Bailey v. Patterson Mimeographed Record Vol. V

    UNITED STATES
COURT of APPEALS

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

No.

SA M U EL B A ILE Y , ET A L ,

A P P E LLA N T S

VERSU S

JO E T. PA TTERSO N , ET A L ,

A PPELLEES

Volume V
*

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

Jackson Division

MIMEOGRAPHED RECORD



I N D E X

Samuel Bailey, Et A1 
Versus
Joe T. Patterson, Et A1

Page
No.

Affidavit of JOSEPH BROADWATER 
Supplemental Affidavit of A. B. SMITH 
Affidavit of T. A. TURNER 
Affidavit of W. D. RAYFIELD 
Affidavit of R. Q. TURNER 
Affidavit of ROYCE M. SMITH 
Affidavit of MRS. CIARIE COLLINS HARVEY 
Affidavit of DERRICK A. BEIL 
Affidavit of T. A. TURNER 
Affidavit of CICERO W. CARR 
Affidavit of DAVID CAMPBELL 
Affidavit of MRS. H. L. McRANEY 
Affidavit of PHIL A. DOBYNS 
Affidavit of MRS. MYRTLE NELSON 
Supplemental Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, 

and Declaratory Judgment
Motion To Amend and Supplement Findings of Facts 
Notice of Hearing of Motion 
Affidavit of RONALD AUSTIN HOLLANDER 
Affidavit of ROBERT HENRY JOHNSON 
Affidavit of DEWEY ROOSEVELT GREENE, JR.
Affidavit of LUCY BARLOCK BARKER 
Affidavit of PETER RICHARD GILBERT 

v Affidavit of T. A. TURNER 
K O n  Motions For Judgment in Accordance With

Supreme Court's Opinion; to Amend Finding of 
Fact; for Further Relief 

Order Sustaining in Part & Overruling In Part 
Plaintiffs' Motion that The Court Amend its 
Supplemental Findings of Fact, Conclusions of 
Law, and Declaratory Judgment 

Amended Supplemental Declaratory Judgment 
Letter from U.S.District Judge S. C. Mize 

v_ Notice of Appeal
Designation of Contents of Record on Appeal 
Order For Transmittal of Original Exhibits 
Designation of Contents of Record on Appeal on Be­

half of the Greyhound Corp. and Continental 
Southern Lines, Inc.

Order Extending Time To File Record 
Order Extending Time to File Record 
Certificate of Service

751 
753
757
758 761 
762 
764 
768
770
771 
773
7777v9
7 52  
785

791
792
793

805
808
810
813

846

848
850
852
§53
§59
860

861
862
863



751

(R-1497)
VOLUME "Y"

AFFIDAVIT OF JOSEPH BROADWATER 
AFFIDAVIT

(Title Omitted - Filed May 19, 1962)

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 
COUNTY OF HINDS

Personally appeared before me, the undersigned autho­
rity in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, Joseph Broad­
water, one of the plaintiffs in the above styled and num­
bered cause* residing at 2006 Barrett Avenue in the City of 
Jackson, First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi, 
who, being by me first duly sworn stated on his oath as 
follows:

That on Friday, May 18, 1962, he entered the Municipal 
Airport terminal at Jackson, Mississippi, and saw therein 
signs designating water fountains as "White" and "Colored" ; 

and that he also saw signs within the said terminal designa­
ting rest rooms as "White" and "Colored".

That on the above mentioned date he rode on a bus owned 
and operated by the Jackson City Lines in the City of 
Jackson, Mississippi, and that he saw on said bus a sign
which read "CIT7 ORDINANCE-----White passengers take front
seats. Colored passengers take rear seats".

That on the above mentioned date he entered the Illinois 
Central Railroad terminal in the City of Jackson, Mississippi,



752
(R-1497)
and that he observed that two separate waiting rooms were
being maintained within the said terminal; that he saw on
the sidewalk in front of the south door of the south waiting
(R-1498)
room of the said Illinois Central Railroad terminal a sign 
marked "White waiting room" and that he saw on the sidewalk 
in front of the east door of the east waiting room of said 
terminal a signed marked "Colored waiting room"; and that 
he is informed and believes and, therefore, alleges on such 
information and belief that both of the said signs were 
placed on the sidewalk by police officers of the City of 
Jackson, Mississippi.

That on the above mentioned date he entered the terminal 
of the Greyhound Bus Company in the City of Jackson, Missis­
sippi, and that he observed that two separate waiting rooms 
were being maintained within said terminal; that he saw on 
the sidewalk in front of the east door of the east waiting 
room in said terminal a sign marked "white waiting room"; 
and that he is informed and believes and, therefore, alleges 
on such information and belief that the said sign was 
placed on the sidewalk by police officers of the City of 
Jackson, Mississippi.

That on the above mentioned date he entered the terminal 
of the Continental Trailways Bus Company and that he observed 
that two separate waiting rooms were being maintained within 
the said terminal; that he saw on the sidewalk in front of 
the north door of the east waiting room of said terminal a



753
(R-1498)
sign which was marked "Colored waiting room" and that he 
saw on the sidewalk in front of the north door of the west 
waiting room of said terminal a sign which was marked 
"White waiting room"j and that he is informed and believes 
and, therefore, alleges on such information and belief that 
both signs were placed on the sidewalk by police officers 
of the City of Jackson, Mississippi.

/s/ Joseph Broadwater 
Joseph Broadwater

SWORN TO M D  SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME on this 19th, day of 
May, 1962.

/s/ Jack H, Young________
Notary Public

(SEAL) My Commission Expires Sept. 25, 1963

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

* * * * * *

(R-1500) SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF A. B. SMITH 
SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT

(Title Omitted - Filed May 23, 1962)

Personally came and appeared before me, the 
undersigned Notary Public in and for Hinds County, Mississip-



754
(R-1500)
pi, A. B. SMITH, who, being by me first duly sworn, on oath 
deposes and says as follows:

1. That immediately prior to the execution of 
an affidavit by him on April 26, 1962, which has heretofore 
been filed in this cause, affiant, in his capacity as Manager 
of Jackson City Lines, Inc., issued appropriate orders to 
his subordinates to remove every sign of every nature, kind 
and character which would indicate any separate seating for 
the races | and that he also did each of the other things
set forth in his affidavit heretofore filed herein.

2. This affiant further states that prior to
the taking of said action, the buses of the defendant,
Jackson City Lines, Inc., were equipped with a metal sign
approximately 4 inches high and 10 inches long, which sign 
(R-1501)
had "White" written on the front side and the word "Colored" 
written on the back side, and it was attached to a metal 
track in the ceiling of each of Its buses in such a manner 
that it could be slid fore and aft, as the relative pro­
portion of white to colored passengers varied. That some 
of said buses further had installed in the fronts thereof 
another sign of one of two types, some of metal, reading: 

" C m  ORDINANCE NO. 1718 - B prohibits 
passengers standing in front of metal strip 
located on front platform. White passengers 
are required to take front seats and Colored 
passengers take rear seats. Please Observe.
Thank You. NO SMOKING."



755

(R-1501)
And others of plastic, reading:

"CITY' ORDINANCE prohibits:
Passengers standing in front of white 
line.
Spitting, Smoking, or the carrying of 
smoldering cigars, cigarettes or pipes 
also prohibited.
White passengers take front seats.
Colored passengers take rear seats."

3. This affiant farther states that upon be­
ing advised that the complainant Broadwater had filed an 
affidavit herein in which he averred that on May 18, 1962, 
he observed a sign in a bus owned and operated by the defen­
dant, Jackson City Lines, Inc., which reads: "CITY ORDINANCE 
. . .  White Passengers take front seats. Colored passengers 
take rear seats." That this affiant then made further in­
vestigation and discovered that some employees of the defen­
dant, Jackson City Lines, Inc., had removed only the small 
sliding metal sign, but had overlooked removing the larger 
sign installed in the front of some of the buses, apparently 
being confused by Its containing information other than re­
lating to the seating of the passengers by race.

This affiant further states that it is, 
therefore, probable that complainant Broadwater did observe 
such a sign in one of the buses of Jackson City Lines, Inc, 
on said date of May 18, 1962.



756
(R-1502)

5. This affiant further avers, however, that 
he has specifically directed employees to likewise remove 
the additional sign from the front of the balance of the 
buses of Jackson City Lines, Inc., and that he has personally 
inspected each bus to insure that this is done, and that 
there are no such signs present in any of said buses at
this time.

6. This affiant further re-affirms each and 
every other averment contained in his prior affidavit hereto­
fore filed herein.

And further affiant sayeth not.

/s/ A. B, Smith_________________
A. B. Smith

Sworn to and subscribed before me, this the 
22nd day of May, 1962.

/s/ Rubv Brock Weeks ___________
Notary Public

(SEAL)
My Commission Expires April 24, 1965

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

* * * * *



(R-1504) AFFIDAVIT OF T« A. TURNER 
AFFIDAVIT

757

(Title Omitted - Filed May 25, 1962)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 
COUNTY OF HINDS

Personally appeared before me, the undersigned 
authority in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, T.A. Turner, 
who having been by me first duly sworn, deposes and states 
on oath as follows:

That he has been at all times hereinafter mentioned 
and is now Manager of the Jackson Municipal Airport under the 
direction of the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority, a body 
corporate.

That the signs near the water fountains and on the 
doors of the restrooms of the Jackson Airport, mentioned in 
the affidavit of Joseph Broadwater filed May 19, 1962, in 
this case, have been in their present form and locations 
since 1956; that said signs are maintained for the sole 
purpose of assisting members of both races who voluntarily 
desire to use said facilities separately and for no other 
purpose; that said signs are not now being enforced and 
have never been enforced insofar as your affiant knows or 
believes; that without said signs many citizens of both 
races who voluntarily desire to use said facilities separa­
tely, if possible, would not know what facilities could be 
used voluntarily on a separate basis.



(R-1504)
758

/s/ T. A. Turner 
T. A. TURNER

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME, this 24 day of May, 1962.
(SEAL) /s/ Mildred A. Baker 

NOTARY PUBLIC"
M7 COMMISSION EXPIRES: 

1 /1 6 / 6 6 _________

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

# * * * *

(R-1506) AFFIDAVIT OF W. D. RAYFIELD
AFFIDAVIT

(Title Omitted - Filed May 26, 1962)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 
COUNTY OF HINDS

Personally appeared before me, the undersigned 
authority in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, W. D. 
Rayfield, who having been by me first duly sworn, deposes 
and states on oath as follows:

That he is one of the defendants in the above 
styled and numbered action.

That he is the Chief of Police of the City of 
Jackson, Mississippi, having been appointed on January 1, 
1952.



(R-1506)
759

That he has been a member of the Police Department 
of the City of Jackson, Mississippi, since October 1, 1936, 
this being a period of service in excess of twenty-three 
(2 3) years.

That since he has been a member of the Jackson 
Police Department no effort has been made by said Police 
Department to enforce Sections 2351* 2351.5* 2351.7* 7784, 
7785, 7786, 7786-01, 7787 and 7787.5 of the Mississippi 
Code of 1942, as Recompiled, or any of them.

That he personally has never arrested or threatened
to arrest any person or persons for a violation of said
sections, or any of them, and that he has no knowledge of
(R-1507)any arrest being made for violation of any of said sections.

That the signs complained of in the affidavit of 
Joseph Broadwater, filed May 19* 1962, in this case, are 
situated on public sidewalks and have been placed there by 
the Police Department of the City of Jackson for the sole 
purpose of assisting members of both races who desire to 
use separate facilities voluntarily and for no other pur­
pose; that said signs are not now being enforced and have 
never been enforced by the City of Jackson or its Police 
Department; that none of said signs is on the private pro­
perty of any carrier, and the City of Jackson claims the 
right to maintain same just as it maintains numerous other 
signs on the public sidewalks; that the City of Jackson has 
the exclusive right to determine what signs should or should



760
(R-1507)
not be plaoed on the public sidewalks of the City and 
denies that either the plaintiffs in this case or the 
United States of America or the Interstate Commerce Commis­
sion have any jurisdiction or control over the actions of 
the City in that regard.

That without said signs many of the citizens of 
the City of both races who desire to use separate facilities 
voluntarily, if possible, would not know what facilities 
could be used voluntarily on a separate basis.

That it is to the best interest of all of the 
citizens of the City of Jackson that the races be permitted 
to separate voluntarily wherever reasonably possible in 
order to promote the peace, harmony and health of all of the 
citizens of the City.

/s/ ¥. D. Rayfield 
¥. D. RAYPIEUT

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME, THIS 24 day of 
May, 1962.
(SEAL)

MI COMMISSION EXPIRES:
1/16/66

/s/ Mildred A. Baker 
NOTARY PUBLIC

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



(R-1509) AFFIDAVIT OF R. Q- TURNER
AFFIDAVIT

761

(Title Omitted - Filed May 26, 1962)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 
COUNT7 OF HINDS

Personally appeared before me, the undersigned 
authority in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, R. Q.
Turner, who having been by me first duly sworn, deposes 
and states on oath as follows:

That he has at all times hereinafter mentioned been 
and is now employed by the Police Department of the City of 
Jackson, Mississippi, as a detective, and that as such he 
does not wear a uniform or anything else which would identi­
fy him as connected with said Police Department.

That since April 3, 1962, he has from time to time 
been assigned by the Police Department of said City as an 
observer in the bus and railway terminals of the said City 
of Jacksonj that on each such occasion he observed members 
of the colored race using all waiting room facilities in 
said terminals without hinderance or objection on the part 
of anyonej that said members of the colored race using said 
facilities as aforesaid included Negroes, Chinese, an Indian 
and a soldier from Pakistan.

(SEAL)

/s/ R. 0.. Turner 
% TURlIfr



762

(R-1509)
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME, this 24 day of May, 1962.

MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
_____ 1 /16/66__________

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

* * * * * *

(R-1512) AFFIDAVIT OF ROYCE M. SMITH
AFFIDAVIT

(Title Omitted - Filed June 1, 1962)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 
COUNTY OF HINDS

Personally appeared before me, the undersigned autho­
rity in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, Royce M. Smith, 
who having been by me first duly sworn, deposes and states 
on oath as follows:

1. He resides at 16 13 Morehouse Street, Jackson, 
Mississippi.

2. He is a student at Tougaloo College, Tougaloo, 
Mississippi,

3. On May 25, 1962, at approximately 12:05 P. M., he 
boarded a Trailways Bus at the Trsilways bus depot in the

/s/ Mildred A. Baker
T w r m i n * "



7 63
(R-1512)
City of Jackson for Greensboro, North Carolina.

4. He purchased his ticket on the colored waiting 
side of the depot because he feared that an effort to pur­
chase a ticket in the white waiting room might result in 
delay and he was already late for the bus.

5. On May 30, 1962, he was returning to Jackson by 
Trailways Bus which stopped in Meridian, Mississippi for 
20 minutes. He got off the bus, accompanied by his sister, 
Jerelyn Smith, and went to the restaurant to get some re­
freshments. He went up to the self-service counter and got 
some potato chips. He asked the white waitress behind the 
counter for a coca cola but she ignored his request for 
service. The white waitress then went to the back of the 
restaurant and secured a Negro employee who came up to him 
and asked him what he wanted. In the mean time he had taken 
a seat in the restaurant. The colored employee asked him
if he wanted a coca cola to take out or Hdrink it here.'1
He said he wanted to drink it there. While he was sitting
(R-1513)at the table, a police officer came over to the table and 
ordered him to move out. He replied that he would after he 
finished his coke. The officer then said in a threatening 
manner, "so you aren't going to move out." He became frigh­
ten and went to telephone and called his brother, Robert 
Smith, in Jackson, and asked him what to do. His brother 
told him to reboard the bus and come to Jackson, which he 
did.



764

(R-1513)

/s/ Royce M. Smith____________
Royce M. Smith

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME, TEES 31st day of 
May, 1962.

/s/ Jack H. Young 
Notary Public

My commission expires:
Sept 25 - 1963_____

(SEAL)

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

* * * * * *

(R-1515) AFFIDAVIT OF MRS. CLARIE COLLINS HARVEY
AFFIDAVIT

(Title Omitted - Filed June 1, 1962)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 
COUNT! OF HINDS

Personally appeared before me, the undersigned authority 
in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, Mrs. Clarie Collins 
Harvey, who having been by me first duly sworn, deposes 
and states on oath as follows:

1. She resides at 415 No. Parish Street, County of 
Hinds, City of Jackson, State of Mississippi.

2. She is a life-long resident of the State of Missis-



765

(R-1515)
sippi and her family has resided in the State of Mississippi 
for four generations.

3. She is an adult Negro citizen of the United States 
and of the State of Mississippi.

4. On May 22, 1962, about 1:00 p.m., at the Trailways 
bus depot in Gulfport, Mississippi, she approached the 
woman ticket agent for the purpose of purchasing a ticket 
to Jackson, Mississippi. However, when the ticket agent 
saw her approaching, she left the ticket window and disap­
peared for about five minutes. "When she returned, she sold 
affiant a ticket to Jackson. Affiant then went to the news­
stand and restroom and, subsequently, took a seat in the 
waiting room in which she had purchased the ticket. About 
five or ten minutes later, a police officer of the City of 
Gulfport arrived and asked her nationality. She replied 
that she is American. The officer, who arrived about 1:12 
p.m., then told her she should be in the waiting room re­
served for "your people" on the other side of the terminal. 
She told the police officer that she had been assured by
a Baton Rouge, Louisiana ticket agent of the Greyhound Bus
(R-1516) . „ _company that there was no longer any racial discrimination
in bus travel. This officer then left and a second officer
appeared. This officer then asked her to step outside, which
she did. When they got outside, this officer pointed to a
waiting room on the back side of the building and said that
is where she should be waiting. The officer then said, "X



766

(R-1516)
advise you not to return to that room", meaning the waiting 
room which she just left. A third officer was seated in 
a parked white automobile. She did not return to the white 
waiting room, but waited outside on the ramp for her bus 
which was to depart at 1:20 p.tru

5. When she boarded the bus, the hostess told her that 
the ticket agent (the same one who had sold affiant her 
ticket) had assigned her to a rear seat, No. 32. She looked 
at the paper the hostess held, saw the numerals 32 and next 
to them the word "woman". She refused to sit in this rear 
seat and took another seat on the bus. The hostess did
not require her to move and throughout the trip showed her 
the professional courtesy expected.

6. During the entire trip there were never more than 
five passengers aboard the bus.

7. When she arrived at Jackson, the hostess gave her 
and the other passengers Service Cards which were addressed 
to the Customer Service Director, Continental Trailways, 
Dallas, Texas. On her card she made a written complaint 
about the racial discrimination she had experienced.

8. Thereafter, on May 24th, she followed up the written 
complaint to the Continental Trailways Company with a tele­
gram complaint to its office in Dallas, Texas. She also sent 
an affidavit, similar to the one herein, to the Department
of Justice in Washington D. C., and to the Interstate 
Commerce Commission in Washington, D. C.



767
(R-1516)

9. She has seldom ridden on a public bus in the State 
of Mississippi prior to the occasion referred to herein 
because she is fully aware of the fact that the racial 
policy on such buses and in the terminals and depots 
utilized by the bus companies has been one of racial 
segregation. Consequently, because she does not wish to be 
subjected to discrimination on account of her race, she has 
(R-1517)studiously avoided riding public buses and trains. She 
rode the bus on the occasion described herein because she 
had also been informed by newspaper accounts and by dis­
cussion with friends and lawyers that the policy of racial 
segregation on such buses had been enjoined by the Courts 
and she believed these reports.

/s/ Mrs. Clarie Collins Harvey 
7lrs7 Clarie Collins Harvey

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME, THIS 1st day of
June, 1962.

/s/ Jack B. Young 
" Notary Public

%  commission expires:
Sept 25 - 1963_______
(SEAL)

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



(R-1519)
768

AFFIDAVIT OF DERRICK A. BELL 
AFFIDAVIT

(Title Omitted - Filed June 1, 1962)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 
COUNTY OF HINDS

Personally appeared before me, the undersigned authority 
in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, Derrick A. Bell, who 
having been by me first duly sworn, deposes and states on 
oath as follows:

1. He is an adult Negro citizen of the United States 
and of the State of New York. He is an attorney of record 
for the plaintiffs in this case. He resides in New York 
City and has an office in Suite 1790f 10 Columbus Circle,
New York 19, New York.

2. On May 30, 1962, he arrived in Jackson, Mississippi, 
via Delta Airlines flight No. 631 at about 9:45 p.m. for the 
purpose of participating in a hearing in this case set for 
May 3 1, 1962, at 10:00 a.m.

3. Upon entering the airport terminal building, he 
entered the restaurant operated on said premises by defendant 
Cicero Carr, and sat down at the lunch counter. He ordered
a coca cola. A white waitress behind the counter told him 
that unless he "wanted it to go", he could be served only 
in the back.

4. A supervisory employee of the restuarant, who 
identified herself as Mrs. Hudson, stated that it was the



769

(R-1519)
restaurant’s policy not to serve Negroes in the dining 
room, tout they could toe served in the back.

5. Mrs. Hudson reached the restaurant proprietor, 
Cicero Carr, toy telephone, and Mr, Carr told affiant that 
he could be served in the rear, but that if affiant wished 
service in the dining room, he (Mr. Carr) would have to come 
(R-1520)
out to the airport and provide this service since none of 
his employees would serve Negroes. Affiant told Mr. Carr 
that he neither wished to inconvenience Mr. Carr, nor wait 
until Mr. Carr made the trip from town just to serve a coca 
cola.

6. Affiant states that after completing his telephone 
conversation with Mr. Carr, he found that two policemen, 
members of the Jackson police force, had entered the res­
taurant. These officers told affiant to come outside with 
them. Affiant complied and waited outside the restaurant 
with one of the officers while the other went back and 
conferred with restaurant employees.

7. When this officer, whose name plate indicated that 
his name is Clarke, returned he told affiant that no charges 
were being made against him and that he was free to go. 
Affiant then left the airport.

/s/ Derrick A. Bell _______________
Derrick A. Bell

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME, THIS 31st day of



770
(R-1520)

May, 1962,
/ s / Jack H. Young 

Notary Public
%  commission expires:

Sept 25 - 1963_____
(SEAL)

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

* * * * * 

(R-1522)
AFFIDAVIT OF T. A. TURNER 

A F F I D A V I T
(Title Omitted - Filed June 6, 1962)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 
COUNTY OF HINDS

Personally appeared before me,the undersigned authority 
in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, T. A. Turner, who 
having been by me first duly sworn, deposes and states on 
oath as follows:

That he is at present and has at all times hereinafter 
mentioned been Manager of the Jackson Municipal Airport under 
the direction of the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority, 
a body corporate.

That the signs near the water fountains and on the



771
(R-1522)
doors of the rest rooms of the Jackson airport* mentioned 
in the Affidavit of Joseph Broadwater filed May 19,1962, 
and in the Affidavit filed by the undersigned on May 24, 
1962, in this case, were removed on the 4th day of June, 
1962, in accordance with the instructions of this court 
given on May 31, 1962.

/s/ T, A. T urner________________~tT a/ turneb
Sworn to and subscribed before me this the 4th day 

of June, 1962.
/s/ Shairod N. Robinson

---r o W T O L I C ' --- ----------
%  Commission Expires:
My Commission Expires Feb. 19, 1966 
_____________________ _ _ _ _ _ _  (SEAL)

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

* * * * *

(R-1524)
AFFIDAVIT OF CICERO W. CARR 
(Title Omitted - Filed June 7, 1962)

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
courmr of hinds

Personally appeared before me, the undersigned 
authority in and for the above named jurisdiction, Cicero



772
(R-1524)
¥. Carr, who having been first lawfully sworn, deposes and 
states on oath the following:

1. That, he is one of the Defendants In the above 
styled and numbered cause and is the owner and operator of 
the Airport Restaurant, Hawkins Field, Jackson, Mississippi;

2. That, since May 31* 1962, he, in the operation 
of his restaurant in connection with the Municipal Airport 
Terminal, has not discriminated against any person because 
of race, creed or color, that he does not intend to violate 
any order of this Court with reference thereto nor does he 
intend to discriminate in the future against any person 
because of race, creed or color, who might request service 
in his aforesaid restaurant.

3. That, on June 1, 1962 and afterwards, that his
restaurant will be converted to a standup counter service
which constitute the only available service to the general
public for eating and refreshment services and that any
member of the general public will be accorded the same
(R-1525)treatment by him and his agents and employees regardless 
of race, creed or color.

4. Affiant further says that he intends to dis­
continue any discriminatory action on his part toward any 
member of the general public by virtue of their race, creed 
or color.

5. Affiant further saith not.
/s/ Cicero ¥. Carr 

— W O T -----



773
(R-1525)
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME this 6th day of June,
1962.

/s/ Catherine W. Lee
— r a r p M

(SEAL)
MI COM, EX; 1 - 5 - 6 3 __________

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

# * * * * *

(R-1526)
AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID CAMPBELL 

AFFIDAVIT
(Title Omitted - Filed June 15, 1962)

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 
COUNTY OF HINDS

I, David Campbell, am a junior at Oberlin College of
Ohio majoring in Philosophy and Religion. I expect to go

I am white. D. R. C.
on to graduate school studying to be a minister.""/ X wanted 
to come to Jackson this summer to learn what I could about 
the racial situation, particularly about peoples1 attitudes 
toward the situation, and also to learn of the current 
developments toward either integration or the continuation 
of segregation.

Consequently when I read on the front page of the 
Jackson Daily News of Tuesday, June 12, 1962, that the



774
(R-1526)
Jackson Municipal Airport had desegregated its drinking 
fountains, rest rooms, and restaurant I was interested in 
going out to see what the situation was like. I was parti­
cularly interested in seeing how a restaurant could serve 
everyone standing up, which is what the Jackson Daily News 
reported.

A little before nine o'clock P. M., Tuesday on June 
12, 1962, I and another student went into the Jackson Muni­
cipal Airport to have a bowl of soup, and to learn what we 
could. We walked into the Airport and saw the restaurant 
down to the right, We slowly strolled in the double swing­
ing doors, so as to be able to take in as much as possible 
visually. The first thing I noticed was that a policeman 
was stationed at the raised lunch counter, without any 
stools on the left, which surprised me a bit. The cash re­
gister and display case was directly in front of us, and 
behind the show case and to the right of us was a partition 
through the wide entrance of which we could easily see 
tables and chairs in a much larger room beyond. I did not 
know quite what to do, since from the newspaper I did not 
expect to see any chairs at all. At this point, which 
would have been only a few moments after entering the 
double doors a waitress asked, "Do you care to sit down?”
A little taken back by tha presence of chairs at all, and
surprised that we would be offered a seat, I said, "Well, 
(R-1527)
i guess we would." We walked through the doorless entrance



775
(R-1527)
through the partition into the dining room. As I approached 
the entrance I noticed a sign on the left side of the portal 
just about eye level reading, roughly, "Employees and flight 
personnel only." At the time that this registered in my 
mind, I wondered what the meaning of this was, and after 
being seated across the room I continued to ponder the 
situation of being seated in a chair inside a room that was 
reserved for employees and personnel only. I ordered sea­
food, gumbo soup and a glass of milk.

When the food was brought to us X could not resist 
inquiring about the sign. I said, "Madam, I have noticed 
quite a few service or maintenance men coming in here, and 
I also noticed the sign by the door, was it alright for us 
to be in here?" Feeling a little funny at the repetition,
I inquired, "Well, is it all right for us to eat here?" She 
said that she was supposed to know if we were employeesj 
we had just walked in and they assumed we were. I replied 
that we were just passengers. She then ended the dialogue 
turning and walking off. We ate our soup and were given 
the check without being given a chance to exchange words 
with the waitress.

At the cashier after a very long wait, and only after 
the student that was with me called the lady's attention to 
the fact that we were there did a waitress different from 
our waitress come up to take our money. Since this was a 
different source of information and knowledge, I said to



776

(R-1527)
her, "I noticed that sign there." It was just about a yard 
from me and I nodded to it. I continued, "What does it 
mean?" She replied in a very excited and frenzied fashion 
which made her statement incomprehensible. I asked her to 
repeat it. Her reply was still incomprehensible. Upon 
a third request for repetition she asked me, "Where are you 
from anyway?" I replied, "Oklahoma" .. She then said, in 
an understandable manner, still in reply to my original 
question, "Oh, they are trying to mix the races."
(R-1528)

I walked out of the double swing doors a bit confused 
by the preceding incident. I went out to look at the planes, 
and came in and walked in both of the men’s restrooms while 
the student that was with me was checking on a flight to 
Chicago. We then left the Jackson Municipal Airport at 
approximately 9:^5 P. M.

/s/ David Campbell

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME on this 14 day 
of June, 1962.

/s/ Margaret A. Lewis________
Notary Public

(SEAL)
%  commission expires:

My Commission Expires April 5# 1966

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



(R-1530)
777

AFFIDAVIT OF MRS, H. L. McRANEY 
AFFIDAVIT

(Title Omitted - Filed June 19, 1962)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 
COUNTY OF HARRISON:::

This day personally came and appeared before me, the 
undersigned authority in and for the aforesaid jurisdictions, 
the within named Mrs. H. L. McRaney, who, after being first 
duly sworn says on her oath:

That on the occasion complained of, of May 22, 1962, 
set forth in the affidavit filed herein by Mrs. Clarie 
Collins Harvey, affiant was the ticket agent who sold the 
bus ticket mentioned therein. Affiant says she did not 
leave the ticket window when the passenger came to it for 
the purpose of purchasing a bus ticket, but waited on the 
passenger as soon as affiant could. Affiant says she sold 
the passenger a ticket to Jackson, Mississippi. The passen­
ger then left the ticket window or counter and took a seat 
in the waiting room. Later on, affiant saw a police officer 
of the City of Gulfport talking with the passenger, but 
affiant has no knowledge whatever of the subject of the 
conversation. The passenger and the officer then left the 
waiting room. Affiant does not know why the officer and 
passenger left the waiting room. The officer was not 
called by affiant and did not talk with the passenger at the



778
(R-1530)
request of affiant. As far as affiant knows the acts on
the part of the police officer in talking with the passenger
and leaving the waiting room with the passenger were wholly
voluntary on the part of the officer and not made or done
at the request of affiant or anyone connected with Continen-
(R-1531)
tal Southern Lines, Lie.

Affiant says she did assign the passenger Seat No. 32 
on this bus schedule. This bus schedule is a reserved-seat 
bus with certain seats allocated to be sold to passengers 
going to certain towns or locations. In writing up the 
reservation sheet, affiant wrote in the space for Seat No.
32 the word "woman" and the name "Harvey". Seat No. 32 
is a seat allocated on this bus from Gulfport, Mississippi 
to Jackson, Mississippi. In the use of the word "woman" 
in writing the reservation sheet, affiant did not use said 
word for the purpose of identifying the race of the passen­
ger. As a matter of fact, affiant uses the word "woman" and 
the word "lady" interchangeably without reference to the 
race of the person being referred to.

Affiant further says that the reason the passenger was 
assigned Seat No. 32 on the bus was because this was one of 
the seats designated for passengers between Gulfport, 
Mississippi and Jackson, Mississippi.

Affiant further says on her oath that as far as she 
knows Continental Southern Lines, Inc. has no rule or policy 
which requires the segregation of races among its passengers.



(R-1531)
779

/s/ Mrs, H. L. McRaney____________
Sworn to and subscribed before me, this June 3J5., 1962.

/s/ Marion P. C o x ______________
Notary Public

MARION P* COX (SEAL)
Justice of the Peace 
Beat 2 - Harrison County

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

* * * * *

(R-1533) AFFIDAVIT OF PHIL A, DOBYNS 
AFFIDAVIT

(Title Omitted - Filed June 19, 1962)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 
COUNTI OF HINDS: : :

This day personally came and appeared before me, the 
undersigned authority in and for the aforesaid jurisdictions, 
the within named Phil A. Dobyns, who, after being first 
duly sworn by me, says on his oath:

That he is Regional Manager of Continental Southern 
Lines, Inc, and is located in the City of Jackson, Mississip­
pi in the carrying on of his duties. The terminal building 
of Continental Southern Lines, Inc. in Meridian, Mississippi



780

(R-1533)
is within the jurisdiction of affiant. Affiant says he 
has no personal knowledge of the incident referred to in 
the affidavit filed herein by Royce M. Smith, but has made 
an investigation with regard to the alleged incident in 
Meridian, Mississippi.

Affiant does have personal knowledge, and so states, 
that there is no colored waiting room in the terminal build­
ing of Continental Southern Lines, Inc. in the City of Jack- 
son, Mississippi, that members of the colored and white 
races can and do use either waiting room in said terminal 
building in the City of Jackson, Mississippi.

Affiant says that with regard to the alleged incident
which the said Royce M. Smith says occurred on May 30, 1962
in the terminal building of Continental Southern Lines, Inc.
in Meridian, Mississippi he, affiant, has made a detailed
investigation with regard thereto and lias not been able to
(R-1534J
find anyone employed by Continental Southern Lines, Inc. 
who has any knowledge of said occurrence. Affiant says that 
the restaurant operated in the terminal building in Meridian, 
Mississippi is operated by Terminal Restaurants, Inc.
The space occupied by this restaurant in said terminal 
building is leased by Continental Southern Lines, Inc. to 
Terminal Restaurants, Inc. Continental Southern Lines, Inc, 
has nothing whatever to do with the operation of said res­
taurant and is not in any way connected with Terminal Res­
taurants, Inc. other than as lessor of the space aforesaid



781
(R-1534)
In the terminal building in Meridian, Mississippi. Affiant 
has talked with employees of Terminal Restaurants, Inc. in 
Meridian, Mississippi and none of them have any knowledge 
whatever of the alleged occurrence set forth in the affidavit 
filed herein by Royce M» Smith. Affiant says on information 
and belief that members of both the white and Negro races 
are served by the restaurant in the said Meridian, Mississip­
pi terminal building.

Affiant further says that no employee of Continental 
Southern Lines, Inc. had the police officer to approach said 
Royce M. Smith as alleged in the affidavit filed by him here­
in and request that he move out of the restaurant. Affiant 
has made an investigation of this alleged incident and was 
not able to locate any employee of Terminal Restaurants, Inc. 
who requested the officer to act as alleged in the affidavit 
of Royce M. Smith.

Affiant further says on his oath that if in fact a 
police officer of the City of Meridian requested Royce M. 
Smith to move from the restaurant in said terminal building, 
such request on the part of the police officer was without 
the knowledge of Continental Southern Lines, Inc. and was 
voluntary on the part of said police officer.

/s/ Phil A. Dobyns_____ ____________
Sworn to and subscribed before me, this June 14th,

1962.



(R-1534)
782

/s/ A. R. Covington_______
NOTARY PUBLIC

%  Commission Expires Jan. 26, 1963(SEAL)

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

* * * * *

(R-1536)
AFFIDAVIT OP MRS. MYRTLE NELSON
(Title Omitted - Filed June 21, 1962)

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 
COUNT! OF HINDS

Personally appeared before me, theundersigned 
authority in and for the above named jurisdiction, Mrs. 
Myrtle Nelson, who having been first lawfully sworn, deposes 
and states on oath the following:

1 . I am now and at all the times hereinafter 
mentioned have been an employee of Cicero ¥. Carr, owner 
and operator of the airport restaurant at the Jackson Munich 
pal Airport, Jackson, Mississippi, that I work as a waitress 
in said restaurant and ray duties involve generally the 
serving of customers, attending the cash register, and 
performing other general duties at said restaurant.

2. That on Tuesday, June 12, 1962 at approxima-



783
(r -1536)
tely 9:00 P, M. I was on duty at said restaurant and, among 
other duties, on this particular evening I was attending 
the cash register; that at approximately 9*00 P. M. on said 
date two young men entered the airport restaurant, neither 
of whom I knew by name, however, I had seen one of the young 
men in and about the airport on previous occasions and I 
later was told that his name was William Higgs; I also later 
learned that the young man accompanying Mr. Higgs was David 
Campbell.
(R-1537) 3. William Higgs and David Campbell entered the 
restaurant and as they approached the cash register which is 
located near the entrance of the restaurant they turned right 
and entered the portion of the restaurant which is a room 
reserved for airport employees only. There was a sign at 
the door of this room which then and now reads: EMPLOYEES 
MID FLIGHT PERSONNEL OHLY. I had previously been instructed 
by Mr. Cicero Carr to serve only airport employees and flight 
personnel in said room of the restaurant but to show no 
discrimination as to race or color as to said personnel*

4. As these two young men entered the room in the 
restaurant which has been set aside for airport employees,
Mr. E. B. DeGraw, an employee of Delta Air Lines, was seated 
in said room and according to my information and belief he 
invited Higgs and Campbell to sit down. Hot being entirely 
familiar with all of the employees and flight personnel at 
the airport, and having previously seen William Higgs at the



784
(R-1537)
airport on a number of occasions, and due also to the familia­
rity with which Mr. DeGraw greeted Higgs and Campbell, I was 
lead to believe that both of these young men were airport 
employees or flight personnel. For this reason I permitted 
them to be seated and order food in the room reserved for 
airport personnel.

After Mr. Higgs and Mr. Campbell had taken their 
seat and had been served by another waitress and were eating,
I went over to their table to change the napkin holder. One 
of the men stated to me, "You certainly have a lot of flight 
personnel in here tonight." I replied as follows, "We cer­
tainly have, and I was just wondering what airline you were 
with." He replied to me that he was not an enployee of an 
airline. I then stated to him, "Didn't you see the sign at 
the door? That is official as of right now."

After they had finished eating and came to the 
cash register to pay their check, wanting to be nice to them,
I said, "Come back to see us again, but the next time you 
will have to eat at the counter." They left without saying 
anything further.
(R-1538) , . . .I further state that the airport restaurant has been
converted to a stand-up counter service which constitutes 
the only available service at said restaurant to the general 
public and that as to said service each member of the general 
public is accorded the same treatment by all personnel and 
employees at said restaurant regardless of race, creed or



785

(R-1558)
color.

/a/ Mrs. Eforrtle Nelson 
' MRS. iMYRTLE KELSON

Sworn to and subscribed before me this the 20th 
day of June, 1962.

/s/ Elizabeth H. Whitfield 
M  PlBLlD

My Commission Expires:
My Commission Expires January 14, 1966 

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

SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND 
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT________ ___
(Title Omitted - Filed July 25, 1962)

In Its declaratory judgment previously entered 
herein, this Court retained jurisdiction over this action 
and gi 1 of the parties hereto for the entry of such addi­
tional orders and for the granting of such additional relief
as may be subsequently appropriate.

At the time of the entry of the declaratory 
judgment herein, counsel for the plaintiffs submitted the 
form of a judgment which they suggested should be entered



786

(r -1572)
which granted plaintiffs an immediate injunction against 
all defendants. This was treated as a motion for judgment 
and was denied for the reasons set out in full in this 
Court’s findings of fact, conclusions of law and declaratory 
judgment in this case.
(R-1573) Prior to the entry of the declaratory judgment 
herein, affidavits were filed in this action on behalf of 
Jackson City Lines, Inc., the Greyhound Corporation and 
Continental Southern Lines, Inc. to the effect that all 
signs indicating use of any facility by any race had been 
removed from the premises and buses of said defendants.

Subsequently, an affidavit was filed herein by 
the plaintiff, Broadwater, to the effect that he had ob­
served "white" and "colored" signs near the water fountains 
and rest rooms of the Jackson Municipal Airport; that he had 
observed a sign on a Jackson City Lines Bus indicating that 
white passengers were to take front seats and colored pas­
sengers were to take rear seats; that two waiting rooms 
were being maintained in the terminal of each carrier defen­
dant, and that the City of Jackson maintained signs on the 
public sidewalks near the carrier terminals with designations 
as to white and colored waiting rooms. In response, affida­
vits were filed on behalf of the Jackson Municipal Airport 
and the City of Jackson denying any enforcement of the signs 
complained of and showing use of all terminal facilities 
by members of all races without discrimination of any kind.



787
(R-1573)
Jackson City Lines, Inc. filed an affidavit to the effect 
that the failure to remove the sign on its buses was an over­
sight and that same had been removed.

A hearing was afforded all parties to this pro­
ceeding, at which counsel for plaintiffs requested and were 
granted permission to file additional affidavits. Defendants 
were given reasonable time within which to file responsive 
affidavits. The Court ruled tentatively at that time that 
the signs in the Jackson Municipal Airport should be removed 
(R-1574)
and that the evidence in the case in chief showed discrimina­
tion on the part of Cicero Carr, the lessee of the Jackson 
Municipal Airport Restaurant, in serving members of the 
colored race and that said discrimination should be discon­
tinued. This finding was supported by an affidavit of Derrick 
A, Bell filed herein. Subsequently, an affidavit was filed 
herein by Cicero Carr to the effect that the airport res­
taurant was being converted to a standup-counter service and 
that there would be no discrimination in serving members of 
the public in said restaurant because of race, creed or color. 
An affidavit was filed on behalf of the Jackson Municipal 
Airport Authority showing removal of all signs from the water 
fountains and rest rooms in the airport.

An affidavit was filed herein by Royce M. Smith 
that he was refused service in a restaurant in the terminal 
of Continental Southern Lines, Inc. in Meridian, Mississippi, 
by unidentified employees of said restaurant; that he was



788

(R-1574)
asked to leave the restaurant by an unidentified police 
officer of the City of Meridian, Mississippi.

An affidavit was filed herein by Mrs. Clarie 
Collins Harvey to the effect that she was asked to leave a 
waiting room of the Continental Southern Lines, Inc. 
terminal at Gulfport, Mississippi, by unidentified police 
officers. Responsive affidavits have been filed on behalf 
of Continental Southern Lines, Inc. to the effect that none 
of its employees or representatives participated in or were 
responsible for any of the acts complained of.

Subsequently, an affidavit was filed herein by 
David Campbell to the effect that he was permitted to eat 
in a room operated by Cicero Carr in the Jackson Municipal 
(R-1575)Airport exclusively for airport personnel. A responsive 
affidavit was filed by Mrs. Myrtle Nelson, an employee of 
Cicero Carr in said restaurant.' It appears from both 
affidavits that the occurrence arose out of a mutual mis­
understanding as to the status of David Campbell and is 
not pertinent to any issue of discrimination in this case.

SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF PACT

The signs referring to race near the water foun­
tains and rest rooms of the Jackson Airport were improper 
but have now been removed.

The sign on the bus of the Jackson City Lines 
complained of was improper but has now been removed.



789

(R-1575)
The defendant, Cicero Carr, has discriminated 

against colored passengers in the restaurant operated by 
him in the Jackson Municipal Airport, but such discrimina­
tion has terminated.

All facilities of all carrier defendants and of 
the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority are now being used 
by members of all races without discrimination of any kind.

SUPPLEMENTAL CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The defendant, Continental Southern Lines, Inc., 
did not participate in and is not responsible for either 
the occurrence at Meridian, Mississippi, or the occurrence 
at Gulfport, Mississippi. Neither of said cities nor the 
persons involved in said occurrences are parties to this 
action, and said occurrences are not pertinent to the issues 
involved herein.
(R-1576) „ ^The Court finding that all matters of substance
complained of have been corrected and that there will be 
no re-occurrence of same, it is of the opinion that the 
plaintiffs are not now entitled to injunctive relief, but 
that this Court should retain jurisdiction over this action 
and each of the defendants for such further orders and 
relief as may subsequently be appropriate.

That all future complaints made herein by the 
plaintiffs, or any of them, shall be by one or more 
supplemental complaints reciting the matters and facts



790

(R-1576)
complained of.

This July 23rd 1962

/s/ S. G. Mize 
Judge

(R-1577)
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECLARED as follows,
to-wit:

(a) That each of the three plaintiffs has a 
right to unsegregated service from the defendant, 
Cicero ¥. Carr, in the restaurant at the Jackson 
Airport,

(b) That the plaintiffs are not now entitled 
to any injunctive relief, but jurisdiction over 
this action and each of the defendants is hereby 
retained for the entry of such further orders and 
relief as may be subsequently appropriate.

(c) That all future complaints made herein 
by the plaintiffs, or any of them, shall be by one 
or more supplemental complaints reciting the matters
and facts complained of.

(d) That all Court costs incurred herein be 
and the same are hereby taxed against the defendants.

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECLARED this 23rd day of 
July 1962.



(R-1577)

791

/s/ S. C. Mize
iWIted states Distr ic t  judge 

0* B. 1962, pp. 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370.

* * * # * # 

(R-1580)
MOTION TO AMEND AND SUPPLEMENT FINDINGS 

OF FACTS
(Title Omitted - Filed Aug. 4, 1962)

Plaintiffs move the court to amend and supplement 
its Supplemental Findings of Facts, filed July 25, 19&2, in 
the following paticulars:

1. Amend the Finding of Fact on page 4, which 
reads: "The defendant Cicero Carr, has discriminated against 
colored passengers in the restaurant operated by him in the 
Jackson Municipal Airport, but such discrimination has ter­
minated.

"All facilities of all carrier defendants and of 
Jackson Municipal Airport Authority are now being used by 
members of all races without discrimination of any kind.";

To read as follows: "Defendant Cicero Carr, in 
operating the restaurant in the Jackson Municipal Airport, 
carries on a policy of discrimination against Negroes, in 
that they are served only at the counters and are not



792
(R-1580)
allowed to sit down in the dining room and eat. Various 
subterfuges and evasive tactics are used by the Defendant 
Cicero Carr and his employees to effectuate his policy of 
discrimination against Negroes. It is presently the policy 
of the restaurant to refuse service to Negroes in its dining 
room, although it serves meals to all white patrons there."

Plaintiffs further move the court to amend its 
conclusions of law and its judgment to conform to the above 
amended findings of fact.

Plaintiffs submit that the basis for this motion 
is found in the attached affidavits.

/s/ R. Jess Brown______  ______
“Attorney for Plaintiffs

(This instrument carries proper Certificate of Service, 
which is not copied here.)

NOTICE OP HEARING OF MOTION 
(Piled - Aug. 17, 1962)

The above motion in this cause will be brought on for
hearing at Biloxi, at 9 A M - on the 15th day of Aug, ,
1962. So ordered the 9th day of August, 1962.

/s/ S. C, Mize _______________
U. S. District Judge

0. B. 1962, Page 421

* * * *



(R-1581)
793

AFFIDAVIT OF RONALD AUSTIN HOLLANDER 
(Title Omitted - Filed Aug. A, 1962)

I_ Ronald Austin Hollander, being duly sworn, hereby 
swear and affirm the Mlowing:

On Thursday, August 2, I drove to the Jackson Municipal 
Airport in the company of Lucy Barker, Robert Henry Johnson, 
and Dewey Greene. The year, was 1962, the time was approxi­
mately 8 P. M. Miss Barker, Mr. Johnson, and myself are 
white Caucasians; Mr. Greene is a member of the Negro race. 
We arrived at the airport at approximately 8:15, first 
dropping off Mr. Johnson, and a moment or two later, Mr. 
Greene. I was driving, and Miss Barker remained with me 
while I parked the car.

Miss Barker and I then entered the airport lobby, ad­
joining to which is Cicero’s Restaurant, the restaurant 
facility which serves the Jackson Municipal Airport. Miss 
Barker and I remained in the lobby for a moment or two. 
During this time I could observe Mr. Greene through the 
glass doors which separate the restaurant "snack bar area" 
from the airport lobby. I observed Mr. Greene, who was 
wearing a suit jacket and tie, pass back and forth within 
my field of vision between what I assumed to be two parallel 
counters. Miss Barker and I then passed through these 
swinging glass doors, and found ourselves in the "snack bar 
area" of the restaurant.

On the right was a counter with candy, etc., on it,



794
(R-1581)
on which was the cash register. Behind this counter there 
was a partition, running parallel to the counter, and ter­
minating at either end in line with the end of the counter.
At the near end of this partition (nearest to the airport 
lobby), was^ a pair of swinging doors. At the far end 
(nearest to the dining area, proper, of Cicero's), was a 
doorway which was open. To the left of where we stood was 
a counter, with no stools, at which three people— Mr. Greene, 
a sailor, and a third person— stood eating and drinking 
coffee. Straight ahead of us was the entrance to the dining 
area, itself.

I approached a waitress standing at the far end of the 
counter to our right, and asked for a table for Miss Barker 
and myself, gesturing towards the dining area. She made a 
gesture indicating that I follow her a few steps behind the 
partition on our right. Behind the partition she said in a 
low tone:

"Pretend you have reservations because there's colored 
people out there."

She then led me around in front of the cash register 
counter, and in a loud voice, smiling, she said:
(R-1582)"Hello, you're Mr. Smith and you called and made a re­
servation, right?"

I nodded assent and she showed Miss Barker and I into 
the dining area. There were three empty tables, and about 
ten white Caucasians seated in the dining area. Miss Barker



795
(r -1582)
and I sat at a table with a "reserved" sign on it. There 
were dirty dishes on the table. A second waitress asked 
us to move to a clean table. This, too, had a "reserved" 
sign on it. Miss Barker and I both ordered coffee and apple 
pie. The second waitress said, "1*11 bet that's the first 
time you've had a waitress whisper to you like that."
She then brought our order.

The first waitress then returned and thanked us for 
going along with her. She explained that the colored fellow 
"out there" was "determined to be seated." She said that 
his name was Dewey Greene. I asked her if we should have 
called and made reservations. She said, "Oh, no,we don't do 
that anymore. We tried that at first, but colored people 
used to call up, too, and we couldn't tell the difference."

We (Miss Barker and I) finished our order and walked 
to the "snack bar area." Mr. Johnson, who was seated at a 
table nearest the door upon our initial entrance in the 
dining area, and had been sitting at this table, drinking 
coffee, all through our stay in the dining area, then rose 
and walked out behind us.

As Miss Barker and I passed into the "snack bar area,"
I heard Mr. Johnson ask Mr. Greene, to join him at his table. 
I heard him explain to the waitresses that he had invited 
Mr. Greene as his guest-

The second waitress then blocked the door in a menacing 
manner. Mr. Johnson and Mr, Greene were now standing at the



796
(R-1582)
left-hand counter earlier referred^ to. The waitress block­
ing the door said, "You can’t go in there," and the first 
waitress seconded her in this. I was now standing at the 
cash register. Mr. Johnson then came to the register and 
paid his bill. The first waitress, behind the register, 
then dialed a few numbers on the phone by the register, and 
then hung up the receiver, I paid my $.9^ bill, and whis­
pered to Mr. Johnson, "I think she’s just called the police." 
Mr. Johnson, Mr. Greene, Miss Barker, and myself then left 
the restaurant premises, through the door through which I ’d 
entered. We got into our car and drove off. It was approxi­
mately 8:40 P. M.

/s/ Ronald Austin Hollander________
Ronald Austin Hollander

State of Mississippi 
County of Hinds

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 3 day of 
August, 1962.

/s/ Marv A. Cox __________
Notary Public

(SEAL) My Commission Expires March 26, 1963

* * * * * 

(R-15 8 3) AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT HENRY JOHNSON 
(Title Omitted - Filed Aug. 4, 1962)

I Robert Henry Johnson, being duly sworn, hereby



797
(R-158?)
swear and affirm the following:

On Wednesday, August 1, 1962, Peter Gilbert and 
I drove to the Jackson Municipal Airport. We arrived at 
the airport at approximately 1:50 P.M. We entered the 
terminal and went directly to Cicero1s Restaurant, which is 
the restaurant facility serving people at the Jackson Munici­
pal Airport. The first room of the restaurant, as one 
enters from the terminal, contains a counter to the right 
where the cashier sits and a counter to the left which is 
a snack bar and has no stools. Henceforth I shall refer 
to this room as "the snack bar". On entering, Mr. Gilbert 
asked the waitresses behind the snack bar if lunch was then 
being served. They said, "Yes", and motioned us into the
dining room which lies directly ahead as one enters from the*
terminal. Mr. Gilbert and I are both white Caucasians. Each 
of the tables had a "reserved" sign on it. Nevertheless, the 
waitress made no comment when we sat at a table with just 
such a reserved sign on it, although neither of us had made 
previous reservations. The waitress immediately brought 
us glasses of ice water and menus. We both ordered a medium 
rare chopped sirloin steak and a baked potatio with sour 
cream and chive, salad, and a glass of ice tea.

While waiting for our lunch to be served, one 
gentleman came into the restaurant and sat down at a table. 
Noticing the reserved sign, he got up and moved to another 
table. This table was next to ours, approximately six feet



798

(R-1583)
away, and had a similar reserved sign on it. He seemed per­
plexed and asked the waitress if he could be served. She 
replied, smiling, "It’s allright; it’s reserved for you." 
About that time our lunch came and we began to eat. In the 
course of our meal, fourteen people entered the restaurant 
and were served. All of these people were Caucasians, and 
there was not a single negro served or seated in the res­
taurant while we were there. Several of these patrons 
hesitated at first when they saw the reserved signs, but
all did sit down and all were served without question by the
(R-1584)
waitress. To my knowledge, no one at the counter or in the 
restaurant itself spoke to these people and asked them whe­
ther or not they had reservations. These reserved signs re­
mained on the tables not only before people sat down, but 
while they were eating and after they had left as well.

The bill came to $3.44 for the two of us, and we 
left the waitress a tip of $.50. After paying the cashier, 
Mr. Gilbert asked how late the restaurant was open. The 
cashier answered, "Until 9s00 P.M.". I then asked, "You 
mean they serve food at the tables all day?" The cashier 
replied, "Yes sir, that's right." We left the restaurant 
at approximately 2;05 P.M.

In evening of the next day, August 2, 1962, I went 
out to Jackson Municipal Airport with Ronald Hollander, Lucy 
Barker, and Dewey Greene. I arrived at the airport at about 
8:15 P.M. and walked directly into Cicero's Restaurant,



799
(R-1584)
which is the restaurant which I had eaten in on the previous 
day. As I entered, a waitress behind the cash register saw 
me, but said nothing, although I had no reservations. I 
walked straight ahead into the dining room and sat at the 
table nearest the door so that I could look out the door and 
into the snack bar. The waitress brought me a menu and a 
glass of ice water immediately. She asked me no questions 
about reservations. I ordered a single cup of coffee which 
one of the waitresses, a heavy set woman__ brought immediately.

At this time, Dewey Greene, a negro, entered the 
snack bar. He was wearing a jacket, white shirt, and a tie.
At the time he entered, there were three empty tables in 
the dining room and about ten white Caucasians eating in the 
room. As Mr. Green_ entered, he came toward the dining room 
and then walked to the snack bar. He spoke there for several 
minutes with someone I could not see and finally ordered 
something to drink.

A few minutes passed and Mr. Hollander and Miss 
Barker, both white Caucasians, entered the snack bar and 
walked toward the dining room. A waitress pulled them to 
one side. They appeared again about thirty seconds later 
and the waitress said in a very loud voice, "Hello, you're 
Mr. Smith and you called and made a reservation, right?
I saw Mr. Hollander nod and he and Miss Barker entered the 
dining room. They sat down at a table which had dirty 
dishes on it and the waitress said, "Come over here to this



800

(R-1584)
clean table," Both tables had reserved signs on them. I 
saw Mr. Hollander and Miss Barker order something. The heavy- 
waitress came close to Mr. Hollander and said something. 
(R-1585)
Later the thinner waitress also came up to Mr, Hollander and 
spoke to him for some time.

X ordered a second cup of coffee. All this time, 
Mr. Greene, whom I could see in the snack bar, was standing 
in one place drinking coffee and eating a piece of pie.
He stood quietly. Several times he spoke to someone behind 
the counter but he spoke softly and I could not hear what 
he said. Several times, as the waitresses left the dining 
room and went out into the snack bar for an order, they 
said in loud voices^ "Oh, is he still here?" Once the heavy 
waitress came into the dining room and said loudly, "That 
colored fellow is still standing there. It makes me sick 
when they try to come in here. If he doesn't leave soon 
I'm going to call the police." She made no objection to my 
presence although I had been there several minutes longer 
than Mr. Greene,

Mr. Hollander and Miss Barker left the dining room. 
Although I had half a cup of coffee left, I picked up my 
check and walked out to the snack bar where Mr. Greene was 
standing. I asked him if there were any trouble and he 
replied that the waitress said he could not go into the 
dining room without a reservation. I said, "Come with me", 
and we walked toward the dining room. I said to the two



801

(1585)
waitresses, "This man is my guest and I am inviting him to 
sit at my table." The heavy waitress moved quickly to the 
dining room doorway and completely blocked the way. Holding 
a pot of steaming coffee in front of her in a menacing 
manner she said, "You have to have a reservation to go in 
there," I said, "I already have a table." She said, "You 
can't go in there without a reservation," I said nothing 
and Mr. Greene and I turned to leave. Mr. Hollander came 
up to me and said, "I think she's just called the police."
I went to the cash register and paid my check which came to 
$.32. Mr. Greene had already paid at the counter. We left 
and went out through the airport lobby. It was about 8:40
P.M.

/s/ Robert Henry Johnson 
Robert Henry 'Johnson

State of Mississippi 
County of Hinds

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 3 day of 
August, 1962__

/s/ Mary A. C o x _____________
Notary Public

(SEAL) %  Commission Expires March 26, 1963.

* * * * * 

(R-1586) AFFIDAVIT OP DEWEY ROOSEVELT GREENE, JR,
(Title Omitted - Filed Aug. 4, 1962)

I, Dewey Roosevelt Greene_JrJL__ being duly sworn, hereby



802

(R-1586)
swear and affirm the following:

On Thursday, August 2, 1962 at approximately 8:15 P. M., 
I, a Negro, went into Cicero*s restaurant of the Jackson 
Municipal Airport in the main lobby of the terminal building.
I went into the restaurant’s snack section, walking directly 
toward the main dining room with a waitress standing to my 
right. There were two counters in this section, each parallel 
to to the other; behind each counter was a waitress. The 
one on the right yelled, "What do you want?" Before I could 
answer "yes" she asked twice more and each time seemingly 
a little more impatient and slightly angry. At this point 
I turned toward her, to my right, and answered "yes," I'd 
like a meal." To which the waitress answered, "Beer, beer, 
did you say beer?" And I answered, "No, a meal, like food.
She answered hesitantly in a snarl-like tone, "We can give 
you a sandwich, hamburger and that sort of stuff, is that 
what you meant?" "And I said, "No, I'd like to have a full 
meal and sit down and eat." And I turned and again walked 
toward the main dining room. The waitress then ran hurriedly 
toward the door as if to block it from me, saying, you 
can't go in there, you have to have reservations and the 
other dining room is used for employees." I stopped and 
turned to her and asked if I could get coffee and she said, 
"Sure, you can get coffee." She pointed to the other wait­
ress, who then began to get the coffee.

So I turned around and went over to the other counter,



805
(R-1586)
at which a sailor and two other men were drinking coffee and 
beer and eating pie. The waitress said to the second, "Give 
him some c o f f e e a n d  she started to get the coffee. I 
asked if I might have it (the coffee) in a cup and saucer, 
she asked, "What for?" bitterly, and I said, "I intend to 
take it in the restaurant’s dining room, and later on I rll 
order." Now the first waitress came up to me and she ex­
plained that one could not use the restaurant unless previous 
reservations were made. To which I asked, "What if you are 
on a flight that has stopped over and you would like to eat?" 
She snapped, "Well, you will have to see the boss about that 
and he is not here." I asked if she had any matches and she 
said they were on the other counter. I went over, picked 
up the matches, held them up, and asked how much they were. 
During this time, my coffee had been served. I paid for 
both the coffee and the matches with a five dollar bill.
Now facing the entrance to the dining room, I could see 
Mr. Johnson who was sitting at the first table inside the 
dining room facing me. (We had come to the airport together, 
but he had gone into the restaurant first.)

Returning to the counter where I had been served, the 
coffee in a plastic cup, I asked the waitress if everyone 
in the restaurant had a reservation; she answered in a some­
what angry tone, "Yes, all those folks have reservations.
You just have to do like the other f o l k s S h e  nodded to­
ward the three men standing at the far end of the counter,



804
(R-1586)

"Don't you see those people standing there?"
After fins thing the coffee and a cigarette, I asked for 

a refill from the other waitress who had just made some re­
mark to one of the three men; they laughed. At this point, 
Mr, Hollander and Miss Barker entered and the first waitress 
stopped them at the enterance of the dining room, saying, 
"You're Mr. Smith and you called in earlier," to which Mr. 
Hollander gave his affirmation.
(R-1587)A few moments afterwards, X asked the waitress if they 
had any pie and if so, what kind; if she had potato pie. To 
this she answered that she had no potato pie. She seemed 
a little annoyed when I asked aboout apple pie and seemed 
reluctant to serve it. However, when MMM I did get the pie, 
Mr. Johnson came out of the dining room and asked me if any 
thing was the matter. I answered, "No, I just can't get 
into the dining room, that's all." He said, "Come on, you 
can sit with me." At which time, I paid my check ($ .58, 
fifty-eight cents), picked up the coffee and pie, and started 
toward the dining room. At this time, the second waitress 
blocked the door; she had one arm across the door and in the 
other hand she was holding a coffee pot with which she 
motioned with as if to throww the coffee on us. Both 
waitresses then told us strongly that in order to use the 
dining room, reservations must be made. Both waitresses 
were very angry as Mr. Johnson protested, explaining that he 
already had a table in the dining room. Then he said never



805
(R-1587)
mind, offered to pay his check, did so, and we left.

/s/ Dewey Roosevelt Greene, Jr. 
i)ewey Roosevelt Greene, Jr.

State of Mississippi 
County of Hinds

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 3 day of 
August, 1962_

/»/. Mary A. Cox 
Notary Public'

(SEAL) My Commission Expires March 26, 1963

* * * * *

(R-1588)
AFFIDAVIT OF LUCY OARLOCK BARKER 
(Title Omitted - Filed Aug. 4, 1962)

I*-Lucy Garlock Barker, being duly sworn, hereby swear 
and affirm the following:

On Thursday, August 2, 1962, I drove to the Jackson 
Municipal Airport with Robert Henry Johnson, Dewey Green, 
and Ronald Austin Hollander. Mr. Hollander, Mr. Johnson, 
and myself are white Caucasians; Mr. Greene is a Negro.
He arrived at the Airport at approximately 8:15 P. M.

After waiting a few minutes, Mr. Hollander and I 
entered the Airyrport lobby. Cicero's Restaurant which 
serves_j_the airport was to the right within swinging glass



806

(R-1588)
was

doors. Inside / what appeared to be a cashier’s counter.
I noticed Mr. Greene standing there. The time was 8:20 P.M.

Mr. Hollander and I then passed through the swinging 
doors into the snack bar area of the restaurant. To the 
right was the cashier’s counter with candy, etc., and beyond 
it a room designated as the "Employees’ Dining Room". To 
the left was a counter where people were being served stand­
ing, Directly in front of us was an open door with a res­
taurant proper beyond it. Mr. Hollander and I went through 
the snack bar area and stood near this door. A waitress 
motioned Mr. Hollander to steplnto the employees’ dining 
room where she spoke to him in a low voice. I did not hear 
what was said although I saw Mr. Hollander nod his head as if 
in agreement. They stepped back into the snack bar area.
The waitress said in a relatively loud voice, "Hello, you’re 
Mr. Smith, and you called in and made a reservation, Right?" 
Mr. Hollander agreed and we passed through the door into the 
restaurant proper. Me, Johnson was seated at a table near 
the door.

Mr. Hollander and I sat down at a table on which there 
were dirty dishes. A second waitress asked us to move to 
a clean table, which we did. There were reserved signs on 
both tables. The time was 8:25P.M. The second waitress took 
our order. We both ordered apple pie and coffee. Before 
we were served, the second waitress came to the table and 
said, "I’ll bet that’s the first time you’ve had a waitress



807

(R-1588)
whisper to you like that".

The first waitress returned to the table and thanked 
us for cooperating with her. She spoke of the colored fellow 
outside, saying that he had told her that his name was 
Dewey Greene, a name she did not know, and that he was de­
termined to get in and sit down. Mr, Hollander asked if he 
should have telephoned ahead of time for reservations. She 
answered, "Oh no, we don’t do that any more. We tried that 
at first, but colored people used to call up too, and we 
couldn’t tell the difference. Now we just have to have the 
person pretend he has a reservation."

Mr. Hollander and I finished eating and left the res­
taurant. As we passed into the snack bar area, Mr. Johnson 
rose and walked out behind us. He invited Mr, Greene to 
join him at his table. The second waitress barred the door 
and said, "You can’t go in there." The first waitress went 
behind the cashier’s counter. She dialed a number on a tele­
phone underneath the counter and replaced the receiver. She 
motioned to the second waitress and they went together into 
the Employees' Dining Room, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Greene, Mr. 
Hollander and I left the restaurant.

/s/ Lucy Garlock Barker_____________
Lucy Garlock Barker

(Seal)
State of Mississippi 
County of Hinds

Sworn to and subscribed before me this J L  day of



808
(r -1588)

August, 1962
/s/ Mary A. Cox 

Notary Public
%  Commission Expires March 26, 1963

* * # * *

(R-1589)
AFFIDAVIT OF PETER RICHARD GILBERT 
(Title Omitted - Filed Aug. A, 1962)

I, Peter Richard Gilbert, beingduly sworn, hereby swear 
and affirm the following:

On Wednesday, August 1, 1962, Robert Johnson and I drove 
to the Jackson Municipal Airport. Both Mi?. Johnson and I 
are Caucasians. We arrived at the airport at approximately 
1:30 P.M. We entered the terminal and went directly to 
Cicero's Restaurant, which is the restaurant facility serving 
people at the Jackson Municipal Airport. The first room of 
the restaurant, as one enters from the terminal, contains 
a counter to the right where the cashier sits and a counter 
to the left which is a snack bar without any stools on which 
to sit. After entering I asked the two waitresses who were 
then behind the snack bar if lunch was then being served.
They said, "Yes", and motioned us into the back room where 
several people were already seated at tables and were then 
eating. Each of the tables had a "reserved" sign on it. 
Nevertheless the waitress made no comment when we sat at a



809

(R-1589)
table with just such a "reserved" sign., although we had not 
made any previous reservation. The waitress then brought us 
two glasses of water and took our orders, We both ordered 
a medium rare chopped sirloin steak wrapped in bacon, a 
baked potato with sour cream and chives, salad, and a glass 
of iced tea.

While waiting for our lunch to be served, one gentleman 
came into the restaurant and sat down at a table. Noticing 
the "reserved" sign, he got up and moved to another table. 
This second table was next to ours approximately six feet 
away, and had a similar "reserved" sign on it. He seemed 
perplexed and asked the waitress if he could be served.
She replied, smiling, "It's allright; it’s reserved for 
you." Our lunch then came, and we began to eat. While we 
were eating, some fourteen people, both men and women, en­
tered the restaurant and were served. All of these people 
were Caucasians, and there was not one Negro customer seated 
in the restaurant while we were there. Several of these 
patrons hesistated at first when they saw the "reserved" 
signs on all of the tables. All did sit down, and all were 
served without question by the waitress. To my knowledge no 
one at the counter or in the restaurant itself spoke to these 
people and asked them whether or not they had a reservation. 
(R-1590)
These "reserved" sign s remained on a l l  o f the tab les not 

only before the people sat down but w hile they were eating 

as w ell.



8lo
(R-1590)

The bill came to $3,44 for the two of us, and we left 
the waitress a tip of $.50. After paying the cashier, I 
asked him how late the restaurant was open in the evening. 
He replied that it was open until 9 s00 p.m. At this point 
Mr. Johnson asked him, "You mean they serve food at the 
tables all day?" The cashier responded, "Yes_ sir, that*s 
right." We then left the restaurant at approximately 
2:05 p.m.

/s/ Peter Richard Gilbert_______
Peter Richard Gilbert

State of Mississippi 
County of Hinds

Sworn to before me this 3 day of August, 1962_

/s/ Mary A.. Cox _______
Notary Public"

(SEAL) My Commission Expires March 26, 1963

* * * * *

(R-1591)
AFFIDAVIT OP T. A. TURNER

AFFIDAVIT
(Title Omitted - Filed Aug. 8, 1962)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 
COUNTY OF HINDS

Personally appeared before me, the undersigned
authority in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, T. A. Turner,



811

(R-1591)
who having been by me first duly sworn, deposes and states 
on oath as follows:

That he has been at all times hereinafter mentioned 
and is now Manager of the Jackson Municipal Airport under 
the direction of the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority, 
a body corporate.

That he has carefully reviewed affidavits re­
cently filed in the above styled and numbered action by the 
following:

Affidavit of Austin Hollander dated August 3#1962
Affidavit of Peter Richard Gilbert dated 
August 4, 1962

Affidavit of Robert Henry Johnson dated 
August 3 , 1962

Affidavit of Lucy Garlock Barker dated 
August 3, 1962
Affidavit of Dewey Roosevelt Green, Jr. dated 
August 3, 1962.
That said affidavits indicate discrimination in 

the operation of the airport restaurant facilities; that same
(R-15 9 2)was brought to the attention of the Jackson Municipal Airport 
Authority and to the attention of the Mayor and Commissioners 
of the City of Jackson at 10:00 a.m. on Monday, August 6, 
1962; that at 11:00 a.m. on said date the Jackson Municipal 
Airport Authority agreed to a termination of Cicero Carr’s 
lease under which he has been operating the airport res­
taurant facilities; that the said Cicero Carr will not here-



812

(R-1592)
after have any interest in or control over the operation of 
the restaurant facilities In the Jackson Municipal Airport 
which will be operated exclusively by the Jackson Municipal 
Airport Authority; that said facilities are now being and 
will hereafter be operated without discrimination of any 
kind because of race, color or creed.

That prior to August 6, 1962, the Jackson Municipal 
Airport Authority had no knowledge of the matters set out 
in the above mentioned affidavits.

/s/ T. A. Turner ____________
WSBiai

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME, this 6th day of August, 
1962.

/a/. Shairod N. Robinson
■ w m ?  t o m -----

(SEAL)
m  COMMISSION EXPIRES:
My Commission Expires Feb. 19, 1966

(1593)
(This instrument carries proper certificate of service, 
which is not copied here.)

* * * * *



(R-1540)
813

ON MOTIONS FOR
JUDGMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUPREME COURT’S 
OPINION; TO AMEND FINDING OF FACT; FOR 
FURTHER RELIEF._______________
(Title Omitted - Filed June 22, 1962)

APPEARANCES:
Hon, Mrs. Constance B, Motley and 
Hon. Derick Bell, New York, N. Y.,

For Plaintiffs.
Hon. Tom Watkins and Hon. E. W. Stennett, Jackson, 

Miss., For City of
Jackson;

Hon. Pete Stockett and Hon. Joe T. Patterson,
For State of 
Mississippi;

Hon. Junior O ’Mara, Jackson, Mississippi,
For Greyhound 
Corp. and Sou­
thern Continen­
tal Trailways;

Hon. Wence Ceme, Chicago, Illinois,
For Illinois Cen­
tral Railroad 
Company;

Hon. Rubel Phillips, Jackson, Miss.,
For Jackson Mu­
nicipal Airport 
Authority;

Eton. J. Will Young, Jackson, Miss*,
For Jackson City 
Lines;

Hon, Weaver Gore, Jackson, Miss.,
For Mr. Cicero 
Carr.

BE IT REMEMBERED, that on, to-wit, Thursday, the 31st day 
of May, 1962, the above-entitled cause came on for hearing 
on Motions before the Honorable Sidney C. Mize, United States 
District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi, at 
Jackson, Mississippi, in the Jackson Division, and the 
following proceedings were had.



814
(R-1541)

THE COURT: Mrs. Motley, I believe it Is your motion.
MRS. MOTLEY: I would like to clarify the record as 

to which of the motions are being heard this morning. As I 
understand it, you are hearing our Motion for Judgment in 
Accordance with the Supreme Court’s Opinion) our Motion to 
Amend the Findings of Fact; and our Motion for Further Re­
lief.

Now, in accordance with your directions we filed an 
affidavit of Mr. Broadwater, one of the plaintiffs, and I 
assume Your Honor has a copy of that. Then I believe that 
there have been affidavits, additional affidavits, filed by 
some of the defendants —  We got an affidavit filed by the 
City officials) we got an affidavit filed by the manager of 
the Municipal Airport) and got a supplemental affidavit 
filed by the Jackson City Lines manager. Now, if there have 
been other affidavits, we haven’t received a copy.

THE COURT: Have any other affidavits other than those 
been filed?

MRS. MOTLEY: What I had reference to was the affidavits 
filed since your declaratory judgment. Of course, the two 
bus companies filed affidavits either prior to the IBJ.
entry of your declaratory judgment, and I believe Illinois 
Central filed one —  No. The two bus companies. I believe 
Illinois Central sent a letter. —  And I think that is the 
record so far, Your Honor.
(R-1542)Now, I ’d like to say this: That with reference to



815
(R-1542)
Motion for Further Relief, since the filing of Mr. Broad­
water’s affidavit we have had three people who have been 
discriminated againstj and we wanted to put on their testi­
mony in support of our motion for further relief because 
Your Honor said that anything which happened since the entry 
of the judgment would be relevant to the Motion for Further 
Relief, whereas it might not be relevant to the Motion for 
Judgment in Accordance with the Supreme Court’s Opinion.

THE COURT: Well, could you file affidavit?
MRS. MOTLEY: We could reduce it to affidavit form.

That would save taking the testimony.
MR. WATKINS: The City of Jackson objects to the offer­

ing of testimony at this time. It is our conception of this 
hearing that Your Honor granted counsel a hearing on her 
motions giving her until the 21st day of May to file such 
affidavits as she might desire to file, and gave the defen­
dants until May 28th to file their responsive affidavits. 
Certainly so far as the City of Jackson is concerned, we 
are prepared here today to argue the motion on the affidavits. 
Nothing was said in her request or in the Court’s setting 
of this matter about hearing additional oral testimony.
I feel that would be merely an effort to re-try the case, 
which has already become a matter of record, and would be 
beyond the realm set for this hearing, which was on affida­
vits. Now, if the Court counsel !s recjjuest* Gl.t>li6P
to put on oral testimony or to file additional affidavit*



816
(R-IS1!?)
I respectfully submit the defendants should be allowed 
reasonable time to answer, either by oral testimony or by 
affidavits In response.

THE COURT: Yes, I would grant you that, of course.
If she has additional testimony or affidavits, she is en­
titled to get that in the record and I will hear it. I had 
hoped to dispose of the matter possibly today, but there 
would have to be some delay if additional affidavits are 
filed. You do desire to file them?

MRS. MOTLEY: Yes, we would either put those witnesses 
on —  We have two here, and the third one will be here 
shortly, and it wouldn’t take much time. And if they wanted 
to answer by affidavits, we certainly would want them to 
have their opportunity to answer this testimony. We don’t 
suggest they be precluded from showing anything which they 
might with respect to this testimony. Or we could reduce 
it to affidavit form.

THE COURT: Do you have just two witnesses?
MRS. MOTLEY: Three, all told. Two are here and the 

other should be here shortly.
THE COURT: I believe then it would be better to -----

lip. O ’Mara?
MR. O ’MARA: I do not know what counsel’s testimony is; 

this is the first I have heard of it, but as far as Continen­
tal Southern and Greyhound are concerned, we would make the 
same objection and statement that Mr. Watkins has made on



817
(R-1543)
behalf of the City, because we are not prepared, to submit 
any other affidavits or present anything by way of witnesses 
to the Court today. We were under the impression that all 
affidavits had been filed, and if the Court should allow 
counsel to introduce additional affidavits or witnesses, 
then we would like to have the opportunity —  that is, Grey­
hound and Continental Southern if that testimony or those 
affidavits should be applicable to these two defendants, — -

THE COURT: Who are the witnesses and what do you in­
tend to prove?

MRS. MOTLEY: Two of the witnesses were passengers on 
the Trailway, which is Continental Southern, and this has 
just happened within the last couple of days —  at least, 
since Mr. Broadwater's affidavit. That is why we didn’t 
have it in before. Mr. Bell would be the other witness with 
respect to the airport restaurant, involving Cicero Carr’s 
restaurant at the airport. That was the additional testimony 
we had. As we understand, Your Honor has retained jurisdic­
tion.

THE COURT: That is correct. Of course, I know with 
reference to Mr. Bell, from newspaper reports or something, 
but what do you expect to prove by the other witness?

MRS. MOTLEY: The others were passengers in the Trail- 
ways. One was in the station at Gulfport, Mississippi, 
and was riding the Trailways bus and was assigned to a back 
seat and was requested by a police officer to move from the



8l8
(R-1544)
terminal and directed to the Negro waiting room which the
bus continues to maintain. You remember in our proposed
-judgment, we asked the Court to enjoin the continued main-
(R-1545)
tenance of separate waiting rooms; and what we planned to 
show is that they have continued to maintain separate waiting 
rooms in Gulfport and other places throughout the state.
Now, the other witness was in Meridian last night on his 
way back from North Carolina and stopped in the Trailways 
terminal there during the rest period and went into the 
restaurant to get a Coca-Cola and some potato chips, and 
they refused to serve him —  that is, on equal basis with 
others. The white waitress in the restaurant refused to 
serve him and called a Negro employee from the kitchen to 
wait on him. Then a police officer came over who was sitting 
in the restaurant and told him to move out of the restaurant, 
and he said he would as soon as he had his refreshments. And 
the officer said, "You are refusing to move?" So we want to 
show the policy has not been discontinued, by any means, and 
they are continuing to discriminate against Negro passengers 
on the carrier itself, in the terminal facility by continuing 
to maintain separate waiting rooms, and are continuing to 
discriminate against Negroes with respect to service of food 
in the terminals. This is what we plan to show by this 
testimony.

MR, WATKINS: The City of Jackson would strenuously 
object to her statement of what she proposes to prove with



819
(R-15^5)
respect to actions of the police department of the City of
Meridian and the the other two she mentioned, not Jackson.
Those cities are not parties to this action. The police
departments of the cities are not parties to this action. 
(R-1546)
We certainly should not have to answer what they did, 
whether it be right or wrong, and I don't think she should 
be permitted to put on testimony involving police officers 
of cities and others she has not elected to make parties to 
this suit.

MR. O'MARA: In addition to that, Continental Southern 
certainly can't be held responsible for the action of the 
police officer of one of the municipalities of the state.

THE COURT: What about the restaurant? That happened,
I believe, in Meridian?

MR. O'MARA: That is correct. I'm frankly at a loss to 
make any statement because I know nothing about it.

THE COURT: The point I was making, that would be com­
petent evidence to be considered, would it not?

MR. O ’MARA: If she can prove that and meets the burden 
of proof, yes, sir.

THE COURT: I believe I will let her file the affidavits 
rather than take the testimony. She can file those today?

MRS. MOTLEY': Yes, sir, we could certainly file those 
today.

THE COURT: And I will allow opposing counsel 15 days 
in which to investigate and file counter-affidavits, if they 
so desire.



820

(R-1546)
MR. O'MARA: Would you give me 20 days? My only reason 

for that is that I am going to he tied up continually in 
trials the next two weeks.

THE COURT: Very well, I will allow you 20 days. 
Apparently those new affidavits, as I see it now, will apply 
(R-15^7)to the Continental Trailways. I do not see at this moment 
where it would be relevant to the issues as to the City of 
Jackson, Of course, you can argue anything you desire on 
it.

Now then, that will conclude the filing of affidavits, 
and the case will be ready for final adjudication on these 
motions?

MR. O'MARA: Is it the intent of the Court that counsel 
may file affidavits with regard to actions of certain police 
officers of various municipalities, or will she be limited 
on this occasion to —

THE COURT: She will be permitted to file the affidavit; 
the relevancy of it, I am not passing on. She is entitled 
to file so as to complete the record, but as to whether it 
is material and competent, I will not pass on until I hear 
argument or briefs on the matter.

MR. WATKINS: Do we understand that these are going to 
be all the affidavits that are going to be filed in connection 
with this hearing? This could go on indefinitely.

THE COURT: That is what I was driving at. I couldn't 
necessarily limit it. If something should happen, of



821
(R-1547)
necessity I must hear It because I do retain jurisdiction, 
because I issued declaratory judgment defining what the rights 
of all these parties are as announced by the Supreme Court 
of the United States; and I am retaining jurisdiction. Up 
to the present time I declined the issuance of an injunction 
but retain jurisdiction to see that the declaratory judgment 
is carried out. I have expressed confidence in the defendants 
in this case in their efforts to carry out the pronouncement 
(R-1548)
of the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as of 
this court in the declaratory judgment.

MR. WATKINS: I understand that, but it is my idea that 
if anything happens that counsel thinks justifies a complaint 
to this court under the declaratory judgment, it ought to be 
made by supplemental complaint which would advise the defen­
dant what she is complaining about. Then we both have the 
chance to offer proof on the supplemental complaint and not 
by letters and affidavits day by day.

THE COURT; I will make this ruling at this time: That
now

the affidavits that are .net permitted to be filed will DBJ 
be filed, as I have already announced, and counter-affidavits 
filed within the time announced; any subsequent event I 
think should be filed by a supplemental petition setting out 
the occurrences and allegations and so forth. Do you have 
any objection to that?

MRS. MOTLEY: No, sir, we do not. If Your Honor thinks 
these other police officers ought to be made parties, of



822

(R-1548)
course, we will file a motion; or, as I understand the rule, 
the Court could make them parties by its own motion in order 
to get relief against the police officers in the other cities. 
I know they are not defendants and would have to be brought 
in by our motion or the Court's own motion.

THE COURT; I don't believe they are necessary parties 
at this time. Of course, I do not undertake to advise coun­
sel on either side what to do in the future. That is just,
(R-154 9)
I might say, an offhand expression of mine.

So now, what else do we have?
MRS. MOTLEY: ¥e have the other motion here.
THE COURT; You make the motion to put into effect the 

judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States? You 
filed no other except in the letter you wrote which I said 
I would treat as a motion?

MRS. MOTLEY; We filed a motion for judgment in accor­
dance with the Supreme Court's decision; then we sent a letter 
in which we said we would like it to be considered a motion 
to amend the finding of facts, and a motion for further 
relief. But we had previously filed a motion for judgment 
in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision.

THE COURT; Did you send that to the clerk for filing? 
MRS. MOTLEY; April 17th is the date we have. —  No, 

it must have been about the 1st. I think we sent a proposed 
judgment about the 1st.

THE COURT: That is in the record, and I simply marked



825

(R-1549)
it "denied" and made it a part of the file with the clerk, 
and that is in the record. —  Yes, I think in ray judgment 
I rendered, I disposed of that motion by the judgment I ren­
dered. And now you have an objection or a motion for supple­
mental findings of fact?

M S ,  MOTLEY: Yes, to amend the findings of fact. That 
would be the third motion.

THE COURT: Did you file that with the clerk?
(R-1550)

MRS, MOTLEY: We sent the letter and I think you said 
you would consider that.

THE COURT: Is that the one I would consider as a motion?
M S ,  MOTLEY: That’s right, as a motion.
THE COURT: That’s right. That’s already filed. I 

filed that with the clerk. All right, I will hear you on 
that.

M S .  MOTLEY: I think that the findings of fact which 
the Court rendered here should be amended because —  and I ’d 
like to say this: I don’t have a copy of that; we left that 
in New York, and the clerk said you had the only other copy 
of that. —

THE COURT: (To clerk: Get a copy of that, please.)
M S .  MOTLEY: As I recall these findings of fact, I 

don’t think that the municipal airport is referred to, and, 
as Your Honor knows, the plaintiff has filed an affidavit 
in which he says that the signs about which we complained 
originally, designating separate restrooms for colored and



824
(R-1550)
white passengers at the airport and separate drinking foun­
tains for colored and white passengers, are still maintained; 
and I think first the findings of fact should be amended to 
show this. Then, in the plaintiff’s affidavit he said that 
he had gone to the two bus company terminals and to the I. C. 
terminal, and they have continued to maintain separate wait­
ing rooms for Negroes and white about which we originally 
complained. In other words, I think the findings of fact 
should be amended in the second instance to show that the 
carriers have continued tomaintain separate facilities and 
to make separate restrooms available to passengers. Then, 
(R-1551)I don’t believe that the findings of fact contain the fact 
that the police officers of the City of Jackson have con­
tinued to maintain signs on the sidewalk of the Illinois 
Central, Continental Southern, and Greyhound terminals. And 
remember, in the original case we complained about the police 
officers maintaining signs on the sidewalk of these terminals, 
and I think the findings of fact should be amended, in the 
third instance, to show that they have continued to maintain 
these signs.

The fourth thing, the findings of fact made no reference 
to Cicero Carr, the lessee of the restaurant in the airport. 
You remember, Your Honor, that Mr. Carr testified here that 
his policy is to serve Negroes in a back room and that he 
does not serve Negroes in the main dining room or at a counter 
which he maintains there. And the affidavit which Mr. Bell



825

(R-1551)
will file today will show additionally that that policy is 
maintained at the present time, Mr, Carr has not, to my 
knowledge, filed any affidavit with this Court stating that 
he has discontinued that policy; so I think the findings of 
fact should be amended to show that he has this policy of 
serving Negroes in the back room and refusing to serve them 
in the main dining room and at the counter which he maintains 
there,

I think those are all the points we wanted to cover with 
respect to the amendment of the findings of fact.

THE COURT: As to the municipal airport, you state that 
the signs are still maintained for separate restrooms and 
drinking fountains; then as to the carrier, they maintain 
separate waiting rooms, but you are not complaining about
(R-1552) 
the signs?

MRS, MOTLEY: That's right.
THE COURT: And then about the police officers and 

about Cicero Carr.
MRS, MOTLEY: Yes. And one other. Jackson City Lines. 

Your Honor said in the findings of fact thao it appeared 
that Jackson City Lines had taken down the signs also, and 
as their own affidavit shows, this is not true; that at the 
time the declaratory judgment was issued, they had signs in 
the buses saying "Negroes seat from the back and whites from 
the front." So we think the findings of fact should be 
amended to show the Jackson City Lines at the time of the



826

(R-1552)
declaratory judgment were still maintaining signs on its 
local city buses.

THE COURT: I believe there is a counter-affidavit now 
to the effect admitting that.

MRS, MOTLEY: Yes, there is.
t h e  COURT: Very well. Mr. Young, with reference to

Jackson City Lines, what about that?
MR. YOUNG: We originally filed an affidavit under the 

state law, and the city ordinances that were originally 
attacked in this lawsuit, we have complied with, and we had 
a movable sign up in the middle of the bus with white on 
one side and "colored" on the other. After the finding of 
the Court we removed the signs and filed an affidavit to 
the effect all of the signs had been removed. After the 
complainants filed their additional affidavit and set forth 
the fact there was another sign in the bus that we had com­

pletely ̂overlooked, that is the sign in there, and itfs on a 
metal plate and has three directions on it. One, "Do not 
stand in front of,." a certain line; Second, "Do not spit 
on floor"; and, third, "Whites seat from front and colored 
seat from the rear." After the affidavit was filed, I imme­
diately made an investigation of the buses, and those signs 
were in the buses, and we have taken them all out and filed 
supplemental affidavit. There is at this time no sign of 
any nature on any of the buses. We feel that insofar as the 
defendant Jackson City Lines is concerned, we have completely



827
(R-1553)
complied with the findings of fact and the orders of this 
Court, and we should be dismissed as a defendant.

SHE COURT: What do you say with reference to Cicero
Carr?

MR, GORE: I was retained last week. Mr. Colin Stock- 
dale, who formerly represent ed Mr. Carr, has passed on, and 
in view of the supplemental affidavit filed by Broadwater, 
it made no reference to anything that has supposedly trans­
pired in the restaurant, and I saw no necessity of filing 
any counter-affidavit. I'd like to call Your Honor's atten­
tion to what is said in the Opinion. The only reference to 
Cicero Carr was that one of the plaintiffs' witnesses testi­
fied that he used the airport from 15 to 20 times a year 
and on one occasion an unidentified waitress refused to serve 
him and he did not report it. I gather from that Your Honor 
has ruled they did not meet the burden of proof as to Cicero 
Carr. In view of some purported affidavit by Bell, I have 
(R-1554)no knowledge of what it is. Therefore, I cannot file any 
counter-affidavit. I see no necessity. As counsel here 
remarked, Mr. Carr has not filed any affidavit that he has 
discontinued some policy; he is not charged with anything.

THE COURT: He has not filed any affidavit up to the 
present time?

MR. GORE: No, sir. I would like to adopt the same ob­
jection made by Mr. Watkins for the City of Jackson, filing 
any affidavit without a supplemental complaint, in order to



828

(R-1551*)
preserve ray clients rights.

THE COURT: Very well. I will give you permission to 
do that. What about the municipal airport?

MR, PHILLIPS: With respect to the Motion to Amend the 
Findings of Fact so as to include a finding with respect to 
the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority, we submit In Para­
graph 5 of the Findings of Fact that this Court did refer 
to the Jackson Municipal Airport in connection with the 
testimony of one of plaintiffs1 witnesses who testified 
that he used the airport 15 or 20 times a year and only on 
one occasion was there an incident, and that involved the 
restaurant. Of course, the Airport Authority is a separate 
department in the case, as operator of the airport but also 
the lessor of defendant Carr, and to that extent we submit 
that the Court did excuse the airport and obviously was of 
the opinion that the evidence which the plaintiff had intro­
duced with respect to the Airport Authority fell within the 
general classification of incidents that you excused in Para 
graph 5 of the Findings of Fact, which are certain isolated 
(R-1555)Instances. Now, of course, there has been filed by the 
plaintiff, by Broadwater, an affidavit that since the Court 
entered these findings of fact he went out to the Jackson 
Municipal Airport and saw some signs over the water foun­
tains and restrooms which said "White" and "Colored."
We submit to the Court that the evidence was in this record 
that no official of the Airport Authority had ever enforced



829

(R-1555)
any policy of segregation. The affidavit filed by Broadwater 
does not state that he attempted to use the fountain over 
which there was a sign "White" or that he attempted to use 
the restroom over which there was a sign saying "White." We 
submit to the Court, as pointed out in the affidavit in 
response to plaintiffrs affidavit, that those signs are 
there merely for the purpose of assisting those individuals 
who may prefer on a voluntary basis to use a restroom that 
is used by the majority of the white people or a majority 
of the colored people, and we have a perfect right to main­
tain those signs therej and there is no evidence, and it is 
an established fact as established by the testimony of 
Captain T. A. Turner that there is no enforcement of these 
signs. They are merely guideposts for people who want to use 
them, and people who want to disregard them have a perfect 
right to disregard them. We submit the Findings of Fact are 
complete and they are sufficient so far as relates to the 
Jackson Airport Authority,

THE COURT: Do any of the other defendants want to say 
anything?

MR. O fMARA: With regard to Continental Southern and 
Greyhound, I would like to point out —  Well, first, going 
to the affidavit of Broadwater, he makes the broad and gene- 
(R-1556)ral statement in the affidavit with regard to both Greyhound 
and Continental Southern that he observed that two separate 
waiting rooms were being maintained within said terminal.



830
(R-1556)

Now, note he does not say in this affidavit that there is 
any separation of the races or any discrimination insofar as 
these two carriers are concerned with regard to there being 
two waiting rooms in these two terminals. Now, I cannot tell 
from the affidavit —

THE COURT: Well, as I understand counsel, she is con­
tending they must not maintain separate waiting rooms as 
they did heretofore. That is what I gather her contention 
to be.

MRS. MOTLEY-: Yes, sir, that is right.
THE COURT: I don't believe we need to argue that, Mr.

O'Mara. I think I will have to rule against counsel for 
plaintiff. I think the carriers have a right to have as 
many rooms as they want —  two, four, or what-not —  as long 
as there are no signs or any compulsion or any effort to 
compel any separation of the races. The mere fact that they 
still maintain the rooms which formerly were rooms one for 
whites and one for colored —  the fact they still maintain 
them is immaterial as long as they do not enforce or under­
take to enforce by any method whatsoever the separation of 
the races because of race. So you need not argue that.
That will be my ruling on that. They can maintain as many 
restrooms, fountains and rooms as they want. In other words, 
they don't have to remodel a building. There is the thing 
there for people to go and come on legitimate business when 
and where they desire.



851
(R-1557)

MR. O'MARA: I might say this: That the Court in the 
Findings of Fact actually found that all facilities in the 
terminals of the carrier defendants are now being freely used 
by members of all races, so there has been a finding of fact 
on that point already with regard to the carriers.

MR. WATKINS: Counsel complains of the sidewalk signs 
placed on the public sidewalks in the vicinity of the termi­
nals by the police department of the City of Jackson. The 
affidavits on file show that since this case was originally 
tried the language on those signs has been amended so that 
the signs merely have the words "White" and "Colored" on 
them. It is conceded in the record and the affidavit that 
these signs are placed on public property by the police 
department of the City of Jackson for the sole purpose of 
aiding members of both races who would like, if possible, 
to use separate facilities on a voluntary basis; that there 
is absolutely no enforcement of it. And it is for that 
reason and that reason alone that the signs are placed there. 
I refer to Your Honor's opinion in the case of United States 
and I. C. C. versus City of Jackson, in which Your Honor 
held that there was nothing illegal or wrongful about volun­
tary separation of races, and there was therefore nothing 
illegal or wrongful in a city aiding those who want to 
voluntarily separate. And I respectfully submit those signs 
like many others maintained by the police department on the 
public sidewalks are proper for the purpose for which they



8^2

(R-1557)
were placed there. As counsel said about the water fountains 
and restrooms in the airport, they may be ignored by anyone 
(R-1558)
or people who want to ignore them, and one of our affidavits 
filed in response to Broadwater’s affidavit is to the effect 
that the waiting rooms of these terminals might be used by 
Negroes, Chinese, Indians, and a soldier from Pakistan, and 
not all people are observing the signs; not all people want 
to voluntarily segregate. I think most of our local people 
do, but be that as it may, they are merely there to assist 
those who do want to voluntarily separate on the basis of 
race and in that capacity; and without enforcement, there is 
absolutely nothing wrong or improper about it.

BY MR. CERNE: I believe everything I could say has 
probably already been said, but I don't want any misappre­
hensions on the position of I. C. with respect to counsel's 
motion. As I understand their position, they complain about 
two things, as far as the I. C, is concerned: one, the fact 
the city is maintaining signs on the sidewalk. I agree with 
Mr. Watkins that those signs are the subject of other litiga­
tion in this court, and of course the Court takes judicial 
notice of its own record. I think that is as far as we need 
speak on the signs. The Court has ruled, and that is now 
the law on the signs, as I see it. The other is the fact we 
haven't remodeled the station. Of course, Your Honor has 
already indicated he agrees with my position that such would 
be most unreasonable. The I. C. Railroad does not have or



833
(R-1558)
has not been guilty of any misconduct, and that is the rea­
son I haven't filed any affidavit, which could be taken by 
any trier of facts as indicating a type of conduct which
should be enjoined. The evidence in the case from the very (R-1559)start shows the I, 0. was the only defendant that never main­
tained any signs after about 1955 or 1956. Accordingly, I 
think there should be no order of any kind directed against 
this defendant.

MRS. MOTLEY': I*d like to say that with respect to this 
argument, we have prepared a memerandum of points and autho­
rities. In this memorandum we cite the Montgomery case 
in which Judge Johnson issued an order against the mainte­
nance of separate waiting rooms, and we cite that in here.
So I won’t repeat that. And we have a copy of the order, as 
well as our memorandum of facts for the Court, and we can 
make additional copies of this order if any of the defendants 
care to have a copy of Judge Johnson's order. I don't know 
that that is reported, but if they would like copies, we'd
be glad to furnish them.

THE COURT: It has not been reported?
MR. WATKINS: We would like to have a copy.
MRS, MOTLEY: The Opinion is, but not the order,
THE COURT: The Opinion is reported, but not the order, 
MRS. MOTLEY: Yes. Lewis against Greyhound Corporation, 

Continental, and so forth, others. In that case the main­
tenance of separate waiting rooms was enjoined. Of course,



854
(R-1559)
we think that is the position that ought to be taken by this
Court with respect to that, because what we are trying to
do is to enjoin the defendants from continuing a policy, and
the policy was to set aside a separate room for Negroes, and
this they have not discontinued. The room is still there,
which results in the thing which happened in Gulfport where 
(R-1560)
Mrs. Harvey went into the white waiting room and a police 
officer came in and showed her around to the back and said, 
"That is where you are supposed to be sitting," because the 
police officer apparently believed the conpany has continued 
to maintain its policy of providing separate facilities for 
Negroes, and he has every reason to believe this because the 
company has continued to maintain —  They must send somebody 
in there once a month to sweep the floor, and they have put 
benches in there, and so forth, so that they have continued 
exactly what was sought to be enjoined. With respect to the 
voluntary segregation suggestion, I think that there is no 
right on the part of Negroes to insist on separate facilities 
for themselves, even on a voluntary basis. No Negro could 
bring a suit to require the terminal to set up a separate 
facility for him any more than a white person could do so, 
so that these so-called volunteers for segregation have no 
right in law, and therefore the Court cannot say that the 
state can facilitate the exercise of this right because they 
have no right which the state can facilitate. They don't 
have any right to separate facilities, even if they desire 
it.



835
(R-1560)

Now, when the state originally put those signs up there 
in the airport and on the sidewalk, they did it for the pur­
pose of enforcing the state's policy of segregation. The 
signs have not been removed, yet they say, "We are not en­
forcing segregation." Well, if they are not, why have 
they got the signs there? Obviously, as the ICC said in 
NAACP against St. Louis - San Francisco Railroad Company, 
the reason the signs are up there is because the authorities
putting them there desired that they be respected. Now, our 
VR-156I )
contention is that the state may not sanction segregation. 
Now, we didn’t say that; the Supreme Court said that in the 
Civil Rights cases in 1883, that the state may not enforce 
or sanction segregation. And this is state sanctioning of 
segregation. They are sanctioning what they believe to be 
the right of Negroes and whites who want to segregate them­
selves. They may very well have that right, but they can't 
enforce it in a public accommodation, so that there is no 
right on the part of the state to facilitate segregation 
because the state is not permitted to support in any way 
racial segregation in a public accommodation. And that is 
what they are doing by continuing to maintain these signs, 
as if they said, "We're doing it to facilitate segregation," 
as if these people had some right which the state could permit 
them to carry out. But they can't do so in a public place.

In addition to the ICC ruling, in Baldwin versus Mor­
gan, the Fifth Circuit has also ruled on this question. The



836

(R-15S1)
Fifth Circuit ruled that racial signs in public travel ter­
minals were invalid even if, as the defendant suggested 
there, the signs were merely intended —  and I'm quoting —  

"as an invitation to each of the races to occupy these faci­
lities separately provided, in order to permit voluntary 
acceptance of traditional social customs of the South." If 
the Court of Appeals had not ruled on this question, I could 
see the defendants would have some argument; but if the Court 
of Appeals has ruled on their contentions, I don't see that 
this court can do anything except follow the decision of
the Court of itopeals.
(R-1562)

THE COURT: That was the Baldwin case?
MRS, MOTLEY: That was Baldwin against Morgan, And the 

ICC case is NAACP versus St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad 
Company. The ICC has already ruled on this question, as to 
whether they could put the signs up there for voluntary 
segregation. So they are arguing something which has al­
ready been ruled on adversely tothem.

Finally, as to Cicero Carr, it was Mr, Carr who testi­
fied that he segregated Negroes. Then I don't think we need 
any additional testimony as to what the policy is when the 
defendant himself says that he serves Negroes in the back 
room. And that is in the record, and the findings of fact 
do not set forth Mr. Carr's statement, and he did not file 
any affidavit that he has discontinued that policy. As I 
said, Mr. Bell was there last night, and they stillJaave that



837
(R-1562)
policy. They offered to serve him in the back room. So 
the Findings of Fact should be amended to show Mr*. Carr’s 
own testimony as to what his policy is, and I think certainly 
in view of his failure to change the policy, this Court has 
no alternative except to issue an injunction enjoining that, 
and I think this Court has to issue an injunction enjoining 
the continued maintenance of these signs by the Airport 
Authority, by the Jackson police; and, as I said initially,
I think that Judge Johnson’s decision is the law. In a case 
of this kind in equity, the Court's duty is to make sure that 
the policy complained of or the illegal conduct of the defen­
dants is not going to be repeated in the future. Well, if 
the framework is there on which this conduct took place,
(R-15 6 3)
certainly there is every reason to believe the policy may be 
revived in the future. And in the absence of an injunction, 
the defendants can go right on doing that. Moreover, the 
Supreme Court has ruled on precisely this kind of thing, and 
all this is in my memorandum —  the cases and citations.

THE COURT: That is a new memorandum you have?
MRS. MOTLEY: Yes, it is. I will give you the original, 

and we have copies for the other side.
Now, the Supreme Court ruled on this in United States 

against Grant, United States against Parke-Davis Company, 
involving the question of whether an injunction should be 
issued in certain cases where it appears that the Illegal 
conduct complained of has ceased. And the Court pointed out



838

(R-1563)
in those cases, which were cases of great public importance 
like this, because they had gone to the Supreme Court, and 
so forth, that the duty of the Court is to take action to 
see that the illegal conduct is not continued in the future; 
and in addition, in a case of great public importance invol­
ving and affecting many people, "there is no such thing as 
mootness. The issue must be settled in the interest of get­
ting the law clearly established."

Now, in Darrington against Plummer, which is a Fifth
Circuit case in which the Supreme Court denied certiorari,
the Fifth Circuit has also ruled on this question. 3h the
Darrington case, that involved a restaurant in a courthouse
in Texas where the lessee refused to serve Negroes. When
the case got to the Court of Appeals, it appeared that the
lease had run out and that the case was probably moot. Well,
as I say, the Fifth Circuit said this: "Even if there had 
(R-1564)
been a voluntary cessation of the alleged illegal conduct, 
the public interest in having the legality of the practice 
settled mitigates against a mootness conclusion, in the 
absence of an affirmative showing that there is no reasonable 
expectation that the alleged wrong will be repeated."

Now, Your Honor has issued a declaratory judgment here 
where it appears that the illegal conduct has not been dis­
continued. Well, the supplemental affidavit shows that the 
conduct is being continued, and the continued maintenance of 
separate waiting rooms by the carriers indicates that there



839
(R-1564)
is a reasonable expectation that that policy will be con­
tinued. Moreover, the police have continued to maintain 
new signs, —  They say they have changed the wording —  

so there is the reasonable expectation here that this policy 
will be continued.

Now, another thing, the mayor of the City of Jackson, 
who is a defendant in this case, has constured this Court's
refusal to issue injunctions -----

MR. WATKINS: I am going to object to counsel’s dicta­
ting into the record newspaper statements.

THE COURT: Yes, I think that is so irrelevant, you 
need not quote the newspaper.

MRS. MOTLEY: Let me put it this way: I think that in a 
case of this kind involving, well, the majority of the popu­
lation of the state,a substantial majority of the people of 
the state, an injunction must issue in this kind of case to 
settle the controversy. As the Fifth Circuit has said, this 
policy has been going on for —  I don’t know how long —  at 
least half a century, and unless there is some clear injunc­
tive order by this Court, the policy is unsettled. People
(R -1 5 6 5 )will continue to believe that this thing is permissible.
And what is the proof of it? What the police officer did

*
to Mrs. Collins in Gulfport. He is not under any impression 
that the policy of the state has been changed, and there 
isn’t a single official in the city of Jackson who is under 
that impression. They think, as they have said, that they



840
(R-1565)
have a right to facilitate voluntary segregation. That is a 
misunderstanding of the law. There is no right to insist 
upon separate facilities. So there is every necessity in 
this case for the court to make it clear that the law is 
that the state cannot involve itself in any kind of segrega­
tion in a public facility.

Now, I think there is no question that the Supreme Court 
has settled this in this case when it was up there, and in 
the Turner case, that no longer can anyone argue success­
fully that the state can participate in any kind of public 
segregation. They have said, "Now, that is the end of that." 
So that at any time there is a public facility involved and 
there is any racial segregation involved of any kind, that 
racial segregation must be enjoined. And, finally, the Su­
preme Court has made it clear in the Fifth and Sixth Circuits 
and other cases, which I'm sorry we don't cite, but I recall 
a case in the Sixth Circuit, Clemmons versus Board of Educa­
tion of Hillsboro County, and a Fourth Circuit case involving 
Henry versus Greenville Airport in South Carolina, the 
Court ruled, and we rely on the Supreme Court case —  I can't 
recall —  Wilson against Union Tool Company —  cited in both 
of these opinions, that where the law is settled and the
facts are not in dispute, there is no discretion to deny an 
(R-1566)
injunction because that is abuse of discretion in law. Dis­
cretion is not in law the same as it is in ordinary and 
common policy —  that is, where the court feels, "Well, maybe



841
(R-156 6 )

these officials will do as the court suggests," That is 
not the exercise of a legal discretion. That is a non-legal 
discretion, as I understand it, because where the law is 
settled and the facts are not in dispute, to deny an injunc­
tion on the ground of discretion is an abuse of discretion 
because there is no discretion where the law is settled. 
Certainly, Turner, in the Turner case, settled the law with 
respect to public transportation facilities. There is no 
dispute that there can be no segregation in public trans­
portation facilities. I don’t think there is any real dis­
pute as to the facts here as to what is now the situation.
So there is no basis here for the denial of an injunction.

MR. WATKINS: May I make a brief statement in response 
to counsel?

THE COURT: Very well.
MR, WATKINS: First, I ’d like to like to say she starts

on the premise of the Morgan case. The Morgan case involved
signs inside a terminal in violation of specific ordinance
of the ICC Commission. In the Morgan case itself, the Court
was careful to point out the definite statement that counsel
no longer recognizes that has been the law as long as it’s
been booked, that voluntary segregation of the races is per- 
(R -1 5 6 7 )
fectly legal and they have a legal right to do it. Now, 
counsel’s argument is that she takes the prohibition of the 
signs in the Morgan case inside the terminal and would move 
them out of the terminal property, away from any jurisdiction 
of the ICC, on the public sidewalks and change the law to



842

(R-1567)
read that it shall be illegal for anybody to assist anybody 
to voluntarily separate. There are cited in Your Honor’s 
opinion at least twenty authorities which announced that 
there is nothing illegal in voluntary separation of the 
races, If that is the law and even though counsel doesn’t 
recognize it, there is nothing improper in a public facility 
pointing out how it can be done on a voluntary basis. She 
is misconstruing enforcement and assistance. Surely they 
can’t enforce it. They can't require it. But assistance 
for voluntary separation’s legal status is perfectly all 
right.

Now, with reference to her statements that an injunction
should issue and the Supreme Court so held in this case, let
me remind Your Honor that in remanding this case the Supreme
Court of the United States said this: "The case is remanded
to the district court with directions to enter a decree
granting-----" —  No, excuse me. In this case the court
said this: "..Remand the case for expeditious disposition
in the light of this opinion of appellant’s claims of right
to unsegregated transportation service." Compare that with
the language of the remand in the Turner versus Memphis case.
There the Supreme Court said, "The case is remanded to the
district court with directions to enter a decree granting
(R-1568)
appropriate injunctive relief against the discrimination 
complained of." In other words, If the Supreme Court of the 
United States had thought from the record in this case when



843
(R-1568)
they went over it that an injunction was required, they 
could and would have so instructed this court in the remand. 
They did not do so, indicating that they felt strongly that 
this court would find in connection with the segregation 
statutes just as the Supreme Court found specifically with 
reference to the breach of the peace statutes when they said, 
"These appellants lack standing to enjoin enforcement of the 
breach of peace statutes since they do not allege they have 
been prosecuted or threatened to be prosecuted under them." 
The same is true of the segregation statute. The basic 
weakness of counsel^ case is that these three plaintiffs 
and their rights only are being adjudicated. These three 
plaintiffs have not shown they have been threatened or denied 
any right in any facility they are complaining about. And 
I submit to Your Honor that that right is out of the case, 
any justification for the issuance of an injunction in this 
case.

THE COURT: Well, Gentlemen, upon the findings of facts 
that I have heretofore made, upon the merits of the case up 
to that time, I will adhere to that finding of facts that I 
made at that time. I think from the record those findings 
of facts were appropriate and proper, except that I will 
amend the findings of fact to the extent that Cicero Carr 
(R-1569)under his testimony I think was in violation of the statute 
and the law where there was discrimination. His testimony 
showed there was some discrimination. However, I am not



844

(K-1569)
going to pass upon the question at this time of whether any 
injunction shall issue against him or not, but I am going to 
modify my conclusion of the law in the declaratory judgment 
to the extent that Cicero Carr's method of serving customers 
was discriminatory, and that is not lawful, and there shall 
be and can be no discrimination by him in serving the public 
who come in for service. So the declaratory judgment will be 
amended to that extent.

The Court will permit Cicero Carr ten days within which 
to file any affidavit that he may desire to file as to whether 
or not he has violated or is violating the ruling of the Court 
heretofore made and, if so, whether he intends to discontinue 
same and comply with any declaratory judgment that the Court 
may render in this cause.

How, as to the municipal airport, I think those signs 
appearing over the restrooms and over the drinking fountains 
are improper and unlawful. I think that there must be no 
signs at any of the facilities which tend to show and en­
courage and require, X might say, discrimination or separation 
of the races. I think those signs should be removed, and I 
will allow the defendant a week in which to remove those 
signs, eliminate those signs over the restroom and drinking 
fountains. If that is not done, then appropriate action will 
be taken.

JIn all other respects the findings of fact I have here­
tofore made will be sustained and upheld and adhered to, and



845
(R-1570)
the motion for amendment will be overruled except to the 
extent I have already announced with reference to Cicero 
Carr and the municipal airport.

Now, as to the affidavits on the new occurrences, of 
course, I will not make any announcement until those affida­
vits and the counter-affidavits have been filed, so that I 
will have all the affidavits before me when I pass upon 
that question.

With that, Gentlemen, the court now stands in recess. 

* * * * * * *

(R-1571)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT 

OF MISSISSIPPI, JACKSON DIVISION

SAM BAILEY, ET AL, Plaintiff 
Vs.
JOE T. PATTERSON, ET AL, Defendant

COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

I, D. B. JORDAN, Official Court Reporter for the 
Southern District of Mississippi, do hereby certify that 
on May 3 1 , 1962, before United States District Judge Sidney 
C. Mize, the above-entitled cause came on for hearing on 
Motions for Judgment in Accordance with Supreme Court's 
Opinion: To Amend Findings of Fact; and For Further Relief; 
and the preceding thirty-one pages constitute a true and



846
(R-1571)
correct transcript of said proceedings,

WITNESS m  SIGNATURE, this the 20th day of June, 1962.

/s/ D. B. Jordan 
D, B. JORDAN

* * * * * * *

(R-1594)
ORDER SUSTAINING IN PART AND OVERRULING 
IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION THAT THE 
COURT AMEND ITS SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS 
OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAN, AND 
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT____________________
(Title Omitted - Filed Aug. 24, 1962)

In considering plaintiffs’ motion to amend
this Court’s supplemental findings of fact, conclusions
of law and declaratory judgment of July 23, 1962, the
Court has carefully considered the following:

Plaintiffs’ motion to amend.
Affidavit of Austin Hollander dated August 
3, 1962.
Affidavit of Peter Richard Gilbert dated 
August 4, 1962,
Affidavit of Robert Henry Johnson dated 
August 3, 1962.
Affidavit of Lucy Garlock Barker dated 
August 3, 1962.
Affidavit of Dewey Roosevelt Green, Jr. 
dated August 3, 1962.



(r -1595)
847

Affidavit of T. A. Turner dated
August 6, 1962.
These affidavits disclose that on August 1 and 

2, 1962, the defendant, Cicero Carr, was guilty of dis­
crimination in the operation of the airport restaurant 
facilities, but that said defendant’s lease agreement 
with the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority was termi­
nated by the Authority on August 6, 1962, and as soon as 
the Authority was apprised of the facts set forth in said 
affidavits. Said affidavits further disclose that the 
said Cicero Carr will not hereafter have any interest in 
or control over the operation of the restaurant facilities 
in the Jackson Municipal Airport and that said facilities 
are now being and will hereafter be operated without dis­
crimination of any kind. The motion filed by the plaintiffs 
should be and the same is hereby sustained in part and over­
ruled in part.

AMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL 
FINDINGS OF FACT

The signs referring to race near the water 
fountains and rest rooms of the Jackson Airport were im­
proper but have now been removed.

The sign on the bus of the Jackson City Lines 
complained of was improper but has now been removed.

The defendant, Cicero Carr, has discriminated 
against colored passengers in the restaurant operated by



848

(R-1595)
him in the Jackson Municipal Airport, but said defendant’s
lease agreement with the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority
has been terminated, and he will no longer have any interest
(R-1596)
in or control over said restaurant facilities which are now 
and will hereafter be operated without discrimination of 
any kind.

All facilities of all carrier defendants and of 
the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority are now being used 
by members of all races without discrimination of any kind.

/s/ S. C. Mize 

* * * * *

AMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECLARED as . follows,
to-wit:

(a) That each of the three plaintiffs has a 
right to unsegregated service from the restaurant 
at the Jackson Airport.

(b) That the defendant, Cicero Carr, should 
not have any interest in or control over the 
restaurant facilities in the Jackson Airport in 
the future and should not be employed in any 
capacity in the operation of said facilities.

(c) That the plaintiffs are not now entitled



849
(R-1597)

to any injunctive relief, but jurisdiction over 
this action and each of the defendants is hereby 
retained for the entry of such further orders and 
relief as may be subsequently appropriate.

(d) That all future complaints made herein 
by the plaintiffs, or any of them, shall be by 
one or more supplemental complaints reciting the 
matters and facts complained of.

(e) That all Court costs incurred herein 
be and the same are hereby taxed against the de­
fendants.

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECLARED this 22.nd day 
of August, 1962.

/s/ S. C. Mize
'Un i t e d s t a t e s d i s t r i c t j u d g e 

O.B. 1962, Pages 434, 435, 436 & 437.

** * * * *



(R-1598)
850

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
Southern District of Mississippi 

Gulfport, Mississippi
Chambers of August 22, 1962

SIDNEY C. MIZE 
District Judge

(Filed - Aug, 24, 1962)
Mrs, Constance Baker Motley 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, N. Y.
Honorable R. Jess Brown 
1105-| Washington Street 
Vicksburg, Mississippi
Honorable Tom H. Watkins 
P. 0. Box 650 
Jackson, Mississippi
Honorable J, A. Travis, Jr, 
Electric Building 
Jackson, Mississippi

Honorable Robert G. Nichols 
Lamar Life Building 
^Jackson, Mississippi
Honorable E. W. Stennett 
Barnett Building 
Jackson, Mississippi

Honorable Joe T, Patterson 
Attorney General 
Jackson, Mississippi
Honorable Junior O ’Mara 
Petroleum Building 
Jackson, Mississippi
Honorable Sidney Smith 
Electric Building 
Jackson, Mississippi
Honorable J. W. Young 
Deposit Guaranty Bank 

Building
Jackson, Mississippi
Honorable Weaver Gore, Jr, 
Medical Building 
Jackson, Mississippi
Honorable Rubel L, Phillips 
Deposit Guaranty Bank 
Building

Jackson, Mississippi
Re: Bailey, et al

v. No. 3133-Jackson
__________  Patterson, et al

Gentlemen:
I have considered the plaintiffsr motion to amend 

the Court fs supplemental findings of fact and conclusions 
of law and have reached the conclusion from the record and 
all the affidavits that the motion should be sustained in 
part and denied in part, and am herewith enclosing you 
copy of the amended findings of fact and conclusions of law



851
(R-1598)
and the amended supplemental declaratory judgment.

Cicero Carr on or about August 1 and 2, 1962 

was guilty of discrimination In the operation of the Air­
port Restaurant, but immediately upon learning thereof the 
Airport Authority terminated his lease and he no longer is 
connected in any capacity whatsoever with the Jackson 
Municipal Airport Authority. I have further provided in 
the amended findings of fact that he shall not be reiraployed 
in any capacity or in any connection with the Jackson Muni­
cipal Airport.

It is my thought and I have so found that all the 
other defendants are complying with the declaratory judgment 
(R-1599)
heretofore entered and I am definitely of the opinion that 
they will continue to do so. I think these defendants are 
acting in good faith and that they recognize that the law 
is well settled now so that there will be no further dis­
crimination by any of the defendants.

The matter as to Cicero Carr, as I see it, is 
really moot since he is no longer connected with any of the 
defendants and it is not necessary to enter a judgment or 
any injunction against him. For reasons heretofore stated 
in my rulings, I am of the opinion that an injunction is 
not required in this case and I am convinced, as heretofore 
stated, that all the other defendants will comply with the 
declaratory judgment heretofore entered in this case. You 
will note that the order is dated August 22, 1962.



(R-1599)
85s

With kindest regard to all of you, I am
Sincerely yours,

/s/ S. C. Mize

*  *  *  *  #

(R-1600)
NOTICE OF APPEAL

(Title Omitted - Filed Aug. JO, 1962)

Notice is hereby given that Samuel Bailey, Joseph 
Broadwater and Burnett L. Jacob, the plaintiffs in this 
cause, appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 
from the final judgment entered in this action on May 1, 
1962, supplemented on July 25, 1962, and on August 22,
1962, which;

(a) refuses plaintiffs* prayer for injunctive 
relief against the defendants,

(b) refuses to recognize the class nature of 
this action by limiting relief granted to the three named 
plaintiffs, and

(c) refuses to enjoin the maintenance by the de­
fendant City of Jackson of signs designating the dual 
waiting rooms of the defendant Illinois Central Railroad, 
and defendants Continental Southern Lines, Inc. and Southern 
Greyhound Lines, as "colored" or "white".



(R-1600)
853

/s/ Constance Baker Motley
uonstance Baker Motley.
Attorney for Appellants

(R-1601)

DESIGNATION OF CONTENTS OF RECORD ON APPEAL 
(Title Omitted - Filed Sept. 1 7 , 1962)

Appellants, pursuant to Rule 75(a) of the Rules of 
Civil Procedure, designate the following portions of the 
record, proceedings and evidence to be contained in the 
record on appeal in this action, which record appellants 
request to be prepared by Miss Thereasa Herbert, P. 0. Box 
610, Gulfport, Mississippi, pursuant to Rule 2 3(1 1 ) of the 
Fifth Circuit Rules.
1. Amended Complaint and Amended Motion for Temporary

Injunction, July 1 7 , 19 6 1.
2. Answer of Attorney General of the State of Mississippi.
3. Answer of City of Jackson, Mississippi, et al.
4. Answer of Continental Southern Lines, Inc.
5. Answer of Greyhound Corp.
6. Answer of Illinois Central Railroad_
7. Answer of Jackson City Lines, Inc.
8. Answer of Jackson Municipal Airport Authority.
9. Answer of Cieero Carr,



854
(R-1602)
10. Order of 3-Judge Court, August 3 , 19 6 1.
11. Transcript of Hearing on Preliminary and Permanent 

Injunctions on September 25, 26, 2?, 28, 1961, and all 
exhibits.

12. Order of 3-Judge Court, November 1 7, 19 6 1.
13. Opinion of 3 -Judge Court and Dissent, November 1 7 , 19 6 1.
14. Notice of Appeal to U. S. Supreme Court, November 22, 

19 6 1.
15. Opinion per curiam of the United States Supreme Court, 

February 26, 1962.
16. Order of 3-Judge Court, April ____ , 1962.
17. Plaintiffs Motion for Immediate Relief in Accordance 

with Opinion and Judgment of the United States Supreme 
Court, April 17, 1962.

18. Affidavits of Junior O'Mar a, Attorney for Continental
Southern Lines and Greyhound Corp., April ____ , 1962.

19. Affidavit of A. B. Smith, Attorney for Jackson City 
Lines, April 26, 1962.

20. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Declaratory 
Judgment, May 3, 1962.

21. Affidavit of Plaintiff, Joseph Broadwater, May 19, 1962.
22. Supplemental Affidavit of A. B. Smith, Attorney for 

Jackson City Lines, May 22, 1962.
23. Affidavit of ¥. D. Rayfield, May 24, 1962.
24. Affidavit of Derrick A. Bell, Attorney for Plaintiffs, 

June 1, 1962.



855
(R-1602)
25. Affidavit of Clare Collins Harvey, for plaintiffs,

June 1, 1962.
26. Affidavit of Royce M. Smith, for plaintiffs, June 1,

1962.

27. Affidavit of Cioero W. Carr, June 6, 1962.
28. Affidavit of H. L. McRaney, for defendant Continental 

Southern Lines, June 18, 1962.
29. Affidavit of Phil A. Dobyns, for defendant Continental 

Southern Lines, June 18, 1962.
30. Affidavit of David Campbell, for plaintiffs, June, 1962. 
(R-I603)
pi. Affidavit of Myrtle Davis, June 20, 1962.
32. Affidavit of Robert L. T. Smith, July 2, I9S2 .
33. Supplemental Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and 

Declaratory Judgment, July 23, 1962.
Plaintiffs Motion to Amend and Supplement Findings of 
Facts, August _____ , 1962.

34. Affidavit of Peter Richard Gilbert, for Plaintiffs, 
August 4, 1962.

35. Affidavit of Robert Henry Johnson, for Plaintiffs,
August 3, 1962.

36. Affidavit of Ronald Austin Hollander for Plaintiffs, 
August 3, 1962.

37. Affidavit of Lucy Garlock Barker, for Plaintiffs,
August 3, 1962.

38. Affidavit of Dewey Roosevelt Greene, Jr., for Plaintiffs, 
August 3, 1962.



856
(R-1603)
39. Affidavit of T. A. Turner, for Jackson Municipal Air­

port Authority.
40. Order Sustaining in Part and Overruling in Part Plain­

tiffs* Motion that the Court Amend Its Supplemental 
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Declaratory 
Judgment filed August 22, 1962.

41. Notice of Appeal.
42. Statement of points on which appellants intend to rely, 

served herewith.
43. This designation.

II

MOTION FOR TRANSMITTAL OF EXHIBITS

Appellants move the Court for an order that all exhibits 
introduced at the hearing of this case be sent to the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in their origi­
nal form, for inspection by that court, on the ground that 
'(R-l604)
said exhibits generally duplicate evidence adequately set 
forth in the transcript and their reproduction will unneces­
sarily enlarge an already voluminous record.

Ill
STATEMENT OF POINTS

Pursuant to Rule 75(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 
the plaintiffs-appellants hereby state the points on which 
they intend to rely on their appeal from the final judgment



(r - i 6o4)
herein as follows:

857

1. Whether the court below erred in refusing appellants* 
prayer for injunctive relief against each of the appellees, 
their agents, employees, attorneys, successors and all per­
sons in active concert and participation with them from en­
forcing any statute, ordinance, policy, practice, custom, 
regulation or usage, under color of state law, requiring, 
permitting or encouraging racial segregation of 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 transporting interstate and intra­
state passengers for hire.

2. Whether the court below erred in refusing to grant 
appellants injunctive or other relief for the class which 
they represented as provided for in the Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure, Rule 2 3(a)(3 ).

3. Whether the court below erred in refusing to enjoin 
appellee City of Jackson, including the Mayor, City Commis­
sioners and Chief of Police, their agents, employees, attor­
neys and successors, from: (l) continuing, under color of 
state law, city ordinance, regulation, policy, custom or 
usage to arrest, harass, intimidate, threaten or coerce 
plaintiffs, and members of their class, in connection with 
the exercise of their federally protected right to use inter­
state and intrastate transportation facilities and services



858

(R-1605)
without segregation or discrimination, solely because of race 
and color. (2 ) continuing to post, or permit to be posted, 
signs or other indicia designating segregated or separated 
facilities 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. Whether the court below erred in refusing appellants* 
prayer for an injunction against appellees* Continental 
Southern Lines, Inc., Southern Greyhound Lines and the 
Illinois Central Railroad, Inc., their agents, employees, 
attorneys, successors and all persons in active concert and 
participation with them from continuing to maintain and 
operate separate or dual waiting rooms, rest rooms and lunch 
counters as previously required for segregation of Negro and 
white passengers in depots, stations or terminals owned, 
operated or utilized by them in the State of Mississippi, in 
connection with their intrastate and interstate passenger 
transportation services, and further enjoining them from 
posting or permitting to be posted signs or other indicia 
designating certain facilities for the use of Negro or white 
passengers, or in any other way enforcing, encouraging, or 
permitting any racial segregation of passengers on buses, 
trains, or other vehicles operated by appellees in the 
State of Mississippi.

/s/ Constance Baker Motley



(R-1605)
859

R. Jess Brown
1105f Washington Street
Vicksburg, Mississippi
Constance Baker Motley 
Jack Greenberg 
Derrick A. Bell, Jr.
10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York

Counsel for Appellants

(R-1606)
(This instrument carries proper Certificate of Service, 
which is not copied here.)

* * * * *

(R-I607)
ORDER FOR TRANSMITTAL OF ORIGINAL EXHIBITS 
(Title Omitted - Filed Sept. 19, 1962)

Pursuant to the motion of the appellants, it is 
hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that the clerk of this 
court send to the clerk of the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Fifth Circuit, as a part of the record on appeal 
in this case, all original exhibits received in evidence 
in this case on the hearing on plaintiffs* motion for pre­
liminary and permanent injunction on September 25th, 26th,
27th and 28th, until final disposition of the appeal herein 
and then to be returned to this court.

Sept 18th 1962
/s/ S. C. Mize____________

United States District Judge



860
(R-1607)
0 B 1962 P 508

* * * * *

(R-1608)
DESIGNATION OP CONTENTS OP RECORD ON APPEAL ON 

BEHALF OP THE GREYHOUND CORPORATION AND 
CONTINENTAL SOUTHERN LINES, INC.________

(Title Omitted - Piled Sept. 26, 1962)
The Greyhound Corporation and Continental Southern

Lines, Inc., two of the Appellees herein, designate the
following to be contained in the record on appeal in this
action in accordance with the rules of Civil Procedure and
the rules of this Court:

1. All affidavits, depositions and oral and documentary 
testimonyoffered by any of the parties hereto on all hearings 
had in this cause and which have not been designated by 
Appellants.

/s/ Junior O'Mara__________________
700 Petroleum Building 
Post Office Box 1250 
Jackson, Mississippi

/s/ A. C. Cannada____________________
700 Petroleum Building 
Post Office Box 1250 
Jackson, Mississippi
Attorneys for The Greyhound 
Corporation and Continental 
Southern Lines, Inc.

Of Counsel:
BUTLER, SNOW, O'MARA, STEVENS & CANNADA



861
(R-1608)
(This Instrument carries proper Certificate of Service, 
which is not copied here.)

* * * * * *

(R-1610)

ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE RECORD 
(Title Omitted- Filed Oct. 8, 1962)

It being made to appear to the Court that notice of 
appeal has been filed in the above cause but the mimeographed 
record has not yet been completed and the Clerk is not in 
position to file the record on appeal and that the time 
should be extended, so for good cause shown it is therefore 
ordered by the Court that the time for filing the record 
upon appeal and docketing the action in the Court of Appeals 
be and the same hereby is extended to ninety days from the 
date of the first notice of appeal. A^.W —

ORDERED, this the 6th day of October, 1962.

/s/ S, C. Mize__________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

0 B 1962 P 559

** * * * *



862
(R-1611)

ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE RECORD 
(Title Omitted - Piled Nov. 28, 1962)

It being made to appear to the Court that notice of 
appeal has been filed in the above styled cause but that the 
preparation of the record has not yet been completed and the 
Clerk is not in position to file the record on appeal and 
that the time should be extended, so for good cause shown 
it is therefore ordered by the Court that the time for filing 
the record upon appeal and docketing the action in the Court 
of Appeals be and the same hereby is extended to March 1, 
1965»

ORDERED, this the 26th day of November, 1962.

/s/ Ben F. Cameron_________________
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

0. B. 1962, Page 629.

* * * *



863

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Theresa Herbert, hereby certify that, having 
made up the appeal record in the case of SAMUEL BAILEY,
ET AL VERSUS JOE T. PATTERSON, ET AL, Civil Action No. 3133 
in the Jackson Division of the Southern District of Missis­
sippi, I have, acting for Mrs. Constance Baker Motley and 
Mr. Derrick A. Bell, Counsel for the Appellant, served upon 
Messrs. Joe T. Patterson, J. Will Young, Junior 0 ‘Mara, 
Robert G. Nichols, Tom H. Watkins, Rubel L. Phillips,
J. A. Travis and Wence S. Cerne one copy each of the record 
in accordance with the Rules of the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, by sending same to them via 
Railway Express to their respective addresses.

THERESA HERBERT

* * * * * *