Alexander v. Choate Brief for Respondents
Public Court Documents
January 1, 1984
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Anderson v. City of Albany, GA Transcript of Record Volume IV, 1962. d685b54b-ac9a-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/44c7a6df-ff66-4cee-93de-4fb9d7d45857/anderson-v-city-of-albany-ga-transcript-of-record-volume-iv. Accessed April 06, 2025.
Copied!
TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD
UNITED STATES
COURT of APPEALSF I F T H C I R C U I T No.
W. G. Anderson, et al.
v.
The City of Albany, Georgia, et al.
Volume IV
Appellants
Appellees
C. B. King
221 South Jackson Street
Albany, Georgia
Donald L. Hollowell
Cannolene Building (Annex)
859-1/2 Hunter Street
Atlanta, Georgia
Jack Greenberg
Constance Baker Motley
Norman Amaker
10 Columbus Circle
New York 19, N. Y.
Attorneys for Appellants
H. G. Rawls, Esq.
P. O. Box 1496
Albany, Georgia
Eugene Cook, Esq.
Judicial Building
40 Capitol Square
Atlanta, Georgia
E. Freeman Leverett, Esq.
Elberton, Georgia
Attorneys for Appellees
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Middle District of
Georgia, Albany Division
I N D E X
(Volume IV)
Page
HEARING ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION, No. 7 2 ? ------------------------------------- 7 49 A
Testimony of Mr. B. F. Cochran, Jr.
Direct Examination--------------- ----------- 7^9A
Cross Examination--------------------------- 758a
Redirect Examination ------------------------ 772A
Recross Examination ---------------------- 773A
Testimony of Mayor Asa D. Kelley, Jr.
Cross Examination--------------------------- 774a
Testimony of City Mgr. Stephen A. Roos
Cross Examination--------------------------- 836A
Redirect Examination ---------------- 866a
Recross Examination ------------------------- 877A
Redirect Examination----------------- 886a
Recross Examination-------------------- — --- 8S8A
Testimony of W. G., Anderson
Direct Examination -------------------------- 889A
Cross Examination--------------------------- 897A
Redirect Examination----------- 913A
Testimony of Mr. Marion S. Page
Direct Examination -------------------------- 916a
Cross Examination------------------------ ---- 923A
Testimony of Mr. Slater King
Direct Examination ---- -------------------------- 926a
Defendants' Proffer-Witnesses--- -------------- -— 931A
Testimony of Police Chief Laurie Pritchett
Recross Examination ------------------------- 935A
Testimony of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Direct Examination--------- 957A
Cross Examination-------------- 967A
Redirect Examination ------------------------ 984a
Recross Examination ------------------------- 985A
(Volume iV - continued)
Page
Testimony of Rev. Ralph D. Abernathy
Direct Examination ------------------------- 986a
Cross Examination-------------------------- 992A
Defendants' Exhibits Offered -------------------- 1004A
City Code of Albany Sections--- --------- ---------- 1007A
Argument ------------------------------------------- 1013A
Court's Decision-time---------------------- 1014a
Other cases - CA 730, 7 3 1 ------------------------- 1015A
Trial Recessed-------------------------------- 1018a
ORDER (Consolidation) ----------------------------------- 1019A
MOTION TO DISMISS AND FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT — 1020A
NOTICE OF MOTION------------------------- 1025A
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 7̂ 9A
ALBANY, GEORGIA,
2:00 P.M,, AUGUST 7, 19o2:
THE COURT: It has just come to my attention
within the last few moments that the Defendants In
the case which is now under consideration have filed
an answer to the Plaintiffs1 complaint and that the
Defendants have also filed a motion to consolidate
the case now before us for consideration with two
other cases pending in this Court, they being
identified as Civil Action No. 730 and Civil Action
No. 731
Do counsel wish to be heard on that motion at
this time before we proceed further?
* * * * * * * * * *
(Argument on motion to consolidate"
THE COURT: All right, you may proceed
In this c ctS 6 »
* * * * * * * * * *
MR. 6 . F. COCHRAN, JR.
1st witness called and sworn in
behalf of Defendants, testified
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. HOLLOWELL:
Q, Will you give your name, address and your
occupation, sir?
A B. F. Cochran, Jr., Route 2, Box 690, Albany,
photographer
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 72? 75QA
Q How long have you been a photographer?
A 17 years.
Q I show you D-9 and ask you whether or not you
had the occasion to make that photograph; if so, when and
where?
MR. RAWLS: Your Honor, before he goes
Into the photograph, I think they ought to be
submitted to counsel for the other side.
MR. HOLLOWELL: Excuse me. I believe you've
seen all of them before but I have no objection.
MR. RAWLS: I haven't seen any of them.
(Photographs tendered to Plaintiffs; counsel)
Q Mr. Hollowel],: Now, I hand you back D-9, Mr.
Cochran, and ask you if you will look at that photograph
and see If It's one that you have taken and also indicate
the date, if you can recollect and the circumstances under
which it was taken?
A Uhls Is a photograph of Rev. Alford that was
taken June 23, 1962. He was walking north of the 200 block
of North Washington Street.
Q Was it taken by you?
A It was taken by me.
Q. Does it reflect the situation as it was as of
the time that you took the photograph?
A It does.
Q I ask you whether or not you had the occasion
to observe the general street traffic In the vicinity of
the 200 block on Washington Street about the time that you
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 751A
took that picture?
A Yes, I know about what the traffic was.
Q Would you indicate for the record what the
pedestrian traffic was like about the time that you took
that picture In the vicinity of the area that you observed?
In other words, was it light or heavy?
MR. RAWLS: I object to him leading the
witness. Your Honor.
MR. HOLLOWELL: I asked him whether it was light
or heavy.
THE COURT: I think that's all right; I
overrule the objection.
A The Witness: It was normal. I would say
fairly light.
Q Mr. Hollowell: All right - excuse me --
A There were people going in the normal way in
the line of traffic and there was a few people standing in
the doorways looking; other than that, it was normal.
Q I show you D-10 and ask you whether or not
you took that photograph and when, and the circumstances
as to the situation at the time that you took it?
A This Is a picture of a young lady in the 200
block of North Washington. She's walking south, and this
just about shows the amount of traffic that was on the
street.
Q Was It taken by you?
A It was taken by me.
MR. RAWLS: The date?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 752A
The Witness: The date Is on the back
It is the same as the other one; that's June 23, '62.
Q Mr. Hollowell: I hand you D-ll and ask you if
you will relate the same informationas to it?
A This was likewise taken June 23, '62, and it
shows a picture of a person walking north in the 200 block
of North Washington Street. It was taken by me.
Q. And was the pedestrian traffic -- Well, what
was the pedestrian traffic within the general vicinity of
this photograph, that is the general vicinity of the area
where this photograph was taken and up and down the street
generally?
A It was just about the same as the No. 2 photo
graph that I looked at.
Q, Well, I believe you testified that it was
normal --
A Normal.
Q -- and generally light except occasionally there
would be a few people maybe standing in the door?
A That?s right.
Q Did you at any time ever see these people block
any pedestrian traffic?
A No, I did not.
Q D-12 and ask you to give the same general
information?
A This picture shows a person walking south in
the 200 block of North Washington Street, In the vicinity
of Kress' 10 cent store; and it shows generally the amount
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No, 727 7
of traffic that was on the street at the time. It was also
taken by me.
Q, Would you give the same information as to D-l4,
sir?
A This is a picture that was taken July 11 by me
of a march led by Rev. Alford and Dr. Steele as they were
crossing Oglethorpe Avenue going north. It was on Jackson.
It was likewise taken by me.
Q Sir, I will ask you whether or not it reflects
the crowd situation such as it existed as of the time that
you took the photograph?
A It does. It shows everything In the background
that was there at the time I took it.
Q Did you have any occasion to notice whether there
was any crowd condition up and down South Jackson as of
the time that you took that photograph, which was in a
more congested or less congested state than the photograph
that you are referring to,* that is D-l4?
A Not any more what South Jackson usually is. It's
usually congested down there anyway,
Q Calling your attention to the person who is
standing in the window, would you be able to indicate
whether that person standing In the window on the second
floor of the Trailways Building Is a police officer or not?
A I would not be able to say.
Q I show you D-15 and ask you to give us the same
information relative to it, sir?
A D-15 was taken July 11, '62 and It shows a group
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 75*iA
of people moving north on Jackson Street at the intersec
tion of Oglethorpe Avenue.
Q How close were you to the head of that group
of people there as of the time that you took the photograph?
A 12 or 15 feet.
Q Do you know whether or not they are under arrest
as of that time, whether they were under arrest?
A They were not under arrest at this time.
Q What side of Oglethorpe is it, the south side
or the north side of Oglethorpe?
A This is the south side.
Q Were they walking as of the time you took the
picture or were they stopped?
A They were stopped.
Q Do you know who stopped them?
A Chief Pritchett.
Q Do you see him on that photograph?
A Yes, I do.
Q, And this was on the south side of Oglethorpe,
you say?
A The south side.
Q D-20, sir; would you indicate the same Informa
tion?
A D-20 was taken Toy me March 24 and it shows a
picture of a group of people who are prisoners or working
for the City.
Q Anybody on there that you knew personally?
A Yes, it is.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 755A
Q Who are they?
A Slater King,, Mr. King.
Q Where is he on the picture as you look to it?
A On the extreme right.
Q On the extreme right?
A Yes.
Q Anybody else?
A I believe there's a Mr. Jackson on here.
Q Where is he?
A About the center.
Q Anybody else?
A It appears to be a Harris' I don't know his
first name.
Q Now, would you look again at D-12 and account,
if you can., for the fact that there Is what appears to
be some cracks where the photograph may have been cut,,
either accidentally or on purpose?
A Yes.
Q And Indicate whether you can account for this?
A Yes, I can account for It. This was cut for
newspaper publication and they did not want any more to
show than the person marching; so, it was cut.
Q As it is now mended, does It reflect the photo
graph which you actually took?
A Yes, it does.
Q D-27, sir.
A I cut the photograph myself.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 756a
Q. You cut it yourself?
A That1s right.
Q And you pasted it back yourself,, did you?
A That’s right. No., some one else pasted it back.
I was there when it was cut. After we cut one, we decided
to mask off some of the rest of them because it just ruined
the picture being cut.
Q. Now, would you relate the same general informa
tion, sir, as to D-27?
A D-27 was also taken July 11, ’62 Rev. Alford
and Dr. Steele and some more people behind, whom I don't
recognize; and, of course, the officers. These people
were under arrest at this time --
Q How do you know that?
A -- and being marched to jail.
Q, How do you know that?
A Well, as they crossed Oglethorpe they were
arrested,
Q I see. Do you recall whether D-27 was taken
before or after D-l4?
A D-14 was taken before D-27.
Q Now, was D-14 also taken before D-15 or after
D-15?
A D-14 was taken after D-15.
Q D-14 was taken after D-15?
A Right
Q Now, as to sequence, would you now put it in
the proper sequence; that is, 14, 15 and 1 6: would you point
Heqring on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 7 57A
out which one was taken first and which one was taken
second and which one was taken third?
A D-15 was taken first.
Q This is the one where they had not stepped off
of the curb at Oglethorpe? The south curb?
A They had not stepped off of the curb.
Q I see.
A D-14 was taken next and D-27 the last one of
that series,
Q, Mow, do you know where the group is walking as
of the time that you took the shot?
A Yes.
Q In D-27?
A They were walking down the middle of the street,
Q Do you know whether or not they were doing
that at their own behest or at the behest of someone else?
A They were ordered to do so.
Q How do you know that?
A They were ordered under arrest and they were
walking down the middle of the street under Chief Pritchett’s
direction.
Q Do you know that as a matter of fact?
A I heard him say it.
Q You heal’d him say it?
A Yes.
MR. HOLLOWELL: He's with you.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction* No. 727 758A
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. RAWLS:
MR. RAWLS: May I proceed with the cross-
examination* Your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes sir.
Q Mr. Rawls: What was the object and purpose
of you taking these pictures?
A I'm a commercial photographer. They were for
sale to newspapers, anybody that wanted to buy them*
the UPI* AP* New York Times* Newsweek* Time* Life.
Q So* you figured that there would be big
notoriety about this happening* Is that correct?
A I'm in business to take pictures* sir; whether
there's notoriety or not.
MR. RAWLS: Your Honor* I would like for
him to answer my question.
THE COURT: Yes, answer the question.
A The Witness: I figured I had a sale for them.
Q Mr. Rawls: So* you figure that just because
pickets were walking up and down the streets that there
would be a demand for snap-shots or pictures of these
particular situations all over the United States* is that?
Is that what you conceived?
A Well* some of them were taken for newspapers.
I work for the Southwest Georgian and the ones of the pickets*
they were taken directly for the paper.
Q How long had the picketing been in progress
when you arrived with your camera equipment and everything?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 759A
A I was there waiting on them.
Q Oh, they sent you along ahead before they
started to picketing, is that correct?
MR. HOLLOWELL; Now, may it please the Court,
I think that is an unfair question, in that there is
nothing in the record to indicate what the antecedent
of "they" is.
MR. RAWLS: I ’m talking about the picketing.
Your Honor. He knows what I'm talking about.
THE COURT: Well, he testified I believe --
I believe he testified that he was there before
they started, is that your testimony?
A The Witness: That's right.
THE COURT: So, the question "they sent you" -
of course, he hasn’t testified that anybody sent him.
You can ask him how to happened to be there, but he
hasn't said that anybody sent him.
Q Mr. Rawls; How did you happen to take up
your position as a commercial photographer at a place
where they were planning to do some picketing; do you
know?
A At this time I was on the scene at all times,
whenever - all the news photographers, whenever you heard
something was going to happen, you just moved where they moved.
Q, Well, you were not Interested in anything
except matters involving the Albany Movement, were you?
A State your question again?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 76QA
Q, You were not Interested in any pictures, In taking
pictures of anything except matters that were sponsored by
and promoted by the Albaby Movement, were you?
A Not at that time.
Q If some big train wreck had happened out there
at the station, you wouldn’t have naturally rushed down
there to take a picture of that, would you?
A I have done it.
Q But you were too busy with the Movement's
pictures to have the time to devote to matters like
train wrecks and automobile collisions?
A I stop on my way home, wherever I see it, I
stop and do work; I have stopped and taken wrecks and
other things that I thought were salable.
Q. Now, for instance, we'll take here this D-ll,
where you have a man walking along with a sign that says
"Do not invest where you can't sit and rest": Now, you
designedly and deliberately took that picture so as not
to show any living human being except that picketer, didn't
you?
A I took the picture as he came down the street.
I did nothing calculated on the number of people that were
passing. The people that Mere there show on the picture.
Q, But you just happened to get that picture where
nobody except the picketer was in the picture, is that right?
A That's what the camera saw.
Q You were operating the camera though; It wasn't
moving around by itself, was it?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction,, No. 727 761A
A No. indeed.
Q Now, I hand you here D-10; it has the picture of
a woman that's got "Shop in dignity" on a sign up in front
of her. Now, you, of course, couldn't get her off by
herself where you could take her picture; you had to
take several pedestrians with her, didn't you?
A I took it the same as I did the others, as
she came down the street.
Q Now, this D~9 here has a picture of a man
walking along with a sign in front of him, says "Open
your account with freedom": You didn't show any pedestrian
traffic with him either, did you?
A The camera did not show any. I had nothing to
do with it.
Q You could have found him walking along where there
were other pedestrians if you had wanted to, couldn't you?
A 1 wouldn't say I could make them there. I took
as they came down the street at that particular time.
Q - Now, you were explaining a while ago to counsel
for the other side about this picture that's cut; Now,
don't you know the reason the newspaper that published
this picture didn't want to publish the whole picture was
because it shows, besides the picketer - I reckon that's
what you’d call them - some other people using the sidewalk;
isn't that the reason you cut it out?
A The reason I cut it, I happened to bend there -
the reason why I cut this picture out was that they wanted
to show the full picture of the picket. It was not
designed to eliminate anybody.
Q Now, as a matter of fact, you know that the
people that you're Interested in pleasing want to show
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 762A
In pictures and other evidence that these picketers did
not Interfere with the normal traffic on the sidewalk;
don’t you know that? And didn't you know it when you took
these pictures?
A I did not.
Q You didn’t have any suspicion of that?
A Indeed, I didn't.
Q, Now, is this D-27 a picture of the paraders
or marches after they had been arrested or before they
were arrested?
A After they had been arrested.
Q Now, did you see this group of marchers prior to
the time they were arrested?
A I did.
Q Was there any group of people following along,
that were not in the organised march?
A Let's see that - let's see the one here. . .
There are some standing there you can see.
Q. Well, as a matter of fact, the truth Is, there
was quite a large number of group of people that were
following along with them until Chief Pritchett told
everybody that didn't want to go to jail to obey his
orders and stop marching; Isn't that true?
A I wouldn't know how many were behind. I was
doing my work and, truthfully, I could not say other
than those that show on that photograph.
Q Had you been to the meeting where this march
or parade was organized?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 763A
A I had not been to that one.
Q You had not?
A No.
Q You have been to many meetings though, haven’t you?
A I have been to quite a few.
Q You’re a member of the Movement?
A I am.
Q You had been to the meetings and you know that
they would have large groups - people in both churches,
full to capacity, and be a large group on the outside of
both churches; and then, when they'd start out on the
march, the group that marched along with the leader in
organized groups would be followed by the people who were
in and out of the church, who did not join in the march,
isnt' that true?
A I would not know how many people followed or
anything In that regard. When I heard that there was
going to be a march, just as other photographers, we
moved automatically into the downtown section, where we
thought that they would be coming.
Q You didn’t think that your subscribers would be
interested in knowing what size group of people were follow
ing along in the wake of this march?
A I have taken groups of people down at the
church, the masses there; yes, I've taken them.
Q Do you have any of those pictures with you?
A No, I don’t.
Q How long would it take you to get them, if you
fed bring them?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 764
A Right now I don't even have the negatives.
They're in New York at the film library.
Q Do you know what they're doing up in New York?
A They ordered them and wanted to buy them.
Q And the other pictures that you took that you
don't have here show large groups and masses of people
that are around those churches, don't they?
A They show large groups of people In the church.
MR. HOLLOWELL: Just a moment I Just a moment!
The pictures themselves would be the highest and best
evidence.
THE COURT: I think he's asking him about
pictures that he doesn't have.
MR. HOLLOWELL: That's true and that's what I'm
saying that they would be the highest and best
evidence as to what those photographs contained.
THE COURT: That's true. I think he
has answered the question already and probably any
objection is moot as he's already answered the question.
MR. HOLLOWELL: I wish the witness instructed
that when an objection Is made that he would refrain
from further testimony until after the objection is
completed.
THE COURT: All right, Mr. Witness, when a
question is asked and if counsel on either side made
an objection, you hold up answering the question until
the Court can rule on the objection.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. ?27 76̂ A
MR. HOLLOWELL: May It please the Court, I don't
know that I heard that answer and I would be pleased
if there was one and the reporter got it, I would like
to have It.
A The Witness I'll be very happy to --
THE COURT: All right, Mr. Reporter.
THE REPORTER: The only answer I have Is,
"They show large groups of people In the church".
A The Witness: That's right, I took —
THE COURT: Go ahead.
A The Witness: I took the groups of people in
the church. I never took an exterior. They were all
interior1.
MR. RAWLS: Would you mind reading his
answer to my question?
THE REPORTER: "I took the groups of people in
the church. I never took an exterior. They were all
interior."
Q Mr. Rawls: Now, did you take some shots
of all of the various planned parades and picketings,*
did you take pictures of all of them?
A Of all of the parades?
4 Yes?
A I did, most of themj that I knew about, those
that I knew about.
Q Well, hcnv about the ones on July 21 and July
24 of this year, did you take pictures of them?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction* No. 727 766A
A Were those at night? I just don't recall what
those dates were.
Q. I believe the one on the 24th was at night?
A If that was on a Tuesday* I took it.
Q I'm talking about the night where they were
throwing all of the bottles and the rocks at the policemen*
you've heard about that* haven't you?
A I x*ias there.
Q, You were?
A Yes.
Q, Did you take pictures of that group?
A I took pictures of the group marching* I did.
Q Did you take pictures of the group that
followed them from the church down there to Jackson St.?
A I did not.
Q, Why didn't you take pictures of that* too big
a crowd?
A Well* you couldn't cover that big a crowd with
the night light that I had. Ply limits are in the area of
15 to 20 feet* about as much area as I can cover at night,
with that light.
Q. As a matter of fact* all of these pictures
here* D-l4* D-27* D-15j> are all what you call close-up
exposures* aren't they?
A This Is a close-up exposure; this is a general
view I would say* takes in a span of more than 100 feet
wide. This takes in a span of much more than that* possibly
200 to 300 feet span* from the edge of Sears sign across
the middle of the street and back down to Highland Avenue.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 767A
Q, Now, the last picture you referred to Is D-27,
which shows a view of the people who had been arrested
walking along in the custody of the police officers.,
doesn’t it?
A That’s right.
Q Naturally, the big crowd was back down Jackson
Street from there; that’s the reason you didn't get them
in that picture, wasn’t It?
, A If there were people, that would obstruct the
view, just as it does, houses and stores and everything
else In the background; but I'm not sure as to whether there
were people there or not.
Q You wouldn't say --
A
Q
I wouldn't know.
You wouldn’t say there wasn’t a large group of
people --
A I wouldn’to say there was or wasn't.
Q I see. Now, D-l4 that you explained about, it
shows the paraders marching by the bus station, doesn't it?
A It does.
Q They hadn't been arrested then, had they?
A They had not been arrested then.
Q All right, you see in the background some people,
other people that are not actually engaged in the march,
don’t you?
A I see some, yes.
Q Now, I show picture D-20, what is that? Tell us
what that is?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 768a
A That’s a picture of some prisoners working
somewhere in the vicinity of North Jackson and First
Avenue, back over there In the alley somewhere.
Q Dr. Martin Luther King is one of the prisoners
there, Isn't he?
A No, he's not on here.
Q, He's not?
A No.
q Who Is the most prominent prisoner In that
picture?
A Mr. King, Slater King.
q slater? Well, who is that wanted a picture of
that scene to publish? Will you tell us somebody that
ordered that, that ordered you to take that and get it
to them, so they could publish it?
A Nobody actually ordered it.
Q Nobody ordered it?
A It was taken --
Q, Who do you let have It so they could publish it?
Do you recall who you aid?
A I let the Southwest Georgian have it.
Q Well, who else besides the Southwest Georgian?
A No one else besides the Southwest Georgian.
Q, Nobody published that except the Southwest
Georgian?
A Not that I know of.
Q, Well the editor of the Southwest Georgian could
have gone around there and seen those people, if he had
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 76SA
wanted to, could't he?
A I really don't know.
MR. HOLLOWELL: May it please the Court - just
a moment If you don't mind —
Q, Mr. Rawls: So, you claim —
MR. HOLLOWELL: Just a moment, if you don't mind,
sir I This appears to he most irrelevant, Your Honor,
as to what somebody else might have done. I don't see
that it has any place in this trial. I haven't wanted
to interrupt. I just presumed that It would be within
the reasonable scope of this case; and I submit, Your
Honor, that this line of questioning that is being done
at this time Is immaterial and Irrelevant.
MR. RAWLS: I'm undertaking to show the
interest of the photographer, Your Honor.
I think the witness' Interest of want of interest
is always relevant.
THE COURT: Well, he testified that he
sold It, gave it or somehow delivered It to a
newspaper, I suppose it Is; I'm not familiar with it.
Q Mr. Rawls: How did you happen to know —
THE COURT: Just a momentl
MR. RAWLS: Pardon me, Your Honor.
THE COURT: So, you may Inquire of him if
you wish why he delivered It to them. I don't think
the point ought to be belabored much further.
Q, Mr. Rawls: How did you happen to know
where those prisoners would be on that particular date?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 77 OA
A
Q
A
Q,
did you
A
A
Q
I didn't know.
Did you cruise around town until you found them?
Exactly.
Did you have them to pose for the picture or
actually catch them at work?
I took it from the car.
They didn’t know you were taking it?
I never got out of the car.
Were they actually at work?
A It shows they're at work, digging leaves.
Q Digging leaves?
A Digging leaves or shoveling leaves or something.
There was a big pile of leaves on an open area. Somebody
that works for the City would Know more about why they
were there. I don’t know.
Q I believe the only one that’s got his foot on
his tool or whatever he’s working with Is Slater King,
Isn't that right? Is that correct?
A That’s the only one who has his foot on a
shovel. The rest of them appear to have rakes. I don't
know what they have; I don’t know.
Q Did you holler and tell Slater to pose, that
you were fixing to take his picture?
A Well, you know how everybody does when they
see a camera; they usually pose. I did not tell him.
however.
Q You didn’t tell him?
A No, Indeed.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 72? 771A
Q, So, you were interested in getting views every
time you took a picture that would sustain the position
and contention of the Albany Movement, that everything that
was done was done very orderly and without any commotion,"
isn’t that right?
A I was Interested in sale of pictures. That’s my
business and I'm not interested otherwise other than taking
pictures and selling them and making a living.
Q The people who would want to buy them though
wouldn't want to buy a picture, as a matter ©f fact, the
people who were your clientele wouldn't have published a
picture that would have shown any measure of commotion in
the City of Albany?
MR. HOLLOWELL: Now, may it please the Court, we
object. It’s argumentative, No. 1; It’s irrelevant,
No. 2; and it would call for a conclusion, No. 3
THE COURT: Yes, he couldn't know what
the people who were his customers would do; he couldn't
know that. I sustain the objection.
Mr. Rawls: Do you know how long these people
stayed in custody there after that picture was taken?
A No.
Q, You don’t know?
A I don’t know.
Q. Would you say yes or no to the proposition that
you were interested In taking pictures which would show
the lack, l-a-c-k (spelling), or the want or the absence
of commotion and strife in Albany?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 772A
A I would not say that, sir.
Q Do you answer that either way, yes or no?
A My only interest in taking photographs, as I
said before, was for sale of pictures and I had no ulterior
motives, if that answers your question. Other than that.
Q But you wanted to take pictures that would
sell the people who were Interested in your side of the
proposition, Is that right?
A I wouldn't be interested In taking them unless
they sold.
Q If you couldn't sell them, you wouldn't want to
take them?
A No.
Q, That's all.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. HOLLOWELL:
Q Mr. Cochran, I'll ask you just this one question;
Mr. Rawls asked you about a certain situation as of the
time you would take these pictures, dealing with the
matter of commotion and so forth: Have you at any time
ever taken any photographs which would show any violence
at all on the part of any person who was connected with
the Movement?
A I have not had an occasion to take any pictures
that showed any violence of any sort.
Q As a matter of fact, you've never seen any,
have you?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 773A
A I've never seen any.
Q, You can come down.
MR. RAWLS: Just one second.
RECROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR RAWLS:
Q. Now, back to the night of April 24, you said
you didn't take any pictures of the crowd that was down
there on Jackson Street --
THE COURT: Did you say April 24?
Q. Mr. Rawls: I meant July 24. Did you hear
anything or see anything that you didn't take a picture of
that would Indicate to you that there quite a bit of
strife and commotion In that area?
A No, I did not.
Q You didn't see anything?
A I left Immediately after I took two pictures.
I took two pictures of the marchers and I had to get those
on the plane or bus going out, whichever was going out on
that particular night, to Atlanta.
Q You were not ~~
A Actually, my camera on that night, actually my
camera jammed. I possibly would have been there longer,
had it not jammed.
THE COURT: All right, you may go down.
MR. HOLLOWELL: May it please the Court, this
witness may be excused as far as we are concerned, If
the Plaintiffs have no objection.
THE COURT:
being excused?
Any objection to this witness
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 72? 774a
MR. RAWLS: I know of none, Your Honor;
I see no reason why he shouldn’t he excused.
THE COURT: He is excused.
MR. HOLLOWELL: Mrs. Motley will interrogate the
next witness, Your Honor.
MRS. MOTLEY: Mayor Kelley —
THE CLERK: Have you been sworn?
MR. KELLEY: I think, not, Mr. Clark.
(Witness sworn)
MAYOR ASA D. KELLEY, JR.
a party Plantiff, called by Defendants
as adverse party, testified on
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MRS, MOTLEY:
Q Mayor Kelley, would you state your full name
for the record, please?
A Yes, I am Asa D. Kelley, Jr.
Q How long have you been the Mayor of the City of
Albany?
A Since i960, January, i960.
Q What Is your profession, Mayor Kelley?
A I am a practicing attorney.
Q, And how long have you been practicing?
A I was admitted to practice in 1943, after which
time I served three years In the United States Marine Corps;
and after which time I served approximately two year’s as
a Law Assistant on the Court of Appeals of Georgia; and in
1948 began the active practice of law in Albany, Georgia.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction,, No. 727 i
Q, When was the first time you ever received any
communication or gained any knowledge of the existence of
the Albany Movement?
A That's rather difficult to answer,, in that I
don't recall when the organization was first Identified
as the Albany Movement. I do recall that Dr.Anderson and
I believe Marion Page, and I think C. B. King and perhaps
Slater King, I'm not sure, came to see me as early as
February of 19 6l, to discuss the feelings of certain members
of the Negro community; and I believe presented at that
time a request to be submitted to the City Commission;
which, in substance if I recall correctly, sought complete
desegregation of all public facilities. But I am not clear
as to exactly what the demand was at that time. At that
time I indicated to Dr. Anderson and to the others present
that In my judgment the proper forum for the relief they
sought was in the Federal Courts.
Q, You say this was February, 196l?
A To the best of my recollection, yes.
Q, Let me show you this letter, which has been
marked D-28 for identification, with a receipt for certified
mail attached thereto, and ask you if you recall receiving
that letter?
A Yes, I think that I received this letter.
Q, Did that have anything to do with segregation
or dssegretation of public facilities?
A Well, it certainly requests the appointment of
a bi-racial committee; and my recollection Is that Dr.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary injunction, No. 727 776a
Anderson and several others actually came to see me and
discussed the whole area at that time. Of course, I
would not be positive as to exactly what was discussed
because it's been so long, but that Is my best recollection.
Q But you think that letter requests desegrega
tion of public facilities?
A No, it does not specifically. It does request
a bi-racial committee.
Q What was It complaining about, so that the Judge
will know what it’s about?
A At that time there was some stoning of houses
of Negro ministers and acts of vandalism, and some damage
to equipment at Albany State College. In that connection,
1 think it was later determined as a result of request I
made of the Chief of Police, that many of these acts com
plained of were actually committed by members of the colored
community, the Negro community. He would be In better
position to give you the details than I.
Q Is Albany State College a Negro College?
It is a Negro college, and I understand one ofA
the best.
Q
Kelley?
A
writing, no.
Q Now, a moment ago you said that Slater King
and Dr. Anderson and who else was it came to see you
about desegration of public facilities?
Did you ever respond to that letter, Mayo]
I have no recollection of having replied In
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. J2J 777A
A To the best of my recollection, Marlon Page
was with the original groupj and I think C. B. King was,
but I'm not at all positive as to who was there, as I've
had so many meetings with so many different representatives
! can'!t be positive.
Q Do you remember the date of that meeting?
A I do not.
Q Was It in November, 1961?
A There was a meeting as early as February of '6l,
I'm sure there were some In November of ’6l too.
Q Well, let me show you your EXHIBIT 7 and ask
you if at that time this exhibit was presented to you by
the gentlemen you have named as having been present?
A This was presented. I do not recall how and
In what manner It was presented, whether It was a meeting
or whether It was delivered to us. I just don't recall.
Q That you say was presented to you at that
meeting?
A I recall seeing this, yes.
Q, And that Is the matter or document which you
say requested desegregation of public facilities?
A This is one of the documents which requests
desegregation of all public facilities, yes.
Q What action has been taken on that petition?
A It was presented to the City Commission.
It was the feeling of the City Commission that the request
embraced too much, based on the long-term customs of
this area, that It was not feasible at this time to
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 778A
consider complete desegregation^ and that the Albany
Movement ox1 the people representing the Albany Movement
should properly resort to the Federal Courts for redress.
Q, At that time -- Let me ask you this, let me
show you this newspaper* clipping --
MR. RAWLS: Now if Your Honor pleases, I
object to giving to this witness any clipping, unless
it's been Identified and Is authentic. A printed
piece of paper without any authenticity at all
about It is not the proper way to prove what was
in a newspaper.
MRS. MOTLEY: I wasn't trying to prove what
was in the newspaper, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I would not allow it to be
introduced under those circumstances. Of course,
I don’t know how she intended to use it yet.
MRS. MOTLEY: I intended to ask him to read it
and ask him whether the statement made therein regarding
this petition was a true statement.
THE COURT: You may do so.
Q (Newspaper clipping handed to witness) . . .
A Yes, I think the newspaper article speaks the
truth.
Q Mrs. Motley; And that indicates that you
said that there were no areas of agreement between you and
the petitioners?
MR. RAWLS; Now, if Your Honor pleases, I
move to strike the testimony that is elicted here
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 7T9A
from the Mayor., on the ground that it's illegal,
irrelevant and immaterial as to the suit under
consideration. There's nothing about the question
or answer that is indicative of anything charged In
our complaint or set up in their answer in the Injunction
suit.
THE COURT: I haven't seen the newspaper
article and don't know what's In It.
(Newspaper clipping handed to Court)
MR. RAWLS: Your Honor please, I'm talking
about his evidence generally that has been elicited so
far.
MRS. MOTLEY: In that connection, we would
like to direct the Court's attention to paragraph 19
of the answer filed in this case.
THE COURT: Let's maintain order in the
courtroom, Mr. Marshal.
THE MARSHAL: Let's have order In the courtroom.
MR. RAWLS: In other words, If Your Honor
pleases, it is our position in this suit for injunc
tion that these defendants ought to be restrained
from this illegal conduct; and, of course, they
cannot in law justify Illegal conduct just because
they contend that the City officials are engaging in
a practice of segregation which they contend Is illegal.
There's proper redress for such relief as that, which
would be In a suit in the Federal Court, and not by
illegal parades.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 78OA
THE COURT: Well, the trouble is, Mr. Rawls,
on direct examination of some of Plaintiff’s witnesses,
there was some testimony that went into the record
with regard to negotiations and conferences that had
been had and so on; and in the light of that circum
stance I am going to allow counsel fox’ the Defendants
to develop the general theory, which is expressed in
the type of question that is being asked, about
whether negotiations did go on, and the dates of
them, and such as that.
I'm not going to go beyond that. I'm not going
to allow counsel to go Into specific instances v/here
certain things were done, which counsel may complain
of as having been denied, whereby somebody was denied
some alleged constitutional right. But by virtue of
the general type of testimony that went in when the
Plaintiffs presented their case, I'm going to allow
this line of questioning and we'll draw the line at
that point as I think it goes beyond developing that
theory. You may go ahead.
MRS. MOTLEY: If I might say this further,
Your Honor, in paragraph 19 of our answer, we allege
that the activity of the Defendants here was to seek
desegregation of public facilities; and I think that
we are entitled to prove that.
THE COURT: I say, I'm agreeing with you.
I say that I am going to allow you to go into It, to
the extent - although If this kind of testimony had
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 781A
not come in., in the Plaintiffs' presentation, I would
rule It out now, but it did come in, in Plaintiffs'
presentation, and I'm going to allow Defendants to go
into It to that extent, to show what the general
situation was. And we will draw the line at the point
when I think It has gone far enough to demonstrate it.
Q. Mrs. Motley: Now, let me ask you this, Mayor
Kelley: After P~7, which Is this petition to desegregate
public facilities, was presented to you, did you or the
Council ever meet with the Defendants in this case who
presented this petition?
A To my knowledge, there was never any official
meeting. I have on numerous occasions met unofficially
with Dr. Anderson and others to discuss this very problem,
and did so throughout practically all of last year, as I
recall, particularly in November.
THE COURT: Will you talk a little louder,
please?
A The Witness: Yes sir - particularly In November
of last year. But to answer your specific question as to
whether there was a meeting of the Commission, official
meeting of the Commission and members of the Albany Movement,
I do not recall one; nor did the members of the Albany
Movement ever come to a regularly scheduled meeting of the
City Commission, other than at the time that this matter
was presented, if it was presented at that time*
Q Now, the statement which you made in the newspaper
was that the statement which you were making on behalf of the
Commission?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 782A
A Yes, I was speaking for the Commission when I
said that when the Albany Movement demanded complete inte
gration of all public facilities, that the Commission felt
that there was no area in which agreement could be made on
that basis. And I would like to hasten to point out that
at that time, in conversations with Dr. Anderson a.nd other
leaders, we reiterated the stand that if desegregation was
sought or integration was sought of any facility that they
should proceed In the normal legal manner In the United
States District Court.
Q I didn't hear the end of that. When did you tell
them to proceed in the United States District Court?
A I've told them on every occasion I've had
an opportunity, beginning in February of 1961, up until
no later than this morning.
Q Now, which of these facilities are under the
direct control of the City Commission, to which this
petition was presented?
A May I see the list of the facilities?
Q (Document handed to the witness) . . .
MR. RAWLS: Your Honor, I object to that
question on the ground that It has no relevancy so
far as this particular case is concerned.
THE COURT: Yes, I sustain that objection.
I think we are now going, Mrs. Motley, we're going
too far; we're getting over into specifics, you see,
that would have pertinency on the trial of another
suit which you have pending, which will come up In
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 ?83A
due coursej that is, where you ask for injunctive
relief and desegregation of certain specified facili
ties. But I don't think these details now that you
are about to get into have any relevance here. I think
your showing that you have made, that there were con
ferences and demands and so on, and what was said
In response, I've allowed all of that. But when you
get into these specifics, I think that's going too far
in this suit. It will be pertinent in the othex* suit
but not in this suit.
MRS. MOTLEY: Well, Your Honor,the purpose
of this question is to show that the activity of the
Defendants, which is sought to be enjoined, was a
peaceful protest against the refusal of the City
Commission to desegregate the facilities which were
under their direct supervision and control,
THE COURT: No. I'm sure that's your theory
and you have already shown that. You see, he's already
testified now, that In response to the demands that
were made, that the City said that as long as the demand
was for the complete integration or desegregation of
all public facilities, that there was no area of
agreement. So, you have it In the record that that
was the difference between them.
MRS. MOTLEY: Yes.
THE COURT: But that would not -- And I've
allowed that for the reason that there was some refer
ence In Plaintiffs' testimony to conferences and so on.
No. 72? 784aHearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction,
But to go beyond that would be to seek to justify
what the Plaintiffs claim was illegal conduct, which
resulted in this disrupted situation in the community,
If there has been such, to seek to justify It by saying
that the reason we were doing this was so and so.
And we can't go into details about that.
I've allowed you to get into rhe record that
the purpose of your demonstration was to object to
the failure of the City Commission to agree with your
demands. But now, let's don't go Into specifics
about this being of the facilities or this being
one, or the other one being one; that on a certain
date you didn't let a certain person do this or you
did require a person to do that. Let's don't get
into specifics.
MRS. MOTLEY: Well, I didn't think my last
question was directed to the underlying reasons.
I thought I was trying to clarify the record with
respect to which of these listed facilities are under
the jurisdiction of the Commission, because there are
other facilities here, such as the bus station, and
so forth.
THE COURT: But you see, that becomes
immaterial because he's already said, in response to
your question, that the City Commission did not or
could not go along with the demands for the complete
desegregation of all of these public facilities,
whatever they were, whatever they were. And you have
735AHearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 72?
indicated that that's the reason that you were demon
strating, was because they wrouldn' t go along with your
demands. As a matter of fact, some of the Defendants
themselves have already testified to that. So, let's
leave It there, without going into the details.
Q Mrs. Motley: Were you here during the time
that Chief Pritchett was testifying?
A I think I was here during most of the time, yes.
Q Did you hear his testimony with respect to the
enforcement of certain City ordinances?
A Yes, I did.
MR. RAWLS: Now, if Your Honor pleases, we
object to that. As a matter of fact, Mr. Kelley
conducted the examination; but nevertheless, it's
not proper to ask one witness what he thinks about
what another witness testifies.
THE COURT: Yes, I don't see how it would
be pertinent to ask this witness what he -
MR. RAWLS: - what his impression was of
the testimony.
THE COURT: - what his impression of the
testimony was.
MRS. MOTLEY: I was going to ask him whether he
agreed with It, the Commissioners or the Police
Chiefs statement as to which of these ordinances
were going to be enforced and which were not.
THE COURT: Well, there again, Mrs. Motley,
aren't we getting into the other lawsuit which you
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 736A
have pending? In other words, you've got another
lawsuit pending, which will come up in due course,
in which you ask that the City be enjoined from,
enforcing certain local ordinances to which you
refer, and so on.
Now, in this case I don't see the materiality
of asking this witness, and I did not see the materi
ality of it at the time that Chief Pritchett was
answering those questions on cross examination. That's
when he answered them, was on cross examination. If
objection had been made at that time, I would have
sustained an objection to that line of questioning;
but no objection was made. But I do not — simply
because some immaterial evidence got In then, because
no objection was made, is no foundation for me to
allow you now, since I do have an objection, to go
Into what I consider immaterial matter in the adjudi
cation of this lawsuit. Let's save that for your other
suit which yon have.
MRS. MOTLEY: Excuse me just a moment . . .
I would like to say this, Your Honor: I think that
the Befendandants here are entitled to show exactly what
the situation is In the City of Albany about which
they are protesting. The Mayor has admitted that he
was presented with a petition requesting desegregation
of all public facilities. We now Intend to show that
there are certain ordinances of the City of Albany
requiring racial segregation In certain other non-
learing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 737A
public facilities, and that the protest goes to these
ordinances and the segregation enforced therein pursuant
to these ordinances.
THE COURT: Weren't those ordinances introduced
In evidence the other day?
MR. RAWLS: Now, if Your Honor pleases,
they're here; the ordinances are In writing and the
ordinance itself would be the highest and best evidence
of Its existence; and there's a proper way to prove
the existence of an ordinance than to ask the Mayor
what the ordinance is, which Is not the proper method.
THE COURT: Yes, I agree with that; the
ordinance would be the highest and best evidence.
I just don't know really how material that would be.
I have allowed some of your Defendants to testify
when they were on the stand about why they were carry
ing on these protests. I really don't think it was
material, but they were allowed to so testify.
And the purpose of my ruling here, as I am
now ruling, is not to eliminate from the case that
theory upon which - that theory which you seek to
urge, that the reason you were doing this was in
furtherance of your cause and so on. But I don't think
we should go any further with it. It's already In the
record. It's in the record from the testimony of the
Defendants and It's already in the record actually
from the testimony of Mayor Kelley, where he says
as a result of these demands being made, on behalf of
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 72? 788A
the City I advised the representatives that we could
not accede to them; and I advised them, that I thought
what they should do was so and so in the Federal
Courts, So, it's In the record.
Now, what I am ruling Is that to go further, to
ask him about, now don’t you have another ordinance
which says this, and don’t you have one that says
this, and are you going to enforce this, and are you
going to enforce that; that's evidence that will be
highly pertinent and material In Civil Action 730
or 731, whichever it is. But I don’t consider that
pertinent in this case. And I ’m going to exclude
any further questioning along that line.
MRS. MOTLEY: In that case, Your Honor, we
would have to invoke the provisions of Rule 43 (c)
because I think that we do have a right to prove
our defense, and we have a right to complete the
record as to exactly what the Mayor and the City
Council are enforcing by way of segregation, so that
it will be plain in the record what the protest was
all about. I don’t think it's clear and I think that
on our direct case we have a right to complete the
record and to make the record speak distinctly and
clearly as to exactly what the Albany Movement Is all
about and what the City seeks to enjoin; so that, if
the Court, excuse me Your Honor, if the Court rules
that we can't go into this any more, then we would
like to get it in the record, pursuant to Rule 43 (c).
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 7b9A
THE COURT: I think Rule 43 (c) reads that
you may be allowed to supplement the record unless,
In the judgment of the Court, what is sought to be
shown Is clearly immaterial; and, in my judgment, it
Is clearly immaterial. I've allowed you to get into
the record the general proposition in the testimony,
as I have said, of some of the Defendants and your
questioning thus far of the Mayor.
I am ruling that to go into specifics would be
an attempt on the part of the Defendants to justify
what the Plaintiffs claim is improper conduct, by
saying that these ordinances are an the books; and,
therefore, we think we have a right to act as we have
acted. The question is, whether the conduct of the
Defendants is, as alleged In the petition, and whether
that conduct deprives other persons of the equal pro
tection of the law. The question Is not whether the
Defendants in their own minds think they're justified
in their conduct; and that's what you are attempting
to go into now.
MRS. MOTLEY: No. Your Honor, I'm sorry --
THE COURT: And I am not going to allow
the questioning to go any further Into details. If
we did, Mrs. Motley. It would open the door for you to
present evidence here of every Incident that may have
occured since all of this agitation started, when
anybody may have been denied access to any public
facility which you think should be desegregated,
which would not be pertinent here.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 790A
What you're doing, in my estimation, is confusing
what you want to show in the other suit with what
would be pertinent In this case. And I suggest that
we leave it right where it is. I am not going to
rule out or exclude anything that Is already in the
record. You have your theory In the record already,
but to go into specifics about specific ordinances
and specific instances, that the City does or does
not enforce certain ordinances or statutes is not
pertinent in this case, as I see It.
And that's the way I view it and I trust that
we can go on to something else.
Q, Mrs. Motley: Let me ask you this question,
Mayor Kelley: When you directed the petitioners to the
Federal Court, were you conceding in effect that all of
these facilities which are segregated would not be segregated
by the City?
MR. RAWLS: Now, if Your Honor pleases
THE COURT: Just a moment; let her complete
the record.
Q Mrs. Motley: But only If the Court required
you to desegregate them?
MR. RAVILS: I wil] object to that question
if Your Honor please and the anticipated answer on the
ground that it's illegal, Irrelevant and Immaterial
to this particular suit.
THE COURT: Yes, you're asking him. for a con
clusion, which I think would be inappropriate, Mrs.
Motley.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 79LA
MRS. MOTLEY: Your Honor, as I understand the
complaint here, the complaint charges these Defendants
with certain unlawful conduct in doing things which
they know to he wrong and, therefore, the Plaintiffs
are entitled to come into a court of equity and get
an injunction, enjoining them from doing what the
Plaintiffs believes to be wrong.
I think that the Defendants have the right to
show that the Plaintiffs were the ones who were
violating the law, and that they are the ones that
should be enjoined.
Now, the Mayor Is a lawyer, he testified he's been
since 1943; and I think we're entitled to show that
when these people presented the petition, he knew
as a matter of law that the Supreme Court had ruled
with respect to all of these public facilities that
they could not be operated on a segregated basis; and
it was they who were violating the law and not the
Defendants. I think we are entitled to show that.
THE COURT: Mrs. Motley, it gets back to
the very fundamental difficulty that's involved
here. You have another suit, in which you make the
very contention that you have just made to me. It's
either Civil Action No. 730 or 731, In which you seek
to enjoin the City of Albany from doing the things
that you say are improper; and that question which
you have just asked would be the most pertinent
question that could be asked In that suit, but not
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 792A
in this suit, because any improper conduct, if there
has been any, on the part of the Defendants could not
be justified, could not be justified by a showing on
the part of the Defendants that they themselves think
that the City of Albany should not enforce such statutes.
That will be mateidLal In the other suit but not in
this suit. In other words, what Mayor Kelley may think
about It, what he may think about whether certain
City ordinances are unconstitutional or are invalid
or not, would have no pertinency in this case. It
will in the other.
MRS. MOTLEY: I would like to say too, please
Your Honor: First, in addition to the fact that we
have filed a suit, we also have In this case the
right to present a defense and we've filed an answer
In this case, In which we allege segregation is being
enforced. I think we have a right to prove that.
I think we have a right, as I said before, to show
exactly what the Albany Movement as all about as a
defense in this action. Otherwise, we're not getting
a hearing.
Now, the second thing is, this Court is
sitting as a court of equity and I'm sure that
Your Honor Is familiar with the equity maxim that
when one comes into court and asks for an Injunction,
he must come In with clean hands. Nov/, we intend to
show that the Plaintiffs do not have clean hands,
as they've asked the Court to enjoin us from doing
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 793A
certain acts, which they contend are unlawful because
we could go to the Federal Court and get the same
result. That doesn't say our acts which we did are
unlawful. But we want to show that their hands are
unclean. We do not believe that a Federal Court can
in an action of this kind enjoin those who are
protesting against segregation, when that segregation
Is on fact being enforced by those seeking the injunc
tion, In violation of established lav/.
And that's our defense to this action, that
they're not entitled to an Injunction as long as
they segregate Negroes In the City of Albany; and
they can't come Into a Federal Court and say, enjoin
them from protesting against that which Is illegal
and already declared Illegal by the Supreme Court.
That's why we want to show this.
THE COURT: The fundamental diversion -
the fundamental divergence in our views, Mrs. Motley,
Is you continue to view as being the trial of
your other suit along with this suit, wnich it is not.
Now, this is the very reason I made the suggestion
that I did earlier today, about the feasibility of
consolidating all of them., just so that we wouldn't
have these problems.
This suit is brought by these Plaintiffs, not
to enjoin, not to enjoin any Defendant from objecting
to or Interposing any objection to any segregation
ordinance In the City of Albany. It Is brought to
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 72? 7
enjoin the violation of certain penal statutes, which
relate to unlawful assembly and which relate to other
features which are described in the petition.
Now, the mere fact that the Defendants may
in their minds say, "Well, the reason we have done
these things is because there are certain segregation
ordinances which we think the City should not enforce"
it would not he pertinent to show as a defense in
this case.
Now, the Defendants have a perfect right to
show that their marches or their parades or their
walkings, whatever you want to call them, that they
have a perfect right to show that it was not disrupt
ing, as alleged in the Plaintiffs' petition; they have
a right to show that It was not in violation of any
ordinance against parades and so forth; they have a
right to show that we were not guilty of the acts of
violence which have been described. You have a right
to show that "our activities did not cause a situation
which was likely to erupt In violence, that our
activities were peaceful, our activities were clean,
our* activities were honarable, and we did not create
any of the situations which are complained of here,
If the situation did exist at all." You have a right
to show that it didn't even exist.
But to allow you to come in and say that "we
were justified in doing these things because we think
that certain ordinances of the City of Albany are
Hearing on Motion Fox'5 Preliminary Injunction, No. 727
invalid" would be simply opening the door to the
trial of your other lawsuit, which I'm not going to
allow in this case. I'm going to allow it at the
proper time, when we try that lawsuit, but not in
this case.
And I think we’ve gone far enough with it, and
I suggest that we proceed now with another line of
questioning.
Q. Mrs. Motley: Let me show you PLAINTIFFS’
EXHIBIT 12, which is the ordinance having to do with
parades, demonstration and public addresses: Have you
ever read that ordinance?
A I have.
Q Have you ever given any legal consideration to
the constitutionality of that ordinance on Its face?
MR. RAWLS: Now, if Your Honor, pleases,
the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of that
ordinance hasn't got a thing in the world to do with
this case.
THE COURT: I'm going to allow that question
because this relates to one of the Issues an the case,
whether there was a parade and whether it was improper,
or whether it was simply people walking down the side
walks, I'm going to allow that question,
MRS. MOTLEY: I was going to ask the witness
his opinion. He testified that he's a lawyer and
I think he Is able to give an opinion on the consti
tutionality of the ordinance with which the Defendants
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 796A
are charged with violating.
MR. RAWLS: Now, If Your Honor please, I
don't think this witness' opinion can he introduced
on a legal problem.
THE COURT: No.
MR. RAWLS: It has no place in this
case at all and that's exactly what they're attempting
to do.
THE COURT: 1 don't believe It would be
proper, Mrs. Motley, and I think on reflection you
will agree, that it would be proper to ask the witness
for any legal conclusion concerning the matter, because
it is simply Incidental that he's a lawyer. I don't
think if would be any more pertinent to ask him for
a conclusion than It would anybody else. I will allow
you to examine him about now, what he considers a
parade to be and such as that; and whether these
Instances he considered them parades; but not a
legal conclusion about constitutionality.
MRS. MOTLEY: Well, the reason I liras asking
that, Your Honor and I won't press it, but I did want
to say this: Again, this goes to the clean hands.
The Mayor Is also a lawyer. He comes Into court and
asks that people be enjoined from violating this
ordinance, which I think he knows is unconstitutional
on its face, and that is what I was trying to bring
out; that he has unclean hands when he comes in and
asks a court of equity to enjoin people from, violating
the law.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction* No. 727 797A
MR. RAWLS: Now, if Your Honor pleases, in
view of the statement made by counsel, I want to say
this: The Supreme Court of the United States has
held that ordinances regulating activities on the
streets and sidewalks, almost identical to the ones
that are in our City Code, have been held constitutional
by the Supreme Court of the United States.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. RAWLS: Under the police powers.
THE COURT: Well, I'm not ruling one way
or another on that, because that's not before me at
this moment. All I'm saying is that I will allow you
to examine the witness about whether these things,
if there were arrests made, whether the arrest were
made, if he knows - he may not know - whether the
arrests were made because they violated this ordinance
or whether they were made for some other reason.
But don't ask him for a legal conclusion
about constitutionality.
Q Mrs. Motley; All right, Mayor Allen, which
are the activities of these Defendants do you say —
A Just for the record, my name is Kelley, please.
Q What's that?
A Just for the record, my name is Kelley, not
Allen.
Q I'm sorry; I was thinking of Mayor Allen,
I guess, In some other1 town: Which of the activities of
the Defendants do you say violated that ordinance?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction* No. 727 798A
A First of all* I would like to point out that
the so-called "parade ordinance" was adopted in 1913*
many* many years ago. In my judgment* the activities of
the Albany Movement by having parades on the streets of
the City of Albany* without first obtaining written consent
of the City Manager* Is a violation of this penal statute..
And I might add that at no time to my knowledge*
either in November or December or since* has any represen
tative of the Albany Movement ever requested permission
for a parade or demonstration.
In addition to that* I think that it has been
clearly demonstrated by the evidence of the Plaintiffs
that the Georgia law enacted in 1913? relative to obstruct
ing pedestrian traffic —
Q .Excuse me* let’s take one ordinance at a time*
please sir?
A All right.
Q Which parades of the Defendants do you say
violated that first ordinance?
A There were several parades in November* 1
mean In December and there were several in July. I don't
recall the exact dates. I think the latest parade was
on the 24th of July* Is my recollection. There \Arere several.
All of those parades* all of the cases that
have been made based on this parade ordinance* certainly
in my judgment are valid exercises of the police powers
of the City of Albany* and the activities of the Albany
Movement and those acting In concert violated this ordinance.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 799A
Q Well, you can't name any specific activity of
the Defendants by date and describing that activity which
you say violated that ordinance, can you?
A Yes. I have witnessed most of the demonstrations,
parades. I know that there was a parade on, I think, the
24th of July. I know there was on the 21st of July.
Q Now, let's take the one on the 24th?
A All right.
Q. What about that constituted a parade?
A I think, if my memory serves me correctly, there
were some 30 or 40 people marching down the street at
relatively close Intervals, with large bodies of people
following them, and they did not have the written consent
of the City Manager to do so; and, in my judgment, that
constituted an Illegal, unlawful parade.
Q You say 30 or 40 people walking down the street
a parade?
A When they are acting in concert, yes, at
close intervals and obviously marching as a demonstration.
Q Were they marching in tune to music?
A If there was music, I did not hear It.
Q Were there any banners or floats?
A Not to my knowledge.
Q. Was there a leader with a baton or something
in his hand directing this parade?
A No, there was a leader, whose name I do not know.
He is the one who was requested to present the written
permit and did not have It. I don't know what his name
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction* No. 72? 800A
is* but he was obviously a leader of the group.
Q, Were they marching In the manner that soldiers
march, keeping step?
A I am Informed and believe that is the manner
in which they were marching, yes.
Q, I thought you said you were there?
A I think: I was there on the 24th.
Q, Well, let's find out?
A I've seen most of them.
Q Were you there or were you not there?
A I just don't recall whether I was or I wasn't.
I've seen many of them; but whether I was actually present
on the 24th I do not know.
Q, All right now, what about the 21st of July,
what parade did you see on that day?
A I believe that is the parade which took place
after this Court Issued a restraining order on July 20.
Q Were you there?
A Was I where?
Q At that parade or whatever this activity Is
you're describing on the 21st?
A Yes, I believe I was.
Q Where were you standing?
A I was in the vicinity of the City Hall. I then
went down to, I think, almost to the old Colonial Store
building. I'm not at all sure exactly. I was all over,
looking to see what was going on.
Q, Okay, how many people were In this so-called
parade?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 8 01A
A I do not recall how many there were.
Q You don't know how many there were?
A I don't know.
Q Well, were there 10 or 10,000? Can't you give
us an estimate of how many people were in that parade?
A I do not know how many there were.
Q Were there any banners or floats or signs?
A Not to ray knowledge.
Q. None of that?
A Not to ray knowledge.
Q What were the people doing?
A They -were violating the ordinances of the City
of Albany by parading on the streets. They were also, in
ray judgment, violating the restraining order which had
been issued by this Court.
Q All right, what were they doing, how were they
violating the order?
A Well, according to the ordinance they were
parading and demonstrating on the public streets without
the written consent of the City Manager, and in violation
of the order of this Court; they were violating that, In
that they were parading and demonstrating on the public
streets when they had been ordered not to do so.
Q Well, you're reading the words of the statute,
Mayor Kelley, I'm. asking you what they were doing?
A I'm telling you what they were doing.
Q You just read the words of the statute; I want
to know precisely what they were doing? Were they marching
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 802A
2-abreast or 4-abrest, 6-abrest; how were they marching?
A They were marching 2-abreast, I believe.
Q How far apart were they?
A Very close interval.
Q How far would you say?
A I don't know.
Q You don't have any idea?
A No, they were very close.
Q Where did you first see them, at what point?
A I don't recall that.
Q Was it before they arrived at Oglethorpe or
afterwards?
A I just don't know. I don't know. I am inclined
to think it was before they reached Oglethorpe but I just
simply do not recall. I witnessed so many of the things
that I don't remember exactly on this particular occasion.
Q Did you ever get as far as Oglethorpe yourself?
A Did I get to Oglethorpe? I have been to
Oglethorpe, yes.
Q At that time I.-'m talking about?
A I think not.
Q, Hox«i did you happen to be there?
A I have a responsibility to enforce the laws
and ordinances of this City and I make it my business to
be in proximity to the places where people have announced
their intentions to violate our ordinances and do everything
I can to preserve order and peace in our community.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction* No. 727 803A
Q Did you see Chief Pritchett that night?
A Which night?
Q The 21st of July?
A I'm sure I did.
Q Where was he?
A Well* Chief Pritchett is a very fine law
enforcement officer and it's very difficult to keep up
with him. At one time he will be at one place and the
next minute he will be somewhere else. I don't know where
all he went. I do know that he made the arrests after
it was known to him that people were violating the ordinances
of our City.
Q Were you there when he made the arrests?
A No, I was not.
Q, So, you say you were not there when he made
the arrests, is that right?
A No, I was not.
Q So, you say you were not there when he made
the arrests, is that right?
A No, I was not.
Q, So, you don't know whether the ordinance was
violated or not, do you?
A I saw them parading wichout a permit. I know
that no application was ever made for a permit. I know
also that they were obstructing traffic, they were causing
great crowds to mingle in Harlem.
Q Where were they obstructing traffic? Let's be
specific.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 8 04 A
A In the neighborhood of the Trailways bus station
and on Oglethorpe also.
Q, Let's name the streets and the points at which
they were obstructing traffic?
A Be on Oglethorpe Avenue and I suppose the 2-
and 300 blocks of Jackson Street south of Oglethorpe.
Q In what manner was the traffic obstructed?
A Automobiles and motor vehicles did not have
free passage because of the throngs of people congregating.
Q How many automobiles did you see obstructed?
A I do not recall.
Q, Well, were there 2 or 100 or what?
A I just simply do not know. I didn't count them.
Q Now, who else was at this parade on the 21st,
other than Chief Pritchett?
A Who else was there? I didn’t understand your
question?
Q. Who else was at the parade that you say took
place on July 21?
A I don’t know the identities of all those present.
Q, Well, can't you name any? If it was a parade,
there should have been a lot of people out there watching it?
A Yes, as a matter of fact, I think those partici
pating actively In the parade in violation of our ordinance
and in violence of the Judge's order were incarcerated.
I’ll be happy to get you the names If you want them. I don’t
know who all was in the parade.
Q Do you know anybody who was on the sidewalk as
a spectator?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 805A
A No, I do not.
Q Isn't it a fact that the police blocked off the
traffic on the streets which you have just described?
A They did not, to my knowledge.
Q Do you have any connection with the issuance of
permits for parades?
A Do I?
Q Yes?
A I have connection with It only to the extent
that as a member of the City Commission, we establish a
policy to be followed by the City Manager. The City Manager
is the person who actually issues or denies a permit. The
Commission will establish policy as to the Issuance of
these permits.
Q All right, let's see what the policy is, Mayor
Kelley?
A The policy of the City Commission in the issuance
of permits has been to allow any parade, which is composed
of people who wanted to have a parade at a time and place
and under circumstances that the public interest would not
be affected. For example, on many occasions the Albany
State College has been given permission to parade. Every
year the Negro community has a Christmas parade. We have
frequently granted permits - I say we, the City Manager
has - for parades by fraternal and civic organizations,
Including those made up of Negroes. I recall not too long-
ago some Masonic order had a larger gathering for 2 or 3
days here and they wanted to parade.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 806A
But those people went about It In the normal
and. legal manner. They came to the City, they made an
application for a permit to parade, they outlined the
time at which they would like to have the parade and the
route they would like to follow. And those permits have
been Issued. On other occasions permits have been denied.
For example, when Miss Georgia --
Q Are you on the policy now?
A I'm trying to answer your question.
Q, Oh, all right; I didn't know?
A For example, when Miss Georgia was crowned,
the JayCees here in Albany wanted permission to parade
Miss Georgia around the streets of the City of Albany,
and that was not denied, or not denied, they just weren't
given permission to do It, because of the tenseness created
in this City by law violators; namely, the people who have
advocated the violation of our ordinances, like the Albany
Movement.
Q. So, this Is the policy, you say?
A Yes, It goes to the policy. We do not issue a
permit If we think that che situation Is so tense and so
upset that the peace may be disturbed, or there will be
an undue Interference with the traffic of the City.
Q Well, what I get out of your statement then is,
first, that there's a policy of giving permits to Negroes
and whites who want to parade, right?
A if they make the application properly and the
time that they want to have the parade Is such that it will
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 307A
not interfere unduly with the normal flow of traffic,
and the route they prescribe is a route which can be
followed at a time when it will not Interfere too much
with the rights of other people to use the streets.
Q, All right, now the second thing I get out of
your policy statement Is that you give permission for
the Santa Claus parade and the Elks and the C-Irl Scouts:
Now, what about a parade In protest against the City’s
policy on segregation?
A If it's in violation of the ordinances of the
City, certainly we would - reframe your question.
Q I ’m asking you what the policy is with respect
to the issuance of permits to protest against the City's
policy of segregation?
A There has been no request for such a permit.
Q You mean you would give one if such requests
were made?
A It depends upon the time it's made, the situation
existing as to public protection of the public, and when
It’s made. I would not presume to announce a policy at
this time, without consultation with other members of the
Commission because, as I ’ve just related, we just recently
denied a permit because of the tenseness of the situation
existing in Albany.
Now, If a person or the Albany Movement were to
make application for a permit to parade, I'm. sure that iu
would be given very serious consideration, if they want
to do it as a time and over a route which would not unduly
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 3o8a
Interfere with the rights of others.
Q, With the what?
A Which would not unduly interfere with the rights
of others.
Q Well, what do you mean by that? Over a route In
the colored area, where the white people wouldn’t see it?
is that what you mean?
A No, I do not mean that.
Q Well, what do you mean?
A I mean that the route that they want to follow
must be a route which is consistent with the use of the
streets and thoroughfares by other people, and will not
unduly Interfere with their use.
Q Now, let me show you the letter1, written to
Mr. Roos by W. G. Anderson, the President of the Albany
Movement, which you attach as Exhibit "A" to your complaint
In this case; Now, what is there about that request for
a parade that you would deny?
A The simple fact is that this is not a request
for a permit to parade.
Q What is it?
A At no time or at no place in this letter will
you find any request for the issuance of a parade permit.
As I construe this letter, It Is nothing more than a
notification by the Albany Movement that they intended
and did as a matter of fact violate the ordinances of the
City of Albany. And, in addition to that, they at the
time violated the order of this Court. This Is no request.
It was not treated as a request.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 8Q9A
Q, The order of this Court had not been issued at
that time. Mayor Kelley?
A That's very true but at the time of the violation
of the City ordinance on July 21, the order had been issued
as of July 20,
Q All right, now we're on this letter - what's the
date of that letter?
A This letter is July 19.
Q What in that letter is a violation of the parade
ordinance?
A There's nothing in the letter itself, except
the announced intention to violate the City ordinance.
Q, All right, where is the announced intention
to violate the City ordinance?
A (Reading letter): "A group of citizens and
members of the Albany Movement proposes to manifest a
peaceful protest in front of the City Hall on Saturday,
July 21, at 4:00 PM. This manifestation will involve
approximately 300 to 500 people. They will walk from
Shiloh and Mt. Zion Baptist churches east to Jackson,
then north Jackson" and so forth. "The group will walk
on the sidewalks and observe all traffic signals, thereby
avoiding the necessity for the interruption of the normal
flow of trqffic. This group will welcome assistance by
the Albany Police Department in facilitating the crossing
of the streets."
But the truth of it is, they didn't abide by
the traffic signals, according to the information I have.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 810A
And they Intended to parade and did parade, as a matter of
fact, close together, In a large body.
Q, You say that Dr.Anderson paraded?
A I didn't say Dr. Anderson did, no.
Q Well, he wrote the letter, didn't he?
A Yes, he wrote the letter.
Q, You said he had that parade, when did he have It?
A It was on July 21, or the Albany Movement -
at least those in concert with the Albany Movement had it.
I think Dr. Anderson was not In it, I'm sure.
Q. Now, who were those in concert with the Albany
Movement that had the parade?
A I'll have to ask the Chief of Police to give me
a list of those who were incax’cerated by reason of violating
the ordinance and the Court's order. I don't know their
names.
Q, But you say this letter violates your ordinance,
Is that right?
A I didn't say that the letter violated the ordinance.
I said the activities announced in the letter which subse
quent occurred violated the ordinance and the Court order.
Q I'm not asking you about what subsequently
occurred; I'm asking you whether this announced activity
would violate your ordinance?
A The announced activity?
Q Yes, what they said they were going to do in
here; would you say that's a violation of your ordinance?
A If they carry out the announced activity in
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction], No. 727 811A
the manner which they actually carried it out on July 21,
yes.
■Q, All right, now you've answered that question.
I'm now asking you whether the activity described In this
letter is a violation of the ordinance?
A It Is If — the letter Itself —
MR. RAWLS: Now Your Honor please, I object
to that question and the answer, on the ground that it
would constitute a legal opinion.
THE COURT: Well, he's on cross-examination
and I don't think the Intent of the question calls for
a legal conclusion. She's simply trying to get his view
of what constitutes a violation of the ordinance.
MRS. MOTLEY: That's right.
THE COURT: I will allow the question.
A The Witness: As a matter of fact, I think
that If the Albany Movement had done what they said they
were going to do in the letter, that there would be some
question as to whether or not there would be a violation
of the ordinance. But It's my Information and belief that
they did not do what they said they intended to do.
0, Well, if they did what they said they intended
to do by this letter, what question do you have about It?
A Well, I think a group of people would not be
in violation of this parade ordinance, if as a matter of
fact they simply walked on the sidewalks at a reasonable
distance apart, In reasonable numbers and obeyed the traffic
signals, didn't obstruct traffic, didn't congregate on
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction,, No. 727
the sidewalks and obstruct the pedestrian traffic, and
didn't unduly keep customers from going Into places of
business, that that wouldn't be a violation.
But I hasten- to reiterate that what actually
happened Is, in my judgment, a violation, not only of
the City ordinance but of the Court’s order.
MR. RAWLS: We submit, If Your Honor pleases,
that that particular statute or ordinance doesn't need
any Interpretation to determine what Is a violation
of It, because the statute says it’s a violation to
parade without a permit.
THE COURT: I'm allowing the line of question
ing as I previously announced, She has a right to go
into what is in his mind as the Mayor of the City
when the ordinance is enforced; that is, what he
considers a violation of it, from a practical stand
point, from a factual standpoint.
MRS. MOTLEY: That's right.
Not a legal conclusion.
That' s right.
All right, go ahead.
Q Mrs. Motley: Did you advise Mr. Anderson of
THE COURT:
MRS. MOTLEY:
THE COURT:
Mrs. Motley:
what you've just said, as to what you would consider not
in violation of the ordinance, in reply to this letter?
A I did not.
Q You went into court, didn't you, and got an
injunction based on that letter, didn't you?
A it was made an exhibit to the petition, and I
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 613A
went Into court primarily for the purpose of trying to
maintain peace, good order, dignity and tranquility of
the City of Albany, to avoid violence, riots and possibly
blood-shed.
0. Well, why didn't you call Mr. Anderson in and
say, "I got your letter, it sounds very good, and let's
see If vie can't do it this way"?
A Why didn't I?
Q Yes, why didn't you do that?
A Because I considered this letter as nothing
more than a threat on the part of the Albany Movement to
violate our ordinance. Dr. Anderson knows, I'm sure, as
do his attorneys, that in order to have a parade or a
demonstration on the streets of this City, they must first
have a permit in writing from the City Manager. Whoever
wrote the letter studiously avoided requesting a permit,
in my judgment, in order that they could say that they
were simply telling us what they were going to do and when
they were going to do It; and, as a matter of fact, they
did it.
Q Do you know who drew the letter?
A I have no idea who drew it.
Q It's signed by Dr. Anderson, isn't it?
A Yes, I think it is.
Q Do you think he’s a lawyer?
A No, but I am. confident that he has able counsel
at his beck and call.
Are you sure that he always listens to his counsel?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 8l*JA
A Well, sometimes he does and sometimes he
doesen't, if he's like most clients.
Q, Now, I think during the course of one of your
several answers you said- that this letter would have been
all right, If they had marched along in reasonable numbers;
what do you mean by "reasonable numbers"? What is a
reasonable number?
A A number which would not unnecessarily obstruct
the public ways, such as the sidewalks and the streets
when they’re crossing them, vehicular and pedestrian
traffic, and would not cause throngs of people to become
onlookers and to throw bottles, bricks and cast insults at
officers and others.
Q Well, give us a figure; what’s a reasonable
number, In your opinion, for a parade?
A I would not venture a guess on the number as
a parade, I don't know.
Q, Have you ex̂ er seen any parades herein Albany?
Yes, I have participated: in many parades.
What parades have you participated in?
Well, sometimes, it seems there's one every day,
MR. RAWLS: Your Honor please, this Is
irrelevant and Immaterial to drag this situation out
with questions like that.
THE COURT: Well, she's trying to show what
his experience in parades had been and so on. I will
A
Q
A
allow it.
A The Witness: I have participated in the Armed
Forces Day parades regularly, various parades sponsored by
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No, 727 815A
fraternal and civic - organizations. Some of the parades have
lasted as long as 20 to 25 minutes; that is, they would
take that long for the entire parade to pass one particular
point, I have seen parades which would require less then
just a few minutes to pass a given point, very small group.
There aie many, many parades. As a matter of fact, Albany
Is a civic town that has attracted many conventions of
all kinds, and It has encouraged people to come to Albany
for such purposes; and we’ve always tried to cooperate
with the parades when it's possible and not Interfere with
the use of the streets and public ways.
Q How many people would you estimate marched in the
Armed Forces Day parade?
A I would have no way of estimating it. I would
say several thousand.
Q Several thousand?
A Yes.
Q How about the fraternal parades?
A Some of the fraternal parades are very small.
I have seen them with as few in number, I suppose, as
Oh 50 to 75; some 100 and 500.
Q What procedure must a group follow in seeking
a permit for a parade?
Make an application with the City Manager.
Is that a formal application? Do you have a form?
Yes.
Who has those forms?
The City Manager.
A
Q
A
Q
A
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 8l6A
Q Have you ever seen one?
A Yes, I have.
Q Do you recall what the form contains?
A I do not.
Q Nothing at all about the form?
A No, I don’t; I have seen It but I wasn
interested In the content of the thing and I just don't
recall.
Q Now, the Armed Forces Day parade, was that down
the middle of the street?
A It was.
Q How about these fraternal parades, were they
down the middle of the street?
A Yes.
Q Have you ever seen any of these groups parade
on the sidewalk?
A No.
Q. This Albany Movement, their letter said that
they were going to walk down the sidewalk to the City
Hall, didn't they?
A Yes.
Q And you call that a parade?
A If they're obstructing the public ways unnneces-
sarily or unduly and they're In such numbers as to attract
others to congregate and to do the things that were done
on July 21, yes, I would say that was a parade.
Q, You mean a group,-which congregates and blocks
the street is a parade?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 817A
A If they conduct themselves as the group did on
July 21, yes.
0, Well, that's just a big crowd, unruly crowd,
isn't it? That's not a parade?
A Yes, but they were attracted by those parading,
in my judgment.
Q Now, I'm trying to get at whether walking on the
sidewalk is a parade, in your view?
A There would be some question, if they do what
they said they were going to do in the letter, whether it
would be a parade or not, yes. There's some question In my
mind about it.
Q Oh, there’s a question as to whether there's
a parade?
A There would be some question In my mind.
Q As to whether this letter, in which It Indicates
that they're walking on the sidewalks would be a parade;
Is that what you're saying?
A That's right. I think that's a matter which
would address Itself solely to the discretion of the trial
judge, if a case were made.
Q Have you ever seen any members of the Albany
Movement or any individual Negroes picketing In the City
of Albany recently?
A Yes.
Q. Where were they?
A in front of the City Hall.
Q What were they doing?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 8i8A
A They were marching, each with a sign, very close
together, silently, from east to west and west to east in
front of the City Hall.
Q, How many were in that group?.
A I think there were 12 or 10 perhaps, 10 or 12.
Q And what date was this?
A I do not recall, I think it was on the 24th
but I'm not sure.
Q, What date?
A I think it was on the 24th of July but I'm not
sure.
Q, When else have you seenpickets in the City of
Albany?
A I don't know that I have actually observed
personally any of the other pickets. I have been informed
by the Police Department that there were pickets and I've
seen pickets, but I don't recall having personally observed
any others.
Q This groups of 12 marching In front of the
City Hall, were they carrying any signs?
A Yes, they were.
Q What did the signs say?
A I do not recall.
Q Well, do you know the nature of the communication
on the signs?
A No.
Q You have no idea?
A No.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction,, No. 727 81SA
Q What they were parading about ?
A No.
Q Did you see them?
A Yes, I saw them.
Q And Is this a violation of your ordinance
parades?
A We recognize the fact that a person has a right
to picket peacefully, provided It is not done in such a
manner as to create disturbance, to cause large crowds to
gather, and provided they do not obstruct traffic, either
pedestrian or vehicular,
Q, Now, let me see If I understand your answer:
Are you saying that the group of 12 In front of the City
Hall constituted a violation of your parade ordinance?
Yes or no?
A I think not.
Q, Now, let me show you DEFENDANTS’ EXHIBIT 12,
which is a girl marching with a sign In front of a store;
Is that a violation of your ordinance?
A I did not personally see this person march,
but I think that would not be a violation of the parade
ordinance, unless, of course, her presence tended to disturb
the peace or cause great crowds to gather, or something of
that nature. But looking at It, just; as is in this picture,
I think there would not be a violation of the ordinance.
Q. All right, now looking at that picture again,
tell us what ordinance, If any, that picket Is violating?
MR. RAWLS: Your Honor please, there's been
no evidence In this case that that picket or any other
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 620A
picket was ever prosecuted for picketing in the City
here.
THE COURT: Well, I don't think there would
have to be for her to be allowed to ask him that question.
These pictures, of course, haven't been tendered in
evidence. They've been identified by the photographer
who took them, and she's simply showing him a picture
and saying now, "in this situation would that be a
violation of the parade ordinance". Now, he can explain
his answer any way he wants to, but I think he should be
required to answer her question.
A The Witness; I think not, It's not a
violation of the parade ordinance.
Q Mrs. Motley: Well, I was asking you about any
other ordinance? Is it a violation of any other ordinance
that you know anything about?
A It's not unless It was shown under the circum
stances that her presence disturbed the peace and tran
quility of the City, or caused large crowds to gather,
or she obstructed unnecessarily the use of the sidewalk.
I wasn't there' I don't know what the circumstances were
and I don't know what happened.
Q Well, I'm just asking —
A Looking at the picture Itself, I can see no
violation.
Q All right, let's look at D-ll, tell me what
violation you see there?
A I see none just looking at the picture; but
again, I hasten to add that I do not know the circumstances
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 821/,
Q
A
which were surrounding the situation at the time this
picture was taken.
Q All right, what about D~9, and what violation
do you see there?
A I have the same answer to this.
Q D-10?
A And the same answer to that.
How about D-l4?
It is not clear to me but looking at D-l4, it
seems that those plcketers are engaging In a march or
demonstration or something. I see a lot of people with
cameras around. I see a large number of people in the
background and foreground.
Q Well, what's being violated, let's be specific;
what's being violated?
A If they were parading without a permit then,
of bourse, It would be a violation of the 1913 law against
parades and demonstrations without a permit.
Q Do you think that's a parade?
A It certainly seems to me that it possibly could
be, yes. They're very close.
Q Pardon?
A They're very close together. They're not just
walking down the street singly.
Q Do you see a police officer in that picture?
A Yes, I do.
Q What's he doing?
A Beg your pardon?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 8224.
Q, What's the police officer doing?
A Ic seems to me that he's just standing there
observing. I don't know wnat he's doing other than
standing there.
Q Now, let me show you D-2 7 and ask you what
there j_s about that, that's a violation of an ordinance?
A If this picture was taken after the people
were arrested for parading without a permit, they would
be In uhe custody of the police and there would be no
violation. If, as a matter of fact, It was taken before
they were arrested, in my judgment, there would be a
violation‘of the parade ordinance.
Q Now, let me show you D-15: do you recognize that
picture? Have you seen It before?
A No, I have not.
Q Let me show you D-l4 again and ask you if these
people had not been arrested at this point and If they
weren't marching down the street pursuant to orders of
the police?
A I don't know.
Q All right, how about D-27?
A I just stated I don't know whether they had been
arrested or not.
Q You don11 know about that either?
A No.
Q Now, let me show you D-17: Is there anything
about this which is a violation of an ordinance?
823AHearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727
A I think there is no violation of an ordinance
shown in the picture Itself. Of course, I again say I don’t
the attendant circumstances, whether the presence of -
I believe it's Dr. Anderson - created a disturbance or
whether it caused large number to congregate or to unduly
obstruct the pedestrian traffic on the street. I just
don't know the attendant circumstances.
Q Do you see any of that in that picture?
A I do not.
Q How about D-18: Is there any violation In that?
MR. RAWLS: Now, If Your Honor pleases,
I don't recall any small pictures like that, like
counsel is exhibiting to the witness.
MRS. MOTLEY: They're marked, Your Honor.
MR. RAWLS: They haven't been tendered to
me or any member of our staff to look over them
before being used, We ought to have an opportunity
to see them.
MRS. MOTLEY: I assumed that he had seen
them,; they're marked
THE COURT: I don't believe any small pictures
were discussed. Mr. Hollowell, you didn't discuss the
small ones, did you?
MR. HOLLOWELL: Not on my cross examination or
direct of this man, that Is of Mr. Cochran;but I
think all of them were exhibited last week at the
time that we tried to get the City to permit us
to have these other pictures.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 824 a
THE COURT: Hand them to Mr. Rawls and
see if he has seen them.
MR. HOLLOWELL: We tendered them all last
Friday, as I recall.
(Pictures tendered to Plaintiff's counsel)
Q Mrs. Motley: I think you were looking at
D-l8 and deciding whether there was any ordinance being
violated?
A This picture is not clear to me, If, as a matter
of fact, they're obstructing the traffic in this alleyway,
that would be a violation; but the mere fact that he's
standing holding a sign would not be a violation of any
ordinance, unless It tended to create a disturbance or to
cause great crowds to gather and unduly obstructed the use
of the public ways by other people.
Q Were you there when that picture was taken?
A I was not.
Q, So, you don’t know what the circumstances were,
do you?
A I do not.
Q. And all you see Is a man holding a sign and a
police officer with a sign?
A That1s right.
0, Have you seen any Negro citizens in Albany
approach the City library?
A I have not.
0, Have you heard of any?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 825A
MR. RAWLS: Now., if Your Honor pleases,
that would be hearsay and we object. And I object
for the further reason that that issue hasn't got
anything to do with this case. Counsel is undertaking
to prove the other case and object on that ground.
THE COURT: I sustain the objection on the
ground of whether he's heard any or not. I sustain
that objection.
Q Mrs. Motley: Let me ask you, do you know of
your own knowledge that some Negro citizens of Albany
attempted to go into the library and were arrested and
charged with some violation; do you know about that?
A Not of my own knowledge, no.
Q You don't know anything about that?
A No.
Q Do you know that some Negro citizens went into
Tift Park, a recreation park -
MR. RAWLS: Now, if Your Honor pleases, I
object to that question and the contemplated answer
on the ground that it's Illegal, irrelevant and
Immaterial and has no bearing on this particular case.
It's an effort on the part of counsel to prove issues
that are made in another case.
THE COURT: Yes. We’ve been into this
before, now Mrs. Motley, these specific cases. Nov/,
that would be highly pertinent and I'm sure you will
introduce evidence of that type, if It did happen
and so on, in your other case; but that's getting
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 826a
over into the specifics that I want to avoid In the
trial of this case, because it has nothing to do
with the Issue here; it has nothing to do with this
issue.
MRS. MOTLEY: I was trying to determine,
Your Honor, whether this was one of the activities
of the Albany Movement that the Plaintiffs wanted
this Court to enjoin; whether they considered this
a violation of some ordinance. They brought it out
incidentally that this happened, I believe, in their
case.
THE COURT: No, I don’t recall any allega
tions about any particular incident.
MRS, MOTLEY: The testimony, I'm sorry.
THE COURT: I don’t recall that. I remember
on cross examination something was asked some witness
about whether there was a park or maybe one of your
witnesses, not your witness but one of the Defendants
on the stand.
MRS. MOTLEY: I. don’t remember exactly who.
THE COURT: — testified that there was a
park for use of colored and a park for the use of
white. I believe that’s the way It got Into the recoi’d.
Which Is immaterial In the trial of this case, as I
see it. Let’s stay away from the specifics. That
question gets us right into the trial of the other
c as e.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 S27A
MRS. MOTLEY: May I ask whether this is one
of the activities which they seek to have this Court
enjoin, to keep- Negroes from going into the library
and In the park.
THE COURT: Yes, you may ask him that.
You may ask him that question.
Q Mrs. Motley: Do you see to have this Court
enjoin negroes from going into the public library?
A We seek this Court to enjoin only the unlawful
and illegal acts of the Defendants inviolating the ordi
nances of this City.
0, Well, that doesn't answer the question, Mayor
Kelley:
THE COURT: Nov/ right there, the ordinances
are referred to in the petition. I'm not sure that I
have the file, I think somebody borrowed it. No,
here it Is. As I recall it, the ordinances referred
to in the petition are - well, It's a Georgia statute,
some Georgia statutes and various ordinances of the
City; and they are "acts declaring it a misdemeanor
to refuse to leave the premises of another when
requested to do so";
Another Code section, "Unlawful assembly and
disturbing the peace";
Another one relating to riots;
Another one relating to attempt to Incite
In su rrection .
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 828A
And then, reference to various ordinances of
the City of Albany governing parades, compliance
with lawful orders of the City of Albany and
disturbing the peace.
You see, there's no reference in the complaint
which we are now trying to any segregation ordinance
or any segregation statutes. The only reference is
to violation of these penal provisions, these penal
statutes. And that's the reason that I consider it
impertinent for us to get into questions of viola
tions consisting of segregation ordinances.
Now, you may ask him, as I have just indicated
that you might, whether he considered, If a person,
simply a colored person going into a particular
library, whether he considers that and that act alone
a violation of one of these things which he seeks to
enjoin. You may ask him that question.
MRS. MOTLEY: Yes sir, that's what I was trying
to ask him.
Q Now, let me ask you them, do you consider if
a Negro goes into Carnegie Library to use the books
therein in violation of any of those laws which the Judge
has just read?
A I do not.
Q Suppose they refuse to leave when the librarian
asks them to do so?
A If their presence there tends to create a
disturbance and there is a probability, because of the
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 829A
presence, of violence or bodily Inarm, either to the person
or to others, and the person refuses to leave when request
ed by an officer, in my judgment, there would be a violation
of the ordinance.
Q Which ordinance?
A Failing to obey an officer, for one,
Q Oh, I thought you meant by officer,someone
employed to work In the library?
A No, no.
Q Well, that was what I meant by my question:
suppose the librarian requested the Negro to leave, on
the ground that the Carnegie Library is for whites; Is
that a violation of some ordinance?
A No, not to my knowledge.
Q What about Tift Park, a Negro goes into Tift
Park and he Is requested to leave by the Park Superintendent
on the ground that this Is -
MR. RAWLS: Now, If Your Honor pleases, I
object to this question and the contemplated answer
upon the ground that it's illegal, Irrelevant and
immaterial, and asking for a supposition and an
attempt to prove another case which is not on trial,
clearly and distinctly.
THE COURT: No, I don't agree with you Mr.
Rawls. These Plaintiffs have brought a petition
seeking to enjoin the violation of certain ordi
nances and so on and seeking to enjoin certain
activities which are described In the petition.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 830A
And I think counsel is entirely within her proper
sphere, if she desires to do so, to ask this witness,
since he Is one of the plaintiffs in the case, whether
he seeks to enjoin a particular thing; In other words,
his own interpretation of what It Is he seeks to
enjoin; whether the mere fact that a person goes to
this place, the mere going there, whether that Is a
violation of any of these statutes or ordinances.
You may go ahead.
Q Mrs. Motley: If a Negro goes into Tift Park,
is that a violation of some ordinance?
A It is not.
Q If he refuses to leave when asked to do so by
the Park Superintendent or some other employee of the Park,
on the ground that that park is limited to white persons,
is that a violation of some ordinance?
A No, not to my knowledge.
Q, Suppose he goes to the Teen Center and Park,
is that a violation of some ordinance?
A The mere fact that he goes is not a violation
of the ordinance, of the ordinances we are seeking to
have the Court require the Defendants to obey. It may
he a violation of another ordinance.
Q I don't understand that; what are you saying?
A The mere fact that a Negro goes to the Teen
Center would not violate, in my judgment, any of the
finances or statutes which we are now seeking to prevent
hhe Defendants from violating.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 8 3IA
Q All right, suppose that Negro seeks to partici
pate in the activities of the Teen Center, is that a
violation of some ordinance?
A It's not a violation of any of the ordinances
we are seeking to prevent the Defendants from violating.
Q All right, suppose --
A -- in this suit.
Q Suppose that Negro youngster is asked to leave
the Teen Center by an employee of the Center, on the
ground that the Center is limited to white youths; Is
that a violation of some ordinance?
A it would not be a violation of any of those
we are seeking to cause the Defendants to obey in this
suit.
Q Suppose the Negro youngster refuses to leave
when a police officer orders him to leave on the ground
that that is for white youths, is that a violation of some
ordinance?
A I know of no instance in which a police officer
has ever made that statement, that he was asked to leave
because it was only for white youths.
Q Suppose the officer just asks him to leave,
without any further statement, is that a violation of
some ordinance?
A I think it would be.
Q What ordinance?
A The ordinance requiring any person to obey the
order or direction of police officers, Section 6, Chapter
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 7 2 7 83 2A
11, of the Code of the City of Albany. And I am. sure that
none of our police officers would ever ask any person to
leave any publuc facility unless In his judgment it was
necessary to main peace, good order and tranquility in
the community.
Q Don’t you know as a fact that some Negroes
were asked by police officers to leave Tift Park?
A Do I know that of my knowledge? I do not.
I've heard that, yes, but of my own knowledge, I don’t
know it. I was not there.
MR. RAWLS: I object to what he heard,
Your Honor as it would be hearsay.
Q, Mrs. Motley: Did you get that information
from some police officer?
A Yes.
Q All right, which police officer?
A Chief Pritchett.
Q Pardon?
A Chief Pritchett.
Q Khat did he tell you those Negroes were doing
in Tift Park?
A Creating a disturbance.
Q In what way?
A By going to the pool in large numbers and
causing some of the youths who were in swimming to
express fear that there would be a riot and causing
large crowds to congregate; and that he felt it was
necessary to disperse the crowed in order to maintain
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary In junction, No. 727 833A
peace and tranquility in our community.
Q Are you trying to get this Court to enjoin
Negroes from riding In certain taxicabs, which have
signs on them saying "White Only"?
A I do not recall any mention of such a request
in our petition. All we're trying to do is to get the
Defendants to comply with the ordinances of the City of
Albany and the statutes of the State of Georgia.
Q Well, I don't understand your petition, so I'm
trying to find out what you want to enjoin; and I want to
know if you want this Court to enjoin Negroes from
getting in cabs which have signs on them, saying "White
Only"?
A That's not one of the prayers of the petition.
Q What about theaters and other places of public
amusement, are you trying to enjoin, to get this Court to
enjoin Negroes from going Into theaters operated for
whites only?
A There's no reference made in this petition to
any theaters or places of public amusement, to my knowledge.
Q So, you're not trying to enjoin that?
A No. All we want the Defendants to do is to obey
tne ordinances of the City of Albany and the statutes of
the State of Georgia, in order to maintain peace in our
City.
Q. Are you trying to get this Court to enjoin a
Peaceful protest of segregation in the City of Albany?
A If it's done in an illegal manner, yes.
Hearing on Motion For Prelirainary Injunction, No. 727 834a
q Well, what if it's done, two people or four
people standing in front of the City Hall with signs,
as you said a moment ago; I believe you said there were
12 people standing in front of City Hall one day: Are you
trying to enjoin that?
A We..did mention picketing, unlawful picketing
in the suit. The reason for that is - well, take the 12.
To my knowledge, there were large crowds congregated In
the area of the City Hall, both east and west; north -
and north, I don't know about south - as a result of the
presence of these people. And in my judgment, their
presence in the number of 12 created a very tense situa
tion, which could have been explosive and could have caused
damage to the picketers or personal injury to the picketers
or to some of the people in the crowds.
Q Did the police attempt to disperse that crowd
that may have caused injury to the picketers?
A Yes, they did.
Q And did they succeed?
A Not completely.
Q Well, in what respect did they fail?
A Because many of the people remained in the area;
they would move on a few feet and then turn around and
come back, as long as the picketers were there.
THE COURT: Just a moment, Mrs. Motley.
Mr. Marshal, I notice that 2 or 3 people have desired
to leave and I am holding somewhat overtime today
beyond the normal time. At this time anybody who
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727
wants to leave the courtroom may do so. Me're going
to stay in session until all examination of this
witness has been concluded, whatever time that Is.
So, anybody who wants to leave may do so at this time.
Q Mrs. Motley: Now, Mr. Mayor, I think you
said that the police were attempting to disperse this
crowd which may have injured some of the picketers in
front of City Hall, and that they would tell them to
leave and then they would come back* is that right?
A Some would, yes.
Q Did the police arrest any of those for failing
to obey an officer?
A Not to m.y knowledge.
Q You keep saying that you would like the
Defendants in this case to obey the ordinances of the
City of Albany, is that right?
A That’s true.
Q Do you include in that the segregation ordinances
A There’s nothing in this petition about any
segregation ordinances.
Q So, you’re not seeking to enforce any of those
in this action, are you?
A We certainly are not.
MRS. MOTLEY: I believe that Is all the
questions for this witness, Your Honor.
MR. RAWLS: Come down, Mr. Kelley.
THE COURT: All right, now the examination
of this xvitness has been concluded by both sides, as
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727
I understand it; so, we will take a recess at this
time until 9 :30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
HEARING RECESSED - 5:22 PM. AUGUST 7, 19o2
ALBANY, GEORGIA
9:30 A. M.
AUGUST 8, 1962;
MRS. MOTLEY: The Defendants call Mr. Roos.
MR. STEPHEN A ROOS
a party Plaintiff, called by Defendants
as adverse party, being first duly sworn,
testified on
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MRS. MOTLEY:
Q Mr. Roos, would you please state your Dull
name and position for the record?
A Stephen Arthur Roos, City Manager, City of
Albany.
Q How long have you been City Manager of the
City of Albany?
A One year today,
Q Mr. Roos, do you have any connection with
the issuance of permits In the City of Albany for the
holding of parades and demonstrations?
A Yes, I do.
Q What authority do you have?
A Under this section of the Code, which I believe
ls Chapter 24, Section 35, I am called upon to offer
consent in writing to any parade.
53 6A
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 83 7A
Q Do you have any written policy guide, which you
use in determining when a permit will issue and when it
will not?
A Not as such,
Q Well, let me ask you this; What criteria do
you use when you receive a letter requesting permission
for a parade?
A Check generally the time, the route and the
effect It would haveon the overall use of the streets
and public ways.
Q How long does it usually take you to act upon
such a request for a permit?
A We1d like to have at least two days, more
if possible.
Q Have you been able to act on less notice than
two days?
A I don't specifically recall.
Q Now, what do you consider a parade?
A A parade is a formed group cf people or vehicles
or a procession for the purpose of demonstrating a cause,
drawing attention or celebrating an occasion, are some
°f the definitions.
Q What number of people do you include in that
definition?
A It could possibly go, I suppose, as 10 or 15
for the purposes formerly enumerated.
Q What do you call a demonstration?
A A demonstration would be a gathering or a group
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 838A
of persons to show a cause, celebrate an occasion or draw
attention,
Q How many persons would be involved in a
demonstration, according to your definition?
A Possibly the same number as for a parade.
Q, Now, what do you call ’’public address on the
streets"?
A A public address would be very much in the
same order as the other occasions, except probably carried
on only by a single Individual, desiring to use a part of
the public right of way,
Q Now, in your definition of public addi-ess, do
you Include those who wish to speak to a designated group,
or do you also include those who wish to speak to the
public In general?
A Actually, I haven't had occasion to rule on
this matter and haven't found a final opinion.
Q Would you consider one picket walking In front-
cu a department store a parade?
A I don't think so,
Q How about 10 pickets in front of a department
st;ore, is that a parade?
A In essence, it would very closely approach one.
Q What about 12 pickets carrying signs in front
°f the city Hall, Is that a parade?
A It could under some circumstances be such.
Q What circumstances?
MR. RAWLS: Now, if Your Honor pleases,
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 839A
there's no evidence in this record-;that any such
situation has developed from the testimony in this
case, no evidence here that anybody has been arrested
under a pretext or arrested for violating any parade
ordinance In the City of Albany in the situation
elicited by counsel; and object to it as illegal,
irrelevant and Immaterial, and has no bearing on the
Issues before the Court In this czse at this time.
THE COURT: I don't recall any evidence
that anybody was arrested under the parade ordinance
under the circumstances that counsel is relating.
I recall some either evidence or statements of some
kind that seme parties were arrested for what was
contended to be illegal picketing. But I don't recall
any claim of any arrest for violation of the parade
ordinance in the circumstances related by counsel.
MRS. MOTLEY: That's right, but I was trying
to determine whether the Manager here was claiming
that that would be a violation of the parade ordinance.
You may recall yesterday the Mayor said that the
only pickets that he had seen were 12 people in front
of the City Hall; and I was trying to determine whether
that constituted a violation of the ordinance or
Squired a permit for a parade or demonstration
or public address. And he said under some circum-
stances it would be a parade.
THE COURT: I will allow the question.
Q Mrs. Motley: Under what circumstances would12 persons In front of the City Hall carrying signs con-
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 840A
stitute a parade?
A If they had come over an extended route
through a large portion of possibly the downtown area.
Q You mean If they had walked down the middle
of the street?
A Or down the sidewalks.
Q On the sidewalk, to get to the City Hall?
A If they come In a formed body.
Q That would be a parade?
A Yes.
Q Suppose 12 people got together and decided they
were going down to the City Hall to register to vote and
they walked down In a group on the sidewalk, two-abreast,
is that a parade?
A If they weren't moving in such a manner as to
draw attention or show a cause, or openly demonstrate a
fact, I don’t believe It would be,
0, Suppose a group of women, 12 In number, decided
to go down together to a bargain sale and met at the home
of one for tea and then proceeded downtown In a group,
is that a parade?
A (No answer) , . .
Q Now, suppose this group of 12 who were going to
the City Hall to register and vote carried a sign to that
affect, would that be a parade, indicating what thej? intended
to do?
A If they were formed, it would either be a parade
or a demonstration under the connotation of the ordinance,
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 841A
in my opinion.
Q Suppose a teacher decided to take her class of
30 pupils down to see the City Hall, and they walked in
an organized group on the sidewalk to the City Hall, would
that be a parade?
THE COURT: Now Mrs. Motley, before you go
any further, I can see that you can imagine a thousand
different questions like that. In all fairness to the
witness, the witness has stated that any procession
like that of the nature that you are talking about,
he would consider a parade only if they were doing it
in a manner to publicize a cause or demonstrate a
position, or in such manner as to attract attention;
and 1 think that that general application could be
made to any factual situation which you might Imagine.
Now, you’ve propounded about a half dozen situations
to him and I don’t see the necessity of Imagining any
more.
MRS. MOTLEY: Well, this was going to be the
last one, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
Q Mrs. Motley: What about a class that proceeds
in organized fashion down to the City Hall?
A I would consider that more a matter of means of
transportation, as opposed to a procession or parade.
Q Now, in granting permits for parades and
demonstrations, do you have a formal application blank
which must be filled out by the permit applicant?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 842A
A No, I don't.
Q Did you hear the Mayor testify yesterday
that there was such —
MR. RAWLS: Now Your Honor pleases, that's
an improper question and I object to it. It's not the
proper way to impeach the Mayor.
THE COURT: I don’t know what the purpose
of the question. Let's hear the question and then
I will rule on the objection,
MRS. MOTLEY: I asked him if he heard the Mayor
testify yesterday that he did have such a form of
application,
THE COURT; I will allow that question.
A The Witness: Yes, I heard him.
Q Mrs. Motley: But you don't have any such?
A No.
Q Now, do you recall a moment ago I asked you how
long it takes for you to act upon an application for a
parade permit?
A Yes.
MR,. RAWLS: Your Honor pleases, we think
that would be illegal and irrelevant in this case,
because It's conceded and admitted, I assume, that
these Defendants have ever filed an application
with the City Manager for a permit to parade,
THE COURT: Yes, I don't recall It.
MR, RAWLS: And how long and how short a
time he would take would be illegal, irrelevant and
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 843 A
Immaterial. That would be true unless the evidence
showed in this case that they had actually filed an
application for a permit.
TEE COUEL1: Mrs. Motley, as I recall It,
there has been no testimony that the Defendants in
this case have ever made any application for a parade
permit. Let me ask you this, so I will know how to
rule on any objection: During the course of the
presentation of your case, is there going to be
evidence that they have made application?
MRS, MOTLEY: Yes sir, I'll ask him that first.
THE COURT: I overrule the objection; but
unless there Is such evidence, I will exclude It at a
later time, and I ask counsel to call It to my attention
if it Is not tied up In the case.
Q Mrs. Motley: Let me withdraw the question I
am now asking and go back to some previous testimony in
this case; Were you present at a meeting in the City Hall
on July 13, 1952?
A Yes.
Q Pardon?
A Yes.
Q Who was present?
A if my recollection serves, I was sitting in with
Chief Pritchett, Attorney Hollowell, King, Defendant King,
Slater King, Dr. Anderson and Rev. Gay, I believe.
Q Rev. Gay?
4 Yes.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 844a
Q All right, what took place at that meeting?
A We had an extended academic discussion of several
matters.
Q, What was all the matters?
A It concerned certain persons presently in jail.
It concerned the matt ex4 of exchange of cash bonds for
security bonds. It concerned the matter of parade
permits, and then went into almost a philosophical area
of discussion before it ended.
0, All right, what was the discussion concerning
parade permits?
A The discussion concerning parade permits came
in during another discussion. I happened to be listening
to some conversation that the Chief of Police was conduct
ing, I believe, with either Attorney King or Slater King.
And Dr.Anderson propounded a question. I didn't hear the
full of it. But when I turned around to direct my atten
tion in that direction it was fully phrased by Attorney
Hollowell, that if you had an application for a parade,
what would you doj and I said I doubted that I would grant
a permit under the particular tension in the City, but that
I would have to have an application to make a judgment.
Q Well, let's see now, let's make it clear:
What was Mr, Hollowell referring to? Was he referring
k° a parade or a march or what was he referring to?
A I think it was if I had an application, would
I grant a parade per’mit, I believe that was the nature of
his query.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 845A
Q And your answer was "no"?
A My answer was, "I doubted I would".
Q Why did you doubt that?
A Because of the tensions that were present in the
City at that given time which have continued,
Q What tensions?
A The tensions of the people in general on the
street.
Q Do you want to be more specific? What tension
are you referring to?
A The feeling of many people that these demon
strations should end and the feeling of those others who
felt that they should continue, creating a difference of
opinion and an area for conflict.
Q. In other words, you’re saying that you would
not have granted a permit for a demonstration or protest
against segregation because, in your judgment, the tensxons
in the community would not permit it; isn't that what
you're saying?
A I said that I doubted that I would, but I didn't
have a case to rule on.
Q So that, when these persons left your office,
you would say that they had the definite conclusion or
they could draw the definite conclusion —
MR, RAWLS: Now, Your Honor pleases, it would
oe impossible for him to answer that question —
MRS. MOTLEY: I will withdraw that question.
May I have the complaint in this case? . . .
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 846A
q Now, following that meeting in your office on
July 13, you received this letter P-17 attached to your
complaint in this case from Dr, Anderson, didn’t you?
A It was signed by Dr. Anderson. I didn't receive
it from him,
Q From whom did you receive it?
A I received it from man identified to me as
Rev. Grant and a colored woman not identified to me.
Q But this was following the meeting in the
City Hall on July 13, at which parade permits were
discussed, was it not?
A This was after,
Q And at which time you said you doubted that
you would issue a permit -
A That1s correct.
Q - for a demonstration proposed, but if you got
an application or a request you would then consider it,
isn't that what you said?
A That's correct.
Q All right, you then got a letter from Dr.
Anderson, didn't you?
A I got a letter, yes.
Q What's the date of that letter?
A A letter of proposal but no letter of request,
Q Now, what’s the date of that letter?
A June 19.
Q That's 6 days after the meeting at the City Hall,
isn't it?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 847A
A That’s right.
Q All right, now what does he talk about In that
letter?
A He talks about —
MR. RAWLS: Now, Your Honor pleases, the
letter speaks for Itself.
THE COURT: Yes, I think It does but I
don’t think it’s objectionable. Go ahead.
A The Witness: It talks about manifesting a
peaceful protest, outlines the number, the route, what
they would do about traffic signals, where It would focus
and possible duration, and what it undertook to demonstrate
or show.
Q Mrs. Motley: When you get requests for parade
penults, since you don’t have any formal application form,
doesn’t the applicant usually write you a letter?
A There have been cases when people have assumed
that the Chief of Police was the offier and there have been
occasions when they’ve called in. Sometimes they write to
the Chief of Police and sometimes they write to my office
for instructions.
Q But since you don’t have a formal application
blank, the person must either call or write, is that right?
A We ask them to request a permit, yes.
Q Right, s.o that a permit may be orally requested
0r requested In writing; Isn't that right?
^ We have informed the people that we did not
consider an application until It was written; this as
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 848a
recently as; believe, the 27th.
Q Of what?
A Of this month - excuse me - the 27th of July
Q You informed the people?
A The person calling.
Q But you have granted permits on calls, haven
A We have clarified a point on two occasions
you?
that came up, where the people did not desire to get in
conflict, where they didn’t know whether they were creat
ing transportation or having a parade; and we have granted
a few; but those have been the exception rather than the
rule.
Q So, you've granted a few permits which were
requested orally, is that right?
A One that I can recall.
Q All right. Now, when these people write you
letters, what do they usually say?
A They request parade permit, discuss the time,
where they're going, sometimes the number of people and
what they're proposing a parade for.
Q What do you then do with the letter when you
get it?
A Because traffic is primarily involved, I
generally forward it to the Chief of Police for his
ah/ice on the matter, because he is charged with the
maintenance of traffic.
Q And you sometimes do that in a day or less
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 849A
tine, don't you?
A We have done it in a short time when he was
immediately available and when the mails were expedient
carrying the request] but we would rather have time to
consider it.
Q You've acted on some the same day, haven't you?
A Yes.
MR, RAWLS: We renew our objection, Your
Honor pleases, to this line of testimony, because
It appears that the parties in this case have never
filed an application for a parade permit.
THE COURT: I make the same ruling now that I
did before and I trust that my ruling is clear.
I think your objection Is good, unless there is
evidence that the Defendants or some of them did
at some time make an application. And counsel has
stated that she intends to offer such evidence.
Unless she does I will exclude It. That's my ruling
and that's why I've allowed the question, on that
basis.
MRS. MOTLEY: Our contention Is, Your Honor,
that the Defendant Anderson did request a permit at
the meeting on July 13 orally. He sent this letter
of July 19, in wnich he requested the cooperation of
the police and outlined his proposed demonstration,
the time, where it would take place, how long] and
he requested the cooperation of the police. And
that's a request for a permit, as there Is no formal
application.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 850A
THE COUNT: I've read that letter and I
think the letter is simply a letter from Dr. Anderson
to the City, telling them what he was going to do.
He doesn't ask them if he can do It. He just wrote
them a letter telling them "we're going to do this".
That's the way I interpret the letter. Of course, Dr.
Anderson may say - I don't remember whether he testified
about this when he was on the stand or not. He may
have and 1 don't recall. He may say that he asked
them for one at the time they had the meeting that
you're talking about. I don't remember whether he
did or not. But I have allowed the question for the
time being. You may renew your motion later if you
care to do so.
Q Mrs. Motley: Now, on the day before you got
that letter from Dr. Anderson, didn't Rev. Gay and Rev.
Grant come to see you again about the permit?
A They came in and inquired what should be
entailed In a letter of request and I informed them.
Q You told them how many, that they should put In
the letter how many people would be In the parade, is
that right?
A I believe I asked them to put that in there.
Q Didn't you also tell them to list the streets
that they intended to use?
A The route.
Q The route?
A Yes.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 85IA
q Didn't you tell them to Indicate where they would
be going? That's the route, I guess?
A Yes, part of the route.
Q What they would do after arrival at the City
Hall, did you tell them to put that in there?
A I don't recall stating that. I think I
maintained about five points, which I repeatedly said
should be contained in the letter of request.
Q All right, what were those five points you
gave them?
A The route, the time, the approximate number,
who was sponsoring and what their intention of the parade
generally was.
Q, And then, the next day you got the letter,
didn't you?
A
request,
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
request.
Q
A
Q
yo u've g o t
I didn't get a letter I asked for, a letter of
Well, they gave you that letter, right?
Yes. This is a letter of proposal.
After you set forth those five things, right?
Yes.
You got a letter?
I said those should be contained in a letter of
That's right, and the next day you got a letter?
I got a letter, yes.
You say you got a letter, you mean the letter
In your hand, which is Exhibit "A" to your
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 852A
complaint, is that right?
A Yes, a letter of proposal.
Q Now, you say you've been City Manager for a
year?
A Yes,
Q And in all of the Instances in which you have
granted permits the parade contemplated was one down the
center of the street, where the automobiles move; isn't
that right?
A Yes.
Q Now, you are a Plaintiff in this case, aren't you?
A That's correct.
Q Now, do you know the Defendants In this case?
A Yes. I don't know all of the Defendants.
I know the majority of them.
Q Do you know M. S. Page?
A Yes.
Q Who is he?
A He is, I understand, the secretary-treasurer
of the Movement, a retired postman.
Q Now, tell me what it Is that you want this court
enjoin Mr. Page from doing?
A From participating In or from encouraging
violations of the City ordinances.
0. All right, when did Mr. Page participate in a
violation of a City ordinance?
A He has not to date, to my knowledge.
Q When did Mr. Page encourage violation of a
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 853A
City ordinance?
A I don't know that he has been present but
other witness, I believe, have spoken regarding his
affiliation with the Albany Movement.
q But you don't know of your own knowledge any
instance when Mr. Page has encouraged a violation of a
City ordinance, do you?
A No. I don't.
Q Do you know Dr. ¥. G. Anderson?
A Yes.
Q Well, who Is he?
A He is sitting right there by the gate. He's
an osteopathic physician and surgeon In the community,
and I understand President of the Albany Movement.
Q All right, what do you want this Court to enjoin
Dr. Anderson from doing?
A From the same general areas that we would
request —
MR. RAWLS; Your Honor pleases, we take the
position that the pleadings In this case very distinct
ly show what his application to this Court is, set
out In writing In petition addressed to this Court.
THE COURT; Yes, i don't see any value in
the questioning, because the petition Is before us
and It specifies what the prayers are. I don't see
any value in the questioning. It is just simply having
him report with regard to each one of them what the
Prayers of the petition are, and the petition Is before
us.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 854A
MRS, MOTLEY: No sir, that’s not the objective
at all. We’re on the trial of an action for an
injunction.
THE COURT: Well, what is It? Suppose you
simply hand the witness the petition then, so that he
can read from it and so he can specify exactly what
It is that he's praying for with regard to the complaint.
MRS, MOTLEY: Well, if that would be helpful,
but I was trying to get In laymen’s language - I don't
understand this man to be a lawyer, Your Honor -
exactly what It Is that he wants the Court to enjoin,
I don't think it's clear in the record of this trial.
THE COURT; It's set out in the last couple
of paragraphs of the petition, I think, to which he
is a party; and he may simply read that Into the
record, if he cares. Of course, the petition itself
is a part of the record in the case.
MRS. MOTLEY: Your Honor, I think that before
this Court could grant an Injunction, I think it must
be clear in the record exactly from the testimony,
not just the pleadxngs because many times the testi
mony will vary from the pleadings, and the Federal
Rules do not prohibit this Court from Issuing an
Injunction simply because the proof varies somewhat
from the words of the complaint. The Court is to give
any relief under Rule 54 (b) to which the Plaintiffs
may be entitled, whether they specifically prayed for
that or not. So that, this Court is not bound by the
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 855A
words of the complaint as to what relief it will give.
This Court can give any relief which the testimony
justifies.
THE COURT; But your question is, what are
you asking that the Defendants be enjoined from
doing, And that Is all set out In the petition.
So, that adds nothing or takes nothing away. It's
simply a repetition of what's already set out In the
petition. And the Defendants as named, the prayer of
the petition is that they be enjoined from certain
violations of certain specified state statutes and
ordinances; and I can see that It adds nothing to the
case at all, to ask him what he seeks to enjoin this
one from doing, and this one and this one, when It Is
all set out in the petition itself. I don't see that
it adds anytning or takes away anything.
MRS. MOTLEY: Well, except that I say that
the proof here is certainly not set out verbatim in
the complaint. It couldn't be.
THE COURT; No, the proof Isn't, but your
question is, "what dc you seek to enjoin him from
doing".
MRS. MOTLEY: That's right.
THE COURT; And that's in the petition.
MRS. MOTLEY; But I'm trying to show by the
proof in this case, not by the petition, because this
s the trial. I'm trying to show by the proof what
he's trying to enjoin.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction* No.727 856A
THE COURT: Well, I'll take judicial notice,
if it's necessary, that what he seeks to enjoin is
what is prayed for in the petition.
MRS. MOTLEY: Well, I don't mean to argue it --
THE COURT: That's what we have before usj
and to ask him with regard to each particular
Defendant what is sought to be enjoined is simply
asking him to quote from the petition. That's what
it amounts to. And I don't see that it's pertinent,
and It seems to be a useless consumption of time.
MRS. MOTLEY: Well, as I say, I don't mean
to argue with the Court, but I think this is very
important. I think that we are entitled to show by
the proof, quite apart from the allegations of any
complaint, we're entitled to show by the testimony
of the Plaintiffs what they seek to enjoin.
THE COURT: Yes.
MRS. MOTLEY: What they're complaining of.
THE COURT: Yes, and Mrs. Motley, you will
recall that yesterday it was for that very reason that
I allowed you to ask the witness, Mayor Kelley,
whether he sought to enjoin certain specified things,
because you said you needed to know what he sought to
enjoin. But to ask the question as you're now asking
this witness is simply to ask him to repeat the
language of the petition. It's an entirely different
approach that you make now to the approach that you
made with the previous witness.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No.727 857A
I will allow you to ask this witness whether he
seeks to enjoin these Defendants from doing some
particular thing. But to simply ask him to quote from
the petition, that adds nothing.
MRS. MOTLEY: All right, I'll turn it around,
Yonr Honor, and ask him about specific acts. May I
have the list?- (Pleadings handed to counsel)
Q Mrs. Motley: Now, as to Dr. Anderson, do
you want this Court to enjoin him --
MR. RAWLS: Now, If Your Honor pleases,
the rule prevails in all courts that where one aids,
abets or procures another to do a specific act, that
that's tantamount to him doing it himself. And to ask
this witness about whether he’s ever seen a particular
Defendant walking up and down the street in violation
of the City ordinance about parades or mass demonstra
tions won't indicate a thing in the world in this
particular case, because if it is a fact, as we think
has been definitely established in this testimony,
that these Defendants, in connection with the opera
tion of the Albany Movement, have aided, abetted,
counseled, commanded and procured others to do the
things --
THE COURT: If she wants to ask him whether
he has ever seen a particular Defendant do a certain
thing, I think that's a proper question and I will
allow it.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No.727 858A
Q Mrs. Motley: Have you ever seen Dr. Anderson
picketing in front of a store?
A No, I haven't.
Q In front of the City Hall?
A No.
Q Have you ever seen Dr. Anderson parading in
the middle of the street?
A Yes.
Q When was that?
A I couldn't be sure of the date. I could refer
to the Saturday at the end of the week in December, the
same Saturday in which Rev.Martin Luther King and Rev.
Abernathy were arrested and the same demonstration.
Q Where was this demonstration?
A I was in the neighborhood of the front of
Sears-Roebuck store, which is on the northeasterly corner
of Oglethorpe and Jackson, and I saw the procession coming
up. I believe Chief Pritchett was toward the center or
other side of Jackson Street and I saw him proceed south
to the general area of the northwest corner and make the
arrest.
Q In other words, these people were under arrest
at that time?
A No, I saw them before, when they were stopped.
Q Before they were arrested, were they in the
raiddle of the street?
A They were in-~the street moving north. I would
8ay tlaeY had gotten at least to the center when they were
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No.727 859A
stopped. I was watching, after I noted that this had taken
place, I then noticed the additional groups and the effect
on traffic] and I felt that the Chief of Police would take
care of his duties in the given area and I was only a
semi-official onlooker; and I was noticing other things.
Q Now, were these people crossing a street or
were they marching down the middle of the street?
A They were crossing a street.
Q Now, did you see them at any time in the
middle of the street?
A I saw them as they started Into the street
and I saw the Chief approach them and I looked away at
another area. I think there was a vehicle moving at an
unusual rate that caught my attention to the east, and I
didn’t see the actual meeting. By the time I looked around,
they had started under custody to the City Hall.
Q In other words, when you saw them, they had
crossed a street and the Chief of Police approached
them, right?
A They were crossing the southerly lanes in
Oglethorpe Avenue.
Q So, they were arrested before they actually
crossed the street, weren't they9
A Completely, yes.
All right, now have you ever seen Dr. Anderson
at any other time?
A On a number of occasions.
Q And when else have you seen him?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No.727 860a
A Quite often at the City Hall, at that meeting
discussed on the 13th of July and, of course, the several
days we've been in court.
Q No, I meant have you seen Dr. Anderson violating
any other ordinances of the City at any other time?
A No.
Q How about Slater King?
A Slater King is sitting by the other gate. He
is, I believe, an insurance man and realtor, and an
officer, I believe Vice-President of the Albany Movement.
Q And what did you see him doing?
A I haven't seen him - excuse me - I haven1t seen
him prior to an arrest for violation, so I haven't seen
him violating an ordinance.
Q What about Charles Jones?
A He is sitting immediately beside Attorney Hollo-
well.
Q What did you see him doing?
A I have not seen him.
Q How about Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.?
A I saw him In the area described with Defendant
Anderson. I did not know him at that time or was not
acquainted with his countenance; and I was later informed
that this was the party.
Q This was December 16, you're talking about?
A I believe that's the date.
Q When at any other time did you see Dr. King?
A I did see him in front of the City Hall, I
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction,, No.727 86lA
do not recall the date, earlier in the month of July, in
the neighborhood of the 23rd or 22nd.
Q What was he doing?
A Having a prayer demonstration.
q How many people were there with him?
A Nine.
Q Who was praying?
A I don’t recall specifically. I believe Reverend
Abernathy.
Q And there were nine people, you say?
A With Martin Luther King.
Q And you want this Court to enjoin that?
A They were tending to create a disturbance.
After having completed their prayer, they remained there
when asked to be dispersed. I could not see from my
office other than the things which were immediately in
front There was a large gathering on private property
across the street, and there was congestion forming in the
streets.
Q All right, let’s get back to the prayer in
front of the City Hall itself: Do you want this Court to
enjoin that?
A No.
Q Allright, now let’s get to the disturbance, you
3ay, that they created. Now, tell me the disturbance
that Dr. King and the nine others created?
A Their presence tended to draw a large crowd.
Q. How many?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No.7 2 7 862A
A I would say over on the Hotel property there
were in the neighborhood of 75 people and onlookers were
being moved, but large numbers of onlookers were on the
auditorium, I would say 15 to 25 back toward the auditorium;
there were several toward the courthouse; there were
several in the windows and adjacent to and on private
property across the street in the stores.
Q Well, what do you want the Court to enjoin,
the people who tend to look on?
A We had rather remove these demonstrations,
so that we can avoid the areas for possible conflict
of persons on central areas of our cities and streets,
of our City's streets.
Q Now, what about Rev. Abernathy, what have you
seen him do in violation of the City laws?
A I have seen him In the parade aforementioned.
I have seen him in front of the City Hall in the same
demonstration that Rev. King was in
Q Anything else?
A That's all.
Q How about Rev. Wyatt Tee Walker?
A I have seen him a number of times.
Q Where was he?
A In and out of City Hall and as recently as
this morning. 1 don't believe he's in court at this time.
Q What have you seen him doing in violation of the
t̂ty law?
A Nothing, but he was -
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No.727 863A
q Pardon?
A But I understand he's In direct concert with
the other Defendants.
q How do you understand that?
A I understand that he is their business manager,
and he has been present at the meetings, as reported in the
national press.
Q But you haven't seen him doing anything?
A No.
Q What about Mrs. Ruby Hurley?
A I don't know Mrs. Hurley.
Q, Have you ever seen her do anything?
A No.
Q What about the Congress of Racial Equality?
A It is my understanding that several persons
engaging in these demonstrations are agents of the Congress
of Racial Equality.
Q All right, which ones?
A Most singularly that I particularly recall,
I believe a William Hansen.
Who else?
I don't specifically recall the other names.
What did you see Hansen doing?
I have not seen him in the creation of a viola-
What about Southern Christian Leadership
Conference?
̂ I believe this is the organization represented
by Reverends King and Abernathy.
Q
A
Q
A
tion.
Q
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No.727 864a
Q Have you seen anybody else connected with that
organization?
A Not to my knowledge.
Q What about Student Non-Violent Coordinating
Committee?
A They have several representatives who I under
stand are living in our community.
Q, Who are they?
A I believe the Defendant or Charlie Jones, as he
is known; Charlie Sherrod and others whose names escape
me, because these matters are adequately recorded in the
offices of the City.
Q, Now, what do you say they were doing in violation
of a City ordinance?
A They have partaken in several violations for
which they have been arrested in these various demonstra
tions. I could not be specific.
Q But you don't know anything specifically about
them, Is that right?
A I don't know it as a fact. I have understood
and have seen the records of the Clty; which Indicate such.
Q Now, on these students, members of the Student
Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, I just wanted to clarify
what you've seen these students doing in violation of any
^ity ordinance?
A I think I stated that I had not specifically
seen the ones that I know, but have an understanding of
their activities.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No.727
Q Pardon?
A But I had an understanding from a hearsay basis
of their activities.
Q What about the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People, what did you see them doing
in violation of a City ordinance?
A I have not specifically seen the organization
but I have seen persons that I understand were officers of
the organization, either locally or local, in violation,
as previously testified. I believe Slater King is an
officer of that organization.
Q And you saw him doing what again?
A I believe I testified that he was, as I recall
it - it may be that I didn’t - but I recall that he was
in one demonstration in front of the City Hall now.
Q Did he carry a sign or something indicating
that he was secretary of the NAACP?
A I was otherwise informed, not by his sign or
by a sign.
Q Now, I see written on your complaint here the
following: "the Albany Movement and other persons whose
names are unknown and who are acting in concert with them",
meaning the Defendants, I suppose. Now, who among that
group do you want the Court to enjoin?
MR. RAWLS: Now, if Your Honor pleases,
the very statement itself shows that the Plaintiffs
didn't know who they were. She’s asking him to name
somebody that the complaint says that they don’t
know who they are, just people acting in concert.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No , 727 866a
THE COURT: Well, now that we are having
a hearing on it, she can ask him to name them, If he
knows their names. If he doesn’t know their names,
he can simply so state.
A The Witness: I don’t have any specific names.
Q Mrs. Motley: Do you have anything to do with
any other City ordinance, other than the parade permit
ordinance?
A I don’t recall any specific area where I
directly grant permits, but I have a great deal to do
with the majority of the ordinances of the City.
Q What do you have to do with the ordinances of
the City?
A A great deal to do with their enforcement
and their execution in line with the policies of the City
Commission.
MRS. MOTLEY: I think those are all the
questions for this witness.
MR. RAWLS: Your Honor, Mr. Leverett will
conduct the cross-examination.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. LEVERETT:
Q Mr. Roos, in granting or denying an application
for one of these permits, do you consider whether or not
you agree or disagree with the ideas which the applicant
seeks to express?
A No
Q Similarly, In granting or denying such permits,
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No.727 867a
do you consider whether the majority of the people in the
community agree or disagree with the ideas that are sought
to he expressed?
A No, I don't.
Q. Now, in considering these applications, do you
consider the race of the applicants?
A N o, I don' t.
Q Now, to clarify it, has any representative of the
Albany Movement or any one to your knowledge connected with
it ever made an application to you for a permit?
MR. HOLLOWELL: Now, if it please the Court,
I submit that what he can give would be only an
opinion because it becomes a matter of construction,
insofar as the testimony has gone; and I would submit
that any answer that he would in the light of the
testimony would be only his opinion, and not to be
considered as necessarily the law. If this is what
he is asking him, I am going to object — I won’t
object. But if it isn't what he Is asking, then I
do object.
THE COURT: Well, he's just asking him if
they have ever made an application for a permit, and
I think, since he's the man to whom the application is
supposed to be made, I think it's a proper question;
and not only may be but should be answered.
MR. HOLLOWELL: What I am getting at —
THE COURT: Of course, I anticipate from the
line of questioning that has gone on this morning that
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No.727 868a
you as counsel for the Defendants are probably going
to contend that this letter that was written on July
19, that you're probably going to contend that that
was an application. This witness has already testified
that he did not so consider It, and it's difficult for
me to see how It could be so considered, because
nowhere in it does It say that !'we ask for permission
to do anything” . The letter simply says "We are going
to do It.” That's what the letter says.
MR. HOLLOWELL: The letter says, I think to be
exact, "we propose”.
THE COURT: Well, it doesn't ask for any
permission. But at the proper time you can argue
your position, but certainly this witness has a right
to testify whether he ever received an application for
a permit, and then you can ask him whether he considered
that as an application.
Q Mr. Leverett: Let me modify that question:
Did you ever at any time receive from any representative
of the Albany Movement or any one to your knowledge
connected with it a written request for a permit?
A No.
Q. What about any oral request for a permit?
A Not as such, no.
Q Now, cn these occasions that you testified to,
when you have had, on one or two Instances, oral requests
for permits,I ask you whether or not those oral requests
Were always followed up by written request or written
acknowledgement of it?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No . 727 869A
A It has been acknowledged in writing when the
permit was granted.
Q Now, if such a permit or request had been made
at any time by any of these Defendants or any one acting
with them, what would you have done? Would you have
treated it the same as all other applications? Would
you have given It the same consideration that you do all
other applications?
A Yes.
Q Now, while you don't have a formal application
blank, I ask you whether or not you do require that a
written application be made, setting forth certain facts?
A We have made this an administrative policy.
Q Does the Mayor have anything to do with the
enforcement or with the granting or denying of permits?
A No.
Q I think you have already testified but I just
want to clarify if, who are the persons that do process
these applications?
A Under our general procedure I call on the
advice of the Chief of Police, and then I countersign.
Q Now, with reference to this conversation, which
you testified to just a moment ago, that you had with. Dr.
Anderson, what was the date of that? Seme mention was made
of July and then June, and I'm not sure which?
A July 13, I believe was the date.
Q July 13?
A Yes.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No.727 870A
Q Now, would you state, Mr. Roos, what the conditions,
the circumstances were in Albany at that time?
A We had, of course, on the 10th of July the
sentencing of four Defendants from a parade charge,
including Rev. King and Abernathy, and we had after that
at least one demonstration, because we were discussing
among others some demonstrators who were under arrest.
And there had been a great deal of tension built up.
There were several large mass meetings, to my recollection,
on the days around the sentencing and following the
sentencing; and generally speaking, 1 felt there was a
tenseness in the community.
Q Let me ask you this, at that time did you,
in explaining the conversation, did you have any information
that any of these Defendants or people connected with the
Albany Movement had violated the laws of the City of Albany
at that time?
A Any of the people with whom we were talking?
Q Yes?
A Yes, I did have knowledge.
Q Now, did you, In talking with Dr. Anderson,
did you make it clear to him that no final determination
could be made by you on an application until you had
received a formal application in writing?
A My recollection of the conversation was that,
in answering a question which was restated, the question
as originally stated, was re-stated question by Attorney
Hollowell. He asked if we had an application, what would
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No.727 871A
I do with it; and I told him that I doubted that I would
grant it, but that I would have to have an application in
hand to give it final consideration.
Q In view of the fact that the parties there
discussing with you had attorneys at law, if such an
application had been made, what procedure would you have
followed with respect to it?
A The normal procedure.
Q And what would that be.
A I would have reviewed the application and then
forward it to the Chief of Police for his consideration.
MR. HOLLOWELL: May it please the Court, I will
have to object to what he would do in a situation
which has already passed. We don’t know what he would
have done. This then is a matter of speculation and
this, of course, would be objectionable, what he would
do. And I would even move that the previous question
dealing with this point, the question and answer,
when he asked what would he have done in a given
situation in the pasr, which is pure speculation
and a conclusion, be ruled out. All he can testify
to is as to what the procedure is.
MR. LEVERETT: May it please the Court,
they put this very matter in issue and are apparently
trying to contend that there has been an uneven
administration involved; and since they did not in
fact, as we contend the evidence shows,make an
application, I think it then becomes relevant to
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No.727 872A
determine what this witness would do. They asked
him about a great number of hypothetical situations,
and we think that we should be entitled to get his
statement as to how he would have handled this particular
one, If It had ever been formally and properly made.
MR. HOLLOWELL; I submit, Your Honor, that our
objection still holds.
THE COURT: I think the question as asked
is subject to objection, because it asks him to
speculate on what he would have done. And I suggested
instead -- I sustain the objection -- and I suggest
instead, in case It hasn’t already been fully brought
out -- it seems to me it may have already been fully
covered -- that the witness might simply be asked what
is his normal procedure when he receives applications;
and whether there was any reason, whether this appli
cation if he had received one from these parties,
whether there would have been any variation from
it, whether there existed any reason for any variation.
Q, Mr. Leverett: All right,Mr. Roos, I will
rephrase the question: Would there have been any variation
from the normal procedure for such an application if it
had been made?
MR. HOLLOWELL: Now, if it please the Court,
here again --
THE COURT: There again, you're asking him
to state what he would have done. Suppose I ask him
the question: Mr. Witness, if you had received an
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction,, No,727 873A
application from the Albany Movement for a Parade
permit at the time referred to, was there any situation
at that time, any circumstances, which would have
caused you to give it any treatment other than the
treatment or any processing any different from the
processing normally given to parade applications)
and, if so, what was it?
A The Witness: I would say this, initially
there would have been no difference. However, upon
consulting with the Chief of Police and weighing the
particular situation in hand at that given moment, at
that time we might have felt it necessary to consult
further, due to the areas that we felt might have caused
conflict.
Q, Mr. Leverett: Suppose you had received an
application from the Ku Klux Klan or some other group
seeking to demonstrate, were there any circumstances or
conditions that would have caused you to handle it the
same way that you just stated you would have probably
handled this one?
A I did not receive an application; I did receive
an inquiry concerning a parade permit from a man who
remained anonymous or remained anonymous during the
entire phone call on questioning regarding it; and I told
him at the given time --
MR. HOLLOWELL: Now,If it please the Court,
we would object to the statement that he told somebody
particularly since that individual is anonymous.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No.727 874a
THE COURT: Well, you will recall that on
examination of this witness by counsel for the Defendant
she propounded various hypothetical situations to him
as to whether he would or would not Issue a permit;
and he also testified about particular instances
where he had had applications and had turned them
down and had other applications and granted them.
This is right along the same line; so, I will overrule
the objection.
MR. HOLLOWELL: If I might, I would like to
make the distinction there between what Your Honor
Is saying and this particular situation. This witness
Is about to testify concerning a particular conversa
tion which he had with some anonymous person; and I
would submit that this situation is hearsay of the
rankest order and does not even come within the cate
gory of the statements made on the cross by the
Defendants, plus the fact that we are not In the
position of being able to cross-examine whoever
this person is that he doesn't know and certainly we
don't .
THE COURT: He had an application from some
body. It's a question of how he handled the application;
It's not a question of who the particular individual
was but it's a question of having an application at
this same time and how he handled it, and I will allow
the question.
MR. HOLLOWELL: But, sir, there was no testimony
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No.72? 875A
that there was any application made by the particular
person that he’s about to discuss. He said there was
some inquiry made.
THE COURT: All right, we'll see what he says
about it. He hasn't had a chance to testify about it
yet.
MR. LEVERETT: May it please the Court, I was
not seeking to elicit any conversation. I was simply
endeavoring to ask the witness, in view of the tension
that had developed, if he had received such an appli
cation from the Ku Klux Klan or any other similar
group if he would have treated it the same way that
he treated this purported application, which, of course,
we contend was not an application.
MR. HOLLOWELL: Of course, this is not what he
asked, No. 1. And if he's about to propound that
one, then we would certainly object to it because
of the same speculative nature, that it Is encumbered
with that he made in the other objection that we
addressed to the Court.
THE COURT: I think it is proper question.
He can ask him whether,if he received an application
from the Eastern Star or the Shrine or anybody else,
whether he would handle them all the same wayj and if
he wants to specify Ku Klux Klan, he can specify that
just as Mrs.Motley specified some others in her
questioning. I overrule the objection.
MR. HOLLOWELL: Now, which one, Your Honor,
I’m afraid I don't know which one.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No.727 876A
THE COURT: I overrule the objection to the
last question.
MR. HOLLOWELL: To the last question asked?
THE COURT: To the last question asked.
Q Mr. Leverett: Go ahead, Mr. Roos?
A What I was undertaking to say was that on
this particular inquiry concerning an application, I
made every effort to discourage the man and hold him
that I doubted seriously that it would be granted; and I
would have so offered such consideration in most other-
applications.
Q At the time you received Dr. Anderson's letter
which has been referred to that is attached to the complaint,
had Dr. Anderson already been apprised of the fact that he
must have a formal application?
A I believe this was discussed at the office on
the 13th.
Q Now, by way of explaining your treatment of
this letter, did you Interpret it as a request or an
application for a permit, or did you interpret it as
simply notice that he was going to parade regardless,
or rather without a permit?
A I interpreted it as a statement of proposal.
Q Not as an application?
A Not as a request.
Q Now, after receipt of this letter from Dr.
Anderson, did he or anyone representing him ever call
you back and inquire about it?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No.727 877A
A I don't recall.
Q Do you recall whether or not he ever called to
a s k i f it had been acted on?
A No.
Q Now, Mr. Roos, are you a lawyer?
A No.
Q In bringing this action, I ask you whether or
not you had to depend on the lawyers to advise you as to
forming the allegations of the complaint and for whatever
relief that they thought you might be entitled to?
A That’s quite correct. We in many things have
to rely on the City attorney and any who are assisting him.
Q In bringing this complaint, did you base your
directions to your attorneys on the basis solely of information
that you had, first-hand Information that you actually
saw or did you depend in part upon reports of things that
had been turned in to you as City Manager?
A I had relied on all the information mentioned,
both on first-hand knowledge and reports which I had
received.
Q, That’s all at his time.
RECROSS EXAMINATION
BY MRS. MOTLEY:
Q Now, Mr. Roos, what else do you contend the
Defendant Anderson should have done with respect to his
letter of July 19, in order to make it a permit request?
A He stated all the basic information we
generally desire in a parade request, but he did not
state a request.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No.727 878A
q In other words, he did not say "I hereby
request"?
A "I ask permission" or "would like permission"
or so on.
Q, And for this reason you denied the request?
A We did not move to deny it. We did not act
on it because it happened simultaneously that we felt,
I felt that an answer was given by service - I don't recall
the legal terminology - I believe it was restraining order,
within the time that it would normally have been rendered.
Q In other words, when you got his letter which
failed to say "I hereby request" you just went to the
Court and got an injunction based on that letter, isn't
that right?
A This was additional information to the suit.
I believe the action was already underway.
MR. RAWLS: Your Honor please, we insist
again that the petition Itself speaks for itself.
The allegations In the petition are a matter of record
in this case, and it has been pointed out on our
cross-examination that he's a layman and doesn't
understand legal technicalities.
THE COURT: She's simply trying to deter
mine, as I take it, from this line of questioning
about exactly how he interpreted the letter and so
forth. I overrule the objection. Go ahead.
MRS. MOTLEY: Would the reporter read the
last question, please?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No . 727 879A
THE REPORTER: "Question: In other words, when
you got his letter which failed to say 'I hereby
request', you just went to the Court and got an
Injunction based on that letter, isn't that right?"
Q Mrs. Motley: Do you have an answer to that?
THE REPORTER: I do. (Reading answer): This
was additional information to the suit, I believe the
action was already underway."
MR. RAWLS: We make objection to that question
and the answer because the petition specifically states
reasons why he applied to the Court for relief; and the
reasons are multiple, they are many; and the letter is
simply incidental. The letter speaks for itself,
THE COURT: I think so too but the witness
then said this was additional information. Didn't the
witness say that the letter was simply additional
information?
THE REPORTER: Yes sir, "This was additional
information to the suit."
THE COURT: That's the way I interpreted it.
The witness may be asked if that’s what he said. But
the way I interpreted it he's saying that when he got
this letter, this was simply in addition to everything
else, to all the other evidence that he's already
referred to and that all the other witnesses have
referred to; and that that is when they instituted the
action. That's the way I interpreted it but you can
clarify it.
Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, No.727 880A
Q Mrs. Motley: Let me clarify It this way:
What did you do when you got that letter from Dr. Anderson?
A When I got the letter, I first glanced afe it
in the presence of those who had tendered it, and indicated
that I felt sure I could let them hear by the next day. And
they left and about that time the telephone rang, I put
it on my desk; I had at least one phone conversation and
then I picked the letter up and read it In full. I scanned
it just to note that they had number, a route and the other
basic information as would normally be contained, but I didn't
check, read the wording word for word. I just scanned it
and it seemed to be fairly comprehensive.
Q. Now, after you read it carefully, what did you do?
MR. RAWLS: Now, If Your Honor pleases,
we take the position that the letter speaks for itself
and that It could not be any reasonable construction
except a written statement from this man or these men,
stating that regardless of your parade ordinances or
otherwise, we intend to hold a parade along this line;
and I just can't conceive of going into all the little
molecules of things that might have been in this man's
mind, because it's a written document and It speaks
for itself. It cannot reasonably be construed as
anything except a defiant statement that was sent to
this man, this officer of the City of Albany, that
regardless of your ordinances and regardless of anything
else, we propose to mai’ch so and so.
THE COURT: I overrule the objection.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No . 727 881A
A The Witness: Would you repeat the question?
THE REPORTER: "Question: Now, after you read
it carefully, what did you do?"
A The Witness: I first called the Chief of
Police and then very shortly thereafter called the City
Attorney to find out if in the Attorney's opinion It was
a request.
Q Mrs. Motley: Then, what did you do?
A I discussed the matter with the City Attorney,
and he felt that it wasn’t as such a request.
Q Then, what did you do?
A I made photocopies of it available to the
Attorney.
Q
A
Attorney.
Q,
A
business .
Q
A
You did what?
Made photo-copies of it available to the City
Then, what did you do?
Proceeded in the normal conduct of day to day
Did you ever acknowledge the letter?
I was handed it in person, so I presume they
knew I had received it.
Q Well, you told them they would hear from you
the next day, didn’t you?
A Yes, and then the next day the suit was served.
Q I believe that during your examination by Mr.
Freeman you indicated that you did not consider race when
y°u get one of these applications?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No.72? 882A
A That’s correct.
Q But you considered race In this case, didn’t you?
A I considered the Albany Movement, not necessarily
a race but a force in the community as opposed to a race.
q I don’t understand that?
A An action which was tending to create extreme
tension in the community. It could have come from any
source but it so happened to come from the Albany Movement .
Q, You don't understand the Albany Movement to be
composed of white citizens, do you?
A I understand a great many have met with them.
I don't know what their affiliation Is.
Q But you know it's primarily a Negro group,
don't you?
A Yes, primarily.
Q And you considered that this primarily Negro
group was Intending to protest against segregation; didn't
you consider that?
A I considered that they desired to hold a parade
which had dire possibilities.
Q What dire possibilities?
A The possibility that outside or inside forces
within our community or without, might cause violence on
the streets.
Q What forces are these?
A Any given numbers of Individuals; some have
offered hip-pocket judgments and others have, I believe
as the Chief of Police formerly testified, offered various
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No.727 883a
forms of assistance, and there are many people who have
extreme feelings in the matter who might get out of hand,
these persons unknown.
Q Do you have any specific group that you can
identify or individuals?
A If we had a specific group, it would be much
easier to tend to remove the cause for possible violence,
but itfs a general area that we have unknown to us.
Q So, you don’t have any specific organized
group that you can identify, is that It?
A That's right.
Q Now, what about individuals?
A I heard many reports off of the streets which
were hearsay.
Q How many?
A As often as I went to the street, people express
ed great disturbance over what was going on.
Q And for this reason you say you have considered
this in weighing whether you would give a permit in this
instance?
A I would have considered that and the possibility
of whether or not and also where and when the demonstration
might be routed and held.
Q Now, what I want to clarify is whether you would
take into consideration the fact that there were white
Sroups in the community hostile to the Albany Movement,
in deciding whether you would Issue a permit for that
Movement?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No . 727 884a
A I would take into consideration the ingredients
of whatever was proposed and it's over all effect on the
community.
Q No, I'm asking you specifically whether you
would take into consideration the hostility of white groups
and individuals to the Albany Movement, in determining
whether you would issue a permit to that Movement?
A Not as such.
Q You wouldn't?
A No.
Q Then, what's this tension you say was involved?
A The Ingredients of the tension that arise in
our community don't have any boundary lines of race or
color or creed. They are a general tension which is
present, a hostility which has been reported to me in
what seems to be more outward defiance to normal processes
of law and order and the actions that have been reported
at great length in former testimony.
Q So that, your answer is that you would take into
consideration community hostility in determining whether
you would issue a permit in this Instance, is that right?
A I would take into consideration community
hostility or any other element o^ Ingredient which might
tend to cause a general disturbance or open conflict.
Q Now, in addition to these remarks passed by
unidentified individuals, was there anything else that
you considered that amounted to tension in the community?
A There were sometimes when, even without demonstra-
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No.727
tions, the streets were almost hare at times, when there
would have been a good flow of commerce along them. That
is one evidence of tension.
Q What else?
A The statement even made to me by my own wife
that she felt like she didn’t want to come downtown because
of what might happen. Neighbors’ wives, a Mrs.Jack
Whiteside, Mr. Donald Wllrnot and many neighbors. These
are just immediate neighbors living closest who have had
occasion to discuss their feelings.
Q Anything else you say that amounts to tension?
A The groups that are unknown and somewhat
unseemly that sometimes are walking the streets in normal
process but which are highly unusual to the average down
town group or crowds.
Q. You are now talking about some individual group
is that right?
A No, I ’m talking about persons unknown to me but
who are total strangers and who are not there during the
hours of commerce, and who are what I would consider a
rough looking group.
Q What were they doing?
A Walking the sidewalks, having various conversa
tions, "we ought to find some people to rough up" was
one stray word that came from one group I passed.
Q Were they arrested for inciting to riot?
A There was not a police officer handy,
Q But you heard that?
H e a r i n g on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No.727 886a
A Yes.
q Did you report it to the police?
A I walked around and spoke to them and they were
gone by the time we got back. I was about a block from
the City Hall.
Q Have you had any other such instances?
A Not particular instances.
Q, I think that's all.
RECROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. LEVERETT:
Q Mr. Roos, in stating that you considered the
forces in the Albany Movement that might cause violence, I
ask you whether or not you are including in that definition
groups of colored spectators who on occasions followed the
marchers on their march and engaged in throwing rocks,
hurling insults and making threatening remarks and gestures?
A Yes sir.
Q You considered those?
A Yes.
MR. HOLLOWELL: May it please the Court, I would
object to that on the ground - I presume he's still
talking about this same letter - that there's no
evidence tha+- there has been any such activity at
the time that this was taken into consideration.
THE COURT: I don't interpret the question
as simply relating to the letter. Maybe It was
intended that way. The question didn't say anything
about the letter.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction* No.727 887A
MR. HOLLOWELL: It seems to be that in the
general connotation* it appears to be related to
the application to parade* or if there had been one
at or about the same time that the letter of the 19th
was submitted; and it appears that the question went
to that area; and* if so* then I am saying that there's
no testimony by this witness or any other witness
for that matter* to my knowledge* that there has been
any such acts as he is propounding in the question
which is now directed to the witness.
MR. LEVERETT: May it please the Court*
No. 1: there has been evidence by other witnesses
about incidents on the 11th* I believe; secondly,
counsel for the Defendants examined this witness
extensively on general things that he considered in
granting or denying permits; and I think on that basis
that I'm entitled to go into it.
THE COURT: Well, I can't recall whether in
the testimony* whether in all of this mass of testimony
that we've had, whether there was anything in there
about July 11 or not; and certainly the answer to
the question is pertinent in the overall picture* and
I overrule the objection. Go ahead.
Q, Mr. Leverett: Now Mr. Roos* you stated that
you would* in considering an application* consider the
question of community hostility: By that did you mean
to say that that was the only thing that you would consider
or that that was one of the many circumstances that you
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No.727 888a
would consider in granting or denying such a permit, along
with all the other circumstances?
A Well, as against normal conditions, we would
not have that type of consideration; but under the special
times, you adjust your consideration to the times that are
around you.
THE COURT: Allright, anything further?
RECROSS EXAMINATION
BY MRS. MOTLEY:
Q Yes, Your Honor. At the time that you received
this letter of July 19, what colored spectators had you seen
throwing rocks and bottles?
A I had heard of an earlier Incident in the south
part of town.
Q What incident is this exactly?
A At the Teen Center.
Q At the Teen Center?
A At the Carver Teen Center.
Q What happened out there?
A It has been reported, I believe, In the record.
I don’t have specific knowledge.
MR. RAVILS: If Your Honor pleases —
THE COURT: He said he had simply heard of
the incident about that.
Q Mrs. Motley: Was that sponsored by the Albany
Movement?
A No.
THE COURT: All right, anything further from
’C ? this witness?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No.727 889A
MRS. MOTLEY: That's all, Your Honor.
THE COURT: If not, you may go down and we'll
take a 10-minute recess at this time.
RECESS: 11:02 AM to 11:15 AM - AUGUST 8, 1962
MR. HOLLOWELL: The Defendants call Dr. Anderson.
DR. W. G. ANDERSON
witness called in behalf of Defendants,
being himself a party Defendant and
being first duly sworn, testified on
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. HOLLOWELL:
Q Doctor, I show you D-17 and ask you, do you
recognize it?
A Yes, I do.
Q Would you indicate what It is?
A This is a photograph of me walking in a
northerly direction in the 100 block of North Washington
Street, carrying a sign that reads, "Walk, live and spend
in dignity." I was at that time engaged in picketing.
Q. What were you picketing for?
A I was picketing to put an end to the segregation
practices in the City of Albany.
Q, I show you D-l8 and see if you recollect the
scene that is depicted there and what the circumstances were?
A Yes, I do recognize it. This photograph was
made at a time when picketing had been Interrupted by the
local police officers; and the two persons who are identified
as Emanuel Jackson and Elijah Harris in the photograph,
Were engaged in picketing at the same time in the 100 block
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No.727 890A
of North Washington. This photograph was taken at the time
they had been arrested and just before being taken into
custody by the police officers.
Q Had you been taken into custody also?
A That's right. This was done almost simultaneously,
There were four different officers that made the arrests
almost simultaneously.
Q What were you doing at the time of the arrest?
A I was merely walking back and forth in the 100
block of North Washington Street, bearing the sign as
indicated.
Q At the time that those two photographs which
you have identified were taken, what was the complexion
of the street in the area where you were walking as relates
to pedestrian traffic?
A Wei], there were only two people In the half
block where I was at the time, and there is clearly adequate
space between where I'm standing or where I'm walking and
the stores for an additional 7 or 8 people. The pedestrian
traffic is very light.
Q Do you recollect what the officer told you
you were being arrested for?
A As a matter of fact, he did not tell me. He
said that "I will have to place you under arrest if you
continue to walk In front of these stores and picket with
these signs". And I asked him when he stopped me, "What
are you arresting me for?” And he says, "Well, I'll just
have to make a case against you if you continue. I asked
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No.727 891A
again, "What for?w And there again, he said "I'll just have
to make a case against you."
Q Do you remember who that was?
A Yes sir, that was Assistant Chief Summerford.
Q Now, I show you D-19 and ask you do you know
the persons xvho are shown there and whether or not it
reflects the situation as you saw It as of the time it
was taken?
A I know two of the persons by name and the
other one merely by Identification from his uniform.
I know Assistant Chief Summerford and I know Slater King.
Of course, in the background I see another photograph of
myself. This does reflect the situation as It was at that
time. This also was taken at a period when we were
picketing in front of the downtown stores inthe 100
block of North Washington.
Q Do all of those three photographs depict the
situation on a given day, that is the same day?
A Yes, these were all taken on the same day.
Q Now, Doctor, do you recollect that there was
some statement which was attributed to the person at the
head of the line, some person at the head of the line,
at the time that you were walking to the courthouse and
the City Hall on December 16: Do you have any recollection
of hearing Dr. King say anything in the vicinity of the
store which is located on the corner of Highland and South
Jackson, pertaining to "Strike me first"?
A No, I heard Dr. King utter no such words.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No, 727 892A
Q I ask you whether or not at the corner of
Oglethorpe and South Jackson on this occasion there were
any such words said by him?
A No, I heard him utter no such words. The only
thing I heard him, the only time I heard him speak was
when he replied to Chief Pritchett.
Q In response to what statement or question
made to him by the Chief?
A Chief Pritchett asked him if he had a parade
to permit, I mean a permit to parade.
Q And his response was?
A His response was, "We are not parading, we are
merely going down to the City Hall to pray."
Q Do you have any recollection of the statement
being made at all by any one who was at the head of that
group?
A Yes, I made the statement In response to the
action of one of the police officers. As he approached
the line, as we came in a northerly direction, North
Jackson, he raised his night-stick and grasped it in both
hands and held It up before him; and I said, "If you hit
anybody, hit me first."
Q Now, where were you walking in relationship to
Rev. King at that time?
A Immediately abreast.
Q Now, Doctor, calling your attention to the
conversation which was had on July 13. in Chief Pritchett's
officej you've been here all the morning, have you not?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction,Nc.727 893A
A Yes.
Q You heard the testimony of Mr. Roos as relating
to statement which he said was directed to him, I believe
by you, relative to whether or not a permit would be granted,
and which he also Indicates was subsequently clarified by
me, and the response which he gave, did you not?
A Yes.
Q Now, would you indicate what was said on that
occasion by you and what was the response by Mr. Roos as
you heard it?
A We were discussing generally the manifestations
of protests, wherein I asked Mr. Roos if I could secure a
permit to have a prayer meeting In front of the City Hall;
wherein Mr. Roos replied, "No, I couldn't do that.”
MR. HOLLOWELL: I might state, Your Honor, if
I might in my place as a lawyer, I will take the
stand, if necessary, that this was the statement asked
or the question asked and that was the statement made
under those circumstances.
Q Now, Doctor, I ask you whether or not there
have been any meetings, mass meetings as they are generally
called, at any of the churches in the last 7 days or 8 days?
A Yes.
Q Could you Indicate about what number were
present on those occasions?
A Well now, there was a mass meeting on Saturday
evening at 6 o'clock, at which time there were some 200
Persons present. On Monday evening some 12- to 1500 people
Present at Mt. Zion Baptist Church.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No.727 894a
Q Now, when you say Monday evening, is that of this
week?
A Of this week.
Q That was day before yesterday?
A Day before yesterday. Do you want to go back
further than that?
Q Yes, last week, were there some; I believe you
said Saturday?
A Yes.
Q Were there any Monday through Friday of last
week? That would have been the week beginning July 30?
A Yes, there have been mass meetings each night
in the past 10 days with the exception of Thursday night of
last week.
Q. Were the churches on those occasions quite full?
A On most of the occasions they were quite full.
Q Were there persons even on the exterior of the
church?
A Yes, on most occasions.
Q Were there police present or did you have any
occasion to notice whether there were police present. In
the general vicinity?
A There x̂ ere police present in the general vicinity
on each and every occasion.
Q At what distance from the church, insofar as
you can recollect?
A Approximately a quarter of a block from the
intersection where the church is located; that is, Mt.
2ion and Shiloh.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 895A
q Did you get any report - I’m sorry, would you
strike that, Mr. Reporter -- Did you get any reports of
there being any violence of any sort In connection with
any of those meetings that have been held In the last 10
days?
A None at all.
Q Did you see any?
A None at all.
Q I ask you whether or not you had the occasion
within the last four days to take a group from that church,
that is Mt. Zion or Shiloh, to Bethel and Indicate in what
numbers, when It was and what the occasion was?
A Well, on Saturday afternoon at approximately
7:15 a group of some 200 persons left Mt. Zion Church,
walking 2-abreast in an easterly direction down Whitney
to the intersection of Washington and Whitney, then in a
northerly direction up Washington to the corner of
Highland and Washington, whereupon they went into Bethel
Church.
Q Were they in the street or on the sidewalk area?
A They were on the sidewalk area. They did stop
at each of the stop signs and a few of the persons would go
across, and then they would stop again, and then the others
would stop so that traffic would not be Interfered with;
they obeyed the traffic light at the corner of Jackson and
Whitney.
Q Were you stopped at any time by any of the police
officers?
H e a r i n g on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 896A
A No, we were not stopped. This was quite surprising.
There was a police car that followed us from the time we
left Mt. Zion Church until the time we stopped at Bethal
Church; but at no time did the policemen stop the persons
walking in that direction.
Q When they got to the church, what did they do,
that is the church to which you were going?
A We went Into the church and had a prayer meeting.
Q I ask you, Doctor, whether or not the procedure
which was followed on this occasion was generally the same
as the procedure that Is usually followed, except that you
did not go beyond Highland on that occasion to the north?
A It was identical. There was no difference in
this and what we have been doing since December 12.
Q December 12 what?
A December 12 was the first time we had persons
to be walking in columns of 2's through the streets of
downtown Albany.
Q When you say through the streets - that was
December ’6l?
A December, '6l, that's right.
Q When you say through the streets, do you mean
°ut in the streets that are normally used by vehicular
traffic, or do you mean some place else?
A On the sidewalk.
Q In the sidewalk area?
A Yes.
Q As a matter of fact, Isn't it true, Doctor,
H e a r i n g on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 897A
that in many of the areas between that church, that is
Shiloh and Mt. Zion area and Oglethorpe or even going to
Washington, that there are no sidewalks as such; that is,
concrete sidewalks?
A In some places there is a concrete sidewalk and
in some places there is not. Mow, on Whitney down to
Jackson, we do have concrete sidewalks; but then, there's
a span in the 300 block of South Jackson where there is
nc sidewalk; and then again In the 200 block of South
Jackson we have sidewalks again. Now, on Whitney from
Jackson down to Washington there is no concrete sidewalk,
and from Whitney up to Highland there is no concrete side
walk.
Q What would you suggest Is the amount of area
between the curb and the houses or buildings in those areas
where there are no sidewalks that people normally walk on;
what width would you suggest that to be?
A Oh my! This is quite a distance; as far as
from here to the back of the courtroom.
Q In some places?
A Yes, on Whitney there in the 200 block.
MR. KOLLOWELL: The witness is with you.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. LEVERETT:
Q Dr. Anderson, I call your attention once again
D e fe n d a n ts' Exhibit 17, would you read the inscription
on that placard, please?
A "Walk, live and spend in dignity."
H e a r i n g on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 898a
q Now, you stated that that related to the City
of Albany; now, that reference to "spend”, that doesn’t
have reference to the City as such, does it?
A Well, if we consider the stores as being a part
of the City of Albany, yes.
q I see. Now, the truth of the matter is, that
reference to "spend In dignity" was In effect an encourage
ment to the public not to trade with these merchants?
A Not to trade where they are not treated with
dignity, that’s correct.
Q And by not treated with dignity, you had
reference to the fact that your contention was that if
a merchant had 30 per cent colored trade, that he should
employ colored clerks 30 per cent?
A No, It should not be construed In that manner,
no.
Q How did you intend for it to be construed?
A Now, when I say "dignity", I merely mean that
an individual is afforded all of the services, he is
afforded equal job opportunities in the business establish
ments in the city.
Q Is it your testimony that you have never advo
cated either at a meeting or in discussion with any
merchants your demands or your insistence that he should
employ Negroes on a quota basi3?
MR. HOLLOWELL: Now, If It please the Court,
there hasn’t been any such testimony by this witness.
He asked him a specific and direct question as to
what it meant and he explained what it meant, and
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No, 727 899A
there was no testimony along the line that this
particular lawyer is seeking. He has just asked
the question and he answered It.
MR. LEVERETT: May It please the Court, they
have opened this up by putting In this picture which
shows the placard, and I think that I'm entitled to
elicit from this witness any Information that I can
as to what was meant by this placard on this particular
occasion,
MR. HOLLOWELL: Well, I mean he can ask him
that and he did ask him and he did answer it. All
I'm objecting to, is it your testimony that you have
never at any meeting or this, that or the other,
pertaining to proportionate hiring policy on the
part of anybody; and there has been no testimony
to this effect; and so, I object to it.
THE COURT; I sustain the objection to the
question as phrased. I think it would be all right
for the witness to be asked whether one .of the
meanings of that sign was the theory which you
propounded and he can say that it was or that it
wasn't; but I think the question as phrased is
objectionable.
Q Mr. Leverett: Doctor, I will ask it this way;
Didn't you intend by that sign to convey the idea that
a raerchant who had colored trade should employ colored people
Proportionately to that trade?
A No, that was not the intent of the sign.
H a r i n g on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 900A
Q Now, will you identify this party right here in
Defendants1 Exhibit 19? Who did you identify him as?
)
A That's Slater King.
Q Slater King?
A Yes.
Q And, of course, that picture only purports to
be a picture just of the immediate communication being
made between the police officer and Slater King* is that
not true?
A Well, I'm also here shown In the background.
Q Away In the background?
A Yes, so I could observe the situation from where
I was standing.
Q Eut that photograph itself only is primarily
concerned with these two parties right there in the fore-
ground, is that right?
A That's correct.
Q Now, Er. Anderson, you state that you did not
hear Rev. King, Rev. Martin Luther King, say "Hit me";
you can't testify that he didn't say that, can you?
A I can testify that if it was said loud enough,
for any one to hear it, I would have heard it; therefore,
1 oan say with all assurance that he did not say it.
Q But you don't know that though; that’s just an
assumption on your part?
A
secured.
I know it with as much intelligence as can be
Q Of course, it is possible that he made that
statement, is it not?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 901A
A Possible but highly improbable.
q Now, who was this office that you claim held
up his night stick?
A I have no idea of his identity by name. I
merely recognized him as being a police officer by his
uniform.
Q He was in a uniform?
A He was in a uniform, yes.
Q Did he have any insignia, indicating his rank?
A As I recall, there was nothing except, of course,
the badge. Now, I have been, of course, in contact with
police officers quite a bit in recent months and I can
identify those of rank by some Insignia. He had no insignia
which suggests that he had a rank above patrolman.
Q How tall, do you have any Idea approximately how
tall he was?
A Oh, he was approximately 5 feet- 10.
Q What about his weight?
A Approximately 170.
Q What about the color of his hair or his eyes or
both?
A He had on a hat. I didn't look in his eyes.
Q Is It your testimony that you had never seen
that officer before?
A I said I did not recognize him by name. I prob-
ab3-y had seen him before on occasions.
Q Can you recall whether you had in fact seen
hiffl before on any other occasion?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction,, No. 727 902A
A No, I could not specify having seen him at
any time before then.
q What about subsequent to that occasion?
A Well, I haven't had the occasion to identify him.
I don't know whether I have seen him or not. I haven't had
the occasion to Identify him since then. It was not signifi
cant to me.
Q Oh, it was not significant; by that, do you mean
you’re not certain whether he was holding up his stick in
a threatening manner or just what interpretation did you
put on his action?
A Well, I certainly thought for at least a fleeting
moment that he was raising the stick to strike someone. But
now, of course, I cannot testify as to what his Intentions
were.
Q I see; so, you don't know whether in fact he
was making a threatening gesture then?
A No, I don't know that.
Q And, of course, you did not at any time take
this up with Chief of Police Pritchett, did you?
A No, as a matter of fact, when he, of course, did
not strike, I had no complaint with the officer or with the
Police Chief.
Q Now, Dr. Anderson, will you state in as nearly
the exact language as you can recall precisely what you
stated to Mr. Roos on this occasion on the 13th and what
3tated to you in reply, as nearly a verbatim quote as
can?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, Ho.727 903A
A Well, of course, I cannot recall the entire
c o n v e r s a t i o n as relates to the general manifestations of
the protest, hut it had boiled down to the point where I
asked him specifically, "Mr. Roos, can we get a permit
to have a prayer meeting before City Hall?" And his
reply was, "No, I can't do that."
Q Now, Is it your statement that the letter that
you sent on the 19th of July subsequent to that was a
request for such a permit?
A Well now, you would have, of course, to be
advised as to the things that transpired in the Interim.
Q No, I'm just asking you as to your interpreta
tion of that letter that you sent him on the 19th, whether
you intended that, whether you considered that to be in fact
a request for a permit?
A This was In compliance with what he had set
forth as being necessary to secure a permit.
Q In other words, Doctor, you're saying that you
had already been turned down orally and notwithstanding
that you then applied in writing?
A He said "We couldn't do that" and at the same
time he had said that there is a procedure that has to be
followed in securing a permit to parade; so that, I sent
a delegation of 2 or 3 persons to see Mr. Roos in person
to make a formal request; and at that time Mr. Roos
deified what would have to be, what information he
w°uld have to have that is, before he could act on such
a Request; wherein, I then submitted him- a letter fulfilling
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 904a
the requirements as he had stipulated to the delegation
that I sent.
Q I see; in other words, you:re now saying that
you did not Interpret the conversation with Mr. Roos on
the 13th as being a determination by him that such a
permit would not be granted?
A Well, it has been my experience that the City
has not been consistent in the statements that they make;
that is, for example, if you want an example, today we
are permitted to picket for as long as an hour and a half;
tomorrow we can only picket for 10 minutes; the next day,
none. That is, the City has not been consistent in its
application of laws.
MR. LEVERETT: Now, just a moment, Your Honor,
I move to strike that on the ground that the answer
is not responsive.
THE COURT: Yes, at no time have you answered
the question.
A The Witness: Well, 1 said I could not Inter
pret this as being a final statement, based on my past
e xper ience .
Q. Mr. Leverett: But apparently, from the fact
that you say you sent a subsequent written communication,
that does Indicate that you did not consider this oral
conversation to have constituted a final determination,
•̂■s that true?
A That's right, I did not consider it as being a
înal determination.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 905A
Q Now, you just mentioned the fact that there
were some police at the church on several occasions in
the last few days: do you object to having police protection
out there?
A Not at all. I'm most happy to have them.
Q Now, didn't you in fact - haven't you people
anticipated violence in connection with your activities
of the Albany Movement?
MR. HOLLOWELL: If it please the Court, "haven’t
you people" --
MR. LEVERETT: I will clarify that question
for the benefit of counsel and the witness.
Q Didn't you and other leaders of the Albany Move
ment anticipate violence in connection with your activities?
A Anticipate to the extent that it has been our
experience in non-violent resistance movements, violence
has come to the people who are engaged in these non-violent
peaceful resistance movements.
Q And that is the reason that you have these
clinics, at which your members and the people who partici
pate in these demonstrations are given lessons in how
to receive physical abuse without retaliating, is that
right?
A That is correct; that's the purpose of those
clinics,
Q Now, you testified about a march to Bethel
Church: what night was that conducted on?
A Well, of course, it wasn't a march. That was
°USt a S^oup of people that decided they wanted to walk
H e a r i n g on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 72? 906a
from Mt. Zion over to Bethel; and this was on Saturday
evening about 7:15-
Q Were they marching in a procession of any sort
or just sort of a loose group walking down the street?
A They were walking two-abreast.
Q Did they have any placards or'anything?
A No placards.
Q And they marched from the Mt. Zion and Shiloh
churches down Whitney?
A You keep using the word ''march" and, of course,
I don't know what your Interpretation of "march'" Is.
They walked from Mt. Zion.
Q Walked?
A They walked from Mt. Zion down Whitney to
Washington, then north on Washington to Highland and,
of course, the church is situated at the corner of
Highland and Washington.
Q Washington is further out - let me see If I get
ffly bearings straight - which way is Washington with respect
to Jefferson Street?
A It is east of Jefferson.
Q Does it run parallel with it?
A It runs parallel to Jefferson •
Q So, that would be walking out towards Slappey Drive
A No, no, east.
Q Up this way (pointing)?
A Toward the River.
Q I see; and you walked up from the corner of
Jefferson and Whitney up to Washington, to the corner of
H e a r i n g on Motion For Preliminary Injunction,, No. 727 907A
Washington —
A The corner of Washington and Highland.
Q And then marched from there to the Bethel Church?
A Yes.
Q Now, where is the Bethel Church situated?
A Well, the Bethel Church is situated on the
corner of Highland and Washington. We walked from Mt. Zion
at the corner of Jefferson and Whitney, east on Whitney,
across Jackson down to Washington; then, north up Washing
ton to the corner of Highland and Washington.
Q Now, all up and down Whitney from the corner of
Whitney and Jefferson, that is predominantly residential
area, isn't it?
A From where?
Q From the corner of Whitney and Jefferson, where
the churches are situated, down to Washington; isn't that
area predominantly residential?
A As a matter of fact, it Is all business the first
half of the block on Whitney, all business; and the last
half of the block on Whitney up approaching Jackson is all
business.
Q How many businesses are located in there, do you
know?
A l, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 (counting) . . .
About 15.
Q Do these businesses front on Whitney?
A Front on Whitney.
Q And how many residences are in there, do you
hn°w that?
H e a r i n g on Motion For Preliminary Injunction* No. 727 908a
A There are quite a few residences in there.
I w o u l d say as many as 50 residences in there.
Q 50 residences; In fact* that street is not*
you would not consider that one of the main thoroughfares
in the business section* would you?
A Jackson Street certainly is one of the main
thoroughfares.
Q And you went across Jackson?
A We went across Jackson Street.
Q In fact* the load of traffic on that street is
nothing to compare with the traffic on Oglethorpe or the
traffic on Jackson further up toward Oglethorpe into town*
is it?
A I would have to agree with that; it’s not
anything like as heavy as downtown.
Q Now* when this group of people walked* as you
say* to Bethel Church* how many people were in that group
that were actually in the procession?
A How many people were walking from Mt. Zion over
to South - I mean over to - In the column?
Q In the column of 2's?
A I estimate It as approximately 200.
Q Were there any others following along behind or
ty the side of them?
A Yes* quite a few.
Q Approximately how many?
A Oh* probably an additional 150 or 200.
Q Now* in this group of spectators following along
as you mentioned* was there any cursing?
H e a r i n g on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 909A
A No.
q Were there any rocks being thrown?
A Not as I know of.
Q What about any threats being made?
A Not as I know of.
Q Were there any white people along the path of the
walk?
A Yes sir.
Q In other words, this occasion was not the same
as some of the others then?
A It was identical so far as I can see.
Q Well, you've heard all of this testimony about
the throwing of rocks and cursing on these other occasions
when they came up Jackson, and yet, you just testified that
those same circumstances didn't exist on this occasion?
MR. HOLLOWELL: Now, if it please the Court, I
object to that because there has not been any
testimony that there have been any rocks being
thrown on these other occasions. There has been
testimony to the effect that on the occasion of
this night, I believe it was the night of the 24th,
that there had been some rocks thrown, as I recall
it. But when he says "on all of these other occasions",
there has been no such testimony.
MR. LEVERETT: May it please the Court, I think
the record speaks for itself; and I specifically
recall July 21, July 24 and, if I'm not mistaken -
my fellow associates can correct me on this - there
H e a r i n g on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 910A
was also some testimony about some boisterousness
on some of these nights or rather some of these
occasions in December.
THE COURT: Well, on the occasions whenever
it occurred, let's let It go like that; on the occasion
or occasions whenever it did occur. Certainly that
would be all right.
A The Witness; I'm afraid I've forgotten the
question.
MR. LEVERETT: Read the question back, Mr.
Reporter.
THE REPORTER: (Question): "Well, you've heard
all of this testimony about the throwing of rocks and
cursing on these other occasions when they came up
Jackson and yet you just testified that those same
circumstances didn't exist on this occasion?!!
THE COURT: So, you interpret that question,
Mr. Witness, as being on the occasion or occasions
when it did occur.
A The Witness: I don't, I still don't know
quite how to answer that, with a yes or no, if that's
what you're asking. I can give you my interpretation.
Q Mr. Leverett: Answer it yes or no, If you can,
and then you can explain your answer?
A Would you rephrase the question? It's a little
difficult to get a yes or no out of it.
MR. LEVERETT: Read the question back once
more then, Mr. Reporter.
H e a r i n g on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 9 H A
THE REPORTER: ’’Question: Well, you’ve heard
all of this testimony about the throwing of rocks
and cursing on these other occasions when they come
up Jackson, and yet, you just testified that those
same circumstances didn’t exist on this occasion?”
A The Witness: That is correct. And to explain
further, I have no knowledge at any time of any of the
persons who were participating in any protest having thrown
any rocks or any bottles at any time. I have heard that
on one occasion, specifically July 1, that there were
some rocks and bottles thrown by persons other than those
who were engaged in the protest.
Q Mr. Leverett: Now, Doctor, doesn't this indicate
to you that your marches and the spectators that follow
along from the churches ana up the streets, that if these
marches are conducted peaceably and orderly that you will
not have any difficulty?
A It cannot suggest that at all, sir, because there
have been many instances whereby there was not even any
allegation of rocks being thrown or bottles being thrown,
and yet, these peaceful protests resulted in arrests.
Q But the fact of the matter is, as you've just
testified, that on this occasion a few days ago, that there
was none of this cursing or rocks being thrown or any threats,
and that your procession moved along all right; now, is that
correct?
A That is correct, and also on December 12, December
•̂■3, December 14, December 16, when protests were going on
th the same manner there were no rocks being thrown and no
H e a r i n g on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No.727 912A
bottles being thrown, but these persons were arrested.
Q It is your testimony that you know of your own
knowledge that there were no rocks throx^n or no cursing or
no threats made on any of those occasions?
A I know that no reports have come to me; there
were no allegations; there was nothing to suggest it, by
newspaper reports or reports from the Police Department,
and so forth.
Q You were not participating in any of those
marches, were you?
A Yes sir, I was.
Q On which of those occasions did you participate
in them?
A I was walking down the street to the City Hall
on December 1 6 .
Q And at that time you had not obtained a permit,
had you?
A A permit for what, sir?
Q For a parade or demonstration or procession?
A Well, I wasn't parading and I wasn't in a
procession.
Q How many people were with you?
A Some 700.
Q Some 700?
A Yes sir.
Q Walking down South Jackson up toward Oglethorpe?
A Yes sir.
MR. LEVERETT; That's all.
H e a r i n g on Motion For Preliminary Injunction* N0.727 913A
THE COURT: Anything further?
MR. HOLLOWELL: Yes* Your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY M3. HOLLOWELL:
Q Now* Doctor* in response to one question asked
by Mr. Leverett* pertaining to this one occasion that you
had received reports of some rock throwing* you said July 1?
A The 21st.
Q Which - did you mean that?
A 21st.
Q The 21st or 24th?
A The 24th* I beg your pardon. That was July 24,
on a Tuesday* Tuesday night.
Q Now* when you answered Mr. Leverett at the time
he propounded the question, did you consider the statement
by Mr. Roos on the 13th in the Chief's office* to the effect
that he could not do that as a final determination* or that
you did not consider it as a final determination* did you
Rlean to import that you did not consider it a final determi
nation as of the request made at that time? Do you
understand the question?
A Oh yes* that's right. This was merely* I inter
preted his response as being responsive to the question put
a time; that is* the request was made at that time
and his response related to that specific time only.
I don't think —
Q You considered It final as to that occasion?
A As to that time* that's right* not for any future
H e a r i n g on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 914a
time or any past time, just for that time.
MR. LBVERETT: May it please the Court, I think
this witness has already testified directly to the
contrary and now he's changing his story and I think
counsel is trying to pull him out.
THE COURT: I don't know about whether h e ’s
contradicted himself or not. I will decide that when
I review all of this record; but I do suggest that
counsel not lead him.
MR. HOLLOWELL: That's right. I thought this
was what he was saying and I was trying to determine
whether this was in fact what he had said.
Q Mr. Hollowell: Now, I believe you indicated
further that you have been in certain of these groups
when they have moved from the church in the direction of
City Hall, prior to the 16th of December, is that correct?
MR. RAWLS: I object to that on the ground
that it Is leading.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. HOLLOWELL: It's not leading at all Your
Honor. I'm asking him a question as to something
which I believe he has already testified to. I can
rephrase it sir.
THE COURT: Then, why go over it again.
MR. HOLLOWELL: Well, I wanted to be sure that
this was it because I was using that as the basis for
another question I wanted to ask.
THE COURT: Suppose you rephrase it.
I think it's leading in the form in which you asked it.
H e a r i n g on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 915A
q Mr. Hollowell: I will just ask directly. Doctor,
did you have the occasion to participate with groups who
were going from churches in the vicinity of Whitney and
Jackson or Whitney and Jefferson, namely Mt. Zion and Shiloh,
as they walked in the direction of the city hall, at any
time prior to the 16th of December?
A Yes, I did. As a matter of fact, on December,
of course, this group did not originate from these churches
but we were walking around the downtown area in the blocks
of Pine, Washington, Washington to Broad, and Broad down
to Jackson again in protest.
Q Now, were there other occasions prior to the l6th
where there were groups that walked similarly?
A There were other occasions when I was not there,
but to my personal knowledge, I have observed it.
Q Let me ask you this, as the President of the
Albany Movement, do you have the occasion to review the
charges which are made against any of the persons who may
have been arrested in connection with one of these groups
which have been walking and protesting?
A Absolutely. I make it my business to ascertain
what charges have been brought by the Police Department
immediately after the arrest.
Q Then, prior to December 16, had you at any time
keen asked for a parade permit by any police officer or
Were any other persons to your knowledge who were leading
such a group ever asked for a parade permit by anybody from
P°lice department?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 916a
A No, and, as a matter of fact, there had not teen
any arrests made prior to December 16 for parading without
a permit by any of these persons.
MR. HOLLOWELL: We have no further questions.
MR. LEVERETT; Come down.
TEE COURT: You may go down.
MR. MARION S, PAGE
a party Defendant, and called In
behalf of Defendants, being first
duly sworn, testified on
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. HOLLOWELL:
Q Woulu you give your name for the record, sir?
A Marion S. Page, 605 Mercer.
0. What, if any, office do you hold in the Albany
Movement, sir?
A I am --
Q You'll have to speak up sir.
A I am the Executive Secretary and Financial
Secretary to the Treasurer.
Q Now Mr. Page, I show you D-28 and ask whether
or not you had the occasion to either send or be a part
°f the group sending or have any knowledge at all concern-
frig that letter?
A Yes, I did.
Q Were you here at the time that the Mayor was on
the stand?
A I believe that I was.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 917A
Q Would you indicate whether or not there have
ever been any reports which came to you pursuant to the
matters contained in that letter, which indicate that the
rock throwing in the vicinity of Albany State College was
being done by persons of Negro extraction?
A No, I haven't had any reply of any type.
Q Was that the reason for the letter being sent?
A That was one of the reasons for it, rock throwing
and breaking out of windows of ministers, and rock throwing,
bottle throwing, cutting girls' legs over at Albany state.
Q By whom?
A Those were white youths. They were apprehended.
Q They were apprehended?
A They were apprehended.
Q By whom?
A By some of the police or either the night watch-
man or one of the heads of the dormitories over there.
Q Were they prosecuted?
A They were taken to court and the charges were
dropped.
Q Do you know who they were dropped by?
A The instance of someone at the College.
Q Now Mr. Page, you were also here, I believe,
at the time that Mr. Sweeting was on the stand?
A That's correct.
Q And he mentioned the fact, I believe, that there
had been some conference, I believe at your house?
A That's true, two.
H e a r i n g on Motion For Preliminary Injunction* Ho. 727 918a
q Two?
A Yes.
Q Would you relate - strike that please - did you
hear him indicate that he knew of no reason why the persons
of color In the City were failing to use the busses?
A I guess that needs a little explanation.
Q I mean you heard it?
A I heard the conversation* all of it.
Q I'll ask you if you know why?
A He attempted to explain that the Negroes were
responsible. That was at the first meeting.
Q You say were or weren't?
A Were. He attempted to make them responsible*
Sweeting did.
Q Oh, I see; you say he attempted to?
A Yes* he attempted to do so.
MR. LEVERETT: May it please the Court* I think
he ought to specify what he's talking about. I don't
even know what he's talking about* responsible for
what.
THE COURT: I'm not clear on it either yet;
maybe it will develop.
Q Mr. Hollowell: Well* let me just ask the
specific question* if I might: Was there or was there
n°t an incident on the bus which was related to Mr.
Sweeting* which gave rise to Negroes refusing to further
ride the busses under those circumstances?
A There was.
H e a r i n g on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 72? 919A
q Now, what was that situation?
A A young lady was taken off of the bus and
placed under arrest for failure to sit in the proper
place. That's what it was.
Q Was she Negro or white?
A She was Negro.
MR. LEVERETT: May it please the Court, we object
to that on the ground that it's hearsay, it's not shown
that this witness has first-hand knowledge of it; and
that the police records would be -the highest and best
evidence of what any arrest was made for.
MR. HOLLOWELL: May it please the Court, we are
merely seeking to relate the Information which was
presented by Mr. Page to Mr. Sweeting at the meetings
that have already been testified to; not that he is
seeking to relate what the actual situation was, but
this goes to the meeting which was had and what the
report was which was related to Mr. Sweeting at the
time of the meeting which has already been discussed
in the hearing.
THE COURT: Well without going into any
details of the incident, obviously this witness
could only have Information of it by hearsay about
the specifics of any incident, I will allow you
to ask him if he related to Mr. Sweeting that the
people In the colored community in the City did have
a complaint, but without going into any specifics of
any particular case.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction* No. 72J 920A
Q Mr. Hollowell: Do you understand the question
as it has been Indicated by the Judge? In other words* did
the Negroes have a complaint concerning the use of the
busses and were those complaints propounded to Mr. Sweeting?
A They were propounded to Mr. Sweeting and they had
complaints.
Q Did they pertain to the treatment of Negroes in
the use of the busses?
A Correct* they did.
Q You've had the occasion to be on or to be with
persons who had meetings with the Chief of Police?
A Yes* I have.
Q Do you remember any specific meetings at which
you were discussing matters pertaining to the segregation
policies and the matters pertaining to the arrests* and
matters pertaining to the getting of Negroes out of jail*
those who had been arrested in connection with the Movement:
have you had any such discussions?
A That's correct.
Q I will ask you whether or not on one of those
occasions the Chief at the particular time* I believe this
was meeting on or about June 10* indicated that "this is
a matter of mind over matter, and you don't mind or you
don't matter and I don:t mind". Do you remember what
Provoked that statement? Or maybe I had better ask him
■̂ rst* do you recall any such statement?
MR. LEVERETT: May It please the Court* this
is his witness and counsel Is astute counsel and he
H e a r i n g on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 72? 921A
knows he can’t lead this witness.
MR. HOLLOWELL: I'm asking him whether or not he
ever heard any such statement.
THE COURT: All right.
Q Mr. Hollowell: Who made it?
A It was made by Chief Pritchett.
Q Do you remember the occasion?
A He was talking to Searles, A. C. Searles.
Q Searles, S-e-a-r-l-e-s (spelling)?
A Correct.
Q Do you remember what it was said in response to?
A It was something about Moultrie having put some
Negro policemen on dowi there and the proposal was made
by Searles —
Q You'll have to speak up, sir?
A There was some statement by Searles that Moultrie
had put policemen on in an attempt to solve their differ
ences and why didn't Albany do it; and it seemed to have
irked the Chief somewhat. And that's what provoked the
statement.
MR. LEVERETT: May it please the Court, I object
to what appeared to provoke the Chief as a conclusion
of the witness and not responsive to the question.
THE COURT: Well, I'll allow It.
Q Mr. Hollowell: And you say this statement seemed
irk him. and this was when he said "that's a matter of mind
ari(i matter, and I don’t mind and you don’t matter"?
A I think the statement was, "It’s a case of mind
H e a r i n g on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 72?
and matter,
like that.
Q
A
Q
A
I don’t mind and you don't matter",
That’s about it.
Do you know what Mr. Searles does?
He’s newspaper publisher.
What paper does he publish?
The Southwest Georgian.
something
BY THE COURT:
Q In other words, that was a statement you say was
made to a Mr. Searles?
A That’s correct.
Q It was not made to you?
A No, sir, it wasn’t to me.
BY MR. H O L L O W E L L :
Q
A
Q
A
else there
Q
A
Was it made In your presence?
Yes sir.
Who else was present?
Oh, Slater King, C. B. King; and let’s see who
was. There was a minister there. I think it was
A little louder, sir?
Wells, not Wells - I ’m sorry, that's incorrect -
R ev. G a .y .
Q What is the racial complexion of Mr.Searles?
A He's Negro.
Q Were there any other persons, other than the
Chiefs who fell Into a bracket other than negro?
A The Chief was the only white person present,
that’s what you're saying.
MR. HOLLOWELL: I don't believe there are any
other questions for this witness at this time.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 72? 923A
BY THE COURT:
Q What is Mr. Searles' connection with the Albany
Movement?
A He's editor of the paper and publishes the news
releases in his own manner. That's all I see. He's been
over there taking notes every day until today.
Q I mean, is he an official of the Albany Movement?
A No.
Q So, this statement was not made to any official
of the Albany Movement but it was made to Mr. Searles, is
that right?
A It was made - we were - I think, to explain that,
Your Honor, he was trying to arrive at some sort of negotia
tions possibility in the Chief's office. Searles was appoint
ed to go along there to cover the news.
Q As a news man?
A As a news man.
Q All right, he was a news man and the statement
was made to him?
A Yes sir.
THE COURT: Anything further?
MR. HOLLOWELL: Go ahead and examine him.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. LEVERETT:
Q Now, this meeting you said that you had with Mr.
Sweeting?
A I said there were two meetings.
Q Two meetings?
A Yes.
H e a r i n g on Motion For Preliminary Injunction* No. 727 924a
q At either one of those meetings did you or your
group take the position that the Bus Company should employ
Negro drivers?
A After some discussion* yes.
Q And also* you took the position that it should
be on a proportionate basis* proportionate to the volume
of Negro trade* didn't you?
A Not necessarily.
Q What do you mean by ”r.ot necessarily”? Was it
brought up at a3.1?
A It was brought up* yes.
Q Who brought it up?
A Who brought It up?
Q That’s right?
A One of us present brought up the question about
that. To say that I remember exactly which one* I wouldn’t
be correct. I participated In the deliberations along
with others.
Q And what was said about that?
A There was an offer made* not by Mr. Sweeting
at the first meeting but by Mr. Carter* who Is the President
°f the City Transit Company at the second meeting* that they
would hire two Negro operators.
THE COURT: Now* since nobody is objecting
on behalf of the Defendants* I ’ll take it upon myself
to call counsel's attention to the fact that I do not
intend to go into these side issues* which will be
pertinent In other litigation to come. We are now
getting into that* into these conversations about
H e a r i n g on Motion For Preliminary Injunction., No. 727 925A
particular complaints and so on, and I don't desire
to go into and it is not appropriate to go into any
of these complaints, particular complaints or demands
that were made, which will have pertinence in the
other litigation.
Q Mr. Leverett: At these two meetings that you
say you attended, did you or any of the people representing
the Albany Movement with you indicate to Mr. Sweeting or
anyone else with the Bus Company, that you would withhold
your patronage, if he did not accede to your demands?
A I don't know that I can answer that with a yes or no,
because there are some other factors involved. In negotia
tions everything isn't answered or asked questions as the
attorneys put it. You've put the onus on me of trying to
answer a question which wasn't asked and puts me in the
wrong position. If you ask me what was said, then I fll tell
you, because then I can answer.
Q Well, let me re-state It: Didn't you or someone
with you make a demand that they employ Negro drivers and
that if they did not, that you would encourage others not to
patronize them?
A There were no demands made.
Q Then, you don't deny that, in fact, the Albany Move-
®snt did call a boycott of the Bus Company, do you?
A We didn't call It. The people called it them
selves. if you want the circumstances, I will relate them.
Q The people called It themselves?
A The people themselves.
H e a r i n g on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 72J 926a
q But that had been discussed at some of the meetings
at the Church, hadn’t it?
A What had been? The boycott?
Q The matter of boycotting the busses, yea?
A Not until they themselves decided they weren’t
going to patronize them,
Q Who decided they were not going to patronize them?
A The people from the floor, definitely.
Q From the floor of the church?
A From the floor at the church; yes sir, at Shiloh
Church.
Q After speeches had been made?
A Not necessarily relating to that.
Q But speeches had been made?
A Some speeches.
Q These meetings were sponsored by the Albany
Movement?
A The movement to which you refer was sponsored by
the Albany Movement.
MR. LEVERETT: He’s with you.
THE COURT: Anything further from this
witness?
MR. HOLLOWELL: I don’t think so, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may go down.
MR. SLATER KING
a party Defendant, called In behalf
of Defendants and duly sworn, testified
DIRECT EXAMINATION
H e a r i n g on Motion For Preliminary Injunction* No. 727 927A
BY MR. C. B. KING*.
Q For the record state your name* please?
A My name Is Slater King.
Q Mr. King* I call your attention to the month of
December and ask you whether or not you had an occasion
to be arrested* this is December* 1961?
A Yes, I did.
Q Would you relate what* if anything* happened
surrounding your arrest?
A You mean* why was I arrested or what motivation
made me be arrested?
Q What were you doing at the time of your arrest?
A I went down to the courthouse or the city hall
with a group of people who had like commitments. I had
been shocked beyond belief to see that the City had so much
contempt for its black citizenry.
MR. LEVERETT: Now, May it please the Court, I
object to this witness making a speech on the stand.
He!s made enough already* we think.
A The Witness: Thank you* sir.
MR. HOLLOWELL: Now* T object to the statement
made by counsel to the effect that he's already made
enough speeches as not being appropriate.
THE COURT: Let's resolve the situation this
way. I don't think that there's any occasion for the
use of the language of the type which was just used.
He may state the facts* what the facts were.
Q Mr. C. B. King: What specific reason --
A But I object to this because I'm proud of being
H e a r i n g on Motion For Preliminary Injunction,, No. 727 928a
a black man and I don't wish to say Negro, Your Honor.
1 mean, is this contemptuous to the Court.
THE COURT: Well, I :m not sure that I under
stand the witness' question.
A The Witness: I refer to "colored people" as
"black citizens" and this is the way that I prefer to do it.
Is this contemptuous to the Court?
THE COURT: Oh no, no. My admonition to you
was to refrain from using language which is indicative
of simply an opinion on your part or some Interpretation
you are placing on some action. You can use the term
that you have used or you can use any other term you
want to use but refrain from expressing your opinion.
Counsel, maybe you can help him.
Q Mr. C. B. King: Simply state what you were
doing at the time of your arrest?
A I was quite shocked by the action that had been
taken by the City --
MR. LEVERETT: May it please the Court —
Q Mr. C. B. King: Just what were you doing at the
time of your arrest?
A I was standing --
Q Were you standing, were you kneeling?
A I was kneeling in prayer.
Q And what happened?
A They don't allow you to pray in front of the City
Hall.
Q Might I indicate, would you respond to the question
What happened as you prayed?
H e a r i n g on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, No, 727 929 A
A I believe that the Chief came out and said, "who's
the leader down here?" And I said, "Well, no one is the
leader but I'm the spokesman, myself and Mrs. Wright."
And so, he said, "The Judge wants to see you upstairs" and
we were summarily called upstairs and the judge was called
to begin court immediately. I think he ;*/as called from
his office. And so, I guess the decision was to be made
then, but we demanded that we have counsel to represent us.
So, they allowed us. I was sentenced, I was the only one
who was sentence out of the people to five days for con
tempt of court, I believe.
Q What happened pursuant to your sentence?
A Pursuant? You mean before?
Q This is to say, were you then put In jail?
A Yes, I was then put in jail.
Q Then, what happened?
A After I was put In jail, I was put in a very
filthy place, they call It a bull-pen where they put City
work prisoners. It has three tiers where you sleep.
There's only one little place where air can come In and
another vent you can look out of.
THE COURT: Counsel, before the witness goes
further, we've had occasion previously now to point out
the rule on this same type of evidence. Of course, I
don't know whether that's what we're getting into here
again or not. In other words, if counsel is seeking
to bring out or if the witness is about to testify
without counsel seeking to do it, some treatment,
about some mistreatment or something of that nature
H e a r i n g on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 930A
after an arrest and so on; that, of course, I am sure,
counsel will agree would not he pertinent in this case.
It would be In another suit of another type but not in
this suit.
MR. C. B. KING: If Your Honor pleases, counsel
takes the position that, as the Judge anticipates,
that counsel is interested in eliciting information
from this witness which relates to brutality which he
received at the hands of those who in this instance
seek relief based on alleged violence, created and
otherwise emanating from activities of the Defendants
in this particular case.
I would submit, further, Your Honor, that
admittedly this same testimony would be relevant in
another forum or as relates to a complaint which has
already been filed; but I would submit that at the
same time this is only Incidental and this would not
in any way exclude the response of these Plaintiffs
showing to this Court that they have entered into this
suit with clean hands.
THE COURT: Mr. King, I want to make myself
clear because I don't see any point in going over
this time and again. I have heretofore ruled and
I now rule that evidence about particular incidents
which might be the subject-matter of other suits,
which might be pertinent in connection with suits already
filed and which might be pertinent in connection with
suits which might yet be filed, have no bearing on the
issue before me here; and whether a prisoner, after
H earing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 931A
his arrest or after his being placed in jail, either
before or after sentence doesn't make any difference,
whether he receives some mis-treatment at the hands
of some police officer - and I am not indicating
whether he did or not but I am saying whether he did
or not - would not be material in the trial of the
issues in this case which is before me.
And let's pass on to something else other than that.
MR. C. B. KING: If Your Honor pleases, then
counsel takes the position of requesting of this Court
permission to proffer the witness as regarding this
treatment, and not only as relates to this particular
witness but others.
THE COURT: Now, my ruling on that is this:
that in the judgment of the Court the evidence will be
clearly inadmissible and, therefore, I decline your
request to proffer. In the judgment of this Court
the evidence would be clearly inadmissible. Now, let's
go on to some other evidence of some other type.
MR. KING: Then, responding to the determi
nation of the Court, Your Honor, counsel would like
to make It clear for the record that we would like to
get into the record the names of those persons whose
testimony would have been elicited, had the Court's
ruling been otherwise.
THE COURT: Simply the names of the persons?
MR. KING: The names of the persons.
I will allow you to do that.THE COURT:
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 932A
MR. KING: Pertaining to brutality by the
police officers of the City of Albany.
THE COURT: I will allow you to put their
names In the record, so that you can identify them.
MR. KING: And indicate further those who
have been arrested by them in this connection.
THE COURT: I will allow you to supplement
the record to that extent.
MR. KING: The present witness, who is
Slater King;
Donna Greenlee;
Veronica L. Brooks;
Robert Calvin Price,
Annie Lou Herring,
Charles Joseph Jones, a defendant in this particular
matter;
LeRoy Tobbie;
Leo Williams;
Bobby Holloway;
Ulysses Cauley;
William Hansen, Jr.
Rosa Lee Guilford;
Samuel Guilford;
Charles Sherrod; and
C. B. King, attorney in this case.
No further questions:
THE COURT: Any questions from this witness?
MR. LEVERETT: Come down.
H earing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 933A
THE COURT: You may go down.
MR. HOLLOWELL: If it pleases the Court, I don't
know what the lunch time is going to be but, if I
might suggest to the Court respectfully, that if we
might be permitted to take the luncheon break now, it
might be that while we are talking and having lunch,
we may be able to see wherein we may be able to
circumscribe many things which might be put in evidence
and might shorten the trial.
THE COURT: I appreciate you making that
suggestion. We will now take a recess until 2 o'clock.
LUNCH RECESS: 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM - 8-8-62
MR. HOLLOWELL:
cross examination.
Call Chief Pritchett for
MR. LEVERETT: The Chief is not here right now.
THE COURT:
else?
Can you proceed with anybody
MR. RAWLS: Your Honor please, I would like
to call the Court's attention to the fact that the
Chief has already been subjected to a right sifting
cross-examination.
MR. HOLLOWELL: May it please the Court, we
would like a moment to see the exhibits for the
Plaintiffs in the case, those that are in evidence.
MR. LEVERETT: May it please the Court, I am
informed that the Chief is on his way.
DFPUTY MARSHALL: Here he is now.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 934A
THE COURT: Now, before you get into your
cross examination of this witness, this witness was
on the stand about a day and a half, as I recall it, and
has already been cross-examined rather extensively, and
I trust we won’t do any repeating in connection with the
cross examination.
MR. HOLLOWELL: That is correct, Your Honor.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 935A
CHIEF OF POLICE. LAURIE PRITCHETT
1st witness called in behalf of Plaintiffs,
duly sworn, being recalled by Defendants,
testified further on
RECROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. HOLLOWELL:
Q Chief Pritchett, would you indicate for the
record what, If anything, the Defendant, M. S. Page, has
done or is doing that you desire to have enjoined?
A Marion Page is working in concert with Dr.
Anderson, Dr. Martin Luther King and Abernathy, Charlie
Jones, attorney C. B. King, who is a member of the Albany
Movement on the strategy committee and parliamentary
committee, and others to violate the City ordinances of
the City of Albany, to violate State laws, and through
their activity to incite and arouse the Negro people and
other people In this County to the tension spot we are in
today.
Q. Now, you covered a lot of ground, Chief; let me
see if I can narrow It down in order to get it specific:
you say that he is working in conjunction with the other
named Defendants?
A That's what I said.
Q Doing what now?
A Encouraging.
Q. Encouraging what?
A Encouraging the masses of Negro people who
â tend these Albany movements.
Q Who attend what?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 936a
A Who attend the Albany Movement meetings, mass
meetings.
Q All right, now hold It right there a moment.
Now, are you seeking to have this Court enjoin the Defendant
Page from encouraging Negroes to attend mass meetings?
A We have never --
Q. Could you answer yes or no and then explain?
A I would like to answer that, Your Honor -
THE COURT: Just give him a chance to,
Mr, Hollowell.
MR. HOLLOWELL: Well, if it please the Court,
I want to get it clear in the record--
THE COURT: Just a minute, I'll attend to
that. You give him a chance to answer and if his
answer is not full, we'll straighten it out.
MR. HOLLOWELL: Maybe I need to get the record
clear for myself --
THE COURT: Just a minute.' Mr. Pritchett,
answer the question yes or no and then you can explain
your answer anyway you want to.
A The Witness: I would answer it no, that we're
not attempting to stop their mass meetings that they hold
in these churches. As a matter of fact, we have encouraged
and facilitated police protection at these mass meetings,
to see that they held them without interruption from anybody.
But what we do seek relief from Is the masses
that leave these churches after inciting, after these people
being incited by the speakers there In order to violate our
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 937A
laws, to violate our statutes, state statutes and Incite
them to create the disturbances which we have here now;
and them leaving those churches and inciting to violate
our ordinances and State laws, coming up town in mass
demonstrations and in mass defiance of City ordinances,
has caused us the strife that we are in today.
Q Mr. Hollowell: So that, No. 1, as I understand
it, you would seek to enjoin - you would not seek to enjoin
the mass meetings, and anything that this Defendant Page
would have to do with encouraging mass meetings - this is
your testimony, is that correct?
A That’s my testimony.
Q, Now, what is the next thing that you want to -
you say that one you don't want to enjoin; now, give me
the next one thing, so that I can have It clear, that you
want to enjoin?
A I would like to have the paper, the injunction
which we are seeking to have signed, if I may?
Q (Pleadings in suit on trial handed to witness) . .
A We are in hopes and pray to this Court that we
have some relief here to stop these people from inciting --
Q Well, excuse me just a moment, sir; we're not
talking about "these people", we’re talking about the
D efendant Page?
A I ’m talking about M. S. Page myself.
Q All right.
A -- from sponsoring or financing or inciting or
encouraging unlawful picketing, parading and marching in
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 938a
the City of Albany, from engaging or participating in
any other unlawful congregation or marching In the streets
or other public ways of the City of Albany; or from doing
any other act designed to provoke breaches of the peace
or from doing any act in violation of the ordinances and
laws therein.
Q, Now, which of these did the Defendant Page do?
Name one, one by one; name them one by one?
A I don't think he has violated an ordinance
by his own speech to me and his own statement to me,
that he has not participated In any of them, but he has
directed participation in it from other people.
Q Who did he direct?
A The masses.
Q When?
A In his statement to me he stated that he did not
participate because he had to stay In the background, but
he instructed other people as executive officer or the
Secretary of the Albany Movement, along with Dr. Anderson*
Slater King and other members of the executive committee,
to incite these people to defiantly violate the laws of the
City of Albany or any other law which is unjust in their
minds or which in their own conscience is unjustly applied
to them.
0. Do you say that this man has done that?
A I say he has.
Q When did he do that? When did he make any state-
ment calculated to incite the doing of any of the things
that you have just enumerated?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 939A
A I would say he has done it any time he has ap
peared before the people.
Q I want to know when has he appeared or you are
charging him with specific acts; I want to know when did he
do the acts to which you relate here?
A On numerous occasions. I don't know the exact
times. He in his own person to person contact with me in
my office, with him and with others, has never denied it.
Q, Well, I'm asking you, since you are the one
making the charge, to indicate any statement that he has
made and any time that he has made any such statement
calculated to do the things that you have just mentioned
in your testimony?
A What has been told to me has been told to me
from mouth to ear back to me by other people who are
connected with the Albany Movement, him and other people.
Q So that, at no time have you ever heard this
Defendant make any statement calculated to have the effect
which you have testified to since you have been on the
stand this afternoon?
MR. LEVERETT: May it please the Court, I wish
to interpose objection. The witness has answered the
question. Counsel asks the question in one sense and
then turns around and asks another question in a
different sense and he hasn't made it clear to the
witness In which sense he Is referring to now. The
Witness testified that Page talked to him and told him
that he had been engaged In some of the activities of
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 940A
the Albany Movanent; and the Chief, as I understand
didn’t testify that he had been there and seen him;
but he testified that he told him, the Chief, that he
had done these things; and I think counsel should make
it clear.
THE COURT: That’s the way I understand the
testimony too; but the question is now, when has the
Witness seen the Defendant Page do any of these things.
Of course, if the Witness hasn’t ever actually seen him
or if he has seen him, the Witness can so state. Have
you seen him, Mr. Witness?
A The Witness: I've never been in the Church but
once and he wasn't there at the time I was there,
THE COURT: All right, then you've never
actually seen him?
The Witness: That’s correct.
Q Mr. Hollowell: When has this witness said to you
that he has engaged in conduct which was calculated to do
the things which you have testified to and charged him
with having said or done?
A Marion has talked to me on a number of occasions
personally and with other people, that he is not going to
participate, that he directs the activities of the Albany
Movement; that he does not actually take part in these
demonstrations, marches or any other act which has taken
Place, but he sits in the background and directs and advises.
He's done it on numbers of occasions. I don't know the
exact date.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 9*UA
Q But he hasn't told you that he haa advised or
directed any person to do any of these things about which
you’re talking, has he?
A He has.
Q When?
A On occasions,- I don't know the exact date.
Q Do you remember what he said?
A Just what I've just told you.
Q And that's all?
A Yes.
Q Now, let's take the Defendant, Jones: what action
or activity has he engaged in specifically that you are
calling upon this Court to enjoin?
A Charles Jones or Charlie Jones has taken the
same active partin all of this happening here. He's been
arrested on numerous occasions for violations of our City
ordinances; he has made it specifically clear to me and
plain that he intends to do anything that he feels In his
mind and in hiw own conscience is the thing to do; that he
will do it regardless of whether its illegal or legal or
any way you want to look at it.
Q Did he suggest to you that he would rob?
A I would imagine he would if it would help the cause.
Q That wasn't the question, sir?
A I'm answering it.
Q Did he suggest to you that he would rob?
A No, you're the one that mentioned it. I just said
^ helped the cause, he probably would.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727
MR. HOLLOWELL: If it please the Court, we
would ask that the answer be stricken as not respon
sive.
THE COURT: Yes, that wasn’t a responsive
answer. The question was, has he ever indicated to
you that he would do what?
MR. HOLLOWELL: Rob, r-o-b (spelling)
THE COURT: R-o-b, (spelling) rob?
MR. HOLLOWELL: Yes sir.
A The Witness: No, he's never mentioned to me
using that word.
Q Has he ever suggested to you that he would steal
A No.
Q Have you seen him throw any rocks?
A No, I don't believe I have.
Q You said he had been engaged in all of these
activities about which you've testified along the line or
during the course of this trial; have you seen him throw
any bottles?
A Not to my knowledge, no.
Q Have you heard him use any abusive language
toward an officer?
A I don't believe I have.
Q So, as a matter of fact the, he has not been
engaged in all of these activities about which you have
testified, as he?
A As long as he's here in Albany, he has encouraged
he has incited,he has participated in all of the activities,
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727
such as marching; he had incited other people to demonstrate
he has encouraged other people to picket, he has encouraged
the youth, as the television showed the other day, in the
Instruction of how to react to sit-ins; he has encouraged
them and led them in all of the activities which we are
seeking to be relieved from.
Q, All right, now I believe you mentioned demonstra
tions and you mentioned the clinics and you mentioned
picketing, and you mentioned In sitting-ins; was there
another?
A If ther's any other violation, I would say
he was connected with It.
Q Do you seek to have him enjoined from holding
a clinic, such as the one that you mentioned that you saw
on the program "EYE-WITNESS11, is this the one that you had
reference to?
A Anything which would Incite and encourage
people to violate the ordinances and state laws of the
State of Georgia.
Q. Was there anything in that particular TV Program,
about which you make reference as relates to the Defendant
Jones, the matter of the clinic, which Is a violation of the
law as you understand it?
A They didn't go Into the clinics which he was
going to perform. He was just telling them how to act and
not to chew chewing gum and do all of this other business
while they were engaged in the activities.
Q Well, I believe you mentioned the program; was
Hearing on Motion Fox- Preliminary Injunction. No, 727 944a
there any other activity that you saw him performing on the
program to which you make reference?
A No,
Q So then, I presume that you're talking about the
only one that he was in and that was the clinic? Correct, sir?
A I didn't see him in the clinic. All I heard
him do was addressing the young people there in the church.
Q I see. Now, do you want him enjoined from
doing that?
A I want him enjoined from inciting or encouraging
anybody to violate our ordinances or state laws of the
State of Georgia.
MR. HOLLOWELL: We ask that that answer be
stricken. Your Honor, as not responsive. The question
was, does he want him enjoined from the conduct which
he himself made reference to.
THE COURT: Well, I think he's answered that,
answered It the only way he intelligently can, with
the general statement that he just made, that he wants
him. enjoined from any of these activities which he
has just described generally. Obviously, as he has
already stated in response to a previous question
which you propounded to him, he does not seek to have
him enjoined from addressing anybody in the church
but he only seeks to have him enjoined If it is a part
of a plan to incite and encourage people to violate
the city ordinances and state laws. I think he's
made that clear in his testimony.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 $h5A
MR. LEVERETT: May it please the Court, I also
would like to interject an objection at this time to
uhis whole line of testimony, Itfs entirely argumenta
tive and it's calling upon a lay witness, who obviously
is not familiar with the legal principles upon which
this case is predicated, and I think the Court recog
nizes that what Is Involved here is the principle of
the Milk Wagon Drivers' case; and this witness is not
familiar with these legal principles. He comes to
his lawyers and cells them, this has happened, what
relief can I have; and the complaint is drawn on that
basis. And for counsel to take a lay witness and
start off examing him as to what in effect are
legal conclusions and legal principles, I think is
entirely inappropriate.
THE COURT: Well, he's on cross examination
and I'm going to allow him to question him. I do
think though that, since the witness has said and made
the general answer that he has now two or three times
the specific acts referred to, that he doesn't seek
that act to be enjoined unless it constitutes at the
time and under the circumstances in which it was done
one of these things complained of; and that Is, simply
addressing somebody in the church, he doesn't seek to
enjoin any one; but If in doing that, if the person is
Intending and does encourage his listeners to a violation
°f a city ordinance or state law, then he does seek to
enjoin him. I don't think the witness can do any
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 946A
better than that. I don't think he can be any more
specific than that.
MR. HOLLOWELL: Now, if It please the Court, he
has these delineations and, therefore, Inasmuch as he
has made them, I would submit that on cross-examination
we would be in a position to have him to indicate
exactly which one. For instance, some of the same
ones that he is now saying that he did not seek an
injunction, to have enjoined, are those which he
mentioned In his sweeping general statement; and that's
the reason why it becomes necessary for me to direct
his attention to a specific activity, being one of those
that he mentions in his sweeping general statement;
but I will certainly try to keep it as pointed as
possible.
THE COURT: All right. You’ll probably wind
up with the same answer to each one but go ahead.
Q Mr. Hollowell: Now, you mentioned sit-ins
among the things that I understood you to say, do you seek
to have this Court to enjoin the Defendant Jones from seeking
to protest segregation in segregated lunch-rooms by going and
taking a.seat in such .lunch-room-and seeking service? .
A We seek to enjoin them from -
Q Now, excuse me, sir; would you give me a yes, or
no answer, and then explain as long as you want to?
A I would say no and I would like to explain it,
Your Honor?
Q Was your answer nno'!?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction* No. 727 9^7A
A That’s correct. We are seeking to seek relief
from these people infringing on the private business of
people of the City of Albany* discontinuing the continuation
of the interruption of their business, where they can't •
continue their business as they see fit as private owners
and Individuals who operate businesses in the City of Albany*
when these people take It upon themselves* not because they
want to be served food in there* but because they want to show
that they can go in there and disrupt the people* cause
the disruption of business* seek to keep people away from
this business by their presence there; and their unlawful
obedience of not leaving when told to by the owners and
in defiance of the police also, where we have to put police
around these establishments to protect* not only them but
other people and to keep the crowds away. And all we are
seeking is an injunction to relieve us of this activity;
and if they have any complaint about segregation or inte
gration or whatever they seek* then I think* as I’ve told
you and as I ’ve told Attorney King* Dr. Martin Luther King*
Marion Page* Dr. Anderson and all members that I’ve talked
to or come In contact with the Albany Movement* if they
have any legal or any complaint about illegal action,
they have it to do in this court here or any other court*
and nolt in the street and not 3n the mob action which they
are attempting to cause here.
Q Has this man ever told you - and ’when I way "this
n,an"j I am referring to the Defendant Jones - that he went
into a private restaurant for the purpose of creating a
H e a r i n g on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 72? $4Sa
disturbance; has he ever told you that?
A Charlie has told me so many things that I don't
know whether he has or not; not to my recollection.
Q To your recollection, he has not; so, when
you say that he has gone into places for this purpose, this
is some conclusion that you have come to, is that not right?
A I think it’s through my own knowledge. I know
that his continuation of going to the same places and being
asked to leave that he's not there for service but just to
disrupt this man's business,
Q Have you ever seen him served?
A No, I haven't.
Q Have you ever looked in his pocket at the time he
was there and determined whether he had the where-with-all
to pay for that which he was seeking to obtain?
A No, I haven't.
Q So that, really this is again some figment of
your imagination?
A No, I don't think it's a figment of my imagina
tion. it's through my own personal contacts and knowledge
of this individual since he come here in October or November
of last year, of what his intentions were.
Q Now, Chief, you mentioned picketing in connection
with this witness, I'll ask you when, if ever, you have seen
him picketing?
A I don't remember ever seeing Charlie picketing
but I've seen him close in the area encouraging picketing.
Q So* one of the things that you would have this
Court to do then is to enjoin him and other from picketing?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No, 727 949A
A That's correct,
Q Have you ever seen him in a demonstration? Have
you ever seen him, the Defendant Jones, in one of these so-
called demonstrations, and I refer specifically to the
occasion when there have been a group of folk who have
sought to walk, never having been able to get here except
on one occasion, but sought to walk from one of the churches
to the City Hall; have you ever seen him in one of those
lines?
A I think the record will show, the arrest record
will show that he was arrested on occasion for one of these
demonstrations.
Q Would you indicate or have any recollection as to
which one that was?
A No, I don't, Attorney; I can't right off-hand
because we've had so many of them.
Q Would it be that the time to which you are
referring was the time when he was with a group of some
10 or 12 in front of the City Hall praying?
A As I've stated before, Attorney, he's been
arrested probably as many or more times than anybody
connected with the Albany Movement, the number I don't know
Dllt I think the record will show at the Police Station how
âny times. He was arrested in front of the City Hall for
a demonstration there and I think the record will show
that he was arrested in a march.
Q You think that the record wull show?
A I'm positive, pretty sure it will. I think the
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, Mo. 727 $50A
record will speak for itself.
Q But you have no concrete recollection of any such
occasion?
A I do.
Q Well, indicate It?
A I've said, Your Honor, as far as my mind can
remember, uhat he was arrested In a demonstration or a march.
Now, the date I don't know and the time I don't know and I
don't remember how many was in it, but I think the record
will show.
0, You say you think the record will show and then
you say you are definitive In your thinking on this matter.
Now, are you or are you not definite in your mind that this
man has been arrested for being in such a so-called demon
stration as those walking from the church to the City Hall
at the time of arrest?
A As far as my memory serves me, as I say, he's
teen in so many that it's hard to distinguish one from
another, but I would have to say that he was in a demonstra
tion.
Q This is your recollection?
A That's correct.
Q But you don't know it as a matter of fact?
A The best that I can remember.
Q He was, I believe according to the testimony of
°ne your agents, arrested for loitering in the bus
station, 1 believe, on an occasionj you remember that?
A I think you showed me a document back in November
°V December or somewhere back in there where he was on trial
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 ?52A
in Recorder’s Court, and I do recall some instance where he
was arrested.
Q However, that was subsequently removed, is that
correct?
A I think the Recorder dismissed the case and swore
to a warrant himself as a Justice of the Peace and charged
him with a State offense rather than a City ordinance.
Q That was the occasion when Mr. Rawls Indicated
to you that "we can't try him under this but we've got to
get the nigger for something", that was the occasion?
A That's your statement, not mine. I don't recall
any such statement, no.
Q. You don't deny that it was said?
A I deny It because anything that I don’t know,
I'll have to deny it.
Q Now then, let's take Rev. Abernathy, who is one
of the Defendants in this case, I believe, and ask you
whether or not you have had the occasion to see him at one
of these clinics to which you made reference?
A I would like to answer that and explain it,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes.
Q Mr. Hollowell: Excuse me, Chief; may I say to
Y°u, any question that we ask, you certainly are at liberty
an(3 I don't want at any time to keep you from explaining
your answer. So, right on?
A I haven't personally seen Dr. Abernathy at the
Shiloh or Mt. Zion churches. I have had occasion to hear
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 9§2A
his voice on recordings which came from the church, that
I've heard here and I ’ve heard on television, where he's
Incited the people to march and that "Chief Pritchett is
not going to turn you around and the State Troopers are
not going to turn you around, Tom Crowe or Uncle Tom,
or whatever it Is, is not going to turn you around."
I've also heard him say that he served in the
Service, that along with other people "we served in the
Pacific, we've served in the European theater, we've died
in the European theater, we've died in the Pacific, and I
can't understand why in the hell we can't die here in the
City of Albany, if we have to."
Q Was that bad?
A I think it's bad when people of his intelligence
are talking to people of lesser intelligence and inciting
them, not only to violate the laws but to die on the streets,
if necessary, in the City of Albany. And I think that is
very bad. I think it's very bad to Incite people who are
not of his equal intelligence but In Inciting and encourag
ing them, not only to disobey laws but, if need be, to die
in the Streets of Albany to accomplish what they want to get.
Q, Can you think of any greater resolve that one
nan have than to be willing to die for the cause of human
rights, if it became necessary?
A I can think of no greater cause for anyoody tnan
to stand for what they think is right. I think that's what
American is based on, is ideals; but I think that when people
°f the Albany Movement or anybody of any race, color or
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction., No. 727 953A
creed has an argument of some belief that they’re being
mistreated, that they have legal ways in which to gain
the attention of the public and of the world, other than
through mass demonstration, through mass hysteria and
inciting people to violence, the way they have here in
Albany and Dougherty County. I think it's very indignant
of their position as preachers, of the leaders of their
people. I ’ve talked to Dr. King on numerous occasions
and I've told him that I don't disapprove with him in
his principles to encourage the betterment of the Negro
people, but I disagree with him in his methods of coming
into Albany, stating he's going to turn it upside down;
that he's going to make the Commissioners, when he gets
through with them, where they'll be glad to talk to him;
and other ways, rather than taking it through the legal
ways in which we're sitting here as civilized people doing
today.
Q Is it not true that the statement was made in
your presence pertaining to these things, these grievances,
that the Negro people of Albany had, that the statement
was made, ''There is no area of agreement between the City
Council and any of the segregation practices which have beer
addressed to the committee— "
MR. LEVERETT: May it please the Court, that
is immaterial to this case; and he is also going over
matters which have been gone over thoroughly previously
with this witness; and if we're going back all over
that ground, we'll be here until next week.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction* No. 72? S54A
MR. HOLLOWELL: May it please the Court* I didn't
hear counsel objecting to this very long statement which
was made* part of which was responsive and part of which
was not responsive; and it's because of the statement
which he made that it is incumbent upon us to have
clearly coming from this same witness the fact that
those that he represents have made this kind of statement.
MR. LEVERETT: May it please the Court* I don't
think counsel can ask the witness a question and then
get an answer, part of which Is responsive to his question
and part of which is not* and then claim that that lays
the foundation for him to go into further Irrelevant
matters.
THE COURT: I think all the matters we're
talking about are already in the record from the
testimony of Mayor Kelley; and I don't know that it
adds anything to it to put in the record again. Does
counsel insist on the question?
MR. HOLLOWELL: I don't — I believe that perhaps
the Mayor* as I recollect* Your Honor* corroborated
the fact that this statement was made* and I won't
insist on It* Your Honor.
Q Now* Chief* you've never seen the Defendant*
Abernathy* picketing* have you?
A No, I haven't.
Q Have you ever heard him encouraging people to
Picket?
A No* I haven't. In his statement there* they
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 955A
have been broad and I donft remember anything about picketing.
Q You haven’t heard him encouraging folk to sit
in as a matter of fact, have you?
A I couldn't testify as to whether I have or not.
I haven't heard him say it but I don't know whether he
has or not.
Q And you1ve never heard him suggest to any one
that he or she or they should at any time do any act which
could be construed as violent, have you?
A As violent?
Q Yes sir?
A No, the only statements I've ever heard him say
have always been on on the non-violent vein, but the encourage
ment of the people to die in the streets is not a non-violent
statement.
Q And that would be true of the Defendant Anderson
and the Defendant Martin King and the Defendant Slater King
and the Defendant Page and all of the other Defendants; isn't
that true?
A What were you referring to in all of these pecpro?
Q The matter of statements being made in which
they have suggested or directed that those persons them
selves individually or those who were In the hearing audience
°r any other persons should resort to violence; you have
never heard any one of these Defendants make any such
statement, have you?
A No, and I would like to explain myself; that
I've never heard them advocate violence. I have heard
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 956a
them through my own contact with them state that they were
responsible for part of the violence that has occurred here,
because they were encouraging the people and inciting the
people and they would have to take the responsibility of
It; and that was the reason that Dr. Martin Luther King
and Dr.Abernathy called a day of penitence, and went
through the streets of Albany in the south of town trying
to pray for the people, to encourage them to continue to
use un-violent methods and not to get out here and do as
they had been doing.
Q Did he explain to you what he meant by assuming
a part of the responsibility?
A No, he didn’t.
Q For certain violence which had been allegedly
engaged in by persons other than those who were actually a
part of the Movement?
A No.
Q, Did he explain that to you?
A No, he didn't explain that to me
Q He didn’t explain that to you?
A No.
Q You don't believe that he has encouraged any
violence on the part of anybody, do you, he being the
Rev, Martin Luther King, do you?
A Do I believe that he would encourage violence
to be used? -
Q No, not that he would but that he did encourage,
ĥat he has encouraged any one to be or resort to violence?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 72? 957A
A No, I don't believe he has.
Q I don't believe I have any further questions,
Chief.
THE COURT: All right, anything further from,
this witness?
MR. LE7ERETT: Come down.
MR. HOLLOWELL; May we have just a moment, Your
Honor? . . . . The Defendants call the Rev. Martin
Luther King.
REV. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.
a party Defendant, and called in behalf of
Defendants, being first duly sworn, testified
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. HOLLOWELL:
Q You haven't been on the stand before during this
trial, have you?
A No sir.
Q Would you give your full na.me for the record?
A Martin Luther King, Jr.
Q Rev. King, I believe you are the President of
the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, is that
correct?
A Yes sir, that's correct.
Q, In connection with your official capacity, did
You have the occasion to be in Albany, Georgia, during the
ftlonth of December, 19 6 1?
A Yes sir, I did.
Q How did you happen to come?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 958 a
A Well, I came at the invitation of the Albany
Movement. I received a telephone call as well as a telegram
from leaders of the Albany Movement, inviting me to come
in an advisory capacity on the whole question of non-violence
and also to join the movement. I think the telegram stated
in specific language that they were desirous of having me
to join the non-violent movement in Albany.
Q, When did you arrive, sir?
A As I recall, I arrived on the 15th of December,
the afternoon of the 15th.
Q Now, on the day of the loth of December, '6l,
between the hours of noon and 6 o ’clock in the evening,
did you have the occasion to be at the Shiloh Baptist
Church In this City?
A Yes sir, I was there.
Q What were you there for?
A Well, in the morning we had a prayer meeting and
then around noon we had a regular worship service, and Dr.
Abernathy preached at that service; and we had a regular
worship service and mass meeting.
Q, Did you hear Rev.Abernathy or did you yourself
Wake any suggestion as to the use of violence on the part
of yourself or anybody in the sound of your voice or
anybody in the community?
A No, all of our statements were centered in the
whole philosophy of non-violence. Every time I spoke to the
group i stressed the importance of adhering absolutely to
the principles of non-violence.
Q Did you at any time have the occasion to address
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 959 A
the City Commission of the City of Albany; that is,
individually or in conference with any other persons?
A Yes sir, I did have an opportunity, I think at
that period. It was through a letter or through a telegram
urging them to negotiate.
Q But face to face; did you ever have any face to
face contact?
A No sir, I did not have any face to face contact.
Q Do you know whether any was sought?
A Whether I sought this?
Q Or the Albany Movement Itself or the leaders of
the Movement?
A Oh yes sir, over and over again, this request
was made.
Q Now, you've heard the testimony concerning the
group that left the church on that day and moved on toward
the City Hall; you were a part of that group, were you not?
A Yes sir.
Q You were at the head of the line of walking
and walking with whom?
A Dr. Anderson.
Q Now, I will ask you whether or not you at any
tit!5e made any statement to anybody from the time that you
left the church until the time that you xvere arrested, to
the effect "Strike me first"?
A No sir, absolutely not. I have made no such
statement in Albany or anywhere else concerning "strike me
first".
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 960A
Q Did you hear such a statement made?
A Yes sir., I did hear the statement made.
Q Mho made it?
A Dr. Anderson.
Q, How long were you In Albany on that occasion?
A Well, I came in on Friday afternoon and I was
arrested Saturday, and I was here until Monday; through
Monday, the folloxtfing Monday.
Q Of the succeeding week?
A That!s right.
Q After you got out, did you have occasion to
remain in the City?
A Yes, I remained through the evening meeting.
There was a mass meeting that Monday night, as I recall;
and 1 believe I remained for that mass meeting,
Q, Would you indicate whether or not during the
process of your walking with this group from the church
in the direction of the City Hall by way of Whitney and
then Jackson Street, you noticed any violence in any way
whatsoever on the part of anybody?
A No sir, I didn't notice any violence at all.
Q Would you indicate what your reactions were at
the time that you arrived at the corner of Highland and South
Jackson, insofar as whether you moved directly across the
street or whether you stopped?
A As I recall, I guess it was Highland and Jackson,
We stopped for the red light. There was a light there and we
stopped and after that, we .went right on.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 72? 96lA
Q Now, do you agree that the testimony which you
have heard, indicating that the group proceed on up South
Jackson to Oglethorpe and at that point you were stopped;
now, would you indicate by whom and what the occasion was?
A We were stopped at that corner of Oglethorpe, I
think, and we were stopped by Chief Pritchett. He came up
to the front of the group, along with several policemen
and maybe some State Troopers, I don't recall; and his
question to me was, "Do you have a permit to parade?"
Q Was this the first time that you had the occasion
to be addressed by any officer along the line of walking?
A Yes sir, that was the first time.
Q Was this the first time that you had made any
statement other than in conversation perhaps with Dr.
Anderson?
A Yes sir, that's correct, the first time that I
made any statement.
Q, Now, when you left, you say the following day
after your arrest or the following Monday, you made a
speech that night and then you left the City?
A Yes, that's right.
Q, When, if ever, did you return?
A I did not return to Albany until the date of the
trial, 1 don't recall the exact date, but it was in July,
on a Tuesday. It was about the 13th or 14th, I guess.
No, excuse me --
Q, Was that the trial or was that the sentence?
A No, I'm sorry. I did return for the trial in
H earing on Motion For preliminary Injunction* No. 727 962A
February* February I believe.
Q, How long were you here on that occasion?
A Just a few hours. I came in that morning and
went right out in the afternoon.
Q And then* the next time you returned to the City?
A Was for the sentencing in July.
Q That was about the 10th of July or thereabout?
A That's correct* about that time.
Q And after you were sentenced what* if anything*
happened to you?
A Well* after I was sentenced* I decided on the
basis of conscience to serve the time* which turned out
to be 45 days instead of paying the fine of $1?8.
Q Now* did you serve the time?
A Well, I served about two days of the time.
Q And then* what happened?
A Well* we were called in Chief Pritchett's office
on Thursday of that same week) again* I don't remember the
date.
Q Now* who is "we"?
A Rev. Abernathy was with me.
Q. Two of you?
A The two of us. And we felt* in fact* they told
about 7 o'©lock in the morning to get dressed* that
Chief wanted to see us; and we just assumed that we
,(ere being transferred to another jail. But when we got
^ Chief Pritchett's office* he talked with us a while and
unally said that our fines had been paid and that we were
n°w to leave.
H e a r i n g on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 72? 963A
Q Did you inquire as to who paid them?
A Yes, we did. We asked over and over again and
Chief Pritchett said that he didn't know who paid the fines,
Q Do you know now who paid them?
A No, I don't. We still have no knowledge of who
paid the fines.
Q Was it paid at your behest?
A No sir, I made it very clear to my family and
to the leaders of the Albany Movement and anybody else
that I had any close connections with that I did not want
the fine paid, and Dr. Abernathy did the same.
Q All right, now after you got out, did you leave
the City on that occasion?
A No sir, I didn't leave until, oh 4 or 5 days later.
Q Now, during that period of time, you had the
occasion to make some speeches, did you not?
A Yes sir, that's correct, in mass meetings.
Q Did you attend 'most all of the mass meetings
during the time you were here?
A Yes sir, I think I made all of the mass meetings
during that period.
Q Did you yourself or did you hear any one who
had the occasion to speak on the rostrum address themselves
to the matter of violence?
A Yes, over and over again.
Q Did you - I'm sorry?
A Yes, I said over and over again speakers addressed
themselves to the question of violence and always discouraged
■'•t in the most vigorous and forthright terms.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary In junction, No. 727 «?64a
Q Now, there has been statement - excuse me Just one
moment - you heard the Chief's testimony a moment ago, did
you not.
A Yes sir, I did.
Q Would you indicate what you did say in connection
with any assumption of responsibility for some alleged
violence that, I believe, is supposed to have occurred
either on the 21st or the 24th of July; the 24, I guess
it was?
A Yes, I made the statement that I was sure that
none of the persons involved in the pilgrimage or in the
line participated in any act of violence on that evening,
and that I was also sure that no one connected with the
Albany Movement anticipated in any violence; but that in
this non-violent movement, we abhor violence so much that
we felt a. spiritual need of accepting some responsibility
for the violence that occurred. This was the substance of
my statement.
Q What did you mean by "spiritual”? I believe you
said ,;a spiritual need to accept"; wasn't that your language,
sir?
A That's right.
Q What did you mean by that?
A Well, I meant that as long as there is any
violence, as I have said on many occasions, taking place
in a non-violent movement, even though the persons involved
are not in anyway connected with the movement, in order to make
it a pure and spiritually rooted movement, it is necessary
for the leaders of that movement always to take some step
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction,* No. 72? 965A
in the direction of making It clear that they are absolutely
opposed to violence in any form.
Q, Did you mean to exclude any other part of the
Albany community?
A I'm sorry* I don't think I quite understand.
Q In your statement about assuming of some spiritual
responsibility* I asked you did you mean to exclude any
other portion of the community from having some responsi
bility in connection with it?
A Oh no* not at all.
Q, I'll ask you whether or not you feel that there
is some responsibility on the part of the full community
for anything that happened?
A Yes sir* I do. I think the presence of injustice
in society is always the presence in a potential sense of
violence; and I think the long night of Injustices*
indignities and brutality* and all of the things that have
been Inflicted —
MR. LEVERETT: May it please the Court* I
object again to this going into a speech and harangue.
MR. HOLLOWELL: Mhy .it please the Court —
THE COURT: Let's let him complete his
statement and ask him to abbreviate it as much as
possible.
A The Witness: Yes sir* I was about to say that
all of these accumulated injustices and indignities and the
âny brutal and inhuman things that have been inflicted
uPon many Negroes* have naturally brought about deep-seated
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 966A
resentment, which can develop In violent responses at times.
Q. Mr. Hollowellt Do you think that this responsi
bility that you are mentioning is a responsibility to be
shared only by the spiritual association that you made with
those who were the actual perpetrators or do you feel that
there are broader connotations as relate to other people?
A Yes sir, I definitely feel that there are
broad connotations. I think It would have been a marvelous
act of spiritual discipline and commitment for the whole
community to take some part of the responsibility; but I
felt that I could not and the leaders of the Albany Movement
could not afford to wait for others to do this, feeling that
they wouldn’t do It. And so, we were willing to take this
spiritual plunge, so to speak, and assume the responsibility,
even though we knew we had nothing to do with it.
Q I think, Doctor, you will recall on earlier
testimony that there has been some considerable time spent
upon your approach to unjust laws; I believe you heard the
Chief’s statement: I would like for you to indicate for- the
Court what you mean by an unwillingness to adhere to unjust
laws?
A Well, this could be a very long philosophical
discussion, but in terms of this context, I would say that
we are dealing or referring mainly to laws upholding the
system of segregation.
MR. HOLLOWELL: I think we have no further
questions for this witness.
THE COURT: Any questions for this xvitness?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 9 6jk
MR. LWERETT: Yes sir.
GROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. LEVERETT:
Q Dr. King, when did you say was the first
occasion that you came into Albany since the formation
of the Albany Movement? What was the date on that?
A December 14, I believe.
Q Now, prior to the time that you received a
telegram, had you been in communication with Dr.Anderson
or any other leaders of the Albany Movement?
A Yes sir, I think I had talked with Dr.Anderson
several times. In fact, I have known Dr. Anderson for a
number of years and almost every time he came to Atlanta, he
stopped by the office or called.
Q You aren't saying, are you Doctor King, that the
first occasion in which you discussed with any member of
the Albany Movement the possibility of your participation
was just the incident that you referred to as having occurred
a day or two before you came down?
A Yes sir, that was the first time that an invita
tion was extended and the first time that I ever considered
coming to Albany.
Q Assuming that was the first time an invitation
had. ever been extended, had you on any prior occasion
volunteered your services?
A No sir, I had not on any prior occasion, as I
ôcall, volunteered my services,
Q I believe you said that you arrived here on the
H e a r i n g on Motion Pox'1 Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 968A
afternoon of December 15?
A I think It was the 14th, I believe. It was on
a Friday. It may have been the 15th.
Q, And that you stayed over through Monday? What
was the following Monday, what was the date, do you recall?
A It was the 18th, I believe.
Q Now, did you speak at the Shiloh Church on the
night of the l6th?
A On the night of the lSth? No sir, I think that
was the night I was in jail, the l6th.
Q Excuse me, go ahead?
A That was the night I was in jail.
Q Dr. King, do you know how many times you have
actually spoken either at Shiloh or Mt. Zion Baptist Church?
Shiloh Methodist, I believe and Mt. Zion Baptist?
A Baptist. No sir, I don't recall the exact number
of times. I've spoken there many times since the Movement
started, especially this last period that I've been back.
Q, In fact, in your speeches you have encouraged
the people to march and to protest, haven't you?
A Yes sir, I have encouraged the people to protest,
as 1 have done over and over again all over the South and
the Nation.
Q Also, Dr. King, did you on one, at least one
occasion, I don't know the exact date, address the crowd
and tell them to come and bring their walking shoes?
A I may have. I don't recall this particular
statement. It's altogether possible.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 9 69A
Q, Now, is it your testimony that you were here
only on this occasion in December for a period of several
days and that the next occasion that you returned to Albany
was in February, when the trial was held; is that right?
A Yes sir, I think it was February or early March.
I don’t recall the date.
0, You were tried in February?
A That’s correct.
Q. And you commenced serving your sentence when?
A In July.
Q You did not commence serving it in February when
the trial was held?
A No sir, at that time the Judge ruled or stated
that, since there were several legal questions involved
and since several motions were made that he had not had a
chance to study, he would have both sides to file briefs
and then he would render his decision after that period;
and I think he said that would be a 60*day period.
Q Was there any appeal ever Instituted by way of
certiorari or any other legal proceedings that are available
to review decisions of Recorder’s Court?
A No sir, I don’t recall. I don’t know of any,
Q Did you request that your attorneys appeal It?
A Appeal, you mean --?
Q Of your conviction?
A In July?
Q Whenever you were convicted; I believe you stated
you had the trial in February and the determination
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 970A
of the Court was made in July, Is that right?
A That's right, that's right, yes.
Q The question was, did you ever request that your
attorneys appeal?
A No sir, I didn't make a. request for them to
appeal. I knew that one case was being appealed, which
would test the legality of the arrests themselves; and I
didn't make a request for an appeal to be made on my behalf.
Q Now, Dr. King, a few minutes ago you drew some
distinction between the people who were the actual marchers
and the other groups who followed along behind or who were
engaged in some of this violent activity: Did you hear -
were you hear when the witness, Slater King, testified
that the Albany Movement represented all of the Negroes in
Albany?
A I didn't hear, I don't recall this particular
statement, but I'm sure that It does represent all of the
Negroes of Albany, in the sense that It is seeking to achieve
justice and. first-class citizenship for all of the citizens
of Albany.
Q, Also, Dr. King, do you know whether or not Dr.
Anderson has stated on occasions that he estimated that the
Albany Movement represented approximately 10,000 people in
the Albany area: are you familiar with his statement to
that effect?
A No sir, I don't know about that particular state-
ment, in fact, I don't know the actual membership of the
Albany Movement. I don't think there is a membership
H e a r i n g on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727
list, in the sense that you would have in some Incorporated
bodies.
Q Now Dr. King, you stated on direct that in
referring to your right to violate unjust laws, you had
reference mainly to segregation laws, is that right?
A In this particular context, yes sir.
Q By the use of the word "mainly", I presume you
meant you were not necessarily limiting it to segregation
laws, Is that right?
A Well, in this particular situation, yes.
Q Would that include court decrees as well as laws
if you felt a court decree was unjust, do you think that
you would have a right to violate it or to advocate violatin
it?
A Well, It's difficult to give a yes or no answer
to that. I think it Is so general and It Involves so many
philosophical complexities that it would take me a few
minutes to really explain this.
Q Now, in making this statement about violating
the laws, have you ever made that statement at any of these
meetings that you ha.d at Shiloh or Mt. Zion churches?
A No sir, I don't think I have gone into a
discussion of unjust laws or the whole question of civil
disobedience at any of the mass meetings,
Q, Now Dr. Kang, when you made these statements,
I believe before the Press Club on one occasion, is that
correct, about the unjust law situation?
A Yes sir. Well, that was in a question that came
UP when I was addressing the National Press Club,
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 972a
Q Now, of course, when you made those statements
you didn't undertake to elaborate upon any of these
philosophical or metaphysical Insights or reservations
that you now have just expressed, did you?
A Yes, sir, I took at least eight minutes to explain
that.
Q, Now Dr. King, do you think that the masses
of people that have been involved In the Albany Movement
are capable of comprehending and appreciating all of this
philosophical insight that you've referred to?
A Many would. I think It can be broken down to
the point that It can be understood by almost anybody.
I have In the past tried to explain the meaning of civil
disobedience and just and unjust laws to people who may
not have had a great deal of formal training, but who had
Intelligence; and this can't be measured by the number of
years that an Individual has been to school; and I think
it can be broken down to the point that people who are
not well trained in the formal sense can understand It.
Q In fact, Dr. King, Isn't It true that such
a statement as that could very easily be interpreted by
some people as an open invitation to go out and violate
the law generally?
A No sir, I have never said it when I did not
explain exactly what I meant because I have always argued
that anarchy is much worse in the final analysis than some
other things; and what we seek is to create a society where
hen will live together as brothers and to correct and point
out the deficiences of the law and not to develop a situa-
H e a r i n g on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 973A
tion where people will disobey the law generally when it
is a just law.
Q Now, Dr. Idng, let me ask you this question:
A lot of people, conscientious people, disagree with
certain Supreme Court decisions, do you think those people
are justified, if their conscience tells them do you
think they are justified in going out and violating those
decrees and advocating to others that they violate them?
A I think - yes sir, I think that they have that
right if they will do it openly, if they will willingly
accept the penalty, if they do it in loving, non
violent spirit and not curse and use terms that deal with
Negroes as if they are dogs; if they are willing to accept
the penalty, if they do it openly, fine; but if they seek
to subvert, if they seek to evade the law, I think that's
wrong; and I think that this is what they've done.
Q In other words, you think that an open defiance
of the law is all right but that if a person tries to, as
you say, evade or circumvent, that that's wrong?
A No sir, I don't think an open - I would not like
to see them defy, evade or seek to circumvent the law.
I would say that it becomes right when conscience tells
them it is unjust and they openly, non-violently, lovingly
break that law and willingly accept the penalty by staying
in jail, if necessary, to point out the deficiencies of the
law and arouse the conscience of the community so that it
will see that it is wrong.
Q, In other words, you're saying that it's a state
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 72?
of mind and motivation of the individual that's the deter
mining factor1?
A I'm sorry, I don't think I understand your
question?
Q As I understand what you're saying, you are
saying that it's In effect a subjective question, that
it's a state of mind, whether It is lovingly, as you say,
violation; is that the determining factor, the mental
attitude of the person doing it, is that what you're
saying?
A Well, no sir, I don't think it's the state of
mind only, but only If that state of mind Is coupled with
a deep-seated moral conviction and that moral conviction
takes one to the point of seeking to secure the moral end
which is In the mind through moral means. Now, what
often happens is that people seek to secure what they
think are moral ends through immoral means, and I think
this is wrong because the end is pre-existent In the means.
Q Right there, who Is going to determine whether
it is a moral or Immoral end, Dr. King? Are you going to
make that determination or is somebody else going to make It
and, if so, who would it be?
A Well, I would hope that the community and the
Nation and the people of good will would make it as a result
°f the self-inflicted suffering that people who move out on
a moral principle are. willing to undertake. I'm not saying
that they take the law in their hands, but they believe so
much in the sacredness of the law when it Is a right law that
H e a r i n g on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727
975A
they are willing to suffer In order to see that those laws
which are not right are somehow made or re-made to square
with that which is morally right.
Q I follow your explanation, I understand your
explanation, hut I am still not certain who you are saying
is to make this determination as to whether it's right or
wrong?
A Well, the individuals involved are the ones,
the individual conscience is the issue at that point.
Q, The individual is to decide in his ovm conscience
whether or not he will violate the law, is that right?
A The individual is to decide in his own conscience
whether the law is right; and, if he violates it, he must
accept the penalty. He must not try to run from: it, he
must not seek to evade it, he must not seek to violate it
in some sense of subverting the law. He must do it openly
and In a non-violent spirit; and this becomes civil
disobedience and not uncivil disobedience which we too often
see by those who seek to take the law in their hands.
Q Now, Dr. King, you stated that your method was
method of non-violence?
A Yes sir.
Q The fact of the matter is though that you
anticipated violence, didn't you?
A Well, I had rather put it another way. I hoped
ahd I still hope that there will be no violence in our
struggle for first-class citizenship. I came to Albany
when I came and joined the Movement, hoping that there
H e a r i n g on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727
would be no violence; and when I say that I mean violence
from either side.
However, in a non-violent movement, the one
thing that you say Is that you as a person committed to
non-violence will never Inflict violence upon another,
but you will willingly accept it upon yourself. And It
may be that before freedom Is achieved In some places in
the South some blood will flow, but I've always Insisted
that It must be our blood and not the blood of our white
brothers.
Q Back in that connection, Doctor, you are familiar
with these clinics that have been held, are you not, in
Albany, at which the participants In the Albany Movement
are given instruction In how to receive acts of violence
against them?
A In the clinics here in Albany?
Q Right?
A I haven’t attended; no, I haven't had a chance
to attend any of them.
Q You have had instructions along those lines
yourself, have you not?
A Yes sir, I have been In clinics.
Q In fact, you have attended clinics at the
Highland Folk School In Tennessee, have you not?
A No sir, I never attended a clinic there.
Q, Have you ever attended any meetings there?
A Yes, I addressed the 25th - I gave one of the
addresses at the 25th Anniversary of the Highlander Folk
H e a r i n g on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 977A
S c h o o l .
Q Was Mr. Miles Horton there?
A Yes sir, he was a director.
Q Did you go there at his Invitation?
A As I recall, the Invitation came from - I really
don't remember. 1 don't know If Mr. Horton extended it
or somebody else on the Board.
Q Did you address the group there on the subject
of non-violence protests?
A I'm sure in the course of my lecture, as I always
do in all of my speeches, I dealt a great deal with non
violent protests; but 1 don’t recall the subject and how
much time I spent on it.
MR. HOLLOWELL: May it please the Court, I
cannot see where some speech that has been made
in some years previous at some place outside of
Albany, which has nothing to do and had nothing to
do with any of the activities which are here, could
have in any way have any relevancy or materiality to
this particular issue, unless counsel is seeking to
show that this particular witness, Defendant and party,
has at some time made a speech in which he recommended
violence or something other than this which he is
submitting here now. I would submit it would have
absolutely no materiality.
MR. LHVERETT: May it please the Court, this
witness ham testified of his advocacy of non-violent
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 978a
protests, and I am going into the question of what
preparation which he and other members of his group
may have had for violence.
MR. HOLLOWELL: I would submit that it wouldn’t
matter what his preparation was, as long as this has
been the advocation that has been made here in this
suit pertaining to all matters which are related to
the subject case, this and this only. What preparation,
I think unless he was going to the original preparation
from the standpoint of his background, study and so
forth, I think would be of no moment and would have
no materiality.
THE COURT: I think that's what, as I under
stood counsel’s statement, that's what he intends to
do, is to show what training he's had in connection
with the very thing we're talking about, That’s what
I understood counsel to say.
MR. LE7ERETT: Yes sir.
MR. HOLLOWELL: Training, if this is what it
relates to, that's one thing; if it merely relates
to a matter of some speech which has been made at
some prior time and did not relate to this, then I
don't think it is relevant.
THE COURT: Then, that would only go to
possible impeachment to contradict some other testi
mony which he has given; but, as I understood counsel,
he said he was going into the matter of training.
So, I will allow the question.
H e a r i n g on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. ?2? 9 79A
Q Mr. Leverett; Dr. King, the matter of these
protests and the procedures to be utilized and the anticipa
tion of violence, all of these things were in fact discussed
or there was instruction given at this Highlander Folk
School, isn't that true?
A I really couldn't say, I was onljr at the
Highland Folk School one time and that was the time that
I went in for that address, and I was there only 3 or 4
hours; I had to go right out; so, I don't know too many of
the details. I do know that Highland Folk School has
worked in the area of race relations across the years,
but how much emphasis they place on training non-violent
leaders, I don't know.
Q, Is it your testimony that you went there to
speak or to attend other addresses that were made?
A My testimony is that I went there to speak.
I didn't hear any of the other addresses. I went in and
made my speech and left, oh an hour or two after that.
Q Dr. King, I hand you a document —
MR. HOLLOWELL: May we see that?
MR. LEVERETT: I want to present him with
the pictures not with the writing in the paper, but
the pictures.
(Document tendered to counsel fox1 Defendants)
MR, HOLLOWELL: May it please the Court, I will
object to this particular document, which is P-22, on
the ground that there is nothing in it which would show
the source from which it came, or the name of the
H e a r i n g on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 72? 980a
editors or publishers of it. There Is no certificate
of any kind attached to It. There is nothing to indi
cate that these photographs which are even on it were
actually taken of the particular scene which they
purport to have been taken of; or that any of tire
Identifications that are attributed here are in
fact true; and on the further ground that there is
nothing here which would suggest anything dealing with
the Albany Movement or with any preparation which this
witness has at any time made, which would go to the
development of a theory of non-violence and a philoso
phy dealing with the matter of unjust laws.
MR, LEVERETT: May It please the Court, I wanted
to show the witness the paper, there are some pictures
on here, and I wanted to ask him about if this is his
picture there and this is his picture here; and he
appears to be sitting here, and he just testified
that he didn1t hear any speeches but that he went
there and spoke only. And I wanted to question
him about these pictures,
MR, HOLLOWELL; The wording under it, Your Honor,
I mean the wording itself, I think that again is
objectionable as no evidence has been offered about
the authenticity of it.
THE COURT; Mr. Hollowell, he hasn't offered
It in evidence, the document hasn't been offered in
evidence; and I'm going to proceed the same way that
I did on a previous occasion when counsel was question-
H e a r i n g on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 72 ?
981A
ing the witness about a newspaper article, whether
that was correctly represented, and the same rule
would apply here. I will allow counsel to ask him
questions about the pictures on cross-examination.
Now, If it comes to the question of introduction of
the document, then I will rule when we get to that,
MR. HOLLOWELL: All right.
Q Mr. Leverett: Dr. King, I ask you whether
this picture in the top left-hand corner, is that your
picture there?
A Yes sir, that’s my picture.
Q Is that a true representation of you as you
appeared at the Highlander Folk School?
A Yes sir, that’s correct.
Q Now, I call your attention to the picture over
here In the top right-hand corner and ask you if that Is
you sitting the second from the right in that picture?
A Yes sir.
Q And you're sitting down there, are you not?
A That’a correct.
Q Who was speaking at the time that you were sitting
there?
A I don't recall. As I recall, and this is vague in
memory, someone was leading a devotional period, and I think
it was Dr. Thompson of the University of Chicago, because he
was up when I came in; and I spoke immediately after him.
Q Is this picture on the right, the one where
J'ou're sitting down, Is that a true representation of you
gearing on Motion For Preliminary In junction, No. 727 982A
as you sat there on the occasion in question?
A On the -?
Q, Is this a true picture?
A Yes, that's my picture.
Q, Who is this party right here sitting, looking
at the picture, to the right?
A I don't know him.
Q, What about this party?
A That's Mr. Aubrey Williams.
Q And what about this gentleman here?
A I don't believe I know him; no, I don't know him.
THE COURT: Is that Aubrey Williams from
Alabama?
The Witness: From Montgomery,Alabama; that's
right.
Q Mr. Leverett; Dr. King, I ask you whether or not
a Miss or Mrs. Grace Lorch was also at that meeting?
A I don't know her, so I couldn't say.
Q, Now, getting back to the question that I asked
you a few minutes ago, it is true, is it not Dr. King, that
in this movement that you have engaged In, that you did
anticipate that violence might be committed?
A In Albany or the over-all?
Q In Albany specifically?
MR. H0LL0WELL: May it please the Court, I think
this Is now about the third time that he has asked
that and the witness has already answered the question.
THE COURT: I think so. I think we’ve been
H e a r i n g on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 9 8 3 A
over that and I don't see any use in going over that
again. Let’s move on to something else.
Q Mr. Leverett; Dr. King, are you a member of CORE?
A I'm a member of the advisory board, the
National Advisory Board.
Q Are you affiliated with the Student Non-Violent
Coordinating Committee?
A Yes sir, I am.
Q In what capacity?
A Adviser.
Q As an adviser or are you on some board or com-
mittee?
A Yes sir, it is called, I think, advisory board
Q Advisory board?
A Yes sir.
Q Is that the governing body of that group?
A No sir, the governing body is another body
altogether.
MR. LEVERETT: That's all at this time
MR. HOLLOWELL: Now, if it please the Court, I
would respectfully request the Court to rule on our
motion now pertaining to all of his testimony relative
to this Highlander School, Insofar as it is not relevant
and it Is immaterial and there is no way that It has
been In any wise associated with anything that Is
the subject-matter of this particular case; and,
therefore, I again move that It be stricken. It was not
tied in in any way whatsoever.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 984a
THE COURT: I think your motion Is too broad.
Certainly the fact that he attended and so and testi
fied that these matters were discussed there, I think
that would be pertinent. Nov;, the question of whether
the testimony given about these particular pictures,
I don't see how that adds anything to the case; and
I sustain the motion insofar as it relates to these
pictures in question.
MR. HOLLOWELL: Thank you, sir.
MR. LEVERETT: May It please the Court, before
the Court rules, my point on the pictures was that the
witness testified that he went there only to make a
speech, that he was not present when any other speeches
were made; and I believe this picture shows him sitting
down listening to some sort of speech, certainly something
was going on.
THE COURT: I'm going to sustain the motion
and exclude the reference to the pictures. I admit
all of the other testimony about the Highlander
School.
Anything further from this witness?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. HOLLOWELL:
0, One question, did you or did you not know who
Was to be present at the meeting just referred to?
MR. LEVERETT: May it please the Court, now
If I can't go into it, I think that counsel certainly
has no right to go into It.
H e a r i n g on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 985A
THE COURT: I think his question only relates
to the general meeting.
MR. HOLLOWELL: That is correct.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
Q Mr. Hollowell: Did you or did you not taow who
was to he present?
A No sir, I did not know who was to be present,
only some of the people. I would say 4 or 5; but the
vast majority I didn't know.
0. No further questions.
RECROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. LEVERETT:
Q Dr. King, In fact, several people there were
acknowledged Communists, Isn't that true?
A I did not know any. In fact, all of the people
I came In contact with and the people that I know who were
there are not Communists and never have been. Now, if there
were communists there, I knew nothing about it.
Q You are disclaiming though any knowing association
with those people now?
A Any knowing association with the people at the
Conference?
Q. Right?
A I don't quite understand. You mean all of the
Pfiople there?
Q You've just stated that you did not know who was
Soing to be there, which I presume was by means of ameliorat
es or explaining the fact that some people were there who
H e a r i n g o n Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 986a
apparently you were little unconcerned about?
MR. HOLLOWELL May it please the Court, that’s
a matter, I think, of testimony and conclusion made
by counsel and I would submit that It would be Improper
and ought to be stricken as a conclusion on his part,
THE COURT: Yes, that's simply a statement
made by counsel and not a question. I strike that.
THE COURT: Now, do you want to ask the
question over?
MR. LEVERETT:
MR, HOLLOWELL:
THE COURT:
for 10 minutes.
RECESS: 3:30 PM to 3:^2 PM - AUGUST 8, 19o2
No further questions.
Come down.
We'll take a recess at this time
REV. RALPH DAVID ABERNATHY
a party Defendant, and called and
sworn as witness in behalf of the
Defendants, testified on
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. HOLLOWELL:
Q, For the record, sir, will you give your name
and the city from which you come?
A Ny name is Ralph David Abernathy and I'm from
Atlanta, Georgia.
Q What is your employment, if any?
A I am a Baptist minister of the gospel.
Q Now, Reverend, you've been here throughout this
trial, haven’t you?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 987A
A Yes, I have.
Q And without trying to lead you, I'll try to
direct your attention as rapidly as possible to particular
areas in order to conserve time: Reverend, you were in the
City of Albany on or about the l6th of December of >6l, is
that right?
A That's correct.
Q And on that day I believe you had the occasion to
be a part of the group that was walking from Shiloh Church
down to the City Hall?
A That's correct.
Q Where were you among - say from front to rear in
the group, where were you located in that group?
A I was the second person in line.
Q Who was in front of you?
A Dr. King and Dr. Anderson.
Q Who were you walking immediately behind?
A I was walking with Mrs. William Anderson.
Q Who were you walking immediately behind, you
personally?
A I was walking immediately behind Dr. King.
Q Were you close enough to hear any statements
which were made by the two of them, that is Drs. King and
Anderson?
A Yes, I heard the conversation that existed
between Dr. King and Dr. Anderson and we shared in the
conversation.
Q. Did you hear the conversation or any statements
H e a r i n g on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727
988a
rather made by Dr, King addressed to any one other than the
three persons that you have just named; that is, yourself,
Dr. King and Dr. Anderson; did you hear any other - I'm
sorry, strike that, will you please? — Did you hear any
statement addressed by Dr. King In the process of your
walking, addressed to anyone other than those three that
you have just mentioned?
A Only after we were stopped by the Chief of Police.
Q Now, did you hear the statement which was
attributed to Rev. King by some officer concerning "strike
me first", did you hear any such statement?
A I heard that statement but it definitely did
not come from Dr. King.
Q I see. From whom did it come?
A It came from Dr. Anderson.
Q Now, I believe you were placed under arrest,
were you not?
A Yes, I was.
Q And were led in the street along with the
others after you were stopped at Oglethorpe and Jackson?
A That's correct.
Q Now, did you come out at the same that Dr. King
came out?
A Came out of jail?
Q Out of jail, yes?
A No, I came out befor’e Dr. King.
Q When did you have the occasion to return to the
City?
H e a r i n g on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 9 8 9 A
A I returned to the City in late February.
Q, Was this the same time when Dr. King came down
for trial?
A That1s correct.
Q Did you leave Immediately thereafter?
A That Is correct.
Q, And then you returned again when?
A I returned again on July 10, I believe.
Q This was for the sentencing?
A That is correct,
Q And have you been here ever since?
A No, I went out for a few days.
Q Was this the occasion when your fine was paid,
along with Rev. King's by someone?
A That Is correct. Shortly after our fines were
paid bjr some unknown person or persons, we left the jail and
went over to the residence of Dr. Anderson; and after
staying there a couple of days, I returned to Atlanta to
fulfill some speaking engagements, and then I came back to
Albany,
Q, Now, you were subsequently arrested, I believe,
and you are now the recipient of such courtesies as the City
fathers make available for those who are incarcerated, is
that correct?
A Yes, my temporary address in Albany is the City
jail.
Q Now, I believe you have been here and you have
heard certain statements that were attributed to you in
Hearing, on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 990A
connection with some meeting at which you spoke?
A YeSj I have.
Q Now, without going through the total speech,
Reverend, would you address yourself just specifically
to the statements which were attributed to you, the one
pertaining to dying if necessary, and the one concerning
the matter of not being turned around? What did you mean?
A Well, first, I am a citizen of the United States
of America and I love this Country as my home and as my
land, and I know that this is a dream, expressed first
by Thomas Jefferson, and this dream —
MR. LEVERETT: May it please the Court, I object
to this speech. It's not responsive to the question
and it's irrelevant and immaterial.
MR. HOLLOWELL: May it please the Court, there
has been a great amount of discussion by the Plaintiffs
pertaining to these statements, and I submit that the
Defendant has the right to give his expression or
his interpretation of what he meant by the statements
which they have attributed to him. There has been a long
tirade about what effect this had upon others and
the incitation as it affects others; and certainly I
say this witness has the right to indicate what his
meaning was.
THE COURT: Yes, he has a right to answer your
question but the question was really a very simple
one, what did he mean when he said that. And then
he started with Thomas Jefferson and it would take
H e a r i n g on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 72? 991A
quite a while to come up to date from that point.
But I wonder if your question simply can’t be answered,
what did he mean when he said what he said. At least,
let's start along about, say William Jennings Bryan
or somewhere like that.
MR, HOLLOWELL: Well, if I understood it, Your
Honor pleases, as I understand where perhaps the
witness is trying to go, this is the inception of
that which the persons that he was talking to as
well as himself actually began. This is the inception
of it. I can't see how he could do other than address
himself to that, as long as he doesn't get strayed
along somewhere between there and 1962.
THE COURT: Personally, I don't mind him
explaining. It's a proper question and he has a right
to explain itj but, Mr. Witness, let's limit It simply
to an answer to the question.
A The Witness: Well, as I was saying, Your
Honor, the dream of Thomas Jefferson and our forefathers
has not been fully realized. Just as they rose up and
broke loose from Colonial tyranny, our Nation todqy will
survive only if minorities will rise up and break loose
from segregation and the evil system of discrimination.
And I meant that I seek to follow in the footsteps of
Thomas Jefferson and our noble forefathers, in that just
as nothing turned them around, then nothing will turn me
around.
Q Mr. Hollowell: Now, there has also been some
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 99 2A
statement - What is your office in the SCLC?
A I'm Financial Secretary-Treasurer.
Q There are some questions or some statements
rather attributed to you dealing with the matter of
unjust laws and your breaking of them; would you want
to indicate for the record what you mean by this?
A Well, by unjust laws, I mean those laws that
have been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court,
the major court of this land.
Q As relates to any given thing?
A As relates to segregation.
Q, Now, what does, in your opinion, the matter of
these - say an ordinance concerning the blocking of a side
walk, have to do with that?
A Well, you don't need the Supreme Court to tell
you not to block the sidewalks. Anybody with common sense
knows not to block the sidewalks. And never have I
participated in any demonstrations in Albany where the
sidewalks were blocked.
MR. HOLLOWELL: This witness Is with you.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. LEVERETT:
Q, Rev. Abernathy, you aren't saying that Dr. King
did not In fact make this statement that you referred to,
are you?
A Yes, I am.
Q Are you swearing positively that he did not make
that statement?
A Yes, I am.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 993A
Q You were right behind him, you say?
A That’s correct.
Q Were there any people on the sidewalk as you
were going down the street there? Were there any spectators
on either side of the march?
A There were some people indoors, the doors of
their homes and businesses.
Q There were none on the street - excuse me, go
ahead?
A And businesses. There were the normal people who
were engaged in conversations on the sidewalks.
Q On the sidewalks?
A That’s right.
Q In fact, that was coming up South Jackson Street,
was it not, up toward Oglethorpe?
A Well, I ’m not familiar with the streets in
Albany. I assume it was South Jackson Street.
Q South Jackson Street is the one that intersects
Oglethorpe right there at the bus station and comes up this
way toward the City Hall; that is the street that you were
marching on, Is that right?
A That's the street we were stopped on by the
Chief, yes.
q In fact, that is one of the main streets below
Oglethorpe in the colored section of Albany, isn’t it?
A I really don't have any knowledge concerning
the geography and the populational distribution of Albany.
Q Now, are you saying that you heard every statement
that Rev. Dr. King made from the time that march began until
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 9 9 4 A
the time It ended?
A Yes, because his statements were made to Dr.
A n d e r s o n and to me, and to the Chief of Police.
Q, In other words, you were paying sole attention
to what Dr. King was doing; you were not paying any attention
at all to the police coming, to the spectators or anything
else; but you were making it your business to listen to
what he was saying and nothing else, is that right?
A Well, we are associates and we work together
and we've been together and we still are together; so, we
were engaged In conversation as we faced this particular
assignment, as we sought to pray.
Q, Were you talking - Were you the only person that
he talked to on the march?
A Dr. Anderson and myself.
Q And every conversation he had with anybody from
the time he left the church until the time he was taken in
the jail you were in on the conversation?
A That is correct.
Q You never said anything to anybody that he didn't
hear and he never said anything to anybody that you didn't
hear?
A Well, I don't know, I can't say whether he heard
every word I uttered, but I can say that I was In on every
conversation that he engaged in from the time we left the
Shiloh Baptist Church until we were taken Into the City Jail
in Albany.
Q Rev. Abernathy, isn't it true that in the normal
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 995A
course there * s a good deal of noise along Jackson Street
there in the colored section, at the stores on both sides
of the street and traffic coming up?
A Well, I will answer that and then explain. There
may be a great deal of noise but when you're engaged in
something that is very dear to you and meaningful, then
you don't hear the other noise because you have centered
your attention on an objective.
Q, In other words, you were tuned to his frequency
and nobody else's?
A I wouldn't say his "frequency", not to him, but
to the cause which we were seeking to champion at that time.
Q Now, are you saying that your attention was
tuned to the cause or was it tuned to what he was saying?
A It was tuned to the cause as expressed through
and by him, myself and Dr. Anderson,
q When the police officers came, did they say
anything to you?
A No, he spoke directly to Dr. King.
Q Going further, Rev. Abernathy, you stated by way
of explaining your statement about dying on the streets
that you meant that in the sense of Thomas Jefferson, more
or less in a philosophical sense; you didn't make that
explanation to that crowd though when you were speaking
to them, did you?
A Well, I didn't give possibly that illustration
but I did give some illustrations. I sought to make clear
to them that the time had come for us to seek to defend our
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 99 6 A
Nation right here at home.
Q You didn't even mention Thomas Jefferson when you
made that speech in such place as you made it, did you?
A Well, in the Baptist tradition it was a pretty
long speech; so, I can't remember every word I uttered.
Q Now, you spoke of the traditions of Thomas
Jefferson; the truth of the matter is, Thomas Jefferson
was the author of the Declaration of Independence, which
advocated armed revolution, isn't that true?
A That is correct.
Q Is that the sense In which you meant this
statement to be?
A No, I did not mean that we were going to take
up physical arms. I meant that we had at our disposal
spiritual arms; and just as our Nation took up physical
arms to break loose from Colonialism and Great Britain,
that we as Negroes must arm ourselves with the spiritual
resources and break loose from the system of segregation
and discrimination.
Q The truth of the matter is, Dr. Abernathy, you
didn11 so state on this occasion, did you?
A Oh yes, in essence; I expressed that in essence.
Q Now, Dr. Abernathy, what education have you had?
A I am a graduate of high school, of college and
graduate school.
Q What sort of degrees do you hold?
A That's B. S.. M. A.
Q
What sort of degrees do you hold?
That's B. S., M. A.
Now, isn't it true, Rev. Abernathy, isn't it
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 997A.
quite possible that some of the people that heard you make
that statement didn't put the same connotation on it that
you now place and say that you intended for it to have?
MR, HOLLOWELL: May it please the Court, this
is a matter of speculation, isn't it quite possible.
I submit that it's argumentative as well as speculative.
It certainly would be a conclusion, isn't it possible
that. I mean anything Is possible that.
THE COURT: Well, he was addressing an
audience and I think that's a proper question, as a
public speaker, which he is, to ask him to express an
opinion as to how his audience might interpret what
he's saying. I think that's a proper question. Now,
just as you say, I don't see how he can answer it but
one way because it Is possible, I'm sure; and I'm sure
that's the way he'll answer. Go ahead.
A The Witness: As a minister of the gospel, I
have developed a feeling that you can sense whenever your
message is getting across to the congregation; and I had
that feeling, that they had captured exactly what I was
seeking to say to them.
Q Mr. LEVERETT: What were they doing to cause you
to get this impression?
A Well, they - from the expressions on their faces,
and from their overt responses.
Q In fact, the truth of the matter is they all
got very excited when you made this statement, didn't they?
A Well, I don't know whether it was after that
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 998a
statement or not, but I do know that in the course of the
speech they became very solemn, and I got the feeling that
they were dedicated.
Q In fact, you built up more or less to a climax
on this very point about dying in the streets, and when
you had concluded, wasn’t there a rousing ovation?
A No, I don’t think - in fact, I ’m sure that that
was not my climax. My climax dealt with the fact that the
Negro is not going back to Africa or any other place, but
that we’re going to stay here, for we are not citizens of
Africa but we are citizens of the United States of America.
That was my climax.
Q, Rev. Abernathy, you mentioned just a few moments
ago about your making some statement about unjust laws:
Have you made such statements while speaking or addressing
any of the groups at Shiloh or Mt. Zion or this other church
that you held mass meetings in?
A I don’t recall whether I made them In Mt. Zion
or Shiloh.
Q You made them in one or the other?
A Well, I have made It clear that I felt my loyalty
to the major law of this land as interpreted by the Supreme
Court of the land.
Q In other words, you disagree with Dr. King on
this particular matter?
A Well, I don't know if we disagree or not, but this
is my - this is my philosophy.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction,, No. J2J 999 A
Q, Is It your testimony then that you have on
occasions stated that people who In their conscience felt
the urge should not abide by unjust laws?
a Yes, I have made that statement.
Q To a group?
A Yes, I've made it.
Q In Albany, Georgia?
A Yes, I've made it in Albany, Georgia.
Q On how many occasions?
A Well, I don't remember. I made a lot of speeches
and I made a lot of statements.
Q, Is it also your testimony that on every such
occasion that you made that statement you specifically and
particularly limited It to so-called segregation laws?
A No, I'm not saying that. I am giving you now,
I'm explaining now what I mean about my —
Q Excuse me, I didn't get the last part of your
answer?
A I said I am explaining now to you and to the
Court what I mean when I say that I do not feel that I
should obey an unjust law; and those laws are the segrega
tion laws which have been declared unconstitutional by the
Supreme Court, and that's what I mean.
Q, Excuse me, go ahead?
A That's what I mean.
Q But you have not - it is your testimony that on
these occasions that you've referred to when you've dis
cussed this matter, you have not specifically added what
Hearing-on Motion For Preliminary Injunction* No. 727 1000A
you are now saying* the explanation which you are now giving;
is that true?
A Well* I have* in essence. I have never
advocated in Albany that the citizens would violate any
law that has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the land.
Q, Suppose the Supreme Court has upheld a law
but you consider it unjust; would you include such a law
in your statement?
A Well* I have faith enough in the judicial system
of my Country and upon the vision of those who sit in
judgment upon that high Court* that they will take into
consideration the welfare of all of the people* with liberty
and justice for them.
Q In other words* if the Supreme Court has upheld
the law that that does it as far as you are concerned*
and that Ipso facto renders that law just? Is that right?
A I don’t understand your question.
Q, You have stated that your statement about
disobeying unjust laws* that by that you had reference to
laws that the Supreme Court of the United States has held
unconstitutional; I am now asking you whether or not or
nather I have asked you whether or not that that would also
extend to a law which the Supreme Court has upheld as far
as constitutionality was concerned but which appeared
unjust* and you then stated that you had faith in the
Supreme Court: Now* I'm asking you* is It your testimony
that If the Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality
of a law* then that ends it as far as you are concerned
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 1001A
and that law would be considered by you to be just?
MR. HOLLOWELL: May it please the Court, I
would submit here that this is calling upon this
lay witness for an interpretation of some other law
which law is not at issue in this particular case
anyway; and, therefore, I think it would be irrelevant.
He has answered the question going to the subject
matter of this suit; and that is where he considers
the law of the land as laid down by the Supreme Court
In segregation matters as being superior to any
ordinance dealing with that; and, therefore, the
ordinance would be an unjust law. I submit that when
we get outside of the scope, we could go on and on
and on, but the case has not been expressed in that
which is out in the periphery, and Indeed he has
already answered the question which has been propounded.
THE COURT: What I get out of his testimony,
maybe I'm not getting the right thing, I don't know,
but the philosophy and what I can get out of it Is,
anything that he thinks is not just, he has a right to
violate. That's what I get out of it.
MR. HOLLOWELL: I don't believe he has so testi
fied, Your Honor. I think he limited it to the
segregation laws or laws which are applied In a
discriminatory fashion and which, therefore, would
have the effect, the perpetuation of the matter of
segregation.
THE COURT: Yes, anything within that area,
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 1002A
then anything that he thinks is not just, he's got
a right to violate it, is what I get out of his testi
mony, anything in that area.
MR. LEVERETT: I don't think this witness has
testified about unjust administration. Counsel is
putting words in his mouth, and I object to counsel
doing that, if it please the Court.
THE COURT: I don’t know what counsel just
said about It. I was trying to interpret my under
standing of what the witness said. Go ahead.
Q, Mr. Leverett: Rev. Abernathy, did you answer
the question that was asked you just before the objection
was made, about whether the Supreme Court to your mind
decides whether a law is just or unjust?
THE COURT: In other words, you're asking
him if that is the final determination as far as he’s
concerned?
MR. LEVERETT: That’s correct.
A The Witness: Well, at this point, I rest my
case under the Interpretation of laws by the Supreme Court
of the Land, being a citizen of the United States; and I've
never tried to cross bridges before I get to them; and if
the Supreme Court upheld a law that I felt was unjust, then
I would have to make that decision when I got to that point.
But up to this point I do not feel the impulsion to violate
any laws except those segregation laws that have been
declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the
United States of America, and those laws which are unjustly
applied.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No.727 1003A
Q, In that respect, Rev. Abernathy, if the Supreme
Court of the United States were in its October 1962 term
to reverse Its decisions in the segregation cases and hold
that segregation laws are valid, would you then comply with
them?
MR. HOLLOWELL: May it please the Court, this
Is speculation, It is a hypothetical which is not in
issue and I would submit —
THE COURT: I think the witness has already
made it clear. He says that he's going to withhold
his decision about whether he would abide by a law
which the Supreme Court said was a valid one until
he sees what it is. He sajrs he's going to withhold
his judgment on what the Supreme Court does until the
Supreme Court passes on it. That's his attitude.
MR. LEVERETT: All right sir.
Q Well, looking retroactively or rather prospective
ly, Rev. Abernathy, if I tell you that the United States
Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision held that a Negro
was not a citizen and that the United States, the Federal
Government, could not confer citizenship on him, I ask you
whether you would think that was an unjust decision?
MR. HOLLOWELL: May it please the Court —
THE COURT: Now, right there, I think we've
gone far enough with the hypothetical questions. I think
the attitude of the witness is clear and his philosophy
Is — well, I don't know whether it's clear or not, but
It's in the record; and I think further hypothetical
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 1004A
situations would not contribute anything to the trial.
MR, LEVERETT: All right, sir, I withdraw the
question.
Q I ’would like one more question and I don't
think that this transcends the Court's ruling, and I ask
the indulgence of the Court because I don't think it Is
hypothetical: Rev. Abernathy, do you consider a law which
requires persons to obtain a permit before parading or
demonstrating, do you consider that an unjust law?
A Well, I would like —
Q Will you please answer the question yes or no
and then you can explain It like the other witnesses have
done?
A If it is applied in a discriminatory fashion,
then I would think that it is an unjust law.
Q, Have you ever applied for such a permit?
A No, I never applied for one.
Q, I seej that's all.
THE COURT: All right, anything further?
MR, HOLLOWELL: You may come down.
May it please the Court, we tender DEFENDANTS' EXHIBIT
No. 1, being a photograph of a group crossing the
street.
MR. RAWLS: No objection to Exhibit #1, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: It is admitted. (D-l)
MR. HOLLOWELL: DEFENDANTS' EXHIBIT No. 2,
which is another photograph —
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 1005A
MR. RAWLS:
please.
No objection to #2, Your Honor
THE COURT: It is admitted. (D-2)
MR. RAWLS:
this is.
No objection to #3, I presume
THE COURT: It is admitted. (D-3)
MR. RAWLS:
objection to D-5.
No objection to D-4 and no
THE COURT: They are admitted (D-4 & D-5)
MR. HOLLOWELL: I might say that we have one
other witness, Your Honor, who would be only for the
purpose of identifying 2 or 3 articles. It may be
that Inasmuch as the by-line is on them, showing
Vick Smith, whom I ’m sure is in the acquaintance
and probably the association of all in these proceedings,
it might not be necessary to take the time to have It
identified.
MR. RAWLS:
to either of these.
Your Honor, we have no objection
THE COURT: What are those?
MR. HOLLOWELL: DEFENDANTS’ EXHIBITS 6, 7 and 8 .
THE COURT: Newspaper articles?
MR. HOLLOWELL: Yes sir, out of the Herald.
MR. RAWLS: They are articles written by
Vick Smith, local reporter.
THE COURT: You have no objection.
MR. RAWLS: None except to one which is by
the Associated Press. We have an objection to it.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction* No. 727 1006a
If counsel for the other side concedes that they haven't
been properly proved* we won’t take the time to do that.
MR. HOLLOWELL: That is 6* 7 and 8* sir.
THE COURT: Allright* without objection*
they are admitted (D-6* D-7* D-8 )
MR. RAWLS: We have no objection to D-9*
Your Honor* D-10* D-ll* D-12* D-13, D-14, D-15.
THE COURT: All of those are photographs*
are they?
MR, HOLLOWELL: Those are photographs* yes sir.
THE COURT: Allright* they are admitted.
(D-10 through D-15)
MR, RAWLS: We have no objection to D-l6*
Your Honor* which is a communication of the Albany
Movement* copy of letter written to me and copy to
Chief Pritchett.
THE COURT: It is admitted (D-l6 ).
MR. RAWLS: We have no objection to D-17
and 18* 19 and 20* all of the last mentioned being
photographs.
THE COURT: They are admitted. (D-17* 18-19-20)
MR. HOLLOWELL: D-21 through 26 are groups of
photographs which are in envelopes or otherwise
collated in such a way as to be in a group* 21 through
26. These are the photographs that were produced by
the City.
MR. LEVERETT: Counsel* are all of those photo
graphs within that group the ones that we produced?
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 1007A
MR. HOLLOWELL: Yes.
MR. RAVILS : We certainly if Your Honor pleases
have no objection to the introduction of our photographs.
THE COURT:
(D-21 through D-26)
Allright, they are admitted.
MR. HOLLOWELL: D-23, D-22, D-24, D-25.
THE CLERK: How about 21 and 22?
MR. RAWLS: D-22, 23, 24, 25, 26.
THE CLERK: How about D-21?
MR. RAWLS:
22, 23, 24, 25, 26.
Here it Is right here, D-21,
THE COURT: All right, they are admitted.
MR. RAVILS : We have no objection to D-27,
Your Honor; that's a photograph.
THE COURT: It is admitted (D-27).
MR. RAWLS: We have no objection to copy of
letter dated February 6, 1961, addressed to Mayor Kelley,
signed by a group, designated as D-28; we have no
objection.
THE COURT: All right, it is admitted (D-28)
MR. HOLLOWELL:
else, Your Honor. .
Let me see if there is anything
May it please the Court, we were going to submit
certified copies or read from the Code, the Albany Code,
but my associate tells me that he has spoken with
counsel, the City counsel or rather the City Attorney,
Mr. Rawls, and that he will agree that this particular
Code is an accurate code of the City of Albany; and we
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 1008A
wanted to submit and read into the record the particu
lar segregation laws that we addressed ourselves to,
unless the Court would indicate that It would take
judicial notice of them; or If the Court would not
wish to take judicial knowledge of them, that they
be submitted as tendered, with permission to submit
them to the attorney before we turn them over to the
Clerk.
MR. RAWLS: Your Honor pleases, I simply
conceded that the book that counsel has is the
official Code of the City of Albany; but I certainly
have not agreed to the admissibility of any ordinances
that he expects to introduce in this case. Counsel
understands that my statement is that we concede
that Is the official Code of the City of Albany and
that was the extent of my agreement.
THE COURT: In other words, what you're
saying is that you are agreeing that what he has
there —
MR. RAWLS: Is the official code.
THE COURT: — is the official Code of the
City of Albany. But you are not agreeing to the
admissibility of any portion of it?
MR. RAWLS: No sir, and I think I have
objection to what he's fixing to offer.
MR. HOLLOWELL: May it please the Court, what
I wanted to, in the light of that, was to ask the
Court to reserve his ruling on that one item until
the Clerk has finished typing up the certified copies.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 1009 A
In that way I think we might curtail some time
because we would rest otherwise.
I would say that I know that under the law
generally that this Court does not take judicial
notice of municipal ordinances. I mean we all knoxv
that. But we did want to submit them and they’re in
the process of being prepared,* and I will submit them
to Mr. Rawls before such time as I brought them in;
but I did not want to rest without that stipulation.
MR. RAWLS: We concede that h e ’s in the
same status in offering to read from the official
Code as he would be if he were presenting certified
copies by uhe Clerk of the City of Albany.
MR, HOLLOWELL: That being true, then, sir, I
would like to read Into the record Chapter 21 or
Rather Chapter 22, Section 1 of the City Code of
Albany, which reads, as follows:
"All passenger busses operated in the City and
its police jurisdiction shall provide separate
accommodations for white people and Negroes on such
busses. All conductors, drivers or other employees
in charge of busses shall assign all passengers to
their respective seats, so as to separate the white
and Negro races as much as practicable, except that
Negro nurses having in charge white children or sick
or infirm white persons, may be assigned seats among
white people."
MR. RAWLS: We object to that ordinance and
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 10I0A
section of the City Code, if Your Honor pleases,
because it has no relevancy to the issues made In
this case, and Is illegal and immaterial.
MR. HOLLOWELL: I submit, Your Honor, that there
has been a great deal of testimony pertaining to the
matter of the use of the busses and that one of the
witnesses which was called by the Plaintiffs was a
Mr. Sweeting, who, as I recollect, was the manager
of the bus line; and that there was discussion as to
the cause for some alleged boycott; and it would be
most appropriate; and I think that It should be in
the record, the fact that there is a City Code dealing
with the ordinances of the City.
Now, this in addition to the fact that the Chief
of Police has testified that he would enforce all of
the segregation ordinances of the City of Albany; and,
therefore, I submit that it would be most appropriate
and germane to this case.
THE COURT: Have you got some others?
MR. HOLLOWELL: I have some others.
THE COURT: I anticipate the same objection
will be made to them?
MR. RAWLS: The same objection.
THE COURT: Then, go ahead and complete your
tender and I'll rule on them. all.
MR. HOLLOWELL: Thank you, sir. Chapter 22,
Section 2: "It shall be unlawful for any person to
remain in a seat or compartment of a bus, other than
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 1011A
"that to which he has been assigned"; the sub-section
title thereon being "persons to remain in seats to
which assigned".
Also, Section 3 of the same chapter, the topic
being 'Taxicabs. White and colored persons shall not
be carried at the same time in any taxicab for hire in
the City, provided that this section shall not be' -
I'm sorry - "this section shall not apply to colored
nurses or other servants, where accompanied by white
children in their charge."
Section 4 of Chapter 22, the caption being
"Separate places for sale of tickets; separate
lines." It reads thusly:
"All persons who sell or otherwise dispose of
tickets, coupons or cards for admission to any theater
or place of amusement in the City shall have separate
places for the sale of such tickets, coupons or cards
to white and Negro persons, and shall require white and
Negro persons to form separate lines or groups when
assembled for the purpose of procuring said tickets,
coupons or cards."
Continuing in a new paragraph:
"It shall be unlawful for any white person to
stand, be or remain in any line or group formed of
colored persons, or for any colored person to stand,
be or remain in any line or group formed of white
persons, when assembled for the purpose of procuring
such tickets, coupons or cards."
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 1012A
The last would be Chapter 26, Section 12, the
caption being "Separate designation of cabs for white
and colored persons. Each and every vehicle licensed
to carry white passengers shall have a sign plainly
painted on each side and on the rear the words
in upper case letters, quote "'WHITE1", end quotes
"and each and every vehicle licensed to carry colored
passengers shall have a sign plainly printed on each
side and on the rear the words", quote, in upper case
letters 'FOR COLORED1", end quote, end of article.
Those, Your Honor, constitute the particular
Code sections that we would tender.
MR. RAWLS: Your Honor please, we object to
all of the offered City Code sections, on the grounds
and for the reason that the contents of those Code
sections are illegal, irrelevant and immaterial In
this case; and for the further reason, it has not
been charged or shown in this case that any prosecution
has been instituted or pursued relative to either one
of the sections presented.
THE COURT: My ruling on the matter is that
the evidence offered In the form of code sections
referred to would be pertinent evidence in another
action which is now pending in this Court and will
be tried in due course; but that it Is not material
and not admissible in this action before me at this time.
And I sustain the objection and exclude the evidence
tendered.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 1013A
Anything else?
MR. HOLLOWELL:
THE COURT:
for the Plaintiffs?
Any other documentary evidence?
The Defendants rest, Your Honor.
Allright, anything further
MR, LEVERETT: May it please the Court, we
have nothing further.
THE COURT: All right, both sides have rested
then. Do you wish to argue the case at this time?
MR, HOLLOWELL: May it please the Court we would
like, of course, first to renew the motion that was
made initially, which was a motion to dismiss on the
ground of jurisdiction, and the motion which was made
as of the conclusion of the Plaintiffs’ case. I think,
without the necessity of argument on them, if we could
consider them as renewed, then it will not be necessary
for us to present them further.
THE COURT: All right, the record will so
indicate.
Do you wish to proceed to argue the case?
MR. LEVERETT: May it please the Court, we
don't particularly care to present any oral argument,
unless the other side does. If the Court wishes
argument, I think It probably would be more productive
to be in writing.
THE COURT: What is the attitude of Defendants'
counsel, do you wish to argue the case at this time?
MRS. MOTLEY: No sir, we do not wish to argue
the case.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 1014a
THE COURT: All right, then this is the
situation: I note that counsel for Plaintiffs has
Indicated some possible desire to file some written
argument, and counsel for Defendants may or may not
wish to do the same thing.
At this moment I am not sure exactly when I will
decide this case. I'm not sure whether It might
be within a couple of days or within a week or within
a month; I'm not sure. But I do want to keep the case
in such a situation as it is in the breast of the Court
as it is for a decision at such time as I can get to it.
Now, in the meantime, both parties have rested,
but I am going to keep the record open in this case
until I announce my decision in it; and I am according
to Plaintiffs and I am according to Defendants the
right to petition the Court for the privilege of
supplementing the record, if there should be any
event or events or any evidence of any kind which
develops between this moment and such time as I
announce my decision in this case, which the parties
might deem pertinent in the Court's consideration of
its decision In the case.
In other words, until the time I announce my
decision, If the Defendants wish to supplement the
record with regard to anything which transpires
between this moment and such time as I decide the
case, they may petition me for the right to do so.
The Plaintiffs may do likewise. In other words, the
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 1015A
case remains open to that extent until I have decided
the case.
Nov/, in the meantime if counsel for either side
wish to file anything in the way of argument or brief
with the Court in writing, they may do so, but I leave
the situation that way. I may decide it at any time
or I may decide it somewhat later. That is the situation.
MRS. MOTLEY: May it please the Court, if we
have concluded this case, can we at this time try to
arrive at a time when the Plaintiffs 1 motion for
preliminary injunction will be heard in case No. 730
and case No. 731?
THE COURT: This is the situation that the
Court finds itself in with regard to the other pending
matters. As is well known, we have been involved in
this matter now for several days. It has resulted in
quite a disruption of the schedule of certain other
hearings which the Court had already set for last week
and for this week, in other divisions of the Middle
District. It is going to be necessary for me to
re-evaluate the Court's position with regard to the
obligations that I have in connection with other
matters. Doubtless, counsel are going to find that they
are In somewhat the same situation,* that is, that they
have had to put aside other things, which they now
find that they have to attend to.
The only thing I can say, I can't say anything
with any definiteness at the moment, all I can say is
that, after I've had an opportunity to reset and re-
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 1016A
evaluate the time that is going to be required of me for
other matters, which I have had to put off and displace,
I will advise counsel at that time of what I consider
to be an appropriate time of setting for trial the
other cases. That Is all I can say at this moment.
MRS. MOTLEY: The only thing I would like
to point out, Your Honor, is that we have filed a
suit in which we seek to desegregate all of the public
facilities set forth In that complaint. Now, as
Your Honor knows, this case before the Court today
arises out of that situation, and it seems to me that
in view of that the Court should give utmost priority
to the hearing and disposition of that case. I think
that - well, the Court can almost take judicial notice
of the fact that all public facilities are segregated
here. A lot of that is already in evidence in this
case and it shouldn't take over a half a day to really
try that case, if that long. Certainly the law is
settled, if there is any dispute that public facilities
should not be segregated.
So that, we would urge the Court to hear that
matter as promptly as possible, because that case is
the crux of the controversy in this case,* and with
a settlement of that, it seems to me that this case
is settled. So that, we would urge and strongly urge
the Court to hear that at the earliest possible moment.
THE COURT: What counsel has just said is
what was in my mind yesterday when I urged the consoli-
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 1017A
elation of these matters; and down the road it still may
be appropriate. I don't know yet.
But at this point all I can say is what I have
said. I realize that counsel would like as early a
hearing as possible. Plaintiffs always want as early
a hearing as possible. I'm aware of that. The only
problem is that I have obligations otherwise at other
places. I had to greatly inconvenience a half dozen
lawyers last week in matters that had been set, which
have now got to be reset; and I am In such a situation
that at this moment I cannot suggest a date, but I will
do so at such time as I can reevaluate the situation
and can do it with more intelligence than I can at
this time.
Is there anything further?
MR, RAWLS: If Your Honor pleases, in view
of the fact that counsel representing the City of
Albany have been tied up in this particular litigation,
we are compelled to request the Court for an additional
ten days from next Tuesday, I believe it is, when the
time expires for the filing of an answer in the general
desegregation case. I would like to make that fact
known now In order to save me a trip to Columbus.
THE COURT: Well, I see no objection to
granting your request for an additional 10 days. I
realize that you have been tied up here, just like I
have and everybody has; and I see no objection to the
granting of the extension of time.
Hearing on Motion For Preliminary Injunction, No. 727 I018A
MR. RAWLS: I do not have a formal order
prepared at this time, Your Honor, but I will prepare
it and send it to you tomorrow.
THE COURT: All right.
MRS. MOTLEY: Your Honor, we don't have any
objection to that extension, if it doesn't Interfere
with our hearing on our motion for preliminary injunc
tion. Now, as I pointed out yesterday, we have a
right to a hearing on our motion for a preliminary
injunction whether an answer has been filed or not,
and if we have that hearing promptly as Rule 65
requires, then I won't object if they want two years
to file their answer; but we insist upon an early,
as early a hearing on our motion for preliminary
Injunction as possible.
THE COURT: Well, as I have said, I will
grant the hearing and set it down at such time as I
can get to it, consistent with the other obligations
which I have; and that is all I can say at the moment.
You may mail me the order and I'll grant you the addi
tional time for filing your answer. There being
nothing further, we now stand ADJOURNED.
HEARING ADJOURNED: 4:45 PM AUGUST 8, 1962.
103 ' } k
O R D E R
Upon consideration of the foregoing motion of the defen
dants, the instant action is hereby consolidated with the
following cases:
(1) W. G. Anderson, et al Vs. City of Albany, et al;
Civil Action No. 730;
(2) W. G. Anderson, et al Vs. City of Albany, et al;
Civil Action No. 731.
as provided by Rule 42(a) P.R.C.P.
Signed
JUDGE, UNITED STATES DlSTRICT~COURT
MOTION TO DISMISS AND FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
1020A
(filed August 24., 1962)
Come now Defendants and move to dismiss the complaint,
and for a more definite statement, on the following grounds:
1.
Because the complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.
2 .
Because the Court is without jurisdiction in the premises
3.
Defendants move to dismiss as to defendant City of Albany
on the ground that said defendant, as a body corporate is not
subject to suit under the Civil Rights Statutes.
4.
Defendants move to dismiss as to each defendant on the
ground that the complaint is insufficient to show a violation
by each defendant of Title 42, United States Code, Section 1985
5.
Defendants move for a more definite statement with re spec;,
to paragraph 4 of the Complaint, in that same alleges that
plaintiff Anderson has petitioned "the defendant Board of City
Commissioners and the defendant Chief of Police to end racial
segregation in the public facilities under its jurisdiction,
management, and control * * * * and the defendant chief of
police to cease enforcement of city ordinances requiring racia1
segregation in privately owned buses, taxis, theatres and otb^v
Places of public amusement" on the ground that it is not all;,-,
MOTION TO DISMISS AND FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT 1021A
therein or elsewhere in said complaint the dates when the
plaintiff Anderson allegedly petitioned the said defendants, and
whether the petition was oral or in writing, and said paragraph
fails to afford defendants sufficient information to enable them
to prepare responsive pleadings thereto.
6.
Defendants move for a more definite statement with respect
to paragraph 6 of the complaint, in that it fails to allege
therein or elsewhere in said complaint, the dates when police
officers prevented negro citizens from using the public audi
torium and the public library, and the names of the said negro
citizens, and said paragraph fails to afford defendants suf
ficient information to enable them to prepare responsive plead
ings.
7.
Defendants move for a more definite statement with respect
to paragraph 7 of the complaint on the ground that it is not
alleged therein or elsewhere In the complaint, the dates and
the methods used by the Chief of Police of the City of Albany,
and all other police officers under his jurisdiction to enforce
segregation on the privately owned transportation facilities,
and said paragraph fails to afford defendants sufficient infor
mation to enable them to prepare responsive pleadings.
8.
Defendants move for a more definite statement with resp^,
to Count I insofar as the same alleges that plaintiff Anderson
and other citizens have petitioned the defendant Board of Cl' .>
Commissioners to desegregate the recreational facilities
motion to d i s m i s s and for more d e f in it e statem ent 1022A
referred to, both orally and In writing on the ground that said
Count fails to allege the dates on which such petition was made,
and fails to allege which of the alleged petitioners were oral
and which were in writing; defendants also move for a more de
finite statement as to what laws of the State of Georgia plain
tiffs refer to in said paragraph; defendants move for a more
definite statement as to what areas plaintiffs refer to in the
allegation, "several smaller playground areas;" and said Count,
also denominated Paragraph 9> fails to afford defendants suf
ficient information to enable them to prepare responsive plead
ings thereto.
9.
Defendants move for a more definite statement with respect
to Count 2 insofar as the same alleges that certain Negro citi
zens attempted to use the Carnegie Library on July 17, 19^2, on
the ground that said Count fails to allege the identity of the
particular Negro citizens referred to; defendants also move for
a more definite statement as to what "laws of the State of
Georgia," plaintiffs refer to in said paragraph; and said Count,
also denominated Paragraph 10, fails to afford defendants suf
ficient information to enable them to prepare responsive plead
ings thereto.
10 .
Defendants move for a more definite statement with respect
to Counts 2 and 3 of the complaint insofar as the same allege
that plaintiff Anderson has unsuccessfully petitioned defendants,
on the ground that said Counts fail to allege when and where such
petitioners were made, and whether the same were oral or in
MOTION TO DISMISS AND FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT 1023A
writing, and said Counts therefore fail to furnish defendants
with information sufficient to enable them to prepare responsive
pleadings thereto.
11.
Defendants move for a more definite statement as to Count 3
of the complaint insofar as the same alleges that the Cities
Transit, Inc. "has abandoned most of its transportation service
in the City of Albany" on the ground that said allegation is
ambiguous and uncertain, in that it fails to allege what part
of its transportation service in the City of Albany has been
abandoned, and what part thereof is still being operated, and
said paragraph therefore alleges information insufficient to
enable defendants to prepare responsive pleadings thereto.
12 .
Defendants move for a more definite statement as to Count 4
of the complaint on the ground that said Count fails to allege
any instances in which defendants have enforced such a policy,
custom or usage of requiring racial segregation in theatres and
other places of amusement and fails to allege when and in what
other theatres or other places of amusement these defendants are
enforcing such a policy, custom or usage, and said Count also
denominated Paragraph 12, fails to allege information sufficient
to enable defendants to prepare responsive pleadings thereto.
13.
Defendants move to strike Count 5 of the complaint on the
ground that the same fails to allege that any of the plaintiffs
have ever made application to use the City Auditorium on a non-
segregated or any other basis, and said Count therefore fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
MOTION TO DISMISS AND FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT 1024a
WHEREFORE, defendants pray that this their Motion be
sustained and the complaint dismissed.
H. G. RAWLS, City Attorney
P. 0, Address:
Whitehead Building
Albany, Georgia
H. P. BURT
P. 0. Box 1347
Albany, Georgia
1025A
NOTICE OF MOTION
(filed August 24, 1962)
Please take notice that the undersigned will bring the
above motions to dismiss, and for more particular statement,
on for hearing before this Court at the Federal Courtroom at
Albany, Georgia, on the 30th day of August, 1962 at 2 o ’clock
P.M. of that day, or as soon thereafter as counsel can be
heard.
This August 24, 1962.
H. G. RAWLS
H. P. BURT
FREEMAN LEVERETT
EUGENE COOK
BY:
Attorneys for 'Befeh&ants'