Meredith v. Fair Transcript of Record Vol. IV

    TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD

UNITED STATES

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

No.

JAMES H. MEREDITH, 

VERSUS

APPELLANT

CHARLES DICKSON FAIR, ETC., ET AL,
APPELLEES

VOLUME IV

Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the Southern District of Mississippi, 

Jackson Division



VOLUME IV
I N D E X

Testimony of Robert B. Ellis (Continued)
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2: Letter from Robert B.

Ellis
Plaintiff's Exhibit 5: 
Plaintiff's Exhibit 7: 
Plaintiff's Exhibit 12: 
Plaintiff's Exhibit 15*. 
Plaintiff's Exhibit l6: 
Plaintiff's Exhibit 18:

Telegram from Robert 
B. Ellis
Letter from Robert B. 
Ellis
Letter from Robert 
B. Ellis
Letter from Robert B. 
Ellis
Testimony of J. H. 
Meredith
Summary of Credits

Testimony of Tally Riddell 
Leon Lowrey 
Charles Dickson Fair 
Euclid Ray Jobe 
Arthur Beverly Lewis 
John Davis Williams 
Jacob L. Reddix 
Edgar Ray Izard 
James M. Ward 
Purser Hewitt 
William Orlando Stone 
S. R. Evans 
James N. Lipscomb 
Harry G. Carpenter 
Thomas J. Tubb 
V e m e r  Smith Holmes 
Purser Hewitt (Recalled)

Plaintiff's Exhibit 28: Certificate of the
Southern Assoc, of 
Colleges, etc.

Page
459
446
449
450 
455 
457
469
487
496
505
505
512
520

524
528
553
557
541
544
547
549
552
555
557
559

564



Testimony of Robert B. Ellis (Recalled 573
Plaintiff1s Exhibits 29“3^: Records for sum-

mer session, 1961 oil
Testimony of Wallace F. Swan III 619

Plaintiff1 s Exhibit 35: Transcripts of J . H.
Meredith from Jackson 
State College 620

Testimony of Derrick A. Bell, Jr.
Defendant Exhibit 1; File of William

Michael Condor, Jr.
Defendants' Exhibit 2: File of Albert H.

Martin
Defendants' Exhibit 3: Student File 
Defendants’ Exhibit 4: File of Mrs. Floyd E.

Moore
Defendants' Exhibit 5: Student File 
Defendants' Exhibit 6: Student File

621

630
633
633
634
638
639



439

(Testimony of Robert B. Ellis continues)
BY MRS. MOTLEYS We don’t want to introduce that

prior testimony because, as the Court of Appeals has already 
ruled, the testimony on that record is so confusing that no­
body can figure out what was being said by anybody because of 
the objections made and the irrelevancies introduced in that 
record by the defendants. Now we are trying to straighten 
up the record. All we want to do is as we did yesterday, 
introduce the exhibit as a group rather than go through each 
one and identify it, in the interest of saving time. And 
these exhibits are known to them. These are not new exhibits.

BY THE COURTS I understand they are known to them, 
but they are not a part of the record on the final hearing 
yet5 and if they are not, X can’t consider them, and you will 
have to proceed as you did before, which you have a right to 

do.
BY MRS. MOTLEYS We are now proceeding with this 

witness and asking if he is familiar with these letters.
BY THE COURTS There is nothing in the record —  

counsel objects —- to show who <J» H. Meredith isJ and as you 
proceeded before, you would have to first put Meredith on 
the stand unless you introduced the former testimony and 
made it a part of the record on this final hearing. You 
have two courses to pursues You can go into the trial of 
this case on the merits just as if we never had any trial on 
a preliminary injunction, and that would entail the same 
method as you did before? or, if you offer those records,



440

that testimony, in evidence that was taken before, 
then it becomes a part of the record on the final 
hearing on the merits. Those are the only two ways 
you can get it in.
BY MRS. MOTLEY? Well, I am now asking this man if 
he recognizes these letters.

Q, Do you recognize these letters?

BY MR. CLARKS This is the question to which we 
object.
BY MRS. MOTLEY? How can he object to the registrar 
recognizing his own letters? I don*t understand 
that kind of objection.
BY MR. CLARK? She is handing a group of letters, 
some of which are not from this registrar, some of 
which are written by different persons, and we make 
the same objection made on the preliminary injunction. 
It is not a frivolous objection, and if counsel is so 
insistent the record of the preliminary injunction 
is before the Court, why did she take the course of 
introducing the exhibits? If the record is in the 
record, the exhibits are in the court.
BY THE COURT? So you have introduced evidence with­
out introducing that part applicable to the exhibit 
that was offered, and under the Rules I hold that



441

before you do that, it is necessary that that part of 
the evidence with reference to the introduction of 
those documents must be offered.
BY MRS. MOTLEYs Well, we will start over with 
these exhibits with the witness.

(continuing?)
Q. Do you recognize these letters?
A. Counsel, I think to be specific I ought to make the

statement that these are not just letters. These 
are telegrams, postal receipts. Apparently they are 
copies of letters written by the plaintiff.

Q. Start with the first one. What is the first one?
A. Well, the first one is marked "copy” of a letter written 

to the registrar, with no signature on it. ”J. H. 
Meredith.”

Q. Did you receive such a letter?
A. I received a similar letter, yes.
Q. Now, go to the next one. What is the next document?
A. Well, the next document on this file is a letter dated

January 26, 1961, to J. H. Meredith, signed by myself.
Q» Did you write that letter to James H. Meredith?
A. I did.
Q. Go to the next one.
A. The next one is apparently a copy of a letter. It was 

re-typewritten with the indication that it had been 
signed by J. H. Meredith.



kk2

BY MR. CLARKs We would like to make an objection at 
this time to this witness or any other witness in 
this case testifying from or about documents that have 
not been offered in evidence.
BY MRS. MOTLEY? I’m asking the witness to identify 
these documents.
BY MR. CLARK? May X complete the statement? We 
don*t think counsel has any right to put anything 
into the record concerning an instrument until it has 
been offered in evidence.
BY THE COURT? Well, I will overrule the objection be­
cause that is what she is endeavoring to do at this 
time, to identify the documents to see if they could 
be admissible.

A. Counsel, I’m not going to identify this one, because it is 
a typewritten letter. It looks vaguely familiar to one 
I received, but it is typewritten again, and I’m not 
sure whether it is the same.

Q. Read it and see if you recall having received a letter 
like that, Mr. Registrar.

A. Counselor, I’d like to see the original that I did receive 
and make a comparison.

Q. You have the original if you received it.
A. You subpoenaed it.
Q. Look at it and see if it is the letter you received.



A, I’m not going to testify it is the letter I received, 
because, in substance, I think it is perhaps, but 
since it has been typewritten the second time I 
can’t say it is an exact copy. I don’t know.

Q. Where is the original? (To counsel opposites) Do you 
have it, Mr. Clark?

A. It is in a file on top of the file boxes in a file marked 
”J. H. Meredith” in the marshal’s office.

Q. Do you want to get it so you can identify that letter 
as a letter received by you?

BY MRS. MOTLEY? Your Honor, may he get those letters? 
BY THE COURTS Yes, Mr. Ellis, you may go get them.

(Witness does same.)

A. The exhibit you showed me here, a typewritten copy, is an 
exact copy as far as I can determine to the one that 
I received from J. H. Meredith dated January 31, 1961.

BY MR. CLARKs We object to the witness’ answer as 
assuming the fact, that it cannot be known to this 
witness that it was received from J. H* Meredith®
BY THE COURTS Yes, sustain the motion.
BY FIRS. MOTLEYS I don’t understand the objection.
BY THE COURTS Well, there is no evidence that J. H. 
Meredith ever wrote such a letter.

443



444

BY MRS. MOTLEYs He identified —
BY THE COURT? Hot as the plaintiff in this case. 
According to the ruling a while ago, what you had to 
do was put Meredith on the stand and show he wrote 
these letters. Mr. Ellis just received a letter 
through the mail, which would not indicate it is 
from the plaintiff in this case.
BY MRS. MOTLEY? Yes, but he did say it was a letter 
he received from J. H. Meredith.
BY MR. CLARKs That is what we objected to, “from 
J. H. Meredith,” as something not known to the wit­
ness.
BY THE COURTS As I understand the witness’ testimony 
it was a letter handed to him signed by J. H. Mere­
dith.

q . Did the plaintiff in this case write that letter to you? 
A. I don’t know. This is a letter which I received.
Q. From J. H. Meredith?
A. I assume it came from J. H. Meredith.

BY MR. CLARK? We object to what he assumes.
BY THE COURTS Sustain the objection.

Q. Do you want to look at it and see what it says?
A. I have already.



445

Q. Who does it say it is from?
A. The signature is J. H. Meredith.
Q. And a letter you received?
A. That is correct.

BY MRS. MOTLEYS We offer the original of this letter 
signed by J. H. Meredith and dated January 31st in 
evidence, and we also want to offer in evidence the 
first two letters identified by the registrar. The 
first one -—  1*11 take them off of here.

Q. Do you have the original of this letter? (Hands to wit­
ness)

A. I think so.

BY MRS. MOTLEYS The first is a letter from J. H. 
Meredith to the registrar.

Q. Is that a stamp from your office, Mr. Registrar, "Received 
January 26, f6l"?

A. It is.
BY MRS. MOTLEYs We*d like to offer this in evidence. 
BY MR. CLARK? To which we object on the ground no 
proper predicate has been laid for the introduction 
of this letter in evidence.
BY THE COURTS Sustain the objection.
BY MRS. MOTLEYS We»d like to offer in evidence a 
letter dated January 26, 1961, signed by Robert B.



446

Ellis, Registrar, to James H. Meredith.
Q. Is that your signature?
A. That is my signature,

BY MRS. MDTLEYs We’d like to offer that in evidence. 
BY THE COURTS Let 1 and 2 be marked.
BY M S .  MOTLEYS Can we have the letter which has the 
registrars stamp marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 
for Identification?
BY THE COURT? Yes, you may, or in such method as 
the court reporter uses for marking,

(Letter from J. H. Meredith marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 
1 for Identification.)
(Letter from Robert B. Ellis received in evidence and marked 
as Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 2. Same is not copied here, as it 
appears as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2 in the Transcript of Motion 
for Temporary Injunction, which is made a part of this record)

BY MR. CLARKs Your Honor’s ruling is that this let­
ter is not admitted in evidence, but simply for iden­
tification, as identified by this witness?
BY THE COURTS That’s right. It is not admitted in 
evidence, but identified until its authenticity is 
properly proved.



447

Q. The next is a letter dated January 31, 1961, signed by
J, H. Meredith. You remember this letter over here? 

A, Right.
Q. It is a letter received by you?
A. This is a letter that I received.
Q, Does it have your stamp on it?
A. No, it does not.
Q. Why doesn*t it have your stamp on it?
A. I don*t know.

BY MRS. MOTLEYS We*d like to offer this letter in 
evidence.
BY MR. CLARKs To which we object on the grounds 
previously assigned to Plaintiff*s Exhibit 1.
BY THE COURTS Sustain the objection.
BY MRS. MOTLEYS Mark that as Plaintiff*s Exhibit 3 
for Identification,

(Same was marked as Plaintiff*s Exhibit 3 for Identification)

Q. Let me show you this telegram to James H, Meredith and 
ask you if you sent that telegram to the plaintiff.

BY MR. CLARKs We object to whether he sent it to the 
plaintiff.
BY THE COURTS Sustain the objection.



44$

Q, Did you send this telegram to James H. Meredith?
A. Yes, I sent this telegram to J. H. Meredith*
Q, Let me show you this application and ask you if you re­

ceived this application.
A. Yes, 1 received this application.
Q. Was that application attached to this letter of January 

31, 1961?

BY MR. CLARKs Is the letter you have reference to 
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3 for Identification?
BY BflS. MOTLEYS That is right.

A. I think it was.

BY MR. CLARKS We object to what he thinks.
BY THE COURTS Sustain the objection to what he 
thinks.

A. I ’ll testify it came with the application.

BY MRS. MOTLEYS We’d like to offer the application 
of J. H. Meredith in evidence.
BY MR. CLARKs To which we object on the grounds 
assigned to Plaintiff’s Exhibits 1 and 3 for Identi­
fication.
BY THE COURTS Sustain the objection.



449

(Same was marked as Plaintiff*s Exhibit 4 for Identification)

BI MRS. MOTLEYS We’d like to offer the telegram sent 
by Robert B. Ellis to J. H. Meredith dated February 
4, 1961 in evidence.
BY THE COURTS Let it be marked.

(Same received in evidence and marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 
No. 5. Same is not copied here as it appears as Exhibit No.
5 in Transcript of Motion for Temporary Injunction which is 
made a part of this record.)

BY MR. CLARKs I wondered if the offer was as a tele­
gram sent to the plaintiff Meredith.
BY THE COURTS I sustained the objection to that 
question. Then she asked if he sent that telegram, 
and he said he did. So now she is offering it in 
evidence, and I am admitting that in evidence.
BY MRS. MOTLEYS We’d like to offer the application 
for identification.
(Same previously marked for identification)

Q. Do you have the original of this letter of February 20, 
1961 with you?

(Hands to counsel)
Q. Is that a letter you received from J. H. Meredith?



450

A. It is a letter which I received and it contains a signa­
ture "J. H. Meredith.1’

Q. Does it have your stamp on it?
A. It does.

BI MRS. MOTLEY? We’d like to offer the letter dated 
February 20, 1961 in evidence,
BY MR, CLARK? Same objection as the previous objec­
tion.
BY THE COURTS Sustain the objection.
BY MRS. MOTLEY? We’d like to have it marked as 
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6 for Identification.

(Same marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6 for Identification.5

Q. I show you a letter dated February 21, 1961 and ask you 
if you can identify that letter, Mr. Ellis.

A. Yes, this is a letter which appeared in my office February 
21st and contains my signature,

BY MRS. MOTLEYS We’d like to offer this letter in 
evidence.
BY THE COURTS Let it be marked.

(Same received in evidence as Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. ?•
Same is not copied here as it appears as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 
g in Transcript of Motion for Temporary Injunction, which is



451

made a part of this record.)

Q. Do you have the original of this letter of February 21st? 
A. This is a letter dated February 23rd.
Q. This letter dated February 23rd is signed by whom?
A. It contains the signature "J. H. Meredith."
Q. Does it have your stamp on it?
A. It does.

BY MRS. MOTLEYS We’d like to offer this in evidence. 
BY MR. CLARKs To which we object on the same ground. 
BY THE COURTS Sustain the objection.
BY MRS. MDTLEYs I’d like it marked as Plaintiff’s 
Exhibit $ for Identification.

(Same marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibit & for Identification.)

Q. This letter dated March IS, 1961, signed by J. H. Mere­
dith, does that have your stamp on it?

BY MR. CLARKs We object to questions posed to the 
witness "signed by J. H. Meredith."
BY MRS. MOTLEYS The letter speaks for itself, Mr. 
Clark.
BY THE COURTS I’ll overrule the objection assuming, 
although It has not been shown it was signed by him,



452

it bears his signature, I overrule the objection.

A. This is a letter dated IS March, 1961 to me, with a date 
stamp indicating it was received in my office, which 
contains the signature !SJ. H. Meredith.”

Q. Is that your stamp?
A. It is the stamp used in my office,

BY MRS. MOTLEY? We’d like to offer this in evidence, 
BY MR. CLARK? We make the same objection.
BY THE COURT? Sustain the objection.
BY MRS, MOTLEY? We’d like it marked for identifica­
tion as Plaintiff’s 9.

(Same marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 9 for Identification)

Q, I show you this letter dated March 26, 1951, signed by 
J. H. Meredith, and five letters attached thereto 
also dated March 26, 1961, the first one being signed 
by S. L. Brown? the second by L. L. Keaton! the third 
by Lannie Meredith? the fourth by Milton Burt? and 
the fifth by Henry Newell. I ask you whether you 
received this letter signed by J. H. Meredith and the 
five letters attached in your office.

BY MR. CLARK? We object to the question. We would



453

like to have a continuing objection to all of coun­

sel’s questions framed as "letters signed by" a par­

ticularly named individual. She says the letters 

speak for themselves. If they do, we think she ought 

to hand them to the witness without putting in the 

record so many clearly not in the record at this time. 

BY THE COURTS Sustain the objection. There is no 

evidence showing it was signed by any of those 
parties. The documents bear the signatures, but she 

could change the question to "bearing the signature 

of" these parties or purporting to be by them, and 

it would obviate that particular phrase. The ques­

tion as drafted assumes they were actually signed 

by those people, whereas it could be a disputed ques­

tion of fact.

Q. Do you recognize those as letters received in your office? 

A. Yes.
Q. Do they have your stamp?

A. Yes, they contain my office stamp.

BY MRS. MOTLEY? We would like to offer these as one 

exhibit, Your Honor, in evidence.
BY MR, CLARK? We object to the offer on the previous 

ground♦
BY THE COURT? Sustain the objection to acceptance in



454

evidence, but let them be marked for identification 
as one exhibit.

(Same were marked as Plaintiff*s Exhibit No. 10 for Identi­
fication. )

Q, Let me show you a letter dated April 12, 1961, to Dr.
Arthur Beverly Lewis and ask you if you have ever seen 
a copy of that letter or the original?

A. This you have shown me is a copy. I have seen the origi­
nal.

BY MRS. MOTLEYs We’d like to offer the copy of this 
letter dated April 12, 1961 to Dr. Arthur Lewis in 
evidence.
BY MR. CLARK? To which we make the same ground of the 
objection before, plus the additional ground that 
this is the copy and not the original.
BY MRS. MOTLEY? We’d like to have this marked for 
identification as Plaintiff’s -—
BY MR. CLARKs —  Let me complete my objection. No 
offer has been made of the original and no attempt 
to show the original is missing and lost, and we 
object on the best evidence rule, in addition to the 
other ground.
BY THE COURT? Sustain the objection.



455

BY MRS. MOTLEYS We’d like to have it marked for 
identification as Plaintiff’s 11.
BY THE COURT; Let it be so marked.

(Same marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 11 for Identification)

Q. I show you a letter dated May 9, 1961 addressed to J. H. 
Meredith and ask you if that is a letter containing 
your signature.

A. Yes, it is a letter containing my signature.

BY MRS. MOTLEY; We’d like to offer this letter of 
May 9th in evidence.
BY MR. CLARK; We object to this letter because no 
sufficient indication has been made that it was ever 
sent to the plaintiff in this cause or sent to any­
one connected with this cause.
BY THE COURT; I think that will go to the weight of 
the evidence, rather than its admissibility. The 
registrar admits having mailed that letter, so I 
think it will be received in evidence.
BY MRS. MOTLEY; This one is Plaintiff’s Exhibit 12.

(Same received in evidence and marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 
No. 12. Same is not copied here as it appears as Exhibit 21 
in Transcript of Motion for Temporary Injunction, which is



45 6

made a part of this record.)

Q, I show you a letter dated May 15, 1961, signed by J. H. 
Meredith and ask you if that is your registrar’s 
stamp on it.
BY 3®. CLARK? We make the same objection to that 
question as made to the previous questions framed in 
the same language.
BY THE COURT? Overrule that objection.

A. This is a letter dated May 15th addressed to me in my 
capacity as registrar. It contains what purports 
to be the signature of J. H. Meredith. It does con­
tain the date stamp of my office.

Q. And that indicates you received it? Right?
A. That is right.

BY MRS. MOTLEY? We’d like to offer this letter of 
May 15th in evidence.
BY MR. CLARK? To which we make the same objection 
previously made.
BY THE COURT? Sustain the objection.
BY MRS. MOTLEY? We’d like to have it marked as 
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 13 for Identification.
BY THE COURT? Let it be so marked.

(Same marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibit No, 13 for Identification)



457

Q. I show you a letter dated May 21, 1961, signed by a J. H.
Meredith and ask you if you received that letter.

A. This is a letter received in my office. It contains 
what appears to be a signature for J. H. Meredith.

BY MRS. MOTLEIs We’d like to offer this letter of 
May 21st in evidence.
BY MR. CLARKs To which we make the same objection.
BY MRS. MOTLEYs We’d like it marked as Plaintiff’s 
14 for Identification.
BY THE COURTS Let it be so marked.

(Same marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 14 for Identification)

Q. I show you a letter dated May 25, 1961 and ask you if 
your signature appears on that letter.

A, Yes, it does.

BY MRS. MOTLEYS We’d like to offer this letter of 
May 21, 1961 in evidence.
BY MR. CLARKs We make the objection the letter has 
not been sufficiently identified to be admitted in 
evidence.
BY THE COURTS Overrule the objection.

(Same received in evidence and marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibit



453

No. 15. Same is not copied here as it appears as Plaintiff*s 
Exhibit 27 in the Transcript of Motion for Temporary Injunc­
tion, which is made a part of this record. )

Q. I*d like to show you Plaintiff * s Exhibit 12, Mr. Ellis,
which is a letter of May 9, 1961, bearing a signature 
to J. H. Meredith, and ask you to explain what you 
meant when you wrote to J. H. Meredith that he would 
receive forty-eight hours credit on being transferred 
to the University of Mississippi if he were accepted 
for admission.

BY ME. CLARKs We object to the witness explaining 
the letter. The letter speaks for itself.
BY THE COURT! Overrule the objection.

A. Well, I simply meant that at this preliminary stage the 
maximum credit which we might allow is forty-eight 
semester hours. I think the letter speaks for itself. 

Q. What did you mean by ninety hours being offered?
A. The accumulation of all the credits on all of the records 

submitted —

BY MR. CLARK?Just a minute. We now renew our objec­
tion to this line of questioning of this witness, for 
he obviously is going outside of anything in this



459

record at this time. He is testifying about credits 
that have been submitted and there is no evidence in 
this record any credits were submitted, and the only 
form of identification these things have at this time 
is for identification —  which has been expressly 
ruled by the Court.
BY THE COURT? Sustain the objection.

Q. I show you a document and ask you if you can identify 
this. {Hands to witness)

A » Yes.
Q. What is it?
A. This is a -—

BY MR. CLARK? Object to the witness testifying 
on an instrument not in evidence.
BY MRS. MOTLEY? I asked him to identify it.
BY MR. CLARK? I thought you asked him what was in it. 
BY THE COURT? I will let him answer the question, 
can he identify it.

A. This is what we accepted as a transcript of credits 
from —

BY MR. CLARK? Your Honor, we object to him testi­
fying what he accepted it as or what it was or what 
it is. The question put to the witness is, nCan you



460

Identify this?” I don’t think his answer is respon­
sive and move it be striken from the record.
BY THE COURTS Sustain the motion.
BY MRS. MOTLEYs Well, I frankly don’t understand the 
objection.
BY THE COURTS Well, Counsel, I will be glad to ex­
plain it to you. There is nothing in this record on 
this trial which would show who J. H. Meredith is, 
whether he ever wrote any of these letters, whether 
he ever sent the documents in which he was claiming 
credits or sought to ask credits for, and that is 
the same objection that was raised in the trial for 
the preliminary injunction, and you thereupon placed 
Meredith on the stand and proceeded in that way and 
then got to your documents in evidence. When we 
started out this morning on that phase of it, I told 
you there were two ways you could do it. His former 
testimony could be introduced in evidence and that 
would then be a part of this hearing on this trial 
upon the merits, but unless that is done or unless 
Meredith is placed on the stand and identifies the 
documents that he sent, then they are not competent 
at this stage of the proceeding.
BY MRS. MOTLEYs I am asking this witness to identify 
documents which he received.
BY MR. CLARKs Our objection is not to the witness



461

identifying the documents, but to his testifying into 
the record as to their contents before they are a 
part of the record.
BY THE COURT? That is right. That is the objection 
I sustain. He has admitted that he received it, 
but what it is and its contents are not admitted until 
that is first gotten into evidence.
BY MRS* MOTLEYs This witness is a party, and under 
Rule 43 we can call a party, adverse party, and 
examine him and cross examine, and so forth. I don’t 
understand this kind of limitation on an examination 
of the witness under Rule 43.
BY THE COURT? Well, you can examine him and lead 
him and cross examine, but it doesn’t mean you can 
get incompetent evidence in. That rule doesn’t re­
quire that. What you cross examine him about must 
be relevant, and before it is admissible its identity 
must be shown by someone having knowledge of it, 
and you can very easily make it admissible if you 
want to by placing your plaintiff on the stand.
BY MRS. MOTLEY? Well, we think it is admissible be­
cause he has identified it as something which he re­
ceived in his office.
BY THE COURT? You may offer it, but I sustain the 
objection and will adhere to that ruling. I think 
it is correct.



462

BI MR. CLARK? I want to know for sure what the wit­
ness has in his hand. Is this something that has 
previously been offered and marked for identification? 
BY THE COURTS Look at it and see.
BY MR. CLARK? I believe the instrument that the wit­
ness now holds shows that this particular instrument 
has not been offered in any form here in this pro­
ceeding now, but that doesnft make us withdraw our 
objection that this witness can do any more than iden­
tify it at this time.
BY THE COURTS Sustain the objection to the last 
question. So you may proceed with the next question. 
However, I believe we will take a ten minute recess 
at this point.

(Whereupon the court was recessed for ten minutes)

After Recess
BY MRS. MOTLEYS May it please the Court, in view of 
the difficulty which we are having with the testimony 
of this witness and the limitations on our examina­
tion, we would like to move to strike all the testi­
mony this morning and to offer in evidence the testi­
mony and exhibits on the previous preliminary hearing 
in this case.
BY THE COURT? What testimony? You mean all the 
testimony?



463

BY MRS. MOTLEY? All the testimony of this witness 
on his direct examination by us.
BY THE COURTS I will overrule that motion. The wit” 
ness is present here to testify and has testified, so 
I don’t think under the Rules when he is present and 
ready to testify that —  Unless it is by consent.
BY MRS. MOTLEYS Well, I am going back to what Your 
Honor said this morning, that we could do this one of 
two ways —  either by putting in the previous testi­
mony or —
BY THE COURTS You misunderstood me. I thought I 
made it clear. The testimony of James Meredith. Or 
you could offer James Meredith as a witness and prove 
that he sent these documents about which you ques­
tioned this witness.
BY MRS.MOTLEls I see what Your Honor means. What I 
am trying to avoid is going through this identifica­
tion of these exhibits again. We were trying to make 
the record more intelligible, and it seems impossible 
to get an intelligible record here? so we would want 
to offer the testimony of Meredith whereby these 
exhibits were previously identified. I was thinking 
that this witness identified those records before, 
but it was the plaintiff. I’m sorry.
BY MR. CLARK? We move that counsel’s remarks in re­
gard to ability to make an intelligent record either



464

be restricted to her lack of ability or be withdrawn 
as an insult to this Court.
BY MRS, MOTLEY? This is restricted to ray lack of 
ability.
BY THE COURTS Overrule the motion. Counsel can say 
anything in the record she desires, and I am cer­
tainly going to give her full opportunity to make 
her record and get everything in. That is the reason 
I tried to explain to her how she could do it. She 
didn’t understand immediately, but now she does. As 
I understand it, you are now offering in evidence 
the testimony of James Meredith that was given on the 
hearing for the application for a preliminary injunc­
tion?
BY MRS. MOTLEY? That is right, at which time these 
exhibits 1 through 2? were identified.
BY MR. CLARK? We object to any partial story. If the 
record that was made before this Court on the prelimi­
nary injunction has any bearing on the issues here, 
we think that all of that record ought to be offered. 
We are not saying at this time that it can be offered 
with our consent.
BY THE COURT? She offered all the testimony of 
Meredith.
BY MRS, MOTLEY? That is right.
BY MR. CLARK? And all the exhibits to his testimony?



465

BX MRS. MOTLEYs We just said that, Mr. Clark.
BX MR. CLARK; Is it the exhibits both on direct and 
cross examination that is in your offer?
BY MRS. MOTLEY; No, we got these exhibits in on his 
direct examination.
BY MR. CLARK; I want to know what the offer consists
of.
BY MRS. MOTLEY; We are trying to get in these ex­
hibits that you won’t let us get in, and we are now 
offering them by offering the testimony of the plain­
tiff on the preliminary hearing.
BY THE COURT; Counsel, what he is asking is whether 
you are also offering the exhibits that were offered 
by the defendants under the testimony of Meredith 
while he was on the stand. Do you include those?
BY MRS. MOTLEY; No, just on his direct examination. 
BY THE COURT; Very well. I will overrule —  Did 
I understand you objected to the introduction of that 
testimony?
BY MR. CLARK; Your Honor, I don’t believe a ruling 
has been made. She has offered his entire testimony 
on the preliminary injunction, and as I understand 
it now she is additionally offering all of the ex­
hibits that she introduced by him; and if that is my 
understanding, I don’t withdraw my objection. But I 
have no further remarks for clarification.



466

BY THE COURT? I wasn’t sure whether you objected to 
that or not. I overrule the objection. I think that 
is permissible under the Rules, and with your reser­
vations and the right to you to further cross examine 
the plaintiff since this is a trial on the final 
merits of the cases but I think that the testimony 
that he gave on the former hearing and the exhibits 
which were introduced at that time are competent. So 
to that extent and with that reservation, I overrule 
the objection.
BY MR. CLARKs We just don’t understand that is what 
was being offered in the way of exhibits. I am sure 
of what counsel intends to offer, which is all of the 
testimony of James Howard Meredith on the different 
hearings that took place on the preliminary injunction 
in this cause, both on direct and cross examination, 
but I understand she wants to limit her offer as far 
as the exhibits are concerned to only certain of 
those exhibits.
BY THE COURTS X think she can do that, and I over­
rule the objection to that and give you the right 
when it comes your turn to offer the exhibits that 
were introduced under his testimony by the defendant. 
And you can give all of that an exhibit number, and 
there is, I guess, a complete copy of all the testi­
mony in the file.



467

BY MRS. MOTLEYs Yes, there is. This was taken, 
as I recall, on June 12th in Gulfport when the plain­
tiff was on the stand, and the exhibits we have 
reference to were then marked Plaintifffs Exhibits 
1 through 27, and what we would like to do is strike 
the markings that were made on those this morning 
and just re-offer those 1 through 27 and his testi­
mony with respect thereto.
BY THE COURT? As I understood you a while ago, you 
offered all the testimony that \i?as given by James 
Meredith on whatever hearings may have been heard, 
together with all the exhibits that were introduced 
by the plaintiff under that testimony without limiting 
it to any particular dates.
BY MRS. MOTLEY? We did. We don't need at this 
point in the testimony anything more than that first 
day of testimony where he identified these exhibits 
because I want to examine the registrar now as to 
those exhibits. Now, later on it may be that we will 
need to offer some other testimony of the plaintiff.
BY THE COURT? Well, you had already offered it all. 
The record is very clear in my mind that you offered 
all the testimony and all exhibits that you intro­
duced on any hearing under the testimony of Meredith 
that were offered by you, but declined to offer the 
exhibits that were introduced by the defendants while



4 6 8

they had him on cross examination.
BY MRS. MOTLEIs That is right.
BY THE COURTS All right then. I will overrule the 
objection of the defendants to the introduction of 
the record of that testimony and the exhibits that 
were introduced by the plaintiff under that testi­
mony, and that includes all the testimony of Meredith 
that was taken at any time on the hearing of the 
Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.
BY MRS. MOTLEYs That is right. I understand that.
BY THE COURTS And I will let the exhibits be re­
turned that have been introduced this morning and 
included, as well as those that were excluded and 
be again attached together and given the same numbers 
that they were given when they were introduced as 
evidence on the various hearings when the plaintiff 
was on the stand. Is that clear to everybody?
BY MR. CLARKs Except for the marking of the previous 
record. Does Your Honor care to have that done any 
way except by reference?
BY THE COURTS By reference is sufficient. I think 
by reference to the previous markings of the exhibits 
is sufficient —  given identically the same numbers 
as they had at that time.
BY MR. CLARKs I meant with regard to the testimony 
of the witnesses that did support the introductions.



4 6 9

Does Your Honor want simply to have the court re­
porter’s notes incorporate that as an exhibit by 
reference or does Your Honor intend for the court 
reporter to try to separate that transcript and mark 
it as some type of exhibit now?
BY THE COURTS I think it would be wise to get all 
the testimony that James Meredith gave and mark it 
as an exhibit or at least the volumes in which it 
was contained —  not necessarily separate it at this 
time —  but if it is in more than one volume, then 
every volume which contains any of the testimony of 
the plaintiff himself. That volume should be marked 
as to including only the testimony of James Mere­
dith.
BY MRS. MOTLEY? I think we have the testimony of 
the plaintiff straight now. Apparently somebody has 
put this all in one volume, and it appears that the 
plaintiff’s testimony begins on page 12 of this 
volume. It says, "Filed September 20, 1961" and is 
signed by Loryce E. Wharton, the clerk. It is pages 
12 to 225.

(Same received in evidence and marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 
No. 16. Same is not copied here as it appears as a part 
of Transcript of Motion for Temporary Injunction, which is 
made a part of this record.)



4 7 0

BY MRS. MOTLEYs Now, in addition we would like to 
offer in evidence the testimony of this witness with 
respect to Plaintiff’s Exhibits 45, 46, 47 and 46 of 
the previous hearing.
BY THE COURTS Does that include all of his testimony? 
BY MRS. MOTLEYS With respect to these particular 
exhibits.
BY MR, CLARKs We object because the entire testimony 
of the witness is not offered, and again I think 
that aside from our objection to its lacking uni­
formity, it would also be better for this record if 
the other proceedings were introduced or not —  and 
I don’t mean to consent to the introduction of the 
record —  but we are going to specifically assign, in 
addition to our general objection, we specifically 
object to the introduction of only a part of the re­
cord and, in addition to that, only a part of the 
testimony of the witness in that record.
BY THE COURTS This witness is a defendant, isn’t he? 
BY MRS. MOTLEYS That is right.
BY THE COURTS I am going to overrule the objection to 
this extents While Rule 26 provides for taking of 
depositions and while this was not taken in a sense 
as a deposition but was testimony taken in open court, 
wherein the defendant was present and represented,and 
was given as testimony, Rule 26 subdivision,paragraph



4 7 1

two thereof provides that the deposition of a party 
or of anyone who at the time of the taking of the 
deposition of an officer, and so forth, which is a 
party, "may be used by an adverse party for any pur­
pose." Paragraph 4, "If only a part of the deposi­
tion is offered in evidence by a party, an adverse 
party may require him to introduce all of it which is 
relevant to the part introduced and any party may 
introduce any other part." So I will let her intro­
duce that on condition that any other part of it that 
is relevant to the part that is introduced would be 
considered as introduced by her.
BY MR. CLARKs Counsel, would you tell me the pages 
to which you have reference in the prior transcript 
which you desire to now introduce that accompany 
these exhibits?
BY MRS. MOTLEY; Yes. It is the testimony of the 
registrar regarding the transcripts received from 
various colleges by the plaintiff. The exact pages 
I don’t have, but it is contained in the record.
BY MR, CLARK; It is important the exact pages be 
known. I only know of the reference to page 259 and 
260 and 261, and if there was any other attempt to 
offer these exhibits into the previous record, I am 
just not aware of it. I don’t know whether it 
exists or not, but I wish counsel would point it out



4 7 2

because at that particular offer, the offer of these 
instruments in evidence was objected to.
BI MRS. MDTLEYs You know as well as we do that those 
were subsequently received in evidence, and it is 
here in the record. I think to simplify this, we 
had better introduce the whole, because we will be 
here until next week trying to find these pages in 
the record. We are now offering the entire testimony 
of the previous hearing in evidence with all the 
exhibits by the plaintiffs and the defendants and 
anybody else.
BY THE COURTS You mean the testimony of this wit­
ness, Mr. Ellis?
BY MRS. MOTLEY? Yes, all the testimony on the 
previous hearing.
BY MR. CLARKs She said all the testimony, all ex­
hibits, both plaintiff»s and defendants*. We con­
tinue our objection, for the record, to this offer,
BY MRS. MOTLEYS You are objecting now to offering 
everything you said we ought to offer.
BY MR. CLARKs Counsel, I did not try to tell you 
how to try your lawsuit. X said to the Court X ob­
jected on several grounds when we started out to 
offer the exhibits out of this record, and I want 
the Court and the record to clearly show we don’t 
withdraw in any wise from our objection to the offer



4 7 3

of the previous testimony on the preliminary injunc­
tion. We make that statement into the record of this 
cause. What ruling the Court wants to make —
BY THE COURTS I will take them one at a time. I 
will let her introduce all of the testimony of all 
the defendants and all the exhibits that were intro­
duced and received in evidence under that testimony. 
But if there were witnesses other than the defendants 
whose testimony was taken, then that testimony would 
not be admissible under the Rule. Now, that is the 
way I conceive the law to be, Mr. Clark, and if you 
want to be heard on it, X will hear you.
BY MR. CLARK? We object from a standpoint of the 
record of having all the defendants. In other words, 
we want the record to show that we don’t by agree­
ment allow the record on the preliminary injunction 
to become part of the record here, but we do object 
to any offer of counsel of a part of the former 
hearing. We think that if the Court is going to 
rule it admissible, it ought to rule it admissible 
in toto. And this is the ground of the objection we 
made and the only ground. We don’t object to her 
offering the entire volume and all the exhibits, 
both plaintiff’s and defendants’, which we under­
stood her offer to encompass, on that ground of 
picking something out, but don’t want the record to



4 7 4

show we consent to offering it at this time,
BY THE COURTS As I understand counsel, she has 
offered all of the evidence of all the witnesses 
that was taken at any and all of the hearings for 
application for a preliminary injunction, and objec­
tion is made to that and I will overrule the objec­
tion to the extent that I will hold the testimony of 
all the parties to the lawsuit whose testimony was 
taken is admissible under the Rules of Civil Proce­
dure, Rule 26, Paragraph D, subdivision. --- And it
occurs to me, in order to keep this record straight, 
probably you ought to specifically name the parties 
whose testimony you are actually introducing. Other­
wise it would be upon the court reporter or the 
clerk to search out all of it.
BY MRS. MOTLEYS We would like to offer the testimony 
of the plaintiff and the testimony of the present 
witness, Mr. Ellis. I think those were the only 
people who testified before, and —  Didn’t you testi­
fy, Mr. Clark? Mr. Clark testified briefly. ---
Oh, you say just the parties. Well, those two are 
the only parties.
BY THE COURTS The only way his testimony would be 
competent is by consent.
BY MRS. MOTLEYs Those are the only two parties.
That takes care of those two.
BY MR. CLARKs I say this, as far as the objection



475

and the ruling is concerned^ I will withdraw my 
objection to the introduction of the record as a 
whole, because I believe it is important to the 
extent that I will withdraw my objection to her 
offering testimony not of the parties. In other
words, if she wants to put the whole thing in ---
BY MRS. MOTLEYs We are only offering it as to 
parties, Mr. Clark.
BY THE COURTS Wow, do I understand, Counsel, that 
you then are withdrawing the offer of all of it 
except that as to the parties?
BY MRS. MOTLEYS As to parties, yes, sir.
BY MR. CLARKs Let the record note our objection 
continues as to that, subject to Your Honor’s ruling. 
BY MRS. MOTLEYs As Your Honor pointed out, we 
couldn’t offer the testimony, under Rule 26 D, of 
the witness. We could only offer the testimony of 
the adverse parties.
BY THE COURTS You could by consent. Mr. Clark ob­
jected, and then he withdrew his objection.
BY MR. CLARKs I consent only as to the non-parties. 
BY THE COURTS Non-parties. That is what I under­
stand .
BY MRS. MOTLEYS Well, we don’t want the non- 
parties’ testimony.



4 7 6

{Same was received in evidence and marked as Plaintiff1s 
Exhibit No. 17. Same is not copied here as it appears in 
the Transcript of Motion for Temporary Injunction, which is 
made a part of this record.)

BY MRS. MOTLEYS May I proceed?
BY THE COURT? Yes, if you are ready, you may pro­
ceed.

(Examination of Mr. Ellis continues?)
Q, Mr, Ellis, I would like to show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 

21, which is the number from the previous hearing, 
which is a letter dated May 9, 1961, and ask you to 
explain what you meant when you wrote the plaintiff 
or J, H. Meredith, as indicated there, that he would 
receive 46 hours credit upon being transferred to 
the University of Mississippi if his application were 
accepted.

BY MR. CLARK? We renew our objection to the witness 
explaining the document.
BY THE COURT? Overrule the objection.

A. Counsel, I think the letter speaks for itself. I will 
be glad to read what I said.

Q. No, you don’t have to read it. Just explain the 48

hours. I show you Plaintiff’s Exhibits 45 through 46



4 7 7

which are the transcripts which you received, aren’t 
they? And I ask you to explain that letter.

BY MR. CLARK; It is our contention —  statement of 
counsel to the contrary and notwithstanding —  that 
these instruments when previously offered on the 
Motion for Preliminary Injunction were objected to 
and were not admitted in evidence. Now, if counsel 
will enlighten me as to where they were later admit­
ted in evidence --- But it is my best impression in
my statement to this Court at this time that they 
did not become a part of the evidence in the former 
hearing.
BY MRS. MOTLEY; They are marked in evidence, Your 
Honor.
BY THE COURT; Can you point out in the record where 
they were actually admitted?
BY MRS. MOTLEY; Mr. Bell will do that. We’ll find 
it, but Your Honor will recall we originally offered 
those and Your Honor would not permit them in evidence. 
The next day we asked the registrar whether this was 
his stamp and whether these were acceptable to him and 
he said yes, and we reoffered them and Your Honor 
changed his ruling, and we reoffered those in evi­
dence.
BY THE COURT; Let me see those. It is Page 362, and



4 7 3

it says, "Plaintiff’s Exhibits 45, 46, 47 and 43 for 
Identification, respectively, were received in evi­
dence. n
BY MR. CLARK? I stand corrected. I did not know 
those were admitted in evidence.
BY THE COURT? Very well.

A. Could I have the question repeated?
(The last question was read)
A. Counsel, here on the witness stand with the transcripts 

in my hand, I am not in a position to tell you 
exactly which 43 hours would be transferred to the 
University of Mississippi. The process of preparing 
and evaluation is something that requires pencil and 
paper and time, and after I had gone through this 
process, giving very careful attention to all of the 
records in my possession, I came up with this tenta­
tive evaluation of hours that would be approved.

Q. Was that evaluation based on the four transcripts which 
you have in your hand?

A. Yes, it was. It was based on all of the transcripts 
which we had on file.

Q. Are those the four in your hand?
A. They are.
Q. Now, I show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 27, which is a letter 

dated May 25, 1961, signed by you and addressed to



4 7 9

the plaintiff, Janies H. Meredith, and I direct your 
attention to the paragraph -which says, "Furthermore, 
students may not be accepted by the University from 
those institutions -whose programs are not recognized." 
And I ask you to explain that sentence.

BY ME. CLARK? We object to his explaining.
BY THE COURTS Overrule the objection.

A. There is a policy of the University which precludes our 
acceptance — —

BY MR. CLARKS —  We object to his testifying what the 
policy of the University is without showing his 
authority to establish policy. If the policy is in 
evidence, it is the best evidence.
BY MRS. MOTLEYS He testified this morning it was 
part of his duties to carry out the admission poli­
cies.
BY THE COURTS Overrule the objection.

A. It is a policy of the University which requires that
students may not be accepted or cannot be accepted 
if the programs which they have taken at other insti­
tutions are not recognized.

Q. By whom?



4S0

A. By the University.
Q. What does that mean* !,not recognized by the University”?
A. It just means it doesn*t make very much sense to accept 

students whose credits can*t be recognized.
Q. Well, what makes the credits unrecognizable to the Uni­

versity?
A. There can be a variety of reasons.
Q. What were the reasons in this case?

BY MR. CLARK? We object to the witness5 answer 
unless this also is encompassed in his duty to de­
termine what qualifications hours of credit must have 
to be admissible.
BY THE COURTS Yes, unless he knows of his own know­
ledge and it is within his duties, but I will let him 
answer the question with that admonition.

A. May I have the question again?
(The last question was read)
A. In this particular application, the applicant sought to 

transfer from an institution which is not a member 
of the Southern Association of Colleges and Secondary 
Schools.

Q. All right. Let me direct your attention to the next
sentence which says, nAs I am sure you realize, your 
application does not meet other requirements for



481

admission.” What did you mean by that sentence?
A. Well, the student hadn*t submitted a complete applica­

tion. His letters of recommendation did not meet 
the requirements of the University for either a 
resident or non-resident. Further, the student had 
not bothered to keep us supplied or to supply us 
with a completed record of his credits at Jackson 
State College.

Q. Any other reasons?
A. May I see the letter?
Q. Just with reference to that sentence.
A. With reference to this sentence here?
Q. Thatfs right, which I just read.
A. "Other requirements for admission"?
Q» That's right,
A. I think that is all I care to say.
Q. Let me direct your attention to the sentence which says, 

"I see no need for mentioning any other deficiencies" 
and I ask you to explain that.

A. Yes. At the time I received the application, it struck 
me that there were reasons to believe that this man 
was seeking admission as a resident when there was 
some evidence that he was not a resident. As I 
continued to consider the application material, it 
struck me as being a rather strange application, an 
unusual application, in that from my best knowledge



as advisor to veterans, this man was going to lose 
his benefits under Public Law 550 if he were to come 
to the University of Mississippi. Further, it struck 
me from the courses that X had received from him at 
this time that what he was trying to do was to make 
trouble at the University.

Q. What kind of trouble?
A. Heaven knows, I don’t.
Q. You made the statement he was trying to make trouble.

Now, let us know what trouble he was trying to make, 
in your opinion.

A. Well, I have indicated that this was a very unusual
application. It struck me the man was trying to be 
admitted to the University because he is a Negro.

Q. 0. K. That is all.

BY MRS. MOTLEYS Now, Your Honor, I think that’s all 
the questions I have for this witness except that 
we would like him during the recess to figure out 
these credits which he referred to in his letter of 
May 9th so that he could explain to the Court what 
those credits were.
BY THE COURTS Very well.
BY MRS. MOTLEYS Oh, just a minute, Your Honor, 

(continuing?)
Q. Did you bring the records which you were subpoenaed to



483

bring to this trial?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Are they here in the courtroom?
A, No, they are in the marshal*s office.

BY MRS. MOTLEYs We’d like to see those records, Your 
Honor, during the noon recess to see whether we want 
to introduce any of those in evidence.
BY THE COURTS What hours would you suggest?
BY MRS. MOTLEYS Whenever the luncheon recess is. We 
would like to look at those during luncheon recess.
BY THE COURTS Mr. Ellis, she has asked if during 
the noon recess you will figure how you arrived at 
those credits. How long will it take you to do that 
figuring, do you think?
BY THE WITNESSs Your Honor, I have in the Meredith 
folder, which was in my inactive file, a summary, and 
since I have brought it from the marshal’s office 
it is in my briefcase, and I’d be pleased to get it 
and provide that information at any time.
BY MRS. MOTLEYS Could he get it now?
BY THE COURTS What I was thinking of was the length 
of time we would adjourn. So that answers my ques­
tion on that. The Government may have any represen­
tative there, in addition to the marshal, for exami­
nation of the records, and if you have further



4 $ 4

questions now we will run until twelve o’clock*
BY MR. CLARKs Please let the record show we object 
to this examination of documents produced under the 
subpoena duces tecum.
BY THE COURTS Overrule the objection for reasons 
stated heretofore.
BY MRS. MOTLEYS I think that if you get those, we 
can put that in.

(continuing!)
q . Now, Mr. Ellis, are you prepared to state what you meant 

by your letter of May 9th that the plaintiff would 
receive 4$ semester hours credit of the 90 hours he 
was offering?

BY MR. CLARKs To which we object on the ground of 
repetition. Page 412 of the transcript now in evi­
dence on the preliminary injunction clearly, speci­
fically and exactly shows each hour of credit given 
and each institution from which plaintiff sought to 
transfer credits to the University of Mississippi, 
and it would be repetitious to go through it this 

time.
BY THE COURTS Overrule the objection.
BY MR. CLARKs We also object to the form of the 
question !,give credits,51 because I believe the letter



says it is an evaluation, and a tentative evaluation, 
at that.
BY THE COURT; Whatever the letter speaks for itself, 
1*11 ~

BY MRS. MOTLEY; Yes, sir.

Well, at the time the letter was written, we considered 
and consider the credits from the University of 
Kansas, the University of Maryland, as extension 
credits as opposed to residence work, and we have a 
policy which is found on Page 133 — * I have a foot­
note here on this —  our catalogue, which limits 
such credit to a maximum of 33 semester hours. So 
this meant that we would accept 6 hours from the 
University of Kansas. He presented 9 quarter hours, 
and that is equivalent to 6 semester hours. He pre­
sented quarter hours from Washburn Municipal Uni­
versity. This equivalates in terms of 3 semester 
hours which we would accept. He presented 46^ quar­
ter hours from the University of Maryland, which 
equivalates to 31 semester hours. And since the 
total of these is more than 33 hours, the maximum 
we could accept from the University of Maryland was 
24 semester hours. The transcript from Jackson 
State College has two recordings or listings of 
credit which was awarded or appears to be awarded



4 8 6

by Jackson State College for the college level 
General Educational Development test. We have a 
policy which is stated in our catalogue on Page $4 
which indicates that the University of JGssissippi 
does not recognize the General Educational Develop­
ment test, college level, for credit. On the trans­
cript from Jackson State College he presented one 
entry of 30 quarter hours, which would equivalate 
to 20 semester hours. The second entry, 27 quarter 
hours, which is the equivalent of 18 semester hours. 
On either of those we could accept no credit at the 
University. Then at that time Jackson State College 
—  At that time, the Jackson State College trans­
cript indicated 18 quarter hours as earned. Now, 
we had come to 33 semester hours, and the 18 quarter 
hours at Jackson College would be the equivalent of 
12, and that would make a total of 45. Now, 
Counselor, where that other 3 hours went, I don’t 
know at this moment.
BY MRS. MOTLEYs We’d like to offer this summary of 
credits of J. H. Meredith in evidence, Your Honor.
BY MR. CLARK? To which we object on the ground it is 
a tentative evaluation. It is this man’s rough notes 
to himself and can form no basis for any competent 
evidence in this court.
BY THE COURTS Overrule the objection, and I’ll let



4 3 7

a photostatic copy be substituted at a later time so 
that he may return that to his file.

(Same received in evidence and marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 
No. 13, and is as follows?)

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT NO. 13

19475

From;

SUMMARY OF CREDITS 
J. H. Meredith

Credits that
Credits Accepted could be accepted 
by Jackson by the
State College University_______

Qtr.Hrs. Sem.Hrs. Sem.Hrs.
University of Kansas 
(Extension) 9 6 6

Washburn Municipal 
University ui 3 3*1

University of Maryland 
(Extension) 46^ 31 24

G.E.D. Tests (College 
Level) May, 1956 30 20 0

G.E.D. Tests (College 
Level) April, 1954 27 13

*
0

Jackson State College 
(Fall Quarter) 18

412** 3__o*

Total Credit Accepted at 
State College as of 
2/6/61

Jackson 
13 5 22

Total Credit that Could be 
accepted by the University 21

*̂ " Considered as extension credit ** limited to maximum of 33



4 8 8

semester hours from such courses. (See Par 5c, Pg 133, 
Bulletin of the Univ. of Mss.)
*2 Credit not allowed. (See Par 4, Pg 34, Bulletin of the 
Univ. of Mss.)
#3 Credit not allowed. (See minutes of Committee on Admis­
sions, May 15, 1961, Par. 3.)

Student should have earned at least 36 quarter hours or
24 semester hours during winter and spring quarters. This 
record is not included on the transcript which we received 
February 7. 1961.

(Below handwritten?) .
Total credit accepted at Jackson State as of 2/6/61 135
Winter Qtr (estimated) 3.8
Spring Qtr (estimated) 3.8
Summer Qtr (estimated) -JLh.

Tot. est thru summer 1961 JUil

Tot Hrs Req?d for degree at Jackson State Jl$2

* * sjc * * & *

BI MR. CLARK? Would lour Honor give me the right to 
add additional objections when I examine the instru­

ment?
BY THE COURT? Yes.

(Mrs. Motley continues?)
Q. I believe that I asked you on the preliminary hearing



whether you discussed the plaintiff’s application 
with any member of the Board. Do you recall that?

A. No, I did not discuss it with any member —

BY ME. CLARK? We object to the witness commenting 
on the previous evidence, and besides that, the 
original testimony is in evidence.
BY THE COURT? Overrule the objection.

A. I did not discuss it with any members of the Board.
Q. I want to ask you now whether you discussed it with any 

other administrative official at the University of 
Mississippi.

BY MR. CLARK? We object to that unless she limits 
the capacity in which the discussion took place.
We again renew our objection to any gossip or conver­
sation about the campus. We think this is a case 
where state action has to be proven if any cause of 
action exists —  of course, which the defendants all 
deny.
BY THE COURT? Overrule the objection.

A. Yes.
Q. With whom did you discuss the plaintiff’s application?

BY ME. CLARK? May we have a continuing objection to

4 8 9



4 9 0

all questions that are not limited to official 
conversation or official action?
BY THE COURT? Yes, sir. Ifll limit it to the 
trustees or the deans or some of the officials of 
the University of Mississippi. Any general discus­
sion on the streets or anything with Tom, Dick and 
Harry would not be competent, but if you had any 
discussions with any of the members of the trustees 
or the officials of the University that have the 
power to act on applications or to have connections 
to the applications, I would overrule the objection. 
BY MR. CLARK? Does Your Honor overrule my objection 
to the extent that I further say it is objectionable 
unless these conversations had some official signifi­
cance to them and were not card party or tea party 
conversations. Regardless of whether they took 
place, I think they would have to be some sort of 
an official community or some sort of conversation or 
discussion that was intended to have an official 
influence on this man’s performance of his duties. 
That is where I think the objection lies in toto.
BY THE COURT? To that, I overrule the objection 
and hold it to the point that I have already ruled.

A. At the time that I became convinced that this person
was going to face the University with a lawsuit, I



4 9 1

took the matter to the attention of Mr. Clegg at 
the University.

Q, Who is Mr. Clegg? Please explain who these people are 
as you talk.

A. Mr. Hugh Clegg is the Director of Development and
Assistant to the Chancellor, and he in turn agreed 
that my thinking in the matter---

BY MR. CLARK? We object to what Mr. Clegg agreed to. 
BY THE COURT? Overrule the objection.

A. And then I discussed the matter with the Attorney- 
General’s office.

Q. Who in the Attorney-General’s office?
A. Mr. Shands, who is the Assistant Attorney-General.
Q. Did you discuss it with any other University officials 

other than Mr. Clegg?
A. After the lawsuit --

BY MR. CLARK? We object to any action that took 
place after the lawsuit was begun.

Q. This was before?
A. No.

BY MR CLARK? May we have a ruling on our objection? 
BY THE COURT? Sustain the objection as to any



4 9 2

discussions had after the lawsuit was filed.
Q. Did you discuss it with Dean Lewis?
A. Dr. Lewis and I had two occasions, I believe, to be in­

volved with this application. On one occasion I 
consulted him for advice in the evaluation of the 
transcripts. On another occasion when he had —  when 
Meredith had sent a letter to Dr. Lewis, Dr. Lewis 
telephoned me about it. I suggested that it be 
sent to me and the matter of the letter was discus­
sed at that time. That is the extent of my conver­
sations with Dr. Lewis on the matter.

Q. Did you discuss it with any other officials?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Did you discuss it with the Chancellor?
A. Well, after the lawsuit began, yes.
Q. Did you discuss it with the Vice-Chancellor?
A. No.
Q. Did you discuss it with the provost?
A. No.
Q. Did you attend the meeting at the campus last spring

after this application was received with the Univer­
sity officials at which time this application and 
the admission of a Negro was discussed?

A. I know of no such meeting.
Q. I asked you if you attended one.
A. If I didn’t know about it, I couldn’t attend it.



493

BY ME. CLARKS He has clearly testified he knew of 
no such meeting,
BY MRS. MOTLEYS He is on cross examination,
BY THE COURTS Sustain the objection to the form of 
the question, assuming that one was held. You can 
ask, but he has already answered that he didn’t know 
of any, so I think that answers the question.

Q. Did you ever receive any instructions from the Board with 
respect to the applications of Negroes for admission 
to the University?

A. Absolutely not.
Q. Did you ever discuss with the Board the admission of 

Negroes generally?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever discuss admissions of Negroes generally 

with the Chancellor?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever discuss the admission of Negroes generally 

with Dean Lewis?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever discuss the admission of Negroes generally 

with any of your staff in the registrar’s office?
A. No.

BY MRS.MQTLEX: That is all of this witness. 
(Whereupon the court recessed for the noon hour.)



4 9 4

After Recess
BY THE COURT? Any cross examination of this witness? 
BY MR. CLARKS Not at this time.
BY THE COURTS You may stand aside.

(Witness excused)

BY THE COURTS May I call your attention to the fact 
that Mr. Riddell was anxious to get his examination 
in if you could use him in your orderly procedure.
And I just got a message from Mr. Roberts that he 
got the circuit judge down there to suspend the 
trial of the case and he will be here at two o*clock. 
BY MRS. MOTLEYS Yes, we *11 try to do that.
BY MR. CLARKs The defendant Lowrey, a member of the 
Board of Trustees, asked if he might possibly be 
examined today. He*s the one that has the farming 
industry and needs to be back there tomorrow, if 
possible.
BY THE COURTS You understand, Counsel, we are not 
trying to control your method of procedure, and you 
may proceed as you desire, but that would be an 
accommodation to those gentlemen.
BY MRS. MOTLEYS Yes, 1*11 try to do that. We would 
like to continue with the examination of the records 
which we had this noon, and we have some people that



4 9 5

we acquired to do that while we proceed with the rest 
of the testimony.
BY MR. CLARKS I think there should be some clarifi­
cation. We would not consent to an examination of 
the records as though they were brought for the 
plaintiff’s perusal under discovery procedures. They 
were produced here at the command of this Court on 
subpoena duces tecum, and I think any questions she 
wants to put to Mr. Ellis about the records should 
be done while Mr. Ellis is a witness in this Court and 
on the witness stand. I don’t understand they were 
offered by the Court for inspection, but produced 
for the purpose of the trial. For that reason, we 
object at this time to that procedure suggested by 
counsel.
BY THE COURTS Overrule the objection. I held yes­
terday, I believe it was, that I would construe that 
as an application for the production of those docu­
ments that I stated to be brought down and I will 
let her continue with her inspection of the documents 
in the presence of some deputy marshal or some repre­
sentative of the defendant.
BY MR. CLARKs If Mr. Ellis is the designated repre­
sentative of the defendants, then we would like for 
the examination -- I think he is the man that should 
be designated for himself and the other defendants;



4 9 6

he is the man who brought the records and we would 
want such inspection to take place while he could be 
there with the records.
BY THE COURT! Well, X will excuse Mr. Ellis from the 
courtroom while that goes on, if that is satisfactory, 
and if you need to confer with him, I will suspend 
long enough for you to confer with him about anything 
that might arise. So, Mr. Marshal, you may make 
available the records in the marshal’s office,
BY M S .  MOTLEY! I think we will put Mr. Riddell on.

TALLY RIDDELL, called as a witness by the plaintiff and having
been duly sworn, testified as follows!

EXAMINATION BY MRS. MOTLEY!
Q. State your full name.
A. Tally D. Riddell.
Q. Are you a member of the Board of Trustees of State Insti­

tutions of Higher Learning in the State of 
Mississippi?

A. I am.
Q» How long have you been a member of the Board?
A. Since May, 1956.
Q» Has the Board ever discussed the application for admis­

sion of the plaintiff James Howard Meredith?
A. Never has.



4 9 7

BY MR. CLARK? Just a minute. We move the witness1 
answer be striken, and we object to the question for 
the reason that the Board is a body constituted 
regularly under the Constitution of the State of 
Mississippi. It is a minute-keeping organisation and 
can speak only through its minutes.
BY THE COURT? Overrule the objection.

Q, Never has discussed the application?
A. Before the lawsuit was tried. And never has discussed 

the lawsuit as a Board in an official session since 
the lawsuit was filed.

Q. Has the Board ever considered the admission of Negroes
to the University of Mississippi generally since you 
have been on the Board?

A, The Board has never had the question of any distinction 
between whites and nigras at any time at any insti­
tution since I been on the Board.

Q. Did you say "niggers'*?

BY MR. CLARK? —  May we have the continuing objec­
tion to this witness testifying about any procedure 
of the Board of Trustees on the same grounds that 
objection was made to the first question, and can 
that objection also include a motion to strike his 
answer just given?



BY THE COURT? Yes, sir. You can do that, and at 
the conclusion of the testimony you can have a motion 
and your standing objection. And P l l  overrule it, 
and you do not waive it by failure to renew the ob­
jection to the particular question.

(The last answer was read by the court reporter)
Q, In other words, since you have been on the Board, the 

Board has never discussed the admission of Negroes 
to the University of Mississippi?

A. Never had occasion to discuss admission of any race to 
the University.

Q. How about the other institutions of higher learning under 
its jurisdiction. Has it ever discussed admission of 
Negroes to any of the other institutions?

BY MR. CLARK? If the Court please —
BY THE COURT? —  Yes, sustain the objection. I will 
confine it to the University of Mississippi, to which 
this plaintiff made application.
BY MRS. MOTLEYS Well, as to that question, as we did 
yesterday, we would like to invoke the provisions of 
Rule 430 on the ground that the Complaint alleges 
that this Board has a policy which applies to all 
institutions of higher learning under its jurisdic­
tion. By this question we intend to show that the



4 9 9

Board has a policy of limiting certain institutions 
to whites and others to Negroes.
BY MR. CLARK? We object to counsel*s statement into 
the record, what she proposes to prove, and move it 
be striken from the record. We also object to pro­
cedure under Rule 43C for the reason that it is 
clearly irrelevant to any issue in this lawsuit.
BY THE COURTS Sustain the objection and sustain the 
motion, and the testimony will be confined to the 
applications or discussions with reference to students 
making application to the University of Mississippi. 
There would be unnecessary parties to any action of 
the other institutions in the state, and it would 
unduly prolong the trial of this caseg and it would 
be condemned under the doctrine of res — —  I can’t 
call the phrase —  things pertaining to other insti­
tutions and other affairs —  Res inter alios acto.

Q. Mr. Riddell, have you ever discussed the application of 
v this plaintiff with the registrar, Mr. Ellis?

A. I have not.
Q. Have you ever discussed the application of plaintiff with 

any other administrative official of the University?
A* I have not.
Q* Mr. Riddell, please, if you will ----

BY MR. CLARK? —  I object to that question because it



5 0 0

is not properly limited to action taken in his 
official capacity as a member of the Board of Trus­
tees, nor is it limited in time as to whether or not 
such discussions were made before or after litigation 
began.
BY MRS. MOTLEY? The question is limited to discus­
sions before the institution of this action, and T 
think the question was whether he had discussed it 
with any other administrative official of the Univer­
sity.
BY THE COURT? I carry the objection as standing to 
that and overrule it.

A. The question is whether there was discussion prior to 
the institution of the lawsuit?

Q. Yes, with any other officials of the University.
A. There was not.

BY MRS. MOTLEY? That is all the questions of this 
witness.
BY THE WITNESS? May I be finally excused?
BY MRS. MOTLEY? — Excuse me. May I ask one more 
question?
BY THE COURT? Yes.

Q» Are you an alumnus of the University?



5 0 1

A. I am.
Q, When did you attend school there?
A. 1927 until 1931.
Q, And you have been on the Board since ’51?

A. *56.
Q. Have you had any other connection with the University?
A. Well, other than various committees, alumni and other

organizations of the University. I have been active 
in those organizations through the years.

Q. Have you ever known any Negroes to be enrolled in the 
University of Mississippi?

A. I’m not able to answer that question. If you’ll tell me 
what you mean by Negro, I’ll try to answer it.

Q. Well, you know Negroes when you see them, don’t you?
A. I couldn’t say that I do always. Sometimes I think I do.
Q. In your observations of people, have you seen any who 

appear to be Negroes?
A. Through the years I have seen a number of people on the 

University campus —  I assume that is what you’re 
asking?

Q* That’s right.
A. —  and I’m making the answer as if you did ask it

who were all of all colorings, all -—  As to what 
their blood lines, anthropology is, I have no way of 
knowing.

Q* Can you name any you know of to be Negroes, of your own 
knowledge?



502

A. I can’t answer your question.
Q. I say, can you name any you know of your own knowledge 

to be Negroes?
A. 1 know people whose color is darker than yours and I 

don’t know.
Q. Do you know?
A. I don’t know what the blood line is. I’m not able to 

say whether they were or were not Negroes.
Q. I’m not asking you about those of which you are uncer­

tain. I ’m asking you about those as to which you 
are certain. Do you know any who were Negroes?

A. I’m not able to answer the question.
Q. In other words, you can’t name any? Is that right?
A. That wasn’t my answer.
Q. That is the question. Gan you name any?
A. The way you phrased the question and my former answer, 

it is impossible for me to do so. Over a period of 
35 years there have been thousands of students in the 
University. I have had contact with thousands, 
most of them casually. I’m not in a position to 
answer the question.

BY MRS. MOTLEYS That is all of this witness.
BY THE COURTS You may go, Mr. Riddell, and you are 
finally excused unless you are recalled.

(Witness excused)



503

BY MRS. MOTLEYS Is there some other Board member 
that wanted to get on?
BY MR. CLARKs Mr. Lowrey wanted to be used today.
He is not asking to be called as a witness, but he 
would like to be called today if you intend to use 
him.
BY MRS. MOTLEY? Yes, we intend to use him. Is he 
here?
BY MR. CLARKs Yes.

LEON LOWREY, called as a witness by the plaintiff and having 
been duly sworn, testified as followss

EXAMINATION BY MRS. MOTLEYS 
Q. State your full name.
A. Leon Lowrey. L-o-w-r-e-y. Leon Lowrey.
Q. Are you a member of the Board of Trustees, a defendant 

in this case?
A. Yes, I am a defendant in this case. I am a member of the 

Board of Trustees under the Labauve law.
Q. What law?
A. What they call a little Labauve trustee.
Q* How long have you been on the Board?
A* Slightly less than two years. In either May or June —  

I’ve forgotten which —  will be two years.
Q. Aj*e you an alumnus of the University of Mississippi?



5 0 4

A. No.
q. Prior to the filing of this lawsuit which was May, 1961, 

did you as a member of the Board discuss with the 
other members of the Board this application by the 
plaintiff for admission to the University of Missis­
sippi?

A. No.

BY MR. CLARKS May we have the same objection to Mr. 
Lowrey’s testimony on this subject that we had to 
Mr. Riddell’s similar questions, and may it be a 
continuing objection?
BY THE COURTS Yes, I will give you a continuing ob­
jection and make the same ruling.

Q. You never discussed the plaintiff’s application with the 
Board?

A. Never.
Q. Have you discussed the plaintiff’s application with any 

of the administrative officials of the University?
A. No.
Q» Have you ever since you have been on the Board discussed 

at a board meeting the admission of Negroes gene­
rally to the University of Mississippi?

A. No.

BY m s .  MOTLEYS That is all the questions we have of



505

this witness.
BY MR. CATES? We have none,
BY THE COURT? You may be excused unless you are 
recalled.

(Witness excused)

CHARLES DICKSON PAIR, called as a witness by the plaintiff 
and having been duly sworn, testified as follows?

EXAMINATION BY MRS. MOTLEY?
Q, State your full name.
A, Charles D. Fair,
Q. Are you a member of the Board of Trustees of the 

defendant in this case?
A. Yes.
Q. How long have you been a member of the Board?
A. Better than nine years,
Q. Are you the present chairman of the Board?
A, Yes*
Q» Has the Board ever discussed the application of this

plaintiff for admission to the University of Missis 
sippi?

BY MR. CLARKS May we have the same objection to 
similar questions posed to this witness as to the 
two previous witnesses and may it be a continuing



5 0 6

objection which need not be renewed?
BY THE COURTS I will give you a continuing objec­
tion, and the objection is overruled, and you do not 
waive your objection by failure to renew it to a 
particular question.

A. Repeat the question.
(The last question was read)
A. No.
Q. Has the Board prior to the filing of this lawsuit ever 

discussed the admission of Negroes generally to the 
University of Mississippi?

A. No.
Q. Do you know of any written resolution of the Board re­

garding the admission of Negroes to the University?

BY MR. CLARK? May we add? This calls for an improper 
answer from the witness. If there were any such 
record, the best evidence rule would require it.

Q* There is no written —
A* —  I know of none.
Q* Has the Board ever discussed this application outside of 

a board meeting?

BY MR. CLARK? We object to that again as calling for



5 0 7

a private, personal conversation of a board member, 
as not anything helpful to this Court to help the 
Court determine the facts in this lawsuit.
BY THE COURT? I believe you said with the officials 
or trustees?
BY MRS. MOTLEYS Yes.
BY THE COURTS Overrule the objection.
BY MR. CLARKs Also qualify it as to time, Your Honor. 
BY THE COURTS Yes, prior to the filing of this suit.

A. Repeat the question.
Q, Never discussed it outside of the board meetings either?
A. The Board has not discussed it outside of the board 

meeting.
Q. Have any of the members discussed it with you outside the 

board meetings?
A. In discussions with our attorneys.
Q. In discussions with your attorneys?
A. Yes,
Q. Who is that?

BY MR. CLARKs Does he understand his answer is 
limited to periods prior to the commencement of this 
litigation?
BY THE WITNESS? No, I did not understand that.

A* Prior to the litigation the Board has not had any



5 0 3

discussions of the matters pertaining to the appli­
cation.

Q. Now, do you recall when this application was filed?
A. I don’t know when it was filed.
Q. I think the application is Plaintiff’s Exhibit 30, and 

the date on it, I believe —  It is on the bottom 
there. (Hands to witness) Does that recall to your 
mind when this application was filed?

A. Well, I know what the application says. I have no per­
sonal knowledge of when it was filed.

Q. What does it say, when it was filed?
A. Date of application here shows January 31# 1961, on this 

instrument you have handed me.
Q. Prior to the filing of this lawsuit, did you ever see 

that application?
A. No.
Q. Do you recall that when the application was filed there 

were a number of articles in the newspaper to the 
effect that a Negro was seeking admission to the 
University?

BY MR. CLARK? We have an additional ground to our 
standing objection. She says ’’prior to the time the 
application was filed,” and the witness testified 
he didn’t know when the application was filed.
BY MRS. MOTLEYS Prior to the filing of the suit, Mr. 
Clark,



5 0 9

BY THE COURTS I will sustain the objection to that, 
what the newspaper said. That is not competent.

Q. Did you ever discuss this application with Mr. Ellis?
A. No.
Q, Did you ever discuss it with the chancellor?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever discuss it with any other administrative 

official of the University?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever discussed the plaintiff’s application 

with the governor of Mississippi?

BY MR. CLARKs We object to that.
BY THE COURTS Sustain the objection.

Q. Have you ever discussed the plaintiff’s application with 
the attorney-general of Mississippi?

BY MR. CLARK? Do I understand this question is 
limited again to the period of time before the filing 
of the lawsuit?
BY THE COURTS Yes, all questions may be regarded 
as being questions with reference to a date prior to 
the date the suit was filed.

A. No.



5 1 0

Q. Do you know of your own knowledge any Negroes who have 
been enrolled in the University of Mississippi?

A, I’m not in a position to answer that question. 
q . Why can’t you answer the question?
A, I just can’t say, Counselor.
Q. Have you seen any that looked like Negroes to you there? 
A. On the campus of the University?
Q, Enrolled as students in the University?
A. I wouldn’t know who is enrolled and who was not when I 

see them there.
Q. Have you seen any people who looked like students who 

might be Negroes?

BY MR. CLARKs We object to that.
BY THE COURTS Sustain the objection to that.

Q. Can you name any Negroes presently enrolled in the Uni­
versity of Mississippi?

A. I would not be in a position to answer that.

Q. Are you an alumnus of the University of Mississippi?
A. Yes.

Q« You belong to the alumni association?

A* Yes, sir.

Q* You attend the meetings?

A. Occasionally.

Q* Do you know any Negro alumni?



511

A, I couldn’t answer that.
Q« Why can’t you answer that?
A. I just can’t answer it.
Q, You don’t know Negroes when you see them?
A. Some I do.
Q, Well, those that you recognize as Negroes, have you seen 

any Negroes among the alumni?
A, I couldn’t say.
Q. Pardon?
A. I couldn’t say.
Q. Now, isn’t it a fact that after this plaintiff applied 

for admission there was a meeting at the University 
with regard to the admission of Negroes and what 
would happen if Negroes were admitted?

BY ME. CLARKs We object to the question as assuming 
facts not in the record.
BY THE COURTS Overrule the objection.

A* I do not know.

Q* Don’t know what?
A. The answer to your question as to whether or not there 

was a meeting.
Q« You don’t know whether there was a meeting?
A* That is what I said.
Q* Did you ever attend any such meeting?



512

A. No.
Q. Do you know anybody who did?
A. I answered that I didn’t know that there was such a

meeting. Therefore, I couldn’t say whether anybody 
attended or not.

Q. Your testimony is that there was no meeting as far as 
you know?

A, That is my testimony and that is what I have testified to. 
Q. Do you know of any discussions that took place on the

campus of the University after that application was 
received by officials?

A. No.
Q. No discussions of any application at all?
A. I know of none, Counselor.

BY AIRS. MOTLEY % That is all the questions of this 
witness.
BY MR. CLARKs No questions.

(Witness excused)

EUCLID RAY JOBE, called as a witness by the plaintiff and 
having been duly sworn, testified as follows.

EXAMINATION BY MRS. MOTLEYS
Q» Would you state your full name, please?

A. Euclid Ray Jobe.



513

Q, Are you a member of the Board of Trustees, a defendant 
in this case?

A. I am not a member of the Board.
Q, Are you the secretary?
A. I am.
Q, How long have you been secretary of the Board?
A, Approximately 16 years.
Q, Prior to the filing of this lawsuit, which was May 31, 

1961, did the Board ever discuss the application of 
the plaintiff, James Howard Meredith, for admission 
to the University of Mississippi?

A. Mot in my presence.

BY MR. CLARK? Just a minute, Dr. Jobe. May we have 
the same objection to Dr. Jobe’s testimony as to the 
prior witnesses* testimony, and may it be a continu­
ing objection?
BY THE COURT? Yes, sir, you may have the same objec­
tion, and I will make the same ruling with the same 
limitation.

Q* What was your answer?
A. No.
Q* Do you know of any Board discussions since you have been 

a member of the Board regarding the admission of 
Negroes generally to the University?

A* X don’t recall any such discussions. Now, I was present



5 1 4

at that discussion which Dean Parley mentioned in 
his testimony, but I don’t recall whether that was 
a general discussion —

BY 3®. CLARK? —  As I recall it, there was a ques­
tion with regard to Dean Parley which was objected 
to, and we now add an additional ground of our ob­
jection that the conversations and conferences he 
has and discussions that he refers to must be re­
lated to something material to this lawsuit. Dean 
Farley’s discussion, as I recall, was about a 1952 
application to the school of law, if I recall cor­
rectly, and we also add to our ground of objection 
that that would not be germane to any issue in this 
lawsui t *
BY THE COURT? Sustain the objection.
BY MR. CLARK? We move that part of the answer be 
excluded.
BY MRS, MOTLEY? As to that question, we would like 
to invoke the provisions of Rule 43C . The issue here 
is whether the Board has a policy of limiting the 
University of Mississippi to whites, and the only way 
to show the policy is to show what actions the Board 
took whenever a Negro applied, and to exclude that 
testimony prevents us from proving the policy, which 
is the only thing at issue.
BY THE COURT? The Court of Appeals stated it takes



515

judicial notice that the statutes of Mississippi 
along those lines and up until the Brown case in 
1954 were for the separation of the races, so it 
wouldn’t have any bearing on the questions or issues 
here since that is prior to 1954. That is the 
theory on which I sustain the objection.
BY MR. CLARK? Your Honor also understands we state 
as an additional objection not only the year it took 
place, but that it took place in the school of law 
and not any school similar to or the school that this 
plaintiff has applied to enter.
BY THE COURTS Well, I will adhere to my ruling upon 
the ground which I stated.

Q# After the Supreme Court’s decision in 1954, did the
Board take any action with regard to the admission 
of Negroes to the University of Mississippi?

A. No.
Q* Now, as secretary of the Board, you administer the out- 

of-state scholarship program, don’t you?
A* That’s right.
Q. Do you want to explain what that program is?

BY MR. CLARKs We think that would be clearly irrele­
vant to any issue in this lawsuit, and we renew our 
objection to that question.



5 1 6

BY THE COURTS I will overrule the objection, with 
the right to you to move to exclude it at the con­
clusion of the case or at the conclusion of the tes­
timony.

A, The Out-of-State Aid Fund is a fund appropriated by the 
legislature for the purpose of aiding students who 
are admitted for graduate, professional studies in 
institutions outside the State of Mississippi.

Q. Does this apply only to Negroes?
A. At present it does.

BY MR. CLARKs We object to the witness* answer. If 
he is interpreting the statute of the State of 
Mississippi, the statute itself would be the best 
evidence, and we move the answer be striken. Any 
evidence going to be produced for this Court*3 use in 
determining the facts ought to be the statute it­
self and not this witness* interpretation of it.
BY THE COURT? Sustain the objection.
BY MR. CLARK? Would your Honor also sustain the 
motion to strike the answer?
BY THE COURT? Sustain the motion.
BY MRS. MOTLEY? May I have the last question and 
answer so 1*11 know what the State objected to?
BY THE COURT? Yes.
(Last question and answer were read)



517

Q, Are you presently administering the out-of-state scholar­
ship program?

A. Yes.
Q. How many Negroes are going out of the state?
A. Well, of course, more go in the summer sessions than the 

winter sessions. There would be approximately one 
thousand students from out of the state.

BY MR. CLARK? Does your Honor allow us a continuing 
objection to all of this testimony as to out-of- 
state students or out-of-state scholarships or the 
administering of the out-of-state fund on the ground 
it is irrelevant and immaterial to any issue in this 
lawsuit? We would like that a continuing objection 
so we won’t have to renew it.
BY THE COURT? Yes, I believe I will sustain the ob­
jection to the reference to out-of-state students 
and exclude that from consideration.
BY MRS, MOTLEY? I don’t think we have to take 
exception, Your Honor, and Your Honor has already 
ruled. I just wanted to say this? That again we 
are trying to prove what the policy of the Board is, 
and if Negro students are sent out of the state, we 
think this is evidence of what the policy is, and 
this is why we are asking this question.
BY THE COURT? I will adhere to my ruling but let you



5 1 8

argue the matter on final argument.
BY MIS. MOTLEY? All right. Thank you.
BY MR. CATES? The witness didn’t testify that any­
body was sent. He has merely testified that the 
program was for applications for anybody —  not any­
body, but those who apply. There is no testimony 
at all that the State of Mississippi sent anyone 
from anywhere. It is purely for applications, and 
we take objection to counsel testifying the State of 
Mississippi sent anyone. It is just a normal appli­
cation for it.
BY THE COURT? I adhere to my ruling.

Q. Are you an alumnus of the University of Mississippi?
A. Yes.
Q. When did you go to school there?
A. I got my Bachelor’s degree in 1918.
Q. Have you been connected with the University since then?
A. I was a student there since that time as a summer student 

working on a Master’s degree.
Q» Did you hold any positions at the University of Missis­

sippi?
A* No, not actually. I was elected to a position there at 

one time, but I took another position shortly there­
after and never did enter into the duties of that 
position.



5 1 9

Q. Do you know of your own knowledge if any Negro student 
has ever been enrolled in the University of Missis­
sippi?

A, Well, I can’t answer that question. My knowledge is not 
sufficient to —

BY MR. CLARKs We object to the question as not being 
sufficiently limited to time to furnish any probative 
value, any accurate evidence to this Court.
BY THE COURTS What was the question?
BY M S .  MOTLEYS Whether he knows of his own knowledge 
any Negroes have ever been enrolled in the University 
of Mississippi.
BY THE COURTS Overrule the objection,

A. What was the answer I gave?
(last answer was read)
Q. What knowledge do you need to answer that question?
A. I would need to know whether everybody I know who was

enrolled - as to his race. I don’t even know which 
ones were enrolled that I know. And I certainly 
don’t know all their races.

Q. Do you know your own racial characteristics?
A. Some of them.

BY MRS. MOTLEYS That is all of this witness.
(Witness excused)



5 2 0

ARTHUR BEVERLY LEWIS, called as a witness by the plaintiff
and having been duly sworn, testified as follows?

EXAMINATION BY MRS. MOTLEY?
Q. State your full name.
A. Arthur B. Lewis.
Q, What is your connection with the University of Missis­

sippi?
A, Dean of the College of Liberal Arts.
Q. How long have you been the dean of the College of Liberal 

Arts?
A, A little more than four years.
Q. How long?
A. A little bit more than four years.
Q. Is it impossible for you to speak any louder than you are 

now speaking?
A. Not at all.
Q. Four years you have been — ?
A« Since 1957. September 1st.
Q* Do you know of your own knowledge the plaintiff in this 

case, James H. Meredith, a Negro, applied for admis­
sion to the University of Mississippi?

A. No,

Q* Let me show you Plaintiff*s Exhibit 19 from the prelimi­
nary hearing and ask you if you recognize that letter.

A* I never saw this letter before, I don*t believe.



5 2 1

Q, You want to read it? Read it out loud, please.
(fitness reads Plaintiff’s Exhibit 19 from Motion for 
Temporary Injunction)
Q. To whom is it addressed?
A, Dr. Arthur Beverly Lewis, Dean of Liberal Arts, University 

of Mississippi, Oxford, Mississippi,
Q. Is that you?
A. That is me.
Q, What is the typed signature?
A. J. H. Meredith.
Q. You say you never have seen that letter?
A. I have never seen this copy of it.
Q. Have you seen the original of that letter?
A. I saw the original letter. I received it, yes. That 

wasn’t the question.
Q. When you received that letter, what did you do?
A. I sent it to Mr. Ellis.
Q* What else did you do?

A. That closed the matter, so far as I was concerned.
Q. Did you talk to Mr. Ellis about it?
A. Mr. Ellis says that I called him. I don’t recall having 

called him, but I did send him the letter,
Q* Did you send him a memorandum with the letter?
A* Not to my knowledge.
Q* Did you discuss the letter with any other official of the 

University?



5 2 2

A. I called Mrs. DeShazo, the chancellor’s assistant, and 
told her that I had received the letter.

Q. You told her? Why did you tell the secretary? What has 
she got to do with it?

A. She’s his assistant.
Q. What did you tell her?
A. X told her I had received a letter and asked if I should 

handle it in the usual fashion.
Q. What did she say?
A, Yes.
Q. Who else did you discuss it with?
A. No one.
Q. Did you discuss it with any member of the Board?
A. No.
Q. Did you discuss it with the chancellor himself?
A. No.
Q. After you sent it to Mr. Ellis, did you follow up to 

see what he did about it?
A. No.
Q* What is your understanding as to the policy of the Uni­

versity of Mississippi with respect to the admission 
of Negroes?

BY MR. CLARK? May we object to that question? We 
believe it calls for a conclusion of this witness, 
which is properly the province of this Court, and



523

does not call for any answer of fact by him.
BY THE COURT? Sustain the objection.

Q, Do you know of any policy of the University which permits 
the admission of Negroes?

BY MR. CLARK? We make the same objection to that 
question as to the last.
BY THE COURT? Yes, sustain the objection to that.
BY MRS. MOTLEY? X think that is all the questions 
of this witness.

EXAMINATION BY MR. CLARK?
Q. Have you ever received any suggestions or instructions 

or requests by any official of the University of 
Mississippi to act or to refrain from acting with 
regard to applicants or students at the University 
of Mississippi with regard to their race or color?

A* No, sir.

BY MR. CLARK? Nothing further.
BY THE COURT? You may stand aside.

(Witness excused)



5 2 4

JOHN DAVIS WILLIAMS, called as a witness by the plaintiff and 
having been duly sworn, testified as follows?

EXAMINATION BY MRS. MOTLEY?
Q, State your full name, please.
A. John D. Williams.
Q, What is your occupation with the University of Mississippi? 
A. I am Chancellor at the University.
Q. How long have you been the chancellor?
A. Since July, 1946.
Q. Do you know of your own knowledge that the plaintiff in 

this case applied for admission to the University of 
Mississippi on January 31, 1961?

A. I do not.
Q. Let me show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 30 and ask you if you 

have ever seen that application.
A. This is the first time I have seen this application.
Q. Have you ever discussed the admission of Negroes gene­

rally to the University with the Board of Trustees?
A. Never have.

BY MR. CLARK? May we have the same objection to this 
line of questions as to this witness as we did to 
similar questions to previous witnesses, and may it 
be a continuing objection?
BY THE COURT? You may have the same objection and the



525

same ruling will be made as was made on the others,

A, I never have.
Q, lou never discussed with the Board the admission of 

Negroes generally?
A. That’s right.
Q. Do you know of any action taken by the Board since the 

Supreme Court’s decision in 1954 with regard to the 
admission of Negroes to the University of Mississippi

A. I do not know of any.
Q. Did you ever discuss this application of the plaintiff

with any other administrative official of the Univer­
sity of Mississippi?

A. Yes, but never in an official capacity. I’m trying to
recall the individual now, and I believe it was Dean 
Love. And I indicated to Dean Love that since he 
was head of the Division of Student Personnel that 
this application should be handled as all other appli 
cations for admission are handled at the University 
of Mississippi.

Q* When did you tell that to Dean Love?
A* I don’t remember,
Q* I thought you said you never saw this application.

* have never seen that application.
Q* How could you have told him to handle it the same as any 

other?



5 2 6

A, Because I learned —  and I don’t remember the date on 
which I did learn it, don’t know the source that I 
learned that this application had come to the Univer­
sity of Mississippi. Mr. Ellis handles all applica­
tions and I did not -- don’t know where I heard that 
there was an application at the University of 
Mississippi.

Q. You don’t know where you heard it, but you told him to 
handle it like any others? Is that your answer?

A. And this was some time after I heard the application was 
there.

Q. You never investigated to see whether in fact it was 
there? Is that right?

A. I never did. That’s right.
Q. And you knew nothing about the application? Right?
A. I knew that there was an application.
Q* But you had never seen it?
A. I had never seen the application.
Q* Despite the fact that you never investigated to make sure 

it was there, knew nothing about it, you told Dean 
Love to handle it like any other?

He indicated to me and he knew and I knew he knew there 
was an application there. And I don’t know how he 
knew there was an application there either, but you 
asked me if I discussed it with anyone, and this is 
the only time I recall there was any discussion of 
the application at all*



5 2 7

Q. Did you tell Dean Love that Negroes were admitted the 
same as anybody else?

A, I did not.

BT MRS. MOTLEY? That is all.

EXAMINATION BY MR. CLARK?
Q, Since you have been the chancellor of the University, have 

you had any instructions, suggestions, requests or 
other intimations, either written or oral, as to 
whether or not the University of Mississippi should 
act or refuse to act on any application submitted to 
it on the grounds of the race or color of the appli­
cant?

A. I have never received such instructions.
Q. Have you ever given any such instructions, suggestions 

in any shape or form, or intimations with regard to 
a different treatment of applications for students 
on the grounds of race or color?

A. To the best of my knowledge, no official of the Univer­
sity —  and that includes the chancellor —  has the 
authority to deny the application of a qualified 
applicant to the University of Mississippi on the 
basis of race or color,

BY MR. CLARKS Nothing further.



523

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MRS. MOTLEY;
Q. But nobody has ever discussed it, have they? You have 

never discussed the admission of Negroes?
A. That is correct.

BY MRS. MOTLEYS That is all.
(Witness excused)

JACOB L. REDDIX, called as a witness by the plaintiff and 
having been duly sworn, testified as follows;

EXAMINATION BY MRS. MOTLEY;
Q. State your full name and spell your last name.
A. Jacob L. Reddix, R-e-d-d-i-x.
Q. Are you the president of Jackson State College?
A. I am.
Q» Is that a State Institution of Higher Learning in the 

State of Mississippi?
A* It is.
Q* How long have you been president?
A* 21 years.
Q* During the time that you have been president, has Jack- 

son State College ever been a member of the Southern 
Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools? 

ft is this year for the first time.
When was it admitted to membership?



5 2 9

A, December 6th, I believe.
Q, What year?
A. 1961.
Q, What was the status of Jackson State College in the 

Association prior to that time?
A. Well, it was on the approved list? not a member, but was 

on the approved list.
Q, What is the approved list?

BY MR. CLARK? We object to any further questions 
to this witness with regard to the operation of the 
school to which plaintiff is now by his own com­
plaint admitted to and attending, since there is no 
charge in the complaint of any act or action with 
regard to that school or question with regard to 
the actions taken by that school with regard to the 
plaintiff. And any further testimony from this wit­
ness would be immaterial and irrelevant to any issue 
in the lawsuit.
BY THE COURT? Overrule the objection.

Q* You want to exp3.ain what the approved list is, Doctor?

BY MR. CLARK? Is she limiting the witness to his 
personal knowledge? If she is not, I object to the 
question.
BY THE COURT? If he knows, 1*11 overrule the objec­
tion.



5 3 0

Q. Do you know what the approved list is you are telling 
about?

A. I doubt if I can give the exact definition.
Q, Tell us what you know about this approved list.

BI MR. C LARKs We object to what he knows about the 
approved list.
BI THE COURTS Overrule the objection.

A. As I understand it, certain colleges were not members but 
they did work of a quality that was sufficient to 
have their work exchanged with other colleges.

Q. What colleges were those? Please explain this.
A. Well, I don*t know. There was a large number.
Q. Were they Negro or white colleges?

BY MR. CLARK? We object to that. It calls for a 
conclusion of this witness.
BY MRS. MOTLEYs He is testifying to what he knows.
BY MR. CLARKs We object unless he qualifies his 
answer on the basis of his own personal knowledge 
as to the colleges he is going to testify about.
BY THE COURTS Overrule the objection if he knows of 
his personal knowledge.

A. What is the question?
please explain whether these are Negro or white colleges



5 3 1

you are talking about, and tell us what this approved 
list is all about.

A. Well, so far as I know ---

BY MR. CLARKs We object to what the facts are "so 
far as he knows."
BY THE COURT? Overrule the objection.

A. So far as I know, they were only Negro colleges that were 
in this particular category.

Q. And Jackson State College was one of them? Is that 
right? On the approved list?

BY MR. CLARKs We object to the question as calling 
for a conclusion from the witness.
BY THE COURTS Overrule the objection.

A. Yes, Jackson State College was one. I don’t know the 
exact status of the others.

Q. Your school, Jackson State College, is limited to Negroes, 
isn’t it?

BY MR. CLARKs We object to that.
BY THE COURTS Overrule the objection.

A. Well, I don’t know that it is, but -—



5 3 2

Q. Do you have any white students there?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. In the 21 years that you have been there, have there 

been any white students?
A, Not to my knowledge.
Q. Do you have any instructions from the Board which would 

permit you to admit white students? From the Board 
of Trustees.

BX ME. CLARK? We object on the grounds of best evi­
dence,
BY THE COURT? Overrule the objection.

A. I have no instructions from the Board not to.
Q. I say which would permit you to admit white students?

BY MR. CATES? We object. That presumes that he 
cannot admit them.
BY THE COURTS (to witness) Do you have any instruc­
tions one way or the other?
BY THE WITNESS? I have no instructions one way or 
another from the Board.

Q* But you know it is the policy, don»t you, for t h e ---

BY MR, CLARK? We object to the policy.



533

BI THE COURTS Sustain the objection.
BY MRS. MOTLEYs Well, Your Honor, again, as to this 
question, we are trying to show what the policy is, 
and I don’t know how to show it except asking the 
people what the policy is.
BY THE COURTS Well, that is a question of law for 
the Court to conclude from all the facts and not the 
opinion of the witness.
BY MRS. MOTLEY? That is all the questions from this 
witness.
BY MR. CLARKs We have no questions.

(Witness excused)

EDGAR RAY IZARD, called as a witness by the plaintiff and 
having been duly sworn, testified as followss

EXAMINATION BY MRS. MOTLEYS 
Q. Please state your full name.
A. E, Ray Iaard.
Q. Are you a member of the Board of Trustees and a defendant 

in this case?
A* I am a member of the Board of Trustees of the Institu­

tions of Higher Learning.
Q* How long have you been a member of the Board?
A* Since May, I960.
Q* Since you have been a member of the Board, has the Board



5 3 4

ever discussed the application of the plaintiff for 
admission to the University of Mississippi?

A, Not to my knowledge.
Q. Since you have been a member of the Board, has the Board 

ever discussed the admission of Negroes generally 
to the University of Mississippi?

A. They have not.
Q. Have you ever discussed this application of plaintiff

with any administrative official of the University of 
Mississippi?

BT MR. CLARK? May we have an objection unless the 
question is limited to time and also as to whether 
or not the question is limited to a conversation or 
a discussion which had some official capacity or 
nature to it?
BY THE COURTS We will limit it to time prior to the 
filing of this suit. With that limitation, I will 
overrule the objection.
BY MR. CLARKs May it be a continuing objection as 
to the other ground?
BY THE COURTS Yes, with the same ruling.

Q* You want to answer the question?
A. Repeat the question, please.

Q* Have you ever discussed this application of plaintiff with



535

any administrative official of the University of 
Mississippi?

A. I have not.

BY MRS. MOTLEY? That is all the questions for this 
witness.
BY MR* CLARK? No questions.
BY THE COURT? You may be excused.

(Witness excused)
BY MR. CLARK? Could we take the afternoon recess at 
this time? Counsel said she didn’t want us to slow 
the trial. If Your Honor is going to take an after­
noon recess, we might have an opportunity to confer 
with Mr. Roberts.
BY MRS. MOTLEY? May it please the Court, we said 
yesterday that Mr. Roberts would not be here and that 
the other side had agreed that they wouldn’t take 
advantage of that for the purpose of asking for a 
recess to confer with him.
BY MR. CLARK? And I’m not asking for the recess to 
be given to me out of turn at all to confer with Mr. 
Roberts. I simply requested if the Court was going 
to take an afternoon recess, I ask that we take it 
now. I don’t want to violate any agreement with 
counsel. I was under the impression that she was 
wanting me to confer with Mr. Roberts at some time



5 3 6

other than the time it would delay this trial, and 
I have no —
BY MRS. MOTLEY? This Court granted a whole day last 
week for the purpose of having the defense counsel 
confer with the defendants. Then you granted an 
extension from last Thursday, I believe it was, until 
yesterday for the purpose of having these defendants 
confer with their counsel, and we object to any 
further continuance for the purpose of having them 
confer with their counsel.
BY MR. CLARK? We don’t ask for a continuance.
BY THE COURT? Well, Mr. Roberts is a defendant in 
this case. X think the attorney has a right to con­
fer with his client, and it is not very long before 
I would take the usual and customary recess, so we 
will take a ten minute recess.

(Whereupon the court was recessed for ten minutes.)

After Recess
BY THE COURT? Will you be able to get to Mr. Roberts 
this afternoon?
BY MRS. MOTLEY? We don’t plan to call him.
BY THE COURT? Will it be all right for him to be 
excused?
BY MRS. MOTLEY? Yes.



5 3 7

JAMES M. WARD, called as a witness by the plaintiff and 
having been duly sworn, testified as follows?

EXAMINATION BY MRS. MOTLEY?
Q. Please state your full name for the record.
A. James M. Ward.
Q. Are you the editor of the Jackson Daily News?
A. That is true.
Q. Were you subpoenaed to bring the newspapers for the 

month of February, 1961, to this trial?
A. I was.

BY MRS. MOTLEY? We would like the front page of the 
Jackson Daily News dated February 6, 1961 marked for 
identification, Your Honor.
BY MR. CLARK? To which we object as being marked for 
identification or any other way in regard to this 
lawsuit. A newspaper is purely and simply hearsay 
and nothing more. We object to its admission or 
identification or in evidence or any shape, form or 
fashion in the record of this case.
BY THE COURT? I will let it be marked for identifi­
cation but not received in evidence. She is not 
offering it in evidence now. If it should be offered 
then, of course, I will rule upon the admissibility 
and competence of it.



53S

BY MR. CLARK? lour Honor is overruling my objection 
to the offering as an introduction? —
BY THE COURT? The only thing I am overruling is your 
objection to its being marked for identification.
BY MRS. MOTLEY? I have three pages I want marked.
I»11 call them and have them marked at one time. The 
second page we want marked is the first page of the 
Jackson Daily News of February 7, 1961, and page 4 
of that edition. The next page we want marked is 
page 6 of the edition of February B, 1961. Four 
pages. Let them be marked for identification.

(Same were marked respectively as Plaintiff*s Exhibits Nos.
19, 20, 21 and 22 for Identification.

Q. I’d like to show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 19 for Identifi­
cation, which is the first page of the Jackson Daily 
News for Monday, February 6, 1961, and ask you if 
there appears thereon an article regarding the 
University of Mississippi —

BY MR. CLARK? We object to counsel stating into the 
record what the exhibit contains. It has not been 
admitted in evidence.
BY THE COURT? Sustain the objection.

Is this the front page of the Jackson Daily News for



5 3 9

February 6, 1961?
A. Yes, it is.

BY M S .  MOTLEY? We’d like to offer the front page of 
the Jackson Daily News of February 6, 1961, in evi­
dence, not for the truth of what it contains, but 
for the purpose of showing that there was an article 
in the newspaper on that date regarding the Univer­
sity of Mississippi.
BY MR. CLARK? We object to what the article is 
about and counsels comments and object to the admis­
sion of the page from a newspaper.
BY THE COURT? Sustain the objection.
BY MRS. MOTLEY? Wetd like to offer the other ex­
hibits in evidence for the same purpose, Your Honor. 
That’s Plaintiff’s 20, 21 and 22, into evidence, 
which also are pages from the Jackson Daily News 
containing articles regarding the University of 
Mississippi ---
BY MR. CLARK? —  We object to what the articles 
contain.
BY THE COURT? Sustain the objection.
BY MBS. MOTLEY? We will return this volume and we 
will have copies made of these exhibits so he can 
get the volume back.
BY THE COURT? Yes, I was going to suggest that.



5 4 0

Might I ask Mr. Wards Do you happen to have any 
additional or extra copies?
BY THE WITNESS ? I don’t know whether I do or not.
I would have to look.
BY THE COURT? If you don’t, counsel can have it 
photostated and substitute the photostats, and I will 
let Mr. Ward take the volume back with him.
BY MR. CLARK? Has there been any offer of Exhibits 
20, 21 and 22 in evidence?
BY THE COURT? Is that the newspapers you had for 
identification?
BY MRS. MOTLEY? Yes.
BY THE COURTS She just offered them.
BY MR. CLARK? I objected to 19. X understood it 
was offered in evidence, but I wasn’t sure whether 
the other statement amounted to a tender at this time 
of Exhibits 20, 21 and 22 for Identification as being 
offered in evidence.
BY THE COURT? Yes, she had offered them in evidence 
and started to state what they contained when you ob­
jected to that and I sustained the objection, and 
I also sustained what amounted to an objection for 
the introduction of them in evidence, because I don’t 
think them competent for any purpose.
BY MR. CLARK? I’m not sure the record contains a 
pure statement that I objected to 20, 21 and 22 being



541

admitted for any purpose in this cause.
BY THE COURT; Very well, I sustain the objection.
BY MRS. MOTLEY; In order to clarify the record,
I»d like to say as to 20, 21 and 22, we were not 
offering them for the truth of the matters contained 
in the article, but for the purpose of showing that 
there was an article in the newspaper concerning the 
University of Mississippi at that time,
BY MR. CLARK; And we make our objection to the offer 
at this time under these conditions for the reasons 
set out.
BY THE COURT; Yes, I will adhere to my ruling. It 
is proper for her to state the purpose for which it 
is offered, but I don*t think it is relevant, so I 
sustain the objection.
BY MRS. MOTLEY; That is all the questions.
BY THE COURT; Any cross examination of Mr. Ward?
BY MR. CLARK; No, sir.

(Witness excused)

PURSER HEWITT, called as a witness by the plaintiff and having 
been duly sworn, testified as follows;

EXAMINATION BY MRS. MOTLEY;
Q* State your full name, please.

Purser Hewitt.



542

Q, Are you the editor of the Clarion Ledger?
A. Executive editor.
q. Do you also have in your possession the copies of the 

State Times for the month of February, 1961?
A. The incomplete file, yes.
Q, Do you have any of the papers for the month of February? 
A. We have some, yes.
Q. Did you bring any newspapers for February, 1961?
A. I did. —  *60?
Q. »6l.
A. *60, I was told.
Q. You were told --- What does the subpoena say?
A. It says I960.
Q. Do you have a copy with you?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Do you recognize this as a copy, as an article from your 

paper of February 7, 1961?
A. It certainly appears to be, yes.

BY MRS. MOTLEY? We*d like this marked for identifi­
cation.
BY MR. CLARK? We object to it even being marked for 
identification on the basis of the present record,
BY THE COURTS Overrule that objection.

(Same was marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 23 for Identifi­
cation. )



543

BY MRS. MOTLEY? That is all the questions.
(Witness excused)

BY MR. CLARK? What is the present status of the 
witness? I didn’t understand.
BY MRS. MOTLEY? We are through asking him questions. 
Now, we want to offer this Plaintiff’s 23 in evi­
dence for the same purpose that we offered the others 
newspaper clippings.
BY MR. CLARK? To which we object for the same rea­
sons previously assigned.
BY THE COURT? Sustain the objection.
BY MRS. MOTLEYS That is all.
BY THE COURTS X understood Mr. Clark had not under­
stood the conversation between you and Mr. Hewitt.
BY MRS. MOTLEY? He said he would be glad to bring 
the papers for ’61, February, and papers of the 
State Times for February, ’61 which he has in his 
possession.
BY THE COURT? Very well.
BY MR. CLARK? Was this in the record? I don’t know. 
It was while the reporter was marking the exhibits.
X had heard Mr. Hewitt say he brought his records 
for I960 and she wanted to know if he had the 
record for 1961 and would he bring them, and I heard 
him say he would. That is the reason I called that 
to your attention because I saw you were in



5 4 4

conversation when that was more or less whispered.
And I don’t mean anything derogatory, because counsel 
was trying to find out if he had those records. That 
is the reason I called that to your attention.

WILLIAM ORLANDO STONE, called as a witness by the plaintiff
and having been duly sworn, testified as follows;

EXAMINATION BI MRS. MOTLEY;
Q. State your full name, please.
A. William 0. Stone.
Q. Are you a member of the Board of Trustees, a defendant 

in this case?
A. I am a member of the Board of Trustees of Institutions 

of Higher Learning.
Q. How long have you been a member of the board?
A. Since May, I960.
Q* Since you have been a member, has the Board ever dis­

cussed the application of this plaintiff James 
Howard Meredith?

BY MR. CLARK; To which we object unless the ques­
tion has a limit of time and shows some official 
capacity or some official cloaking or mantle that 
the conversations had, and not idle streetcorner 
gossip.



545

BY THE COURTS I will limit it to a date prior to the 
filing of the lawsuit and overrule the objection*

A. No, we have not.
Q, Has the Board discussed the admission of Negroes gene­

rally to the University of Mississippi from the 
time —

BY MR. CLARKS -- We object ----
BY MRS. MOTLEYs —  Your Honor, fir. Clark has objec­
ted to these questions ever since we started asking, 
and as I understand Your Honor’s ruling, he has a 
continuing objection to all of these questions. I 
don’t know why it is necessary for him to get up and 
repeat the objection all the time.
BY THE COURTS Well, it is to a particular witness, 
and I will let him state his objection and then rule 
upon it.
BY MR. CLARKs Did you finish?
BY MRS. MOTLEYs No. You are objecting before I 
finish the question.
BY THE COURTS Very well. You may finish the ques­
tion.

Q* Since you have been a member of the Board, prior to the 
filing of this suit has the Board ever discussed the



5 4 6

admission of Negroes generally to the University of 
Mississippi?

A. No.

BY MR. CLARK? May we have the same objection to this 
question and any other questions of a similar nature 
to this witness on the grounds similarly made to the 
question posed to the first witness?
BY THE COURT? You may have a continuing objection 
and do not waive it by your failure to renew, and I 
overrule with the limitation I did just before.

A. No.
Q. Have you ever discussed the application of this plain­

tiff with any official of the University of Missis­
sippi or any administrative official?

A. No.
Q. Have you ever discussed it with the chancellor?
A. No.
Q. Or the dean of the College of Liberal Arts?
A. No.
Q* You haven’t discussed it with any official?
A. No.

BY MRS. MOTLEY? That is all the questions.
BY MR. CLARK? No questions.

(Witness excused)



547

S. R. EVANS, called as a witness by the plaintiff and having 
been duly sworn, testified as follows;

EXAMINATION BY MRS. MOTLEY;
Q, Do you want to state your full name?
A# S. R. Evans.
Q. Are you a member of the Board of Trustees, a defendant in 

this case?
A. I am a member of the Board of Trustees of the Institutions 

of Higher Learning in Mississippi.
Q. How long have you been a member?
A. May, *56.
Q. Were you here last week when this trial commenced?
A. I was here in the afternoon.
Q* What day?
A. Tuesday.
Q* Did you meet with Mr. Shands and the other members of the 

Board?

BY MR. CLARK; To which we object.
BY THE COURT; Sustain the objection.

Q* Has the Board ever met to discuss the testimony in this 
case?

BY MR. CLARK; We object to that as privileged, in



5 4 3

addition to the other grounds.
BY MRS. MOTLEY? There is no privilege on this wit~ 
ness. He is not a lawyer.
BY MR. CLARK? We object on the ground she is asking 
him to disclose privileged communication, and also on 
the further ground that anything that happened after 
the date of the filing of this lawsuit furnishes no 
relevant issue to this case.
BY THE COURT? You are inquiring about a conference 
with the defendant?
BY MRS. MOTLEY? With the other members of the Board. 
BY THE COURT? Who are the defendants.
BY MRS. MOTLEY? That's right.
BY THE COURT? Sustain the objection.

Q. Are you an alumnus of the University of Mississippi?
A. I am not.
Q. Have you ever been an official of the University of 

Mississippi?
A. I have not.

BY MRS. MOTLEY? That is all the questions of this 

witness.
BY THE COURT? You may be excused.

(Witness excused)



5 4 9

JAMES N. LIPSCOMB, called as a witness by the plaintiff and 
having been duly sworn, testified as follows?

EXAMINATION BY MRS. MOTLEY?
Q, Would you state your full name?
A. James N. Lipscomb.
Q. Are you a member of the Board, a defendant in this case?
A. Ifm a member of the Board of Institutions of Higher 

Learning.
Q. How long have you been a member of the Board?
A. Six years.
Q. Since you have been a member of the Board and prior to

the filing of this lawsuit, did you ever discuss the 
application of this plaintiff for admission to the 
University?

BY MR. CLARK? To which we have the same objection 
as to similar questions posed to other witnesses, 
and may it be a continuing objection to any questions 
to this witness?
BY THE COURT? I overrule the objection and will allow 
you a continuing objection which will not be waived 
by your failure to renew it.

Q’ lou have never discussed this application with the Board?
A. No,



5 5 0

Q. Have you ever discussed it with any administrative offi­
cial of the University?

A. No, ma’am.
Q. Have you ever discussed it with any of the board members 

outside the board meeting?
A. State the question again. I don’t hear too well.
Q, Have you ever discussed this application with any of the 

board members outside a board meeting?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Have you ever discussed this application with anybody?
A. With counsel.

BY ME, CLARKS This is all limited to the dates prior 
to the filing of the lawsuit? Is that right?
BY THE COURT? Yes, prior to the lawsuit.

A. Oh, no.
Q» You never discussed the application with anybody prior 

to the lawsuit?
A. No.
Q* Are you answering — —  ?
A. No, ma’am.
Q* Did you know a Negro had applied for admission to the 

University?
A. Not of my own knowledge, no.
Q* Did you read about it in the paper?



5 5 1

BY MR. CLARK? We object to what he read about in 
the paper.
BY THE COURTS Sustain the objection.

q, Did you hear any of the officials say that a Negro had 
applied to the University?

A. No.

BY MR. CLARKS We object on the same ground. 
BY THE COURTS Overrule that objection.

Q. You never heard any of them mention it?
A. No.
Q. When was the first time you heard of this application?

BY MR, CLARKs We object to that.
A. I don’t recall.

BY MR, CLARKs —  Just a minute.
BY THE COURTS Sustain the objection. That would be
immaterial.
BY MR. CLARKs We move the answer be striken. 
BY THE COURTS Sustain the motion.

Q* Since you have been a member of the Board, has the Board 
taken any action with respect to the admission of 
Negroes to the University of Mississippi?



552

A. No.
BY MRS. MOTLEY? That is all the questions for this 
witness.
BY MR. CATES? We have none.
BY THE COURT? You may go, Mr. Lipscomb.

(Witness excused)

HARRY G. CARPENTER, called as a witness by the plaintiff and 
having been duly sworn, testified as follows?

EXAMINATION BY MRS. MOTLEY?
Q. Your full name, Mr. Carpenter?
A. H. G. Carpenter.
Q. Are you a member of the Board of Trustees of Institutions 

of Higher Learning?
A. I am.
Q. How long have you been a member of the Board?
A. Between 12 and 13 years.
Q. 13?

A. Between 12 and 13 years.

Q* Since you have been a member of the Board, has the Board 
ever taken any action with respect to the admission 
of Negroes to the University of Mississippi?

BY MR. CLARK? We?d like to object to that question 
on the same ground as to previous similar questions



553

addressed to previous witnesses, and we ask for a 
continuing objection limited both as to time of the 
filing of this lawsuit and to official conversations. 
BY THE COURTS Yes, I limit it to the time since the 
Brown case in 1954 and prior to the date of filing 
of the lawsuit.

Q. Since the Brown case in *54 and prior to the filing of 
this lawsuit, has the Board ever taken any action 
with respect to the admission of Negroes to the Uni­
versity of Mississippi?

A. No.
Q. Have you ever discussed this application with any member 

of the Board?
A. You mean prior to that?
Q. Prior to the filing of this lawsuit.
A. Officially?
Q. Officially or unofficially.
A. Not this case, no.
Q» This application?
A. This application, no.
Q» Have you ever discussed the admission of Negroes gene­

rally with any member of the Board officially or 
unofficially?

A. X don’t remember it.
Q» You have no recollection of ever discussing it?



5 5 4

A. If I did, it was unofficially. It hasn’t been brought 
up at the Board.

BY MR. CATES; We object. He says ”if,M and we move 
to exclude his testimony. He said, ”If I did.”
BY THE COURT; Yes, sustain the motion and exclude 
that answer.
BY MRS. MOTLEY; Excuse me?
BY THE COURT; I sustain the motion to exclude that 
answer because he was conditioning it.

Q. Have you ever discussed this problem of the admission to 
the University of Mississippi with any official of 
the University of —

BY MR. CLARK; We object to the classification ---
BY MRS. MOTLEY; —  Can we have one lawyer on the 
other side trying this lawsuit? I find it very con­
fusing to have two lawyers trying a lawsuit at the 
same time.
BY THE COURT; Well, I will permit either one of them 
to make an objection and I will pass on it.
BY MR. CLARK; We object to the question as posed by 
counsel as being an improper question.
BY THE COURT; Sustain the objection.
(The last question was read by the reporter)



5 5 5

BY MRS. MOTLEY? That is all the questions of this 
■witness.
BY Ml. CATES? We don’t have any questions.

(Witness excused)

THOMAS J. TUBB, called as a witness by the plaintiff and 
having been duly sworn, testified as follows?

EXAMINATION BY MRS. MOTLEY?
Q. Please state your full name, Mr. Tubb.
A. Thomas J, Tubb.
Q. Are you a member of the Board, a defendant in this case?
A. I am a member of the Board of Trustees of Institutions of 

Higher Learning in Mississippi.
Q« How long have you been a member of the Board?
A. Either January or February, 1955. I don’t remember which 

month.
Q* Since you became a member of the Board in ’55 and up to

the time of the filing of this lawsuit, has the Board 
ever discussed the admission of Negroes to the Uni­
versity of Mississippi?

BY MR. CLARK? We object to the question as posed to 
the witness unless it is confined to official conver­
sations of the Board, and further object that the 
minutes of the Board would be the best evidence, and



5 5 6

make the same objection to this line of examination 
of this witness as we made to the same line of 
examination to all prior witnesses, and ask lour 
Honor to consider it a continuing objection.
BY THE COURTS 1*11 overrule the objection and let 
you have a standing objection, which you do not 
waive by failure to renew it, and with the same 
ruling that I have heretofore made.

A. No.
Q. Now, prior to the filing of this lawsuit, did the Board 

ever discuss the application of the plaintiff, James 
Howard Meredith, for admission to the University?

A. No.
Q. Did the Board ever communicate with any official of the 

University concerning this application?
A» Not to my knowledge.
Q* Did you discuss it with any official of the University? 
A* Before the filing of the lawsuit?

That’s right.
A. No.

Q. Did you ever discuss it with the registrar?
A* No,
Q* The chancellor?
A. No.

The dean of the undergraduate school?
A. No.



5 5 7

BY MRS. MOTLEY? That is all the questions for this 
witness.
BY MR. CATES? We have no questions.
BY THE WITNESS? Can I be excused permanently?
BY THE COURT? Yes, you are excused.

(Witness excused)

VERNER SMITH HOLMES, called as a witness by the plaintiff 
and having been duly sworn, testified as follows?

EXAMINATION BY MRS. MOTLEY?
Q. You want to state your full name, Dr. Holmes?
A, Verner Smith Holmes.
Q. Are you a member of the Board of Trustees of Higher 

Learning?
A. I am.
Q. How long have you been a member?
A. From May of 1956.
Q. From 1956 until the filing of this lawsuit in May of *61, 

did you ever discuss at any board meeting the ad­
mission of Negroes generally to the University of 
Mississippi?

A. Never.

BY MR. CLARKS May we have the same objection as to 
the previous witnesses and it be a continuing



553

objection to all similar questions posed to this 

witness?
BI THE COURTS You may have such objection, and the 
ruling will be the same*

q, prior to the filing of this lawsuit, has the Board ever 
discussed the application of the plaintiff for admis­
sion in the University of Mississippi?

A* Never.
Q. Are you an alumnus of the University of Mississippi?
A. I am,
Q. When did you go to school there?
A. From 1932 to *34, two years in medicine. I graduated 

from Mississippi College before I went there. 
Finished two years there.

Q. Do you know of any Negroes who have ever been enrolled 
in the University of Mississippi?

BY MR. CLARKs We object unless it is limited to a 
period after 1954 and prior to the filing of this 

lawsuit.
BY THE COURTS Sustain the objection --  Or, rather,
I’ll confine it to the period stated heretofore.

Q .  From 19.54 to the present, do you know of any Negroes 
enrolled in the University of Mississippi?



5 5 9

A. I do not.

BI MRS. MOTLEY? That is all the questions for this 
witness.
BY MR. CLARK? No questions.

(Witness excused)

PURSER HEWITT, recalled by the plaintiff and having previously 
been sworn, testified as follows?

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MRS. MOTLEY?
Q. Give your full name, Mr. Hewitt.
A. Purser Hewitt.
Q. Did you bring the books?
A. Yes. Your associate is examining them in the anteroom,
Q. P d  like to show you the Clarion Ledger and ask you if

that is a copy of your paper for Wednesday, February
S, 1961.

A. It is.

BY MRS. MOTLEY? We’d like this marked for identifi­
cation, the first page of the Clarion Ledger.
BY THE COURT? Let it be marked for identification.

(Same was marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 24 for Identifi­
cation. )



560

BY MRS. MOTLEY? W e ’d like to offer Plaintiff’s 
Exhibit 24 in evidence for the purpose of showing 
that there was an article on the front page of the 
Clarion Ledger for February 8, 1961, concerning the 
University of Mississippi.
BY MR. CLARK? We object to what the article might 
have concerned as stated into the record by counsel 
and object to any statement of that sort.
BY THE COURT? Yes, sustain the objection.
BY MR. CLARK? We also object to the introduction or 
the offer of the article or the page from the news­
paper for identification and for evidence in this 
case.
BY THE COURT? Sustain the objection.
BY MR. CLARK? I made it both on the offer for iden­
tification and the offer for evidence.
BY THE COURT? I had already overruled your objection 
for having it marked for identification, and it has 
been marked, and then she offered it in evidence; and 
I sustain your objection to its reception in evidence 
but overrule your objection to having it marked for 
identification.
BY MRS. MOTLEY? We’d like to have the witness iden­
tify this page and then have it marked for identifi­
cation.

Is this page 12 of the Clarion Ledger for February 8,



561

1961?
A. It is *

BI MRS. MOTLEY? We’d like this marked for identifid­
eation.
BY MR. CLARK? To which we object.
BY THE COURTS Overrule the objection.

(Same was marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 25 for Identifi­
cation. )

BY MRS. MOTLEY? We’d like to offer 25 for Identifi­
cation in evidence for the same purpose as the other. 
BY MR. CLARK? To which offer we object for the same 
ground assigned.
BY THE COURT? Sustain the objection.

Q. Mr. Hewitt, I would like to show you the front page of 
the State Times for February 7, 1961 and ask you if 
this is the front page of that paper.

BY MR. CLARK? We object unless he has some official 
capacity with that paper or some other way to per­
sonally know that was the first page of that paper 
that was put out.

Q* Do you now own this paper?



562

A. We now own this bound volume.
Q. And this is the front page of the State Times of February 

7, '61?
A. X can say it purports to be.

BY MR. CLARK? We object to questions counsel has 
improperly phrased. Repeat the question or have it 
read.
BY MRS. MOTLEY? X asked if that was the front page 
of the State Times for February 7, 1961.
BY THE COURT? Overrule the objection.

A. To the best of my knowledge and belief.
Q* Is this page 3 of the State Times for the same date, 

February 7, 1961?
A. To the best of my knowledge and belief it is.

BY MR. CLARK? To which we object.
BY THE COURTS Overrule the objection.
BY MS. MOTLEY? We'd like these two pages marked for 
identification.
BY MR. CLARK? We object to that on the grounds for­
merly assigned, and additionally that this man has 
not been shown to have any official connection what­
soever with the State-Times newspaper at the time 
these particular pages were published. We object to



563

it even being identified in this record.
BY THE COURTS I’ll overrule the objection and let 
them be identified.

(Same were marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibits Nos. 26 and 27, 
respectively, for Identification.)

BY MIS. MOTLEYs We would like to offer these in 
evidence for the same purpose as the previous news­
paper clippings. —  Or did we do that?
BY MR. CLARK? We have the same objections, and in 
addition would like to assign the ground to the offer 
in evidence that we assigned to the introduction or 
marking for identification, which is that this 
witness was not officially connected with this news­
paper and only has a belief about whether or not it 
is correct and true.
BY THE COURTS I will sustain the objection as to 
the reception into evidence.
BY MRS. MOTLEYs We have only one other matter we 
would like to offer in evidence -—  Excuse me. I’m 
through with this witness.
BY THE COURTS Any cross examination?
BY MR. CATES s We do not have any cross examination. 
BY THE COURTS You may go.

(Witness excused)



5 6 4

BY MRS. MOTLEY? We would like to offer in evidence 
this certificate signed by Gordon W. Sweet, Executive 
Secretary of the Commission on Colleges of the 
Southern Association of Colleges and Secondary 
Schools.
BX THE COURT? Any objection, Mr. Clark?
BY MR. CLARK? No, sir.
BY THE COURT? Let it be marked.

(Same was received in evidence and marked as Plaintiff’s 
Exhibit No. 28. Same is copied below?)

PLAINTIFF’S EX. 28
SOUTHERN ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES AND SCHOOLS 

COMMISSION ON COLLEGES
19475

Miami Beach, Florida 
December 7, 1961

The following senior colleges have been admitted to membership 
in the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools?
Alcorn A. and M. College, Lorman, Mississippi
Benedict College, Columbia, South Carolina
Bishop College, Dallas, Texas
Claflin University, Orangeburg, South Carolina
Elizabeth City State Teachers College, Elizabeth City, North
Carolina

Plottda N. and I. Memorial College, Saint Augustine, Florida 
Ĵ kson State College, Jackson, Mississippi



565

Jacksonville University, Jacksonville, Florida
Lane College, Jackson, Tennessee
Livingstone College, Salisbury, North Carolina
Norfolk College of William and Mary, Norfolk, Virginia
Qakwood College, Huntsville, Alabama
Paine College, Augusta, Georgia
Pikeville College, Pikeville, Kentucky
Saint Augstine*s College, Raleigh, North Carolina
Savannah State College, Savannah, Georgia
Shaw University, Raleigh, North Carolina

The following junior colleges have been admitted to member­
ship in the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools?
Cooke County Junior College, Gainesville, Texas 
Morristown College, Morristown, Tennessee 
Orlando Junior College, Orlando, Florida 
Owen College, Memphis, Tennessee

TOJHPM it  MAY CONCERN;

I certify that the foregoing mimeographed material is a true
and correct statement of action taken at the annual meeting
°T the Southern Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools
°n December 7, 1961. The official Proceedings of the meeting
are not yet available for distribution.
/ /s/ Gordon W. Sweet
‘■̂ -Sggolyn Bennet.t,________ _ Gordon W. Sweet

Notary Public Executive Secretary of the
Commission on Colleges

# # # & # $c



5 6 6

(Continuings)
BX MRS. MOTLEXs Plaintiff rests except for some 
files which we*d like to introduce into evidence, and 
the other matter is the followings We subpoenaed 
the registrars of all the other seven state insti­
tutions of higher learning under jurisdiction of this 
Board. lour Honor has ruled that the testimony in 
this case would be limited to the University of 
Mississippi, and I assume that we would not be able 
to offer the testimony of these witnesses, but I 
wanted the record to show that we had subpoenaed 
these registrars for the purpose of showing that the 
policy of which the plaintiff complained applies to 
these other institutions also.
BX THE COURTS Very well. I am going to adhere to 
my ruling and confine this lawsuit to the University 
of Mississippi —  application to the University of 
Mississippi.
BX MRS. MOTLEXs With that, the plaintiff rests,
Xour Honor, with the exception of these files which 
we will put into evidence.
BX MR. CLARKS We»d like the plaintiff to complete 
his lawsuit before we commence our defense.
BX THE COURTS I was going to ask if she wants more 
time to examine the ones she wants to introduce.
BX MRS. MOTLEXs Xes, we could do that.
BX THE COURTS It is not far from adjournment time,



5 6 ?

and it will suit me all right to adjourn until 9s30 
in the morning.
BY MR. GLARKs May I take up one matter at this time? 
On these continuing objections Your Honor gave us 
to the questions to these witnesses, if it be neces­
sary, we want to now move before the plaintiff closes 
his case to exclude the testimony given by these 
witnesses under our objection as being irrelevant, 
incompetent and immaterial, and on the basis of all 
the other points of objection made to the testimony 
of the witnesses, which lour Honor allowed to con­
tinue. We want to now move to exclude those answers 
by those witnesses prior to the time the plaintiff 
completes his case.
BY THE COURTS I will overrule the motion, and if you 
want to argue the matter upon the final hearing, I 
will let you renew the motion and argue the admis­
sibility of it. I am of the opinion now that my 
rulings were correct, but if you desire argument on 
final hearing, I will let you do that.
BY MR. CLARKs I just don»t want to remove my motion 
to exclude by failure to renew. Do I understand that 
to be necessary? Do I have to renew my motion to 
exclude at any later time in the lawsuit?
BY THE COURTS No, you have made your motion, and I 
have ruled upon it and that is final unless when the



566

case is finally argued you want to argue and show me 
some authority that it is erroneous. Then I would 
hear you, but I’m not taking the time now, because 
of the number of witnesses we have, to go into the 
legal propositions you raise, and I am ruling simply 
from my best judgment as to what the law is. I think 
all the testimony that has been permitted to go in is 
competent, but I am not cutting you off. If you can 
show me authorities later on to show me I’m wrong,
I will hear you, but you do not waive the objection 
and motions you have made by failure to renew any 
more.
BY MRS. MOTLEYs There is one other matter. At the 
preliminary hearing, as I recall, there was only one 
other witness other than the plaintiff and Mr» Ellis 
who were parties, and we have already agreed that 
their testimony and all exhibits admitted with their 
testimony is now admitted on this hearing. Now 
BY THE COURTS —  I don’t think that was by agreement. 
As I recall, there was an objection and I overruled 
it.
BY MRS. MOTLEYs Yes, that is right. Now, what I 
want to get at now is that Mr. Clark also testified, 
and as I recall,his testimony was with regard to when 
he obtained the Army record of the plaintiff. And I 
was wondering whether he was willing to stipulate



5 6 9

that he secured that in August, 1961, as he testi­
fied previously, so that we wouldn't have to put him 
back on for that purpose.
BY MR. CLARK? I stipulate that I was willing to 
withdraw my objection for the introduction of the 
entire testimony I gave on the preliminary injunc­
tion.
BY THE COURT? Then I take it that you are unwilling 
to stipulate as to when you did obtain them, the Army 
records?
BY MR. CLARK? Do I understand the situation in the 
record now is that the Army record of this man, the 
plaintiff, is not in evidence in this cause? Or is 
it?
BY THE COURT? I think it is not. I think you have 
to offer it if you want it in there.
BY MR. CLARK? Yes, sir. I'm unwilling to stipulate 
when I obtained it.
BY MRS. MOTLEY? Well, I didn't understand —
BY THE COURT? —  Mrs. Motley, I don't recall all 
this part of the testimony. He is willing for his 
testimony to be introduced. Would you rather handle 
it another way or rather introduce this testimony?
I'm asking for information and without any suggestion 
to any particular course.
BY MRS. MOTLEY? The point is, Your Honor, I thought



5 7 0

you ruled that all the exhibits on the previous hear­
ing were in evidence on this hearing.
BI THE COURT? I did not so understand the ruling that 
I made this morning. After you introduced all the 
testimony of all the witnesses, I ruled then that 
you had made competent all the exhibits that had been 
introduced under that testimony? so the testimony 
that Mr. Clark raises, the exhibit about the Army 
record, is not in the record under the proceedings 
that we had this morning.
BI MRS. MOTLEI? In that case, we don*t need Mr. 
Clark*s testimony at all.
BI THE COURT? Very well. Anything else at this 
moment? If not, we will recess until 9°30 tomorrow 
morning.
BI MR. CLARK? —  There are so many exhibits in this 
record that I*m frankly unable to keep them all in 
my mind. There were parts of the Army record of the 
plaintiff which were introduced by the plaintiff 
at the time his attorney was examining me, but I 
understand,-and I only ask this for clarification—
I understand that would not be an exhibit in this 
record under the present ruling of the Court? Am I 
correct?
BI THE COURT? Did plaintiff introduce it?
BI MR. CLARK? Plaintiff introduced it at that time



5 7 1

when I was on the stand testifying, and as I recall, 
other parts of the Army record —  perhaps all —  I’m 
not positive about which way that happened —  but 
the rest of it was introduced on my cross examination 
and I just wondered if the situation that we have in 
the record now is one in which any part of James 
Howard Meredith’s Army record is now made a part of 
the record of this hearing? I just don’t under­
stand where we are as far as what is in this record. 
All of it, as I understand, went in on my testimony 
or during my testimony on either direct or cross 
examination and it was not put in, as I understand, 
in any way in the course of examination of these 
parties whose testimony has been offered.
BY THE COURT? Hone of it was put in tinder the testi­
mony of the plaintiff either?
BY MR. CATES s No, sir. A part of his record, the 
first few years of his being in service, were intro­
duced by the plaintiff while Mr. Clark was on cross- 
examination. We, the defendants, had identified 
certain parts of it, but of course we could not 
introduce it until our case came on in chief. When 
our case came on in chief, we introduced the re­
maining half or other part which we thought should 
be introduced. Therefore, the plaintiff introduced 
a part of the record while the plaintiff was putting



5 7 2

on his case in chief, and then by our putting the 
other half on when our case was in chief, we had the 
whole record introduced. That is how the whole 
record came to be before the Court during the pre­
liminary hearing.
BY THE COURT? Well, if part of the record was put in 
by the plaintiff, you probably could have the right 
to have the other introduced. —  But I*m doubtful 
about that, I think if you want the Army record in, 
it will be incumbent upon the defendants to intro­
duce it when it comes time to introduce their testi­
mony.
BY MR. CATESs Is that as to the whole record or just 
to the part we previously introduced?
BY THE COURTS Yes, that is such parts as you desire 
to introduce, but anything you conceive to be and 
which might be a statement against interest, you 
could introduce a part of it.
BY MR. CATESs Thank you.
BY THE COURTS And they could introduce the other 
parts they desire. Anything further? If not, Court 
is recessed until 9s30 tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon the court was recessed until the following day)



573

FRIDAY, JANUARY 26, 1962, AT 9?30 A.M. THE TRIAL WAS RESUMED.

BY MRS. MOTLEY? We would like to have brought in the 
records which we inspected yesterday in the presence 
of the registrar. We have indicated to him which of 
the records we intended to use this morning, and we 
would like to put the registrar back on and ask him 
further questions regarding those records. As Your 
Honor knows, we didn't have a chance to look at those 
until yesterday. There is one other matter. As Your 
Honor knows, we subpoenaed the registrars of other 
institutions of higher learning, including the 
Jackson State College registrar, and we did not call 
the registrars because Your Honor has ruled that this 
case would be limited to the University of Mississippi 
and we dismissed the registrarsi but we had sub­
poenaed the registrar of Jackson State College to 
bring the plaintiff's transcript, and I forgot to 
put him on with respect to that point, so I'd like 
to put him on after I finish with Mr. Ellis this 
morning.
BY THE COURTS Very well.

ROBERT B. ELLIS, recalled as a witness by the plaintiff and
having previously been sworn, testified as follows?

Further e x a m i n a t i o n b y m r s . m o t l e y ?
Q* Mr. Ellis, this summer when you testified on the Motion



5 7 4

for Preliminary Injunction, you brought down certain 
records for the inspection of the plaintiff’s counsel, 
did you not?

A. I did.
Q. How many records did you bring at that time? Do you 

recall?
A. No, I don’t. The number I don’t remember.
Q. Well, approximately?

BY MR. CLARKs We object to his answer unless he has 
a strong recollection.
BY THE COURTS Overrule the objection.

A. I don’t know. I didn’t count them.
Q. Were there two letter boxes of records? Do you recall

the marshal bringing in two letter boxes and setting 
them on the clerk’s desk?

A. I don’t really recall how we packed them. We found some 
cartons and placed the records in them. I think per­
haps there might have been two cardboard cartons of 
records, but that is about all I can say.

Q. Were there more than a hundred records?

A* I frankly don’t know.

Q. Well, don’t you have any idea of how many records you 
brought?

A. I certainly don’t. I think perhaps the material I



575

brought down this time will give you the indication 
of how many records of new students there are.

BY MR. CLARK? We object to that.
BY THE COURT? Overrule the objection.

Q. Now, the records you brought this summer were for the 
first summer session and the second summer session 
of transfer undergraduate students? Right?

A. That is correct.
Q. Did you bring them back this time?
A. I did.
Q. Now, what records did you bring this time to the trial?
A. I brought the completed files of students who entered 

in the first and second summer terms of the 1961 
summer session” the completed files of the students 
who entered in the first semester 1961-*62; and the 
applications for the students who are applying for 
admission in the second semester which is to begin 
1961-*62? the inactive files of students who had 
applied, who had been denied or who had withdrawn 
applications for those enrollment periods? the cor­
respondence files? the health records which came 
from the Student Health Service for those periods? 
and I brought rosters for each of those periods, 
which included all of the students for these periods



5 7 6

and the applicants for the second semester on which 
we had checked the names of the individuals whose 
records were brought. And also statistics sheets 
issued from my office, which indicated the number of 
transfer students for the summer, the two terms of the 
summer, and for the first semester 1961-f62. I did 
not bring that information for second semester be­
cause it hasn’t come about yet.

Q. All the records you brought were transfer students only?
Is that right?

A, This was my understanding of the Court’s order, to bring 
transfer records, and that’s what I brought.

Q. Now, you know that the plaintiff’s counsel counted these 
records yesterday in your presence, don’t you?

A. Do I know?
Q. Yes. Were you present when we counted these records yes­

terday afternoon between four and five or five and 
six?

A. Well, those records were being counted off and on all 
afternoon. I realized that the records were being 
counted, yes.

Q» So that if I told you that the summer records which you 
brought this summer were 74 in number, you wouldn’t 
deny that, would you?

I’m not in a position to deny or confirm.
Q* Isn’t that approximately what you brought this summer?



5 7 7

A. I told you, Counsel, I don’t know.
Q. Isn’t it approximately —  You didn’t bring 2000 records 

here this summer, did you?
A. No.
Q. Did you bring 500?
A, No, I don’t think so.
Q. You brought 74, didn’t you?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Isn’t that approximately what you brought?
A. The enrollment statistics for the summer are in the 

file which you examined.
Q. Well, if I told you that sheet says 74, would you deny 

it?
A. I wouldn’t deny or confirm it. I don’t know.
Q. Now, yesterday when you testified, I asked you about

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 27, which was your letter to the 
plaintiff of May 25, 1961, You recall testifying 
about that letter?

A. Yes, I do.
Q* Do you recall my asking you about this sentence which 

reads, "Furthermore, students may not be accepted 
by the University from those institutions whose 
programs are not recognized.."-—

BY ME. CLARK% I understood counsel to rest yester­
day afternoon subject to her examination of these



records and the recall of this witness for testimony 
about these records, and I object to the question 
posed to him because I can’t see where it could 
relate to that subject matter.
BY THE COURT? Overrule the objection.

You recall my asking about that?

BY MR. CLARK? For the record, may we continue that 
objection?
BY THE COURT? Yes, you may have a continuing objec­
tion to that line of testimony and it will be over­
ruled .

I believe you asked me about that yesterday.
And you said, if I recall, that you meant by that sen­

tence that the student was not acceptable because 
Jackson State College was not a member of the 
Southern Association of Colleges and Secondary 
Schools. Am I correctly restating what you said at 
that time?

X don’t know whether you are correctly restating my
answer yesterday, but I think your statement is accu­
rate.

Now, Jackson State College is accredited, as you testi­
fied previously, by the college accrediting



5 7 9

commission of Mississippi, isn’t it?
A, Jackson State College does enjoy the accreditation which 

that organization gives.
Q. And Jackson State College was so accredited when the 

plaintiff applied?
A, I believe he was. —  I believe the institution was.
Q. Is that a recognized professional accrediting associa­

tion?
A. No, it is not.
Q. What is it?
A. It is simply —  I presume you are talking about the legal 

accrediting body for the State of Mississippi?
Q. Yes, the college accrediting commission.
A. This is a body that is organized under state law for the 

purposes of accrediting such institutions that don’t 
otherwise enjoy the recognition of a regional 
accrediting association. It helps to recognize 
institutions for teacher certification, for approval 
for training under various GI bills. It has a rather 
limited type of accreditation.

Q. Well, when I asked you if it is a professional accre­
diting association, Mr. Ellis, I’m asking you 
whether the people who do this accreditation are 
qualified to do it or whether they are amateurs 
that don’t know what they are doing.

A* Your term applied to the association. It is not a



5&0

professional accrediting association. The people 
who are on the commission may be very well qualified 
professionally, but a professional accrediting agent 
is one who accredits professional programs, and this 
body is not a professional accrediting agency.

Q, You mean your regulation to the effect that —
A, —  Counsel, if I may give an example, the American Bar 

Association is a professional accrediting agency.
Q. It is?
A, That is correct. It accredits our school of law. The

Southern Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools 
does not accredit our school of law. The American 
Bar Association is a recognized professional ac­
crediting agency. This applies to medical schools, 
education, business, and so on.

Q. Yes, but I’m not using the word "professional" in that 
sense. I’m asking you whether this Mississippi 
Accrediting Association is a group of amateurs or a 
group of qualified people.

BY ME. CLARK? This goes to the meaning of the word 
"professional," and plaintiff’s counsel is not the 
registrar of the University of Mississippi. That 
registrar is on the stand. He is the person who is 
required to interpret the meaning of the policy of 
the committee on admissions in determining in its



561

minutes, and he is the man who must interpret the 
meaning of the word "professional accrediting asso­
ciation" used in those minutes. We object to 
counsels questions to this witness for that reason. 
BY THE COURTS Overrule the objection.

Q. Mr. Ellis,it’s a group of amateurs? Or do they know what 
they are doing?

A. Counsel, at this moment I can’t tell you who is on this 
state accrediting group, so I am not qualified to 
say whether they are professionally competent or not. 
I can say —

Q. —  You don’t know anything about this agency which 
accredits schools in Mississippi?

A. I think I have told you what I know about the organiza­
tion.

Q. What do you know about it?
A. I have already testified.
Q. That they accredit schools in the State of Mississippi?
A. For very limited purposes, that is correct.
Q. I’m asking you whether you consider that group a profes­

sional group in the sense that they are qualified 
or whether you consider that group an amateur group 
in the sense that they are unqualified to do such 
accreditation.

BY MR. CATESs We object to this. She has been over



532

this two or three times, and he said he didn’t know 
and wasn’t qualified to say.
BY THE COURTS Overrule the objection.

A. I recognize the organization as competent to accredit, 
to grant the limited accreditation that it grants.
Now, as far as the individuals that compose that 
group, I’m not qualified to say whether they are 
individually competent or not. I don’t even know 
who they are,

Q. Let me show you Plaintiff*s Exhibit 55, which is the
minutes of the meeting of the Committee on Admissions 
dated May 15, 1961 and ask you to read this sentence 
here. (Indicating) Read the paragraph.

A, (Reading) "The University’s present policies were briefly 
reviewed by the chairman. A motion was then approved 
to accept credits only from institutions which are 
members of a regional accrediting association or a 
recognized professional accrediting association."

Q. And you construe "professional” there to mean graduate 
or professional education?

A, I construe it to apply to specialized training programs 
that are offered in institutions of higher learning.

Q. Do you have any other construction of that, or is that 
your own? Did somebody give you that or is that your 
own construction of that?

A* This is my construction



533

Q. That says "credits/* doesn’t it?
A. That’s correct.
Q. So that the regulation there is that you may not accept 

credits from a school which is not a member of the 
Southern Association or a recognized professional 
accrediting association? Is that right?

A. That’s right.
Q. So that if you applied that to the plaintiff in this case, 

you would simply not accept his credits from Jackson 
State College? Is that right? As long as it was not 
a member?

A. If I applied just this policy, your statement is correct. 
But there are other policies that must be applied.

Q. Did you apply that statement to his credits from the 
University of Kansas?

A. Yes, I did.
Q. Is that a member of the regional accrediting association?
A. It is.
Q* Did you apply that to say that you couldn’t accept his 

credits?

BY MR. CLARKs We’d like to amplify the previous ob­
jection and ask this objection be also taken as a 
continuing objection to any other pursual of this 
line of questions. The questions now posed to the 
witness are asking him about matters that would be on



the merits or the grade level at which an applicant 
would be admitted to the University, and the record 
in this case clearly shows both on the preliminary 
hearing and on this hearing that this manfs appli­
cation —  that the merits of this man?s application 
was never reached, and the only thing that was ever 
given to him was a tentative evaluation for his own 
personal guidance and at his request by the registrar 
and there was not any action by the registrar at any 
time to determine what credits this roan had that 
would be recognized by the University on admission 
because he never reached that part of the applica­
tion. We think these questions could produce only 
irrelevant, immaterial information, not of any 
guidance to this Court on any point under considera­
tion in the lawsuit.
BY THE COURT? Overrule the objection.
BY MR. CLARK? May it be continuing?
BY THE COURT? Yes, you may have a continuing objec­
tion. The witness is on cross examination, and that 
is within the 3cope of cross examination.

Q. Did you apply that rule to the credits from the Univer­
sity of Kansas?

A* That rule certainly would apply to the credits from the 
University of Kansas.



535

Q, Were they accepted or rejected?

BY MR. CLARK? This is exactly the line of our ob­
jection, They were neither accepted or rejected on 
final action of the registrar.
BY THE COURT; Overrule the objection,
BY MR. CLARK; We object unless it is limited for 
purposes of the tentative evaluation made for the 
plaintiff.
BY THE COURT; Overrule the objection.

A. In the letter which I wrote to the plaintiff and in
which X indicated I had given him a tentative evalu­
ation, the credits from the University of Kansas were 
included in the amount that I gave him credit for.

Q. In other words, that rule doesn*t prohibit you from ac­
cepting credits from the University of Kansas?

A. That’s right.
Q. What about the credits from the University of Maryland?
A. The same rule that applies would apply in a case of trans­

fer from the University of Maryland. We can accept 
them.

Q. Accept them? —

BY MR. CLARK; May the record be clear as to what 
"the rule" they are referring to here is. As I



536

understand it, the committee on admissions did not 
take this particular action with regard to estab­
lishing programs of transferring colleges until the 
date after the registrar’s letter of tentative evalu­
ation had been written to the plaintiff. And I fail 
to see how "the rule” could be related back — if 
that is the rule that is under consideration.
And I amplify my objection to any questions about 
"the rule" until we definitely establish what they 
are talking about and when it was promulgated.
BT THE COURT? I’ll overrule the objection with the 
right to you to renew it on the final argument of the 
case. I will let him answer.

Q. What about the credits from Washburn? Did you accept 
those under that rule?

A. Counsel, I haven’t accepted them. As this rule applies 
we would recognize the credits from the Municipal 
University of Washburn.

Q. So that of all the credits which were offered by the 
plaintiff, the only credits which you could not 
accept under that rule were the credits from Jackson 
State College? Isn’t that right?

A. That isn’t quite correct because you are limiting me to 
the application of one rule, and there are more than
one



537

Q. We*re taking the rules one at a time. We*11 get to that.

BI MR. CLARK? We object to counsel interrupting the 
witness.

A. I can’t make any evaluation just applying one rule.

BY MRS. MOTLEYs We can’t take these rules up and 
discuss them all at one time. I am trying to clarify 
the record.
BY THE COURT? After he completes his answer you may 
ask another question.

Q. All right. I’m talking about this rule now, Mr. Ellis.
Let’s concentrate on one rule, this rule of May 15th. 
I am asking you whether as a result of that rule the 
only credits you could not accept are those from 
Jackson State College.

A. I’ll say this? In terms of this rule, I would not be
able to accept the credits from Jackson State College. 

Q. Now, does that rule mean that if a student has attended 
a school which is not a member of its regional 
accrediting association you cannot accept the stu­
dent at all, despite the fact that he has attended 
other schools which are members of their respective 
regional accrediting associations?



A. This rule means simply that we cannot accept the credits 
from institutions that are not members of a regional 
accrediting association or recognized professional 
association.

BY MRS. MOTLEY? I’d like to ask the Court a question. 
The defendants’ exhibits are in evidence under the 
rulings yesterday, are they not?
BY THE COURT? I don’t believe they are, as I under­
stood it yesterday afternoon. I told the defendants 
they would have to introduce them unless by agree­
ment you want to put one in.
BY MRS. MOTLEY? We’d like to have this marked then. 
BY MR. CLARK? In evidence or for identification?
BY MRS. MOTLEY? For identification right now.
BY THE COURT? Does it already have a mark on it, 
introduced on a former hearing?
BY MRS. MOTLEY? Yes.
BY THE COURT? You may just use that number without 
having it marked.

Q .  I show you the exhibit previously marked as Defendants’ 
Exhibit 29 and ask you if you recall that regulation 
discussed previously in this case.

A* I am familiar with the policy.
Q* Now, I am going to read a part of this and ask you to



5&9

explain it.

BY MR. CLARK? We object to counsel reading from 

something not in evidence.
BY M S .  MOTLEY? Well, we are now offering this in 
evidence.
BY MR. CLARKs I know I positively and definitely 

misunderstood the position of the record on yester­

day afternoon. This is an instrument, if lour Honor 

please, that was introduced in a part of the trans­

cript of the hearing on the preliminary injunction as 

an exhibit to the testimony, I believe, of Mr. Ellis, 

and even though it bears the identity of defendants* 

exhibit, I am almost positive in my recollection 

that the ruling made yesterday by the Court was that 

testimony of both James Meredith and Robert Ellis 

was going to be admitted in this record, together 

with all exhibits, not just plaintiff’s exhibits, 

but all exhibits by both parties.
BY THE COURT? That is correct. That was the ruling 

I made, and if this was introduced as an exhibit 

under the testimony of Mr. Ellis, it is already in 

the record^ but it hasn’t been brought to my atten­

tion this morning under whose testimony it was intro­

duced. My ruling yesterday was that the introduction 

of all the records of the parties to the lawsuit



5 9 0

carried with an introduction of all exhibits intro­
duced under their testimony, both for the plaintiff 
and for the defendants. Then there arose yesterday 
afternoon the exhibits introduced under the testi­
mony of Mr. Clark, who was not a party defendant, 
and I held if he desired to introduce those exhibits 
then they would have to offer them. That document 
now being questioned about is already in evidence.
BY ME. CLARKS We withdraw our objection to counsel’s 
discussion of this instrument or any further use of 
it at the present time.

Q. Mr. Ellis, Defendants’ Exhibit 29 is an excerpt from the 
minutes of the Board of Trustees of State Institu­
tions of Higher Learning of February 7, 1961?

A. Yes.
Q. And this regulation says in part that "all state sup­

ported institutions of higher learning may accept 
transfer students from other state supported insti­
tutions of higher learning, private colleges or 
denominational colleges only when the previous pro­
gram of the transferring college is acceptable to 
the receiving institution and the program of studies 
completed by the student and the quality of the 
student’s work in said transferring college is 
acceptable to the receiving institution and to the



5 9 1

Board of Trustees.” Now, would you explain how that 
regulation affects the plaintiff?

A. Well, in view of the fact that the University cannot 
recognize the credits from institutions which are 
not members of a regional accrediting association, it 
follows from this regulation that a student presenting 
credits from such an institution can*t be accepted.

Q. All right. Now, does that mean that when the student
has attended only one institution and seeks to trans­
fer to the University of Mississippi and the institu­
tion from which he transfers is not a member of its 
regional accrediting association, the University of 
Mississippi cannot accept that student?

A. It means that a student who seeks to transfer from an
institution which is not a member --  He can only
transfer from one institution^ he can?t transfer 
from a series of institutions or universities — - 
It means we can’t accept that student.

Q. And you can’t accept that student despite the fact he has 
attended other colleges which are members of their 
respective regional accrediting associations?

BT MR. CLARKS We object to that because the man is 
only transferring from one institution. He is not 
attempting to go back and transfer from Maryland and 
Kansas. We can only take him as he is, and that is



5 9 2

transferring from Jackson State College% so I don’t 
think that question is academically correct.
BX MRS. MOTLEXs Well, we object to the lawyer testi­
fying. I’m asking what the registrar thinks this 
means.
BX THE COURTS Sustain the objection on that. I 
think the question is for construction by the Court. 
As I understand it, that document is a copy of 
minutes adopted by the Board of Trustees. I sustain 
the objection.
BX MRS. MOTLEXs Well, Xour Honor, as to this ques­
tion, we’d like to invoke the provisions of Rule 430 
to find out what this rule means with respect to the 
plaintiff’s case.
BX MR. CLARKs To which we object on the ground it 
would be clearly irrelevant and immaterial to any 
issue in the lawsuit.
BX THE COURTS Let me see the exhibit.
(Same is handed to the Court)
BX THE COURTS Xes, I think this presents a question 
of law for the Court to construe and not for this 
registrar, so I sustain the objection. It is so 
apparent that the answer to the question is not 
competent that I don’t think Rule 43C is applicable.



593

Q. Let me ask you this? How many other students have been 
barred from the University of Mississippi as a re­
sult of this regulation?

BY ME. CLARK? We object to the question as phrased 
to the witness, ”How many students have been barred 
from the University by the regulation?” The regu­
lation is not the barrer of students. The regula­
tion is in operation at the University to run it as 
a good institution.
BY THE COURTS I overrule the objection.

A. Counsel, I can’t tell you exactly how many. I can say 
that we have applied this policy and we have elimi­
nated --- we have denied applications in the amount
of, I guess, 25 or 30. We avoided having to consider 
a considerably greater number of students by ad­
vising those people who inquired of this policy.

Q. Well, those are the records we want, Mr. Ellis. We 
didn’t see those records. Those are the ones we 
want.

A. I can actually find such material in the files which I 
brought down.

BY MRS. MOTLEY? Well, Your Honor, those are the 
records we would like to see.



5 9 4

BX THE WITNESS ? Xou have them.
BX MRS. MOTLEX? And the records we want to see are 
those of students who have gone to accredited schools 
and unaccredited schools, as in the case of the plain­
tiff. We want to see cases in which this rule has 
been applied to persons similarly situated as the 
plaintiff is.
BX MR. CLARK? I think that counsel is putting an 
improper burden on this witness. He was under the 
command of the Court to bring records. He brought 
records. She is examining about what is in the 
records and he is giving his testimony about what is 
there.
BX MRS. MOTLEX; We say we find no such record.
BX MR. CLARK? Counsel is not a witness in this case 
and cannot testify into this record.
BX MRS. MOTLEX? I inspected them and I will take the 
stand and so testify.
BX MR. CLARK? I will object to your taking the stand. 
Xou are counsel in the lawsuit.
BX THE COURT? I believe we will proceed with the 
examination of this witness. What was your last ques­
tion?
BX MRS. MOTLEX? I asked him if he had the record of 
people to whom this rule was applied who are similarly 
situated as the plaintiff that is, they have



595

attended institutions which are members of their 
respective regional accrediting associations and have 
also attended schools that are not members and were 
therefore denied admission to the University of 
Mississippi as the plaintiff was.
BY THE COURTS I will overrule the objection and let 
him answer if he has any such records.

A. Well, Counsel, all of the files of students who were ad­
mitted —  and I would guess, though I haven’t counted 
them, that there must be approximately BOO folders 
in that group. Those who were admitted were admitted 
under this policy. In the inactive files and in the 
correspondence are letters which indicate the appli­
cation of this policy to deny or to advise prospective 
students.

Q. Do you have those records?
A. I brought all the records that the Court requested.
Q. I’m talking about those similarly situated to the plain­

tiff to which this rule is applied.
A. Well, this takes some interpretation. I’m talking about 

this policy.
Q. Yes, I’m talking about this policy too, and I want to

see the records in which you have applied this rule 
to cases similar to the plaintiff’s.

A. You have had access to them.



5 9 6

Q. And I say there aren’t any.
A. Well, I’d just like to indicate ---
Q. —  Would you like to go look for them?

BY THE COURTS Mr. Ellis, did you bring all the re­
cords that you were directed to bring by the order 
of this Court?
BY THE WITNESSs Yes, Your Honor. Now, on checking 
I found there were three folders in the September 
group which we could not find, and I made a notation 
of that fact and put it in the file for the plaintiff’s 
people to see.
BY THE COURTS Very well. I will limit the examina­
tion to records that the Oourt ordered to be produced 
and rule them relevant for inspection on this issue.
BY MRS. MOTLEYs That’s what I’m asking him about —  

the records in the marshal’s office *—  if he has any 
there which show that this rule is applied to a 
person who was similarly situated to the plaintiff.
BY THE COURTS Very well, if you have those records. 
You say you have inspected them and you say they do 
not contain any of that type? Then I think to make 
proof of that the witness can answer the question, 
and then in rebuttal if the defendants desire to 
rebut it, they can do so from the records, rather 
than suspend and let him examine the records now. I



5 9 7

believe it would save time. Would you know, Mr. Ellis, 
whether or not there are any records in this batch 
that you brought down here that answer the question 
she is asking you about, that contain such informa­
tion? Have you examined them recently to determine 
an answer to that question?
BI THE WITNESS? I have gone through the records in 
much more detail than counsel has. Now, when she 
says '’similarly situated,” I don’t know exactly how 
to interpret this statement, but in terms of this 
particular policy, we do have examples in those 
files and I have seal them.
BY MR. CATES? Even if the Court had those records, 
they would be of no assistance to the Court for this 
reason? The question before this Court is, has this 
plaintiff been denied unconstitutionally any right 
because of race or color? These people who have been 
denied would not show discrimination or anything? 
they would show they are in the same position that 
the plaintiff is. In other words, the point here 
would be that the plaintiff needs to show that those 
whose records are here, who have been enrolled, have 
keen enrolled on the same basis and on the same basis 
that the plaintiff has been denied. That is the 
question. It is not whether or not others have been 
denied and are in the same class. The point is, have



593

people been enrolled who enjoy the same position as 
the plaintiff? That is the question. In all candor, 
we would be delighted to see if we could get such 
records, but we don*t think they are of any probative 
value to the Court because that is not the question. 
The question is, have others been enrolled who enjoy 
the same position as this plaintiff?
BY THE COURT? I will overrule that objection. It 
might be certainly a circumstance to be considered 
upon the issues involved. I believe then we will take 
about 15 minutes recess and let the witness see if he 
can find such records. Can you make that examination 
in 15 minutes?
BY THE WITNESS? No, sir, not a thorough investiga­
tion. Counsel had a good part of yesterday to do it. 
BY THE COURT? Well, I believe then we will proceed 
now with other questions and let him make the exami­
nation later, Counsel.
BY MRS. MOTLEY? Or we could do as Your Honor sug­
gested —  have somebody who inspected the records for 
us take the stand and so testify, and then if they 
have them, they could rebut it by that.
BY THE COURT? Yes.
BY MRS. MOTLEY? We will send somebody out now, if 
they want to have somebody out there, Your Honor.
W e *11 do that so that person can testify.



5 9 9

BY THE COURTS Did I understand you intend to send 
some representative out now?
BY MRS. MOTLEY? I thought we would go out and pull 
the files now that are applicable. If they want to 
have somebody there while that was done — ?
BY THE COURTS You mean you want to recess?
BY MRS. MOTLEY• I thought they could send somebody 

out to s i t  there as th is  person goes through them.

BY THE COURTS Under my ruling I would want somebody 
there. Is there anybody other than Mr. Ellis that 
can go? Let Dr. Jobe go out and Mr. Bell can go out. 
Now, do you want to take these that have been brought 
in and take them out?
BY MRS. MOTLEY" No, we don’t have to take those out.
I will continue with the examination.

(Continuing?)
Q. Mr. Ellis, Jackson State College is now a member of the 

Southern Association of Colleges and Secondary 

Schools, isn’t it?
A. It became a member at the December, 1961, meeting of the 

Southern Association.
Q. What effect does that have on the plaintiff’s application? 

A. It has no effect on it.
Q. You mean you don’t now accept students from Jackson State 

College?



6 0 0

A. I mean that this application became inactive with my
letter last May and hasn’t been considered since then*

BY MR. CLARK? The witness said ”application." Does 
he mean ,!action!??
BY MRS. MOTLEY? I wish you would not suggest the 
answers to the witness. I think that is highly 
improper.
BY MR. CLARK? I didn’t want the record to be cloudy. 
That’s all. It was an obvious mistake.
BY MRS. MOTLEY? He has a chance to cross examine 
the witness, and I don’t think it permissible for a 
lawyer to get up and continually suggest the answers 
to the witness.
BY THE COURT? Well, I haven’t seen any misconduct 
whatever by counsel on either side, so I will rule 
that was not a proper suggestion or proper inquiry 
as to what he meant by his answer.

Q. Do you now accept students from Jackson State College?
A. We recognize the accreditation of Jackson State College, 

and if we had a proper application we would admit 
such students.

Q« Now, yesterday I believe you testified that the plaintiff 
was not accepted because, among other things, he 
didn’t bother to send the most recent transcript from



6 0 1

Jackson State College, Is that right?
A, Would you repeat that question,
(The last question was read)
A, I simply meant by that this was one of the reasons the 

application was incomplete,
Q, But did you deny his admission on that ground?
A. I believe I gave you the reasons for the denial of his 

admission, as stated in my letter to him,
Q. Was that one of the reasons?
A. No. It was a matter of not being concerned about the 

succeeding credits from that institution since the 
record we had on file couldn’t be recognized.

Q. Well, let me get the record straight now, Mr. Ellis, You 
did not turn the plaintiff down because he had not 
sent you,after the first transcript from Jackson 
State College, subsequent transcripts? Is that right?

A. Let me put it this ways If the applicant’s file had met 
the requirements to this point, he would not have 
been admitted without that record; but since his 
file could not be considered, there was no point in 
being concerned about credits that were not on file 
from Jackson State College,

Q. Well, if he could have been admitted at that point, if 
Jackson State College were a member, you would have 
admitted him provisionally ----

BY MR. CLARKs —  We object, Your Honor. That is



6 0 2

speculation, plus the fact that she is working into 
an improper question,
BX THE COURTS Let her complete the question. Had 
you finished the question?
BY MRS, MOTLEY? No, I had not,

Q. If the plaintiff had come from a member institution and 
you had no problem at that time with respect to the 
fact that he was from a non-member institution, you 
would have accepted him provisionally, would you not, 
pending receipt of the other transcripts from Jackson 
State College?

BY THE COURTS Xou object to that?
BX MR. CLARKs Xes, sir.
BX THE COURTS Overrule the objection.
BX MR. CLARKs Xes, sir, because he has stated there 
are some several grounds on which he would have 
been rejected.
BX THE COURTS Overrule the objection.

A. Well, I?m sorry, Counsel. I got the impression we were 
using a theoretical example of an applicant from a 
completely accredited institution, and then you used 
the school Jackson State College. So P m  confused.

Q. Well, let me say this, Mr. Ellis, What P m  trying to



6 0 3

establish is that you have a policy with respect to 
transfer students coming from other institutions 
whereby you accept such students provisionally 
pending receipt of the transcripts from the institu­
tions which they are attending.

A. I think you will find in our Committee on Admissions
minutes from this past fall, 1962, that such a pro­
cedure, the acceptance of transfer students on the 
basis of the transcript showing the semester of en­
rollment, the last semester of enrollment, could be 
accepted provisionally if all other requirements were 
met. The provision simply means that the student 
must meet the admission requirements for his semes­
ter in which he is currently enrolled at that insti­
tution. If he meets it, then he would get the 
certificate of admission.

Q. Let me show you some from the summer term. When did you 
say that went into effect?

A, A definite procedure for accepting transfer students on a 
provisional basis was adopted this last fall.

Q. Let me show you a half dozen applications from the
summer term and ask you if these students whose files 
I now show you were not provisionally accepted 
pending receipt of the transcript from the institu­

tions.



6 0 4

BY MR. CLARK? We object to counsel’s question as 
containing the contents of an instrument not in evi­
dence.
BY THE COURTS Overrule the objection to that. As 
I understand it, these are documents that were fur­
nished under an order of the Court and brought into 
the Court for inspection, so I will overrule that 
objection.

A. Well, the first one, Counsel, is an application for ad­
mission for the second semester, 1961-’62. You 
probably didn’t want to submit that one.

Q. This says second summer session, 1961-’62.
A. It says second semester, 1961-’62.
Q. Oh, I’m sorry. These are the —
A. And this is the second semester, 1961-’62, and this one 

is the second semester 
Q. —  These are out of order.
A. —  196l-’62.
Q. I say these are out of order. Are you deaf?

BY THE COURT? Very well, Counsel. Do not lose your 

temper.
BY MR. CATES? May I have an observation at this 

point?
BY THE COURT? Yes.



6 0 5

BY MR* CATES? 1 think we must object to any testi­
mony from these records here unless counsel limits 
them to showing that these are provisionally accepted 
students from non-member regional schools* Now, the 
fact that these may or may not be tentatively accep­
ted students until the transcript comes to the Uni­
versity is of a different category and a different 
class than what the plaintiff here seeks. The plain­
tiff here seeks to come at the time that these 
records were made or at the preliminary proceeding 
from a school which was a non-member of a regional 
accrediting association, so I don’t think it would be 
competent for this witness to testify from a series 
of records which are not in the same identical class 
as the plaintiff presents, and we therefore object on 
that ground.
BY THE COURT? At this time, a general objection 
applying to any question asked at the moment, I will 
overrule? but you certainly may object to any particu­
lar question as it comes along with respect to these 
documents. I believe at this point we will take a 
ten minute recess.

(Whereupon the court was recessed for ten minutes.)



6 0 6

After Recess
(Mrs.Motley continues examination of Mr. Ellis?)
Q. Now, Mr* Ellis, I show you the files of a half a dozen 

students admitted to the summer term and ask you to 
look at these and tell us whether those people were 
not in fact admitted and received admission certifi­
cates before you had received the transcripts from 
the colleges from which they were transferring.

BY MR. CLARK2 To which we make the same objection 
previously made with regard to exhibits not yet in 
evidence.
BY THE COURTS Overrule the objection.

A. This is an application from James Robert Rhodes, Jr., in 
which he applied for admission to the summer school 
of 1961 as a transfer from Georgia Southwestern 
College.

Q. Give the dates on which you received his transcripts.
A. And we received •*— X don*t see a date stamp on the Georgia 

Southwestern transcript, but it carries the notation 
it was mailed from Wait a minute. I»m sorry.
We do have the receipt stamp. ”Received April 27,

1961. ”

Q. There is another transcript?
A. Yes and what you are referring to is a transcript which



60?

was submitted from Abraham Baldwin Agricultural Col­
lege for some summer school work that this student 
took after he was admitted, and this is a common 
practice. It is done all the time.

Q. What is the date you received that transcript?
A. This summer school work transcript was received on July 

2B, 1961. We admitted him for the first term of the 
1961 summer session.

Q. When did that begin?
A. —  which began on June 6th and which probably ended

before he —  No, I’m sorry. He had attended Abraham 
Baldwin. But this is a common practice. We had ad­
mitted him on the basis of his work from Georgia 
Southwestern where he was a transfer student. He 
was a transient at this other institution.

Q. When you admitted him, you had not received all his trans­
cripts. That is the point.

A. les, -—
Q. All right. Go to the next one.
A. —  We had.

Bl m r # CLARKs I don’t believe the record is clear.
The witness’ answer was in two parts. She asked him 
a question and I don’t believe he got to complete his 
answer, as I understood it.
BX THE COURTS Xou may bring it out on cross examina­
tion. I did think counsel interrupted him in his



6 0 $

answer at one time, but you can clarify on cross 
examination, or if the witness has any information he 
desires to give about it further, he can do it at 
this time in order to save time.

A. Now, this is an application from M s s  Mary Suzanna
McCullough for admission to the first term of the 
1961 summer session, and we received three different 
transcripts from the institutions she attended.
Siena College, the first one which we had --- The
first one we received does not have a date and stamp. 
It indicates it was sent from Siena College on April 
12th, and it gives the program of courses in progress 
in the second semester of 1961, and therefore the 
credits from the college could not be sent to us by 
the time our summer school enrolled. We did get the 
record in on June 5th, a registration — - I?m sorry. 
It was sent June 5th. We may very well have gotten 
it on that date.

(Counsel indicates)
A. Well, these are the same records. They are duplicates.

Q. What does that say?
A. That was a transcript received in our office on the 24th.

Q. Of what?
A. July. And the very same transcript —  Sorry. June. Well, 

it couldn’t have been received before the 5th of June,



6 0 9

but it might have been received the 5th or a day or 
so later,,

Q, When was she admitted to the summer session?
A. This admission certificate is not dated.
Q. But the summer session began on the 6th, didn’t it?
A. That’s correct.
Q. What is this --- So that you received the transcript

either just as she was admitted or just after?
A. No. She was not admitted until we had received all her 

records.
Q. Is that indicated on there?
A. It is indicated by our policy not to issue an admission 

certificate until all the credentials are in.
Q. The previous one was entered before you got all the cre­

dentials. Look at the date on which -

BY MR. CLARK? The witness has not had a chance to 
answer the last question, and we ask he be allowed 
to answer the question posed to him.
BX THE COURT? Yes.
BY MR. CLARK? Would the reporter read back the first 
of the last question asked.
(The previous question was read)

Q. What is the answer to that?
A. The previous application, the one we are talking about



6 1 0

now, James Robert Rhodes, is completely in accord 
with our policy to admit a student and then have him 
decide to go to summer school somewhere else to pick 
up some credits at another institution during the 
summer and submit them later. You can find all kind 
of examples like that.

Q. What about the one we are on now? What’s her name?
A. McCullough.
Q. Didn’t you give her a certificate of admission before you 

received all her credentials?
A. No, we didn’t.
Q. When did you admit her?
A. I don’t know.
Q. What does it say?
A. We admitted her for the first time 1961 summer session.
Q. When did you receive these alumni certificates?
A. These certificates indicate they were received —  on 

this one, August 2, 1961.
Q. Okay. Let’s go to the next case.

BY MR. CLARK” I think the record shows it, but if 
it doesn’t, we of course want a continuing objection 
to testimony about a volume of records identified 
only by name. We think it would be more proper if 
they were introduced in evidence before the witness 
is questioned about it, and we want that objection



6 1 1

understood to be a continuing objection.
BY THE COURT? Yes, I believe that is a correct rule 
of law where the documents are in writing^ before 
you can go into the contents they must be offered in 
evidence.
BY MRS. MOTLEY? Well, we would like to offer them 
now.
BY THE COURTS Let them be marked. Are you offering 
all of them?
BY MRS. MOTLEY? Yes, sir. There are six records 
from the summer session, 1961.
BY THE COURTS Let them be marked.

(Same received in evidence and marked as Plaintiff*s Exhibits 
Nos. 29 through 34, respectively. Same are not copied here 
but upon order of the Court are being sent up in original 
form.)

Q. Let me show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 29, which is the
application or file of James Robert Rhodes, Jr., and 
ask you if this applicant was not admitted to the 
first summer session which began June 8, 1961, prior 
to the time that you received all of his transcripts. 

A. On this application for the first term, 1961 summer ses­
sion, we received transcripts from Georgia South­
western College on April 27, 1961, which included his



612

work from that institution and from South Georgia 
College. We received a transcript from the Univer­
sity of Georgia on April 19th, which included his 
credits from the University of Georgia and from the 
Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College. So in these 
two transcripts we had a record of all of his aca­
demic credits prior to his enrollment in the Univer­
sity. We did receive a transcript from Abraham 
Baldwin Agricultural College on July 23, 1961. This 
information was also on the transcript from the 
University of Georgia which we received on April 19.

Q. Let me show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 30 and ask you if 
you did not admit Mary Suzanna McCullough to the 
first summer term before you had received all of 
her transcripts. — - Excuse me. —  Before you leave 
that first file, isn’t it your policy to require the 
transcript from each institution, rather than a 
transcript which shows prior institutions listed on 
a single transcript?

A. No, the only purpose in requiring the transcripts from 
each institution is to be able to prepare a proper 
evaluation. Xf the work has been transcribed from a 
previous institution to a second institution’s 
record and we can interpret it to make our evalua­
tion, then that is acceptable.

Q. And you don’t require these others?



6 1 3

A. Not in all cases, no.
Q. Okay.
A. Now, what was the question?
Q. Didn’t you accept that applicant, McCullough, before you 

had actually received all of her transcripts?
A. There is no indication in the file when the admission cer­

tificate was issued. I believe what you would like 
to know is, was she enrolled? Did she register? It 
appears from the file that we received her letters 
of recommendation -—

BY MR. CATESs We object to what it appears. Let
the record speak for itself rather than his ----
BY THE COURT? Overrule the objection.

A, We have two sets of recommendation forms in her file, 
and from the file it is indicated that we did not 
have these at the time she registered, but she did 
have them in the file before she was issued a certifi­
cate of admission? and if it had been any problem, 
she could have been rejected at any time.

Q. You say she was before —  There is no date on that, is 
there?

A. That’s right, but we never issue a certificate of admis­
sion until the file is complete and is acceptable.

Q, What date does it say that you received the college



6 1 4

transcript from Siena College? What date did the 
registrar mail that to you?

A. The first complete transcript received from Siena College 
is the date —  ’’Sister Jamesetta, June 5, 1961."

Q, That is the date she mailed it?
A. I don’t know whether she mailed it or put it in a sealed 

envelope and gave it to the student or what.
Q. I mean that is the date on which the registrar acted on 

it?
A. This was the date it would appear the transcript was 

produced.
Q. What date did the summer session begin?
A. As I recall, June 6th.
Q. Okay. Let’s go to Plaintiff’s 31 and ask you if you did 

not accept for the first summer session M s s  Harriet 
McGee Long prior to the time you received her trans­
cript.

A. This file would indicate or indicates --

A.

BY MR. CLARKS Again we move to exclude what it might 
indicate. It is for the Court to determine whether 
it does or does not, and the record speaks for Itself. 
BX THE COURTS Yes, that objection, I think, is well 
taken. I will let him state whether the file 
shows that or not, rather than ’’indicates.

case of Harriet M. Long, and theWell, this is a



6 1 5

application was changed from September of ’61 to 
June of *61, and this students transcript from Jud- 
son College has the date stamp indicating "received 
in the registrar's office July 2$, 1961." It is 
true she did register, but she was not admitted 
until her file was complete.

Q. Does the admission certificate have a date?
A. The admission certificate is not dated,
Q. So this is just your statement that it was not issued 

until you got that transcript, but the record does 
not show that.

A. But this is my statement that such certificate was not 
issued until the file was complete.

Q. She was admitted to start classes? Is that correct?

A. lhat's right.

BY MR. CLARKs We object to the answer unless it is 
given on the basis of his personal knowledge.
BY THE COURTS Overrule the objection.

Q. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 32 is the file of Miss Prances
Jean Dunn, admitted to the first summer session. 
Would you state when you received her transcript?

A. May I review the entire file before I testify?

Q. Yes, sir.
{Witness examines file)



6l6

A. Now, what was the question?
Q. Whether she was admitted and permitted to attend classes 

before you received all of her transcripts.
A. les, she was permitted to attend classes.
Q. Let’s go to Plaintiff’s 33, which is a file of Mrs. Derry 

Patricia Flynt, F-l-y-n-t. Let me show you the file 
of Mrs. Flynt and ask you if she wasn’t admitted to 
enroll and attend classes before you had received 
all of her credentials.

A. May X review the entire file first?
Q. Yes.
(Witness examines file)
A. Now, what was the question?
Q. Was that student permitted to enroll and attend classes 

before you received all of her credentials or re­
quirements for admission?

A. This is an application for the second term of the 1961
summer session which began —  I don’t know the exact 
date —  the middle of July. She submitted the 
application on the 13th of June. I don’t see any­
thing in her file that would indicate we received 
any of her credentials except the recommendations, 
which apparently were received after that time.

Q. Okay. Let’s go to the file of Mrs. Valeria McCoppin, 
and let me ask you if this student was not issued 
to the first summer session before you had received



6 1 7

all of her transcripts.
A. This student was permitted to register subject to the 

receipt of her transcripts.
Q. Let me show you Plaintiff1s Exhibit 47, which is the

transcript of the plaintiff from Jackson State Col­
lege which you received according to this stamp on 
February 7, 1961, and I ask you if the courses which 
he took at the University of Kansas, the University 
of Maryland, and Washburn University are not set 

forth on that transcript?
A. Yes, they are on this transcript.
Q. Now, I believe you already testified that you have a

policy now which permits students to transfer pending 
receipt of their transcripts. Is that right?

A. We formalized a policy for all of our enrollment periods 
which provides this? Due to the situation we are 
faced with, we certainly have permitted students to 
enroll in the second semesters and in the summers 
pending the receipt of transcripts of credits or 
other miscellaneous items.

Q. Let me show you Plaintiff*s Exhibits 1 through 27, Mr.
Ellis. I just want to make sure you recognize those 
as the letters you wrote to the plaintiff and which 
you received from him and the return receipts signed 
by you or someone in your office.

A. Well, I recognize the letters that X have written, and



613

I recognize these as copies of letters that were re­
ceived in my office from the plaintiff.

Q. Now, let me show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 30 from the
previous hearing and ask you if you recognize that as 
the plaintiff’s application.

A. Yes, I do.

BI MRS. MOTLEY? I believe that is all the questions 
for this witness.
BY THE COURTS Any cross examination at this time?
BY MR. CLARKs Do I understand the plaintiff rests? 
BY MRS. MOTLEY? No. Mr. Bell is going to testify 
as to the records, and we have the registrar of 
Jackson State College.
BY MR. CATESs We have nothing at this time.
BY MRS. MOTLEY? At this time I would like to put on 
the registrar from Jackson State College, because he 
states he is busy and would like to return to the 

school.
BY THE COURTS Very well. You may stand aside, Mir. 

Ellis.
(Witness excused)



6 1 9

WALLACE F. SWANN III, called as a witness by the plaintiff 
and having been duly sworn, testified as follows?

EXAMINATION BY MRS. MOTLEY?
Q. Please state your full name for the record.
A. Wallace F. Swann, III.
Q. What is your present position?
A. Registrar at Jackson State College.
Q. Mr. Swann, do you have with you the transcripts of the 

plaintiff in this case, James Howard Meredith, 
showing all the work which he has taken at Jackson 
State College?

A. I do.
Q. Does this show the courses in which he is presently en­

rolled?
A. This does not show the courses of which he is presently

enrolled for the winter quarter, but it does show the 
courses completed for the fall quarter of 196l-*62.

Q. When did the winter quarter begin?
A. The winter quarter began December 6th.

By MRS. MOTLEY? We»d like to offer this in evidence. 
BY MR. CLARKS May I look at that?
BY THE COURT? Let counsel opposite see it.
BY MR. CLARK? We object on the ground it is not 
shown to have ever been submitted for consideration



6 2 0

to the University of Mississippi with regard to this 
plaintiff’s application, either before or after the 
lawsuit, and cannot now be submitted after the law­
suit has been filed with regard to an action previ­
ously taken by the registrar so as to be competent 
evidence of any material or pertinent fact in this 
proceeding.
THE COURT? Overrule the objection at this time, 
Gentlemen, so it can be made a part of the record, 
with the right to you to renew objection on the 
final argument£ but I will be frank to say that I 
doubt the admissibility at this moment. However, in 
order to make my rulings as I go along, I’ll overrule 
the objection and let it be received in evidence, and 
on final argument you may renew the objection if you 
desire and I will hear you more fully at that time. 
Let it be marked.

(Same received in evidence and marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 
No. 35. This instrument is not copied here, but upon order 
of the Court is being sent up in original form.)

(Mrs. Motley continues;)
Q. Does this transcript show the plaintiff’s present rating 

or standing in the class?

MR. CLARKs The document itself is the best evidence.



6 2 1

THE COURT? Sustain the objection.
MRS. MOTLEIs That is all the questions, Mr. Swann. 
THE COURTS Any cross examination?

EXAMINATION BY MR. CLARKs
Q. Have you mailed a copy of this document, Exhibit 35, to 

the University of Mississippi?
A. The copy just presented?
Q. A copy of the document, whether this exact copy or an 

identical copy.
A. I have not since I have been registrar.
Q. How long have you been registrar?
A. I’ve been registrar since September 1, 1961.
Q. Have you been requested to do so but failed to do so?
A. I have not.

BY MR. CLARKs Nothing further.
THE COURTS Very well, you are excused.

(Witness excused)

DERRICK A. BELL, JR., Of Counsel for the plaintiff, called as 
a witness by the plaintiff and oath having been waived, 
testified as followss 
EXAMINATION BY MRS. MOTLEYs
q. Please state your full name for the record.
A. Derrick A. Bell, Jr.



6 2 2

Q, Are you one of the attorneys for the plaintiff in this 
case?

A. I am.
Q. Did you this morning inspect the records produced by the 

registrar of the University of Mississippi for the 
purpose of determining whether there are any students 
who have been denied admission --

MR. CLARKS To which we object.
MRS. MOTLEY? I haven®t finished my question.
MR. CLARK? Beg pardon. I thought you were through.

Q. —  To the University of Mississippi who have attended 
schools which are members of regional accrediting 
associations and who have also attended schools which 
are not members of regional accrediting associations, 
as is the case with the plaintiff?

MR. CLARK? To which we object.
THE COURT? Overrule the objection.
MR. CLARK? May I state my reasons? She is calling 
him as a witness here and she is undoubtedly leading 
him to any conclusions. Secondly, I don®t think he 
is competent to testify to what he has reviewed be­
cause there has been no showing he is a competent 
registrar or a person who has been in the registrar®s



6 2 3

business. The best evidence of so producing would be 
to call someone who is of that character, so I don!t 
think anything he testified thereto would be compe­
tent, and we therefore object to any questions.
THE COURTS Overrule the objection.

A. I did inspect the records of transfer students and those 
who had been denied admission.

MR. CATESs We object to that. He still isn’t quali­
fied as being competent as to who has or who has not 
been denied.
THE COURTS Overrule the objection.

A. —  And among the files of students who had applied, trans­
fer students who had applied, I inspected 32 files 
from the summer session ---

MR. CLARKs —  We object again. She asked whether 
he did or not. He is attempting to testify and the 
answer is not responsive. Did he or didn’t he look 
at the records? I think it calls for a yes or no.
THE COURTS Yes, I will sustain that objection. Just 
let him answer first the question whether he did 
inspect them or not.

A. The answer to the question is yes, I did inspect the



6 2 4

records.
Q. What did you find when you inspected the records?

MR. CLARK? He might have found anything. I think it 
should be limited specifically to what this case con­
cerns. It might have been found that one of the 
applicants had hepatitis. That is not important in 
this case at all.
THE COURT? Xes, sustain the objection on the ground 
that the records would be the best evidence, and —
BX MRS. MOTLEX? Let me ask — - Excuse me, four Honor.

Q. Let me ask you this? Did you find any students similarly 
situated to the plaintiff in that these students 
attended schools which are members of their respective 
regional accrediting associations and also attended 
schools which are not members and who, as the plain­
tiff, were denied admission pursuant to the policy 
of the University dated February 7, 1961?

A. I found no such records.
Q. Did you find any records of any students who were ---

Strike that. How many records did you inspect, all 
told? Did you count the records out there?

A. Xes, I did.
Q. What is the total number of records out there?
A. There were 214 records in the inactive files? that is,



6 2 5

records of students who were not accepted for trans­
fer to the University of Mississippi.

MRS, MOTLEY % I think that is all.
THE COURTS Any cross examination?
MR. CLARKs Yes, sir.

EXAMINATION BY MR. CLARKs
Q, Did you find students situated identically to the plain­

tiff in that they were then attending schools who 
were non-members of the regional accrediting associa­
tions or professional accrediting associations or 
under the recognition of professional accrediting 
associations who were admitted to attend any session
or --- Pardon me — - the second 1960-61 session of
the University of Mississippi or either of the 1961 
summer sessions of the University of Mississippi?

A. I don’t know that I understood the question, Mr. Clark.
Q. The question posed by your counsel was whether or not you 

found applications in the inactive files that were 
identical to plaintiff’s situation, and I believe 
that your answer was that you found none. I now ask 
you if you found any applicants whose situation was 
identical to the plaintiff’s who were admitted to 
the University of Mississippi for either of these 
two semesters that I Just asked you about, namely,



6 2 6

the second of the 1960-61 semesters or the summer 
sessions, either summer session of the year 1961?

MRS. MOTLEIs He just answered that and said there 
were none identical with the plaintiff’s situation. 
THE COURTS Overrule the objection.

A. As to the *60-61 semester, we couldn*t know that because 
those records weren’t produced, the February 60-61 
records.

Q. You saw no files there from students who were admitted to 
attend the University at the 1961 spring semester?

A. There are no such records there.
Q. Did you see any students who were admitted to either of 

the summer 1961 sessions who were identically situ­
ated to the plaintiff?

A. The inspection I made —
Q. —  Pardon me. If you would, answer the question and then 

give any explanation you want. Did you find any 
such applications?

A. I can’t answer that question as you now have it posed.
Q. Explain why you cannot answer it.
A. The inspection that we made was in an effort to determine 

whether there were persons who like the plaintiff 
had attended schools which are recognized and, in 
addition, schools which are not, and who had been, as



6 2 7

the plaintiff was, denied. And we found no such re­
cords.

Q. I will ask you the question one more time. Did you find 
any records of students who were identically situated 
to the plaintiff who were admitted to attend the 
summer 1961 session? And I mean either the first or 
second sessions of the 1961 summer sessions of the 
University of Mississippi.

A. That would have incurred a different type of search. That 
is why I couldn’t answer your question because that 
would have meant a search and a much more lengthy 
one of all those who had been admitted as transfer 
students, and we were interested in a situation such 
as the plaintiff where persons had been denied under 
the policy.

MR. CLARKs I would like the court reporter to read 
the question I put to him and I will ask him again 
if he is willing to answer the question that I put to

him.
THE COURTS I think I can repeat the question and 
save time. The question is, even though you didn’t 
search for them and you were making a search for 
another type of records, yet in your search of the 
records you made, did you observe or find any in the 
category about which you were asked? And your



628

explanation was that you did not search for those.
His question was, in the search you made did you find 
any?
THE WITNESS? Well, I didn’t look for them, Your 
Honor, so I couldn’t say whether I found them. I 
was looking for persons who had been denied. I 
couldn’t say there were none of the other category. 
THE COURT? Very well. Proceed, Mr. Clark.
MR. CLARK? I think, if the Court please, I am en­
titled to have the question answered, did he find 
any, and I think that the answer would be a simple 
one. I don’t ask him what kind of search he made?
I just asked him if he found any such records.
THE COURT? Well, I can’t tell the witness how to 

answer the question. He has answered in his own way, 
so I will hold that is a sufficient answer.

Q. Did you look to determine whether or not any students
situated identically to the plaintiff had been admit­
ted to any subsequent sessions of the University of 
Mississippi?

A. No, I did not.
Q. Now, without regard to the records that are here now, I 

want to ask you whether or not you participated with 
other persons in an examination of the records of 
students who were similarly situated to this



6 2 9

plaintiff with regard to the first or the spring of 
1961 session during any part of the proceedings of 
this case?

A. No. Those records were never produced for our inspection.
Q. Tour testimony is now that at no prior time to this were 

you ever a part of a group that inspected the records 
of the University of Mississippi covering under­
graduate transfer students who had applied for or 
been admitted to the spring session of the University 
of Mississippi —  sometimes designated as the 
second I960-’61 semester. Is that the question you 
are answering?

A. That’s correct. While we requested the records several 
times, they were never produced for our inspection.

Q. That is your best recollection on that point?
A. That is.
Q. In the inspection you made, did you find any files that 

indicated that any persons who proposed themselves 
as students or who applied for admission as students 
to the University of Mississippi were refused or 
rejected under circumstances where those persons were 
seeking to transfer from non-accredited or non­
member institutions?

A. I did.
q . Do you have such files with you?
A. Tes, I do.



6 3 0

Q. May I see them, please?
(Hands to counsel)

MR. CLARKs We would like to have the reporter mark 
the file that contains a letter to William Michael 
Condor, Jr., C-o-n-d-o-r, as Exhibit 1.

(Same was received in evidence and marked as Defendants®
Exhibit No. 1. Same is not copied here, but upon order of
the Court is being sent up in original form.)

Q. P d  like to hand you the group of papers that have been
marked as Defendants® Exhibit 1. Whose file does that 
purport to be?

A. Seems to be the file of Mr. William Michael Condor, Jr., 
Lackawanna, New York.

Q. Were you able to make any determination from your exami­
nation of that file as to why that man was not admit­
ted as a student?

A. Well, the letter to Mr. Condor from Mr. Ellis indicates 
that credits from institutions which are not members 
of a regional accrediting association cannot be 
recognized for transfer. And the college Mr. Condor 
indicates he attended, in which to transfer from, was 
the Erie County Technical Institute in Williamsville, 

New York.



6 3 1

MR. CLARK? We*d like to offer this in evidence as 
Exhibit 1.

(Same was previously marked)

BI MR. CLARK; (To reporter) Would you mark this 
as Exhibit 2 for Identification.

(Same was marked as Defendants* Exhibit 2 for Identification)

Q. I hand you a file which I have had marked Defendants*
Exhibit 2 for Identification, the top page of which 
purports to be a letter to Albert H. Martin from 
Robert B. Ellis, and I would like to ask you if you 
found that file among the inactive files you examined 
in the marshal*s office here.

A. I did.
Q. Could you determine from your examination of that file 

the reasons for the action taken by the registrar 
and also what action he took with regard to the 
application of the person involved?

A. This one is a little more difficult. There is more
material in the file, but I think it could be sum­
marized that the student had attended —  yes, had 
attended a Bloom Township Community College located 
in Chicago, Illinois, and sought to transfer from 
there to the University of Mississippi.

Q. Was this the only reason you were able to determine that



6 3 2

he was not admitted?
A. It is hard to determine the credits that he had earned 

at the Bloom Township Community College —  put him 
below a C average, and from the number of the other 
inactive files of the students who were rejected, it 
would appear this would have been a basis for him not 
being accepted at the University of Mississippi, but 
in addition to that, his poor grades, it appears 
this Bloom Township Community College has not yet 
been made a member of the regional accrediting asso­
ciation in its area* So there appear to be two 
factors, and there’s a long letter explaining the 
difficulties.

Q. Do you see anything mentioned in the registrar’s letter 
to Albert H. Martin about whether or not the Univer­
sity facilities were crowded or uncrowded?

A. Well, there is one sentence in the second paragraph that 
reads, "..and finally, our crowded situation makes 
it mandatory to admit only those transfer students 
who have demonstrated the ability to successfully 
pursue college work.”

MR. CLARKs We offer Defendants’ Exhibit 2 for Iden­
tification in evidence.
THE COURT? Let it be received.

(Defendants’ Exhibit 2 for Identification was received in



6 3 3

evidence. Same is not copied here, but upon order of the 
Court, is being sent up in original form.)

Q. I hand you a group of papers marked Defendants* Exhibit 
3 for Identification and ask you if that group of 
papers came from the files you examined.

(Hands to witness)
A. les.

MR. CLARK? We offer that group of papers in evidence 
as Defendants* Exhibit 3.
THE COURT? Let it be received.

(Same received in evidence as Defendants* Exhibit No. 3. Same 
is not copied here, but upon order of the Court, is being 
sent up in original form.)

Q. From an examination of this group of papers, were you
able to determine whether or not the student or the 
applicant in this case was received or admitted to 
the University of Mississippi?

A. It appears from the letter from the registrar to this 
student that she would not be eligible because the 
transcript received was from Southern Seminary Junior 
College in Buena Vista, Virginia, which he indicated 
was not a regional accredited institution.



6 3 4

Q. What did that applicant claim her race to be?
A. White.
Q. What did the applicant in Defendants* Exhibit 2 claim his 

race to be?
A. White.
Q. What did the applicant in Defendants* Exhibit 1 claim 

his race to be?
A. White.

MR. CLARK; I ask the reporter to mark this group of 
papers as 4 for Identification.

(Same was marked as Defendants* Exhibit No. 4 for Identifi­
cation. }

Q. I hand you a group of papers marked as Defendants* 4 for 
Identification, the first page of which is a letter 
to Mrs. Floyd E. Moore from Robert B. Ellis, or a 
copy of such a letter. Did you obtain that group of 
papers from the files you examined this morning?

A. I did.

MR. CLARKS We offer that as Defendants* Exhibit 4 
in evidence.

(Defendants* Exhibit No. 4 for Identification was received 
in evidence. Same is not copied here, but upon order of the



63  5

Court is being sent up in original form.)

Q. I now return to you the group of papers which has been 
introduced as Defendants* Exhibit 4 and would like 
to ask you whether or not you can tell from that 
group of papers that the applicant was or was not 
admitted to the University of Mississippi as a stu­
dent.

A. Again, this file is a little thick. There’s a lot of
correspondence, but X believe that this student was 
not admitted to the University of Mississippi as a 
transfer student. His application form indicates 
only that he attended Bucknell University, which is 
a leading college and I could imagine a member of 
its regional accrediting association. The trans­
cript from Bucknell indicates he was an unsatisfac­
tory student. In a letter from the boy’s parents 
I presume they indicated that he had been taking a 
speed reading course at Point Park Junior College, 
and that they wanted to know whether if he took a 
full semester of courses at this particular Junior 
college these credits would be acceptable at the 
University. And the registrar responded that they 
couldn’t recognize the credits of Point Park Junior 
College and that they suggest that he go to another 
junior college and try to get his average up to a



6 3 6

C average so that he could show that he could do 
college work.

Q. I believe the question I asked you was whether or not
you could determine if this person had been admitted 
as a student at the University, from your examination 
of the file.

A. No, it appears he has not been admitted.
Q. What did the applicant claim his race to be?
A. White.
Q. And the reason that you would put him in a different 

category from the plaintiff is because he was not 
rejected specifically because of his attendance at 
the junior college? Is that your answer?

A. Well, the reason I would personally put him in a diffe­
rent category than the plaintiff is that the colleges 
that he sought admission from, while accredited 
colleges just as the plaintiff's colleges were 
accredited colleges, he did not do satisfactory work, 
while the plaintiff had done satisfactory work.

Q. I see. That is the distinction you made when you gave
your testimony previously about what your examination 
had disclosed?

A. Right. Moreover, there is really another distinction, 
in addition. As to the non-accredited college, the 
plaintiff's attendance had been, I believe the 
record indicates, more than satisfactory, and his



6 3 7

grades were quite good. Here, the non-accredited 
college, the student had not actually entered but 
had only taken a speed reading course, and they were 
trying to get a determination of what would be the 
result of him taking credits at that college.

Q. Please read the first paragraph of the letter from the 
registrar which appears on the top of that file.

A. It reads, "Dear Mrs. Moores Our reference materials 
indicate that Point Park Junior College is not a 
member of a regional accrediting association and 
therefore I regret that we cannot recognize its 
credits."

Q. Thank you.

MR. CLARKs I'd like to hand another group to the 
reporter and ask him to mark them as Defendants*
5 for Identification.

(Same were marked as Defendants* Exhibit 5 for Identification)

THE COURTS For your information and future guidance 
and so you can prepare for it, I expect to hold court 
tomorrow, which is Saturday, and run until twelve 
o*clock. At this point we will take a recess until 

one-thirty.
(Whereupon the court was recessed until ls30 P.M.)



63$

(After Recess)
(Mr. Clark continues examination of Mr. Bell)
Q. I hand you now the group of papers that have been identi 

fied as Defendants1 Exhibit 5 for Identification, 
and I’d like to ask you if they were taken by you 
from the files inspected by you in the marshal’s 
office.

A. Yes.

ME. CLARK; We’d like to offer this group of papers 
as Defendants’ Exhibit 5 in evidence.

(Defendants’ Exhibit No. 5 for Identification was received in 
evidence. Same is not copied here, but upon order of the 
Court is being sent up in original form.)

Q. I hand you Defendants’ Exhibit 5 and ask you if you can
tell me why that particular applicant ----- Withdraw
the question.
Please look at Defendants’ Exhibit 5 and tell me 
whether or not you can determine from the examina­
tion of the papers that the applicant was or was not 
admitted to the University.

A. It appears this applicant was not admitted to the Univer' 
sity.

Q. Were you able to determine any of the grounds for non­



6 3 9

admission?
A. It appears that one ground for the denial of her applica­

tion was that the school from which she wished to 
transfer. Southern Seminary and College at Buena 
Vista, Virginia, is not a member of the regional ac­
crediting association for that area.

Q. I next hand you a group of papers which relate to a
person named John Richard Bogoslofski, and I will 
ask you if you brought that group of papers from 
among those that were furnished to you for your ins­
pection in the marshal’s office in the subpoena duces 
teca addressed to Mr. Ellis.

A. fes.

MR. CLARKS We would like to have the court reporter 
mark this group of papers as Defendants* Exhibit 6 
in evidence. We offer it in evidence.
THE COURTS Let it be received and marked.

(Same received in evidence and marked as Defendants* Exhibit 
No. 6. Same is not copied here, but upon order of the Court 
is being sent up in original form.)

Q. Looking at Defendants* Exhibit 6, can you tell whether 
or not that person was admitted to the University 
of Mississippi as a student?



6 4 0

A. It appears that he was not.
Q. Can you determine from the examination of that group of 

papers why that person was not admitted?
A. Well, again this is a lengthy file. It appears from the 

examination of the transcript from the college he 
attended previously that the fir3t year of his at­
tendance there from *59 to *60 his grades were below 
a C average, and then the first semester of the 
*60-*61 year his grades were all W  or WF, which I 
take means he withdrew. Then he submitted this 
transcript from Holyoke Junior College, and the 
registrar indicated that this college was not a 
member of the regional accrediting institution of 
that area.

Q. Did you find a letter in there where the registrar com­
plained about his grades?

A. The only correspondence I see is a letter from a high
school principal to the registrar of the University 
of Mississippi which indicates —  You might want to 
look at this — —  in general that ". .1 must confess 
that I have some reservations about John’s ability 
to do college work. I also am a little doubtful of 
his ability to stay with a college career in view 
of his past record."

Q. Do you see a letter in the file from the registrar of 
the University of Mississippi complaining to this



6 4 1

man about his low grades or indicating to him that he 
is going to be refused admission or questioned in any 
way about the status of his grades at any prior 
school?

A. The answer to that question would be I see no such letter 
in the file.

Q. What did the registrar say to this man when he wrote him 
back?

A. Well, he wrote two letters, I guess.
Q. Tell me what he said in the final letter, which is the 

top piece of correspondence in the file. —  And I 
now have reference to Defendants* Exhibit 6.

A. Well, in the second letter he said, **I regret to report 
that we are unable to approve your admission to the 
University since we are no longer permitted to 
accept applications from students who are transferring 
from a non-regionally accredited institution.** Then 
he indicates he is going to refund his room deposit 
and is sorry.

Q. What was the first letter from the registrar?
A. The first letter in the file —
Q. —  From the registrar of the University of Mississippi.
A. from the registrar is in answer to a letter from the 

applicant, and the applicant indicates, "I would 
like very much to enter the Freshman class at the 
University of Mississippi in the fall semester of



6 4 2

1961. I have previously obtained 15 semester hours 
at Holyoke Junior College in Holyoke, Massachusetts. 
Westfield, Massachusetts, is my home town. I have 
been working the winter season here in Port Lauder­
dale. ” Then in answer to that letter the registrar 
wrote, f?We are very pleased to know of your interest 
in becoming a member of our student body. The en­
closed form and instructions will enable you to file 
a formal application for admission. A copy of our 
University Bulletin, mailed separately, will provide 
you with detailed information. Should you desire 
additional information or if we can be of further 
help to you in making your enrollment plans, please 
let us know. Sincerely yours, Robert B. Ellis.”

Q. Those are the only two letters from the registrar you 
find in the file? Is that correct?

A. Repeat that.
Q. Are those the only two letters from the University of 

Mississippi that you find in that file?
A. I believe that is correct.
Q. Thank you.

MR. CLARKs We have nothing further of this witness 
at this time.
THE COURTS Any redirect?