saw them on the bus without drawing a conclusion. You 
will confine it to what you actually saw. The facts.

A* This was a sign that would designate white and colored.

BY MR. SHAHDS: We object. There is a conclusion. We



105
(R-896)

move to exclude.
By JUDGE RIVES: The testimony is conclusion, Donft 
say "designate. 11 Tell us what the sign says, where the 
sign was.

A. It says "COLORED."

BY JUDGE RXVES: What is the wording of the sign accor­
ding to your best recollection?
BY THE WITNESS: The best recollection was that the sign 
was saying that "COLORED SEAT FROM THE REAR AND WHITE 
SEAT FROM THE FRONT."
BY JUDGE RIVES: Where was the sign located?
BY THE WITNESS: In the top of the bus.
BY JUDGE RIVES: When was this? What year?
BY THE WITNESS: That was in *57, I believe.
BY MR. SHANDS: May the record show we add to our objec­
tion that remoteness of time prevents the admissibility 
of that?
BY JUDGE RXVES: As I understand you to say, you rode 

(R-897)
buses in i960 or a bus in i960 and there were no signs? 
BY THE WITNESS: I think that was a chartered bus.
BY JUDGE RIVES: Was not a regular---
BY THE WITNESS; Yes, sir.
BY JUDGE RXVES: —  was not a regular City Lines bus?
BY THE WITNESS: It was a City Lines bus.



106

(R-997)
BY JUDGE HIVES: On a route?
BY THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
BY JUDGE HIVES: And. you think it was a chartered bus? 
BY THE WITNESS: It was headed — - I don't know if it 
was a regular City Lines or chartered, but at that time 
it wasn't on the regular roadj it game off North State. 
BY JUDGE RIVES: It wasn't riding on a regular route?
BY THE WITNESS: No.
BY JUDGE RIVES: If the practice was in existence in 
'57 and '58 and had been discontinued, the Court would 
sustain as to the present time.
BY M S ,  MOTLEY: Well, we have other witnesses on this 
point. I don't think we will pursue it with this wit~ 
ness. I think that is all for this witness.
BY JUDGE RIVES: You may cross examine.
BY MR. SHANDS: Will the Court indulge us five minutes? 
BY JUDGE RIVES: The Court will take a five minute
recess.

(Whereupon the hearing was recessed for five minutes.)
(R-898)

After Recess
BY JUDGE RIVES: To save time, counsel for defense may 
understand that as to this and other witnesses, the 
Court is going to reserve as many of the rulings as can 
be reserved in order to let the parties make a record 
In this case, and that in cross examining the witnesses



107
(R-898)

you may cross examine without waiving the objections 
that you have heretofore made. It will be understood 
there Is no waiver of your objections. You may proceed. 
BY MR. SHARDS: May I ask a point of clarification of 
the Court? It has been our purpose to move to exclude 
the testimony of the witness as to four matters, four 
questions, as to which objections the Court reserved 
ruling. Do I understand that the ruling of the Court 
relieves us of the normal procedure of making a motion 
to exclude?
BY JUDGE RIVES: The objection is already preserved if 
you made the objection. The Court carries the objection 
with the case.
BY MR. SHMDS: And if we made a motion to exclude, the 
Court would reserve the ruling?
BY JUDGE RIVES: Would reserve the ruling on that.
BY MR. SHARDS: And it may be so considered that we have 
done that?
BY JUDGE RIVES: Yes.

(R-899)

CROSS BXAKDHIION
BY MR, WATKINS:
0* 1 believe you stated you were 35 years of age and had

resided in Jackson for 20 years?
A. Yes.

¥ou have had three years of college?



108
(H-899)
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You are a registered voter?
A. I am.
Q. In Jackson, Mississippi?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You exercise that privilege?
A. Yes, sir.

BY MRS. MOTLEY: I don’t believe the witness testified to 
anything like that on his direct examination..
BY MR. WATKINS: I didn’t indicate he did. I ’m asking 
the question.
BY MRS. MOTLEY: I thought you started out by saying 
"You testified, didn’t you?"
BY MR. WATKINS: I thought he testified to his age.
BY MRS. MOTLEY: Anyway, we are objecting as irrelevant, 
as to whether he is a registered voter. I suppose his 
age is all right; there’s nothing wrong with that, but 
whether he votes, we object on the ground it is not 
relevant or material to the issues in this case.
BY JUDGE RIVES: We reserve ruling on that question. 

(R-900)
Who decided what plaintiffs would represent the class pur­
ported to be represented in this action?

BY MRS. MOTLEY: We object to that on the ground that 
doesn’t have any relevancy to the issues in this case.



109
(R—900)

BY JUDGE RIVES: Reserve ruling on that.

Q. ¥ill you answer that?
A. I believe It was Mr. Bailey and ftp. Jacob and myself.
Q- In other words, you three plaintiffs got together and de­

cided that you would represent the class purported to be 
represented?

That Is correct.
Q. And you discussed it with no one else?
A. No one else.
Q. You knew that there were a lot of members of that class, 

both In Jackson and In the State of Mississippi, who did 
not agree with the position you were purporting to take 
for the class, didn't you?

BY MRS. MOTLEY: We object to that on the ground that is 
not relevant or material to the issues in this case, 
whether other people object to the plaintiffs' position. 
BY JUDGE RIVES: We reserve the ruling on that.

Q.* You knew that, didn't you, Mr. Broadwater?
(R-90CL)

I didn’t know how the other people were feeling, what 
side they were on. I didn't take a poll of them.

Q- You heard Bailey testify immediately before you testified 
on the depositions of June 29> 1961, didn't you?

A* That is correct.



no
(R-901)
Q. You heard him testify that he knew that other members of 

the class did not agree with the position you were 
taking, didn't you?

A. Probably so.
Q. And in your testimony you adopted his testimony on that 

question in toto, didn’t you, in your deposition?
A, That's correct.
Q. Now, have you during your 20 years in Jackson attempted 

to test any of your rights under any of the statutes 
attacked in this case or the ordinances in any court in 
Mississippi, either state or federal?

A. No.
Q. Have you ever been charged with violation of any one of 

those statutes or that ordinance in any court of the 
State of Mississippi?

A. Well, I didn't think it was necessary to —
I didn't ask you what you thought, My question was have 
you ever been charged with violation of any one of those 
statutes or ordinances?

A. No.
Q. Have you ever been threatened with arrest or prosecution

under any of those statutes or ordinance?
f  No.
(R-902)
Q. Have you ever sought to invoke any right, privilege or

immunity that you thought you were entitled to under
any of those statutes or that ordinance?

A. No.



Ill
(R-902)
Q. Has the City of Jackson, acting through any of Its offi­

cials or any city defendant to this case, ever refused 
to permit you to do anything that you wanted to do in 
connection with the statutes and ordinances involved in 
this case?

A. I never did try.
Q. Beg pardon?
A. I never did try to break any segregation laws. I didn't 

feel it was necessary.
Q. I believe my question was whether any official or officer 

of the City of Jackson ever refused to permit you to do 
anything that you requested to do. Have they?

A. I never requested it from them.
Q. Then your answer is no, isn’t it?
A. No.
Q. Now, Mr. Broadwater, your attorneys didn't make this suit 

as broad as you had instructed them to make it, did 
they?

A. No, sir.
Q. You intended it to cover schools —  As a matter of fact, 

you intended it to be a lawsuit to bring about total in­
tegration, didn’t you? Didn’t you?

A. Yes, sir.
And in bringing this suit, that is your purpose, as far 
as you personally are concerned, to bring about total 
integration in the State of Mississippi, isn't it?



112
(R-903)

BY MRS. MOTLEY': We object to this.
BY JUDGE RIVES: The Court sustains the objection.
BY MR. WATKINS: No further questions.

CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. SHANDS:
Q. Broadwater, have you ever tried to do anything and been 

denied the right to do it by Mr. Joe T. Patterson, the 
Attorney General of the State of Mississippi?

A. No.
Q. Has he ever threatened you?
A. No.
Q. Your answer to that was no? Is that correct?
A. That's right.

BY MR, SHARDS: No further questions.
BY JUDGE RIVES: Anything further from this witness?
BY MR. CERNE: Yes, sir.

CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. CERNE:
Q* As I understand It, this trip on the Illinois Central 

train was in July, '57?
A* That is correct.

Did you observe any signs on the train?
A. No.
Q. Did you have occasion to use the dining car?



113
(R-903)
A, Yes, sir,
(R-904)
Q, Did you have occasion to use the dining car on that trip?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Were you refused service?
A, No.
Q. Were there white people in the dining car with you?
A, There were.
Q. When this letter was written, the letter identified as 

Exhibit 1, did that reflect your complaint against the 
Illinois Central at that time?

A. Yes, sir.
Q.. I don't think you described the signs which you mentioned 

you saw in the Jackson station. Would you tell us 
what they were?

A. The signs in the station was signs that stated "WAITING 
ROOM FOR WHITE ONLY" and "COLORED WAITING ROOMS ONLY."

Q* Where were these located?
A. They were placed - One, I believe in front of each door, 

and one was placed where you go up the entrance to board 
the train.

Q. Were these signs those that say "By Order of the Police 
Department"?

A. That is correct.
Q. Have you been to the station since that time?
A. I have,
Q. What was the la s t time?



114
(R-904)
A. Several weeks ago. I don't recall the exact date.
Q. Were the signs there, the same ones you described?
(R-905)A. Still there.
Q. And they all say "By Order of the Police Department"? 
A. Yes, sir.

BY MR. CERWE: Wo further questions.
BY JUDGE RIVES: Any further cross examination? Any 
rebuttal?
BY MRS. MOTLEY: Wo, Your Honor.
BY MR. SHARES: Just one moment. May I have the indul­
gence of the Court to ask a question that has been 
occasioned by that asked by the attorney for the Illinois 
Central Railroad?
BY JUDGE RIVES: Very well.

FURTHER CROSS EXAMIHATIOW
BY MR. SHARDS:
Q. The trips you were talking about a while ago that you took 

were interstate trips, weren't they? Interstate trips? 
From one state to the other?

A. That is correct.
Q* That's right. And that covered them a ll?
A. Yes, sir.

BY JUDGE RIVES: Any rebuttal? 
BY MRS. MOTLEY: Wo rebuttal.



115
(R-905)

BY JUDGE RIVES: (To witness) You may come down.

(Witness excused)
(R-906)
BIBMETT L, JACOB* called as a witness and having been duly 
sworn, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
M R S .  MOTLEY:
Q. State your full name for the record.
A. Burnett L, Jacob.
Q. Do you live in the City of Jackson, Mr. Jacob?
A. Yes, I dcd.
Q. How long have you lived in the State of Mississippi?
A. years.

Since you have been in the State of Mississippi, have you 
had occasion to ride the Greyhound bus?

A. Yes, I have.
Q. Do you recall the last time you rode the Greyhound?
A, *58, I think.
Q. Where did you go on the Greyhound bus?
A. Clarksdale, Mississippi.
Q. Is that in Mississippi?
A. Clarksdale, Mississippi.

Did you board the bus at the Greyhound depot here in 
Jackson?

A. Yes, I did.
Q* When you went to the Greyhound bus depot in *58, did you



116
(E-906)

notice any signs of any kind on the bus depot itself?
A, There was a sign at the bus depot, yes, ma'am,
Q. Where was the sign located?
A. It was located at the door that goes into the colored 

waiting room.
Q,. Do you remember what the sign said?
(R-907)
A. "WAITING ROOM FOR COLORED."
Q,. Were there any other signs?
A. This was the only sign I saw. I didn't go around to ano­

ther door.
Q. Have you ever had occasion to ride the Illinois Central 

Railroad?
A. Yes, I have.
Q, When was that?
A. Last week.
Q. Where did you go on the Illinois Central?
A. From Edwards, Mississippi, to Jackson.
Q. Did you board the train here at the Illinois Central 

terminal in the City of Jackson?
A. No, X boarded the train at Edwards.
Q. Did you get off the train here in the City of Jackson?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you notice any signs in the Illinois Central terminal? 
A. I did.
Q* What signs did you see?
A. The sign I saw said "COLORED WAITING ROOM," with an arrow



117
(R-907)

pointing to the door on the north side of the building 
coming down from where you get off the train upstairs,

Q. Did you see any other signs?
A. I saw another sign straight in front on the south side 

that said "WHITE WAITING ROOM,"
Q. Did you see any other signs?
A. No, I didn't.
(R-908)
Q. You say the sign said "COLORED WAITING ROOM" and "WHITE 

WAITING ROOM"?
A. Yes, It did.
Q. Did it say anything else?
A. It said "BY ORDER OP THE POLICE DEPARTMENT."

BY JUDGE RIVES: It said what?
BY WITNESS: It said "COLORED WAITING ROOM - ORDER OP 
THE POLICE.”
BY JUDGE RIVES: Order of the police?
BY WITNESS: Yes, sir.

Q* And then the white waiting room sign said the same thing? 
A. Yes, it did.
Q* Did you notice signs any other place?
A. No, I ditto*t.
Q* Have you ever had occasion to ride the buses of the Jack- 

son City Lines?
A. Yes, I have.



118

(R-908)

Q. Do you own a car?
A, Yes, I do,
Q. Do you ride the Jackson City Lines, would you say, regu­

larly or infrequently or what?
A. Infrequently.
Q. When was the last time you rode the Jackson City Lines?
A. A month ago.
Q. Did you notice any signs on the bus itself?
(R-909)A. Yes, I did.
Q. Where were the signs located?
A. One sign was at the front top of the bus, saying "COLORED 

PILL PROM BACK TO FRONT." Then I saw two signs on 
each side of the seats about three seats from the driver. 
The front of it said "WHITE" and the back of the sign 
said "COLORED."

0.* Did you see any other signs?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Have you ever had occasion to ride the Trailways bus?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. When was the last time you rode the Trailways?
A. Saturday.
Q. Where did you go?
A. Prom Edwards, Mississippi, to Jackson, Mississippi.

BY MR. SHANDS: Prom where?
BY WITNESS: Edwards to Jackson, Mississippi.



119
(R-909)
Q, Where did you board the bus?
A. At Edwards.
Q. Did you get off the bus in the Trailways terminal here in 

the City of Jackson?
A, Yes, I did.
Q. When you boarded the bus in Edwards, Mississippi, did you 

notice any signs?
A. No, I didn't.
(R-910)
Q. Did you notice any signs on the Trailways Bus depot in 

the City of Jackson when you got off the bus?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What signs did you see?
A. I saw the sign said "COLORED WAITING ROOM."
Q. Where was it located?
A. It was located on the top of a door, the second door from 

where the bus drove in.
Q. Did you see any other signs?
A. "WHITE WAITING RO$M" was on the west end of the bus sta­

tion.
Q. Where was that located?
A. On the top of the door that said "WHITE WAITING ROOM."
Q* Did you see any other signs?
A. No, I didn't.

BY MRS. MOTLEY: We'd like the record to show that this 
plaintiff is Negro. I suppose there is no objection to



120
(R-910)

that. And that the previous plaintiff is a Negro. I 
just want the record to show that.
BY JUDGE RXVES: The Court has seen them and the record 
may show they are Negroes.

Q. You are a citizen of the United States, aren’t you?
A. I am.
Q. Have you ever been arrested for violation of any of the 

laws of the State of Mississippi?
A. No, I haven't.
(R-911)
0. Have you ever tried to use any of the facilities which had 

these signs "FOR WHITES" over the waiting room, or any 
of that sort of limitation?

A. No, I haven't.

BY MRS. MOTLEY: That is all of this witness.

CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. WATKINS:
Q. You also have had three years of college, I believe?
A. I have.
Q- And you are a registered voter of Jackson, Mississippi?
A. I am.

And you exercise that right?
A. Beg pardon?
Q* You exercise that privilege?



121
(R-911)
A. Yes, X do.
Q.

Q.
A.

Who decided that you and the otter two plaintiffs would 
represent the class purported to be represented in this 
action?

We three, the three in the committee.
And that’s you and the other two plaintiffs?
Right.

Q. Without any discussion with anyone else?
A, No, I haven’t.
Q* And you have made no effort to find out how any other mem­

bers of the purported class feel about the position you 
are taking?

(R-912)
A. No, I haven’t.
Q* You do know that there are many members of that purported 

class who do not agree with the position you and the 
other plaintiffs have taken, don’t you?

A. That is true.
Q. In referring in your complaint and your amended complaint 

in this action to policies, practice, customs, regula­
tions, I will ask you if you were not referring only to 
those defined in the statutes and ordinances which you 
attack in this lawsuit.

A. Right, Sir.
You havenever sought to test what you believe to be your 
rights under any of these statutes or this ordinance in 
any court in the State of Mississippi, have you?



122
(R-912)
A. No, I haven't.
Q* You have never been charged with violation of any of those 

statutes or that ordinance?
A. No, I haven't.
Q. You have never been threatened with arrest or prosecution 

for violation of any of those statutes or that ordinance?
A. No.
Q, And never denied any right, privilege or immunity you 

claim under any of those statutes or that ordinance?
A. No.
Q. You have never been denied the right to do anything by 

the officials or any officer of the City of Jackson 
that you wanted to do, have you?

(R-913)
A. No, I haven't.

BY MR* WATKINS: I believe that is all.

CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. SHANDS:
Q. As to the defendant, the Attorney General, Mr. Joe T. 

Patterson, he has never denied you any right that you 
claim, has he?

A- No, he hasn't.
He has not threatened you in any manner, has he?

A. No, he hasn't.
Q* He has never threatened to enforce any statutes against



123
(R-913)

you, has he?
A. No, he hasn't,

BY MR, SHANES: NC further questions.
BY MRS. MOTLEY: That is all.
BY JUDGE RIVES: Did you want to ask any questions?
BY MR. J. ¥, YOUNG: Yes, I do, Your Honor.

CROSS EXAMINATION 
BY MR. J. WILL YOUNG:
Q. Jacob, how long did you say you had lived in Jackson?
A. I've lived in Jackson approximately 15 years.
Q. Is that constantly for the last 15 years?
A. No, not constantly, no, sir.
(R-914)
Q. How constantly have you lived in Jackson for the last 15 

years?
A. Seven.
Q. For the last seven years?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. During those seven years, how many times would you say you 

have ridden a Jackson City Lines bus?
A* Couple of hundred times.
Q- This last time you testified about when you boarded the 

bus, did you board it for the purpose of inspecting the 
signs for the purpose of testifying in this case?

A- No, I didn't.



124
(R-914)
Q. Where did you board the bus?
A. On Lynch Street.
Q, Where did you get off?
A. On Parrish and Capitol.
Q. Again describe to the Court the signs you saw in that bus.
A. On that bus I saw the sign at the top of the bus that 

said, "COLORED SEATSFROM THE REAR TO THE F R O M 1", and a 
few seats from the driver the sign on top of the seat, 
"WHITE" on the front of the sign and "COLORED" on the 
back of the sign.

Q. And there was one on each side of the bus on top of the 
seat?

A. True,
Q. And that was about a month ago?
A, Yes, sir.
Q. And at that time you had been on the witness stand during 

the taking of your deposition in Biloxi and were aware 
(R-915)

of this lawsuit and knew you were going to testify about 
those signs on that bus?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. And there were three signs on that bus?
A. Right.
Q. Now, you were b o m  and reared in the State of Mississippi, 

were you not?
A. I was.

You are familiar with the folklore and the customs of the



125
(R-915)

people of the State of Mississippi?
A, I am.
Q. You know as a matter of fact that it has been customary 

from the time you and. I were born for colored people to 
sit in one place and white people to sit in another?

A. That has been a custom, yes.
Q. You know that regardless of any law, ordinance or sign or 

anything else, if you go in and sit down in the front of 
that bus there will probably be trouble, don’t you?

A. I know that.
Q. That is something we have learned from childhood, isn’t 

it?
A. Something handed down, yes.
Q. And it’s something you could probably anticipate if you 

did it, isn’t it?
A. Right.

And regardless of any sign, as long as that condition 
prevails you are going to continue to go and sit with 
the other members of the colored race, aren’t you?

A. I have so far, yes.
(R-916)

BY MR. YOUNG: That is all.
BY JUDGE RIVES: Any further cross examination? Any 
rebuttal?

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MRS. MOTLEY:

You brought this suit to get that custom changed, didn’t



126
(R-916)

you?
A. I did.
Q. And If the Court should say that you have a right to ride 

in the front of the bus, you are going to exercise your 
right, aren’t you?

By MR. SHARDS: We object to that —
A. I do. I will.

MR. SHARDS: —  It is leading and suggestive and 
talking about the future and speculation offhand. This 
is direct examination.
BY JUDGE RIVES: The question is leading, and the objec­
tion is sustained as leading.
BY MRS. MOTLEY: That is all.
BY JUDGE RIVES: You may come down, (to witness)

(Witness excused)

SAMUEL BAILEY, called as a witness and having been duly sworn, 
testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MRS. MOTLEY:
0* State your full name.
(R-917)A* Samuel B a iley .

Are you a p la in t if f  in  th is  case?
A. That is  true.
Q* Are you a citizen of the United States?



127
(H-917)
A, Yes, ma'am.
Q. And a Negro?
A. Yes, ma’am.
Q. How long have you lived in Mississippi?
A. For the last 15 years. Off and on all my life. I travel­

ed up to St. Louis, Chicago, Detroit, and stayed a year, 
but actually this is my home, Mississippi.

Q. Since you have been in Mississippi, have you ever had 
occasion to ride the TrUways bus?

A. Yes, ma’am.
Q. When was that?
A. I rode it for six months in 1959 starting from June, every 

Monday morning to Meridian and back on weekends.
Q. What year was that?
A. *5 9 .
Q. Did you ride it at any time prior thereto?
A. I don’t believe so; not the Trailways.

At any time that you rode the Trailways bus, did you 
observe any signs on the bus?

A. A good many signs, but wasn’t no signs on the bus 
according to race or anything on the bus.

BY MR, CANNADA: We object to that. She asked a specific 
(R-918)

question, and I ask him to restrict it to the question.
BY JUDGE RIVES: I think it is fairly responsive. Over­
rule the objection.



128
(R-918)
Q, When you boarded the bus in the City of Jackson, did you 

notice any signs in the Trailways bus depot?
A. Yes, ma’am.
Q. Where were the signs located?
A. One is on the sidewalk on Pascagoula Street that says, 

"COLORED WAITING ROOM - By Order of the Police," and up 
on the door as you enter is "COLORED INTRASTATE PASSEN­
GERS*" I believe that is the way it reads.

Q. Any other signs?
A. As you go in the door to the restroom, colored restroom, 

and if you go out the door to the bus, it’s a sign on 
the door says "COLORED WAITING ROOM."

Q* Is that another door?
A. Yes, ma’am. You got two doors. You come in one door and 

go out and board the bus on the south side of the 
Trailways and there’s a sign on each door.

Q* And the signs says what?
A. The one on the street says "COLORED WAITING ROOM" with an 

arrow and "By Order of the Police Department." The one
on the door says "INTRASTATE PASSENGERS"----I believe
that’s correct, or "INTERSTATE" or — "INTRASTATE."

Q* Intrastate what passengers?
A* Colored.
(R-919)

Apo there any other signs?
A* as you go in the waiting room, it’s a sign there,

"COLORED RESTROOM." As you go out the south door there



129
(R-919)

Is "COLORED WAITING ROOM. "

BT JUDGE RIVES: I»m not clear on the period he is testi­
fying about. He said 1959* 1959 extending up to when?
BY THE WITNESS: Up to December of 1959.
BY JUDGE RIVES: December of 1959?
BY THE WITNESS: That* s correct. I worked down at Meri­
dian.

Q. Now, on any occasion that you have ridden the Trailways 
bus, have you been subjected to any kind of limitation 
on where you might sit?

A. Not me indirectly, no, ma'am, but one sat, in December —
I don't remember the exact date —  a white soldier and 
his wife —

BY MR. SHANDS: December of when?
BY THE WITNESS: *59.
BY MR. SHANDS: *59?
BY THE WITNESS: *59.
BY 1®. CANNADA: We make an objection for Continental 
Southern. We have asked by interrogatories for the
Plaintiffs to give us the time, places and dates of any 

(R-920)
alleged discrimination in the buses. They have indicated 
in their answer that this witness would have the date in 
December of this year, but did not give us the day or the



130
(R-920)

time or the hour, making it impossible for us in any way 
to check it. It isn't specific enough, and we object to 
any testimony from a witness who talks in those types 
of generalities that make it impossible for us to do 
any kind of checking.
BT JUEGE RXVES: He testified to a date of December,
I960, rather than 1959?
BY THE WITNESS: ‘59. 1959.
BY JUDGE RIVES: You don't say your notice was a year 
different —  ?
BY MR. CMHADA: We say, first, it was a year different, 
and, secondly, if it were the same year it would make it 
impossible for us to check it and see what did happen.
We object as being vague and uncertain and indefinite, 
and we object.
BY JUDGE RIVES: What kind of notice do you say was given 
in response to that?
BY MRS. MOTLEY: I think the notice said i960, Your Honor. 
BY MR. CANHADA: How, he says *59.
BY MRS. MOTLEY: I think he said in the deposition 
l59-'6o. In the deposition he said i96 0. This is page 
27.
BY JUDGE RIVES: If thenotice says that the incident 
occurred in i960, we would have to sustain the objection. 
He now says December, 1959.

(R-9 2 1)
(Mrs. Motley continues:)



131
(R-921)
Q. Did you have occasion to ride the Trailways bus at any 

time during i960?
A. I don’t think I rode it In *60. I was transferred to 

Clarksdale in January of i960.

BY MR, CANNADA: We object to this testimony.
BY MR, SHARDS: Prom the standpoint of the Attorney- 
General, we understand our running ob jectionapplies to 
each one of these plaintiffs as they take the stand, or 
shall we renew our objection? The Attorney General 
objects that none of this is admissible against him.
BT JUDGE RIVES: Well, we understand that runs with the 
case.
BY MR, SHARDS: With each witness for the reason origi­
nally stated in connection with the first witness?
BY JUDGE RIVES: Yes.

Q. How, in 1959 when you rode the Trailways, did you notice 
and signs at the Trailways terminal in Meridian? I 
think that’s where you said you rode.

A. There’s no signs there.
Q* No signs in Meridian?
A* No signs in Meridian.
Q* On the terminal?
A« On the terminal. No sign,
Q* Have you ever had occasion to ride the Illinois Central?



132
(R-922)
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. When have you ridden the Illinois Central?
A. !55# I believe. '55 was the last time I rode It.
Q. Where did you go at that time?
A. I went to St. Louis.
Q. Did you notice any signs on the terminal of the Illinois 

Central at that time?
A. Well, the sign they had at that time was on the door,

"COLORED WAITING ROOM" and "WHITE WAITING ROOM" at that 
particular time.

Q. Were there any signs on the train of the Illinois Central 
at that time?

A. No, ma'am. I didn't see any in '55.
Q. Have you ever had occasion to ride the Jackson City Lines?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Do you ride the Jackson City Lines often or infrequently 

or how often would you say?
A. I  ride them often, maybe three or four times a week.
Q. Have you noticed any signs on the buses of the Jackson 

City Lines?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Where were the signs located?
A. They have several signs, but the sign that we are re­

ferring to would be the one that sits up in front of the 
bus. As you step up it's over there, that says "COLORED 
PASSENGERS SEAT PROM THE REAR TO THE PRONT." "WHITE 
PASSENGERS START SEATING PROM THE PRONT TO THE REAR -



133
(R-922)

By Order of the Commission" -- I believe that's right,
(R-923)City Commission.
Q. Have you noticed any other signs on the bus of Jackson 

City Lines?
A. I haven't seen one hanging up lately. Used to have one 

up there, "White" on one side and "Colored" that the 
driver, if the bus would fill up, he would move forward 
and back.

Q. When was the last time you saw that?
A. I'd say in i960.
Q. Have you ever had occasion to ride the Greyhound?
A. Yes, rna' am.
Q, When did you ride the Greyhound?
A. Last rode the Greyhound in June of i960.
Q. Where did you board the bus?
A. I boarded Monday morning from Jackson to Clarksdale and 

stayed two weeks and boarded Clarksdale back to Jackson. 
Q. Did you notice any signs on the depot here in Jackson on 

the Greyhound?
A. Yes, ma * am.
Q* Where were those signs located?
A* As you come in from the south side there is a sign over 

the door, "COLORED WAITING ROOM" and there's a sign 
there "ORDERED BY THE POLICE," "COLORED WAITING ROOM."

Q* Where is that located?
A. On the ground on the south side of the Greyhound bus sta-



134
(R-923)

tion.
Q. Where is the other sign located?
A* I didn't go around to the front. X didn't see any more.

One is over the door.
(R-924)
Q. What does it say?
A. INTRASTATE PASSENGERS, COLORED." I helieve that's correct. 
Q, You say you took the Greyhound to Meridian?
A. Greyhound to Clarksdale.
Q. Were there any signs on the bus depot inClarksdale?
A. Yes, ma'am.

BY MR. SHANDS: We object to that. We think this suit is 
couched from the standpoint of Jackson and not Clarks­
dale.
BY JUDGE RIVES: The objection is overruled.

Q. Were there any signs on the Greyhound bus depot in Clarks­
dale?

A* Yes, ma'am,
Q- Where were those signs located?
A. On the door. "COLORED WAITING ROOM" or "WHITE WAITING 

ROOM."
Did the sign say anything else?

A* I don't remember. That's all I remember seeing.
Q* Did you see signs any place else?
A. Except restrooms, "colored restroom," or "white."



135
(R-924)
Q* VJhen jou rode the Trailways bus In 1959, have you ever 

been limited or restricted as to where you might sit 
on the bus, you yourself?

BI MR. CiUMADA: We have asked this particular question 
of this plaintiff and they gave us one incident that 
occurred in i960, and he now says he didn't ride the bus 
in i960. We object to any testimony from this witness 
along that line.

(R-925)
BY MRS. MOTLEY-: I think, Your Honor, in the answer to 
the interrogatory which was submitted to us by the 
Greyhound, we said that "some of the witnesses in some 
of the instances as to which there would be testimony 
was the following.." I don't think we limited ourselves 
to any specific date only by answering those interroga- 
ries. I would, like to point out also I believe there was 
an error made by myself with respect to the witnesses who 
would testify against the Greyhound. I believe that I 
said the Court had directed us to furnish the names of 
persons who would be testifying against the Greyhound, 
but, as a matter of fact, that was the Jackson City 
Lines, and we furnished those names to the Jackson City 
Lines.
Subsequently, a fte r that appearing in  that order, the 
Greyhound and the Trailways submitted to us interroga­
tories asking us to submit the names of any persons who



13 6
(R-925)

had any evidence against them or would be testifying, 
and we submitted interrogatories. Now, the questions 
which they asked us in those Interrogatories were very 
broad. For example, the first question was, could we 
give the names of every person who had ever ridden any 
of the buses, or every person who had ever been subjected 
to any limitation, and we pointed out in answer to the 
interrogatories that we couldn't possibly name every per­
son who had ever ridden any bus, but these are some of 
the people who would testify. Now there is an attempt 
here to limit us to only those one or two people, as to 

(R-926)
each question, which we named there and the dates given 
to the best of our knowledge at that time. And certainly 
we didn't answer those interrogatories with that under­
standing that on this trial we would be restricted to 
the limited information available to us at that time 
as to the particular date and the incident occurring, 
and we pointed out that these were only some of the 
people who would be testifying as to instances there.
So I wanted to bring that out and to clarify that I had 
made an error this morning as to the two witnesses that 
I thought were new to the situation as regards to Grey­
hound. The order was directed, as I recall, to the Jack- 
son City Lines.
BY" JUDGE RIVES: Do you have the interrogatories? The 
recollection of the Court is that the order was confined



137
(R-926)

to the Jackson City Lines, bat do you have your questions 
propounded by Greyhound and the answers?
BY MRS. MOTLEY: Yes, we do.
BY JUDGE RIVES: May the Court examine those?
BY MRS. MOTLEY: Yes, sir. (Same is handed to Court)
BY JUDGE RIVES: The question is: "State the name and 
address of each customer who has ridden a bus of defen­
dant as as a passenger and who has been subjected to a 
custom, rule or policy of segregation of races by being 
requested or required as a member of the Negro race to 
sit toward the rear of the bus." And the answer is: 
"Plaintiffs do not know and have no way of ascertaining 
the name and address (R-927) of each person who has

(R-927)ridden a bus of this defendant as a passenger and who 
has been subjected to a custom, rule or policy of segre­
gation of the races by being requested or required as 
members of the Negro race to sit toward the rear of the 
bus. Plaintiffs do intend to obtain testimony from some 
of the individuals who have been subjected to segregation 
while passengers on defendant’s buses. They include.." 
and then the names of the number who are included. Among 
them was Samuel Bailey. That is the witness on the 
stand.
BY JUDGE CLAYTON: You made no effort in the interroga­
tories to ask them to detail each member they intended 
to use?



138
(R-927)

BY MR. CANNADA: Yes, sir, the next question.
BY MR, O ’MARA: ¥e asked for the dates, times, places, 
and so forth.
BY JUDGE RIVES: In each instance they have answered 
they have no way of knowing all of them.
BY MR, CANHADA: But this is the plaintiff himself. If 
he knew of an instance or an incident about which he 
intended to testify we were entitled to know about it 
as an answer to our interrogatory, so we would be in a 
position to check and see if there is a basis for such a 
statement. This is a party to the lawsuit, and we asked 
for the specific incidents. He now says at that time he 
told us that he never even rode the bus, and in our posi­
tion we are entitled to know this before we come to the 
trial of this case, and that is the purpose of discovery 
procedures,

(R-928)
BY JUDGE RIVES: The answer is: Plaintiffs believe 
"the following persons were at the dates, times and 
Places indicated requested or required to submit to a 
policy of segregation." Samuel Bailey, December, i960, 
Meridian, Mississippi. Is he going beyond that now?
BY MR. CAMADA: He now says he didn’t ride the bus in 
I960.
BY JUDGE RIVES: You will be confined to this particular 
date.

BY MRS. MOTLEY: It was our impression it was i960,



139
(R-928)

according to his deposition. He now says 1959, but of 
course we didn't anticipate that by answering the inter­
rogatories we would be limited in this fashion. We would 
have objected to these anyway as much too broad, and we 
were answering these to try to be helpful to the other 
side, rather than to hinder them in their preparation 
of this case, and I don't understand we could be limited 
by answers to interrogatories to the testimony on this 
trial. If it develops on the trial he made an error as 
to the year, I don't understand we could be so limited.
If we were, we would have taken the time to give him 
every specific instance.
BY MR. O'HARA: That is what the interrogatory was pro­
pounded for.
BY MRS. MOTLEY: We couldn't possibly give every specific 
instance they required of every person who has ever 
ridden.
BY JUDGE RIVES: We don't think you are limited as to the 

(R-929)
witnesses, other than the parties, but when you give him 
as a party a particular date he would testify on, we 
don't think you can go beyond it. That was the purpose 
of their preparing the interrogatories propounded, and 
the issue could not be broadened beyond what the party 
has given in the Interrogatory.
BY MRS. MOTLEY: Does this mean we can use the other two 
witnesses as to Greyhound, the two witnesses I indicated



14-0
(R-929)

this naming that we would have on this point?
BY JUDGE RIVES: Your answer as to witnesses is not 
exclusive, as far as I*ve seen. You have given answer 
that you can't answer as to all the witnesses, but the 
witnesses include the following, and we would not con­
fine it to the ones you simply said you included.
BY MRS* MOTLEY: Well, if we can use the other witnesses, 
we'll not press that.

MR, O ’MARA: I will ask the Court not to rule on that. 
BY JUDGE RIVES: I am announcing what the Court probably 
will do.
BY MR, CANNABA: May we have an opportunity to present 
our face of it to Your Honor?
BY JUDGE RIVES: Yes.
BY MRS, MOTLEY: That is all the questions I have of this 
witness.
BY JUDGE RIVES: Very well. You may cross examine the 
witness.

(R-930)
CROSS EXAMINATION

BI MR. WATKINS:
Q. You are also a registered voter of Jackson, Mississippi?
A* That is true.
Q. And you exercise that right?
A. That's right.
Q* And you have lived in Jackson approximately 20 years?
A* That's right.



141
(R-930)

1/Jh0 decided that you and the other two plaintiffs would be 
representatives of the class you purport to represent in 
this action?

Mr. Jacob, Mr*. Broadwater and myself,
Hie three plaintiffs?

A. That is correct.
Q. You didn't discuss it with anybody else?
A. Nobody but our attorney when we went to him.
Q. But you didn’t discuss it with any other member of the 

class?
A. No, I didn't,
Q. You knew then and you know now that there were many other 

people who belonged to that same class who did not agree 
with the position taken by you tiiree plaintiffs in this 
action, didn’t you?

A. I don't know that.
Q. Didn't you testify on your deposition June 29, 1961, in 

Biloxi in this action that you did so know?
A. I said maybe some but didn’t,
Q. Then your answer now is that there may be but you don't 

know whether there are or not?
(R-931)
A. No, I wasn't concerned with whether there was or not.
Q. And you didn't care?
A. I didn't.
Q* And made no effort to find out?
A* If you had of, they would of blocked you before you got



1H-2
(R-931)

where you was going.

BY MR. SHANDS: What was that?
BY THE WITNESS: X said if you told some people, they 
would of blocked you before you got where you was going.

Q. What do you mean by that answer?
A. What do X mean by that?
Q. Yes.
A, Everything you can't tell everybody.
Q. Have you ever been denied any right, privilege or immunity 

which you sought under any of these statutes or ordinances 
complained of in this action?

A. No, I haven't myself.
Q. Have you ever tested what you believe to be your right un­

der any of these statutes or this ordinance in any court 
in the State of Mississippi?

A. No, I haven't.
Q. Have any of the officials or any officer of the City of 

Jackson ever denied you the right to do anything you 
sought to do by virtue of these statutes or this ordi­
nance?

A- My children, yes, sir. That's part of me.
Q* Were you present at the time you are telling me about now, 

Bailey?
(R-932)
A* Both of my daughters —



1*K3
(H-952)
Q. I'm asking you for your personal information. Were you 

present at the occurrence you are discussing now?
A. I went to get her out of jail. I wasn't present when she 

got arrested.
Q. Irm asking of your personal experience with the City of 

Jackson.
A. X wasn’t present when they were arrested.
Q. Wow let me repeat my question. Has any official or

officer of the City of Jackson ever denied you the right 
to do anything you thought you were entitled to do under 
these statutes and ordinances?

A. Not me, but my children. They are a part of me.

BX MR. WATKINS: If it please the Court, I move to 
strike repeated references to his children involving 
occurrences at which he was not present.
BT JUDGE HIVES: That is not responsive. It will be 
striker.

Q. Have you ever been arrested or prosecuted for doing any- 
thing you tried to do under any of these statutes or 
this ordinance?

A* No, I have not.
Q* Now, you instructed your attorneys to make this action 

much broader than they actually made it, didn't you? 
it was in the plan, was in the petition.



144
(R-933)

Q, And you had intended it to be an action covering all types 
of integration, hadn't you?

A. No.
Q,. Did you intend it to cover schools?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Bailey, do you believe in the intermarriage of the races?

BY- MRS. MOTLEY: We object to that.
BY JUDGE RIVES: Objection sustained,
BY MR. WATKINS: I believe that is all.

CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. SHANDS:
Q. As to the Attorney General of Mississippi, Mr. Patterson, 

has he ever denied you personally the right to exercise 
any privilege you wanted to? You, personally, Bailey?

4. No, I wouldn't say me personally.
Q. As to the Attorney General, has he ever threatened you in 

any way?
4* By being colored, I think so, by t h e ----
Q* - I didn't ask you that. Has he ever threatened you per­

sonally?
4. Not personally, no. Not personally.
Q* Has he ever threatened personally to enforce any statute 

against you?
4* Not personally, no.

BY MR, SHANDS: No further questions.



145
(R-934)

CROSS EXAMINATION
BY1 MR. CERNE:
Q. M  I correct that all your testimony with relation to the 

Illinois Central refers to that experience in 1955 when 
you went to St. Louis?

A. No, that's not all the experience. I go by and use the 
restroom a good many times, and lately the police been 
standing there at the door.

Q. Was that as a passenger?
A. No, not as a passenger. Just using the restroom facili­

ties.

BY MR, CERNE: No further questions,

CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. CANNADA:
Q. I have a couple of questions with reference to Continental 

Southern Lines, and I want to make certain the record is 
clear concerning the signs you saw in the terminal at 
Jackson. As I understand it —  and correct me if I'm 
not correct —  there were signs on the sidewalk indi­
cating with an arrow "COLORED - By Order of the Police 
Department." Is that correct?

4. That's correct.
Q* Then there were signs over or on the waiting rooms, one 

saying "COLORED INTRASTATE PASSENGERS" and the other 
"WHITE INTRASTATE PASSENGERS"?



146
(R-934)
A, That's correct.
(R-955)
a. And those are the only signs that are at the Jackson ter- 

minal?
A. There is one on the back door as you come In the door.
Q. Over the waiting room?
A. Over the waiting room. I think it's one down low on the 

door in black writing.
Q. The only signs that are there are the signs by the police 

department out on the sidewalk and the signs that are 
over the waiting rooms and entrance to the waiting rooms? 
That's correct, isn’t it?

A. Seems to me like there's one there on the glass, on the 
bottom of the door, down below there.

Q. That's the entrance to the waiting room?
A. Entrance to the waiting room, that's correct.
Q. I think that is what you testified to.
A. That's right. That's correct.
Q. But I wanted to make certain.
A. That’s correct.

CROSS EXAMINATION
EX MR. MEh j. w. YOUNG:

How many signs is there on City Lines bus?
A* I haven't saw but one lately.

How many months back was that?
A* That was Tuesday night.



1^7
(R-935)
Q, When?
A. Tuesday night of last week.
Q, What did that sign say?
(R-936 )
A. ' COLORED PASSENGERS OR PATROLMEN SEAT FROM THE REAR TO THE 

FRONT - WHITE SEAT FROM THE FRONT TO THE REAR."
Q, You are using the word "patrolmen." You mean "patrons"?
A. Patrons. I remember seeing it there.
Q. Have you ever been on one of those buses when the passen­

gers didn’t comply with those signs?
A. A couple of instances.
Q. What happened on those occasions?
A. One case, one of my co-workers was arrested and fined a 

hundred dollars there on the corner of Farrish and Capi­
tol Street on Number 6 bus.

Q. How did he happen to get arrested?
A. He sit on the bus and a white gentleman came and sat down., 

and the driver told him to move and he refused, and he 
got off the bus and called the police and the police 
came and carried him off and arrested him.

Q* You said he went and called the police. Tell the Court 
how you know he went and called the police.

A. He stopped the bus and got off, and the police was there 
so quick that I assume that’s what he done.

0* You just assume?
A. He —  I couldn’t say he called them or who called them, 

but they were there.



148
(R-936)
Q You did say he called them.
A. I did say he called them. He told the man if he didn’t 

get up that’s what he would do.
Q. And the driver then got off the bus and left the bus?
(R-927)
A. Got off the bus and came back with the officers.
Q. You know who the man was that came in and sat down there 

with him?
A. No, I do not.
Q. How long do you say you have been in the State of Missis­

sippi?
A. Off and on all my life.
Q. What happened to the bus after the police got on it?
A. They took Patterson off and carried him to jail, and he 

had to put some more passengers on there and he had 
them trade the fare and he tried to make them pay again 
because he had got behind on his schedule so he had to 
go around; and the police told him, well, he couldn't 
do that. So he let —  took the fare —  and they wouldn’t 
—  refused to get off the bus. And he went back around 
by the Ritz Theater and come back around, gonna make his 
route. But they refused to pay, and the police give 
him orders he couldn't make them pay again, that they 
had boarded the bus out at Jackson College, at that 
neighborhood.

Q.* What was the man’s name that he arrested?
^  Charles Patterson.



{R-937)
Q. Charles Patterson?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Did you go up to the jail with him?
A. No, I went to see him after.
Q, Did you stay on the bus and continue your ride?
A. No, I got off. That was my destination.
(R-938)
Q. That was your destination.
A. My destination.
Q. When the bus driver got to that point and stopped, why did 

you stay on the bus?
A, Because he wouldn’t let nobody off.
Q. He wouldn’t let nobody off?
A. Nobody.
Q. When he got off, he had to leave the door open, didn’t he? 
A. He didn’t do it.
Q. He didn’t?
A. No.
Q. How did he shut the door?
A. Prom the outside with the lever and took his money bank 

with him. He went around the outside and got a lever and 
locked the door, shut the door.

Went outside and got a lever and locked it from the out­
side?

A* Pulled it with a handle.
Q* And you stayed on the bus?
A. He wouldn’t let you off.



150
(R-938)
Q. When the police came back, where was the bus driver?
A. He was with the police.
Q. They came back together?
A. Thatfs right.
Q, What day was that?
A. I don't know exactly.
Q, What month was that?
A. I don't know exactly that either.
(R-939)

What year was that?
A. That was in *6l.
Q. *6l. Well, this is *6l. How long ago was that?
A. Must have been in June or July —  Must have been in June. 
Q. Do you know what driver that was?
A. No, I do not.
Q. What time of the day was it?
A. About four-fifteen in the afternoon.
Q. And you got on the bus on Lynch Street?
A. Lynch Street.
Q. Where did the driver park this bus?
A. Right on the corner of Capitol and Parrish Street.
Q. Corner of Capitol and Farrish?
A. That's correct.
Q. Where did the man get on the bus who got arrested?
A. I don't remember exactly where he got on. I think he was 

already on the bus when somebody sat down, taken a seat. 
Q. Where was he seated when you got on the bus?



151
(R-959)
A. I got on the bus before him. I had a seat.
Q,. You had a seat?
A. And he was standing.
Q,. Well, where did he get on?
A. I donlt remember exactly. When I saw him the motion was 

up.
Q. Was the bus crowded? When you got on?
A. It was crowded.
Q. What did the driver say to this man?
A. Well, I couldn't hear all the details, my being close to
(R-9^0)

the back, but I heard him told him to get up, that he 
would be arrested, and he just refused completely.

Q. What did the driver do then?
A. He got off the bus and went and got the police or called 

them,
Q. Where did this conversation take place? After the bus was 

stopped?
A. After the bus stopped. That's correct.
Q. Where did the white man sit down by the man Patterson?
A. I believe it was on the west side on the front seat that 

runs —
Q. •//here on the route?
A. Lynch Street.
Q. On Lynch Street?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And he kept the bus rolling under those conditions until 

he got to Capitol and Farrish?



152

(R-940)
A. Ho, the man got on the bus at Parrish Street.
Q. All of this happened without the bus ever moving then, 

didn't it?
A. That's correct.
Q. The colored man was on the bus coming all the way in on 

Lynch Street.
A. That's correct.
Q. But he was sitting up in front of the sign.
A. That's right.
Q. Is that your testimony?
A. That’s right.
(R-941)
Q,. And the white man got on the bus at Parrish Street and 

sat down by the colored man?
A. I think some of the passengers got off and Patterson sat 

down by the side of the white man, I think that's —  

after the white man got on, Patterson sat down beside 
the white man. I think that's the way it was. The bus 
was crowded.

Q. When the buses stop, the passengers all get off before any 
other passengers come on, don't they?

A. That's right.
Q. Why wasn't you off the bus?
A. He locked the door.
Q. He didn’t lock the door until the man came and got on and 

sat down.
A. "While the emotion started, he shut the door and didn't let



153
(R-941)

nobody off.
Q. Didn’t let nobody off?
A. nobody off.
Q. What would have happened if he hadn’t stopped that bus?
A. Nothing would have happened.
Q. How long have you been in Mississippi?
A. Practically all my life.
Q. -And you don’t think anything would have happened if he 

hadn’t said anything?
A. Not if the bus driver hadn't said nothing. The man had­

n ’t said nothing at all. He wasn't going to bite him.
Q. Nobody was going to bite anybody?
A. Nobody wasn't going to bite anybody.
(R-9^2)
Q. How many other instances of that kind have you witnessed?
A. On the City Lines, several. Not that nature. Most of the 

time the bus driver asks the people to move and they 
just get up and move. One white man get on and take 
six seats on Number 6 bus. That’s the on I ride the most.

Q. You say that you think that happened in June?
A. I believe it was in June. I ’m not sure of the date.
Q. Did that happen before or after you testified in the Post 

Office building in Biloxi?
A. I believe that happened before, I believe.
Q* Before that?
A. That happened before.
Q. But you didn't tell about that occasion that day.



15^
(R-9^2)
A. Because they didn't ask me.
Q. You were asked on that occasion in the Post Office in 

Biloxi to relate every instance you had observed on one 
of those buses where there was any enforcement of the 
signs, were you not?

A. I don't know whether they did or not, I reckon not.
Q. But you didn't tell about that in Biloxi, did you?
A. No, sir.

BY MR. YOUNG: That's all.
BY JUDGE RIVES: Any further cross examination? Any re­
buttal?
BY MRS. MOTLEY: No.
BY JUDGE RIVES: (to witness) You may come down.

(Witness excused)
(Whereupon the court was recessed until 1:15 P. M.)

(H-943) (After Recess)
BY MR, SHANDS: As this witness approaches the chair,
I would like for the record to be perfectly clear on the 
proposition that the Attorney General, as I understand 
it, has a running objection to the testimony of the 
witness Bailey on cross examination in response to Mr. 
Young's questions. The Attorney General does have that 
running objection?
BY JUDGE RIVES: On what subject?
BY MR. SHANDS: On the admissibility of the testimony



155
(r-943)

that the witness Bailey gave on cross examination. The 
witness just completed.
BY JUDGE RIVES: I don’t quite get the point you were 
objecting to.
BY MR. SHMDS: He was testifying about what happened on 
a city bus. Earlier, on behalf of the Attorney General, 
I had asked for the running objection to all of such 
testimony as against the Attorney General, and as I 
understood it, I have the running objection.
BY JUDGE RIVES: You want that objection to the ques­
tions on cross examination?
BY MR. SHARDS: Yes, sir. Do I interpret the ruling of 
the Court that I do have that running objection granted 
earlier?
BY JUDGE RIVES: That is all right.
BY MR, SHARDS: And that applies to the cross also?
BY JUDGE RIVES: Yes.
BYMR. SHARDS: If I further understand the Court, it is 

(R-944) (R-9^3 and R~92J4 are duplicate pages in the record.)
(After Recess)

BY MR. SHARDS: As this witness approaches the chair, I 
would like for the record to be perfectly clear on the 
proposition that the Attorney General, as I understand 
it, has a running objection to the testimony of the wit­
ness Bailey on cross examination in response to Mr. 
Young’s questions. The Attorney General does have that 
running objection?



156

(R-91̂)
BY JUDGE RIVES: On what subject?
BY MR. SHARDS: On the admissibility of the testimony 
that the witness Bailey gave on cross examination. The 
witness just completed.
BY JUDGE RIVES: I don't quite get the point you were 
objecting to.
BY MR. SHARDS: He was testifying about what happened on 
a city bus. Earlier, on behalf of the Attorney General,
I had asked for the running objection to all of such 
testimony as against the Attorney General, and as I under­
stood it, I have the running objection.
BY JUDGE RIVES: You want that objection to the questions 
on cross examination?
BY MR. SHARDS: Yes, sir. Do I interpret the ruling of 
the Court that I do have that running objection granted 
earlier?
BY JUDGE RIVES: That is all right.
BY MR. SHARDS: And that applies to the cross also?
BY JUDGE RIVES: Yes.
BYMR. SHARDS: If I further understand the Court, it is

(R-9̂ 5 )
not necessary to make a motion to exclude?
BY JUDGE RIVES: That is correct.
BY MR. SHARDS: Thank you very much.

EVERETT REREGAR, called as a witness and having been duly 
sworn, testified as follows:



(R-945)
157

EXAMINATION
BY MRS. MOTLEY:
Q. Would you state your full name?
A. My name Is Everett Renegar.

Are Y°u employed by the Greyhound bus company?
A. I am.
Q. What position do you hold?
A* My position is local manager, Jackson, Mississippi.
Q. How long have you been manager?
A. In Jackson, 15 years.
Q. How many bus depots does the Greyhound Line have in the 

City of Jackson?
A. Only one.

Q. How many bus depots does the Greyhound Line have in the 
State of Mississippi?

A. Offhand I don't have the exact number.
Q. In the Greyhound bus terminal in the City of Jackson, 

how many waiting rooms are there?
A. We have two waiting rooms.
Q* Are there any signs on those waiting rooms?
A. Yes, there are some signs on the waiting rooms.
(R-946)
Q. What do the signs say?
A. One of the waiting rooms reads, "WHITE WAITING ROOM -

INTRASTATE PASSENGERS." The other waiting room has signs 
over the doors reading "COLORED WAITING ROOM - INTRASTATE 
PASSENGERS."



158
(R-946)
Q. Do you have any signs inside those waiting rooms?
A- No, we don’t.
Q. Are there any signs outside of those waiting rooms?
A. The signs that I just mentioned are over the doors.
Q,. Yes, I understood that. Are there any other signs outside 

of those waiting rooms?
A. On the Greyhound property?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. Are there any signs on the sidewalk?
A. Yes, there is a sign on the sidewalk.
Q. What do those signs say?
A. We have one on Lamar Street reads "WHITE WAITING ROOM - 

By Order of the Police Department."
Q. What other signs do you have?
A. That’s the only one we have.
Q. I want to show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6 and ask you if 

you can identify that letter. (Hands to witness)
A. I do.
Q. What is the letter?
A. It is an answer to an inquiry from the president of the 

company —  Well, I ’ll have to read it all myself before 
(R-947)I can give you the answer. Seems to be quite some time 

back, and I ’ll have to read it back.
Q. Do you want to read the letter to refresh your memory?
A. If you don’t mind, yes.



159
(R-947)
Q. You want to read it out so the Court can follow you?
(Witness reads aloud Plaintiff's Exhibit Wo. 6.)

BY MR. CLARK: I understand the Attorney General’s office 
has an objection to this letter on the grounds of hear­
say, and it has been excluded to the defendant the Attor­
ney General —  in fact, as to all other defendants except 
as to Greyhound?
BY JUDGE RIVES: Yes.

Q. These signs to which you refer in your letter, "WHITE OR 
COLORED WAITING ROOMS INTRASTATE PASSENGERS," They are 
still there?

A. They are.
Q. And they were put there by you?
A. I had them put up, yes.
Q. The signs on the sidewalk to which you referred, were they 

put there by you?
A. No.
Q. By whom were they placed there?
A. Put there by the Police Department.
Q. Have you protested to the Police Department against put­

ting those signs there?
A. No, I have not.
(R-948)
Q. Have any people been arrested In the last six months by 

the police to your knowledge, for going into the wrong



160

(R-948)
waiting room of the Greyhound?

BY MR. WATKINS: We object to that. It calls on this 
witness for a conclusion as to the reason for any arrests 
that may have been made. Now, counsel is covering a six 
months period. I submit it is improper for her to ask 
this witness to give an expression of opinion as to why 
a particular arrest is made.
BY MRS. MOTLEY: I asked whether "to his knowledge."
BY JUDGE RIVES: You may cross examine fully as to the 
reason.
BY MR. CLARK: May it please the Court, the Attorney 
General's office joins that objection and adds a new 
ground in addition to Mr. Watkins‘s ground, and that is 
that the question was not restricted to the plaintiffs 
Bailey, Broadwater and Jacob in this lawsuit.
BY JUDGE RIVES: That is right. We understand that.
BY MR. CLARK: Is my objection overruled?
BY JUDGE RIVES: Yes, the objection is overruled.

A. I have seen the officers in the terminal and I have seen 
them carry some people out.

BY JUDGE RIVES: Speak up.
A. I have seen the officers in the terminal and have seen 

them take some people out.



l6l
(E-949)
Q. When, was this?
A. How's that?
Q, When did you see this?
A. Well, the exact date I don’t know. I don’t have the exact 

date.
Q. Have you seen any within the last month?
A. No, I don't believe I have.
Q. Have you seen any within the last three months?
A. Well, now, the exact date I wouldn’t say that I have seen 

it or have not seen it in the last three months. I don’t 
have an exact date. It’s been in the last six months.

Q. You have seen the police arrest some people in the last 
six months?

A. I have seen them take them out. Whether they put them 
under arrest, I don’t know.

Q, You don’t know anything about it?
A. No.
Q. What did you say to the police as they took these people 

out?
A. What did I say?
Q. Yes.
A. I do not control the police. I have nothing to do with 

that.
Q. I know you don’t control the police. I'm asking you what 

you said.
A. I didn’t say anything.
Q. But you saw them take them out?



162

(R-949)
A. I saw them take them out.
Q. Were these people passengers on the Greyhound bus?
(R-950)
A. They had been, yes.
Q. Have you seen among the people that the police have 

arrested any Negroes?

El MR. CLARK: The witness just testified he did not know 
whether the persons he saw being removed from the bus 
station were placed under arrest. Now she has come back 
and said "these people that were arrested," and that is 
not his testimony. I don*t think it is fair testimony.
BY JUDGE RIVES: Counsel, rephrase your question,
BY MRS. MOTLEY: I will, Your Honor.

Q. Among the people who were taken out, as you say, of the 
station by the police, did you see any Negroes?

A. I did.
Q. Among the people who were taken out of the station by the 

police, did you see any white persons?
A. I did.
Q. The Negroes that you saw, where were they when they were 

taken out?
A. They were from both waiting rooms.
Q. Were they Negroes and whites together?
A. Yes.
Q. Or were they just Negroes and whites in separate groups?



163
(R-950)
A. Some of them together and some of them separate groups.
Q. Did you make any inquiry of the passengers when you saw 

the police taking them out?
A. No.
(R-951)
Q. Mr. Renegar, as the local manager of the Greyhound bus

lines, is it your function to enforce the companyrs poll 
cies here in Jackson with respect to arrangements in 
the waiting rooms and the seating of passengers, and so 
forth? Is that a part of your job?

BY MR, CLARK: We believe that question calls for a 
conclusion by the witness. We think he could testify as 
to what his duties are, but not the official policy of 
the Greyhound Company or what part he occupies in that 
policy.
BY JUDGE RIVES: In the form of "company," we think it 
should be sustained.

Q. What are your duties as manager of the Greyhound facili­
ties in Jackson?

A. My duties are to maintain the terminal and to see that 
everything is in order.

Q,. Do you have any supervision over the drivers of the Grey­
hound buses?

A. I do.
Q. Have you issued any regulations to the drivers concerning



164
(R-951)

the seating of passengers on Greyhound buses?
A. No, I do not Issue those regulations.
Q,. Who issues them?
A. Issued by the general office.
Q. Are you familiar with those regulations as to seating of 

passengers?
A. I am.
(R-952)Q. Is there anything in the regulations restricting the seat­

ing of passengers on the basis of race?
A. There is not.
Q. In the two separate waiting rooms which you have there at 

the Greyhound terminal, what facilities do you have for 
the passengers? What kind of facilities?

A. The same facilities in both waiting rooms.
Q. What are they?
A. They have the restrooms, men and women, have the lunch 

counter, have the water fountains, and a certain number 
of seats in each waiting room.

Q. How long have the signs been up there that you referred to 
in your letter which you read a moment ago, these signs 
which are on the depot which say "WHITE WAITING ROOM 
INTRASTATE PASSENGERS” and "COLORED WAITING ROOM INTRA­
STATE PASSENGERS"?

A. I don’t know the exact date, but they have been up there 
since the law has gone into effect, the state law.

Q. Do you know the approximate year?



165

(R-952)
A. Well, no, I don’t. I don’t know the approximate year.
Q. Would it have been 1956?
A. I would say approximately 1956 may be right.
Q. Were there any signs up there prior to that time?
A. Yes, there were.
Q. What did those signs say?
A. They were "COLORED M D  WHITE WAITING ROOMS".
Q. Did you put those signs up there?
(R-953)A. They were there when the terminal was built back some 

twenty years ago.
Q. And in 1956 those signs came down?
A. When they came down, I don’t recall the exact date they 

came down. I believe they were down before that time.
Q. Before ’56?
A. Yes.
Q, But in ’56 you put up these new signs saying "White Intra­

state" and "Colored Intrastate"? That is right?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Now, do you recall that the plaintiffs in this case re­

quested you to answer certain interrogatories?
A. At what time?
Q. September 7# 1961.
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you also recall that the plaintiffs in this case re­

quested you to admit certain facts in September, 1961?
A. Yes.



166

(R-953)
Q. Let me show you a copy of the interrogatories and ask you 

if you remember answering these. (Hands to witness)
A. I believe these have been filed. July 14th is the date 

of these interrogatories, and answered on July 28th,
Q. Directing your attention to the answers to the interroga­

tories would you read off the names of the other cities 
in the State of Mississippi where the Greyhound has bus 
terminal facilities?

(R-954)
BY MR. CLARK: We object to other places outside of the 
City of Jackson because of the previous rulings of this 
Court directing the issues made in this case principally 
to the bus terminals in the City of Jackson, and we 
object as to the relevancy of the operations outside the 
City of Jackson,
BY JUDGE RIVES: Objection is overruled,

A. Gulfport, Mississippi; Biloxi, Mississippi; Laurel, Missis­
sippi; Meridian, Mississippi; Hattiesburg, Mississippi; 
Brookhaven, Mississippi; Vicksburg, Mississippi; Natchez, 
Mississippi; Clarksdale, Mississippi; Yazoo City, Missis­
sippi; Greenwood, Mississippi; Greenville, Mississippi; 
Tupelo, Mississippi; McComb, Mississippi; and Columbus, 
Mississippi,

Q. Now, directing your attention to the request for admis­
sions of fact which was served on you on approximately 
September 7th, I ask you if you recall that document.



167
(R-95^)

BY JUDGE RIVES: What are you getting at?
BY MRS. MOTLEY: I wanted him to bring out the fact there 
were these other stations in the State of Mississippi, 
and they have admitted there are similar signs on these 
other stations. That is all I was bringing out.

Q. Do you recall that we asked you whether there were signs 
on these other terminals throughout the State of Missis­
sippi which you have just listed?

(R-955)
A. That's right. I do remember.
Q. And that you answered that there were similar signs?
A. That's right.
Q. Now, these signs which are posted on your station in 

Jackson and throughout the state are pursuant to the 
state statute in Mississippi, aren't they?

A. That's correct.

BY MR. CLARK: At this point I would like to make an 
objection to all of the testimony of this witness as 
regards action because of any state statute or action 
because of any state regulation or requirement of law on 
the grounds that as to the defendant Attorney General 
of the State of Mississippi the testimony is hearsay, 
and I'd like to move to strike the answers that he has 
given to such questions and move to exclude that testi­
mony from this record.



168
(R-955)

BY JUDGE RIVES: We will carry the ruling along with 
the case.
BY MR, CLARK: May I have a running objection as regards 
all the other witnesses as regards the hearsay testimony 
as it regards the Attorney General?
BY JUDGE RIVES: You may.
BY MRS. MOTLEY: I think that is all of this witness.
BY JUDGE RIVES: You may cross examine.

(R-956)
EXAMINATION

BY MR. WATKINS:
Q. Mr. Renegar, as I understand it, on direct examination 

you told counsel that at some undesignated time in the 
past six months you had seen several people leave the 
bus station with a police officer. Is that correct?

A. That is correct.
Q. You do not know whether they were or were not later arres­

ted?
A. No, I do not.
Q. You do not know why they were accompanying the police 

officer out of the station?
A. No, sir.

BY MR. WATKINS: I believe that is all.

EXAMINATION
BY MR. CLARK:



169
(B-956)
Q. Mr. Renegar, do you know the three plaintiffs In this 

lawsuit?
A. No, sir, I do not.

BY MR. CLARK: I'd like the three plaintiffs to stand. 
(Same is done)

Q. Have you ever seen these three individuals at the Grey­
hound station or have you ever seen them removed from the 
Greyhound station in any way, shape, form or fashion?

A. No, sir.

BY MR. CLARK: THat is all.

, _  , EXAMINATION(R-957)
BY MRS. MOTLEY:
Q. These people that were removed from the Greyhound terminal 

that you saw removed, what were those people doing when 
you saw them?

A. I saw them enter the waiting room. That's all I saw.
Q. Well, what was going on? Were they fighting or something? 

What was going on?
A. No, there was no fighting going on.
Q. Were they talking loud?
A. No, not talking loud.
Q. Were they causing any commotion?
A. As far as I could see,no commotion.
Q. Did you see anything happen?
A. No.



170
(R-957)
Q. Let me ask you this: Have you seen among those taken out 

Negroes in the white waiting room?
A. We don't designate it as a white waiting room, as far as 

Greyhound is concerned.
Q. Well, where these signs were that you were talking about. 
A. Where the signs were?
Q. Yes,
A, Yes,
Q. You have seen Negroes in the white waiting room among 

those taken out?

BY MR, O'MARA: We object to that question. The witness 
(R-958)

just told counsel that there is no waiting room which 
the Greyhound Company designates as a white waiting room. 
Then she turns around and asks him a question framing it 
purely as a trap.

BY JUDGE RIVES: I didn't understand it that way, She 
qualified it by saying "I am referring to the waiting 
room,."
BY MRS, MOTLEY: - where the sign is.
BY JUDGE RIVES: We understand what she is talking about. 
The waiting room with the signs on it.
BY MRS. MOTLEY: Yes.

Q. The waiting room where there is a sign that says “WHITE 
INTRASTATE PASSENGERS". I'm referring to that waiting 
room. Now, in that waiting room were there Negroes



171
(R-958)

among those taken out by the police?
A. Where the Intrastate sign was, yes.
Q. Now, where there is a sign which says "COLORED IMRASTAIE 

PASSENGERS WAITING ROOM," were there white people in 
there taken out by the police?

A. There were.
Q. You say that Greyhound doesn't have any rule or regulation 

requiring that one restroom be set aside for whites?

BY MR, WATKINS: We object to that on the ground It is 
not redirect examination. There was nothing on cross 
going into that question.

(R-959)BY JUDGE RXVES: Objection overruled. You may answer 
the question. Was there any regulation providing sepa­
rate restrooms?

A. Does Greyhound have a regulation?
Q. Does Greyhound have a regulation limiting one restroom 

to whites and one to Negroes?
A, No, it does not.

BY MR, CLARK: We object on behalf of the Attorney Gene­
ral on the ground the regulation itself would be the best 
evidence of what it contains and not this witness1 recol­
lection of what it might.
BY MRS. MOTLEY: I asked him if they had a regulation.
BY JUDGE RIVES: And he answered that they did not, as 
I understand it.



172
(R—959)
Q. I want to ask you this, to clarify the record: Does the 

Greyhound have any regulation with respect to waiting 
rooms?

A. We do not.
Q* —  Restricting one to whites and one to Negroes?
A. We do not.
Q. Does the Greyhound have any regulations with respect to 

the lunch counters?

BY MR* CLARK: If Your Honor please, ~  You are just 
asking as to the existence of regulations and not exami­
ning on what the regulations contain?

(R-960)
BY M S .  MOTLEY: That's right.
BY MR. CLARK: We object to this entire line of ques­
tioning and for the purpose of saving the Court's time 
ask that our objection be considered as a continuing or 
running objection because we think it no more competent 
to prove what some regulations that are in existence 
don't contain than what they do contain, and we object 
on the ground the regulations would be the best evidence. 
BY JUDGE RIVES: We'll carry the objection along with the 
case.

Q. Why do you have two waiting rooms there, rather than one?

BY MR. O'MARA: We object to that. Under the law we 
can have half a dozen waiting rooms in the station if we 
so desire.



173
(R-960)

BY JUDGE RIVES; I think you are repetitious anyhow. The 
witness has already answered there are two waiting rooms 
with different signs, and you are simply going back over 
the same testimony.
BY MRS. MOTLEY; That is all of this witness.

e x a m i n a t i o n

BY MR. WATKINS;
Q, Mr. Renegar, counsel again asked you about people whom 

you saw leave the station in the company of a police 
officer. I want to ask you whether or not they were 

(R-961)
members of both the Negro and white race in the group or 
groups you saw leave from the same locality?

A. If they were?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Thank you.

EY MR. WATKINS; That’s all.
BY MR. O ’MARA; May I have the understanding that I 
may call this witness at a later time for examination on 
behalf of the Greyhound Company?
BY JUDGE RIVES; Yes.
BY MR. CLARK; We'd like the privilege of also cross- 
examining this witness at any time he is called in the 
case.
BY JUDGE RIVES; You don’t want to cross examine him at



174
(R-961)

this time?
BY MR. CLARK: No, sir, not now. If we may have that 
understood, that we reserve that right?
BY JUDGE RIVES: All right. Any further cross examina­
tion of this witness then at this time?

EXAMINATION
BY MR. CLARK:
Q. How many hours a day do you stay on duty at the station?
A. I rm usually on duty from eight to ten hours daily.
Q. Then you are not in a position to testify to this Court

that you have seen every incident in which anybody left
your bus station in the company of any police or law en-
forcement officer, are you?

(R-962)
A. I am not.
Q. And you can’t testify except of the hours that you were

on the job as to whether incidents or more than once inci­
dent did occur or did not occur on the premises of the 
bus station?

A, That’s right.
Q. —  Of the Greyhound station. Is that right?
A. That’s correct.

BY MR. CLARK: We have nothing further.
BY JUDGE RIVES: Any further rebuttal?
BY MRS. MOTLEY: No, sir.
BY JUDGE RIVES: (to witness) You may come down.



(R-962)
175

(Witness excused)

P, A, DOBBINS, called as a witness and having been duly sworn, 
testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MRS. MOTLEY:
Q. State your full name for the record, please.
A. Philip A. Dobbins.
Q. What is your position, Mr. Dobbins?
A. I'm regional manager, Continental Southern Lines.
Q. I didn't get the first word.
A. Regional. R-e-g-i-o-n-a-1.

BY JUDGE RIVES: Of what?
BY WITNESS: Continental Southern Lines.

(R-963)
Q. How long have you been so employed?
A. I've been with the company 25 years.
Q, Does the Trailways Bus Company have a depot here in the 

City of Jackson?
A. They do.

BY JUDGE RIVES: Is that the same as the Continental 
Southern Lines?
BY THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
BY JUDGE RIVES: They run the Trailways?
BY WITNESS: Yes, sir.
BY MRS. MOTLEY: I believe that is made clear in the 
Answer, Your Honor.



176
(R-963)
Q. How many waiting rooms do you have In that depot here In 

Jackson?
A. Two,
Q. Are there any signs on the waiting rooms?
A. There are.
Q. What do those signs say?
A. One says "COLORED WAITING ROOM FOR INTRASTATE PASSENGERS," 

I believe, and one says "WHITE WAITING ROOM - INTRASTATE 
PASSENGERS. "

Q. How many doors are there to each waiting room?
A. There's four on the front of one waiting room, and two on 

the rear of one waiting room, and one on the front of one 
waiting room, and three on the rear of one waiting room.
I believe that's correct.

(R-964)
Q. Would you indicate which is which?
A. The waiting room to the east —
Q. Is that the one with the sign saying "White" or "Colored"?
A. That's the one the sign says "Colored."
Q. Where the sign says "Colored," how many doors do you have?
A. It's one on the front and, I believe, three on the rear.
Q. Are there signs over each of those doors?
A. There are signs over «—  Yes, there are.
Q. How many doors do you have to the waiting room where it 

says "White Intrastate Passengers"?
A. There are, I believe, four on the front and three on the

rear.



177
(R-964)
Q. And there are signs over all of those doors?
A. I believe so.
Q. Are there any signs outside of those waiting rooms?
A. Beg pardon?
Q. Are there any signs outside of those waiting rooms other 

than over the door?
A. On the sidewalk out front there is a sign in front of each 

waiting room.
Q. What do those signs say?
A. I believe similar wording, "COLORED WAITING ROOM - INTRA­

STATE PASSENGERS - By Order of Police.11
Q. Who put up the signs which are over the doors, which you 

referred to?
A. We did.
Q. When did you put them up?
(R-965)A. I don’t recall the exact date, but it was at the time the 

state statute was passed and we were ordered to do so.
Q. Would that be 1956, as you recall?
A. I believe it was in 1956.
Q. Did you have any signs up there prior to 1956?
A. There was none on the back at all, and one waiting room 

had a sign on the front,
Q. Which waiting room was that?
A. The waiting room to the east was marked "Colored waiting 

room," and there was no marking on the other one.
Q. This is prior to 1956?



178
(R-965)
A. That's correct.
Q. Were there any signs on the sidewalk prior to 1956?
A. No.
Q. Are those signs on the sidewalk limited to Intrastate 

passengers?
A. I really can't answer that. I don't know, haven't paid 

that much attention to it.
Q. Do you recall that the plaintiffs served upon you a request 

for admissions of facts in July of this year?
A. I'm not familiar with that at all.
Q. Let me show you this document which says "Response of 

Continental Southern Lines to Plaintiffs' Request for 
Admissions of Pact" and ask you if you have ever seen 
that.

BY JUDGE RIVES: Ordinarily to conserve time, simply 
introduce the request and the admissions.

(R-966)
BY M S .  MOTLEY: All right, Your Honor.
BY JUDGE RIVES: If you have the Request for Admissions 
of Pacts and the Admissions, it would save considerable 
time to do that.
BY M S .  MOTLEY: Well, in each case, with respect to 
Continental Southern Lines and the Greyhound Lines, we 
submitted similar interrogatories and similar Request 
for Admissions of Pacts. In July of this year, July 14, 
we submitted Request for Admissions of Pacts, which was 
answered on July 28th by both companies at the same time,



179
(R-966)

as I  re c a ll; and on September 7 we submitted Further 
Request for Admissions of Facts which were answered at 
the same time, September 18; and we’d lik e  to introduce 
those into evidence.
BY JUDGE RIVES: You may introduce your interrogatories 
and Answers to Interrogatories and Request for Admissions 
of Facts and Answer to Request for Admissions of Facts, 
both as to Continental and Greyhound.
BY MR. O ’MARA: There were two separate requests served 
on both companies. Do you introduce both requests?
BY MRS. MOTLEY: Yes, both requests. I thought I gave 
the dates of those. July 14th and September 7th.
BY JUDGE RIVES: Introducing all Requests for Admissions 
of Facts and all Interrogatories, and the Answers thereto 
as to both bus companies.
BY MRS. MOTLEY: That’s right. The first document is 
plaintiffs’ Interrogatories to the Continental Southern 
Lines.

(R-967)(Same received in evidence and marked as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 
#9. This exhibit is not copied here because upon order of 
the Court all original exhibits are sent up with the record.)

BY MRS. MOTLEY: And the Answer to the Interrogatories
filed July 28, 1961. I don’t know whether it would be
more convenient to mark these as one exhibit or each one
separately, the questions and answers.
BY JUDGE RIVES: I would think to mark them separately.

(Same received in evidence and marked as Plaintiffs’ Exhibits



180
(R-967)
Numbers 10 through 20, respectively. These exhibits are not 
copied here because upon order of the Court all original 
exhibits are sent up with the mimeographed record,)

BY MR. CLARK: For the record, the Attorney General 
would ask the Court to exclude all of these exhibits as 
far as the Attorney General is concerned, for they con­
tain hearsay information as to the Attorney General.
BY JUDGE RIVES: Did the witness on the stand answer 
any of these?
BY MRS, MOTLEY: I was about to ask him when Your Honor 
suggested it might be quicker to put them in, and I 
thought I was saving time the other way.
BY JUDGE RTVES: It would appear that anything answered 
by the witness on the stand we will accept, not as hear­
say, but as his testimony, subject to your cross examina­
tion; but we will take the other parts of your objection 
with the case.
BY MR, CLARK: I know the witness on the stand did not 
answer all the Interrogatories.
BY JUDGE RIVES: There is no need of her having him 
repeat the answers, so you may just cross examine. We 
will take that as his testimony.

(R-968)
BY MR, CLARK: (to counsel opposite) May I see the 
exhibits?
BY MRS. MOTLEY: Are they in evidence, Your Honor?
BY JUDGE RIVES: Yes.



l8l
(R-968)

BY MRS. MOTLEY: This is Plaintiffs' Exhibits 9 through 
19, which are the Interrogatories to two bus companies 
and the Requests for .Admissions,
BY JUDGE RIVES: I can't say they are in evidence as 
against the Attorney General when he hasn't had an 
opportunity to cross examine, excdpt as to those wit­
nesses which you produced. He is entitled to examine on 
those^ If you have already produced Mr. Renegar and he 
testified to some of them, you may call him back and 
cross examine him on his.
BY MRS. MOTLEY: I asked him essentially what the request 
and the interrogatories contained. I thought that would 
be shorter.
BY MR. CLARKE: We make our objection more specific in 
the light of the Court's ruling. We first of all object 
to all Exhibits 9 through 19, and we understand the 
Court's ruling to be that is overruled wherever the 
gentleman on the stand or Mr. Renegar had executed the 
answers.
BY JUDGE RIVES: Yes.
BY MR. CLARK: So we additionally, in the light of 
Court's ruling, direct specific objections to Exhibits 
10, 12, and 14; Plaintiff's Exhibit 10 being Answer to 
Interrogatories to Continental Southern and answered and 
sworn to by Sam Watts, Vice-President; Exhibit 12 being 

(R-969)
Response of Continental Southern Lines, Inc., filed the



182

(R-969)
28th of July, 1961, and also executed and verified by 
Mr. Sam Watts; and Plaintiffs’ 14 being Answer to Request 
for Admission of Pacts, filed September 18, 1961, andwered 
by and sworn to by S. C. Watts.
BY JUDGE RIVES: As against the Attorney General, those 
would not be evidence unless Mr. Watts were produced 
and you had an opportunity to cross examine him.
BY MR. WATKINS: We’d like to make the same objection to 
the City of Jackson.
EY JUDGE RIVES: The same ruling for the City of Jackson. 
Of course, they are in evidence as against the party 
answering.
BY MR. O ’MARA: Do I understand it to be not as to the 
other parties?
BY JUDGE RIVES: My understanding of the rule would be 
that you would have to get those witnesses for cross 
examination before they could be introduced in evidence 
except as to the party who made the admission.

(Mrs. Motley continues:)
Q. Mr. Dobbins, do you know of the location of any other de­

pots in the State of Mississippi of the Continental 
Southern Lines?

A, Yes, I do.
Q,. Would you name some of the other places where you have 

depots in the State of Mississippi?
A. We have depots in Vicksburg, Natchez--- -



185
(R-970)

BY MR. CLARK: Even though this is a different witness, 
it is still impliedly, implicitly in the record that the 
Attorney Generalls office has a standing objection 
past one witness and to all witnesses to testimony of 
this type?
BY JUDGE RIVES: Very well.
BY MR. CLARK: And it need not be renewed?
BY JUDGE RIVES: We will carry the objection with the 
case.

Q,. Bo you want to continue naming the places?
BY JUDGE RIVES: Do you have a list of them?
BY MRS. MOTLEY: Yes, sir.
BY JUDGE RIVES: Hand him a list and see if he can tes­
tify to that list.
(Counsel does same)

A. Shall I read these out?
Q. Yes.
A. Columbus, Mississippi; and —  May I ask this question?

Do you refer to terminals owned by Continental Southern 
Lines?

Q. Or utilized by Continental.
A. Columbus, Mississippi; Biloxi, Mississippi; Canton, Missis­

sippi; Columbia, Mississippi; Corinth, Mississippi; 
Greenville, Mississippi; Greenwood, Mississippi; Grenada, 
Mississippi; Gulfport, Mississippi; Hattiesburg, Missis­
sippi; Laurel, Mississippi; Meridian, Mississippi;



184
(R-970)

Natchez, Mississippi; Oxford, Mississippi; Starkville, 
Mississippi; Tupelo, Mississippi; Vicksburg, Mississippi; 
and ¥ino.na, Mississippi.

(R-971)
0. Now, do you know of your own knowledge whether there are 

similar signs over the doors of these depots that you 
have just read out?

A. I couldn't say that they are over all of them, no.
Q. Do you know which ones have the signs?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Mr. Dobbins, since you have been manager of the Trailways 

Bus Company in this region and since —  Is your office 
in the Trailways here?

A. Not in the terminal. We have a garage on Highway 80, and 
my office is out there.

Q. Do you know of your own knowledge whether any of your 
passengers have been arrested by the police in your 
terminal here in the last six months?

A. I do not.

BY MR. CLARK: Object unless confined to the plaintiffs 
in this lawsuit.
BY JUDGE RIVES: That objection is overruled.

Q* Do you know of your own knowledge whether any of your
passengers have been arrested in the Trailways depot 
here in the City of Jackson?



185
(R-971)
A. I can’t say that they have. I don’t know.
Q. Have any been taken out by the police, to your knowledge?
A. They have been taken out by the police.
(R-972)
Q. Do you know when this occurred in the last six months?
A. I couldn't give dates.
Q. About how many, would you say?
A. How many individuals, you mean?
Q. Yes.
A. I was there one time, happened to be there, when some peo­

ple were taken out, and I would think there was some eight 
or ten at that time. That’s the only ones I ’ve seen.

Q. When was that?
A. I don’t recall the date at all.
Q. Was it within the last six months?
A. I think it is, yes.
Q. What happened when you were there on that day?
A. I was at the terminal on that afternoon when one of the 

scheduled coaches came in, and the police were at the 
station. A group of people came in and went into the 
waiting room, and there was some conversation which I 
could not and did not overhear, and they went on out 
the front and left the premises.

Q. Were these Negro and white people or just Negroes?
A. I believe they was both, Negro and white.
Q. Did you say anything to the police officers?
A. I did not.



186
(R-972)
Q. You didn’t make any investigation?
A. I did not.
Q. Did you see any commotion at this time that you are 

speaking of?
(R-973)
A. Nothing more than people crowded around the front of the 

depot as the police and these passengers went out.
There was no disorder that I observed at all.

Q. What waiting room were these people in?
A. The waiting room on the west side of the terminal.
Q. What does the sign say over the door of that waiting room? 
A. "WHITE WAITING ROOM. "
Q. And there were Negroes In the group?
A. There were Negroes In the group. That’s correct.
Q. How often do you visit this terminal here in Jackson?
A. Well, rather frequently. I don't have any set schedule. 

When I ’m uptown I go by the terminal. I park my car 
there, and we have a dispatcher’s office which I visit 
frequently there. I visit there more so than any other 
point, naturally.

Q. In addition to the incident which you have just described 
when these eight or ten people were taken out by the 
police, have you observed Negroes using the white waiting 
room at any other time?

A. I have.
Q. When was that?

BY MR. O ’MARA: Counsel again refers to the white waiting



187
(R-973)

room, and we request the Court to instruct her to frame 
her questions In accordance with the testimony of the 
witness.
BY JUDGE RXVES: I think the Court understands thorough­
ly; a waiting room with a sign on it.

(R-974)
BY MR. O'MARA: She just called it the white waiting 
room.
BY JUDGE RXVES: Overrule the objection. Gentlemen, 
these objections are captious.

Q. In the waiting room with the sign over it which says
"White Intrastate Passengers," have you observed Negroes 
using that white waiting room in the last six months on 
any occasions other than the one you have just described? 

A. On one occasion I happened to be in the ticket office of 
the terminal when a young Negro man entered, came to the 
ticket counter, requested that his ticket be checked, 
which it was. He went out back and caught his bus.

Q. And he was a Negro using the white waiting room?
A. He was using the west waiting room, the one marked "White."

That's correct.
Q. When did this occur?
A. I wouldn’t attempt to set a date. It’s been within the 

last five or six weeks.
Qu Are thereany other incidents like that that you have ob­

served?



188
(R-972!-)
A. No, that's the only one I have observed.
Q. Would you describe the facilities you have In each of 

these waiting rooms?
A. I would say that are identical. The west waiting room has 

cafe facilitiesj it has rest rooms that are designated 
"men" and "women," and it has waiting room furniture 
thatfs identical to the other waiting roomj and drinking 
fountains. There1s no —  The facilities are identical in 
each waiting room.

(R—975)Q. And you have a cafe in each waiting room?
A. That's correct.
Q. A drinking fountain?
A. That's correct.
Q. And restrooms?
A. Correct.
Q. Does your company have any regulations which require that 

a separate waiting room be maintained for Negroes and a 
separate waiting room be maintained for whites?

BY MR, CLARK: We'd like —
BY JUDGE RTVES; We understand you have an objection to 
that. We will not permit her to show the terms of the 
regulation but permit her to show whether it is in 
existence,

A. Our company has no regulation that specifies certain



189
(R-975)

waiting room facilities for certain groups of people.
Q. Does your company have a regulation with regulates the

seating of passengers on the buses on the basis of race? 
A. We do not have.
Q. Do you as manager have any objection to Negroes using the 

waiting room that has the sign that says "White Intra­
state Passengers"?

A. None whatsoever.

BY MR. CLARK: That is clearly an irrelevant question to 
(R-976)

any issue in this case as to any defendant. We object 
to it for the Attorney General as irrelevant and immate­
rial, what his personal opinions are.
BY MRS. MOTLEY: I said, "as manager."
BY JUDGE RIVES: That objection will be sustained as to 
the Attorney General. We will permit you to ask it as 
to Continental.

Q. You can answer the question.
A. Would you repeat the question?

BY JUDGE RIVES: The answer is restricted to his company. 

A. Would you repeat the question?
Q. Do you as the manager of the Continental Southern Lines 

have any objection to Negroes using the waiting room 
which says over the door "White Intrastate Passengers"?

A. I do not.



190
(R-976)
Q. Do you have any objection to white persons using the

waiting room which has over the door "Colored Intrastate 
Passengers"?

A. I do not.

BY JUDGE RIVES: The same ruling as to that answer.
BY MRS, MOTLEY: I think that is all as to this witness. 
BY JUDGE RIVES: Any cross examination?
BY MR. WATKINS: Wo questions.
BY MR. O'MARA: May I have the same understanding with 
regard to this witness on his examination as I did with 
Mr. Renegar with the Greyhound Company?
BY JUDGE RIVES: That Is right.

(R-977)
BY MR. CLARE: We have no examination at this time. Our 
cross examination would be subject to the same terms as 
Mr. Renegar?
BY JUDGE RIVES: That is right.

(Witness excused)

G* E, PICKLE, called as a witness and having been duly sworn, 
testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MRS. MOTLEY:
Q» What is  your name?
A. G. E. Pickle.
Q. What is your position?
A. District passenger agent for the Illinois Central Railroad.



191

(R-977)
Q. How long have you been so employed?
A. Approximately ten years.
QU Do you have an office here in Jackson?
A. Yes.
Q. Where is it located?
Q,. In the passenger station of the Illinois Central Railroad. 
Q. Would you speak up a little bit?
A. At Mill and West Capitol Street.
Q. That is in the terminal building?
A. Right,
Q. In the terminal building where your office is located, how 

many waiting rooms are there?
A. There are two rooms which were built with the station.
(R-978)Q, Are there any signs over those rooms?
A. The Illinois Central has no signs.
Q. Are there any signs outside those rooms?
A. Yes.
Q. What are those signs?
A. They are white signs on stands.
Q. What do they say?
A. One of them says "WAITING ROOM FOR WHITE PASSENGERS," and 

the other, "WAITING ROOM FOR COLORED PASSENGERS."
Q. Is that all it says?
A. "By Order of the Police Department."
CL Where are the signs located?
A. Two on the back walk behind the station, two in the front,



192
(R-978)

and two in the corridor.
Q. How long have the signs been there?
A. I ’d say approximately five years, four or five years.

I don’t Imow the exact time.
Q. Did the Illinois Central ever have any signs up there 

since you have been manager?
A. In fact I don’t remember. I think they were, over the 

doorway.

BY MR. CLARK: We object to what he thinks.
BY JUDGE RIVES: (to witness) You mean that is your best 
recollection?
BY WITNESS: That’s right. Yes, sir.

(R-979)
Q. When was that, approximately?
A. Approximately six or seven years ago.
Q. What did those signs say?
A. If I ’m not mistaken, I think they said "WHITE WAITING 

ROOM" or "COLORED WAITING ROOM."
Q. Which was the white waiting room?
A. The one on the south side of the station.
Q,. Which was the colored?
A. On the north side.
Q,. What facilities do you have in these waiting rooms?
A. Have none other than the rest room, as far as I know.
Q,. Do you have benches?
A. Yes, they have benches.



193
(R-979)
Q, Lunch counters?
A. No.
Q, Drinking fountains?
A. They do have, yes.
Q. The facilities are Identical, would you say?
A. As far as I know, yes,
Q. "Where is the ticket window located?
A. It Is in the center of the building.
Q. It is not in either waiting room?
A. It has access from either.
Q,. Pardon?
A. Access from either waiting room.
Q. Mr. Pickle, in the last six months, have you observed any 

Negroes in the waiting room where there was a sign which 
says "WHITE WAITING ROOM - By Order of the Police"? 

(R-980)
A. Yes, I have.
Q. When was that?
A. Approximately four or five months ago.
Q. What were these Negroes doing in that waiting room?
A. They were sitting on a bench.

BY JUDGE RIVES: I couldn't hear you.
BY WITNESS: Sitting on the bench.

Q. What happened when you observed them? Did you see any­
thing happen?

A. No.



194
(R-980)
Q. Just sitting there?
A. Just sitting there.
Q. In the last six months have you observed any white persons 

in the waiting room where there is a sign which says 
"COLORED WAITING ROOM - By Order of the Police"?

A, No, I can't see that room from my office. It's out of 
my vision.

Q,. Do you ever go into the colored waiting room?
A. No, I do not, unless I have business in there. If I have 

business in there I do.
Q, Do you know of your own knowledge whether any Negroes

have been arrested in the waiting room where there is a 
sign on the sidewalk saying "WHITE WAITING ROOM - By 
Order of Police"?

A. No.
Q. You don’t know?
(R-981)
A. No.
Q. Do you know whether any white persons have been arrested 

in the waiting room where there is a sign saying "COLORED 
WAITING ROOM - By Order of Police"?

A. No.
Q. Do you know whether any Negroes have been taken out of the 

waiting room where there is a sign saying "WHITE WAITING 
ROOM"?

A, From my own knowledge, no.
Q. Do you know whether any white persons have been taken out



195
(R-981)

by the police from the waiting room where there is a 
sign saying "COLORED PASSENGERS - By Order of the Police”? 

A. No.
Q. Have you been informed by any of your employees that the 

police have taken some of your passengers from either of 
these waiting rooms?

ESC MR* WATKINS; We object to that as hearsay.
BY JUDGE RIVES: Objection sustained.

Q. What are your duties as manager of the Illinois Central 
terminal?

BY MR. CERNE: We object on the basis he has not testi­
fied that he is manager. I believe he stated his posi­
tion as district passenger agent.

Q. I ’m sorry. As district passenger agent of the Illinois 
Central Railroad, what are your duties?

(R-982)
A. Solicitation of passenger business. In other words, in 

any other organization it would be sales manager.
Q. Do you have any supervision over the waiting rooms?
A. No.
Q. Do you have any supervision over the passenger trains?
A. No.

BY MRS. MOTLEY: At this time, Your Honor, we would like
to offer in evidence the Interrogatories which the 
plaintiff served on the Illinois Central Railroad on



196
(R-982)

July 17# 1961, and the Answer of the Illinois Central 
Railroad Company of July 27, 1961, and the Request for 
Admission of Pacts served on the Illinois Central Rail­
road on July 17, 1961, and the Answer to Request for 
Admission of Pacts by the Illinois Central of July 27, 
1961.
BY JUDGE RIVES: Did Mr. Pickle sign any of those?
BY MRS. MOTLET: No, these were signed by Thomas D. 
Pogarty, Jr. His title is not given —  Or is it? Yes, 
Special Agent of the Illinois Central Railroad.

(Same received in evidence and marked as Plaintiffs1 Exhibits 
Nos. 21, 22, 23, and 24. These exhibits are not copied here 
because upon order of the Court all original exhibits are 
sent up with the mimeographed record.)

BY MRS. MOTLEY: That is all of this witness.
BY JUDGE RIVES: Any cross examination^
BY MR. WATKINS: No questions.

(R-983)
BY MR. CLARK: The Attorney General has nothing at this 
time. We would like the same understanding we had to 
the other two with regard to our right to cross examine 
later.
BY MR. CERNE: No questions.
BY JUDGE RIVES; We* 11 take a five minute recess. 
(Whereupon the court was recessed for five minutes.)

* * *  *