Gilliam v. City of Hopewell, VA School Board Appendix to Appellants' Brief

    APPENDIX TO APPELLANTS’ BRIEF

In The
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

For The Fourth Circuit

No. 9625.

RENEE PATRICE GILLIAM, et al,
Appellants,

vs.
SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY OF HOPEWELL, 

VIRGINIA, et al.
Appellees.

S. W. T u c k e r  
H e n r y  L. M a r sh , III

214 East Clay Street 
Richmond, Virginia

Counsel for Appellants

The Press of Lawyers Printing Company, Incorporated, Richmond 7, Virginia



TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 8 (School Board Minutes of 
October 6, 1960) ....................................................... 2

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 16 (School Board Minutes of 
July 23, 1962) ..............................................................  4

Excerpts from Transcript of June 10, 1963 ...................  5

Order entered July 11, 1963 ..........................................  13

Memorandum of the Court filed July 11, 1963 ...........  14

Order entered September 13, 1963 ...............................  21

Ruling of Court delivered from bench September 12, 
1963 ..............................................................................  22

Motion to Dismiss Injunction, filed October 22, 1963 .... 29

[First] Plan for Operation of Schools, filed October,
1963 ........................................................................... . 29

Exceptions to Plan, filed December 2, 1963 ............. .....  32

Motion to Dismiss Injunction, filed June, 1964 ..............  34

[Second] Plan for Operation of Schools, filed June,
1964 .............................................................................. 35



Page

Exceptions to Plan, filed July 2, 1964 ........................... 38

Excerpts from Transcript of April 6, 1964 ......... .....  39

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1-A, filed April 6, 1964 ................ 54

Ruling of the Court, April 6, 1964 ............................... 55

Affidavit of Charles W. Smith, with attached charts, 
filed July 2, 1964 ....................................... ..............  60

Ruling of Court, July 2, 1964 ................................... . 66

Order, entered July 6, 1964 ......................................... . 70

Plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal, filed July, 1964 ...............  71



In The
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

For The Fourth Circuit

No. 9625.

RENEE PATRICE GILLIAM, et al, 
Appellants,

vs.
SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY OF HOPEWELL, 

VIRGINIA, et al.
Appellees.

APPENDIX TO APPELLANTS’ BRIEF

AN EXACT COPY

Plaintiff’s Exhibit Number 8

Minutes of the Regular Meeting 
of the

City of Hopewell School Board 
Thursday, October 6, 1960 

8:00 P.M.

A map of the City of Hopewell showing present school 
attendance areas, a proposed improvement and extension



2

of Palm Street and a proposed ten foot walkway connecting 
Palm and Terminal Streets in order to afford an improved 
walking route for school children from the Davisville Area 
to the Carter G. Woodson School was presented and dis­
cussed.

Since the construction of the above mentioned improved 
walkway would involve securing a temporary easement 
across firestone property, Mr. Broyhill and the Superin­
tendent were appointed to conver with Mr. Walter Smith, 
local Firestone Company Manager on this matter.

Following presentation of figures showing the number 
of pupils now living in the Highland Park Area, grades 1 
through 5, and information that a low cost housing project 
was soon to be erected on Palm Street adjacent to the 
Carter G. Woodson School, it was decided that the School 
Board would meet with the City Council to propose the 
construction of from 4 to 6 elementary classrooms at the 
Carter G. Woodson School in which to house pupils grades 
1 through 5 from these areas.

The following additional applications from pupils pres­
ently assigned to the Carter G. Woodson and Harry E. 
James Schools and apparently wishing to transfer to the 
Hopewell High and Patrick Copeland Elementary Schools 
were presented and discussed:

1. Applications from Carter G. Woodson to Hopewell 
brought to School Board Office by Curtis Harris on 
September 26, 1960

a. Curtis West Harris, Jr. 9th Grade



3

209 Terminal Street,
Hopewell, Va.

b. Corliss Maria Roberts 9th Grade
509 Davisville
Hopewell, Va.

c. Mary Alice Bradley 9th Grade
1007 Elm Street
Hopewell, Va.

d. Jacquelin Lefern 10th Grade 
1301 Bland Court
Hopewell, Va.

2. Applications sent by registered mail to Patrick Cope­
land School brought to School Board Office by Mr. 
Harding on Wednesday, September 28th.

a. Mary Louise Jackson 6th Grade
307 Davisville, Hopewell, Va.

b. Faye Ernesting Moore 6th Grade
1301 Bland Court, Hopewell, Va.

c. Cheryl Lorrain Jackson 6th Grade 
131 Terminal Street, Hopewell, Va.

Upon motion by Mr. Lee, seconded by Mr. Carrel, and 
carried 4 to 1, Mrs. Beach voting No, the Superintendent 
was instructed to forward these applications to the State 
Pupil Placement Board at Richmond without recommenda­
tions.



4

Plaintiff’s Exhibit Number 16 

AN ENACT COPY

Minutes of the Regular Meeting 
of the

City of Hopewell School Board 
Monday, July 23, 1962 

8:00 P.M.

The Superintendent reported that He, Dr. Hunter, and 
Mr. Doeg had met with the State Pupil Placement Board 
at Richmond, Virginia, on Wednesday, June 27, 1962 at 
which time all applicants for transfer to a school other 
than the one to which they had been assigned were denied 
and that these applicants had been informed individually 
and in writing by the Placement Board of both the de­
cision and of reasons for the individual denials.

Subsequently the following seven applicants informed 
the Place Board that they wished to protest these decisions 
and had requested a hearing before the Board:

1. William Lewis Johnson, Jr., 522 Water Street, from 
10th Grade at Carter G. Woodson School to 11th 
Grade at Hopewell High School.

2. Helen Marie Wyche, 1101 Maplewood Avenue, from 
7th Grade at Harry E. James School to 8th Grade 
at Hopewell High School

3. Curtis West Harris, Jr., 209 Terminal Street, from 
10th Grade at Carter G. Woodson School to 11th 
Grade at Hopewell High School

4. Kenneth Charles Harris, 209 Terminal Street, from 
9th Grade at Carter G. Woodson School to 10th 
Grade at Hopewell High School



5

5. Faye Ernestine Moore, 1301 Bland Court, from 7th 
Grade at Harry E. James School to 8th Grade at 
Hopewell High School.

6. Christiana Delores Hall, 1603 Tabb Street, from 
9th Grade at Carter G. Woodson School to 10th 
Grade at Hopewell High School

7. Corliss Maria Roberts, 1702 Tabb Street, from 10th 
Grade at Carter G. Woodson School to 11th Grade 
at Hopewell High School

A tentative date for these hearings had been set by the 
Placement Board for August 17th.

Following a discussion of this matter it was agreed that 
the Superintendent would arrange for a meeting of the 
Board with the Hopewell City Council as soon as possible 
to inform the Council of developments to date.

EXCERPTS FROM TRANSCRIPT OF JUNE 10, 1963
ik  ^

(tr. g) * * *
CHARLES W. SMITH, a defendant, called as a wit­

ness by the plaintiffs, being first duly sworn, testified as 
follows:

(tr. 12) * * *
BY MR. MARSH:

Q. Throughout the entire time of your services as Su­
perintendent, have these boundaries ever been fixed so as



6

to permit Negro children to attend schools of white chil­
dren, sir?

A. Not deliberately, no.
Q. What about accidently?
A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Or have they been fixed so as to permit white chil­
dren to attend schools with Negroes?

A. Not to my knowledge.
* * *

(tr. 27) * * *
Q. My first question is with reference to the students 

who were to use that walkaway, sir. Were these students 
all Negro students?

A. Yes.

Q. And this walkaway was built so that they would be 
able to get to two different Negro schools?

A. It was built—it was built in order that students living 
in the Harry E. James area would have a better walking 
route to the Carter G. Woodson High School.

Q. Would you demonstrate on the map, sir, first, the 
area where the students were residing?

A. (Indicating) This is the Harry E. James School 
right here, and the students resided in this area, which is 
shaded light yellow, and the walkaway—this is Terminal 
Street coming right down in front of the Harry E. James 
School. Formerly the students had to walk around here 
like this, down to Palm Street and down Palm Street to 
the Carter G. Woodson School.

We knew that the City was planning to extend Palm 
Street and to change it, and we—in order to get a better 
walking route to the school, we secured a right-of-way



7

across this property here joining Terminal Street with 
(tr. 28) Palm Street in order that the children would 
have a better way to get to school.

Q. Would you identify this school here, sir?
A. This school here?

Q. Yes.
A. That is the Patrick Copeland Elementary School.

Q. And this area here indicates that Negro parents are 
living here, sir, Negro children?

A. That is true. That shows that the people living in 
this area are zoned into this school.

Q. And this area here indicates that these are—
A. All shaded in light yellow goes to that school.

Q. This walkaway here made it easier for all these stu­
dents to get to the Carter G. Woodson High School?

A. Yes, I would think it would.

Q. Without the walkaway, these students would have 
been closer to the Hopewell High School ?

A. Not to my knowledge. They could or could not be. 
The main purpose of this was to establish a walking route. 
We didn’t have this particular group in mind. We were 
thinking about the people here; to get across here.

Q. Are you saying, sir, that a student living here 
wouldn’t be closer to Hopewell School than he would to 
Carter G. Woodson without the walkaway?

A. I can’t testify to that. I don’t know.

* * *



8

(tr. 44 )  ̂  ̂ ^
E. J. OGLESBY, called as a witness by and on behalf 

of the plaintiffs, having been first duly sworn, testified 
as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION 

(tr. 45) BY MR. TUCKER:

Q. For the record, would you state your name and your 
official connection with the Pupil Placement Board?

A. I am E. J. Oglesby, a member of the Pupil Place­
ment Board.

Q. The composition of the Pupil Placement Board at 
the time these applications in this case were considered is 
the same as it is today, is that correct?

A. That is correct.
Q. You are—strike that. We know that some of the 

applications in this case were refused, and the reason as­
signed in one instance was outside the long established 
attendance area. I ask you if your Board had anything to 
do with the establishment of these attendance areas.

A. No, we accepted, as reasonable, a plan showed us 
by Hopewell, which they said had been in existence for 
a long time.

Q. I ask you if your Board has any plan or purpose of 
revising the attendance areas in the City of Hopewell?

A. Only in the sense that from now on, in the future, 
this Board expects to put everybody in each attendance 
area, regardless of race, in the school in that area.
(tr. 46) Q. That wasn’t my question. My question was 
if your Board has any plan or purpose of revising the 
attendance areas.



9

A. No.

Q. One of the reasons, I see, a child was assigned was 
a failure to follow established procedures. Am I correct in 
assuming that you were referring to the procedures of the 
School Board?

A. That is correct.
Q. And that was a decision that you made on August 14 

1962?
A. Wherever we have had—that would be appeal date, 

wouldn’t it? No, the date we agreed that we were going 
to accept their procedures was when we originally went 
over the applications. I believe the date you quoted would 
be the date when we had a hearing on some appeals about 
a decision we made earlier, but their local procedures, with 
respect to who got the applications, where they got them, 
and what they did with them, were reasonable adminis­
trative procedures, and were accepted by us as being 
reasonable procedures.

Q. The determination on the part of your Board that 
these procedures had not been followed was a determination 
made after the protest hearing, was it not?

A. Not in my recollection. My recollection was that 
those were the reasons—part of the reasons given by us, 
(tr. 47) the Board, in the placements we made when we 
first went over those in June.

Have I made myself clear?
Q. In other words, the reasons assigned for the denial 

was a part of the letter of June 27, where you did not 
make the placements requested?

A. Yes. The decisions as to why they were put where 
they were, were made when we went over the applications 
in June. I don’t remember the date.



10

Q. All right. Now we have as a reason also, a distance 
of residence from school. As that applies in the City of 
Hopewell, it works out that the distance from residence of 
school was something that was considered when the Negro 
high school students were making application to attend the 
Copeland High School, is that correct—or the Hopewell 
High School?

A. Actually, I think what we did was give four or five 
reasons; whereas one or two reasons were the deciding 
things, the administrative procedures, and the question 
whether it came in on time, and the attendance district.

Q. Well, as it works out, as long as a white child wanted 
to attend the Hopewell High School, a Negro child wanted 
to attend the Carter Woodson School, the distance of 
residence from school would not matter ? Is that correct ?

A. That is probably correct, except that from now on, 
(tr. 48) in those two districts, they are going to go to 
those schools regardless of distance.

Q. I am speaking about what was the situation in June 
of 1962, when you were considering these, and you con­
sidered the distance of the residence of the Negro child 
to the Hopewell High School, but you had no parallel con­
sideration of the distance of the residence of the white 
child.

A. Only because we didn’t have any applications of 
that sort.

Q. So it works out, such, that any time you had occasion 
to apply that criteria, it was when a child of one race made 
application to attend the school for the children of the 
other race?

A. I don’t know why that matter of living closer to the 
Woodson School was mentioned in there, because it had 
nothing to do with the decision.



21

Q. But it was mentioned?
A. It was mentioned in one or two of the letters, be­

cause I was looking them over a few minutes ago, and read 
that it was.

Also, educational qualifications were mentioned in one 
or two cases. As was pointed out, that child was not quali­
fied to go to the school he has applied to, but it wasn’t used 
as a part of the decision, because, by then, we knew that we 
(tr. 49) couldn’t.

Q. So that now what you are saying is that your only 
basis for refusing these applications was the zone basis?

A. The zone basis and the lack of following what seemed 
to be perfectly reasonable local administrative procedure 
in connection with how blanks were handled, and I believe 
in one case—two cases—I’m not sure, but I will have to 
look it up—where they did not turn them in on time, they 
used proper blanks.

Q. Now on this procedure, in June, was there any evi­
dence presented to the Board as to what was this local 
procedure, or is it not a fact—

A. It was. It is just that I have forgotten. I don’t have 
it written down, and I have forgotten just exactly what 
that procedure was. The evidence was it should come from 
the people on the local level, because we, as a Pupil Place­
ment Board, handle that all over the State. They handle 
it locally, and it differs from place to place. It seemed to 
be reasonable. What I mean by “differs” is this: one school 
system may say these blanks must be gotten from the 
school where the child is going; somebody else may say 
it has got to be gotten from the school to which the child 
is going. As long as it is a reasonable procedure made 
known to everybody, we are willing to accept it as a way 
of carrying out the details of this procedure.



12

Q. But minutes have been put into evidence here today, 
(tr. SO) minutes of August 13 meeting, showing that on 
that date they adopted—the School Board adopted a pro­
cedure for the 1962-63 school session. Are you aware of 
that fact?

MR. SCOTT: If Your Honor please, Mr. Oglesby is 
not bound by any minutes of the local School Board.

FITE COURT: The question isn’t whether he is bound 
by them. The objection is overruled.

A. Well, I will try to answer it. We were told it was a 
local procedure. At the time we first went over this thing, 
it was explained to us. W'e believed it was reasonable. 
What may have happened in the way of changing that 
first decision to the latter, I don’t know. That had nothing 
to do with these decisions we made.

Q. As a matter of fact, you did not, then, know, and 
do not yet know, that there was any procedure adopted 
prior to August 13, 1962?

A. Oh, yes. I am sure that we acted on the procedure 
we were told about by the local people in June.

Q. That was verbally? You were told that by word of 
mouth ?

A. They did not bring the minutes to us and show us 
that they had adopted minutes. They said, “This is the 
procedure.” It seemed a reasonable procedure. They did 
not present us with any written rules outlining that pro- 
dure. I don’t remember whether they were written or not, 
(tr 51) but they were made very clear to us, and they 
had not been lived up to.

Q. So you don’t even know whether that procedure 
that you had in mind in June of 1962, had been disseminated



13

to the people of Hopewell of not ?
A. No, I do not.

*  *  *

ORDER
[Entered July 11, 1963]

All matters of law and fact having' been submitted to 
the Court; upon consideration whereof, for reasons ap­
pearing in the Memorandum of the Court this day filed, 
the Court doth ADJUDGE, ORDER and DECREE as 
follows:

1. The defendants, and each of them, their successors 
in office, agents, servants and employees, and those persons 
in active concert or participation with them who receive 
actual notice of this order, are enjoined and restrained 
from denying the plaintiffs, and each of them, admission 
to the public schools for the 1963-64 school session to 
which application has been made, as set forth in Schedule A 
of the complaint.

2. The defendants, and each of them, their successors 
in office, agents, servants and employees, and those persons 
in active concert or participation with them who receive 
actual notice of this order, are enjoined and restrained from 
the further use of racially discriminatory criterion, includ­
ing the use of the present attendance areas, in the assign­
ment of pupils to public schools in the City effective with 
the beginning of the 1963-64 school session.

3. The School Board of the City of Hopewell and the 
Division Superintendent of Schools, however, are granted 
leave to file with the Court within 90 days a plan to provide



14

for immediate steps to terminate discriminatory practices 
in the assignment of pupils to the schools in the City. If 
a plan is submitted and approved, the injunction mentioned 
in paragraph 2 of this order shall be suspended and the ad­
mission of Negro students may be in accordance with the 
plan.

4. The plaintiffs’ motion for counsel fees is denied. 
Defendants shall pay the costs incident to the prosecution 
of this case.

5. This cause is retained on the docket.

Let the Clerk send copies of this order and the Memo­
randum of the Court to counsel of record.

/S / J o h n  D. B u tz n er  
United States District Judge

July 11, 1963

MEMORANDUM OF THE COURT 
[Filed July 11. 1963]

Nine Negro students and their parents instituted this 
action to require the defendants to transfer the students 
from Negro public schools to white public schools. The 
plaintiffs filed their suit as a class action on behalf of all 
persons similarly situated and prayed that the defendants 
be enjoined from denying any students admission to a 
white school on the basis of race.

The defendants answered, generally denying that the 
plaintiffs are entitled to the relief which they seek.



15

The City of Hopewell operates the following public 
schools which are attended by white pupils:

Capacity A ttendance
Patrick Copeland Elementary 740 770
DuPont Elementary 870 832
Woodlawn Elementary 720 649
Hopewell High School 1,075 1,279

The City also operates the following schools which are 
attended by Negro pupils:

Capacity A ttendance
Harry E. James Elementary 330 167
Arlington Elementary 270 395
Carter G. Woodson 300 286
Carter G. Woodson High School 350 257

The plaintiffs, who sought transfer to Hopewell High 
School, were denied assignment primarily because they 
lived outside the “long established attendance area”. As­
signments to public schools in Hopewell are made accord­
ing to geographical attendance areas. The Pupil Placement 
Board usually makes formal assignment upon the recom­
mendation of the City School Board.

The attendance areas for the several schools were estab­
lished prior to the decision in Brown v. Board of Educa­
tion, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Minor changes have been made 
from time to time. The areas follow the distribution of 
Negro and white residences in the city. In some instances 
the areas are defined by natural boundaries; in others there 
is no distinction other than the racial composition of the 
neighborhoods.



16

The attendance areas for Arlington School, Carter G. 
Woodson School and Harry E. James School lie generally 
south of the Norfolk and Western Railway tracks. The 
Harry E. James School attendance area is bounded on the 
west by the railway classification yard. The Seaboard Air 
Line Railroad forms the boundary between Arlington 
School and Carter G. Woodson School. The defendants 
argue that for reasons of safety and convenience the tracks 
form natural boundaries for these areas. Some of the Harry 
E. James School attendance area lies to the north of the 
tracks. A ravine isolates a part of this area from the 
Patrick Copeland School area.

If the boundaries of the attendance areas had been lo­
cated only with reference to the tracks and ravine, the 
defendants’ argument would have considerable merit. How­
ever, the tracks have not been used consistently as boun­
daries. The same Norfolk and Western tracks bisect the 
Woodlawn school attendance area. The Seaboard Air 
Line tracks cross the DuPont School area. Portions of 
the DuPont and Patrick Copeland school areas lie south 
of the Norfolk and Western tracks, and part of the Harry 
E. James School area lies north of the tracks. Also there is 
no natural barrier between the Woodlawn School area and 
the Arlington School area.

The capacity of the schools, compared with the attend­
ance of the students, provides no rational criterion for the 
boundaries which have been selected. For example, the 
Patrick Copeland School has a capacity of 740 students, 
with attendance of 770. Adjacent to this school area is the 
Harry E. James School with a capacity of 330 but only 
167 in attendance. Nevertheless a portion of the Patrick 
Copeland School area flows across the railway tracks into



17

the Harry E. James School area. Hopewell High School 
for white students has approximately 200 students over its 
capacity. The Carter G. Woodson High School for Negro 
students has approximately 100 students less than capacity.

On one occasion white students whose family moved into 
a Negro lesidential area were enrolled in a white school 
instead of the school which served the attendance area of 
their residence. This was done, in part, because the family 
intended to build a home in a white residential area.

In Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 300 
(1955), the Court said:

While giving weight to these public and private 
considerations, the courts will require that the defend­
ants make a prompt and reasonable start toward full 
compliance with our May 17, 1954, ruling. Once such 
a start has been made, the courts may find that addi­
tional time is necessary to carry out the ruling in an 
effective manner. The burden rests upon the defendants 
to establish that such time is necessary in the public 
interest and is consistent with good faith compliance 
at the earliest practicable date. To that end, the courts 
may consider problems related to administration, aris­
ing from the physical condition of the school plant, 
the school transportation system, personnel, revision 
of school districts and attendance areas into compact 
units to achieve a system of determining admission 
to the public schools on a non-racial basis, and revision 
of local laws and regulations which may be necessary 
in solving the foregoing problems. They will also con­
sider the adequacy of any plans the defendants may 
propose to meet these problems and to effectuate a



18

transition to a racially nondiscriminatory school sys­
tem. During- this period of transition, the courts will 
retain jurisdiction of these cases.”

d his case falls within the language of Brown pertaining 
to "revision of school districts and attendance areas into 
compact units to achieve a system of determining admis­
sion to the public schools on a nonracial basis.”

The racial composition of neighborhoods may result in 
predominantly white or predominantly Negro school dis­
tricts even after the areas have been reshaped to comply with 
the mandate of Brown. This, in itself, would not be a badge 
of unconstitutionality. Thompson v. County School Board 
of Arlington County, Virginia, 204 F.Supp. 620 (E.D.Va. 
1962). The existence of this situation was recognized in 
Dillard v. School Board of the City of Charlottesville, 808 
F.2d 920 ( 4th Cir. 1962). The vice of the Charlottesville 
plan was not the composition of its attendance areas. The 
plan was invalid because of its unconstitutional provision 
for the transfer of students who found themselves in a 
racial minority. Goss v. Board of Education, 31 U.S.L. 
Week 4559 (U.S. June 3, 1963).

The use of race to establish residential requirements for 
school assignments has been held invalid in this Circuit. 
In Green v. School Board of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, 
304 F.2d 118, 122 (4th Cir. 1962), Chief Judge Sobeloff 
wrote:

“This court has on several occasions recognized 
that residence and aptitude or scholastic achievement 
criteria may be used by school authorities in determin­
ing what schools pupils shall attend, so long as racial



19

or other arbitrary or discriminatory factors are not 
considered. See, e.g., Dodson v. School Board of City 
of Charlottesville, Virginia, 289 F.2d 439, 442 (4th 
Cir., 1961); Jones v. School Board of City of Alex­
andria, Virginia, 278 F.2d 72, 75 (4th Cir., 1960).
But if these criteria, otherwise lawful, are used in a 
racially discriminatory manner, the resulting assign­
ment is not saved from illegality. As we have more 
than once made clear, school assignments, to be con­
stitutional, must not be based in whole or in part on 
consideration of race.”

In Evans v. Buchanan, 207 F.Supp. 820, 824 (D. Del. 
1962), the distinction between valid and invalid attendance 
areas is clearly drawn:

“There have been many lower court decisions since 
the Brown case held children may not be denied en­
trance to public schools solely on the basis of race. 
One of the teachings of these cases is that whether 
Negro children are deprived of their constitutional 
rights is a question of fact. Criteria such as trans­
portation, geography and access roads are rational 
bases for establishing public attendance areas or desig­
nating school districts. If, however, these criteria are 
merely camouflage and school officials have placed 
children in particular districts solely because of race, 
a cause of action under the Constitution exists.”

The Court concludes that the application of the fore­
going principles to the facts in this case demonstrates that 
the present attendance areas do not satisfy the requirements 
set forth in Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 
300 (1955).



20

 ̂ The plaintiffs, who sought admission to Hopewell High 
School, also were denied assignment to that school because 
of the distance from their residences to the school. White 
students were admitted to Hopewell High School regardless 
of the distance of their residences from the school.

The Court concludes that the reasons assigned for de- 
nying admission to the plaintiffs were constitutionally dis­
criminatory.

1 hese students were also denied admission for failure 
to follow established procedure. Two students seeking ad­
mission to Patrick Copeland Elementary School were de­
nied admission because they failed to apply on an official 
blank. One application to Hopewell High School was “filed 
too late . It is quite obvious, however, that the primary 
reason that all students were denied admission was be­
cause of the defendants’ rigid adherence to the long estab­
lished attendance areas. Under these circumstances it is 
well settled that failure to exhaust administrative remedies 
is not a defense. McNeese v. Board of Education, 31 U.S.L. 
Week 4567 (U.S. June 3, 1963); Bell v. School Board of 
Powhatan County, Virginia, No. 8944 (4th Cir June 29 
1963).

The Court further concludes that a general injunction 
should be granted against the school officials prohibiting 
racial discrimination in the admission of students to schools 
and from assigning students on the basis of the school 
attendance areas currently existing. The defendants may 
submit to the Court a more definite plan providing for 
immediate steps looking to the termination of discrimina­
tory systems and practices. Bradley v. The School Board 
of the City of Richmond, Virginia, No. 8757 (4th Cir. May 
10, 1963.)



21

The plaintiffs also pray that the defendants be required 
to pay costs and attorneys’ fees. In Bell v. School Board of 
Powhatan County, Virginia, No. 8944 ( 4th Cir. June 29, 
1963), the Court of Appeals, pointing to “* * * the long 
continued pattern of evasion and obstruction * * *” on the 
part of the defendants, allowed attorneys’ fees. The Court 
does not find that the same situation exists in this case, and 
the prayer for attorneys’ fees is denied. Costs will be al­
lowed.

/S / J o h n  D. B u t z n e r , J r . 
United States District Judge

July 11, 1963

ORDER
[Entered September 13, 1963]

Upon consideration of the plaintiffs’ motion for further 
relief, the testimony, affidavits and exhibits presented Sep­
tember 12, 1963, and upon the stipulation of counsel that 
the Court shall grant or deny the permanent injunction at 
this time without further proceedings; it is ADJUDGED 
and ORDERED:

1. The defendants, and each of them, their successors 
in office, agents, servants and employees, and those persons 
in active concert or participation with them who receive 
actual notice of this order, are enjoined and restrained 
from denying the pupils mentioned in said motion, and 
each of them, admission to the public schools to which 
application has been made, as set forth in said motion, on 
Monday, September 16, 1963, and thereafter.



22

2. The findings of fact and conclusions of law stated by 
the Court from the bench after hearing the motion for a 
temporary restraining order, are adopted by the Court as 
the findings and conclusions for this permanent injunction.

3- On January 17, 1964 at 2:30 P.M., the Court will 
consider the City of Hopewell’s plan for which provision 
is made in «} 3 of the order of this Court entered July 11, 
1963, the plaintiffs’ motion for counsel fees and costs and 
all other matters which either party desires to present.

4. All further motions to be considered on January 17, 
1964 must be filed prior to December 1, 1963.

5. The defendants shall file briefs on the proposed 
plan on or before October 20, 1963. The plaintiffs shall 
file exceptions to the plan and briefs thereon on or before 
December 1, 1963. Counsel are requested to furnish op­
posing counsel copies of briefs upon filing the same.

Let the Clerk mail copies of this order to counsel of 
record.

September 13, 1963

/S / J o h n  D. B u t z n e r , J r . 
United States District Judge

RULING OF COURT 
[Delivered from Bench September 12. 1963]

(tr. 41) * * *
THE COURT: Gentlemen, I am required by the Rules 

to state findings of fact and conclusions of law, and I will 
welcome any interruption by counsel if you find that I am



23

misstating any of the facts. As for conclusions, you will 
have to appeal rather than interrupt them. They are my 
responsibility. But 1 will appreciate counsel's help with 
the facts.

The Court finds that prior to May 31, 1963, the following 
children made application to attend Carter G. Woodson 
School—

MR. GRAY: To attend Patrick Copeland School.
THE COURT: To attend Patrick Copeland School.

—Pamela Fay Satterwhite, Merthan Satterwhite, Dorrie 
Satterwhite, Ronald Ivory Hayes, Joanne Harris, Steven 
DuWayne Hayes, William Bolden Spratley, Jr., and 
Patricia Jones.

Those applications were duly forwarded by the school 
officials of the City of Hopewell to the Pupil Placement 
Board of Virginia, and on August 15, the Board advised 
the respective children that on August 12 it had met and 
denied the applications because the residence of the child 
is in the immediate proximity to the school in which he is 
enrolled, or she is enrolled, and no students enrolled else­
where were similarly situated.

The Court finds further that on August 27, without 
(tr. 42) having made previous application to the Pupil 
Placement Board, Cecelia Lynette Claiborne, Huey Bliz­
zard, Addie Louise Hall, Barbara Ann Johnson, Carl 
David Johnson, Barbara D. Wyche, and Audrey L. Wyche, 
who were attending Carter G. Woodson School, sought 
admission to Hopewell High School. They were permitted 
to register, but were told that the assignment would have 
to be approved by the Pupil Placement Board.



24

MR. GRAY: If Your Honor please, I question whether 
they were permitted to register. The affidavit of the school 
superintendent is to the effect that they did fill in some 
preregistration forms, but they were not, in fact, registered. 
I don’t know which way you want to find the facts.

THE COURT: I will accept that amendment. I think 
that is pi obably what happened. They were not actually 
registered or accepted into school; their names were taken.

MR. MARSH: Your Honor, my understanding is they 
filled out the forms and even talked with their counsellors, 
and that is why the affidavit was worded that way.

THE COURT: Well, I don’t think it is a material fact, 
m any event. They ultimately, after conferring with the 
local officials, were not admitted to the school; and the Pupil 
Placement Board, acting upon Memorandum 34, declined 
to enroll them at that school at a meeting on September 9.

MR. SCOT1 : If Your Honor please, without prejudice 
(tr. 43) to their rights to apply—I think it says—in 
timely fashion for the next school session.

THE COURT: Yes. The Court notes that the letter 
which is in evidence did deny them without prejudice to 
their right to apply prior to June 1 of 1964.

The Court finds that by Memorandum No. 34, the ap­
plications must be filed with the local division superintendent 
of schools prior to June 1.

The Court also finds that the children mentioned do live 
closer to the schools to which the Pupil Placement Board 
assigned them than to the schools to which they sought 
entry.

The Court also finds that the School Board interpreted 
the Court’s order of July 11, 1963, on the advice of counsel,



2 ,:

as permitting them to use geographic standards, or residen­
tial standards which were not the same as those—in all 
respects—as those the Court had held improper; but that 
they would use geographic standards for the placement 
of schools during the 1963-64 school term; and that those 
geographic standards apply to both white and Negro 
students.

The Memo No. 34, to which the Court has previously—
MR. GRAY: Your Honor, may I interrupt a minute. 

It may not be clear. It may be what Your Honor intended. I 
(tr. 44) hope that what I portrayed to the Court—the 
affidavit portrays to the Court—is, not only must the areas, 
as drawn, apply to both races, but that the areas, in being- 
drawn, must be drawn without regard to race. It is not 
only after they are established that they must be applied 
without respect to race, but in establishing them must be 
established without respect to race.

THE COURT: Well, I do not think it is material at 
this time. That may come in when we got to the approval 
of the plan. Suffice it to say that those areas which they did 
use, they applied to both races. I am not approving or dis­
approving the plan at this time.

MR. GRAY: Yes.
THE COURT: And nothing I say today has any bearing 

on the merits of the plan because it is not before me, and 
I have not studied it.

The Court also finds that the memo of the Pupil Place­
ment Board, No. 34, has been applied during the 1963 
year to both white and Negro children.

We come now to the conclusions.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth



26

Circuit, in Bradley v. School Board, City of Richmond, 
8757, decided May 10, 1963, said in part as follows, in 
speaking of an injunction and of the plan, which is con­
templated by their decision. On page 19 of the slip sheet, 
(tr. 45) it is stated:

“As we clearly stated in Jeffers vs. Whitley, 309 F.2d 
621, 629 (4th Cir. 1962), the appellants are not entitled 
to an order requiring the defendants to effect a general in­
termixture of the races in the schools, but they are entitled 
to an order enjoining the defendants from refusing admis­
sion to any school of any pupil because of the pupil’s race. 
The order should prohibit the defendants conditioning the 
grant of a requested transfer upon the applicant’s submis­
sion to futile, burdensome or discriminatory procedures.”

Now, the two significant items are: First, they are 
entitled to an order enjoining the defendants from re­
fusing admission to any school of any pupil because of the 
pupil’s race. And then the second about the discriminatory 
administrative procedures.

The Court plainly said that if a white child is attending 
a school, then a Negro child can attend that school.

Now, this is not under the plan. This is not speaking of 
the State Pupil Placement Board, the general law. It is 
speaking of the scope of an injunction.

It also said in regard to the administrative procedures 
that they could not be discriminatory.

Now, discriminatory is a word which the Court very 
(tr. 46) carefully used, and, possibly, is defined most care­
fully in the Roanoke cases. I am confident that in using 
the word “discriminatory” in this manner, they were re­
ferring to the word as they applied it in this long list of 
decisions pertaining to the schools.



27

Now, going on, they speak of the plan:
“If there is to be an absolute abandonment of the dual 

attendance area and ‘feeder’ system—” The plan contem­
plates these, but—“If there is to be an absolute abandon­
ment of the dual attendance area and ‘feeder’ system, if 
initial assignments are to be on a nondiscriminatory and 
voluntary basis, and if there is to be a right of free choice 
at reasonable intervals thereafter, consistent with proper 
administrative procedures as may be determined by the 
defendants with the approval of the District Court, the 
pupils, their parents and the public generally should be 
so informed.”

Well, they are speaking there of the plan, not the in­
junction; and I think that is, possibly, where some confu­
sion has crept into the matter in interpreting that.

Then they say:
“If, upon remand, the defendants desire to submit to 

the District Court a more definite plan, providing for im­
mediate steps looking to the termination of the discrimina- 
(tr. 47) tory system and practices ‘with all deliberate 
speed,’ they should not only be permitted but encouraged 
to do so.”

Now, the Court believes that the language is very dear; 
and as far as the Court knows, that is about the most re­
cent expression on the injunction.

The injunction in this case restrained the further use 
of racially discriminatory criteria, including the use of the 
present attendance areas in the assignment of children to 
the public schools in the City effective with the beginning of 
the 1963-64 school session. The injunction did not condition 
that upon prior application on May 31.



28

Now, possibly in this case it would be unnecessary, to 
take up the May 31 deadline, because those who did apply 
were denied; and as has been pointed out by the Court of 
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and by this Court, if that 
happens, those who don’t apply are treated as though they 
would have been denied. So that is the reason we do not 
have the May 31 deadline before us in actual full impact.

The Court is of the opinion that in view of the injunc­
tion, in view of the language of the Court of Appeals for 
the Fourth Circuit stating exactly what these injunctions 
mean—and this injunction follows that language very 
closely, although it does not quote it—that the children 
whose names the Court has mentioned and who have sought 
(tr. 48) admission to the schools, should be admitted to 
the schools forthwith to which they have applied.

Now, as the Court pointed out in the Richmond case, 
that does not mean the children could transfer in mid­
term. We are talking about enrollment. And, as the Court 
pointed out in the Richmond case, that does not mean that 
the May 31 deadline is inapplicable in cases where there is 
no injunction. The Court mentions this because the ruling 
pertains to cases only where there is an injunction. The 
Court wants counsel for the Pupil Placement Board to 
understand that. The Board must have knowledge of the 
ground rules which are changing rapidly.

The Court is not expressing any opinion of the May 31 
deadline, if it is embraced in the plan, nor on the deadline 
if there is no injunction. These questions are not before 
the Court at all. The question before the Court is the in­
junction without a plan. And the injunction is not condi­
tioned by any prior applications. When a plan is submitted 
and approved, why then the plan, of course, takes the place 
of the injunction.



29

MOTION TO DISMISS INJUNCTION

The defendants, School Board of the City of Hopewell 
and Charles W. Smith, Superintendent of Schools, submit 
herewith a duly adopted plan for the operation of schools 
in the City of Hopewell and respectfully move this Court 
to dissolve the injunction entered against them herein.

SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY 
OF HOPEWELL and CHARLES 
W. SMITH, SUPERINTENDENT 
OF SCHOOLS

F red erick  T. Gray 
Of Counsel

PLAN FOR OPERATION OF SCHOOLS BY 
SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY OF HOPEWELL

[1] By order dated July 11, 1963, the Judge of the 
United States District Court for the Eastern District of 
Virginia, Richmond Division, granted leave to the School 
Board of the City of Hopewell and the Division Superin­
tendent of Schools to file with the Court “a plan to provide 
for immediate steps to terminate discriminatory practices 
in the assignment of pupils to the schools in the City.”

[2] In compliance with that order, the School Board of 
the City of Hopewell and the Division Superintendent sub­
mit the following report and plan:

[a] The School Board of the City of Hopewell has 
adopted a policy that in the future all assignments to schools 
in the City of Hopewell will be made solely on the basis of



30

residence without regard to race. This policy was put into 
effect prior to the commencement of the 1963-64 school 
year and is currently the policy of the School Board.

[b] The School Board has carefully reviewed its school 
attendance areas in the light of the opinion of the District 
Court and has prepared a new map of attendance areas 
which is filed herewith as a part of the plan for the opera­
tion of schools within the City of Hopewell. These at­
tendance areas will become effective at the commencement 
of the next school year in September, 1964.

[c] The School Board of Hopewell presently operates 
six elementary schools, one of which is located in each of the 
school attendance areas. The school attendance areas have 
been set up as far as possible on the basis of natural 
neighborhoods which in turn reflect actual geographical 
boundaries such as railroads and major traffic arteries. 
In establishing the areas, consideration was given to school 
capacities and to present attendance and anticipated growth. 
For example, in some zones the residental development 
is complete with no land available for further expansion. 
In such zones the full capacity of the schools can be utilized. 
In other zones there is considerable land available for ex­
pected residential growth and schools in such zones may 
not be currently used to capacity as they were designed to 
meet future growth.

[d] The School Board operates two high schools. As­
signments to the respective high schools will be determined 
strictly in accordance with residence. High school students 
living in the zone for Arlington, Carter Woodson and 
Harry E. James Elementary Schools will be assigned to 
Carter Woodson High School. High school students living



31

in the zone for Patrick Copeland, DuPont and Woodlawn 
Elementary Schools will be assigned to Hopewell High 
School.

[e] In the past the School Board has on occasion been 
requested to permit a particular child to transfer from the 
school to which he was assigned by virtue of residence for 
some specific reason. As an example, one mother was em­
ployed at a school outside the school zone in which she 
resided. The child had a physical handicap and the mother 
preferred to transport the child to and from school. As a 
matter of convenience to the family a transfer to the school 
at which the mother was employed was granted. The Board 
will consider such applications in the future, but the race 
of the applicant will not be regarded as a factor in the 
granting or refusal of such transfers.

[f] Notwithstanding the provisions of the above para­
graph, it is the opinion of the School Board that in some 
instances it would not be to the best interest of the health 
and welfare of children of the colored race and would in 
fact be detrimental to their educational advancement to 
require them to attend a school in which they might by 
reason of residence be in the racial minority. The School 
Board, therefore, has adopted as a severable portion of this 
plan of operation a provision that should the parents of 
any colored child, assigned by reason of residence to a 
school in which he is in the racial minority, be of opinion 
that such assignment is detrimental to the health, welfare 
or educational opportunity of such child application for 
transfer may be made and if the School Board concurs 
in the opinion of the parent, transfer will be permitted. If 
the Court be of opinion that this provision is unconstitu­
tional or violative of the Court’s injunction, then its elimina-



32

lion shall not affect the operations of the remainder of the 
plan.

[3] Under applicable provisions of Virginia law, ap­
proval of this plan by the Virginia Pupil Placement Board 
is required. The School Board has been assured that it can 
expect approval of the proposed plan by the Pupil Placement 
Board if the plan meets with the approval of the Court.

EXCEPTIONS TO PLAN 
(filed December 2, 1963)

Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, respectfully object to the 
plan filed in this cause by the School Board of the City of 
Hopewell and Charles W. Smith, Division Superintendent 
of Schools.

For convenience, the plaintiffs supply numerical and 
alphabetical designations to the several paragraphs of this 
document captioned PLAN FOR OPERATION OF 
SCHOOLS BY SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY OF 
HOPEWELL, viz: on the first page thereof 1,2, (a), (b), 
(c), on the second page thereof (d), (e), and on the third 
page thereof (f), 3. The plaintiffs specify the following 
as their grounds of objection:

1. The provisions of the paragraph designated (a) are 
contradicted by the paragraphs designated (e) and ( f ) ; 
there being nothing in the history of the school system or 
in the history of this litigation to lead one to believe that 
the provisions of the paragraph designated (e) will be 
applied to permit a Negro child to attend a predominantly 
white school or a white child to attend a predominantly 
Negro school or that they will not be applied to permit a



33

white child to escape assignment to a predominantly Negro 
school. The paragraph designated (e) confers on the school 
administration unlimited discretion to transfer pupils, in­
cluding racially determined transfers, thus rendering the 
caveat against racial discrimination meaningless.

2. The paragraph designated (f) is patently unconstitu­
tional, as the defendants recognize.

3. The map referred to in the paragraph designated 
(b) is not a new map but merely represents an attempt to 
continue the discrimination previously enjoined by the 
Court in an order entered on July 11, 1963.

The attendance areas referred to in the paragraph de­
signated (b) have not been revised with the end of achiev­
ing a system of determining admission to the public schools 
on a non-racial basis; rather they have been adjusted with 
the end of achieving the opposite result.

4. The paragraph designated (d) merely provides for 
a “feeder system” to perpetuate racial segregation.

5. Furthermore, the plan as a whole is inadequate in that 
it fails to make provision for assignment or reassignment 
of teachers and other professional personnel on a non- 
racial basis and for the elimination of the present practice 
of assigning such personnel on a racial basis. In this con­
nection plaintiffs assert their personal rights to attend a 
school system in which there is no racial segregation and 
discrimination.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that the Court enter an 
order:



34

1. disapproving the plan submitted by the defendants 
on the ground that it is inadequate and invalid under the 
Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Four­
teenth Amendment;

2. directing the defendant Board to promptly submit 
a new alternative, or amended plan within a specified time 
period;

3. granting the relief prayed in the Complaint and such 
other and further relief as the Court may deem just and 
proper.

H en r y  L. M a r sh , III 
Of Counsel for Plaintiffs

MOTION TO DISMISS INJUNCTION

The defendants, School Board of the City of Hope- 
well and Charles W. Smith, Superintendent of Schools, 
submit herewith a duly adopted plan for the operation of 
schools in the City of Hopewell and respectfully move this 
Court to dissolve the injunction entered against them 
herein.

SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY 
OF HOPEWELL and CHARLES 
W. SMITH, SUPERINTENDENT 
OF SCHOOLS

F retjerick T. Gray 
Of Counsel



35

PLAN FOR OPERATION OF SCHOOLS BY 
SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY OF HOPEWELL

I

By order dated July 11, 1963, the Judge of the United 
States District Court for the Eastern District of Vir­
ginia, Richmond Division, granted leave to the School Board 
of the City of Hopewell and the Division Superintendent 
of Schools to file with the Court “a plan to provide for 
immediate steps to terminate discriminatory practices in 
the assignment of pupils to the schools in the City.”

II

In compliance with that order, the School Board of the 
City of Hopewell and the Division Superintendent submit 
the following report and plan:

III

The School Board of the City of Hopewell has adopted 
a policy that in the future all assignments to schools in the 
City of Hopewell will be made solely on the basis of resi­
dence without regard to race. This policy was put into effect 
prior to the commencement of the 1963-64 school year and 
is currently the policy of the School Board. It will be the 
policy under this Plan.

IV

Effective at the commencement of the next school year 
in September, 1964, school attendance areas in Hopewell 
will be as outlined on the map of attendance areas filed



36

herein on October 21, 1963. Assignment to elementary 
schools will be made solely on the basis of residence with­
out regard to race and each child eligible for attendance 
in an elementary school will be initially assigned to the 
school zone which embraces his residence. Any such child 
residing in the zone for either the Arlington or the Wood- 
lawn Elementary Schools whose residence is nearer an ele­
mentary school in a zone other than the zone which embraces 
his residence shall be entitled, upon application properly 
made under the procedures of the State Pupil Placement- 
Law, to' transfer to the school nearest his residence. For the 
first year of this Plan such applications must be filed with­
in thirty (30) days of the approval of this Plan by the 
Court. In subsequent years, applications must be made 
within the time prescribed for Pupil Placement Applica­
tions.

V

The School P>oard operates two high schools. Assign­
ments to the respective high schools will be determined 
strictly in accordance with residence. High school students 
living in the zone for Arlington, Carter Woodson and 
Harry E. James Elementary Schools will be initially as­
signed to Carter Woodson High School. High school 
students living in the zone for Patrick Copeland, DuPont 
and Woodlawn Elementary Schools will be initially assigned 
to Hopewell High School. Any high school child whose 
residence is nearer a high school other than the one to 
which he is initially assigned on the basis of residence shall 
be entitled, upon application properly made under the pro­
cedures of the State Pupil Placement Law, to transfer to 
the school nearest his residence. For the first year of this 
Plan such applications must be filed within thirty (30) days



37

of the approval of this Plan by the Court. In subsequent 
years, applications must be made within the time prescribed 
for Pupil Placement Applications.

VI

In the past the School Board has on occasion been re­
quested to permit a particular child to transfer from the 
school to which he was assigned by virtue of residence for 
some specific reason. As an example, one mother was 
employed at a school outside the school zone in which she 
resided. The child had a physical handicap and the mother 
preferred to transport the child to and from school. As a 
matter of convenience to the family a transfer to the school 
at which the mother was employed was granted. The Board 
will consider such applications in the future, but the race 
of the applicant will not be regarded as a factor in the 
granting or refusal of such transfers.

VII

Under applicable provisions of Virginia law, approval 
of this Plan by the Virginia Pupil Placement Board is 
required. The School Board has been assured that it can 
expect approval of the proposed plan by the Pupil Place­
ment Board if the Plan meets with the approval of the 
Court.

SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY 
OF HOPEWELL 
F red erick  T. Gray 

Of Counsel



38

EXCEPTIONS TO PLAN 

(filed July 2, 1964)

Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, respectfully object to the 
amended plan filed in this cause by the School Board of 
the City of Hopewell and Charles W. Smith. Division 
Superintendent of Schools.

1. Inasmuch as the plan of June 4, 1964, adopts with 
certain modifications the plan previously filed with this 
Court by the school board, plaintiffs adopt their exceptions 
previously filed on December 2, 1963, as exceptions to this 
amended plan to the extent that they are applicable.

2. Plaintiffs object to paragraph IV of the amended plan 
as it fails to eliminate the irregular boundary between the 
Arlington and Woodlawn zones. This provision merely 
facilitates the continued existence of the segregated 
character of these two schools.

3. Paragraph V of the amended plan continues the feeder 
system of schools for the high schools in the City of Hope- 
well. This provision places the burden of escaping from 
this “feeder system” on the parents of the Negro child.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that the amended plan 
be disapproved.

H en r y  L. M a r sh , III 
Of Counsel for Plaintiffs



39

EXCERPTS FROM TRANSCRIPT OF APRIL 6, 1964
* >K *

(tr. 2) * * *
CHARLES W. SMITH, called as a witness by and on 

behalf of the defendants, being first duly sworn, testified as 
follows:

BY MR. GRAY:

Q. Mr. Smith, would you come over to the map, please, 
so that you can orient yourself.

(Witness stepped to map.)

His Honor had asked you while you were on the stand 
before to explain the selection of the boundary line be- 
(tr. 3) tween the Arlington School area, which is in the 
green, and the Woodlawn School area, which is in the 
blue; and you had explained, to some extent, the reason 
for the selection of Wall Street.

Now, I want to go back to that for just a moment and 
ask you, because it is not clear to me, and I am certain it 
is not clear to the Court, is Wall Street going to go into 
Palm Street as Palm Street is being relocated and im­
proved? Will it flow directly into Palm Street?

A. Wall Street will not go directly into Palm Street as 
is now' being constructed. It was first thought that it 
would, but it will not go directly.

Q. What is going to be the traffic situation from Wall 
Street going into, around Palm Street ?

A. Wall Street will end at this street here, which is 
designated as Tinsley.



40

THE COURT: Just a minute, please, so I can follow 
on the map.

All right, sir.
A. It will terminate at the—

THE COURT: What was the street you were referring 
tO'?

THE W ITNESS: Talking about Wall. Wall Avenue, 
and later it is Wall Street down near the area of Kolar 
(tr. 4) Street.

THE COURT: Yes, sir.

THE W I1NESS: Now, Wall Avenue will terminate 
at Tinsley. The street or avenue that is shown there, but 
actually, Tinsley Avenue is undeveloped. It is non-existent.

Now, it is my understanding that Tinsley will be open 
probably down to Palm, but the natural flow of traffic from 
any one leaving from Kolar Street over to Palm, and there 
are a good many houses right in there, would be back to 
Kolar Street, down Kolar Street to Palm.

BY MR. GRAY:

Q. Well, for people living on Wall Street, what will be 
the natural traffic movement for people on that street, even 
if they were going west in the city?

A. Probably down to Arlington Road.

Q. Why is that true? Does Wall Street go through in 
either direction?

A. Wall Street is not a through street, neither going 
towards Tinsley, nor is it a through street coming back



41

towards, say, Granby and Trenton Street. It is sort of a 
half street there.

Q. All right, sir. So it is your conclusion that the people 
(tr. 5) living to the east of Wall Street, the natural move­
ment on that would be to flow down into Arlington Road ?

A. To Arlington Road, because to that, is a hilly situa­
tion. It is an uphill proposition going up.

Q. All right, sir. Now, what is the character of the land 
lying to the northwest, directly to the northwest of Wall 
Street ?

A. Directly to the northwest is an undeveloped area which 
is marked by showing the ends of these streets, Pine, and so 
on, coming over to meet, and by, Palm Street, improved, 
which will go up through that.

Q. Well, is it—
i\. Excuse me.

Q. Is it flat country, or what is it ?
A. It is a ravine. Hilly down in there, and it is flat along 

side Palm, but getting towards this, it’s a ravine.
Q. Now, Mr. Smith, with respect to before you get over 

to the Wall Street area between the green and the blue, 
but as Court House Road swings into Berry Street, why did 
not the School Board determine to have the area of Arling­
ton School come over across Court House Road into this 
blue section, which seems to jet down into the green area?

A. Well, we didn’t do that for the reason that old Court 
House Road, turning into Berry Street down near the 
(tr. 6) Arlington School seems to be a natural boundary 
line. It is the city-county line, and then it runs into Berry, 
and from the Arlington School, about the location of the 
Arlington School over into this way, and down into Arling­
ton—down to Arlington Road there is a very heavily popu­



42

lated area which would completely overrun this school had 
we taken it in.

Q. Now, what is the size of the school?
A. This school has nine classrooms. Figure 30 to a class­

room, would be 270.
Q. All right. Have you, since our last—since you last 

testified, have you made any count of the houses in any 
part of this area over here to try to estimate what it would 
do to the school population?

A. Yes, I have. To my general knowledge, it was true 
that this was a very heavily populated area in here, but 
to verify that, I have made a count of the houses existing in 
there from Roanoke Street down to Pine and over to 
Granby.

Q. From Roanoke down to Pine and going north to 
Granby ?

A. Down to Granby.

THE COURT: Let me see, where is Roanoke?
THE WITNESS: Could you show him?
MR. GRAY: Could I ?
It is just six streets coming—

(tr. 7) THE WITNESS: Off Berry Street.
MR. GRAY: Here, Your Honor (indicating).
THE WITNESS: About 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 streets up, north.
THE COURT: I found it. Roanoke. And what was 

the other ?

MR. GRAY: And Granby would be the third street in.
THE W ITNESS: Over to Granby and down Granby



43

to Arlington, to Pine Street. There are 117 houses in that 
area, by count—by actual count.

BY MR. GRAY:

Q. And what would you, from your general knowl­
edge of the student population in this type of area, what 
would you estimate to be the average number of students ?

A. Well, I think, naturally—it is a count of one and a 
half students to the house, but in this area, it would run 
closer to two. Two students to the house.

Q. All right, sir. Now, is there any other feature, for 
example if you had attempted to use, let’s say, High 
Street or Tabb Street, instead of Wall Street, and go 
across to; Palm, what exists here at the corner of High 
Street and Palm Street?

A. There is a trailer court down in the flat area right 
(tr. 8) along side of Palm Street, a rather large trailer 
court.

Q. And what is your experience with respect to the 
student population coming out of trailer courts?

A. Well, that is about the same as housing. Sometimes 
a little heavier.

Q. So you would anticipate at least one and a half, 
probably two children for each trailer?

A. Right. That is correct.
Q. And do you have any idea how many trailers in there ?
A. More than fifty. I didn’t actually count them.
Q. I see. So that it was your—was the conclusion of the 

Board that if they attempted to come across Court House 
Road, the population is too heavy for this small school?

A. That is right. That was our conclusion.



44

Q. All right, I believe you can take your seat now.

(AYitness resumed witness stand.)

Q. Now, Mr. Smith, in the brief in support of this plan 
which was filed by counsel, the statement was made, “in 
the area of the Woodson School, there is a housing pro­
ject under construction.”

Is that an accurate statement?
A. In the area of which school?
Q. Carter Woodson.

(tr. 9) A. No. The housing project has now been com­
pleted. Now it is occupied.

Q. All right. Now, as I understood the answer that you 
made the other day, you said that the Davisville housing 
project, that that had been—the building had been destroyed. 
Is that completely accurate ?

A. Not the Davisville housing project itself. There was 
an auxiliary project to the permanent housing project. It 
was an old Army barrack, and that has been demolished, 
moved from there.

Q. Now, is there any building construction of any kind, 
or residential construction of any kind going on in the 
area of Harry James School?

A. Some, yes. Between, say, Wood’s Dairy and the 
school itself, there are some houses back in there, in the 
rear of the school.

Q. Now, I will ask you just one further question, Mr. 
Smith. How would you characterize the street in Hope- 
well which is known as West Broadway? I don’t believe 
you have to go to the map to know that.

A. I believe I can do that from here, sir. West Broad­



45

way is a through street from downtown Hopewell, all the 
way to the west, to the railroad track in the extreme west.

Q. Is that the boundary line between the Patrick Cope- 
(tr. 10) land School and the Dupont School for a good 
deal of this distance?

A. That is.

MR. GRAY: All right, sir, that is all.

Thank you, Your Honor.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. MARSH:
Q. Mr. Smith, you have seen this.

Mr. Smith, I hand you a comparison of the capacity, 
average attendance, and pupil-teacher ratio in the Hope- 
well High Schools. I believe you have seen that before the 
hearing ?

THE COURT: Do you have a copy for me?
MR. MARSH: Yes. I was going to pass the original 

up to you, sir.

THE COURT: That is all right. I can use the copy.

A. May I hang onto this ? I want to make a comment.

BY MR. MARSH:

Q. Do you recognize this to be the pupil-teacher ratio 
and attendance figures?



46

A. It seems to be, yes. Generally, I’d say it is correct, 
without checking it in detail.
(tr. 11) Q. Thank you.

A. Except for one item. The James School is listed at 
330 pupil capacity. Actually, the James School has only ten 
classrooms, which would be 300, There is a space over in 
another building adjoining the school which has now been 
turned back to the city, in which there was a space that a 
classroom might be held. But, actually, in the school itself, 
as it is now being used by the School Board, the capacity 
is 300, rather than 330.

Q. I believe it is listed as 300 as of September, sir, and 
it is listed as 330 as of last May ?

A. That is right.

Q. This was taken from the figures that you submitted 
in evidence ?

A. That is right. In the plan we submitted it as 300.
Q. Well, I believe this is accurate, then?
A. 300 is accurate, then.
Q. Yes, we have it as 300 as of September.
A. Instead of 330.

THE CLERK: Defendant’s No. 5.

(A listing of the capacity, attendance, and pupil-teacher 
ratio for the Hopewell schools was marked Defendant’s 
(tr. 12) Exhibit No. 5 and received in evidence.)

BY MR. MARSH:

O. Now, Mr. Smith, at the present time, aside from the 
original plaintiffs who were ordered admitted by the Court



4 7

last June, and the fifteen intervenors who were admitted to 
white schools in September, are there any other Negro 
pupils attending so-called white schools in the City of 
Hopewell ?

A. If your question includes those that were voluntarily 
let in and those that were let in by Court order, that is 
right. There are no others. I think there were two or three 
let in voluntarily. ,

Q. What do you mean “voluntarily,” sir?
A. I mean they were admitted because others had been 

let in by a Court order in that immediate vicinity, and we 
thought it wise not to contest other children who lived in 
that same vicinity who wanted to.

Q. These children had applied, but they did not have 
to come to Court?

A. That is right.

Q. I believe there were two or three that applied and 
you agreed to let them in ?

A. That is right.

Q. But aside from those two or three, then, there are 
no others?
(tr. 13) A. That is right.

Q. Are there any white pupils in attendance at any of 
the all Negro schools?

A. No. Some were assigned, but they did not attend.
Q. I believe they were assigned in September when 

you put your new attendance areas into effect?
A. I believe that is correct.
Q. Now, about how many were assigned at that time, 

sir ?
A. As I recall it, there was some five.



48

Q. Five. And I believe those five all reside in the tri­
angle bounded by South 15th Avenue, the Norfolk & 
Western Railway, and the Seaboard Airline Railway?

A. The majority. I believe two are on the east side of 
15th Avenue, in that same general vicinity.

O. What happened to those children after they were 
assigned there, sir?

A. To my knowledge, one or two families moved, and 
the others were sent to private schools, I believe.

Q. Now, are the Negro schools staffed solely by 
Negroes as teachers and principals, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. And the predominantly white schools are staffed 
solely by white teachers and principals ?
(tr. 14) A. Right.

Q. Now, 1 believe you testified, sir, that—you did not 
testify, sir.

Would you come to the map, please?
A. Right.

(Witness stepped to the map.)

Q. Would you give us the racial composition of this 
neighborhood in the area of the Arlington School? Is it 
not a fact, sir, that the boundary line between the Wood- 
lawn School, as shown on this map, and the Arlington 
School separates the races? Is it not true that the white 
live on this side, in the Woodlawn section of the zone, 
and the Negroes live in the Arlington section, sir?

A. No, that is not true. There are some white houses 
on Arlington Road. Several white houses on Arlington 
Road, which is below the Wall Street, which we drew. 
Also, there are white houses on Wall Street.



49

Q. Now, the white houses on Arlington Road, sir, are 
they beyond the Miles Avenue? Are they not in the 
County ?

A. The white houses on Arlington Road are between 
Trenton Avenue and I believe Granby. Back along there, 
somewhere. It is on this section after the curve in Arling- 
ton Road coming back to 15th Avenue.

Q. This is Wall Street, sir, isn’t it? The boundary line 
(tr. 15) here?

A. This is Wall Street. Arlington Road is here.
Q. Yes.
A. Right.

Q. Now, you are saying that there are several—
A. There are several white houses on Arlington Road 

in the vicinity, say, of Freeman Street, between Freeman 
Street and, say, Granby.

Q. About how many, sir, would you say?
A. I think there are about three.
Q. Now, south from those three?
A. I don’t know exactly how many there are.
Q. Aside from those three, is not the racial composition 

of this area entirely white?
A. On Wall Street there are several white houses. I 

don’t know how many.
Q. I know, but I am speaking now southeast of—
A. From Wall Street back towards the Woodlawn 

School, yes.
Q. That is entirely white?
A. Yes.
Q. And from Wall Street northwest, in this direction,



50

aside from those three, the area is—the population is 
entirely Negro?
(tr. 16) A. That is true, yes; as far as I know, that is 
true.

Q. And this area down here, the persons who live in 
this area, are Negro also?

A. Yes, as far as I know.
Q. Yes, and now I am speaking of—I am pointing to 

the area in the vicinity—direct vicinity of the Arlington 
School?

A. Right.

Q. I believe there was some discussion about the free­
way that would run as an extension of Palm Street. Would 
you indicate on this map in pencil, sir, where the freeway 
connects from 15 th Avenue, and would you draw it from 
this extension from 15 th Avenue all the way into Palm 
Street ?

A. Well, you are speaking of Palm Street Extended 
when you say freeway. It is not a freeway, actually.

Q. There is testimony about a four lane highway to 
divert the traffic, heavy traffic through?

A. Right.

Q. Would you draw on this—

MR. GRAY: May I interrupt ?
MR. M ARSH: Yes.
MR. GRAY: That map we are using for convenience. 

It will not show in the record. If he wants to mark some­
thing that is in the record.
(tr. 17) THE COURT: I believe the map I have is the 
one in the record, so suppose—



51

THE WITNESS: Well, the improvement begins just 
east of the railroad track here on Palm Street, at about 
Hughes Street, and it will continue in this direction, 
through here, and coming to what is known as Plant 
Street, and right on up to Oaklawn Boulevard, in that 
fashion. Something of that type. It will cut the corner of 
Tinsley, just there. Now, Crestline Boulevard, which shows 
here, and South 15th coming into Crestline Boulevard, that 
is a non-existent boulevard. It will be developed later, and 
it is not known what will happen here at this spot. It will be 
presumed that this would be extended on into that to make 
that open. I cannot say whether it will or not, but if Crest­
line Boulevard is to be developed, that will be the natural 
thing.

BY MR. MARSH:

Q. But you have no knowledge as to whether it will 
occur ?

A. No, I don’t know whether it will or not. But Tinsley 
is supposedly open, coming back into Arlington Road, 
rather than into this, it will come straight down.

Q. While we have this map, sir, you spoke a few minutes 
(tr. 18) ago about the trailer court. Will you put a “T” 
indicating where that trailer court is ?

A. If I can locate it.
Q. I believe it is right here.
A. I believe it is somewhere right in here. Right along 

there, into Pine Street, I think.
Q. Now, the composition of that trailer Court is entirely 

white, is it not, sir ?
A. Yes, I think so.



52

Q. I believe you stated in direct examination that there 
was no way for the pupils living in the Highland Park 
area; that is, the area north of the Carter Woodson School, 
to get through to the Dupont area. Do you recall, sir, when 
this Highland Park area was a white community a few 
years ago?

A. It was a white community about 1957, I believe.
Q. Yes, and did not these students live in this area attend 

the school north of the railroad track, sir?
A. Yes. There was no school in that area on Palm Street 

at the time. We bought the other school in 1958.
Q. Actually, there are some foot paths leading across the 

tracks, I believe, in the area of 12th Street?
A. Could I see what you mean?
Q. Yes.
A. Now, where is it?

(tr. 19) Q. In the area right in here.
A. I don't know that to be a fact. If you have seen them, 

I will take your word for it. But this whole area here, all 
of Highland Park, all of these blocks right in here, in 1957, 
were occupied by whites. At the time they started building 
this school here in 1958.

Q. Now, this is an entirely Negro neighborhood?
A. They all moved out, and it is entirely Negroes, to my 

knowledge.
Q. Mr. Smith, you testified that the School Board decided 

not to assign any of the whites in this area who live within, 
say, a block of Arlington School to Arlington School 
because there are so many in there that if you took the whole 
area it would seriously overcrowd the school ?

A. Yes.



53

Q. Now, could not the School Board have taken some of 
these children and assigned them to Arlington School, in 
view of the pupil-teacher ratios ?

A. We could have arbitrarily taken some, yes, and put 
a few in there. We saw no purpose it would serve by taking 
those few, because the Woodlawn School could hold them.

Q. It couldn’t hold all of them ?
A. It could hold them. Woodlawn School could hold 

them. There was no point taking them out of there.
(tr. 20) O. Now, this red line which you explained as 
being a temporary allocation to relieve—the red line running- 
on from Miles Avenue down to the Norfolk & Western 
Railroad, and then down the Norfolk & Western Railway to 
the Seaboard Airline Railway, this—

THE COURT: Can the witness see? I could see all right 
where it was.

THE WITNESS: May I come up closer, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes, come on up.
THE WITNESS: I can’t see from there.

BY MR. MARSH:

Q. This red line running down to Miles Avenue and the 
railroad track-—

A. Right.
Q. The racial composition of the pupils in that area are 

all white, I believe, in this area here ?
A. That is true.
Q. And these pupils who are temporarily assigned to 

Dupont, sir, are they now in Dupont? Has that temporary 
assignment been made, or is that on paper ?



54

A. That has been made, and they are now attending the 
Dupont School.

Q. So the figures that we have of the pupil-teacher ratio 
figures that are in the memorandum include these pupils 
(tr. 21) who would be in this area ?

A. That is correct. That change was made in 1958. This 
school was open in 1958. Yes, September, 1958. The 
Carter G. Woodson School. This change was made in the 
same year, September ’58. Because these people moved, and 
they moved in these areas. They moved into the Highland 
Park area, into these areas. We had to accommodate them. 
At that time the Arlington School had 253 pupils enrolled 
which is nearly its capacity, so there was no use in trying to 
fool with it.

MR. MARSH: Very well, sir. I have no further ques­
tions.

* * *

PX 1-A

Re: GILLIAM vs. SCHOOL BOARD OF CITY OF 
HOPEWELL, VIRGINIA 
Civil Action No. 3554

School

As of May 1963 As of September 1963 
Attend- Pupil Attend- Pupil 

Capacity ance Teacher Capacity ance Teacher

Woodlawn 720 649
Ratio
27.0 720 667

Ratio
27.8

Dupont 870/855 832 29.7 870 858 30.1
Copeland 740 770 29.6 720 780 30.0
Hopewell [High] 1075 1279 29.7 1075 1358 31.5
Woodson [High] 350 257 18.3 350 277 19.7
James 330 167 15.1 300 150 15.0
Arlington 270 195 21.6 270 190 21.1
Woodson [Elementary] 300 286 28.6 300 280 28.0



32

COMPARISON OF CAPACITY, AVERAGE A N  
TENDANCE AND PUPIL-TEACHER RATIO IN  
THE HOPEWELL, VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS

RULING OF THE COURT [April 6, 1964}

(tr. 23)
THE COURT: Gentlemen, the situation in Hopewell is 

rather unusual in Virginia. Most Virginia cities have the 
Negro population and the white population scattered 
through them. In Hopewell, for some reason—possibly 
because it is largely an industrial city—but for some historic 
reason, the Negro population and the white population oc­
cupy generally different residential zones. In that respect, it 
is somewhat like many of the cities of the North where the 
great issue before the Courts is one of de facto segregation.

There is a split of authority concerning that situation. 
Some of the New York courts have condemned the de facto 
segregation, and opposed to them is the case of Bell v. 
School Board of Gary, which is reported in 32 Law Week 
2219 (7th Cir. 1963).

The starting point for consideration of these cases is, of 
course, Brozvn v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294 (1955). 
That is the second Brown case, where at page 300, the 
Court said:

“To that end, the courts may consider problems 
related to administration, arising from the physical 
condition of the school plant, the school transporta­
tion system, personnel, revision of school districts and 
(tr. 24) attendance areas into compact units to achieve



56

a system of determining admission to the public 
schools on a nonracial basis, and revision of local laws 
and regulations which may be necessary in solving the 
foregoing problems.”

Then the Court goes on to speak about the period of 
transition to achieve such a school system; and in more 
recent cases, has indicated that period of transition has 
about completed its course.

The Court is of the opinion that the Court of Appeals 
tor the Fourth Circuit has interpreted Brown to justify, 
or to permit school districts based on neighborhoods which 
may or may not result in predominantly white or Negro 
schools.

The Court realizes that the exact problems presented by 
this case have not been considered by the Court of Appeals 
for the Fourth Circuit, but it has come to the conclusion, 
which it mentioned through consideration of Dillard v. 
School Board of the City of Charlottesville, 308 F.2d 920 
(4th Cir. 1962). The trouble with the Charlottesville plan 
was not the composition of its attendance areas. The Court 
recognized that they were not gerrymandered. The plan 
was invalid because of the provision for transfers.

This case was before this Court previously on July 11, 
1963. The Court filed a memorandum, which must be con- 
(tr. 25) sidered in its decision today. There is no need 
of repeating all of it, but that decision will be incorporated 
in the decision of the Court today.

The Court finds that the school zones are as set out in 
the map which has been filed as an exhibit; that the capacity



57

of the several schools, their attendance, the pupil-teacher 
ratio, as of May 1963 and as of September 1963, are as 
set forth in Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1A, with the exception that 
the Court does find from the testimony that the capacity of 
the James School is 300 in May 1963 and not 330 as set 
forth in the exhibit. I am going to mark that exhibit so it 
can be more readily understood to write after the word 
“Hopewell,” the word “High,” as counsel have indicated 
at the Bench during the trial; and after “Woodson,” the 
word “High;” and the bottom Woodson will be called 
“Elementary.” That is what the evidence showed, and it 
simply makes the exhibit plainer to understand.

The question, then, before the Court is primarily one of 
fact. The Court is of the opinion that the law, as set forth in 
Bell v. Indiana School District, is consistent with the law 
that has been applied by the Court of Appeals for the Fourth 
Circuit. We do not have the question of law before us 
concerning de facto segregation.

The Court believes that this conclusion is also consistent 
(tr. 26) with Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294 
(1955). The plan, to conform with Brown, would have to 
take into consideration the language of Brown, which the 
Court has previously mentioned. As far as assignment of 
students is concerned, it would be the “revision of school 
districts and attendance areas into compact units to achieve 
a system of determining admission to public schools on a 
nonracial basis.”

Turning to the factual situation which is before the 
Court, the Court finds that the plan contemplates that all 
of the children presently attending the Patrick Copeland 
Elementary School, the Dupont Elementary School, and the 
Woodlawn Elementary School are assigned to the Hopewell



58

High School. These elementary schools are predominantly 
white schools, and Hopewell High School is predominantly 
a white school.

The children attending the Harry E. James Elementary 
School, the Arlington Elementary School, and the Carter 
G. Woodson Elementary School all attend the Carter G. 
Woodson High School. These elementary schools are pre­
dominantly Negro, and the Carter G. Woodson High School 
is predominantly Negro.

The capacity of Hopewell High School is overtaxed. The 
capacity of the Carter G. Woodson High School has not 
been reached.

(tr. 27) The pupil-teacher ratio also shows a large dis­
crepancy with a higher pupil-teacher ratio than the Hope- 
well High School.

Contrasted with that is the situation of the Woodlawn 
Elementary School zone. Children from that zone have to 
go a considerable distance farther to Hopewell High School 
than if they were assigned to the Carter G. Woodson High 
School. They also have to cross more railroad tracks and 
highways.

The area adjacent to the Arlington School zone, which 
presently feeds into the Woodlawn School, is predominantly 
white. The line has been drawn separating the predominantly 
white neighborhood from the predominantly Negro neigh­
borhood.

Now, the Court recognizes that, as counsel have said, 
you could draw a line, or suggest drawing lines, any place, 
and that the School Board has exercised its discretion in



59

drawing the line where it did along Wall Street—or Wall 
Avenue. If that caused an imbalance, say, from 30 to 40 per 
cent—didn’t quite bring it out to 50 per cent—white and 
Negro, why, the Court would certainly follow that line of 
reasoning. The primary responsibility is, the Court recog­
nizes, for the School Board to draw these lines. But when it 
ends up, as it does, with a completely segregated school 
system, the Court is of the opinion that the language of the 
Court of Appeals in the Brooks case is pertinent.

That language is in Brooks v. County School Board of 
Arlington County, Virginia, 324 F.2d 303 (4th Cir. 1963), 
page 308. There, the Court of Appeals, speaking of the 
District Court for this District said:

“The District Court’s finding that there is no evi­
dence to sustain the charge that geographical bounda­
ries were established to maintain segregation is clearly 
erroneous. The testimony offered in the 1957 hearing 
wTas made a part of the record in this case. There the 
Division Superintendent of Schools, called by the 
plaintiffs as an adverse witness, testified that the Hoff- 
man-Boston facility was established as the only Negro 
senior and junior high school for the entire county; 
that this action was based entirely upon race; that the 
boundaries of the three elementary school districts 
were fixed in a like manner ; and that later the Pupil 
Placement Board assigned approximately 2000 pupils 
of all grades, and in each instance without exception 
whites were assigned to white schools and Negroes to 
Negro schools, effectively freezing white and Negro 
children in their racially segregated schools. By stipula­
tion it appears that since the 1957 hearing, except for 
the disjunction of the non-contiguous northern terri­
tory, the districts remain unchanged.”



60

(tr. 29) This case presents a number of unusual and dif­
ferent problems, which have not been considered by the 
Court of Appeals for this Circuit, insofar as the Court has 
been advised through counsel’s research, and insofar as the 
Court itself knows; and also problems that have not been 
considered by the District Courts in this Circuit. Neverthe­
less, applying the principles which have been expressed in 
Brown and in Gary and in Brooks, the Court is of the 
opinion that the plan does not satisfy the requirements 
which have been stated by the appellate courts. For that 
reason, the motion to approve the plan is denied.

5}C

AFFIDAVIT OF CHARLES W. SMITH [and attached 
charts, filed July 2, 1964]

This day personally appeared before me, Dorothy O. 
Sneed, a Notary Public in and for the City of Richmond, 
State of Virginia, Charles W. Smith, Superientendent of 
Schools for the City of Hopewell, Virginia and after 
being duly sworn, made the following statement:

“I am Charles W. Smith, Superintendent of Schools 
of the City of Hopewell, Virginia. As such I have partici­
pated in the preparation of the map and plan presented to 
this Court on October 21, 1963 and the plan now presented.

The school board has adopted a policy that in the future 
all assignments to schools in Hopewell will be made on the 
basis of residence without regard to race. This policy was 
put into effect last year and will be in effect for the 1964-65 
school year and thereafter.

The boundaries for the plan now under consideration



61

are the same as those filed on October 21, 1963 and the 
description of schools and capacities is the same as then 
except that it has been found desirable to convert 2 ele­
mentary classrooms in the Carter Woodson Eelementary 
School to high school rooms so as to provide a more compre­
hensive industrial arts program in the high school.

The basic information as to enrollments in school other 
than Carter Woodson Elementary and Arlington Elemen­
tary remains substantially unchanged. For the school year 
1964-65 I have prepared a chart showing for Arlington 
Elementary School, Carter Woodson Elementary School 
and Carter Woodson High School. This chart was prepared 
as a result of a suggestion to the school board made by coun­
sel for the plaintiffs that the attendance area for Arlington 
School be expanded to include the area bounded on the west 
by Miles Avenue, on the North by Oaklawn Boulevard or 
Plant Street and on the East and South by the existing 
Arlington School area; he also suggested that the area 
bounded on the West by Miles Avenue and lying between 
Oaklawn Boulevard or Plant Street and the Norfolk and 
Western Railroad be added to' the Carter Woodson Elemen- 
tory Zone and that the high school zones be for Hopewell 
High School, all of the City north of the Norfolk and 
Western Railroad plus Ramsey Avenue and the remainder 
of the City in the Carter Woodson High School zone.

A copy of each of the charts is attached hereto and to the 
best of my information and belief the facts stated therein 
are true.

children in the areas involved. The charts show grade by 
We conducted an actual survey of the residences of our 

grade the number of children in the area proposed to be



62

added to the particular school, the anticipated enrollment 
without the new area, the total of those 2 figures, the mini­
mum classrooms needed to serve such total and the total 
rooms available.

In the case of Arlington the proposal would add 222 
children to an expected 234. The school capacity is only 270 
and the proposed change would require 18 classrooms where 
only 9 are available.

In Carter Woodson Elementary the new area would add 
101 to an expected enrollment of 220. Thirteen classrooms 
would be needed. Only 8 are available. It should be noted 
that grades 6 and 7 from the Arlington area were returned 
to that area this year in order to obtain 2 needed rooms for 
the high school program at Woodson.

At Carter Woodson High School the suggested change 
would result in adding 264 students to an expected 250. 
Eighteen rooms would be needed with 16 available. An over­
load of almost 30% would result.

It is interesting to note that the Woodlawn School, if 
the proposal had been adopted, would have lost 323 of an 
expected 712 students. Twenty-four classrooms would be 
available to serve a need for only 16. There would be 8 sur­
plus classrooms.

While Hopewell High School will still be crowded in 
1964-65, the adoption of a 7 period teaching day and the 
retention of a 6 period student day will have the effect in 
use of adding 1 classroom for each 6 available. Wlith a total 
of 43 rooms this means that in use it will be as though we 
had 50 rooms. With an anticipated enrollment of 1440 our



63

working overload will be reduced to 190. We can accom­
modate that group.

The results of this survey were presented to the school 
board and the board declined to accept the proposal of 
plaintiffs as being obviously unworkable.

I have read my testimony of March 23, 1964 and the 
answer I gave then I would give to similar questions today 
except that there appears to be some uncertainty about the 
Palm Street, Wall Street connection and it may be that 
High Street will be widened and improved to connect with 
Palm Street. If so, it may well be that the school zone 
boundary should then be moved but I have been unable to 
get definite information on when and if this will take place.”

The foregoing statement is true to the best of my knowl­
edge and belief.

C h arles W. S m it h  
Superintendent of Schools for the 
City of Hopewell, Virginia

Signed and acknowledted before me, Dorothy O. Sneed, 
a Notary Public in and for the City of Richmond, State of 
Virginia on this 2nd day of July, 1964.

Given under my hand this 2nd day of July, 1964. My 
commission expires Jan. 31, 1965.

D orothy  O. S need 
Notary Public



64

*RED AREA PLUS EXPECTED ENROLLMENT AT 
ARLINGTON SCHOOL AT SEPTEMBER 1964 AND 

SHOWING CLASSROOMS AVAILABLE AND 
CLASSROOMS NEEDDED

* Red Area

Along Miles Ave. North to Oklahoma Blvd. and east to 
Wall Street, not including those on Oaklawn Blvd.

Grade
Red
Area

Arlington
School Total

Rooms
Needed

Rooms
Available

1st 40 30 70 3 1
2nd 31 35 66 3 1
3rd 32 36 68 3 2
4th 37 40 77 3 2
5 th 27 31 58 2 1
6th 28 35 63 2 1
7th 27 27 54 2 1
Totals 222 234 456 18 9

Total Pupils — Red + Arlington — 456
Capacity of School (9 X 30) 270

Overload 186
9 Additional Classrooms would be needed.

* GREEN  AREA PLUS EXPECTED ENROLLMENT 
CARTER G. WOODSON ELE M EN TAR Y DIVISION

*From Oaklawn Blvd. North along Miles Ave. to N & W 
Tracks To Seaboard Tracks & South back to Oaklawn Blvd.



65

Grade
Green
Area

1st 22
2nd 12
3rd 18
4th 13
5 th 17
6th 9
7th 10

C.G.W.
Elem. Total

30 52
24 36
31 49
31 44
38 55
33 42
33 43

220 321

Rooms Rooms 
Needed Available

2 1
1 1
2 1
2 1
2 2
2 1
2 1

13 8*
321
240
81

Totals 101
Total Pupils Green +  C. G. W. 
Capacity of School (8 X 30) 

Overload
5 additional classrooms would be needed.

*2 of the 10 rooms now available for elementary will be 
needed to expand Industrial Arts Program on High School 
Level.

SUMMARY OF HIGH SCHOOL PUPILS (Grades 8 
through 12) SOUTH OF N & W TRACKS PLUS EN­
ROLLMENT AT CARTER G. WOODSON

South Rooms Rooms
Grade of N & W C.G.W. Total Needed Available

8th 68 74 142 5
9th 50 66 116 4

10th 59 52 111 4
11th 53 34 87 3
12th 34 24 58 2

Totals 264 250 514 18 16



66

South of N & W & C. G. W. — 514
Capacity of C. G. W. High — 400

Overload 114
4 additional classrooms needed.

SUMMARY FOR BOTH ELEMENTARY AND HIGH 
SCHOOL DIVISION OF CARTER G. WOODSON

SCHOOL

Rooms Available Rooms Needed
Elementary 8 13
High School 16 18

24 31
Total Pupils Green (El.) +  C.G.W. (El.) +  High 

School South of N & W +  C. G. W. High —
Capacity of School (High-25 X 16= 400; El. —

30 X 8 =  240)
Overload

835

640
195

(tr. 42)
RULING OF THE COURT [July 2, 1964]

THE COURT: Gentlemen, the school year is fast ap­
proaching, and I believe that it is better that the Court 
decide this matter promptly so the authorities responsible 
for the education of children, and the children themselves, 
will understand the basis of their assignment.

The question of the school zones in Hopewell has been



57

before the Court several times. On July 11, 1963, the Court 
filed a written memorandum. On April 6, 1964, the Court 
stated from the Bench its findings and conclusions when the 
plan was presented to it.

As a result of the hearings, and as a result of the 
consideration that the School Board has given, there have 
been substantial changes in the plan, or in the school zones 
since they were first presented to the Court.

The problem of the Woodlawn and Arlington zones still 
exists. Basically, the problem in this case, as the Court has 
previously mentioned, is one of de facto segregation.

When the Court considered the case on April 6, it 
followed the ruling in the Gary School case. Since that 
time, certiorari has been denied in the Gary case. Also, since 
the April 6 hearing, the Court of Appeals has written its 
opinion in this case.

(tr. 43) There, the Court held that the question before it 
was moot, but it did consider the question of the Arlington 
and Woodlawn zones. It suggested that until the boundary 
between those two zones has been acceptably redrawn, that 
upon application, the District Court could permit geographic 
assignments of all students living in all the other zones, 
while requiring some other assignment method for pupils 
living in the two unsettled zones.

There have been a number of suggestions before the 
Court for redrawing the boundary between the Arlington 
and Woodlawn zones. The Court need not restate the find­
ings of fact that it has previously made, except to note that 
the Woodlawn School, which has a capacity of 720, and 
which previously had a capacity of 720, has an anticipated



68

enrollment next fall of 712, as compared with the atten­
dance of 649 which the Court found in the previous hearing.

Arlington School has a capacity of 270, and has an 
anticipated enrollment of 234, as compared with the atten­
dance of 195 to which the Court previously made reference.

Woodson School, with the transfer of two classrooms 
from elementary to high school, would have a capacity of 
240, as compared to the 300 previously mentioned, and 
would have an enrollment of 220, as compared to the 
previously mentioned attendance of 286.

I believe with those amendments the findings of fact 
are substantially as the Court has found them in the 
previous hearing, and the Court makes reference to its 
previous findings at this time, and incorporates them in 
this hearing.

The chief difference between the situation that now 
exists and that which existed at the hearing this spring 
when the Court declined to- approve the plan is that the 
new plan submitted by the Board provides for transfer of 
Arlington or Woodlawn Elementary pupils to any school 
nearer a pupil’s residence. It also provides that high school 
students may transfer from the Hopewell High or Woodson 
High, as the case may be, to the high school which is nearer 
their residence.

The Court recognizes that the plaintiffs are not required 
to rezone—or present a plan of rezoning the problem area 
in Hopewell. Indeed, during the testimony there were 
several suggestions made about rezoning between the Wood- 
lawn and the Arlington zones. It is significant, however,



69

that the suggestions made by the plaintiffs do result in 
imbalance in the various schools involved.

Ihe  Court finds that the School Board has attempted 
in good faith to create zones consistent with the capacity 
and attendance of the schools, and the Court believes that 
the plan which has been suggested is consistent with the 
suggestion made by the Court of Appeals pertaining to 
(tr. 45) some other asignment method in the unsettled 
zones.

Accordingly, the plan will be approved. The injunction 
will be dissolved.

All students who are presently assigned by Court order 
to a school will be permitted to finish their education in 
that school. There will not be a reassignment of those 
children, except by application of those children. There has 
been no application, because that point has not been brought 
up specifically. This has been treated from that time on more 
or less as a class action. Those individual plaintiffs have 
not presented their views to the Court.

MR. GRAY: May I make an inquiry?
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
MR. GRAY: Would that ruling apply also to the inter- 

venors about whom the Court of Appeals said—they ap­
parently felt that the ruling applied only to one year.

THE COURT: Yes, sir. The rule applies.
MR. GRAY: To both?
THE COURT: It will apply to them also. It will apply to 

all of the children whom the Court has assigned.
*  *  *



70

ORDER [entered July 6, 1964]

For reasons stated in the Memorandum of the Court filed 
July 11, 1963 and the rulings of the Court reported April 6, 
1964 and July 2, 1964; it is ADJUDGED and ORDERED:

1. Subject to the requirement for notice stated in para­
graph 4 of this order, the plan for the operation of schools 
filed by the School Board of the City of Hopewell, Virginia 
on June 4, 1964 is approved and the exceptions thereto are 
overruled.

2. The injunction granted in paragraph 2 of the order 
entered July 11, 1963 is dissolved.

3. All pupils heretofore assigned by the Court may 
continue their education in the school to which they have 
been assigned.

4. The School Board shall give notice in writing to each 
pupil entitled to make application for transfer under the 
plan. For the first year of the plan, applications for transfer 
must be filed within thirty days from the date notice is 
mailed to students eligible for transfer.

5. The motion for counsel fees is continued.

6. This cause is retained on the docket with leave of any 
party to seek further relief.

Let the Clerk mail copies of this order to counsel of 
record.

/S /  J o h n  D. B u t z n e r , J r . 
United States District Judge

July 6, 1964



71

NOTICE OF APPEAL

F red erick  T. G ray, Esquire 
State-Planters Bank Building 
Richmond, Virginia 23219
H enry  T. W ic k h a m , Esquire 
State-Planters Bank Building 
Richmond, Virginia 23219 
Counsel for Defendants:

NOTICE is hereby given that Renee Patrice Gilliam and 
Reuben Lemuel Gilliam, Jr., infants, by Reuben L. Gilliam 
and Joy T. Gilliam, their father and mother and next 
friends, and all others of the plaintiffs, hereby appeal to 
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 
from so much of the order entered in this action on July 2, 
1964, as approves the “Plan for Operation of Schools by 
School Board of the City of Hopewell’’ and as dismisses the 
injunction entered herein on July 11, 1963.

/S /  S. W. T u cker

Of Counsel for Plaintiffs