Clark v. Little Rock Board of Education Response to Application for Stay Injunction

    TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD

UNITED STATES

COURT of APPEALS
F I F T H  C I R C U I T

No.

SHIRLEY GAINES, et al., 
v.

C. B. King 
P. 0. Box 1024 
Albany, Georgia

Donald L. Hollowell 
859-1/2 Hunter Street, N. W. 
Atlanta, Georgia

Constance Baker Motley 
Norman Amaker 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, N. Y.

Attorneys for Appellants

Appellants

Appellees

Je sse  W. Walters 
409 North Jackson Street 
Albany, Georgia

Attorney for Appellees

DOUGHERTY COUNTY BOARD OF 
EDUCATION, et al.,

VOLUME _

Appeal from the United States District 
Court for the Middle District of 

Georgia, Albany Division



Complaint 1

Motion for Preliminary Injunction l6

Answer 20

Order of July 12, 19&3 23

Defendants1 Plan of Desegregation 30

Plaintiffs' Objections to Defendants'
Desegregation Plan 34

Hearing on Objections to Plan - August 22, 1963 37

Defendants 1 Witnesses:

Joel J. Cordell

Direct 38

Cross 48

Redirect 85

Recross 88

Redirect 94

Recross 97

Redirect 104

T. R. Finley

Direct 106

Cross 107

Defendants1 Argument 110

Plaintiffs 1 Argument 125

Defendants 1 Rebuttal 141

Opinion and Order of August 27, 1963 146

Notice of Appeal 157

Designation of Record 159

I N D E X



COMPLAINT
(Filed April 5> 1363) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 

ALBANY DIVISION

SHIRLEY GAINES, PATRICIA ANN GAINES, MARIAN 
GAINES, minors, by MONROE GAINES, their 
father and next friend,

and
SHIRLEY ANN LAWRENCE, EUNICE LAWRENCE, KAREN 
LAWRENCE and LEONARD LAWRENCE, by EUNICE 
LAWRENCE, their mother and next friend,

and
WILLIE JAMES DAVIS, and JEFFERSON DAVIS, JR., 
minors, by JEFFERSON DAVIS, SR., their father 
and next friend,

and
ROOSEVELT MATHIS and HENRY LEE MATHIS, minors, 
by ANNIE PEARL MATHIS, their mother and next 
friend,

and
EDDIE MAUD McKENDRICK, minor, by her father 
and next friend, the Reverend SILAS McKENDRICK,

and
DIANNE YOUNG, minor, by MARY P. YOUNG, her 
mother and next friend,

Plaintiffs

v s .

DOUGHERTY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, a public 
body corporate,

and
LOUIS A. PEACOCK, President of the DOUGHERTY 
COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION,

and
JOHN P. VENTULETT, HOLLIS STANFORD, HERBERT 
HALEY, GEORGE H. JOINER, ERNEST BOND and J. L. 
DAVIS, members of the Board of Education,

and
J. J. CORDELE, Superintendent of Schools of 
Dougherty County, Georgia,

CIVIL ACTION 

NO. 764

Defendants



1.
2

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant 

to the provisions of Title 28., United States Code., Section 

1343(3)i this being a suit in equity authorized by law, Title 

42, United States Code, Section 1983, to be commenced by any 

citizen of the United States or other person within the juris­

diction thereof to redress the deprivation, under color of 

statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of a State, 

of rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Constitu­

tion and laws of the United States. The rights, privileges 

and immunities sought to be secured by this action, are 

rights, privileges and immunities secured by the due process 

and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to 

the Constitution of the United States, as hereinafter more 

fully appears.

2 .
This is a proceeding for a permanent injunction 

enjoining the Dougherty County Board of Education, its mem­

bers and the Superintendent of Schools of Dougherty County, 

Georgia from continuing their policy, practice, custom and 

usage of operating a compulsory biracial school system in 

Dougherty County and for relief as hereinafter more fully 

appears.

3.
The plaintiffs in this care are Laurita Anderson,

William Gilchrist Anderson and Vale Jeanita Anderson, minors, 
by W. G. Anderson, their father and next friend; Shirley 
Gaines, Patricia Ann Gaines, and Marian Gaines, minors, by 
Monroe Gaines, their father and next friend; Shirley Ann Lawrence,



3

Eunice Lawrence* Karen Lawrence* and Leonard Lawrence* by 

Eunice Lawrence* their mother and next friend; Willie James 

Davis and Jefferson Davis* Jr.* minors* by Jefferson Davis* 

Sr., their father and next friend; Roosevelt Mathis and 

Henry Lee Mathis* minors* by Annie Pearl Mathis* their mother 

and next friend; Eddie Maud McKendrick* minor* by her father 

and next friend* the Reverend Silas McKendrick; and* Dianne 

Young* minor* by Mary P. Young* her mother and next friend.

4.

Plaintiffs are all members of the Negro race and 

bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of all 

other Negro children and their parents in Dougherty County 

who are similarly situated and affected by the policy* prac­

tice* custom and usage complained of herein. Plaintiffs are 

all citizens of the United States and the State of Georgia* 

residing in Dougherty County* Georgia. The minor plaintiffs 

and other minor Negro children similarly situated are elig­

ible to attend and are presently attending public schools in 

Dougherty County which are under the jurisdiction* management 

and control of the defendants which are all limited by 

defendants to attendance by Negro children* pursuant to the 

policy* practice* custom and usage of defendants of operating 

a compulsory biracial school system. The members of the class 

on behalf of which plaintiffs sue are so numerous as to make 

it impracticable to bring them all individually before this 

Court* but there are common questions of law and fact



4

involved, common grievances arising out of common wrongs and 

common relief is sought for each plaintiff and for each mem­

ber of the class. The plaintiffs fairly and adequately repre­

sent the interests of the class.

5.
The defendants are the Dougherty County Board of 

Education, a public body corporate; Louis A. Peacock, 

President of the Dougherty County Board of Education; John 

P. Ventulett, Hollis Stanford, Herbert Haley, George H. 

Joiner, Ernest Bond, and J. L. Davis, members of the Board 

of Education; and, J. J. Cordele, Superintendent of Schools 

of Dougherty County, Georgia. The defendant Dougherty County 

Board of Education and its members are charged by the laws 

of the State of Georgia with the duty of operating a system 

of free public schools in Dougherty County and said Board is 

presently operating public schools in said county pursuant 

to said laws. Defendant J. J. Cordele, as the Superintend­

ent of Public Schools of Dougherty County, is the chief 

administrative officer of said Board.

6.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants herein, acting 

under color of the authority vested in them by the laws of 

the State of Georgia, have pursued and are presently pursu­

ing a policy, custom, practice and usage of operating the 

public school system of Dougherty County, Georgia, on a



5

racially segregated basis. This racially segregated school 

system came into existence pursuant to the requirements of 

state law, but it is presently continued, perpetuated and 

maintained by defendants as a matter of policy, custom and 

usage. This racially segregated public school system operat­

ed by defendants consists of 17  "white" schools which are 

limited to attendance by white students only and which are 

staffed by white teachers, white principals and other white 

professional personnel. Said white schools are located in 

various parts of the City of Albany and Dougherty County, and 

regardless of location, these schools may be attended by 

white children only. Said racially segregated public school 

system, operated by defendants consists also of 9 "Negro" 

schools which are limited to attendance by Negro students 

only and which are staffed by Negro teachers, principals and 

other Negro professional personnel. Said Negro schools are 

likewise located in various parts of the City of Albany and 

Dougherty County, and, regardless of location, these schools 

may be attended by Negro children only. Albany is the only 

city in Dougherty County, Georgia.

Pursuant to said policy, custom and usage, many 

Negro students, including some of the minor plaintiffs, who 

reside nearer to schools limited to white students are requir' 

ed to attend schools limited to Negro students which are far 

removed from the places of their residences. In some in­

stances, some of the minor plaintiffs and other minor Negroes



6

similarly situated are required to travel as much as five 

miles to attend a Negro school, whereas they reside nearer 

a white school. Attendance at the various public schools of 

Dougherty County is determined solely upon the basis of 

race and color.

The assignment of professional personnel is also 

determined solely by the race and color of the children at­

tending the particular school and the race and color of the 

personnel to be assigned.

The educational programs of the white and Negro 

schools are administered and supervised separately by white 

personnel in the case of white schools; the educational 

program of the Negro schools are separately administered 

and supervised by a "Supervisor of Colored Schools."

A dual set of school zone or attendance area lines 

is also maintained. One set relates to the white elementary 

schoolsj another set relates to the Negro. These lines 

overlap where Negro and white school children reside in the 

same residential area. Certain white elementary schools 

"feed into" certain white junior high schools as prescribed 

by defendants; and all white junior high schools "feed into" 

the one white high school of Dougherty County. Whereas all 

Negro elementary schools "feed into" one Negro junior high 

school and the latter in turn "feeds exclusively into" the 

system’s one Negro high school.



7

Plaintiffs allege that all of defendants' budgets 

relating to the operation of the schools contain racial 

designations based on the fact that there is in operation a 

compulsory biracial school system. All new school construc­

tion plans proposed, adopted and executed by defendants are 

based upon the fact that there is in operation a compulsory 

biracial system of schools. All funds appropriated and 

expended by defendants are also appropriated and expended 

by defendants separately for Negro schools and separately for 

white schools.

7.

8.

Plaintiffs and others have physically presented 

themselves to defendants for purposes of registration, en­

rollment and attendance in the public school system of 

Dougherty County, Georgia on a racially non segregated basis, 

pursuant to which, plaintiffs have requested defendants to 

cease segregation in the public school system of Dougherty 

County based on race and to comply with the decision of the 

United States Supreme Court in the School Segregation Cases. 

Defendants have continued, however, to pursue the policy, 

practice, custom and usage of operating a compulsory biracial 

school system in Dougherty County, Georgia and have failed 

and refused to present a plan for desegregating the public 

school system of Dougherty County.



8

On or about January 25, 19^3, C. B. King, Esq., 

attorney for the plaintiffs wrote the president of defendant 

school board requesting on behalf of the named plaintiffs, 

an end to the unconstitutional policy and practice of racial 

segregation in the Dougherty County School System. Accompany­

ing the aforesaid letter (a copy of which is attached to this 

complaint as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof) was a peti­

tion signed by the plaintiffs herein and other Negro parents 

residing in Dougherty County in which the signers thereof 

requested the defendant Board of Education to comply with the 

decision of the United States Supreme Court holding racial 

segregation in the public schools unconstitutional and to 

reorganize the dual racial school system of Dougherty County 

into a unitary nonracial system. A copy of this petition is 

made a part of this complaint and is attached hereto as 

Exhibit "B".

Defendants to the date of filing of this complaint 

have neither responded to the letter and petition nor taken 

any action to comply with the demands set forth in these 

documents.

9.

1 0 .

Plaintiffs, and members of the class which they 

represent, are injured by the refusal of defendants to cease 

operation of a compulsory biracial school system in Dougherty 

County. The operation of a compulsory biracial school system



9

in Dougherty County violates rights of the plaintiffs and 

members of their class which are secured to them by the due 

process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amend­

ment to the Federal Constitution, The plaintiffs, and members 

of their class, are injured by the policy of assigning teach­

ers, principals and other school personnel on the basis of 

the race and color of the children attending a particular 

school and the race and color of the person to be assigned.

The injury which plaintiffs and members of their 

class suffer as a result of the operation of a compulsory bi- 

racial school system in Dougherty County is irreparable and 

shall continue unabated unless and until defendants are en­

joined by this Court, Any other relief to which plaintiffs 

and those similarly situated could be remitted would be at­

tended by such uncertainties and delays as to deny substantial 

relief, would involve a multiplicity of suits, cause further 

irreparable injury and occasion damage, vexation and incon­

venience, not only to the plaintiffs and those similarly 

situated but to defendants as public officials.

11.
Plaintiffs allege that as a result of the operation 

of the school system on a racially segregated basis many parts 

of the school curriculum are open only to white pupils and 

white teachers,

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that this 

Court advance this cause on the docket and order a speedy



10

hearing of this action according to law and after such 

hearing:

1. Enter a decree enjoining defendants, their 

agents, employees, successors and all persons in active con­

cert and participation with them from operating a compulsory 

biracial school system in Dougherty County, Georgia;

2. Enter a decree enjoining defendants, their 

agents, employees, successors and all persons in active 

concert and participation with them from continuing to main­

tain a dual scheme or pattern of school zone lines or attend­

ance area lines based on race and color;

3. Enter a decree enjoining defendants, their 

agents, employees, successors and all persons in active con­

cert and participation with them from assigning pupils to 

schools in Dougherty County on the basis of race and color 

of the pupils;

4. Enter a decree enjoining defendants, their 

agents, employees, successors and all persons in active con­

cert and participation with them from assigning teachers, 

principals and other professional school personnel to the 

schools of Dougherty County on the basis of the race and color 

of the person to be assigned and the race and color of the 

children attending the school to which such personnel is to

be assigned;

5. Enter a decree enjoining defendants, their 

agents, employees, successors and all persons in active con­



11

cert and participation with them from approving budgets, 

making available funds, approving employment and construc­

tion contracts, and approving policies, curricula and programs 

which are designed to perpetuate or maintain or support com­

pulsory racially segregated schools.

In the alternative, plaintiffs pray that this Court 

enter a decree directing defendants to present a complete 

plan, within a period of time to be determined by this Court, 

for the reorganization of the entire school system of 

Dougherty County into a unitary nonracial system which shall 

include a plan for the assignment of children on a nonracial 

basis; the assignment of teachers, principals and other pro­

fessional school personnel on a nonracial basis; the drawing 

of school zone or attendance area lines on a nonracial basis; 

the allotment of funds, the construction of schools, the 

approval of budgets on a nonracial basis; and the elimination 

of any other discrimination in the operation of the school 

system or in the school curricula which are based solely upon 

race and color. Plaintiffs pray that if this Court directs 

defendants to produce a desegregation plan that this Court 

will retain jurisdiction of this case pending court approval 

and full and complete implentation of defendants' plan.

Plaintiffs pray that this Court will allow them 

their costs herein and grant such further, other, additional



12

or alternative relief as may appear to the court to be 

equitable and just.

Respectfully submitted,

C. B. King 
P. 0. Box 1024 
Albany, Georgia

Constance Baker Motley 
Norman C. Amaker 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York

Attorneys for Plaintiffs



13

EXHIBIT "A"

C. B, KING 

Attorney-at-Law 

Post Office Box 1024 

Albany, Georgia

Telephone HEmlock 2-0879 

January 23, 1963

Mr. Louis A. Peacock, President 
Dougherty County Board of Education 
Old C & S Bank Building

Dear Sir:

Please be advised that I have been retained by the persons 
hereinafter named, their children and/or wards, for purposes 
of securing educational advantages for the latter, consonant 
with what our Federal Constitution has been interpreted to 
mean by the United States Supreme Court.

A definition of the demands of my clients, put upon the 
Dougherty County Board of Education, is more fully set out 
in the enclosed petition.

The persons whom I represent are: Mrs. Dorothy M. Scrivens,
Mrs. Vessie L. SIntleton, Mrs. Eunice Lawrence, Mrs. Annie 
Pearl Mathis, Monroe Gaines, Mrs. Luella Hilson, J. F. Davis, 
Rev. Samuel B. Wells and their respective children and/or 
wards.

A response to this communication and the demands of the en­
closed petition is respectfully requested, by this office, 
immediately following your next Board meeting or, in the 
alternative, within thirty (30) days from this date, which­
ever occurs first.

Respectfully yours, 

/s/ C. B. King
CBK: Awb C. B. .King
Enel



l4
EXHIBIT "B"

P E T I T I O N

TO THE DOUGHERTY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION OF DOUGHERTY COUNTY, 

GEORGIA AND THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN THEREOF:

WE, the undersigned, are Negro parents or guardians of 

Negro pupils presently enrolled in Negro elementary schools and 

Negro junior and senior high schools in Dougherty County,

Georgia, which are under the supervision, management and control 

of the Dougherty County Board of Education.

The undersigned show to the Board that they duly presented 

their children and/or wards, on September 4, 1962, at the duly 

appointed hour, at appropriate schools within said Board's super­

vision, management and control, for purposes of said children's 

enrollment; that the Principals of the respective schools, in 

which enrollment was sought, denied the enrollment of said child­

ren and referred said children to the Superintendent of the 

Schools of the County and State aforesaid; and that the said 

superintendent denied the enrollment of the children aforesaid 

on grounds based solely on race.

The undersigned, herewith, petition the Dougherty County 

Board of Education to comply with the decision of the United 

States Supreme Court holding racial segregation in the public 

schools unconstitutional by reorganizing the dual racial school 

system of Dougherty County into a unitary non-racial system which 

would include the reassignment of all pupils and all professional 

personnel on a non-racial basis, the construction of schools on 

a non-racial basis, the approval of school operating budgets, 

curricula, and extracurricula activites on a non-racial basis



15

and the elimination of all other distinctions based wholly on 

race and color.

This 25th day of January, 19 6 3.

/*/

Name Dorothy M. Scriven 
Address 130 Blaylock Street 
Number of children enrolled 1
Schools in which enrolled_______
Monroe High School

Name Mrs. Eunice Lawrence 
Address 1007 S. Harding Street 
Number of children enrolled 4
Schools in which enrolled_

Lincoln Hgts., Carver Jr. Hi 
Monroe Hi

Name /s/ Annie Pearl Mathis 
Address 712 Wilson Avenue 
Number of children enrolled 2 
Schools in which enrolled 

Jackson Hgts.

Name /s/ Monroe Gaines 
Address 619 Holloway Avenue 
Number of children enrolled 3 
Schools in which enrolled

Coachman,Carver Jr.Hi., Monroe
Hi

Name /s/ Mrs. Luella Hilson 
Address 1305 S. Van Buren St. 
Number of children enrolled 3
Schools in which enrolled____
Monroe Hi

Name /s/ J. F. Davis 
Address 1010 S. Jefferson St. 
Number of children enrolled 2 
Schools in which enrolled 

Carver Jr. Hi & Monroe Hi

Name /s/ Silas McKendrick 
Address 441 Gaines Drive 
Number of children enrolled J3
Schools in which enrolled____

Flintside & Monroe Hi

Name Vessie Singleton 
Address 216 Sixth Street 
Number of children enrolled —
Schools in which enrolled__________ _
Monroe High School

Name W. G. Anderson 
Address 914 Cedar Avenue 
Number of children enrolled 3
Schools in which enrolled_

Hazard, Carver Jr. Hi. Monroe Hi.

Name /s/ Mrs. M. P. YOUNG 
Address 833 Corton Avenue 
Number of children enrolled 2 
Schools in which enrolled 

Carver Jr. Hi and Monroe Hi

Name /s/ Rev. Samuel B. Wells 
Address 321 Merritt Avenue 
Number of children enrolled 4
Schools in which enrolled_

Carver Jr. Hi., Hazard

Name ___________________
A d d r e s s __________________
Number of children enrolled 
Schools in which enrolled

Name_________ _________
Address_____________________
Number of children enrolled 
Schools in which enrolled

Name______________________ _
Address _________________ _
Number of children enrolled 
Schools in which enrolled



16

/(Caption Omitted/7 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 

(Filed May 2, 19 6 3)

Come now the plaintiffs, by their undersigned Attorneys, 

and, pursuant to Rule 63 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

move this Court for a preliminary injunction enjoining the defen­

dants, their appointees, agents, employees, successors, attorneys 

and all persons in active concert and participation with them 

from pursuing a policy, custom, practice and usage of operating 

the public school system of Dougherty County, Georgia, based 

upon allegations of the said plaintiffs' complaint and for cause 

shows the following:

I

That unless restrained by this court, the defendants 

will continue to pursue a policy, custom and practice of racial 

segregation in the administration of the Dougherty County Public 

School System against the plaintiffs and other members of their 

class, solely because of their race. The issuance of a prelimin­

ary injunction herein will not cause undue inconvenience or loss 

to the defendants but will prevent Irreparable injuries to the 

plaintiffs and members of their class, similarly situated; that 

said plaintiffs have no speedy and adequate remedy at law.

II

The counsel for the defendants has not answered the 

complaint of the plaintiffs herein, though said complaint was 

filed with this Court on April 5* 1963; that counsel for the



17

defendants have requested an extention of time for filing de­

fensive pleadings in said case; that the court has ordered an 

extension, pursuant to said request, of forty-five (45) days.

Ill

That unless this Honorable Court grants this motion for 

a preliminary injunction before the commencement of the 19^3 

School Term of the Albany, Dougherty County, Georgia Schools, the 

plaintiffs will be irreparably Injured by a denial through de­

ferment of the aforesaid relief sought by them.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray for the relief 

hereinafter set out and for an order setting a date for a hearing 

of this motion at the earliest possible date:

1. Enter a decree enjoining defendants, their agents, 

employees, successors and all persons in active concert and par­

ticipation with them from operating a compulsory biracial school 

system in Dougherty County, Georgia;
2. Enter a decree enjoining defendants, their agents, 

employees, successors and all persons in active concert and par­

ticipation with them from continuing to maintain a dual scheme or 

pattern of school zone lines or attendance area lines based on 

race and color;
3. Enter a decree enjoining defendants, their agents, 

employees, successors and all persons in active concert and 

participation with them from assigning pupils to schools In 

Dougherty County on the basis of race and color of the pupils;

4. Enter a decree enjoining defendants, their agents, 

employees, successors and all persons In active concert and



18

participation with them from assigning teachers, principals and 

other professional school personnel to the schools of Dougherty 

County on the basis of the race and color of the person to be 

assigned and the race and color of the children attending the 

school to which such personnel is to be assigned;

5. Enter a decree enjoining defendants, their agents, 

employees, successors and all persons in active concert and 

participation with them from approving budgets, making available 

funds, approving employment and construction contracts, and ap­

proving policies, curricula and programs which are designed to 

perpetuate or maintain or support compulsory racially segregated 

schools.

In the alternative, plaintiffs pray that this Court 

enter a decree directing defendants to present a complete plan, 

within a period of time to be determined by this Court, for the 

reorganization of the entire school system of Dougherty County 

Into a unitary non-racial system which shall include a plan for 

the assignment of children on a nonracial basis; the assignment 

of teachers, principals and other professional school personnel 

on a nonracial basis; the drawing of school zone or attendance 

area lines on a nonracial basis; the allotment of funds, the 

construction of schools, the approval of budgets on a nonracial 

basis; and the elimination of any other discrimination in the 

operation of the school system or in the school curricula which 

are based solely upon race and color. Plaintiffs pray that If 

this Court directs defendants to produce a desegregation plan



19

that this Court will retain jurisdiction of this case pending 

court approval and full and complete implementation of defendants' 

plan.

Plaintiffs pray that this Court will allow them their 

costs herein and grant such further, other, additional and 

alternative relief as may appear to the court to be equitable 

and just.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

/s/ C, B. King 
C. B. KING 
P. 0. Box 1024 
Albany, Georgia

CONSTANCE BAKER MOTLEY 
NORMAN C. AMAKER 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19j New York

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS



20

/caption omitted/
A N S W E R

Now come the Defendants and subject to their Motion to 

Strike file this their answer to plaintiffs' petition and for 

answer show the court as follows:

1 .

The defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 1 of the 

Complaints.

2 .

The defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 2 of 

the Complaint.

3.
The defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 3 of 

the Complaint.

4.

Answering Paragraph 4 of the Complaint,, the defendants admit 

that plaintiffs are all members of the Negro race but it is 

alleged and believed that the plaintiffs do not represent other 

Negro children and their parents in Dougherty County. Further 

answering Paragraph 4, the defendants say there is no common 

wrong committed against the plaintiffs by defendants.

5.
The defendants admit all of the allegations of Paragraph 5 

of the Complaint with the exception of the allegation that 

Louis A. Peacock is President of the Dougherty County Board of 

Education. Mr. Peacock has, subsequent to the filing of this



21

suit* removed from Dougherty County, Georgia., and resigned as a 

member of the Board of Education.

6.

Answering Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, the defendants admit 

that a dual education system is being operated in Dougherty 

County, Georgia. The defendants further say that the reason a 

dual educational system is being operated in Dougherty County, 

Georgia, is to afford the students of all races the best pos­

sible education. The defendants further show that no student in 

the Dougherty County School System is being deprived of any 

right, constitutional or otherwise, as a result of the dual 

educational system. The remainder of Paragraph 6 of the Com­

plaint is admitted.

7.
The defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 7 of the 

Complaint,

8.
Answering Paragraph 8 of the Plaintiffs’ Complaint, the 

defendants deny that the plaintiffs and others have physically 

presented themselves to the defendants for the purpose of 

registration, enrollment and attendance in the public school 

system of Dougherty County, Georgia, on racially non-segregated 

basis and that the plaintiffs have physically requested the 

defendant to cease segregations in the public school system of 

Dougherty County based on race and to comply with the decision 

of the United States Supreme Court in the school segregation

cases.



22

Further answering Paragraph 8, the defendants say that no 

decision of the United States Supreme Court or any other court 

is in effect ordering the defendants to operate one school sys­

tem rather than a dual school system.

The defendants further say that they, nor any of them, have 

ever been a party in any court proceeding involving the matter 

of operation of schools.

9.
The defendants admit Paragraph 9 of the Complaint.

1 0 .

The defendants deny Paragraph 10 of the Complaint.

1 1 .

The defendants deny Paragraph 11 of the Complaint.

WHEREFORE, the defendants having fully answered pray that 

they be discharged.

PERRY, WALTERS & LANGSTAFF

By
Attorneys for Defendants



23

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 

ALBANY DIVISION

------------------ ------ ---------- ---- ----- FILED AT

SHIRLEY GAINES, PATRICIA ANN GAINES,
MARIAN GAINES, minors, by MONROE 
GAINES, their father and next friend, 
and others,

Plaintiffs,

v,

DOUGHERTY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, 
a public body corporate, and others,

Defendants.

ELLIOTT, District Judge:

This is a proceeding seeking to enjoin the Dougherty 

County Board of Education, its members and the Superintendent 

of Education of Dougherty County, Georgia, from operating a 

bi-racial school system in Dougherty County. Subsequent to the 

filing of the original complaint the Plaintiffs made application 

for temporary injunction and the matter came on for hearing 

before the Court on July 8, 19 6 3. The Court heard evidence and 

arguments of counsel and now files this opinion which is Intend­

ed as compliance with the provisions of Rule 52, Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiffs in this case are all members of the Negro 

race and they bring this action on their behalf and on behalf of 

the other Negro children in Dougherty County who are similarly

4:05 PM 

JULY 12, 1963

/ V _____________
Deputy Clerk, 
U.S. District 

Court

CIVIL ACTION NO. 764



24

situated and affected. The Plaintiffs are all citizens of the 

United States and of the State of Georgia residing in Dougherty 

County. They are all eligible to attend the public schools in 

Dougherty County and all of the circumstances indicate that this 

is a proper class action insofar as the question of assignment 

of pupils in the public school system of Dougherty County is 

concerned.

The Dougherty County Board of Education, and its members 

and other officials named as Defendants in the complaint, have 

the duty of operating a system of public schools in Dougherty 

County and said Board is presently operating such public schools 

in the County.

The Court has jurisdiction of this litigation pursuant to 

the provisions of I 1343(3) of Title 28 of the United States 

Code, this being a suit in equity authorized under the provisions 

of § 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code, it being alleged 

that the rights sought to be secured by this action are of the 

nature which are guaranteed by the due process and equal pro­

tection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

There are approximately 20,000 students in the Dougherty 

County School system and of these approximately 12,600 are white 

students and approximately 7*400 are Negro students, the system 

being about 63^ white and 37$ Negro. For many years past and at 

present the Defendants have operated the school system as a dual 

educational system under which all white students attend schools 

separate and apart from Negro students and Negro students attend



25

schools separate and apart from white students. All of the 

teachers who teach In the white schools are white and all of the

teachers who teach in the Negro schools are Negroes. All of the

teachers, both white and Negro, are paid the same basic salary as 

related to their education and experience. The training and 

qualifications of the Negro teachers and the white teachers is 

about the same. There are six specially trained teachers for 

retarded or exceptional children in the white schools and four in 

the Negro schools. There is one white visiting teacher and one 

Negro visiting teacher. The pupil-teacher ratio is a little 

lower in the Negro schools than it is in the white schools, there

being on the average about one less in number of pupils per

teacher in the Negro schools than in the white schools. Generally 

the curriculum is the same in the Negro schools and the white 

schools, there being some minor variations which are related to 

the desires of the students. There is one qualified librarian 

assigned to the white schools and one qualified librarian as­

signed to the Negro schools. There are two vocational schools. 

These schools are ungraded. One of these schools is attended 

exclusively by Negro children and the other is attended exclusive­

ly by white children. School zones or attendance areas are 

established and maintained separately for the Negro schools and 

for the white schools, and from an administrative standpoint 

there is one supervisor or coordinator for the white elementary 

schools and there is one supervisor or coordinator for the Negro 

elementary schools.



26

The school budget is not set up or administered on the 

basis of race. The annual budget is established and administer­

ed on the basis of the total number of pupils in the entire 

school system of the county without regard to race* there being 

no disparity or difference between the budget as it pertains to 

the white race or the Negro race. All instructional supplies, 

textbooks, equipment, etc., needed to operate the schools are 

purchased from funds provided in the budget and the same amount 

of money per student is spent by the Board of Education for the 

education of Negro students as is spent for the education of 

white students. Generally school facilities have been provided 

for the two races on an equal basis. In fact, in some instances 

the provisions for Negro pupils have been superior to that for 

whites, as is evidenced by the fact that the only air condition­

ed school in Dougherty County is a Negro school and this is one 

of the few air conditioned schools in the State of Georgia.

No Negro parent has ever appeared before the Board of 

Education and complained about the dual system that is operated. 

No Negro parent or child has ever appeared before the Board and 

sought to discuss the matter with the Board. No Negro parent 

or Negro student has ever made a written application to the 

Defendants requesting a transfer from an all-Negro school to an 

all-white school. No Negro parent or Negro student has ever 

appeared before the Board at the time of any Board meeting and 

orally requested a transfer from an all-Negro school to an all- 

white school.



27

All students, Negro and white, in the Dougherty County 

school system were assigned to designated schools for the 1962-63 

school term in May, 1962, this being normal procedure. Between 

May, 1962 and the opening day of school in September, 1962 no 

complaint was made by any person to the Defendants concerning 

such assignments which had been made the previous May. On the 

opening day of school in September, 1962 a number of Negro parents 

and Negro children appeared at white schools and requested admit­

tance to such schools. Such admittance was refused.

In the latter part of January, 1963 one of the attorneys 

representing the Plaintiffs in this action communicated by letter 

with the Dougherty County Board of Education requesting the Board 

to reorganize the dual school system Into a unitary non-racial 

system. Attached to the communication was a petition signed by 

eleven Negro parents of school-age children requesting the 

reorganization. The Dougherty County Board of Education did not 

reply to this communication.

Assignment of pupils for the school year beginning Septem­

ber, 1963 were made in May, 1963 and white pupils have been as­

signed to white schools and Negro pupils have been assigned to 

Negro schools as in the years past. Since these assignments were 
made no application for transfer or complaint concerning school 

assignments has been made to the Defendants, Teacher contracts 

are ordinarily entered into in May of each year for the forth­

coming school year beginning in September and such contracts were 

entered into in May, 1963 for the coming school year and assign­



28

ments for teachers have already been made. No Negro teacher 

has at any time registered a complaint with the Board concerning 

teacher assignments nor has'any Negro teacher registered a com­

plaint with the Defendants concerning the operation of the public 

schools in Dougherty County.

Textbooks, work books and instruction supplies for all of 

the schools have already been ordered for the coming year based 

upon the assignments that have been made. Some of the schools 

are presently overcrowded and there are four school buildings 

under construction at the present time, but they will not be 

completed in time for use at the beginning of the 19^3 school 

year.

In recent months the subject of desegregation of the school 

system has been discussed at length at meetings of the Defendant 

Board of Education, but at the time of the hearing in this matter 

no definite action had been taken in that direction.

It is obvious from the foregoing that the Dougherty County 

Board of Education has sought in good faith to provide adequate 

educational facilities for all of the children of all races in 

Dougherty County In a manner sincerely deemed by them to be 

best, but it is likewise obvious that their ideas of proper 

school administration do not coincide with those expressed by 

the Supreme Court of the United States, for the Defendants are 

operating a racially segregated school system and the Supreme 

Court of the United States has held in Brown v. Board of Educa­

tion of Topeka. 347 U,S, 483, and subsequent cases, that to do



29

so is in violation of the constitutional rights of the Plain­

tiffs.. This Court is hound hy that Court's decree. It is the 

duty of this Court in these circumstances to order an end to 

the segregated system. This we will do.

It is clear that it is in the best interest of all con­

cerned., the Plaintiffs, the Defendants and the general community, 

that this change be brought about In an orderly fashion. The 

Defendants have assured the Court that they will in good faith 

abide by any order which the Court might enter. However, any 

peremptory order issued by the Court would of necessity be hap­

hazard and probably ill-conceived. The better approach is for 

the Board to design in good faith a plan of desegregation of the 

public school system of Dougherty County, Georgia under which 

the Board will with reasonable promptness eliminate school as­

signments based upon race. The Defendants are required to do 

this and will submit such plan to the Court for approval or 

disapproval within thirty days from the date of the filing of 

this opinion. At the same time the Defendants will furnish a 

copy of the proposed plan to Counsel for the Plaintiffs, and the 

Plaintiffs will within ten days thereafter file written ob­

jections thereto, If there be any. If written objections to 

the plan as submitted are filed by the Plaintiffs the Court will 

promptly set the matter down for hearing.

Since we are requiring a prompt submission of a desegre­

gation plan we see no necessity at this time for the granting of 

a temporary injunction as requested by the Plaintiffs.



30

The Court is not at this time ruling on the question of 

assignment of teachers and other professional personnel.

The Court retains jurisdiction of this matter for further 

proceedings and the entry of such further orders as may be 

deemed appropriate in the light of the developing circumstances.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of July, 19 6 3.

J. ROBERT ELLIOTT 
United States District Judge

/CAPTION OMITTED/
PLAN FOR ADMINISTERING THE PUBLIC 
SCHOOL SYSTEM OF DOUGIiTERY COUNTY,
GEORGIA WITHOUT REGARD TO RACE.

(Submitted August 12, 19 6 3)

Pursuant to the Order of this Court rendered on the 12th 

day of July, 19 6 3, the Dougherty County Board of Education sub­

mits to this Court for its consideration a plan for administer­

ing the public school system of Dougherty County, Georgia with­

out regard to race and color of pupils; and

WHEREAS, the United States District Court For The Middle 

District of Georgia, Albany Division, in the case of Shirley 

Gaines, Patricia Ann Gaines, Marian Gaines, minors by Monroe 

Gaines, their father and next friend, and others, Plaintiffs,



31

vs. Dougherty County Board of Education, a public body corporate, 

and others, Defendants, directed the Dougherty County Board of 

Education to present to the Court a plan of desegregation of the 

public school system of Dougherty County, Georgia under which 

the Board will with reasonable promptness eliminate school as­

signments based upon race; and

WHEREAS, this Board is mindful of the duty placed upon it 

by the foregoing ruling and is further mindful of its duty to 

provide all students, regardless of race, adequate educational 

opportunities; and

WHEREAS, this Board is of the opinion that it cannot 

comply with its duty of providing adequate educational opportuni­

ties to all students by making any change in the operation of 

its schools during the 1963-1964 school term. All assignments 

of both pupils and teachers for such term have been made, all 

text books, work books and instruction supplies for such term 

have already been ordered and were ordered based upon the as­

signments that have been made. To effect any change in the 

operation of the school system of Dougherty County, Georgia for 

the school year 1963-1964 would create problems which could not 

be solved in the best interest of the educational opportunities; 

Now, therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED by the Dougherty County Board of Education 

as follows:

1.

Beginning with the 1964-1965 school term the Dougherty 

County Board of Education will follow the plan of assignment



32

of pupils as stated below:

(1) All pupils enrolled in the Dougherty County school 

system for the 1963-1964 school terra will be assigned for the 

1964-1965 school terra to the schools they attended in the 1963- 

1964 term* except those pupils, who, through promotion, will be 

assigned to a school of higher classification.

(2) Pupils being promoted from an elementary to a junior 

high school, or from a junior high school to a senior high 

school, will be assigned to the higher ranking school to which 

they would have been assigned under the plan of assignment in 

effect for the school year 19 6 3-1964.

II

(1) Beginning with the school term 1964-1965, and each 

school year thereafter, all pupils entering the first grade may 

select the school of their choice without regard to race or 

color if proximity to school, building capacity and transporta­

tion permits.

XXX •

There is hereby established a county wide registration 

for school attendants and the same will be held beginning the 

first Monday in April of each year and continuing through 

Friday of that same week. All pupils shall register at the 

school they are then attending, even though he or she may be 

promoted to a school of higher classification. The registra­

tion hours shall be from 9:00 A.M. until 5:00 P.M.

Students who will be entering the first grade in Septem­

ber of 1964 shall be registered by their parent or guardian and



33

such registration shall take place at the school which the 

student desires to attend.

All requests for assignment to he made will be acted 

upon by the Dougherty County Board of Education not later than 

the 1st day of June of each year., and the parent or guardian 

notified of the action of the Board by mail postmarked not 

later than the 1st day of June. If such request for assignment 

is denied, the parent or guardian has the right, on or before 

the 10th day of June to request in writing a hearing before the 

Dougherty County Board of Education to have the request further 

considered. In the case of all such requests for hearing, the 

parent or guardian shall be notified of the time and place of 

the hearing, such hearing to be held on or before June 20th.

The provisions of Paragraph II hereof shall be effective 

step by step for one additional grade each year, to Illustrate: 

Effective with reference to the second grade in the Fall of 

1965; effective with reference to the third grade in the Fall of 

1966, etc.

Respectfully submitted, 

PERRY, WALTERS & LANGSTAFF

By:
Attorneys for Defendants



34

/ c a p t i o n o m i t t m /7

PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' PLAN FOR ADMINISTERING 
THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM OF DOUGHERTY COUNTY, GEORGIA

WITHOUT REGARD TO RACE

(Filed August 14, 1963)

Plaintiffs herewith object to defendants' Plan For Admin­

istering The Public School System of Dougherty County, Georgia 

Without Regard To Race on the following grounds:

1. The plan submitted to this Court fails to afford to 

plaintiffs minimum effective relief commencing in the 1963-64 

school year. At this late date, more than nine years after the 

school desegregation decision of 1954, plaintiffs are entitled 

to minimum effective relief that will require defendants to make 

a start toward desegregation of the Dougherty County public 

schools commencing in the 1963-64 school year. Davis, et al. v. 

Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, et al., (5th Cir., 

No. 20657, July 9, 1963)1 Armstrong, et al. v. Board of Education 

of Birmingham, et al.,(5th Cir. No. 20595* July 12, 19 6 3); Stell 

v. Savannah-Chatham County Board of Education, et al., (5th Cir., 

No.20557 M-S, May 24, 19 6 3).
2. The plan should more clearly provide for the admission 

of new pupils entering the first grade or coming into the County 

for the first time on a non-raclal basis.

3. The plan fails to provide for the abolition of the 

presently existing dual school zones without which there cannot 

be any compliance with the 1954 decision of the United States 

Supreme Court, Augustus v. Board of Public Instruction, 306 F.2d



35

862, 869 (5th Cir. 1962). The plan as presently constituted 

calls for assignment of school children within the framework of 

the presently existing segregated dual school system and as such 

continues the denial of plaintiffs' constitutional rights,

4. Nothing appears from the defendants' plan to support 

the period of delay in the completion of the desegregation pro­

cess. Defendants have not shown that the 12-year period contem­

plated under the plan is "necessary in the public interest" and 

"consistent with good faith compliance at the earliest practic­

able date" as required by Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 

294 (1955). The United States Supreme Court in its most recent 

terra has made it clear that this Brown decision "never contem­

plated that the concept of 'deliberate speed' would countenance 

indefinite delay in eliminating racial barriers in schools ..." 

Matson v. City of Memphis, _ _  U.S. ___, 10 L.ed 2d 529, 534 
(1963).

5. The plan fails to provide for the assignment of teachers 

and other supervisory personnel on the basis of qualification and 

need without regard to race and color.

6. There are no provisions made by which the named plain­

tiffs are assured of securing their personal and present right 

to a desegregated education.

7. The plan fails to provide for the desegregation of the 

presently existing separate vocational schools nor does it pro­

vide for the desegregation of any other special educational pro­

grams now conducted or which may be conducted in the future.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that pursuant to this Court's



36

opinion and order of July 12, 1963 that the court will promptly 

set a hearing on plaintiffs objections to the plan and that upon 

such hearing the court will grant plaintiffs minimum effective 

relief by requiring defendants to institute, immediately, proce­

dures whereby a start toward desegregation of the Dougherty County 

public schools will be made in the 1963-64 school year due to 

commence on September 3* 19 6 3. Plaintiffs further pray that 

defendants plan as presently constituted be disapproved and a 

revised plan for the desegregation of the public school system 

of Dougherty County be submitted which plan shall provide for a 

complete abolition of the presently existing dual school zones 

in all grades effective with the commencement of the 1964-65 

school year and which will provide that assignments of pupils to 

those grades be made without regard to race or color. Said plan 

should also encompass provisions for the reassignment of teachers 

and other supervisory personnel on a non-racial basis and meet 

the other specific objections Indicated above.

Plaintiffs further pray that this Court will retain juris­

diction of this cause for the purpose of granting such further 

relief as may be mandated by future developments.

Respectfully submitted,

C. B. KING
221 South Jackson Street 
Albany, Georgia

CONSTANCE BAKER MOTLEY 
NORMAN C. AMAKER 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Plaintiffs



37

HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN

ALBANY, GEORGIA 
9:30 A. M.,
AUGUST 22, 1963:

THE COURT: In Civil Action No. 764 an order

was entered requiring the Defendants to submit a plan 

of administering the school system of Dougherty County, 

without regard to race; and, pursuant to that order, 

a plan has been filed, and subsequent to the filing of 

the plan, the Plaintiffs in the action have filed their 

objections to the plan within the time specified in the 

Court's order.

So, we are here today for the purpose of considering 

the plan and the objections thereto. Suppose we have 

an announcement of the appearances for the parties at 

this time for the Plaintiffs. Who appears for the 

Plaintiffs?
* * *

THE COURT: Now, as I conceive the situation

to be at the moment, as I stated initially a moment ago, 

a plan having been submitted pursuant to the Court's 

order and objections having been filed thereto within 

the time specified in the Court's original order; and 

since we are here for the purpose of considering the 

plan and the objections that have been filed to it, as 

I conceive the situation at the moment, the burden is 

upon the Defendants, the parties who submitted the plan, 

to justify the plan in the light of the requirement of



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 38

the Court's order and in the light of the objections 

which have been filed to the plan by the Plaintiffs,

In other words, I conceive the proper procedure 

to be that the Defendants will proceed with whatever 

presentation the Defendants wish to make in support of 

the plan and in response to the objections which have 

been filed by the Plaintiffs.

So, you may proceed, Mr. Walters.

* * *

MR. JOEL J. CORDELL

witness called in behalf of Defendants, 
being first duly sworn, testified on

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. WALTERS:

Q What is your name, please?

A J. J. Cordell.
Q Do you have any official capacity with the Dougherty 

County school system, Mr. Cordell?

A I am Superintendent of Education.

Q How long have you been Superintendent of Education 

in the Dougherty County School System?

A Since it was organized in 1951.
Q Mr, Cordell, where did you attend school? What 

are your educational qualifications?

A I attended and did my undergraduate work at Mercer 

University and my graduate work at the University of South 

Carolina; and I attended Columbia University, in addition 

to that.



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 39

Q. When did you complete your formal education, Mr. 

Cordell?

A Well, I received my Master's Degree in 1938. Since 

that time I have done some post-graduate work at Columbia 

University.

Q Following the receipt of your Master's Degree in 

1938, what vocation or occupation did you enter into?

A I remained in the educational field. I was in the 

educational field at the time and I remained in the educational 
field.

Q, And since that time where have you taught and where 

have you been located?

A Since 1938 I was at North Augusta, South Carolina 

at the time. I was principal of the high school. And in 1943 

I came to Albany as principal of the Albany High School; and 

in 1945 I went to Griffin as principal of the Griffin High 

School; came back to Albany in 1947 as Assistant Superintendent 

of the City Schools; and then in 1948, Superintendent of the 

City schools; and then in 195I* when there was a merger of the 

City and County schools, I became Superintendent of the now 

merged County system.

Q And have you been Superintendent of the Dougherty 

County school system since that time continuously?

A I have.

Q Mr. Cordell, are you familiar with the plan which 

has been presented to this Court for the administering of 

the public school system of Dougherty County, Georgia, without 
regard to race?



HEAR IN? ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 40

A I am.

Q Mr. Cordell, have you given any time and thought to 

this plan?

A I have given the larger portion of my time to it 

for the last several months.

Q Have you during that time, Mr. Cordell, had occasion 

to investigate, to make investigation of other school systems 

that have been faced, with the same problems that we are now 

faced with?

A Yes, I have.

Q Mr. Cordell, in connection with the opening of the 

schools in September, on September 3 of this year, have 

teacher assignments been made for these schools?
A Yes.

Q When were they made, Mr. Cordell?
A Well, during the summer. I don't knowj they

weren't all made at one time, naturally but during the summer 

it's been made and at this date it is practically complete.

Q Have student assignments for the coming year already 

been made, Mr. Cordell?

A Yes.

Q And when were they made?

A They were made before school closed last year.

Q Getting back to the teacher assignments, Mr.

Cordell, have you had any Negro teacher to come to you and 

request that they be reassigned to teach in what we will 

refer to as formerly an all white school?

A No.



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 41

Q Do you hold meetings with both white and Negro 

teachers?

A Yes.

Q Has any complaint ever been registered with you as 

Superintendent of the Schools by any Negro teacher as to their 

assignment?

A No.

Q Getting back now, Mr. Cordell, to pupil assignment, 

which you testified, I believe, were made in the spring of 

1963 for the coming year, have you any, have you had any 

application by any Negro student to be transferred to what 

I will refer to as a previously all white school?

A No.

Q, Have you had any complaint from any Negro parent

or student relative to the assignment of the school that's 

been made?

A No.

Q Mr. Cordell, how many pupils attended the public 

school system of Dougherty County during the school year

1962-1963?

A The total enrollment was over 22,000.

Q I hand you a memorandum, did you give me that 

memorandum relative to the number of students, and so forth?

A Yes, this is taken from my annual report.

Q And from that memorandum, how many students were 

attending the school system, public school system, in 1962-63?

A 22,788.



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 42

Q And. of that number how many were white students?

A 14,608.

Q, And of that number how many were Negro students?

A 8,180.

Q, Now, Mr. Cordell, have all arrangements - strike 

that - When does the school term begin for the 1963-64 term?

A Starts 12 days from tomorrow, September 3.

Q September 3?

A Yes.

Q How much money, roughly speaking, is spent per year 

on public education in Dougherty County, Georgia?

A Well, 4|- million dollars in operating expenses, 

roughly.

Q Then, it would be safe to say, xrould it not, Mr. 

Cordell, that this is an undertaking and, if we refer to it 

as a business, one which requires considerable planning and 

considerable groundwork for the operation of the schools?

A Yes sir.

Q Has all of the planning and all of the groundwork 

been laid for the opening of the school system in 1963* 

September 3?

A Practically completed, yes.

Q If I understand your testimony correctly, then would 

it be fair to say that the only thing left to do in connection 

with the opening of the schools is to open the doors on 

September 3 and accept the pupils?

A That’s virtually true.



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 43

Q Mr. Cordell, are you—  you are familiar, of course, 

that the plan which has been filed with this Court for the 

administering of the school system without regard to race 

has set forth a beginning date of September of 1964, are you 

not?

A That's right, yes sir.

Q In your opinion, as an educator, Mr. Cordell, would 

the year's delay, which has been requested of this Court, be 

absolutely essential for an orderly administration of the 

educational system of Dougherty County, Georgia?

A I think it is.

Q Mr. Cordell, are you primarily concerned with the 

education of all students or are you concerned with integra­

tion or segregation?

A My business Is education and that's my responsibility 

to this community and that's my first Interest.

Q Has that always been your first interest?

A Absolutely.

Q, Now Mr. Cordell, for any change to take place at 

this date in regards to the operation of the public school 

system of Dougherty County, Georgia, on September 3, 1963* 

can you give us some of the problems that you would be con­

fronted with?

A Well, the first thing would be the mere mechanics 

of it. That having already been settled, that would be one 

thing. Then, of course, I think the major problem and the 

greatest difficulty would be the matter of our problem of



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 44

acclimating this community to that kind of a change; and to 

do that I think maybe that, first of all, the Board of 

Education and I have got to determine exactly what!s to be 

done. When we get through with that, we've got to explain 

this matter and go into details with the principals. Prom 

there we've got to go to the teachers. Prom there we've got 

to go to the leaders of this community. And it's going to be 

a matter for every Board member to take a certain number of 

leaders of this community and talk to them and to advise 

them concerning the necessity for doing this thing, and of 

our serious intention of doing it and that we are trying to do 

it in a manner that would be both acceptable and would be to 

the best interest of every child in this community education­

ally.

Q Mr. Cordell, is there any endeavor on your part as 

head administrator of the school system of Dougherty County, 

Georgia, to act other than in good faith in connection with 

this transition period?

A Absolutely not.

Q Now, Mr. Cordell, objections have been filed to the 

plan that has been presented, requesting that this Court order 

a complete and total desegregation of the public school system 

of Dougherty County in September of 1964:

What investigation, what planning has been done, 

both by you, your staff and the Board of Education, and what 

conclusions and opinions have you reached in regard to the 

orderly best method for the transition period of a change



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 45

in what I will refer to as a life-long social change?

A Me have had consultants to talk to the Board. Me 

have visited other school systems, where they have integrated 

their schools; and they have cautioned us about this one thing 

more than any other, that we take time to prepare the com­

munity for this kind of a change; and that to do that, it 

would take time. One particular community, for instance, 

suggested six months preparation schedule, and suggest that 

it would at least take that much. And that has been, I think, 

possibly of the information that we have received, that has 

been one of the outstanding things and one of the things 

that throughout the whole thing has come to us as a precaution 

and as a suggestion.

Q, In your opinion, Mr. Cordell, Is the most effective, 

I would change that word "effective"- is the most desirable 

method for the educational processes of this community to 

have this transition take place over a period of years at a 

grade per tiem, at a grade per year?

A I am sure that it is.
Q Do you believe with such a plan, Mr. Cordell, that 

the transition will be orderly and harmonious with a minimum 

of difficulty as pertains to the educational facilities of 

this community for both races?

A I think it will.

Q Mr. Cordell, I believe you testified that your 

school begins on September 3; and, of course, It runs, 

this school year runs until June of 1964, does it not?



hearing on objections to plan 46

A That1s right.

Q Is your school year divided into quarters, semesters 

or how is it divided?

A Well, we have semesters. We have half year as a 

partial break in most of the schools. In the elementary 

schools that's not such a significant thing but in the 

higher grades it is.

Q, Is there any promotion period during the year from

one class to another? I might really refer to that as 

more or less a mid-term vacation or a half year breaking 

point, Is that right?

A There's no promotion at that time.

Q Students remain in the same class and with the 

same teacher, do they not?

A That1s right.

Q Mr. Cordell, are you familiar and do you know the 

temper of the community in which you are head administrator 

of the school system?

A I think I do.
Q Are you close to the people, both white and Negro, 

in this community?

A Reasonably so; I think I am.
4 In your considered opinion, Mr. Cordell, would the 

delay of the beginning of this plan until September, 1964, 

materially aid and help in this transition that we have been 

referring to?

A Yes sir, it would.



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 47

Q. Do you think in your considered opinion., Mr.

Cordell, that beginning in September of 1964 this transition 

could begin - I think I have already asked this question,

Your Honor, but I wanted to make sure - with harmony and with 

little difficulty?

A I think it would.

Q If the plan as presented is approved relative to 

the beginning date, have you and your staff made any plans 

for completely and thoroughly discussing this matter with 

teachers, students and parents of students?

A Yes. You mean if it begins - give me that question 

again, please?

Q If the Court approves the beginning date of this 

plan as September, 1964, have you and your staff made any 

plans during the delay period to act to properly and thorough­

ly discuss this matter with parents of students?

A We have.

Q Teachers, students?

A Yes.

Q And business leaders?

A That1s right.

Q And does this apply to both races, Mr. Cordell?

A Yes.

Q Mr. Cordell, do you think from an educational stand­

point that you, without a terrible disruption of the educational 

standards of this community, could begin a transition in 

September of 1963?



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 48

A I don't see how we could begin it without a very- 

serious disruption.

MR. WALTERS: The witness is with you.

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MRS. MOTLEY:

Q, Mr. Cordell., do you want to state again your reasons 

for saying that this plan which you propose should not commence 

in September,, 1963?

A Well, as I stated, I think, first, the mechanics of 

the thing, to begin withj that we start school 12 days from 

tomorrow, that Is September 3; and that we have completed 

plans, the procedures, for the opening day of school; and it 

would be very difficult to change that at this point. That's 

the first thing.

The second thing is that, since we have not had 

time and we would not have time between now and then to talk 

to principals and teachers and students and community leaders 

concerning the necessity of this thing, concerning the merits 

of the plan, concerning the reasons why we're having to do it, 

and to convince them that vie are presenting a plan that vie 

feel like is educationally sound, that it would be in the 

best interest of, not only one race, but for both races in 

this community: I don't think we have a chance to do that

between now and September 3.

Q Now, do you have any other reasons why you think 

this plan which you have proposed could not go into effect 

in September, 1963?



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 49

A Well, I think that's reason enough there.

Q You haven't any other?

A Oh, I wouldn't say that I don't have any other. At 

the moment I don't think of any particular reason. I think 

that covers it very well.

Q All right, let's go to your first reason, the 

mechanics of it: Am I correct in understanding that your

plan proposes, the 1964-65 beginning date, that persons 

entering the First Grade present themselves at a school 

for registration of their choice; is that right?

A Yes, prior to the date, prior to September, 1965.

We don't do it on that date. We would set up a period for 

that, yes.

THE COURT: You said September, 1965; do you

mean September, 1964?

The Witness: '64 that's right. I meant '64.

____Q Mrs. Motley: And what's the date on which these

First Graders will present themselves?

A I believe it's the first week in April.

Q And this is wholly a matter of choice on the part 

of the parent, that the parent will select the school that his 

or her child will attend, is that right?

A That's right.

Q And once the parent appears at a school in April,

'64, what happens then, in terms of the mechanics?

A Well, they would make, fill out a formal application, 

which we would provide, giving us information on the school



hearing on objections to plan 50

that they desire to attend and such other pertinent informa­

tion as we might have to have. And then, we would, of course, 

take those applications and with action by the Board deter­

mine on the basis, I believe we've stated on the basis of 

proximity to the school, the facilities available and the ■ 

transportation problems involved, whether or not we could do 

that; whether or not we could accept it, whether or not it 

could be done.

Q Now, do you want to explain how that application 

would differ from an application made on September 3, 1963, 

by a group of students moving into Dougherty County for the 

first time? Suppose you had 200 students to move into 

Dougherty County next week: would they have to stay out of

school a year?

A No.

Q You'd put them in the school system, wouldn't you?

A That's right.

Q Allright. Now, do you want to explain how this 

application, which is going to be made in April, 1964 under 

your plan, differs from the application which would now be 

made by 200 new students coming into the school system of 

Dougherty County on September 3, 1963?

MR. WALTERS: May it please the Court, solely in

the interest of time, counsel was not present at the 

original hearing on this matter; there is no issues in 

this case whether at the present time or in the past 

that Dougherty County school system has been operated



hearing o n objections to plan 51

as a dual school system. I think that's what counsel 

is driving at, and that has been submitted in this Court, 

and I see where it's serving no purpose to go into it.

I simply make the objection in the interest of time.

The plan that has been presented, of course, calls 

for a continuation of the existing system until September 

of 1964. I think the plan is clear on its face; but I 

see where that has no bearing on this.

THE COURT: I don't know how she intends to

develop it from there. Go ahead.

A The Witness: Well, of course, in 1963 white

children would go to the nearest white school, provided we 

had facilities for them there and provided we had transporta­

tion facilities that we could handle them at that time.

___ Q Mrs. Motley: No, I'm interested in this applica­

tion form. I understand the whites would go where they went 

before. I'm trying to get at the mechanics of it, as you said. 

I want to know how the form or application blank will differ 

from the application blank which 200 students entering the 

school system in September, 1963 would have to make?

A When I said "mechanics", I mean actually this: 

the change in enrollment, the change in the number of text­

books which have to be in the school and change in that kind 

°f thing, not in the mechanics actually of enrolling in the 

school system; but the procedure for beginning school. That's 

what I had reference to when I said the mechanics of opening 

school. 1 didn't say the mechanics of enrollment. I meant



hearing on objections to plan 52

and said the mechanics in opening school,, the procedures to 

be followed in opening school. Principals have been informed., 

teachers have been informed, and procedures have been set up, 

and that's the type of mechanics that I had reference to. I 

didn't have reference to the mechanics of enrollment.

Q All right, you say the pupils have already been 

assigned for 1963, is that right?

A They have.

Q You say the teachers have already been assigned for 

1963, is that right?

A That1s right.

Q The books have already been assigned, is that right?

A Well, they've been alloted, yes,* that's right.

Q, Now, I'm asking you, if you had 200 students to move 

into Dougherty County in September, 1963* whether those students 

would be accommodated in the school system?

A Yes.

Q Or whether they would have to remain out of school 
a year?

A They would be accommodated; they would be enrolled 

in the schools.

Q And they would simply go up to school and fill out 

a blank and give their name and age and so forth, wouldn't 
they?

A Yes, that's right.

Q And you'd get them in school in a day.or so, wouldn't
you?



hearing on objections to plan 53

A Try to.

Q I can’t hear you?

A I'd try to; If we had room for them., we would.

Q Well, If you didn't have room for them?

A We’d make provision for them as quick as we could.

Q You would what?

A We would make provision for them as quickly as we 

could.

Q When this plan goes into effect in April, 1964, you 

won't have any idea, would you, how many Negro students would 

be seeking admission to white schools until they have applied, 

would you?

A No.

Q So that, you may have a small number:or a large

number, isn't that right?

A That's right.

Q And if this plan went into effect in September,

1963, the same would be true, wouldn't it?

A Yes.

Q You may have just a few Negroes or a large number, 

isn't that right?

A That's right.

Q But you don't know, do you?

A No.

Q But you're nevertheless saying that the plan can't 

So into effect, is that right?

A Well, we have to presume the largest number possible



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 54

and. in that case It would be considerable. As you say* I 

don't know ehther it’s a small number or whether it's a 

large number but to agree to do it, we'd have to presume that 

a large number would; in fact, the total number possible would 

do it.

Q Do you have any information as the Superintendent 

of the Schools, and you've worked on this plan for many 

months, as you say, do you have any information, which would 

lead you to believe that a large number of Negro students 

in Dougherty County would at this late date seek transfers 

to white schools?

A No.

Q, Do you have anything to base that on?

A No.

Q I can't hear you?

A No, I don't have any information on that.

Q All right, now suppose the Plaintiffs in this 

case, do you know the Plaintiffs in this case, the minor 

Plaintiff students?

A I read their names; that's as much as I know.

Q There are about 12 of them, aren't there?

A I think so.

Q Suppose those 12 students should apply for admission 

to a white school in the next day or so, do you want to state 

specifically what mechanics you feel are involved, which you 

could not handle with respect to the admissicn of 12 students?

A Well, we could handle the mechanic s of that all



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 55

right but we ivould actually - this Board of Education here 

has never had a policy to do something special for anybody. 

Now, if we did that, then we would be doing something that 

would not apply to the entire school system, would not apply 

to the entire enrollment of the schools, and it would be a 

violation of a policy of the Board of Education, first of 

all. And it would be in special interest of a special group 

and we couldn't defend it. I couldn't defend it.

Q You couldn't defend it because these people would be 

or you would be doing something special for them?

A We would be giving them a privilege or responsi­

bility, whichever way you want to take it, that we would 

not be giving to any other group or any other persons.

Q Whenever you put Negroes in white schools, that's 

going to be a departure from the policy, Isn't it?

A That's right, yes.

Q Now, you say you could take care of the mechanics 

of the admission of these 12 Plaintiffs, right?

A The mere mechanics, yes.

0. All right, now let's get to your second reason why 

this plan can't go into effect in September, 19 6 3: do you

mean to suggest that this community is totally unaware of 

what's been happening in this Country since 195^* when the 

Supreme Court held racial segregation of schools unconsti­
tutional?

A No, they're not totally unaware of it.

Q Pardon me?



hearing on objections to plan 56

A They're not totally unaware, no.

Q The people in this community know,, don't you think, 

that the courts have repeatedly ordered school boards to 

start desegregation in September of a school year in the 

middle of the summer, and that school boards like Mobile 

and Birmingham and Savannah and Macon County, Alabama, and 

Huntsville, Alabama, have been ordered to start desegregation, 

don't you think they know that?

A I'm not sure that the rank and file person knows 

that; no, I'm not sure of that.

Q You mean they don't know anything about what's going 
on?

A Well, I wouldn't be sure that they knew that, no.

Q Do you think the School Board knows, about those

other school boards that have been ordered to desegregate 

in September?

A Well, if they did, I'm not sure whether they know 

that or not. I presume they know that, yes. But you said 

the middle of the summer. This Is 12 days now In our case, 

within 12 days from the opening day of school.

Q Do you think your school board knows that on 

August 16, less than a week ago, Justice Black of the Supreme 

Court denied Mobile's application for a stay of the order 

requiring them to desegregate as of September 3?

A I don't know whether they know that or not.

I didn't know until today myself.



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 57

Q All right now3 I want to know more specifically 

what you mean by community attitude being a reason why the 

plan could not go into effect in September, 1963?

A Well, this is a social change that would change 

customs in this community that have existed for years; and 

it's something that can't be done in 12 days time. It's 

something that we will make a desperate effort and I believe, 

if given a reasonable length of time, that we can explain our 

position to this community, that we can explain to them the 

reason why we're doing this and the type of plan that we've 

presented; that we have entered into it seriously. This Board 

of Education has directed me to help develop a plan that was 

educationally sound, not to evade anything, not to try to 

shirk our responsibility anywhere in it, but to provide and 

to formulate a plan that was educationally sound, that would 

be best for the entire population, school population.

And in order to get the cooperation and the 

acceptance and reasonable response of this community, we're 

going to have to explain that In detail, beginning with the 

leaders of this community, the teachers, even the students, 

and most particularly the parents; and, if we are given time 

to do that, then, I think that we can do this in a smooth 

and orderly fashion.

Unless we are given time to do it, then I am not 

ln position to know how much of a disruption we would have.

I'm sure we'd have a disruption in our operation, which



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 58

would seriously affect the entire school system.

Q, You say you're sure you would have a disruption 

under what circumstances?

A For the very fact that the rank and file and even 

the leaders in this community, they don't know what our plan 

is yet. We actually don't have - we aren't in position to 

even talk to them about the plan because we ourselves don't 

have an approved plan. And for that reason we can't go to 

them and start talking about the thing because we don't know 

what we're talking about. And we can't possibly do that until 

we know exactly what we have to work with; and when we get it, 

then we can go at it. But we just can't walk up to a man 

and say "Here's a plan now, we're going to put it In opera­

tion a week from now, and I want you to be quiet about It."

I can't see how we could.

Q Well, suppose the Court should postpone the opera­

tion of the plan, as you suggest, until September, '64, and 

order the Plaintiffs admitted; do you want to explain what 

disruption you're talking about?

A State that question again?

Q I say, suppose the Court should, as you suggest, 

Postpone the operation of the plan until 1964, because you 

say you haven't explained it to the community, and should order 

you to admit these 12 Plaintiffs, and the plan will go Into 

effect next year: I want to know what disruption you're 

talking about?



hearing on objections to plan 59

A We’d have the same disruption that we'd have if we 

put the whole thing Into effect.

Q Now, let’s get to what disruption; do you want to 

explain that?

A Well, that’s just a change overnight of something 

that we haven't done as a traditional thing over these years; 

and the first thing we'd say, why would this particular group, 

why do we allow them to do this, when we haven't done it 

across the board for everybody. We couldn't possibly do it.

We would be in an untenable position. We couldn't possibly 

defend it, taking out 12, 10, 7 or whatever it might be, that 

few, and admit them to the schools in that manner, without 

doing it system-wide.

Q Now, do you have anything other than community 

opposition to desegregation, which you say would prevent the 

admission of the 12 Plaintiffs in September, 1963?

A Yes, I have - my objection is mainly this, that we 

are giving special privileges to a very small number, that 

we can't - this is a public body and it applies to everybody, 

and we can't take a few people and give them or grant them a 

special privilege. That adds to the matter because that 

carries into another field of being unfair to the rank and 

file students.

Q Do you have anything else as to why these 12 can't 

be admitted then?

A I don't think of anything right now. I might think



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 60

of something later.

Q Now, what do you say is going to happen next year, 

which is going to make it easier for you to in April of 1964 

to admit Negroes? Be specific, what's going to happen?

A You mean what am I going to do?

Q What changes are going to take place?

A All right, I hope that we can, first of all, start

with the Board of Education and that the Board of Education 

will direct me to proceed with whatever plan is approved; 

and at that time we will try to define and decide definitely 

on the various facets of this thing, so that we will under­

stand; so that they will understand and I will understand.

And I'll move from there to our supervisors in 

the schools and from there to the principals and we will 

explain this entire plan and the reason for it and the pro­

cedure that we hope to follow, by having meetings with them 

first and explaining in detail the plan, the reason for it; 

and that we can defend it, we think, educationally.

And from there we'd move to the teachers and explain 

the same thing to the teachers, with the hope that we can 

give them time to reconcile themselves to the thing, and 

that it is best for the entire school system.

And I believe that, given time to think about it, 

they will see our position and see that it is best educationally 

and from there, we would talk to civic groups.

First of all, we want to get to the communication



hearing on objections to plan 6l

people and get their support and their cooperation., and 

follow that to the PTA's in all the schools and talk to these 

parents about how we intend to do it, and why we think it's 

good and we think that they have a responsibility in it, as 

well as I and as well as the Board of Education; and that 

in this responsibility, first of all, if they're going to be 

responsible, they need to know all of the information that we 

have concerning it, and it will just take time to do.

Now, that's about what we would plan to do. That 

would be roughly my plan.

Q And this plan, which simply provides that In the 

1964--65 school year children entering the first grade will 

have a choice of schools, Is something you think that if 

you explain it to the community will bring about a vast 

change in community attitude between now and next April?

A I hope it would bring about a change enough that 

it would be acceptable and that we could administer it, 

and I believe we could.

Q But you can't point to anything specific or 

definite, which would lead you to believe that just talking 

to people about it, telling them that the first grade will 

te integrated, is going to bring about some great change;

I mean you just hope that, isn't that so?

A Well, a part of it is hope and a part of it is faith 

ln this community, that they will do what —

Q. I mean, is there anything specific?



hearing on objections to plan 62

A Well, those are not tangible things but I have faith 

enough In this community to believe that the leadership of 

this community through the Board of Education and the 

Superintendent of Schools and the principals have come to 

the conclusion that this Is necessary and that we have devised 

a plan that is the best plan that we can devise for this 

purpose, and we're given time to let these people in this 

community digest it, then, I think maybe that it will go 

all right," otherwise, it would be questionable.

Q All right, now do you want to state again your 

reasons for saying that this plan should proceed one grade 

a year for a period of 12 years?

A Well, that the natural - when we formulated this 

plan, we tried to preserve the quality of education in this 

community. I mean by that that we wanted it to be smooth,, 

that we'd start with the First Grade and we'd move the same 

children or a group of children on into the Second and so on 

all the way through] that the thing would flow freely and 

smoothly; and we felt like we could defend that educationally. 

That's why we suggested the First Grade. And I believe that, 

and that's the reason for submitting the plan in that manner.

Q I don't understand what you mean when you say 

"preserving the quality of education" in the community?

A Well, the mere fact that this kind of a social 

change wouldn't completely disrupt our educational processes 

here; in other words, that there wouldn't be a disturbance



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 63

of that kind, the mere fact that we mix these people, that 

within itself in this area, as we've done heretofore, could 

come up with something that could disrupt our educational 

processes and cripple the school system.

Q, You mean the community hostility to desegregation?

A Well, if you want to put it that way, yes.

Q But other than that community hostility to 

desegregation, you don't have any other reason why this 

should take 12 years?

A Well, the fact that it would be a smooth operation 

for both childrenj in other words, educationally sound. We 

wouldn't take a group and skip several gradesj but we'd start 

with the first grade and move the thing on up togetherj and 

we feel like that that would be a smooth operation and we 

could do it that way. But to go faster than that would not 

be smooth and we could not guarantee to preserve what we now 
have as well.

Q None of the minor plaintiffs will be entering the 

first grade in September, 1946, will they?

A I don't think so. I'm not sure about that. It 

seems to me there's one there, there's one of the Plaintiffs 

that we didn't have on our roll and I presume that's a First 

Grade student. I don't remember the name but I remember 
there was one.

Q Be in the First Grade in September, '63?



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 64

A I presume so. Nov/, I couldn't, I don't know the 

age because we had no record on this particular one. I 

don't know, it could be next year, I don't know, since v/e 

have no record.

Q So that, under your plan the Plaintiffs, who brought 

this suit, will never see any desegrated education, isn't 

that right?

A I expect that may be right.

Q Maybe? Do you have some doubt about it?

A Well, they might go to another school; I don't know.

Q. You mean they might move out of Georgia, is that it?

A Yes, that's right.

Q Nov/, do I understand you to say that in the upper 

grades, which I gather you mean the high schools, you have 

a two-semester system during the year?

A Well, in certain courses. Now, the only significant 
place, in certain courses there would be a. half unit credit 

given for certain courses; and that's the most significant 

thing that we have about a semester operation.

Roughly, a half a year is a half a year, of 

English, we'll say. But you might have a particular course 

that would end at the half year and be a half a unit for it.

Anh that's about the extent that v/e have the semester operation.

Q Now, I believe that you said that for the school year 

1962-63, you had a total of 22,788 pupils in the County, is



hearing on objections to plan 65

that right?

A That1s right.

Q Do you know how many of your schools In the County

are over--crowded for September, '63?

A September, s63? Me don’t have too many over-crowded

conditions.

0 Well, which ones do you have?

A I can’t tell you right off right now. We haven't

actually started school yet to begin with but I guess that

the Albany High School is overcrowded considerably. I guess 

that:s our worst situation.

Q The high school Is the most crowded?

A The Albany High School, yes.

Q How over-crowded is that?

A Oh, 20 per cent.

Q Do you have double sessions there?
A No.

Q Now, throughout the school year, you have students
to move, don’t you, from one area of the County to another?

A Yes.

Q Do those children change schools when they move,

or do they stay in the old school?

A They have had a preference. Our policy most gener- 

ally has been this,, that if it created a transportation 

Problem and they wanted school transportation they probably



hearing on objections to plan 66

would have to move; but if the parents wanted to continue to 

transport them to the school that they were in and it was 

past the middle of the year, then we permitted that.

Q Now, referring to page 3 of your plan, paragraph 2, 

do you want to read that please, paragraph numbered Roman 

numeral II?

A (Reading); "Beginning with the school term 1964-65 

and each school year thereafter all pupils entering the 

First Grade may select the school of their choice without 

regard to race or color, if proximity to school, building 

capacity and transportation permits".

Q In other words, the choice Is qualified by three 

conditions, is that, the choice of schools?

A Yes.

Q The first is proximity to the school?

A Yes.

Q Now, does that mean that the student must live 

near the school in order to be admitted?

A I think that's the first requirement, yes.

Q All right, the second is building capacity. Does

that mean there has to be a seat for that student in the 

school before he can be admitted?

A Well, that's continuing our present policy. There 

are students now who are not going to their nearest school 

because of the crowded conditions, and it might be possible



hearing on objections to plan 67

that they would have to go to a school that's not the nearest 

school because there would be too many who live nearer that 

school for the school to accommodate them; and they'd have 

to go to a school that probably might not be the nearest 

school. That kind of thing exists today.

Q Nell, this says that the "student may go to the 

school of his or her choice"; but if there is a capacity 

problem, he can't go, is that right, to the nearest school? 

Isn't that right?

A Yes, that doesn't usually exist for very long. If 

we have that kind of condition, we try to remedy it one way 

or another,

Q Well, I'm asking you whether under this plan, if 

a student, a Negro student, applies to the white school that 

he lives across the street from and yos find that it's 10 

per cent.overcrowded, does this provision in your plan 

mean that he could not go there automatically, if that's 

one of the conditions?

A I wouldn't say it would mean that automatically, 

because we wouldn't do it automatically. We would take 

these applications and do our best - we're not trying to 

ovade this thing; what we're trying to do is to state some­

thing here that we can do; and we know today that in certain 

instances as we operate today that there are more people who 

live nearer to one school than that school can accommodate.



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 68

Consequently, they have to go to another school. Nov;, I 

don’t think there would be any abuse made of that. We're 

trying not to make any absude of it as it now stands,* but 

that, I think, would have to be in there for it to be a 

realistic statement.

Q So that, this choice business is going to run 

into some difficulty, because these Negro students or white 

students may all choose to go to the same school, might they 

not, and what are you going to do then?

A I don’t think we'll have any problem of that kind.

Q You don’t think there will be?

A No.

Q I thought you just said that you did have that 

problem, that some students cannot go to the school of their 
choice?

MR. WALTERS: Nov;, Your Honor please, I don’t think

this witness has testified that they had a problem where 

all of the students of this community wanted to go to 

one school. I think that’s what counsel is suggesting.

He does state that in some areas that they might have a 

problem, where a school would be in a crowded community 

and there would be more students living in that immediate 

area than that school could accommodate,; and in those 

instances it might be absolutely necessary to send some 

students to a school farther from their home than the



hearing on objections to plan 69

Mr. Walters:

ones that were there. He hasn’t certainly intimated that 

all students applied to go to any one school.

THE COURT: I think she was imagining such a

situation. He can respond to the imagined situation.

Go ahead, Mrs. Motley.

A The Witness: Certainly, it's possible, it’s possible.

As I’ve said before, it’s possible that any student or any 

group of students might make application that they all 

wanted to go to this particular school and it’s possible 

that there would be more to make application than could go, 

yes.

___Q Mrs. Motley: I want to know how this Is going

to operate in that situation, as I thought I understood you 

to say you already had situations —

A It would apply without respect to race. Actually it 

would apply to any group of students,- it wouldn’t necessarily 

be either. It might be white, it might be colored. But 

that's possible for that kind of condition to come up.

Q Let me ask you this: How do you now take care of

this situation, where you have too many students living near 

a school, how do you now divide them?

A We probably would transport them to another school; 

if It was beyond their walking distance, we would transport 

them to a school that did have facilities for them.



hearing o n objections to plan 70

Q But you assign them, don't you., to another school, 

if they can’t go to the nearest school?

A If that’s necessary, yes.

0 All right, now, as I understand the evidence in this 

case, it shows that the students are now assigned to schools 

pursuant to school zone lines, isn't that right?

A Yes.

Q The elementary grades?

A Yes.
Q Since you only have one high school for Negroes and 

one for whites?

A That1s right.

Q Now, do you want to explain how this plan would 

operate in conjunction with those school zone lines?

A Well, if this plan went into effect, the zone lines 

virtually would be abolished.

Q You mean —
A I believe they would, yes. This would be the basis 

for school attendance, would be proximity to school, would 

be the determining factor as to what school they attended.

And, of course, that might - then, I think it might go down 

to the actual distance of the individual student and that 

eventually might establish some kind of a line, but it would be 

on the basis of where the individual student lives.

Q Well, let's see if we can’t clarify this: Under the



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 71

present set up you have school zone lines, those lines being 

that if you live within that zone, you go to that school, 

is that it?

A Yes.

Q And you draw those lines with reference to the

capacity of the school and the children in the area, you

draw the line so that the school is filled, don't you?

A As closely as we can do that, yes.

Q All right, now when this plan goes into operation

in April, 1964, I want to know what happens to those school 

zone lines?

A As far as the First Grade is concerned and the 

portion affected by the plan, they would disappear.

Q They would disappear?

A Yes.

Q And the people would have their choice cf school, 
right?

A On the basis of their proximity to the school, yes.

Q And that would apply to Negro and white?

A Exactly.

Q How many do you have going in the First Grade in

September, 1963?

A I don't know, I don't know that.

Q You don’t have any idea?

A Oh, there's over 2,000 but I don’t know the number, but



hearing on objections to plan 72

more than 2,000.

Q You have more than 2,000 First Graders going in, 

in September, 1963?

A That's right.

Q And you're now saying that in September, 1964, 

approximately 2,000 students are going to be able to choose 

the schools that they will attend, is that it?

A On the basis of proximity to the schools.

Q How do you do that?

A Well, I think it would be this. If they live, 

if they're attending a school at that time, not attending 

their nearest school at that time, then they would make 

application to attend their nearest school.

Q This is First Graders, who have never been in school

A Well, if they lived in an area, then they might

make application to attend the nearest school to where they 
live.

Q In other words, in April, 1962 - '64, I'm sorry - 

assuming you have the same approximate number of children 

entering the First Grade, what this plan amounts to is that 

ln April, 1964 you are going to have 2,000 people selecting 
schools, isn't that right?

A That's right.

Q And then, what happens to those applications, you 

âve 2,000 people? Describe the procedure that this plan



hearing on objections to plan 73

proposes with respect to those applications?

A Well, they would, so far as I can see, they would 

attend the nearest school and they would be accepted at the 

nearest school, provided that the capacity of that school 

was enough, large enough to take care of the number of 

applicants, the number of people who wanted to attend. If 

it was not, then they would have to attend another school.

Q All right, what other school? How is that determina­

tion going to be made? Suppose you had 500 that wanted to 

go to one school. Afer all, they have a choice, Negro and 

white. You may end up with 500 ail applying for one school 

because it’s air-conditioned or something like that.

I want to know what criteria are going to be used to 

determine -who goes to that school?

A Well, the three here, the criteria that we have set 

up; and, beyond that, we probably would take possibly the 500 

nearest to the school, if we use proximity.

Q Well, let's say that this is a school for 200 

students: I want to know how you then assign the 300, who 

can’t get in there?

A Well, to the next nearest school.

Q They would go to the next nearest school, and so on?

A Yes.

Q And when you get to the next nearest school, you 

find that 100 too many have elected over there,* you might



hearing on objections to plan 74

find that?

A Yes, it might be.

Q And then, what happens?

A Well, we'd follow the same procedure until we had 

found a place for them. That's what we do now.

Q Now, wouldn't it be sinp ler to just draw school zone 

lines for the First Grade and everybody who lives in that 

zone, regardless of color, go to that school?

A I don't think it would.

Q Why not?

A Well, we're dealing with individual persons here 

and there would be places where we would leave some out 

who are actually probably nearer that school. We have that 

problem now. We have the problem now; we draxv a line on 

various things. We draw a line for transportation purposes, 

for instance; and say, if you live within a mile and a half 

°f school, you're entitled to transportation; and we draw a 

line and say people in this zone will be transported. And 

this parent will come to me and say "Well, I actually live 

nearer to the school." So, when we start dealing with 

individual people, a line won't do the job.

Q Well, you now assign students to schools in the 

elementary grades on the basis of school zone lines, except 

that you have separate lines for Negro schools, is that right?

A Yes, we have separate lines; that's right, for both



hearing on objections to plan 7 5

Q Then, you deal with the overcrowding in each particu­

lar zone, which develops as a result of those lines, right?

A Yes.

Q How often do you review those lines, every year, to 

see how many you're going to have in school?

A Yes, every year.

Q And then, you try to draw the line, don't you, to 

fit the capacity of the school, don't you?

A Yes, if we can. We can't do it though. We never —  

we don't do it.

Q Not accurately every time?

A You can't do it accurately any time.

Q You always have a few under or over, is that right?

A That's right.

Q And then, you deal with that few under and over, 
don't you?

A That's right.

Q Wouldn't that be simpler than letting 2,000 people 

choose their own schools?

A I don't think so.

Q Why not?

A Because we couldn't deal with the individual.

%>pose an individual protests this thing and came up and 

“aid "x live nearer this school," And the line, just because 

e had an artificial line there, we'd send him to another



hearing o n objections to plan 76

school. I think we'd want to know exactly how far he lives 

from the school and that's the reason for dealing with 

his proximity to the school.

q Well, you do that now on the lines, don't you?

A Yes, but what I'm saying is, it doesn't work. We

have people to protest it and we have trouble with It. We 

have trouble in some instances right now.

Q All right now, what is this third criterion in

paragraph numbered Roman numeral II on page 3 of your plan,

transportation: Do you want to explain that?

A Well, there's a State Board of Education policy that 

any person that lives a mile and a half from a school is 

entitled to transportation and that, of course, we try to 

apply that across the board to everybody; and there are 

various problems that arise with transportation. For instance, 

we might get in position to where we'd have to send a bus to

some one student, or some such thing as that. And that,

el course, would be extravagant and unreasonable. And so, 

that enters into the picture sometimes.

I don't know that transportation In this particular 

instance would be as significant. I'm certain it wouldn't be 

as significant a thing as proximity but there could be a 

Possibility. For Instance, we might have a family that 

wanted transportation that lived within a mile and a half 

of the school, and under the present policy we couldn't give



hearing on objections to plan 77

them transportation. Or we might not have - there might be 

various types of problems that would arise from the transpor­

tation matter. I don’t think there would be too many or 

too serious.

Q How many do you transport now?

A We transport about 5500.

Q. 5500?

A Yes.

Q Are those in the City of Albany?

A All over the County.

Q All in the County?

A No, there’s some - if they live a mile and a 

half from the school they’re entitled to transportation! 

and most students who live a mile and a half from school 

ask for transportation. Some don’t but most of them do.

Q But the bulk of your transportation is in the County 

is that right?

A The bulk of it, yes,

Q, Do you have any idea how many students in the City 

are transported?

A No, I don't; I don't have that,

0, Now, all of these minor plaintiffs live in the City 

Albany, don't they?

A I'm not sure that they do,

Q. You haven't investigated the minor Plaintiffs at all



hearing on objections to plan 78

A I think I can say that they do.

Q They do?

A I think they do, yes.

Q Now, to summarize this matter of the school zone 

lines, this plan envisions that the school zone lines 

remain, but as to the First Grade they would virtually 

disappear, right?

A That’s right.

Q So that, your plan does not make any provision for 

the redrawing of school zone lines, is that right?

A No.

Q I can’t hear you?

A No, it doesn’t.

Q Now, what does this plan envision with respect to 

the separate vocational schools that you have here?

A Well, the vocational school is a joint operation 

with the State of Georgia, the State Board of Education and 

the Dougherty County Board of Education, And there’s nothing 

in this plan about It because it's a joint operation with the 

State Board of Education and the Dougherty County Board of 

Education; and such plan as is presented would have to be 

Presented with the approval of the State Board of Education; 

and for that reason It's not in this plan here.

Q How is it a joint operation with the State?

A Well, a 50-50 operation. When they built it, the



hearing on objections to plan 79

State Board of Education shared 50-50 in the cost of building 

it and in the operation of it, they pay the salaries and we 

maintain the buildings; and the maintenance operation, we 

pay for the maintenance and operation of the building .

Q What do they have to say about the students who 

attend that school?

A Well, they attend - since they do that, then students 

from surrounding counties are eligible to attend the school; 

and we agree to accept students from surrounding counties, 

because it is a State, partially a State operation, and goes 

across county lines for operation, for students, for getting 
students,

Q. Does the State Board require that these schools be 
segregated?

A Does the State Board require that? That's never 

been> that issue has never come up, with the State of Georgia, 
with the State Board.

Q That is the policy of the local Board, isn't it?

A Yes. Well now, of course, whatever policy we had, 

course, when we operate the school, we assume it would be 

operated as we operate the school system. Now, any change 

n ̂ at would have to come, would have to be approved by the
04. j

ai:e Board of Education since they are joint sponsors of 
these schools.

Q So that, you envision that if you change the policy



hearing on objections to plan 80

with respect to the vocational schools and admit Negroes 

to the white one, you'll have to get the approval of the 

State Board, is that it?

A That would be necessary.

Q You say that would be necessary; now, what do you 
have to base that on?

A Well, because that's a change in the agreement 

that we originally had. In other words, when we formulated 

this partnership agreement, it was on a segregated basis, 

and any change in that would be a change in our contract 

with them and we'd have to get their consent or their per­

mission, or they would have to agree to it.

Q You mean, you have an agreement with the State 
Board?

A Exactly; we do.

Q That these schools be operated on a segregated 
basis?

A That1s right.

Q Do you have that in writing?

A Oh, we have the agreement and I —  the fact that 

we ̂ ave one for white and one for Negroes, it is obvious 
khat it was that kind of thing.

Q Well, I'm asking you whatever is written says?

A I couldn't say that I do have it in writing, no. 
ôn't know whether we do or not.



hearing on objections to plan 8 1

Q Now, does this plan make any provision for the 

admission of new students coming into the County for the 

first time in grades above the First Grade on a non-racial 

basis?
A As this plan progressed, they would become a part 

of it, the First Grade students for the first year, the 

Second Grade the second year and so on.
Q, Well, let's take 1964 when it goes into effect and 

a student moves into Dougherty County that’s in the Fifth 

Grade, does this plan provide for the admission of that 

student on a non-racial basis?

A No; no, it doesn't.

Q Now, when this plan goes into effect in April, 1964, 

as we pointed out earlier, and Negroes make a choice to go 

to certain schools, it may turn out that they're not near 

to that school, that it's overcrowded and that you have to 

provide transportation for those 2 or 3 Negroes who want to 

goto that particular school if it's more than a mile and a 

half: there's nothing in this plan which sort of guarantees

that some Negroes will be admitted in 1964, is there?

A Well, this plan applies to everybody and I think 

have agreed that we would assign them without regard to 

?acei and we'd do that.

Q Now, let me ask you this: Do you understand that 

the Supreme Court's decisions in the school segregation cases



hearing on objections to plan 8 2

requires school boards to make a start toward desegregation; 

do you understand that?

MR. WALTERS: Your Honor pleases, this witness is

not a lawyer.

MRS. MOTLEY: I'm asking him if he understands It.

MR. WALTERS: He has not qualified as an expert on

legal matters. I think these are matters for the Court 

to determine, what the Supreme Court decisions say and 

not this witness. His testimony relative to that can't 

help this Court in any manner in this regard. That's the 

province of the Court to determine what the Supreme 

Court's decision holds and not a mere layman, as far 

as the law is concerned.

THE COURT: Do you insist on that question?

MRS. MOTLEY: Well, the Superintendent says to this

Court that he has a plan of desegregation, that he has 

studied this for many months, that he has consulted with 

others, who have had the same problem; and I'm asking 

him whether he understands, as the administrator of 

this plan, that the Supreme Court's decisions require 

that the school boards make a start with whatever plan 

they have toward desegregation. And If he doesn't under­

stand that, then he can say so. I'm asking him what he 

understands the Supreme Court's decisions to require.

THE COURT: Well, can you answer the question?



hearing on objections to plan 83

A The Witness: I ’m not familiar with the technicalities

of the Supreme Court decision, no.

__Q Mrs. Motley: And you're not able to demonstrate to

this Court, are you, that this plan will in 1964 result in 

the admission of some Negroes to white schools?

A I can assure you that it will.

Q All right, now we want to know how that can be 

assured?

A Well, there are some who live, their nearest school 

they live nearer today; there are some today who live 

nearer to schools that are being operated all white schools 

than tĥ r do to schools that are Negro schools; and some of 

those students will be admitted; probably all that make 

application, but certainly there will be some that will be.

Q And you can say to this Court that you're sure 

that there are some white schools where Negroes live closer 

than they do to Negro schools, which are under-enrolled and 

4ich would not involve any transportation problem; so 

•̂at, if those Negroes apply, they would go In, is that right?

A They probably will, yes.

4 Probably will?

A Yes, under this plan, they would.

 ̂ In other words, it's not certain, is it? First,

°U Ve Sot to have a Negro to apply, isn't that right?

A That's right.



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 84

Q Then, you've got to have a Negro who lives nearer 

to a white school, isn’t that right?

A That1s right.

Q, And then, you've got to have room in that school for 

that student, isn't that right?

A That’s right.

Q And then, you have to have a student that doesn't 

have any transportation problem, isn't that right?

A Yes.

Q So, you've got four factors operating there, all of 

which must come together, in order for the Negro to get in?

A That’s right.

Q So that, if no Negro applies next year, you're not 

going to have any desegregation, are you?

A I wouldn't think so.

Q And if it turned out that all of the Negroes who 

live next to white schools and those schools were somehow 

filled, they wouldn't get in, would they?

A I couldn't say that all would, but it would be 

applied to probably the people, without regard to race, who 

live nearest to the school. It would probably be applied 

that way.

Q You mean —

A When we say proximity, we could come down to the 

200 or the 300 or the 100 or the 500 who live nearest to that



hearing on objections to plan 85

school without regard to race,

Q Well, let's stick with building capacity for a 

minute: You mean if the school is filled to capacity with 

whites, you're going to put some whites out to put in a 

Negro who applies?

A To deal with proximity here, that probably would 

eventually happen, yes.

MRS, MOTLEY: Those are all of the questions for

this witness.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY!«„ WALTERS:

Q Mr. Cordell, is this plan going to be administered 

without any regard to race?

A Absolutely.

Q Do you and the School Board believe that there is 

still a vestige in this Country of freedom of choice and, 

no colored people apply to go to a school, they will not 
ks forced to go?

A I would think so, yes sir.

Q Counsel asked ycu if you knew how many, could have

any idea at this date as to how many Negro students might

aPPly, if the Court orders this plan to take effect now

SePtember of 1963; and I believe your answer was, of course,

y°u couldn't have any idea how many might apply to go to 
school?



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 86

A That1s right.

Q Counsel also asked you the same question if you 

had any idea how many might apply to go a previously all 

white school in April of 1964, to begin in September of 

1964; and I believe your answer was of course, you had no 

Idea?

A That1s right.

Q, But Isn't it true, Mr. Cordell, that after the 

applications are made in April of 1964 that you will have 

6 months in which to make your plans for the actual admission?

A Yes.

Q, Now, I believe you stated in response to —

A It might be 5 months. We would have a reasonable 

length of time, I would say that.

Q, I believe you stated that if the Court ordered the 

individual Plaintiffs in this case to be admitted to schools 

of their choice or transferred in September of 1963* that 

the actual mechanics relative to the making of the assign­

ments could be handled; I believe your testimony on that was 

you could.

Are the mechanics or the handling of this what Is 

disturbing you as to this social change in September of '63?

A No, not —  that's a minor problem.

Q, Now, I'll ask you again, Mr. Cordell, if in any 

discussion of this matter with the Board of Education in the



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 87

past several months, has anyone or has any effort been made 

on your part or on the part of the Board of Education to 

design a plan for the education of the children of this 

community, which would be subterfuge, by fraud or by any 

means defeat the orders of this Court?

A No, absolutely not.

Q Have you designed a plan which you as an educator 

feel will, with a minor amount of disruption of the educa­

tional processes of this community, be the best for all 

people?

A Yes sir.

MRS. MOTLEY; Of course, all of these questions are

leading, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I realize that but in the circumstances

—  All right, Mrs. Motley, do you have anything further.

MR. WALTERS: Just one second.

____Q Counsel has asked you relative to the places of

residence and proximity to schools of the minor Plaintiffs: 

has anyone on your staff made any investigation as to this?

A As to where they live?

Q Yes?

A Yes.

Q And who was that?

A Mr. Finley, T. R. Finley.

Q That's all.



hearing on objections to plan 88

RECROSS EXAMINATION

BY MRS. MOTLEY:

Q, Excuse me, did I understand you to say that when 

these students apply under the plan in April, 1964, you would 

have 6 months to decide?

A I said we would have a reasonable length of time.

Q Doesn't your plan say you have to notify them by 

June 1st?

A Well, that would be a reasonable length of time.

Q That's not 6 months, Is It?

A No.

Q And from April - what's the week in April, the first 

week in April?

A The first week.

Q To June 1st, is about 2 months, isn't it?

A Yes.

Q And during that time you're going to have 2,000 

approximately, based on what you have this year, students 

going into the First Grade, all of whom will exercise a 

choice under this plan, right?

A Ri ght.

Q So that, in a period from April, the first week in 

APril, the first Monday, to the 1st of June, you will have 

1:0 pass on 2,000 applications?

A It might be possible.



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 89

Q It might be possible?

A Yes.

BY THE COURT:

Q Well* let's clear that up. I think the question and 

answer would be confusing if simply read in black and white 

later. Let's clarify that: What you mean by that, I 

gather Mr. Cordell, is that there is no doubt in your mind 

but what it will be possible for you to process the applica­
tions?

A Oh yes.

Q Well, you say "oh yes"; do you mean there is doubt 
in your mind?

A No, we could process the applications.

Q There's no doubt in your mind that you could process
them?

A No sir.

Q What you mean, when you say it might be possible, is 

you don't know how many applications you would have?

A The uncertainty, the uncertain quantity is the number 

who would, the 2,000; but even if they did, we could process 
them.

BY MRS. MOTLEY:

Q I thought this plan applied to everybody, regardless 

°f race? You mean it only applies to Negroes?

A This says they would automatically go to the nearest



hearing on objections to plan 90

school; and if they were not attending - in other words, as 

we are operating now, if the people in that area were not 

attending the nearest school, they would make application to 

attend their nearest school, regardless of whether it was 

formerly all white or all Negro,

Q Mr. Cordell, we're talking about people who've 
never been in school? Is that right?

A That *s right.

Q And, as I understand this plan, it applies to 

everybody in '64 who have never been in school?

A That's right.

Q And based on the number you have this year, 2,000, 

you may have 2,000 next year; then, this plan applies to 

2,000 people, doesn't it?

A There would be 2,000 enrolled but there wouldn't 

necessarily be 2,000, who would ask - who would go, who 

would ask to go to their nearest school that have heretofore 

been attending a school that was not their nearest school.

Q So that, as a matter of fact, the plan will apply 

°nly to Negroes seeking admission to white schools, isn't 
that right?

A Not necessarily. We might have others, just anybody.

Q You mean you might have whites trying to go to 
tfegro schools?

A We might.



hearing on objections to plan 91

Q Is that what you mean?

A Me might have - well, we would have whites who 

have not been attending their nearest school probably, They 

might actually ask for transportation to go to their nearest 

school, ask for a transfer to their nearest school,

Q Let me direct your attention again to the plan, 
page 3, paragraph —

THE COURT: Maybe, Mrs. Motley - I thought we were

about through with this witness but since we are not - 

suppose we take a recess at this time of about 10 minutes.

RECESS: 11:10 AM to 11:20 AM - AUGUST 22, 1963
___Q Mrs, Motley: Do you still have the plan, Mr.
Cordell?

A Let's see . , . (Witness securing plan from counsel's 
table). . .

I would like to direct your attention to page 3 of your 

plan, paragraph numbered Roman Numeral III; it's the second 

Paragraph under Roman Numeral III: do you want to read that, 
please?

A "Students who will be entering the First Grade in 

September of 1964 shall be registered by the parent or 

guardian, and such registration shall take place at the 

School which the student desires to attend. "

Q So, that means that every student entering the First 

Grade in September, '64, will register at the school he or



hearing on objections to plan 92

she desires to attend, doesn't it?

A That's right.

Q Now, under this plan, you then take those 2,000 

applications from First Graders and you then consider those 

2,000 applications under these three criteria that you have 

set forth in paragraph No. 2, don't you?

A Yes, whether they are - yes, we would.

Q So that, this plan applies to all students entering 

the First Grade in September, 1964, doesn't it?

A Yes.

Q And those 2,000 applications must be reviewed by your 

staff, and applied to those applications will be these three 
criteria, is that right?

A Well, we would expect that they would, that the 

registration would be distributed among all of our schools 

and that the principals would - if there's no question about 

the proximity or no question about any of these particular 

features here, that they would be accepted at that school 

without any further, as we do it now, if there's no question 

about it. They would be, the actual processing would be 

distributed among all the schools.

Q Well, what's the point of the plan? I don't under­
hand, what's the point of the plan?

A 'Well, the point of the plan is that they have a choice 

°f the school that they want to request to attend.



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 93

Q And if everybody registers in a school and it turns 

out that there's no problem as to capacity, the nothing 

happens, isn't that right; everything is just fine?

A Well, if it's determined that they are registering 

at their nearest school, there would be no problem.

Q Well, I thought you said a minute ago that, if 

everybody was accommodated, that that would be the end of It, 

and you wouldn't have to look into proximity, capacity or 

transportation?

A I don't know as I said that. I said they could go 

to their school of their choice to register and then, if 

to the principal, for instance, it was obvious that there 

was no question about their eligibility for that school on 

the basis of these matters here, there would be no further 

problem In their registration or in their application.

Q. In other words, this plan is going to be administered 

by the principals, in the first instance, is that right?

A That would be their —  that's right.

Q And then, anyone aggrieved by the action of the 

principal then what?

A Well, they would eventually - then they could 

appeal possibly to the Superintendent's office; and then, 

if they're aggrieved there, they can appeal to the Board of 

Education.

Q That's not in the plan, is it?



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 94

A Well, that's our usual procedure of any aggrieved -

Q I mean, that's not in here? Is that in there, 
what you have there?

A That's not stated as such here, no; but that's stated 
in the policy of the Board of Education.

MRS. MOTLEY: I think those are all the questions.

THE COURT: Anything further, Mr. Walters?

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WALTERS:

Q Just about two other questions, Your Honor: Now,

Mr, Oordell, was it the intention of the Board to include 

in its plan every simple mechanics that would go into the 

registration of these pupils?

A It would be practically impossible to do that.

0, Now, just to clarify this matter, as I understand 

its I would ask you whether or not it is or is not true that 

at the spring registration date of April, the first week in 

4>ril of 1964, of course, all of the students entering the 

school system in the First Grade for the first time would 

b6 registered, as I understand the plan, by their parent or 

guardian,* and the registration would take place at the school 

which the student desires to attend; is that correct?

A That's right.

Q Now, of course, that load of registration would be



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 95

distributed throughout the entire school system,, in all 

schools having First Grades?

A Yes.

Q Now, is it or is it not true that these matters, 

these applications would, of course, of necessity be first 

processed by the principals of those schools?

A Yes.

Q And is it or is it not true that the students, 

whose applications or who desire to go to that school, 

based upon the criteria established In the plan, would be 

acted upon by those principals, without regard to race?

A That's right.

Q, Now, is it or is it not true that the principals 

would then transmit all of the applications to you, with 

their recommendation of approval or disapproval of the 

requested assignment?

A That would be true.

Q Is it or is it not true then that you and your staff 

in all probability would review the ones that had been denied 

and would in some instances overrule, in all probability, the 

principal?

A Yes.
Q, Is it or is it not true that then all of the appli­

cations - and I would say it would probably be true, I'm 

sure counsel would recognize the fact - that possibly 95



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 96

per cent, of the applications, as far as the Board of Educa­

tion is concerned, would simply be approved?

A Yes sir.

Q Is it or is it not true that the ones that up to 

this point had been disapproved would at that time under 

this plan be reviewed by the Board of Education?

A That's right.

Q Is it or is it not true that then the plan provides 

for the Board of Education to notify each and every applicant 

as to whether or not their request for assignment has been 

approved or disapproved by the 1st day of June?

A That's in the plan.

Q Is It or is it not true that the plan then provides 

that any person who is dissatisfied with the action of the 

Board would have the right, and would be so notified by the 

Board on or before the 10th day of June, to request a hearing 

before the Board?

A Yes.

Q Again, Mr. Cordell, is it your intention as the head 

administrator of the school system of Dougherty County, 

Georgia, to administer this plan without regard to race?

A Absolutely.

Q Mr. Cordell, prior to September, 19 6 1, did you have 

had any indication ever been given to you that anybody in 

bhis community, white or Negro, was dissatisfied with the 

banner in which the public schools were being operated?



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 97

A No, in fact, we had a delegation of highly respected 

Negro citizens, who came to the Board of Education at a 

regular meeting and at that time Dr. J. H. Ellis was their 

spokesman; and they stated that they realized that the 

PTA's had been in close communication with the Board of 

Education, but they did not, were not members of the PTA; 

that they represented civic clubs, and that they would like 

to state to the Board that they were not interested in 

integrating the schools, that they were satisfied with that 

particular phase of it, but they did want good school facili­

ties; and recommended to the Board of Education at that 

time that the Board make an effort to acquire the Cardinal 

baseball property down on Newton Road for a new high school. 

That was the request that they made of the Board and the 

Board immediately started proceedings to acquire it and did 

and constructed a high school down in that area.

Q I think that1s all.

THE COURT: When was that?

The Witness: About 1959.

RECROSS EXAMINATION

BY MRS. MOTLEY:

Q Were any of these Plaintiffs involved in this?

A No.

Q, Let me ask you this, in other words, if no Negro 

applies in April, 1964, I think you admitted before there



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 98

wouldn’t be any desegregation, is that right?

A That’s right.

Q And it is your understanding that, despite the 

Supreme Court’s decision, there’s no duty on the Board to 

disestablish the dual school system, is that it?

A I think the Board is trying to maintain freedom 

of choice there. If they want to apply, if they want to 

go —  they make application and they would have their choice.

Q Well, that’s what I can never get clear, how this 

freedom of choice actually operates, when you've got all of 

these other criteria that tend to limit that freedom of 

choice? You have schools that are crowded and transportation 

problems and proximity problems; and it’s not clear to me 

whether it’s freedom of choice or these three criteria control?

A Well, the only thing I can tell you is this, if 

they're not going to the nearest school that they live to 

at that time and they want to make application to attend 

that school, they can do it. If they don’t want to make 

application, they don't necessarily have to do it. And that's 

all I —  that's the plan that we intend.

Q, So that, the primary thing is proximity to school, 

right?

A That1s right.

Q And application?

A Yes.



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 99

0 And If no Negro applies., you just go on and operate 

segregated schools., right?

A That's right.

THE COURT: Is that a fair question, Mrs. Motley?

Is that a fair question of the witness, to put it to him 
that way?

MRS. MOTLEY: I think that's the issue. He keeps

saying there's freedom of choice and I can't see any 

choice, freedom of choice, when he's got three factors 

operating, which limit or restrict that free choice.

BY THE COURT:

Q Let me ask him one question right there and it may 

help us both. I had intended to ask this question at the 

end, if nobody else had. So, let me ask it right here and 

it may help all of us:

Mr. Cordell, I presume you are, not only familiar 

with the things that are taken into consideration in the 

Dougherty County school system in assigning pupils to par­

ticular schools, but I presume, because of the fact that 

you have been connected with other school systems in the 

past and have some familiarity with other school systems, 

that you know generally what is taken into consideration in 

most school systems, in deciding to which school a pupil is 

to be assigned, don’t you?

A Yes sir.



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 100

Q You generally are familiar with that ?

A Yes sir.

Q And isn't it generally true - and the reason I ask 

this is because I used to be a school teacher myself and I 

think I have some basis and some information about this thing - 

isn't it generally true that in most school systems that, in 

assigning a pupil to a school,, ou take into consideration 

the proximity to the school, the building capacity and the 

transportation problem that may be involved? Aren't those 

the three things that are generally taken into consideration?

A Yes sir.

Q, Now, here in Albany, you have taken into consideration 

another thing, you have heretofore taken into consideration a 

fourth thing, and that is race?

A Yes.

Q That's what you've done and that Is what is here 

complained about. So, heretofore you have taken into consider­

ation proximity to schools, building capacity and transporta­

tion problems and race?

A Yes.

Q Now, as I understand your plan, what you propose to 

do, is you propose to eliminate that item of race?

A That's right.

Q, You propose to continue to take Into consideration 

the matter of proximity to schools, building capacity and



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 101

transportation problems?

A That's right,

Q. And you Intend to take that into consideration with 

regard to white students who apply to go to some particular 

school, or with regard to Negro students who apply to go to 

some particular school?

A Yes.

Q, You intend to take those three things into considera­
tion?

A That's right.

Q Is that true?

A Yes sir.

Q But do I understand that you do not intend to take 

into consideration in any manner, either directly or indirectly, 

the question of the race of the student who may be applying 

to be assigned to some particular school?

A That's right.

Q Have I stated it accurately?

A Accurately, yes sir.

Q Do you intend in any way - and I, of course, expect 

a good faith answer to this question, Just as I am presuming 

that the plan has been submitted in good faith - do you intend 

in any way to instruct or suggest or coerce or in any way 

cause whoever passes upon these applications for admission 

to a particular school, to use the matter of proximity, or the



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 102

matter of building capacity or the matter of transportation 

problem, as a subterfuge for taking into consideration the 

question of race?

A No sir.

Q Do you intend to apply the tests of proximity to 

school, building capacity and transportation furnished to 

ail alike, without discrimination with regard to race?

A Yes sir.

Q And that is a good faith answer to the Court's 

question?

A Absolutely.

THE COURT: Now, that is what I wanted to know

and maybe that clarifies this choice question.

MRS. MOTLEY: Of course, this may be in the area

of argument, which we will argue later to the Court, 

but I think that it's clear from his testimony that he 

is taking into consideration another factor, at least 

as to September, 1963, in addition to proximity, capacity, 

transportation and race, he is taking into consideration 

community hostility to desegregation.

THE COURT: Of course, I recognize he's taking

that into consideration as one of the overall problems 

that he mentions as to why he doesn't feel the plan 

should go into effect in September, 1963., as I understand 

it.



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 103

MRS. MOTLEY: And what I was trying to bring out

is whether he saw anything which would eliminate con­

sideration of that fifth factor in 1964. So that, I 

think that we have five factors operating here and not 
just four.

THE COURT: Yes, I agree with you to the extent

that that does appear, that that is a thing that h e ’s 

taking into consideration in September, 1963,* which he 

says will no longer be taken into consideration, come 

this first registration in April, 1964, as I understand 

it.

MRS. MOTLEY: The reason that this factor is important

is because it prevents him from dropping the fourth one 

which is race, which you asked him if he was going to drop.

THE COURT: I understand.

MRS. MOTLEY: And the point is, if he relies on

community hostility, he can never drop race but race 

would continue to operate.

THE COURT: Sure. Well, as I understand his

testimony, he is not, he and the Board are not simply 

relying on community hostility. He has mentioned that 

as one of their problems that they feel can be overcome 

within a period of some months of communication and such 

as that, as I understand his testimony.

Now, were yo u  concluded, Mrs. Motley? Here yo u  t h r o u g h  

wit h  the witness? B e c a u s e  I i n t e r r u p t e d  yo u  to ask h i m  

that q u e s t i o n  myself.



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 104

MRS. MOTLEY: Yes.

THE COURT: Because I had intended to ask him that

at some time and this seemed to be an appropriate time to 

do it. But now, you go ahead if you care to.

MRS. MOTLEY: Excuse me, I will see if there is
anything further.

____ Q. Now, let me ask you this, in conclusion: With

respect to September, 1963,5 this community hostility, you 

heard the discussion between the Judge and myself, right?

A Yes.

Q, This community hostility is a major consideration, 

so far as you are concerned, for having this plan go into 

effect in September, 1963.5 isn't it - having it not go into 

effect then?

A Yes; yes, that's true.

Q That's all.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. WALTERS:

Q, Now, it is also true there are many other factors 

in the administration of the schools that enter into this 

request for delay, are there not?

A There are.

Q That's all.

BY THE COURT:

Q I have just one further question that I Twant to ask:



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 105

Mr. Cordell* with regard to the matter of vocational schools* 

as I understand it* you have one vocational school that is 

operated for white students and one vocational school that 

is operated for Negro students?

A Yes sir.

Q Is that the situation at the present time?

A Yes sir.

Q Are those vocational schools graded?

A No sir* they're not graded.

Q They’re ungraded?

A Ungraded* that’s right.

Q What educational background does a person

have to be admitted to one of the vocational schools* what 

previous education must he have had?

A Preferably* a high school education but not abso­

lutely necessary* depending on - that is for some courses; 

electronics* for instance* the requirements would be a high 

school education; but maybe some of the building trades* that 

wouldn’t necessarily be true. But at least a reasonable 

amount* I would say 6th or 7th Grade would be an absolute 

minimum for those building trades.

Q 6th or 7th Grade?

A Yes sir.
Q, In other words* the age of the person who goes to the 

vocational schools* the minimum age* ordinarily would be the



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 106

age in which a student would, normally be in about the 8th 
Grade, from then on up?

A Well, there Is another requirement from an age 

standpoint, that they be at least 16 years old.

Q I was coming to that. In other words, a person 

to attend a vocational school Is required to be at least 
16 years of age?

A That's right, yes sir,

Q, Does that applj/ In both of the schools?

A In both of the schools, yes sir.

THE COURT: All right, anything further?

MRS. MOTLEY: No sir.

THE COURT: You may go down

MR. T. R. FINLEY

witness called in behalf of Defendants, 
being first duly sworn, testified on

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. WALTERS:

Q You are T. R. Finley?

A That’s correct.

Q Mr. Finley, have you, at my request, investigated 

the place of residence of the minor Plaintiffs that have 

brought this suit?

A Yes, I have.



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 107

Q Have you also Investigated at my request the schools 

that they are presently attending or will attend in September 

of this year?

A That’s correct.

Q Mr. Finley, in connection with proximity from their 

residence to the schools they are attending, is each and 

every person that has brought this suit attending the 

school containing the grade that they are attending that 

is closest to their home?

A That Is correct.

MR. WALTERS: The witness is with the Court.

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MRS. MOTLEY:

Q What is your position in the school system?

A Coordinator of white elementary schools.

Q, Do you know any areas in the City of Albany, where 

Negroes live closer to white schools?

A I'm sure that there would be areas.

Q You don't know any?

A Well, there would be.

Q Well, what area?

A Well, of course, in the Broad Street area, Broad 

School area. You mean would they be closer to white schools? 

Q Yes?

A There are; we do have.



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 108

MR. WALTERS: Now, if Y.our Honor pleases, the

Defendants will readily admit that there are areas; 

in fact, that's already in the record in the previous 

hearing on this matter.

THE COURT: Mrs. Motley, the record in the previous

hearing, as a matter - well, I don't know where I 

Included it in my findings previously made or not - 

but I think it is admitted that that is true, that there 

are areas at the present time where Negro students live 

closer to white schools than they do to the school which 

they are attending, and vice versa, I think.

____ Q, Mrs. Motley: Yes, but what I was going to get at

was whether, with the operation of this plan, which is based 

on proximity to schools, whether we would end up, with that 

criterion, with no Negroes attending white schools, or how 

many, if he knew the area. That is what I was trying to 

develop.

You don't know any specific area?

A There are some areas, I'm sure.

Q You mentioned Broad Street area; any others that 

you recall?

A No.

MRS. MOTLEY: That's all.

MR. WALTERS: Now, Your Honor please, I believe that

in this particular Instance and in this particular locality.



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 109

Mr, Walters:

The Court, having heard days and weeks of testimony 

relative to the racial situation as existing in this 

community, I think it would certainly he proper for this 

Court to take judicial knowledge of this prior testimony, 

without having to burden this record with such testimony, 

I think, Your Honor, if any Judge in the 

United States meets the criterion as established in 

the Brown case as being closer to the situation and 

familiar with the situation existing in the particular 

locality, that Your Honor fits that description to the 

Nth degree.

And with that, the Defendants rest.

THE COURT: Do you have anything you wish to

present for the Plaintiffs, Mrs. Motley?

MRS. MOTLEY: May we have just a few minutes at the

table?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Counsel for Plaintiffs conferring at table)

MRS. MOTLEY: We don't have any further testimony,

Your Honor.

THE COURT: Both sides then announce closed then,

Insofar as any testimony is concerned, as I understand it 

is that correct?

MR. WALTERS: That's correct, Your Honor, as far as

the Defendants are concerned.



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 110

THE COURT: All right, If counsel wish to be

heard from at this time orally, I'll be glad to hear from 

counsel, the propounder of the plan first and from 

the objectors to the plan next.

MR. WALTERS: Does Your Honor have any desire as to

the length of time that we might have to cover this 

matter?

THE COURT: No, I will give you a free reasonable

range.

MR. WALTERS: May it please the Court, of course,

this entire matter stems from the 195^ decision of the 

Supreme Court of the United States, In the case of Bro wn 

v. Topeka Board of Education. In that case, as I view it 

and as I read it and as I understand it, the Supreme 

Court of the United States held that it was unconstitu­

tional, a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the 

Constitution of the United States, to deny any person the 

right to attend a school, with the denial being based 

upon race, color or creed of that individual.

The Supreme Court, of course, recognizing that it 

was rendering a decision that would disrupt, would over­

turn social customs and social conditions that had 

existed for 100 years, recognizing that it was in fact 

reversing itself in holding as it did, recognizing that 

it was not a matter to be dealt with lightly, that it was



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS 10 PLAN 111

Mr. Walters:

a matter that was going to require good faith, not only 

on the part of communities of white, but also on the part 

of the colored people of the community," recognizing that 

this was a matter that was going to have to be worked 

out between all parties concerned, rightly stated and 

rightly held that It was in no position to furnish or 

frame a decree, but transmitted these particular cases 

back to the Court from which they came, and quote:

"While giving weight to these public and private 

considerations, the courts will require that the 

defendants make a prompt and reasonable start toward 

full compliance with our May Y J , 195^ ruling."

Now, of course, I don't care to get into any argu­

ment as to whether or not that thereby became the law 

of the land or the law of the case, but I will say that 

the Defendants in this case were not a part or parcel of 

that decision. They were not a party to it and, of 

course, could not be bound by Its decree until some 

court had taken some further action.

And the Supreme Court said that, "Once such a 

start Is made" —  and they weren't talking about the 

Supreme Court of the United States; they were talking 

about the District Court —  "the courts may find that 

additional time is necessary to carry out the ruling in an



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 112

Mr. Walters:

"effective manner."

I think that the Courts the Supreme Court, in 195^ 

were looking with foresight as to the situation that 

exists right here in Albany, Dougherty County, Georgia, 

were recognizing that these problems would arise and 

additional time might be required. The Supreme Court 

said that that would have to be done in good faith, and 

I don't think that there's a soul in this courtroom, a 

soul in this community or a soul in the United States 

that can say that these Defendants are not acting in 

good faith in this matter.

These Defendants, who are serving as members of the 

Board of Education of Dougherty County, have one para­

mount duty to perform, and that is. to afford educational 

opportunities and educational advantages for all people. 

The^r are looking and searching for the problem and the 

best means to do that, with a minimum of difficulty and 

with a minimum of disruption of the educational processes 

in this community.
(Reading from Brown v. Topeka): "To that end, the

courts may consider problems related to administration." 

And I don't think, Your Honor please, that anyone can 

say that 12 days before the opening of a school term, 

that to change the social customs and change the operation



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 113

Mr. Walters:

of school sys t e m  f r o m  the m a n n e r  in w h i c h  it has b e e n  

o p e r a t e d  for 100 years, that there aren't a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  

problems. And the Supr e m e  Court said that Y o u r  H onor 

should c o n sider these things.

(Reading from B r o w n  v. Topeka): —  ". . . aris i n g  

f r o m  the p h y s i c a l  c o n d i t i o n  of the school plant., the 

school t r a n s p o r t a t i o n  system, personnel, r e v i s i o n  of 

school d i s t r i c t s  and a t t e n d a n c e  areas .. . on a n o n r a c i a l  

basis, and r e v i s i o n  of local laws an d  r e g u l a t i o n s  w hich  

m a y  be n e c e s s a r y  . . . ”

Nov;, the Court said in that case that all of these, 

that the D i s trict Courts in any of these cases - and 

I c e r t a i n l y  have no argument wit h  the Supreme Court - 

that the D i s t r i c t  Courts should r e t a i n  J u r i s d i c t i o n  of 

these m a t t e r s  u n t i l  the t r a n s i t i o n  has o r d e r l y  t a k e n  

its effect, should r e t a i n  this m a t t e r  u n d e r  its c o n s i d e r ­

ation.

Now, they have objected to our plan, If Your Honor 

please, in that It does not require a beginning date of 

September of 19 6 3. We say that under the original Brown 

decision, and we recognize, and I am sure that counsel 

will call Your Honor's attention to the Memphis case, 

where Mr. Justice Goldberg said that it might not, that 

conditions toda3̂ might not be the same as they were in



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 114

Mr. Walters:

1954 and that deliberate speed might not mean the same 

thing.

But vie are sure that Your Honor is familiar with the 

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals case of Augustus v. Board 

of Public Instruction, 306 F. 2d, beginning at page 862j 

and where Judge Rives wrote the majority opinion. And 

this opinion, if Your Honor please, was written on July 

24, 1962, and Judge Rives at that time, recognizing that 

there were administrative problems and that there were 

other problems related to the administration of schools 

and to the change in this social order, if I might call 

it that, recognized at that time -

"It is probably too late, without undue confusion 

and I urge the Court at all times to keep in mind that 

we are dealing with a problem bigger than segregation 

or integration. We are dealing with the problem of 

the educational facilities of all of our youth, both 

black and white, and as Justice Rives said: "It is

probably too late, without undue confusion, to require 

the elimination as to any grade of such dual districts 

in time for the 1962 fall term." And he goes on to say 

that it should provide for the elimination of all dual 

school districts on racial lines at the earliest prac­

ticable time. "If it appears too late for such elimination



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 115

Mr. Walters:

"as to any grade In time for the 1962 fall term, then the 

plan should provide for such elimination as to the first 

two grades for the 1963 fall term."

There, he was not 12 days from the opening of 
school.

Now, if Your Honor please, I am sure, in connection 

with this, that your attention will be called to the 

decisions of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals which 

have been rendered this summer in Mobile, in Birmingham 

and in Savannah, wherein the Fifth Circuit required and 

ordered that a plan be submitted, which would call for 

the elimination of one grade at least by the opening of 

this school term.

I call your attention to the Mobile case, and I 

say to you and I say to this Court, that it has no 

parallel with the instant case. Mobile, in my opinion, 

could not under any stretch of the Imagination demonstrate 

any good faith or any effort on the part of the Defendants. 

As a matter of fact, in the Mobile case, no answer had 

been 11 led to the case. The Defendants did not even 

admit that they operated a dual educational system. A 

hearing had been set in June on the matter for November 

24 of 1963, as 4 remember - that date might not be 

exactly right - and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN llo

Mr. Walters:

could not say, and as they say, they didn't know what 

would happen after that hearing; but I think this Court 

can say and can rule In this case that this record 

clearly demonstrates that these Defendants are not by 

subterfuge, not by fraud or anything else, going to 

attempt to try to defeat the rights of any person.

The Birmingham case, I say, had the same similarity 

as the Mobile case. As a matter of fact, the Birmingham 

case, as I recall it, had been pending for some three 

years in the court with no action having been taken on it.

The Savannah case was a case wherein the District 

Judge had refused to grant an injunction, had refused 

to order the defendants to submit a plan, had refused in 

every way; and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said 

and ordered him to require a plan.

But in none of them, Your Honor, was it 12 days prior 

to the opening of the school.

Now, if Your Honor please, I think that this matter- 

demands a finding by this Court that the delay requested 

by these Defendants In good faith should be granted.

Their second objection to the plan is that it should 

more clearly provide for the admission of new pupils 

entering the First Grade or coming into the County for 

the first time, on a non-racial basis.



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 117

Mr. Walters:

Now, frankly. Your Honor, I may be lacking In my 

capabilities of expressing in this plan more clearly 

a provision for a nonracial basis, but I don't know how 

it can be expressed In any clearer terms, that students 

entering the First Grade in the fall term of 1964 will 

be permitted to request assignment to the school of their 

choice, without regard to race. I think it's as clear 

as Mr. Webster can put it. 1 do not know what they 

mean actually by that objection.

Nov/, their third objection states that it fails to 

provide for the abolition of the presently existing dual 

school zones, without which there cannot be any com­

pliance with the 1954 decision of the United States 

Supreme Court.

Nov/, I say, if Your Honor please, that it does 

away with, it abolishes all school zones as to the grade 

affected year by year. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal 

had this problem in the Atlanta plan, in the recent 

attack on the Atlanta plan," and Judge Bell, in writing 

for the majority, said that these lines were abolished 

year by year by year.

Naturally, under the plan in Atlanta and under the 

plan in Dougherty County, it takes time for the 

complete abolition of these lines. I think we've



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 118

Mr. Walters:

complied with the law. I think we’ve complied with the 

decision in Brown v. Topeka. I don't think Brown meant., 

Your Honor please, that this good faith stem or that the 

burden is just on one party.

I might call your attention to the evidence that has 

been presented in this case, that no Negro has ever 

applied to this Board of Education or these Defendants 

for a transfer.

I might call your attention to the evidence In this 

case that a delegation of representative Negroes came 

to these Defendants and said "We do not want integrated 

schools, we would ask you to give us good s c h o o l s a n d  

I say, Your Honor, and I think that Your Honor can take 

into consideration the evidence presented at the last 

term of this Court: There is not one question In any­

body's mind in this courtroom that this Board of Education 

has done exactly what they were requested by the Negro 

citizens of this community. They have given them, not 

only good, but excellent schools.

Now, if Your Honor please, they say that nothing 

appears from Defendants' plan to support the period 

in the completion of the desegregation process; that we 

have not shorn that the 12 year period contemplated under 

this plan is necessary in the public Interest and



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 119

Mr. Walters:

consistent with good faith compliance at the earliest 

practicable date. And they cite, as I stated they probably 

would, the statement of Mr. Justice Goldberg In the 

Watson v. City of Memphis case.

Now then, Your Honor, I say that vie can't go any 

further than to the case that pertains to the State of 

Georgia, the Latimer case or the Atlanta case, as I will 

refer to it, wherein the City of Atlanta, Fulton County, 

had a plan, which provided that it begin at the 12th Grade 

and then go down year by year.

I call your attention that the Court in that case 

gave the Atlanta Board one year to begin. Recently, or 

this past summer, an attach was made on that plan, with 

the request that it be stepped up; and the Fifth Circuit 

Court of Appeals aid that they saw no reason to speed It 

up.

I might say, Your Honor, that these Defendants have 

studied, they have worked, they have put in untold 

number of hours and they are attempting to let the system 

of education in Dougherty County run just exactly like 

the Flint River, and that1s to flow smoothly throughout 

this entire transition period, with a minimum of disruption; 

not taking into consideration race, segregation, integra­

tion, but their paramount responsibility to provide



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 120

Mr, Walters:

educational facilities for all people., regardless of race.

Now, if Your Honor please, their next objection is 

that the plan fails to provide for the assignment of 

teachers and other supervisory personnel on the basis 

of qualification and need, without regard to race or 

color. As I understand Your Honor’s prior ruling, that 

matter was not being passed upon by Your Honor. You did 

not request or order that it be submitted in the plan, 

but you did hold that you were retaining that matter in 

your jurisdiction for any action if it became necessary, 

that you were not ruling on it.

But be that as it may - and I do not think under 

Your Honor's order that the Defendants were required to 

deal with that problem - I say to Your Honor that I have 

heard no evidence of any supervisory personnel or teachers 

requesting any transfer. I do not think, Your Honor 

please, that the minor Plaintiffs or the Plaintiffs in 

this case, who do not have enough interest to even come 

into the courtroom, not enough interest in what they 

claim is a denial of their constituional rights to come 

into this courtroom - there's not a one of them here —

I don't think that they can say that they represent the 

supervisory personnel of the Dougherty County school system

as a class.



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 121

Mr. Walters:

I do not think that the decision of the Supreme Court 

or the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals., or any other court, 

has ever held that they must be assigned on the basis 

without regard to race. Again., be that as it may, the 

Fifth Circuit in that Escambia County case held that 

Judge Carswell was In error, on motion to strike, in 

requiring that such allegations be stricken from the 

Plaintiffs1 pleadings and that It should be determined 

after a full hearing on the matter. But they also said that 

the District Judges were not void of discretion, that they 

were not void of discretion in this matter] and that in 

the exercise of their sound discretion, the District Court 

may well decide to postpone the consideration and deter­

mination of that question, until the desegregation of the 

pupils had either been accomplished or had made substan­

tial progress.

I assume that is what Your Honor intended to do by 

your prior order.

Now, Your Honor please, they object to the plan 

that there are no provisions made by which the named 

Plaintiffs are assured of securing their personal and 

present right to a desegregated education. I know of 

no decision that says that anyone is entitled, as a matter 

of right, to a desegregated education. I think that the



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 122

Mr. Walters:

decisions hold that it is the denial of their right to 

admission to the schools on a criterion of which race is 

the basis.

The evidence in this case shows that whatever plan 

this Court orders that these Plaintiffs will still attend 

the schools that they would request.

And I call Your Honor!s attention to the case of 

Madison Board of Education of Davidson County, where 

this identical problem, and this is a District Court case, 

was heard and the District Judge in that case, said:

"With respect to the request of the four individual 

Plaintiffs, naming them, to be admitted to schools as 

exceptions to said desegregation plan, the Court is of 

the opinion that to grant such exceptions would be in 

effect to invite the destruction of the very plan which 

the Court has held Is for the best interest of the students 

of the second system of Davidson County, It is not a 

plan" -

And I say if in the Davidson School district it 

could be made, It can clearly be made In our Instant case. 

"It is not a plan designed to deny the constitutional 

rights of anyone. It is a plan which is designed to 

effect an orderly, harmonious and effective transition 

from a racially segregated system to a racially non-



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 123

Mr. Walters:

"segregated system of schools, taking into account the 

conditions existing in this particular locality; 

and the Court cannot see how these individual Plaintiffs, 

who brought this action, would be entitled to any differ­

ent treatment from any other children who attend the 

schools of Davidson County and who are members of the 

class represented by the Plaintiffs."

The Plaintiffs brought this action, Your Honor 

pleases, as a class action. That has also been discussed 

in the case of Black v. Potts, which is a Texas case; and 

of course, that Court held, as I recall it, that it was 

a class action and those plaintiffs could not request 

and were not entitled to any preferential treatment from 

the balance of the class that they represented.

We say, if Your Honor pleases, just as was said in 

the Davidson case, that to make exceptions invites 

destruction; and I again reiterate, these Defendants do 

not want destruction, but these Defendants want to 

comply with their duty to provide education for all 

people and not destruction. I think that counsel here 

representing these Plaintiffs recognize that. I don’t 

think, I know that some of them ha.ve been in every 

segregation case in the United States, and I don't think 

that they can say that they have ever been in a case



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 124

Mr. Walters:

anywhere, where the Defendants came into court In better- 

good faith, attempting to work with the Court and attempt 

ing to work with the community to preserve - to preserve 

education rather than to destroy it.

Your Honor please, the next objection that they 

make involves the vocational schools. They say the plan 

fails to provide for desegregation of presently existing 

separate vocational schools, nor does it provide for the 

desegregation of any other special program, educational 

program, now conducted or which may be conducted in the 

future.

I readily admit that there Is no provision anywhere 

in the plan for the vocational schools. There is no 

provision anywhere in this plan for other special educa­

tional programs. I assume that they are referring to 

classes for retarded children and such classes as that.

The only thing I can say with regard to that, if 

Your Honor please, is that these Defendants, as these 

classes are Integrated, will comply with the balance of 

these special programs just as they comply with the rest 

of their schools. If the Court wants, is of the mind 

that it needs to be put in writing, we will be happy to 

write it out.

I cannot make that statement relative to the



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 1 2 5

Mr. Walters:

vocational schools., for the simple reason that I at this 

state do not know what controls, what rights the State 

Department of Education has in it. I will certainly 

investigate this matter and advise the Court. But I don't 

think that this Court in this case at this time, If the 

State Department of Education has come control, has any 

jurisdiction over the schools in this case. I just 

simply make that statement about it.

Now, if Your Honor please, I have talked too long; 

you're familiar with this matter. I would, as I under­

stand it, the rule, reserve if I have any time left for 

conclusion.

PLAINTIFFS1 ARGUMENT

MRS. MOTLEY: May it please the Court, I think it

is clear from the testimony of the Superintendent that 

all of the objections to this plan which we have raised 

have been sustained by his own testimony. As a matter of 

fact, it appears from the face of the plan that the plan 

makes no provision for the prompt and reasonable start 

toward desegregation in September, 19 6 3; but the plan 

by Its terms would have the plan start next year.

You may recall from the testimony of Mr. Cordell, 

the Superintendent, that his only reason for not having 

the plan start in September, 1963* is this community



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 126

Mrs. Motley:

hostility to desegregation. The Supreme Court has ruled 

repeatedly, particularly in the Little Rock case of 

Cooper v. Aaron, which has been cited in the brief, I 

believe in our memorandum, or certainly in our prior 

brief, that community hostility in the Court!s decision 

is not a factor which the Court could take into consider­

ation.

So, I would say that there's nothing in this record, 

no legally cognizable reason, for postponing the start 

which this plan proposes for one year. There just isn't 

any. He says if 9 or 10 people apply, there would be 

no problem as far as the mechanics are concerned. And 

I think this Court knows that if 200 white students were 

to move into Dougherty County tomorrow, those students 

would be somehow absorbed In the school system on 

September 3 .

So, there has been presented here by his testimony 

no legal, cognizable reason to postpone a start toward 

desegregation of the school system of this County in 

September, 19 6 3.

And we have made a number of objections, all of 

which the Court need not pass on at this moment, but 

the one which we urge is the first one; and that is, 

that there is no provision for starting in '63. And I



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 127

Mrs. Motley:

think it's clear from the Supreme Court decision in the 

second Brown case, that this Court’s duty at this junc­

ture, while giving consideration to these other problems 

in this case and these other objections, that this Court•s 

duty nevertheless is to require a prompt and reasonable 

start toward desegregation.

Now, very recently, Mobile was one of the communi­

ties which was ordered to start desegregation in September 

1963, and they took their case to Mr. Justice Black of 

the Supreme Court, in an effort to get a stay of the 

Fifth Circuit's order, which required them to make a start 

in September, 19 6 3. And they urged, of course —  I don’t 

know whether you've seen it, I just have a copy of it —  

but in their motion to Justice Black, they said it’s too 

late, all of the students are assigned and the teachers 

are assigned] so, it is too late to do anything,” and we 

want to do it next year.

But Justice Black, in denying their application for 

a stay, pointed out that here’s a school board 9 years 

after the Brown decision coming into court, saying we 

can’t make a start; and he says that in the Watson case, 

Watson v. The City of Memphis, the Supreme Court very 

recently said that it’s just too late for the school board 

to come into court and expect the court to listen to a



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 128

Mrs, Motley:

plea for time, when the record shows that the school 

board hasn't done anything in nine years.

And that's what we have precisely in this case.

Your Honor found as a fact that there has been no 

desegregation in Dougherty County in the past nine years 

and no start has been made. And as Justice Black said, 

when we are presented with a record of that kind, then 

there is no discretion in the District Court to deny an 

injunction under the second Brown case. The duty of the 

District Court is to require that a start be made.

And since the testimony, in addition, this morning 

gives no reason for not starting it in September, 1963, 

we say that clearly there is no discretion in this Court 

to deny what would amount to an injunction, requiring a 

start toward desegregation In September,1963.

Now, Mr. Finley in his testimony said, "Well, all 

of the Plaintiffs live near to Negro schools." And I 

suppose this testimony was brought out to suggest, as 

counsel, I believe, also alluded to this, that these 

Plaintiffs would stay right where they are, because they 

live near to Negro schools. But you remember the testi­

mony of the Superintendent, who says this is a free 

choice, that's what we want, free choice; we're going 

to do away with the zone lines, and this is free choice.



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 129

Mrs. Motley:

But then, they say, the Plaintiffs can't; no, they live 

near Negro schools.

So that, I would say that there is no free choice 

in this plan. What they mean to say is that those Negroes 

who live near Negro schools, that's where they're going 

to stay, and that' s the criterion we would invoke -with 

respect to that.

Now, the question is whether the fact that all of 

the Plaintiffs live near to Negro schools precludes them 

from bringing a class action of this kind to get the 

school system desegregated. Nov;, the Fifth Circuit 

has already had that problem before it, and that was 

in the case of Holland v. The Board of Public Instruction 

of Palm Beach County, Florida, 258 F. 2nd 730, decided in 

1958. There, a single Negro student brought a suit to 

desegregate the school system of Palm Beach County, a county 

school system such as here, And the Defendants said, "Well, 

he lives in that school district, and according to the 

geographical zoning which is applicable to everybody, 

that's the school that he would attend. The Fifth 

Circuit said at page 732, "that the Plaintiff was 

ineligible to attend the school to which he applied 

would not, however, excuse a failure to provide non- 

segregated schools."



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 130

Mrs. Motley:

And then, they pointed out in this opinion that 

they had asked for briefs, further briefs on several 

questions. One of the questions was whether a single 

plaintiff could maintain this class action. And in this 

opinion they said:

"The present case resembles, but is not now pleaded 

as a class action. Upon remand, the complaint may be, 

and probably will be, amended so as to meet the require­

ments of Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and 

so forth. Without such amendment, we think that the 

District Court has Jurisdiction to enter a declaratory 

Judgment and to relieve the plaintiff from a deprivation 

of his rights under the Constitution as construed by the 

Supreme Court." That with the amendment it can proceed 

as a class action.

But the point being that a plaintiff, who lived 

right there but didn't go to school in that zone, had 

a right to bring an action in the Federal District Court, 

could not get himself admitted to that school but could 

get the school system desegregated.

And in the Brown case, the Supreme Court talks about 

the transition from a segregated to a desegregated system 

and says these are class actionsj and the reason we want 

to hear further argument and reargument is because of the



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 131

Mrs. Motley:

large number of people involved. In other words., the 

opinion was directed to the operation of a segregated 

school system. It was no action brought by those 

Plaintiffs to gain admission to a particular white 

school. They brought an action in Brown to enjoin the 

operation of a segregated school system. And If 

I understand the argument of the Defendants, their 

argument is that, Brown notwithstanding, we can go on 

and operate a segregated school system; we don't have 

any duty under Brown to disestablish the segregated 

schools which we've set up; that burden Is on the Negro; 

they have to come forward and apply for admission to 

a white school.

In the Armstrong case, which the Fifth Circuit 

decided just the other day, the Birmingham case, July 

12, the Fifth Circuit said this:

"The district court's opinion referred to the 

reluctance of any Negro child, quote 'to take the initia­

tive In bringing about the Integration of the public 

schools 1."

Now, wasn't that what the attorney for the Defendants 

was just lamenting, that the Plaintiffs aren't even here; 

that some other Negroes came into the School Board and 

said "All we want Is better facilities." The Fifth Circuit



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 132

Mrs. Motley:

said,, "The burden of initiating desegregation does not 

rest on Negro children or parents or on whites, but on 

the School Board."

So, the Fifth Circuit has already ruled contrary 

to their contention, that they have the burden of 

initiating desegregation in Dougherty County, not the 

Negroes.

THE COURT: Well, are you contending that it Is

the duty of the Dougherty County School Board to go out 

and recruit some Negro children to come to a white school?

MRS. MOTLEY: No sir. I'm saying that the Dougherty

County School Board set up two systems of schools here, 

one for whites and one for Negroes, and that those systems 

are maintained by the drawing of separate school zone lines 

for whites, whereby all white children are assigned to 

schools, and a separate system of zoning for all Negro 

schools, whereby all Negroes are assigned to Negro schools. 

The duty on the School Board here, as the Fifth Circuit 

said in the Augustus case to which they refer, is to do 

away with the dual school zone lines as the very minimum,

I think is their language; that's the minimum requirement 

of desegregation.

Now, in addition, as I said, they set up two separate 

school systems; and it was clearly Implied from the



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 133

Mrs. Motley:

testimony of Mr. Cordell that the Negro system Is inferior, 

because he said the Negroes came and said, "Now, we're not 

interested in integration, we just want better schools, 

and we want you to build a school" and so forth. So, 

what you have is a separate system, an inferior system 

for Negroes and all Negro teachers assigned to Negro 

schools and principals and they even have a Negro super­

visor. So, we say that the Brown case requires the 

integration of those two systems.

Now, when you draw school zone lines, as the Holland 

case pointed out, you may very well end up with some 

schools with all Negroes or all white, assuming there's 

no gerrymandering of those lines. Now, that's the duty 

to desegregatej and that's different from saying that 

the School Board has a duty to go out and get Negroes 

and force them, as they say, to white schools. We agree 

with them that the Brown decision doesn't require a 

school board to force Negroes to attend white schools.

THE COURT; Or vice versa?

MRS. MOTLEY: Yes, or vice versa.

THE COURT: Of course, that is not what is being

contended in New York and Chicago and places up there?

MRS. MOTLEY: Well, what's being contended there,

as I understand It, is that in these areas of all Negro



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 134

Mrs. Motley:

houses, the School Board has inferior facilities for 

Negroes, they haven't changed the school zone lines, and 

there’s a certain psychological damage flowing to the 

Negro children in that kind of situation. That is what 

I understand the contention to be there.

In the New Rochelle case, for example, many people 

refer to that as a case where Negro children were per­

mitted to go outside of their area to attend white 

schools. But, as the district judge pointed out, he was 

not ruling that the school board had a duty to just 

disperse Negroes all over, and he wasn't ruling on this 

question of de facto segregation; but when he came right 

down to it, what he found was the official school board 

acting to maintain segregation in that area; and that was 

what he was really enjoining. And that is really the 

contention of these northern communities, that the 

school officials have taken action to maintain or increase 

segregated school situations.

But anyway, in Dougherty County, where the school 

zones are drawn, some whites may be forced to Negro 

schools; and then, they will want to say, "We can't 

force those whites to attend Negro schools". They can 

go to a private school. But the whites do not have any 

right to demand of the State that they go to a white



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 135

Mi’s. Motley:

school* That's the Brown decision. So,, if the school 

board assigns children on some fair and reasonable basis, 

such as school zone lines, and you have some whites who 

are thereby compelled to attend school with Negroes, they 

may feel that they don't want to attend school with 

Negroes, so they will get out of the school system; but 

they don't have any right to demand of the school board 

that they attend a school only with whites.

And the Supreme Court ruled recently in the Goss 

case that the school can't give them a choice to attend 

school only with whites, on the ground that they are a 

minority in the Negro schools.

So, I think the distinction has to be drawn between, 

as you say going out and getting Negroes and forcing them 

to go to white schools, and the duty of the school boards 

to disestablish the biracial systems which they established 

and that's the duty that they're trying to avoid.

THE COURT: Well, Mrs. Motley, wouldn't be the

effect, if the school board allows students of the 

first grade and then one additional grade each year 

to attend the school of their choice within the criteria 

that applies to everybody, isn't that an automatic doing 

away with the dual system, insofar as that grade is 

concerned? I noticed during the course of your questioning



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 1 3 6

The Court:

that that wasn't, at least that did not appear to be 

your thinking, but it did appear to be the thinking of 

Mr. Walters.

Why isn't that a destruction, a doing away with 

the dual system, insofar as that stair-step approach 

to it is concerned, one grade at a time or two grades 

or whatever it is, because the thing that creates the 

system, the thing that makes it exist, is the assignment 

of pupils; and that's what we've already ordered the 

Board to submit, a plan to remedy the assignment of 

pupils based on race? Nov/, if they eliminate the 

assignment based on race, starting with the First Grade 

and the Second and then the Third, then the Fourth and 

so on, every time that is done with respect to those 

grades, isn't that a destruction of the dual system, in 

so far as those grades are concerned?

MRS. MOTLEY: No sir, I don't think that within the

context of this situation we’re dealing with, as they 

say a long established policy of segregation, that the 

duty to desegregate is met by saying everybody has a 

choice of school.

As I understand the Brown decision, the School Board, 

who originally assigned us to these segregated schools, 

must now reassign us on some non-racial basis; and not



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 137

Mrs. Motley:

suddenly say that you now have a choice,, which obviously 

can't be effectuated because, as was pointed out here, 

if you had a school system of 100 students in three 

schools to accommodate maybe 300 people, then sure, 

everybody then has a choice of schools and that's fine.

But when you get to 20,000 students or 22,000 students, as 

was brought out from the Superintendent, it is manifestly 

impossible for everybody to have a choice of schools. So, 

this Is an illusion and it's not, as a matter of fact, 

a remedy for desegregation, and it Isn't going to work; 

everybody can't choose the school they want to go to.

The Board is going to have to assign them, and they 

assign them under the segregated system. They suddenly 

say "Well, we can't assign any more; in an integrated 

sjrstem we have to let everybody have freedom of choice." 

But there's no such thing. This is wholly illusory, as 

we have demonstrated.

And what's going to happen here is that people are 

going to be assigned, depending upon the capacity of the 

school, proximity to school and transportation. And when 

we say the school zone lines ought to be re-drawn to do 

away with the dual system, that's what it comes down to 

and not free choice; but when you ask them about it, they 

say, "oh freedom of choice", this goes for everybody, and



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 138

this is doing away with segregation; and we say that it 

is not. And what the School Board has to do here is itself 

reassign everybody on some reasonable non-racial basis; 

and then., if somebody wants to transfer, they can 

consider these criteria again as a basis for the transfer, 

capacity and so forth.

But the Board here, what it would like to do, is 

just avoid the duty to desegregate and say to the Negro 

community, "Now, you all can apply and we'll consider 

whether you live near the school or whether we have room 

for you" and so forth. If we don't, the schools will 

just be operated on segregated basis.

Moreover, the Brown decision is not limited to the 

assignment of pupils. It encompasses the whole segregated 

system and the system here consists of more than assignment 

of pupils. As the record shows, the teachers are all 

assigned on a segregated basis, and Negro supervisors for 

Negro schools, and so forth. You have a whole system here 

of segregation which we've attacked, not just the assign­

ment of students. And we say the Brown case requires the 

destruction of the dual system.

Now, coming back to our first point, which is one 

I really want to urge here, about making a start. As the 

Holland case points out, the fact that the Plaintiffs



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 139

Mrs. Motley:

would not be In white schools does not negate the necessity 

of the School Board making a start toward desegregation, 

eliminating the dual school system.

And I think that the record here demonstrates that 

there is no reason why in September, 1963, if freedom of 

choice is operative, why these Plaintiffs cannot have 

their choice of schools or other Negroes. And I asked 

the Superintendent and he said he had nothing on which to 

suppose a large number of Negroes would now suddenly rush 

forward and try to get in white schools. As he said, 

they haven't got that much interest to even come into 

court, implying, as he knows full well, that this is not 

going to happen.

So, all they will have is a few Negroes applying 

for admission to white schools. And if they act on those 

applications fairly in the next few days, that I think 

would constitute a reasonable start for desegregation.

And then we can get back to all of these other objections 

to the plan; and certainly one of the things that they 

are going to have to do is to redraw the school zone 

lines; and the Fifth Circuit has already ruled on that.

Now, we don't say they would be required to do that 

in September because it's too late. But, as the Fifth 

Circuit required in Mobile and Birmingham and Savannah,



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 140

Mrs. Motley:

what they're going to have to do is to consider the 

applications of Negroes for admission to white schools. 

Now, in Alabama, they have that Alabama Placement Law 

and they said consider those applications under that 

law. In other words, you've got to make a start and that 

is all that they were required to do. And like Justice 

Black told Mobile, "You're up here complaining about 

you've got to reorganize 75,000 pupil school system, you 

don't have to do any such thing; all the Fifth Circuit 

has told you to do is make a start, and that's what you're 

going to have to do at this late date, August 16, 19 6 3. " 

That's about 7 days ago. And the District Court has not 

yet even approved their plan.

So, the fact that there's only 12 days remaining 

here is not crucial because all of these school boards 

are in the same predicament. They have all argued that 

we have assigned everybody, teachers all assigned, 

books all purchased, and so forth. So, everybody can 

use that as an excuse and you'd never get any desegre­

gation. That would be true every July and September.

But the point is, despite all of your usual and 

normal educational problems of assignment of teachers 

and so forth, nevertheless you're going to have to 

desegregate these schools, and the time to do so is now.



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 141

Mrs. Motley:

As a matter of fact, under Watson the time to be finishing 

is now. And what we have here is a school board 9 years 

later that says we can't even put in a few students; and 

I say that is legally unjustified by this record or by 

anything which the Superintendent has said today. There's 

nothing here on which this Court can find that they can't 

put in a few Negroes in September, absolutely nothing.

THE COURT: Anything further?

MRS. WALTERS: I would just like to comment on one

thing: Counsel seems to lay great stress on Mr. Justice

Black's denial of the stay in the Mobile case. I think 

I pretty well distinguished the Mobile case at the outset. 

The Mobile decision was rendered by the Fifth Circuit 

Court of Appeals on July 9 of 19 6 3. I might say that in 

all probability it was rendered without the Fifth Circuit 

having the benefit of any record in it. But the Fifth 

Circuit says this, in connection with the Mobile case:

"....there is nothing on the present record to 

afford either the District Judge or this Court any 

assurance that the requested forebearance will produce 

effective results. The Defendants have not even answered 

as yet. They have filed a motion to dismiss for failure 

to state a claim. Although it seems to be acknowledged on 

all hands that a racially segregated system is still



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 142

Mr. Walters:

"maintained, the Defendants' legal position under this motion 

is that the Plaintiffs have not set forth a claim entitl­

ing them to relief. So far as this record shows, the 

Defendant school authorities have not to this day ever 

acknowledged that the present system is constitutionally 

invalid or that there is any obligation on their part to 

make any changes at any time. At this late date the 

Plaintiffs, who represent Negro children who are presently 

being denied constitutional rights, are entitled to 

minimum effective relief. With the trial date now fixed 

in November, it means that effective relief is denied for 

another school year with no assurance that even at such 

later date anything but a reaffirmation of the teaching 

of the Brown decision will be forthcoming."

I call Your Honor's attention to the most recent 

pronouncement that I can find in the Fifth Circuit as 

it pertains to Georgia, wherein Judge Bell states:

"Our decision must also be rendered upon a considera­

tion of the most recent pronouncements of the Supreme 

Court, Goss v. Board of Education, City of Knoxville, 

and Watson v. City of Memphis, which make it plain that 

the time available for the transition from segregated to 

desegregated school systems is, with the passage of years, 

since the Brown decisions, becoming more sharply limited.



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 143

Mr. Walters;

"Indeed, we so stated in an opinion theretofore rendered 

in the Mobile case. But, on the same day, where a 

District Court had refused a temporary injunction in a 

school case, the same panel ordered an immediate start 

on a one grade per year basis. This is said to point 

up that each case stands to a large extent on its own. 

There is no circuit-wide formula or minimum by which to 

measure steps forward or backward, and no decision has 

so suggested. Good faith and substantial progress are the 

indispensible ingredients."

Now,if Your Honor please, in the Instant case, 

just as the Supreme Court said in Brown, you are the 

one to frame the decree in this case; you, who are 

familiar with the circumstances existing today; you, 

who are familiar with the circumstances that have existed 

for the last 100 years; you,in your wise wisdom, in your 

equitable jurisdiction, are to frame a decree, which 

in good faith will make substantial progress. That's 

all the Defendants on this Board of Education ask of this 

Court or any other court in Atlanta or Washington or 

anywhere, is to give them an opportunity to preserve 

the educational opportunities for all people in this 

community. They don't want freedom of choice apparently 

but I say to this Court and I say to them, that freedom of



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 144

Mr. Walters:

choice, I hope forever lives in this Country. It is the 

one thing that we might have left today. It is sub­

stantial, it is paramount to the continuation of this 
Country.

These people have asked for a one year delay to 

begin this plan. They have assured this Court, and I 

don't think this Court has any idea that their assurances 

were made in bad faith. They have assured this Court 

that the plan they propose will be administered without 

any regard to race. I will stand that they will 

administer it and that they will do it in good faith, 

and that race will not be considered.

THE COURT: All right, anything further from
anybody? . . .

Mr. Joiner, how soon, what is the earliest hour you 

can let me have the record in this case? I don't know 

whether you were taking all of the argument or not, and 

I don't mean that portion of the record, but I mean the 

evidentiary portion of the record; what is the earliest 
you can let me have it?

THE REPORTER: Your Honor, I can put it in the mail
Sunday.

THE COURT: So, I can have it Monday Morning?

THE REPORTER: Yes sir.



HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO PLAN 145

THE COURT: Well, I want, of course, the benefit

of the record in the case in the writing of my decision 

in this matter; and, as soon as I get the record, which 

it is indicated will be Monday, I will proceed to give 

it prompt consideration and make a prompt decision, 

which I anticipate will be the early part of next week.

I will file my decision at that time and counsel for both 

sides will, of course, be sent copies by the Clerk,

Since we have concluded this matter, we will stand 

in adjournment.

HEARING ADJOURNED: 12:50 PM - AUGUST 22, 1963



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 

ALBANY DIVISION

146

SHIRLEY GAINES, PATRICIA ANN GAINES, )
MARIAN GAINES, minors, by MONROE j
GAINES, their father and next friend, )
and others, j

Plaintiffs, )

v. <
DOUGHERTY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, )
a public body corporate, and others, )

j CIVIL ACTION NO. 764 
Defendants, )

ELLIOTT, District Judge:

In this class action brought by members of the Negro race 

seeking to enjoin the school authorities in Dougherty County, 

Georgia, in which is located the City of Albany, Georgia, from 

operating a bi-racial school system, this Court on July 12, 1963 

directed the Board to design and submit a plan under which the 

said Board would with reasonable promptness eliminate school 

assignments based upon race. This plan was to be submitted 

within thirty days of the date of the Court's order. Such a 

plan was submitted within the time prescribed and when the Plain­

tiffs made certain objections to the plan further hearing was 

had with regard to the matter and we now have for determination 

the question whether the plan submitted is adequate for the pur­

pose intended. This opinion is intended as being supplemental



147

to our previous opinion dated July 12, 1963 and all of our find­

ings previously made with respect to factual matters are incor­

porated herein by reference.

In testing the plan submitted we should remind ourselves 

of a fact seemingly often overlooked by those who are anxious for 

rapid social change, this being that the chief function and pri­

mary concern of the Board of Education is not the preservation of 

the status quo in race relations, nor is it the advancement of 

social revolution. The Board's primary duty is to provide good 

educational facilities and operate them In an orderly manner and 

in an atmosphere free from turmoil and tension. While it is this 

Court's duty to order an end to the segregated system, which we 

have done, we deem it no less proper that we accord to the local 

school authorities superior knowledge with respect to the 

mechanics of a plan and the timing of its effectiveness.

The plan submitted by the Board is similar to plans which 

have been heretofore approved by other district courts and by the 

appellate courts upon review. It provides for the desegregation 

of the first grade beginning with the school term September, 1964 

and it will thereafter become effective step by step for one addi­

tional grade each year, thus extending through the second grade in 

1965* through the third grade in 1966, etc. It is provided that 

the first registration unde^ the plan shall take place in April, 

1964 and that students who will be entering the first grade in 

September, 1964 will be registered by their parent or guardian at 

the school which the student desires to attend, regardless of



148

whether that school may have previously been a school designated 

as a Negro school or whether It may have been previously designated 

as a white school. In other words, the student may select the 

school of his choice without regard to race or color and if other 

basic considerations which are uniformly applied In assigning all 

students to all schools permit, the student will be assigned to 

the school of his choice. These are the basic considerations: 

the student1s proximity to the school, the building capacity, and 

any unusual transportation problems which might be involved. It 

is anticipated that the normal net effect will be that pupils will 

attend the school located nearest their residence.

Counsel for the Plaintiffs have criticized the plan as 

being an "illusion", suggesting that this freedom to register in 

the school of the pupil’s choice is not bona fide and that those 

responsible for assigning the pupils will hide behind a pretense 

of lack of building capacity, absence of proximity and fictitious 

transportation problems as justification for refusing to assign 

Negro pupils to the school of their choice. In other words, we 

are asked to simply presume that the members of the Board have 

submitted the plan hypocritically and in bad faith. Let us con­

sider this.
Anyone who has ever had any occasion to have any knowledge 

concerning the practicalities of the administration of a public 

school system is aware that in determining the school to which the 

particular pupils should be assigned it is necessary to consider 

the proximity of a child to a school to be attended, the physical 

capacity of the building which houses the school, and economical



149

transportation arrangements In getting the children to school if 

they are to be transported. If these basic considerations were 

not taken into account there could be chaos in the operation of 

the system because one school might be hopelessly overloaded and 

another school might be used hardly at all. It is not new for the 

Dougherty County Board of Education to take these things into con­

sideration. They have always done so. In addition, they have 

heretofore taken into consideration the race of the pupil. So, 

under this plan the consideration of race will be entirely elimi­

nated, but the other three basic factors will still be considered 

as they should and must be. During the course of the hearing the 

following questions were propounded to the Superintendent of Edu­

cation by the Court and the following answers were given in 

response:

THE COURT: Mr. Cordell, 1 presume you are not only

familiar with the things that are taken 

into consideration in the Dougherty County 

school system in assigning pupils to par­

ticular schools, but I presume, because of 

the fact that you have been connected with 

other school systems in the past and have 

some familiarity with other school systems, 

that you know generally what is taken into 

consideration in most school systems in de­

ciding to which school a pupil is to be 

assigned, don't you?



150

I®. CORDELL: 

THE COURT: 

MR. CORDELL: 

THE COURT:

MR. CORDELL: 

THE COURT:

MR. CORDELL: 

THE COURT:

MR. CORDELL: 

THE COURT:

Yes sir.

You generally are familiar with that?

Yes sir.

And isn't it generally true - . . . 

that in most school systems that, in 

assigning a pupil to a school, you take into 

consideration the proximity to the school, 

the building capacity and the transportation 

problems that may be involved? Aren't those 

the three things that are generally taken 

into consideration?

Yes sir.

Now, here in Albany, you have taken into 

consideration another thing, you have 

heretofore taken into consideration a 

fourth thing, and that is race?

Yes.

That's what you've done and that is what 

is here complained about. So, heretofore 

you have taken into consideration proxi­

mity. to schools, building capacity and 

transportation problems and race?

Yes.

Now, as I understand your plan, what you 

propose to do, is you propose to eliminate 

that item of race?



1 5 1

MR. CORDELL: That’s right.

THE COURT: You propose to continue to take into con­

sideration the matter of proximity to 

schools* building capacity and transpor­

tation problems?

MR. CORDELL: That’s right.

THE COURT: And you intend to take that into consider­

ation with regard to white students who 

apply to go to some particular school* or 

with regard to Negro students who apply to 

go to some particular school?

MR. CORDELL: Yes.

THE COURT: You intend to take those three things into 

consideration?

MR. CORDELL: That's right.

THE COURT: Is that true?

MR. CORDELL: Yes sir.

THE COURT: But do I understand that you do not intend 

to take into consideration in any manner* 

either directly or indirectly* the question 

of the race of the student who may be apply­

ing to be assigned to some particular school?

MR. CORDELL: That’s right.

THE COURT: Have I stated it accurately?

MR. CORDELL: Accurately* yes sir.

THE COURT: Do you intend in any way - and I* of course,



1 5 2

i'lR. CORDELL: 

THE COURT:

MR. CORDELL: 

THE COURT:

MR. CORDELL:

expect a good faith answer to this question, 

just as I am presuming that the plan has 

been submitted in good faith - do you intend 

in any way to instruct or suggest or coerce 

or in any way cause whoever passes upon these 

applications for admission to a particular 

school, to use the matter of proximity, or 

the matter of building capacity or the matter 

of transportation problem, as a subterfuge 

for taking into consideration the question 

of race?

No sir.

Do you intend to apply the tests of proxi­

mity to school, building capacity and 

transportation furnished to all alike, 

without discrimination with regard to race? 

Yes sir.

And that is a good faith answer to the 

Court’s question?

Absolutely.

The Court believes that Mr. Cordell, Superintendent of Education, 

is an honorable man. The Court is also impressed that the members 

of the Board of Education, all of whom were present at the hearing, 

are men of integrity who submitted this plan in good faith and 

that the plan will be administered as indicated by the Superinten­

ds t. If it develops that the plan is not fairly administered



1 5 3

this will be readily detected and easily remedied.

Another contention of counsel for Plaintiffs Is that there 

is no guarantee under this plan that there will be any actual inte 

gration of the races in the first grade in the year 1964, counsel 

pointing out that there is no assurance that any Negro child will 

choose to register at what has previously been an all-white school 

We do not deem it the duty of the Board of Education to enforce 

integration. We do deem it their duty not to enforce segregation. 

By making it possible for children of both races to choose the 

school which they prefer to attend and by assigning the pupils to 

the schools without regard to racial consideration the Board will 

have discharged their duty.

The Plaintiffs also urge that the plan should be put in 

effect beginning with the school year which starts in September, 

1963, which would be only six days hence. In this connection it 

is noted that the assignment of pupils for the school year begin­

ning next week were made in May, 1963 and since these assignments 

were made there has been no application for transfer or complaint 

concerning school assignments. Teacher contracts for this year 

were entered into in May, 1963 and all teachers have already been 

assigned. Since these assignments have been made there have been 

no complaints with respect to them. All textbooks, work books and 

instruction supplies for all the schools are already on hand and 

distribution has been planned for this year based upon the assign­

ment of pupils already made. Some of the schools are presently 

overcrowded and there are four school buildings under construction



1 5 4

at the present time, but they will not be completed in time for 

use in the beginning of the 1963 school year. The Defendant Board 

of Education points out that many administrative problems would be 

created if the Board is required to put the plan into effect next 

week, and in addition to the administrative problems, they urge 

that some time is needed to prepare the community for the change. 

This Court understands the Board's problem and has intimate know­

ledge of the community circumstances involving race to which the 

Board refers. The people of all races residing in Albany and 

Dougherty County, Georgia have been abused by agitators, castigated 

by commentators and larruped by litigators to a degree unprece­

dented. A surcease from sensation is what is desired by the great 

majority of the community's citizens, both white and Negro, who 

have the best interests of the community at heart, and in this day 

of quiet improvement the last thing that is needed is a precipi­

tate rake of the judicial claw over racial wounds only partially 

healed. Everything considered, we are convinced that for us to 

order any degree of desegregation into effect by September 3 , 1963 

would be at variance with the concept of "deliberate speed" and 

would be a rash act causing unnecessary confusion in the adminis­

tration of the schools to the injury of all pupils in the system, 

white and Negro.

We find the plan submitted to be reasonable and adequate to 

accomplish the desired results. We believe that it has been sub­

mitted in good faith and that all persons responsible for the 

administration of the plan will readily abide the orders of this



1 5 5

Court. The plan is approved and will go into operation as sche­

duled. We are not at this time ruling on the question of assign­

ment of teachers and administrative personnel, as originally 

suggested by Plaintiff's complaint, nor are we dealing at this 

time with the question of the vocational schools which are un­

graded, but in which the minimum age requirement is sixteen years. 

These are matters which will be an appropriate subject of the 

Court's attention when the plan for assignment of pupils without 

regard to race has progressed to an extent that would justify 

further consideration of these features.

Only one further thing need possibly be said. It was 

suggested by counsel in oral argument that the nominal Plaintiffs 

in this case who are of various ages and in various grades in the 

schools should be admitted to the schools next week as exceptions 

to the desegregation plan. The Court is of the opinion that to 

grant such exceptions would have the effect of inviting the de­

struction of the very plan which the Court has held is reasonable 

and adequate for the school system of Dougherty County. The plan 

which we approve is designed to bring about an orderly and effec­

tive transition from a racially segregated system to a racially 

nonsegregated system, taking into account the conditions which 

exist in the community. The nominal Plaintiffs brought this 

action as a class action and they would not simply by virtue of 

the use of their names be entitled to any different treatment from 

that accorded any other children who attend the schools of Dough­

erty County and who are members of the class which they represent.



156

To give them special status would not only accord them unwarranted 

preferential treatment, but would in fact destroy the plan which 
we have just approved.

The Court retains jurisdiction o'f this matter for further 

proceedings and the entry of such further orders as may be deemed 

appropriate in the light of developing circumstances.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 27th day of August, 19 6 3.

Jo ROBERT ELLIOTT 
UNITED STATES' DISTRICT JUDGE



1 5 7

/CAPTION OMITTEEy7 

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Notice is hereby given that SHIRLEY GAINES, PATRICIA ANN 

GAINES and MARIAN GAINES, minors, by MONROE GAINES, their 

father and next friend, and others, plaintiffs in the above 

captioned case, hereby appeal to the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from the order of the United 

States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Albany 

Division, in which the latter court denied the relief sought by 

the plaintiffs aforesaid, to-wit: the submission of a plan by

the Dougherty County Board of Education under which the Board 

aforesaid would, with reasonable promptness, eliminate school 

assignments based upon race so as to make possible the admission 

of the plaintiffs aforesaid, and others similarly situated, to 

schools in Dougherty County, Georgia, on a non-racially segre­

gated basis for the school year commencing September 3# 1963, l"or 

the reason that such a plan as that advanced by the plaintiff 

aforesaid "would be at variance with the concept of "deliberate 

speed" and would be a rash act causing unnecessary confusion in 

the administration of the schools to the injury of all pupils in 

the system, white and Negro."

Said order xvas entered by the court aforesaid in this 

action as of August 2 7 , 1963.



158

/s/ C. B, KING _____
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS, Shirley 
Gaines, Patricia Ann Gaines and 
Marian Gaines, minors, by Monroe 
Gaines, their father and next 
friend, and others

Piled 9-3-63



159

/CAPTION OMITTEE7

PLAINTIFFS' DESIGNATION OF CONTENTS 
OF RECORD ON APPEAL

Plaintiffs herewith designate the following portions of the 

record of proceedings, pleadings, etc., as the record on appeal 

in the above captioned cause:

1. Complaint.

2. Motion For Preliminary Injunction.

3. Answer.

4. Opinion and Order of July 12, 19 6 3.

5. Defendants' Plan for administering the public school 

system of Dougherty County, Georgia without regard to race.

6. Plaintiffs' Objections to Defendants' Plan.

7. Transcript of Hearing on Plaintiffs' Objections.

8. Opinion and Order of August 27, 19&3.

9. Notice of Appeal.

10. This Designation.

CONSTANCE BAKER MOTLEY 
NORMAN C. AMAKER 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York

C. B. KING
221 South Jackson Street 
Albany, Georgia

Attorneys for Plaintiffs