Mapp v. Board of Education of the City of Chattanooga, Tennessee Appendix to Appellee's Brief

    t i n

In the

luttri Malts (Emtrt at Appeals
F or the Sixth  Circuit

No. 14,444

J ames J onathan Mapp,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

—versus—

T he B oard of E ducation op the City of Chattanooga, 
H amilton County, Tennessee, et al,

Defendants-Appellants.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE, SOUTHERN DIVISION

APPENDIX TO APPELLEE’S BRIEF

Z. A lexander L ooby 
A von W illiams

327 Charlotte Avenue 
Nashville, Tennessee

Constance B aker M otley 
Thurgood Marshall 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee



INDEX TO APPENDIX
PAGE

Supplementary Statement of October 12, 1955 ...........  lb

Statement of March 31, 1956 ............................. ....... ....  4b

Statement of July 9, 1958 ...................................................  8b

Statement of March 7, 1960 ------- ---------- --------------------  10b

Excerpts From Depositions ............. ........... .................. . 12b

W itnesses:
Pages o f
Original Printed
Record Page

Dr. John Walter Letson
Direct ................ .......... ........... .........  3-37 12b

Recalled
Cross...................................... ...........  105-108 57b
Redirect .......... ...... ..... ........... .........  108-117 60b

William D. Leber
Direct ....................................— ......  47-76 23b
Cross................. ................................ - 76-87 44b
Redirect  ..................................... —  87-92 53b

Dean Petersen
Direct ................................................  120-126 64b
Cross .............. ...................... ...........  126-135 68b
Redirect ......... ......... .........................  135-141 75b
Recross ............................................. 141-142 79b

Mrs. Sammie C. Irvine
Direct .... ........ ........ ............ .............  143-145 80b
Cross ........... ............... .....................  146 81b



Pages of
Original Printed 
Reeord Page

George C. Hudson
Direct ......................      148-152 82b

Raymond B. Witt
Direct ..........................   153-155 86b
Cross .......................      155-158 88b
Redirect ..........     159-168 90b

11



Supplementary Statement of October 12, 1955  
October 12, 1955

Chattanooga P ublic Schools 
413 East Eighth Street 

Chattanooga 3, Tennessee

October 12,1955

Supplementary Statement by the Chattanooga B oard 
of E ducation with R eference to the Decisions of the 
United States Supreme Court of May 17,1954, and May 81, 

1955, on the Subject of R acial D iscrimination 
in the P ublic Schools

On July 23 we released a statement of policy concerning 
our position with respect to the Supreme Court decisions 
on racial discrimination in the public schools. The Board 
reaffirms its stated policy. We are interested primarily in 
the welfare of all the children in the city schools.

We are in the second phase of our announced procedure, 
giving consideration to the selection of members of the 
advisory committee who will assist us as we study the 
problem and seek a solution. As soon as the committee has 
been selected and organized, we will begin public meetings 
to counsel with interested Chattanooga citizens seeking 
their viewpoints and advice.

It is evident that some people have misunderstood our 
original statement of policy. We have had several sugges­
tions offered as possible solutions to our problem. For 
example, some people have questioned why we did not 
adopt a plan similar to that being tried in some southern 
cities where certain schools will be designated for each 
race and some for both white and Negro children, with 
attendance being on an optional basis. We believe our posi­
tion is better since it leaves us free to find and accept this



2b

or any solution that might be superior. Moreover we are 
in a position to draw from the people of Chattanooga the 
answers that they finally believe to be the wisest and best 
for this community.

The Supreme Court clearly recognized that each school 
board would have its different problems because no two 
communities are exactly alike. That also means that if a 
problem is different, its solution may necessarily be differ­
ent from the solution in another community. That is what 
we think the Supreme Court said in its decision.

Once the Court recognized that the problem varied with 
each community, it directed each school board to counsel 
with the people of its own community in order to determine 
exactly what the problem is in that particular community. 
Now, as we read the Court’s decision, this means that the 
Court recognizes that racial discrimination can end only 
when the majority of the citizens are willing for it to end. 
That is why we want to secure the view of our fellow citizens 
with the aid of the interracial advisory committee, repre­
senting our best citizens of varying points of view. We 
will welcome interested groups from all over the City to 
come and discuss this most serious problem with us and the 
advisory committee. We want ideas and suggestions from 
everyone; for, as we understand the Supreme Court’s 
decision, this is what the Court intended for us to do first.

The Court has placed control of the situation in our 
hands as long as we act in good faith, and we intend to act 
in good faith at all times. This is of the utmost importance. 
It is also important that we be able at all times to prove 
our good faith in a court of law. We can decide whether 
our community should take a little step or a big one or a 
series of little steps over a period of years. But once the 
Court decides we are not acting in good faith, the Court 
will tell us what to do.

Supplementary Statement of October 12, 1955



3b

We are responsible for the educational opportunities of 
all 24,000 children in the City schools. In everything we 
do we must always have their welfare in mind. This means 
that our obligation to a Negro child is no greater and no 
less than our obligation to a white child. In other words, 
we do not know the answers, but we do know that we must 
not penalize a Negro child in his educational opportunities, 
nor must we penalise a white child.

Therefore, we shall in the near future name our inter­
racial advisory committee and be ready to begin considera­
tion of this question in search for the answers. In the 
hearings that will be held we shall not sit formally as a 
board of education but as a committee of the whole. Our 
regular chairman, even though he has adopted a position 
contrary to the policy of the Board, will sit with us and 
participate with all the rights and privileges and courtesies 
to which he is entitled and which are enjoyed under the law 
by any other Board member. We are convinced that every­
one will come to realize that it is far better for the Board 
of Education to retain the responsibility for arriving at 
a decision as to what is best for our children and our com­
munity instead of having some drastic action imposed upon 
us. The Court itself opened the way for each community 
to solve its problem in its own way so long as the effort is 
carried on in good faith each step of the way. This we 
intend to do.

Chattanooga B oard of E ducation

R. E. B iggers 
Alf J. L aw, Jr.
W. D. L eber 
H arry M iller 
R aymond B. W itt, J r.
Mrs. J. B. (Sammie C.) Irvine, Secretary 
H arry A llen, Commissioner and Chairman

Supplementary Statement of October 12, 1955



4b

Chattanooga P ublic Schools 
413 East Eighth Street 

Chattanooga 3, Tennessee

March 31,1956

Statement of March 31, 1956, by the Chattanooga B oard 
of E ducation with E eference to the Decisions of the 
U nited States Supreme Court of May 17,1954, and May 31, 

1955, on the Subject of B acial D iscrimination 
in the P ublic Schools

Events in the last year have convinced the Chattanooga 
Board of Education that the community will not accept any 
form of integration within the City schools at any time 
within the near future. We, therefore, take this opportunity 
to report to the community our decision to postpone any 
change in the public schools for a period of at least a few 
years—probably live years or more. Because of organiza­
tional problems confronting the schools now, the decision 
could not be longer postponed, and we feel that the public 
is entitled to have this information without delay.

We believe this to be in harmony with the spirit of the 
two U. S. Supreme Court rulings on the question.

We believe our decision will not harm any child of either 
race. We believe this action to be a good faith compliance 
with the supreme law of the land.

Following the Supreme Court decision of May, 1955, we 
announced, after careful thought and consideration, our 
statement of policy regarding the matter of segregation in 
the operation of our public school system. As we started 
our search for an answer, we said that there would be no

Statement of March 31 , 1956



5b

change in the operation of onr schools for the school year 
commencing in September, 1955.

We have proceeded in good faith, in line with onr an­
nounced policy, to seek a solution to our problem. We have 
talked with many people; we have studied the law ; we have 
taken note of plans and developments in other communities; 
we have observed every development; for in our hearts and 
in our prayers this problem has been constantly with us. 
We have asked every citizen of Chattanooga to help us in 
our efforts to find a legal solution which would harm no 
child of either race, and we are grateful to those good 
citizens who have shared their thinking with us. From the 
outset we have realized that the answer must be found in 
the hearts of the citizens of our community.

We have said that we will comply with the law. We have 
said that this means we will comply with the law as we 
understand it as we read the words used by the United 
States Supreme Court. As a result of all that has happened 
in our community and elsew-here, we are firmly convinced 
that any measure of integration within the foreseeable 
future would do the community irreparable damage. The 
cause of public education has already suffered severe 
damage. Hasty action could result in harm to the welfare 
of our children to an extent unknown. The quality of all 
education at all levels wTould suffer. No one would gain. 
Everyone would lose from too hasty action.

As a Board of Education, our duty is not to make the law 
or to say the law is right or wrong. It is our duty to operate 
the schools to the best of our ability for the benefit of the 
children within the legal framework that binds us. Our 
personal feelings have no proper place in the decision to 
comply with the law.

Statement of March 31,1956



6b

We do not believe the Court will require us to take a step 
that will destroy much of the progress the public schools of 
Chattanooga have made during the last 25 years.

We do not believe the Court will require us to take a 
step that we believe in good faith would be detrimental to 
the well-being of all of our children.

In this dilemma, our primary responsibility is to make 
the problem clear to the community. This is what the 
Court’s words mean to us. Before any problem can be 
solved, the exact nature of the problem must be known 
to those who must solve it. Some 150,000 Chattanoogans are 
involved in this problem; and every single one has an 
opinion on the problem. Yet events have proven that this 
issue is so close to the hearts of all of us that emotions 
prevent a discussion of the issue. It has proven impossible 
to discuss the question in a calm manner with many people. 
Sooner or later our emotions overcome us.

As a result, we have not been able to make the problem 
clear to our fellow citizens. Misunderstanding has increased 
almost daily. Normal friendly relations have worsened.

Your Board hopes this breathing spell may restore a 
spirit of good will to our community, an atmosphere where 
free discussion is possible without bitterness and hate. We 
feel that such a period is essential if the problem is ever to 
be solved without results that none of us would knowingly 
seek.

The Court told us to elucidate the problem. To date that 
has been impossible. Yet that first step is essential. Were 
we to skip the first step of making the problem clear, we 
would be violating the Court’s ruling.

During this period of time we will exert every effort to 
improve our schools, yet working always within the frame-

Statement of March 31,1956



7b

Statement of March 31,1956

work of the law as we understand it. For the future only 
the people of this community and developing circumstances 
here and elsewhere can point the way to a fair solution.

Chattanooga B oard of Education

R. E. B iggers 
A lf J. L aw, Je.
W . D. Leber 
H arey Miller 
R aymond B. W itt, Jr.
Mrs. J. B. (Sammie C.) Irvine, Secretary 
H arry A llen, Commissioner and Chairman



8b

Chattanooga P ublic Schools 
Chattanooga, Tennessee

July 9,1958

Every single decision of the Chattanooga Board of Edu­
cation is made with one objective in mind—to provide the 
best possible education for all of the children in Chat­
tanooga.

The decision of the U. S. Supreme Court on the question 
of racial discrimination has confronted the community with 
a serious decision. Each Chattanooga citizen must accept 
his responsibility to help solve this grave problem.

The position of this Board on the question of compliance 
with this decision is a matter of public record and needs no 
reiteration. In the meantime, public education must go 
forward. It must be improved for the benefit of all.

We are in a period of transition and no one knows the 
time element. We must move in good faith to continue and 
improve public education and to minimize tension. We are 
certain education cannot take place in an atmosphere of 
tension and bitter conflict.

Tour School Board has been and now is attempting to 
make the problem clear to the community. All citizens 
must know exactly what our problem is before we can go 
about working out a solution.

In our combined judgment it would be extremely unwise 
to comply with the recent request to integrate our public 
schools at the beginning of the next school term, and it is 
our decision that the request be denied.

Statement of July 9 ,1 9 5 8



9b

Statement of July 9,1958

We shall continue to do our best to meet our grave 
responsibility to all the children in the Chattanooga public 
school system. With God’s help, it can be done.

Chattanooga B oard of E ducation

R. E. B iggers 
George C. H udson, Sr.
(Mrs. J. B.) Sammie C. Irvine 
A lf J. L aw, Jr.
W illiam D. L eber 
R a y m o n d  B. W itt, J r.
F. H. Trotter, Commissioner and Chairman



10b

Chattanooga P ublic Schools 
Chattanooga, Tennessee

March 7,1960

To the Citizens of Chattanooga:

The Chattanooga Board of Education denies the recent 
demand for “total integration” of the Chattanooga Public 
Schools with the conviction that to do otherwise would be 
premature and to the detriment of the vast majority of 
white and Negro children.

The school board has never questioned the legality of the 
Constitutional principles enunciated by the Supreme Court, 
although individual members of the board may have ques­
tioned the wisdom of the decision. The Court recognized 
that implementation of these principles would require the 
solution of varied problems. It placed upon the school 
board the responsibility for elucidating, assessing, and 
solving them. In attempting to make the problems clear 
to the community, we are in the first stage of compliance 
with the Supreme Court’s decision. This step has not been 
completed and cannot be completed by the school board 
alone.

The Board of Education has been delegated the responsi­
bility for public education in this community. We are con­
vinced that a substantial majority of the people we serve 
strongly prefer the continuation of our schools in accord­
ance with the historical pattern. We are also fully aware 
that a substantial minority of the community desires com­
pliance with the Supreme Court’s decision. Ordinarily the 
wishes of the majority would be a clear directive to the

Statement of March 7, 1960



l ib

school board. When the wishes of the majority are in direct 
conflict with the Constitution of the United States, we know 
that the Constitution must somehow prevail. There could 
be no law if each community had the right to interpret the 
Constitution in its own way.

Your school board has attempted to elucidate the prob­
lem and will continue in its efforts. We have met many long 
hours with various groups—pastors, business leaders, a 
representative union group, Negro groups— always working 
toward understanding of the Court’s action and its signifi­
cance to the community.

We earnestly seek your understanding.

Chattanooga B oard of E ducation

S. Dean P etersen, Commissioner and Chairman 
George C. H udson, Sr.
(Mrs. J. B.) Sammie C. Irvine 
Alf J. Law, Jr.
W illiam D. L eber 
R aymond B. W itt, Jr.

Statement of March 7,1960



12b

Excerpts From Depositions

* * # # #

Dr. J ohn W alter L etson, being first duly sworn, was 
examined and deposed as fo llow s:

Direct Examination by Mrs. Motley:

D. Mr. Letson, would you state your full name and posi­
tion for the record, please? A. John Walter Letson, 
Superintendent of Schools, City of Chattanooga.

—4—
D. How long have you been the Superintendent? A. 

Since November 1957.
D. Are you one of the defendants in this lawsuit? A. 

Yes.
# # # # #

— 21—

D. Now you said that you have been here since 1957, I
— 22—

believe ? A. Right.
D. That’s September 1957 ? A. November.
D. November 1957. Since you have been Superintendent 

of Schools here has the Board adopted any resolutions 
relating to integration of schools? A. Yes, the Board has, 
has issued two statements, if I remember correctly.

D. Do you remember when they were issued? A. One 
last summer. I don’t remember the exact date. It’s a 
matter of record, however. One was issued this school year, 
sometime in February, if I remember correctly.

D. So you think there are a total of two statements 
issued by the Board relating to integration? A. Yes, since 
I have been here.

D. W e’d like to get the statements at the end. We don’t

— 3—



13b

need it right now. Now since you have been Superintendent 
have you worked on any plan or plans for desegregating 
the schools? A. Yes.

D. What are those plans? A. I have been a part of a 
series of meetings that the Board has held in regard to 
this problem since, since I ’ve been in Chattanooga.

D. You’ve attended a series of meetings? A. Yes.

Dr. John Walter Letson—Direct

D. Has any plan been approved or adopted or suggested? 
A. The Board of Education has, did state its position be­
fore I came to Chattanooga that established rather clearly 
its purpose and intention. It did say that it was the inten­
tion of the Board of Education to comply with the Supreme 
Court’s decision.

In the intervening period of time the Board of Education 
has been working, and I have been a part of that plan, to, 
to follow the instructions of the Supreme Court in im­
plementing that decision.

The Board of Education has certainly been in the process 
of, of elucidating the problem and doing many things to 
develop a community understanding of the problem and 
its solution.

D. Now let’s see if we can be a little more specific. In 
addition to announcing an intention to comply with the 
Supreme Court’s decision, specifically what has the Board 
done with respect to that intention? Has it held any public 
meetings? Has it published any documents? Has it devised 
any plan? Has it studied any plans? A. It certainly has 
studied plans. It has held a number of meetings. They have 
not been public meetings. It has proceeded according to a

—2 4 -
plan in its desire and in its effort to live up to that original 
statement.



14b

D. Well, other than meetings with the Board itself, 
you’re saying that there have not been any public meetings 
on this question? A. But there have been a number of 
private meetings.

D. You mean the Board has met privately with persons 
who are not members of the Board? A. Oh, yes.

I). How many such meetings do you think there have 
been in the last three years? A. It would have to be a 
guess. It’s a matter of record. I—I would say six, seven, 
eight.

D. Are these community interest groups? A. Yes.
D. Citizens groups? A. Yes.
D. Now in addition to meetings, has the Board published 

any documents on this question? That is, in addition to 
the resolutions which we know we have copies of here, but 
has the Board put out any informational material for the 
benefit of the community? A. Not during the three years 
that I have been here.

D. Now specifically, what plans has the Board studied? 
A. There was a review of the Little Rock plan, Nashville

- 2 5 -
plan, certainly published materials of general application 
in regard to this problem have been a matter of interest 
and concern and information for the Board.

D. Has any specific plan been approved? A. Other than 
that the Board of Education is proceeding according to its 
plan to develop an acceptance of its original position, which 
is that it was going to comply with the Supreme Court’s 
decision.

D. Now since this suit has been filed has any plan or 
change in plan been made? A. No change. A  further con­
sideration of the problem and the steps that the Board has

Dr. John Walter Letson—Direct



15b

taken and is contemplating taking in the accomplishment 
of its original position.

D. Has the Board discussed this problem with the 
teachers at these joint meetings that you refer to? A. 
No, not the Board itself. It has been a subject of some 
consideration by various groups in the school system.

D. Now getting back to this plan that you say the Board 
adopted, when did the Board adopt this plan, do you recall 
or do you know? A. I could only speak from the record. 
It was soon after the original Supreme Court decision, ’54.

Mr. W itt: ’Fifty-five.

By Mrs. Motley:

D. And now in addition to the meetings which you spoke 
of a moment ago with community interest groups, has the

—2 6 -
Board done anything further or additional to implement 
this plan that you talk about? A. Not to my knowledge. 
The intention and desire of the Board of Education was 
to proceed to the limits of time and ability to develop a 
community understanding of the problem.

D. Now in developing this community understanding of 
the problem, what techniques, specifically, have they been 
using at these meetings, for example? A. A  series of 
meetings, first with ministerial groups. A discussion meet­
ing that went into the background of the problem, tried to 
assess the position of our community in relation to that 
problem, and attempted to develop an understanding on the 
part of the people in attendance of what the problem actu­
ally is and how progress might be made toward the accom­
plishment of that original position.

D. Now in addition to meeting with the ministerial 
alliance, what other community groups have you met with,

Dr. John Walter Letson—Direct



16b

specifically? A. A  number of informal groups without 
specific organizational connection, but groups that the 
Board felt would be instrumental and informational in 
helping with this problem.

D. What about the Parent Teachers Association? Have 
you met with them ? A. Not as an organization.

— 27—
D. Have any of these meetings involved Negro citizens? 

A. Yes.
D. What Negro citizen groups have you met with? A. 

The ministerial group, of course, number one. The edu­
cational group representatives from our own staff and our 
own administrative staff throughout the school system, and 
a few other meetings that were, that involved some, both 
white and colored people, but they were not organizational 
in the sense that they had an organizational tie.

D. Now what happens at these meetings? Do you have 
school administrators who’ve had experience in integration 
to come and speak to the groups? A. No.

D. Or what? A. No. It’s an informal discussion among 
the members of the Board of Education and those in at­
tendance on the problem.

D. You’ve had no professional assistance, in other words? 
A. No.

D. In the development of this plan? A. No other, no. 
I think the answer should be no.

D. Now as a result of these meetings that the Board has 
had with respect to its plan, has it arrived at any con­
clusions, formulated any steps? A. No formal ones that

- 2 8 -
have, no formal ones that have been placed in writing, other 
than those public statements that I previously mentioned. 
I would say that in general the Board came away from most

Dr. John Walter Letson—Direct



17b

of these meetings with, with a clearer understanding of 
the size of the problem and its difficulty.

D. Has the Board studied the possible use of the Ten­
nessee pupil assignment law! A. Not in detail. It has been 
a matter of record, of course, and has been a topic of con­
sideration and discussion on a few occasions.

D. But that law hasn’t actually been used here, has it? 
A. It has not been placed in effect at the present.

D. Now since you’ve been the Superintendent, do you 
know whether the Board has received any petitions from 
citizen groups to comply with the Supreme Court decision 
and desegregate the schools? A. Yes, on one occasion.

D. When was that? A. Last summer.
D. The summer o f ’59? A. Yes.
D. From whom or from what group did the Board receive 

such a petition? A. I don’t remember the specific name. 
I know Mr. Carter was one of the participants. I think 
Mr. Mapp was also one of the participants.

—29—
D. W e’d like to get a copy of that petition, too. A. Yes.

Mr. Craig: You will supply it?
The Witness: Yes, we will supply it.

By Mrs. Motley:

D. Now did the Board ever reply to that petition? A. 
Yes. That’s one of the statements that—

I). One of the public statements ? A. Yes.
D. That you have referred to? A. Yes.
I). Now have any Negro parents ever requested assign­

ment of their children to the white schools here? A. To 
my knowledge, not until the present case came into the 
picture.

Dr. John Walter Letson—Direct



18b

D. Now this petition that you referred to a moment ago 
which you said the Board received last summer from Mr. 
Mapp and Mr. Carter, now Mr. Mapp is one of the Plaintiffs 
in the lawsuit, I understand? A. Yes.

D. Now in that petition did he request at that time that 
the Board desegregate the schools? A. Yes.

D. Or did he request specific assignment of his children?
— 30—

A. As I recall the petition it was a general request that 
the Board desegregate the schools in Chattanooga.

D. Now after that petition, did Mr. Mapp ever request 
an assignment of his children to a white school? A. Not 
to my knowledge.

D. Did Mr. Mapp ever come to your office and say that 
he wanted his child assigned to a white school? A. Not 
until the existing case came into the picture.

D. Well, you mean he filed his case and then he came to 
you and asked for an assignment? A. No. No. He asked 
for the placement of his child previous to the beginning of 
this lawsuit.

D. Now— A. But that was not following the petition 
last summer, however. That was the point I was making.

D. It was not following the petition? A. It was not 
immediately following that petition.

D. But first he sent a general petition asking for desegre­
gation. Do I understand you correctly? A. Yes.

D. After'— A. Which was answered by the Board.
D. Which was answered by the Board? A. (Witness 

inclined his head.)
D. Now after that, he came in person to your office? A.

- 3 1 -
Yes.

D. And requested assignment of his children to a white 
school? A. Yes.

Dr. John Walter Letson—Direct



19b

D. Is that correct? A. Yes.
D. Now what happened with respect to that request that 

he made in person? A. It was referred to the Board of 
Education.

D. And what action did the Board take on it? A. The 
Board issued a statement the following— I ’m probably in 
error. I ’m not sure. I don’t think the Board did issue a 
statement following that request.

D. Did they send him a letter or anything? A. No.
D. Did they call him up and tell him anything? A. To 

my knowledge, no.
D. Now in addition to Mr. Mapp, who else among the 

Negro parents has ever come to your office in person and 
requested assignment of his or her children to white 
schools? A. Reverend Kirnon and Mrs. Maxey.

D. Now they appeared also in person in your office? A. 
Yes.

D. And that was after this petition of last summer? A 
Yes.

—32—
D. Now with respect to this petition which you say Mr. 

Mapp and Mr. Carter signed, is it possible that that was 
the summer of ’58 instead of ’59? A. Yes, that’s—yes, I 
thing it was. It was in ’58. Also let me correct my state­
ment a moment ago.

D. Sure. A. There was a statement made by the Board 
following the request by Mr. Mapp and others to enroll 
their children. There was a statement issued.

D. In writing? A. In writing, issued by the Board, and 
a copy of it was forwarded to the persons involved.

Mr. W itt: You want that?
Mrs. Motley: W e’d like to get a copy of that state­

ment.

Dr. John Walter Letson—Direct



20b

Dr. John Walter Letson— Direct 

By Mrs. Motley:

D. So that your statement now is that Mr. Mapp sent a 
petition to the Board in 1958? A. Yes.

D. Originally? A. Yes.
D. The Board issued a statement with respect to that in 

’58? A. Yes.
D. And then two years later, 1956, he appeared in person

—3 3 -
in your office, is that right ? A. You m ean’60?

D. In 1960, I meant to say. A. Yes. I don’t recall the 
date of that appearance, but it’s a matter of record.

D. That was this year? A. Yes.
D. Now when Mr. Mapp and Reverend Kirnon and Mrs. 

Maxey came to your office and requested assignment of their 
children to a white school, did they have children enrolled 
in the public school system at that time? A. Yes.

D. Do you know what school their children went to 
school, what schools their children were enrolled in? A. 
Orchard Knob, to my knowledge, although I think one was 
in the group transferred to East Fifth Street by, trans­
ported to East Fifth Street this year.

D. Well, why was this person transported, or a child 
transported? A. In an effort to relieve an overcrowded 
situation at the Orchard Knob School, we utilized some 
space at the East Fifth Street School and the children were 
transported there.

D. Nowt you say Mr. Mapp and Reverend Kirnon and 
Mrs. Maxey had children in the Orchard Knob School when 
they came to your office? A. I ’m not certain. It is my

—3 4 -
understanding that they had children in the Chattanooga 
public schools, and I ’m sure that, that some of those, some



21b

of the children involved were at East Fifth Street, al­
though they were a part of the Orchard Knob School.

D. Now. A. For a part of this year.
D. Isn’t it that after they came to your office they were 

transported or transferred to the East Fifth Street School! 
A. No, that transfer had been made previous to—

D. Their coming? A. Previous to their coming.
D. And that transfer was made on the basis of the fact 

that the Orchard Knob School was overcrowded? A. Yes.
D. Now isn’t it true that there was a white school called 

the Glenwood School which was under-enrolled at that time 
to which they might’ve been assigned? A. The three 
children, or the children involved could possibly have been 
assigned in terms of space to the Glenwood School.

D. And is it not a fact that they requested assignment of 
their children to the Glenwood School? A. Yes.

D. And at the time they requested that, there was space
— 35—

there for them? A. Yes, space for the three involved. Not 
space to relieve the overcrowded situation at Orchard 
Knob.

D. Well, how many under-utilized classrooms did you 
have in the Glenwood School at that time? A. They aren’t 
un-utilized classrooms. They are classrooms with an en­
rollment that could be expanded.

D. How many such classrooms would you say? A. Well, 
I  wouldn’t—it would be my guess without looking at the 
record and the distribution of existing enrollment, that 
three or four of those classrooms could accept a few addi­
tional children without exceeding the desirable level.

D. Now their request, the transfer was denied on the 
basis of race, wasn’t it? A. It was referred to the Board 
of Education and the Board’s statement answered that 
request.

Dr. John Walter Letson—Direct



22b

D. I see. Now at the present time what is the enrollment 
in the Glenwood School and what is its capacity, do you 
know? A. I would prefer to look at the record before giv­
ing that answer.

D. Well, we’d like to get that also at the end. Now when 
Mr. Mapp and Mrs. Maxey and Reverend Kirnon came to 
your office, what specifically took place? A. They told, 
they told me of their desire for their children to be enrolled

— 36-

in the Glenwood School. I told them that the request would 
be referred to the Board of Education.

D. You didn’t discuss with them the problem that their 
children were Negro and the schools white? A. (Witness 
shook his head from side to side.)

D. That never occurred to you? A. Not at that occasion, 
not at that time.

D. You made no statement to them regarding the race of 
their children? A. I ’m not sure that I understand your 
question.

D. Now Mr. Mapp and Reverend Kirnon and Mrs. Maxey 
are Negroes, are they not? A. Yes.

D. As far as you know? A. Yes.
D. They came to your office and requested assignment of 

their children to a white school? A. Yes.
D. And you mean this was never discussed that their 

children were white, or Negro and wanted to go to a white 
school? A. Well, it was understood and known, of course. 
I don’t think we particularly discussed it at that particular 
time. Certainly it was a matter of common knowledge on 
the part of all of us.

D. Now let me ask you this: Normally when a request
— 37—

for transfer is made, do you normally refer those requests 
to the Board? A. No.

Dr. John Walter Letson—Direct



23b

D. What procedure do you follow when you receive a 
request for transfer? A. We make it normally on the 
basis of the attendance area in which the children are as­
signed. There can be exceptions from that attendance only 
for reasons that are believed to be justified.

That decision is normally made by the staff. A  handi­
capped child or for some particular reason that makes it a 
difficulty for that child to attend the school in that area is 
taken into consideration as the decision is made.

#  *  #  #  #

—47—
Mr. W illiam D. L eber, being- first duty sworn, was 

examined and deposed as fo llow s:

Direct Examination by Mrs. Motley:

D. Mr. Leber, would you state your full name? A. 
William D. Leber, L-e-b-e-r.

D. Are you a member of the Board of Education of the 
City of Chattanooga? A. Yes.

D. How long have you been a member of the Board? A. 
Since August of 1954.

D. Since you’ve been a member of the Board, has the 
Board adopted any resolutions regarding desegregation of 
the schools of Chattanooga ? A. Yes.

D. I ’m going to show you this document and ask you 
whether you recognize it. A. These are all the statements, 
aren’t they?

D. The first statement in the booklet which is entitled 
“ Official Statements of the Chattanooga Board of Educa­
tion on the Supreme Court Decisions of May seventeenth, 
1954, and May thirty-first, 1955,” contains a statement dated 
July twenty-second, 1955. A. Yes.

D. And you were a member of the Board at that time?

William, D. Leber—Direct



24b

William D. Leber—Direct

A. Yes.
D. Now the next statement is dated October twelfth, 1955. 

Do yon see that? A. Yes ma’am.
D. And you were a member of the Board at that time? A. 

Yes.
D. The next statement is dated November fifteenth, 1955, 

and you were a member of the Board at that time? A. 
Yes.

D. Next statement is dated March thirty-first, 1956. 
Were you a member of the Board at that time? A. Yes.

D. The next statement is dated July ninth, 1958. Were 
you a member of the Board at that time? A. Yes.

D. Final statement is dated March seventh, 1960. Were 
you a member of the Board at that time? A. Yes.

D. Are you familiar with all of these statements? A. 
Yes, I am. I couldn’t repeat them, I mean. I ’d have to read 
them.

D. Now since July twenty-second, 1955, when the first 
statement was adopted, would you tell us what the Board 
has done with respect to integration, specifically? A. Yes. 
We have attempted to elucidate the community in regard

—49—
to desegregation. W e’ve met with numerous groups, com­
munity-interest groups; groups that have come to us to 
talk about the situation since that time.

D. Have you done anything other than talk to community- 
interest groups? A. Nothing specifically except bringing 
the community to an awareness of the problem, talking 
among ourselves and talking to individuals. Other than 
that, nothing specifically except moving the community 
toward the time of compliance, full compliance.

—48—



25b

D. At these meetings have there been any professional 
persons discussing desegregation, how it’s effected, and so 
forth? A. When you speak of “ professional,” you mean 
outside professional groups ?

D. Yes. A. No.
D. Now specifically, what problems, if any, were dis­

cussed at these meetings? A. The change in the customs 
that this community has observed for a period of a hundred 
and fifty (150) years, or a hundred (100) years, whatever 
the time may be; unaccustomed as the people would be to 
this change, to try to get them to accept the change that will 
be necessary in full compliance, and that sort of thing.

— 50—
D. Well, what has the Board done to try to get the com­

munity to accept the decision. I don’t understand. Specif­
ically what, what have you done? A. I think specifically 
what we’ve attempted to do is to get the leadership of the 
community to bring the community behind the school board, 
to get them behind the school board. We need, we needed 
the responsible people of the community to help in this 
matter, to talk to the people and get them to understand, the 
people that they may be the leader of. For instance, a min­
ister of a church or a person that employs a lot of people, 
for example. A person that’s active in community affairs, 
that meets with groups of people like civic clubs and one 
thing and another, to get them to back the school board 
openly.

D. So that since 1955 until the present you have been 
meeting with community leaders, is that right? A. Yes.

D. Now let me call your attention to the second statement 
dated October twenty-second, 1955, the third paragraph of 
that statement. It says this: “ It is evident that some people 
have misunderstood our original statement of policy.”  Now 
it isn’t clear to me from reading this exactly what the Board

William D. Leber—Direct



26b

had in mind by “ some people have misunderstood their 
original policy.” A. You say it’s not clear to you?

— 51—

D. No. What prompted the statement? A. In our orig­
inal statement, if you notice the first few paragraphs or 
the first paragraph, in fact, stated that, well, let’s see. It 
wouldn’t be the first paragraph. Let’s see. “ The Chat­
tanooga Board, we have come to a decision.”  Yes, it is the 
first paragraph, that we would comply with the decision of 
the United States Supreme Court on the matter of integra­
tion of public schools.

So many people just read that paragraph, and from that 
first statement the manner in which the community received 
it was, well, I don’t know exactly how to explain it, was com­
pletely to the reversal of the way some of us expected it to 
be received. It was received with violence, a violent re­
action, you might say.

D. Well. A. Not any violent—
D. What violence? A. Not any physical violence, but— 

so we felt after the first statement—
D. Well, what, excuse me. Would you explain what you 

mean by violence? You say the statement was received with 
violence? A. Violent reaction.

D. Violent— A. I changed that from violence to violent
— 52-

reaction, and I mean the people who were—I ’m speaking in 
my own behalf and not for anyone else—people who were 
my friends became, they called me names. They—they 
seemed to be not my friends any more. The groups in which 
I moved denounced the decision that the school board had 
made.

The community in general was, as I viewed it, was in an 
uproar over this fact that we’d stated we’d comply, and they

William D. Leber—Direct



27b

saw no reason for me having made such a statement, so 
after that we felt, I felt with the others it was necessary that 
we make another statement.

D. Did any group send any written statements to the 
Board? A. Yes.

D. Opposing the Board’s position? A. Numbers of them.
D. Do you have those? A. I—
D. In the records? A. I don’t. I ’m not sure that we have 

kept those in the record. We received them individually 
and not as a group. I don’t believe we received them as a 
group.

D. Now I want to direct your attention to the statement 
of November fifteenth, 1955; it refers here to the establish­
ment of an Interracial Advisory Committee. Is that coin-

—53—
mittee still in existence? A. No. It hadn’t been discharged 
but it’s—it hadn’t been active.

D. How long has that committee been inactive? A. Since 
its first meeting.

D. And its first meeting was November fifteen? A. Yes.
D. Nineteen fifty-five? A. (Witness inclined his head.)
D. And that was a public organizational meeting? A. 

Yes, it was a public, not an organizational meeting. It was 
a public meeting that this statement was to be read to them, 
and the purpose of the Interracial Advisory Committee was 
outlined in that statement.

D. Did the committee ever actually meet? A. Yes. They 
met that night.

D. On November fifteenth? A. Yes.
D. Nineteen fifty-five? A. Yes.
D. Now who was on that committee, do you recall? A. 

I can’t recall the names, but they were people from all 
sections of the city, representing all walks of life, and they

William D. Leber—Direct



28b

were divided according to the ratio of the division of Negro 
and white children in the schools.

We had about two-thirds white, I think, and one-third
— 5 4 -

Negro on the, on the Interracial Advisory Committee. They 
were chosen. Do you wish me to read them!

D. How many names do you have there? A. I think 
there’s about thirty-five (35), isn’t there, Raymond?

D. Well, we could probably get a copy of that. I don’t 
think it will be necessary for you to read those names. W e’d 
like to get a copy of that, Mr. Witt. A. Thirty-five I think 
is right.

D. And the thirty-five people on that advisory committee? 
A. Yes.

D. And they have not met since the opening or organiza­
tional meeting? A. Not as an advisory committee. On that 
Interracial Advisory Committee there were forty (40) 
people; twenty-eight (28) white and twelve (12) Negro.

D. Now what happened at that first advisory counsel 
meeting other than the reading of this statement by the 
chairman? A. I f  I remember correctly, the chairman didn’t 
even get to finish his reading of his statement because it, 
it resulted in a riot, name-calling, almost physical violence, 
in a general uproar, throwing of stink bombs. It ended in 
a complete riot, and we feared for the safety of some of the

- 5 5 -
people on the Interracial Advisory Committee.

D. You mean the members of the committee rioted? A. 
No.

D. Or outside the— A. The people attended, outside 
people.

D. Oh, members of the public rioted? A. Yes.

William D. Leber—Direct



29b

D. Is this the reason why there have not been any meet­
ings since that time? A. With the Interracial Advisory 
Committee, we felt that, that this, at that time, that this 
question was so filled with emotion that we could not hold 
a public meeting where we could discuss it.

D. Have you held any private meetings of the advisory 
committee? A. No.

D. Was there any police protection at that first meeting, 
public meeting of the advisory committee? A. No. We 
did not anticipate that we would need police protection, 
and we did not call on the police department. We didn’t, 
in fact, know that there would be such a large attendance 
of people present. There was a little notice put in the 
paper about it. We did not put it there, however, but it was 
put there, and we didn’t ask for police protection.

We weren’t too sure whether, how—whether we could
—56—

depend on the police or not. We didn’t know whether we 
needed them or not or whether they’d come or whether 
they’d send them or what-not, so we just didn’t have any.

D. You didn’t know whether you could depend upon the 
police and you didn’t know whether they would come if 
you sent for them? Did you ever make any inquiries— A. 
No.

D. — of the police chief? A. As I said, we discussed it 
but finally decided that we wouldn’t probably need them, 
and we didn’t ask for them.

D. In other words, because of this hostility evidenced at 
the meeting to your proposal, you just never called your 
advisory committee again? A. No. That’s right.

D. Now that was five years ago? A. Yes.
D. Now what’s the reason for not calling the advisory 

committee now, 1960, five years later? A. From the, on

William D. Leber—Direct



30b

the basis of which I just stated, that we felt that if we called 
the advisory committee together it would of necessity have 
to be a public meeting. When the school board meets it’s 
supposed to be a public meeting, and as we felt we could 
not hold these meetings in public, so therefore you might 
say we went underground and at no time did the school 
board meet after that as a group in—we met in small

- 5 7 -
groups and with small, small groups of individuals of com­
munity-interest people.

D. Well, are you saying that you have not had a public 
meeting of this advisory committee since ’55 because you 
fear that you could not have a public meeting without this 
rioting? A. That’s right.

D. How do you know that, since you haven’t had any 
meetings— A. Well now.

D. —in five years? A. I, for one, was not willing to 
attempt it after that first meeting.

D. Now do you have anything other than your mere 
assertion that you could not get the cooperation of the 
police? A. Do I have?

D. At future meetings? A. I didn’t say that.
D. Do you have any— A. I didn’t say that for future 

meetings. I said for that meeting.
D. Well, let me ask you this: Has the Board ever at­

tempted to get the cooperation of the police in connection 
with any meetings of the Board? A. No, we never.

— 58—
D. On this question ? A. No, we never have.
D. So that, so that since 1955 the Board has not made 

any effort to get this, to have a meeting, rather, of this 
Interracial Advisory Committee? A. No.

William D. Leber—Direct



31b

D. Let me direct your attention to the statement dated 
March thirty-first, 1956. The opening statement says 
“ Events in the last year have convinced the Chattanooga 
Board of Education that the community will not accept any 
form of integration within the city schools at any time 
within the near future. We therefore take this opportunity 
to report to the community our decision to postpone any 
change in the public schools for a period of at least a few 
years, probably five years or more.”

What investigation or study or survey did the Board 
make to determine that the community would not accept 
any form of integration within the city schools at any time 
in the foreseeable future, and what study or survey did 
the Board make to determine that it would be at least five 
years before there could be any integration in the com­
munity? A. Well, subsequent, or rather after the Inter­
racial Advisory Committee riot, after our first statement, 
the community was in such an upheaval according to the 
people that talked with us individually, according to the 
number of people that called the school office, according 
to the pronouncements by people from, I ’d say, even pulpits,

- 5 9 -
in meetings held by people that were running for office, by 
the general talk in any group that you happened to be 
present, and a number of us at that time were very active 
in civic affairs, going to numerous meetings most every 
night in the week meeting with different people, and the 
general upheaval and as it concerned the schools, led us to 
believe the wisdom of making such a statement.

D. Did somebody make a report of this to the Board? 
Did the Superintendent make a report? A. No.

D. In which he documented this? A. We made a report, 
we talked it ourselves. It was in, every time we got to­

William D. Leber—Direct



32b

gether it was necessary that we talk about this situation. 
In fact, if I remember correctly, the school Superintendent 
at that time could not properly run the schools for trying 
to answer the questions as to what the school board was 
going to do the coming year, and so on, and so forth, and 
it was necessary that we have a time when we could settle 
the community, if we could, so that we could talk about this 
matter in a peaceful atmosphere and carry our elucidation 
problem faster and probably get to a place that we could 
talk even to our friends about it.

D. Now what was the basis for the decision that it would 
be probably five years or more'? A. Of course, that, in our

- 6 0 -
own mind we felt that it would take that long for the com­
munity to settle down, that—

D. Well, how did you arrive at the figure five years as 
opposed to some other figure? A. Well, I don’t know that 
I could say just exactly why the five years. That we say a 
period of at least a few years and probably five, on the basis 
that it would take that long to elucidate the community to 
even get a semblance of peaceful atmosphere in which to 
move toward this full compliance that we talked about in the 
first statement.

D. Now it’s been four years, a little more than four years, 
hasn’t it? A. Yes.

D. Since you made this statement? A. (Witness in­
clined his head.)

D. So you think that the Board is now ready to follow 
its original determination to integrate the schools? A. 
Well, I—I don’t—I don’t know whether you could say, as 
you realize, that .the school board is an agent of the com­
munity. We represent both Negro and the white people 
of this community, and until at least I ’m speaking for my­

William D. Leber—Direct



33b

self now, until I feel that the least harm that can be done 
to either a Negro child or a white child will be when I ’ll 
move for full compliance, and until our elucidation process 
which we’re now in proves to us that we can move with the 
least harm to education in the City of Chattanooga, that’s

— 61—
when I think we’ll move, or when I ’ll move. Whether it be 
five years I don’t, I ’m—I couldn’t say.

D. Well, how do you measure this? How are you going 
to be able to tell? A. I think the events of the last sixty 
(60) days would be a good, or maybe ninety (90) days 
now, I ’m not sure just how long ago it’s been, would be a 
good example of wdiether or not the community’s ready for 
it or not, if—

D. What’s happened in the last ninety days? A. Well.
D. Which affects this problem? A. These sit-ins at 

Kress’s, for example. If one store can create a situation 
whereby thousands of people milling and fighting and tear­
ing at one another, if a few sit-ins can cause that what would 
integration of forty-seven schools be?

D. So that what you actually do is to judge by the amount 
of hostility which you feel is present in the community? 
A. No.

D. Before implementing this plan? A. I wouldn’t say 
that. Until this time not one person has come, I ’d say, I 
might take that back, “ one person.” Not more than, not as 
many as five people have publicly said that this should be 
done now, and the leadership of the community has not 
moved behind us. We know that.

D. In other words, you are saying that it’s not up to
— 62—

the Board to decide when integration shall take effect, but 
it’s up to the community to decide? A. No, I didn’t say

William D. Leber—Direct



34b

that, but after all, we are the agents of the community and 
if the members of the community could get rid of this Board 
if they wanted to.

D. Is the Board elected or appointed by the Mayor! A. 
I—I couldn’t answer that on a yes-or-no question. It’s— 
the members are selected by a screening committee which 
is presented to this Board. The Board then nominates and 
sends to the Mayor and Commissioners, and they appoint.

D. Well, it’s a sort of self-perpetuating Board! A. You 
might call it that.

D. Isn’t it! A. Yes.
D. And it isn’t elected by the people! A. No. But we, 

the screening committee is representative of the community.

Mr. W itt: The Commissioner of Health.
The Witness: Huh!
Mr. W itt: The Commissioner of Health.
Mr. Meacham: The Commissioner of Health.
The Witness: Yes, there’s one exception, the Com­

missioner of Health and Education who is, by his 
office, Chairman of the Board. He’s elected by the 
people.

— 63—
By Mrs. Motley.

D. Now since March thirty-first, 1956, when you issued 
this statement to the effect that integration would not take 
place at any time in the near future, has the Board done 
anything other than hold meetings to determine whether 
there has been a change in the community attitude toward 
the Board’s policy! A. No, they haven’t done anything 
except hold meetings and receive, not formal receipt of the 
community, various groups in the community or various

William, D. Leber—Direct



35b

individuals in the community as talking to individual 
members of the Board.

D. Has the Board made any studies to see to what extent 
there would be integration or desegregation in the com­
munity? A. No. Not a formal study, no.

D. Has the Board instructed the Superintendent to de­
vise any plan? A. No. We feel that we have a plan, that 
we’re in a plan of compliance at the present time.

D. Well, what is your plan? A. Elucidation, at the 
present time. We are—

I). By “ elucidation” you mean talking to the community? 
A. Yes, trying to.

D. Trying to win over the community? A. Trying to, 
yes.

D. Now did I understand you to say a few moments ago 
that not as many as five individuals have requested the

—64—
Board to integrate? A. No.

D. Recently? A. I didn’t say that. I said not as many 
as five have publicly stated that they thought—

Mr. W itt: White community.
The Witness: Huh?
Mr. W itt: White community.
The- Witness: White, white community, of the 

white community.

By Mrs. Motley:

D. Now don’t you have some group here known as the 
Community Relations Counsel composed of white persons 
which has requested desegregation recently? A. There has 
been a group. Now as to what the name, I—I couldn’t 
definitely say that that was the name, but we have had a

William D. Leber—Direct



36b

group appear before the Board to request that we inte­
grate, but there again, they have not made it known to the 
community that they wished us to integrate. They want us 
to integrate without—and they, they stay in the background.

D. When did they appear before the Board? A. I would 
say about thirty (30) to forty-five (45) days ago, or maybe 
it was just previous to this suit. I ’m not quite sure, but I 
think it—

D. And that group is composed of whites, is it? A. Yes.
— 65—

D. Do you know who the chairman is? A. I should know, 
but I can’t recall his name.

Mrs. Irvine: Shavin.

By Mrs. Motley:
D. They represent more than five people, don’t they? 

A. I think they do, but now remember I said five. They 
have not publicly stated.

D. Does this statement of theirs appear in the minutes 
of the Board? A. No. We did not meet as a board. They 
made no formal request. They just talked to the Board 
members, they talked to us as individuals in a group.

D. Now let me direct your attention to the statement 
dated July ninth, 1958, and ask you if that’s the statement 
issued by the Board after Mr. Mapp and Mr. Carter pre­
sented a petition to the Board asking for desegregation 
of the schools. A. Yes sir, that’s it.

D. Now Mr. Mapp and Mr. Carter are Negro citizens of 
Chattanooga, aren’t they? A. Yes. I ’m not sure that Mr. 
Carter is at the present time a citizen of Chattanooga. I 
think he moved, since moved.

D. Now let me direct your attention to the statement

William D. Leber—Direct



37b

dated March seventh, 1960, and ask you if that is the state­
ment issued by the Board in response to the request of Mr. 
Mapp, Reverend Kirnon, and Mrs. Maxey to have their 
children assigned to white schools! A. Yes, that’s it,

— 66—

D. Now what was that statement based on! Did the 
Board make any survey or study to determine that the 
demand for total integration is premature! A. It was not 
made on a formal survey, but again the community arose 
with the publication of the fact that integration had been 
asked for, and anyone on this Board was aware of the fact 
that to do what was asked to be done would bring dire 
results to the school system of Chattanooga.

D. Now. A. And all education.
D. How were they aware of that fact! How—  A. I beg 

pardon!
D. How was the Board aware of that fact? A. Aware?
D. You say everyone on the Board was aware of the fact 

that to integrate would bring dire results. How were you 
aware of that fact? A. By—

D. On March seventh, 1960? A. By people of the com­
munity talking to individuals, by letters to the editor, by— 
in the newspapers, the general tone of the community. We 
—we don’t just stay at home.

D. Was there anything other than talk that you went on? 
Did you go on anything other than people talking? A.

— 67—

What else would you—
D. I mean to who talked the loudest? A. What do you 

have? Like what, for instance, here? Like what? Go on 
what?

D. Did you make any study or survey to determine— A.
I said we made no formal study.

William D. Leber—Direct



38b

D. Other than this talk ! A. No.
D. You just go by what you read in the newspaper! A. 

No. I said we went by talking with individuals, by groups 
of people in which we moved, and in that manner. The 
people where we worked, where I work, and—

D. In other words, there’s been no formal determination 
that integration is premature. This is just informal off-the- 
cuff community talk, newspaper talk sort of thing! A. I 
wouldn’t say it was newspaper talk. It’s the actual contact 
with citizens which, in the movement of our daily lives, 
both at work and in church and community activity.

D. How many newspapers do you have here! A. Two.
D. Are they both opposed to the Board’s position! A. 

I ’m not sure that either one of them are opposed to the 
Board’s position.

D. Has either newspaper supported the Board’s position! 
A. I think both newspapers have supported the Board’s

- 68-

position. I—now you, when you—you may be talking about 
one thing and I may be talking about another. I ’m talking 
about the situation which we are now in, in compliance 
with the Supreme Court’s decision.

D. Both newspapers have supported your statement that 
you will comply with the Supreme Court! A. They did 
not. You didn’t ask me that question.

D. I ’m sorry. I guess you misunderstood me. I asked 
you whether— A. No, they did not support the original 
statement. Both newspapers did not.

D. Did one! A. I think one did, yes.
D. And the other opposed! A. Yes.
D. Now in addition to the newspaper which opposed your 

position, do you have a list of organizations or individuals

William D. Leber— Direct



39b

who opposed your position? A. I haven’t got a written 
list, but I have it in my mind, as far as I ’m concerned.

D. Do you have communications from organizations op­
posing your position in your files? A. I have had many 
communications, many communications.

D. Are they a part of the official records of the Board? 
A. No.

— 69—
D. Now since this suit has been filed has the Board 

made any plan for compliance with the Supreme Court’s 
decision? A. Again, I wish to state that we feel we are 
complying with the Supreme Court decision.

D. You feel that you are complying with it by talking 
to people in the community? A. Yes. Elucidation.

D. And is that, that’s the extent of your understand­
ing of the Supreme Court’s decision? A. No.

D. That all the school boards have to do is talk to 
people in the community? A. No.

D. And when the people in the community get ready to 
desegregate the schools the Board should then desegregate 
the schools? A. No. However, the Supreme Court set 
down three rules.

D. What three rules— A. And made other—
D. — are you referring to? A. Elucidation, assessing, 

and solving.
D. Well, you’ve been elucidating. Have you been as­

sessing the problem? A. W e’ve attempted to, yes. I
- 7 0 -

think we have. I think we’ve assessed it.
D. And what is your conclusion? A. That the com­

munity is not ready for integration.
D. And this is based on what? A. On the school 

board’s assessing of the situation in Chattanooga.

William D. Leber—Direct



40b

D. Now bow did you assess the situation? A. I told 
you that once before. Talking with groups and moving 
in the community.

D. Oh, I see. Now have you done any solving of the 
problem? You said the third was solving, I think. A. 
No, we haven’t solved it. The problem’s still unsolved.
I mean the way it— as far as full compliance is con­
cerned.

D. Is there any integration at all in the Chattanooga 
community in any public facility? A. I I ’m not sure.

D. What about the buses? A. I—I was just fixing to 
say, unless you were talking about the buses. I think 
they have taken the signs down off the buses.

D. Now has there been any violence in connection with 
that? A. Well, yes, there has. Not too much, but not—

D Where? A. Not too much.
—71—

D. Where? A. There’s been—
D. Where has there been violence? A. There’s been 

times when flare-ups have resulted.
D. Where? Where?

Mr. Meacham: Cutting.
The Witness: Huh?
Mr. Meacham: Cutting on the bus.
The Witness: Cutting and things like that. I 

couldn’t specify the time or the place, but it has 
happened.

By Mrs. Motley:
D. How many times has it happened? A. Well, I— 

I don’t know. It’s probably happened more than I know

William D. Leber—Direct



41b

about. Some of those things don’t get in the paper. It’s 
been in the paper several times.

D. Well, if it were a major disturbance it would cer­
tainly be in the paper, wouldn’t it? A. I believe it would, 
yes.

D. So that there haven’t been any major disturbances 
in connection with desegregation of the buses, isn’t that 
true? A. Major, no.

D. How long has that been in effect, desegregation of 
the buses? A. I think that’s been about possibly four 
years, I think, maybe. I ’m not sure.

— 72—
D. About four years? A. I think so. Or maybe—

Mr. Meacham: Eleven (11) years.
The Witness: Maybe—
Mr. Meacham: Eleven years.
The Witness: Huh?
Mr. Meacham: Eleven years.
Mrs. Motley: Eleven years?
The Witness: You mean desegregation?
Mr. Meacham: They didn’t pass that ordinance 

till the 1949 code.
Mrs. Motley: Desegregating the buses?
Mr. Meacham: The City-—
The Witness: But they didn’t take those signs 

down now.
Mr. Meacham: The City of Chattanooga has, for 

your information, has utterly no segregation ordi­
nance on its books, and has not had since 1949.

Mrs. Motley: All segregation ordinances?
Mr. Meacham: They were—
Mrs. Motley: Have been repealed?

William D. Leber—Direct



42b

Mr. Meacham: They were omitted and repealed 
with publication of the 1949 code.

Mrs. Motley: I  see.
Mr. Meacham: It took several years for people

—73—
to discover that, though.

By Mrs. Motley:

D. The school board, has the school board ever dis­
covered that, Mr. Leber?

Mr. Meacham: W e’ve still got the State laws.

D. That the City has no segregation ordinances? A. 
They still—

D. And repealed all of them eleven years ago? A. I 
wasn’t aware that they were that old, but I knew that 
they had, that the City of Chattanooga had no ordinances 
at the present time.

D. Has the Board taken that into consideration in its 
assessment of whether the community is ready for— A. 
I think it has.

#  # *  *  #

—74—
By Mrs. Motley:

D. You heard Doctor Letson’s testimony, did you not? 
A. Yes.

D. Did you hear him testify that he thought the Board 
had met seven or eight times with these community- 
interest groups? A. Yes.

D. Does that conform with your recollection of the 
number of times the Board has met in the last— A. 
Since he’s been here. We met.

William D. Leber—Direct



43b

D. Oh. A. We met.
D. Since he’s been here now? A. We met before he 

came.
D. How many times all told would you say the Board 

has met since 1955 with these groups? A. I—I tell you, 
that would be a hard thing to say definitely. We would 
like—I think we have a record of that. I would judge 
at least twelve (12) or fourteen (14) times, or maybe

— 7 5 -
more than that, even.

D. Do these meetings appear in the minutes, or any 
record of these— A. No, the Board doesn’t meet offi­
cially, only small groups. You see, each of us live in 
different sections of the city, and we’ll take a few of us 
live in one section will take a group and meet in the homes 
and talk about the situation. Some of us have conflict­
ing—

D. Do you report to the Board then, as a whole, on 
your meetings? A. No, we don’t make any formal report.

D. Now let me ask you this: Has the Board, as a 
board, sitting in a board meeting, ever had any meetings 
with these community-interest groups other than this ad­
visory counsel? A. Yes.

D. When was that? A. Well, I think, I think that the 
Board was in session. Now" it may not have been. We 
had, we met with a group from Saint Elmo, a Negro 
group, P. T. A. group. Let’s see. I don’t know. It 
may’ve been one, one or so other times. The Board was 
in session, of course, at the time that Mr. Carter and 
Mr. Mapp made their request, and we were in session 
when we answered it, and that’s about the extent, I think.

D. So that the only time the Board has met in session 
has been with Negro groups, is that right? A. I ’m not

William D. Leber—Direct



44b

William D. Leber—Cross

—76—
sure. I—I am not sure that that, that that is right. My 
memory doesn’t, I can’t answer that definitely.

D. But you can’t recollect any meeting with any white 
groups when the Board was in session, can you? A. Well, 
of course we have white groups at all of our meetings, 
and I ’m not sure that that question has or has not come 
up at our official meetings.

* * * * *

Cross Examination by Mr. W itt:

X. Mr. Leber, are you a member of a labor union? 
A. Yes sir.

X. Which union? A. International Typographical Union. 
X. Do you participate in union affairs? A. Yes sir.
X. Would you describe the reaction, as you perceived 

it, of the organized labor in this community to the school 
board’s decision of July twenty-second, 1955, to comply 
with the Supreme Court’s decision? A. Yes. At that 
time the C. A., A. F. of L., C. I. 0. was not a joint group. 
I was a member of the A. F. of L. and the Central Labor 
Union was a body of people where all the A. F. of L. 
unions had delegates that transacted business for the 
unions of the area, and in Chattanooga particularly, things 
that were of interest.

—76a—

(The following was dictated over the telephone to 
the reporter by Mr. Raymond Witt on June 9, I960:)

“ During the noon recess the attorneys all repaired 
to Judge Darr’s chambers wherein he ruled that 
the Defendants had the right to examine witnesses 
following the direct examination of the Defendants



45b

by the Plaintiffs’ attorneys, and reserved until a later 
date the right to assess the cost of such examinations 
to the proper party.

“Attorneys for the Plaintiffs noted their exceptions 
to Judge Darr’s ruling.”

William D. Leber—Cross

— 77—
They had a meeting, they held meetings two times a 

month, and the first meeting they held after the original 
decision of the statement that the school board made, a 
resolution was introduced to the C. L. U., Central Labor 
Union, praising the school board for its decision to com­
ply with the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States.

The Labor World at that time was printed once a 
week, and in the following issue of the Labor World an 
editorial was written praising the decision of the school 
board.

There were very few delegates attending that meeting 
where this resolution was adopted on the strength of, on 
account of the fact that it was summertime and we do 
not have such a very good attendance in the summertime. 
I believe afterwards a count wras made of twenty-two 
people being present.

The following meeting, the hall was full. The temper 
of the delegates were of such nature that they would not 
allow any other business to be transacted at C. L. U. ex­
cept to take up this resolution that had been passed by 
the preceding body.

—78—
The meeting at that time rescinded the action of the 

previous meeting, and instead of praising the school board 
they denounced it and, and said they’d have no part in such



46b

an affair and they thought that we were completely out of 
order in doing what we did. They, at the meeting that’s 
what took place. Jnst about what took place.

X. Was this a surprise to you? A. It was absolutely. 
It was a surprise to a number of us who, I knew in my 
thirty (30) some-odd-years of membership in the union, 
I felt that if one group of people would support such a 
decision it would be the labor group, because the parent 
organization, A. F. of L., for the past twenty-five years in 
national conventions had passed resolutions saying that 
integration of the public schools should be a fact, and I 
thought that, with the integrated meetings of the C. L. U. 
delegates, with labor working side by side with Negro and 
white, that a decision to integrate the school system would 
be accepted but while I am more, my—my connections are 
more with the labor group and church groups, probably, 
than any other groups, I have been denounced in labor 
most violently.

In fact, I couldn’t even, up to two years after that decision 
I couldn’t’ve even been elected chairman of my chapel. In 
fact, people passing by me at work threw vindictive darts 
at me, by word of mouth, in the fact that I had a part in 
this decision. I was very much surprised.

— 79—
X. Did you attend a meeting with a group from the 

school board and the executive committee of the Central 
Labor Union at a later date? A. I did.

X. Did the executive committee of the Central Labor 
Union indicate any support for the school board? A. None 
whatsoever, in that they would openly support the school 
board in its decision. I think that no support openly would 
come from it. All of them said that they hoped it wouldn’t 
happen and offered no visible means of support.

William D. Leber—Cross



47b

X. Is your union integrated locally! A. We do not 
have any Negroes in our local union.

X. Are there any integrated local labor unions? A. I ’m 
not sure that I could answer that exactly. I just really don’t 
know. I know that they have a few Negro delegates to the 
C. L. C. which is now the combined group of A. F. of L., 
C. I. 0. at the central labor counsel meetings once a month. 
Now whether they’re integrated unions, I don’t know.

X. In the private meetings that you have testified that 
the school board has held, would you describe how those 
meetings were conducted? A. Yes. The manner in which 
we followed was that the Board would tell the group pres­
ent what, what they—what the plan was, what the problem 
was. Would go into the various meetings that the Board

—80—
had had in discussing the statements that we’d made, wdiy 
we made them, and I—I think generally that’s about the 
way that it was, was handled, and—

X. Have you met with a group of Methodists, white 
Methodist ministers? A. Yes.

X. Did this group indicate approval of the school board’s 
position? A. I ’m not too sure whether they approved the 
school board’s position or not. They did not say that they 
would in any way help the school board or in any way 
publicly support integration or at any time would they 
mention it in their churches, as they were willing to listen. 
They were, they patted us on the back for a job well done 
up to now, hoped we could continue to do a good job, and 
as far as that was concerned just count them out.

X. Did they offer the Board any support? A. None that 
I can recall at all. None whatsoever.

X. Did you meet with a group of Presbyterian ministers? 
A. I did.

William D. Leber—Cross



48b

X. Did you meet with a group of Cumberland Presby­
terian ministers, white1? A. I—I believe I was at that 
meeting, yes.

X. Did you meet with a group of Baptist ministers'? A. 
I believe it was the First Cumberland, First Presbyterian

—8 1 -
ministers’ group I did not meet with, and I met with the 
Baptists.

X. Did you meet with a group of Episcopal ministers? 
A. Yes.

X. Did you meet with a group in Mr. Harry Miller’s 
home? A. Yes.

X. Do you consider, do you have any evidence that you 
can testify to of any progress that has been made toward 
community acceptance of this decision in recent years? A. 
No. In fact, it’s, it’s a little, if you want to use the words, 
discouraging that the leadership of the community is com­
pletely devoid of its responsibility in this case, or this 
problem. No visible support was given. Even some went 
so far, some preachers even went so far as to say “ Before 
I ’ll bring this up in my church I ’ll have a call in my 
pocket to another church before I ’ll even mention it.”

X. Are you speaking of white ministers? A. White 
ministers.

X. Why do you consider the leadership of the community 
to be particularly important? A. I think the leadership, 
the leadership of the community is important in that they 
are the ones that usually have the pulse of the people in 
which they move amongst at the tip of their fingers. The 
preachers. W e’ve always felt that they stood for law and

—8 2 -
order, and I think they do; that they always stood for 
what’s right and what’s wrong; and I believe they d o ; but

William D. Leber—Cross



49b

yet at the same time in this question of integration or 
desegregation they just don’t seem to want to, to have any­
thing to do with it.

In fact, a number of them have told me so, that they 
just were not going to mention it in their church, and that 
was that, and they just intimated that I just as well quit 
talking about it, as far as they were concerned.

X. Has one of the purposes of these meetings been to 
encourage, accept, the acceptability, the acceptance of the 
fact that compliance is inevitable? A. Yes, it has, and I 
think that, that the elucidation process that we’ve been 
through has brought the extreme, if you want to use the 
extremes at both ends to a closer understanding of the prob­
lem.

Maybe in one meeting we might have somebody that 
would say “Well, why don’t you just go ahead and inte­
grate?” And then maybe we’d have ten or twelve that would 
just hold their hands up in holy horror, and with those two 
extremes I think that we have gotten those that refuse to 
see, before refused to see the problem to understand it a 
little bit better.

Yet at the same time they seem to want to hold back. 
They don’t want to get out in front themselves. They don’t 
want to be known to be identified with it. They want us to

- 8 3 -
get up on the— and do it and just leave them out of it, and 
if, if that’s the only way that it can be done.

X. Do you believe there has been an increase in the 
number of people who believe the decision, compliance is 
inevitable? A. Yes.

X. In recent years? A. I think they have. I think that 
there’s, that there’s a greater understanding exists at the 
present time in the City of Chattanooga. I  think that, as

William D. Leber—Cross



50b

an example, there has been some integrated meetings. I 
was asked previously were there any public meetings and 
I, maybe I misunderstood the question. I don’t know 
whether you’d consider some meetings public meetings or 
not, but take for example at our education counsel we had 
some integrated meetings.

I think the, some groups have met at the Episcopal 
Church. I think maybe some of the other churches have 
have had integrated meetings. I don’t think these were 
meetings for show, just for show. I think they were sincere 
meetings of the two groups coming together trying to solve 
their mutual problems in an area in which they’re both 
interested, and I don’t believe that could’ve happened five 
years ago, and I think that the school board could be 
responsible for the understanding and the coming together 
in a great measure. It may not’ve been entirely, but I think 
in a great measure that could’ve been.

—84—
X. How have you found out that more people consider 

compliance inevitable? A. Well, I think the way I found 
out is by this elucidation process that we’re in, of meet­
ing with the people.

X. No, I mean how, of your own personal knowledge, 
from what has happened to you? A. Well, you mean as 
fas as I move in the labor union, or just personnel on 
the street, or—

X. You’ve made the statement in answer to the ques­
tion that more people consider compliance to be inevit­
able. I would like for you to detail the facts upon which 
you arrived at that conclusion. A. Well, to enumerate 
them I—I guess I ’d say that I ’ll go to my labor union.

William D. Leber—Cross



51b

I think that there’s a greater feeling among the member­
ship of my union, of which there are a hundred and sixty- 
five (165) in Chattanooga, is that if I go to a meeting 
I take great j^art in their plans, that it is inevitable.

X. Do they tell you this? A. Yes. Not all of them, 
but a good many of them do. I think that five years ago 
they, of course they wouldn’t even speak to me hardly, 
but now I can be elected, and I am at the present time 
chairman of my chapel, which shows that the condition 
is improved.

They seem to think that the school board has done a
- 8 5 -

good job in, in bringing understanding among the races. 
In my church, I belong to Centenary Methodist Church, 
which is quite a large church and I ’ve been a member 
there a long time and I know a number of people there, 
and in talking to them which there’s a great bull session 
every Sunday morning on the front of the church, a 
number have said they don’t like it but it seems to be 
inevitable, and a number without saying at first have said 
that it’s inevitable.

People that I have never met before and I ’m intro­
duced as a member of the school board have said that 
they feel like it’s inevitable, and I believe that that’s the 
manner in which I ’ve— (breaking off).

X. Is it in your opinion, in your understanding of the 
school board’s position, is the school board waiting for 
complete agreement of the total community to comply? 
A. Absolutely not. We know that there could never be 
complete agreement. I think that I, for one, on the school 
board member, am waiting until ŵ e feel that least harm 
can be done to the school system and to individuals and 
the school pupils and teachers and one thing and another

William D. Leber—Cross



52b

before we move to full compliance. We can never hope 
to have a hundred percent compliance.

X. Have you made any personal efforts on a man-to­
man basis to convince your acquaintances of the necessity

—86—
of compliance? A. Yes, I have. I ’ve—I ’ve talked and 
talked and talked to a number of people and I—just any 
number. I couldn’t begin to estimate how many people 
I have talked to.

X. Would you say twenty-five (25) ? A. I ’d say more 
than twenty-five. Maybe I ’ve talked to the same person 
twice, but I ’d say it was nearer a hundred (100).

X. In your opinion has this gradual change toward 
improvement in the community’s attitude progressed to 
the point where you think the Board could order imme­
diate desegregation? A. No, I do not.

X. What percentage of the white leadership would you 
think the Board would have to have supporting it before 
the Board could move? A. That might be difficult to 
answer in that, in the churches if we just had one or two 
white churches of leading white churches with a member­
ship, of a rather larger membership to come out and say 
that this is the thing we must do; if a few civic clubs 
would go on record as saying that this is the thing that 
must, we must do; if—if we could.

I—I don’t know whether you’d call it leadership or not, 
in politics of the community. When a man can run for 
county judge and on the basis of sit-in receive fifteen 
thousand (15,000) votes after he’d been disbarred, dis­
qualified, held up and we might say even ridiculed to the 
community for some of the things he’s done, you might 
consider that the people that vote are the leaders of the

William D. Leber—Cross



53b

— 87—
community, and I ’d say that at least we should have a 
majority of the voters of the community in favor of in­
tegration.

X. You say “ in favor of it.” Do you mean to say ap­
proving desegregation? A. Approving, yes. Approving 
some method of desegregating the school system.

X. Would you draw any distinction between being, ac­
cepting the decision or approving it or being resigned 
to it? A. Yes, I ’d draw a distinction between that. I 
think that acceptance would not necessarily mean in favor 
of it. I think that it would mean resigned to it and they 
would not do violence to the physical set-up of the school 
system where children could go home in safety, or be in 
school in safety, without the police or some sort of pro­
tection being provided for them, and I—I believe that 
would be resignation rather than complete acceptance on 
the— (breaking off),

X. How many people have told you that they are in 
favor and urge integration in the white community? A. 
I-—I ’d say less than twenty (20).

Mr. W itt: That’s all.

Redirect Examination by Mrs. Motley;

ED. Now Mr. Leber, in addition to this community 
hostility that you refer to during the course of your testi-

— 88—

mony, has the Board relied on anything else in post­
poning desegregation here? A. I ’m not sure that I get 
what you mean.

Mrs. Motley (to the reporter): Would you read 
the question back, please?

William D. Leber—Redirect



54b

(The reporter read the question.)

The Witness: I ’m—I ’m not too sure that, of 
course, the hostility of the community and the harm 
that it could do to the school system as a result 
of this hostility, causing the deterioration in the 
type of education that the children, both white and 
Negro, would receive, if that’s what you mean, yes. 
The hostility has, is the basis on which I say that 
has caused me to postpone desegregation.

By Mrs. Motley.

ED. Now I ’d like to understand your testimony. Is it 
your testimony that the climate of opinion has improved 
here in the last five years, or that the climate of opinion 
has deteriorated? Which is it? A. I would say that the 
climate, up until a few months ago, we thought or I thought 
had improved immeasurably. Of course there’s a difference 
in possibly judging whether or not the climate has im­
proved by what might happen in private situations like the 
sit-in or in the school situation, but I believe that more 
people feel the inevitability of integregation in Chattanooga 
today than they did five years ago.

ED. Now since this suit was filed would you say that
— 89—

there has been an improvement in the attitude of the people, 
or a deterioration of that attitude? A. I believe that this 
suit caused some deterioration in the attitudes. I think 
that, whether I could judge that the attitude of the people 
was a lasting one or not, for the moment some of them got 
real mad, some of them that I thought were ready, we’ll 
say, for integration, and I think it had a stiffening attitude

William D. Leber—Redirect



55b

toward some people rather than letting it go on. They 
thought we were doing—

ED. Has this been discussed at the Board meeting, this 
stiffening attitude? A. I don’t know that it has been dis­
cussed officially at our Board meetings. We discussed it, 
I think, individually.

ED. Now let me ask you this: Have you read any of the 
opinions of the Supreme Court on segregation— A. Yes.

ED. —in schools? A. I have.
ED. Which ones have you read? A. Well, we have 

several. I believe I read the Little Eock opinion, and now 
understand I ’m not a lawyer, and I ’m not sure that I 
understood the opinion; and I read the Nashville one, I be­
lieve. Didn’t you supply that?

Mr. W itt: That’s the Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Witness: Circuit Court of Appeals, and I be-

— 90—
lieve we had some briefs on a case out in Texas, may­
be Dallas, I believe.

By Mrs. Motley.

ED. Did you ever read the opinion of the Supreme Court 
in the Brown case in May 1955? A. No, I never read that.

ED. Did you ever read— A. Oh, well now, no.
ED. —the major decision itself? A. Let me take that 

back. I ’m not sure whether I read that case.

Mr. Meacham: That’s the original case.
The Witness: Huh?
Mr. Meacham: That’s the original case.
The Witness: Yes, that’s the original case. Yes.

William D. Leber—Redirect



56b

William D. Leber—Redirect 

By Mrs. Motley:

ED. There were two decisions in connection with the 
original case. There was a decision in ’54 in which they 
announced the principle of segregation in schools as uncon­
stitutional. Then there was a second opinion in 1955 in 
which they—  A. I think that must’ve been the one I read, 
that second opinion.

ED. Discussed the type of decree to be issued in these 
cases. Do you remember reading that? A. I think I— I 
think that ’55 was the one that I read.

—91—
ED. But you also remember the Little Eoek case? A. 

Yes.
ED. And do you remember the Little Eock case, they said 

that the desegregation plan could not be suspended be­
cause of the community hostility? A. Yes, but if it’s my 
understanding of that case, of course, I, not going into it, 
the school board had ended, I mean they were in a manner 
of suspension themselves. They weren’t doing anything. 
W e’re working at this case. W e’ve got this plan and we’re 
working at it. W e’re not dragging our feet. We don’t want 
to drag our feet.

ED. But you understand that the Supreme Court has 
said that community hostility cannot suspend or delay 
implementation of the constitutional principle. You under­
stand that this question has already been decided by the 
Supreme Court, don’t you? A. No, I didn’t understand it 
that way.

ED. You don’t understand that the Supreme Court’s al­
ready ruled on— A. In other words, I was connected 
jointly. I mean the, the working of the school board with 
the hostility of the community. The—



57b

ED. You don’t understand the Supreme Court’s already 
ruled that you can’t rely on community hostility as a basis 
for not moving. You don’t understand that?

— 92—

Mr. Meacham: Well, in one case.
The Witness: I—I don’t understand that gener­

ally, no.

By Mrs. Motley:

ED. You don’t? A. (Witness shook his head from side 
to side.)

Mrs. Motley: Well, we don’t have any further 
questions.

Mr. W itt: I don’t have any further questions.

(Further this deponent saith not.)
# * # # #

- 93 -

Dr. J ohn W alter L etson, recalled, was examined and 
deposed further as follows:

Cross Examination by Mr. W itt:
#  #  #  #  *

—105—
# * # # #

X. Has the Board made any effort, so far as you know, 
to provide the leadership to secure the understanding of the 
community to the inevitability of compliance with the Su­
preme Court’s decision? A. Mr. Witt, I ’d like to say that 
in my judgment and my—I know in terms of my experience,

Dr. John Walter Letson— Recalled—Cross



58b

I have never worked with a group that I felt was any 
more sincere in its delineation of this problem and in its 
attack on this problem than has been this Board of Educa­
tion. I would say that that has been true from the day that 
it was my privilege to become acquainted with this group 
up until the present, and I would also like to say that there 
has never, in any experience that I have had with this 
Board of Education, been any indication of subterfuge or 
duplicity in the approach it has made to this question.

Mrs. Motley: Excuse me. (To the reporter:)
— 106—

Would you read the previous question?

(The reporter read the previous question.)

Mrs. Motley: Thank you.
The Witness: And in that, in that answer, Mr. 

Witt, in speaking of the apparent sincerity of this 
group, I would say that it has certainly attempted 
to provide the leadership in bringing, helping to 
bring this community forward in understanding of 
the complexity and the eventual acceptance of this 
solution.

By Mr. W itt:

X. In your analysis of the situation and from your ex­
perience what importance, importance do you attach to 
the position of the white leadership of the community in 
the solution of this problem and eventual compliance? A. 
Chattanooga has a rather unique problem as compared with 
most other communities of its size and nature, and that is 
the relationship with public and private schools that is

Dr. John Walter Letson— Recalled—Cross



59b

somewhat different from the one you’ll find in the average 
community.

This relationship creates a very definite problem in terms 
of the financing of public education in Chattanooga. A  con­
siderable portion of the leadership of this community by 
individual decision is not a part of the public school sys­
tem in that their children attend private schools.

This has had an impact upon the financing of education 
in Chattanooga, and I think any degree, anything that would

— 107—
accelerate that process or further that process would make 
the problem of financing public education in this City even 
more difficult.

X. How would you define community leadership in the 
sense that you are using the word? A. Those people who, 
through their influence, have an impact upon the thinking 
and actions of other people.

X. For example? A. Thinking of the owner of a large 
business, or the manager of a large business, to some de­
gree, has an influence upon the thinking of his employees. 
The ownership of the mass media, of course, influences to 
some degree the thinking of the people. In terms of 
finances, the people who are best able to provide the re­
sources are those who would be in leadership positions.

X. Would you include any religious group in this leader­
ship structure? A. Yes, because I certainly think that the 
leaders, that the pastors are very influential individuals 
in terms of the thinking of our community and in terms 
of influence in the thinking of our community.

X. Of your own knowledge, do you know of any white 
pastor who has publicly supported the school board from 
his pulpit? A. To my knowledge there has been none in 
Chattanooga.

Dr. John Walter Letson— Recalled—Cross



60b

Dr. John Walter Letson— Recalled—Redirect

— 108—
X. Of this leadership group that you defined, where did 

the large percentage of their children attend school? A. 
The private schools.

X. Of your acquaintance, based upon your acquaintance 
with the community sector or segment of the community 
leadership, do they support the school board’s decision to 
comply, publicly or privately? A. I would say that it 
is my very definite opinion that they do not, and I would 
comment as Mr. Leber did that there is a distinction be­
tween acquiescence and opposition but in, in a great ma­
jority of the cases I would say that there has been and there 
still is vigorous opposition.

There may have been some growth in the acceptance 
of the inevitability of this change, but there has been very 
little growth in the, in the acceptance of it in the sense 
that it implies approval.

# # # # #

Redirect Examination by Mrs. Motley.

KD. Doctor Letson, in the three years that you’ve been 
here, do you know of anything other than community hos­
tility on which the Board has relied to postpone desegrega-

— 109—
tion? A. I know that the Board has been very conscious 
of what would be the result of, of a move in this direction 
in terms of its effect upon individual students.

ED. And this is the only reason why the Board has not 
desegregated the schools, because there was this community 
opposition? A. Community opposition and this related 
question of, of its effect upon the over-all school system, 
because the Board has been very conscious of this, of this 
financial problem and what would be, in its opinion, in­



61b

evitable damage to the educational opportunities that could 
be provided for all boys and girls if there was an action 
in this direction before the community had reached a point 
of general acceptance.

#  #  #  #  #

— 113—
# # # # #

Dr. John Walter Letson— Recalled—Redirect

By Mrs. Motley:

ED. Now Doctor Letson, how much more time, in your 
opinion, is going to be needed before the Board can de­
segregate the schools here in Chattanooga? A. I can’t an­
swer that question. I would certainly say that it will re­
quire less time than it, than appeared to be the case when

— 114—
I came to Chattanooga.

ED. And as far as you have been able to determine, there 
are no obstacles to desegregation here in Chattanooga other 
than this community hostility about which you spoke at 
great length? A. I would certainly say that there are 
some additional obstacles that apply to the individual 
children involved, and I say, I say this as it applies to 
children of either race: There is no more, no greater
tragedy that could happen in the life of any child than 
to be rejected by his peers and if, if this is accomplished 
or is done before there is a general readiness on the q>art 
of children, school system, the damage that will be done 
to the individual pupils involved from, from an educational 
and emotional standpoint will be very great.

In the consideration of this Board of Education that, 
that point has been discussed, it has been considered, and 
again not limited in terms of race but discussed in terms of



62b

our over-all administrative policies for the administration 
of the school system.

It has its implications in many aspects of, of the ad­
ministration, and it is certainly every educator’s hope that 
conditions will be such in all of our schools that will be 
conducive to the maximum growth and development of every 
child.

KD. Well, this supposed rejection of, I suppose you
— 115—

assume Negroes would be rejected by whites, that’s—

Mr. W itt: Not necessarily.
The Witness: Not necessarily am I saying that, or 

assuming that.

By Mrs. Motley :
KD. Or vice versa, you say? A. No, I ’m not saying it 

either way. I ’m saying that it is certainly an educational 
problem to be considered in the decision as to whether we 
proceed in this direction. It may work the other way round.

KD. I don’t— A. The Negroes may reject the whites. 
I mean it works either way, but if it is—

RD. Well. A. If it is a fact—
KD. All this rejection you’re talking about stems from 

the segregated pattern, doesn’t it? It’s all based on that, 
this rejection of people because of color? Isn’t that based 
on segregation, the fact that they have been set aside? A. 
To some degree I think you’re right, but I wouldn’t say 
that it’s the only answer. We have the same problem in 
our white schools with some children now, and in the Negro 
schools with some children now.

RD. Oh, you already have this problem of rejection on 
the part of children for other reasons? A. It’s, it’s always

Dr. John Walter Letson— Recalled—Redirect



63b

a part of education, yes. It’s a basic part of education and
— 116—

a basic problem that—
ED. So that this wouldn’t be any new problem to you, 

then, would it? A. Wouldn’t be new. It would merely be 
a complication.

Mr. Meacham: Acute.

By Mrs. Motley :

ED. Doctor Letson, I believe you stated during the course 
of your testimony that all of the meetings of the Board are 
required to be public meetings? A. All meetings of the 
Board where there is an action taken.

ED. Now this meeting on March seventh, 1960, was that 
a public meeting at which the Board took action on the ap­
plication of these Plaintiffs for assignment of their children 
to school? A. At the time that it was made a matter of 
the record and at the time that the Board officially acted 
upon it, it was a public meeting.

ED. Now was March seventh a regular meeting day of 
the Board when this resolution or statement was adopted? 
A. I don’t think so.

ED. So that the public was not generally aware, was it, 
that the Board was having a meeting at which action was 
going to be taken, when this statement was drawn up? A. 
It was officially made a part of the record at the regular 
Board meeting following that, that day.

— 117—
ED. So that when this statement was drawn up it was 

not a public meeting, was it? A. No, not at the—not at 
the time that the Board worked on it. At the time that 
the Board officially adopted it, it was a public meeting.

Dr. John Walter Letson— Recalled—Redirect



64b

ED. Now isn’t it a fact that this statement was released 
to the press prior to that official meeting1? A. Yes, it was.

.W. -&L. -M. .if, M*W w w w w

— 120—

Dean Petersen—Direct

Me. Dean P etersen, being first duly sworn, was examined 
and deposed as follows:

Direct Examination by Mr. Williams:

D. This is Mr. Dean Petersen? A. Eight.
D. Mr. Petersen, I believe you are Chairman of the 

Board of Education of Chattanooga, are you not? A. 
That’s right.

D. Mr. Petersen, are you also the Commissioner of Edu­
cation of the City of Chattanooga? A. I am.

D. Will you explain, if you please, the system of govern­
ment in the City of Chattanooga? A. The City govern­
ment of Chattanooga consists of a mayor and four com­
missioners: Commissioner of Public Works, Streets, and 
Sewers, one. Commissioner of Fire and Police. Commis­
sioner of Parks and Playgrounds. And fourth, the Com­
missioner of Education and Health. That’s my position. 
And the Mayor is the Chairman and the Fiscal or Finance 
Commissioner.

D. Yes. And this, this Commission sits as a board or 
counsel? A. That’s right.

D. From time to time, does it not? A. That’s right.
— 121—

D. And has the general supervision of all governmental 
affairs for the City of Chattanooga? A. That is right.

D. Yes sir. Now as Chairman of the Board of Educa­
tion, how7 long have you been the Chairman of the Board



65b

of Education? A. Since April the twentieth, 1959, thirteen 
months and eleven days.

I). Were you— A. Twelve days.
D. Were you on the Board prior to that time? A. No, 

I was not.
D. Did you hold any public office prior to that time? A. 

No.
D. Yes sir. A. This is my first public office, yes sir.
D. Yes sir. Since you have been Chairman of the Board 

what plan or plans has the Board formulated to deal with 
the question of desegregation of the schools? A. Well, as 
has been stated by the Superintendent and by Mr. Leber, 
we are in the process of elucidating.

D. Yes sir. And by this, and by this you mean this proc­
ess of meeting privately with what you deem to be respon­
sible community leaders in an attempt to get them to agree

— 122—

with the decision? A. To agree.
D. Is that correct, sir? A. Yes.
D. Yes sir. A. In substance.
D. Yes sir. And except for that, the Board has not con­

sidered or formulated any plan for compliance with the 
decision of the Supreme Court relating to segregation in 
public schools, has it? A. The Board has been in this proc­
ess of elucidation since I have been on the Board. Of 
course, I—all I know before April the twentieth, 1959, is 
hearsay, what they have told me, and of course I have read 
the statements—

D. You have— A. —that they have made.
D. Yes sir. You have read the resolutions, the previous 

resolutions that were made by the Board, I presume, sir? 
A. Yes.

Dean Petersen—Direct



66b

D. Yes sir. And you have attended the Board meetings? 
A. I have attended—

D. And—■ A. — all of the official Board meetings.
D. Yes sir. A. Since I have been a member.
D. Yes sir. And you have heard, in the deliberations,

— 123—
the discussions, as to what progress the Board had made 
thus far and what it had done ? A. Yes.

D. And you have never heard in any Board meeting any 
indication that the Board had done anything further than 
what you have just testified that it had done and was doing? 
A. Yes.

D. Is that correct, sir? A. That’s right.
D. Yes sir. Mr. Petersen, I previously mentioned the 

Commission, the City Commission, and I believe that you’ve 
testified that that Commission does handle the govern­
mental affairs of the City? A. That’s right.

D. And as Commissioner of Education and Health you 
bring your problems to the Commission, the Commissioner, 
the other Commissioners bring their problems there and 
you all discuss them together and try to work out on a co­
operative basis the best program for the government of the 
City, is that correct, sir? A. That is correct,

D. And when you are called upon by some other Commis­
sioner to perform some function which is related to some­
thing that he’s doing, you do your best to afford full co­
operation to the end that the governmental affairs of the

- 1 2 4 -
City may be properly integrated and carried out, is that 
correct, sir? A. If I believe in—

D. Yes sir. A. —in what he is proposing, yes. I have 
a vote which is the same as any other vote.

D. Yes sir. Well, in your capacity as Chairman of the

Dean Petersen—Direct



67b

Board of Education and as Commissioner of Education, 
if you had a problem relating to law enforcement in con­
nection with the schools or with the health department of 
the City, you would and could call upon the Police Com­
missioner to take care of that for you and to cooperate 
with you in carrying it out, would you not, sir? A. We, we 
expect—

D. Yes sir. A. — the Police Commissioner to uphold 
law and order.

D. Yes sir. A. In our City.
I). And you would be entitled to that cooperation on the 

part of the Police Commissioner, would you not, sir? A. 
That is right.

D. Mr. Petersen, you heard the testimony here of Mr. 
Leber to the effect that the Board was attempting, well, 
and you have testified yourself that the Board was attempt­
ing to wait until they could obtain a climate of acceptance 
of the decision before they took any steps toward it, toward

—1 2 5 -
desegregation? A. (Witness inclined his head.)

D. Now I will ask you, sir, how much more time is it 
your opinion that the Board needs before it takes any af­
firmative steps to comply with the Supreme Court decision? 
A. I can’t say exactly how many years or months, weeks, 
or days. I don’t know.

D. Well. A. But I do know of the hostile atmosphere, 
because I have lived in this community for forty-seven (47) 
years and I think I know the people pretty well.

D. Well, you are not a part of that hostile attitude your­
self, I ’m sure. As a member of the Board you take the 
position in accordance with this first statement that the 
Board intends to comply with the law. A. I haven’t—

Dean Petersen—Direct



68b

D. Do you not, sir? A. I haven’t been accused of being 
a part of the asmosphere. My record is open.

D. Yes sir. A. And has been.
D. Mr. Petersen, do you know of anything that the Board 

has relied on since you have been a member of the Board, 
other than this hostile attitude on the part of the com­
munity? A. That is the main thing.

— 126—

D. Yes sir. A. But it has many facets.
D. Yes sir. You’ve considered all, all the facets that 

you can think of, of the community hostility, but it all comes 
back to the fact that you just aren’t, you just feel like the 
people don’t want it, is that it, sir? A. Yes. We—we—I 
feel like that.

Mr. Williams: Yes sir. Thank you. Thank you, 
sir.

Cross Examination by Mr. Meacham:

X. Commissioner, let me clarify a matter or two here. 
At the outset you related the names of the various Commis­
sion posts, but I believe the names you gave were the ones 
under the older law and most of those names have now been 
changed. As a matter of correcting that, why, the Com­
missioner of Public Works, Streets, and Airports is the 
correct name of that department? A. (Witness inclined 
his head.)

X. The Department of Public Utilities, Grounds, and 
Buildings is the correct name for another department? 
A. That I called Parks and Playgrounds.

X. That was the old name. And the Health and Educa­
tion is correct? A. (Witness inclined his head.)

X. As is Fire and Police? A. Fire and Police. I  was

Dean Petersen—Cross



69b

Dean Petersen— Cross

— 127—
aware of the fact that I wasn’t stating them right, and I 
thank yon for correcting me there.

X. Now under the charter of the City of Chattanooga its 
government is managed by this Board of Commissioners, 
and under the law is it not true that this Board of Commis­
sioners can act only through the minutes of its meetings, 
the action taken reflected in those minutes, and as indi­
viduals the Commissioners have no power? A. That’s 
right.

Mr. Williams: Well, I, well, that’s all right.
Mr. Meacham: It’s just a matter of record. That 

is the charter law.
Mr. Williams : That’s all right.

By Mr. Meacham:

X. Now Commissioner, does the City Commission of 
Chattanooga have any control over the public schools? A. 
The City Commission appropriates the money for the public 
schools. The City Commission does not attempt in any way 
to run the public schools from the standpoint of personnel, 
administration, or anything of that sort.

X. Under the charter amendment of 1941 which created 
the independent school board, the only function that the 
City Commission has at the present time is to appropriate 
money for its operation and to confirm nominations of suc­
cessor Board members, is that correct? A. Bight, and to,

— 128—
and to approve property purchases, things of that kind.

X. But it has no power or responsibility for the admin­
istration and operation of the schools? A. That’s in the 
hands of the Superintendent and his staff.



70b

X. And it has no power to make— A. And the Board.
X. It has no power to make policy for the management 

of the schools? A. That’s right.
X. That’s vested in the school hoard? A. That’s in the 

school board.
X. How do you have any powers over the school by 

virtue of your office as Commissioner of Health, Education 
and Health, while the Board is not in session? A. I do not.

X. Do you have any power of administration of the 
schools? A. I do not.

X. Your power is entirely as a member and ex-officio 
Chairman of the Board of Education? A. That is right.

X. And I believe you are the odd member and cast a vote 
only when there’s a tie? A. There isn’t any reason to cast

— 129—
a vote, for me to cast a vote unless there is a tie.

X. That’s right, A. I am entitled to cast a vote if I  wish. 
If I wish to express my opinion, I can vote, regardless of 
what the result is.

X. Now Commissioner, prior to the time you entered 
public life, became a member of the City Commission, what 
was your occupation? A. I was a principal of Red Bank 
High School, which is a county high school in one of our 
adjoining municipalities, township of Red Bank-White Oak.

X. Prior to that time had you been in the City educa­
tional system? A. One time I was Supervisor of Athletics 
and Physical Training for the City of Chattanooga, and the 
football coach at the Chattanooga or City High School.

X. And prior to that time I believe you taught and 
coached at Central High School? A. That’s right.

X. The large county high school? A. For sixteen (16) 
years I was coach and teacher at Central High School, 
Athletic Director.

Dean Petersen—Cross



71b

X. Now I believe yon were asked about, in your opinion 
was the Board of Education basing its entire course in this

— 1 3 0 -
matter upon the hostile attitude or atmosphere of the City. 
Have you been in contact with few or many people who have 
expressed their position in this matter? A. Mr. Meaeham, 
I have been in contact with a great many people. During 
my campaign for this office I met a lot of people in all walks 
of life, of course, and I did not realize until that time that 
so many people were interested in so many ways in this 
problem that we’re talking about, but I certainly have run 
into and I-—I hear, as every other member of this Board 
hears every day of my life, I—I hear people pro and con 
discussing this problem. Everybody is interested in it, it 
seems, or most everybody, and we have different shades of 
opinion about it, different ideas as to what should be done.

X. In your opinion is this hostile attitude diminishing to 
any extent at the present time? A. I think it’s diminishing 
in some quarters, and I thing the sit-in strikes has intensi­
fied it in other quarters, and if I may, since you have asked 
a question or brought up this point, Mr. Williams asked 
about did I think it was entirely the hostile attitude that 
motivates the Board in what it’s doing now and what it 
has been doing, this process we call elucidation, I would 
like to say that the members of this Board have over and 
over again in our discussions brought up the fact that they 
want to do the thing which will not hurt the children of the

- 1 3 1 -
City of Chattanooga, regardless of race. Over and over 
again that has been mentioned from so many angles, so 
that I— I would be amiss if I left that out of my testimony 
here today.

X. In your opinion, if there were a hasty step taken to

Dean Petersen—Cross



72b

integrate the schools immediately, is there any likelihood 
that the school system here might be destroyed or abolished? 
A. Well, I—I think it’s possible if the people who furnish 
the money would not continue to furnish the money. I 
think that most of our people, regardless, want to see our 
public schools kept, kept open here. A great many of them 
do, anyway. Some who would not.

X. Now you read the Chattanooga News-Free Press, I 
assume? A. Yes, I read the Free Press and the Times.

X. Are you familiar with the editorial policy of the Chat­
tanooga News-Free Press with reference to the establish­
ment of private schools by grants from the state to in­
dividual pupils? A. Yes, I am.

X. Is that part of the atmosphere in this community? A. 
A  segment of it.

X . About what percentage of the people of Chattanooga 
would you indicate the News-Free Press represents or 
whose opinion they reflect? A. Well, I don’t know that I

—1 3 2 -
can do that accurately. I heard a statement just recently 
to the effect that they, circulation of the Chattanooga Free 
Press is ten thousand (10,000) more daily than that of the 
Chattanooga Times at the present. I think that will answer 
your question maybe in part.

X. And did you hear the editor or publisher of that 
paper say that the policies that he had pursued were de­
signed to fit the majority of the people here? A. I did.

X. Is that part of the atmosphere of this community 
that certain high and powerful groups are willing to estab­
lish private schools to the detriment or possible extinction 
of public schools? A. That was what was said.

X. That’s been a published pattern for the last several 
months, has it not? A. Yes. You might say more than 
that. Certainly for the last several months.

Bean Petersen^—Cross



73b

X. As to the private schools',— A. Yes.
X. — of course? A. Yes.
X. Desegregation has been a target—  A. Right.
X. — of that paper for many years? A. Right.

— 133—
X. Now during this period of some thirteen (13) months 

that you’ve been a member of the Board, the discussions 
that you’ve had with various public groups and the citizens 
as a whole that you’ve come in contact with, in your opinion 
is it possible peacefully, with good order and no damage 
to the schools, to desegregate them as of this time? A. I 
—I couldn’t say yes that I believe that at this time. I be­
lieve that we would have extreme difficulties if we would 
desegregate completely at this time.

X. February of this year, were the police forced to 
turn fire hoses upon a mob here in the City? A. It was, 
yes.

X. What did that grow out of? A. On our main street. 
The sit-down.

X. In your opinion has that helped or hurt the cause of 
desegregation here? A. I think it has hurt it more than 
it has helped it, because—

X. Now then. A. Because the police and fire depart­
ments, of course, were part of the police department at the 
time, becarrse they did what they did some of our Negro 
people think that it will be an easy thing to control what­
ever may happen in case of desegregation, and I think that 
they are mistaken in that idea. No matter, the police force

- 1 3 4 -
in Chattanooga, as in many other cities in the United States, 
as is lacking in numbers, we all feel, those who know any­
thing at all about our government feel that we should have 
more policemen than we have, and if we should have de­
segregation, why, it’s quite possible that even though the

Dean Petersen—Cross



74b

colored people do have great faith now, some of them, in 
our police department, I doubt that the police department 
could physically do what they would expect them to do in 
certain events.

X. On this occasion in February I believe that the 
auxiliary police reserve and firemen were called out to 
handle the situation?

Mr. Williams: I didn’t hear that question. Pardon 
me.

Dean Petersen—Cross

By Mr. Meacham:

X. I believe that auxiliary police and firemen were called 
out in addition to the regular officers to help cope with the 
situation? A. That’s right, every one available.

X. Now I understood you to say, direct examination, 
that you did not base your opinion that immediate desegre­
gation could not be had solely on this question of violence 
or hostility. Do you have any other bases upon which you 
place that opinion? I believe you’d already mentioned the 
possible closing or in effect destruction of the school sys­
tem. A. I said—

— 135—
X. Or anything with reference to the individual pupils? 

A. I said that it is possible that the schools could be dam­
aged seriously due to lack of finances that the people of 
this community or any other community ceased, they don’t 
believe in what’s going on to the point where they refuse 
to support them, if they withdraw their children from the 
schools and send them to private schools that there is a 
possibility that our public school system would be hurt to 
the point where it couldn’t function at all as it is fuctioning 
now, and therefore the children of both races would be 
severely hurt.



75b

Now I didn’t, in your question there, I doubt if I got the 
full implication of what you mean. If you would restate it, 
why-—

X. Well, what I was referring to was whether in your 
opinion hasty and forceable desegregation of the schools 
might injure some of the pupils either physically or psy­
chologically? A. Why, certainly, in addition to the phy­
sical, the emotional, or psychological damage to them would 
very likely occur to possibly large numbers of the children. 
I—I believe that.

Mr. Meaeham: That’s all.

Redirect Examination by Mr. Williams:

ED. Mr. Petersen, you’ve heard Doctor Letson’s state­
ment that the Negro population of the school comprises ap-

—136—
proximately thirty-nine percent of the entire population? 
A. Yes.

ED. Would you say that the Negro population of Nash­
ville comprises approximately the same percentage of the 
population, I mean of Chattanooga, comprises approxi­
mately the same percentage of the population of Chat­
tanooga? A. Now you’re a little bit mixed up.

ED. In other words, I ’m asking you, sir,— A. Start 
again, please.

ED. —if you know what approximately is the percentage 
of the Negro population in Chattanooga. A. The late, 
the latest report that we have had has been 39.7.

ED. Yes sir. Approximately, that’s— A. That is, in 
the—in the—

ED. In the City proper? A. In the schools, now.

Mr. Meaeham: Thirty-five (35) in the City.

Dean Petersen—Redirect



76b

Dean Petersen—Redirect 

By Mr. Williams:

ED. Well, the— A. It’s thirty-five.
ED. Then yon would say that the population in the City, 

that the total Negro population in the City is a little less? 
A. Than—

ED. But about the same amount as the Negro population 
in the schools? A. Well.

—137—
ED. Yes sir. A. The Negro population in the schools 

is a little bit more.
ED. Yes sir. It’s about a third? A. By some—
ED. It’s about a little over a third? A. A little over a 

third.
ED. Yes sir. A. Eight.
ED. Now the schools are financed through appropriations 

which are made by the Board of Commissioners of the City 
of Nashville, is that not correct, sir?

Mrs. Motley: Chattanooga.
The Witness: You mean Chattanooga?

By Mr. Williams:

ED. Of Chattanooga. I ’m sorry. I can’t get away from 
my home town, Mr. Petersen. A. Most of our money is 
collected by the county and by the state. Most of our reve­
nue comes from the state and county.

ED. Oh, I see. A. This year the direct appropriation 
from the City of Chattanooga in round numbers was just a 
little bit more than six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000). 
We have two million eight hundred thousand (2,800,000) 
plus from the county and a little bit less from the state

—138—
this year for total budget of a little bit more than six mil­
lion dollars ($6,000,000).



77b

ED. Then, then a substantial proportion of your schools, 
school funds come from the state which has no connection 
with the City of Nashville except—

Mrs. M otley: Chattanooga.
The Witness: Chattanooga.

By Mr. Williams:

ED. City of Chattanooga, except that Chattanooga is a 
governmental subdivision ? A. That’s right. Of course, we 
send the money to Nashville. We send the money over 
there.

ED. I guess that’s why I keep mentioning Nashville. A. 
We send a whole lot more than we get back.

ED. Yes sir. A. As every big county does.
ED. Well, these funds come from state taxes which are 

returned to Chattanooga! A. To Hamilton County and to 
Chattanooga.

ED. Yes sir. A. Yes.
ED. And of the funds which are contributed by the City, 

they are obtained from the taxation of this better than one- 
third Negro population also, are they not? A. It’s mostly 
from property owners.

EI). Yes sir. A. In Chattanooga.
— 139—

ED. And there are a considerable portion of the Negro 
people who are property owners, are there not, sir? A. 
There are—

ED. Yes. A. — quite a few.
ED. Yes sir. A. I couldn’t tell you the percentage.
ED. And— A. I don’t know.
ED. And most of these funds which come from state 

taxation are based on the sales tax, are they not, sir? A. 
Sales tax.

Dean Petersen—Redirect



78b

Dean Petersen—Redirect 

ED. Yes sir. A. Gasoline tax.
ED. Which is applicable to the Negro? A. Cigarettes. 
ED. Yes sir. A. And so on.
ED. Now Mr. Petersen, you said that one of your con­

siderations in connection with this community hostility was 
that you didn’t want to hurt little children, is that correct, 
sir? A. That’s right.

ED. Yes sir. And if it should be true that thirty-nine 
percent of the children in your school system are being hurt

— 140—
then that would and should be a major consideration which 
the Board ought to take into consideration, should it not, 
if thirty-nine percent are being hurt by segregation, then 
that would be a factor that you’d want to take into con­
sideration, would it not, sir? A. (No audible reply.)

ED. Sir? A. I am—I do not admit that—
ED. I see. Yes sir. A. —that that thirty-nine percent 

of the children are being hurt.
ED. Then if you— A. We have good schools.
ED. Then-— A. For—
ED. Then—

Mr. Meacham: Let him—
Mr. Williams: You—
Mr. Meacham: Let him answer.
Mr. Williams: Pardon me, sir. Pardon me, sir.

By Mr. Williams:

ED. Go ahead, sir. A. You might as well say on the 
other hand that sixty-one percent are being hurt.

ED. Yes sir. It would be your opinion that if the schools 
were integrated that the sixty-one percent who are white

— 141—
would be hurt then, is that correct, sir? A. Possibly.



79b

ED. Yes sir. And then you do disagree with the Supreme 
Court decision, do you not, sir? A. I do.

ED. Yes sir. A. Yes.
ED. And as a matter of fact, Mr. Petersen, when you ran 

for the office, you ran on an opposition to integration plat­
form, did you not, sir? A. I made the statement that I did 
not want to see the operation of the schools changed.

ED. Yes sir. And that has a part in the part that you 
have played in the deliberations of the Board since you 
have been Chairman, the Chairman of the Board in con­
nection with the action, any action which the Board may 
have taken or not taken, does it not, sir? Well, what I ’m 
trying to say is your feeling in that regard as expressed in 
your platform has had a part to play in the actions which 
you’ve taken as a member of the Board? A. I have not 
changed my mind.

Mr. Williams: Yes sir. That’s it. That’s all.

Recross Examination by Mr. Meacham:

EX. You have joined in and agreed with the policy that’s
— 142—

been announced by this Board since you’ve been a member, 
have you not? A. As to what’s been done by this Board 
since I ’ve been on it, I—I agree to, yes, the statements that 
have been made.

EX. You take no responsibility, though, for what was 
done before? A. I cannot take responsibility for what 
was done before I became a member of the Board.

Mr. Meacham: That’s all.

(Further this deponent saith not.)
# # * * #

Dean Petersen—-Recross



Mrs. Sammie C. Irvine—Direct

—143—
Mrs. Sammie C. Irvine, being first duly sworn, was ex­

amined and deposed as follows:

Direct Examination by Mrs. Motley:

D. Mrs. Irveen.

Mr. Craig: Irvine.

D. I ’m sorry. It’s Irvine. A. Irvine.
D. Irvine? A. (Witness inclined her head.)
D. How long have you been a member of the school 

board? A. Since it was created in 1941.
D. Now I ’m going to ask you to look at the little docu­

ment, blue-covered document in front of you, which con­
tains the official statements of the Board of Education on 
the Supreme Court’s decision, and direct your attention to 
the statement dated March thirty-first, 1956. A. March?

D. Thirty-first. A. Yes.
D. Nineteen fifty-six. A. All right.
D. Now were you a member of the school board at that 

time? A. I was.
—144—

D. Did you participate in the adoption of this statement? 
A. I did.

D. Now isn’t it a fact that at the time this statement 
was adopted the Board had actually abandoned its original 
intention to integrate the schools and had decided to drop 
the whole matter for a while? A. Not, not changing their 
minds on our, our plan and what we were going to do.

D. Now isn’t it true that the statement itself says that 
“ Events in the last year have convinced the Board of 
Education that the community will not accept any form of 
integration within the City schools at any time within 
the near future” ? A. Yes.



81b

Mrs. Sammie C. Irvine-—Gross

D. “We therefore take this opportunity to report to the 
community our decision to postpone any change in the 
public schools for a period of at least a few years, probably 
five years or more” ? A. I consider that a postponement, 
but just still holding to our decision.

D. So that on March thirty-fist, 1956, the Board had actu­
ally postponed its plan to integrate, hadn’t it? A. Well, we 
realized that the time was not right.

D. And this was based upon this community hostility?
— 145—

A. Largely.
D. What happened at that meeting and all? A. Yes.
D. Is there anything on which the Board relied other 

than community hostility? A. Well, I can—
D. To reach this decision? A. In thinking of it from my 

own personal point of view, which goes back to the ques­
tion of hostility, I was—had such an experience of what 
had formerly been my very close friends socially and whose 
homes I ’d been in and had been in my home that were 
just so very much opposed to anything that I was doing.

II. So that this decision to postpone was then based 
upon what your friends had said and the hostility that you 
had met individually? A. Well, that was the way I would 
have of judging the feeling of citizens that I knew well.

D. And that was the basis of this statement there? A. 
Well, with all of us. It was a combined statement, of course.

D, Yes. A. With all of us.

Mrs. Motley: All right. That’s all.

Cross Examination by Mr. W itt:
—146—

X. Just one question, Mrs. Irvine. A. TJh-huh.
X. You’ve testified that the community hostility con­



82b

cerned you, Mrs. Irvine, but did you not also give primary 
concern to the results of this community hostility? A. Oh, 
yes.

X. What results did you foresee? A. Well, we had con­
tinually, from the beginning, said that we, in our state­
ments, that we wouldn’t—were determined not to do any­
thing that would hurt a white child or a colored child and 
that that, from the— all of the evidence that was coming 
to me was just what was happening even on, among adults, 
but it would be a result of our trying to integrate at this 
time.

X. Well then, was your decision then based in the final 
analysis on your own conception of your responsibility to 
all the children? A. Indeed.

X. It was this responsibility which was your primary 
consideration? A. That’s right.

X. The community hostility merely influenced your judg­
ment as to this? A. That’s right.

#  *  *  #  #

— 148—

Mr, Geoege C. H udson, being first duly sworn, was ex­
amined and deposed as fo llow s:

Direct Examination by Mrs. Motley:

D. Mr. Hudson? A. (Witness inclined his head.)
D. How long have you been a member of the Board? A. 

About three years.
D. About three years? A. June or July of 1957.
D. Xow since you have been a member of the Board do 

you know of anything on which the Board has relied other 
than community hostility to postpone integration here in

George C. Hudson—Direct



George C. Hudson—Direct

Chattanooga? A. AH of the things that I ’m familiar with 
have been mentioned here already.

D. I ’m sorry, I can’t hear you. A. All of the things 
with which I ’m familiar have already been mentioned here.

D. You have— A. That is, the—
D. You have nothing to add other than this community 

hostility as the basis for the postponement! A. I am in 
fear, which is one of my primary considerations, that it 
will damage the children involved.

— 149—
D. What will? A. Desegregation.
D. How will it damage the children? A. Emotionally by 

being ostracized, rejected, not accepted.
D. How do you know this? A. Well, I ’ve never been 

in a position of being rejected.
D. This is— A. Rejected.
D. This is all conjecture on your part. I mean you 

don’t have any scientific study or survey? A. Oh, no, 
I ’m not a scientist.

D. I mean you just, this is all conjecture, isn’t it, on 
your part? A. No, not necessarily.

D. What is it based on, then, that this will happen? A. 
It’s based on reading, on sociologists and others with re­
gard to what happens to people when they’re rejected, not 
accepted in their group; a knowledge of how I think I 
would feel under similar circumstances. It’s not scientific, 
of course.

D. What psychologists or sociologists have you read? 
A. I can’t give you any text. I can’t give you any, the 
names of any books or any authors on the subject.

D. But the Board hasn’t made any study, really, to de-
—150—

termine the effects of integration or what it might be on



84b

children here, has it? A. The Board is made up of pro­
fessional and business people who have very little time to 
do research in other fields.

1). And so that you really don’t know what the effects 
of integration will be, do you? A. There are a lot, a great 
many things I don’t know.

Mrs. Motley: Do you want to read the question, 
please ?

(The reporter read the last question.)

The Witness: Not from personal experience.

By Mrs. Motley:

D. Now I think you mentioned that you felt that some of 
the children might be rejected? A. Yes.

D. Which group were you referring to? A. I think it 
could happen in either group, where there’s a large ma­
jority one way, some small minority in another.

D. Have you studied or has your Board studied integra­
tion in some other communities like Baltimore or Washing­
ton and other places? A. We have done a great deal of 
reading on the subject, yes. We have never made trips to 
those areas to get first-hand information.

— 151—

D. Has the Board given any consideration in the last 
three years to the effect of segregation on Negro children 
that the Supreme Court talked about? A. Well, that’s 
your whole problem, isn’t it? If I understand your ques­
tion. Certainly we’ve discussed it.

D. Yes. The psychological damage incurred? A. Oh, 
yes.

George C. Hudson—Direct



85b

D. You say you’ve discussed it? A. (Witness inclined 
his head.)

D. Now you say the Board has considered the psycho­
logical damage to Negro children involved. What conclu­
sion has the Board reached with respect to that! A. We 
didn’t ever take a vote on it, but I think there is some 
unanimity of agreement that any such ostracism on the 
part of others, one group of school children from another 
group of school children resolves in an emotional disturb­
ance to the one who’s been ostracised.

D. And this includes the present system of segregation, 
the Negroes are set aside, the basis of that? A. I ’m in­
clined to think on the basis of conversations with some of 
my Negro friends that it occurs not only between white and 
Negro but between groups of whites and groups of Negroes. 
Anybody that has, who is different from someone else is 
going to be withdrawn from, and to some extent ostracised

— 152—
D. So that you’re talking about a problem which is not 

going to result from integration, but a problem that we 
have as people, as human beings— A. I—

D. — anyway? A. I think that’s true. I think it’s, it’s a 
larger problem on, on the differences in race, but the prob­
lem exists also in cases of foreigners who do not speak 
English well, who speak broken English, who cannot fit well 
into the pattern of the group with which they are as­
sociated. That sort of thing.

Mrs. Motley: Well, I think that’s all.
Mr. W itt: No questions.
Mrs. Motley: Thank you.

(Further this deponent saith not.)
#  #  # *  #

George C. Hudson—Direct



86b

Raymond B. Witt—Direct

— 153—
Mr. R a y m o n d  B. W itt, being first duly sworn, was ex­

amined and deposed as fo llow s:

Direct Examination by Mr. Craig:

D. We had some discussions leading up to this deposi­
tion that we’re taking now. That’s true, isn’t it? A. Yes 
sir.

D. I ask you specifically, sir, if you didn’t express to 
me a sort of fear or apprehension of some untoward inci­
dent as a result of our taking depositions at all, and speci­
fically here at this place? A. Mr. Craig, in all of my legal 
representation of any client I feel that it is my responsi­
bility to analyze all of the possibilities in any situation and 
then attempt to be prepared for any eventuality, no matter 
how remote it may be. This was the sense in which I made 
this comment to you.

D. Yes sir. A. I merely recognized that this was a pos­
sibility.

D. And suggested that maybe some place in the Federal 
Building would be safer? A. Yes sir, I did.

D. I ask you if the other members of the Board, I mean 
if you got that opinion from other members of the Board 
or if they had your same fears? A. I think I ’ll have to 
take complete responsibility for that.

— 154—
D. Now would you or not say that you assessed the 

situation rightfully or wrongfully? A. Very fortunately 
I assessed that the possibility was, was remote and it did 
not occur, thank you, so far.

D. Based on that, do you think that maybe your assess­
ment of the situation as it existed and the possibilities of 
any hostility on the part of the community might’ve been



87b

assessed wrong? A. Of course, Mr. Craig, I realize the in­
herent weaknesses in any one individual’s assessment of a 
total community.

D. Pardon me, and may I say that I was thinking in 
terms of the whole Board, the whole Board’s assessment 
of the situation as it did or might exist under a program 
that would desegregate the schools prior to this time! A. 
It is my considered judgment that the present members of 
this school board have a better evaluation of this total com­
munity on the question of integration than any other peo­
ple in the whole world, because of their peculiar position 
and not because of the ability particularly of any member of 
the Board or the Board together.

It ’s merely because of the focal point that they happen 
to hold in this community, and that in their judgment of 
this situation they represent virtually thousands of factual 
situations which to them all add up to their judgment;

— 155—
whether it’s right or wrong, this is the situation.

D. But you did decide, and I mean the Board as a whole, 
after you had this organizational meeting of this Inter­
racial Advisory Committee, that your assessment of the 
situation in Chattanooga had been wrong when you made 
your first announcement? A. When we made our first 
announcement, if you’re referring to the statement of July 
the twenty-second, 1955.

D. Yes sir. A. The Board’s assessment of the com­
munity had been of an extremely limited nature, because 
if you will recall the final, what I refer to as implementa­
tion decision of the Supreme Court, I believe, was handed 
down on May thirty-first, 1955, and our statement was given 
to the public on July twenty-second, which was approxi­
mately seven and a half weeks later. So the Board had had

Raymond B. Witt—Direct



88b

Raymond B. Witt—Cross

an extremely limited opportunity to assess the community’s 
reaction to this decision. We live with the continuing knowl­
edge that our assessment may be completely wrong, but 
still it must, we are the ones that must make this.

Mr. Craig: That’s all, sir.
The Witness: Thank you, sir.

Cross Examination by Mr. Meacham:

X. Mr. Witt, I want to ask one thing here. Isn’t there 
another factor in this matter that the City at large is losing

— 156—
rapidly its white population, moving into the county, 
against whom no suit’s been filed?

Mrs. M otley: I didn’t hear the end of that.
Mr. Meachan: Moving into the county against 

whom no suit has been filed.
Mrs. Motley: Oh.
The Witness: Well, based upon the school attend­

ance data for the current school year, this is cer­
tainty a reasonable explanation, plus the observation 
of the development, I mean the west side redevelop­
ment and the shift in population there, I think it’s 
safe to assume, of course I could not make a flat 
statement without a very thorough survey that this 
is true, but based upon the limited information I 
have I think it is true, and I think it will prob­
ably continue.

By Mr. Meacham:

X. This loss of population naturally is going to result in 
lowering the revenues of the City of Chattanooga to pro-



89b

Raymond B. Witt—Cross

vide funds for schools, isn’t it? A. I think that will be 
true.

X. And one reason that these people have moved is be­
cause of the threat or imminence of integrated schools. Is 
that part of it? A. That would be-—

Mr. Craig: His opinion.
The Witness: —certainly an opinion that, from 

my acquaintance with the talking with people in the
-—1 5 7 -

community, that certainly the vast majority of them 
would prefer to not be in a situation where their 
children would go to school with Negro children, and 
therefore it’s probably that this is part of their 
decision.

X. Well. A. Of course, I—
X. Among our adjoining municipalities, are there any 

Negro citizens in Red Bank-White Oak, to your knowledge? 
A. I don’t, I can’t answer that question.

X. Are there any in East Ridge? A. I can’t answer that 
question. I don’t think so, but I don’t know.

X. Now you were asked about your assessment, and of 
course you’ve heard testimony today about the hostile at­
titude. Did you receive a communication this morning in 
that vein? A. Unfortunately, yes. I ’m sure it was a crank, 
but nevertheless I got it.

X. Would you care to exhibit that at this time? A. 
(Witness removed an object from his brief case.) It’s harm­
less in a sense. (All counsel examined same.) This is, of 
course, nothing but an annoyance, but it’s a very simple 
thing for somebody to object to.

(Discussion had off the record.)



90b

X. Back on the record, then. One more question, Mr. 
Witt. You’ve been on this board for how many years?

— 158—

A. Since 1953.
X. In your opinion, based upon your knowledge of the 

community atmosphere, feeling, the ingrained, more rea­
soned customs of the people in this section, is the time ripe 
for desegregation of the schools at the present moment? 
A. No. There’s no, in my opinion, to do it now would be, 
well, I ’ll say this: It would be—I would not be discharg­
ing my responsibility, as I see it, to both the white children 
and the Negro children of this community if I voted to 
desegregate the schools at the present time.

X. Have you been encouraged by the developments, the 
voluntary public integrated meetings that have been held, 
the fact that the education and gospel that the school board 
has been spreading is beginning to take some root? A. 
This is a two-edged sort of thing. What I call the intel­
lectual or the mental acceptance of inevitability of com­
pliance has in my opinion, from what people have said to 
me voluntarily and otherwise, there has been a marked 
development or increase in the numbers of people who now 
have come to the mental acceptance of the fact that it’s 
inevitable, but the basic tragedy that I see in it is by the 
same token I see a developing attitude among white peo­
ple of the intensity of their feelings towards the Negro 
race which is extremely unfortunate, but it exists.

— 159—

Redirect Examination By Mrs. Motley:

RD. Mr. Witt, you’re a lawyer, aren’t you? A. Sup­
posed to be, yes ma’am.

RD. And I assume that you’ve read the Supreme Court’s

Raymond B. Witt—Redirect



91b

decisions on school segregation, haven’t you! A. The ma­
jority of them, yes.

ED. Did you read the Supreme Court’s decision of May 
twenty-four, 1955, the second Brown suit? A. Yes.

ED. May thirty-one. A. Yes ma’am.
ED. Nineteen fifty-five. A. Yes ma’am.
ED. Then you know, don’t you, that the Supreme Court 

has already ruled that opposition to the principle of non­
segregation will not be permitted to set that principle aside, 
don’t you? A. No.

ED. You don’t know that? A. I think you would find 
that in the law schools that decision of the Supreme Court 
in the Little Eock case, I believe is what you’re referring to.

ED. No, I ’m referring to the decision of May thirty-one,
1955.

—160—
Mr. Meacham: Brown against Topeka.
Mrs. Motley: Brown against Board of Education. 
Mr. Meacham: Board of Education.
The Witness: I am aware of the fact that mere 

hostility was mentioned, but there was also other 
phraseology in the decision reconciling public and 
private interests with all deliberate speed, the 
eventual, the implementation of constitutional princi­
ples that are additional factors that require con­
sideration to the one you mentioned. Of course, 
I ’m fully aware of—

By Mr. Motley:

ED. They specifically eliminated community hostility or 
disagreement— A. I think the—

RD. —with the Supreme Court’s decision. A. I think 
the word—

Raymond B. Witt—Redirect



92b

Mr. Meachain: That was the Little Rock case.
The Witness: I think the adjective—
Mrs. Motley: What?
Mr. Meacham: That was the Little Rock case. 
The Witness: Now wait a minute. I think the word 

that was used was “ mere,” the mere hostility of the 
community will not be allowed to—

By Mrs. Motley:

RD. Disagreement with this decision. A. Yes.
RD. Is that what they said? A. Yes, the mere disagree-

— 161—

ment will not be allowed to, in effect,—
RD. To set aside the principle? A. That’s right.
RD. Words to that effect?

Mr. Williams: It goes without saying that the 
mere—

The Witness: Disagreement.
Mr. Williams: —disagreement with the principles 

will not be allowed to yield because of disagreement 
with them.

Mrs. Motley: That’s right.
The Witness: That’s right. Well, of course,—

By Mrs. Motley:

RD. That’s all you’ve been talking about, isn’t it, mere 
disagreement with the decision? A. No.

RD. What have you been talking about? A. W e’ve 
been, I think that what the Board has been talking about 
is the results of this hostility as foreseeable and as the 
Board is able to prejudge them, and the responsibility that

Raymond B. Witt—Redirect



93b

the Board will have to assume for its decision. The hostility 
is a reality.

This Board is acting in a representative capacity. This 
Board owes a responsibility, a sworn responsibility to all 
the citizens of this community. Our individual feelings are 
completely irrelevant in the matter, and we’re attempting

— 162—
as best we know how to discharge our responsibility to the 
citizens of this community and to the Supreme Court of the 
United States, and as we see it, the discharge of these re­
sponsibilities are in basic conflict with each other in this 
community.

ED. You represent the Negroes in this community, or 
just whites? A. We attempt to represent the Negroes and 
the whites.

ED. What other Board decisions do you have pending 
approval of the community? You have any other Board de­
cisions which are resting or pending approval of the com­
munity? A. Our, our position is not the approval of the 
community, that we are—we are awaiting the approval of 
the community.

ED. What is your position? A. Our position—
ED. That’s what I understood you to say. A. No. Our 

position is that, as I understand it, is that we must, this 
Board must have some public, tangible support from a sub­
stantial portion of the white community before we can act 
in such a way as to not harm the school system and the 
community.

ED. Where do you find that in the Supreme Court’s de­
cision? A. It’s not in there.

ED. It isn’t in there? A. In so many words.
ED. Is it? A. No.

Raymond B. Witt—Redirect

— 163—



94b

RD. And then in the March 1956 resolution of the Board, 
were yon a member of the Board then? A. I was.

RD. When they decided to postpone it for a period of 
five years because of events of the preceding year? A. Yes.

RD. Now those events that are referred to, they’re re­
ferring to community hostility, aren’t they? A. Yes.

RD. And the Board’s postponed its plan dependent, be­
cause of community hostility, did it not? A. It postponed 
the physical placing of Negro and white children in the 
same classroom. It did not in any way postpone or slow 
down its attempt to make the problem clear to the com­
munity and try to get community understanding of the 
problem so that the community then could move toward an 
acceptance of what we have said from the beginning was 
inevitable.

RD. You mean the plan included the placement of Negro 
children in white schools? A. No, I do not. I mean, I am 
distinguishing between, when you use the word “ plan” 
the implication is, as I understand it, that plan means the

— 1 6 4 -
moment when, the time when Negro and white children 
will be in the same classroom.

RD. That’s right. A. Plan, as we see it, is a transition 
period in which we attempt, the best we know how, with the 
limited resources we have, to provide the leadership to the 
thinking community to come to an acceptance of its in­
evitability.

In this community you have had a constant reiteration 
day after day, “you don’t have to do it, you don’t have to do 
it,” and we have been attempting to get across to the 
community that it is inevitable, that it has got to be done, 
and until the community leadership—we aren’t concerned, 
we aren’t particularly worried about what some fringe 
group says, but until the community leadership, the peo-

Raymond B. Witt—Redirect



95b

pie with whom we associate from day to day and the people 
that normally or in some instances used to be our friends 
say “ We will support you, and we will support you and 
take the risk,” how can the Board act!

ED. But your plan never included the actual placement 
of Negroes in the schools? A. Oh, of course. Absolutely.

RD. It did or did not? A. This, this will be a stejj in the 
plan. The only time we’re, the only thing we’re disagreeing 
with you on is when.

RD. Well, what did you postpone in 1956 when you
— 165—

adopted that resolution? A. There were rumors.
RD. Postponing for five years, what did you postpone? 

A. There were rumors in the community that certain 
schools would be desegregated or that we would be de­
segregated and there was a certain—it was creating an 
atmosphere in the community that was unhealthy, and since 
we did not think that then was the time to move we decided 
to tell the community about it in an attempt to lessen the 
tension in the community and develop a climate in which 
two people could talk to each other.

RD. In other words, what you postponed in 1956 was any 
intention to place Negroes in white schools, is that right? 
A. We postponed at that time the time when you would 
put, that’s right. In other words, he would, we would con­
tinue with our elucidation plan as we saw it, but the time 
when any Negro children, any white children would be put 
together, we said probably five years. We don’t know.

RD. So that in 1956 you postponed the time when Negro 
children would actually be placed into white schools, is that 
right ? A. I think that’s right.

RD. And that postponement was based upon community 
hostility, wasn’t it, which arose during the previous years,

Raymond B. Witt—Redirect



96b

Raymond B. Witt—Redirect

— 166—
you said? A. It was based upon community hostility and 
a balancing of our conflicting responsibilities that we had 
to balance.

ED. That you had to balance? A. That’s right.
ED. Now you read the Supreme Court’s decision in the 

Little Eock case, didn’t you? A. Yes ma’am.
ED. And there the school board had postponed a de­

segregation plan because of community hostility, had it 
not? A. That’s correct.

ED. And the Supreme Court ruled in that case that the 
school board could not postpone the desegregation plan 
because of community hostility, didn’t it? A. It did not—

Mr. Meacham: I thought they just asked for two 
and a half years. They didn’t actually postpone it.

Mrs. Motley: They wanted to postpone it for two 
and a half years.

Mr. Meacham: Two and a half years, and that’s 
what they were asking for, but they hadn’t done it, 

Mrs. M otley: Well, the District Court had granted 
it. That’s how it got to the Supreme Court of the 
United States.

Mr. Meacham: They were sued.

By Mrs. Motley:

ED. So that the answer, the question is the Supreme
- 1 6 7 -

Court’s already ruled that you can’t postpone any desegre­
gation plan because of community hostility, hasn’t it? A. 
In that, no, I don’t think so. Of course, that—

ED. What did they rule? A. I think that the law of the 
Little Eock case before the Supreme Court is that in any



97b

situation where the full force of the state government and 
all the officials of a state are thrown against and contrary 
to the constitution of the United States as interpreted by 
the Supreme Court and the entire power of the federal 
government that there can be no answer but that the state 
will have to yield, and to me that was the decision in the 
Little Bock case, and the Little Kock school board was 
merely caught in between two mammoth forces over which 
they had no control.

ED. And you don’t have that situation in Tennessee, do 
you, where the whole power of state government is pitted 
against your effort— A. No, and we’re—

ED. —to desegregate? A. W e’re thankful that we do 
not.

Mr. Meacham: Yet.
The Witness: Yet. Of course, the Legislature 

meets in January.

By Mrs. Motley:

ED. But you think that you will probably have it here in 
the local community, that opposition to your decision? A.

— 1 6 8 -
Well, that’s one thing I don’t think I have to think. I think 
I know that.

ED. And there’s nothing else upon which the Board 
places this postponement other than community hostility, 
is there? A. And the results of that community hostility.

Mrs. Motley: I think that’s all.
Mr. Williams: That’s all.

(Further this deponent saith not.)
#  *  #  #  #

Raymond B. Witt—Redirect