United States v. Montgomery County Board of Education Appendix Vol. 1

    APPENDIX
VOLUME I

Supreme Court of the United States
October Term, 1968

Nos. 798, 997

U nited States,

Petitioner,
vs.

Montgomery County B oard of E ducation, et a t ..

and
Abeam Carr, J r., et al.,

Petitioners,
vs.

Montgomery County Board of E ducation, et al.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES 

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH  CIRCUIT

PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI FILED DECEMRER 4, 1968, 
AND JANUARY 30, 1969 

CERTIORARI GRANTED MARCH 3, 1969



I N D E X

VOLUME I
Original Print

Docket E n tr ies_______________________________  — 1
Complaint filed May 11, 1964 _____________ ____  1 24

Exhibit A Annexed—Letter to Montgomery
Board of E ducation______________________  9 33

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed
May 11, 1964 ______________________________  11 36

Order Appointing Amicus Curiae filed May 11,
1964  _ __ __ 13 38

Defendants’ Interrogatories filed May 26, 1964
To Arlam Carr, J r . ______________________  15 40
To Bathsheba L. Thompson________________  19 46
To John W. Thompson____________________  23 52
To James 6 . Thompson___________________  27 58
To Phillip L. Thompson__________________  31 64

Motion to Dismiss filed May 30, 1964 ___________ 35 70
Notice of Taking Deposition filed June 3, 1964 __  38 73
Motion to Stay Deposition filed June 5, 1964 _____ 41 76
Order Denying Motion to Stay Deposition filed

June 5, 1964 _________________    44 78
Answers to Interrogatories filed June 10, 1964 __  46 80
Order Denying Motion to Dismiss filed June 30,

1964   73 107
Answer to the Complaint filed July 8, 1964 ............  74 108
Request for Admission Under Rule 36 filed July 9,

1964   77 112
Motion for Production of Documents for Inspec­

tion and Copying filed July 9, 1964 __________ 81 115
Notice to Produce Documents and Things for In­

spection and Copying _______________________  85 118
Order Directing Production of Documents for In­

spection and Copying filed July 16, 1964 ______ 86 119
Motion for Leave to File Amendment to Complaint 

filed July 17, 1964 ----------------------------------------  88 121



11 INDEX

Original P rin t
Order Granting Leave to File Amendment to Com­

plaint filed July 17, 1964 ____________________  90 122
Amendment to Complaint filed July 17, 1964 ____ 91 123
Answer to Request for Admissions filed July 17,

1964 ______________________________________  94 125
Memorandum Opinion filed July 31, 1964 _______ 98 128
Decree filed July 31, 1964 _______________________  106 137
Writ of Injunction dated July 31, 1964 __________ 110 142
Defendants’ Report dated September 1, 1964 ______ 112 143
Motion for Further Relief or Order to Show Cause

filed September 1, 1964 _______________________  114 145
Order filed September 1, 1964 ____ ____________  132 164
Defendants’ Report filed September 1, 1964 _______ 135 167
Amendment to Motion for Further Relief or Order

to Show Cause filed September 1, 1964 __________  145 186
Order filed September 5, 1964 ____________    148 188
Suggestion of Amicus Curiae Re Substitution of 

Parties Under Rule 25(d) F.R.C.P. filed Janu­
ary 11, 1965 _________________________________  151 192

Order Substituting Parties filed January 11, 1965 .. 153 194
Defendants’ Plan for Desegregation filed January

15, 1965 ___________________________________  155 196
Order filed January 18, 1965 ___________________  160 201
Motion for Extension of Time filed February 15,

1965 ______________________________________  161 202
Motion for Extension of Time filed February 16,

1965   162 204
Order Allowing Extension of Time filed February

16, 1965 _____________________________________  163 205
Plaintiffs’ Objections to Defendants’ Plan for

School Desegregation filed February 23, 1965 ___ 164 206
Amicus Curiae Objections to Plan for School De­

segregation filed February 25, 1965 _____________  173 213
Notice of Taking Depositions filed March 29, 1965 .. 175 214
Defendants’ Motion to Extend Time filed March

29, 1965 ______________________________________ 180 220
Subpoena dated March 29, 1965 ---------------------------- 182 222



Original P rin t
Order Extending Time for Taking Deposition and

Holding Hearing filed March 30, 1965 ________ 187 228
Amendment to Plaintiffs’ Objections to Defendants’

Plan of School Desegregation filed April 24, 1965 188 229
Order Extending Time for Holding Hearing filed

April 28, 1965 --------------------------------------------  190 230
Order Approving and Modifying Plan for Deseg­

regation filed May 18, 1965 __________________  191 231
Defendants’ Report Pursuant to Order of May 18,

1965 filed August 9, 1965 __________________  195 235
Order as to Filing Objections filed August 16, 1965 217 260
Notice of Taking Depositions filed August 19, 1965 218 261
Objections to Defendants’ Rejection of Applicants

for Transfer filed August 24, 1965 ____________ 220 263
Objections of Amicus Curiae to Defendants’ Rejec­

tion of Applicants for Transfer filed August 24,
1965 ----------------------------------------------------------- 230 274

Order filed August 27, 1965 ___________________  232 276
Memorandum Transcript (to identify Plaintiffs’

Exhibits 4, 5, and 6 admitted at hearing of
August 26, 1965) ___________________________  235 280

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 4 ______________________  240 287
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 5 ______________________  241 287
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 6 ______________________  242 287

Defendants’ Plan for Desegregation filed January
14, 1966 ------------------------------------------------------  250 303

Exhibit “A ” A nnexed_____________________  256 309
Exhibit “B” A nnexed_____________________  257 310

Order as to Filing Objections filed January 19,
1966 _______________________________________ 259 312

Objections of Amicus Curiae to Proposed Plan of
Desegregation filed February 18, 1966 ________ 260 313

Order as to Hearing on Objections filed February
18, 1966 ___________________________________  262 315

Plaintiffs’ Objections to Defendants’ Plan of School
Desegregation filed February 18, 1966 ________ 263 316

Remarks of Hon. Frank M. Johnson, Jr. at Conclu­
sion of Hearing of March 11, 1966 _______ ___ 270 324

in d e x  i i i



IV INDEX

Order to Execute Plan for Desegregation filed
March 22, 1966 ____________________________  274 329

Plan for Desegregation of the Public School 
System of Montgomery County, Alabama
Annexed to O rder______________________  276 331

Order Amending Order of March 22, 1966 filed
August 18, 1966 -------------------------------------------  285 342

Petition of Plaintiffs for Admission of Willie
Robert Bell filed September 12, 1966 __________ 287 344

Order Setting Hearing on Plaintiffs’ Petition filed
September 13, 1966 _________________________  289 346

Answer to Petition of Plaintiff filed September 14,
1966  _ 290 347

Exhibit “A ” Annexed ____________________  293 351
Exhibit “B” Annexed ------------------------------  296 354
Exhibit “C” Annexed ------------------------------- 298 357
Exhibit “D ” A n nexed------------------------------  300 361

Order on Petition of Plaintiffs filed September 14,
1966   302 362

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss Petition filed October
3, 1966 ____________________________________  303 363

Order to Dismiss Petition filed October 5, 1966 — 305 364
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Further Relief filed April 

11, 1967 ___________________________________  306 365

VOLUME II

Order Requiring Defendants to Show Cause filed
April 28, 1967 _____________________________  309 367

Opinion in Lee v. Macon County Board of 
Education Annexed to Order to Show Cause 311 369

Order to Adopt Plan for Desegregation filed June
1, 1967 ____________________________________  364 444

Desegregation Plan Annexed to Order -------  365 446
Appendix A—Explanatory Letter ---------------  373 458
Appendix B—Choice Form ________________  375 460

Amicus Curiae Notice of Motion and Motion for
Further Relief filed August 17, 1967 ------------  376 462

Original P rin t



INDEX V

Original P rin t
Plaintiffs’ Joining in Motion filed August 30, 1967 379 464
Answer to Motion filed September 1, 1967 ______ 380 465

Exhibit “A” A n nexed____________________  383 468
Notice of Taking Discovery Deposition filed Janu­

ary 30, 1968 ------------------------------------------------ 384 471
Further Answer to Motion filed February 1, 1968 386 472
Amicus Curiae Notice of Motion and Motion for

Further Relief filed February 7, 1968 ________ 389 475
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Further Relief filed Feb­

ruary 9, 1968 ----------------------------------------------  394 479
Stipulation filed February 17, 1968 .............  395 480

Attachment A—Substitute Teacher List ____ 396 481
Memorandum Opinion filed February 24, 1968 _ 404 489

Supplement to Desegregation Plan ________ 413 503
Attachment A—Letter to Students ..... .......... 417 509

Writ of Injunction dated February 24, 1968 ____ 418 511
Notice of Appeal filed February 27, 1968 ______ 419 512
Bond for Costs on Appeal filed February 28, 1968 420 513
Motion for Suspension and Stay of Injunction and 

Order During Pendency of Appeal filed Febru­
ary 28, 1968 ------------------------------------------------ 421 514

Affidavit in Support of Motion for Stay Pending
A p p e a l----------------------------------------    423 515

Exhibit 1 Annexed to Affidavit—Notice of
A p p e a l-------------------------------------------------  426 518

Exhibit 2 Annexed to Affidavit—Bond for
Costs on Appeal _______________________  427 519

Order Amending Order and Injunction of Febru­
ary 24, 1968 filed March 2, 1968 .....   428 520

Order filed March 2, 1968 ____________________  430 524
Motion for Leave to Amend Notice of Appeal filed

March 6, 1968 _____________________________  437 534
Order Allowing Amendment of Notice of Appeal

filed March 6, 1968 ___    438 535
Amended Notice of Appeal filed March 6, 1968 _ 439 536
Defendants’ Statement of Points filed March 6,1968 440 537
Comments at Conclusion of Hearing of May 5, 1965 442 540
Memorandum Transcript—Hearing of May 25,1967 448 547



VI INDEX

Transcript of Hearing—September 5, 1967 -------- 452 549
A ppearances_____________________________  452 549
Colloquy_________________________________  452 549
Testimony of Walter McKee—

direct ______  456 552
c r o s s ___ ______________   472 565
redirect -----------------------------  479 571
recross __________________  482 574

Transcript of Hearing—February 9, 1968 ------------  497 584
Appearances----------- --------------------------------  497 584
Colloquy________________________________    498 585
Testimony of Walter M cK ee-

direct __ __________________  501 588
c r o s s _____________ _______ 545 624

William S. Garrett—
direct _____________________  574 648
cross ______________________  593 663
redirect ___________________  600 669
recross ____________________  601 671

Jack Kutland—
direct _____________________  602 672
cross ______________________  624 690
redirect ___________________  635 699
recross ____________________  638 702

Walter James Hughes, Jr.—
direct ___________ _ ______ 640 703
cross ______________________  644 706

Charles Lee—
direct _____________________  646 708
cross ______________________  653 713
redirect ___________________  654 714

Walter McKee—
(recalled for defendants)—

direct _____________________  656 716
cross _____________________  659 719
redirect ___________________  661 720

Jim McGregor—
direct _____________________  663 722

665 723

Original P rin t

cross



Original P rin t
Transcript of Hearing—February 9, 1968 

—Continued
Testimony of Herman L. Scott—

direct ___________________  673 726
c r o s s ------------------------------  684 735
r e d ir e c t_________________  690 740
recross ---------------------------  690 740

Order Granting Expedited Hearing filed March 12,
1968 ----------------------------------------------------------- 698 745

Notice of Cross Appeal by Amicus Curiae filed
April 11, 1968 --------------------------------------------  700 747

Argument and Submission____________________  703 749
Opinion and Judgment in the United States Court 

of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dated August 1,
1968 ----------------------------------------------------------- 704 750

Judgm ent__________ _______________________ 724 770
Dissenting Opinion of Thornberry, C.J., dated Oc­

tober 21, 1968 ______________________________  793 774
Opinion on Petitions for Rehearing En Banc dated

November 1, 1968 __________________________  797 775
Order Granting Certiorari ____________________  ___ 785

INDEX v i i



Docket Entries

Civil Docket

U nited States D istrict Court

Civil Action No. 2072-N

Arlam Carr, J r., a  minor, by A rlam Carr and J ohnnnie 
Carr, his parents and next fr ien d s ; Charles Lee Bell, 
a minor, by Charlie Bell and E mma M. Bell, his 
parents and next friends; W illiam H. Day, a minor, 
by H elen B. Day, his m other and next fr ie n d ; J osephine 
Martin, a minor, by Nettie Martin, her m other and 
next friend ; J oan Mastin, a minor, by F rank Mastin 
and P earline Mastin, her parents and next fr ien d s ; 
Constance Sm ith , a minor, by J ohnnie Smith and 
Bertha Smith , her parents and next friends; and Mae 
Carolyn Thomas, a minor, by Lee C. T homas and Sophia 
L. Thomas, her parents and next friends,

Plaintiffs,
U nited States op A merica,

Amicus Curiae,
vs.

Montgomery County Board op E ducation : J ames W. R ut­
land, J r., F red Bear, George C. Starke, George A. 
Dozier, Dr. E dward J . W alker, I sabelle B. T homasson 
and Dr. R obert P arker, Members of the Montgomery 
County Board of Education; and W alter McK ee, 
Superintendent of Education of Montgomery County, 
Alabama,

Defendants.



2

For plaintiff:

Fred D. Gray
352 Dexter Ave.
Montgomery, Ala. 36104

Jack Greenberg 
Charles H. Jones, Jr.

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, N.Y. 10019

Stephen J. Poliak, Asst. Attv. Gen. of U.S. for Civil 
Eights, Washington, D.C. and Ben Hardeman, U.S. 
Attorney, P.O. Box 197, Montgomery, Ala., for 
amicus

For defendant:

Vaughan Hill Robison for
Montgomery County Board of Education 
P.O. Box 901
Montgomery, Alabama 36102 

Also: Joseph D. Phelps (same address)

Volume I—R ecord P ages 1-305

DATE PROCEEDINGS

5/11/64 Complaint filed and summons issued.

5/11/64 Motion for preliminary injunction.

5/12/64 Marshal’s return on summons and complaint— 
Executed 5/11/64 by personal service on Dr. 
Robert Parker, Dr. W. E. Goodwin, Mr. Fred 
B ear; further executed 5/12/64 by serving the 
Montgomery County Board of Education by 
leaving a copy with Walter McKee, Supt. 
Montgomery County Board of Education;



3

DATE

5/18/64

5/26/64

5/26/64

5/26/64

5 /2 6 /6 4

further by personal service on Isabelle B. 
Thomasson, Walter McKee, Harold M. Har­
ris and George A. Dozier; further service on 
Dr. H. P. Dawson was had by leaving a copy 
with Mr. H. P. Dawson, at their residence.

Order appointing as amicus curiae Ben Harde­
man, U. S. Attorney, and John Doar, Attor­
ney, Civil Rights Division, Department of 
Justice, Washington, D. C., and/or any other 
attorney -with the Department of Justice des­
ignated by the Honorable Robert Kennedy, 
Attorney General of the United States.

Interrogatories propounded by the defendant 
Montgomery County Board of Education to 
Plaintiff Arlam Carr, Jr., a minor, by Arlam 
Carr and Johnnie Carr, his parents and next 
friends.

Interrogatories propounded by the defendant 
Montgomery County Board of Education to 
plaintiff Bathsheba L. Thompson, a minor, 
by Bishop S. Thompson, Sr., and Lois E. 
Thompson, her parents and next friends.

Interrogatories propounded by the defendant 
Montgomery County Board of Education to 
John W. Thompson, a minor, by Bishop S. 
Thompson, Sr., and Lois E. Thompson, his 
parents and next friends.

Interrogatories propounded by the defendant 
Montgomery County Board of Education to

PROCEEDINGS



4

5/26/64

5/30/64

6/3/64

6/5/64

6/5/64

6/10/64

DATE

6 /1 0 /6 4

plaintiff James G. Thompson, by Bishop S. 
Thompson, Sr., and Lois E. Thompson, his 
parents and next friends.

Interrogatories propounded by the defendant 
Montgomery County Board of Education to 
plaintiff Phillip L. Thompson, a minor, by 
Bishop S. Thompson, Sr., and Lois E. Thomp­
son, his parents and next friends.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss complaint and 
the motion for preliminary injunction.

Plaintiffs’ notice of the taking of the deposition 
of Walter McKee, Superintendent of Schools 
of Montgomery County, Alabama, at 9 :00
a.m. June 9, 1964.

Motion of Defendant Walter McKee that deposi­
tion, as scheduled by plaintiffs, be stayed and 
continued until a date set and determined by 
the Court subsequent to June 10, 1964.

Order denying motion of defendant Walter Mc­
Kee seeking to have the Court stay the taking 
of his deposition by attorneys for the plain­
tiffs from the schedules date of June 9, 1964.

Answers of Plaintiff Arlam Carr to Interroga­
tories propounded by Defendant Montgomery 
County Board of Education.

Answers of Plaintiff James G. Thompson to In­
terrogatories propounded by Defendant, 
Montgomery County Board of Education.

PROCEEDINGS



5

6/10/64 Answers of Plaintiff John W. Thompson to 
Interrogatories propounded by Defendant, 
Montgomery County Board of Education.

6/10/64 Answers of Plaintiff Phillip L. Thompson to In­
terrogatories propounded by Defendant, 
Montgomery County Board of Education.

6/10/64 Answers of Plaintiff Bathsheba L. Thompson to 
Interrogatories propounded by Defendant, 
Montgomery County Board of Education.

6/20/64 Deposition of Mr. Walter McKee.*

6/25/64 Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to 
dismiss.

6/30/64 Order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss;
further Order setting hearing on plaintiffs’ 
motion for a preliminary injunction commenc­
ing at 9 :30 a.m., July 29, 1964.

7/8/64 Defendants’ answer to complaint.

7/9/64 Plaintiffs’ request for admissions under Rule 36.

7/9/64 Plaintiffs’ motion for production of documents 
for inspection and copying.

7/16/64 Order directing production of documents fo r in­
spection and copying.

7/17/64 Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file amendment 
to complaint.

DATE PROCEEDINGS

* Being retained in District Court pending receipt of instruc­
tions for forwarding depositions, etc.



6

7/17/64

7/17/64

7/17/64

7/31/64

7/31/64

DATE

Order g ranting plain tiffs’ motion to file amend­
ment to complaint.

Amendment to complaint filed (substitution of 
parties plaintiff). Acceptance of service of 
motion and amendment by Vaughan Hill Rob­
ison, of counsel for defendants.

Defendants’ answer to plaintiffs’ request for ad­
missions.

Memorandum opinion.

Decree. Defendants enjoined from operating 
segregated public schools in Montgomery 
County, Alabama, except in strict accordance 
with this Court’s opinions and decrees; from 
failing to provide public education for plain­
tiffs and other members of their race on non- 
segregated basis; failing to make immediate 
start, commencing with first, tenth, eleventh, 
and twelfth grades for school year 1964-65, 
and failing to take such additional steps in 
elimination of racial discrimination for the 
1965-66 school year as may be required by any 
desegregation plan approved by this Court. 
Defendants ordered to begin accepting appli­
cations for assignment or transfer from ap­
plicants to attend schools heretofore attended 
by a race other than their own, to report to 
this Court by 9 a.m. on Sept. 1, 1964, as to 
action taken on these applications, to publish

PROCEEDINGS



7

DATE

7/31/64

8/3/64

8/4/64

8/12/64

9 /  1 /64

for twice each week for the weeks beginning 
Aug. 2 and 9, 1964, a notice that applications 
will be accepted through August 14, 1964, and 
to file with this Court on or before January 
15, 1965, their detailed plan for operation of 
Montgomery County school system com­
mencing with 1965-66 school year. Jurisdic­
tion of cause retained.

W rit of injunction in accordance with memo­
randum opinion and decree issued.

Marshal’s returns on memorandum opinion, de­
cree, and writ of injunction. Service on Mont­
gomery County Board of Education by hand­
ing to and leaving copies with Walter McKee 
on 8/3/64. Personal service on Dr. Harris P. 
Dawson, George A. Dozier, Dr. W. E. Good­
win, Dr. Robert Parker, Harold M. Harris, 
and Walter McKee on 8/3/64. Mrs. Isabelle 
Thomasson not served because she is out of 
district.

Marshal’s further return on memorandum opin­
ion, decree, and writ of injunction. Personal 
service on Fred Bear on 8/3/64.

Marshal’s further return on memorandum opin­
ion, decree, and writ of injunction. Personal 
service on Mrs. Isabelle B. Thomasson on 
8/10/64.

Defendants’ report, in accordance with Court 
order of 7/31/64, on applications for transfer 
and/or assignment pursuant to said order.

PROCEEDINGS



8

DATE

9/ 1/64 

9/ 1/64 

9/ 1/64

9/ 1/64 

9/ 5/64

12/12/64

12/22/64

1/11/65

1 /1 1 /6 5

Plaintiffs’ motion for further relief or order to 
show cause.

Order that defts. report by 3 p.m. 9/1/64 on rea­
sons for rejecting applications.

Defendants’ additional report on applications 
for transfer and/or assignment in response 
to plaintiffs’ motion and Court order of 
9/1/64.

Plaintiffs’ amendment to motion for further re­
lief.

Order approving and accepting the action taken 
by the Montgomery County Board of Educa­
tion in granting the applications of 8 of the 29 
Negro children who applied for transfer and/ 
or assignment to schools previously attended 
by pupils of the white race.

Costs bill in amount of $274.04 received from 
plaintiffs’ attorney. Costs to be taxed 
12/22/64.

Costs taxed.

Suggestion of amicus curiae, the United States, 
for substitution of James W. Rutland, Jr., 
George C. Starke, and Dr. Edward J. Walker 
as parties defendant for Harold M. Harris. 
Dr. H. P. Dawson, and Dr. W. E. Goodwin.

Order substituting James W. Rutland, Jr., 
George C. Starke, and Dr. Edward J. Walker 
as parties defendant for Harold M. Harris, 
Dr. H. P. Dawson, and Dr. W. E. Goodwin.

PROCEEDINGS



9

1/15/65

1/18/65

2/15/65

2/16/65

2/16/65

2/23/65

2/25/65

3/29/65

3/29/65

DATE

Clerk ordered to serve copies of memorandum 
opinion, decree, and writ of injunction filed 
7/31/64 on the new parties by registered mail.

Plan of Montgomery County Board of Educa­
tion for desegregating entire Montgomery 
County School System.

Order that any objections to proposed desegre­
gation plan filed 1/15/65 be made in writing 
and filed on or before 2/16/65.

Motion of U.S., amicus curiae, for extension of 
time to 2/25/65 within which to file objections 
to defendants’ desegregation plan and Order 
granting.

Plaintiffs’ motion for extension of time within 
which to file objections to defendants’ desegre­
gation plan.

Order extending time for plaintiffs to file objec­
tions to plan to February 25, 1965.

Plaintiffs’ objections to defendants’ desegrega­
tion plan.

Objections of United States, as amicus curiae, 
to defendants’ desegregation plan.

Plaintiffs’ notice of taking the deposition of Wal­
ter McKee.

Defendants’ motion for postponement of hear­
ing on objections to desegregation plan and 
for stay of taking of deposition of Walter 
McKee.

PROCEEDINGS



10

3/30/65 Order that taking of deposition of Walter Mc­
Kee be stayed until April 15, 1965, and that 
hearing upon objections to desegregation plan 
be continued until 10 a.m. on April 28, 1965.

4/21/65 Deposition of Walter McKee.*

4/24/65 Plain tiff s’ amendment to objections to desegre­
gation plan.

4/28/65 Order continuing hearing upon objections to 
proposed desegregation plan to 5/5/65 at 10 
a.m.

5/ 6/65 Court reporter’s transcript of proceedings at 
hearing upon objections to proposed desegre­
gation plan on 5/5/65.

I n Vol. I l l  at P age 442.

5/18/65 Order that plan of desegregation be approved 
with following modifications: Grade 7 (in ad­
dition to grades 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, and 12) to be 
desegregated with school term commencing 
Sept. 1965; applications for transfer or as­
signment to these grades must be filed 7/20/65 
on forms obtainable from office of Supt. of 
Education, said forms to be available between 
6/21 and 7/20/65; that Supt. of Education 
direct principals to enclose in envelope with 
each child’s report card for school term 1964- 
65 a notice as set out in the order; that notice 
also be published on June 13, 20, and 27 in a

* Being retained in District Court pending receipt of instruc­
tions for forwarding depositions, etc.

DATE PROCEEDINGS



11

DATE

8/ 9/65

8/16/65

8/19/65

8/24/65

8/24/65

8/27/65

newspaper of general circulation in Mont­
gomery County; that Supt. of Education notify 
parents in writing on or before 8/17/65 of 
action taken upon applications for transfer or 
assignment; that Board of Education file on 
or before 1/14/66 its detailed plan for opera­
tion of Montgomery County Public School 
System commencing with 1966-67 school year. 
Jurisdiction of this cause specifically retained.

Defendants’ report as to the action taken by the 
Montgomery County Board of Education for 
transfers, etc. filed pursuant to the Order of 
5/18/65.

Order that objections, if any, to action taken by 
Montgomery County Board of Education be 
filed on or before 8/24/65. Hearing upon such 
objections set for 2 p.m. on 8/26/65.

Plaintiffs’ notice of taking the deposition of 
Walter, McKee.

Plaintiffs’ objections to defendants’ rejection of 
applications for transfer.

Objections of United States to defendants’ re­
jection of applications for transfer.

Order overruling objections of plaintiffs and the 
U.S. to action of Board of Education in deny­
ing certain applications for transfer but sus­
taining objections as to certain other applica­
tions. Board ordered to grant applications for

PROCEEDINGS



12

DATE

9/15/65

1/14/66

1/19/66

2/18/66

2/18/66

2/18/66

3 /1 1 /6 6

transfer of six named applicants. Objection 
and request on part of plaintiffs based on con­
tention that the defendants have acted in bad 
faith to the point that the Alabama Pupil 
Placement Law should be declared unconstitu­
tional denied. Action of defendants as set out 
in report of 8/9/65 in all other respects af­
firmed.

Court reporter’s memorandum transcript to 
identify plaintiffs’ exhibits 4, 5, and 6 at hear­
ing on 8/26/65. Exhibits attached.

Montgomery County School Board’s plan for de­
segregation of public schools.

Order that objections, if any, to Board’s plan 
be filed on or before 2/18/66. (Copies of order 
mailed to Gray & Seay, Jack Greenberg, et al., 
Ben Hardeman, John Doar, Hill, Robison & 
Belser.)

Amicus Curiae’s objections to desegregation 
plan.

Order consolidating this case with 2073-N for 
purpose of hearing objections to desegrega­
tion plans submitted. Hearing set for 9 a.m. 
on 3/11/66. (Copies mailed to counsel.)

Plaintiffs’ objections to desegregation plan.

Court reporter’s transcript of remarks read into 
record by Court at conclusion of hearing on 
3/11/66.

PROCEEDINGS



13

3/22/66

DATE

3/25/66

5/13/66

Order that defendants execute the plan for de­
segregation attached to this order and incor­
porated therein; that they report to Court 
on or before June 7, and each such date until 
further order, the anticipated student enroll­
ment in each school by race and grade for next 
school year; that they report by June 15, and 
each such date until further order, the planned 
assignments of professional staff to each 
school for next school year by race and grade; 
that they report no later than September 20, 
and each such date until further order, the 
actual data for the student enrollment and 
professional assignment. Court specifically 
retains jurisdiction of parties and cause. 
(Copies mailed to counsel and delivered to 
Marshal for service on defendants.)

Marshal’s returns on service of order of 3/22/66. 
Service on Montgomery County Board of Ed­
ucation by serving Walter T. McKee, Super­
intendent, on 3/22/66; personal service on 
Walter T. McKee, Superintendent, Montgom­
ery County Board of Education, on 3/22/66; 
personal service on George A. Dozier, Mrs. 
Isabelle Thomasson, Fred Bear, and Edward
J. Walker on 3/23/66; personal service on 
James W. Rutland on 3/24/66; personal ser­
vice on George C. Starke and Dr. Robert 
Parker on 3/25/66.

Costs in amount of $239.16 taxed per costs bill 
received from plaintiffs.

PROCEEDINGS



14

6/ 7/66 

6/15/66

8/18/66

9/12/66

9/13/66

9/14/66

9/14/66

9/20/66

DATE

Defendants’ report in accordance with order of 
3/22/66. (In brown envelope)

Report of Board of Education in compliance 
with order of Court of March 22, 1966. (In 
brown envelope)

Order amending order of March 22, 1966. Mont­
gomery County Board of Education allowed 
until school year 1967-68 to commence deseg­
regation of faculty and professional staff. 
Board ordered to report to Court by June 15, 
1967, planned assignments of faculty and pro­
fessional staff. (Copies mailed to counsel.)

Plaintiffs’ motion to have Court admit Willie 
Robert Bell to Lanier High School.

Order setting for hearing Plaintiffs’ motion seek­
ing order directing defendants to admit Willie 
Robert Bell as student to Sidney Lanier High 
School, on Wednesday, Sept. 14, 1966, at 2:00 
p.m. (Copies mailed to counsel)

Defendants’ answer to petition filed on 9/12/66 
by attorneys for plaintiffs.

Order continuing petition for admission of Willie 
Robert Bell to Lanier High School until fur­
ther order. (Copies mailed to counsel.)

Defendants’ report, in accordance with order 
of 3/22/66, on student enrollment and profes­
sional assignments. (In brown envelope)

PROCEEDINGS



DATE PROCEEDINGS

10/ 3/66 Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the petition of 
Willie Robert Bell.

10/ 5/66 Order, upon plaintiffs’ motion and without any 
objection by defendants, dismissing petition 
of Willie Robert Bell. (Copies mailed to coun­
sel.)

Volume II—R ecord P ages 306-441

4/11/67 Plaintiffs’ motion for further relief.

4/28/67 Order requiring defendants to show cause at 
9 a.m. on May 25, 1967, why they should not 
be required to adopt desegregation plans for 
the Montgomery County school system that 
comply with the standards embodied in U.S. 
and Linda Stout, et al. v. Jefferson County 
Board of Education, et al., and in Exhibit 
“A” to this Court’s decree of March 22, 1967, 
in Lee, et al. v. Macon County Board of Edu­
cation, et al., Civil Action No. 604-E, and why 
they should not be required to put such plans 
into effect commencing with the 1967-68 school 
year. U.S., as amicus curiae, ordered to appear 
and participate in said proceedings. Clerk or­
dered to attach to this order copies of the 
opinion and decree entered March 22, 1967, in 
CA No. 604-E.

4/28/67 Copies of show cause order of 4/28/67, with 
attachments as ordered, mailed to counsel; 
copy delivered to U.S. Marshal for service on 
Walter McKee, Superintendent of Education 
of Montgomery County; copies mailed by cer-



16

5/ 2/67 

6/ 1/67

6/ 5/67

6/ 7/67 

6/15/67

8/17/67

DATE

8 /3 0 /6 7

tified mail, return receipt requested, to the 
members of the Montgomery County Board 
of Education.

Marshal’s return on service of show cause order 
of 4/28/67 with its attachments. Personal ser­
vice on Walter McKee, Superintendent of Ed­
ucation of Montgomery County, on 5/1/67.

Order that the defendants adopt and implement 
the plan for desegregation of the public school 
system of Montgomery County attached to 
this order. Copies mailed to counsel; copies 
delivered to Marshal for service on defen­
dants.

Marshal’s returns on service of order of 6/1/67. 
Service on Board of Education and Super­
intendent of Education on 6/1/67; service on 
members of the Board on 6/2/67. (Dr. Frank­
lin Jackson served in place of George A. 
Dozier.)

Defendants’ report, in accordance with order of 
6/1/67, on choice period.

Defendants’ report, in accordance with order of 
6/1/67, on faculty desegregation. B eports of 
6/7/67 and 6/15/67 in brown envelope.

Notice of motion and motion of U.S. for further 
relief.

Plaintiffs’ joinder in motion of U.S. for further 
relief.

PROCEEDINGS



17

9/ 1/67 Defendants’ answer to motion of U.S. for fur­
ther relief.

1/30/68 Notice of U.S. of taking discovery deposition 
of Walter T. McKee, Superintendent of Ed­
ucation for Montgomery County.

2/ 1/68 Further answer of Montgomery County Board 
of Education to motion of U.S., filed 8/17/67, 
for further relief.

2/ 2/68 Deposition of Walter T. McKee.*

2/ 7/68 Notice of motion and motion of U.S. for further 
relief.

2/9/68 Plaintiffs’ joinder in motion of U.S. for further 
relief, and motion for still further relief.

2/17/68 Stipulation of parties concerning persons avail­
able for substitute teaching in Montgomery 
public schools.

2/24/68 Memorandum opinion (and order). Defendants 
ordered to adopt and implement the attached 
supplement to the desegregation plan ordered 
in this case on June 1, 1967. (The supplement 
calls for two full-time teachers of the opposite 
race at every school with fewer than 12 
teachers and at schools with 12 or more 
teachers at least one faculty member of the 
opposite race to six of the majority race at 
that school; for desegregation of the substi­

* Being retained in District Court pending receipt of instruc­
tions for forwarding exhibits and depositions.

DATE PROCEEDINGS



18

DATE

tute teacher rolls, student teachers, and the 
faculties of night schools. School board to 
obtain approval from State Supt. of Educa­
tion for all proposed construction of new or 
expanded facilities; the State Superintendent, 
upon receipt of such proposals to take ap­
propriate action in accordance with decree of 
3/22/67 in Lee v. Macon, CA No. 604-E. 
School board to adopt nondiscriminatory bus 
routes. School board to take affirmative ac­
tion, as set out in the opinion, to eradicate 
the effect of the efforts it and its employees 
have made to create the impression through­
out the school system that Jefferson Davis 
High School, Peter Crump Elementary School 
and Southlawn Elementary School are to be 
used primarily by white students. Transpor­
tation to be provided to Jefferson Davis High 
School, Peter Crump Elementary School, and 
Southlawn Elementary School; transportation 
to Jefferson Davis to be provided to each stu­
dent who chooses it and who lives outside the 
City of Montgomery, and more than two miles 
from the school, and who lives nearer Jeffer­
son Davis than either Lee or Lanier in the 
absence of compelling circumstances approved 
by the Court. Choice of each Negro who 
chooses Jefferson Davis during the 1968-69 
school year to be honored in the absence of 
compelling circumstances approved by the 
Court. Board to report to Court every three

PROCEEDINGS



19

DATE

2/24/68

2/26/68

2/27/68

2/27/68

months, beginning March 15,1968, on the steps 
taken to comply with desegregation plan or­
dered into effect June 1, 1967, and this supple­
ment.) Copies mailed to counsel.

W rit of injunction issued to defendants in ac­
cordance with memorandum opinion and de­
livered to Marshal, with copies of opinion, for 
service on defendants.

Marshal’s returns on service of writ of injunc­
tion and memorandum opinion. Personal serv­
ice on Walter McKee, Superintendent of Edu­
cation for Montgomery County, and on Fred 
C. Bear, Dr. J. Edward Walker, James AY. 
Rutland, Jr., and Mrs. Isabelle Thomasson, 
Members of Montgomery County Board of 
Education, on 2/24/68. Service on Montgom­
ery County Board of Education on 2/24/68 
by service on AYalter McKee; service on Dr. 
Robert Parker and Dr. Franklin Jackson, 
member of said Board, on 2/24/68 by leaving 
copies with their wives at their residences.

Defendants’ notice of appeal to U.S. Court of 
Appeals for Fifth Circuit. (Copies of notice 
mailed by Clerk to Gray, Seay, Langford & 
Pryor, Jack Greenberg and Charles H. Jones, 
Jr., Hon. Stephen Poliak, Asst. Atty. Gen., 
Civil Rights Div., U.S. Dept, of Justice, and 
Ben Hardeman, U.S. Atty.)

Court reporter’s excerpt transcript—testimony 
of Herman L. Scott at hearing on 2/9/68.

PROCEEDINGS



20

date proceedings

I n Vol. I l l  at P age 670

2/28/68 Defendants’ bond for costs on appeal. ($250 de­
posited in reg istry  fund.)

2/28/68 Defendants’ motion for suspension and stay of 
injunction and order during pendency of ap­
peal.

3/2/68 Order amending order and injunction of Feb­
ruary 24, 1968. That portion of Part IV, C 
providing that the school board will provide 
transportation to Jefferson Davis High School 
for students who live more than two miles 
from the school and outside the City and 
closer to this school than Lee or Lanier 
amended to provide such transportation if 
said students live closer to Jefferson Davis 
than to Lee, Lanier or Montgomery County 
High School. Effective date of Part I, D (re­
lating to ratio of days taught by white sub­
stitute teachers to number of days taught 
by Negro substitute teachers) changed from 
March 1, 1968, to September, 1968; effective 
date of Part I, E (relating to ratio of num­
ber of days taught by white student teachers 
to number of days taught by Negro student 
teachers) changed from March 1, 1968, to 
September, 1968. Attachment A (letter to stu­
dents) informing students that they are eli­
gible to attend Jefferson Davis High School 
if they choose to do so amended to inform 
students that they are eligible to choose to 
attend Jefferson Davis High School if they



21

DATE

3/2/68

3/6/68

3 /6 /6 8

desire to do so. That portion of Part I, B 
providing that every school with fewer than 
12 teachers will have two full-time teachers 
whose race is different from the race of the 
majority of faculty and staff amended to pro­
vide that such schools will have at least one 
full-time teacher whose race is different from 
the race of the majority of faculty and staff. 
(Copies mailed to counsel; copies mailed by 
certified mail, return receipt requested, to de­
fendants and State Superintendent of Edu­
cation.)

Order that effective date for complying with, 
and making plans to comply with, those pro­
visions of the injunction of Feb. 24, 1968, set 
out in P art I, B (faculty desegregation); Part 
IV, C (transportation to Jefferson Davis High 
School, Peter Crump Elementary School and 
Southlawn Elementary School), and Part IV, 
D (the honoring of choices of Negro students 
who choose to attend Jefferson Davis High 
School during 1968-69 school year) be stayed 
until August 1, 1968. (Copies mailed to coun­
sel; copies mailed by certified mail, return 
receipt requested, to defendants and State 
Superintendent of Education.)

Defendants’ motion for leave to amend notice 
of appeal.

Order g ranting defendants’ motion for leave to 
amend notice of appeal.

PROCEEDINGS



DATE PROCEEDINGS

3/6/68 Amended notice of appeal filed by defendants.
(Copies of amended notice, motion and order 
mailed to Gray, Seay, Langford & Pryor; 
Jack Greenberg, et al., Hon. Stephen Poliak, 
Hon. Ben Hardeman, and U.S. Dept, of Jus­
tice Attorneys, Selma, Ala.)

3/6/68 Appellants’ statement of points.

Volume III—Record P ages 442-698 (Transcript filed 5/6/65
appears at page 442)

3/6/68 Court reporter’s memorandum transcript of 
comments at conclusion of hearing on May 25, 
1967.

3/6/68 Court reporter’s transcript of hearing Septem­
ber 5, 1967.

3/11/68 Court reporter’s transcript of hearing February 
9, 1968.

3/11/68 Clerk’s certificate as to record. (Not included 
—updated March 20, 1968)

3/11/68 Record mailed by certified air mail to Clerk, 
U.S. Court of Appeals, Room 536-A, Old Post 
Office Building, Atlanta, Ga. 30301.

3/13/68 Order (entered by CCA on 3/12/68) of Court 
of Appeals granting joint motion of parties 
for expedited hearing and submission of ap­
peal on original record and typewritten briefs 
provided 2 extra xeroxed copies of the origi­
nal record are prepared after record has been 
appropriately indexed, numbered and certi-



23

DATE

3/18/68

3 /2 0 /6 8

fied by Clerk of District Court. Appellants’ 
xeroxed brief to be filed and served on all 
opposing parties by April 5 and appellees’ 
brief to be filed no later than April 25.

Defendants’ report in accordance with Part V 
of desegregation plan attached to memoran­
dum opinion of Feb. 24, 1968. (In brown 
envelope.)

PROCEEDINGS

C le rk ’s certifica te  a s  to  reco rd .



24

Complaint

(Filed May 11,1964)

I n the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle D istrict of Alabama 
Northern D ivision

The jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to the 
provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 1343(3), 
this being a suit in equity, authorized by law (Title 42, 
United States Code, Section 1983) to be commenced by 
any citizen of the United States or other person within 
the jurisdiction thereof to redress the deprivation, under 
color of statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage 
of a state, of rights, privileges and immunities secured by 
the Constitution and laws of the United States. The rights, 
privileges and immunities sought to be secured by this 
action are rights, privileges and immunities secured by 
the due process and equal protection clauses of the Four­
teenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 
as hereinafter more fully appears.

— 1—

This is a proceeding for a preliminary and permanent 
injunction enjoining the Montgomery County Board of 
Education, its members and the Superintendent of Educa­
tion, Walter McKee, from continuing their policy, prac­
tice, custom and usage of operating a dual school system 
in Montgomery County, Alabama, based wholly on the



25

race and color of children attending schools in said county. 
This is also a proceeding to enjoin said defendants from 
assigning students, taaehers-'and other school personnel 
to the schools operated and controlled by them on the 
basis of race, and to enjoin the use of any funds or 
property in such manner as to perpetuate a compulsory 
biracial school system in Montgomery County.

I l l

The plaintiffs in this case are Arlam Carr, Jr., a minor 
by Arlam Carr and Johnnie Carr his parents and next 
friends; and Bathsheba L. Thompson, John W. Thompson, 
James G. Thompson, and Phillip L. Thompson, minors, 
by Bishop S. Thompson, Sr. and Lois E. Thompson, their 
parents and next friends. Plaintiffs bring this action as 
a class suit pursuant to Rule 23(a)(3) of the Federal 
Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of themselves and on 
behalf of other Negro children and their parents similarly 
situated, all of whom are affected by the policy, practice, 
custom and usage complained of herein as will more fully 
appear. The members of the class on behalf of which 
plaintiffs sue are so numerous as to make it impracticable 
to bring them all individually before this Court, but there 
are common questions of law and fact involved; common 
grievances arising out of common wrongs and common 
relief is sought for each of the plaintiffs individually and 
for each member of the class. Plaintiffs fairly and ade­
quately represent the interest of the class.

Infant and adult plaintiffs are Negro citizens of the 
United States and of the State of Alabama and are



26

presently residing in Montgomery County, Alabama. The 
minor plaintiffs are either attending public schools in 
Montgomery County, Alabama, managed, controlled and 
operated by defendants herein or are eligible to attend 
such schools. The schools which minor plaintiffs cur­
rently attend are all limited by defendants to attendance 
by Negro children pursuant to the policy, practice, custom 
and usage of defendants of operating a compulsory bi- 
racial school system and assigning school children therein 
and other personnel on the grounds of race.

y

Defendants are the Montgomery County Board of Educa­
tion, Harold M. Harris, Fred Bear, Dr. H. P. Dawson, 
George A. Dozier, Dr. W. E. Goodwin, Mrs. Isabelle B. 
Thomasson and Dr. Robert Parker, members of the Mont­
gomery County Board of Education, and Walter McKee, 
Superintendent of Education of Montgomery County, 
Alabama. The defendant Board is charged by the laws 
of the State of Alabama with the duty of operating a sys­
tem of free public schools in Montgomery County and 
said Board is presently operating the public schools in the 
aforesaid county pursuant to those laws. Defendant, 
Walter McKee, as the Superintendent of Schools for 
Montgomery County, is the chief administrative officer of 
the Board. Defendants are sued in their individual as 
well as in their official capacity.

VI

Defendants, acting under color of the laws of Alabama, 
have pursued for some time and are presently pursuing 
a policy, practice, custom and usage of operating the pub-



27

lie school system in Montgomery Connty, Alabama on a 
racially segregated basis. Defendants maintain and op­
erate a compulsory biracial school system by the use of

—4—
dual school ̂ one^c attendance'areas for white and Negro 
pupils, ddsing the anal attendance areas, defendants make 
juiitial assignments of students to the public schools under 
"tiielrcontrol on the grounds of race and color, j Principals, 
teachers and other professional personnel under defen­
dants’ .jurisdiction are likewise assigned to tiie schools 
on the basis of race and colorj Students initially assigned 
to elementary schools designated as “white” are there­
after assigned solely to high schools similarly desig­
nated. Students assigned initially to elementary schools 
denominated as Negro, are thereafter assigned solely to 
high schools similarly designated. In no case are the as­
signments of either students, teachers, principals or other 
professional personnel of the white race made to schools 
designated as Negro nor are assignments of students, 
teachers, principals or other personnel of the Negro race 
assigned to schools designated as white. Defendants also 
discriminate against plaintiffs herein and the members of 
the class represented by them in school construction, the 
formulation of budgets, and the disbursement of school 
funds. Specifically, defendants construct elementary and 
high schools with reference to the maintenance of a com­
pulsory biracial school system. Defendants herein also 
limit the participation in extra-curricular activities in the 
schools to one or the other race, separately.

VII

On or about April 22, 1964, Mr. Fred D. Gray, an at­
torney acting on" behaH~oFlhe plaintiffs herein, wrote to



28

defendant Walter McKee and the defendant Board mem­
bers, requesting a change of the policy, practice, custom 
and usage of operating a compulsory biracial school sys­
tem, and petitioned said defendants to refrain from con­
tinuing the acts complained of therein (a copy of this 
petition is attached hereto, marked Ex. A, and made a 
part of this complaint). The plaintiffs, in essence re­
quested, and seek herein, the complete reorganization of 
the Montgomery County school system on a nonracial 
basis.

Although the defendant Board was duly placed on notice 
that plaintiffs and members of their class wished to have 
the Montgomery County public schools desegregated in 
accordance with the Supreme Court’s school desegregation 
decision of 1954, and although they made specific demands 
upon said Board, as contained in the aforementioned peti­
tion (see Ex. A), to the date of the filing of this complaint, 
none of the plaintiffs, nor anyone acting on their behalf, 
have received any response with regard to the foregoing 
from any of the defendants herein.

IX

The plaintiffs herein have not exhausted the adminis­
trative remedy provided by the Alabama School Placement 
Law for the reason that the remedy there provided is in­
adequate to provide the relief sought by them in this case. 
By numerous past decisions in this Circuit, plaintiffs are 
not required to exhaust administrative remedies which will 
afford them no relief. Plaintiffs have not exhausted the 
remedies provided by the Alabama School Placement Law



29

for the further reason that the defendants, acting pursuant 
to the terms of that law, have continued to maintain and 
operate a compulsory biracial school system. The Alabama 
School Placement Law was passed by the Alabama Legis­
lature in 1955 (Code of Alabama), Title 52, §§ 61(1)—61 
(12). Though the Alabama School Placement Law was held 
to he constitutional on its face in Shuttlesworth v. Birming­
ham Board of Education, 162 F. Supp. 372, affirmed 358 
U.S. 101, the school placement law has been administered 
and applied to plaintiffs in such a way as to discriminate 
against them with respect to their constitutional rights 
under the due process and equal protection clauses of the 
Fourteenth Amendment and the due process clause of the 
Fifth Amendment not to be denied admission to the public 
schools of Montgomery County, Alabama on the ground of 
race or color.

Plaintiffs allege that the policy, practice, custom and 
usage of the defendant Board in requiring the minor plain­
tiffs and other Negro children similarly situated to attend 
racially segregated schools in Montgomery County violates 
rights secured to plaintiffs and others similarly situated 
by the equal protection and due process clauses of the Four­
teenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
and Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983.

XI

Plaintiffs and those similarly situated have suffered and 
will continue to suffer irreparable injury and harm caused 
by the acts of the defendants complained of herein. Plain­
tiffs have no plain, adequate or complete remedy to redress



30

these wrongs other than this suit for injunctive relief. Any 
other remedy would be attended by such uncertainties and 
delays as to deny substantial relief, would involve a mul­
tiplicity of suits, cause further irreparable injury and occa­
sion damage, vexation and inconvenience to the plaintiffs 
and those similarly situated.

W herefore, plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court 
advance this cause on the docket and order a speedy hear­
ing of this action according to law and after such hearing:

1. Enter a decree enjoining defendants, their agents, 
representatives, employees and successors and all persons 
in active concert and participation with them from con­
tinuing to operate a compulsory biracial school system in 
Montgomery County, Alabama.

2. Enter a decree enjoining defendants, their agents, 
representatives, employees and successors and all persons 
in active concert and participation with them from con­
tinuing to maintain a dual scheme or pattern of school zone 
lines or attendance area lines based on race or color.

— 7 —

3. Enter a decree enjoining defendants, their agents, 
representatives, employees and successors and all persons 
in active concert and participation with them from making- 
initial assignments of pupils to the public schools of Mont­
gomery County, Alabama on the basis of race or color.

4. Enter a decree enjoining defendants, their agents, 
representatives, employees and successors and all persons 
in active concert and participation with them from assign­
ing and/or employing teachers, principals and other pro­
fessional personnel to the public schools under their juris­
diction on the basis of race or color.



31

5. Enter a decree enjoining defendants, their agents, 
representatives, employees and successors and all persons 
in active concert and participation with them from approv­
ing employment contracts, budgets and disbursing funds 
on the basis of race or color.

6. Enter a decree enjoining defendants, their agents, 
representatives, employees and successors and all persons 
in active concert and participation with them from con­
structing elementary and high schools in Montgomery 
County, Alabama on the basis of the dual attendance areas 
based on race or color.

7. Enter a decree enjoining defendants, their agents, 
representatives, employees and successors and all persons 
in active concert and participation with them from pro­
gramming and supporting extra-curricular activities which 
are limited solely to one or the other of the races.

8. Enter a decree enjoining defendants, their agents,
representatives, employees and successors and all persons 
in active concert and participation with them from con­
tinuing to make any other distinctions in the operation of 
the schools under their jurisdiction which are based solely 
on race or color. \

In the alternative, plaintiffs pray that tJiis^CourFeirtet^, 
decree directing said defendants to present a complete plam 
in a period of time to be determined by mis Court fojxtne 
reorganization of the entire school system o£-Merrrfgomery 
County, Alabama into a unitary, nonracial system which 
shall include a plan for the assignment of pupils, teachers, 
principals and other professional school personnel on a 
nonracial basis; the drawing of school zone or attendance



32

area lines on a nonracial basis; the allotment of funds, 
the construction of schools, the approval of budgets on a 
nonracial basis; the programming of extra-curricular ac­
tivities on a nonracial basis and the elimination of any 
other discrimination in the operation of the school system 
or curricula which are based solely on race or color.

Plaintiffs pray that if this Court directs said defendants 
to produce a desegregation plan that this Court will retain 
jurisdiction of this case pending court approval and full 
and complete implementation of said defendants’ plan.

Plaintiffs pray that this Court will allow them their costs 
herein and grant such other, further and additional or al­
ternative relief as may appear to the court from time to 
time to be equitable, just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

F red D. Gray 
J ack Greenberg 

Charles H. J ones, J r. 
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

— 8 —



— 9 —

EXHIBIT A ANNEXED TO COMPLAINT 

April 22, 1964

Montgomery County Board of Education 
c/o Mr. Walter McKee, Superintendent 
305 South Lawrence Street 
Montgomery, Alabama

Dear S irs:

This office is representing the parents of Negro school- 
age children who are entitled to attend public schools in 
Montgomery County, Alabama. These parents are resi­
dents of Montgomery County, Alabama and they have re­
tained me to represent them in bringing an end to seg­
regated schools in this County. On behalf of these parents 
I hereby petition you as members of the Board of Edu­
cation of Montgomery County, and Mr. McKee as Super­
intendent, to begin immediately operating the schools under 
your jurisdiction according to the principles laid down by 
the U. S. Supreme Court on May 17, 1954 in the case of 
Brown vs. Board of Education; and we particularly recpiest 
that you do the following:

(1) Assign pupils to schools under your jurisdiction with­
out regard to their race or color.

(2) Assign principals, teachers and other professional 
personnel under your jurisdiction without regard to 
their race or color.

(3) Refrain from promulgating and enforcing a dual 
school system, a particular school zone line and



34

school attendance area line on the basis of race or 
color.

(4) Refrain from assigning Negro students attending 
Negro schools or predominantly Negro Elementary 
Schools or predominantly Negro High Schools on 
the basis of race or color.

(5) Refrain from assigning White students attending 
White Schools or predominantly White Elementary 
Schools or predominantly White High Schools on 
the basis of race and color.

(6) Refrain from constructing elementary or high schools 
and any other schools on the basis of the needs of 
each of the two races separately.

(7) Refrain from continuing to make any other distinc­
tion in the operation of the schools under your juris­
diction which are based solely on race or color.

— 10—

On behalf of said parents, we further request that the 
Board of Education of Montgomery County come forward 
with a complete plan immediately for reorganization of 
the entire dual school system under your jurisdiction into 
a Unitarian nonracial system, which plan should provide 
for reassignment of the teachers, principals and other pro­
fessional personnel without regard to race or color; the 
participation of all students in extra-curricula activities 
for which they are eligible without regard to race or color 
and for the elimination of all other distinctions in the 
operation of public schools under your jurisdiction which 
are based on race or color.



May we hear from you immediately in connection with 
this matter.

35

Yours very truly,

F. D. Gray

FDG/dmd 

CCs:

Mr. Harold M. Harris 
Mr. Fred Bear 
Dr. H. P. Dawson 
Mr. George A. Dozier 
Dr. W. E. Goodwin 
Mrs. Isabelle B. Thomasson 
Dr. Kobert Parker



36

— 11—

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction

(Filed May 11, 1964)

I n the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle District of Alabama 
Northern D ivision

Plaintiffs, upon the complaint filed in the above cause, 
move this court for a preliminary injunction, pending the 
final hearing and determination of this cause to enjoin the 
defendants, their agents, servants, employees, successors 
and all persons in active concert and participation with 
them from continuing to operate a compulsory biracial 
school system in Montgomery County, Alabama, continuing 
to maintain a dual scheme or pattern of school zone lines or 
attendance area lines based on race or color, making initial 
assignments of pupils to the public schools of Montgomery 
County, Alabama on the basis of race or color, assigning 
and/or employing teachers, principals and other profes­
sional personnel to the public schools under their jurisdic­
tion on the basis of race or color, approving employment 
contracts and budgets, and from disbursing funds on the 
basis of race or color, constructing elementary and high

— 12-

schools in Montgomery County, Alabama on the basis of 
the dual attendance areas based on race or color, program­
ming and supporting extra-curricular activities which are



37

limited solely to one or the other of the races, continuing 
to make any other distinctions in the operation of the 
schools under their jurisdiction which are based solely on 
race or color.

In the alternative, plaintiffs pray that this Court enter a 
decree directing said defendants to present a complete plan 
in a period of time to be determined by this Court for the 
reorganization of the entire school system of Montgomery 
County, Alabama, into a unitary, nonracial system which 
shall include a plan for the assignment of pupils, teachers, 
principals and other professional school personnel on a 
nonracial basis; the drawing of school zone or attendance 
area lines on a nonracial basis; the allotment of funds, the 
construction of schools, the approval of budgets on a non­
racial basis; the programming of extra-curricular activities 
on a nonracial basis and the elimination of any other dis­
crimination in the operation of the school system or cur­
ricula which are based solely on race or color.

Plaintiffs pray that if this Court directs said defendants 
to produce a desegregation plan that this Court will retain 
jurisdiction of this case pending court approval and full 
and complete implementation of said defendants’ plan.

Plaintiffs pray that this Court will allow them their 
costs herein and grant such other, further and additional 
or alternative relief as may appear to the court from time 
to time to be equitable, just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

F red D. Gray 
J ack Greenberg 

Charles H. J ones, J r.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs



F or the Middle District of Alabama 
Northern Division

It appearing to the Court that this case has been filed 
as of May 11, 1964, with the Clerk of this Court by the 
plaintiffs, acting by and through their attorneys, and

It further appearing that the said plaintiffs ask this 
Court for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief 
against the Montgomery County Board of Education and 
its members and the Superintendent of Education of Mont­
gomery County, Alabama;

This Court is of the opinion that the public interests in 
the administration of justice should be represented in this 
proceeding and that it will be of assistance to the Court 
to have the benefit of the views of counsel for the United 
States as amici curiae, and that this Court is entitled at 
any time to call upon the law office of the United States 
to serve in that capacity. It is, therefore, the

Order, J udgment and Decree of this Court that the 
Honorable Ben Hardeman, United States Attorney for this



39

district, and the Honorable John Hoar, Attorney, Civil 
Rights Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., 
and/or any other attorney with the Department of Justice 
designated by the Honorable Robert Kennedy, Attorney 
General of the United States, be and each is hereby ap-

—14—
pointed as amicus curiae counsel in this cause, to assist 
the Court in the speedy and just determination of the issues 
involved.

Done, this the 18th day of May, 1964.

F rank M. J ohnson, J r. 
United States District Judge

!



40

Interrogatories
(Filed May 26,1964)

I n  the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle D istrict of Alabama 
Northern D ivision

To: Arlam Carr, Jr., a minor, by Arlam Carr and Johnnie
Carr, his parents and next friends.

Now comes the Montgomery County Board of Educa­
tion, one of the Defendants in the above entitled action, 
pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro­
cedure, and files the following interrogatories to be an­
swered under oath within fifteen days of the time service 
is made upon you.

1. (a) State your present age, giving your birthday and 
your present resident address.

(b) With whom is the minor complainant presently 
residing?

(c) State the name of the person or persons who have 
the care, custody and control of the minor.

2. For how long have you resided or lived at this 
address ?

- 1 5 -



41

3. Are you attending a public school within the Mont­
gomery County School System for the current school year
1963-19641

4. If your answer to Interrogatory No. 3 was in the 
affirmative, state the following:

a. The name of the school you are attending.

b. The address of the school that you are attending.

c. The grade to which you are assigned.

5. If your answer to Interrogatory No. 3 was in the 
negative, state the following:

a. The name of the school you are attending.

b. The address of the school that you are attending.

c. The grade to which you are assigned.
—16—

6. For how many years prior to the school year 1963- 
1964, did you attend a public school in the City of Mont­
gomery or in Montgomery County, Alabama!

7. State the name or names of all schools attended by 
you in the Montgomery County School System prior to the 
school year 1963-1964.

8. State your address while in attendance at each of 
these schools.

9. Have you or vour parents ever made an individual 
request to transfer from one school to another within the 
Montgomery County Public School System?



42

10. If your answer to Interrogatory No. 9 is in the 
affirmative, please state the following:

a. The person or agency to whom this request was made.

b. The date on which this request was made.

c. State whether this request was made in writing or 
orally and give full details of the request or application 
and if such request was made in writing attach a copy 
thereof.

d. All action taken upon this request or application.

e. Did you receive notice of this action in writing? If 
so, please attach a copy of this notice. Give full details of 
action taken upon request or application.

f. Did you file an exception or any form of objection 
to the action taken on the request or application?

g. Did you file an appeal of any type to any court from 
the action of the Board?

11. Have you ever failed to be promoted from one grade 
to the next successive grade?

12. If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in 
the affirmative, please state the grade or grades which 
were required to be repeated.

13. Please attach to your answers copies or photostatic 
copies of your report cards for each year during which 
you were a pupil in the Montgomery County Public School 
System.

14. Have you ever been expelled as a pupil from any 
school in the Montgomery County Public School System?



43

If so, give full details of your expulsion and explain fully 
all action taken.

—17—
15. Have you ever been suspended as a pupil from any 

public school in the Montgomery County Public School 
System? If so, give full details and fully explain the 
action taken.

16. Have any disciplinary actions been taken against 
you by Montgomery County School authorities? If so, give 
complete details as to each such disciplinary action.

17. (a) Do you now desire to transfer from one school 
to another within the public school system of Montgomery 
County, Alabama?

(b) If your answer to Interrogatory No. 17 (a) is in 
the affirmative, then state the name of the particular school 
into which you wish to transfer.

(c) If your answer to Interrogatory No. 17 (a) above 
is in the affirmative, please state whether you or your 
parents have made a request for this transfer.

18. If your answer to Interrogatory No. 17 (c) is in the 
affirmative, please state the following:

a. The person or agency to whom this request was made.

b. Was the request made orally or in writing—if in 
writing, please attach a copy or a photostatic copy thereof 
to your answer.

c. The date that this request was made.

d. The action taken upon this request or application.

e. Did you file an exception or any form of objection 
to the action taken on this request?



44

f. Did you file an appeal of any type from the action 
taken on your request?

19. What is the name of the first school which you at­
tended within the Montgomery County Public School 
System ?

20. Have you employed a lawyer to represent you in 
the case which you have filed against the Board of Educa­
tion of Montgomery County, Alabama?

21. Will you pay a lawyer to represent you in the case 
which you have filed against the Board of Education of 
Montgomery County?

22. Have any grievances been presented by you indi­
vidually or by your parents and next friends individually 
to the Montgomery County Board of Education or to any 
of the Defendants in this case?

—18—
23. Explain in detail the “dual attendance areas” as set 

out in your complaint and state how you claim to be af­
fected by such “dual attendance areas”.

24. State all specific demands that you or your parents 
and next friends have made upon the Montgomery County 
Board of Education. Did you give your name to the Board 
when making such specific demands?

25. What is your grade assignment for the school year
1964-1965?

26. What school, applicable to your grade assignment 
for the school year 1964-1965, is the closest to your present 
resident address?



45

27. (a) Did you or your parents make written applica­
tion for initial assignment to a specific school?

(b) If your answer to Interrogatory No. 27 (a) is in the 
affirmative, then state into which school you made written 
application for admission.

(c) Have you been or were you initially assigned to the 
school to which you made written application?

28. You state in your bill of complaint that the Alabama 
School Placement Law provides inadequate relief. Will you 
state in detail all relief that you have sought under the 
Alabama School Placement Law and state the specific ac­
tion taken on the requested relief.

29. Have you or your parents specifically demanded re­
lief or any action under the Alabama School Placement 
Law?

H ill, R obison and Belser

Certificate of Service (omitted in printing)



46

Interrogatories
(Filed May 26, 1964)

I n  the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle District of Alabama 
Northern Division

To: Bathsheba L. Thompson, a minor, by Bishop S.
Thompson, Sr., and Lois E. Thompson, her parents and
next friends.

Now comes the Montgomery County Board of Educa­
tion, one of the Defendants in the above entitled action, 
pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro­
cedure, and files the following interrogatories to be an­
swered under oath within fifteen days of the time service 
is made upon you.

1. (a) State your present age, giving your birthday and 
your present resident address.

(b) With whom is the minor complainant presently 
residing?

(c) State the name of the person or persons who have 
the care, custody and control of the minor.

2. For how long have you resided or lived at this 
address?

3. Are you attending a public school within the Mont­
gomery County School System for the current school year 
1963-1964?

— 1 9 -



47

4. If your answer to Interrogatory No. 3 was in the 
affirmative, state the following:

a. The name of the school you are attending.

b. The address of the school that you are attending.

c. The grade to which you are assigned.

5. If your answer to Interrogatory No. 3 was in the 
negative, state the following:

a. The name of the school you are attending.

b. The address of the school that you are attending.

c. The grade to which you are assigned.
— 20—

6. For how many years prior to the school year 1963- 
1964, did you attend a public school in the City of Mont­
gomery or in Montgomery County, Alabama?

7. State the name or names of all schools attended by 
you in the Montgomery County School System prior to the 
school year 1963-1964.

8. State your address while in attendance at each of 
these schools.

9. Have you or your parents ever made an individual 
request to transfer from one school to another within the 
Montgomery County Public School System?

10. If your answer to Interrogatory No. 9 is in the 
affirmative, please state the following:

a. The person or agency to whom this request was made.

b. The date on which this request was made.



48

c. State whether this request was made in writing or 
orally and give full details of the request or application 
and if such request was made in writing attach a copy 
thereof.

d. All action taken upon this request or application.

e. Did you receive notice of this action in writing? If 
so, please attach a copy of this notice. Give full details of 
action taken upon request or application.

f. Did you file an exception or any form of objection 
to the action taken on the request or application?

g. Did you file an appeal of any type to any court from 
the action of the Board?

11. Have you ever failed to be promoted from one grade 
to the next successive grade?

12. If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in 
the affirmative, please state the grade or grades which 
were required to be repeated.

13. Please attach to your answers copies or photostatic 
copies of your report cards for each year during which 
you were a pupil in the Montgomery County Public School 
System.

14. Have you ever been expelled as a pupil from any 
school in the Montgomery County Public School System? 
If so, give full details of your expulsion and explain fully 
all action taken.

— 21—

15. Have you ever been suspended as a pupil from any 
public school in the Montgomery County Public School



49

System! If so, give full details and fully explain the 
action taken.

16. Have any disciplinary actions been taken against 
you by Montgomery County School authorities! If so, give 
complete details as to each such disciplinary action.

17. (a) Do you now desire to transfer from one school 
to another within the public school system of Montgomery 
County, Alabama!

(b) If your answer to Interrogatory No. 17 (a) is in 
the affirmative, then state the name of the particular school 
into which you wish to transfer.

(c) If your answer to Interrogatory No. 17 (a) above 
is in the affirmative, please state whether you or your 
parents have made a request for this transfer.

18. If your answer to Interrogatory No. 17 (c) is in the 
affirmative, please state the following:

a. The person or agency to whom this request was made.

b. Was the request made orally or in writing—if in 
writing, please attach a copy or a photostatic copy thereof 
to your answer.

c. The date that this request was made.

d. The action taken upon this request or application.

e. Did you file an exception or any form of objection 
to the action taken on this request!

f. Did you file an appeal of any type from the action 
taken on your request!



50

19. What is the name of the first school which you at­
tended within the Montgomery County Public School 
System ?

20. Have you employed a lawyer to represent you in 
the case which you have filed against the Board of Educa­
tion of Montgomery County, Alabama?

21. Will you pay a lawyer to represent you in the case 
which you have filed against the Board of Education of 
Montgomery County?

22. Have any grievances been presented by you indi­
vidually or by your parents and next friends individually 
to the Montgomery County Board of Education or to any 
of the Defendants in this case?

— 22—

23. Explain in detail the “dual attendance areas” as set 
out in your complaint and state how you claim to be af­
fected by such “dual attendance areas”.

24. State all specific demands that you or your parents 
and next friends have made upon the Montgomery County 
Board of Education. Did you give your name to the Board 
when making such specific demands?

25. What is your grade assignment for the school year 
1964-1965?

26. What school, applicable to your grade assignment 
for the school year 1964-1965, is the closest to your present 
resident address?

27. (a) Did you or your parents make written applica­
tion for initial assignment to a specific school?



51

(b) If your answer to Interrogatory No. 27 (a) is in the 
affirmative, then state into which school you made written 
application for admission.

(c) Have you been or were you initially assigned to the 
school to which you made written application?

28. You state in your bill of complaint that the Alabama 
School Placement Law provides inadequate relief. Will you 
state in detail all relief that you have sought under the 
Alabama School Placement Law and state the specific ac­
tion taken on the requested relief.

29. Have you or your parents specifically demanded re­
lief or any action under the Alabama School Placement 
Law?

H ill, R obison and Belser

Certificate of Service (omitted in printing)



52

Interrogatories
(Filed May 26, 1964)

I n the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle D istrict of Alabama 
Northern Division

To: John W. Thompson, a minor, by Bishop S. Thompson,
Sr., and Lois E. Thompson, his parents and next friends.

Now comes the Montgomery County Board of Educa­
tion, one of the Defendants in the above entitled action, 
pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro­
cedure, and files the following interrogatories to be an­
swered under oath within fifteen days of the time service 
is made upon you.

1. (a) State your present age, giving your birthday and 
your present resident address.

(b) With whom is the minor complainant presently 
residing?

(c) State the name of the person or persons who have 
the care, custody and control of the minor.

2. For how long have you resided or lived at this 
address ?

3. Are you attending a public school within the Mont­
gomery County School System for the current school year 
1963-1964?

— 2 3 -



53

4. If your answer to Interrogatory No. 3 was in the 
affirmative, state the following:

a. The name of the school you are attending.

b. The address of the school that you are attending.

c. The grade to which you are assigned.

5. If your answer to Interrogatory No. 3 was in the 
negative, state the following:

a. The name of the school you are attending.

b. The address of the school that you are attending.

c. The grade to which you are assigned.
—24—

6. For how many years prior to the school year 1963- 
1964, did you attend a public school in the City of Mont­
gomery or in Montgomery County, Alabama?

7. State the name or names of all schools attended by 
you in the Montgomery County School System prior to the 
school year 1963-1964.

8. State your address while in attendance at each of 
these schools.

9. Have you or your parents ever made an individual 
request to transfer from one school to another within the 
Montgomery County Public School System?

10. If your answer to Interrogatory No. 9 is in the 
affirmative, please state the following:

a. The person or agency to whom this request was made.

b. The date on which this request was made.



54

e. State whether this request was made in writing or 
orally and give full details of the request or application 
and if such request was made in writing attach a copy 
thereof.

d. All action taken upon this request or application.

e. Did you receive notice of this action in writing? If 
so, please attach a copy of this notice. Give full details of 
action taken upon request or application.

f. Did you file an exception or any form of objection 
to the action taken on the request or application?

g. Did you file an appeal of any type to any court from 
the action of the Board?

11. Have you ever failed to be promoted from one grade 
to the next successive grade?

12. If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in 
the affirmative, please state the grade or grades which 
were required to be repeated.

13. Please attach to your answers copies or photostatic 
copies of your report cards for each year during which 
you were a pupil in the Montgomery County Public School 
System.

14. Have you ever been expelled as a pupil from any 
school in the Montgomery County Public School System? 
If so, give full details of your expulsion and explain fully 
all action taken.

—25—
15. Have you ever been suspended as a pupil from any 

public school in the Montgomery County Public School



55

System? If so, give full details and fully explain the 
action taken.

16. Have any disciplinary actions been taken against 
you by Montgomery County School authorities? If so, give 
complete details as to each such disciplinary action.

17. (a) Do you now desire to transfer from one school 
to another within the public school system of Montgomery 
County, Alabama?

(b) If  your answer to Interrogatory No. 17 (a) is in 
the affirmative, then state the name of the particular school 
into which you wish to transfer.

(c) If your answer to Interrogatory No. 17 (a) above 
is in the affirmative, please state whether you or your 
parents have made a request for this transfer.

18. If your answer to Interrogatory No. 17 (c) is in the 
affirmative, please state the following:

a. The person or agency to whom this request was made.

b. Was the request made orally or in writing—if in 
writing, please attach a copy or a photostatic copy thereof 
to your answer.

c. The date that this request was made.

d. The action taken upon this request or application.

e. Did you file an exception or any form of objection 
to the action taken on this request?

f. Did you file an appeal of any type from the action 
taken on your request?



56

19. What is the name of the first school which you at­
tended within the Montgomery County Public School 
System ?

20. Have you employed a lawyer to represent you in 
the case which you have filed against the Board of Educa­
tion of Montgomery County, Alabama?

21. Will you pay a lawyer to represent you in the case 
which you have filed against the Board of Education of 
Montgomery County?

22. Have any grievances been presented by you indi­
vidually or by your parents and next friends individually 
to the Montgomery County Board of Education or to any 
of the Defendants in this case?

—26—
23. Explain in detail the “dual attendance areas” as set 

out in your complaint and state how you claim to be af­
fected by such “dual attendance areas”.

24. State all specific demands that you or your parents 
and next friends have made upon the Montgomery County 
Board of Education. Did you give your name to the Board 
when making such specific demands?

25. What is your grade assignment for the school year 
1964-1965?

26. What school, applicable to your grade assignment 
for the school year 1964-1965, is the closest to your present 
resident address?

27. (a) Did you or your parents make written applica­
tion for initial assignment to a specific school?



57

(b) If your answer to Interrogatory No. 27 (a) is in the 
affirmative, then state into which school you made written 
application for admission.

(c) Have you been or were you initially assigned to the 
school to which you made written application?

28. You state in your bill of complaint that the Alabama 
School Placement Law provides inadequate relief. Will you 
state in detail all relief that you have sought under the 
Alabama School Placement Law and state the specific ac­
tion taken on the requested relief.

29. Have you or your parents specifically demanded re­
lief or any action under the Alabama School Placement 
Law?

H ill, R obison and Belser

Certificate of Service (omitted in printing)



58

Interrogatories
(Filed May 26, 1964)

I n  the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle D istrict of Alabama 
Northern Division

To: James Gr. Thompson, a minor, by Bishop S. Thomp­
son, Sr., and Lois E. Thompson, his parents and next
friends.

Now comes the Montgomery Connty Board of Educa­
tion, one of the Defendants in the above entitled action, 
pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro­
cedure, and files the following interrogatories to be an­
swered under oath within fifteen days of the time service 
is made upon you.

1. (a) State your present age, giving your birthday and 
your present resident address.

(b) With whom is the minor complainant presently 
residing?

(c) State the name of the person or persons who have 
the care, custody and control of the minor.

2. For how long have you resided or lived at this 
address?

3. Are you attending a public school within the Mont­
gomery County School System for the current school year 
1963-1964?

- 2 7 -



59

4. If your answer to Interrogatory No. 3 was in the 
affirmative, state the following:

a. The name of the school you are attending.

b. The address of the school that you are attending.

c. The grade to which you are assigned.

5. If your answer to Interrogatory No. 3 was in the 
negative, state the following:

a. The name of the school you are attending.

b. The address of the school that you are attending.

c. The grade to which you are assigned.
—28—

6. For how many years prior to the school year 1963- 
1964, did you attend a public school in the City of Mont­
gomery or in Montgomery County, Alabama?

7. State the name or names of all schools attended by 
you in the Montgomery County School System prior to 
the school year 1963-1964.

8. State your address while in attendance at each of 
these schools.

9. Have you or your parents ever made an individual 
request to transfer from one school to another within the 
Montgomery County Public School System?

10. If your answer to Interrogatory No. 9 is in the 
affirmative, please state the following:

a. The person or agency to whom this request was made.

b. The date on which this request was made.



60

c. State whether this request was made in writing or 
orally and give full details of the request or application 
and if such request was made in writing attach a copy 
thereof.

d. All action taken upon this request or application.

e. Did you receive notice of this action in writing? If 
so, please attach a copy of this notice. Give full details of 
action taken upon request or application.

f. Did you file an exception or any form of objection 
to the action taken on the request or application?

g. Did you file an appeal of any type to any court from 
the action of the Board?

11. Have you ever failed to be promoted from one grade 
to the next successive grade?

12. If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in 
the affirmative, please state the grade or grades which 
were required to be repeated.

13. Please attach to your answers copies or photostatic 
copies of your report cards for each year during which 
you were a pupil in the Montgomery County Public School 
System.

14. Have you ever been expelled as a pupil from any 
school in the Montgomery County Public School System? 
If so, give full details of your expulsion and explain fully 
all action taken.

—29—
15. Have you ever been suspended as a pupil from any 

public school in the Montgomery County Public School



61

System? If so, give full details and fully explain the 
action taken.

16. Have any disciplinary actions been taken against 
you by Montgomery County School authorities? If so, give 
complete details as to each such disciplinary action.

17. (a) Do you now desire to transfer from one school 
to another within the public school system of Montgomery 
County, Alabama?

(b) If your answer to Interrogatory No. 17 (a) is in 
the affirmative, then state the name of the particular school 
into which you Avish to transfer.

(c) I f  your ansAver to In terrogatory  No. 17 (a) is in 
the affirmative, please state whether you or your parents 
have made a request for this transfer.

18. I f  your ansAver to In terrogatory  No. 17 (c) is in the 
affirmative, please state the folloAving:

a. The person or agency to whom this request was made.

b. W as the request made orally or in Avriting—if in 
Avriting, please attach a copy or a photostatic copy thereof 
to your ansAver.

c. The date that this request Avas made.

d. The action taken upon this request or application.

e. Did you file an exception or any form of objection 
to the action taken on this request?

f. Did you file an appeal of any type from the action 
taken on your request?



62

19. What is the name of the first school which you at­
tended within the Montgomery County Public School 
System?

20. Have you employed a lawyer to represent you in 
the case which you have filed against the Board of Educa­
tion of Montgomery County, Alabama?

21. Will you pay a lawyer to represent you in the case 
which you have filed against the Board of Education of 
Montgomery County?

22. Have any grievances been presented by you indi­
vidually or by your parents and next friends individually 
to the Montgomery County Board of Education or to any 
of the Defendants in this case?

—30—
23. Explain in detail the “dual attendance areas” as set 

out in your complaint and state how you claim to be af­
fected by such “dual attendance areas”.

24. State all specific demands that you or your parents 
and next friends have made upon the Montgomery County 
Board of Education. Did you give your name to the Board 
when making such specific demands?

25. What is your grade assignment for the school year 
1964-1965?

26. WTiat school, applicable to your grade assignment 
for the school year 1964-1965, is the closest to your present 
resident address?

27. (a) Did you or your parents make written applica­
tion for initial assignment to a specific school?



63

(b) If your answer to Interrogatory No. 27 (a) is in the 
affirmative, then state into which school you made written 
application for admission.

(c) Have you been or were you initially assigned to the 
school to which you made written application?

28. You state in your bill of complaint that the Alabama 
School Placement Law provides inadequate relief. Will you 
state in detail all relief that you have sought under the 
Alabama School Placement Law and state the specific ac­
tion taken on the requested relief.

29. Have you or your parents specifically demanded re­
lief or any action under the Alabama School Placement 
Law?

H ill, R obison and Belser 

Certificate of Service (omitted in printing)



64

Interrogatories
(Filed May 26, 1964)

I n the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F ob the Middle Distkict of Alabama 
Northern Division

To: Phillip L. Thompson, a minor, by Bishop S. Thomp­
son, Sr., and Lois E. Thompson, his parents and next
friends.

Now comes the Montgomery County Board of Educa­
tion, one of the Defendants in the above entitled action, 
pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro­
cedure, and files the following interrogatories to be an­
swered under oath within fifteen days of the time service 
is made upon you.

1. (a) State your present age, giving your birthday and 
your present resident address.

(b) With whom is the minor complainant presently 
residing?

(c) State the name of the person or persons who have 
the care, custody and control of the minor.

2. For how long have you resided or lived at this 
address?

3. Are you attending a public school within the Mont­
gomery County School System for the current school year 
1963-1964?

- 3 1 -



65

4. If your answer to Interrogatory No. 3 was in the 
affirmative, state the following:

a. The name of the school you are attending.

b. The address of the school that you are attending.

c. The grade to which you are assigned.

5. If your answer to Interrogatory No. 3 was in the 
negative, state the following:

a. The name of the school you are attending.

b. The address of the school that you are attending.

c. The grade to which you are assigned.
—32—

6. For how many years prior to the school year 1963- 
1964, did you attend a public school in the City of Mont­
gomery or in Montgomery County, Alabama?

7. State the name or names of all schools attended by 
you in the Montgomery County School System prior to 
the school year 1963-1964.

8. State your address while in attendance at each of 
these schools.

9. Have you or your parents ever made an individual 
request to transfer from one school to another within the 
Montgomery County Public School System?

10. If your answer to Interrogatory No. 9 is in the 
affirmative, please state the following:

a. The person or agency to whom this request was made.



66

b. The date on which this request was made.

c. State whether this request was made in writing or 
orally and give full details of the request or application 
and if such request was made in writing attach a copy 
thereof.

d. All action taken upon this request or application.

e. Did you receive notice of this action in writing! If 
so, please attach a copy of this notice. Give full details of 
action taken upon request or application.

f. Did you file an exception or any form of objection 
to the action taken on the request or application?

g. Did you file an appeal of any type to any court from 
the action of the Board?

11. Have you ever failed to be promoted from one grade 
to the next successive grade?

12. If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in 
the affirmative, please state the grade or grades which 
were required to be repeated.

13. Please attach to your answers copies or photostatic 
copies of your report cards for each year during which 
you were a pupil in the Montgomery County Public School 
System.

14. Have you ever been expelled as a pupil from any 
school in the Montgomery County Public School System? 
If so, give full details of your expulsion and explain fully 
all action taken.

- s s -
is. Have you ever been suspended as a pupil from any 

public school in the Montgomery County Public School



67

System? If so, give full details and fully explain the 
action taken.

16. Have any disciplinary actions been taken against 
you by Montgomery County School authorities? If so, give 
complete details as to each such disciplinary action.

17. (a) Do you now desire to transfer from one school 
to another within the public school system of Montgomery 
County, Alabama?

(b) If your answer to Interrogatory No. 17 (a) is in 
the affirmative, then state the name of the particular school 
into which you wish to transfer.

(c) If ymur answer to Interrogatory No. 17 (a) above 
is in the affirmative, please state whether you or your 
parents have made a request for this transfer.

18. If your answer to Interrogatory No. 17 (c) is in the 
affirmative, please state the following:

a. The person or agency to whom this request was made.

b. Was the request made orally or in writing—if in 
writing, please attach a copy or a photostatic copy thereof 
to your answer.

c. The date that this request was made.

d. The action taken upon this request or application.

e. Did you file an exception or any form of objection 
to the action taken on this request?

f. Did you file an appeal of any type from the action 
taken on your request?



68

19. What is the name of the first school which you at­
tended within the Montgomery County Public School 
System ?

20. Have you employed a lawyer to represent you in 
the case which you have filed against the Board of Educa­
tion of Montgomery County, Alabama?

21. Will you pay a lawyer to represent you in the case 
which you have filed against the Board of Education of 
Montgomery County?

22. Have any grievances been presented by you indi­
vidually or by your parents and next friends individually 
to the Montgomery County Board of Education or to any 
of the Defendants in this case?

—34—
23. Explain in detail the “dual attendance areas” as set 

out in your complaint and state how you claim to be af­
fected by such “dual attendance areas”.

24. State all specific demands that you or your parents 
and next friends have made upon the Montgomery County 
Board of Education. Did you give your name to the Board 
when making such specific demands?

25. What is your grade assignment for the school year 
1964-1965?

26. What school, applicable to your grade assignment 
for the school year 1964-1965, is the closest to your present 
resident address?

27. (a) Did you or your parents make written applica­
tion for initial assignment to a specific school?



69

(b) If your answer to Interrogatory No. 27 (a) is in the 
affirmative, then state into which school you made written 
application for admission.

(c) Have you been or were you initially assigned to the 
school to which you made written application?

28. You state in your bill of complaint that the Alabama 
School Placement Law provides inadequate relief. Will you 
state in detail all relief that you have sought under the 
Alabama School Placement Law and state the specific ac­
tion taken on the requested relief.

29. Have you or your parents specifically demanded re­
lief or any action under the Alabama School Placement 
Law?

H ill, R obison and Belser

Certificate of Service (omitted in printing)



70

Motion to Dismiss
(Filed May 30, 1964)

I n the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F oe the Middle District of Alabama

Northern Division

Come now the Defendants, separately and severally, and 
move this Honorable Court to dismiss the complaint and 
the motion for preliminary injunction as heretofore filed 
and as grounds therefor sets forth the following, separately 
and severally:

I

The complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which 
relief can be granted.

- 3 5 -

I I

The complaint fails to set out sufficient facts to make it 
a proper class action.

I l l

The complaint fails to allege legally sufficient efforts by 
the Plaintiffs to exercise any Constitutional right before 
bringing this action.

IV

The complaint fails to set out legally sufficient facts to 
show that the Plaintiffs belong to a class which has made



71

legal effort to exercise any Constitutional rights and that 
these rights have been denied them.

The Plaintiffs seek an Order from this Court directing 
and requiring the Defendants to racially integrate the pub­
lic school system of Montgomery County without showing a 
denial of any Constitutional right of an individual pupil 
or person; therefore, this purported class action is not 
properly brought.

VI

The complaint does not set out facts which make it a 
proper class action and Defendants deny all and singular 
the allegations made by Petitioners that they represent a 
class too large to be made parties to this cause and demand 
strict proof thereof.

V II

The Plaintiffs have not been denied any rights nor do 
they represent a class which has been denied any rights. 
Plaintiffs have not heretofore individually requested the 
relief that they now ask this Court to order. I t is recog­
nized that the relief requested by Plaintiffs; that is, the 
transfer from one school to another is properly handled on 
an individual basis. Plaintiffs, in seeking en blanc injunc­
tive relief without making individual application or request 
for transfer or for individual assignment, improperly ask 
this Court to judicially determine and construe various ad­
ministrative factors. The Plaintiffs, therefore, cannot 
properly nor legally maintain this purported class action.



72

The Defendants do not have an affirmative Constitutional 
duty to provide integrated education. The Defendants are 
entitled to an opportunity to pass upon each individual 
request, which the Plaintiffs have not made, therefore, 
Plaintiffs cannot properly nor legally maintain this pur­
ported class action.

V III

IX

The complaint fails to allege any action taken by these 
Defendants by which the Plaintiffs were denied any Con­
stitutional right.

H ill, R obison and Belser 
Attorneys for the Defendants

Certificates of Service (omitted in printing)



73

Notice of Taking Deposition
(Filed June 3, 1964)

I n  t h e

DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

F or the Middle District of Alabama 
E astern D ivision

H on. Ben H ardeman, U. S. Attorney 
Post Office Building 

Montgomery, Alabama

H on. J ohn Doar, U. S. Attorney 
Justice Department 

Washington, D. C.

H ill, R obison and Belser

Attorneys and Counsellors at Law 
36 South Perry Street 

Montgomery, Alabama

Mr. W alter McK ee, Superintendent 
Montgomery County Schools 

305 South Lawrence Street 
Montgomery, Alabama

—39—
Please take notice that at 9:00 a.m. on the 9th day of 

June, 1964, in the Attorneys’ Conference Room, Second 
Floor, Post Office Building, Montgomery, Alabama, the 
Plaintiffs in the above entitled action will take the deposi­
tion of Walter McKee, Superintendent of Schools of Mont­
gomery County, Alabama, upon oral examination pursuant

— 3 8 -



74

to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure before Mrs. Dorothy 
Jackson, a Notary Public, or some other officer authorized 
by law to administer oaths.

Please take further notice that Walter McKee is hereby 
required to produce upon such examination all papers, 
records, books and other documentary evidence showing the 
following:

1. Names and addresses of all white and Negro schools 
in Montgomery County, Alabama.

2. School districts in Montgomery County, Alabama for 
white children-Negro children.

3. Money spent in Montgomery County, Alabama for 
white schools-Negro schools.

4. Names and addresses of all students attending 
schools—white and Negro, showing which school each at­
tends.

5. Names and addresses of all principals, teachers and 
other professional personnel, showing their race and what 
schools they are assigned to.

6. Budgets for Negro and white schools.

7. Copies of all correspondence passing between said 
Board and any of the attorneys for the plaintiffs.

8. Names, addresses and race of each student who has 
been transferred from one school in Montgomery County 
to another school in said County showing the name of the 
schools from which and to which the students were trans­
ferred.



75

9. The construction of schools based on race.

10. The number of school buses assigned to each school, 
white and Negro.

11. All other records of said Board which in any way 
pertains to or will reflect the operation and maintenance of 
a bi-racial school system in Montgomery County, Alabama.

12. Copies of all petitions filed with Montgomery County 
Board of Education requesting desegregation of schools in 
said County, and copies of all documents showing action 
taken by said board to desegregate schools in said County 
since May, 1954.

—40—
The oral examination will continue from day to day until 

completed. You are invited to attend and cross-examine.

Done, this the 3rd day of June, 1964.

F eed D. Gray 
J ack Greenberg 

Charles J ones, J r. 
Attorneys for Plaintiffs



76

Motion to Stay Deposition
(Filed June 5, 1964)

I n the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle District of Alabama 
Northern Division

Comes now Walter McKee, one of the Defendants in the 
above entitled cause and moves that the deposition as 
scheduled by the Plaintiffs be stayed and continued until 
a date set and determined by the Court, subsequent to 
June 10, 1964, and as grounds for said motion, sets down 
and assigns the following separately and severally:

I

This Defendant, on May 26, 1964, propounded interroga­
tories addressed to each of the Plaintiffs in this case. These 
interrogatories elicit information from Plaintiffs as to their 
status, as said status affects the propriety of these Plain­
tiffs maintaining the purported class action, which is the 
basis of this suit. These said interrogatories, as filed by 
this Defendant, are required to be ansAvered on or before 
June 10, 1964, and as yet have not been answered. Plain­
tiffs, in the notice served on this Defendant on June 4, 
1964, have set and scheduled the aforementioned deposition 
of this Defendant for June 9, 1964.

II

This Defendant, on May 30, 1964, filed a motion to dis­
miss the complaint as heretofore filed and which said mo­
tion attacks the complaint as being an improper class action

— 4 1 -



77

in that Plaintiffs do not show nor allege that they are 
properly members of the class they seek to represent.

III
This Defendant, therefore, prior to the notice of depo­

sition, as served upon him by Plaintiff, requested discovery 
which goes to the propriety of the action itself and to the 
Plaintiffs’ standing before this Court.

IV
Many of the allegations as contained in Plaintiffs’ com­

plaint are general, vague and uncertain and the answers 
to the interrogatories, as propounded by this Defendant, 
are necessary in order for him to properly know what 
specific act or action he is called upon to defend.

V
Orderly procedure and proper disposition of the matter 

before the Court require that the Plaintiffs properly iden­
tify themselves and establish their standing before the 
Court prior to a detailed discovery proceeding involving 
the general matters as requested to be furnished in the 
subpoena for deposition as heretofore served on this 
Defendant.

T herefore, the premises considered, Defendant moves 
this Honorable Court to continue and to stay the deposi­
tion as heretofore requested by the Plaintiffs from June 
9, 1964, to a date as set and determined by the Court sub­
sequent to June 10, 1964, or subsequent to the date on 
which the Plaintiffs answer the interrogatories heretofore 
filed in this matter and served on them.

H ill, R obison and Belser 
Attorneys for Defendant, Walter McKee

Certificates of Service (omitted in printing)



78

Order Denying Motion to Stay Deposition
(Filed June 5, 1964)

In the
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F ob the Middle Distbict of Alabama 
Nobtheen D ivision

There is now presented to this Court the motion of 
Walter McKee, one of the defendants in this case, wherein 
he seeks to have this Court stay the taking of the deposi­
tion as scheduled by the plaintiffs for June 9, 1964. The 
basis for the motion is that the defendant on May 26, 1964, 
propounded interrogatories addressed to each of the plain­
tiffs in this case and that these interrogatories should be 
answered prior to the time the deposition of the defendant 
McKee is taken for the reason that the interrogatories are 
designed to elicit from plaintiffs information relative to 
their right to maintain this class action.

From a study of the complaint in this case, the inter­
rogatories propounded by the defendant to the plaintiffs, 
and the motion of the defendant McKee now presented, 
this Court is of the opinion that the motion is due to be 
denied. I t appears from a study of the interrogatories that 
the defendant through the use of interrogatories seeks to 
elicit information from the plaintiffs concerning their ex­
hausting or failing to exhaust their administrative rem­
edies prior to filing this lawsuit. I t is basic in these cases 
that there is no necessity to exhaust administrative rem­
edies prior to resorting to the courts.

- 4 4 -



79

In consideration of the foregoing and for good cause, 
it is the order, judgment and decree of this Court that the 
motion of the defendant Walter McKee, filed herein on

June 5, 1964, seeking to have this Court stay the taking of 
his deposition by attorneys for the plaintiffs from the 
scheduled date of June 9, 1964, be and the same is hereby 
denied.

Done, this the 5th day of June, 1964.

F rank M. J ohnson, J r. 
United States District Judge



8 0

Answer to Interrogatories
(Filed June 10,1964)

I n the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle District of Alabama 
Northern Division

Pursuant to interrogatories propounded by the defen­
dant, Montgomery County Board of Education, Johnnie 
Carr, one of the parents and next friends of Arlam Carr, 
Jr., makes the following answers to the interrogatories 
under oath, and as answer to said interrogatories saith 
as follows:

1. (a) My name is Johnnie Carr, the minor plaintiff’s 
name is Arlam Carr, Jr., he was born January 8, 1951 
and resides at 720 South Hall Street.

(b) His parents, Arlam Carr and Johnnie Carr.

(c) Same as (b) above.

2. Over thirteen years.

3. Yes.

4. (a) Alabama State Laboratory High School.

(b) 915 South Jackson.

(c) Eighth.

5. Not applicable.



81

6. Seventh.

7. Alabama State Laboratory High School.

8. 720 South Hall Street.

9. No.

10. Not applicable.

11. No.

12. Not applicable.
—47—

13. I  am attaching copies of report cards for the last 
four years. These are the only ones available.

14. No.

15. No.

16. No.

17. I  am desirous of obtaining all the relief prayed for 
in my complaint heretofore filed in this Court.

18. See 17 above.

19. Alabama State Laboratory High School.

20. Yes.

21. Proper arrangements have been made with my at­
torney so that he may properly represent me in this case.

22. My attorney made certain requests on my behalf to 
the Montgomery County Board of Education, a copy of



8 2

the requests are attached to and made part of the com­
plaint.

23. The “dual attendance areas” refer to geographical 
lines drawn whereby white students attend certain schools 
and Negro students attend certain schools.

24. See 22 above.

25. Ninth.

26. Houston Hills Junior High School or Alabama State 
Laboratory High School.

27. (a) No.

(b) Not applicable.

(c) Not applicable.

28. I have not sought any relief under the Alabama 
School Placement Law.

29. No.

Mrs. J ohnnie Cakr 

(Sworn to June 10,1964.)

Certificate of Service (omitted in printing).



83

REPORT OF PUPIL PROGRESS

MONTGOMERY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA

— 4 9 -

5*^1___ ;____________________________ ; ____  _____ YEAR 19 C ,  19 C /

TO PARENTS:

In gm ng on estimate of your child's progress we ore using a combination of grades and 
written comments when necessary. In doing this we are attempting to give you a clearer picture 
of hrs progress not only in his studies but in the development of certain hobits and attitudes 
which greatly influence hrs character.

A  report of vour child's progress will be seat to you at the end of each six weeks If you 
desire further information concerning your child you are urged to confer with the teacher at 
o time when she is not busy with her dots

You art cordially invited to visit the school at any tone.

V 'J

ASSIGNED  TO .■L

PRINCIPAL

TEACHER

______PRINCIPAL

• TEACHER

GRADE ECU



84

— 50—

P e p T . Nom e  ^  f t

hM CMtnC
D t li b tnW L

TOTAL DAYS PRESENT 3  7 2  <» 3 3 3 Z ~
TOTAL DAYS ABSENT 0 0 . 0 6 0 6
TOTAL DAYS TARDY 0 u O — v— 0 0 .

COO€ FOR GRADING:

DESIRABLE H ABITS A N D  ATTITUDES:

A  Exceptional Pro o f  

B Commendable Proyeie 

C  Fair Progren 

D Minimum Progress 

F Failure

Effort 6 f t 3 6 f t />
Self Central s 3 3 f t
Accept* and Fulfills Responsibilities f t 3 f t (b 3

n
r-->

Is Careful In Use of Materials 3 3 f t f t 3 /}>
Work Hobits f t 3 & f t ~ T
Follows Directions f t 4 = J L =

CREATIVE A N D  APPRECIATIVE ACT IV IT IES:

Participation In Art Activities d t 3 6 * h J i I T
Participation in Music Activities

Participation in Physicol Education Activities

READING:

Readiness 6 6 6 ~ w b f t
Understood* What He Reads f t 6 f t f t f t f t
Reads Well Orally f t f t - f t f t f t
Shows Growth in Word Analysis 3 3 f t f t f?
Reods o Variety oi Material * f t 3 2 = 2 = J L =

/»
o



85

— 51—
ARITHM ETIC:

Know* Number Poets on Grode Level 6 0 6 n f'
Worlu Example! on Grode Level f> 6 ~3~ 6 r Ao
Solve! Problem* on Grode Level

.1/-5- 0 s ~ir /*' /3
Uses Coreful and Correct Methods of Work 6 0 /-• 0)

HANDW RITING 6 ~w a
/. ’ A _A _

LANGUAGE:

Uses Well Selected Content u e 6 0? L
✓  * 6

Specks Clearly and Correctly 6 b a /

*o
Uses Correct Form In Written Work c + 6 V  r  -

Shows Growth In Vocabulary 6 ■j ~5~ 6 *

SPELLING:

Uses Correct Spelling In Written Work 0 A 6 r
Spells Correctly Words on Spelling List 0 0 a
Uses Dictionary 0 u l _ J> *

SOCIAL STUDIES (This Includes the study of Geography, History Science and Health):

Acquires Information 6 0> b $ r y ~ a

Uses Reference Materials C c £> /»
o

Participates in Discussion 6 Jt> 0> 6 /i i\
Participates in Plonning ond Evaluating 6 0 & J l . h



86

— 52—

Paranfs Signature and Comment* :



87

- 5 3 -

REPORT OF PUPIL PROGRESS
MONTGOMERY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

Montgomery, Alabama

TO PARENTS:

A  report of your child's progress will be sent to you at the end of eoch 
six weeks.

Parents wishing to talk with teachers about their children will please call 
the school to arrange an appointment with the teacher. Conferences are usu­
ally held from 3 to 3:30 P.M.

You are cordially invited to visit the school at any time.

__ PRINCIPAL

---------- --------------------------------------------------------------------TEACHER

ASSIGNED TQ V ___ GRADE FOR 19 ^ 19 A 3 ______



88

— 54—

Pupil's Norm —C 

School Si*U Entered

School_________________________ -Date Entered-

TOTAL DAYS PRESENT 2-1 $ 3 3C 2  AV* V- V :<Q 3 o
TOTAL DAYS ABSENT o 0 t c w. />

TOTAL DAYS TARDY 0 b c V- - V
A. Excellent 
B Good

CODE FOR GRADING: C. Fair
D. Poor 
F. Failing

EFFORT 3 A A M i- A -
CONDUCT 3 A - A > » 3

w

ARITHMETIC £> 3 A ■
r- 

' /
r  “  

* A -
LANGUAGE f t 3 ft- A- A -

' \

READING

Readiness (First Grads)
\

Oral &t ' 3 3 f
C~'
1 B

Understanding 3  | J 3 A - A - - J L l
SCIENCE .-3 3 3 *• ' f &
SOCIAL STUDIES i 3 3 3

'■
3

SPELLING 3 ft-\ A A i-i A -
WRITING P 3 £ U

T

f ■ 
r  • P

HEALTH, PHYSICAL EDUCATION p  i / ' j •p ; • J 3

MUSIC 3 / j ' \ 7 ) ’'
i

/ ; / j A



89

- 5 5 -

TEACHER'S COMMENTS: (PUom  dot*)



90

— 56—

Parent's Signature and Comments:



91

ALABAMA STATE CO llEG E LABORATORY HIGH SCHOOL 
ACADEM IC REPORT

-5 7 -

--------7 th ------------GRADE

Tfci* U m rvport of tho w ork cion* by: C arr, Aria*
l.f.

» Wku
l»t.

S*m . PH.
I 3rd. 1 2nd. j Pt*. . 
, 9 Wk*. j Som. j

Courts , 1 1 1
1-Muaic 1 / / H fir 1 A 1 1
2-Art I r f - A \B-\ 1
3.Llb. Orion 1 CL. | V  \jS\ 1
APhy. Ed | B ~  1 <3! 1

"~s~ i ^ ;  i
I ^ 3 & ( X  IC -A1

r icl-a i  r
J f . J A + s L z i  S " X T - 1 A  1

1 1 1
1 1 1 1

1 1 1
1 1 1 1

A  =  15 Point* 0  =  0  Point*

I  = 1 0  Point* f  —  —5  Point* ropont

C  =  5 Point* | ~  Incom pU t*



92

— 58—

This report comes to you four time* cisuring 'r»t>e *chool 
year. Each time it is received please exarmine it carefully, 

s^jn, and return it promptly.

Encourage your child by commendation for goood marks. 
Growth in the categories listed on the progress r report will 

result in good marks.

Feel free to consult Teacher and Principal at sc:-r>ool about 

the work of your child.

CERTIFICATE OF PRO M O T IO N

Given this day of



93

— 59—
ALABAMA STATE COLLEGE LABORATORY HIGH SCHOOL 

ACADEM IC  REPORT

8 t h GRADE

D m  is a  report e# the w ork done by:
_________________________ C a rr  * _ A r l am J r

1st.
9 Wk«. }* • .  | 3rd. 2nd. 

9 Wkl. j S«nv i "*•

i
i

Course 1 1
: &1. A rt —

2. M u s ic J ^ U -  A a  u  i B  - 1 A —  |
3. S c ie n c e ! ^ C> C* 1 V 1 CL K l L 5 1
4 . M ath  r~ t l H i r \  /5T qt-  1 A L 5  15. E n g l  i s h ~ z ^ r -fT A  -51 8  1 '  i r i
6. G e o g ra p h y  d - h c/-l >1 8  I f i ib

P h y .  ED. a K \  /, 1 B  1L.C.___ £ " F T .  1 o  1 5 -—
1 L _ ,| ,  1 i
1 r f r  i i -
1 I I 1 i
1 I I  I I  1

A  = r  15 Points D  =  0  Points

B —  10 Points P —  —5  Points repeat

C  ~  5 Points I r r  Incomplete

Points Com puted 1st. and  2nd. Semester

This is to ce 

S ign atu re  

1st 9  Week,*

1st Sem este^X

3rd 9 W e ^ l / Z  

2nd Semester

Hom e Room Teacher

Principal



94

— 60—

This report comes to you four timet during the school 
yeor. Eoch time it is received please examine it carefully, 
sign, and return it promptly.

Encourage your child by commendation for good marks. 
Growth in the categories listed on the progress report will 
result in good marks.

Feel free to consult Teacher and Principal at school about 
the work of your child.

This it to certify that the Pupil named above has com-

CERTIFICATE OF PROMOTION

pleted the work as outlined for grade and it

hereby promoted to the grade.



95

Answer to Interrogatories
(Filed June 10, 1964)

I n the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle D istrict of Alabama 
Northern Division

Pursuant to interrogatories propounded by the defen­
dant, Montgomery County Board of Education, Bishop S. 
Thompson, one of the parents and next friends of James G. 
Thompson, makes the following answers to the interroga­
tories under oath, and as answer to said interrogatories 
saith as follows:

1. (a) My name is Bishop S. Thompson, the minor 
plaintiff James G. Thompson, was born December 1, 1947 
and resides at 664 Elmwood Street, Montgomery, Alabama.

(b) His parents, Bishop S. Thompson and Lois E. 
Thompson.

(c) Same as (b) above.

2. Two years.

3. Yes.

4. (a) Alabama State Laboratory High School.

(b) 915 South Jackson.

(c) Tenth.

- 6 1 -



96

5. Not applicable.

6. One.

7. Alabama State Laboratory High School.

8. 664 Elmwood Street, Montgomery, Alabama.

9. No.
—62—

10. Not applicable.

11. No.

12. Not applicable.

13. Report Cards are not available at this time but will 
be made available, if necessary at a later date.

14. No.

15. No.

16. No.

17. I am desirous of obtaining all the relief prayed for 
in my complaint heretofore filed in this Court.

18. See 17 above.

19. Alabama State Laboratory High School.

20. Yes.

21. Proper arrangements have been made with my attor­
ney so that he may properly represent me in this case.



97

22. My attorney made certain requests on my behalf to 
the Montgomery County Board of Education, a copy of the 
requests are attached to and made a part of the complaint.

23. The “dual attendance areas” refer to geographical 
lines drawn whereby white students attend certain schools 
and Negro students attend certain schools.

24. See 22 above.

25. Eleventh.

26. Alabama State Laboratory High School.

27. (a) No.

(b) Not applicable.

(c) Not applicable.

28. I have not sought any relief under the Alabama 
School Placement Law.

29. No.

B ishop S. T hompson 

(Sworn to June 9, 1964)

Certificate of Service (omitted in printing)



98

Answer to Interrogatories
(Filed June 10, 1964)

I n  t h e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle D istrict of Alabama 
Northern Division

Pursuant to interrogatories propounded by the defen­
dant, Montgomery County Board of Education, Bishop S. 
Thompson, one of the parents and next friends of John W. 
Thompson, makes the following answers to the interroga­
tories under oath, and as answer to said interrogatories 
saith as follows:

1. (a) My name is Bishop S. Thompson, the minor 
plaintiff, John W. Thompson was born November 30, 1956 
and resides at 664 Elmwood Street, Montgomery, Alabama.

(b) His parents, Bishop S. Thompson and Lois E. 
Thompson.

(c) Same as (b) above.

2. Two years.

3. Yes.

4. Me David Elementary School.

(b) Hardaway Street.

(c) First.

— 6 4 -



99

5. Not applicable.

6. None.

7. Not applicable.

8. Not applicable.

9. No.

10. Not applicable.

11. No.

12. Not applicable.
—65—

13. Report cards are not available at this time but will 
be made available if necessary at a later date.

14. No.

15. No.

16. No.

17. I am desirous of obtaining all the relief prayed for 
in my complaint heretofore filed in this Court.

18. See 17 above.

19. McDavid Elementary School.

20. Yes.

21. Proper arrangements have been made with my attor­
ney so that he may properly represent me in this case.



100

22. My attorney made certain requests on my behalf to 
the Montgomery County Board of Education, a copy of the 
requests are attached to and made a part of the Complaint.

23. The “dual attendance areas” refer to geographical 
lines drawn whereby white students attend certain schools 
and Negro students attend certain schools.

24. See 22 above.

25. Second.

26. Alabama State Laboratory High School.

27. (a) No.

(b) Not applicable.

(c) Not applicable.

28. I have not sought any relief under the Alabama 
School Placement Law.

29. No.

Bishop S. Thompson 

(Sworn to June 9, 1964)

Certificate of Service (omitted in printing)



101

Answer to Interrogatories
(Filed June 10, 1964)

I n the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F oe the Middle District of Alabama 
Northern D ivision

Pursuant to interrogatories propounded by the defen­
dant, Montgomery County Board of Education, Bishop S. 
Thompson, one of the parents and next friends of Phillip L. 
Thompson, makes the following answers to the interroga­
tories under oath, and as answer to said interrogatories 
saith as follows:

1. (a) My name is Bishop S. Thompson, the minor plain­
tiff was born December 7, 1949 and resides at 664 Elmwood 
Street, Montgomery, Alabama.

(b) His parents, Bishop S. Thompson an d ' Lois E. 
Thompson.

(c) Same as (b) above.

2. Two years.

3. Yes.

4. (a) Booker T. Washington Junior High School.

(b) 517 South Union Street, Montgomery, Alabama.

(c) Eighth.

- 6 7 -



102

5. Not applicable.

6. One.

7. Booker T. Washington Junior High School.

8. 664 Elmwood Street, Montgomery, Alabama.

9. No.

10. Not applicable.

11. No.

12. Not applicable.
— 68—

13. Reports cards are not available, but will be made 
available if necessary at a later date.

14. No.

15. No.

16. No.

17. I am desirous of obtaining all the relief prayed for 
in my complaint heretofore filed in this Court.

18. See 17 above.

19. Booker T. Washington Junior High School.

20. Yes.

21. Proper arrangements have been made with my attor­
ney so that he may properly represent me in this case.



103

22. My attorney made certain requests on my behalf to 
the Montgomery County Board of Education, a copy of the 
requests are attached to and made a part of the complaint.

23. The “dual attendance areas” refer to geographical 
lines drawn whereby white students attend certain schools 
and Negro students attend certain schools.

24. See 22 above.

25. Ninth.

26. Alabama State Laboratory High School.

27. (a) No.

(b) Not applicable.

(c) Not applicable.

28. I have not sought any relief under the Alabama 
School Placement Law.

29. No.

B ishop S. T hompson

(Sworn to June 9, 1964) 

Certificate of Service (omitted in printing)



104

Answer to Interrogatories
(Filed June 10, 1964)

I n the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle D istrict of Alabama 
Northern Division

Pursuant to interrogatories propounded by the defen­
dant, Montgomery County Board of Education, Bishop S. 
Thompson, one of the parents and next friends of Bath- 
sheha L. Thompson, makes the following answers to the 
interrogatories under oath, and as answer to said inter­
rogatories saith as follows:

1. (a) My name is Bishop S. Thompson, the minor 
plaintiff was born July 24,1958 and resides at 664 Elmwood 
Street, Montgomery, Alabama.

(b) Her parents, Bishop S. Thompson and Lois E. 
Thompson.

(c) Same as (b) above.

2. Two years.

3. No.

4. Not applicable.

5. (a) None.

(b) Not applicable.

(c) Not applicable.

— 7 0 -



105

6. None.

7. None.

8. Not applicable.

9. Not applicable.

10. Not applicable.

11. Not applicable.

12. Not applicable.
- T l -

lS. Not applicable.

14. Not applicable.

15. Not applicable.

16. Not applicable.

17. I am desirous of obtaining all the relief prayed for 
in my complaint heretofore filed in this Court.

18. Not applicable.

19. Not applicable.

20. Yes.

21. Proper arrangements have been made with my at­
torney so that he may properly represent me in this case.



1 0 6

22. My attorney made certain requests on my behalf 
to the Montgomery County Board of Education, a copy 
of the requests are attached to and made a part of the 
complaint.

23. The “dual attendance areas” refer to geographical 
lines drawn whereby white students attend certain schools 
and Negro students attend certain schools.

24. See 22 above.

25. Not applicable.

26. Alabama State Laboratory High School.

27. (a) No.

(b) Not applicable.

(c) Not applicable.

28. I have not sought any relief under the Alabama 
School Placement Law.

29. No.

B ishop S. T hompson

(Sworn to June 9,1964.) 

Certificate of Service (omitted in printing).



107

Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
(Filed June 30,1964.)

In  the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle District of Alabama 
Northern Division

This cause is now submitted upon the motion to dismiss 
filed herein on May 30, 1964, by the defendants. Upon con­
sideration of said motion and each ground set out therein, 
it is the Order, J udgment and Decree of this Court that 
said motion be and the same is hereby denied.

It is further Ordered that this cause be set for a hearing 
on the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction com­
mencing at 9:30 a.m., July 29, 1964.

Done, this the 30th day of June, 1964.

F rank M. J ohnson, J r.
United States District Judge

- 7 3 -



108

Answer to the Complaint

(Filed July 8,1964.)

In the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F oe the Middle D istrict of Alabama 
Northern D ivision

Defendants, Montgomery County Board of Education, 
Harold M. Harris, Fred Bear, Dr. H. P. Dawson, George
A. Dozier, Dr. W. E. Goodwin, Isabelle B. Thomasson 
and Dr. Robert Parker and Walter McKee, file the fol­
lowing answer to the complaint. The paragraph numbers 
correspond to the paragraph numbers in the complaint.

I

The Defendants deny that the averments of the com­
plaint state sufficient facts to invoke the jurisdiction of 
this Court under either 28 U.S.C., Section 1343(3), or 42 
U.S.C., Section 1893 as alleged.

I I

The alleged purposes of the complaint are admitted 
but the Defendants say that the complaint does not set 
forth any facts upon which the relief sought can be 
granted.

Defendants deny the right of each Plaintiff to maintain 
this suit or to any relief prayed.

- 7 4 -



109

III

The Defendants have no sufficient personal knowledge 
as to the facts averred in this paragraph and demand

—75—
strict proof.

IV

The Defendants have no sufficient personal knowledge 
as to the facts averred in this paragraph and demand 
strict proof.

V

The averments of this paragraph are denied except that 
it is admitted Harold M .. Harris, Fred Bear, Dr. H. P. 
Dawson, George A. Dozier, Dr. W. E. Goodwin, Mrs. 
Isabelle B. Thomasson and Dr. Robert Parker are mem­
bers of the Montgomery County Board of Education and 
Walter McKee is Superintendent of Education of Mont­
gomery County, Alabama.

VI

Defendants deny the averments of the first sentence of 
paragraph VI of the complaint. Defendants admit they 
are operating schools which have been in the past and 
are now attended by members of the white race and negro 
race separately. They deny that the operation of separate 
schools for whites and negroes is under “color of the laws 
of Alabama.” The schools are operated pursuant to the 
law and in such a fashion as to promote and carry out 
the purpose of the education of the individual children 
involved and in accordance with the choice and preference 
of the great majority of the parents, pupils and citizens 
of both races.



110

Except as above stated, the averments of facts in this 
paragraph are denied.

VII

The Defendants are without knowledge of any written 
request on behalf of these Plaintiffs and deny that any 
request on behalf of any of these Plaintiffs or on behalf 
of any individual child or parent of the class they purport 
to represent has been made to the Defendants in accord­
ance with the laws of Alabama and the rules and regula­
tions of the Board. The written communication, dated 
April 22, 1964, attached to the complaint, marked Exhibit 
“A” is not legally cognizable by the Board.

All other facts alleged in paragraph VII of the com­
plaint are denied.

V III

The Defendants deny the averments of paragraph VIII 
of the complaint.

The Defendants admit that the Plaintiffs have failed 
and refused to exercise their administrative and judicial 
remedies provided by the laws of Alabama.

All other facts alleged in paragraph IX of the complaint 
are denied.

X

The Defendants deny the averments of paragraph X.

XI

The Defendants deny the averments of paragraph XI.



I l l

XII

The Defendants, separately and severally having an­
swered the complaint and each and every paragraph 
thereof; the Defendants as a further defense offer the 
following:

That no negro pupil or child or parent or guardian of 
a negro child or pupil has ever applied to the Defendants 
under the Alabama Pupil Placement Law, Act No. 367, 
General and Local Acts of Alabama 1957, Page 482, for 
admission to a school attended by white children; that 
both the negro race and white race, including pupils and 
teachers, have voluntarily maintained their attendance in 
schools of their respective race in Montgomery County, 
Alabama; that under these facts the Defendants are under 
no duty or burden to integrate the schools system.

H ill, R obison and Belsee 
Attorneys for Defendants

Certificate of Service (omitted in printing).



112

Request fo r Adm ission Under Rule 36

(Filed July 9,1964.)

- 7 7 -

I n  the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle District of Alabama 
Northern Division

Plaintiffs request Defendants within ten days after 
service of this request to make the following admissions 
for the purpose of this action only and subject to all per­
tinent objections to admissibility which may be imposed 
at the trial that each of the following statements are true.

1. The Defendants for some time have pursued and 
are now pursuing a policy, practice, custom, or usage of 
operating a dual school system of education in Mont­
gomery County, Alabama, based on race and color.

2. There is no Public School in Montgomery County, 
Alabama, which is attended both by children commonly 
designated as “White” and by children commonly desig­
nated as “Negro”.

3. ) There is no Public School in Montgomery County, 
bama, which is attended by “White” children and which

is staffed in whole or in part by “Negro” principals, 
teachers, or other professional personnel. 4

4. ) There is no Public School in Montgomery County, 
aama, which is attended by “Negro” children and which



113

—78—
is staffed in whole or in part by “White” principals, 
teachers, or other professional personnel.

5. The assignments of students to Public Schools of 
Montgomery County, Alabama, are made on the basis of 
race or color, or on the basis of “zones”, which zones in 
turn are drawn on the basis of race and color.

6. \  The assignments of principals, teachers, and other 
professional personnel to the Public Schools of Mont­
gomery County, Alabama, are made on the basis of race 
and color.

7. The “feeder” system, by which students are advanced 
from elementary schools to high schools, as employed by 
the Defendants in the Public Schools of Montgomery 
County, Alabama, is based on distinctions of race and 
color.

8. A “Negro” child, initially assigned to an elementary 
school with other “Negro” children, is thereafter, in each 
and every such case, assigned to a high school which is 
comprised only of “Negro” children.

9. Considerations of race and color have figured prom­
inently in the disbursement of school funds for maintenance, 
operation and construction, in Montgomery County, Ala­
bama.

10. Construction of schools in Montgomery County, 
Alabama, has been planned with the intention of pre­
serving the racial separateness heretofore enumerated.



114

11. Extra-curricular activities of an intra and inter­
mural sort have been limited to participation by children 
designated either as “White” or as “Negro”, separately 
and exclusively.

12. A “White” child, initially assigned to an elementary 
school with other “White” children, is thereafter, in each 
and every such case, assigned to a high school which is 
comprised only of “White” children.

F red D. Gray 
Attorney for Plaintiffs

Certificate of Service (omitted in printing).



115

Motion fo r Production o f Documents 
fo r Inspection and Copying

(Filed July 9,1964.)

In  the

DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

F or the Middle District of Alabama 
Northern Division

Come now the Plaintiffs, by and through their At­
torneys of Record and move this Honorable Court for an 
Order requiring the defendants to produce and to permit 
plaintiffs to inspect and to copy each of the following 
documents:

(1) Minutes of all meetings of the Montgomery County 
Board of Education from January 1, 1954 to date.

(2) Copies of all Annual Reports and any and all other 
documents compiled by the Montgomery County Board of 
Education and sent to the Alabama State Board of Educa­
tion for each year from 1954 to date.

(3) Copies or samples of all forms and like papers sup­
plied by the Alabama State Board of Education to the 
Montgomery County Board of Education to facilitate re­
ports and the supply of information to the State Board.

(4) Copies of all maps and other descriptions, verbal 
and diagramatic, showing the school districts and “feeder” 
plans for access to the Junior High and High Schools, 
throughout Montgomery County, Alabama, from 1954 to 
date.

- 8 1 -



116

(5) All records involving the kind and cost of school 
construction throughout Montgomery County, Alabama, 
since 1954.

—82—
(6) All attendance records of schools operated by the 

Montgomery County Board of Education from 1954 to the 
present.

(7) All school bus and other school transportation rec­
ords of the Montgomery County Board of Education from 
1954 to the present.

(8) All records involving intra-county school transfers 
of students in Montgomery County, Alabama, from 1954 
to the present.

(9) All other documents connected with the administra­
tion and operation of the schools of Montgomery County, 
Alabama since 1954, on which there appear designations 
of race or color.

Defendants have the possession, custody or control of 
each of the foregoing documents. Each of these documents 
constitute or contains evidence relevant and material to a 
matter involved in this action, as is more fully shown in 
the Affidavit hereto attached.

Respectfully submitted,

F eed D. Geay 
Attorney for Plaintiffs



117

- 8 3 -
State oe Alabama ) 
County of Montgomery )

Affidavit in Support of Motion

Fred D. Gray, being first duly sworn says:

1. That defendants Harold M. Harris, Fred Bear, Dr. 
H. P. Dawson, George A. Dozier, Dr. W. E. Goodwin, 
Isabelle B. Thomasson and Dr. Robert Parker, as mem­
bers of the Montgomery County Board of Education, and 
Walter McKee, as Superintendent of Education of Mont­
gomery County, Alabama, are charged by law with re­
sponsibility of the administration and supervision of the 
public schools of Montgomery County, Alabama, which 
responsibility involves the direction and supervision of, 
and participation in, the preparation, custody and control 
of the documents designated in the motion to which this 
affidavit is attached. 2

2. (a) The documents designated in the motion to which 
this affidavit is attached are germane to the subject mat­
ter of the action, that being the operation of a dual school 
system in Montgomery County, Alabama, based wholly on 
the race and color of the children attending the schools 
in that County.

(b) Inspection of the designated documents may ab­
breviate lengthy examination of witnesses at the trial.

(c) The designated documents probably constitute or 
contain material evidence.

F red D. Gray

(Sworn to July 9,1964.) 

Certificate of Service (omitted in printing).



1 1 8

- 8 5 -
Notice to Produce Documents and Things 

for Inspection and Copying

I n  t h e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

F or the Middle District of Alabama

E astern Division

Hill, Robison & Belser 
36 South Perry Street 
Montgomery, Alabama

Hon. Ben Hardeman 
U. S. District Attorney 
Federal Building 
Montgomery, Alabama

Please take notice that the undersigned will bring the 
above Motion on for hearing before the United States 
District Court for the Middle District of Alabama at the 
Post Office Building at Montgomery, Alabama, on the 13th 
day of July, 1964, at 3:30 o’clock in the afternoon or as 
soon thereafter as counsel can be heard.

F red D. Gray 
Attorney For Plaintiffs



119

Order Directing Production o f Documents 
fo r Inspection and Copying

(Filed July 16,1964.)

In  the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F ob the Middle District of Alabama 
Northern Division

This cause is now submitted upon the motion of the 
plaintiffs filed herein on July 9, 1964, seeking to have 
this Court order and direct the defendants, and each of 
them, to produce and permit plaintiffs to inspect and 
copy certain enumerated documents, including minutes of 
all meetings from January 1, 1954, to date, copies of all 
annual reports and other documents compiled by the Mont­
gomery County Board of Education and sent to the 
Alabama State Board of Education from 1954 to date, 
copies or samples of all forms and like papers supplied 
by the State Board to the Montgomery Board to facilitate 
reports and the supply of information to the State Board, 
copies of maps and other descriptions showing the school 
districts and “feeder” plans for access to the junior high 
and high schools in Montgomery County from 1954 to 
date, records of the kind and cost of school construction 
in Montgomery County since 1954, attendance records of 
schools operated by the Montgomery Board from 1954 to 
date, school bus and other school transportation records 
from 1954 to present, records involving intracounty school 
transfers of students in Montgomery County from 1954 to 
date, and all other documents connected with the adminis­

- 86-



120

tration and operation of the schools of Montgomery County 
from 1954 to date.

Upon consideration of said motion and for good cause,
—87—

it is the Order, J udgment and Decree of this Court that 
said motion be and the same is hereby granted. The de­
fendants, and each of them, are Ordered and D irected to 
produce for inspection and copying by plaintiffs and/or 
plaintiffs’ attorneys, each of the items and documents 
enumerated in plaintiffs’ motion, said motion having been 
filed herein on July 9, 1964. I t is further Ordered that 
said documents be produced in the office of the Super­
intendent of Education of Montgomery County, Alabama, 
for inspection and copying by plaintiffs and/or plain­
tiffs’ attorneys.

Done, this the 16th day of July, 1964.

F rank M. J ohnson, J r.
United States District Judge



1 2 1

— 88—

Motion for Leave to File Amendment to Complaint
(Filed July 17,1964.)

I n t h e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
F ob the Middle D istrict of Alabama 

N orthern Division

Now come the Plaintiffs and move this Court for leave 
to file the annexed amendment to the complaint in the 
above entitled action, on the ground that facts, events 
and circumstances so require, in that:

1. Bishop S. Thompson, Sr., an adult party Plaintiff, 
is a Methodist Minister whose recent transfer in that 
capacity has placed him and his family outside of the 
jurisdiction of this Court and beyond the direct effect 
of the administration of the public schools of Montgomery 
County, Alabama.

2. The persons whose names are to be added as parties 
Plaintiff fairly and adequately represent the interests of 
the class on whose behalf this action is brought. Infant 
and adult Plaintiffs are Negro citizens of the United 
States and of the State of Alabama and are presently

—89—
residing in Montgomery County, Alabama. The minor 
Plaintiffs are either attending public schools in Mont­
gomery County, Alabama—managed, controlled and op­
erated by Defendants herein—or are eligible to attend 
such schools.

Respectfully submitted,

F red D. Gray 
J ack Greenberg 
Charles H. J ones, J r. 
Attorneys for Plaintiffs



1 2 2

- 9 0 -
Order Granting Leave to File Amendment to Complaint

(Filed July 17,1964.)

In  t h e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle D istrict of Alabama 
Northern D ivision

Plaintiffs having moved this Court for leave to file 
an Amendment to the Complaint in the above styled 
action and the Court having considered said Motion and 
the grounds therein alleged, and the Amendment thereto 
annexed,

It Is H ereby Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that Plain­
tiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Amendment to Complaint 
be and is hereby Granted.

Done this 17th day of July, 1964.

F rank M. J ohnson, J r.
United States District Judge



123

Amendment to Complaint
(Filed July 17, 1964)

I n  t h e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle D istrict of Alabama 
Northern Division

Now come the Plaintiffs in the above entitled cause and 
amend the complaint heretofore filed as follows:

1. By striking out the names of Bathsheba L. T homp­
son, J ohn W. T hompson, J ames G. T hompson, and P hillip 
L. T hompson, minors, by B ishop S. T hompson, Sr., and 
Lois E. T hompson, their parents and next friends, as par­
ties plaintiff. 2

2. By adding the names of Charles Lee Bell, a minor, 
by Charlie Bell and E mma M. Bell, his parents and next 
friends; W illiam H. Day, a minor, by H elen B. Day, his 
m other and next friend ; J osephine Martin, a minor, by 
Nettie Martin, her m other and next friend ; J oan Mastin, 
a minor, by F rank Mastin and P earline Mastin, her p a r­
ents and next friends; Constance Smith , a minor by 
J ohnnie Smith and Bertha Smith , her parents and next 
friends; and Mae Carolyn T homas, a minor, by Lee C. 
T homas and Sophia L. Thomas, her parents and next 
friends, as parties plaintiff.

— 91—



124

3. By substituting the names added for the names 
stricken in each and every instance where those stricken

— 92—

appear in the pleadings.

Acceptance of Service 

Certificate of Service

F red D. Gray 
J ack Greenberg 

Charles H. J ones, J r .

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

(omitted in printing) 

(omitted in printing)



125

Answer to Request for Admissions
(Filed July 17, 1964)

I n the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle District of Alabama 
Northern Division

Now come the Defendants and in answer to the Plaintiffs’ 
request for admissions, heretofore on the 10th day of July 
served in the above matter, say:

I

In response to the request that Defendants admit the 
truth of Statement “1.” in request for admissions, Defen­
dants do admit they are operating schools which have been 
in the past and are now attended by members of the white 
race and Negro race separately; that said schools are op­
erated pursuant to the law in such a fashion as to promote 
and carry out the purpose of the education of the individual 
children involved and in accordance with the choice and 
preference of the great majority of parents, pupils and

- 9 6 -
citizens of both races.

II

The truth of Statement “2.” in request for admissions is 
admitted.

III

The truth of Statement “3.” in request for admissions is 
admitted.

- 9 4 -



1 2 6

IV

The truth of Statement “4.” 
admitted.

in request for admissions is

—95—
V

In response to the request that Defendants admit the 
truth of Statement “5.” in request for admissions, Defen­
dants say that assignments of students to the public schools 
of Montgomery County, Alabama, are made in accordance 
with the Laws of this State and said assignments are in 
accordance with the choice and preference of the great 
majority of parents, pupils and citizens of both races.

VI

In response to the request that Defendants admit the 
truth of Statement “6.” in request for admissions, Defen­
dants say many factors are involved in the selection and 
assignment of personnel for the Public School System of 
Montgomery County; that the decisions on assignments and 
employment is not made by only these Defendants and that 
assignments are in accordance with the choice and prefer­
ence of the great majority of principals, teachers and other 
professional personnel.

VII

In response to the request that Defendants admit the 
truth of Statement “7.” in request for admissions, Defen­
dants say all public schools in Montgomery County are 
operated pursuant to the Laws of Alabama and in such a 
fashion as to promote and carry out the purpose of the 
education of the individual children involved and in accord­
ance with the choice and preference of the great majority 
of the parents, pupils and citizens of both races.



127

VIII

In response to the request that Defendants admit the 
truth of Statement “8.” in request for admissions, Defen­
dants make the same response as in I above.

IX

The truth of Statement “9.” in request for admissions is 
denied.

X

In response to the request that Defendants admit the 
truth of Statement “10.” in request for admissions, Defen­
dants say construction of schools in Montgomery County 
has been and is based on needs, the growth of Montgomery, 
best use of land, availability of finances, and parent and 
pupil preferences.

XI

In response to the request that Defendants admit the 
truth of Statement “11.” in request for admissions, Defen­
dants do admit extracurricular activities of an intra and 
inter mural sort have been participated in by members of 
the white race and Negro race separately and exclusively.

XII

In response to the request that Defendants admit the 
truth of Statement “12.” in request for admissions, Defen­
dants make the same response as in VIII above.

H ill, R obison and Belser 
Attorneys for Defendants

(Sworn to July 17,1964)

Certificate of Service (omitted in printing)



128

— 98—
[emorandum Opinion
(Filed July 31, 1964)

I n the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle District of Alabama 
Northern Division

This cause is now submitted upon the plaintiffs’ motion 
for a preliminary injunction. Upon consideration of the 
evidence, consisting of requests for admissions and re­
sponses thereto, interrogatories and answers thereto, the 
deposition of the Montgomery County Superintendent of 
Education, Walter McKee, and the several exhibits thereto, 
and the oral testimony of the various witnesses, together 
with the several exhibits to that testimony, this Court now 
makes the appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of 
law, embodying the same in this memorandum opinion.

This is a proceeding authorized by § 1343, Title 28, 
U.S.C.A., and § 1983, Title 42, U.S.C.A., brought by the

several plaintiffs, who are Negro children suing through 
their parents as next friends, against the Board of Educa­
tion of Montgomery County, Alabama, its individual mem­
bers, agents, representatives, employees, and successors in 
office, and against the Superintendent of Education of 
Montgomery County, Alabama. Plaintiffs ask this Court 
to enjoin the defendants and each of them from continuing 
the policy, practice, custom, and usage of maintaining and 
operating a compulsory biracial school system in Mont­
gomery County, Alabama, and from assigning students, 
teachers and other school personnel on the basis of race. 
Upon the filing of this action on May 11, 1964, by the plain­

—99—



129

tiffs, for themselves and on behalf of other members of 
their class, this Court by formal order made and entered 
in this case on May 18, 1964, designated the United States 
of America as amicus curiae.

From the evidence in this case, this Court now finds that 
these plaintiffs are Negro children living and residing in 
various areas of Montgomery County, Alabama; that plain­
tiffs are authorized by law to bring and maintain this ac­
tion, and that these plaintiffs represent a class within the 
meaning of Rule 23(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure and are, therefore, authorized to sue on behalf 
of other members of that class since there are common cpies- 
tions of fact arising out of circumstances that are common 
to these plaintiffs and the other members of their class. 
Potts v. Flax, 313 F. 2d 284 (5th Cir. 1963); Brunson v. 
Board of Trustees of School Dist. No. 1, 311 F. 2d 107 
(4th Cir. 1962), cert. den. 373 U.S. 933 (1963).

This Court further finds that these plaintiffs and the 
other members of their class who are similarly situated 
have been and are currently attending the public schools in 
Montgomery County, Alabama, or expect to commence at­
tendance in said public school system during the 1964-65 
school year; that the individual defendants Harold M. 
Harris, as Chairman, Fred Bear, Dr. H. P. Dawson, George 
A. Dozier, Dr. W. E. Goodwin, Isabelle B. Thomasson, and 
Dr. Robert Parker are the members composing the Mont­
gomery County Board of Education, and Walter McKee is 
the Superintendent of Education of Montgomery County, 
Alabama; and that these individuals actively manage, con­
trol and operate the public school system throughout Mont-

— 100—

gomery County, Alabama. This school system, as operated, 
is a unified city-county system with no separate city school 
districts and no City Board of Education. There is only



130

/

one school district for Montgomery County, Alabama, with 
the County Board of Education and the Superintendent of 
Education of Montgomery County, Alabama, exercising 
complete control over the entire system. In this school sys­
tem for the school year 1963-64, there were in attendance 
approximately 15,000 Negro children and approximately 
25,000 white children. In this system the Montgomery 

nty Board of Education owns and operates approxi­
mately 77 schools.

From the evidence in this case, this Court further specifi­
cally finds that, through policy, custom and practice, the 
Montgomery County Board of Education, functioning at 
the present time through the named individual defendants, 
operates a dual school system based upon race and color; 
that is to say, that, through this policy, practice and custom, 
these officials operate one set of schools to be attended ex­
clusively by Negro students and one set of schools to be 
attended exclusively by white studentsA The evidence fur­
ther reflects that the teachers are assigned according to 
race; Negro teachers assigned only to schools attended by 
Negro students and white teachers are assigned only to 
schools attended by white students.

This Court further finds that the students using the 
transportation facilities; that is, the school buses, are 
segregated according to race. Furthermore, transportation 
is furnished by the defendants for Negroes only to schools 
attended solely by Negro students and for white students 
only to schools attended solely by white students.

The several exhibits in this case reflect that, in what has 
been set up by these defendants as “attendance areas,” 
particularly in the City of Montgomery, Alabama, certain 
such areas are designated for “colored” and others are des­
ignated for “white.” From the manner in which these area



131

lines are drawn, there are schools designated for and solely 
attended by white students that are in closer proximity to 
the homes of Negro students than are the schools designated 
for the Negro students. The reverse is true with reference 
to white students. The assignments of students to public

schools (elementary, junior high and high) in Montgomery 
County, Alabama, have been, and are presently, being made 
on the basis of race or color. This is being done through 
the use of these “attendance areas” or “district zones,” 
which areas are, according to the maps introduced into 
evidence in this case, very obviously drawn on the basis of 
race and color. Segregation of the races is also being ac­
complished in this public school system through the assign­
ment of principals, teachers and other professional per­
sonnel. The “feeder system” is used in the Montgomery 
County school system; this is a system by which students 
are advanced from elementary schools through junior high 
schools and on to the high schools. This “feeder system” 
has been set up, is based, and is presently operating on dis­
tinctions of race and color. For instance, Negro children 
who are initially assigned to an elementary school attended 
solely by other Negro children are thereafter, in each and 
every instance as reflected by the evidence in this case, 
assigned to junior high schools and subsequently to senior 
high schools which are attended solely by Negro children. 
The reverse is true for white children. Furthermore, strong 
considerations of race have figured in the disbursement of 
school funds for maintenance, operation and construction

because of the designation of certain schools to be used

101



132

solely by Negro students and the designation of other 
schools to be used solely by white students, because of 
the assignment of teachers and the manner in which the 
teachers are assigned, because of the transportation facili­
ties that are made available to students and the manner 
in which said facilities are used, and upon an abundance 
of other evidence as submitted in this case, some of which 
has been hereinabove referred to, the operation of the 
Montgomery County school system by these defendants 
is on a compulsory biracial basis. The operation of this 
school system on a compulsory biracial basis by these de­
fendants is in their official capacity; thus, such an opera­
tion is action under color of the laws of the State of 
Alabama. The operation of the Montgomery County school

— 102-

system in such a manner is, under the law, discriminatory 
as to these plaintiffs and other members of their race and 
class who are similarly situated.

This Court specifically finds that the operation of the 
Montgomery County school system by and through these 
defendants, and the manner in which it has been and is 
presently being operated, is in violation of the law of the 
United States. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 
4S3 (1954); Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294 
(1955); McNees'e v. Board of Education, 373 U.S. 668 
(June 1963); Goss v. Board of Education, 373 U.S. 683 
(June 1963); Watson v. Memphis, 373 U.S. 526 (May 
1963); Gibson v. Board of Public Instruction of Dade 
County, 246 F. 2d 913 (5th Cir. 1957); Gibson v. Board 
of Public Instruction, Dade County, Fla., 272 F. 2d 763 
(5th Cir. 1959); Holland v. Board of Public Instruction, 
258 F. 2d 730 (5th Cir. 1958); Mannings v. Board of 
Public Instruction, 277 F. 2d 370 (5th Cir. 1960); Augustus 
v. Board of Public Instruction, 306 F. 2d 862 (5th Cir.



133

1962); Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board, 308 F. 2d 
491 (5th Cir. 1962); Armstrong v. Board of Education of 
the City of Birmingham, Ala., 323 F. 2d 333 (5th Cir., 
July 1963); Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, 221 
F. Supp. 297 (M.D. Ala., August 1963); Lee v. Macon
County Board of Education, -----  F. Supp. -----  (M.D.
Ala., July 1964), and Armstrong v. Board of Education
of the City of Birmingham, Ala., -----  F. 2d -----  (5th
Cir., June 1964).

This Court further finds that, since the Supreme Court 
spoke in Brown v. Board of Education, supra, in 1954, 
the only step taken by the Montgomery County Board of 
Education to comply with that court decision is that 
“mechanics were set up” in 1956 to use the Alabama School 
Placement Law in the assignment of students.1 The “me­
chanics” for the use of the Alabama School Placement 
Law as set up by the Montgomery County Board of Edu­
cation have not resulted in the transfer of any Negro 
students to white schools or of any white students to

- 1 0 3 -
Negro schools in the entire system. Thus, this Court finds 
the conclusion inescapable that the Montgomery County 
Board of Education has made and is presently making as­
signments and transfers of students on the basis of race 
notwithstanding the provisions of the Alabama School 
Placement Law.

The facts in this case further show that the defendant 
board of education in this case has not performed and is 
not performing its clear legal duty of taking affirmative 
steps to provide and operate a desegregated educational

1 Title 52, Chapter 4A, Code of Alabama. Also see S h u ttle sw o r th  
v. B irm in gh am  B o a rd  of E d u ca tio n , 162 F. Supp. 372 (N.D. Ala. 
1958), aff’d. 358 U.S. 101, and this Court’s opinion in L ee  v. M acon  
C o u n ty  B o a rd  o f E d u c a tio n  (July 1964), supra.



134

system in Montgomery County, Alabama. The duty on 
the part of such a board in this respect, as set out in 
Armstrong v. Board of Education of the City of Birming- 

am, Ala. (July 1963), supra, is :
“The burden of initiating desegregation does not rest 
on Negro children or parents or on whites, but on the 
School Board.”

In this case, these plaintiffs are seeking the relief that 
was sought ten years ago by the plaintiffs in Brown v. 
Board of Education, supra. The evidence in this case 
reflects that they are entitled to that relief. That relief, 
generally, is to desegregate, within a reasonable time and 
in as orderly a manner as possible, a school system being 
operated in Montgomery County, Alabama, which is op­
erated in violation of the laws of this country. The evi­
dence in this case does not reflect any justification or basis 
for a continuation of this segregated school system that is 
continuously violating the constitutional rights of these 
plaintiffs and the members of their class. Accordingly, 
the Montgomery County Board of Education, and the in­
dividual members thereof, and Walter McKee as Super­
intendent of Education of Montgomery County, Alabama, 
will be restrained, by this Court’s issuance of a preliminary 
injunction, from the continuation of such a system.

This Court is of the further opinion, and now con­
cludes, that the defendants in this case should, immedi­
ately upon receipt of this order, take the necessary steps 
to desegregate the public schools in the Montgomery 
County school system to such an extent as will meet the 
minimum requirements specifically set forth by the Fifth 
Circuit Court of Appeals in Armstrong v. Board of Edu-



135

— 104—
cation of the City of Birmingham, Ala. (June 1964), supra.
In this connection, see also Calhoun v. L a tim er,----- U.S.
-----  (May 1964) and Griffin v. County School Board of
Prince Edward C ounty,----- U.S. ------- (May 1964).

This means that, commencing with the opening of the > _
schools in the Montgomery County school system in Sep­
tember 1964, the first, tenths  el even tli) and twelfth grndpg ’ff-L_ "
must be desegregated. This desegregation for these grades 
may be through the use of the Alabama School Placement ' v k,‘
Law after the giving of timely and appropriate public ) 
notice that it will be used for this purpose throughout the 
entire school system in Montgomery County, Alabama, [_ ^  j  
commencing in September 1964. This notice shall be by 
advertisement in one of the daily newspapers circulated 
throughout Montgomery County, Alabama, and shall be 
addressed to the students, parents, teachers, and other 
appropriate school personnel. Such notice shall be cal­
culated to inform all concerned of their right under the 
plan, and said publication shall be for at least twice per 
week for two weeks. The acceptance of applications for 
transfer shall be in the office of the Montgomery County 
Board of Education, Montgomery, Alabama, or at some 
other suitable place or places publicly designated by the 
Board of Education; said applications for transfer to the
grades specified shall be accepted from the date of the 
filing of this Court’s opinion and order to and including 
August 14, 1964.

The requirements herein outlined are considered by this 
Court to be the minimum requirements. Calhoun v. Latimer 
(May 1964), supra; Griffin v. County School Board of 
Prince Edward County (May 1964), supra, and Arm-



136

strong v. Board of Education of the City of Birmingham, 
Ala. (June 1964), supra.

The Montgomery County Board of Education will be 
further ordered to file with this Court on or before Janu- 
are 15, 1965, its detailed plan for the operation of the 
Montgomery County school system commencing with the
1965-66 school year; such plan is to include and provide 
for the desegregation of the entire school system in Mont­
gomery County, Alabama, within a time and in such a 
manner as to meet the constitutional requirements.

—105—
This Court specifically retains jurisdiction of this cause.

Done, this the 31st day of July, 1964.

/ s /  F rank M. J ohnson, J r .
United States District Judge



137

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle District of Alabama 
Northern D ivision

Pursuant to the memorandum opinion of this Court made 
and entered herein on this date, it is the Order, J udgment 
and Decree of this Court that the Montgomery County 
Board of Education, Harold M. Harris, as Chairman, and 
Fred Bear, Dr. H. P. Dawson, George A. Dozier, Dr. W. E. 
Goodwin, Isabelle B. Thomasson, and Dr. Robert Parker, 
as members of the Montgomery County Board of Educa­
tion, and Walter McKee, as Superintendent of Education 
of Montgomery County, Alabama, together with their 
agents, servants and employees, successors in office, and 
all those who are or may hereafter be in active concert 
or participation with them, be and they are hereby en­
joined, pending the disposition of this case upon its merits, 
from:

—107—
(1) Operating or permitting the operation of the public 

schools and the public school system of Montgomery 
County, Alabama, on a racially segregated basis except 
in strict accordance with the opinions and decrees of this 
Court;

(2) Failing to provide public school education for the 
plaintiffs and other members of their class in a school



138

or schools that are not operated on a racially segregated 
basis;

(3) Failing to make an immediate start, to be effective 
for the school term commencing in September 1964, in 
the desegregation of the first, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth 
grades in the public schools of Montgomery County, 
Alabama, through the use of the Alabama School Place­
ment Law, without discrimination on the basis of race 
or color, and

(4) Failing to take such additional steps in the elimina­
tion of racial discrimination in the public schools of Mont­
gomery County, Alabama, for the 1965-66 school year as 
may he recpiired by any desegregation plan approved by 
this Court.

I t is the further Order, J udgment and Decree of this 
Court that the Montgomery County Board of Education, 
Harold M. Harris, Fred Bear, Dr. H. P. Dawson, George
A. Dozier, Dr. W. E. Goodwin, Isabelle B. Thomasson, 
and Dr. Robert Parker, as members thereof, and Walter 
McKee, as Superintendent of Education of Montgomery 
County, Alabama, together with their agents, servants and 
employees, successors in office, and all those who are or 
may hereafter be acting in concert or participation with 
them, immediately upon receipt of this order set up the 
necessary and appropriate machinery for accepting and 
processing applications for assignment or transfer for the 
school year 1964-65 from applicants for the first, tenth, 
eleventh, and twelfth grades seeking to attend schools 
heretofore attended only by a race other than that of the 
applicants; said applications shall be taken by Montgomery 
County Board of Education officials up to and through 
Friday, August 14, 1964, and each of said applications 
shall be filed in the office of the Superintendent of Educa-



139

tion for Montgomery County, Alabama, on forms to be 
supplied by the office of the Superintendent of Education 
for Montgomery County, Alabama, upon request, to the

- 1 0 8 -
parents or guardians of the pupils for whom such applica­
tions are to be made.

It is the further Order, J udgment and Decree of this 
Court that the Superintendent of Education for Mont­
gomery County, Alabama, notify the parents or guardians 
of the applicants for such transfers before September 1, 
1964, of his action upon such applications for transfer or 
assignment.

It is the further Order, J udgment and Decree of this 
Court that the Superintendent of Education of Mont­
gomery County, Alabama, shall direct publication in a 
daily newspaper published in the City of Montgomery, 
Alabama, twice each week for the weeks beginning August 
2 and 9, 1964, of the following notice:

Notice to P arents, P upils and Teachers in the 
Montgomery County P ublic School System. This 
notice is given pursuant to the order of the United 
States District Court for the Middle District of Ala­
bama in Civil Action No. 2072-N:

You are hereby notified that, pursuant to the order 
of the United States District Court for the Middle 
District of Alabama, the Board of Education for 
Montgomery County, Alabama, will accept and con­
sider applications for assignment or transfer to 
schools heretofore attended only by pupils of a race 
other than that of the applicants in the first, tenth, 
eleventh, and twelfth grades for the school year com­
mencing in September 1964.



140

All applications for such assignments or transfers 
must be filed in the office of the Superintendent of 
Education at Montgomery, Alabama, on or before 
Friday, August 14, 1964.

All such applications must be filed on forms ob­
tained from the office of the Superintendent of Edu­
cation for Montgomery County, Alabama, by the 
parents or guardians of the pupils for whom such 
applications are to be made and must be completed 
and signed by the respective parents or guardians of 
such pupils.

All applications filed within the time and in the 
manner stated will be processed and determined with­
out discrimination as to race of the applicants, and 
the parents or guardians of the applicants will be 
notified before September 1, 1964, of the action taken 
on the applications so filed.

It is further Ordered that the Montgomery County Board 
of Education and the individual members thereof and the 
Montgomery County Superintendent of Education report 
to this Court in writing on or before 9 :00 a.m., Septem­
ber 1, 1964, as to the action taken by the Montgomery

—109—

V j t

County Board of Education on each application for trans- 
i^u^and/or assignment pursuant to this order.

I t is further Ordered that the Montgomery County 
Board of Education and the individual members thereof 
and the Montgomery County Superintendent of Educa­
tion, or their successors in office, file with this Court on 
or before January 15, 1965, their detailed plan for the 
operation of the Montgomery County school system com­
mencing with the 1965-66 school year; such plan to be 
designed to eliminate segregation of students based upon

C --------------



141

race and the complete elimination of the biracial school 
system within a reasonable time.

It is further Ordered that jurisdiction of this cause be 
and the same is hereby specifically retained.

Done, this the 31st day of July, 1964.

F rank M. J ohnson, J r. 
United States District Judge



142

Writ o f Injunction

I n the
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle District of Alabama 
Northern D ivision

To the above-named defendants and each of them:

Take notice that you and each of you, your agents, repre­
sentatives, employees, successors in office, and those who 
are or may hereafter be in active concert and participation 
with you and who shall receive notice of this order, be and 
you are hereby enjoined as more particularly set out in the 
memorandum opinion and the decree of this Court made and 
entered herein on this date, a copy of each of which is a t­
tached hereto.

—Ill—
This writ of injunction is issued pursuant to the memo­

randum opinion and the decree of this Honorable Court 
made and filed with the Clerk of this Court on this the 31st 
day of July, 1964.

Done, this the 31st day of July, 1964.

— 1 1 0 -

R. C. Dobson

Clerk of the United States 
District Court for the 

Middle District of Alabama



I n the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle D istrict of Alabama 
Northern Division

Now come the Defendants in the above styled cause and 
file the following report, all in compliance with that portion 
of the Decree and Order of this Court made and entered 
on July 31,1964, ordering said Defendants to “report to this 
Court in writing on or before 9 :00 A.M., September 1, 
1964, as to the action taken by the Montgomery County 
Board of Education on each application for transfer and/or 
assignment pursuant to this Order” :

A total of twenty-nine applications for transfer and/or 
assignment were received by the Board on or before 5 :00 
P.M., August 14, 1964. These twenty-nine applications 
were processed by the Board through the use of the Ala­
bama School Placement Law, without discrimination on the 
basis of race or color.

All applicants are listed alphabetically with their ad­
dresses, the grade and school to which they applied, and 
the action taken by the Board on each application.



144

Grade and School Action
Name Address to Which Applied Taken

Bell, Charles Lee 2032 Early St. 12th grade-Lanier Denied
Bell, Herbert 184 John Morris 1st grade- 

Harrison
Approved

Campbell, Alfonso 708 Davidson St. 1st grade- 
Goode St.

Denied

Davis, Willie Mae 2132 Council St. 10th grade-Lanier Denied
Day, William Henry 785 Thurmond St. 12th grade-Lanier Denied
Floyd, Alfonso 311 No. Jackson St. 10th grade-Lanier Denied
Floyd, Charles 311 No. Jackson St. 10th grade-Lanier Denied
Gray, Vanessa Lynn 2722 W. Edgemont 1st grade- 

Bellingrath
Denied

Harris, Ella Louise 180 Martin Patton 10th grade-Lanier Denied
Lawrence, Freddie, Jr. 210 John Morrison 1st grade- 

Harrison
Denied

Martin, Josephine 933 So. Decatur St. 12th grade-Lanier Denied
Martin, Shirley Ann 354 Auburn St. 12th grade-Lanier Approved

—113—
Mastin, Joanne 726 Alexander St. 10th grade-Lanier Denied
Miles, Wayne Edward 199 John Morris 1st grade- 

Harrison
Approved

Miles, Yvonne 199 John Morris 10th grade-Lanier Denied
Persons, Syrinthia R. 1518 Yougene St. 11th grade-Lee Denied
Riggins, Annie Joyce 1804 Fourney St. 11th grade-Lee Approved
Riggins, Willie, Jr. 1804 Fourney St. 12th grade-Lee Approved
Russell, Robert Earl 13B Mulzer Blvd. 11th grade-Lanier Approved
Sanders, Jo Ann 1839 Fourney St. 1st grade- 

Capitol Hgts.
Denied

Sanders, Julia Mae 1839 Fourney St. 12th grade-Lee Approved
Sanders, Susie Bell 375 Auburn St. 10th grade-Lanier Approved
Sanders, William Berry 1838 Fourney St. 10th grade-Lee Denied
Smith, Constance 1510 Westeott St. 11th grade-Lanier Denied
Stovall, Zack, Jr. 128 Martin Patton 10th grade-Lanier Denied
Thomas, Joyce Lorraine 2161 Dorothy St. 12th grade-Lanier Denied
Thomas, Mae Carolyn 1411 Deer St. 10th grade-Lanier Denied
Webb, Anthony R. 567 Watts St. 1st grade- 

Capitol Hgts.
Denied

White, Linda Diana 2344 Day St. 10th grade-Lanier Denied
Submitted this 1st day of September, 1964.

H ill, R obison and Belsek

Attorneys for Defendants



145

-114—
Mjation fo r Further R elief or 
O' Order to Show Cause

\ (Filed September 1, 1964)

^  I n the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F oe the Middle District of Alabama 
Northern Division

Come now the plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys 
of record, and represent to this Court the following:

1. That on July 31, 1964, this Court rendered a decree 
requiring the defendant, Montgomery County Board of 
Education, and the individual defendants named therein, 
“their agents, servants, and employees, successors in of­
fice, and all those who will or may hereafter be acting in 
concert or participation with them, immediately upon re­
ceipt of this order set up the necessary and appropriate 
machinery for accepting and processing applications for 
assignment or transfer for the school year 1964-1965 from 
applicants for the first, tenth, eleventh and twelfth grades 
seeking to attend schools heretofore attended only by a 
race other than that of the applicants; . . . ”

—115—
2. That pursuant to further directions of the Court, 

within the time specified in this Court’s decree, the ap­
plicants named below applied for transfer or assignment 
to the respective grades and schools opposite their names:



146

To Sidney Lanier High

Yvonne Miles 
Charles Bell 
Willie Mae Davis 
William H. Day 
Alfonso Floyd 
Charles Floyd 
Ella Louise Harris 
Shirley A. Martin 
Josephine Martin 
Joan Mastin 
Susie B. Sanders 
Constance Y. Smith 
Zack Stovall, Jr. 
Joyce L. Thomas 
Mae Carolyn Thomas 
Linda D. White 
Robert Russell

School

Tenth Grade 
Twelfth Grade 
Tenth Grade 
Twelfth Grade 
Tenth Grade 
Tenth Grade 
Tenth Grade 
Twelfth Grade 
Twelfth Grade 
Tenth Grade 
Tenth Grade 
Eleventh Grade 
Tenth Grade 
Twelfth Grade 
Tenth Grade 
Tenth Grade 
Eleventh Grade

To Robert E. Lee High School

Syrinthia R. Person 
Annie Joyce Riggins 
Willie Riggins, Jr. 
William B. Sanders 
Julia M. Sanders

Eleventh Grade 
Eleventh Grade 
Twelfth Grade 
Tenth Grade 
Twelfth Grade

To Bellingrath Elementary School

Vanessa Lynn Gray F irst Grade

To Goode Street Elementary School 

Alphonso Campbell F irst Grade



147

To Capital Heights Elementary School
Jo Ann Sanders 
Anthony R. Webb

First Grade 
First Grade

— 116—
To AVilliam R. Harrison Elementary School

Herbert Bell 
Freddie Lawrence 
Wayne Miles

First Grade 
First Grade 
F irst Grade

3. That defendant, Montgomery County Board of Edu­
cation, has considered the applications of the above named 
pupils for transfer or assignment to the schools designated, 
but has rejected the applications of all except the follow­
ing:

To Sidney Lanier High School

Susie Bell Sanders Tenth Grade
Robert Russell Eleventh Grade
Shirley Ann Martin Twelfth Grade

To Robert E. Lee High School

Willie Riggins, Jr. Twelfth Grade
Annie Joyce Riggins Eleventh Grade
Julia Mae Sanders Twelfth Grade

To Harrison Elementary School

Wayne Edward Miles First Grade
Herbert Bell F irst Grade 4

4. That the defendants have denied the applications for 
transfer of each and every plaintiff in this action.



148

5. That the schools to which the above named appli­
cants sought transfer and assignment are better equipped, 
better staffed and have broader curriculums and in gen­
eral are better schools than the colored schools which ap­
plicants have heretofore attended or will be compelled 
to attend.

6. In refusing to accept the applications of the other 
named pupils, defendants have failed to state any reason 
for such refusal or to elucidate any standards which form 
the basis for their judgment.

—117—
7. The defendants in failing to approve the other appli­

cations seek to only have token desegregation in the public 
schools of Montgomery County and to circumvent this 
Court’s decree in this case and in the case of Brown v. 
Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483, 98 L. Ed. 873, 74 S. Ct. 
686.

8. That in processing and refusing to approve the appli­
cations for transfer and assignment, the defendants have 
subjected these Negro pupils to procedures and investiga­
tions which white children desiring to transfer from one 
white school to another are not subjected to, and to pro­
cedures and investigations which other Negro children de­
siring to transfer from one Negro school to another Negro 
school are not subjected to.

9. That in refusing to approve the applications for trans­
fer and assignment the defendants have denied to plaintiffs 
and their class their constitutional right to receive an edu­
cation on a nondiscriminatory basis.



149

10. The plain meaning of the Court’s decree in the above 
case is that the volume of transfers within the grades indi­
cated was to be expanded rather than constricted. This is 
made clear by consideration of several factors leading to 
this Court’s judgment. First, this Court relies upon the 
opinions of the Supreme Court in Griffin v. County School 
Board of Prince Edward County, 12 L. Ed. 2d 256 (1964) 
and Calhoun v. Latimer, 12 L. Ed. 2d 288 (1964), which 
when taken together indicate that the only appropriate re­
lief in effecting desegregation is that which is “quick and 
effective,” and the decision of the Fifth Circuit, Armstrong 
v. Board of Education of the City of Birmingham, 323 F. 
2d 333 (5th Cir., June 18, 1964); cf. Glynn Co. Board of
Education, et al. v. Lynda Sue Gipson,----- F. 2 d ------  (5th
Cir., June 18, 1964), which delineate the minimal require-

—118—
ments for compliance with the Supreme Court’s mandates, 
and upon which the decree in the instant case is modeled. 
Secondly, because the decree is an apparent retreat from 
this Court’s earlier opinion in Lee, et al. v. Macon County 
School Board, 221 F. Supp. 297, and its later opinion in 
Harris, et al. v. Bulloch County Board of Education, C. A. 
No. 2073-N, 8/5/64, neither of which limited transfers to 
four grades, the strong inference is that total desegrega­
tion of the Montgomery County school system was to be 
effected within these grades in the school term beginning 
September, 1964. Clearly, the limitation upon transfers 
effected by the defendants’ action violates both the plain 
meaning and the spirit of this Court’s decree.

W herefore, plaintiffs pray that this Court order 
applicants, namely, Yvonne Miles, Charles Bell, Willie 
Davis, William H. Day, Alfonso Floyd, Charles



150

Ella Louise Harris, Josephine Martin, Joan Mastin, Con­
stance Y. Smith, Zack Stovall, Jr., Joyce L. Thomas, Mae 
Carolyn Thomas, Linda D. White, Syrinthia R. Person, 
William B. Sanders, Vanessa Lynn Gray, Anthony R. 
Webb and Freddie Lawrence to be admitted to the grades 
and schools listed, or in the alternative, that the defendants 
be made to show cause why each application for transfer 
should not be promptly granted.

Respectfully submitted,

F eed D. Geay 
J ack Geeenbeeg 
Chables H. J ones

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Certificate of Service (omitted in printing)



151

M O N fG d ^ R yT u B u rrscH O O L S
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA

— 1 2 0 -

REPORT OF PUPIL PROGRESS

For Hm  YM r 1 9 ^ 3  19 (4

SCHOOL

-PUPIL

To Parents or Guardians:

This report Indicate* «h* prog ress In studies ond In citizenship mod* 

by the pupil during eoch six-week period of the school yeor. Please discus* 

■ II phases of the report with your son or daughter.

Teocher. d  * t

Grade.

J



152

SYSTEM OF SHADING

A. Excellent
B. Good
C. Foir
D. Poor 
F. Failing

— 1 2 1 —

SUBJECT Six Weeks Periods

----1
Year
Aver.1st 2nd 3rd ■4 th 5th 6th

ALG EBRA P T r A X w
A R IT H M E T IC

C IV IC S a ( V ft A
ENG LISH 6 8 p ( V A
G EOG RAPHY

H ISTO RY  (A M E R IC A N )

L A T IN

SC IENCE p, £ A A ft

A R T £ c r ,
H O M E M A K IN G

M A N U A L  A R T S

M U S IC d c
-

SPEECH

P H Y S IC A L  ED. A A
B A N D

NO T IM ES  C H EC K ED  OUT

D A Y S  A B SEN T 0 6' / C X V

D A Y S  T A R D Y 0 r ,
c G V rj  \

Please acknowledge your inspection of this report by signing it. Your 

signature does not indicate approval or disapproval of the contents of the 

report.



153

—122—

In order that the school may cooperate with the parent to develop, m 
every student o well rounded character ond the qualities of good citizenship, 
progress in certain social habits and attitudes should be given coreful attention. 
Undesirable conduct outside classroom wijl be referred to the r#.<ipo!

CITIZENSHIP PROGRESS

First Period-riod. Period

Second Period. ifth Period-

Third Period. f  sixth Period-



154

-123—

TEACHER'S COMMENTS: n  A  , ,  , _l1 . ©J

n ~ J u  v L  i *

3- Q-(-1, eV-Jvi
r

A - ) T 't  ̂ £1

PARENT'S COMMENTS:

INVITATION TO PARENTS

Porenti wishing to to Ik with teochers obout their children will pleose coll 
the school for on oppointment on ony school doy after 3 :00  p.m. except 
Monday, which is the doy set for faculty meetings. Teochers ore always 
pleased to confer with parents.



155

125—

MONTGOMERY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA

REPORT OF PUPIL PROGRESS

For Hst Yoor 1 9 ^ _ _  19 _.6ij

££pflQS 'iASHINITQM CABYEB___s e n io r  h ig h  s c h o o l

THOMAS. JOYCE______________________ rurit

To Porents or Guardians:

This report indicates the progress In studies and In citizenship mode 

by the pupil during soch six-week period of the school year. Please discuss 

all phases of the report with your son or daughter.

W ith the first report of the year will be sent o letter explaining the 

system of reporting employed. You ore urged to keep this letter ond to 

refer to It ot the end of each grade period.

First Semester

Section. Tenrher Mrs» At F , Baker

Gr ode- 11

Second Semester

11



156

The scholosfic odvoncement of the student is indkoted by the five steps listed 
below:

A. Exceptional Progress
B. Commendable Progress
C. Fair Progress
D M inimum Progress
F. Foilure ^

—124—
SCHOLASTIC PROGRESS

FIRST SEMESTER STEPS

Subjects First
Per.

Second
Per

Third
Per

Exom.
Grode

Sera.
Record

^  ’S v - l i s h
i f / r ~ F & ~ 7 T

A -n o r i. - ra n  H i s t o r y
A r

A r t f ? ~7? A w
" r  .-rich I I A (!■ A e >

-s / ' ) A A ? r *
( > . A

Days Absent n
/ c - c

T imes Tordy L r

Times Checked Out

SECOND SEM ESTER STEPS

Subjects Fiat
Per.

Second 1 Third 
Per. | Per.

Exom.
Grode

Sem
Record

‘S i i g l i s h y A / / w r A
A  “

X /

A « r i  -a n  H i s t o r y A s A ( 7 - /?
f

/ A“i
Art A .____A J A A
• r -- r .c h  IT A A A S ' s S ,5
: -v y . ts

.

A w
. . . _____  .. __  _____ ---4-----------J

I
C - ^  *:-v  - • 1 .
iimev Tardy A . la
Times Checked Out .. ..

! j



157

In order that the school may cooperate with the parent to develop in 
every student a well rounded charocter ond  the quolities c f Qood cituenship, 
progress »n certain social habit* ond ottitude* should be given careful attention.

Progress in any of the desirobfe traits listed below is indicated in the 
following manner: If no mark, is ploced after ttve troit. the'student is to be 
considered satisfactory in that respect. If the student has shown either 
marked progress or decided need for improvement »n any particulor troit, 
the foct will be ind«cofed by the some steps os those used for scholastic 
progress. l

CITIZENSHIP PROGRESS

C IT IZ E N S H IP  C H A R A C T ER IST IC S 1st
Per

2nd
Per.

3rd
Per.

4th
Per

5«h
Per.

6th
Per.

Effort

Co-operation

Courtesy

Reliability
J

Self-Control

1
Care of public prope ry

I

General conduct _ _
Please note that there has been left on ths last page of this report a space 

for further comments by teacher

S IG N ATU RE  OF PARENT

Please ocl*rv*wledge your inspection this repc'* b* signing »t Y-x* 
signature does m*r indicate approvol or disappreval of the contents of the 
report.

First Semester Second Semester

* . . ^
F i r s t  Period ,.e~  F i r s t  r V . r - . y J  . * . '  v V ~ -

Second Periods . ...---- ----  -....Second Period

j  •Third Peri I -  «-C. .Third PetKvl



158 — 125—

TEACHER'S COMMCKTS:

(An addition.!' sheet or separate letter wilt be used when Twccssary.)

PARENT'S COMMENTS:

INVITATION TO PARENTS

Parents wishing to talk with teachers about their children will 
please call the school to arrange an appointment with the teacher. 
Conferences arc usually held from 3 to 3:30 P.M.



159

— 126—

• . -cry : 'rr /.‘t.
r r ~ j t I  .  .  . --J  P lice  usd DaU m t B irth S ex

r » r —

2 A l  A  9  l i n t - — n ______
’ ■'1 p - » -  S ‘ m o t . U r a j Ctttsca EdOCltiM

V + i C l c r c r - . s

.t_oa
r  v i 3 t

T m M* T m * • Ele*. U. ft. C«4.

S — L .

O ccu^v^U ja

Te-rt Ecccrd Anaidonea Rccort1

~
Kins ef Tut PofntBccro Perr_uci Or. C*_X3

Dsyi tm fteailma Days rrtUBl Timer Tardy
U*Cco. tadSera. litftem. 2ndMm. letlea. lad■»m.

l

-
!

—
i

— . .

■ ? T- "T

Lilvntviic.i
•; * r

-.t«.: ‘

C .  i  ..:it ’ . cn

-Ill-rc— is53̂ £lj-

vsatl c \_

rcif' - ‘ r..-;

at

at

at

a *■
is_

hL

-----------
i \ j  i :?cc:-l S tu d .eTT

A
A I?-:-1
—J_L

I • i

a  r .  •

3< r r  c , 'r. r  r u j jc c ls

S „
p£

-_.U 'i-X**-•; ; l
*-

c'!< n t C=Fair D = P cr,r  (P ; lv .)
: ____________N u m b er of P u p ils  In G rcdu

::i-h School A la. S tc to  C o lleg e  t s b o m t o r  •

I= In c o m p le te V /= W ith d rn w n

i by Soot' cm  A ssociation  of CoUejos ecu Sccc-dccy Schools

r . c  P.:mk in C lass: H ig h est Second T h ird  L ow est 
: c f  School K o n t r c o m e r y .  A lrl> c r:.o _________

Registrar
______ Principal

Superintendent

(T&mo of Pupil________
lV

fl O
irolyn

........................................................ 
- A

ddress—
 

 
 

1A
11

.J).



160

— 127—

( J u l y  1. 1229) CUMULATIVE RECORD AKD IZ A irSFZL^ JJX K

Last Name First Hom e A ddress | P lace  and Date o f B irth Sex

S - i th C o R 3 t . - r . e e

i r - 0  n s r - o o t t P/*>/hB___ V " T  ♦ . P 7 - S ” _______ m r
K c u t r o r n r . . U r in e Citizen E ducaiic Q

Sm ith .1 chn-.v
O ccupation

I ”  U V . -  > .7 7  B i

Yes

X
No Yes

x
No Elem. H. S. CoL

Smith B erth a
O ccupation

E iu u o ic i 'n X A.

•ate
N am e of T est Point

Score
Per.

Wan!/
Chr.
Age Year Class

D ays in  Session D ays P resent T im es Tardy
1st

Sem .
2nd
Sena.

1st
Sem.

2nd
Sem.

1st
Sem.

2nd
Sem.

i

i

i

Scholarship Record

JU N IO R  H IG H  SCHOOL 
SU BJECTS Y ear

b tj
jc 2e a« t.

M
in

u
te

s
P

er
W

ee
k M ARKS

SEN IO R  H IG H  SCHOOL 
SU B JEC TS Y ear

5 "
« 2

M
in

ut
es

P
er

W
ee

k M ARKS CC
H
Z
P1st

Sem .
2nd

Sem.1st
Sem .

2nd
Sem .

7,7 T Y P ? r  1 c A n _ £ l English 1L U9
- 1  5 o h fi A S . - - r : j r . r  I  l - ; 6 3 - 6 i l ________________ A - 5 1

A A

r. r.
r . c Social S tud ies 2L
13 A i : o i - V ;  " i s t r i - /  1 v 6 3  - 6 L 3 A i

A £

A C

T T  T p n r  3 0 6 7 - 6 ; ' 3 6 Science 3 6 US
y l t s h C B- B i c l r .  v  l ? 5 ; - 6 c 3 a i

2 - 2

B A
A - 3

A M athem atics 3 6 l i 3

A B A 1 . 7 : 6 r i  I X  1 ? £ 3 - S i 3 - 3 i

i n A
D r a r v  O r i e n t a t i o n A £

o r  I I I  T e a r  1 5 6 2 - 6 3 3 6 F ore ig n  Language

- * l i  s h c B
i s  n e e E 3

3 C
B 3
A V ocational o r  o th e r su b jec ts 3 6 J i

L - !n  T B 5 '\rr-A  . - s i  F c v . c n t i o n  1 9 6 3 - f i l l 3 B 173
D>e E c o n o m ic s  I B 3

: A = E x c e lle n t B = G o o d_______ C = F a ir______ D = P o o r  (P assing)_______F = F a i lu re ______I = Incom plete_______W = W ith d raw n
G raduated___________________ N u m b er of P u p ils  in  G rad u a tin g  C lass________Q u a rte r  R an k  in  C lass: H ighest S econd T h ird  L ow est
of H igh  School A la . S ta te  C o lleg e  L a b o ra to ry  " ’ ~ h  A dd ress  o f School HontEciT.crT. Alabama_________
lited b y  S ou th ern  A s s o c ia t io n  C o lle g e s  & Secondary  S choo ls

D ate C 7 / / / :  * - /  ' ”d s e n t to

^Registrar
______Principal
Superintendent-

Nam
©

 of Pupil 
....................................................................................................A

ddress.



1 6 1

— 1 2 8 —

m e  o f  PUPIL S ird th , Cons, .cs

Residence Record Schools Attended

.'car M ailing A d d reu TeL
No.

DISTANCE
NAME OF SCHOOL

A dm inistered: 
privately , by  
County. C ity

DATE

D as School Entered L eft

CLf) ’.v e - te o t t  S t r e e t A la . S ta te  C o lleg e  Lab.

1

.'ear Class EXTRA-CUU.RICUL.Vn ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE INTERESTS  
AND UODB1ES

S sv ln e________________
T cok in r

.'ear Class VOCATIONAL PREFERENCE
HEALTH RECORD

Ht. \VL P h ysica l D efects

S c i e n t i s t

of o th e r C h ild ren  in  F am ily —O lder_____ Y ounger_______ C hurch  A ffiliation  o r  P referen c e__________________N atio n a lity
uncial S ta tu s  of F am ily — Owns H om e_____________________R ents______________________Y early  Incom e___________________

PERSONALITY RATING
JR. I JR. □ JR. I ll

l 2 3 4 5 1 3 S 1 3 « s

clastic Zeal
llectual A b ility
iative
stw orth iness
dersh ip  A bility
;al A ttitu d e r r. . .
otionai C ontro l

SR. I SR. U SR. I l l

I 2 3 * 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 * r r - 4 s

Mastic Zeal
llectual A b ility
iative
t w orth iness

dersh ip  A bility
ial A ttitu d e
otional C ontro l

EMPLOYMENT RECORD

.’car Kind o f W ork E m ployer
DATES W ages

P er__F ro m To

l [

1
____

H -



162

. 3  (Ju ly  1. 1939) 
ma Education  A ssociation . M ontgom ery. A la. CUMULATIVE E3COr_D H O  THAKSFT LANK — 129—

I j i it Nam e P in t M iddle Hom e Address P lace n d D ate o f  B irth Sex

2C32 Z ^ r ly  S t r e e t X / l b A - Q  ?'r*r»f *3T F

Ec-ll C h arles L .  .Tv. Living Citizen E ducation

O ccupation Ye* N o Yes No ElCBL u. s. CoL

•£ ■ 1 1 C h arles T .- I r _ i ____

cr
i J J _________________ STTlT.a_____________ _______ i i _________ :

O ccupation

'«<v-h*r______________ X JL. X
Test Record Attendance Record

Days in  Session Day* P resent
1s t  | 2nd 

Sem . 1 Sent.
1st 1 2nd 

Sem . | Sem.
N u e  o f T est

KAMI Of PUT*.

SELL CHARLES L 09 m 3 lo 117j17; 12 j15 56 61 «0 8 3 81 73  .

MAM£ Of PUP* ! — -V i
B E L L  C H A R L E S  L [ i a 2 A  i

j -* *—  1 ■—*” 1 ~  I COMP. saucnoMKOtl
L i 8  1 1 7 7  ! 5 0  7 9 1 0 3
-1 '

Scholcrrship Record

JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 
SUBJECTS

S":=K M
in

ut
es

P
er

W
ee

k MARKS
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 

SUBJECTS Year

W
ee

ks
P

ur
su

ed

M
in

ut
es

P
er

W
ee

k MAR ICS

U
N

IT
S

1st
Sem.

2nd
Sem.

1st
Sem.

2nd
Sem.

Jan? or T Year 1999-cO 36 Ii6 English 36 1,9
:' sh C r; Senior T 1962-63 R- R 7
' vl Studio:: R Senior IT 196S-61i R R 1

3
. i.C? A A
-leal \dv.cation c Social Studies 36t World His ter-/ 1962-63 B B i
- P American History 1963-6L U A i
rv Orientation p

•:.ior I I  Year 1960-61 36 In Science 36
--> l. B D Biel cry l°6?-63 Au A i
~̂ ph3r A—Physics 19̂ 3-Lu A A JL
' ci.-tics A A
. :.C3 A
■'.cal Education B <-L. Mathematics 36 U?A Al;-:arc. I I  1962-63 A 3 1

c B A Geonojry 1 9 1 3 -6a A A 1
Interest- S 3

::-.ry Orientation A A
Foreign Language 36 'nlor I I I  Tear 1961-62 36 V? v-an-h T F, A 1

B /
A 3

bra I A A
leal Education B Vocational or other subjects 3 6 |.p

B A- Art ie',2-63 » » _ l/p
A ~-vais-l Fdufi.-. ;b on l°6?-6 l r, R IIVi I B B Phys i c r-1 rdtie j tl nr. 1963 -6)1 A R It

•atrial Arts B- B

A = E x c e lle n t C = F a ir D = P o o r  (P assing) I= Jn c o m p le te W = W ith d raw n
N u m b er o f P u p ils  in  G ra d u a tin g  C lass Q u a rte r  R an k  in  C lass: H ig h est S econd T h ird  L ow est

f H igh S chool A la . St.r.te C o lleg e  L aco r.it A d d ress  o f  School > ! o n t r m ( = r v f  A la b n - i a
ited by S o u th e rn  A s s o c ia t io n  C o lle g e s  & S eco n d s .!/ S ch o o ls  ^

Date
I / ' / - '?

s e n t to

JRegistFur-
______Principal
Snpprintaadent

K
am

o of Pupil_______________________________________________________A
ddress



163

—130—
JdE OF PUPIL

Residence Record Schools Attended

ear M ailing Address TeL
No.

DISTANCE
NAME OF SCHOOL

A d m in istered : DATE

B us \ School C ounty, City Entered L eft

-ear Class EXTRA-CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE INTERESTS  
A N D  HODBIES

—

-'car Class VOCATIONAL PREFERENCE
HEALTH RECORD

II t. YVL P h ysica l D efect!

of o ther C h ild ren  in F am ily —O lder_____ Y ounger_______ C hurch  A ffilia tion  o r  P referen c e__________________N atio n a lity
r.ncial S ta tu s  o f F am ily —O w ns H om e_____________________R ents_____________________ Y early  Incom e___________________

PERSONALITY RATING
JR. I j r . n jr . in

1 2 2 4 5 i 3 * s l 2 3 4 5

olastic Zeal
‘.Icctua! A bility
i alive
".worthiness 1

.Worship A bility
;al A ttitu d e
ouonai C on tro l

SR. 1 SR. U s r . m
1 2 3 * * 1 2 3 » l 2 3 4 5

olastic Zeal
liectual A b ility
iative
.".worthiness
.'arsh ip  A bility
iai A ttitu d e
ctlonal C ontro l !

EMPLOYMENT RECORD

Year Kind o f Work Em ployer DATES Wa ges
P er__From To

1
1
:

---------------------- 1—
i



164

Order
(Filed September 1, 1964)

- 1 3 2 -

I n THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle D istrict op Alabama 
Northern D ivision

Pursuant to the order and decree of this Court made and 
entered in this case on the 31st day of July, 1964, the Mont­
gomery County Board of Education has reported to this 
Court in writing concerning the action taken by that Board 
on each application for transfer and/or assignment made 
by the parents or guardians of Negro students. This re­
port, as now filed, reflects that a total of 29 applications for 
transfer and/or assignment were received by the Board 
during the time ordered by this Court; that the 29 appli­
cations were processed by the Board through the use of 
the Alabama School Placement Law, and that of the 29, 
21 of such applications were denied and 8 were granted. 
The report to this Court, as filed by the Board, does not 
set out any reasons to support the denial of any of the 
applications for transfer and/or assignment.

The plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys of record, 
file with this Court on this date their written objections to 
the action of the Montgomery County Board of Education 
in denying the applications for transfer and/or assign­
ment as filed with the Board by 21 parents or guardians of 
Negro children who, by their applications, requested as­
signment or transfer to schools heretofore attended only 
by pupils of the white race. Plaintiffs, further, by their 
written motion filed on this date, move this Court to order



165

—133—
the defendant Montgomery County7 Board of Education to 
show cause why each application for transfer that was 
made to and denied by said Board should not be granted.

Upon consideration of the motion of the plaintiffs and 
upon consideration of the written report filed by the Mont­
gomery County Board of Education with this Court on this 
date, this Court notes that the defendant Board has failed 
to state any reasons for its refusal to grant the applica­
tions for transfer and/or assignment of 21 of the Negro 
applicants and that said Board has failed to advise this 
Court concerning any standards or criteria which form the 
bases for its judgment in each instance where the applica­
tion for transfer and assignment was denied. This Court 
is of the opinion that the Montgomery County Board of 
Education shoidd within a reasonable time file with this 
Court in writing its reasons for refusing to grant the ap­
plication for transfer and/or assignment of Charles Lee 
Bell, Alfonso Campbell, Willie Mae Davis, William Henry 
Day, Alfonso Floyd, Charles Floyd, Vanessa Lynn Gray, 
Ella Louise Harris, Freddie Lawrence, Jr., Josephine Mar­
tin, Joanne Mastin, Yvonne Miles, Syrinthia R. Persons, 
Jo Ann Sanders, William Berry Sanders, Constance Smith, 
Zack Stovall, Jr., Joyce Lorraine Thomas, Mae Carolyn 
Thomas, Anthony R. Webb, and Linda Diana White, and, 
further, advise this Court in writing concerning the stand­
ards and criteria which form the bases^Lor tfieSBoard’s 
denial of each of said applications. The attorneys fbr the 
Board of Education advise this Coim that it will b^ con­
venient for them to file with this (Court by 3 p.m. oh this 
date the reasons for the Board’s/refusal of eacVof said 
applications and the standards aiJcl criteria whkm form the 
bases for its action in each instance. /



166

In consideration of the foregoing and for good cause, it 
is the Order. J udgment and Decree of this Court that the 
motion of the plaintiffs filed herein on this date, seeking to 
have this Court order the transfer and/or assignment of 
certain Negro students based on applications filed by their 
parents and/or guardians with the Montgomery County 
Board of Education, pursuant to the order and decree of 
this Court of July 31, 1964, be and the same is hereby 
reserved.

It is the further Order, JuopMESYltird. Decree of this 
Court that the Montgomery/ County Board of Education 
file >mh this Court on or before 3 p.m. bn this date its 

, reasons tor refusing to grant the applications for transfer 
and/or assignment of Charles Lee Belh/Alfonso Campbell, 

Davis, Williktn Henjy^Dav, Alfonso Floyd, 
tarles Floyd, Vanessa Lynn Gray, Ella Louise Harris, 

Freddie Lawrence, Jr., Josephine Martin, Joanne Mastin, 
Yvonne Miles, Syrinthia R. Persons, Jo Ann Sanders, Wil­
liam Berry Sanders, Constance Smith, Zack Stovall, Jr.,

—134—
Joyce Lorraine Thomas, Mae Carolyn Thomas, Anthony 
R. Webb, and Linda Diana White, and to advise this Court 
as to the standards and criteria which form the bases for 
their action as reflected in the report of the Board filed 

ith this Court on this date.

Done, this the 1st day of September, 1964.

F rank M. J ohnson, J r. 
United States District Judge



(j/Filed September 1, 1964)
Defendants’ Report

I n  t h e

— 135—

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F oe t h e  M id d l e  D is t r ic t  o f  A l a b a m a  

N o r t h e r n  D iv is io n

The Plaintiffs having filed this 1st day of September, 
1964, a Motion for Further Relief or Order to Show Cause 
and this Court having passed on said motion, the Defen­
dants in compliance with the Order of this Court make the 
following report:

A total of twenty-nine applications for transfer 
and/or assignment were received by the Board on or 
before 5 :00 P. M., August 14, 1964. These twenty-nine 
applications were processed by the Board through the 
use of the Alabama School Placement Law, without 
discrimination on the basis of race or color.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs have informed the Court 
and attorneys for Defendants that the applicants, 
Alfonso Campbell and Jo Ann Sanders have withdrawn 
their applications and Defendants make no report on 
these applicants.

All other applicants are listed alphabetically with 
pertinent information considered by the Defendants in 
making their decision and the action taken by the De­
fendants.



168

1. Charles Lee Bell, 2032 Early Street, Montgomery, 
Alabama.

The applicant attended Alabama State Laboratory 
School last year, completing the eleventh grade and 
applied to attend Lanier High School, requesting ad­
mission to the twelfth grade.

Applicant lives approximately eight blocks from 
Carver High School and approximately seventeen 
blocks from Lanier. The route to Lanier crosses sev­
eral busy thoroughfares; whereas a tunnel is provided 
at Fairview Avenue for the most hazardous street 
crossing between Early Street and Carver High School.

Lanier High School will be the most overcrowded 
High School in the County this year as approximately
2,700 pupils are anticipated and the normal capacity 
at Lanier is approximately 2,000. All regular rooms 
at Lanier High School will be used each period of the

- 1 3 6 -
day and approximately fourteen makeshift rooms have 
been created at Lanier. These likewise will be in full 
use.

Lanier will have a higher pupil-teacher ratio than 
will Carver High School.

The Defendants denied the application of Charles 
Lee Bell to attend Lanier High School.

2. Herbert Bell, 184 John Morris Avenue, Montgom­
ery, Alabama.

This applicant applied for admission to Harrison 
Elementary School and brought with his application 
his birth certificate which shows that he meets the age 
requirements.



169

The applicant lives about the same distance from 
Abraham’s Vineyard School as Harrison Elementary 
School.

The pupil-teacher ratio and available space at H ar­
rison School would not be adversely affected.

The parent and pupil have expressed a preference 
to attend Harrison Elementary School.

This applicant is admitted to the first grade at H ar­
rison School.

3. Willie Mae Davis, 2132 Council Street, Montgomery,
Alabama.

This applicant attended Carver Junior High School 
last year in the ninth grade. The applicant applied 
to attend Lanier High School in the tenth grade.

The applicant lives approximately four blocks from 
Carver High School and approximately twenty-one 
blocks from Lanier High School.

According to the applicant’s score on the California 
Mental Maturity and Achievement Tests, given all 
eighth grade students in Alabama, the applicant 
showed to he about two grades retarded in both achieve­
ment and mental ability.

The Defendants considered as additional factors, the 
overcrowded conditions at Lanier and comparative 
teacher-pupil ratio, all as more particularly stated in 
Paragraph “1” above.

The Defendants denied this application.

4. William Henry Day, 785 Thurmond Street, Mont­
gomery, Alabama.

This applicant attended Booker Washington High 
School last year in the eleventh grade. Applicant ap­



170

plied to attend Sidney Lanier High School this year in 
the twelfth grade.

The applicant resides approximately three blocks 
from Booker Washington High School and approxi­
mately fourteen blocks from Lanier High School. The 
route to Lanier will be more hazardous than the route 
to Booker Washington High School.

The capacity of Booker Washington High School has 
been increased by the addition of nine new rooms which 
will be ready by the opening of school this year.

Lanier High School will be the most overcrowded 
high school in the County this year with approximately
2,700 pupils attending and the normal capacity of 
Lanier High School is approximately 2,000. Lanier will 
have a higher pupil-teacher ratio than will Booker 
Washington. All regular rooms will be in use, each 
period of the day along with approximately fourteen 
makeshift rooms.

—137—
The Defendants denied this application.

5. Alfonso Floyd, 311 North Jackson Street, Mont­
gomery, Alabama.

This applicant attended Houston Hill Junior High 
School last year in the ninth grade and applied to at­
tend Lanier High School this year in the tenth grade.

This applicant lives approximately eleven blocks 
from Booker Washington High School and approxi­
mately twenty-nine blocks from Lanier High School. 
The route to Lanier will be more hazardous than the 
route to Booker Washington.



171

Lanier High School will be the most overcrowded 
high school in the County this year with approximately
2,700 pupils attending and the normal capacity of 
Lanier High School is approximately 2,000. Lanier 
will have a higher pupil-teacher ratio than will Booker 
Washington. All regular rooms will be in use, each 
period of the day along with approximately fourteen 
makeshift rooms.

The capacity at Booker Washington High School 
has been greatly increased this year because of an 
addition of nine rooms Avhich will be ready for the 
opening of school.

According to this applicant’s score on the California 
Mental Maturity and Achievement Tests given all 
eighth grade students in Alabama, the applicant is 
about one grade retarded in mental ability and three 
grades retarded in achievement.

The Defendants denied this application.

6. Charles Floyd, 311 North Jackson Street, Mont­
gomery, Alabama.

This applicant attended Houston Hill Junior High 
School last year in the ninth grade and has applied 
to attend Lanier High School this year in the tenth 
grade.

This applicant resides approximately eleven blocks 
from Booker Washington High School and approxi­
mately twenty-nine blocks from Lanier High School. 
The route to Lanier High School crosses several busy 
thoroughfares and is much more hazardous than the 
route to Booker Washington High School.



172

This applicant has an approximate “D” average and 
had to make up his math in summer school last sum­
mer. According to the California Mental Maturity 
and Achievement Tests given all eighth grade students 
in Alabama, the applicant shows to be three grades 
retarded in both achievement and mental ability.

The Defendants considered as additional factors 
overcrowded conditions at Lanier, additional rooms 
at Booker Washington High School and comparative 
teacher-pupil ratio as more particularly shown in Para­
graph “5” above.

The Defendants denied this application.

7. Vanessa Lynn Gray, 2722 W. Edgemont Avenue, 
Montgomery, Alabama.

This applicant applied for admission to the first 
grade at Bellingrath School.

The applicant resides in the area designated to at­
tend Carver Elementary School. No children living 
in the vicinity of this applicant attend Bellingrath 
School.

The applicant lives approximately eight blocks from 
Carver Elementary School. Because of the fact that 
W. Edgemont Avenue is not open between the Atlantic 
Coast Line Railroad and the east side of Genetta

- 1 3 8 -
Ditch, it would be approximately twenty-four blocks 
to Bellingrath. It would be necessary that this pupil 
travel down Fairview Avenue to Court Street and 
down Court Street to Bellingrath School.

There will be only one section of the first grade in 
Bellingrath School while three or four sections for 
the first grade are scheduled at Carver Elementary



173

School. The pupil-teacher ratio will be lower at Carver 
Elementary School than at Bellingrath School.

The Defendants denied this application.

8. Ella Louise Harris, 180 Martin Patton, Montgom­
ery, Alabama.

This applicant attended Ilayneville Road Junior 
High School last year in the ninth grade and made 
application to attend Lanier High School this year in 
the tenth grade.

This applicant has a very poor attendance record. 
The applicant attended Carver Elementary School in 
1961-62 and she did not attend school in 1962-63. In 
the 1963-64 session her attendance was rather poor 
at Hayneville Road Junior High School.

All Alabama students are given in the eighth grade 
the Mental Maturity and Achievement Tests. For some 
reason, this applicant had not taken these tests.

On August 18, 1964, a letter was sent to her father, 
Mose Harris at 180 Martin Patton, Montgomery, Ala­
bama. Said letter was delivered to Mose Harris by 
the Attendance Supervisor at 5:31 P. M., on August 
18. The letter stated that those students who had failed 
to take the tests mentioned above would be given an 
opportunity to take them at 8:45 A. M. on Thursday, 
August 20. The applicant failed to appear for the 
tests on Thursday, August 20, but did report on Au­
gust 21, when the second half of the test was given. 
A make-up for this applicant was given on August 24, 
and her I.Q. according to the California Test was 65 
and her average achievement was one grade retarded. 
The applicant’s excuse for not reporting on Thursday,



174

August 20, was, “My father said I  wouldn’t be able 
to come Thursday and told me to come Friday”.

The home environment of this applicant is con­
sidered a factor. According to school personnel the 
applicant was involved in a shooting last year and was 
hospitalized for eight days. Apparently neither she 
nor her family made any report of this incident to the 
police department of the City of Montgomery.

The Defendants considered the fact that Lanier High 
School would be the most overcrowded high school in 
the County this year and that the teacher-pupil ratio 
at Lanier High School is much higher than the pupil- 
teacher ratio at Carver High School.

The Defendants denied this application.

9. Freddie Lawrence, Jr., 210 John Morris Avenue, 
Montgomery, Alabama.

This applicant applied to attend the first grade at 
Harrison Elementary School this year.

The father of this applicant stated that the appli­
cant would be six years old on September 26, 1964. 
The father of the applicant was told verbally and it 
was printed on the application, that birth certificates 
must accompany the completed applications for pupils 
applying to enter the first grade. This applicant was 
the only applicant for the first grade whose parents 
failed to turn in the birth certificate with the applica­
tion. All pupils entering the first grade must present 
a birth certificate showing that they will be six on or

—139—
before October 2, in order that they may enter school. 
This applicant has failed to meet this requirement.

The Defendants denied this application.



175

10. Josephine Martin, 933 South Decatur Street (Pat­
erson Court) Montgomery, Alabama.

This applicant attended Booker Washington High 
School last year, in the eleventh grade and applied 
to attend Sidney Lanier High School this year in the 
twelfth grade.

This applicant resides approximately two blocks 
from Booker Washington High School and approxi­
mately fourteen blocks from Lanier.

The Defendants considered as additional factors, 
overcroAvded conditions at Lanier, additional rooms 
at Booker Washington High School and comparative 
teacher-pupil ratio, all as more particularly shown in 
Paragraph “5” above.

The Defendants denied this application.

11. Shirley Ann Martin, 354 Auburn Street, Mont­
gomery, Alabama.

This applicant attended Carver High School last 
year in the eleventh grade and applied this year to 
attend Sidney Lanier in the tAvelfth grade.

This applicant lives approximately three blocks from 
Lanier and approximately ten blocks from Carver High 
School.

Parent and pupil preference is to attend Lanier.
This applicant is accepted for the twelfth grade at 

Sidney Lanier High School.

12. Joanne Mastin, 726 Alexander Street, Montgom­
ery, Alabama.

This applicant attended Carver High School last 
year in the ninth grade and applied this year to attend 
Sidney Lanier High School in the tenth grade.



176

This applicant resides approximately three blocks 
from Carver and twelve blocks from Lanier.

According to the California Mental Maturity and 
Achievement Tests given this applicant and all eighth 
grade students in Alabama, the applicant shows to be 
two grades retarded in achievement and about two 
and a half grades retarded in mental ability.

Defendants considered as additional factors, over­
crowded conditions at Lanier and comparative teacher- 
pupil ratio, all as more particularly stated in Para­
graph “1” above.

Defendants denied this application.

13. Wayne Edward Miles, 199 John Morris Avenue, 
Montgomery, Alabama.

This applicant applied to attend the first grade at 
Harrison Elementary School.

The applicant brought his birth certificate showing 
that he meets the age requirements.

The applicant resides in the Abraham’s Vineyard 
School district; however, he lives about the same dis­
tance to Harrison Elementary School.

- 1 4 0 -
Parent and pupil preference is to attend Harrison 

School.
The Defendants approved this application.

14. Yvonne Miles, 199 John Morris Avenue, Mont­
gomery, Alabama.

This applicant attended Hayneville Road Junior 
High School last year, attending the ninth grade. She 
is applying this year to attend Sidney Lanier High 
School in the tenth grade.



177

The applicant transferred to Hayneville Road Junior 
High School last year; however, this school system has 
been unable to get a record of her eighth grade work 
from New York.

The California Mental Maturity and Achievement 
Tests are given all eighth grade pupils in Alabama. 
The Defendants had no test results on this applicant 
and the mother of the applicant was notified by letter 
dated August 18, 1964, received by her at 5 :13 P. M. on 
August 18, 1964, requesting that the applicant report 
on August 20 and 21, to take the test. Through August 
24 at 8 :45 A. M., the applicant had not reported. About 
noon August 24, the applicant’s mother called the At­
tendance Supervisor of the Montgomery County School 
System and stated that the applicant was in New York 
and would not return until August 29. The applicant 
has not complied with the testing requirements of the 
Defendants.

The Defendants considered the additional factors of 
overcrowded conditions at Lanier and comparative 
teacher-pupil ratio, all as set forth more particularly 
in Paragraph “1” above.

The Defendants denied this application.

15. Syrinthia Reshe Persons, 1518 Yougene Street, 
Montgomery, Alabama.

This applicant attended St. Jude’s School last year 
in the tenth grade and applied this year to attend Lee 
High School in the eleventh grade.

This applicant lives approximately ten blocks from 
Booker Washington High School and eighteen blocks 
from Lee High School. The route to Lee High School 
crosses several thoroughfares and would be much more



178

hazardous than the route to Booker Washington High 
School.

Lee High School is one of the more crowded schools 
in the County and the pupil-teacher ratio is much higher 
at Lee High School than at Booker Washington High 
School. A nine room addition has been completed at 
Booker Washington High School this summer and 
will greatly increase its capacity and reduce the pupil- 
teacher ratio.

On August 13, at 4:45 P. M., a woman came to the 
office of the Board of Education and stated she was 
Stella D. Person and asked for an application for 
S y r i n t h i a  Person, 1518 Yougene Street. This woman 
stated she wanted to apply for her child to attend the 
first grade at Capitol Heights Elementary School. On 
being asked the name of the father of the child she 
stated it was an illegitimate child and that she had 
never married. At 4:50 P. M., August 14, this applica­
tion was returned to the Board of Education. The ap­
plication number was “31”. The application, when 
returned, showed the applicant as having attended St. 
Jude’s School last year in the tenth grade and that 
the applicant wanted to attend Lee High School in the 
eleventh grade this year. In the opinion of the Super­
intendent of Education of Montgomery County who is­
sued the initial application on August 13, and who 
received the application on August 14, the woman who 
received the application was not the same as the woman 
who returned the application. As authorized by the 
Decree of this Court and as set forth by the public 
notice given by the Board of Education, the parents



179

—141—
or guardian of the applicant was required to obtain the 
application. This application was obtained or returned 
in violation of this requirement.

The Defendants denied this application.

16. Annie Joyce Riggins, 1804 Fourney Street, Mont­
gomery, Alabama.

This applicant attended Booker Washington High 
School in the tenth grade last year and applied for 
admission to Lee High School this year in the eleventh 
grade.

This applicant lives approximately sixteen blocks 
from Lee and approximately twenty-eight blocks from 
Booker Washington High School.

The parent and applicant have expressed a pref­
erence to attend Lee High School this year.

The Defendants approved this application.

17. Willie Riggins, Jr., 1804 Fourney Street, Mont­
gomery, Alabama.

This applicant attended Booker Washington High 
School last year in the eleventh grade and has ap­
plied to attend Lee High School this year in the twelfth 
grade.

The applicant lives approximately sixteen blocks 
from Lee and approximately twenty-eight blocks from 
Booker Washington.

The parent and applicant have expressed a pref­
erence to attend Lee High School this semester.

The Defendants approved this application.



180

18. Robert Earl Russell, 13B Mulzer Boulevard, Mont­
gomery, Alabama.

This applicant attended Carver High School last year 
in the tenth grade and applied for admission to Lanier 
High School this year in the eleventh grade.

This applicant resides in Maxwell Heights which is 
owned by the United States Government in connection 
with Maxwell Air Force Base. He resides in an area 
that is transported and the other students in this 
project attend Lanier High School.

The applicant and the parent have expressed a pref­
erence to attend Lanier High School this semester. 

The Defendants approved this application.

19. Julia Mae Sanders, 1839 Fourney Street, Mont­
gomery, Alabama.

This applicant attended Booker Washington High 
School last year in the eleventh grade and has applied 
to attend Lee High School this year in the twelfth 
grade.

The applicant resides sixteen blocks from Lee and 
approximately twenty-eight blocks from Booker Wash­
ington.

The applicant and the parent have expressed a pref­
erence to attend Lee High School this year.

The Defendants approved this application.

20. Susie Bell Sanders, 375 Auburn Street, Mont­
gomery, Alabama.

This applicant attended Carver Junior High School
—1 4 2 -

last year in the ninth grade and has applied to attend 
Lanier High School this year in the tenth grade.



181

The applicant lives approximately three blocks from 
Lanier High School and approximately ten blocks from 
Carver High School.

The applicant and her parents have expressed a 
preference to attend Lanier High School this year.

The Defendants approved this application.

21. William Berry Sanders, 1839 Fourney Street, 
Montgomery, Alabama.

This applicant attended Booker Washington Junior 
High School in the ninth grade last year and is apply­
ing to attend Lee High School this year in the tenth 
grade.

This applicant had a “D” average at Booker Wash­
ington last year and it was necessary for him to make 
up one subject in summer school. He has not com­
pleted ninth grade mathematics.

The applicant has a score on the California Mental 
Maturity and Achievement Tests given all eighth grade 
pupils in Alabama showing about two grades retarded 
in both achievement and mental ability.

Lee High School will be much more overcrowded this 
year than Booker Washington and the pupil-teacher 
ratio will be much lower at Booker Washington High 
School. Nine additional classrooms were built at 
Booker Washington this summer which will greatly 
increase the pupil capacity of this high school and 
reduce the teacher load.

The Defendants denied this application.

22. Constance Smith, 1510 Westcott Street, Mont­
gomery, Alabama.

This applicant attended Alabama State Laboratory 
School last year in the tenth grade and has applied to



182

attend Lanier High School this year in the eleventh 
grade.

The applicant lives approximately six blocks from 
Carver High School and approximately eighteen blocks 
from Lanier High School.

The Defendants considered the additional factors of 
overcrowded conditions at Lanier and comparative 
pupil-teacher ratio, all as set forth more particularly 
in Paragraph “1” above.

The Defendants denied this application.

23. Zack Stovall, Jr., 128 Martin Patton, Montgomery, 
Alabama.

This applicant attended Houston Hill Junior School 
last year in the ninth grade and has applied to attend 
Lanier High School this year in the tenth grade.

According to the California Mental Maturity and 
Achievement Tests given all eighth grade students in 
Alabama, this applicant has an I.Q. of about 49 and 
is four grades retarded in achievement. On the Otis 
Quick Scoring Test, the applicant is shown to be at 66. 
According to the eighth grade records at Carver Junior 
High School where this applicant attended at one time, 
it was noted that he has failed to complete the last half 
of his Science and Math which he then failed.

If this applicant attends Carver High School he can 
do the necessary make-up in the Junior High School 
area which is offered in an adjacent building while 
nothing but Senior High School work is offered at 
Lanier High School.

The Defendants considered the additional factors 
of overcrowded conditions at Lanier and pupil-teacher



183

- 1 4 3 -
ratio, all as set forth more particularly in Paragraph 
“1” above.

The Defendants denied this application.

24. Joyce Lorraine Thomas, 2161 Dorothy Street, 
Montgomery, Alabama.

This applicant attended Carver High School last 
year in the eleventh grade and applied to attend Sidney 
Lanier High School this year in the twelfth grade.

The applicant lives approximately eight blocks from 
Carver High School and approximately nineteen blocks 
from Lanier High School.

According to the California Mental Maturity and 
Achievement Tests given all eleventh grade students 
in Alabama last year the applicant showed to be about 
two grades retarded in mental ability and one and one- 
half grades retarded in achievement.

The Defendants considered the additional factors 
of the overcrowded conditions at Lanier and the com­
parative teacher-pupil ratio, all as more particularly 
set forth in Paragraph “1” above.

The Defendants denied this application.

25. Mae Carolyn Thomas, 1411 Deer Street, Mont­
gomery, Alabama.

This applicant attended State Laboratory School 
last year in the ninth grade and has applied to attend 
Lanier High School this year in the tenth grade.

The applicant lives five blocks from Booker Wash­
ington High School and twelve blocks from Lanier 
High School.



184

The Defendants considered the additional factors 
of overcrowded conditions at Lanier and additional 
rooms at Booker Washington and comparative pupil- 
teacher ratio, all as more particularly shown in Para­
graph “5” above.

The Defendants denied this application.

26. Anthony K. Webb, 567 Watts Street, Montgomery, 
Alabama.

This applicant applied to attend Capitol Heights 
Elementary School in the first grade.

This applicant lives in an area where the students 
attend McDavid Elementary School. Pupils living in 
the North end of the McDavid Elementary School area 
that are closer to Booker Washington Elementary 
School have been allowed to attend either school since 
the extra rooms were added at Booker Washington 
Elementary School.

The applicant is only five blocks from Booker Wash­
ington Elementary School and twenty blocks from 
Capitol Heights Elementary School. The route to 
Capitol Heights Elementary School from the appli­
cants address crosses several busy thoroughfares and 
is much more hazardous than the route to Booker 
Washington Elementary School or McDavid Elemen­
tary School.

The Defendants denied this application.

27. Linda Diana White, 2344 Day Street, Montgomery, 
Alabama.

This applicant attended St. Jude’s School in the ninth 
grade last year and has applied to attend Lanier High 
School in the tenth grade this year. The applicant lives



185

approximately twenty-one blocks from Carver High
—144-

School and thirty-five blocks from Lanier High School. 
The route to Lanier High School crosses several busy 
thoroughfares whereas a tunnel at Fairview Avenue 
is provided for the most hazardous street crossing be­
tween Day Street and Carver High School.

The applicant does not meet the tenth grade entrance 
requirements in that she does not have any ninth grade 
mathematics. In the event the applicant attended 
Carver High School she could take ninth grade mathe­
matics at the Junior High School in an adjacent build­
ing where the Carver Junior High School is located, 
while there is no Junior High School in the area of 
Sidney Lanier High School.

Lanier High School will be the most overcrowded 
high school in the County this year. Approximately 
2,700 pupils are anticipated and the normal capacity 
of Lanier High School is approximately 2,000. Lanier 
High School uses all of its regular classrooms each 
period as well as approximately fourteen makeshift 
rooms. The pupil-teacher ratio at Sidney Lanier High 
School is much higher than the pupil-teacher ratio at 
Carver High School.

The Defendants denied this application.

Submitted this 1st day of September, 1964.

H ill, R obison and Belser 
Attorneys for Defendants



- 1 4 5 -
Amendment to Motion for Further Relief or 

Order to Show Cause
(Filed September 1, 1964)

I n the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle D istrict of Alabama 
Northern Division

Now comes the plaintiffs, by and through their attor­
neys of record, and amend their “Motion For Further Re­
lief or Order To Show Cause”, by adding the following new 
paragraphs following Paragraph No. 10, to be designated 
and read as follows:

“11. That the defendants in refusing to approve the ap­
plications for transfer or assignment of the said pupils 
have applied different criteria to the above named pupils 
than were applied to other pupils attending schools in the 
Montgomery County school system in the same grades as 
said pupils.

12. That the defendants allege that they have denied 
the applications of said pupils ‘ . . . through the use of the 
Alabama School Placement Law . . . ’; that according to 
said law the following matters may be considered:

—146—
Available room and teaching capacity in the various 
schools; the availability of transportation facilities; the 
effect of the admission of new pupils upon established 
or proposed academic programs; the suitability of es­
tablished curricula for particular pupils; the adequacy 
of the pupil’s academic preparation for admission to a 
particular school and curriculum; the scholastic apti­



187

tude and relative intelligence or mental energy or abil­
ity of the pupil; the psychological qualification of the 
pupil for the type of teaching and associations in­
volved; the effect of admission of the pupil upon the 
academic progress of other students in a particular 
school or facility thereof; the effect of admission 
upon prevailing academic standards at a particular 
school; the psychological effect upon the pupil of at­
tendance at a particular school; the possibility or 
threat of friction or disorder among pupils or others; 
the possibility of breaches of the peace or ill will or 
economic retaliation within the community; the home 
environment of the pupil; the maintenance or severance 
of established social and psychological relationships 
with other pupils and with teachers; the choice and in­
terests of the pupil; the morals, conduct, health and 
personal standards of the pupil; the request or consent 
of parents or guardians and the reasons assigned there­
for.

That one or more of said factors has no ascertainable stand­
ards, is vague and indefinite, and a decision based upon 
those factors are arbitrary and deny to plaintiffs and the 
class they represent the equal protection of the law and due 
process of law.

13. That said factors contained in said Alabama Pupil 
Placement Law, as applied to plaintiffs and the class they 
represent, are unconstitutional and, therefore, null and 
void.”

Respectfully submitted,

F eed D. Gray 
J ack Greenberg 
Charles H. J ones 
Attorneys for Plaintiffs



188

Order
(Filed September 5, 1964)

- 1 4 8 -

I n THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle D istrict of Alabama 
Northern D ivision

Pursuant to the order and decree of this Court made and 
entered herein on the 31st day of July, 1964, the Mont­
gomery County Board of Education reported to this Court 
concerning the action taken by that Board on the appli­
cations for transfer and/or assignment to schools in the 
Montgomery County public school system as made by the 
parents or guardians of Negro students. This report re­
flects that a total of 29 applications for transfer and/or 
assignment were received by the Board during the time 
allowed by the order of this Court; that the 29 applications 
were processed by the Board through the use of the Ala­
bama School Placement Law, and that of the 29 applica­
tions filed, 8 were granted, 2 were withdrawn and the rest 
were denied. The plaintiffs on September 1, 1964, made 
written objections to the action of the Montgomery County 
Board of Education.

Upon consideration of the plaintiffs’ objections and the 
written report as filed by the Board, this Court on Sep­
tember 1, 1964, ordered and directed that the Montgomery 
County Board of Education file with this Court in writing 
its reasons for refusing to grant the applications for trans­
fer and/or assignment of the Negro applicants who were 
denied; the Board was further directed to advise this Court



189

in writing as to the standards and criteria which formed 
the bases for the Board’s denial of each of said applications.

—149—
Pursuant to the order of this Court of September 1, 

wherein the Montgomery County Board of Education was 
directed to advise this Court in writing as to the reasons, 
standards and criteria the Board considered supported its 
action, the Board filed with this Court as of September 1, 
1964, in writing, the reasons, standards and criteria applied 
in the case of each of the Negro applicants.

Upon consideration of the objections by plaintiffs to the 
action of the Montgomery County Board of Education in 
denying certain of the applications for transfer and/or 
assignment, upon consideration of plaintiffs’ motion seek­
ing to have this Court order that the defendant Mont­
gomery County Board of Education grant each of the ap­
plications for transfer and/or assignment as filed by the 
Negro applicants who were denied, and upon consideration 
of the response of the Montgomery County Board of Edu­
cation to this Court’s order directing that said Board set 
out in writing its reasons, standards and criteria applied 
in each instance, this Court finds that two of the Negro 
applicants who were denied have now withdrawn their 
applications; this Court further finds that in denying the 
other applications, the Board considered and applied stand­
ards and criteria which were in each instance germane 
to the proper operation of the Montgomery County, Ala­
bama, public educational system as it presently exists and 
to the effective and efficient continued operation of that sys­
tem for the benefit of students and parents of both races. 
Certain of the relevant matters considered by the Board



190

in making the assignments of Negro applicants and in 
denying others were: available space in the school to which 
the transfer was sought, as opposed to the available space 
in the school last attended by the applicant; pupil-teacher 
ratio in the school to which the transfer was sought, as 
opposed to the pupil-teacher ratio in the school last a t­
tended by the applicant; the availability of transportation; 
the suitability of established curricula for the particular 
pupil in the school to which transfer was sought as opposed 
to the curricula available in the school last attended; the 
adequacy of the pupil’s academic preparation for admis­
sion to the school to which transfer was sought; the scho­
lastic aptitude of the applicant for transfer; and the 
geographical location of the applicant’s home with ref­
erence to the school last attended and the school to which 
the transfer was sought. None of the factors considered 
by the Board which resulted in the denial of certain of the 
applications of Negroes for transfer include hostility on 
the part of the Board, other public officials or the public.

—150—

V

This Court now specifically finds and concludes that in 
the case of each of the applicants, whether the application 
was granted or denied, the action of the Montgomery 
County school authorities constituted a good faith imple­
mentation of the governing constitutional principles and 
a good faith compliance with the orders of this Court. 
Since B rown v. Board of Education. 349 U.S. 294, the 
courts Have consistently recognized that the district courts, 
faced with the practical problems involved in the desegre­
gation of the public school systems, would be justified in 
initially requiring something less than total desegregation. 
In recognition of this legal principle and in recognition of 
the particular local school problems existing in the Mont-



191

gomery County public school system (which problems have 
been made known to this Court during the course of this 
litigation), and in the exercise of this Court’s equity 
power, it is the Order, judgment and decree of this Court 
that the motion of the Negro plaintiffs filed herein on 
September 1, 1964, and amended on the same date, seeking 
to have this Court order the Montgomery County Board 
of Education to grant all the applications for transfer 
and/or assignment as filed with the Board and thereby 
order the admission of all the Negro children who, by their 
applications, have requested assignment or transfer to 
schools heretofore attended only by pupils of the white 
race, be and the same is hereby denied.

It is the further Order, judgment and decree of this 
Court that the action taken by the Montgomery County 
Board of Education in granting the applications made by 
parents or guardians for the transfer and/or assignment 
of eight Negro children to schools in the Montgomery 
County public school system heretofore attended only by 
pupils of the white race, be and the same is hereby approved 
and accepted by this Court.

—Itr is Ordered that jurisdiction be and the same is hereby 
specifically retained.

Done, this the 5th day of September, 1964.

F rank M. J ohnson, J r.
United States District Judge



192

—1 5 1 -
Suggestion of Amicus Curiae Re Substitution of 

Parties Under Rule 25 (d ) F.R.C.P.
(Filed January 11,1965)

I n the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle District of Alabama 
Northern Division

Now comes Ben Hardeman, one of the Amici Curiae 
appointed by this Court on May 18, 1964, and suggests to 
the Court that the following Members of the Montgomery 
County Board of Education, Harold M. Harris, Dr. H. P. 
Dawson, and Dr. W. E. Goodwin, are no longer serving, 
their terms of office having terminated in accordance with 
Title 62, Section 5, of the Code of Alabama of 1940, and 
that their successors, James W. Rutland, Jr., George C. 
Starke, and Dr. J. Edward Walker have been elected, have 
qualified and are now serving as Members of the Mont­
gomery County Board of Education, Montgomery, Ala­
bama.

W herefore, this Amicus Curiae suggests to the Court 
that an Order substituting James W. Rutland, Jr., George 
C. Starke, and Dr. J. Edward Walker, and deleting Harold 
M. Harris, Dr. H. P. Dawson, and Dr. W. E. Goodwin as 
Defendants in this cause is now appropriate, and should be 
rendered.

This suggestion is made pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is based upon all of



193

the pleadings and documents filed in this case and upon the 
Affidavit of the undersigned attached hereto.

Dated this 8th day of January, 1965.

Ben H ardeman

United States Attorney 
Amicus Curiae

A ffidavit
- 1 5 2 -

State of Alabama )
)

Montgomery County )

I, Ben Hardeman, having been duly sworn, say:

I am the United States Attorney for the Middle District 
of Alabama.

In connection with my duties as United States Attorney 
and as Amicus Curiae in this cause, I  have reviewed the file 
in this case and it discloses that Harold M. Harris, Dr. H. 
P . Dawson, and Dr. W. E. Goodwin are no longer serving 
as Members of the Montgomery County Board of Educa­
tion, Montgomery, Alabama, and that James W. Rutland, 
Jr., George C. Starke, and Dr. J. Edward Walker have been 
elected, have qualified, and are now serving as Members of 
said Montgomery County Board of Education.

This affidavit is made in support of the suggestion of 
affiant as Amicus Curiae in reference to the Substitution 
of said parties to which it is attached.

Ben H ardeman 
United States Attorney

Sworn to January 8th, 1965.



194

Order Substituting Parties
(Filed January 11,1965)

I n the
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F oe the Middle District of Alabama 
Northern Division

It appears from the affidavit of Ben Hardeman, which is 
attached to his suggestion as Amicus Curiae re Substitu­
tion of Parties that the terms of office of Harold M. Harris, 
Dr. H. P. Dawson, and Dr. W. E. Goodwin, defendants in 
this cause, have terminated as Members of the Montgomery 
County Board of Education, in accordance with the provi­
sion of Title 62, Section 5 of the Code of Alabama of 1940 
and by reason of said termination they no longer hold office. 
It further appears that James W. Rutland, Jr., George C. 
Starke, and Dr. J. Edward Walker have been elected to 
serve as Members of said Board, have qualified, and are 
presently serving in that capacity. I t is therefore appro­
priate that an order of substitution be entered herein, as 
provided by Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro­
cedure, reflecting this change and that the new Members, 
James W. Rutland, Jr., George C. Starke, and Dr. J. Ed­
ward Walker, be served with the Memorandum Opinion and 
Decree of this Court as made and entered herein on July 31, 
1964, and the W rit of Injunction issued thereupon on the 
same day.

—15 4 -
Now, therefore, in consideration of the foregoing and 

pursuant to the provisions of Rule 25(d), Federal Rules of

- 1 5 3 -



195

Civil Procedure, it is the Order, J udgment and Decree of 
this Court that James W. Rutland, Jr., George C. Starke, 
and Dr. J. Edward Walker, be and they are hereby sub­
stituted as parties defendant for Harold M. Harris, Dr. H. 
P. Dawson and Dr. W. E. Goodwin.

The Clerk of this Court is Ordered and D irected to serve 
by registered mail upon James W. Rutland, Jr., George C. 
Starke, and Dr. J. Edward Walker, certified copies of the 
Memorandum Opinion and Decree of this Court made and 
entered in this cause on July 31, 1964, and the Writ of In­
junction issued thereupon on the same day.

Done this 11th day of January, 1965.

F rank M. J ohnson, J r.
United States District Judge



196
/

r
— 155—

Defendants’ Plan for Desegregation
(Filed January 15, 1965)

I n  t h e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle District of Alabama 
Northern Division

Now Come the Defendants in the above entitled cause, 
and, as required by the order of this Court dated July 31, 
1964, submit the following plan for the desegregation of 
the entire school system in Montgomery County, Alabama:

1. Assignm ents:
All existing school assignments shall continue without 

change except when transfers or assignments are author­
ized by the Superintendent of Education of Montgomery 
County, Alabama under the supervision and review of the 
Board of Education of Montgomery County, Alabama. 
Pupils entering any grade to which this plan shall have

become applicable and pupils otherwise entering the school 
system for the first time when this plan shall have become 
applicable to the grade entered, shall be assigned without 
regard to race as is provided hereinafter.

2. Transfer and Assignm ent:

A. Parents or legal guardians of pupils residing in 
Montgomery County, Alabama prior to June 15, of each 
year, in grades to which this plan shall have become ap­
plicable wishing school assignment for the pupils to a

■156—



197

school attended only by pupils of a race other than that of 
the applicant, prior to the entry of the judgment of this 
Court in this case in July of 1964, shall make application 
to that end, as hereinafter provided, between June 1 and 
June 15, of each year for the next succeeding school year, 
beginning with the school year 1965-1966.

B. Parents or legal guardians of pupils entering the 
Montgomery County School System for the first time, in 
grades to which this plan shall have become applicable and 
not having been residents of Montgomery County on the 
preceding June 15, and wishing school assignment for the 
pupil to attend a school other than a school formerly at­
tended by pupils of their race, prior to the entry of the 
judgment of this Court in this case in July of 1964, shall 
make application to that end at the Office of the Superin­
tendent of Education of Montgomery County, Alabama and 
said application shall be promptly processed without re­
gard to race in accordance with the provisions of this plan.

3. Assignment A uthority :

In the assignment or transfer of pupils under this plan 
in or to specific schools, subject to the supervision and 
review by the Board of Education of Montgomery County, 
Alabama, the Superintendent of Education shall be charged 
with the responsibility for the assignment or transfer of 
pupils.

—157—
4. Transfer or Assignment Request:

A. All applications for transfer or assignment to grades 
as reached under this plan must be filed on or before 
June 15 of each year on forms obtained from the Office of



198

the Superintendent of Education of Montgomery County, 
Alabama, by the parents or legal guardians of the pupils 
for whom such applications are to be made and must be 
completed, signed and returned between June 1 and June 
15 of each year to the Office of the Superintendent of Edu­
cation of Montgomery County, Alabama by the respective 
parents or legal guardians of the pupils. The proper forms 
will be furnished to parents of pupils on request between 
June 1 and June 15 of each year. Separate applications 
must be filed for each pupil for whom an assignment or 
transfer is requested.

B. In the assignment of pupils in those grades reached 
by this plan the relevant factors in the Alabama School 
Placement Law shall be applied without discrimination on 
a basis of race or color.

C. Notice of action taken : Notice of the action taken by 
the Assignment Authority on each application filed under 
this plan will be made on or before August 1 of each year 
o the parents or legal guardians of each pupil for whom 

the application was made.

5. Applicability of P lan:

This plan shall have application in the school year be­
ginning September, 1965, to the 12th, 11th, 10th, 9th, and 
2nd and 1st grades. This plan’s applicability shall be ex­
tended through continued school years thereafter to include 
additional grades as follows:

For the school year beginning September, 1966, the 3rd 
and 8th grades.

For the school year beginning September, 1967, the 4th 
and 7th grades.



grade.
—158—

For the school year beginning September, 1969, the 6th 
grade.

Twice each week for the week beginning May 30, 1965, 
and June 6,1965, the Superintendent of Education of Mont­
gomery County, Alabama shall direct publication in a daily 
newspaper in the City of Montgomery, Alabama, the fol­
lowing notice:

“Notice to P arents, P upils and Teachers in the Mont­
gomery County P ublic School System:

You are hereby notified that as required by the order 
of the United States District Court for the Middle Dis­
trict of Alabama, the Board of Education, Montgomery 
County, Alabama, has adopted the following plan for 
the desegregation of the entire school system of Mont­
gomery County, Alabama:

1. Grades in the school system are or will be desegre­
gated at the following tim e:

a. for the school year beginning September, 1965, 
grades 12th, 11th, 10th, 9th, 2nd and 1st.

b. for the school year beginning September, 1966, 
the 3rd and 8th grades.

c. for the school year beginning September, 1967, 
the 4th and 7th grades.

d. for the school year beginning September, 1968, 
the 5th grade.

e. for the school year beginning September, 1969, 
the 6th grade.



200

2. All applications for assignment or transfer in the 
grades as reached by this plan shall be filed in the 
Office of the Superintendent of Education of Mont­
gomery County, Alabama, between June 1 and June 15 
of each year.

3. All such applications must be filed on forms ob­
tained between June 1 and June 15 of each year from 
the Office of the Superintendent of Education for Mont­
gomery County, Alabama, by the parents or legal guar­
dians of the pupils for whom such applications are to 
be made and must be completed and signed by the re­
spective parents or legal guardians of such pupils and 
returned by them to the Office of the Superintendent of 
Education for Montgomery County, Alabama.

4. All applications filed within the time and in the 
manner stated will be processed and determined with­
out discrimination as to race of the applicants, and the 
parents or legal guardians of the applicants will be 
notified on or before August 1 of each year of the 
action taken on the applications so filed.”

This 15th day of January, 1965.

Respectfully submitted,

H ill, R obison and Belser

- 1 5 9 -
Certificates of Service (omitted in printing)



201

Order
(Filed January 18, 1965)

— 160—

I n the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle D istrict of Alabama 
Northern D ivision

The defendants in the above-styled case, pursuant to 
the order of this Court made and entered herein on July 
31, 1964, filed with the Clerk of this Court on January 15, 
1965, the plan under which said defendants propose to 
desegregate the public school system of Montgomery 
County, Alabama.

It is Ordered that the objections, if any, to the proposed 
plan as now submitted and filed by said defendants, be 
made in writing and filed with the Clerk of this Court on 
or before February 16, 1965.

Done, this the 18th day of January, 1965.

F rank M. J ohnson, J r.
United States District Judge



202

Motion for Extension of Time
(Filed February 15, 1965)

I n the

DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

F or the Middle District of Alabama 
Northern Division

The United States of America, Amicus Curiae herein, 
moves the Court for an order extending the time within 
which the United States may file objections to the Defen­
dants’ plan for desegregation and a memorandum in sup­
port thereof so that the said objections may be filed by the 
United States no later than February 25, 1965.

The basis for this motion is that the granting of this 
additional time is necessary in order to properly and ade­
quately consider and evuluate the said Defendants’ plan 
for desegregation.

Dated this 15th day of February, 1965.

U nited States of A merica 
By Ben H ardeman

Ben H ardeman 
United States Attorney

- 1 6 1 -



203

Order

The motion of the United States of America for an order 
extending the time in which the United States may file 
objections to the Defendants’ plan for desegregation and 
a memorandum in support thereof is hereby granted. It is 
Ordered that the said objections may be filed by the United 
States no later than February 25,1965.

Done this 15th day of February, 1965.

F rank M. J ohnson, J r.
United States District Judge



204

Motion fo r Extension o f Tim e

(Filed February 16, 1965)

- 162-

I n the
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

F oe the Middle District of Alabama 
Northern Division

Now come the Plaintiffs, by and through their Attorneys 
of Record, and move the Court for an Order extending the 
time within which they may file objections to the Defen­
dants’ plan for desegregation so that said objections may 
be filed in this Court not later than February 26, 1965.

In support of said Motion, Plaintiffs state that addi­
tional time is necessary in order that the Plaintiffs may 
properly and adequately prepare their objections to said 
plan.

Respectively submitted this 16th day of February, 1965.

F red D. Gray 
J ack Greenberg 

Charles H. J ones, J r. 
Counsel for Plaintiffs



205

Order Allowing Extension o f Time
(Filed February 16, 1965)

In the

DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 
F or the Middle District of Alabama 

Northern Division

The above and foregoing motion for an order extending 
the time for the Plaintiffs to file objections to Defendants’ 
plan for desegregation being considered and understood by 
the Court, the same is hereby granted. It is Ordered, 
Adjudged and Decreed that said objections may be filed 
by the Plaintiffs not later than February 25, 1965.

Done this 16th day of February, 1965.

F rank M. J ohnson, J r.
United States District Judge

- 1 6 3 -



egation

y 23, 1965)

I n the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F ob the Middle District of Alabama 
Northern Division

Plaintiffs, having been given until February 25, 1965 by 
order of this Court of February 16, 1965 to file objections 
to defendants’ plan of desegregation, hereby give notice 
of the following objections thereto as will hereinafter be 
set out more fully and sta te :

1. In their plan, defendants propose to initially assign 
all students to schools for the 1965-66 school term on the 
basis solely of race or color and to consider applications 
for transfer from students entering grades 9-12 and 1-2 
“without discrimination”. Defendants further propose to 
consider applications of students “without discrimination” 
in grades 3 and 8 in 1966, in grades 4 and 7 in 1967, in 
grade 5 in 1968, and in grade 6 in 1969.

2. Defendants’ desegregation plan provides only for the 
consideration of transfer requests made at the instance of

—165—
the pupils. The plan does not provide for removing those 
factors from the school system which tend to encourage, 
promote and perpetuate segregation, e.g., segregated pre­
school clinics, “feeder” schools which operate on a racial 
basis, segregated teaching and professional staff, segre­



207

gated special programs [e.g., classes for the handicapped 
or gifted, adult, vocational or commercial education or 
kindergarten programs]. In short, defendants’ desegrega­
tion plan is not designed to eliminate imposed segregation 
from the Montgomery public school system. While plain­
tiffs object to defendants’ failure to plan for the final 
abolition of segregation from the school system, plaintiffs 
emphasize the following points as that plan proposes to 
operate during 1965-66.

I

Defendants Should Be Required To Either Make Initial 
Assignments On A Nonracial Basis, Or Adopt A Genuine 
“Freedom Of Choice” Plan.

Defendants propose to initially assign all pupils in 
grades 9-12 and 1-2 on a racial basis for the 1965-1966 
school year. (Negro pupils entering the first grade or those 
who enter the system during the summer, who want to 
attend a “white” school are required to apply for assign­
ment at the school administrative office. If these pupils 
want to attend a “Negro” school, they will routinely pre­
sent themselves at that school and be assigned thereto 
Avithout fanfare.) Pupils in those grades who Avant to at­
tend school with pupils of another race must apply for 
transfer and for their applications in accordance Avith the 
provisions of the Alabama Pupil Placement Act. They 
must noAv do so within the frameAvork of dual school zones

—166—
based solely on race, notAvithstanding decisions in Gaines 
v. Dougherty County Board of Education, 329 F.2d 823; 
334 F.2d 983 (5th Cir. 1964); Armstrong v. Board of Edu­
cation of Birmingham, 333 F.2d 47 (5th Cir. 1964); and



208

Bush v. Orleans Parish Board of Education, 308 F.2d 491 
(5th Cir. 1962) requiring such dual school zone lines to he 
redrawn on a non-racial basis.

Defendants’ proposal to initially assign all pupils on a 
basis of race and to then permit transfers under certain 
conditions is clearly unconstitutional. Bush v. Orleans 
Parish School Board, supra; Gibson v. Board of Public 
Instruction, 272 F.2d 763 (5th Cir. 1959); Mannings v. 
Board of Public Instruction, 277 F.2d 370 (1960) and 
Norwood v. Tucker, 287 F.2d 798 (8th Cir. 1961).

Particularly is this so under defendants’ plan which 
places a heavy burden on Negro parents. Under defen­
dants’ plan all prospective Negro transferees to “white” 
schools must: (a) have their parents secure transfer forms 
from the central administrative office; and (b) have their 
parents complete and return the forms to the central ad­
ministrative office.

Plaintiffs submit that defendants should be required to 
redraw school zone lines on a non-racial basis and then 
initially assign pursuant thereto all students to the public 
school system. In the alternative, plaintiffs submit that the 
“freedom of choice” plan set out by the Fifth Circuit in 
Gaines, supra at 985 and Stell v. Savannah-Chatham Board 
of Education, 333 F.2d 55 at p. 65, is a reasonable alterna­
tive for this court to require defendants to implement dur­
ing a period of “transition.”

There Are No Valid Reasons Why Grades 3-8 Cannot 
Be Immediately Desegregated.

Unless defendants are required to assign all students 
according to non-racial criteria, it is likely that pressures



209

and other concerns will reduce to a small number the Negro 
parents willing to seek the admission of their children into 
white schools. For example, last year about 30 Negro 
pupils applied for transfer in Montgomery and a number 
of these did not pursue administrative remedies under 
the Placement Act. Other school districts have had simi­
lar experiences during the early years of school desegre­
gation. There is thus no reason to limit the opportunity 
to obtain a desegregated education to students in grades 
9-12 and 1-2. Stell v. Savannali-Clmtlmm County Board of 
Education, 333 F.2d 55 at p. 64 (5th Cir. 1964); Hall v. 
West, 335 F.2d 481 (5th Cir. 1964).

Ill
Defendants’ Proposed Notice Will Not “Bring Home To 

Negro Pupils” Of Their Rights Under The Plan.

Defendants propose to publish notice of their “transfer” 
plan in a newspaper daily circulation four times within a 
two-week period, beginning May 30, 1965. Plaintiffs spe­
cifically object to :

(a) The legalistic, technical language of the notice;

(b) The absence of a statement setting out circum­
stances under which transfers may be sought and the con­
ditions to be satisfied;

(c) The brevity of the “transfer period”—June 1-15, 
1965;

—168—
(d) The timing of the notice which is to be published 

the day before the transfer period begins to run;

(e) The proposal to limit publication of the notice to a 
newspaper of general circulation;



210

(f) The failure of the notice to advise Negro pupils en­
tering either the first grade or the school system for the 
first time of their rights under the plan;

(g) The failure to give written notice to the parents 
of each child presently in the system as to their rights 
under the desegregation plan, together with an appropri­
ate form upon which such choice may be made.

Plaintiffs submit that no less than a statement, mailed 
to each parent in the system, which sets forth simply and 
in layman’s terms that pupils in the grades affected under 
the plan may he admitted to the closest “white” or “Negro” 
school under specific circumstances will suffice. Gaines, 
supra. Plaintiffs submit that the transfer period should 
he extended over a period of no less than 30 days, and 
that this period should include several weeks prior to the 
close of the school year.

In addition to newspaper publication and individual no­
tice to parents, the notice should be conspicuously posted 
by defendants on bulletin boards within the schools. 
Teachers, principals and other faculty or school board 
personnel should be prohibited from attempting to influ­
ence the action taken by parents under the plan. Stell v. 
Savannali-Cliatham County Board of Education, supra; 
Gibson v. Board of Public Instruction of Dade County, 272 
F.2d 763 (5th Cir. 1959); Augustus v. Board of Public 
Instruction of Escambia County, 306 F.2d 862 (5th Cir. 
1962).

—169—
And as additional objections to said plan submitted by 

the defendants, plaintiffs assign the following:

1. The plan fails to set ascertainable standards for con­
sidering applications for assignment or transfer of pupils



211

to a particular school, in that under said plan the defen­
dants are permitted to apply different standards to dif­
ferent pupils, as is indicated by the report to this Court 
made by the defendants on September 1, 1964; which re­
port indicates the action taken by the defendants on the 
applications for transfer for the school year 1964-65.

2. The plan fails to provide for faculty and professional 
staff desegregation. Board of Public Instruction of Duval 
County v. Braxton, 326 F. 2d 616 (5th Cir., 1964); North- 
cross v. Board of Education of Memphis, 333 F. 2d 661 
(6th Cir., 1964).

3. The plan makes no provision for providing bus trans­
portation on a reorganized non-racial basis.

4. The plan does not attempt to nor can it effectuate de­
segregation of the public schools of Montgomery County, 
Alabama.

5. The plan does not provide for the elimination of school 
zone lines based on race. Gaines v. Dougherty County 
Board of Education, supra; Bush v. Orleans Parish Board 
of Education, 308 F. 2d 491 (5th Cir., 1962); Augustus v. 
Board of Public Instruction, 306 F. 2d 862 (5th Cir., 1962).

6. The plan places the burden of desegregating the pub­
lic school system of Montgomery County, Alabama, on 
Negro pupils and their parents, and does not provide for

- 1 7 0 -
initiation of desegregation by the Board; and as such, the 
plan is in conflict with the opinion and judgment of this



212

Court and is in conflict with decisions of the United States 
Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Fifth Circuit.

7. The plan fails to abolish the continued use of racial 
factors in the planning of extra-curricula activities, con­
struction of schools, planning of school budgets and the dis­
bursement of school funds.

8. The plan sets up dual procedures and dual time lim­
its for Negro students who wish to attend white schools 
and for Negro students who wish to attend Negro schools.

9. The plan fails to provide for immediate desegregation 
of vocational programs offered by the defendants.

—171—
W h e r e f o r e , plaintiffs pray that pursuant to this court’s 

order and opinion of July 31, 1964, that the court will 
promptly set a hearing on plaintiffs’ objections to the plan 
and that upon such hearing the court will grant the relief 
prayed for above. Plaintiffs further pray that this court 
will retain jurisdiction of this cause for the purpose of 
granting such further relief as may be required by further 
developments.

Respectfully submitted,

F red Gray 
J ack Greenberg 
Charles J ones, J r.

Certificate of Service (om itted in prin ting)



213

- 1 7 3 -
Amicus Curiae Objections to Plan fo r Desegregation

(Filed February 25, 1965)

In the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F ob the Middle District op Alabama 
Northern D ivision

The United States of America, as Amiens Curiae herein, 
objects to the proposed plan for the desegregation of the 
Montgomery County, Alabama, school system submitted by 
the defendants on January 15, 1965, for the following rea­
sons :

1. The proposed plan contemplates initial assignment of 
all students upon the basis of their race.

2. The proposed plan does not provide for the ultimate 
elimination of the present bi-racial school district zones or 
attendance areas.

—174—
3- The proposed plan places upon Negro children and 

their parents the burden of applying for reassignment on a 
non-racial basis.

4. The applicability of the proposed plan to the seventh 
grade is delayed too long, and there is no provision for 
lateral transfer on a selective basis to grades not already 
affected by the plan.

J ohn Doar

Acting Assistant Attorney General

Ben H ardeman 
United States Attorney

J onathan B. Sutin, Attorney 
Department of Justice



214

Notice o f Taking Depositions

(Filed March 29, 1965)

I n the
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle District of Alabama 
Northern Division

Hon. Ben Hardeman, U. S. Attorney 
Post Office Building 
Montgomery, Alabama

Hon. John Doar, U. S. Attorney 
Hon. Jonathan B. Sutin

United States Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C.

Hill, Robison & Belser
Attorneys and Counsellors at Law 
26 South Perry Street 
Montgomery, Alabama

Walter McKee, Superintendent 
Montgomery County Schools 
305 South Lawrence Street 
Montgomery, Alabama

P lease take notice that at 9 o’clock a.m. on the 1st day 
of April, 1965 in the Attorney’s Conference Room, second 
floor, Post Office Building, Montgomery, Alabama, the plain­
tiffs in the above-entitled action will take the deposition 
of Mr. Walter McKee, Superintendent of Schools of Mont-

- 1 7 5 -



215

—176—
gomery County, Alabama, upon oral examination, pursuant 
to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure before Mrs. Dorothy 
Jackson, a notary public, or some other officer authorized 
by law to administer oaths.

Please take further notice that Walter McKee is hereby 
required to produce upon such examination all papers, 
records, books, memoranda and other documentary evi­
dence from July 31, 1963 to date, showing the following:

1. For each public school in the Montgomery County, 
Alabama, school district (using latest available figures un­
less otherwise indicated):

(a) Grades served by each school;

(b) Number of classrooms and pupil capacity (if 
differentiation is made between normal pupil capacity 
and emergency pupil capacity, specify);

(c) Number of Negro pupils assigned and/or in at­
tendance as of the beginning of the 1964-65 school year, 
and as of the most recent date for which figures are 
available at each school;

(d) Number of white pupils in attendance as of the 
beginning of the 1964-65 school year, and as of the 
most recent date for which figures are available at 
each school;

(e) Number of Negro pupils in each grade;

(f) Number of white pupils in each grade;

(g) Difference between the number of pupils en­
rolled and capacity of school (i.e., either in excess or 
below pupil capacity);



216

(h) Average class size for kindergarten, regular and 
special classes and average for all classes;

(i) Pupil-teacher ratio;

(j) Number of Negro teachers and other Negro ad­
ministrative or professional personnel employed as of 
the beginning of the 1964-65 school year at each school;

(k) Number of white teachers and other adminis­
trative or professional personnel employed as of the 
beginning of the 1964-65 school year at each school;

2. All courses available in each and every grade of each 
school in the Montgomery County school system.

—177—
3. Expenditures, per pupil, for white and Negro pupils, 

indicating whether such expenditures are from state or 
local funds.

4. The number of new teachers hired during each of the 
past five school years and the total number of teachers 
employed during each such school year (if possible, dis­
tinguish between replacement teachers and new teachers);

5. Each school attendance area or zone, and using best 
available estimates or projections if precise figures are not 
available, show;

(a) Number of Negro school pupils residing within 
each such area and attending the grades for which such 
area applies;

(b) The number of white school pupils residing 
within each such area and attending the grades for 
which such area applies;



217

6. List all new schools, proposed or under construction, 
with information indicating with respect to each;

(a) Location;

(b) Expected date of occupancy;

(c) Pupil capacity;

(d) Probable area to be served;

(e) Number of Negro and white pupils living in 
area to be served in grades to be served;

7. Age of all school buildings.

8. Extra-curricular use of all school facilities, i.e., driver 
training courses, pre-school clinics, and all such activities 
not part of normal school curriculum.

9. Minutes of all meetings of the Montgomery County 
Board of Education from July 31, 1964 to date.

10. Copies of all Annual Reports and any and all other 
documents compiled by the Montgomery County Board of 
Education and sent to the Alabama State Board of Edu­
cation from July 31, 1964 to date.

11. Copies of all maps and other descriptions, verbal and 
diagrammatic, showing the school districts and “feeder”

- 1 7 8 -
plans for access to the Junior High and High Schools, 
throughout Montgomery County, Alabama showing changes 
from July 31,1964 to date.

12. All records involving the kind and cost of school 
construction throughout Montgomery County, Alabama, 
since July 31, 1964.



218

13. All attendance records of schools operated by the 
Montgomery County Board of Education from July 31, 
1964 to date.

14. All school bus and other school transportation rec­
ords of the Montgomery County Board of Education from 
July 31,1964 to date.

15. All records involving intra-county school transfers 
of students in Montgomery County, Alabama, from July 
31, 1964 to date.

16. All other documents connected with the administra­
tion and operation of the schools of Montgomery County, 
Alabama since July 31, 1964 on which there appear desig­
nations of race or color.

17. Copies of all records, reports, investigations, result 
of examinations, and all other documents, including the 
names and addresses of all pupils who transferred or ap­
plied for transfer from one school (public school) in Mont­
gomery County to another public school in Montgomery 
County since July 31, 1964.

18. Copies of all correspondence sent at the direction of 
the Montgomery County Board of Education to the parents 
of students of all schools in this county that were affected 
by the Court’s order of July 31,1964.

19. Copies of all substitute teachers list indicating which 
lists were distributed to what Principals since July 31, 1964 
to date.

20. Copies of all records, documents, reports, studies, 
investigations and all of written evidence showing every-



219

—179—
thing which the defendants have done since July 31, 1964, 
toward eliminating the dual school system based upon race 
and color as found to exist by the court in its order of 
July 31, 1964.

21. Copies of all written evidence showing the affirma­
tive steps taken by the defendants to provide and operate 
a desegregated educational system in Montgomery County, 
Alabama since July 31,1964.

22. Copies of all rules and regulations concerning:

(1) the initial assignment of students and,

(2) the transfer of students from one school to an­
other school in the County system.

23. Average daily attendance list for each school in 
Montgomery County school system, since September 1, 
1964.

24. Copies of all circulars or informational letters cir­
culated by the Superintendent’s office or Board of Educa­
tion to principals or teachers for distribution to pupils for 
delivery to parents.

25. List of all courses taught per grade for each school 
in Montgomery school system.

The oral examination will continue from day to day until 
completed. You are invited to attend and cross examine.

Done this 29th day of March, 1965.

F eed D. Gray 
J ack Greenberg 

Charles H. J ones, J r.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs



220

Defendants’ Motion to Extend Time
(Filed March 29, 1965)

I n the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle District of Alabama 
N orthern D ivision

Now come the Defendants in the above entitled cause 
and show unto the Court as follows:

1. That objections to the desegregation plan, as sub­
mitted by Plaintiffs in this proceeding, were filed with this 
Court, after extension, on February 25, 1965. The Court 
thereupon set April 5, 1965 as the date for the hearing of 
said objections.

2. On March 29, 1965, at approximately 1:30 P.M., the 
Plaintiffs served the Defendant, Walter T. McKee, with 
notice that his deposition is to be taken at 9 :00 A.M. on 
April 1, 1965. The Defendant, Walter T. McKee, was also 
served with a detailed and involved subpoena duces tecum 
containing some twenty-five items of compilation. Copies 
of this said motion and said subpoena duces tecum is at­
tached hereto and made a part hereof.

It is impossible for the Defendants to compile this vol­
uminous data within the two day period as set by the Plain­
tiffs, and this Defendant respectfully shows that such a 
requirement is unreasonably oppressive to him and to the 
administration of the Montgomery County Board of Edu­
cation.

— 1 8 0 -



221

W herefore, the Defendants pray that the hearing of the 
said objections be postponed and continued, to be set after 
this Defendant is given reasonable time to comply with 
the requirements as set out in the above-mentioned motion 
and subpoena duces tecum. The Defendants pray in the

—181-
alternative that Walter T. McKee not be required to com- 
pile and furnish the voluminous and detailed information 
sought by the said subpoena duces tecum, but that the 
Plaintiffs go to the Board of Education office of Mont­
gomery County, and avail themselves of the records therein 
kept, as they did prior to July 31, 1964.

H ill, R obison and Belser 
Attorneys for Defendants

Certificates of Service (omitted in printing)



222

Subpoena Dated March 29, 1965

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle District of Alabama 
Northern D ivision

You are commanded to appear at Room 208—Post Office 
Building in the city of on the 1st day April,
1965, at 9 :00 o’clock A. M. to testify on behalf of Plaintiffs 
at the taking of a deposition in the above entitled action 
pending in the United States District Court for the Middle 
District of Alabama and bring with you the documents 
listed on the attached sheet.

—183—
Please take further notice that Walter McKee is hereby 

required to produce upon such examination all papers, rec­
ords, books, memoranda and other documentary evidence 
from July 31, 1964 to date, showing the following:

1. For each public school in the Montgomery County, 
Alabama, school district (using latest available figures un­
less otherwise indicated):

(a) Grades served by each school;

(b) Number of classrooms and public capacity (if dif­
ferentiation is made between normal pupil capacity and 
emergency pupil capacity, specify);

(c) Number of Negro pupils assigned and/or in attend­
ance as of the beginning of the 1964-65 school year, and 
as of the most recent date for which figures are available 
at each school;

- 1 8 2 -



223

(d) Number of white pupils in attendance as of the be­
ginning of the 1964-65 school year, and as of the most 
recent date for which figures are available at each school;

(e) Number of Negro pupils in each grade;

(f) Number of white pupils in each grade;

(g) Difference between the number of pupils enrolled 
and capacity of school (i.e., either in excess or below pupil 
capacity);

(li) Average class size for kindergarten, regular and 
special classes and average for all classes;

(i) Pupil-teacher ratio;

(j) Number of Negro teachers and other Negro admin­
istrative or professional personnel employed as of the be­
ginning of the 1964-65 school year at each school;

(k) Number of white teachers and other administrative 
or professional personnel employed as of the beginning of 
the 1964-65 school year at each school;

2. All courses available in each and every grade of each 
school in the Montgomery County school system.

—184—
3. Expenditures, per pupil, for white and Negro pupils, 

indicating whether such expenditures are from state or 
local funds.

4. The number of new teachers hired during each of the 
past five school years and the total number of teachers 
employed during each such school year (if possible, dis­
tinguish between replacement teachers and new teachers);



224

5. Each school attendance area or zone, and using best 
available estimates or projections if precise figures are not 
available, show;

(a) Number of Negro school pupils residing within each 
such area and attending the grades for which such area 
applies;

(b) The number of white school pupils residing within 
each such area and attending the grades for which such 
area applies;

6. List all new schools, proposed or under construction, 
with information indicating with respect to each;

(a) Location;

(b) Expected date of occupancy;

(c) Pupil capacity;

(d) Probable area to be served;
(e) Number of Negro and white pupils living in area to 

be served in grades to be served;

7. Age of all school buildings.

8. Extra-curricular use of all school facilities, i.e., driver 
training courses, pre-school clinics, and all such activities 
not part of normal school curriculum.

9. Minutes of all meetings of the Montgomery County 
Board of Education from July 31, 1964 to date.

10. Copies of all Annual Reports and any and all other 
documents compiled by the Montgomery County Board of



225

Education and sent to the Alabama State Board of Edu­
cation from July 31, 1964 to date.

11. Copies of all maps and other 
[Copy illegible]

- 1 8 5 -
plans for access to the Junior High and High Schools, 
throughout Montgomery County, Alabama showing changes 
from July 31, 1964 to date.

12. All records involving the land and cost of school 
construction throughout Montgomery County, Alabama, 
since July 31, 1964.

13. All attendance records of schools operated by the 
Montgomery County Board of Education from July 31, 
1964 to date.

14. All school bus and other school transportation rec­
ords of the Montgomery County Board of Education from 
July 31, 1964 to date.

15. All records involving intra-county school transfers 
of students in Montgomery County, Alabama, from July 31, 
1964 to date.

16. All other documents connected with the administra­
tion and operation of the schools of Montgomery County, 
Alabama since July 31, 1964 on which there appear desig­
nations of race or color.

17. Copies of all records, reports, investigations, result 
of examinations, and all other documents, including the 
names and addresses of all pupils who transferred or ap­



226

plied for transfer from one school (public school) in Mont­
gomery County to another public school in Montgomery 
County since July 31, 1964.

18. Copies of all correspondence sent at the direction of 
the Montgomery County Board of Education to the parents 
of students of all schools in this county that were affected 
by the Court’s order of July 31, 1964.

19. Copies of all substitute teachers list indicating which 
lists were distributed to what Principals since July 31, 1964 
to date.

20. Copies of all records, documents, reports, studies,
[Copy illegible]

—186—
that the defendants have done since July 31, 1964, toward 
eliminating the dual school system based upon race and 
color as found to exist by the court in its order of July 31, 
1964.

21. Copies of all written evidence showing the affirma­
tive steps taken by the defendants to provide and operate 
a desegregated educational system in Montgomery County, 
Alabama since July 31, 1964.

22. Copies of all rules and regulations concerning:

(1) the initial assignment of students and,

(2) the transfer of students from one school to another 
school in the County system.

23. Average daily attendance list for each school in 
Montgomery County school system, since September 1,1964.



227

24. Copies of all circulars or informational letters cir­
culated by the Superintendent’s office or Board of Educa­
tion to principals or teachers for distribution to pupils for 
delivery to parents.

25. List of all courses taught per grade for each school 
in Montgomery school system.

The oral examination will continue from day to day until 
completed. Tou are invited to attend and cross examine.

Done this 29th day of March, 1965.

F red D. Gray 
J ack Greenberg 
Charles H. J ones, J r.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs



228

- 1 8 7 -
Order Extending Time for Taking Deposition 

and Holding Hearing
(Filed March 30, 1965)

I n the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle D istrict of Alabama 
Northern D ivision

This cause is now submitted upon the motion of the de­
fendants filed herein on March 29, 1965, seeking to have 
the objections to their proposed desegregation plan post­
poned and continued until said defendants are given a rea­
sonable time to comply with the requirements set out in 
plaintiffs’ subpoena duces tecum served upon the attorneys 
for said defendants on March 29, 1965.

Upon consideration of said motion, it is Ordered that 
the taking of the deposition of the defendant Walter T. 
McKee, heretofore scheduled by plaintiffs for 9 a.m. on 
April 1, 1965, be and the same is hereby stayed until April 
15, 1965.

It is further Ordered that the hearing upon the objections 
to the desegregation plan heretofore filed with this Court 
by the defendants, said hearing being presently scheduled 
for 10 a.m. on April 5, 1965, be and the same is hereby 
continued until 10 a.m. on April 28, 1965.

Done, this the 30th day of March, 1965.

F rank M. J ohnson, J r.
United States District Judge



229

- 1 8 8 -
Amendment to Plaintiff’s Objections to Defendant’s 

Plan of School Desegregation
(Filed April 24, 1965)

I n the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F ob the Meddle D istrict of Alabama 
Northern Division

Come now the Plaintiffs in the above-styled cause and 
amend hereby their objections to Defendant’s Plan of 
School Desegregation, heretofore filed herein, by adding 
thereto a new paragraph to be numbered 10 and to state 
as follows:

10. The Plan in its method of application of the Ala­
bama Pupil Placement Law to assign Plaintiffs and the 
class they represent both prospectively and retrospectively, 
is an unconstitutional application of the said Pupil Place­
ment Law, and as applied, said Pupil Placement Law vio­
lates the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States.

F red D. Gray 
J ack Greenberg 
Charles J ones, J r.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Certificate of Service (omitted in prin ting)



230

- 1 9 0 -
Order Extending Time for Holding Hearing

(Filed April 28, 1965)

In  the
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle District of Alabama 
Northern D ivision

I t  is Ordered that the hearing upon the objections to 
defendants’ proposed desegregation plan be and the same is 
hereby continued to commence at 10 a.m., Wednesday, May 
5,1965.

Done, this the 28th day of April, 1965.

F rank M. J ohnson, J r.
United States District Judge

—191—
(Court’s Reporter’s Transcript of Court’s Remarks Dic­

tated Into Record at Close of Hearing on May 5, 1965, 
Filed May 6, 1965, at the Request of Appellants Appears 
With the Other Transcripts in Yol. I l l  of This Appeal 
Record, at Original Page 442.)



DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

F or the Middle District of Alabama 
Northern Division

This cause coming on to be heard on May 5, 1965, on the 
objections of the plaintiffs and of the United States to the 
plan for desegregation filed pursuant to the order of this 
Court,

I t is the Order, J udgment, and Decree of this Court that 
the plan for desegregation be and the same is hereby ap­
proved with the following modification:

(1) Grade seven, in addition to grades one, two, nine, 
ten, eleven, and twelve, is to be desegregated the coming 
school term, September 1965, by the Montgomery County 
Board of Education.

(2) All applications for transfer or assignment to grades 
one, two, seven, nine, ten, eleven, and twelve must be filed 
on or before July 20, 1965, on forms obtained from the 
Office of the Superintendent of Education of Montgomery 
County, by the parents or legal guardians of the pupils 
for whom such applications are to be made. These appli­
cations shall be made available and furnished, upon re­
quest, to the parents or legal guardians of the pupils for 
whom such applications are being made, at the Office of 
the Superintendent of Education of Montgomery County,



232

between June 21 and July 20, 1965, Monday through F ri­
day, from 8 :30 A.M. to 5 :00 P.M. It shall not be necessary 
for more than one parent or guardian to pick up, return, 
and sign the application.

(3) The Superintendent of Education of Montgomery 
County shall direct the principals of the Montgomery 
County Public Schools to enclose in an envelope together 
with each pupil’s final report card for the school term 
1964-1965, the following Notice:

- 1 9 2 -
Notice to All P arents or Guardians of P upils in  the 

Montgomery County P ublic S chool System

In accordance with an order of the United States 
District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, the 
Montgomery County Board of Education will desegre­
gate grades one and two of the elementary schools, 
grades seven and nine of the junior high schools, and 
grades ten, eleven, and twelve of the senior high schools 
for the school year commencing in September 1965.

As the parents or guardians of pupils who will at­
tend these grades in September 1965, you may submit 
an application to the Office of the Superintendent of 
Education of Montgomery County for your child to 
attend a school that was formerly attended only by 
members of another race. You may obtain the ap­
plications for assignment and transfer at the Office 
of the Superintendent of Education of Montgomery 
County between June 21 and July 20, 1965, on Monday 
through Friday, from 8:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. You 
must complete, sign, and return the application to the 
Office of the Superintendent of Education on or before



233

July 20, 1965. It is not necessary for more than one 
parent to pick up, sign, or return the application.

All applications filed within the time and in the 
manner as stated above will be processed and acted on 
without discrimination as to the race of the applicants. 
You will be notified on or before August 17, 1965, 
whether your application has been accepted or rejected.

The Montgomery County Public School System is 
presently divided into elementary, junior high, and 
high school districts. (Copy Illegible.)

—193—
It is the further Order of this Court that the Montgomery 

County Superintendent of Education shall direct the pub­
lication of the Notice set forth above, such notice being 
modified, however, to include the following paragraph in 
place of the last paragraph (regarding school districts) of 
the above Notice:

In the event you have not already been notified of 
the school district in which you have your residence, 
you may obtain that information from the Office of 
the Superintendent of Education of Montgomery 
County when you pick up an application for assign­
ment or transfer;

such notice to be published in a newspaper of general daily 
circulation in Montgomery County, Alabama, on June 13, 
June 20, and June 27,1965.

It is the further Order of this Court that the Mont­
gomery County Board of Education and the individual 
members thereof and the Montgomery County Superin­
tendent of Education report to this Court in writing on or 
before 9 :00 A.M., August 10, 1965, as to the action taken 
by the Montgomery County Board of Education and the



234

Montgomery County Superintendent of Education on each 
application for transfer or assignment filed pursuant to 
the plan for desegregation as modified by this Order.

It is the further Order of this Court that the Montgomery 
County Superintendent of Education shall notify, in writ­
ing, the parents or the guardians of pupils for whom ap­
plication for assignment or transfer has been made on or 
before August 17, 1965, as to the action taken by the said 
Montgomery County Superintendent of Education and the 
Montgomery County Board of Education on each applica­
tion for transfer or assignment filed pursuant to the plan 
for desegregation as modified by this Order.

I t is the further Order of this Court that the Mont­
gomery County Board of Education and the individual 
members thereof and the Montgomery County Superin­
tendent of Education, or their successors in office, file with 
this Court on or before January 14, 1966, their detailed 
plan for the operation of the Montgomery County Public 
School System commencing with the 1966-1967 school year; 
such plan to he designed to eliminate segregation of stu-

—194—
dents based upon race and the complete elimination of the 
biracial school system within a reasonable time.

It is the further Order of this Court that jurisdiction of 
this cause be and the same is hereby specifically retained.

Done this 18th day of May, 1965.

F rank M. J ohnson, J r.
United States District Judge



mant to Order of
—195—

\r

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle District of Alabama 
Northern D ivision

r  Come now the Defendants in the above entitled cause 
and, pursuant to this Court’s Order dated May 18, 1965, 
file the following report as to the action taken by the Mont­
gomery County Board of Education and the Montgomery 
County Superintendent of Education on each application 
for transfer or assignment filed pursuant to the plan for 
desegregation, as modified by order of this Court.

A total of forty-nine (49) applicants for transfer or 
assignment were received by the Montgomery County 
Board of Education on or before five o’clock p.m., July 
20, 1965. These 49 applications were processed by the 
Board in accord with the Court’s Order, without discrimi­
nation on the basis of race or color. As the result of the 
Defendants’ compliance with the Court’s Orders, eighteen 
applicants were accepted and thirty-one applicants were 
rejected, with grades 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12 all being 
desegregated.

These applicants are herein listed alphabetically with 
pertinent information considered by the Defendants in 
making their decision and the action taken by the De­
fendants.

1. Bobbie Arrington, 516 Troy Street, Montgomery, 
Alabama.



236

This applicant attended Carver Senior High School last 
year, completing the tenth grade and applied to attend 
Lanier High School, requesting admission to the eleventh 
grade.

—196—
The applicant lives in Carver High School district and 

lives approximately six blocks from Lanier and approxi­
mately ten blocks from Carver Senior High School.

The parent and pupil have expressed a preference for 
the applicant to attend Lanier High School.

This applicant is admitted to the eleventh grade in 
Lanier High School.

2. Sergeant Perry Austin, 401 Troy Street, Montgom­
ery, Alabama.

The applicant attended Carver Senior High School last 
year, completing the tenth grade and applied to attend 
Lanier High School this year, requesting admission to the 
eleventh grade. The applicant lives in the Carver High 
School district.

Applicant lives approximately six blocks from Lanier 
and approximately ten blocks from Carver.

The parent and the pupil have expressed a preference 
for the applicant to attend Lanier High School.

This applicant is admitted to the eleventh grade in 
Lanier High School.

3. Woodrow Austin, 401 Troy Street, Montgomery, 
Alabama.

The applicant attended Carver Elementary School last 
year, completing the sixth grade, and has applied to at­
tend Lanier High School requesting admission to the sev­
enth grade.



237

No seventh grade work is offered at Lanier High School.
The Defendants denied this application.

4. Gloria Jean Beaman, Route 3, Box 417-T, Montgom­
ery, Alabama.

The applicant attended Madison Park Elementary School 
last year, completing the sixth grade and applied to attend 
Capitol Heights Junior High School, requesting admission 
to the seventh grade.

No pupils, white or colored, who live along the Wetumpka 
Highway north of Kilby Prison attend Capitol Heights

- 1 9 7 -
Junior High School and no Montgomery County school 
busses serve Capitol Heights Junior High School. Capitol 
Heights Junior High School is much more overcrowded 
than Booker Washington Junior High School.

Capitol Heights Junior High School is operating in ex­
cess of capacity with an anticipated 1075 pupils and a 
capacity of 952 pupils, while Booker Washington has not 
reached maximum capacity with an anticipated 796 pupils 
and a capacity of 812 pupils.

The Defendants denied this application.

5. Eloise Boswell, Route 3, Box 402-B, Montgomery, 
Alabama.

The applicant attended Madison Park Elementary School 
last year, completing the sixth grade and applied to attend 
Capitol Heights Junior High School, requesting admission 
to the seventh grade.

No pupils, white or colored, who live along the Wetumpka 
Highway north of Kilby Prison attend Capitol Heights 
Junior High School and no Montgomery County school 
busses serve Capitol Heights Junior High School. Capitol



238

Heights Junior High School is much more overcrowded 
than Booker Washington Junior High School.

Capitol Heights Junior High School is operating in ex­
cess of capacity with an anticipated 1075 pupils and a 
capacity of 952 pupils, while Booker Washington has not 
reached maximum capacity with an anticipated 796 pupils 
and a capacity of 812 pupils.

The Defendants denied this application.

6. Johnnie Boswell, Route 3, Box 402-B, Montgomery, 
Alabama.

The applicant attended Booker Washington Junior High 
School last year, completing the ninth grade and applied 
to attend Lee High School, requesting admission to the 
tenth grade.

- 1 9 8 -
Senior high school pupils residing in the area of the ap­

plicant, which is a transported area, attend either Booker 
Washington or Lee Senior High Schools.

The parent and pupil have expressed a preference for 
the applicant to attend Lee High School.

This applicant is admitted to the tenth grade in Lee 
High School.

7. Delores Rosetta Boyd, 1007 South Holt Street, Mont­
gomery, Alabama.

The applicant attended Loveless Junior High School 
last year, completing the ninth grade and applied to at­
tend Lanier High School, requesting admission to the tenth 
grade.

The applicant lives in the middle of the Carver district 
and approximately fifteen blocks from Lanier and twelve 
blocks from Carver. The route from this applicant’s home



239

to Lanier crosses several busy thoroughfares and will be 
more hazardous than the route to Carver where a tunnel 
is provided for students crossing Fairview Avenue.

Lanier High School will be the most overcrowded high 
school in the County this year as approximately twenty- 
seven hundred pupils are anticipated and the normal capac­
ity of Lanier is two thousand. Lanier will have a higher 
pupil-teacher ratio than will Carver and will have to use 
all of its regular rooms each period and approximately 
fourteen makeshift rooms. The capacity at Carver High 
School has been greatly increased this year because of an 
addition of fourteen rooms which will be ready by the 
opening of school.

The Defendants denied this application.

8. Janice Eileen Caple, 2014 Wabash, Montgomery, 
Alabama.

The applicant attended the Alabama State Laboratory 
High School last year, completing the ninth grade, and 
applied to attend Lanier High School, requesting admis­
sion to the tenth grade.

—199—
The applicant lives in the Carver district and lives adja­

cent to the campus of Carver High School and approxi­
mately fourteen blocks from Lanier. The route from the 
applicant’s home to Lanier crosses several busy thorough­
fares and is much more hazardous than the route to Carver. 
Lanier will be the most overcrowded high school in the 
County this year as approximately twenty-seven hundred 
pupils are anticipated and the normal capacity of Lanier 
High School is two thousand. Lanier will have a higher 
pupil-teacher ratio than will Carver, and Lanier will have 
to use all of its regular rooms each period and approxi­



240

mately fourteen makeshift rooms. An addition of fourteen 
rooms is being built at Carver High and will be ready for 
the opening of school.

The Defendants denied this application.

9. Bertha Carol Campbell, Route 3, Box 402, Montgom­
ery, Alabama.

The applicant attended Booker Washington Junior High 
School last year, completing the ninth grade, and has ap­
plied to attend Lee High School, requesting admission to 
the tenth grade.

Senior high school pupils in the area of the residence 
of the applicant, which is a transported area, attend either 
Booker Washington or Lee Senior High Schools.

The parent and pupil have expressed a preference for 
the applicant to attend Lee High School.

This applicant is admitted to the tenth grade in Lee High 
School.

10. Arlam Carr, Jr., 720 South Hall Street, Montgomery, 
Alabama.

The applicant attended Crosby High School, Waterbury, 
Connecticut last year, completing the ninth grade, and ap­
plied to attend Lanier High School, requesting admission 
to the tenth grade.

— 200—

The applicant lives in the Booker Washington High 
School district and lives approximately three blocks 
from Booker Washington High School and approximately 
twenty-five blocks from Lanier. The route to Lanier 
crosses several busy thoroughfares and will be more haz­
ardous than the route to Booker Washington.



241

Lanier will be the most overcrowded high school in the 
County this year as approximately twenty-seven hundred 
pupils are anticipated and the normal capacity of Lanier 
High School is approximately two thousand. Lanier will 
have a higher pupil-teacher ratio than will Booker Wash­
ington and will have to use all of its regular rooms each 
period and approximately fourteen makeshift rooms. The 
capacity at Booker Washington was greatly increased with 
the addition of fourteen rooms last year.

The Defendants denied this application.

11. Esau Carter, Koute 3, Box 417-Y, Montgomery, 
Alabama.

The applicant attended Booker Washington Junior High 
School last year, completing the eighth grade, and applied 
to attend Capitol Heights Junior High School, requesting 
admission to the ninth grade.

No pupils, white or colored, who live along the Wetumpka 
Highway north of Kilby Prison attend Capitol Heights 
Junior High School. Capitol Heights Junior High School 
is much more overcrowded than Booker Washington Junior 
High School.

Capitol Heights Junior High School is operating in ex­
cess of capacity with an anticipated 1075 pupils and a 
capacity of 952 pupils, while Booker Washington has not 
reached maximum capacity with an anticipated 796 pupils 
and a capacity of 812 pupils.

The Defendants denied this application.

12. Emma Jean Carter, Route 3, Box 417-Y, Montgom­
ery, Alabama.

— 201—

The applicant attended Booker Washington Senior High 
School last year, completing the eleventh grade and has



242

applied to attend Lee High School, requesting admission 
to the twelfth grade.

Senior high school pupils in the area of this applicant’s 
residence, which is a transported area, attend either Booker 
Washington or Lee Senior High Schools.

The parent and the pupil have expressed a preference 
for the applicant to attend Lee High School.

This applicant is admitted to the twelfth grade in Lee 
High School.

13. Linda Sue Cox, Quarters 676-A, Maxwell Air Force 
Base, Alabama.

The applicant attended Maxwell Elementary School last 
year, completing the sixth grade, and has applied to attend 
Baldwin Junior High School, requesting admission to the 
seventh grade.

Most of the other children living on Maxwell Air Force 
Base attend Baldwin Junior High School.

The parent and pupil have expressed a preference for 
the applicant to attend Baldwin Junior High School.

This applicant is admitted to the seventh grade in Bald­
win Junior High School.

14. Belinda Joyce Green, 3102 Tyler Road, Montgomery, 
Alabama.

This applicant applied to attend the first grade at Capitol 
Heights Elementary School.

The applicant lives approximately three miles from 
Capitol Heights Elementary School and there is no Mont­
gomery County transportation to Capitol Heights Elemen­
tary School from this area. No pupils, white or colored, 
who live along the Lower Wetumpka Road attend Capitol 
Heights Elementary School.



243

The Defendants denied this application.
— 202—

15. George Gregory Green, Jr., Route 5, Box 284, Mont­
gomery, Alabama.

This applicant applied to attend the first grade at Capitol 
Heights Elementary School.

The father of the applicant was told verbally and it was 
printed on the application, that the birth certificate must 
accompany the completed applications for pupils applying 
to enter the first grade. This applicant was the only ap­
plicant for the first grade whose parents failed to turn in 
the birth certificate with the application. All pupils enter­
ing the first grade are required by law to present a birth 
certificate showing that they will be six on or before October 
2, in order that they may enter school. This applicant has 
failed to meet this requirement.

The Defendants denied this application.

16. Hattie Bell Harper, Route 3, Box 405, Montgomery, 
Alabama.

The applicant attended Booker Washington Junior High 
School last year, completing the eighth grade, and has 
applied for attendance at Capitol Heights Junior High 
School, requesting admission to the ninth grade.

This applicant failed part of her work in the eighth 
grade and will have to take additional eighth grade work 
in order to become eligible for admission in the ninth grade. 
The eighth grade is not included in the plan as approved 
by this Court.

The Defendants denied this application.

17. Ruth Evelyn Johnson, Route 3, Box 400E, Mont­
gomery, Alabama.



244

The applicant attended Booker Washington Junior High 
School last year, completing the ninth grade, and has ap­
plied to attend Lee High School, requesting admission to 
the tenth grade.

- 2 0 3 -
Senior high school pupils in the area of the residence 

of this applicant, which is a transported area, attend either 
Booker Washington or Lee Senior High Schools.

The parent and the pupil have expressed a preference 
for the applicant to attend Lee High School.

This applicant is accepted for the tenth grade at Lee 
High School.

18. Helen C. Jordan, Route 3, Box 402-V, Montgomery, 
Alabama.

The applicant attended Booker Washington Senior High 
School last year, completing the eleventh grade and applied 
to attend Lee High School, requesting admission to the 
twelfth grade.

Senior high school pupils in the area of this applicant’s 
residence, which is a transported area, attend either Booker 
Washington or Lee Senior High Schools.

The parent and the pupil have expressed a preference 
for the applicant to attend Lee High School.

The applicant is admitted to the twelfth grade in Lee 
High School.

19. Aldenia Lewis, 365 Kohn Street, Montgomery, Ala­
bama.

The applicant attended Carver Junior High School last 
year, completing the ninth grade and applied to attend 
Lanier High School, requesting admission to the tenth 
grade.



245

The applicant lives in the Carver High School district 
approximately six blocks from Lanier and ten blocks from 
Carver.

The parent and pupil have expressed a preference for 
the applicant to attend Lanier High School.

This applicant is admitted to the tenth grade in Lanier 
High School.

20. John Harrison McCain, 2052 Stephens Street, Mont­
gomery, Alabama.

—204—
The applicant attended Carver Senior High School last 

year, completing the tenth grade and has applied to attend 
Lanier High School, requesting admission to the eleventh 
grade.

The applicant resides in the Carver district and lives 
approximately three blocks from Carver and fifteen blocks 
from Lanier. The route to Lanier crosses several busy thor­
oughfares and is more hazardous than the route to Carver 
where a tunnel is provided for children to cross Fairview 
Avenue. Lanier will be the most overcrowded high school 
in the County this year as approximately twenty-seven hun­
dred pupils are anticipated and the normal capacity of 
Lanier High School is two thousand. Lanier will have a 
higher pupil-teacher ratio than will Carver, and Lanier 
will have to use all of its regular rooms each period and 
approximately fourteen makeshift rooms. An additional 
fourteen rooms are being built at Carver and will be ready 
for the opening of school.

The Defendants denied this application.

21. Joan Mastin, 726 Alexander Street, Montgomery, 
Alabama.



246

This applicant attended Carver High School last year, 
completing the tenth grade, and has applied to attend 
Lanier High School, requesting admission to the eleventh 
grade.

This applicant resides in the Carver district and lives 
approximately three blocks from Carver and twelve blocks 
from Lanier. The route to Lanier crosses several busy 
thoroughfares and is more hazardous than the route to 
Carver where a tunnel is provided for children to cross 
Fairview Avenue. Lanier will be the most overcrowded 
high school in the County this year as approximately 
twenty-seven hundred pupils are anticipated and a normal 
capacity of Lanier High School is twro thousand. Lanier 
additional fourteen rooms are being built at Carver and 
will have a higher pupil-teacher ratio than will Carver, 
and Lanier will have to use all of its regular rooms each 
period and approximately fourteen makeshift rooms. An

—20 5 -
will be ready for the opening of school.

The Defendants denied this application.

22. Yvonne Miles, 199 John Morris Avenue, Montgom­
ery, Alabama.

The applicant attended Hayneville Road Junior High 
School last year, completing the ninth grade and applied 
to attend Lanier High School, requesting admission to 
the tenth grade.

The applicant lives in the Carver transported area, how­
ever, there are pupils within a few blocks of the residence 
of this applicant who attend Lanier High School and fur­
nish their own transportation.

The parent and pupil have expressed a preference for 
the applicant to attend Lanier High School.



247

This applicant is admitted to the tenth grade in Lanier 
High School, however, there will be no transportation fur­
nished to Lanier High School because such transportation 
is not furnished for other students attending Lanier High 
School in the vicinity of the residence of the applicant.

23. Horace Nettles, I II , Route 3, Box 402-TT, Mont­
gomery, Alabama.

The applicant attended the Madison Park Elementary 
School last year, completing the sixth grade and applied 
to attend Capitol Heights Junior High School requesting 
admission to the seventh grade.

No pupils, white or colored, who live along the Wetumpka 
Highway north of Kilby Prison attend Capitol Heights 
Junior High School and no Montgomery County school 
busses serve Capitol Heights Junior High School. Capitol 
Heights Junior High School is much more overcrowded 
than Booker Washington Junior High School.

Capitol Heights Junior High School is operating in ex­
cess of capacity with an anticipated 1075 pupils and a 
capacity of 952 pupils, while Booker Washington has not 
reached maximum capacity with an anticipated 796 pupils 
and a capacity of 812 pupils.

—206—
The Defendants denied this application.

24. La Brenda Nettles, Route 3, Box 402-TT, Montgom­
ery, Alabama.

The applicant attended Booker Washington Junior High 
School last year, completing the ninth grade and applied 
to attend Lee High School, requesting admission to the 
tenth grade.



248

Senior high pupils in the area of the residence of this 
applicant, which is a transported area, attend either Booker 
Washington or Lee Senior High Schools.

The parent and pupil have expressed a preference for 
this applicant to attend Lee High School.

This applicant is admitted to the tenth grade in Lee 
High School.

25. Patricia Lee Oliver, 1116 Thurman Street, Mont­
gomery, Alabama.

The applicant attended St. Jude School last year, com­
pleting the ninth grade and has applied to attend Lanier 
High School, requesting admission to the tenth grade.

This applicant lives in the Booker Washington High 
School district and lives approximately seventeen blocks 
from Lanier High School. The route to Lanier crosses 
several busy thoroughfares and will be more hazardous 
than the route to Booker Washington.

Lanier High School will be the most overcrowded high 
school in the County this year as approximately twenty- 
seven hundred pupils are anticipated and the normal ca­
pacity of Lanier High School is approximately two thou­
sand pupils. Lanier will have a higher pupil-teacher ratio 
than will Booker Washington and will have to use all of 
its regular rooms each period and approximately fourteen 
makeshift rooms. The capacity of Booker Washington was 
greatly increased with the addition of fourteen rooms last 
year.

The Defendants denied this application.
—207—

26. Doris Jean Packs, 401 Troy Street, Montgomery, 
Alabama.



249

This applicant attended Carver Elementary School last 
year, completing the sixth grade and applied to attend 
Lanier High School, requesting admission to the seventh 
grade.

No seventh grade work is offered at Lanier High School.
The Defendants denied this application.

27. Mary Estella Perry, 401 Troy Street, Montgomery, 
Alabama.

The applicant attended Carver Elementary School last 
year, completing the sixth grade and applied to attend 
Lanier High School requesting admission to the seventh 
grade.

No seventh grade work is offered at Lanier High School.
The Defendants denied this application.

28. Minerva Elizabeth Relf, Route 3, Box 405, Mont­
gomery, Alabama.

This applicant attended Booker Washington Junior High 
School last year, completing the eighth grade and applied 
to attend Capitol Heights Junior High School, requesting 
admission to the ninth grade.

No pupils, white or colored, who live along the Wetumpka 
Highway north of Kilby Prison attend Capitol Heights 
Junior High School and no Montgomery County school 
busses serve Capitol Heights Junior High School. Capitol 
Heights Junior High School is much more overcrowded 
than Booker Washington Junior High School.

Capitol Heights Junior High School is operating in ex­
cess of capacity with an anticipated 1075 pupils and a 
capacity of 952 pupils, while Booker Washington has not 
reached maximum capacity with an anticipated 796 pupils 
and a capacity of 812 pupils.



250

The Defendants denied this application.
—208—

29. Jamal Sadler, 1987 Upper Wetumpka Eoad, Mont­
gomery, Alabama.

The applicant attended Houston Hill Junior High School 
last year, completing the eighth grade and applied to attend 
Capitol Heights Junior High School, requesting admission 
to the ninth grade.

This applicant lives in the Houston Hill Junior High 
School district, but lives a little closer to Capitol Heights 
Junior High School than to Houston Hill.

The parent and the pupil have expressed a preference 
for the applicant to attend Capitol Heights Junior High 
School.

This applicant is admitted to the ninth grade in the Capi­
tol Heights Junior High School.

30. Woodrow C. Sadler, 1987 Upper Wetumpka Road, 
Montgomery, Alabama.

The applicant attended William Burns Paterson Elemen­
tary School last year, completing the fifth grade and applied 
to attend the Capitol Heights Elementary School, request­
ing admission to the sixth grade.

The sixth grade is not included in the desegregation plan 
as approved by this Court.

The Defendants denied this application.

31. Earnestine Scales, Route 3, Box 417-M, Montgomery, 
Alabama.

The applicant attended Booker Washington Junior High 
School last year, completing the seventh grade and applied 
to attend the Capitol Heights Junior High School, request­
ing admission to the eighth grade.



251

The eighth grade is not included in the desegregation 
plan as approved by this Court.

The Defendants deny this application.

32. Melvin Scales, Route 3, Box 417-M, Montgomery, 
Alabama.

—209—
This applicant attended Madison Park Elementary 

School last year, completing the sixth grade and applied 
to attend Capitol Heights Junior High School, requesting 
admission to the seventh grade.

No pupils, white or colored, who live along the Wetumpka 
Highway north of Kilby Prison attend Capitol Heights 
Junior High School and no Montgomery County school 
busses serve Capitol Heights Junior High School. Capitol 
Heights Junior High School is much more overcrowded 
than Booker Washington Junior High School.

Capitol Heights Junior High School is operating in ex­
cess of capacity with an anticipated 1075 pupils and a ca­
pacity of 952 pupils, while Booker Washington has not 
reached maximum capacity with an anticipated 796 pupils 
and a capacity of 812 pupils.

The Defendants denied this application.

33. Emma Jean Scott, 1606 Goode Street, Montgomery, 
Alabama.

This applicant attended Carver Junior High School last 
year, completing the ninth grade and applied to attend 
Lanier High School, requesting admission to the tenth 
grade.

This applicant lives in the Carver High School district, 
but lives about three blocks from Lanier and ten blocks 
from Carver.



252

The parent and pupil have expressed a preference for 
this applicant to attend Lanier High School.

This applicant is admitted to the tenth grade in Lanier 
High School.

34. B etty Jean Scott, Route 3, Box 417-L, Montgomery, 
Alabama.

This applicant attended Madison Park Elementary 
School last year, completing the sixth grade and applied 
to attend the Capitol Heights Junior High School, request­
ing admission to the seventh grade.

- 210-

No pupils, white or colored, who live along the Wetumpka 
Highway north of Kilby Prison attend Capitol Heights 
Junior High School and no Montgomery County school 
busses serve Capitol Heights Junior High School. Capitol 
Heights Junior High School is much more overcrowded 
than Booker Washington Junior High School.

Capitol Heights Junior High School is operating in ex­
cess of capacity with an anticipated 1075 pupils and a 
capacity of 952 pupils, while Booker Washington has not 
reached maximum capacity with an anticipated 796 pupils 
and a capacity of 812 pupils.

The Defendants denied this application.

35. Bill Scott, Route 3, Box 417-L, Montgomery, Ala­
bama.

This applicant attended Booker Washington Junior High 
School last year in the seventh grade and applied to attend 
Capitol Heights Junior High School, requesting admission 
to the seventh grade.

No pupils, white or colored, who live along the Wetumpka 
Highway north of Kilby Prison attend Capitol Heights



253

Junior High School and no Montgomery County school 
busses serve Capitol Heights Junior High School. Capitol 
Heights Junior High School is much more overcrowded 
than Booker "Washington High School.

Capitol Heights Junior High School is operating in ex­
cess of capacity with an anticipated 1075 pupils and a 
capacity of 952 pupils, while Booker Washington has not 
reached maximum capacity with an anticipated 796 pupils 
and a capacity of 812 pupils.

The Defendants denied this application.

36. Sheryl D. Seay, Route 3, Box 404-A, Montgomery, 
Alabama.

This applicant attended Carver Elementary School last 
year, completing the sixth grade and applied to attend 
Capitol Heights Junior High School, requesting admission 
to the seventh grade.

- 211-

No pupils, white or colored, who live along the Wetumpka 
Highway north of Kilby Prison attend Capitol Heights 
Junior High School and no Montgomery County school 
busses serve Capitol Heights Junior High School. Capitol 
Heights Junior High School is much more overcrowded 
than Booker Washington Junior High School.

Capitol Heights Junior High School is operating in ex­
cess of capacity with an anticipated 1075 pupils and a 
capacity of 952 pupils, while Booker Washington has not 
reached maximum capacity with an anticipated 796 pupils 
and a capacity of 812 pupils.

The Defendants denied this application.

37. Jerry W. Taylor, Jr., 2733 F irst Street, Montgomery, 
Alabama.



254

This applicant attended Carver High School last year, 
completing the tenth grade and applied to attend Lanier 
High School, requesting admission to the eleventh grade.

Senior high school pupils in the area of the residence of 
this applicant, which is a transported area, attend either 
Carver or Lanier Senior High School.

The parent and pupil have expressed a preference for 
this applicant to attend Lanier High School.

This applicant is admitted to the eleventh grade in Lanier 
High School.

38. Sandra Lynn Taylor, Route 3, Box 402-W, Mont­
gomery, Alabama.

This applicant attended Booker Washington High School 
last year, completing the eleventh grade and has applied to 
attend Lee High School, requesting admission to the twelfth 
grade.

Senior high school pupils in the area of the residence of 
this applicant, which is a transported area, attend either 
Booker Washington or Lee Senior High Schools.

— 212—

The parent and pupil have expressed a preference for 
the applicant to attend Lee High School.

This applicant is admitted to the twelfth grade in Lee 
High School.

39. Robert Taylor, 111, Route 3, Box 402-W, Montgom­
ery, Alabama.

This applicant attended Booker Washington High School 
last year, completing the tenth grade and applied to attend 
Lee High School this year, requesting admission to the 
eleventh grade.



255

Senior high school pupils in the area of the residence 
of this applicant, which is a transported area, attend either 
Booker Washington or Lee Senior High Schools.

The parent and the pupil have expressed a preference 
for this applicant to attend Lee High School.

This applicant is admitted to the eleventh grade in Lee 
High School.

40. Willis Tolliver, Jr., 1985 Upper Wetumpka Road, 
Montgomery, Alabama.

This applicant attended Booker Washington Senior High 
School the year before last and was at that time in the 
twelfth grade. The applicant has applied to attend Lee 
High School, requesting admission to the twelfth grade.

According to the father of this applicant, he went back 
to Booker Washington last year and only stayed a few 
weeks before dropping out in November to go to work. 
This applicant’s records show that he was nineteen years 
of age in July and has passed only half of some courses 
(one semester) and during his last school attendance was 
taking some tenth, eleventh and twelfth grade courses.

The applicant lives in the Booker Washington School dis­
trict and the Board feels that it would be better for him 
to return to Booker Washington to complete the courses 
which he had started there.

The Defendants denied this application.
—213—

41. Myrtis Vinson, 351 Auburn Street, Montgomery, Ala­
bama.

This applicant attended Carver High School last year, 
completing the tenth grade and applied to attend Lanier 
High School, requesting admission to the eleventh grade.



256

This applicant lives in the Carver High School district. 
The applicant lives approximately five blocks from Lanier 
and ten blocks from Carver.

The parent and the pupil have expressed a preference 
for the applicant to attend Lanier High School.

This applicant is admitted to the eleventh grade in Lanier 
High School.

42. Lennon Whitlow, Jr., Route 3, Box 403-F, Montgom­
ery, Alabama.

This applicant attended Booker Washington High School 
last year as an irregular student and has applied to attend 
Lee High School, requesting admission to the twelfth grade.

This applicant has not completed some of his junior high 
school work. No junior high school work is offered at Lee 
High School. The applicant, when attending Booker Wash­
ington High School will be able to make up the necessary 
junior high school work in the adjacent junior high school 
building.

The Defendants denied this application.

43. Andrew Russell Whitlow, Route 3, Box 403-F, Mont­
gomery, Alabama.

This applicant attended Booker Washington Junior High 
School last year in the ninth grade and applied to attend 
Lee High School requesting admission to the tenth grade. 
This applicant has not completed all of his ninth grade 
work and no ninth grade work is offered at Lee. This ap­
plicant, when attending Booker Washington High School, 
will be able to make up the necessary ninth grade work in 
the adjacent junior high school building.

The Defendants denied this application.
— 214—



257

44. Major Eugene Whitlow, Route 3, Box 403-F, Mont­
gomery, Alabama.

This applicant attended Booker Washington Junior High 
School last year in the ninth grade and applied to attend 
Lee High School, requesting admission to the tenth grade.

This applicant has not completed all of his junior high 
school work and no junior high school work is offered at 
Lee High School. This applicant, when attending Booker 
Washington High School, could make up the necessary 
junior high school work in the adjacent junior high school 
building.

The Defendants denied this application.

45. Walter Jerome Whitlow, Route 3, Box 403-F, Mont­
gomery, Alabama.

This applicant attended Booker Washington Junior High 
School last year completing the eighth grade, and applied 
to attend Capitol Heights Junior High School, requesting 
admission in the ninth grade.

No pupils, white or colored, who live along the Wetumpka 
Highway north of Kilby Prison attend Capitol Heights 
Junior High School and no Montgomery County school 
busses serve Capitol Heights Junior High School. Capitol 
Heights Junior High School is much more overcrowded 
than Booker Washington High School.

Capitol Heights Junior High School is operating in ex­
cess of capacity with an anticipated 1075 pupils and a 
capacity of 952 pupils, while Booker Washington has not 
reached maximum capacity with an anticipated 796 pupils 
and a capacity of 812 pupils.

The Defendants denied this application.

46. Shirley Ann Whitlow, Route 3, Box 403-F, Mont­
gomery, Alabama.



258

This applicant attended Madison Park Elementary School 
last year in the sixth grade and applied to attend Capitol 
Heights Junior High School, requesting admission to the 
seventh grade.

- 2 1 5 -
No pupils, white or colored, who live along the Wetumpka 

Highway north of Kilby Prison attend Capitol Heights 
Junior High School and no Montgomery County school 
busses serve Capitol Heights Junior High School. Capitol 
Heights Junior High School is much more overcrowded 
than Booker Washington Junior High School.

Capitol Heights Junior High School is operating in ex­
cess of capacity with an anticipated 1075 pupils and a 
capacity of 952 pupils, while Booker Washington has not 
reached maximum capacity with an anticipated 796 pupils 
and a capacity of 812 pupils.

The Defendants denied this application.

47. L. W. Williams, Jr., Route 3, Box 417-P, Montgom­
ery, Alabama.

This applicant attended Booker Washington Junior High 
School last year, completing the ninth grade and has ap­
plied to attend Lee High School this year, requesting ad­
mission to the tenth grade.

Senior high school pupils in the area of this applicant’s 
residence, which is a transported area, attend either Booker 
Washington or Lee Senior High Schools.

The parent and pupil have expressed a preference for 
this applicant to attend Lee High School.

This applicant is admitted to the tenth grade in Lee High 
School.

48. Clemmie Williams, Route 3, Box 417-P, Montgomery, 
Alabama.



259

This applicant attended Booker Washington Junior High 
School last year, completing the seventh grade and applied 
to attend Capitol Heights Junior High School, requesting 
admission to the eighth grade.

The desegregation plan as approved by this Court does 
not include the eighth grade.

The Defendants denied this application.
—216—

49. Jeffrey Williams, Route 3, Box 417-P, Montgomery, 
Alabama.

This applicant attended Booker Washington Junior High 
School last year, completing the seventh grade and applied 
to attend Capitol Heights Junior High School, requesting 
admission to the eighth grade.

The eighth grade is not included in the desegregation 
plan as approved by this Court.

The Defendants denied this application.

Submitted this 9th day of August, 1965.

H ill, R obison and Belser 
Attorneys for Defendants.

Certificate of Service (omitted in printing)



260

Order as to Filing Objections
(Filed August 16, 1965)

I n t h e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle D istrict of Alabama 
Northern Division

The objections, if any, to the action taken by the Mont­
gomery County Board of Education and the Montgomery 
County Superintendent of Education, pursuant to the 
order of this Court as that action is reflected in the re­
port of the Montgomery County Board of Education and 
the Montgomery County Superintendent of Education filed 
herein on August 9, 1965, are Ordered to be filed with this 
Court on or before August 24, 1965.

It is further Ordered that any objections to said action 
as taken by the Montgomery County Board of Educa­
tion and the Montgomery County Superintendent of Edu­
cation as that action is reflected in the report filed August 
9, 1965, be and the same are set for a hearing to commence 
at 2 p.m., August 26, 1965, in the United States District 
Courtroom, Montgomery, Alabama.

Done, this the 16th day of August, 1965.

F rank M. J ohnson, J r.
United States District Judge

- 2 1 7 -



261

Notice of Taking Depositions
(Filed August 19, 1965)

I n t h e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle D istrict of Alabama 
Northern Division

H on. Ben H ardeman,
U. S. Attorney 

Post Office Building 
Montgomery, Alabama

H on. J ohn Doar,
U. S. Attorney 

H on. J onathan B. Sutin 
United States Department of Justice 

Washington, D. C.

H ill, R obison & B elser 
Attorneys and Counsellors At Law 

26 South Perry Street 
Montgomery, Alabama

W alter McK ee,
Superintendent 

Montgomery County Schools 
305 South Lawrence Street 

Montgomery, Alabama

P lease take notice that the Plaintiffs, on the 23rd day 
of August, 1965 in the Office of Mr. W. H. Lewis, third

- 2 1 8 -



2 6 2

floor, Montgomery County Courthouse, Montgomery, Ala­
bama, at 2:30 P. M., will take the deposition of Mr. Walter 
McKee, Superintendent of Schools of Montgomery County, 
Alabama, upon oral examination, pursuant to Federal 
Kules of Civil Procedure before Mr. W. H. Lewis, a 
notary public, or some other officer authorized by law to 
administer oaths.

—219—
P lease take further notice that you are hereby re­

quired to produce upon such examination all records, 
tests, individual files and all other documents used by the 
Montgomery County Board of Education in acting upon 
the Applications for Transfer, a report of the action of 
said Board was filed in this case on the 9th day of August, 
1965.

Done this 19th day of August, 1965.

F red D. Gray 
J ack Greenberg 
Charles H. J ones, J r.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs



263

Objections to Defendants’ Rejection of 
Applicants for Transfer
(Filed August 24, 1965)

I n  the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle D istrict of Alabama 
Northern D ivision

Now come the Plaintiffs in the above entitled cause, by 
and through their attorney of record, and object to the 
denial of the applications for transfer as set out in de­
fendants’ report to this court dated August 9, 1965, and as 
grounds for said objection assign separately and severally 
to each application for transfer the following:

1. That no valid reasons are assigned for the denial 
of said applications for transfer.

2. That no valid criteria are given for denying the ap­
plications for transfer.

3. That in processing and refusing to approve the ap­
plications for transfer and assignment, the defendants 
have subjected these Negro pupils to procedures and in­
vestigations which white children desiring to transfer 
from one white school to another are not subjected to, and 
to procedures and investigations which other Negro chil­
dren desiring to transfer from one Negro school to another 
Negro school are not subjected to.

4. That in refusing to approve the applications for 
transfer and assignment, the defendants have denied to

- 2 2 0 -



264

plaintiffs and their class their constitutional right to re­
ceive an education on a non-discriminatory basis.

5. The defendants in failing to approve the other ap­
plications seek to only have token desegregation in the 
public schools of Montgomery County and to circumvent

— 221—

this court’s decree in this case and in the case of Brown 
vs. Board of Education, 347, U. S. 483, 98 L. Ed. 873, 74 
S. Ct. 686.

6. The criteria used by the Board were not uniformly 
applied to all students in making initial assignments to the 
Montgomery County Public Schools; that the criteria 
were instead applied solely to students seeking transfer 
from “Negro” to “white” schools; and that such applica­
tion of the criteria denies Negro students equal protection 
of the laws secured to them under the Fourteenth Amend­
ment of the United States Constitution as interpreted in 
decisions of both the Fifth Circuit Court and the United 
States Supreme Court.

7. Petitioners further allege that the rejected applicants 
have not been apprised of the standards and criteria of 
which formed the bases for the defendants’ denial of the 
aforesaid applications.

8. Petitioners further allege that the action of the de­
fendant, Montgomery County Board of Education, as 
shown in its report filed with the court on August 9, 1965, 
does not comply with the Order of this court dated May 
18, 1965, which said Order approved said defendant’s 
amended plan for desegregation.



265

9. Petitioners further allege that the action of the defen­
dant, Montgomery County Board of Education, as show  
in its report filed with the court on August 9, 1965, does 
not comply with said defendant’s amended plan for de­
segregation.

10. The Alabama Pupil Placement Act has been uncon­
stitutionally applied and therefore cannot properly be con­
sidered in determining pupil transfer applications.

11. The Board’s report submitted fails to provide for 
either complete “free choice” throughout the system with­
out limitation of the Pupil Placement Act, or for the aboli­
tion of dual zones in making initial assignments in the 
elementary, junior high, and high school grades. The 
Board should be required to replace the system of dual 
zone assignments with single geographic zones for all 
schools in the system, thereafter assigning, initially, all 
students residing in a zone without regard to race until

- 222-

capacity is reached.

12. The Board’s present report is further objectionable 
because it fails to provide for desegregation of teachers, 
principals, and other administrative or educational staff 
personnel.

13. Defendants’ report reflects that the criteria of the 
Pupil Placement Law have been applied so as to limit 
desegregation through restriction of the applicants’ rights 
to free choice. (See Section V. D. 11., General Statement 
of Policies Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
Respecting Desegregation of Elementary and Secondary



2 6 6

Schools, HEW, Office of Education, April 1964. Appendix.; 
see also, Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School 
District, Fifth Circuit, No. 22527, 6/22/65; Price v. Deni­
son Independent School District, Fifth Circuit, No. 21632, 
7/2/65).

14. Because initial assignments to Junior High School 
and High School grades have been made on a racial basis, 
overcrowding in presently “white” schools has prevented 
applicants from exercising an effective free choice in the 
selection of a school, and also, unconstitutionally retarded 
the desegregation of several grades reached by defen­
dants’ plan.

15. The action of defendants as reflected by their report, 
violates plaintiffs’ rights to attend schools in a desegre­
gated system, in that the Board’s action is taken in the 
context of a dual or segregated system of schools, which 
the board has not yet undertaken to abolish.

16. Applicants Austin (3), and Packs (26), should be 
allowed to apply to the closest school having a Seventh 
grade, which may be attended by pupils other than those 
of the race of the applicants.

17. Applicants Beamen (4), Boswell (5), Carter (11), 
Green (14), Nettles (23), Relf (28), Scales (32), Scott 
(34, 35), Seay (36), Whitlow (45, 46), all of whom applied 
to Capital Heights Junior High School have, in part, 
been denied an effective choice because initial assignments 
to said school have been made on a racial basis, thereby so 
limiting the available space that Negro pupils, residing 
closer to the school, are unable to effect transfer and hence 
desegregation.



267

—223—
18. The defendants can not use the overcrowding in 

white school as a valid reason for failing to accept Negro 
students in that the overcrowdedness is the direct conse­
quences of a “feeder system” which system is based on 
race.

19. The defendants have assign as one of the reasons 
for failing to admit Negro students to white schools the 
fact that the route to the white school is more hazardous 
than the route to the Negro school. This is not a valid 
criteria for denying Negro applicants in that white children 
must cross equally as hazardous streets in route from their 
home to the white school.

20. The report shows on its face that the defendants are 
not making a good-faitli effort to comply with the court’s 
orders that, therefore, the court should reject that portion 
of the report which deny the applications for transfer.

W herefore plaintiffs p ray  th a t the court will prom ptly 
set a hearing on plaintiffs’ objections to the board’s report 
and th a t upon such a hearing the court will enter an o rd e r:

1. Declaring that the Alabama Pupil Placement Law as 
applied to the applicants who were denied transfer uncon­
stitutional and therefore null and void.

2. Directing the defendants to cease using the Alabama 
Pupil Placement Law in acting upon applicants for trans­
fer.

3. Directing the defendants to permit the applicant, 
George Gregory Green, Jr. (15), to submit to the defen­
dants his birth certificate and if said birth certificate shows 
that he will be six years old by the 2nd day of October,



268

1965, admit said applicant to Capitol Heights Elementary 
School.

4. Directing defendants to consider the applications of 
applicants Woodrow Austin (3), and Doris Jean Packs 
(26) to the closest school to their home having a seventh 
grade, which may be attended by pupils other than those 
of the race of the applicants.

5. Directing defendants to consider the applications of 
Gloria Jean Beamen (4), Eloise Boswell (5), Esau Carter 
(11), Belinda Joyce Green (14), Horace Nettles, III  (23),

—224—
Minerva Elizabeth Belf (28), Melvin Scales (32), Betty 
Jean Scott (34), Bill Scott (35), Sheryl D. Seay (36), Wal­
ter Jerome Whitlow (45), and Shirley Ann Whitlow (46), 
who had applied to Capital Heights Junior High School as 
applicants to Baldwin Junior High School or the junior 
high school which the white children in that community 
now presently attend; and after the defendants have con­
sidered said applications to said school to act favorably 
there upon.

6. Directing the defendants to approve all of the appli­
cations for transfer.

Plaintiffs further pray for such further relief as may be 
proper in the premises.

Respectfully submitted,

Gkay & Seay 
J ack Greenberg 
Charles J ones, J r.

Certificate of service (omitted in printing)



2 6 9

A p p e n d ix

GENERAL STATEMENT OF POLICIES UNDER TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL 
RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 RESPECTING DESEGREGATION OF ELEMEN­
TARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS

- 2 2 5 -

I. Applicability of Title VI of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964 to Desegregation of Elementary 
and Secondary Schools

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits the 
extension of Federal financial assistance to any " 
dual or segregated system of schools based on race, 
color, or national origin. To be eligible to receive, 
or to continuo to receive such assistance, school of­
ficials must eliminate all practices characteristic 
of such dual or segregated school systems.

II. Methods of Compliance—General
Elementary and secondary schools or. school sys­

tems may qualify for Federal financial assistance 
by:

A. Kxi'culing an Assurance of Compliance 
(HEW Form 441), if the requirements specified 
in III below nre satisfied; or

B. Submitting a final order of a court of the 
United States for the desegregation of the school 
or school system which satisfies’ the requirements 
specified in IV below, together with an Initial 
Compliance Report (see VI below); or

C. Submitting a plan for the desegregation of 
the school system which the Commissioner of 
Education determines is adequate to accomplish 
the purposes of the Civil Rights Act, as set forth 
in these policies (see V below) ; together with an 
Initial Compliance Report (sco VI below); and

D. Implementing tlio Assurance, final court or­
der or desegregation plan in good faith so as to 
effectuate tlio basic objective set forth in section 
601 of Ti :le VI of the Civil Rights Act:

*'Jfo p e rso n  in  tb e  U n ite d  S ta te s  s h a ll , on  th e  g ro u n d  
o f  ra c e , co lo r, o r  n a t io n a l  o rig in , be  e x c lu d e d  fro m  
p a r t ic ip a t io n  in , b e  dCDied th e  b en e fits  o f, o r  b e  sub- 

■ je e te d  to  d is c r im in a tio n  u n d e r  a n y  p ro g ra m  o r  a c t iv ­
i t y  rece iv in g  F e d e ra l f in a n c ia l a s s is ta n c e .”

III. Methods of Compliance— Assurance of 
Compliance (HEW Form 441)

An Assuranco of Compliance (HEW Form 441) 
that will qualify a school system for Federal finan­
cial assistance may not be executed by a school sys­
tem in which:

A. The race, color, or national origin of pupils 
is a factor in their initial assignment, reassign­
ment, or transfer to a particular school or class 
within a school; or

B. Teachers or other staff who serve pupils re­
main segregated on the basis of the race, color, or 
national origin of the pupils in a school; or

C. Any activity, facility or oilier service, in­
cluding transportation, provided or sponsored by 
a school system is segregated on the basis of race, 
color, or national origin; or N

D. There remain any other practices character­
istic of dual or segregated school systems.

IV. Methods of Compliance— Court Orders
A. A school system subject to a final order of 

a court of the United States will bo eligible for 
Federal financial assistance only if tlio order , 
directs desegregation of the school system; it does. '■ 
not suffice if the order merely directs school au­
thorities to admit certain named persons or other­
wise fails to require the elimination of a dual or 
segregated system of schools based on race, color, 
or nationalorigin.

B. School districts submitting a final court 
\ordor should send official copies of the court order,
together with an Initial Compliance Report as 
described in VI below, indicating the present state 
of compliance with the order and tlio school dis­
trict’s program for continued compliance.

V. Methods of Compliance— Plans for the De­
segregation of School Systems

A. T yp es  o f  D esegregation  Plans.
A scliool system will be eligible for Federal 

financial assistance by submitting a desegregation 
plan providing for the assignment, reassignment, 
ana transfer of pupils to or within schools on the 
basis of:

1. Geographic attendance areas, subject to 
the requirements of sections B and C below;

2. Freedom of choice granted to and exer­
cised by the pupil and his parents or guardians, 
subject to the requirements of sections B and 
D below; or



270

3. A combination of geographic attendance - 
. areas and freedom of choice. ,
B. R equirem ents W h ich  A l l  D esegregation Plans 

M ust Satisfy.
1. F a c u lty  and, s ta ff  desegrega tion . All de­

segregation plans shall provide for the de- 
segregation of faculty and staff in accordance 
with the following requirements:

a. '.'-Jn .itin i a ss ig n m en t. The race, color, or 
national origin of pupils shall not be a factor 
in the assignment to a particular school or 
class within a school of teachers, administra­
tors or other employees who serve pupils.

b. S e g re g a tio n  re su ltin g  from , p r io r  d is ­
c r im in a to ry  a ssignm en ts. Steps shall also be 
taken toward the elimination of segregation 
of teaching and staff personnel in the schools 
resulting from prior assignments based on 
race, color, or national origin (sec E4b below).
2. N o n d isc r im in a tio n  in  o th e r  school a ffilia ted  

services, fa c ilitie s , a c tiv itie s  a n d  p ro g ra m s. All 
desegregation plans shall provide for the elim­
ination of discrimination based on race, color, 
or national origin, with respect to services, fa­
cilities, activities and programs sponsored by 
or affiliated with the schools of the system. If 
busing or other transportation is furnished or 
sponsored by the school or school system, the 
plan shall call for its provision without dis­
crimination based bn race, color, or national 
origin.

3. P rep a ra tio n  o f  p u p ils , teachers, s ta ff  a n d
c o m m u n ity  f o r  desegrega tion . All desegrega­
tion plans shall contain specific information as 
to actions that will be token to prepare pupils, 
teachors, staff personnel and the community for 
the changes which will be involved in desegre­
gating the school system. ..

• 4. N o tice .
a. All desegregation plans shall provide for 

their publication in a conspicuous manner in 
a newspaper having general circulation in the 
geographic area served by the school system, 
reasonably in advance of the time for any ac­
tion which may be taken by pupils under the 
plan;

b. All desegregation plans shall provide for 
notification to pupils currently enrolled in the

• school system and to their parents or guard-
• • ians in sufficient t imo to enable them to liiulor- 

, ; stand and take advantage of their rights to
initial assignment, reassignment or transfer 
for tho coming school year, nnd for tho mail- 

. ,  ing of such notices to parents or guardians of 
pupils then enrolled or for their distribution 
in any other manner, that will assure their 
receipt by parents or guardians;

c. All desegregation plans' shall l>o ac­
companied by sample copies of tho not ices to 
be given respecting each of tho following 
categories;

(1) The initial assignment of pupils in­
tending to enter schools of the system for the 
first time;

(2) Initial assignment of pupils intend­
ing for tho first time to enter a school of 
higher level after having completed a school 
of less advanced level; and

(3) The reassignment or. transfer of pu­
pils for the forthcoming school year.

fi. N iibseg iirn l court, e n te r s . Tf, after sub­
mission of a desegregation plan, a final order of 
a court of the United States is entered calling 
for the desegregation of the school or school 
system covered by the plan, the plan shall bo 
revised, if necessary, to meet the requirements of 
the court order and of any future modification 
of the order.

6. P e r fo rm a n c e  as a  te s t o f  p la n . Tho Com­
missioner of Education may from time to time 
redetermine the adequacy of any desegregation 
plan to accomplish the purposes of the Civil 
Rights Act.
C. Plans Based on  G eographic A tten d a n c e  A reas. 
A desegregation plan which proposes to assign, 

reassign or transfer pupils on the basis of geo­
graphic attendance areas shall contain provisions 
that will meet the following requirements as to 
all grades covered by geographic zoning:

1 . A tte n d a n c e  zones. Racially separate at­
tendance zones shall be abandoned entirely and 
each attendance zone shall be phrt of a single, 
nonracial system of attendance zones. Zono 
lines sliall be drawn to follow the natural bound­
aries or perimeters of compact areas surround­
ing particular schools.

—226—

2



271

2. I n i t ia l  a l ig n m e n t .  All pupils shall be 
initially assigned to the srliool for the geo­
graphic attendance zone in which they reside.

a. A tte n d a n c e  o u tside  zone  o f  residence. The 
rules, or practices under which pupils aro re­
assigned or permitted to transfer to a school 
outside their zone of residence shall not talco 
rare, color, or national origin into account.

4. f l i g h t  to  a tte n d  in  2 one o f  residence.. At 
the beginning of any school year any pupil at­
tending a school outside his zone of residence 
shall havo the right to transfer to and attend 
the school in his zono of residence.

5. N o tice . Each pupil and his parents or 
guardians shall rccoivo notice of the school to 
which tho pupil is assigned which satisfies the 
requirements of B4 above.
D. Plans Based on F reedom  o f  Choice.
The responsibility to eliminate segregation rests 

with tho school authorities and is not satisfied by 
rules and practices which shift the burden of re­
moving discrimination to the class or classes of 
persons previously discriminated against. De­
segregation of a school system may, however, bo 
initiated by a “free choice”, plan containing pro­
visions that will meet the following requirements 
as to all grades covered by free choice:

1. A d e q u a te  o p p o r tu n ity  to  m a k e  a choice. 
No pupil shall be assigned, reassigned or trans­
ferred without being given once annually, at an 
appropriate time, an adequate prior opportu­
nity to make an effective choice of school.

2. P u p i l  p la cem en t law s. The criteria of pu­
pil placement laws or similar statutes, rules or 
practices shall not be usod to limit desegregation 
through restriction of any pupil’s right to free 
choice.

3. I n i t ia l  a ss ig n m e n t:  lo w est e lem en ta ry  
grade levels .

a. Announcement of the procedures for 
. . initial assignment of pupils to tho lowest elc-
. mentnry grade level (including preschool and 

kindergarten classes where available) shall bo 
mado by full notice in the press.

b. Tho times and places for, and manner 
of, preregistration and enrollment shall be 
fixed so that a freo choice may be made easily 
by each pupil.

c. If overcrowding will result at n particu­
lar school from the choices made, initial as­
signment shall bo made either by giving pref­
erence to the pupils residing closest to tho 
school or on tho basis of non-racial attendance 
zones. If  no choico is mado, thoy shall bo as­
signed to tho school nearest their homes or on 
the basis of non-racial attendance zones.
4. I n i t ia l  a ss ig n m e n t:  lo w est g rade  o f  ju n io r  

h ig h , h ig h  o r  o th e r  schoo l above e lem en ta ry  
level.

a. Announcement of tho initial assignment 
of pupils to the lowest grade of junior high, 
high or other school above the clcmontary lovcl 
shall be made by individual notices to. each 
pupil and his parents or guardians. Tho no-, 
tices shall bo furnished reasonably in advanco 
(as specified in tho plan) of the time for filing 

- the form for exercising choice of tho school 
. next to be attended, together with copies of 

tho form. Copies of the notico and tho form 
shall be submitted together with tho plan. '

h. Tf overcrowding will result at a particu­
lar school because of tho choices made, initial 
assignments shall bo made either by giving 
preference to the pupils residing closest to ’ 
such school or on tho basis of non-racial at­
tendance zones.

c. Pupils may either be required to make a 
choice of schools or be initially assigned, if 

x’. t hey do not. make a choice, to the school nearest 
O ' their homes, or on tho basis of non-racial at­

tendance zones.
5. R e a ss ig n m e n t o r tr a n s fe r :  a ll  o th e r  g rades  

to  w h ic h  fre e d o m  o f  choice p o lic y  app lies .
a. In all other grades to which tho freedom 

of choice policy applies, every pupil shall bo 
informed by individual notico addressed to 
himsolf and his parents or guardians: (1) of 
his right to transfer, to a school of his choice, 
and (2) where copies of the form for exercis­
ing this transfer right may be readily ob­
tained in the school and elsewhere.

b. If  overcrowding will result at a parti­
cular school because of the choices made, the 
pupil shall ehhor be given preference over 
pupils residing farther from the school or 
shall be permitted to attend another school of 
his choosing within a reasonable distance of 
his residence.

—227—

3



272

—228—

G. I n i t ia l  a ss ig n m en t:  p u p il*  en te r in g  school 
sy s te m  f o r  f ir s t tim e  o r  w h o  become elig ib le  to  
a tte n d  som e o th e r  school i n  th e  s y s te m  b y  reason  
o f  ch ange  o f  residence. Any pupil who cither 
enters tho school system for the first timo or be­
comes eligible to attend somo other school in tho 
system by reason of a change o f  residence shall 
bo initially assigned without regard to race, 
color, or national origin.

7. T ra n sp o rta tio n . Tho exercise of f r e e  
choice shall not be restricted by transportation 
practices. Transportation shall bo provided to 
pupils under a freo choice policy on tho same 
basis as it is provided to other pupils attending 
tho same school.

8. N o tice . All notices to pupils and their 
patents or guardians respecting tho initial as­
signment, reassignment or transfer to or within 
schools shall :

a. State simply and clearly tho applicable 
rules and administrative practices regarding 
tho rights which the desegregation plan ac­
cords pupils with respect to initial assign­
ment, reassignment, or transfer, to or within 
the schools;

b. Give tho times, dates, and places at which 
pupils, or their parents or guardians may 
exercise their rights under the desegregation 
plan; and

c. Include an assurance that school person­
nel will neither favor nor penalize any pupil 
because of the choico ho makes in the exercise 
of his rights under tho desegregation plan.

E. R ale o f  D esegregation.
1. Every school system which submits a plan 

that fails to provide for the desegregation of 
every grade in all tho schools within its system 
by tho beginning of the school year 19C5-19G6 
must sustain tho burden of justifying the delay 
and must include in its desegregation plan a 
time schedule for such desegregation^^

2. The fall of 1967 is sot as theitargel date 
for the extension of desegregation to'all grades 
of school systems not fully desegregated in 
19G5-19G6 as a qualification for Federal finan­
cial assistance.

3. On or before January 31, 19G6, the Com­
missioner of Educat ion may modify the polieios 
respecting desegregation of elementary and sec­

ondary schools in order to determine eligibility 
for Federal financial assistance in tho 19G6-19C7 
school year and thereafter.

4. Every school system beginning desegrega­
tion must provido for a substantial good faith 
start on desegregation starting with the 1905- 
1966 school year, in light of tho 1967 target dale, 

a. Such a good faith start shall normally 
require provision in the plan that:

(1) Desegregation will be extended to at
least four grades for the 1965—i9G6 school 
year; tho grades covered mast include the 
first and any other lower grade, the first 
and last high school grades, and the lowest 
grade of junior high where schools aro so 
organized; '•

(2) Any pupil newly enrolled in .the 
school system or in any school within tho 
system (e.g., who has newly established a 
residence within the district) shall bo en­
rolled in and assigned to a particular school 
without regard to race, color, or national 
origin; -

(3) No pupil shall bn publicly supported 
in a school outsido the school district unless 
such support is available without regard to 
race, color, or national origin to all pupils 
residing in the school district; and in any 
case no student shall be required to attend 
a school outside the school district in order 
to maintain racial segregation or minimize 
desegregation in a school within tho dis­
trict ;

(4) Any pupil attending a school to' 
which he was originally assigned on tho 
basis of his race, color, or national origin 
shall have the right, irrespective of whether 
or not the grade ho is attending has been

, desegregated, to transfer to another school 
in order to take a course of study for which 
he is qualified and which is not available'in 
the school he is attending;

(5) Any student attending any grade, 
whether or' not fully desegregated, at a 
school to which lie originally was assigned 
on the basis of his race, color, or national 
origin shall have an opportunity, subject to 
the requirements and criteria applicable 
equally to all students without regard to

4



273

—229—

race, color, or national origin to transfer 
to any other school in which ho originally 
would havo been entitled to enroll but for 
his race, color, or national origin; and 

(C) Steps will bo taken for the desegre­
gation of faculty, at least including such 
actions as joint faculty meetings and joint 
inscrvicc programs.
b. In exceptional cases the Commissioner 

may, for good cause shown, accept plans which 
provide for desegregation of fewer or other 
grades or defer other provisions set out in 
4a above for the 1965-196C school year, pro- N 
vided that desegregation for the 1965-1966 
school year shall extend to at least two grades, 
including tlio first grado, and provided that 
tho school dist ricts, in such case, shall take in­
to account tho steps which would bo required 
to meet the 1967 target date.

VI. Compliance Reports
A. G eneral R equ irem ents . All recipients of Fcd- 

nntl Ihiunnhil iiimiulunco tiro imlijoet In (ho require- 
ments respecting compliance information set forth 
in section 80.6 of the Departmental Title VI 
Regulations.

B. In itia l C om pliance R eport. If  an Initial Com­
pliance Report is required, it shall contain suffi­
cient dotailed information to provide an accurate 
picture of past and present racial conditions in 
each school district. Precise, up-to-the-minuto 
statistics are not required. The material fur­
nished should bo what fair-minded school officials 
bolievo to bo true and what reasonable men would 
think necessary for a rational appraisal of racial 
practices in tho system. The following list, not 
intended to bo exclusive, suggests tho kinds of in­
formation that should bo covered by an Initial 
Compliance Report: . •

1. A racial breakdown of tho school-age popu- 
. lotion residing in the district by attendance

zone;
2. Tho racial distribution of pupils, by school, 

throughout tho system;
3. The racial distribution of teaching and 

staff personnel, by school, throughout the sys­
tem;

4. Maps, which need not be of professional 
quality, where useful or necessary to demon­

strate such things os school locations, attend­
ance zones, or school bus routes;

5. Past and present rules and practices for 
the initial assignment, reassignment, and trans­
fer of pupils within the system; and

6. The status of appeals or other pending pro­
ceedings, if any, if a court ordor for desegrega­
tion is submitted.
C. Subsequent Compliance Reports. . Subse­

quently submitted compliance reports may refer 
to previous reports and should report with tho 
same scope and detail on developments since tho 
last previous report. ,

VII. Definitions—Initial Assignment, Reas­
signment and Transfer

As used heroin:
A. The term initial assignment means the assign­

ment to a particular school in tlie school system of
any pupil who:

1. Is to nttend preschool, kindergarten, or
first grade; or

2. For the (lint time enters a school of higher 
• level (such os junior high or high school) after

having completed a school of less advanced
level; or

3. For the first time enters the school system ,
at any level; or

4. Becomes eligible, or would bocome eligible, 
aside from considerations of race, color, or na­
tional origin, to attend some other school in the 
school system by reason of a change of residence.
B. The term reassignment means the assignment 

of a pupil to tho school ho currently attends for an 
additional period of time.

C. The term transfer means the assignment of a 
pupil to a scliool of the same level other than tho 
one he currently attends (e.g., transfer from one 
elementary school to another).

VIII. Alternative Administrative Procedures
If  an administrative procedure provided for 

herein is not administratively feasible in a partic­
ular situation, the Commissioner may accept an 
alternative procedure if he determines that it will 
accomplish tire same purpose.

A p r i l ,  1935.

6
M- MVIHIIT lltiTIM •rm illlll



274

Objections o f Amicus Curiae to D efendants’ Rejection 
o f Applicants fo r T ransfer

(Filed August 24, 1965)

I n the
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

F or the Middle District of A labama 
Northern Division

The United States of America, as Amicus Curiae herein, 
does not object to the action taken by the Montgomery 
County Board and Superintendent of Education in reject­
ing the applications of Negro students for transfer where 
the grade to which the transfer is requested is not included 
in the Court’s orders of July 31, 1964, and May 18, 1965.

The United States otherwise objects to the action taken 
by the Montgomery County Board and Superintendent of 
Education, as indicated in their report to the Court dated 
August 9, 1965, rejecting 31 out of 49 applications made by 
Negro students for transfer and assignment for the com­
ing school term, September 1965.

The United States objects to the rejection of George 
Gregory Green, Jr. for enrollment in the first grade in that 
the failure of his parents to provide a birth certificate to 
the School Board is not sufficient reason for arbitrarily 
assigning him to a Negro school.

The United States objects to the rejection of the other 
Negro students listed in the report to the Court for the 
following reasons:

(a) The imposition of any restricting criteria in acting 
upon applications of Negro students for transfer and as-



275

signment tends to perpetuate assignments which were orig­
inally based on race.

(b) The limited capacity of a school to which transfer is 
sought cannot be used to deny applications submitted by 
Negro students unless white students who attend that school 
live closer than the Negro students requesting transfer

—231—
thereto. Prior assignments to schools, based on race, should 
not be considered in determining priority in Negro ap­
plicants and white students.

(c) The Negro students who requested assignment to 
schools which do not provide the grade level work required 
by those students were not given an opportunity to make a 
second choice.

Chaeles W. Quaintance 
Attorney
Department of Justice

Certificate of Service (omitted in printing)



276

- 2 3 2 -
O rder

(Filed August 27, 1965)

I n the
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle District of A labama 
Northern D ivision

Pursuant to the order of the Court made and entered 
herein on August 16, 1965, the objections of the United 
States and the plaintiffs to the action taken by the Mont­
gomery County Board of Education and the Superintendent 

>  of Education of said county as that action is reflected in 
\ , their report of August 9, 1965, were heard on August 26,

\  "^Upon consideration of said objections and the evidence
presented in support thereof and in opposition thereto, this 

UCourt finds and concludes that in some respects the objec­
tions are well taken and in other respects the objections 

t /  are to be overruled; specifically, the action of the defen­
dants in denying the requested transfers of Woodrow Aus­
tin, Gloria Jean Beamen, Eloise Boswell, Esau Carter, 
Belinda Joyce Green, George Gregory Green, Jr., Hattie 
Bell Harper, Horace Nettles, III, Doris Jean Packs, Mary 
Estella Perry, Minerva Elizabeth Relf, Woodrow C. Sadler, 
Earnestine Scales, Melvin Scales, Betty Jean Scott, Bill 
Scott, Sheryl D. Seay, Willis Tolliver, Jr., Lennon Whitlow, 
Jr., Andrew Russell Whitlow, Major Eugene Whitlow, 
Walter Jerome Whitlow, Shirley Ann Whitlow, Clemmie 
Williams, and Jeffrey Williams, did not violate the opinion 
and decree of this Court of July 31, 1964. The basis for



277

denying the transfer applications of each of these indi-
—233—

viduals was not by reason of any policy, practice, custom 
and usage of maintaining and operating a compulsory bi- 
racial school system in Montgomery County, Alabama; the 
denial of the transfers of these individuals was through the 
application of acceptable criteria. The action of the Board 
in denying the transfers to these applicants is, therefore, 
affirmed. The objections as filed by the plaintiffs and the 
United States to the rejection of these applicants for trans­
fer are Ordered to be and each is denied.

As to the applications for transfer of Delores Rosetta 
Boyd, Janice Eileen Caple, Arlam Carr, Jr., John Harrison 
McCain, Joan Mastin and Patricia Lee Oliver, this Court 
finds that the defendants, in processing and refusing to 
approve the applications of these individuals for transfer 
and assignment, subjected these Negro students to proce­
dures to which white children desiring to transfer from one 
school to another in the Montgomery County school system 
were not subjected. The defendants, in refusing to approve 
the applications of these students, applied criteria not uni­
formly applied to all students, but, instead, applied criteria 
relating solely to Negro students seeking transfer from 
“Negro” to “white” schools in the Montgomery County 
school system; the use and application of such criteria de­
nies these Negro students equal protection of the law se­
cured to them under the Fourteenth Amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States and denies these Negro 
students of their rights as decreed by this Court on July 
31, 1964. I t is, therefore, the Order, J udgment and Decree 
of this Court that the applications for transfer of these 
students heretofore denied by the defendants, be approved. 
It is further Ordered that the objections by the plaintiffs



278

and the United States to the denial of said applications be 
and each is sustained.

It is the further Order, J udgment and Decree of this 
Court (1) that the defense take immediate and necessary 
steps to advise each of the following that his or her appli­
cation for transfer has been accepted and (2) that the 
defendants take the necessary steps toward processing the 
applications of these students for admission into Sidney 
Lanier High School:

Delores Rosetta Boyd John Harrison McCain
Janice Eileen Caple Joan Mastin
Arlam Carr, Jr. Patricia Lee Oliver

It is further Ordered that the defendants take immediate 
and appropriate action toward advising each of the stu­
dents, and parents, whose application was approved for 
transfer by said defendants as said approval is reflected in 
the report of the defendants in this Court dated August

—234—
9, 1965, and filed in this Court on said date.

From the evidence in this case and from the history of 
this case as known by the Court, the defendant Board and 
Superintendent have complied with and are continuing to 
comply with the applicable law as decreed by this Court on 
July 31, 1964. The contention on the part of the plaintiffs, 
the effect of which is that these defendants have acted in 
bad faith to the point that the Alabama Pupil Placement 
Law by its application on the part of these defendants 
should he declared unconstitutional, is not well taken. That



279

objection and request on the p a rt of the plaintiffs is Or­
d e r e d  to be and the same is hereby denied.

The action of the defendants as set out in their report to 
this Court dated August 9, 1965, is in all other respects 
Ordered to be and is hereby affirmed.

Done, this the 27th day of August, 1965.

F rank M. J ohnson, J r.
United States District Judge



2 8 0

— 2 3 5 -

Memorandum Transcript
(Filed September 15, 1965)

To i d e n t i f y  P l a i n t i f f s ’ E x h i b i t s  4 ,  5 ,  a n d  6  a d m i t t e d  a t  

HEARING IN  MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA, AUGUST 26, 1965, 
IN  ABOVE CASE.

(To i d e n t i f y  P l a i n t i f f s ’ E x h i b i t s  4  a n d  5 ,  f r o m  R e d ir e c t

E x a m i n a t i o n  o f  W a l t e r  T. McK ee b y  F r e d  D. G r a y )

*  #  *  #  #

Q. I show you, Mr. McKee, a list which has just been 
handed me by Mr. Guy in response to a subpoena; there 
is a student who has applied for this year to Lanier.

Mr. Gray: Mark this, please.
The Clerk: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit number 4 for iden­

tification.

Q. I ask you to look at that preregistration card and 
tell us the address of that child, as indicated on that ap­
plication? A. Well, of course, this address on here is 
150 South Street.

Q. All right; now, South Street—isn’t it a fact that 150 
South Street is nearer to Booker Washington than to 
Lanier? A. I  would have to look on the map; I don’t 
know exactly where South Street is.

Q. I  show you Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7. A. Now, I would 
also like to point out that these are temporary registra­
tions here; of course, when that child actually comes to 
school and fills out a permanent registration card, of 
course, there may be other factors that might be checked.



281

Q. Scott—South Street is—Union, McDonough, High, 
Grove—here is South Street, if you will notice. A. Well, 
I don’t know how far—what—where—which way 150 would 
be, have to have a City Directory.

Q. I t would be approximately near Court Street, it is 
one block from the other end of it. A. Well, let’s see, now; 
Lanier would be where?

Q. Lanier is down here at Fairview. A. It is right here, 
isn’t it?

Q. And Booker Washington is— A. It might be; I don’t 
know.

—236—
Q. —is right here? A. I would have to measure it; it 

is not a Avhole lot of difference there.
Q. It appears to be closer to Booker Washington, doesn’t 

it? A. Well, I  couldn’t say exactly, but it would depend 
on—it’s—it’s within the proximity, I would say.

Q. Let me show you another one, s ir ; it may be in one 
exhibit.

The Clerk: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit number 5 for iden­
tification.

Q. I  show you Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 5 for identification pur­
poses, which has the name of several prospective students, 
one living at 1225 Bell Street, 610 Clayton Street, 610 
Clayton Street, and 1222 Bell Street, and ask you if you 
will look at those, and referring to the map in terms of 
their distance from their residence to Carver and their 
distance to Lanier, and tell us which school do they live 
nearest; Bell Street is in this area, Clayton is right in here? 
A. Well, I would—I would think—



2 8 2

Q. Carver would be— A. Carver is over here on Fair- 
view Avenue area; would think they would live closer to 
Lanier.

Q. Well, Lanier is on Fairview, too, isn’t it? A. No, 
Lanier is about three blocks; Sears, Roebuck and all that 
is before you get to Fairview. Here is Lanier, back here, 
right here off of Marshall.

Q. This is an address— A. Carver is over here.
Q. It is an address on Bell Street, and— A. I would 

say it would be probably a little closer to Lanier; now, 
of course, the way—the way you have got to come, you 
have got to come back over here and cross those railroads 
to get here, come back.

Q. Coming—coming from Bell Street to Oak Street and 
straight out Oak Street, you would be to Fairview, you 
would be to Carver? A. You have got to come on back 
in that way to get across that bridge, yeah.

Q. Now, let me refer you to, sir, if you will, our old 
map, which we introduced in evidence sometime ago.

Mr. Robison: Have you offered those as an Ex­
hibit?

Mr. Gray: We offer these in evidence.
The Court: 4 and 5.
Mr. Robison: If the court please, we would like 

to have those records back; we have no objection 
to copies being put in. Want our records.

—237—
The Court: It will be admitted; leave granted to 

withdraw them and substitute copies. 
* * * * *

(To i d e n t if y  P l a i n t i f f s ’ E x h i b i t  6 , f r o m  D ir e c t  

E x a m in a t io n  o f  M e a d e  G u y  b y  F r e d  D . G r a y ) 

* * * * *



283

Q. And as Principal of Sidney Lanier High School, have 
you received any preregistration cards for persons moving 
into the Montgomery area? A. We made a tentative reg­
istration for those who have applied and have been eligible 
to apply.

Q. Will you tell us how the tentative registration oper­
ates, the procedure? A. We have the student and parents 
come in for a conference. We sit down with them and dis­
cuss courses they have had, where they have attended 
school before, what their choice of courses would be for 
the coming year, where they live, and these generally 
would be the things we would discuss.

Q. And have you had such conferences with some people 
during this summer? A. Yes, we have.

Q. Approximately how many? A. I  don’t handle all of 
these; we have some other people there who do; I would 
say probably two hundred to two hundred fifty.

Q. Now, were all these people that were processed the 
way you indicated, were they all white students? A. Yes.

Q. I show you, sir, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 6, ask you to look 
through those and tell us whether or not that is at least a 
portion of the persons who have preregistered at Lanier 
for this fall? A. Yes, this would be the majority of them.

Q. And those are your records you brought as a result 
of the subpoena which was served upon you? A. That 
is correct.

Q. Now, those persons, the processing of those applica­
tions did not go through the Board of Education, did they? 
A. No, they did not.

Q. And based on your preregistration, will those persons 
be admitted if they present themselves in September? A. 
Well, this will depend on a number of things; for one thing,



284

many of these people did not have records, official tran­
scripts, when they applied to n s ; for another thing, we do 
not make a careful check of the area where these people 
live, as far as their address, it is not—we do not require 
the parents’ signature and testimony from them to the 
fact that this is correct information; it is a tentative 
enrollment.

Q. So subject to getting their transcript from other 
schools, and subject to—and when you say their address, 
you mean either if they don’t—if they don’t live in the 
correct zone, ordinarily, what school would they attend? 
A. Well, these, of course, come from the areas that are 
general—that we consider to be our feeder schools, gen­
erally.

Q. Uh, huh. A. In other words, if a student applies to 
us from one of these areas, we ordinarily would accept 
that person if everything else were in order.

Q. Now, are those records a part of your feeder records, 
or are those basically people who are moving into the area 
for the first time? A. These are basically those who are 
coming into the area for the first time.

Mr. Gray: That’s right. We offer these in evi­
dence, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 6.

Mr. Robison: Now, your honor, we have no ob­
jection to that, but I again request that they be fur­
nished to us right away, because they are working 
on them today; we had to get them up this morning, 
and we would like to withdraw those this afternoon, 
and with permission to him to copy them any time 
he wants to at the school.

— 238—



285

Mr. Gray: We have no objection, your honor, as 
long as they are available for the court to see them 
to make such disposition as needed.

Mr. Robison: That is perfectly all right, but—
The Court: As I understand, you are agreeing 

that the original Exhibit be withdrawn without 
copies being made; is that what you are agreeing to ?

Mr. Gray: We are agreeing that copies may be 
substituted; yes, sir.

Mr. Robison: That’s right.
The Court: Who is going to make them, two hun­

dred and fifty copies, this afternoon? You all make 
arrangements about that, too.

Mr. Gray: I t  is my understanding—
Mr. Robison: Your honor, if we had known what 

he wanted, we would have tried to make copies, or 
made them available to him to make copies, but if 
the school is to function out there, it is necessary 
that we have them at the earliest possible date that 
the court will make them available. They were work­
ing on them today.

The Court: Is there any specific information in 
them that the court needs other than—other than 
what he has already testified to?

—239—
Mr. Gray: Nothing other than the addresses, your 

honor; it would show particular addresses and—
The Court: You want to read the addresses off 

after the hearing to the reporter and then let him 
take them on back without copies being made?

Mr. Robison: We would appreciate it, your honor.
Mr. Gray: Yes, sir.



286

The Court: Then Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 6 will not be 
admitted in evidence; you can read the addresses 
to the reporter—

Mr. Gray: Yes, sir.
The Court: —after the hearing.

* * * * *

G l y n n  H e n d e r s o n , 

Official Court Reporter.



287

—240—
P l a i n t i f f s ’ E x h i b i t  n u m b e r  4 ,  f r o m  h e a r i n g  a t  

M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a , A u g u s t  26, 1965.

(Names and addresses only, as dictated from Exhibit 
at conclusion of hearing)

Gwendolyn Sanders,
150 South Street.

- 2 4 1 -
P l a i n t i f f s ’ E x h i b i t  n u m b e r  5 ,  f r o m  h e a r i n g  a t  

M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a , A u g u s t  26, 1965.

(Names and addresses only, as dictated from Exhibit 
at conclusion of hearing)

Helen Loraine Holmes,
1425 Bell Street.

Rebecca (Becky) Eclilund,
610 Clayton.

Elaine Echlund,
610 Clayton.

Jacob E. Barnhill, Jr.,
1222 Bell Street.

—242-
P l a i n t i f f s ’ E x h i b i t  n u m b e r  6 ,  f r o m  h e a r i n g  a t  

M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a , A u g u s t  26, 1965.

(Names and addresses only, as dictated from Exhibit 
at conclusion of hearing)

George C. Pittinger,
17 Mildred Street.



Howard Hoylt Ratliff, 
502 Holcombe Street.

288

Mary Ann Holmes,
142 Wade Street.

Michael G. Mills,
3921 Oak Street.

James M. Miller, Jr.,
2229 Carter Hill Road.

Linda Faye Bolton,
321 E. Jeff Davis.

Sarah Edna Brown,
Route 6, Box 243.

Lincoln Daniel Brown, 
Route 6, Box 243.

Michael Devlin Make,
1063 Druid Hills.

Altin Goings Stanley, 
125-C, Route 6.

Harry Harshman Bruce, 
3534 Norman Bridge Road.

James Cary Abernathy,
539 South Perry Street.

Mary Mallory Adams,
1115 South Court Street.



289

Ronald Trevor Adams, III,
1115 South Court Street.

Ruby Lemerle Adkins,
22 Davis Drive.

Debra (Debbie) Anderson,
3943 Princeton.

Linda Anderson,
3943 Princeton.

—243—
Alice Anne Bacon,
Quarters 4-C, Maxwell Air Force Base.

William Jackson Barton, Jr.,
3444 Warrenton Road.

Robert Beatow,
711 Briarcliff Road.

Robert Joseph Benschine,
2503 Jasmine Road.

Angeline Bivens,
695 Cloverdale Road.

Gwynn Boardman,
100 Pocahontas Road.

Milton Casey Bolt,
Quarters 305, Maxwell Air Force Base.

Alexis L. Braddy,
Quarters 605-B, Maxwell Air Force Base.



290

Shannan Lee Braddy,
Quarters 605-B, Maxwell Air Force Base.

Judith Lynne Braucher,
3567 Berkley.

David Lee Brown,
328 Tanglewood Drive.

Margaret V. Bruenner,
1335 Avalon Lane.

Christine (Chris) Burkett,
2719 Newport Road.

Vincent Arthur Campbell,
121 Shadyside Lane.

Lu Anne Laurine Cardray,
332 Mooreland Road.

Lynn Carter,
3490 Cloverdale Road.

Darrell Carter,
Route 3, Box 260-C.

Jean Carver,
2105 Beverly Drive.

Agatha Grace Catechi,
3320 Montezuma Road.

Mary Catechi,
3320 Montezuma Road.



Ann Grayson Chalker, 
2758 Argyle Road.

291

William Gerald Chalker,
2758 Argyle Road.

Colleen Cordelia Chapman,
2115 College Street.

Leslie Linder Chapman,
1215 College Street.

Nancy Ann Coker,
2537 College Street.

—244—
John Wayne Collett,
3103 Boxwood Drive.

Katherine Cook,
1439 Gilmer Avenue.

Cid Diane Copeland,
520-B Magnolia.

Charlotte Dianne Cottingham,
160 Jones Street.

Carroll Earl Craig,
3248 Braeburn.

Rodney Scott Crum,
2198 Beverly Drive.

Donna Mae Culbertson,
Route 6, Box 196.



292

Cynthia Ann Daries,
3107 North Colonial Drive.

Carolyn Gay Darnold,
2192 Beverly Drive.

Sharon Lee Denniston,
301 South Anton Drive.

Carol Lee Doti,
3528 Cambridge Road.

Toni Ann Dunagan,
3214 Southmont Drive.

Patricia Dwyer,
34 Spring Valley Road.

Susan Dwyer,
34 Spring Valley Road.

Jeanne Elizabeth Edwards, 
2240 Country Club Drive.

Richard Parker Evans,
1415 East Fairview Avenue.

Clyde Preston Evely,
1365 Avalon Lane.

Nancy Carol Farkapa,
3385 Gilmer.

Sophrenia Jean Franklin, 
3399 Southmont Drive.



293

James Alan Fregin,
Quarters 6110, Maxwell Air Force Base.

William Michael Fullilove,
523-C, Maxwell Air Force Base.

Keith Calvin Gatchell,
2191 Beverly Drive.

Gordon Ray Gauthier,
327 Truett Drive.

—245—
Gregory Dean Gauthier,
327 Truett Drive.

Belinda Jane Gehle,
Quarters 605-C, Maxwell Air Force Base.

Suellen Gehle,
Quarters 605-C, Maxwell Air Force Base.

Terri Lynn Gildow,
Route 4, Box 325-B, Seibels Road.

Laurinda Jean Garmorn,
1262 Breckinham Drive.

Barbara Jean Grossman,
3525 Bridlewood Drive.

Nancy Elaine Gwynn,
2733 South Colonial Drive.

Richard Paul Gwynn,
2733 South Colonial Drive.



294

Lynda Dale Hakala,
Route 4, Box 2220, Woodley Road.

Debbie Hall,
Quarters 536-A, Maxwell Air Force Base.

Marla Hansen,
3449 South Court.

Hans Hardin,
4251 Sunshine Drive.

Harrison Howell Dodge (Hal) Heiberg,
3114 Woodley Road.

Caren Ragnhild Heiberg,
3114 Woodley Road.

John Richard Heninger,
2618 Wildwood Drive.

David Horne,
2711 Fisk Road.

Stephen Horne,
2711 Fisk Road.

Cornelius (Neil) Jackson,
2782 Baldwin Brook Drive.

Karen Elaine Johnson,
27-B, Turner Boulevard, Maxwell Air Force Base.

Mary Mamston Johnson,
3623 Cambridge Road.



295

Ralph Rav Jones, Jr., 
1119 Buckingham.

W. Roger Joyee,
1743 Croom Drive.

Katherine Leslie Keheley, 
1513 South Perry Street.

Mary Katherine Keeler,
3101 North Colonial Drive.

Karen Rose Kennealy,
Quarters 603-C, Maxwell Air Force Base.

Dale Boyd Kimsey,
1211 South Perry Street.

Melbourne Kimsey, II,
1211 South Perry Street.

J. Bryan Lauson,
3043 North Colonial.

—246—

Charles Michael Law,
1101 Westmoreland.

Shari Lea Lane (McEleath), 
3547 Southmont Drive.

John Kenneth Lerohl,
3431 Gilmer Court.

Karen Dodd Lerohl, 
3431 Gilmer Court.



296

K. Richard Lindow, Jr.,
Quarters 514-D, Maxwell Air Force Base.

Gary Alan Long,
2638 Fisk Road.

John Terrance (Terry) Lonsdale,
3699 Berkley Drive.

Cheryl Lynn Cardray,
332 Mooreland Road.

Candance McCulluch,
Quarters 609-B, Maxwell Air Force Base.

John Malcolm Mclnnis, Jr.,
2169 Mona Lisa Drive.

William Arnold McKee,
248 South Boulevard.

Marilyn McKinney,
2711 Argyle Road.

Thomas A. McKinney,
2711 Argyle Road.

Mary Lee MacWilliams,
3474 Gilmer Avenue.

Nancy Ann Macomber,
1122 Barley Drive.

George Mainzer,
1109 South Perry.



David Alan Mann, 
702 Lynwood Drive.

297

Pamela Ann Massey,
4433 Wright Street.

Constance Webber Mayock,
329 Cullen Drive.

Jake Mendel,
3507 Thomas Avenue.

—247—
John A. Merlo,
1113 Goode Street.

Thanas McDowell Mish,
6 Prado.

Lucy Monroe,
2405 College Street.

Rosa Linda Montemayor,
1376 Devonshire Drive.

Jacqueline Jo Morris,
3958 Thomas Avenue.

Ann Murphy,
Quarters 607-C, Maxwell Air Force Base.

Karen Jean Murphy,
651 Wesley Drive.

Bill Anthony Myers,
Quarters 614-C, Maxwell Air Force Base.



298

Jane Esther Nemetz,
22 E. Fairview Avenue.

Judith Ann Nemetz,
22 E. Fairview Avenue.

Madeline Bransford Nichols,
1429 Gilmer Avenue.

Pauline Marie Ann Nolan,
Quarters 604-A, Maxwell Air Force Base.

Wilda Maria O’Steen,
3449 Wilmington Road.

Mia Oxley,
3106 North Colonial Drive.

Linda Marcelle Parker,
2764 South Colonial.

Jill Ellen Patterson,
Quarters 423, Maxwell Air Force Base.

Hilliard Oyers (Kip) Peavy, III,
142 North Ilaardt Drive.

Jacqueline Lee Perez,
19 Howard Street.

Cristine Teckla Peterson,
3461 Princeton Road.

Pryor Harris Plumlee, III,
3729 Princeton Drive.



Angela Paulos,
379 Larchmont Drive.

299

Gaby Marlene Prado,
3620 Kelly Lane.

Avery Lynn Price,
3531 Berkley Drive.

Robert Lyson Proctor,
3050 Boxwood Avenue.

—248—
Michele Christine Pugh,
3213 North Colonial Drive.

Penny Tlierese Quinn,
2168 Mona Lisa Drive.

Pamela Ann Ratti,
511-C, Maxwell Air Force Base.

Paul Arthur Ratti,
511-C, Maxwell Air Force Base.

Brenda Joyce Ray,
1 Stuart Street.

Daniel Benge Reid,
100 Spring Valley Road.

Z. O. Riddle, III,
3799 Maclamar Road.

Elizabeth Ann Roberson, 
133 South Boulevard.



Kevin Herbert Roche, 
1102 Glen Gratton.

300

Elizabeth Wells Romanek,
3444 Princeton Road.

Michael Anthony Rowan,
4223 Amherst Road.

Jennie Elizabeth Schultes,
43-D, Maxwell Air Force Base.

Edward Durden Sellers,
Apartment 15-D, The Prado.

Robert Jack Shell, II,
3334 Carter Hill.

Susan Ursula Shimonkevitz,
2238 Rosemont Drive.

Randal Eugene Shiver,
2150 Mona Lisa Drive.

Ronald E. Showalter,
Quarters 224, Inner Circle, Maxwell Air Force Base.

Judy Elaine Smith,
3719 Southmont Drive.

Sandra Smith,
3131 Woodley Terrace.

Suzanne Meredith Smith,
3112 Fernway Drive.



Kerry Jean Smothers, 
3601 Audubon.

301

Andrew Lytle Stergiades,
509 Briarcliff Road.

Glen W. Stockton, Jr.,
3121 Partridge.

Joan Burnice Suggs,
Route 1, Box 286.

—249—
Katherine Sundstrom,
2657 Burkelaun Drive.

Charles William Sydnoy,
710 East Edgemont Avenue.

Lawrence Joseph Taylor,
Quarters 405, Maxwell Air Force Base.

Gregory James Trammell,
2757 South Colonial.

Rick Cullen Trammell,
2757 South Colonial Drive.

Patricia Underwood,
Quarters 221, Maxwell Air Force Base.

Guy R. Van Sickle,
2650 Fisk Road.

Michele Veiluva,
2718 Argyle Road.



302

Nancy Ellen Vickery, 
1704 South Court Street.

Rodney Waltman,
Route 6, Box 2.

Maura Ward,
2511 College Street.

Jo Ann Watson,
116 Spring Valley Road.

Penelope Anne Wayne,
3513 Audubon Road.

Ronald W. Weaver,
Maxwell Air Force Base.

Diane Carol Wells,
1116 Woodbridge Drive.

John Robert (Bob) Whetstone, 
254 South Boulevard.

Glenn Robert Williams,
623 Iris Lane.

Joyce Young,
350 Larchmont Drive.

Belinda Ann Sapponi,
2516 Ashlawn Drive.

Robert Lewis Zeigler,
737-A, Maxwell Air Force Base.

Robert L. Zoerb,
Route 1, Box 327.



T

( -250—
Defendants’ Plan for Desegregation

(Filed January 14, 1966)

I n  t h e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or  t h e  M id d l e  D is t r ic t  o f  A l a b a m a  

N o r t h e r n  D iv is io n

Now come the Defendants in the above entitled cause, 
and, as required by the Order of this Court dated May 18, 
1965, submit the following complete plan for desegrega­
tion:

1. Assignm ents:

All existing school assignments shall continue without 
change except when transfers or assignments are author­
ized by the Superintendent of Education of Montgomery 
County, Alabama under the supervision and review of the 
Board of Education of Montgomery County, Alabama.

Pupils entering any grade to which this plan shall have 
become applicable and pupils otherwise entering the school 
system for the first time when this plan shall have become 
applicable to the grade entered, shall be assigned without 
regard to race as is provided hereinafter.

2. Transfer and Assignment:

A. (1) Parents or legal guardians of pupils residing in 
Montgomery County, Alabama prior to March 31, of each 
year, in grades to which this plan shall have become ap­
plicable wishing school assignment for the pupils to a school

—251-



304

attended only by pupils of a race other than that of the 
applicant, prior to the entry of the judgment of this Court 
in this case in July of 1964, shall make application to that 
end, as hereinafter provided, between March 1 and March 
31, of each year, for the next succeeding school year, be­
ginning with the school year 1966-1967.

(2) After this plan has become applicable to all grades, 
as hereinafter provided; then, parents or legal guardians 
of pupils residing in Montgomery County, Alabama, prior 
to March 31, of each year, wishing school assignment to a 
school other than that which the pupil is then attending, 
shall make application to that end, as hereinafter provided, 
between March 1 and March 31, of each year.

B. (1) Parents or legal guardians of pupils entering the 
Montgomery County School System for the first time in 
grades to which this plan shall have become applicable and 
not having been residents of Montgomery County, Alabama 
on the preceding March 31, and wishing school assignment 
for the pupil to attend a school other than a school for­
merly attended by pupils of their race, prior to the entry 
of the judgment of this Court in this case in July of 1964, 
shall make application to that end at the Office of the 
Superintendent of Education of Montgomery County, Ala­
bama and said application shall be promptly processed

—252—
without regard to race in accordance with the provisions 
of this plan.

(2) After this plan has become applicable to all grades, 
as hereinafter provided; then, parents or legal guardians 
of pupils entering the Montgomery County School System 
for the first time and not having been residents of Mont­



305

gomery County, Alabama on the preceding March 31, wish­
ing school assignment, shall make application to that end 
as hereinafter provided.

3. Assignment A uthority :

In the assignment or transfer of pupils under this plan 
in or to specific schools, subject to the supervision and 
review by the Board of Education of Montgomery County, 
Alabama, the Superintendent of Education shall be charged 
with the responsibility for the assignment or transfer of 
pupils.

4. Assignment Request:

A. Until all grades in the Montgomery County School 
System have been desegregated in accord with the provi­
sion of this plan, all applications for assignment to grades 
reached under this plan must be filed on or before March 
31, of each year, on forms obtained from the Office of the 
Superintendent of Education of Montgomery County, Ala­
bama by the respective parent or legal guardian of the 
pupils. The proper forms will there be furnished to a 
parent or legal guardian of pupils on request between 
March 1 and March 31, of each year. Separate applications 
must be filed for each pupil for whom an assignment or 
transfer is requested.

B. After this plan has become applicable to all grades, 
assignment requests shall be processed as follows:

(1) A parent or legal guardian of pupils desiring to at­
tend a school other than the one the pupil is then attend­
ing, except as hereinafter provided in paragraph 4B(3), 
may obtain forms for transfer or assignment between



30G

March 1 and March 31, of each year, from the principal of
—253—

the school to which the assignment is desired and said 
form must be completed, signed and returned by a parent 
or legal guardian between March 1 and March 31, of each 
year, to the principal. Separate applications must be filed 
for each pupil for whom an assignment is requested.

(2) A parent or legal guardian of pupils entering the 
Montgomery County School System for the first time and 
not having been residents of Montgomery County, Alabama 
on the preceding March 31, wishing assignment as author­
ized in paragraph 2B(2) above, may obtain application 
forms from the office of the principal of the school to which 
assignment is desired and promptly return the completed 
and signed application to such office. Separate applications 
must be filed for each pupil for whom an assignment is 
requested.

(3) A preregistration period shall be held for the first, 
seventh and tenth grades between March 1 and March 31, 
of each year. During this period, a parent or legal guar­
dian of a pupil who will enter the first grade shall obtain 
application forms from the principal of the school to which 
assignment is desired and shall complete, sign and return 
the application form to the principal on or before March 
31, of each year. During this period, pupils entering the 
seventh and tenth grades shall obtain application forms 
from the principal of the school to which assignment is de­
sired and this application form shall be completed and 
signed by the parent or legal guardian and returned to the 
principal on or before March 31, of each year. Separate 
applications must be filed for each pupil for whom regis­
tration is sought.



307

C. All assignment requests shall be processed by the 
Assignment Authority without discrimination on a basis 
of race or color, using only factors unrelated to race, such 
as parent and pupil choice, school attendance areas, prox­
imity, availability of transportation, safety in routes and 
capacity.

—254—
D. Notice of action taken :

(1) Notice of the action taken by the Assignment A u­
thority on each application filed under this plan will be 
made on or before June 1 of each year to the parent or 
legal guardian of each pupil for whom the application was 
made, until this plan is applicable to all grades.

(2) After this plan has become applicable to all grades 
only those applicants whose requested assignment is denied 
will be notified. Such notice shall be given on or before 
June 1 of each year, or in cases of those entering the sys­
tem for the first time, prompt notice shall be given, to the 
parent or legal guardian.

5. Applicability of P lan:

This plan shall have application in the school year be­
ginning September, 1966, to the 12th, 11th, 10th, 9th, 8th, 
7th, and 2nd, 1st and 3rd grades. This plan’s applicability 
shall be extended through continued school years thereafter 
to include additional grades as follows:

For the school year beginning September, 1967, the 4th 
and 5th grades.

For the school year beginning September, 1968, the 6th 
grade.



308

Notice of Plan

(1) Until this plan shall have become applicable to all 
grades in the Montgomery County School System, the Su­
perintendent of Education of Montgomery County shall 
direct publication in a daily newspaper in the City of Mont­
gomery, Alabama; a notice in accord with the sample no­
tice attached to this plan as “Exhibit A”. This publication 
shall be made twice each week during the last two weeks in 
February of each successive year.

(2) After this plan has become applicable to all grades 
in the Montgomery County School System, the Super­
intendent of Education of Montgomery County shall 
direct publication as set out in paragraph (1) above in a

—2 5 5 -
daily newspaper in the City of Montgomery, Alabama, the 
notice which is attached hereto as “Exhibit B”.

Respectfully submitted,

H i l l , R o b is o n  a n d  B e l s e r  

Attorneys for the Defendants

Certificate of Service (omitted in printing).



309

“EXHIBIT A”

Notice To All Parents Or Guardians Of Pupils In The 
Montgomery County Public School System

In accordance with an order of the United States Dis­
trict Court for the Middle District of Alabama, the Mont­
gomery County Board of Education will desegregate grades 
one, two and three of the elementary schools, grades seven, 
eight and nine of the junior high schools, and grades ten, 
eleven and twelve of the senior high schools for the school 
year commencing in September 1966, and for other years 
as applicable.

As the parents or guardians of pupils who will attend 
these grades in September 1966, you may submit an ap­
plication to the Office of the Superintendent of Education 
of Montgomery County for your child to attend a school 
that was formerly attended only by members of another 
race. You may obtain the applications for assignment and 
transfer at the Office of the Superintendent of Education 
of Montgomery County between March 1 and March 31, 
1966, on Monday through Friday, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 
p.m. You must complete, sign and return the application to 
the Office of the Superintendent of Education on or before 
March 31, 1966. It is not necessary for more than one 
parent to pick up, sign or return the application.

All applications filed within the time and in the manner 
as stated above will he processed and acted on without dis­
crimination as to the race of the applicants. You will he 
notified on or before June 1,1966, whether your application 
has been accepted or rejected.

The Montgomery County Public School System is pres­
ently divided into elementary, junior high and high school

— 256—



310

attendance areas. If you do not already know what school 
attendance area you reside in, you may obtain this informa­
tion by either calling by telephone or going in person to 
the Office of the Superintendent of Education for the 
Montgomery County School System.

EXHIBIT B”
- 2 5 7 -

Notice To All Parents Or Guardians Of Pupils In The 
Montgomery County Public School System

In accordance with the orders of the United States 
District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, all 
grades in the Montgomery County School System have 
been desegregated.

As the parents or legal guardian of pupils who will a t­
tend schools of the Montgomery County School System 
during the next school year commencing in September, you 
may submit application for your child to attend any school 
in this system. If you desire for your child to attend a 
school other than the one the child is now attending, you 
may obtain an application from the principal of the school 
to which attendance is desired between March 1 and March 
31. You must complete, sign and return the application to 
such principal on or before March 31. It is not necessary 
for more than one parent to pick up, sign or return the 
application.

A preregistration period shall be held for the first, 
seventh, and tenth grades between March 1 and March 31, 
of each year. During this period a parent or legal guardian 
of a pupil who will enter the first grade shall obtain 
application forms from the principal of the school to which



311

assignment is desired, and shall complete, sign and return 
the application form to the principal on or before March 
31, of each year. During this period, pupils entering the 
seventh and tenth grades shall obtain application forms 
from the principal of the school to which assignment is 
desired and this application form shall be completed and 
signed by the parent or legal guardian and returned to 
the principal on or before March 31, of each year. Separate 
applications must be filed for each pupil for whom regis­
tration is sought.

All applications filed within the time and in the manner 
as stated above will be processed and acted upon without 
discrimination as to the race of the applicant. You will 
he notified on or before June 1 in the event your application

—258—
has been rejected.

The Montgomery County Public School System is pres­
ently divided into elementary, junior high and high school 
attendance areas. If you do not already know what school 
attendance area you reside in, you may obtain this informa­
tion by either calling by telephone or going in person to 
the Office of the Superintendent of Education for the 
Montgomery County School System.



312

Order as to Filing Objections
(Filed January 19, 1966)

I n  t h e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or  t h e  M id d l e  D is t r ic t  o f  A l a b a m a  

N o r t h e r n  D iv is io n

As directed by this Court in its order made and entered 
herein on May 18, 1965, the defendants have filed with this 
Court as of January 14, 1966, their detailed plan for the 
operation of the Montgomery County public school sys­
tem commencing with the 1966-1967 school year.

The objections, if any, to the plan as filed by said defen­
dants on January 14,1966, are O r d e r e d  to be filed with this 
Court on or before February 18, 1966.

Done, this the 19th day of January, 1966.

- 2 5 9 -

F r a n k  M. J o h n s o n , J r .

United States District Judge



313

Objections of Amicus Curiae to 
Proposed Plan of Desegregation

(Filed February 18, 1966)

I n  the
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

F or the Middle D istrict of A l a b ama  

Northern D ivision

The United States of America, as Amicus Curiae, ob­
jects to the proposed plan of desegregation of the Mont­
gomery County School System submitted by the Defen­
dants on January 14, 1966, for the following reasons:

1. The Defendants have failed to carry their burden of 
establishing the existence of administrative difficulties to 
justify any delay in desegregating all grades.

2. The proposed plan fails to provide for the desegre­
gation of all grades by September 1967.

3. The plan fails to eliminate the effects of past racial 
assignments in grades purported to be desegregated.

4. The plan fails to provide for allowing individual 
Negroes, as an absolute right, to transfer to schools from 
which they were excluded because of their race.

5. The plan fails to provide for non-racial assignment 
of students who newly move to Montgomery County or who 
move from one attendance area to another.

- 2 6 0 -



314

6. The plan fails to provide for individual notice to 
parents of the rights and procedures available under the 
plan.

7. The plan fails to provide for Negroes enrolled in 
schools attended by white students to have full use and 
participation in all activities, facilities, and programs, in­
cluding school bus transportation, without any distinction 
based upon race or color.

—261—
8. The plan fails to provide for the elimination of race 

as a factor in the hiring, placing, and retention of teachers 
and for the desegregation of faculty in all grades covered 
by the plan.

B en H ardeman 
United States Attorney

J ohn M. R osenberg 
Attorney

Mason C. L ewis 
Attorney

Certificate of Service (omitted in printing)



315

Order as to Hearing on Objections
(Filed February 18, 1966)

In  t h e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle D istrict of Alabama 
Northern D ivision

For the purpose of hearing the objections filed herein 
on this date to the proposed plans of desegregation as sub­
mitted by the defendants in each of the above-captioned 
cases, it is Ordered that the above-captioned cases be 
and they are hereby consolidated for said purpose.

It is further Ordered that the objections be heard in the 
Lnited States District Courtroom, Montgomery, Alabama, 
commencing at 9 a.m., Friday, March 11, 1966.

Done, this the 18th day of February, 1966.

- 2 6 2 -

F r a n k  M. J o h n s o n , J r .

United States District Judge



316

Plaintiffs’ Objections to Defendants’
Plan of School Desegregation

(Filed February 18, 1966)

I n the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F oe the Middle District of Alabama 
Northern D ivision

Come now the Plaintiffs in the above-styled cause, by 
and through their attorneys of record, and object to the 
Defendants’ plan to desegregate the public schools of 
Montgomery County, Alabama; said Plan was filed in this 
Court on or about the 14th day of January, 1966, and 
as grounds for said objection assign the following:

1. The Defendants’ entire plan is discriminatory and 
is based on race in that, “all existing school assignments 
shall continue without change except when transfer or 
assignment is authorized by the superintendent of edu­
cation of Montgomery County, Alabama;” that the initial 
assignment of these pupils, prior to the Order of this Court 
on July 31, 1964, was based on race; any plan which con­
tinues such existing assignments is in violation of said 
Order.

2. The Plan fails to provide for the initial assignments 
of students on a nonracial basis. The Defendants propose 
to initially assign all students in grades on the basis of

- 2 6 4 -
race for the 1966-67 school year. I t is only after the initial 
assignments of students on the basis of race that students,

— 2 6 3 -



317

in grades being desegregated for the 1966-67 school year, 
who wish to attend school with students of another race 
can then apply for transfer. Defendants’ proposal to ini­
tially assign students on the basis of race and then to 
permit transfers under certain conditions is clearly un­
constitutional.

Plaintiffs submit that defendants should be required to 
initially assign all students in grades being desegregated 
without regard to dual school zones or dual attendance 
areas based on race, or in the alternative, to grant com­
plete freedom of choice to all students to be affected by 
the plan for the school year 1966-67 without regards to 
dual school zones or attendance areas. See Singleton v. 
Jackson Municipal Separate School District, No. 22527 
(5th Cir., January 26, 1966).

3. The Plan fails to provide for desegregation of all 
twelve (12) grades by September, 1966. Under Defen­
dants’ proposed plan complete desegregation of all twelve 
(12) grades will not be effective until the beginning of 
the 1968-69 school year. This delay in desegregation has 
not been justified by a showing by the defendant of ad­
ministrative difficulties. Brown v. Board of Education, 349 
U.S. 294 (1955); Goss v. Board of Education of the City 
of Knoxville, Tennessee, 373 U.S. 683 (1963). At this 
stage, even alleged administrative problems are closely 
scrutinized. See Bradley v. School Board of the City of 
Richmond, Virginia, and Gilliam v. School Board of the 
City of Hopewell, Virginia, 15 L.ed.2d 187 (Nov. 1965); 
Rogers v. Paul, 15 L.ed.2d 265 (Dec. 1965).

Plaintiffs submit defendants should plan for complete 
desegregation of all twelve (12) grades by September,



318

—265—
1966. See Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School 
District, No. 22527 (5th Cir., January 26, 1966); Price v. 
Denison Independent School District Board of Education, 
348 F.2d 110 (5th Cir. 1965). The defendants have failed 
to justify the delay until the 1968-69 school year required 
by the proposed plan.

4. The Plan fails to provide the right to transfer for 
students in grades not covered by the Plan for the 1966-67 
school year. Students in grades not reached by defen­
dants’ plan for the 1966-67 school year, have an absolute 
right to transfer to schools from which they have been 
excluded because of race. “Administrative problems may 
justify and orderly transitional period during which the 
system may be desegregated several grades at a time. 
But the existence of this transitionary period cannot jus­
tify the denial of any individual student’s constitutional 
right to freedom from discrimination. The school children 
in still-segregated grades in Negro schools are there by 
assignment based on their race. This assignment was 
unconstitutional. They have an absolute right, as indi­
viduals, to transfer to schools from which they were ex­
cluded because of their race.” Singleton v. Jackson Mu­
nicipal Separate School District, supra, at p. 9.

,5. The Plan fails to provide for the desegregation and 
non-discriminatory hiring, placing and retention offaculty 

d administrative personnel. The Defendants’ proposal 
oes not provide for the elimination of race as basis in 

employment, assignment or retention of teachers or ad­
ministrators. Plaintiffs regard it as essential that defen­
dants’ Plan for desegregation of any public school system



319

provide an adequate start toward the elimination of race
—266—

as a basis for employment, retention and assignment of 
teachers, administrators and other staff personnel. See 
Bradley v. School Board of the City of Richmond, Virginia, 
arnTGUliam v. School Board of the City of Hopewell, Vir­
ginia, 15 L.ed.2d 187 (Nov. 1965); Rogers v. Paul, 15
L.ed.2d 265 (Dec. 1965). The Fifth Circuit Court of Ap­
peals has interpreted these decisions to require a prompt 
and meaningful start toward teacher desegregation.

6. Defendants’ desegregation Plan provides only for the 
consideration of transfer requests made at the instance 
of the student. The Plan does not provide for removing 
those factors from the school system which tend to en­
courage, promote and perpetuate segregation, e.g., “feeder” 
schools which operate on a racial basis, segregated teach­
ing, professional and administrative staff, segregated spe­
cial programs [e.g., classes for the handicapped or gifted, 
adult, vocational or commercial education or kindergarten 
programs]. In short, defendants’ desegregation Plan is 
not designed to eliminate segregation from the Montgomery 
public school system.

7. The defendants’ plan does not attempt nor can it 
effectuate desegregation of the public schools of Mont­
gomery County, Alabama.

8. The Plan makes no provisions, providing bus trans­
portation on a reorganized non-racial basis.

9. The Plan does not provide for the elimination of 
school zone lines based on race, as this Court found those



320

lines to exist on Page three (3) of the Memorandum 
Opinion.

10. The Plan provides no procedure for the elimination 
of the “feeder system,” which had been set up and which 
this Court found to be operating on a racial basis.

—267—
11. The Plan does not provide for the defendants to 

perform “its clear legal duty of taking affirmative steps 
to provide and operate a desegregated educational sys­
tem in Montgomery County, Alabama,” on the contrary, 
the Plan places the burden of desegregating the public 
school system of Montgomery County, Alabama, on Negro 
pupils and their parents and does not provide for initi­
ation of desegregation by the defendants, and as such 
this conflicts with the Opinion and Judgment of this Court 
and is in conflict with the decision of the United States 
Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Fifth Circuit.

12. The Plan fails to abolish the continued use of racial 
factors in the planning of the extra-curricular activities, 
construction of schools, planning of school budgets and 
the disbursement of school funds.

12. (a) The Plan fails to set ascertainable standards 
for the consideration of the applications for assignment or 
application of pupils to a particular school.

12. (b) I t fails to provide for the assignment of pupils 
on a non-racial basis.

12. (c) The Plan fails to abolish the present dual scheme 
of school attendance area lines.



321

12. (d) It affirmatively appears that this Plan has the 
purpose and effect of providing token desegregation of 
schools and the school system and does not meet the mini­
mum requirement and Laws of the land with respect to 
desegregating public schools.

—268—
13. Section two (Transferring Assignment) of the De­

fendants’ Desegregation plan Establishes dual procedures 
and apparently dual time limits for pupils desiring “school 
assignment to a school attended only by pupils of a race 
other than that of the applicant prior to the entering of 
the judgment of the Court in this case, in July of 1964.” 
In effect, this provision establishes one procedure to be 
used by pupils desiring to attend an integrated school and 
another procedure for pupils desiring to attend a colored 
school. Therefore, this plan is based on race and is un­
constitutional.

14. That portion of the plan which requires the parents 
or legal Guardians of pupils who desired to attend an 
integrated school to personally obtain and personally re­
turn to the office of the Superintendent of Education the 
application for transfer is designed to discourage Negro 
parents to send their children to formally white school. 
No such requirement is necessary for white children to 
transfer to other white schools and no such requirement 
is necessary for Negro children to transfer to other Negro 
schools.

15. Said Plan fails to give a pupil who is of sufficient 
age and grade an opportunity to exercise his choice of the 
school which he would desire to attend.



322

16. The entire plan of the defendants is unconstitutional 
in that it makes no provision compelling each pupil in 
the Montgomery County School System to exercise his 
choice of a school. The plan only comes into operation 
when a pupil desires to attend a school attended by pupils 
other than members of his race. Each pupil in the school 
system should be compelled to exercise his choice of the 
school which he desires to attend. Therefore, the defen­
dants should supply to each pupil in the school system a 
form upon which he must indicate his choice of the school 
which he desires to attend. Under no circumstances should 
the defendants reassign pupils to the school which the 
initial assignment was based on race.

17. In addition to the notice set out in the plan, the 
parents should receive a copy of said notice along with 
the report card of each pupil in the school system and a 
copy of said notice should be placed on the bulletin board

—269—
of each school in the system.

18. The plan fails to provide for desegregation of any 
new constructions and any and all consolidations of schools.

19. The defendants’ plan fails to specifically indicate 
that the dual or biracial school attendance system will be 
abolished with the application of the plan to the respective 
grades when, and as, reached by it. Stell v. Savannah- 
Cliatliam County Board of Education, supra; Lockett v. 
Board of Education of Muscogee County, Georgia, 352 
F.2d 225 (5th Cir. 1965) and Bush v. Orleans Parish School 
Board, 308 F.2d 491 (5th Cir. 1962). While students enter­
ing desegregated grades are offered a choice of schools,



323

the plan fails to indicate how students failing to exercise 
such choice will be assigned. See Singleton v. Jackson 
Municipal Separate School District, supra; Kemp v. 
Beasley, No. 18050 (8th Cir., October 7, 1965).

W herefore, plaintiffs pray that the Court will promptly 
set a hearing on plaintiffs’ objections to the plan and that 
upon such hearing the Court will grant the relief prayed 
for above. Plaintiffs further pray that this Court will 
retain jurisdiction of this cause for the purpose of granting 
such further relief as may be required by further develop­
ments.

Respectfully submitted,

Gray & Seay 
J ack Greenberg 
Charles H. J ones, J r. 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Certificate of Service (omitted in printing)



324

—2 7 0 -
Remarks of Hon. Frank M. Johnson, Jr. at Conclusion 

of Hearing of March 11, 1966

I n  the

DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

F or the Middle District of Alabama 
Northern Division

(The above styled case coming on for hearing at Mont­
gomery, Alabama, March 11, 1966, before Hon. Frank
M. Johnson, Jr., Judge, a hearing was had, at the con­
clusion of which the following remarks were made by 
the Court:)

The Court: All right, gentlemen, the Court will approve 
in part and disapprove in part the proposed plan that has 
been objected to and been under scrutiny.

As to the grades and schedule for desegregation, the 
Board proposes to add to the Freedom of Choice grades 
grades three and eight. The Court approves that, except 
they should add grade four, also; that is commencing Sep­
tember, ’66. And then in September, ’67,1 approve of what 
you propose, except we will add grade six, and that will 

of the grades, effective September, ’67. That 
then, that you propose, and with the addition of 

grade four, three, four, and eight, September, ’66, and 
grades five and six September, ’67. That will get all of 
them, won’t it?

Mr. Robison: Yes, sir.
The Court: All right. The Court feels as if you should 

follow your H.E.W. regulations as far as notice is con- 
d. You should send out choice forms and applications, 
by the children to the parents. Let the choice forms



325

choice period he from April 1 to April 30, with the choice 
forms and notice to each of the parents going out not later 
than April 1. Follow the forms that have been set out here 
in the H.E.W. regulations; they seem to cover it fairly 
adequately.

All right. As to consolidating and closing some of the 
schools, the Court feels that a number of these small, inade-

—27f—
quate schools that were established and have been operated 

~ to" pef^etuate" the dual system based on race should be 
closed. I  realize what the administrative and financial 
problems are in a school system the size of Montgomery, so 
I will not require all of them to be closed September, ’66, 
but you should get started on that and close some of them; 
I am going to leave it up to you lawyers to figure out which 
ones you are going to close by September, ’66; but approxi­
mately one third of them shoidd be closed effective Sep­
tember, ’66—certainly Abraham’s Vineyard down here right 
next door to Harrison, that should be closed; that is the 
reason it is taking a lot of money to operate the school 
system, when you operate things like that. Consider Big 
Zion to be closed and consolidated into Pintlala, and Lillian 
Dungee, consolidation into Catoma, maybe Tankersley to 
Pintlala, and I am going to leave that up to you lawyers 
representing the Board—and I am going to ask the Govern­
ment to represent the Court on this as Amicus and figure 
out which schools of this list of twenty-one of them, as set 
out on one of these Exhibits here, the evidence reflects that 
they are small rural schools, colored schools, that Mr. Mc­
Kee named in his testimony, which of the ones that can be 
closed with the least amount of administrative and financial 
difficulty.



326

The order that is going to be drawn—and the Amicus, 
after you do this conferring, will draw this order to be pre­
sented to me not less than next Friday or the last of next 
week—should eliminate any pressure that might be upon 
the Board to channel their finances into making additions 
to larger Negro schools to absorb the closing and consoli­
dation of these small rural Negro schools. I don’t want that 
to happen; that can’t be tolerated. As I understand, the 
Board already proposes to eliminate through closing and 
consolidation all of these schools, but the order should have 
some definite dates on it, and should designate the schools 
definitely; and the reason I am leaving it up to you all is 
that so you can determine which of the schools are to be 
closed September, ’66, and which of them will remain not 
longer than September, ’67. All of them should be closed by 
September, ’67. That is Abraham’s Vineyard, Alice White,

—272—
Arthur Cook, Big Zion, Cecil, Chappell Gray, G. W. Tren- 
holm, Katie Bowen, Lillian Dabney, Lillian Dungee, Mc­
Lean, McLemore, Phillips, Tankersley, Waugh, Zion Hill, 
Arrington, Woodley, Battle, McCants, and Mount Zion 
Road. Of course, those students from those schools that 
are being consolidated and closed should, as the Board pro­
poses, have Freedom of Choice, as new students coming 
into the system; I understand that is what the Board does 
propose as far as that point is concerned.

All facilities, programs, and services that are made avail­
able should be made available on a desegregated basis, and 
to that extent the Court—and the Board makes the state­
ment to the Court in brief that they are available already 
on a desegregated basis—so that part of it will be approved.

The Court will order—and you lawyers work it out, if 
you can, so as to help the Board in its administrative prob-



327

lems—will order the Board to take the necessary affirmative 
.sieps-ta eliminate the past -discriminatory assignments in 
the staff and teachers to eliminate race as a factor in hiring 
and placing and retention of faculty and staff members. 
You can, if you will, agree upon the schools where that is to 
be effective in September, ’66, and I will not expect too much 
of it in September, ’66, because of the timing. I accept Mr. 
McKee’s testimony that the bulk of that is done up until 
now; but I will expect a considerable amount of it, in line 
with the Singleton case, effective September, ’67. And 
there should be no more separate meetings of faculty and 
staff as far as the school system is concerned; that should 
be eliminated now. There is no administrative problem in 
doing th a t; it occurs to me that the separate meetings incur 
additional administrative and expense problems.

The dual transportation system should be eliminated 
completely by September, ’66. Order the geographical a t­
tendance areas abolished, and we will be through with the 
transition period by September, ’67. That will end it com­
pletely. And order the abolition of the geographical a t­
tendance areas not later than September, ’67. I see no 
reason why they should not be allowed to use them until

—273—
then, as long as their use doesn’t involve discrimination 
based upon color.

As I stated, your choice period is from April 1 to April
30. Report to the Court on the assignment and ,the-.di§posi- 
tion of applications of students by May 15. Report to the 
Courjxm or before June 15 as to the progress that you have 
made on your faculty desegregation.



328

I  believe that covers it all. I might announce that the 
lawyers have agreed, and the Court approved their agree­
ment, there is being formalized at this time an Order to be 
entered in connection with the Bullock County schools, and 
that Order is along the same lines as I have just ordered in 
the Montgomery case. And the order in the Montgomery 
case that I want drawn envisions approximately the same 
Order that was entered in the Macon County case, with the 
changes and exceptions that I  have indicated. And also the 
one that the lawyers agreed to in the Lowndes County case. 
I  understand that a school system as large as Montgomery, 
as opposed to the size of the school system in these rural 
counties, needs some additional time for transition, and the 
comments I  have just made take that into consideration. 
All right, recess Court until further order.

# # # * #
Glynn H enderson 

Official Court Reporter



329

- 2 7 4 -
Order to Execute Plan for Desegregation

(Filed March 22, 1966)

I n  t h e

DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

F oe the Middle District of Alabama 
Northern Division

In accordance with the conclusions reached by this Court 
in this matter and the evidence presented in this matter 
upon which those conclusions are based, it is hereby,

Ordered, adjudged, and decreed th a t the defendants, their 
agents, officers, employees, and successors, and all those 
in active concert or participation with them sh a ll:

1. Execute the Plan for Desegregation of the Mont­
gomery County, Alabama Public School System which is 
attached hereto and incorporated herein.

2. Report to the Court, on or before June 7, and each 
such date until further Order of this Court, the anticipated 
student enrollment in each school by race and grade for 
the next school year and report, as it occurs, any subse­
quent substantial change in enrollment affecting desegre­
gation.

3. Report to the Court by June 15, and each such date, 
until further Order of this Court, the planned assignments 
of professional staff to each school for the next school 
year by race and grade, or where appropriate, by subject 
taught or position held, and report, as it occurs, any sub­



330

sequent change in planned staff assignment affecting staff 
desegregation.

4. Report as soon as possible after the opening of school, 
but no later than September 20, and each such date until

—275—
further Order of this Court, the actual data for the items 
covered in the reports ordered in Paragraphs 2 and 3.

5. The Court specifically retains jurisdiction of the par­
ties and the cause.

Done this 22nd day of March, 1966.

F rank M. J ohnson, J r. 
United States District Judge



<$■
A

—27 0 -
PLAN FOR DESEGREGATION OF THE PUBLIC 

SCHOOL SYSTEM OF MONTGOMERY 
COUNTY, ALABAMA

I.

Grades Covered

All grades of the Montgomery County Public School 
System shall be desegregated by the Fall of 1967.

(a) 1966: Commencing with the school term in Septem­
ber 1966, grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the 
Montgomery County Public School System shall be de­
segregated and pupils assigned, without regard to race or 
color, on a freedom of choice basis as described in this 
Plan.

(b) 1967: Commencing with the school term in Septem­
ber 1967, the remaining grades, specifically grades 5 and 
6, of the Montgomery County Public School System shall 
be desegregated and pupils assigned, without regard to 
race or color, on a freedom of choice basis as described 
in this Plan.

II.

Nondiscriminatory Operation of Newly Constructed 
Schools and NeAvly Expanded Schools

Any school to be newly constructed and any school to be 
substantially expanded by the construction of additional 
classrooms will be planned, opened, expanded, and oper­
ated on a nonsegregated basis. Freedom of choice will 
cover all grades, and teachers and principals will be as­



332

signed so that the faculty is not composed of members of 
one race.

in .

Operation of the Freedom of Choice Plan

The following requirements shall apply for all students 
covered by freedom of choice under this Plan.

(a) Who May Exercise Choice: A choice of schools may 
be exercised by a parent or other adult person serving as 
the student’s parent. A student may exercise his own choice 
if he (1) is exercising a choice for the ninth or a higher 
grade, or (2) has reached the age of fifteen at the time of

—277—
the exercise of choice. Such a choice by a student is con­
trolling unless a different choice is exercised for him by 
his parent or other adult person serving as his parent dur­
ing the choice period or at such later time as the student 
exercises a choice. Each reference in this Plan to a student 
exercising a choice means the exercise of the choice, as 
appropriate, by a parent or such other adult, or by the 
student himself.

(b) Annual Exercise of Choice: Each student, both white 
and Negro, is required to exercise a free choice of schools 
annually.

(c) Choice Period: The period for exercising choice will 
commence on April 1, and end on April 30, preceding the 
school year for which choice is to be exercised. No student 
or prospective student, who exercises his choice with the 
choice period, shall be given any preference because of the 
time within the period when such choice was exercised.



333

(d) Mandatory Exercise of Choice: A failure to exer­
cise a choice within the choice period does not preclude 
any student from exercising a choice at any time before 
he commences school for the year with respect to which 
the choice applies, hut such choice may be subordinated to 
the choices of students who exercised choice before the 
expiration of the choice period. Any student who has not 
exercised his choice of school within a week after school 
opens will be assigned to the school nearest his home where 
space is available under standards for determining avail­
able space which will be applied uniformly throughout the 
system.

(e) Distribution of Explanatory Notice and Choice 
F orm : On the first school day of the choice period, an ex­
planatory notice and a choice form (Appendices A and B) 
will be sent home with each child in the Montgomery County 
Public School System. Extra copies of the explanatory 
notice and the choice form will be freely available to par­
ents, students, prospective students, and the general pub­
lic at each school in the system and at the office of the 
Superintendent.

—278—
(f) Return of Choice Form-. At the option of the person 

completing the choice form, the choice form may be returned 
by mail, in person, or by messenger to the office of the 
Superintendent.

(g) Choices not on Official Form: The exercise of choice 
may also be made by the submission in like manner of any 
other writing which contains information sufficient to iden­
tify the student and indicates that he has made a choice of 
school.



334

(h) Choice Forms B inding : Once a choice form has 
been submitted, it is binding for the entire school year and 
may not be changed except in cases of parents making dif­
ferent choices than their children under the conditions set 
forth in Paragraph III (a) of this Plan and in cases where 
compelling hardship is shown by the student.

(i) Preferences in Assignm ent: In assigning students to 
schools, no preference will be given to any student for 
prior attendance at a school, and no choice will be denied 
for any reason other than overcrowding. The Montgomery 
County Board of Education shall report to the Court each 
instance of a preference given for prior attendance at a 
school because of special circumstances. If, as a result of 
such preference, a student residing closer to the school 
than the special student is denied his choice, a report of 
the disposition of the denied student, and reasons there­
for, shall be made to the Court. In case of overcrowding 
at any school, preference will be given on the basis of the 
proximity of the school to the homes of students choosing 
it, without regard to race or color. In determining prox­
imity for the 1966-1967 school year, existing district lines 
may be employed without regard to race. All existing at­
tendance areas as defined by district lines and feeder school 
descriptions will be abolished effective 1967.

—279—
(j) Second Choice Where First Choice is Denied: Any 

student whose choice is denied must be notified in writing 
by May 30, and give his choice of each school in the system 
serving his grade level where space is available.

(k) Transfers for Special Needs: Each student must 
attend the school to which he is assigned under the fore­
going provisions, except that any student who requires a



335

course of study not offered at that school, or who is physi­
cally handicapped, may be permitted, upon his written ap­
plication, to transfer to another school which is designed 
to fit, or offers courses for his special needs.

(l) Transportation: Busses will be routed to the maxi­
mum extent feasible so as to serve each student choosing 
any school in the system. In any event, every student choos­
ing the school nearest his residence will be transported to 
the school to which he is assigned, whether or not it is his 
first choice, if that school is sufficiently distant from his 
home to make him eligible for transportation.

(m) Official Not to Influence Choice: No official, teacher, 
or employee of the school system shall require or request 
any student to submit a choice form during the choice 
period other than by the explanatory notice and the choice 
form. After the expiration of the choice period, the school 
system will make all reasonable efforts to obtain a com­
pleted choice form from each student who has not exercised 
a choice. However, at no time shall any official, teacher, 
or employee of the school system influence any parent, or 
other adult person serving as a parent, or any student, in 
the exercise of a choice, or favor or penalize any person 
because of a choice made. Information concerning indi­
vidual choices made or schools to which individual students 
are assigned will not be made public.

(n) Public Notice: On, or shortly before, the date the 
choice period opens, a notice describing the desegregation 
plan will be published in the Montgomery daily newspapers.

- 280-

Copies of this notice will be distributed at about the same 
time to all other news media in Montgomery.



336

IV .

Services, Facilities, Activities, and Programs

A student shall have full access to all services, facilities, 
activities, and programs (including transportation, ath­
letics, and other extra curricular activities) that may be 
conducted or sponsored by, or affiliated with the schools of 
the system. A student attending school for the first time 
on a desegregated basis may not be subject to any disquali­
fication or waiting period for participation in activities and 
programs, including athletics, which might otherwise apply 
because he is a transfer student.

v .
New Students

Each new student will be required to exercise a free 
choice of schools before enrollment. Each such student 
will be furnished a copy of the prescribed notice and choice 
form, by mail or in person, on the date the choice period 
opens or as soon thereafter as the school system learns 
that he plans to enroll. Each will be given an opportunity 
to exercise his choice during the choice period. A prospec­
tive student exercising his choice after the choice period 
will be given at least one week to do so.

VI.

Non-covered Grades

Students entering the fifth or sixth grade in September, 
1966 will not be covered by this freedom of choice plan. 
However, any such student shall have the right to apply for 
transfer to and be enrolled in any school from which he 
was excluded, in the past, on account of his race.



Race or color will henceforth not be a factor in the hir­
ing, assignment, reassignment, promotion, demotion, or dis­

missal of teachers and other professional staff, with the 
exception that assignments shall be made in order to elimi­
nate the effects of past discrimination. Teachers, princi­
pals, and staff members will be assigned to schools so that 
the faculty and staff is not composed of members of one 
race.

In the recruitment and employment of teachers and other 
professional personnel, all applicants or other prospective 
employees will be informed that Montgomery County oper­
ates a racially integrated school system and that members 
of its staff are subject to assignment in the best interest 
of the system and without regard to the race or color of 
the particular employee.

The Superintendent of Schools and his staff will take 
affirmative steps to solicit and encourage teachers pres­
ently employed to accept transfers to schools in which the 
majority of the faculty members are of a race different 
from that of the teacher to be transferred.

Teachers and other professional staff will not be dis­
missed, demoted, or passed over for retention, promotion, 
or rehiring on the ground of race or color. In any instance, 
where one or more teachers or other professional staff 
members are to be displaced as a result of desegregation 
or school closings, they shall be transferred to any position 
in the system where there is a vacancy for which they are 
qualified.

—2S1—



338

VIII.

Closing of Inadequate Facilities

Prior to the commencement of the 1966-67 school year, 
the Abraham’s Vineyard, Phillips, Cecil, Arthur Cook, 
Battle, MeCant’s, and Katie Bowen Elementary Schools 
will be discontinued as educational facilities.

Prior to the commencement of the 1967-68 school year, 
the following schools will be discontinued as educational 
facilities:

Alice White 
Arrington 
Big Zion 
Tankersely 
Chappell Gray 
G. W. Trenholm 
Lillian Dabney

—282—
Lillian Dungee
Waugh
Woodley
Zion Hill
McLean
McLemore
Mt. Zion Boad

The Montgomery County Board will design and provide 
remedial educational programs to eliminate the effects of 
past discrimination, particularly, the results of the unequal 
and inferior educational opportunities which have been of­
fered in the past to Negro students in the Montgomery 
County School System.

Students displaced as a result of the closing of the above 
listed schools will be assigned to schools, without regard 
to race or color, on a freedom of choice basis as described 
in this plan, whether or not their grade is covered.

Expansion of existing school plants to accommodate dis­
placed students will be designed to eliminate the dual school 
system.



339

APPENDIX A
— 283—

N o t i c e

Grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 will be operated on 
a desegregated basis next year. Any student in these 
grades may choose to attend any school in the Montgomery 
County School System regardless of the school’s former 
racial designation. A choice must be made for each child 
who will he in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 in 
September, 1966.

Attached to this Notice is a choice form which must be 
filled out on or before April 30, 1966. If a child is entering 
the ninth or higher grade, or if the child is fifteen years 
old or older, he may make the choice himself. Otherwise, 
a parent or other adult serving as a parent must sign the 
choice form.

No child will be denied his choice except for reasons of 
overcrowding. If a child’s choice is denied for overcrowd­
ing, a second choice will be made available. If no choice 
can be granted, because of overcrowding, children nearest 
the school m il be given preference.

All facilities, activities, and programs at the school 
chosen will be available to all students.

Transportation will be provided, if possible, no matter 
what school is chosen.

Choice forms may be returned by mail, in person, or by 
messenger to the Superintendent’s Office at 305 South 
Lawrence Street, Montgomery, Alabama.



APPENDIX B

(Elementary) (Junior High School) (High School)

C h o ic e  F o r m

This form is provided for you to choose a school for 
your child to attend next year. You have 30 days to make 
your choice. It does not matter which school the child at­
tended last year, and it does not matter whether the school 
was formerly a white or a Negro school. The form must 
be mailed or brought to the office of the Superintendent, 
305 South Lawrence Street, Montgomery, Alabama, by 
April 30, 1966. A choice is required for each child. Unless 
you are notified to the contrary by May 30th, your choice 
is approved.

Name of child ..........................................................................
(Last) (F irst) (Middle)

Address ............................................................

Name of Parent or other
adult serving as parent ................................

If child is entering first grade, date of b irth :

(Month) (Day) (Year)

Grade pupil is entering



341

School Attending During
1965-66 School Y ear.................................................................

Choose one of the following schools by marking an X 
beside the name:

Name of School Grades Location

Signature 

Date ......

To be filled in by Superintendent:

School Assigned:



" A

342

- 2 8 5 -
Order Amending Order o f March 2 2 , 1966

(Filed August 18, 1966)
i f

I n  t h e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F ob t h e  M id d l e  D is t r ic t  o f  A l a b a m a  

N o r t h e r n  D iv is io n

The order of this Court made and entered herein on 
March 22, 1966, recited that race or color will henceforth 
not be a factor in hiring or assigning teachers and other 
professional staff. The effect of this order was to require 
the Montgomery County Board of Education to commence 
the process of desegregating the faculty and professional 
staff commencing with the school year 1966-67.

This Court judicially notes the action taken by tl>e United 
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on August 
16, 1966, in the Mobile school case of Birdie /Mae Dajbis, 
et al. v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile Cc
Alabama, et al., F. 2d wherem, as

mty, 
the de- 

ile school 
ion has been 
its policy of

segregation of the faculty and staff in ffhe 
system, the Mobile County Board of Educa 
allowed until the school year 1967-68 to end 
hiring and assigning teachers and staff according to race. 
Uniformity, as well as fairness, requires thi 
its own motion, therefore, to amend its order 
1966, to the extent that the Montgomery

> Court upon 
of March 22, 

Cbunty School
Board of Education be alloived until the schc ol year 1967- 
68 to end its present policy of hiring and asj igning teach­
ers and other school personnel according to race.



343

It is, therefore, the O r d e r , J u d g m e n t  and D e c r e e  of this 
Court that the order of this Court made and entered herein 
on March 22, 1966, be and the same is hereby amended to 
the extent that the Montgomery County Board of Educa-

—286—
tion he, and said Board is, hereby allowed until the school 
year 1967-68 to commence desegregation of the faculty 
and professional staff in the Montgomery County school 
system.

It is further O r d e r e d  that the Montgomery County Board 
of Education report to this Court by June 15, 1967, the 
planned assignment of the faculty and professional staff 
to each school for the 1967-68 school year by race and 
grade.

Done, this the 18th day of August, 1966.

F r a n k  M. J o h n s o n , J r .

Chief Judge



344

Petition o f Plaintiffs fo r Adm ission of 
Willie Robert Bell

(Filed September 12, 1966)

I n  t h e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or  t h e  M id d l e  D is t r ic t  o f  A l a b a m a  

N o r t h e r n  D iv is io n

Now come the Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys 
of record, and show unto this honorable court as follows:

1. That in accordance with the Order of this court made 
on March 22, 1966, Willie Robert Bell, a Negro student 
who during the 1965-66 school year was enrolled in Carver 
High School, Montgomery, Alabama, and that pursuant 
to the said Order referred to above, the said Willie Robert 
Bell did within the time provided by said Order, file with 
the defendant Board of Education his choice of school as 
Lanier High School in Montgomery, Alabama.

2. That on or about June 3, 1966, he received a letter 
from Lanier High School requesting he and his parents 
to come register at said school between June 9th and 10th 
from 12 to 3 p.m. That said Willie Robert Bell and his 
mother did on or about the 9th day of June, 1966, go to said 
school and register.

3. That on or about August 18, 1966, said Willie Robert 
Bell received a letter indicating that he was to report at 
said school for a band meeting on August 27, 1966. That 
said Willie Robert Bell did appear and did attend said band 
meeting.

- 2 8 7 -



345

4. That on or about September 1, 1966, the mother of 
said Willie Robert Bell received a phone call from the prin­
cipal of Lanier High School and was instructed to bring

—288—
said student to the school on September 2, 1966.

5. That on said date, the said Willie Robert Bell and 
his mother appeared at said school and were informed 
by the principal that he could not be enrolled in said 
school because he had a record in juvenile court, but ad­
vised him that he may enroll in the school which he at­
tended the previous year.

6. By the defendant failing and refusing to admit said 
student to the school of his choice is in violation of the 
Order of this Court enter on March 22, 1966.

7. That on September 6, 1966, the said Willie Robert 
Bell was enrolled in Carver High School and remained 
enrolled in said school until Thursday, September 8, 1966, 
at which time he was informed by the school officials that 
he was expelled and could not attend any school.

8. That said expulsion of said student without a hear­
ing and an opportunity to be heard is in violation of due 
process of law as provided by the Fourteenth Amendment 
to the United States Constitution.

T he P remises Considered, Plaintiff prays that this Court 
set a date for hearing of this Petition and upon a hear­
ing thereof, this Court will enter an order directing the 
defendants to admit Willie Robert Bell as a student at 
Lanier High School. Plaintiff further prays for such fur­
ther and different relief to which he is entitled.

Gray & Seay

Certificate of Service (omitted in printing)



346

—289-
Order Setting Hearing on Plaintiffs’ Petition

(Filed September 13, 1966)

I n  the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F ob the Middle D istrict of Alabama 
Northern Division

Plaintiffs’ motion seeking an order of this Court direct­
ing the defendants to admit Willie Robert Bell as a student 
to Sidney Lanier High School is hereby Ordered to be 
and the same is set for a hearing to commence Wednesday, 
September 14, 1966, at 2 p.m., in the United States District 
Courtroom, Montgomery, Alabama.

Done, this the 13th day of September, 1966.

F r a n k  M. J o h n s o n , J r .
Chief Judge



347

Answer to Petition of Plaintiffs
(Filed September 14, 1966)

- 2 9 0 -

I n the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F ob the Middle D istkict of Alabama 
Nobthebn D ivision

No. 2072-N

Arlan Cabr, J r., etc., et al.,

vs.
Plaintiffs,

Montgomery County Board of E ducation, etc., et al.,

Defendants.

Now come the defendants in the above entitled cause 
and for answer to the petition heretofore filed in this cause 
on the 12th day of September, 1966, by the attorneys of 
record for the plaintiffs in the above entitled cause, say 
as follows:

1. That they admit the allegations and averments con­
tained in paragraph 1 of said petition.

2. That they admit the allegations and averments con­
tained in paragraph 2 of said petition.

3. That they admit the allegations and averments con­
tained in paragraph 3 of said petition.



348

4. That they admit the allegations and averments con­
tained in paragraph 4 of said petition.

5. That they deny each and every allegation and aver­
ment contained in paragraph 5 of said petition and for 
further answer to said paragraph 5 say that the said 
Willie Robert Bell and his mother did appear at Sidney 
Lanier High School on September 2, 1966, at which time 
they were informed by H. H. Adair, Principal of Sidney 
Lanier High School, that because of the record of the said 
Willie Robert Bell which had been brought to his atten­
tion, by the administrative officers of the Board of Edu­
cation of Montgomery County, Alabama, Willie Robert 
Bell could not be admitted at this time to Sidney Lanier 
High School; that Mr. Adair hoped that when he “got 
straightened out” he would be able to attend and finish 
high school. That the actions of the defendants, their 
agents and employees were not influenced by race, color 
or creed.

—291—
6. That they deny the allegations and averments con­

tained in paragraph 6 of said petition.

7. The defendants deny each and every allegation of 
paragraph 7 and for further answer to said paragraph 7 
say that on September 6, 1966, the said Willie Robert Bell 
filed a choice form at Carver Senior High School in Mont­
gomery, Alabama, and that on the afternoon of September 
7, a faculty member of Carver Senior High School did 
assist Willie Robert Bell in the filling out of a program 
card. That on September 8, W. P. Thompson, Principal 
of Carver Senior High School informed Willie Robert Bell 
that he could not enroll at Carver Senior High School at



349

the present time as the said W. P. Thompson had been 
notified by administrative personnel of the Montgomery 
County School system that because of the record of Willie 
Eobert Bell which had been called to their attention, Willie 
Eobert Bell should not be admitted to any high school in 
this system. That the action taken by the defendants, their 
agents and employees, was not based on race, color or creed.

8. That for answer to paragraph 8 of said petition, the 
defendants say that the said Willie Eobert Bell was not 
entitled to an administrative hearing; that none was re­
quested, that the action taken is not a violation of the 
due process of law as provided for in the Fourteenth 
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States; that 
the action was an administrative matter and taken for the 
purpose of maintaining order and discipline in the public 
school system of Montgomery County; for the preservation 
of said system.

For further answer to the petition as a whole, the de­
fendants say that the action complained of by the said 
plaintiffs and Willie Eobert Bell is the long-standing policy 
of the administrative officers and employees of the public 
school system of Montgomery County; that said action is 
no more than the exercise of the discretionary authority 
invested in school authorities with respect to any applicant 
or pupil in the system, regardless of race, color or creed; 
that said action is not in violation of or any attempt to

—292—
circumvent the Order of this Court entered March 27, 1966. 
And in further support of the answer of the defendants, 
there is attached hereto and made a part hereof the affidavit 
of Denny Abbott, Chief Probation Officer of the Domestic 
Eelations Division of the Circuit Court of Montgomery



350

County, Alabama, as Exhibit A; the affidavit of Walter T. 
McKee, Superintendent of Education of Montgomery 
County and William Silas Garrett, Assistant Superinten­
dent of Education of Montgomery County, as Exhibit B; 
the affidavit of H. H. Adair, Principal of Sidney Lanier 
High School of Montgomery County, Alabama, as Exhibit 
C ; and the affidavit of W. P. Thompson, Principal of Carver 
Senior High School of Montgomery County, Alabama, as 
Exhibit D.

Now having answered said petition and each and every 
paragraph thereof, your defendants pray that they be dis­
charged with the reasonable costs in their behalf expended.

H ill, R obison and Belseb

Certificate of Service (omitted in printing)



351

EXHIBIT “A”
- 2 9 3 -

State op Alabama :

County op Montgomeby :

Before me, the undersigned authority, personally ap­
peared Denny Abbot, who is known to me and who, being 
by me first duly sworn, on oath doth depose and say as 
follows:

I graduated from Huntingdon College in Montgomery, 
Alabama, in 1961, with a BA Degree Major in Sociology. 
I have completed all of my work for a Masters of Science 
Degree in Criminology and Corrections, with the exception 
of the submission of my thesis. This work was done at 
Florida State University. I have attended two sessions of 
Delincpiency Control Institutes at Florida State University 
and have had five years of experience in the Family Court 
of Montgomery County, Alabama, serving as Chief Proba­
tion Officer of this Court for the past three years.

I have official and personal knowledge of Willie Robert 
Bell’s record as a juvenile in the Family Court Division of 
the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama. Willie 
Robert Bell was first before this Court on September 1, 
1963, at which time he was 13 years of age and was charged 
with using a car without the owner’s consent, no driver’s 
license, and reckless driving. The car belonged to Willie 
Robert Bell’s father and the no driver’s license and reck­
less driving offense arose out of a chase by motorcycle 
patrolman Bland of the City of Montgomery chasing Willie 
Robert Bell. After conference with Willie Robert Bell’s



352

father, the charge of using the car without the owner’s con­
sent was dropped and the no driver’s license and reckless 
driving charges remained. My records do not indicate final 
disposition of the charges of no driver’s license and reck­
less driving.

Willie Robert Bell next appeared before this Court on 
March 19, 1965, at which time he was charged with failure 
to obey a police officer. Willie Robert Bell was ordered to 
leave an area and he refused to do so. At this time, there 
were demonstrations going on in the City of Montgomery. 
On April 9, 1965, Willie Robert Bell was brought before 
this Court on the charge of failure to obey a police officer

—294—
at which time the Judge lectured Willie Robert Bell and 
released him.

Willie Robert Bell next appeared before this Court on 
a charge of larceny on March 8, 1966. This charge of lar­
ceny was for the shoplifting of seven decks of playing cards 
from Bama Department Store on the Southern Bypass. 
This case was heard on March 24,1966, at which time Willie 
Robert Bell was adjudged a delinquent and given six 
months in the County Jail with a suspended sentence and 
he was placed on probation.

On April 14, 1966, Willie Robert Bell was charged with 
disorderly conduct when he was arrested by Patrolmen 
Gandy and Swearengin of the City Police Department of 
the City of Montgomery. At this time he cursed the offi­
cers and refused to get into the police car and Officer 
Causey of the Youth Bureau of the City of Montgomery 
was called. This incident occurred after ten o’clock at 
night. On April 21, 1966, this charge of disorderly conduct 
was before the Court and continued to April 28, 1966, at 
which time Willie Robert Bell’s probation was revoked and



353

he was confined to the detention area for juveniles with 
his case to be reviewed in one month. On April 26, 1966, 
his case was reviewed and he was released with his proba­
tion to continue.

On August 5, 1966, Willie Robert Bell was arrested in 
a raid which occurred at 11:20 P.M., on the home of O’Garie 
Tillman at Mt. Meigs, Alabama, which raid was partici­
pated in by the undersigned and Vernon Backer, a Proba­
tion Officer of the Juvenile Division of the Family Court 
Division of the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Ala­
bama, representatives of the Sheriff’s Office of Montgom­
ery County, Alabama, and State Troopers. This raid oc­
curred at 11:20 p.m., Tillman and four other male adults, 
along with Willie Robert Bell, were observed dancing, 
petting with one another and drinking and at the time of 
the raid the adults were charged with contributing to the 
delinquency of a minor and Willie Robert Bell was charged 
with violation of his probation. These cases were heard 
by the Court on August 18, 1966, at which time the charge

—295—
of contributing to the delinquency of a minor against the 
five adult males was continued for six months for further 
consideration; Willie Robert Bell was lectured and per­
mitted to continue on probation.

W itness my hand, this 14th day of September, 1966.

Denny A bbott

Sworn to September 14,1966.



354

- 2 9 6 -
EXHIBIT “B”

State of Alabama 
County of Montgomery

Before me the undersigned authority personally appeared 
William Silas Garrett who is known to me and who being 
by me first duly sworn on oath doth depose and say as 
follows:
I am Associate Superintendent of Education of the Mont­
gomery County Board of Education and have been As­
sociate Superintendent for the past 16 years. I have been 
in the Montgomery County Public School System for 28 
years.

On or about August 29, 1966, I was advised by Mr. Walter 
T. McKee, Superintendent of Education of the Montgomery 
County Board of Education, that he had received a report 
on the record of Willie Kobert Bell and that he had no­
tified Mr. H. H. Adair of the record, and that Willie 
Robert Bell could not be admitted at this time to Sidney 
Lanier High School or any other high school in the system. 
He informed me of this record and instructed me to notify 
the other high schools in the system that due to the record 
of Willie Robert Bell he was not eligible for admission.

On or about September 2, I received a telephone call from 
a person representing herself to be Mrs. Bell, advising me 
that her son Willie Robert Bell had been refused admis­
sion to Sidney Lanier High School. I  told her that I 
was aware of the circumstances and that her son could not 
be admitted to any high school in this system at this time.



355

On or about September 7, I notified Mr. W. E. Thompson, 
Principal of Carver High School, and other senior high 
school principals that because of the record of Willie Robert 
Bell and in line with the long standing policy of admissions 
Willie Robert Bell was not eligible for admission to any 
high school in this system.

The action taken by Mr. McKee and I with regard to the 
refusal of admission of Willie Robert Bell was not based 
or influenced in any way by race, color, or creed. When 
records or disciplinary problems are brought to our at­
tention which we feel justify suspension or expulsion, we 
take the appropriate and necessary action. Expulsion and 
suspension powers are also within the sound discretion of 
the school principals.

I t is not the policy of the admission officers of the Board 
of Education or the principals of the schools of the Board 
of Education, Montgomery County, to search or cause to 
be searched the record of individual students; however, 
when a problem is brought to our attention by an official 
of the County, an employee of the Board of Education, or 
an interested citizen of the County, we feel it is our duty 
to investigate and if necessary make recommendations.

Given under my hand this 14th day of September, 1966.

W illiam S ilas Garrett

Sworn to September 14,1966.



356

State of Alabama 
County of Montgomery

The undersigned Walter T. McKee, Superintendent of the 
Montgomery County Board of Education, has read the 
above and foregoing affidavit and the information and 
facts stated therein are true and correct.

Witness my hand this 14th day of September, 1966:

W alter T. McK ee

- 2 9 7 -

Sworn to September 14,1966.



357

- 2 9 8 -
EXHIBIT “C”

State of Alabama 
County of Montgomery

Before me the undersigned authority personally ap­
peared H. H. Adair who is known to me and who being 
by me first duly sworn on oath doth depose and say as 
follows:

I am principal of Sidney Lanier High School, and 
prior to becoming principal I served as assistant prin­
cipal of Sidney Lanier High School for a period of six 
years. I have been in the Public School System of 
Montgomery County for more than twelve years.

On or about August 29, I  received a call from Mr. 
Walter McKee, Superintendent of Education of the 
Montgomery County School System. He advised me 
that the record of Willie Robert Bell had been called 
to his attention and he gave me this record. Mr. 
McKee called to my attention the long standing policy 
of the administration that under the circumstances of 
the record of Willie Robert Bell being known and being 
what it was he should not be admitted to any school 
in this system. On September 1 ,1 contacted the mother 
of Willie Robert Bell and advised her to come with 
her son to Sidney Lanier on the morning of Septem­
ber 2. She appeared with Willie Robert Bell and I 
advised her in the presence of Mr. Lance D. Grissett, 
Assistant Principal of Sidney Lanier, of the record 
which had been brought to my attention and that under 
the circumstances Willie Robert Bell could not be ad­



358

mitted to school. At this time I stated to her that I 
hoped when he “got straightened out” that he would 
be able to attend and finish high school. At this time 
she left with her son.

The action taken by me was not influenced in any way 
by race, color, or creed, as I would have taken similar 
action on any applicant for admission to Sidney Lanier 
under the circumstances in considering a similar record 
of any student.

The brother of Willie Eobert Bell is presently attend­
ing Sidney Lanier High School and at the time I 
talked with Willie Eobert Bell’s mother she asked me 
if Willie’s brother would be affected. I advised her 
that it would not. I had received a copy of a report 
of the Police Department of the City of Montgomery 
concerning Willie Eobert Bell’s brother, a copy of 
which report is attached to this affidavit; however, I 
did not consider this sufficient grounds to refuse ad­
mittance.

Witness my hand this 14th day of September, 1966.

H. H. Adair

Sworn to September 14,1966.



359

—299—
SUPPLEMENTARY OFFENSE REPORT

P olice Department 
Montgomery, Alabama

Time 
8:10 P.M.

Montgomery Police Dept. Color ( ) Sex ( )
Complainant Date Aug. 9,1966

Address Offense as Reported
Fighting & Cussing

Res. Phone

Bus. Phone

After Investigation Changed To 
Fighting & Cussing

Complaint:

At 10:30 a.m. this date, Officer Swearengin arrested the 
two above boys for fighting and cussing at the above coun­
try club. There were several women and children present 
at the time this incident happened.

Investigation:

After Jessie Williams and Richard Bell were picked up 
for the above offenses, they were released and told to re­
port to the Y. A. Div. with their mother today at 3 :00 p.m. 
Jessie Williams and Jessie Bell Jr. are one and the same.

After Jessie Bell Jr. N/M age 17, and Richard Bell, 
N/M age 15, 628 Kimball St. tel. 263-5279 had been brought 
to this office by their mother, Althea Bell; we talked to 
them about the above offenses. Jessie told us that it all 
started when they carried a sack of ice into the club. Jessie



360

said that he told his brother Richard to make out a ticket 
on the ice. Jessie said that when he told Richard this, 
Richard said “hell make one out your self, you got a pencil 
in your pocket”. Jessie said that this is when he went 
over to Richard and hit him with a fifty pound-paper bag. 
Jessie said this is when they started tussling. Jessie said 
that this is when he hit Richard in the mouth with his 
right fist, cutting Richard’s bottom lip. We observed the 
small cut on Richard’s bottom lip at the time that we talked 
to him in the Y. A. Office.

We also talked to Richard Bell about the above offenses, 
and he told us that everything his brother had told us was 
true, and that he (Richard) was involved in the above 
offenses.

Disposition:

Jessie Bell Jr. was charged to the Y. A. Div. and Richard 
Bell was counseled, warned, and released to his parents. 
Jessie was also released to his parents. This case is cleared 
by arrest.

This Offense Is Declared: Unfounded Cleared by Arrest 

Exceptionally Cleared Inactive (Not Cleared)--------------

Signed H. L. Gilmore & Leola Davis 
Investigating Officers



361

EXHIBIT “D”

State of Alabama 
County of Montgomery

Before me the undersigned authority personally appeared 
W. E. Thompson, who is known to me and who being by 
me first duly sworn on oath, doth depose and say as fol­
lows :

I  am the principal of Carver Senior High School and have 
been principal of this school for the past 10 years. I served 
as assistant principal for 6 years, and have been in the 
Montgomery County Public School System for 18 years.

On September 7, 1966, I  received a call from Mr. Silas 
Garrett, Associate Superintendent of Education of the 
Montgomery County Public School System, advising me 
that if Willie Robert Bell attempted to enroll in Carver 
he could not do so because of his record which has been 
called to the attention of Mr. McKee.

Registration was heavy on September 6th and 7th. I 
checked after receiving the call from Mr. Garrett and found 
that Willie Robert Bell had made out a choice form on 
September 6 but that a program card had not been made 
out for him. On September 8, I found out that a program 
card had been made for Willie Robert Bell around 2 o’clock 
in the afternoon on September 7 by one of my faculty 
members. I  called Willie Robert Bell to the office on Sep­
tember 8 and advised him that I had received instructions 
that he could not enroll at Carver High School at the 
present time.

Witness my hand this 14th day of September, 1966:

W. E. T hompson

- 3 0 0 -

(Sworn to September 14, 1966)



362

I n the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle District of Alabama 
Northern Division

Upon consideration of the motion of the plaintiffs seek­
ing an order of this Court enjoining the defendants from 
refusing to admit and permit Willie Robert Bell to attend 
as a student at Sidney Lanier High School, the Court notes 
that the plaintiffs’ petition filed herein on September 12, 
1966, complains that Bell’s expulsion was without a hear­
ing and, for that reason, was in violation of due process. 
Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 294 F. 2d 150 
(5th Cir. 1961). Upon consideration of that aspect of plain­
tiffs’ petition and the assurance on the part of defendants’ 
counsel that a hearing, within a reasonable time, will be 
afforded Willie Robert Bell, it is considered appropriate 
to continue this matter until further order of this Court.

It is, therefore, the Order, Judgment and Decree of this 
Court that this cause be and the same is hereby continued 
until further order of this Court.

Done, this the 14th day of September, 1966.

F rank M. J ohnson, J r .
Chief Judge

- 3 0 2 -
Order on Petition o f Plaintiffs

(F iled  Septem ber 14, 1966)



363

I n  the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle D istrict of Alabama 
Northern D ivision

Come now Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys of 
record, and move the Court to dismiss the Petition of 
Willie Robert Bell heretofore filed herein and as grounds 
for said motion set out and assign the following:

1. That the attorneys for Plaintiffs, after careful con­
sideration of the matters and things set out in the Petition 
here and above referred to, and after consultation with all 
the parties involved, have concluded that it is in the best 
interest of Petitioner Willie Robert Bell and Plaintiffs that 
this Petition be dismissed.

2. That the attorneys for the defendants and the at­
torneys for the Plaintiffs have agreed to a dismissal sub­
ject to the approval of the Court.

W herefore Plaintiffs pray that the Petition filed on be­
half of Willie Robert Bell be dismissed.

— 3 0 3 -
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dism iss Petition

(F ile d  O ctober 3, 1966)

Gray & Seay 
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

- 3 0 4 -
Certificate of Service (omitted in printing)



364

I n  the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle D istrict of Alabama 
Northern D ivision

Upon the motion of the plaintiffs, and without any ob­
jection by the defendants, the petition of Willie Robert 
Bell filed herein on September 1 2 ,  1 9 6 6 ,  is O r d e r e d  to be 
and the same is hereby dismissed.

Done, this the 5th day of October, 1966.

F rank M. J ohnson, J r. 
Chief Judge

- 3 0 5 -
Order to Dism iss Petition

(F ile d  O ctober 5, 1966)



365

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Further Relief
(Filed April 11, 1967)

I n  the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F or the Middle D istrict of Alabama 
Northern D ivision

1. In United States and Linda Stout, et al., v. Jeffer­
son County Board of Education, et al., Fifth Circuit, No. 
23345, 12/29/66 (adopted with modifications by the court, 
sitting en banc, 3/29/67), the United States Court of Ap­
peals for the Fifth Circuit decided seven school desegrega­
tion cases from districts in Alabama and Louisiana, which 
control this cause.- The court held, inter alia, that district 
courts in this circuit must enter the decree appended to the 
Jefferson opinion:

We expect the provisions of the decree to be applied 
in proceedings involving * * * earlier court-approved 
plans which fall short of the terms of the decree. On 
motion by proper parties to reopen these cases, we 
expect these plans to be modified to conform with our 
decree. (Slip opinion, p. 113)

2. The desegregation plan in this case fails to fulfill the 
requirements set forth in the Jefferson decree. Plaintiffs 
are entitled, at a minimum, to the entry of the Jefferson 
decree. This relief must be granted immediately if relief is 
to be effective for the 1967-68 school year.

Particularly, plaintiffs request a 30 day registration 
period commencing May 1, 1967 for the 1967-68 school

— 3 0 6 -



366

year, or as soon thereafter as is practicable, notwithstand­
ing any registration period which may have been completed.

—30 7 -
W herefore, plaintiffs pray that after consideration of the 

above motion at the earliest possible date, this court enter 
the decree proposed by the United States Court of Ap­
peals in its decision in United States v. Jefferson County 
Board of Education, supra, as the desegregation plan in 
the present case.

Respectfully submitted,

Gray and Seay 
J ack Greenberg 

Charles H. J ones 
H enry M. Aronson

Attorneys for plaintiffs

—30 8 -
Certificate of Service (omitted in printing)



RECORD PRESS, INC. — 95 Morton Slreet — New York, N. Y. 10014 — (212) 243-5775
38