Walker v. City of Birmingham Case Index
Public Court Documents
January 1, 1966
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Walker v. City of Birmingham Case Index, 1966. d2b4a54d-c89a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/78716afc-3df2-4c40-8687-ef9d74807adb/walker-v-city-of-birmingham-case-index. Accessed October 09, 2025.
Copied!
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM, 1966
No. 249
W YATT TEE WALKER, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
vs.
CITY OF BIRMINGHAM ETC.
ON WRIT OB’ CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OE ALABAMA
I N D E X
Original Print
Proceedings in the Supreme Court of Alabama
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court
of the Tenth Judicial Circuit of Alabama, Jef
ferson County ---------------------------------------------------
Issuance of writ of certiorari and setting bond -----
Return on writ of certiorari filed in the Supreme
Court of Alabama consisting of proceedings in
the Circuit Court, Tenth Judicial Circuit of Ala-
63 24
65 25
76 37
77 39
80 42
82 43
Motion to dissolve injunction and/or application
100 65
Exhibit 4— Excerpts from General City Code
and Building Code of City of Birmingham - 110 69
R ecord P ress, P rinters , N e w Y ork , N. Y ., N ovember 21, 1966
11 INDEX
Beturn on writ of certiorari filed in the Supreme
Court of Alabama consisting of proceedings in
the Circuit Court, Tenth Judicial Circuit of
Alabama, Equity Division— Continued
Motion to dissolve injunction and/or application
for stay of execution pending hearing—Con
tinued
Exhibit 5— Affidavit of Cleopatra Kennedy
filed in Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial
Circuit in case of Birmingham v. Walker 110 70
Exhibit 6—Affidavit of Annie B. Peterson, in
same court and case______________________ 112 72
Exhibit 7—Affidavit of Sherrill Marcus, in
same court and case _____________________ 113 74
Exhibit 8—Affidavit of Bradine King, in same
court and case __________________________ 114 76
Exhibit 9—Affidavit of William Mullin, in
same court and case _____________________ 116 78
Exhibit 10—Affidavit of Julius Minnifield, in
same court and case _____________________ H 8 80
Order fixing date to hear ____________________ 119 g2
Petition for Buie Nisi _______________________ 119 §2
Exhibit “ C”—News Belease— Statement by M.
L. King, Jr., F. L. Shuttlesworth, Balph D.
Abernathy, et al., for engaging in peaceful
desegregation demonstrations, April 11, 1963 127 91
Order and rule to show cause and returns
thereon -------------------------------------------------------- 444 92
Amendment to petition for contempt__________ 145 gg
Order re amendments to petition, order and rule
to show cause; granting order for guardian
ad litem, etc. ----------------------------------------------- 149 102
Petition for adjudication in contempt ________ 459 493
Order and rule to show cause and returns thereon 470 4 49
Demurrer of respondents __________________ -jjg ^9
Answer ---------------------------------------------------ZZ 478 422
Plea in abatement ______________________ ^4
Motion to discharge and vacate order and rule
to show cause ________________________ ^
Motion for severance ______________ 1QO
Original Print
INDEX 111
Return on writ of certiorari filed in the Supreme
Court of Alabama consisting of proceedings in
the Circuit Court, Tenth Judicial Circuit of
Alabama, Equity Division— Continued
Answer to petition and amended petition for
order and rule to show cause _______________ 184 128
Commissioner’s statement on appearance ______ 185 130
Amended answer to bill of complaint __________ 186 131
Amended answer __________________:____________ 187 132
Motion to exclude testimony against all respon
dents _________________________________________ 190 135
Transcript of testimony _______________________ 194 138
Appearances _________________________________ 194 138
Colloquy between Court and counsel _________ 194 138
Testimony of W. J. Haley—
direct ___________________ 201 145
cross ____________________ 215 159
redirect _________________ 227 172
recross _________ ________ 230 175
redirect _________________ 240 184
J. Walter Johnson, Jr.—
direct ___________________ 241 185
cross ____________________ 259 204
Willie B. Painter—
direct ___________________ 260 204
cross ____________________ 273 218
Jim Ware—
direct ----------------------------- 287 230
cross ------------------------------- 291 234
redirect _________________ 293 237
Elvin Stanton—
direct ___________________ 296 239
cross ------------------------------- 302 246
Maurice House—
direct ______ ...___________ 305 247
Harry L. Jones—
direct ----------------------------- 312 253
cross ------------------ 315 257
Original Print
IV INDEX
Return on writ of certiorari filed in the Supreme
Court of Alabama consisting of proceedings in
the Circuit Court, Tenth Judicial Circuit of
Alabama, Equity Division— Continued
Transcript of testimony— Continued
Testimony of C. C. Ray—
Original
direct ___________________ 324
R. N. Higginbotham;—
direct ___________________ 327
cross ____________________ 327
redirect _________________ 332
recross __________________ 333
Defendants’ motions and rulings thereon — 334
Testimony of J. M. Breckenridge—
direct ___________________ 338
Judson Hodges—
direct ---------------- ---------— 344
cross ------------------------- -— 350
Eugene Theo Connor—
direct ___________________ 352
Jamie Moore—
direct ___________________ 355
Una Denney—
direct ___________________ 359
T. L. Fisher—
direct ___________________ 362
cross ------------------------------- 363
Nelson Henry Smith, Jr.—
direct ___________________ 372
cross ------------------------------- 373
redirect _________________ 385
recross __________________ 386
James Luther Bevel;—
direct ___________________ 389
cross ____________________ 390
J, W. Hays—
direct ___________________ 397
cross ____________________ 398
Print
261
264
265
270
270
272
275
281
287
288
292
295
298
299
307
308
320
321
325
325
332
332
INDEX V
Return on writ of certiorari filed in the Supreme
Court of Alabama consisting of proceedings in
the Circuit Court, Tenth Judicial Circuit of
Alabama, Equity Division— Continued
Transcript of testimony— Continued
Testimony of W. J. Haley—
(recalled)—
Original
direct ___________________ 405
cross ____________________ 408
N. H. Smith-—
(recalled)—
direct ___________________ 409
cross____________________ 410
Eugene Connor—
(recalled)—
direct ___________________ 411
cross ____________________ 414
Lola Hendricks;—
direct ___________________ 418
James D. Ware—
(recalled)—
direct ___________________ 425
cross ____________________ 426
redirect _________________ 427
Jamie Moore—
(recalled)—
direct ----------------------------- 427
cross ____________________ 429
redirect ------- 430
H. L. Jones—
(recalled)—
direct ___________________ 431
cross ____________________ 431
redirect _________________ 432
John S. Gant—
direct ___________________ 433
cross ____________________ 434
redirect _________________ 435
Renewal of motions by defendants and denials
thereon ______________________________________ 436
Print
339
341
343
344
346
349
352
358
359
360
361
363
364
365
365
366
367
368
369
370
VI INDEX
Return on writ of certiorari filed in the Supreme
Court of Alabama consisting of proceedings in
the Circuit Court, Tenth Judicial Circuit of
Alabama, Equity Division— Continued
Final argument on behalf of complainant _____ 441 374
Argument on behalf of respondents ____________ 447 379
Rebuttal argument by complainant ___________ 462 394
Complainant’s Exhibit 1— UPI News release___ 481 407
Exhibit 2— Press release by M. L.
King, Jr., et al. ______________ 482 409
Exhibits 3, 4, 5 and 6— Photo
graphs ___ _____ j______________ 483a 411
Respondent’s Exhibit “A ”— Copy of telegram
dated April 5, 1963 from Eugene “ Bull” Con
nor to F. L. Shuttlesworth _________________ 484 415
Respondent’s Exhibit “ B ”— Copy of telegram
dated April 5, 1963 from Ala. Christian Move
ment to Eugene Bull C onnor_________________ 484 416
Respondent’s Exhibit “ C”— Copy of telegram
dated April 6, 1963 from F. L. Shuttlesworth
to Chief of Police, et al. _____________________ 485 417
Respondent’s Exhibit “ D ”— Statement of counsel
authorized by respondents Wyatt Tee Walker,
Ralph Abernathy, F. L. Shuttlesworth and
Martin Luther King, Jr., in response to order
and rule to show cause ______________________ 486 418
Reporter’s certificate (omitted in printing) ____ 488 419
Decree adjudging defendants guilty of contempt
under original petition to show cause_________ 489 419
Order granting stay and granting certiorari_____ 494 426
Order of submission _______________________ ______ 499 428
Opinion, Coleman, J. ____________ 500 429
Judgment -------------------------------------------------------------- 527 447
Order overruling petition for rehearing __________ 531 449
Stay order ___________________________________ ...___ 536 449
Order recalling certificate______ _________ 538 450
Clerk’s certificate (omitted in printing) __________ 539 451
Order extending time to file petition for writ of
certiorari ______________________________________ 540 451
Order allowing certiorari _________________________ 541 452
Original Print
1
[fol. 6] [File endorsement omitted]
[fol. 7]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
SIXTH DIVISION
S ix th D ivision
No.................
W yatt T ee W alker , R alph A bernath y , A . D. K ing , E d
Gardner, Calvin W oods, A berham W oods, J r ., A ndrew
Y oung , J o h n n y L ouis P alm er , J. W . H ayes, N. H .
S m it h , J r ., J ohn T homas P orter, T . L . F isher , J ames
B evels, F . L . S h u ttlesw orth , M artin L u th er K ing ,
J r., J ohn D oe and R ichard R oe, whose names are other
wise unknown and who will be added as parties respon
dent, when ascertained, Petitioners-Respondents,
vs.
C it y of B ir m in g h am , A Municipal Corporation of the
State of Alabama, Respondent-Complainant.
P etition for W rit of Certiorari to the Circuit C ourt
of the T en th J udicial C ircuit of A labam a, J efferson
Cou nty , A labam a , in E quity— Filed May 13, 1963
To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices
of the Supreme Court of Alabama:
Come the petitioners-respondents and respectfully peti
tion this Honorable Court to review and determine the
decree and order entered herein on April 26, 1963, by the
Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit of Alabama,
Jefferson County, Alabama, In Equity, adjudging peti
tioners in contempt and fixing punishment against peti
tioners and each of them therefor as five days in the County
Jail, commencing at 10:00 A.M., on May 16, 1963, and a
1 0 ~ Ur~ t )
2
fine of fifty dollars as to each in case No. 130-173 styled
as, City of Birmingham, Complainant, v. Wyatt Tee Walker,
et al., Respondents.
Copies of the applicable pleadings, in the Circuit Court
are hereto attached as Exhibits and made a part of this
application. A transcript of the evidence is also attached
hereto and made a part of this application.
Petitioners aver that the City of Birmingham on April
10,1963, filed a bill of complaint in the court below alleging:
(1) that petitioners-respondents, Wyatt Tee Walker, Ralph
Abernathy and Martin Luther King, Jr., are non-residents
of the State of Alabama, residing in the State of Georgia;
(2) that petitioner-respondent, F. L. Shnttlesworth is a
non-resident of the State of Alabama, residing in Cincin
nati, Ohio, and that petitioner-respondent, N. H. Smith,
Jr., is a resident of Jefferson County, Alabama, residing
at 1700 South 1st Street, Birmingham, Alabama; (3) that
numerous other named respondents not petitioners here
[fol. 8] are residents of Jefferson County, Alabama; (4)
that the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights
is an unincorporated organization and that petitioner-re
spondent F. L. Shuttlesworth is president; (5) that the
Southern Christian Leadership Conference is an unincor
porated organization and petitioner-respondent Martin
Luther King, Jr., is president; (6) that on specified dates
during the month of April, 1963 respondents named, in-',
eluding these petitioners, “ sponsored and/or participated
in and/or conspired to commit and/or to encourage and/or
to participate-m-cgrtain movements, plang_or projects com
monly calledV^sit-in^ demonstrations ‘Kneel-ilk demonstra
tions, mass street^arade3, ^respas s ^ W juuvate property
after being warneoixTleave tEe"premises by the owners of
said property, congregating iff mol^upon the public streets
and other public places, unlawfully picketing private places
of business in -the City ^ Bffmingh@^~Alm)ama, violation
of numerous-ordinances and statutes of the City of Birming
ham and State oFWMfiTcnraf^fTjf that the conduct alleged J
3
was “ fealculated to provoke breaches of the peace! in the
City of Birmingham” and that such conduct “ threatens the
safety, peace and tranquility of the City of Birmingham”
and further that this conduct had already caused serious
breaches of the peace and violations of law and that the
named respondents," some of these petitioners included,
threatened to continue to commit further breaches of the
peace and violations of law unless enjoined therefrom; (8)
specific instances of unlawful conduct set forth in para
graphs 4(a) through 4 (c ); (9) that the acts and conduct
of the respondents including petitioners here placed an
undue burden and strain on the Birmingham police force
and was likely to cause injuries or loss of life to police
officers and damage to property owned by the City in the
operation of its Police Department ; (10) that respondents,
including petitioners here, and others acting in concert
whose names and addresses are not known will continue
to enter into the City of Birmingham and threaten “ the
lives, safety, peace, tranquility and general welfare of the
people of the City of Birmingham” and “ that the tension
will continue to mount as such activities are continued;”
that respondents, including some of petitioners herein, and
others acting in concert “will continue to conspire to en
gage in unlawful acts and conduct” unless enjoined; (12)
[fol. 9] that “kneel-in” demonstrations at various churches
in the City of Birmingham “ in violation of the wishes and
desires of said churches” would occur unless enjoined; (13)
that its remedy at law was inadequate and “ that complain
ant has no other adequate remedy to prevent irreparable
injury to persons and property in the City of Birmingham,
Jefferson County.”
The City then prayed in its bill of complaint for a tem
porary injunction enjoining and restraining petitioners:
“ from continuing any acts hereinabove designated, par
ticularly : engaging in, sponsoring, inciting or encouraging
mass street parades or mass processions, or like demonstra
tions without a permit, trespasses on private property after
being warned to leave the premises by the owners or per-
E )
4
son in possession of said private property, congregating
on the streets or public places into mobs, and unlnwl'uljy
picketing business establishments or public buildings in the
City of Birmingham, Jefferson County, State of Alabama,
or performing acts calculated to cause breaches of the
peace in the City of Birmingham, Jefferson County and the
State of Alabama, or from conspiring to engage. injjnJ%wful
street parades, unlawful processions, unlawful demonstra
tions, unlawful boycotts, jjplawful trespasses and unlawful
picketing or other like unlawful conducts or from violating
the ordinances of the“'City'uf'Birmingham and the statutes
of the State of Alabama, or from doing any acts designed
to consummate conspiracies to engage in said unlawful acts
of parading, demonstrating, boycotting, trespassing and
picketing or other Jmla'wfut)acts or from engaging in acts
and conduct customarily known as “ Kneel In’s” in churches
in violation of the wishes and desires of said churches . . . ”
The complaint also prayed for a permanent injunction after
a final hearing, the appointment of a guardian ad litem
for minor respondents and “ other, further, or general re
lief.” The bill of complaint is attached hereto as an exhibit
(p. I).
On April 10, 1963, the day on which the bill of complaint
was filed, the court below issued, without prior notice to
the petitioners-respondents and without opportunity for
them to be heard, a temporary injunction as prayed. Said
injunction is attached hereto as an exhibit (p. II). The
[fol. 10] injunction restrained petitioners-respondents
from:
. . . engaging in, sponsoring, inciting or encouraging
/mass street parades or mass processions or like demon-
KJ strations without a permit, tresspass (sic) on private
f property after being warned to leave the premises by
the owner or person in possession of said private prop
erty, congregating on the street or public places into
mobs, and unlawfully picketing business establisEmehts
or public buildings in the City of Birmingham, Jeffer-
5
son County, State of Alabama or performing ..acts cal-
culated to cause breaches of the peace in the City of
Birmingham, Jefferson County, in the State of Ala
bama or from conspiring to engage in unlawful street
parades, unlawful processions, unlawful demonstra
tions, unlawful boycotts, unlawful tresspasaas (sic),
and unlawful picketing or other like unlawful conduct
or from violating the ordinances of the City of Birming
ham and the Statutes of the -State of Alabama or from
doing any acts designed to consumate (sic) conspiracies
to engage in said unlawful acts of parading, demon
strating, boycotting, tresspassing (sic) and picketing
or other unlawful acts, or from engaging in acts and
conduct customarily known as “ kneel-ins” in said
churches in violation of the wishes and desires of said
churches.
Petitioners aver that said order and judgment are null
and void and beyond the jurisdiction of the court below
in that it seeks to exert authority not permitted under the
decisions of this Court and which deny petitioners’ rights
secured by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the
Constitution of the United States.
On April 15, 1963, petitioners filed a motion to dissolve
the temporary injunction. Hearing on the motion to dis
solve was set for April 22, 1963.
On the same date, April 15, 1963, the City of Birmingham
filed in the court below its petition for an order and rule
to show cause. Said petition named as respondents thereto:
Wyatt Tee Walker, Ralph Abernathy, James Bevels, T. L.
Fisher, Andrew Young, F. L. Shuttlesworth, Calvin Woods,
Martin Luther King, Jr., Abraham Woods, Jr., Johnny
Louis Palmer, J. W. Hayes, Ed Gardner, A. D. King, John
Thomas Porter and N. H. Smith, Jr. All except Ed Gardner,
Calvin Woods, Abraham Woods, Jr., and Johnny Louis
Palmer are petitioners herein. Said petition averred: (1)
that on April 10, 1963, a bill of complaint was filed naming
each of the parties respondent except Ed Gardner, J. W.
■\v-
6
Hayes, James Bevels, Andrew Young and T. L. Fisher;
(2) that the temporary injunction referred to above was
issued on April 10, 1963 (setting forth its terms) ; that
service of the writ of injunction was made upon Wyatt Tee
Walker, Ralph Abernathy, F. L. Shuttlesworth, Martin
Luther King, Jr., A. D. King, Abraham Woods, Jr., and
Calvin Woods on either the night of April 10 or morning
of April 11, 1963 and that matters thereinafter alleged as
[fol. 11] having been done by petitioners-respondents were
done subsequent to service of the injunction and as to those
not served, with knowledge of its issuance; (4) that on
April 11, 1963, certain of respondents held a press con
ference at which they announced their intention not to
^comply with the injunction; (5) that on April 11, 12, 13,
1963, some of the petitioners participated in various meet
ings at which they, announced their intention to violate thev
^injunction and/or urged other persons to do so; (6) that
. various acts of defiance and viola!ion of the injunction oc
curred in which one or more of the petitioners engaged
(set forth in paragraphs 10A, B, C, D and 11); (7) that
the acts and statements as alleged constituted an inten
tional violation of the injunction and contempt of court
which would continue until the statements made were pub
licly retracted by those petitioners who made them. The
petition for injunction then prayed the issuance of a .rule
nisi to each of the petitioners herein to show cause why
"'they should not he punished for contempt and as to peti
tioner s-respondents, Wyatt Tee Walker, Ralph Abernathy,
F. L. Shuttlesworth and Martin Luther King, Jr., why
they should not continue to be adjudged in contempt and
from time to time punished therefor unless they publicly
retracted statements attributed to them at the press con
ference and mass meeting of April 11, 1963. (Said peti
tion for rule nisi is attached as Exhibit III.)
On the said. April 15, 1963, the court below issued its
_Ojdar-And RuletoSK dw Cause to these"petitioners order
ing them to appear in the- Jefferson County Courthouse iff
the City of Birmingham on April 22, 1963 at 9:30 A.M.
7
(the same time at which the hearing on petitioners’ motion
... to di8soIve~rprev!Qusly filed had been set) to show cause
why they should not be punished for contempt as prayed
(Order and Rule To Show Cause is Exhibit IV hereto).
Petitioners herein then filed their answer and demurrer
to the bill of complaint on April 19, 1963. The answer gen
erally consisted of denials of the allegation of the com
plaint with affirmative averments that petitioners’ conduct
was that of peaceful protest against racial segregation,
[fol. 12] The demurrer attacked the equity of the bill, as
serted that complainants’ remedy at law was adequate,
denied the existence of irreparable injury and that the in
junction was in contravention of rights protected under
the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution
of the United States.
The City of Birmingham on April 18. 1963. amended its
petition for rule nisi to add additional parties-respondent
and to cite further instances of alleged violations of the
injunction. The prayer of the original petition for rule nisi
was amended to add these additional parties and to re
quire them to appear before the court simultaneously with
the respondents previously named (some of whom are peti
tioners here) in order to show cause why they too should
not be cited for contempt. On the following day, April 19,
1963, the court below issued its order allowing the amend
ment.
The cause then came on to be heard on the order and
rule to show cause on April 22, 1963. At the beginning of
the contempt hearing, petitioners-respondents filed with
the court below the following pleadings:
(1) Amended Answer to the bill of complaint setting
forth additional affirmative defenses.
(2) Amended answer to the bill of complaint contain
ing a verification of the answer.
(3) Plea in Abatement of the action against the Alabama
Christian Movement For Human Rights and the Southern
Christian Leadership Conference (Exhibit V).
Asv-A . -
4. sf**'1*.
8
(4) Motion to Vacate and Discharge Order and Rule to
Show Cause on grounds inter alia that the injunctive order
prohibited unlawful conduct whereas the conduct of peti
tioners was lawful conduct protected by the First and
Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United
States and by Article I, Section 25, of the Constitution of
the State of Alabama. (Exhibit V I ) .
(5) Motion for Severance of the trial of the charges of
criminal and civil contempt, (Exhibit VII).
(6) Answer to the Petition and Amended Petition to
the Order and Rule to Show Cause consisting of a general
denial of the allegations of both pleadings and an affirma-
[fol. 13] tive defense that the activities engaged in by peti
tioners was lawful activity protected by the above provi
sions of the federal and state constitutions (Exhibit V III).
The court below disallowed the plea in abatement on the
ground that it had been waived by petitioners having pre
viously tiled an answer, demurrer and motion to dissolve
(T. 2). The motion to vacate and discharge the rule and
order to show cause was also denied (T. 3). Petitioners
aver that said denial was a violation of rights secured to
them by the First Amendment and by the equal protection
and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the Constitution of the United States and the denial of said
motion constituted reversible error. The motion for sever
ance was also denied (T. 3).
In addition, petitioners moved orally at the commence
ment of the hearing that the motion to dissolve which had
been filed before the petition for order and rule to show
cause and which had been set down for hearing at this time,
be heard before the hearing on the order to show cause.
This motion was also denied (T. 2).
At the hearing the city produced the following witnesses
who, in substance, testified as follows:
1. W. J. Haley, Chief Inspector of the Birmingham Po
lice Department, who testified that on Good Friday, April
9
12,1963, petitioners Martin Luther King, Jr., and Ralph D.
Abernathy were arrested with approximately fifty other
persons while leading a march to either the City Hall or
city jail (T. 8-10). He also testified that on Easter Sunday,
April 14, some twenty additional persons were arrested
while taking part in a similar procession (T. 13). Inspector
Haley was able to identify petitioner A. D. King as one of
those who led this march (T. 12). He also testified that two
unidentified men, who were not demonstrators, were ar
rested for throwing rocks and that three or four other
pieces of mortar were thrown by unidentified persons (T.
14). On neither occasion did these petitioners or those in
participation with them violate any traffic signals or ob
struct any pedestrian traffic (T. 23). Inspector Haley testi
fied that the police had blocked off certain streets and di
verted vehicular traffic, but that the police had allowed
crowds of curious onlookers to gather outside the churches
from which the marchers originated without making any
[fol. 14] attempt to disperse them (T. 23-25). He also testi
fied that the Police Department, unaided by outside officials,
was able to maintain law and order on each occasion (T. 45).
< _ it < A £ '
itjUIu *x©
2. J. Walter Johnson, Jr., a reporter for the Associated y
Press, who testified that he attended a news conference on <s-'
Thursday afternoon, April 11, 1963, at which petitioners - i j j j 1;
Martin Luther King, Jr., Ralph D. Abernathy and F. L. v . . '
Shuttlesworth were present (T. 48-49). He also testified
that he attended a meeting held at one of the Negro churches VvV̂ £% ^ - -<
on the night of April 11 and that petitioners Ralph D. Aber- ^ .J\̂ \\V\ „ s y _ h \C
nathy and Martin Luther King, Jr., addressed the meeting „
(T. 51). Referring to his notes, the witness quoted Rev
erend Abernathy as saying, “ I f you have to use the rest
room, be a first-class citizen, go where Bull goes. I want
to see it anyway” (T. 51). Petitioner King was quoted as
J a d v o c a t i n g a boycott of all stores until the walls of segre-
i j gation crumbled (T. 51-52). The witness quoted petitioner
■J qa" King as saying, “We must love all white persons. We must
P’*' love even Bull Connor” (T. 53).
V
10 X
Petitioner Shuttlesworth was quoted as saying of the
injunction that, “ This is a flagrant denial of our constitu
tional privileges” (T. 56). The witness also testified that
petitioner Shuttlesworth stated that the injunction was be
ing “ used to misuse certain constitutional privileges that
will never be trampled on by an injunction” (T. 56) and
that petitioner Abernathy said that “an injunction nor any
thing else will stop the Negro from obtaining citizenship in
his march for freedom” (T. 57).
Mr. Johnson testified also that he attended the mass meet
ing on Friday night, April 12 and he was able to identify
the petitioner James Bevel, petitioner Wyatt Tee Walker
and petitioner Andrew Young (T. 62). He quoted by refer
ence to his notes certain statements made by the above-
named petitioners on that occasion. He quoted petitioner
Bevel as saying, among other things, that, “ The Negroes
don’t have to worry about doing anything. Just leave the
white people alone and white people will always do some
thing foolish . . . the Negro can only free himself, whites
can’t do it because whites don’t owe Negroes freedom.”
Also, “Locking up the leaders of this movement won’t do
any good; they [the Birmingham Police Dep’t] don’t have
[fol. 15] sense enough to know that God is the leader” (T.
63). He testified that the petitioner, Wyatt Tee Walker,
called for a meeting of students on Saturday, April 13, and
stated that the Negro students of Birmingham could get
a “better education in five days in this jail than in five
months in these segregated schools” (T. 64).
3. Willie B. Painter, an investigator with the Alabama
Department of Public Safety, who identified petitioners
Walker and King as officers in the Southern Christian Lead
ership Conference and petitioner Shuttlesworth as the
President of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human
Rights (T. 67). He said that the Alabama Christian Move
ment for Human Rights is an affiliate of the Southern
Christian Leadership Conference (T. 67).
Lt. Painter testified as to the Good Friday and Easter
Sunday marches. As to the Good Friday march, he testified
^ P K
„ ^ k
11
that around noon he observed a crowd gathering outside a
church and a short time thereafter a group of persons
emerged from the church led by petitioners King, Aber
nathy, Shuttlesworth and the Reverend Bernard Lee and
that the group marched away in the direction of downtown
Birmingham, followed by a group of over a hundred persons
who had assembled along the sidewalk and in the street (T.
69). He described the route of the march and the moment
that the leaders of the group were stopped by the Birming
ham police and a number of persons placed under arrest
(T. 70). He testified that a short time after the arrest he
observed petitioner Wyatt Tee Walker urging a group of
persons to make a circle around the block (T. 71).
The witness related the substance of a conversation with
petitioner Walker that occurred on the following night.
According to his testimony, petitioner Walker produced
several white three-by-five cards upon which were recorded
the results of observations in five downtown retail stores
of the number of Negro people who were shopping therein.
After producing these cards, said petitioner indicated to
the witness that the boycott was successful (T. 72). Then
ensued conversation concerning the possibility of danger
to the movement in the event that members of the Black
Muslims should enter and create violence. Petitioner
Walker replied that that was a calculated risk, but that
the philosophy of the Muslim group was so different from
the philosophy of SCLC and ACMHR that there could not
[fol. 16] be any collaboration with this movement (T. 72-
73). The witness further testified that in the course of this
conversation, Reverend Walker calculated that approxi
mately two percent of the Negro people in the State of
Alabama were active in or affiliated with the Southern
Christian Leadership Conference and that this two per
cent of the population was sufficient to create a revolution
(T. 74-75). The witness quoted Reverend Walker as saying
on that occasion that if the movement “ did not obtain the
things that we are seeking, then we will follow the course
of revolution to obtain those things” (T. 75).
>
The witness then testified concerning the Easter Sunday
march. He testified that at approximately 2:30 or 3:00
o ’clock in the afternoon he was stationed outside a church
located at Seventh Avenue and 11th Street in the City of
Birmingham and that while so stationed he observed the
petitioner Wyatt Tee Walker approach a group of per
sons who were standing on the sidewalk diagonally across
from the church and forming a group of persons two or
three abreast (T. 77). Immediately afterward, the witness
approached petitioner Walker and inquired as to what was
planned for that afternoon, said that his interest in making
the inquiry was in the controlling of the group and in
law enforcement, whereupon the witness quoted petitioner
Walker as saying, “ If you control yourself and the police
as well as I can control this crowd, there won’t he any
problem. I guarantee you I can control these people.”
(T. 78) The witness then testified that soon after a group
came out of the church through a side door and began
walking along the sidewalk and almost simultaneously the
crowd of people that were gathered outside the church be
gan moving along with them. Two blocks away from the
church, the police had set up a blockade to stop the group
so that a short distance away from the intersection where
the blockade was set up those who were leading the march
turned through an alley in order to avoid the blockade
(T. 78). The witness at this point went ahead of the group,
to a distance of about a half block and then returned to
the corner where the blockade had been set up and there
again met petitioner Wyatt Tee Walker and stated to him
that, “ If you are not careful you are going to get someone
hurt.” Whereupon, the witness quoted the petitioner as
replying, “ If anyone is hurt, they will be injured or hurt
by your people, the police, but not by our people” (T. 78-
79). The witness then testified that during the course of
[fol. 17] the afternoon he saw at least on two occasions
brick objects being thrown (T. 79). The only person among
these petitioners that the witness identified as participating
V P
c
A
/
L-
13
in the Easter Sunday march was petitioner A. D. King
(T. 80).
On cross-examination, the witness characterized SCLC
and ACMHR as essentially protest organizations whose
purposes are to gain civil rights for the Negro and integra
tion. The teachings of these organizations was charac
terized by the witness as non-violent though the witness
felt that the methods used have incited others to violence
(T. 82-83). The witness further indicated on cross-exami
nation that: “ The general theme is non-violence in every
program” (T. 84).
When cross-examined as to the Good Friday march and
the events surrounding it, the witness testified that there
were a number of uniformed officers present in the vicinity
of the church from which the march originated (T. 75) ;
that a crowd of persons notwithstanding this number of
officers was allowed to congregate in the vicinity of the
church to the extent of 700 to 1,000 persons and that the
police kept the sidewalks and streets clear in spite of this
number of persons (T. 87). He testified that as the group
emerged from the church and began the march the crowd
surged in behind them so that it was hard to distinguish
those persons who were marching and those persons in
the crowd (T. 88). On Easter Sunday, according to the
testimony, there were a number of police motor vehicles
in the vicinity of the church in which the march originated
(T. 90). The number of policemen on this occasion was
estimated by the witness to be a “ rather large number”
larger than the number that was present on Good Friday
(T. 91). On this occasion, as on Good Friday, the crowd
was permitted to congregate. The witness testified that on
both occasions the march began on the sidewalk (T. 92).
4. James Ware, photographer with the Birmingham
Post-Herald, who testified that on Easter Sunday, while
taking photographs of the march, he was standing behind
a three-wheeler when a rock hit the three-wheeler; that as
he started to move he was hit on the back of the head with
a rock (T. 95) and that in his judgment the crowd ap-
X
peared to be unruly (T. 96). The witness estimated that
the number of persons that took part in the march were
fifty (T. 98) and identified only petitioner Wyatt Tee
Walker and petitioner A. D. King as being on the scene
[fol. 18] that day (T. 97,100).
5. Elvin Stanton, News Director for WSGN radio, a
local Birmingham station which uses UPI Wire Service.
Stanton testified that he attended the mass meeting held
on the evening of April 11. He identified petitioners Mar
tin Luther King, Jr., Ralph Abernathy and Andrew Young
as being present at that meeting (T. 105). Referring to
notes made on that occasion he quoted petitioner King as
saying, “ Injunction or no injunction we are going to march
tomorrow”.”(T. lUTyT”"He^dscTq^ioted petitioner King as
saying “ in our Movement here in Birmingham we have
reached the point of no return” (T. 107). He further quoted
M. L. King, Jr., as saying that, “ Now Mr. Connor will
know that the injunction can’t stop us” (T. 108).
By reference to his notes, the witness quoted petitioner
Ralph Abernathy as saying that he felt good because he
\ Â w as going to jail tomorrow (T. 108). He also recalled that
■petitioner Abernathy made a call for volunteers (T. 109).
6. Maurice Herman House, a Lieutenant of the Birming
ham Police Department who testified that he attended a
press conference on the afternoon of April 11th at which
petitioners Shuttlesworth, M. L. King, Jr., A. D. King,
Ralph Abernathy and Wyatt Walker were present. The
witness testified that the petitioner M. L. King, Jr., read
a prepared press release which was identified as com
plainant’s Exhibit 2 (T. 113) and received in evidence
(T. 114). The witness then testified that the petitioner,
F. L. Shuttlesworth, read from a typed statement which
in substance reaffirmed the matter contained in the press
release previously given in evidence. After reading this
statement, petitioner Shuttlesworth said that they had re
spect for the federal courts or federal injunctions, but in
the past state courts had favored local law enforcement
15
and “ if the police couldn’t handle it, the mob would”
(T. 114-115). The witness testified that other statements
were made on this occasion by some of these petitioners,
to wit: petitioner Sliuttlesworth was quoted as saying,
“ Damn the torpedoes, full speed, ahead” (T. 115). Peti
tioner Abernathy was quoted as saying “ give me liberty or _
give me death” (T. 115); petitioner M. L. King, Jr., was
quoted as saying “ the attorneys would attempt to dissolve V.
the injunction but we will continue on, today, tomorrow,
Saturday, Sunday, Monday and on” (T. 116).
[fol. 19] 7. Harry L. Jones—a Birmingham City Detec
tive, who testified that he interviewed jDetitioners A. D.
King, N. H. Smith, J. T. Porter and J. W. Hayes, in the
City Jail on Easter Sunday after they had been arrested
because of their participation in the Easter Sunday march.
Each of them stated that they had knowledge of the is
suance of the in junction (T. 120), but petitioner A. D. \
King said that he did not read it because it was too broad j
and vague (T. 121). Petitioner Porter indicated that he"'
had been served with a copy of the injunction (T. 121) and
petitioner Hayes indicated that even though he knew of
the injunction he was marching in the face of it because
“he was doing it for human dignity” (T. 122).
Detective Jones was present when the march began (T.
122) and testified that though there were several hundred
in the crowded streets the sidewalks were kept clear (T.
123) . He estimated that there were approximately 200 peo
ple in the march, but only 15 or 20 actually emerged from"
the church Ho- begin the march with petitioners Porter,
Hayes, A. D. King and Smith leading the group from the
church (T. 123-124).
8. R. N. Higginbotham, also a police officer of the City,
testified that he arrested petitioners A. D. King, J. T.
Porter, J. W. Hayes and N. H. Smith, Jr., on Easter Sun
day (T. 130); that he could not distinguish the number
that came out of the church nor tell how many of the crowd
fell in behind (T. 131); that the traffic was blocked because
- A
0 *
x o .
X- f t *
\ [• fp*
W r
A
k
V
tJ
16
of the crowd spilling into the street and that though there
were more than ten officers at the scene there was no dis
persal of the crowd (T. 132-133). The four ministers, the
above-named petitioners, were not loud or boisterous and
they and the rest of those engaging in the march were
walking in twos without uniforms and with no band playing
(T. 133). They did not resist arrest (T. 134). No outside
help was used (T. 135).
The City then rested its case, whereupon petitioners-
respondents renewed each of the motions made at the be
ginning of the trial and they were again overruled (T. 137).
In addition, petitioners-respondents moved to exclude the
City’s evidence on the ground that the activities in which
they were involved were protected by the First and Four
teenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United
States, more particularly, the rights of freedom of speech
and assembly. The motion was made on the further ground
that the City had failed to produce testimony or other evi
dence to sustain the charges and, therefore, under Thomp
son v. Louisville, 362 U. S. 199, the charges should be dis-
[fol. 20] missed. This motion was overruled (T. 137).
A motion to exclude the evidence and accordingly dismiss
the charges against respondents Ed Gardner, Abraham
Woods, Jr., Calvin Woods and Johnny Louis Palmer was
granted (T. 139). A similar motion as to petitioners An
drew Young and James Bevel was overruled (T. 138, 139).
A motion to exclude the evidence and discharge all the
respondents on the ground of non-service of the injunction
and contempt citation was overruled (T. 140). Petitioners
aver that the overruling of these motions was in error and
violated these petitioners’ rights to due process of law and
the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Four
teenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
and their rights to freedom of speech, protest and assembly
guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to
the United States Constitution, and by Article One, Sec
tion 25 of the Alabama Constitution.
Petitioners-respondents then put on their case. The fol
lowing witnesses testified substantially as follows:
1. J . M. Breckenridge, Attorney for the City of Birming
ham, testified that this suit was authorized by City Com
missioners Eugene Connor and Arthur Hanes, after an
informal discussion though no formal action was taken
(T. 143). However, the issuance of the required bond for
filing the suit was ratified by all three commissioners and
that action was recorded (T. 144).
2. Judson Hodges, City Clerk of Birmingham, testified
that there was no resolution authorizing commencement of
the suit, but that there was a resolution authorizing the
bond for filing the suit (T. 147). He further testified that
£he City Commission never referred any request by peti
tioners-respondents for a permit to hold a public demon
stration within the past thirty days nor had any of the
respondents actually appeared before the Commission
(T. 152-153). The attempt to show through testimony that
it is not the normal practice of the City Commission to
require the issuance of permits for a parade, notwithstand
ing a city ordinance to this effect, was not allowed by the '
court. Therefore, petitioners-respondents, merely prof
fered this testimony (T. 153).
3- Eugene Connor, Public Safety Commissioner of the
City of Birmingham, who identified respondents’ Exhibit
*‘A ” (T. 155) which was a telegram requesting permission
to conduct a demonstration on the public streets. Respon
dents also introduced into evidence a telegram sent by the
[fol. 21] witness to petitioner P. L. Shuttlesworth, in
forming him that a permit had to be secured from the City
Commission and stating: “ I insist that you jm d your peo-
ple do not start any picketing" on the stre'etT in Birming
ham, Alabama.” ^
J U
e
4. Jamie Moore, Chief of Police of the City of Birming
ham, testified that on the whole law and order was main
tained during the various demonstrations and it was not
% " ‘ • A
18
necessary to call in outside help from the State or Sheriff’s
office (T. 160).
5. Testimony of Mrs. Una Denny. Restaurant. Manager
of Britts DepartmenFlStore, on the question of whether
or not Negroes could be served at the lunch counter of the
store was not allowed. Counsel for respondents sought to
introduce this testimony to show that the conduct of peti
tioners was to protest illegal racial demonstrations and
that said protest was constitutionally protected free speech
(T. 162-163).
6. Petitioners T. L. Fisher, Nelson Henry Smith, Jr.,
James Bevel and J. W. Hayes, testified that they had never
been served with a copy of the injunctive decree (T. 165-
208).
y
7. W. J. Haley, Chief Inspector, recalled by respondents,
testified that on both Good Friday and Easter Sunday, ap
proximately 80 to 85 policemen were used in the immediate
vicinity of the two demonstrations (T. 209); that there
were approximately 51 persons arrested on Good Friday
and some 20-odd persons arrested on Easter Sunday (T.
210). He testified that in his opinion the police had the
necessary men at all times to control the crowd on these
two occasions (T. 211).
8. N. H. Smith, Jr., one of petitioners herein, was re
called to the stand to clarify a portion of his testimony in
response to a question as to whether or not he and other
persons connected with the Alabama Christian Movement
for Human Rights would seek to attain their goals by revo
lution. Respondent, “ I do not know” (T. 185). The peti
tioner clarified his testimony by showing that he misunder
stood the word “ revolution” to mean “ resolution” (T. 213).
9. Commissioner Eugene Connor recalled to the stand
for the purpose of identifying respondents’ Exhibits B and
C, being telegrams received by him on behalf of the Ala
bama Christian Movement for Human Rights on April 5
and April 6, which telegrams purported to request per-
19
mission for demonstrations in protest of racial segrega
tion (T. 214-220). Petitioners-respondents were not allowed
[fol. 22] to question the witness as to whether he took up
the matter of these requests with the City Commission
(T. 219).
10. Lola Hendricks who testified that on April 3, 1963
she visifed Commissioner Connor at his office in the City
Hall for the Purpose ^ s e e k i ^ ^ ^ e r ^ ^
demonstration and the Commissioner denied the request
and^replied that he wonid picket her ‘to the city jail. This
testimony, however, was excluded by the court below (T.
221-224).
Petitioners-respondents then offered respondents’ Ex
hibit D, a statement through counsel by petitioners Wyatt
Walker, Ralph Abernathy, E. L. Shuttlesworth and Martin
Luther King, Jr., in compliance with a condition set by
, the court in exoneration of these four of the charges of
civil contempt. This statement was, however, ruled inad-
- missible by the court (T. 225). The statement which in
substance sought to show to the court that petitioners were
only exercising what they believed to be their constitu
tionally guaranteed rights was made a part of the record
for purposes of taking an appeal (T. 226).
Respondents then rested with the exception of one other
witness who had not yet arrived and in the interim com
plainants offered rebuttal testimony of James Ware who
had been called earlier. He identified complainants’ Ex
hibits 3, 4, 5 and 6 being photographs that were taken of
the Easter Sunday demonstration (T. 228).
Respondents then recalled Chief Moore to the stand who
identified the telegram marked as respondents’ Exhibit
C and this telegram was received in evidence (T. 232)
Respondents’ last witness was John S. Gant, Assistant
Operations Manager for the Western Union Telegraph
Company, who testified that the telegram marked as re
spondents’ Exhibit C was transmitted on April 16, 1963
(T. 236) and that said telegram was delivered over the
20
desk-fax machine which is a facsimile machine which trans
mitted the telegram to the City Hall for farther distribu
tion by City Hall (T. 237-238).
The motion to exclude the evidence as to petitioner An
drew Young was then renewed by respondents and taken
under submission by the court and those motions and all
of respondents’ motions made at the beginning of the case
and at the close of the state’s case were renewed and over
ruled (T. 243). Respondents’ Motion to Exclude the Evi
dence was later filed in written form (Exhibit IX ).
The cause was then argued by both complainants and
[fol. 23] petitioners-respondents as to the law and the facts
(T. 244-277) and the case was adjourned until Friday,
April 26th at 9 :30 A.M.
On April 26, 1963, the court below entered its decree ad
judging the petitioners guilty of contempt:
“ I t I s, T herefore, Ordered, A djudged and D ecreed
by the Court as follows:
1. That motion of Defendants Ed Gardner, Calvin
Woods, Abraham Woods, Jr., and Johnny Louis
Palmer, to exclude the evidence as to said defendants
and dismiss said defendants as to this petition be and
the same is hereby granted;
2. That the motion of Defendant Andrew Young, to
exclude the evidence as to him and to dismiss him as a
defendant to the petition herein be and is hereby
denied; ,
3. That the following defendants be and the same
are hereby adjudged in contempt of this Court: Mar
tin Luther King, Jr., Ralph Abernathy, A. D. King,
Wyatt Tee Walker, Andrew Young, J. W. Hayes, N.
H. Smith, Jr., James Bevels, T. L. Fisher and F. L.
Shuttlesworth, and all of said defendants shall hereby
stand committed to the custody of the Sheriff of Jef
ferson County, Alabama, for a period of five consecu
tive days beginning at 10 A. M. on Thursday, the 16th
day of May, 1963;
21
4. That the said defendants as herein adjudged to
be in contempt be and the same are also hereby fined
the sum of Fifty (50) Dollars each and upon failure
of any defendant to pay the said fine so imposed, the
Sheriff of Jefferson County, Alabama, is ordered to
retain the custody of such defendant and that said
defendant, thereupon, perform hard labor for said
county for said fine at the rate of Three (3) Dollars
per day not to exceed twenty (20) days;
5. That the taxing of costs in this proceeding is
hereby reserved until such time as a hearing has been
held as to the amended petition to show cause.
D one and Oedeeed, this the 26th day of April, 1963.
W. A. Jenkins, Circuit Judge, in Equity Sitting.”
[fol. 24] Petitioners aver that the injunctive order and
judgment is null and void and beyond the jurisdiction of
the court in that there is no showing that the City of
Birmingham, in lawful manner, was authorized to bring
said suit. Petitioners further aver that the judgment of
contempt entered herein denies rights secured by the First
and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the
United States in that said punishment enforcing said in
junctive order constitutes a prior restraint on freedom of
speech, association and the right to petition for redress of
grievances.
Petitioners further aver that they could not obey said
injunctive order because it is excessive, yug-nq, contrary t.n
the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the United States Constitution and that the only certain
.compliance they could have made with said order would-
, have been to give ury a l!'T i5 I^
-racial segregatitm_qrLJhe City of Birmingham, Tj^iTpir"
ultunaiteUIete ̂ rrUJ-TflTyinTUrw
could tiiKe many years. Petitioners submit S a tan y^ rS er
restraining First Amendment rights, if it must be obeyed
22
under pain of contempt, should be narrowly and precisely
drawn so as not to unduly restrict said rights.
Petitioners further aver that the City of Birmingham
failed to adduce evidence which showed that petitioners did
anything other than exercise their constitutionally pro
tected right of free expression. The decree of contempt,
therefore, was based on no evidence of guilt in violation
of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the Constitution of the United States.
Petitioners aver that they have not engaged in unlawful
conduct, but have only pursued lawful conduct protected
by the Constitution and laws of the United States and the
Constitution of Alabama. Full compliance with the order
of the court would mean a sacrifice of basic constitutional
rights. Petitioners have no other adequate remedy to seek
review of the orders and judgment of the court below ex
cept by this petition.
Wherefore, your petitioners respectfully pray that this
case be reviewed and determined by this Court or that
your petitioners may have such other or further relief or
remedy in the premises, as this Court may deem appro
priate and that the said judgment of the said Circuit Court
in said case and in every part thereof may be reversed by
this Honorable Court.
Arthur D. Shores, 1527 Fifth Avenue, North Bir
mingham, Alabama, Attorney for Petitioners.
[fol. 25] Orzell Billingsley, Jr., 1630 Fourth Avenue
North, Birmingham, Alabama.
Norman C. Anaker, Leroy Clark, Jack Greenberg,
Constance Baker Motley, 10 Columbus Circle, New
York 19, New York.
Attorneys for Petitioners-Bespondents.
Duly sworn to by Arthur D. Shores, jurat omitted in
printing.
Certificate of Service (omitted in printing).
[fol. 60]
I n th e S upreme C ourt of A labam a
[Title omitted]
I ssuance of W rit and S etting of B ond— May 15, 1963
Whereas, the following respondents, Wyatt Tee Walker,
Martin Luther King, Jr., Ralph D. Abernathy, A. D. King,
Andrew Young, J. W. Hayes, N. H. Smith, Jr., James
Bevels, T. L. Fisher, F. L. Shuttlesworth, and J. T. Porter,
in the above cause, did on May 13, 1963, file in this Court
a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court of
Jefferson County, Alabama, In Equity, seeking a review
of the decree of contempt entered in the above cause, and
petitioners have suggested that a Writ of Certiorari issue
to the Register of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County,
Alabama, commanding and requiring him to make and
certify to this Court a true and correct copy of the con
tempt proceedings in said Circuit Court, in the above cause,
and
Whereas, the petitioners, in this Court, have filed for a
stay of execution of the decree of contempt, in said Circuit
Court, pending the hearing of said Petition for Certiorari
filed in said cause, and
Whereas, The Supreme Court of Alabama did, on to-wit,
May 15, 1963, enter an order granting said Petition for
Certiorari to said Circuit Court returnable within thirty
(30) days from this date, upon the execution of security
for the costs of the certiorari proceedings and upon the
petitioners and each of them entering into an appearance
bond in the amount of $1,000.00 each to be approved by the
[fol. 61] Register of the 10th Judicial Circuit of Alabama.
Upon compliance with the.^afegy^Sand foregoing condi
tions, the execution of the d^fem^jftvsentence imposed in
the contempt decree is he^bv stored) until further notice
of this Court. / /
24
Now, therefore, upon the petitioners, and each of them,
making an appearance bond with good and sufficient surety
or sureties, in the amount of $1,000.00 each, to be approved
by the Register of the 10th Judicial Circuit of Alabama,
and upon filing security for the costs of appeal by Certio
rari of these proceedings, you are commanded to make dili
gent search of the records and proceedings in your office,
in the above cause, and certify, together with this writ, a
full and complete transcript of said above named records
and proceedings to our Supreme Court within thirty (30)
days from this date.
[fol. 63]
I n th e C ircuit Court
T e n t h J udicial Circuit op A labama
E quity D ivision
C ity of B ir m in g h a m , a Municipal Corporation o f the
State of Alabama, Complainant,
vs.
W yatt T ee W alker , M artin L u th er K ing , J r ., R alph D.
A bernath y , A . D. K ing , A ndrew Y oung, J . W . H ayes,
N. H . S m it h , J r ., J ames B evels, T . L . F isher , F . L.
S h u ttlesw orth , J . T. P orter, et . al ., Respondents.
R eturn on W rit of Certiorari F iled in th e S upreme
Court of A labama Consisting of P roceedings in the
Circuit C ourt, T e n t h J udicial C ircuit of A labam a ,
E quity D ivision
25
[fol. 65]
I n th e C ircuit Court for the
T e n t h J udicial Circuit oe A labam a ,
I n E quity
Case No. 130-173
C it y of B ir m in g h a m , A Municipal Corporation of the
State of Alabama, Complainant,
—vs—
W yatt T ee W a l k e r ; R alph A b e r n a th y ; A l H ib l e r ; F. L.
S hu ttles w orth ; M artin L u th er K ing , J r . ; A berham
W oods, J r . ; Calvin W oods; A . D . K in g ; Alabama
Christian M ovement for H u m an R ig h t s ; S outhern
Christian L eadership Conferences; T heodore R eed ;
T . K . N e l so n ; R ichard P eterson ; E dw . H en d ric k s ;
W illie F loyd Cl a n c y ; J o h n n y L ouis P a l m e r ; Ora M ae
W a t k in s ; L eroy A l l e n ; M ajor W a r r e n ; H oward
Cr u ik s h a n k ; W illiam B o a zm a n ; B ernard B u llard ;
M ary F rancis S m i t h ; E d w . M ontgom ery ; F t .a M ap.
P eg u es ; K atie J efferson ; N ora T a t e ; H ester Ch eat
h a m ; P in k ie S. F r a n k l in ; L uella Gte n e r ; Cleopatra
K e n n e d y ; N. H . S m it h , J r .; A . D. W illiam s K in g ;
J ohn T hom as P orter ; J erome T a y lo r ; D avie L ee H a w
t h o r n e ; W ilson B r o w n ; H en ry Cr e sk e y ; L ouise
D r a k e ; J oe D ix s o n ; B etty H il l ; Clove S m i t h ; M ary
Oran g e ; J u an ita C u r t is ; A n n ie B. P eterson ; S egrist
H arrison ; M ary Od e n ; W auelyn H o lm es ; J ohn Ger
m a n y ; M in n ie Ola P in ic k ; L ucille J ack so n ; A n nie
P earl A v e r y ; A n n ie G ooden ; Sarah Ce l l e n ; M ar-
garette P o w e ll ; M argaret W il l ia m s ; K athleen
M oore; B e n ja m in D ard y ; R osie L ee Cr a ig ; W alter
W ade L o ck ett ; A drew P a l m ; H attie P earson ; R ic h
ard H arper ; B ertha B u r k e t t ; Charles B il l u p s ; L et-
tie W oods; A lbert P aranco ; E n n is K n ig h t ; Charlie
P e n n ; S herrill M arc u s ; O tis S pe a r m a n ; B radine
K in g ; Carter G a sto n ; E ddie U p s h a w ; B eatrice K in g ;
26
L incoln H e n d r ix ; D arnell W a l k e r ; E dith B u r p e ;
W illie S t o n e ; E rnistine D ix o n ; P eggy L u cas ; L eon
B ice ; R obert A . M iller ; S hirley F em by ; H enry
R eese ; Carolyn S m i t h ; W illiam S o u th lan d ; Geneva
J o n es ; M am ie L . B r o w n ; J ohn H e n n in g to n ; J ames
A rm stron g ; Carlton R eese ; D orothy B e l l ; M ary
R obinson ; Curtis S anders ; R obert L ee J ackson ; E zer
S tovall ; F ran k J as. J ack so n ; W illiam B . M u l l in s ;
M amie R u th K in g ; A rtha B arbara Craig ; R ebecca
H ar r is ; A n n ie A ggington ; M arie M. P e t t a w a y ; M ary
N. N el so n ; R obert J. N orris ; Carl K e ith , J r .; E m m a
B radford ; A lexander L ionel B rown ; L ester Cobb,
J r . ; W ilbert Cro c k e n ; Ozzo H o w e ll ; Carol J a ck so n ;
M ary E llen S t a t io n ; Clarence T ow n sen d ; H enry
[fol. 66]
Crawford ; M ebel D anner ; M aggie H aw kin s ; M yraette
G r if f in ; G wendolyn K in g ; M ary A lice J o n es ; Otilia
P e r r y ; P aula P r ic e ; E lla R u f f in ; L u m m ie B o yd ;
A lice J . H older; M argaret A s k e w ; B essie M ae
A b ra m s ; J erry D ean Gr e e n ; D ave Y o u n g ; E ddie
H arr is ; M ary R obin son ; E rnest E n g l is h ; M elvin
S h o r t ; R obert Se a l s ; J. L. M eadows; Charles George;
Carda C. G r a y ; T om m y H o l t ; J ulius M in n ie fie l d ;
J ohn D ob and R ichard R o e ; X A ssociation and Y
Corporation ; et al., Respondents.
B ill for I n ju n ctio n— Filed April 10, 1963
To Any of the Honorable Judges of Said Court, in Equity
Sitting:
Comes the City of Birmingham, a municipal corporation
organized under and by virtue of the laws of the State of
Alabama, and avers as follows:
1. Complainant is a municipal corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of Alabama.
2. Respondents Wyatt Tee Walker, Ralph Abernathy
and Martin Luther King are non-residents of the State of
Alabama and reside in the State of Georgia; respondent
27
A1 Hibler is a resident of the State of Alabama, residing
at the Smith & Gaston Motel, Birmingham, Jefferson
County, Alabama; F. L. Shuttlesworth is a non-resident of
the State of Alabama and resides in Cincinnati, Ohio, and
who formerly resided in the State of Alabama at 3164 29th
Avenue North, Birmingham, Jefferson County, Alabama;
respondent Carl Keith, Jr., who is a non-resident of the
State of Alabama, and resides at 2031 Grant Street, Evans
ton, Illinois; the following respondents reside in Jefferson
County, Alabama, and their names and resident addresses
are as follows:
Rev. Aberham Woods, Jr.—125 Kappa Avenue South—
B’ham, Ala.
Calvin Woods—1240 3rd Street North—B’ham, Ala.
Theodore Reed—1001 North 23rd Street—B ’ham, Ala.
T. K. Nelson—1656 19th Street SW—B’ham, Ala.
Richard Peterson—313 Division Ave. SW—B’ham, Ala.
Edw. Hendricks—508 North 11th Street—B’ham, Ala.
Willie Floyd Clancy—338 Iota Ave. South—B’ham, Ala.
Johnny Louis Palmer—237 South 8th Avenue—B ’ham,
Ala.
Ora Mae Watkins—16 South 7th Avenue—B’ham, Ala.
Leroy Allen—1002 North 30th Street—B’ham, Ala.
Major Warren, Jr.—921 North 13th Place—B’ham, Ala.
Howard Cruikshank—124 4th Avenue SW—B’ham, Ala.
William Boazman—105 North 9th Court—B ’ham, Ala.
Bernard Bullard—1620% 4th Avenue North—B’ham,
Ala.
[fol. 67] Mary Francis Smith—1226 North 11th Avenue
—B’ham, Ala.
Edw. Montgomery—1103 North 8th Avenue—B’ham,
Ala.
Ela Mae Pegues—1700 South 27th Avenue—B ’ham, Ala.
Katie Jefferson—25 6th Avenue SW—B’ham, Ala.
Nora Tate—1223 North 16th Street—B ’ham, Ala.
Hester Cheatham—1608 North 6th Street—B’ham, Ala.
Pinkie S. Franklin—4329 Huntsville Road—B’ham, Ala.
Luella Giener—432 Kappa Avenue—B’ham, Ala.
Cleopatra Kennedy—1814 North 22nd Avenue—B ’ham,
Ala.
28
N. H. Smith, Jr.—1700 South 1st Street—B’ham, Ala.
A. D. Williams King—721 12th Street, Ensley—B’ham,
Ala.
John Thomas Porter—1531 South 6th Avenue—B’ham,
Ala.
Jerome Taylor—345 Iota Avenue—B’ham, Ala.
David Lee Hawthorne—309 South 3rd Street—B’ham,
Ala.
Wilson Brown—6325 North 35th Avenue—B’ham, Ala.
Henry Creskey—1933 7th Street North—B’ham, Ala.
Louise Drake— 3320 33rd Street North—B’ham, Ala.
Joe Dixson—5220 Court G, Fairfield—B’ham, Ala.
Betty Hill—1105 12th Place, Ensley—B ’ham, Ala.
Clove Smith—1719 20th Avenue North—B’ham, Ala.
Mary Orange—550 64th Place South—B’ham, Ala.
Juanita Curtis—5408 Court H, Vinesville—B ’ham, Ala.
Annie B. Peterson—New Castle, Ala.
Segrist Harrison—Wenona Road, Box 484—B ’ham, Ala.
Mary Oden—1217 93rd Place North—B’ham, Ala.
Wauelyn Holmes—4 11th Court West—B ’ham, Ala.
John Germany—530 53rd Street, Fairfield—B’ham, Ala.
Minnie Ola Pinick—1246 Avenue H, Ensley—B ’ham,
Ala.
Lucille Jackson—2305 8th Avenue South—B ’ham, Ala.
Annie Pearl Avery—525 1st Street West—B ’ham, Ala.
Annie Gooden—Route 10, Box 484—B’ham, Ala.
Sarah Cellen—1753-A 13th Court South—B’ham, Ala.
Margarette Powell—Route 6, Box 572—B’ham, Ala.
Margaret Williams—2307 8th Avenue South—B’ham,
Ala.
Kathleen Moore—23 11th Avenue North—B’ham, Ala.
Benjamin Dardy—922 13th Street North—B ’ham, Ala.
Rosie Lee Craig—1820 Henngetta Drive—B’ham, Ala.
Walter Wade Lockett—521 8th Place SW—B’ham, Ala.
[fol. 68] Adrew Palm—1108 Jersey Street—B’ham, Ala.
Hattie Pearson—2001 18th Street North—B’ham, Ala.
Richard Harper—1217 Avenue L, Ensley—B’ham, Ala.
Bertha Burkett—218 14th Court North—B’ham, Ala.
Charles Billups—3516 64th Place North—B’ham, Ala.
Lettie Woods—1138 6th Street West—B’ham, Ala.
29
Albert Paranco—321 54th Street, Fairfield—B’ham, Ala.
Ennis Knight—2232 Carles Avenue South—B’ham, Ala.
Charlie Penn—719 11th Street North—B’liam, Ala.
Sherrill Marcus—127 Morris Avenue—B’ham, Ala.
Otis Spearman—608 Avenue D—B ’ham, Ala.
Bradine King—6332 36th Avenue North—B ’ham, Ala.
Carter Gaston, Jr.—3233 31st Avenue North—B’ham,
Ala.
Eddie Upshaw—846-B Lomb Avenue—B’ham, Ala.
Beatrice King—1112 5th Avenue North—B’ham, Ala.
Lincoln Hendrix—2504 16th Street North—B’ham, Ala.
Darnell Walker—522 Alpha Street South—B ’ham, Ala.
Edith Burpe—1619 Goldwire Street SW—B ’ham, Ala.
Willie Stone—1134 Apt. A 11th Avenue North—B ’ham,
Ala.
Ernistine Dixon—2308 8th Avenue South—B’ham, Ala.
Peggy Lucas—Route 8, Box 265—B’ham, Ala.
Leon Eice—916 3rd Street West—B’ham, Ala.
Robert A. Miller—544 55th Street, Fairfield—B’ham,
Ala.
Shirley Femby—Route 8, Box 265—B’ham, Ala.
Rev. Aberham Woods, Jr.—125 Kappa Avenue South—
B ’ham, Ala.
Henry Reese—General Delivery—Dolomite, Ala.
Carolyn Smith—1400 Escambia Street—B’ham, Ala.
William Southland—3320 33rd Place North—B’ham,
Ala.
Geneva Jones—5604 Court H—B ’ham, Ala.
Mamie L. Brown—1532 Tombigbee Street—B’ham, Ala.
John Hennington—3132 34th Terrace North—B’ham.
Ala.
James Armstrong—227 9th Court West—B’ham, Ala.
Carlton Reese—Route 8, Box 95—B ’ham, Ala.
Dorothy Bell—5407 Avenue G, Fairfield—B ’ham, Ala.
Mary Robinson—5617 Court G, Fairfield—B’ham, Ala.
Calvin Wood—1240 3rd Street North—B’ham, Ala.
Curtis Sanders—507 Columbus Avenue, Bessemer, Ala.
[fol. 69] Robert Lee Jackson—432 Mulga Road, Ensley—
B’ham, Ala.
Ezer Stovall—1108 22nd Street, Ensley—B’ham, Ala.
30
Frank James Jackson—432 Mulga Road, Ensley—
B ’ham, Ala.
W illiam B. Mullins—1520 1st Court West—B’ham, Ala.
Mamie Ruth King—931 Avenue W, Pratt City—B’ham,
Ala.
Artha Barbara Craig—3920 Morgan Avenue, Brighton—
B’ham, Ala.
Rebecca Harris—420 Millville Street, B ’ham, Ala.
Annie Aggington—1001 Avenue K, Pratt City—B’ham,
Ala.
Henry Crawford—6415 Washington Blvd.—B’ham, Ala.
Mabel Danner—5906 3rd Avenue North—B’ham, Ala.
Maggie Hawkins-—-Doeena, Ala.
Myraette Griffin—5206 Avenue G—B’ham, Ala.
Gwendolyn King—1512 23rd Street SW—B’ham, Ala.
Mary Alice Jones—1609 9th Alley North—B’ham, Ala.
Otilia Perry—253 Glory Road—B’ham, Ala.
Paula Price—2517 College Street SW—B ’ham, Ala.
Ella Ruffin—Route 10, Box 623—B’ham, Ala.
Lummie Boyd—2020 Snavely Avenue SW—B’ham, Ala.
Alice J. Holder—3109 45th Avenue North—B’ham, Ala.
Margaret Askew—915 22nd Street South-—B’ham, Ala.
Bessie Mae Abrams—4514 8th Terrace North—B’ham,
Ala.
Jerry Dean Green—312 6th Avenue North—B’ham, Ala.
Dave Young—Route 10, Box 1436—B ’ham, Ala.
Eddie Harris—1514 7th Avenue North—B’ham, Ala,
Mary Robinson—818 18th Way SW—B ’ham, Ala.
Ernest English—124 Taft Court Way SW—B’ham, Ala.
Melvin Short—3525 67th Street North—B’ham, Ala.
Robert Seals—469 4th Street North—B’ham, Ala.
J. L. Meadows—7417 Madrid Avenue South—B’ham,
Ala.
Charles George—1226 Avenue L, Ensley—B’ham, Ala.
Carda C. Gray—3533 Huntsville Road—B’ham, Ala.
Tommy Holt—2042 Ensley Avenue—B ’ham, Ala.
Julius Minniefield—1113 Short Third Alley South—
B’ham, Ala.
Marie M. Pettaway—320 2nd Terrace North—B’ham,
Ala.
Mary N. Nelson—3109 33rd Street North.—B ’ham, Ala.
Robert J. Norris—109 15th Court North—B’ham, Ala.
Emma Bradford—1627 19th Street, Ensley—B ’ham, Ala.
[fol. 70] Alexander Lionel Brown—1902 Ensley Avenue
—B’ham, Ala.
Lester Cobb, Jr.—37 Morris Avenue—B’ham, Ala.
Wilbert Crocken—280 9th Avenue North—B’ham, Ala.
Ozzo Howell—1120 Jersey Street—B’ham, Ala.
Carol Jackson—523 8th Street South—B ’ham, Ala.
Mary Ellen Station—1029 Ninth Avenue North—B’ham,
Ala.
Clarence Townsend—1517 6th Avenue North—B’ham,
Ala.
Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights is an un
incorporated organization of which F. L. Shuttlesworth is
President; Southern Christian Leadership Conferences is
an unincorporated organization of which Martin Luther
King is President; all of respondents named herein are
over twenty-one (21) years of age except Richard Peterson,
Edward Hendricks, Willie Floyd Clancy, Leroy Allen,
Luella Giener, Cleopatra Kennedy, Jerome Taylor, Davie
Lee Hawthorne, Henry Creskey, Juanita Curtis, Wauelyn
Holmes, Minnie Ola Pinick, Annie Pearl Avery, Kathleen
Moore, Sherrill Marcus, Peggy Lucas, Robert A. Miller,
Carolyn Smith, William Southland, Geneva Jones, Doro
thy Bell, Mary Robinson, Curtis Sanders, Robert Lee
Jackson, Frank James Jackson, Artha Barbara Craig, Re
becca Harris, Annie Aggington, Gwendolyn King, Paula
Price, Ernest English, Robert Seals, Charles George,
Tommy Holt, Emma Bradford, Alexander Lionel Brown,
Ozzo Howell, Mary Ellen Station, all of whom are over
the age of fourteen (14) years.
3. Complainant avers that on or about, to-wit: April
3rd 4th- 5th. 6t,h. 7th. 8th and 10th, 1963, and other dates
during the month of April, 1963, respondents sponsored
and/or participated in and/or conspired to commit and/or
to encourage and/or to participate in certain movements,
plans or projects commonly called “ sit-in” demonstrations,
“kneel-in” demonstrations, mass street parades, trespasses
31
32
on private property after being warned to leave the prem
ises by the owners of said property, congregating in mobs
upon the public streets and other public places, unlawfully
picketing private places of business in the City of Birming
ham, Alabama; violation of numerous ordinances and
statutes of the City of Birmingham and State of Alabama;
that the said conduct, actions and conspiracies of the said
respondents in the City of Birmingham is such conduct as
is calculated to provoke breaches of the peace in the City
of Birmingham; that such conduct, conspiracies and ac
tions of said respondents as aforesaid threatens the safety,
[fol. 71] peace and tranquility of the City of Birmingham.
Such conduct, conspiracies and actions aforesaid have al
ready caused or resulted in serious breaches of the peace
and violations of and disregard and contempt for the law
in numerous specific instances hereinafter set forth and
complainant avers that said respondents, separately and
severally, threaten to continue to sponsor, foment, encour
age, incite, to be committed or to commit further breaches
of the peace and acts and conduct which are in violation
of and disregard for the law unless respondents are en
joined therefrom.
4. Specific instances of such unlawful conduct herein
after referred to in the last preceding paragraph include
among others the following:
(a) On, to-wit: the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th of April, and
subsequent thereto, respondents, separately and severally,
invaded or caused to be invaded privately owned businesses
in the City of Birmingham and particularly the lunch
counters or other places in such private business estab
lishments in which food is served to patrons and customers,
said respondents remaining therein or thereupon after the
owner or proprietor thereof requested them to move so as
to force the closing of such counters or places in such
private business establishments in which food is served;
and in numerous instances invaded and trespassed upon
the premises normally set apart for said use in disregard
of signs and barriers erected to notify the public that such
food serving establishments were closed to the public; and
33
in other instances remaining upon or in such premises in
violation of City of Birmingham’s Ordinance 1663-F and
were arrested therefor.
(b) On Saturday, April 6, 1963, the said respondents,
separately and severally, and in particular the said re
spondents, F. L. Shuttlesworth and Martin Luther King,
Jr., did organize and conduct upon the public streets of
the City of Birmingham a parade or procession without
having procured a permit therefor and without having
sought to procure from the City Commission of the City
of Birmingham a permit therefor, but in knowing viola
tion of the law after having been warned by the Commis
sioner of Public Safety of the City of Birmingham that
such parade or procession, without a permit from the City
of Birmingham, would be in violation of the ordinances of
the said City of Birmingham.
[fob 72] Respondents, separately and severally, did fur
ther unlawfully conduct or cause or participate in a parade
or procession without a permit as required by City Ordi
nance upon the public streets of the City of Birmingham,
on, to-wit: the 8th day of April, 1963, and again on the 10th
day of April, 1963.
(c) On, to-wit: the 7th day of April, 1963, respondents,
separately and severally, organized a parade or procession
upon the streets of the City of Birmingham with the vowed
and intended purpose of marching upon the City Hall and
did further foster, encourage and cause a mob consisting of
approximately 700 to 1,000 Negroes to congregate upon the
public streets of the City of Birmingham, blocking and
interfering with traffic, such mob having been gathered to
encourage the said intended march on City Hall of the City
of Birmingham from a point several blocks from said City
Hall, which said mob became unruly, a number of such
mob blocked the sidewalks of the City of Birmingham and
a large number refused to obey the lawful orders., of officers
of the Police Department of the City of Birmingham in
their efforts to disperse said unruly mob. On said occasion,
one man in said mob .attacked a police dog of the City of
Birmingham, a member of the Canine Corps, called into
service for the purpose of aiding in the dispersal of said
mob and another member of said mob brandished a knife
at another of said police dogs, members of the Canine
Corps.
Great throngs, including both white and colored were by
said conductcaused to be congregated around the City Hall
and in the vicinity thereto in connection with such proposed
march upon City Hall, requiring the blocking off of several
streets in the City of Birmingham in order to prevent
breaches of the peace and violence, including mob violence.
5. Complainant avers that said acts and conduct of the
said respondents as alleged hereinabove in paragraph 3
and 4 have placed an undu&.Jmrden^ajid. strain upon the
manpower of the Police Department, of the City of Bir
and are continuing to place an undue burden and
strain upon the manpower of the Police Department of the
City of Birmingham in the effort to provide for the safety
of the respondents in their said conduct and activities upon
the public streets and public places in said City and to pro
vide for the safety and tranquility of the entire citizen
ship of the City of Birmingham; and complainant avers that
[fol. 73] the said actions and conduct aforesaid are calcu
lated to cause and if allowed to continue will likely cause
injuries or loss of life to Police Officers of the City of Bir
mingham and have caused and will likely to continue to
cause damage to property owned by the City of Birming
ham in the operation of its Police Department and will
continue to be an undue burden and strain upon said Police
Department.
6. Your complainant is informed and believes and upon
such information and belief avers that respondents, sepa
rately and severally, and others acting in concert with re
spondents, whose exact names and entities are otherwise
unknown to your complainant at this time will continue to
35
enter into the City of Birmingham conducting themselves
as above described, which will lead to further imminent
danger to the lives, safety, peace, tranquility and general ^ 1
welfare of the people of the City of Birmingham, Jefferson
County, and the State of Alabama, and that tension will
continue to mount as such activities are continued.
7. Your complainant is informed and believes and upon
such information and belief avers that there is strong and
convincing reason to believe that respondents and others
acting in concert with respondents, whose names are other
wise unknown to your complainant, have and will continue
to conspire to engage in unlawful acts and conduct as
aforesaid unless enjoined from so doing.
8. Complainant avers that while up to the present time Ij ) L L
no “kneel-in” demonstrations have been conducted, com
plainant is informed and believes and upon such informa
tion and belief, avers that the present acts and conduct of
the respondents, hereinabove alleged, is a part of a massive
effort by respondents and those allied or in sympathy with
them to forcibly integrate all business establishments,
churches, and other institutions of the City of Birmingham
and that respondents, separately and severally, are conspir
ing to and will conduct “kneel-in” demonstrations at the
various churches of the City of Birmingham in violation of
the wishes and desires of said churches unless enjoined
therefrom.
9. 'Complainant avers that its remedy by law is inade
quate, that the continued and repeated acts of respondents,
as herein alleged, will cause incidents of violence and blood-
[fol. 74] shed; that complainant has no other adequate
remedy to prevent irreparable injury to persons and prop
erty in the City of Birmingham, Jefferson County, and
verily believes that such will occur if such respondents con
tinue to so conduct themselves which they will do if not
restrained by this Court.
Wherefore, the Premises Considered, your complainant
prays that: (1) each person and association or other
\Jr A)&L~ *-■
'MS
36
respondent named in the caption hereinabove be made
parties respondent hereto and that proper process issne to
said respondents requiring them to plead, answer or demur
hereto within the time required by law, or suffer decree
pro confesso herein. (2) That this Court issue a temporary
or peremptory injunction enjoining and restraining and
prohibiting the above named respondents, their agents,
members, employees, servants, followers, attorneys, suc
cessors, and all other persons in active concert or participa
tion with the respondents, and all persons having notice of
said order, from continuing any acts hereinabove
designated, particularly: engaging in, sponsoring, inciting
or encouraging mass street parades or mass processions, or
like demonstrations without a permit, trespasses on private
property after being warned to leave the premises by the
owners or person in possession of said private property,
congregating on the streets or public places into mobs, and
unlawfully picketing business establishments or public
buildings in the City of Birmingham, Jefferson County,
State of Alabama, or performing acts calculated to cause
breaches of the peace in the City of Birmingham, Jefferson
County and the State of Alabama, or from conspiring to
engage in unlawful street parades, unlawful processions,
unlawful demonstrations, unlawful boycotts, unlawful tres
passes and unlawful picketing or other like unlawful con
duct or from violating the ordinances of the City of
Birmingham and the statutes of the State of Alabama, or
from doing any acts designed to consummate conspiracies
to engage in said unlawful acts of parading, demonstrating,
boycotting, trespassing and picketing or other unlawful acts
or from engaging in acts and conduct customarily known
as “ Kneel In’s” in churches in violation of the wishes and
desires of said churches; (3) that upon a final hearing the
Court will issue a permanent injunction in accordance with
the foregoing prayer for a temporary or peremptory in-
[fol. 75] junction; (4) that a guardian ad litem be
appointed for such respondents that are minors; (5) that
37
your complainant prays for such other, further, or general
relief to which it is entitled in the premises.
J. M. Breckenridge, Earl McBee, Solicitors for
Complainants.
Duly sworn to by Eugene “Bull” Connor and Jamie
Moore, jurats omitted in printing.
[fol. 76] I, E. B. Lindsey, Deputy Begister in Chancery,
do hereby certify that I have this date forwarded by first
class mail, postage prepaid, a copy of the foregoing Bill
and order together with copies of the Writ of Injunction
and Decree appointing Guardian ad Litem, to Arthur D.
Shores, Guardian ad Litem.
This the 11th day of April, 1963.
E. B. Lindsey, Deputy Begister.
I n the C ircuit Court
T emporary I n-jun ction— April 10.1963
A verified Bill of Complaint in the above styled cause
having been presented to me on this the 10th of April 1963
at 9 :00 O’Clock P. M. in the City of Birmingham, Alabama.
Upon consideration of said verified Bill of Complaint and
the affidavits of Captain G. Y. Evans and Captain George
Wall, and the public welfare, peace and safety requiring
it, it is hereby considered, ordered, adjudged and decreed
that a peremptory or a temporary writ of injunction be
and the same is hereby issued in accordance with the prayer
of said petition.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed by the
Court that upon the complainant entering into a good and
sufficient bond conditioned as provided by law, in the sum
of Twenty five Hundred Dollars ($2500.00), same to be
approved by the Begister of this Court that the Begister
• i
fjl
!V )4f
---------
*
WÂ r Pb** Y« * *
issue a peremptory or temporary writ of injunction that
the respondents and the others identified in said Bill of
Complaint, their agents, members, employees, servants,
followers, attorneys, successors and all other persons in
active concert or participation with the respondents and all
persons having notice of said order from continuing any
act hereinabove designated particularly: engaging in,
sponsoring, inciting or encouraging mass street parades
or mass processions or like demonstrations without a per™
mit, trespass on private property after being warned to
- leave the premises by the owner or person in possession
of said private property, congregating on the street or pub
lic places into mobs, and unlawfully picketing business
establishments or public buildings in the City of Birming
ham, Jefferson County, State of Alabama or performing
acts calculated to cause breaches of the peace in the City
[fol. YY]"of Birmingham, Jefferson County, in the State of
Alabama or from conspiring to engage in unlawful street
parades, unlawful processions, unlawful demonstrations,
unlawful boycotts, unlawful trespasses, and unlawful pick
eting or other like unlawful, conduct or from violatingJthe
ordinances of the City of Birmingham and the Statutes of
tEe State of Alabama or from doing any acts designed to
consummate conspiracies, to engage in said unlawful acts of
parading, demonstrating, boycotting, trespassing and pick
eting or other unlawful acts, or from engaging in acts
and conduct customarily known as “kneel-ins” in churches
in violation of the wishes and desires ofTaicTchurches.
W. A. Jenkins, Jr., As Circuit Judge of the Tenth
Judicial Circuit of Alabama, In Equity Sitting.
Filed in Office April 10, 1963.
4 0
* ' -
D l
V A
W A
& Vs
\y ./A *
^ A ? 4
# 4 yb
& , # ,
A H A
to’
A
A , ! Ws A \ «
A l
r / y / / A y
t%) &
\j
V
39
A ffidavit of Captain G. V. E vans
State of
Jefferson County:
Personally appeared before me, the undersigned author
ity in and for said County in said State, Captain G. V.
Evans upon being by me first duly sworn, deposes and
says:
I am Captain G. V. Evans, a Captain in the Police De
partment of the City of Birmingham. As a part of my
duties as such member of the Police Department, I was
present on the 3rd day of April, 1963 at BrittsDepartment
Store, at which time a number of the respondents to this
cause were arrested for Trespass After Warning in con
nection with their effort to be served at the lunch counter
of such store. I was also on this same date,. April 3, in
Woolworth’s Store in the City of Birmingham at 3rd Ave
nue and 19th Street, at which time I saw a number of
Negroes seated at the lunch counter of that store, but the
lunch counter was closed when I went in the store. These
Negroes remained seated during the normal lunch hours
while the said counter was closed for a long period of time.
I did not stay and was not present when they left, but I
have been reliably informed they left after having re
mained at said counter for a period of probably two hours.
On the same day I saw a group of Negroes in the tea room
[fol. 78] of Loveman’s Department Store at 3rd Avenue
and 19th Street in the City of Birmingham. This tea room
had also been closed when I arrived and the Negroes re
mained seated there. I was not on duty during any similar
occasions on April 4thp5th and 6th.
On Sunday afternoon, April 7. 1963. I was in the vicinity
of St. Paul’s Church, a Negro church at 6th Avenue and
15th Street, North, practically all afternoon. I observed a
crowd of Negroes that grew larger and larger during the
course of the afternoon. These'Negroes were not in the
church but were in the vicinity thereof. About 5:30 in the
afternoon a group of Negroes numbering approximately
t
40
A'*
< T V C
i
twenty came out of the church and began to march in a
column Eastward on 6th Avenue. In the meantime the
tremendous mob of Negroes numbering approximately 700
to 1000 began to move Eastward also. This mob of people
began to yell and shout. In the 1700 Block of 6th Avenue
North the column of marchers was stopped and placed
under arrest for engaging in a parade or procession with
out having procured a permit as required by City
Ordinance. In all other instances in which gatherings had
occurred on previous days, the crowd had melted and dis
persed. In this instance, however, the mob continued to
stand upon and to block the public streets and to impede>
traffic thereupon. I had some other members of the Police
Department working with me and we undertook to clear the
streets, but were unable to do so. The mob continued to
shout and to refuse to move. We had placed the Canine
Corps on call. When we found that we could not control the
mob without their assistance, we called them to the scene.
The mob still refused to move until the police dogs came
upon the scene. At that time some of them did move but
others refused to move. One Negro attacked one of the dogs
and was in turn thrown to the ground by the dog. In the
mob of Negroes we heard voices indicating that the Police
Department was at fault in the instance concerning the dog
and obviously were attempting to work the Negroes up to
the point that they would riot. We were compelled to place
some of the Negroes under arrest for failing to obey the
lawful order or command of a police officer in that they re
fused to move and to clear the sidewalk which was blocked
by them, and eventually the mob did disperse.
On the 9th day of April, 1963, I was present at the
[fol. 79] Bohemian Bakery and Restaurant at 1804 4th
Avenue North. Nine Negroes entered the public establish
ment which is a cafeteria type restaurant. The manager in
formed them when they first came in the door that they
could not be served in the cafeteria. They ignored her
instructions to leave and proceeded to serve themselves
from the food that was on the counter. They then went to
41
a table and proceeded to eat the food. During all of this
time the manager was protesting that they could not be
served and that they would have to leave the establishment.
These nine Negroes were arrested for Trespass After
Warning and also for Disorderly Conduct. '•-ae=sss'
On April 10, 1963. I was present on two occasions when
paraders or picketers carrying various signs paraded upon
the public streets of the City of Birmingham in the vicinity
of 19th Street between 4th and 5th Avenues North. These
paraders numbered approximately 23. They also were
arrested for parading or walking in a procession without a
permit. In each instance where arrests have been made for
parading without a permit large crowds of Negroes and
whites have congregated upon the streets and sidewalks and
have in each instance impeded the flow of pedestrian traf
fic upon the sidewalks and vehicular traffic in the streets.
I was also present on the 9th day of April, 1963, when a
number of Negroes paraded in the vicinity of Loveman’s
Department Store at 3rd Avenue and 19th Street North
and were arrested for parading without a permit. In this
instance also, large numbers of people gathered on the
sidewalks and in the streets, including both Negroes and
whites. The respondent A1 Hibler, a blind Negro, was in the
parade on April 9 and also one of those on April 10.
I have been a police officer for a period of twenty-five
years and basing my opinion upon my experience for a
period of twenty-five years in police work, if the activities
and conduct of respondents in this case are not enjoined
there is serious likelihood of bloodshed and violence result
ing in possible death or serious injury to police officers of
the City of Birmingham, members of the groups engaged
in such conduct and other citizens and members of the
public.
G. V. Evans, Captain G. V. Evans.
q V W
/£- AJ<3 '
Sworn and Subscribed to Before Me This 10th Day of
April, 1963.
[fol. 80] Earl McBee, Notary Public.
Filed in Office April 10, 1963.
42
A ffidavit of Captain G eobge W all
State of Alabama,
Jefferson County:
My name is Captain George Wall. I am a Captain in the
Police Department' with. the Lhty of Birmingham. On
Thursday, the 4th day of April, 1963,1 was present at Lane
Rexall Drug Store on 20th Street and 1st Avenue North,
in the City of Birmingham, during an occasion when a
group of Negroes were arrested for Trespass After Warn
ing growing out of the invasion of such Negroes into and
trespass upon a portion of the premises of the said Drug
Store, wherein food is served. Such arrests were for Tres
pass After Warning when the trespassers refused to leave
such portion of the premises upon the request or instruc
tion of the man in charge. I noted a gathering of white men
in the vicinity of the Drug Store at the time in question.
This brought about a blocking of the sidewalk in the im
mediate vicinity of the Drug Store, as well as the door
leading into such Drug Store.
On Saturday morning, April 6, 1963, a group of Negroes
led by respondent F. L. Shuttlesworth and respondent
Charles Billups paraded or marched in procession from
the Gaston Motel eastward on 5th Avenue. The planned
route of the procession or parade was known to the Police
Department in advance thereof and we had blocked off 5th
Avenue in the 1800th Block so as to isolate this group of , .()
people. They were warned several times that they were V
marching in a procession or parade without a permit as
required by City ordinance and that such march or proces
sion was therefore unlawful. They were requested on
several occasions to disperse but refused to do so. They
were then placed under arrest for parading or marching in
procession without a permit. The number of Negroes in
volved in this particular unlawful activity were thirty-two.
A large number of Negroes and whites congregated around
18th Street and 5th Avenue and blocked the sidewalk. It
was necessary in order to keep the crowd from congregat-
43
[fol. 81] mg around the marchers to station officers at 18th
Street and other intersections, westward toward the Motel.
George Wall, George Wall, Captain, Police Depart
ment, City of Birmingham.
Sworn to and Subscribed Before Me This 10th Day of
April, 1963.
Earl McBee, Notary Public.
Filed in Office April 10, 1963.
[fol. 82]
I n th e Circuit Court
W rit of I n ju n ctio n and R eturns T hereon
To any Sheriff of the State of Alabama—Greetings:
We Command You, that without delay you execute this
Writ, and make due return how you have executed the same,
according to law.
0. H. Florence, Register.
To Wyatt Tee Walker; Ralph Abernathy; A1 Hibler, F. L.
Shuttlesworth; Martin Luther King, Jr.; Aberham
Woods, Jr.; Calvin Woods; A. D. King; Alabama Chris
tian Movement for Human Rights by serving copy on
Fred L. Shuttlesworth as President, et al.
Whereas, City of Birmingham, a Municipal Corporation
of the State of Alabama, has this day filed its Bill of Com
plaint in this said Circuit Court against Wyatt Tee Walker;
Ralph Abernathy; Al Hibler; F. L. Shuttlesworth; Martin
Luther King, Jr.; Aberham Woods, Jr.; Calvin Woods;
A. D. King; Alabama Christian Movement for Human
[fol. 83] Rights by serving copy on Fred L. Shuttlesworth
as President, et al., praying among other things that this
Court issue a temporary or peremptory injunction enjoin
ing and restraining and prohibiting the respondents named
44
in the Bill of Complaint, their agents, members, employees,
servants, followers, attorneys, successors, and all other
persons in active concert or participation with the respon
dents, and all persons having notice of said order, from
continuing any acts hereinabove designated, particularly:'
engaging in, sponsoiing, inciting or encouraging mass
street parades or mass processions, or like demonstrations
without a permit, trespass on private property after being
warned to leave the premises by the owners or person in
possession of said private property, congregating on the
streets or public places into mobs, and unlawfully picketing
business establishments or public buildings in the City of
Birmingham, Jefferson County, State of Alabama, or
performing acts calculated to cause breaches of the peace
in the City of Birmingham, Jefferson County, and the State
of Alabama, or from conspiring to engage in unlawful
street parades, unlawful processions, unlawful demonstra
tions, unlawful boycotts, unlawful trespasses and unlawful
picketing or other like unlawful conduct or from violating
the ordinances of the City of Birmingham and the statutes
of the State of Alabama, or from doing any acts designed
to consummate conspiracies to engage in said unlawful acts
of parading, demonstrating, boycotting, trespassing and
picketing or other unlawful acts or from engaging in acts
and conduct customarily known as “ Kneel In’s” in churches
in violation of the wishes and desires of said churches
And Whereas, on said Bill being exhibited to the Hon.
W. A. Jenkins, Jr., one of the Judges of the Circuit Court,
Tenth Judicial Circuit of Alabama, on the 10th day of April
1963 he did order, that, upon Complainant’s entering into
bond with sureties in the sum of ($2,500.00) Twenty Five
Hundred Dollars, and approved by the Register of this
Court, payable and conditioned according to law, a Writ of
Injunction issue out of this Court, according to the prayer
of said bill:
And Whereas, Bond has been given as required by said
Order,
45
These, Therefore, are to temporarily Enjoin you Wyatt
Tee Walker; Ralph Abernathy; A1 Hibler; F. L. Shuttles--
[fol. 84] worth; Martin Luther King, Jr.; Aberham Woods,
Jr.; Calvin Woods; A. D. King; Alabama Christian Move
ment for Human Rights by serving copy on Fred L.
Shuttlesworth as President, and all other persons in active
concert or participation with the respondents to this action
and all persons having notice of this action from engaging,
sponsoring, inciting or encouraging mass street parades oj
maislm ocesslo^ dem onstrate
trespass,pii.-DxR:a.tn-m:opertv after being warned to leavT
the premises by the owneror person In possession of saicf
private property, congregating on the street or nnl.lF
places__in4fl_mob§, and unlawfully picketing business
-K U
establishments or pi^Ii^buildings in the CltyWf Birming-'*
ham, Jefferson County, State of Alabama or performing
acts calculated to cause breaches of the peace in the City of ,
Birmingham, Jefferson County, in the State of A labam a!
°r from conspiring to engage in unlawful street parades. I
unlawfujaKQaasgions, unlawIlll_demonst,ra.tiQns. unlawful |
boycotts, unlawful trespasses, and unlawful picketing or |
j^ffierTSe unlawful conduct or fromTiolntingTE^orHimmces \
o?~tEe~t3ity^f and the Statutes of the State of J*
' Alabama or from doing any acts designed to consummate [
conspiraciesH^Tengage ' TtTsaid unlawful' acts o? "parading, j
■Remonstrating, boycotting, trespassing and picketing or
other unlawful acts, or from engaging in acts and conduct
customarily known as “Kneel-In’s” in churches in violation
of the wishes and desires of said churches, until further
orders from this Court; and this you will in no wise omit
under penalty, etc.
V
1 > T W S p r n
V c x > mg-t g - ! p R c B S
f hers O -
V » Co ^ * 5
t c i r T ) '
H, T *
clObi kL~t
e * T C »
* N« UU-W
' 1 A c ' r r r u
'£ & ML
Witness, 0. H. Florence, Register, Circuit Court, Tenth
Judicial Circuit of Alabama, this 10th day of April 1963.
O. H. Florence, Register.
Issued this 10th day of April 1963.
46
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By Raymond E. Belcher, D. S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 1 :0Q A. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with A1 Hibler.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By Raymond E. Belcher, Chief D.S.
[fol. 85] Executed this Apr 11, 1963 1 :00 A.M. by leaving
a copy of the within with A. D. King.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By Raymond E. Belcher, Chief D.S.
Executed this Apr 11, 1963 1:00 A. M. on Southern
Christian Leadership Conference by leaving a copy of the
within with Martin Luther King, President.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By Raymond E. Belcher, Chief D.S.
Executed this Apr 11, 1963 1 :30 A. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Calvin Woods.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By Raymond E. Belcher, D. S.
Executed this Apr 11, 1963 1 :45 A. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Aberham Woods, Jr.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By Sgt. H. J. Norman, D. S.
Executed this the Apr 11, 1963 1:00 A. M. by leaving a
copy o f the within with F. L. Shuttlesworth.
Executed this the Apr 11 1963 1:00 A.M. by leaving a
copy of the within with Martin Luther King.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By Raymond E. Belcher, Chief, D. S.
47
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By Raymond E. Belcher, Chief, D. S.
Executed this the Apr 11, 1963 1:00 A. M. on Alabama
Christian Movement for Human Rights by leaving a copy
of the within with F. L. Shuttlesworth, President.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By Raymond E. Belcher, Chief D.S.
Executed this the April 11 1963 1 :00 A.M. by leaving a
copy of the within with Ralph Abernathy.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By Raymond E. Belcher, Chief D.S.
Executed this Apr 11, 1963 3:25 P.M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Annie Aggenton at Arrington.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D. S.
_[fol. 86] Executed this the Apr 11 1963 3 :25 P. M. by leav
ing a copy of the within with Jerry Dean Green.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama
By C. R. Reeves, D. S.
Executed this the Apr 11 1963 3 :25 P. M. by leaving a
copy of the within with Carl Keith, Jr.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D.S.
Executed this the Apr 11 1963 3:25 P. M. by leaving a
copy of the within with Alice J. Holder.
Executed this Apr 11, 1963 1:00 A. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Wyatt Tee Walker.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D.S.
48
Executed this APE 11 1963 3 :25 P.M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Mable Danner.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. E. Eeeves, D. S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3 :25 P.M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Davie Lee Hawthorne.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. E. Eeeves, D.S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3 :25 P.M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Paula Price.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. E. Eeeves, D.S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3 :25 P.M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Otilia Perry.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. E. Eeeves, D.S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3 :25 P.M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Johnny Louis Palmer.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. E. Eeeves, D.S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3 :25 P.M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Myraette Griffin.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. E. Eeeves, D.S.
[fol. 87] Executed this Apr 11 1963 3:25 P. M. by leaving
a copy of the within with Ora Mae Watkins.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. E. Eeeves, D. S.
49
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D.S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3 :25 P.M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Ella Ruffin.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D.S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3 :25 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Mary Alice Jones.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D.S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3:25 P.M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Edward Hendricks.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D.S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3 :25 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Gwendolyn King.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D.S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3 :25 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Robert J. Norris.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D.S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3 :25 P.M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Wilson Brown.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3:25 P.M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Ozzo Howell.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D.S.
50
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D. S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 P. M. by leaving a copy of
the within the Jerome Taylor.
[fol. 88] Executed this Apr 11 1963 3 :25 P. M. by leaving
a copy of the within with Curtis Sanders.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D.S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3:25 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Theodore Reed.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D.S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3 :25 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Frank James Jackson.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D.S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3:25 P.M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Ernest English.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D.S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3:25 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Tommy Holt.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D.S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3:25 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Ezer Stovall.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D.S.
51
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Beeves, D.S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3 :25 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Clarence Townsend.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D.S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3 :25 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Richard Peterson.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D.S.
[fol. 89] Executed this Apr 11 1963 3:25 P. M. by leaving
a copy of the within with William B. Mullins.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D.S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3 :25 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Lummie Boyd.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D.S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3 :25 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Melvin Short.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D.S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3 :25 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Eddie Harris.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3:25 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Dave Young.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D.S.
52
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D.S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3 :25 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Robert Seals.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D.S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3 :25 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with LeRoy Allen.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D.S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3 :25 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Henry Crawford.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D.S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3 :25 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Charles George.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D.S.
[fol. 90] Executed this Apr 11 1963 3:25 P. M. by leaving
a copy of the within with Mary N. Nelson.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D. S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3 :25 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Bessie Mae Abrams.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3:25 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with J. L. Meadows.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D. S.
53
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D. S.
Executed this April 11 1963 6:15 by leaving a copy of
the within with Annie Gooden.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D. S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3 :25 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Carda C. Gray.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D. S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3 :25 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Emma Bradford.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D. S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 6 :35 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Edith Burpe.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D. S.
Executed this the Apr 11 1963 3:25 P. M. by leaving a
copy of the within with Robert Lee Jackson.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D. S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3:25 by leaving a copy of the
within with Maggie Hawkins.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3:25 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Julius Minniefield.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D. S.
54
Executed this Apr 11, 1963 3 :25 P.M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Rebecca Harris.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D. S.
[fob 91] Executed this Apr 11 1963 4:35 P. M. by leaving
a copy of the within with Katie Jefferson.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D. S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3 :25 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Mary Francis Smith.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D. S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3 :25 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Marie M. Pettaway.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D. S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 4:30 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Howard Cruikshank.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D. S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3 :25 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Mamie Ruth King.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D. S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3 :25 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Margaret Askew.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D. S.
55
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D. S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3 :45 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Sarah Cellen who states her correct name
is Sarah Callen.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By H. E. Moore, D. S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3 :55 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Margaret Williams.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By H. E. Moore, D. S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 4:20 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Darnell Walker.
[fol. 92] Executed this Apr 11 1963 4 :17 P. M. by leaving
a copy of the within with Sherrill Marcus.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By H. E. Moore, D. S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 4 :30 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Bernard Bullard.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By H. E. Moore, D. S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 6 :30 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Lucille Jackson.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By H. E. Moore, D. S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 5 :20 by leaving a copy of the
within with Mary Robinson.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D. S.
56
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D. S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 5 :00 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Rosie Lee Craig.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, E>. S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3 :30 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Ela Mae Pegues.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By G. W. Cain, D. S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 4 :25 by leaving a copy of the
within with Willie Floyd Clancy.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D. S.
Executed this Aj>r 11 1963 4:15 by leaving a copy of the
within with Carol Jackson.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 9 :18 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Charles Billups.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By G. T. Hollis, D. S.
[fol. 93] Executed this Apr 11 1963 4:40 P. M. by leaving
a copy of the within with Bradine King.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By G. T. Hollis, D. S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 5 :08 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Carter Gaston, Jr.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By G. F. Riddle, D. S.
57
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By G. F. Biddle, D. S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 4 :50 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Pinkie S. Franklin.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By G. F. Riddle, D. S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 5 :52 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Clove Smith.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By G. F. Biddle, D. S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3 :31 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Benjamin Dardy.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By G. F. Biddle, D. S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 4:17 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Louise Drake.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By G. F. Biddle, D. S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 3 :58 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Lincoln Hendrix.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By G. F. Biddle, D. S.
Executed this the Apr 11 1963 6 :16 by leaving a copy of
the within with Major Warren.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 4:43 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with John Hennington.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By G. F. Biddle, D. S.
58
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By G. C. Kuhn, D. S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 by leaving a copy of the within
with Annie Pearl Avery.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By J. L. Cochran, D. S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 by leaving a copy of the within
with Charlie Penn.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By J. L. Cochran, D. S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 by leaving a copy of the within
with Juanita Curtis.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By J. L. Cochran, D. S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 by leaving a copy of the within
with Margarette Powell.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By F. E. Rogers, D. S.
Executed this Apr 11 1963 by leaving a copy of the within
with Lettie Woods who states she is Lottie Woods.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By J. L. Cochran, D. S.
Executed this Apr 12 1963 by leaving a copy of the within
with Mamie L. Brown.
[fol. 94] Executed this Apr 11 1963 5:10 P. M. by leaving
a copy of the within with Mary Orange.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By W. A. Adams, D. S.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By J. L. Cochran, D. S.
Executed this Apr 12 1963 by leaving a copy of the within
with Carolyn Smith.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By W. A. Adams, D. S.
[fol. 95] Executed this Apr 11 1963 by leaving a copy of
the within with Bertha Burkett.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By J. L. Cochran, D. S.
Executed this the 12th day of April 1963 by leaving a
copy of the within with Shirley Femby 9 :20 A. M.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, By ¥m . S. Bonham, Jr., D. S.
Executed this the 11th day of April 1963 by leaving a
copy of the within with Albert Paranco 6:35 P. M.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, By McCoy & Brown, D. S.
Executed this the 11th day of April 1963 by leaving a
copy of the within with Segrist Harrison 9:45 P. M.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, By McCoy & Brown, D. S.
Executed this the 11th day of April 1963 by leaving a
copy of the within with Dorothy Bell 5 :25 P. M.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, By McCoy & Brown, D. S.
Executed this the 11th day of April 1963 by leaving a
copy of the within with Robert A. Miller 9 :05 P. M.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, By McCoy & Brown, D. S.
59
Executed this the Apr 11 1963 by leaving a copy of the
within with Hester Cheatham.
60
Executed this the 11th day of April 1963 by leaving a
copy of the within with Peggy Lucas 4:40 P. M.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, By McCoy & Brown, D. S.
Executed this the 11th day of April 1963 by leaving a
copy of the within with Mary Robinson 9 :00 P. M.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, By McCoy & Brown, D. S.
Executed this the 12th day of April 1963 by leaving a
copy of the within with Artha Barbara Craig 5 :15 A. M.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, By Stewart & Love, D. S.
Executed this the 11th day of April 1963 by leaving a
copy of the within with John Germany 6:40 P. M.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, By McCoy & Brown, D. S.
[fol. 96] Executed this the 12th day of April 1963 by
leaving a copy of the within with Henry Reese 5 :00 A. M.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, By Stewart & Love, D. S.
Executed this the 11th day of April 1963 by leaving a
copy of the within with Joe Dixson 6:40 P. M.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, By McCoy & Brown, D. S.
Executed this the 12th day of April 1963 by leaving a
copy of the within with Carlton Reese 4:30 A. M.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, By Stewart & Love, D. S.
Executed this Apr 12 1963 by leaving a copy of the within
with Nora Tate 7 :30 A. M.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By T. L. Mahaffey, D. S.
61
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By T. L. Mahaffey, D. S.
Executed this Apr 12 1963 7 :20 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Ennis Knight.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D. S.
Executed this the 13 day of April 1963 1:00 P. M. by
leaving a copy of the within with Lester Cobb, Jr.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By A. R. Bracewell, D. S.
Executed this the April 12 1963 by leaving a copy of the
within with Ernistine Dixon, 7 :30 A. M.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By Anderson, D. S.
Executed this Apr 12 1963 by leaving a copy of the within
with T. K. Nelson 6 :15 P. M.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D. S.
Executed this Apr 12 1963 by leaving a copy of the within
with Cleopatra Kennedy 7:20 A. M.
[fol. 97] Executed this April 12 1963 4 :13 P. M. by leaving
a copy of the within with John Thomas Porter.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By H. E. Moore, D. S.
Executed this the 4/15 1963 4 :15 P. M. by leaving a copy
of the within with Mary Oden.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By H. E. Moore, D. S.
62
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. R. Reeves, D. S.
Executed this the Apr 12 1963 7:15 P. M. by leaving a
copy of the within with Luella Giener.
Executed this the 4/12/63 by leaving a copy of the within
with Annie B. Peterson.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By T. M. Tate, D. S.
William Southland Not Found in Jefferson County this
the 16 day of April 1963.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By T. L. Mahaffey, D. S.
Executed this the 15th day of April 1963 8:35 A. M. by
leaving a copy of the within with N. H. Smith, Jr.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By A. R. Bracewell, D. S.
Executed this the 13th day of April 1963 7 :50 A. M. by
leaving a copy of the within with Andrew Palm.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By Montgomery, D. S.
Hattie Pearson Not Found in Jefferson County this the
Apr 16 1963.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By G. F. Riddle, D. S.
James Armstrong Not Found in Jefferson County this
Apr 19 1963.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. E. Walker, D. S.
63
Otis Spearman Not Found in Jefferson County this Apr
19 1963.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. E. Walker, D. S.
[fol. 98] A. D. Williams King Not Found in Jefferson
County Apr 19 1963.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By J. L. Cochran, D. S.
Willie Stone Not Found in Jefferson County this Apr 19
1963.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By J. L. Cochran, D. S.
Edw. Montgomery Not Found in Jefferson County this
Apr 19 1963.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By J. L, Cochran, D. S.
Beatrice King Not Found in Jefferson County this Apr
19 1963.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By J. L. Cochran, D. S.
Mary Ellen Station Not Found in Jefferson County this
Apr 19 1963.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By J. L. Cochran, D. S.
Geneva Jones Not Found in Jefferson County this Apr
19 1963.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
B}̂ J. L. Cochran, D. S.
64
William Boazman Not Found in Jefferson County this
Apr 19 1963.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By J. L. Cochran, D. S.
Alexander Lionel Brown Not Found in Jefferson County
this Apr 19,1963.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By J. L. Cochran, D. S.
Henry Creskey Not Found in Jefferson County this Apr
19 1963.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By J. L. Cochran, D. S.
Wilbert Crocken Not Found in Jefferson County this
Apr 19 1963.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By J. L. Cochran, D. S.
Richard Harper Not Found in Jefferson County this
Apr 19 1963.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By J. L. Cochran, D. S.
Betty Hill Not Found in Jefferson County this Apr 19
1963.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By J. L. Cochran, D. S.
Wauelyn Holmes Not Found in Jefferson County this
Apr 19 1963.
[fol. 99] Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County,
Alabama, By J. L. Cochran, D. S.
65
Leon Eice Not Found in Jefferson County this Apr 19
1963.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By J. L. Cochran, D. S.
Kathleen Moore Not Found in Jefferson County this Apr
19 1963.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By J. L. Cochran, D. S.
Minnie Ola Pinick Not Found in Jefferson County the
Apr 19 1963.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By J. L. Cochran, D. S.
Eddie Upshaw Not Found in Jefferson County the Apr
22, 1963.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By A. E. Bracewell, D. S.
Walter Wade Lockett Not Found in Jefferson County
the Apr 22 1963.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By A. E. Bracewell, D. S.
[fol. 100]
I n THE ClBCUIT COUBT
M otion to D issolve I n ju n ctio n and/ ob A pplication fob,
S tay op E xecution P enbing H earing— Filed April 15, 1963
Now come the respondents in the above styled cause and
moves the Court to dissolve the injunction heretofore issued
in said cause on April 10, 1963, enjoining respondents, its
agents, servants, employees, attorneys, successors and all
other persons in active concert or participation with respon
dents or in the alternative stay the execution of said
injunction and/or for any other or further relief, until
after a hearing on the merits of said cause from :
Engaging in sponsoring, inciting or encouraging mass
street parades or mass processions or like demonstrations
without a permit, trespass on private property after being
warned to leave the premises by the owners or persons in pos
session of said private property, congregating on the street
or public places into mobs, and unlawfully picketing business
establishments or public buildings in the City of Birming-
[fol. 101] ham, Jefferson County, State of Alabama, or in
performing acts calculated to cause breaches of the peace
in the City of Birmingham, Jefferson County, State of Ala
bama, or from conspiring to engage in unlawful street
parades, unlawful processions, unlawful demonstrations,
unlawful boycotts, unlawful trespasses and unlawful
picketing or other like unlawful conduct or from violating
the ordinances of the City of Birmingham and the statutes
of the State of Alabama, or from doing any acts designed to
consummate conspiracies to engage in said picketing or
other unlawful acts, or from engaging in acts and conduct
customarily known as Kneel-Ins in churches, in violation of
the wishes and desires of said churches, and for grounds
for such dissolution or in the alternative stay of execution
of said injunction until after a hearing on the merits of the
matter, the respondents assign the following:
1. There is no equity in the Bill of Complaint on which
the temporary injunction is granted and no grounds for
invoking the jurisdiction of this Court are alleged therein.
2. It was not shown by the Bill of Complaint, the basis
of the injunction, that there was a danger of irreparable
injury to the complainant. 3
3. Complainant has an adequate remedy at law, if re
spondents were guilty of the matters alleged in the
Complaint.
67
4. This injunction is improperly granted because it seeks
to prohibit acts allegedly criminal which, if committed, may
be punished by use of the criminal law.
5. This injunctive order violates respondents’ right of
due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amend
ment to the Constitution of the United States, because it
was issued without notice to them or opportunity to be
heard.
/C
6. These respondents have been denied due process of
law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Con
stitution of the United States, because the injunctive order
issued herein is couched in such general, vague and indefi
nite terms that respondents are not able. to. determine what
specific conduct is designed to be prohibited thereby.
7. The injunction herein was improvidently granted be
cause it is a prior restraint on the exercise of respondents’
rights of free speech and expression, which are guaranteed
[fol. 102] against state encroachment by the due process
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution
of the United States.
f l pS-t
8. This injunction violates these respondents’ rights to
equal protection and due process of law guaranteed by the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, in that its issuance is designed to enforce the un
constitutional policy, practice, custom and usage of
segregation by race in the city of Birmingham as set forth
inter alia in Section 369 of the 1944 General City Code of
Birmingham and Section 2002-1 of the Building Code of the
City of Birmingham, copies of which are attached hereto
as Exhibit 4.
9. This injunction denies to respondents due process of
law guaranteed to them under the Fourteenth Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States, because it is based
upon a complaint, the allegations of which describe conduct
protected from infringement by the State by said Four
teenth Amendment.
p # “
'
ia V>1
68
10. This injunction was improvidently granted because
the ordinances which respondents are charged with violat
ing by the complaint, and under which some of them have
been arrested and charged (as shown by copies of the war
rants hereto attached as exhibits 1 through 3, are unconsti
tutionally vague in that they do not adequately set forth
standards by which to determine whether or not respon
dents have, or may at some future time violate their terms
since the language of these ordinances is so general that it
is impossible to determine exactly what conduct is meant
to be prohibited. Application of such vague and indefinite
ordinances to the conduct of respondents as shown by the
affidavits attached hereto as Exhibits 5 through 10 by arrest
and imprisonment is therefore an infringement of respon
dents’ rights of free expression guaranteed under the due
process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Con
stitution of the United States.
11. That the injunction issued against these respondents
is improper and violates rights secured to these respon
dents by the Constitution of Alabama Art. 1, Section 25
viz. Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of Speech, freedom to
remonstrate to petition and protest.
[fol. 103] Respectfully submitted,
Arthur D. Shores, 1527 Fifth Avenue, North
Birmingham, Alabama;
Orzell Billingsley, Jr., 1630 Fourth Avenue, North,
City;
Norman Amaker, Jack Greenberg, Constance B.
Motley, Leroy D. Clark, 10 Columbus Circle, New
York, N. Y.;
Attorneys for Respondents.
69
Sec. 369 Separation of races: General City Code„oiLBir-
mingham.
It shall be unlawful to conduct a restaurant or other place
for the serving of food in the city, at which white and col
ored people are served in the same room, unless such white
and colored persons are effectually separated by a solid
partition extending from the floor upward to a distance of
seven feet higher, and unless a separate entrance from the
street is provided for each compartment.
Sec. 597. Negroes and white persons not to play together.
It shall be unlawful for a negro and a white person to
play together or in company with each other in any game
of cards or dice, dominoes or checkers.
Any person who, being the owner, proprietor or keeper
or superintendent of any tavern, inn, restaurant or other
public house or public place, or the clerk, servant or em
ployee of such owner, proprietor, keeper or superintendent,
knowingly permits a negro and a white person to play to
gether or in company with each other at any game with
cards, dice, dominoes or checkers, or any substitute or de
vice for cards, dice, dominoes or checkers, in his house or
on his premises shall, on conviction, be punished as pro
vided in section 4.
Section 2002— S anitation . Building Code, City of Birming
ham, Alabama.
2002.1—Toilet Facilities.
Toilet Tacilities shall be provided in all occupancies for
each sex, according to Table 2002.2 except one family living
units. The number provided for each sex shall be based on
the maximum number of persons of that sex that may be
expected to use such building at any one time. Where
negroes and whites are accommodated there shall be sepa
rate toilet facilities provided for the former, marked plainly
“For Negroes only.”
[fol. 110] E x h ib it 4 to M otion
70
I n th e C ircuit Court for the
T e n th J udicial C ircuit of A labama
I n E quity
N o........................
E x h ib it 5 to M otion
City of B irmingham , a Municipal Corporation
of the State of Alabama
Complainant
vs.
W yatt T. W alker , et al .
R espondents
[fol. 111]
A ffidavit of Cleopatra K ennedy
S tate of A labama )
J efferson C ounty ) ss :
City of B irmingham )
Before me personally appeared Cleopatra Kennedy, who
after being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
That she is a Negro citizen of the United States, residing
at 1814 North 22nd Street, Birmingham, Alabama.
That on or about April 7, 1963, at approximately 4:00
P. M., she accompanied by other Negro citizens of the
United States, left the St. Paul Methodist Church, located
at 15th Street and Sixth Avenue, North, Birmingham, Ala
bama, and proceeded to walk east on Sixth Avenue, North
two abreast in the general direction of the Birmingham
City Hall.
That she and the other persons accompanying her, pro
ceeded in peaceful and orderly fashion at a moderate pace,
71
toward the City Hall, obeying all traffic lights and posted
traffic signals along the ronte being traveled.
That she and the others, with whom she was walking,
were stopped by police officers of the City of Birmingham,
near the corner of 17th Street and Sixth Avenue, North,
and an inquiry was made by the police officers of those per
sons walking at the head of the group, as to whether or not
these persons had obtained a permit to parade. Those lead
ing the group responded in the negative, whereupon she
and all other persons, accompanying her were placed under
arrest for parading without a permit in violation of Section
1159 of the 1944 General City Code of Birmingham, Ala
bama, The group then kneeled and prayed, and were after
wards taken to the City Jail.
That she and the other members of the group, all Negro
citizens of the United States, were seeking only to demon
strate their dissatisfaction with the conditions of Negro
life in the City of Birmingham, and to petition the city
government in peaceful and orderly fashing for redress of
their grievances, which they were prevented from doing by
[fol. 112] their arrest by police officers of the City of Bir
mingham, as described above.
Cleopatra Kennedy
Cleopatba K ennedy
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 15 day of April,
1963.
Arthur D. Shores
N otaby P ublic
72
I n th e Circuit C ourt for the
T en th J udicial C ircuit of A labam a
I n E quity
N o........................
E x h ib it 6 to M otion
City of B ir m in g h am , A Municipal Corporation of the
S tate of Alabam a
Com plainant
vs.
W yatt T. W alker , et al .
R espondents
A ffidavit of A n n ie B. P eterson
S tate of A labam a )
J efferson C ounty ) ss :
City of B irm in g h am )
Before me, personally appeared Annie B. Peterson, who
after being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
That she is a Negro citizen of the United States, residing
in New Castle, Alabama a t ..............................................
That on or about April 6, 1963, at approximately 12:30
P.M., she, in the company of about 42 other persons left
the Gaston Motel located at 1510 Fifth Avenue, North, Bir
mingham, Alabama, and proceeded to walk east on Fifth
Avenue, North, two abreast in the general direction of the
Birmingham City Hall.
That she and the other persons accompanying her, pro
ceeded in peaceful and orderly fashion at a moderate pace,
toward the City Hall, obeying all traffic lights and posted
traffic signals along the route being traveled.
73
That she and the others, with whom she was walking,
were stopped by police officers of the City of Birmingham,
as they approached the corner of 19th Street and Fifth
Avenue, North, and an inquiry was there made by the police
officers of Bev. F. L. Shuttlesworth and Rev. Charles Bil
lups who were walking in the front of the group as to
[fol. 113] whether these persons had obtained a permit to
parade. Rev. Shuttlesworth answered, “ No”, whereupon all
of the persons in the group kneeled and prayed. The group
was then placed under arrest for “parading without a per
mit”, in violation of Section 1159 of the 1944 General City
Code of Birmingham, Alabama, and transported to the
City Jail.
That she and the other members of the group, all Negro
citizens of the United States, were seeking only to demon
strate their dissatisfaction with the conditions of Negro
life in the City of Birmingham, and to petition the city
government in peaceful and orderly fashion for redress of
their grievances, which they were prevented from doing by
their arrest by police officers of the City of Birmingham, as
described above.
Annie B. Peterson
A n n ie B. P eteeson
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 15 day of April
1963.
Arthur D. Shores
N otaby P ublic
74
I n th e C ircuit Court fob the
T en th J udicial Circuit of A labama
E x h ib it 7 to M otion
I n E quity
N o....................
C ity of B irm in g h am , A Municipal Corporation o f the
S tate of A labama
Complainant
vs.
W yatt T ee W alker, et al .
R espondents
A ffidavit of S herrill M arcus
S tate of A labama )
Jefferson County ) ss:
C ity of B irm in g h am )
Before me personally appeared Sherrill Marcus, who
after being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
That he is a Negro citizen of the United States, residing
at 127 Morris Avenue, Birmingham, Alabama.
That on or about April 5, 1963, he and others, Negro citi
zens of the United States, entered Lane’s Drug Store at
First Avenue and 20th Street, North, Birmingham, Ala
bama, and seated themselves at the lunch counter located
[fol. 114] therein. They were asked by the waitress if she
could help them. They replied in the affirmative and de
ponent and those with him each ordered a cup of coffee.
Before the coffee was brought to them, deponent and his
companions were approached by the manager of the lunch
eonette who told them that the lunch counter was closed.
75
Deponent answered by saying that he wanted a cup of
coffee whereupon the manager departed and the waitress
returned and informed deponent and his companions that
she would give them coffee in a paper cup. Deponent re
plied that that would be all right if they could drink the
coffee there. The waitress then left him and his companions,
but the manager returned with a police officer of the City
of Birmingham and asked deponent and those with him if
they were going to leave. Deponent replied that they would
like to be served. Deponent and his companions- were then
arrested for\t£respass after warning”, pursuant to Section
1663-F of the 1944 Birmingham General City Code.
That he and the persons who accompanied him were seek
ing service at a business establishment open to the general
public, which denies Negro patronage, though Negro citi
zens residing in Birmingham are part of the general buying
public. He and the persons with him were seeking to ex
press their dissatisfaction with this status in the City of
Birmingham, and to persuade the proprietor of the business
establishment in question, to accept their patronage. De
ponent says that he and those with him were prevented
from continuing to seek service and to persuade the pro
prietor of the coffee shop to accept their patronage by their
arrest by police officers of the City of Birmingham, as de
scribed above.
Sherrill Marcus
S herrill M arcus
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 15 day of April,
1963.
Arthur D. Shores
N otary P ublic
76
I n the C ircuit C ourt for the
T en th J udicial Circuit of A labama
I n E quity
N o. 130-173
E x h i b i t 8 to M o t io n
C ity of B ir m in g h am , A Municipal Corporation o f the
S tate of A labama
Com plainant
vs.
W yatt T ee W alker , et al .
R espondents
[fol. 115] A ffidavit of B radine K ing
S tate of A labam a )
J efferson County ) ss :
City of B irm in g h am )
Before me personally appeared Bradine King, who after
being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
That she is a Negro citizen of the United States, residing
at 6332—36th Avenue, North, Birmingham, Alabama.
That on or about April 5, 1963, at approximately 11:30
A.M., she and three other persons, Negro citizens of the
United States, entered the coffee shop of the Tutwiler Hotel,
at 20th Street and Fifth Avenue, North, Birmingham, Ala
bama, entering through the door opening on Fifth Avenue.
She, and those accompanying her, took seats at the lunch
counter located in the coffee shop of the Hotel.
That she and the three persons with her had been seated
at the lunch counter approximately three minutes when the
manager of the coffee shop approached them and informed
77
them that they could not be served. One member of the
group replied that they had come into the shop for food and
would like to be served. The manager asked them to leave,
but she and those with her remained. A police officer of the
City of Birmingham, then told the manager to “ tell them
again to leave” . Deponent and those with her, remained
seated whereupon they were told by a police officer, “ let’s
go” .
That she and those with her were then taken from the
coffee shop by police officers of the City of Birmingham, and
transported in four police cars to the City Hall. While being
transported deponent was told that she was under arrest.
She was then taken in the company of others to the City
Jail and charged with “ trespass after warning” said charge
being lodged under Section 1663-F of the 1944 Birmingham
General City Code.
That she and the three persons who accompanied her were
seeking service at a business establishment open to the gen
eral public, which denies Negro patronage, though Negro
citizens residing in Birmingham are part of the general buy
ing public. She and the persons with her were seeking to
express their dissatisfaction with this status in the City of
[fol. 116] Birmingham, and to persuade the proprietor of
the business establishment in question, to accept their pat
ronage. Deponent says that she and those with her were
prevented from continuing to seek service and to persuade
the proprietor of the coffee shop to accept their patronage
by their arrest by police officers of the City of Birmingham,
as described above.
Bradine King
B radixe K ing
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 18th day of April,
1963.
Agnes N. Studemire
N otary P ublic
(S eal)
78
I n the Circuit C ourt for the
T en th J udicial Circuit of A labama
I n E quity
No. 130-178
E x h ibit 9 to M otion
C ity of B ir m in g h am , A Municipal Corporation of the
S tate of A labam a
C omplainant
vs.
W yatt T ee W alker , et al .
R espondents
A ffidavit of W illiam M u llin
S tate of A labama )
J efferson County ) ss :
C ity of B irm in g h am )
Before me personally appeared William Mullin, who after
being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
That he is a Negro citizen of the United States, residing
at 1320 First Court, West, Birmingham, Alabama.
That on or about Tuesday, April 9, 1963, at approxi
mately 4:00 P.M., he and others, Negro citizens of the
United States, entered the Bohemian Bakery, located at
Fourth Avenue, North, between 18th and 19th Streets, in
Birmingham. That he and those accompanying him picked
up trays at the entrance to the food line, secured dessert
and took seats at tables in the portion of the bakery re
served for eating.
That as he and his companions were eating, an employee
of the Bakery told them that it was against the city ordi
79
nance for them to eat there. The cashier thereupon placed
a phone call and a few minutes later the manager appeared
with some policemen of the city of Birmingham who with
the manager stood and watched deponent and his com-
[fol. 117] panions while they were eating. Deponent ob
served that the manager and policemen were talking among
themselves. When the group finished eating, some of the
policemen approached deponent and his companions and
asked each of them for identification with which they were
furnished.
One of the police officers said, “What shall we charge
them with” , or words to that effect and another policeman
answered, “ trespass” . Officer Guy, of the Birmingham Po
lice said, “ give them disorderly conduct too” or words to
that effect. Whereupon each member of the group was told
to rise and was searched. The policemen began escorting
deponent and his companions out of the Bakery and as
each of them offered to pay for the food they had eaten,
thier money waa refused. Deponent and his companions
were arrested, taken to the city jail and charged with both
trespass after warning and disorderly conduct, which de
ponent avers on information and belief to be charges lodged
under Sections 1663-F and 311 respectively, of the 1944
General Code of the City of Birmingham, Alabama.
That he and the persons who accompanied him were seek
ing service at a business establishment open to the general
public, which denies Negro patronage, though Negro citi
zens residing in Birmingham are part of the general buying
public. He and the persons with him were seeking to ex
press their dissatisfaction with this status in the City of
Birmingham, and to persuade the proprietor of the business
establishment in question, to accept their patronage. De
ponent says that he and those with him were prevented
from continuing to seek service and to persuade the pro
prietor of the bakery to accept their patronage by their
80
arrest by police officers of the City of Birmingham, as
described above.
William Mullin
W illiam M u llin
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 18th day of April,
1963.
Agnes N. Studemire
N otary P ublic
(S eal )
[ fo l. 118] E xh ibit 10 to M otion
I n the Circuit Court for the
T en th J udicial Circuit of A labama
I n E quity
No. 130-173
City of B irm in g h am , A Municipal Corporation of the
S tate of A labama,
Complainant,
vs.
W yatt T ee W alker , et al.,
Respondents.
A ffidavit of J ulius M innifield
S tate of A labama )
J efferson C ounty ) ss.
City of B irm in g h am )
Before me personally appeared Julius Minnifield, who
after being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
That he is a Negro citizen of the United States residing
at 1113 Short Third Alley South, Birmingham, Alabama,
That on or about April 10, 1963 at approximately 12:15
p.m., he and approximately nine other persons, Negro citi
zens of the United States and the State of Alabama left the
81
Masonic Temple located at 531 North 19th Street and pro
ceeded in a group in the direction of the City Hall. He and
those with him were carrying picket signs. It was their
intention to picket the City Hall in peaceful fashion in
order to protest the city’s continuing policy of segregation.
As he and the others in the group were walking toward
City Hall,- they were stopped by police officers of the City
of Birmingham at the corner of Fifth Avenue and 19th
Street North. When the group was stopped, deponent says,
he observed that an automobile which had just gone by his
group turned around in the middle of 19th Street and came
and stopped at the curb near the corner where the group
was stopped. In the car were two men whom deponent iden
tifies as Arthur Hanes, Chairman of the Birmingham City
Commission and Mayor and Jamie Moore, Police Chief of
the City of Birmingham. Chief of Police, Moore, got out of
the car and asked the group whether they had a permit to
picket. He was told that they did not. Thereupon, he di-
the arrest of deponent and the others in the group.
That he and those with him were merely seeking to
[fol. 119] peacefully picket in protest against the condi
tions of Negro life in Birmingham and that they were
prevented from so doing by their arrest by police officers of
the City of Birmingham.
Julius Minnifield
J ulius M innifield
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 18th day of April,
1963.
A gnes N. S tudemiee
N otaey P ublic
( S e a l )
82
I n th e C ircuit Court
Order F ixing D ate to H ear—April 15, 1963
The foregoing Motion and/or application of respondents
in the above entitled cause to dissolve the temporary in
junction or stay the execution thereof having been pre
sented to the Court and to the undersigned as Judge
thereof, that said Motion or Application be and the same is
hereby set for hearing on the 22nd day of April 1963, at
9 :30 O’Clock A. M., and that notice oFsuch hearing of said
Motion and/or application be served upon complainant
herein by delivering to their Solicitor at his office, a copy
of this Order and of the foregoing Motion and/or appli
cation.
D one th is 15th day of April, 1963.
W. A. Jenkins, Jr., Circuit Judge in Equity.
4/15/63
I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the fore
going Motion and Order on the Hon. J. M. Breckenridge,
City Atty.
This 15th day of April, 1963.
Arthur D. Shores, Soleitr.
Filed in Office April 15, 1963
I n th e Circuit Court
P etition for R ule N isi
To Any of the Honorable Judges of Said Court, in Equity
Sitting:
Comes the City of Birmingham, a municipal corporation
organized under and by virtue of the laws of the State of
Alabama, and avers as follows:
1. Petitioner is a municipal corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Alabama.
[fol. 120] 2. Eespondents Wyatt Tee Walker, Ealph
Abernarthy, James Bevels, Andrew Young,- F. L. Shuttles-
worth and Martin Luther King, Jr., are each nonresidents
of the State of Alabama. Wyatt Tee Walker, Ealph Aber
nathy, and Martin Luther King, Jr., reside in Atlanta,
Georgia. F. L. Shuttlesworth resides in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Andrew Young resides in Tennessee and James Bevels in
Mississippi. All of said respondents except Shuttlesworth
are presently temporarily staying at the A. G. Gaston
Motel at 1510 5th Avenue, North, Birmingham, Alabama.
F. L. Shuttlesworth is temporarily staying at 3164 29th
Avenue,- North, Birmingham, Alabama. Aberham Woods,
Jr., resides at 125 Kappa Avenue, South, Birmingham,
Alabama; Calvin Woods at 1240 3rd Street, North, Bir
mingham, Alabama; Johnny Louis Palmer at 237 South
8th Avenue, Birmingham, Alabama; J. W. Hayes at 1818
19th Street, Ensley; Ed Gardner at 6207 3rd Avenue,
North, Birmingham, Alabama; N. H. Smith,- Jr., at 1700
1st Street, South, Birmingham, Alabama; A. D. King at
712 12th Street, Ensley, Alabama; John Thomas Porter,
1531 6th Avenue, South, Birmingham, Alabama; and T.
L. Fisher, #10 16th Avenue, West,- Birmingham, Alabama.
3. On, to-wit: the 10th day of April, 1963, bill of com
plaint was filed by petitioner herein naming as parties
respondent, among others, each of the parties respondent
to this petition, with the exception of Ed Gardner, J. W.
Hayes, James Bevels, Andrew Young and T. L. Fisher.
Said cause is numbered 130-173.
4. On verified allegations and the affidavits of Captain
G. V. Evans and Captain George Wall order was entered
on the 10th day of April, 1963, at 9 o’clock P. M.,- issuing
the temporary injunction against all respondents named
in said bill of complaint (including among others, Alabama
Christian Movement for Human Eights) their agents, mem
84
bers, employees, servants, followers, attorneys, successors
and all other persons in active concerts or participation
with the respondents and all persons having notice of said
order from “engaging in, sponsoring, inciting, or encour
aging mass street parades or mass processions or like dem
onstrations without a permit, trespass on private property
after being warned to leave the premises by the owner or
person in possession of said private property, congregating
on the street or public places into mobs, and unlawfully
picketing business establishments or public buildings in
[fol. 121] the City of Birmingham, Jefferson County, State
of Alabama or performing acts calculated to cause breaches
of the peace in the City of Birmingham, Jefferson County,
in the State of Alabama or from conspiring to engage in
unlawful street parades, unlawful processions, unlawful
demonstrations, unlawful boycotts, unlawful trespasses,
and unlawful picketing or other like unlawful conduct or
from violating the ordinances of the City of Birmingham
and the Statutes of the State of Alabama or from doing any
acts designed to consummate conspiracies to engage in said
unlawful acts of parading, demonstrating, boycotting, tres
passing and picketing or other unlawful acts, or from en
gaging in acts and conduct customarily known as “kneel-
ins” in churches in violation of the wishes and desires of
said churches. Petitioner attaches hereto a true and cor
rect copy of said bill of complaint and said order marked
Exhibits A and B, respectively and hereby makes the same
a part hereof as if fully set out herein with leave of refer
ence.
5. The said Wvatt Tee Walker: Ralph Abernathy. E. L
Shuttlesworth, Martin Luther King, Jr. and A. T). King
^Aberham WooTTsTJr, and (jalvm W'ootts“were duly served
'wltF'writs of injunction issued pursuant to said order on"
to-wit: the night of April 10 or morning of April 11. 1963.
All matters ana things which are hereinafter alleged as
having been done by each of said respondents were done
or committed by each of said respondents, subsequent to
85
the service of said injunction upon each of them who were
specifically made parties and as to those respondents hereto
who were not made parties to said cause numbered 130-173,
the same were done and committed by them with knowledge
of the issuance of said injunction.
6. On the 11th day of April, 1963, at a press conference
to which representatives of the local and national"'press,
radio and television were invited the said respondents
Walker, Abernathy, Shuttlesworth and Martin Luther
King, Jr., issued a written news release at approximately
12 Noon on said date in which among other things they
stated: “We cannot in all good conscience obey such an
injunction,’’ referring to the writ of injunction Issued pur-
suant to the above mentioned order. A photostatic copy
of said news release is attached hereto and made a part
hereof as if fully set out herein, marked Exhibit “ C” . At
said time in addition to the written press release, the said
[fol. 122] King, Shuttleswmrth, Abernathy, and Walker
verbally stated that it was their intention to seek a dis
solution of said injunction but they did not intend to obey
the same and in substance stated that they would defy and
violate the injunction and continue their demonstrations
and activities or movement “ today, tomorrow, Saturday,
Sunday, Monday, and on through.” All of such statements
were cheered and approved by all of said respondents last
above named and others who were present on said occasion,
including respondent, A. D. King. At said press confer
ence announcement vrns made by one or more of said re
spondents hereto inviting all present to attend a rally or
meeting to be held on that night, April 11, at 6 P.M., at
Sixth Avenue Baptist Church.
7. Said meeting or rally as announced was held on
Thursday night, April 11, at the Negro Baptist church
above mentioned. Those present were asked to pay their
dues of $1.00 as members of Alabama Christian Movement
For Human Rights. Among other things said and done
at said meeting respondent Martin Luther King, Jr., made
P. K
86
/
a statement in substance that they were going to have a
parade, march, or procession at high noon on Good Friday,
April 12th, and that he would go to jail on that date and
further stated in substance that: “ Injunction or no injunc
tion, we’re going to march. Here in Birmingham we have
reached the point of no return and now authorities will
know that an injunction can’t stop us.” At said meeting
said respondent and others of said respondents solicited
volunteers to engage in said unlawful march or procession
upon the streets and sidewalks of the City of Birmingham
without a permit as required by City Ordinance and in
violation of said injunction. Respondents Abernathy,. Shut-
tlesworth and A. D. King also announced at said meeting
they would participate in such unlawful march or proces
sion and would go to jail. One or more of said respondents
openly boasted at said meeting that the injunction had been
violated that day, Thursday, April 11. Petitioner avers that
said meeting was in truth and fact a meeting of the Ala
bama Christian Movement for Human Rights and that simi
lar meetings were held by said organization on Friday and
Saturday nights, April 12th and April 13th, 1963, at dif
ferent Negro churches.
[fol. 123] 8. At said meeting on Friday night, April 12th,
respondent, James Bevels, spoke to the meeting in effect
belittling and bemeaning Commissioner of Public Safety,
Eugene Connor, and the Birmingham Police Department
and urging all Negroes to join in the “movement” . Re
spondent, Wyatt Tee Walker, called for volunteers to go
to jail and also made a call for about a dozen or two volun
teers willing to die for the cause.
9. At said meeting on Saturday night, April 13. respon
dent Wyatt Tee Walker, called for volunteers to engage
in an unlawful procession or march upon the sidewalks and
streets of Birmingham without a permit and in violation of
said injunction, on Easter Sunday. April 11th. 1963. Re
spondents. Ed Gardner. A. I>. King. Jr., Calvin Woods.
Abraham A .vets. Jr.. J. W. Hayes. Johnny Palmer and
87
Andrew Young participated in soliciting volunteers of all
ages, from the first grade up. Some of said respondents
at said time also called for volunteers to call other Negroes
to assemble as many Negroes as possible at the time of
said march or procession on Easter Sunday.
10. Said injunction has been defied and openly violated
by respondents hereto and others in conspiracy and concert
of action with them each day since the same was issued in
addition to those matters and things hereinabove alleged,
among other things as follows:
A. On April 11, 1963, at about 2 :30 P. M., a procession
or parade or illegal march was conducted on the streets
of Birmingham without a permit in which one or more of
those who participated were parties respondent to said
cause #130-173. On said date at 3:30 P. M., and at 3:55
P. M., respectively, two other processions or parades with-
out a permit were conducted upon the public streets of the
City of Birmingham.
I ( u b M i ,
B. April 12, 1963, in response to the solicitation made
at said meeting hereinabove alleged which was held on
April 11, 1963, an unlawful procession or march upon the
City Hall upon the streets and sidewalks of Birmingham,
Alabama, was conducted without a permit, in which approx
imately fifty Negroes were engaged. This procession was
led Tiy respondents, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Ralph
Abernathy. Respondent, Shuttlesworth, also participated
[fol. 124] therein. On said occasion a large mob of Negroes,
of approximately a thousand, was gathered around Zion
Hill Missionary Baptist Church, at 1414 6th Avenue, North,
Birmingham, Alabama, blocking the sidewalk; said mob
moved along the side, in front and behind those engaged in
said procession.
llu
< r z > -
C. On the 13th day of April, 1963, a group of, to-wit:
six Negroes trespassed upon the private property of At
lantic Mills Thrift Center, a large retail store at 1216 8th
Avenue, North, and were arrested upon complaint of the
88
manager or person in charge of said store for trespass
after warning. Said trespasses upon said private property
picketed or walked upon the private property owned or
leased by said store or its owner carrying picket signs
reading in substance, “ Birmingham Merchants Unfair” and
“ If Khrushchev can Eat Here, Why Can’t W e”, and of
similar nature. Said picketers, trespassers or most of them
attended said meeting held on April 13, hereinabove men
tioned.
D. On Easter Sunday afternoon, in response to the said
solicitations made at said meeting on Saturday night, April
13th, as hereinabove alleged and as a part of said con
spiracy and concert of action, an unruly mob of chanting,
dancing, hopping Negroes consisting of several thousand
assembled in and around Thurgood C.M.E. Church at 11th
Street and 7th Avenue,. North. An unlawful procession
consisting of several hundred Negroes formed at said
church and proceeded to parade or march upon the public
sidewalks and streets of the City of Birmingham without
a permit, unlawfully and in violation of City Ordinance
and in violation of said injunction. Said unruly mob fol
lowed along side, behind and in front of said procession
and persons forming a part of said mob threw rocks, brick
bats or other dangerous objects at members of the Police
Department of the City of Birmingham engaged in arrest
ing said members of said procession. A motor vehicle of
the Police Department was struck by a rock or brickbat
or other hard object and was seriously damaged. Mr.
James Ware, a newspaper photographer employed by
Birmingham Post-Herald was struck and injured by a rock
or other dangerous object. Other persons, including police
officers, were narrowly missed by said rocks or other dan
gerous objects which were thrown on said occasion. One
[fol. 125] officer of the said Police Department was injured
by one of said paraders or marchers resisting arrest in the
tense atmosphere created by said mob.
89
11. Petitioner avers that respondents A. D. King, N. H.
Smith, Jr., J. W. Hayes, John Thomas Porter, all of whom
were named respondents in said cause number 130-173, and
who had previously been served with said injunction par
ticipated in said procession, parade or march. Respondent
T. L. Fisher participated therein with knowledge of said
injunction.
12. Petitioner avers that the acts and things hereinabove
in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 alleged constitute an
open, flagrant, wilful, malicious, intentional violation of
said injunction and a flaunting of the due process of the
law and open defiance of this Court. Petitioner further
avers that the acts and conduct and statements of said
respondents, Wyatt Tee Walker and F. L. Shuttlesworth,
who are public information officer and president respec
tively of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human
Rights; Ed Gardner, who is vice president of said organiza
tion; Martin Luther King, Jr., president and Ralph Aber
nathy leader of Southern Christian Leadership Conference
and, in particular the press release and press statements
made as alleged hereinabove in paragraph 6 and those
statements made at said meeting April 11 as alleged in
paragraph 7, in substance and effect that said respondents
Shuttlesworth, Abernathy, Walker and Martin Luther
King would not recognize and would not obey said injunc
tion irrespective of whether same were dissolved or not and
would continue to commit the unlawful acts restrained and
prohibited by said injunction,, injunction or no injunction,
constitutes an open, defiant repeated and continuing day
by contempt of this court and contempt of said injunction,
and said contempt is continued and repeated each day until
said respondents shall publicly recant or retract same by
announcement by said respondents so recanting or retract
ing same with similar or equal press, radio and T.V. cov
erage as when said statements were made.
Wherefore, petitioners pray that this Court will cause
a rule nisi to be issued to the respondents, Wyatt Tee
90
Walker, Ralph Abernathy, F. L. Shuttlesworth, Martin
Luther King, Jr., A. D. King, Ed Gardner, Calvin Woods,
Aberham Woods, Jr., Andrew Young, Johnny Louis
[fol. 126] Palmer, J. W. Hayes, N. H. Smith, Jr., John
Thomas Porter, T. L. Fisher, James Bevels, John Doe and
Richard Roe, whose names are otherwise unknown and
who will be added as parties respondent, when ascertained,
separately and severally and that they and each of them
be required to appear before this Court on such date and
at such hour as may be set by the Court, then and there
to show cause, if any there be, why they and each of them
should not be adjudged and punished as for a contempt of
this Honorable Court; and further why each of said re
spondents, Wyatt Tee Walker, Ralph Abernathy, F. L.
Shuttlesworth and Martin Luther King, Jr., shall not con
tinue to be adjudged in contempt of this court and from
' time to time punished therefor unless they shall publicly
retract or recant the statements made publicly at press,
conferences and mass meeting on April 11, 1963, of their
intention to violate the injunction described in the fore
going petition, g
J. M. Breckenridge, Earl McBee, Solicitors for
Petitioner.
Duly sworn to by Jamie Moore and W. J. Haley, jurats
omitted in printing.
91
E xh ibit “ C” to P etition
N E W S from
A labama C hristian M ovement eob H u m an R ights
505% No. 17th Street
B ’ham, Ala.
[fol. 127]
F ob R elease 12:00 Noon, April 11, 1963
S tatement by M. L. K ing , J b ., F. L. S huttlesw orth ,
R alph D. A bernathy , et al . eob E ngaging in P eaceeul
D esegregation D emonstrations
In our struggle for freedom we have anchored our faith
and hope in the rightness of the Constitution and the moral
laws of the universe.
Again and again the Federal judiciary has made it clear
that the privileges guaranteed under the First and the
Fourteenth Amendments are too sacred to be trampled
upon by the machinery of state government and police
power. In the past we have abided by Federal injunctions
out of respect for the forthright and consistent leadership
that the Federal judiciary has given in establishing the
principle of integration as the law of the land.
However we are now confronted with recalcitrant forces
in the Deep South that will use the courts to perpetuate the
unjust and illegal system of racial separation.
Alabama has made clear its determination to defy the
law of the land. Most of its public officials, its legislative
body and many of its law enforcement agents have openly
defied the desegregation decision of the Supreme Court.
We would feel morally and legally responsible to obey the
injunction if the courts of Alabama applied equal justice to
all of its citizens. This would be
MORE MORE
sameness made legal. However the issuance of this injunc
tion is a blatant of difference made legal.
92
Southern law enforcement agencies have demonstrated
now and again that they will utilize the force of law to
misuse the judicial process.
This is raw tyranny under the guise of maintaining law
and order. We cannot in all good conscience obey such an
injunction which is an unjust, undemocratic and uncon
stitutional misuse of the legal process.
We do this not out of any desrespect for the law but out
of the highest respect for the law. This is not an attempt
[fol. 128] to evade or defy the law or engage in chaotic
anarchy. Just as in all good conscience we cannot obey
unjust laws, neither can we respect the unjust use of the
courts.
We believe in a system of law based on justice and moral
ity. Out of our great love for the Constitution of the U. S.
and our desire to purify the judicial system of the state
of Alabama, we risk this critical move with an awareness
of the possible consequences involved.
For Further Information—Phone 324-5944, wyatt
tee walker, Public Information Officer.
[fol. 141]
I n th e Circuit C ourt
Order and R ule to S h ow Cause and R eturns T hereon
This day came the Petitioner, City of Birmingham, a
municipal corporation, and filed herein a petition verified
by Jamie Moore and W. J. Haley praying for an order
upon Wyatt Tee Walker, Ralph Abernathy, A. D. King,
Ed Gardner, Calvin Woods, Aberham Woods, Jr., Andrew
Young, Johnny Louis Palmer, J. W. Hayes, N. H. Smith,
Jr., John Thomas Porter, T. L. Fisher, James Bevels,
F. L. Shuttlesworth, Martin Luther King, Jr., and respon
dents John Hoe and Richard Roe, whose names are other
wise unknown to petitioner but who will he correctly in
serted by amendment when ascertained, to show cause why
93
they, and each of them, should not be punished as for con
tempt of this Honorable Court; and further, why each of
said respondents Wyatt Tee Walker, Ralph Abernathy,
F. L. Shuttlesworth and Martin Luther King, Jr., shall
not continue to be adjudged in contempt of this Court and
from time to time punished therefor unless they shall
publicly retract or recant the statements made publicly at
press conferences and mass meeting on April 11, 1963, of
their intention to violate the injunction described in the
foregoing petition. A true and correct copy of said certi
fied petition is set out above and now upon consideration
of same, it is
Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed by the Court:
1. That Wyatt Tee Walker, Ralph Abernathy, A. D.
[fol. 142] King, Ed Gardner, Calvin Woods, Aberham
Woods, Jr., Andrew Young, Johnny Louis Palmer, J. W.
Hayes, N. H. Smith, Jr., John Thomas Porter, T. L. Fisher,
James Bevels, F. L. Shuttlesworth, Martin Luther King,
Jr., appear before the undersigned in his courtroom at the
Jefferson County Courthouse in the City of Birmingham
on the 22nd day of April, 1963, at 9 :30 o’clock A.M., then
and there to show cause, if any they have, why they and
each of them, should not be punished as for a contempt of
this Court and as to respondents Wyatt Tee Walker, Ralph
Abernathy, F. L. Shuttlesworth and Martin Luther King,
Jr. -̂ T-vyJĥ y nnt continue to ba adjudged in contempt
of this Court and from time to time punished therefor
unless they sliaH publicly retract or recant the statements
."made'puHiclT'al'Ty^s ^ n te r ences ana mass meeting on
April 11, 1963, of their intention to violate the injunction
described in the foregoing petition, for and on account of
the matters and things set^ouFTn the foregoing verified
petition.' ~ "
CD
tty
(2 +
Y-ecAx̂ L
2, That the Sheriff of Jefferson County be and he hereby
is directed forthwith to serve upon the said Wyatt Tee
Walker, Ralph Abernathy, A. D. King, Ed Gardner, Calvin
Woods, Aberham Woods, Jr., Andrew Young, Johnny Louis
94
Palmer, J. W. Hayes, N. H. Smith, Jr., John Thomas Por
ter, T. L. Fisher, James Bevels, F. L. Shuttlesworth, Martin
Luther King, Jr., and respondents John Doe and Richard
Roe, whose names are otherwise unknown to complainant
but who will be correctly inserted by amendment when
ascertained, a copy of this Order and the foregoing peti
tion and make due return thereof.
Done and Ordered, this the 15th day of April, 1963, at
5 P. M.
W. A. Jenkins, Jr., Circuit Judge in Equity Sitting.
Filed in Office April 15, 1963.
James Bevels Not Found in Jefferson County this Apr
19 1963.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By H. E. Moore, D. S.
Unable to serve at Gaston Motel. They say he has
not been there for 3 or 4 days.
[fol. 143] Executed this the Apr 16 1963 10:35 A. M. by
leaving a copy of the within with Ralph Abernathy.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By A. R. Bracewell, D. S.
Executed this the Apr 16 1963 12:35 P. M. by leaving a
copy of the within with Johnny Louis Palmer.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By A. R. Bracewell, D. S.
Executed this the Apr 16 1963 5:50 P. M. by leaving a
copy of the within with J. W. Hayes.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By J. L. Cochran, D. S.
95
Executed this the Apr 16 1963 10:35 A. M. by leaving a
copy of the within with A. D. King.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By A. R. Braeewell, D. S.
Executed this the Apr 16 1963 12:40 P. M. by leaving a
copy of the within with N. H. Smith, Jr.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By A. R. Braeewell, D. S.
Executed this the Apr 16 1963 3 :15 P. M. by leaving a
copy of the within with P. L. Shuttlesworth.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By Gf. F. Riddle, D. S.
Executed this the Apr 16 1963 10:35 A. M. by leaving a
copy of the within with T. L. Fisher.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By A. R. Braeewell, D. S.
Executed this the April 16th 1963 6 :31 PM by leaving a
copy of the within with Ed Gardner.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
ByG. T. Hollis, D. S.
Executed this the 4/17 1963 3:43 PM by leaving a copy
of the within with Andrew Young.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama.
[fol. 144] Executed this the Apr 16 1963 10:35 A. M. by
leaving a copy of the within with Martin Luther King, Jr.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By A. R. Braeewell, D. S.
96
Executed this the 4/16, 1963 5:30 P M by leaving a copy
of the within with John Thomas Porter.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By H. E. Moore, D. S.
Executed this the 4/17, 1963 3 :44 P M by leaving a copy
of the within with Wyatt Tee Walker.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By H. E. Moore, D. S.
Executed this the Apr 16 1963 12:30 P. M. by leaving a
copy of the within with Aberham Woods, Jr.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By A. E. Bracewell, D. S.
Executed this the 17 day of April, 1963 7 :20 AM by leav
ing a copy of the within with Calvin Woods.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By C. E. Walker, D. S.
[fol. 145]
I n the Circuit C ourt
A m endm ent to P etition E e : Contempt
Comes Petitioner, after leave of Court first had and
obtained, and amends the petition heretofore filed on to-wit:
April 15, 1963, as follows:
I.
By adding as parties respondent thereto the following:
1. Alabama Christian Movement for Human Eights, an
unincorporated association, of which F. L. Shuttlesworth is
president, Ed Gardner is vice-president, and Wyatt Tee
Walker is information officer.
97
2. Southern Christian Leadership Conference, of which
Martin Luther King, Jr., is president and Wyatt Tee
Walker, is information officer.
3. Ennis E. Knight, age 22, 2232 Carlos Avenue, S. W.,
Birmingham, Alabama.
4. Parnell Walker, alias Darnell Walker, age 27, 522
Alpha Street, South, Birmingham, Alabama.
5. Margaret Askew, age 39, 915 22nd Avenue, South,
Birmingham, Alabama.
6. John Germany, age 30, 540 53rd Street, Fairfield,
Alabama.
7. David Darnell Darling, age 24, 1011 B-6th Avenue,
South, Birmingham, Alabama.
8. Will Bush, age 59, 212 6th Street, Docena, Alabama.
9. Gertrude Grant, age 18, 102 Koosevelt Courtway,
S.W., Birmingham, Alabama.
10. Hattie Felder, age 34, 1532 Tombigbee Street,
Birmingham, Alabama.
11. Luella Givner, age 18, 432 Kappa Avenue, South,
Birmingham, Alabama.
12. Marie M. Pettaway, age 37, 320 2nd Terrace, North,
Birmingham, Alabama.
13. Lester Cobb, Jr., age 22, 37 Morris Avenue,
Birmingham, Alabama.
14. T. K. Nelson, age over 21, 1656 19th Street, S.W.,
Birmingham, Alabama.
15. Henry Crawford, age 37, 6415 Washington
Boulevard, Birmingham, Alabama.
[fol. 146] 16. Constance Louise Harris, age 32, 169 Apt.
J, 5th Avenue, S. W., Birmingham, Alabama.
98
17. Barbara Jeanette Lawson, age 23, 3343 31st Way,
North, Birmingham, Alabama.
18. Elizabeth Jones, age 47, 2617 18th Street, North,
Birmingham, Alabama.
19. Gertrude Thompson, age 24, 4615-G, 9th Avenue,
North, Birmingham, Alabama.
20. Jimmie Mae Clay, age 33, 2401 22nd Street, North,
Birmingham, Alabama.
21. Georgia Lou Thompson, age 31, 2115 Avenue 0,
Ensley, Birmingham, Alabama.
22. Ruthie M. Johnson, age 34, 205 16th Avenue, North,
Birmingham, Alabama.
23. Bernice Royster, age 40, New Castle, Alabama.
24. Fannie Meyers, age 28, 1035 Alice Street, North,
Birmingham, Alabama.
25. Rosie Lee Storrs, age 40, 717 23rd Street, South,
Birmingham, Alabama.
26. Boris Bogin, age 26, 457 Center Street, North,
Birmingham, Alabama.
27. Helen Crawford, age 47, 4231 29th Street, North,
Birmingham, Alabama.
28. Susie Wilson, age 43, 1021-B 12th Street, North,
Birmingham, Alabama.
29. Beatrice Norman, age 34, 1107 8th Court, North,
Birmingham, Alabama.
30. Hattie Pearl Pearson, age 36, 2601 18th Street,
North, Birmingham, Alabama.
31. Hattie A. Rush, age 23, 506 8th Avenue, North,
Birmingham, Alabama.
32. Samuel James Webster, age 17, Rt. 10, Box 1068,
Winona, Jefferson County, Alabama.
99
33. Cleveland Johnson, age 17, 3536 34th Court, North.
34. Booker Lowe, age 17, 703 New Hill Place, Winona,
Jefferson County, Alabama.
35. Nita Jean Powell, age 20, Box 572, Rt. 6, Jefferson
County, Alabama.
[fol. 147] 36. Shirley Moore, age, 20, 1513 Apt. F, 6th
Avenue, North, Birmingham, Alabama.
37. Mamie Smith, age 22, Box 95, Sayreton, Alabama.
38. Juliette Norris, age 18, 109 North 15th Court,
Birmingham, Alabama.
39. Jonathan Gray, age 30, 301 4th Terrace, North,
Birmingham, Alabama.
40. Richard Taylor, age 17, 1040 1st Street, North,
Birmingham, Alabama.
II.
By adding paragraph number 13 as follows:
13. A. Respondents Ennis E. Knight and Parnell
Walker, alias Darnell Walker, with knowledge of said in
junction and in violation thereof did participate in and were
a part of the unlawful procession upon the public sidewalks
or streets of the City of Birmingham as alleged in para
graph 10-B of this petition.
B. Respondents Lester Cobb, Jr., T. Iv. Nelson,
Margaret Askew, John Germany, David Darnell Darling,
Will Bush, Hattie Felder, Gertrude Grant, Luella Givner,
with knowledge of said injunction and in violation thereof
did participate in and were a part of the unlawful proces
sion upon the public streets of the City of Birmingham con
ducted on Easter Sunday afternoon, April 14, 1963, which
said unlawful procession is referred to and more particu
larly described in paragraph 10-D of this petition.
100
C. On April 17, /1963, sixteen of said respondents,
hereinafter named, with knowledge of said injunction and
in violation thd^g^i and in conspiracy with the Alabama
Christian Movement for Human Eights, and the officers,
leaders and members thereof, did engage in a procession or
parade upon the public streets or sidewalks of the City of
Birmingham unlawfully and without a permit. Said respon
dents gathered at Sixteenth Street Baptist Church at 16th
Street and 6th Avenue, North. Prior to the beginning of
said procession upon the public streets of the City of
Birmingham said respondents were informed by members
of the Police Department of the City of Birmingham that
said proposed procession or parade was unlawful unless a
permit had been procured therefor and further was in
violation of the injunction. Notwithstanding said prior
warning said respondents did wilfully and intentionally
violate said injunction by marching in said procession at
[fol. 148] said time and place aforesaid. Said respondents
are as follows: Henry Crawford, Constance Louise Harris,
Barbara Jeanette Lawson, Elizabeth Jones, Gertrude
Thompson, Jimmie Mae Clay, Georgia Lou Thompson,
Kuthie M. Johnson, Bernice Eoyster, Fannie Meyers, Rosie
Lee Storrs, Doris Bogin, Helen Crawford, Susie Wilson,
Beatrice Norman, and Hattie Pearl Pearson.
D. Respondent, Hattie A. Rush, did on the 17th day of
April, 1963, with knowledge of and in violation of said in
junction and in conspiracy with the Alabama Christian
Movement for Human Rights, and the officers, leaders and
members thereof, trespass after warning upon the private
property of Sears Roebuck and Company at 1531 2nd
Avenue, North, Birmingham, Alabama.
E. Respondents, Samuel James Webster, Cleveland
Johnson and Booker Lowe did on the 17th day of April,
1963, with knowledge of and in violation of said injunction
and in conspiracy with the Alabama Christian Movement
for Human Rights, and the officers, leaders and members
/ 'A
101
thereof, trespass after warning upon the private property
of Britts at 200 North 19th Street, Birmingham, Alabama.
F. Respondents, Nita Jean Powell, Shirley Moore,
Mamie Smith, Juliette Norris, Jonathan Gray and Richard
Taylor, did on the 17th day of April, 1963, with knowledge
of and in violation of said injunction and in conspiracy with
the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights, and
the officers, leaders and members thereof, trespass after
warning upon the private property of the Post House
Restaurant, Second Floor, 2121 Building at 22nd Street and
8th Avenue, North, Birmingham, Alabama, a restaurant
operated for tenants and employees of tenants of the 2121
Building; that said respondents were not tenants or em
ployees of tenants of said building.
III.
By amending the prayer: (a) by including therein the
additional respondents hereinabove named, including said
unincorporated associations and said individuals; (b) by
adding the following to said prayer: “ That this amendment
be allowed and that the order to show cause be amended so
as to incorporate or include said respondents therein and
that the original respondents, together with those added
by amendment be required to appear and show cause why
they should not be adjudged in contempt of this court on the
22nd day of April, 1963; that a guardian ad litem be ap
pointed to represent the minor respondents named as fol-
[fol. 149] lows: Gertrude Grant, Luella Givner, Samuel
James Webster, Cleveland Johnson, Booker Lowe, Nita
Jean Powell, Shirley Moore, Juliette Norris and Richard
Taylor; that the Sheriff be directed to serve same.
J. M. Breckenridge, Earl McBee, Solicitors for
Petitioner.
Duly sworn to by Jcrnie Moore and W. J. Haley, jurats
omitted in printing.
102
I n the C ircuit Court
Order R e A m endm ents to P etition , Order and R ule to
S how Ca u se ; Granting O rder for Guardian ad litem ,
etc .—April 19, 1963.
The above and foregoing verified amendment to petition
heretofore filed in this court on April 15, 1963, having been
presented to the Court for order allowing said amendment
and for amendment of the order and rule to show cause
and for the appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent
the minor respondents and for order directing service,
and the same having been considered, It Is Hereby Ordered,
Adjudged and Decreed by the Court:
1. Said amendment is hereby allowed.
2. Order and Rule to Show Cause of April 15, 1963, is
hereby amended to include said unincorporated associa
tions and said individuals named in the above and foregoing
amendment, requiring said unincorporated associations and
[fol. 150] said individuals to appear before the undersigned
on April 22, 1963, at 9:30 A.M., at the place designated
in said Order and Rule, then and there to show cause if
any they have why they and each of them should not be
punished as for a contempt of this Court.
3. That Arthur D. Shores is hereby appointed guardian
ad litem for and to represent the minor respondents herein
in this proceeding.
4. That the Sheriff of Jefferson County is hereby di
rected to forthwith serve upon Alabama Christian Move
ment for Human Rights, Southern Christian Leadership
Conference, Ennis E. Knight, Parnell Walker alias Darnell
Walker, Margaret Askew, John Germany, David Darnell
Darling, Will Bush, Gertrude Grant, Hattie Felder, Luella
Givner, Marie M. Pettaway, Lester Cobb, Jr., T. K. Nelson,
Henry Crawford, Constance Louise Harris, Barbara
Jeanette Lawson, Elizabeth Jones, Gertrude Thompson,
Jimmie Mae Clay, Georgia Lon Thompson, Ruthie M. John
103
son, Bernice Royster, Fannie Meyers, Rosie Lee Storrs,
Doris Bogin, Helen Crawford, Snsie Wilson, Beatrice Nor
man, Hattie Pearl Pearson, Hattie A. Rush, Samuel James
Webster, Cleveland Johnson, Booker Lowe, Nita Jean
Powell, Shirley Moore, Mamie Smith, Juliette Norris, Jona
than Gray and Richard Taylor, a copy of this Order, a copy
of the original petition filed in this Court on April 15, 1963,
a copy of the Order and Rule To Show Cause rendered
and issued on that date and a copy of this amendment and
make due return thereof.
Done and Ordered this 19th day of April, 1963.
W. A. Jenkins, Jr., Circuit Judge—In Equity Sitting.
1st the Circuit C ourt or th e T en th J udicial Circuit
of A labama— I n E quity
N o. 130-173
City of B irm in g h am , a municipal corporation of the
State of Alabama, Petitioner,
vs.
W yatt T ee W a l k e r ; R alph A b er n a th y ; A . D. K in g ; E d
Gardner ; Calvin W oods; A berham W oods, J r. ; A ndrew
Y o u n g ; J o h n n y L ouis P a l m e r ; J. W . H a y e s ; N. H.
S m it h , J r .; J ohn T homas P orter, T . L. F is h e r ; J ames
B evels ; F . L . S h u ttlesw orth , M artin L u th er K ing ,
J r ., J ohn D oe and R ichard R oe, w hose nam es are
otherw ise unknown and w ho w ill be added as parties
respondent, when ascertained.
104
[fol. 151]
P etition foe A djudication in Contempt
To Any of the Honorable Judges of Said Court, In Equity
Sitting:
Comes the City of Birmingham, a municipal corporation
organized under and by virtue of the laws of the State of
Alabama, and avers as follows:
1. Petitioner is a municipal corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Alabama.
2. Respondents Wyatt Tee Walker, Ralph Abernathy,
James Bevels, Andrew Young, F. L. Shuttlesworth and
Martin Luther King, Jr., are each nonresidents of the State
of Alabama. Wyatt Tee Walker, Ralph Abernathy, and
Martin Luther King, Jr., reside in Atlanta, Georgia. F. L.
Shuttlesworth resides in Cincinnati, Ohio. Andrew Young
resides in Tennessee and James Bevels in Mississippi. All
of said respondents except Shuttlesworth are presently
temporarily staying at the A. G. Gaston Motel at 1510 5th
Avenue, North, Birmingham, Alabama. F. L. Shuttlesworth
is temporarily staying at 3164 29th Avenue, North, Birming
ham, Alabama. Aberham Woods, Jr., resides at 125 Kappa
Avenue, South, Birmingham, Alabama; Calvin Woods at
1240 3rd Street, North, Birmingham, Alabama; Johnny
Louis Palmer at 237 South 8th Avenue, Birmingham, Ala
bama; J. W. Hayes at 1818 19th Street, Ensley; Ed Gard
ner at 6207 3rd Avenue, North, Birmingham, Alabama;
N. H. Smith, Jr., at 1700 1st Street, South, Birmingham,
Alabama; A. D. King at 712 12th Street, Ensley, Ala
bama; John Thomas Porter, 1531 6th Avenue, South,
Birmingham, Alabama; and T. L. Fisher, #10 16th Ave
nue, West, Birmingham, Alabama.
3. On, to-wit: the 10th day of April, 1963, bill of com
plaint was filed by petitioner herein naming as parties re
spondent, among others, each of the parties respondent to
this petition, with the exception of Ed Gardner, J. W.
105
Hayes, James Bevels, Andrew Young and T. L. Fisher.
Said cause is numbered 130-173.
4. On verified allegations and the affidavits of Captain
G. V. Evans and Captain George Wall order was entered
on the 10th day of April, 1963, at 9 o’clock P.M., issuing
the temporary injunction against all respondents named
in said bill of complaint (including among others, Alabama
Christian Movement for Human Rights) their agents, mem
bers, employees, servants, followers, attorneys, successors
and all other persons in active concerts or participation
with the respondents and all persons having notice of said
order from “engaging in, sponsoring, inciting, or encourag-
[fol. 152] ing mass street parades or mass processions or
like demonstrations without a permit, trespass on private
property after being warned to leave the premises by the
owner or person in possession of said private property,
congregating on the street or public places into mobs, and
unlawfully picketing business establishments or public
buildings in the City of Birmingham, Jefferson County,
State of Alabama or performing acts calculated to cause
breaches of the peace in the City of Birmingham, Jefferson
County, in the State of Alabama or from conspiring to
engage in unlawful street parades, unlawful processions,
unlawful demonstrations, unlawful boycotts, unlawful tres
passes, and unlawful picketing or other like unlawful con
duct or from violating the ordinances of the City of Bir
mingham and the Statutes of the State of Alabama or from
doing any acts designed to consummate conspiracies to en
gage in said unlawful acts of parading, demonstrating, boy
cotting, trespassing and picketing or other unlawful acts,
or from engaging in acts and conduct customarily known
as “kneel-ins” in churches in violation of the wishes and
desires of said churches. Petitioner attaches hereto a true
and correct copy of said bill of complaint and said order
marked Exhibits A and B, respectively and hereby makes
the same a part hereof as if fully set out herein with leave
of reference.
106
5. Tlie said Wyatt Tee Walker, Ralph Abernathy, F. L.
Shuttlesworth, Martin Luther King, Jr. and A. D. King,
Aberham Woods, Jr. and Calvin Woods were duly served
with writs of injunction issued pursuant to said order on,
to-wit: the night of April 10 or morning of April 11, 1963.
All matters and things which are hereinafter alleged as
having been done by each of said respondents were done
or committed by each of said respondents, subsequent to
the service of said injunction upon each of them who were
specifically made parties and as to those respondents
hereto who were not made parties to said cause numbered
130-173, the same were done and committed by them with
knowledge of the issuance of said injunction.
6. On the 11th day of April, 1963, at a press conference
to which representatives of the local and national press,
radio and television were invited the said respondents
Walker, Abernathy, Shuttlesworth and Martin Luther King,
Jr., issued a written news release at approximately 12
Noon on said date in which among other things they stated :
“We cannot in all good conscience obey such an injunction,”
[fol. 153] referring to the writ of injunction issued pur
suant to the above mentioned order. A photostatic copy
of said news release is attached hereto and made a part
hereof as if fully set out herein, marked Exhibit “ C” . At
said time in addition to the written press release, the said
King, Shuttlesworth, Abernathy, and Walker verbally
stated that it was their intention to seek a dissolution of
said injunction but they did not intend to obey the same
and in substance stated that they would defy and violate
the injunction and continue their demonstrations and ac
tivities or movement “ today, tomorrow, Saturday, Sunday,
Monday, and on through.” All of such statements were
cheered and approved by all of said respondents last above
named and others who were present on said occasion, in
cluding respondent, A. D. King. At said press conference
announcement was made by one or more of said respondents
hereto inviting all present to attend a rally or meeting to
be held on that night, April 11, at 6 P.M., at Sixth Avenue
Baptist Church.
107
7. Said meeting or rally as announced was held on
Thursday night, April 11, at the Negro Baptist church
above mentioned. Those present were asked to pay their
dues of $1.00 as members of Alabama Christian Movement
For Human Bights. Among other things said and done
at said meeting respondent Martin Luther King, Jr., made
a statement in substance that they were going to have a
parade, march, or procession at high noon on Good Friday,
April 12th, and that he would go to jail on that date and
further stated in substance that: “ Injunction or no injunc
tion, we’re going to march. Here in Birmingham we have
reached the point of no return and now authorities will
know that an injunction can’t stop us.” At said meeting
said respondent and others of said respondents solicited
volunteers to engage in said unlawful march or procession
upon the streets and sidewalks of the City of Birmingham
without a permit as required by City Ordinance and in
violation of said injunction. Respondents Abernathy,
Shuttlesworth and A. D. King also announced at said
meeting they would participate in such unlawful march or
procession and would go to jail. One or more of said re
spondents openly boasted at said meeting that the injunc
tion had been violated that day, Thursday, April 11. Peti
tioner avers that said meeting was in truth and fact a meet
ing of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights
and that similar meetings were held by said organization
on Friday and Saturday nights, April 12th and April 13th,
[fol. 154] 1963, at different Negro churches.
8. At said meeting on Friday night, April 12th, respon
dent, James Bevels, spoke to the meeting in effect belittling
and bemeaning Commissioner of Public Safety, Eugene
Connor, and the Birmingham Police Department and urg
ing all Negroes to join in the “movement” . Respondent,
Wyatt Tee Walker, called for volunteers to go to jail and
also made a call for about a dozen or two volunteers willing
to die for the cause.
108
9. At said meeting on Saturday night, April 13, respon
dent Wyatt Tee Walker, called for volunteers to engage
in an unlawful procession or march upon the sidewalks
and streets of Birmingham without a permit and in viola
tion of said injunction, on Easter Sunday, April 14th, 1963.
Respondents, Ed Gardner, A. D. King, Jr., Calvin Woods,
Abraham Woods, Jr., J. W. Hayes, Johnny Palmer and
Andrew Young participated in soliciting volunteers of all
ages, from the first grade up. Some of said respondents
at said time also called for volunteers to call other Negroes
to assemble as many Negroes as possible at the time of
said march or procession on Easter Sunday.
10. Said injunction has been defied and openly violated
by respondents hereto and others in conspiracy and con
cert of action with them each day since the same was issued
in addition to those matters and things hereinabove alleged,
among other things as follows:
A. On April 11, 1963, at about 2:30 P.M., a procession
or parade or illegal march was conducted on the streets of
Birmingham without a permit in which one or more of
those who participated were parties respondent to said
cause #130-173. On said date at 3:30 P.M., and at 3:55
P.M., respectively, two other processions or parades with
out a permi t were conducted upon the public streets of the
City oh'TJiilfH^ghairi.
B. April 12,. 1963, in response to the solicitation made
at said meeting hereinabove alleged which was held on
A p r i l !# 1963, an unlawful procession or march upon the
City Hall upon the streets and sidewalks of Birmingham,
Alabama, was conducted without a permit, in which ap
proximately fifty Negroes were engaged. This procession
was led by respondents, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Ralph
Abernathy. Respondent, Shuttlesworth, also participated
therein. On said occasion a large mob of Negroes, of ap
proximately a thousand, was gathered around Zion Hill
Missionary Baptist Church, at 1414 6th Avenue, North,
109
[fol. 155] Birmingham, Alabama, blocking the sidewalk;
said mob moved along the side, in front and behind those
engaged in said procession.
C. On the 13th day of April, 1963, a group of, to-wit:
six Negroes trespassed upon the private property of At
lantic Mills Thrift Center, a large retail store at 1216 8th
Avenue, North, and were arrested upon complaint of the
manager or person in charge of said store for trespass
after warning. Said trespassers upon said private prop
erty picketed or walked upon the private property owned
or leased by said store or its owner carrying picket signs
reading in substance, “Birmingham Merchants Unfair” and
“ If Khrushchev can Eat Here, Why Can’t We”, and of
similar nature. Said picketers, trespassers or most of them
attended said meeting held on April 13, hereinabove men
tioned.
D. On Easter S undav,afternoon, in response to the said
solicirations made aj>s€fd meeting on Saturday night, April
13th, a§~lmretBa5ove alleged and as a part of said conspir
acy and concert of action, an unruly mob of chanting, danc
ing, hopping Negroes consisting of several thousand
assembled in and around Thurgood C.M.E. Church at 11th
Street and 7th Avenue, North. An unlawful procession
consisting of several hundred Negroes formed at said
church and proceeded to parade or march upon the public
sidewalks and streets of the City of Birmingham without
a permit, unlawfully and in violation of City Ordinance and
in violation of said injunction. Said unruly mob followed
along side, behind and in front of said procession and per
sons forming a part of said mob threw rocks, brickbats or
other dangerous objects at members of the Police Depart
ment of the City of Birmingham engaged in arresting said
members of said procession. A motor vehicle of the Police
Department was struck by a rock or brickbat or other hard
object and was seriously damaged. Mr. James Ware, a
newspaper photographer employed by Birmingham Post-
110
Herald was struck and injured by a rock or other dangerous
object. Other persons, including police officers, were nar
rowly missed by said rocks or other dangerous objects
which were thrown on said occasion. One officer of the
said Police Department was injured by one of said paraders
or marchers resisting arrest in the tense atmosphere created
by said mob.
11. Petitioner avers that respondents A. D. King, N. H.
Smith, Jr., J. W. Hayes, John Thomas Porter, all of whom
were named respondents in said cause number 130-173, and
who had previously been served with said injunction par-
[fol. 156] ticipated in said procession, parade or march.
Respondent T. L. Fisher participated therein with knowl
edge of said injunction.
12. Petitioner avers that the acts and things hereinabove
in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 alleged constitute an
open, flagrant, wilful, malicious, intentional violation of
said injunction and a flaunting of the due process of the
law and open defiance of this Court. Petitioner further
avers that the acts and conduct and statements of said re
spondents, Wyatt Tee Walker and F. L. Shuttlesworth,
who are public information officer and president respec
tively of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human
Rights; Ed Gardner, who is vice president of said organi
zation; Martin Luther King, Jr., president and Ralph Aber
nathy leader of Southern Christian Leadership Conference
and, in particular the press release and press statements
made as alleged hereinabove in paragraph 6 and those
statements made at said meeting April 11 as alleged in
paragraph 7, in substance and effect that said respondents
Shuttlesworth, Abernathy, Walker and Martin Luther King
would not recognize and would not obey said injunction
irrespective of whether same were dissolved or not and
would continue to commit the unlawful acts restrained
and prohibited by said injunction, injunction or no injunc
tion, constitutes an open, defiant repeated and continuing
day by contempt of this court and contempt of said injunc
I l l
tion, and said contempt is continued and repeated each day
until said respondents shall publicly recant or retract same
by announcement by said respondents so recanting or re
tracting same with similar or equal press, radio and T. V.
coverage as when said statements were made.
Wherefore, petitioners pray that this Court will cause
a rule nisi to be issued to the respondents, Wyatt Tee
Walker, Ralph Abernathy, F. L. Shuttlesworth, Martin
Luther King, Jr., A. D. King, Ed Gardner, Calvin Woods,
Aberham Woods, Jr., Andrew Young, Johnny Louis Palmer,
J. W. Hayes, N. H. Smith, Jr., John Thomas Porter, T. L.
Fisher, James Bevels, John Doe and Richard Roe, whose
names are otherwise unknown and who will be added as
parties respondent, when ascertained, separately and sev
erally and that they and each of them be required to appear
before this Court on such date and at such hour as may
be set by the Court, then and there to show cause, if any
there be, why they and each of them should not be adjudged
[fol. 157] and punished as for a contempt of this Honorable
Court; and further why each of said respondents, Wyatt
Tee Walker, Ralph Abernathy, F. L. Shuttlesworth and
Martin Luther King, Jr., shall not continue to be adjudged
in contempt of this court and from time to time punished
therefor unless they shall publicly retract or recant the
statements made publicly at press conferences and mass
meeting on April 11, 1963, of their intention to violate the
injunction described in the foregoing petition.
J. M. Breckenridge, Earl McBee, Solicitors for Pe
titioner.
State of Alabama
Jefferson County
Personally appeared before me, the undersigned author
ity in and for said state and county, Jamie Moore and
W. J. Haley who, upon being by me first duly sworn, de
poses and says that they are Chief of Police and Inspector
of Police of City of Birmingham, respectively, and that
as such they are authorized to make this affidavit and that
112
they have read the above and foregoing petition and the
matters and things alleged therein are true and correct as
alleged.
Jamie Moore, W. J. Haley, Affiants.
Subscribed to and sworn to before me, this 15th day of
April, 1963.
Earl McBee, Notary Public, Jefferson County, Ala
bama.
[fol. 170]
I n th e C ircuit Court
Order and R ule to S how Cause and R eturns T hereon
This day came the Petitioner, City of Birmingham, a
municipal corporation, and filed herein a petition verified
by Jamie Moore and W. J. Haley praying for an order
upon Wyatt Tee Walker, Ralph Abernathy, A. D. King,
Ed Gardner, Calvin Woods, Andrew Young, Jr., Johnny
Louis Palmer, J. W. Hayes, N. H. Smith, Jr., John Thomas
Porter, T. L. Fisher, James Bevels, P. L. Shuttlesworth,
Martin Luther King, Jr., and respondents John Doe and
Richard Roe, whose names are otherwise unknown to peti
tioner but who will be correctly inserted by amendment
when ascertained, to show cause why they, and each of
[fol. 171] them, should not be punished as for contempt of
this Honorable Court; and further, why each of said re
spondents Wyatt Tee Walker, Ralph Abernathy, F. L.
Shuttlesworth and Martin Luther King, Jr., shall not con
tinue to be adjudged in contempt of this Court and from
time to time punished therefor unless they shall publicly
retract or recant the statements made publicly at press
conferences and mass meeting on April 11, 1963, of their
intention to violate the injunction described in the fore
going petition. A true and correct copy of said certified
petition is set out above and now upon consideration of
same, it is
113
Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed by the Court:
1. That Wyatt Tee Walker, Ralph Abernathy, A. D.
King, Ed Gardner, Calvin Woods, Aberham Woods, Jr.,
Andrew Young, Johnny Louis Palmer, J. W. Hayes, N. H.
Smith, Jr., John Thomas Porter, T. L. Fisher, James
Bevels, F. L. Shuttlesworth, Martin Luther King, Jr.,
appear before the undersigned in his courtroom at the
Jefferson County Courthouse in the City of Birmingham
on the 22 day of April, 1963, at 9 :30 o’clock, A.M., then
and there to show cause, if any they have, why they and
each of them, should not be punished as for a contempt of
this Court and as to respondents Wyatt Tee Walker, Ralph
Abernathy, F. L. Shuttlesworth and Martin Luther King,
Jr. why they shall not continue to be adjudged in contempt
of this Court and from time to time punished therefor un
less they shall publicly retract or recant the statements
made publicly at press conferences and mass meeting on
April 11, 1963, of their intention to violate the injunction
described in the foregoing petition, for and on account of
the matters and things set out in the foregoing verified
petition.
2. That the Sheriff of Jefferson County be and he hereby
is directed forthwith to serve upon the said Wyatt Tee
Walker, Ralph Abernathy, A. D. King, Ed Gardner, Calvin
Woods, Aberham Woods, Jr., Andrew Young, Johnny Louis
Palmer, J. W. Hayes, N. H. Smith, Jr., John Thomas Por
ter, T. L. Fisher, James Bevels, F. L. Shuttlesworth, Mar
tin Luther King, Jr., and respondents John Doe and Rich
ard Roe, whose names are otherwise unknown to com
plainant but who will be correctly inserted by amendment
when ascertained, a copy of this Order and the foregoing
petition and make due return thereof.
Done and Ordered, this the 15 day of April, 1963, at
...........M.
W. A. Jenkins, Jr., Circuit Judge in Equity, Sitting.
Filed in Office April 19, 1963.
114
[fol. 172] Executed this Apr 19 1963 4:05 pm by leaving
a copy of the within with Parnell Walker at Darnell.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By Reeves, D.S.
Executed this April 19 1963 7 :05 pm by leaving a copy of
the within with Lester Cobb, Jr.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By Reeves, D.S.
Executed this April 19 1963 4:10 pm by leaving a copy of
the within with Luella Ginner.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By Reeves, D.S.
Executed this the 19 day of April 1963 by leaving a copy
of the within with Will Bush.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By A. Z. Glaze, D.S.
Executed This April 19 1963 4 :20 pm by leaving a copy of
the within with Constance Louise Harris.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By Reeves, D.S.
Executed this April 19 1963 3 :45 pm by leaving a copy of
the within with Hattie Felder.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By G. T. Hollis, D. S.
Executed this Apr 19 1963 4 :25 pm by leaving a copy of the
within with Gertrude Grant.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By Reeves, D.S.
115
Executed this the 19 day of April, 1963, by leaving a copy
of the within with Bernice Royster.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By Harry Freeman, D.S.
Executed this Apr 19 1963 5 :10 pm by leaving a copy of the
within with T. K. Nelson.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By Reeves, D.S.
Executed this April 19 1963 1:00 pm City Jail by leaving
a copy of the within with Jonathan Gray.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By W. H. Hogan, D.S.
[fol. 173] Executed this April 19 1963 1:00 pm City Jail
by leaving a copy of the within with Nita Jean Powell.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By W. H. Hogan, D.S.
Executed this Apr 19 1963 3 :28 pm by leaving a copy of the
within with Elizabeth Jones.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By G. F. Riddle, D.S.
Executed this Apr 19 1963 1:00 pm City Jail by leaving a
copy of the within with Cleveland Johnson.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By W. H. Hogan, D.S.
Executed this Apr 19 1963 1:00 p.m. City Jail by leaving
a copy of the within with Hattie A. Rush.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By W. H. Hogan, D.S.
116
Executed this Apr 19 1963 by leaving a copy of the within
with Jimmie Mae Clay.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By G. F. Riddle, D.S.
Executed this Apr 19 1963 1:00 pm City Jail by leaving a
copy of the within with Martin Luther King, Jr., Pres.
Sou. Christian Leadership Conf.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By W. H. Hogan, D.S.
Executed this Apr 19 1963 1:00 p.m. City Jail by leaving a
copy of the within with Mamie Smith.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By W. H. Hogan, D.S.
Executed this Apr 19 1963 3 :58 pm by leaving a copy of
the within with Barbara Jeanette Lawson.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By G. F. Riddle, D.S.
Executed this Apr 19 1963 1:00 pm City Jail by leaving a
copy of the within with Booker Lowe.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By W. H. Hogan, D.S.
[fol. 174] Executed this Apr 19 1963 1 :00 pm City Jail by
leaving a copy of the within with Samuel James Webster.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By W. H. Hogan, D.S.
Executed this Apr 19 1963 4:11 PM by leaving a copy of
the within with Helen Crawford.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By G. F. Riddle, D.S.
117
Executed This Apr 19 1963 1:00 pm City Jail by leaving a
copy of the within with Shirley Moore.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By W. H. Hogan, D.S.
Executed this Apr 19 1963 3:26 PM by leaving a copy of
the within with Hattie Pearl Pearson.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By GK F. Biddle, D.S.
Executed this Apr 19 1963 5 :30 P.M. by leaving a copy of
the within with Susie Wilson.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By G. F. Riddle, D.S.
Executed this Apr 22 1963 1:30 p.m. by leaving a copy of
the within with Margaret Askew.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By A. R. Bracewell, D.S.
F. L. Shuttlesworth Not Found In Jefferson County Apr
22 1963.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By H. E. Moore, D.S.
Rosie Lee Storrs Not Found in Jefferson County this Apr
22 1963.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By H. E. Moore, D.S.
Executed this Apr 22 1963 12:45 P.M. by leaving a copy of
the within with David Darnell Darling.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By A. R. Bracewell, D.S.
118
Gertrude Thompson Not Found in Jefferson County this
Apr 221963.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By W. A. Adams, D.S.
[fol. 175] Executed this Apr 19 1963 3 :32 pm by leaving a
copy of the within with Arthur Shores atty.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By H. E. Moore, D.S.
Henry Crawford Not Found in Jefferson County this Apr
23 1963.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By W. A. Adams, D.S.
Beatrice Norman Not Found in Jefferson County Apr 23
1963.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By J. L. Cochran, D.S.
John Germany Not Found in Jefferson County Apr 23
1963.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By J. L. Cochran, D.S.
Richard Taylor Not Found in Jefferson County Apr 23
1963.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By J. L. Cochran, D.S.
Ruthie M. Johnson Not Found in Jefferson County this
Apr 23 1963.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By J. L. Cochran, D.S.
119
Executed this May 2 1963 by leaving a copy of the within
with Henry Crawford 12:30 PM.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By Walter Ward, D.S.
Executed this 5 :48 P.M. Apr 19, 1963, by leaving a copy of
the within with Georgia Lou Thompson.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By J. L. Cochran, D.S.
Executed this 3 :20 P.M. Apr 20 1963 by leaving a copy of
the within with Doris Bogin.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By J. L. Cochran, D.S.
Executed this April 20 1963 3 :54 p.m. by leaving a copy of
the within with Juliette Norris.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By J. L. Cochran, D.S.
[fol. 176] Executed this Apr 19 1963 6:17 P.M. by leaving
a copy of the within with Marie M. Pettaway.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By J. L. Cochran, D.S.
Executed this Apr 19 1963 6 :45 P.M. by leaving a copy of
the within with Fannie Meyers.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By J. L. Cochran, D.S.
Executed this Apr 20 1963 12:05 A.M. by leaving a copy of
the within with Ennis E. Knight.
Melvin Bailey, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Alabama,
By Reeves, D.S.
120
In th e Circuit Court
D emurrer of R espondents— Filed April 19,1963
Now Comes the respondents, Wyatt Tee Walker, et al.,
individually and as members of the Alabama Christian
Movement For Human Rights, Inc., and the Southern
Christian Leadership Conference, Inc., and demur to the
petition for peremptory or temporary injunction filed here
in, and to each and every paragraph thereof, and as grounds
of such demurrer sets down and assigns, separately and
severally, to each and every paragraph thereof, the follow
ing separate and several matters.
1. For that it affirmatively appears from the allegations
and averments of the petition that there is no equity in the
petition.
2. For that it affirmatively appears from the allegations
and averments of the petition that no jurisdiction for the
complaint was alleged.
3. For that it affirmatively appears from the allegations
and averments of said petition that an adequate remedy at
law exists for each and every act or injury complained of
in the said petition.
4. For that it affirmatively appears from the allegations
and averments of said petition that no irreparably injury
will be occasioned any person because of or arising out of
the acts complained of in the said petition.
5. For that it affirmatively appears from the allegations
and averments of said petition that the said petition con
tains no averments of any injuries occasioned by any person
by these respondents.
[fob 177] 6. For that it affirmatively appears from the
allegations and averments of said petition that the said
temporary injunction is an artifice to enjoin the doing of
criminal acts for which there is an adequate remedy at
law.
121
7. For that it affirmatively appears from the allegations
and averments of said petition that the purpose of the
injunction is to make criminal the exercise of rights guar
anteed to these respondents under the Constitution and
laws of the State of Alabama and of the United States of
America.
8. For that it affirmatively appears from the allegations
and averments of said petition that the effect of the in
junction would be to make criminal the exercise of rights
guaranteed these respondents under the Constitution and
laws of the State of Alabama and of the United States of
America.
9. For that it affirmatively appears from the allegations
and averments of said petition that the allegations of the
said petitioner are mere conclusions of the pleader.
10. For that under the provisions of the First and Four
teenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
of America, and the Constitution of the State of Alabama,
these respondents are entitled to the rights of freedom of
assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and
freedom of petition, each of which such rights is either
infringed upon or denied by the injunction heretofore is
sued herein.
11. For that it affirmatively appears from the allegations
and averments of said petition that the injunction hereto
fore issued herein causes or results in a denial to these
respondents of rights of equal protection of the laws and
due process of law guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amend
ment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
12. For that there is no specification of facts which give
rise to acts of boycotting and picketing being unlawful, such
averments being mere conclusions of the pleader.
13. For that it affirmatively appears from the allega
tions and averments of said petition that the phrase “ sit-in
demonstrations” and the phrase “kneel-in demonstrations”
122
have neither meaning nor definition in law or equity and
are not susceptible to interpretation other than in the mind
of the pleader.
[fol. 178] 14. For that it affirmatively appears from the
allegations and averments of said petition that the phrase
“mass street parades” or “mass processions” connotes a
constitutional demonstration, the right to which is assured
and guaranteed this respondent by the Constitution of the
State of Alabama and the First and Fourteenth Amend
ments to the Constitution of the United States of America.
15. For that it affirmatively appears from the allega
tions and averments of said petition that the remedy sought
in said petition would result in a court order perpetuating
customs and practices of racial segregation in violation of
the Constitution of the United States of America.
Orzell Billingsley, Jr., 1630 North 4th Avenue, Bir
mingham, Alabama;
Arthur D. Shores, 1527 North 5th Avenue, Birming
ham, Alabama;
Leroy D. Clark, Jack Greenberg, Norman C. A maker,
10 Columbus Circle, New York, New York;
Attorneys for Respondents.
Filed in Office April 19,1963.
I n th e Circuit C ourt
A nsw er—Filed April 19,1963
Now Comes Wyatt Tee Walker, et al., individually, and
as members of the Alabama Christian Movement for Hu
man Rights, Inc. and the Southern Christian Leadership
Conference, Inc., respondents, in the above styled cause,
and for answer to the Bill of Complaint heretofore filed in
said cause alleged as follows:
1. Respondents admit the allegations of paragraph 1 of
the Bill of Complaint.
123
2. Respondents admit the allegations of paragraph 2,
but deny that the Alabama Christian Movement for Hu
man Rights, Inc. or the Southern Christian Leadership Con
ference, Inc. are unincorporated organizations, said or
ganizations being duly incorporated under the laws of the
States of Alabama and Georgia, respectively.
3. Respondents deny the allegations of paragraph 3 of
the Bill of Complaint and aver that respondents have en
couraged and participated in :
[fol. 179] (a) Request for service in various stores.in the
City of Birmingham on a racially integrated-basis. Pro
prietors were required to refuse such services by Section
369 (1944) of the Birmingham City Ordinance which re
quires racial segregation contrary to the Fourteenth Amend
ment to the United States Constitution.
(b) Persons walking two_̂ hx£ast. in a quiet and orderly
fashion on public sidewalks observing all traffic regula
tions with prior notice given to police authorities with the
sole purpose of making a peaceful protest against racial
discrimination.
(c) Small groups of persons peacefully picketing state
enforced racial segregation in publicly andprivately owned
facilities by walking in an orderly manner upon the side
walks near the premises carrying signs appropriately de
scribing their grievances.
4. Respondents deny the allegations of paragraph 4—
(a), (b).
5. Respondents deny the allegations of paragraph 4 (c)
except that as regards allegations concerning the actions
of “ a mob” on April 7,1963 which is alleged to have gathered
when respondents conducted their orderly demonstrations,
respondents deny knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth or falsity thereof.
6. Respondents deny the allegations of paragraphs 5,
6, and 7.
124
7. Respondents deny the allegations of paragraph 8 and
aver that complainant has adequate remedy at law.
Orzell Billingsley, Jr., 1630 Fourth Avenue North,
Birmingham, Alabama;
Arthur D. Shores, 1527 Fifth Avenue North, Bir
mingham, Alabama;
Leroy D. Clark, Norman C. Amaker, Jack Green
berg, 10 Columbus Circle, New York 19, New York;
Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
Service will be made by mail on the Honorable J. M.
Breckenridge and Earl McBee on April 19, 1963.
Leroy D. Clark
Filed in Office April 19,1963.
[fol. 180]
I n th e Cibcuit Coubt
P lea in A batem ent—Filed April 22,1963
Come the Respondents, Alabama Christian Movement
for Human Rights and Southern Christian Leadership Con
ference in the above-entitled cause, appearing specially
and only for the purpose of filing this plea, and say that the
City of Birmingham, a Municipal Corporation of the State
of Alabama, Complainant in this cause, ought not to have
and maintain its action for the respondents say separately
and severally as follows to w it:
1. That the Alabama Christian Movement for Human
Rights is and at all times mentioned in the Bill of Com
plaint was a Corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Alabama, with its principal place of
business at Birmingham, Alabama; that it is not now and
at no time mentioned in the Bill of Complaint was an un
incorporated association.
125
2. That the Southern Christian Leadership Conference
is and at all times mentioned in the Bill of Complaint was
a Corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
State of Georgia with its principal place of business at At
lanta, Georgia; that it is not now and at no time men
tioned in the Bill of Complaint was an unincorporated as
sociation.
Wherefore respondents say that this suit should be abated
as to them and should not be allowed to proceed.
Arthur D. Shores, 1527 Fifth Avenue N., Birming
ham, Alabama.
Orzell Billingsley, Jr., 1630 Fourth Avenue N., Bir
mingham, Alabama.
Norman C. Amaker, Leroy D. Clark, Jack Green
berg, Constance Baker Motley, 10 Columbus Circle,
New York 19, N. Y.
Duly sworn to by Fred L. Shuttlesworth and Martin
Luther King, jurats omitted in printing.
[fol. 181]
I n the Circuit Court
M otion to D ischarge and V acate Order and R ule to
S how Cause—Filed April 22,1963
Now come the respondents, Wyatt Tee Walker, et al.,
individually and as members of the Alabama Christian
Movement for Human Rights Inc., and/or the Southern
Christian Leadership Conference, Inc., and move this Court
to discharge and vacate the order and rule to show cause,
if any they have, why they and each of them, should not be
punished as for a contempt of this Court entered herein on
April 15, 1963 together with the amendment thereto entered
herein on April 19, 1963 and as grounds therefor show the
following:
1. That the order and rule to show cause was improperly
and unlawfully issued herein because nowhere does it ap-
126
pear either in the original bill of complaint nor in the peti
tion for order and rule to show cause or amendment thereto
that the City of Birmingham was properly authorized to
bring this suit.
2. That the order and rule to show cause was issued upon
an insufficient petition.
[fol. 182] 3. That the order and rule to show cause and
amendment thereto was improvidently issued because re
spondents have not violated the terms of the injunction
previoT^yTssuM~'ln~Tlni~T!a'u'se oh ApriT 1X1,1963 Because
said injunction bv its terms prohibits these respondents
from inciting ii^ehcouf^ging others or conspiring to or
'engaging spec)lied,.tlu>rcni, whereas the
conduct of'resptmdents has beexdtawful conduct protected
by the First and Fourteenth i^mea,dm©n-te'''to the Constitu
tion of the United States, viz., the due process and equal
protection clauses thereof, and by Article 1, Section 25 of
the Alabama Constitution.
4. That the petition upon which the order and rule to
show cause was issued and the amendment thereto does not
affirmatively show that respondents have engaged in any
unlawful conduct but rather shows that respondents have
engaged in conduct protected by the First Amendment to
the Constitution of the United States, the due process and
equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the Constitution of the United States and by Article I, Sec
tion 25 of the Alabama Constitution.
5. That the order to show cause was improvidently and
unlawfully issued as to the Alabama Christian Movement
for Human Bights and the Southern Christian Leadership
Conference because they are improperly named in the bill
of complaint herein as unincorporated associations while
in fact they are corporations organized under the laws of
Alabama and Georgia respectively.
Arthur D. Shores, 1527 Fifth Avenue N., Birming
ham, Alabama.
127
Orzell Billingsley, Jr., 1630 Fourth Avenue N., Bir
mingham, Alabama.
Norman C. Amaker, Leroy D. Clark, Jack Green
berg, Constance Baker Motley, 10 Columbus Circle,
New York 19, N. Y.
Duly sworn to by Arthur D. Shores, jurat omitted in
printing.
[fol. 183]
I n the Circuit Court
M otion eor S everance— Filed April 22,1963
Come now respondents, and move this Court to sever and
try separately the charges of criminal contempt and the
charges of civil contempt brought on by complainant’s
prayer for a rule nisi herein and this Court’s order and
rule to show cause entered in response thereto. As reason,
therefor, respondents aver that in the trial of the issue of
criminal contempt they are entitled to protection secured
by the Constitution and Laws of the State of Alabama and
the Constitution and Laws of the United States not avail
able in the trial of a civil contempt, and that the trial of
civil and criminal contempt in a single hearing will deprive
respondents of these greater protections of law. More
over, the issues of law, in fact, in civil contempt are suffi
ciently different from those in criminal contempt, that to
try both together in a single hearing will so confuse the
record on the legal issues as to deny respondents protec
tion secured by the Constitution and Laws of the State of
Alabama and the Constitution and Laws of the United
States.
Arthur D. Shores, 1527 Fifth Avenue N., Birming
ham, Alabama;
Orzell Billingsley, Jr., 1630 Fourth Avenue N., Bir
mingham, Alabama;
128
Norman C. Amaker, Leroy D. Clark, Jack Green
berg, Constance Baker Motley, 10 Columbus Circle,
New York 19, New York;
Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
Filed in Open Court April 22,1963.
[fol. 184]
I n th e Circuit Court
A nsw er to P etition and A mended P etition for Order and
R ule to S how Cause— Filed April 22,1963
1. Respondents admit the allegations of paragraph 1.
2. Respondents admit the allegations of paragraph 2 ex
cept the allegations that Andrew Young resides in Tennes
see and F. L. Shuttlesworth is temporarily staying at 3164
29th Avenue, North, Birmingham, Alabama both of which
are denied.
3. Respondents admit the allegations of paragraph 3.
4. Respondents admit the allegations of paragraph 4.
5. Respondents deny the allegations of paragraph 5 and
demand strict proof thereof.
6. Respondents neither admit nor deny the allegations
of paragraph 6.
7. Respondents neither admit nor deny the allegations
of paragraph 7.
8. Respondents neither admit nor deny the allegations of
paragraph 8.
9. Respondents neither admit nor deny the allegations of
paragraph 9.
10. Respondents deny the allegations of paragraph 10
to the effect that they have defied and violated the injunc
tion herein and as to paragraphs 10A through 10D neither
(
129
admit nor deny the allegation therein and the amendments
to paragraph 10B and 10D contained in paragraph 13 of the X.
amended petition and demand proof of same.
11. Respondents neither admit nor deny the allegations
of paragraph 11.
12. Respondents deny the allegations of paragraph 12
and demand strict proof thereof.
13. Respondents neither admit nor deny the allegations
of paragraph 13 C of the amended petition, deny paragraphs
13D, 13E and 13F of the amended petition and demand
strict proof thereof.
14. As further answer to the petition and amended peti- 1 * I b
tion for order and rule to shpw~ea-use7A^spondents aver 1 | y u J
that they have only engaged (in lawfuf&o nduct protected |
by the due process and equam^rcrtgction clauses of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, the First Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States and Article I, Section 25 of the Alabama ,
Constitution, to wit:
a) Walking two abreast in orderly manner on the pub-
/ lie sidewalks^of 'Birmmghamobserving all traffic reg
ulations With""‘pnor notice having been given to city
officials in order to peacefully exnress their protest
~~ against' continuing racial discrimination in Birminff-
Haim
b) Peaceful picketing in small groups and in orderly
manner of publicly and privately owned facilities.
[fol. 185] c) Requesting service in privately owned
stores open to the general public in exercise of their
right to equal protection of the laws and due process
of law which are denied by Section 369 of the 1944 Gen
eral City Code of Birmingham.
Arthur D. Shores, 1527 Fifth Avenue N., Birming
ham, Alabama.
130
Orzell Billingsley, Jr., 1630 Fourth Avenue N., Bir
mingham, Alabama.
Norman C. Amaker, Leroy D. Clark, Jack Green
berg, Constance Baker Motley, 10 Columbus Circle,
New York 19, N. Y.
Duly sworn to by Arthur D. Shores, jurat omitted in
printing.
I n th e C ircuit C ourt
Commissioner ’s S tatem ent on A ppearance
Dominick, Fletcher, Taylor & Yeilding
Attorneys at Law
927-934 Brown-Marx Building
Birmingham 3, Alabama
Telephone Fairfax 2-0654
Frank Dominick
Walter Fletcher
George Peach Taylor
Newman Manly Yeilding, Jr.
J. M. Gillespy (1890-1955)
April 22,1963
Judge W. A. Jenkins, Jr.
Jefferson County Courthouse
Birmingham, Alabama
Re: City of Birmingham
vs.
Wyatt Tee Walker, et al.
Case No. 130-173
[t'ol. 186] Dear Judge Jenkins:
As Bar Commissioner of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, I
have been requested by Jack Greenberg, Constance Baker
Motley, Leroy David Clark, and Norman Carey Amaker
131
to permit their appearance in the above matter as counsel
for Respondents. Their request has been accompanied by
Certificates of Admission to practice in the courts of New
York and personal endorsements by members of the Bar
of New York and of Alabama.
The documents appear to be in order. Therefore, I, as
Commissioner of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, certify that
the above named attorneys have complied with the rules
of the Alabama State Bar, and, if you see fit to allow their
participation in your Court, may appear in the above mat
ter.
Yours very truly,
Geo. Peach Taylor
George Peach Taylor
GPT :st
Filed in Office April 23,1963.
I n the Circuit Court
A mended A nswer to B ill oe Complaint—
Filed April 24,1963
Comes now respondents, Wyatt Tee Walker, et al., and
with leave of court first had and obtained, amends the
answer previously filed herein by adding the verification
which was inadvertently omitted.
State of Alabama)
Jefferson County)
Before me personally appeared Arthur D. Shores, who
after being first duly sworn deposes and says, that he is
one of the attorneys for respondents in the above-styled
cause and that the matters and the things alleged in the
foregoing answer are true and correct as averred to the
best of his knowledge, information and belief.
Arthur D. Shores
132
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 21st day
April, 1963.
Agnes N. Studemire
of
Filed in Open Court April 24,1963.
[fol. 187]
I n th e Cikcuit Court
A mended A nswer— Filed April 24,1963
Now come the Respondents, in the above styled cause
and amend their Answer to the Bill of Complaint and the
Amendment thereto by adopting each and every allegation
of the Answer of Respondents heretofore filed for the Re
spondents added to the Amended Complaint, and by adding
thereto the following affirmative defenses:
First Affirmative Defense
8. Respondents further allege that all of the activities
and conduct of the Respondents within the State of Ala
bama, City of Birmingham, were lawful and peaceful, and
that the purpose, intent and effect of the petition for an
injunction is to prevent and’"dTscourage the Respondents
and other's similarly situated, from exercising rightsnnrar-
ante.p.d to them under the Constitution of Alabama, and
the United States ConstitutionftEeefforts on the part of
the Petitioner and public officials of the State of Alabama
and the City of Birmingham, to deprive residents of said
City and State of rights guaranteed to them under the
Constitutions of the State of Alabama and of the United
States, is in violation of the rights of Respondents under
the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Con
stitution of the United States and Article 1, Sections 2, 4,
and 6 of the Constitution of the State of Alabama, and
particularly those provisions of said Constitutions which
guarantee the right of free speech, press and assembly;
right to petition and equal protection of the law.
133
9. Respondents allege that the City of Birmingham, act
ing through two City Governments, has upon information
and belief adopted and seeks to enforce a public policy
which requires separation of the white and Negro races and
the segregation of its Negro citizens, in virtually all aspects
of life, both public and private, within the State of Ala
bama.
10. Pursuant to such policy, the City of Birmingham,
acting through two City Governments has among other
things:
(a) Maintained a system of segregation in its public
schools on primary and secondary levels so that, uponTh-
formation and belief, there are, in the City of Birmingham,
no Negro children who attend public schools together with
white children; furthermore, there are no Negro teachers
or administrators employed in any of the public schools
in the City of Birmingham which white children attend.
[fol. 188] (b) Maintained a system of segregation in its
civil service so that, upon information and belief, there are
only a very few Negroes, if any, employed by the City of
Birmingham in positions other than in menial and unskilled
positions; accordingly, there are no Negroes employed as
City police officers, tax officials, as lawyers, as court officials,
as officials in the public health or public works department
or any other department in the City of Birmingham, except
in the performance of maintenance, janitorial or similar
duties.
(c) Maintained a system of segregation in the admin
istration of justice and all of the Respondents herein will
eventually face trials in the Circuit Court of Jefferson
County, Alabama, where Negroes are systematically ex
cluded from the service on grand or petit juries in the
Circuit Courts of said County.
11. In order to make the continued maintenance of this
public policy of enforced segregation possible:
.0
(a) The elected and appointed officials of the City of
Birmingham, Alabama, have utilized their official positions
and their power and influence to encourage and adopt vari
ous measures to enforce similar patterns of segregation
in all levels of government.
(b) The said City officials have utilized the police power
to prevent Negroes from asserting their rights under the
First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of
the United States and Article 1, Sections 2, 4 and 6 of the
Constitution of the State of Alabama by ordering the ar
rest and detention of Negroes who insist on the exercise
of said rights and of white persons who cooperate with
and assist said Negroes in the exercise of such rights.
12. The aforesaid public policy of segregation of Negroes
and discrimination against them in all phases of public life
is contrary to the Constitution of the United States and is
further contrary to the basic inherent rights of such persons;
the purpose of the maintenance of such policy is to maintain
an unlawful and immoral domination over Negroes by the
members of the white race in the City of Birmingham,
Alabama.
13. Upon information and belief, the instant petition was
filed at the request and/or command of one Eugene “ Bull”
Connor, in accordance with the policy of the City of Bir
mingham, Alabama, in enforcing the aforesaid illegal and
immoral pattern of segregation. The City officials of Bir-
[fol. 189] mingham, Alabama, or one Eugene “Bull” Con
nor, brought this action to interfere with Negroes and
whites in the exercise of their lawful right to protest
against the aforesaid illegal and immoral system of seg
regation.
14. By reason of B^e^rfm^aia^tnetitioner comes into
this proceeding with? unclean h anils) and under circum
stances which as a master of law^rfd equity require judg
ment dismissing the pemies-hefein and vacating the tem
porary injunction heretofore entered.
135
Wherefore, the Respondents request that the petition
is dismissed.
Arthur D. Shores, 1527 Fifth Avenue, North, Bir
mingham, Alabama;
Orzell Billingsley, Jr., 1630 Fourth Avenue, North,
Birmingham, Alabama;
Leroy D. Clark, Norman Amaker, Jack Greenberg,
Constance Baker Motley,
Attorneys for Respondents.
Duly sworn to by Arthur D. Shores, jurat omitted in
printing.
[fol. 190]
I n the Ciecuit Court
M otion to E xclude T estimony A gainst A ll R espondents
—Filed April 24,1963
Come now the respondents, by their undersigned attor
neys, and move the court for an order excluding all of the
testimony introduced by complainants, against respondents,
and as grounds therefor show the following:
1. The testimony introduced as to each and every re
spondent fails to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that
any of these respondents, or all of them, knowingly and
wilfully violated the injunctive order of this court of April
10,1963.
2. The testimony as to each and every respondent fails
to show that any respondent, or all of them, knowingly or
wilfully violated any lawful injunctive order of this court.
3. The testimony failed to establish that the commence
ment of the instant action was duly authorized, by reso
lution of the Board of City Commissioners, of the City of
Birmingham.
136
4. The testimony, as to each and every respondent, fails
to show that any respondent, or all of them, engaged in any
unlawful activity or violated any ordinance of the City of
Birmingham, or statute of the State of Alabama.
5. The testimony fails to establish that any of the re
spondents, or all of them, engaged in any mass street
parades, or mass processions or like demonstrations, with
out a permit, trespassed on private property, after being
warned to leave the premises by the owner or person in
possession of said private property, or engaged in con
gregating on the street or public places into mobs, or un
lawfully picketing business establishments or public build
ings in the City of Birmingham, Jefferson County, Ala
bama, or performing any acts calculated to cause breaches
of the peace in the City of Birmingham, or conspiring to
engage in unlawful street parades, unlawful processions,
unlawful demonstrations, unlawful boycotts, unlawful tres
passes, and unlawful picketing or like unlawful conduct or
doing any acts designed to consummate conspiracies to en
gage in said unlawful acts of parading, demonstrating,
boycotting, trespassing and picketing or other unlawful
acts, or from engaging in acts and conduct customarily
known as “kneel-ins” in churches, in violation of the wishes
and desires of said churches.
6. There is no evidence showing why the respondents, or
any of them, should be punished for contempt of this court’s
[fol. 191] injunctive order, of April 10, 1963, or why the
respondents, or any of them, should publicly retract or re
cant the statements made publicly at press conferences and
mass meetings on April 11,1963.
7. There is no evidence showing that respondents, or any
of them, wilfully or knowingly violated any of the terms of
this court’s injunctive order of April 10, 1963.
8. There is no evidence showing that respondents, R. L.
Fisher, James Bevel, N. H. Smith or J. W. Hayes were
served with copies of this court’s injunctive order of April
137
10, 1963, prior to their arrest and imprisonment on April
12, nor April 14,1963.
9. There is no evidence showing that respondent, Bevel,
was served with a copy of this court’s order to show cause
why he should not be held in contempt.
10. There is no showing that respondent, Andrew Young,
was served with a copy of this court’s injunctive order.
11. The evidence introduced by complaint shows that the
respondents, who engaged in certain activity, engaged only
in activity protected by the First Amendment and by the
due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States.
12. The evidence shows that respondents were arbitrarily
unlawfully and unconstitutionally denied a permit to parade
and demonstrate, and picket against racial segregation,
in a peaceful manner, on the streets of the City of Birming
ham, Alabama, in violation of rights secured to respon
dents by the due process and equal protection clauses of
the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States.
Arthur D. Shores, Attorney for Respondents.
Filed in Open Court April 24,1963.
[fol. 194]
I n th e Circuit C ourt of the
T e n th J udicial Circuit of A labama
In E quity
Case No. 130-123
138
City of B ir m in g h am , a M u n icipal C orporation of the
S tate of A labama, Complainant,
vs.
W yatt T ee W alker , et al., Respondents.
Transcript of Testimony
A ppearances
Messrs. J. M. Breckenridge and Earl McBee, City At
torneys, City Hall, Birmingham, Alabama, for the Com
plainant.
Messrs. Arthur Shores and Orzell Billingsley, Attorneys
at Law, Birmingham, Alabama;
Messrs. Norman C. Amaker, Jack Greenberg, and Leroy
Clark; and Mrs. Constance Baker Motley, Attorneys at
Law, New York, New York, for the Respondents.
Reported by Jimmie Crumley, Ramon A. Crockett,
Marron A. Spinks.
Colloquy B etween Court and Counsel
(Whereupon at 9 :35 A.M. counsel were introduced to the
court and recognized by the Court.)
The Court: This case comes before the court today on a
citation for contempt and on a Motion to Dissolve an in
junction which had previously been issued in the case.
139
The Motion to Dissolve the injunction was filed first,
[fol. 195] However, since the Contempt Citation was filed
on the same day and the Court considers it necessary to
IjCQ)J/̂ ake up in that order the Contempt Citation first before
' ^ e Court will consider the question in a Motion to Dis-
'jf solve.
Mr. Shores: Your Honor, we would like to move that the
Motion to Dissolve be placed ahead because as a matter of
w filing first and as a matter of logic. If the Motion to Dis
solve were sustained then there would be no need for a
hearing on the Contempt Citation, and for that reason we
would like to respectfully move the Motion to Dissolve and
Vacate be heard first.
■ _ The_Cotjxi: The Court takes the position the Order that
it issued in the case, even if such order should be an invalid
order, is subject to the authority which the Court has, and
any violation of that particular order, whether it is valid,
should be ruled upon previous to any Motion to Dissolve.
The question before the Court is one of the Court’s author
ity. Your Motion will be overruled.
Mr. Shores: Your Honor, we would like to reserve an
exception.
Your Honor, as our first pleading we would like to file
a Plea in Abatement with respect to two of the respon
dents in the matter of the names.
The Court: I have in here an answer Avhich has been
filed and also a demurrer of the respondents which has been
filed, and also a Motion of the respondents to Dissolve the
injunction. It is the opinion of the Court the Plea in Abate
ment has been waived.
Mr. Shores: We except, Your Honor.
Now, Your Honor, we would like to file a Motion to Dis
charge and Vacate the order and ruling to show cause. If
Your Honor please, we would like to call witnesses on this
Motion if Your Honor is ready.
The Court: This Motion goes to the question of whether
or not the Court improperly or unlawfully issued the order.
As I stated previously, the Court takes the position that
140
the order that was issued was issued with the authority of
the Court and it should be properly approached by a mo
tion or some other legal procedure so that the Court can
[fol. 196] determine whether or not it has properly issued
the order. The question here before us is the question of a
contempt of an order and the Court intends to handle the
matter in that particular light.
Mr. Shores: Your Honor, this goes to the question of
jurisdiction, whether or not the Court has jurisdiction to ^ j
begin with.
The Court: The only question I can see about the juris- ^ ^ '
diction of the Court is whether the Court is an equity court 0 0
"and"whether or noTthese. .nax.H<^^ •
~serv'ed andwere notified of this injunction, A vlie tn o r they A
territory that this court embodies; (£> ^ )
f f ir m F w 'e s t io n is whether"tEey~got noticelm T lben
whether or not the injunction that was issueiTwas issued /£ )
by a judge who had the_ equity authority to issue an injunc
tion, and then whether ornot ifafey .Knowingly violated this
injunction. Your motion will be overruled.
Mr. Shores: We except, Your Honor.
Your Honor, the last motion is one for severance. The
way we read the citation it appears that the respondents
are to be tried for both civil and criminal contempt, and
if that is the thrust of the notice we want to tile this Motion
for Severance in order they be tried for one at a time be
cause there are certain safeguards that would apply to
criminal contempt that would not apply to civil contempt.
The Court: I notice this has a place for the signature of
Orzell Billingsley, Jr. AVill he be in the trial of this case
also?
Mr. Shores: He will be in the trial also.
The Court: As far as the Motion for Severance is con
cerned, I think thejmthoritv of the United States versus
* United Mine Workers and Lewis are the authority for the
trial of these cases jointly. Overrule the motion.
Mr. Shores: AVe would like to reserve an exception.
141
Now, we would like to file an answer to the petition and
Order to Show Cause.
The Court: Are you directing your answer to both cita
tions?
[fob 197] Mr. Shores: Just the Petition to Show Cause.
This isn’t an answer to the complaint.
The Court: I know, but we have two. We have an
amended petition as well.
Mr. Shores: It is to the petition and the petition as
amended.
The Court: This Court takes the position that those
respondents as brought in under the amended petition
which sets up another set of circumstances'and'"facts'should
be continued to be heard at a later date. The Court has
continued tie charges as raised by the amended petition
and those respondents as charged therein for two weeks.
It will be continued until May 6th at 9:30.
Now, I will read the names of those that are included
within that amended petition and state of course that you
are released as far as this trial here today is concerned
and your matter is continued for two weeks. Of course, the
first two, the Alabama Christian Movement for Human
Rights and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference
are parties to this original.
Mr. McBee: No, Judge, they are not.
The Court: Then those two would be released until that
time. As I understand, none of these are parties to the
original contempt citation, is that correct? I want to be
sure.
Mr. McBee: Are you referring now to the original bill?
The Court: No, I am not referring to the original bill,
I am referring to the original Contempt Citation.
Mr. McBee: Those that are listed on the amendment to
the petition, Roman numeral number one, those listed were
not included by name in the original Contempt Citation,
which I believe was issued on the 15th of April.
The Court: Ennis E. Knight, Parnell Walker, Margaret
Askew, John Germany, David Darnell Darling, Will Bush,
142
Gertrude Grant, Hattie Felder, Luella Givner, Marie M.
Pettaway, Lester Cobb, Jr., T. K. Nelson, Henry Crawford,
Constance Louise Harris, Barbara Jeannette Lawson,
Elizabeth Jones, Gertrude Thompson, Jimmie Mae Clay,
Georgia Lou Thompson, Ruthie M. Johnson, Bernice Roy-
[fol. 198] ster, Fannie Meyers, Rosie Lee Storrs, Doris
Bogin, Helen Crawford, Susie Wilson, Beatrice Norman,
Hattie Pearl Pearson, Hattie A. Rush, Samuel James Web
ster, Cleveland Johnson, Booker Lowe, Nita Jean Powell,
Shirley Moore, Mamie Smith, Juliette Norris, Jonathan
Gray, Richard Taylor.
The cases as to those particular respondents that I have
called has been continued until May 6th.
Mr. McBee: Your Honor, will they stand on the same
petition unless we see fit to amend further?
The Court: They stand on the same petition without
further order.
Mr. Shores: Your Honor, since we feel jurisdiction is
fundamental tolhis'caseTwe would like to respectfu lly^
"quest a continuance to give us a right to pursue out a Writ
of* Prohibition and let them all be continued until May 6th.
Mr. MoP>ee: We would certainly oppose that.
The Court: The request is denied.
Mr. Shores: We except.
The Court: If any of those parties that I have named
that I have continued their case until May 6th, if any of
you care to leave at this time, you can do so. I don’t want
to interrupt the proceedings with any of you leaving, but
any of those that I have called that want to leave at this
time may go.
The issues as raised by the original Citation and those
respondents named therein and the answer which has been
filed as to the Citation create the issues that we are ready
to try at this time.
Mr. McBee: May I ask this, Your Honor? There seems
to be a little doubt with reference to the answer. I find
nowhere a statement or a reference to which respondents
are being represented. Are we to assume that by the use
143
of the word ‘ respondents” in the body of this answer that
all respondents are being included in the answer filed on
their behalf?
Mr. Shores: That is correct.
[fol. 199] Mr. McBee: Is that correct?
Mr. Shores: That is correct.
Mr. McBee: That would include, as I understand it, just
for our own further information as we go along, that would
include the respondents who were named to the petition as
amended but whose case is not being tried at this time?
Mr. Shores: That’s right.
Mr. Breckenridge: To clarify that situation as it stands
now, unless the answer is amended, the Petition on May
6th would be on this answer for the respondents who were
dismissed; is that correct?
The Court: That is correct.
Mr. Shores: Your Honor, is the point clear as to whether
or not the City could bring this action?
The Court: Well, the Court takes the position that the
City has a right to bring a suit in this court and this Court
has the authority to issue an injunction, and the onlv ques
tion this Court has before it is the question or whether or'
not these respondents havebeen served with notice of the
injunction and whether or not they have knowingly violated
'"IT. ~ ' .. ...............
Lr. Shores: Your Honor, the City would have no right
to bring a suit if there were no case of controversy and
whether or not they were properly authorized.
The Court: If that be the” case then the respondents
should have sought an orderly process of this court to at
tack the authority of the City in bringing such a case,
otherwise, the Court considers it the prima facie right of
any individual or corporate body to bring such an action.
Mr. Shores: And we would seek that by filing a Motion
to Dismiss.
The Court: The Motion to Dismiss as filed has been con-
tljmed_ and the Court stated in its original statement that
until the Contenppt Citation is out of the way the Court
144
would not consider the Motion to Dissolve. It is a ques
tion of the authority of this Court and I must say we are
[fol. 200] all lawyers acting in response to the authority
of a court of law. The only question I can see is whether
or not there has been any knowing willful violation of a
lawful order of the Court.
Mr. Shores: Your Honor, then you rule, despite the show
ing there is nothing in the record which shows the parties
purporting to invoke the authority and jurisdiction of this
Court has been established, then your ruling is, notwith
standing that fact that there is nothing in the record, that
the Court has jurisdiction to proceed with the Citation for
Contempt?
The Court: That is correct. The Court passed upon the
right of the bill as filed and issued its injunction upon that
sworn bill. That may be attacked at some other time, but
as far as this Court is concerned, the authority of the Court
in issuance of its injunction and whether or not that has
been violated is the only issue that I have before me now.
Mr. Shores: We would like to respectfully except to
Your Honor’s ruling.
The Court: Who will the City have?
Mr. Breckenridge: Your Honor, could I ask that Mr.
Hodges be placed on call, the City Clerk of the City of
Birmingham, who could be over here in just a few minutes?
The Court: Does anyone want the rule invoked as far
as witnesses are concerned?
Mr. Shores: We would like to have the rule invoked.
The Court: The City is entitled to one representative in
the court room and the other witnesses will be under the
rule.
(Buie invoked.)
[fol. 201] Mr. McBee: May it please the Court, we want
to ask one question; we will ask whether or not Commis
sioner Connor has been subpoenaed and if he has, he hasn’t
received any subpoena, and, of course, we understand the
rule has been requested, and we want some directions on
that.
145
The Court: Did you subpoena him?
Mr. Shores: Yes, we subpoenaed biin.
The Court: I would like for him to be on call so far as
this case is concerned. I wouldn’t like to delay the matter.
Mr. Breckenridge: He has stayed in the courtroom, and
we ask permission for him to stay in the courtroom if he is
a witness. So far as I know, he is not a witness.
Mr. Shores: We plan to call him as a witness, and I would
like to have him excused under the rule—like to have him
under the rule.
The Court: All right, Mr. Connor, I will have to ask you,
if you will, to step out of the room.
Mr. Connor: Your Honor, will you put me on call?
The Court: You will be on call.
M e . W. J. H aley, called as a witness, being duly sworn,
was examined and testified as follows:
Direct examination.
By Mr. McBee :
Q. State your name, please ?
A. W. J. Haley.
Q. And what is your official job or position?
A. Chief Inspector for the Birmingham Police Depart
ment.
Q. In your position as inspector of Police of the City of
Birmingham, I will ask you whether or not your position
is second in rank to that of the Police Chief?
A. It is.
Q. Were you present at an occasion on the 12th day of
April of 1963, which I believe it is identified to Be Good
Friday, in the afternoon, at which time any of these parties
who have been arrested and who have been cited for con
tempt were involved?
[fol. 202] A. Yes, sir, I was.
146
Q. Would you describe the nature of that occasion?
A. We had information that they had planned a march,
a demonstration either on the Cit.v I bill or the City Jail.
The advanced information that had been given us were that
they were coming up 6th Avenue from the church on 16th
Street and 6th Avenue to 19th Street. Captain Evans and
myself—I believe I was with Captain Evans at that par
ticular time—were in the 1700 Block on 6th Avenue North.
A march did start from the 16th Street Church. We had
blocked off—
Q. 16th Street? Now, what place is that?
A. 16th Street and 6th Avenue, North.
Q. 6th Avenue, North?
A. There was a large number of Negroes, in the march.
_ There was also a large number of on-lookers, or bv-standers,
-lhat were not participating in the actual march, but they
.were clapping, and hollering, and hooping on the sidelines.
The march continued to 17th Street.
Q. Were those sideliners doing anything with their feet
besides clapping, and hollering, and hooping?
Mr. Shores: We object to leading.
The Court: Don’t lead. Sustained.
A. They were following the marchers... but not in the pro
cession, Most of them were on the south side of the street,
' and tEe marchers had started on the north side of 6th Ave
nue. When the marchers got to 17th Street and 6th Avenue,
they made an abrupt right turn. We had blocked off 6th
Avenue at the 18th Street entrance, and had stopped all
the vehicular and pedestrian traffic in that particular block.
We had several motorscouts, that is solos, three-wheelers,
and a number of other police personnel in the immediate
vicinity. They were finally rounded up, and most of them
were picked up in the 18Q0'T51i®ck of 5th Avenue, North.
There were approxijsg,teb/S^iTests made at that time. I
believe there wo re f5 u arrests made of the marcKers7~and
[fol. 203] Jhxee^arr«^mfor various other violations. ITiat
is, my own independent recollection. I can’t say exactly
147
what it was. There was one or two for loitering, and after
refusing to move, after the crowd had gotten unruly, and
would not move on, and then possibly one for resisting
arrest, loitering and resisting.
Q. All right, now, do you know—do you remember who
was at that Good Friday march among the particular de
fendants that are named in this original petition?
A. I could not name the entire group. There were a
number that I had seen, and, of course, knew their faces,
but did not know their names. I did know Rev. King and
Abernathy. They were leading the march at the time they
were apprehended.
4) _ r ~
S'A A
The Court: Which Rev. King do you have reference to?
A. This one sitting on the end of the first row, Martin
Luther King, not A. D.
Q. And was the other Respondent that you named Ralph
Abernathy?
A. Ralph Abernathy. He is the third one on the front
row.
Q. Now, was anybody else of those that you knew in the
parade, whether they were arrested then, or later?
A. I didn’t see anyone that I knew personally, any of the
other ministers, personally. I understand one other min
ister was arrested later, but I personally did not see him
in the march.
Q. You did not personally see him. Now, this occasion,
then, on Good Friday, were there a large number of people
congregated there, or a small crowd, or what?
A. It was a large number. There were approximately, I
would say, fifty or sixty in the original march. Well, more
, : . than fifty, because fifty-one were arrested. There were—
just a rough estimate, I would say between nnp tl-mnsnnrl
and fifteen hundred that were not participating in the actual
marching, but were foil owi tip- the crowd, and were on the
corners and various places in the immediate vicinity.
Q. Now, where was that crowd congregated? Did it*have
a particular place to congregate?
148
[fol. 204] A. When the march originally started from the
church the majority of them were on the 16th—in the—
well, it is 16th Street and 6th Avenue, and many of them
were in the park between 16th and 17th Street, and between
5th and 6th Avenues North.
Q. Were any of them in the church?
A. There were, of course, a number of them in the church.
There were approximately three hundred and fifty or four
hundred. Now, I don’t know how many of the ones that were
in the church actually started participating in the march,
and how many joined the on-lookers. (All of the ones in the
church did not join in the march, or procession, or parade.
Q. Did that group in the park remain in the park, or what
happened to them?
A. No, sir, they followed the marchers at every turn that
they made, and they came on down to 5th Avenue, and were
crowded up into the 18th hundred block of 5th Avenue on
both sides of the street.
Q. That is on both the north and the south side?
A. And the south side, yes, sir.
Q. Well, it would really be the avenue, wouldn’t it?
A. 5th Avenue North, yes, sir.
Q. Now, did you have any further occasion, as an in
spector of police, to be present at any occasion when a
large number of the respondents in this case were present?
Mr. Shores: We object, being too indefinite on the occa
sion.
Mr. McBee: Well, I can specify if you want me to. I
didn’t want to lead.
The Court: I think it should be restricted to any occasion
involved here.
Mr. McBee: Yes, sir, Your Honor, we will restrict it to
what is in the complaint.
Q. Did any unusual occasion occur on Easter Sunday, the
14th..of April? " ---- 1
A. It did.
[fol. 205] Q. Where did that occur, and about when?
149
A. There was a large congregation at the church on 7th
A\ enne and 11th Street North. I don’t recall the name of
the church.
Q. 7th Avenue and 11th Street?
A. North.
Q. All right, sir.
A. We had received advance word that the march—a
march would start from that church at high noon. They met
for approximately, oh, I would say two hours or better
prior to the time. The ministers, A. D. King is the only one
of the ministers that I knew personally, except Wyatt Tee
Walker, and I did not see him go in the church. I did hear
later he was in the crowd—
Mr. Shores: We object to what he heard.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. You could not testify by hearsay, just your own knowl
edge.
A. I am sorry. A march did start at approximately 2 :45
P.M. from that cHgeETThe 'march~wai^
the church, and go one block east to 12th Street, and turn
south toward the City Jail. They did not follow the pro
posed route. Instead, they left the church and they marched
south on 11th Street from 7th Avenue. Captain J. M. Mc
Dowell and myself left our predesignated place at 11th
Street and 6th Avenue, North and went to the—approxi
mately the alley between 5th and 6th Avenue on 11th Street,
and there were between three and four linndred, nr
in a march up the middle of the street and on the sidewalks.
Tt wasTOmost a solid procession, and iiTthe~foreFfbnt, they
had some smaller children, I would say from ages of ten
years up—on up, and then, of course, they had grown people
in the ranks, also. Captain McDowell and I stopped the pro
cession, or, rather, we told the procession to halt at 5th
Alley and 11th Street North. They did not halt. They made
a right turn and ran into the alley going west in 5th Alley.
They were apprehended—then they made a sharp turn.
That would have made a horseshoe turn, approximately,
5* . -&
150
back towards 6th Avenue from one-fourth of a block on up
[fol. 206] a half in 5th Alley. They were apprehended,
most of them, in the field between 5th Alley and 6th Avenue,
North and between 10th and 11th Streets. They were—my
independent recollection, jt was in the that, were actu-
ally ̂ arrested in the procession. There were more than that
that originally started out. We did not—were not able to
arrest all of the ones in the original marching. Following
the arrest of the marchers, there were three preachers.
Without going to my notes, I am not able to name them.
Q. Do you have your notes?
A. I do not have my notes on it. There were three min
isters, though, that were in this particular march. They
were all placed under arrest, and placed in the patrol wagon
for transfer to the City Jail. There was a large crowd of
between ̂ fifteen hundred and two thousand Negroes imme
diately jn' ^h^Wncinitvi ^most of them in the Ten TlTincTred*
Block of 6th Avenue, North, and the majority of them con
gregating at the 11th Avenue-—I mean at the 11th Street
corner of 6th Avenue, just one block from where the march
originally started.
Q. All right, what did they do, if anything!
A. There was some woman that was put under arrest by
a couple of officers in the crowd. She was not a member of
the marchers. She was not dressed as a church-goer. She
had on just everyday clothes, and she had on bedroom
slippers. She was arrested and—
Mr. Shores: We object to the testimony about the woman
who was not a part of those.
A. She was arrested, though.
Mr. Shores : She wasn’t a part, you say, of the marchers?
Mr. McBee: She was a party there.
The Court: I will overrule the objection. It has some
bearing on the type of crowd and congregation gathered
there. Objection overruled.
Mr. Shores: We except.
151
A. The defendants were still in the Ten Hundred Block.
We were not able to move them out between crowds that
[fol. 207] were congregated, and then there was some block
age with cars. .This woman did resist arrest, and in the
ensuing struggle to suBHuFher] someone from the crowd
started throwing rocks. She was arrested. We also ar
rested at the time two Negro men that were on the south
side of 6th Avenue right close to the 11th Avenue intersec
tion, but still in the Ten Hundred Block, for throwing rocks.
One rock struck a City three-wheel motorcycle breaking the
windshield and damaging the radio. It narrowly missed
the arresting officer, the original arresting officer that ar
rested this woman.
Mr. Shores: We object to that testimony. It has nothing
to do with these defendants.
The Court: Sustain unless the witness saw the missile
thrown.
A. I saw the missile in the air. I, personally, did not see
who threw the missile.
Q. Could you tell where it came from?
A. Yes, it came from the south side of the street. There
was three or four—
Mr. Shores: Did your Honor sustain the objection as to
that testimony!
The Court: I will overrule as to what he actually saw. I
think he can testify to that. Overruled as to what he actu
ally saw.
A. There were also three or four other rocks thrown—
not rocks, but pieces of concrete witn mortar, apparently,
Because they were soft, They broke up when they hit the
pavement.
Mr. Shores: We object unless he saw the defendants
throwing rocks.
The Court: Overruled.
Mr. Shores: We except.
The Court: I understand the position being the defen
dants necessarily threw the missiles ?
A. The defendants were arrested, but I did not make the
arrests. I was splattered on the feet and ankles with the
[fol. 208] rocks that were thrown, that I saw thrown. That
is the ones I just described, which were concrete and mortar
chunks. Now, another arrest was made at a later time, but
I was not present when that arrest was made, either.
Q. All right, now, Inspector, aside from the matters you
have related so far, would you describe the conduct of the
group, the crowd that was gathered there ?
A. They were jeering.
Mr. Shores: Again, we object unless he can describe it
to those defendants. A crowd isn’t on trial for contempt.
The Court: For ought we know, I don’t know which one
of these defendants might be involved in this particular
occasion.
Mr. McBee: Your Honor, we expect to show from the evi
dence that this whole business is a planned business, and
the crowd was gathered intentionally and purposely. . The
injunction is against the gathering of mobs, and we say
this was a mob, and we are going to show before we get
through that these defendants engaged in the gathering of
those mobs.
The Court: Do you have evidence you intend to show or
to indicate any of these respondents were connected with
this particular incident ?
Mr. McBee: We have evidence we expect to show on that
matter that they gathered the mob together. He who gaih-
ers the mob together is responsible for what the mob does,
in’our'theory. -— -—
The Court: Was it on this occasion this incident oc
curred?
Mr. McBee: Yes, sir.
The Court: Was it in close proximity to this occasion?
Mr. McBee: We expect the evidence to show this whole
show was put on purposely and intentionally by the planned
153
operation of the defendants that are named in the original
petition.
Mr. Shores: Your Honor, he has already testified these
people gathered spontaneously. Every time an officer stops
someone, a crowd will have a tendency to gather. He hasn’t
laid any basis for connecting these marchers with this
crowd.
[fol. 209] The Court: I recognize the fact that we can’t
put on all the evidence all at one time, and subject to it
being connected up in the manner in which counsel has
stated, I will allow the testimony, subject to being connected
up.
Q. You may proceed.
A. Will you repeat the question.
Q. The question was what the conduct of the crowd at
the time those things you have already related happened?
A. It was jeering, toning, there was some cursing and
belittling of the police officers. There was lots of loud hol
lering, and handclapping. They were in a restless mood
immediately subsequent to the arrest of the participants
in the march.
Q. All right, now, this crowd that you say gathered, did
you have occasion to observe from time to time during
the morning, and during the afternoon, whether or not the
crowd gathered before any march began, or whether or not
the crowd came up after the march started!
A. The crowd gathered beginning before noon, and re
mained until after the arrests were made and the area
was cleared, until after, I would say, 3:30 or 3:45.
Q. Now, there was no incident of marching, or anything
of that kind happened prior to about 2:45?
A. No.
Q. Did the crowd get larger as the time went on before
the march began?
A. There was some addition, I would say, to the crowd,
but many of the members that were in the church had
154
joined it. The crowd was larger after the congregation let
out then it was prior to the time that the march started.
Q. Then, the congregation let out—
A. I would say the group would be maybe a few more
than the number that left the church and joined the crowd.
Q. Then, would you say whether or not the church let
out before the marching began?
[fol. 210] A. It did. That is where the march started
from. We had the area blocked off, and did not allow any
vehicular traffic through there for some time prior to the
time that the church let out. There was too many people
around. Well, it was a traffic hazard for one thing.
Q. Did they have the streets blocked?
A. They had some of the streets blocked, yes, sir.
Q. Did they have the sidewalks blocked?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, are you describing the crowd, or are you talk
ing about whether anybody besides Negro people were in
that crowd?
> A. Oh, no, we kept all of the white folks—we rerouted
every bit of the vehicular traffic, and did not allow any
white people in the area.
Q. And there were~none in there?
A. There were none except police officers, and there were
some reporters.
Q. Reporters and police officers only?
A. That’s right.
Q. Who was it blocking the streets and sidewalks, the
police officers, or who?
A. We blocked the vehicular traffic with police officers to
reroute the traffic around the crowds that had gathered
around 11th Street and 6th and 7th Avenue. We, the police
department, did that.
Q. I understand that.
A. The sidewalks and a portion of the street was blocked
at the height of the commotion that went on following the
march. Prior to the march, the by-standers were standing
on the sidewalks, and from the sidewalks to the curbs, and
155
on parked cars, and sitting on parked cars, and things of
that nature. They were not actually blocking the streets.
Q. They were on the sidewalks!
A. That is correct.
[fol. 211] Q. But when they started the march, then, they
did block the street?
A. They did block the street. That is between 11th Street
and 7th Avenue up to 5th Alley and 11th Street. The street
was solid, and the sidewalks were solid with marchers.
Q. Now, I possibly should ask you about the Good Friday
crowd. I did not, I think—I overlooked it, I think. You
stated that the crowd in that group, I believe, was around
one thousand, or one thousand to fifteen hundred. Did you
have occasion to observe whether or not that crowd as
sembled before, or after the incident began? That is, the
actual marching?
Mr. Shores: We object to that question. What crowd
is he referring to now, and what dates?
Mr. McBee: Talking about the Good Friday crowd. You
ought to know that, Arthur. That is the 12th.
The Court: The reference is April 12th. Were you pres
ent before the incident occurred?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you tell the Court whether or not that crowd
—when that crowd began to gather?
A. It began to gather a couple of hours before the march
v actually started. They have not been on schedule with any
' " o f t h e tMrcKes to-date.
Mr. Shores: We object to what kind of schedules they
have been on.
The Court: Sustained.
v
Q. But, at any rate, they did begin two hours before the
march began, or procession began?
A. That’s right.
156
Q. Now, these processions, how—would you describe how
they were in terms of single file, double file, or what they
were?
A. The Good Friday march, they were marching in a
column of two’s, and in step, I would say. I don’t know
whether you would call it military. They were just in step
in columns of two’s spaced the same part.
[fol. 212] Q. Spaced behind each other about the same
distance? Is that what you mean?
A. That’s right.
Q. Now, this occasion that you say happened on Easter
Sunday, did that group march almost the same way, or a
different way, or how were they organized?
A. The entire group that first started out marched in
just two abreast. That was the ministers, or the ministers
and the ones following, and then they were marching on
.the sidewalks two abreast, and a portion of tlTe congrega
tion be^ fi^^S ^O T ldsay between three and four hundred,
possibly, which included children, some nine or ten years
on up, two older people, or elderly people, even. They
were marching down the street and on the other side of
the avenue, on the other side of 11th Street, also. The
entire group, the children, and the first ones run down the
alley, and then the rest of the group followed them.
Q. Now, the three or four hundred, was that all—was
that the only column that was out there, or did they have
two different columns on that day? I haven’t understood
you.
A. Well, they had, I would say, a solid mass coming down
the street, which did not include the ministers, the ones
that were ahead—apparently had organized the march.
Mr. Greenberg: I object to apparently.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Let me ask you what you mean by “ solid mass” coming
down the street?
157
A. They were marching abreast in the width of the street,
and it was completely filled with the group that was march
ing down 11th Street.
Q. In other words, the entire width of the street?
A. The entire width of the street, and on both sides of
the street there were also marchers.
Q. You mean to say along the sidewalks?
[fol. 213] A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, was that a separate—were those separate col-
all parTof one?
It would be hard to distinguish it. js .sfim.rate, in that,
they were ahreasf. Of course, there was some cars parked
■Y:hat w©«ld^-separate the group on the sidewalk and the
group that was in the street. There was also a walkway-
on the east side there, I don’t believe there were any on
that portion between the sidewalk and the curb, to the
best of my recollection.
Q. That is the grassy part?
A. The grassy part.
Q- Now, did this marching mass that you have spoken of,
was it led by any of the persons that are involved in this
lawsuit—I mean in this contempt citation?
A. Mr. McBee, I couldn’t personally identify the minis
ters. I was on the east side in the street, and that was
the group— The group that I was facing was the—well,
as I stated, the first ranks were the younger children, and
then the others were just members of the congregation
that I did not recognize, the ones on the right side, and
my attention directly to them, specifically, because they
were my responsibility.
Q. When they started into the alley, was it the entire
solid mass that went into the alley?
A. Well, it was an operation, would be like a covey of
quail, I suppose, that broke and ran, and it was not in any
organized step that they were doing during the run.
Q. In other words, after they ran in the alley?
158
A. After we told them to halt, Capt. McDowell and I had
told them to halt at 5th Alley, then they veered sharply
to the right, and they ran down in the alley, and there were
motorscouts, traffic patrolmen, and others that apprehended
them in the field. Now, all of them, the ones that were in
the march, we were not able to identify.
Q. I see. Now, the solid mass, or the group that, took part
[fol. 214] in this solid mass march, you stated were about
,v . ____ , , . .... of the
crowd. Do you know where they were, or what they did?
A. Yes, they were following the actions. They were not
participating, so far as any concerted march, or any con
certed—any organized group. They didn’t run with the
group, they just filtered through and came on down to 6th
Avenue, and that is where the crowd finally assembled, on
6th Avenue and the Ten Hundred Block between 10th and
11th Street. There was a number of them that had to go
east on 11th Street, and they were on the church steps,
and on all four corners.
Q. Sixth Avenue and 11th Street?
A. Eleventh Street.
Q. Now, was that the site of the actual arrests, that is,
when the arrests were consummated?
A. Well, that is where they were actually loaded into
the patrol unit, from 6th Avenue in the Ten Hundred
block.
Q. And the Eleventh Hundred Block?
A. Most of the arrests were made in the field between
5th alley and 6th Avenue, North in the Ten Hundred block.
That is after they had ran from 11th Street west, and then
turned back north through the field.
Mr. McBee: All right, sir. Judge, I think this limits
our questions. We were prepared in another direction, and
we have got to check and see on this whether or not it comes
within what Your Honor is trying, or not.
/
159
[fol. 215] (Whereupon at the hour of 11:40 A.M., Mon
day, April 22, 1963, the proceedings were in recess until
11:55, when the proceedings continued as follows:)
Cross examination.
By Mr. Shores:
Q. Inspector Haley, how long have you been with the
Police Department in the City of Birmingham?
A. It will be twenty-five years August 16th, this year.
Q. And as an Officer of the Police Department you are
acquainted with certain ordinances respecting crowds and
use of streets, clearing of streets, and that sort of thing?
A. I would say so.
Q. Now, let’s get to the demonstration and meeting on
Good Friday. Where did you say that meeting was held
from which the demonstration begin?
A. It was on 16th Street and 6th Avenue to the best of
my recollection. I don’t know the name of the Church.
Q. Are you sure you mean the Church that was on 16th
Street and 6th Avenue, or was it some other Church?
A. Arthur, I believe that was the one. We have had so
many for the past three weeks that I couldn’t—but to the
best of my independent recollection it was the Church at
16th Street and 6th Avenue.
Q. Do you know what time the march began on Good
Friday?
A. I would have to refer to my notes and I don’t have
the notes with me. It is a matter of record on the jail slips
and dockets.
Q. Do you know whether it was in the forenoon or after
noon?
A. It was in the afternoon, I believe.
Q. Again, will you describe just what took place with
respect to the marchers?
A. When they came out of the Church they came down
6th Avenue to 17th Street and we had blocked 6th Avenue
160
f l
off in the 1700 block. The marchers made a right turn at
17th Street and 6th Avenue and went across the street to
the south side where they continued on. That would he the
south side of 17th Street. And they turned east on 17th
[fol. 216] Street onto 5th Avenue and they were appre
hended in the 1700 block of 5th Avenue.
Q. And how many were in the group!
A. In the group that was arrested—
Q. How many marchers were in the group?
A. There were fifty-one arrested, and there could have
been more than that, because there were some that left the
marchers.
Q. Were they all marchers that were arrested?
A. Yes.
Q. This is the Good Friday march, now?
A. Yes.
Q. And as far as you know you arrested only those actu
ally engaged in the marching?
A. We did not arrest all that were in the march. There
were more than that in the actual march, but we were not
able to apprehend all of them.
Q. At the time these individuals were marching did they
march against any red lights or violate any traffic regula
tions,- anything of that sort?
A. To my knowledge they did not. I couldn’t observe all
of it. My attention was focused on the crowd and not on
the lights. The streets were wholly blocked off, so it would
not have made ahylmference so far as vehicular traffic was
concerned.
Q. Did the marchers block the streets off or did the
Police Department block the streets!
A. The Police Department had previously blocked the
vehicular traffic off.
Q. Do you know how long your department had kept
motor vehicles away from this Church prior to the march?
A. Some several hours each time.
Q. I believe you say you had been on the Police force
for some twenty-odd years?
161
A. That’s right.
Q. In your experience as a police officer for many years
would you say it is natural for crowds to gather when they
see police officers
[fol. 217] or motor vehicles situated at a certain place and
I would say it would be natural curiosity, yes.
Q. And as a police officer who is required to enforce
certain regulations, does the City have such a regulation
as requires an individual to move on when given an order
to move on by a police officer?
A. We moved many of them on. There was a park that
most of the congregation was in. The others were milling
in the streets or on the sidewalks adjacent.
Q. During the several hours that you had these cars de
ployed in the vicinity of this Church, did you see any of
the persons who were getting moved on out of the vicinity
of the Church?
A. There were some. I know there were many white peo
ple moved out, because I personally moved some myself.
Q. White people were moved out, but did you move any
of the Negroes that were gathering in the vicinity?
A. Not if they were not violating the law.
Q. Well, you had several motor vehicles deployed around
the vicinity of this Church?
A. That is correct.
Q. What was the purpose of these motor vehicles?
A. To give protection to the people that were inciting
trouble; to keep any breach of the peace from happening.
Q. Do you know how many officers you had in this vicinity
at this particular time ?
A. We had quite a number of them. And have depleted
our forces pretty severely to afford the protection that we
have been giving them.
Q. Have you an idea of the number?
A. The day shift and evening shift traffic motorized
patrol, I would say to count them.
Q. Can you estimate?
162
A. I would say not less than forty or fifty, and that is
including some from Ensley and some from the East End
Precinct.
Q. Could you get that information and bring it when you
[fol. 218] return from the noon hour?
A. It will be available. The Captain of the Traffic Divi
sion has the assignment sheet. I did not make out the
assignment sheet, but I of course recognized the motors
that were there. And I do know we had special assignments
for the motorized patrol.
Q. They assigned all around that vicinity there at that
Church!
A. That is correct.
Q. And you did not move any Negroes for violating any
ordinance for congregating in the vicinity of that Church?
A. I did not personally. We did have to make a few
arrests— that is the department did—for Loitering after
W aiming, after being requested to move on.
Q. Was that before or after the arrests of the marchers?
A. I believe most of them were after.
Q. And none in m far as—
A. The crowd was not unruly prior to the mareb
Q- But you anticipate*! a crowd gathermar! At each of
these demonstration,- m proces-ions you had advance no
tice tiat they v -re z 'in s to march, jam artfcfyatgd a larse
crowd ?
o i have & Is rat- crowd every time so far.
V- Amt: harrjBg- teen ts fittily mlilhul m J realizirs
that a teediskai might occur ywa did not move
any Negroes -mi ont o f the wearily?
A. We did not move any from private property or anv
that were in park prior to the meeting or the parade.
Q- sons congregated on the streets out-
side the Church?
A- They were milling around. I don’t believe any por
tions of the ,-idewalk were completely blocked by pedestrian
traffic at any time prior to the actual march itself, because
there were Negroes coming and going. I mean they were
just circulating around in the vicinity.
163
Q. Then after the marchers came out they did not block
any traffic or impede the free movement of people on the
streets,, did they?
A. The traffic was already blocked for the marchers,
[fol. 219] Q. The traffic was already blocked by the Police
Department ?
A. By the Police Department.
Q. I see, and you say they marched in twos?
A. That is correct.
Q. And there was sufficient space for. anybody else to
have walked on the street beside them, is that right ?
A.jOn the sidewalk with them?
Q. Yes.
A. Well—
Q. In other words, they did not take up the whole street
as they marched?
A. They were nn tbr rirlnmllr —
Q. Well, they did not take up the whole sidewalk as they
marched, did they?
A. At places they did.
Q. In twos? Were the streets that narrow?
A. That is correct. At 16th Street and 7th Avenue there
was not room enough for them to walk more than two
abreast. They had to weave in if anybody passed them.
Q. You did not see them push anybody off the sidewalk,
did vou?
A. I did not.
Q. In scTTaiTas that is concerned, they were orderly as
they went along, the marchers were?
A. The marchers, as far as I know, didn’t use any pro-
fi-vnity. They were not taunting like the crowd.
Q. Did you make any arrests for the crowd’s use of pro
fanity, anybody in the crowd?
A. Some arrests were made for various offenses other
than the marchers, the paraders.
Q. I believe you say you were forewarned of each of
these demonstrations?
A. Yes.
- L f f
t-K Qj. ***&<
164
Q. How?
[fol. 220] A. I don’t believe you will want me to embar
rass some of your congregation in answering that question,
but we have information from some Negroes,- from some
of the ministers. We have had it from various sources.
Q. Can you name any one of your sources?
Mr. Breckenridge: We object to that.
Mr. Shores: This is cross examination, Your Honor.
Mr. Breckenridge: In this work it is important that
sources not be divulged, and it has no relevancy here.
Mr. Shores: We are allowed quite a wide latitude in
cross examination and it would go to the creditability.
The Court: Overrule.
Mr. McBee: I don’t believe there is any question at all
about the fact that these marchers or processioners or
whatever they might want to term themselves, were well
known, and they did occur, and I think that it would be
less than realistic to make a big issue about how the police
found out there was going to he a demonstration. The evi
dence is they started congregating two or three hours
before these marches began, and we think it entirely irrele
vant and immaterial and certainly calls for evidence that
does not shed any light to Your Honor on the issues in this
ease.
Mr. Shores: It is brought out he had police officers sta
tioned there two or three hours ahead of time, and this
:r. junction was m::ee ruing me illegal performance of :sr-
tain. acts, and I think we have a right to delve into it to
2nd out whether or not these acts oomnlaiued of were
illegal. Your Honor. I believe Your Hscsr has ruled on
The Court s Orerrsi* the
A. There w er - oSksers gmed near the Church and
t&rre v - vo horn- conversations held with them and they
notified the ■ .Super.or Officers within the department. The
? woj< •> f- had orj Good Friday was that it was going
to lx at nigh noon. I believe I read in a press release, in
165
the newspaper or radio or over the television, I don’t re
member just which now, but I remember hearing that Rev.
Abernathy said they were going to jail on that basis.
[fol. 221] Q. Did they say they were going to jail to visit
or for what purpose?
A. They said they were ready to go to jail.
Q. They said they were ready to go to jail, but they
didn’t say anything about marching?
A. I couldn’t tell you their purpose,' except that they
accomplished it.
Q. Were there any Detectives in the Church?
A. We have had Detectives in the Church.
Q. How many?
A. Ordinarily there are two. There were newsmen in
there. To my knowledge I would say newsmen and detec
tives other than members of your congregation, or your
movement.
Q. Did they have the little transistor radios or walkie-
talkies, or such as that?
Mr. McBee: Objection, Your Honor.
The Court: Sustained, I don’t see where that is an issue
in the case.
Mr. Shores: We are trying to find out how they got the
information.
Mr. McBee: It is no secret how we got the information.
Our next witness will explain it to you.
The Court: I see no point in going into the equipment.
Q. The incident we have been talking about was on Good
Friday. Now we come to Easter Sunday. Where was the
meeting held on Easter Sunday?
A. The Church on 7th Avenue and 11th Street, North.
Thurgood Church, I believe is the name of that one.
Q. Do you know what time that meeting was held, about
what time?
A. It was late in the afternoon that the march started.
I believe the meeting started promptly around 2 :00 or 3 :00
o’clock.
166
r
Q. Could it have been a little later!
A. There were big crowds around the Church around
that time. I was by the Church.
Q. Did you or any of your officers do anything to disperse
the crowds that were around the Church at that time !
[fol. 222] A. I had no violations that were called to my
attention. We did not make any arrests to my knowledge.
Q. Did you have any advance notice on that date that
there was going to be a march?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. How did you get that information?
A. By the same method we got it on Friday.
Q. With police in the Church?
A. We did have police in the Church. We received it
from various sources, the same as on Good Friday.
Q. This crowd that was aroimd the Church, was it a
very large crowd or just a few people?
A. The Fire Marshal estimated 350 to 400 people in the
Church. There were a number, of course, that were noFin
the Church. There were a good number on the street in a
radius of a block or two of the Church.
Q. Was they congregating or moving?
A. They were standing on people’s steps, standing in
people’s yards and just various places. Actually, I would
say most of them were on private property. There were
some of them that were on the sidewalk, but not enough to
constitute a blockage or to cause a police problem, because
the traffic department was there to take care of any traffic
hazards that might come up.
Q. And at that time also you had a number of police offi-
and vehicles about the Church in that vicinity?
. That is correct.
Q. How many did you have on Easter Sunday?
A. Approximately the same number that we had on Good
Friday. To give an accurate count I would have to count
the ones from the Captain’s assignment, but I would say
.forty or more.
167
Q. You say we can get that information after the noon
hour?
A. The Captain of traffic, the Commanding Officer of the
traffic division—most of the units were from the traffic
division. Of course, I am not specifically assigned to traffic
or patrol either. It was overall.
[fol. 223] Q. Could you get that information for us dur
ing the noon recess, the numbers that were actually there
each time ?
A. Can I ask Chief Moore if Captain Warren will be
available before 3:00 o’clock this afternoon? I have no
actual knowledge of his whereabouts.
The Court: You may answer him, Chief Moore.
Chief Jamie Moore: Your Honor, I think it would be
possibly after 3 :00 o’clock before we can get it together.
It will take some little time.
Mr. Shores: That will be alright, then.
Q. Let’s get back to the Easter march. Was you there
when they left the Church for the march?
A. I was at 11th—no, I was at 12th Street and 6th Av
enue, North when they left the Church.
Q. Do you know how many were in that procession?
A. I don’t know at the particular time they left the
Church. I can estimate that at the time I arrived at 11th
Street and 5th Alley, North there were approximately three
or-four hundred, I would say,
Q. In the march or in the crowd?
A. In an actual procession down the street and on both
sidbVal'ks.
Q. Were these any of the respondents in this line of
march?
A. To identify all of the ones that were arrested at that
time, I could not. The group on my side of the sidewalk
did not include the ministers that were leading the group.
They were going down the west side of the sidewalk on
11th Street.
4ro
k
168
Q. Where were the arrests made in connection with this
incident ?
A. The entire group ran into the alley at 5th Alley and
11th Street going west. There were motor scouts that were
in the immediate vicinity and the group made a turn back
toward 6th Avenue. They were arrested between 5th Alley
and on up onto 6th Avenue.
Q. Were they arrested in the street or in somebody’s
yard?
A. I would say most of them were arrested in the fields
that they cut through between 5th Alley and 6th Avenue,
[fol. 224] North. They were headed back toward 6th Av
enue.
Q. Do you know whether that is public property or pri
vate property?
A. I would say that it would be private property. I have
no actual knowledge of that.
Q. Was you present when they were arrested?
A. I was present when they were apprehended. Where
the march took place was on public property.
Q. Were you present when they were invited to come on
that property by the owner? Were you present when the
owner told them they could come on that property?
A. No, I wasn’t present.
Q. Did you arrest them on that property?
A. I didn’t make an actual arrest on the property myself.
Arrests were made by members of the uniformed depart
ment, mostly the traffic division.
Q. This is the march on Easter Sunday?
A. That is correct.
Q. And how many did you arrest that day?
A. It was in thej weixti.es,. Off hand I don’t recall the
exact number. '
Q. Were there as many people gathered on Easter Sun
day as there were gathered on Good Friday?
A. There were more.
Q. And you arrested only in the twenties that day?
A. That’s right.
169
Q. And how many did you estimate were apart from
thoseTR'afwere deihon W atm^
A. Between three and tour hundred"
Q. And on Good Friday how many would you estimate
were apart from the marching?
A. I would say approximately sixty. There were not too
many left in the ranks on Good Friday. That is the ones
marching in columns. There were a number of what I would
call followers.
Q. Are you sure you arrested those that were marchers
or—
[fol. 225] A. The ones that were marching in columns
were the ones that were arrested on Good Friday, and
there was fifty-one of those to my best recollection.
Q. And on Easter were the marchers, in like manner,
those that were arrested?
A. They were marching in columns of two. The folks on
the left side, they were marching in columns but the .group
''InTR^tTeerw er^uir^reaitrTwQ uId^a^--They wouldn’t
be in columns of twos. They would be columns of ever how
many can get across the street. They were led by the chil
dren. The older people were behind them. And the group
that was on the sidewalk on the left, I couldn’t identify the
individuals that were in that particular group, because my
attention was with the other group that I had the imme
diate responsibility for stopping.
Q. Do you know why you arrested fewer on Easter than
on Good Friday?
A. They scattered.
Q. Was it the marchers who scattered, or the crowd?
A. The marchers. The crowd, they were not involved in
this particular march. These were members that were
marching from the immediate vicinity of the Church when
we arrived there.
Q. And I believe you—
A. The crowd had been gathering there, not in any sem
blance or any one group. They were just walking around.
They were scattered around within a radius of two blocks
every way.
Q. I believe you did state that any white people in the
vicinity, you did have them moved on! —
Q. We just didn’t let any white vehicular traffic through.
Q. What about pedestrian traffic f
A. No whites.
Q. And you permitted Negroes to congregate in the vicin-*
ity of this Church ?
A. Of course, that was the section that was predomi
nantly Negro. There is some commercial business there
but most of the individuals who did live in the residences
there are Negroes.
[fol. 226] Q. Inspector Haley, as an experienced police
officer, where there is some possibility of a hazard by a
crowd or danger, like where there is a fire or traffic acci
dent, and in this case where hundreds were probably gather
ing to watch fifteen or twenty, or twenty-five people march
up the street, under those circumstances wouldn’t you say
it would have been good police practice to keep the people
from congregating where there is possibly going to be a
hazard.
A. If they had given us a little more accurate informa
tion, we would have cleaned the streets. Without that in
formation and without their following the plans it is going
to be an impossibility for us to move people out of their
homes.
Q. Isn’t it natural for people to congregate where they
see police officers ?
A. That is probably true. We moved our vehicles just as
soon as we could after the arrests were made.
Q. Would you say that the vehicles and the presence of
the officers themselves, would have a tendency to create a
hazard and cause a crowd to gather?
A. As a matter of necessity-—it would cause some curios
ity, but it was a matter of necessity with the police depart
ment.
Q. But you did not disperse the curiosity seekers, did
you?
170
171
A. We didn’t move the people who were there in their
homes and yards, that lived there. We didn’t move the
ones that were walking. It would have been a physical im
possibility to have moved or to have determined the busi
ness of everyone of the fifteen hundred or two thousand
people that were there with the limited force that we had.
Q. Wouldn’t it have been possible before these fifteen
hundred gathered, with your vehicles and men being in
the vicinity three or four hours before these demonstra
tions ?
A. A number were in the Church. I would say three or
four hundred that were in the crowd were would have been
in the Church. I don’t know what the population is in that
area, but we had our hands pretty full in trying to protect
the group.
[fol. 227] Q. I believe you testified that you were able to
identify Rev. M. L. King and the Rev. Abernathy as leaders
of one of these marches, is that correct?
A. That was the Good Friday march, not on Easter
Sunday. I didn’t recognize them on Easter Sunday.
Q. Were you able to identify Wyatt Tee Walker in either
of those marches?
A. No.
Q. Did you see Jim Bevils ?
A. No, I didn’t know him.
Q. Andrew Young?
A. I didn’t know him or Bevils at that time. I have seen
them since that time.
Q. Have you seen them to recognize them?
A. I did not recognize them as being in the group per
sonally.
Q. Was Rev. F. L. Shuttlesworth in the group?
A. I didn’t see F. L. Shuttlesworth in the group myself.
Mr. Shores: I believe that is, Your Honor.
172
Redirect examination.
By Mr. McBee:
Q. Inspector, the question was asked you if you were
familiar with the ordinances of the City of Birmingham.
Did you inquire whether or not these people engaging in
these parades and marches and processions had a permit as
provided by the City Ordinances?
A. On each occasion that I was able to talk to any of
them prior to the arrests, I did.
Q. What did you find out ?
A. They did not.
Q. Did not have them. Now, did you have any requests
from Rev. King and Rev. Shuttlesworth and Rev. Aber
nathy or Rev. Walker to clear the crowds that were con
gregating around these Churches ?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever at any time prior to either one of these
[fob 228] particular processions that have been testified
about, have any requests from any of these officers of this
particular movement, as they call it, to clear the crowd,
or to keep the crowd from congregating or gathering in the
vicinity, have any requests been received by you in connec
tion with such a meeting?
A. No sir.
Q. He asked you about the crowd becoming unruly. Did
it become unruly ?
A. It did.
Q. Both times?
A. Yes, and belligerent. We did not make as many ar
rests as we could have if we had just faced the crowd, but
we had other work to perform.
Q. You stated, I believe, that you saw in the newspapers,
or press, or radio, or T V an announcement to the effect
that Rev. King and Rev. Abernathy—I don’t know whether
he is a Reverend or not; Ralph Abernathy were going to
engage in some sort of demonstration to get put in jail, is
that right?
173
Mr. Shores: I object. That would be hearsay, Your
Honor.
Mr. McBee: If it comes out in the press, we think that
is advertising what they intend to do.
The Court: Sustain, I don’t think that would be the best
evidence. He can introduce any exhibit he might have with
reference to that.
Q. Now, you were asked about your twenty-five years
experience as a police officer and whether or not an unruly
crowd or a crowd would likely gather in response to the
presence of police officers or police vehicles. I will ask
you whether or not assuming that an advertisement had
come out over the radio or T V, or through various medium
of news that a march was going to be made and that those
men were going to go to jail on Good Friday, would that
in your judgment and opinion increase a crowd and cause
a crowd to gather ?
Mr. Greenberg: I object to that. He is asking him some
thing that is not in evidence.
[fol. 229] The Court: Well, I assume he is asking for an
expert opinion on the part of a witness who has twenty-
five years experience.
Q. I will ask you whether or not it is your experience in
twenty-five years on the police force in dealing with this
problem of racial tension that publicity of that kind is
calculated to bring into the City of Birmingham people
from the white race who might also be intent upon doing
some violation of the law?
Mr. Greenberg: I object to that hypothetical question,
Your Honor. No such evidence has been offered.
The Court: Sustain as to whether it is calculated to
bring. He can give us his experience on the matter.
Q. In your judgment and experience, is that a reason
able probability that it will bring into the City of Birming
ham people of the white race who would be inclined to en
gage in possible unlawful acts and—
174
Mr. Greenberg: Object. Furthermore, the fact that some
one else might—
The Court: Sustain the objection. This witness can tes
tify from his experience what has happened in the past.
Q. Alright, will you elaborate from your experience from
incidences that have happened in the past when these race
demonstrations or sit-ins or whatever you might term them,
from your experience what has happened with reference
to outsiders coming into the City of Birmingham and caus
ing trouble.
Mr. Greenberg: Same objection.
The Court: Overrule.
A. It has been our experience that it has drawn outside
. agitators. Beginning with the so-called “Freedom Riders”,
we had approximately thYfre nr I W i uT,T7n
TmTgmze as Birmingham men, sonuTwe recognizedTFcatm
ing from Anniston and adjoining counties here. Some that
we knew as race agitators. They were around the Grey
hound Bus Station in particular.
Q. You stated you had in police measures decided upon
and did block to white vehicular and pedestrian traffic the
[ Pol. 230] areas where these crowds were congregating.
Were the places where that was done, in your judgment
and experience as a police officer of twenty-five years, were
those reasonable precautions to prevent unlawful incidents
from occurring?
A. It was a must.
Q. Inspector, you stated that some arrests occurred in
connection with the incident in the 1700 block and another
incident in the alley there, that some question was raised
about somebody inviting these people to come upon their
property. Did you arrest them for going on somebody’s
property?
A. No.
Q. What did you arrest them for? What were they
charged with ?
175
A. Parading without apermit.
Q. Was that on a public street that—
A. The offense was committed on public property. The
arrests, most of them, were made on private property.
Q. Did you continue in pursuit of these people that had
been in violation of the City Ordinances at the time they
were arrested?
A. Yes.
Q. And were they arrested immediately in what is some
times referred to as hot pursuit?
A. That is correct.
Q. What were the objectives of these marches, the one
on Good Friday and the one Easter Sunday, where were
they going?
A. The one on Good Friday, it was our information that
it was a march on the City Hall. The one on Easter Sun
day, our information was that it was marching on the City
Jail.
Mr. McBee: I believe that is all.
Recross examination.
By Mr. Shores: ^ b<
Q. Inspector, did they have anyone for! placards indi
cating what they were protesting in these marches?
A. Not on the three that have been asked about. That is
the one on Good Friday and Easter Sunday.
[fol. 231] Q. Were there any expressions as to what they
were protesting as you apprehended these defendants?
A. I couldn’t see any purpose in it myself. The informa
tion that we have about their going to the City Hall, 1
couldn’t see any purpose in that since it was Sunday and
it was closed. We have had that information for two or
three Sundays, so I don’t know what their purpose is.
Q. Did you question any of them as to what they were
protesting?
176
A. I didn’t interview them personally. Many of them
were interviewed in the City Jail by members of the de
tective department.
__Q. Do you know whether or not there were any reqiujjaJU..
fora jjenn it_to> parade f
A. I received a call from Wyatt Tee Walker. I am not
sure of the date. He said he was representing Rev. King—
this first one, what is his initials!
Q. M. L.!
A. Yes.
Martin Luther, and he said he was giving us official
notice that they were going to march on the City Hall
and he set out a time. He said at high noon. That was
the Good Friday march. I instructed him that that would
be in my opinion a violation of the City Ordinance if they
were marching without a permit.
Q. Did you receive any other request or do you know
of any other request for permits!
A. I know one that was received by Chief Moore and
Commissioner Connor. I don’t have tin; telegram. I just
know that the contents—
’ / lor prpcession may one obtainparade
Mr. McBee: I objept.
Q. J_ust_what type
/a permit for! ~
Mr. McBee: I object. That is 'W t his responsibility.
The law sets out when and how to get a permit.
The Court: _ Sustained.
Mr. Shores: He~sald he'was familiar with the ordinances
and we are trying to bring out what, in his years of ex
perience, just what a parade is ; a group of school children
walking up the street to the Museum.
[fob 232] The Court: Of course, this Court takes judicial
knowledge of the ordinances of the City of Birmingham.
Mr. Shores: He arrested them for violating them. We
would just like to know as to how he determined the viola-
' tion.
177
The Court: I think the only question was did they or
did they not have a permit.
Mr. Shores: And whether or not this was a parade or
whether a group of a hundred or so children walking along
together with a teacher or a friend—would you understand
to us what your understanding of a parade is?
Mr. McBee: What his understanding is? We object to it.
The Court: Sustain.
Mr. Shores: Your Honor, what we are trying to find out
is whether the law is being equally applied or whether it
'is~beihg"”applied in a discriminatory manner against cer
tain groups.
The Court: The Court has already passed on that ques
tion with its injunction.
Mr. Greenberg: We were wondering whether walking
down the street in like groups—
Q. For like groups, walking down the street in like man
ner, such as groups of school children—
Mr. McBee: Object to that, Your Honor, and note that
the question of a permit is vested in the governing body
of the City of Birmingham. It is not vested in this man
and he is not responsible either as a matter of law or moral
or anything else for what may be required of a person
who requests a permit. That is a legislative matter vested
in the governing body of the City by City Ordinance, and
what this Officer may have seen or may not have seen
would be entirely incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial
in so far as violating the law and—
Mr. Shores: I will withdraw that and ask this question.
Q. Have you in your twenty-odd years of experience,
yourself, do you know of your own knowledge of any other
group of people similarly situated being arrested for parad
ing without a license?C.______ ~
[fol. 233] Mr. McBee: I object to that. Whether this
Officer knows or doesn’t know of any arrests being made
‘ Y^ C
w r c j
178
wouldn’t matter. If a thousand people violated the law
without being arrested, it gives no excuse for a man that
is arrested.
Mr. Shores: We just asked him if he knows.
Mr. McBee: We object to it.
The Court: Sustain the objection on the basis that the
Court does not understand the terms “ similarly situated.”
Q. Have you ever arrested a group of school children
walking toward the Museum or Auditorium and being led
by a teacher or some other student, probably a hundred
or more, have you ever arrested any such group for walk
ing down the street.
Mr. McBee: May it please the Court, that is not and
could not be a parade or procession under any circum
stances, and I think the question answers itself that it’s not
customary to arrest a group of school children unless they
are engaged in committing acts along with some agitators
that constitute a violation of the law.
The Court: I will overrule the objection and allow him
to answer.
A. I have seen various parades, and I do not recall hav
ing made arrests for any parade that had a permit.
Q. Do you regularly require all groups that you see
marching to have permits!
A. We get notice of it in the Chief’s office through reg
ular channels because parades do constitute a traffic prob
lem and we have to make preparations for it.
Q. That is for any sort of parade!
A. That is for any legal parade.
Q. You say any legal parade; that is the question we
are trying here. What is a legal parade!
Mr. McBee: I object to it.
Mr. Shores: He made the statement whether or not it
was a legal parade. For these children, two or three hun
dred of them, to be marching in twos to go to the Audi-
179
[fol. 234] torium for a symphony program, do they have
to get a permit to march to the Auditorium?
Mr. Breckenridge: Your Honor, for ought that appears
there has never been such a procession. It is incompetent,
irrelevant and immaterial.
The Court: I will sustain the objection unless it is re
lated to some particular matter that the witness is familiar
with and has knowledge of.
Q. Have you ever seen school children marching to the
Auditorium or Museum or City Hall from the bus, after
getting out of the bus?
A. Arthur, I don’t interpret that as meaning a march.
Q. The Judge doesn’t want you to interpret. I just asked
you if you had seen that?
A. I have seen them walking to the Auditorium. I have
never seen them'’liT^oIumns or marching 5T the manner
that these were. These were dressed in robes. That is the
leaders were. It was an announced parade. I am not sure,
but—
Q. Isn’t what is customarily known as parades some
thing with bands and signs and—
Mr. Breckenridge: I object.
The Court: Sustained.
[fol. 235] Q. Do you know of any other groups that you
have seen in columns?
A. I don’t recall any marching in unison similar to these
marchers that we have had of recent date. I have seen
crowds going to ball games, but it is not in columns. It
will be in ones or maybe threes or fours, but they are not
marching in step and not going altogether. In other words,
it would be a group of people walking to an event such as
a ball game, or as you stated, to school, and so forth. Yes,
I have seen them walking, but I have never seen them
marching in unison and in columns similar to that.
Q. Was it your determination to make these arrests or
did you have orders to make arrests of individuals whom
you saw marching in twos coming out of the churches?
180
f f w
Mr. Breckenridge: We object to that, Your Honor. The
Code itself places the responsibility on the police officer
to arrest for a violation of law when and where he sees it.
Mr. Shores: It is a responsibility of his to keep crowds
moving when he sees them.
The Court: Overrule.
Mr. Breckenridge: We except.
A. Not on specific orders. It was knowledge that on those
specific dates that a parade was to be held and we did make
special assignments for that purpose.
Q. I believe you made the general statement you had
knowledge of violations. Now, can you be specific as to
what knowledge you had that violations would be com
mitted?
A. What statement are you referring to? Wyatt Tee
Walker called me personally and told me he was calling
for Martin Luther King and said they intended to parade
to the City Hall at high noon, or 12:15.
Q. Did he use the word “ parade” or say he intended to
violate—
A. He didn’t say he intended to violate the law; he said
they intended to make a march on City Hall at 12:15, and
I told him that in my opinion that would be a violation of
the City ordinance and instructed him that unless he ob
tained a permit for the same we would have to arrest him,
and asked him to convey that information to Martin Luther,
[fob 236] Q. Was that when he sent the telegram?
A. No. That was a telephone conversation.
Q. Do you know when the telegram was sent?
A. Subsequent to that. I believe it was with reference
to another intended parade.
Q. Now, I believe you stated that you had been fore
warned that Beverend King and Beverend Abernathy were
going to jail and you considered that sufficient enough to
gather a large crowd!
Mr. McBee: Wait a minute. Your Honor. I haven’t un
derstood any such testimony as that and I move to exclude
that statement.
181
Mr. Shores: Oh, yes, you asked him yourself about the
newspaper items, that he was forewarned by reading the
newspapers that they would be ready to go to jail or would
go to jail.
Mr. Breckenridge: Your Honor, his objection to that was
sustained, the evidence of what he saw in the newspaper.
The Court: I will have to sustain the objection to your
question. Your question had to do with the fact he gathered
the crowd. I don’t know that that is the testimony.
Mr. Shores: No, not that he gathered the crowd.
Q. Did you testify you had been forewarned or had been
notified through some means that Reverend King and
Reverend Abernathy said they were ready to go to jail
on Friday and you considered that that was sufficient to
draw a crowd at the church?
A. I read a press release that they issued at the Gaston
Motel on the 11th of April in which King—both the Kings,
A. D. and Martin Luther—Shuttlesworth and others were
present,- it was read by Wyatt T. Walker, but the others
made a speech also in which they said that they would not
honor the Court’s injunction, that they were going to vio
late it. j
Q. That hasn’t been brought out, that hasn’t been men
tioned before.
A. That is where I got my information.
Q. I am referring to the time when you said two of them
[fol. 237] said they were prepared to go to jail on Friday.
A. If my recollection serves me right, that was at the
specific time they made the statement.
Q. And you stated you considered that sufficient to draw
a crowd, is that correct?
A. I think it was calculated to do that, yes.
Q. And when the crowd came you didn’t disperse the
crowd, did you ?
A. Not from the private property or not from within the
church or the church grounds.
v Qt What aboufthe streets?
182
A. We didn’t have any in the streets at the particular
time prior to the time the march started.
Q. What about the sidewalks ?
A. The sidewalks were not blocked in a manner to pre
vent passage. There were Negroes of course coming and
going. They were just milling about in the general vicinity.
Q. Milling about, and there was a crowd?
A. There was a crowd.
Q. During these demonstrations you have, unlike the
freedom riders when there was considerable violence which
you referred to, that is, the freedom rides, on the date when
the freedom riders came in which you said there were a
number of outside white agitators, possibly three hundred
that you recognized, now,' have you recognized jany such
outside white agitators during these demonstrations? _
A- Not personally., I haven’t been on the outskirts. I
have seen some that I didn’t like the looks of. whether you
want to say it is recognition or not, and I have sent some
away personally, but as far as me recognizing any group
from Anniston or Montgomery or any other particular
place, I have not because that work has been handled by
the Traffic Division and it has a specific purpose, it is to
keep them from getting into the vicinity of these meetings
where they might cause some trouble.
Q. Have you arrested any white people?
A. We have had no occasion to because there has been
[fol. 2381 no violations committed. There have been no
direct conflict or any" direct contact between any white or
black since this has started to my knowledge.
Q. And there hasn’t been any violence at all?
A. That is between any outsider. Now, there has been
some violence at the scene of some of these. We have had
a police officer or so hurt and had a newspaper man hurt
and had some City property destroyed, but we have had no
contact between any white or any colored to my knowledge.
Q. In other words, the Police Department has been able
to maintain law and order?
A. By the hardest.
183
__Q. But you maintained it, notwithstanding it being hard?
A. That’s right. It has depleted our sources a great deal.
Q. These incidents of rock throwing, what other violence
can you mention that has occurred during these demonstra
tions besides the rock throwing? Did the rock throwing
come from any members of the demonstrators that you
know of?
A. Yes, there were three arrested for rock throwing.
How many more were throwing I have no knowledge of.
Q. Were they marchers or from the general public?
A. I would say it was from the ones that had been stirred
up on the outside.
Q. And not the marchers?
A. Well, we didn’t get all the marchers. Whether or not
they originally started in the march I couldn’t say because
I couldn’t identify three or four hundred people.
Q. Wasn’t this rock throwing done after these people
had marched and been arrested?
A. While they were still there in the streets and the
Negroes on the corner were cheering for the marchers, I
suppose, but it happened after this Negro woman had
bitten the police officer and had given them a good bit of
trouble in making an arrest. ̂ I would say she was not a
member of the marchers because she was not dressed in
a manner that I think she would be had she been going to
[fol. 239] church .I think she would have been probably
one that lived around there somewhere or one that just
joined the group.
Q. But the rocks were thrown after the people were
arrested?
A. Yes, after the marchers were arrested or after twenty
odd of them were arrested. There were three hundred or
three hundred fifty that were not arrested.
Q. During the whole demonstration this was the only
incident of violence, this rock throwing?
A. No. We had this woman that resisted arrest.
Q. You testified, though, she wasn’t a part of this march
ing group!
A. Well, she was a part of the furor that was created
subsequent to the arrest or attendant with the arrest and
at the same time.
Q. That resisting arrest grew out of arresting her?
A. What grew out of it? I don’t understand.
Q. The incidents of violence here was this woman resist
ing arrest, is that correct?
A. She did resist arrest, yes.
Q. Were there any other incidents of violence during the
whole demonstration?
A. Well, the rock throwing.
Q. I mean other than the rock throwing and the woman
resisting arrest?
A. I don’t believe that there was anyone else at that
particular time charged with—
Q. Although it was a hard job,—
A. There were three of them charged with assault with
intent to murder, hut the charge was later reduced, and
that was the rock throwing.
Q. And although it was a hard job, the Police Denart-
ment has maintained law and- order ?
A. Well, I am thankful.
Mr. Shores: That is all.
[fol. 240] Kedirect examination.
By Mr. McBee:
Q. You said, I believe, that the leaders of these parades
were dressed how?
A. In robes. S '
Q. What kind <p robesj/
A. Long, black\flg»»rig robes. I don’t know what de
nomination it is supposed to designate, hut it is not a busi
ness suit or anything like that. It is a robe that they were
wearing over their suits.
185
Q. Now, the question has been asked whether or not you
feel like the Police Department has been pretty successful
in keeping an undue amount of violence and strife and
trouble away from the City of Birmingham on account of
these incidents that you have referred to. If you had not
taken the precautions that you took and taken the action
you did take, in your judgment and opinion would that have
been true?
A. In my judgment we would have had some serious
trouble, Mr. McBee.
Mr. McBee: That is all.
Mr. Shores: No further questions.
The Court: We will recess at this time until 1:45.
(Whereupon at 12:00 noon the proceedings were in recess
until 1:45 P.M.)
[fol. 241] J. W alter Johnson, Jr., called as a witness,
being duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
Direct examination.
By Mr. McBee:
Q. Would you give your name, please?
A. J. Walter Johnson, Jr.
Q. J. Walton?
A. Walter.
Q. What is your occupation, Mr. Johnson, please, sir?
A. News man for Associated Press.
Q. I didn’t quite get that first word.
A. News man, or reporter, either one.
The Court: Just a moment, Mr. McBee. Let me see if we
can get this straightened out now. How about holding that
door. We have already started. All right.
Q. Mr. Johnson, did you—were you in Birmingham on
the 11th day of April of this year?
186
A. Yes, I was.
Q. And in order to orient you, were you present at a
news conference which was conducted at the Gaston Motel?
A. Yes.
Q. When that news conference was held, did you see any
written document, or any written paper?
A. No, I did not.
Q. You didn’t get one of the written statements?
A. No, sir. I got to the news conference later. Someone
else was covering it.
Q. I see, and you didn’t get to see that?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you remember at or about the time that the news
conference adjourned whether or not anything was said
about a further meeting that night?
A. There was to be a meeting that night, yes.
Q. What, if anything, was said about those present at
tending the meeting?
[fol. 242] Mr. Greenberg: We object. Said by whom, or
about what?
The Court: Sustained, unless it can be identified as to
who was present at this particular conference.
Q. Do you know who was present?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who was?
A. Martin Luther King, Ralph Abernathy, and several
faces I did not know.
Q. You know those two?
A. I know those two.
Q. Did you know Rev. Shuttlesworth?
A. Yes. I don’t remember if he was present at the con
ference—yes, I am sure he was.
Q. All right, now, with reference to the meeting, do you
know who, if any, of those made the statement that you
were invited to come to the meeting that night?
A. Repeat that question, please.
187
Q. I say do you know which, if any, of those that you
have named made the statement that you were invited to
the meeting that night?
Mr. Shores: Your Honor, we object. It has not been
established there was a statement made.
The Court: Objection overruled.
A. Yes, there was to be a meeting. I got no formal invita
tion, no. There was to be a meeting that night, and I had
been covering them during the week, so I went to that.
Q. All right, you don’t recall about any of those present
inviting you, the press, and others there to attend?
A. They may have. It was not a general thing. I mean
it was a general thing, that we could come.
Q. Just a general thing?
A. Just a general invitation.
Q. You didn’t get a specific private written invitation of
your own?
[fol. 243] A. No. No.
Q. Now, did you go to the meeting which was held on the
night of the 11th of April?
A. Yes.
Q. Where was that meeting held?
A. It was at one of the Negro churches. I am not sure
which one; I get them confused.
Q. Do you remember whether or not at that meeting—
on that occasion—by the way, did you make notes of the
meeting?
A. Yes.
Q. What took place there ?
A. They had a prayer service, singing, collections. That
took up a large part of the first part. Then, a man, I be
lieve his name is James Bevel—I think James is his first
name.
Q. James Bevel?
A. Yes.
Q. All right, what did he do ?
A. He had the sermon. He spoke.
188
Q. All right.
A. After the sermon—
Q. To get hack, now, while we are at it, what did James
Bevel talk about?
A. May I check these to make sure ?
Q. Yes, sir, sure. Those were notes that were made at
the time that this was going on ?
A. Yes, sir, these notes made at the meeting.
Q. He just said he made them. Them are his notes.
A. I am going to have to backtrack here a minute. James
Bevels spoke on Friday night.
Q. It was not Thursday night, but Friday night?
A. It was Friday night when Bevels spoke.
Q. Did they have any speakers on Thursday night?
A. Yes, they did, including Ralph Abernathy, and Martin
Luther King, Jr.
[fol. 244] Q. You say Ralph Abernathy and Martin
Luther King, Jr. spoke on Thursday night? That is to say
the 11th?
A. Yes.
Q. All right, now, what did they say, if anything? Did
the question of injunction come up in their discussions, or
in their statements ?
A-Jthp watt] “ injunction” , itself, never did come up that
I can remember or see offhand. They did speak of boycotts,
and boycott was included with the entire movement.
Q. All right, they spoke of boycotts, and boycotts were
included with the entire movement. All right.
A. Included in those boycotts—do you want quotes?
Q. I beg your pardon? I didn’t hear what you said.
The Court: He said do you want his quotes.
Q. Yes, I would like to have your quotes, if you have
them.
A. Abernathy, while he was speaking, he said—one thing
he said, “If you have to use the rest room, be a first class
citizen, go where Bull goes. I want to see it anyway.”
Q. If you have to use the rest room, what?
A. “ Go where Bull goes. I want to see it anyway.”
189
Q. All right, was that all he said?
A. He was making a few comments about Bull Connor,
but I don’t have anything definite on that.
Q. That was Balph Abernathy?
A. That was Balph Abernathy.
Q. All right.
A. Martin Luther King also spoke.
Q. All right.
A. He was advocating boycott of all stores except by
necessity, such as food, and medicine through the Easter
Season.
Q. All right.
A. And after the Easter Season.
Q. All right.
A. He was advocating to keep on with this boycott until,
[fol. 245] as he put it, the walls of segregation crumbled.
Q. All right.
A. Keeping on until the job is done.
Q. All right, is that all he said?
A. No. He said “ Stay out of stores until Negroes can
use the lunch counters” , that also he was checking these
boycotts, and prove them to be successful in the downtown
stores, advocating spending money where they can buy
jobs, saying don’t buy segregation.
Q. All right.
A. This boycott, they said, was to go into the Savings
and Loan, Insurance, and so forth outside of the stores,
the downtown stores, themselves.
Q. All right.
A. Later, he was saying A1 Hibler, Mr. A1 Hibler, the
blind Negro singer—
Q. All right.
A. Hibler was to have made a march on Wednesday,
which he did, a demonstration, and he was not arrested.
Martin Luther King and Balph Abernathy were to follow
on Thursday—wait, I am sorry, they were to go on Tues
day, and he was to follow on Wednesday, so they did not
arrest Hibler that day. Therefore, Hibler marched, or dem
onstrated again on Thursday.
190
Mr. Shores: Your Honor, I don’t believe those answers
are responsive. I think he is asking about the meeting,
and he is telling now what happened.
Mr. McBee: He is telling about what they said happened.
The Court: If it is restricted to what they said on this
occasion, I will overule. Is that what was said on the occa
sion that you are stating?
A. Yes. They said since Hibler was not arrested they
would give him another chance, so they would wait until
Good Friday.
Q. Who was going to wait until Good Friday?
A. Abernathy and King.
Q. Abernathy and King were going to wait until Good
Friday?
[fol. 246] A. Yes, and on Thursday night, Martin Luther
King said—
Mr. Shores: I wonder if he could identify these Thursday
nights by date ?
A. That is the 11th.
Q. Go ahead.
A. He said Abernathy and I was—that is Martin LuthfiX^
King speaking, “Abernathy and I will make our move on
Good Friday, symbolizing the day Jesus hung on the cross.”
Q. All right.
A. He also said, “We must love all white persons, we
must love even Bull Connor.” He was talking about the
white persons as people, and not as they supposed the gen
eral white person to feel about segregation.
Q. All right.
A. He also said that where, he said, “We will have to
force the certain cities to say ‘we have to do something’,
these people are determined to be free.”
Q. All right, did Abernathy say anything about what he
was going to do ?
Mr. Shores: We object to his leading. He could ask
what did he say.
191
Q. I just asked if Abernathy did.
A. Yes, Abernathy did speak. I have more quotes on
him. Abernathy was saying, “ I am against white supremacy,
I am against black supremacy, I am against any kind of
racial supremacy.” He said, “We have whites and Negroes
standing in my way to be free.” He was talking about
several people being arrested, except A1 Hibler, and he
said, “ That is discrimination, and we don’t like it”, speak
ing of discriminating against Hibler for not being arrested.
Q. In other words, Hibler was discriminated against be
cause he wasn’t arrested, is that what he was talking about?
A. Yes, that was the gist of what they said, the two of
them.
Q. Was there any occasion when any of them used the
word “march” at all!
[fol. 247] A. Not that I have, no, sir.
Q. Let me show you a news release here and see if you
can identify it.
A. No, I cannot. That is a United Press International
story.
Q. Were you at the same meeting the United Press Inter
national was covering?
A. I didn’t think they were there that night. I didn’t see
any of them there that night at that meeting.
Q. Do you see in there anything they quote? We will
say they undertook to quote Martin Luther King verbatim?
Mr. Greenberg: May we have an objection to that, Your
Honor? This is a quote which someone else is purported to
have taken down, which is not authenticated. The man said
he didn’t see anyone else there. I couldn’t see how it pos
sibly could come in.
The Court: Sustain the objection.
Mr. McBee: Your Honor, I would like to call the Court’s
attention and ask the privilege of cross examining the tes
timony the witness is giving from the witness stand. It
is very varied and different, and much different from the
statement he made immediately before he went onto the
192
stand. I would like the privilege of cross examining the
witness, if I may.
Mr. Shores: Your Honor, we object to his own witness,
his cross examining his own witness. He hasn’t laid a
predicate for showing the witness is a hostile witness, and
he is not failing to answer his questions. He has answered
every question.
Mr. McBee: I am very much surprised at the witness’
testimony, because his testimony is very different—his
statement is very different.
The Court: If you seek to lay such a predicate, I would
be glad to consider it, but I don’t think at this time I can.
Mr. McBee: All right.
Q. I will ask you if you did not in—while being inter
rogated by Mr. Thompson of the City Legal Department,
and also in the further discussions and interview with me,
[fol. 248] if you did not tell him that this was a substan
tially correct statement of what was said by Martin Luther
King on this occasion?
Mr. Greenberg: I object, Your Honor. That calls for
hearsay. This calls for what the witness is supposed to have
said on another occasion.
Q. Didn’t you make this statement back in the witness
room immediately before you were put on the witness
stand?
A. You are talking about this part, or the part marked
out, or what ?
Q. I am talking about right here (indicating). Did you
not say that was a correct statement in substance of what—
A. You are asking me about the meeting Thursday night.
Mr. Greenberg: Could we identify that statement?
The Court: I think it should be identified. It has been
asked to be identified. Mr. McBee. if you will
Q. Is this not the— is this memorandum not a memoran
dum written in your presence just before you took the
stand?
A. True.
193
Q. And was it not written by Mr. Bill Thompson, one of
the assistant city attorneys'?
A. True.
Q. Sitting right at the table there ?
A. Yes.
Q. Did yon not tell him at the time that this was a cor
rect statement, or in substance what you heard Mr.—Rev.
Martin Luther King say on the occasion of the meeting on
the night of the 11th of April at the church when you at
tended the meeting?
A. No, sir.
Mr. Shores: I object. That calls for hearsay.
A. No, sir.
The Court: Overruled.
A. Are you talking about this (indicating) ? He said,
“ Injunction, or no injunction, we are going to march.”
QrTes.
[fol. 249] A. I told him this was not a direct quote from
me. He must have misunderstood me.
Q. You said that wasn’t a direct quote from you?
A. No, I do not have that discussion quoted anywhere,
not from that meeting on Thursday night.
Q. Did you have it from Friday night?
A. Friday night they were in jail.
Q. You didn’t have any remarks at all from Rev. Martin
Luther King on Friday night?
A. Friday night, no, sir. This is where you are talking
about after they were served with the papers.
Q. After they were served with the papers where?
A. After they were served with the papers at the Gaston
Motel.
Q. You mean to say you recall this statement being made
at the press release, the press conference?
A. At the press conference, no, sir. Now, this injunction
was passed in the middle of the night. The press conference
came the next day.
u
194
vk"
\
V
\
c/ r /
Q. Were you present when the injunction was served!
A. Yes, I was.
Q. You were present, and that was in the middle of
the night, you say?
A. Yes.
Q. Was this remark made then at that time?
A. That direct quote, they were marching at the—just
a minute, and I will he happy to find it. He said this direct
-this is what Shuttlftswn.n.k said sneaking-o f.the injunm.
tion handed to him: “ This is a flagrant denial of our con
stitutional privileges.” - *..........
A ll r ig id l
A . “ In no way will this retard the.thxust of...this move-
men t7r lie~s aid they would have to study the details. He
said, “ An Alabama injunction is used to misuse certain
constitutional privileges that will never he trampled on by
an injunction. That is what they were saying that particu
lar night right after the injunction.
[fol. 250] Q. All right, who was present there at that
time?
A. Ralph Abernathy was there, Martin Luther King,
Mr. Shuttlesworth, Wyatt Tee Walker, and there was some
others I did not recognize, did not know them.
Q. Some you did not know?
A. Some I did not know. Abernathy made a statement
at that time also. He said, <^4n ^injunction nor anything
else will stop the Negro from obtaining citizenship iiTTns
^~Trtarcb~'for ffeEftPmj2--------- - — ------ ------ ““
Q. He said an injunction will stop it?
A. He said, “ An injunction nor anything else” . In other
words, nothing would stop them.
Q. Nothing will stop them?
A. Nothing will stop them on their march for freedom.
Q. That was on the Wednesday night when they were
served, or rather Thursday morning?
A. Early Thursday morning when they were served with
the injunction. Does that clarify it?
195
Q. Yes, sir. Thank you. Now, you stated that you were
in the room, or rather in the conference on Thursday night,
and you stated that Rev. King made a statement to the
effect they would make the move on Friday?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, did anything else happen at that meeting? I
mean, was any volunteers called for, or did they make any
effort to—
Mr. Shores: We object to his leading the witness.
The Court: Sustained. I don’t believe I know which
meeting you have reference to.
Mr. McBee: Withdraw the question.
Q. Referring to the night of Thursday, which would be
April 11th, at the church meeting, what, if anything, was
done or said to enlist volunteers?
A. They called for volunteers that night.
Mr. Shores: We object to “ they” .
The Court: Sustained.
[fol. 251] Q. You could tell whether or not some of the
people there who were speaking, if you know their names,
what their names were?
A. Well, that particular night, the main speech was
given by Mr. A1 Hibler.
Q. All right.
A. I do not remember who actually made this call for
the marchers, the particular person. One of those women
were in the front of the church signing people up. By my
own count, they signed up 27 people to follow A1 Hibler
on Friday.
Q. All right, 27 people were signed up in the church?
A. That was by my own count.
Q. Pardon?
A. I say I counted 27.
Q. All right. When they signed up, did anybody there
present in this meeting encourage them to sign up?
196
Mr. Shores: We object to anybody encouraging them.
That is too general. Anybody is not a party to this in
junction suit.
The Court: Sustained unless it be identified as being
one of these respondents.
Q. All right. Can you identify any of these respondents
as participating in it!
A. Yes, A1 Hibler, and—that was on Friday. As I re
member on that Thursday night, it was King, and Aber
nathy left the meeting early. They had some letters to
write.
Q. Who else remained there!
A. There was several people still on the platform I did
not recognize.
Q. Were any different people on the platform after they
left from what were on the platform when they left!
A. Oh, yes, several people.
Q. What is that!
A. Several people were still up there.
Q. I see, but did any new ones come up, or just the same
[fol. 252] ones stay there!
A. I can’t remember if it was before, or after, but they
did have a Black Muslim and Catholic Priest came up.
Q. You say they had a Black Muslim! What do you
base that statement on!
Mr. Shores: We object to a statement about any Black
Muslim. We are not trying any Black Muslims here.
Mr. McBee: We are going to mention some Black Mus
lims later on.
Mr. Shores: They are not a party to this citation. Ask
him whether or not these respondents were present there.
I he Court: Unless it can be shown these respondents
were present and had something to do with the meeting at
that time—
Mr. McBee: I thought we had shown this meeting was
called by the respondents and the press conference that
197
afternoon, and it was obviously a meeting of this organi
zation.
Mr. Shores: Your Honor, I didn’t understand there was
a calling. I didn’t hear no testimony this meeting was called
by any of these respondents.
Mr. McBee: If there is no evidence in the record so far,
Your Honor, I will promise you there will be.
Mr. Shores: At that time, Your Honor, I think it will be
time enough to ask if these respondents called a meeting.
The Court: I don’t see any sense going into this meeting,
or a meeting of the Muslims that didn’t violate this injunc
tion, Mr. McBee, and I would like to stick to this particular
issue.
Mr. McBee: All right, Your Honor.
Q. Now, do you recall anything else that was said or
done by those—now, when Rev. King left, and Abernathy
left, you say that a new group of people came up on the
platform, or did the same ones stay there?
A. No, sir, it was generally the same group. A couple
more did come up.
Q. But, generally, the same group stayed there in charge
[fol. 253] of the meeting?
A. Yes.
Q. And they remained on until the meeting was called
to an end, or did you stay that long?
A. I left a little before the end of the meeting. I left as
it was beginning to break up.
Q. All right, was anything said about cards, membership
cards ?
A. Yes. Again, I will have to use the non-discript—I
believe it was Rev. Young. I am not sure on that.
Mr. Greenberg: May we object to the remainder of what
this witness is going to say?
Mr. McBee: He said in his best judgment it was Rev.
Young.
198
A. I am sure I heard the statement. I am not sure off
hand what specific person made it.
The Court: Are you acquainted with Rev. Young so you
would know him by identification!
A. Yes, I am.
The Court: Is Rev. Young in the courtroom!
[fol. 254] The Court: Is it your best judgment that the
Rev. Young made the statement!
A. It is my best judgment, but, as I say, I cannot swear
to that.
Mr. Shores: We object to it then, Your Honor.
Mr. McBee: I think the witness is probably confused
about the degree required of him testifying. If he can
testify in his best judgment that it was, then he is entitled
to testify to that effect and the Judge may weigh it and
give it what weight he desires to.
Mr. Greenberg: The witness has said he cannot swear
to it and he testified under oath.
The Court: The Court will receive it as evidence of
what took place in the meeting and with the statement
the witness made as to the identification of the person
making it and will be taken into consideration in that light.
Q. You may go ahead.
A. Thank you. He was saying that everyone in this
movement should have a card—should carry a card. They
said that each one of them should carry one of these mem
bership cards—everyone in the demonstration, everyone
participating at all should be carrying a card—in fact,
every Negro, as they put it, should be carrying a card.
Q. Everyone participating and, in fact, every Negro
should be carrying a card!
Mr. Shores: Your Honor, we object to his aiding and
leading.
The Court: I think he is repeating what the witness has
already said.
199
Q. Did they do anything about money?
A. Yes. They always took up a collection.
Mr. Shores: Your Honor, we object to that. What does
money have to do with these respondents violating an in
junction, and to whom is he referring when he says “they” ?
A. I am speaking of the leaders, the people on the plat
form.
The Court: The objection is overruled.
[fol. 255] A. The people on the platform, they took up a
collection each night by having the people in the congrega
tion file by and put money in the plates in the front—in
collection plates. This was a part of the general service
that they had.
Q. Did that take place at the prayer meeting or after
the speeches?
A. This took place generally at the first of the meeting
when they first came in.
Q. Are you talking about the prayer meeting part or the
part when they got through speaking?
A. The prayer meeting part.
Q. Just all invited to come down in front, is that the
way they did it?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, is that all that you recall that happened on
Thursday night?
A. Yes, sir, it is.
Q. Did anything happen on Friday night?
A. Yes, sir. They opened the meeting in the same gen
eral way—
Mr. Shores: Your Honor, we object to “ they opened the
meeting.”
A. The meeting was opened in the same general way
with the prayer service.
200
Mr. Shores: We don’t know by whom. We would like
to know what meeting and by whom.
Q. Will you tell us who was there, Mr. Johnson!
A. Reverend Young was t
A. This is ffiood.Friday-might. The Rev. James Bevil
was there. Wyatt Tee Walker—those were the only ones
I believe I have who spoke that night.
Q. Those were the speakers!
A. Those were the ones who spoke, yes, sir.
Q. Would you tell us then what they said when they
spoke!
A. The Rev. Young said, “ The white in Mississippi have
[fol. 256] more sense than the white folks in Alabama.”
Q. All right.
A. He did say, “ City police are learning to do their
duty, they can arrest people without beating them now.”
Q. “ City police can arrest people without beating them” !
A. “ Without beating them.”
James Bevil—he introduced James Bevil and he spoke.
He said whenever he thinks of bombings and shootings and
beatings of Negroes he thinks of Birmingham.
Q. All right.
A. He said, “ The Negroes don’t have to worry about
doing anything.” He said, “ Just leave the white people
alone and white people will always do something foolish.”
He was speaking of Birmingham being a sick city.
Q. Did he say what made it sick!
A. He was talking about the people and segregation,
segregation makes it sick.
Q. That is what made it sick!
A. He also said, “A lot of Negroes are sick and don’t
want to get well.” Speaking of this he was saying the
movement has as many Negroes against them as it does
white.
The Court: This occasion
201
Q. Has as many Negroes against them?
A. Against the movement. He said, “ The Negro can only
free himself, white can’t do it because white don’t own
Negro’s freedom.”
Speaking on the boycott, he was saying, “ If God can
feed cockroaches, he can feed me.”
He said, “Bull—■” speaking of Bull Connor— “ Bull can
make us believe he controls our freedom; he doesn’t.”
He also said, “Locking up the leader of this movement
won’t do any good; they don’t have sense enough to know
that God is the leader.” In this instance he was speaking
about the Birmingham Police Department when he said
“ they.”
Q. “Locking up the leader won’t do any good” ?
A. He said, “Locking up the leaders of this movement
[fol. 257] won’t do any good; they don’t have sense enough
to t-nnw trrwl ftp leader.”
He also said, “ Everything is against the law if the white
folks don’t want it.”
He said, “We have been setting here for years and years,
all we have to do is get up and start walking.” That was
the general theme of his talk, “ to get up and start walk
ing.”
Q. “ Get up and start walking” ?
A. He said that he personally was tired of being walked
on by some “white trash.”
He asked the question, “Do you want your son to die
in the electric chair for raping someone he had never seen?
Then get up and start walking.”
That was the end of his speech.
After that they sang several songs, “ Freedom, Freedom,
Freedom, Everybody Wants Freedom.” And several people
who they said had just come out of jail came in and led
the singing—stood up in front of the church and led the
singing.
Q. Who said that? You say some people came out of
jail. Were they introduced as having just come out of jail?
202
A. Yes, they were. Rev. Young introduced them as just
having come out of jail.
Q. All right.
A. There were about twenty of them who were leading
the singing.
Young spoke for a few minutes after Bevil’s speech, just
a bare few minutes. He said, “We have demonstrated to
the world the power of this movement; now to demonstrate
its persistence.” He did not elaborate.
Wyatt Tee Walker was the next speaker.
Q. All right. Wyatt Tee Walker was the next speaker!
A. He called for a meeting of all students the following
morning which would be on a Saturday, students from
grades 1 through graduate school. He said, “ There is some
thing we want to do with the student population of Birming
ham. They can get a better education in five days in this
jail than five months in these segregated schools.”
[fol. 258] Q. He wanted the student population to go to
jail, he said!
A. I repeat that quote. He said, “ There is something we
want to do with the student population of Birmingham.
They can get better education in five days in this jail than
five months in these segregated schools.”
Q. All right,
A. He also was calling for people to go to church, to put
on last Easter’s clothes, since the boycott was on, put on
last Easter’s clothes and to meet at 9 :30 at headquarters on
Sunday morning to go to white churches.
Q. All right. Put on last year’s clothes to go to white
churches!
A. Go to white churches. Last Easter’s clothes. He was
saying to wear these Easter clothes so that the white people
could not use the excuses of overalls to kick them out, or
rather, to not let them in if they wore overalls.
He also said he was “ looking for two dozen Negroes who
are willing to die for me.”
Q. Excuse me. I did not get that.
A. Two dozen Negroes who are willing to die for me.
203
Q. “Who are willing to die for me” ?
" A. Period^ ' ~-----
Q. This is Wyatt Tee Walker?
A. Wyatt Tee Walker. He said, “ I will need you eight
to ten days.” He did not elaborate.
Speaking of the inauguration to follow the next following
Monday, he was calling for the Negroes to go out and wel
come Boutwell, as he put it, “ to wish Boutwell well. I am
speaking in parables.”
Q. “ To wish Boutwell well” ?
A. “Wish Boutwell well. I am speaking in parables.”
Q. “ To wish Boutwell well.” Was that all that was said
about going to wish Mr. Boutwell well?
A. That was all I have.
Q. Now, did he or any of the others call for any other
volunteers ?
A. He was calling for these students to meet the next
[fob 259] morning, and he was calling for the Sunday group
to go to white churches, and he was calling for the ones to
go welcome Boutwell in, wish Boutwell well. That is the
only ones he called for.
Q. Those are the only ones he made mention of ?
A. Right.
Q. Was any of the others at that time and occasion, that
is, Young or any one of the other leaders who was there,
making any requests for other volunteers ?
A. No, sir, to the best of my memory.
Q. Now, at either of these meetings was anything men
tioned about volunteering to go to jail?
A. Yes, that was mentioned at every meeting. They were
recruiting people to go to jail—people who were willing to
go to jail.
Q. Recruiting people willing to go to jail?
A. Yes.
Mr. McBee: You may take the witness.
Mr. Shores: Your Honor, may we have two minutes to
consult with one of the respondents?
204
The Court: All right. We will take about a five minutes
recess.
(Short recess.)
Cross examination.
By Mr. Shores:
Q. Mr. Johnson, I believe you said you heard Wyatt Tee
Walker make this speech and a request for—was it twenty
persons—“to die for him” or was it “ to die for freedom” ?
A. His quote was “ two dozen.”
Q. Two dozen?
A. “To die for me.”
Q. Are you sure it was “ for me” or “ for freedom” ?
A. He said, “ for me.”
Q. Was that said in a symbolic sense in your judgment?
Mr. McBee: We object to his interpreting the statement.
The Court: Sustained.
Mr. Shores: That is all.
(Witness excused.)
[fol. 260] L ieutenant W illie B. P aintee, called as a wit
ness, being first duly sworn, was examined and testified as
follows:
Direct examination.
By Mr. McBee:
Q. What is your correct name, sir?
A. Willie B. Painter.
Q. And what is your occupation ?
A. I am an investigator with the Alabama Department of
Public Safety.
Q. Have you been with that Department very long?
A. Fifteen years. Ten years as an investigator.
205
Q. During that time have you had occasion to become
familiar with the organization that is known as the South
ern Christian Leadership Conference?
A. Yes, sir, I have gained some knowledge of the organi
zation.
Q. Have you had occasion to become acquainted with
Wyatt Tee Walker and Martin Luther King, Jr.?
A. Yes, sir, I have.
Q. Are they officers in that organization?
A. Rev. King is president, Rev. Walker is executive di
rector.
Q. Have you also had occasion to become familiar with
the organization known as the Alabama Christian Move
ment for Human Rights ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know the leaders of that organization ?
A. Rev. Shuttlesworth has been president for a consider
able period of time.
Q. Do you know whether Gardner is the vice president of
it?
A. I am not certain of that, sir.
Q. Do you know what relationship exists between those
two organizations ?
A. The Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights
is an affiliate organization of the Southern Christian Lead
ership Conference.
Q. Now, during the occasions on Good Friday and also
[fol. 261] on Easter Sunday were you present in Birming
ham at the time of the incidents, if any, occurred on either
of those days relating to either of those movements or both
of them?
A. Yes, sir, I was present on both days.
Q. All right. Now, let’s first take up the occasion on the
12th which would be Good Friday. Would you relate what
you saw take place on that occasion!
Mr. Shores: Your Honor, we object. That is a little gen
eral I believe, what took place and where and what time.
206
Mr. McBee: I may alleviate your worries about the
matter. I am going to ask him to confine himself to this
march or procession or whatever you might properly call it
—or parade—which occurred on Good Friday and in which
these organizations that you have just referred to are in
volved, or their leaders.
Mr. Shores: We object to those organizations, Your
Honor. At the beginning of this trial Your Honor passed
the action pertaining to these two organizations until May
6th. These two organizations are not on trial at this time.
Mr. McBee: That is true, Your Honor, but the leaders
are on trial in this case, and if I understand the testimony
of the witness so far—
The Court: The leaders as he has identified so far in his
testimony are on trial in this particular citation.
Mr. Shores: That is correct, but he is asking about the
Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights and South
ern Christian Leadership Conference which are not on trial.
The Court: To the extent the leaders are involved, I will
overrule your objection.
Mr. Shores: We except.
A. I arrived in Birmingham at about noon on Friday, the
12th. I joined with other officers, including City detectives
of the City of Birmingham, and other investigators of the
Alabama Department of Public Safety. From that time
we observed a crowd gathering outside a church. I am not
positive of the name of the church. I believe it would be
[fol. 262] St. Johns. It is on 6th Avenue I believe.
As the crowd continued gathering later Lieutenant Ralph
Holmes and myself walked to a position across the street
from the church. That would have been sometime in my
judgment after 2 :00 o’clock. While we were there observing
the crowd—
Q. May I ask to interrupt you! How close did you get
to the church ?
A. We were standing directly across the street from the
church.
207
Q. Was the street intervening between you and the
church !
A. Yes. There were cars parked along the street and we
were standing inside the cars, in so far as the street is con
cerned, rather than outside towards the sidewalk. We were
actually standing in the edge of the street.
Q. All right.
A. We observed a late model automobile, I remember it
to be a Ford, it came up in front of the church and Rev.
Wyatt Tee Walker was driving the vehicle. The Rev.
Martin Luther King, Jr., Ralph Abernathy, Fred Lee
Shuttlesworth, and, as I remember, Bernard Lee and
Dorothy Cotten departed the automobile and entered the
church. Rev. Walker drove the automobile away from the
scene at that time.
A short time thereafter within a period of several minutes
a group came out of the church and began a march or parade
pn the direction of—
tj. rhear some coughing and I am missing some of that.
A. A short time thereafter a group came out of the
church and began what appeared to be a parade or a march
in the direction of downtown Birmingham.
Q. All right.
A. This group was led by Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.,
Rev. Ralph Abernathy, Rev. Shuttlesworth, as I recall, Rev.
Bernard Lee was also in the formation leading the group.
There were several people following in this formation. As
the group marched away from the church in the direction
of downtown Birmingham a group of persons who had
assembled along the sidewalk and the street followed this
procession. This group of people would consist of several
[fol. 263]Jmndrgd. ' .•.— I,™'
Q. Now/^fiTyou mean the marchers or the other group?
A. The group following the marchers. Actually the whole
procession was going almost as a group. As the group
came out of the church then the whole group of people who
had assembled along the sidewalk followed along behind
them and I think you could describe it as one procession.
9 ^
b'**r'
P
( f^
208
Q. All right.
A. At a location—I am not sure again of the street num
ber—the police had set up a blockade to block the street.
That was near a park that again I am not certain of the
exact location, but it would be near 17th Street and 6th
Avenue.
Before the marchers arrived at this point they turned to
the right and walked down by the side of the park for a
block and then turned left at the next intersection and con
tinued marching.
At about the middle of the block after they turned left and
made their second turn I observed the leaders of the group
being stopped by the Birmingham Police Department, and
at that time a number of persons were placed under arrest.
During the time that the group or immediately or a short
time after the group left the church Lt. Ralph Holmes and I
were walking up the street about the middle of the street
following with the group.
Q. Was that before their arrest?
A. Yes. And at this time Rev. Wyatt Tee Walker was
walking along with us and he made a remark to me, “ I did
not know you took pictures,” or words in substance the same.
After several persons had been arrested_ajid the Police
Department in an effort to scatter the crowd met with some
resistance and from the point where the initial arrest was
made and to the area where the crowd was moving into this
park area there were other arrests made at that time.
A short time after these arrests the police was continuing
moving the crowds on and I observed the Rev. Wyatt Tee
[fol. 264] Walker standing about the middle of the block in
the park waving his arms and I heard him speaking to the
people who were passing along the sidewalk, “ Make one
circle around the block.”
Q. Was that a part of the organized march or was that a
part of the crowd ?
A. Actually, that was part of the crowd. His direction at
that time was to the crowd. As the people would pass him
on the sidewalk he was waving his arm and stating to the
209
group, “Make one circle around the park.” That was refer
ring to circling the block around the park because the people
were in the park at that time.
Instead of continuing the march around the park the
police dispersed the people who had assembled1 there, the
crowd, and they assembled on the steps of—I believe that
would be the 16th Street Baptist Church—and held a song
and a prayer service there.
Q. Now, did you have further conversation with him that
day?
A. On that night a meeting was held at the 16th Street
Baptist Church which Lt. Holmes and I attended along with
two Birmingham police officers, two plain clothes officers.
Q. Let me interrupt you first to ask whether or not you
had further conversation with Rev. Wyatt Tee Walker dur
ing the afternoon or during or immediately after this inci
dent you refer to ?
A. Not in that particular instance I did not. I did have
conversation with him that following night.
Q. All right. You may go ahead.
A. Lt. Holmes and I attended the services or the meeting
held at the 16th Street Baptist Church along with two plain
clothes police officers from the Birmingham Police Depart
ment. We were in and out of the church. On one occasion
Lt. Holmes and I stood near the back of the auditorium to
the church. We left the church for a brief bit of time and
returned to the church and then at that time we stood up
near the speaker’s stand to the right in the auditorium.
While standing there someone opened the door and I recog
nized the Rev. Bernard Lee inside the office in the church
and he spoke to me and I spoke to him and I immediately
[fol. 265] thereafter went into the office and began conver
sation with Bernard Lee.
Q. Now, we have not identified Bernard Lee.
A. He is also a representative of the Southern Christian
Leadership Conference.
While in conversation with Bernard there in the office of
the church Rev. Walker came into the office.
210
Q. That is Wyatt Tee Walker!
A. That is Rev. Wyatt Tee Walker. After he came into
the office we exchanged greeting as we had done on other
occasions, having been acquainted for a period of time.
We entered into a conversation.
As I remember, in reply to a question to him, “ How are
things going,” or how is—what kind of progress do you
consider making, or something like that—anyway, in refer
ence to the Movement he produced or removed from his
pocket three three by five white cards with writing on the
cards in pen and ink, as I remember, blue ink, and discussed
that these represented observations in five downtown re
tail stores of Negro people who were in there in connection
with the boycott and stated that “We are conducting a
successful or reasonable successful boycott at this time.”
From discussing that we went into a general discussion
of the situation in Birmingham and the discussion led from
one thing to another there for a period of several minutes.
In reply to a direct question to Rev. Walker I asked
him had he considered or had SCLC considered the danger
in the Movement in the event that members of the Black
Muslims should enter into the Movement and create some
violence as these people have a reputation along that line.
Mr. Shores: Your Honor, we object to Black Muslims
being brought into it again.
The Court: Sustain unless the conversation following
had something to do with this injunction or against those
acts that were enjoined against by this order.
Mr. McBee: Your Honor, I think it would lead to that,
[fob 266] We would ask Your Honor to hear the evidence
and you can strike it out if you don’t think it is relevant.
The Court: I will allow him to,testify with that reserva
tion.
A. During this conversation Rev. Walker stated that
that is a calculated risk, that there had been consideration
given to the possibility of the Muslims entering in on their
211
own and not in conjunction with the SCLC, and he con
sidered that was a calculated risk at any time you planned
a movement of this type, that that thing was to be con
sidered. However, he stressed or stated that the Muslim
roup’s pKilosopPy was so different from..ttosireHihere
would not be any collaboration between the two in this type
mnyemSir ...........
From that conversation there was a conversation as to
the organizational structure and leadership of the organ
ization Southern Christian Leadership Conference. We
had kind of a session there as to the abilities of the various
persons in the leadership of SCLC. There was conversa
tion with reference to who of the leaders played the par
ticular role or certain roles in the planning of these events
as was occurring in Birmingham at this time. During this
conversation the Rev. Walker described Martin Luther
King, Jr. as a philosopher and a thinker as compared to
himself being a strategist and decision maker. There was
some reference to Rev. Martin Luther King’s actually
being the brains of the organization.
And along the same lines in that same conversation he
stated that when it came to making a major decision as to
specific activity or specific phase of the Movement there
was always a vote among the leadership and that he had
lost his vote on that particular day. When asked on to what
the matter was he lost his vote on he failed to state. In
fact, he would not discuss on what matter he had been
voted down but stated he had been voted down on some
action that particular day.
During the conversation he expressed some anxiety as to
why his name appeared as the first name on the injunction.
It seemed he was somewhat disturbed over that.
In further discussing the organization SCLC there was
[fob 267] some discussion as to the strength of the organ
ization SCLC in the State of Alabama.
Mr. Shores: Your Honor, we object to that as irrele
vant, the strength of the organization. That has nothing
to do with this contempt proceedings.
212
Mr. McBee: Still talking about the leadership, Your
Honor, and what it is doing and what it can do and what
its potentials are and what its aims are.
The Court: I think the general discussion is taking too
much time with reference to the discussion that he had.
If we could restrict it to those incidents involving the in
junction—
Mr. McBee: I will ask you this question.
Q. Did the percentage of population—was that question
discussed between you and he as to what percentage or
what number were involved in this movement?
Mr. Shores: Your Honor, we object to that question.
Mr. McBee: That is a preliminary question, Your
Honor.
The Court: Overrule.
Mr. McBee: I think we will show some very definite
light on this whole thing in a moment.
The Court: I will overrule the objection.
Q. Go ahead.
A. In the discussion there was questions as to what per
cent of the Negro people in the State of Alabama was
active in the Movement as affiliated with the Southern
Christian Leadership Conference.
Q. What was the amount?
A. The percentage discussed was approximately two
percent of the Negro population of the State of Alabama.
In this discussion I made a statement which was a little
bit of an estimate that there were approximately a million
two hundred thousand Negroes within the State of Ala
bama and from the two percent basis the Rev. Walker
calculated that SCLC would have a following of approxi
mately twenty-five thousand based on the two percent
[fol. 268] figure. And during the same discussion he made
a direct statement that this figure of two percent of the
population was sufficient to create a revolution. And
immediately following that statement—
213
Q. Did he say anything else about the revolution?
A. Immediately following that I replied that, yes, no
more than two percent of the population created a raynTUT
tion in Russia and small percentages of people in other
nations Save created revolutions to overthrow the govern
ment.
Following that Rev. Walker elaborated if the Movement
“did not obtain the things that we are seeking, then we
will follow the course of revolution to obtain those things.”
. Q. In other words, if the Movement didn’t accomplish
its purposes—
A. If they did not accomplish their purposes—
Q. -—that they would utilize the method of revolution as
a manner of accomplishing them?
A. If they did not accomplish their purposes then “We
would resort to revolution.” In substance that was the
conversation.
Q. That was on tlm evening of the JL2th?
A. Of the 12th of April.
Q. Friday evening?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you were in and out. Did you hear any of the
discussion that Rev. Bevils made?
A. No, sir. My understanding is that Rev. Bevils was
talking in the auditorium of the church during the same
time the conversation was going on between Rev. Walker
and myself and Lt. Holmes.
Q. All right. Now, you then are not too familiar with
what went on inside the church?
A. During the time that I was in the church there was a
song service and a prayer service. That is the time I was
actually in the auditorium of the church, and I believe a
collection was being taken up during that period of time
also.
Q. You didn’t hear any of the speeches though?
A. I did not hear any of the speeches, no.
[fol. 269] Q. “Were you present on Easter Sunday, the
14th day of April?
214
A. Yes, sir, I was.
Q. Were you present also at the time of a march or pro
cession or parade on that day?
A. I was, sir.
Q. Would you tell what you saw on that day and where
you were when you saw it.
[fol. 270] A. At a church located I believe at the inter
section of 7th Avenue and 11th Street. I was present there
from approximately^} :30 or 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon
on until about sundown. While observing from the outside
this church, at the time I arrived there there was a small
gathering of people standing around on the sidewalk and
areas adjacent to the sidewalks and on the church grounds.
The crowd continued gathering for a period of I would
estimate an hour and a half. During the meantime a service
began within the church. On one occasion I Avas in the
church and all the seats Avere filled. There was no one stand
ing in the church at that time. CroAvds continued to gather
outside the church, to my estimation eight hundred or a
thousand people in the church and outside the church. On
one occasion during this afternoon I observed Rev. Walker
Avalking to a group of people standing on the sidewalk
diagonally across from the church—diagonally across the
intersection from the church—as if he was giving directions
to these people. It Avas apparent for a brief period of time
that he must have been organizing some—
Mr. Shores: I object to Avhat appeared.
The Court: Sustain.
Q. Just tell us Avhat you saAv, Mr. Painter.
A. I observed Rev. Walker talking to a group of people
as if he Avas lining them up.
Mr. Shores: I object to “ as if.”
Q. You can say what he did.
A. I saAv him talking to a group of people and forming a
group of people two or three abreast.
215
Q. In other words, when he spoke to them they formed
into a group ?
A. Yes. Immediately thereafter he started walking back
across the street and I entered into a conversation with
him. I asked him a direct question in the form of a state
ment and question if he ever received information that
a march was planned on the City Hall and as a matter of
fact the City Jail or either one. He refused to answer my
[fol. 271] question as to whether or not the march was
planned on that particular day. I stated to him that our
interest was in the interest of controlling the crowds and
law enforcement. He replied to me: “ If you control your
self and the police as well as I can control this crowd, there
won’t be any problem. I guarantee you I can control these
people.”
He did state during the conversation that the group
would leave the church there and go to the church, the
Pilgrim Church by automobile, and he stated: “You have
someone at the City Hall.”
That was about the substance of the conversation at that
particular instance.
Q. All right, sir.
A. Sometime thereafter a groun came out of the church
through the side door and immediately came out on the
sidewalk and turned right and continued walking, or began
walking at a rapid rate of speed along the sidewalk. Al
most simultaneously as if within the same movement, or
I will say^ijamltaneously, this large crowd of people that
had gathered outside tne ctiurch began moving along
with them.
QTThe ones that came out of the church and the ones
on the street?
A. Yes, immediately they fell in with them and all began
to move in a direction away from the church. I observed
that group go along the street, the sidewalk, including—
covering basically all of the area of the street and sidewalk
moving away from the church. In fact, I was going along
with them as they were moving.
216
Two blocks away from the church the police had set up a
blockade to stop the group. A short distance away from
the intersection where the blockade was set up the leaders
turned through an alley or residential section as if to evade
the blockade. I had gone on at the time the group turned.
Actually I was in front of them at that time. I was at a
distance of about a half a block up one street the group
was going parallel to me across the alleyway. When I re
turned back to the corner where the police had set up the
blockade I again saw Rev. Walker. He made the remark
[fol. 272] to me at that time: “Why are you puffing and
blowing so much! You better be careful or you will have a
heart attack.”
During that conversation walking along with him I, in a
manner of caution, said to him: “ If you are not careful you
are going to get someone hurt.”
He stated to me: “If anyone is hurt, they will be injured
or hurt by your people, the police, and not by our people.”
From that we walked a short distance together and the
police at this time had contained this group within a block
area, as I recall, I am almost certain, it must have been
Six Avenue. There were several hundred people within
this group. I observed on another occasion the Rev. Wyatt
Tee Walker there in the group standing along the sidewalk
or near the curb. While there on this occasion several ar
rests were made, and on another occasion I was standing
with him about ten feet from one of the City motors and
an object struck the windshield of the motor and broke
the windshield.
I had been taking photographs throughout this whole
afternoon, as I had on previous occasions, and I immedi
ately turned to my left and saw a Negro man throw a
brick that would consist of about three-quarters of a full
brick. The brick passed within a close range of one of the
police officers there in the street on duty.
Q. Where was Rev. Walker?
A. He was standing almost directly across the street
from that incident.
217
Q. He was right there!
A. Yes, sir. The Negro male who threw the brick was
taken into custody by the police. In fact, two or three
police officers had hold of him and he broke away from
him and ran across the street and almost fell in front of
a car and did fall into the side of an automobile, at which
time he was taken into custody.
Some several minutes following this the police began
removing or pulling back out of the area, and the Negroes
in this group, the rather large group of people, began
walking from that area back toward the church where the
original meeting on that afternoon had been held.
[fol. 273] Then near sundown or a little after I observed
Rev. Walker standing outside in front of the church beckon
ing the people to come inside. I left the area on that day
at about sundown.
Q. Now, did you know the leaders! I believe you have
testified as to the Good Friday parade or procession. As to
the officers, I mean the leaders, the preachers that were
in that parade leading that parade. Did you see who was
leading the parade on Easter Sunday!
A. On Eastern pbmrjfiv T knew the Rev. A. D Kino- to be
among the leaders in the group. Others in the group I did
not know.
Q. A. D. King was there!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. He was among the leaders !
A. Yes, sir, at the time they came outside of the church.
There were others in that group that I did not know.
Q. A. D. King was involved in this Good Friday march!
A. I am not certain that he was or was not.
Q. You have no recollection of him being there!
A. I observed in the Good Friday march Bernard Lee
walking with the membership as they left the church. Ap
parently—
Q. I didn’t ask for Bernard Lee. I asked for A. D. King.
A. I am not positive I observed him on that day.
218
Q. You did identify Shuttlesworth?
A. Yes, he was in the group on Friday, not on Sunday.
Q. I believe you stated that M. L. King—
The Court: I think you have covered that already.
Mr. McBee: I just want to be sure if he has. I won’t press
the point. All right, I believe that will be all.
The Court: We will take about ten minutes recess, gentle
men.
(Whereupon, at the hour of 3:17 P.M., April 22, 1963,
the proceedings were in recess until 3:30 P.M. when the
proceedings continued as follows:)
Cross examination.
By Mr. Shores:
Q. Mr. Painter, how long have you been engaged in law
[fol. 274] enforcement?
A. I began with the Department of Public Safety as a
Highway Patrolman in August, 1948. I have been continu
ously in the service of the Department of Public Safety
since that time.
Q. Had you been engaged in other type work prior to
the time you went with the Highway Department?
A. That is the Department of Public Safety rather than
the Highway Department, as a matter of record.
Q. What have your duties consisted of during your tenure
of being engaged in law enforcement ?
A. During the approximate first four years I was as
signed as a Highway Patrol officer investigating primarily
traffic laws on the highways in the State of Alabama. Since
that time I have been assigned as a crime investigative
officer investigating the various crimes as covered within
the criminal code of the State of Alabama. And for a
period of time I have been assigned to investigating racial
problems as it presents a problem for law enforcement.
Q. And how long have you been assigned in the Depart
ment to investigate racial problems ?
219
A. That must have been a period of approximately three
years or a little longer. I would like to qualify that by
saying that I have other duties along with that assignment.
Q. I believe you said you are acquainted with the South
ern Christian Leadership Council!
A. Southern Christian Leadership Conference!
Q. Yes.
A. I have a degree of knowledge from studying some of
the background.
Q. And also you are acquainted with the Alabama Chris
tian Movement for Human Eights !
A. Yes, I have some knowledge of that. I don’t have
total knowledge of either one, but I have some degree of
knowledge of both organizations.
Q. How long have you had this knowledge of these two
organizations!
A. The knowledge has been accumulated over a period
of two or three years.
[fol. 275] Q. Would you classify them as Negro protest
organizations!
Mr. McBee: I object to what he classifies them as.
The Court: Overrule the objection.
A. I would classify them basically as Negro organiza
tions; protest organizations if you wish to describe them
as that.
Q. In your study of these organizations what have you
learned to be the purpose of these organizations!
[fol. 276] A. Two years ago or two and one-half years
ago the philosophy, the trend of thinking, the teachings,
the program was primarily and basically civil rights. The
trend within the last year to eighteen months is more total
integration. There is more emphasis placed on total inte-
" t civil rights'."
igation of these organizations, would
you say that you found that their methods were what you
consider to be nonviolent!
220
A. .The tPMclimp-sJmvd hemi.nmmolmijL The psychology,
the methods used, have , been do incite, others to create vio
lence npon the participants in demonstrations.
Q. in your*experience with these organizations, do you
know of any instances where any member of the organiza
tions or any officer of the organization has preached vio
lence?
A. Indirectly, yes.
Q. Where and when ?
A. There has been a complete program within the last
year or eighteen months of teaching hatred of the white
people; that you can’t trust the white people, that they are
your enemies. They were teaching nonviolence on the one
end, but on the other hand they were saying that the
Negroes in Birmingham, Alabama are buying firearms to
protect themselves. They were supposedly teaching non
violence but yet psychologically they were advocating vio
lence.
Q. You say psychologically; you said Negroes were buy
ing firearms ?
A. I have heard statements made to that effect by speak
ers in Negro churches, in Montgomery.
Q. We are talking about—have you heard that from mem
bers of either of these groups?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Which ones have you heard?
A. Dr. Martin Luther King stated in Montgomery, Ala
bama at a church service that Negroes in Birmingham,
Alabama were buying firearms to protect themselves.
Q. Was that in the context of threats and bombings and
burnings ?
[fol. 277] A. That was during a speech he was making
in Montgomery.
Q. Did that have reference to the City of Birmingham,
that Negroes were suffering abuses, suffering from burn
ings and bombings and threats?
A. He can express what he was referring to better
than I.
221
Q. Did you see any member of either of these organiza
tions!
A. He stated that Negroes in Birmingham, Alabama—
Q. My question was whether or not any member, as
far as you know, of either of these organizations had
advocated violence. Do you know of any? Can you point
out any specific instance?
A. The general theme is nonviolence in every program.
Q. Did you refer to an instance in which you indicated
that the Black Muslims were—in your conversation with
the Rev. Walker, did you indicate that their program was
just the opposite to the program of nonviolence?
A. During the conversation with Rev. Walker I asked
him the question did you consider the danger of violence
should the Black Muslims become active in this movement
in progress here in Birmingham at that time. His reply
was: “Yes, that is a calculated risk.”
Having some knowledge of the Black Muslim organi
zation, knowing that that is what you might describe as
a violent organization that advocates violence as against
nonviolence by the Southern Christian Leadership Con
ference. My thinking at that time was what it would mean
to his organization should the Black Muslims become active
in Birmingham and his organization get credit or partial
credit for various things that that organization was re
sponsible for.
Q. I believe you testified that increasingly of late that
the object and purposes of the Southern Christian Leader
ship and the Alabama Christian Movement for Human
Rights was increasingly moving toward integration?
A. The program as presented to me and as I have heard
from the pulpits in numbers of Churches is certainly mov
ing in the direction of total integration. There is more
emphasis placed on integration than on just civil rights,
[fob 278] Q. You stated you are acquainted with the pro
gram of the Black Muslims. Is that program one of in
tegration or complete segregation?
222
A. The program of the Black Muslims is black suprem
acy and segregation of the races. Going further than that,
the complete annihilation of the white men, if possible.
Q. Then in that sense you would certainly say that the
two organizations are not similar?
A. No, in that sense I think there is no comparison
between the two.
Q. Getting back to the statement about—your conver
sation with Rev. Walker about the necessity of a revo
lution, did he specify whether it was a social revolution
or a political revolution or—
A. The theme of our discussion at that time was a revo
lution. We discussed the fact that a small percentage of
the population of Russia overthrew the national govern
ment there, and that small groups of population in other
countries overthrew the government of those countries.
Q. I think you say your knowledge of the organizations,
the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights and
the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, that its
program is one of nonviolence?
A. The theme has been one of nonviolence.
Q. Let’s get to the meetings, the first one on Good
Friday. Where did you say this meeting was held that
you were stationed outside of?
A. I am not entirely familiar with the names of the
Churches. I believe it was the St. John’s Church. I don’t
know the denomination.
Q. When you were present at the meeting were there
other officers present in the vicinity of this Church?
A. There were a number of uniformed officers present.
Q. Do you have a judgment as to the number?
A. I would hesitate to estimate the number because they
were going in and out of the area on motorcycles and
automobiles, and to say how many were there on any
speeifie occasion would be rather hard to estimate.
Q. Yon were there observing, were you not?
223
A. I was there observing.
[fol. 279] Q. And how long were yon there?
A. In the area in the immediate area of the Church—
this is an estimation—from 16 to 30 minutes.
Q. That was the whole time you spent in the area of
the Church?
A. No, in an area above the Church from noon until
approximately that time, and in the area of the Church
itself after the march began.
Q. Were there as many as a hundred policemen there?
A. It would be extremely hard for me to estimate.
Q. Do you think it was at least fifty?
A. I would hesitate to estimate how many were there.
There was so much going back and forth on vehicles and
so forth.
Q. Were any situated at the church or around the church
or within a block of the church at the intersection?
[fol. 280] A. There were officers on the sidewalk imme
diately back of where I was standing. On one occasion I
observed either two or three officers asking people who
had assembled on the sidewalk blocking the sidewalk to
clear the sidewalk.
Q. Did the people clear the sidewalk?
A. Generally speaking, yes.
Q. At anytime did a larger gathering meet while you
were standing there at the church, before the church, or
at the church?
A. In the immediate vicinity of the church on the side
of the street the church is located, and across the street
from where the church is located, and within that block
and adjacent area, I would say^seven hundred to one thou
sand people.
Q. Were there officers congregated at that place?
A. I have stated there were officers there in and out
of the area.
Q. Did they do anything to disperse the crowd?
A. I observed nothing other than keeping the sidewalks
and streets clear at that particular time.
224
Q. And they continued to allow the people to congre
gate until it finally became several hundred, you say1?
A. The people were gathered there in a total, my esti
mation, seven hundred to one thousand people.
Q. Did the police ever try to clear those people in that
area!
A. I have stated they kept the sidewalks and streets
clear.
Q. Now, was this the occasion that you saw the Rev.
Wyatt Walker come out, and you say gather several per
sons together in three’s!
A. No, that was on Sunday after that. This is on Fri
day I am speaking of at the church.
Q. On this day did you see the procession or parade
start from the church!
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And how many would you say were in this parade
or procession!
A. It was extremely hard to distinguish what consisted
of the parade, or what the parade consisted of, as the
[fol. 281] people who were already gathered outside, when
the people came out of the church, then the whole bunch,
all the people on both sides of the street began immedi
ately moving on the leaders.
Q. What did the people on the inside of the church do
when they came out and started moving!
A. They came out, and I observed Rev. King, and Aber
nathy, and Shuttlesworth, and the leaders, and then they
formed a line on the street and began marching, or walking.
Q. Will you describe this line, just how the line was
formed!
A. It would he extremely hard to, and there again to
establish exactly who was in a planned march, if there
was such a thing, because so many people began going
along together.
Q. There was no formal lineup by two’s, or three’s!
A. Apparently there was a line of two’s or three’s at
the beginning, hut in a short time people "Besah TnteY—
225
mingling, and it was hard to distinguish one from the
ottum -— ■>
Q. And this was on the sidewalk?
A. It was on the sidewalk.
Q. And, how far were these people allowed to march
before they were blocked?
A. A distance of several blocks. I am not too familiar
with the location of the church as compared to where they
were stopped. It would be—I would hesitate to estimate
the number of blocks. I am not too familiar with the area.
Q. Will you describe the situation as they did go these
two or three blocks, or several blocks?
A. The street was basically kept open. There was a
large group of people following the sidewalks, and the
area adjacent to the sidewalks along with the marchers.
There was some singing, there was hollering, or expres
sion of thought, a degree of excitement, and as the pro
cession went along, this intensified.
Q. But, you said the streets were kept open?
A. To a degree the streets were kept open. There were
some people in the streets, there were some people along
[fol. 282] the sidewalks. I observed people of both races
in the street, actually.
Q. You saw people of both races?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. About how many—out of this several hundred, how
many would you say were white people?
A. The white people consisted of—basically of the police
officers and the press. If there were other white people, I
have no knowledge of it.
Q. Now, was it all—did you attend a meeting in the
church on Good Friday at any time ?
A. On the night of Good Friday, the 12th.
Q. On the night of Good Friday, and I believe you say
you were with three other officers ?
226
A. With Lt. Ralph Holmes of the Department of Public
Safety, and two plain clothes officers of the Birmingham
Police Department, whose names I do not recollect.
Q. And I believe you said you stood near the speaker
stand!
A. On one brief occasion, yes. That would be along the
wall adjoining the speaker’s stand.
Q. Did you identify yourself as a police officer!
A. There was no occasion to identify myself as a police
officer.
Q. Did Rev. Walker, and those whom you knew know you
as a police officer!
A. Yes.
Mr. Breckenridge: We object to what Rev. Walker knew.
Mr. Shores: He said he knew it. He has answered it.
Q. I believe you testified as to the names of persons whom
you knew that was in attendance at this meeting. Again,
will you repeat the names of the persons whom you knew
attending this particular meeting!
The Court: This is the night meeting!
Q. The night meeting on Good Friday.
A. I don’t recall testifying as to the names of persons
who were in attendance there that I knew.
[fol. 283] Q. Did you know anyone present at this
meeting!
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Will you give the names of the persons!
A. I knew Bernard Lee, I knew Wyatt Tee Walker, I
knew A. D. King, I knew Dorothy Cotton, I knew C. Herbert
Oliver. I have never met him, I just knew him on the side.
The others I knew on the side, or had become acquainted
with them. I knew a person by the name of Shortridge on
the side, and if there were others present in the church on
that night while I was in the auditorium that I knew, I don’t
recall.
227
Q. Now, on Easter Sunday, you were in the vicinity of
the church from which this parade, or procession, or demon
stration started?
A. That is correct.
Q. And when did you first go into this area?
A. Sometime between, in my estimation, 2:30 and 3
o’clock.
Q. And I believe you said you remained in the area until
about sundown?
A. Until about sundown, yes.
Q. On this date, were there officers stationed in the im
mediate vicinity of the church?
A. Yes, in the immediate vicinity, and officers and
vehicles moved and around the area, I would say continu
ously, or almost continuously.
Q. And were there any stationary?
A. Yes, there were. I, there again, would elaborate how
many, because it is extremely hard to tell how the officers
are moving, who is moving, and who is stationary, unless
you are acquainted with the officers.
Q. Were there a good many motor vehicles occupied by
officers, and three-wheelers, and singles?
A. There were single wheeled motorcycles, three-wheeled
motor cycles, and automobiles occupied by officers in the
area and moving through the area.
[fol. 284] Q. The estimation of the police inspector of
about fifty, would that be in your judgment about the
number?
Mr. McBee: We object to that, may it please the Court,
I don’t think the police inspector estimated anybody. He
said he didn’t know.
Mr. Breckenridge: I believe he said he would have to get
those records.
Mr. Shores: He said he would have to get the records
about the exact number. We asked the exact number, but he
estimated there were some fifty or more.
228
Q. In your best judgment, would it be as many as fifty?
A. There again, in the manner in which the officers were
moving, coming into and going out of the area, it would be
extremely hard to estimate the number.
Q. On this day, were there a large number congregated
outside the church?
A. You mean large number of people?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, a rather large number.
Q. Was the number as large as it was on Good Friday?
A. As large, or larger.
Q. And did the law enforcement officers do anything to
dispel the crowds, disperse the crowd at that time?
A. I observed nothing.
Q. In other words, the officers permitted them to congre
gate in the immediate vicinity?
A. Apparently so.
Q. Did you notice any formal line, or parade, or proces
sion, or demonstration coming from the church on Easter
Sunday?
A. A group of people left, as I have described, the door
at the side of the church there near the back, came out of
the church at a rapid walking, or almost running, came out
at a rather rapid walk, immediately turned on to the side
walk and headed away from the church at what appeared
to be a spontaneous action. Everybody went with the__
[fol. 285] Q. Were the people who came out of the church
in any formal order? Did they come out in two’s or three’s,
columns of two’s or three’s, or four’s?
A. There appeared to be columns of two’s or three’s.
Q. Would j p n state the number that came out in such
formation? ~~~-------—— ------------------— — —
A. TTwould be hard to estimate the number, because the
crowd intermingled with them.
Q. Were you present at the time any of these demon
strators were arrested, either on Good Friday, or Sunday?
A. I was present when I would say a majority of the ar
rests were made on Friday, and I was present when either
two or three arrests were made on Sunday.
Q. Were you able to count the number that were
arrested?
A. I made no effort to count them.
Q. In your best judgment, were you able to estimate the
number arrested on either of those days, or both?
A. I would not estimate it, because I don’t know.
Q. During the time they marched in that formal march,
was it on the sidewalk?
A. On Friday, yes. On Sunday. I would say the march
began on the sidewalk. Where it finally ended up, I don’t
know, Because the crowd so suddenly gathered around them.
Q. This was the crowd the officers had allowed to congre
gate in the immediate vicinity of the church?
A. The crowd that had gathered outside the church, and
those inside the church all went as a body.
Q. Following the individuals who were in the formal
columns marching?
A. They formed almost a column, including the whole
street and both sides of the sidewalk and the adjacent areas
in between.
Q. As a matter of fact, they were on the opposite side of
the street also, were they not, a large crowd following along
with the demonstrators?
A. On Sunday the crowd went together, on Frir!^
[fob 286] was a division of the cm w i w oj-rfTj. Qn s un_
dav. there, was no. .̂misfnn. nf fhQ They just simply
filled the whole street and the sidewalk area.
" (j. Would you estimate the number of news men and offi
cers who marched along the column?
A. I would not. I have no way of knowing.
Mr. Shores: That is all.
Mr. McBee: I think that is all.
(Witness excused)
229
230
The Court: Do you have a short witness we might use
before the end of the day?
Mr. McBee: I think so.
[fo l. 287] M e . J ames W are, called as a witness, being
duly sworn, was exam ined and testified as fo llo w s :
Direct examination.
By Mr. McBee:
Q. Would you state your name, please?
A. Ware, Jim Ware.
Q. And what is your occupation?
A. I am a photographer with the Bfrnfi'Sgham Post Her
ald.
Q. Were you present on Easter -Sunday kt the time of a
march, or a procession, or paradd whiclmoriginated in the
vicinity of 11th Street, I believe, ajuljitn Avenue?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was your purpose in being there, Mr. Ware?
A. I was working for United Press.
Q. That is, you were there on official business?
A. Yes, sir, taking pictures, yes, sir.
Q. Now, are you the United Press representative of this
area?
A. We are affiliated, sir. We are affiliated, and I work
with them on occasions.
Q. That is to say you are also employed by the Birming
ham Post Herald?
A. I am employed by the Post Herald, yes, sir.
Q. But, you do have an affiliation with the United Press?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right, sir. Now, on the occasion that we have men
tioned a moment ago, would you state what you saw happen
there ?
A. Would you make that a little plainer, sir?
231
Q. What I have reference is did you see any people
around anywhere in the vicinity of where this march was
taking place !
A. Yes, sir, there were a lot of people, colored folks on
both sides of the street there.
Q. All right, a lot of colored folks, or Negroes on both
sides of the street !
A. Yes, sir.
[fol. 288] Q. Was there a large number of them, or small
number of them!
A. There was a large number, sir.
Q. How many would you estimate was there!
A. Roughly, I would say a couple of thousand.
Q. What were they doing, if anything!
A. They were—the—at this particular time I have got
in mind, I mean I was in the street, and I was taking pic
tures of an arrest being rnade^
Q. All right.
A. And then—I was standing directly behind a three-
wheeler there, and a rock hit this three-wheeler.
Q. All right.
A. And I started to move out, and must have made four
or five steps, and a rock hit me in the back of the head
Rather, I think it was torn up pavement, or someffn-ng lik-e *•—*
that. I referred to it as a rock.
Q. In other words, it was concrete, cement, or something
of that type!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is when you were moving away from where the—
A. Yes, sir.
Q. —rocks were being thrown!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did it injure you in any way!
A. Hit me right on the back of the head, yes, sir, kind of
attled me for awhile, and it didn’t knock me down. It must
have hit a glancing blow. It was a chunk about that big
(indicating).
232
Q. You pulled out your hand and demonstrated about how
big would you say that is ?
A. About the size of a large grapefruit, or something like
that.
Q. Did you have any signs of the blow after you recov
ered your composure?
A. Yes, I had a knot on the back of my head. It is still
sore.
Q. You say you had a knot on the back of your head?
[fol. 289] A. Yes, sir.
Q. And it is still sore, even today?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, what sort of crowd was that about that time?
What was going on? Did you hear or see anything?
A. Yes, sir, a lot of people were—from the crowd were
hollering, apparently at the policemen making the arrests.
Q. All right.
A. And actually I didn’t see, but the two rocks, or pieces
of pavement, or whatever it was, but I heard several more
of them falling around me when I was moving.
Q. In other words, there were other rocks falling in the
area?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right, did you see them do anything else besides
hollering or hear anything else besides hollering?
A. Well, no, sir, I was concentrating on the—taking pic
tures of this—of what was happening, and I wasn’t paying
too much attention to that part, to the crowd. I could hear
them hollering, and everything, but I wasn’t looking at the
crowd, or anything.
Q. Were they cheering the police officers?
A. No, sir, they were hollering at them.
Q. Did their voices sound like they were pleasant, or
angry, or what?
A. No, sir, they sounded like they were mad at them.
Q. Did the crowd appear to be unruly?
A. Yes, sir, I would say so.
233
Q. Now, did you see the rock hit the three-wheeler!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did it do any damage to it!
A. It knocked particles away from it. I expect it was
from the—I was standing there when it hit, and I saw
stuff flying from the three-wheeler.
Q. You don’t know whether it was glass, or not, or what
it was !
[fol. 290] A. I don’t know what it was.
Q. How many took part in the parade! Do you know!
A. There were—the parade, itself, the people that were
moving—
Mr. Shores: We object to the word “parade.”
Q. Well, parade, or procession, or whatever you choose
to call it, how many took part in it!
A. Well, it would be hard—I would just make an estimate
that it must have been fifty neorile. T don’t know.
Q. Did you see it when they started off from the church!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did the crowd do, or the other people that were
there, if anything!
A. It seemed to as I say, I am a little bit confused, be
cause I am watching what is going on, I am taking pictures,
but the crowd seemed to move on each side of the street,
and move around with the procession, the parade.
Q. In other words, they moved up ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you identify—did you know any of the individ
uals who were there and participated, and were arrested!
A. We identified them—I mean, I didn’t at that particu
lar time, I didn’t, but we identified the pictures I took.
Q. Did you identify who was in it!
A. King, and Walker, I believe it was. I am not positive.
Q. You saw Wyatt Tee Walker in the picture?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And which King, A. D. or Martin Luther?
A. A. D.
234
Q. A. D. King. Was Wyatt Tee Walker there when the
rocks were being thrown ?
A. I don’t know at that particular moment.
Q. You don’t know where you were when you shot his
picture ?
A. Yes, sir, I saw the—the last picture I shot of him, I
believe they were putting him in a police car or patrol
wagon, one. I am not sure which it was.
[fol. 291] Mr. McBee: I see. You may take him.
Cross examination.
By Mr. Shores:
Q. Mr. Ware, I believe you say you were detailed to take
pictures by the Post Herald, and on that day you were also
working for United Press?
A. I was wmrking exclusively for United Press.
Q. Exclusively for United Press that day?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were taking pictures of the incidents that
were taking place?
A. That’s right.
Q. And you focused your camera on the people as they
began to march when they came out of the church?
A. I took their pictures.
Q. You took their pictures, and you said you estimated
there were about fifty in the group that took part in this
march ?
A. That followed on down the street after it began to
move. That is my estimation.
Q. About fifty?
A. That is what I estimate.
Q. Did you see them when they came out of the church?
A. Yes.
Q. How many came out of the church?
235
A. I really don’t know. I know I think I saw three people
that were leading the march, or whatever it was, and I was
concentrating on them.
Q. On the three ?
A. That’s right.
Q. Did you ever focus on the number that were behind
them?
A. I did a picture after the procession moved a block or
a block and a half down the street. I got in there and had
a picture of the people behind there, and of the whole
thing, and it looked like about fifty people.
[fol. 292] Q. Looked like just about fifty people?
A. I would say that.
Q. And that was on Easter Sunday?
A. Yes, that was on Easter Sunday.
Q. And you said about where this church was located—
did you give the location of this church from which this
march proceeded?
A. About 7th Avenue and 10th Street.
Q. About 11th Street and 7th Avenue?
A. About that, yes.
Q. Now, at what time did you arrive at that scene at the
church ?
A. I don’t remember the time that I got down there. I
don’t remember the time.
Q. Was it in the early part of the afternoon, or late?
A. Fairly early part of the afternoon.
Q. Would you say around about 1:00 or 2:00 o’clock?
A. I should think so, somewhere around there. It was
quite awhile before the march, or whatever you call it,
started.
Q. And how long were you there then, would you esti
mate, before the march took place ?
A. An hour and a half or two hours.
Q. An hour and a half or two hours. Now, during that
time were there police officers stationed around there near
this church at various corners?
A. I saw police officers there, yes.
236
Q. Did you see many, or few ?
A. Well, it depends on what we would call many. I did
see maybe ten or twelve.
Q. Ten or twelve?
A. Uhhuli.
Q. These were in vehicles, or—
A. No. Well, some were on these motorcycles, and some
were just policemen there.
Q. I see. Now, I believe you said you took a picture of
[fol. 293] the marchers, and the last picture you made was
when they were putting them in the patrol car and taking
them off to jail?
A. I don’t know whether they took them off to jail, or not.
I think that is the last picture I took of King.
Q. You say you took a picture of Rev. Walker also being
put in the patrol?
A. I am not positive. I had one picture of King and
Walker together, but that was before going into the ve
hicle.
Q. Now, at the time the rock was thrown, did you see
Rev. Walker at that time?
A. No.
Q. Did you recognize anybody else in that group except
Rev. Walker and Rev. King?
A. Did I recognize anybody?
Q. Yes.
A. You mean—
Q. To know, just like you knew Rev. Walker and Rev.
King.
A. No, not except the newspaper people, and stuff like
that is the only people I knew.
Mr. Shores: No further questions.
237
Redirect examination.
By Mr. McBee:
Q. One more question: how did you happen to know to
come down there ?
A. Sir?
Q. How did you happen to know to be there?
A. United Press International called me.
Q. Oh, United Press called you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, where is their headquarters?
A. In the Birmingham News building.
Q. I have one question I bet I overlooked. Are you fa
miliar with this news release, United Press International
news release ?
A. I don’t know whether I read it, or not, sir. I believe I
read this. My job is taking pictures. I don’t pay too much
[fol. 294] attention to the word part of it. Do you want me
to read it?
Q. If you will, read it, and see if you are familiar with it.
A. I don’t believe I read this release before now.
Q. You don’t think so ?
A. No, sir.
Mr. McBee: All right, that is all.
Mr. Shores: No further questions.
(Witness excused.)
Mr. McBee: Your Honor, do you wish us to go ahead?
The Court: Do you have another witness you might get
through with ?
Mr. McBee: Your Honor, I think the witnesses we will
put on will be long.
The Court: We will recess at this time. I would like to
say for the benefit of both parties here that Judge Clarence
Allgood has a motion set before him in regards to some
case in connection with this matter.
Mr. Breckenridge: At 9 :00 o’clock in the morning.
238
Mr. Shores: However, Your Honor, he said if we were
engaged here he would continue it over until Wednesday.
The Court: I have conferred with him, and told him I
would release the attorneys involved here for the purpose
of handling his motion in the morning, and I would expect
you back over here within fifteen minutes after you are re
leased by him.
Mr. Breckenridge: Fine, Your Honor. That suits us
fine.
Mr. Shores: If they have somebody to take care of it
down there, and part of us can he here, and part of us
down there—
Mr. Breckenridge: Your Honor, I am personally han
dling the motion, and I would like to be present.
Mr. Shores: What I mean, if Mr. McBee could be here,
then he could go handle the motion, and we could continue
on, so far as we are concerned.
Mr. Greenberg: We don’t need to be there.
Mr. Breckenridge: What ever Your Honor wants to do.
[fob 295] It might be satisfactory for me to go over there,
and Mr. McBee to come here. We don’t want to delay either
case. I think Mr. McBee can come here, and I will go over
there.
The Court: Then, we will continue in the morning- at
9:30.
(Whereupon the Court was in recess from 4:15 P.M ,
April 22, 1963, until 9 :30 A.M., April 23, 1963, at which time
proceedings were resumed as follows:)
[fol. 296] The Court: Who will the City have as their
next witness ?
Mr. McBee: Mr. Stanton, please.
239
M b . E l v is S tan tos , called as a witness, being duly
sworn, was exam ined and testified as fo llo w s :
Direct examination.
By Mr. McBee:
Q. What is your name, please ?
The Court: Before we begin I would like to say for the
sake of the record that the respondents have subpoenaed
a large number of people instanter, and that the Court re
ceived a copy of the instanter subpoena, which was served
on him personally, and that other lawyers and officials who
have been subpoenaed have indicated that they will be
available upon call on reasonable notice.
Mr. Shores: All right.
Q. Would you give us your name, please?
A. ElvinS.tn.nton.
- Q. What is your occupation?
A. News director, WSGN radio.
Q. Are you affiliated with the UPI ?
A. We carry UPI wire service, yes sir.
Q. Were you present at a meeting which was held on
the evening of the 11th of April at a church at which were
present, among others, Martin Luther King and Ralph
Abernathy and Wyatt Tee Walker ?
A. That was on Thursday. I believe, was it not?
Q. Yes, the 11th is Thursday, that is correct.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you on that occasion—and may I ask you to look
at this and see whether or not you can identify that as a
news release that went out over the UPI?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I will ask you if on that occasion the Rev. Martin
Luther King, one of the respondents in this case, made
the statement, quote—and I will ask you to refer to the
release—“Injunction or no..injunction we are going to
march tomorrow.”
240
[fol. 297] Mr. Greenberg: Objection, Your Honor. He
has not indicated he has no recollection of this or that he
has any need to refresh his recollection.
The Court: I think the exhibit, if properly identified,
would be the best evidence.
Mr. Shores: May we see this exhibit?
Mr. Greenberg: We don’t know if it has been properly
authenticated, whose name is on it, where it came from,
anything about it.
The Court: I assume that is the purpose of this witness.
Mr. McBee: The witness has just been asked one ques
tion about it.
Mr. Greenberg: Could we have this identified or authen
ticated to some way? I don’t know what it is. It is just a
tear sheet with no identification on it.
Mr. McBee: All right, it is a wire service release. You
are exactly right, sir.
The Court: Let the exhibit be marked.
Mr. McBee: All right, Your Honor, we will ask the Re
porter to mark it City’s Exhibit 1 for identification.
(Whereupon, the above referred to document was
marked, Complainant’s Exhibit 1 for Identification by the
Court Reporter.)
Q. What is this document that I have just handed you
which has been marked City’s Exhibit 1 ?
A. It is a radio press release that was filed on UPI wire
at 6 :44 April 12. That is 6 :44 A.M.
Mr. Shores: Your Honor, may I examine him on voir
dire ?
The Court: I don’t see any necessity yet. He is not pre
pared to offer it at this time. Your motion is refused.
Q. Hie question that I ask you is whether or not you re
call the Rev. Martin Luther King on this evening of April
11th at a church meeting at which he was present along
with other defendants whom I have named.
Mr. Shores: Your Honor, we object. That is a leading
question. He is leading the witness.
241
[fol. 298] Mr. McBee: Well, it is all right. I will go at
it the other way, if you prefer.
Q. Did you attend the meeting on the night of April 11th?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where did you attend the meeting?
A. It was at one of two Baptist churches, and I don’t
know which one it was at this time because I had attended
some twenty meetings at four or five Negro churches, and
I believe it was at St. Pauls Church.
Mr. Shores: Object to what he believes.
Q. That is just your best recollection?
A. Yes.
Q. All right, sir, who was present on that occasion?
A. There was a large crowd, four or five hundred per
sons, I suppose.
Q. All right, did you identify any of them that you had
seen before or knew?
A. Yes, sir, there were some that I knew.
Q. Which ones did you know?
A. Well, I knew the Rev. King.
Q. That is Martin Luther ?
A. Yes. The Rev. Abernathy.
Q. All right.
A. Rev. Walker.
Q. All right.
A. And I believe it was at this meeting that Rev. King’s
father was there. That is M. L. King, Sr. And a number
of persons that I recognized their face. I would not recall
their name. Rev. Young.
Q. Rev. Young you remember?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Andrew Young?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. One of the defendants in this case?
A. I believe he is a defendant.
Q. Do you remember whether or not Rev. Gardner was
there ?
242
A. No, sir, I don’t know Rev. Gardner well enough to
know.
[fol. 299] Q. Do you remember other members of the
press being there?
A. The only one that I remember is Skip Johnson was
there; AP.
Q. The AP, Associated Press?
A. Yes, of Mobile.
Q. That is Walter Johnson?
A. I know him by Skip. I don’t know his first name. I
believe that is the same fellow.
Q. What sort of person is he?
A. Young, slight built.
Mr. Shores: I object. That is irrelevant. What differ
ence does it make ?
Mr. McBee: You wanted me to identify what meeting he
attended, and I am trying to do it if I can.
The Court: The record wouldn’t indicate his size or
shape.
The Witness: His last name is Johnson and he is em
ployed by the Associated Press of Mobile and that is the
only Johnson they have out of Mobile.
Q. On that occasion I will ask you whether or not Rev.
Martin Luther King made any statement pertaining to the
injunction, and if so, what he said ?
. x es, sir, ne did refer to the injunction, and a quote
was used by the wire service, which I called into them.
Y *n °™er words, you called the wire service yourself?
A. Yes, sir, I covered the meeting for the wire service.
0- All right, sir.
A. I think he said, “ Injunction or no injunction we are
going to march tomorrow.”
Mr. Shores: I object to what he thinks.
Q. Yon can testify not what you think but—well
you can testify to that legally, but at any rate most’
I think
lawyers
243
insist that you testify to the best of your recollection. Is
that the best of your recollection?
A. The exact wording is what I am not sure of.
Q. All right, do you have written notes of your own you
could refer to ?
[fol. 300] A. Yes, sir, I have notes of that meeting.
Q. Do you have them with you?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Would you like to refer to them?
(Witness looks at notes taken from his pocket.)
Q. Using your notes, did you make those notes at the
time this meeting was going on ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you by referring to your notes please state
what Rev. Martin Luther King said about the injunction?
The Court: Just a minute, I notice that Rev. Martin
Luther King is not in court.
An Unidentified Speaker on the First Row: He has some
kind of food poisoning. That is the reason for his absence
this morning.
The Court: I see.
Q. You may proceed.
A. The Rev. King said. “ Injunction or no injunction we
are going to march tomorrow.” ! That is a direct quote.
1). That is a direct quote ?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Did he make any other remarks relating to the in
junction?
A. That is the only one, I believe. That is the only one
I recall that he mentioned the word injunction.
Q. In relation to the general question of whether or not
they were going to proceed, did he make any reference to
that particular subject matter?
A. You mean proceed with the demonstration?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. Yes, sir.
244
Q. What did he say about that?
A. Referring to my notes, he said: “ In our Movement
here in Birmingham we have reached the point of no re
turn.”
Q. He said: “ We have reached the point of no return” ?
I want to be sure that I understand you correctly.
[fol. 301] A. Yes, sir. And: “We have gone too far to
turn back now.”
Q. All right, anything else ?
A. That is all that I have that I recall.
Q. Did he make any reference to what the authorities
would understand?
Mr. Shores: I object to his continuing leading of the wit
ness, with reference to so and so.
The Court: Sustain.
Q. Well, let me ask you this: you say you called this in,
this news release, to the UPI?
A. Yes, sir, I called in the basis of this release. All news
ieleases are supplemented with background information.
Part of this was a supplement, but the direct quotes are
mine.
Q. Is there a direct quote there with reference to : “ We
have reached the point of no return and now the authorities
will know that the injunction can’t stop us” ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was that actually a quote you gave them?
A. I believe it is. I will have to refer to my notes again.
The quote that I called in was: “Now Mr. Connor will know
that the injunction can’t stop us.”
Q. Now Mr. Connor will know?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And there was a slight change in it, in the release
that went out over the wire ?
A. Yes, sir, there was.
Q. Did Rev. Abernathy make any statement about goinsr
to jail ? 6
A. Yes, sir, he did.
245
Q. Was this on this same occasion?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did he say?
A. Well, when he first appeared before the group he said
in effect that he felt better that now tomorrow he would be
going to jail.
[fol. 302] Q. That was the Eev. Abernathy?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Yes, that is Ealph Abernathy. Is he a Eeverend?
I have never known.
A. To my knowledge he is a Eeverend and a doctor.
Q. Abernathy?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. Was there a call made for volunteers that
night ?
A. Yes, sir, there was a call.
Q. Who made it?
A. I think there were several actually took part in the
call, but I believe Eev. Abernathy actually led the call,
if you could call it that.
Q. Did they get any volunteers that night?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many, approximately?
A. About fifty, I believe.
Q. Do you recall the names of any of the others who
participated in helping and assisting with the call?
A. I believe the Eev. Shuttlesworth led the singing.
Mr. Shores: Your Honor, I object to what he believes.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Mr. Stanton, you can state your best recollection of
the matter.
A. To my best recollection the Eev. Shuttlesworth was
leading the singing, but Eev. Abernathy was actually in
charge of the call for volunteers to the best of my recol
lection.
Mr. McBee: All right, sir, thank you, that is all.
246
Cross examination.
By Mr. Shores:
Q. Mr. Stanton, for whom do you work?
A. I am employed by the Winston-Salem Broadcasting
Company by Station WSGN in Birmingham.
Q. I believe you said you were present on the meeting
April 11, 1963?
[fol. 303] A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what time did you arrive at this meeting?
A. I would say approximately 8:00 o’clock to 8:15.
Q. Had the meeting started when you arrived?
A. Yes, sir, they were singing when I got there.
Q. How long did you remain at the meeting?
A. I left after the call for volunteers.
Q. How many persons made speeches at this meeting?
A. There were four or five ministers who spoke.
Q. Can you name the ministers who spoke?
A. To the best of my knowledge there was the Rev.
M. L. King, Sr., the Rev. M. L. King, Jr., the Bev. Aber
nathy, and Bev. Shuttlesworth.
Q. I believe—who made the statement that they were
going to march the next day?
A. The Rev. Abernathy made the statement: “I feel
better tonight because tomorrow me and Hr. King are
going to jail.” I believe that was the way he put it,
Q. Did he say they were going to the jail to visit some
prisoners there? Did he elaborate?
A. No, he did not state the purpose.
Q. Did anyone make the statement that they were going
to march?
A. I don’t know whether the word “march” was used or
not. I could refer to my notes.
Q. Can you refer to your notes?
A. Yes, sir. Yes, sir, the word “ march” was used.
Q. Did they elaborate on the meaning of march, what
the purpose was, where they were going to march?
247
A. No, sir, the only quote I have is that of the Rev.
King in which the word “March” was used.
Q. Do you know whether it was in reference to any reli
gious ceremony?
A. No, sir, I don’t. It simply said: “ Injunction or no
injunction we are going to march tomorrow.”
Q. That is all, you may come down.
[fol. 304] Mr. McBee: May it please the Court, may this
witness be excused from this case and also from the rule,
as his job would require him and he would like to cover
this hearing for his company as well as another case that
is going on in the building at this time?
Mr. Shores: We have no objection.
The Court: All right, you are excused from the rule and
the case.
(Witness excused.)
[fo l. 305] M aukice H ekmax H ouse, called as a witness,
being duly sworn, was exam ined and testified as fo llow s:
Direct examination.
By Mr. McBee:
Q. Your name,- please?
A. Maurice House.
Q. And what is your occupation, please?
A. I am a lieutenant of police, Birmingham Police De
partment.
Q. Lt. House, did you have occasion to be present at a
gathering which took place—I am not certain that I know
the proper name—I do know it is the Gaston Motel, and
maybe there is some more name to it, in the City of Bir
mingham on the 11th day of April of 1963?
A. Yes.
Q. In order to get in the record, where is that motel
located ?
248
A. That is the Smith & Gaston Motel. It is in the 1500
Block of 5th Avenue, North.
Q. Now, at that meeting, or that gathering, do you recall
seeing any of these defendants?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you name those whom you recall that you know
that you saw there?
A. Well, I saw Rev. Shuttlesworth, Rev. King—that is
Martin Luther—and Rev. A. D. King, Rev. Abernathy—
Q. Let me interrupt you just a moment. You are refer
ring to Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
A. No—well, the Rev. Martin Luther King, and Rev.
A. D. King, both, were there, Rev. Abernathy, Rev. Wyatt
Tee Walker.
Q. Rev. AVyatt Tee Walker. Now, I understand that
there is a Martin Luther King, Sr. I want to identify the
distinction between the two. Do you know a Martin Luther
King, Sr.?
A. All I know is one. I know him when I see him.
Q. By the way, he isn’t here this morning?
A. No.
Q. Have you seen him around the courthouse since this
[fol. 306] trial has begun?
A. Yes, sir, I saw him yesterday.
Q. You saw him yesterday. Now, on the occasion of the
first release, were there any others assembled in this area?
A. Yes, there were. A1 Hibler was standing on the bal
cony.
Q. That is the blind singer, I believe ?
A. That’s right. I would estimate 200 people were
gathered just outside the circle from the press conference.
Q. Were they whites, or colored, or what?
A. Three were colored. There was a few whites there.
I don’t know who they were.
Q. Now, did you observe any members of the press, or
radio, or television there?
A. Yes, sir.
249
Q. How many of them were there, in your best judgment?
A. I would estimate fifteen to eighteen at least.
Q. At that meeting, did you see any written instrument
which had any part in the meeting, or was used in any way
in the meeting ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you look at this paper that I am showing you?
The Court: Let that be marked by the reporter as an
exhibit.
Mr. McBee: Would you please mark it City’s Exhibit No.
2 for identification.
(Whereupon the above mentioned document was marked
Complainant’s Exhibit 2, identification only, and is set out
in words and figures at the end of this transcript.)
Mr. Shores: May we see it, Your Honor?
(Whereupon the above mentioned document was handed
to Mr. Shores.)
Q. Would you look at the document marked City’s Ex
hibit No. 2 and state what that document is?
A. This is a news bulletin put out by the Alabama Chris
tians for Human Eights. It was a release that was brought
[fol. 307] there, several of them were brought there by
Rev. Wyatt Tee Walker about 12:45 on the 11th. He dis
tributed this bulletin to all the members of the press, and
also he gave me this one.
Q. All right. What was done with it, if anything, other
than distributing it ?
A. After it was given to all of us, Rev. Martin Luther
King took one copy of it and read verbatim the entire text.
Mr. McBee: All right, we offer the exhibit in evidence,
may it please the Court.
(Whereupon the above mentioned document was received
in evidence, and is set out in words and figures at the end
of this transcript.)
250
Q. Now, at that time, after the reading of the written
news release, did any of the other defendants, including—
well, any other defendants in this case have any words to
say to the group?
A. Yes.
Q. All right, sir, would you state—
A. The Revs. King, Abernathy, and Shuttlesworth were
seated at the round table. After Rev. King read this state
ment, Shuttlesworth read from a typed statement more
or less re-affirming what was said in the statement that
was read by Rev. King. He had other remarks to make.
Q. Now, may I ask was his written statement distributed
also?
A. No, it was not.
Q. I see. All right, sir, what did he say when he read
that paper?
A. I don’t recall all the details of the statement, but I
would say in substance—
The Court: Whose statement is that ?
\ A- Rev. Shuttlesworth. j
^ The Court: All right.
A. Yes, he read that, and after he got through reading
it he made the statement, “ That they had respect for the
Federal Courts, or Federal Injunctions, but in the past the
[fol. 308] State Courts had favored local law enforcement,
and if the police couldn’t handle it, the mob would.”
Q. “ If the police couldn’t handle it, the mob would” . Was
that a direct quote ?
A. That’s right, after stating that, “The movement would
continue. He was aware of the injunction”, and in response
to, I believe to a question by one member of the press, he
used the phrase “ Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.”
A. That is about i t
spoke, said, “ He was a pastor or a cnurcn m tieorgia, but
that he was a native of Birmingham, and felt that he
Q. All right, sir.
251
belonged here in this movement”, and he too made one re
mark that I remember: “ Give me Liberty or Give me
Death.” -------
Q. Uh-huh.
A. And—
Q. All right, did he say anything about the injunction,
whether or not the injunction would stop them?
Mr. Shores: Your Honor, we object to his leading. He
is leading the witness. He can ask what he said, not put
words in his mouth.
The Court: Sustained, don’t lead, if you will.
Q. Do you have notes that you took on that occasion?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you refer to your notes and see whether you
find he did, or did not?
A. All three of them mentioned the injunction, and they
were going to proceed ahead. Rev. Martin Luther, in re
sponse to a question, said, “ We will continue today, tomor
row, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, and on.” Shall I comment
on any other notes I have got, Your Honor?
Q. All right, now, that was Rev. Martin Luther King
made that statement ?
A. Yes. He was asked—
[fol. 309] Q. All right, go ahead.
A. Whether the boycott was affective on the merchants,
and he answered that they had made a check that morning,
it was very successful, and as I recall, he said it was 93, or
ninety something percent affective on the downtown mer
chants.
Q. All right. Now, a moment ago, you made the state
ment all three of them said that they were going to proceed
regardless of the injunction, or words to that affect. I don’t
recall the exact words you used.
A. I don’t recall whether they said regardless of the in
junction, but all three of them in their statement says, “ This
statement that Rev. Martin Luther King read was a joint
statement of the three”, and so stated on the top of his
statement, and all three of them mentioned knowledge of
252
the injunction, and said they were going to continue on. I
believe Rev. Martin Luther King stated that the—just be
fore stating, “We will continue on today, tomorrow, and
Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, and on”, just before that
remark, he stated that, “ The attorneys would attempt to
dissolve the injunction, but we will continue on today,
tomorrow, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, and on” .
Q. All right.
A. I don’t recall offhand any other part of the—of this
conference.
Q. Now, Lt. House, did anybody object, any of those—
did Rev. A. D. King object to this policy, anybody speak up
and say we object to this thing?
Mr. Shores: We object to that as leading.
The Court: Don’t lead him.
Mr. McBee: I am not leading, I don’t think, but anyway,
I will rephrase the question.
Q. What sort of reaction did you hear from those pres
ent, including the Rev. A D Ki^g 1?
A. He said on three or four occasions, or two I remember
specifically, when he remarked, “Dam the torpedoes” , there
[fol. 310] was a loud applause by everyone in the back
ground, and also the group that was gathered close by
there, and also to “ Give me liberty or give me death”,
there was a lot of noise and applaud to that. There was ap
plauding on several occasions. I don’t recall the exact
terms.
Q. You don’t know whether they applauded when they
said, “We are going to continue today, tomorrow, Saturday,
Sunday, and Monday” or not?
Mr. Shores: We object to leading the witness again.
The Court: Sustained. Mr. McBee, I think it is not
necessary to indicate what reply you want him to make.
A. I might say I heard no objections.
Mr. Shores: The Judge sustained the objection.
The Court: Don’t make any voluntary statements.
253
Q- All right, I think it would be a fair question to ask
whether or not you ever, at any time, heard anybody pres
ent, including the leaders who are under the present con
tempt citation, or anybody else object—
Mr. Shores: We object to that question.
Q. —or state that the remarks then being made, and
sentiments then being offered were not their sentiments?
Mr. Shores: We object to being vague, and it is too in
definite as to what leaders.
The Court: Overruled.
A. I would like to have the question.
The Court: Just let him read it.
Mr. McBee: Would you read the question to him so we
will have it in the exact terminology?
(Whereupon the Court Reporter read the last above re
corded question.)
Mr. Greenberg: We have a further objection as to rele
vancy. I don’t know there is a requirement that there be
an objection made to a statement being given by somebody
else.
The Court: Objection overruled.
[fol. 311] A. I heard no one object.
Mr. McBee: That is all.
Mr. Shores: No questions.
(Witness excused.)
[fol. 312] Habry L. Jones, called as a witness, being duly
sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
Direct examination.
By Mr. McBee:
Q. State your name, please?
A. Harry L. Jones.
254
Q. What is your occupation, please!
A. Detective, City of Birmingham.
Q. What— How long have you been a detective for the
City!
A. Since last November, 1962.
Q. Since 1962!
A. Yes sir.
Q. You have been a police officer for the City before
that!
A. Approximatelw-ten years.
Q. Now, did you7 have /occasion, Mr. Jones, to talk to
persons on Easter/Sunday after certain arrests were made
relative to or groyTing/f>ut of a march, parade, procession,
or whatever is thW-jiroper word, at the City Jail?
A. Yes sir, I did.
Q. Do you remember the names of those arrested whom
you did interview?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Would you tell us which ones you did interview?
A. A. D. Williams King, Melton Henrv Smith, Jr.—
Q. Alright.
A. John Thomas Porter, Joshua W. Hayes.
Q. Joshua W. Hayes. Alright, did you inquire of these
defendants whom you interviewed whether or not prior to
engaging in the demonstration, parade, or procession, or
whatever you choose to call it, they did not know of the
injunction?
A. Yes, I did.
Mr. Greenberg: Apparently, this is leading to a state
ment which will incriminate these parties, statements
against their interest. I would like on voir dire to show
these statements were voluntarily made.
[fol. 313] Q. Did you. at the time yon talked to these
several defendants whom you have named, tell them that
it would be better for them if they would make statements
against their interest, or confess, or worse for them if thev
didn't?
255
A. No sir.
Q. Did you offer them any reward, or hopes of reward?
A. No sir.
Q. In any manner, or form, or kind!
A. No sir.
Q. Did they talk with you voluntarily!
A. Yes sir.
Q. Alright.
Mr. Shores: I would like to further question him on voir
dire and ask him whether or not you told them that the
statements might be used against them?
A. I told them the statements could be used for or against
them, that they didn’t have to make a statement if they
didn’t want to.
Q. Alright. With reference to these four respondents, or
defendants, whom we have named, what did they say with
reference to their knowledge of the injunction prior to
having participated in this particular activity on Easter
Sunday.
Mr. Shores: We object to the way that question is
framed.
The Court: Objection overruled.
A. All four stated they had knowledge of the injunction.
Q. Did you discuss with them whether or not they had
participated in the march, or the procession, or the dem
onstration, or whatever it might he called?
Mr. Shores: We object again. I think he is leading the
witness.
The Court: Objection overruled.
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What did they say with respect to that?
A. Rev. Porter stated he was one of the leaders.
Q. Alright, Porter said he was one of the leaders?
[fol. 314] A. Yes.
256
Q. Alright.
A. I asked him if he was one of the leaders of the march,
and he said, “Well, I was in the front row marching with
them. I guess you could call it that.” That is the state
ment he gave me.
Q. “ I guess you could call it that.”
A. Yes sir.
Q. Alright.
A. And Rev. King, he stated that he was one of the
leaders of the march.
Q. That is A. D. King you are speaking about!
A. He gave me the name of A. D. Williams King.
Q. A. D. Williams King. Alright, did they say what
they had done with the injunction, they had received the
injunction!
A. I asked the Rev. A. D. Williams King if he had been
served, and he said that he had, but he didn’t even bother
to read it.
Q. Didn’t bother to read it!
A. And I asked him why, and he said, “Because it is too
broad and vague.”
~DQ7"uh nuh! Alright, did you talk to Porter about it,
asked if he had been served!
A. He said he had.
Q. What did he say he had done with his, if anything!
A. He didn’t say, I don’t think.
Q. Now, did you speak to John Henry—no, Nelson Henry
Smith, too!
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did he state whether or not he had been in the proces
sion, or parade, or whatever they choose to term it!
A. I didn’t ask the direct question if he was in the
procession. I saw him in the procession.
Q. You saw him in the procession!
A. Yes sir.
Q. What about Joshua W. Hayes!
[fol. 315] A. He stated he was with the leaders on the
257
march. I asked him about the injunction. He knew of it,
he said. I asked him was he just marching in the face of
it anyway, and he said, “Yes, he was doing it for human
dignity.”
Q. Alright, I believe you stated that each of them said
they knew of the injunction, all four?
A. Yes sir, all four knew it.
Mr. McBee: Take the witness.
Cross examination.
By Mr. Shores:
Q. Detective Jones, were you present when this parade
or procession took place?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. From where did it originate?
A. It originated from a Church on 11th Avenue and
7th—7th Avenue and 11th Street, North.
Q. Were you there prior to the beginning of the parade?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. How long had you been there?
A. Approximately 15 minutes, I would say.
Q. Were there other officers also present?
A. Yes, there were other officers.
Q. In your best judgment, how many officers were pres
ent?
A. That would be hard to say. In my best judgment, I
would say around—in the immediate vicinity of the Church?
Q. Yes.
A. I saw around ten, I would say, in uniform, and a
couple in plain clothes.
Q. Were these on vehicles, motorcycles and three-
wheelers ?
A. Yes.
Q. Or, just—all of them, except the plain clothes men
were on motorcycles or three-wheelers?
258
A. Well, I don’t know if they were, or not. I saw motor
cycles and three-wheelers down there.
Q. In addition to the other officers?
[fol. 316] A. No.
Q. They were part of the force that were there?
A. I assume that’s right.
_ Q- Now, how long had you been there prior to the begin
ning ̂of the march, present at this Church prior to the be
ginning of the march, or procession, or parade?
A. Like I said, approximately 15 minutes.
Q. Approximately 15 minutes. Had a crowd gathered
outside the Church?
A. Yes.
Q. In your best judgment, how many made up this
crowd ?
A. Several hundred. I couldn’t say.
Q. Hundreds. Were the officers doing anything to dis
perse the crowd ?
A. They were trying to keep the streets cleared and
sidewalks cleared.
Q. Did they keep the streets clear and the sidewalks
clear?
A. At this time, yes.
Q. About how many, in your best judgment, took part
in this march, or parade, or procession, as you call it?
A. Maybe two hundred.
y. Maybe two hundred. Now, did the parade group
come out of the Church, or was it made up after the mem
bers came out of the Church?
A. The Rev. Porter, and Hayes, and King were among
the first that came out, and I believe that Smith came out
right behind them, and they started to walk down the
street, and a large crowd formed behind them.
Q. Oh, just four officially made up the parade group, and
members of the crowd just fell in behind them?
A. No, I didn’t say that. I said they came out with a
group.
259
Q. How many came out with them? How many came out
in that group they were leading?
A. The ones I saw come out with them, I would say it
rfol.3171 was abouLfifteen or twenty. When they started
coming otT̂ I "proceeded to my car. 1 "don’t know how many
came out. It was just that quick, and I went and got in
my car.
Q. Then, you say as they proceeded down the street
others fell in line behind them, is that correct!
A. That is correct.
Q. And some on the opposite side of the street marching-
in the same direction, or going in the same direction fol
lowing them?
A. I don’t know that. I was getting in my car.
Q. Where was your car located?
A. In the 1100 block on 7th Avenue.
Q. And, where is this Church? Was the Church in the
same block?
A. I believe the Church was in the 1000 block, right on
the corner of 11th Street.
Q. Now, I believe you said you talked with Rev. King,
Rev. Smith, Rev. Porter and Rev. Hayes about the—you
talked with them, personally, about the injunction?
A. I asked them about it, yes.
Q. And what was Rev. King’s reply? Just what did you
ask him about it ?
A. I asked the Rev. King did he have knowledge of the
injunction against parading, and demonstrations, and he
said he did. I said, “ Have you marched anyway?” He said,
“ Yes, I did.” I said, “Why?” He said, “ Because the injunc
tion was too broad and vague.”
Q. It was broad, and vague, and he didn’t understand?
A. He said he didn’t even bother to read it. He threw it
away.
Q. Now, did you read the injunction?
A. No, I didn’t.
Q. Do you know whether it said, “Unlawful parading” ?
A. Like I said, I didn’t read it.
260
Q. And Rev. King said he didn’t understand it, it was
too broad!
[fol. 318] Mr. McBee: He didn’t say that.
Q. Hid you make any arrests!
Mr. McBee: I object to the statement put into the wit
ness’ mouth, “He didn’t understand it.” He didn’t say
that. He said he didn’t bother to read it, and threw it
away.
Mr. Shores: He did say it was too broad, too vague.
Mr. McBee: No, he didn’t say that.
Q_- Will you state again whether or not you made the
statement,.Rev. King made the statement, it was too broad,
or too vague?
A. He did say that.
Q. What did ' ftev. Smith say about it?
A. Rev. Smith said he had knowledge of it.
Q. Oh, he just had knowledge of it? He didn’t say
whether he had read it, or been served with an injunction?
A. No, he just knew of the injunction.
Q. What did Rev. Porter say?
A. He said he knew of the injunction.
Q. What did Rev. Hayes say?
A. He knew of the injunction. He said he was marching
anyway for human rights.
Q. Did they state whether or not they had been served?
A. Rev. Porter stated that he had been served.
Q. Did Rev. Hayes or Rev. Smith state whether or not
they had been served?
A. Rev. Smith didn’t state whether or not he had been
served, no.
Q. What about Rev. Hayes ?
A. I don’t recall. I don’t believe he did.
Q. Did you identify anybody else that was arrested that
day by name ?
A. No.
261
Q. In other words, all you identified was A. D. King,
Eev. Smith, Rev. Porter and Rev. Hayes?
A. Yes sir.
[fol. 319] Mr. Shores: That is all.
The Court: Anything further?
Mr. McBee: No, that will be all.
(Witness excused.)
[fol. 324] Detective C. C. Ray, called as a witness, being
first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
Direct examination.
By Mr. McBee:
Q. What is your name, please?
A T " 71
Q. „ - occupation?
A. Detective, City of Birmingham.
Q. Were you present with Detective Jones on the occa
sion immediately following the arrest of some parties on
Easter Sundav at the jail?
A . ¥es, sir.
Q. Did you interview some of the defendants who were
there on that occasion?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did Detective Jones interview some of them?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you interview a defendant known as Theodus
or T. L. Fisher?
A. T. L. Fisher, yes, sir.
Q. Did you at the same time interviews of other defen
dants was in progress discuss with Rev.—I don’t know
whether it is Rev. or not.
A. He said it was Reverend.
Q. —Rev. Theodus Fisher whether or not he participated
in this parade or procession?
262
Mr. Shores: We object, and may I examine Det. Ray
first on voir dire prior to his taking statements from these
witnesses?
The Court: I will advise counsel he will have to qualify
his examination so that the witness can be protected as
far as a criminal violation is concerned.
Mr. McBee: Your Honor, I was under the impression
that they were all notified by Det. Jones of their—
The Court: I don’t think that is the testimony at this
state.
Mr. Thompson: May it please the Court, I say this: I
don’t know whether Mr. Ray has a written statement or
whether he has a conversation with this witness or defen
dant or not. If it is simply an admission against interest
[fol. 325] there is no requirement calling for this witness
to be advised of his rights on anything.
Mr. Greenberg: We would respectfully disagree with
that, Your Honor. I think the Fourteenth Amendment pro
tects a witness with reference to admissions as well as
statements.
Mr. McBee: We can find out quickly enough whether or
not he did.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Shores: Let me examine him on voir dire.
Mr. McBee: I think I am entitled to predicate the ad
missibility of evidence if in truth and fact it can be done.
I don’t know.
Q. Did you on this occasion advise this defendant Theo-
dus L. Fisher—
Mr. Shores: We object to the way he is forming that
question. He is leading the witness.
Mr. McBee: I will change the form of the question.
Mr. Shores: Ask him what he told the witness.
Q. Did you or did you not on the occasion when you say
you talked to Theodus L. Fisher or T. L. Fisher, advise
Rev. Fisher on that occasion that—
263
Mr. Shores: Your Honor, we object to that question. He
is going to put words in that witness’ mouth. He is indicat
ing what he wants him to testify to.
The Court: The objection is overruled.
Q. Hid you advise the defendant that he was free to
make a statement if he wished and that if he did make a
statement his statement might be used against him; did
you offer him any reward or any hope of reward; did you
offer him any inducements to make a statement; did you
tell him it would be better for him to make a statement or
worse for him not to make a statement!
Mr. Greenberg: We object to that statement. That is
ten questions in one.
The Court: Overrule.
A. No, sir. T didn’t do any of those things.
Q. Did I understand you to say you did nothing in the
[fol. 326] way of advising him he did not have to make a
statement!
Mr. Shores: Your Honor, he lias answered that.
Mr. McBee: I am just trying to find out what he said.
A. I did not do any of those things, Mr. McBee.
Q. In other words, you laid no predicate at all!
A. No, sir.
Q. Did he make a statement to you!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did he say!
Mr. Shores: We object to what he said, Your Honor.
Mr. Breckenridge: Your Honor, I submit a sufficient
predicate has been laid as far as confession in Alabama is
concerned in that he did not tell him it would not be easier
on him if he made a statement or rougher on him if he
did not make a statement. I don’t know that there is any
law in Alabama that requires the officer to say the state
ment may be used against you, but I do believe in connec
tion with a confession it is necessary that the officer do
264
not offer any hope of reward or any threat of punishment
for the making or not making of a statement; and the
witness in this case has testified he did not offer any hope
of reward and he did not offer any threat and he said he
did not do either.
Mr. Shores: Your Honor, there may not be any citation
in Alabama, but there is a higher citation, the Fourteenth
Amendment, which specifically protects an individual in
his right not to testify or give evidence against himself.
Now, what he is about to give is statements against in
terest of this defendant without first having warned him
of his rights that are protected by the Constitution and
we submit any statement he makes now would be in viola
tion of this defendant’s rights protected by the Fourteenth
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
The Court: Sustain the objection.
Mr. Breckenridge: We except.
Mr. McBee: That is all.
(Witness excused)
[fol. 327] The Court: We will take this opportunity for
a recess of about ten minutes.
(Short recess)
Officer R. N. H igginbotham, called as a witness, being
first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
Direct examination.
By Mr. McBee:
Q. Your name, please.
__A. Oflk:rx-R~ K^Higa'inbothani. ^
Q. What is your official position or occupation?
A. Police officer, City of Birmingham.
Q. Do you recall an occasion on Easter Sunday when
there were some arrests made with reference to a parade
or procession or demonstration or some sort of incident of
that type !
A. I do.
Q. Were you one of the arresting officers!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you arrest any of the defendants who are now in
this contempt case!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Which ones did you arrest!
A. I arrested A. D. King, John T. Porter, J. W. Hays,
Jr. and N. H. Smith, Jr.
Q J. W. Hays you say!
A. Eight.
Q. And N. H. Smith, Jr.!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were they in this march or procession or parade or
whatever it was!
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. McBee: You may take the witness.
Cross examination.
By Mr. Shores:
Q. Officer Higginbotham, were you present at the time
this parade or procession or demonstration began!
[fol. 328] A. I was.
Q. From which point did it originate!
A. It originated from 7th Avenue North and 11th Street
at the church next to the corner.
Q. Did it begin on the outside of the church or did they
march out of the church into the street!
A. The first I noticed they were coming down the steps
of the church.
Q. How many!
A. There were four ministers walking two abreast that
came off the church steps.
265
266
Q. Were there anybody following them?
A. Yes.
Q. How many following them?
A. Well, as they progressed down the sidewalk there was
more and more following in behind them at this point.
Q. Now, these who were following in behind, were they
parties of this demonstration or parade, or were they the
outside individuals who were already outside the church
and just fell in behind?
A. I observed at this time there were quite a few coming
out of the church in twos side by side, and I did notice
several outside the church that were forming in line.
Q. That is what I was getting at. Do you have an idea
as to how many came out of the church in twos ?
A. No, I didn’t stay very long at this point.
Q. What position did you take when you saw them
coming out of the church?
A. I went south on 11th Street to 6th Avenue.
Q. Were you on a motor—
A. I was on a motorcycle.
Q. What was your destination? Where did you stop?
A. At 11th Street and 6th Avenue.
Q. Was it there that you arrested these four respondents ?
A. No, it wasn’t.
[fol. 329] Q. What did you do when you got to 6th Avenue
and 11th Street? What did you do there?
A. Well, I noticed they were still coming south on 11th
Street and I went on down to 5th Avenue and 11th Street.
Q. Were you leading the group?
A. No, I wasn’t leading them.
Q. Were they on the sidewalk or out in the street?
A. At this time they were on the sidewalk.
Q. Did they block traffic?
A. Traffic was being blocked at this time.
Q. By whom ?
A. W ell, a lot of the crowd that was in the rear were
surging to the front and they spilled out into the street at
this time.
267
Q. Were there any officers besides you at the scene!
A. Yes, there were several officers.
Q. How many!
A. I don’t know the number exactly.
Q. Could you estimate in your best judgment how many!
A. I would say there was over ten at this time.
Q. Were they in the immediate vicinity of the church?
A. Yes.
Q. What time did you go down to the church, that is, how
long were you at the church before the parade started or
procession!
A. Approximately a half hour.
Q. Had a crowd gathered at that time on the outside!
A. Yes, there was a crowd.
Q. Just what was the crowd doing!
A. Before they came out of the church they were just
standing around.
Q. Did you disperse any of the crowd!
A. No, I didn’t.
Q. Did any of the other officers disperse anĵ of them in
your presence !
A. I didn’t see any.
[fol. 330] Q. In other words, Officers permitted them to
congregate there in large numbers!
A. I don’t know whether they permitted them to or not.
They were gathered there.
Q. And they didn’t do anything about dispersing them!
A. In the vicinity I was they didn’t.
Q. Did you say you made the arrest of Rev. King, Rev.
Porter, Rev. Hays and Rev. Smith! Did anybody assist
you!
A. At this time they didn’t.
Q. What were they doing when you arrested them!
A. They were marching north between 10th and 11th
Street through a vacant lot.
Q. Through a vacant lot! They were not on the street
when you arrested them!
268
A. No. They had just turned north out of 5th Alley and
was turning into a vacant lot there.
Q. Were they loud or boisterous when you arrested them?
A. The four ministers wasn’t.
Q. Just what was the conduct of the four ministers at
the time you arrested them? Just what were they doing?
A. They were marching.
Q. And at the time you arrested them they were on
somebody else’s property, were they not?
A. That’s right,
Q. Did you see anybody invite them and tell them they
could come on through that property or come on that prop
erty? F 1
A. No, I didn’t.
Q. Now, when you said marching, were they marching
like soldiers or just walking?
. A - Well> the ministers were marching by twos side by
side, two in front and two in the rear.
Q. Was there any band playing?
A. No.
Q. Were there any uniformed group among the people
who were marching ?
[fol. 331] A. I didn ’t see them.
Q. Do you know their destination?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Were there any other officers with you at the time
you arrested these four?
A. There were several officers that came up at this time
right after I made the arrests.
Q. What did you say to them and what did they say to
you, if anything, when you made the arrests ?
A. I asked them did they have a permit to parade and
they stated that they did not.
Q. And what else was said by you?
A. That was all at this time.
Q. Did you tell them they were under arrest1?
A. I did.
269
Q. Did you tell them what charge you were placing
against them?
A. I told them they were being arrested for parading
without a permit.
Q. They didn’t resist in any respect, did they?
A. They did not.
Q. What did you do with them when you told them they
were under arrest for parading without a permit?
A. A. D. King and John T. Porter, I started marching
them north through the vacant lot and at this time some
other officers had arrived and they took the other two, it
was Hays and Smith, under custody and they were to the
rear of me.
Q. In other words, you were marching and the other
officers were marching along? Were you in twos when you
started marching then? Where were you taking them to?
A. To a patrol wagon.
Q. Did you march to the patrol wagon?
A. No, not exactly march. We were just walking.
Q. Well, were you walking just as they were walking
when they were coming up the street ?
[fol. 332] A. I don’t think so.
Q. How many officers arrived and how many were ar
rested at that time ?
A. I don’t know. At this time there was a large crowd
that had gathered and it was getting larger all the time
and there was a lot of singing and a lot of shouting and a
lot of heckling going on and my only thought was to get
them out of this crowd as soon as we could.
Q. Did the officers have the situation under control the
whole time ?
A. Now, after I put these two under arrest I don’t re
member looking back. I heard a lot of noise and there were
a lot of people gathering and what happened behind me at
this time I don’t know.
Q. Now, you had made arrests before during these so-
called demonstrations, had you not?
A. I had.
270
Q. And during this time were all these arrests handled
by the Birmingham Police Department?
A. As far as I know they were.
̂ Q. As far as you know you didn’t have to call in any
State patrol or Highway Patrol or any help from the State?
A. I haven’t, no.
Q. Were any arrests made by members of the Highway
Patrol or the Sheriff’s Department?
A. I wouldn’t know if there have or hasn’t.
Q. As far as you know the City Police Department had
everything under control and made all the arrests as far
as you know?
A. To the best of my knowledge they have.
Mr. Shores: That is all.
Redirect examination.
By Mr. McBee:
Q. Did you see anybody with robes on?
A. I did.
Q. Who had the robes on?
A. The four ministers that were in the front, and I ob-
[fol. 333] served another one that was I would say ten or
fifteen yards to the rear of them at this time with a shorter
robe on.
Mr. McBee: That is all.
Recross examination.
By Mr. Shores:
Q. Did any other officer assist you in arresting these
four?
A. Not that I know of at this time.
Q. You are sure of that?
A. If he did I don’t remember it. There was such a
crowd gathered at this time and there was so much noise,
there could have been.
271
Mr. Shores: That is all.
Mr. McBee: Yon may come down.
(Witness excused.)
Mr. McBee: Your Honor, we want to introduce the veri
fied petition. I think Your Honor will take judicial notice
and knowledge of your records, but we want to introduce
the records showing the service of the writ of injunction
upon the several respondents. I doubt that it is necessary
to introduce the docket sheet, but we would like to call
Your Honor’s attention to it.
Mr. Shores: We object to the introduction of any—
Mr. McBee: The docket sheet of the Court! You object
to that ?
Mr. Shores: Of this Court!
Mr. McBee: Yes, this Court.
Mr. Shores: No, we don’t object to that. I think the
Court takes judicial knowledge of it.
Mr. McBee: That is what I am saying.
Your Honor, we are about at the point where we prob
ably might be able to rest. May we have a few minutes to
confer before we do!
The Court: We will take about five minutes recess then.
(Short recess.)
[fol. 334] Mr. McBee: If it please the Court, we did have
some additional witnesses, but they have gone out of town.
We have unfortunately not issued subpoenas for them be
cause we thought they would be here, but they are not here.
Of course, we do not want under the circumstances to delay
the court, so we will rest at this time.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Shores: Your Honor, we would like to offer all of
the Motions that we offered at the beginning of the trial:
our Plea in Abatement, Motion to Vacate and Discharge,
and Motion for Severance.
The Court: The same ruling will apply; Motions are
overruled.
272
Defendants’ M otions and Rulings T hereon
Mr. Shores: We would like at this time to offer a motion
to exclude the evidence on all of these respondents on the
ground that the charges made against them were matters
in which they were involved in which they were protested
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Consti
tution of the United States, rights of free speech and free
assemble. And under the Louisville case of Thompson
versus Louisville there has been no testimony that would
sustain the charges made in this contempt proceeding.
For that reason we would like to move to exclude for all
of these respondents and respectfully request judgment in
favor of these respondents.
The Court: Motion overruled.
Mr. Shores: We would further like to move to exclude
this with reference to the respondents Ed Gardner, Abra
ham Woods, Jr., Calvin Woods, Johnny Louis Palmer, and
Andrew Young. There has been no testimony connecting
these respondents in any respect with this citation.
The Court: Do you have anything you want to state with
reference to that Motion?
_ Mr. McBee: With reference to Andrew Young, the tes
timony is clear that he was participating in meetings, was
[fol. 33o] soliciting volunteers to participate in connection
with these movements. Your Honor will understand that
this is a conspiracy, and, of course, the joint action of all
parties.
Mr. Greenberg: Your Honor, this is the first notice we
have had of a conspiracy.
Mr. McBee: That is what you are charged with. The
action of all of the respondents is chargeable to each of the
respondents, or each is chargeable to all, whichever way
you want to look at it. As to Gardner, Abraham Woods,
Calvin Woods and Johnny Louis Palmer, I do not recali
that we have had specific direct evidence in the record con
cerning them, other than that they have been charged in
the injunction with being members of your organization.
273
Mr. Shores: In answer to this, Your Honor, this is a
criminal proceeding as well as a civil proceeding. They are
to he charged and tried as in a criminal case. There has
been no charge of any conspiracy. Each was charged indi
vidually as violating an injunction. The only testimony
as to Andrew Young is that he was present at a meeting,
and that is no crime to be present at a meeting.
In order to convict the person of criminal contempt there
must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt as in any other
criminal case. We submit that there has been no testimony
with respect to Abraham Woods, Jr., Calvin Wood, Johnny
Louis Palmer and Ed Gardner. And we submit that the
only testimony with reference to Andrew Young was that
he did attend a meeting, and it is no crime to attend a
meeting. And the injunction did not enjoin them from
attending meetings. So we certainly submit that these five
would not be covered, as there is no evidence or testimony
linking them up with violating any injunction.
The Court: Motion as to Ed Gardner, Calvin Woods,
Abraham Woods, Jr., Johnny Louis Palmer—any other in
cluding in your motion ?
Mr. Shores: Andrew Young, Your Honor.
The Court: I will overrule your motion as to Andrew
Young.
[fol. 336] Mr. Shores: Your Honor, James Bevils, I don’t
believe that there was anything in connection with him other
than he attended a meeting.
Mr. McBee: Yes, the evidence is clear that he was urging
them to march. That is what he was charged with, and the
evidence is exactly clear on that point without dispute.
The Court: Overrule as to James Bevils. Your Motion
is granted as to Ed Gardner. Calvin Woods, Abraham
Woods, Jr., Johnny Louis Palmer.
Mr. Shores: Your Honor, on examining this docket sheet
it does not appear that these respondents, all of these re
spondents were served.
274
The Court: There might not be all the service marked
upon the sheet. You see, it comes from the Sheriff’s office
and quite often service does not get entered immediately.
Mr. Shores: They ought to he dismissed for failure to
show that they were served, and on that further ground we
urge that the citation he dismissed.
Mr. McBee: It has already been demonstrated that they
knew about it because they were making press releases that
they were not going to abide by the injunction.
The Court: Let me hear your motion and state it into
the record so that I can rule upon it.
Mr. Shores: We would like to move further that all of
these respondents that have been cited for contempt be dis
charged, the evidence he excluded, and that they be dis
charged on the grounds that it has not been shown that
they were served with notice of this court’s injunction and
of the motion to cite for contempt. This is a criminal pro
ceeding and certainly it should be followed strictly.
The Court: The service on the back here is shown on
this, which is also part of the record (indicating a docu
ment). I am reading from the back of the original of the
contempt citation, which is what we are trying today. On
[fol. 337] the reverse side executed 3 :43 P.M. April 17 on
Andrew Young. I will just read these that are left. Cer
tificate April 16, execution date at 10:35 A.M. on T. L.
Fisher. Certified April 16 10:35 A.M. on A. D. King.
April 16 3:15 P.M. F. L. Shuttlesworth. April 16 10:35
A.M. Ralph Abernathy. April 17 3 :44 P.M. on Wyatt Tee
Walker. April 16 10:35 A.M. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Have I covered all of those that are left?
Mr. Greenberg: Do I understand that Your Honor has
indicated service on the contempt citation?
The Court: That’s right.
Mr. Greenberg: But the execution I believe we are talk
ing about is whether there was service of the temporary
restraining order. All of that was served after the event's
of Good Friday and Easter Sunday.
275
The Court: Execution is indicated on the docket sheet
on April 11 on all of these particular parties interested in
this case as to the writs of injunction, and particular filed
here in the filing of the summons, which is indicated April
11 as the date shown here in the filing. Your Motion would
be overruled.
Mr. Shores: We except. Your Honor, we were taken
somewhat by surprise, having been informed that the City
would probably go on through the day. Could we adjourn
until after lunch now to give us a chance to talk to some
of these witnesses ?
The Court: We will adjourn until 1:30.
(Whereupon, at the hour of 11:27 A.M. April 23, 1963
the proceedings were in recess until 1:30 P.M., when the
proceedings continued as follows:)
[fol. 338] (Proceedings reconvened at 1:45 P.M. pursuant
to recess.)
The Court: All right.
Mr. Shores: We would like to call Mr. J. M. Breeken-
ridge.
J. M. Bbeckenridge, called as a witness, being duly sworn,
was examined and testified as follows:
Direct examination.
By Mr. Shores:
Q. Mr. Breckenridge, would you state your full name,
please!
A. J. M. Breckenridge.
Q. And what is your official position with the City of
Birmingham?
A. City Attorney.
Q. How long have you been City Attorney?
A. Since July of 1960.
276
Q. Will you state for the record your duties as City At
torney!
Mr. McBee: We would object, may it please the Court.
The duties of the City Attorney are entirely irrelevant, in
competent, and immaterial insofar as the issues involved
in this case. As I understand them to be, the issues are
whether or not an injunction was issued, and whether or
not these defendants violated the injunction with knowledge
of it.
Mr. Shores: Preliminary question.
Mr. McBee: The question of what Mr. Breckenridge’s
duties could have no conceivable relevancy to the issues
that Your Honor has called upon the try in this case.
The Court: I fail to see any connection, myself.
Mr. Shores: Your Honor, he drew the petition up. That
is some relevancy. We want to show his duties. He drew
the petition up.
The Court: Whether or not he drew the petition, or any
part of it, I see no connection between his position and what
he might have done in the violation of any injunction.
Mr. Shores: Your Honor, we still insist if the Court had
no jurisdiction, or acted in violation of the Federal Con-
[fol. 339] stitution, then—and if the injunction is vague,
and that sort of thing—
The Court: I think that the Court has indicated the
position that it took with reference to the hearing, and
your rights in that respect would be protected, because I
have already indicated that regardless of whether or not
this injunction might be issued invalidly, that the question
was whether or not it was violated, and I also indicated
the fact that the respondents had filed a motion, and filed
demurrers, and answers was a general appearance, and had
waived any question of the pleading to the jurisdiction of
this Court. This is a pure case of a violation of a con
tempt of the order of the Court which had prima facie
authority to issue such an order.
277
Mr. Shores: We are trying to show there is no complain
ing witness, and if there is no complaining witness, there
is no ease.
The Court: The order was issued on the basis of sworn
affidavit. Now, you have put into issues the question of the
affidavit by your answer, and the proof has been offered
today and yesterday, and, of course, it rests upon that
proof now.
Mr. Shores: That is what we are trying to rebut, the
proof that the City has offered.
The Court: Are you trying to rebut factual information
by this witness as to what has been offered from the stand?
Mr. Shores: What we are trying to show is that the City
did not bring any suit.
The Court: The City did not bring any suit! Is that
what you indicated?
Mr. Shores: That is exactly what we are trying to indi
cate.
Mr. McBee: There has been no plea, so far as I have
been aware of, that the City has not brought a suit. As a
matter of fact, the City has brought a suit, and the fact of
that suit is a matter of knowledge to Your Honor, because
Your Honor has entertained jurisdiction in it.
Mr. Shores: The fact that it has been filed does not prove
that the City has brought the suit.
[fol. 340] The Court: Are you seeking to find out who
authorized him to file the suit? Is that the point?
Mr. Shores: Yes, sir, that is what we are seeking to do.
The Court: That might be an interesting question. I
will allow him to testify to it.
Mr. McBee: We still object to that, Your Honor.
Mr. Shores: Your Honor, we raised that in the begin
ning. We filed an answer to this motion to show cause,
and as one of our defenses in the answer, we alleged there
was no showing the City authorized the bringing of this
suit.
The Court: All right.
278
Q. Mr. McBee—
A. Breckenridge.
Q. I mean Mr. Breckenridge, by whom were you au
thorized to draw these pleadings and tile this suit?
A. The suit was filed, and other suits with the City by
the Law Department, prepared by the Law Department,
and it was approved specifically, my recollection, by two
Commissioners of the City. That is Commissioner Connor
and Commissioner Hanes that I know of, and was not dis
approved, so far as I know, by anyone.
Q. You say “ So far as you know” . Did they—when did
they approve the bringing of the suit, and by what method?
A. It was discussed with them orally.
Q. It was discussed with them orally?
A. That’s right.
Q. Did they meet in formal session?
A. No. If you are asking if there is any formal action
on the minutes of the governing body of the City au
thorizing the bringing of the suit, my answer would be
“ No, there is none” . It is not the practice, and never has
been the practice to require formal action by the govern
ing body of the city on the bringing of a suit on behalf
of the City.
Q. Now, as City Attorney, you are the chief legal officer
[fol. 341] of the City?
A. I think I could be styled as the chief legal officer of
the City of Birmingham.
Q. In fact, you ordinarily, as chief legal officer, you pre
pare the various resolutions that the City Commission
usually discuss and pass, do you?
A. Ido.
Mr. McBee: We object. Counsel is leading his own
witness.
A. Let me—
The Court: I will overrule the objection.
A. Let me qualify the statement I made awhile ago.
When I said there was no formal action of the governing
279
body, there was formal action of the governing body au
thorizing issuance of the bond in this case, approved of
ficially by all three Commissioners, and is on the minutes
of the City. That bond, by implication, would, itself, ratify
the filing and certainly be the approval of that board.
Q. Is that a formal action with respect to the bringing
of the suit and filing of the suit ?
A. Other than what I have told you is the only official
action. When I say official, I mean action which is spread
on the minutes of the City. It is not, and has not, over
many years, been required that the City—that there be a
resolution for the filing of a suit on behalf of the City. It
has usually been done in the name of the City Attorney,
or some assistant City Attorney.
Q. Are you acquainted, as chief legal officer, are you ac
quainted with the laws of the State of Alabama governing
the City of Birmingham!
A. I hope I am. I think I am.
Q. Are you acquainted with the law which requires any
action for the benefit of the City, or any resolutions to be
passed by the board in formal session!
[fol. 342] Mr. McBee: We object to that, may it please
the Court, It is a matter that is apparent that he is in
court when litigation is required. It is proof of general
provisions that relate to his attention on such things, and
it relates to the enactment of ordinances, and the like. It
is a function of the City Government in an administrative
nature, and is not—
Mr. Shores: We object to Mr. McBee testifying.
A. It is a legislative—
The Court: He has a right to make his objection to the
Court.
Mr. McBee: It is not legislative in its nature, but it is
purely the matter of the administrative functioning of the
City Government, and as Mr. Breckenridge has stated, the
bringing of lawsuits in appropriate cases on behalf of the
280
City is done with the—by the legal department of the City
and the general provision of the statutes he is referring
to has no relevancy whatever. I object to going into those
provisions because it clutters up the record.
The Court: Don’t you think the question you asked is a
legal question, whether or not he was familiar with such
law. The law exist as it is, regardless of his familiarity
with it.
Mr. Shores: He is the chief legal officer and expert in
the field.
The Court: We don’t seek expert legal opinion in this
court. You may call the Court’s attention to it in your
closing arguments, but so far as to give it to the Court
from the witness stand, I just think it should be done in
another manner.
Mr. Shores: It wasn’t a matter of the law I was trying
to establish. The fact that he is legal officer, he advises and
he draws the various resolutions requiring the bringing of
the—well, I will withdraw that question.
The Court: All right.
Q. Now, you did present the bond to the City Commis
sion f Did you present that ?
[fob 343] A. Presented a resolution to the City Commis
sion, and the City Commission approved the execution of
the bond by the Mayor. That was passed unanimously,
and approved unanimously by all three Commissioners, and
so appears on the minute books of the meeting.
Q. But, no resolution was presented and passed authoriz
ing the bringing of this lawsuit?
Mr. McBee: That question has been answered. It is
repetitious.
The Court: Sustained.
A. There was no resolution.
Mr. Shores: I believe that is all.
(Witness excused).
281
[fol. 344] Jttdson H odges, called as a witness, being duly
sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
Direct examination.
By Mr. Greenberg:
Q. Please state your name.
A. Judson Hodges.
Q. What is your position?
W City. Clerk, City. nfJBixaiingham.
Q TH ow long have you held that position?
A. Little over six years.
Q. What are your duties in connection with that position,
Mr. Hodges?
A. Well, I am secretary to the Commission. I keep the
minutes, and all the permanent files of the City. That is
mainly what it is.
Q. Do you keep resolutions adopted by the City Com
missioners?
A. That is correct.
Q. Do you have a resolution adopted by the City Com
missioners authorizing commencement of this suit?
A. I do not.
Q. Do you have a resolution adopted by these City Com
missioners authorizing entering into a bond in connection
with this suit?
A. Ido.
-Q Dp Ynu, in connection with vour position, keep a
recordiiLpermits to hold parades ?
Mr. McBee: We object to that, may it please the Court,
unless these lawyers tell us that they contend that they
have a permit, or had a permit. If that is not an issue in
the case, we object to any testimony about permits vel non,
or any other situations of any kind whatsoever.
The Court: Sustained.
Mr. Greenberg: May it please the Court, our position
in connection with the issuance of permits to grant a pa
282
rade is first of all there is a charge these defendants have
paraded without a license.. I would like to ascertain what
[fol. 345] is the nature of marches, or parades in which per
mits are granted, and then we would like to inquire into
the procedure to gfifi how these are .acquired. If the statute
has not been applied, or has been applied in an unconstitu
tional manner, then there is no requirement on these de
fendants to have a permit any more than the others. That
is our position.
The Court f l s there any evidence on the part of these
defendants in the case, or respondents, that they applied
for a license or permit?
Mr. Greenberg: First of all, we intend to show such evi
dence. Secondly, quite apart from that, there is no neces
sity to apply for a permit which is granted according to
an unconstitutional procedure if there is a denial of equal
rights under the law secured by the Fourteenth Amend
ment. We intend to develop it through this witness.
Mr. Breckenridge: As counsel has stated, I would like
to object to that as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial,
because if such facts exist, the duty would be on the re
spondents to apply for a permit, or to bring such matter
to the attention of this court prior to the violation of the
injunction as alleged in order that the court could deter
mine whether or not the City ordinance required a permit.
Mr. Greenberg: We plan to establish through this wit-
mess the| City Commission, in fact, does not issue permits
for a parade.
The Cmirtn Any evidence this witness might have as to
the factual situation involving these respondents, I will
allow him to testify about with reference to parade per
mits, and so forth. Any other occasion that might be in
volved, I don’t think that would be relevant.
Mr. Greenberg: May we be permitted to establish the
fact that the City Commission in fact does not issue per
mits for parades, or marches, and that these, in fact, are
issued by the Clerk at the request of the traffic department,
so far as we are able to ascertain, in accordance with no
statute or ordinance as is generally delegated by the City
Commission?
The Court: I think that is an involved statement, and
[fol. 346] you will have to go into it a little further, and I
will let you prove anything this man has personal knowl
edge of.
Q. Do you keep records of permits issued for parades ?
A. Ido.,,
Q. Under what authority are these permits issued?
Mr. Breckenridge: We object, because the question calls
for a question of law. The statute speaks for itself.
Mr. Greenberg: Withdraw the question.
The Court: The Court takes judicial knowledge of the
ordinances of the City of Birmingham.
[fol. 347] Q. Mr. Hodges, if you know, has the Commis
sion ever voted to grant a permit for a parade?
Mr. McBee: We object to that, whether the Commis
sion has ever voted to grant a permit for a parade, unless
they show they presented a request to the City Commission
in this case to grant a permit, and which we do not under
stand they contend they have ever done.
The Court: Sustain the objection.
Q. Have permits for parades beenj^ranted?
Mr. McBee: We object to that, may it please the Court,
unless he is talking about a permit which was made in this
case, a request for a permit was made in this case, or on
any occasion when any of the parades were conducted re
lated to the evidence produced before Your Honor in this
case.
The Court: If you can relate it to a specific occasion,
I will allow him to testify about it. As to the general ques
tion, I don’t think that I can allow it. I will have to sustain
the objection to that.
Mr. Greenberg: Perhaps I can explain our position in
briefer fashion. These respondents are in part being
charged with not having applied io tiie City Commission
284
for a permit. . Tt is nnr position, among other things, flint
the Cily Commission does not grant permits and never
liMi.that these are granted by the
-fl-f.the traffic division"'according IcT no *puB!i^e3"rnlft““or
-J a gnlation. ~~W e can establish it very easily because that**
^is in fact the practice.
Tlie Court: i will let you ask the question and then I
will rule upon the objection. I don’t know that your ques
tion has reached the phase that you expressed so far. The
questions have been very general.
Q. Will you describe the practice in accordance with
which permits are granted, Mr. Hodges?
Mr. McBee: I didn’t get that question.
Mr. Greenberg: Would you read the question, Mr. Re
porter?
[fol. 348] (Question read.)
Mr. McBee: We object to that, may it please the Court,
unless they are talking about the particular incidents in
volved in any of the parades that were conducted related
to the issues in this case.
The Court: Do you have a copy of the City Ordinance
at the present time with reference to—
Mr. McBee: Yes, I think we have it. Your Honor. It is
Section 1159.
The Court: I think the Question asking for the general
practice m such instances cannot be allowed because Die
ordinance itself which is governing this situation allows
certain discretion in the City Commission, and tn attack
the act of the Commissionin'this proceeding wouhLuaLhe
relevant. ----------==—■——H Z—
"U r . Greenberg: Your Honor, what we are trying to es
tablish is the procedure set forth in this act has, as far as
we have been able.-to ascertain, never W n PnTTWWI and
we would therefore submit it would be a denial of equal
"prolection of law secured by the FourteentiTXmendmeht
To Require tnese.respondents to follow it when, as a matter
of practice, no one else ever has.
285
The Court: I will have to sustain the objection to the
question. I think the ordinance is absolutely clear on that
and the manner in which the action of the Commission in
ruling upon a permission for a parade permit would have
to be handled in another procedure other than the one here
after a violation of a contempt order has been made.
Mr. Greenberg: With all respect, Your Honor, your
statement presupposes an action of the Commission. We
are trying to show there is in none of these cases action
of the Commission.
The Court: I say this: The law requires it. Whether or
not the Commission has done that is not any concern of
this Court at this time.
Mr. Greenberg: But it is our position that certainly
these respondents should be treated no differently than
[fol. 349] anyone else. They should not be required to
abide by a practice whereby,) I might develop from this
witness, that hundreds of permats have been grante(Tun(!er
an entirely different procedure and that procedure. I might
'add, is something^lliaL never1 ilKS been nuETished and no
'ImeTHS' aitYway of knowing it7 J
Ml'. McBeeT“"MayTtqffMse“the Court, I would like to say
this gentleman comes to us from the New York bar, I be
lieve, and he probably is not aware of the fact that F. L.
Shuttlesworth was advised as early as April 5th that the
responsibility for issuing permits for demonstrations of
this type fell upon the entire Commission, and we expect
the evidence to show, if we are allowed to go into it and if
it becomes relevant, that there was no effort made and
there has never been any effort made to present any re
quest to the City Commission for a permit to conduct any
of the activities that are referred to and described in Sec
tion 1159 of the Code. So, it is entirely erroneous to say
to Your Honor in arguing questions of law that these
defendants were not aware of the proper provisions of
the law because they were told.
The Court: I have tried to keep the issues as clear as I
could in the case and I think that any question propounded
286
to this witness as to his personal knowledge of the treat
ment of these particular people that sought a permit and
were refused would he relevant to the case, hut as to any
general practice, I don’t think that is relevant to the issues
that I have here before me.
Q. Mr. Hodges, has the City Commission ever referred
to you a request by any of these respondents to conduct
a parade, demonstration or other public activity?
Mr. McBee: Now, wait, may it please the Court. We
would like to suggest that that question is entirely too
broad. Now, I don’t know what may have occurred years
ago, hut we would object to the question as framed because
it is too inclusive.
Mr. Greenberg: I will reframe it.
Q. Has the City Commission ever referred to von a re-
- quest EiL any "oOEp e respondents of any sort made bv ,
_them. let us say, in the last, thirty davs ?
\/_ [fol. 350] A. They have not.
Q. Has the City Traffic engineer referred to you such a
request?
Mr. McBee: We object to what the City Traffic Engineer
may or may not have done.
Q. Is it normal practice for the City Traffic Engineer—
Mr. McBee: We object to what the normal practice is,
may it please the Court. That is exactly the line of testi
mony Your Honor ruled on a moment ago.
The Court: Sustain the objection, except as to the Com
missioners, and he has already answered that.
Q. Are there any published rules and regulations con
cerning the manner in which permits shall be applied for
apart from the City Ordinance?
A. No, it is in the City Code.
Q- Approximately how many permits have von granted
during the past—
287
Mr. McBee: We will object, may it please the Court.
That continues to belabor this question of what has been
done in the past and is not related to this case.
The Court: Sustain.
Mr. Greenberg: Your Honor, what I have said previ
ously, may it be considered as an offer of proof along these
lines!
The Court: I think so.
Mr. Greenberg: Thank you.
Cross examination.
By Mr. McBee:
Q. Mr. Hodges, may I ask a question: Have you at
tended the meetings of the City Commission regularly!
A. Yes.
Q. During the past thirty days, at any time in that inter
val of time, has anybody among these defendants or their
attorneys or anybody representing them, appeared before
the City Commission to request a permit to conduct a
parade or procession!
A. They have not, no sir.
[fol. 351] Mr. McBee: You may come down.
(Witness excused.)
[fol. 352] The Court: There has been some question with
reference to the docket sheet in particular with reference
to the offer that the City made of the docket sheet. It is my
understanding it was agreed—
Mr. McBee: Yes, Your Honor, takes judicial knowledge
of it.
The Court: And as far as any entries made—I under
stand they are not through making entries on this sheet.
Is there any objection to them going ahead and making
the entries!
Mr. McBee: No, sir, because it was not really intro
duced. It was just called to Your Honor’s attention.
288
Commissioner E ugene Connor, called as a witness, being
first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
Direct examination.
By Mrs. Motley:
Q. Mr. Connor, would you please state your full name
and position for the record!
A. Eugene Theo Connor.
Q. And your position, please!
A. Public Safety Commissioner of the City of Birming
ham.
Q. Mr. Connor, do you know of any resolution by the
City Commissioners of the City of Birmingham authoriz
ing the bringing of this suit!
Mr. McBee: We would object to that, may it please the
Court, whether this Commissioner knows about any resolu
tion of the City Commission authorizing the bringing of
this suit.
The Court: Sustain. The evidence by the person that
has just taken the stand was that he was the Clerk and
registered and had the minutes of all the meetings and of
course the minutes would be the best evidence.
Mrs. Motley: We would like to have this marked, Your
Honor.
(Whereupon a telegram was marked Respondent’s Ex
hibit A for Identification.)
Q. Mr. Connor, I would like to show you this telegram
which has been marked Respondent’s Exhibit A for Iden
tification and ask you if you can identify that telegram!
A. Yes, I can identify it.
[fob 353] Q. What is it! Would you explain to the
Court?
A. What do you mean what is it? It is a telegram.
Q. Excuse me. Is that a telegram sent by you to some
one?
A. It is.
289
Q. Mr. Connor, when has the City Commission over
Tssttgcra permii_f‘or a narade?
Mr. McBee: We would object again, may it please the
Court.
The Court: Sustain.
Mr. McBee: Getting into the same area that was at
tempted to be covered before.
Mrs. Motley: Would Your Honor like to see the con
tents of the telegram?
The Court: Yes.
Mr. McBee: We have no objection to the introduction
of that telegram in evidence if that is what you have in
mind.
The Court: The telegram speaks for itself as far as
what it is. I don’t assume you want to introduce the writ
ing on it other than the printing?
Mrs. Motley: That’s right. We want to introduce this in
evidence.
(Whereupon said telegram was received in evidence as
Respondents’ Exhibit A, and a true and correct copy of
the same is set out at the end of the transcript of testimony
in this record.)
Mrs. Motley: Did Your Honor overrule the question to
the witness as to when the City Commission had ever issued
a permit for a parade?
The Court: No, I sustained the objection to that ques
tion.
Q. Mr. Connor, have you ever gotten a similar request
for a parade permit?
Mr. McBee: We object to that, Your Honor, unless it is
limited to some of the defendants under the same grounds
Your Honor has already gone into.
The Court: Sustain.
Mrs. Motley: For the purposes of the record, Your
[fol. 354] Honor, we would like to proffer by way of proof
290
the questions which we have directed to this witness for
the purpose of establishing, as we said with respect to the
prior witness, that the City Commission has never issued
any permit. We would just like the record to be clear that
this is the purpose of our questions and this is what we
intended to prove by those questions.
The Court: Which City Commission?
Mrs. Motley: The City Commission of the City of
Birmingham as indicated by this telegram. He directed,
as Your Honor read, Mr. Shuttlesworth to secure such a
permit from the City Commission, and what we had in
tended to prove by this witness is that the City Commission
has never issued any such permit.
The Court: In this particular case ?
Mrs. Motley: In any case in the City of Birmingham.
The Court: Your offer is accepted then as to what you
offer to prove, but the Court says it is not relevant to this
issue.
Mrs. Motley: Yes. I just wanted the record to be clear
as to what we are trying to establish by this witness.
The Court: All right.
Q. Now, Mr. Connor, in this telegram to Mr. Shuttles
worth you stated the following:
“ I insist that you and your people do not start any
picketing on the streets in Birmingham, Alabama.”
Now, is it your understanding that no picketing of any
kind is permitted—
Mr. McBee: We object, may it please the Court.
The Court: Let her complete the question.
Mr. McBee: I thought she had.
_ Q- ^ your understanding that no picketing of any
kind is permitted on the streets of the City of Birmingham?
Mr. McBee: We would object to that, may it please the
Court, what his understanding may or may not be. The
matter is a matter for the City Commission to pass upon
291
and wliat his individual opinion or judgment or whatever
it might be would not be relevant and material since it is
[fol. 355] an established fact according to the evidence up
to this point that no one ever did submit any request to
the City Commission.
The Court: Sustain.
Mrs. Motley: Your Honor, this City Commissioner ad
vised or insisted that these people not do any picketing on
the streets of the City of Birmingham. I think we have a
right to find out what he meant by that statement, whether
it is his understanding that no picketing of any kind is
permitted on the streets of Birmingham.
Mr. Breckenridge: Your Honor, the preceding question
clearly shows he has referred them to the City Commission.
The previous sentence in that same telegram shows he
referred them to the City Commission, and that could mean
only one thing, that there would be no permit until a per
mit from the City Commission had been obtained.
Mrs. Motley: I don’t think the telegram is clear on that
at all, Your Honor, and I think we can ask him what he
had in mind.
The Court: I will sustain the objection to the question.
I think the question of picketing is a legal question and the
question would have to come before the Court for deter
mination. As to what this man may have had in mind
would not be relevant to the issues that I am to pass on
in this case. I don’t have any evidence in this matter as
yet of any picketing.
Mrs. Motley: We respectfully except to that ruling,
Your Honor.
Those are all the questions to this witness.
Mr. McBee: That is all, Your Honor. No questions.
(Witness excused.)
292
Chief Jamie M oore, called as a witness, being first duly
sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
Direct examination.
By Mr. Shores:
Q. Will you state your full name for the record?
A. Jamie Moore.
Q. What is your position with the City of Birmingham?
A. Chief of Police.
Q. How long have you been Chief of Police in the City
of Birmingham?
[fol- 356] A. I was made acting Chief of Police about the
3rd or 4th of November, 1955, and Chief of Police by civil
service examination around the 5th or 6th of May, 1956, and
I have been that since.
Q. And were you employed as a law enforcement officer
by the City prior to that time?
A. Since October 21, 1936.
Q. On or about April 17, 1963 did you receive a telegram
from Rev. Shuttlesworth regarding a march or walk to the
County Court House for the purpose of registering?
Mr. McBee: We would object to that, may it please the
Court, inasmuch as Your Honor has restricted the trial of
this particular portion of the case to the matters that relate
to the original petition. That matter occurred, as I under
stand it, on April 17th, which was subsequent to the filing
of the original petition and is dealt with in the amended
petition but is not in the original petition at all.
The Court: I think it would be relevant here to the ques
tion of knowledge of these people as to a permit and the
position they had with reference to getting a permit. I will
overrule the objection. That had to do with April what?
Mr. Shores: April 17th.
293
A. I did get a telegram.
Mr. McBee: We would like to have an exception, may it
please the Court. Will we be allowed an exception?
The Court: Wait a minute. April 17tli? That had to do
with an action that was taken subsequent to the filing of
this original citation. I will have to sustain the objection
to t te r "
Mr. Shores: Your Honor, we want to offer proof to show
that these respondents tried in every respect to comply
with the provisions requiring them to obtain permits and
we would like for the record to show if this witness were
allowed to testify and if we were permitted to introduce
this testimony it would show that these respondents at
tempted to comply with all the rules and regulations neces
sary to obtain permits to walk the streets of Birmingham
[fol. 357] as required by the City law.
The Court: I think the attempt to comply with the law
after the violation of an injunction order which prohibited
them from doing the very things they were seeking to get
permission to do now would not be permissible in this case.
I will have to sustain the objection on that.
Mr. Shores: We accept.
Q. Now, Chief, you had charge of maintaining law and
order during these so-called demonstrations as police chief,
did you not?
A. That’s right.
\ Q- Would you say that during these demonstrations yon
did maintain law and order?
ATT t̂tonlrKfTirs'r'wlro'te:------—
Q. It was not necessary for you to call for any outside
help from the State or from the Sheriff’s office?
A. W e have not called any outside help from the Stafp
pr Sheriff’s office.
Q. And" during the so-called parades or processions or
marches would you say your police officers maintained a
294
free flow of traffic except at times when they blocked and
rerouted the traffic themselves ?
A. I think there was some times when traffic wasn’t flow
ing too free.
Q. But would you say generally your officials were able
to route and direct traffic in a way that it didn’t cause any
unusual amount of inconvenience or disturbance or place
individuals in position of being injured?
Mr. McBee: That, Your Honor, would call for an opinion
of the witness.
Mr. Shores: I will withdraw that question, Your Honor.
Q. Did you attend any of these meetings at which these
demonstrations proceeded from?
A. The meetings themselves?
Q. Yes.
A. I didn’t go in except one occasion and that was, Your
Honor, on—
[fob 358] Mr. McBee: Wait a minute. We object to that
because that it is not within the scope of this case.
Mr. Shores: Your Honor, we object. We don’t know what
he is going to say.
Mr. McBee: I know the occasion he went in. That was
on the 17th and we would object to it.
The Court: He can state the date that that occasion was.
A. It was on Wednesday April 17, 1963.
Q. And at no time prior to that did you go on the inside ?
A. I had never been inside one of them.
Q. Now, did you station yourself on the outside of where
these meetings were being held at any time?
A. I didn’t station myself at any particular place. I have
been in and around several of them.
Q. Have you obtained the information that we requested
with respect to the number of officers that were used ?
Mr. McBee: We object to that. He never requested the
Chief—you mean today? Excuse me. I understand there
has been a request.
295
A. Your Honor, that came up yesterday, and I told
counsel I would have it here about 3 :00 or 3 :30 and I am
sure it will be here. It is not here yet. I do not have it my
self.
Q. But it is on the way you think?
A. Well, it should be here about 3:00 or 3:30.
Mr. Shores: That is all.
Mr. McBee: No questions.
The Witness: May I say something, Judge?
[fol. 359] The Court: The only thing I can ask you is if
you want to change your answer in any way?
The Witness: There is no change in the answer. The at
torney asked me if we called in any outside help. We did
not call in any outside help.
Mr. Shores: That is what we understood you to say.
(Witness excused.)
Mr. Shores: We would like to call Mrs. Denney.
Mbs. U na Denney, called as a witness, being duly sworn,
was examined and testified as follows:
Direct examination.
By Mr. Shores:
Q. Will you state your full name for the record?
A. Mrs. Una Denney.
Q. By whom are you employed ?
A. Britts.
Q. In what capacity are you employed at Britts?
A. I am the restaurant manager.
Q. Is Britts the same as Newberrys, or a subsidiary of
Newberrys?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. It is? Mrs. Denney, do you serve Negroes there at
your lunch counter ?
296
Mr. McBee: Object to that as to whether she does or does
not serve Negroes.
The Court: I don’t know that this witness has any
testimony whatever that would be in rebuttal or would be
in conflict with that offered by the City when the City made
out its main case. I don’t want to have to go to any other
issues that may exist outside of the scope of this particular
hearing.
Mr. Shores: Your Honor, they are accused of violating
certain terms of your injunction, and one of those provi
sions was that they were not to engage in any so-called sit-
ins or kneel-ins and various other things.
[fol. 360] The Court: I will say this. There has been no
.evidence of any kneel-ins or sit-ins that any of the defen
dants have been xm i f 1 ain incoiTect—------ -----------— --------
" n r McBee: N o, sir, you are correct.
The Court: The only charge has been this particular
parade, the one on Easter Sunday and the one on Good Fri-
~TIay, and on the question of the nTeelmg^wliicb tims s u p
press release waiTssued. AhTTcorrect in that?" ————
Mr. McBieeT^ssentially that is correct.
The Court: I don’t know of any other evidence or any
other occasions other than those, and I see no need of put
ting on testimony to rebut something where there has been
no proof along that line.
Mr. Greenberg: The purpose of this testimony is to sup
port that allegation in the complaint to show that the pur
pose of this movement was to protest against illegal racial
discrimination. This is essentially free speech and our de
fense, I think it would be incumbent upon the respondents
to show that they were acting for a lawful purpose. Through
this witness we had proposed to prove that this witness was
instructed to obey those ordinances of the City of Birming
ham which are unconstitutional.
The Court: That may be relevant at a later time on the
question of the injunction, but at this time on the questions
297
of contempt, there has been no contempt proved except this
that I have related.
Mr. Greenberg: We would most respectfully disagree
with that, because we feel that if the injunction itself were
granted unconstitutionally then no penalty can be inflicted
for disobeyance to it.
The Court: I take a different view of it. Any further
questions from this witness other than on that phase!
Mr. Shores: No further questions, Your Honor.
Mr. McBee: No questions.
(Witness excused.)
[fol. 361] Mr. Shores: Your Honor, we had planned to
call the managers of Loveman’s Tea Room, Woolworth’s,
Kress’s, H. L. Green and Sears, and the proffer that was
offered by this witness would be the same as offered in
those cases.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Shores: You might excuse them.
The Court: If you have them here you can excuse them.
The Court’s ruling would be the same with reference to
them.
Miss Motley: The next witness would be Abraham Wood,
who was one of the respondents dismissed this morning,
for the purpose of showing that the Alabama Christian
Movement for Human Rights is an organization seeking to
eliminate segregation in the City of Birmingham through
constitutionally protected activity such as free speech and
picketing. We anticiioate that when we put this witness on
that the City will make the objection which was just made
to the testimony of the last witness, and in that case we
would like the record to show that by Abraham Wood we
would intend to prove or would prove that there is
extensive segregation in the City of Birmingham and that
the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights is an
organization seeking to eliminate that segregation through
peaceful protests against that policy on the part of the City
officials.
298
The Court: Do you want to take any issue with reference
to that as far as this hearing is concerned? Or do you want
to let it stand, her offer?
Mr. McBee: I don’t think it is relevant to this hearing
at all. The primary issue is whether or not there has been
a violation of the injunction.
The Court: You make your objection on that ground?
Mr. McBee: Was that an offer of proof?
Miss Motley: Yes, sir.
Mr. McBee: We would object to such proof being intro
duced in evidence because it is irrelevant in this proceeding
and sheds no light on the guilt or innocence of any of thes
[fol. 362] defendants insofar as the contempt proceeding
is concerned.
The Court: The Court will sustain the objection on tin
same basis as the other offer.
Miss Motley: T. L. Fisher.
T. L. F ishee, called as a witness, being duly sworn, was
examined and testified as follows:
Direct examination.
By Miss Motley:
Q. Mr. Fisher, would you please state your full name?
A. Theodis L. Fisher.
Q. Mr. Fisher, you are one of the defendants in this case
brought by the City and are one of the respondents in the
Court’s order to show cause, are you not?
A. That’s right.
Q. Now, Mr. Fisher, were you ever served with a copy of
an injunction order of this Court?
A. Never was.
Q. Now, Mr. Fisher, were you ever served with the con
tempt citation issued by this Court?
A. In the City jail I was.
299
Q. When were you arrested?
A. I was arrested on Easter Sunday of this year.
Q. When were you served with the contempt citation?
A. That was on a Monday or Tuesday. I can’t remember
what day.
Q. But it was after you were in jail?
A. It was after I was in jail, that’s right.
Miss Motley: Those are all the questions for this witness,
Your Honor.
[fol. 363] Cross examination.
By Mr. McBee:
Q. What is your official occupation?
A. Minister of the gospel, pastor Mt. Hebron Baptist
Church, East Thomas, Birmingham.
Q. Minister of the Mt. Hebron Baptist Church?
A. That’s right.
Q. You came down to the church on 11th Street and 6th
Avenue on Easter Sunday, did you not?
A. That’s right.
Q. How did you happen to go down to that particular
place that day?
A. How did I happen to go ?
Q. Yes.
A. Well, I went in my automobile, just went to the
service.
Q. No, but what brought you down there?
A. Well, they were having a service there.
Q. Having services?
A. That’s right.
Q. Had you heard about the fact that they were going
to have an Easter march?
A. I heard they were going to walk on Easter.
Q. Going to walk?
A. Right.
300
Q. Where did yon hear that?
A. I didn’t hear that from any particular source, just
heard it.
Q. Well, I understand, but did you read it in the paper,
hear it on the radio, somebody tell you, or how did you
hear it?
A. I just heard the day they were going to walk.
Q. Heard they were going to walk, all right. Did you
hear where they were going to walk to ?
A. They didn’t say a particular designation that they
were going to.
Q. All right, you say you don’t recall whether you saw
[fol. 364] that in the newspaper, whether somebody told
you, whether you heard it on the radio, or how you got the
information; you have no idea ?
A. That’s right.
Q. All right. Are you familiar with the movement that
is known and referred to as the Alabama Christian Move
ment for Human Rights?
A. Very much so.
Q. Very much so? Are you a member of that organiza
tion?
A. That’s right.
Q. How long have you been a member?
Mr. Greenberg: May we have an objection, Your Honor?
This witness on direct examination was asked just the
simple question had he been served, and this is going very
far afield from the direct examination.
The Court: This is, of course, cross examination and he
has denied the fact that he had been served. This would
be admissible on the question of whether or not he had
notice. Overrule the objection.
Q. How long have you been a member of the Alabama
Movement that we have just described?
A. Approximately four years.
Q. Did you attend any meetings during the period of
301
time intervening between the 10th of April and the 14th
of April?
A. Sure.
Q. Which of those meetings did you attend?
A. I attended Good Friday’s meeting.
Q. You attended Good Friday’s meeting, which would be
on Friday night ?
A. That’s right.
Q. Did you attend the Saturday night meeting?
A. Yes, I attended the Saturday night meeting.
Q. You attended the Saturday night meeting, all right.
At the Saturday night meeting did they call for volunteers?
[fol. 365] A. At the Saturday night meeting did they call
for volunteers for what?
Q. Call for volunteers? Call for somebody that wanted
to go to jail, to volunteer to go to jail?
A. They didn’t call for volunteers to go to jail. They
called for volunteers to walk.
Q. Oh, they didn’t call for volunteers to go to jail, but
they called for volunteers to walk?
A. That’s right.
Q. When are we going to walk; the next day?
A. On Sunday.
Q. Who was it that made that call for volunteers ?
A. I don’t remember right offhand who made that appeal.
Q. You don’t remember who made that appeal?
A. Right offhand I don’t.
Q. All right. Now on this occasion did somebody say
something about we are not getting enough newspaper
publicity?
A. My recollection, I cannot certify to that fact.
Q. You don’t remember that. Don’t you recall that they
asked for volunteers to call all of the Negroes in the com
munity and get them to come out the next day?
A. Come to the meeting, I remember that.
Q. They said we want volunteers to call everybody to
come out?
302
A. I remember that being said, but I don’t remember who
said it.
Q. But that was said there that night, and that was on
Saturday night, the 13th, before Easter?
A. That’s right.
Q. How many volunteers did they get to walk?
A. I don’t remember that exact figure.
Q. They got several, though, didn’t they?
A. Had several, but I don’t remember that exact figure.
Q. Well, how many figures did they get to do the calling?
[fol. 366] A. I don’t remember that exact figure.
Q. Had a number, though, didn’t they?
A. They had a number, but I don’t remember the exact
figure.
Q. Was it a large number or just two or three?
A. I would not elaborate on the number, I don’t know.
Q. You don’t know the exact number, but you would be
able to estimate that that was a good size group that said
they were going to do it?
A. I don’t remember the figure.
Q. You just don’t remember? Your recollection is cut
off on that subject?
A. That’s right.
Q. All right, did they have a big crowd down there that
Easter Sunday?
A. At the meeting they did.
Q. Yes, and they had a great big crowd outside, too,
didn’t they?
A. I was on the inside.
Q. But you came outside, didn’t you?
A. When we began to walk I came outside.
Q. And you did walk?
A. I did walk.
Q. And you were arrested?
A. I was arrested for walking.
Q. And you were examined by the officer, too. weren’t
you?
A. That is correct.
303
Q. And you told the officer that you knew about the in
junction, you heard about it before this walk?
A. I was examined by a detective.
Q. I mean a detective.
A. That’s right.
Q. And you told him you had walked and that you knew*
about the injunction when you walked?
A. No, I didn’t tell him that. I said I had heard about an
ffol. 367] injunction.
Q. All right, you had heard about an injunction?
A. That’s right,
Q. Where did you hear about the injunction?
A. I told the detective that I didn’t hear it from any
particular source, that I just heard about an injunction in
the air.
Q. About an injunction just up in the air?
A. That’s right.
Q. Were you there on the Thursday night, the 11th of
April, at the meeting ?
A. I was trying to recall.
Q. Let me refresh your memory by some of the things
that went on there and see if you remember. Were you
present at the press conference when Rev. Wyatt Tee
Walker brought in the written paper that was handed to
the members of the press?
A. No.
Q. Did you hear about that occasion?
A. I didn’t hear about that occasion.
Q. You didn’t hear about it at all?
A. Just from you today.
Q. How is that?
A. Just from you today.
Q. From me today is the first time?
A. That’s right.
Q. Were you there on an occasion when Rev. Martin
Luther King, Jr. made a statement ?
A. Made a statement ?
304
Q. Yes, about an injunction!
A. I don’t recall Martin Luther King making a statement
about an injunction.
Q. How many times have you heard Martin Luther King
make a speech!
[fol. 368] A. Many times before; not about an injunction.
Q. I am talking about this period of time, the 10th of
April on this Wednesday night. You say you were
present—
A. To my understanding the injunction was issued from
what you say this afternoon on a Wednesday, is that right!
Q. You understand it was issued on a Wednesday!
A. I understand from you this afternoon, from the dis
cussion I have heard in this courtroom today.
Q. All right, you have heard discussion in the courtroom
today!
A. That’s right.
Q. When did you hear Martin Luther King, speak!
A. I didn’t hear him speak prior to Wednesday.
Q. Have you heard him since Wednesday!
A. No.
Q. Have you seen him since Wednesday!
A. Since I saw him this morning and yesterday.
Q. I don’t mean today or yesterday. I mean have you
seen him in this period of time we have been talking about!
A. Not since then.
Q. You haven’t seen him at all!
A. That’s right.
Q. What did you hear about the injunction! What did
they tell you about it!
A. I only heard about the injunction. It wasn’t inter
preted to me.
Q. Was it interpreted to you you would probably have
to go to jail if you took part in that march or walk!
A. Yes, but I didn’t see any reason I would have to go.
Q. I understand, but you were not told if you got in that
march you would have to go to jail!
305
A. I was told if I walked on the streets of Birmingham
I would have to go to jail.
Q. I am talking about this Easter Sunday procession.
That is what they were talking about?
[fol. 369] A. That’s right,
Q. And you were told that you would go to jail if you did,
or probably would?
A. I was never told that.
Q. You understood you would?
A. Not for just walking on the streets of Birmingham.
Q. You mean for walking in this procession you didn’t
understand you would be arrested?
A. I didn’t understand I would be arrested for walking.
Q. You didn’t understand you would be arrested for
walking ?
A. I can’t understand it yet.
Q. You didn’t understand it then and you don’t under
stand it now?
A. That’s right.
Q- An right, did anybody say anything to you about who
was included in the injunction ?
A. After I was confined and after the contempt I read it.
Q. You have read the contempt?
A. That’s right, but I haven’t read the injunction yet.
Q. When did you hear about the injunction?
A. When did I hear about the injunction?
Q. Yes, not the contempt but the injunction?
A. I think I told the detective that interviewed me that
I heaid about an injunction, about an injunction, not any
particular injunction.
Q. At this meeting on the 13th didn’t they call for vol
unteers to go to jail or some who were willing to go to
jail?
Mr. Greenberg: Object. This is becoming repetitious.
The Court: Sustained. I think that is repetitious.
Mr. McBee: Well, if it is, I don’t want to ask it.
306
Q. Now, on this Saturday night meeting was Shuttles-
worth there, Rev. Shuttlesworth?
A. On Friday night ?
Q. No, Saturday night?
[fol. 370] A. I do not remember seeing Shuttlesworth.
Q. Was Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. there?
A. You just said he was arrested Friday, so he wouldn’t
have been there.
Q. Was Rev. Wyatt Tee Walker there?
A. Rev. Wyatt Tee Walker?
Q. Yes.
A. I remember seeing him, and that is all I remember,
is just seeing him.
Q. You do remember seeing him at the meeting?
A. At the meeting, that’s right, not in the pulpit.
Q. But he was there?
A. That’s right.
Q. Who were the two speakers that night?
A. Well, I remember Rev. Hayes giving a message.
That’s all he did, just a gospel message.
Q. And that is all the speaking you had?
A. That’s all I remember about that Saturday.
Q. You don’t recall who was asking for these volunteers?
A. Volunteers to do what?
Q. Volunteers to walk, as you put it awhile ago; volun
teers to call on the community.
A. I don’t remember who made that appeal.
Mr. McBee: All right, that is all.
The Court: Anything further?
Mr. McBee: I would like to ask him this.
Q. You read the newspapers, do you not?
A. How is that?
Q. You read the newspapers, do you not?
A. Every now and then, I read newspapers.
Q. And you listen to the radio?
A. I read newspapers but I didn’t read nothing about
contempt.
307
Q. Didn’t read anything about the injunction?
A. No.
[fol. 371] Q. Never have in your life?
A. Never have.
Mr. McBee: All right.
Mr. Greenberg: That is all.
(Witness excused.)
(Whereupon, at the hour of 3 P.M. Tuesday, April 23,
1963 a recess was had until 3:15 P.M. when the proceed
ings continued as follows:)
[fol. 372] Nelson H enry Smith , Jr., called as a witness,
being duly affirmed, was examined and testified as follows:
Direct examination.
By Miss Motley:
Q. Bev. Smith, would you please state your full name
for the record?
A. Nelson Henry Smith, Jr.
Q. What is your occupation, Rev. Smith?
A. Minister, New Pilgrim Baptist Church, 903 6th Ave
nue, South.
Q. And that is here in the City of Birmingham?
A. That’s right.
Q. Rev. Smith, you are one of the defendants in the suit
brought by the City, and one of the respondents in the
citation to show cause issued by this Court, are you not?
A. I am.
Q. Rev. Smith, did you ever receive or have handed to
you a copy of the injunction issued by this Court?
Mr. McBee: We would object to that, may it please the
Court, if this testimony is being offered to contradict the
return of the Sheriff’s office, which is presumed to be cor
rect, and this is not the correct way to challenge the return.
I am fairly sure that it does show—
308
The Court: I think that would be one of the elements of
notice. I will overrule.
A. Will you ask your question again?
Miss Motley: Would the Reporter please read the ques
tions ?
(Whereupon the Court Reporter read the last above re
corded question.)
A. I did.
Q. When was that?
A. The Monday morning after Easter, in the City Jail.
Q. When were you arrested?
A. Easter Sundaj ̂afternoon.
Q. And the next morning you were handed a copy of the
injunction issued by this Court?
[fol. 373] A. That is correct.
Q. Now, were you ever served with a copy of the order
of this Court to show cause?
A. The following day.
Q. That would be Tuesday after you were arrested?
A. The day after I received the copy of the injunction.
Q. That would be Tuesday, then, right ?
A. That’s right.
Miss Motley: That is all the questions I have.
The Court: All right.
Cross examination.
By Mr. McBee:
Q. All right, were you in the march, or walk, or what
ever you would choose to call it, that occurred on Easter
Sunday?
A. Yes, I was walking.
Q. Did you go to the Church at 6th Avenue and 11th
Street, South— No, 7th Avenue and 11th Street, South on
Easter Sunday?
A. I did.
309
Q. How did you happen to go down there ?
A. Well, everybody was going, and I joined in.
Q. Everybody was going, and you joined the procession.
Ho you know what caused everybody to go?
Miss Motley: Excuse me, Your Honor. I think the wit
ness ought to be able to answer the question, and not the
lawyer.
The Court: Give him an opportunity to complete his
answers, Mr. McBee.
Q. Did you want to answer anything else besides every
body was going and you went, too ?
A. That is the answer.
Q. That is true? Do you know what the occasion was to
bring them all out?
A. Just an Easter service, the way I received the in
formation.
Q. Just an Easter service, and there was nothing special
to occur that you ever knew about different from any
[fol. 374] Easter service you have been going to during the
time you have been a minister, or been a member of a
church? Is that what you understand—I mean you want
the Court to understand?
A. I went to the Easter service.
Q. All right, did you attend any of the meetings of the
Alabama Christian Movement for Human Eights?
A. I did.
Q. Did you attend any of those meetings subsequent to
the 10th of April ?
A. Some of them.
Q. Did you attend the meeting of the 11th of April, which
was on the night of the 11th of April?
A. I don’t recall. I attended most of the meetings.
Q. Attended most of the meetings. Do you remember
any that you missed during that particular week?
A. Well, I was in and out.
Q. Just in and out, you say, of the meetings?
A. That’s right.
310
Q. Do you know Rev. Abernathy?
A. Ido.
Q. Is be an officer of tbe Southern Christian Leadership
Conference?
A. He is.
Q. Did you—were you in attendance upon a meeting that
occurred on the 13th of April, the night before the Easter
walk?
A. Yes, I was at that meeting.
Q. You were there? All right, was anything said about
some volunteers at that meeting?
A. I don’t recall. I don’t recall anything said about
volunteers.
Q. To refresh your mind, didn’t—wasn’t a call made for
volunteers?
A. There might have been. I don’t know. I, perhaps,
was in the office at that time counting money.
Q. Oh, you were one of the money counters. Are you the
[fol. 375] Treasurer?
A. Secretary.
Q. Secretary of what?
A. The Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights.
Q. You are a member, then ?
A. I helped organize it.
Q. I see, you are one of the organizers, charter members ?
A. That’s right.
Q. How long have you been a member ?
A. Seven years, June 5th of this year.
Q. Now, when you were interviewed by the detective in
the City Jail, you told the City Detective that you knew
about or had heard about the injunction, did you not?
A. I told him I heard about an injunction, yes.
Q. You did tell him that you had heard about one, then,
had you ?
A. I have heard about an injunction.
Q. Yes. All right, do you remember who told vou about
it?
A. No, I do not.
311
Q. Do you remember who—how you heard about it,
whether you heard about it, or saw it, or heard it, or what!
A. Well, I glimpsed it one day in the paper.
Q. Glimpsed it one day in the paper?
A. And I heard it once on the radio.
Q. Now, when you went down to the Church on that day
—by the way, did you hear them on that Saturday night
calling for volunteers to call all the neighborhood and get
them out, all the colored community?
A. I don’t recall.
Q. You don’t remember that?
A. I don’t recall.
Q. But, you did hear, though, all were going, and you
joined in?
A. That was on Sunday, yes.
Q. On Sunday. Now, does your Church—do you have a
congregation?
[fol. 376] A. Yes, I do.
Q. Now, what time did you go down to this Church on
Easter Sunday?
A. I go—I got there about 4 :00 o’clock.
Q. Now, that is not your Church?
A. No, it is not.
Q. Now, did you have an Easter service at your Church?
A. I did.
Q. Regular Easter service?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Did they have a regular Easter service down at the
Church you went to ? By the way, what is the name of that
Church?
A. Which Church ?
Q. The one you went to on Easter Sunday afternoon.
v A. Thurgood C. M. E. Church. " ~— ------ '
Q. Did they have regular services, so far as you know,
that morning?
A. I don’t know what they had before I got there.
Q. All right, when you got there, then you went into the
service ?
A. I did.
312
Q. And did anybody talk about volunteering to march,
or anybody give instructions to march, or what you were
going to do when you got inside ?
A. No.
Q. Did you have on a robe?
A. I did.
Q. Who else had on robes?
A. There was three of us with robes on, and there was
more than three ministers, but I don’t recall now just who
the three were.
Q. You remember three with robes, and there were some
more ministers ?
A. That’s right.
Q. Did you have advance notice you were going to walk
before you went down there that day?
[fol. 377] A. I decided after I got there.
Q. You decided after you got there, uh huh. All right,
now, where did you leave from when you went there?
A. I don’t understand your question.
Q. I say where did you leave from when you went down
to the Thurgood C.M.E. Church?
A. I left the Church where I am the minister.
Q. You left the Church where you are the minister?
A. That’s right.
Q. And you left there at what time, 3:00 o’clock?
A. I left there something to four.
Q. Something to four, all right. Had you been holding
a service that afternoon?
A. You mean at our Church?
Q. At your Church.
A. An Easter program for Children.
Q. When did you get concluded with the Easter pro
gram?
A. I left before they finished.
[fol. 378] Q. You left before they got through, all right,
and you took your robe with you ?
A. I always keep it, usually, in my car on Sunday.
313
Q. You just keep it for all general purposes?
A. On Sunday.
Q. I say on Sunday?
A. That’s right.
Q. But, you had no idea you were going to be called on
to put on a robe when you got down to the Thurgood CME
Church?
A. Usually I go in the pulpit with the robe on.
Q. Do you always go in the pulpit of the Thurgood CME
Church when you attend that church?
A. I go in the pulpit of any church I attend.
Q. Always, you go in the pulpit?
A. Always. Always.
Q. Now, who was it suggested to you that day that you
have a parade, or you have a walk?
A. I don’t recall any particular person.
Q. Who was there that seemed to be in charge besides
you?
A. Well, I couldn’t—there was countless. There was
numbers of people there.
Q. Well, the preachers that were in charge of the affair.
Was Wyatt Tee Walker there, Rev. Wyatt Tee Walker?
A. I think I saw him.
Q. You saw him?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever ask anybody what this injunction was all
about that you heard about on the radio and saw in the
paper?
A. No, I did not.
Q. You made no effort to acquire any knowledge or in
formation concerning it ?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you understand from what you read in there that
the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights was
enjoined?
[fol. 379] A. No, I did not.
Q. Who did you understand was enjoined?
314
A. Well, all I heard was Martin King, and Ralph had
been enjoined.
Q. Martin King, and Ralph, and nobody else!
A. I mean, this is what was played up.
Q. And did you hear anything about Rev. Shuttlesworth
being included in the injunction!
A. I think I recall that.
Q. Yes, you recall that. Rev. Shuttlesworth is president
of your organization, is he not!
A. This is true.
Q. Did you ask Rev. Shuttlesworth what the injunction
was all about!
A. No, I did not.
Q. You made no effort to ascertain what it was about!
A. No.
Q. When did you read it in the paper!
A. The morning I was served. This is when I read it in
the paper.
Q. Well, now, you were reading the paper in jail!
A. I had copies of the paper.
Q. And when did you hear about it on the radio!
A. Oh, I don’t know. Maybe Saturday.
Q. Anyway, it was prior to the walk or march on Sunday!
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you tell us that nobody organized that walk, or
march in the church that day!
A. I don’t recall any particular person being in charge.
Q. Well, any particular person, or any group in general.
Who were the general group in charge of it!
A. There was no general group as such in charge.
Q. Well, Rev. Hays was there, wasn’t he!
A. What do you mean, at the service!
Q. Wasn’t he in this walk, too!
[fol. 380] A. He walked along with us.
Q. And Rev. A. D. King!
A. He walked along with us.
Q. Now, Rev. A. D. King, and Rev. A. D. William King,
we are talking about the same man, are we not!
315
A. That’s right.
Q. He walked along with you. Now, who told who to get
in front, and who to get in behind?
A. Nobody told anyone anything.
Q. It just happened spontaneously in the church? Did
all the entire congregation join in, or just a certain group
walk?
A. We walked out.
Q. I understand, but were you one of the two leaders ? I
mean the very front leaders? I am talking about the very
front of the march, or the walk.
A. I was not in front.
Q. You were immediately behind those who were in
front ?
A. Three or four columns, perhaps, back.
Q. Three or four columns behind. How many people in
that church joined in that maneuver?
A. Hundreds just joined in the walk.
Q. You mean that came out of the church?
A. Yes. Everybody joined.
Q. Everybody in the church joined in it, and you say
there were hundreds in the church?
A. I would say five or six hundred.
Q. Five or six hundred in the church. Did anybody join
in it from the outside after you got outside ?
A. Well, everybody was just going walking in the same
direction.
Q. Everybody was going in the same direction. Now,
you knew that everybody was going to walk in the same
direction, because that had been agreed upon, had it not?
Mr. Shores: We object to his arguing.
The Court: Objection overruled.
[fol. 381] Q. I said you knew everybody was going to walk
in the same direction, because that had been agreed upon in
advance, had it not?
A. No, I did not know this.
316
Q. Didn’t you know Rev. Wyatt Tee Walker had come
out and told the group, or the mob and the crowd that they
would come out and join with the marchers?
A. No, I didn’t hear that.
Q. Wyatt Tee Walker did go out and talk to the group,
didn’t he?
A. Which group?
Q. The one outside, not in the church, outside.
A. He didn’t talk to me.
Q. You were inside.
A. I don’t know what took place outside.
Q. He did go somewhere outside, though, didn’t he?
A. I do not know whether he went outside, or not.
Q. In other words, you can’t say yes or no?
A. I do not know whether he went outside.
Q. That is what I understand, you do not know, yes or
no. You couldn’t say either way, so far as your personal
knowledge is concerned?
A. That is true.
Q. Now, where was the march headed for, or the walk, as
you say?
A. I was not informed.
Q. Nobody told you where you were going1?
A. No.
Q. Who were the leaders in it? I mean the front rank
ones, the two that were in the very front?
A. Well, I do not know this—
Q. You were there.
A. —because we were crossed up with photographers,
and people running in between, so I couldn’t see who was
in front.
[fol. 382] Q. Well, when you left the church, when you
came out of the church, you came out in an orderly group
at that time, didn’t you, two by two?
A. No, sir. No, sir.
Q. Well, when you came out of the church, who was lead
ing it then ?
A. I don’t recall who was in front.
317
Q. Well, was it somebody with a robe on, or two some-
bodys with robes on?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know whether A. D. King was one of them?
A. He could have been.
Q. He could have been. Now, you have been a member,
you say, of this movement a long time?
A. That is correct.
Q. Now, one of the tenets of this movement is, and one of
the philosophies of Rev. Martin Luther King is we want
to create tension, is that not right?
Mr. Greenberg: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Mr. McBee: We except, and offer to show if we were
permitted to do so that that is the avowed and specifically
stated purpose and philosophy of the movement as enunci
ated by Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Q. Now, it is also your policy, and your purpose, and
your goal if you don’t get what you want in another way,
you set about doing it by revolution, is it not?
Mr. Greenberg: I object.
The Court: Objection overruled.
A. I don’t—I do not know.
Q. You don’t know, but you are secretary of it, and you
are one of the charter members and organizers of it?
A. This is true.
Q. Now, is Rev. Wyatt Tee Walker, is he authorized to
[fol. 383] speak for this movement that you are a member
of and secretary of ?
Mr. Greenberg: We object. Again, this is getting far
afield.
The Court: Objection overruled.
A. I do not know anything about him being authorized
to speak for the group.
318
Q. You don’t know whether he was authorized to issue a
press release on the 11th of April?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Is Rev. Martin Luther King one of the spokesmen for
this group?
A. For which movement?
Q. For the movement that you are part of.
A. He is one of our leaders.
Q. One of your leaders. Is Rev. Wyatt Tee Walker one
of your leaders, too ?
A. Not in the sense in which you—that he is leading
anybody. He is assistant to Dr. King.
Q. I am talking about in your movement Rev. Shuttles-
worth is the leader ?
A. That is correct.
Q. And you are one of the leaders, because you are the
secretary?
A. That is correct.
Q. In that same sense, Rev. Wyatt Tee Walker is a
leader, too, of the movement, is he not, in that he is assist
ant, or helper to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.?
A. That is correct.
Q. Rev. Abernathy, also, is he not?
A. This is true.
Q. All right. Now, the Board of Directors—do you have
a Board of Directors of the Alabama Christian Movement
for Human Rights?
Mr. Greenberg: May we renew our objection?
Mr. McBee: Preliminary question. I am going to follow
that up, Your Honor.
The Court: Wait just a minute. Objection overruled.
Q. Go ahead. You may answer the question.
[fol. 384] A. There is a voluntary group that work in an
executive way.
Q. Well, I understand, but are they elected by somebody?
A. By the people.
319
Q. Where do they get their job?
A. By the people.
Q. Elected by the members of the movement ?
A. This is true.
Q. And you are a member of the Board of Directors?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. How many other Board of Directors do you have?
A. I do not recall. Some have moved away. I do not have
the exact number now.
Q. But, Rev. Shuttlesworth is a member of that Board of
Directors, is he not?
A. He is the president of the organization.
Q. And also a member of the Board of Directors?
A. Yes.
Q. All right, did you all have a meeting of the Board of
Directors after this injunction was issued?
A. No, we have not.
Q. You have had no meeting at all?
A. None whatsoever.
Q. You had no meeting to decide on whether you were
going to walk, or march, or what you were going to do?
A. No, we did not.
Q. You have had no meeting since the 10th of April?
A. No, we haven’t.
Mr. McBee: That is all. I might ask him this: Who are
the other officers of this organization, the Alabama Chris
tian Movement for Human Rights?
A. Who are the officers?
Q. You are secretary, Rev. Shuttlesworth president, and
who are the other officers ?
A. Rev. Woods.
[fol. 385] Q. What is his capacity, what position?
A. He is one of the vice presidents.
Q. One of the vice presidents. Is that Calvin Woods, or
the other?
A. Abraham.
320
Q. Abraham. All right. That is Abraham, Jr., I believe.
A. And Bill Shortridge is the treasurer.
Q. W. E. Shortridge?
A. Yes.
Q. Is Ed. Gardner an officer?
A. First vice president.
Mr. McBee: He is first vice president. I see. That is all.
Bedirect examination.
By Mrs. Motley:
Q. Rev. Smith, what is the purpose of the Alabama
Christian Movement for Human Rights?
A. To fight segregation.
Mr. McBee: We object to that, Your Honor. Your Honor
wouldn t let me go into this. You stopped me when I was
going into it. I believe I asked that very question.
The Court: What is your purpose?
Mrs. Motley: Your Honor permitted this man to ask
him wasn’t the purpose revolution.
Mr. McBee: No, Your Honor wouldn’t let me ask it.
Mr. Greenberg: It was objected to, and overruled. You
asked it.
M i. McBee: That is all right, if I did. I am sorry. I
misunderstood.
The Court: The objection has been withdrawn. You may
ask the question.
Q. What is the purpose of the Alabama Christian Move
ment for Human Rights?
A. The purpose of the Alabama Christian Movement for
Human Rights is to fight segregation in all forms in the
City of Birmingham by legal means, peaceful protests, the
courts, and all of this in non-
321
[fol. 386] Recross examination.
By Mr. McBee:
Q. All right, let me ask you a question: now, you say
that you want to fight in a peaceful way and in the courts.
Now, is it correct that your—that the leaders of your move
ment, including Rev. F. L. Shuttlesworth, has stated pub-
lically that they did not intend to obey the order of this
court in this ease!
Mr. Greenberg: Objection.
The Court: Objection overruled.
A. I have not heard such a statement from any of them.
Q. You have never heard any such statement! Now, you
state, though, he is one of the leaders of this movement!
A. This is true.
Q. Would he be speaking for the movement if he made
such a statement?
Mr. Greenberg: I object, hypothetical question.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Have you ever authorized him to make such a state
ment for the movement?
Mr. Greenberg: Objection, no showing he has authority.
The Court: Objection overruled.
A. Have I authorized him?
Q. Or any other members of the movement authorized
him to make such a statement?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Have you disavowed, or heard anybody disavow his
right to make that statement?
A. No, I have not.
Q. You never heard anything like that at all?
A. No, I haven’t.
Q. Now, I will ask you this: if as late as last night were
you attending a meeting last night?
A. I arrived late.
322
Q. You arrived late. Did you hear Rev. Abernathy talk?
A. No, I did not.
Q. He had already talked when you got there?
[fol. 387] A. He had already spoken.
Q. Do you know what he said?
A. No, I do not.
Q. You have no idea ?
A. No, I do not.
Q. You didn’t hear him say that he didn’t give a damn
what the court wrote in this injunction, that they were
going to carry on just like they had always carried on ?
Mr. Greenberg: Objection. The witness has already tes
tified he did not hear him speak.
The Court: Sustain.
Mr. McBee: We except.
Q. Did you hear anybody state at that meeting that he
had said that?
A. No, I did not.
Mr. Greenberg: Object, calls for hearsay.
The Court: Sustained.
Mr. McBee: Exception.
Q. Now, if you were informed that Rev. Shuttlesworth
had made a statement to the effect that it was the inten
tion of Rev. Shuttlesworth and of the Movement f(̂ r Human
Rights to violate the injunction issued by this court, would
you subscribe to that statement as being a correct state
ment of the Movement for Christian Rights?
Mr. Greenberg: Objection, hypothetical, if you heard,
would you say.
The Court: Objection overrated.
Q. Do you subscribe to this viewpoint?
The Court: I will overrule the objection.
A. I don’t know.
323
Q. Do you subscribe to the viewpoint that that is a cor
rect position ?
Mr. Greenberg: I object. What position? Could counsel
please restate the question?
The Court: Let’s read the question back again.
(Whereupon, the Court Reporter read the last three above
[fol. 388] propounded questions.)
A. I cannot answer that in advance.
Q. All right, does that state your position?
A. What states my position?
Q. That you intend to violate the injunction regardless
of whether it is issued, or not issued, or dissolved, or not
dissolved?
A. No.
Q. Then, your position is that the court’s injunction
should be obeyed until it is declared to be invalid, is that
correct?
Mr. Greenberg: Objection. This calls for a legal con
clusion of this witness.
The Court: I think it would be pertinent to the Court’s
position to know how this witness stands on future viola
tions, so I will overrule the objection.
Mr. Greenberg: It is really what constitutes a violation.
In some instances the witness would have to consult coun
sel.
Mr. McBee: I think he should consult His Honor if he
is undecided about that.
The Court: I think it is—
Mrs. Motley: I think the question ought to be made clear
to the witness as to whether he would violate an injunction
which was known to him to be legal, or whether he would
violate an injunction which he would consider unconstitu
tional.
Mr. McBee: That is just the point.
The Court: I think the purpose of this whole hearing
is to determine whether or not the Court has authority to
issue an injunction.
324
Mrs. Motley: That is the point, Your Honor. I think it
is a legal question. This man wouldn’t know that. He
wouldn’t know whether he could violate that injunction. He
would have to consult his lawyer.
The Court: Well, with those objections made into the
record, I will allow him to answer the question.
A. I would follow the advice of counsel.
[fol. 389] Q. All right, have you been advised by counsel
in this case?
A. In this particular case ?
Q. Yes.
A. No, I have not.
Q. You consulted no counsel?
A. Relative to this ?
Q. Relative to what you got arrested for.
A. No. I just asked them to explain it to me. That is all.
Q. Explain what ?
A. Well, what was I being brought here for.
Q. When did you ask them that?
A. Monday morning, yesterday morning.
Q. That was after the case started, or when the case was
started?
A. Just before it started.
Q. I see. Now, beyond that, you sought no legal counsel?
A. No, I did not.
Q. No advice?
A. No.
Mr. McBee: All right, that is all.
Mrs. Motley: That is all, Your Honor.
(Witness excused.)
The Court: Who will you have as your next witness?
Mrs. Motley: James Bevel.
325
James Bevel, called as a witness, being duly sworn, was
examined and testified as follows:
Direct examination.
By Mrs. Motley:
Q. Mr. Bevel, would you state your full name for the
record?
A. Jame's Luther Bevel.
Q. Is there an “ s” on the end of your name?
A. No, B-e-v-e-1.
Q. Mr. Bevel, were you ever served with a copy of the
injunction order issued by this Court?
[fol. 390] A. No.
Q. Mr. Bevel, were you ever served with a copy of the
Order to Show Cause issued by this Court?
A. No.
Mrs. Motley: Those are all the questions, Your Honor.
Cross examination.
By Mr. McBee:
Q. How did you happen to show up for this trial?
A. Well, I was informed that I—it had been rumored
that someone had either—either the Court had said, or
someone in the court said I was to have been here, and, of
course—
Q. Well, it was rumored that you were to be here, and
you came ?
A. That’s right.
Q. And did you ask these lawyers to represent you?
A. Well—
Q. I am talking about this battery of counsel here from
New York, and one from Birmingham.
A. Did I ask them to represent me?
Q. Yes, did you ask them to look after your case?
A. I was talking to them at lunch.
326
Q. At lunch, and you told them not to represent you, you
didn’t want them to represent you?
A. No, I didn’t tell them that.
Q. I understood, then, you did want them to represent
you?
A. Well, I hoped they would, yes.
Q. Yes, you wanted them to do it?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, where is your home?
A. Mississippi.
Q. Where do you come from in Mississippi?
A. I am from Cleveland, Mississippi.
Q. When did you come over to Birmingham?
A. I don’t remember the date, but it was on a Friday
I came over.
Q. Well, was it—what Friday?
[fol. 391] A. I guess it was Good Friday.
Q. You never came before Good Friday?
A. Well, I had been here on several occasions, but Good
Friday was the first day I came in terms of now,
Q. All right, you came on Good Friday?
A. Yes.
Q. That was the last occasion when you have been to
Birmingham ?
A, That’s right.
Q. And you stayed in Birmingham since that time I
A. That’s right.
Q. What is your occupation back in Cleveland. Missis
sippi?
A. I am the field secretary for the Southern Christian
Leadership Conference.
Q. You are a field secretary!
A- For tot1 Southern Chrtstiua Leadership ConfereMC©.
yes.
Q. All right, when you came to Birmingham, did vna
attend any ex the meetings that fcav- been held ax these
various efeure&ee! Are yw faaaiBar ri& tils rioiy r i k i
A ? Alabama Christian Mew w n for H w aa - g
A. Yes. 1 as*.
327
Q. As a matter of fact, that group is affiliated with your
Southern Leadership Conference, is it not?
A. I understand that it is.
Q. All right. Now, who invited you to come over here?
A. Well, usually if I am afraid that some violence might
break out in a community—
Q. Wait a minute, let me see if I can get this. You got
afraid some violence was going to break out?
A. That’s right, and usually if something might happen,
I usually go around and preach nonviolence.
Q. I see, you are the great nonviolence preacher?
A. That’s right.
Q. All right. All right, did you come to Birmingham by
invitation, or just because you wanted to come?
[fol. 392] A. Well, I heard the news over the radio.
Q. What did you hear over the radio?
A. Well, I heard that they were arresting some Rabble
Rousers in general.
Q. What, now?
A. I heard in Cleveland on the Cleveland radio station
they had enjoined some Rabble Rousers.
Q. Enjoined some Rabble Rousers. All right, did they
say what kind of Rabble Rousers it was?
A. They just said Rabble Rousers. I didn’t know who
it was.
[fol. 393] Q. But the fact you heard from Rabble Rousers
were enjoined you decided to come to Birmingham?
A. That’s right.
Q. And you had no idea what kind of Rabble Rousers
were involved ?
A. No. When I heard the announcement I didn’t know
who the Rabble Rousers were. They just said Rabble
Rousers.
Q. When you came to Birmingham were you acquainted
previously with Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.?
A. Yes. I worked for him.
Q. You know Rev. Wyatt Tee Walker?
A. Yes, I knew him.
328
Q. And you knew Eev. F. L. Shuttlesworth?
A. Yes, I have been knowing them.
Q. You have been knowing them quite some time?
A. Yes.
Q. When you got Birmingham, did you inquire of them
who was enjoined!
A. No, I didn’t ask them who was enjoined.
Q. You didn’t ask anything about the injunction?
A. Well, see, when they said Rabble Rousers I didn’t
think it was them because they are not Rabble Rousers.
Q. I see. But you said some Rabble Rousers, though,
got your attention. Who did you think they were talking
about?
A. The Klu Klux Klan and Citizens Council and this
Nazi movement.
Q. You thought they were talking about the Klu Klux
Klan, but they didn’t say Klu Klux Klan?
A. No. They said Rabble Rousers.
Q. Did you ask these reverends here about what the
Klu Klux Klan had been doing?
A. I knew what the Klu Klux Klan had been doing
through the years.
[fob 394] Q. I am talking about the Rabble Rousers that
got enjoined. Did you ask them anything about that?
A. No, I didn’t.
Q. When you got here, you didn’t ask them anything
about that?
A. No, I didn’t.
Q. Did they invite you to speak at one of these meetings?
A. Somebody invited me to speak.
Q. Who would it be?
A. I forgot the person that invited me.
Q. Where did you speak?
A. At 16th Street Baptist Church.
Q. All right. When was that?
A. That was that Friday night.
329
Q. That was on Good Friday night!
A. Ygs.
Q. Did you stay for the entire meeting!
A. I stayed for the entire meeting.
Q. From start to finish!
A. From start to finish.
Q. Did you hear Rev. Wyatt Tee Walker call for volun
teers to die for him!
A. To die for him!
Q. Yes.
A. No, I didn’t hear him call for that.
Q. Did you hear him call for volunteers to die for any
body?
A. No, I haven’t heard him ask anybody to die.
Q. Haven’t heard anything about that?
A. No.
Q. Did you hear him call for volunteers to march or to
walk?
A. No, I don’t know what the volunteers was for. Now,
I heard the word “volunteers” ?
Q. Who said it?
A. He probably did. You know, we asked people to vol
unteer their services to inform people about the struggle
[fol. 395] that is going on here. We asked people to call
people and ask them that they should be nonviolent.
Q. Did you call for nonviolent volunteers?
A. Did I call for them?
Q. Yes.
A. I always call for people to be nonviolent.
Q. I understand that is your general way of talking?
A. That’s right.
Q. Now, did you say some rather mean things about the
police department of the City of Birmingham?
A. I don’t know what you would term something mean?
Q. Well, you did talk about the City of Birmingham
Police Department, didn’t you?
A. I talked about the Birmingham Police Department.
330
Q. You weren’t complimenting them, were you?
A. They haven’t done any work I don’t think that war
ranted compliments.
Q. I didn’t ask you that. I just asked you what you
said.
A. Well, I don’t have the manuscript of the speech.
Q. Do you have any recollection of what you said!
A. Well, I probably could give you generally what I
said. I usually speak in terms of spirit, rather than terms
of fact.
Q. Can you answer me truthfully and say whether you
said anything complimentary about the Police Department
of the City of Birmingham!
A. I don’t recall exactly what I said. I have a feeling of
what I said.
Q. You have a feeling you didn’t say anything compli
mentary about them, don’t you!
A. I don’t too much about them to compliment them
in terms of what I know about them.
Q. And you didn’t compliment Commissioner Connor,
either, did you?
A. Did I compliment him?
[fol.396] Q. Yes.
A. I don’t recall complimenting him.
Q. Did you call Ms name in the meeting?
A. Eugene Connor ?
Q. Yes.
A. I don’t remember using that name.
Q. You don't remember using the mime Connor at all
or "Bull” Connor?
A. Well. I probably used that.
Q. You probably used "Bull" Connor, but you know that
is Mr. Eugene Connor?
A. I understood later that it was.
Mr. Greenberg: May it yl-ase the Court, isn't this i i -
amrnatiou getting rath.tr far sSeld et the direct? May we
object!
331
The Court: Let’s see if we can get closer to the point.
Q. Now, you did on that occasion ask the crowd and
speaking to the Negro population of the City of Birming
ham generally, to “get up and walk”, that was what you
told them you wanted them to do?
A. Well, I preached a sermon about a man that was sick
by a pool and Jesus asked this man to get up and walk.
Q. And you told them they were sick, too, didn’t you?
A. That’s right. They are.
Q. And you said, “ Get up and walk.”
A. That’s right.
Q. That is what you told them to do?
A. Yes, but this is figuratively. I did not want anybody
to get up and walk out while I was preaching.
Q. Oh, no, I understand that. But what you wanted them
to do is to get out and walk in these marches?
A. No. When I refer to walking, I simply mean stand
ing up and living up to one’s manhood and shouldering
one’s responsibility, the whole ideal of walking like a man.
[fol. 397] Q. And what you were trying to get them to do
was join in and participate in the activities of this move
ment, wasn’t it?
A. That’s right.
Mr. McBee: All right. That is all.
Mrs. Motley: That is all.
(Witness excused.)
Mr. Shores: We would like to call the Court’s attention
that on the docket sheet as regards James Bevel, the peti
tion and rule was not found, not served, showing that he
was not ever served.
Mr. McBee: He has been in Court himself and said these
lawyers represent him.
The Court: The statement is what was on the docket
sheet. All right.
332
J. W. Hays, called as a witness, being first duly affirmed,
was examined and testified as follows:
Direct examination:
By Mrs. Motley:
Q. Will you please state your full name and occupation
for the record, sir.
A. My name is Joshua W. Hays, minister of Trinity
A.M.E. Zion Church, 18 Ensley Avenue, Ensley, Alabama.
Q. Rev. Hays, were you ever served with a copy of the
injunction issued by this Court!
A. Yes.
Q. When were you served!
A. I was served Tuesday at 6 :00 o’clock following Easter,
which was the 16th.
Q. Where were you when you were served!
A. I was at my home.
Q. Were you ever arrested for any activity in the City
of Birmingham recently!
A. Yes.
Q. When was that!
[fol. 398] A. Easter Sunday afternoon.
Q. When did you get out of jail!
A. I got out of jail Tuesday morning at 1 :00 o’clock.
Q. Were you ever served with the Order to Show Cause
issued by this Court!
A. No.
Mrs. Motley: Those are all the questions.
Cross examination.
By Mr. McBee:
Q. Rev. Hays, I believe you said you were!
A. Yes.
Q. Are you a member of the Alabama Christian Move
ment for Human Rights?
A. Yes.
Q. How long have you been a member ?
A. About six years.
Q. How did you get from Ensley over here to this
Thurgood C.M.E. Church?
A. I drove over.
Q. How did you know to come?
A. I knew they were having a meeting.
Q. That was a well publicized meeting, wasn’t it?
A. Maybe it was. I don’t know, but I knew about the
meeting.
Q. How did you hear about it?
A. I heard about it from the previous meeting I had
attended.
Q. Which previous meeting had you attended?
A. I had attended a meeting Saturday night.
Q. You were at the Saturday night meeting?
A. Yes. — — ==•
Q. And they were sending out and getting volunteers to
call all over the community and get them there?
A. I don’t recall that.
Q. You don’t remember the volunteers they were calling
for?
A. No.
Q. Were you in the meeting all the time ?
ffol. 399] A. No. I was a little late getting to the meet
ing that night.
Q. Did they call for volunteers to do any walking?
A. Any walking?
Q. Yes, or marching, or whatever you want to call it?
A. Maybe they called for volunteers to walk.
Q. Well, as a matter of fact, they called for volunteers
every night they met, didn’t they, that you attended?
A. I didn’t attend every meeting.
Q. But when you did attend?
A. Yes.
333
334
[fol. 400] Q. They called for volunteers every night!
A. Right.
Q. And your best recollection is they called for vol
unteers that night!
A. My best recollection, that’s right.
Q. Did you volunteer!
A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you assist or help them in lining up the vol
unteers !
A. I did not.
Q. How many did they get to volunteer!
A. I beg your pardon!
Q. How many volunteered!
A. I couldn’t state how many volunteered.
Q. But a number!
A. Yes.
Q. Was Wyatt Tee Walker one that spoke to them when
they were volunteering ?
A. I don’t recall it was Wyatt Tee Walker. I don’t be
lieve it was. It might have been someone else.
Q. You are not sure who it was!
A. I am not sure who it was.
Q. Now, were you present on the news press release on
the 11th of April!
A. No.
Q. Did you attend the meeting on the night of April 11th!
A. I did.
Q. You were there the entire meeting!
A. I was a little late coming in in that meeting and I was
there until they closed.
Q. About what time did you get there!
A. Maybe about a few minutes of eight.
Q. Few minutes before eight!
A. Yes.
Q. When did the meeting start, seven!
[fol. 401] A. Well, truthfully, you don’t know exactly
when the meeting starts because they gather so quickly and
fast. People just gets some stimulation and you just come.
I don’t know what it is.
335
Q. Yon don’t know what it is that brings them out when
they come ?
A. Yes.
Q. Did they have a prayer meeting that night?
A. They generally have a prayer meeting.
Q. Was the prayer meeting over when you got there?
A. Yes.
Q. After the prayer meeting is when they had the
speeches, is that right?
A. That’s right.
Q. Did you hear the speeches?
A. I spoke.
Q. You were one of the speakers?
A. That’s right.
Q. Did Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. speak too?
A. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. Did Rev. Abernathy speak?
A. No. They were in jail.
Q. Good Friday they were in jail ?
A. Yes.
Q. Who else spoke besides you?
A. This was Saturday night. I don’t recall who else
spoke.
Q. You don’t recall?
A. No.
Q. But you remember Wyatt Tee Walker was there?
A. Yes.
Q. He was present?
A. Yes.
[fol. 402] Q. Was Rev. Shuttlesworth there or was he in
jail?
A. No, he was not there. I don’t think he was in jail
either.
Q. When you were arrested over at the city jail were you
interviewed by one of the detectives?
A. Yes.
336
Q. And you told the detective that you knew about the
injunction?
A. I told the detective I had heard about the injunction.
Q. You told the detective you had heard about the in
junction?
A. Yes.
Q. And you told him that on Sunday night immediately
after you were arrested?
A. Well, it wasn’t immediately after I was arrested.
Q. Well, a short time after you were arrested?
A. No. It was about 2 o’clock Sunday morning.
Q. You mean the officer didn’t interview you until 2 A.M.
on Sunday morning ?
A. That’s right because, see we were put in Sunday eve
ning and it was around 2 o’clock before we were inter
viewed.
Q. And you are certain it was around 2 o’clock.
A. Yes.
Q. Which detective interviewed you? Did you know him
or did you ask his name?
A. No, sir, I didn’t.
Q. When did you hear about the injunction?
A. I heard about the injunction probably Friday.
Q. That was Good Friday?
A. Good Friday. I got a flash over T.V.
Q. Over the T.V. ?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you are an officer in this Alabama Christian
Movement?
A. No, I am not.
Q. You are not an officer but you are a member?
[fol. 403] A. Yes.
Q. How long have you been a member ?
A. I told you around five and one-half or six years.
Q. I believe you answered that awhile ago. I forgot.
A. Yes.
Q. Now, on Friday night when you heard about the in
junction did it say anything about the Alabama Christian
Movement for Human Eights ?
337
A. No. I just heard this news flash that an injunction
had been issued against demonstrators in Birmingham.
Q. Against demonstrators in Birmingham! Now, when
you came to the church—when did you come to the Thur-
good Church that Easter Sunday!
A. Maybe around 3 :30.
Q. In the afternoon!
A. In the afternoon.
Q. When you got there in the Thurgood Church did you
know you were going to be in a procession or march or
walk or some demonstration of that type !
A. When I arrived at the church!
Q. Yes.
A. I probably had because I most likely—I had decided
within myself I would.
Q. You had decided, but you knew it was planned!
A. I knew something would take place, but what would
take place at that particular time I didn’t know.
Q. But there was some demonstration of some kind, you
understood, was going to take place!
A. Yes.
Q. And you went there for the purpose of taking part in
it!
A. Yes.
Q. Now, did you inquire further in detail about what the
injunction was about! ■
A. Well, no, the injunction, I didn’t inquire anything
[fol. 404] about the injunction because—
Q. You didn’t inquire at all ! ..
"YST^oTTiecauseTEad notbeen enjoined.
You had not been enjoined you understood!
A. Yes.
Q. But you didn’t care to inquire about what the demon
strations were that was enjoined!
A . T didn’t .eynn know what it was.
Q. You didn’t ask anybody!
A. No. There wasn’t anybody there that I felt at that
particular meeting was able to give me the information.
338
Q. Well, A. D. King was there, wasn’t he?
A. He weren’t there when I arrived.
Q. Well, he came in, didn’t he?
A. Yes.
Q. And Wyatt Tee Walker was there?
A. Not when I arrived.
Q. But he came in?
A. Yes.
Q. He came in before the march took place?
A. Yes, he came in before the march took place.
Q. You did take part in the march?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have a robe?
A. Yes, I have a robe, but I didn’t have on a robe that
day.
Q. You didn’t wear a robe that day?
A. No. I was in my clerical outfit.
Q. That was a short robe with a collar?
A. Yes. I never call it a robe. It is just a shirt and
collar.
Q. I understand. Were you in the front of the parade or
march or behind or where were you?
A. I was not in front, nor behind. I was probably two
or three couples from the front.
[fol. 405] Q. Who organized the march inside the church
as it was organized?
A. I don’t recall if anyone organized it.
Q. Well, that was spontaneous too, wasn’t it?
A. I beg your pardon?
Q. It was spontaneous also?
A. It seems as if it was.
Q. It seems like it was? And where was it going to be
spontaneous to go to ?
A. I don’t know where we were going.
Q. Who was the leaders of it?
A. I don’t know that.
Q. Well, who was in the front?
A. I don’t—you see, after we came out of church I don’t
know who was in front.
339
Q. When you came out the church who was in front!
A. I beg your pardon!
Q. Who was in front when you all came out of the
church!
A. I don’t recall.
Q. Was Rev. A. D. King one of those in front!
A. I don’t recall it.
Q. They had robes on, didn’t they, those that were in
front!
A. I don’t recall how many robes were in the movement.
Mr. McBee: I believe that is all.
Mrs. Motley: Those are all the questions, Your Honor.
(Witness excused.)
Mr. Shores: Judge, we have a short witness we would
like to put on.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Shores: Inspector Haley.
Inspector W. J. Haley, recalled as a witness, being
previously duly sworn, was examined and testified as fol
lows :
[fol. 406] Direct examination.
By Mr. Shores:
Q. Inspector Haley, I believe for the record you already
have given your title and name!
A. That is correct.
Q. I believe you were asked to obtain certain informa
tion with regards to assignment slips of your officers dur
ing the demonstration!
A. That is what I understood you asked for yesterday,
and I had to estimate it. I do have the figure at the present
time.
340
f
AN
\V
Q. And what number do you have as Officers used on the
Good Friday—during the Good Friday demonstration?
A. On the motorized patrol we had two sergeants and
j’nrty-Rrg- mrUm-P/prl patrolmen. That consisted of three-
wheelers and solos, that is the two-wheeled motor is what
we call a solo.
Q. And on Easter Sunday how many?
A. That was Easter Sunday. That was all of our force,
with the exception of four men who were off. One was sick
with pay, one injured with pay, and one out of town on
vacation and one on a regular off day.
Q. Did you have any men in plain clothes during that
time?
A. Yes. I would say about twelve or fifteen. That is de
tectives and special detail men.
Q. That would be somewhere about sixty, would you say?
A. Well, there were other officers in addition to those.
Now, those were the motor solo and three-wheel motors
you asked me about yesterday. We had other patrol units.
We had three patrol wagon drivers and we had five or six
cars that were in that immediate vicinity that carried two
men each. Then we had Chief Moore, Captain Evans, Cap
tain McDowell, Sgt. McDonald and myself that I recall
specifically that were there. I judge altogether we had
probably eighty or possible eighty-five men there.
Q. Was that during the whole of the demonstration on
[fol. 407] each day there was a demonstration?
A. No, that was the Easter Sunday. That was the in
formation you asked me for yesterday.
Q. Do you have the number for Good Friday?
A. It was approximately the same.
Q. Do you know how many were arrested on Good Fri
day and how many were arrested Easter?
A. There were fifty-one arrested in the marches on Good
Friday and in the 20’s on Easter Sunday.
Q. And on Easter Sunday you had aTarger crowd than
you had on Good Friday?
341
A. That is correct. Easter Sunday is when the marches
and broke and ran and they were not able to apprehend
all of the marchers.
Q. And you had approximately two officers to every per
son arrested? Would that be a fair estimate?
A. In the vicinity or, rather, in the immediate block I
would say that would not be correct because these men
were not all stationed at that particular intersection. We
had the area blocked off with fixed positions, that is on a
fixed station to turn traffic. We had men who were patrol-
ing in the immediate vicinity in case we had undue trouble
with the crowd where they could be called in immediately.
As far as the actual number that were on duty at the
church or within a block of the church, it would not have
been nearly the number that I gave you.
Q. How many would you say were actually at the church
or in the immediate vicinity of the church?
A. Well, in the immediate vicinity the entire group when
you say immediate vicinity because they were in the down
town area within a few blocks of there and were so in
structed and we had a standby force of the corner men
who were at the City Hall and we did not call those men
out. That is, we did not bring them to the scene because
the disorder had been straightened out by the time they
were ready and then we cancelled the call.
[fol. 408] Q. In other words, you hadJIie-necessarv men
at all times to control the crowd?
W in Biy'o]miTo n we ilicl".'
Mr. Shores: I believe that is all.
Cross examination.
By Mr. Breckenridge:
Q. Inspector, at these times was the number of officers
used more or less than ordinary?
A. It would be more than usual in the critical period of
these demonstrations. We altered the hours of the day-
342
shift motorized patrols to where they would overlap and
work until after dark. We brought the evening shift motors
that normally work from three until eleven, we brought
them in early so they would be available for duty at an
earlier hour than the three o’clock appointed time.
Q. I will ask you whether or not during the week or ten
days of these demonstrations prior to Easter, including
Easter, the Police Department of the City of Birmingham
had more or less men on duty than they would ordinarily
have?
A. We have had more. We have worked men on their
off days, and the traffic division particularly, and in the
superior officers forces, and some in the patrol division,
hut more of them were the motorized patrol and corner
men on traffic because normally their days off are Sunday.
Q. Do you have any information or do you know the
additional cost, if any, that that has placed upon the City
of Birmingham?
A. Through Sunday it was something over $4,200 addi
tional over and above the ordinary payroll.
Q. For over and above the ordinary duties in the city?
A. That’s right.
Mr. Breckenridge: That is all.
Mr. Shores: That is all.
(Witness excused.)
The Court: We will adjourn at this time until 9:30 in
the morning.
[fol. 409] The Court: The witnesses who are kept out of
the court room under the rule of course should not be dis
cussing any of the facts or circumstances that take place
here. Any facts or circumstances that take place in the
court room should not he discussed with them in any way.
I should like to caution everybody concerned about that,
about not discussing any of the facts of this case with the
witnesses who are out of the court room.
343
Mrs. Motley: May it please the Court, on yesterday one
of the respondents, Mr. Smith, took the stand, and he would
like to clarify part of his testimony in the record.
The Court: All right, call him hack.
Mrs. Motley: I would like to now recall him.
N. H. Smith, recalled as a witness, having been duly
sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
Direct examination.
By Mrs. Motley:
Q. Rev. Smith, on yesterday when you were on the stand
you recall being cross examined by Mr. McBee, do you not!
A. Uh huh.
Q. I would like to show you page 185 of the transcript
and direct your attention to the following question, which
reads as follows: “Now, it is also your policy and your
purpose and your goal if you don’t get what you want in
another way you set about doing it by revolution, is it
not?”
Then there was an objection by Mr. Greenberg and your
answer was: “I don’t—I do not know.”
I understand you want to explain now what you thought
you understood by the question.
Mr. McBee: We would object to what lie understood by
the question. The question is very clear. After he has
had a chance to consult with counsel—perhaps maybe a
lot of witnesses would like to change their testimony after
consulting with counsel, but he was examined and put on
the stand by his counsel and cross examined, and the testi
mony certainly is clear, the question is clear, and the ob-
[fol.*410] jection was made and he answered the question
after the objection.
Mrs. Motley: Maybe if Your Honor hears his explana
tion you can rule on it. I think that would clarify what
we are trying to do.
344
(Handing copy of transcript to Court, who reads indi
cated section.)
The Court: As I recall that particular answer was given
almost before the objection was made. I will allow him to
answer that.
Mr. McBee: We except, may it please the Court.
The Court: All right.
A. I thought he used the word resolution rather revolu
tion, and when he said revolution I didn’t understand what
kind of resolution he had in mind.
Mr. McBee: He asked me that question yesterday.
Mrs. Motley: He asked you that question yesterday, you
said?
Mr. McBee: I asked him if he didn’t understand my
question yesterday why didn’t he ask me that yesterday.
The Witness: No, I thought you said resolution.
The Court: Well, is that the only answer you want to
give?
Mrs. Motley: Yes, he wanted to clarify the record to
show he understood Mr. McBee said resolution..
The Court: Do you have any other questions you would
like to ask him?
Mr. McBee: Yes, sir.
Cross examination.
By Mr. McBee:
Q. How do you assume that I thought you could accom
plish your goal by resolution? What could you resolute?
A. We could send resolutions to the President of the
United States.
Q. Who is going to send to the President of the United
States?
A. The organization.
Q. Well, you have already done that, haven’t you?
A. From time to time.
345
Q. You have constantly?
A. That’s right.
[fol. 411] Q. Called the President on the telephone and
contacted him in other ways ?
A. I haven’t.
Q. But I say your movement has; Rev. Martin Luther
King, Jr.
A. I am sure he has had opportunity to talk to the Presi
dent of the United States.
Q. And you knew that, didn’t you, that you had made
resolutions and sent resolutions to the President?
Mr. Greenberg: We object. The question originally put
was far afield and we were merely trying to clarify it, and
now—
The Court: Overrule the objection. It has to do with the
meaning he gave to this particular word.
A. Relative to this particular movement that is going on
in Birmingham as to whether or not resolutions have been
sent to the President of the United States during this par
ticular time, I did not know, and that is the answer I gave.
Q. Oh, so that is what you understood?
A. That is what I understood.
Q. All right.
The Court: Is that all ?
Mr. McBee: Yes.
Mrs. Motley: No further questions.
(Witness excused.)
Mr. Greenberg: We would like to have Mr. Connor.
346
Eugene Connor, called as a witness, having been duly
sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
The Court: I believe you are still under oath. Just have
a seat.
Direct examination.
By Mr. Shores:
Q. You are Commissioner Connor?
A. Uh huh.
Q. Former Commissioner of the City of Birmingham?
A. Yes. Did you say former Commissioner? I am Com
missioner.
Mr. McBee: We object to the form of the question as
[fol. 412] calling for a conclusion of law.
The Court: For the record, this is the same witness who
testified yesterday and he was called to the stand by re
spondents.
Mr. Shores: Withdraw that, Your Honor. We would
like to have you look at these and have them marked for
identification. (Handing witness two sheets of paper.)
A. I don’t think I have seen these on that kind of paper
or—
Q. No, whether you received these messages.
A. I don’t think so. Let me look at that again. Is this
the same one you showed me yesterday on Western Union
telegraph paper?
Q. No, that is a different date, I believe, a different one.
Mr. McBee: We would object to these because they do
not relate to anything subsequent to the issuance of the
injunction.
The Court: As I understand, they have not offered them,
but merely asked him if he could identify them.
The Witness: Let me see them again, Arthur. Arthur,
I haven’t seen that telegram. I haven’t seen that.
The Court: Do you intend to further identify those?
347
Mr. Shores: I would like to have a word with the Chief
to see if he can identify them. They are addressed to him
also.
The Witness: The only one I remember getting is the
one they had up here yesterday.
The Court: I will ask that those be identified as Ex
hibits for identification only.
(Whereupon, the above-referred to documents were
marked as Respondents’ Exhibits B and C for Identifica
tion only.)
The Court: Can we resume with this witness later on
after you check that out?
Mr. Shores: Let me ask this question and then we will
get an instanter subpoena for Western Union.
Q. Do you recall receiving any telegram from the Ala
bama Christian Movement for Human Rights on or about
April 5th and on or about April 6th?
A. I recall receiving one telegram. I couldn’t say on or
about when. I say this month.
[fol. 413] Q. Did you answer that telegram?
A. I answered one.
Q. And is that the answer that was shown to you yester
day?
A. That’s right.
Q. And you don’t know whether or not it was one of
these telegrams that you had received?
A. The one I got is on this kind of paper. (Waving a
sheet of yellow Western Union paper.)
Q. I mean do you recall if the message was the same as
the message on one of these telegrams?
A. No, I don’t recall.
Q. I see. Now, this is the message, and see if this will
refresh your recollection. This one is dated April 5th.
(The telegram dated April 5th and marked Respondents’
Exhibit B for identification was read aloud by Mr. Shores.)
Is that the one which you answered?
348
Mr. Breckenridge: Could I refresh the recollection of the
Commissioner at this time?
Mr. Shores: I am trying to refresh it from this tele
gram.
The Court: Go ahead.
A. I believe the one I answered had something in there
about marching.
Q. Let’s see if this is the one you answered. This is the
one dated April 6th.
(Whereupon the above-referred to telegram dated April
6th and marked Respondents’ Exhibit C for identification
was read aloud by Mr. Shores.)
Mr. McBee: What was the date of this?
Mr. Shores: April 6th.
Mr. McBee: We would object to that, Your Honor. That
is before the date of any of the matters involved in this
hearing before Your Honor now.
Mr. Shores: Your Honor, this is an offer to show that
this is the telegram the answer to which was introduced
[fob 414] yesterday into evidence without objection.
Mr. McBee: That doesn’t mean we are not objecting to
this.
M i. Shores. We want to know if this is the one that the
answer was to.
The Court: This is dated April 5th and this is what?
Mr. Shores: April 6th.
The Court: I am looking at Respondents’ Exhibit A, and
it couldn’t be an answer to that one.
Mr. Shores: This is the 5th and this is the 6th.
The Court: The answer couldn’t have come before the
request, if that is the correct date shown.
Mr. Shores: There were two telegrams.
The Court: I will allow him to answer.
Mr. McBee: We except.
A. I will be truthful about this, I can’t answer that I
can go back to my office and get the original, which is on
file.
349
Mr, Shores: Your Honor, we can take another witness
while he goes and gets the original.
Mr. Breckenridge: We would like the privilege of cross-
examining him to the extent of the question that he has
already answered.
The Court: All right, are you through other than that?
Mr. Shores: Yes, sir.
Mrs. Motley: Just a moment, Your Honor.
The Court: Are you now through other than that? All
right, go ahead.
Cross examination.
By Mr. Breckenridge:
Q. Commissioner Connor, for the purpose of refreshing
your recollection, I will hand you here a copy of—what is
this instrument I hand you?
A. A telegram.
Q. Do you know whether or not that was received by you,
this particular one, for the purpose—and that you did an
swer that telegram on the same date ?
The Court: Before you answer, let Arthur Shores see
that.
[fol. 415] (Document examined.)
Q. After having refreshed your recollection I will ask
you if it is not a fact that the telegram which has been
introduced in evidence as Respondents’ Exhibit A was sent
in answer to the telegram that you received on the same
date, signed F. L. Shuttlesworth, President, and N. H.
Smith, Secretary, the date being April 5, 1963?
A. Uh huh.
Q. And in your best recollection is it the only telegram
that you received ?
A. It is the only telegram that I received.
Q. And you did receive this ?
A. Yes, sir, and answered it.
\
350
Q. And that is the—then yon do recall receiving this
telegram! That being a copy of the one I showed you that
is on file at City Hall!
The Court: The witness is looking at Respondents’ Ex
hibit B for identification.
A. Yes.
Q. After refreshing your recollection you did receive one
telegram!
A. That’s right.
Q. Which is Respondents’ Exhibit B !
A. Yes.
Mr. McBee: If he is offering it—
Mr. Breckenridge: I am not offering it. I am just clarify
ing it. That is Respondents’ Exhibit B for identification at
the present status.
Mr. Shores: I believe he said he did have another one in
his office.
The Witness: It is just a copy.
By Mr. Shores (continued):
Q. You say this is the one you did receive!
A. Exhibit B, yes.
Mr. Shores: We would like to offer this in evidence.
Mr. McBee: That involves matters—the rule to show
cause—we are trying two specific incidents here, the
[fol. 416] marches or walks or whatever you refer to them
as. One happened on Good Friday and one that happened
on the 14th, and we have some statements that occurred at
various times and other occasions which are related to
this citation of contempt, but we are not trying that now.
That was prior to or subsequent to the occasion when the
injunction was issued on the 10th. It is not subsequent to
the 15th when this citation was filed. The contempt peti
tion was filed, and we object to that.
Mr. Greenberg: The issue here is whether or not these
walks were unlawful. The injunction prohibited all unlaw
351
ful activities, and we say walks certainly are not unlawful.
Permission has been requested and has been improperly
denied. They are lawful.
Mr. Breckenridge: We don’t agree with that statement
of the law, that if permission is improperly denied the
law permits remedy by mandamus.
Mr. Shores: This is in answer to the telegram intro
duced yesterday and he identified it and says he remembers
receiving it.
Mr. McBee: May I remind the Court we didn’t intro
duce the telegram he is referring to. We didn’t object to
it, but we didn’t introduce the telegram he is referring to.
The Court: Both of these telegrams have to do with
picketing. I am going to overrule the objection and allow
it into evidence.
Mr. McBee: We except.
The Court: As giving the Court further idea into the
character of all of these incidents.
Mr. Shores: Thank you, Your Honor.
(Whereupon, the above-referred to telegram previously
marked for identification as Respondents’ Exhibit B was
received in evidence, and the same is set out in words and
figures at the end of this transcript.)
By Mr. Shores (continued):
Q. Did you take that matter up with the Commission,
Mr. Connor?
A. No.
Mr. McBee: We object to that, may it please the Court.
The Court: Sustained.
Mr. McBee: Move to exclude the statement.
[fol. 417] The Court: I think you reserved the right
merely to go into the question of his receipt of this tele
gram, and this is his second time on the stand and this is
recross, really. I just have to limit your questioning.
Mr. Shores: Well, that is all.
352
The Court: This is redirect, I might say.
Mr. Shores: That is all.
Mr. McBee: If the question was answered, we move to
exclude the answer.
The Court: The answer is excluded. Your objection is
sustained.
[fo l. 418] L ola H endricks, called as a witness, being duly
sworn, was exam ined and testified as fo l lo w s :
Direct examination.
By Mrs. Motley:
Q. Mrs. Hendricks, would you please state you r fu ll
name for the record?
A. Lola Hendricks.
Q. Where do you live, Mrs. Hendricks?
A. 842 Centerway Southwest, Birmingham, Alabama.
Q. Are you a native of Birmingham, Alabama?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Are you a member of the Alabama Christian Move
ment for Human Rights?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. How long have you been a member ?
A. For seven years.
Q. Mrs. Hendricks, have you ever had an occasion to re
quest or make application for a permit to parade, or dem
onstrate on behalf of the Alabama Christian Movement fo r
Human Rights ?
Mr. Breckenridge: Your Honor, we object to that unless
the question is limited to the particular parade involved
in this litigation. That is Good Friday and Easter Sun
day.
The Court: I think it is a preliminary question. I will
overrule the objection.
353
Mr. Breckenridge: We except.
A. Yes, I have had occasion to ask for one.
Q. When was that?
A. April 3,1963.
Q. And where did you go ?
Mr. McBee: We object to that, April 3rd, 1963.
The Court: Sustain the objection.
Mr. Greenberg: May it please the Court, this is pre
liminary. We hope to develop that upon this visit a gen-
..eral request was made for ensuing dates, not for April 3rd.
The request was made on April 3rd.
[fol. 419] The Court: Well, unless it has something to
do with April 12th or April 14th, I don’t think it would be
relevant to our issues.
Mr. Greenberg: I think it would have.
The Court: All right if you restrict it to that, the Court
will hear what she has to say with reference to April 12th
and April 14th.
Q. Let me ask you this, Mrs. Hendricks: what did you do
on April 3rd when you—first of all, where did you go on
April 3rd?
A. On April 3rd I went to the City Hall. I went to the
Police Department and I asked the man at'the.desTqTSrT
Clayburn I would like to see the person or persons in
charge to issue permits, permits for parading, picketing,
and demonstrating, and he said—
Mr. Breckenridge: We object to what he said, and sug
gest the City Code sets out who should be applied to for a
permit.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. After speaking to Mr. Clayburn, is it ?
A. That’s right.
Q. Was he a police officer?
A. He was the police officer at the desk.
Q. After speaking to him, where were you directed ?
354
Mr. Breckenridge: We object to that on the same grounds
as the preceding question, calls for hearsay, and irrele
vant and immaterial to the issues in the case, if the pur
pose is to show the application for a permit to the City
Commission and the City Clerk, who they have said are the
parties through whom that application should be made.
The Court: Sustained. It may be entirely possible they
may have been misdirected, or may have been turned down,
or anything of that sort. Of course, the law we are con
cerned with has to do with the ordinance that says it must
be made with the Commission. Unless there is some attempt
[fol. 420] to comply with that particular ordinance-—
Mrs. Motley: That is what we are trying to show, Your
Honor, they tried to comply with the ordinance.
Q. What did you do after you spoke to Mr. Clayburn?
Mr. McBee: Your Honor, that is a rather broad ques
tion.
The Court: Overrule the objection.
Mr. McBee: We except.
A. I went to Mr. Connor’s oliico. the Commissioner’s
,office_at the C ity Hall Building. ~We went up and Com
missi onoFUOTmmYhiUYk"aUtEe door. He asked, “ May I
help you?” I told him, "Yes, sir, we came up to apply or
see about getting a permit for picketing, parading, demon-"
strating”—
Mr. Breckenridge: We object to hearsay on the grounds
one actual individual Commissioner cannot bind the Com
mission, and the law specifically shows—as a matter of
fact, Commissioner Connor’s telegram, too, indicated they
should apply to the Commission, and said an individual
Commissioner, I believe Respondent’s Exhibit A, had no
authority in that matter to grant a permit.
Mrs. Motley: The witness testified she went to the office
of the Commissioners and was met at the door by Com
missioner Connor. She went to the office of the Commis
sioners, is her testimony.
355
Mr. Breckenridge: I would like to take her on voir dire.
I don’t know of any office of the Commission, other than the
Commission Chambers they meet in.
The Court: I will allow her to testify on that. Go ahead.
Overrule the objection.
A ̂ i'V
A. I asked Commissioner Connor for the permit, and
asked if he could issue the permit, or other persons who
would refer me to, persons who would issue a permit. He
said, “ No, you will not get a permit in Birmingham, Ala-
... bania to picket. I will picket you over to the City Jail” ,
and he repeated that twice.
[fol. 421] Mr. Breckenridge: I would like to move to ex
clude the answer as being wholly irrelevant and immaterial
to the issues involved, not binding on the Commission.
That is the only body authorized to issue permits for
parading.
The Court: I will sustain the objection. I will exclude
it from the record. I think if there is any error involved
the record is clear. I don’t think the statement of Mr. Con
nor would be binding on the Commission.
Mr. Shores: Except.
Q. Were you authorized by someone of the Alabama
Christian Movement to seek this permit!
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Who authorized you to do that!
A. Rev. Shuttlesworth, the president.
Q. Were you accompanied by anyone on this occasion!
A. Yes, I was. I was accompanied by Rev. A. Hill of the
Lilly Grove Baptist Church in Birmingham.
Mrs. Motley: That is all.
Mr. Breckenridge: No questions.
Mr. Greenberg: May it please the Court, we have no
further witnesses. However, counsel would like to read a
statement to the Court. We have a copy here to give to
counsel.
Mr. McBee: Is this evidence!
356
Mr. Greenberg: This is something called for in the order
to show cause.
Mr. Breckenridge: If it is considered as evidence—
Mr. Greenberg: If anything, it is, perhaps, in the nature
of pleading. The order to show cause has called for a state
ment on behalf of some of the respondents as to what they
intend to do in the future.
Mr. McBee: May I suggest, Your Honor, if we are go
ing to have statements that are ex parte, or statements that
are for the record, or whatever they may be, that they be
put on the stand in the orderly, and normal, and usual
fashion.
[fol. 422] Mr. Thompson: So that they may make these
statements under oath, and if there is some question about
it, we will have an opportunity to cross examine.
Mr. Greenberg: This is a statement of counsel. I would
assume counsel would have authority to make such state
ment, and as to the matter of taking the stand, at the out
set of this case we made a motion to sever the criminal and
civil aspects of it. Since they have not been severed, the
higher protection must prevail, and to suggest the parties
be put on the stand is out of order.
The Court: I will take about a ten minute recess to read
this and consider it.
(Whereupon proceedings were in recess from 10:05 A.M.
until 10:30 A.M. at which time proceedings were resumed
as follows:)
The Court: You want to have that marked for identifi
cation ?
Mr. Greenberg: I don’t know whether to call it an ex
hibit, or what. It is a statement we are offering to the
Court and we would like to put it in the record.
The Court: You make it an exhibit and mark it for
identification.
(Whereupon the above mentioned statement was marked
Complainant’s Exhibit D for identification, and is set out
in words and figures at the end of this transcript.)
357
The Court: The Court has examined and read at length
the statement of counsel which has been marked as Respon
dent’s Exhibit D for identification only, and after reading
it and analyzing the statement as to what it contains, it is
the opinion of the Court that the statement of counsel wilL
not be admissible in the case, but that the witnesses, them
selves, would have to take the stand and be subject to ex
amination by questioning, and cross examination, and in
the absence of such examination of these witnesses, it would
be necessary the Court deny the right of counsel to make
such a statement as contained in Exhibit D.
[fol. 423] Mr. Greenberg: In effect, Your Honor is rul
ing the defendants cannot purge themselves of civil con
tempt without waiving rights to the criminal contempt. It
is only by waiving the legal and constitutional rights in
the criminal case can they purge themselves in the civil
case, and that is the dilemma we sought to avoid in our
original motion, which was denied.
The Court: The Court doesn’t consider this statement
in its form to be in any way a purging of the contempt
charged in this cause.
Mr. Greenberg: May that statement be made part of the
record as to what we attempted—
The Court: It has been identified as Exhibit D, but it
will not be allowed.
Mr. Greenberg: But, may it be made part of the record
that in the sense when an appeal is taken we have been
considered to have offered it in evidence?
The Court: It will be considered part of the record in
that respect.
Mr. Shores: Your Honor, our next witness was the rep
resentative from the telegraph office. Has he come? The
Sheriff had gone for him.
The Bailiff: No, he is not here.
The Court: Do you have any other testimony other than
that?
Mr. Shores: That was the only other testimony we had,
Your Honor.
358
The Court: Well, let’s see, how long will it take to get him
here ? Can you call the Sheriff to see how long it will take
to get him here ?
Mr. Shores: The Sheriff has already gone for him.
The Court: If you have no further testimony at this
time, it will he necessary that we recess until this witness
is brought in. The witness has not been served, and would
[fol. 424] not come without service of subpoena.
Mr. Shores: He is on his way now, Your Honor.
The Court: I understand he is on his way. We will take
a recess until he comes.
(Whereupon proceedings were in recess at 10:37 A.M.)
[fol. 425] The Court: For the sake of the record, the re
spondents will rest except for the reservation of the witness
from Western Union or the Telegraph Company.
Mr. McBee: We might be able to substitute. Chief Moore
says he checked with his office and they did find in his files
a copy of a telegram which was supposed to have been
received on the 6th which he has sent for and the lady is
bringing it over.
R ebuttal Testimony on B ehalf of Complainant
J ames D. W ake, recalled as a witness, was previously
duly sworn, and testified as follows:
Direct examination.
By Mr. McBee:
Q. Mr. Ware, I would like to show you these photos and
ask you if you took those photos?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. McBee: I would like to ask first to get these four
photos identified, and I believe they will be the Complain
ant’s Exhibits 3, 4, 5 and 6.
359
(Whereupon said four photos were received and marked
Complainant’s Exhibits 3, 4, 5 and 6 for identification.)
Q. When did you take them!
A. On Easter Sunday.
Q. Was that the occasion that you have previously testi
fied about in this court?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do those pictures clearly depict what occurred at
that time and place?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. McBee: 1 offer those pictures in evidence, may it
please the Court.
(Whereupon said photographs were received in evidence
as Complainants’ Exhibits 3, 4, 5 and 6, and the Court
Reporter hereby certifies that the reproduction of such
exhibits in this transcript is difficult or impracticable,
[fol. 426] which fact is hereby certified to the Clerk of this
Court.)
Q. Now, at what time did you take those pictures in point
of the proceedings there at the church?
A. May I see them again ? All of these were immediately
after leaving the church.
Q. Those were the pictures of the paraders or marchers
or processioners or walkers or whatever they were as they
left the church, immediately after they left the church?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. McBee: That is all.
Cross examination.
By Mr. Greenberg:
Q. Mr. Ware, you testified these were pictures of the
marchers as they left the church?
A. Immediately after they left the church.
Q. Immediately after they left the church? Is that one
of them as they immediately left the church?
360
A. It is coming down the street ̂within a block or block
and a half of the church.
Q. And that one is nowhere near the church?
The Court: What exhibit?
Mr. Greenberg: I am sorry. That is Exhibit 3.
A. I say within a block and a half. I won’t identify
exactly how far.
Q. And Exhibit 5, where in relation to the church is that?
A. This apparently is where they turned up the alley or
side street or whatever it is there after leaving the church.
Q. And Exhibit jt, that is persons other than the
marchers, isn’t it?
'""ArThe marchers are in the background on this picture
and the police are in the foreground.
Q. And Exhibit 6, I don’t see anyone here in robes lead
ing the march, do you? '----- .------- --------_----
A. I don’t believe I see any in this particular picture.
Mr. Greenberg: Thank you.
[fol. 427] Redirect examination.
By Mr. McBee:
Q. The last exhibit he asked you about which is Exhibit
6, is the church in the background, the church from which
the march or procession originated?
A. I am not positive this is the church. There is a church
here. I am positive this was within a block of the church
where it originated.
Q. In other words, you are not trying to say it origi
nated in this church that is depicted in the picture?
A. No, sir.
Mr. McBee: All right. That is all. Come down.
(Witness excused)
Mr. McBee: Your Honor, we don’t of course admit the
admissibility of it, but the young lady has brought from
361
the Chief’s office the telegram that they have been referring
to I presume—I don’t know, but we will let them look at
it and see.
Mr. Shores: We would like to call Chief Moore to the
stand, if Your Honor please.
Chief J amie M oose, recalled as a witness, being previ
ously duly sworn, was examined and testified further as
follows:
Direct examination.
By Mrs. Motley:
Q. Chief Moore, I would like to show you Respondents’
Exhibit C which has already been marked for identifica
tion and ask you again whether you received that telegram!
A. I don’t recall receiving the telegram. My office shows
it was received in my office. Of my own knowledge at the
minute I don’t remember receiving it, but I am sure that
I did receive it.
Q. I am afraid I don’t understand your answer. You
say you did and you didn’t receive it!
A. I didn’t say that. I said I didn’t remember receiving
it.
Q. You now remember receiving it!
A. I don’t remember receiving it, but I will say I did
receive it, or my office received it.
[fol. 428] Q. Who received it in your office!
A. I don’t remember who received it.
Q. Have you ever seen it before!
A. I am sure that I have.
Q. When did you see this telegram before!
A. I saw it just a few minutes ago when I called the
office and got it and it is probable I saw it before, but of
my own personal knowledge I don’t remember ever having
seen it before.
362
Q. And you don’t know the name of the person in your
office who received this telegram?
A. I do not.
Q. Who usually receives telegrams in your office? Do
you have a secretary?
A. I have two secretaries and one man that works in my
office who is not a secretary.
Q. What is his position?
A. He answers the calls out of my office on the phone.
He is a patrolman for the City of Birmingham.
Q. If a telegram is delivered to your office then which
of those three persons is apt to receive it?
A. Anybody that is out on the front, or I might receive
it in person if I happen to be sitting around when it comes
in or they see me.
Q. Have you inquired in your office as to who did receive
this telegram?
A. I have not.
Q. Could you do that?
A. I could, but I doubt if any person over there would
be able to say exactly who received it. I am not denying
it was received, if that will straighten the situation out.
Q. Now, what action, if any, was taken on this telegram?
Mr. McBee: We object to that, may it please the Court,
what action was taken on the telegram. That is, according
to the information I have, a telegram that is supposed to
[fol. 429] have been sent and received on the 6th of April
which was prior to any event which is presently being
tried in Your Honor’s court.
Mrs. Motley: Again. Your Honor, we are trying to show
that these respondents sought to secure a permit and made
_many attempts to do soT’and approached’ responsible~ciiy
will overrule and allow him to answer if
he has personal knowledge.
Mr. McBee: We except, may it please the Court.
363
A. Do you mean what effort was made to get a permit
for them?
The Court: Read the question back, if you will, and see
if he understands the question.
(Question read)
A. Not any action at all.
Mrs. Motley: We would like to offer Respondents’ Ex
hibit C.
Mr. McBee: We object on the same grounds that we have
heretofore objected.
The Court: The Court has the same ruling. I will over
rule the objection.
(Whereupon said telegram was received in evidence as
Respondents’ Exhibit C, and a true and correct copy of the
same is set out at the end of the transcript of testimony
in this record.)
Mrs. Motley: That is all.
Cross examination.
By Mr. McBee:
Q. This telegram says what is going to be done, it doesn’t
ask you to do anything, doesn’t it?
A. It doesn’t request us or me to do anything.
Q. Just telling you what is going to he done?
A. It informs me what is going to happen on that day.
Q. By the Rev. Shuttlesworth and the Alabama Christian
Movement.
A. It is signed by F. L. Shuttlesworth, Alabama Chris
tian—part of it is cut off.
Q. I will ask you, Chief, while you are on the stand—
this is a rebuttal question—did you detail the officers who
went to interview these defendants who were in the City
[fol. 430] Jail on Easter Sunday night, including the Rev.
364
J. W. Hays and others among the group who were arrested
and who are parties to this case!
A. I did.
Q. What time did you detail those detectives to interview
the defendants!
A. I would say it is in the neighborhood of 6 :00 P.M. on
that day.
Q. Did the officers make a report back to you subsequent
to the interview of the defendants in question!
A. Yes, sir, they did.
Q. What time did they report back to you that evening!
A. Somewhere between 8:30 and 9:00 o’clock that eve
ning. I would say approximately 8:30 or 9:00 o’clock.
Q. Did Det. H. L. Jones report back to you at that time!
A. He was one of them.
Mr. McBee: That is all.
Redirect examination.
By Mrs. Motley:
Q. You say an officer reported to you after having inter
viewed the prisoners in jail!
A. I did.
Q. What was the officer’s name!
A. The one he asked me about was Det. H. L. Jones.
Q. What did Officer Jones report to you!
A. He came back to my office and talked to me. I was in
my office and Mr. McBee talked to him also at that time.
Q. What did he report to you!
A. I don’t remember the exact details. He said he had
talked to some of the people who were arrested in the
parade.
Q. Did he give you the names of any people he inter
viewed!
A. I didn’t take their names.
Q. Then you don’t know who he interviewed, do you!
A. No, I don’t know who he interviewed.
Mrs. Motley: That is all.
Mr. McBee: Come down.
(Witness excused)
365
[fol. 431] D etective H. L. J ones, recalled as a witness,
being previously duly sworn, was examined and testified
further as follows:
Direct examination.
By Mr. McBee:
Q. Det. Jones, are you the detective who interviewed
the Bev. Joshua, or J. W. Hays at City Jail on Easter
night after the April 14th event of 1963?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. At what time did you interview him approximately!
A. Approximately about 7 :00 o’clock.
Q. That is 7:00 P.M., April 14th?
A. April 14th.
Mr. McBee: That is all.
Cross examination.
By Mrs. Motley:
Q. How many prisoners did you interview that night?
A. Four.
Q. Who were they?
A. There was Bev. Hays, Bev. Porter, Bev. King and
Bev. Smith.
Q. Were there any other police officers interviewing pris
oners?
A. Yes.
Q. Who?
A. Det. Bay was there, Det. Vance, Det. Ellard, Det.
Harris and Det. Stevens and myself.
366
Q. How many prisoners were interviewed that night!
A. I believe twenty-nine, if I am not mistaken. I am
not sure of that.
Q. When did this interviewing start!
A. I would say approximately a quarter to 7 :00 or there
abouts. Are you referring to my interviewing or the other
detectives now!
Q. Your interviewing.
A. About a quarter to 7 :00.
Q. And you interviewed four prisoners!
A. Four.
[fol. 432] Q. How much time did you spend interviewing
each one of these prisoners!
A. About ten minutes.
Q. Did you write down what they said!
A. No.
Q. You have no record of what they said!
A. No.
Q. Do you know whether any other officers later inter
viewed any of these prisoners!
A. The ones I interviewed!
Q. Yes.
A. No, I don’t.
Q. What did you do after you interviewed these pris
oners !
A. Went back to City Hall.
Q. What time did you get back to City Hall!
A. A little after 8:00.
Q. What did you do when you got back there!
A. Eeported our interviews to Mr. McBee.
Mrs. Motley: Those are all the questions, Your Honor.
Redirect examination.
By Mr. McBee:
Q. Did I make notes of what you said!
A. Yes, sir.
367
Mr. McBee: Yon may come down.
(Witness excused)
Mr. McBee: As far as we are concerned, that completes
our part of the case.
[fo l. 433] J ohn S. Gant , called as a witness, being duly
sworn, was examined and testified as fo llo w s :
Direct examination.
By Mr. Shores:
Q. Will you state your name, please, sir?
A. John S. Gant.
Q. By whom are you employed?
A. Western Union Telegraph Company.
Q. In what capacity are you employed by Western Union?
A. Assistant Operations Manager.
Q. Just what do your duties consist of?
A. They are many and varied. I have supervision over
operations; we will put it that way.
Q. Would it come in your department the manner of
the recording and keeping records of telegraphs that are
sent to various persons?
A. It would.
Q. I show you a telegram dated April 6, 1963 addressed
to Chief of Police Jamie Moore and Police Commissioner
Eugene Bull Connor, City Hall.
A. Right.
Q. Is there any indication to determine whether or not
that telegram was delivered?
A. There is not any indication on this message here to
show that it was delivered. It shows that it was trans
mitted.
Q. And it shows that it was transmitted to the ad
dressees on the telegram?
A. That’s right.
368
Mr. Shores: Your Honor, this is the telegram that is
already been introduced.
The Court: What exhibit is it?
Mr. Shores: Exhibit C, Respondent’s Exhibit C.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Shores: That is all, Your Honor.
The Court: Anything for the City!
[fol. 434] Mr. Breckenridge: Yes, sir.
Cross examination.
By Mr. Breckenridge:
Q. Mr. Gant, on Respondent’s Exhibit C, this telegram
is addressed to Chief of Police Jamie Moore and Police
Commissioner Eugene Bull Connor City Hall. Now, I will
ask you whether or not in the delivery of that telegram one
or two telegrams were delivered !
A. One telegram.
Q. Only one telegram!
A. Yes.
Q. Where a telegram is addressed jointly—I will ask you
whether or not when a telegram is addressed jointly the
telegraph company delivers to either of the parties!
A. Right.
Q. Do they make any further attempt to call the other
party after they have delivered it to one of the parties
named!
A. No.
Q. You testified on direct examination that it indicated on
that telegram that it was delivered to the addressees named
herein. Was that delivered personally to Chief Moore or
Commissioner Eugene Connor!
A. I couldn’t say whether it was delivered personally to
either one of them. We transmitted it on the Desk-Fax
machine.
Q. When you say it was delivered personally you mean
delivered to the office, or rather delivered over the machine!
369
A. Yes, over the machine.
Q. At the City Hall?
A. Yes.
Q. And your record does not show any delivery to Com
missioner Connor personally ?
A. No.
Q. Nor delivery to Chief of Police Jamie Moore person
ally?
A. No.
Mr. Breckenridge: That is all.
[fol. 435] Redirect examination.
By Mr. Greenberg:
Q. Mr. Gant, you said it was delivered by a Desk-Fax
machine? It is not clear to us what kind of machine that is.
Would you explain what a Desk-Fax is?
A. That is a facsimile machine. It is transmitted from
our operation over to the City Hall.
Q. And the City Hall makes further distribution, is that
correct?
A. That’s right.
Mr. Greenberg: That is all.
Mr. Breckenridge: That is all.
The Court: You are excused, Mr. Gant.
(Witness excused)
The Court: Anything further?
Mr. Shores: Nothing further, Your Honor.
The Court: Anything further for the City?
Mr. Breckenridge: Nothing further, Your Honor.
The Court: We will adjourn at this time until 1:45 and
take the argument.
(Whereupon, at the hour of 11:40 A.M. April 24, 1963, the
proceedings were in recess until 1:45 P.M. when the pro
ceedings continued as follows:)
370
[fol. 436] The Court: As to this amended answer which
has been placed before me at this time by the respondents—
Mr. Shores: Your Honor, that answer is not a part of this
proceeding. That is an amended answer to the answer filed
to the complaint.
The Court: You are not filing it for the purpose of this
proceeding at all!
Mr. Shores: No.
The Court: All right. Then, the Court won’t consider
that at this time.
Is the City ready?
Mr. McBee: We are a little bit in the dark about the
document Your Honor was looking at. We haven’t seen it.
The Court: It is an amended answer that has been filed,
but it is not for the purpose of this hearing.
Mr. Amaker: It was an answer to the Bill of Complaint
upon which the original injunction was ordered.
Mr. McBee: I see.
Renewal of M otions by Defendants and Rulings T hebeon
Mr. Shores: Before the City proceeds, we would like,
before they make their arguments in chief, we would like
to renew all of the Motions that we made at the beginning
of the proceeding, and we would further like to move that
the evidence be excluded as to all respondents, and most
especially to the respondent Andrew Young. In the argu
ments yesterday with respect to the exclusion of testimony
as to the various respondents, there was some doubt at the
time as to the part that Andrew Young had played with
respect to this meeting, but on further examination of these
transcripts and testimony as given by Inspector Haley, he
stated on Page 34 of the transcript that he could not iden
tify Andrew Young on either Good Friday, or Easter Sun
day, and J. Walter Johnson placed Young at the Thursday
night meeting, but stated in his judgment certain state
ments attributed to him. It appears the only testimony
connecting Andrew Young was he was present at the meet
ing, as were several hundred people, and there was nothing
371
[fol. 437] connecting him with either of the parades on
Good Friday, and the parade on Easter Sunday, which
seems to be the crux of the State’s case, and this being
criminal contempt, we respectfully submit it is to be proved
beyond a reasonable doubt that this respondent did, in
fact, violate the injunction according to the allegations
made in the rule to show cause, so, for that reason, Your
Honor, we respectfully submit Andrew Young should cer
tainly be dismissed from this proceeding.
Mr. McBee: Would you like to hear from the City on
that question!
The Court: Yes.
Mr. McBee: This is the testimony of Mr. Johnson, and
here is what he says at one point in his testimony concern
ing Rev. Johnson—Rev. Young, I mean. Rev. Young intro
duced them as having come out of jail. There were about
twenty of them who were leading the singing. Young spoke
for a few minutes after Bevels speech, just a very few min
utes. He said we have demonstrated to the world the power
of this movement, now to demonstrate its persistence.
Now, we submit, may it Please the Court, that he was
specifically bragging about the fact that he had violated the
injunction, and he was calling upon the people there in this
assemble at this meeting of the Alabama Christian Move
ment for Human Rights, as it is called, to continue to show
how persistent they could be in the demonstrations that had
been carried on.
The other point—the other point, the same witness was
soliciting membership cards. He says that everyone in
this movement should have a card, should carry a card.
They said that everyone of them should carry one of these
membership cards, everyone in the demonstration, every
one participating at all should be carrying a card. In fact,
every Negro, as they put it, should be carrying a card. Now,
that is a statement that was made as to the—as to Rev.
Young.
[fol. 438] The Court: Is all that by the witness, Johnson!
372
Mr. McBee: No, sir. I won’t be certain about that. Iam
not positive.
Mr. Amaker: Yes, it is. It is all by Johnson.
Mr. McBee: Let me look in the index to see where he
starts, Judge. Where does Johnson start? What page?
Mr. Thompson: It is indexed in your book.
Mr. McBee: 48 to 66. Yes, Your Honor, that appears to
be in his testimony.
The Court: All right.
Mr. McBee: Now, the point that is in question here about
the identification of the witness—I mean of the speaker, he
says speaking here at this time about the cards, member
ship cards, he says is it your best judgment Rev. Young
made the statement and then the answer, it is my best judg
ment, but as I say, I cannot swear to that. Then, Attorney
Shores objected, and then stated he thought the witness was
confused about the degree of knowledge required as he tes
tified in his best judgment, and then the Court said, the
Court will receive as evidence all what took place in the
meeting as identification of the person named there, and it
is taken into consideration in that light. You may go ahead.
Now, there was no question at all about the second state
ment as to identification of who made the statement. He
said Rev. Young, without any equivocation. That came at
a later time as he read from his notes.
We submit that they have, in the absence of any denial
whatever on the part of Rev. Young, is conclusive that he
did violate the injunction.
Mr. Shores: I am sure Your Honor is cognizant of what
is embraced in that injunction, and there is nothing in the
injunction to enjoin anybody from carrying a card, a mem
bership card in the organization, nor was there anything in
the injunction restraining any individual from attending or
[fol. 439] holding any meeting, and the fact that he made a
statement we have demonstrated, he didn’t say they were
going to continue to demonstrate, he didn’t urge anybody to
demonstrate, and how to demonstrate, and he did not elabo
rate. There is no explanation as to what was meant by that.
373
It could have been merely he was commenting on what had
happened. But, Your Honor enjoined them from parading,
from picketing, and the whole crux of this hearing has been
on whether or not that particular portion of the injunction
was violated.
At times, it was sought to introduce evidence as to set-ins.
That was ruled out, and it finally boiled down to the final
analysis the only matter before this Court was whether or
not they had violated the injunction of parading and picket
ing, and there is nothing connecting this respondent with
having urged anybody to parade, or having urged anybody
to picket. The fact that he introduced individuals who had
been in jail does not imply that he urged them to violate
any injunction, so, for that reason, Your Honor, we submit
that there is no testimony connecting this respondent with
violating this injunction, and for that reason he should be
discharged.
The Court: I would like to ask one question. I don’t
know that Rev. Young—is he in court? You are Rev.
Young? As I understood, yesterday he was not in court.
I gave him permission to be out, and I just wanted to be
sure he was here and he had the opportunity to be present
today when this motion was made, because I assume he was
not here at the time the testimony was taken relative to
what he stated.
So far as the motion is concerned with reference to all
of the other motions that you have renewed, at this time the
Court would overrule those motions.
As to the motion concerning Rev. Young, and the evi
dence as it implies in this case, I will take that motion under
consideration. I will have an opportunity to study this
transcript with reference to the evidence that we have got.
[fol. 440] I have got some notation, myself, with reference
to the statements that were made by the witnesses, but I
would want to check that back against the transcript. I will
take that motion under submission. Anything further, then ?
Mr. Shores: Nothing further.
374
Your Honor, I want it clear I was renewing all motions
made, those at the beginning of the case, and those at the
end of the State’s case.
The Court: All right, I understand that. All motions will
be overruled except for the one with reference to the Rev.
Young, as I stated.
All right, we will begin with the arguments for the City,
[fol. 441] Mr. Breckenridge: Your Honor, the opening—
Mr. McBee: Do we have a limited time, or what is it?
The Court: I think an hour to the side ought to be ample
to cover every phase of this testimony that we have been
through.
Mr. McBee: Your Honor, it might be—I don’t know about
the law, but if Your Honor wants to—Your Honor, I as
sume, wants us to argue the law, too ?
The Court: I would like for you to cover the law and the
facts at this time, and at the conclusion of that time limita
tion, if you feel you have not covered such phases of it, I
would be glad to hear a motion and consider that.
F inal A rgument on Behalf of Complainant
Mr. Breckenridge: Your Honor, of course, Your Honor
has heard the facts in the case from the witness stand,
and is familiar with them. Your Honor, there has been
raised a question of the validity of the City ordinance, spe
cifically Section 1159 of the City Code of the City of Bir
mingham, which I believe Your Honor has had before you,
which, in effect, requires the obtaining of a permit from the
City governing body prior to the—any parade in the streets
of the City of Birmingham. Even if that law were invalid,
it is our position that the defendants were not entitled to
ignore any injunction of the court of the State of Alabama.
However, we believe the law is clear on the case that this
ordinance is not invalid, and I would like to call Your
Honor’s attention to no less authority than the Supreme
Court of the United States on that particular point.
I have here—and in discussing this law, we are not
waiving our position that for any reason it were held in-
375
valid, we still insist the respondents were not entitled to
violate it without some determination of this Court, or
some court as to its validity, but the case of Cox versus the
State of New York, 61 Supreme Court—
Mr. Greenberg: New Hampshire, isn’t it?
Mr. Breckenridge: That’s right, Cox versus the State
of New Hampshire, 61 Supreme Court, 762; 312 US, 569.
This case involved the injunction of five Jehovah’s Wit
nesses for parading specifically as was done in this case,
[fol. 442] except the evidence shows our case is more ag
gravated. In Cox versus New Hampshire, it was decided
by Chief Justice Hughes in 1941, and in Cox versus New
Hampshire the Jehovah’s Witnesses met at the central lo
cation and then split up into four or five groups over the
City, and they marched along the sidewalks single file. Each
did have a placard, but the courts specifically held that the
placard was not of particular importance. The court did
say the defendants said they were some fifteen to twenty
feet apart. The State insists the evidence clearly shows
the marchers were as close together as it was possible for
them to walk, and this was a demonstration by a religious
group who had ignored a state law which required the
obtaining of a permit prior to their demonstration. They
may, or may not have been entitled to a permit, but they
did not demand, nor were they turned down for a permit,
and the Supreme Court of the United States, speaking
through Chief Justice Hughes, I think has, in a nutshell,
covered the fundamental principles of law which is involved
in this case, and which is important if we are to maintain
any semblance of authority of local government, and any
semblance of authority of the abilities of the local govern
ment to control certain areas, and in this case the Supreme
Court says there appears to be no grounds for challenging
the ruling of the State Court that appellants were, in fact,
engaged in a parade or obvious law the public wants. As
the State Court observed, it was a march in formation, and
its establishing an invalid torrid circus did not make it
376
otherwise. It is enough it proceeded in order and close file
as a collective body of persons on the city streets.
Chief Justice Hughes, I don’t anyone will deny, is one
of the greatest constitutional lawyers this country has pro
duced, said further in defining the legal opinion here, civil
liberties, as guaranteed by the constitution, employs the
existence of an organized society maintaining public order,
without which liberty, itself, would be lost in the excesses
of unrestrained abuses.
The authority of municipalities to impose regulations
in order to insure the safety and convenience of the people
[fol. 443] in the use of public highways has never been
regarded as inconsistent with civil liberties, but rather as
one of the means of safeguarding the good order upon which
they ultimately depend. The control of travel on streets of
cities in the most familiar illustration of this recognition
—the control of travel on the streets of cities is the most
familiar illustration of this recognition of social need where
a restriction of the use of highways in that relation is
designed to promote the public convenience in the interest
of all. It cannot be disregarded by the attempted exercise
of some civil right, which in other circumstances would
be entitled to protection. One would not be justified in
ignoring the familiar red light because he thought it his
religious duty to disobey the municipal gammon or sort and
that means to direct public attention to an announcement
of his opinion as regulates the streets for parades and
processions which traditionally exercise his control by local
government. The question in a particular case is whether
that control is asserted so as not to deny or unwarrantly
abridge the right of assembly and opportunity for com
munication of thought and the discussion of public ques
tions emonorale associated with result to public places.
The determination of that question, we submit to Your
Honor, cannot be determined until there has been an ap
plication as required by the law, and either a denial or a
granting, and the courts are available for any arbitrary
abuse or discretion in that manner for any denial of civil
377
rights in that question. Certainly the freedom of speech
is not unlimited, although there has been—the familiar
situation, as Justice Holmes said when he said, “You have
freedom of speech, but nobody could holler fire in a crowded
theatre.” We have freedom of speech, but nobody would be
allowed to exercise freedom of speech in disturbing the
court room. Somewhere in there is a balance of authority.
That law propounded by Chief Justice Hughes is a corner
stone upon which municipal and local governments must
be established, and I am glad to see that in the changing
situation as to civil rights in the Federal courts, that that
is one situation and one case that has not been changed.
I have followed that case forward into Bates in 80—that
[fol. 444] was 1941, in 80 Supreme Court, 516—or, 4112, 316
US, 516, Daisy Bates versus Little Rock, decided in 1960.
The court decided that case along with others with recog
nition of that principle, because the Court, in this opinion,
this opinion was written by Mr. Justice Stewart, says
where there is a significant encroachment upon civil rights,
the State may prevail only on showings of ordinate in
terest, which is compelling. He cites this case. It is a
recognition, I submit, by the Supreme Court of the United
States that control of the street in relation to parades is a
case which requires the subordinating of any civil right
to the public interest. Otherwise, why would the Supreme
Court have cited that case. They cited it in 1960 in the
Little Rock case, Bates versus Little Rock. So, we still
have that situation, and then we come on to 81 Supreme
Court, 907—excuse me, that is not the beginning of the case.
We come to Kronenberg versus the State of California,
decided in 1960, and the opinion written by Mr. Justice
Hauling. The court says—
The Court: What is the citation, please?
Mr. Breckenridge: At page 1007, in the United States—
in 81 Supreme Court is the citation which I am reading.
Let me go first to page 1006, which he says at the outset we
reject the view that freedom of speech and association, and
he cites some cases, as protecting the first and fourteenth
378
amendment are absolute. This is a case where they refuse
to permit a person, a candidate to be admitted to the bar,
because he did not answer questions relative to communist
activity. It goes on to 1007, Supreme Court. It says on
the other hand general regulatory statutes are intended to
control the contempt of speech, but incidentally limiting its
unfettered exercise shall not be regarded as the type law
the First and Fourteenth Amendment forbade congress or
the states to pass. Then it goes ahead and cites Cox versus
the State of New Hampshire, the case I just cited.
Certainly that is a recognition again by the Supreme
Court that the municipality has the control of the streets
so as to limit free speech, so as to require a permit to
parade.
[fol. 445] Now, whether they can deny it in the case that
they have, the defendants here have taken it upon them
selves to decide, they can’t deny it is something for the
courts to decide, but certainly nowhere is it said you can
refuse to speak for it. For aught they know, they might
have gotten a permit, and the Supreme Court has said
they can be punished and arrested for not getting a permit,
[fol. 446] Mr. McBee (Continued): In McCowin versus
State of Maryland, just for the purpose of showing Cox
versus State has been accepted by the Supreme Court of
the United States, at page 1155 in McCowin versus State
of Maryland—that is the page the citation is on—it says,
“ But see Cox versus State of New Hampshire in which the
Court, balancing the public benefits secured by regulatory
measures against the degree of impairment of individual
conduct expressive of religious faith, which it entailed, sus
tained the prohibition of an activity similarly regarded by
its participants as sacramental.”
There is Kronenberg versus State of California, 81 Su
preme Court 907. I believe the citation I read was at page
1155. In that same case at page 1016 it says, “ These ex
amples— ” they were referring to a number of examples
referring that there was no absolute right under the con
stitution—
379
The Court: I don’t mean to stop you there, Mr. McBee,
but didn’t you cite last McCowin versus Maryland?
Mr. McBee: Yes.
The Court: And that was the one you were reading
from?
Mr. McBee: That’s right. McCowin versus the State
of Maryland, 81 Supreme Court at page 1155. The case
begins a few pages before it.
Now, turning back to Kronenberg versus State of Cali
fornia, another citation at page 1016 says, “These examples
also serve to illustrate the difference between the sort of
balancing that the majority has been doing and the sort
of balancing that was intended when that concept was first
accepted. The theme came into use chiefly as a result of
cases in which the power of municipalities to keep the
streets open for normal traffic was attacked by groups
wishing to use those streets for religious or political pur
poses.”
We submit under present law, the law of the Supreme
Court of the United States, that the municipality has a
right to enact such an ordinance and that that ordinance
is valid under the decision and there is no excuse for a
force of arms, so to speak, violation. The evidence shows
no request to the governing body of the City for a permit,
and as I said, the ordinance—it is indicated that they
[fol. 447] attacked the ordinance as invalid—we submit
from the outset these cases show conclusively the ordinance
is not invalid, and the invalidity of it can be raised only
by applying for a permit and testing any results resulting
therefrom.
A rgument on B ehalf of R espondents
Mrs. Motley: May it please the Court, the argument will
be divided between myself and Mr. Greenberg, and I will
review as briefly as possible the State’s testimony in this
case.
Now, Your Honor knows the State’s burden in this case
is a very heavy one. They had a duty of demonstrating to
380
this Court beyond a reasonable doubt that these respon
dents had violated the injunction order of this Court.
I would like to direct Your Honor’s attention to pages 87
and 88 of the transcript. I believe Your Honor has a copy.
The Court: I don’t have one, but I will get one.
Mrs. Motley: I will read it, Your Honor. I just want to
check the page. Yes, it is 87 and 88. At this point there was
the representative of the Alabama State Public Safety Com
mission testifying, as Your Honor will recall, and he said
that he appeared at a church here in Birmingham on April
12th and he carefully observed what was going on, and it
is obvious from his position that he is a person who is
trained to observe conduct of individuals, to observe that
conduct to see whether there is any unlawful action being
done by the individual whom he is observing, and therefore
I think his testimony in this case is very important. He
was asked to describe what he saw, the line and so forth, and
he said in answer to the following question at page 88, he
was asked:
“Will you describe this line, just how the line was
formed?”
And his answer was this:
“ It would be extremely hard to, and there again, to es
tablish exactly who was in a planned march, if there was
such a thing, because so many people began moving along
together.”
Now, I think that summarizes the testimony put on by
[fol. 448] the State in this case with respect to the two
marches about which there has been testimony; that is,
the march on Good Friday and the march on Easter Sunday.
If you will read the testimony of the officers who observed
those marches, as the Public Safety representative testified,
it was very hard to say what was going on because there
was this crowd there that followed along and intermingled
with the people who had left the church in an apparent
attempt to take a walk somewhere. And, as he said, he
381
could not tell whether this was an organized thing or
whether these people were just coming out of the church.
In other words, the State has not sustained its burden
of showing that these respondents have engaged in any
unlawful marches or parades as was enjoined by this Court.
Now, as I read this Court’s injunction, this Court did
not intend to enjoin any lawful parade or marching from
a church; it intended to enjoin only unlawful conduct. Well,
the State failed to show that what any of these respondents
did was unlawful.
Now, they make a great point of the fact that the persons
who were marching on Good Friday and Easter Sunday did
not have a permit. Well, I think the evidence is clear that
what happened here was on April 3rd Rev. Shuttlesworth
sent Mrs. Hendricks, who testified, as you recall, this morn
ing; that she went to the City Hall for the purpose of
obtaining permits for picketing and parading by the Ala
bama Christian Movement for Human Rights. She spoke
to a police officer and he referred her to the Commissioners
and she went to the office of the Commissioners and she
was met by the door by Bull Connor—and this is uncon
tradicted—and he told her he would not give her a permit
for anything, he would picket her to the jail.
Now, they didn’t stop at that, as the evidence shows.
The evidence shows they then sent telegrams to responsible
City officials. They sent a telegram to Commissioner Con
nor and Commissioner Connor replied that you have to
refer it to the whole Commission. Well, he was a Com
missioner, and as a responsible public officer obviously his
duty was to take it up with the Commission, but he didn’t
do that.
In addition, they sent a telegram to the Chief of Police,
[fol. 449] another responsible City official. Here are people
making a proper request for a permit and these responsible
City officials doing nothing about it.
Now, the other thing in this case which the City sought
to demonstrate was that these respondents violated this
382
court injunction by making certain statements. If Your
Honor will read the statements allegedly made by these
respondents, Your Honor will see that what these people
were saying, what they really meant by these statements
was that they would not be stopped in their lawful protest
against segregation. Now, there is no question in this case
that what the respondents were doing by all their activity
was protesting against the State’s policy of segregation.
You will remember that we offered to prove by one of the
respondents yesterday that this was the whole purpose of
the Alabama Christian Movement. When Mr. Painter was
on the stand his testimony sustained that this was a protest
group, as he says, a Negro organization, a protest group;
that their theme is nonviolence and that what they seek
is the elimination of segregation. When all these state
ments made by the defendants are read together it is clear
that all that they were saying is that we have started this
peaceful protest against segregation and we will not be
stopped in that peaceful protest. And I think their state
ment attached to the complaint of the City makes it clear
that this is all that they had in mind—not a general de
fiance of law—but that they were determined to carry
forward this protest against segregation, and I think Your
Honor knows that this is a proper and legitimate objective
of any group, to protest peacefully against a State policy,
considered unconstitutional or objectionable by those mak
ing the protest, and that is all that this was about and that
is all that their statements amount to.
[fol. 450] Mrs. Motley (Continued): Now, specifically as
to the testimony of Officer Heley—Inspector Haley. In
spector Haley says that on April 12th, which was Good
Friday, he believed that about fifty-one marchers were
arrested, and Your Honor may recall that the Chief of
Police testified that on both occasions, Good Friday and
Easter Sunday, there were in the neighborhood of eighty
officers at these meetings. Now, it is clear I think to the
Court that if there are eighty officers at a scene and there
383
are more than fifty violating the law or even inarching or
walking that eighty officers would have been able to appre
hend and arrest more than fifty people. Now, he identified
Dr. King and Dr. Abernathy as leading a march on April
12th, but there is not a shred of evidence in this record
that either Dr. King or Dr. Abernathy did anything which
was unlawful. I am sure that this Court does not believe
that walking down a public street on the sidewalk is an
unlawful activity which a court of equity might enjoin.
Now, on Easter Sunday Inspector Haley said that he
saw the Rev. A. D. King at the head of a line. Well, what
testimony is there in this record that the Rev. A. D. King
was doing anything unlawful! He saw him at the head of
line. Is that an unlawful activity! Now, he says on Easter
Sunday there were about twenty something actual arrests.
There are eighty officers on the. scene, twenty people ar
rested. Now, it is obvious, as I said before, with eighty
officers on the scene that there were more than twenty
marchers in that group and those eighty officers, as highly
skilled and trained as they must be, would have been able
to apprehend more than people persons.
Now, the evidence here is that on both of these occasions,
Good Friday and Easter Sunday, there were crowds of
people gathering at the churches where these marchers
started. The police were fully aware of it. In fact, Inspec
tor Haley, I believe it was, testified that there were officers
there several hours prior to any attempted march or pro-
[fol. 451] cession or walk. The officers observed the crowds,
they knew exactly what was taking place. With eighty
officers in the street of Birmingham I am sure Your Honor
will agree with us that that will attract a crowd. But these
officers, as the testimony here shows, didn’t do anything at
all about dispersing these people, getting them out of the
area. If they really believed that the crowd was such that
it could not be controlled, that these people were really
going to engage in unlawful conduct, I am sure this Court
could properly assume that the officers would have removed
that crowd from the area and would not hû e permitted
384
them to congregate. But, as one of the officers testified,
these people weren’t doing anything but standing there.
They were curiosity seekers. They saw eighty policemen
around a Negro church and obviously they were going to
look on to see what happened. When the orderly procession
came out of the church of twenty, or at the most fifty,
people, this crowd was allowed to intermingle with these
marchers and the officers then testified that this was a
procession. Well, obviously it wasn’t. Obviously these
people were just on-lookers and following the procession
to see what would happen to them, to see whether the police
would arrest them, and see what was going on.
The State has failed to prove that this crowd, as they
claim, was organized by these respondents, brought there
by these respondents for the purpose of creating a disturb
ance. And there is not a single piece of evidence which
would sustain any such allegation—this is what these re
spondents did—brought this mob there.
Now, Inspector Haley was the one who testified first I
believe that on April 12th there were two unidentified
Negro men arrested for throwing rocks. Now, if any of
these defendants had thrown any rocks, it certainly hasn’t
been shown in this hearing. Moreover, there has been no
connection shown between those who threw the rocks and
these respondents. Now, as I understand it, these two rocks
were thrown and then there were three or four pieces of
[fol. 452] mortar thrown, again, by unidentified persons
unconnected with these respondents, and this is the only
evidence in the record, as I see it, of any violence, even if
it could be attributed to these defendants, which it clearly
is not. This is the only evidence of any violence. These
people were promptly apprehended.
Now, as to whether these defendants obstructed traffic
by their activities in the City of Birmingham, Inspector
Haley testified that they did not violate traffic signals. That
is on page 23. He testified that the police had blocked
vehicular traffic and not these defendants or respondents.
The police had cut off an area to the traffic, so, there was no
traffic violations by these respondents.
385
He was also asked how they were walking and he said
on Good Friday they marched in two’s, those that he saw.
Then he said they came down the sidewalk and the sidewalk
was so narrow that it couldn’t hold more than two people
on the sidewalk. Now, he was asked whether these marchers
pushed anybody off the sidewalk. That is on page 26. He
said that they didn’t push anyone off the sidewalk. That is
on page 26. He said they didn’t push anyone off the side
walk. He was asked whether they used any profanity. He
said they did not. In other words, he made it clear by his
testimony that these respondents were orderly and the only
thing that this Court sought to enjoin was disorderly con
duct or some other unlawful conduct. So, the State itself
through its own testimony has established that these people
were perfectly lawful, perfectly orderly.
Now, Inspector Haley testified he heard on the television
that Rev. Abernathy said they were going to jail. Now,
the State’s burden in that respect was to show that what
Rev. Abernathy meant or said by that statement was that
he was going to do something in violation of this Court s
order. Now, as the examination brought out, this state
ment doesn’t make it clear at all what Rev. Abernathy
meant by that. He may have been saying he was going to
[fol. 453] jail to visit those that had already been put in
jail for picketing. He could have meant he was going to
jail to talk to the Chief of Police about a permit. In other
words, it isn’t clear at all what he meant by that statement,
and the State had the burden of showing what he meant
by it and that was that he meant he was going to jail as
a result of having specifically violated some order of this
Court.
Now, Inspector Haley was the one who testified he didn t
see Wyatt Walker in either of these marches, and he, as
a matter of fact, on Good Friday didn’t see Shuttlesworth
in the group. But, to sum up Inspector Haley s testimony,
he ended by replying to a question from Mr. Shores that
law and order was maintained. Now, that, as I say, estab
lishes conclusively that whatever these respondents did on
386
Good Friday was lawful and orderly. There was by In
spector Haley’s own testimony no disorder. Law and order
was maintained. There was no one violating any law.
Now, the next witness for the State was a newspaper
man by the name of Johnson. Mr. Johnson’s testimony was
that he attended a news conference in which Rev. M. L.
King was present, Dr. Abernathy, and Rev. Shuttlesworth.
Now, I think Your Honor has a copy of the statement which
was later identified by a police officer which was handed
out at that press conference, and as I said previously, if
you read that statement you will see these respondents
made clear that they did not intend to just violate the
order of this court without any consideration at all as to
its validity and so forth. What they were really saying was
that we are protesting against Alabama and Birmingham’s
policy of segregation and we don’t intend to be stopped
in that protest, and that what we are doing is perfectly
lawful, and that if this injunction intends to enjoin our
lawful activity, this is what we are saying is wrong with
it, it is a method of keeping us from protesting against
segregation. But I think if you read their statement it is
clear that they were not openly defying this Court, as the
City would have this Court believe.
[fol. 454] Now, Mr. Johnson testified he heard the re
spondent—or he wasn’t a respondent as I think we showed
yesterday—but he heard Rev. Bevel make a sermon. Well,
I don’t think this Court intended to enjoin any person from
making a public speech, and certainly not a sermon in a
church, and this is the only testimony, as I see it, in this
record regarding the Rev. Mr. Bevel, that he made a sermon
which he explained yesterday to the Court.
Now, another thing which Mr. Johnson heard at a meet
ing which he attributes to Rev. King, is that Rev. King
said, “We must love all white persons, we must love even
Bull Connor.” Now, I think that this is clear that Rev.
King was trying to express the attitude of his group toward
the white citizens here in the City of Birmingham. I don’t
think that there is any evidence at all that what he was
387
trying to do was stir up hatred against the white people in
this city, as the city would have this Court to believe, or
that they were conspiring to do something illegal. Cer
tainly that statement, which I think summarizes what Dr.
King said at that meeting, “We must love the white people
of Birmingham, even Bull Connor” means that they in
tended not an attitude of defiance even against people that
they considered their enemies, but an attitude of conciliation
and love and negotiation, and everything he said at that
meeting comes down I think to that final statement which
he made.
Now, the only statement attributed to Rev. Abernathy
at this meeting on April 11th, which Mr. Johnson attended,
was the statement to the effect that Rev. Abernathy said he
didn’t like white supremacy or black supremacy or any
other kind of racial supremacy. Here again is a clear indi
cation that what Rev. Abernathy said to the group was that
he was opposed to segregation or hatred against any group
of any kind, and that statement I think proves it conclu
sively that this was his attitude toward the situation which
they were trying to remedy. They were trying to do away
with racialism, whether it was racialism on the part of
[fol. 455] white or racialism on the part of Negroes, and
his attitude was not one of defiance and not one of trying to
do something unlawful.
[fol. 456] Mrs. Motley: Now, as to Wyatt Tee Walker,
Mr. Johnson said that Wyatt Walker attended this meeting
on April 11th, and that Wyatt Walker called for a meeting
of the students on Saturday morning. Now, I don’t under
stand that this Court enjoined any meeting, and I don’t
understand that the calling of a meeting of students is
unlawful, and that is all this record shows, that Wyatt
Walker called for a meeting of students.
And then there was some statement attributed Wyatt
Walker that these students could get a better education in
jail than they could in these segregated schools. Well, I
think again, it is not clear at all what Wyatt Walker meant
by this statement except that he was against speaking
388
about the question of segregation, and that what he had
in mind by calling a meeting of students again was to pro
test against a policy of segregation.
Now, there is nothing, as I can see, to connect this state
ment with any unlawful conduct on the part of Mr. Walker.
It was not even shown whether the meeting was, in fact,
held, or what occurred at that meeting or what he urged
the students to do or whether he merely addressed the
students and talked to them about segregated schools.
Now, another witness for the State was Mr. Ware, the
photographer, and I think from Mr. Ware’s testimony and
the pictures which were introduced by the City, it is clear
that there were not hundreds of people participating in
any march on Easter Sunday. Mr. Ware’s testimony was
that perhaps there were fifty people who took part in a
parade on Easter Sunday. That is on page 97.
Now, he was right there taking pictures, and contrary
to what the City would like this Court to believe, there
were not hundreds of people participating in a march on
Easter Sunday.
Now, there were some other respondents in this case,
and I think the evidence as to these other respondents
shows that they were arrested. The State, I think, even
failed to show what they were arrested for, what they were
doing at the time they were arrested except walking on the
public sidewalk. An officer, City Detective, rather, Harry L.
[fol. 457] Jones, testified that he talked to some of these
respondents after they were arrested; A. D. King, Respon
dent Smith, Porter, and Hays, and that they said to him
that they had knowledge of some injunction. That is his
testimony. But again the State failed to show that these
persons had knoAvledge that any activity which they engaged
in had been enjoined, that they even seen the injunction.
The testimony was that four of these respondents who
were in jail were served after they were in jail. They had
no knowledge of any injunction pointing to them, and all
the State showed, as far as I can see is that they were in
389
jail and that is all. So I think the State has wholly failed
to sustain its very heavy burden of showing that any of
these respondents engaged in any unlawful conduct of
any kind.
Now, among the things which this Court enjoined were
unlawful boycotts. There is no evidence in this case of any
unlawful boycott. This Court enjoined unlawful trespasses
on private property. There is no evidence in this record
to support that—that this was done by any of these re
spondents, that is.
This Court enjoined unlawful picketing. There is no evi
dence that these respondents engaged in any picketing.
Another thing which this Court enjoined was violation of
ordinances of the City of Birmingham. Now, the only
ordinance which the City claims was violated here was an
ordinance requiring a permit for a parade or a demon
stration, and as I said earlier, the evidence is clear that
these respondents sought such a permit on more than one
occasion by sending someone to the City Hall and that
was denied and Rev. Shuttlesworth sent a telegram to
the Commissioner Connor to which he replied to the City
Commission, and in addition a telegram had been sent to
the Chief of Police.
Now, I think it is clear that these respondents had no
intention of violating any of those ordinances of the City
of Birmingham because they made several efforts to secure
a permit as required, and it was denied.
[fol. 458] Now, another thing which this Court sought to
enjoin was kneel-ins in churches. There has been no evi
dence that these persons engaged in any kneel-ins and
marches contrary to the wishes of those holding services
in churches. The only thing which the City has sought to
prove is that on Good Friday and Easter there were illegal
marches, as they call them. There was no permit, and as
I have said, they have failed to demonstrate tiiat what
actually took place or what was attempted was illegal. Cer-
tainlv the evidence was that they were orderly, that they
390
march down the street in twos; and that they did not use
profanity.
They pushed no one off the sidewalk. The evidence is
clear that what they did was to simply walk in an orderly
fashion and they were intercepted by the police and ar
rested and charged with parading without a permit. That
is all the evidence there is in this case. And in addition
there is the evidence regarding this press conference at
which the statement which Your Honor already has was
made clearly indicating a desire to respect the law and
clearly indicating that all they had in mind was a protest,
a peaceful protest against a State policy of segregation.
I think the testimony the Chief of Police and the others
in summation proves that the conduct of these respondents
was entirely lawful. They testified that even though the
crowd was large and a couple of rocks were thrown, they
were, at all times, able to maintain law and order. They
did not need any outside help. They had eighty policemen.
They were perfectly able to control the crowd and the only
evidence of any disorder on the part of that crowd was
the throwing of a couple of rocks.
And I say again that the State has failed in every re
spect to show that any of these respondents have done
anything which violates the injunction order of this Court.
Thank you.
The Court: We will take a five minute recess.
(Brief recess taken.)
The Court: All right.
Mr. Greenberg: May it please the Court, I intend to argue
[fol. 459] some of the law involved in this case and argue
it briefly. The legal principles applicable here are many,
applying to the case from many different angles and we
would respectfully ask the Court for an opportunity to
file a brief within a time that the Court may set as soon
as it may be agreed among the parties so there will be no
delay and so the Court can be adequately briefed on the
issues as we feel it should.
391
Fundamental to the difficulties in this case is the fact
and issue of racial segregation in the City of Birmingham.
But even more fundamental in this case are the freedom
of speech and freedom of assembly and freedom of the as
sociation question that the case involves.
Now, the United States Supreme Court just several weeks
ago decided a case which, while not involving the alleged
violation of an injunction, involved facts which are similar
to this and this is the case of Edwards against South Caro
lina. Now, in that case 187 Negro students marched to the
State House lawn in Columbia, South Carolina. The situa
tion was much like this one. There was no question of a
permit involved. There was no ordinance involved. There
was no injunction involved, but what I am talking about
is the principle of what is involved in such a case and Mr.
Justice Stewart, in reversing the conviction of the Supreme
Court of South Carolina, said that this was the exercise
of free speech rights in its most pristine form. And in
one of the occasions I think it is stated that some of the
petitioners were marching down towards the City Hall and
the fact that this is a free speech issue seems to me to be
absolutely incontrovertable and the fact that large numbers
of people parading to protest racial segregation, parading
to bring this to the attention of governmental officers is
the exercise of free speech rights in their most pristine
form as applicable to this case as well as to the case of
Edwards against South Carolina though recently decided
by the United States Supreme Court and I might add that
two weeks after that the Supreme Court on the authority
of Edwards reversed another conviction of the Supreme
Court of South Carolina, the case being Fields against
[fol. 460] South Carolina, and reversed.
Now, the issue in this case is not whether a march or
a demonstration or speech can be punished if for somehow
or other or for some reason or othei it is conducted m
violation of how as in Cox against New Hampshire where
actual punishment was applied. I think everyone agrees
392
that if the respondents in this case were in violation of the
City Ordinance or in violation of the law and we don’t
concede that they are—in fact, we submit that on this
record they are not, but if they were they could be subse
quently punished. The big issue in this case is shall it be
subsequent punishment or prior restraint, and I think the
United States Supreme Court has, on enumerable occa
sions, said that even on a speech activity or what is called
“ Speech-plus” may be punished. It cannot be restrained in
advance.
In other words, there may be a prior restraint. Now,
there are enumerable cases on this, Mear against Minne
sota, a criminal liable case, and Minnesota was publishing-
statement that were allegedly criminal liable, and its pub
lication wasn’t enjoined. There was no question that crim
inal liable may be punished or that damages may be as
sessed in a liable suit. But the United States Supreme
Court said it may be enjoined.
It may not be restrained prior to publication. It may
not be restrained in advance. There is a case that is, I
would say, on all fours with this case.
The United States Supreme Court decision of Thomas
against Codings, in that case an organizer for the United
Auto Workers went to Texas, and in violation of the City
Ordinance, did not obtain a permit to address the workers.
A temporary restraining order was entered against him
as has been entered in this case. He spoke in violation of
that temporary restraining order. He was found in con
tempt of court.
The issue in this case was should he have been held in
contempt of court for violating an order even if the order
were void. The United States Supreme Court held the
order void and it also reversed the adjudication of contempt,
[fol. 461] Now, if I might I would like to read a few words
from the decision in Thomas against Codings. The Court
held there was restriction upon Thomas’ right to speak and
the right of the workers to hear what he had to say. There
393
can be no doubt the threat of the restraining order backed
by the tower of contempt and of arrest for crime hung over
every word.
But in reversing the conviction the Court held, “ The re
straint is not small but it is considered what was restrained.
The right is a national right, federally guaranteed. Speech
and assembly by all citizens of the public may be exercised
throughout its length and breadth, but no state altogether
nor the nation itself can prohibit, restrain, or impede if
the restraint were smaller than it is from pity that large
ones take root and grow.
This fact can be no more plain than we are imposed upon
and the most basic rights of all. Seedlings planted in that
soil grow great and growing break down the foundations
of liberty.
Now, if I am correct, I gathered from Your Honor’s
statement at the outset of the case that Your Honor
deems the decision of the United States against the United
Mine Worker’s at some hearing on this situation and we
respectfully submit that it does not. There were nine
judges sitting in that case and five opinions were written
by those nine judges. Of those nine judges only two judges
held that the order was void and the adjudication of con
tempt was valid. Justices Black and Douglas held that it
was a valid order and there was a valid finding of con
tempt. Justices Murray and Routledge held it was a void
order, and therefore the adjudication of contempt was void.
Justices Vincent and Reed and Burton held that it was
a valid order and the adjudication of contempt was valid,
although they stated in a dictum that if the order were
void the adjudication of contempt would be valid, but that
is a dictum. But only two of the nine so held and the
United States Supreme Court, prior to the United Mine
Workers and Thomas against Collings, and subsequent
[fol. 462] to the United States Mine Workers in at least
two cases, United Gas, Coke and Chemical Workers versus
Wisconsin Employment Relations Board 383, and in the
394
matter of Green, 369 U. S., 89, lias reversed adjudications
of contempt when the order upon which they were founded
was void.
So we submit that this is the exercise of a free speech
right, and fundamental right in its proper pristine form,
that if the order of contempt is void—that if the injunction
order was void, as we urge that it is, then the order of
contempt is also void and that the United Mine Workers
case is not controlling but the federally protected constitu
tional rights of free speech cases are the cases that control
this situation.
This is only a small part of the law that might be argued
in its connection and we would respectfully ask the Court
for a brief of time that it might set so we may submit
briefs on the matter.
The Court: Mr. McBee?
Mr. McBee: If it please the Court, how much time do
I have?
The Court: Forty-five minutes.
R ebuttal A bgument by Complainant
Mr. McBee: Let me comment just briefly on the ques
tions that have been presented by Greenberg. The first
point that we would discuss is United States Versus United
Mine Workers in which the majority opinion was written
by the Chief Justice Benson and in which opinion the state
ment is made following an earlier case. “ Proceeding fur
ther, we find impressive authority for the proposition that
an order issued by a court with jurisdiction over the sub
ject matter and person must be obeyed by the party until
it is reversed by orderly and proper proceedings. This is
true without regard even for the constitutionality of the
act under which the order is issued.” And he cites two
cases.
Now, Mr. Justice Frankfort subscribes to that principle
very fully in his opinion which was, in one particular, a dis
sent, but in that particular respect he was thoroughly in
accord.
395
[fol. 463] Mr. Justice Jackson joined in the opinion, ex
cept he said that he thought that the Norris LaGuardia act
made to the issuance of the injunction unlawful, but all five
of these gentlemen subscribed to the views—these members
of the court subscribed to the views that are pronounced
here.
Now, as far as I know, other than some decisions which
refer to the possible matter of civil contempt, the fact of the
ultimate outcome of the injunction, unless there is a com
plete and total and obvious usurpation of authority by the
trial court, the sole and the only requirement is that the
court of jurisdiction of the parties in the subject matter
and the right as a matter of general law to issue injunc
tions.
Now, in this case Your Honor has jurisdiction as a court
of equity and certainly is vested by that right by the stat
utes of this state. So, the question is did Your Honor have
jurisdiction and Your Honor did because Your Honor had
a petition filed. Now, there was some argument made but
the City of Fairfield has already been, so far as our own
Supreme Court is concerned, it has been passed upon and
does sustain the right to issue an injunction in a situation
of this kind.
Now, I am very familiar with Thomas versus Codings
also. I would like to comment on this difference between
Thomas versus Codings in our situation. In Thomas ver
sus Codings a public building had been rented and this
man came to make one speech.
Now, they had an ordinance there, or statute, I have
forgotten which it was now, requiring anybody that might
wish to be an organizer or labor organizer to cause the labor
people to join unions should have a permit before they
came in as organizers.
And the Court specifically pointed out that he had a
round-trip ticket that would take him back and he came,
I think, one day, and he was going back the next two days,
I believe it was, but there was no question about a street
or the use of the street in the South Carolina case, the
396
ffol. 464] Edwards case. There is no problem similiar to our
situation involved because there the group congregated
without any question, without any—in other words there
was no question of a permit or anything of that kind. They
were there with the invitation of the authorities, and after
they got there and they got on the State Capitol grounds
some incident occurred and the police department then
thought that they ought to be dispersed and the Supreme
Court of the United States felt that they were possibly
premature in dispersing this group and improperly ar
rested, I believe, for disorderly conduct, as I recall.
Now, that briefly covers the cases. I don’t think I have
read United States versus Gas, U. S. Gas & Coke and the
Green cases, but so far as I know, the United Mine Workers
have not been overturned unless it is quite clear and ob
vious that the Court is usurper in the exercise of its effort
to issue a so-called injunction, and that is not the case in
our situation.
Now, I need to comment a little bit—I think the Court,
perhaps, in analyzing this evidence now, the first speakers
representing the respondents laid great stress upon the
fact that these people were trying to comply with the law,
that they had no intention and no purpose to do otherwise,
and that they loved everybody, she said, that Rev. Martin
Luther King loved everybody and loved Mr. Connor and
the white people of all kinds, and they did not preach any
sort of hatred or anything of that kind. Now, I want to
dwell on that a little bit further, but before I do that I
would like to say this, Your Honor.
[fol. 465] That is referring now—I want to comment on
this case, Your Honor, because I think it is quite im
portant, and that is ex parte Textile Workers Union of
America, 89 So. 2d, Page 92, in which the Court is talking
about this matter of the violation of an injunction and
restraining orders. This particular situation arose in a
labor dispute, but most of all the—I mean a great many
of the cases in the Courts arose in that way, involving the
various amendments of freedom of speech, and so on.
397
(Whereupon Mr. McBee read from page 92, 89 So. 2d.)
I think, may it please the Court, that all the way through,
the tenure of this thing has been there never has been any
intention to violate the injunction, they haven’t tried to
violate the injunction. Let’s see, now—and that they had
no intention to defy your Honor, they had no intention to
do anything except the greatest respect for Your Honor’s
Court, and Your Honor’s order and decree, and all they
wanted to do was just what they could do lawfully. I think
that Your Honor should not be misled if that may have
been the purpose, or may not have been the purpose. Cer
tainly Your Honor should have in mind that there is more
evidence other than the press releases, themselves, in this
case.
Now, something is said about well, now, Rev. Martin
Luther King on Good Friday, he wasn’t leading a march.
He wasn’t going any where. What does he do, then? Let’s
see, now. Let’s see what he declared he was going to do.
Now, this is taken from the testimony of the young gentle
men from the United Press. It is Mr. Elvin Stanton, and
here is the thing he said that Rev. Martin Luther King
said at this meeting. Now, they have meetings every night
following the—before and following, but we are interested
in mostly following the injunction. “ Injunction, or no in
junction, we are going to march”, and then he goes on,
“here in Birmingham, we have reached the point that we
can’t turn back, and Bull Connor will know that an injunc
tion can’t stop us.”
Now, not only that, but Rev. Abernathy, who was one of
the officers in this movement, leaders, according to the tes-
[fol. 466] timony of Mr. Johnson, the United Press re
porter, what did he say on the very night when he got the
injunction? He says, “ Neither the injunction, or anything
else is going to stop us.” Now, what did Martin Luther
King say to them on this when they were asking questions
about it, about the press conference? Well, he said this:
They asked him, said, “What are you going to do?” That
398
is what some of these press people said, and he said, and
this is a quote, “We will continue today, tomorrow, Satur
day, Sunday, Monday, and on.”
Now, I asked—and here was a part about “ Give me
liberty, or give me death.” That was Eev. Abernathy
speaking. They all cheered, all cheered. Everybody in the
whole crowd cheered in the background, according to the
testimony, and this group that was immediately in the
presence cheered. All right, let me see what else he said.
What did Shuttlesworth say? Rev. Shuttlesworth: “ They
had respect for the federal courts, or federal injunctions,
but in the past the state courts had favored local enforce
ment, and if the police couldn’t handle it, the mob would.”
Now, I submit that that testimony is in the record. Now,
what did he mean? What did he mean, “ If the police
couldn’t handle it, the mob would” ? All right, was he
talking about that mob that gathered down there on Easter
Sunday? Now, it rather a stretch of the imagination to
argue to Your Honor that they didn’t gather this group
down there. In the first place—
The Court: Be quiet, please. We will have no talking,
please.
Mr. McBee: In the first place, they put one of these
defendants on the witness stand, and I asked the witness,
I said, Didn’t they call for volunteers to call and m ake-
get all of the Negroes to come. That was on Saturday
night when they made that call, and he said, “ Yes” . He
said, “ Yes, they did”, on Cross Examination, and I couldn’t
get out of him how many he called, but he said that they
did, and I asked this Reverend how did you happen to go
down there, and he said everybody was going. Everybody
was going. I asked Rev. Hays, “What were you doing
[fol. 467] down there” and he said he had decided to go,
everybody was going, and I said, “ Did you go down there
to march?”, and he said, “ Oh, he didn’t know what he was
going to do.” That was Easter Sunday, “but I made up
my mind that I was going to do whatever turned up at the
present time.” That isn’t exactly the words, but that the
399
substance of what he said. He just went down there to
take part, and he was going to take part in it. He didn’t
know what it was going to be, but it was going to be some
thing, and he went down there for that purpose.
Now, there is something about this thing that doesn’t
ring completely true, in my humble opinion, and that is
there has protests, and protests upon protests that we don’t
believe in violence, and yet—and yet here was this man,
this organizer from Mississippi, a District Representative,
or Regent Representative, I have forgotten his exact title,
this man, James Bevel, he come over here. He said he
heard about this injunction, about some rabble rousing, and
he come over here, and he began to do some rabble rousing.
He began to tell these people, he said, “You all are sick.”
I said, “ What are they sick about?”, and he said, “Well,
because they don’t have integration, that is why they are
sick.” I said—I questioned him, and I said, “ Well, now,
you are saying some things, some remarks about the police
department.” Now, this young gentleman, Mr. Johnson,
has previously testified that he made some disparaging
remarks about the police department. He said, “ Oh, yes,
he talked about them,” and I said, “You didn’t say any
thing good about them, did you?” and he said, “No, he
didn’t say anything good about them, I don’t know any
thing good about them, all I know is bad.” I said, you
spoke about Commissioner Connor, and he said, “Oh, yes.”
Did you say anything good about him? No, I didn’t say
anything good about him. Well, what was his purpose?
That was on Friday night before this thing, this great
gathering of converted—that began a mob, and that was
the testimony of Commissioner—from Inspector Haley.
It was also the testimony of this reporter, Mr. Ware, that
it was an unruly mob. All right, now, was that the mob
that F. L. Shuttlesworth was going to gather together, and
[fol. 468] what was the mob to do? Was it to defy the law,
was it to promote and incite riots? Certainly, that influ
ence is before Your Honor in this case. If the police can’t
handle it, then the mob can. That is what he said.
400
Now, let’s go a little further. After they had the thing
going, you talk about they didn’t gather that group to
gether, they didn’t have control over it. Well, Wyatt Tee
Walker said—he was talking to this witness, who was also
a capable witness, this law enforcement man from Mont
gomery, Mr. Painter, and he says, Mr. Painter says, he
said to Wyatt Tee Walker, he says it looks like to me there
is danger of somebody getting hurt here, and he says—and
that was on Sunday, that was the very day that this violence
broke out, the very day. Then, he said if you will control
yourself and the police as well as I can control this crowd,
there won’t be any problem. I guarantee I can control these
people. All right, a tremendous crowd of people, estimates
up as high as two thousand, and he says he can control
them. All right, was it their crowd that was there? Just
remember, Your Honor, a couple of important additional
bits of testimony, and that is that, as I mentioned a moment
ago, there was no question but that they gathered this
group, they were gathering a large crowd. There was also
no question whatever about the fact that Wyatt Tee
Walker came out and organized this group that was out
side of the Church, outside of the Church. Now, that was
what Mr. Painter testified. He was right directly across
the avenue from them when he was doing it, and when this
group came out of the Church, I believe one of the witnesses
said there was several hundred, everybody in the Church
joined in, and evidently everybody else outside the Church,
or thereabouts, joined in, because as the Exhibits 4, 5 and
6 of the City will show, there was a tremendous group in
volved, covering the entire street, the sidewalks, the entire
area, and they were led by these preachers who were
robed in, I think, black robes. I am not sure of the color,
[fol. 469] All right, now, what else about that crowd?
After things had gotten so bad that they began to throw
rocks, and strike this man, this photographer, and damage
property belonging to the City, and narrowly missing other
officers of the City, after that happened, then the Rev.
Wyatt Tee Walker, he gives them a signal to circle the
401
block, circle the block, talking to this great, tremendous
crowd of people, and they began to circle the block, in the
palm of his hand. Now, I submit, may it please the Court,
that the evidence in this case from this—from the witness
stand in this case leads to an inference, to an inference that
either—and I want to comment on one other bit of evi
dence, that either they had the intention of creating a
tremendous tragic incident down there that day, or they
were hoping to goad the Police Department, or someone
else into creating an incident in order they might be on the
press or wire for money raising purposes, or whatever
purposes they might see fit to gain out of it.
And, this is very significant: on the night of the 12th,
Good Friday night, when Mr. Painter talked to Wyatt Tee
Walker, Wyatt Tee Walker said I am very—we don’t know
what is the matter here. We haven’t—that is my own way
of putting it. His words were not exactly that, but I sub
mit this is the essence of it. The Police Department hasn’t
engaged in violence. The Police Department hasn’t en
gaged in any violence. They have tried to protect us, and
he was very much disappointed that something hadn’t hap
pened, and we say, may it please the Court, that the direct,
the immediate inference to be drawn from this testimony
is that that is exactly what they were wanting to do, and
if they are permitted to do so, that is exactly what they
will wind up by doing. That is why, may it please the Court,
that we appealed to Your Honor to give this injunction, and
that is why we are appealing to Your Honor to sentence
each and every one of these defendants who are in this
case for contempt, and that Your Honor take appropriate
action to have these defendants to specifically declare that
they do have some respect for the law, whether they like
the law, or not, whether they like the courts, or not, and
whether they like Your Honor’s order, or not. Your Honor
[fol. 470] is entitled to the respect and dignity of a tribunal
of law, and if the time ever comes when a group can make
up its own mind, and that seemed to be the theory of the
whole defense, these people must make up their own minds
402
what they can do, and what they can’t do, and they talk
about telegrams to Chief Moore and to Commissioner Con
nor, and one of the telegrams, they say we want to picket,
and I believe the witness, Hendricks, testified she went to
see Commissioner Connor, or met him in his office, or at
the office, and he said he Avasn’t going to give any permit
to picket. I believe that is Avhat she said, but Commissioner
Connor, in response to the telegram that was sent from
the Movement, signed by Shuttlesworth, sent back a reply
that that matter is in the hands of the City Commission
as to whether or not a permit is granted. Was any request
made for a permit? No. Did they want to have any permit
issued? I submit they did not.
What did the Rev. Abernathy say on this night before the
Good B’ riday parade? He says I am happy now, because I
am going to jail tomorrow. Rev. King and I are going to
jail tomorrow. Well, does that sound like they Avere going
to go to visit some jail, some people in jail? They intro
duced these people that come out of the jail, and that is a
mark of distinction, the fact that they had been in jail.
Yes, tAvelve of them—tAventv of them, I believe, Avas intro
duced one night, twenty of them introduced one night, and
Rev. Abernathy Avas so happy he Avas going to jail. Noav, did
he expect to go to jail without violating the law? Of course,
he didn’t, and he didn’t AA’ant to comply with the laAv, he
didn’t Avant to apply for a parade permit, or procession per
mit. He didn’t want to respond to the lawful procedures, but
he wanted to decide for himself what to do, and the telegram
that was introduced there to Chief Moore, what did that
say? Did that say give me a permit? No, it didn’t say that.
It said I am telling you Avhat I am going to do. I am going
to decide. Now’, that is just the Avhole thing that is wrong
Avith all of this business Ave have got here, and that is it is
obviously a decision in their minds that they Avant to do
Avhat they think they ought to do, and it doesn’t make any
[fol. 471] difference Avhether it is lawful, or unlawful if
they decide that they Avant to do it, and it meets their con
venience, or seems to be to their best interest.
403
And so again we submit, may it please the Court, that
in this case the Court ought to speak strongly and clearly
that they can’t get by with this kind of incidents. After
all, this is a government of law, it is a government of order,
and if ever we get away from that, then we are in chaos,
we are an anarchy, and as has been so carefully said, and
I believe Mr. Breckenridge quoted that the reason why it
is necessary to abide by the law is that the law is the source
of protection not only for the fellows who think it might
be right to ignore it for a time, but in the overall, a move
ment of society of obedience to the law is required, and it
is a must.
I just want to say one or two words about the Rev. Bevel,
one or two more words. Now, the evidence is that he spoke
on this Friday night meeting, he spoke on the night that
Wyatt Tee Walker says he—Mr. Johnson said every night
they called for volunteers to go to jail. Now, for them to go
to jail, as some people over here have said, is it to go to jail
to see Commissioner Connor, or go to jail to see Chief
Moore? Well, that wouldn’t be the place they were going
to be anyway. You mostly can find them down at the City
Hall. You wouldn’t go to jail to see them. Nobody over
there but the warden, and people in jail, and the people
that have them in custody. Were they going over to the
jail to see somebody, or see something? Was that the
reason they were going to jail! Well, it doesn’t sound very
logical, because they were calling every night for volun
teers to go to jail, and they were holding up these people
that had been to jail as examples of I don’t know what,
but I suppose to encourage the others to want to go to jail,
too, and how were they going to get in jail? They knew
they were going to get in jail if they violated the law. That
is how they knew. They knew they would, and they did,
and so, may it please the Court, with reference to the words
of the Rev. James Bevel, I am not—I think he said he was
a reverend. He admitted he came over here because he
[fol. 472] knew about the injunction. He came over here,
and he gave this inflammatory talk, and then he said he
404
asked them to rise up and walk, and I said yon meant by
that that you wanted them to join in these activities, or
these demonstrations, and he said, yes, that is what I meant,
that is exactly what I meant.
Now, the injunction, what does the injunction say? It
says—now, remember this: we have this other leadership
conference as a party defendant, and also the Human Rights
group. It says, “ The respondents, and others identified in
the bill of complaint, their agents, members, employees,
servants, followers, attorneys, successors, and all other
persons in active concert or participation with the respon
dents and all persons having notice of said order from con
tinuing any action hereinabove designated, and so on, and
so forth.
All right, was this an ongoing movement? Was this a
mass attempt to defy Your Honor’s injunction? It is per
fectly obvious it was, perfectly obvious, meeting after meet
ing on night after night calling for volunteers, volunteers
to go to jail, and then finally on Friday night, volunteers
to die. All right, all right, what did that mean? What did
volunteer to die ? Did that mean we are going to have some
volunteers here on some other date who will precipitate
some trouble and possibly goad somebody in the excitement
of getting killed? Is that it? Maybe the ones that start it
may be the ones to get killed. But, surely there is nothing
about a peaceful movement that I know of that needs any
volunteers to die. That kind of an organization may speak
with a one tongue and may move with other feet, and I
say, may it please the Court, that Your Honor is justified
in this case from the evidence to reach that exact conclu
sion in this case, and we do ask Your Honor to find these
defendants, each of them, guilty of contempt.
Now, some mention about the fact that maybe they didn’t
get served. Well, that isn’t necessary. Speaking now, the
National Labor Relations Board against Blackstone, which
Judge Hard, a circuit judge was writing the opinion, one
23 Fed. 2nd. At page—it starts on page 633, and it ends
[fol. 473] on page 635. Judge Hard says: “ That there is
405
no doubt that this is the law,” speaking of the contempt
citation against a defendant who was not a defendant to
this suit, not in the original injunction, but acting in con
cert with that defendant, “ There can be no doubt that this
is the law. Actually, I have always treated as carsination
those who take an actual part in the defendant’s own vio
lation of the injunction, provided they have notice of the
decree.”
Every last one of these people said they knew about the
injunction. All right, are they entitled to act without in
forming themselves when they know about the injunction?
Well, reading from this, and I am not certain of the
man’s name, D-a-n-g-e-1. How he pronounces it, I am not
sure, but he says this: “ That the ignorance of the law, or
the ignorance of the injunction is not available as a defense
where he knew about the injunction and deliberately failed
to ascertain its terms.” That is page 178, Your Honor.
The law doesn’t permit a defendant allied with a group
of defendants such as this to participate in the activities,
and bear in mind on the night that Rev. Young spoke down
at that meeting, on that very night when he was urging
them to all become participants, and to come and join in
their activities. He says to keep it going. He says we have
got the movement going, we have proven it is a great
movement. Now, can we keep it, can we keep it going.
That very night—Your Honor must bear in mind that the
testimony comes in the context in which it follows, and the
background in which it occurred. What were they doing
down there that night? Well, that was the night they were
—that was the Friday night that they were imploring volun
teers to die. They were also imploring volunteers to go to
jail. Rev. Wyatt T. Walker was active just about here,
and there, and everywhere. Executive director, I believe
the testimony shows, of the whole works. The planner—
not the planner, no, I don’t guess that’s right, but the
strategist, the decision maker. Did Wyatt Tee Walker do
anything? Did he do anything? Well, it seems to me that
406
he was the man behind the scenes in all of this thing. You
[fol. 474] can see him all through it everywhere calling on
people to die for him. What right has a man got to make
a call of that kind?
We submit that under all the evidence and all the law
each of these defendants before Your Honor at this time,
without question, without doubt, beyond all shadow of any
doubt, are guilty of contempt, and they should be so held,
in our humble opinion.
The Court: The Court doesn’t consider the necessity of
any further briefs in reference to the law in the case. The
motion to that extent would be denied, and the case is ad
journed until Friday morning at 9 :30.
(Whereupon at 4:00 o’clock P.M., proceedings were ad
journed)
[fol. 475] April 26, 1963 9:30 a.m.
(The court was reconvened pursuant to adjournment.)
The Court: Before I read this decree, I understand there
may be some motion you want to file on the record, or do
you have it typed?
Mr. Greenberg: It is being typed at this moment. This
is a motion reducing to writing our motion to exclude the
evidence that we made at the conclusion of the trial. We
hope you will allow us to file it this morning.
The Court: It is my understanding that motion has been
overruled by the Court and permission is given just to
reduce it to writing.
Mr. Greenberg: Yes, sir.
The Court: I think the purposes will be best served by
the Court reading its decree that has been prepared in this
case.
407
[fol. 481]
Complainant ’s E xhibit 1
(Identification)
MGE 7 (Q)
(Eacial)
(Birmingham)—Southern Integration Leader Martin
Luther King has recruited more than fifty volunteers for
a Good Friday march on City Hall.
The march is scheduled to begin at noon . . . . Despite a
temporary injunction order filed on King by State and
Jefferson County authorities.
Negroes defiantly proceeded with anti-segregation dem
onstrations in Birmingham yesterday despite the Circuit
Court Order restraining King and his associates from such
racial protests.
Twenty Negroes picketing downtown steel city stores yes
terday were arrested . . . . Bringing to 163 the total num
ber of arrests in nine days of racial protest. None of the
demonstrators were named in the court order.
King told a crowd at a church last night—and we quote—
“ Injunction or no injunction, we’re going to march. Here
in Birmingham we have reached the point of no return and
now (authorities) will know that an injunction can’t stop
us.”
A chief aide to King, the Eeverend Wyatt Tee Walker,
says “Knee-ins” are planned for Easter Sunday. Walker
says the Negroes can pick whatever church they want for
the Easter demonstrations.
CST DMS44A4/12
408
C O R R E C T I O N :
— 0 —
Editors: The number of demonstrators arrested in Bir
mingham now totals 168. Please correct the third line of
the first Alabama headline which moved on the last split
(MGR1) to read X X X at least 163.
UPI MONTGOMERY
DMS45A4/12CST
ffol. 482] MGR10
C O R R E C T I O N
In racial story above (MGR7) read wire hits in the fifth
pgh X X X And now (authorities will know that an injunc
tion can’t stop us.” Picking up next pgh X X X A chief aide
etc.
UPI MONTGOMERY
4/12CST . . DMS50A
T RAR
409
Complainant ’s E xhibit 2
NEWS from
A labama Christian M ovement for H uman R ights
505!/2 N o. 17th Street
B’ham, Ala.
FOR RELEASE 12:00 Noon, April 11, 1963
S tatement by M. L. K ing, Jr., F. L. S huttlesworth,
R alph D. A bernathy, et al. for E ngaging in P eaceful
D esegregation D emonstrations
In our struggle for freedom we have anchored our faith
and hope in the rightness of the Constitution and the moral
laws of the universe.
Again and again the Federal judiciary has made it clear
that the priviledges guaranteed under the First and the
Fourteenth Amendments are to sacred to be trampled upon
by the machinery of state government and police power.
In the past we have abided by Federal injunctions out of
respect for the forthright and consistent leadership that
the Federal judiciary has given in establishing the prin
ciple of integration as the law of the land.
However we are now confronted with recalcitrant forces in
the Deep South that will use the courts to perpetuate the
unjust and illegal system of racial separation.
ffol. 483] Alabama has made clear its determination to
defy the law of the land. Most of its public officials, its
legislative body and many of its law enforcement agents
have openly defied the desegregation decision of the Su
preme Court. We would feel morally and legal responsible
to obey the injunction if the courts of Alabama applied
equal justice to all of its citizens. This would be sameness
made legal. However the ussuance of this injunction is a
blatant of difference made legal.
410
Southern law enforcement agencies have demonstrated now
and again that they will utilize the force of law to misuse
the judicial process.
This is raw tyranny under the guise of maintaining law
and order. We cannot in all good conscience obey such an
injunction which is an unjust, undemocratic and unconsti
tutional misuse of the legal process.
We do this not out of any desrespect for the law but out of
the highest respect for the law. This is not an attempt to
evade or defy the law or engage in chaotic anarchy. Just
as in all good conscience we cannot obey unjust laws,
neither can we respect the unjust use of the courts.
We believe in a system of law based on justice and morality.
Out of our great love for the Constitution of the U. S. and
our desire to purify the judicial system of the state of
Alabama, we risk this critical move with an awareness of
the possible consequences involved.
F or F urther I nformation—Phone 324-5944
Wyatt tee walker
Public Information
Officer
411
[fob 483a] Complainant’s E xhibit No. 3
412
[fob 483b] Complainant’s E xhibit No. 4
413
[fob 483c] Com plainant ’s E xhibit No. 5
414
[fob 483d] Complainant’s E xhibit No. 6
(See opposite) HSr”
y j j
* .>- - * |- ,'*9>r - ' *i „ •
-*■’" - »m — - rgr£— 1 1
ft “ I
415
[fol. 484]
Respondent’s E xhibit A
WESTERN UNION TELEGRAM
229P CST APR 5 63 NSD270
NS BMD128 PD FAX BIRMINGHAM ALA 5 214P CST
F L SHUTTLESWORTH 505y2 N 17 St
ANS DATE BHAM
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CITY CODE OF
THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, A PERMIT TO PICKET
AS REQUESTED BY YOU CANNOT BE GRANTED BY
ME INDIVIDUALLY JBUT S T HK. JRE SPOX SIHQ1TY
OF THE, ENTIRE..flQMMISSIQSL I INSIST THAT
YOU 'AN D YOUR PEOPLE DO NOT START ANY
PICKETING ON THE STREETS IN BIRMINGHAM,
ALABAMA
EUGENE “BULL” CONNOR, COMMISSIONER OF
PUBLIC SAFETY (26).
Bull to Billingsley
Ala Code
1st Amendment
6 Amendment
Supreme Court So Carolina
416
AS BHAM APR 5 1021AC
69 PD 4 EX (CPN FURN)
R e s p o n d e n t ’s E x h i b i t B
EUGENE BULL CONNOR
POLICE COMMISSIONER CITY HALL
BHAM
DEAR MR CONNOR, THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT
THE ALABAMA CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT FOR
HUMAN RIGHTS REQUEST A PERMIT TO PICKET
PEACEFULLY AGAINST THE INJUSTICES OF SEG
REGATION AND DISCRIMINATION IN THE GEN
ERAL AREA OF SECOND THIRD AND FOURTH AV
ENUES ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDEWALKS OF
19 STREET ON FRIDAY AND SATURDAY APRIL
FIFTH AND SIXTH. WE SHALL OBSERVE THE
NORMAL RULES OF PICKETING. REPLY RE
QUESTED.
FL SHUTTLESWORTH
PRESIDENT
NH SMITH SECRETARY
ALA CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT
505 i/2 N 17 St BHAM
417
Respondent’s Exhibit C
COPY DO NOT SEND
[fol. 485]
PK BHAM APR 6
CHIEF OF POLICE JAIMIE MOORE AND
POLICE COMMISSIONER EUGENE BULL CONNOR
CITY HALL BHAM
SHERRIF MELVIN BAILEY
COUNTY COURTHOUSE GHAM
324-5944
DEAR SIRS: THIS IS TO ADVISE YOU THAT A
GROUP OF NOT MORE THAN THIRTY PERSONS
WILL ACCOMPANY ME TO CITY HALL FOR A BRIEF
PRAYER SERVICE. OUR ROUTE IS AS FOLLOWS
5tli AVENUE TO 19th STREET CROSSING TO THE
EAST SIDEWALK THENCE TO CITY HALL TO
FRONT PARAPET BLOCKING NO DOORS OR SIDE
WALKS. WE WILL RETURN VIA 19TH STREET,
4TH AVENUE TO 15TH. WE SHALL DISPERSE AT
5th AVENUE NORTH AND 16th STREET. OUR GROUP
WILL BE ORDERED ORDERLY. NO MORE THAN
TWO ABREAST STRICTLY OBSERVING ALL TRAF
FIC SIGNALS. VERY TRULY YOURS
F L SHUTTLESWORTH
ALA CHRISTIAN MO
505 Vi North 17
Mail to 505 y2 North 17th St
R espondent’s E xhibit D
(Identification)
Statement of Counsel Authorized by Respondents
Wyatt Tee Walker, Ralph Abernathy, F. L. Shuttles-
worth, and Martin Luther King, Jr., in Response to
Order and Rule to Show Cause
This court, on the 15th day of April 1963, Hon. W. A.
Jenkins, Jr., Circuit Judge sitting in equity, ordered that
respondents Wyatt Tee Walker, Ralph Abernathy, F. L.
Shuttlesworth and Martin Luther King, Jr., shall publicly
retract or recant statements made publicly at press con
ferences and mass meeting on April 11, 1963, of their inten
tion to violate the injunction described in the petition of the
City of Birmingham in the above-entitled case.
These respondents desire to clarify their position and
publicy state to the court that they have had no intention
of violating the law. Respondents’ intend only to do, and in
the future only will do, the following acts secured to them
by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the
United States:
1. Urge the citizens of Birmingham to assert and exer
cise their constitutional rights to protest peacefully against
racial segregation.
2. Hold lawful meetings to urge their views upon the
citizens of Birmingham.
3. Picket peacefully in lawful numbers and in a lawful
manner and urge the citizens of Birmingham to make pur
chases in establishments from which they are not excluded
or otherwise discriminated against on the basis of race.
4. Urge citizens of Birmingham to exercise their federal
constitutional privilege to register to vote.
5. Urge citizens of Birmingham to attend church without
regard to race.
418
[fol. 486]
6. Otherwise urge citizens of Birmingham to exercise
their federal constitutional rights.
7. Section 369 of the City Code of Birmingham on its
face requires proprietros to practice racial segregation in
[fol. 487] eating facilities in contravention to the Four
teenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Respondents
have urged and will urge Nego citizens to exercise their
right to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the U. S. Constitution by remaining seated
in lunch counters and seeking service there despite the
Birmingham Ordinance which compels proprietors to re
fuse service solely because the patrons are Negroes.
8. Respondents will not urge their follows to engage
in mass picketing, block ingress and egress of places of
business or engage in any violence.
9. Respondents will not urge their follows to congregate
into mobs on streets or in public places.
10. Respondents do not intend to perform acts calculated
to cause breaches of the peace.
11. Respondents have urged their followers to attempt
to attend the churches of Birmingham on a non-segregated
basis. In some churches Negroes were accepted and per
mitted to participate in the services with the regular mem
ber of the church. This was the sole am of the Respondents.
The Respondents have urged and will urge persons to de
part from the church premises if refused admittance and in
all instances in the past this suggestion has been followed.
419
420
have, why they should not be found guilty of contempt for
violating this Court’s order which enjoined the original
respondents as named in the bill of complaint and others
acting in concert with them from doing said unlawful acts
as prohibited therein.
The said petition charges the violating of the Court’s
order granting the temporary injunction by their issuance
oTa press release, tTcopy of widen Is at tached as an exhibit
to the petition, which release allegedly contained derogatory
statements concerning Alabama Courts and the injunctive
order of this Court in particular. The said petition further
charges the violation of the said injunctive order by the
defendants’ participating in and conducting certain alleged
parades in violation of an ordinance of the City of Bir
mingham which prohibits parading without a permit.
The defendants in answer thereto filed a general denial
of the pertinent allegations as contained in the said petition
of the City.
Evidence was thereupon taken in open Court upon the
issues as raised by said pleadings. Upon conclusion of the
evidence as offered by the city, the respondents’ counsel
moved the Court to exclude the evidence as to the following
defendants: Ed Gardner, Calvin Woods, Aberham Woods,
Jr. and Johnny Louis Palmer and to dismiss said defen
dants from said petition for failure of the city to offer proof
upon which said defendants could be found guilty, and the
Court, thereupon, granted said motion and dismissed said
defendants. A like“motion was made at the conclusion of
the evidence as to the Defendant, Andrew Young, and was
taken under submission, but the Court is now of the opinion
that said motion should be denied.
The Charges cited in fEeT said petition constitute past
acts of disobedience and disrespect for the orders of this
Court and the nature of the order sought would be to punish
the defendants for their said acts of contempt and would,
in the opinion of thigjQourt, constitute this proceeding as
an action fo|><fuminaJ contempt.
421
The defendants have assumed the position throughout
[fol. 490] this proceeding that the acts for which they are
cited are not unlawful acts and that they do not refuse to
obey the lawfuLorder of this Court, but that the acts which
they have performed were those protected by the First and.
Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United
States, the due process and equal protection clauses thereof,
and by Article I, Section 25 of the Alabama Constitution ;
"that the exercise of their constitutional rights under the
above stated provisions were denied them by Section 369
of-thu 1944~tJode of .Birmingham: and that because of such
clema^^ of this Court enjoining the K
violation of said ordinance was a void order for which they
'l^v^oI~require~d to coTuIEZIilmg~ l^ ^
among other cases, that of Thomas vs. Collins. 65 Sup Ct
TT5 — -
On the other hand, the City takes the position that the
order of this Court granting the temporary injunction was
an exercise of the authority of a Court of Equity over such
subject matter and such individuals over which the Court
malntainedTawful jurisdiction. The City further takes the
position that the said ordinance as it applies to these defen
dants requiring a permit to parade is on its face a valid and
legal exercise of the police power; and that in ordei to
attack its validity all the requirements of the said ordi
nance must be complied with or the defendants must make
a showing to a dulv constituted tribunal that a substantial
compliance was attempted and the City ^^unreasonable
~~andr~aTtritrax'y in"'ite~dHnial~T?f~sucli requeFtsTTnat before
order enioininS the
violation of such ordinance, the defendants would be re
quired first to seek to prove to the Court that such uncon
stitutional action in depriving the parties of a permit would
amount to a violation of their rights and would require the
City to issue such a permit. The Ci tyjymtends that the_de-
fenHants made no valid attemj p T j ^ e
thereTis no evidence that if such request was made that the
422
r
permit would have been denied. The City cites as its author
ity for its position, among other cases, that of Cox vs. State
of New Hampshire 61 Supreme Court 762.
It is the considered opinion of this Court that the prin-
ciples and the law as enunciated in the case of Cox vs. New
.-^Hampshire, supra, is controlling in this cause; and that the
[fol. 491] said ordinance is not invalid upon its face as a
violation of-..the. t u t in n a 1 rights of free speech as
a ff on led to thesqldefendants in the absence of a showing
,pf arbitrary and, capricious action upon the part of the
Commission of the City of Birmingham in denying me""
defendants a permit, to,.conduct a parade on the streets of
the City of Birmingham.. The legal and orderly processes
of the Court would require the defendants to attack the
unreasonable denial of such permit by the Commission of
"the OityhoT Birmingham, through means of a motion to
dissolve the injunction at whlcITtmie this CourCwould have
.the opportunity to pass upon the question of whether or
not a^compliance with the ordinance was attempted and
whether’llr not an arbitrary ah3~capi^ous3€m]M^F^uch
..request was made by The Commission of the City of Bir
mingham. j^Since this course of conduct was not sought hiyL.
the defendants, the Court is of the opinion that the validity
' of itslnjunetion order stands upMTts'Tjnma facie authority
to execute the same..
^ “■■"Hflder all the emdence in the case, the Court is con
vinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the remaining de
fendants had actual notice of the existence of the prohibi
tions, as contained in the injunction, and of the existence
of the order itself; and that the actions of all the remain
ing defendants were, in the opinion of this Court, obvious
acts of contempt, constituting deliberate and blatant de
nials of the authority of this Court and its order and were
concerted efforts to both personally violate the said in-
\ 'junctive order and to use the persuasive efforts of their
pdslliuhij as ministers to encourage and incite others to
do likewise.
1
423
There has been apology! or indication whatsoever on
the part of the remaining defendants to comply in the
future with this injunctive order. Under these circum
stances it must be expected that the full authority as al
lowed by statute must be exercised in order to protect the
dignity of this Court of Equity and to enforce its lawful
orders.
However, the Court feels compelled to urge upon the de
fendants to consider carefully their course of conduct in the
future and the following words of Mr. Justice Frankfurter
(from his concurring opinion in the case of the United
States vs. The United Mine Workers of America 330 US
308) should be a guide to us all when considering the
jurisdictional authority of a Court of law:
[fob 492] “ The historic phrase ‘a government of laws
and not of men’ epitomizes the distinguishing char
acter of our political society. By putting that phrase
into the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, John
Adams was expressing the aim of those who, with him,
framed the Declaration of Independence and founded
the Republic. This phrase was the rejection in posi
tive terms of Rule by Fiat, whether by the fiat of
governmental or private power. Every act of govern
ment may be challenged by an appeal to law, as finally
pronounced by this Court. Even this Court has the
last say only for a time. Being composed of fallible
men, it may err. But revision of its errors must be by
orderly process of law. But no one, no matter how
exalted his public office or how righteous his private
motive, can be judge in his own case. Jhat is vhat
courts are for. And no type of controversy is more
peculiarly fit for judicial determination than a contro
versy that calls into question the power for a coui t to
decide.
“Short of an indisputable want of authority on the
part of a court, the very existence of a court pre-
424
supposes its power to entertain a controversy, if only
to decide, after deliberation that it lias no power over
the particular controversy.
“Whether a defendant may be brought to the bar of
justice is not for the defendant himself to decide.
“ In our country law is not a body of technicalities in the
[fol. 493] keeping of specialists or in the service of any
special interest. There can be no free society without
law administered through an independent judiciary.
If one man can be allowed to determine for himself
what is the law, every man can. That means first
chaos then tyranny. Legal process is an essential part
of the democratic process. For legal process is subject
to democratic control by defined, orderly ways which
themselves are part of law. In a democracy, power
implies responsibility. The greater the power that
defies law the less tolerant can this Court be of defiance.
“ This Court is the trustee of law and charged with the
duty of securing obedience to it.”
It Is, Therefore, Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed by
the Court as follows:
1. That motion of Defendants, Ed Gardner, Calvin
Woods, Aberham Woods, Jr. and Johnny Louis Palmer, to
exclude the evidence as to said defendants and to dismiss
said defendants as to this petition be and the same is hereby
granted;
2. That the motion of Defendant, Andrew Young, to ex
clude the evidence as to him and to dismiss him as a defen
dant to the petition herein be and is hereby denied;
3. That the following defendants be and the same are
hereby adjudged in contempt of this Court: Martin Luther
King, Jr., Ralph Abernathy, A. D. King, Wyatt Tee
Walker, Andrew Young, J. W. Hayes, N. H. Smith, Jr.,
James Bevels, T. L. Fisher, John Thomas Porter, and
425
F. L. Shuttlesworth, and all of said defendants shall hereby
stand committed to the custody of the Sheriff of Jefferson
County, Alabama, for a period of five consecutive days
beginning at 10:00 A. M. on Thursday, the 16th day of
May, 1963;
4. That the said defendants as herein adjudged to be
in contempt be and the same are also hereby fined the sum
of Fifty (50) Dollars each and upon failure of any defen-
[fol. 494] dant to pay the said fine so imposed, the Sheriff
of Jefferson County, Alabama, is ordered to retain the
custody of such defendant and that said defendant, there
upon, perform hard labor for said county for said fine
at the rate of Three (3) Dollars per day not to exceed
twenty (20) days;
5. That the taxing of costs in this proceeding is hereby
reserved until such time as a hearing has been held as to
the amended petition to show cause.
Done and Ordered, this the 26 day of April, 1963.
W. A. Jenkins, Jr., Circuit Judge, in Equity Sitting.
Filed in Office April 26,1963.
426
T he State of A labama— Judicial Department
T he Supreme Court of A labama
October Term 1962-63
6th Div. 999
T he City of B irmingham , a Municipal Corporation,
vs.
W yatt Tee W alker, et al.
Jefferson Circuit Court, In Equity
Order Granting Stay and Granting Certiorari—
May 15,1963
To the Register of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County,
Alabama, in Equity, Greeting:
Whereas, the following respondents, Wyatt Tee Walker,
Martin Luther King, Jr., Ralph D. Abernathy, A. D. King,
Andrew Young, J. W. Hayes, N. H. Smith, Jr., James
Bevels, T. L. Fisher, F. L. Shuttlesworth, and J. T. Porter,
in the above cause, did on May 13, 1963, file in this Court
a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court of
Jefferson County, Alabama, In Equity, seeking a review
of the decree of contempt entered in the above cause, and
petitioners have suggested that a Writ of Certiorari issue
to the Register of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County,
Alabama, commanding and requiring him to make and
certify to this Court a true and correct copy of the contempt
proceedings in said Circuit Court, in the above cause, and
Whereas, the petitioners, in this Court, have filed for a
[fol. 495] stay of execution of the decree of contempt, in
said Circuit Court, pending the hearing of said Petition
for Certiorari filed in said cause, and
427
Whereas, The Supreme Court of Alabama did, on to-wit,
May 15, 1963, enter an order granting said Petition for
Certiorari to said Circuit Court returnable within thirty
(30) days from this date, upon the execution of security for
the costs of the certiorari proceedings and upon the peti
tioners and each of them entering into an appearance bond
in the amount of $1,000.00 each to be approved by the
Register of the 10th Judicial Circuit of Alabama.
Now, therefore, upon the petitioners, and each of them,
making an appearance bond with good and sufficient surety
or sureties, in the amount of $1,000.00 each, to be approved
by the Register of the 10th Judicial Circuit of Alabama,
and upon filing security for the costs of appeal by Certio
rari of these proceedings, you are commanded to make
diligent search of the record and proceedings in your office
in the above cause, and certify, together with this writ, a
full and complete transcript of said above named records
and proceedings to our said Supreme Court within thirty
(30) days from this date.
Witness, J. Render Thomas, Clerk of the Supreme Court
of Alabama, this the 15th day of May, 1963.
J. Render Thomas, Clerk of the Supreme Court of
Alabama.
Upon compliance with the above and foregoing condi
tions, the execution of the decree and sentence imposed
in the contempt decree is hereby stayed until the further
orders of this Court.
J. Render Thomas, Clerk of the Supreme Court of
Alabama.
Filed in Office May 16,1963.
A ppearance Bond (omitted in printing).
[fol. 499]
I n the Supreme Court of A labama
Jefferson Circuit Court, in Equity
6th Div. 999
428
W yatt Tee W alker, et al.,
v.
City of B irmingham .
Order of Submission— August 22,1963
Come the parties by attorneys and submit this cause on
briefs for decision.
429
[fol. 500]
T he State of A labama— Judicial Department
T he Supreme Court of A labama
October Term, 1965-66
6 Div. 999
Ex parte W yatt T ee W alker, et al.
(In re: W yatt Tee W alker, et al.,
v.
City of B irmingham , a Municipal Corporation of the
State of Alabama.)
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to Jefferson Circuit
Court, in Equity.
Opinion
Coleman, Justice.
We review by certiorari convictions of petitioners for
criminal contempt for violating a temporary injunction
issued by the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, in equity,
[fol. 501] On April 10, 1963, the City of Birmingham, a
municipal corporation, presented its verified bill of com
plaint to one of the judges of the Tenth Judicial Circuit.
The bill prayed for temporary and permanent injunctions.
The judge to whom the bill was presented ordered the
temporary injunction to issue upon the City’s making bond
for $2,500.00. The prescribed bond was filed and injunction
issued out of the circuit court and was served on certain
of petitioners.
The return of the sheriff shows that a copy of the in
junction was personally served on petitioners as follows:
On Martin Luther King. A. D. King, F. L. Shuttleswortb.
Wyatt Tee Walker, and Ralph Abernathy on April 11, 1963,
at 1 :00 a.im:
r , * a ^
- w '
43'%*>
On John Thomas Porter on April 12, 1963, at 1:13 p.m.;
and
On N. H. Smith, Jr. on April 15. 1963, at 8:35 a.m.___
We have not found a return of the sheriff showing service
on the other petitioners who were adjudged to be in con
tempt. Notice to those not personally served is herein
after discussed.
The injunction recites in part as follows:
“ T hese, T herefore, are to temporarily Enjoin you
w tr**^Wyatt Tee Walker; Ralph Abernathy; A1 Hibler; F. L.
Shuttlesworth; Martin Luther King, Jr.; Aberham
' Woods, Jr.; Calvin Woods; A. D. King; Alabama
Christian Movement for Human Rights by serving copy
on Fred L. Shuttlesworth as President,_and all other
[fol. 502] persons in active concert or participation
with the respondents to this action and all persons
having notice of this action from engaging, sponsoring,
inciting or .encouraging mass .street parades or mass
processions or like demonstrations without a permit,
trespass on private~~propert,v after being warned to
leave the premises by the owner or person in posses-
of said private property, congregating on thesion
street or public places into mobs, and unlawfully picket
ing business establishments or public buildings in the
City of Birmingham Jefferson County, State of Ala
bama or performing acts calculated to cause breaches^
of the peace in the City of Birmingham, Jefferson
County, in the State jof Alabama or from conspiring
to engage in unlawful street parades, unlawful proces
sions, unlawful demonstrations, unlawful boycotts, un
lawful trespasses. and"unlawful picketing or other like
unlawful conduct or from vioIatmg"the~ordinances of
the City of Birmingham and the Statutes of the State
.of Alabama—or from doing any acts designed to con-
sumate (sic) conspiracies to engage in said unlawful
acts of parading, demonstrating, boycotting, trespass-
431
ing and picketing or other unlawful acts, or from en
gaging in acts and conduct customarily known as
[fol. 503] ‘Kneel-In’s’ in churches in violation of the
wishes and desires of said churches, until further or
ders from this Court; and this you will in no wise
omit under penalty, etc.”
On April 11, 12, and 13, 1963, certain meetings were held
at which some or all of petitioners were present.
On April 11, 1963, “ The Revs. King, Abernathy, and
Shuttlesworth were seated at the round table.” Several
copies of “ a news bulletin put out by the Alabama Chris
tians for Human Rights” were brought there by “ Rev.
Wyatt Tee Walker.” After the bulletin was distributed to
members of the press, “ . . . . Rev. Martin Luther King took
one copy of it and read verbatim the entire text.” The paper
he read appears in the record as follows:
“ Com plainant ’s E xhibit 2
“N ews from
“ A labama Christian M ovement for H uman R ights
5051/2 No. 17th Street
B ’ham, Ala.
“ F or R elease 12:00 Noon, April 11, 1963
“ S tatement by M. L. K ing , Jr., F. L. S huttlesw orth ,
R at.ph D. A bernathy , et al. for E ngaging in P eaceful
D esegregation D emonstrations
“ In our struggle for freedom we have anchored our
faith and hope in the rightness of the Constitution and
the moral laws of the universe.
“Again and again the Federal judiciary has made it
clear that the priviledges (sic) guaranteed under the
[fol. 504] First and the Fourteenth Amendments are
to (sic) sacred to be trampled upon by the machinery
432
of state government and police power. In the past we
have abided by Federal injunctions out of respect for
the forthright and consistent leadership that the Fed
eral judiciary has given in establishing the principle of
integration as the law of the land.
“ However we are now confronted with recalcitrant
forces in the Deep South that will use the courts to
perpetuate the unjust and illegal system of racial sep
aration.
“Alabama has made clear its determination to defy the
law of the land. Most of its public officials, its legis
lative body and many of its law enforcement agents
have openly defied the desegregation decision of the
Supreme Court. We would feel morally and legal re
sponsible to obey the injunction if the courts of Ala
bama applied equal justice to all of its citizens. This
would be
“ M ore M ore
MHH
- 2-
sameness made legal. However the ussance (sic) of
[fol. 505] this injunction is a blatant of difference made
legal.
“ Southern law enforcement agencies have demonstrated
now and again that they will utilize the force of law
to misuse the judicial process.
“ This is raw tyranny under the guise of maintaining
law and order. We cannot in all good conscience obey
such an injunction which is an unjust, undemocratic
and unconstitutional misuse of the legal process.
“We do this not out of any desrespect (sic) for the
law but out of the highest respect for the law. This
433
is not an attempt to evade or defy the law or engage in
chaotic anarchy. Just as in all good conscience we can
not obey unjust laws, neither can we respect the unjust
use of the courts.
“We believe in a system of law based on justice and
morality. Out of our great love for the Constitution
of the IT. S. and our desire to purify the judicial sys
tem of the state of Alabama, we risk this critical move
with an awareness of the possible consequences in
volved.
“ F ob F urther I nformation— Phone 324-5944
Wyatt tee walker
Public Information
Officer”
[fol. 506] “ . . . . Shuttlesworth read from a typed state
ment more or less re-affirming what was said in the state
ment that was read by Rev. King.” Shuttlesworth made
the statement:
“ ‘That they had respect for the Federal Courts, or Fed
eral Injunctions, but in the past the State Courts had
favored local law enforcement, and if the police couldn’t
handle it, the mob would.’ ”
“ . . . . Rev. Martin Luther, in response to a ques
tion, said, W e will continue today, tomorrow, Satur
day, Sunday, Monday, and on.’
Lieutenant House testified:
“ Q. All right. Now, a moment ago, you made the
statement all three of them said that they were going
to proceed regardless of the injunction, or words to
that_ affect. I don’t recall the exact words you used.
“A. I don’t recall whether they said regardless of ,
the injunction, but all~'tliree of them in their statement
says, ‘This statement that Rev. Martin Luther King
434
read was a joint statement of the three,’ and so stated
on the top of his statement, and all three of them men
tioned knowledge of the injunction, and said they were
[fol. 507] going to continue on. I believe Rev. Martin
Luther King stated that the—just before stating, ‘We
will continue on today, tomorrow, and Saturday, Sun
day, and Monday, and on’, just before that remark, he
stated that, ‘The attorneys would attempt, to Missolvs-.
the injunction, but we will continue on today, tomor-
row, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, and on’... - ......................——— —'
“ Q. What sort of reaction did you hear from those
present, including the Rev. A. D. King?
“A. He said on three or four occasions, or two I
remember specifically, when he remarked, ‘Dam the
torpedoes’, there was a loud applause by everyone in
the background, and also the group that was gathered
close by there, and also to ‘Give me liberty or give me
death’, there was a lot of noise and applaud to that.
There was applauding on several occasions. I don’t
recall the exact terms.”
J. Walter Johnson, Jr., reporter for Associated Press,
testified:
“ Q. Were you present when the injunction was
served?
“A. Yes, I was.
[fol. 508] “ Q. You were present, and that was in the
middle of the night, you say?
“ A. Yes.
“ Q. Was this remark made then at that time?
“A. That direct quote, they were marching at the—
just a minute, and I will be happy to find it. He said
this direct—this is what Shuttlesworth said, speaking
of the injunction handed to him: ‘This is a flagrant
denial of our constitutional privileges.’ ( ~
“Q. All right. ~ ~ ... •
“A. ‘In no way will this retard the thrust of this
movement.’ He said they would have to study the de-
435
tails. He said, ‘An Alabama injunction is used to mis
use certain constitutional privileges that will never be
trampled on by an injunction. That is what they were
saying that particular night right after the injunction.
“ Q. All right, who was present there at that time?
“A. Ralph Abernathy was there, Martin Luther
King, Mr. Shuttlesworth, Wyatt Tee Walker, and there
was some others I did not recognize, did not know them.
“ Q. Some you did not know?
“A. Some I did not know. Abernathy made a state
ment at that time also. He said, ‘An injunction nor
[fol. 509] anything else will stop the Negro from ob
taining citizenship in his march for freedom.’ ”
Elvin Stanton, news director for WSG-N Radio, testified
that he was present at a meeting on April 11th, and that:
“A. The Rev. King said, ‘Injunction or no injunc
tion we are going to march tomorrow.’ That is a direct
quote.”
Petitioners did not obtain a permit to march or parade.
* A majcEHiFparai^^
other miTrcli occYfnvd on the streets of Birmingham on Sun-
---TteWAiinlTLlMS
Willie B. Painter, investigator with Alabama Depart
ment of Public Safety, testified that he observed the Friday
march, that several of petitioners entered a church, that
within several minutes a group came out of the church and
began a parade or march in the direction of downtown
Birmingham, that:
“ A. This group was led by Rev. Martin Luther King,
Jr., Rev. Ralph Abernathy, Rev. Shuttlesworth, as I
recall, Rev. Bernard Lee was also in the formation lead
ing the group. There were several people following in
this formation. As the group marched away from the
church in the direction of downtown Birmingham a
group of persons who had assembled along the side-
436
walk and the street followed this procession. This
group of people would consist of several hundred,
[fol. 510] “ Q. Now, do you mean the marchers or the
other group 1
“A. The group following the marchers. Actually
the whole procession was going almost as a group. As
the group came out of the church then the whole group
of people who had assembled along the sidewalk fol
lowed along behind them and I think you could de
scribe it as one procession.”
The witness, Painter, further testified that he was pres
ent at a church from 2:30 or 3:00 o ’clock in the afternoon
of Sunday, April 14, 1963; that he observed the petitioner,
Walker, talking to a group “ and forming a group of people
two or three abreast” ; that a group came out of the church
and began walking rapidly along the sidewalk; that “ this
large crowd of people that had gathered outside the church
began moving along with them” ; that there were several
hundred people within this group; that an object struck the
windshield of one of the city motors and broke the wind
shield; that the witness saw a negro man throw a brick
which “passed within a close range of one of the police offi
cers there in the street on duty.”
James Ware, newspaper photographer, testified that a
rock, “ About the size of a large grapefruit” hit him on the
back of the head and caused a knot which was still sore;
that a lot of people were “ hollering, apparently at the
policemen making the arrests” ; that the witness saw only
[fol. 511] two rocks but heard several more falling around
him; that he was concentrating on taking pictures of what
was happening; that he identified A. D. King and Wyatt
Tee Walker in the picture.
The witness Ware identified four pictures, which were
introduced into evidence and are before us. Ware identified
the pictures as being pictures which he took of the paraders
on Sunday afternoon. The pictures show people walking
in and entirely occupying a stTeetTrESi curb to curb on each
side and on the sidewalks.
437
On Monday, April 15, 1963, the City of Birmingham filed
petition alleging that respondents had violated the injunc
tion and praying that rule nisi issue to respondents requir
ing them to show cause why they should not he adjudged
and punished for contempt. Rule nisi did issue, hearing
was had, and those respondents who have applied for cer
tiorari were adjudged guilty of contempt of the circuit court
and committed to the sheriff for five days and fined Fifty
dollars each. We review this judgment by certiorari.
On the same Monday, April 15, 1963, respondents filed
a motion to dissolve the temporary injunction which had
been issued on April 10, 1963.
During the hearing on the charge that petitioners had
violated the injunction, the trial court stated the issues pre
sented by the evidence as follows:
“ The Court: The only charge has been this particu-
lar parade, the one on Easier Sunday and the one on
Lfol. 512]TjobTFriday7and on the question oTthemeet-
ing at which time some press release was issued. Am I
"Tofrect Th thatT~"
“Mr. McBee: Essentially that is correct.
“ The Court: I don’t know of any other evidence or
any other occasions other than those, and I see no need
of putting on testimony to rebut something where there
has been no proof along that line.”
Petitioners do not appear to deny the charge that they.
or a number of them, did parade or march without a per
mit contrary to the order temporarily enjoining them “ . . . .
1TbnPengaging, sponsoring, inciting or encouraging”mass
street parades oWmass processions or like''dem'dnstratr6ris~'
without a ’ permlt . . . . ”
~~TFetrtioners, on page 3 of brief, filed in this court July
19,1963^ admit~ffiat “ After issuance of IJEnjans^^
petitioners and others continued their participation in theae
protest deitncmifraH'dns and a^orduppy were held in con-
TerhtJf'bf the inj aTTCtmT^ecreeT7" Oh"page 3 of brief peti
tioners say:
438
“ The circumstances out of which this action arose
are well known to the court. During April and May
1963, petitioners and others participated in protest
demonstrations in Birmingham, Alabama in the form
[fol. 513] of picketing, ‘sit-ins’, and marches on the
streets of the City of Birmingham, designed to evidence
dissatisfaction with continuing racial segregation in
that city and to persuade city officials and others to
put an end to segregation. About one week after these
demonstrations began, the City of Birmingham se
cured an injunction from the Circuit Court for the
Tenth Judicial Circuit designed to thwart their con
tinuation. After isanan^joL l M i j ^ ^ .order, peti-
tioners and others continued their participation in these
protest demonstrations and accordingly were held in.
contempt of the injunctive decree., Petitioners argued
at fEecontempt hearing that the injunctive decree, de
signed as it was to prevent the exercise of their right
to protest, was an invalid order. Petitioners reiterated
this argument in the petition for certiorari filed herein,
in the brief filed in support of the petition, and on oral
argument before this Court on May 15, 1963.
“Little, therefore, remains to be added to what has
already been urged in this Court. The issuance of the
injunctive order, seen against the backdrop of the exer-
JnscHoy petitioners of well-established constitutional
[fol. 514] rights was beyond the jurisdiction of the
court and hence void...........n
In the light of petitioners’ statement in brief, it would
b&qliffkHjJLiQ, decide that petitioners did not violate the
Jtea&porary injunction against engaging in mass street pa
rades wi|hoirfT *p erm itI>etitioners did engage in and in-
’Erie'^oIher^To~Engage in mass street parades and neither
petitioners nor anyone else had obtained a permit to parade
on the streets of Birmingham____ ___ ___ _—
[Petitioners argue that the injunctive order is void and,
for that reason, the judgment of contempt is void.
439
The circuit, courts ...in. equity, is _a court of general equity
jurisdiction and has power to issue injunctions. Section
141"of Constitution of 1901 recites:
“ Sec. 144. A circuit court, or a court having the
jurisdiction of the circuit court, shall be held in each
county in the state at least twice in every year, and
judges of the several courts mentioned in this section
may hold court for each other when they deem it ex
pedient, and shall do so when directed by law. The
judges of the several courts mentioned in this section
shall have power to issue writs of injunction, return
able to the courts of chancery, or courts having the
jurisdiction of courts of chancery.”
§§ 1038 and 1039, Title 7, Code 1940, recite:
[fol. 515] § 1038. Injunctions may be granted, re
turnable into any of the circuit courts in this state,
by the judges of the supreme court, court of appeals,
and circuit courts, and judges of courts of like juris
diction.”
§ 1039. Registers in circuit court may issue an in
junction, when it has been granted by any of the judges
of the appellate or circuit courts when authorized to
grant injunctions, upon the fiat or direction of the
judge granting the same indorsed upon the bill of
complaint and signed by such judge.”
Petitioners do not argue that there was any failure to
lunction. We discuss later me question ot lack ot service
on some petitioners.
Petitioners rest their case on the proposition that Section
1159 of the General City Code of Birmingham, which regu
lates street parades, is void because it violates the first
and fourteenth amendments of the Constitution of the
440
United States, and, therefore, the temporary injunction is
void as a prior restraint on the constitutionally protected
rights of freedom of speech and assembly.
. It is to be remembered that petitioners are charged with
violating a temporary injunction. We are not reviewing
a denial of a motion to dissolve or discharge a temporary
[foJL 516] injunction. , Petitioners did not tile any motion
to vacate the temporary injunction until after the Friday
and Sunday parades. Instead, petitioners deliberately de
fied the order of the court and did engage in and incite
others to engage in mass street parades without a permit.
The Supreme Court of the United States has said:
“ . . . . This Court has used unequivocal language in
condemning such conduct, and has in United States v.
Shipp, 203 U. S. 563 (1906), provided protection for
judicial authority in situations of this kind. In that
case this Court had allowed an appeal from a denial
of a writ of habeas corpus by the Circuit Court of
Tennessee. The petition had been filed by Johnson, then
confined under a sentence of death imposed by a state
court. Pending the appeal, this Court issued an order
staying all proceedings against Johnson. However,
the prisoner was taken from jail and lynched. Shipp,
the sheriff having custody of Johnson, was charged
with conspiring with others for the purpose of lynch
ing Johnson, with intent to show contempt for the
order of this Court. Shipp denied the jurisdiction of
this Court to punish for contempt on the ground that
the stay order was issued pending an appeal over
which this Court had no jurisdiction because the con
stitutional questions alleged were frivolous and only
[fol. 517] a pretense. The Court, through Mr. Justice
Holmes, rejected the contention as to want of jurisdic
tion, and in ordering the contempt to be tried, stated:
“ ‘W e regard this argument as unsound. It has been
held, it is true, that orders made by a court having
441
no jurisdiction to make them may be disregarded
without liability to process for contempt. In re
Sawyer, 124 U. S. 200; Ex parte Fish, 113 U. S. 713;
Ex parte Rowland, 104 U. S. 604. But even if the
Circuit Court had no jurisdiction to entertain John
son’s petition, and if this court had no jurisdiction
of the appeal, this court, and this court alone, could
decide that such was the law. It and it alone neces
sarily had jurisdiction to decide whether the case
was properly before it. On that question, at least,
it was its duty to permit argument and to take the
time required for such consideration as it might
need. See Mansfield, Coldwater £ Lake Michigan
Ry. Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 387. Until its judg
ment declining jurisdiction should be announced, it
had authority from the necessity of the case to make
orders to preserve the existing conditions and the
subject of the petition, just as the state court was
[fol. 518] bound to refrain from further proceedings
until the same time. Bev. Stat. § 766; act of March 3,
1893, c. 226, 27 Stat. 751. The fact that the petitioner
was entitled to argue his case shows what needs no
proof, that the law contemplates the possibility of
a decision either way, and therefore must provide
for it.’ 203 U. S. 573.
“ If this Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the
appeal in the Shipp case, its order would have had to
be vacated. But it was ruled that only the Court itself
could determine that question of law. Until it was
found that the Court had no jurisdiction, ‘ . . . it had
authority from the necessity of the case to make orders
to preserve the existing conditions and the subject of
the petition . . . . ’
“Application of the rule laid down in United States
v. Shipp, supra, is apparent in Carter v. United States,
135 F. 2d 858 (1943). There a district court, after
making the findings required by the Norris-LaGuardia
442
Act, issued a temporary restraining order. An injunc
tion followed after a hearing in which the court af
firmatively decided that it had jurisdiction and over
ruled the defendants’ objections based upon the absence
of diversity and the absence of a case arising under
[fol. 519] a statute of the United States. These objec
tions of the defendants prevailed on appeal, and the
injunction was set aside. Brown v. Coumanis, 135 F.
2d 163 (1943). But in Carter, a companion case, viola
tions of the temporary restraining order were held
punishable as criminal contempt. Pending a decision
on a doubtful question of jurisdiction, the District
Court was held to have power to maintain the status
quo and punish violations as contempt.
“ In the case before us, the District Court had the
power to preserve existing conditions while it was
determining its own authority to grant injunctive relief.
The defendants, in making their private determina
tion of the law, acted at their peril. Their disobedience
is punishable as criminal contempt.
“ Although a different result would follow were the
question of jurisdiction frivolous and not suhstantial,
such contention would be idle here. The applicability
of the Norris-LaGuardia Act to the United States in
a case such as this had not previously received judicial
consideration, and both the language of the Act and
its legislative history indicated the substantial nature
of the problem with which the District Court was faced,
[fol. 520] “Proceeding further, we find impressive
authority for the proposition that an order issued by
a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and
person must be obeyed by the parties until it is re
versed by orderly and proper proceedings. This is true
without regard even for the constitutionality of the
Act under which the order is issued. In Howat v.
Kansas, 258 U. S. 181, 189-90 (1922) this Court said:
“ ‘An injunction duly issuing out of a court of general
jurisdiction with equity powers upon pleadings prop-
443
erly invoking its action, and served upon persons
made parties therein and within the jurisdiction,
must be obeyed by them however erroneous the ac
tion of the court may be, even if the error be in the
assumption of the validity of a seeming but void law
going to the merits of the case. It is for the court
of first instance to determine the question of the
validity of the law, and until its decision is reversed
for error by orderly review, either by itself or by
a higher court, its orders based on its decision are
to be respected, and disobedience of them is con
tempt of its lawful authority, to be punished.’
[fol. 521] “ Violations of an order are punishable as
criminal contempt even though the order is set aside
on appeal, Worden v. Searls, 121 U. S. 14 (1887), or
though the basic action has become moot, Gompers v.
Bucks Stove <& Range Co., 221 U. S. 418 (1911).
“We insist upon the same duty of obedience where,
as here, the subject matter of the suit, as well as the
parties, was properly before the court; where the ele
ments of federal jurisdiction were clearly shown; and
where the authority of the court of first instance to
issue an order ancillary to the main suit depended
upon a statute, the scope and applicability of which
were subject to substantial doubt. The District Court
on November 29 affirmatively decided that the Norris-
LaGuardia Act was of no force in this case and that
injunctive relief was therefore authorized. Orders out
standing or issued after that date were to be obeyed
until they expired or were set aside by appropriate
proceedings, appellate or otherwise. Convictions for
criminal contempt intervening before that time may
stand.
U
“Assuming, then, that the Norris-LaGuardia Act ap
plied to this case and prohibited injunctive relief at
the request of the United States, we would set aside
444
[fol. 522] the preliminary injunction of December 4
and the judgment for civil contempt; but we would,
subject to any infirmities in the contempt proceedings
or in the fines imposed, affirm the judgments for crimi
nal contempt as validly punishing violations of an
order then outstanding and unreversed.” United States
v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 IT. S. 258,
290-295.
M '
y
3*
✓
No useful purpose would be served by further discussion
of this point. See concurring opinion of Harlan, J., in In
Re Green, 369 U. S. 689, 693.
We hold that the circuit court had the duty and authority:
in the first, instance, to determine the validity of the ordi-
nance, and, until the decision oHlic circuit court is reversed
^To7~erH)FT)y~brderIy' review, either by the circuit court or
' a higher court,"he' ordersofthe circuit court based on its
decision are to be respecfecHanct disobedience of them.is
Tohtempt of its IinvTut a111 hori 1 y, I o be punished^ Howat
— v. Kansas, U. S. i» i.
Petitioners Martin Luther King, Jr., Ralph Abernathy,
A. D. King, Wyatt Tee Walker, and F. L. Shuttlesworth,
are named in the injunction and were served with a copy
on April 11, 1963. That they were active in inciting others
to parade and actively participated in the parades or
marches after they were served with a copy of the injunc
tion is clearly shown by the testimony. Petitioners do not
[fol. 523] seem to argue in brief to the contrary. As to
those five of the petitioners last named the judgment is due
to be and is affirmed.
Petitioner Porter was served with a copy of the injunc
tion on April 12, 1963, at 4:13 p.m. There is testimony that
with respect to his participation in the parade on Sunday,
April 14, 1963, “Rev. Porter stated that he was one of the
leaders.” There is other testimony that he engaged in the
Sunday parade. The judgment against him is affirmed.
The general rule is that one who violates an injunction
is guilty of contempt, although he is not a party to the
445
injunction suit, if he has notice or knowledge of the injunc
tion order, and is within the class of persons whose conduct
Ts intendp.d..tnJha-xestra.ined. or acts in concert with such a
person. See 15 A.L.R. 387, and authorities there cited.
The” instant injunction enjoins the named respondents
“ and all other persons in active concert or participation
with the respondents to this action.” As to the petitioners
who were not named as parties in the bill, or were not
served with a copy of the injunction, we come now to con
sider the evidence going to show their knowledge of the
terms of the injunction with respect to parades and the
conduct of such petitioners in participating in the parades
or marches.
Petitioners Hayes, Smith, and Fisher were not served
with a copy of the injunction until after the Sunday march.
Each of them participated in the Sunday parade and there
is evidence that each of them had knowledge of the injunc
tion prior to that parade. Fisher testified that he attended
the Friday and Saturday meetings. He also testified:
[fol. 524] “Q. What did you hear about the injunc
tion? What did they tell you about it!
“A. I only heard about the injunction. It wasn’t in
terpreted to me.
“ Q. Was it interpreted to you you would probably
have to go to jail if you took part in that march or
walk ?
“A. Yes,' but I didn’t see any reason I would have
to go.
“ Q. I understand, but you were not told if you got
in that march you would have to go to jail?
“A. I was told if I walked on the streets of Birming
ham I would have to go to jail.
“ Q. I am talking about this Easter Sunday proces
sion. That is what they were talking about?
“ A. That’s right.”
The witness Jones, City Detective, referring to Hayes,
testified that:
446
“A. He stated he was with the leaders on the march.
I asked him about the injunction. He knew of it, he
said. I asked him was he just marching in the face of
it anyway, and he said, ‘Yes, he was doing it for human
dignity.’ ”
Jones also testified that petitioner Smith stated that he
“ had knowledge of the injunction” prior to his participation
in the Sunday parade.
[fol. 525] We think it would require of the trial court an
unduly naive credulity to declare that the court erred in
concluding that Hayes and Fisher had knowledge that
marching on the streets was enjoined and that they know
ingly and deliberately violated the injunction by marching
or parading on Sunday. As to_Haves and Fisher the judg
ment against them is affirmed.
As to petitioner Smith we reach a different result. Smith
was not a party to the suit and was not served with a copy
of the injunction prior to the Sunday March. He was
bound, alike with other members of the public, to observe
its restrictions when known, to the extent that he must
not aid or abet its violation by others, and the power of
the court to proceed against one so offending and punish
for the contemptuous conduct is inherent and indisputable.
Garrigan v. United States, 89 C.C.A. 494, 163 Fed. 16. But,
in order to convict a person of contempt where he is not
a party and has not been served with a copy of the order,
it must be shown clearly that he had knowledge of the order
for the injunction in such a way that it can be held that
he understood it, and, with that knowledge committed a
wilful violation of the order. Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Minne
sota Moline Plow Co., 124 Fed. 736.
There is evidence that Smith “had knowledge” of the
injunction and he testified that he had heard about the
injunction on the radio, “ Maybe Saturday,” before the
Sunday March. It may well be that Smith was fully advised
of the terms of the injunction, but we think a finding to
"that effect must rest on speculation rather than on a
447
[fol. 526] reasonable inference from the testimony. The
injunction restrains acts other than parading. Knowledge
of other enjoined acts would not he knowledge of the in
junction against parading. We hold that it is not clearly
shown that Smith had knowledge of the injunction in such
a way that it can be held that he understood it and with
that knowledge committed a wilful violation of the injunc
tion. The judgment of contempt against Smith is quashed.
We have not found in the record where petitioners Yming-
and Bevel were~serve3~mfF^copy of the injunction. We_
have not found evidence to showthat either of them par-
ticipated in the march on either Friday or Sunday. We are
tmTjTersuadM~TI^ the~evidence~sustains the judgment of
contempt against them, and as to Young and Bevel the
judgment holding them in contempt is quashed.
Affirmed in part.
Quashed in part.
Livingston, C. J., and Lawson and Groodwyn, JJ., concur.
[fol. 527]
I n the S upreme Court of A labama
J efferson Circuit Court
In Equity
6 Div. 999
W yatt T ee W alker,' et al.
v.
City of B irmingham
J udgment of A ffirmance— December 9, 1965
Come the parties by attorneys and the record and mat
ters therein assigned for errors being submitted on petition
for certiorari and the return thereto and briefs, and the
same being duly examined and understood by the Court,
448
It Is Considered, Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that
the decree of the Circuit Court insofar as it pertains to
Wyatt Tee Walker, Martin Luther King, Jr., Ralph Aber
nathy, A. D. King, J. W. Hayes, T. L. Fisher, F. L. Shut-
tlesworth and John Thomas Porter be and the same is in
all things affirmed.
It Is Further Considered, Ordered, Adjudged and De
creed that as to the petitioners, Andrew Young, N. H.
Smith, Jr., and James Bevel, the decree of the Circuit
Court adjudging these petitioners guilty of contempt be
and the same is hereby quashed.
[fol. 528] It Is Further Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed
that Wyatt Tee Walker, Martin Luther King, Jr., Ralph D.
Abernathy, A. D. King, J. W. Hayes, T. L. Fisher, F. L.
Shuttlesworth and J. T. Porter, petitioners, and Jas.
Esdale, Willie Esdale and Esdale Bail Bond Company, pay
the costs incident to this proceeding in this Court and in
the Court below, for which costs let execution issue.
Opinion by Coleman, J.
Livingston, C. J., Lawson and Goodwyn, J.J., concur.
449
[fol. 531]
I n the S upreme Court of A labama
[Title omitted]
Order Overruling P etition for R ehearing—
January 20, 1966
It Is Ordered that the application for rehearing filed
on December 23, 1965, be and the same is hereby overruled.
[fol. 536]
I n the S upreme C ourt of A labama
O ctober T erm 1965-66
[Title omitted]
S tay Order—January 26, 1966
The Appellants in the above styled cause having made
application for suspension of sentence and said petition
being duly examined and understood by the Court,
It Is Hereby Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the
Certificate of Affirmance be recalled by the Clerk of this
Court.
It Is Further Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the
execution of the judgment of affirmance is hereby stayed
for ninety (90) days from the 26th day of January, 1966
to enable Appellants to apply for and obtain, if they can,
a review of said case by the Supreme Court of the United
States.
[fol. 537] In the event the Appellants do not apply to
the Supreme Court of the United States for a Writ of
Certiorari within ninety (90) days from the 26th day of
January, 1966, the stay and execution of said Judgment
of Affirmance shall cease and terminate.
450
It Is Further Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the
execution and enforcement of said judgment be further
stayed in the event the Appellants file a Petition for Cer
tiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States to review
said Judgment of Affirmance and until the Supreme Court
of the United States renders a final decision affirming or
reversing the judgment of this Court.
Done this the 26th day of January, 1966.
Livingston, C.J., Simpson, Coleman and Harwood, J.J.,
concur.
[fol. 538]
T he S upreme Court of A labama
O ctober T erm , 1965-66
Order R ecalling Certificate— January 26,1966
To the Register of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County—
Greeting:
Whereas, in the matter of Wyatt Tee Walker, et al, Ap
pellant, vs. The City of Birmingham, Appellee, recently
pending in the Supreme Court of Alabama, on appeal from
the said Circuit Court of Jefferson County, our Supreme
Court did on the 9th day of December, 1965, render a de
cree of affirmance, in part, etc. in said cause; and,
Whereas, a certificate of such action of the Supreme
Court was duly issued to you, and thereafter an application
for a rehearing of said cause was filed in this Court on the
23rd day of December, 1965:
Now, it is hereby certified, that our Supreme Court, or
one of the Justices thereof, did, on the 26th day of January,
1966, order that the said certificate be recalled. And you
will accordingly return the same to this office at once, to
gether with copy of the opinion in said cause issued to you.
451
Witness, Richard W. Neal, Deputy Clerk of the Su
preme Court of Alabama, at the Judicial Building,
this the 26 day of January, 1966.
Richard W. Neal, Deputy Clerk of the Supreme Court
of Alabama.
[fol. 539] Clerk’s Certificate (omitted in printing).
[fol. 540]
S upreme Court of the U nited States
No........... —October Term, 1965
W yatt T ee W alker, et al., Petitioners,
v.
City of B irm in g h am .
Order E xtending T im e to F ile P etition for
W rit of Certiorari—April 13,1966
Upon Consideration of the application of counsel for
petitioner (s),
It Is Ordered that the time for filing a petition for writ
of certiorari in the above-entitled cause be, and the Same is
hereby, extended to and including June 19th, 1966.
Hugo L. Black, Associate Justice of the Supreme
Court of the United States.
Dated this 13th day of April, 1966.
[fol. 541]
S upreme C ourt of the U nited S tates
No. 249—October Term, 1966
452
W yatt T ee W alker, et al., Petitioners,
v.
C ity o f B irm in g h am , etc.
Order A llow ing Certiorari—October 10,1966
The petition herein for a ivrit of certiorari to the Supreme
Court of the State of Alabama is granted, and the case is
placed on the summary calendar.
And it is further ordered that the duly certified copy of
the transcript of the proceedings below which accompanied
the petition shall be treated as though filed in response
to such writ.