Briggs v. Elliot Transcript of Record

Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.

Download

By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:

For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):

Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.

LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.

If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.

NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.

Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.

I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.

If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at

Collection
- Brief Collection
Taxonomy
Identifier
- 33585387-b69a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873

Cite this item

Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Briggs v. Elliot Transcript of Record, 1952. 33585387-b69a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/8d83fc6d-3945-43b1-b7ed-577d5b6f0490/briggs-v-elliot-transcript-of-record. Accessed October 09, 2025.

Copied!

TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD

S u p re m e C o u r t o f th e U n ite d S ta tes

OCTOBER TERM, 1952

N o. 101

HARRY BRIGGS, JR., ET AL., APPELLANTS,

vs.

R. W. ELLIOTT, CHAIRMAN, J. D. CARSON, ET AL.,
MEMBERS OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF SCHOOL
DISTRICT No. 22, CLARENDON COUNTY, S. C.,
ET AL.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

FILED JUNE 3, 1952

Probable jurisdiction noted June 9, 1952

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1951

N o. 101

HARRY BRIGGS, JR., ET AL., APPELLANTS,

vs.

R. W. ELLIOTT, CHAIRMAN, J. D. CARSON, ET AL.,
MEMBERS OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF SCHOOL
DISTRICT No. 22, CLARENDON COUNTY, S. C.,
ET AL.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

INDEX
Original Print

Record from U.S.D.C. for tlie Eastern District of South
Carolina, Charleston Division............................................... 1 1

Caption ................................................. (omitted in printing) . .
Complaint ......................................................................... 2 1
Answer ................................................................................ 14 12

Exhibit “ A ”— Petition of plaintiffs dated Novem
ber 11, 1949 to the Board of Trustees, etc.......... 21 IS

Exhibit “ B”— Decision o f the Board .................... 27 23
Transcript o f testimony at trial, May 28-29, 1951........ 37 30

Caption ....................................................................... 37 30
Appearances ............................................................. 37 30

Colloquy between court and counsel.............................. 38 30
Opening statement on behalf of plaintiff.............. 45 35

Judd & Dbtweile® (InO.), P rinters, W ashington , D. C., J uly 10, 1952.

— 2805

11 INDEX

Record from U.S.D.C. for the Eastern District of South
Carolina, Charleston Division— Continued

Colloquy between court and counsel— Continued Original Print
Testimony of L. B. McCord .................................... 48 37

R. W . Elliott...................................... 56 43
Matthew J. Whitehead .................... 62 47
Harold McNalley .............................. 99 70
Ellis O'. Knox .................................... 106 75
Kenneth Clark .................................. 116 83
James L. H upp................................ : 138 97
Louis Kesselmann.............................. 144 101
E. R. Crow.......................................... 151 105
H. B. Betchman.................................. 173 120
Devid Krech ...................................... 192 132
Mrs. Helen T ra ger ............................ 198 136

Colloquy between court and counsel...................... 217 148
Testimony of Dr. Robert Redfield from the ease

of Sweatt vs. Painter et al.................................... 230 156
Reporter’s certificate.............. (omitted in printing) . . 310
Opinion, Parker, C. J., filed June 23, 1951.................. 317 176
Dissenting opinion, Waring, J ........................................ 337 190
Decree ........................................................................... 358 209
Appeal papers on first appeal. . (omitted in printing) 360
Report of defendants pursuant to decree dated June

21, 1951 ........................................................................... 438 211
Appendix A— Architect’s drawing o f proposed

addition of Scotts Branch Schools...................... 451 222
Appendix B— Amended building survey and re

port of the Summerton area schools, December
1951 ......................................................................... 453 223

Appendix C— Statistical synopsis of the immediate
and ultimate results of the construction and re
modeling program of School District No. 1. . . . 469 235

Appendix D— November 1951 issue of “ The
Eagle” , student body publication of Scott’s
Branch High School ............................................ 472 239

Order transmitting defendants’ report to United
States Supreme Court ................................................. 488 255

Per curiam opinion o f Supreme Court, dated January-
28, 1952 ......................................................................... 489 256

Plaintiffs’ motion for judgment....................................... 491 258
Order setting date of second hearing for February 29,

1952 ................................................................................. 495 260
Order continuing hearing until March 3, 1952................ 496 261
Clerk’s note re letter of John J. Parker, etc................... 497 261
Letter of John J. Parker, February 9, 1952 to Judges

Waring and Timmerman and reply of Judge War
ing (omitted in printing)............................................. 499

Motion that R. W. Elliott, et al.be made parties to the
suit, etc......................................................... 500 262

INDEX 111

Record from U.S.D.C. for the Eastern District o f South
Carolina, Charleston Division— Continued

Report of the defendants supplementary to the report
filed December 20, 1951.................................................

Copy of House Bill No. 2065..................................
Letter dated .February 15, 1952, E. R. Crow, Di

rector of the State Educational Finance Com
mission to Governor Byrnes................................

Transcript of hearing March 3, 1952..............................
Reporter’s certificate.............. (omitted in printing) . .
Opinion, Parker, C. J., filed March 13, 1952..................
Decree .................................................................................
Petition for appeal ...........................................................
Order allowing appeal .....................................................
Citation on appeal.................. (omitted in printing) . .
Assignment of errors and prayer for reversal..............
Statement required by Rule 12 of the rules o f the Su

preme Court (omitted in printing)............................
Praecipe for transcript.....................................................
Designation of additional portions of the record to be

included in transcript ...................................................
Clerk’s certificate.................... (omitted in printing) . .

Stipulation as to printing.........................................................
Statement of points to be relied upon upon and designation

of parts of record to be printed..........................................
Order noting probable jurisdiction........................................

Original Print

503 263
507a 268

507b 270
508 271
559
562 301
568 306
570 307
573 309
576
578 311

580
660 312

663 314
673
674 314

676 315
678 316

[Caption Omitted]

[File endorsement omitted]

[fol. 1]

[fol. 2]

IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN D I S T R I C T OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
CHARLESTON DIVISION

Civil Action No. 2657

H arry B riggs, Jr., T h om as L ee B riggs and K ath erin e
B riggs, Infants, by Harry Briggs, Their Father and Next
Friend and Thomas Gamble, an Infant by Harry Briggs,
His Guardian and Next Friend,

W illiam G ibson , Jr., M axin e G ibson , H arold G ibson and
Julia Ann Gibson, Infants, by Anne Gibson, Their
Mother and Next Friend,

M itch ell Oliver and B ichard A llen Oliver , Infants, by
Mose Oliver, Their Father and Next Friend,

Celestine P arson , an Infant by B en n ie P arson , Her
Father, and Next Friend,

S h irley R agin and D elores R agin , Infants, by E dward
R agin , Their Father and Next Friend,

G len R agin , an In fan t, b y W illiam R ag in , His F a th er and
N ext F rien d ,

E lane R ichardson and E m a n u el R ichardson , Infants, b y
Luchrisher Richardson, Their Father and Next Friend,

J am es R ichardson , C harles R ichardson , D orothy R ic h
ardson and Jackson Richardson, Infants, b y Lee Rich
ardson, Their Father and Next Friend,

D an iel B e n n e t t , J o h n B en n ett and Clifton B e n n e t t ,
Infants, by James H. Bennett, Their Father and Next
Friend,

Louis Oliver , J r ., an Infant, b y M ary Oliver , His Mother
and Next Friend,

Gardeneia S tu k e s , W illie M. S tu k e s , Jr., and Louis W.
S tu k e s , Infants by Willie M. Stukes, Their Father and
Next Friend,

3
/

J oe N ath an H en r y , Charles R. H en ry , E ddie L ee H enry
and Phyllis A. Henry, Infants, by G. H. Henry,
Father and Next Friend,

x .

6o1— 101

y [fol. 3] Cabbie G eorgia and J ervine G eorgia, Infants, by
Robert Georgia, Tbeir Father and Next Friend,

I R ebecca I. R ichbu rg , an Infant, by R ebecca R ich bu rg , Her
I Mother and Next Frned.

M ary L. B e n n e t t , L il l ia n B e n n ett and J o h n M cK en zie ,
Infants, by Gabrial Tyndal, Their Father and Next
Friend,

E ddie L ee L aw son and S usan A n n L aw son , Infants, by
Susan Lawson, Their Mother and Next Friend.

? y W illie Oliver and M ary Oliver , Infants, b y F rederick
Oliver , Their Father and Next Friend,

H ercules B e n n ett and H ilton .B e n n e t t , Infants, b y
Onetha Bennett, Their Mother and Next Friend,

Z elia R agin and S arah E llen R ag in , Infants, b y H azel
R agin , Their Mother and Next Friend,

\ >-Irene S cott, an Infant, by Henry Scott, Her Father and
Next Friend, Plaintiffs,

vs.
R. W. E l lio tt , Chairman, J. L. Carson and G eorge K e n

n edy , Members of Board of Trustees of School District
#22, Clarendon County, S. C.; Summerton High School
District, a Body Corporate; L. B. McCord, Superintend
ent of Education for Clarendon County and Chairman
A. J. Plowden, W. E. Baker, Members of the County
Board of Education for Clarendon County; and LI. B.
Betchman, Superintendent of School District #22, De
fendants

[fol. 4] C o m plain t—Filed December 22, 1950
1. (a) The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under

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

(b) The jurisdiction of this Court is also invoked under
Title 28, United States Code, section 1343. This action is
authorized by the Act of April 20, 1871, Chapter 22, section

1, 17 Stat. 13 (Title 8, United States Code, section 43), to be
commenced by any citizen of the United States or other
persons within the jurisdiction thereof to redress the depri
vation, under color of a state law, statute, ordinance, regu
lation, custom or usage, of rights, privileges and immunities
secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution
of the United States, section 1, and by the Act of May 31,
1870, Chapter 114, section 16, 16 Stat. 144 (Title 8, United
States Code, section 41) providing for the equal rights of
citizens and of all other persons within the jurisdiction of
the United States, as hereinafter more fully appears.

(c) The jurisdiction of this Court is further invoked
under Title 28, United States Code, section 2281. This is
an action for a permanent injunction restraining the en
forcement, operation and execution of provisions of the
Constitution and statutes of the State of South Carolina
by restraining action of defendants, officers of such state,
in the enforcement and execution of such constitutional
provisions and statutes as will appear more fully herein
after.

2. This is a proceeding for a declaratory judgment under
Title 28, United States Code, section 2201, for the purpose
[fol. 5] of determining questions in actual controversy be
tween the parties, to wit:

(a) The question whether Article II, section 7 of the
Constitution of South Carolina (1895) and section 5377 of
the Code of Laws of South Carolina of 1942 which prohibit
infant plaintiffs from attending the only public schools of
Clarendon County, South Carolina affording an education
equal to that afforded all other qualified students who are
not Negroes and which force said plaintiffs to attend segre
gated public elementary and secondary schools set apart
for Negroes in said Clarendon County, South Carolina are
unconstitutional and void as a violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(b) The question whether the policy, custom, practice
and usage of defendants, and each of them, in denying on
account of race and color, the infant plaintiffs and other
Negro children of public school age residing in Clarendon
County, South Carolina, educational opportunities, ad
vantages and facilities in the public elementary and second-

ary schools of Clarendon County, South Carolina, including
those hereinafter specified, equal to the educational oppor
tunities, advantages and facilities afforded and available
to white children of public school age, similarly situated, is
unconstitutional and void, as being a denial of the equal
protection of the laws guaranteed under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution to the United States.

(c) The question whether the policy, custom, practice
and usage of defendants, and each of them, in denying on
account of race and color, the adult plaintiffs and other-
parents and guardians of Negro children of public school
age, similarly situated, residing in Clarendon County,
South Carolina, rights and privileges of sending their chil
dren to public schools in Clarendon County, South Caro
lina, with educational opportunities, advantages and facili
ties, including those hereinafter specified, equal to the edu-
[fol. 6] cational opportunities, advantages and facilities
afforded and available to white children of public school
age is unconstitutional and void, as being a denial of the
equal protection of the laws guaranteed under the Four
teenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

3. (a) Infant plaintiffs Harry Briggs, Jr., Thomas Lee
Briggs, Katherine Briggs, Thomas Gamble, William Gibson,
Jr., Maxine Gibson, Harold Gibson, Julia Ann Gibson, Mit-
chel Oliver, Richard Allen Oliver, Celestine Parson, Shirley
Ragin, Dolores Ragin, Glen Ragin, Elane Richardson, Em
manuel Richardson, James Richardson, Charles Richardson,
Dorothy Richardson, Jackson Richardson, Daniel Bennett,
John Bennett, Clifton Bennett, Louis Oliver, Jr., Gardeneia
Stukes, Willie M. Stukes, Jr., Louis W. Stukes, Joe Nathan
Henry, Charles R. Henry, Eddie Lee Henry, Phyllis A.
Henry, Carrie Georgia, Jervine Georgia, Rebecca I. Rich-
burg, Mary L. Bennett, Lillian Bennett, John McKenzie,
Eddie Lee Lawson, Susan Ann Lawson, Willie Oliver, Mary
Oliver, Hercules Bennett, Hilton Bennett, Zelia Ragin,
Sarah Ellen Ragin, and Irene Scott are among those gen
erally classified as Negroes; are citizens of the United
States and of the State of South Carolina. They are within
the statutory age limits of eligiblity to attend the public
schools of Clarendon County, South Carolina. They satisfy
all the requirements for admission to such schools and are

in fact attending public schools under the supervision,
operation and control of the defendants. These plaintiffs
comprise two general categories, viz., those who are eligible
to attend and are attending public elementary schools and
those who are eligible to attend and are attending public
secondary schools in Clarendon County, South Carolina,
both types of schools being under the direct supervision,
operation and control of defendants.

(b) Adult plaintiffs Harry Briggs, Anne Gibson, Mose
Oliver, Bennie Parson, Edward Ragin, William Ragin,
Luchrisher Richardson, Lee Richardson, James H. Bennett,
[fol. 7] Mary Oliver, Willie M. Stukes, G. H. Henry, Robert
Georgia, Rebecca Richburg, Gabrial Tyndal, Susan Law-
son, Frederick Oliver, Onetha Bennett, Hazel Ragin and
Henry Scott are among those classified as Negroes; are
citizens of the United States and of the State of South
Carolina; are residents of and domiciled in Clarendon
County, South Carolina. They are taxpayers of Clarendon
County, of the State of South Carolina, and of the United
States. They are guardians and parents of the infant
plaintiffs referred to in the paragraph above and designated
in the caption of this bill, and are required by the laws of
the State of South Carolina to send their children under
their charge and control to public or private schools.

4. Plaintiffs bring this action in their own behalf and in
behalf of all other Negro children attending the public
schools in the State of South Carolina, and their parents
and guardians, similarly situated and affected with refer
ence to the matters here involved. They are so numerous
as to make it impracticable to bring them all before the
court. There being common questions of law and fact, a
common relief being sought, as will hereafter more fully
appear, plaintiffs present this action as a class action, pur
suant to Rule 23 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro
cedure.

5. (a) Defendant, County Board of Education of Clar
endon County, South Carolina, exists pursuant to the laws
of the State of South Carolina as an administrative depart
ment of the State discharging governmental functions.
(Code of Laws of South Carolina of 1942, section 5316).
Defendants A. J. Plowden and W. E. Baker are members of

the aforesaid Board and are being sued in their official
capacity.

(b) Defendant, L. B. McCord is chairman of the County
Board of Education of Clarendon County and County Super
intendent of Schools. He holds office pursuant to the laws
of South Carolina as an administraive officer of the State,
charged with overall supervision and government of the
[fol. 8] public schools maintained and operated within the
County of Clarendon. (Code of Laws of South Carolina of
1942, sections 5301, 5303, 5306, 5316) He is being sued in
his official capacity.

(c) Defendant, the Board of Trustees of School District
#22 of Clarendon County, South Carolina exists pursuant
to the laws of South Carolina as an administrative depart
ment of the State, discharging governmental functions,
specifically the maintenance and operation of the public
schools in District #22. (Code of Laws of South Carolina
of 1942, section 5238)

(d) Defendant, R. W. Elliott, is chairman of the Board
of District #22 and of Board of Trustees of Summerton
High School District; defendant J. D. Carson is a member
of the Board of Trustees of School District #22 and Secre
tary of the Board of Trustees of Summerton High School
District; and defendant George Kennedy is a member of
Board of Trustees of District #22 and of the Board of
Trustees of Summerton High School District: all three de
fendants hold office pursuant to sections 5328, 5343 and
5405 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina of 1942. All
are being sued in their official capacity.

(e) Defendant, J. B. Betchman is the Superintendent
of Schools of School District #22. He is the executive officer
of the Board of Trustees of School District #22, charged
with the responsibility of maintaining, managing and gov
erning the public schools in the aforesaid District in accord-
[fol. 9] ance with the rules, regulations and policy laid down
by the Board of Trustees. He is being sued in his official
capacity.

(f) Defendant, the Summerton High School District is a
body corporate pursuant to sections 5404, 5405, 5409 and
5412 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina of 1942 and is
being sued as such.

6. (a) The State of South Carolina has declared public
education a state function. The Constitution of South
Carolina, Article II, section 5, provides:

“ Free Public Schools—The General Assembly shall
provide for a liberal system of free public schools for
all children between the ages of six and twenty-one
years . . . ”

Pursuant to this mandate the General Assembly of South
Carolina has established a system of free public schools in
the State of South Carolina according to a plan set out in
Title 31, Chapter 122 of the South Carolina Code of 1942.
The Constitution of South Carolina, Article XI, Section 6
provides for the levying of taxes by the counties of South
Carolina for the purpose of financing public education in
the respective counties. Provision is also made for the dis
tribution of other state funds for this purpose.

7. The Constitution of South Carolina, Article II, sec
tion 7, provides:

“ Separate schools shall be provided for children
of the white and colored races, and no child of either
race shall ever be permitted to attend a school pro
vided for children of the other race. ’ ’

Section 5377 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina of
1942 provides:

“ It shall be unlawful for pupils of one race to attend
the schools provided by boards of trustees for persons
of another race. ”

8. The establishment, maintenance and administration of
public schools in Clarendon County, South Carolina is vested
[fol. 10] in the County Board of Education, County Super
intendent of Education, Board of Trustees and a Superin
tendent of Schools of each school district of the County.
(Constitution of South Carolina of 1895, Article II, sections
1 and 2, Code of Laws of South Carolina of 1942, sections
5301, 5316, 5328, 5404 and 5405)

9. The public schools of the County of Clarendon, South
Carolina, are under the direct control and supervision of
defendants acting as administrative departments or di-

visions of the State of South Carolina. (Code of Laws of
South Carolina 1942, sections 5301, 5328, 5404, 5405) De
fendants are under a duty to maintain an efficient system of
Public Schools in Clarendon County, South Carolina (Code
of Laws of South Carolina 1942, sections 5301, 5303 and
5328)

10. The defendants and each of them have at all times
enforced and unless restrained as the result of this action,
will continue to enforce the provisions of the Constitution
and laws of the State of South Carolina set out in paragraph
“ 7” , of this complaint. In enforcement of these provisions
the defendants have set up and are maintaining* one group
of elementary and high schools for all eligible students of
Clarendon County other than Negroes and another group of
schools for students considered to be of Negro descent.
This separation, segregation and exclusion is based solely
upon the race and/or color of the plaintiffs and those on
whose behalf this action is brought and is in violation of
the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the Constitution of the United States. No group of students
save those of Negro descent are excluded from the public
schools of Clarendon County set apart for “ white”
students.

11. The public schools of Clarendon County set apart for
white students and from which all Negro students are ex
cluded are superior in plant, equipment, curricula, and in
all other material respects to the schools set apart for
Negro students. The defendants by enforcing the pro-
[fol. 11] visions of the Constitution and laws of South Caro
lina as set out above exclude all Negro students from the
“ white” public schools and thereby deprive plaintiffs and
others on whose behalf this action is brought solely because
of race and color, of the opportunity of attending the only
public schools in Clarendon County where they can obtain
an education equal to that offered all qualified students who
are not of Negro descent.

12. The public school system in School District #22, and
in the Summerton High School District, Clarendon County,
South Carolina, is maintained on a segregated basis. White
children attend the Summerton Elementary School and
Summerton High School, Negro children are compelled to

attend the Scotts Branch High School, the Liberty Hill
Elementary School and the Rambay Elementary School
solely because of their race and color. The Scotts Branch
High School, Liberty Hill Elementary School and the Ram
bay Elementary School are unequal and inferior to the
Summerton High School and the Summerton Elementary
School maintained for white children of public school age.
In short, plaintiffs and other Negro children of public school
age in Clarendon County, South Carolina are being denied
equal educational advantages in violation of the Constitu
tion of the United States.

13. Plaintiffs have filed petitions with defendants, County
Board of Education of Clarendon County, County super
intendent of Schools and the Board of Trustees for School
District #22, requesting that defendants cease discriminat
ing against Negro children of public school age attending
public schools in Clarendon County, South Carolina and
defendants have failed and refused to cease discriminating
against plaintiffs and the class they represent solely be
cause of their race and color in violation of their rights to
equal protection of the laws provided by the Fourteenth
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

14. Plaintiffs and others similarly situated are suffering
irreparable injury and are threatened by irreparable in-
[fol. 12] jury in the future by reason of the acts herein com
plained of. They have no plain, adequate or complete
remedy to redress the wrongs and illegal acts herein com
plained of other than this suit for declaration of rights and
an injunction. Any other remedy to which plaintiffs and
those similarly situated could be remitted would be attended
by such uncertainties and delays as to deny substantial
relief, would involve a multiplicity of suits, cause further
irreparable injury and occasion damage, vexation and in
convenience not only to the plaintiff and those similarly situ
ated, but to defendants as governmental agencies.

15. Wherefore, plaintiffs respectfuly pray that upon the
filing of this complaint, as may appear proper and con
venient, the Court convene a three-judge court as required
by Article 28, United States Code, Section 2281, 2284, ad
vance this cause on the docket and order a speedy hearing

on this action according to law, and that upon such hear
ing :

1. This Court adjudge, decree and declare the rights
and legal relations of the parties to the subject mat
ter here in controversy in order that such declaration
shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or
decree.

2. This Court enter a judgment or decree declaring
that the policy, custom, practice and usage of defend
ants, and each of them, in denying on account of their
race and color, to infant plaintiffs and other Negro
children of public school age in Clarendon County,
South Carolina, elementary and secondary educational
opportunities, advantages and facilities equal to those
afforded to white children is a denial of the equal
protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

3. This Court enter a judgment or decree declaring
that the policy, custom, practice and usage of defend
ants, and each of them, in refusing to allow infant plain
tiffs, and other Negro children, to attend elementary
and secondary public schools in Clarendon County,
South Carolina which are maintained and operated ex-
[fol. 13] clusively for white children is a violation of
the equal protection of the laws as guaranteed under
the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States.

4. This Court enter a judgment or decree declaring
that Article II, section 7 of the Constitution of South
Carolina (1895) and section 5377 of the Code of Laws
of South Carolina of 1942 which require that infant
plaintiffs be forced to attend separate and segregated
schools solely because of their race and color is a denial
of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
and are therefore unconstitutional and void.

5. That the Court issue a permanent injunction for
ever restraining and enjoining the defendants, and
each of them, from denying, failing or refusing to pro
vide to infant plaintiffs and other Negro school chil
dren in Clarendon County, South Carolina, on account

of their race and color, rights and privileges of attend
ing public schools where they may receive educational
opportunities, advantages and facilities equal to these
afforded to white children.

6. That the Court issue a permanent injunction for
ever restraining and enjoining the defendants, and
each of them, from making any distinction based upon
race or color in making available to the plaintiffs what
ever opportunities, advantages and facilities are pro
vided by the defendants for the public education of
school children in Clarendon County, South Carolina.

7. That the Court issue a temporary and permanent
injunction restraining and enjoining the defendants
and each of them from operating, executing or enforcing
Article II, section 7 of the Constitution of South Caro
lina (1895) and section 5377 of the Code of Laws of
South Carolina of 1942.

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

Harold R. Boulware, 11091/2 Washington Street,
Columbia, S. C.; Robert L. Carter, Thurgood
Marshall, 20 West 40 Street, New York 18,
N. Y., Attorneys for Plaintiffs. (Seal.)

A True Copy. Attest: Ernest N. Allen, Clerk of
U. S. District Court, East Dist., So. Carolina.

Dated: December 19, 1950.

I n U nited S tates D istrict C ourt

[Title omitted]

A n sw er—Filed January 18, 1951
The defendants above named, answering the complaint

herein, respectfully show and allege:

For a First Defense:
1. That on information and belief the defendants admit

the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the complaint,
except so much thereof as alleges that the amount in con
troversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum
of $3,000, and so much of paragraph 1 of the complaint as
alleges that the plaintiffs, or any of them, have been de
prived of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the
Constitution of the United States or by the laws of the
United States, which on information and belief they deny.

2. The defendants deny the allegation contained in para
graph 2 of the complaint, and on the contrary allege and
show that the only matter in controversy between the plain
tiffs and the defendants is whether on account of race or
color the defendant The Board of Trustees for School
District No. 22, Clarendon County, South Carolina, had de
nied to plaintiffs schools and educational opportunities,
[fol. 15] advantages and facilities substantially equal to
those afforded white children attending the schools of
School District No. 22 in Clarendon County.

3. That on information and belief the defendants admit
the allegations contained in paragraph 3 (a), and on in
formation and belief admit the allegations contained in
paragraph 3 (b), of the complaint.

4. That on information and belief the defendants deny
the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the complaint.

5. Answering the allegations contained in paragraph
5 (a) of the complaint, they admit so much thereof as al
leges that the defendants A. J. Plowden and W. E. Baker
are members of the County Board of Education of Claren
don County, South Carolina, and that the said Board was

[fol. 14] [File endorsement omitted]

created by Section 5316 of the Code of Laws of South Caro
lina, 1942, and for its powers, duties and functions they
crave reference to the Constitution and Statutes of the
said State.

6. Answering the allegations contained in paragraph
5 (b), the defendant admit that the defendant L. B. McCord
is Chairman of the County Board of Education of Claren
don County and County Superintendent of Education of
the said county, and crave reference to the Constitution
and Statutes of the said State for his powers, duties and
functions.

7. Answering the allegations contained in paragraphs
5 (c) and 5 (d) of the complaint, they admit so much
thereof as alleges that the defendant R. W. Elliott is Chair
man of the Board of Trustees of School District No. 22 of
Clarendon County, South Carolina, and that the defend
ants J. D. Carson and George Kennedy are members of the
said Board, and that the defendant R. W. Elliott is the
Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Summerton High
School District, and that the Board of Trustees of School
District No. 22 of Clarendon County, South Carolina, ex
ists pursuant to the laws of South Carolina, and they crave
reference to the Constitution and Statutes of said State
for its fiowers, duties and functions.
[fol. 16] 8. Answering the allegations contained in para
graphs 5 (e) and 5 (f) of the complaint, they admit the
same.

9. Answering the allegations contained in paragraphs
6 (a), 7 and 8 of the complaint, they crave reference to the
Constitution and Statutes of the State of South Carolina
applicable to public education, the system of free public
schools, the establishment of separate schools for colored
and white persons, and the establishment, maintenance,
management, control and administration of the public
system in Clarendon County, South Carolina.

10. Answering the allegations contained in paragraph 9
of the complaint, they deny the same on information and
belief, and on the contrary allege and show that School
District No. 22 is by law under the management and con
trol of the Board of Trustees of the said school district,
and they crave reference to the Constitution and Statutes
of the State of South Carolina relating to and prescribing

the powers, duties and functions of the several defendants
in relation to the public schools in Clarendon County,
South Carolina, and in said School District No. 22 of the
said county.

11. Answering the allegations contained in paragraphs
10, 11 and 12 of the complaint, they admit so much thereof
as alleges that in obedience to the constitutional mandate
contained in Article 11, Section 7, of the Constitution of
South Carolina, separate schools are provided for the
children of the white and colored races, and that no child
of either race is permitted to attend a school provided for
children of the other race. They also admit so much thereof
as alleges that the Summerton Elementary School has been
provided in said district for white children, and that Scott’s
Branch High School, the Liberty Hill Elementary School,
and the Rambay Elementary School have been provided
for Negro children. They allege that the school known
as the Summerton High School is not a school of School
District No. 22, but is a school of Summerton High School
District, a separate corporate school district over which
the Board of Trustees of said School District No. 22 have
no control, which is attended by the white high school
children residing in School District No. 22, along with the
[fol. 17] white high school children of the other four school
districts which comprise such centralized high school dis
trict. They deny the remaining allegations contained in said
paragraphs, and on the contrary allege on information and
belief that the schools of School District No. 22 and the
educational opportunities provieed for Negro school chil
dren attending the schools of said district are substantially
equal to those provided for white school children attend
ing the schools of said district.

12. Answering the allegations contained in paragraph 13,
the defendants admit so much thereof as alleges that the
petition dated November 11, 1949, a copy of which is hereto
attached and marked “ Exhibit A ” and made a part hereof,
was filed by the plaintiffs. They deny on information and
belief so much of said paragraph as alleges that the plain
tiffs and the class they represent are discriminated against
solely because of their race and color, and that their right
to equal protection of the laws provided by the Fourteenth

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is
being violated. On the contrary, they allege on informa
tion and belief that the facts and circumstances relating
to the controversy between the plaintiffs and the defend
ants are as set forth and found in the decision of the Board
of Trustees of the said School District No. 22 filed Feb
ruary 20, 1950, a copy of which is hereto attached and
marked ‘ ‘ Exhibit B ’ ’ and made a part hereof.

13. That on information and belief they deny the allega
tions contained in paragraph 14.

For a Second Defense:
That this action is in part predicated upon the alleged

failure of the defendant The Board of Trustees for School
District No. 22, Clarendon County, South Carolina, and
the individual members comprising the same, to provide
schools and educational opportunities for colored school
children attending the schools of School District No. 22
in Clarendon County which are substantially equal to those
provided for the white school children attending the schools
of the said school district.
[fol. 18] That on the 9th day of February, 1950, the said
Board of Trustees of School District No. 22 held a hearing
upon a petition presented to said board by the plaintiffs
herein, a copy of which petition is hereto attached and
marked “ Exhibit A ” and made a part hereof, at ehich
hearing the plaintiffs as petitioners were represented by
and heard through their counsel.

That on the 20th day of February, 1950, the said Board
of Trustees of School District No. 22, after due considera
tion of the matters arid things set forth in the said peti
tion, made and filed its decision thereon, a copy of which
decision is hereto attached and marked “ Exhibit B ” and
made a part hereof.

That the matters and things set forth in the said peti
tion, and passed upon in the said decision, are matters of
local controversy between the Board of Trustees of the
said school district and the plaintiffs in reference to the
construction and administration of the school laŵ s, to de
termine which the County Board of Education of Claren
don County is by Section 5317 of the Code of Laws of

South Carolina, 1942, constituted a tribunal, with the power
to summon witnesses and take testimony, if necessary, and
make a decision which is binding upon the parties to the
controversy, with either of the parties having the right to
appeal to the State Board of Education under Sections
5281 and 5317 of the said Code of Laws, whose decision
“ shall be final upon the matter at issue.”

That the provision of school buildings is within the func
tions devolved by law upon the trustees of the respective
school districts of each county, and each school district is
by law placed under the management and control of the
board of trustees thereof, and the matters and things set
forth in the said petition and involved in this action are
matters of local controversy in reference to the construc
tion or administration of the school laws, for the determi
nation of which the administrative procedure and adminis
trative remedies are provided in said laws, so that adminis
trative means and power will exist to direct affirmative ac
tion on the part of boards of trustees in cases where it may
[fol. 19] be determined that they have not properly or law
fully constructed or administered the said school laws.

That the plaintiffs have taken no action to challenge
the validity or correctness of the decision of the Board of
Trustees of School District No. 22, filed on the 20th day
of February, 1950, before the County Board of Education of
Clarendon County, or to appeal the same to the State Board
of Education, and it is respectfully prayed and moved by the
defendants that the Court conclude and hold that this action
for a declaratory judgment should not be entertained and
decided by this Court unless and until the plaintiffs have
availed themselves of the administrative procedure and
remedies provided in and by the school laws of the State
of South Carolina.

For a Third Defense:
That this action is in part predicated upon the assertion

that Article 11, Section 7, of the Constitution of the State
of South Carolina, 1895, and Section 5377 of the Code of
Laws of South Carolina, 1942, providing that separate
schools shall be provided for children of the white and col
ored races, and prohibiting shildren of either race from

attending schools provided for children of the other race,
deny equal protection of the laws to the plaintiffs, in viola
tion of Article Fourteen of the Amendments to the Con
stitution of the United States.

That the State constitutional and statutory provisions re
ferred to were adopted in the exercise of the police power of
the State of South Carolina, and are a reasonable exercise
of such power, taking into account the established usages,
customs and traditions of the people of the said State, the
promotion of their comfort, and the preservation of the
public peace and good order.

That in and by said constitutional and statutory pro
visions the State of South Carolina has secured to each of
its citizens equal rights before the law and educational op
portunities, advantages and facilities which, while not iden
tical, are substantially equal.
[fol. 20] That the constitutional and statutory provisions
under attack herein, as a reasonable exercise of the State’s
police power under all of the considerations and circum
stances which it may in good faith take into account in
measures for the promotion of the public good, is valid
under the powers possessed by the State of South Carolina
under the Constitution of the United States, and cannot be
held unconstitutional by this Court.

Wherefore, Having fully answered the said complaint,
the defendants pray that the same be dismissed.

(S.) S. E. Rogers, Summerton, S. C. (S.) Robert
McC. Figg, Jr., 207 Peoples Office Building,
Charleston, S. C. Attorneys for the Defendants.

2—101

[ fo l . 21] “ E x h ib it A ” to A nsw er

P etition

S tate oe S o u th Carolin a ,
County of Clarendon:

T o : The Board of Trustees for School District Number 22,
Clarendon County, South Carolina, R. W. Elliott, Chair
man, J. D. Carson and George Kennedy, Members; The
County Board of Education for Clarendon County, South
Carolina, L. B. McCord, Chairman, Superintendent of
Education for Clarendon County, A. J. Plowden, W. E.
Baker, Members, and H. B. Betchman, Superintendent
of School District #22.

Your petitioners, Harry, Eliza, Harry, Jr., Thomas Lee,
Katherine Briggs, and Thomas Gamble; Henry, Thelma,
Vera, Beatrice, Willie, Marian, Ethel Mae and Howard
Brown; James Theola, Thomas Euralia and Joe Morris
Brown; Onetha, Hercules and Hilton Bennett; William,
Annie, William Jr., Maxine and Harold Gibson; Robert,
Carrie, Charlie and Jervine Georgia; Gladys and Joseph
Hilton; Lila Mae, Celestine and Juanita Huggins; Gussie
and Roosevelt Hilton; Thomas, Blanche E., Lillie Eva,
Rubie Lee, Betty J., Bobby M. and Preston Johnson; Susan,
Raymond, Eddie Lee and Susan Ann Lawson; Frederick,
Willie and Mary Oliver; Mose, Leroy and Mitchel Oliver;
Bennie, Jr., Plummie and Celestine Parson; Edward,
Sarah, Shirley and Deloris Ragin; Hazel, Zelia and Sarah
Ellen Ragin; Rebecca and Mable Ragin; William and Glen
Ragin; Lychrisher, Elane and Emanuel Richardson; Re
becca and Rebecca I. Richburg; E. E. and Albert Rich-
burg; Lee, Bessie, Morgan and Samuel Gary Johnson;
Lee, James, Charles, Annie L., Dorothy and Jackson
Richardson; Mary 0., Francis and Benie Lee Lawson;
Mary, Daisy and Louis, Jr., Oliver; Esther F. Singleton
and Janie Fludde; Henry, Mary and Irene Scott; Willie
M., Gardenia, Willie M. Jr., Gardenia, and Louis W.
Stukes; Gabriel and Annie Tindal, Mary L. and Lilliam
Bennett, children of public school age, eligible for elemen
tary and high school education in the public schools of
School District #22, Clarendon County, South Carolina,

their parents, guardians and next friends respectfully
represent:
[fol. 22] 1. That they are citizens of the United States
and of the State of South Carolina and reside in School
District #22 in Clarendon County and State of South
Carolina.

2. That the individual petitioners are Negro children of
public school age who reside in said county and school dis
trict and now attend the public schools in School District
#22, in Clarendon County, South Carolina, and their
parents and guardians.

3. That, the public school system in School District #22,
Clarendon County, South Carolina, is maintained on a
separate, segregated basis, with white children attending
the Summerton High School and the Summerton Elemen
tary School, and Neg*ro children forced to attend the Scott
Branch High School, the Liberty Hill Elementary School
or Rambay Elementary School solely because of their race
and color.

4. That the Scott’s Branch High School is a combination
of an elementary and high school, and the Liberty Hill and
Rambay Elementary Schools are elementary schools solely.

5. That the facilities, physical condition, sanitation and
protection from the elements in the Scott’s Branch High
School, the Liberty Hill Elementary School and Rambay
Elementary School, the only three schools to which Negro
pupils are permitted to attend, are inadequate and
unhealthy, the buildings and schools are old and over
crowded and in a dilapidated condition; the facilities,
physical condition, sanitation and protection from the
elements in the Summerton High in the Summerton
Elementary Schools in school district number twenty-two
are modern, safe, sanitary, well equipped, lighted and
healthy and the buildings and schools are new, modern,
uncrowded and maintained in first class condition.

6. That the said schools attended by Negro pupils have
an insufficient number of teachers and insufficient class
room space, whereas the white schools have an adequate
complement of teachers and adequate class room space for
the students.

7. That the said Scott’s Branch High School is wholly
deficient and totally lacking in adequate facilities for teach-

[fol. 23] ing courses in General Science, Physics and
Chemistry, Industrial Arts and Trades, and has no
adequate library and no adequate accom-odations for the
comfort and convenience of the students.

8. That there is in said elementary and high schools
maintained for Negroes no appropriate and necessary cen
tral heating system, running water or adequate lights.

9. That the Summerton High School and Summerton
Elementary School, maintained for the sole use, comfort
and convenience of the white children of said district and
county, are modern and accredited schools with central
heating, running water, adequate electric lights, library
and up to date equipment.

10. That Scott’s Branch High School is without services
of a janitor or janitors, while at the same time janitorial
services are provided for the high school maintained for
white children.

11. That Negro children of public school age are not
provided any bus transportation to carry them to and from
school while sufficient bus transportation is provided to
white children traveling to and from schools which are
maintained for them.

12. That said schools for Negroes are in an extremely
dilapidated condition, without heat of any kind other than
old stoves in each room, that said children must provide
their own fuel for said, stoves in order to have heat in the
rooms, and that they are deprived of equal educational
advantages with respect to those available to white children
of public school age of the samd district and country.

13. That the Negro children of the public school age in
School District #22 and in Clarendon County are being
discriminated against solely because of their race and color
in violation of their rights to equal protection of the laws
provided by the 14th amendment to the Constitution of the
United States.

14. That without the immediate and active intervention
of this Board of Trustees and County Board of Educa
tion, the Negro children of public school age of aforesaid
district and county will continue to be deprived of their
constitutional rights to equal protection of the laws and to
freedom from discrimination because of race or color in
the educational facilities and advantages which the said

[fol. 24] District #22 and Clarendon Comity are under a
duty to afford and make available to children of school age
within their jurisdiction.

Wherefore, Your petitioners request that: (1) the Board
of Trustees of School District Number twenty-two, the
County Board of Education of Clarendon County and the
Superintendent of School District #22 immediately cease
discriminating against Negro children of public school age
in said district and county and immediately make available
to your petitioners and all other Negro children of public
school age similarly situated educational advantages and
facilities equal in all respects to that which is being pro
vided for whites; (2) That they be permitted to appear
before the Board of Trustees of District #22 and before
the County Board of Education of Clarendon, by their
attorneys, to present their complaint; (3) Immediate action
on this request.

(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)

(Signed)

(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)

Dated 11 November 1949
Harry Briggs
Eliza Briggs
Harry Briggs, Jr.
Thomas Lee

̂Briggs
Katherine Eliza

Briggs
Thomas Gamble
Henry Brown
Thelma Brown
Yera Brown
Beatrice Brown
Willie II. Brown
Marion Brown
Ethel Mae Brown
Howard Brown
James Brown
Theola Brown
Thomas Brown
Euralia Brown
Joe Morris Brown
Onetha Bennett
Hercules Bennett

(Signed) Maxine Gibson
(Signed) Harold Gibson
(Signed) Robert Georgia
(Signed) Carrie Georgia
(Signed) Charlie Georgia
(Signed) Jervine Georgia
(Signed) Gladys E. Hilton
(Signed) Joseph Hilton
(Signed) Henrietta Hug

gins
(Signed) Lila Mae Huggins
(Signed) Celestine Huggins
(Signed) Juanita Huggins
(Signed) Gussie Hilton
(Signed) Roosevelt Hilton
(Signed) Thomas Johnson
(Signed) Blanch E. John

son
(Signed) Lillie Eva John

son
(Signed) Rubie Lee John

son
(Signed) Betty J. Johnson

[fol. 25] (Signed) Hilton C.
Bennett

(Signed) William Gibson
(Signed) Annie Gibson
(Signed) William Gibson,

Jr.
(Signed) Eddie Lee Law-

(Signed)

(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)

(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)

(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)

(Signed)
(Signed)

son
Snsan Ann Law-

son
Frederick Oliver
Willie Oliver
Mary Oliver
R. M. Mose Oliver
Leroy Oliver
Mitchel Oliver
Bennie Parson,

Jr.
Plummie Parson
Celestine Parson
Edward Ragin
Sarab Ragin
Shirley Eagin
Deloris Eagin
Hazel Eagin
Zelia Eagin
Sarah Ellen

Eagin
Eebecca Ragin
Mable Eagin
William Ragin
Ellen Ragin
Lnchrisker

Richardson
Elane Richardson
Emanuel L.

Richardson
Rebecca Riehburg
Rebecca I.

Riehburg
E. E. Riehburg
Albert Riehburg

''Signed)
f Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)

(Signed)

(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)

Lee Johnson
Bessie Johnson
Morgan Johnson
Samuel Gary

J ohnson
Bobby M. John

son
Preston Johnson,

Jr.
Susan Lawson
Raymon Lawson
Lee Richardson
James Richard

son
(Signed) Charles Richard

son
(Signed) Annie L. Rich

ardson
(Signed) Dorothy I. Rich

ardson
(Signed) Jackson Richard-

(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)

(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)

(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)
(Signed)

(Signed)

son
Mary 0. Lawson
Francis Lawson
Bennie Lee Law-

son
Mary J. Oliver
Daisy D. Oliver
Louis Oliver, Jr.
Esther F.

Singleton
Janie L. Fludde
Henry Scott
Mary Scott
Irene Scott
Willie M. Stukes
Gardenia Stukes
Willie Modd

Stukes, Jr.
Gardenia E.

Stukes
Louis W. Stukes

(Signed) Gabriel Tindal
(Signed) Annie S. Tindal
[fol. 26] Attorneys for Peti

tioners :
(Signed) Harold E. Boni-

ware

(Signed) Mary L. Bennett
(Signed) Lillian Bennett
(Signed) Thurgood Mar

shall
(Signed) Robert L. Carter

[fol. 27] “ E xhibit B ” t o A nswer

Before the Board of Trustees of School District No. 22
State oe South Carolina,

County of Clarendon:

In Re: H arry B riggs, et ah, Petitioners

Decision of the Board
This matter comes before the Board on the Petition of

Harry, Eliza, Harry, Jr., Thomas Lee, Katherine Briggs,
Thomas Gamble, and others, dated November 11, 1949; the
matters and things alleged in the Petition are clearly matter
of local controversy with reference to the construction and
administration of school laws, and clearly come within the
purview of Section 5317, 5343, 5358, and related sections of
the Code of Laws for South Carolina for 1942, and the
Board of Trustees has original jurisdiction to hear the mat
ters and things complained of. Accordingly, the Petitioners
were granted a hearing on the 9th day of February, 1950, at
which all of the members of the Board were present, and at
which the Petitioners were represented by Counsel, who
made an argument to the Board. Although an opportunity
was afforded to the Petitioners to introduce any testimony
relating to the allegations of the Petition, the Attorney for
the Petitioners, conceding that the Board was familiar with
all of the facts relating to the matters and things complained
of, did not offer testimony or other evidence of any kind
whatsoever.

After investigation and careful consideration, the Board
finds as follows: 1

1. The allegations of the first and second paragraphs of
the Petition are found to be true;

2. It is true that the public school system in School Dis
trict No. 22 is maintained on a separate and segregated basis
[fol. 28] as required by the Constitution and Laws of the
State of South Carolina, with the Negro children attending
schools maintained for them and the white children attend
ing schools maintained for them. The records of the district
show that there — 684 negro children of elementary school
age residing in, and attending the public schools of, School
District No. 22, and that there are 102 white children of
elementary school age residing in, and attending the public
schools of, School District No. 22. That likewise, there are
34 white children of high school age residing in School Dis
trict No. 22, and 150 negro children of high school age at
tending the public schools of School District No. 22; that
because of the great number of negro elementary school
students, the Board, in the exercise of its discretion and in
order to furnish education facilities which it deemed to be
to the greatest advantage and convenience of the children
and the patrons of th- school system, established and main
tains three elementary schools for negro children, located in
different parts of the District, to-wit: The Rambay Ele
mentary School, Liberty Hill Elementary School, and
Scott’s Branch Elementary School; because of the small
number of white elementary school children residing in
District 22, it was impracticable to operate and maintain
more than one elementary school for white children in the
District, and this is maintained in Summerton. The number
of negroes of High school age warranted the establishment
and maintenance of a high school in the District for negroes
and this is maintained in Summerton as the Scott’s Branch
High School. The number of white high school students
residing in the District would not, in the opinion of the
Trustees, warrant the maintenance of a high school for white
students by District No. 22; therefore, no high school for
white students is maintained;

3. The allegations of paragraph 4 are true;
[fol. 29] 4. With reference to the allegations of paragraph
5 of the Petition, the Rambay School was erected within the
last 6 years, the Liberty Hill School and the Scott’s Branch
School were erected less than 15 years ag*o; that these
schools were erected with the advice and co-operation of the
State Department of Education and according to the latest

approved plans for educational buildings in use at the time;
and in line with the trends for school buildings, are of one
storied construction for safety in the event of storm or fire,
with proper placement of windows for correct lighting for
student use for the prevention of eye strain, are strongly
constructed and storm sheeted, and in all respects were
properly constructed and maintained and are not in poor
physical condition or in a delapidated condition. The white
school, maintained by School District No. 22 in Summerton,
being the only one maintained by the District, is a two-
storied building made of sand block dug from the premises,
erected in 1907; improperly lighted and fails in every re
spect to meet the requirements of modern school architec
ture. A comparison of the white school and the colored
school in Summerton, both maintained by the District is
revealing. The white school as stated above is more than
43 years old, is a two-storied structure, contains 8 rooms, is
improperly lighted according to modern standards, is
antiquated, and its physical condition is such that it has
been a source of dissatisfaction to both patrons and trustees.
It was erected at an original cost of approximately $25,-
000.00, is now insured with the sinking fund for $28,000.00,
and there is a possibility of the insured value being cut even
lower than this. The Scott’s Branch School is less than 15
years old, is built according to approved plans for educa
tional buildings, taking into consideration the proper light
ing and protection from fire, contains in the main building
10 rooms and 3 additional rooms have been recently con
structed by the Trustees, making a total of 13 rooms avail
able. Its original cost was approximately $18,000.00 and
[fob 30] the building is now insured for $24,000.00. Neither
of the schools has a central heating system, both being
heated by individual stoves in the various rooms. The play
grounds provided and used in connection with Scott’s
Branch School are approximately 7 times the size of the
playgrounds of the white school. The white school is located
in one of the lowest areas in the Town, and on two highways
and on a Street over which passes the traffic of two main
North-South Highways. Since its erection, the shift of
white population has caused it to be most inconvenient and
hazardous. The Scott’s Branch High School is erected on
a site selected with advice of the patrons with due ragard for

the safety of the children and the convenience of the patrons.
A cursory inspection only will reveal that the facilities,
physical condition, equipment, safety, and protection from
the elements are accordingly better with the negro schools
than the whites, although the Trustees are of the opinion
that they are in all respects substantially equal;

With reference to sanitation, all of the negro schools are
provided with sanitary toilet facilities erected according to
the specifications of the State Health Department. These
same facilities were in use in the white schools until the
Town of Summerton installed a municipal water and sewer
age system. This system happens to service the area in
which the white school is located, and after its installation
by the municipal authorities, the Board of Trustees per
mitted the white Parent-Teacher Association to install sani
tary toilet facilities in two of the cloak rooms of the white
school. The municipal sewerage system does not serve the
area in which the Scott’s Branch School is situate, and no
such request has been received from the Patrons ’ organiza
tion of the Scott’s Branch School, and because of the fact
that the municipal system does not serve the area in which
[fob 31] Scott’s Branch School is located, it would be im
practicable for sanitary toilet facilities to be installed
therein. Certainly, however, there has been no discrimina
tion by the Board on account of color in its failure to provide
such facilities, first because the municipal sewer system is
not available, and second because the Board of Trustees did
not make the installation in the white school, but the same
was done by the patrons of the school. It is worth comment,
however, that although the municipal water system does not
serve the area in which the negro school is located, the
Board, at a great expense to itself, laid a water line from the
municipal system to the Scott’s Branch School for the pur
pose of furnishing municipal water, which is regularly in
spected, to the negro students, which line was installed and
terminated under the direction of the colored school au
thorities. The patrons of the white school, not the school
board, furnished drinking fountains for the white school.
There are no inside drinking fountains in the Scott’s Branch
School, but if the patrons desire to install them, there cer
tainly would be no objections to their being installed. The
School Board even went further and installed the outside

drinking fountains at the Scott’s Branch School, although
they did not do so at the white school;

5. With reference to the allegations of paragraph 6, the
Board calls attention to the fact that the State Aid for the
payment of teachers ’ salary is based upon average attend
ance. The average attendance in the white school of the
district is 95%, while the average attendance at the negro
school is 72%. The Board, in hiring teachers for both white
and colored schools, is governed by the State Aid, and
teachers for all schools, both white and colored, in the Dis
trict, are hired on the basis of this, and there is no dis
crimination in the hiring of teachers on the basis of color;
[fol. 32] The school operated for whites has 7 rooms for
class room for class room purposes, and 7 teachers. The
Scott’s Branch School has 13 rooms for class room pur
poses and 14 teachers. The average attendance in the white
school is 190. The average attendance in the Scott’s Branch
School is 468. Attention should be called to the fact that
the white school building, errected in 1907, formerly housed
an elementary school and a high school, but that the number
of white high school students available in the district be
came so small as not to warrant the continuance of a high
school by the District, and the same was eleiminated in
1935, while District has conducted no white high school since
then, the white elementary school continues to use the
building;

6. The allegations of paragraph 7, 8, 10 and 12 allege
that the Scott’s Branch High School is deficient and totally
lacking in adequate facilities for teaching courses in general
science, physics, chemistry, and industrial arts and trades,
has no adequate library, and no adequate accommodations
for the convenience of the students. That there is no cen
tral heating system, running water, or adequate lights, and
that the Scott’s Branch High School is without the serv
ices of a janitor or janitors, while paragraph No. 9 alleges
that the white schools have such services. These allegations
are based upon incorrect information. The fact that neither
the white nor the colored schools have central heating
system has been clarified hereinabove. Both have running
water and both have adequate electric lights. There is no
running water at the Rambay or Liberty Hill Schools,
because there is no running water available. Liberty Hill

School has electric lights. There is no electric line in the
vicinity of Rambay School. Fuel for all schools in the
District, both white and colored, is furnished by the Board
on request of the principal of the school, and it appears
that all such fuel has been furnished for the present school
year by the Board.
[fol. 33] Facilities are furnished in Scott’s Branch High
School for the teaching of general science, chemistry, and
agriculture. No such facilities are furnished by the District
at the white High School, inasmuch as the district maintains
no high school for whites, there being insufficient white
pupils in the District to warrant the maintenance of such
a school. The Scott’s Branch School Library contains 1678
books, containing 56 encyclopedias, 21 progressive refer
ence sets, 3 dictionaries, and other books of suitable mate
rial for a school library. The white school library contains
only 642 volum-s with 9 reference sets. None of the li
braries are furnished to any of the schools but have been
donated by various individuals and organizations. The
white elementary school has part time janitorial service.
The janitorial services of the white school are furnished
by one janitor, while at the request of the principal of the
Scott’s Branch School, the janitorial services there are
performed by various students selected by the principal.
The janitor is under the authority of the principal and
should perform, and does perform, such services as the
principal requests. The cost of janitorial services for the
white school to the district is $18.00 per month, while the
cost of the janitorial services to the colored school is $16.00
per month. If the method of using students as janitors is
not satisfactory to the patrons of the colored school, we feel
sure that the principal would be glad to discontinue the
same;

7. The allegations of paragraph 11 allege that the negro
children of public school age are not provided any bus
transportation, while sufficient bus transportation is pro
vided for white children. This allegation is based upon
misinformation. School District No. 22 provided no trans
portation by bus or otherwise for any students, white or
colored;

At the request of the Board, the principal of Scott’s
Branch School made a survey on October 25, 1949, listing

[fols. 34-36] the needs of the school. Under that date he
transmitted to the Board the following recommendations:

“ Wood and Coal
Twelve sc/ittles and shovels
Six Boxes of crayon and 12 erasers
11 doors and window locks
Material (Lumber and Nails) to repair windows and

sashes
Three additional classrooms
Three additional teachers
One teacher for the 7th grade, one for the second grade,

and a music teacher for eighth grade, through twelfth
grade

Sanitary material, toilet paper, soap, powder, etc.
A Janitor for the school which is very essential to good

health; who will keep plant in a good condition;”

The Board granted every request listed and all of the
things requested have been furnished, except a music
teacher. The Board made diligent efforts to locate a
teacher who could handle music, but so far has not been
able to find the proper combination. It is fitting to call
attention to the fact that no music teacher is furnished in
connection with the white school;

In conclusion, the Board finds that the negro children of
public school age in school district No. 22 are not being
discriminated against them because of their race and color,
and that there is no violation of the rights to equal protec
tion of the laws as provided by the Constitution of the
United States, but on the contrary, the Board finds that the
facilities afforded to the white and negro children of Dis
trict No. 22, though separate, are substantially equal.

B. M. Elliott, Chairman; C. I). Kennedy, J. B. Car-
son, Clerk, Trustees of School District No. 22, of
Clarendon County, South Carolina.

Summerton, S. C.

February 20, 1950.

[File endorsement omitted]

I n U nited S tates D istrict C ourt

[fol. 37]

[Title omitted]

Transcript of Testimony at Trial—Filed July 25, 1951

At a special term of court, trial of the above case was held
at Charleston, South Carolina, in the United States Court
room on May 28-29, 1951, at 10 o ’clock a. m.

Before Honorable John J. Parker, United States Circuit
Judge (4th Circuit); Honorable J. Waties Waring,
United States District Judge (EDSC); Honorable George
Bell Timmerman, United States District Judge
(E&WDSC)

A ppe aran ce s :

Thurgood Marshall, Esq., (Admitted pro hac vice);
Robert L. Carter, Esq., (Admitted pro hac vice); Harold R.
Boulware, Esq.; Spotswood W. Robinson, III, Esq., (Ad
mitted pro hac vice); A. T. Walden, Esq., (Admitted pro
hac vice); Arthur Shores, Esq., (Admitted pro hac vice),
for Plaintiffs.
[fol. 38] Robert McC. Figg, Jr., Esq., S. E. Rogers, Esq.,
T. C. Callison, Esq., Attorney General, State of South
Carolina, for Defendants.

C olloquy B etw een C ourt and C ounsel

Judge Parker: This court is convened in special session
to hear this case, Briggs and others vs. R. W. Elliott and
others. Is counsel for the plaintiffs ready?

Mr. Boulware: We are ready, your Honor.
Judge Parker: Are defendants ready?
Mr. F igg: Defendants are ready and I would like to make

a statement for the defendants, if the Court please. This
is an action brought by colored children of elementary,
grammar and high school grades residing in School District
No. 22 in Clarendon County, and their parents and guard

3 1

ians, for a declaratory judgment on questions which, from,
the complaint, may be stated as follows:

(a) Whether their rights under the equal protection of
the laws clause------

Judge Parker: Are you making an opening statement?
If so, we will hear that in due course.

Mr. F igg: If the Court please, I wanted to make a state
ment on behalf of defendants that it is conceded that in
equalities in the facilities, opportunities and curricula in
the schools of this district do exist. We have found that
[fol. 39] out from investigating authorities.

Judge Parker: You will do that when you make your
opening statement.

Mr. Figg: I just thought that if we made the record
clear and clarified the answer in this case at this time, it
would serve perhaps to eliminate the necessity of taking a
great deal of testimony.

Judge Parker: All right: I still think the time to do it is
when you are making your opening statement, but if you
want to make it now, go ahead.

Mr. Figg: (a) Whether their rights under the equal pro
tection of the laws clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to
educational opportunities, advantages and facilities equal
to those offered and available to white children of the same
grades have been denied; and

(b) Whether the provisions of the South Carolina Con
stitution and statutes “ which prohibit” the colored children
of the school district “ from attending the only public
schools of Clarendon County, South Carolina, affording an
education equal to that afforded” to white children are
violative of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.

The Answer of the defendants was predicated upon a
decision of the Board of Trustees of the school district
made February 20, 1950, a copy of which is attached to the
Answer, which decision finds that the colored children of
[fol. 40] the district are not being discriminated against
because of their race or color, and that the facilities
afforded to the white and colored children are substantially
equal, though separate.

The decision of the trustees was subject to review by the

county board of education, with the right of appeal to the
State Board of Education, but no review of the decision of
the trustees was sought.

The trustees found them, and insist now, that they have
never intended to discriminate against any one on account
of race or color in the discharge of their duties, although
they conceded in their decision, and they now concede the
existence of differences and inequalities in the white and
colored school systems in their district. They felt that in
some respects some colored pupils had inferior facilities,
and that in some other respects some white pupils had
inferior facilities, and their finding of substantial equality
was arrived at by a process of addition and subtraction of
advantages afforded to one race balanced against those
afforded to the other, a method of determining equivalency
which, however, was rejected by the Court of Appeals of
this circuit in Carter v. School Board of Arlington. County,
182 F. 2d 531, decided May 31, 1950. It is of no moment
now whether the sum was right under the method used.

Investigation of the matter and of the authorities bear
ing on the question has satisfied counsel for the defendants
[fol. 41] that the educational facilities, equipment, cur
ricula, and opportunities afforded in School District No. 22
for colored pupils of the school grades mentioned are not
substantially equal to those afforded in the District for
white pupils, and counsel for the defendants have been
authorized so to state to this Court on the record in this
case. The differences existing have been a residue of
growth over a long period of years. Causes could be dis
cussed, and explanations given which we feel certain would
sustain the good faith of the trustees in their efforts to
carry out the difficult and often thankless functions
devolved upon them.

The school district in question is a rural school district,
whose economy is almost entirely agricultural. It is well
known that the smaller and largely rural school districts in
South Carolina have not kept pace in recent years with the
larger and urban school districts in the provisions of educa
tional opportunities and facilities to the children of both
races. Limited resources have often led trustees to spend
the funds available to them for the most immediate demand
rather than in the light of an overall picture. This action

does not involve one of the many large urban districts where
modern and efficient educational, opportunities in the school
district’s system have been increasingly developed for the
pupils of both races alike.

The State of South Carolina has taken cognizance of
[fol. 42] the situation and of the educational problems pre
sented, particularly in the rural sections of the State.

In his Inaugural Address delivered January 16, 1951,
Governor James F. Byrnes said:

“ A primary responsibility of a State is the education
of its children. While we have done much, we must do
more. It must be our goal to’ provide for every child
in this State, white or colored, at least a graded school
education. . . . We must have a state school building
program. We will never be able to give the boys and
girls in the rural sections of the State the school build
ings and equipment to which they are entitled as long
as these facilities are furnished only by taxes on the
real property of a school district. Funds spend for
school buildings by local governments should be sup
plemented by a state building program. This program
will involve the issuance over a period of twenty years
of bonds to provide 75 million dollars for school con
struction, which should begin as soon as the national
emergency permits. . . . One cannot speak frankly
on this subject without mentioning the race problem.
It is our duty to provide for the races substantial
equality in school facilities. We should do it because
it is right. For me that is sufficient reason. ’ ’

The program recommended by Governor Byrnes has been
enacted into law, and has the support of the whole State.
The General Assembly in its 1951 session passed statewide
legislation of a broad and sweeping nature, dealing with the
State’s educational problems, and providing among other
things for a statewide school building program, state opera
tion of school transportation, and increased teachers sal
aries. Its purpose is specifically declared to be to insure
equality of educational opportunity for all children through
out the State, and it also declares that the responsibility for
the maintenance of adequate physical facilities in the public

3—101

[fol. 43] school system of the State is henceforth a responsi
bility both local and statewide in nature.

The legislation imposes a 3% sales tax and devotes the
whole of its proceeds to school purposes. It provides for
a State bond issue against the funds derived from the sales
tax, over a 20 year period and of the nature of a revolving
fund, with a maximum limit at any one time of $75,000,000.
From the bond funds loans are to be made to the school dis
tricts of the State over 20 year periods for establishing
and maintaining adequate physical facilities for the public
school system, such loans to be on the basis of average
daily attendance, and also additional annual cash credits to
the districts on the same basis and for the same purposes.

The legislation will be executed by the State Educational
Finance Commission, with Governor Byrnes as Chairman,
and no plan for the improvement of the schools in a county
can be effective until approved by this Commission, as
carrying out the stated purposes of the law.

Governor Byrnes has publicly stated that if necessitated
by a decision of the Supreme Court in a test case pending-
now in that court in reference to this legislation, he will
immediately call a special session of the General Assembly
to consider any further legislation necessary to carry out
the purposes of the act in insuring equality of educational
opportunity to all the children throughout the State.
[fol. 44] The sales tax takes effect July 1, 1951, but the
administrative organization to carry out its other pro
visions has already been implemented. The defendant
trustees have already requested a survey by the Director
of the State Educational Finance Commission of the schools
of the district, so that they may formulate and submit to
the proper authorities a plan to bring about as speedily as
possible equality of buildings, equipment, facilities, and
other physical aspects of the school system of the district.
The plan being formulated will include measures to eliminate
all other inequalities of educational opportunity existing in
the district’s schools, such as curricula. The trustees pro
pose to employ every resource at their command under the
new school legislation to carry out its1 declared purpose in
their district.

The end to be attained is the education of the children
of the State. The State of South Carolina, having this

responsibility, has moved, to discharge it, and has provided
the legislation, resources, and control adequate to its
discharge. The defendants want to avail themselves of the
means now at hand to afford to the children of the district
equal educational opportunity.

The defendants do not oppose an order finding that
inequalities in respect to buildings, equipment, facilities,
curricula, and other aspects of the schools provided for the
white and colored children of School District No. 22 in
[fol. 45] Clarendon County now exist, and enjoining any
discrimination in respect thereto.

They urge the Court in its discretion to give them a
reasonable time to formulate a plan for ending such in
equalities and for bringing about equality of educational
opportunity in the schools of the district, so that they may
present such plan, with the approval of the State authorities
necessary under the 1951 Act, for the Court’s consideration,
the Court retaining jurisdiction of the cause in the mean
time so that it may be enabled to grant such relief as may
be proper in the event that the defendants should fail to
comply with the constitutional standards prescribed in the
applicable decisions.

Judge Parker: Have you filed a copy of that with the
record!

Mr. Figg: No, sir. I have a copy.
Judge Parker : You wish to have it filed as an amendment

to your answer or what status' do you give it?
Mr. Figg: Well, I wanted it on the record, if your Honor

please, for the reasons explained. The answer does not cor
rectly reflect the situation.

Judge Parker: Let it be filed then as an. amendment to
the answer. Do you wish to reply to it?

Open in g S tatem en t on B eh alf of P l a in tiff

Mr. Marshall: May it please the Court, I would, with
the permission of the Court, make an opening statement,
[fol. 46] and I think I can at the same time answer the state
ment that has been already made. As I understand, the
pleadings in this case raise the issue as to whether or not in
District 22 of Clarendon County and the Summerton High
School District the Negro pupils and their parents who

represent them are being denied equal protection of the laws
as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. I think the
issues are clearly drawn. It is our position that the statutes,
which by the answer and by the designation of District 22
on the original petition, are clearly in issue. The defend
ants admit that they are required by these statutes to
educate Negroes in separate schools and to prevent them
from being admitted into the schools which are concededly
the better schools. In attacking these statutes, it is our
position that there is a two-fold problem: (1) is that the
schools' are unequal physically as to buildings, equipment,
and other items, and (2) is that the segregation of pupils
in and of itself is a form of inequality. As to the conceding
of the inequality, as representative of the plaintiffs in this
case, we take the position that the mere, general conceding*
of these facts is not sufficient. If we are to be permitted
to put in evidence the material factors necessary to show
that these statutes as applied are unconstitutional, we must
be able to show the inequalities as they actually exist. The
expert witnesses that we want to present to the Court will
need for their opinions these actual factors of inequalities,
[fol. 47] And I submit that we should not be prevented from
presenting the evidence as to these inequalities because we
conceive of these inequalities as a necessary factor to this
second point, which is that segregation in and of itself is
unlawful. In proof thereof we intend to present witnesses
of two calibre, one to show the actual inequalities, and two,
to show from an expert point of view the effect of segre
gation in the County under discussion. And for that reason,
I submit, may it please the Court, that the statement just
made has no bearing on this litigation at this stage. I think
it is an effort to prevent the plaintiffs in this case from
developing their case in the only fashion which will enable
us to present a full and complete case.

Judge Parker: We have not objected to any testimony as
yet. We will pass on that when the objection is made.

Mr. Marshall: Thank you, sir.
Judge Parker: Do you wish to make a further opening

statement in respect to the case?
Mr. Marshall: No, sir.
Judge Parker: Do you wish to make one other than what

you have read?

Mr. Figg: Nothing but what we have read, sir.
Judge Parker: Proceed with the witnesses.

[fol. 48] Testimony for plaintiffs:
L. B. McCobd, sworn.

Direct examination.

By Mr. Marshall:
Mr. Marshall: May it please the Court, Mr. McCord is

a defendant and we would like to proceed under Rule 43 (b).
Judge Parker: All right. Go ahead.
Q. What is your present position in the public school

system?
A. County Superintenednt of Education.
Q. For Clarendon County?
A. Clarendon County.
Q. How long have you held that position?
A. I have been there about 9 years—about 8 years. I

am in my 9th year.
Q. You are also Chairman of the County Board of Edu

cation, are you not?
A. I am.
Q. Will you explain your duties as Chairman of the

County Board of Education of Clarendon County in a
general way.

A. Well, as Chairman, I naturally would call a meeting
of the Board when a meeting is necessary, preside over that
meeting, and generally direct the affairs.

Q. What jurisdiction is exercised by the County Board
as to public education in Clarendon County?

A. We have general supervision, I would say.
[fol. 49] Q. Do you have general supervision over the
public school system in District 22?

A. Well, over certain phases of it.
Q. What phases?
A. Weil, we have a board, a County Board of Education,

and we have a Board of Trustees, and if and when any

complaint is brought before the Board of Trustees with
respect to the district, they have a right, of course, either
side has a right, to appeal to the County Board.

Q. Maybe it would be easier, Mr. McCord, if you would
explain how this school system in Clarendon County oper
ates. I mean, as to the District Board of Trustees and as
to the special High School District.

A. Well, they operate the elementary, the district oper
ates. The trustees of the respective districts have charge
of the schools in that district.

Q. Is that district set up on geographical boundary lines ?
A. We have certain lines, yes, certain territories.
Q. Now, as County Superintendent of the schools, what

are your duties?
A. General supervision.
Q. Do you supervise the schools in District 22?
A. I do, in all of them.
Q. Do you also supervise the Summerton High School

District?
A. I make visits to all of the schools.

[fol. 50] Q. How is the school system in Clarendon
County, the public school system, financed?

A. It is financed by the district and of course also from
the State.

Q. And who decides how the funds are distributed among
the districts?

A. The State Board of Education. It all depends on
what you are talking about. If it is school teachers’ sal
aries, it is decided entirely by the State Board of Educa
tion, based solely on the type of certificate held by the sev
eral teachers.

Q. I am speaking, for example, of the current expendi
tures for the running of the schools. Who determines, for
example, how much money is to be spent for running the
schools in District 22? Do you have anything to do with
that ?

A. No, that is entirely with the Board of Trustees. They
are the custodians of the funds of the various, several dis
tricts.

Q. The Summerton High School District, is that under
your supervision?

A. Well, I suppose in a general way. All schools in the
County are under the supervision of the County Board.

Q. In your general supervisory powers, do you make any
rules as to the racial character of students as to what school
they shall attend in Clarendon County?

A. I have never had any occasion to.
Q. Do you enforce the State segregation laws? Do you

know what laws I am speaking about?
[fol. 51] A. I think I do.

Q. Do you enforce those laws?
A. I enforce all laws. I know nothing but the law.
Q. It is true, is it not, that Negroes in Clarendon County

attend one group of schools and people who are not Negroes
attend other schools? Is that correct?

A. That is true.
Q. Why is that true?
A. Well, I couldn’t answer it exactly. You would have

to ask the children why. None of them have ever asked me
to go to one school or the other.

Q. Well, isn’t it a fact that you do it because of the State
Statute ?

A. It is the law, the Constitution.
Q. And you would enforce it?
A. I would enforce the Constitution.
Q. Would you explain who determines who goes to what

school?
Judge Parker: Explain your question. I don’t know my

self what you mean.
Mr. Marshall: What I am trying to find out, Judge

Parker, is whether or not he determines who is a Negro, or
somebody else determines that.

A. The law determines it entirely. The legal school of
all elementary children is the local school in the district, and
[fol. 52] they have to attend that under the law. They have
to attend that school unless they get permission of the
trustees to attend a school outside.

Judge Parker: Aren’t you asking him questions about
which there is no dispute in the world?

Mr. Marshall: In general, sir.
Judge Parker: Let’s come to the disputed matter.

Mr. Marshall: I thought that we were obliged to show
that they were enforcing the statute.

Judge Parker: Well, I think we will assume that they
are enforcing the statute. The defendants admit that the
schools are segregated in their answer, don’t they?

Mr. Marshall: Yes, sir, but I wanted to find out whether
or not it applied to anybody but Negroes.

Judge Parker: All right. Ask him the question, and
let him answer it.

Q. The schools set aside for white pupils, is any other
racial group excluded from those schools except Negroes?

A. Well, I don’t know of any others that is in those
schools.

Q. Are you familiar with the school population of Clar
endon County?

A. Well, fairly familiar.
Q. Is it not true that there are a total of 2,375 white pu

pils?
A. Approximately, yes.

ffol. 53] Q. And a total of 6,531 Negro pupils in Clar
endon County?

A. That is approximately right.
Q. Is it not also true that the expenditures, the current

expenditures, exclusive of transfers, and including addi
tional expenses for County administration, for white pu
pils is $395,000 and for Negro pupils is $282,000? Is that
approximately correct?

A. Well, I am not prepared to answer that. I would
suppose it is not far off.

Q. So then, despite the fact that Negro pupils in Clar
endon County are almost three times as many in popula
tion as white pupils, the expenditures for Negro pupils is
about $90,000 less than for white pupils?

A. If the record shows it. However, I may say this
though, that in some instances it may be that those claims
are not clearly designated.

Q. AYell, is it not true that more money is spent currently
for the education of white pupils in Clarendon County than
for Negro pupils?

A. What do you mean by “ currently?” You mean apart
from teacher salary?

Q. Including teachers’ salaries.
A. Why, no. I think there is considerably more money

spent for Negro schools.
Q. For teachers’ salaries?

[fol. 54] A. Decidedly more.
Q. When we remove the item of teachers’ salaries and

take the other expenditures, is it not true that more money
is spent for white pupils than for Negro pupils in Claren
don County?

A. I couldn’t answer that question definitely, but I would
suppose it is true.

Q. Can you give us a reason for that, why you spend less
money to educate more Negro pupils than you do to educate
the white pupils?

A. Well, the only explanation that I could give, pos
sibly, is this: It is not, I don’t think, because of the color,
because we have certain white schools that considerably
less is spent per pupil than certain other white schools.

Q. Are you familiar with the 82nd Report of the State
Superintendent of Schools of the State of South Carolina?

A. I don’t know that I am particularly. No, not too fa
miliar.

Q. Don’t you make regular reports to the State Board
of Education?

A. We do.
Q. Aren’t those reports summed up in the State Super

intendent of Schools’ Report?
A. They are.
Q. Directing your attention to Page 298 of that Report,

as to page 298, on the level of Clarendon County, does it
not show that the expenditures, all expenditures, exclusive
of transfers, and including additional expenditures for
[fol. 55] County administration for Clarendon County for
white schools, were $395,329 ?

A. That is what the report says.
Q. Sir?
A. That is what is in the report.
Q. Well, is that correct?
A. I couldn’t tell you. I couldn’t answer that. I don’t

know whether it is or not.
Q. Does that report also show on the same page and for

the same item an expenditure for Negro schools of $282,-
980?

A. That is right.
Judge Waring: Where does the State Board get that

information from? Through your office?

A. Yes, sir, we give them an annual report.
Q. I ask you frankly, sir, do you dispute those figures?
A. Well, I have no reason to dispute them. If it is an

exact copy of the copy we sent to the State Board, they
are correct.

Judge Parker: If those are official reports of the State,
you don’t have to prove them by a witness. All you have
got to do is to introduce them.

Mr. Marshall: I wanted them merely for the basis of
getting an answer to the question, and I do not have the
answer yet, sir.

Judge Parker: The question you want answered is what
amount is spent for Negro Schools and White Schools
[fol. 56] in this County? Is that correct?

Mr. Marshall: Yes, sir.
Judge Parker: Doesn’t that appear in the report?
Mr. Marshall: Yes, sir.
Judge Parker : Is that all you wanted to know?
Mr. Marshall: No, sir. The next question, I wanted to

know, and I haven’t got an answer, is: Despite the fact
that the Negro school population is almost three times the
white population, why is it that the expenditures in the
Negro schools is less than in the white schools?

Judge Parker: You have asked him that question. You,
can ask it again and you can answer it again.

A. I will answer the question again and I will answer
it just this way: In Clarendon County we have some 60-
odd Negro Schools, whereas we have, I think, just about a
dozen white schools, and all of the rural schools, whether
white or Negro, the expenditures isn’t anything like in
proportion to the larger schools.

Mr. Figg: We have no questions.

E . W. E llio tt , sw orn.

Direct examination.

By Mr. Robinson:
Mr. Robinson: If the Court please, Mr. Elliott is one of

the defendants in the case and is being examined under
[fol. 57] Rule 43 (b).

Q. Your name is R. \V. Elliott?
A. R, W. Elliott.
Q. What position, if any, do you hold in the school sys

tem of Clarendon County'?
A. Chairman of the Board of Trustees.
Q. Of which school district?
A. 22.
Q. Do you hold any office in Summerton High School in

Clarendon County, South Carolina?
A. Any what?
Q. Do you hold any other position in the Summerton

High School District in Clarendon County, South Caro
lina?

A. No, sir.
Q. You do not?
A. I am Chairman of the grammar school—-I am Chair

man of District 22 Board of Trustees.
Q. How long have you held this position?
A. About 25 years.
Q. Have you ever held any other important offices in Dis

trict 22 or in the Summerton High School District in Clar
endon County?

A. Have I done what?
Q. Have you ever held any other positions either in Dis

trict 22 or the Summerton High School District in Claren
don County?

A. No.
[fol. 58] Q. Mr. Elliott, I would like to ask you about the
school set up in District No. 22. What are the geographical
boundaries of District 22?

A. I don’t know.
Q. Are you familiar with the school district known as

Summerton High School District of Clarendon County?

A. Yes.
Q- Do yon know whether or not the district boundaries of

District 22 and Summerton High School District are the
same?

A. I don’t think they are, no.
Q. Are you in position to state definitely whether or not

they are or not the same ?
A. No.
Q. District No. 22 is of course in Clarendon County, is

it not?
A. Yes, it is in Clarendon County.
Q. Is this district under the jurisdiction of the County

Board of Education for Clarendon County?
A. Yes.
Q. To what extent?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Are you in position to testify as to whether or not

there is any jurisdiction over that school exercised by the
County School Board of Clarendon County?

A. Ask that one over, please, sir.
Judge Parker: Aren’t these matters of jurisdiction fixed

[fob 59] by statute?
Mr. Robinson: I think so, sir. Yes, they are.
Judge Parker: Why waste time to ask this witness?
Mr. Robinson: I am departing from that, if your Honor

please.
Q. What are your duties as Chairman and responsibili

ties of the Board of Trustees of District 22?
A. I am Chairman. We elect teachers and so forth.
Q. Are you familiar with the public schools operated by

District 22?
A. To a certain extent, I am, yes.
Q. Do you know what schools are operated by that dis

trict in which Negro students residing therein exclusively
attend? Are you familiar with the Negro public schools
of District 22?

A. Yes, I am familiar with them.
Q. Do you know the number of such schools?
A. No.
Q. You don’t know how many schools there are in dis

trict 22?

A. Oh, yes.
Q. What number of schools do you have there?
A. There are 3 schools, I think. It is 3.
Q. Will you state whether or not these schools are ele

mentary schools or secondary schools? I am speaking
about the Negro public schools?

A. Well, the Scotts Branch is a high school and elemen
tary school, and the other two are elementary schools.
[fol. 60] Q. Do you recall the names of the other two ele
mentary schools?

A. Rambay and Liberty Hill, I believe.
Q. What about the white schools, if any? How many

white schools, if any, does District 22 operate?
A. 2 white schools.
Q. Will you state the names of those schools?
A. One is a high school and one is a grammar school.
Q. Is that the school known as Summerton elementary

school?
A. Yes, that is right.
Q. Mr. Elliott, Summerton High school is operated by

District 22, or is it operated by a separate district known
as Summerton High School District?

A. It is operated by the Summerton High School District.
Q. What, if anything, is the connection between District

22 and Summerton High School District with respect to the
operation of that school?

A. Well, the elementary school is operated by the Sum
merton High School, and the other trustees, the trustees of
the other district, and the elementary schools, we work that
together. Then the high school is supposed to be operated
by the trustees of the Summerton High School.

Judge Parker: Let me ask you, Mr. Robinson. Aren’t
these matters that you can agree on with counsel for the
other side ?
[fol. 61] Mr. Robinson: If your Honor please, we are try
ing to get the picture before the Court of the school setup,
particularly the matter of the operation of the Summerton
High School.

Judge Parker: The Court understands it. All of these
things you have set up in your pleadings. You can agree
with counsel on these matters and if there is any trouble

about it, let’s straighten it out right now, and not waste
time.

Mr. Robinson: That is all.

Cross-examination:

By Mr. F igg:
Q. You are the Chairman of the trustees of School Dis

trict 22 ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. As chairman of that district you are one of the Sum-

merton High School board, along with the Chairmen of the
other four districts that establish that centralized high
school?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. And District 22 has a Superintendent, Mr. Betchman ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And it is his function to carry out the determinations

of your Board of Trustees and to operate the public school
system of School District 22? Is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. And he is in court today?

[fol. 62] A. Yes, sir.

Judge Parker: You are doing the same thing that I called
your adversary on.

Mr. Figg: Your Honor he had gotten off on facts that
we didn’t recognize and I wanted to refer counsel to Mr.
Betchman.

Judge Parker: All right. There isn’t any question about
the set up of the schools down there, about the jurisdiction,
or how they are operated, is there?

Mr. Figg: No, sir. We understood there was no ques
tion, but if you took Mr. Elliott’s testimony, I think we
would both begin to wonder if we understood it.

M a t t h e w J. W h iteh ead , sw orn.

Direct examination.

By Mr. Carter:
Q. Will you please state your name?
A. Matthew J. Whitehead.
Q. What is your occupation?
A. I am Assistant Registrar and Associate Professor of

Education at Howard University, and off-campus lecturer
in the Graduate School of Education for New York Uni
versity.

Q. How long have you had this position?
A. 7 years.
Q. What other positions have you held?

[fol. 63] A. Positions as teacher of English in High
Schools of North Carolina, Assistant Principal of Senior
High School in North Carolina, Professor of Education,
State Teachers’ College, Elizabeth City, North Carolina,
Director of summer schools, State Teachers College in
North Carolina, and Registrar of State Teachers College,
near Elizabeth City, North Carolina.

Q. Will you give us your educational background, please.
A. My undergraduate work was done at Johnson Smith

University in Charlotte, North Carolina. There I received
the degree of Bachelor of Arts in English and Education
in 1930. Following that, graduate work in the School of
Education at the University of Wisconsin. My Master’s
degree from Columbia University in administration. My
doctor’s degree from New York University School of Edu
cation, a major in college administration.

Q. Do you belong to any professional societies?
A. I do.
Q. Would you mind naming them?
A. Phi Delta .Kappa, Kappa Delta Pi, Society for the

Advancement of Education, The E. George Payne Educa
tional Foundation, the NEA, the American Association of
Personnel Workers for Higher Education, the National As
sociation of Collegiate Deans and Registrars, and Ameri
can Association of Collegiate Registrars.

Q. Have you published any books or articles of any kind?
A. Yes, I have.

[fol. 64] Q. Will you generally list them for us.
A. A study, a book on Negro Liberal Arts College Deans

at New York University in 1944, and various magazine ar
ticles which have appeared in professional magazines and
schools and societies, the Junior College Journal, the Jour
nal of Higher Education, the Journal of Education, So
ciology, the Quarterly Review of Higher Education, and
the Journal of Negro Education.

Q. Mr. Whitehead, have you had any experience in evalu
ating schools?

A. Yes, I have.
Q. What is that experience?
A. I have conducted surveys in the State of North Caro

lina in the Public School System. I was a member of the
survey committee that surveyed St. John’s College in An
napolis, Maryland. I worked on surveys in the District, and
surveys—consultant rather than surveys, for New York
University in the Department of Education.

Q. Did you examine the public schools involved in this
litigation ?

A. Yes, I did.
Q. Why?
A. I was asked to survey them by Mr. Carter.
Q. When did this examination take place ?
A. It was of a two-fold nature. The first was in the

[fol. 65] month of month of November 1950. The subse
quent one was in April 1951.

Q. Would you describe what you did in making this ex
amination, briefly.

A. Well, first of all, I examined the documentary sources
as they related to the public school program in Clarendon
County and District 22, which consisted of visits to the
State House, conferences with officials at the State House,
the examination of the records of the County Superin
tendent of Schools of District 22 and Clarendon County,
and the report of the State Board of Health of the State
of South Carolina, conferences with principals and superin
tendents of the respective schools in District 22, teachers
and other workers within the school of a non instructional
nature.

Q. Did you inspect the buildings?
A. Yes.

Q. Would you describe, Mr. Whitehead, what you found
with respect to the buildings in District 22, and by that I
mean including the Summerton High School.

A. The buildings in District 22 were the Eambay Ele
mentary School for Negroes, the Liberty Hill Elementary
School for Negroes, the Seotts Branch Union School for
Negroes, a combination of elementary and high school, the
Summerton Elementary School, and the Summerton High
School.

Judge Waring: What are the last two—for whites or
[fol. 66] Negroes?

A. For whites. I am sorry, the last two are for white—
the Summerton Elementary School and the Summerton
High School. In regard to the grounds, the grounds at
the Rambay Elementary School for Negroes were in a very
poor condition. The topography was exceptionally poor,
and the antiquacy by way of grounds did not conform to
any possible educational standards. At the Liberty Hill
Elementary School, as far as acreage and site, there was
no conformity by any of the criteria which would be used
generally or were used by this investigator in his survey
as to adequacy or topography. At the Summerton Elemen
tary School, there we had many of the elements which lend
themselves to educational measurements. The grounds
were surfaced at the Summerton Elementary School,
whereas we did not find surfaced grounds at either the Ram
bay Elementary School or the Liberty Hill School, or the
Seotts Branch School. There was fence protection for
pupils’ safety at the Summerton Elementary School, and
an absence of same at each of the three Negro schools. As
for surfacing and landscaping, we did not find that at the
Rambay or Liberty Hill, and a dearth at the Seotts Branch
School.

Q. Mr. Whitehead, did you note what type of building
structure the Liberty Hill, Rambay and Seotts Branch
Schools were made of?

A. Yes; the Liberty Hill School was a wooden structure.
So were the two at Rambay and Seotts Branch, whereas the
[fol. 67] two for whites, the Summerton Elementary School
was of white stone, and the Summerton High School was
brick, red brick.

4—101

Q. Were you able to get any information in regard to
the monetary evaluation of the schools for whites and
Negroes?

A. Yes, I was. An examination of the Superintendent’s
report reveals the data, that is, as far as the buildings were
concerned. The 3 Negro schools, the actual cost by way
of buildings was $10,900, and for the elementary school
$40,000.

Q. You mean the white elementary school?
A. The white elementary school. As far as the aggre

gate cost for grounds in the 3 Negro schools, Rambay, Lib
erty Hill, and Scotts Branch, they were valued at $12,500;
whereas the value of grounds for the Summerton Elemen
tary School and the Summerton High School, were valued
at $12,000 ------at $4,000'. As to furnishings and fixtures,
which were also included in the same report, $1800 for all
of the Negro schools, as compared with $12,000 for the white
schools.

Q. What is the Negro school population, including the
High School, in District 22?

Judge Parker: Isn’t that in the record and isn’t it con
ceded already ?

Mr. Carter: All right, sir. I won’t go into it.
Judge Parker: I don’t want to cut you off, but I see no

use of going into it again if it is already in.
Mr. Carter: I am advised, your Honor, that only the

[fol. 68] County figures are in and not in School District 22.
Judge Parker: All right. Ask him.

A. At the Scotts Branch, there are 694 students; at the
Liberty Hill School, 92; and at Rambay 84.

Judge Waring: A total of how many colored?
A. 808.
Q. Did you ascertain how many Negro students were in

the High School?
A. Yes, sir. 151, according to the report of the principal,

Mr. Whight.
Q. What is the school population for the whites?
A. The school population for white: The Summerton Ele

mentary School, 195 students, and the Summerton High
School carried an enrollment of 81 students.

Q. Do you have any information in regard to the number
of teachers, Negro and white?

A. Yes, I do.
Q. Would you give those.
A. At the Rambay Elementary School, there were 2

teachers; at the Liberty Hill School, 4 teachers; at the
Scotts Branch School, 9 teachers. These are the 3 schools
for Negroes. The 2 schools for whites: The Summerton
High School and Summerton Elementary School, 7 for the
white, and 5 in the high school.

Q. In the High School for Negroes?
A. In the High School for Negroes, 5.

[fol. 69] Did you visit any of the classes?
A. Yes, I did. I visited classes at both schools, Negro

schools and white schools.
Q. Did you get any information with regard to class size

at the white schools as compared with the class size at the
Negro schools?

A. I was able to secure these data from all 5 of the schools.
The data presented to me by the principal and superin
tendent are as follows: At the Rambay School, in the first
grade there were 15 students; the second grade 12 students;
the third grade 13 students; the fourth grade 10 students;
the fifth grade 6 students; the sixth grade 4 students; the
seventh grade 3 students.

Q. One moment. At the Rambay School where you listed
these various grades, are the grades in separate rooms ?

A. No. There are 7 grades but there are just 2 rooms
and 2 teachers. At the Liberty Hill School, in the first
grade, 18 pupils; second grade, 13; third grade, 16; fourth,
12; fifth, 9; sixth, 9; seventh, 7; and eighth, 8. There were
4 teachers there teaching the eight grades.

Q. Were there 4 rooms?
A. There were 4 rooms.
Q. What about the Scotts Branch School?
A. At the Scotts Branch, there were 2 first grades; one

first grade class carried an enrollment of 60 pupils; another
[fol. 70] enrollment of 67 pupils; both first grade classes.

The second grade had an enrollment of 69 pupils; the
third grade, an enrollment of 56; the fourth grade, an en
rollment of 63; the fifth grade an enrollment of 72; the sixth
grade, 41; seventh grade, 39; eighth grade, 24; ninth grade,

47; tenth grade, 38; eleventh grade, 33; twelfth grade, 33.
Q. "What did you find with respect to the Summerton Ele

mentary School and the Summerton High School, both
schools being for white students?

A. At the Summerton elementary school there were 30
students in the first grade; 29 in the second grade; 31 in
the third grade; 31 in the fourth grade; 30 in the fifth grade;
26 in the sixth grade; and 19 in the seventh grade.

Q. How many in the high school?
A. That is the Summerton Elementary School.
Q. What about the High School?
A. In the High School: In the eighth grade, 24; ninth

grade, 19; tenth grade, 18; eleventh grade, 11; and the
twelfth grade, 9.

Q. Now, in your visits to the classes, Mr. Whitehead,
what did you note, or did you note anything at all with
respect to instructional supplies, and visual aids to aid the
teacher in conducting the class?

A. Yes, I did.
Q. Will you describe that.

[fol. 71] A. At the Rambay School—and the same will be
true of Rambay, Liberty Hill and Scotts Branch Schools, if
I may include the three together. The data will be applicable
as to all three cases. There was an absence of all types of
visual aids for instructions, with the exception of black
boards, which were very inadequate by all standards, even
standards of the Department of Health of South Carolina,
as listed in the Bulletin approved in 1948, but at the Ele
mentary School, the Summerton Elementary School, for
whites, and the Summerton High School for whites there
were the following visual aids and instructional adjuncts to
education, namely, blackboards, music rooms, charts, maps,
globes, slides, stereopticans, and an auditorium which lent
itself toward the display of various types of visual aids to
instruction.

Q. Now, with regards to the rest of the facilities of the
schools, did you make any observation in regard to the
facilities for water, drinking water for children at either of
the two sets, of schools ?

A. Yes, I did.
Q. Describe that.
A. At the Rambay School the only source of water was an

out-of-door pump. The water was supplied from the pump
to the building by way of a galvanized bucket, an open gal
vanized bucket, in which was inserted a dipper, and the
children had glasses that they drank the water, from glasses
[fob 72] rather than from the dipper, and these buckets
were not at all covered,—these buckets were not covered at
all. They were open to germs, etc. The same was true at
the Liberty Hill School, the only difference being that in
stead of getting the water at the Liberty Hill School from
the school pump, there was no water at all on the school
property at Liberty Hill School. The water was procured
from a Minister who lived next door, and brought to the
school, but the bucket arrangement prevailed in both cases.
At the Scotts Branch School for Negroes, the Union School,
there was no inside running fountain, but there were outside
running fountains. At the Summerton Elementary School
there were inside running fountains, and at the Summerton
High School, the same condition prevailed.

Q. Were there such facilities as lunch rooms at the Sum
merton Elementary School and the Summerton High
School?

A. At the Summerton Elementary School, there was a
lunch room. The Superintendent, Mr. Betchman, informed
me that the lunch room and many of the facilities, due to the
proximity of the Elementary School and the High School,
are interchangably used from the point of building utiliza
tion. There was an organized lunch room at the Summerton
Elementary School with a paid worker and two assistants.
I met the three persons. I also saw lunch being served at
the time Mr. Betchman and a Mr. Rogers and I went through
that building. There was no lunch room whatsoever in
either of the three Negro institutions. There was no pro-
[fol. 73] visions for lunches.

Q. Did you make any observation with regard to the desks
for pupils in any of the schools?

A. Yes, I did. In the Summerton Elementary School each
pupil had a desk. In the Summerton High School each pupil
had a desk. At the Rambay School for Negroes, there was
not a single desk in the entire school. There were two long
tables that were not surfaced by way of shellac or any type
of furniture wood curing that would make those accessible to
students for easy writing. In fact cracks were in the desks

—in the long tables where the students sat. These students
sat together as one would see in a picture. The sort of table
around which the counsel is sitting this morning (indicat
ing). The same was true in the other room at the Rambay
School. At the Liberty Hill School there were desks for
students. However, they were not of the type of construc
tion that lend themselves to educational facilities on the part
of students. That is to say, rather than single desks, they
were desks, many of them, that had a double compartment.
Two students would slide in. That is to say, the student
who sits on the end of the row could not get out in a case of
panic or tire without either jumping* over everyone else and
getting out. At the Scotts Branch School, there was a
combination of this same type double desk. They were, how
ever, some single desks in many of the rooms of the Scotts
Branch School, but in one room a class, a seventh grade
[fol. 74] class, which is conducted by Mr. Ragan, there was
not a single desk in the room. It so happened that at the
time we visited it, the students were taking work from the
blackboard. All of the students—we saw the students hav
ing to write in their laps. There was not a desk in that
entire room.

Q- What did you find with regard to facilities such as
Auditorium, gymnasium, at the two types of schools?

A. Well, there was an absence of these features in all of
the Negro schools, but in the white schools, the Summerton
Elementary School there was a very large auditorium with
a balcony, an elevated stage, footlights, dressing rooms, a
velour curtain, and at the Summerton High School they did
not have an auditorium but Mr. Betchman stated that this
was interehangably used, but they did have a gymnasium, a
large gymnasium, which may be used for group activities.
There was no gymnasium, however, for either of the Negro
schools nor auditorium.

Q. Would you describe the toilet facilities available for
Negro pupils as compared with the toilet facilities you found
for white children in District 22.

A. Aŝ to the toilet facilities at the Rambay School, the
only facilities available were two out-of-door toilets. They
were constructed of wood and the seats within these build
ings were also of wood construction. There was the same
thing at the Liberty Hill School, out-of-door construction.

[fol. 75] Tliey were not of the type which the State Depart
ment of Health of South Carolina describes as privies. It is
what they describe as earth toilets, earth toilets.

Judge Waring: Was there any running water for flushing
them ?

A. There was no running water at all, nor any urinals in
any of these places for boys. At the Scotts Branch School,
the same situation prevailed, only to a greater degree of
disgust on the part of one who made such a survey, to see
694 students serviced by 2 toilets for boys and 2 toilet seats
for girls, of the same out-of-door type construction, no
running water, no urinals, in the light of standards of so
many toilet seats for so many girls, so many for boys, and
so many urinals for so many boys. We were able in the
light of this to work out some rather specific data if it would
be asked for and felt worthwhile to the court.

Q. What did you work out?
A. The types of urinals that we found—that we did not

find in either of the 3 institutions which should have been for
the elementary school at Rambay, where we had one seat for
girls and one seat for boys. The enrollment there would
warrant at least one urinal for boys and more seats for
girls, and more seats for boys. At Liberty Hill School, with
an enrollment of 92, there were no urinals for boys and 2
seats for girls and 2 seats for boys. There again we had the
enrollment too large to service the physical needs of pupils,
[fol. 76] At the Scotts Branch School, with an enrollment of
309 boys and 694 girls, where we find one toilet for boys and
one toilet seat for girls. There was a minimum need of
toilet seats for boys alone of 11, based on the criteria, and
a minimum of 19-plus toilet seats for girls.

Q. You say that at the Scotts Branch School with a school
population of over 600, there were only 2 toilet seats avail
able?

A. That is correct.
Q. What was the situation with respect to Summerton

Elementary School and Summerton High School?
A. The Summerton Elementary School, there were flush

toilets for boys and for girls, 3 for boys and 3 for girls,
inside. There was also urinals for boys. The same was
true at the Summerton High School. There were flush

toilets for girls and flush toilets for boys, and urinals for
boys at the Summerton High School. All in-door.

Q. Now, at the elementary school, you said there were 3
flush toilets for girls?

A. And 3 for boys.
Q. And how many urinals did they have ?
A. There was one urinal, as I recall. The reason I say

“ as I recall,” I should point out here, we were not able at
that specific time to go into the other one, and the persons
who accompanied me stated that the same number of toilets
[fol. 77] were on the other side as were on the other side
that we went in. We went on the boys’ side of course.

Q. Now, in the Negro schools that you saw, the elementary
schools, was there a teacher for each grade?

A. No, there was not.
Q. Will you describe the situation.
A. In some of the schools, at the Scotts Branch school

there was a teacher for every grade. At the Rambay School
there was not a teacher for every grade. There were 2
teachers for 7 grades. At the Liberty Hill School there were
4 teachers for 8 grades. At the Summerton Elementary
School there were 7 teachers for 7 grades, and at the Sum
merton High School there were 5 teachers for the High
School program.

Q. Did you make any observation with regard to the
curricula in the High School?

A. Yes, we noted that the curricula at the Summerton
High School was different from the curricula at the Sum
merton Elementary School in that the curricula at the Sum
merton High School carried a larger number of what is
termed academic courses, and the pre-skilled courses in the
Commercial subjects, namely typing and bookkeeping. At
the Scotts Branch School, the comparable—the companion
school for Negroes, there we had agriculture, vocational
agriculture and home economics, with the same types of
academic courses which were in the minority from those
[fol. 78] offered at the High School at Summerton High
School.

Q, As a result of this investigation, Mr. Whitehead, have
you reached an opinion as to whether the Negro children
are receiving equal classroom instructional opportunities as
compared to white children?

A. May I hear your question again?
Q. As a result of this investigation, have you reached an

opinion as to whether the Negro children in the schools that
you observed are receiving equal classroom instructional
opportunities and advantages as compared to white children
in the schools that you observed?

A. I have.
Q. What is that opinion?
A. That opinion is based on actual observation, together

with documentation from such basic sources as George D.
Strayer, Fred Denglehardt, and Langford, and the stand
ards of the NEA, as well as the State of South Carolina, I
found that the type of instruction was not applicable or
comparable, and it was not applicable to both groups, Negro
and white. I found also that the quality of instruction would
also be different of necessity, if one would stop to compare
or contrast the various types of educational features within
the framework of both programs. In the absence of many
of the minor necessary tools of instruction, one could not
expect an adequate educational program to insue, namely,
the absence of school lunches. Practically all educators
[fol. 79] have agreed, as well as dieticians in the United
States Public Health Department has agreed long since that
school lunches are a necessary part to the growth and
progress of a student. The absence of these features in the
Negro schools and the presence of these in the other schools
would not of necessity present a comparable picture. The
same inequities may be further pointed out by way of actual
class size. At the Scotts Branch School, let’s take an illus
tration. At the Scotts Branch School, there we had a situa
tion of 8 classes being crowded by way of any standards
acceptable in the realm of college administration—in the
realm of public school administration. There were classes
with a range of classes from—the range of classes at the
Scotts Branch School, which would certainly not lend itself
to instructional adequacy or efficiency, may be seen from
such enrollment. In a first grade class, where the basic
preliminary school is begun by students, there are two such
classes, one with 60 pupils in it, the other with 69 pupils in
it. The floor space of the two rooms in which these students
were being instructed were also inadequate by way of
National standards and standards approved by the Depart

ment of Health of the State of South Carolina. That same
pattern existed in six of the classes at the Scotts Branch
School. In other words, eight of the nine above had enroll
ments ranging from 38 to 79, whereas the acceptable figure
for the elementary school is 30. At least the recommended
[fol. 80] figure is 30. The preferred figure is 28. Whereas,
in the High School it is generally accepted that the figure
should be even lower. 22 preferred, 28 acceptable. Here,
we had 8 classes, ranging with an enrollment span from 39
to 79. The quality of instruction of necessity must suffer
when one stops to consider the basic processes in learning.
That condition did not prevail at the Summerton Elemen
tary School nor at the Summerton High School, inasmuch as
all of the classes at the Summerton Elementary School, by
these same standards, there were only two classes that were
oversize and there were 31 pupils each. The oversizing by
way of National standards would be 1 more than the 30
generally accepted for elementary schools. In the High
School none of the classes were oversized by way of National
accepted standards, nor by the preferred standards, that of
22. There was only one class with 24 pupils.

Q. Your overall opinion then is that the children in the
Negro schools are not getting equal classroom instruction as
compared with the white children?

A. Not at all.
Mr. Carter : Thank you.
Judge Parker: Do you wish to cross-examine him?
Mr.;Figg: Yes, sir.
Judge Parker: All right. Go ahead.

[fol. 81] Cross-examination.

By Mr. Figg:
Q. When was the first time that you examined the schools

in School District 22?
A. The first time that I examined the schools in School

District 22 were the dates November 16th and 17th.
Q. And did you make a report of that examination to

anyone ?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. In writing?

A. Yes.
Q. And when did you next examine the schools'?
A. April 18 and 19.
Q. Of this year!
A. That is correct.
Q. Now, I noticed in your testimony that you have given

the school population on a basis of enrollment. Did you
make any study of the average daily attendance figures
also?

A. No, I did not.
Q. You are not familiar with them?
A. I am.
Q. You are familiar with the average daily attendance?
A. They were in the Superintendent’s report, hut they

were not broken down by schools and we were concerned
in the collection of data with a breakdown by schools rather
than the breakdown by county.

Q. Well, in your survey, though, when you were there
[fol. 82] making inquiry as to the school systems, you did
not then ask for figures on the average daily attendance of
each school and each class ?

A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you get those figures?
A. I did not get it.
Q. Who did you ask for it?
A. I asked the principals at the schools.
Q. Well, they didn’t give you that information?
A. No, they did not give me that information.
Q. Did you ask Mr. Betehman?
A. No, I didn’t ask Mr. Betehman.
Q. You knew he was the Superintendent of this district

and had the information, didn’t you?
A. No, I couldn’t say that I did.
Q. Were you interested in average daily attendance?
A. No, I was not too much interested, inasmuch as I had

seen the report of the superintendent of schools.
Q. Did you take into account, in examining these

schools, anything of an attendance problem, either at
the beginning of the school year or at the end of the school
year, or in the middle of the school year?

A. It would be hard to answer that question in the frame
work in which it is placed due to any number of situations

that one was faced with. That is to say, I asked questions
[fol. 83] in re the matter of which you now speak, hut I was
given information that the schools didn’t open at the same
time, they didn’t close at the same time, and in the Negro
schools they had to go to school on Saturday to make up
time, whereas they didn’t do it in the white schools. There
was something known as a growing season or planting-
season or something of the sort.

Q. That interfered with the beginning of the school year
at one of the stages of the agricultural operation and inter
fered with it at the end of the school year with the other
stage, isn’t that correct?

A. That was what was presented to me. That is, there
was no method of keeping the children in school.

Q. And, did you inquire as to whether efforts had been
made to enforce attendance during those periods ?

A. Yes, I did. I inquired of Mr. Wright, who is the Prin
cipal at the Scott’s Branch School and a Miss Adger, I
think was her name, who was acting building Principal at
the Liberty Hill School, and Miss Hamilton, I think, was
the lady’s name at the Ram Bay school. I made inquiries
of each of those, and I was given this information, that
there was no enforcement by way of students remaining in
school. And, the reason I raised the question was because
I was able to see myself that there were any number of
students who should have been in school, being of school
age, who were in the fields plowing and working and what
not as we made the tours from school to school.
[fol. 84] Q. You never found that cases had been made
before Magistrates and what-not under the compulsory law?

A. I beg your pardon.
Q. You didn’t find that any cases had been made before

Magistrates in trying to enforce compulsory education in
those cases!

A. No, I did not.
Q. Now, coming to this school called Ram Bay School,

that is the two-teacher school, isn’t it?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And, did you ascertain that the Trustees sometime

ago—several years ago—had closed that school?
A. No.
Q. You didn’t find that out?

A. No,
Q. And you didn’t find why it was re-opened?
A. No, I did not.
Q. And therefore you wouldn’t know whether it had been

closed by the Trustees and then re-opened on the petition
of the patrons of the school?

A. No, I would not.
Q. That was right in an agricultural section, wasn’t it—

that school?
A. I would say yes.
Q. And there is no electricity in that area of the county,

is it?
[fol. 85] A. I couldn’t answer that question.

Q. You didn’t check that up?
A. As to electricity in that section of the county?
Q. Was it available ?
A. I said I could not answer that question.
Q. And, it was no running water or sewerage in that area

either, was it?
A. I couldn’t answer that. You must keep in mind that

the only place that I visited was the school. I didn’t visit
the outlaying areas.

Q. Well, I thought perhaps when you found certain con
ditions existing in the schools about lights and toilets and
what-not, you would have checked up to see whether facili
ties were available to extend the electricity to that school.

A. No. The reason I wouldn’t do that is because I would
assume the fact that the school was operated as a public
school, and that there were certain responsibilities on the
Board of Education in insure health and safety.

Q. And, as to electricity, the fact that a school was in a
community that didn’t have electricity and nobody that
lived in the community had electricity, you wouldn’t expect
to find electric facilities in the school either, would you?

A. No. If you will note, throughout my testimony I did
not point up the fact of no electricity at this particular in
stitution, but had I done so, in furtherance of your question,
[fol. 86] I will say that educational standards don’t say
electricity as such. I think they will point up artificial
lighting. And, there are various types of artificial lights
that may be used.

Q. Now, this Earn Bay School, I think, is the school you
said where the students had tables, is that correct?

A. I didn’t hear the question.
Q. The Ram Bay School has tables and chairs around

them instead of desks?
A. That’s correct, sir.
Q. Isn’t it a fact that tables and chairs are being increas

ingly used in the more modern schools instead of desks?
A. A certain type, but not the type that was found at the

Ram Bay School. I will agree with you that portable fur
niture—even portable fixtures like blackboards—are the
newest concerns we have in the field of educational supplies.
But, these were fixed tables in the center of the floor that
could not be used for purposes of grouping and what-have-
you.

Q. Wasn’t it the kind of equipment that might be used
with the school population that might have a large enroll
ment but a fluctuating attendance because of the agricul
tural occupations of the parents of the school children?

A. I regret, sir, that I could not agree with you. They
could be used anywhere except in a kitchen.

Q. In a what?
A. In a kitchen. There were cracks. They were sup-

[fol. 87] posed to be used for instructional purposes for
students to write on and to read on, and there were actu
ally holes in the tables. The lady who taught the first grade
at the school showed me three chairs which she had just
received that had been sent over from the white school,
that were dilapidated and the children could not sit in them.
Other chairs had spokes and rounds out in them and the
bottoms were out in many of them. And, it was a health
hazard and a hazard of safety to those first, second and
third grade pupils.

Q. Now, did you check in Clarendon County to find out
how many two-teacher white schools there are in that
county?

A. No, I did not. I was concerned not with Clarendon
County but with District 22 of Clarendon County. That’s
where my survey was made.

Q. You do know that there are a lot of two-teacher schools
in the State of South Carolina, don’t you?

A. In the State of North Carolina, there are not.
Q. Well, how about South Carolina?
A. South Carolina I should say yes.
Q. And you did not ascertain then that the Trustees

did not want the Ram Bay School in operation?
A. No, I did not ascertain that. However, I will say in

fairness to you that Mr. Betchinan as a culminating factor
of my last conference with him volunteered the information.
I didn’t ascertain it.
[fol. 88] Q. I just thought perhaps you might have run
into that fact in your investigation either in November or
April.

A. No, that was in April.
Q. Now, the Liberty Hill School is the four-teacher

school?
A. That’s correct, sir.
Q. Now, the enrollment in these two-teacher and four-

teacher schools were not particularly heavy, were they?
A. In the two-teacher school, the answer would be no,

but in the four teacher school, I would say that they would
have a normal load by all acceptable standards.

Q. And, adequate and proper instruction could be given
in the four-teacher school, couldn’t it?

A. Very definitely, provided that there were the neces
sary instructional provisions made by someone to insure
that that type of adequacy would exist.

Q. Well, such as what? I don’t mean to enumerate all
items.

A. All right, such as visual aids, adequate buildings,
lighting.

Q. Now, by “ visual aids” you mean blackboards?
A. No, not blackboards alone.
Q. There were blackboards there?
A. Inadequate blackboards, yes.
Q. Well, at Liberty Hill weren’t the blackboards adequate

for the rooms that were in that school?
A. No. They were not because we must admit that the

[fol. 89] heights arrangement and quality in blackboard
materials are of grave importance in the instructional
program within a school. Here we had an elementary
school with the blackboards arranged at the level for chil
dren over and above their age levels. That’s number one.

Number two, it should also be pointed up that blackboards
constitute in the vernacular of visual aid to education only
a mere sampling or sprinkling* of instructional materials
on visual aids. Blackboards are just a small portion of
them. You asked, however, what aside from visual aids.
Visual aids is one of the items that I listed. Another one
is the matter of health standards and proper provision for
the protection of children and the comfort of children.

Judge Parker: Hasn’t this been covered heretofore?
Mr. Figg: Well, I didn’t ask the witness to list it all,

your Honor.
Judge Parker: I don’t want to hurry you along too

much, but let’s get along.
Q. Hid I understand you to say that the desks in Liberty

Hill School were double desks?
A. No, sir. I said some of the desks, those in Miss Ad-

ger’s room. They are two seats together. The reason I can
certainly point that up, I sat in one of the desks and a little
boy was sitting over next to the window and he wanted to
get out while I was sitting there and I had to get up.

Q. Two students were sitting side by side at the same
desk?
[fol. 90] A. That is correct.

Q. Now, the Scotts Branch School, did you check the
attendance records at any time you were at the Scotts
Branch School in any of the classes?

A. No, I did not.
Q. Hid you check the percentage of attendance in the

Scotts Branch School in the course of your survey?
A. I did not.
Q. And did you check the percentage of attendance in

the Summerton Elementary School?
A. I did not.
Q. Now, the Summerton Elementary School, I think you

said was of white stone. Hid it appear to be stone?
A. I guess it would be—could be termed as sand stone.

I am not in position to answer that.
Q. Was that in what you would call good condition?
A. Many repairs could be made on it.
Q. Isn’t it a fact that it was in poor condition?

A. I would not say poor condition.
Q. Would you say it was in acceptable condition?
A. No.
Q. As a matter of fact, as you approached it, you could

see the necessity of a good bit of work that could be done
on it?

A. No, I could not.
Q. What kind of lights did they have in that school?

[fol. 91] A. I don’t recall.
Q. Didn’t they just have a wire dangling from the ceiling

with an incandescent bulb in it? Did you see that?
A. No, I did not see that.
Q. You went into the Summerton High School, you know

that is the centralized high school and not a school in Dis
trict 22?

A. No, I did not know that.
Q. You know it is operated by five school districts and

not one, do you not?
A. No, I do not know that.
Q. Did you find out how many high school pupils in Dis

trict 22 attended the Summerton High School?
A. I did not.
Q. The Summerton High School, did you find out when it

was built?
A. Yes, I did make that notation. I think the corner stone

was either 1906 or 1907.
Q. Well, that is the elementary school, isn’t it?A. That is the elementary school.
Q. I meant the high school.
A. No, I did not find out when the high school was built

because it was so modern.
Q. Did you find out which was the last school building-

built in the school district?
A. No, sir.

[fol. 92. ] Q. You didn’t find out when the last school was
built ?

A. No.
Q. You went inside of the Scotts Branch School, didn’t

you?
A. That is correct.
Q. And the interior of those buildings is very similar?

6 6

A. No.
Q. I mean the plan or layout!
A. You mean the architectural plan!
Q. The. general effect inside.
A. No.
Q. Did you find out whether the Scotts Branch School

was built according to plans approved by the State Board
of Education and according to the specifications laid down
for schools ?

A. No, I did not.
Q. You didn’t check that. And I think you said that there

are 12 grades in the Scotts Branch School and 14 teachers.
Is that correct!

A. No, in the Scotts Branch School there were 12 grades
and------

Q. And 14 teachers !
A. And 9 teachers in the elementary school and 5 in the

high school, a total of 14.
Q. 14 teachers. And I believe you said there were two

classes of one grade, for instance the first grade. Is that
correct!

A. Well, when we say there were 2 first grades, that
may be interpreted to mean two sections, I mean the same
class.
[fol. 93] Q. You would expect more pupils to be in the first
grades and less in the top grades, would you not!

A. Definitely. That is why you would expect more first
grade classes.

Q. And in the Scotts Branch School, taking classroom
by classroom, approved and efficient education could be
given in that school, could it not!

A. If it were improved.
Q. No, I said taking classroom by classroom, efficient and

approved education could be given in those classrooms of
the Scotts Branch School, could it not?

A. To answer that question,—that question could not be
answered yes or no, because the equalizing of an instruc
tional program must of necessity bring into operation, aside
from pupils and teachers,------

Q. Excuse me a minute. I am talking about the physical
classrooms. These classrooms in the Scotts Branch School
are efficient classrooms, are they not?

A. h o.
Q. What was wrOilg with them!
A. All right. The things that were wrong with them are

as follows: No. 1, there was inadequate floor space in many
of them, according to the standards, the floor space per
child, and it is a very unhealthy situation related to the
room. The room is used by the school library. The matter
[fol. 94] of drinking water. These do not smack of academic
qualifications but are included in the learning program.

Q. When you went there in April were there drinking
fountains inside?

A. No, sir.
Q. Are they inside today?
A. They are today.
Q. You knew the materials were there to put them inside

in April, did you not?
A. I did not. And I was not told either by the superin

tendent or principal; Mr. Wright, I am sure, could verify
that and also Mr. Betchman.

Q. The principal is a colored man?
A. The principal is a Negro.
Q. And that is true of the other Scotts Branch teachers

too?
A. That is correct.
Q. And Mr. Betchman, I think you saw on both occasions ?
A. I did.
Q. From a physical standpoint and leaving aside any

intangible force, just comparing the buildings physically,
would you say that the Summerton Elementary School was
inferior or superior to the Scotts Branch School as a school
house?

A. Superior.
Q. In what respect?
A. The masonry and landscaping, plumbing, room size,

[fol. 95] ventilation, instructional supplies, auditorium, play
grounds, fence protection.

Q. You would say that the masonry of the building, as you
call it, is superior to the Scotts Branch building? '

A. By far.
Q. You don’t think school houses should be anything but

masonry ?
A. No, I wouldn’t answer that way.

6 8

Q. Scotts Branch building is a frame school building,
is it not?

A. It is a frame school house.
Q. Isn’t it of pretty good construction?
A. The real value of a frame structure, I would not be in

position to say. The only thing I would say, the condition of
that frame structure at the time I observed it, it would add
up to a picture of this sort: There were many of the panel
lings—I think you call them clapboards, that were off of
the building around the side. There was no underpinning
of the building, which would be increased insulation as far
as heat goes. For plumbing, there was an absence of
equipment and supplies necessary for promotion of health.
By way of cleaning of the building, there was the absence
always of other facilities for health.

Q. How many clapboards were off?
A. I could not answer the exact number because there

were clapboards off at more than one junction of the build
ing.
[fol. 96] Q. Did you note in any report that you made that
any clapboards were off of the Scotts Branch School?

A. Do what?
Q. Did you note in any report that you made of your

two investigations that clapboards were off of the Scotts
Branch School?

A. No, that was minor as far as the report goes.
Q. Isn’t it a fact that the school building was in pretty

good condition both times you saw it?
A. I just answered that question and said no.
Q. I am not talking about—you mention health conditions,

I am talking about the physical building, the physical struc
tural building, wasn’t it in a pretty good condition as a
school?

A. My answer is no.
Q. What did you mean when you talked about the sur

facing around the school? Did you mean hard surfacing or
just landscaping or an open space or what?

A. No, I meant what we call improved and unimproved
surfacing. The playgrounds at the Summerton elementary
school were not of mud; they were not of earth.

Q. What were they of?
A. They were a combination construction of asphalt or

6 9

cement all around the building of some type of construction;
some type of mixture or combination mixture of tar and
rock or tar and gravel, as I recall, on; certain parts of the
[fol. 97] playground. The same was true------

Q. Are you positive of that, that there was asphalt: and
rock on the playground at the elementary school?

A. We may not call it asphalt and rock, but—well, let us
say a tar substitute, then.

Q. Was there any of that around the Summerton High
School?

A. Definitely.
Q. I am not talking about the roadway in there, now.

Are you?
A. Well, that is part of the campus.
Q. Were you talking about the playground? I am not

talking about the roadway into the school.
A. No, we spoke of the location of the school and------
Q. You testified to hard surfaced or improved play

grounds.
A. I beg your pardon. I don’t think my testimony will

show that.
Q. Let’s eliminate the road intô the school then. What

else were you talking about?
A. I was talking about the site—the school site.
Q. The school site?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, is there tar around the Summerton Elementary

School on the school site outside of the roadway leading
up to it ?

A. Yes.
Q. There is?
A. Yes.
Q. The playground is improved by artificial means?

[fol. 98] A. No.
Q. Well] then, what do you mean by this “ tar?”
A. I just pointed out that we still are speaking of the

school site, but to speak of school sites does not of necessity
mean that the entire site must be surfaced, for you, yourself,
pointed out that at the, Summerton High School you have
a more or less arc or semi-circle runway leading into the
Summerton High School. Now, that is of a tar-concrete
construction. But, I wouldn’t dare say that the entire

physical grounds of the Summerton High School are of the
same composition.

Mr. Figg: That is all, your Honor.
Judge Parker: Ho you wish to examine him further?
Mr. Marshall: No, sir.
Judge Parker: Stand down. Court will recess for five

minutes.

[fol.99] Judge Parker: Call the next witness.

M r. H arold M cN allby was duly sworn.
Direct examination.

By Mr. Carter:
Q. Mr. McNalley, would you kindly state what your oc

cupation is.
A. I am Associate Professor of Education.
Q. At where ?
A. At Teacher College, Columbia University.
Q. How long have you held that position?
A. I have been associate professor for the past two years,

and assistant professor for three years prior to that
Q. Have you had any previous teaching experience?
A. Yes. I taught elementary school in Delaware from

1934 to 1936, in New Jersey in 1936 and 1937, and was Di
rector of Special Education in Aleghany County, Mary
land, from 1942 to 1946.

Q. Now, would you mind giving your educational back
ground and the degrees that you hold?

A. I _ was _ graduated from the Philadelphia Normal
School in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and granted a teach
ing certificate. I hold the Bachelor’s degree, the Master’s
degree and the Ph. D. degree from Columbia University in
the field of education.
_ Q- All right. What duties do you perform as the Asso

ciate Professor of Education at Teacher’s College?
. A- 1 might say that in addition to my duties as Asso

ciate Professor, I am also the Executive Officer of the Col-

[fol. 100] lege Elementary School at Teacher College, and
my duties include the instruction of graduate students, the
advisement of master’s degree and doctor’s degree candi
dates, the conducting of research seminars, the overseeing
of the administrative policies of the College Elementary
School, and the conducting of field work in the field for
students.

Q. Have you published any articles relating to the ques
tion of education and school administration?

A. Quite a number of them in any number of different
professional journals such as the Teacher College Record;
The Journal Consulting Psychology, Educational Admin
istration and Supervision; and the National Elementary
Principal, all State journals of education in the United
States—and some other probably. I can’t recall them all
offhand.

Q. Do you belong to any professional societies?
A. Yes.
Q. Which?
A. I am a member of the American School of Adminis

trators; The Association of Curriculum Departments of
Elementary School Principals; The National Society for
the Study of Education; The Kappa Delta Phi; the Phi
Delta Kappa; The American Association of University
Professors; of the National Conference of Professors of
Educational Administration; and state organizations of
elementary school principals in New York State and New
Jersey.
[fol. 101] Q. What is the particular field of education that
you would consider your specialty?

A. The field of specialization for my graduate degree was
Educational Psychology. My experience has been in teach
ing in administration, and I am now working in the De
partment of Educational Administration at Teacher’s Col
lege as a Professor of Educational Administration.

Q. Mr. McNalley, have you had any experience at all in
evaluating* elementary and secondary schools?

A. Yes, particularly elementary schools. I participated
in a number of surveys of school systems, such as the
school system of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Great Neck,
New York, Montclaire, New Jersey, and I have directed

other surveys, most recently in Warwick, New Jersey, and
in Edgewater, New Jersey.

Q. I see. Mr. McNalley, you heard Mr. Whitehead’s
testimony?

A. Yes.
Q. Assuming the facts relating to the conditions of the

schools as regarding Negro and white schools in District
22; assuming the facts as he related to be true, what is your
opinion as to whether or not Negro children in those schools
can secure equal classroom instructional facilities as com
pared to white children?

A. Well, it seems obvious to me that there is not equiva
lent provision for the education of the children in the
Negro schools as compared with the White schools, for a
number of reasons: First of all, the fact that the amount
ffol. 102] of money spent for the Negro schools is consid
erably less than that spent for the white schools, the differ
entiation becoming greater if one looks at it in terms of
“ per pupil expense,” I would assume is an indication that
there are not equal facilities provided. If one wanted to
adduce research evidence on that, we could go to certain
researches that were made in the past decade in relation
to what educational money buys. Researches of Paul Mort
—Doctor Paul Mort—Doctor Loren Willard, Doctor Fran
cis Cornell, Doctor William Vincent and others have es
tablished a strong relationship between the quality of edu
cation and the cost of education. Now, of course, there are
varying factors. You can have certain conditions such as
one pupil in a school district, in which case the general re
lation would not hold good. But, by and large, that is true,
that the more money spent for educational progress is just
as in other respects, like the more money spent for other
things generally the more likely you are to get a better
product. That is one conclusion that seems to me to be
pretty obvious. Certain of the other factors that were
brought out in Doctor Whitehead’s statements also point
to factors which I don’t believe one needs even professional
educational competency to see certain inequalities there,
such as the amount of floor space—the differentiation in
the floor space—the per-pupil or teacher-pupil load. Mod
ern education is stressing particularly the need for the in
dividualization of instruction; knowledge of the nature and

[fol. 103] the needs of each pupil. It seems, then, rather
obvious that the more pupils a teacher has to teach, the less
able she can be to know what the individual needs of each
are. And there is the rather definite detferentiation in the
provision of physical facilities relating to health such as the
toilet facilities, and the drinking water facilities particu
larly. And, may I say this, that in the modern conception
of education, all the experiences the child has in the school
constitute his education. And, it would seem to me that
if you have poor health facilities provided children, they
are learning poor health habits as wrell as being exposed to
health hazards. Consequently, that would constitute a
definite inequality of education offered in the two groups
of schools. The furniture, of course, was mentioned as
being different in each school, and if I understand the testi
mony correctly, I would say again that the quality of in
struction in the Negro schools could not help being handi
capped by the nature of the facilities provided in the way
of furniture, toilets and instruction.

Q. Well, Mr. McNalley, assuming only the fact that the
Negro children in District 22 are educated in segregated
classrooms and schools from which the white children in
District 22 are excluded, in your opinion can the Negro
children receive equal classroom instructional opportunities
as compared to the opportunities of the average white chil
dren ?
[fol. 104] A. Well, I would say no, and for this reason:
If one considers what is the purpose of education in a coun
try such as ours—a Democracy—one must be led to this
conclusion, I think: The public schools are about the only
institutions in the United States where children of all so
cial-economic circumstances—all levels, all beliefs and in
many places at least all races and colors—coming together
for instruction and to know one another, that one of the
purposes of education, it seems to me in a country such as
ours, is to develop in each individual a real meaning for
the phrase “ Respect for Personalities” or “ Respect for
Individualities” and respect for others—the historic con
cept of equality. And, if we accept children for instruc
tion, whether we accept them on the basis of race, on the
basis of creed or what-have-you, it seems to me that both
groups are being discriminated against in terms of good

education for a good Democratic State. That is, I think the
white children as well as the colored children are being
short-changed in that respect. They are not having the
opportunity to learn to value each other and one another
as individuals, as persons. And, secondly, that there is
basically implied in the separation—the two groups in this
case of Negro and White—that there is some difference in
the two groups which does not make it feasible for them to
be educated together, which I would hold to be untrue.
Furthermore, by separating the two groups, there is implied
a stigma on at least one of them. And, I think that that
[fob 105] would probably be pretty generally conceded.
We thereby relegate one group to the status of more or
less second-class citizens. Now, it seems to me that if that
is true—and I believe it is—that it would be impossible to
provide equal facilities as long as one legally accepts them.

Q. I see. Now, all of the items that you talked about that
you based your reason for reaching your conclusion, you
consider them to be important phases in the educational
process?

A. Very much so.
Mr. Carter: You may have the witness.
Judge Parker: Cross examine the witness.

Cross-examination.
By Mr. Figg:

Q. Have you ever made a study of any school systems in
South Carolina?

A. No, sir.
Q. In any other southern state?
A. No, sir.
Q. In any state which by law has a separate school for

the white and colored races?
A. No.
Q. You have made no inquiry into the factors and facts,

the problems and what-not which have motivated those
states in establishing separate schools for the two races ?

A. No.
[fol. 106] Mr. Figg: That’s all.

Judge Parker: Go down. Call your next witness.

M r . E llis 0. K nox was duly sworn.

Direct examination.

By Mr. Carter:
Q. Mr. Knox, would you kindly indicate what your occu

pation is.
A. Professor of Education, Howard University.
Q. In Washington, D. C.f
A. In Washington, D. C.
Q. How long have you held that position!
A. Twenty years.
Q. Have you held any previous teaching positions?
A. Yes. I have taught in public as well as private schools

in such states as Texas, Arizona, California, and for a brief
time in Kansas.

Q. Thank you. Would you mind stating what your edu
cational background is and what degrees you hold?

A. I graduated from the public schools of Lake County,
California, got my A. B. Degree in 1922 at the University
of California, A. M. Degree in 1928 at the University of
Southern California, Ph. D. Degree in 1931 at the Uni
versity of Southern California, received graduate study in
the field of Education at Columbia University, Ohio State
University and in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Arizona State
College—and one or two others.

Q. Well, what experience have you had, Mr. Knox, in
[fol. 107] evaluating schools?

A. Well, I have been a part of educational survey com
mittees and groups in what amounts to about eleven major
cities. That is, I have participated in, sometimes con
ducted, sometimes merely as participant, in educational
surveys for a period of longer than twenty years, but
about eleven major cities, inclusive in such cities as the
schools in San Diego, California, schools in Kansas City,
Kansas, schools in Washington, D. C,, the most recent of
the largest surveys being the survey or auspices for the
United States Congress directed by Doctor George D.
Strayer in the public schools of Washington, D. C.

Q. Have you published any articles or books dealing with
the problem of education?

A. One book dealing with the trend of progress in pri

vate and denominational higher institutions, and many
other articles over a period of years insofar as public
school administration and methods of teaching in public
schools—that which would have to do with subject matter,
content, changes in regard to our various concepts of educa
tion.

Q. Thank you. Now, Mr. Knox, assuming only the fact
that schools in District 22 in which Negro children attend
are segregated and that white children cannot attend those
schools—assuming only those facts—what is your opinion
as an educator as to whether or not the Negro child can
receive equal classroom instructional opportunities under
those conditions?
[fob 107a] A. In light of the facts which I have heard and

the testimony this morning, and assuming the fact that one
is segregated and the other is not segregated—rather . . .
Will you state your question again, Mr. Counsel?

By Mr. Carter:
Q. I said, assuming only the fact that the schools in

District 22 . . .
A. Yes.
Q. To which Negro children attend are segregated—in

other words, that they have to attend segregated schools—
and white children are excluded from those schools, in your
opinion as an educator, can the Negro children receive
equal classroom instructional opportunities under those
conditions ?

Judge Parker: Do you mean for him to exclude all the
other facts that were testified?

Mr. Carter: Yes, sir,—just the fact of segregation.
Judge Parker: All right.
Mr. F igg: If your Honor please, we object to that ques

tion because just the fact that there is segregation could
hardly be a matter of opinion by a witness.

Judge Parker: Well, what he’s asking him is whether
or not in his opinion it is discriminating against the Negro
children to segregate them in the schools. That is what
he’s asking him. Why isn’t that competent?

Mr. Figg: We think it ’s irrelevant and immaterial. It ’s
been settled that the states can provide public schools

[fol. 108] and that they may provide separate schools for
the different races. And, his opinion is irrelevant and im
material under the legal situation as laid down in the deci
sions. That is a political matter for the legislature under
our situation and not for witnesses on the witness stand.
That may be his opinion, but it ’s . . .

Judge Parker: Well, if that’s so, we might as well let it
come in, and the Court can pass on it, don’t you think so?
Co ahead and answer the question.

The Witness: In my opinion, if the schools are segre
gated, there are inferior educational opportunities af
forded Negro youth. Now, that opinion is based upon
surveys, studies, visitations and even participation in the
educational programs in segregated areas over a number of
years. It has never been my experience to have either
visited for the purpose of surveying or investigating for
the purpose of conducting model or what is called “ Demon
stration” lessons, which I have done in different states
with segregated schools, or to merely observe and engage
in the social and civil conditions of the areas in which
schools are segregated. I have never found the segregated
schools to afford equal conditions, and at all times the
schools for Negroes were inferior insofar as the complete
school district and the educational opportunities and in
structional provisions afforded as compared to that for
whites.

Judge Parker: I don’t think he’s answered your ques-
[fol. 109] tion. He has said that where there is segre
gation he has observed that the Negroes have inferior
schooling qualities. That wasn’t the question you asked him
at all, was it?

Mr. Carter: No, sir.

By Mr. Carter:
Q. I want to know from you, Mr. Knox, based on that

experience, whether it ’s possible in your opinion for a
segregated school in District 22—or the segregated schools
in District 22—to give equal' educational opportunities to
the Negro children?

A. It is my opinion that it is impossible to give equal ed
ucational opportunities to Negro children.

Q. Well, Mr. Knox, leaving out all the elements of in
equality which you have found—the physical inequalities
which you have found to exist in your visitations and sur
veys in the schools—what is the reason for your having
reached that conclusion?

A. The reason is that when children are segregated, that
segregation cannot exist without discrimination, disad
vantages to the minority group, and that the children in
the Negro schools very definitely are not prepared for the
same type of American citizenship as the children in the
white schools. They are not afforded the same instruc
tion or other opportunities. We are preparing children
to become members, in my opinion, of the human race and
not distinct races as such. And, in the light of that over
all objective for public education and in our American
Democracy, I don’t believe that educational conditions which
[fol. 110] more or less are centered around, racial differ
entiations and distinctions are Democratic or equal.

Mr. Carter: Thank you. Your witness.
Judge Parker: Examine the witness.

Cross-examination.

By Mr. F igg:
Q. I think you said that you had been in school work in

Texas ?
A. Right.
Q. They had segregated schools in Texas?
A. They did.
Q. And, have you determined why Texas had segregated

schools ?
A. Due to the law.
Q. Did you make any inquiry into the purpose of that

law?
A. In Texas?
Q. Yes.
A. I did not.
Q. You wouldn’t be of the opinion that that law had

something to do with the fact that certainly at the present
time and under present conditions that the element of con
siderable emotionalism evolves in the education of races

where they live in great numbers in the same area? That’s
true, isn’t it?

A. Will you state that again, Mr. Counsel?

By Mr. F igg:
Q. I say, there is a difference in a situation where the

two races live in large numbers together in the same area
and where one or the other is in a very small number as
compared with the other race?
[fol. I l l ] A. Well, in Texas there are a large number of
Negroes.

Q. I know that.
A. And in many areas the proportion of Negroes is

greater than that of whites.
Q. And then there are some where it ’s the other way?
A. Yes.
Q. And then there are some where they are about equally

divided?
A. Correct.
Q. And there are ways of life and emotionalisms and

whatnot to be taken into account as a practical matter
whether they think that theoretically it ought to disappear
or not, isn’t that correct?

A. Definitely yes. We must take into account the ways of
life and emotionalisms, but I do not want to in any sense of
the word say that we should not control emotionalisms and
direct our ways and lives in terms of our Democratic goals
at all times.

Q. Well, I understand that, but emotionalism does exist
in connection with racial relations in the kinds of places we
have talked about, isn’t that correct?

A. My experience has been that it exists to a degree at
times, and sometimes in those same areas it ’s not readily
apparent nor of a great amount. And, in other areas there
is a relatively minimum amount of emotionalism.
[fol. 112] Q. Sometimes it ’s an acute problem and some
times it ’s not, isn’t that correct?

A. Such as all other problems which tend to face the
human race in their evolutions, I would say.

Q, And, in places where it ’s an acute problem, as a
school administrator you might very well assign the chil

dren of one race to one school and of another race to another
school in the light of that problem, isn’t that correct?

A. If I understand you, Mr. Counsel, in cases where it’s
an acute problem, I would not assign the children of one
race to one school.

Q. It might be good school administration, though, apart
from law, isn’t that correct?

A. I would not admit to that. It would be very poor
school administration if the administrator did not direct
his efforts at all times in terms of the overall purpose of
our American public schools.

Q. Well, where the problem was acute, wouldn’t it inter
fere considerably with the proper administration of a school
system not to take into account that background?

A. I would say that my opinion tends to show the ad
ministrators of public schools are of sufficient stature and
leadership ability so that they can more or less direct—mold
even—and control public opinion so as to preserve the best
interests of all the children in any community or given
area.
[fol. 113] Q. Now, let me ask you another question? Isn’t
it a fact that rural school education has perhaps lagged be
hind the development of education in the urban centers in
recent years?

A. Not only in recent years, but throughout history . . .
Q. Throughout history.
A. And the evolution of education, there has been a

lagging behind of rural areas in education and the develop
ment of other social institutions.

Q. And one of the difficulties with rural education has
been the fact that it has had to be supported under a great
many public school systems by local taxation, isn’t that
correct?

A. I believe in every state in the United States the State
Executive Officers act as State Boards of Equalization of
educational funds, and therefore that the rural schools are
not supported entirely------

Q. Where is that?
A. In the states. The State Superintendents observe to

see that there is some degree of equalization of educational
funds.

Q. You mean in South Carolina?

A. No. I ’m saying that insofar as the United States as
a whole.

Q. You mean that should be done?
A. That should be done.
Q. And it ’s a distinct step forward in the development

of education generally, and particularly in rural education
[fol. 114] when, a state undertakes to make the matter of
physical facilities in the school system a matter of state con
cern and distribute the burden over the whole state rather
than to leave it lay on any particular school district? That
is a step forward, isn’t it?

A. That is. That has existed, Mr. Counselor, for a num
ber of years in most states, and it ’s very essential and de
sirable to see that the educational facilities are to a degree
at least equalized throughout the state.

Q. I ’m talking now in reference to the State of South
Carolina. You know that the State this year has taken that
step, don’t you?

A. I did not know it prior to this time.
Q. You heard that today?
A. I ’m learning it from you.
Q. And, that should be a distinct factor in the develop

ment of rural education in this state, shouldn’t it?
A. Now, may I ask you to kindly explain so we can be

sure we are talking about the same thing in reference to
that. The antecedent of that was the equality of school
opportunities for rural and urban areas.

Q. I mean the provision of funds from the state treasury
to aid the school districts in providing school facilities
and equipment should be a distinct aid to the development
of education in rural sections, shouldn’t it?

A. Yes.
[fol. 115] Q. You haven’t yourself been to School District
22 in Clarendon County that we’re talking about here
today?

A. I have not.
Q. Your knowledge of that you obtained by listening to

a witness on the witness stand?
A. And from what I have been able to read and learn

through studies.
Q. But, I mean you haven’t studied that school district

6—101

yourself, have you, except what you read from somebody
else?

A. I haven’t studied the school district other than the
reports which have been made and the extent to which the
school district appears in literature.

Q. You haven’t seen anything about school district 22
in literature, have you?

A. No—the extent to which School District 22, of course,
is part of the whole program of South Carolina—the ex
tent to which information in regard to the school program
of South Carolina would be applicable.

Mr. Figg: All right. That’s all.
Judge Parker: Do you wish to ask him anything in

rebuttal?
Mr. Carter: Not a thing.
Judge Parker: Stand down. Call your next witness.
Mr. Carter: I would like to call Mr. Kenneth Clark as

a witness.

[fol. 116] Mr. K enneth Clark was duly sworn.
Direct examination.

By Mr. Carter:
Q. Mr. Clark, would you kindly state your occupation?
A. I ’m Assistant Professor of Psychology at the New

York City College, and Associate Director of the North Side
School for child development in New York City.

Q. How long have you been Assistant Professor of
Psychology at the New York City College?

A. I have been associated with New York City College
since 1942, and I have been Assistant Professor since
1948, I think.

Q. How long have you been Director of the North Side
Center?

A. My wife and I founded the North Side Center in 1946.
Q. And, what is the purpose of that organization ?
A. I t ’s a child guidance center. It seeks to help children

with emotional problems. Children with behavior problems
are helped by us in obtaining psychiatric aid for living a
more adjusted life.

Q. Have you held any other positions other than those
two?

A. Yes, I have. I was a reserve consultant for the Amer
ican Youth Commission in their study of the effects of a
minority status on the personalities of Negro youth. I
was reserve associate with the Cornachie-Murdaugh study
of the Negro in America. I was reserve associate with the
Office of War Information during the war in their studies
of morale problems in the American Negro. I worked
rather recently with the mid-century White House con-
[fol. 117] ference on Children In Youth, preparing for
them a manuscript on the effects of prejudice and dis
crimination on the personalities of children—white and
Negro children. This manuscript was used last Decem
ber in Washington at the White House conference on
Children and Youth.

Q. Have you published any books or articles on this or
any related subjects?

A. I have.
Q. Would you generally list them and where they appear?
A. Yes. Within the last ten years, I have published about

twenty-five articles on the problem of social psychology
with children and the effects of social situations on the
personalities of children. They have appeared in the Jour
nal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, the Journal of
Social Psychology, the International Bulletin on Social
Sciences published by the United Nations Organization.
Some of these articles or chapters have appeared in books,
such as Civilian Morale by Goodwin Watson, Human
Nature and Enduring Peace by Gardner Murphy, and Read
ings and Social Psychology by Newman Hartley.

Q. Would you indicate your memberships, and the meas
ures, in professional societies of your profession?

A. I am a Fellow in the Division of Personalities and
Social Psychology of the American Psychological Associa
tion. I am a Fellow in the Society for the Socialogical study
of social issues, and I am a member of the Columbia Uni-
[fol. 118] versity Chapter of The Honorary Scientific Re
search Organization.

Q. Well, is your Major or emphasis on child psychology?
A. Child and Social.
Q. Now, Mr. Clark, are there any methods of scien

tifically determining a child’s sensitivity to racial discrimi
nation and its effects on its personality and development!

A. Yes, there are.
Q. Would you tell us what those methods are!
A. There are many methods which psychologists have

developed in their attempts to measure the child’s sen
sitivity, his awareness of racial problems, and the effects
which these have upon him. These methods are generally
listed under what psychologists call projective methods, in
which the child, depending upon his age—younger children
and some older ones too are presented with pictures; pic
tures of individuals in which the racial group is clear by
the color of one or more of the pictures. And, the child is
asked to interpret the meaning or significance of that pic
ture. Sometimes the child may be asked to identify him
self with one or the other individuals on the picture. Then,
there are methods which my wife and I have developed of
presenting the child with dolls—dolls which are equal in
every respect—that is coming from the same mould, except
skin color, and asking the child a number of questions about
these dolls. Would you care to hear the questions that we
ask?

Q. Well, just generally.
[fol. 119] A. Well, we ask the child which one of these dolls
does he like best, which one is a “ Nice” doll, which one is
‘ ‘ bad, ’ ’ and we ’re interested not only in the child’s response
to the specific question, but we’re also interested in his
spontaneous remarks as he attempts to justify it. Then, in
order to find out whether that is predicated upon the child’s
knowledge of the racial factor, which these dolls are sup
posed to symbolize, we ask the child which one is like a
white child, which one is like a colored child, and finally the
last question that we ask the child, after the child has
expressed his opinion about the dolls, we ask the child
‘ ‘ Which one is like you ? ’ ’ Another method which we have
is the coloring method. We present the child with some
pictures—line drawings—of various objects like the leaf,
an orange, a mouse and an apple in order to see whether the
child has any stable concept of color-object relationship.
And, if we find that that’s true, we then give the child a
drawing of a little boy if he is a little boy and say “ This

little boy is you, ” “ Color Mm the color that you are. ’ ’ And,
we get some picture of the child’s concept of his own color,
and we also get an indication of the child’s anxieties and
confusions about his color and his feelings. And, we present
him with a picture of a little girl and we say to him ‘ ‘ Color
this little girl the color that you would like little girls to be. ’ ’
Here we get an indication of the child’s preference or feel
ings about different shades of skin color. These are the
[fob 120] methods which are generally used.

Q. Now, am I correct in stating that you have examined
all of the literature relating to this method—to this subject
—in preparation of the manuscript for the White House
Conference?

A. You are correct, sir.
Q. Now, what did the literature which you examined

adduce?
Judge Parker: What’s that question?
Mr. Carter: Sir, I have asked him about the methods in

determining racial discrimination. Mr. Clark has taken all
of the literature that has been written about the use of these
methods by other psychologists and their results and their
findings, and he has collated those in a book—a manuscript
—which he has edited for the White House Conference.
And, I merely wanted to get from him the general con
clusions which were reached.

Judge Parker: Well, you have asked him about his opin
ion, but you can’t ask him about conclusions reached from
literature, can you? I have never heard of that being a
competent question.

Mr. Carter: Well, sir, I thought that I------
Judge Parker: You can ask him what authorities he

studied.
Mr. Carter: All right, sir.
Judge Parker: You know, we’ll never end this case if

[fob 121] we go into that sort of question.
Mr. Carter : I didn’t want to drag it out.
Judge Parker: All right.

By Mr. Carter:
Q. Well, are the methods which you have described ac

cepted by child psychologists as being accurate aids to

determine what part racial discrimination plays in the
development of the personality pattern?

A. These methods are generally accepted as indications
of the child’s sensitivity to race as a problem and the child’s
reactions—his own personal reactions to race as a problem.

Q. Now, based upon your own use of these methods and
upon your study of the literature in the field, have you
reached any conclusion as to the effect of racial discrimina
tion on the personality development of the Negro child?

A. Yes, I have.
Q. What is that conclusion ?
A. I have reached the conclusion from the examination of

my own results and from an examination of the literature in
the entire field that discrimination, prejudice and segrega
tion have definitely detrimental effects on the personality
development of the Negro child. The essence of this detri
mental effect is a confusion in the child’s concept of his own
self esteem—basic feelings of inferiority, conflict, confusion
in his self image, resentment, hostility towards himself,
hostility toward whites, intensification of sometimes a
[fol. 122] desire to resolve his basic conflict by sometimes
escaping or withdrawing. And, if you care to see some of
the results, I ’ll be happy to show them. They attempt to
withdraw from the situation which threatens so basically
their self-esteem. This is not only my opinion, but in a
study conducted by two social scientists, Doetcher and
Schime, they studied opinions of representative samples of
social psychology, anthropology and sociology by those who
have worked in this field, and they found that ninety percent
of these social psychologists and social scientists agree that
segregation definitely has negative detrimental effects on
the personalities of those individuals who are the victims
of segregation. And, in these specific areas which I have
just enumerated, that was true.

Q. Now, Mr. Clark, have you any occasion------
A. May I continue because that is an answer only to one-

half of your question because, actually, the problem is
further explored by those of us who know the literature by
showing that prejudice, discrimination and segregation
have an effect upon the personality of the child who belongs
to the discriminating or segregating group—the white child
in this particular regard. The Doetcher and Schime re

search again showed that in this case eighty-two percent of
the social scientists believed that the consequences of be
longing to a segregating* group also is detrimental. The
pattern of the detriment is different in this case. Here it ’s
the feeling of the social scientists that the basic personality
[fol. 123] problem is guilty feelings. Another problem is
confusion in the mind of the child—confusion concerning
basic moral ideology—and a conflict which is set up in the
child who belongs to the segregating group in terms of
having the same people teach him Democracy, brotherhood,
love of his fellow man, and teaching him also to segregate,
and to discriminate. Most of these social scientists believe
that this sets off in the personalities of these children a
fundamental confusion in the entire moral spheres of their
lives.

Q. Now, Mr. Clark, you had occasion, did you not, to test
the reactions of the infant plaintiffs involved in this case by
the use of the methods that determine sensitivity to racial
discriminations ?

A. Yes, I did.
Q. Now, will you tell us when you made these tests and

what you did ?
A. I made these tests on Thursday and Friday of this

past week at your request, and I presented it to children in
the Scott’s Branch Elementary school, concentrating par
ticularly on the elementary group. I used these methods
which I told you about—the Negro and White dolls—which
were identical in every respect save skin color. And, I
presented them with a sheet of paper on which there were
these drawings of dolls, and I asked them to show me the
doll------May I read from these notes?
[fol. 124] Judge Waring: You may refresh your recol
lection.

The Witness: Thank you. I presented these dolls to
them and I asked them the following questions in the follow
ing order: “ Show me the doll that you like best or that
you’d like to play with, ” “ Show me the doll that is the ‘ nice ’
doll,” “ Show me the doll that looks ‘ bad’,” and then the
following questions also: ‘ ‘ Give me the doll that looks like a
white child,” “ Give me the doll that looks like a colored

child,” “ Give me the doll that looks like a Negro child,”
and “ Give me the doll that looks like you.”

By Mr. Carter:
Q. “ Likeyou?”
A. 4 4 Like you. ’ ’ That was the final question, and you can

see why. I wanted to get the child’s free expression of his
opinions and feelings before I had him identified with one
of these two dolls. I found that of the children between the
ages of six and nine whom I tested, which were a total of
sixteen in number, that ten of those children chose the white
doll as their preference; the doll which they liked best. Ten
of them also considered the white doll a “ Nice” doll. And,
I think you have to keep in mind that these two dolls are
absolutely identical in every respect except skin color.
Eleven of these sixteen children chose the brown doll as the
doll which looked 4'bad.” This is consistent with previous
results which we have obtained testing over three hundred
children, and we interpret it to mean that the Negro child
[fob 125] accepts as early as six, seven or eight the negative
stereotypes about his own group. And, this result was con
firmed in Clarendon County where we found eleven out of
sixteen children picking the brown doll as looking “ bad,”
when we also must take into account that over half of these
children, in spite of their own feelings,—negative feelings—
about the brown doll, were eventually required on the last
question to identify themselves with this doll which they
considered as being undesirable or negative. It may also
interest you to know that only one of these children, between
six and nine, dared to choose the white doll as looking bad.
The difference between eleven and sixteen was in terms of
children who refused to make any choice at all and the
children were always free not to make a choice. They were
not forced to make a choice. These choices represent the
children’s spontaneous and free reactions to this experi
mental situation. Nine of these sixteen children considered
the white doll as having the qualities of a nice doll. To show
you that that was not due to some artificial or accidental set
of circumstances, the following results are important.
Every single child, when asked to pick the doll that looked
like the white child, made the correct choice. All sixteen of

the sixteen pickd that doll. Every single child, when asked
to pick the doll that was like the colored child; every one of
them picked the brown doll. My opinion is that a funda
mental effect of segregation is basic confusion in the indi
viduals and their concepts about themselves conflicting in
[fol. 126] their self images. That seemed to he supported
by the results of these sixteen children, all of them knowing
which of those dolls was white and which one wTas brown.
Seven of them, when asked to pick the doll that was like
themselves; seven of them picked the white doll. This must
be seen as a concrete illustration of the degree to which
the pleasures which these children sensed against being
brown forced them to evade reality—to escape the reality
which seems too overburdening or too threatening to them.
This is clearly illustrated by a number of these youngsters
who, when asked to color themselves------ For example, I
had a young girl, a dark brown child of seven, who was
so dark brown that she was almost black. When she was
asked to color herself, she was one of the few children who
picked a flesh color, pink, to color herself. When asked
to color a little boy, the color she liked little boys to be, she
looked all around the twenty-four crayons and picked up
a white crayon and looked up at me with a shy smile and
began to color. She said, “ Well, this doesn’t show.” So,
she pressed a little harder and began to color in order to
get the white crayon to show. These are the kinds of re
sults which I obtained in Clarendon County.

Q. Well, as a result of your tests, what conclusions have
you reached, Mr. Clark, with respect to the infant plaintiffs
involved in this case?
[fol. 127] A. The conclusion which I was forced to reach
was that these children in Clarendon County, like other
human beings who are subjected to an obviously inferior
status in the society in which they live, have been definitely
harmed in the development of their personalities; that the
signs of instability in their personalities are clear, and I
think that every psychologist would accept and interpret
these signs as such.

Q. Is that the type of injury which in your opinion
would be enduring or lasting?

A. I think it is the kind of injury which would be as en

during or lasting as the situation endured, changing only
in its form and in the way it manifests itself.

Mr. Carter: Thank you. Your witness.

Cross-examination.

By Mr. F igg:
Q. How many children did you say that you talked to up

there last week!
A. I can give you the exact number, sir. I talked to

sixteen children between the ages of six and nine, and I
talked to some children between the ages of twelve and
seventeen.

Q. How many!
A. Ten.
Q. Twenty-six, then, total!
A. Twenty-six total, yes, sir.
Q. And where did you talk with them!
A. I talked with them in a room provided for me by the

[fol. 128] Principal in the Scott’s Branch School.
Q, Do you remember his name!
A. I think his name is Mr. Wright. I think so.
Q. Who was present when you talked with these children!
A. In general no one, but there was one situation in which

a Mr. Betchman, I think, opened the door and entered and
asked me what I was doing, and I told him, I was testing
and if he wanted any further information he could ask Mr.
Montgomery.

Q. Well, he wasn’t present when you were talking to the
children!

A. No.
Q. Well, that’s what I asked you; not who opened the

door.
A. That’s the only situation I remember in which there

was another person present.
Q. You didn’t talk with the children with Mr. Betchman

there at all!
A. I was talking to a child. That’s why it stuck in my

mind, because usually that doesn’t happen.
Q. So, in each case you and the child only were present!
A. That’s correct.

Q, And you asked these questions and presented these
exhibits and let the children make the selections?

A. That’s right.v
Q. And then you say you were forced to the conclusion,

after talking to these children, that they had suffered harm
[fol. 129] by attending the Scott's* Branch School?

A. I was forced to the conclusion that they have definite
disturbances and problems in their own self esteems; that
they had feelings of inferiority that related to race.

Q. Because they had attended the Scott’s Branch School?
A. No, because they perceived themselves in an inferior

status—generally inferior.
Q. Well, the Scott’s Branch School had nothing to do

with it?
A. Well, I wouldn’t say that, Counselor.
Q. Well, what would you say?1
A. Well, I would say it would definitely------
Q. And why?
A. Because of some information which I got from the

children between the ages of twelve and seventeen. As you
can see, this method is not as sensitive for older children
as it would be for younger children. So, it became apparent
to me as I talked to the older children that I could get
similar data by a different method; namely the interview
method. And, I interviewed the older children, and I got
from them definite and categorical statements concerning
their feelings and their attitudes about attending Scott’s
Branch School, and I shall read some of them if you care for
them.

Q. Well, you can read them; but who was present when
you had this interview method with these older children?
[fol. 130] A. No person is ever present.

Q. Just you and the child?
A. No person can be present under these circumstances.
Q. Just you and the child?
A. That’s right.
Q. And you refer to that as the interview method?
A. The interview method.
Q. That means you ask them questions?
A. That’s right.
Q. And they give you answers?
A. That’s right.

Q. And the other method, you say, you devised yourself
also ?

A. It ’s a modification of methods which have been used
by others too.

Q. Now, do you believe that there is such a conception as
the universal consciousness of kind!

A. No, sir, I do not.
Q. You don’t subscribe to that?
A. I don’t believe that such a conception has any modern

psychological validity.
Q. Do you believe that there is such a thing as recogniz

ing the visible difference between races?
A. Oh, certainly, that is perceptible.
Q. And these children recognized the visible differences

between those dolls that you showed them* didn’t they?
[fol. 131] A. They recognized the visible differences be
tween these two dolls.

Q. Do you recognize the psychology that people, based
upon the Universal Consciousness of Kind, Social Heritage
and the degree of Visibility of Differences between Races
and so forth, enters into the problem of dealing with the
existence of two different races in great numbers in a par
ticular area?

A. I do not recognize that at all, sir.
Q. You don’t recognize that?
A. I do not recognize it as a principle which should

govern Democratic relations.
Q. Do you recognize that there is an emotional facet in

the problem of two different races living in large numbers
together in the same area?

A. I have just given you results which indicate the con
sequences of that kind of emotional tension.

Q. Well, did you examine any white children while you
were up there?

A. I did not examine any white children in Clarendon
County.

Q. Have you ever made any examination on what the
effect would be in taking into account the present condi
tions at the present time in South Carolina of forcibly mix
ing the two races, say between the ages of seven and four
teen in the public schools ?

A. I have no direct knowledge of that, sir, because I don’t
[fol. 132] know that.

Q. Yon haven’t made any study of that?
A. May I ask for clarification of your question?
Q. I say, have you ever made any study sufficient to form

an opinion as to what would be the effect psychologically
upon the white children at the present time and under
present conditions forcing them together in mixed schools—
children of two races in such a place as School District 22
in Clarendon County?

A. Would you care for me to answer that question in
terms of my opinion?

Q. I say, have you ever gone into that subject to deter
mine what the contrary effect would be?

A. No, I could only give you an opinion as to what I
believe would happen, but I couldn’t tell you what I know
would happen.

Judge Parker: The time for recess has arrived. How
long is it going to take you to finish this cross examination?

Mr. F igg: I would just as soon take it up when we come
back, your Honor, and I won’t lengthen it.

Judge Parker: All right. W e’ll adjourn until half past
two o ’clock.

(Eecess for lunch.)

Afternoon Session, Monday May 28, 1951.

Judge Parker: All right. Let the witness come back. Go
ahead, Mr. Figg.

[fol. 133] Cross-examination.

By Mr. Figg—Continued.
Q. I think you said that you came down last Thursday

and Friday to School District 22 in Clarendon County?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And you administered this test that you had devised

to some total twenty-six pupils ?
A. That’s correct, sir.
Q. Now, how were those pupils chosen?

A. A list of the children of the plaintiffs in this case
w a s '— -—

Q. Who had the list when yon got there?
A. The person who accompanied me had the list.
Q. The person accompanying you?
A. The person who accompanied me had the list.
Q. Who was that?
A. A Mr. Montgomery.
Q. And who is he?
A. Mr. Montgomery is the person who lives and works

in this area for the N. A. A. C. P.
Q. All right. Does he live in Summerton?
A. I do not think so.
Q. But he had a list of the children?
A. He had a list of the children of the plaintiffs.
Q. And you asked the principal for those particular

children?
A. I asked the principal for all of those children between

[fol. 134] the first and fourth grades.
Q. Well, I mean, every child that you talked to or ad

ministered the test to was on the list?
A. No, that’s not true.
Q. What?
A. That’s not true. I also asked for a child from each

grade in which there was a plaintiff child that w7as of the
same age and the same sex, between the ages of six and
nine.

Q. Who selected those children?
A. I asked that they be selected at random except in

terms of these things which I wanted controlled.
Q. Who did you ask to select them at random?
A. I asked Mr. Montgomery to ask the principal that.
Q. You didn’t yourself ask the principal?
A. I talked to the principal when I first went in myself,

yes.
Q. And got the permission for the entire thing?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you said you arranged these tests yourself?
A. Yes. My wife and I developed these.
Q. Your wife and you?
A. We devised these particular tests.
Q. You and your wife devised these particular tests?

A. Yes.
Q. And how many times had it been used before you used

[fob 135] it at Clarendon!
A. I would say about------You mean how many differ

ent people?
Q. Yes.
A. About four hundred.
Q. About four hundred. And, where was that done?
A. It was done in Springfield, Massachusetts and------
Q. How many there?
A. How many?
Q. How many at Springfield?
A. Oh, I would say about a hundred and fifty or some

thing like that.
Q. About fifty?
A. A hundred and fifty.
Q. A hundred and fifty?
A. I would say so.
Q. And where else?
A. In Arkansas.
Q. How many there?
A. In Pine Bluff, Arkansas; Little Rock, Arkansas; and

Hot Springs, Arkansas. I would say about a hundred and
sixty or a hundred and seventy, or something of that sort.

Q. At any other places?
A. Some in New York. The results of the children we

have tested in New York have not been published.
[fol. 136] Q. So that this method that you and your wife
devised had been used on about four hundred children
before this occasion?

A. Approximately, yes.
Q. And, would you say that that was a satisfactory

demonstration of its accuracy and merit to base an opinion
of its value on?

A. I would say so, particularly in the light of its use and
its acceptance by other psychologists.

Mr. Figg: That’s all.

Re-direct examination.

By Mr. Carter:
Q. Mr. Clark, this method that you and Mrs. Clark

used, has this method been employed or used by other
psychologists? Is your test a variation of the standard
tests that are used or what?

A. I would say that it ’s a modification of a general type
of test which has been used by some psychologists, yes, sir.
It is a projective test.

Q. When you spoke of four hundred experiences, you are
merely talking about the four hundred times in which you
have used the test?

A. The four hundred times that I have used the method,
yes.

Mr. F igg: May I ask him one more question, Your Honor ?
Judge Parker: All right.

Recross examination.

By Mr. Figg:
Q. Has it been used by anybody else that you know of?

[fol. 137] A. Yes, sir, it has.
Q. Where was that?
A. A graduate student at Columbia University has used

our method with white children. Unfortunately I have not
gotten those results, but I have permitted her to use our
dolls and our methods on a master’s thesis which she was
using.

Q. Well, may I ask why the standard or general tests
were not used on this occasion?

A. Because there are no standardized or general tests
for exploring this particular problem. This particular
problem is a problem which has just been recently studied
by the use of these tests. It therefore follows that the tech
niques are being developed and are being used.

Mr. Figg: That’s all.
Judge Parker: Stand down. Call your next witness.
Mr. Marshall: May it please The Court, we had a con

ference during the luncheon recess. We only have available

at the present time this afternoon two more witnesses, and
they will not take long, and I think it ’s obvious, if your
Honors please, for the concessions made by the defendant
this morning, which we did not know about and had no idea
about, the other witnesses that we have are all busy people
and they are all out of town people, and we had arranged
for them to come in tonight on the theory that our case
would still be going on. And, I was wondering, sir, since
[fob 138] there is no jury involved in this case, if the de
fendants would put on their testimony with us with the
right to some back. I don’t wrnnt to rest. I don’t think we
have enough to rest.

Judge Parker: Well, you’d better put all the witnesses
you have up.

Mr. Marshall: The two we have will be very short, though.
Judge Parker: All right. Put them up and let’s get

through with them.

M e . J am es L. H upp was d u ly sworn.
Direct Examination.

By Mr. Carter:
Q. Mr. Hupp, what is your present occupation!
A. I am Dean of Students and Professor of Education

and Psychology at the Wesleyan College of West Virginia
at Buchanan, West Virginia.

Q. How long have you held that job?
A. Eight years.
Q. What other teaching experience have you had!
A. I have taught in a one-room elementary school and

in a graded elementary school, been Principal of an ele
mentary school, taught in high school and been principal
of high schools, and have taught in college and universities.

Q. What is your educational background?
A. I ’m a graduate of Ohio University at Athens, Ohio,

where I received a Bachelor of Science and Education
[fol. 139] Degree; from Columbia Teacher’s College, Colum
bia University where I received a Master of Arts Degree;
from Ohio State University where I received a Doctor of
Philosophy Degree.

9 8

Q. Now, Mr. Hupp, what exactly is your specific field or
specialization in the field of education?

A. I majored at Columbia University and at Ohio State
University in School Administration and received a diploma
in school administration along with my Master’s degree
at Columbia.

Q. Have you published any articles or books on the subject
of education?

A. I have.
Q. And what are they?
A. Well, I have made a study of the administration and

the curriculum in the field of history. I made a study of the
items used on report forms used throughout the United
States in making* reports on school affairs. I made a study
of the teaching of social sciences in the State of Ohio, and
others.

Q. Ho you belong to any professional societies?
A. I do.
Q. Will you name a few of them?
A. Well, I belong to the American Association of Political

Science, Social Science and History, I believe it is. I forget
the exact title of it. And, the American Association of
Science, and I am a member of the National Society for
the Study of Education. I am a member of the American
[fol. 140] College Personnel Association. I have been a
member of the West Virginia Academy of Science, and the
West Virginia Association of Higher Education. I ’m an
immediate Past President of the West Virginia Associa
tion of Higher Education—and many others.

Q. All right, sir. Is the college at which you are now
teaching a public or a private school?

A. It is a private school owned and operated by the West
Virginia Conference of the Methodist Churches.

Q. Now, Dean Hupp, based on your experience and back
ground, as an educator, assuming a situation in which the
public schools for Negroes are segregated, that they are
required to attend schools which are segregated from those
which are maintained for the rest of the population, in your
opinion, would the Negro child educated under those cir
cumstances be able to secure equal educational facilities?

A. My answer is no, that he would not.
Q. Now, what do you base that opinion upon?

9 9

A. It is my opinion that when Negro children and white
children are separated so far as education is concerned,
that Negro and white students do not get a clear picture
of each of the races. Therefore, their education is distorted
to that extent, and is not a clear-cut all around education.

Q. Now, what do you conceive to be the function of public
education?

A. Well, I could use one word to describe it. I could say
[fol. 141] that the business of education in our societies is
to produce good citizens—citizens able to function efficiently
in a Democracy as we have. From another point of view,
it is the business of education to help children as they grow
and develop in facing the tasks that they meet because
of the fact that they are growing, developing persons. And,
in this growing up, a child matures physically, socially,
intellectually and emotionally. And, if he’s going to grow
up and be an all-around well, developed integrated per
sonality, every one of these phases of development must be
given attention by educators because they are all inter
related and inter-dependent, and if one is not taken care of
as well as it should be, all of the others are injured to some
extent. Therefore, since social development is one of these
phases, and a very important phase, I don’t believe our
children, white or black, get the social development that
they really should get when education is carried on in
segregated schools.

Q. Now, Dean Hupp, have you any experience in par
ticipating or observing a school situation which formerly
had excluded Negroes; we’ll say a segregated school which
kept Negroes out, and then admitted them; began to abandon
that policy and admit Negroes? Have you had any ex
perience with that type of situation?

A. I have.
Q. And where?

[fol. 142] A. At West Virginia Wesleyan College.
Q. How did that transition take place?

Mr. Figg: Your Honor, we object to any testimony as
to any events in West Virginia because it ’s a very different
evidentiary situation.

Judge Parker: How is that competent?
Mr. Carter: Well, your Honor, as I understood the

100

questions raised by the defense, there is emphasis on the
emotional situation development. It seems to me that the
defense was raising the question that there would he a great
deal of emotional tension involved in a situation in which
Negroes and whites were thrown together for the first time
in a school system, and it seemed to me that, having raised
that point, we were called upon to, meet it.

Judge Parker: Well, isn’t the question that you are
addressing to this witness directed to the policy of educa
tion rather than to the rights under education? I t ’s not the
function of the Court to determine what is the best educa
tional policy; it is the function of the Court to see that
all men are given their rights.

Mr. Carter: I agree, your Honor. That’s true, but the
defense, it seems to me, having raised this question as to
whether this would be wise by virtue of some of the
questions directed at our witnesses, I thought that it was
necessary for us to attempt to meet that with this witness,
[fob 143] Judge Parker: Well, g'o ahead, but make it as
short as you can.

Mr. Carter: I won’t delay it.
The Witness: Are you ready for the answer?

By Mr. Carter:
Q. Please.
A. A little over two years ago, the Administration Com

mittee of West Virginia Wesleyan College voted to admit
students—qualified students—without reference to race,
creed or color. This, of course, had to be taken before the
faculty committee, and then from the Faculty Committee to
the Board of Trustees. It passed through the faculty and
then a week or so later went before the Board of Trustees,
and was passed by the Board of Trustees. Two years ago
we admitted our first Negro student, and we have had Negro
students on the campus for the past two years. And, these
emotional tensions and so forth that you hear about, we
have had no experiences of that kind. Our student body
accepted these people with open arms. In fact, at the first
meeting of the freshman class, they selected one of these
Negro students to represent them on what we call the Com
munity Council, which in many schools is called a student
government.

101

Q. Do you consider the opportunity to go to an unsegre
gated school an essential element in public school educa
tion?

A. I do.
Q. Why?

[fol. 144] A. Well, I think that in America, that people
ought to have the right and privilege to attend schools of
their choice. And, by opening up the doors of West Virginia
Wesleyan to colored people, we had persons, of course, who
chose to attend our school in preference to segregated
schools. I think that’s a right that American citizens should
possess.

Mr. Carter: Your witness.
Mr. Figg: We have no questions, your Honor.
Judge Parker: Stand down. Call your next witness.

M b . L ouis K bsseumanu w as d u ly sw orn .

Direct Examination.

By Mr. Carter:
Q. Mr. Kesselmann, what is your present occupation?
A. I am Associate Professor of Political Science at the

University of Louisville.
Q. How long have you held that position?
A. I have been at the University of Louisville since 1947.

I have been Associate Professor starting this year.
Q. What other teaching experience if any have you had?
A. Prior to my coming to Louisville, I taught for six

years at Ohio State University as an instructor in the De
partment of Political Science.

Q. Have you published any articles of any kind?
A. Yes. I have one book which was published by the

University of North Carolina press on the Social Politics
of F.E.P.C. and a series of articles on F.E.P.C. and Labor
questions.
[fol. 145] Q. Would you indicate where you received your
education and degrees that you hold?

A. I received all three of my degrees—the Bachelor of

102

Arts, the Master of Arts, and the Doctor of Philosophy—at
Ohio State University. /

Q. Are yon affiliated with any professional societies?
A. Yes. I am a member of the American Political Science

Association in which I am a member of the International
Relations Committee. I am also a member of the Inter
national Relations Reserve Association, the American Arbi
tration Association, and various other organizations.

Q. Now, Professor Kesselmann,' your field is the field of
Government or Political Science, is that right?

A. That’s correct.
Q. Do you have any opinion as to whether a public school

system, which is operated on a racial segregated basis; do
you have any opinion as to whether such a system would
cause adverse effects or would have adverse effects in
operation among the individuals?

A. Yes, I do have such opinion. My particular interest
in the field of Political Science . . .

Mr. Figg: Your Honor, I object to that question because
I don’t think that this witness has been qualified to answer
that question. He said his work is in the field of Govern
ment. This question would havq been properly addressed
[fol. 146] perhaps to another witness, but I don’t think this
one has been qualified to answer that question.

Judge Parker: What do you say as to that?
Mr. Carter: Well, your Honor, this Professor Kessel

mann is not an expert in terms of Government; he is a per
son who has studied the science of government. He is an
educator to that extent.

Judge Parker: He’s not a specialist in education is he?
Mr. Carter: No, sir.
Judge Parker : Well, how can he express an opinion on a

matter of educational policy?
Mr. Carter : He can express an opinion, your Honor, be

cause of what we will bring out, or attempt to bring out, as
a person who deals in the science of government, he would
have to investigate the effect of certain things upon certain
matters, and in the development of citizenship, the ques
tion of what method is usable or is best used in determining
whether a person would use a ballot of a certain form, and
so forth—whether or not an idea is developed in the child

103

or in the people as to support Democratic institutions. And,
I think that he would be preemptorily qualified for that
question.

Judge Parker: It seems to me that any lawyer or any
man who has any experience in government would, be just
as well qualified as he would be to express an opinion on that,
[fol. 147] He is not a scientist in the field of education.

Mr. Carter: No, sir, he’s not a scientist in the field of
education.

Judge Parker: Do you seriously contend he is qualified
to testify as an educational expert? What do you say about
that, Mr. Marshall?

Mr. Marshall: May it please the Court, what we have
been trying to do is to present as many experts in the field
with as many different reasons why we consider that segre
gation in and of itself is injurious to the child who is
segregated. Professor Kesselmann, we hoped, would be
able to testify as to the effect insofar as the study of govern
ment and the development of necesary fundamentals. We
deliberately haven’t brought witnesses who testified ac
cumulatively. We want as many reasons as we can get.

Judge Parker: Are you going to offer any more witnesses
along this line?

Mr. Marshall: No, sir. The other witnesses are REAL
scientists.

Judge Parker: Well, I ’ll take it for what it ’s worth. Go
ahead.

By Mr. Carter:
Q. Do you remember the question?
A. I think that I do. My particular interest in the field

of Political Science is citizenship and the Political process.
And, based upon studies which we regard as being scien-
[fol. 148] tifically accurate by virtue of use of the scientific
methods, we have come to feel that a number of things result
from segregation which are not desirable from the stand
point of good citizenship; that the segregation of white and
Negro students in the schools prevents them from gaining
an understanding of the needs and interests of both groups.
Secondly, segregation breeds suspicion and distrust in the
absence of a knowledge of the other group. And, thirdly,

104

where segregation is enforced by law, it may even breed
distrust to the point of conflict. Now, carrying that over
into the field of citizenship, when a community is faced with
problems which every community would be faced with,
it will need the combined efforts of all citizens to solve
those problems. Where segregation exists as a pattern
in education, it makes that cooperation more difficult. Next,
in terms of voting and participating in the electorial process,
our various studies indicate that those people who are low
in literacy and low in experience with other groups are not
likely to participate as fully as those who have . . .

Judge Parker: I don’t think his answer is addressed to
your question. Bring him to the question.

By Mr. Carter:
Q. Mr. Kesselmann . . .
Judge Parker: He’s just arguing generally about things.

Bring him to the question and let him answer the question.

By Mr. Carter:
Q. What I wanted to get at, Professor Kesselmann, is

[fol. 149] what do you regard as! the adverse effects, from
the point of view of a political scientist, on the individual
who is educated in a segregated school—the specific adverse
effects on the individual.

A. I thought I was answering the question.
Judge Parker: He’s asking you what the effect is on the

individual. You’re talking about the community. Can you
answer the question on the individual?

The Witness: No, sir, I cannot, unless you generalize about
the community.

Judge Waring: I ’m assuming you are testifying to the
community as being a group of individuals, are you?

The Witness: That’s true.
Mr. Carter: That’s all.
Mr. Pigg: We have no questions.
Judge Parker: Anything else?
Mr. Marshall: Now, if your Honor pleases, I don’t know

what to do at this stage except to make the suggestion that
we suspend. We are not ready to rest,

105

Judge Parker: Well, I think in view of the fact that your
adversary made that admission this morning that curtailed
the length of the case, that it ’s nothing but fair that they
go ahead with their testimony.

Mr. Figg: What’s that, sir?
Judge Parker: I say, I think it ’s nothing but fair that

[fob 150] you go ahead with your’ testimony. He says he
has no other witnesses here, but he’ll have them here in
the morning.

Mr. Figg: Well, we were not ready to go ahead with our
testimony, your Honor. We had been told that his testi
mony would take two or three days.

Judge Parker: Well, I ’m hoping all of it is not going to
take three days.

Mr. Figg: I haven’t conferred with our witnesses present
preparatory to examining them. If you gave us some kind
of a recess, we can probably do something along that line.

Judge Parker: Could you get ready to go ahead in fifteen
minutes ?

Mr. F igg: I can report in fifteen minutes, sir.
Judge Parker: All right. Court will take a recess for

fifteen minutes?
(Recess.)

* # # * # # #

[fol. 151] A fter R ecess

Judge Parker: All right, gentlemen, are you ready to
proceed?

Mr. F igg: If the Court please, we have two witnesses that
we can call at this time, and I would like to ask Mr. E. R.
Crow to take the stand.

E. R. Cro w ,, ca lled as a w itn ess b y and on behalf o f the
defen dan ts , be in g d u ly sw orn , w as exam ined and testified
as f o l lo w s :

Direct examination.
By Mr. F igg:

Q. You are Mr. E. R. Crow?
A. I am, sir.

106

Q. And where do you live, Mr. Crow!
A. At Sumter, South Carolina.
Q. How long have you lived at Sumter, Mr. Crow?
A. Since 1946; six years. -
Q. And during the period from 1945 until recently did

you hold any position with the Public Schools of Sumter?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what was that position, sir.
A. I have been Superintendent of Schools.
Q. Of the City of Sumter?
A. That’s right.
Q. Mr. Crow, approximately how large a school system is

that?
A. Approximately 7,200.0

[fol. 152] Q. Does that include White and Negro children?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is the approximate proportions of white and

Negro children?
A. Approximately 53-47.
Q. Fifty-three per cent white and forty-seven per cent

Negro?
A. Yes, sir; that is just approximately the figure.
Q. Now, Mr. Crow, prior to being Superintendent of the

schools in Sumter, what other educational positions did you
hold and where did you fill them ?

A. Prior to going to Sumter I was a Principal in the
Columbia School System.

Q. That is in the City of Columbia, South Carolina?
A. Yes, sir. For a year and a half I was in the Ele

mentary Schools and then for fifteen years with the
Columbia High School, and immediately prior to that I
was Principal of the High School at Union, South Carolina.

Q. Where did you get your education, Mr. Crow?
A. At Furman University, where I got my A. B. Degree,

and I got my Master’s Degree from the University of
South Carolina. I have also attended Summer Quarters
at Chicago, Peabody, Virginia and also at the University
of South Carolina.

Q. Now, were you recently appointed Director of the
State Educational Finance Commission?

107

A. Yes, sir; I was appointed Director of tie State Edu
cational Finance Commission.
[fol. 153] Q. Now this is the State Commission that was
set up by the 1951 Legislature!

A. Yes, sir.
Q. It was set up to handle the educational problems pro

vided for in the educational legislation in the State appro
priation, a part of which was the imposition of a three per
cent Sales Tax and the authorization of a Seventy-five
Million Dollar bond issue, and so forth. Is that correct!

A. That is correct.
Q. And were you asked by the Trustees of School District

No. 22 in Clarendon County last week to come there and
make a survey of their schools !
. A. Well------

Q. Perhaps “ survey” is not the word. Were you asked
to look at it!

A. I was asked to go to Summer ton, School District No.
22, to be able to point out the potentialities of this new
problem in respect to building and other aids and how
it would affect this particular school district.

Q. What day were you there, Mr. Crow!
A. May 22d.
Q. Did you also give consideration to the centralization

of the High School Districts while yon were there!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did you do along that line, sir?

[fol. 154] A. I secured enrollment figures and the average
daily attendance figures from the Superintendent of Schools
there, these figures applying to both the Summerton Dis
trict No. 22, and the other districts in the centralization
High School setup there.

Q. What were the districts?
A. What were the districts ?
Q. Yes, sir; besides District 22.
A. Districts Nos. 3, 4, 8 and 30.
Q. And what information did you receive as to the

enrollment at the Summerton High School?
A. That is the White High School?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. The enrollment was 78.

108

Q. And what was the average daily attendance at that
school?

A. Seventy-three.
Q. What was the enrollment at the Summerton Ele

mentary School?
A. One hundred and ninety-nine.
Q. What was the average daily attendance, sir?

' A. It had an average daily attendance of 180.
Q. Now, Mr. Crow, what was the enrollment at the Scott ’s

Branch School in the High School grades?
A. One hundred and forty-nine.
Q. With an average daily attendance of what?
A. Of 124.
Q. What was the enrollment in District 22 for the ele

mentary grades?
[fol. 155] A. Seven hundred and seventeen.

Q. What was the average daily attendance?
A. Pour hundred and sixty-nine.
Q. Four hundred and sixty-nine, you say?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now what was the total white enrollment in the five

districts?
A. Two hundred and seventy-seven.
Q. There is no separate white enrollment in the other

four centralized districts?
A. No, sir; all the white enrollment is in the Summerton

Schools, High School and Elementary Schools.
Q. Now, Mr. Crow, what is the total Negro enrollment

in the five districts?
A. Two thousand one hundred and forty-four (2,144).
Q. And the average daily attendance in the Negro Dis

tricts is what?
A. One thousand five hundred and thirty-eight. (1,538).
Q. Now on the basis of the information that you obtained

in those districts, did you ascertain the potential, the finan
cial potential toward the providing of school buildings and
equipment and facilities under the 1951 legislation?

Mr. Marshall: If the Court please, we object to any
testimony as to what will be done in the future. Our
Supreme Court on several occasions has spoken on that,
as has the Court of Appeals, that those rights guaranteed

109

[fol. 156] under the Fourteenth Amendment are rights as
of now, not the future.

Judge Parker: That is right, but what this Court may
do in its decree might depend on whether they were making-
efforts in good faith to better the condition of these people.

Mr. Marshall: Except, sir, that in a recent opinion in the
McKissiek case, in the North Carolina case------

Judge Parker: Yes, I know that, and we will hear you
on that when you come to argue the case. Let’s get it in
the record now and we can argue it later. Answer the
question.

A. What was the question?
Q, That potential you received there as a result of your

study was what?
A. The Act in question appropriates Fifteen ($15.00)

Dollars per pupil per year times the number of pupils in
average daily attendance, and that amounts to $12,690.00
per year in District No. 22. Now in the combined area
embracing all five districts in the centralized high school
set-up, the total would be $26,865.00.

Q. That is a year?
A. Yes, sir; that is a year. Now the Act permits bor

rowing against the future on the same basis up to a period
of twenty years to the extent of 75% of the total expected
accruals over a twenty year period, it being understood that
the average daily attendance will remain constant.

Q. What would that mean for the districts, Mr. Crow?
[fol. 157] A. That would mean that District No. 22, could
borrow against the State Fund, $190,350.00. The com
bined Districts 22, 3, 4, 8 and 30, could borrow against the
State Fund $402,975.00. That would be to pledge 75%
of the expected amount to be received over a period of
twenty years.

There would be in addition to that amount 25% thereof,
less interest paid on money borrowed, which under the
Act is set at 2%%.

Q. And that twenty-five per cent you refer to, that would
be paid annually in cash to the district?

A. It would be available annually to the district, yes,
sir. The amount would be reduced by any amount of inter

110

est, however, that would be due to the State on money
borrowed from the State.

Q. On the existing- 75% loan?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now would the potential of the district borrowing

remain stationary as of the time of the loan, at the time
the loan was made, or would it increase as the average daily
attendance. increased!

A. The Act appropriates $15.00 per pupil per year aver
age daily attendance, and as the average daily attendance
increases, the amount of money for the district would like
wise increase proportionately.

Q. And in that particular district, Mr. Crow, with an
average low daily attendance, particularly in the Negro
[fob 158] districts, the potential would increase in their
borrowing power, would you say to around a substantial
amount?

A. Yes, sir; I would say that it would. I haven’t figured
out the percentage, but it seems to me it would be about
a 65% or 70% potential increase of daily average attend
ance of nearly one third of those pupils and that would
increase the borrowing potential also.

Q. The average white daily attendance is a little more
than 90?

A. Yes, sir. I believe that is about right.
Q. Then would you say that there is quite a potential

increase of borrowing power of the average daily attend
ance among the 2,144 pupils enrolled in the Negro schools,
is that correct?

A. Yes, sir; that is correct. Now there is another possible
source of increase for those schools, and that is that the
attendance is also increasing, and that would bring in
another possible source.

Q. Now at this time let me ask you this; if under this
1951 Act the Commission of which you are the Director,
would have to approve the plan arrived at in any school
district, or county, before it became effective; is that right?

A. That is true, sir.
Q. And the declared purpose of the Act, I believe, was

to provide the quality of educational opportunity for all the
children throughout the State, is that correct?

I l l

A. That is its purpose; yes, sir.
[fol. 159] Q. And has the Commission gone on record to
specifically carry out that policy!

A. As you know, the Commission has just been organized
under the Act setting up this new Commission and this Act
was just signed by the Governor on the 20th of May.

The Commission has had two meetings for organiza
tion purposes and no policies have been adopted as yet,
but I can testify that it is the objective of all connected
with the Commission to carry out the purposes as stated in
the policy of the Act, which are two-fold.

First, to guarantee equal educational opportunities to
all the children of the State, and

Second, I consider this of almost equal importance to
the first perhaps, to bring about the existence of responsi
ble school jurisdictions to take the place of some fifteen
school districts that now exist in South Carolina.

Q. And does that Commission have authority in reference
to possible consolidation of school districts?

A. Yes, sir; it does.
Q. Is that one of the provisions of the Act?
A. It definitely states that; that it is the function of the

Commission to approve consolidations. That is definitely
stated in the Act.

Q. As to school transportation in the event of consoli
dation; is that to be a state or a local function?
[fol. 160] A. The financing of it will be a State function
and it will be administered through the County Boards
of Education on routes set up and approved by the State
Commission.

Q. It will be financed by the State, and administered by
the local Boards after it has been approved by the State
Commission?

A. That is correct.
Q. It will be entirely financed by the State?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And there are statutory standards laid down in

reference to transportation in the Act, are there not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now did your figures determine the amount per en

112

rolled pupil in these five districts that could be borrowed
at this time?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you state that amount!
A. The amount per pupil in the combined district!

■ Q. Yes, sir.
A. The total amount is based upon, not the enrolled

pupils, but upon the average daily attendance, and the
amount would be $402,975.00.
i Q. Now that is $187.00 for each pupil enrolled?

A. Approximately; yes, sir.
Q. Assume that a class-room unit of thirty pupils is

being considered by your Board, how much per class-room
unit could that secure in the way of loans, under this legis
lation ?
[fol. 161] A. It would be thirty times $187.00, which would
be $5,610.00.

Q. Five thousand six hundred and ten dollars ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Has District No. 22 communicated with you or with

your Commission with reference to making application for
financing under this Act?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. I believe that the Sales Tax goes into effect on

July 1st?
A. That is correct, sir.
Q. But the organization has been set up ?
A. The organization has been set up; yes, sir.
Q. Is it the purpose of the Commission of which you are

Chairman, under the Act, and are you charged with making
a survey of all the schools in the State?

A. Yes, sir; it is.
Q. Now, Mr. Crow, in Sumter, in the City of Sumter

School System, do you have both white and Negro schools?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was that true of the Columbia schools, also where you

were formerly employed?
A. Well, there were both white and Negro schools in the

Columbia system but I was only connected with the white
schools.

Q. But in Sumter you are Superintendent of the whole
system ?

113

A. That is correct.
Q. And that includes both white and colored schools!

[fol. 162] A. It does.
Q. Now, let me ask you this; in the light of your experi

ence as a school administrator, if it were assumed that
separate schools for the white and colored races were neither
commanded or prohibited by law, and it was also assumed
that the several schools of the school system afforded sub
stantially equal educational facilities and opportunities,
would you state whether or not in your opinion it would be
wise or unwise at the present time and under present condi
tions for South Carolina and for the two races, that they be
mixed in the same schools in administrative practice?

A. I think, sir, it would be unwise.
Q. Unwise?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In your opinion as a school administrator, Mr. Crow,

do you believe that a system at the present time and under
present conditions in South Carolina would be possible of
proper administration with mixed schools?

A. No, sir.
Q. Will you tell us why?
A. The existence of the feeling of separateness between

the races of this State would make it such that it would be
impossible to have peaceable association with each other in
the public schools.

In my opinion it would be impossible to have sufficient
[fol. 163] acceptance of the idea of mixed groups attending
the same schools to make it possible to have public education
on that basis at all.

Q. In your opinion, Mr. Crow, would the mixing of the
two races in the same school under present conditions and
at the present time in South Carolina improve the education
that they would both get or would it cause it to deteriorate?

A. In my opinion it would eliminate public schools in
most, if not all of the communities in the State.

Q. Would or not, in your opinion, there be community
acceptance of mixed schools at this time?

A. There would not be.
Q. Would or not there be a probability of violent emo

tional reaction in the communities ?
8—101

114

A. There would be, I am sure.
Mr. F igg: The witness is with you.

Cross-examination.

By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Mr. Crow, what is the name of this Commission you

are a member of?
A. The State Educational Finance Commission.
Q. And do I understand you correctly that the Commis

sion has full charge of disbursing all funds under this 1951
Act of the Legislature?

A. It has control, by approval of the disbursing of the
funds for State aid for public schools, that is for public
[fol. 164] school construction and also transportation funds.

Q. About what is the percentage of Negro population to
white population in South Carolina?

A. I do not have the information at once.
Q. I mean just approximately, if you can.
A. Well, it would be, I would say, about forty per cent, or

forty-five.
Q. Are you administering funds that would be distributed

in school systems, forty of which happen to be Negro?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. My next question is, are there any Negroes on your

Commission?
A. No.
Q. Has there been any discussion as to whether there will

be any Negroes on that Commission by the members?
A. There has not been any discussion as to that by the

Commission. The Act provides that the members be ap
pointed by the Governor and be confirmed by the Senate.

Q. Do you have any Negro employees on your Commis
sion?

A. Not as yet.
Q. When did District 22 inquire about this application ?
A. About a week ago, I don’t remember the exact date.
Q. Have they filed their application yet?
A. No. The fact is, the Commission has just been organ

ized. It has not established the procedure for the processing

115

of applications, but as soon as that is done, the district will
[fol. 165] be notified.

Q. When the money is sent down, is it allocated in a lump
sum to the counties? Or to the districts; just how is that
done?

A. It is allocated to the districts in those counties that
operate on the district system. A few counties in the State
operate on the county unit system, and in such cases it goes
to the counties.

Q. It goes in a lump sum?
A. It does; yes, but it goes to projects that have been

previously approved by the Commission.
Q. What I want to know is, is it possible within the frame

work of the State quota for the Negroes to be counted on
daily average attendance in order to get a lump sum of
money, and as a matter of fact be entirely possible for the
Negro schools not to get a nickel of it?

A. That would be in violation of the stated objectives of
the Act, and would be going contrary to it, and contrary to
the reason for creating the State Educational Finance Com
mission.

Q. Is there anything in the Act to prevent that from
happening?

A. I recall only the fact that the Commission is directed
to proceed to guarantee equal educational advantages and
opportunities to all of the children of the State.

Q. Mr. Crow, how much study have you done on the ques
tion of racial tension?

A. If you mean formal study to qualify myself as an ex-
[fol. 166] pert, I have done none.

Q. I mean any kind of study, Mr. Crow.
A. I would not say any study especially, but I have ob

served conditions and people in South Carolina all of my
life, but I have not studied racial tensions as such.

Q. Do you know of any situation in which previously
segregated schools were mixed?

A. In South Carolina?
Q. In any place.
A. I have never been connected with any schools outside

of this State, and I have never known of any in this State
that come under your question.

116

Q. How do you draw your conclusion as to what will
happen if they are mixed!

A. Because of my knowledge of what people say, from
their expressions with reference to thi's issue are.

Q. You are speaking of white people?
A. Mainly. '
Q. How many Negroes do you know?
A. That would be impossible to answer. I know a great

many Negroes.
Q. Well, approximately how many?
A. I couldn’t answer that; I couldn’t answer as to how

many white people I know. That is an impossible question.
I do not know how many Negroes I know.
[fol. 167] Q. Do you know anything about the Negroes’
beliefs in this thing?

A. Probably so; yes.
Q. You think so?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know what the Negroes’ reaction would be to

mixed schools ?
A. Well, I have heard------
Q. Of your own knowledge, now.
A. I could not predict what they would do, but I have an

opinion that is based upon what a number of Negro school
administrators have said to me, that if this issue should be
settled on a voluntary basis that you would have a continu
ance of substantially the same situation.

Q. You are speaking of Negro public school administra
tors ?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are any of the administrators you are talking about

not employed by white school boards and responsible to
them?

A. All the school administrators I know are employed by
white school boards.

Q. Do you consider the people in South Carolina to be
law abiding? Are they a law-abiding group of people?

A. That is a comparative question I presume and I do not
have the information with reference to comparative sta
tistics as to crime, but I would say that one’s life is not in
[fol. 168] danger in South Carolina. I would say it is a
law-abiding state.

117

Q. I am not trying to confuse you, I am just trying to get
your testimony as to this. If this Court issues an injunc
tion, a Federal Court of your State ending segregation in
your schools, is it your testimony that the people of South
Carolina would disobey it? Is that what you want to say?

A. No, I didn’t say that.
Q. Well, do you think they will obey it?
Mr. Figg: That injunction would not be directed to the

people of South Carolina, it would be directed to certain------
Judge Parker: Any injunction issued by this Court would

be obeyed.
Mr. Marshall: I am sure of that, your Honor.
Q. You spoke, Mr. Crow, of community acceptance.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What community do you mean; the white or the Negro

community ?
A. Well, of course I am thinking, as I stated, of the white

community, but as I have stated, a good many Negroes,
Negro school administrators have said that if they remained
free to choose the schools to which they would go, they would
prefer to have schools of their own race.

Q. Can you give me the names of some of those adminis
trators?

A. No, sir.
Q. You don’t remember their names?
A. No, I do not.

[fob 169] Q. If I understand your testimony correctly, you
said one of the reasons it would be impossible to remove
segregation was because there was a feeling of separateness
in existence that had been there for a long time, is that
correct?

A. That is right.
Q. And it is your opinion that if that feeling of separate

ness exists, that it will prohibit or prevent, or to use your
own words, make it impossible to get the schools to become
mixed?

A. Under any circumstances at the present time, yes, sir.
Q. Didn’t you also say that the schools would not be in

operation?
A. I did not say they would not be in operation, I said in

118

my opinion the public schools of the state would be aban
doned.

Q Would be abandoned?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do I understand you correctly to say that the people

in South Carolina, the white people, would deprive their own
children of an education for this reason?

A. I didn’t say they would do that.
Q. I thought you said they would abandon the schools,

maybe I misunderstood you.
A. I don’t think the General Assembly of South Carolina

would appropriate money for the public schools if segrega
tion is eliminated, and I don’t think that the local com
munities would vote taxes for the current operation of
schools, if segregation is eliminated.
[fol. 170] Q. Is that an opinion or a surmise?

A. I t ’s an opinion.
Q. Your opinion?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you think you are qualified to give an opinion as to

what the Legislature of South Carolina will do in the future?
A. I would not claim that I am, but I have heard a good

many of the members of the Legislature express similar
views.

Q. Are you aware of any colleges or universities of the
Deep South that have admitted Negroes for the first time
during the past year, in the Deep South, I mean?

A. I have seen where some have admitted Negro graduate
students.

Q. Assuming that Negroes were admitted to the Uni
versity of Arkansas on a professional level and nothing
happened, would that in any way change your opinion as to
what would happen in South Carolina?

A. I would say that mixed groups in graduate courses is
quite a different thing from the mixing of public school
pupils of all ages in our public schools.

Q. What is the difference other than age ?
A. Well, in the first place few people are involved in

graduate courses, they are on a mature level and that elimi
nates a good deal of the feeling, shall I say discrimination as
between the two races.

Q. That is your only difference?

1 1 9

[fol. 171] A. I don’t know; there may be others. The
college is removed from the community in the sense that it
is further removed than the public schools.

Q. How is/that different?
A. You have an entirely different question when you

consider adults that have entered graduate schools than
when;vyau consider pupils entering* our local public schools.
/"'Q. Would the fact that Negroes have been admitted to
public schools in Indiana for the first time within the last
year, chdnge your opinion?

a . m .
Q. Why?
A. / we have in South Carolina a different ratio of the

two /faces, and all the testimony which has been given here
today with reference to these places where segregation can
be eliminated, has been in communities where after all
segregation has never been a problem.

Q. Where segregation has never been a problem you say;
now I am just trying to get it clear what you said.

A. What I was trying to say, Mr. Marshall, is that the
problem of the mixed groups and racial tensions is less in
communities where the minority population is smaller.
That has been true of the testimony that I have heard here
today with reference to the success of the elimination of
segregation in other communities.
[fol. 172] Q. Mr. Crow, assuming that in Clarendon
County, especially in School District No. 22, the population
was 95% white and 5% Negro, would that change your
opinion ?

A. No.
Q. Then that is not really the basis of your opinion, is it?
A. The question that you have asked me is in my opinion

will the elimination of segregation be fraught with unde
sirable results, and I said that I thought it would. That
may not be stating your question exactly, but that is still
my answer.

Q. As a matter of fact, Mr. Crow, isn’t your opinion based
on the fact that you have all of your life believed in segre
gation of the races, isn’t that reason the real basis of your
opinion ?

A. That woudn’t be all.

120

Q, Is that part of it?
A. I suppose that is part of it.
Mr. Marshall: Your witness.
Judge Parker : Do you wish to ask him anything further,

Mr. Figg?
Mr. Figg: Yes, sir.

Redirect examination.

By Mr. Figg:
Q. When you were employed as director of this Commit

tee what was the date?
A. May 7, 1951.
Q. And I believe you said the Commission has not as yet

[fol. 173] established its entire employee setup?
A. That is true.
Q. It hasn’t as yet formed it?
A. No, sir.
Mr. Figg: That is all.
Judge Parker: Come down.
(Whereupon, the witness was excused.)

Mr. Figg: We call Mr. Betehman as our next witness.
H. B. B etch m an called as a witness on behalf of the De

fendants, being first duly sworn, was examined and testified
as follows:

Direct examination.

By Mr. F igg:
Q. Mr. Betchman, where do you live?
A. Summerton.
Q. How long have you lived there in Summerton?
A. Twenty-five years.
Q. What official position there do you have in the pub

lic school system of Summerton, District No. 22?
A. I am Superintendent of schools.
Q. How long have you been superintendent of schools?

121

A. For about fourteen years.
Q. What did you do before that?
A. I was principal of the school for about four or five

years and two years at Chafin and coach.
[fob 174] Q. And what schools does School District No.
22 presently operate?

A. Summerton elementary, and High, Scott’s Branch
elementary, and High School, Ram Bay elementary, and
Liberty Hill elementary.

Q. Summerton High School is operated by what districts ?
A. Well, it is operated by districts 8, 30, 22, 4 and 3, if I

said a while ago it was operated by 22, I did not mean that
was the only district.

0. And that is a centralized High School District?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. A separate body politic from School District No. 22?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the Board of that High School District is com

posed of the board Chairmen of the component districts?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. School District 22 is represented on that Board by

whom ?
A. Mr. R. M. Elliott.
Q. Who testified this morning?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. He is Chairman of School District No. 22?
A. On the District 22 Board and Summerton High School

Body.
Q. And Mr. Crow has testified that he was down there last

week to look at the schools and get information for the
purpose of establishing the district potential under the new
school Act, is that correct?
[fol. 175] A. Yes, sir.

Q. He saw you while he was there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And got the information that he has from you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where did you get it from?
A. I compiled it from the County Superintendent of Ed

ucation’s Office.
Q. You got it from the official record.
A. Yes, sir.

122

Q. Now the Ram Bay, two-teacher school is located where
in your district?

A. That is in the far eastern corner of the district.
Q. And is that in a rural section of the district?
A. Yes, sir; it is.
Q. How many miles is it from Summerton?
A. I would say five or six miles.
Q. Now the Town of Summerton is in School District 22?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How large approximately, is the Town of Summer-

ton in population?
A. It has about 1,500 people in it.
Q. About 1,500?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is there any other town in that school district?

[fol. 176] A. No, sir.
Q. The rest’of them are outside the corporate limits of

Summerton and that is in strictly an agricultural section?
A. It is entirely agricultural.
Q. Where is the Liberty Hill School in that District, that

four-teacher school?
A. In the extreme western part of the district.
Q. About how far from the Town of Summerton?
A. About three miles.
Q. Is or not that school located there for the benefit of

people living in that section of the school district?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now do the Trustees propose to continue the Ram

Bay school indefinitely, that two-teacher school?
A. No, sir.
Q. Have they made efforts to get rid of it before?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When was that?
A. I would say about 1936 or 1937.
Q. Was it actually discontinued by the Trustees at one

time?
A. I am not sure, but I think it was.
Q. Well, why was it kept if it was once discontinued?
A. Well, Summerton, District 22, does not have any

transportation for white or colored, and those colored peo
ple in that section of the country wished it continued, if

123

they would not continue it, those children would have a long
[fol. 177] ways to go to come to Summerton.

Q. So it was continued there because of the number of
people whose children lived in that area and who wished that
school to be kept in operation?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Rather than have it closed and have their children

transferred to Scotts Branch or some other school in the
district.

A. Yes, sir.
Q. You say there was no transportation for school pupils

of either race furnished by the school district No. 22?
A. No, sir.
Q. Is that transportation to Summerton High School

from the other component Districts?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the High School itself is located in District No.

22, and there is none in the others, so those pupils are
brought to this centralized high school by transportation
furnished by these other component districts?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. And do the white pupils from other districts come to

Summerton elementary schools?
A. They do, sir.
Q. Do these other districts have any other elementary

or grammar schools ?
[fol. 178] A. No, sir.

Q. These other four do not have any schools except the
Negro schools?

A. That’s right.
Q. And those pupils come to the elementary and high

school located in the Town of Summerton?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. For all practical purposes there has already been a

consolidation as far as the white schools are concerned?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you familiar with the colored schools in those four

districts ?
A. No, sir.
Q. Now, something was said here about improving the

grounds around the Summerton elementary school, what
about those grounds?

124

A. There was no tar or treatment or anything within the
Summerton school grounds, other than the high school;
you are speaking of the elementary school now; wTell there
is not anything in there.

Q. What about the High School!
A. The High School has a drive-way around, around in

front which is surface treated by the Highway Depart
ment, and I understand the State Highway Department took
over that part and have it marked off.

Q. That is a curcular drive up to the front of the school
and that is surface treated?
[fol. 179] A. Yes, sir.

Q. How about the rest of the grounds around there, have
they been surface treated, too?

A. No, sir.
Q. That centralized High School was built by the five

districts ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Which came together under a separate body politic

and issued bonds and built that school?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Prior to that time where had the white High School

pupils gone?
A. Well, they had, but not all, come to Summerton.
Q. What school did they go to?
A. To Summerton, some came to Summerton elementary

school, too.
Q. How many rooms has that got?
A. Eight.
Q. Eight rooms?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When was the Summerton High School built?
A. In the fall of 1936, we went into it.
Q. It was built in 1936?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What kind of project was that?
A. A PWA project.

[fol. 180] Q. A loan and grant project when the Federal
Government was trying to stimulate employment ?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the District applied for a loan and grant project

to build that school?

125

A. Yes, sir.
Q. And from that loan and grant project came the Sum-

merton elementary school, that eight-room building!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know whether there was an application for a

project for a colored school also at that time!
A. Yes, sir; it was tried, but as the education of eight

percent faced us, and the PWA went out of business, we
were taxed up to our limitation.

Q. Which was built first, the Summerton High School or
the Scott’s Branch school!

A. Summerton High School.
Q. Which was the last school built in the district!
A. Scott’s Branch.
Q. How long was that built after Summerton High

School?
A. After we built the High School, it was about a year

or two, their school burned down, then wTe built the Scott’s
Branch School about two years after, I guess.

Q. How did you build the Scott’s Branch School!
A. Where did we get the money?

[fob 181] Q. Yes.
A. We borrowed it from the Sinking Fund.
Q. From the Sinking Fund?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. According to what specifications was the Scott’s

Branch built?
A. We used the same specifications as for our High

School. We had those approved and used them.
Q. Were those plans approved by the State Department

of Education for school house construction?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you would say the floor-plan was substantially

the same as that used in the Summerton High School?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did it actually have more room?
A. Scott’s Branch?
Q. Yes.
A. I think it has one, two, four, six; yes, it has one or two

more rooms.
Q. Has it been necessary to add additional rooms to

Scott’s Branch since it was built?

126

A. Yes, sir; we had a tremendous increase over there
ever since Santee-Cooper was built. I have a scale back
from that time as to how the increase has come along and
we have had to build three more rooms there since then,
some just recently.
[fol. 182] Q. How did the building of the Santee-Cooper
increase your school population?

A. It run a lot of people out as the water filled in, it ran
them out of the water.

Q. They had to move from where the water was going
and so they moved up your way?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. They were practically all Negroes?
A. I think we increased about 190 students from that

area, I have a document compiled by one of my school
principals, and he traced them from back there up to Sum-
merton.

Q. And that was when—do you recall when that project
was being built; was it not in the late ’30s, since the Scott’s
Branch School was built?

A Yes, sir; since the first building was built.
Q. And you have had to add on extra rooms?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now you have how many grades in Scott’s Branch

School?
A. Twelve grades.
Q. How many teachers there ?
A. Fourteen teachers.
Q. Fourteen?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now I note of the figures Mr. Crow had as to your

potential borrowing power of your district, that the average
[fol. 183] daily attendance of the Negro schools was not
available, have you any figures on the percentage?

A. Yes, sir; I have them all, sir.
Q. Would you give them to us ?
A. In Scott’s Branch, the enrollment was 694, average

daily attendance was 462.
Q. Where did you get those figures?
A. Those reports were given to me by the various prin

cipals of these different schools.

127

Now in the Earn Bay school, the average enrollment was
67, and the average daily attendance was 43.4.

Liberty Hill had an average enrollment of 105 and an
average daily attendance of 72.61. That is up through the
eighth month. I am mighty afraid it is going to be lower
after the eighth month.

Q. These are current figures through the eighth month
of this school year?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are there any particular times of the year when your

average daily attendance suffers worse than at others ?
A. Yes, sir; at the beginning and at the ending of the

year.
Q. For how long at the beginning?
A. Well, they ask us all along, we survey the county and

keep in touch with thing’s, and they want us to keep the
schools closed until we can get the cotton picked and some
times that runs us a little late.
[fob 184] I know my principal this year asked about run
ning on Saturdays and I asked him a question about run
ning on Saturdays as to whether his attendance wouldn’t
be lower, and he said ‘ ‘ They will be absent a day whether
we run on Saturday or not.” Then at the end of the year
the attendance is down again.

Q. And that lasts about how long?
A. It starts just about the end of the eighth month and

runs through the ninth month, four weeks, I ’d say.
Q. What accounts for that absenteeism?
A. Well, I will say because they are most all small

farmers and live in rural sections and say they want the
children to go out to work, and then my principal tells me
that he is going to be out one day a week anyway all during
the year, I don’t know why, but I guess he can tell you when
he gets on the stand.

Q. Does that two months at the beginning and at the
end of the school year become a definite problem in the
operation of the schools?

A. Yes, sir; it is a tremendous problem. Under that
setup we have twenty teachers in the three schools and with
an average attendance of thirty, it looks like I am going to
lose a teacher if attendance does not pick up.

Q. That is based on what?

128

A. On enrollment and average attendance, on both.
Q. It is based on both?
A. Yes, sir.

[fol. 185] Q. So it has an effect upon the financial ability
of the district to carry a certain number of teachers'?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Does it also have an effect upon the educational situ

ation in general in the schools ?
A. Yes, sir. Absenteeism hurts.
Q. Is it good to have that much absenteeism from an

educational standpoint?
A. No, sir.
Q. Have efforts been made under the compulsory educa

tion law to militate against that?
A. We insist upon that, and we have our teachers to

teach the bad result of absenteeism, and also insist that the
teachers go around quite a bit among the people, it is hard
for me to ever find them, so the teachers do what they can
about it.

Q. What are they doing?
A. Working they say.
Q. You mean working the field?
A. Well, I can’t say about that, sir; I don’t know.
Q. That is what you understand is the reason they are

at home ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That their parents keep them home to work?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do a lot of parents of these colored pupils operate

their own farms ?
[fol. 186] A. A good many are small farmers; yes, sir.

Q. Now what is the daily average attendance in the white
schools ?

A. Can I look at my notes?
Judge Parker: Yes, that is all right, read them, if you

want to.
A. Up through the eighth month it is 254 and that is 91%.
Q. Ninety-one percent daily average attendance on the

white pupils, and I believe you said the white pupils come
from the five districts?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, Mr. Betckmah, in reference to the furnishing
of the building, and facilities and educational opportunities
in your District to all pupils, will the 1951 legislation be of
substantial assistance to that district?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. And do you know that an application has already been

requested for permission to use the full potential of the
district to obtain the necessary funds?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is it the policy of the Trustees and yourself and your

administrators of this district to utilize to the fullest ad
vantage the resources that will now be at hand to develop
the educational facilities and education in that district?

A. Yes, sir.
[fol. 187] Q. What is the condition of the Summerton ele
mentary school physically?

A. It is bad, too, sir.
Q. That was built, I believe in 1907 ?
A. In 1907, yes.
Q. They got the sandstone right on the spot did they not,

or I believe the legend so has it.
A. No, they built the cement blocks right there on the

spot.
Q. Is the building now in a good state of repair?
A. It is practically beyond repair.
Q. It is practically beyond repair?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Which would you say, if you had to compare the two,

was in a better state of repair, or better condition, Scott’s
Branch or Summerton?

A. From a physical condition I would a lot rather have
Scott’s Branch over a plant that was provided in 1934 or
1935 and that was planned similar to our high school and
has lighting that is so much better.

Q. The lighting is better in the Scott’s Branch School?
A. Yes, sir; it is.
Q. The lay-out is modern?
A. Yes, sir; it is a single story building and Summerton

is a two-story building and the stone is beginning to crack
on the corners and is beginning to decay, and------

129'

9—101

130

[fol. 188] Judge Parker: In the light of your admission
of this morning what is the significance of all this, Mr. Figg?

Mr. Figg: Perhaps I am going off the track a little, your
Honor, but I was just trying to develop the background.

Judge Parker: That would be most material if you hadn’t
made those admissions, but having admitted the conditions
are not equal, you are now trying to bring up the equality,
and I do not see where that is pertinent. You need not
waste much time on this.

Mr. F igg: I agree with your Honor, I was attempting to
explain something that did not count. I will turn the wit
ness over to the other side.

Cross-examination.

By Mr. Marshall:
Q. I will just ask you two or three questions. Isn’t one

of the reasons for absenteeism from school is that the
schools are in such bad shape!

Judge Parker: I didn’t understand that question.
Q. Isn’t one of the reasons for absenteeism from school

the fact that the schools are in bad shape?
A. I won’t say that, because in comparison with our two

schools the elementary school enrollment is up. I think it
absolutely the case of small farmers and their work, want
ing their children to help on the farm.

Q. I am not asking you,- sir, about District 22 alone, I am
[fol. 189] speaking about the general rule for absenteeism,
isn’t that one of the reasons accepted by educators?

A. That absenteeism is due to schools being in bad con
dition?

Q. Yes, that sometimes the condition of the school gives
no encouragement to the child to come back.

A. Yes; sir; sometimes that is true.
Mr. Marshall: That is all.
Judge Parker: Do you have any more questions, Mr.

Figg?
Mr. Figg: No, sir.
Judge Parker: Comedown.
(Whereupon, the witness was excused.)

131

Judge Parker: All right, gentlemen, proceed.
Mr. F igg: Those are the witnesses that we had arranged

to put up today, your Honor. We are not prepared to put
up any others at this time.

Judge Parker: Will your witnesses be here in the morn
ing, Mr. Marshall?-

Mr. Marshall: As far as we know, sir; they will all be
here in the morning.

Judge Parker: How much longer will it take to complete
your case?

Mr. Marshall: The most of the day, if possible, I will
complete it in less than a day.

Judge Parker: Do you think you can get through with
your case during the morning hours?

Mr. Marshall: That depends on the cross examination,
sir.
[fob 190] Judge Parker: We want you to have your wit
nesses here on both sides in the morning, if they are not
here it is just too bad, for we will go ahead.

What about beginning court in the morning at 9 :30? We
are taking out a few minutes ahead of time this afternoon,
so if it suits we will start in the morning at half past nine.

Mr. Marshall: That is all right with us, your Honor. I
want to say that we have some of the defendants here under
subpoena and now we find we do not need them and we
would like to have them excused, as I imagine they have
business to attend to. Also the principals of the schools.

Judge Parker: Those you have under subpoena you are
excusing now, if they wish to be excused?

Mr. Marshall: Yes, sir.
Judge Parker: They may be excused. Is there anything

else? We will now adjourn court until 9 :30 in the morning.
(Whereupon Court was adjourned at 4:30 o ’clock p. m.

Monday, May 28 until 9 :30 o ’clock a. m., May 29th, 1951.)
[fol. 191] Trial of the above cause continued this 29th day
of May, 1951, in the United States Courtroom at Charles
ton, South Carolina, at 10 o ’clock a.m.,
[fob 192] Mr. Marshall: May it please the Court, two of
our witnesses are in court and two will be in this after
noon. We are ready with the two.

Judge Parker: All right. Call them now.

D avid K rech:, Sworn.

Direct examination.

By Mr. Carter:
Q. Mr. Krech, what is your occupation!
A. I am at present on leave from the University of Cali

fornia as visiting professor of social psychology at Harvard
University.

Q. How long* have you been associate professor?
A. I have been doing research and teaching psychology

since 1933.
Q. What is your educational background? What degrees

do you hold?
A. I have a Master of Arts degree from New York Uni

versity, a Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Cali
fornia.

Q. Have you published any books or articles?
A. Quite a number; about 40 scientific articles in psycho

logical journals and three or four books.
[fob 193] Q. What professional societies do you belong to?

A. I am a fellow of the American Psychological Associa
tion, and President of one of the Divisions of the American
Psychological Association. I am a member of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, and a member
of the American Association of University Professors, and
a member of Sigma Xi, the honorary scientific society of the
United States.

Q. Now, Mr. Krech, is the examination of legal segrega
tion in education and its effect upon the individual a proper
function of a social psychologist?

A. It is one of the most significant problems which social
psychologists have dealt with and one of the books that I
refer to devotes as many as two chapters to that very
problem. It is a problem which has taken the attention of
research psychologists, perhaps that one problem more so
than any other single problem of our social behavior.

Q. Have you studied the problem?
A. Well, as I pointed out, since I devoted about two

chapters of our book, I have spent quite a good deal of
time studying that problem.

132

133

Q. Now Mr. Krech, assume that segregated public schools
are required by law for Negroes, have you formed any
opinion as to what effect this situation will have upon the
Negro child? ■

A. Very definite, and if I may say considered opinion.
Q. Will you kindly say what that opinion is and on what

[fol. 194] do you base it?
A. My opinion is that legal segregation of education is

probably the single, most important factor to wreak harm
ful effect on the emotional, physical and financial status
of the Negro child, and may I also say, it results in a harm
ful effect on the white child.

Q. Would you explain in a little more detail this harmful
effect that you describe, emotionally, financial and physical.

A. Well, the reason why I make such a statement, and I
realize it is a rather strong statement, that in my opinion
legal segregation which involves (1) a legal definition of
an individual in terms of race, and involves a statement of
some of his rights in relation to race, is the most significant
factor to promote, encourage and enhance racial prejudice
and racial segregation of all kinds. The reason for that
psychologically is primarily this: No one, unless he is men
tally diseased, no one can long maintain any attitude or
belief unless there are some objective supports for that
belief. We believe, for example, that there are trees. We
would not long continue to believe that there are trees if
we never saw a tree. Legal segregation, because it is legal,
because it is obvious to everyone, gives what we call in our
lingo environmental support for the belief that Negroes are
in some way different from and inferior to white people,
and that in turn, of course, supports and strengthens beliefs
of racial differences, of racial inferiority. I would say
[fol. 195] that legal segregation is both an effect, a con
sequence of racial prejudice, and in turn a cause of con
tinued racial prejudice, and insofar as racial prejudice has
these harmful effects on the personality of the individuals,
on his ability to earn a livelihood, even on his ability to
receive adequate medical attention, I look at legal segre
gation as an extremely important contributing factor. May
I add one more point. Legal segregation of the educa
tional system starts this process of differentiating the Negro
from the white at a most crucial age. Children, when they

134

are beginning to form their views of the world, beginning
to form their perceptions of people, at that very crucial age
they are immediately put into the situation which demands
of them, legally, practically, that they see Negroes as some
how of a different group, different being, than whites. For
these reasons and many others, I base my statement.

Q. These injuries that you say come from legal segrega
tion, does the child grow out of them? Do you think they
will be enduring, or is it merely a sort of temporary thing
that he can shake off?

A. It is my opinion that except in rare cases, a child who
has for 10 or 12 years lived in a community where legal
segregation is practiced, furthermore, in a community where
other beliefs and attitudes support racial discrimination, it
is my belief that such a child will probably never recover
[fol. 196] from whatever harmful effect racial prejudice
and discrimination can wreak.

Q. Mr. Ivrech, assume another situation, assume that
iii segregated public schools to which Negroes attend are
inferior to white schools, will education in that situation
have any adverse effect on the Negro child?

A. Very definitely. Psychologists have a long time ago
given up the notion that what we call intelligence, I. Q., is
independent of the education and of the experiences of the
individual, and an inadequate education reflects itself, and
we have empirical data to substantiate this, reflects itself
in a lowered I. Q., in lowered ability to cope with the prob
lems of life. I might point out that I do not hold with some
people who suggest the white man, who is prejudiced against
the Negro, has no cause to be so prejudiced. I would say
that most white people have cause to be prejudiced against
the Negro, because the Negro in most cases is indeed inferior
to the white man, because the white man has made himself
through the practice of legal segregation. There is no
psychologist that I know of who would maintain that there
is any biological, fundamental difference between the two
groups of people, but through the practice of inadequate
education, that was a hypothetical situation that you gave
me, as a consequence of inadequate education we build into
the Negro the very characteristic, not only intellectual, but
also personality characteristics, which we then use to justify
[fol. 197] prejudice.

1 3 5

Cross-examination.

By Mr. Figg:
Q. Where were you born?
A. Poland.
Q. And at what age did you come to this country?
A. Three.
Q. Where did you live when you came here?
A. New Britain, Connecticut.
Q. And then where ? California?
A. No. I also lived in New York City, Chicago, Colorado,

Pennsylvania,—I taught at those places, and California,
and the last year I was visiting professor of social psy
chology at Oslo University in Norway.

Q. Have you ever lived in one of the States which has
legal segregation?

A. Only when I was taking my basic training in the
United States Army.

Q. And what state was that?
A. Florida.
Q. And have you ever made any study on this problem

we are discussing in any State which has legal segregation?
A. I am sorry I didn’t hear the question.
Q. Have you ever made a study of this problem we have

been discussing in a State which has legal segregation?
[fol. 198] A practical study.

A. As a man who is primarily devoted to the science of
psychology, I think I am familiar with perhaps every study
that has been made in this area. I base my conclusions
not on my own studies obviously but on the field of
psychology.

Q. You base your opinion not on your own practical
investigation of the problem but on the sum total of the
reading which you have done on the study which you have
made.

A. Beading and research. That is right.
Q. But no practical research in a State which has legal

segregation?
A. All research is practical.
Judge Parker: Answer the question.

136

Q. I am talking about, have you?
A. I myself, no, I haven’t.

Mss. H elen Teager, sworn.

Direct Examination.

By Mr. Carter:
Q. Mrs. Trager, what is your occupation?
A. I am a teacher. I am a lecturer at Vassar College in

Poughkeepsie, New York, and consultant in curricula at
Vassar.

Q. How long have you held this position?
A. Just this year. At the present time I am also a

consultant in curriculum and human relation to a special
project sponsored by Yale University and the Bureau of
[fol. 199] Intercultural Education in the rural schools of
Connecticut.

Q. What other teaching experience have you had?
A. I have taught in the elementary school, both public

and private. I have been educational consultant to city
schools in New York, Philadelphia, Denver, Colorado, San
Diego, California, Detroit, Michigan. I have been lecturer
and group leader of workshops for teachers and adminis
trators in the field of elementary education and human
relations education at Columbia University Teachers Col
lege, at the University of Minnesota, at the University of
Utah, at New York University, and San Diego College.

Q. Would you describe your educational background
briefly for us?

A. I am a graduate of the New York Training School for
Teachers, from which I received a diploma to teach in
elementary schools. I have a Bachelor of Science, New
York University, and a Master of Arts from the same
University.

Q. Have you published any books or articles?
A. Yes, in the last ten years I have published under my

own name or with colleagues about twenty manuscripts;
about six of them are pamphlets in the general field of
democratic education; others are articles on problems of

137

curriculum, child development, human relations. They
have appeared in professional journals such as the NEA, the
National Education Association, the Journal of Supervision
[fol. 200] and Curriculum Development, Genetic Psychology
Monograph, Journal of Psychology. I have done some
writing which has appeared in Year Books. One was re
printed by the National Mental Hygiene Association, also
in the field of curriculum and problems of human relations.

Q. Now, Mrs. Trager, have you had any actual and
practical experience in determining the personality prob
lems of Negro school children of public school age as caused
by racial discrimination and racial segregation!

A. Yes, I have.
Q. Will you describe what that experience is!
A. It has been of two kinds, experience as a classroom

teacher who has taught both Negro and white pupils, and
as a teacher of teachers from the North and South, who
teach Negro and white pupils; and the other kind of ex
perience has been a much more intensive one where I was
director of a study in the public schools, attended by Negro
and white students. It was a study which I think bears
directly on the problems we are discussing here. Would
you like me to tell something about it?

Q. Will you describe it.
A. The study I directed was conducted in the Philadel

phia Public Schools. I was invited as a curriculum con
sultant to help plan a program that would build good demo
cratic human relations in the primary grade children’s
classroom behavior. In order to do that, we assembled a
staff of people, including psychologists and assistants,
[fol. 201] We recruited for the purposes of study the
teachers of children in the classroom, and had those teachers
and those psychologists study how these children feel about
themselves and about other people, so that we could properly
build a program of democratic human relations. In other
words, we were attempting to discover where we were
starting from. Do they have feelings which are anti
democratic? As a sample, there were 250 children, ages
5 to 8. The study was conducted for 3 years and it had
various phases. I think that the study of the feelings of
children about their own group membership, their attitudes

138

to other people, how their emotions about their group mem
bership affected their behavior, was the important part of
the study.

Q. Just what method briefly, what method did you use to
determine this?

A. We used several methods. The teachers observed the
children in the classrooms and kept very careful records of
behavior, anecdotal, the children were interviewed by psy
chologists. The methods there used were the fairly familiar
projective play techniques, purposely because it would be, I
think, futile to ask children about their feelings directly, and
what we always need to do is to observe them reveal their
feelings. It would be futile to ask youngsters how they feel
about being members of their own group or how they feel
about other people because they would assume there is either
a right answer or that they are expected to give certain
kinds of answers. And I think that the projective play
[fol. 202] technique has demonstrated that we were able to
get behind or get at the feelings of Negro and white children.

Q. As a result of this study, did you reach any conclusions
on the question of the personality problems such as being
caused by racial discrimination and segregation.

A. I wonder if it is all right if I refer to my notes on that?
Judge Waring: Yes, you may do that.
Judge Parker: Yes. That will be all right.
Judge Waring: You may use your notes.
A. Thank you. In order to determine what kind of pro

gram would help these children to develope democratic be
havior, get along with other children, have self-respect, we
were interested in their feelings about themselves and other
people, and our tests were directed to that end. I would like
to point out where the Negro and white children evidenced
the same feelings and where they evidenced different feel
ings because I think that is relevant. First, even at 5 years
old, we found that all of the children were aware of group
differences, that is racial differences. Our study was not
merely of—in the area of race. It included the area of
religion, but I am going to here refer to only our findings on
race. As I say, at 5 both Negro and white children were
aware of differences. The difference, however, between the
reactions of Negro and white children, one difference was

139

that the white children talked freely about race and race
[fol. 203] differences; whereas the Negro children showed
obvious discomfort and avoidance. Both, in their inter
views, saw being Negro as a disadvantage. The white
children saw the white as being the preferred group and
they wanted to be white and felt that other children pre
ferred to be white. The white children expected that the
Negro children also would prefer to be white. The Negro
children on the other hand, on the issue of what they would
like to be, whether they accept themselves in other words or
not, at one and the same time said that Negro children liked
to be Negro but that Negro children would like to be white,
and this contradiction seemed to be terribly important and
was a tendency throughout the sample. It appeared to us
that under this was a conflict and inability to accept one’s
own group and yet the psychological need to accept what one
is. Interestingly enough, both Negro and white children
perceived the Negro group as meaning' the same thing, and
in 5-year olds, 6-year olds, and 7-year old terms, our groups
from 5 to 8, they perceived Negro as meaning that you are
not liked by people, that you won’t be asked to play, that you
won’t be allowed to do things that other children can do.
Both groups perceived that to be the meaning of Negro.
Both groups had fears and misconceptions about each other,
and they were frequently the same fears and misconceptions.
They had misconceptions about what makes one white and
what makes one Negro and they gave the weirdest and the
[fol. 204] most frightening and inaccurate explanations of
race. Some white children saw white as being the ultimate
evolution in a kind of baking process, where you come out
white finally, and that brown people are something not
quite finished. And some of the Negro children had that
kind of explanation for race. More important than the
misconceptions, although they were a serious—suggested
an area for serious study and curriculum building, the Negro
children, unlike the white children, showed a tendency to
expect rejection. This expectation of rejection increased
sharply from 5 to 8 years old, so that in their growing up,
they were learning to expect not to be accepted. Another
shift from 5 to 8 on the part of the Negro children in their
feeling’s, personal reaction, behavior, was evidence that they
began to rationalize this rejection, their not being accepted,

140

with phoney explanations. Whereas at 5, a Negro child
would indicate that he expected Negroes not to be accepted
and would give as the reason “ Because he isn’t white” or
“ Because he is black,” or using the vernacular “ Because
he is a nigger. ” At 8 the explanations were evasive, avoid
ant, again showing the kind of discomfort I mentioned
earlier. . There would be explanations of “ Because he can’t
play the way they can,” “ Because he doesn’t live near
them,” but not “ Because he is colored.” And so we dis
covered that basic needs on the part of all human beings,
basic emotional need for self-respect, to be accepted by
others, to feel that you belong, were frustrated in the Negro
[fob 205] children in our study.

Q. Do you feel that these conclusions that you have
reached, do they cause actual injury to the personality of
the individual?

A. I think unquestionably they do. In working with
children, the problems they have in study, in getting along
with each other, in accepting themselves, are related to their
own image of themselves and their feelings about their
group. A child who expects to be rejected, who sees his group
held in low esteem, is not going to function well, he is not
going to be a fully developed child, he will be withdrawn, or
aggressive in order to win the acceptance he doesn’t get.

Q. Does this interfere with his education, the learning-
process, the amount that can be gained?

A. I think that any psychologist and certainly any educa
tor would agree that blocks to learning are frequently psy
chological blocks, and one of the great or common problems
is self-doubt in human beings, and where there is self-doubt
energy is wasted in that direction and learning is not very
effective. We spend a tremendous amount of time, as I am
sure your teachers do, in the State, trying to understand
why children behave as they do and what emotional prob
lems they have, and only as we understand their emotional
problems can we help them to learn.

Q. Now, on that point, Mrs. Trager, can we remedy the
[fol. 206] injuries that you have described?

A. I am sorry I can’t hear you.
Q. Can you remedy the injuries to the child that you have

described as caused by racial segregation and discrimination
in a, say public segregated school?

141

A. I don’t believe you can. I agree with Dr. Krech that
segregation becomes the rationalization for prejudice, and
it would appear when schools are legally segregated to the
children who are segregated in them, that this separation,
this defferenee of status, is inevitable, and 1 think that under
those circumstances the children can’t overcome the feeling
of inadequacy they have by virtue of having been separated
from other people.

Cross-examination.

By Mr. F igg:
Q. Where were you born!
A. New York City.
Q. And where is your home now?
A. Riverdale.
Q. In New York?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you ever lived in a State that has segregation in

the schools by law?
A. Only during the War when my husband was at the

Charleston Army Air Base.
[fol. 207] Q. Where?

A. During the last War when my husband was at the
Charleston Army Air Base.

Q. Here?
A. Yes.
Q. How long were you here?
A. I was here only as a visitor but he was here quite some

time.
Q. And I understand that this observation study that you

have testified to was made in Philadelphia?
A. That is correct.
Q. Have you made a similar study anywhere else?
A. No. May I qualify that?
Q. Yes.
A. I have presently in the senior class at Vassar students

who are from the South and who are planning to teach in
the South. I have had in other years students who have
worked with me from most of the Southern States who teach
either in the Negro Segregated schools or the white schools,

142

and we have spent our time in the area of human relation’
problems such as we are discussing today.

Q. What I asked you was: Have you made a study similar
to the one you have testified to anywhere else?

A. No.
Q. And does Pennsylvania have segregated schools ?
A. They do not have legally segregated schools. There

[fol. 208] are schools where only Negro children attend,
and in that sense they are segregated in effect.

Q. Why is that?
A. There are some sections in any city in this country

where Negro people live and the schools then become the
schools of that district. If white people live there, they
attend that school.

Q. So in the ordinary process of dividing school buildings
even in a city like Philadelphia, you will find actually schools
virtually for one race?

A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Now, this school that you were testifying to in your

survey, was that one school or children from various
schools ?

A. Children from six schools.
Q. Were they mixed schools or were they segregated

schools?
A. There were some schools that were so-called homoge

neous, although no school is, that is, they were white chil
dren but there was a difference of religion within them, and
economic differences. There were schools with racial mix
ture other than Negro and white, but they included that, and
there was one school where all of the children were Negroes.

Q. And you found that at as early an age as 5, when you
first got hold of these children, there was consciousness of
group and group differences at that age, white and colored.

A. Yes.
[fol. 209] Q. And of course that didn’t come out of the
schools, did it?

A. I think if anything our study demonstrated, that did
not come out of schools.

Q. It came out of the homes, didn’t it?
A. It came out of many things, not just the home.
Q. At the age of 5, the chances are that it came mostly out

of the home, isn’t that true ?

143

A. Well, our side would quote in some instances the
source of their information. Then it was not always the
home, although we know the home is an important factor in
the learning of children. It was playground. It was what
they saw on the bus. It was what they knew about where
father worked, or couldn’t work. It was all of their learn
ing in the total community in the society of their 5-year
oldness, and they were aware of many things, arid their
sources included church and shop, and market place.

Q. But in States where there is no segregation, either by
law or in practice, you frequently find all colored or all white
schools, don’t you?

A. Yes. I thought I had said that.
Q. I read in the paper the other day where the All-Negro

Basket Ball Team representing* the Christy High School
somewhere in Indiana won the basket ball championship,
and I gathered from that that what you say has occurred in
various places where they do not have segregation. Now,
[fob 210] you haven’t made such a study as that in any State
that does have segregation by law, have you?

A. No, I have not.
Q. In the schools of Philadelphia, did you notice the pro

portion of the white and colored teachers in the school sys
tem there?

A. I can’t give you the proportion, no, but I know that
there are both in every level of administration, including
the office of the superintendent.

Q. How about any other places that you have observed?
A. Oh, that varies as patterns of prejudice vary in this

country.
Q. You do know that in the State of South Carolina, for

instance, that the colored children are taught by colored
teachers, do you not?

A. Yes, I do.
Q. And a great many of them have had very good train

ing and have qualified themselves, and have equal salaries,
of course, under the State law. You know that, don’t you?

A. Yes.
Q. I want to ask you if you would agree with this state

ment that I read in the Myrdal book, American Dilemma,
you are familiar with that book?

A. Yes.

144

Q. He said that “ Some Negroes, however, prefer the
ffol. 211] segregated school, even for the North when the
mixed school involves humiliation for Negro students and
discrimination against Negro teachers. ’ ’ Do you agree with
that statement?

A. Yes, and I would go one step further, I think that
minority groups frequently self-segregate themselves by
choice because of the unequal status they have in society.
However, that isn’t a solution.

Q. Do you admit that the conception that I referred to
yesterday of the universal consciousness of kind?

A. I think all of the data from the study that I was asso
ciated with would deny that there was universal conscious
ness of kind. So long as children have the emotional conflict
of wanting to be what they are not, universal consciousness
of kind is an invalid theory.

Q. Do you concede that emotional conflict between the
races and frustrations and aggression etc., do arise between
the white and colored races where they live together in the
same area in great numbers ?

A. Yes, they do.
Q. Now, let me ask you if you agree with this statement.

In Mr. Myrdal’s book, following the statement which I just
read you, this occurs, and I want to see if you, in your expe
rience, are inclined to agree with this: He said ‘ ‘ DuBois has
expressed this point of view succinctly, ‘ Theoretically the
Negro needs neither segregated schools nor mixed schools’.”
[fol. 212] Do you agree with that?

A. No, I don’t agree with that.
Q. “ What he needs is education.” Do you agree with

that ?
A. Yes.
Q. “ What he must remember is that there is no magic

either in mixed schools or in segregated schools.” Do you
agree with that?

A. I agree with that a hundred percent.
Q. “ A mixed school with poor and unsympathetic teach

ers, with hostile opinion, and no teaching concerning black
folk is bad.” Do you agree with that?

A. Yes.
Q. “ A segregated school with ignorant place-holders, in

145

adequate equipment, poor salaries, and wretched housing-, is
equally bad.” Do you agree with that?

A. No, I would say it is worse.
Q. It is worse. “ Other things being equal, the mixed

school is the broader, more natural basis for the education
of all youth.” Do you agree with that?

A. Yes.
Q. “ But other things seldom are equal,” he winds this

quotation up, “ And in that case, the sympathy, knowledge
and truth outweigh all that the mixed school can offer. ’ ’ Do
you agree with that?

A. No, I don’t. May I explain that last point?
[fol. 213] Q. Yes.

A. From my experience as a teacher, it seems to me that
the learning to live together, and the learning to accept one
group by the other on the part of children, must be made
possible for them in life situations. In schools, as presently
understood, is a life situation. I think it essential that chil
dren have the experience of meeting with, working with
others who are different from themselves. The reason I
say that is that in one of our testing situations, where both
Negro and white children were asked to play with dolls,
which were also Negro and white, to dress them, to choose
houses for them, to tell what kind of work they did and
where they were going, and the clothes that they were
wearing, the white children who tended to give the worst
clothes to the Negro doll and the good clothes to the white
doll, who also gave the worst house to the Negro doll be
cause that is where that person would live or doll, who gave
the lowest type of work to the Negro doll, were also the
children who had the highest amount of hostility toward
Negro people. It would seem to me that by keeping Negro
children in segregated schools, separate from white, what
automatically happens is that they have a low status
because they are kept from this living in school together,
and that the low status which was understood by our white
children as being Negro status, increases hostility between
[fol. 214] groups. And I think that increase of hostility,
which was apparent in our children, when they associated
low status with Negroes, is precisely what we want to avoid

10—101

146

if we are going to have any kind of peace and good lnrna.ii
relations, and democratic human relations in our society.

Q. Did you say that in your study you found differences
based upon religious reactions of children at those young
ages?

A. I am not sure I get your question.
Q. I say, didn’t you mention that you had also found

differences in your study that were referable to religion
as well as race?

A. We studied the beliefs, attitudes and behavior of
children along religious lines too, yes.

Q. You would say that those differences certainly came
out of the home, didn’t they?

A. And all of the other life experiences of children, yes.
Q. Now, wouldn’t a great deal of what you have said

about separate schools here today, apply to church schools
also?

A. As a matter of fact, they do, but to a lesser degree,
and let me illustrate what I mean. Children in the public
schools, when they referred to their schools, sometimes in
advertently called them Protestant schools. They also re
ferred to, because in our testing situation we had an oppor
tunity for them to react to parochial school children in
[fol. 215] school. They also evidenced feelings of hostility
toward parochial school children. However, there wasn’t
anything like the degree of hostility, because the parochial,
the Catholic for instance, the Catholic people are not held
in as low esteem in our society as are the Negro people,
and that difference was reflected proportionately in our
data.

Q. We have in some places religious prejudices, in places
like Boston, as well as places in other parts of the country.
Would you attribute that kind of prejudice to separate
schools?

A. No.
Q. Partly?
A. I think anything which keeps groups apart, where

there are no bridges to understanding and no effort made
to understanding, there is as a result hostility and mis
understanding. In that sense, yes.

147

Redirect examination.

By Mr. Carter:
Q. You have had experience, have yon not, in attempting

to correct these injuries which you have described, haven’t
you, Mrs. Trager?

A. Yes.
Q. And what conclusion have you reached as to where

they can be corrected in terms of public schools ?
A. It seems to me that misconceptions children have,

fears, what we call self-hate, feelings of inadequacy, can be
[fol. 216] corrected only in situations which don’t perpetu
ate those fears, misconceptions, and feelings of inadequacy.
And I think, therefore, that mixed schools give us the base
in which to function, give us the setting, if not the factors
that are needed for the re-education of children. I think
that when that mixture is absent, when opportunity for
learning and working with people is absent, it is not pos
sible to reeducate children along lines of feeling and be
havior toward people.

Judge Timmerman: Do you eliminate the home from
that consideration? You said a school base. You don’t
think the home is a base?

A. I think that the home can help a great deal in the re
education of children, but where we seek to help children
resolve their emotional conflicts, frequently that is possible
in the school, where it is not possible in the home. That is
true, I think, whether it is emotional conflict because of
sibling rivalry, a feeling of rejection on the part of a child
from the mother, or feeling that one is inadequate because
one is a Negro.

Judge Timmerman: Assuming all you say is a conse
quence, do you think those conditions rise first in the home
or first in the school?

A. I think unquestionably they arise in the home first
because the first years of a child’s life are in the home. I
[fol. 217] think the place, however, where education can
take place, and must, if we are to diminish the amount of
hostility and fear that children of all groups have toward
each other, is in the school.

148

Q. Mrs. Trager, in your opinion, could these injuries
under any circumstances ever be corrected in a segregated
school? “

A. I think not, for the same reasons that Dr. Krech gave.
Segregation is a symbol of, a perpetuator of, prejudice. It
also stigmatizes children who are forced to go there. The
forced separation has an effect on personality and one’s
evaluation of one’s self, which is inter-related to one’s
evaluation of one’s group.

C olloquy B etw een C ourt and C ounsel.
Mr. Marshall: May it please the Court, Mr. Figg has

some other witnesses. The reason I asked him is because
our witnesses won’t be in until 3:14 this afternoon. We
couldn’t get them here last night.

Judge Parker: We are not going to wait the trial on
them.

Mr. Marshall: If they don’t get here in time, we under
stand that, sir.

Judge Parker: All right, go ahead with the defense then.
Mr. Figg: Your Honor, we have one or two witnesses

[fol. 218] that we expect to call and they have just come in
this morning from Columbia, and I have not had a chance
to confer with them prior to putting them on the stand
because I had expected to do that at the conclusion of the
plaintiff ’s case.

Judge Parker: You want 15 minutes?
Mr. Figg: Yes, sir.
Judge Parker: All right, we will take a recess for 15

minutes.
(Recess.)
Mr. Figg: If your Honor please, I have talked with the

witnesses who came in this morning from Columbia. The
greater part of them, I find, are witnesses on the question
of facilities, which we have already conceded on the record
are not equal, and we have no witnesses to call at this time.
We want to reserve the right to call witnesses after the
plaintiffs ’ witnesses have testified, but at this time we have
no witnesses to call.

Judge Parker: What do you say? What do you want to
do? You say you have no witnesses to call.

149

Mr. Marshall: May it please the Court, this is the first
[fol. 219] time I have been in this position, of not having
witnesses, but as I explained yesterday——

Judge Parker: Who is it that you have got that is not
here?

Mr. Marshall: We have Professor Robert Redfield from
the University of Chicago, who is an anthropologist. We
want his testimony on the question of the unreasonableness
of segregation laws based on race. I could not get hold of
him, he is enroute. And the other witness is Professor
Newcomb from the University of Michigan, a socio-psychol
ogist, and I say, sir, in all fairness, that they are vital to
our case.

Judge Parker: I don’t see why they are not here. You
had notice yesterday and planes come from the University
of Michigan to Charlotte in 3 hours.

Mr. Marshall: But, sir, there is no plane that gets in,—■
that he could catch after 5 o ’clock yesterday afternoon that
would get him in before today. The last one left out at 6,
and Dr. Redfield is enroute. I realize the position I am in.

Judge Parker: Haven’t you got a statement as to what
they would say ?

Mr. Marshall: I could give one.
Judge Parker: I say, have you got one? Haven’t they

given you a statement?
Mr. Marshall: No, sir.

[fol. 220] Judge Parker: I thought you might put that in
evidence.

Mr. Marshall: I could get one together, sir. Dr. Redfield
has testified before and I know almost exactly what he would
say.

Judge Parker: In what case did he testify?
Mr. Marshall: In the Sweatt case and the Sipuel case.
Judge Parker: Haven’t you got his testimony in those

cases?
Mr. Marshall: I don’t have the record, sir, but I could

have it typed out in short order.
Judge Parker: Our Supreme Court once said that the

best thing a man can do, when he has a case in court, is to
attend to it, Both sides ought to have given this case more
attention.

Mr. Marshall: If your Honor please, these witnesses are

150

—it is just almost impossible to get them. They are all
coming on a volunteer basis, and they have commitments.
For instance, we have two witnesses that we just can’t get.
They have gone overseas.

Judge Parker: You have a good deal of testimony along
this line.

Mr. Marshall: Except the anthropologist. That is the
only one. The anthropologist, sir, Dr. Bedfield’s primary
[fol. 221] testimony is that the anthropologists have agreed
that but for the extent of skin coloration, there is no differ
ence between individual human beings; and two, that given
a similar learning situation as between Negro and white
children, the Negro child will do much the same as the white
child and there will be no racial difference in their ability
to learn or in their ability to attend school.

Judge Parker: That is the type of testimony you want to
introduce, and did I understand you to say you introduced
it in the Sweatt case?

Mr. Marshall: Yes, sir.
Judge Parker : By this same witness ?
Mr. Marshall: Yes, sir.
Judge Parker: What do you gentlemen say about ad

mitting the testimony in the Sweatt case to be introduced
in the record of this case?

Mr. Figg: We are not familiar with the testimony in the
Sweatt case, but we would have no objection, if they have
that testimony, to their introducing it.

Judge Parker: Well, do you have it?
Mr. Marshall: No, sir, but I can get it right quick, be

cause I know we have one of the records in Washington.
We could have it put on a plane right away.

Unidentified Person in Courtroom: I have a copy in my
room at the hotel.
[fol. 222] Mr. Marshall: With you? The Sweatt record?

Unidentified person: Of the Texas case.
Mr. Marshall: Good.
Judge Parker: All right, get that and read it. That will

take care of that.
Mr. Marshall: Very well, sir, at that we will rest.
Judge Parker: Can you send for it and get it over here

right away?

151

Unidentified Person: Yes, sir. I will get it.
Mr. Marshall: I submit, sir, I don’t think we have to

wait for it necessarily.
Judge Parker: All right. 1 think that is correct. Do you

want to introduce any further testimony for the defense!
Mr. Figg: We want to introduce in evidence, if your

Honor please, the Inaugural Address of Governor Byrnes,
which is referred to in the addition to the answer which
was filed yesterday.

Judge Parker : All right.
Mr. Figg: Also, his message to the General Assembly on

the 1951 School Legislation, and for the convenience of the
Court, we have a printed pamphlet of the portion of the
appropriation act which is referred to as 1951 School Legis
lation, which we would file in the record because I don’t
[fob 223] think it has come out officially in the Statutes yet.

Judge Parker: All right, put them in. Have you got
3 copies of the bill!

Mr. F igg: I think we will be able to get them.
Judge Parker: All right, we will be glad to have them.

Is there any other evidence for the defense ?
Judge Timmerman: Get 3 copies of each of those docu

ments if you can.

Inaugural Address of Governor James F. Byrnes, Mes
sage of Governor Byrnes to Legislature on 1 9 5 1 School
Legislation, and Excerpts from General Appropriation Act
1 9 5 1 , marked in evidence as Defendants’ Exhibits A, B,
and G, respectively.

Mr. F igg: If your Honor please, we had intended at the
cross examination of the anthropological-social psycho
logical witnesses to refer to and question them in reference
to some statements on this subject, an address by Dr. How
ard W. Odom, in Atlanta, on April 27, 1951, entitled, “ The
Mid-Century South Looking Both Ways,” and we wanted
in connection with that testimony to be able to call the
Court’s attention to portions of this address.

Judge Parker: Well, what do you want to do!
Mr. Figg*: I would be glad to file it in the record.
Judge Parker: Well, I don’t think you can do that. If

152

you want to call Dr. Odom, you can call him, but I don’t
[fol. 224] think you can put his address in the record.

Mr. Figg: I don’t think I could get him here.
Judge Parker: I think that is an entirely different basis

from the Inaugural Address of the Governor, which is a
State paper.

Mr. Figg: Yes, sir. The Court will take judicial notice
of the things that I have offered. And as to this (indi
cating) of course I think portions of it would have been
appropriate on the cross examination of the witnesses—of
the witness whose statement is going to be put in the
record. It is a matter of general learning. It has had wide
circulation and is the kind of matter which the legislature
may take into account, along with all the other general
learning on the subject, in the matter of adopting legisla
tion or constitutional provisions, and we think that it would
be proper, it and other matters of general information and
opinion by recognized experts and people in the educa
tional world, they could also be taken into account in
legislative action and could be referred to to sustain the
Legislative action under the principle that when the legis
lature has passed legislation, it is valid if it is sustainable
on any reasonable basis. And we had expected to make use
of that material, as I say, in cross examination, and we
thought perhaps that along with the statement that is to
be received in evidence, we might indicate portions of this
speech of what we had in mind, particularly for that
[fol. 225] witness.

Judge Parker: I don’t know of any principle of law
that would justify your doing that.

Mr. Figg: I might suggest this: It could be used in
arguing the case.

Judge Parker: Oh, of course. When counsel are arguing
a case, they can make any real argument they want to and
refer to anybody’s opinion they want to, but that is not a
thing to put in evidence.

Mr. Figg: I regret very much that I won’t be able to get
some comments on some of Dr. Odom’s opinions on this
subject.

Judge Parker: I imagine this man was cross examined
in the Texas case. If you want to introduce his testimony

1 5 3

in the Texas case, I imagine he was cross examined out there.
Of course, he wasn’t cross examined about Dr. Odom’s
speech because Dr. Odom hadn’t made the speech at that
time. If you want to delay the case until this man comes
here, if you want to cross examine him, we will think about
that. I don’t say we will do it. Are you suggesting that?

Mr. Figg: No, sir. I think we can cover the situation
that we have in mind in the argument of the case. We have
referred to what we had in mind and ask the Court as a
matter of general learning on the subject to take it into
account.
[fol. 226] Judge Parker: I think that this is true about
this case: You have gone to considerable trouble on both
sides to present the case, and we ought to hear it fully.
I am not going to allow it to be dragged out and unneces
sarily delay it, but I want the record fully made so that
when it goes to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court will
have the advantage of anything that anybody wants to say
about the case that is relevant. For that reason, I don’t
w-ant counsel on either side to feel that wre are cutting them
off. We are disposed to let everything go in the record
that is relevant to the issue here. I understand that so far
as this Doctor from the University of Chicago is concerned,
that his testimony is really available, and if the case might
be improved, why I might for all practical purposes let it
come in. What about the other man?

Mr. Marshall: We will just have to do without him, sir.
He hasn’t testified in any of these cases that I know of.

Judge Waring: When do you expect him here, today or
tomorrow?

Mr. Marshall: 3:14 this afternoon, assuming the plane
is on time.

Judge Parker: You don’t know how he is coming, do you?
Mr. Marshall: Yes, sir, he is coming by Delta Air Lines,

3:14.
Judge Timmerman: If he arrives at the North Charleston

[fol. 227] Airport, it will be 4 or 4:30 when he gets here.
Mr. Figg: It might be, if your Honor please, that counsel

would have no objection to Dr. Odom’s address being-
offered and received in evidence and we could agree on

154

what he believes his witness who is on the Delta Air Line
would testify and add that to the record.

Mr. Marshall: Your Honor, I am familiar with that
speech and I would certainly want to question Dr. Odom.
I am also happy to say that I know Dr. Odom, but that is
a speech and not a scientific study.

Judge Parker: I don’t think Dr. Odom’s speech would
be competent, but the situation that confronts us now is:
What are we going to do about this case f As I understand,
you have no other testimony for the defense!

Mr. Figg: Not at this time, your Honor.
Judge Parker: Well, I am talking about this time. This

is the time we are talking about. We are fixing to close
the case right now.

Mr. F igg: As I stated a while ago, if other witnesses are
to be called, we had reserved our right to call witnesses if
the testimony was objectionable.

Judge Parker: I understand you to say that if these
witnesses are allowed to testify that are on the way here,
that you may want to offer testimony in answer to them,
but otherwise you won’t offer any testimony.
[fol. 228] Mr. Figg: That is right.

Judge Parker: And you don’t want to offer any testimony
in reference to the testimony given by this Doctor in the
Sweatt case!

Mr. Figg: I haven’t seen that testimony and I doubt,—
as you say, your Honor, he was probably cross examined.
It wouldn’t take two minutes after we see the testimony
to tell.

Judge Parker: They have gone for the testimony now.
It is now 5 minutes past 11 o ’clock and they ought to be
here by quarter past 11 with it. He has been gone about
10 minutes. Well, I don’t see anything to do except to
recess the court for about—until half past, 11 o ’clock. We
will come back then and see what we are going to do with
respect to the progress of the case.

Judge Timmerman: Counsel can consult and see if they
can’t agree about some things.

Judge Parker: Yes, I think that is important. Counsel
can confer and see what you want to do about it.

(Recess.)

155

[fol. 229] Judge Parker: All right. Have you agreed on
a solution?

Mr. Marshall: We have here, sir, a transcript of the
case of Herman Marion Sweatt versus Theophilis Shiekel
Painter, et ah, the University of Texas case, which includes
the testimony of Doctor Robert Redfield; the entire testi
mony, including direct examination, cross examination and
re-direct. It runs between pages 189 and 208. We have
discussed it with counsel for the defendant and I understand
he is willing to have it in evidence on the one point that
if here he would testify substantially that way.

Mr. Figg: We admit that if the witness were here he
would testify as he testified in that case.

Judge Parker: All right. Let it be admitted, then. Put
it in the record. I don’t think it ’s necessary to read it now.
You can refer to it in the arguments.

Judge Waring: That’s direct and cross examinations!
Mr. Figg: Yes, sir. The whole of the testimony.
Judge Parker: All right.
Mr. Marshall: Doctor Robert Redfield.
Judge Timmerman: Redfield?
Mr. Marshall: Yes, sir.
Judge. Parker: All right. Now, is there anything else

that you want to offer in the record ?
[fol. 230] Mr. Marshall: Nothing else, sir, except we did
check on Professor Newcomb and he left at 8:15 this morn
ing, but he will not be here. So, we are perfectly willing to
rest.

Judge Parker: All right. We don’t want to cut you off
if you think that his testimony is vital. We would hear him
when he comes. Do you want to offer anything further
yourself?

Mr. Figg: No, sir, we have no further evidence, your
Honor.

# # # # # # #

156

(Doctor Robert Bedfield’s testimony from the case of
Sweatt vs. Painter, et al., was copied into the record as
follows:)

D octor R obert R edfield , a witness produced by the
relator, having* been by the Court first duly sworn as a
witness, testified as follows:

Direct examination.

Questions by Mr. Marshall:
Q. Give the Court your full name, sir.
A. Robert Redfield.
Q. And your present occupation1?
A, I am now Professor of Anthropology and Chairman of

the Department of that name at the University of Chicago.
Q. Will you review briefly your past qualifications, and

your training, and the positions you have held, and the
general work you have been doing?

A. After taking a Bachelor’s Degree, I went to the
[fob 231] University of Chicago Law School and took a
degree of J. D. I was admitted to the Bar of the State of
Illinois, and two years thereafter returned to academic life,
where I received training in Anthropology and Sociology,
and special work in, the problems between the racial and
color groups. I received a Doctor’s Degree in 1928.

Except for periods when I have been giving instruction
at other universities in the United States, I have been
employed at the University of Chicago as a teacher, and
doing research work, and as an educational administrator.

I have also been in charge of the research program for
Carnegie Institute at Washington, and at the present I
am in that capacity. Last October I gave up the position
of Dean of Social Sciences at Chicago University, a position
I held for 12 years.

Q. How long have you been studying in the field of racial
differences ?

A. About 20 years.
Q. And in that period of time have you considered the

question of alleged racial differences in school students?

157

A. I have considered many aspects of the problem of
differences between national groups, including school
students.

Q. And have those studies included the comparison of
students of both races, studying under the same circum
stances?

A. I have followed the literature in that field, as well
[fob 232] as, of course, making my common-sense observa
tions as a teacher and administrator.

Q. Well, Dr. Redfield, as a result of your studies, are you
in a position to give your opinions on the general subject?
I will give you more specific ones later, but I wish on the
general subject of, one; the inappropriateness of segrega
tion to the purposes of education, the inappropriateness of
segregation in education to the interests of public security
end of it, and to the general welfare of the community.

Mr. Daniel: Your Honor, we object because this lawsuit
involves only education in law and procedure. We object
to any questions or opinion evidence that may be offered
as to general surveys, not limited to law schools, which are
composed of those who have completed certain preliminary
work in other fields, and we object to the testimony that has
been called for by this question, to the question, and to any
other questions along that line.

Mr. Marshall: May it please the Court, this ease has
narrowed down to one issue. I think the pleadings did con
siderable toward the end of narrowing it down. In the first
place, in our original petition we claimed that the refusal
to admit the relator was in violation of the 14th Amendment,
and in all of the pleadings filed by the State of Texas, no
question has ever been raised as to the qualifications of
relator other than his race or color, so that is out of con
sideration.
[fob 233] The defense of respondents is summed up in
their first supplemental answer, large paragraph 2, small
(1) in parenthesis, in this statement.

I am quoting.
“ The Constitution and laws of the State of Texas

require equal protection of law and equal educational
opportunities for all qualified persons, but provide for

separate educational institutions for white and negro
students.”

And then follows the allegation that the refusal to admit
the relator in this case was not arbitrary at all, and was not
in violation of the 14th Amendment, but was in keeping
with the segregation statutes of the State of Texas, and in
that way joined issue; and in the second supplemental
petition we alleged:

“ In so far as respondents claim to be acting* under
authority of the Constitution and laws of the State of
Texas their continued refusal to admit the relator to
the Law School of the University of Texas is nonethe
less in direct violation of the 14th Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States.”

If there can be any doubt as to our position in the case,
in the fourth paragraph in the same pleading in the supple
mental petition, we state:

“ In so far as the Constitution and laws of Texas
relied on by respondents prohibit relator from attend
ing Law School of University of Texas because of his
race and color such constitutional and statutory pro
visions of the State of Texas as apply to relator are
in direct violation of the 14th Amendment to the Con
stitution of the United States.”

So I think that the lines are drawn in this case, and the
direct attack has been made that the statutes requiring
segregation, the general statutes which prohibit this relator
[fol. 234] from attend- the University of Texas, we claim
are unconstitutional, and we have the right to show their
unconstitutionality.

How do we propose to do so? Several ways. Before
that, I would like to bring this out. As to whether there is
any question as to the validity of segregation in this case,
the Attorney General brought it out with the last witness.
He deliberately brought it out, according to which, as I
understand from his cross examination, the Attorney Gen
eral believes the relator has changed his position from con
forming to the statute to now insisting that segregation
was invalid, and it was the Attorney General who asked

1 5 8

159

the last question which puts the validity of the segregation
statutes flat in issue in this case.

There are several ways of going about proving the
unconstitutionality of statutes. They haven’t shown any
line of reasoning for the statutes. I imagine they are
relying* on the presumption that the statutes are constitu
tional. If they are relying on that we have a right to put
in evidence to show that segregation statutes in the State
of Texas and in any other state, actually when examined,
and they have never been examined in any lawsuit that I
know of yet, have no line of reasonableness. There is no
understandable factual basis for classification by race, and
under a long line of decisions by the Supreme Court, not
on the question of Negroes, but on the 14th Amendment,
all courts agree that if there is no rational basis for the
classification, it is flat in the tenth of the 14th Amendment,
[fob 235] The Court: I will let you offer your testimony.
I will give you your bill, and I will allow it, at any rate.

Mr. Daniel: Do I understand they will be limited to
surveys on law students, or education in general?

The Court: Of course, it is like throwing a rose into a
group of flowers. The odor is there. We are presumed to
act only upon what is admissible testimony, in the last
analysis, anyhow, so I am going to hear it, and if in my
opinion it is material and admissible testimony, I will
consider it. If it isn’t, I will not.

Mr. Marshall: Thank you, sir.
The Court: It will be in the record.
Mr. Daniel: We may have our full bill on it, without

repeating our objection?
The Court: That is right, it will follow right through.
Mr. Daniel: Unless there is something else.
The Court: Yes.

By Mr. Marshall:
Q. Dr. Redfield, as to the question of the relationship of

segregation to the purposes of education, will you first
give us what are the overall acceptable purposes of educa
tion as construed by educators in the field? What is the
main purpose of public education?

A. No two men, of course, will state this the same way,
but I should say that the main purposes of education are to

160

[fol. 236] develop in every citizen in accordance with the
natural capacities of those citizens, the fullest intellectual
and moral qualities, and his most effective participation
in the duties of the citizens.

Q. Dr. Redfield, are there any recognizable differences
as between Negro and white students on the question of
their intellectual capacity!

Mr. Daniel: Your Honor, we object to that. That would
be a conclusion on the part of the witness. It covers all
neg'ro students and all white students. It isn’t limited to
any particular study or subject or even show what it is
based on.

The Court: I suppose his qualifications he has testified
to would qualify him to draw his conclusion.

Mr. Marshall: We will follow with what he bases it on.
A. I f your Honor will allow me I will present the answer

in that form.
The Court: Yes.
A. We got something of a lesson there. WTe who have

been working in the field in which we began with a rather
general presumption among our common educators that
inherent differences in intellectual ability of capacity to
learn existed between negroes and whites, and have slowly,
but I think very convincingly, been compelled to come to
the opposite conclusion, in the course of long history,
special research in the field.

The general sort of situation, your Honor, which brings
[fol. 237] about this opposite conclusion, the conclusion
that I may state now, significant differences as to intel
lectual ability, or as to ability to learn, if any, are probably
not present between the twTo groups. We have been brought
to that conclusion, your Honor, by a series of studies which
have this general character.

Samples from the two groups, negroes and whites, are
placed in as nearly identical situations as possible, and
given the limited tasks to perform, tasks which are under
stood to be relevant to the intellectual faculties, or the
capacity to learn. Then these samples are measured
against each other as to the degree and kind of success in
performing these limited tasks. That is a general descrip
tion of the material which leads to the conclusion I have
stated. Perhaps at this point it is sufficient to say that

tlie general conclusion to which I come, and which I think
is shared by a very large majority of specialists------

Mr. Daniel: We object to that as hearsay, your Honor.
The Court: I think so.
A. The conclusion, then, to which I come, is differences

in intellectual capacity or inability to learn have not been
shown to exist as between negroes and whites, and further,
that the results make it very probable that if such differ
ences are later shown to exist, they will not prove to be
significant for any educational policy or practice.

By Mr. Marshall:
Q. As a result of your studies that you have made, the

[fol. 238] training that you have had in your specialized
field over some 20 years, given a similar learning' situa
tion, what, if any differences, is there between the accom
plishment of a white and a negro student, given a similar
learning situation?

A. I understand, if I may say so, a similar learning
situation to include a similar degree of preparation?

Q. Yes.
A. Then I would say that my conclusion is that the one

does as well as the other on the average.
Q. Well, in your experience, your studies in this par

ticular field, what is your opinion as to the effect of segre
gated education; one, on the student—I will give them all
to you, and then you can take them separately—two, on
the school, and three, on the community in general. Will
you give your opinion?

A. My opinion is that segregation has effects on the
student which are unfavorable to the full realization of
the objectives of education. First,—for a number of rea
sons, perhaps. I will try to distinguish.

Speaking first with regard to the student I would say
that in the first place it prevents the student from the full,
effective and economical coming to understand the nature
and capacity of the group from which he is segregated.
My comment, therefore, applies to both whites and negroes,
and as one of the objectives of education is the full and
sympathetic understanding of the principal groups in the
[fol. 239] system in which the individual is to function as

161

11—101

162

a citizen, this result which I have just stated is unfortunate.
In the second place, I would say that the segregation

has an unfortunate effect on the student, which I might
now anticipate, since, to my opinion, has an unfortunate
effect on the general community, in that it intensifies
suspicion and distrust between negroes and the whites,
and suspicion and distrust are not favorable conditions
either for the acquisition and conduct of an education, or
for the discharge of the duties of a citizen. You asked me,
did you not, as to the class, and the community?

Q. The school was the second, and the community was
the third.

A. I think I have perhaps indicated the difficulties with
reference to the school. The school room situation is,
provides less than the complete and natural representation
of the full community. That is the general view of educa
tors, or it is my view, I should say. It is my view that
education goes forward more favorably if the community
of student, scholar and teacher is fairly representative of
the total community. Rather, the highly specialized and
the development of the suspicion and distrust which the
segregated situation brings about is correspondingly
unfavorable in the school.

With respect to the general community, I suppose there
isn’t a great deal to add, but if I am still answering' your
question, I might say this. In my opinion, segregation’acts
[fob 240] generally on the total community in an unfavor
able way for the general welfare, in that it accentuates
imagined differences between negroes and whites. These
false assumptions with respect to the existence of those
differences are given an appearance of reality by the
formal act of physical separation. Furthermore, as the
segregation, in my experience, is against the will of the
segregated, it produces a very favorable situation for
the increase of bad feeling, and even conflict, rather than
the reverse.

Q. Dr. Redfield, what has been your personal experience
concerning the admission of minority groups to educa
tional facilities to which they had previously been denied
admission?

A. Well, as I have indicated, my principal experience
has been in connection, in the University of Chicago, and

in its related educational insitutions. The situation there
generally is that no segregation is practiced in any of the
educational facilities of the University, neither in the
class room nor in the dormitory, or in eating facilities or
anywhere else in the educational facilities. While the same
city or community in which the University lies is one in
which segregation or exclusion is practiced as a matter
of custom, but not as a matter of law, in a very wide variety
of situations, and facilities open to the general public.

In giving that background, I come to the question of
what my experience has been with negroes theretofore
denied some educational facilities, and I have had ex
perience with one or two such situations in the Univer-
[fol. 241] sity of Chicago and its affiliated institutions, and
that in each of the cases that I can recall the result has
been, in my opinion, highly beneficial to education and to
the University community.

Q. Were there any ill effects at all?
A. I don’t know of any.
Q. Do you know of any good effects?
A. Yes. Perhaps I should mention a case. The stu

dents were denied admission, negro students were dis
couraged from admittance is perhaps a more accurate
statement, to the laboratory school of the University.

They were discouraged admission for a great many
years. Then it was made apparent that they would be
welcome, and they began to come, and there was an opposi
tion from a minority of the academic community to the
step. Many evil consequences were told. None of those
consequences took place, but, on the other hand, there was
an improvement in the community in that there was a
representation of the national community which is favor
able to education, and the relations between the white and
the negro groups were improved in parent-teacher and
endeavor.

Q. Thank you, Doctor.
Mr. Daniel: I want to be sure that my exceptions and

objections have gone to the entire testimony.
The Court: Oh, yes.

164

Cross-Examination.
[fol. 242] Questions by Mr. Daniel:

Q. Dr. Redfield, how many of those surveys of the re
action of students have been limited to law school students!

A. Are you speaking of surveys which I made personally,
or of which I have known!

Q. Which you made personally?
A. I have never made a survey of law school students.
Q. Is this testimony you have been giving based on sur

veys you have made, or you have read about?
A. In larger measure, the latter. I have participated.
Q. You have participated in some?
A. Yes.
Q. But the majority of the studies you have been testify

ing about and upon which your testimony is based, are
studies made by other people, and which you have read?

A. That is the nature of science, sir.
Q. Yes. I just want to be sure that is in the record.

Somebody may not know that is the nature of the science.
Have you yourself made any study of the effect of separate
education in law schools ?

A. No, sir.
Q. As I understand it, it is your opinion that it is dis

crimination against the white students to require them to
go to a white University here in Texas; is that right?

A. If I understand the meaning of what I said, that isn’t
what I was attempting to say. I was attempting to describe
[fol. 243] the concensus in regard to educational objectives
in the policy of segregation.

Q. And you applied that to separate white schools, with
only white students. You said several times, I believe, in
your testimony, I believe you said several times that the
same applied to segregation of white students, making them
go to the separate school.

A. I think it is to the advantage of any student to be in
a community that is largely representative of the national
community.

Q. To that extent, you believe that any state that re
quires the white students to go into a separate school from
the negro students is to that extent a discrimination against
the white students ?

A. I am not sure the other description was used, but I
think it worked both ways.

Q. It worked both ways. You have talked about a
gradual change that you have observed. All of your testi
mony, I believe, indicated a gradual change in the situation
you have talked about, and in the conclusion you have
reached.

A. With reference to admission of negroes to facilities
that had theretofore been denied them?

Q. Yes.
A. The case I had in mind was where there was a period

when they were not admitted, and then a period when they
were admitted. I don’t know how you use the word
‘ ‘ gradual. ’ ’
[fol. 244] Q. As I understood, you thought there wras some
difference between ability to learn------

A. I beg your pardon. You are now asking me with
respect to the quality of students, as to this matter of racial
difference?

Q. Yes.
A. I said opinion on the subject has gradually changed.
Q. Isn’t that generally due to the fact that the subject

matter has gradually changed over a period of years ?
A. We are wiser than we were, yes, sir.
Q. Don’t you believe that in a community where segre

gation has been enforced as long as it has in some of our
southern localities, that the only way that the ultimate goal
that you think is the best can be properly obtained is by a
gradual change, instead of forcing it upon the community?

A. If I can answer the question at all, your Honor, I
would like------

The Court: You can explain.
A. I think that all change should not come on any more

rapidly than it is consistent with the general welfare.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Yes, sir. In other words, you will agree with the other

eminent educators in your field, the fields in which you are
acquainted, that it is impossible to force the abolition of
segregation upon a community that has had it for a long

165

166

number of years, in successfully obtaining tbe results that
are best?
[fol. 245] A. No, I don’t agree to that.

Q. Do you think the laws should be changed tomorrow?
A. I think that segregation is a matter of legal regula

tion. Such a law can be changed quickly.
Q. Do you think it has anything to do with the social

standing in the community?
A. Segregation in itself is a matter of law, and that law

can be changed at once, but if you mean the attitude of the
people with respect to keeping away from people of another
race, then perhaps I have another answer.

Q. I am speaking about desired results for the individual
and the community, and for the state.

A. Will you ask your question over again?
Q. With respect to the individual, the state, the com

munity and the schools, do you, in your opinion, believe
that an immediate change in segregation will accomplish
the results that you have testified as being best in a com
munity where segregation has been enforced and recognized
for many years?

A. I think in every community there is some segregation
that can be changed at once, and the area of higher educa
tion is the most favorable for making the change.

Q. You admit there are areas in which the change can
not be made at once?

A. You mean in 24 hours, with more harm than good
resulting?

Q. Yes.
[fol. 246] A. Certainly.

Q. Or within a year?
A. May I state my opinion again ?
Q. Instead of 24 hours, we will say within a year or two.
A. I will put it this way. I think this will satisfy you on

that as covering my opinion. I think the steps by which,
and the rapidity with which segregation in education can
be removed with the benefits to the public welfare will vary
with the circumstances.

Q. In other words, the circumstances of the community
and how long there has been segregation will have a bear
ing on it?

A. Yes, sir.

167

Q. In other words, do you recognize or agree with the
school of thought that, regardless of the ultimate objective
concerning segregation, that if it is to be changed in south
ern communities where it has been in effect for many years,
if it is to be changed successfully, it must be done over a
long period of time, as the people in that community change
their ideas on the matter ?

A. That contention, I do not think, will be my opinion on
the matter scientifically.

Q. Does that represent, scientifically, a school of thought
on that, in your science, in the matter?

A. There are some that feel that way.
Q. Yes, sir. You are acquainted with the history of the

carpet bagger days in the Civil War?
[fol. 247] A. I feel better acquainted with it today, sir,
than anybody.

Q. Dr. Redfield, let me get you clearly on that. You are
not talking about your own trip down here, are you, to
Texas? You say you are acquainted with it today?

A. It just drifted into my mind.
Q. You recall the carpet baggers, where they packed up

and came down here from out of the state. You didn’t mean
to be talking about your trip down here, did you? You are
the only witness from out of the state that we have had on,
so far. You didn’t mean to be talking about the trip down
here?

A. I am afraid the idea has come into my mind now.
Q. That wasn’t what, you referred to?
A. It is in my mind now.
Q. Are you acquainted with the history of the carpet

bagger days in the south?
A. In a very general way.
Q. You know, do you know, from that history, that the

attempt to force the abolition of segregation in the south
just didn’t work?

A. Yes, of course.
Q. Do you feel like the social attitudes and beliefs of the

people in that day had some bearing on whether or not it
would work?

A. Oh, yes.
Q. Of both races 1

[fol. 248] A. Oh, yes.

168

Q. Are you acquainted with Howard University Law
School in Washington?

A. No, sir, only by reputation.
Q. You know it is a negro law school?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you made any check on the separate Negro Law

School as to the kind of educational facilities and equality
of opportunities that are offered the students of that school ?

A. No.
Q. Would you undertake to testify here, Dr. Redfield,

that students attending that separate Law School for
Negroes at Howard University do not receive equal educa
tional opportunities in law with those attending a similar
white school?

A. In my opinion, deprivation of opportunity to exchange
professional and intellectual matters with members of the
other major groups in their nation is one of the short
comings of the school.

Q. You have never made any check, though, as to stu
dents who have come out of that school, and where that has
been a handicap on them, have you?

A. No, I never have.
Q. It is just your idea it is a handicap, without hav

ing checked to see whether or not it is?
A. That is right.

[fol. 249] Q. Are you acquainted with Lincoln University
by reputation, a separate law school for Negroes in Mis
souri?

A. I have heard of it.
Q. Have you made any survey of the students educated

in that school?
A. I think I have indicated I made no survey of legal

education.
Q. You are not prepared to say whether or not those

students who received their legal education in that separate
law school come out of there handicapped in any respect
as far as their knowledge of the law is concerned, are you?

A. I have the opportunity of transforming a conclusion,
and as far as there is validity in that, I can draw a conclu
sion as far as segregated education is concerned.

Q. I am talking about the individuals who have come out
of the separate Negro Law School, Have you made any

169

check to see whether they have received equal educational
opportunities with white students of Missouri in the white
law school?

A. I have had no occasion to.
Q. Then, you don’t know whether there are any disad

vantages or not, actually, to those individuals, do you?
A. In the particular case of those individuals ?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. By virtue of knowledge I might have of them in par

ticular, no.
[fol. 250] Q. Do you recognize, Dr. Redfield, that there
should be some limit to your theory of abolition of segre
gation ?

A. I think I have indicated a limit.
Q. A limit?
A. Yes, a limit.
Q. What limit do you say there should be, and will still

give what you think is necessary from the standpoint of
public education ?

A. The general welfare would be served by extending
non-segregation, at the expense of segregation, and that
general limit will be defined in my particular conclusion, as
the particular circumstances.

Q. Is it necessary that there be social commingling?
A. I understand that by social commingling is meant

communication of students and professor, and intellectual
endeavor—yes.

Q. Is that as far as you think it is necessary to have such
commingling to obtain the objectives you think are so neces
sary?

A. I think that whatever commingling is a natural and
proper accessory to the educational endeavor will in the
long run develop to the general welfare.

Q. Do you think it is necessary to have social com
mingling of the races in order to obtain the things you think
are necessary to give, to attain the objective that you say
is set for public education?
[fol. 251] A. The question is repetitious. I have answered
it.

Mr. Durham: If your Honor please— —
The Court: I really believe he has answered it. If you are

170

not quite satisfied, General, you may ask another question.
Mr. Daniel: I am not quite satisfied. I don’t want to ask

an embarrassing question, but yet—you have testified—I
really want to know—you have testified that you believe cer
tain segregation must be done away with in order to accom
plish the best for the school and the community?

A. If you are thinking about intermarriage—if that is in
your mind, I would be delighted to answer.

Q. My mind hadn’t gotten quite that far on the subject.
A. I am sorry.
Q. I am simply trying to ask you, since you have testified

that a certain amount of doing away with segregation is
necessary, I want to know your explanation, or expert
opinion, on how far it must be done away with in order to
accomplish the best for the individual, the school and the
community.

Mr. Marshall: This case is at least limited, and the direct
examination is most certainly limited, to education.

The Court: I understood that is what he answered, that
only in so far as it was necessary for students to have a
mutual exchange of ideas along professional and educational
lines.

Mr. Marshall: But this question isn’t limited to that.
The Court: I understood he answered as I stated, a g*ood

[fol. 252] while ago, General.
Mr. Daniel: I have asked how far he thinks that is neces

sary.
A. In order to accomplish the educational objective?
Q. Yes.
A. Roughly speaking, in the class rooms and in the

natural discussion of educational objectives we have com
mon rooms in our University where the students meet to
discuss common educational problems.

Q. What about fraternities ? Is it necessary that there be
commingling there ?

A. In any particular situation, I should think probably
not.

Q. You think it is not necessary that they belong to the
same social groups ?

A. This might not be your case, but I should say probably
not.

171

Q. You feel like a Negro student at a separate school that
doesn’t have the same fraternities or scholarships as the
other school------

A. I was thinking of social fraternities.
Q. Let’s limit it to that.
A. That seems relatively unimportant. I could answer it

either one way or the other, and I would like to see the
particular case to see how I would answer it.

The Court: Are there other questions ?
Mr. Daniel: Yes, sir; just a second, your Honor.

[fol. 253] Q. Doctor, are you acquainted with the Encyclo
pedia Britannica, the publication by that name ?

A. I have a set. I don’t look at it very often.
Q. You are from the University of Chicago ?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that publication now published under the auspices

of that University?
A. Yes, sir; and it badly needs rewriting*.
Q. It is published under the auspices of your University?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you read the article therein on education, and

segregation of the races in American Schools ?
A. If I have, I don’t remember it.
Q. You don’t remember it. Have you written any articles

for the Encyclopedia Britannica?
A. No, we are just beginning a revision of anthropological

articles, and it seems there has to be a very drastic change.
Q. Do you know who wrote the articles in the Encyclo

pedia Britannica on the subject of higher education for
Negroes, and segregation?

A. I don’t remember such articles.
Q. Do you recognize the Enclopedia Britannica and the

articles on such subjects as an authority in the field?
A. No, I do not.
Q. You do not?

[fol. 254] A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know of some scientists in your field who do

recognize those articles?
Mr. Durham: We object to that as being irrelevant and

immaterial, what somebody else recognizes.

172

The Court: That would be his—perhaps not what they
recognize, but what they have said about it.

A. I think I could answer that question, and do more
justice to the meaning than just with a yes or no answer.

By Mr. Daniel:
Q. Go right ahead.
A. All of the articles you have mentioned in that publica

tion are of extremely uneven merit, so that the men with
whom I have talked who have studied it—I haven’t studied
it—tell me that certain articles are extremely good and other
articles are extremely bad. That is about the best I can
answer.

Q. I understand you are going to leave, and we may
want to know something about that, as an authority. Is that
Encyclopedia Britannica, could we here in the Court—could
the Court, in your opinion, consider that as one of the recog
nized authorities in the field, if they have an authority on
the subject?

A. I don’t think you could, for the reason that you might
hit on one of the articles that was particularly out of date.

Q. You haven’t read the articles on the subjects we are
talking about?
[fob 255] A. If I have, I have forgotten it—I probably
have.

Q. But it is your opinion the Court couldn’t accept that as
an authority?

A. You might get a bad one. I couldn’t say.
Q. Could you give us some of the authorities that you

think we would be justified in taking as authorities on the
subject you have testified to us about? Have you written
any books on the subject?

A. Not with respect to the American Negro. I have writ
ten on the general subject with respect to other racial
groups. Franz Boes, Ruth Benedict, Ashley Montague,
Otto Kleinberg. Is that enough.

Q. Give us one more.
A. One more. I will .make it a good one. Then, Dr.

Leslie White.
Q. Do all of these scientists have the same, share your

ideas as to segregation?

173

A. I don’t know.
Q. Do you know any scientists who have written books or

articles on the American Negro, on segregation, who do not
share your ideas!

A. Many of the scientists that study this problem have not
written or expressed themselves on the education results of
segregation. They are agreed, all that I have mentioned,
and a great many more on the conclusions which I gave in
[fol. 256] direct testimony in the first of my remarks with
regard to the probability, or the existence of inherent differ
ences in educational capacity, but the application of the
conclusion to the school situation concerns a very much
smaller group of people, because the group of people con
cerned with that are educational administrators and the like
and many of those people whose names I have given you are
not educational administrators.

Q. But on your conclusion as to education, you told me
there were authorities in the field who disagreed with your
conclusion!

A. I think not.
Q. Maybe I am speaking about the gradual change.
A. I don’t know who I could cite for that.
Q. That is all.

Redirect examination.
Questions by Mr. Marshall:

Q. Dr. Redfield, you testified on cross examination that
your opinions were based on your own studies, but mostly
on other studies that have been made. I want to ask you as
to whether or not the studies you are speaking of made by
other people were scientific studies or not?

A. They were.
Q. And I want to ask you as to whether or not they were

mostly published scientific studies?
A. They were.
Q. Generally recognized in your field as authorities ?

ffol. 257] A. Yes, they were.
Q. Do you know of any recognized scientific study that

recognizes any inherent racial difference among the races,
as to capacity to learn?

A. A man named Portees in Australia published some

174

papers which I have read, on the Australian aborigines,
which reach the conclusion that there are inherent differ
ences between the races. I am sure there are other papers
that reach a similar conclusion. They are all specific studies,
and the conclusions are drawn on differences in achievement
in the races, and the case of Portees is one. John Ferguson
is publishing one, but there are very, very few that would
draw the opposite conclusion to the one that I have stated
concerning the inherent difference.

Q. Isn’t it true the Australian aborigine is on the bottom
of the heap?

A. The important thing is there are different studies, and
it has taken them a long period of time to reach the conclu
sion I have offered.

Q. Isn’t it true the majority of scientists in your field are
in, agreement there is no inherent racial difference?

A. Yes.
Q. Isn’t it true that such studies as the Kleinberg study

in 193A and others, are specific factual studies which show
that a given fact situation, there is no difference ?

Mr. Daniel: We object to that because it is leading.
[fol. 258] The Court: Of course, it is leading.

Mr. Marshall: Your witness.

Recross-examination.
Questions by Mr. Daniel:

Q. Dr. Redfield, in determining the question of changing
the laws and regulations in a community concerning segre
gation, howT far, in your opinion, should the community,
should the State consider the community attitudes of both
of the races concerning the matter?

A. It would depend upon the circumstances. I can make
an observation, which I think is a partial answer. I think
the effect of having a regulation—I guess I will have to make
a speech to answer that.

Q. I don’t believe------
A. I have got quite a long------
Q. I don’t believe it calls for that. I will ask you this:

Do you think the community attitude of both of the races
should be considered when you go to see what is best in the
way of the field of education for that community?

175

A. I think so. You understand that the attitudes of the
community are complex. Attitudes in the State of Illinois
and the State of Texas, I take it, are, one; some white people
don’t want to be near neg'roes under certain conditions, and
those same white people want equality of education and
other opportunities in America, and there are both kinds of
[fob 259] attitude in making the change.

Q. Would you consider the attitude of some Negroes that
would rather have segregation themselves, in determining
the educational situation?

A. Yes, and you have to consider that Texas, with other
Americans, share the view that equality of opportunity is
due every man in this country, and they are struggling, as
are all of us, to reconcile those attitudes.

Q. You would take those two into consideration before
you would arrive at what is best to be done for the indi
vidual and the community ?

A. Always understanding both kinds of attitudes.
Q. I will ask you, Dr. Redfield, if you have made any check

on the relative number, of where the Negroes of this country
who hold college degrees, have obtained those degrees?
Have you made any study as to the opportunities offered
for the Neg'roes of this country to obtain college degrees?

A. I have read reports on it.
Q. Isn’t it true that the figures of 85% of the Negroes of

this country who have college degrees received them from
southern, separate colleges?

A. I don’t remember.
Q. Does that sound about right?
A. When you say it, sir, it does.
Q. Thank you. Are you a member of the National Asso-

[fols. 260-309] ciation for the Advancement of Colored
People?

A. No.
Q. That is all.
(Witness excused.)

[fols. 310-316] Reporter’s Certificate to foregoing tran
script omitted in printing.

[fol.317] [File endorsement omitted]

In U nited S tates D istrict Coubt

I concur:
(S.) Geo. Bell Timmerman, U. S. Dist. Judge.

I concur:
(S.) John J. Parker, Chief Judge 4th Circuit.

H arry B riggs, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs,

versus
E. W . E llio tt , Chairman, J. D. Carson and G eorge K en

nedy , Members of the Board of Trustees of School Dis
trict No. 22, Clarendon County, S. C .; Summerton High
School District, a body corporate; L. B. McCord, Super
intendent of Education for Clarendon County, and Chair
man A. J. Plowden, W. E. Baker, Members of the County
Board of Education for Clarendon County; and H. B.
Betcham, Superintendent of School District No. 22,
Defendants.

176

O pin io n—Filed June 23, 1951
On application for Declaratory Judgment and Injunction.

Heard May 28, 1951. Decided------
Before Parker, Circuit Judge, and Waring and Timmerman,

District Judges.
Harold E. Boulware, Spottswood Eobinson, III, Eobert L.

Carter, Thurgood Marshall, Arthur Shores and A. T.
Walden, for Plaintiffs; T. C. Callison, Attorney General
of South Carolina, S. E. Eogers and Eobert McC. Figg, Jr.,
for Defendants.

[fol. 318] P ark er , Chief Judge:
This is a suit for a declaratory judgment and injunctive

relief in which it is alleged that the schools and educational
facilities provided for Negro children in School District
No. 22 in Clarendon County, South Carolina, are inferior
to those provided for white children in that district and that

177

this amounts to a denial of the equal protection of the laws
guaranteed them by the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Federal Constitution, and further that the segregation of
Negro and white children in the public schools, required
by Article II section 7 of the Constitution of South Carolina
and section 5377 of the Code of Laws of that state,* is of
itself violative of the equal protection clause of the Four
teenth Amendment. Plaintiffs are Negro children of school
age who are entitled to attend the public schools in District
No. 22 in Clarendon County, their parents and guardian.
Defendants are the school officials who, as officers of the
state, have control of the schools in the district. A court
of three judges has been convened pursuant to the pro-
[fol. 319] visions of 28 USC 2281 and 2281, the evidence
offered by the parties has been heard and the case has
been submitted upon the briefs and arguments of counsel.

At the beginning of the hearing the defendants admitted
upon the record that “ the educational facilities, equipment,
curricula and opportunities afforded in School District
No. 22 for colored pupils * * * are not substantially equal
to those afforded for white pupils.” The evidence offered
in the case fully sustains this admission. The defendants
contend, however, that the district is one of the rural school
districts which has not kept pace with urban districts in
providing educational facilities for the children of either
race, and that the inequalities have resulted from limited
resources and from the disposition of the school officials
to spend the limited funds available “ for the most imme
diate demands rather than in the light of the overall
picture. ’ ’ They state that under the leadership of Governor
Byrnes the Legislature of South Carolina had made pro

* Article II section 7 of the Constitution of South Carolina
is as follows: “ Separate schools shall be provided for
children of the white and colored races, and no child of
either race shall ever be permitted to attend a school pro
vided for children of the other race.”

Section 5377 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina of
1942 is as follows: “ It shall be unlawful for pupils of one
race to attend the schools provided by boards of trustees
for persons of another race.”

12—101

178

vision for a bond issue of $75,000,000 with a three per cent
sales tax to support it for the purpose of equalizing' educa
tional opportunities and facilities throughout the state
and of meeting’ the problem of providing equal educational
opportunities for Negro children where this had not been
done. They have offered evidence to show that this educa
tional program is going forward and that under it the
educational facilities in the district will be greatly improved
[fol. 320] for both races and that Negro children will be
afforded educational facilities and opportunities in all
respects equal to those afforded white children.

There can be no question but that where separate schools
are maintained for Negroes and whites, the educational
facilities and opportunities afforded by them must be equal.
The state may not deny to any person within its jurisdic
tion the equal protection of the laws, says the Fourteenth
Amendment; and this means that, when the state under
takes public education, it may not discriminate against any
individual on account of race but must offer equal oppor
tunity to all. As said by Chief Justice Hughes in Missouri
ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U. S. 337, 349, “ The admis
sibility of laws separating the races in the enjoyment of
privileges afforded by the State rests wholly upon the
equality of the privileges which the laws give to the sepa
rated groups within the State. ’ ’ See also Sweatt v. Painter,
339 U. S. 629; Corbin v. County School Board of Pulaski
County 4 Cir. 177 F. 2d 924; Carter v. School Board of
Arlington County, Va. 4 Cir. 182 F. 2d 531; McKissiek v.
Carmichael 4 Cir. 187 F. 2d 949. We think it clear, there
fore, that plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration to the
effect that the school facilities now afforded Negro children
in District No. 22 are not equal to the facilities afforded
white children in the district and to a mandatory injunction
requiring that equal facilities be afforded them. How this
[fol. 321] shall be done is a matter for the school authorities
and not for the court, so long as it is done in good faith
and equality of facilities is afforded; but it must be done
promptly and the court in addition to issuing an injunction
to that effect will retain the cause upon its docket for further
■orders and will require that defendants file within six
months a report showing the action that has been taken
by them to carry out the order.

179

Plaintiffs ask that, in addition to granting them relief
on account of the inferiority of the educational facilities
furnished them, we hold that segregation of the races in
the public schools, as required by the Constitution and
statutes of South Carolina, is of itself a denial of the equal
protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amend
ment, and that we enjoin the enforcement of the constitu
tional provision and statute requiring it and by our injunc
tion require defendants to admit Negroes to schools to which
white students are admitted within the district. We think,
however, that segregation of the races in the public schools,
so long as equality of rights is preserved, is a matter of
.legislative policy for the several states, with which the
federal courts are powerless to interfere.

One of the great virtues of our constitutional system
is that, while the Federal government protects the funda
mental rights of the individual, it leaves to the several
states the solution of local problems. In a country with
a great expanse of territory with peoples of widely differ
ing customs and ideas, local self government in local
[fol. 322] matters is essential to the peace and happiness
of the people in the several communities as well as to the
strength and unity of the country as a whole. It is uni
versally held, therefore, that each state shall determine for
itself, subject to the observance of the fundamental rights
and liberties guaranteed by the federal Constitution, how it
shall exercise the police power, i.e. the power to legislate
with respect to the safety, morals, health and general
welfare. And in no field is this right of the several states
more clearly recognized than in that of public education.
As was well said by Mr. Justice Harlan, speaking for a
unanimous court in Gumming v. Board of Education, 175
II. S. 528, 545, “ while all admit that the benefits and burdens
of public taxation must be shared by citizens without dis
crimination against any class on account of their race, the
education of the people in schools maintained by state tax
ation is a matter belonging to the respective States, and
any interference on the part of federal authority with the
management of such schools cannot be justified except in
the case of a clear and unmistakable disregard of rights
secured by the supreme law of the land. ’ ’

180

It is equally well settled that there is no denial of the
equal protection of the laws in segregating children in the
schools for purposes of education, if the children of the
different races are given equal facilities and opportunities.
The leading case on the subject in the Supreme Court is
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 IT. S. 537, which involved segrega-
[fol. 323] tion in railroad trains, hut in which the segrega
tion there involved was referred to as being* governed by
the same principle as segregation in the schools. In that
case the Court said:

“ The object of the amendment was undoubtedly to
enforce the absolute equality of the two races before
the law, but in the nature of things it could not have
been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color,
or to enforce social, as distinguished from political
equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms
unsatisfactory to either. Laws permitting, and even
requiring, their separation in places where they are
liable to be brought into contact do not necessarily
imply the inferiority of either race to the other, and
have been generally, if not universally, recognized as
within the competency of the state legislatures in the
exercise of their police power. The most common in
stance of this is connected -with the establishment of
separate schools for white and colored children, which
has been held to be a valid exercise of the legislative
power even by courts of States where the political
rights of the colored race have been longest and most
earnestly enforced.”

Later in the opinion the Court said:
“ So far, then, as a conflict with Fourteenth Amend
ment is concerned, the case reduces itself to the ques
tion whether the statute of Louisiana is a reasonable
regulation, and with respect to this there must neces
sarily be a large discretion on the part of the legis
lature. In determining the question of reasonableness
it is at liberty to act with reference to the established
usages, customs and traditions of the people, and with
a view to the promotion of their comfort, and the
preservation of the public peace and good order.”
(Italics supplied).

181

Directly in point and absolutely controlling upon us so
long as it stands unreversed by the Supreme Court is
Gong Lum v. Rice 275 U. S. 78, in which the complaint was
that a child of Chinese parentage was excluded from a
school maintained for white children under a segregation
law and was permitted to enter only a school maintained
for colored children. Although attempt is made to dis
tinguish. this case, it cannot be distinguished. The ques
tion as to the validity of segregation in the public schools
on the ground of race was squarely raised, the Fourteenth
[fob 324] Amendment was relied upon as forbidding segre
gation and the issue was squarely met by the Court. What
was said by Chief Justice Taft speaking for a unanimous
court, is determinative of the question before us. Said he:

“ The case then reduces itself to the question whether
a state can be said to afford to a child of Chinese
ancestry born in this country, and a citizen of the
United States, equal protection of the laws giving her
the opportunity for a common school education in a
school which receives only colored children of the
brown, yellow or black races.

“ The right and power of the state to regulate the
method of providing for the education of its youth at
public expense is clear. * * *.

‘ ‘ The question here is whether a Chinese citizen of
the United States is denied equal protection of the laws
when he is classed among the colored races and fur
nished facilities for education equal to that offered to
all, whether white, brown, yellow or black. Were this
a new question, it would call for very full argument
and consideration, hut we think that it is the same ques
tion which has been many times decided to be within the
constitutional power of the state legislature to settle
without intervention of the federal courts under the
Federal Constitution. Roberts v. City of Boston 5
Cush. (Mass.) 198, 206, 208, 209; State ex rel. Games
v. McCann 21 Oh. St. 198, 210, People ex rel. King v.
Gallagher 93 N. Y. 438; People ex rel. Cisco v. School
Board 161 N. Y. 598; Ward v. Flood 48 Cal. 36; Wy-
singer v. Crookshank 82 Cal. 588, 590; Reynolds v.
Board of Education 66 Kans. 672; McMillan v. School

182

Committee 107 N. C. 609; Cory v. Carter 48 Ind. 327;
Lehew v. Brummell 103 Mo. 546; Dameron v. Bayless
14 Ariz. 180; State ex rel. Stoutmeyer v. Duffy 7 Nev.
342, 348, 355; Bertonneau v. Board 3 Woods 177, s. c.
3 Fed. Cas. 294, Case No. 1,361; United States v.
Buntin 10 F. 730, 735; Wong Him v. Callahan 119 F.
381

“ In Plessy v. Fergnson 163 U. S. 537, 544, 545, in
upholding the validity under the Fourteenth Amend
ment of a statute of Louisiana requiring the separation
of the white and colored races in railway coaches,
a more difficult question than, this, this Court, speaking
of permitted race separation said:

“ ‘ The most common instance of this is connected
with the establishment of separate schools for white
and colored children, which has been held to be a valid
exercise of the legislative power even by courts of
States where the political rights of the colored race
have been longest and most earnestly enforced. ’

“ Most of the cases cited arose, it is true, over the
establishment of separate schools as between white
pupils and black pupils, but we cannot think that the
question is any different or that any different result
can be reached, assuming the cases above cited to be
rightly decided, where the issue is as between white
pupils and the pupils of the yellow races. The decision
is unthin the discretion of the state in regulating its
public schools and does not conflict with the Fourteenth
Amendment.” (Italics supplied).

[fol. 325] Only a little over a year ago, the question was
before the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia in
Carr v. Corning D. C. Cir. 182 F. 2d 14, a case involving the
validity of segregation within the District, and the whole
matter was exhaustively explored in the light of history
and the pertinent decisions in an able opinion by Judge
Prettyman, who said:

“ It is urged that the separation of the races is itself,
apart from equality or inequality of treatment, for
bidden by the Constitution. The question thus posed
is whether the Constitution lifted this problem out of

183

the hands of all legislatures and settled it. We do not
think it did. Since the beginning of human history,
no circumstance has given rise to more difficult and
delicate problems than has the coexistence of different
races in the same area. Centuries of bitter experience
in all parts of the world have proved that the problem
is insoluble by force of any sort. The same history
shows that it is soluble by the patient processes of
community experience. Such problems lie naturally
in the field of legislation, a method susceptible of ex
perimentation, of development, of adjustment to the
current necessities in a variety of community circum
stance. We do not believe that the makers of the first
ten Amendments in 1789 or of the Fourteenth Amend
ment in 1866 meant to foreclose legislative treatment
of the problem in this country.

“ This is not to decry efforts to reach that state of
common existence which is the obvious highest good in
our concept of civilization. It is merely to say that
the social and economic interrelationship of two races
living together is a legislative problem, as yet not
solved, and is not a problem solved fully, finally and
unequivocally by a fiat enacted many years ago. We
must remember that on this particular point we are
interpreting a constitution and not enacting a statute.

“ We are not unmindful of the debates which occurred
in Congress relative to the Civil Rights Act of April
9, 1866, The Fourteenth Amendment, and the Civil
[fol. 326] Rights Act of March 1,1875. But the actions
of Congress, the discussion in the Civil Rights cases,
and the fact that in 1862, 1864 and 1874 Congress, as
we shall point out in a moment, enacted legislation
which specifically provided for separation of the races
in the schools of the District of Columbia, conclusively
support our view of the Amendment and its effect.

“ The Supreme Court has consistently held that if
there be an ‘ equality of the privileges which the laws
give to the separated groups’, the races may be sepa
rated. That is to say that constitutional invalidity does
not arise from the mere fact of separation but may
arise from an inequality of treatment. Other courts
have long held to the same effect.”

184

It should he borne in mind that in the above cases the
courts have not been dealing with hypothetical situations or
mere theory, but with situations which have actually de
veloped in the relationship of the races throughout the
country. Segregation of the races in the public schools has
not been confined to South Carolina or even to the South
but prevails in many other states where Negroes are present
in large numbers. Even when not required by law, it is
customary in many places. Congress has provided for it
by federal statute in the District of Columbia; and seven
teen of the states have statutes or constitutional provisions
requiring it. They are Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Missis
sippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.* * And the
[fol. 327] validity of legislatively requiring segregation in
the schools has been upheld wherever the question has been
raised. See Wong Him v. Callahan, 119 F. 381; United
States v. Buntin, 10 F. 730; Bertonneau v. Board of Direc
tors 3 Fed. Cas. 294, No. 1361; Dameron v. Bayless 14 Ariz.
180, 126 Pac. 273; Maddox v. Neal 45 Ark. 121, 55 Am Rep.
540; Ward v. Flood 48 Cal. 36, 17 Am. Rep. 405; Cory v.
Carter 48 Ind. 327, 17 Am. Rep. 738; Graham v. Board of
Education 153 Kan. 840, 114 P. 2d 313; Richardson v.
Board of Education 72 Kan. 629, 84 Pac. 538; Reynolds v.
Board of Education 66 Kan. 672, 72 Pac. 274; Chrisman v.
Mayor 70 Miss. 477,12 So. 458; Lehew v. Brummell 103 Mo.
546, 15 S. W. 765, 11 L. R„ A. 828, 23 Am. St. Rep. 895;
State v. Duffy 7 Nev. 342, 8 Am. Rep. 713; People v. School
Board 161 N. Y. 598, 56 N. E. 81, 48 L. R. A. 113; People
v. Gallagher, 93 N. Y. 438, 45 Am. Rep. 232; McMillan v.
School Committee 107 N. C. 609, 12 S. E. 330, 10 L. R. A.
823; State v. McCann 21 Ohio St. 198; Board of Education
v. Board of Com’rs 14 Okla. 322, 78 Pac. 455; Martin v.
Board of Education 42 W. Va. 514, 26 S. E. 348.* No cases

* Statistical Summary of Education, 1947-48, ‘ ‘ Biennial
Survey of Education in the United States, 1946-48” , ch. 1
pp. 8, 40 (Federal Security Agency, Office of Education).

* See also Roberts v. City of Boston 5 Cush. (Mass.) 198,
decided prior to the Fourteenth Amendment.

1 8 5

have been cited to us holding- that such legislation is viola
tive of the Fourteenth Amendment. We know of none, and
diligent search of the authorities has failed to reveal any.

Plaintiffs reply upon expressions contained in opinions
relating to professional education such as Sweatt v. Painter
[fol. 328] 339 IT. S. 629, McLaurin v. Oklahoma State
Regents 339 U. S. 637 and McKissick v. Carmichael 4 Cir.
187 F. 2d 949, where equality of opportunity was not
afforded. Sweatt v. Painter, however, instead of helping
them, emphasizes that the separate but equal doctrine of
Plessy v. Ferguson has not been overruled, since the
Supreme Court, although urged to overrule it, expressly
refused to do so and based its decision on the ground that
the educational facilities offered Negro law students in that
case were not equal to those offered white students. The
decision in McKissick v. Carmichael was based upon the
same ground. The case of McLaurin v. Oklahoma State
Regents involved humiliating and embarrassing treatment
of a Negro law student to which no one should have been
required to submit. Nothing of the sort is involved here.

The problem of segregation as applied to graduate and
professional education is essentially different from that
involved in segregation in education at the lower levels. In
the graduate and professional schools the problem is one
of affording equal educational facilities to persons sui juris
and of mature personality. Because of the great expense
of such education and the importance of the professional
contacts established while carrying on the educational
process, it is difficult for the state to maintain segregated
schools for Negroes in this field which will afford them
[fol. 329] opportunities for education and professional
advancement equal to those afforded by the graduate and
professional schools maintained for white persons. What
the courts have said, and all they have said in the cases
upon which plaintiffs rely is that,, notwithstanding these
difficulties, the opportunity afforded the Negro student must
be equal to that afforded the white student and that the
schools established for furnishing this instruction to white
persons must be opened to Negroes if this is necessary to
give them the equal opportunity which the Constitution
requires.

The problem of segregation at the common school level is

186

a very different one. At this level, as good education can be
afforded in Negro schools as in white schools and the thought
of establishing professional contacts does not enter into the
picture. Moreover, education at this level is not a matter of
voluntary choice on the part of the student hut of compulsion
by the state. The student is taken from the control of the
family during school hours by compulsion of law and placed
in control of the school, where he must associate with his
fellow students. The law thus provides that the school shall
supplement the work of the parent in the training of the
child and in doing so it is entering a delicate field and one
fraught with tensions and difficulties. In formulating educa-
[fol. 330] tional policy at the common school level, therefore,
the law must take account, not merely of the matter of
affording instruction to the student, but also of the wishes
of the parent as to the upbringing of the child and his
associates in the formative period of childhood and ado
lescence. If public education is to have the support of the
people through their legislatures, it must not go contrary to
what they deem for the best interests of their children.

There is testimony to the effect that mixed schools will
give better education and a better understanding of the
community in which the child is to live than segregated
schools. There is testimony, on the other hand, that mixed
schools will result in racial friction and tension and that the
only practical way of conducting public education in South
Carolina is with segregated schools. The questions thus
presented are not questions of constitutional right but of
legislative policy, which must be formulated, not in vacuo or
with doctrinaire disregard of existing conditions, but in
realistic approach to the situations to which it is to be
applied. In some states, the legislatures may well decide
that segregation in public schools should be abolished, in
others that it should be maintained—all depending upon the
relationships existing between the races and the tensions
likely to be produced by an attempt to educate the children
[fol. 331] of the two races together in the same schools. The
federal courts would be going far outside their constitu
tional function were they to attempt to prescribe educational
policies for the states in such matters, however desirable
such policies might be in the opinion of some sociologists or
educators. For the federal courts to do so would result, not

187

only in interference with local affairs by an agency of the
federal government, but also in the substitution of the judi
cial for the legislative process in what is essentially a
legislative matter.

The public schools are facilities provided and paid for by
the states. The state’s regulation of the facilities which it
furnishes is not to be interfered with unless constitutional
rights are clearly infringed. There is nothing in the Consti
tution that requires that the state grant to all members of
the public a common right to use. every facility that it
affords. Grants in aid of education or for the support of
the indigent may properly be made upon an individual basis
if no discrimination is practiced; and, if the family, which
is the racial unit, may be considered in these, it may be con
sidered also in providing public schools. The equal protec
tion of the laws does not mean that the child must be treated
[fob 332] as the property of the state and the wishes of his
family as to his upbringing be disregarded. The classifica
tion of children for the purpose of education in separate
schools has a basis grounded in reason and experience; and,
if equal facilities are afforded, it cannot be condemned as
discriminatory for, as said by Mr. Justice Reed in New York
Rapid Transit Corp. v. City of New York, 303 U. S. 573,
578: “ It has long been the law under the Fourteenth
Amendment that ‘ a distinction in legislation is not arbitrary,
if any state of facts can be conceived that would sustain
it ’. ” *

* See also, East v. Van Deman & Lewis Co., 240 U. S. 342,
357; Borden’s Farm Products Co. v. Baldwin, 239 U. S. 194,
209; Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co. v. Brownell, 294 U. S.
580, 584; State Board of Tax Com’rs v. Jackson, 283 U. S.
527, 537; Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 TJ. S. 61,
78; Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 325
U. S. 450, 465; Asbury Hospital v. Cass County, N. D, 326
U. S. 207, 215; Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co. 301
IT. S. 495, 509; South Carolina Power Co. v. South Carolina
Tax Com’n, 4 Cir. 52 F. 2d 515, 518; United States v. Caro-
lene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144, 152; Bowles v. American
Brewery, 4 Cir. 146 F. 2d 842, 847; White Packing Co. v.
Robertson, 4 Cir. 89 F. 2d 775, 779.

We are cited to cases having’ relation to zoning ordinances,
restrictive covenants in deeds and segregation in pnblic
conveyances. It is clear, however, that nothing said in these
cases would justify our disregarding the great volume of
authority relating directly to education in the public schools,
which involves not transient contacts, but associations which
affect the interests of the home and the wishes of the people
with regard to the upbringing of their children. As Chief
[fol. 333] Justice Taft pointed out in Gong Lum v. Rice,
supra, “ a more difficult” question is presented by segrega
tion in public conveyances than by segregation in the schools.

We conclude, therefore, that if equal facilities are offered,
segregation of the races in the public schools as prescribed
by the Constitution and laws of South Carolina is not of
Itself violative of the Fourteenth Amendment, We think
that this conclusion is supported by overwhelming authority
which we are not at liberty to disregard on the basis of
theories advanced by a few educators and sociologists. Even
if we felt at liberty to disregard other authorities, we may
not ignore the unreversed decisions of the Supreme Court of
the United States which are squarely in point and conclusive
of the question before us. As said by the Court of Appeals
of the Fourth Circuit in Boyer v. Garrett, 183 F. 2d 582, a
•ease involving segregation in a public playground, in which
equality of treatment was admitted and segregation was at
tacked as being per se violative of the Fourteenth Amend
ment :

“ The contention of plaintiffs is that, notwithstanding
this equality of treatment, the rule providing for segre
gation is violative of the provisions of the federal Con
stitution. The District Court dismissed the complaint
on the authority of Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537,
16 S. Ct. 1138, 41 L. Ed. 256; and the principal argument
made on appeal is that the authority of Plessy v.
Ferguson has been so weakened by subsequent decisions
that we should no longer consider it as binding. We do
[fol. 334] not think, however, that we are at liberty thus
to disregard a decision of the Supreme Court which that
court has not seen fit to overrule and which it expressly
refrained from reexamining, although urged to do so, in
the very recent case of Sweatt v. Painter, 70 S. Ct, 848.

189

It is for the Supreme Court, not us, to overrule its
decisions or to hold them outmoded. ’ ’

To this we may add that, when seventeen states and the
Congress of the United States have for more than three
quarters of a century required segregation of the races in
the public schools, and when this has received the approval
of the leading appellate courts of the country including the
unanimous approval of the Supreme Court of the United
States at a time when that court included Chief Justice Taft
and Justices Stone, Holmes and Brandeis, it is a late day to
say that such segregation is violative of fundamental consti
tutional rights. It is hardly reasonable to suppose that
legislative bodies over so wide a territory, including the
Congress of the United States, and great judges of high
courts have knowingly defied the Constitution for so long a
period or that they have acted in ignorance of the meaning
of its provisions. The constitutional principle is the same
now that it has been throughout this period; and if condi
tions have changed so that segregation is no longer wise,
this is a matter for the legislatures and not for the courts.
The members of the judiciary have no more right to read
[fob 335] their ideas of sociology into the Constitution than
their ideas of economics.

It is argued that, because the school facilities furnished
Negroes in District No. 22 are inferior t'o those furnished
white persons, we should enjoin segregation rather than
direct the equalizing of conditions. In as much as we think
that the law requiring segregation is valid, however, and
that the inequality suffered by plaintiffs results, not from
the law, but from the way it has been administered, we think
that our injunction should be directed to removing the
inequalities resulting from administration within the frame
work of the law rather than to nullifying the law itself. As
a court of equity, we should exercise our power to assure
to plaintiffs the equality of treatment to winch they are
entitled with due regard to the legislative policy of the
state. In directing that the school facilities afforded Ne
groes within the district be equalized promptly with those
afforded white persons, we are giving plaintiffs all the
relief that they can reasonably ask and the relief that is
ordinarily granted in cases of this sort. See Corbin v.

190

County School Board of Arlington County, Virginia, 4 Cir.
182 F. 2d 531. The court should not use its power to abolish
segregation in a state where it is required by law if the
equality demanded by the Constitution can be attained
[fol. 336] otherwise. This much is demanded by the spirit
of comity which must prevail in the relationship between the
agencies of the federal government and the states if our
constitutional system is to endure.

Decree will be entered finding that the constitutional and
statutory provisions requiring segregation in the public
schools are not of themselves violative of the Fourteenth
Amendment, but that defendants have denied to plaintiffs
rights guaranteed by that amendment in failing to furnish
for Negroes in School District 22 educational facilities and
opportunities equal to those furnished white persons, and
injunction will issue directing defendants promptly to fur
nish Negroes within the district educational facilities and
opportunities equal to those furnished white persons and to
report to the court within six months as to the action that
has been taken by them to effectuate the court’s decree.

Injunction to Abolish Segregation Denied.
Injunction to Equalize Educational Facilities Granted.
A true copy. Attest. Ernest L. Allen, Clerk of U. S.

District Court, East. Dist. So. Carolina. [Seal.]

[ fo l . 337] D issenting Opin io n

This case has been brought for the express and declared
purpose of determining the right of the State of South
Carolina, in its public schools, to practice segregation
according to race.

The Plaintiffs are all residents of Clarendon County,
South Carolina which is situated within the Eastern Dis
trict of South Carolina and within the jurisdiction of this
court. The Plaintiffs consist of minors and adults there
being forty-six minors who are qualified to attend and are
attending the public schools in School District 22 of Claren
don County; and twenty adults who are taxpayers and are
either guardians or parents of the minor Plaintiffs. The
Defendants are members of the Board of Trustees of School
District 22 and other officials of the educational system of
Clarendon County including the superintendent of educa

191

tion. They are the parties in charge of the various schools
which are situated within the aforesaid school district and
which are affected by the matters set forth in this cause.

The Plaintiffs allege that they are discriminated against
by the Defendants under color of the Constitution and laws
of the State of South Carolina whereby they are denied
equal educational facilities and opportunities and that this
denial is based upon difference in race. And they show
that the school system of this particular school district
and county (following the general pattern thht it is ad-
[fol. 338] mitted obtains in the State of South Carolina)
sets up two classes of schools; one for people said to belong
to the white race and the other for people of other races
but primarily for those said to belong to the Negro race
or of mixed races and either wholly, partially, or faintly
alleged to be of African or Negro descent. These Plain
tiffs bring this action for the enforcement of the rights to
which they claim they are entitled and on behalf of many
others who are in like plight and condition and the suit
is denominated a class, suit for the purpose of abrogation
of what is claimed to be the enforcement of unfair and
discriminatory laws by the Defendants. Plaintiffs claim
that they are entitled to bring this case and that this court
has jurisdiction under the Fourteenth Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States and of a number of stat
utes of the United States, commonly referred to as civil
rights statutes.1 The Plaintiffs demand relief under the
above referred to sections of the laws of the United States
by way of a Declaratory Judgment and Permanent Injunc
tion.

It is alleged that the Defendants are acting under the
authority granted them by the Constitution and laws of the
State of South Carolina and that all of these are in contra
vention of the Constitution and laws of the United States.
The particular portions of the laws of South Carolina are
as follows:

Article XI, Section 5 is as follows:
“ Free Public Schools—The General Assembly

shall provide for a liberal system of free public
schools for all children between the ages of six and
twenty-one years . . .”

1 9 2

Article XI, Section 7 is as follows:
“ Separate schools shall b ̂ provided for children

of the white and colored races, and no child of either
race shall ever be permitted to attend a school pro
vided for children of the other race.”

Section 5377 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina
is as follows:

“ It shall be unlawful for pupils of one race to at
tend the schools provided by boards of trustees for
persons of another race.”

1/ is further shown that the Defendants are acting under
[fol. 339] the authority of the Constitution and laws of the
State of South Carolina providing for the creation of vari
ous school districts,2 and they have strictly separated and
segregated the school facilities, both elementary and high
school, according to race. There are, in said school district,
three schools which are used exclusively by Negroes: to
wit, Rambay Elementary School, Liberty Hill Elementary
School, and Scotts Branch Union (a combination of elemen
tary and high school). There are in the same school
district, two schools maintained for whites, namely, Sum-
merton Elementary School and Summerton High School.
The last named serves some of the other school districts
in Clarendon County as well as No. 22.

It appears that the Plaintiffs filed a petition with the
Defendants requesting that the Defendants cease discrimi
nation against the Negro children of public school age;
and the situation complained of not having been remedied
or changed, the Plaintiffs now ask this court to require the
Defendants to grant them their rights guaranteed under
the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the
United States and they appear to the equitable power of
this court for declaratory and injunctive relief alleging
that they are suffering irreparable injuries and that they
have no plain adequate or complete remedy to redress the
wrongs and illegal acts complained of other than this suit.
And they further point out that large numbers of people
and persons are and will be affected by the decision of
of this court in adjudicating and clarifying the rights of

193

Negroes to obtain education in the public school system of
the State of South Carolina without discrimination and
denial of equal facilities on account of their race.

The Defendants appear and by way of answer deny the
allegations of the Complaint as to discrimination and in
equality and allege that not only are they acting within
the laws of the State in enforcing segregation but that all
[fol. 340] facilities afforded the pupils of different races
are adequate and equal and that there is no inequality or
discrimination practiced against these Plaintiffs or any
others by reason of race or color. And they allege that
the facilities and opportunities furnished to the colored
children are substantially the same as those provided for
the white children. And they further base their defense
upon the statement that the Constitutional and statutory
provisions under attack in this case, that is to say, the
provisions requiring separate schools because of race, are
a reasonable exercise of the State’s police power and that
all of the same are valid under the powers possessed by
the State of South Carolina and the Constitution of the
United States and they deny that the same can be held to
be unconstitutional by this Court.

The issues being so drawn and calling for a judgment
by a United States Court which would require the issuance
of an injunction against State and County officials, it be
came apparent that it would be necessary that the case
be heard in accordance with the statute applicable to cases
of this type requiring the calling of a three-judge court.3
Such a court convened and the case was set for a hearing
on May 28, 1951.

The case came on for a trial upon the issues as presented
in the Complaint and Answer. But upon the call of the
case, Defendants’ counscd announced that they wished to
make a statement on behalf of the Defendants making cer
tain admissions and praying that the Court make a finding
as to inequalities in respect to buildings, equipment, facili
ties, curricula and other aspects of the schools provided
for children in School District 22 in Clarendon County and
giving the public authorities time to formulate plans for
ending such inequalities. In this statement Defendants
claim that they never had intended to discriminate against

13— 101

194

any of the pupils and although they had filed an answer
to the Complaint, some five months ago, denying inequali-
[fol. 341] ties, they now admit that they had found some;
but rely upon the fact that subsequent to the institution of
this suit, James F. Byrnes, the Governor of South Caro
lina, had stated in his inaugural address that the State
must take steps to provide money for improving educa
tional facilities and that thereafter, the Legislature had
adopted certain legislation. They stated that they hoped
that in time they would obtain money as a result of the
foregoing and improve the school situation.

This statement was allowed to be filed and considered
as an amendment to the Answer.

By this maneuver, the Defendants endeavored to induce
this Court to avoid the primary purpose of the suit. And
if the Court should follow this suggestion and fail to meet
the issues raised by merely considering this ease in the light
of another “ separate but equal” case, the entire purpose
and reason for the institution of the case and the convening
of a three-judge court would be voided. The sixty-six
(66) Plaintiffs in this cause have brought this suit at what
must have cost much in effort and financial expenditures.
They are here represented by six attorneys, all, save one,
practicing lawyers from vfithout the State of South Caro
lina and coming here from a considerable distance. The
Plaintiffs have brought a large number of witnesses ex
clusive of themselves. As a matter of fact, they called
and examined eleven witnesses. They said that they had
a number more coming who did not arrive in time owing
to the shortening of the proceedings and they also stated
that they had on hand and had contemplated calling a large
number of other witnesses but this became unnecessary by
reason of the foregoing admissions by Defendants. It cer
tainly appears that large expenses must have been caused
by the institution of this case and great efforts expended
in gathering data, making a study of the issues involved,
interviewing and bringing numerous witnesses some of
whom are foremost scientists in America. And in addition
[fob 342] to all of this, these sixty-six Plaintiffs have not
merely expended their time and money in order to test
this important Constitutional question, but they have shown
unexampled courage in bringing and presenting this cause

195

at their own expense in the face of the long established
and age-old pattern of the way of life which the State of
South Carolina has adopted and practiced and lived in
since and as a result of the institution of human slavery.

If a case of this magnitude can be turned aside and a
court refuse to hear these basic issues by the mere device
of an admission that some buildings, blackboards, light
ing fixtures and toilet facilities are unequal but that they
may be remedied by the spending of a few dollars, then,
indeed people in the plight in which these Plaintiffs are,
have no adequate remedy or forum in which to air their
wrongs. If this method of judicial evasion be adopted,
these very infant Plaintiffs now pupils in Clarendon
County will probably be bringing suits for their children
and grandchildren decades or rather generations hence'-in
an effort to get for their descendants what are today denied
to them. If they are entitled to any rights as American
citizens, they are entitled to have these rights now and not
in the future. And no excuse can be made to deny them
these rights which are theirs under the Constitution and
laws of America by the use of the false doctrine and patter
called “ separate but equal” and it is the duty of the Court
to meet these issues simply and factually and without fear,
sophistry and evasion. If this be the measure of justice to
be meted out to them, then, indeed, hundreds, nay thousands,
of cases will have to be brought and in each case thousands
of dollars will have to be spent for the employment of legal
talent and scientific testimony and then the cases will be
turned aside, postponed or eliminated by devices such as
this.

We should be unwilling to straddle or avoid this issue
[fol. 343] and if the suggestion made by these Defendants
is to be adopted as the type of justice to be meted out by
this Court, then I want no part of it.

And so we must and do face, without evasion or equivoca
tion, the question as to whether segregation in education
in our schools is legal or whether it cannot exist under our
American system as particularly enunciated in the Four
teenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Before the American Civil War, the institution of human
slavery had been adopted and was approved in this coun
try. Slavery was nothing new in the world. From the

196

dawn of history we see aggressors enslaving* weak and less
fortunate neighbors. Back through the days of early civili
zations man practiced slavery. We read of it in Biblical
days; we read of it in the Greek City States and in the
great Roman Empire. Throughout medieval Europe, forms
of slavery existed and it was widely practiced in Asia Minor
and the Eastern countries and perhaps reached its worst
form in Nazi Germany. Class and caste have, unfortu
nately, existed through the ages. But, in time, mankind,
through evolution and progress, through ethical and reli
gious concepts, through the study of the teachings of the
great philosophers and the great religious teachers, in
cluding especially the founder of Christianity—mankind
began to revolt against the enslayement of body, mind
and soul of one human being by another. And so there
came about a great awakening. The British, who indulged
in the slave trade, awakened to the fact that it was im
moral and against the right thinking ideology of the
Christian world. And in this country, also, «came about a
moral awakening. Unfortunately, this had not been suf
ficiently advanced at the time of the adoption of the Ameri
can Constitution for the institution of slavery to be pro
hibited. But there was a struggle and the better thinking
leaders in our Constitutional Convention endeavored to
prohibit slavery but unfortunately compromised the issue
[fol. 344] on the insistent demands of those who were en
gaged in the slave trade and the purchase and use of slaves.
And so as time went on, slavery was perpetuated and
eventually became a part of the life and culture of certain
of the States of this Union although the rest of the world
looked on with shame and abhorrence.

As was so well said, this country could not continue to
exist one-half slave and one-half free and long years of
war were entered into before the nation was willing to erad
icate this system which was, itself, a denial of the brave
and fine statements of the Declaration of Independence and
a denial of freedom as envisioned and advocated by our
Founders.

The United States then adopted the 13th, 14th and 15th
Amendments and it cannot be denied that the basic rea
son for all of these Amendments to the Constitution was
to wipe out completely the institution of slavery and to

197

declare that all citizens in this country should be consid
ered as free, equal and entitled to all of the provisions of
citizenship.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States is as follows:

“ Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the
United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immu
nities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ’ ’

It seems to me that it is unnecessary to pore through
voluminous arguments and opinions to ascertain what the
foregoing means. And while it is true that we have had
hundreds, perhaps thousands, of legal opinions outlining
and defining the various effects and overtones on our laws
and life brought about by the adoption of this Amendment,
one of ordinary ability and understanding of the English
language will have no trouble in knowing that when this
Amendment was adopted, it was intended to do away with
discrimination between our citizens.
[fol. 345] The Amendment refers to all persons. There
is nothing in there that attempts to separate, segregate or
discriminate against any persons because of their being of
European, Asian or African ancestry. And the plain in
tendment is that all of these persons are citizens. And then
it is provided that no State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges of citizens nor shall any
state deny “ to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws ’ ’.

The Amendment was first proposed in 1866 just about a
year after the end of the American Civil War and the sur
render of the Confederate States government. Within two
years, the Amendment was adopted and became part of the
Constitution of the United States. It cannot be gainsaid
that the Amendment was proposed and adopted wholly and
entirely as a result of the great conflict between freedom and

198

slavery. This will be amply substantiated by an examina
tion and appreciation of the proposal and discussion and
Congressional debates (See Flack on Adoption of the 14th
Amendment) and so it is undeniably true that the three
great Amendments were adopted to eliminate not only
slavery, itself, but all idea of discrimination and difference
between American citizens.

Let us now come to consider whether the Constitution and
Laws of the State of South Carolina which we have hereto
fore quoted are in conflict with the true meaning and in
tendment of this Fourteenth Amendment. The whole dis
cussion of race and ancestry has been intermingled with
sophistry and prejudice. What possible definition can be
found for the so-called white race, Negro race or other
races. Who is to decide and what is the test? For years,
there was much talk of blood and taint of blood. Science
tells us that there are but four kinds of blood: A, B, AB and
0 and these are found in Europeans, Asiatics, Africans,
Americans and others. And so we need not further consider
the irresponsible and baseless references to preservation
[fol. 346] of “ Caucasian blood” . So then, what test are we
going to use in opening our school doors and labeling them
“ white” and “ Negro” ? The law of South Carolina con
siders a person of one-eighth African ancestry to be a Negro.
Why this proportion ? Is it based upon any reason: anthro
pological, historical or ethical? And how are the trustees
to know who are “ whites” and who are “ Negroes” ? If it
is dangerous and evil for a white child to be associated with
another child, one of whose great-grandparents was of
African descent, is it not equally dangerous for one with a
one-sixteenth percentage ? And if the State has decided that
there is danger in contact between the whites and Negroes,
isn’t it requisite and proper that the State furnish a series
of schools one for each of these percentages? If the idea is
perfect racial equality in educational systems, why should
children of pure African descent be brought in contact with
children of one-half, one-fourth, or one-eighth such an
cestry? To ask these questions is sufficient answer to them.
The whole thing is unreasonable, unscientific and based
upon unadulterated prejudice. We see the results of all of
this warped thinking in the poor under-privileged and
frightened attitude of so many of the Negroes in the south

199

ern states; and in the sadistic insistence of the “ white
supremacists” in declaring that their will must be imposed
irrespective of rights of other citizens. This claim of “ white
supremacy” , while fantastic and without foundation, is
really believed by them for we have had repeated declara
tions from leading politicians and governors of this state
and other states declaring that “ white supremacy” will be
endangered by the abolition of segregation. There are
present threats, including those of the present Governor of
this state, going to the extent of saying that all public educa
tion may be abandoned if the courts should grant true
equality in educational facilities.

Although some 73 years have passed since the adoption
[fol. 347] of the Fourteenth Amendment and although it is
clearly apparent that its chief purpose, (perhaps we may
say its only real purpose) was to remove from Negroes the
stigma and status of slavery and to confer upon them full
rights as citizens, nevertheless, there has been a long and
arduous course of litigation through the years. With some
setbacks here and there, the courts have generally and pro
gressively recognized the true meaning of the Fourteenth
Amendment and have, from time to time, stricken down the
attempts made by state governments (almost entirely those
of the former Confederate states) to restrict the Amend
ment and to keep Negroes in a different classification so far
as their rights and privileges as citizens are concerned. A
number of cases have reached the Supreme Court of the
United States wherein it became necessary for that tribunal
to insist that Negroes be treated as citizens in the perform
ance of jury duty. See Strauder v. West Virginia,4 where
the Court says at page 307:
. . . “ What is this but declaring that the law in the States
shall be the same for the black as for the white; that all per
sons, whether colored or white, shall stand equal before the
laws of the States, and, in regard to the colored race, for
whose protection the amendment was primarily designed,
that no discrimination shall be made against them by law
because of their color? The words of the amendment, it is
true, are prohibitory, but they contain a necessary implica
tion of a positive immunity, or right, most valuable to the
colored race,—the right to exemption from unfriendly legis

200

lation against them distinctively as colored—exemption
from legal discriminations, implying inferiority in civil
society, lessening the security of their enjoyment of the
rights which others enjoy, and discriminations which are
steps towards reducing them to the condition of a subject
race. ’ ’

Many subsequent cases have followed and confirmed the
right of Negroes to be treated as equals in all jury and grand
jury service in the states.

The Supreme Court has stricken down from time to time
statutes providing for imprisonment for violation of con
tracts. These are known as peonage cases and were in
regard to statutes primarily aimed at keeping the Negro
“ in his place” .5

In the field of transportation the court has now, in effect
declared that common carriers engaged in interstate travel
must not and cannot segregate and discriminate against
passengers by reason of their race or color.6
[fol. 348] Frequent and rep-ated instances of prejudice in
criminal cases because of the brutal treatment of defendants
because of their color have been passed upon in a large
number of cases.7

Discrimination by segregation of housing facilities and
attempts to control the same by covenants have also been
outlawed.8

In the field of labor employment and particularly the rela
tion of labor unions to the racial problem, discrimination
has again been forbidden.9

Perhaps the most serious battle for equality of rights has
been in the field of exercise of suffrage. For years, certain
of the southern states have attempted to prevent the Negro
from taking part in elections by various devices. It is un
necessary to enumerate the long list of cases, but from time
to time, courts have stricken down all of these various de
vices classed as the “ grandfather clause” , educational tests
and white private clubs.10

The foregoing are but a few brief references to some of
the major landmarks in the fight by Negroes for equality.
We now come to the more specific question, namely, the fieid
of education. The question of the right of the state to prac
tice segregation by race in certain educational facilities has

201

only recently been tested in the courts. The cases of Gaines
v. Canada, 305 U. S. 337 and Sipuel v. Board of Regents, 332
IT. 8. 631 decided that Negroes were entitled to the same
type of legal education that whites were given. It was
further decided that the equal facilities must be furnished
without delay or as was said in the Sipuel case, the state
must provide for equality of education for Negroes “ as
soon as it does for applicants of any other group” . But
still we have not reached the exact question that is posed in
the instant case.

We now come to the cases that, in my opinion, definitely
and conclusively establish the doctrine that separation and
[fol. 349] segregation according to race is a violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment. I, of course, refer to the cases of
Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U. S. 629 and McLaurin v. Oklahoma
State Regents, 339 U. S. 637. These cases have been fol
lowed in a number of lower court decisions so that there is
no longer any question as to the rights of Negroes to enjoy
all the rights and facilities afforded by the law schools of
the States of Virginia, Louisiana, Delaware, North Caro
lina and Kentucky. So there is no longer any basis for a
state to claim the power to separate according to race in
graduate schools, universities and colleges.

The real rock on which the Defendants base their case is
a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the
case of Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537. This case arose in
Louisiana and was heard on appeal in 1895. The case re
lated to the power of the State of Louisiana to require
separate railroad cars for white and colored passengers and
the Court sustained the State’s action. Much discussion has
followed this case and the reasoning and decision has been
severely criticized for many years. And the famous dis
senting opinion by Mr. Justice Harlan has been quoted
throughout the years as a true declaration of the meaning of
the Fourteenth Amendment and of the spirit of the Ameri
can Constitution and the American Way of life. It has also
been frequently pointed out that when that decision was
made, practically all the persons of the colored or Negro
race had either been born slaves or were the children of
slaves and that as yet due to their circumstances and sur
roundings and the condition in which they had been kept by

202

their former masters, they were hardly looked upon as
equals or as American citizens. The reasoning’ of the pre
vailing’ opinion in the Plessy case stems almost completely
from a decision by Chief Justice Shaw of Massachusetts,11
which decision was made many years before the Civil War
and when, of course, the Fourteenth Amendment had not
even been dreamed of.

But these arguments are beside the point in the present
[fol. 350] case. And we are not called upon to argue or
discuss the validity of the Plessy case.

Let it be remembered that the Plessy case decided that
separate railroad accom-odations might be required by a
state in intra-state transportation. How similar attempts
relating to inter-state transportation have fared have been
shown in the foregoing discussion and notes.12 It has been
said and repeated here in argument that the Supreme Court
has refused to review the Plessy case in the Sweatt, Mc-
Laurin and other cases and this has been pointed to as proof
that the Supreme Court retains and approves the validity of
Plessy. It is astonishing that such an argument should be
presented or used in this or any other court. The Supreme
Court in Sweatt and McLaurin was not considering railroad
accomodations. It was considering education just as we are
considering it here and the Supreme Court distinctly and
unequivocally held that the attempt to separate the races
in education was violative of the Fourteenth Amendment of
the Constitution. Of course, the Supreme Court did not
consider overruling Plessy. It was not considering railroad
matters, had no arguments in regard to it, had no business
or concern with railroad accom-odations and should not
have even been asked to refer to that case since it had no
application or business in the consideration of an educa
tional problem before the court. It seems to me that we
have already spent too much time and wasted efforts in
attempting to show any similarity between traveling in a
railroad coach in the confines of a state and furnishing-
education to the future citizens of this country.

The instant case which relates to lower school education,
is based upon exactly the same reasoning followed in the
Sweatt and McLaurin decisions. In the Sweatt case, it was
clearly recognized that a law school for Negro students had
been established and that the Texas courts had found that

203

the privileges, advantages and opportunities offered were
substantially equivalent to those offered to white students
at the University of Texas. Apparently, the Negro school
[fol. 351] was adequately housed, staffed and offered full
and complete legal education, but the Supreme Court clearly
recognized that education does not alone consist of fine
buildings, class room furniture and appliances but that in
cluded in education must be all the intangibles that come
into play in preparing one for meeting life. As was so well
said by the Court:

. . . “ Few students and no one who has practiced
law would choose to study in an academic vacuum,
removed from the interplay of ideas and the exchange
of views with which the law is concerned. ’ ’

And the Court quotes with approval from its opinion in
Shelley v. Kramer (supra):

. . . “ Equal protection of the laws is not achieved
through indiscriminate imposition of inequalities.”

The Court further points out that this right to a proper and
equal education is a personal one and that an individual is
entitled to the equal protection of the laws. And in closing,
the Court, referring to certain cases cited, says:

“ In accordance with these cases, petitioner may claim
his full constitutional right: legal education equivalent
to that offered by the State to students of other races.
Such education is not available to him in a separate law
school as offered by the State.”

In the companion case of McLaurin v. Oklahoma State
Regents, McLaurin was a student who was allowed to
attend the same classes, hear the same lectures, stand the
same examinations and eat in the same cafeteria; but he sat
in a marked off place and had a separate table assigned to
him in the library and another one in the cafeteria. It was
said with truth that these separations were merely nominal
and that the seats and other facilities were just as good as
those afforded to white students. But the Supreme Court
says that even though this be so :

“ These restrictions were obviously imposed in order
to comply, as nearly as could be, with the statutory re

204

quirements of Oklahoma. But they signify that the
State, in administering the facilities it affords for
professional and graduate study, sets McLaurin apart
from the other students. The result is that appellant is
handicapped in Iris pursuit of effective graduate in
struction. Such restrictions impair and inhibit his
ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange
views with other students, and, in general, to learn his
profession.
[fol. 352] “ Our society grows increasingly complex,
and our need for trained leaders increases correspond
ingly. Appellant’s case represents, perhaps, the epi
tome of that need, for he is attempting to obtain an
advanced degree in education, to become, by definition,
a leader and trainer of others. Those who will come
under his guidance and influence must be directly
affected by the education he receives. Their own educa
tion and development will necessarily suffer to the
extent that his training is unequal to that of his class
mates. State-imposed restrictions which produce such
inequalities cannot be sustained.”

The recent case of McKissick v. Carmichael, 187 F. 2nd
949 wherein the question of admission to the law school of
the University of North Carolina was decided follows and
amplifies the reasoning of the Sweatt and McLaurin cases.
In the McKissick case, officials of the State of North Caro
lina took the position that they had adopted a fixed and con
tinued purpose to establish and build up separate schools
for equality in education and pointed with pride to the large
advances that they had made. They showed many actual
physical accomplishments and the establishment of a school
which they claimed was an equal in many respects and
superior in some respects to the school maintained for
white students. The Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit
in this case, speaking through Judge Soper, meets this issue
without fear or evasion and says:

“ These circumstances are worthy of consideration
by any one who is responsible for the solution of a
difficult racial problem; but they do not meet the com
plainants ’ case or overcome the deficiencies which it

205

discloses. Indeed the defense seeks in part to avoid
the charge of inequality by the paternal suggestion that
it would be beneficial to the colored race in North Caro
lina as a whole, and to the individual plaintiffs in
particular, if they would cooperate in promoting the
policy adopted by the State rather than seek the best
legal education which the State provides. The duty of
the federal courts, however, is clear. We must give first
place to the rights of the individual citizen, and when
and where he seeks only equality of treatment before
the law, his suit must prevail. It is for him to decide
in which direction his advantage lies. ’ ’

In the instant case, the Plaintiffs produced a large number
of witnesses. It is significant that the Defendants brought
but two. These last two were not trained educators. One
was an official of the Clarendon schools who said that the
school system needed improvement and that the school
officials were hopeful and expectant of obtaining money
from State funds to improve all facilities. The other wit-
[fol. 353] ness, significantly named Crow, has been recently
employed by a commission just established which, it is
proposed, will supervise educational facilities in the State
and will handle monies if, as and when the same are received
sometime in the future. Mr. Crow did not testify as an
expert on education although he stated flatly that he believed
in separation of the races and that he heard a number of
other people say so, including some Negroes, but he was
unable to mention any of their names. Mr. Crow explained
what was likely and liable to happen under the 1951 State
Educational Act to which frequent reference was made in
argument on behalf of the Defense.

It appears that the Governor of this state called upon
the legislature to take action in regard to the dearth of
educational facilities in South Carolina pointing out the
low depth to which the State had sunk. As a result, an act
of the legislature was adopted (this is a part, of the General
Appropriations Act adopted at the recent session of the
legislature and referred to as the 1951 School Act). This
Act provides for the appointment of a commission which is
to generally supervise educational facilities and imposes
sales taxes in order to raise money for educational purposes

206

and authorizes the issuance of bonds not to exceed the sum
of $75,000,000. for the purpose of making grants to various
counties and school districts to defray the cost of capital
improvement in schools. The Commission is granted wide
power to accept applications for and approve such grants as
loans. It is given wide power as to what schools and school
districts are to receive monies and it is also provided, that
from the taxes there are to be allocated funds to the various
schools based upon the enrollment of pupils. Nowhere is it
specifically provided that there shall be equality of treat
ment as between whites and Negroes in the school system.
It is openly and frankly admitted by all parties that the
present facilities are hopelessly disproportional and no one
[fob. 354] knows how much money would be required to
bring- the colored school system up to a parity with the white
school system. The estimates as to the cost merely of
equalization of physical facilities run anywhere from forty
to eighty million dollars. Thus, the position of the De
fendants is that the rights applied for by the Plaintiffs are
to be denied now because the State of South Carolina in
tends (as evidenced by a general appropriations bill enacted
by the legislature and a speech made by its Governor) to
issue bonds, impose taxes, raise money and do something
about the inadequate schools in the future. There is no
guarantee or assurance as to when the money will be avail
able. As yet, no bonds have been printed or sold. No money
is in the treasury. No plans have been drawn for school
buildings or order issued for materials. No allocation has
been made to the Clarendon school district or any other
school districts and not even application blanks have, as yet,
been printed. But according to Mr. Crow, the Clarendon
authorities have requested him to send them blanks for this
purpose if, as and when they come into being. Can we
seriously consider this a bona-fide attempt to provide equal
facilities for our school children?

On the other hand, the Plaintiffs brought many witnesses,
some of them of national reputation in various educational
fields. It is unnecessary for me to review or analyze their
testimony. But they who had made studies of education and
its effect upon children, starting with the lowest grades and
studying them up through and into high school, unequivo

207

cally testified that aside from inequality in housing appli
ances and equipment, the mere fact of segregation, itself,
had a deleterious and warping effect upon the minds of
children. These witnesses testified as to their study and
researches and their actual tests with children of varying
ages and they showed that the humiliation and disgrace of
being set aside and segregated as unfit to associate with
others of different color had an evil and ineradicable effect
[fob 355] upon the mental processes of our young which
would remain with them and deform their view on life until
and throughout their maturity. This applies to white as
well as Negro children. These witnesses testified from
actual study and tests in various parts of the country in
cluding tests in the actual Clarendon School district under
consideration. They showed beyond a doubt that the evils
of segregation and color prejudice come from early training.
And from their testimony as well as from common experi
ence and knowledge and from our own reasoning, we must
unavoidably come to the conclusion that racial prejudice is
something that is acquired and that that acquiring is in early
childhood. When do we get our first ideas of religion,
nationality and the other basic ideologies ? The vast number
of individuals follow religious and political groups because
of their childhood training. And it is difficult and nearly
impossible to change and eradicate these early prejudices,
however strong may be the appeal to reason. There is
absolutely no reasonable explanation for racial prejudice.
It is all caused by unreasoning emotional reactions and
these are gained in early childhood. Let the little child’s
mind be poisoned by prejudice of this kind and it is prac
tically impossible to ever remove these impressions however
many years he may have of teaching by philosophers, re
ligious leaders or patriotic citizens. If segregation is wrong
then the place to stop it is in the first grade and not in
graduate colleges.

From their testimony, it was clearly apparent, as it should
be to any thoughtful person, irrespective of having such
expert testimony, that segregation in education can never
produce equality and that it is an evil that must be eradi
cated. This case presents the matter clearly for adjudica
tion and I am of the opinion that all of the legal guideposts,
expert testimony, common sense and reason point unerringly

208

to the conclusion that the system of segregation in education
adopted and practiced in the State of South Carolina must
go and must go now.

Segregation is per se inequality.
[fol. 356] As heretofore shown, the courts of this land have
stricken down discrimination in higher education and have
declared unequivocally that segregation is not equality.
But these decisions have pruned away only the noxious
fruits. Here in this case, we are asked to strike its very
root. Or rather, to change the metaphor, we are asked to
strike at the cause of infection and not merely at the symp
toms of disease. And if the courts of this land are to render
justice under the laws without fear or favor, justice for all
men and all kinds of men, the time to do it is now and the
place is in the elementary schools where our future citizens
learn their first lesson to respect the dignity of the indi
vidual in a democracy.

To me the situation is clear and important, particularly
at this time when our national leaders are called upon to
show to the world that our democracy means what it says
and that it is a true democracy and there is no under-cover
suppression of the rights of any of our citizens because of
the pigmentation of their skins. And I had hoped that this
Court would take this view of the situation and make a clear
cut declaration that the State of South Carolina should fol
low the intendment and meaning of the Constitution of the
United States and that it shall not abridge the privileges
accorded to or deny equal protection of its laws to any of its
citizens. But since the majority of this Court feel otherwise,
and since I cannot concur with them or join in the proposed
decree, this Opinion is filed as a Dissent.

(S.) J. Waties Waring, United States District Judge.
Charleston, South Carolina. Date: June 21, 1951.

[ fo l. 357] N otes

1. Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the
United States, Section 1; Title 8, USCA, Section 41, Section
43; Title 28, USCA, Section 1343.

2. Constitution of South Carolina, Article XI, Section 5.

209

Code of Laws, 5301, 5316, 5328, 5404 and 5405. Code of
Laws of South Carolina, Sections 5303, 5306, 5343, 5409.

3. Title 28, USCA, Sections 2281-84.
4. 100 U. S. 303.
5. Peonage: Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U. S. 219; U. S. v.

Reynolds, 235 U. S. 133.
6. Transportation: Mitchell v. U. S., 313 U. S. 80; Morgan

y. Virginia; 328 U. S. 373; Henderson v. U. S., 339 U. S. 816;
Chance v. Lambeth, 186 P. 2nd 879; Certiorari denied May
28, 1951.

7. Criminals: Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U. S. 278; Cham
bers v. Florida, 309 U. S. 227; Shepherd v. Florida, 341
IT. S. 50.

8. Housing: Buchanan v. Warley, 245 IT. S. 60; Shelley v.
Kraemer, 334 H. S. 1.

9. Labor: Steele v. L & N R. R. Co., 323 IT. S. 192;
Tunstall v. Brotherhood, 323 U. S. 210.

10. Suffrage: Quinn v. U. S. 238 IT.S. 347; Nixon v. Hern
don, 273 IT. S. 536; Lane v. Wilson, 307 U. S. 268; Smith v.
Allwright, 321 IT. S. 649; Elmore v. Rice, 72 F. Supp. 516;
165 F. 2nd 387; Certiorari denied, 333 IT. S. 875; Brown
v. Baskin, 78 F. Supp. 933; Brown v. Baskin, 80 F. Supp.
1017; 174 F. 2nd 391.

11. Roberts v. City of Boston, 5 Cush. 198.
12. See cases cited in Note 6.

[fol. 358] [File endorsement omitted]

l x U nited S tates D istrict Court

[Title omitted]

D ecree— Filed June 23, 1951
In the above entitled case the Court finds the facts to

be as set forth in its written opinion filed herewith and
on the basis thereof it is adjudged by the Court:

(1) That neither Article II section 7 of the Constitution
of South Carolina nor section 5377 of the Code are of them
selves violative of the provisions of the Fourteenth Amend-

14—101

210

rnent to the Constitution of the United States and plain
tiffs are not entitled to an injunction forbidding segre
gation in the public schools of School District No. 22.

(2) That the educational facilities, equipment, curricula
and opportunities afforded in School District No. 22 for
colored pupils are not substantially equal to those afforded
for white pupils; that this inequality is violative of the
[fols. 359-437] equal protection clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment; and that plaintiffs are entitled to an injunc
tion requiring the defendants to make available to them
and to other Negro pupils of said district educational facil
ities, equipment, curricula and opportunities equal to those
afforded white pupils.

And it is accordingly ordered, adjudged and decreed
that the defendants proceed at once to furnish to plaintiffs
and other Negro pupils of said district educational facilities,
equipment, curricula and opportunities equal to those fur
nished white pupils;

And it is further ordered that the defendants make
report to this Court within six months of this date as
to the action taken by them to carry out this order.

And this cause is retained for further orders.
This the 21 day of June 1951.

(S.) John J. Parker, Chief Judge, Fourth Circuit.
------------- , IT. S. District Judge, Eastern District

of South Carolina, (S). G-eorge Bell Timmerman,
U. S. District Judge, Eastern and Western Dis
tricts of South Carolina.

I do not join in this decree for the reasons set forth in
a separate dissenting opinion.

(S.) J. Waties Waring, U. S. District Judge, Eastern
Distinct of South Carolina,

A true copy. Attest.
Ernest L. Allen, Clerk of U. S. District Court East.

Dist. So. Carolina. (Seal.)

2 1 1

[fol. 438] [File endorsement omitted]

In U n ited S tates .District C ourt

[Title omitted]

R eport of D efendants P u rsu an t to D ecree D ated Ju n e 21,
1951.—Filed December 20, 1951

[fol. 439] Come now the defendants above named, with
the exception of George Kennedy who has departed this
life, and respectfully show unto this Honorable Court as
follows:

1. In the Decree entered by the Court in this cause dated
June 21, 1951, it was ordered, adjudged and decreed that
the defendants proceed at once to furnish to plaintiffs and
other Negro pupils of School District No. 22 in Clarendon
County, South Carolina, educational facilities, equipment,
curricula and opportunities equal to those furnished white
pupils in the said School District, and that “ the defendants
make report to this Court within six months of this date
as to the action taken by them to carry out this order.”

2. Inasmuch as the consolidation of Negro schools and
the construction of new school facilities presented the major
problem in complying with the Court’s decree, it is appro
priate to outline first the measures which were taken by
the defendants to qualify for and obtain State aid for con
structing school facilities, made available to school dis
tricts for the first time in Act No. 379 of the Acts of 1951,
Articles II, III, IV and V, which levied a three per cent,
general sales tax in the State and authorized the issuance
of State School Bonds on the strength thereof of up to
$75,000.00 to obtain immediate funds for extending such aid.

3. Under Article III, sections 6 and 7, of that Act, a new
county board of education was appointed in Clarendon
County, which was authorized and empowered “ to con
solidate schools and school districts, in whole or in part,
whenever, in their judgment, the same will promote the
best interests of the cause of education,” in the county, and
on June 29, 1951, the new County Board of Education of
Clarendon County transmitted to the State Educational
Finance-Commission notice of an order consolidating School

212

Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 22, 26, and 30* in the county
into a single school district to be known as School District
No. 1. Thereafter the other school districts of the county
were by like orders consolidated into two additional new
School Districts, so that the County’s- 34 school districts
[fob 440] were thus combined into 3 new districts.

4. In the meantime, litigation having arisen in the
Supreme Court of South Carolina and in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina
in which the constitutionality of the sales tax and School
Bond provisions of the said Act No. 379 of 1951 was assailed,
the Supreme Court of South Carolina, on July 9, 1951,
upheld the constitutionality of the legislation in State ex rel.
Roddey v. Byrnes, (S. C.) 66 S. E. 2d 33, and shortly there
after the constitutionality of the legislation was upheld by
decree of a special court of three Judges in the United
States District Court.

5. The State Educational Finance Commission, of which
the Governor ex officio is Chairman, is charged with the
administration of the educational provisions of Act No.
379, Section 3 of Article IV of which provides:

“ No grants accruing to any school district or oper
ating unit shall be expended for any purpose unless
such expenditure has been approved by the Commis
sion. In order to guide the Commission in passing
upon requests for the use of grants, the County Boards
of Education of the respective counties are directed to
prepare a survey of necessary capital improvements
and/or a plan for tax relief on school indebtedness
within the operating unit. Such surveys shall show
existing facilities, desirable consolidations, the new
construction and new facilities necessary and desirable
for the efficient operation of the public schools of the
county, and a plan of tax reduction in the school dis
trict or operating unit by use of such funds in retiring
any outstanding indebtedness for school facilities. The
Commission is authorized in its discretion to deny all
applications for the use of funds of the said public
school Building Fund from any county until such time
as an acceptable and reasonably satisfactory plan,
looking* particularly to efficiency through consolidations

213

of school districts, has been submitted by the County
Board of Education, and all applications from school
districts or operating units shall conform to the plan
of the County Board of Education.”

6. On July 16, 1951, the State Educational Finance Com
mission promulgated the following Criteria for School
District Reorganization:

“ The State Educational Finance Commission has
been charged with the responsibility of bringing about
desirable consolidation of school districts in South
Carolina. Section 3, Article III, of the General Appro
priation Act for 1951 states, ‘ It (the Commission) shall
effect desirable consolidations of school districts
throughout the entire State.’ The following statement
of policy has been approved by the Commission as a
guide to County Boards of Education and to school
district trustees in carrying out the purpose of this Act.

“ (1) Elementary schools shall be so planned as to
have sufficient enrollment to provide a teacher for
each grade taught, except in those cases where natural
[fol. 441] barriers, sparseness of population, or other-
reasons, make the application of this requirement un
wise. Separate elementary school districts must be
consolidated with high school districts.

“ In rural areas where long distances are involved,
consideration should be given to the possibility of es
tablishing community primary schools for the first
three grades. This accomplishes two purposes. It
keeps a school in the community and eliminates the
necessity of transporting small children such great
distances. A three teacher primary school for three
grades is in accord with this principle.

“ (2) Inefficiency of operation and inadequate edu
cational opportunities are caused by small enrollments
in many of our present high schools. Recent studies
show that in high schools with enrollments of from
50-100 the per pupil cost is fifty-three per cent greater
than in those with enrollment of 200. New High

schools should have a minimum potential enrollment
of 250 in grades nine through twelve, with the same
exceptions as listed above for elementary schools. In
cases where the State Board of Education has recog
nized a high school as being* accredited, or in the
process of accreditation, the term ‘ new high school’
will not apply.

“ (3) Each school district (administrative unit) shall
provide high school facilities within the district for
both races. In some instances this will mean one high
school for the minority race and two, or more, for the
majority race. The essential requirement is that ad
ministration of school facilities for both races be under
the control of the same board of trustees. Counties
operating* under the county unit system meet this re
quirement. Other counties must reorganize into admin
istrative areas large enough to insure a sufficient
number of educable students of each race to maintain
a high school for each race. Consideration should also
be given to the principle of equalizing taxable wealth
in the school districts. An area with a small proportion
of the children to educate should not be created in such
a way as to possess an undue proportion of the taxable
wealth of the county.

“ (4) In many instances reorganization of adminis
trative units (consolidation of school districts) can best
be effected by disregarding county lines for school dis
trict purposes. Nearly every county will have small
border areas where children have been attending
schools in the adjoining county. School districts should
•conform as nearly as possible with the natural socio
economic boundaries of a community. County Boards
of Education of adjoining* counties should meet to
gether and work out desirable consolidations where
over-lapping occurs.

“ Reorganization of administrative units (consolida
tion of school districts) is the first step to be taken by
County Boards of Education since it is the reorganized
district that will be eligible for school building aid.
No individual district can apply for, and receive funds,

215

until the overall plan of reorganization for the county
has been approved by the Commission. Counties which
have undergone reorganization in recent years should
re-examine their situation in the light of the preceding
principles adopted by the Commission.”

7. On July 16, 1951, the State Educational Finance Com
mission also informed the defendants that upon proper
application new School District No. 1 would be allotted the
maximum amount for which it could qualify for capital
expenditures for school facilities.

8. In order to qualify therefor, the said School District
requested that the State Educational Finance Commission
[fol. 442] cause the required building survey to be made
in the district, and by direction of the Commission such
survey was made in the month of July, 1951, by the State
Supervisor of Schoolhouse Planning.

9. On August 6, 1951, the State Educational Finance
Commission adopted a resolution providing for the issuance
and sale of $12,500,000.00 in State School Bonds, $7,500,-
000.00 thereof to be used for the purchase of school bus
equipment under article Y of said Act No. 379 (providing
for the equipping, maintenance and operation of all school
transportation by the State), and $5,000,000.00 to be used
for school building purposes. The bonds were duly issued
and sold, and on November 15, 1951, the proceeds thereof
were received by the State Treasurer and placed to the
credit of the State Educational Finance Commission.

10. During the month of September, 1951, the State
Educational Finance Commission furnished to new School
District No. 1 nine school buses for use in the district, and
school transportation is now furnished to the white and
Negro pupils of the district in accordance with the terms
of Act No. 379.

11. The Building Survey of new School District No. 1
having shown the advisability of constructing a new school-
house for a Negro high school at Scott ’s Branch in Summer-
ton, using the same campus as the existing Scott’s Branch
School, and the remodeling and enlargement of the latter
(formerly used for both elementary and high school grades)
to be used only as an elementary school, the defendants and

216

the other trustees of new School District No. 1 caused plans
and specifications for such construction and remodeling: to
he prepared by architects, and such plans and specifications
were approved by the State Educational Finance Commis
sion on October 9, 1951. Copies of architect’s drawing of
the Scott’s Branch High and Elementary Schools when
completed, elevation plan, and floor plan of the new high
school building are herewith filed as Appendix A of this
Report.

12. Application was made on August 30, 1951, for the
allocation of priority for the critical materials needed in
the construction, and” as late as October 15, 1951, the Super-
[fol. 443] intendent of the district was informed by the
Office of Education, Federal Security Agency, that the
application would be held in the files and considered just as
soon as the Office of Education received an adequate quan
tity of controlled materials. The defendants sought the
aid of Governor Byrnes in an effort to expedite the granting
of the application, so that they might advertise for bids on
the construction, and under date of October 24, 1951, they
received the necessary priority dated October 19, 1951.

13. On October 16, 1951, the State Educational Finance
Commission approved the consolidation orders of the
County Board of education referred to above, and author
ized the expenditure by new School District No. 1 of the
maximum amount for whieh it qualified under Act No. 379.

14. On November 14, 1951, bids were received by the
school trustees of the district for the construction of the
new Scott’s Branch Negro high school and the remodelling
of the existing Scott’s Branch School, in response to due
advertisement for such bids, and the construction contract
was awarded to Harllee-Quattlebaum, the lowest bidder,
for the contract price of $261,000.00. The construction is
now in progress, and the facilities are expected to be com
pleted and in use when the schools open in September, 1952,
barring unforeseen delays.

15. On November 27, 1951, the State Educational Finance
Commission approved formal application from School Dis
trict No. 1 for an advance under the Act of $278,550.00, and
on November 28, 1951, placed that amount in the treasury

217

of Clarendon County to the credit of the district to he
expended as follows:

(1) Construction of new high school on site of
Scott’s Branch school and remodelling of
former high school on same site for ele
mentary school...........................................$261,000.00

(2) Architect’s fee ........................................... 13,050.00
(c) Sites acquired for Negro elementary

schools:
Davis station............................ $1,500.00
St. Paul’s .................................. 3,000.00 4,500.00

$278,550.00

[fol. 444] 16. On October 15, 1951, an order of consolida
tion signed jointly by the County Board of Education of
Clarendon County and the County Board of Education of
Sumter County transferred former School Districts Nos. 1
and 2 in Clarendon County from new School District No. 1 of
said county to Pinewood School District No. 23 of Sumter
County. As a result of the change in area and school
population thus made in new School District No. 1, the
State Educational Finance Commission was requested to
have the July building survey reviewed and amended by
the Supervisor of Schoolhouse Planning, and a copy of
the amended survey and report is herewith filed as Ap
pendix B of this Report. The school population of the
present new School District No. 1 according to enrollment
is 2,568 Negro school children and 298 white school children.

17. The Court will observe from the amended Building
Survey, Appendix B hereof, that the construction of the
new Negro High School at Scott’s Branch and the remodel
ling of the existing Scott’s Branch School as an elementary
school carries out the recommendation in this respect made
in said Building Survey. When that construction and re
modelling is completed, the Scott’s Branch Negro High
School building and the Scott’s Branch Elementary School
building will be at least the equal of any school building-
in the district. The pupils formerly attending* the Ram-
bay, Silver, Oak Grove, St. John, Zoar Hill and Scott’s
Branch Schools, representing an enrollment in 1951 or

218

949 and an average daily attendance of 616, will attend the
Scott’s Branch Elementary School.

All Negro high school pupils in the district, representing
a 1951 enrollment of 197, will attend the new Scott’s
Branch Negro High School.

18. Land sites have been acquired at St. Paul’s and at
Davis Station for the new Negro elementary schools which
are recommended to be constructed for the St. Paul’s and
the Rogers areas, respectively, the funds for such acquisi
tion having been included in the $278,550.00 deposited in
the county treasury for School District No. 1, as stated
in paragraph 15, supra. The defendants and the other
trustees of School District No. 1 have approved the rec-
[fol. 445] ommendations in the amended Building Survey,
and have already caused plans and specifications to be
prepared for the construction of these two Negro elemen
tary school buildings, which plans and specifications will
be submitted for approval by the State Educational Fi
nance Commission as soon as they are completed. There
after they will advertise for construction bids as soon as
the requisite priority for obtaining controlled materials
needed in the construction have been obtained from the
Office of Education, Federal Security Agency. Applica
tions for such priority have already been made.

The pupils formerly attending the St. Paul, Panola, St.
Phillips, Rockland, Oaks, Butler, Santee and Liberty Hill
Schools, and a part of those formerly attending the Maggie
Nelson School, representing a 1951 enrollment of 849 and
an average daily attendance of 639, will attend the new
St. Paul’s Elementary School.

The pupils formerly attending the Spring Hill, St. James,
Felton Rosenwald, White Oak, and Pine Grove Schools,
and a part of those formerly attending the Maggie Nelson
School, representing a 1951 enrollment of 573 and an aver
age daily attendance of 423, will attend the new Rogers
School at Davis Station.

When these two new Negro elementary school buildings
have been constructed and placed in operation, and it is
hoped that this can be done by the next school year, 1952-
1953, they will be at least the equal of any school buildings
in the district, and all existing school buildings having

2 1 9

less than one teacher for each grade taught will have been
abandoned.

19. The amended Building Survey recommends the con
struction of a gymnasium in connection with the Scott’s
Branch construction and remodelling, hut as indicated in
the Survey such construction can be done only when the
materials needed are released from the critical list of the
National Production Authority. The defendants are in
formed that priority for such materials cannot nowr be
obtained for gymnasium construction, but such a project
is included in the program which they have approved and
are engaged in carrying out.

20. The school trustees of School District No. 1 also in-
[fol. 446] tend when possible to carry out the recommenda
tions in the amended Building Survey that a new white
elementary school be constructed to replace the present
Summerton elementary school, which is unsafe and unfit
for school purposes, and that the Summerton White High
School be reconditioned. They have had to defer these
matters, however, because the earlier construction of the
Negro school buildings will eliminate the schools in the
district having less than one teacher for each grade taught,
which is an important requirement in the Criteria for
School District Reorganization promulgated by the State
Educational Finance Commission, as shown in paragraph
6, supra.

A statistical synopsis of the immediate and ultimate re
sults of the construction and remodelling program of School
District No. 1 is herewith filed as Appendix C of this
Report.

21. In addition to the provisions which have been made,
as above shown, for schoolhouse construction, School Dis
trict No. 1 has already equalized all teachers’ salaries in
the district by local supplements, has equalized all curricula
in the White and Negro schools, and has expended school
district funds in the sum of $21,522.81 for desks, tables
and other equipment in the Negro schools and for improve
ments in existing Negro school buildings pending occupancy
of those which are being and will be constructed. The result
of such expenditures in the Scott’s Branch School was
noted in “ The Eagle,’ ’ the Scott’s Branch School paper,
a copy of which is herewith filed as Appendix D of this

220

Report, attention being particularly called to pages num
bered 2 and 5 thereof.

22. That by Act No. 13 of the Acts of 1951, ratifying
an Amendment to Article X, Section 5 of the Constitution
of South Carolina, the school districts of Clarendon County
are permitted to incur bonded indebtedness to an amount
not exceeding 30 per cent, of the assessed value of all
taxable property therein, without regard to the amount
of bonded indebtedness now outstanding or hereafter cre
ated by any municipal corporation or political subdivision
located wholly or partly within any of said school districts,
as a result whereof School District No. 1 will have the ti
ff ol. 447] nancial resources as shown in the amended Build
ing Survey, to carry its recommendations out, and the
defendants intend to ask the General Assembly at the 1952
Session to enact legislation under said Amendment to au
thorize the district to borrow the funds on its own bonds
needed to do so.

23. The defendants respectfully show unto the Court
that, under the circumstances prevailing in the period since
the Court’s decree, they have made every effort to improve
the educational facilities, equipment, curricula and oppor
tunities afforded Negro pupils in School District No. 1
of Clarendon County, including the plaintiffs and the other
Negro pupils attending the schools of former School Dis
trict No. 22; that they have approved and adopted a plan
and program which they are carrying out as expeditiously
as possible to provide equal educational facilities, equip
ment, curricula and opportunities to the White and Negro
school children of said District alike; that the consolidation
of former School District No. 22 into new School District
No. 1 was necessary to enable the district to qualify for
and obtain the funds wherewith to carry out their program
and accomplish said purposes; that they intend to continue
to carry out the plan and program to a conclusion without
any delay within their power to control; that they verily
believe that, the expeditious completion of such a plan and
program will afford the equality directed to be furnished
by them in the decree of June 21, 1951; and that they stand
ready to file additional reports in the Court from time to
time as the Court may direct showing the progress of their
efforts in carrying out the said decree.

221

Wherefore, the defendants pray that the Court do re
ceive this Report, and do make such further order as it may
deem proper for the filing of an additional Report or
Reports by them.

(S.) S. E. Rogers, Summerton, S. C .; (S.) Robert
McC. Figg, Jr., Charleston, S. C., Attorneys for
Defendants.

[fols. 448-449] Duly sworn to by R. M. Elliott; jurat
omitted in printing.

222

(Here follow, 3 pliotolithograplis, folios 450, 451, 452)

THE NEWS AND COURIER, CHARLESTON, S. C„ SUNDAY MORNING, OCTOBER 7. 1951

450

o-
~x

y
£ APPENDIX A ^

f - * ----------1"-~

ROPO 5 ED ADDiTIO IO THE 5 C O I I 5 R A N C H SCHOOL
U AA A/\ £ K T O H, 5 . C .

A A A f 5 { DuRANT A s A H. 5. JA AA E 5 A I A A 5 0 C . - A^CUITECTS
9 0 T l S. C. .

P9 a 5M » rs

?****»5*H=3»*:r

C L AvS 5 R o o (v(

(trrT^--«asa« 4 ,~-JL

C L A 5 S K.o QM c las5 ro

Jl__

0
Ij

! &

! t o
! t / )

1 - 1

L ° ;

------------ -~ = a jJ..............JlTf
•» 1 - !

“ T T T 1* T -j

• s M
L i .1

5 i
5 U

II_____ L J~..... =====31 r

ll C^ “ 5 ROCM I CLASS R.o

-JL

° M jl CLASS.

T"-prn.r^
I i h i ii
*4— ona._

j u> 11 -> !
1 - O ;

1----- ■------ L ‘n‘1.
t. |!

V: PLOOM
4 ■ = ,

U CL. j 1!R— CAT-—L

J^Esajrr=3

E L E M E N T A R Y W I N G

jt- li J tjJ'L-.
w Vc; "■ •■: 'S 7 v >f

..V-.- -̂--XL.

CLASS ROOM

c « o o i »

THE 5 C O T T S 5 k A N C H S C H O O L
OC, - AkCPlTECT 5

U \ ^ 8 Xl~ :

n n ij
S E j t ^ L- J

rHF il
IP
tL
U*
?03

<PJU
G Y M N A S I U M

‘ 1

1 1 1 « i
i

1 > t1
j

1 i
i

! ! -
1
t

**-fkrq i i i
c - 3 - -------------- 1 il p r p - r -----b---- 1

i f !i J => H ■
t

— 1 ig _ J J = ± r —A r - ' -zr--=r- ^ 4 .

■1

J
451

A
/

9 0 0 f i(ViV^V;

452

223

[fol. 453] A ppendix B

SUMMERTON BUILDING SURVEY, DECEMBER, 1951

[fol. 454] State of South Carolina

State E ducational F inance Commission

Columbia, S. C.

December 17, 1951
Summerton School Board
Summerton
South Carolina

Gentlemen:
We are herewith transmitting our revised survey of the

Summerton Area schools. We are grateful to Mr. H. B.
Betchman for assistance in this work and to other officials
of the school.

We urge that this survey be restudied as frequently as
necessary to determine the wisdom of expenditures for
buildings and operation of the schools. We cannot urge
you enough to restudy this situation almost without ceasing.

Personnel of the State Educational Finance Commission
is ready to offer any assistance in restudies that you find
it necessary to make.

Very sincerely yours,
W. B. Southerlin, Supervisor, Schoolhouse Planning.

W BS/cf

[fol. 455] Bevised Building Survey Report with Recom
mendations

Immediately following the division of Clarendon County
into three districts, the Summerton School District #1
School Board, through its administrative superintendent,
requested that the State Educational Finance Commission
assist in making a careful survey of the school plants in
the area comprising 23 elementary schools and one high
school for the Negro children, and one elementary and one
high school for the white children. The plants were studied

224

very carefully with the assistance of Mr. H. B. Betchman
and a report in detail was written and presented on July 14,
1951.

Since the report was made a petition was circulated by
the citizens of an area in the northwest section of the
district setting forth a request that they be transferred to
the Pinewood Area in Sumter County. This petition was
granted by the Clarendon County Board of Education on
October 15, 1951 and certified on October 19, 1951. This
action necessitates a restudy of the Summer ton School
District and a revised report is herewith being written.

Following are the schools petitioned to Pinewood Area
for the Negro children:

Schools Petitioned to Pinewood
Name of School
Spring Grove
Wells
New Hope
Calvary

Total

Enrollment 1951
173
89

124
65

451

[fob 456] No effort was made to determine the number of
white children affected in this move to Pinewood. How
ever, the number of white children is so small that it would
have no appreciable consequence to any area.

The schools for the Negro children who were left in the
greatly reduced attendance area are, as originally planned:

Schools Retained in Summerton Area
Name of School

Panola
Rockland
Silver
St. John

Total

Enrollment 1951
118
31

110
33

292

The transfer of retained pupils to Scott’s Branch and
St. Paul would, in our opinion, be wise since the average

daily attendance is not large enough to meet minimum re
quirements for a grade per teacher. This would necessi
tate the adding of three additional rooms on each of the
elementary school plants at Scott’s Branch and St. Paul.

These pupils can be located in these attendance areas
since the greatest number in an original area has been
transferred to Sumter County. This move necessitates
making changes in the total plan as outlined in the July
report. It might be well to constantly study the entire dis
trict and be ready to make any changes in the total plan
that will be of benefit to the children. It appears that en
rollment has not been accurately reported in the past and
it is possible that space recommended in July, or even
in this report, would need to be changed because of change
in enrollment. Mr. H. B. Betchman reports that enroll-
[fol. 457] ment is down considerably so far this year. This
is a problem that would indicate that the plans should be
restudied and adjusted in accordance with needs often.

In order that one may have a, guide in determining space
needs, it is suggested in the next paragraph that areas be
computed on a basis which can be clearly understood and
can be used as a guide for future needs or adjustments in
overall building plans.

Generally, one may set up minimum needs in a classroom
as 660 square feet for the classroom proper, 135 square feet
for corridor space, 30 square feet for storage space, and
50 square feet for toilet space. This means that each class
room must be computed on the basis of 875 square feet of
floor space.

For a cafeteria one may set up a minimum of 10 square
feet for each child to be served in the dining area at one
time, and not less than 300 square feet should be provided
for the kitchen. Usually this is figured at the rate of IV2
square feet per meal served just so long- as the space does
not fall below 300 square feet. Storage space varies but,
as a rule, one should allow one-half square foot per meal
served for storage.

The size of the site for elementary schools should be
five acres plus one acre for each 100 pupils of ultimate
enrollment. This is a minimum size and is not to be con
sidered as ideal by any means. The location and size of

15—101

226

the sites are suggested under each area listed in the re
mainder of the report.

St. Paul Area
An attendance area for an elementary school should be

in the St. Paul Area. It is strongly urged that a new site
be secured for this plant. The present buildings at St.
[fol. 458] Paul appear, on the exterior, to be in good con
dition but this is a false impression. The building's will re
quire extensive work to modernize and to make them mod
erately comfortable. The new site should contain at least
10 or 12 acres that is well drained. The following schools
should be consolidated into this center:

Name of School Enrollment 1951
St. Paul 265
Panola 118
St. Phillips 169
Rockland 31
Oaks 26
Butler 55
Santee 20
Liberty Hill 105
Maggie Nelson (part) 60

Total 849

The number of pupils in this school will require 21 class
rooms and a cafeteria. Twenty-one classrooms on the
basis explained earlier in this report will make a total of
18,375 square feet and a principal’s office of 220 square feet.

Experience indicates that a school cafeteria that will
seat over 225 pupils at one time for feeding purposes is
not using economy. A pupil who is served first will finish
his meal and leave his space vacant for the child being
served some 10 minutes later. Children can hardly be
served in one line over 12 per minute so it is clear to see
that to provide space larger than to seat 200 is not wise,
[fol. 459] Hence we are suggesting that the cafeteria din
ing area contain only 2,000 square feet. Kitchen area
should contain, for this area, about 617 square feet and a

227'

storage area of about 200 square feet. For this complete
building a total of 21,192 square feet is needed. This does
not include cost of site, furniture, and instructional aids.
At seven dollars per square foot this plant would cost
$148,344.00.

Recommendations for St. Paul Area
1. A site of at least 10 acres of well drained land.
2. Twenty-one classrooms. Suitable office space and

some storage space.
3. Cafeteria to seat 200.
4. Plans so made that additions can be made economic

ally and quickly.
5. Construction cost must be held low.
6. Furniture cost should not exceed $600.00i per room.
7. Cost of cafeteria equipment must be held at a minimum.

Rogers Area
The Rogers Center for elementary children seems logical

to locate about two miles north of Rogers on State .High
way #64. It is recommended that this site contain at least
10' acres of land. The pupils in this area may not have
to travel over eight miles by bus to reach this school center.
The schools that make up this center are:

Name of School Enrollment 1951
Maggie Nelson (part) 123
[fol. 460] Spring Hill 64
St. James 90
Felton Rosenwald 146
White Oak 32
Pine Grove 118

Total 573

This center will require 15 classrooms making a floor area
of 13,125 square feet with a cafeteria of 2,760 square feet.
The principal’s office should not exceed 220 square feet.
The total space necessary would be 16,875 square feet and
at seven dollars per square foot would cost $112,735.00.

228

The cost does not include land, furniture, or instructional-
aids.

Recommendations for Rogers Area
1. A site of 10 acres well drained should be secured.
2. Fifteen classrooms, a principal’s office of not over

220 square feet, some storage space.
3. That a cafeteria be provided to seat not over 200.
4. Construction cost must be held low.
5. That plans be so made that additions can readily be

made economically.
6. Furniture cost should not exceed $600.00 per room.
7. Cost of cafeteria equipment must be held at a minimum.

Scott’s Branch Area
In the Scott’s Branch Area the 10 room frame structure

of the Scott’s Branch School is good and can be made
into an excellent structure by insulating the ceiling, reced
ing the interior, reflooring, replacing bad windows, rewir-
[fol. 461] ing and installing concentric ring lighting, in
stalling good chalkboards, installing central heat, and in
stalling necessary sanitary facilities. We would suggest
that this structure have underpinning to add to the beauty
of the exterior. Underpinning will also add comfort to the
floor area. The following schools should be consolidated
into the Summerton Area :

Name of School Enrollment 1951
Rambay 66
Silver HO
Oak Grove 114
St. John 33
Zoar Hill 81
Scott’s Branch 545

Total 949

According to the average attendance, it will be necessary
to construct eight additional rooms adjacent to the pres
ent plant to house the elementary children at this center.

229

Using the same cost basis this report has used on other
centers it seems clear that these additional rooms will cost
$49,000.00. To modernize and repair the present plant will
cost nearly $25,000.00. The addition of three rooms over
the July plan will cost $18,375.00. A total of $92,375.00 will
be required for the elementary school.

Recommendations for Scott’s Branch Area
1. Modernize the present plant by carrying out recom

mendations above.
2. Add eleven classrooms with health and safety features

as needed. Suitable office space must be provided.
[fol. 462] 3. Add sufficient health and safety features to
the modernized structure to meet requirements of health.

4. That plans be so made that additions to the elementary
plant can be economically done.

5. That plans be so made that additions can readily be
made economically.

6. Furniture cost should not exceed $600.00 per room.
7. Cost of cafeteria equipment must be held at a mini

mum.

Scott’s Branch High School
The high school can economically be located on the same

campus as the Scott’s Branch Elementary School. In the
survey report in July it was recommended that additional
land be secured adjacent to the present site to make the
total site contain 23 acres of land. Verbally, it wTas urged
that this be done at once before the survey report became
public property and the land owners might demand more
than the land was worth. It was pointed out that to locate
here would be a great advantage because of city water
and sewage disposal that could be made available with the
cooperation of the city. Septic tank and drain tile for such
a large enrollment would be very expensive.

The high school had an enrollment of 149 and an average
attendance of 123 last year. The monthly report for No
vember, 1951, indicated an enrollment of 197. It was sug
gested in the July report that space might wisely be pro
vided for 250 pupils at this time and, to date, evidence con

230

firms the advice. The contract has been let for adding the
space, not only for the elementary school, but for complete
renovation of the present elementary plant and erection
of the high school as well.
[fol. 463] In the earlier report it was strongly urged that
the Division of Instruction, State Department of Educa
tion, be consulted in outlining space necessary for the high
school program. The high school and the elementary build
ing is already under construction and it seems evident
that an excellent plant will be ready September, 1952, bar
ring unfor-seen work stoppage or disasters.

In the earlier report it was strongly1 urged that building
plans be so made that additions could be made readily and
economically as needed. It is gratifying to noter that suit
able office, storage, and special classroom were provided in
the plans now being used to construct the Scott’s Branch
flight School.

In the July report it was pointed' out that a gymnasium
of standard size should be constructed as soon as steel is
available for such construction. It was estimated that such
a gymnasium should contain a floor space of 65 feet by
104 feet, or approximately 6,760 square feet. Such a struc
ture should be constructed for not over $100,000.00 Some
excellent gymnasiums have been constructed over the State
for approximately $85,000.00 and it seems reasonable to
assume that such can still be done with carefully planned
materials for construction, and at such time as these ma
terials are released from the critical list of the N.P.A.
Shower facilities should be provided in order to permit
a physical education program.

In July it was stated that provisions should be made for
10 classrooms, two all purpose home economics rooms,
library, health suite, adequate storage space, gymnasium,
and agriculture shop which it was believed would be ade
quate. It is entirely possible that the administrative super
intendent of the school system might have been advised
[fol. 464] to change this recommendation after following
the earlier suggestion to consult the Division of Instruc
tion of the State Department of Education. The total area
of these spaces should be nearly 17,270 square feet without
the gymnasium.

2 3 1

The cost of space without gymnasium was estimated in
July to be reasonable at $120,890.00. If the gymnasium
should be included then the total cost of the high school
was placed at $220,890.00.

Eecommendations for Scott’s Branch High School
1. That acreage be added to present school site so as to

total approximately 23 acres. This is the minimum rec
ommended for the size elementary and high school com
bined that will exist in Summerton.

2. That at least 10 classrooms, two all purpose home
economics rooms, library, health suite, adequate storage
space, agriculture shop, and gymnasiums be provided. The
gymnasium to be constructed when National Production Au
thority permits.

3. That a cafeteria be constructed to serve both the ele
mentary and the high school pupils.

4. That plans be made so additions can readily and
economically be made.

5. That construction cost be held low.
6. Furniture cost should not exceed $600.00 per room.
7. Cost of cafeteria equipment must be held at a mini

mum.
Summerton Elementary and High Schools
The present elementary school for white children is un

safe and unfit for school children and just as soon as pos
sible provisions should be made to replace this structure,
[fol. 465] In the July report it was strongly recommended
that this plant, as it now stands, be razed and replaced
by a modern one story plant.

Since the enrollment of the elementary school is 232 it
will warrant the provision of only seven classrooms. It
is suggested that a new structure be provided on the
present high school site next to the present gymnasium.
Enough land to make the site adequate for minimum size
is not available at this time so it is recommended that
minimum requirements as to size of site be suspended until
such time as the property is available at a reasonable price.

Seven classrooms for the elementary school will neces
sitate approximately 6,135 square feet of floor area which,

232

at seven dollars per square foot, will cost about $42,945.00.
A cafeteria to serve both elementary and high school

should be large enough to seat 150 pupils at one time. This
will require approximately 2,100 square feet for dining
area and kitchen and at seven dollars will cost about $14,-
700.00.

The present high school building should be modernized
by painting, rewiring, installing concentric ring lighting
fixtures, replacing decayed window frames and other ex
posed wood. Several other needs are necessary in the
present building but it is thought all of this work might
be done for about $8,000.00., In addition, the high school
shop needs renovating and it is possible this will cost an
additional $8,000.00.

For the Summerton Elementary and High Schools, it
will be necessary to spend not less than a total of $73,000.00.
This does not include cost of razing the old two story
elementary building now in use.

[fol. 466] Summary of Work to be Hone

The total cost of work estimated to be done is as follows:
St. Paul Elementary .............................$148,344.00
Rogers Elementary .............................. 112,735.00
Scott’s Branch Elementary ................. 92,375.00
Scott’s Branch High (including gym ). . 220,890.00
Summerton White Elementary.... 57,645.00
Summerton White High ...................... 16,000.00

647,989.00
Architectural fee (estimate)................. 38,873.94

$686,862.94

Contract has been let for the Scott’s Branch work for
everything except the gymnasium. Since the change in
area of district by petition, it was necessary to recommend
in this report an addition of three classrooms to the Scott’s
Branch Elementary School. The contract for Scott’s
Branch, plus fees, will be about $276,978.00 without the gym
nasium and the three additional rooms that must be added
to care for pupils transferred in' the recent shake-up.

233

In other words, the cost of work to be done with the con
tract as it now stands will amount to the following:

St. P a u l................................ $148,344.00
Rogers ................................. 112,735.00
Summerton White Elemen-

ta ry ................................... 57,645.00
Summerton White High. . . 16,000.00
Scott ’s Branch (3 additional

rooms) .............................. 18,375.00
Scott’s Branch Elementary ]
Scott ’s Branch High (less )• 274,050.00 (Fees included

gym) ................................I for contract)
Scott’s Branch gym (with

arch, fee) ........................ 106,000.00
Fees (approximately)......... 19,123.44

$752,272.44

Income on average daily attendance according to last year
would amount to $32,310.00. An advance of $484,650.00 on
average daily attendance for a 20 year period is available.
This gives a net total of $516,960.00 to apply on school
plants.
[fol. 467] The total cost of projects as planned would be
$752,272.44, With $516,960.00 contributed by the State, a
balance of $235,312.44 would need to be secured from local
program of taxation.

Mr. H. B. Betchman reported by telephone on December
7, 1951 that the valuation of the property within the district,
since the annexation of an area to Sumter County, was now
$807,320.00. It is understood that the Clarendon County
may now bond itself for school purposes up to 30 per cent
of valuation. At 30 per cent $242,196.00 can be raised.
Bonds outstanding, according to Mr. Betchman, are for an
amount of $14,925.58. A net amount of $227,270.42 would
be provided with such a bond issue and this will almost care
for the complete program as recommended for all the
children. The district should have enough property to be
sold that is not useable for schools to cover the difference
when thp smaller schools are vacated.

It is strongly recommended that the utmost care be

234

exercised in the building* program. It cannot be too
strongly urged that the building cost be held at such a
level as will not make maintenance cost too great in the
years ahead. Utmost care must be exercised to prevent
overbuilding and using too expensive materials.

It is recommended that a complete spot map be made of
every child within the district, one for elementary, and one
for high school children. This should be done for both
races. In addition, it is strongly recommended that a pre
school census be taken getting the name of the child, age,
name of parent and race so that this can be used in planning
for needs far enough ahead that rooms need not be over
crowded at any time.

[Here follows 1 photo, folio 468]

GENERAL HIGHWAY
AND

TRANSPORTATION MAP

CLARENDON COUNTY
SOUTH CARO LINA

PREPAR ED BY TH E

SOUTH C A R O LIN A S T A T E HIGHW AY D E P A R T M E N T
!N C O O P E R A T IO N W ITH TH E

U.S. DEPARTM EN T OF A G R IC U LTU R E
BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS

DATA O B T A IN E D PROM

S T A T E -W ID E HIGHW AY PLA N N IN G SU RVEY

S C A L E O F M ILES

-...-..1
1937

POLYCOM! C PROJECTIONS
COUNTY POPULATION 1940 CENSUS 3/.SOO
COUNTY AREA IN SQUARE MILES 6*0

GENERAL HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION MAP CLARENDON COUNTY SOUTH CAROLINA >4

468

235

[fol, 469] A ppendix C

Existing Negro Elementary Schools of School District No. 1
Being Consolidated By Remodelling and Construction
Program.

Name of School Enrollment 1951 A.D.A. 1951
St. Paul 265 211
Panola 118 87
St. Phillip’s 169 121
Rockland 31 19
Oaks 26 22
Butler 55 33
Santee 20 17
Liberty Hill* 105 89
Maggie Nelson 183 124
Spring Hill 64 48
St. James 90 62
Felton Rosenwald 146 113
White Oak 32 29
Pine Grove 118 87
Rambay* 66 44
Silver 110 79
Oak Grove 114 . 72
St. John 33 19
Zoar Hill 81 66
Scott’s Branch* 545 336
Scott’s Branch High School* 197 158

Totals 2,568 1,836

*These are the schools of former School District No. 22.
Practically all. Negro high school pupils of the 7 districts
consolidated into School District No. 1 attended the Scott’s
Branch School, 9-12 grades, when it was a school of former
School District No. 22.

236

[fol. 470] II

Distribution of Negro Pupils in School District No. 1 after
Completion of Remodelling and Construction Program

Enrollment A. D. A.
Name of School 1951 1951

St. Paul Elementary * 849 639
Rogers Elementary 573 423
Scott’s Branch Elementary ** 949 616
Scott’s Branch High School 197 158

Totals 2,568 1,836

* Includes Liberty Hill School from former School Dis-
trict No. 22.

*'* Includes Rarnbay School and Scott’s Branch, ele-
mentary pupils from former School District No. 22.

I l l

White Schools of School District No. 1 Affected by Remod-
elling and Construction Program

Enrollment A. D. A.
Name of School 1951 1951

Summerton Elementary * 236 232
Summerton High School * 62 58

Totals 298 290

* All White pupils of the 7 districts consolidated into
School District No. 1 attended the Summerton Elementary
School when it was a school of former School District No.
22, and all White high school pupils of such 7 districts at
tended the Summerton High School when it was a central
ized high school.

237

Estimated Cost of Immediate Negro School Remodelling
and Construction, Including Land Site Cost and Archi
tect’s Fees.

St. Paul’s Elementary
Rogers Elementary
Scott’s Branch Elementary, Scott’s Branch

High

[fol. 471] IV

Total* **

Representing an expenditure per Negro pupil
on the basis of 1951 average daily attendance.

* Actual contract price and architect’s fees.
** Gymnasium (when materials situation permits con

struction) and three additional rooms for Scott’s Branch
Elementary School (if needed) will increase this total esti
mate to $677,976.70, representing an expenditure per
Negro pupil of $369.27 on 1951 average daily attendance.

Estimated Cost of White School Remodelling and Construc
tion Planned Under Program, Including Architect’s
Fees.

Summerton Elementary 60,527.20
Summerton High 16,800.00

77,327.20

Representing an expenditure per White Pupil of $266.65
on the basis of 1951 average daily attendance.

158,761.20
119,871.75

274,050.00

552,682.95

of $301.02

* This work is in deferred status until all negro schools
having less than 1 teacher for each grade taught have been
eliminated, and until funds are available from local school
district borrowing.

238

APPENDIX b

233

soor's mmm ssmm, m

240

m iTm ni stm

Editcr-in C h ie f,.. .

Aseoeiat# E d ito r ,,,

Business Maaager,, .

Cireuiatlag M iter ,

Advertising Manager

Sports E d ito r ,,. . . .

Cartoonist,

t r im * ®, Mssgweesl

, , .B eatrice B?ow»

. tu r t le Hishtrafg

. . . . Louie O liver

. . . . . . . Vera Bras®

, . . . , Jota Cayses

. . Robert Mivene

Advising ComaiHeei Mrs. B. B, Welle
Miss T. L. Great
, Kira. R. Carter
Mrs. A, 5. Ra«ia

PUBLISHED MONTHIX BX THt, STUDiaJT BODY OP SCOW'S
btuuiCH HIGH SCHOOL, SUhwiatTuti, SOUTH CottOXIM.

EDITORIALS

A MESSAGE FROM THE EDITOR

"THE WAR IN KOREA"
Korea is a place that was unknown to us a
short while back, but new, it is the most
talked about country on the map- Why? Be
cause we have a war going on over there,
and our boys are lighting. When I say
"Our £ oys" I mean the.sons and husbands
of America. It looks now as if there w ill
bs a third world war, which means more of
our boys w ill be killed or wounded. That
mean more of my friends, your friends and
even I w ill be going into the Armed Servi-

g-te ourselves, such as (1) Do 1 have the
qualifications for the profession or vo-
c, .tier. of ray choice? Will 1 have the
ckrnce to acquire a good position? Am I
sure about what I w-nt to do? Does this
job express a promising future? To stop
and think, makes things very vague, but
only you can answer those questions,
lit?, a review of your high school academ
ic and vocational activities, the answers
to these questions w ill gradually become
explicit,

In most high schools, elective and select
ees, which w ill bring sorrow to our motherstive subjects, are offered. These serve
fathers, and loved ones. But that is a the purpose of developing and cultivating
"must" and its got to be done, now or nev- the individual's abilities. With this
er. training, it makes one somewhat sure of

his capabilities. If ono is sure of what
he or she wants, to do, it gives him a
peace of mind.

The only information most of us get about
the situation is by reading newspaper, ma
gazines, and sometimes seeing newsreels in
the theater. If we understand, and think
seriously about what we read and see, we
should realize how tough things are over
there.

entering a profession for future secu
rity depends on more than the person's
ability, it also depends upon his atti
tude. toward his work. 'When a person like
the job he has, he does better work, and
he puts his whole interest in that job.
This makes for greater success.

Some of us know what it means to recieve a
better or telegram stating that your son
or husband has been killed or is missing
in action, let, some of us do not realize After graduation, we w ill be confronted
the sorrow it has brought and w ill bring with these problems, and we shall find
to our mothers, fathers, and loved ones. that it is best to face them with our
I'm praying, hoping, and longing for the heads up. "Shrinking from life , is no
end of this terrible "Death Trap" called shelter!! It is best to face these matters
war. May God be with our sons and husbandswith confidence, because with work, and
and bring them back to America, safe, and faith, security and happiness are the next
sane. steps.

"God Bless America".

Willie E. Magwood (Junior),
Editor-In-Chief

AFTER GttADUATION
Facing the future on your own,is serious
an., urffieult. The most important u».__
o f a person's life , is when he cr she :
mates the final step across the wall of
paternal or maternal protection. Gradu
ation day is the outlet for some of us,
while others may s t ill be dependent.

When an individual graduates from high
school, there are many obstactles to cope
with. Some so unusual, that we interro-

Vera Brown,
Advertising Manager

HEW TEADHIRS ADDED TO OUR STAFF
TWO more teachers have been added to our
teaching staff this term, namely Mrs. B.
V , Hells and. Miss T. L. Grant. So far we've
gotten along well in our school work,

Mrs* B.S . fells h®s the music classes,
with which she is doing a very commendable
job. Miss T.L. Gra nt is the commercial
instructor, A subject that is very use
ful and interesting. They are doing a
good job of developing the students.

474

2.
NKIf COURSES ADDED TO OUR CURHXCUHM

MUSIC APPRECIATION

T here are 15 members of the 12th grade
taking Music Appreciation, VJe are jerk
ing very hard with our advisor (Mrs.B,".
Vel̂ s) in order that we may appreciate
a ll types of music, now, and in later
years.

,'e have studied already the string choir,
and the woodwind choir of the orchestra.

THE THTHG CLASSES

For the first time, a course in typing
is offered in the Scott’ s Branch School;
for the term 1951-52.

Wo find the course very interesting, and
I think we are making rapid progress.
Miss Grant, our instructor, started us
of by teaching us the parts of the type
writer, After she familiarized us with

Surprisingly enough, we discovered that the the parts, she then took us step by step
members of the string choir are; the violin,into the fundamentals of typing,
the viola, the cello, and the double bass,
They represent the Soprano, alto, tenor,
and bass respectively.

And then to learn that the wood wind choir
was the most fasoinating part of the orche
stra, was really amaz ing. It ’ s members ____
are the flute, (the Colortura soprano), the are making progross,
oboe, (the lyric Soprano), the Clarinet
(the dramatio Soprano) and the bassoon (the We wish to thank the superintendent,

To begin with it was like a first gra
der getting used to his hook and pencil,
but our instructor was patient and made
us feel confident that we were making
progress. Most of us can go along with
the assignments which is proof that we

bass),

It isn’ t strange any more to know that the
flute is related to the picoalo, the oboe
to the Snglish horn, the Clarinet to the
Bass Clarinet, and the Saxaphone, and the
Bassoon to the Double Bassoon, Our interest
is now turned toward the Bass choir

principal, and a ll others who made it
possible for this course to be added to
our curriculum.

I hope the classes that follow us w ill
appreciate this offer as much as wo.

This is our first year of Music Appreciation
and I do think our advisor can see us
steadily improving.

All of us like music, and naturally we are
trying to make excellent grades, with the
help of our advisor.

Remember readers, we appreciate music by
listening to music, more often,

Elizabeth Guess

STillene Ragin
Twelfth Grade

475

ALl'in MATLR

Scott's Branch H iji School
(tune: " Auld Lang Syne")

1. Dear S. B. S. we pledge ourselves
To thy precepts and thy aim s.
We love thy Glorious guiding
light, and pledge anew our Love.

rtefrain: For S. B. S. we ^ve our
a ll, for S. B. S. we stand.
We'11 always hold our honor high,
For dear ole S. B. S.

2. 'We’l l fight for thee we'er we go
Thou glories ne'er forget
We'll keê thy standards flying high,
In a ll we do or say.

3. Thy flag of truth amd honesty
We'll wave o'er a ll the land
Tell a ll thy sons and dau^ters know
Thy precepts strong and true.

October 11, 1945
Summerton, South Carolina

S P 0 8 I S

PALMETTO ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION
The f i r s t m eeting fo r the P alm etto Ath
l e t i c A s s o c ia t io n " a s h e ld on F riday Hoy.
16 , 1951. Our coach Mr, J .B . Mays, ta lk
ed about many th in g s . To m ention a few !
(1 ) D on 't s ta y oa t la t e a t n ig h t; he horns
by 9530. £2) D on 't smoke when ex p ectin g
to p la y a game. (3 ) Beware o f your Eng
l i s h , I f y ou are caught on ce, remember
you have o n ly two more t im es. I f again ,
y o u ' l l take a l i t t l e v a c a t io n , and p ro
ba b ly y o u ’ l l .hang up your s u it f o r the
y e a r . So, boys and g i r l s check up on
your s e l f .

BASKETBALL SCHEDULE
1951 - 52

Homs games

St. Paul... .................... .Bee, ^
Berkley.................... .Dec, 1^
Greeleyville.................. .Jan, ,11
Ellorae........ .......... Jan. 16
St. Stephen,,.........Feb. I
St. George,...... ............ .Feb. 6
Manning.. .Feb, 1a

(All home games w ill begin at Ji JO)
The main p o in t o f t h is m eeting was to
e l e c t o f f i c e r s . They a re :

P r e s id e n t . . ....................... R obert Gaymon
V ice p r e s id e n t ..............V i l l i e Magwood
S ecre ta ry ..................... .Nancy Johnson
A ss is ta n t s e c r e t a r y . , .M yrtle R ichburg
T rea su rer ............................Dorothy O liver
B usiness Manager............W il l ie Boyd
H e lp e r s . .............................. John Gaymon

................................ R oosev e lt P o s t e l l

Games Away

Elloree,............ .Sec. 17
St. Paul,......... .Dee. 20*
Greelyville .............................Jan, 18*
St, G e o r g e . J a n . 25
Berkley............... Jan. 30
Manning...........................Feb, 8
St. Stephen.. . . . . . . . . . . . .Feb. 13

• Games w i l l be p layed a t n ig h t.
Nancy M. Johnson

477

245

MARVELOUS IMPROVEMENTS ARE STILL
BEING MADE AT SCOTT’S BRANCH

Rsmsmbor lust term we told you through our
school paper about improvements at our
school? W ill, m nor a met with far great
er improvements this school year. Mr.
Batchman and other school officials saw to
it that each class room was equipped with
new, modem desks a Sufficient number for
each room. Every child in tho school is
comfortably seated.

The first and second grades have the lat
est in seating for those grades. They havi
tables to seat six with corresponding chaii
In front of each child is a drawer for
his books. The chairs and tables vary in
heights, because some of the children are
taller than others. The third through the
twelfth grades have tho same type of desks
but different in sizes.

The faculty members are the same as last
term with two others added. They are
Miss Thelma dr ant who has charge of the
typing classes and Mrs. Bessie Wells,
-who teaches music. These two bring the
faculty number to sixteen, including the
principal, Mr. E,L. Wright, who is in
his second year at Scott's Branch.

Summing up a ll this, there is a sure
sign that Scott's Branch is soon to be

ione of the largest Rural schools in this
'section of the state.

We feel that the patrons of the community
appreciate these improvements, and we
know their children do,

(Mrs.} Amy Ragin, Reporting

The Home BeomomiCB room is also modemly
equipped. In it has been placed an elec
tric range, a refrigerator, four now Silv
er sawing machines with seai to accompany,
tables, and a number of other* items neces
sary for that department.

Walk into the Scott’ s Branch library room
you find new, modem library tables with
sturdy,Will-built matching chairs. There
are also magazine racks on which are k£pt
the latest editions of some of the leading
magazines, A new set of Britaimica ency
clopedias has been added to the shelves
and a large number of novels for the high
school students use in outside reading,

For the first time, typing has been added
to the curriculum at Scott’s Branch, This
course- is under the direction of Miss Grant
a graduate of Allen University, Columbia,
In her classroom has been placed fifteen
typewriters on typing tables, Cash with1®
drawer for the pupils to keep their mate
rials, The students in this class are do
ing nicely.

Along with a ll these improvements, the ex
cavation has begun for a new school build
ing of modern design w ill consist of eigh
teen or more class rooms. The estimated
261 thousand dollar structure is to be the
"1;■ st ’word" in modernity, ThankB to the
superintendent for his untiring efforts to
get the construction of the building under
way.

THE VALUE OF A HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION

Have you ever heard of a college grad
uate today who hasn't had a high school
education? A high school education is
the foundation for our future profession.
No matter what profession you choose,
you w ill find that your high school ed
ucation is your first requirement.
And as high school students, we should
put every minute of our time in some
thing worthwhile. If we should study
more, and stop playing around, we would
benefit ourselves more. If we could only
talk with some of our great Negro leaders
today, I believe they would tell us that
a high school education is the foundation
far anyone sucess.

So let us use our time wisely because
today time is valuable and the world is
calling for men and wom en who are sk ill
ed in their chosen professions. Fellow
students let's get down to business.

Set's get our foundation while we are
here in high school, so that when we get-
out in the world we won't have to work
for little of nothing. With determin
ation and faith, we w ill be able to ac
complish our aims.

Joe Dallas Jr.
Senior

478

Cl a s s m s

246

First Grade A

First G rads A has a n e n r o l l m e n t o f 7$
pupils. « ith e very large attendance.
as a whole wo are doing nicely.

We had stories and songs for Thanks
giving whi oh the children enjoyed.

During our activity period the children
like to draw, sing, and te ll stories.
The class is divided into three groups.
Reporter——*'— ..illie ^ . o r i 0 g s
Teacher —— — t>. 1. iilson

" .-a j .' B

„'e the loemoers of IB are very proud
to be in school, now that we have
gotten started we like school v,ry
much and are striving very hard to
get our lessons. ..e have 76 students
registered, with and enrollment of 65.

The firso group of the cl.ss has fin
ished ooow 1 and doing nicely with
the second book,
among our activities we line drawing
th® best. For Thanksgiving, we drew
many pictures, with the hel̂ of our
teachers.

ihe class has been organised.with
Henry /̂ olomau ’as A resident and Lurunt
ttiChardson -.s je^orter.

Reporter*— - ”— Durant Richardson
Instructor ®— Nancy U. June

S C ® GHAD3
The second grade is progrossing slowly,
tat steadily.
James ‘..'ashingtoa is president of the
cl s». They enjoy the stories, and
music that is produced on our record
player. It is a port of our Friday* s
entorteinment.
Our honor student for the second six
we ks are
James ’..'aSMagtoa, Julia Hampton,
Jttineta Richardson, and Botty J .
Bitherspooa.,
Julia Hampton, Sac. Reporting

THIRD GRADS

'.,'o are the third grade children of
Seott’ a Branch High School, wife the
enrollment o f 86.

V o o r e trying hard to show improve
ment in our studies and on our art.

Ve are beginning to make pine straw
mats, '..'a are .grouped in A, B, and
0 classes. The G class is making
improvement, and the B class is do
ing much better.
.o a r e now learning about Indians
end people in far awey countries.

Our reporters are;
Lthel ! ae Brown
Phylis Henry
liariah C^ullette
Vivian Coullett®
Instructor-!Srs. C.N. Gregory

FOTETH GR.D13

o in the Fourth Grade are glad to get
a chance to te ll you some of the things
iping on in our classroom this year.
First , we w ill te ll you that we are a
happy group of children. Happy for a
number of reasons: ’.’e like each othajj
we like our teacher, v s like our books,
and we like the various activities
carried on in our room. Reading end
writing, and trithmetie are fine, but
we like our Geography best of a ll.
','hy? Beet use we' re finding out what
children in other parts of the world
are doing. How they make a living,
viiet they eat and how they eat. Gome
of the things that wo have learned a-
bout children in other lands sound
strange, but we suppose our way of
life seems strange to them too.

Next time we’ l l te ll you the names
of those who are making high marks
in the class,
So long until then.

The Fourth Grade Class

FIFTH GIL IIS

The majority of the Fifth Grade pupils
are working, hard to become one hundred
percenters, in every respect during
this school year.

Our slogan is:
-Cooperation1,' with our teacher, class
mates, and all who are concerned about
us.

Cur Thanksgiving program was quite a
success. Everyone seemed to have en
joyed it.

Teacher —--- ——------- Mrs, II,D. Jtokos
Eeportsr ————— Gussie Mae Johnson

GDCTK GIL D'S

lie the members of the Girth Grade
are making progress in our studi .s.
In Science wc are studying climate
and woEther conditions. (In tho '..alls
of our class-room you will find
drawings of thermometers, anemomet
er, barometers, maps showing the
various clouds, also maps showing
how tho different air masses travel.
Our art work is worth inspecting.

Nov: that we are entering tho Christ
mas Season overyone1s spirit is high,
hoping to spend a happy season.

’ e hope to have a large honor roll
for this six weeks. ’lie would be hap
py to have you visit our class-room
at any time.

- Reporters:
Mamie dee Lawson
hosa Leo Jones

Teacher M.C. Ling

EIGHTH GiL.DE

Our vacation ended with the opening
of school, ,.11 hearts were not hap
py over the idea.

Upon entering, wo found the same
faces with a number of additions.

Class officers for school year’ s
51-52:

Prosident-Eubye Leo Smith
Vico Pros.-Lou Nancy Gr; ymon
Socretary-Golestine Parson
,.sst. Gee. -Bernio. Mcknight
Troasuror-Francos Owens
Xr.ias Saving Treas.-Helen Brailsford

lie are wishing each and everyone a
most successful year.

Reporters:
nnnio H. Oliver
James King

FRESHLiN OLnSS

This is our first year of high echo
ol and wo hope that it will bo a
happy and successful yoar. lie cro
-djusting oursclvos gradually to tte
new riles that govern us as high
school pupils.

i.o are studying hard to get our
lessons, and aro trying s t ill hard
er to please all of our teachers
by good conduct, and by showing
good scholastic ability.

Our officers aro tho following:
Prooidont-Llane Ra.gin
Vice Pros.-Boatrice Brown
Secrotary-Jorvine Georgia
nsst. Soc.-IIorgareo 'lashington
Treasurer-anne L. Brailsford

Reportor:Rubyo Johnson
,.dvisor:Miss G.J. Brown

SOPHOMORE IT IS
The Sophomore Class of Scott’ s
High School are indeed proud of
tho officers that wo hove elect
ed for the school year.

They aro:
Prosedont-Louis Oliver
Vice Pres.-Ida II. Lawson
nsst. Sec.-Lucilo Cinty
Troasurer-C-esie L. Gaymon
Chaplin-,.llon Brailsford
Reporter-Ilffic II. Baxter

480

248
8.

Each. of these officers are trying
to carry out thoir duty to the best
of their ability. Ve will co-oportte
with the Student Council to make our
school the bast. Because wo know
that the Student Council is the most
effective means of leadership in our
school. Tho Tenth Grade sponsor is
f’iss Ragin, She is also tho Home
Economics sponsor.

Vs tro wishing the entire student
body and faculty a prosperous ye,.r.

Reportor-Iiffio 11. Baxter

JUNIOR CLnSS K3VS

The following officers we elector!
Sept. 18, 1951-52.
President-Villie Edward Magwood
Vice Pres.-Myrtlo Riahburg
Secretary—Lillio Eva Johnson
..sst. Soc.-Mamie Lue Singlotary
Treasurer—Lulcatha Singleton
Business Manager-Daniel Charles
Helper--—Osclese Doughty
Reportor—Roosevolt Postell

'..'o the members of tho JuniorClass are
trying to raise some money to complete
tho many projects we have for the
year. One of our projects so SVy
in raising this money is selling
candy. Vo s t ill have some candy
left, and wo would like mory much
for you to help us soil our i t .

Roosevelt Postoil
(a Junior)

SENIOR CLa JSS KVV3

Ve, the Seniors of 1951 and *52,
along with our advisor, Mr.a, a.
Fuller, are striving very hard to make
our good, better and our bettor,
best. At tho beginning of school,
wo started out in a very high
school spirit in both lesson and
business and wo s t ill huvo that
spirit.

Ve elected our class officers as

following:
Prosidcnt-Villievv, Boyd
Vico Pros.-Joo Dallas
Secretary—-Dorothy M, Oliver
Asst, Soc.-Villons a,Ragin
Treasurer—Nancy Johnson
Business Manager-Vera Brown

On Vcdnesday, October Jl, 1951,
wo gave a Halloween Dance featuring
Ray Adams and his Band which was the
first end last dance given at the
school.

Now wo are working very hard on our
class song, motto and our class
play which wo have Elreudy order and
received. Ve are doing ull wo can
to make this a successful grad
uating class of 1951 and *52.

Dorothy ti, Oliver

Greetings To Everyonei
sss: ysira?r^si8§ ?8J!iBsai8f.
fort to make it so. 1 aving paid
our State dues in fu ll, and plan
to attend our district convention
and our Ptate convention, and by
a ll means attend camp next year.

,re have made progress in the past
two years, having a >’ew omeinakers
° t ”te -resident,•»*yrtle Riehburg,
who is outst'nding in a ll activ
ities It is an honor to shave
one so qualified for this positi
on 'e also have a tistrict offic
er, who is Vers Brown, also an out
standing student

The number of chapters attending
the M.K.A. and *VF.A. joint pro
gram at the Ptate Fair is defin
ed as a sign of interest in the
association,

N.H.A. Reporters
Scott’s B. School
Summerton, S.C,

The officers are: Tress.-Ida Lawson
’’’rest den t-wyr tie Riehburg Chn.-C.B.
V, ^res.--Rachel Ragin Reporter-V,R,
Secretary -Vera Brown Advisor-Miss C.Ragin

481

249

POET? S CORNER

COURTESY

Courtesy is valuable in many ways*
Almost everyone had it in the olden days

Courtesy means politeness on which we
must rely-

It brings joy to us and others as the
years go by*

Courtesy begins at home and not the
world outside

If truly courtecusat home, courtesy will
always abide*

A greeting is such a little thing,
say the following will always clings

Ŝay goodbye* or ®how» do- you- dof
What* s the difference between the two?
All doors are open to courtesy
So why not learn it now
If you don’t you’l l soon be sorry?
Try to learn it possibly somehow
There is always t me for‘courtesy*
Even though life is short.
If you don’t 1

you,
Take it light Iff- be a\good sport.

X must is havkng manners
in public places;

please don’t t y to tun
down these a :es

A POEM I L IKE TO THINK ABOUT AND I
PUOTE;

THE HOUSE BY THE SIDE IF THE
ROAD

By- Walter Foss
There are hermit souls that live with
drawn,
In the plare of their self content,
There are souls like stars, that dwell
opart in a fellowship fimament*

pioneer souls that blaze their
re highways never ran®
live by the side of the road,

friend to man.

L^t me' live in a house by the side of
he ipad, '“here the races of men go by

ten who are good and the men who
as bad as I®
sit in the scrooner’s seat,
■ ynic’s ban,

the house by the side of

’hen I came to school that morning, I
knew that something was wrong,
The subjects were very tiresome, the
Classes were very long.

At first I meet the principal, and he
Wasn’t so gay.
Something told me at that moment, this
T-ras to be an unpleasant day*

My classmates seemed to bother me so,
There must have been some thing, they
Wanted to know,
But I snubbed them all and asked
Them to go® I

I couldn’t wait until 2?15,.so that
Y could get away,
hnpatlent, I lingered around, there
Was something, I wanted to say,
Soon it all in a rush, this
was my most unpleasant Day®

And be p friend to man®

e from my house by the side of the
, i

By tihe side of the highway of l i fe
The men who press with ardor of hope
Ti/e men who are faint with strife

.t, I turn #ot away from the s&lles,
nor their tears.
Both parts of an infinite plan;
Let me live in my house by the side of
the road,
And be a friend to man.

Juanita Biggins

Money

Workers earn it , spendthrifts bum
Bankers lend it , women spend it

Forgers fake it , taxers take it
Dying leave it , heirs recieve it
Thriftysave it , misers crave it
Robber seize it , rich increase it
Gamblers lose it , Icould use it®

To thine own se lf be true.

Do not give to receive,
Give to help

Vera Brown 482

10.

250

LET'S LAUGH A TOILS THE SHXPBR

JOB— ® What*e the hurry? that are you
running for?

HARRY—I'm trying to stop a, fight.
JOB——Who's fighting?
HARRY—Me and another fellow.**»*«
TOSH—Mother, can you write your name

with your eyes shut?
MOTHER-I-think go, Toni.
TOi«I— All right, then mother let's see

you shut them and sign this re
port card.

GAEL-—Bid you ever hear the story about
the three eggs?

JXMMXS-No, what?
CARL—-Too bad.

V3RA——What do you think of our little
town?

TOHI---- I t 18 the first cemetery I've ever
seen with traffic lights.#**■»«

KLAIHE-Beatri ce, vfey ds you walk so slow?
BEA——Because its winter.
ELAIHE-Shat's no reason.
BEA——Yes it is too. I don't want to

catch a cold.

TEA——Toni, what doss a sat walking on
the beach remind you of?

TOSI—Why it reminds me of Christmas.
V35RA----Why?
SOHI-—He has sandy slaws.

NANCY—Since Christmas Is almost here, I
guess the boys will stop dating
us, huh Dot?

DOT— Why John was at my house last night
NANCY—Well, you'll soon see the change.

Ysa must have forgotten, Christmas
means gifts.**«»*

lIUBfiMThy do Egyptian women wear veils
over tM r feces?

CORINE-they want to get a husband.

JOB------Willie I'm so sorry you missed the
train bat your friends made it .

WILLIB-It's them you should be sorry for.
They were seeing me to the station
I !m going away.

BUY CHRISTMAS SEALS

0.1.J. said don't l e t W.B. eat them up
at Christmas time.
F.M.R. said she can get who she want,
so don't worry about the boys.
0. D. is sad over her friend J.L.D. ’ho
has gone to N.Y.CC
C.H. said don't let C.W. worry J.G.
when ha cosies horns for Christmas.
M.I.S. and L.S. are happy as ever.
L.M.R. and T.G, Jr are on the ball.
Wonder what is happening between I.W.L.
BsH, and M.F.Jr. are getting along
terrible.
I wonder what D.M.O.and J.G. will do
when I.C. comes home.
F.R. and E.J. are getting along fine.
J.G. is cutting hard; I wonder what she
will do when G.W.C. comes home.
R.C. and A , I . are really on thd ball.
V.B. was cutting with R.R. but there
will be some changes when L.W. comes from
Korea.
H.J. was cutting hard with J.D. but it
seems as if he disappeared,
1. L. and C.JB.B. is really on the boll
L.lt.R, is cutting out on C.L.W,
H.M.B. and 3?„L. are getting along f ne,
she is receiving mail from H.S.

So long until the next issue
"THE SNIPER"

m m im H iHHHHHHHmmM m m im tm
# FINE FOODS##
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#

FANCY GROCERIES

BROW'S GROCERY 6 CAFE

FRUITS
or ICIOULY PREPARED

VEGETABLES

#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
#
#

483

251

t
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
# S M I T H ' S G R O C E R Y , C A F l i l l H I H C - S T A T I O N
#
#
#
#
##
#
*
#
*
##
*
# GROCEFIES
*

#
###
#
*
#
#
#
##
#
#
##
#
#
#
#
#
#
I

q u id , RELIABLE SERVICE 484

252

253

486

254

255

I n U nited S tates D istrict Court

[Title omitted]

Order T ran sm ittin g R eport to U n ited S tates S uprem e
Court— Filed January 8, 1952

In the above entitled cause, the defendants having on
December 20, 1951, filed a report as required by the decree
of this Court of June 21, 1950, setting forth what has been
done to carry out the mandate of said decree; and it ap
pearing that the plaintiffs have appealed from said decree
to the Supreme Court of the United States and that the
cause is now pending in that court:

It is now ordered that the said report be received and
filed by the Clerk of this Court and that the said Clerk
transmit a certified copy thereof together with copy of
this order to the said Supreme Court and that this Court
withhold further action thereon until the Supreme Court
has acted on the appeal and remanded the case.

This the 8th day of January 1952.
(S.) John J. Parker, Chief Judge, Fourth Circuit;

George Bell Timmerman, U. S. District Judge,
Eastern District of South Carolina.

In my opinion, the report and this decree have no place
in this case and, therefore, I do not join herein.

January 8, 1952.
(S.) J. Waties Waring, United States District Judge.

A true copy. Attest. Ernest L. Allen, Clerk of U. S.
District Court, East. Dist. So. Carolina.

[fol. 488] [File endorsement omitted]

16—101

256

I n U nited S tates D istrict C ourt

S u prem e C ourt oe th e U nited S tates, O ctober T erm , 1951

No. 273

H arry B riggs, Jr., et a l ., Appellants,

[fol. 489] [File endorsement omitted]

v.
R . W . E lliott , et a l .

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of South Carolina

Opin io n—Filed February 7, 1952
(January 28, 1952)

Per Curiam :

Appellant Negro school children brought this action in
the Federal District Court to enjoin appellee school offi
cials from making any distinctions based upon race or
color in providing* educational facilities for School Dis
trict 22, Clarendon County, South Carolina. As the basis
for their complaint, appellants alleged that equal facilities
are not provided for Negro pupils and that those consti
tutional and statutory provisions of South Carolina re
quiring separate schools “ for children of the white and
colored races ’ ’ * are invalid under the Fourteenth Amend
ment. At the trial before a court of three judges, appellees
conceded that the school facilities provided for Negro
students “ are not substantially equal to those afforded in
the District for white pupils.”

The District Court held, one judge dissenting, that the
challenged constitutional and statutory provisions were
not of themselves violative of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The court below also found that the educational facilities
afforded by appellees for Negro pupils are not equal to
those provided for white children. The District Court did
not issue an injunction abolishing racial distinctions as

So. Car. Const., Art. XI, § 7; S. C. Code, 1942, § 5377.

2 5 7

[fol. 490] prayed by appellants, but did order appellees to
proceed at once to furnish, educational facilities for Negroes
equal to those furnished white pupils. In its decree, en
tered June 21, 1951, the District Court ordered that ap
pellees report to that court within six months as to action
taken by them to carry out the court’s order. 98 F. Supp.
529.

Dissatisfied with the relief granted by the District Court,
appellants brought a timely appeal directly to this Court
under 28 U. S. C. (Supp. IY) § 1253. After the appeal
was docketed but before its consideration by this Court,
appellees filed in the court below their report as ordered.

The District Court has not given its views on this report,
having entered an order stating that it will withhold fur
ther action thereon while the cause is pending in this
Court on appeal. Prior to our consideration of the ques
tions raised on this appeal, we should have the benefit of
the views of the District Court upon the additional facts
brought to the attention of that court in the report which
it ordered. The District Court should also be afforded
the opportunity to take whatever action it may deem ap
propriate in light of that report. In order that this may
be done, we vacate the judgment of the District Court and
remand the case to that court for further proceedings.
Another judgment, entered at the conclusion of those pro
ceedings, may provide the basis for any further appeals
to this Court.

Is is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas dissent to

vacation of the judgment of the District Court on the
grounds stated. They believe that the additional facts con
tained in the report to the District Court are wholly irre
levant to the constitutional questions presented by the ap
peal to this Court, and that we should note jurisdiction
and set the case down for argument.

258

I n U nited S tates D istrict C ourt

[Title omitted]

M otion for J udgm ent—Filed February 7, 1952

To the Honorable, the Judges of the United States District
Court for tlie Eastern District of South Carolina:
Come now the plaintiffs, by their attorneys, and move

the Court:

A. For an early hearing and final disposition of the issues
of this case, and

B. For final judgment for the plaintiffs granting the re
lief as prayed for in the complaint.

As grounds therefore, movants represent:
1. At the trial on the merits, the defendants amended

their answer by conceding* that the school facilities pro
vided for Negro pupils were “ not substantially equal to
those afforded in the District for white pupils. ’ ’

2. The “ Report of Defendants Pursuant to Decree Dated
June 21, 1951” heretofore filed shows that the physical
facilities for Negro pupils are still unequal to those for
white pupils.

3. This Report by defendants prays that a further order
be issued ‘ ‘ for the filing of an additional Report or Reports
by them. ’ ’
[fol. 492] 4. During the final argument of counsel for the
defendants in the original trial, Chief Judge Parker stated:

“ You have come into court here and admitted that
facilities are not equal, and the evidence shows it be
yond all peradventure. Now, it seems to me that it ’s
not for the Court to wetnurse the schools. Assuming
that segregation is not abolished by the decree, it would
be proper for this Court to direct an equalization
of educational facilities. And we wouldn’t tell you
how to do it. We wouldn’t attempt to supervise the

ffol. 491] [File endorsement omitted]

259

administration of the schools; all we can do is to tell
you to do what the constitution enjoins upon you. ’ ’

5. The Defendant’s Report concerns itself only with im
provement with respect to physical facilities of schools set
aside for Negroes. The Report shows absolutely no prog
ress in removing the inequalities resulting from enforced
segregation which the undisputed testimony of expert wit
nesses showed existed in the public schools of Clarendon
County. Plaintiffs presented uncontroverted evidence at
the trial which conclusively demonstrated that equal edu
cational opportunities could not be obtained by plaintiffs
and other Negro pupils, even assuming a situation of com
parability in physical facilities, where Negro pupils are re
quired to attend separate schools solely because of race
and color. The undisputed testimony disclosed that the
state’s requirement that Negro children attend segregated
schools caused injury to them in the form of permanent
psychological damage, affected them with a feeling of in
feriority and impaired their motivation to learn. It was
further demonstrated that these injuries would continue
as long as the schools remained segregated. This report
filed by the defendants leaves this testimony undisputed.

6. It is, therefore, clear that plaintiffs’ rights guaranteed
by the Fourteenth Amendment are being violated and re
main unprotected. The injury is irreparable. The only
available relief is by injunction against the continued denial
[fol. 493] of their right to equality which is brought about
by compulsory racial segregation required by the Constitu
tion and laws of South Carolina. (So. Car. Const. Art. XI,
Sec. 7; S. C. Code, 1942, Sec, 5377.)

7. Plaintiffs can get no immediate relief except by the is
suance of a final judgment of this Court enjoining* the en
forcement of the policy of racial segregation by defendants
which excludes Negro pupils from the only schools where
they can obtain an education equal to that offered white
children.

8. Plaintiffs can get no permanent relief unless this Court
declares that the provisions of the Constitution and laws
of South Carolina requiring racial segregation in public
schools are unconstitutional insofar as they are enforced by
the defendant herein to exclude Negro pupils from the only

260

schools where they can obtain an education equal to that
offered white children.

Respectfully submitted, Harold R. Boulware, 1109%
Washington Street, Columbia 20, South Carolina;
Spottswood W. Robinson, III, 623 North Third
Street, Richmond, Virginia; (S.) Robert L. Carter,
Thurgood Marshall, 20 West 40th Street, New
York 18, New York; Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

February 5, 1952.

[fol. 494] Certificate of service (omitted in printing).

[fob 495] [File endorsement omitted]

I n U nited S tates D istrict Court

[Title omitted]

Order S etting D ate oe S econd H earing— Filed February
14, 1952

In the above entitled cause it appearing that defendants
have filed a report pursuant to the decree heretofore entered
and that the Supreme Court has remanded the case in
order that this Court may give consideration to the report
and that plaintiffs have filed a motion for an early hearing
of the case and for judgment; and it further appearing that
it will be more convenient to all parties concerned that the
hearing of the case be had at Columbia, S. C., instead of at
Charleston, and counsel having consented to the hearings
at Columbia:

Now, therefore, it is ordered that a hearing be had on
the report of defendants, filed as aforesaid, and upon the
motion of plaintiffs, at Columbia, S. C. on Friday, February
29, 1952, at 10:30 o ’clock in the morning.

It is further ordered that the trustees and officials of new
school district number 1 referred to in the report be given
notice of the hearing and that they show cause at that time

261

why they should not be made parties to the suit and bound
by all orders and decrees that may be entered therein.

Done at Charlotte, N. C., this February 13, 1952.
(S.) John J. Parker, Chief Judge, Fourth Circuit.

A true copy. Attest.
Ernest L. Allen, Clerk of U. S. District Court, East.

Dist. So. Carolina.

[fol. 496] [File endorsement omitted]

1st U nited S tates D istrict C ourt

[Title omitted]

Order C o n tin u in g H earing—Filed February 15, 1952
In the above entitled cause, upon application of plaintiffs,

it is ordered that the hearing heretofore set for February
29, 1952, be continued to March 3, 1952, and be held at
Columbia, S. C. on the latter date at 10:30 o ’clock in the
morning.

Done at Charlotte, N. C., this February 14, 1952.
(S.) John J. Parker, Chief Judg’e, Fourth Circuit.

A true copy. Attest.
Ernest L. Allen, Clerk of U. S. District Court East.

Dist. So. Carolina.

[fols. 497-499] Cl e r k ’ s N ote

Judge John P. Parker’s letter of February 9, 1952 and
reply of Judge J. Waties Waring of February 11, 1952 are
included as a part of this record by direction of the Court.

Ernest L. Allen, Clerk.

In U nited S tates D istrict Court

[Title omitted]

M otion th at R . W. E llio tt , et a l . B e , M ade P arties to th e
S u it , etc .— Filed March 3, 1952.

Come now the respondents R. W. Elliott, Chairman, and
J. D. Carson, E. M. Touchberry, W. A. Brunson and A. E.
Brock, Sr., constituting the Board of Trustees of School
District No. 1, Clarendon County, S. C., and H. B. Betch-
man, Superintendent of School District No. 1, and as and
for their return to the order of this Court dated February
13, 1952, respectfully show as follows:

1. That the defendants R. W. Elliott and J. C. Carson
were designated in this action as members of the Board of
Trustees of School District No. 22 of Clarendon County,
S. C., the defendant Elliott also being designated as Chair
man of said Board, and that the defendant H. B. Betchman
was designated in this suit as Superintendent of School
District No. 22.

2. That on October 16, 1951, the State Educational Fi
nance Commission of South Carolina approved the order
[fol. 501] of the County Board of Education of Clarendon
County wherein and wbiereby former School District No. 22
of Clarendon County was consolidated with six other school
districts of said County into a single school district known
as School District No. 1, Clarendon County, S. C., such
consolidation having been ordered by the said County Board
of Education under Article III, Sections 6 and 7, of Act
No. 379 of the Acts of the General Assembly of South
Carolina of 1951.

3. That the defendants R. W. Elliott and J. D. Carson
and also the respondents E. M. Touchberry, W. A. Brunson
and A. E. Brock, Sr., were appointed School Trustees of the
said School District No. 1 of Clarendon County in and by
the said order, with R, W. Elliott as Chairman, and that
the defendant H. B. Betchman is now the Superintendent
of Schools of the said School District No. 1 of Clarendon
County.

262

[fol. 500] [File endorsement omitted]

263

5. That the respondents hereby severally consent to an
order making them parties to the suit in their respective
capacities as trustees and officials of School District No. 1,
Clarendon County, S. C., and providing that they be bound
by all orders and decrees that have been or may hereafter
be entered herein.

Wherefore, The respondents pray that the Court do enter
an order making the said E. W. Elliott, Chairman, J. D.
Carson, E. M. Touchberry, W. A. Brunson, and A. E. Brock,
Sr., constituting the Board of Trustees of School District
No. 1, Clarendon County, S. C., and H. B. Betchman, Super
intendent of School District No. 1, parties to this suit in
their respective capacities as such, and providing that they
be bound by all orders and decrees that have been or may
hereafter be entered herein.

R. W. Elliott, A. E. Brock, Sr., J. D. Carson,
[fol. 502] W. A. Brunson, E. M. Touchberry, H. B.
Betchman. S. E. Rogers, Summerton, S. C .; Robert
McC. Figg, Jr., 18 Broad Street, Charleston, S. C.,
Attorneys for Respondents.

[fol. 503] In United States D istrict Court

[Title omitted]

R eport of the Defendants Supplementary to the R eport
F iled December 20, 1951—Filed March 3, 1952

Come now the defendants and beg leave to file this Report
which is supplementary to the Report filed herein on Decem
ber 20, 1951, pursuant to Decree dated June 21, 1951, in
which Supplementary Report they would respectfully show
unto this Honorable Court as follows:

1. That on December 20, 1951, pursuant to decree dated
June 21, 1951, the defendants made report to this Court as
to the action taken by them to carry out the said decree in
which they were ordered to proceed at once to furnish to
plaintiffs and other Negro pupils of School District No. 22
in Clarendon County, South Carolina, educational facilities,

264

equipment, curricula and opportunities equal to those fur
nished white pupils in the said School District.

2. That in said Report it was shown that in compliance
with the provisions of Act No. 379 of the Acts of the General
Assembly of South Carolina of 1951 and with the criteria
promulgated by the State Educational Finance Commission
thereunder, and in order to qualify for State financial aid
under said Act for the construction of school facilities, the
aforesaid School District No. 22 was by order of the County
[fol. 504] Board of Education of Clarendon County consoli
dated with six other school districts of the county into a
single school district known as School District No. 1 of said
county, which order of consolidation was duly approved by
the State Educational Finance Commission on October 16,
1951; and that the school trustees and superintendent of said
School District No. 1 have made return to the order of this
Court dated February 13,1952, consenting that they be made
parties in such capacities to this suit and be bound by the
orders and decrees herein.

3. That in said Report it was also shown that the school
trustees of School District No. 1 had prepared, approved
and adopted a school house construction program, based
upon a comprehensive survey of the educational needs of
the district; had already let the construction contract for
the complete remodelling of the Scott’s Branch Elementary
School for Negro pupils and the construction of the Scott’s
Branch High School for Negro high school pupils; had
caused plans to be prepared for the construction of the two
other elementary schools for Negro pupils recommended in
said survey and included in said plan and program; had
made application for priority for the critical materials re
quired in such construction; had instituted school bus trans
portation for all pupils in the district (no such transporta
tion had theretofore been furnished to any pupils of either
race in School District No. 22); had equalized all teachers’
salaries in the district by local supplements; and had
brought about complete equalization of curricula in the
white and Negro schools in the district.

4. That in said Report it was also shown that, pending
occupancy of the new and remodelled schoolhouses afore
said, the school district had expended the sum of $21,522.81

265

for school furniture and equipment in the Negro schools and
for improvements thereto, as a result of which efficient edu
cation is being afforded to the pupils in the construction
interval, and the existing situation as to school facilities is
no different from that which inevitably occurs whenever
major schoolhouse construction and remodelling is engaged
in by a school system.

5. That in said Report the enrolled school population of
the consolidated district, School District No. 1, was given on
[fol. 505] the basis of the then available enrollment figures
as 2,568 Negro school children and 298 white school children,
whereas the current figures as of February 25, 1952, are
2,799 enrolled Negro school children and 295 enrolled white
school children, with average daily attendance of Negro
school children of 2,003 and average daily attendance of
white school children of 269. That the 1952 enrolled Negro
high school pupils is 360, 200 of whom are enrolled in Scott’s
Branch School, 109 in St. Paul School, 30 in Maggie Nelson
School, and 21 in Felton Rosenwald School. That the figure
of 197 enrolled Negro high school pupils given in said
Report referred only to those attending the Scott’s Branch
School.

6. That since the filing of said Report, the plans for
the two new Negro elementary schools recommended in
the survey and included in the district’s plan and program,
one in the St. Paul area to be known as the St. Paul ele
mentary School and the other in the Rogers area to be
known as the Spring Hill Elementary School, have been
completed and approved by the State Educational Finance
Commission; the district’s application for priority in the
allotment of critical materials required in the construction
of these schools has been granted by the appropriate
Federal agency; and the district has advertised in the
press for bids on the construction contracts to build said
schoolhouses.

7. That since the filing of said Report, the school trustees
of School District No. 1 recommended in writing to the
General Assembly the enactment of legislation empowering
them and the Treasurer of Clarendon County to issue and
sell bonds of the district in a sum not exceeding the dis
trict’s debt limitation (which, as mentioned in said Report,

266

is now, as a result of a 1951 constitutional amendment,
30% of the district’s assessed valuation instead of the
8% limitation generally applicable under the Constitutional
provision in reference thereto in the State Constitution);
that such enabling legislation was introduced in the form
shown by House Bill No. 2065, a printed copy of which
is hereto attached as a part hereof; and that such legis
lation was duly enacted in said form and was signed by
His Excellency, the Honorable James F. Byrnes, Governor
of South Carolina, on March 1, 1952, as shown by copy
of “ An Act to Provide for the Issuance of Bonds of School
[fob 506] District 1 in Clarendon County in a Sum not
exceeding the Constitutional Limit for School Purposes and
to Provide for the Payment of Same,” duly certified by
the Secretary of State of South Carolina, which certified
copy is herewith filed.

8. That in the action which has been and is being
taken by the defendants to carry out the order of this
Court dated June 21, 1951, they have utilized to the maxi
mum the financial resources available to them under said
Act No. 379 of the Acts of 1951, which made available for
the first time State aid for constructing school facilities;
that under said Act School District No. 1 has had building
projects for Negro schools approved in the total amount
of $516,960.00, as shown by letter of E. R. Crow, Director
of the State Educational Finance Commission, to Governor
Byrnes, dated February 15, 1952, which is hereto attached
as a part hereof, and which also shows the building proj
ects approved under said Act in a number of other counties
of the State in the comparatively short time since the
organization of the State Educational Finance Commission
and the court decisions upholding the validity of the
legislation, there being projects for Negro school con
struction totalling $5,515,619.15 (73.4%- of the total) and
projects for white school construction totalling $1,992,-
018.00 (26.6% of the total) approved and under way to date.

9. That the defendants respectfully show that with the
State aid approved for School District No. 1, as aforesaid,
and the district’s authority to borrow on its faith and
credit under the 1952 Act aforesaid, they are confident that
they have the financial resources to carry through the

267

construction plan and program which they have adopted
and which they are carrying out as expeditiously as pos
sible; and that when the said plan and program lias been
fully carried out they verily believe that equal educational
facilities, equipment, curricula, and opportunities will exist
for all school children in the district alike; and that steps
have been taken by them to see that equal education will
be afforded to all school children in the district in exist
ing physical facilities during the completion of the dis
trict’s construction and remodelling program, so that
conditions in said period will be no different from those
[fol. 507] always existing in any school system during a
period of substantial new construction and remodelling.

10. That the defendants are acting in good faith not
only to afford the equality directed to be furnished by them
in the decree of June 21, 1951, but also to build up the
system of public schools in said School District No. 1 and
develop and expand the educational opportunities and
advantages enjoyed by the school children of both races
therein on an equal basis; and as evidence of their good
faith they stand ready to file such additional Reports in
this cause as the Court may direct, showing the completion
of their action in carrying out the said decree.

Respectfully submitted, S. E. Rogers, Summerton,
S. C. Robert McC. Figg, Jr,, 18 Broad Street,
Charleston, S. C. Attorneys for Defendants.

Duly sworn to by R. M. Elliott. Jurat omitted in print
ing.

268

[fol. 507a] Calendar No. H. 2065

Introduced by Clarendon County Delegation
Printer’s No. 444-H. Bead the first time February 22, 1952.

A BILL
!T o Provide for the Issuance of Bonds of School District

No. 1 in Clarendon County in a Sum Not Exceeding* the
Constitutional Limit for School Purposes and to Provide
for the Payment of Same.

Be in enacted by the General Assembly of the State of
South Carolina:

S ection 1. The Board of Trustees of School District
No. 1 and the Treasurer of Clarendon County are author
ized and empowered to issue and sell serial coupon bonds
of the school district in a sum not exceeding the consti
tutional limit. The proceeds of the bonds shall be used for
constructing and equipping school buildings and facilities
used in connection with schools, including the purchase of
sites for such buildings or facilities. The bonds shall be
in such denominations, and shall bear such interest, not
exceeding four per cent per annum, as the board of trustees
and the treasurer may prescribe. They shall be payable
at the office of the Clarendon County Treasurer from time
to time over a period not exceeding twenty years. The
bonds may be redeemed on call after ten years from the
date of same. The bonds shall be sold at public sale after
an advertisement for bids shall have been published in a
paper of general circulation within the county at least
twice fifteen days prior to the date of the opening of
bids.

S ec. 2. The bonds shall be signed by the treasurer and
the Board of Trustees of School District No. 1 in Claren
don County. The coupons attached to the bonds need
only be signed by the county treasurer and the chairman
of the board of trustees, and their lithographed or en
graved signatures thereon shall be a sufficient signing of
same.

Sec. 3. The bonds shall be exempt from the payment of
all county, state, school and municipal taxes.

269

Sec. 4. The full faith, credit, and taxing power of the
school district are hereby irrevocably pledged for the pay
ment of the bonds and all interest thereon, and the Auditor
of Clarendon County shall levy an annual tax upon all the
taxable property in the school district sufficient to pay the
bonds and interest as they may mature, and the treasurer of
the county shall collect the taxes so levied as other taxes are
collected.

Sec. 5. All acts or parts of acts inconsistent herewith
are hereby repealed.

Sec. 6. This act shall take effect upon its approval by
the Governor.

270

[fol. 507B]
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

STATE EDUCATIONAL FINANCE COMMISSION
Commission
Governor James F. Byrnes (State Seal)

Chairman
Jesse T. Anderson
L. P. Hollis
Dewey H. Johnson COLUMBIA, S. C.
J. C. Long
D. W. Robinson February 15, 1952
Elliott White Springs

Honorable James F. Byrnes
Governor of South Carolina
Columbia, S. C.
Dear Governor:

E. R. Crow
Director

P. C. Smith
' Assistant

Director

To date the State Educational Finance Commission has given its approval to building
projects in the counties and school districts listed below:

Building Projects Approved
Negro Schools White Schools Total

Clarendon County
Summerton School District No. 1.........

Jasper County
Hardeeville School District No. 4 .........

Richland County
Columbia School District No. 1............

Sumter County
Sumter School District No. 17..............

Barnwell County
Barnwell School District No. 1.............

Darlington County
Darlington County School District.......

Charleston County
St. James School District No. 1............
Moultrie School District No. 2 .............
James Island School District No. 3. . . .
Cooper River School District No. 4 ----
St. John’s School District No. 9 ...........
St. Andrews School District No. 10... .
Charleston School District No. 20........
St. Paul’s School District No. 23..........

[fol. 507C-508]
Spartanburg County

Fairforest District No. 6 .......................
Aiken County

Aiken County School District...............

516.960.00 $ ..................... $ 516,960.00

75,914.00 75,914.00

340.000. 00 227,135.00 567,135.00

732.802.00 161,646.00 894,448.00

136,705.15 77,040.00 213,745.15

706.668.00 83,000.00 789,668.00

270.240.00 ....................... 270,240.00
215.000. 00 ...................... 215,000.00
108.280.00 185,000.00 293,280.00
449.000. 00 ...................... 449,000.00
296.800.00 20,000.00 316,800.00
30,000.00 90,140.00 120,140.00

800.000. 00 650,000.00 1,450,000.00
512.640.00 ....................... 512,640.00

324.610.00 ....................... 324,610.00

498,057.00 498,057.00

Percentage
$5,515,619.15 $1,992,018.00 $7,507,637.15

73.4 26.6 100.00
From the above table it will be seen that approved projects for Negro schools represent
73.4 per cent of the total. The percentage allocated to Negro projects would be greater
but for the item for Aiken County. Although the approval in this county was for white
school projects, it is expected that additional enrollment, due to the Savannah River
Project, will enable the county to repay the loan without affecting the normal use of money
to improve Negro school facilities. If this item had not been included in the calculation
the percentage of money allocated to Negro schools would be 78.7.

Respectfully and sincerely yours,
(signed) E. R. Crow
E. R. Crow, DirectorERC/kh

271

[fol. 509] In U nited States D istrict Court

[Title omitted]
T ranscript op H earing

At a special term of court, a hearing in the above cause
was had at Columbia, South Carolina, in the United States
Courtroom on March 3, 1952, at 10:30 o ’clock a. m.

[fol. 510] Robert McC. Figg., Jr., Esq., and S. E. Rogers,
Esq., for the Defendants.

Judge Parker: This is a Special United States District
Court of Three Judges convened for the hearing of the case
of Briggs and others against Elliott and others. As origi
nally convened, the Court consisted of Judge Timmerman,
Judge Waring, and myself. A decree was entered after
a hearing in Charleston. An appeal was taken to the Su
preme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court
of the United States remanded the ease in order that we
might give consideration to a report made by the defend
ants after the entry of the decree. In the meantime, Judge
Waring had reached retirement age and had taken re
tirement. Inasmuch as he had been a member of the origi
nal Court, I thought it appropriate that he be designated
to sit in the further hearing of the case. On February 9,
after I ha a received notice of the motion which is pending
here and the Mandate from the Supreme Court had come
down, I wrote Judge Waring, stating to him that I should
designate him to sit in the further hearing of the case if he
was willing to do so and asked that he advise me whether he
was willing to accept the designation. Under date of
February 11, I received from Judge Waring a letter stat
ing that he was not willing to accept a designation to sit in
[fol. 511] the further hearing of the case or take any part in
it. It thereupon became necessary that I designate an
other Judge to sit in the hearing of the case instead of
Judge Waring, and I have designated Judge Armistead M.
Dobie, one of the Circuit Judges of the Circuit, who has had
wide experience in cases of this sort, to sit in the further
hearing of the case with Judge Timmerman and myself.
I enter the Order designating Judge Dobie, and here

17—101

272

are copies which you may send to the other members of the
Court and to the Clerk of the Circuit Court at Richmond.
Mr. Clerk, here is a copy of the letter that I wrote to Judge
Waring, and here is a copy of Judge Waring’s letter to
me. Let them be made a part of the record in the case,
and let copies be furnished to the other Judges.

Are you ready to proceed with the further proceeding
of the case for the plaintiffs!

Mr. Marshall: Plaintiffs are ready, sir.
Judge Parker: Are defendants ready?
Mr. P igg: Defendants are ready, your Honor, and I think

at this point I should say that in your Honor’s order con
vening the special court for this hearing, a rule to show
cause was contained, addressed to the Trustees of School
District No. 1 of Clarendon County, which by consolidation
was created out of School District No. 22 and six other dis
tricts of that County under the legislation of 1951. And we
have filed a return signed by the five Trustees of School
[fol. 512] District No. 1, two of whom are party-defendants
in their capacity as Trustees of School District No. 22, and
the other three of whom were appointed under the 1951
Act to be Trustees of School District No. 1, along with
the two members of School District No. 22, the surviving
members. Mr. Kennedy has died since the hearing in
Charleston. In that Return they state the facts of the
consolidation and the fact that they are now the Trustees
of the School District which contains the schools in question
here and that they consent to be made parties to the suit
in their respective capacities as Trustees. And Mr. Betcli-
man is Superintendent of School District No. 1. They con
sent to an order making them parties and to be bound by
all orders and decrees that have been or may hereafter be
entered herein. That Return has been filed with the Clerk
and I presume the Court has copies of it.

Judge Parker: The Clerk handed us copies just before
we came on the Bench. What do you say for the plaintiffs ?

Mr. Marshall: No objection, sir.
Judge Parker: All right. An order will be entered mak

ing them parties to the cause.
Mr. Pigg: If your Honors please, under the decree of

the Court dated June 21,1951, the defendants filed a report

with the Clerk of the' Court, which was directed to he made
[fol. 513] by them within six months from the date of that
decree. That report was filed on December 20 and gave in
formation as to the action which had been taken by the
defendants to carry out the Court’s decree. I have here
a report supplementary to that report which shows what
action has been taken since December 20, 1951, which I
would, on behalf of defendants, ask leave to file in the
cause. We do not have any order requiring us to file it
and for that reason I had not delivered it to the Clerk,
but ask the Court for authority to file it.

Judge Parker: I think it appropriate to file it. Do you
see any objection to that?

Mr. Marshall: We have no objection, sir.
Judge Parker: All right.
Mr. F igg: I have already given counsel copies of this

return and of this Supplementary Report so that they have
been able to consider it. I f the Court desires, I will sum
marize the Supplementary Report. Your Honors, I knowq
are familiar with the December Report.

Judge Parker: We are familiair with the December
Report, yes.

Mr. P igg: In the Supplementary Report there is a brief
summary of the December Report, showing what had been
done up to that time, which is in Paragraph 3 of this Sup
plementary Report.
[fol. 514] (Reading) “ That in said Report it was also
shown that the school trustees of School District No. 1 had
prepared, approved and adopted a school house construc
tion program, based upon a comprehensive survey of the
educational needs of the district; had already let the con
struction contract for the complete remodelling of the
Scott’s Branch Elementary School for Negro pupils and the
construction of the Scott’s Branch High School for Negro
high school pupils; had caused plans to be prepared for the
construction of the two other elementary schools for Negro
pupils recommended in said survey and included in said plan
and program; had made application for priority for the
critical materials required in such construction; had insti
tuted school bus transportation for all pupils in the district
(no such transportation had theretofore been furnished

273

274

to any pupils of either race in School District No. 22);
had equalized all teachers’ salaries in the district by local
supplements; and had brought about complete equalization
of curricula in the white and Negro schools in the district.

“ That in said Report it was also shown that, pending
occupancy of the new and remodelled schoolhouses afore
said, the school district had expended the sum of $21,522.81
for school furniture and equipment in the Negro schools and
for improvements thereto, as a result of which efficient
education is being afforded to the pupils in the construction
[fol. 515] interval, and the existing situation as to school
facilities is no different from that which inevitably occurs
whenever major schoolhouse construction and remodelling
is engaged in by a school system.

“ That in said Report the enrolled school population of
the consolidated district, School District No. 1, was given
on the basis of the then available enrollment figures as
2,568 Negro school children and 298 white school children,
whereas the current figures as of February 25, 1952, are
2,799 enrolled Negro school children and 295 enrolled white
school children, with average daily attentanee of Negro
school children of 2,003 and average daily attendance of
white school children of 269. That the 1952 enrolled Negro
high school pupils is 360, 200 of whom are enrolled in Scott’s
Branch School, 109 in St. Paul School, 30 in Maggie Nel
son School, and 21 in Felton Rosenwald School. That the
figure of 197 enrolled Negro high school pupils given in
said Report referred only to those attending the Scott’s
Branch School.

“ That since the filing of said Report, the plans for the
two new Negro elementary schools recommended in the sur
vey and included in the district’s plan and program, one in
the St. Paul area to be known as the St. Paul Elementary
School and the other in the Rogers area to be known as the
Spring Hill Elementary School, have been completed and
[fol. 5i6] approved by the State Educational Finance Com
mission; the district’s application for priority in the allot
ment of critical materials required in the construction of
these schools has been granted by the appropriate Fed
eral agency; and the district has advertised in the press
for bids on the construction contracts to build said school-
houses.

275

“ That since the filing of said Report, the school trustees
of School District No. 1 recommended in writing to the
General Assembly the enactment of legislation empowering
them and the Treasurer of Clarendon County to issue and
sell bonds of the district in a sum not exceeding the dis
trict’s debt limitation (which, as mentioned in said Report,
is now, as a result of a 1951 constitutional amendment,
30% of the district’s assessed valuation instead of the
8% limitation generally applicable under the Constitu
tional provision in reference thereto in the State Constitu
tion) ; that such enabling legislation was introduced in the
form shown by House Bill No. 2065, a printed copy of which
is hereto attached as a part hereof; and that such legisla
tion was duly enacted in said form and was signed by His
Excellency, the Honorable James F. Byrnes, Governor of
South Carolina, on March 1, 1952, as shown by copy of
‘An Act to Provide for the Issuance of Bonds of School
District 1 in Clarendon County in a Sum not Exceeding the
Constitutional Limit for School Purposes and to Provide
[fol. 517] for the Payment of Same,’ duly certified by the
Secretary of State of South Carolina, which certified copy
is herewith filed.

‘ ‘ That in the action which has been and is being taken by
the defendants to carry out the order of this Court dated
June 21, 1951, they have utilized to the maximum the
financial resources available to them under said Act No.
379 of the Acts of 1951, which made available for the first
time State aid for constructing school facilities; that under
said Act School District No. 1 has had building projects
for Negro schools approved in the total amount of $516,-
960.00, as shown by letter of E. R. Crow, Director of the
State Educational Finance Commission, to Governor
Byrnes, dated February 15, 1952, which is hereto attached
as a part hereof, and which also shows the building projects
approved under said Act in a number of other counties of
the State in the comparatively short time since the organi
zation of the State Educational Finance Commission and
the court decisions upholding the validity of the legisla
tion, there being projects for Negro school construction
totalling $5,515,619.15 (73.4% of the total) and projects for
white school construction totalling $1,992,018.00 (26.6%
of the total) approved and under way to date.

276

“ That the defendants respectfully show that with the
State aid approved for School District No. 1, as aforesaid,
and the district’s authority to borrow on its faith and credit
[fol. 518] under the 1952 Act aforesaid, they are confident
that they have the financial resources to carry through the
construction plan and program which they have adopted
and which they are carrying out as expeditiously as pos
sible ; and that when the said plan and program has been
fully carried out they verily believe that equal educational
facilities, equipment, curricula, and opportunities will
exist for all school children in the district alike; and that
steps have been taken by them to see that equal education
will be afforded to all school children in the district in
existing physical facilities during the completion of the
district’s construction and remodelling program, so that
conditions in said period will be no different from those
always existing in any school system during a period of
substantial new construction and remodelling.

“ That the defendants are acting in good faith not only
to afford the equality directed to be furnished by them in
the decree of June 21, 1951, but also to build up the system
of public schools in said School District No. 1 and de
velop and expand the educational opportunities and ad
vantages enjoyed by the school children of both races
therein on an equal basis; and as evidence of their good
faith they stand ready to file such additional Reports
in this cause as the Court may direct, showing the comple
tion of their action in carrying out the said decree. ’ ’
[fol. 519] Judge Parker: The Report has been tendered
and will be filed. Do you offer any further evidence in
support of the Report? As I understand this hearing, we
are here primarily to consider the Report. Do you have any
evidence you want to offer in support of it?

Mr. Pigg: We will offer such evidence as the Court might
think it would care to hear, your Honor, but we have not
come prepared to do that. We thought we were just re
porting the facts. In other words, we have tendered that
Supplementary Report because, since we are meeting in
March, we did not want to come in here and stand on the
December Report and have you ask us: “ What have you
been doing since December?” Now, what has happened
since December is that the inchoate activities in the De

277

cember Report, which, we could only prophesy to some ex
tent at that time, have now been made a reality. The other
two Negro elementary schools, the bids of the contractors to
build them have been duly advertised. I don’t recall just
when the bids will be let.

The legislation, which the December Report showed to be
necessary to approve the financial ability of the District
to carry through its adopted program, has now been
enacted without qualification or condition or contingency,
and these Trustees are empowered now to employ the
financial resources to the full constitutional extent of the
faith and credit of the district, so that today we stand in a
[fol. 520] position of telling the Court that everything
which is included in the program adopted by this district,
which they showed in December they believed would pro
duce compliance with the Court’s decree, is now actually
under way. It is not in the planning stage. It is not in the
stage where the defendants have to tell the Court, for in
stance, that they will ask the General Assembly to pass
enabling legislation.

So that today the whole program is actually a reality
and underway in a practical sense. Now, that is what this
Report does. It says there is no longer any prognostication
about the future. If the program will produce equality
of facilities, that equality is every day being provided. As
far as curricula is concerned, that was equalized immedi
ately, and the other things that were mentioned in the
December Report. So that the only thing that today re
mains in anything but a completed status are the schools,
both elementary and high schools. The contractors had
255 days to build the high school, but that contract was
let last fall and that school will be in existence for the next
school year. The two Negro elementary schools are pres
ently being advertised for construction contracts. As
we pointed out in the December Report, nothing has been
done by the Trustees as yet toward providing for the new
white elementary school, which was recommended in the
survey in the place of the Summerton Elementary School,
[fol. 521] which is practically in a state beyond repair.
But the reason why the Trustees have gone into the con
struction, which they have reported to the Court, is that
the State Educational Finance Commission, carrying out

278

the 1951 Act, laid down certain criteria. They required
so much needed consolidation, and as a result, in Claren
don County, instead of 34. school districts, that County
now has 3, one of which we are talking about today.

Another important condition that they attach to ap
proval for State aid for capital construction is that no
schoolhouse should be provided which has less than one
teacher for each grade taught. And this plan therefore took
up, first, the problem of getting all of the schoolhouses
of this district on that basis, and the construction in this
program will give modern schools, having ample school
rooms and a teacher for each grade taught in all of the
Negro schools in the seven districts, which have been
consolidated into School District No. 1.

Now, we think the pupils in the remaining schools of
School District No. 22, as soon as this Scott’s Branch re
modelling and new construction is through, will have at
least equal schools. Actually, they probably will have the
best schools, because the newest is always the best. And
the pupils who resided in these other districts to the ex
tent that they now have an enrollment of 2799, as compared
[fol. 522] with the 295 white enrollment, will all have
modern schools with ample schoolrooms, ample furniture,
ample facilities, ample aids to education of every kind
on a modern basis, approved by the State Educational
Finance Commission and the State Department of Edu
cation, and there will not be a single pupil in the district,
white or Negro, who will be attending a school where there
is less than a teacher for each grade taught. There will
be no more one, two, four, or other teacher schools, except
that the younger, primary schools are permitted, under
the State Educational Finance Commission criteria, to
have a three-grade school for primary children, closer
to where they live, with three teachers. They have got to
meet the one teacher for each grade taught test. But that
is the only exception under those criteria. And when we
have measured up to that, and that is what the plan calls
for, this will be a modern and complete public school
system for all alike.

Judge Parker: Mr. Marshall, what do you say?
Mr. Marshall: May it please the Court, it is our position

on the report, that we do not question anything in the

279

report. So far as we know, it is accurate. The points
that we do not know about, we are perfectly willing to
take the word of responsible officials of the State. So
that insofar as the report is concerned, we are willing to
face the report as being accurate and true, and we make no
[fob 523] objection, and we do not question anything in
the report.

Judge Parker: Now, do I understand you to say that
you admit that the defendants are acting in good faith
and. are proceeding to equalize conditions as required by
the decree entered here on June 21?

Mr. Marshall: I take this position, sir: That they are pro
ceeding towards eventual physical equalization, equalization
of the physical facilities, with the realization that none of
us can actually be certain of what will happen in the future
but in saying that I do not question that they do intend
to equalize the physical facilities, so far as the report is
concerned, I do not agree that it meets the order of June,
because the order itself said that they should proceed to
furnish equal facilities, and they are not yet furnishing
equal facilities. They are proceeding to lay the plans
for the buildings which will eventually furnish equal facili
ties.

Judge Parker: Well, none of us can build a building
overnight. The question is whether or not they are pro
ceeding in good faith to do what they can to equalize con
ditions.

Mr. Marshall: To build equal facilities, but if I could
just for a moment, sir------

Judge Parker: Well, I understand you do not admit
that any conditions exist that require segregation, I
[fol. 524] understand that.

Mr. Marshall: Yes, sir, that is right.
Judge Parker: But that has been ruled on by the Coirrt.

What we are considering now is the question: Whether the
physical facilities, curricula, and the other things that
can be made equal, without the segregation issue, are being
made equal ?

Mr. Marshall: I think, sir, that the order of the Su
preme Court was to consider what had happened on this
report, and I believe that the Gaines case, followed by the
Sipuel case, together say that the facilities must be equal

280

at the time of the suit, at least. The Sipuel ease, your
Honors will remember------

Judge Parker: If the Supreme Court had taken that
view, there wouldn’t have been any sense in sending the
case back to us, because we stated that the conditions
were not equal at that time, and we directed that they
be made equal. If the Supreme Court had taken your
view, there wouldn’t have been any use or sense in sending
it back to us. The only thing necessary to do would be
to reverse us.

Mr. Marshall: Yes, sir, but I also think it is significant
that the Court did not just send it back. The Court also
vacated the June judgment.

Judge Parker: Well, they vacated the June judgment
so that we will have full power to enter any order that
[fol. 525] was appropriate. I have learned what they
were doing there. In Duke Power Company vs. Greenwood
■County, the case was remanded without the vacation of
the order, and the Supreme Court said that that was not
the proper procedure, that if you remanded a case for
the lower Court to do anything, you must vacate the order.

Judge Dobie: What do you think we ought to do, Mr.
Marshall? I mean, what this Court ought to do sitting
here today?

Mr. Marshall: The minimum, I should say, sir, would
be that the Court say that as of the present time tlye
facilities are not equal, the physical facilities are not
equal. At this stage I am not talking about the other testi
mony in the case. I am just talking about the physical
facilities. Under the Sipuel case and the Gaines case, and,
as a matter of fact, the two cases in the Fourth Circuit,
both the Corbin case and the Garter case, they must furnish
these equal facilities as of now, either in the building
of schools and showing that they are completely equal,
or destroy the segregation pattern, which were the grounds
for it in the Gaines case, about the admissibility of the
law segregating the races. And I think, sir, and I would
urge the Court,—and we have a memorandum on it which
I was going to submit if we had argument,—that if this
Court lets the matter stand as it now stands, then the
[fol. 526] Federal Court is in the position of policing,

281

or supervising, or whatever word is used, the school hoard,
that is, the defendants in this case.

Judge Parker: No, we very frequently issue directions
to the parties before us under the National Labor Rela
tions Act. We are not policing collective bargaining. We
are directing them to bargain, and if they do not bargain,
we will put them in jail. Now, what wTe have directed
these people to do is to equalize conditions. We under
stand that you can’t build a schoolhouse between suns.
It takes some time to do it. They have got to raise the
money and they have got to do it, but we intended,
.when we entered that order, for them to proceed in good
faith and to do it as quickly as possible. Now, the ques
tion is : Are they doing it as quickly as possible ?

Mr. Marshall: I might say, sir, that every day they
are not equal, these plaintiffs are losing rights, for which
they cannot be adequately compensated.

Judge Dobie: Well, what can we do about that? It is
fairly obvious,—I will take judicial notice of it, that you
can’t have teachers in schools before you have schools.
Now, if these defendants in this case have done every
thing that they reasonably could do to carry out the decree
of the Court, they can’t do any more at this stage, can
they ?
[fol. 527] Mr. Marshall: No, sir, they cannot physically
do more. It is impossible for them to build those schools
overnight.

Judge Timmerman: Well, do you want us to put them in
jail for not doing something that you know they can’t do?

Mr. Marshall: It is something they can do, sir. They
could break down the segregation.

Judge Dobie: Let that alone.
Judge Parker: That is the same question.
Mr. Marshall: Then, as I say, sir, at the present time

there is no relief that we can get that would be adequate
if that question is closed. We are not responsible for this.
This is not a case where plaintiff through his own actions
has put himself in a position. The defendants in this case
knew about this and the requirement that equal facilities
had to be furnished. They, at least, knew it as far back
as the Gaines case in 1938, and they made no effort to
equalize. They made no effort to do anything until this

282

lawsuit was filed. Now, we end up with the clear under
standing and agreement on all sides that we are being
denied fundamental constitutional rights. We also recog
nize that every day that the Negroes are required to go to
the unequal schools, their constitutional rights are being
violated, and it is not a question of group rights, that even
tually the school will be so assembled. Take, for example,
[fol. 528] the seniors in those schools. I don’t care, what
happens in the next year, their rights have been irrevocably
harmed, and there is nothing they can do about it. The
State of South Carolina and the defendants in this case
are offering a certain number of years of education to the-
children in the County, and every year the Negro loses an
equal education, he loses that much education, concrete edu
cation, and there is no way to get that back. Now, the ques
tion that they will eventually be equalized, if T might say,
sir, is the question that came up all along. In the Gaines
case, on the professional school level, the decision was, it
seems to me, as I read it, that the State of Missouri could
either set up on equal law school or admit Gaines into the
existing law school.

Judge Timmerman: Let me asked you this: Do you con
tend that in the white schools in this district, the original
District 22, that the buildings and the facilities and the
teachers are sufficient to absorb all of the Negro pupils
in the other schools?

Mr. Marshall: No, sir.
Judge Timmerman: Well now, if we ordered them to ab

sorb them and it is a physical impossibility and we know
they are not going to do it, then the only alternative
we leave them is to close up and give neither white nor
colored any educational advantages.
[fol. 529] Mr. Marshall: No, sir, that is not------

Judge Timmerman: How is that going to help those
whom you represent?

Mr. Marshall: That is not my idea, sir. My idea is that
they merely say, “ We will not assign students to these
schools on a racial basis. We will assign them on any
other basis.”

Judge Timmerman: If you do that, won’t you inevitably
have inequality?

283

Mr. Marshall: You will have inequality and there is noth
ing in the Constitution—

Judge Timmerman: Well, isn’t that what you are com
plaining about?

Mr. Marshall: No, sir. We are complaining about in
equality because of race or color. Inequality doesn’t exist,
inequality never existed in a democratic form of govern
ment, but the only inequality that we are arguing about,
which the Supreme Court has repeatedly banned, is
inequality on the basis of race. There are no two equal
schools that I know of any place, unless they are both built
simultaneously, and the children can be assigned to those
schools on any logical basis, but the only thing we complain
of is that you can’t take a good school and a bad school and
arbitrarily say that the Negro has to go to the bad
school. The Negro might end up in the bad school, but
[fol. 530] he can’t end up in there because of race or color.
That is our position. It would not mean that they will
all have to go in the same school. They would take the
good facilities and the bad facilities and send the children
to them without assignment on the basis of race.

Judge Dobie: Now, in the light of what you said, may
I ask my question: What do you think we should do?

Mr. Marshall: I think, sir, in my argument------
Judge Dobie: Yes, you made a long argument, but you

haven’t made the faintest suggestion as to what you think
we should do.

Mr. Marshall: My suggestion, is, sir, that an order be
entered that the facilities are not yet equal under the con
stitution and under the order of June, either one.

Judge Dobie: That was admitted in the original trial,
wasn’t it?

Judge Timmerman: How wrould that differ from what
was entered in the original order?

Mr. Marshall: I was going further, sir. And therefore
under the Gaines and Sipuel decisions, the rules of the
defendants which prohibit the Negro children in that County
from going to the only school where they can get equal
facilities must be enjoined, and at the same time the
policy of segregation must end.

Judge Dobie: In other words, you want us to strike down
[fol. 531] segregation.

284

Mr. Marshall: Yes, sir. But at this stage, 1 am trying-1
to stay within the framework of the June order. I am
not saying to strike it down on the basis of segregation
per se, but on the basis that the facilities that are being
offered the Negroes are not equal as of today.

Judge Parker: Well now, on the framework of the June
order, this is what was said in the Opinion of that case,
and this is what the majority of the Court concurred
in and what the Supreme Court had before it when it
remanded the case: “ It is argued that because the school
facilities furnished Negroes in District No. 22 are inferior
to those furnished white persons, we should enjoin segre
gation rather than direct the equalizing of conditions.”
That is precisely the argument that you are making now.

“ Inasmuch as we think that the law requiring segregation
is valid, however, and that the inequality suffered by
plaintiffs results not from the law but from the way it has
been administered, we think that our injunction should be
directed to removing the inequalities resulting from ad
ministration within the framework of the law rather than
to nullifying the law itself. As a Court of Equity, we should
exercise our power to assure to plaintiffs the equality of
treatment, to which they are entitled, with due regard
for the legislative policy of the State. In directing that
[fol. 532] the school facilities afforded Negroes within the
district be equalized promptly with those afforded white
persons, we are giving plaintiffs all the relief that they
can reasonably ask and the relief that is ordinarily granted
in eases of this sort. See Corbin vs. County School Board
of Arlington County, Virginia, 182 Fed. 2d, 531. The
Court should not use its power to abolish segregation in a
State where it is required by law if the equality demanded
by the Constitution can be attained otherwise. This much
is demanded by the spirit of comity which must prevail
in the relationship between the agencies of the Federal Gov
ernment and the States if our constitutional system is
to endure.” Now, it seems to me that we faced the very
question that you are making right there and said what
we thought about it. Don’t you think so?

Mr. Marshall: Yes, sir. I think you did, sir.
Judge Parker: And that was before the Supreme Court,

and if the Supreme Court had thought we were wrong about

285

that, the Supreme Court should have reversed us. But
instead of doing that, they sent it back for us to consider
this report which we had ordered to be made six months
after the entry of the decree.

Mr. Marshall: Might I suggest, sir, it could have been
that the Supreme Court might be interested in finding out
whether or not the physical facilities were now equal, as
of today.
[fob 533] Judge Dobie: Mr. Marshall, the Supreme Court
knew on that record that not even God, unless He performed
a miracle, could equalize in six months. You couldn’t build
all of those schools in six months anywhere in the world,
could you?

Mr. Marshall: No, sir, but------
Judge Dobie: All that is required is that these people

take reasonable steps, in good faith, to do all that they can,
so far as in their power may lie, to proceed towards this
equalization. Isn’t that true?

Mr. Marshall: Yes, sir. If I might draw an analogy. In
the Sipuel case, the Supreme Court took the same position,
that Oklahome couldn’t set up a law school overnight. Yet
Oklahoma did try to do it. They tried to set up one within
a week, but it didn’t work. And I might say, sir, in the
Corbin case and in the Carter case, both of those cases
were brought back in court on a motion for further relief.
And we are still being denied our rights under those de
cisions, and I don’t know how long it will go on. I think
that we are in the same position with the elementary school
case that we were in with the law school case and the Sweatt
case.

Judge Parker: Am I correct in thinking that the curricu
lum has been equalized? I understood your adversary to
say that.
[fol. 534] Mr. Marshall: Yes, sir.

Judge Parker: The curriculum has been equalized. That
is to say, the colored child can study the same subjects that
the white child can study, but as of now, the buildings are
not as good, and they are preparing to build new buildings
for the colored children, which will give them better schools
really than the white children have over there. Now, isn’t
that so?

Mr. Marshall: That they say, sir. I don’t know whether
they will be better or not.

Judge Parker: Well, new ones are generally better.
Mr. Marshall: But if your Honor pleases, it is still my

position that the rights we are alleging here are personal
and individual rights. They are not group rights. The
question as to what Clarendon County and the defendants
in this case are going to do for the Negro race in the future
is not an issue in this case. The issue in this case is the
rights of these plaintiffs, and these plaintiffs,—some of
whom graduate this year, some of whom are in the upper
brackets in the classes,—they are being denied these rights
every single day, and they are not the type of rights which
are usually the subject of discretion of an Equity Court.
They are constitutional, protected rights, and whether we
take Plessy vs. Ferguson, or whether we take Sweatt and
[fol. 535] McLaurin, the rule is the same, that the facilities
are either equal or they are being denied their constitu
tional rights. If wTe throw aside the segregation point for
the moment, we are still faced with the point that the
plaintiffs in this case, regardless of what the defendants
will do in the future, regardless of what they have already
done or put in words, that it will be a time before they will
get their rights.

Judge Dobie: Well, what can we do, Mr. Marshall?
Mr. Marshall: Order them to stop depriving them of

their rights nowr by the policy of segregation.
Judge Dobie: It all goes back to that.
Judge Parker: Do you imagine that right here—this is

March. Do you imagine that the colored children, who have
been going to the colored schools over there for four or
five months now, would switch over and go to the white
school right in the middle of the term?

Mr. Marshall: Some of them would still stay there, sir.
Judge Parker: Wouldn’t all of them stay there? I went

to high school once,—it was a long time ago, but the idea
of switching high schools in the middle of the term never
occurred to me as a practical thing.

Mr. Marshall: If the curricula of the twTo schools were
identical, it wouldn’t be any problem. They would probably
[fol. 536] be on the exact same day’s work.

Judge Timmerman: If they were already filled up,

287

wouldn’t there be a problem of sitting somebody on some
body else’s lap?

Mr. Marshall: No, sir, it would be a problem of shifting
some of the white children by district lines, or what-liave-
you, and mixing them, or sharing the school equally. It
might be that they wouldn’t all go to the white school.

Judge Timmerman: Well, which ones would go there?
Mr, Marshall: That would be up to the school board to

determine, and they could use any rule except race.
Judge Timmerman: That would be discrimination,

wouldn’t it?
Mr. Marshall: Not unless it is on race.
Judge Timmerman: According to your contention, that

would be discrimination. If a part of them were dis
criminated against and a part of them not, do you think
that would meet the law?

Mr. Marshall: Yes, sir, because in New York, for example,
there are schools that are the finest schools in the world and
there are other schools that are the most dilapidated build
ings in the country, but there is no discrimination. That is
barred by the constitution.

Judge Timmerman: But I thought you said this is an
[fob 537] individual right.

Mr. Marshall: Yes, sir.
Judge Timmerman: If it is an individual right and if

A and B are both being discriminated against, if you
stopped discriminating against B, would that satisfy the
complaint of A?

Mr. Marshall: Not if it is on the basis of race.
Judge Timmerman: Well, it doesn’t do it on any basis,

does it?
Mr. Marshall: But the constitution has said that there

must be a reasonable basis, and if the school board assigns
a certain group of children to a dilapidated school on an
unreasonable basis, then it is in violation of the 14th Amend
ment, but there has to be a showing that it is unreasonable.

Judge Parker : I would like to ask Mr. Figg, when do you
anticipate that the Scotts Branch High School will be com
pleted? What do the plans indicate?

Mr. Figg: The architects, I think, wrote the other day
18—101

288

that the contract calls for 255 days, and that will expire in
Aug’ust.

Judge Parker: August of this year?
Mr. Figg: Yes, sir.
Judge Parker: Does that mean that when the school

opens in September, the Scotts Branch school will be ready
[fol. 538] for occupancy?

Mr. Figg: Yes, sir, it will be in full operation. That is
my understanding. The contractor will turn it over in
August, arid it will be equipped and ready to go in Septem
ber.

Judge Parker: Can’t you get that in the record? I think
that is a very important fact, and it ought to be stated more
than just by hearsay.

(Mr. Figg confers with associates)
Judge Dobie: You can’t tell about the teachers and all

of that, of course, until the schools are completed.
Mr. Marshall: I am sorry, sir, I did not hear you.
Judge Dobie: I say, you can’t tell about the teachers

assigned, and equality, and all of that until the schools are
completed.

Mr. Marshall: Oh, no, sir, not until the schools are com
pleted.

Judge Timmerman: You have made no attack on the
teachers, have you?

Mr. Marshall: No, sir.
Judge Timmerman: It was my understanding that you

had not.
Judge Dobie: As I observed in the Richmond case the

other -way, I am not an expert in Education. I only had
42 years’ experience, and I never had a course in Practice
[fol. 539], Teaching. It just seems to me that all through
these cases there has been an undue stress on buildings
and on facilities. For example, I went to a high school in
Norfolk some years ago, and there wasn’t a teacher in there
that had ever taken a course in Education. There wasn’t an
Educator in any way connected with the school, and there
wasn’t any one of them who had studied these modern psy
chological courses, and of course you know what the net
result was. I think it was the finest high school that they
have ever had in the South! And why? Because every one

289

of them were magnificent teachers and they taught because
they were born that way!

Mr. Marshall: Might I say, sir, that my high school
mathematics teacher had one year above high school and
she had the reputation of being the best mathematics teacher
in that area, and she was without a doubt the best.

Judge Dobie: Yes. I am frank to say that all through
this movement and all, I would like to see this teacher thing
stressed much more than the buildings, not that I don’t
think that the buildings are important, but I think the
teacher is the big thing. There is more caught than is
caught against the log. j

Mr. Marshall: I think, sir, that there are a lot of people
in the world today who, you might say, taught themselves.

Judge Dobie: There is a whole lot in that. But that is
[fol. 540] not practical now, Mr. Marshall. We all know
that. But there is a good deal in it.

Mr. Marshall: I know quite a few who are good examples
of it.

Judge Dobie: And some of them had magnificent teachers.
Judge Parker: All right, go-’ ahead.
Mr. Figg: Your Honor, in the December Report, we

stated that it would be ready for the next school year. We
did not give the exact date, but I would like to ask the
Court’s leave to file a certificate in the record from the
architects, who are supervising the construction, as to the
terms of the contract1 and the completion date provided in
there. I know it is 255 days from last fall.

Judge Parker: I think that we ought to have some assur
ance that the school is going to be completed and completed
promptly. If it is goings to be completed this fall, that is
about as soon as could reasonably be expected.

Mr. Figg: We will file the information, the specific re
quirement of the contract is that it be completed in 255 days
from the starting day, and the architects will give a progress
report that will show when that will happen.

Judge Timmerman: Furnish the other side with a copy,
[fol. 541] Mr. Figg: Yes, sir.

Judge Parker: You have no objection?
Mr. Marshall: No, sir.
Judge Parker: Mr. Marshall, do you have anything to say

290

as to that? Do you question that the school will be available
this fall?

Mr. Marshall: Assuming everything goes along, certainly,
sir, I have no question about it. I believe the responsible
officials and what they say. I am perfectly willing to con
cede now that the point is correct, but I think for the sake of
the record, it would be good to have the certificate.

Mr. Figg: My information is that it is over 40% com
pleted now.

Judge Parker: The new building is 40% completed at this
time?

Mr. Figg: Yes, sir.
Judge Parker: I think that ought to go in the record,

because it will probably go back to the Supreme Court, and
they will want to know exactly what is going’ on. All right,
Mr. Marshall, do you want to say anything further about it ?

Mr. Marshall: No, sir. The only other point that I wanted
to make on this original point that I started on is : That
assuming the building is built, and assuming that they build
a white school next year, we might be right back in court
[fol. 542] again. And the only point I make on that is : That
if we stick to the physical equality point alone, I think we
will be in the same position as we were with the law school
case. In the Corbin case for example, and in the Pulaski
County case in Virginia, in that particular case the opinion
was perfectly clear. The lower Court issued its order that
facilities should be equalized. They were not equalized and
we are back in court for further relief. In our motion for
further relief we are raising the point which we knew we
would eventually have to raise, which is, that in these cases
the physical equality is such a varying thing from day to
day, and it does not meet the constitution—the 14th Amend
ment. And that is why I do, at least, urge the Court to go
as far as the Sipuel and the Gaines cases, which is that the
equality must be furnished now, and in the absence of
equality, not because the segregation laws as such are in
valid, but on the point that the facilities that are furnished
are not equal. Then you cannot use them for the purpose of
segregation. And that is the only point that we urge at this
time. And that is about all on that, unless there are some
more questions.

291

Judge Parker: Do you want to say anything else, Mr.
Piggf

Mr. Figg: Just this, if your Honor pleases: I think that
fundamentally counsel’s argument gets back on every phase
[fol. 543] of the matter to the main question which he said
was present in this case, which is the constitutionality of the
State Constitution and statute demanding separate schools
for the school children in the State. As far as the suggestion
that the right was personal and that it means now is con
cerned, it is obvious to the Court from the record in this
case that that would not mean theoretically now, because it
is impossible to find schools to order for the school children
to be admitted to. We argued that in Charleston in June,
and I think the Court understood from the record that you
can’t put 2800 colored children and 295 white children in
schools built for 295 white children. It would be impossible.
And when the petitioners in this case and the motion here
ask that an order be made to admit petitioners to the only
schools where they can get the same education as the white
children, which is another way of saying, “ to the white
schools, ’ ’ there aren’t any white schools that could accom
modate them. Probably the worst school in the whole dis
trict is the white school, the Summerton Elementary School.
It just happens to have a teacher for each grade. And for
that reason, the Trustees have not gone into remodelling
that school until they have eliminated the schools that do not
have a teacher for each grade.

Now, as we see it, if your Honors please, this district is
not going to furnish the difficulties to counsel that some of
[fol. 544] the other cases have,—that he said they have
faced in their other cases, because this is almost entirely a
colored school district, as you can see from the figures, and
the schools that are being built are colored schools, and there
will always be a great number of schools, sizeable schools,
in this district, and they will be for the colored children. I
do not believe that a Court of Equity, under the State Con
stitution and statute, providing for separate schools, is
called upon even to exercise the discretion of a Court of
Equity to say that there is a lack of schools. It isn’t that
the children are assigned arbitrarily. You take the worst
school and you take the best school, and you see what has
happened, The schools have grown up where the people

292

live, and in this district almost everyone there, the great
majority, ten to one in the school population, are colored.
And there are a lot of schoolhouses all through the country
side there where these colored people live, and then in the
center of the district perhaps you. have a comparatively few
of the white population. And where you have a white popu
lation, you have a white school to come up. Now, unfortu
nately back in the WPA days, they got ambitious and built
a white high school that had brick veneer, because they had
a lot of uneasiness among some of the other people. But
these schools came into being under the operation of educa-
[fol. 545] tional supply and demand. As the demand began
to increase, the schools began to increase.

And actually, when you talk about the time that this school
district had to equalize, the people there also had the same
time to complain, and this is the first time that a complaint
was ever made that the facilities for the colored pupils were
not satisfactory. And we think that the program, with the
aid of the State of South Carolina, that these Trustees have
gone into, which in effect, your Honor, is almost six times as
broad—not quite that much in proportion, but certainly it
covers now seven school districts instead of the one con
cerned in this case, is producing and building education, and
educational facilities, and educational opportunities for the
colored children in that district. Now, counsel says, “ You
have limited facilities.” And I do not agree with him that
one has been assigned to one and one to another. That
happened to be the residence, and that happened to be the
way the communities produced their school demands and
school construction in the past. We all know that. But to
talk about just sprinkling the children among all of the
schools in the district, regardless of whether they are near
their residence, or where they live, to take white children out
of Summerton and send them out to the far reaches of the
district, just to be sure that you have so many colored and so
many white there------
[fol. 546] Judge Dobie: There is nothing in the record, is
there, to show that a situation like this would arise: Here
are two schools, one for the colored and one for the white,
under the South Carolina Constitution, and we will say that
the schools are of equal size and the population is about

equal. There is nothing in the record to show—well, we have
got two school- here, and School A is a verj ̂ much better
school than School B, so of course we will give that to the
whites and give the other to the colored. There is nothing
to indicate that, is there 1

Mr. F igg: No, sir. And learned counsel on the other side,
I think, argued the restrictive covenant case of Shelley vs.
Cramer, and he convinced the Court there that you did not
achieve equal protection of the laws by the indiscriminate
imposition of inequality, and that is what he is arguing be
fore you here today. That is not the way to achieve equal
protection of the laws under the Constitution of South Caro
lina and its statute. The way to do it is just what this Court
ordered in June. This Court took a practical view of this
thing in the light of history and of common knowledge as to
how these conditions developed. There was no guile or evil
design that caused the school system of this district to come
into being. It came into being day by day and year by year
as there began to be children who wanted to go to school,
[fol. 547] Judge Dobie: I guess a lot of it is like Topsy, it
just grew.

Mr. F igg: That is right, sir. And now we have a situa
tion where these Trustees could achieve equality tomorrow
by shutting up all of the schools, or they could achieve
equality by slicing off the assets that one school may have
over another. But these Trustees and the State of South
Carolina under the leadership of our Governor and the far-
reaching legislation passed last year, with the sales tax, and
the educational requirements that have been promulgated
by the Finance Commission, set up under the educational
financing law, is building education. It wants to build edu
cation. It is taxing the people to build it, and it is making
provision here to show the good faith of the State. In its
aid to the Counties, so far up to February 15, 1952, over
three out of every four dollars spent out of the sales tax
legislation have been spent for the construction of Negro
schools in some County or another in South Carolina. And
every dollar that this district has gotten out of the State and
can get out of the State up to this waiting is being devoted to
the construction of Negro schools and to the improvement of
their education. That is not only in this district. That wall
probably always be the case, that certainly nine out of ten

294

dollars that this district gets out of the State will have to go
[fol. 548] for Negro school construction because nine out of
ten pupils are Negroes. And if you ordered segregation to
end tomorrow you would bring into existence in the schools
of this district classrooms where the average would be, in a
30-pupil classro-m, 3 white and 27 colored children. Now,
we heard a lot about personality development down in
Charleston. But under that situation, whose personality
would be developed? There has been a lot of effort in this
case to take a theoretical view of these rights, but funda
mentally when counsel says that the rights are derived from
the Constitution of the United States, the primary right is
derived from the Constitution of the State of South Carolina
and its statutes alone, and that is the existence of a public
school system. That is not provided for by------

Judge Parker: All that is true, but you must take account
of this: That under the 14th Amendment, all persons within
the jurisdiction are entitled to the equal protection of the
lawTs.

Mr. Figg: That is right, sir.
Judge Parker: And the equal protection of the laws

means equal opportunity under the law.
Mr. F igg: That is right, sir. And the Supreme Court, for

the first time, hearing the argument that you ought to shut
down a white school because there was no corresponding
colored school in the Cumming case, refused to do it, and
ffol. 549] said that is not progress in education. And this
Court has taken the spirit of that decision and written it into
its June decree.

Now, we, in the utmost good faith and with expeditious
ness that was difficult to achieve under existing conditions,
and probably at the waste of a little money, went ahead and
ordered the construction of the Scotts Branch High School
and the Scotts Branch Elementary School to be remodelled.
Your Honors will recall the testimony was that it was a good
schoolhouse if it were improved. Well, they have improved
it. That contract was immediately let. The only thing that
really held it up was the inability to get critical materials.

We showed in the December Report that we were denied
on October 15 materials to build that schoolhouse, and the
report then shows that the Trustees then communicated with
the Governor, who communicated with other people, and on

295

October 19 priority was granted. But on October 15, these
trustees were told, “ You can’t get the material to build that
school.” Yet in four days, they had gotten that reversed,
with the aid of the G-overnor of the State and representatives
of the State in Washington. Now, that is an evidence of
high, good faith. They didn’t sit down with that letter of
October 15 and corde to court and say, ‘ ‘ Judge we can’t build
the school. They won’t let us have the materials with which
[fob 550] to do it.” In four days they got that ruling
reversed and within a few days after that, the contract was
signed, and, as I say, in August it will be completed. We
will file a statement to that effect from the architects. And
in September it will be in operation. Now, we think that that
is circumstantial evidence that corroborates completely that
these Trustees have set to work to carry out this decree, and
they are going to continue to do it and bring it into reality
as soon as possible.

You will remember that after the order of June 21, there
was still pending a decision of the Supreme Court of South
Carolina, which case was argued early in June, on the con
stitutionality of the legislation. Then later a case was
brought before a Three-Judge Court in this district. It
wasn’t much of a case, I don’t think, by the time it got to
the Three-Judge Court, because the major question had
already been settled by the Supreme Court of South Caro
lina. But those two decisions, one of which was in July or
August, the latter one,—those two decisions cleared the way
for the financing of this program.

And by the end of October, or certainly by the first part
or early part of November, this contract was signed. There
was no effort made even to achieve economy in carrying out
the order of the Court. And I feel pretty certain that when
[fob 551] you rush into observing the Court’s decree as
they did, with the difficulties of getting critical material,
with the difficulties of financing, and with the necessity of
having a survey before getting any money at all,—because
you can’t get any money from the State Educational Fi
nance Commission without a survey, and with the necessity
of consolidation in the County,—you couldn’t get any money
unless a consolidation occurred, so that all of those things
were done and the contract signed by November 1 under a
decree dated June 21,

296

Now, we think that they have shown good faith, certainly
up to December. And we filed this Supplementary Report
to show that they didn’t stop there. They have gone ahead
now and brought into a concrete reality the things that they
couldn’t say were real then. And when the smoke and dust
blows away, the Negro pupils of this district will have a fine
school system. They will have a fine physical system. They
will have a fine educational system, and the education will
be better for white and colored there when they get through
than it is now or than it was when this suit started. It will
be a progressive thing, and it is almost a 100% Negro School
District.

So we respectfully submit, if your Honors please, the test
being the good faith and the expeditiousness and zeal of the
defendants in this cause, they have established that. And
[fol. 552] I think counsel is quite correct in not questioning
it. The statement of responsible school officials of the dis
trict, and, as he says, of the State, is corroborated up to the
hilt by the facts themselves. I don’t believe anybody could
have done any better than they did. And I think a significant
piece of evidence is what they did about that ruling of
October 15 that they couldn ’t have the material to build the
schoolhouse. They got that reversed in four days. They
didn’t sit down and say, “ This is a windfall. We don’t
have to do anything.” They went to work, and four days
later the Governor got the ruling reversed.

Judge Dobie: That is a right substantial achievement,
when you get any department in Washington to change its
decision in four days, particularly if the first decision was
wrong. That is certainly an achievement.

Mr. Figg: We think that showed the good faith of the
defendants. We think it showed the good faith of the State,
because all the defendants could do was to turn to the
Governor and say, “ We have met with this.” And the State
went into operation. This district couldn’t have done any
thing about it, but the State of South Carolina, through its
Chief Executive, went into the picture, and I don’t think
that this district could have changed that decision in four
days, but the resources of the State proved sufficient. But
[fol. 553] from the standpoint of the defendants, they were
not defendants who sat off in a country school district and

297

said, “ Well, this is fine. This keeps us from having to build
a schoolhouse. ”

So if your Honors please, we respectfully submit that
these defendants have done what this Court ordered to the
best of their ability up to this writing. They have done it
faster than I would have guessed under existing conditions
in the construction industry, with the war, with the economy
comparatively dislocated, and so forth and so on. And as
far as the pupils in this suit are concerned, those that do
not graduate this year will enter the best school in that
district in September, because that School District 22 will
be in it, and the other colored pupils in the other six districts,
and there are only colored pupils in the other districts.

Judge Dobie: I suppose you contend that those who are
graduating, however regrettable the situation is, it is just
not practical to do anything substantial about it.

Mr. F igg: That is right, sir.
Judge Parker: What do you suggest? I want to ask Mr.

Marshall the same thing. What do you suggest is a proper
decree for this- Court to enter?

Mr. Figg: Well, I think that the decree could properly
[fol. 554] state that the defendants have shown good faith
in their actions to carry out the decree of June, and that
while the end of their program has not yet been reached,
they are well into it, and that they have shown to the Court
not only the will and the intention of furnishing the equality
directed by the Court, but on the face of the record they have
shown the ability, the financial ability to do it.

Judge Dobie: Should the decree contain any clause such
as the one requiring further reports? Would you object to
incorporating in the decree that the Court retain jurisdic
tion to see that in the future these worthwhile and worthy
efforts should be continued?

Mr. Figg: Well, as we said in both reports, we stand
ready to file any additional reports that the Court may direct
us to file. We did not want to be presumptuous and suggest
that.

Judge Dobie: Well, you have been fine on that. You were
directed to file one report and bless my soul you have filed
two of them. The supplemental one brings it right down to
date.

298

Mr. Figg: Yes, sir. These Trustees are willing to file
such reports as the Court directs them to do, because they
will have more to report. But they hope in not too long a
time to report that the job has been done.
[fol. 555] Judge Parker: I am wondering if this isn’t
correct: There wasn’t any doubt in my mind about the
finality of the other decree. I don’t think there is any doubt
in the minds of most people, but some got an idea that it was
not a final decree. These people are entitled to a review, and
they are entitled to a review unequivocably. I am wonder
ing if it wouldn’t be wise, regardless of any requirement
about any additional reports,—if you do not comply with
the order of the Court duly entered, we don’t have to retain
jurisdiction to punish you for it.

Judge Dobie: As Mr. Robinson observed in the Richmond
case that we heard last week, we went into it in great detail
and it was very thoroughly explored, and I think it will
probably present the most complete record,—and I think Mr.
Robinson will agree with me, that has ever been up. Both
sides consented that there be not incorporated in the decree
a requirement that there be future reports; because as
Judge Parker said, any time it is not complied with, the
remedies are ample to deal with them in other ways.

Mr. Figg: We feel that what we are supposed to tell the
Court is : That we are carrying out the decree in good faith,
doing the best we can, as quickly as we can, and we think
that success is well in sight. We think it might be a little
presumptuous to come in and say: “ Now, tell us to file some
more reports.” We feel that we are going to do the right
[fol. 556] thing. We feel that we are entitled to suggest at
this time that the Court may assume that too, unless counsel
brings the matter back.

Judge Parker: This is true: The decree having been
vacated, any decree should contain the mandate or the
requirement that you proceed to equalize conditions. There
is no question about that.

Mr. Figg: Yes, sir.
Judge Parker: What do you think ought to be in the

decree, Mr. Marshall?
Mr. Marshall: May it please your Honor, Judge Parker,

I think the Supreme Court opinion said something about—-
it sounded like a final order to me.

299

Judge Dobie: Well, the Supreme Court intimated, did it
not, in that issue, that the Court’s decree was appealable
and you had very properly appealed itf

Mr. Marshall: Yes, sir.
Judge Parker: I think they considered it a final decree.

I don’t think there is any question about it. The Supreme
Court regarded our decree as a final decree, because if they
had regarded it as an interlocutory decree, there wouldn’t
have been any necessity to vacate it.

Mr. Marshall: Yes, sir. Another judgment entered at the
conclusion of these proceedings may provide the basis for
any further appeal.
[fob 557] Judge Parker: Yes.

Mr. Marshall: May it. please the Court, we of course at
this stage have not waived our original position about ask
ing for the injunction on specific grounds.

Judge Parker: I understand that.
Mr. Marshall: And on this particular point, the decree

that we would suggest would be the one that I mentioned
before, the one based on the inequality of the physical facili
ties as of now, and that they be enjoined from enforcing the
rules and regulations requiring segregation.

Judge Parker: What do you say about whether we should
require them to make an additional report here?

Mr. Marshall: Oh, I don’t think so, sir.
Judge Parker: You don’t think that is necessary.
Mr. Marshall: No, sir. I think that if, for example, we

end up with no more than this order and they do not equalize,
we can come back into court at any time. 1 understand an
Equity Court keeps jurisdiction over its own order. On that
point, if I might just for a moment, Judge Dobie, on the
question about assigning students that you mentioned to Mr.
Figg, that the defendants didn’t deliberately assign the
Negro children to the inferior school, the effect of it was just
the same. They have a rule, which is under attack, which
says that the Negroes must attend the Negro schools, and
unequal schools are inferior schools. So it ends up, whether
[fob 558] they set the school up first or the pupil, it still
ends up with them standing here and admitting that they are
spending money and building like mad to equalize. So ob
viously they were unequal even without going into the
record. If there are no further questions, sir, I think I have

300

completed. We do have a memorandum that we would like
to hand up.

Judge Parker: All right. We would like to have that,
yes.

Mr. Marshall: I say frankly, sir, it is nothing new. There
is nothing new in it.

Judge Parker: All right. Do any of the other counsel
desire to say anything? Do you desire to say anything
over here?

Mr. P igg: I just want to say one more thing, your Honor,
I don’t think it is necessary, but counsel has in the record a
motion for judgment today, and he has supporting grounds,
and in ground five he uses the phrase “ undisputed testi
mony” once or twice.

Judge Parker: Well, he is just making the same argument
that he made before. That is all that means.

Mr. Pigg: We don’t want to concede that and let the
statement go by unchallenged. We do dispute that.

Judge Parker: All right. Do you want to file any mem
orandum ?
[fols. 559-561] Mr. Figg: No, sir.

Judge Parker: All right. You have got a printed copy of
the act attached to the report, haven’t you?

Mr. F igg: Yes, sir. I have a copy of the bill. Here are
two other certified copies (handing).

Judge Parker: You attached a copy of the bill and this is
a certified copy that shows that the bill became a law?

Mr. Pigg: Yes, sir.
Judge Timmerman: Were there any amendments?
Mr. Figg: No, sir, there were no amendments at all.
Judge Parker: All right. Is there anything else?
(No response.)
Judge Parker: All right, we will adjourn the court sine

die.

Reporter’s Certificate to foregoing transcript omitted in
printing.

301

[fol. 562] [File endorsement omitted]

I n U nited S tates D istrict Court

I concur:
A. M. Dobie, U. S. Circuit Judge.

I concur:
George Bell Timmerman, U. S. District Judge.

H arry B riggs, J r ., et al ., Plaintiffs,
versus

R . W . E uliott, Chairman, J. D. Carson and G eorge K en
nedy , Members of the Board of Trustees of School Dis
trict No.: 22, Clarendon County, S. C.; Summerton High
School District, a body corporate; L, B. McCord, Superin
tendent of Education for Clarendon County, and Chair
man A. J. Plowden, W. E. Baker, Members of the County
Board of Education for Clarendon County; and H. B.
Betchman, Superintendent of School District No. 22,
Defendants.

Opin io n— Filed March 13, 1952
Heard March 3, 1952. Decided------

Before Parker and Dobie, Circuit Judges, and Timmerman,
District Judge

Harold R. Boulware, Spottswood Robinson, III, Robert L.
Carter, Thurgood Marshall, Arthur Shores and A. T.
Walden, for Plaintiffs; T. C. Callison, Attorney General
of South Carolina, S. E. Rogers and Robert McC. Figgs,
Jr., for Defendants.

[fol. 563] P arker , Circuit Judge:
On June 23, 1951, this court entered its decree in this

cause finding that the provisions of the Constitution and
Statutes of South Carolina requiring segregation of the
races in the public schools are not of themselves violative of
the Fourteenth Amendment of the federal Constitution, but
that defendants had denied to plaintiffs rights guaranteed
by that amendment in failing to furnish for Negroes in

302

School District 22 educational facilities and opportunities
equal to those furnished white persons. That decree denied
the application for an injunction abolishing segregation in
the schools but directed defendants promptly to furnish
Negroes within the district educational facilities and oppor
tunities equal to those furnished white persons and to report
to the court within six months as to the action that had been
taken to effectuate the court’s decree. See Briggs v. Elliott,
98 F. Supp. 529. Plaintiffs appealed from so much of the
decree as denied an injunction that would abolish segrega
tion and this appeal was pending in the Supreme Court of
the United States when the defendants, on December 21,
1951, filed with this court the report required by its decree,
which report was forwarded to the Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court thereupon remanded the case that we might
give consideration to the report and vacated our decree in
order that we might take whatever action we might deem
appropriate in the light of the facts brought to our attention
upon its consideration. Briggs v. Elliott, 342 U. S. 350.
When the case was called for hearing on March 3, 1952, de
fendants filed a supplementary, report showing what addi-
[fol. 564] tional steps had been taken since the report of
December 21, 1951, to comply with the requirements of the
court’s decree and equalize the educational facilities and
opportunities of Negroes with those of white persons within
the district.

The reports of December 21 and March 3 filed by defend
ants, which are admitted by plaintiffs to be true and correct
and which are so found by the court, show beyond question
that defendants have proceeded promptly and in good
faith to comply with the court’s decree.* As a part of a

* The facts disclosed by the ordered and supplemental
report are these: In order to qualify for state aid the old
school district 22 has been combined with six other districts
to become district 1, whose officials have requested and have
by order been admitted as parties to this action. Teachers’
salaries in the district have been equalized by local supple
ment, bus transportation has been instituted (none was fur
nished previously for either race), and $21,522.81 has been
spent for furniture and equipment in Negro schools. En

303

statewide educational program to equalize and improve
educational facilities and. opportunities throughout the State
of South Carolina, a program of school consolidation has
been carried through for Clarendon County, District No. 22
[fol. 565] has been consolidated with other districts so as
to abolish inferior schools, public moneys have been appro
priated to build modern school buildings, within the con
solidated district, and contracts have been let which will
insure the completion of the buildings before the next school
year. The curricula of the Negro Schools within the dis
trict has already been made equal to the curricula of the
white schools and building projects for Negro schools within
the consolidated district have been approved which will
involve the expenditure of $516,960 and will unquestionably
make the school facilities afforded’ Negroes within the dis
trict equal to those afforded to white persons. The new
district high school for Negroes is already 40% completed,
and under the provisions of the construction contract will
be ready for occupancy sometime in August of this year.
That the State of South Carolina is earnestly and in good
faith endeavoring to equalize educational opportunities for
Negroes with those afforded white persons appears from

abling legislation has been secured in the state legislature
which permits the issuance of bonds of the school district
up to 30% of the assessed valuation (The enabling legisla
tion was made possible by an Amendment to the Constitution
of South Carolina passed in 1951. The mamimum had there
tofore been 8%). Compliance with the requirements of the
newly formed State Education Finance Commission has
resulted in funds being made available to District 1 and a
plan of school house construction based on a survey of edu
cation needs has been prepared, approved and adopted.
Plans have been approved for the building of two Negro
elementary schools at St. Paul and Spring Hill and adver
tisements for bids have been circulated in the press. The
contract for remodeling the Scotts Branch Elementary
School and for construction of the new Scotts Branch High
School has already been let, construction has been com
menced, and will, according to the record, be completed in
time for the next school year.

19—101

304

the fact that, since the inauguration of the state-wide edu
cational program, the projects approved and under way to
date involve $5,515,619.15 for Negro school construction as
against $1,992,018.00 for white school construction. The
good faith of defendants in carrying out the decree of this
court is attested by the fact that, when in October delay
of construction of the Negro high school within the con
solidated district was threatened on account of inability to
obtain release of necessary materials, defendants made ap
plication to the Governor of the State and with his aid
secured release of the materials so that construction could
go forward.
[fol. 566] There can be no doubt that as a result of the
program in which defendants are engaged the educational
facilities and opportunities afforded Negroes within the
district will, by the beginning of the next school year begin
ning in September 1952, be made equal to those afforded
white persons. Plaintiffs contend that because they are
not now equal we should enter a decree abolishing segrega
tion and opening all the schools of the district at once to
white persons and Negroes. A sufficient answer is that the
defendants have complied with the decree of this court to
equalize conditions as rapidly as was humanly possible, that
conditions will be equalized by the beginning of the next
school year and that no good would be accomplished for any
one by an order disrupting the organization of the schools
so near the end of the scholastic year. At heretofore stated,
the curricula of the white and Negro schools have already
been equalized. By the beginning of the next scholastic
year, physical conditions will be equalized also. This is
accomplishing equalization as rapidly as any reasonable
person could ask. We dealt with the question in our former
opinion where we said (98 F. Supp. at 537):

“ It is argued that, because the school facilities fur
nished Negroes in District No. 22 are inferior to those
furnished white persons, we should enjoin segregation
rather than direct the equalizing of conditions. In as
much as we think that the law requiring segregation is
valid, however, and that the inequality suffered by
plaintiffs results, not from the law, but from the way
it has been administered, we think that our injunction

should be directed to removing the inequalities result
ing from administration within the framework of the
law rather than to nullifying the law itself. As a court
of equity, we should exercise our power to assure to
plaintiffs the equality of treatment to which they are
entitled with due regard to the legislative policy of the
state. In directing- that the school facilities afforded
[fol. 567] Negroes within the district be equalized
promptly with those afforded white persons, we are
giving plaintiffs all the relief that they can reasonably
ask and the relief that is ordinarily granted in cases
of this sort. See Carter v. County School Board of
Arlington County, Virginia, 4 Cir. 182 F. 2d 531. The
court should not use its power to abolish segregation
in a state where it is required by law if the equality de
manded by the Constitution can be attained otherwise.
This much is demanded by the spirit of comity which
must prevail in the relationship between the agencies
of the federal government and the states if our con
stitutional system is to endure.”

For the reasons set forth in our former opinion, we think
that plaintiffs are not entitled to a decree enjoining segre
gation in the schools but that they are entitled to a decree
directing defendants promptly to furnish to Negroes within
the consolidated district educational facilities and oppor
tunities equal to those furnished white persons. The officers
and trustees of the consolidated district will be made parties
to this suit and will be bound by the decree entered herein.

Injunction abolishing segregation denied.
Injunction directing the equalization of educational facil

ities and opportunities granted.
A true copy. Attest.

Ernest L. Allen, Clerk of U. S. District Court, East.
Dist. of S. Carolina. (Seal.)

306

In' U nited S tates D istrict Court

H arry B riggs, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs,
versus

R. W. E lliott , Chairman, J. D. Carson and G eorge
K en n ed y , Members of the Board of Trustees of School
District No. 22, Clarendon County, S. C .; Summerton
High School District, a body corporate; L. B. McCord,
Superintendent of Education for Clarendon County, and
Chairman A. J. Plowden, W. E. Baker, Members of the
County Board of Education for Clarendon County; and
H. B. Betchman, Superintendent of School District No. 22,
Defendants

[ fo L 568 ] [F i le e n d o rs e m e n t o m itte d ]

D ecree— Filed March 13,1952
In the above entitled case the Court finds the facts to be as

set forth in its written majority opinion filed June 23, 1951
and its written opinion filed herewith, and on the basis
thereof it is adjudged by the Court:

(1) That R. W. Elliott, Chairman, J. D. Carson, E. M.
Touchberry, W. A. Brunson and A. E. Brock, Sr., consti
tuting* the Board of Trustees of School District No. 1,
Clarendon County, South Carolina, and H. B. Betchman,
Superintendent of School District No. 1, be made parties to
this suit in their respective capacities as such and be bound
by all orders and decrees that have been or may hereafter
be entered herein.

(2) That neither Article II section 7 of the Constitution
of South Carolina nor section 5377 of the Code are of them
selves violative of the provisions of the Fourteenth Amend
ment to the Constitution of the United States and plaintiffs
are not entitled to an injunction forbidding segregation in
the public schools of School District No. 1.

(3) That the educational facilities, equipment, and oppor
tunities afforded in School District No. 1 for colored pupils
[fol. 569] are not substantially equal to those afforded for
white pupils; that this inequality is violative of the equal

307

protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and that
plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction requiring the de
fendants to make available to them and to other Negro
pupils of said district educational facilities, equipment,
curricula and opportunities equal to those afforded white
pupils.

And it is accordingly ordered, adjudged and decreed that
the defendants proceed at once to furnish to plaintiffs and
other Negro pupils of said district educational facilities,
equipment, curricula and opportunities equal to those fur
nished white pupils.

And it is further ordered that plaintiffs recover of de
fendants their costs in this action to be taxed by the Clerk of
this Court.

This the 12th day of March 1952.
(S.)John J. Parker, Chief Judge, Fourth Circuit,

(S.) Armistead A. Dobie, U. S. Circuit Judge,
Fourth Circuit, (S.) George Bell Timmerman, U. S.
District Judge, Eastern and Western Districts of
South Carolina.

A true copy. Attest. Ernest L. Allen, Clerk of U. S.
District Court, East. Dist. So. Carolina. (Seal.)

[fol. 570] [File endorsement omitted]

I n U nited S tates D istrict C ourt

[Title omitted]

P etition eor A ppeal— Filed May 9, 1952
Considering themselves aggrieved by the final decree and

judgment of this court entered on March 12, 1952, Harry
Briggs, Jr., Thomas Lee Briggs and Katherine Briggs,
infants, by Harry Briggs, their father and next friend and
Thomas Gamble, an infant by Harry Briggs, his guardian
and next friend; William Gibson, Jr., Maxine Gibson,
Harold Gibson and Julia Ann Gibson, infants, by Anne Gib-

308

son, tlieir mother and next friend; Mitchel Oliver and Rich
ard Allen Oliver, infants, by Mose Oliver, their father and
next friend; Celestine Parson, an infant by Bennie Parson,
her father and next friend; Shirley Ragin and Delores
Ragin, infants, by Edward Ragin, their father and next
friend; Glen Ragin, an infant, by William Ragin, his father
and next friend; Elane Richardson and Emanuel Richard
son, infants, by Luchrisher Richardson, their father and
next friend; James Richardson, Charles Richardson, Doro
thy Richardson and Jackson Richardson, infants, by Lee
[fob 571] Richardson, their father and next friend; Daniel
Bennett, John Bennett and Clifton Bennett, infants, by
James H. Bennett, their father and next friend; Louis
Oliver, Jr., an infant, by Mary Oliver, his mother and next
friend; Gardeneia Stukes, Willie M. Stakes, Jr., and Louis
W. Stukes, infants by Willie M. Stukes, their father and
next friend; Joe Nathan Henry, Charles R. Henry, Eddie
Lee Henry and Phyllis A. Henry, infants, by G. H. Henry,
their father and next friend; Carrie Georgia and Jervine
Georgia, infants, by Robert Georgia, their father and next
friend; Rebecca I. Richburg, an infant, by Rebecca Rich-
burg, her mother and next friend; Mary L. Bennett, Lillian
Bennett and John McKenzie, infants, by Gabrial Tyndal,
their father and next friend; Eddie Lee Lawson and Susan
Ann Lawson, infants, by Susan Lawson, their mother and
next friend; Willie Oliver and Mary Oliver, infants, by
Frederick Oliver, their father and next friend; Hercules
Bennett and Hilton Bennett, infants, by Onetha Bennett,
their mother and next friend; Zelia, Ragin and Sarah Ellen
Ragin, infants, by Hazel Ragin, their mother and next
friend; and Irene Scott, an infant, by Henry Scott, her
father and next friend, plaintiffs herein, do hereby pray that
an appeal be allowed to the Supreme Court of the United
States from said final decree and judgment and from each
and every part thereof; that citation be issued in accordance
with law; that an order be made with respect to the appeal-
bond to be given by said plaintiffs, and that the amount of
security be fixed by the order allowing the appeal, and that
the material parts of the record, proceedings and papers
upon which said final judgment and decree was based duly
[fol. 572] authenticated be sent to the Supreme Court of the

309

United States in accordance with the rules in such case made
provided.

Respectfully submitted, (S.) Harold R. Roulware,
1109% Washington Street, Columbia, South Caro
lina; (S.) Spottswood W. Robinson, III, 623 North
Third Street, Richmond, Virginia; (S.) Robert L.
Carter, Thurgood Marshall, 20 West 40th Street,
New York 18, New York, Counsel for Plaintiffs-
Appellants.

George E. C. Hayes, James M. Nabrit, Arthur D. Shores,
A. T. Walden, Of Counsel.

Hated May 9, 1952.

[fol. 573] [File endorsement omitted]

In U nited S tates D istrict C ourt

[Title omitted]

Order A llow in g A ppeal—Filed May 9, 1952
Harry Briggs, Jr., Thomas Lee Briggs and Katherine

Briggs, infants, by Harry Briggs, their father and next
friend and Thomas Gamble, an infant by Harry Briggs, his
guardian and next friend; William Gibson, Jr., Maxine
Gibson, Harold Gibson and Julia Ann Gibson, infants, by
Anne Gibson, their mother and next friend; Mitehel Oliver
and Richard Allen Oliver, infants, by Mose Oliver, their
father and next friend; Celestine Parson, an infant by Ben
nie Parson, her father and next friend; Shirley Ragin and
Delores Ragin, infants, by Edward Ragin, their father and
next friend; Glen Ragin, an infant, by William Ragin, his
father and next friend; Elane Richardson and Emanuel
Richardson, infants, by Luchrisher Richardson, their father
and next friend; James Richardson, Charles Richardson,
Dorothy Richardson, and Jackson Richardson, infants, by
Lee Richardson, their father and next friend; Daniel Ben-
[fol. 574] nett, John Bennett and Clifton Bennett, infants,
by James H, Bennett, their father and next friend; Louis

310

Oliver, Jr., an infant, by Mary Oliver, bis mother and next
friend; Gardeneia Stukes, Willie M. Stukes, Jr., and Louis
W. Stukes, infants by Willie M. Stukes, their father and next
friend; Joe Nathan Henry, Charles R. Henry, Eddie Lee
Henry and Phyllis A. Henry, infants, by G. II. Henry, their
father and next friend; Carrie Georgia and Jervine Georgia
infants, by Eobert Georgia, their father and next friend;
Rebecca I. Eichburg, an infant by Eebecca Eichburg, her
mother andnexffriend; Mary L.Bennett,Lillian Bennettand
John McKenzie, infants, by Gabrial Tyndal, their father and
next friend; Eddie Lee Lawson and Susan Ann Lawson, in
fants, by Susan Lawson, their mother and next friend; Willie
Oliver and Mary Oliver, infants, by Frederick Oliver, their
father and next friend; Hercules Bennett and Hilton Ben
nett, infants, by Onetha Bennett, their mother and next
friend; Zelia Eagin and Sarah Ellen Ragin, infants, by
Hazel Ragin, their mother and next friend; and Irene Scott,
an infant, by Henry Scott, her father and next friend, hav
ing made and filed their petition praying for an appeal to
the Supreme Court of the United States from the final judg
ment and decree of this court in this cause entered on March
12, 1952, and from each and every part thereof, and having-
presented their assignments of errors and prayer for re
versal and their statement as to the jurisdiction of the Su
preme Court of the United States on appeal pursuant to the
statutes and rules of the Supreme Court of the United
States in such cases made and provided,

Now, therefore, it is hereby ordered that said appeal be
and the same is hereby allowed as prayed for.
ffol. 575] It is further ordered that the appeal bond in the
form of cash in the amount of $500, already on deposit in
this Court, be continued for this appeal.

It is further ordered that citation shall issue in accord
ance with law.

George Bell Timmerman, Judge.
Dated: May 9,1952.

[f'ols. 576-577] Citation in usual form showing service on
S. E. Rogers and Eobert MeC. Figg, Jr., omitted in printing.

311

I n U nited S tates D istrict Court

[Title omitted]

A ssignm ent of E rrors and P rayer for R eversal—Filed
May 9,1952

Harry Briggs, Etc., and all the others who are plaintiffs
in the above-entitled cause, in connection with their appeal
to the Supreme Court of the United States, hereby file the
following Assignment of Errors upon which they will rely
in their prosecution of said appeal from the order and
decree of the District Court entered on March 13, 1952:

1. The District Court erred in refusing to enjoin the en
forcement of the laws of South Carolina requiring racial
segregation in the public schools of Clarendon County on
the ground that these laws violate rights secured under the
[fol. 579] equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amend
ment.

2. The District Court erred in refusing to grant to appel
lants immediate and effective relief against the unconstitu
tional practice of excluding appellants from an opportunity
to share the public school facilities of Clarendon County
on an equal basis with other students without regard to
race or color.

3. The District Court erred in predicating its decision
on the doctrine of Plessy v. Fergusonl and in disregarding
the rationale of Sweatt v. Painter and McLaurin v. Board
of Regents.

Wherefore, plaintiffs] Harry Briggs, etc. and all the the
others who are plaintiffs in the above-entitled cause, pray
that the order and decree of the District Court entered on
March 13, 1952, be reversed and for such other relief as the
Court may deem fit and proper.

Thurgood Marshall, 20 West 40th Street New York
18, New' York.

[ fo l . 578] [F i le e n d o rs e m e n t o m itte d ]

Dated: May 9,1952,

312

[fols. 580-581] Statement required by Rule 12 of the
Rules of the Supreme Court (omitted in printing).

[fols. 582-659] Acknowledgment of Service (omitted in
printing).

[fol. 660] [File endorsement omitted]

I n U n ited S tates D istrict C ourt

[Title omitted]
P r a e c ip e e o r T r a n s c r i p t — Filed May 14, 1952

To the Honorable Ernest L. Allen, Clerk of the Above-
Named Court:
You will please prepare a transcript of the record in the

above-entitled cause to be transmitted to the Clerk of the
Supreme Court of the United States and include in said
transcript the following:

1. Complaint.
2. Answer with exhibits.
3. Transcript of record, including all of the testimony

and opening statements for defendants and plaintiffs but
excluding the closing* remarks of counsel on both sides.
(Excluding pages 225-274 of the Transcript of Testimony.)

4. Majority Opinion of Judges Parker and Timmerman
and dissenting opinion of Judge Waring, dated June 21,
1951.

5. Final decree dated June 21, 1951.
6. Petition for appeal in first appeal.
7. Order allowing appeal in first appeal.
8. Citation on appeal in first appeal.
9. Assignment of errors in first appeal.

[fol. 661] 10. Statement of Jurisdiction to the Supreme
Court in first appeal.

11. Statement of Plaintiffs-Appellants directing attention
to Paragraph 3 of Rule 12 of the Revised Rules of the Su
preme Court of the United States in first appeal.

12. Acknowledgment of Service of Notice of Appeal and
other papers in first appeal.

313

13. Report of defendants pursuant to decree of June 21,
1951.

14. Order of court transmitting defendants’ report to the
United States Supreme Court.

15. Opinion of United States Supreme Court dated Janu
ary 28, 1952.

16. Plaintiffs-appellants ’ motion for judgment.
17. Order setting date of second hearing for February 29,

1952.
18. Order continuing hearing until March 3, 1952.
19. Motion by defendants-appellees requesting that R. W.

Elliott, Chairman, J. D. Carson, E. N. Touchberry, W. A.
Brunson, and A. E. Brock, Sr., constituting the Board of
Trustees of School District No. 1, and N. B. Betchman,
Superintendent of School District No. 1, be made parties to
this suit, and providing that they be bound by all orders and
decrees that have been or may hereafter be entered herein.

20. Defendants-appellees ’ report supplementary to report
listed as Item No. 13 herein.

21. Transcript of second hearing held March 3, 1952.
22. Opinion and decree of district court filed March 13,

1952.
23. Petition for appeal.
24. Order allowing appeal.

[fol. 662] 25. Citation on appeal.
26'. Assignment of Errors and prayer for reversal.
27. Statement of Jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of

the United States.
28. Statement of Plaintiffs-Appellants directing attention

to Paragraph 3 of Rule 12 of the Revised Rules of the
Supreme Court of the United States.

29. Acknowledgment of Service of these appeal papers.
30. This Praecipe.

Thurgood Marshall, Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appel-
lants.

Dated: May 9, 1952.

314

[fols. 663-672] [File endorsement omitted]

I n U nited S tates D istrict Court

D esignation of A dditional P ortions of th e R ecord D esired
to be I ncluded in T ranscript—Filed May 21, 1952

To the Honorable Ernest L. Allen, Clerk of the above named
Court:
The Appellees do hereby designate the following addi

tional portions of the record desired by them to be included
in the Transcript of Record herein, to wit:

1. Amendment to Answer allowed by the Court at the
first trial;

2. The entire Transcript of Record at the first trial, in
cluding all of the testimony, opening statement, colloquy
between counsel and the Court on the closing of the testi
mony, and the oral arguments of counsel, pages 225 to 274 of
the Transcript of Testimony and Proceedings •

3. This Designation as to the record.
S. E. Rogers, Summerton, S. C., Robert McC. Figg,

Jr., 18 Broad Street, Charleston, S. C., Counsel for
Appellees.

Dated May 20, 1952.

[fob 673] Clerk’s Certificate to foregoing transcript
omitted in printing.

[fols. 674-675] I n U nited S tates D istrict C ourt

[Title omitted]

S tipu lation as to P rin tin g— Filed June 3, 1952
The parties to the above-entitled cause hereby stipulate

that the following parts of the record should be printed by
the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States:

All portions of the record designated in Plaintiffs-
Appellants ’ Praecipe dated May 9, 1952, heretofore filed,
with the exception of Items 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, desig

315

nated therein, which are Petition for Appeal, Order Allow
ing Appeal, Citation on Appeal, Assignment of Errors and
Prayer for Reversal, Statement as to Jurisdiction, State
ment Required by Rule 12, Paragraph 3 of the Rules of the
Supreme Court of the United States and Acknowledgment
of Service, all relating* to the first appeal.

Thurgood Marshall, Of Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appel-
lants.

Dated: May 20,1952.
Robert McC. Figg, Jr., Of Counsel for Defendants-

Appellees.
Dated May 19th, 1952.

[fols. 676-677] [File endorsement omitted]

I n th e S uprem e C ourt oe t h e U nited S tates, O ctober
T erm , 1952

No. 101

[Title omitted]

S tatem en t oe P oints to be R elied U pon and D esignation
of P arts of R ecord to be P rinted '—Filed July 5, 1952

A. Appellants adopt for their statement of points upon
which they intend to rely in their appeal to this Court the
points contained in their Assignment of Errors heretofore
filed.

B. Appellants designate for printing all those portions of
the record as indicated in the Stipulation As To Printing,
dated May 19th, 1952, heretofore filed in the above-entitled
case.

Thurgood Marshall, Counsel for Appellants.

[fol. 678] S uprem e C ourt of t h e U nited S tates, October
T erm , 1951

No. 816

[Title omitted]

O rder N oting P robable J urisdiction—June 9, 1952
The statement of jurisdiction in this case having been

submitted and considered by the Court, probable jurisdic
tion is .noted and the case is assigned for argument im
mediately following No. 436, Brown et al. vs. Board of Edu
cation of Topeka, etc., et al.

(2805)

Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.

Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Briggs v. Elliot Transcript of Record

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in