Aaron v. Cooper Court Opinion and Record

    R E C O R D

Intteit B u m  (tart of Kppm U
For the Eighth Circuit

No. 15675 
Civil

JOHN AARON, A Minor, by THELMA AARON, His 
Mother and Next Friend, et al.,

Appellants,

against

WILLIAM G. COOPER, et al.,
Appellees,

A ppea l  prom  t h e  U nited  S tates D istrict Court por t h e  
E astern D istrict of A rkansas, W estern  D ivision

Supreme P rinting Co., I nc., 114 Worth Street, N. Y, 13. BEekman 3 - 2320
-49

James: m. nabruit, m



I N D E X
PAGE

Docket Entries ..........................................................  1
Complaint ...................................................................  4
Defendants’ Answer ...................................      19

Exhibit A ............................................................... 25
Exhibit B ........................................................    27

Order Designating Hon. John E. Miller to Hear the 
Cause .......................................................................   30

Order Denying Three-Judge C o u rt.............................  31
Opinion of the Court, April 28, 1956 ........................ 32
Decree and Judgment of the Court, April 28, 1956.. 54
Order Directing Release to Defendants of Any 

Needed Exhibits Filed .............................................. 55
Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal ....................................  56
Plaintiff’s Designation of Contents of Record on 

Appeal ......................................................................... 58
Defendants’ Designation of Contents of Record on 

Appeal ........................................................................  59
Bond for Cost on A ppeal........... ................................. 60
Stipulation as to Originals of Certain Exhibits-----  61
Motion and Agreement of Counsel to Extend Time 

for Filing Record and B r ie f .....................................    67
Stipulation and Agreement of Appellee........................ 67
Transcript of Proceedings ..........................................  68

Appearances ............................................................ 68
Preliminary Statement by the Court ....................  68
Exhibit A is the statement of policy of the Little 

Rock School Board adopted May 20, 1954.... 69



11
PAGE

Exhibit B is the plan of the Little Bock School 
Board for compliance with the Supreme Court 
decision adopted May 24, 1955 ....................... 69

Exhibit C is a designation of the residence of
Negro elementary children, grades 1-6...........  70

Exhibit D is a designation of white elementary
children, grades 1-6 ........................................  70

Exhibit E is a designation of residence of white 
and Negro junior high school students by 
school attendance areas and g rades.............  70

Exhibit F is a designation of residence location 
of white and Negro senior high school stu­
dents by school attendance areas and grades. 70

Exhibit G is the school district enumeration as 
of May, 1956 ................................................... 70

Exhibit H is the forecast of junior high school 
pupils entitled to free public education by 
junior high school attendance areas for school 
year 1957-58 based upon enumeration of 
May, 1956 ........................................................  70

Exhibit I is a drawing of West End High School 70
Exhibit J  is a picture of Horace Mann High 

School ..................................     70
Exhibit K is a picture of Technical High.........  70
Exhibit L is a drawing of West End High School 70
Exhibit M—List of all schools....... ................... 82
Witness called by defendants:

Virgil Blossom .........     70
Witness called by plaintiffs:

Dr. W. G. Cooper....................................... 89



Irnteii itatrirt dmtrt
E astern  D istrict of A rkansas 

W estern  Division

------------------o-------------------
J o h n  A aron, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

against

W illia m  G. C ooper, et al.,
Defendants.

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

D ocket Entries

Feb. 8,1956—Complaint filed. Summons issued and 
banded Marshal.

Mar. 1,1956—Answer filed.
Mar. 22,1956—Designation of Hon. John E. Miller to hear 

and determine the issues of the cause by 
Hon. Archibald K. Gardner, Chief Judge, 
U. S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circ., filed.

Mar. 29,1956—Order by Miller, J. denying prayers of 
pltfs. for statutory three-judge court filed.

Aug. 15,1956—Trial to court at Little Bock, before Judge 
John E. Miller., acting under assignment; 
at the conclusion of testimony and argu­
ment of counsel, the court announced that 
he would prepare and file within a few days 
his FFCL and opinion.

Aug. 28,1956—Opinion of Miller, J. filed.
Aug. 28,1956—Decree and judgment of court filed.



2

Docket Entries

Sept. 8,1956—Order by Miller, J. directing clerk to re­
lease to deft, any needed exhibits intro­
duced by defts. and to be returned upon 
request filed.

Sept. 20,1956—Pltfs. ’ notice of appeal filed.
Oct. 1,1956—Pltfs.’ designation of record on appeal 

filed.
Oct. 6,1956—Defts.’ designation of record on appeal 

filed.
Oct. 16,1956—Bond for costs on appeal filed.

A True Copy of Relevant Docket Entries, I Certify

Grady M iller , Clerk 
By: S/ H elen  M cG u ire , D. C.

U nited  S tates of A merica, S ct.

Be it remembered that heretofore to wit: At the regu­
lar May Term of the United States District Court for the 
Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock Division, and 
on the 2nd day of May, 1956, there was filed in the office 
of the clerk of said court the cause wherein John Aaron, 
a minor, age 7, and Thelma Aaron, a minor, age 9, by 
Thelma Aaron, their mother and next friend; Clyde Cross 
Bates, a minor, age 10, by L. C. Bates, his father and next 
friend; Carolyn Ann Freeman, a minor, age 6, and Gail 
Yvonne Freeman, a minor, age 8, by Herman Freeman, 
their father and next friend; Franklin D. Jackson, a minor, 
age 13, by Frank Jackson, his father and next friend; 
Lawrence Lee, a minor, age 8, Matthew Lee, a minor, age



3

Docket Entries

11, and Robert Talley, a minor, age 14, by Lawrence R. 
Lee, their father and step-father and next friend; Jocelyn 
E. Massie, a minor, age 6, and Andrea F. Massie, a minor, 
age 9, by William J. Massie, M.D., their father and next 
friend; Robert Benjamin Nelson, a minor, age 6, and 
George Hendrix Nelson, a minor,, age 13, by Robert L. 
Nelson, their father and next friend; Evelyn Idell Scog­
gins, a minor, age 12, and Virginia Scoggins, a minor, age 
16, by Mrs. Vester Lee Scoggins, their mother and next 
friend; Charles Henry Shakelford, a minor, age 13, Peggy 
L. Shackelford, a minor, age 10, and Varniee J. Shackel­
ford, a minor, age 6, by Henry Shackelford, their father 
and next friend; Andrew Singleton, a minor, age 11, James 
Edward Singleton, a minor, age 9, Lillie Marie Singleton, 
a minor, age 12, Earnestine Singleton, a minor, age 18, 
Roosevelt Singleton, a minor, age 17, Katherine Single- 
ton, a minor, age 15, and Mary Francis Singleton, a minor, 
age 14, by Alexander Singleton, their father and next 
friend; Doris Jean Stox, a minor, age 11, Ray Vivian 
Stox, a minor, age 12, and Geraldine L. Stox, a minor, age 
14, by B. E. Stox, their father and next friend; Calvin 
Toombs, a minor, age 13, Queen Ester Toombs, a minor, 
age 9, Betty Jean Toombs, a minor, age 16, Willie Lee 
Toombs, a minor, age 18, and Shirley Ray Toombs, a 
minor, age 15, by Willie Toombs, their father and next 
friend, are plaintiffs and William G. Cooper, as President 
of the Board of Trustees; Mrs. Edgar F. Dixon, as Secre­
tary, Board of Trustees; Virgil T. Blossom, as Superin­
tendent of Public Free Schools and the Little Rock Inde­
pendent School District, a corporation, are defendants.

Thereafter the following proceedings were had in the 
said cause, to wit:



4

Complaint

I.

J urisdiction

(a) The Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 
Title 28, United States Code, Section 1331, this being a 
civil action that arises under the Constitution and laws of 
the United States wherein the matters in controversy ex­
ceed the sum of Three Thousand ($3,000.00) Dollars, ex­
clusive of interest and costs, and Title 42, Sections 1981 
and .1983, United States Code, this being an action in which 
citizens of the United States contend that they have been, 
and are now being denied equal rights under the Constitu­
tion and laws of the United States and thus deprived of 
their civil rights in violation of the Constitution and laws 
of the United States.

(b) The Jurisdiction of this Court is further invoked 
under Title 28, Section 1343(3), United States Code, this 
being an action for the redress of the deprivation under 
color of law, of rights, privileges and immunities secured to 
them as citizens of the United States by the Constitution 
and laws of the United States.

II.

I n ju n c t iv e  B elief

The Jurisdiction of this Court is also invoked under 
Title 28, Section 2281, United States Code, this being an 
action for injunctive relief, both temporary and permanent, 
to enjoin and restrain the enforcement, execution or opera­
tion of a State Statute or Constitutional Provision of the 
State of Arkansas, and certain arbitrary, unreasonable and 
unlawful rules and regulations promulgated by an adminis-



5

Complaint

trative board of the State of Arkansas, made pursuant to, 
or in purported reliance upon a State Statute, or Consti­
tutional Provision.

in.
D eclaratory J udgment

This is a proceeding pursuant to Title 28, Sections 
2201 and 2202, of the United States Code, for a declaratory 
judgment. All of the parties to this controversy are citi­
zens of the United States and of the State of Arkansas, 
domiciled in Pulaski County, Arkansas, and within the 
territorial limits of the jurisdiction of this Honorable 
Court. Plaintiffs seek a definition and a declaration of the 
legal rights and relations of the parties in the subject 
matter in controversy, to wit, the question:

(a) Whether the acts and deeds of defendants, 
or either of them, while acting or purporting to act 
pursuant to the laws of the State of Arkansas, or 
while acting under color of Arkansas laws, of provid­
ing public school houses, grounds and facilities for 
plaintiffs on a separate and segregated basis because 
of the race and color of plaintiff s and assigning plain­
tiffs to separate and segregated public schools on 
the classification of race alone and of forcing and 
compelling plaintiffs to enroll in and attend such 
separate and segregated schools because of their 
race and color, deny to plaintiffs and the class of 
persons that they represent, their privileges and 
immunities as citizens of the United States, and the 
equal protection of the laws secured to them by the 
Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the 
United States, or rights and privileges secured to 
them by Sections 1981 or 1983, of Title 42, United



6

Complaint

States Code, and are, for those reasons, unconstitu­
tional and void!

(b) Whether the acts and deeds of defendants, or 
either of them, while acting or purporting to act 
pursuant to the laws of the State of Arkansas, or 
while acting under color of Arkansas laws, of deny­
ing and refusing minor plaintiffs and the members 
of the class of persons that they represent, the right 
and privilege of registering, enrolling, entering, at­
tending classes and receiving instruction in the public 
free schools within the Little Rock Independent 
School District and under their supervision and 
control at the same time and under the same terms 
and conditions that all other minor residents of the 
said district are permitted to register, enroll, enter, 
attend classes and receive instruction without any 
distinctions, restrictions, limitations or deprivations 
being made as to them because of, or on the basis or 
classification of, race or color, deny to minor plain­
tiffs and the members of the class of persons that 
they represent, privileges and immunities guaranteed 
to them as citizens of the United States, or the equal 
protection of the laws secured to them by the Four­
teenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United 
States, or rights and privileges secured to them by 
Sections 1981 and 1983, of Title 42, United States 
Code, and are, for those reasons, unconstitutional 
and void?



7

Complaint

IV.

F acts

1. Adult petitioners, not plaintiffs, allege that they, and 
each of them, are citizens of the United States and of the 
State of Arkansas; that they are residents of Pulaski 
County, Arkansas, domiciled at the City of Little Eock; 
that they, and each of them, are members of the Negro or 
“ colored” race as defined by Arkansas law. (Acts of 1931, 
No. 169, Sec. 97, p. 476; Pope’s Digest Sec. 11535; Title 41, 
Sec. 808, Ark. Stats. Ann., 1947.)

2. Minor plaintiffs allege that they, and each of them, 
are minors between the ages of six (6) and twenty-one (21) 
years; that they are citizens of the United States and of 
the State of Arkansas; that they are residents of Pulaski 
County, Arkansas, domiciled at the City of Little Eock; 
that they, and each of them, are members of the Negro, or 
“ colored” race as defined by Arkansas law as set out 
hereinbefore, and that they bring this action by their next 
friends pursuant to Eule 17(c), Federal Eules of Civil 
Procedure.

3. Minor plaintiffs allege that they, and each of them, 
are of public school age; that they have met all lawful 
health and medical requirements for admission to the public 
free schools of the State of Arkansas and particularly of 
the Little Eock Independent School District; that they, and 
each of them, are in all material respects eligible and en­
titled to register, enter, enroll, attend classes and receive 
instruction in the public free schools within the Little Eock 
Independent School District and particularly within the 
City of Little Eock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.

4. Minor plaintiffs alleged that they bring this action 
in their own behalf and in behalf of all other Negro minors



8

Complaint

within the Little Eock Independent School District who 
are similarly situated because of race and color; that they, 
and each of them, are members of a class of persons who 
are segregated in the use and enjoyment of the public 
free schools within the Little Rock Independent School Dis­
trict and discriminated against by the defendants, and 
each of them, because of the race and color of minor plain­
tiffs ; that the members of the class of persons that they 
represent are so numerous as to make it impracticable to 
bring them all before this Court; that they, as members of 
the class, can and will adequately and fairly represent all 
of the members of the class; that the character of the right 
sought to be enforced and protected for the class is several, 
and that there is a common question of law and fact affect­
ing the several rights of all of the class, and common relief 
is sought; that they bring this action as a class action 
pursuant to Rule 23(a)(3), Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure.

5. Plaintiffs allege that the defendant Board of Trustees 
of the Little Rock Independent School District is a body 
corporate with power to sue and be sued in its corporate 
name and capacity, and that it is here sued in its corporate 
name and capacity. (Acts of 1931, No. 169, Sec. 43, p. 476; 
Pope’s Digest, Sec. 11476; Title 80, Sec. 402, Ark, Stats. 
Ann., 1947.)

6. Plaintiffs allege that the defendant Board of Trustees 
of the Little Rock Independent School District, sometimes 
referred to as the Board of Education of the Little Rock 
Independent School District, was created by Act of the 
Legislature of the State of Arkansas, and vested by the 
Legislature with power and authority to make and enforce 
rules and regulations for the management and control of 
the public free schools within the said school district, includ-



9

Complaint

mg the unlawful and unconstitutional power and authority 
to make and enforce rules and regulations for the establish­
ment and operation of separate and segregated public free 
schools for the white and colored races within the said 
school district. (Acts of 1931, No. 169, Sec. 97, p. 476; 
Pope’s Digest, Sec. 11535; Title 80, Sec. 509, Ark. Stats. 
Ann., 1947.)

7. Plaintiffs allege that the defendant Little Rock Inde­
pendent School District, a corporation, is a political sub­
division of the State of Arkansas; that it is an administra­
tive agency and an instrumentality of the State exercising 
functions and performing duties under the general educa­
tion laws of the State of Arkansas (Acts of 1931, No. 169, 
Sec. 43, p. 476; Pope’s Digest, Sec. 11476; Title 80, Sec. 401, 
Ark. Stats. Ann., 1947.)

8. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants "William G. 
Cooper, M.D., and (Mrs.) Edgar F. Dixon are the duly 
elected, designated, qualified and acting president and sec­
retary respectively of the Board of Trustees, sometimes 
referred to as Board of Education, of the defendant Little 
Rock Independent School District; that they, and each of 
them, are citizens of the United States and of the State of 
Arkansas, domiciled in Pulaski County, Arkansas and 
within the jurisdiction of this Court; that they, and each 
of them, are agents and administrative officers of the State 
of Arkansas; that they hold office and perform official 
duties and functions under the general education laws of 
the State of Arkansas, and that they, and each of them, 
are sued in their respective official capacities.

9. Plaintiffs allege that the defendant Virgil T. Blos­
som is the duly appointed, qualified and acting superin­
tendent of public free schools within the Little Rock Inde-



10

Complaint

pendent School District; that he is a citizen of the United 
States and of the State of Arkansas, domiciled in Pulaski 
County, Arkansas, and within the jurisdiction of this Court; 
that he is an agent and administrative officer of the State 
of Arkansas; that he is the agent and servant of the de­
fendant Board of Trustees, sometimes referred to as the 
Board of Education, of the Little Rock Independent School 
District, a corporation; that he holds office and performs 
official duties and functions pursuant to the general laws of 
the State, and that he is sued herein in his official capacity.

10. The adult petitioners, not plaintiffs herein, allege 
that the defendants, and each of them, while acting in their 
respective official capacities as set out more fully hereinbe­
fore in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9, hereof, and while acting in 
concert and engaged in a common design, have conspired, 
are now conspiring, and will continue to conspire to deprive 
minor plaintiffs and the members of the class of persons 
that they represent of their rights, privileges and immuni­
ties as citizens of the United States and of the State of 
Arkansas by providing, affording, operating and maintain­
ing separate, segregated public free schools within the 
Little Rock Independent School District for minor plain­
tiffs and the members of the class of persons that they rep­
resent, because of their race and color, contrary to and in 
violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States; 
that defendants, and each of them, while acting in concert 
and engaged in a common design, have in the past, are now, 
and threaten to continue to conspire to deprive minor plain­
tiffs and the members of the class of persons that they rep­
resent, of their rights, privileges and immunities as citizens 
of the United States and of the State of Arkansas by assign­
ing minor plaintiffs and the members of the class of persons 
that they represent, to separate, segregated public free 
schools within the Little Rock Independent School District 
on the basis and classification of their race and color, and



11

Complaint

forcing and compelling minor plaintiffs and the members 
of the class of persons that they represent, to register, 
enroll, enter, attend classes and receive instruction in sep­
arate, segregated public free schools within the said school 
district on the basis and classification of their race and 
color, contrary to and in violation of the Constitution and 
laws of the United States, and that the defendants, and 
each of them, while acting in concert and engaged in a 
common design, have in the past, are now, and threaten to 
continue to conspire to deny and deprive minor plaintiffs, 
and the members of the class of persons that they repre­
sent, from registering, enrolling, entering, attending classes 
and receiving instruction in the public free schools within 
the said school district at the same time, and under the same 
terms and conditions that all other minor residents of the 
said school district register, enroll, enter, attend classes 
and receive instruction in the public free schools of said 
school district, without any distinctions, restrictions, re­
straints, limitations or deprivations being made as to minor 
plaintiffs and the members of the class of persons that they 
represent, because of, or on the basis or classification of 
their race or color.

11. Adult petitioners allege that they, and each of them, 
have petitioned defendants, and each of them, to cease and 
desist from further unlawfully discriminating against 
minor plaintiffs, and the members of the class of persons 
that they represent, by providing, affording, operating and 
maintaining separate, segregated public free schools within 
the defendant Little Rock Independent School District for 
minor plaintiffs and the members of the class of persons 
that they represent, because of their race and color, con­
trary to and in violation of the Constitution and laws of the 
United States; to cease and desist from the unlawful prac­
tices of discriminating against minor plaintiffs and the 
class of persons that they represent by assigning minor



12

Complaint

plaintiffs and the members of the class of persons that they 
represent to separate, segregated public free schools within 
the said school district on the basis and classification of 
their race and color, and forcing and compelling them to 
register, enroll, enter, attend classes and receive instruc­
tion in such separate, segregated public free schools within 
the said school district on the basis and classification of 
their race and color, and, to permit minor plaintiffs and 
the members of the class of persons that they represent, to 
register, enroll, enter, attend classes and receive instruc­
tion in the public free schools of the said school district at 
the same time, and under the same terms and conditions 
that all other minor residents of the said school district 
are permitted to register, enroll, enter, attend classes and 
receive instruction in the public free schools of the said 
school district without any distinctions, restrictions, limita­
tions or deprivations being made as to minor plaintiffs and 
the members of the class of persons that they represent, 
because of, or on the basis or classification of their race or 
color, but that in spite of the foregoing good faith action 
on the part of adult petitioners, and each of them, defend­
ants, and each of them, having persisted and continued the 
discriminatory practices complained of in paragraph 10 
hereof.

12 Adult petitioners allege that they, and each of them, 
have repeated and reasserted the demands set out more 
fully in paragrph 11 hereof; they they have met in confer­
ences with defendants, and each of them, and made good- 
faith efforts to negotiate with defendants to get them to 
cease and discontinue the unlawful and discriminatory prac­
tices complained of in paragraph 10 hereof; that they have 
tendered their minor children to the Central High School, 
the Technical High School, the Forest Heights Junior High 
School and the Forest Park Elementary School, all of which 
are within the Little Rock Independent School District and



13

Complaint

under the supervision and control of the defendants, and 
each of them, and next most proximate in distance to the 
respective homes of plaintiffs, but, that, in spite of these 
good-faith acts on the part of petitioners and their minor 
children, defendants, and each of them, have refused to 
register, enroll, or admit minor plaintiffs to the schools in 
question because of the race and color of minor plaintiffs, 
contrary to and in violation of the Constitution and laws of 
the United States.

13. Petitioners allege that the defendant Board of 
Trustees of the Little Rock Independent School District, 
while acting or purporting to act pursuant to the Statutes 
and laws of the State of Arkansas, have made certain rules 
and regulations for the management and control of the 
public free schools under its supervision and control, which 
have been, are now, and threaten to continue to be en­
forced against minor plaintiffs and the members of the 
class of persons that they represent, in the future, because 
of their race and color, that unlawfully, wrongly and know­
ingly discriminate against minor plaintiffs and the mem­
bers of the class of persons that they represent, because of 
their race and color, and deprive them of rights, privileges 
and immunities secured to them as citizens of the United 
States and of the State of Arkansas; that minor plaintiffs, 
and each of them, and the members of the class of persons 
that they represent, have been and are now being greatly 
harmed, damaged and injured by the unlawful, wrongful 
and knowing acts of defendants, and each of them; that 
they have no plain, adequate or efficient remedy at law to 
redress the unlawful, wrongful and knowing acts of the 
defendants, and each of them, other than this action for 
declaratory judgment and injunctive relief; that any other 
remedy to which they could be remitted would be attended 
by such uncertainties and delays as to amount to substan-



14

Complaint

tial denial of relief; would involve a multiplicity of suits 
and would cause minor plaintiffs, and adult petitioners 
further irreparable harm and injury and occasion undue 
hardship, vexation and delay.

y.

P rayer

W herefore , the premises considered, petitioners r e ­
spectfully pray in behalf of the minor plaintiffs that upon 
the filing of this Complaint, as may appear proper, just and 
convenient to the Court:

1. That a Statutory Three-Judge District Court be 
convened pursuant to Sections 2281 and 2284, of Title 28, 
United States Code;

2. That this cause be advanced on the docket of this 
Honorable Court and that this cause be set for a speedy 
hearing according to law, and upon such preliminary hear­
ing, that this Court issue a temporary injunction to enjoin 
and restrain the defendants William Cooper, as President 
of the Board of Trustees, (Mrs.) Edgar F. Dixon, as Secre­
tary of the Board of Trustees of the Little Bock Independ­
ent School District, a corporation, and Virgil T. Blossom, 
as Superintendent of Public Free Schools within the Little 
Rock Independent School District, and the Little Rock Inde­
pendent School District, a Corporation, and each and all 
of them, their agents, servants, employees and successors 
in office from further denying and depriving minor plain­
tiffs, and each of them, and the members of the class of 
persons that they represent, or any of them, their rights, 
privileges and immunities as citizens of the United States 
and of the State of Arkansas, or the equal protection of 
laws secured to them by the Constitution and laws of the



15

Complaint

United States, on the basis or classification of race or color; 
or from making any other distinctions as to them in the use 
and enjoyment of the public schools, lands, buildings, facili­
ties, opportunities and privileges provided and afforded by 
defendants for all other minor children within the defend­
ant school district, because of the race or color of minor 
plaintiffs and the members of the class of persons that they 
represent who are similarly situated;

3. That upon final hearing of this cause on its merits, 
this Honorable Court will:

(a) Enter a final judgment or decree that will 
declare and define the legal rights and relations of 
the parties in the subject matter in controversy;

(b) Enter a final judgment, order and decree 
that will declare that all constitutional provisions, 
statutes and ordinances of the State of Arkansas, 
and all rules and regulations of the Board of Trus­
tees of the Little Rock Independent School District, 
and all other State or local laws that require, per­
mit, or sanction the segregation or separation of 
students in the public free schools of the defendant 
school district on the basis or classification of race 
or color, are unconstitutional and void, for the rea­
son that they deny and deprive the minor plaintiffs 
and the members of the class of persons that they 
represent, their privileges and immunities as citi­
zens of the United States, and, the equal protection 
of laws secured to them by the Constitution and 
laws of the United States, and, rights and privileges 
secured to them by Sections 1981 and 1983, of Title 
42, United States Code;



16

Complaint

(c) Enter a permanent injunction that will en­
join and restrain the defendants William G-. Cooper, 
as President of the Board of Trustees, and, (Mrs.) 
Edgar P. Dixon, as Secretary of the Board of 
Trustees of the Little Rock Independent School Dis­
trict, and, Virgil T. Blossom, as Superintendent of 
the Public Free Schools within the Little Rock Inde­
pendent School District, and the Little Rock Inde­
pendent School District, a Corporation, and each of 
them, their agents, servants, employees, attorneys 
and their successors in office and all other persons 
in concert or participation with them, forever, from 
executing or enforcing against minor plaintiffs, or 
any member of the class of persons that they repre­
sent, any constitutional provision, statute or ordi­
nance of the State of Arkansas, or any rule or regu­
lation made or issued by any administrative agency, 
board or commission of the State of Arkansas, that 
permit, require or sanction the separation or segre­
gation of minor plaintiffs or any member of the 
class of persons that they represent, in the use and 
enjoyment of any public school building, land, 
facility, privilege or opportunity within the State 
of Arkansas, and particularly within the defendant 
Little Rock Independent School District, or any pub­
lic free school that is under the supervision or con­
trol of the defendants, or any of them, on the basis 
or classification of race or color.

4. That this Honorable Court allow plaintiffs and peti­
tioners their costs incurred herein, and, grant such other



17

Complaint

and further relief as may appear proper, just and equitable 
in the premises.

W iley  A. B ran-ton

119 E. Barraque Street 
Pine Bluff, Arkansas

IT. S im pso n  T ate 
2600 Flora Street 
Dallas, Texas

R obert L. Carter

107 West 43rd Street 
New York 36, New York

T htjrgood M arshall 
107 West 43rd Street 
New York 36, New York 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs



18

Complaint

Certificate of V erification

County  of J efferson  
S tate of A rkansas

I , W iley  A. B ranton , one of the Attorneys for plain­
tiffs herein, after having been first sworn according to law 
on my oath depose and say that I have read the foregoing 
complaint by me subscribed and know the contents thereof 
and that the same is true of my own knowledge, except 
as to matters stated to be alleged upon information and 
belief, and as to that, I verily believe it to be true.

W iley  A. B ranton , Attorney at Law

S ubscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public
in and for Jefferson County, Arkansas, on this th e ...........
day of February, 1956.

(S eal,)
Notary Public



19

Answer, Filed March 1, 1956

The defendants W. G. Cooper and Lncy A. Dixon, 
President and Secretary, respectively, of the Board of 
Directors (erroneously called Board of Trustees in the 
Complaint) of Little Rock School District; Virgil Blossom, 
as Superintendent of Little Rock School District (errone­
ously called Superintendent of Public Free Schools, Little 
Rock Independent School District, in the Complaint); and 
Little Rock School District (erroneously called Little Rock 
Independent School District in the Complaint), answer the 
Complaint as follows:

I.
Deny that the matter or matters in controversy exceed 

the sum of value of $3,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

II.
Allege that no State statute, no provision of the Con­

stitution of the State of Arkansas, and no rule or regulation 
promulgated by an administrative board of the State of 
Arkansas, made pursuant to or in purported reliance upon 
a State statute or a State constitutional provision, is in­
volved here. Allege that they do not now rely, and have 
not since May 17, 1954, the date of the decision of the 
Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Brown 
v. Board of Education (347 U. S. 483), relied upon any State 
statute or State constitutional provision as authorizing 
segregation of the races in the public schools.

III.
Deny that they have acted, or purported to act under 

any law of the State of Arkansas providing for schools 
on a separate and segregated basis because of race or 
color. Deny that they have acted under laws of the State 
of Arkansas, or under color of Arkansas laws, in denying



20

Answer, Filed March 1, 1956

and refusing the minor plaintiffs and the class they repre­
sent the right and privilege of registering, enrolling, enter­
ing and attending classes and receiving instruction in the 
public schools operated by Little Rock School District.

IV.

1. Deny that at present there is any discrimination 
against the minor plaintiffs and the class they represent. 
Admit all other allegations contained in Subparagraphs 
1 to 5, inclusive, of Paragraph IV of the Complaint.

2. Admit that prior to May 17, 1954, they were em­
powered by Arkansas statutes to make and enforce rules 
and regulations for the establishment and operation of 
separate and segregated public schools for the white and 
colored races within Little Rock School District. Allege 
that the statutory provisions cited in Subparagraph 6 of 
Paragraph IV of the Complaint with respect to the estab­
lishment and operation of separate and segregated schools 
were declared invalid by the Supreme Court of the United 
States on the 17th day of May, 1954, and since that date 
such provisions have been regarded by the defendants as 
invalid, and defendants do not rely on said provisions in the 
Plan they have adopted for integration. Admit the allega­
tions contained in Subparagraphs 7, 8 and 9 of Paragraph 
IV of the Complaint.

3. Deny that while acting in concert and engaging in a 
common design they have conspired, and are now conspir­
ing, and will continue to conspire to deprive the minor 
plaintiffs and the members of the class they represent of 
their rights, privileges and immunities as citizens of the 
United States and the State of Arkansas by providing, 
affording, offering and maintaining separate and segre­
gated schools contrary to and in violation of the Constitu­
tion of the United States.



21

Answer, Filed March 1, 1956

4. Deny that while acting in concert and engaging in a 
common design they have in the past, are now, and threaten 
to continue to conspire to deprive the minor plaintiffs and 
the members of the class they represent of their rights, 
privileges and immunities as citizens of the United States 
and the State of Arkansas by assigning said minor plain­
tiffs and the class they represent to separate and segre­
gated public schools in Little Rock School District on the 
basis of race or color. Deny that they are forcing and com­
pelling the minor plaintiffs and the class they represent to 
register, enroll, enter, attend classes and receive instruc­
tion in separate and segregated schools in Little Rock 
School District on the basis and classification of race and 
color contrary to and in violation of the Constitution of the 
United States. Deny that while acting in concert and en­
gaging in a common design they have in the past, now, and 
threaten to continue to conspire to deny and deprive the 
minor plaintiffs and the class they represent from register­
ing, enrolling, entering, attending and receiving education 
in the public schools of Little Rock School District at the 
same time and under the same terms and conditions that all 
other minor residents of said Little Rock School District 
register, enroll, enter, attend classes and receive instruc­
tions in the schools of Little Rock S'chool District because 
of and on the basis of classification of their race and color. 
Admit that plaintiffs have petitioned defendants for imme­
diate integration, but they deny that in the temporary 
segregation which now exists there is any unlawful dis­
crimination against the minor plaintiffs and the class they 
represent.

5. Admit that the adult plaintiffs have met with de­
fendants and have requested immediate integration, and 
that they have tendered their minor children to Central 
High School, Technical High School, Forest Heights Junior



22

Answer, Filed March 1, 1956

High School, and Forest Park Elementary School, all of 
which are within Little Rock School District, snch schools 
being next most proximate to the residence of the homes of 
said adult plaintiffs. Deny that the refusal to accept such 
children and to permit them to enroll in the aforesaid 
schools at this time is contrary to and in violation of the 
Constitution of the United States.

6. Deny that they have made certain rules and regula­
tions for the management and control of the public schools 
in Little Rock School District and have threatened to en­
force such rules and regulations against the minor plain­
tiffs and the class they represent because of race or color. 
Deny that such rules and regulations unlawfully, wrong­
fully and knowingly discriminate against the minor plain­
tiffs and the class they represent because of race or color 
and deprive them of rights, privileges and immunities 
secured to them as citizens of the United States and the 
State of Arkansas. Deny that the minor plaintiffs and the 
members of the class they represent are being harmed, 
damaged and injured by the alleged unlawful, wrongful 
and knowing acts of defendants and each of them.

Answering further, the defendants allege:

V.
This action is not one which makes appropriate the 

convening of a three judge court pursuant to the provisions 
of Sections 2281 and 2284 of Title 28, United States Code.

VI.
After the announcement of the decision of the Supreme 

Court of the United States in the case of Brown v. Board 
of Education, supra, the defendants issued to the public



23

Answer, Filed March 1, 1956

press a statement setting forth their attitudes as to integra­
tion. A copy of the statement is attached, made a part 
hereof, and marked Exhibit “A”.

VII.
Later the defendants prepared a Plan of Integration. 

A copy of the Plan is attached, made a part hereof, and 
marked Exhibit “B”.

VIII.
Said Plan is in conformity with the rules of integration 

approved by the Supreme Court of the United States in 
the Supplemental Opinion filed in the case of Brown v. 
Board of Education, supra, on May 31,1955 (349 U. S. 294). 
The defendants are now in good faith endeavoring to inte­
grate the schools of Little Bock School District in accord­
ance with the terms and conditions and the time schedule 
as set forth in said Plan. The said Plan and the reasons 
which make it appropriate, reasonable and necessary in this 
particular locality have been explained to the adult plain­
tiffs and to all others who have sought information from 
defendants.

IX.
Considering the educational, economic, financial and 

racial problems involved and other pertinent factors, the 
said Plan is peculiarly fit and suitable for Little Rock 
School District, and will best serve the educational needs 
of both races and the personal interests of the plaintiffs 
in being admitted to the public schools as soon as prac­
ticable on a non-discriminatory basis.

X.
The plaintiffs unreasonably insist on a hasty integra­

tion which would be unwise, unworkable, and fraught with



24

Answer, Filed March 1, 1956

danger; which would prove detrimental to the personal 
interests of plaintiffs and the educational needs of both 
races; and would unnecessarily and inevitably hinder and 
retard the accomplishment of integration in the schools 
of Little Rock S'chool District.

W herefore , Defendants ask that the Complaint be dis­
missed and that they have judgment for their costs.

F rank  E. C h o w n in g  
Boyle Building

Little Rock, Arkansas

H enry  S pitzberg  
Pyramid Building

Little Rock, Arkansas

L eon  Catlett1
Pyramid Building

Little Rock, Arkansas

R. C. B utler , J r .
Boyle Building

Little Rock, Arkansas

A. F. H ouse
314 West Markham Street 

Little Rock, Arkansas
Attorneys for Defendants.



25

Exhibit A, Annexed to Motion

ARKANSAS GAZETTE-MAY 23, 1954 

S ta tem ent  oe L ittle . R ock B oakd of E ducation

S u prem e  C ourt D ecision— S egregation in  P ublic  S chools

The Board of Education of Little Rock School District 
has been working for a number of years at the job of 
providing a program of separate but equal educational 
opportunities for all children of this city. During this 
period the problems of school finance, facilities, personnel, 
instructional supplies and other lesser items in our budgets 
have called for increased financial support. The accelerated 
birth rate and the growth of Little Rock have already over­
loaded our schools. Growth in school population will con­
tinue. This continued growth will require additional 
finances. The citizens of Little Rock have always responded 
to school needs in a splendid manner. The response of 
our citizens has made it possible to have and maintain our 
school program in its present form. To date this program 
has been in harmony with the Federal Constitutional 
requirements, and the statutory requirements of the State 
of Arkansas.

On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court of the United 
States declared that the segregation of the races in the 
public schools is in violation of the Federal Constitution. 
At the same time the Supreme Court deferred judgment 
on the questions of time and methods for the accomplish­
ment of integration. Until the Supreme Court of the 
United States makes its decision of May 17, 1954 more 
specific, Little Rock School District will continue with its 
present program.

It is our responsibility to comply with Federal Con­
stitutional Requirements and we intend to do so when the 
Supreme Court of the United States outlines the method 
to be followed.



26

Exhibit A, Annexed to Motion

During this interim period we shall do the following:
1. Develop school attendance areas consistent with the 

location of white and colored pupils with respect to 
present and future physical facilities in Little Rock 
School District.

2. Make the necessary revisions in all types of pupil 
records in order that the transition to an integrated 
school system may serve the best interests of the 
entire school district.

3. Make research studies needed for the implementa­
tion of a sound school program on an integrated basis.

Little Rock citizens have always been cooperative. They 
have had the understanding and tolerance required to solve 
any difficult problem. We solicit your same help and 
understanding in the creation of an integrated school 
program required as a result of the Supreme Court Decision.

L ittle  R ock B oard of E ducation :

D r . W illiam  G. C ooper, J r ., President
M rs. E dgar D ixon , Secretary
D r . E dw in  B arron

M rs. A r th u r  M cL ean

F oster V ineyard

R. A. Lile



27

Exhibit B, Annexed to Motion

LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF EDUCATION
P lan  of S chool I ntegration—

L ittle  R ock S chool D istrict

The Supreme Court decision of May 17, 1954, which 
declared segregated schools unconstitutional has placed 
before us the most difficult educational problem of our time. 
A careful analysis of the following has been made.

1. Financial ability of Little Rock School District to 
integrate its schools.

2. Adequacy of present school facilities plus those to 
be added from $4,000,000.00 bond issue of March, 
1953, plus the amount of money to be realized from 
the sale of the “old Peabody School Site” on West 
Capitol Ave.

3. Proper time and method for the integration of the 
schools of Little Rock School District in a manner 
consistent with the law as finally interpreted by the 
Supreme Court and acceptable to both races.

Our review of the three questions raised, reveal the 
following facts and opinions.

1. Integration of its schools by Little Rock School 
District will jjrobably place no serious additional 
financial burden on the School District.

2. The facilities of Little Rock School District will be 
inadequate at the junior and senior high school levels 
until such time as the three senior high schools and 
six jurior high schools are ready for occupancy.

3. It is our opinion that the proper time for, and method 
of integration is as follows:



Exhibit B, Annexed to Motion

A. Time of Integration
Integration of schools in Little Rock School Dis- 
rict cannot be accomplished until completion of 
the needed school facilities (three senior high 
schools and six junior high schools) and specific 
decrees have been formulated by the TJ. 8. 
Supreme Court in the pending cases.

B. Method of Integration
The method of changing from segregated schools 
to integrated schools should not be attempted 
simultaneously in grades one to twelve. Due to 
the complexity of this problem, an orderly sys­
tematically planned process should be followed. 
In Little Rock School District our research and 
study causes us to believe that the following plan 
charts the best course for all concerned.
1. In our opinion integration should begin at the 

senior high school level. (Grades 10-12) (First 
phase of program)

2. Following successful integration at the senior 
high school level, it should then be started in 
the junior high schools. (Grades 7-9) (Second 
phase of program)

3. After successful integration in junior and 
senior high schools it should be started in ele­
mentary schools. (Grades 1-6) (Third phase 
of program)

(.Present indications are that the school year 
1957-58 may be the first phase of this program.)

The Board of Education’s reasons for the adoption of 
this plan of integration are as follows:

1. Since our school system has been segregated from 
its beginning until the present time, the time re-



Exhibit B, Annexed to Motion

quired in the process as outlined should not be con­
strued as unnecessary delay, but that which is justly 
needed with respect to the size and complexity of 
the job at hand.

2. It is ill advised to begin this process with inadequate 
facilities.

3. It is unwise to begin integration until the Supreme 
Court gives direction through its interpretation of 
the specific cases before it.

4. By starting integration at the senior high school 
level the process will begun where fewer teachers and 
students are involved.

5. In the adoption of a plan of integration ((1) senior 
high school (2) junior high school (3) elementary 
schools) of sequential order, we provide the oppor­
tunity to benefit from our own experience as we move 
through each phase of this plan, thus avoiding as 
many mistakes as possible.

6. The establishment of attendance areas at the ele­
mentary level (grades 1-6) is most difficult due to 
the large number of both students and buildings 
involved. Because of this fact it should be the last 
step in the process.

We sincerely solicit your understanding and coopera­
tion in the implementation of this plan, in order that the 
interests of all children may be better served.

L ittle  R ock B oard of E ducation
W illiam  G. Cooper, J r., President 
M rs. A. E . M cL ean , Vice President 
M rs. E dgar D ixon , Secretary 
D r. E dw in  N. B arron 
F oster A. V ineyard 
R. A. L ile



30

Order Designating Hon. John E. Miller to 
Hear the Cause

In my judgment the public interests require the desig­
nation and appointment of a District Judge of this Circuit 
to hold and assist in holding the District Court of the 
United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas in place 
or in aid of the District Judge of that District, and par­
ticularly to hear and determine the issues in John Aaron, 
et al. v. Win. Gr. Cooper, etc., et al., Civil No. 3113, now 
pending in said court. It is the purpose of this assign­
ment to limit the same to hearing and determining the 
issues in said action and no other matters.

I  do, therefore, by these presents, designate and ap­
point the Honorable John E. Miller, U. S. District Judge 
for the ^Western District of Arkansas, to hear and deter­
mine the issues in said action.

Witness my hand this 20th day of March, 1956.

s /  A rchibald K . Gardner 
Chief Judge, United States 
Court of Appeals, for the 
Eighth Circuit

Filed March 22, 1956.



31

O rd er Denying 3 Judge  Court

Upon an examination of the complaint of the plaintiffs 
and the answer of the defendants, the court is of the opin­
ion that there is not involved herein any question as to the 
unconstitutionality of any statute or constitutional provi­
sion of the State of Arkansas, and that the pleadings here­
in do not present any question requiring the convening of 
a District Court of three judges.

I t i s ,  t h e r e f o r e , o r d e r e d  a n d  a d ju d g e d  that the prayer 
of plaintiffs, “ that a statutory three-judge District Court 
he convened pursuant to Sections 2281 and 2284 of Title 
28, U. S. C. ’ ’, he, and the same is, denied.

This 29 day of March, 1956.

/ s /  J no. B. Miller 
John E. Miller 

United States District Judge



32

Opinion of the Court, Filed April 23, 1956

IN  THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
E a s t e r n  D i s t r i c t  o e  A r k a n s a s  

W e s t e r n  D i v is io n

[ S a m e  T i t l e ]

O p i n i o n

This cause was tried to the court on August 15, 1956.
At the conclusion of the evidence, the ease was argued 

orally by the able counsel for the respective parties and 
was submitted to and taken under advisement by the court.

The pleadings and evidence, along with the arguments 
and contentions of the attorneys, have been fully consid­
ered, and the court now files this opinion in lieu of formal 
findings of fact and conclusions of law, and incorporates 
herein as a part hereof the findings of fact and conclusions 
of law as provided by Rule 52(a), F.R.C.P.

On February 8, 1956, the minor plaintiffs between the 
ages of 6 and 21 years, through their legal representatives, 
filed their complaint in this court against the President 
and Secretary of the Board of Directors of Little Rock 
School District; the Superintendent of Little Rock School 
District; and the Little Rock School District itself.

The complaint is prolix and contains many redundant 
allegations. In brief, the plaintiffs alleged that the de­
fendants conspired and will continue to conspire to deprive 
the minor plaintiffs and members of the class of persons 
that they represent of their rights, privileges, and immu­
nities as citizens of the United States and of the State



33

Opinion of the Court, Filed April 28, 1956

of Arkansas by providing, affording, operating, and main­
taining separate, segregated public free schools within the 
defendant District, for the minor plaintiffs and the mem­
bers of the class of persons they represent because of their 
race and color contrary to and in violation of the Con­
stitution and the laws of the United States; that the de­
fendants are threatening to continue to so conspire and 
to deprive the minor plaintiffs and members of their class 
of their constitutional rights; that the minor plaintiffs, 
through their legal representatives, have petitioned the de­
fendants to cease and desist from further unlawful dis­
crimination against the minor plaintiffs.

The prayer of the complaint is that the court enter a 
decree declaring and defining the legal rights and relations 
of the parties in the subject matter in controversy; that 
a permanent injunction be issued enjoining and restrain­
ing the individual defendants and their successors in office, 
and the defendant District, its agents, servants, employees, 
attorneys, and their successors in office, from executing or 
enforcing against the minor plaintiffs, or any member of 
the class of persons they represent, any constitutional pro­
vision, statute, or ordinance of the State of Arkansas, or 
any rule or regulation made or issued by any administra­
tive agency, board, or commission of the State of Ar­
kansas, that permit, require, or sanction the separation 
or segregation of minor plaintiffs or any member of the 
class of persons that they represent in the use and enjoy­
ment of any public school building, land, facility, priv­
ilege, or opportunity within the State of Arkansas, and 
particularly within the defendant District, or any public 
free school that is under the supervision or control of the 
defendants or any of them on the basis or classification of 
race or color.

On February 29, 1956, the defendants filed their answer 
to the complaint, and by their answer eliminated many



34

Opinion of the Court, Filed April 28, 1956

of the allegations contained in the complaint. They al­
leged ‘ ‘ that no State statute, no provision of the eonsti- 
titution of the State of Arkansas, and no rule or regulation 
promulgated by an administrative board of the State of 
Arkansas made pursuant to, or in purported reliance upon, 
a State statute or a State constitutional provision is in­
volved herein * * * that they do not now rely, and have 
not since May 17, 1954, the date of the decision of the 
Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Brown 
v. Board of Education, 347 U. S'. 483, relied upon any State 
statute or State constitutional provision as authorizing 
segregation of the races in the public schools.”

They denied that they have acted or purported to act 
since May 17, 1954, under any law of the State of Arkansas 
providing for schools on a separate and segregated basis 
because of race or color, or that they acted under the laws 
of the State of Arkansas in denying and refusing the 
minor plaintiffs, and the class they represent, the right 
and privilege of registration, enrolling, entering and at­
tending classes and receiving instruction in the public 
schools operated by the defendant District.

Defendants alleged that since May 17, 1954, they have 
regarded as invalid the statutory provisions cited and set 
forth in the complaint of the plaintiff's, and that they do 
not rely upon said provisions in the plan they have adopted 
and propose for integration. The defendants also denied 
that they had conspired in any manner, or were then or 
now conspiring, to deprive the plaintiffs and the members 
of the class they represent of their rights and privileges 
and immunities as citizens of the United States and of the 
State of Arkansas, by providing and maintaining separate 
and segregated schools contrary to and in violation of the 
Constitution of the United States.

The defendants admitted that the adult plaintiffs “ have 
met with defendants and have requested immediate inte-



35

Opinion of the Court, Filed April 28, 1956

gration, and that they have tendered their minor children 
to Central High School, Technical High School, Forest 
Heights Junior High School, and Forest Park Elementary 
School,” all of which are within the defendant District, 
and that such schools are next most proximate to the resi­
dences of the adult plaintiffs.

Defendants further answering alleged that soon after 
the decision of the Supreme Court was handed down on 
May 17, 1954, they issued to the public press a statement 
setting forth their attitudes as to integration, and that 
later the defendants prepared a Plan of Integration. A 
copy of the public statement and a copy of the Plan of 
Integration are attached to the answer and made a part 
thereof.

“ The defendants are now in good faith endeavoring 
to integrate the schools of the Little Dock School District 
in accordance with the terms and conditions and the time 
schedule as set forth in said Plan. The said Plan and 
the reasons which make it appropriate, reasonable, and 
necessary in this particular locality have been explained 
to the adult plaintiffs and to all others who have sought 
information from defendants.”

The defendants then alleged that the Plan is peculiarly 
fit and suitable for the defendant District, and will best 
serve the educational needs of both races, and the per­
sonal interest of the plaintiffs in being admitted to the 
public schools as soon as practicable on a nondiscrimina- 
toi’y basis; that the plaintiffs unreasonably insist on a 
hasty integration which will be unwise, unworkable, and 
fraught with danger; that would prove detrimental to the 
personal interest of plaintiffs and the educational needs 
of both races, and would unnecessarily and inevitably 
hinder and retard the accomplishment of integration of 
the schools of the defendant District.

Thus, under the pleadings in this case there is no con­
stitutional question involved. The defendants freely rec-



36

Opinion of the Court, Filed April 28, 1956

ognize their obligation to provide as soon as reasonably 
practicable integration in the defendant District. The 
primary, if not the only, question before the court is, to 
use the words of the Supreme Court, “ the adequacy of 
any plans the defendants may propose to meet these prob­
lems and to effectuate a transition to a racially nondis- 
criminatory school system.”

There is no dispute between the parties as to the facts. 
They are as follows:

(1) The adult petitioners and minor plaintiffs are each 
citizens and residents of the City of Little Rock, Pulaski 
County, Arkansas, and are each members of the Negro 
race. The defendants are the Little Rock School District, 
its Board of Directors and its Superintendent. This is a 
class action by plaintiffs seeking integration of public 
schools in the Little Rock School District.

(2) The Little Rock School District contains 32.9 square 
miles. It was created in 1870 and since its inception the 
various schools in the District have been operated on a 
segregated basis.

On May 20, 1954 (three days after the Supreme Court 
rendered its decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 
347 U. S. 483) the Little Rock School Board adopted a 
statement concerning “ S u p r e m e  C o u r t 1 D e c is i o n — S e g r e ­
g a t io n  i n  P u b l ic  S c h o o l s , ”  This statement was released 
for publication on May 23,1954, and, inter alia, it provided :

“ * * * Until the Supreme Court of the United 
States makes its decision of May 17, 1954 more spe­
cific, Little Rock School District will continue with 
its present program.

“ It is our responsibility to comply with Federal 
Constitutional Requirements and we intend to do so



37

Opinion of the Court, Filed April 28, 1956

when the Supreme Court of the United States out­
lines the method to be followed.

“ During this interim period we shall do the fol­
lowing :

1. Develop school attendance areas consistent 
with the location of white and colored pupils 
with respect to present and future physical 
facilities in Little Rock School District.

2. Make the necessary revisions in all types of 
pupil records in order that the transition to 
an integrated school system may serve the 
best interests of the entire school district.

3. Make research studies needed for the imple­
mentation of a sound school program on an 
integrated basis. * * * ”

(3) The School Board instructed the Superintendent, 
the defendant, Virgil Blossom, to prepare a plan for the 
integration of the schools in the Little Rock School District. 
Such a plan was prepared and approved by the Board on 
May 24,1955 (seven days prior to the supplemental opinion 
of the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, 
349 U. S. 294). The plan is as follows:

“ L i t t l e  R o c k  B o a rd  o f  E d u c a t io n

“ P l a n  o f  S c h o o l  I n t e g r a t io n — L i t t l e  R o c k  
S c h o o l  D is t r ic t

“ The Supreme Court decision of May 17, 1954, 
which declared segregated schools unconstitutional 
has placed before us the most difficult educational 
problem of our time. A careful analysis of the fol­
lowing has been made.

1. Financial ability of Little Rock School Dis­
trict to integrate its schools.



38

Opinion of the Court, Filed April 28, 1956

2. Adequacy of present school facilities plus 
those to be added from $4,000,000.00 bond 
issue of March, 1953, plus the amount of money 
to be realized from the sale of the ‘old Pea­
body1 School Site’ on West Capitol Ave.

3. Proper time and method for the integration 
of the schools of Little Kock School District 
in a manner consistent with the law as finally 
interpreted by the Supreme Court and ac­
ceptable to both races.

‘‘Our review of the three questions raised, reveal 
the following facts and opinions.

1. Integration of its schools by Little Eock 
School District will probably place no serious 
additional financial burden on the School Dis­
trict.

2. The facilities of Little Eock School District 
will be inadequate at the junior and senior 
high school levels until such time as the three 
senior high schools and six junior high schools 
are ready for occupancy.

3. It is our opinion that the proper time for, 
and method of integration is as follows:
A. Time of Integration

Integration of schools in Little Eock 
School District cannot be accomplished 
until completion of the needed school facil­
ities (three senior high schools and six 
junior high schools) and specific decrees 
have been formulated by the U. S. Su­
preme Court in the pending cases.



39

Opinion of the Court, Filed April 28, 1956

B. Method of Integration
The method of changing from segregated 
to integrated schools should not he at­
tempted simultaneously in grades one to 
twelve. Due to the complexity of this 
problem, an orderly systematically planned 
process should be followed. In Little 
Bock School District our research and 
study causes us to believe that the follow­
ing plan charts the best course for all 
concerned.
1. In our opinion integration should begin 
at the senior high school level. (Grades 
10-12 ) (First phase of program)
2. Following successful integration at the 
senior high school level, it should then 
be started in the junior high schools. 
(Grades 7-9) (Second phase of program)
3. After successful integration in junior 
and senior high schools it should be 
started in elementary schools. (Grades 
1-6 ) (Third phase of program)
(.Present indications are that the school 
year 1957-58 may he the first phase of this 
program.)

“ The Board of Education’s reasons for the adoption of 
this plan of integration are as follows:

1. Since our school system has been segregated from 
its beginning until the present time, the time required 
in the process as outlined should not be construed as 
unnecessary delay, but that which is justly needed 
with respect to the size and complexity of the job 
at hand.



40

Opinion of the Court, Filed April 28, 1956

2. It is ill advised to begin this process with inadequate 
facilities.

3. It is unwise to begin integration until the Supreme 
Court gives direction through its interpretation of 
the specific cases before it.

4. By starting integration at the senior high school 
level the process will begin where fewer teachers 
and students are involved.

5. In the adoption of a plan of integration ((1) senior 
high school (2) junior high school (3) elementary 
schools) of sequential order, we provide the oppor­
tunity to benefit from our own experience as we move 
through each phase of this plan, thus avoiding as 
many mistakes as possible.

6. The establishment of attendance areas at the ele­
mentary level (grades 1-6) is most difficult due to 
the large number of both students and buildings 
involved. Becuse of this fact it should be the last 
step in the process.

“ We sincerely solicit your understanding and coopera­
tion in the implementation of this plan, in order that the 
interests of all children may be better served.

L i t t l e  B o c k  B o a k d  o f  E d u c a t io n

W i l l i a m  (t. C o o p e b ,  J r ., President 
M r s . A. E .  M c L e a n , Vice President 
M b s . E d g a e  D ix o n , Secretary 
I )  ii. E d w i n  N. B a r r o n  
F o s t e r . A. V in e y a r d  
B . A . L i k e ”



41

Opinion of the Court, Filed April 28, 1956

(4) Since the adoption of the plan, Mr. Blossom has 
read and explained the plan to approximately 125 to 150 
groups in an effort to obtain public acceptance of its pro­
visions and the resulting orderly integration of the schools.

Foremost among the problems of the Little Bock School 
District are those of finances, structural organization, en­
rollment, and the selection and training of an adequate 
staff. These problems are not new, but they will be greatly 
accentuated by integration. By its plan the School Board 
is seeking to integrate its schools and at the same time 
maintain or improve the quality of education available at 
these schools. Some of its objectives are to provide the 
best possible education that is economically feasible, to 
consider each child in the light of his individual ability 
and achievement, to foster sound promotion policies, to 
provide necessary flexibility in the school curriculum from 
one attendance area to another, to select, procure, and train 
an adequate school staff, to provide necessary in-service 
training for the school staff, to provide a necessary educa­
tional program for deviates (mentally retarded, physically 
handicapped, speech correction, etc,), to provide the oppor­
tunity for children to attend school in the attendance area 
where they reside, to foster sound administrative practices, 
to maintain extra-curricular activities, to attempt to pro­
vide information necessary for public understanding, ac­
ceptance and support, and to provide a “teachable” group 
of children for each teacher. With regard to the latter 
objective, it is the policy of the Board to group children 
with enough homogeneity for efficient planning and class­
room management.

(5) As of May, 1956, the number of Negro students in 
the Little Bock School District was as follows: Grades 1-6, 
3,303 ; Grades 7-9, 1,252; Grades 10-12, 929; or a total of 
5,484.



42

Opinion of the Court, Filed April 28, 1956

The number of white students on the same date was as 
follows: Grades 1-6, 9,285; Grades 7-9, 3,831; Grades 10- 
12, 3,126 ; or a total of 16,242.

The Negro students had 118 teachers for grades 1-6; 
42 teachers for grades 7-9; and 25 teachers for grades 
10- 12.

The white students had 294 teachers for grades 1-6; 
145 teachers for grades 7-9; and 108 teachers for grades 
10-12.

The pupil-teacher ratio for all students was approxi­
mately 26-1 in senior high and junior high, and 30-1 in 
grade school.

At the present time there are three high schools in the 
District. Central High School was built in 1926, is pres­
ently an all-white school, and will accommodate 2,500 to 
2,600 students. Technical High School was built in 1944, is 
now an all-white school, and will accommodate 225 to 250 
students. Horace Mann High School was built in 1956, is 
now an all-Negro school, and will accommodate 925 stu­
dents. Construction has begun on the West End High 
School, which will accommodate 925 students and which 
should be completed about July 15, 1957.

The School Board intends to start integration at the 
high school level (grades 10-12) in the fall of 1957. In 
accord with this plan the Board has completely reorganized 
its attendance areas. At present Central and Technical 
High Schools have a city-wide attendance area for white 
students, and Horace Mann High School has a city-wide 
attendance area for Negro students. Under the new plan 
Technical High School would remain a city-wide school for 
all students, but Central and Horace Mann High Schools, 
together with the new West End High School, would each 
have separate attendance areas. At this time there are no 
Negro students residing in the West End High School 
attendance area, but there are both Negro and white stu­
dents residing in the Central and Horace Mann High 
School districts.



43

Opinion of the Court, Filed April 28,1956

There are now six junior high schools in the District, 
and another one will be needed in the near future,

(6) In preparing for integration school authorities have 
taken a number of steps, including the establishment of 
attendance areas, study of aptitudes of the children, start­
ing of the in-service program for staff members, new pro­
motion policies, program of information to members of the 
community, harmonizing student records, continuation of 
building program, administrative studies, and work on the 
guidance program.

(7) As stated in the plan and established by the evi­
dence, the Board intends to start integration in the fall of 
1957 at the high school level. The reason for starting at 
the high school level is that fewer students, teachers, build­
ings, etc., will be involved. The school authorities hope to 
be able to learn by experience and to be better able to enter 
the next phase of the plan.

The second phase of the integration plan would start 
two or three years after the first phase, i.e.,: in 1959 or 
1960, and would include grades 7-9 (junior high).

The final phase of the plan would start two or three 
years after the start of the second phase, and would include 
grades 1-6. In other words, complete integration would 
be effected not later than 1963.

(8) The Superintendent, Mr. Blossom, along with all 
the other defendants and the staff of the defendant district, 
has worked diligently in a good faith effort to prepare and 
to effectuate a plan of integration that will be to the best 
interest of all parties and to the public.

Mr. Blossom is a highly qualified and experienced school 
administrator and has given much thought and study to 
the myriad problems relating to integration. He has had 
the cooperation of the Little Bock School Board in his 
effort to achieve integration without lowering the quality 
of education offered to all the school children.



44

Opinion of the Court, Filed April 28, 1956

It may be supererogation for the court to here review 
the two decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in which the rights of the plaintiffs are declared and the 
duties of the lower federal courts in a case such as the 
instant one are set forth, hut, because of the intense public 
interest in the question now before the court, it seems ad­
visable for the court to do so.

On December 9, 1952, four cases from the States of 
Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware were 
argued under the title of Brown et al. v. Board of Educa­
tion of Topeka et al. The cases were not immediately de­
termined and were reargued December 8, 1953, and were 
decided on May 17, 1954, one year, five months, and eight 
days after the first argument. Brown et al. v. Board of 
Education of Topeka et al., 347 U. S. 483.

Following a factual outline of the cases, the Court at 
page 493 of 347 U. S. said:

“We come then to the question presented: Does 
segregation of children in public schools solely on 
the basis of race, even though the physical facilities 
and other ‘tangible’ factors may be equal, deprive 
the children of the minority group of equal educa­
tional opportunities'? We believe that it does.”

In the opinion the Court considered the validity of the 
adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution 
of the United States in 1868, and inferentially held that 
the Amendment was validly adopted. The Court also re­
viewed the six cases that had been before it involving the 
“separate but equal doctrine in the field of public education, 
and at page 495 of 347 U. S. said:

“ We conclude that in the field of public educa­
tion the doctrine of ’separate but equal’ has no 
place. Separate educational facilities are inherently 
unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and 
other similarly situated for whom the actions have



45

Opinion of the Court, Filed April 28, 1956

been brought are, by reason of the segregation com­
plained of, deprived of the equal protection of the 
laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Because of the great variety of local conditions in the 
school districts involved in those cases, the Court recog­
nized that the formulation of a decree presented problems 
of considerable complexity, and the Court restored the cases 
to the docket and requested further argument on the form 
of decrees to be entered in the cases then immediately 
under consideration.

The cases were re-argued on April 11-14, 1955, on the 
question of the form of relief to be granted, and on May 
31, 1955, the second and implementing opinion was ren­
dered. Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka 
et al., 349 U. S. 294. In the latter opinion, speaking of the 
opinion handed down on May 17, 1954, the Court said:

“ The opinions of that date, declaring the funda­
mental principle that racial discrimination in public 
education is unconstitutional, are incorporated 
herein by reference. All provisions of federal, state, 
or local law requiring or permitting such discrimi­
nation must yield to this principle.”

In the argument of April 11-14, 1955, the following- 
questions, which the Court had propounded while it was 
considering its original opinion of May 17, 1954, were 
argued:

“ 4. Assuming it is decided that segregation in 
public schools violates the Fourteenth Amendment

“ (a) would a decree necessarily follow providing 
that, within the limits set by normal geographic 
school districting, Negro children should forthwith 
be admitted to schools of their choice, or

“ (b) may this Court in the exercise of its equity 
powers, permit an effective gradual adjustment to 
be brought about from existing segregated systems 
to a system not based on color distinctions?



46

Opinion of the Court, Filed April 28, 1956

“ 5. On the assumption on which questions 4(a) 
and (b) are based, and assuming further that this 
Court will exercise its equity powers to the end 
described in question 4(b).

“ (a) should this Court formulate detailed de­
crees in these cases:

“ (b) if so, what specific issues should the de­
crees reach;

“ (c) should this Court appoint a special master 
to hear evidence with a view to recommending specific 
terms for such decrees;

“ (d) should this Court remand to the courts of 
first instance with directions to frame decrees in 
these cases, and if so what general directions should 
the decrees of this Court include and what pro­
cedures should the courts of first instance follow in 
arriving at the specific terms of more detailed 
decrees?”

The Court, in speaking of the arguments presented on 
the question of the type of relief, at page 299 of 349 U. S. 
said:

“ These presentations were informative and help­
ful to the Court in its consideration of the complexi­
ties arising from the transition to a system of public 
education freed of racial discrimination.”

The Court recognized that the school authorities would 
encounter many and varied problems which would have to 
be determined by them. In this connection the Court at 
page 299 of 349 U. S. said:

“ Full implementation of these constitutional 
principles may require solution of varied local school 
problems. School authorities have the primary re­
sponsibility for elucidating, assessing, and solving



47

Opinion of the Court, Filed April 28, 1956

these problems; courts will have to consider whether 
the action of school authorities constitute good faith, 
implementation of the governing constitutional prin­
ciples. Because of their proximity to local condi­
tions and the possible need for further hearings, the 
courts which originally heard these cases can best 
perform this judicial appraisal. Accordingly, we 
believe it appropriate to remand the eases to those 
courts.”

The Court held that in fashioning and effectuating the 
decrees, the trial courts should be guided by equitable prin­
ciples that equity has always been characterized by prac­
tical flexibility in shaping its remedies and by facility for 
adjusting and reconciling public and private needs.

At page 300 of 349 U. S. the Court said:
“ At stake is the personal interest of the plaintiffs 
in admission to public schools as soon as practicable 
on a nondiscriminatory basis. To effectuate this 
interest may call for elimination of a variety of 
obstacles in making the transition to school systems 
operated in accordance with the constitutional prin­
ciples set forth in our May 17, 1954, decision. Courts 
of equity may properly take into account the public 
interest in the elimination of such obstacles in a 
systematic and effective manner. But it should go 
without saying that the vitality of these constitu­
tional principles cannot be allowed to yield simply 
because of disagreement with them.”

The Court held (349 U. S. 300) that the school authori­
ties should make “ a prompt and reasonable start toward 
full compliance with our May 17, 1954, ruling. Once such 
a start has been made, the courts may find that additional 
time is necessary to carry out the ruling in an effective 
manner”. It emphasized that the burden would rest upon 
the school authorities to establish that additional time is



48

Opinion of the Court, Filed April 28, 1956

necessary in the public interest and is consistent with good 
faith compliance at the earliest practicable date.

The Courts then said that the trial “ courts may con­
sider problems related to administration, arising from the 
physical condition of the school plant, the school trans­
portation system, personnel, revision of school districts 
and attendance areas into compact units to achieve a sys­
tem of determining admission to the public schools on a 
nonracial basis, and revision of local laws and regulations 
which may be necessary in solving the foregoing problems. 
They will also consider the adequacy of any plans the de­
fendants may propose to meet these problems and to 
effectuate a transition to a racially nondiscriminatory 
school system. During this period of transition, the courts 
will retain jurisdiction of these cases.”

In the case of Briggs et al. v. Elliott, one of the original 
cases before the Supreme Court, the three-judge court sit­
ting in the Eastern District of South Carolina, upon a 
remand of the case, said: (132 P. Supp. 776)

“ It has not decided that the federal courts are 
to take over or regulate the public schools of the 
states. It has not decided that the states must mix 
persons of different races in the schools, or must 
require them to attend schools or must deprive them 
of the right of choosing the schools they attend. 
What it has decided, and all that it has decided, is 
that a state may not deny to any person on account 
of race the right to attend any school that it main­
tains. This, under the decision of the Supreme 
Court, the state may not do directly or indirectly; 
but if the schools which it maintains are open to 
children of all races, no violation of the Constitu­
tion is involved even though the children of differ­
ent races voluntarily attend different schools, as



49

Opinion of the Court, Filed April 28, 1956

they attend different churches. Nothing in the Con­
stitution or in the decision of the Supreme Court 
takes away from the people freedom to choose the 
schools they attend. The Constitution in other words 
does not require integration. It merely forbids dis­
crimination. It does not forbid such segregation as 
occurs as the result of voluntary action. It merely 
forbids the use of governmental power to enforce 
segregation. The Fourteenth Amendment is a limi­
tation upon the exercise of power by the state or 
state agencies, not a limitation upon the freedom 
of individuals.

“ The Supreme Court has pointed out that the 
solution of the problem in accord with its decision 
is a primary responsibility of school authorities and 
that the function of the courts is to determine 
whether action of the school authorities constitute 
‘good faith implementation of the governing consti­
tutional principles.’ ”

Upon the request of the court, prior to the trial, the 
attorneys for the respective parties furnished the court 
citations of authorities upon which they were relying to 
support their respective contentions. The court has ex­
amined and read each of the authorities along with other 
decisions not cited by the attorneys. However, the deci­
sions of the lower federal courts are of very little help, if 
any, in the solution of the question before the court. The 
primary responsibility for the implementation of the con­
stitutional principles announced in the May 17, 1954, deci­
sion, Brown v. Board of Education, et al., 347 U. S. 483, 
is upon the school authorities. It is the duty of the school 
authorities to solve the many and varied local problems. 
Because of the nature of the problems and the local condi­
tions the school authorities often find that action taken by 
other school districts is inapplicable to the facts with which



50'

Opinion of the Court, Filed April 28, 1956

they are dealing. It is not the duty or function of the 
federal courts to regulate or take over and operate the 
public schools. That is still the duty of the duly state- 
created school authorities, but the free public schools must 
he maintained and operated as a racially nondiscriminatory 
system. During the period of transition from a segregated 
to a nonsegregated system the school authorities must exer­
cise good faith. They must consider the personal rights 
of all qualified persons to be admitted to the free public 
schools as soon as practicable on a nondiscriminatory basis. 
The public interest must be considered along with all the 
facts and conditions prevalent in the school district. Edu­
cational standards should not he lowered. If the school 
authorities have acted and are proceeding in good faith, 
their actions should not be set aside by a court so long as 
their action is consistent with the ultimate establishment 
of a nondiscriminatory school system at the earliest prac­
ticable date.

The plaintiffs seek a decree declaring certain provisions 
of the Arkansas Constitution and statutes to be unconsti­
tutional. These statutes and the constitutional provisions 
of Arkansas have been declared unconstitutional by the 
Supreme Court of the United States. Defendants admit 
that the State laws requiring segregation are unconstitu­
tional and void. Plaintiffs also ask in their complaint that 
the rights of the parties and others similarly situated be 
declared. Here there is no controversy between the liti­
gants as to their respective rights. Plaintiffs claim the 
right to be admitted to schools without discrimination be­
cause of race or color. The defendants freely admit that 
right. The only point at issue relates to the adequacy of 
the plan of defendants for the transition from a segregated 
to a nonsegregated school system.

Plaintiffs also seek an injunction to compel the defend­
ants to admit them to all free public schools without dis-



51

Opinion of the Court, Filed April 28,1956

crimination because of race or color. The defendants have 
declared their readiness to admit plaintiffs and other simi­
larly situated to the schools under their control and super­
vision on a nonracial basis as soon as practicable. Here 
the rights claimed by the plaintiffs are admitted, and thus 
there is no threat on the part of defendants to deny plain­
tiffs and others similarly situated any of their constitu­
tional rights.

The history of equity jurisdiction is the history of re­
gard for public consequences when a party seeks to employ 
the extraordinary remedy of injunction. Public interests 
have a high claim upon the discretion of a chancellor, and 
especially is this true under the facts in this case. Federal 
trial courts should exercise a sound discretion and use their 
authority only in exceptional cases, because of the scrupu­
lous regard that the law has for the rightful independence 
of State authorities.

In cases where the Board of Directors is proceeding in 
good faith to establish a school system on a nonracial basis, 
the federal trial courts should maintain, if possible, a 
harmonious relation between state and federal authority 
where the state authority, in this instance the Board of 
Directors, is proceeding in good faith to discharge its 
duties, and thus to establish within a reasonable period of 
time a nonracial system of schools as required by the su­
preme law of the land.

As said by United States Circuit Judge, Ben F. Cam­
eron, of the Fifth Circuit in his dissenting opinion in Brown 
et al. v. Rippey et ah, 233 F2d 796:

“ It is not reasonable that the Supreme Court 
would have placed primary responsibility in a group 
commissioned to act administratively with the ex­
pectation or requirement that the group would be 
hampered or vexed in accomplishing their task, se­
verely difficult at the best, by contemporaneous liti-



52

Opinion of the Court, Filed April 28, 1956

gation directed toward fashioning a club to be held 
over their heads. Such a judicial intervention would 
connote a distrust of the preliminary administrative 
process and would cast those conducting it under the 
handicap of suspicion so great as to thwart at the 
threshold the orderly carrying out of the procedures 
so plainly delineated by the Supreme Court.”

Learned counsel for plaintiffs earnestly contended in 
their oral argument that the defendants had not made a 
prompt and reasonable start toward full compliance with 
the May 17,1954, decision of the Supreme Court; that addi­
tional time should not be allowed the Board of Directors 
until and unless a reasonable start toward full compliance 
had been made, and that in this instance such a start had 
been made by the defendants. Ordinarily, the word “start” 
means a beginning of a journey or a course of action. It 
is the first motion from a place or condition; the place of 
beginning or point of departure. When the word is con­
sidered in context, it must be construed to embrace any 
necessary action taken by a Board of Directors which will, 
if consistently followed in good faith, lead to the admission 
to public schools of the plaintiffs and others similarly sit­
uated as soon as practicable on a nondiscriminatory basis. 
The objective cannot be obtained in an orderly manner 
until a variety of obstacles have been removed. The defend­
ants are making every effort to remove those obstacles in 
this case, and the court thinks they have made a prompt 
and reasonable start toward full compliance with the 
requirements of the law.

The testimony of the defendant Superintendent of 
Schools, Mr. Virgil Blossom, is convincing that not only he 
but the other defendants have acted in the utmost good 
faith. Their sole objective has been, and is now, to faith­
fully and effectively inaugurate a school system in accord-



53

Opinion of the Court, Filed April 28, 1.956

ance with the law as declared by the Supreme Court. They 
are seeking and have been seeking ways and means of 
effectuating a transition from a segregated to a nondis- 
criminatory system without destroying the fundamental 
objectives of the system itself.

This court is of the opinion that it should not substitute 
its own judgment for that of the defendants. The plan 
which has been adopted after thorough and conscientious 
consideration of the many questions involved is a plan that 
will lead to an effective and gradual adjustment of the 
problem, and ultimately bring about a school system not 
based on color distinctions.

It would be an abuse of discretion for this court to fail 
to approve the plan or to interfere with its consummation 
so long as the defendants move in good faith, as they have 
done since immediately after the decision of May 17, 1954, 
to inaugurate and make effective a racially nondiscrimina- 
tory school system..

Therefore, an order should be entered approving the 
plan of the defendants as being adequate, and denying the 
prayer of the complaint of plaintiffs for a declaratory judg­
ment and injunctive relief. The order should further pro­
vide that the court retain jurisdiction of this ease for the 
entry of such other and further orders as may be necessary 
to obtain the effectuation of the plan as contemplated and 
set forth herein.1

This 27th day of August, 1956.

J o h n  E. M il l e r  
United States District Judge

1 The court is of the opinion that this order will be final and 
appealable, even though the court retains jurisdiction for the purpose 
of entering further orders. See, Pioche Consolidated, Inc., et al. v. 
Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co., et al., 9 Cir., 191 F2d 399, 400; 
13 Cyc. of Federal Procedure, Sec. 57.20, p. 126.



54

Decree and Judgment of the Court, Filed 
April 28, 1956

On August 15, 1956, this cause came on for trial, the 
plaintiffs appearing by Messrs. Wiley A. Branton and 
U. Simpson Tate, their attorneys, and the defendants ap­
pearing by Messrs. A. F. House, Leon B. Catlett, Frank E. 
Chowning, Henry Spitzberg and R. C. Butler, Jr., their 
attorneys. Evidence in behalf of the respective parties 
was adduced and arguments of counsel were heard and, at 
the conclusion thereof, the case was submitted and taken 
under advisement.

Now, having considered the evidence adduced at the 
trial of this cause, the arguments of counsel, and the entire 
record of this case,, the Court has prepared and filed herein 
its opinion relative thereto, and in accordance therewith,

It i s  o r d e r e d  a n d  a d ju d g e d  that the plan of school in­
tegration of the Little Rock School District officially 
adopted by the Board of Directors on May 24, 1955, he and 
the same hereby is in all things approved, and that the 
prayer of the complaint of the plaintiffs for a declaratory 
judgment and for injunctive relief be and is denied.

I t i s  f u r t h e r  o r d e r e d  a n d  a d ju d g e d  that jurisdiction of 
this case be and is retained for the purpose of entering such 
other and further orders as may be necessary to obtain the 
effectuation of the plan as therein outlined and set forth.

This 28th day of August, 1956.
/ s /  J o h n  E. M il l e r  

John E. Miller 
United States District Judge



55

O rder Directing Release to  D efendants of A ny Needed
Exhibits, Filed September 8, 1956)

Upon oral motion of the defendant, Virgil Blossom, re­
questing authority from the Court to remove certain ex­
hibits introduced into evidence at the trial of the foregoing 
cause by said defendant, the Court finds that said defend­
ant, as Superintendent of the Little Rock Public Schools, 
needs some of the maps, pictures and other exhibits to his 
testimony in order properly to perform his duties as Super­
intendent and that said exhibits will be safely kept by said 
defendant until needed by the Court, the Clerk, or the par­
ties or their attorneys,

I t  i s , t h e r e f o r e , o r d e r e d , that the Clerk of this Court, 
be and he is hereby directed to deliver to Virgil Blossom, 
one of the defendants in this cause, any exhibits which he 
introduced into evidence and which he requests from the 
Clerk of this Court, upon the statement from, said defend­
ant that such exhibits are needed by him in performing his 
official duties as School Superintendent. Said defendant 
shall give his receipt to the Clerk and shall keep said ex­
hibits in a safe place and shall return them to the Clerk 
upon request by the Court, the Clerk or any of the attorneys 
of record in this case.

E ntered  this 8 day of September, 1956.

s/ J ohn  E . M iller 
United States District Judge



56

Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal, Filed September 20, 1956

Notice is hereby given that John and Thelma Aaron, 
minors, by their mother and next friend, (Mrs.) Thelma 
Aaron, a feme sole; Clyde Cross Bates, a minor, by his 
father and next friend, L. C. Bates; Carolyn Ann and Gail 
Yvonne Freeman, minors, by their father and next friend, 
Herman Freeman; Franklin D. Jackson, a minor, by his 
father and next friend, Frank Jackson; Lawrence, Matthew 
Lee and Robert Talley, minors, by their father and step­
father and next friend, Lawrence R. Lee; Joycelyn E. and 
Andrea F. Massie, minors, by their father and next friend, 
William J. Massie, M.D.; Robert Benjamin and George 
Hendrix Nelson, minors, by their father and next friend, 
Robert L. Nelson; Evelyn Idell and Virginia Scoggins, 
minors, by their mother and next friend, (Mrs.) Vester Lee 
Scoggins, a feme sole; Charles Henry, Peggy L. and Var~ 
nice J. Shackelford, minors, by their father and next friend, 
Henry Shackelford; Andrew, James Edward, Lillie Marie, 
Ernestine, Roosevelt, Katherine and Mary Francis Single- 
ton, minors, by their father and next friend, Alexander 
Singleton; Doris Jean, Ray Vivian and Geraldine L. Stox, 
minors, by their father and next friend, B. E. Stox, and 
Calvin, Queen Ester, Betty Jean, Willie Lee and Shirley 
Ray Toombs, minors, by their father and next friend, Willie 
Toombs, plaintiffs in the above styled and numbered cause 
hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Eighth Circuit from the following judgment:

“ Therefore, an order should be entered approv­
ing the plan of the defendants as being adequate, 
and denying the prayer of the complaint of plain­
tiffs for a declaratory judgment and injunctive re­
lief. The order should further provide that the 
court retain jurisdiction of this case for the entry 
of such other and further orders as may be neces-



57

Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal, Filed September 20, 1956

sary to obtain the effectuation of the plan as con­
templated and set forth herein.1

“ This 27th day of August, 1956.

“ / s /  J no . E. M iller  
John E. Miller 

United States District Judge”

Dated this the day of September, 1956.

W i l e y  A. B r a n t o n

119 E. Barraque Street 
Pine Bluff, Araknsas

U . S i m p s o n  T a t e  
2600 Flora Street 
Dallas, Texas

R o b e r t  L. C a r t e r

107 West 43rd Street 
New York, New York

T h u r g o o d  M a r s h a l l  
107 West 43rd Street 
New York, New York

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

“i The court is of the opinion that this order will be 
final and appealable, even though the court retains jurisdic­
tion for the purpose of entering further orders. See, Pioche 
Consolidated, Inc., et al. v. Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co., 
et al., 9 Cir., 191 F. 2d 399, 400; 13 Cyc. of Federal Pro­
cedure, Sec. 57.20, p. 126.”



58

P lain tiffs’ D esignation of R ecord on A ppeal,
F iled  O ctober 1, 1956

The appellants (plaintiffs) designate the following por­
tions of the record, proceedings and evidence to be con­
tained in the Record on Appeal of this action to the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit:

(1) Record of proceedings in open court on August 
15th, 1956.

(2) Defendants’ exhibit entitled, “ Senior High School 
Attendance Areas, Grades 10 to 12, inclusive”.

(3) Defendants’ exhibit entitled, “ Junior High School 
Attendance Areas, Grades 7 to 9, Inclusive ’ ’.

(4) The Opinion of the Court.
(5) This Designation.
The appellants intend to rely on the following points on 

appeal:
(1) The Court erred in denying the prayer of the plain­

tiffs’ Complaint for a declaratory judgment and 
for injunctive relief.

(2) The Court erred in approving the adequacy of the 
plan of school integration in the Little Rock School 
District.

Dated this 29th day of September, 1956.
W i l e y  A. B r a n t o n  
U. S i m p s o n  T a t e  
R o b e r t  L. C a r t e r  
T h u k g o o i) M a r s h a l l

By .....................................................
Wiley A. Branton

119 E. Barraque Street 
Pine Bluff, Arkansas

Attorneys for Appellants



59

Defendants’ Designation of Record on Appeal, 
Filed October 6, 1956

The appellees (defendants) designate the following por­
tions of the proceedings and evidence to he contained in the 
record on appeal of this action to the United States Court 
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit:

All exhibits offered in evidence during the pro­
ceedings in open court on August 15, 1956, exclu­
sive of the exhibits designated in Paragraphs 2. and 
3 of appellants’ (plaintiffs’) Designation of Record 
on Appeal.

D a t e d  this 5th day of October, 1956.

L e o n  B. C a t e e t t 1 
A. F. H o u s e  
By s/ A. F. H o u s e  

A. F. House
314 West Markham Street 
Little Rock, Arkansas 

Attorneys for Appellees.



60

Bond for Costs on Appeal, Filed October 16, 1956

W hereas, the plaintiffs in the above styled cause have 
prayed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals 
for the 8th Circuit from the judgment and decree of the 
United States District Court in the said cause;

B e , i t  k h o w n , that We, the undersigned, do hereby hold 
ourselves jointly and severally hound unto the said defend­
ants, and unto the Clerk of the United States District 
Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, in the sum of 
Two Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($250.00) said agreement 
being conditioned to secure the payment of costs if the 
appeal in the above styled cause is dismissed, or the judg­
ment or decree is affirmed, or of such costs as the Appel­
late Court may award, if the judgment or decree is modified.

W itn ess  our hakds and seals this 16th day o f Octo­
ber, 1956.

S tandard A ccideht In  surah oe 
C oMPAHY

D etroit1, M ichigah  
(Address)

(Surety)

By s /  A . M. A n d e r s o n

A. M. Anderson, Atty-in-Fact

( seal)

(Surety) (Address)



61

Stipulation of Counsel as to Exhibits

C omes Wiley A. Branton, attorney of record for appel­
lants (plaintiffs) and A. F. House, attorney of record for 
appellees (defendants) and enter into the following stipu­
lation and agreement with reference to certain exhibits 
offered in evidence in the trial of the above cause by the 
defendants:

W hereas, the appellants and appellees have previously 
designated all exhibits which were offered in evidence as a 
part of the record on appeal, counsel for both sides now 
agree to waive the reproduction of the said exhibits as a 
part of the record and stipulate that the original of ex­
hibits “ C”, “ D ”, “ E ”, “ F ”, ” G” and ” H ”, will be for­
warded to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals by the appel­
lees (defendants) at least ten (10) days prior to the hear­
ings of the said cause on appeal and it is further agreed 
that the said exhibits for the purpose of the record herein, 
contained the following information which shall be made 
a part of the record in lieu of the reproduction of the said 
exhibits, to-wit:

EXHIBIT C
Residence of Negro Elementary Children
Grades 1-6 November 1955
Grades: 1 2 3 (Red Dots) 1,936
Grades: 4 5 (Green Dots) 875
Grades: 6 (Black Dots) 403

3,214



62

Stipulation of Counsel as to Exhibits 

EXHIBIT D

Residences of White Elementary Children
Grades 1-6 November 1955
Grades: 1 2 3 (Red Dots) 4,606
Grades: 4 5 (Green Dots) 2,593
Grades: 6 (Black Dots) 1,098

8,297

EXHIBIT E

Residence Location of White and Negro Junior High 
School Students by School Attendance Areas and 

Grades—November 1955
Grade

School 7th 8th 9th Total
East Side 291 310 251 852
Forest Heights 259 235 184 678
Pulaski Heights 173 172 138 483
West Side 434 444 390 1268

Total White Schools 3281
Dunbar Jr. High 406 355 292 1053

T otal W h it e  a n d  N egro 4334



63

Stipulation of Counsel as to Exhibits 

EXHIBIT F

Residence Location of White and Negro Senior High 
School Students by School Attendance Areas and 

Grades—November 1955
Central and T ech n ica l  H igh  S chool

10 th 11th 12th Total
T otal W h i t e ................ 902 821 752 2475

H orace M ann  H igh  S chool

T otal N egro ................  248 204 130 582

T otal W h it e  and N egro ....................... .............  3057

EXHIBIT G

School District Enumeration—May, 1956

Little Rock Public Schools
Senior High School Attendance Areas
Grades 10-12 Inclusive

%
White Colored Total Colored 

Horace Mann High School 363 413 776 53.2%
Central High School and

Tech High School.......  2107 337 2444 13.6%
West End High School

(Est. 1957) ..................  835 0 835 0.0%

GIr a n d  T o t a l 4055



64

Stipulation of Counsel as to Exhibits

L ittle  R ock S chool D istrict  P rofessional S ta ff , 
S chool Y ear 1957-58

No. of Teachers
Horace Mann High School................  32
Central High School and Tech High 100
West End High School....................  35

T otal .......................................................  167



65

Stipulation of Counsel as to Exhibits 

EXHIBIT H

Forecast of Junior High School Pupils Entitled to Free 
Public Education by Junior High School Attendance Areas 
for the School Year 1957-58 Based Upon the Enumeration 

Completed May, 1956
% of % of Total

No. School Jr. Hi. Age
Pupils Membership Enumeration

East Side White 355 58.2
Negro 255 41.8
Total 610 100.0 12.14

West Side White 807 74.1
Negro 283 25.9
Total 1090 100.0 21.30

Pulaski Heights White 644 92.7
Negro 40 7.3
Total 684 100.0 13.56

Forest Heights White 760 100.0
Negro 0 0.0
Total 760 100.0 15.10

Southwest White 866 94.4
Negro 54 5.6
Total 920 100.0 18.20

Dunbar White 283 28.3
Negro 717 71.7
Total 1000 100.0 19.70

( I r a n i) T o t a l  . . 5084 100.00



66

Stipulation of Counsel as to Exhibits

L ittle  R ock S chool D istrict  P rofessional S taff , 
S chool Y ear 1957-58

Jr. High Schools
Grades 7-9, No. of
Inclusive Teachers

Jr. High Schools
Grades 7-9, No. of 
Inclusive Teachers

East Side Jr. High 26 
West Side Jr. High 46 
Pulaski Heights Jr. Hi. 28

Forest Heights Jr. Hi. 33 
Southwest Jr. High 39
Dunbar Jr. High 42

Total 214

Dated this 7th day of January, 1957.

W i l e y  A. B r a n t o n  .......................................................

Wiley A. Branton A. F. House
Attorney for Appellants Attorney for Appellees



67

Motion to Extend Time for Filing Record and Brief

Come the appellants, by their attorney, Wiley A. Bran- 
ton, and pray an Order from the Court extending the 
time for filing of the Record in the above cause, together 
with appellants’ Brief, until January 22nd, 1957.

W h e r e f o r e , Appellants p r a y  that the time be extended 
until January 22nd, 1957, for the filing of the Record 
herein and for the filing of appellants’ Brief.

W i l e y  A. B r a x t o n , 
Attorney for Appellants.

Stipulation and Agreement of Appellee

Comes A. F. House, an attorney of record for appellees 
in the above styled cause, and agrees to the request for 
extension of time for filing of the Record and Brief by 
appellants as prayed herein above.

A. F. H o u s e , 
Attorney for Appellees.

Dated this 3rd day of December, 1956.



68

The Transcript of Proceedings

Be it remembered that heretofore on Wednesday, 
August 15, the above-entitled cause came on regularly for 
trial before the Hon. John E. Miller in the Federal Build­
ing, Little Bock, Arkansas.

The plaintiffs were represented by their counsel IT. 
Simpson Tate and Wiley A. Branton.

The defendants were represented by their counsel 
Catlett & Henderson by Leon B. Catlett; Bose Meek House 
Barron & Nash by A. F. House; House Moses & Holmes 
by Bichard C. Butler; Spitzberg Mitchell & Hays by Henry 
E. Spitzberg; and Moore Burrow Chowning & Mitchell by 
Frank E. Chowning.

Whereupon the following proceedings were had and 
entered of record.

The testimony at the trial has been reduced to narrative 
form, as follows:

A N a r r a t iv e  of the testimony of the Proceedings in the 
Trial Court.

The court stated at the outset that the parties were 
properly identified in the complaint and answer and that 
the court’s jurisdiction is not questioned; that such jurisdic­
tion was founded on Title 28, United States Code, Sections 
1331 and 1343; the complaint seeks injunctive relief and 
invoked jurisdiction under Section 2281, but the request 
for a three judge court was denied because as the court 
construed the pleadings there is no question of the uncon­
stitutionality of the Arkansas statutes or provisions of the 
Arkansas Constitution. The essential question is whether 
immediate integration should be ordered or the defend­
ant’s plan of integration should be approved and defend­
ants allowed to proceed as long as they do so with reason-



69

The Transcript of Proceedings

able dispatch. The burden of proof of going forward rests 
with the defendants, especially since no defense is based 
on state statutes but defendants seek to justify not main­
taining a non-segregated school on the peculiar facts 
pleaded in the answer. The primary question is the 
adequacy of the plan, and after an evaluation of the testi­
mony, the court will determine whether the plan comes 
fairly within the provisions of laws set out by the United 
States Supreme Court.

Counsel for both parties agreed in substance that the 
issues were correctly outlined by the court.

Called by Defendants
Virgil Blossom, Superintendent of Schools testified that 

the school faced financial problems (11); that Little Bock 
was a 6-3-3 system; that the school had problems of in­
creased enrollment—an increase of 6,000 students or 43% 
in ten years; of the selection and procurement of staff 
(13); that these problems would be accentuated by integra­
tion (13); he read Exhibit A, the statement of the Board 
adopted on May 20, 1954 and issued May 23 in which 
the Board promised compliance with court decision after 
adequate plan and program of compliance (14-16); that 
pursuant to this policy he was authorized to prepare such 
a plan introduced as Exhibit B. The plan was adopted 
on May 24, 1955 (17); the plan adopted sought to produce 
as good and better training under integration than under 
its implementation decree and promised to use time be­
tween the May 17th decision and decree to develop than 
segregation. The Board sought to explain it to as many 
people as possible; no general community acceptance of 
the idea of integration but people think the plan as good 
as any (21). The plan is introduced (23-27); it has been 
read and explained at 125 to 150 meetings; there are 9,285 
white children in grades 1-6; 3,831 in grades 7-9; 3,126



70

The Transcript of Proceedings

in grades 10-12. There are 3,300 Negro children in grades 
1-6; 1,252 in grades 7-9; 929 in grades 10-12. Maps (Ex­
hibit C) introduced showing where Negro children in 
each of grades 1-6 live. Map (Exhibit D) showing residence 
of white children by grades in grades 1-6 (33). Map (Ex­
hibit E) introduced showing residence of Negro and white 
children by grades in 7-9, Map (Exhibit F) showing resi­
dence of Negro and white children in grades 10-12; stated 
the number of white and Negro teachers in systems; that 
thety were paid the same salary; that same basic curriculum 
was taught in both sets of schools; there are 3 high schools 
(Central, Horace Mann, Technical). Chart (Exhibit G) 
showing attendance areas for three high schools. Central 
accommodates 2,600; Horace Mann 925; Technical 250; a 
new high school is being built which will accommodate 
925 and attendance areas were projected to include this 
shool; describes attendance areas for three schools laid 
out following May 20, 1954 statement of the Board; 
describes attendance areas involved for junior high schools 
and chart (Exhibit H) designating these areas introduced 
and states residence is important with respect to curriculum 
offerings (49); Exhibit I, pictures of Central High School 
(50); Exhibit J. picture of Horace Mannn High School 
(53); Exhibit K, picture of Technical High (54); Exhibit 
L, drawing of West End High School (55); new high 
school will be completed in July 1957 (57); and it is neces­
sary for it to be completed before integration can begin 
(57).

Here follows the verbatim testimony of V irg il  B lossom, 
Superintendent of Schools (pp. 57-84 incl.) in which the 
reasons for delay in completing integration and for adop­
tion of the three phase plan approved by the Court are set 
forth:
A. They have the feeling that [West End High School] will 
be finished about July 15, 1957.



71

The Transcript of Proceedings

Q. You say Mr. Blossom that it is necessary that that 
building be completed and ready for occupancy before in­
tegration can begin in the Little Rock School District? A. 
Under this plan, in my opinion, that is vitally necessary.

Q. Now why do you state that? A. May I answer that 
in my own way?

Q. Certainly. A. When you begin the job of planning 
to desegregate a school system that has been segregated 
from its beginning until the present time, you undertake, 
in my opinion, the most difficult task that southern educa­
tion has ever faced. Now, it seems to me that our respon­
sibilities or the responsibilities of the Board of Education, 
are two-fold. First, they have the responsibility to imple­
ment the decision as implied in the Supreme Court’s deci­
sion of May 17, 1954. The second thing, they must meet 
the implied responsibility of the Court in the May 31st in­
terpretation, which laid down two things—it first laid down 
the general principles on which desegregation could be 
performed, and the second thing, it implied that every 
Board of Education had the responsibility of providing 
as good, or better, education than they had under a segre­
gated (57) system. Now, it’s the responsibility of school 
people and of parents and teachers to provide a quality 
education program. We are trying to do that. I t’s the 
responsibility of the courts and the civil authorities to in­
terpret the constitution, but, as educators, we are trying 
to accept in this procedure our responsibility to comply 
with federal court requirements and the federal constitu­
tional requirements and, at the same time, accept our 
educational responsibility of maintaining a quality pro­
gram. After all, education itself is the bulwark of our 
society and, unless we are able to continue to maintain or 
upgrade or improve our educational program as we know 
it, the constitution of the United States is in itself going 
to be in jeopardy if we allow the educational program to



72

The Transcript of Proceedings

drop. S'o, our responsibility is, as I see it, two-fold—to 
comply with the law, but to guard those standards of edu­
cation zealously—and I think this plan tries to do that, 
and I think it, with its deliberateness, provides a way to 
do both of those things, and I think any other way in the 
Little Eock School District can result in placing public 
education in our State in jeopardy, and I believe that with 
all my heart, and we have tried to put all of those prin­
ciples into effect in designing this plan (58).

Q. Mr. Blossom, it’s noticed that your plan is a three- 
phase plant A. Yes, sir.

Q. Why did you determine that a three-phase plan 
was necessary and in the best interest of the Little Eock 
School District! A. In studying this problem under the 
fourteen principles as enumerated, it became apparent 
quickly in that study, it solidified our thinking, what we 
thought we already knew, that this was a great big job, 
and after making the spot map studies, it became thoroughly 
apparent that that job was tremendous, and it became ap­
parent to me that the Supreme Court itself, in its deliber­
ateness, in both the original decision and in the May 31, 
1955 decision, when they said to do this job with all de-. 
liberate speed, that they themselves, with that statement, 
recognized what became apparent to us in every study we 
made—that to do this job every part of the school program 
became involved; that every item in the school budget was 
effected; that even though there is no essential additional 
finances involved, that you have budgetary problems within 
your budget that have to be changed, and it requires a 
constant revision and study to meet, in the light of changed 
attendance areas, in the light of a different curricular 
(58) program, in the light of selection and training of teach­
ers. We’ve been in a segregated system from the begin­
ning of time. Teachers have taught white and colored 
children—



73

The Transcript of Proceedings

Q. (Mr. Catlett, resuming) Mr. Blossom, you say that 
a (60) three-phase plan, you determined, was absolutely 
essential insofar as the Little Rock School District was 
concerned? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, integration will begin, you say, under the plan 
at the time the West End High School is completed and 
ready for enrollees? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Then, Mr. Blossom, with “all deliberate speed”, will 
the second phase of the program be put into execution? 
A. Yes, sir, it will.

Q. That is, integration will begin at the junior high 
level after integration has been completed successfully at 
the senior high level? A. That is correct, yes.

Q. And when integration has been completed success­
fully at the junior high level, it will be begun at the ele­
mentary level? A. That is correct.

Q. The plan takes into consideration that integration 
will be by phases or levels rather than by grades? A. 
That is correct.

Q. That is, integration will be begun and be completed 
in the three upper grades, and when completed satisfac­
torily there, will be begun and completed in the next three 
grades down and then when completed satisfactorily (61) 
there in the next six grades down? A. I want to do ex­
actly what the Court wants to do, but integration will be 
begun as you have outlined by your question, and I cer­
tainly do not intend to make any speech, Mr. Tate, but 
there are attendant problems in each phase of this, in my 
opinion, that we must master. Those problems are the 
putting of children together who have completely different 
socio-economic backgrounds that have never attended 
school, whose educational achievements are different—the 
problem of selecting, procuring and training teachers is 
a part of it, the re-adjustment of finance, the re-alignment 
of administrative policies. Now as those problems each



74

The Transcript of Proceedings

are met successfully to the extent that we have met the 
law and maintained the standards, not in violation of a 
principle laid down by the Court, but in harmony with that 
principle laid down, to the betterment of the children of 
this School District—all of them. As we move through 
that phase and from objective data know that we have done 
that job, we will move to the next phase of the job and do 
it in the same way, and at that time it will be the next 
three grades, and following that it will be the next six 
grades.

Q. Now, integration can not be commenced until the 
West End High School is completed? A. Under this plan, 
that is correct (62).

Q. Now why is that, specifically, Mr. Blossom? A. 
That is specifically correct so far as I ’m concerned in the 
problem of dealing with curricula. Now we have three 
attendance areas at the present time that affect senior high 
school children—Central High School, Horace Mann High 
School and Little Eock Technical High School. The at­
tendance area for Little Rock Tech High is city-wide; the 
attendance area for Little Rock Central High School is 
city-wide; the attendance area for Horace Mann High 
School is city-wide. Now when we change from city-wide 
attendance areas to geographical areas within the city, that 
restrict a certain group of youngsters to one area—to one 
school building, we create problems that deal with our cur­
riculum of planning the curriculum for the needs of those 
specific children. We have to provide the basic educa­
tional programs that are their present needs and at the 
same time plan the other part of our program to fit the 
needs of those specific children. That, in itself, takes time. 
The budget adjustment, the selection and procurement of 
teachers, the training of teachers, and in this plan we felt 
that it was wise to approach a problem of this magnitude 
with as small a bit of it as we actually could in order to 
secure the evidence that we are doing a reasonably good



75

The Transcript of Proceedings

job for all children. We began in (63) the upper three 
grades on the basic premise, educationally, that there are 
fewer children involved, there are fewer buildings, there 
are fewer teachers. Now, we’ve got a tremendous educa­
tional job, and I mean “educational”, of making teachers, 
children and parents understand what we’re trying to do 
in each of the attendance areas which are brought down 
to a geographic area. Now, it’s an easier job to train a 
group of youngsters that are farther along in school, a 
smaller segment of your teachers, plan only one part of 
your curriculum—and by that I mean that administrative 
part of grades 10 to 12. I t’s scattering your shots so wide 
that you can have no reasonable assurance that you’re do­
ing any kind of job for the children. Now, another thing 
about it is this, that any group as inexperienced as we are 
in dealing with this problem is going to make mistakes. 
Now those mistakes that we may make will affect fewer 
children, fewer homes, fewer teachers and fewer parents. 
They will be easier to remedy, and the lives of the chil­
dren in our educational program are not hurt over a long 
period of time. As we move into the second step, we have 
a feeling that the experience and growth that we will ex­
perience in phase (1) will be very beneficial, and help us 
to eliminate some of those mistakes and thereby maintain 
(64) the standards that we have been able to maintain and 
improve on them if possible—

Q. As you move into the second phase and then later 
as you move into the third— A. That’s correct—

Q. (Continuing)—phase of the program! A. And to us 
it’s just plain, looks like, common sense to do the job in 
that manner. Now take the job of teachers, we’ve got a 
big job on this teacher problem.

Q. I was going to ask you about that Mr. Blossom, you 
enumerated fourteen different points that you considered 
as of primary importance in the preparation of the plan— 
A. That’s correct.



76

The Transcript of Proceedings

Q. Now yon have actually begun putting the plan in 
operation in a number of ways? A. Yes, sir.

Q. I want to ask you to re-examine those fourteen points 
and tell us the manner in which they have been placed 
into operation under the plan— A. All right.

Q. The teachers, for instance, you began mentioning 
that. Have you had to make any search for additional 
(65) staff or changes in your staff due to the program of 
integration under the plan? A. After this plan was com­
pleted, the first thing that was done was to—I ’m talking 
about completed and approved by the School Board—the 
first step was to explain every phase of this plan with 
charts, similar to these, to the Public School staff, so that 
they, themselves, could have a picture and understanding 
of what our job was, a conception of the time—a concep­
tion of the method, and what they were involved in. That’s 
the first step we took as far as teachers are concerned. 
Now, at the present time, the problem of procuring teachers 
in this school district is a difficult one just the same as any 
other, not as difficult as in many others, but we are operat­
ing on a basis of a segregated system. Our teachers, not a 
single one of them, have known the job of teaching in an 
integrated system. There are emotional impacts in the 
lives of all of those people and I don’t mean just white, I 
mean both colored and wThite.

Q. Have you lost any teachers as a result of the plan? 
A. Yes we have.

Q. How many, Mr. Blossom, and why? A. We’ve lost a 
good many teachers by resignation. (66) I could not say to 
you that every one of those teachers we’ve lost has been 
because of this problem, but they have been because of the 
problems that we are faced with in this School District, 
and this problem is one of those problems. There are many 
teachers that are preferring to go to areas that are already 
integrated, where they do not have to go through the tur­
moil of putting a problem like this into effect, and it has



77

The Transcript of Proceedings

caused us to lose them a good many places, and it is a sig­
nificant problem of this school district today and I can not 
lay too much emphasis on the problem and the time that is 
required to solve that problem in training school teachers.

Q. You mean that you have lost some teachers because 
they preferred to go to a district that was already inte­
grated rather than go through with the problems relating 
to integration? A. That is correct.

Q. Approximately how many teachers have you lost? 
A. For that reason alone, or have I lost as a total this year?

Q. For that reason alone, we’ll say first? A. I ’d say we 
lost eight or ten this year because of that.

Q. And how many teachers have you lost in toto this 
year? A. For one reason or another, approximately fifty.

(67) Q. All right. Now, give us some other examples 
of your having placed the plan in operation in connection 
with the fourteen points that you took into consideration in 
the preparation of the plan? A. All right, sir. I would 
like to turn to those points as I recorded them here.

Q. You have told us about construction of the new high 
school—

^  ^

The Witness: I did not hear your question. May 
I have you repeat it?

Q. I wanted you to tell us, Mr. Blossom, with concrete­
ness, those of the fourteen points that you considered at 
the time that you drew up the plans that have been put into 
practice in connection with the plan? A. All right. We 
have developed attendance areas.

Q. All right? A. That would give every child the basic 
right to attend school in the area of the legal residents of 
his parents (68) or legal guardian. That’s a concrete step 
we have taken. All right. We have made the studies that 
reflect the achievement and the ability of individual chil-



78

The Transcript of Proceedings

dren to show us the job that we have to provide the educa­
tional program that gives each child the maximum educa­
tional development in the school system of Little Rock 
School District.

Q. In that connection, do you take an IQ of your stu­
dents each year? A. Yes, we do.

Q. Of both the colored and white students? A. Yes, 
sir, we do.

Q. Would you tell the Court—I believe it would be 
enlightening—as to how the IQs of the colored and white 
students compare?

Mr. Tate: We object to that; we don’t think it 
has any relevance here.

The Court: I  think I ’ll sustain that objection.
Mr. Catlett : It was offered, however—
The Court: I  understand why it was offered, but 

I think I ’ll sustain it. (69)
Mr. Catlett: All right sir.

A. Do you want me to tell you other problems relating, that 
we have—

Q. Yes? A. We have started the “in-service” program 
with our staff, that’s involved in the problem of planning 
the curriculum in an integrated program to serve the needs 
of the youngsters which we said was a fundamental princi­
ple. We have tried to foster a development of promotion 
policies that will fit into a program of fitting the two races 
together into a teachable group of youngsters. Now, no 
school program can have confidence in the fact that the 
educational results will be worthwhile for the children 
unless, basically, you have a program that gives each 
teacher what we term a teachable group of youngsters. If 
their development, their achievement and their ability is 
such, and the range is such within a classroom, that you 
give her an impossible task, then you can not expect reason-



79

The Transcript of Proceedings

able results. So the job of planning for teachable groups 
of youngsters in an integrated system is one of the most 
important things that we do in the preparation for this 
plan.

Q. Is that being done at the present? (70) A. That is 
being done, yes, sir, and that is a big job in itself. Now, 
another thing, we have carried on a continuous program of 
information on an accurate basis to our community in line 
with each of the fourteen points, of what we have to do.

Q. Is that important? A. I t ’s extremely important if 
we are going to keep the quality, and preserve the educa­
tional program, in my opinion. Now, another problem, 
remember that the white attendance area has been city­
wide at the high school level; the colored attendance areas 
has been city-wide. Now, we’ve taken the job of trying to 
harmonize the student records in the curricular and class 
offerings of the individual students. That, in itself, takes 
time and is in the interest of all children, and that’s a spe­
cific objective that can not be done overnight. We have 
carried on in good faith the building program, in going 
about the job of implementing this program. We’ve made 
the administrative studies and many administrative prob­
lems are created because of this. We have gone about the 
job of trying to increase the finances in order to hold the 
quality of this program, in order that we can secure the 
quality of teacher that it takes in the face of the problem 
that we have. We made the provision to (71) strengthen 
the guidance program of the schools because the problem 
of guidance when we put the children together is an entirely 
different problem than we have on a segregated basis. It 
requires more ability in the creation of the class groups. 
It requires a better educational program in providing the 
guidance for the children, whether they be college-bound or 
terminally minded, in their program. All of those are 
problems that can not be done overnight, and we are trying 
to do that job in all good faith in line with the stated policy 
of the Board.



80

The Transcript of Proceedings

Q. Very well, Mr. Blossom, I want to ask you at this 
time if the schools in the Little Bock School District are 
crowded? A. Yes, sir, they are.

Q. Is the population in the area of the Little Bock School 
District increasing? A. The population of the school chil­
dren in Little Bock School District is increasing tremen­
dously. I believe I testified earlier in this that we had a 
six thousand increase in the last ten years, or 43% increase 
in our school population, and at the present time, for next 
year, we are preparing seventeen portable classrooms, 
frame construction. We have children in auditoriums. 
We have one school auditorium where we’ll have three 
(72) classes in it. We have other youngsters in basement 
classrooms, and that problem is terrific in this school dis­
trict. Now, in view of that, since 1953, this school district 
has built 276 additional classrooms, and we can say to you 
with all candor and honesty that many, many of our school 
children are in sub-standard classrooms, such as I have 
enumerated—-basement, auditorium, frame construction. 
Every time you have to take the auditorium you take away 
from the quality of that child’s educational program and 
that’s a terrific problem. The remedy for that requires 
time, but in all good faith we have been doing that job.

Q. Do you need new construction at the present time? 
A. Oh, yes, sir; yes, sir. We just begun if you want to 
know the honest truth of it. At the present time, aside 
from the new high school we have three elementary schools 
involved, additions to three others, that we do have to 
provide. Looking into the immediate future we need other 
additional elementary schools and we need more junior 
high schools. That problem is not—we’re not alone in that, 
but we have one of the most aggravated situations in our 
State and about as much as any place I know with the tre­
mendous growth. We increased two thousand enumerates 
at this time over our last enumeration. One example of 
what the problem is, we had 480 teachers when (73) I came



81

The Transcript of Proceedings

here three and a half years ago, we’ll open next year with 
741. Now the procuring of those teachers is a tremen­
dous job.

Q. Could you tell us then that, based on these considera­
tions, that you have just detailed this morning, that time 
is required in order to place integration in operation in the 
Little Rock School District? A. I believe time is the only 
thing that can make this program succeed; time for facili­
ties—time for financial adjustment—time for the selection 
of teachers. All of those things that I have just enumerated. 
Time to educate the public, the public interest; the preserva­
tion of education is at stake in it as far as I can see—that’s 
personal opinion with me. Now with our physical facili­
ties, we could integrate the races—yes; but we could not 
do that second job that’s implied by the Supreme Court 
Decision itself, maintain the standards that are so neces­
sary in the lives of our children and in the life of this 
nation.

Q. Do you think, Mr. Blossom, that the three-phase 
program will, in the long-run, save time in complete integra­
tion? A. Yes, sir, I think it will save time; I think it’s just 
as logical as night follows day, if all of us want to accept 
the responsibility that we have to provide as good or better 
program than we have, it’s the most expeditious (74) way 
that I know to do this job.

Q. Of course, as in all more or less controversial mat­
ters, there are two extremes of thought on the subject, I 
know— A. Well, I ’ve had experience with that in a good 
many instances in this community. There are some who 
think that the phase plan is too slow, that it’s just no good; 
there are others who feel that any time is too soon. Now 
that’s no question in the law, as far as I ’m concerned and 
as far as our policy is concerned, but it certainly is a prob­
lem administratively that reaches into the lives of our 
pupils and our parents that creates problems in every one 
of the fourteen points I ’ve enumerated. Now in our athletic



82

The Transcript of Proceedings

program and in our club program, the extra-curricular pro­
gram which is a part of the total education of a child, that 
becomes a very difficult administrative problem. It becomes 
a difficult problem in the selection and procurement of 
teachers and the training of them for that program. All 
of it is important.

Q. Do you have a list of all of the schools in Little Eoclc 
with the numbers of rooms that each school has and the 
number of pupils that are attending each school ? A. I have 
a chart here that I could show that I think.

Q. All right. That is offered, your Honor, to show the 
size of the program that’s involved in connection with inte­
gration. (75)

The Court: All right.
Q. And it’s offered as Defendants’ Exhibit M.

(Thereupon, the chart referred to is marked De­
fendants’ Exhibit M, received in evidence and made 
a part of this record.)

A. That exhibit, Mr. Catlett, is prepared on the basis of the 
administrative set-up of our school, namely, a six-three- 
three program of education—three years senior high school, 
a three-year junior high school and six-year elementary 
program. The high schools are projected on the basis of 
the time integration will begin and the junior high schools 
on the basis of the present program on a tentative basis. 
Those are the actual elementary schools, with the number 
of rooms and every room is occupied with a teacher.

Mr. Catlett: I t ’s offered as Defendants’ Exhibit 
“M”

The Court: All right.

Q. Mr. Blossom, do you consider that the three-phase 
plan that you have spoken of this morning is the most har-



83

The Transcript of Proceedings

monious (76) and expeditious solution to the problem? 
A. Without reservation, Mr. Catlett. If I knew, or our 
Staff knew, of a better way to do it, I think in all candor 
and honesty that we would have presented that plan instead 
of this one. This plan has been developed, just like I 
advised you, with consideration to the principles involved, 
with full recognition of the problems as we saw them and 
we have tried to evolve this as the most satisfactory plan 
to do the jobs that we have outlined.

Q. And you previously stated that it has for the most 
part met with popular approval of both races as the best 
plan that could be devised? A. It is my opinion that it has 
been real well accepted by those people who have heard an 
explanation of it, and a great many people have heard that 
explanation, and a great many people of both races have 
heard that explanation, and we have carried that explana­
tion to anybody that would like to hear it. We’ve had con­
ferences with individuals and groups on this.

Q. All right. You are now, in good faith, endeavoring 
to integrate the schools of the Little Rock School District 
in accordance with the terms and conditions and the time 
schedule as set forth in the plan? (77) A. Yes, sir.

Considering the educational, economic, financial and 
racial problems involved, and other pertinent factors, do 
you consider the plan peculiarly fit and suitable for the 
Little Rock School District? A. I would like to say some­
thing about that if it’s all right with the Judge. Certainly 
my responsibility lies nowhere except Little Rock, but any 
attempt, in my opinion, to set up a master pattern and say 
“this is the way to desegregate anybody’s school”, is the 
greatest mistake that you could make and no plan, in my 
opinion, has any more merit than the type of plan that is 
based on this type of study for the particular problem con­
cerned, and in light of the principles and the policies that 
we have stated. Now, as far as Little Rock School District 
is concerned, we think this offers a reasonable, deliberate,



84

The Transcript of Proceedings

solution to our problem, and we offer it as no solution to 
anything else, and we think that any other approach than 
to fit a plan to a specific set of children, conditions, facili­
ties, finance, would be foolhardy. We think there is just 
one way, and that’s to make the specific studies, to take the 
time to do the job in all of the problems concerned.

Q. Do you think that the plan will best serve the educa­
tional needs of both races'? (78) A. Yes, sir, I surely do.

Q. Do you think an unreasonably hasty integration would 
be unwise, unworkable and fraught with danger? A. As I 
see it, Mr. Catlett, there are many danger signals that 
should be crystal-clear to anybody on this problem. I don’t 
think it’s necessary for me to enumerate what those danger 
signals are, but in the process of carrying out the assign­
ment of this school district, of explaining generally and in 
detail this plan, I have had conferences with groups and 
with individuals of both races and on a mixed bases about 
this plan. As a result of that, and as a result of the ex­
tremes, one not wanting any, another group wanting it 
right now, to me the deliberateness of this plan, the good 
faith in it, the consideration of the fundamental responsi­
bility in the law, and to the law, and our responsibility to 
educational standards, as I ’ve said heretofore, offers the 
best way through what is one of the most difficult problems 
that we have ever had, and any unwise, hasty integration 
can upset that thing which has been most important in the 
life of this nation and in this school district, and I think 
the result of anything except deliberateness and considera­
tion of every problem, and knowing as crystal-clear as you 
can where you are going on everything you are doing, (79) 
would be most unwise. Now, those problems that exist are 
not a part of the law, but they do create administrative 
problems, and they bring problems into lives of the children 
we have to deal with, in the parents that we have to deal 
with, in the training of the teachers, and everything stands



85

The Transcript of Proceedings

out, and just says to me, if there is anything that you should 
go slow on and take your time, this is it.

Q. Hasty integration then would retard the educational 
opportunities for both races ? A. In my opinion that would 
result and we have concrete examples of that in the United 
States today.

Q. You think then that the time schedule set up in the 
plan as you have outlined it is the most practical and the 
most feasible and the one that will save our educational 
attainments for both races! A. That is my unqualified 
opinion.

Q. Mr. Blossom, you testified regarding population in­
crease, I recall! A. Yes, sir.

Q. Are there any shifts in the population from one of 
your attendance areas to the other and, if so, what is the 
effect of those shifts, what will be the effect and what is 
(80) the effect on the plan! A. In Little Rock School Dis­
trict, we make these studies every year, we keep them cur­
rent, and the year-to-year changes that take place in those 
maps show that we are having tremendous population 
shifts. Now they are tremendously important to us in two 
or three ways—first, will the facilities that we have serve 
the children in all of the areas ? We have to cheek that off 
every year to see that we have the seats and the equipment 
and instructional supplies where the children are, and in 
the second place, those population shifts cause us to have 
to make the studies to provide the facilities where the 
children are going to be. It leaves us sometimes with school 
facilities that have been in great demand as far as children 
and school population is concerned. We have been left in 
isolation where they do not serve. Now a good example of 
that is in this first statement when we said that we would 
build this high school in all good faith, as a result of the 
money we had left, plus the sale of the old Peabody School 
site, this right here to the left of us. Now we discarded 
that school for the simple reason that the school population,



86

The Transcript of Proceedings

because of population (81) shift, bad reduced in that at­
tendance area to the extent that thirty per cent of the chil­
dren in that school lived in that area; seventy per cent of 
them came from the extremities of the school district. Now, 
that’s a very aggravated problem, but it’s not an uncommon 
problem, and we have it in many parts of the city and it 
changes from one year to the other and with the growth and 
the shift of population that we have now, it is necessary to 
stay on top of that problem constantly in order that we have 
the school facilities where the children are. The problem 
will be present in the same form under an integrated sys­
tem, we know that; that integration itself can have a part 
of it.

Q. Is there a shift at the present time in the colored 
population areas in Little Rock? A. There are four gen­
erally large areas where the colored population is located 
in the city of Little Rock. One of them, the largest one, is 
known as the Dunbar and Gibbs area; another one is known 
as the East End of Carver School area; another is the area 
at the foot of Main Street in the vicinity of the Washing­
ton School; another in the area of the Booker Homes or 
Granite Mountain School area. Now, those are the four 
areas. Generally our population studies show that there 
is a (82) tendency for the colored population to move to 
the East and to the South and into those four areas. The 
year-to-year projection shows that. By the same token it 
shows that there is a movement of the whites to the West 
and fanning out in the West end, on out the old Hot Springs 
Highway and Highway 10. Yes, there’s a definite move­
ment of both.

Q. Of course that presents problems? A. Presents a 
terrific problem.

Q. Without defining the comparative intelligence quo­
tient, did the results of your tests that you say you took 
present problems to be solved in arranging teachable 
groups?



87

The Transcript of Proceedings

Mr. Tate: We’re going to object to that.
The Court: I ’ll overrule that objection. I think 

he’s already answered the question. I construed his 
testimony awhile ago to touch that very point. That 
was the reason why 1 sustained the objection of coun­
sel awhile ago as to the first part of the question, but 
I  thought the witness covered the other phase. After 
all is said and done, you know we all have to take 
some judicial knowledge of (83) some common in­
formation that we read about and know about and 
all of that, and—

Mr. Catlett: Your Honor, I was trying to show 
from this witness that, for the most part, those stu­
dents who go to the Horace Mann High School, in 
all likelihood, will not be as great a number that go 
on to college as those that will go to the new West 
End—

The Court: I think that would depend all together 
on situations that would develop in the future. I 
don’t care about going into that. I don’t think it’s 
relevant to this particular question. I think the 
witness has covered it pretty thoroughly.

Mr. Catlett: All right, sir. * * *

Cross-examination:

The attendance areas with respect to various schools 
are developed each year, but with integration an extra 
problem arises because of grouping of persons in an 
integrated as contrasted to a segregated system (88). 
The real problem is to make sure that there are no 
more children in the attendance area than the school 
can serve and the race factor gives to the schools 
responsibility to provide a high standard of educa­
tion. The fact that Negro and white children are to be



88

The Transcript of Proceedings

in the same attendance area creates an administrative 
problem—race reflects the child’s individual needs as they 
differ,, the state of achievement of one child or group when 
the time comes to group the children for instructional pur­
poses (92). The records have to be changed. The school 
population growth, and its mobility, need for greater 
facilities and more teachers and every other problem of 
the school system mentioned have nothing to do with' 
integration but are common to any educational program. 
The school board has enough money so its program is not 
delayed by that any longer (97); enough junior high schools 
to physically integrate now (99). Negro IQ range is 
50-140; white 50-150; children are grouped with enough 
homogeneity for efficient classroom management and plan­
ning. Negroes at 50-140 and whites at 50-140. There 
are white children of 140 in same class with whites at 
150, and it would not hurt to put a Negro with 140. The 
mixing of Negro and white children will create problems 
whenever it is done, but the waiting gives time for under­
standing (106). The estimated beginning date is 1957, 
and at the end of year the school board will examine the 
program to determine whether educational standards have 
been kept or what changes are needed (107). The attend­
ance area served by West End High School is completely 
white (110). As far as housing is concerned the East Side 
and Sunbar Junior High School areas could be integrated 
now as would the Central and Horace Mann Schools. 
Integration changes the structure of the school system 
and the problem of creating a group of teachable children 
is greater. The policy of the school board is for children 
to attend school in the attendance area in which they live 
(125). The three phase program is about the best that 
can be devised for the community. Integration at senior 
high will start with the 1957-58 school year, and the earliest 
date for junior high would be 1959-60 or 1960-61; he would 
need 2-3 years to get that program underway at the junior



89

The Transcript of Proceedings

high before going to elementary which means 1964-65 for 
elementary grades. Continued segregation based on phase 
program is not harmful (138)—estimates between 5-7 years 
to complete the program (142). There is a difference in 
the races which affects school achievement of the children 
and this presents problems of curricula planning (146-7).

Defendants Rested
Dr. W. G. Cooper, Pres, of School Board, called by 

plaintiff. The board has requested Dr. Blossom to work 
out a plan, which the board has approved and implemented 
as much as it thought advisable. That board feels integra­
tion should start at senior high in 1957, commence in junior 
high in 1960-61 and thereafter in elementary schools.

Plaintiff Rested and cause submitted.



pfg

asapa

:: - ■ s/S

l llillt t i

is

.
.

illl

_______