Booker v. Tennessee Board of Education Appendix to Appellants' Brief

    Ittiteii States (Hmtrt of Appeals
For the Sixth Circuit

No. 12,775

RUTH BOOKER, An Infant, By Dovie Booker, Her Mother and Next Friend, 
NELLIE PEOPLES, An Infant, By Manie Peoples, Her Mother And 
Next Friend, MARDEST KNOWLES VAN HOOK, An Infant, 
By Hardest Harris, Her Mother and Next Friend, And ELIJAH NOEL, 
JOSEPH McGHEE, JR.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 
vs.

STATE OF TENNESSEE BOARD OF EDUCATION, QUILL E. COPE, 
STATE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION AND CHAIRMAN 
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, ERNEST C. HALL, NORMAN 
FROST, EDWARD L. JENNINGS, W. R. LANDHUM, CHESTER 
PARHAM, FERDINAND POWELL, ROBERT P. WILLIAMS, 
J. HOWARD WARD, SAM WILSON, MEMBERS OF THE STATE 
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TENNESSEE, J. M. SMITH, PRESI­
DENT OF MEMPHIS STATE COLLEGE, R. P. CLARK, REGIS­
TRAR OF MEMPHIS STATE COLLEGE,

Defendants-Appellees.

A ppeal F rom the U nited States D istrict Court for the W estern 
D istrict of T ennessee, W estern D ivision

APPENDIX TO APPELLANTS’ BRIEF

J. F. ESTES,
B. L. HOOKS,
A. W. WILLIS, JR.,
Z. ALEXANDER LOOBY,

of Counsel.

H. T. LOCKARD,
322jf> Beale Avenue, 

Memphis, Tennessee,
ROBERT L. CARTER, 
THURGOOD MARSHALL,

107 West 43rd Street,
New York, New York,

Counsel for Appellants.

Supreme Printing Co., I nc., 114 W orth Street, N. Y. 13, BEekman 3 - 2320 
<^M9



TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

Docket Entries ..........................................................  la
Complaint ................................................................... 3a
Answer ..................................................    Ha
Exhibit to Answer ....................................   15a
Interrogatories .......................................................... 19a
Answer to Interrogatories...............................   21a
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and in the 

Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment . . . .  23a
Testimony..................................................   24a
Oral Opinion (Court’s Charge) .................................. 85a
Findings of Pact and Conclusions of L aw .......... 91a
Final Decree ................................................................  95a

W itn esses

Mr. Quill E. C ope.......................................   24a-52a
Dr. J. Millard Sm ith................................................. 52a-77a
Mr. W. E. T u rn er.................................................. 77a-82a
Mr. Elijah Noel ..................................  84a-85a



la

APPENDIX

IN THE

Ittttpfi States CEntirt of Appeals
For the Sixth Circuit 

No. 12,775

-------------------o-------------------
R u t h  B ooker , An Infant, By Dovie Booker, Her Mother 

And Next Friend, N e l l ie  P eo ples , An Infant, By Manie 
Peoples, Her Mother And Next Friend, M ardest 
K n o w les  V a n  H ook , An Infant, By Mardest Harris, 
Her Mother And Next Friend, And E l ij a h  N oel , J o se ph  
M cG h e e , J r .,

Plaintiffs-Appellcmts, 
vs.

S tate  op T e n n e s s e e  B oard op E d ucation , Q u il l  E . C o pe , 
S tate  C o m m issio n er  op E ducation  and C h a ir m a n  S tate 
B oard op E d u ca tio n , E rn est  C. H a ll , N orm an  F rost, 
E dward L. J e n n in g s , W . R . L a n d r u m , C h ester  P ar­
h a m , F erdinand  P o w ell , R obert P. W il l ia m s , J. H oward 
W ard, S am  W il s o n , M em bers of t h e  S tate B oard op 
E ducation  of T e n n e s s e e , J .  M. S m it h , P r e sid e n t  oe 
M e m p h is  S tate C ollege, R . P. Cla rk , R egistrar of 
M e m p h is  S tate C ollege ,

Defendants-Appellees.

A p p e a l  P rom  t h e  U n ited  S tates D istrict  C ourt for  t h e  
W ester n  D istrict  op T e n n e s s e e , W ester n  D iv isio n

-------------------o-------------------

Docket Entries

May 26, 1955—Filed $250.00 cost bond, U. S. F. & G. 
Surety

May 26, 1955—Filed Complaint
June 21, 1955—Filed answer of defendants



2a

Docket Entries

September 26, 1955—Filed interrogatories to defendants
J. M. Smith, Pres, of Memphis State 
College and R. P. Clark, Registrar 
of Memphis State College, in accord­
ance with Rule 33

October 7, 1955—Filed motion for judgment on plead­
ings, and in the alternative motion 
for summary judgment for plaintiff

October 17, 1955—Filed answers of defendants to in­
terrogatories

November 22, 1955—Filed final decree, application for
permanent injunction denied, plan of 
State Board accepted, costs divided

November 22, 1955—Filed findings of fact and conclusions
of law

December 2, 1955—Filed $250.00 appeal bond, H. T.
Lockard, surety

December 2, 1955—Filed notice of appeal
December 20, 1955—Filed Court Reporter’s transcript of

proceedings



3a

Complaint

(Filed May 26, 1955)

1. (a) The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 
Title 28, United States Code, section 1331. This action 
arises under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitu­
tion of the United States, section 1, and the Act of May 
31, 1870, Chapter 114, section 16, 16 Stat. 144, (Title 8 
United States Code, section 41), as hereinafter more fully 
appears. The matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of 
interest and costs, the sum or value of Three Thousand 
($3,000.00) Dollars.

(b) The jurisdiction of this Court is also invoked under 
Title 28, United States Code, section 1343. This action is 
authorized by the Act of April 20, 1871, Chapter 22, sec­
tion 1, 17 Stat, 13, (Title 8, United States Code, section 
43), to be commenced-by any citizen of the United States or 
other person within the jurisdiction thereof to redress the 
deprivation, under color of a state law, statute, ordinance, 
regulation, custom or usage, of rights, privileges and im­
munities secured by the Fourteenth Amendment of the 
Constitution of the United States, section 1, and by the 
Act of May 31, 1870, Chapter 114, section 16, 16 Stat. 144, 
(Title 8, United States Code, section 41), providing for 
the equal rights of citizens and of all persons within the 
jurisdiction of the United States, as hereinafter more 
fully appears.

(c) The jurisdiction of this Court is also invoked 
under Title 28, United States Code, section 2281. This is 
an action for a permanent injunction restraining, upon the 
ground of unconstitutionality, the enforcement, operation 
and execution of provisions of the Constitution and stat-



4a

Complaint

utes of the State of Tennessee by restraining the action of 
defendants., officers of such State, in the enforcement and 
execution of such Constitutional provisions and statutes, 
as hereinafter more fully appears.

2. This action is a proceeding under Title 28, United 
States Code, sections 2201 and 2202, for a judgment declar­
ing the rights and other legal relations of plaintiffs and all 
other Negro children eligible to attend Memphis State Col­
lege at Shelby County, Tennessee, and demanding an in­
junction, for the purpose of determining and redressing 
questions and matters of actual controversy between the 
parties, to-wit:

(a) Whether Sections 11395, 11396 and 11397, Code of 
Tennessee and that portion of Section 12 of Article 11 of 
the Tennessee Constitution which makes it unlawful for 
white and colored persons to attend the same school vio­
late the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Con­
stitution and whether the exclusion of plaintiffs from 
Memphis State College, Shelby County, Tennessee, pursu­
ant to these statutes and constitutional provisions and any 
other law, custom, practice or usage violates the Four­
teenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States.

3. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Rule 23 
(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for them­
selves and on behalf of all other Negroes similarly situ­
ated, who are so numerous as to make it impracticable to 
bring them all before the court and who seek a common 
relief based upon common questions of law and fact.

4. Plaintiffs are Negroes and are citizens of the United 
States, State of Tennessee, and are residents of and domi-



5a

Complaint

oiled in the City of Memphis, Shelby County, Western Divi­
sion of the State of Tennessee. They all can satisfy all 
requirements for admission to Memphis State College, City 
of Memphis, Shelby County. Adult plaintiffs not appli­
cants, are either parents or guardians of the infant plain­
tiffs who are applicants.

5. The State of Tennessee has declared public educa­
tion a State function. The Constitution of Tennessee, 
Article XI, Section 12, provides:

“ Knowledge, learning and virtue, being essential to 
the preservation of republican institutions, and the 
diffusion of the opportunities and advantages of 
education throughout the different portions of the 
State being highly conducive to the promotion of 
this end, it shall be the duty of the General Assem­
bly, in all future periods of this Government to cher­
ish literature and science.”

Pursuant to this mandate the Legislature of Tennessee 
has established a system of free State Colleges in the State 
of Tennessee according to a plan set out in an Article of 
the General Assembly of Tennessee of 1909, and supple­
ments and amendments thereto. The establishment, main­
tenance and administration of the State Colleges of Ten­
nessee is vested in a State Board of Education, and a Com­
missioner of Education.

6. Defendant, State Board of Education exists pursu­
ant to the Constitution and laws of the State of Tennessee 
as an administrative department of the State of Tennessee, 
discharging governmental functions and is by law an agency 
of the State of Tennessee. Defendant, Quill E. Cope, is



6a

Complaint

the State Commissioner of Education and Chairman of the 
State Board of Education, and holds office pursuant to the 
Constitution and laws of the State of Tennessee, as an 
administrative officer of the State Department of Educa­
tion of the State of Tennessee. Defendant, J. M. Smith, 
is the president of Memphis State College, and has imme­
diate control of its operation. Defendant, R. P. Clark is 
the Registrar of Memphis State College. Defendants Fred
S. Elliot, Norman Frost, Edward L. Jennings, R. R. Lan­
drum, Chester Parham, Ferdinand Powell, Bartow Strang, 
W. R. Webb, and Sam Wilson are members of and consti­
tute the State Board of Education of the State of Ten­
nessee.

7. The State Colleges of Tennessee are under the con­
trol and supervision of defendants, State Board of Educa­
tion and Commissioner Quill E. Cope, acting as an admin­
istrative department or division and as an agent of the 
State of Tennessee. Said defendant, State Board of Edu­
cation, is under a duty to enforce the school laws of the 
State of Tennessee; to maintain an efficient system of State 
Colleges in each grand Division of Tennessee; to determine 
the studies to be pursued, the methods of teaching, and 
to establish such colleges as may be determined by the 
legislature. Memphis State College is the only State Col­
lege established in West Tennessee.

8. Defendant, Board of Education of Tennessee main­
tains in Shelby County, Tennessee, Memphis State College 
for the education, convenience and use of white persons of 
West Tennessee and Memphis exclusively. This college 
provides space and facilities for academic, commercial,



7a

Complaint

scientific and vocational instruction; for cultural and artis­
tic expression; and for athletic and physical development. 
All of these facilities are available to any white person 
resident in Shelby County, Tennessee, but denied to plain­
tiffs applicant and all other persons similarly situated.

9. At the beginning of the Fall Term, 1954, three of 
the infant plaintiff's and two adults made application for 
admission to Memphis State College, the only State Col­
lege maintained by defendants in Memphis, Shelby County, 
Tennessee, but were refused admission solely on account 
of their race and color. Defendants require Negro appli­
cants to attend A & I State College, Nashville, Tennessee.

10. The defendants rely on the following provisions of 
the Tennessee Constitution and statutes which read as 
follows:

Constitution of 1870, Art. 11, Sec. 12,
“ . . . No school established or aided under this 
section shall allow white and negro children to be 
received as scholars together in the same school.

Code of Tennessee Sec. 11395 6888a37.
Unlawful for white and colored persons to attend 
same school.—It shall be unlawful for any school, 
academy, college or other place of learning to allow 
white and colored persons to attend the same school, 
academy, college, or other place of learning. (1901, 
eh. 7, sec. 1.)

11396 6888a38. Unlawful for teacher to allow 
such mixed attendance or to teach them in same



8a

Complaint

class.—It shall be unlawful for any teacher, pro­
fessor, or educator in any college, academy, or 
school of learning, to allow the white and colored 
races to attend the same school, or for any teacher 
or educator, or other person to instruct or teach 
both the white and colored races in the same class, 
school, or college building, or in any other place 
or places of learning, or allow or permit the same 
to be done with their knowledge, consent, or pro­
curement. (Ib., sec. 2.)

11397 6888a39. Violation is a misdemeanor; fine 
and imprisonment.—Any person violating any of 
the provisions of this article, shall be guilty of a 
misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, shall be fined 
for each offense fifty dollars, and imprisonment not 
less than thirty days nor more than six months. (Ib., 
sec. 4, Modified.)

11. The plaintiffs and all other Negroes in West Ten­
nessee and Shelby County, Tennessee are thereby deprived 
of their rights guaranteed by the Constitution and laws 
of the United States.

12. Plaintiffs and those similarly situated and affected, 
on whose behalf this suit is brought, are suffering irrep­
arable injury and are threatened with irreparable injury 
in the future by reason of the acts herein complained of. 
They have no plain, adequate or complete remedy to redress 
the wrongs and illegal acts herein complained of other than 
this suit for a declaration of rights and an injunction. Any 
other remedy to which plaintiffs and those similarly situ­
ated could be remitted would be attended by such uncer­
tainties and delays as to deny substantial relief, would in-



9a

Complaint

volve multiplicity of suits, cause further irreparable in­
jury and occasion damage, vexation and inconvenience, not 
only to the plaintiffs and those similarly situated, but to 
defendants as governmental agencies.

13. There is between the parties an actual controversy 
as hereinbefore set forth.

W h e r e fo r e , p l a in t if f s  respectfully pray the Court that 
upon the filing of this complaint, the Court convene a Three- 
Judge District Court as required by Title 28, United States 
Code, Sections 2281 and 2284; the Court advance this cause 
on the docket and order a speedy hearing of this action 
according to law, and that upon such hearings:

The Court adjudge, decree and declare the rights and 
legal relations of the parties to the subject matter herein 
controversy in order that such declaration shall have the 
force and effect of a final judgment or decree.

The court entered a judgment or decree declaring that 
Sections 11395, 11396 and 11397 and any customs, prac­
tices and usages pursuant to which plaintiffs are excluded 
from Memphis State College solely because of race, violate 
the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Consti­
tution.

This court issued a permanent injunction forever re­
straining and enjoining defendants and each of them from 
refusing to admit plaintiffs to Memphis State College solely 
because of their race.



10a

Complaint

Plaintiffs further pray that the Court will allow them 
their costs herein and such further, other or additional 
relief as may appear to the Court to be equitable and just.

Z. A lexander  L ooby

419 Fourth Avenue, North 
Nashville, Tennessee

J .  F. B ates

145 Beale Avenue 
Memphis, Tennessee

H . T. L ockard

322% Beale Avenue 
Memphis, Tennessee

E . L . M e e k s

362 Beale Avenue 
Memphis, Tennessee

A. M. W il l is , J r .
336 Vance Avenue 
Memphis, Tennessee

T hurgood M arsh a ll  
20 West 40th Street 
New York, New York

Counsel for Plaintiffs



11a

Answer of Defendants

(Filed June 21, 1955)

These defendants for answer to the complaint filed 
against them in the above styled cause say:

I
They have no knowledge of the qualifications of the 

plaintiffs for admission to Memphis State College and, 
therefore, require strict proof thereof.

II
They deny that the statutes and constitutional provi­

sion of the State of Tennessee quoted in the complaint 
have ever been adjudicated invalid as being in conflict 
with the Constitution of the United States and they 
deny such invalidity.

I l l
They aver that they as the State Board of Education 

have undertaken in good faith to comply with the decree of 
the Supreme Court of the United States requiring desegre­
gation by adopting a resolution, copy of which is attached 
hereto and made Exhibit A but need not be copied, which 
resolution undertakes to provide for such desegregation 
over a relatively brief period of time. They aver that for 
more than 100 years segregation in education has been 
followed in the public schools of this State and likewise at 
the collegiate level. They propose to comply so far as pos­
sible with the decisions of the Supreme Court of the 
United States requiring such desegregation but they would 
show to the Court that after so long a period of segrega­
tion, an abrupt effort to end the same will produce many 
problems. Recognizing the existence of these problems,



12a

Answer of Defendants

these defendants comprising the State Board of Educa­
tion have concluded that the most feasible approach to 
the problem, so far as the institutions under their control 
are concerned, is to first undertake to inaugurate it among 
the more mature students. They aver that the Freshman 
and Sophomore classes of both races are to a certain 
degree adolescent and in the main unrestrained in their 
thought and action. To the contrary, they aver that stu­
dents at the graduate level and in the Senior class gener­
ally are much more mature and that they firmly believe that 
by undertaking to desegregate among those more mature 
students, there will exist much more tolerance and under­
standing and that as they proceed with this plan, the 
action of the higher classes in accepting the same will 
set a beneficial example to those in the lower classes and 
prepare them for its acceptance when the time shall arrive 
to put such system in complete operation in all classes. 
Likewise, since as a general rule the graduate classes and 
Senior classes are not as numerous as those of the Fresh­
men and Sophomore years, more abundant physical facili­
ties will exist for the education of all students who may 
seek admission to these higher level classes.

By the decree of the Supreme Court of the United 
States District Judges of the United States were vested 
with jurisdiction to examine and to adopt plans for deseg­
regation of the white and colored races in education and 
these defendants submit this plan to this Court as govern­
ing the institutions over which they have jurisdiction as 
the most feasible plan which could be devised at the pres­
ent time without causing a vast amount of friction between 
the two races and as looking toward public acceptance of 
desegregation and thus promoting the public welfare.



13a

Answer of Defendants

IV
So far as the application of the plaintiffs for admission 

to Memphis State College be concerned, a number of 
obstacles present themselves which must be solved before 
such applications can be granted. Statistics disclose that 
annually from the high schools heretofore operated exclu­
sively for the benefit of the colored race in Shelby County, 
from 500 to 750 students graduate annually. In the high 
schools operated heretofore exclusively for the white race, 
the number of graduates amounts to at least double those 
of the negro high school thus presenting a potential gradu­
ate body of more than 2,000 students, all of whom possibly 
can make application for admission to Memphis State 
College.

Memphis State College is not physically equipped to 
handle a Freshmen class of entrants in excess of 1000 
students. To admit unrestrictedly all persons qualified for 
such admission will result in an over-taxation of the physi­
cal facilities now available at such school for the Fresh­
men class. Such over-taxation of facilities will result in 
this school being deprived of its accredited standing and 
membership in the Southern Association of colleges, with­
out which no educational institution of collegiate grade 
can maintain any degree of standards or prestige in the 
educational world. Likewise, Memphis State College de­
rives its funds from appropriations of the General Assem­
bly of the State of Tennessee and possesses nc source of 
income other than such appropriations plus the tuition and 
other fees charged students. The General Assembly of 
the State of Tennessee met in January 1955, and adjourned 
since then in April, 1955, and has made appropriations for 
the operation of Memphis State College in an amount com­
pletely inadequate to operate the same should all the avail­
able students in Shelby County alone undertake to enroll



14a

Answer of Defendants

therein. The General Assembly will not meet again in 
regular session until January 1957, and for the period of 
July 1, 1955, until July 1, 1957, the funds available for 
such institution will be completely inadequate to maintain 
such institution at its normal collegiate level and in addi­
tion thereto, the physical facilities of such colleges are 
totally inadequate to meet the demands to be made upon it 
if there be unrestricted admission into it by this Court.

The General Assembly of Tennessee which is the source 
of the overwhelming majority of funds for educational 
purposes prior to the decision of the Supreme Court plac­
ing plans for desegregation under the authority of District 
Courts of the United States, had made appropriations for 
the Memphis State College and it also made appropria­
tions for Tennessee Agricultural and Industrial College, 
heretofore maintained exclusively for students of collegi­
ate level of the colored race and as above stated, these 
appropriations will remain constant until July 1, 1957, in 
the absence of an extra session of the Tennessee General 
Assembly which appears most unlikely, and these defend­
ants call this to the attention of the Court in passing upon 
the feasibility of the plan for desegregation submitted by 
them. The laws of Tennessee make no provision what­
soever for the transfer of funds appropriated for the use 
of one institution of collegiate level to another such insti­
tution of the same degree even if both of such institutions 
be under the jurisdiction and control of these defendants 
and unless a plan be approved which takes into considera­
tion the financial ability of all of these institutions until 
July 1, 1957, a result may be attained which will cause one 
institution to suffer in training as well as prestige for 
lack of abundant funds, while leaving a surplus to the 
institution for which appropriation has been made for the 
education of the colored race at the college level.



15a

Exhibit A, Annexed to Answer

And now having fully answered, these defendants pray 
to be hence dismissed.

Attorney General 

Solicitor General

Advocate General

I hereby certify that copy of this answer has been mailed 
to J. F. Estes, 145 Beale Avenue, Memphis, Tennessee, he 
being- the party designed for service of pleadings by de­
fendants.

Exhibit A, Annexed to Answer 

(R eso lu tion  of th e  S ta te  B oard  o f E d u ca tio n )

W h er ea s , the Supreme Court of the United States, in 
its opinion in the Segregation Cases declaring that racial 
segregation in public education is unconstitutional, estab­
lished the following principles for the guidance of school 
authorities and courts in carrying out the opinion of the 
Court:

“ . . . Full implementation of these constitutional 
principles may require solution of varied local 
school problems. School authorities have the pri­
mary responsibility for elucidating, assessing, and 
solving these problems; courts will have to con­
sider whether the action of school authorities con-



16a

Exhibit A, Annexed to Answer

stitutes good faith implementation of the govern­
ing constitutional principles. . . . ”

“ . . . I n  fashioning and effectuating the decree, the 
courts will be guided by equitable principles. Tra­
ditionally, equity has been characterized by a prac­
tical flexibility in shaping its remedies and by a 
facility for adjusting and reconciling public and 
private needs. These cases will call for the exercise 
of these traditional attributes of equity power” 
. . . “ To effectuate this interest may call for elimi­
nation of a variety of obstacles in making the transi­
tion to school systems operated in accordance with 
the constitutional principles set forth in our May 
17, 1954, decision. Courts of equity may properly 
take into account the public interest in the elimina­
tion of such obstacles in a systematic and effective 
manner. . . . ”

“ . . . The Courts may consider problems related 
to administration, arising from the physical condi­
tion of the school plant, the school transportation 
system, personnel, revision of school districts and 
attendance areas into compact units to achieve a 
system of determining admission to the public 
schools on a non racial basis and revision of local 
laws and regulations which may be necessary in 
solving the foregoing problems . . . ” and,

W h er ea s , all of the problems and difficulties recog­
nized in said opinion as warranting a gradual transition to 
a desegregated basis, together with others not mentioned, 
exist with respect to all state colleges, institutes and nor­
mal schools under the jurisdiction of the State Board of 
Education:



17a

Exhibit A , Annexed* to Answer

Now, t h e r e fo r e , Be it resolved by the State Board of 
Education of Tennessee, that subject to special circum­
stances, the following program of transition to a desegre­
gated basis is hereby adopted for the government of all 
of said colleges, institutes and normal schools:

For the scholastic year 1955-56, qualified negro stu­
dents shall be admitted to do graduate work at Memphis 
State College, Middle Tennessee State College, East Ten­
nessee State College and Austin Peay State College. Dur­
ing the said scholastic year, qualified white students shall 
be admitted to graduate classes of the Tennessee Agricul­
tural and Industrial State University for Negroes at Nash­
ville.

For the scholastic year 1956-57, qualified negro stu­
dents shall be admitted to the graduate classes and senior 
classes of Memphis State College, Middle Tennessee State 
College, East Tennessee State College, Austin Peay State 
College and Tennessee Polytechnic Institute at Cookeville. 
During the said scholastic year, qualified white students 
shall be admitted to graduate classes and senior classes 
of the Tennessee Agricultural and Industrial State Uni­
versity for Negroes at Nashville.

For the scholastic year 1957-58; qualified negro stu­
dents shall be admitted to the graduate, senior and junior 
classes of Memphis State College, Middle Tennessee State 
College, East Tennessee State College, Austin Peay State 
College and Tennessee Polytechnic Institute at Cookeville. 
During the said scholastic year, qualified white students 
shall be admitted to graduate, senior and junior classes of 
Tennessee Agricultural and Industrial State University 
for Negroes at Nashville.

For the scholastic year 1958-59, qualified negro stu­
dents shall be admitted to the graduate, senior, junior and 
sophomore classes of Memphis State College, Middle Ten­
nessee State College, East Tennessee State College, Austin



18a

Exhibit A, Annexed to Answer

Peay State College and Tennessee Polytechnic Institute at 
Cookeville. During the said scholastic year, qualified white 
students shall be admitted to graduate, senior, junior and 
sophomore classes of the Tennessee Agricultural and In­
dustrial State University for Negroes at Nashville.

For the scholastic year 1959-1960, and thereafter, quali­
fied negro students shall be admitted to the graduate, 
senior, junior, sophomore and freshmen classes of Mem­
phis State College, Middle Tennessee State College, East 
Tennessee State College, Austin Peay State College and 
Tennessee Polytechnic Institute at Cookeville. During the 
said scholastic year, and thereafter, qualified white stu­
dents shall be admitted to graduate, senior, junior, sopho­
more and freshmen classes of Tennessee Agricultural and 
Industrial State University for Negroes at Nashville.

B e  it  fu r t h e r , resolved , That this program of transi­
tion to a desegregated basis for the colleges under the jur­
isdiction of this Board shall be inoperative until:

1. The provisions of the Constitution and stat­
utes of Tennessee requiring segregated public edu­
cation be held invalid as contrary to the Constitu­
tion of the United States in a legal proceeding 
directed to that end; and,

2. It is determined that the opinions of the 
Supreme Court of the United States in the Segrega­
tion Cases apply not only to public grade school 
education but to state Colleges and universities in 
Tennessee; and,

3. Any other available grounds of defense which 
will manifest the right of the sovereign State of 
Tennessee to arrange and provide free education 
for its citizens on its own terms and conditions, pro­
vided, only that all are treated fairly and equally, 
have been presented in court.



19a

Interrogatories

(Filed September 26, 1955)

The plaintiffs in the above-entitled cause, by their un­
dersigned attorneys, request that defendants J. M. Smith, 
President of Memphis State College, and P. P. Clark, 
Registrar of Memphis State College, answer under oath, 
in accordance with Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure, the following interrogatories:

1. What is the total present enrollment at the College!
2. How many of these students are pursuing graduate 

studies ?
3. What is the enrollment in the School of Arts and 

Sciences; School of Business Administration and 
the School of Education!

4. Do these figures include those students pursuing 
courses leading to a general college degree as listed 
on pages 167-168 of the 1955-56 catalog issue of the 
College! If this is a separate division or school, 
what is the enrollment of students in this division 
or school!

5. What is the highest enrollment of students over the 
last ten years? Please specify with respect to each 
of the main divisions or schools of the College. (See 
3 and 4 above)

6. Plow many non-residents of Tennessee are presently 
enrolled in the College? What was the number of 
these non-residents) enrolled during the 1954-55 
school term; the 1953-54 school term!

7. How many non-residents of Memphis are now en­
rolled in the College? How many such non-resi­
dents were enrolled during the 1954-55 school term; 
1953-54 school term?



20a

Interrogatories

8. How many out-of-state first-year students are pres­
ently enrolled and attending the college? Please 
break this down with respect to the respective 
schools in the College.

9. How many such second-year students are presently 
attending College? Please break this down as 
above.

P lease  ta k e  n o tice  that a copy of such answer must be 
served upon the undersigned within fifteen (15) days 
after the service of these Interrogatories.

H. T. L ockard

32214 BealeAvenue 
Memphis, Tennessee

J .  P .  E stes

145 Beale Avenue 
Memphis, Tennessee

B. L. H ooks

362 Beale Avenue 
Memphis, Tennessee

A. M. W il l is , J b.
336 Vance Avenue 
Memphis, Tennessee

Z. A lexander  L ooby

419 Fourth Avenue, North 
Nashville, Tennessee

R obert L. Carter

107 West 43rd Street 
New York, New York

T hurgood M arshall  
107 West 43rd Street 
New York, New York

Counsel for Plaintiffs



21a

Answers to Interrogatories

(Filed October 17, 1955)

Now come defendants, J. M. Smith, President of Mem­
phis State College, and E. P. Clark, Registrar of Memphis 
State College, and being first duly sworn, do make answer 
to the interrogatories Nos. 1 through 9, directed to them by 
the plaintiffs through their attorneys in accordance with 
Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as follows:

1. 3532
2. 325
3. School of Arts and Sciences—1451; School of Busi­

ness Administration—930; School of Education— 
750.

4. General college—76.
5. 3532. Our present enrollment in all schools exceeds 

any year’s previous enrollment.
6. 143 for the fall semester of 1955; 112 was the aver­

age for the two semesters of the school year of 
1954-55; 65 was the average for the three quarters 
of the school year of 1953-54.

7. There are 1079 non-residents of Memphis currently 
enrolled. There were 947 non-residents of Memphis 
enrolled during the school year of 1954-55; there 
were 796 non-residents of Memphis enrolled in 1953- 
54.

8. There are approximately 50 first-year out-of-state 
students currently enrolled, distributed as follows: 
27 in the school of Arts and Sciences; 13 in the school 
of Business Administration and 10 in the School of 
Education.



22a

Answers to Interrogatories

9. There are approximately 30 out-of-state second- 
year students currently enrolled, distributed as fol­
lows : 15 in the School of Arts and Sciences; 8 in 
the School of Business Administration and 7 in the 
School of Education.

Answers to interrogatories 8 and 9 do not include Korean 
War Veterans, this, for the reason that Korean War Vet­
erans, regardless of their domicile at the time of registra­
tion, have been registered as residents of Tennessee under 
the policy of the State Board of Education and the Comp­
troller’s Office. It would be practically impossible to 
determine the per cent of out-of-state Students among 
Korean War Veterans since nothing appears of record in 
connection with their registration from which this informa­
tion can be gotten.

/s /  ......................_........
President

/ b/  ...............................
Registrar

Defendants.



23a

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and, in the 
Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment for 

the Plaintiffs

(Filed October 7, 1955)

1. Plaintiffs move the Court to enter judgment for 
plaintiffs on the pleadings in the above-entitled action on 
the ground that the defendants have failed to state a legal 
defense to plaintiffs’ claim for relief prayed for in their 
complaint.

2. In the alternative, plaintiffs move the Court, pursu­
ant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to 
enter judgment for the plaintiffs for the relief demanded 
in their complaint on the ground that there is no genuine 
issue as to any material fact in this action, and that plain­
tiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law as appears 
in the pleadings, answer and exhibits tiled in the above- 
entitled cause.

H. T. L ookakd

322% Beale Avenue 
Memphis, Tennessee 

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Dated: October 7, 1955.



24a

Excerpts From Testimony

[25] D e f e n d a n t s ’ P roof

Thereupon the Defendants, in support of the issues on 
their part, introduced evidence as follows, to-wit:

D r . Q u il l  E. C o pe , th e  f i r s t  w itn e s s , h a v in g  b e e n  f i r s t  
d u ly  sw o rn , te s t if ie d  a s  fo l lo w s :

Mr. Tipton: Shall I proceed, Your Honor? 

Direct examination toy Mr. Tipton-.

Q. This is Mr. Quill Cope? A. Yes.
Q. Dr. Quill Cope. Excuse me. Doctor, where are you 

from? A. Nashville, Tennessee.
Q. Do you have any official position with the State of 

Tennessee? A. Commissioner of Education; Chairman 
State Board of Education.

[26] Q. How long have you been such Commissioner? 
A. Since January ’53.

Q. I believe you state you are also Chairman of the 
State Board of Education? A. That is correct.

Q. Doctor, what are your functions with the State 
Board of Education in connection with the institutions of 
higher learning?

Attorney Looby: We can’t hear. We are hav­
ing difficulty in hearing down at the other side.

The Court: I tell you, the acoustics in this room 
are pretty bad. Maybe you can pull your chairs 
over a little bit here.

And raise your voice, if you can, Doctor.

A. Yes, sir.



25a

Dr. Quill E. Cope—Direct

Mr. Tipton: I will try to raise my voice, too. 
I didn’t mean to holler.

Q. Doctor, I believe you stated—, you stated you were 
Chairman. What are the functions of the State Board of 
Education in connection with colleges of the State of the 
type of Memphis State College? [27] A. The State Board 
has the responsibility for the general regulations, govern­
ing the policy making regarding those institutions, admis­
sion policies, and overall admission policies, not detailed 
admission policies,—matters of that type.

Q. Doctor, as such Commissioner of Education, do you 
have in your possession statistics that have been gathered 
by the Department in connection with the various educa­
tional functions and facilities? A. I have some, yes, sir.

Q. I will ask you this, Doctor, if a survey has been made 
under the auspices of your Department there with respect 
to the number of negro graduates of high schools who later 
went to colleges of higher learning in Tennessee ? A. The 
Department made such a survey, I would say a spot check 
of counties in WTest Tennessee, this fall. We did not get 
complete return, but we did make such a study, sent out 
questionnaires, we did make such a study.

Q. What percentage of high school graduates did your 
study reveal attended college?

[28] Attorney Looby: I object to that, if your 
Honor please, if he is going to testify from that 
study, I would like to know first who made the sur­
vey. It may have been made by anybody, not saying 
it is so, but he ought to at least state who made the 
survey.

The Court: Well, let him tell us a little more 
about it, if he is to testify about it.



26a

Dr. Quill E. Cope—Direct

Q. Was it made under the authority of your Depart­
ment! A. Yes, sir.

Q. Were you the active—I don’t mean the active, but 
did you have overall supervision of such survey and the 
way it was made under your Department! A. Yes, sir.

Q. State whether or not, Doctor, it was made by em­
ployees of your Department. A. Yes, sir, I asked Mr. 
Turner, who is a member of our Department to gather 
such information for me.

Q. Who is Mr. Turner! A. Well—
[29] Q. And what office does he hold! A. He is Coor­

dinator of Instruction in the Department of Education.
Q. As such Coordinator, does he have any functions 

in connection with colored schools! A. Well, for a number 
of years he has been the Director of Negro Education, and 
he has had responsibility for working with that program.

Q. I believe you said that he was in charge of that 
survey! A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, then, Doctor, under those circumstances, what 
percentage of—

Attorney Looby: Well, if your Honor please, 
Mr. Turner is the best witness there. I saw Mr. 
Turner in the courtroom this morning, and I think 
Mr. Turner is the best witness as to what he found.

The Court: The witness testifies that this sur­
vey was made under his direction and under his 
supervision, in effect.

Mr. Tipton: That is correct.
[30] The Court: And, if I understood—
Attorney Looby: I understood he said under 

Mr. Turner, under Mr. Turner.
The Court: Well, clarify that for us. Was it 

made under your supervision!



27a

Dr. Quill E. Cope—Direct

A. I asked Mr. Turner to get that information for me. 
Now, how he got that information, I am not prepared to 
state, the details. I assume that he wrote the principals 
of various schools and asked them how many of their 
graduates attended college.

The Court: Well, is he a witness here today?
Mr. Tipton: He is going to be a witness, if your 

Honor please.
Let me do this. Let me inquire of the witness, 

subject to it being confirmed, or rather made rele­
vant and competent by testimony of Mr. Turner 
later on. I don’t want to have to bring the witness 
back to the stand.

The Court: Well, I take it there is no objection 
to that procedure.

Mr. Tipton: I don’t want to have to [31] bring 
the witness back to the stand.

Attorney Carter: Your Honor, we have a much 
more fundamental question about the line of testi­
mony; just don’t know how it is relevant to the 
issues before us, the fact that how many negroes 
were interested in going to school, and so forth. We 
have five plaintiffs here involved in going to Mem­
phis State College, who represent a class of people. 
I don’t understand what the relevancy is.

The Court: Well—
Mr. Tipton: I can state in a moment what the 

relevancy is. We set up in our answer there one of 
the reasons for adoption of this plan, the present 
facilities of this school are at present overtaxed. 
What we want to show is the potential if this plan 
be not adopted there. Under that theory, it strikes 
me this testimony is relevant.



28a

Dr. Quill E. Cope—Direct

The Court: The Court thinks so, under a recent 
Supreme Court opinion. There [32] is right con­
siderable said about the administrative side of this 
thing, and it is along that line that this proof is 
offered.

Mr. Tipton: Yes, sir.
The Court: And if I get it, the witness Turner, 

who actually made the survey, and who is in better 
position to testify about it, is a witness here today.

Mr. Tipton: Yes, sir.
The Court: —and will testify, according to re­

spondents’ counsel, and I see no objection to this, 
the witness on the stand, testifying in generalities 
about the matter. And I assume that is as far as he 
proposes to go.

Mr. Tipton: That is as far as he proposes to go.
The Court: So the Court will permit him in this 

limited way, then, to go ahead with his testimony.

Q. Doctor, what was the result of that survey, the per­
centage figures as finally communicated to [33] you, and 
being made under your supervision! A. Approximately 
twenty-seven percent. I took the number shown by the 
schools as graduates, and the ones turned over to me—the 
figure was not figured by the group—and the number attend- 
college this year, arrived at the figure twenty-seven per­
cent, approximately, of graduates entered some institution 
of higher learning.

Q. Do I gather from you that that survey as reported 
to you showed that twenty-seven percent of all negro high 
school graduates eventually entered some institution of 
higher learning? A. Not all, only the ones that reported.

Q. The figure, that was the result of your spot check, 
then, showed that? A. That is correct.



29a

Dr. Quill E. Cope—Direct

Q. Dr. Cope, as Commissioner of Education, is the scho­
lastic- population taken under your supervision, the scholas­
tic population of the state? A. Yes, sir.

The Court: What was that question? I didn’t 
get it.

[34] Mr. Tipton: I asked him, as Commissioner 
of Education, if the scholastic population of the state 
was taken under his supervision.

Q. Does that scholastic population census, Doctor, re­
veal the number of colored school pupils, as well as the 
number of white school pupils, both elementary and high 
schools? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Dr. Cope, I take it that you are familiar with the 
geography of the state, and know the counties that consti­
tute West Tennessee, is that correct? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Have you made some—I will put it this way—have 
you broken down into percentages the scholastic popula­
tion as divided between white and colored in the West 
Tennessee counties, particularly surrounding Shelby 
County, as well as Shelby County—the area from which 
Memphis State would most likely draw its student body? 
A. I have. I seem to have misplaced it. I had it when I 
started up here. It must, be in my brief case, it is not in 
the folder.

[35] Mr. Tipton: We take it the witness may 
refer to his memorandum, if your Honor please.

The Court: Yes, sir, he may refresh his memory 
from any memorandum he has.

Q. Have you found it? A. I don’t have it.
Q. Sir? A. I can’t find it.
Q. Look through some of these, can you?



30a

Dr. Quill E. Cope—Direct

Does Mr. Turner possibly have it? A. He prepared 
this for me, and we had it back here this morning.

Mr. Tipton: Well, I will pass to something else, 
if your Honor please, and then get back to it. That 
is all.

Q. Doctor, as Commissioner of Education there, have 
you participated actively or otherwise in conferences dur­
ing the sessions of the Legislature? A. Yes, sir.

Q. By the way, where are the funds for the operation 
of institutions of higher learning in this state derived?
[36] A. They are derived from the general funds of the 
state and from specific levies which are levied for educa­
tion, specifically the sales tax and tobacco tax.

Q. Coming a little closer home there, I don’t think this 
question will be a leading question—you can answer it yes 
or no.

Does the General Assembly make specific appropria­
tions for each institution of higher learning? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What other sources of revenue besides that appro­
priation at the hands of the Legislature do these institu­
tions at the college level have? A. Admission fees charged 
to the student.

Q. Do you have any idea generally how the admission 
fees compare to the legislative appropriation in amount? 
Can you give us just an estimate? I know it will be just a 
speculation on your part. Do they form any appreciable 
part of it? A. I will say close to half.

Q. The admission fees do? A. Yes, a little less than 
half of it.

Q. Doctor, what is the attitude— [37] A. (Continuing) 
—May I correct that, sir, to say that included dormitory 
income and cafeteria income and other things which is all



31a

D r. Q u ill E . C o p e— D ire c t

not income, which I would call expendable receipts—ap­
proximately half.

Q. Doctor, I am trying- to get scholastic income from 
admission fees only; not talking about dormitory income, 
other income there.

Do you have any idea what that would run? A. Per­
centage-wise, right off hand, I could not.

Q. Has there been discussion whatsoever of—
Well, I will go on to this subject before we get back. 

We have found the missing document, if your Honor please.
In your opinion, what effect will unbridled—I will call 

it that for want of a better term—integration have—

Attorney Looby: I object to that, if your Honor 
please. There is no qualification had for this wit­
ness to give this opinion. And, after all, that is a 
matter for the Court to decide as to whether or not, 
based on the line of testimony he is giving out, as 
whether [38] it would be compliance with the Su­
preme Court decision, is my thought.

The Court: What is it you are asking him to 
give his opinion on?

Mr. Tipton: I will do this, if the Court please, 
I will qualify him further.

What I was asking him, the effect of abrupt 
integration, what effect it would have upon the ap­
propriation his Department would be able to get for 
the additional that he stated there. I want to show 
he is familiar with this. He has worked with the 
Legislature, contacted members of the committees, 
and all that sort of thing, would be in a position to 
testify to that, and what effect it would have on his 
Department.

Attorney Looby: I further object to this evi­
dence. There is no indiscriminate integration here.



32a

Dr. Quill E. Cope—Direct

The application of five students for admission. That 
question is assuming the fact that there is going* to 
be—if there are those applicants, negro [39] appli­
cants—and as to what the effect will be, because there 
is no such fact before the Court.

The Court: Well, the respondents have set up 
the plan, and they are proposing that as a plan 
within the framework of the recent edict of the 
Supreme Court. Among other thing's, it is stated in 
that plan that this particular college gets its finan­
cial assistance from the Legislature, and General 
Tipton is introducing proof along that line to show, 
as I get it here, now, what would happen if colored 
students are permitted to enter this particular school 
at this time in numbers on an unrestricted basis.

Is that what you have in mind?
Mr. Tipton: That is right, is what I have in 

mind exactly, if your Honor please.
The Court: So—
Mr. Tipton: And since the Supreme Court in its 

latest decision back in May has ruled finances, the 
physical facilities, or [40] things of that sort, are 
relative facts to be considered in the submission of 
a plan there, it struck me it was complying to show 
his views as to the availability of finances.

The Court: I will let him develop that argument 
on it.

Attorney Looby: Your Honor, what we are ob­
jecting to is not as to the effect if these five were 
admitted, but it is assuming, and then asking upon 
the assumption that there is an indiscriminate num­
ber of applications from colored students.

The Court: I will overrule the objection.

Q. Doctor, I will further qualify you there.



33a

D r. Q u ill E .  C o p e— D ire c t

Have you had considerable to do with the obtaining of 
appropriations for education, both higher and elementary 
there, from the ’53 and ’55 Legislatures'? A. Yes, sir, I 
have worked with the Legislative Committee, with the Gov­
ernor, and others, to got appropriations.

Q. Have you contacted the individual Legislators? A. 
I have.

[41] Q. Have you likewise been in contact with the 
body known as the Legislative Council? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Does that body, to some degree, recommend appro­
priations or not? A. It did, sir, prior to the ’55 Legisla­
ture. They have certain recommendations that they make.

Q. Now, then, with that knowledge and background, I 
think you can probably qualify as an expert now.

What effect would unrestricted integration have upon 
the legislative appropriation at the present time?

Attorney Looby: Now, if your Honor please, 
I don’t see how he can qualify now to tell—

Mr. Tipton: —In your opinion. I am asking 
wThat his opinion is, to tell his opinion.

Attorney Looby: How can this witness qualify 
as an expert to tell what the Legislature will do, 
when he does not even know who the members of the 
Legislature, the [42] next Legislature will be?

The Court: Well, as the matter was stated in 
the answer, appropriations for the biennium have 
already been made, and they were made some sev­
eral months ago.

Attorney Looby: Yes, sir, but he is stating—
The Court (Continuing): —And it is stated that 

the Legislature will not convene before January, 
1957.

Attorney: But this witness does not—



34a

Dr. Quill E. Cope—Direct

The Court: Just a moment. The witness has 
testified that as Superintendent of Education in this 
State he has had contacts with the Legislature, the 
Governor, and the Legislative Council, I believe he 
says, looking to the finances of not only this school 
but other similar schools in the state, and that money 
has been provided for the operation of these schools 
for this biennium.

Is that what you are saying at this time, Doctor?

[43] A. Yes, sir.

The Court: Now, that money, that is, the appro­
priation for these purposes, is that controlled to 
some extent by the number of students who enter 
these schools? I take it that is what you are get­
ting at.

Mr. Tipton: Getting at that, and getting at the 
fact that these schools can’t operate beyond their 
present biennium and without at least the appropria­
tion to the same extent as is now made by law, and 
perhaps more, and I am getting at with him the 
probability of a decrease in that appropriation if 
unrestricted integration be adopted, if this plan 
isn’t adopted.

Attorney Looby: Now, if your Honor please—
The Court: All right, now, I will hear you. With 

that elucidation of the matter, do you still say that 
this is incompetent, this testimony?

Attorney Looby: If your Honor please, [44] with 
respect to past appropriations, the appropriation is 
ready to be made for the present biennium.

The Court: I did not get you there.
Attorney Looby: With respect to the appropria­

tions, they are ready to be made. And as to the wit-



35a

D r. Q u ill E .  C o p e— D ire c t

ness’ experience with, the Legislators, I have no 
exception to his testimony, but the testimony now’ is 
intended to get from the witness his opinion as to 
what future Legislatures will do if there is indis­
criminate admission. Now, I am saying- he does 
not know.

The Court: I don’t know' that counsel is inquir­
ing as to what a future Legislature might do.

Are you at this time—
Mr. Tipton: I w7as making this inquiry, after 

qualifying him as an expert, I think—in his opinion, 
what would be the effect on ability to get appropria­
tions for educational purposes. By this, if your 
Honor [45] please, I am getting his views, trying to 
develop his views on that, if the Court please, 
whether he would have much more trouble getting 
more or less appropriation for the coming years if 
unrestricted integration -were developed.

The Court: Well, that may be competent at some 
later stage of the proceeding. I doubt if his opinion 
on that would be proper at this time.

Mr. Tipton: I will ask this further question, then.

Q- Doctor, did you participate in the formation of the 
plan that is here being offered to be approved by the Court! 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did the question or possibility of a decrease in fu­
ture educational appropriations enter into the considera­
tion and determination or development of this plan! A. I 
think that was one factor that was discussed.

Q- After the first decision in the segregation [46] cases 
there, but prior to the most recent one there, did you con­
tact any members of the Legislative Council, the then 
Legislative Council, with respect to appropriations for



36a

Dr. Quill E. Cope—Direct

educational purposes? A. I talked to individual members, 
yes, numerous times.

Q. Are some of those members that you talked to then 
still members of the Legislative Council! A. Yes, sir.

The Court: Is the Legislative Council, for the 
benefit of the Court, made up of members of the 
Legislature ?

Mr. Tipton: Members of the Legislature, your 
Honor—beg your pardon.

The Court (Continuing): —And they are operat­
ing while the Legislature is not in session?

Mr. Tipton: They operate while—sort of, I 
might say this, not exactly a steering committee, but 
they are sort of a committee that formulates what 
they want to do, or what they are going to recom­
mend.

[47] The Court: They get up programs—
Mr. Tipton: They get up the program.
The Court (Continuing): —For the coming Leg­

islature, I believe, usually—I believe that is the 
purpose of it.

Mr. Tipton: Yes, sir, they get up the program 
for the coming Legislature.

Q. Now, then I am going to ask a question, and don’t 
answer it, Doctor, until counsel has had an opportunity 
to object there.

What was the attitude of members of the Legislative 
Council whom you contacted with reference to the increase 
in appropriations if unrestricted integration be adopted?

And I will let counsel object to that.

Attorney Looby: If your Honor please, that is 
so objectionable on its face that even counsel recog-



37a

D r. Q u ill E .  C o p e— D ire c t

nizes it. This witness can’t testify as to what is in 
the mind of somebody who may recommend some­
thing to the Legislature to which he may or may not 
be a member. If your Honor please, just how that 
[48] could be competent, I can’t see.

The Court: Well, I can see where it would be 
objectionable if the witness undertook to go too far 
in that way, but I will ask him this question. The 
Court will ask this question.

Was that a matter which concerned the members 
of the Legislative Council!

A. This was not an official meeting of the Legislative 
Council. This was a discussion at which several individual 
members of the Council were present, the members of the 
Legislature.

The Court: That was an angle on the overall 
picture concerning which they were interested or 
concerned, would you say!

A. I  would say so, yes, sir.

The Court: And I believe you did testify that 
that was a matter which was discussed before the 
Board, at the State Board, is that what you say!

A. I wouldn’t say that that- was discussed before the State 
Board. It was discussed, the matter of [49] formulating a 
plan for consideration of the State Board.

The Court: I believe that is as far as you can 
go on that, Mr. Tipton.

Mr. Tipton: All right.

Q. Now, then, Doctor, we have discovered the missing 
memorandum there.



38a

Dr. Quill E. Cope—Direct

Will you take it, then, to him, Mr. Marshal?
Getting back to the scholastic population, Doctor, did 

you make a memorandum showing percentages in the 
various West Tennessee counties? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is Memphis State College situated in Shelby County? 
A. That is correct.

Q. What is the ratio of scholastic population of Shelby 
County, the Negro scholastic population of Shelby County 
to the total? A. 1952 Census report, which is the latest, 
shows approximately—these figures, let me say, wrere made 
rather hurriedly and haven’t been checked then, but show 
it forty-four percent.

[50] Q1. Forty-four percent? A. Yes.
Q, Now, then, does Tipton County adjoin Shelby Coun­

ty? A. Yes.
Q. I take it the Court and counsel will both have judicial 

knowledge of that fact. But what is the percentage of the 
colored scholastic population of Tipton County to the total, 
based on the same thing? A. Thirty-seven percent.

Q. Thirty-seven percent. Does Fayette County join 
Shelby County? A. Yes, sir, I believe it does.

Q. What is the percentage of the colored scholastic 
population to the total population in Fayette County? 
A. Seventy-three percent.

Q. What is it for Haywood County? A. Sixty-nine.
Q. What is it for Hardeman County? A. Forty-three,
Q. What is it for Madison County? A. Thirty-nine.
[51] Q. What is it for Lauderdale County? A. Laud­

erdale shows thirty-six.
Q. Are all those counties what might be said located 

in the Memphis State College student drawing area? A. 
Yes, sir.

Q. Doctor, have you had any study made as to the 
approximate number of high school graduates from colored 
high schools in Shelby County during the year ’54-’55?



39a

D r. Q u ill E .  C o p e— D ir e c t

A. We have a statistical report in the Department for the 
year ending July 1st, '54.

Q. What does that report show as to the number of 
graduates from colored high schools in Shelby County 
alone for that period of time! A. Approximately eleven 
hundred.

Q. Doctor, as Commissioner of Education, do you have 
supervision of the distribution of the funds of the various 
educational institutions in Tennessee on the collegiate 
level, outside of the University of Tennessee? A. Yes, sir.

[52] Q. Do you mind stating- whether or not there is 
any provision in the appropriation bill for the transfer of 
any funds from one to another? A. No, sir, they are made 
on direct appropriation.

Q. Could they be transferred, then, in the absence of 
provision to that effect? A. No, sir.

Mr. Tipton: Will your Honor excuse me just a 
minute for a conference?

The Court: Suppose we have a short break in the 
proceedings, about ten minutes.

Mr. Tipton: I am almost through examining him 
in chief, if the Court please.

The Court: All right.
Mr. Tipton: I say, I am almost through examin­

ing him in chief, if the Court please.
The Court: Well, we will wait until you get 

through then.
Mr. Tipton: I believe that is all in direct exami­

nation, if your Honor please.
The Court: All right, about a ten [53] minute 

recess, then, about ten minutes.
(Recess.)



40a

Dr. Quill E. Cope—Direct

Mr. Tipton: If your Honor please, before cross- 
examination starts, may I ask Dr. Cope two or three 
more questions on direct examination.

Go around, Dr. Cope.

Q. Do you have a certified copy of the Resolution 
adopted by the State Board of Education setting forth this 
plan? A. I do.

Mr. Tipton: Will you make it an exhibit to your 
testimony, please?

The Clerk: You want it marked, don’t you, as 
an exhibit?

Mr. Tipton: Yes, but we have got to find it.
(Said document was accordingly marked as Ex­

hibit 1 to the testimony of Dr. Cope, and same will 
be found among the exhibits hereto.)

[54] Q. Dr. Cope, a while ago in your direct examina­
tion you stated certain percentage figures in connection 
with the colored scholastic population in the counties 
adjoining Shelby, as compared to the total, in terms of 
percentage there.

Do you have figures available to you whereby the total 
number of colored scholastic population in those counties 
can be obtained? A. Yes, sir, statistical report of the 
State Department of Education.

Q. What is the total scholastic population in Shelby 
County—colored, I mean? A. On this report, ninety 
thousand on the total. You want colored?

Mr. Tipton: I want the colored.
A. 37,555 on the ’52 census. That was the last one.

Q. Now, then for Tipton County, the colored scholastic 
population? A. 2,896.



D r, Q u ill E .  C o p e— D ir e c t

Q. 2,896? A. Yes, sir.
[55] Q. Now, for Fayette County! A. 6,022.
Q. 6,022? A. Yes, sir.
Q. For Haywood County, please Doctor? A. 4,458, 

combined counties.
Q. 4,458? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Hardeman County, please, sir? A. 2,267.
Q. Madison County, please? A. 4,943.
Q. And Lauderdale County? A. 2,312.
Q. 2,312. I believe you stated they were made in ’52? 

A. That is the latest scholastic population.
Q. As a whole, has the scholastic population increased 

or decreased since that time Doctor ? A. It has increased. 
At least, our enrollment and attendance, and we assume 
naturally the scholastic population.

[56] Q. Has increased. Now, then, Doctor, one fact 
that presents itself in connection with this plan, if adopted 
pending this transition period, does the state have any 
provisions to take care of colored students who may desire 
higher education? A. We have A. & I. State University, 
Nashville.

Q- Where is it located, Doctor? A. Nashville.
Q. Would you mind describing the plant and physical 

facilities of that school that will be available to colored stu­
dents pending the plan, presuming the plan is adopted. 
A. We have what we consider a very fine institution. We 
have a state appropriation of almost two million dollars 
for the operation of the school.

Q. What is the appropriation for Memphis State? 
A. Seven hundred eighty-seven thousand dollars.

Q. How do the physical facilities of A. & I. compare 
with Memphis State, or any other State University outside 
of the University of Tennessee—state collegiate schools, 
I would say? A. I would say they have more complete



42a

Dr. Quill E. Cope-—Cross

physical [57] facilities than any of our state institutions 
other than University of Tennessee.

Attorney Carter: I  am sorry, I didn’t hear you.

A. More complete, I would say; more adequate plant than 
any other institution except the University of Tennessee.

Attorney Carter: What has more?

A. Physical plant.

Mr. Tipton: I believe that is all, if your Honor 
please.

Cross-examination by Attorney Looby:

Q. Let me see that little book you are reading from, 
Doctor.

What page were you reading from, do you know? A. 1 
don’t recall. I can check it.

Q. I see you have some marks on that, what you are 
reading there. A. Yes, sir.

[58] Q. Doctor, before you were with—Commissioner 
of Education, I believe you were employed out at the Uni­
versity? A. That is correct.

Q. What year did you leave the University there? A. 
What year?

Attorney Looby: Yes, sir.

A. 1953.
Q. So you were there, then, at the time that Negroes 

were admitted to the University of Tennessee? A. Not at 
the time, I  believe, that the first were admitted. I was only 
at the University for a short time.



43a

D r. Q u ill E .  C o p e— C ro ss

Q, Sir ? A. I was not there at the time the first students 
were admitted, I believe.

Q. Well, do you know as a matter of fact that students 
were admitted ? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Negro students were admitted® A. Yes.
Q. And that Negro students have been at the [59] Uni­

versity for several years since then? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And several have graduated? A. I don’t know 

know about that.
Q. You know that there are Negroes at the University 

of Tennessee now, do you not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And they seem to get along all right at the Univer­

sity of Tennessee, don’t they?

Mr. Tipton: What is the question? I couldn’t 
hear it.

Q. They get along all right at the University of Ten­
nessee, don’t they? A. Well, I have heard nothing to the 
contrary.

Q. Do you have any reason to believe that the contrary 
would ocur at Memphis State College if five students were 
admitted? A. Well, of course, the students at the Univer­
sity of Tennessee were on the graduate level, I believe, 
mature students.

Q1. I didn’t ask you that. Do you understand the ques­
tion? [60] A. Not sure that I got it.

Attorney Looby: Will you read the question, 
please ?

The Court: Just ask it again. I believe that is 
the quickest way to get at it.

Attorney Looby: All right, sir.

Q- IN you have any reason to believe that any other 
development would occur at the Memphis State College



44a

Dr. Quill E. Cope—Cross

than at University of Tennessee? A. Well, I have I think 
you have a different—excuse me, a matter of opinion, I 
think you have a different climate in Memphis or West 
Tennessee than from the climate that exists in Konxville, 
perhaps, about this particular question of integration.

Q. Dr. Cope, as Commissioner of Education, do you have 
a knowledge of the accredited schools in the City of Mem­
phis? A. Accredited high schools?

Attorney Looby: Yes.

A. We have that as a matter of record. I couldn’t name 
all of them.

Q. Well, see if you can name a few. How about [61] 
Booker T. Washington High School? A. It is an accred­
ited high school.

Q. And a graduate of that school would be qualified for 
admission at any of the state teachers colleges, wouldn’t he, 
as far as education is concerned? A. As far as the stand­
ing of his high school, yes.

Q. How about Douglass High School? A. About what?
Q. How about. Douglass High School in Memphis? A. I 

can’t recall from memory the names of all these schools.
Q. Do you remember Douglass? A. I  would assume 

that it is an accredited school. In fact, as far as I know, 
the City Schools, public Negro schools of the City of Mem­
phis are all accredited schools, as far as I know.

Q. So that any person graduating from any of the 
high schools maintained by the City of Memphis would be 
qualified for admission to any of the teachers colleges on 
the basis of educational qualifications? [62] A. On the 
same basis that graduates of any school, any accredited 
school, are.

Q. What? A. On the same basis that a graduate of 
any accredited school is.



45a

D r. Q u ill E .  C o p e— C ro ss

Q. Doctor, I will ask you very pointedly, the only reason 
these students are denied admission is because of their 
race, isn’t it? Isn’t that true? A. I wouldn’t say that that 
is true.

Q1. Well, can you tell us if any other reason? A. Well, 
the reason, because of the fact that the State Board plan 
provides for them to make some adjustment to this prob­
lem, and there is no way of speculating-—

Q. And the adjustment is because of race, isn’t it? 
A. Well, the basis of denial was because of race, that is 
correct, and adjustment—

Q- And that is true, isn’t it, the basis of denial is race? 
A. Yes, I would have to say that.

Q. Dr. Cope, how many out-of-state members—let me 
see—the Memphis State College is established [63] pri­
marily for residents of the State of Tennessee in the West­
ern Division, isn’t it? Sir? A. Well, I would assume so, 
yes.

Q. And admission of students from out-of-state was not 
part of its primary function? You serve Tennesseans first, 
don’t you? A. There is no policy to that effect, I mean 
it is an institution, certainly was established by the Legis­
lature—all of our State colleges or institutions were pri­
marily established for Tennesseans, but there is no policy 
at any institution of higher learning in this state saying 
you have got to serve Tennesseans first.

_ Q- Dr- Cope, how many out-of-state students were ad­
mitted since the applicants were denied? A. I don’t know.

Q. Have any been admitted? A. I would assume so, 
but I don’t know it of personal knowledge.

Q. Have you made any effort to ascertain? A. No, I 
haven’t studied that question, because all the institutions 
under the State Board of [64] Education admit out-of-state 
students, and the State Board has no policy prohibiting 
the admission of out-of-state students.



46a

Dr. Quill E. Cope—Cross

Q. Now, I notice—I think yon probably can find it better 
than I can—let’s take, for example, Fayette County. How 
many Negroes were living in this county? A. This shows 
scholastic population in that county, fifty-two.

Q. Now, scholastic population, people between what 
ages? A. Between the age of six and eighteen, yes, sir— 
’52 here.

Q. How many Negroes in this county? A. According 
to this, 6,022.

Q. How many went to college? A. From Fayette 
County?

Attorney Looby: Yes.

A. I couldn’t tell you how many.
Q. So these figures, they show nothing, because out of 

that six thousand, if six may have gone to college, as far 
as you know, or none may have gone—[65] that is true, 
isn’t it? A. Well, I am sure some went. I  couldn’t tell you. 
We have that information for this year, not for ’52.

Q. You have for this year? A. I guess I have it for 
Fayette County. I  am not sure which county.

Q. Well, is there anything to show there with respect 
to these population figures that you have introduced? A. 
Well, I told you that a run-down on that showed twenty- 
seven percent in counties of the schools we heard from. 
I don’t recall that we heard from Fayette County or not.

Q. That percentage is true of people who went to col­
lege, or just population? A. Twenty-seven percent.

Attorney Looby Yes.

A. That is return from the questionnaires, from the schools 
that replied, showing how many of them went to college, 
all colleges all over the country.



47a

D r. Q u ill E . C o p e— C ro ss

Q. All over the country. We are primarily [66] inter­
ested in Memphis or in West Tennessee. Have you any 
figures that show us the number who went to college from 
any of the counties of West Tennessee? A. That is what 
I am telling you, the number that went to college.

Q. Sir ! A. That is the figure I am giving you. Twenty- 
seven percent of the ones that reported went to college.

Q. Do you mean that that twenty-seven percent of the 
scholastic population of Memphis went to college! A. Not 
of the scholastic population, no. I wouldn’t say twenty- 
seven percent of any particular county. That was the per­
centage of the number who finished high school from whom 
we got reports, added together, the number of graduates 
out of that total group that entered college somewhere this 
fall.

Q:. Now, of what group that comprises— A. The 
schools that replied to the questionnaires.

Q. Well, now, the schools were what, what schools? 
A. Mr. Turner has that information, and he gathered it. I 
couldn’t give you a breakdown. I just recall [67] the figure 
twenty-seven percent w e  ran down on it.

Q. Did you say that was for the country? A. For what!
Q. Did I understand you to say that was for the coun­

try, for admission! A. Oh, no, just the West Tennessee 
high schools.

Q- Twenty-seven percent went to college. Then that 
includes colleges all over the country! A. They may have 
attended colleges all over the country, these graduates, 
yes, sir.

Q- Well, a large percentage, a large portion of that 
percentage goes to private institutions? A. I  would as­
sume so.

Q. So, as a matter of fact, Dr. Cope, you really don’t 
know what percentages went to the state colleges? Sir?



48a

Dr. Quill E. Cope-Cross

A. I think that Mr. Turner has that record, the number 
of graduates.

Q. But you don’t know? A. I  couldn’t give it to you.
Q. Now, Dr. Cope, for the purpose of the record, our 

Legislature is elected and meets biennially, isn’t it? 
[68] A. That is right.

Q. And the Legislature for 1955 has not been elected 
yet? A. For 1957.

Q. For 1957, yes. A. That is right.
Q. Sir? A. It has not been elected, no, sir.
Q. And the next meeting of our Legislature will be 

1957? A. That is correct.
Q. And, Dr. Cope, you don’t know, of course I know 

you don’t know, no more than I do, who were the mem­
bers of that Legislature, do you? A. Don’t know who will 
be members of the Legislature, next Legislature?

Attorney Looby: Yes.

A. No, I don’t know.
Q. And so you don’t know what appropriation they may 

decide to make for these different institutions, you don’t 
know today what they will do with respect to these institu­
tions? A. No, I couldn’t say for certainty what—

[69] Q. And the Legislature make appropriations ac­
cording to needs, doesn’t it? A. Because of needs?

Attorney Looby: Yes.

A. Well, we hope so. It is always a very difficult question 
as to what the Legislature will appropriate.

Q. So that it is really a guess so far as you and I are 
concerned today as to what the Legislature will do con­
cerning it? A. It could not be a matter of certainty.



49a

D r. Q u ill E .  C o p e—C ro ss

Q. No, sir. By the way, as Commissioner of Education 
of the State of Tennessee, you have kept up with all the 
educational trends in the State of Tennessee, haven’t you? 
A. Well, I wouldn’t say all of them. I have tried to keep 
up with them.

Q. You have tried to? A. Yes.
Q. That is your job, and you have tried to do your job. 

Has there been any—let’s see, what what the word you 
used—have been a large number of [70] negroes—yes, has 
there been an unbridled number of negroes going to the 
University of Tennessee since they have been admitted ! A. 
Any what number?

Q. Whatever words you used as you referred to stu­
dents then—a large number of negroes. A. At the Uni­
versity of Tennessee.

Attorney Looby: Yes.

A. I would say not. Of course, the University of Tennes­
see has only admitted them to areas in which there is no 
offering in other state institutions.

Q. In what areas they have been admitted, there hasn’t 
been any large numbers, no alarmingly large numbers so 
as to upset the educational system? A. No, I •would say 
not.

Q. What reason, Dr. Cope, do you have, or any member 
of your Board have for assuming that there will be any 
tremendously large number of applicants for Memphis 
State College? A. Well, you have the heaviest concentra­
tion of negro population in the State here in Memphis and 
Shelby County. You have an institution out there [71] 
that is terrifically overcrowded already. And, of course, 
it problematical, but it could.

Q. It is overcrowded. Has it ever denied admission lo 
any out-of-state students? A. I don’t know. I couldn’t 
answer.



50 a

Dr. Quill E. Cope—Cross

Q. Sir? A. As far as I know, it hasn’t, but—
Q. Have there been any applications other than these 

five, these five—has there been any other applications from 
negroes for admission from this state at Memphis State 
College? A. Not to my knowledge. I couldn’t—

Q. None has been brought to your attention as Commis­
sioner? A. No, sir.

Q. What are the requirements for admission to the 
state colleges, Dr. Cope? A. Must be graduated from an 
accredited high school.

Q. Is there any graduate of any accredited high school 
—is he admissible for admission to the Memphis State Col­
lege, provided he is white, is that correct? [72] A. That is 
correct. There are certain other things. I should modify 
that. They have to have recommendation from the high 
school principal, and character recommendations, certain 
other things of that type, but basically it is a question of 
graduation from an accredited school.

Q. Isn’t it true, Dr. Cope, that since you filed your 
answer with this plan that you now present to the Court, 
hasn’t your Board met and changed that plan? A. The 
Board has met and changed it?

Attorney Looby: Yes.

A. No, sir.
Q. Is that plan in operation now? A. That plan is not 

in operation, no.
Q. It is not in operation? A. No.
Q. Well, what has the Board done with respect to that 

plan since this answer was filed ? A. They have done noth­
ing, because one part of the plan was that this plan wrould 
become operative when the Constitution and laws of Ten­
nessee controlling [73] segregation in the public schools 
were declared invalid, and since this case was in court



51a

D r. Q u ill E .  C o p e— C ro ss

nothing has been done. There has been no modification of 
the plan.

Q. So that plan was never intended to go into effect 
immediately, it was to be held in escrow provided that the 
Constitution and Statute of Tennessee was declared un­
constitutional! A. That was the thinking of the Board.

Q. Did you have that condition in the plan! A. Yes, 
sir.

Q. And by what court did the Board, you and the Board 
want this constitutional inhibition, or this mentioned in 
the answer of the Constitution or I!\ -Laws passed on, by 
this Court or by the State Court? A. For this plan to be 
passed?

Q. Yes. You say you wTere waiting until the Constitu­
tion and laws were declared unconstitutional. Was that 
by the State Court? A. Well, I don’t know. I would 
assume—-

Q. So, Commissioner, really you don’t know when and 
under what conditions your plan was supposed to be put 
into effect? [74] A. Well, when the Courts declare the 
Constitution or Statutes of Tennessee on that null and void, 
you were sworn to uphold as officials of the State and 
Members of the Board laws of the State of Tennessee, they 
are still on the statute books, and there is no declaration 
on it.

Q. So, coming right down to cardinal situation, these 
students who are now plaintiffs here were denied admis­
sion because you thought and still think that it is contrary 
to the Constitution of the State of Tennessee and the laws 
of that State? A. There has never been any declaration 
that—

Q. I am asking you the question. You can answer it 
yes or on, and explain any way you want to.

Mr. McCanless: Bepeat the question, so he can.



52a

Dr. Quill E. Cope—Redirect 
Dr. J. Millard Smith—Direct

Q. Did you understand, did you hear the question? 
A. I wish you would repeat it.

Q. Sir? A. I wish you would repeat it.
Q. All right. These students who are now plaintiffs 

were denied admission to the Memphis State [75] College, 
and with the approval of the Board of Education, because, 
in your opinion and that of the Board, the Constitution 
and Statutes of Tennessee prohibited it? A. That was one 
of the reasons, yes.

Q. Sir? A. That was the reason, one of the reasons. 
Q. That was the reason? A. Yes, one of the reasons.

Mr. Tipton: Is that all you have?
Attorney Looby: * That is all.
Mr. Tipton: Just one question on redirect ex­

amination.

Redirect examination by Mr. Tipton:

Q. Dr. Cope, at the time when this plan was proposed 
and finally adopted by the State Board of Education, was 
this current litigation then pending, had it been filed? 
[76] A. It had.

Mr. Tipton: That is all I want to ask.
The Court: That is all, Doctor.
(Witness excused.)

Dr. J. M illard  S m it h , the next witness, having been 
first duly sworn, testified as follows:

Direct examination by Mr. Humphreys:

Q. Please state your name, age, and place of residence. 
A. State the question again.



53a

D r. J .  M illa rd  S m i th — D ire c t

Q. State your name and your age and place of resi­
dence. A. My name is J. Millard Smith. I live on the 
campus of Memphis State College. I was sixty years old 
March 10th, last year.

[77] Q. What official position do you hold with Memphis 
State College? A. I am president of the College.

Q, How long have you been president? A. Since 1946.
Q. What has been your experience in the field of educa­

tion! How long have you been connected with it, and in 
what way have you been connected with it ? A. 1 graduated 
as a student there in 1929. I have served as member of the 
factulty, as principal of the Training School, as Dean of 
the College, and as President of the College.

Q. Are you, by reason of your association, acquainted 
with the physical plant at Memphis State and able to testify 
with respect to that? A. I think so.

Q. Do you know about the situation there? A. Yes, 
sir.

Q. Is Memphis State a member of any association of 
colleges? A. It is accredited by the Southern Association 
of Secondary Schools and Colleges, which is the [78] 
regional accrediting association for this area.

Q. I wish you would explain the significance of that 
association and the accreditation you speak of. A. The 
schools—the significance of the accreditation of any col­
lege in the city, its academic standards are determined by 
belonging to this organization. In other words, it is the 
controlling agency for determining the academic standards 
of any institution of higher learning or secondary schools.

Q. Now, why is that important at Memphis State Col­
lege? A. In order that our students may receive recogni­
tion for credits which they earn at professional schools, 
or to other schools to which they may transfer.

Q. In other words, if you were not to have this stand­
ing, accredited standing, with this Association, your stu-



54a

Dr. J. Millard Smith—-Direct

dents would not be accepted at other colleges or universi­
ties for admission or for other work in those schools, is 
that correct? A. Their credits would not be accepted at 
full value, or they might have to substantiate their credits 
by examination or some other process.

[79] Q. Is it part of the program of higher education 
for all of your colleges or universities to belong to that? 
A. They all do.

Q. And is that— A. All of the state institutions.
Q. And is that, in your opinion, indispensable to the 

functioning of state colleges or universities in their sphere 
of higher education? A. Absolutely.

Q. Now, are there any requirements by this association 
with respect to the amount of money which must be ex­
pended for instructional purposes per capita? A. Yes, 
sir.

Q. In the student enrollment? A. The student enroll­
ment. The Southern Association has a group of standards, 
some seventeen. One of these standards deals with the 
amount of money which must be spent for instruction for 
each student in your college.

Q. What is the rule with respect to that in the Associa­
tion at the present time? [80] A. For colleges which offer 
graduate work, there must be a minimum spent on instruc­
tion alone of three hundred dollars for the academic year.

Q. Does Memphis State offer graduate work? A. Yes, 
sir.

Q. Does it come within the requirement of three hun­
dred dollars? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, is there a requirement of the Association with 
respect to the number of teachers that are required to 
handle the student body, and, if so, explain what it is. A. 
The Southern Association requires one teacher for each 
twenty students. That is the maximum number of students 
you can have for each teacher. For Tennessee the average 
in the state colleges is one teacher for each sixteen students.



55a

D r. J .  M il la r d  S m i th — D ire c t

Q. I see. Now, do you have the standards to which you 
refer? A. Yes, sir.

Q. (Continuing) —There in some printed form? A. 
Yes, sir. This is the 1954 Quarterly Report [81] of the 
Southern Association, which contains these standards.

Q. Will you refer to the page of that report which has, 
for instance, the standard with respect to the amount of 
money which must be paid, and read that into the record? 
A. This document is proceedings of the Fifty-Ninth Annual 
Meeting of the Southern Association of Colleges and Sec­
ondary Schools, December ’54. The meeting was held in 
Louisville, Kentucky. And standards for the senior col­
leges which are members of this organization are printed 
on pages beginning with 193 through the middle of page 
200.

Q. Now, will you file that, please, as an exhibit to your 
testimony and make it available to opposing counsel? A. 
Yes, sir.

Mr. Humphreys: Let him keep it at the present 
time.

(Said document was accordingly marked as Ex­
hibit 1 to the testimony of Dr. Smith, and same will 
be found among the exhibits hereto.)

[82] Q. Now, I wish you would state what is the present 
ratio or the present number of students per teacher at 
Memphis State, that is, whether you are near the standard, 
or at the standard, or how about that? A. The report vdiieh 
I recently submitted to the Southern Association as of 
October 10th showed student-teacher ratio for the year 
ending June 30th, and for the academic year, let’s say, 
’53-’54, showed a ratio one to nineteen.

Q. 1 to 19. Now, for the present academic year, has 
that— A. That has not been determined, and will not be



56a

Dr. J. Millard Smith—Direct

determined until the end of the academic year when the 
total number of students for the two semesters are aver­
aged, and that number divided by—

Q. Has the enrollment increased, however? A. Yes.
Q. And the teachers’ staff, has it been increased? A. 

Yes.
Q. Has it been increased in proportion to the enroll­

ment increase? A. It will have to be next Spring. It will 
have [83] to come out not over twenty.

Mr. Humphreys: I  see.

A. If I don’t have enough on now, I will have enough on 
now before the end of the year.

Q. In other words, you must maintain the standard? 
A. That is right, if I can find the money.

Q. But you are in it at the present time? A. That is 
right.

Q. Now, with respect to the appropriation that is avail­
able for instructional purposes, how is the ratio of pupils, 
—this appropriation,—explain that to the Court,—how 
near are you now to the required standard? A. Well, the 
cost last year was $310 per student,

Q. Per student. What is the standard? A. Well, the 
minimum is $300.

Q. Now, Hr. Smith, assuming,—excuse me, President 
Smith,—assuming that there are in the future, as has been 
the case in the past year, eleven hundred who graduate, 
negro high school students who graduate in Shelby County 
alone, and that twenty-seven percent, which is the state­
wide average, [84] attend college, and elect to attend this 
college of yours which is in this immediate vicinity, would 
that or not overtax the facilities of Memphis State so as to 
disqualify it for membership in the Southern Association



57a

D r. J .  M il la r d  S m i th — D ir e c t

of Colleges, and result in the loss of its academic standing 
as explained by you? A. It would, definitely.

Attorney Carter: If the Court please, we would 
like to suggest that if these figures, twenty-seven 
percent, et cetera are going to be used, that since 
there could be no testimony of the survey, that the 
person who has made the survey get the facts of the 
survey out in the open, so we will know what we are 
talking about.

The Court: Well,—
Attorney Carter: As it is now, we don’t know, 

twenty-seven percent,—.
The Court: Well, this witness,—the ruling with 

respect to this witness applies as in the case of the 
first witness, if you are objecting at this time. It is 
[85] competent provided Mr. Turner, as I under­
stand it,—

Mr. Humphreys: Yes, sir.
The Court: (Continuing) —Brings in these 

figures. And the problem is just a problem of how 
we are going to proceed.

Attorney Carter: The real problem we have is 
we have laid no groundwork for this figure of twenty- 
seven percent, and all the questions are being based 
on it. It is an hypothesis on an hypothesis which 
we don’t know anything about. If we had the survey 
before us and knew what was involved in the survey, 
what the twenty-seven percent went to, we would be 
in better position to know what we could do with 
the question that has been raised here.

Mr. Humphreys: If your Honor please, you have 
it in mind, but if I may, I should like to restate that 
there is testimony that this report, this information 
was gotten under the instructions of the defendant



58a

Dr. J. Millard Smith—Direct

Cope, [86] and to that extent is, we believe, quali­
fied. We propose to make it more competent, that 
is, to bring in the witness who attended to the com­
pilation of the data. But we are following the pimc- 
tice, which I understand to prevail, of introducing 
the parties, which we are now doing, and then we will 
call Mr. Turner and let him support this.

The Court: That is about the only way I see we 
can do it, and we are interested in orderly procedure. 
Only one witness can testify at a time, of course. So 
we have in mind your objection, and these figures 
will have to be substantiated by Mr. Turner before 
they will be considered in evidence.

Mr. Humphreys: Now, may I go on?
The Court: (Continuing) —Or other testimony 

based on these figures. All right.

Q. President Smith, in addition to negro graduates 
from high schools in Shelby County, would your state 
college serve any of the other West Tennessee counties? 
A. The twenty-one counties this side of the [87] Tennessee 
River are ordinarily considered our territory.

Q. I  see. You heard the counties that were named by 
defendant Cope and the percentages that were given in his 
testimony. Would your college serve those counties? A. 
Yes.

Q. I see. And you could expect, then, to serve a num­
ber,—whatever the percent is of that number, that would 
be potential enrollees at your University? A. Yes.

Q. Ho you have available to the University any other 
funds than those that are appropriated by the General 
Assembly of Tennessee and the fees for instructional pur­
poses? A. Nothing of any considerable amount,

Q. The fees for tuition, I mean. You say nothing of 
considerable amount? A. We get some money in in grants 
and gifts and scholarships, not very much.



59a

D r. J .  M il la r d  S m i th — D ire c t

Q. Are they available for general education, the scholar­
ships? [88] A. They are available to students who qualify 
under certain regulations.

Q. I see. So, actually, the maintenance and operation 
of the school depends upon appropriations? A. State 
appropriations or student fees.

Q. Has your appropriation for the biennium ’55 to ’57 
been fixed by law? A. Yes.

Q. And could that be increased, or can it be increased 
without the Legislature’s action? A. No.

Q. Has the Legislature adjourned for the ’55 session? 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And it could not be reassembled except upon a call 
for a special session by the Governor? A. Yes.

Q. And I believe that, for instance, is it true that funds 
which are available for one college are not available for 
another college ? A. Each of our appropriations are stated 
in the general appropriation bill.

Q. All right. Now, there has been some suggestions 
by way of cross-examination of Dr. Cope that [89] out-of- 
state students might be excluded, and thereby an oppor­
tunity afforded for in-state students.

What is the policy of your state school and of all other 
state schools in Tennessee with respect to the acceptance 
of out-of-state students? A. We don’t want to become too 
provincial by limiting our enrollment strictly to students 
in this area.

Q. Is that a policy that is adhered to by all the state 
schools? A. That is the policy which is adhered to by all 
recognized, outstanding institutions of higher learning.

Q. Is that limited to the State of Tennessee? A. No, sir.
Q. Is that true of all states? A. All states.
Q. So that, as a result of that policy, students from 

Tennessee can enroll in State colleges and other universities



60a

Dr. J. Millard Smiths—Direct

as freely as students of other states can enroll in Ten­
nessee colleges? A. Yes, sir, by paying additional regis­
tration fees.

[90] Q. Now, is this required at your school? A. Yes.
Q. An additional out-of-state registration fee? A. 

What we call out-of-state tuition.
Q. Out-of-state tuition. Would the exclusion of out- 

of-state students result in some loss of standing, not dis­
qualification, but some loss of standing in the State of Ten­
nessee of State colleges or universities? A. I wouldn’t 
want to advocate the exclusion policy or eliminating of 
out-of-state students.

Q. I see. Now, it has been suggested in this program 
of desegregation of state colleges that it is desirable, in 
order to avoid possible friction between the lower,—that is 
the first year classes, if they are admitted immediately in 
numbers. Can you comment upon that and tell us with 
respect to that, and what your observation and opinion 
is with respect to it? A. It is my opinion that the plan—

Attorney Looby: If your Honor please, just a 
minute. I don’t think Mr. Smith is permitted to 
tell us his opinion. His [91] opinion isn’t any better 
than mine, or anybody else’s. To give an opinion 
he has to qualify as an expert.

Mr. Humphreys: If your Honor please, he is 
right there and knows, he sees them every day.

The Court: The witness has been in school work 
practically all of his adult life, since he graduated, 
I believe he testified, and he has come into contact 
with young people through the years.

Is that limited to white schools?

A. No, sir, Judge, for six years I served here in the City 
of Memphis with the City Board of Education as Director



61a

D r. J .  M il la r d  S m i th — D ire c t

of Instruction, which covered both white and negro schools. 
I know every negro teacher in Memphis, or did at that time.

The Court: The Court feels that the witness is 
qualified to testify on the subject. The objection is 
overruled.

Q. Now, my question was, speaking from the basis of 
your acquaintanceship and experience with this [92] mat­
ter of education and from your opportunity to see and hear 
and know and observe the temper of affairs with respect to 
the subject, would there be friction, would there be difficulty 
on the campus of Memphis State College if you were to 
immediately declare for total desegregation of education 
there and permit free enrollment without this process of 
gradual adjustment which the Board has proposed? A. 
May I answer that by saying that it is my opinion that the 
plan which the State Board of Education has presented to 
this Court would solve the problem.

Attorney Looby: Just a moment. Just a moment.
Your Honor, I want to object to that.
Mr. Humphreys: I want to ask you that next.
Attorney Looby: That is the very question for 

your Honor to pass upon.
The Court: Well, it is obvious counsel recognizes 

that the witness’ answer—
Mr. Humphreys: Yes, I asked you another ques­

tion.
[93] The Court: (Continuing) —which he gave 

is not in response to the question, I  believe.

Q. Now, my question was, and just paraphrase it,— 
would the immediate desegregation of Memphis State Col­
lege, situated as it is, where it is, under the influences that



62a

Dr. J. Millard Smith—Direct

it is under, and enrollment on a free basis of negro high 
school students in the freshman class result, in your opin­
ion, in friction, that is, a difficulty, emotional maladjust­
ment and trouble between the students? A. In my opinion, 
it would.

Q. I will get you to state in that connection whether 
in your official capacity you have been consulted by organ­
izations on the campus expressing dissatisfaction with the 
program, with the idea of immediate desegregation. A. I 
have had,—I have been consulted or approached by students 
who were members of certain organizations that the plan 
which the Board has presented to the Court would prob­
ably be the best arrangement, and that they would be 
definitely against desegregation immediately.

[94] Q. Now, with respect to this plan, did you appear 
before the State Board of Education at the time of adoption 
of the plan? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who else appeared there? A. All the other State 
college presidents.

Q. Were there any other persons before the State 
Board at that time? A. Yes, sir, members,—representa­
tives from the Tennessee School Board Association, repre­
sentatives from the Agricultural leaders, representatives 
from the University of Tennessee, representatives from 
Tennessee Education Association. I recall those distinctly. 
There may have been others.

Q. I believe that presidents of State colleges were there 
as proponents of the plan; the University of Tennessee is 
not under the jurisdiction of the State Board of Educa­
tion? A. No, sir.

Q. Is that correct? A. No, it it is not.
[95] Q. But was the president of the University of 

Tennessee there? A. The president of the University was 
present at the occasion of the Board meeting.



63a

D r .  J .  M i l la r d  S m i t h — D ir e c t

Q. Now, was this plan considered by all of those present 
and the advice and counsel of those who were not members 
of the Board considered? A. The Chairman of the State 
Board of Education requested each person there to ex­
press himself on the plan as presented. Copies of the 
Resolution were presented to all who were present. And 
the Chairman of the Board asked those who were present 
to comment on the plan as presented.

Q. Was there a comment and general consideration of 
the plan? A. No one—

Q. I just say whether there was comment and general 
consideration of it. A. Representatives of all of these 
organizations to which I have referred commented on the 
plan.

Q. And was the plan, which was adopted, adopted as 
the result of the meeting that you described? [96] A. It 
was adopted immediately after the meeting and after we— 
the other folks in there were dismissed from the meeting.

Q. And the Board then went into executive session to 
consider it?

Attorney Looby: If your Honor please, I object 
to what happened in the meeting.

The Court: If the witness were not present, and 
he doesn’t know—but I take it there is no question 
about that, and no controversy in this lawsuit about 
that particular proposition, is there, the fact that 
the Board did adopt the resolution—is there a con­
troversy about that in this lawsuit?

Attorney Looby: We except to his conclusions 
all about that. We don’t except—

The Court: I can’t hear you.
Attorney Looby: We don’t accept the plan. Now 

in its preparation we had—our position is this,



64a

Dr. J. Millard Smith—Direct

if your Honor please. That [97] is just the plan 
prepared by the defendants for this purpose, and 
consequently we don’t accept it.

The Court: Well, I understood the question be­
fore the Court wouldn’t be whether or not the Board 
actually adopted this plan through the Resolution.

Do you agree that there is no controversy about 
the adoption of it?

Mr. Humphreys: If your Honor please—
Attorney Looby: I am like the defendants, if 

your Honor please, I don’t know.
The Court: Well, the witness can’t—
Attorney Looby: We stipulate nothing.
The Court: Well, the Court rules he cannot tes­

tify the action of the Board if he was not a member 
of the Board.

Mr. Humphreys: That is right, and I am not 
asking him.

Q. After you had considered the plan, a plan was 
adopted, or rather a certified copy of the plan [98] sup­
posed to have been adopted by the State Board has been 
filed here.

I will get you to look at it and state whether or not it 
comports with the discussion and argument and considera­
tion which was given a fair plan of desegregation at that 
time by the State Board. A. Yes, that appears to be a 
copy of the Resolution which was discussed in the open 
meeting before we were asked to leave.

Q. And it was considered and discussed by all of these 
various agencies and the members that you have mentioned 
in your testimony? A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Humphreys: That is all for the present.
The Court: All right.



65a

D r .  J .  M i l la r d  S m i t h — C ro ss  

C r o s s - e x a m in a t io n  b y  A t t o r n e y  L o o b y  :

Q. Mr. Smith, do you mean to tell me that you just 
glanced at that plan, that you could tell that [99] is the 
plan you had, which you had as it was presented! A. I 
said it appeared to be.

Q. You haven’t read it! A. I did not read it.
Q(. So you don’t know— A. I have read it.
Q!. Sir! A. I have read it.
Q. When! A. The report which the State Board 

adopted.
Q. Did you read the one that you identified, did you 

read it! A. I said that appeared to be a copy.
Q. Mr. Smith, what—I believe you say you graduated 

from college in 1929! A. That is right.
Q. And where did you work from then on! A. Well, I 

served as teacher in the college, principal of the Training 
School, Dean, and I have been President, as I  said, since 
1946.

Q. In what capacity or under what circumstances did 
you have any experience with integration of the [100] races 
in any educational institution! A. None.

Q. You had none. And yet you consider yourself quali­
fied to testify as to what would happen? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you know Thomas Graham! A. Who?
Q. Thomas Graham? A. Yes.
Q. He was the president of the student body last year, 

wasn’t he? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And Graham said that he spoke to a large number 

of the student body and that they were in favor of inte­
gration?

Mr. Humphreys: If your Honor please, I object 
to that. Even if that is—that could not be proof in



66a

Dr. J. Millard Smith—Cross

this case on cross-examination. It doesn’t go to any 
testimony of this witness.

The Court: The objection is sustained.
Attorney Looby: If your Honor please, he gives 

his opinion.
[101] The Court: Well, he is a stranger to this 

record at this point in the proceedings.
The objection is sustained.

Q. Well, do you know whether or not Graham had con­
sulted and took the opinion of the student body? A. Gra­
ham is a very fine young man. Graham told me more than 
probably any other student. Graham, if I  may say so, in 
my opinion, would favor this plan.

Q. I didn’t ask you if he would favor it. A. Well, you 
kept pushing me on it. I will just tell you.

Q. I will ask you whether or not—you say in favor of 
the plan, is he in favor of integration? A. He is in favor 
of this plan the way it was presented to the Court.

Q. Mr. Smith, can you tell me as President of State 
Teachers College— A. What institution?

Q. Sir? A. What institution?
Q. I didn’t say anything else.

The Court: You said State Teachers [102] Col­
lege. You mean Memphis State?

Attorney Looby: Yes, sir.

Q. (Continuing) —How many non-resident students 
from Mississippi and other states that have been admitted 
to your college since these students made the application 
in September of ’54? A. Those answers were provided in 
the answer to those interrogatories which your attorneys 
submitted. You have them, or copies of them.



67a

D r .  J .  M i l la r d  S m i t h — C ro ss

The Court: Have those answers been filed!

A. Yes, sir.

The Court: —With the Clerk! Let me see them.. 
I haven’t seen them.

Mr. Humphreys: We furnished them. They were 
not in the form of interrogatories to take deposition, 
your Honor, hut interrogatories for the information 
of counsel, and we directed them to counsel, and I 
don’t suppose counsel has filed them in the cause. 
He can or he cannot. He has the option, as I under­
stand the rule. But I think that they probably should 
be, and we would like [103] to offer a copy of them, 
for the purpose of the record.

The Witness: Do you want to see my copy, 
Judge!

Attorney Looby: If your Honor please, I want to 
ask leave of the Court to file the interrogatories now.

Q. How many students from out-of-state have been ad­
mitted to the Memphis State College since these plaintiffs 
were denied admission! A. I don’t have that informa­
tion. I answered the questions w'hich the attorneys asked 
me.

Q. Well, I am asking you, I am an attorney, and I am 
asking that question now. A. I don’t know.

Q. You don’t know. Have any been admitted? A. I 
am sure they have, but I don’t know how many.

Q. You think more than—at least more than— A. I 
don’t say, I don’t know.

Q!. I haven’t asked the question yet. Would you say 
as many as five have been admitted? A. I wouldn’t know.

[104] Q. Is it true that every year more than a thous­
and out-of-state students have been admitted? A. More 
than a thousand?



68a

Dr. J. Millard Smith—Cross

Attorney Looby: Yes.

A. That is not true.
Q. Approximately how many are admitted every year? 

A. You have on your list there the number who entered 
this year. I will read that to you, is what I swore to. One 
hundred forty-three for the Fall semester of 1955.

Q. Were they admitted subsequent to the application 
of these plaintiffs? A. I said the Fall of ’55.

Q. Mr. Smith, the Fall is rather broad. Were they 
admitted subsequent to the date that the plaintiffs made 
application? A. Yes.

Q. I want to ask you direct, Mr. Smith, wasn’t it true 
that the applicants who are now plaintiffs would have been 
admitted to the Memphis State College were it not for the 
fact that they were Negroes?

Mr. Humphreys: If your Honor please, [105] 
wait just a minute. I want to make this observation.

Q. I  ask you—

Mr. Humphreys: Excuse me just a minute. I 
want to make this objection.

It is clear and plain and evident that the Presi­
dent of the College or colleg’e offiicals acted upon 
the prima facie requirement of the Constitution and 
Statute and direction of the State Board of Educa­
tion until such time as your Honor, for instance this 
morning has declared these laws inoperative. We 
were aware of what the Supreme Court of the United 
States had said in Brown v. Topeka, but that was a 
declaration that was not specific to these authorities 
until your Honor said this morning that you thought 
it was, and now it is. It was not a matter of personal



69a

D r .  J .  M i l la r d  S m i t h — C ro ss

or prejudicial discrimination. It was a matter of 
compliance with the constitutional provision and 
legal provision that had been validated by the Su­
preme Court [106] of the United States, it was for 
generations. And he acted upon that. And now he 
loads to this witness, “ didn’t you deny them en­
trance because of race?”

I just submit that it is not a fair question in this 
procedure.

Attorney Looby: If your Honor please, all that 
the Attorney General say is correct, and, in fact, all 
that we are going through now could have been 
avoided if they would have just simply admitted 
things that are obvious in the face of the pleadings, 
and let’s get right down to the substance of the 
lawsuit. But that is a matter, if your Honor please, 
like the qualifications of these students, to present 
all five principals to show the qualifications. I think 
it is just wasting time, but we are required to do it.

The Court: Well, I take it there is no question 
but that only white students have been permitted to 
attend this school. [107] I don’t think that there is 
any controversy about that in this lawsuit.

Mr. McCanless: No, not a bit.
Attorney Looby: No.
The Court: If there is, we can settle that now. 

As far as counsel for respondents are concerned, do 
you raise any question along that line?

Mr. McCanless: No, sir.
Air. Humphreys: No, sir.
Attorney Looby: If they appeal, our pleadings 

haven’t been admitted, if your Honor please, and 
we have to prove it.

The Court: Well, that is settled definitely. Only 
white students have been admitted to this particular 
school up until this time.



70a

Dr. J. Millard Smith—Cross

Attorney Looby: And these plaintiffs, they are 
denied because of their race and color.

The Court: I am sure that is true. And I believe 
what the Court has already said [108] amply covers 
the proposition.

Attorney Looby: If they admit that, if your 
Honor please—

The Court: All right.
Mr. Humphreys: Now, if your Honor please, 

there is this further question that does enter into it. 
The question of their personal qualification was not 
reached upon the occasion that they applied for the 
admission. An investigation of the facts will show 
and I am, sure the witnesses in question here show 
that when they appeared to be Negro students the 
Constitution and Statute were considered to be 
operative, and the personal qualification of the stu­
dents, et cetera, were not gone into.

Now, whether he has them or not, whether he 
knows them or not—I know what he will say because 
he has told me. But we don’t know whether they 
have those qualifications so as to put them in posi­
tion to claim it.

The Court: I understand that would be a ques­
tion of proof in this lawsuit.

[109] Mr. Humphreys: Yes, sir.
The Court: —with respect to these five indi­

vidual plaintiffs.
Mr. Humphreys: Yes, sir. Of course, when we 

get to that—
The Court: Of course the school authorities still 

pass on the qualification.
Mr. Humphreys: That is right.
The Court: —of all students. I don’t suppose 

there is any question about that in this lawsuit?



71a

D r.  J .  M i l la r d  S m i t h — C ro ss

Mr. Humphreys: No, sir.

Q. All right, now, Mr. Smith, then—

The Court: They are not permitted to exclude 
them on racial grounds. That is the idea about it.

Q. When these students came to the college and were 
making application to register, did they come to see you? 
A. Yes. I have a memorandum on that, on that meeting, 
if you will permit me 1 will read it.

Q. Don’t read anything you said about it. I  just 
[110] want to know what happened. A. I am going to tell 
you.

Q. All right.

Attorney Looby: If it is just something he said, 
if your Honor please—of course, I don’t want him 
to read any self-serving declarations not competent 
in this suit.

The Court: What is the question?
Attorney Looby: I asked him whether or not he 

had—when they registered, if they came to him at 
the time these students made application. I don’t 
know what he is going to read, but I don’t want any 
self-serving declaration.

The Court: It is very difficult to hear you here. 
I still didn’t get the question. What is it?

Attorney Looby: My question is, when these 
students came to register at the college, did the 
Registrar come to him and appeal to him. He could 
have answered it yes or no. [Ill]  But he wants to 
read a statement, and I don’t know what is in the 
statement. If it is a self-serving declaration, it 
would be objectionable.



72a

Dr. J . Millard Smith—Cross

The Court: You are asking him if on that occa­
sion the Registrar of the school came to see him?

Attorney Looby: Yes, sir.
The Court: Well, answer that yes or no.

A. Yes, he came.

The Court: You are entitled to explain the 
answer, of course.

Q. And at the time you went out in the office, did you 
go to speak to them?

The Court: Let me just interrupt, just a min­
ute here. Let me, in the interest of saving a little 
time here—I have suggested already that there are 
a good many things here that are not in dispute in 
this lawsuit. Now, can we go this step further 
by saying that these particular individual plaintiffs 
were denied admittance at the [112] Memphis State 
College on this occasion he refers to?

A. Because of the regulation and policy we have that we 
are limited only to white students.

The Court: Is that right?
Attorney Looby: Now, the next question, if I 

may continue right on, if your Honor please— 
whether or not they did not come there with their 
credentials, prepared to—

The Witness: I can’t understand you.
Attorney Looby: I am talking to the Judge now, 

Mr. Smith.
The Witness: Oh. I thought you were talking 

to me.



73a

D r.  J .  M i l la r d  S m i t h — C ro ss

Attorney Looby: I am intending to show fur­
ther, if your Honor please, that at the time they 
were there they had then their credentials ready to 
present to the authorities.

The Court: All right, can we stipulate that they 
did have credentials on that occasion, and you refer 
to the records, high school records?

[113] Attorney Looby: Yes, sir.
Mr. Humphreys: We will find out if we can, if 

your Honor please.
The Witness: I can answer the question, if you 

want me to. I can answer the question. I know it.
Are you ready for me to answer that?
Attorney Looby: Yes, sir.
Mr. Humphreys: The Court has made inquiry 

whether out there—the other party, the bursar, says 
he made no examination of the records and doesn’t, 
know—the Registrar there—whether they were ade­
quate or inadequate. They were never actually ex­
amined after their appearances were made.

Attorney Looby: We can show the defendants’ 
counsel, we can show him the records now and save 
that much time.

Do you want to see them, General?
Mr. Humphreys: I would like for him to finish 

with the witness.
The Court: I don’t believe there is [114] any 

controversy about the proposition that these indi­
vidual plaintiffs submitted themselves and were 
refused admission because they were members of the 
negro race. Now the witness says he can answer 
the question more in detail but, if there is no con­
troversy about it, I see no point in pursuing that any 
further. However, in the interest of a full record, 
if you want to develop these things, all right.



74a

Dr. J. Millard Smith—Cross

Attorney Looby: No, sir. I was simply trying— 
it is not so much in the interest of the record as of 
saving time.

(Counsel confer.)
Attorney Carter: See, the dominant problem we 

have, your Honor, we think in the interest of time in 
the case that Mr. Looby has been trying to—it has 
been admitted they were denied admission because 
of race, on the occasion that they were denied admis­
sion because of race, and the Attorney General says, 
and the defendant says [115] they don’t know 
whether they met the qualifications, the qualifica­
tions for admission as far as that is concerned, is 
that aside from the racial aspect, is that you have to 
be a graduate from an accredited high school. Now 
we have the transcript here on this of these people, 
if they want to look at them, and we can save them 
having to put them on the stand, can save time of 
having to put them on the stand.

The Court: Let them look at them.
Attorney Carter: Well, there is no point of go­

ing into that.
The Court: As I say, I don’t think, from what I 

know about this lawsuit, that there is any controversy 
about their qualifications, and that that is not par­
ticularly material here.

Attorney Carter: We didn’t think so either, but 
we can’t seem to get any such admission.

The Court: The witness says he can [116] en­
lighten us. Then what were you going to say, Dr. 
Smith ?

A. They did not bring them, anyway.

The Court: They did not bring them?



75a

D r .  J .  M i l la r d  S m i t h — C ro ss

A. They did not have those, Judge. I asked them the spe­
cific question, all five of them in the room, if they had the 
transcript. They said they did not. And then I read 
them this statement in the catalog, or rather, the provision 
about white students, and terminated the conference.

The Court: This was a conference—who was in 
the office there?

A. With the five applicants. With the five applicants. 
They had no transcript with them. I  asked them that 
specific question. It would not have made any difference, 
however.

By Attorney Looby:

Q. Well, now, Mr. Smith, in that connection when you 
came out there, one had application and you took it away 
from him and refused to give him the application to fill 
out, didn’t you? A. I did not.

[117] Q. Sir? A. I did not. I asked all five of them if 
they had their transcript with them, and they said they 
did not.

Q. I ask you, didn’t you tear up— A. No, I did not 
see any transcript.

Q. Did you tell the Registrar— A. No, sir.

Attorney Looby: Does he know before—
The Court: Give him an opportunity to ask the 

question.

Q. Did you take away the application blank from one 
and tell the Registrar not to give them any— A. No, sir.

Q. Well, how do you know before you heard the ques­
tion?



76a

Dr. J. Millard Smith—Cross

Did you advise the Registrar not to give them any ap­
plication blanks? A. I told the Registrar we would not 
admit them.

Q. Did you tell him not to give them the application 
blanks? A. I told the Registrar we would not admit them.
[118] I don’t know whether I told him about the blank or 
not.

Q. Well, you evade my question there again now, Mr. 
Smith.

Did you tell the Registrar not to give them the applica­
tion blank? A. I told him not to admit them.

The Court: Well, can you answer him direct 
there? It seems they want a direct answer on that, 
Professor.

A. I  don’t understand what you mean by application blank. 
We have what we call the transcript, the transcript blank 
form. They file their high school credentials, and then the 
application blanks are printed in the back of the catalog. 
But that doesn’t carry any transcript. That is the appli­
cation blank, if that is what you are talking about.

Q. Dr. Smith, I am not asking about— A. Well, and 
I do not recall whether I ever told Mr. Clark, the Registrar, 
not to give those registration blanks or not. I don’t know 
whether I did or not, just couldn’t answer that.

Attorney Carter: We have the transcript here.
[119] The Court: All right, pass them over 

there and let me see them there, and see if they are— 
the individuals or plaintiffs that are qualified from 
the scholastic standpoint.

(Documents examined by counsel.)
_ Tlie Court: All right, are we through with this 

witness ?



77a

W . E .  T u r n e r — D ir e c t

Attorney Looby: Yes, sir.
The Court: All right, Mr. Smith, you may re­

sume your chair.
(Witness excused.)
The Court: Call the next witness.
Mr. Tipton: All right, call Mr. Ed Turner, 

please. He is outside. W. E. Turner.
We are having the transcripts examined by tech­

nical authorities, if your Honor please.

[120] W. E. Turner, the next witness, having been first 
duly sworn, testified as follows:

D ir e c t  e x a m in a t io n  b y  M r .  T i p t o n :

Q. You are Mr. W. E. Turner! A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Turner, you are going to have to talk loud so 

they can hear you.
Where is your home! A. Nashville, Tennessee.
Q. That is fine. They all must hear you.
Are you connected with the Tennessee Department of 

Education in any capacity! A. I am.
Q. What is that capacity! A. I am Director of the 

Division of Instructions, Coordinator, it is.
Q. Do you have any official duties in connection with 

colored education as well! [121] A. Yes, sir, for the past 
twenty-five years I have been Director of the Division of 
Negro Education.

Q. As such Director quite recently did you have occa­
sion to make a survey of the high school graduates from 
colored high schools in West Tennessee with the view of 
determining how many of them, how many of those gradu­
ates went to higher institutions of learning! A. I  did.



78a

W. E. Turner—Direct

Q. Now, Mr. Turner, when was that survey begun, 
roughly, approximately, we don’t have to have the day. 
A. Oh, approximately three weeks.

Q. Approximately three weeks. Now, did it cover the 
high school graduates from the scholastic year that ended 
June 30, 1954? A. It did.

Q. What was the method employed in making that 
survey, Mr. Turner? A. I asked the principals for the 
number of graduates last year, and the number that went 
to college, and then the college which they attended.

Q. Now, right there, Mr. Turner, was that survey-— 
[122] state this yes or no—was that survey conducted—I 
mean by that, the questionnaires sent to these high school 
principals? A. No, I told them the information I wanted. 
If you want to call that a questionnaire, yes, sir.

Q. What I am trying to get at, did you write them per­
sonally, each high school personal, for that information? 
A. I did.

Q. How many letters to high school principals, approxi­
mately, did you contact, do you have any idea? A. Con­
tacted all of them.

Q. I don’t know what—the Court doesn’t know just how 
many. You mentioned all of them. Can you explain that? 
A. Well, let’s say thirty-five.

Q- From how many did you get replies ? A. Sixteen.
Q. Sixteen of the thirty-five? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Turner, in the first place, how many high school 

graduates, graduates from colored high schools [123] in 
the year ended July 1st, ’54—’55, I mean— A. That I 
have here.

Q. That you have there. A. 674.
Q. 674? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, then, how many of those 674 attended institu­

tions of higher learning? A. 212.



79a

W .  E .  T u r n e r — D ir e c t

Q. Do you have there a breakdown by schools of the 
institutions to which they went! A. Yes, sir, I  do.

Q. We would like to file this. Will you please make 
that Exhibit 1 to your testimony there? A. Got a lot of 
writing on it.

(Said document was accordingly marked as Ex­
hibit 1 to the testimony of Mr. Turner, and same will 
be found among the exhibits hereto.)

Attorney Looby: We would like to see a copy 
of it.

Mr. Tipton: I don’t know whether we [124] 
have a copy of it or not.

Q. Do you have a copy of it? A. No, sir, I don’t.
Attorney Looby: We would like to see it before 

entering it.
Mr. Tipton: All right, I ’ve got no objection to 

you seeing it.
I might say here the tabulation there, or some of 

the tabulation is mine, in pencil. We didn’t have— 
if my arithmetic is wrong, we stand corrected.

The Court: Let me understand. You contacted 
thirty-five colored high school principals?

A. Well, I don’t remember the number, Judge.
The Court: Approximately thirty-five colored 

high school principals!

A. That is a guess, yes, sir.

The Court: Colored principals?

A. Yes, sir.

The Court: And received replies from sixteen?



80a

W. E. Turner—Cross

[125] A. That is right. Many of the high schools in West 
Tennessee are not in session at this time.

The Court: Is that the reason you did not re­
ceive more replies!

A. I think so.

The Court: One reason!

A. I  think so, yes.

Mr. Tipton: I guess the percentage of it would 
be a matter of calculation. I  see no necessity of 
figuring percentage there for the record. It appears 
to be, instead of twenty-seven percent, approxi­
mately thirty-one percent, according to my figures, 
but I never was too good at arithmetic. And so it 
will stand recalculation, I am sure.

I believe that is all I want to ask him.
Attorney Looby: Just a minute.
Mr. Tipton: Do you have any objection to filing 

it now!
[126] Attorney Looby: No, but I want it back, 

and ask a few questions.

Cross-examination by Attorney Looby:

Q. Mr. Turner, your computation shows that a large 
majority of college students went out of the state, or went 
to other colleges other than state colleges. A. You will 
have to let me see that again.

Mr. Tipton: They are all set out there. They 
are identified, each school they went to. I guess it 
would just be a matter of counting up there. I  am 
just trying to expedite it.



81a

W . E .  T u r n e r — C ro ss

Q. That is filed, and shows the school to which they 
went? A. Well, I think most of them went to institutions 
within the state, Mr. Looby.

Q. But I am not—not state schools—most of them went 
to state institutions? [127] A. You mean institutions 
within the State, state controlled institutions?

Q. Owned and operated by the state. A. Well, I doivt 
know. I would have to look that over.

Q. How many state colleges for negroes are there in 
West Tennessee? A. You will have to—I am having- the 
same trouble—

Q. How many state colleges for negroes are there in 
West Tennessee? A. Within the State, and state owned?

Attorney Looby: West Tennessee.

A. State controlled?
Q. State institutions.

Mr. Tipton: If your Honor please—
Attorney Looby: State colleges, or state insti­

tutions.
Mr. Tipton: We are right here. We can stipu­

late there is only one state controlled school of 
higher learning for negroes in the State of Tennes­
see, A. & I., in [128] Nashville, Davidson County. 
We can agree on that, none in West Tennessee, none 
in East Tennessee.

Attorney Looby: And we ought to stipulate the 
distance from Memphis there as two hundred and 
twenty—

Mr. Tipton: 227 miles from Nashville to Mem­
phis, and we can stipulate that.

Attorney Looby: All right.
Mr. Tipton: Are you through?



82a

Colloquy Between Court and Counsel

Attorney Looby: Yes.
Mr. Tipton: We are through, if your Honor 

please.
The Court: All right, anything further from this 

witness ?
Mr. Tipton: No, sir.
The Court: All right, Mr. Turner, you are ex­

cused.
(Witness excused.)
[129] Mr. Tipton: We rest.
The Court: All right, the respondents rest in 

chief.
Mr. Tipton: Yes, sir, we rest in chief.
The Court: And it is nowT about our noon hour. 

Can we come back at one-thirty? Would that crowd 
anyone? Let’s say one forty-five, is that better?

Mr. Tipton: One forty-five would suit us better.
The Court: Adjourn it until one forty-five, Mr. 

Clerk.
(Adjournment.)

[130] A fter n o o n  S e ssio n , O ctober  17, 1955

The trial of the case was resumed at one forty- 
five o’clock P. M., pursuant to adjournment, as 
follows:

The Court: All right, Mr. Tipton, you wanted 
to address the Court at this time?

Mr. Tipton: Yes, sir, I was going to state this. 
Before we rested at the noon hour, the Court asked 
us to see whether or not we could stipulate as to the 
eligibility of these particular students who are the



83a

C o llo q u y  B e t w e e n  C o u r t  a n d  C o u n se l

plaintiffs in the present case, and pursuant to that 
request we were furnished with the transcript of 
credits of four of them there. They have been 
examined by persons more experienced in that than 
I, and they found, as far as these transcripts are 
concerned, these four, that these plaintiffs, as far 
as credits, are qualified to enter scholastically, so 
that can be stipulated with respect to [131] these 
four. Shall I read the names of them into the 
record?

The Court: Is there another one, are there live 
of them now?

Mr. Tipton: There is another, there are five of 
them now. But he has no transcript that has been 
furnished us, and without his transcript we can’t 
stipulate. I don’t know where the transcript is 
and cannot state.

The Court: Do you have that transcript with 
respect to it?

Attorney Lockard: No, we don’t your Honor, 
but wTe do have some college work which he has done 
and we wrould like through his testimony or by his 
testimony to show7 his qualifications. We are look­
ing for that right now.

The Court: All right. Then it is stipulated 
between counsel, as I understand, that these four 
do show scholastic qualifications?

[132] Mr. Tipton: These four, yes. And I read 
their names in the record.

The Court: All right, now.
Mr. Tipson: Mardest Knowles, Ruth H. Booker, 

Joseph McGhee, Nellie Peoples.
The Court: All right, do plaintiffs desire to put 

on proof at this time ?
Attorney Lockard: Yes, your Honor.
The Court: All right, call your first witness.



84a

Elijah Noel—Direct

[133] P l a in t if f ’s P roof

(Thereupon the plaintiffs, in support of the is­
sues on their part, introduced evidence as follows, 
to-wit:)

E l ij a h  N oel , the next witness, having been first duly 
sworn, testified as follows:

Direct examination by Attorney Lockard:

Q. State your name, please. A. Elijah Noel.
Q. Are you a resident of Tennessee? A. I am.
Q. Are you a high school graduate? A. I am.
Q. From what high school did you graduate? A. The 

Robert R. Milton High School, Marion, Arkansas.
[134] Q. When? A. 1943.
Q. Is that an accredited high school? A. It is.
Q. Did you attempt to make an application at Memphis 

State College for admission? A. Yes, I did.
Q. When? A. June of 1954.
Q. Were you refused admission? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was told you at that time as the reason for 

your being turned down? A. In answer I was told that 
admission to Memphis State College was restricted to white 
students only.

Q. And following that, of course, you left the school? 
A. I did.

Q. Have you entered college or have you done any col­
lege work since your high school graduation? A. I  have.

Q. Where was that work done? [135] A. At Howard 
University located at Washington, D. C., and a few hours 
at LeMoyne College in Memphis, Tennessee.



85a

T h e  C o u r t ’s C h a rg e

Attorney Loekard: That is all.
Mr. Tipton: No questions, your Honor, please.
The Court: All right.
(Witness excused.)
Attorney Looby: If your Honor please, that is 

the plaintiffs’ case.
The Court: I take it there is no rebuttal.
Mr. Tipton: None.
The Court: (Continuing) —on the part of re­

spondents.
Mr. Tipton: No, sir.
The Court: No.
(This was all the evidence introduced in the case.) 

# # #
[167] The Court: Is there anything further from any­

one, now, at this time!
WTe have had a full hearing of this class action, and the 

single issue before the Court is relatively simple. The 
Court will undertake to give you briefly its views about it 
at this time.

In the first place, we are all bound to agree that the 
Supreme Court has very definitely ruled that racial dis­
crimination in the public schools is unconstitutional, and 
that all state or local laws requiring or permitting racial 
segregation in the public schools must yield to this prin­
ciple.

While the Supreme Court in its recent decisions was 
dealing with public grade schools, unquestionably, if this 
is a question in this lawsuit, the reasoning in those cases 
is as applicable to public schools of higher education such 
as Memphis State College. A three judge court in the 
Fourth Circuit, I believe said as much recently in Frayser 
against the Board of Trustees of the University of North



86a

The Court’s Charge

Carolina, a case mentioned by plaintiffs’ counsel here this 
morning.

[168] Now, the Supreme Court has told us what must be 
done, but has not told us how it must be done. So there 
remains for consideration of this Court only the manner 
in which the Supreme Court’s pronouncements will be car­
ried out. This is our problem in this case. The Supreme 
Court, recognizing the perplexities in the situation, has 
vested the District Judges with discretion in dealing with 
the problem.

This Court, I must say in the outset, is impressed very 
much with the prompt and sincere efforts of the respon­
dent Board members who have the primary responsibility 
in this matter, to comply literally with the commands of 
the Supreme Court. The respondent members of the Board 
have acted promptly, as I say, not only with respect to 
Memphis State College, but a number of other schools 
similarly situated around the State.

The plan here proposed by the respondents to open the 
doors of State supported institutions of higher learning 
to academically qualified colored students a year at a time 
from the graduate level down [169] is certainly a reason­
able good faith start toward full compliance and imple­
mentation of the governing constitutional principles, an­
nounced by the Supreme Court. In this Court’s opinion, 
all things considered, the Board’s plan is a feasible, ade­
quate and sound solution of this whole problem. The Court 
cannot agree at all that the plan offered by the respondents 
is an evasive method to circumvent the decisions of the 
Supreme Court, as counsel has pointed out in argument.

Respondents here, in the Court’s opinion, have shown 
with certainty that it would not be advisable or practicable 
to order immediate desegregation at all levels at Memphis 
State College, as contended for by the plaintiffs, but the 
plan of respondents to accomplish this over a five year



87a

T h e  C o u r t ’s C h a rg e

period of time is necessary in the public interest and to 
carry out the Supreme Court’s ruling in an effective man­
ner. In this connection, the Court is obliged to consider, 
among other things, the present very limited physical 
facilities of the school. Thirty-five hundred [170] and thirty- 
two students have entered this year, an all time high. 
The Court is obliged to consider the likelihood that this 
school’s accredited standing and membership in the South­
ern Association of Colleges would very likely be adversely 
affected should unrestricted integration of the races be 
ordered forthwith. All of us, the Court feels sure, recog­
nize the importance of this.

As respondents point out also, and as the proof shows, 
necessary funds to operate the college on a basis of un­
restricted admission of students will not be available be­
fore July, 1957.

The Court, I should say, too, feels that gradual integra­
tion provided for in the respondents ’ plan is in the interest 
of a harmonious solution,—that is, a solution without fric­
tion between the races. After all these years, the prob­
lems incident to a changeover to integrated public schools 
are many and varied.

Now, this is not in the record, but it is a matter of com­
mon knowledge that, despite the greatly enlarged school­
building programs around the [171] country, there is 
severe crowding in practically every State of the Union. 
It has arrived at the crisis stage, as all of us know who 
read at all, and will be, as I understand, high up on the 
“ must list’’ when the Congress convenes in January. To 
assist in solving this most serious problem, there has been 
called a conference at the White House for late November. 
I mention this in passing.

Now, the respondent Board members, as the Court 
understands this case, are asking that they be given suffi-



88a

The Court’s Charge

cient time within which to complete orderly and peaceful 
integration, and the Court agrees the request is in all 
things reasonable. The respondents, it is very evident, 
are proceeding in this matter with all deliberate speed.

Incidentally, our own Court of Appeals in a Detroit 
Housing Case, decided last week, had something to say on 
problems presented in the situation which confronts the 
Court at this time.

Now, as the Court has pointed out here today, this case 
was filed before the Supreme Court’s [172] opinion of May 
31st in the Brown case, where the Supreme Court recog­
nized, among others, the existence of important adminis­
trative problems. The plaintiffs had no opportunity be­
fore this was filed to consider it in the light of that case 
and what now is the plain law governing the transition 
from segregation to integration in the public schools.

The Court, in the circumstances of this case, approves 
in all things the integration plan which the respondents 
submit. The respondents have clearly demonstrated that 
time is absolutely necessary to carry out the Supreme 
Court’s ruling in an effective manner.

While the September school term has been under way, I 
might say here, for a couple of weeks, more or less, any 
qualified negro students at the graduate level will be 
eligible to enter at this time under the plan which the 
Court in this proceeding is approving.

Now, what the Court has said will suffice, at least 
temporarily, as its findings and [173] conclusions under the 
rules. The Court has only hit the high spots, but if more 
detailed findings and conclusions are necessary, I suggest 
counsel for the respondents may submit them with a judg­
ment in accordance with the Court’s views here expressed, 
during the next few days. Plaintiffs’ counsel may have 
the same privilege, and may submit proposed findings 
and conclusions, if they would like. I suggest the final



89a

T h e  C o u r t ’s C h a rg e

judgment to be drawn by counsel for respondents be first 
submitted to plaintiffs’ counsel.

Now, the Court would like to make a few observations 
of its own. The lawsuit is over, but if I may say so, we 
all live in a mighty good state. Many of those present 
are citizens of Memphis, a very fine, clean, friendly city. 
Educational facilities in this State, and particularly in 
Memphis, for both white and colored, are the very best, as 
most of us know,—I believe, in fact, schools for the whole 
country. The races have lived well together in tins State 
and this City. We have in Tennessee and Memphis the 
very best citizens, both [174] white and colored. The 
names of Blair Hunt, principal of Booker T. Washington 
High School, and Hollis Price, the President of LeMoyne 
College, immediately come to mind. Both, incidentally, 
have served on juries in this Court. 1 am also thinking of 
Ernest Ball of the State Board of Education, who has also 
been superintendent of the Memphis Public Schools for­
mally years.

Now, as I say, stepping out of the character of Judge, 
I would suggest, in an effort to be helpful, that these fine 
citizens and possibly others like them, might make a real 
contribution to the settlement of the matters here in­
volved if they could sit down together. This, in my humble 
judgment, should be done without delay. The lawyers in 
this case could be of tremendous service, I might add.

Now, I clipped this rather pertinent article from one of 
the local newspapers several days ago, quoting Dean Redd 
of Fisk University at Nashville, and I shall read it:

‘‘The Dean of Fisk University believes political 
leadership and the influence of [175] its many col­
leges and universities will lead Tennessee to serve 
as a model for desegregation in the South.



90a

The Court’s Charge

“ Dr. George N. Redd, writing in the Negro 
Journal of Education, said the outlook for desegre­
gation in Tennessee is ‘encouraging’.

“ He said the state is blessed with the influence 
of ‘a great reservoir of educational leaders not 
paralleled anywhere else in the deep South—’. He 
said that ‘by tradition, Tennessee’s political offices 
have been relatively free of demagogs who would 
pounce upon the race issue for political or personal 
gains * *

Now, I doubt if there has been any opportunity what­
ever for discussion of this matter, and I am, as an indi­
vidual, as I say, suggesting this course in the interest of 
the harmony between the races we have in this State and 
City enjoyed so many years. I say to you it is a matter 
for discussion [176] and patience, and, yes, prayer. Rome 
was not built in a day, and this matter won’t be settled 
overnight, I can assure you.

I am confident that this is the practical, common sense 
approach and that it can be worked out and resolved mu­
tually and for the welfare of all concerned, if both sides will 
work in a spirit of harmony and cooperation.

All right, that is all.
#  #  *



91a

Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law

(Filed November 22, 1955)

The Court finds the following facts:

1. That the Tennessee State Board of Education in­
tends promptly to comply with the decision and opinion of 
the Supreme Court of the United States in the segregation 
cases and, pursuant to such intention, and in good faith, has 
devised the plan hereinafter referred to, after consultation 
with advisory groups representing various segments of 
affected interests.

2. There was no intention or effort upon the part of the 
said Board to evade or circumvent the decision of the 
Supreme Court, but, after full discussion, the Board con­
cluded the plan proposed was the most feasible in view? of 
the physical cajjacities and financial situation of the various 
schools under its jurisdiction.

3. Memphis State College at present has the largest 
enrollment in its history and its physical facilities would 
be inadequate, should unrestricted admission be decreed.

4. At present, this institution has not been allocated 
enough funds from the State upon which its existence de­
pends and which constitutes the major portion of its finan­
cial support, to authorize unrestricted integration and to 
allow it to operate should such be done.

5. Memphis State College is located in the portion of 
the State in which the colored race maintains its highest 
density of population and is therefore subjected to the 
potential of a heavy enrollment from members of the col­
ored race.



92a

Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law

6. Memphis State College is a member of the State 
Association of Colleges whose rules require certain stand­
ards by all its members. The loss of membership in this 
association will result in students who take courses at Mem­
phis State College being deprived of credit for work done 
in such college should they desire to transfer to another 
member of the association or other similar associations. 
Virtually all institutions of collegiate standing in the United 
States are members of this or similar associations. Mem­
phis State College does not now and will not prior to July 
1, 1957, have adequate finances to enable it to maintain its 
membership in this association should there be the increase 
in applications for instruction therein which very reason­
ably may flow from unrestricted admission. Due to its loca­
tion and the high percentage of eligible colored students, 
a considerable increase in applications to it from qualified 
students of this race may be expected.

7. The Court further finds that since 1870 the State of 
Tennessee has pursued a course of segregated schools be­
tween the two races and that during this interval customs 
have arisen between the two races, which might be dis­
turbed seriously by an abrupt abrogation thereof. The 
Court finds that a gradual plan of desegration in its opinion 
offers greater possibility of eventual complete acceptance 
of the situation by members of both races than would an 
abrupt transition at present.

8. The Court also finds that the respondent members 
of the Board are proceeding with all deliberate speed in 
order to complete orderly and peaceful integration. The 
Court also finds that time is absolutely necessary to carry 
out in an effective manner the ruling of the Supreme Court.



93a

F i n d i n g  o f  F a c t s  and. C o n c lu s io n s  o f  L a w  

C o n c lu sio n s  of L aw

1. The Court is of the opinion that the decision of the 
Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Brown 
v. Topeka, decided May 31, 1955, definitely establishes the 
invalidity of the Tennessee constitutional provisions and 
statutes requiring the segregation of the races in the public 
schools, to the extent that as a matter of law these provi­
sions have been invalid since that date and that such in­
validity is so patent that a three-judge district court is 
unnecessary to determine such invalidity.

2. The Court further concludes as a matter of law that 
the plan devised by the respondents for the integration of 
the races in the institutions under the jurisdiction of the 
respondent State Board of Education is in .all respects fair 
and reasonable and in the opinion of the Court will lead 
to an orderly and peaceful integration of the two races in 
such institutions and for this reason the Court expressly 
approves such plan and directs that it be put into effect.

The State Board of Education and the institutions under 
its jurisdiction, as set forth in the plan, are hereby directed 
and required to permit negro students to enroll in said edu­
cational institutions as provided by such plan, subject to 
such reasonable rules as such institutions now have or may 
adopt as to time of enrollment with reference to the year’s 
work, and as to qualifications for enrollment. The pro­
posed plan of gradual desegregation, a certified copy of 
which was filed at the hearing, is made a part hereof by ref­
erence, and the same should be spread on the minutes of 
this Court.

The application for a permanent injunction on the part 
of the plaintiffs should be denied and the costs of the cause



94a

Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law

be adjudged as follows: Judgment shall be entered in 
accordance with this finding of fact and these conclusions, 
of law.

M arion  S. B oyd,
U. S. Dist. Judge.

A True Copy.

Attest:

W. Lloyd J o h n s o n , Clerk,

By P. G. McClure, D. C.

(Seal)



95a

Final Decree

(Filed November 22, 1955)

This cause came on to be beard at this term, on the motion 
of plaintiffs for a summary judgment which motion was by 
the Court denied.

The cause then came on to be heard on oral testimony 
without the intervention of a jury upon consideration, 
whereof it was ordered, adjudged and decreed as follows, 
viz.: That the Tennessee State Board of Education and 
the collegiate institutions under its jurisdiction, as set forth 
in the plan of gradual desegregation of such institutions, a 
certified copy of which was filed in the hearing of this cause 
and heretofore ordered spread upon the minutes of this 
Court, are hereby directed and required to permit negro 
students to enroll in said institutions as provided by such 
plan, subject to such reasonable rules as such institutions 
now have or may adopt as to time of enrollment with refer­
ence to the scholastic year, and as to qualifications for en­
rollment.

The application for a permanent injunction is denied. 
The relief sought by plaintiffs being allowed in part and 
denied in part the costs of the cause are divided for which 
execution m a y  is su e .

M ariox  S. B oyd,
U. 8. District Judge.