Lockett v. The Board of Education of Muscogee County School District Record on Appeal

    /?4c<i7Z>/J

I n  t h e

Intfrii States §0nri nf Ap^ala
F ob th e  F if t h  C ircuit

No. 25356

J erry L. L ockett , et al .,

versus
Appellants,

B oard of E ducation , M uscogee Co u nty  S chool D istrict , 
Georgia, et al ..

Appellees.

APPE A L FROM T H E  U N IT E D  STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR T H E  

M IDDLE D ISTRICT OF GEORGIA

RECORD ON APPEAL

J ack G reenberg 
Charles S tephen  R alston 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, N. Y. 10019

H oward M oore, Jr.
8591/2 Hunter Street, N.W. 
Atlanta, Georgia 30314

C. B. K ing

P.O. Box 1024 
Albany, Georgia

Attorneys for Appellants



I N D E X

Plan to Desegregate, etc. (Exhibit A) .......... ............  1

Resolution to Amend Plan, etc. .................. ................  5

Motion for Summary Judgment ............ ....................  7

Appendix A —Explanatory Letter ............... .....  16

Appendix B— Choice Form ............. ....................  18

Motion to Allow Appearance of Counsel ............... . 20

O rder.................................................................................. 21

Certificate of Service..................................................... -  21

Notice of Motion ...................................................... —  22

Motion for Further Relief ....     - 23

Certificate of Service ..................................................... 30

Notice of Motion ................... ................................ ..........  31

Motion for Order Entering Decree, etc.....................  32

Certificate of Service ............. ................. .......... ..........  34

Response of Defendant to Plaintiffs’ Motion for an
Order Entering a Decree, etc. ............................    35

Transcript of Proceedings ........ ....... ............ ....... -....  39

PAGE

Certificate 121



Memorandum Opinion and Order on Plaintiffs’ Mo­
tion for Further Relief ........................................... 122

Notice of Appeal ..........................................................  132

Designation of Record on Appeal ............................... 133

Certificate of Service......................................................  135

Clerk’s Certificate ..........................................................  136

T estim on y

Defendants’ Witnesses:

Dr. Wm. H. Shaw
Direct ....................................................................  10
Cross ......................................................................  60
Redirect ............................................................ 94, H3
Recross ..............................................................  113

John R. Kinnett
Direct ....................................................................  96
Cross ......................................................................  97

T. Hiram Stanley-
Direct ....................................................................  98
Cross .....................................................................  100

Plaintiffs’ Witnesses:

Robert A. Lewis
Direct ...................................................................  105
Cross .....................................................................  108
Redirect ...............................................................  H I
Recross .................................................................  112

ii

PAGE



I l l

E x h ib it s*

Plaintiffs’ Exhibits:

1— List of Schools ........ -................... -..... -.........  68

2— Packet ...........................-........ -...................... -  69

3>—Application ........................... -..................... -  85

4— Application ........................................................  85

5— Application ..... ..................................................  85

PAGE

* Exhibits not printed in Record.



I.

The Board of Education of the Muscogee County School 
District, in continuation of its efforts to eliminate, with all 
deliberate speed, discrimination because of race or color 
between the pupils of the school district, hereby declares 
that it will begin to desegregate the schools of the Muscogee 
County School District by starting in September, 1964, 
with the twelfth grade, and the Board of Education will 
desegregate one lower grade each succeeding year until 
desegregation shall have been accomplished throughout the 
school district.

II.

The Board of Education maintains that the best interests 
of the citizens of Muscogee County School District will 
prevail when the Board controls the assignment of pupils 
to the various school plants and facilities. The Super­
intendent of Education is hereby directed to continue the 
maintenance of school attendance areas for each school by 
keeping a map and word description of each attendance 
area. The Board of Education will continue its long estab­
lished policy of assignment of pupils to attendance areas 
in the Muscogee County School District in order to pre­
serve the orderly process of administering public education.

III.

Pupils shall attend the school within the attendance area 
in which they reside, but transfers, upon the written re­
quest of a pupil and his parents or his legal guardian or 
upon the discretion of the Superintendent of Education,

A Plan to Desegregate the Schools of the Muscogee
County School District, Georgia

(Exhibit “A” )



2

may be made, without regard to race or color, whenever 
it is in the interest of the pupil or the efficient administra­
tion of the Muscogee County School District.

IV.

The Board of Education hereby establishes February 
1-15, 1964, as the period in which to receive written appli­
cations from pupils and parents or legal guardians for 
transfers and reassignments to the twelfth grade of a 
high school other than the one to which the pupil is cur­
rently assigned in the Muscogee County School District. 
The written applications setting forth reasons for trans­
fers and reassignments will be evaluated and either ap­
proved or rejected by the Superintendent of Education no 
later than April 1, 1964, and written notice mailed to 
parents at the address shown on written application no 
later than three days after the decision by the Super­
intendent of Education. The pupil and parents or legal 
guardian may appeal in writing the decision of the Super­
intendent of Education no later than the regular April 
meeting of the Board of Education. The final decision of 
the Board of Education will be made no later than May 1, 
1964, and the pupil and parents or legal guardian will be 
given written notice at the address shown on written appli­
cation of the decision by the Board of Education within 
fifteen days.

Y.

The Board of Education will consider written applica­
tions for transfers and reassignments for new pupils mov­
ing into the school district after February 15, 1964, no 
later than August 1, 1964. All pupils must accept the

A Plan to Desegregate the Schools of the Muscogee
County School District, Georgia



3

original assignment to the school within the attendance 
area in which the pupil resides, but will be permitted to 
file written application for transfer and reassignment by 
the Superintendent of Education.

VI.

All newcomers moving into the Muscogee County School 
District after August 1, 1964, must register and attend 
the school in the attendance area in which they reside, but 
may file written application with the Superintendent of 
Education for transfer and reassignment to the twelfth 
grade of another school. Such written applications will 
be processed as expeditiously as possible by the Super­
intendent of Education.

A Plan to Desegregate the Schools of the Muscogee
County School District, Georgia

VII.

All hardship cases, upon written application and full 
explanation of the facts in the case, will be given full and 
sympathetic consideration by the Superintendent of Edu­
cation and the Board of Education.

VIII.

In the administration of this plan the Superintendent of 
Education is directed to take into consideration all criteria 
that may affect the best interest and welfare of the pupils 
and the efficient administration of public education in the 
Muscogee County School District, but no consideration 
shall be given to the race or color fo any pupil.

IX.

The same procedure for filing written applications for 
transfers and reassignments and approving or rejecting



4

such, written applications for transfers and reassignments 
will prevail in 1965 and each year thereafter as outlined 
for the school year beginning September, 1964.

A Plan to Desegregate the Schools of the Muscogee
County School District, Georgia

X.

The Board of Education, in its discretion, may revise, 
change, or amend these rules and regulations or any one 
of them.

Muscogee County School District 
Columbus, Georgia

September 12, 1963



5

W hereas, this Board has reviewed its Plan to desegre­
gate the schools of this District with all deliberate speed 
and has surveyed its personnel and physical facilities and 
desires to further amend its Plan so as to fully comply 
with the law in such cases made and provided:

Now, therefore, be it  resolved, that a parent or legal 
guardian of any child now a resident of Muscogee County 
who will enter any grade, including Kindergarten, in the 
Muscogee County schools in September, 1967, may, during 
the period from March 1 through March 31, 1967, make 
written application at the school now attended by said 
child or at a school in the area in which the residence of 
said child is located, to enroll said child at the school of 
such pupil’s choice, and such pupil shall have the right to 
attend such school provided that the capacity of such 
school is sufficient to enroll all pupils desiring to attend 
such school. In any case where the capacity of any school is 
not sufficient to enroll all pupils applying for attendance 
at such school, those pupils residing nearest the school will 
be enrolled and the remainder of such pupils will be as­
signed by the Superintendent and his staff to other schools 
which have available space and are near the residence of 
said pupils.

B e it  fu rth er  resolved, that any pupil now a resident 
in said County who does not apply as above provided at 
any particular school for the next school year shall register 
and enroll at the school the pupil is now attending or at 
a school in the area in which said pupil’s residence is located.

B e it  fu rth er  resolved, that any new pupil entering the 
school system for the first time must make written appli-

Resolution to Amend the Plan to Desegregate the
Schools of Muscogee County, Georgia



6

Resolution to Amend the Plan to Desegregate the 
Schools of Muscogee County, Georgia

cation to the Superintendent to attend the school of such 
pupil’s choice and, if space is available, such pupil will 
be enrolled at such school, and if space is not available, 
such pupil will be assigned by the Superintendent to a 
school having available space which is near to the residence 
of such pupil.

B e it  furth er  resolved, that the Superintendent shall 
cause to be delivered a copy of this resolution to each pupil; 
now attending Muscogee County schools on or before Feb­
ruary 20, 1967, and the Superintendent shall supply the 
principal of each school with sufficient written forms to 
enable any pupil who desires to do so to make application 
to attend the school of such pupil’s choice. The Super­
intendent shall also give copies of this resolution to the 
news media in this County and to any resident requesting 
copy of same. The Superintendent shall also cause a copy 
of this resolution to be printed in a newspaper in this 
County once a week for four weeks immediately preceding 
March 1, 1967.

B e it  fu rth er  resolved, that this Board review its Plan 
each year and make such amendments to said Plan as it 
may deem desirable.

# * *
This resolution was unanimously adopted by the Muscogee 
County Board of Education, Muscogee County School Dis­
trict, Columbus, Georgia, at its regular meeting held on 
January 31, 1967.



7

(Filed February 1, 1967)

[Caption Omitted]

Plaintiffs, by their undersigned attorneys, hereby move 
this Court for summary judgment under F.R.C.P. 56, grant­
ing an immediate order for additional relief in the present 
case and in support of such motion would show the fol­
lowing :

1. On December 29, 1966, the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rendered a decision in thd 
case of United States of America and Linda Stout v. Jeffer- 
son County Board of Education, et al., No. 23345, and six 
companion school cases. In that decision, the Fifth Circuit, 
settled a number of important issues regarding the re­
quirements of plans for school desegregation in this Circuit. 
In the opinion the Court made it clear that the proposed 
decree which was attached as an appendix:

[is] intended, as far as possible, to apply uniformly 
throughout this circuit in cases involving plans based 
on the free choice of schools. School boards, private 
plaintiffs, and the United States may, of course, come 
into court to prove that exceptional circumstances com­
pel modification of the decree. For example, school 
systems in areas which let school out during planting 
and harvesting seasons may find that the period for 
exercise of choice of school, March 1-31, should be 
changed to a different month. (Slip Opinion, pp. 
111- 12)1

Motion for Summary Judgment

1 The choice period is May 1—June 1 in the year 1967.



8

2. In view of the decision, certain standards regarding 
the exercise of choice in a free choice plan are required 
in all school cases pending in this Circuit, including the, 
present case. Those standards include the necessity for 
an adequate period of time for the choice period, the re­
quirement that all pupils in the system exercise a choice, 
and certain other matters as set out more fully below in 
the prayer for relief.

3. I f  the requested motion is not granted and the re­
quired free choice period is not established immediately 
by order of this Court, the rights of the plaintiffs as estab­
lished by the decision of the Fifth Circuit will be seriously 
jeopardized as far as the coming school year is concerned.

4. In view of the fact that the plan presently in effect 
in this case does not fully conform to the standards set 
out by the Fifth Circuit and in view of the Fifth Circuit’s 
holding that as a matter of law its proposed decree is to 
be entered in all pending cases except where exceptional 
circumstances are shown to exist, there are no material 
questions of fact at issue and plaintiffs are entitled to 
judgment as a matter of law. Therefore, this Court should 
grant the requested motion for summary judgment pur­
suant to F.R.C.P. Rule 56 and render the decree sought 
herein by the plaintiffs.

W herefore, plaintiffs pray for summary judgment, after 
defendants have been given an opportunity to respond a  ̂
provided for in Rule 56, granting an order requiring the 
school board to amend the plan presently in effect in the 
following particulars, as required by the proposed decree 
of the Fifth Circuit in the above-mentioned cases (Slip 
Opinion, pp. 118-25; 132-34) :

Motion for Summary Judgment



9

I

S peed of D esegregation

Commencing with, the 1967-68 school year, in accordance 
with this decree, all grades, including kindergarten grades, 
shall be desegregated and pupils assigned to schools in 
these grades without regard to race or color.

II

E xercise of C hoice

The following provisions shall apply to all grades:

(a) Who May Exercise Choice. A  choice of schools may 
be exercised by a parent or other adult person serving as 
the student’s parent. A  student may exercise his own 
choice if he (1) is exercising a choice for the ninth or a 
higher grade, or (2) has reached the age of fifteen at the 
time of the exercise of choice. Such a choice by a student 
is controlling unless a different choice is exercised for him 
by his parent or other adult person serving as his parent 
during the choice period or at such later time as the student 
exercise a choice. Each reference in this decree to a stu­
dent’s exercising a choice means the exercise of the choice, 
as appropriate, by a parent or such other adult, or by the 
student himself.

(b) Annual Exercise of Choice. All students, both white 
and Negro, shall be required to exercise a free choice of 
schools annually.

(c) Choice Period. The period for exercising choice 
shall commence May 1, 1967 and end June 1, 1967, and 
in subsequent years shall commence March 1 and end 
March 31 preceding the school year for which the choice

Motion for Summary Judgment



10

is to be exercised. No student or prospective student who 
exercises his choice within the choice period shall be given 
any preference because of the time within the period when 
such choice was exercised.

(d) Mandatory Exercise of Choice. A  failure to exercise 
a choice within the choice period shall not preclude any 
student from exercising a choice at any time before he 
commences school for the year with respect to which the 
choice applies, but such choice may be subordinated to the 
choices of students who exercised choice before the ex­
piration of the choice period. Any student who has not 
exercised his choice of school within a week after school 
opens shall be assigned to the school nearest his home 
where space is available under standards for determining 
available space which shall be applied uniformly through­
out the system.

(e) Public Notice. On or within a week before the date 
the choice period opens, the defendants shall arrange for 
the conspicuous publication of a notice describing the pro­
visions of this decree in the newspaper most generally 
circulated in the community. The text of the notice shall 
be substantially similar to the text of the explanatory 
letter sent home to parents. (See paragraph 11(e).) Pub­
lication as a legal notice will not be sufficient. Copies of 
this notice must also be given at that time to all radio and 
television stations serving the community. Copies of this 
decree shall be posted in each school in the school system 
and at the office of the Superintendent of Education.

(f) Mailing of Explanatory Letters and Choice Forms. 
On the first day of the choice period there shall be dis­
tributed by first-class mail an explanatory letter and a

Motion for Summary Judgment



11

choice form to the parent (or other adult person acting 
as parent, if known to the defendants) of each student, to­
gether with a return envelope addressed to the Super­
intendent. Should the defendants satisfactorily demon­
strate to the court that they are unable to comply with the 
requirement of distributing the explanatory letter and 
choice form by first-class mail, they shall propose an alter­
native method which will maximize individual notice, i.e., 
personal notice to parents by delivery to the pupil with 
adequate procedures to insure the delivery of the notice. 
The text for the explanatory letter and choice form shall 
essentially conform to the sample letter and choice form 
appended to this decree. (See Appendix A.)

(g) Extra Copies of the Explanatory Letter and Choice 
Form. Extra copies of the explanatory letter and choice 
form shall be freely available to parents, students, prospec­
tive students, and the general public at each school in the 
system and at the office of the Superintendent of Education 
during the times of the year which such schools are usually 
open.

(h) Content of Choice Form. Each choice form shall set 
forth the name and location of the grades offered at each 
school and may require of the person exercising the choice 
the name, address, age of student, school and grade cur­
rently or most recently attended by the student, the school 
chosen, the signature of one parent or other adult person 
serving as parent, or where appropriate the signature of 
the student, and the identity of the person signing. No 
statement of reasons for a particular choice, or any other 
information, or any witness or other authentication, may 
be required or requested, without approval of the court. 
(See Appendix B.)

Motion for Summary Judgment



1 2

(i) Return of Choice Form. At the option of the person 
completing the choice form, the choice may be returned 
by mail, in person, or by messenger to any school in the/ 
school system or to the office of the Superintendent.

(j) Choices not on Official Form. The exercise of choice 
may also be made by the submission in like manner of any 
other writing which contains information sufficient to iden­
tify the student and indicates that he has made a choice 
of school.

(k) Choice Forms Binding. When a choice form has 
once been submitted and the choice period has expired, 
the choice is binding for the entire school year and may 
not be changed except in cases of parents making different 
choices from their children under the conditions set forth 
in paragraph 11(a) of this decree and in exceptional cases 
where, absent the consideration of race, a change is edu­
cationally called for or where compelling hardship is shown 
by the student.

(l) Preference in Assignment. In assigning students to 
schools, no preferences shall be given to any student for 
prior attendance at a school and, except with the approval 
of court in extraordinary circumstances, no choice shall be 
denied for any reason other than overcrowding. In case 
of overcrowding at any school, preference shall be given 
on the basis of the proximity of the school to the homes 
of the students choosing it, without regard to race or color. 
Standards for determining overcrowding shall be applied 
uniformly throughout the system.

(m) Second Choice where First Choice is Denied. Any 
student whose choice is denied must be promptly notified

Motion for Summary Judgment



13

in writing and given Ms choice of any school in the school 
system serving his grade level where space is available. 
The student shall have seven days from the receipt of no­
tice of a denial of first choice in which to exercise a second 
choice.

(n) Official not to Influence Choice. At no time shall any 
official, teacher, or employee of the school system influence 
any parent, or other adult person serving as a parent, or 
any student, in the exercise of a choice or favor or penalize 
any person because of a choice made. I f  the defendant 
school board employs professional guidance counsellors, 
such persons shall base their guidance and counselling on 
the individual student’s particular personal, academic, and 
vocational needs. Such guidance and counselling by teach­
ers as well as professional guidance counsellors shall be 
available to all students without regard to race or color.

(o) Protection of Persons Exercising Choice. Within 
their authority school officials are responsible for the pro­
tection of persons exercising rights under or otherwise 
affected by this decree. They shall, without delay, take 
appropriate action with regard to any student or staff 
member who interferes with the successful operation of 
the plan. Such interference shall include harassment, in­
timidation, threats, hostile words or acts, and similar be­
havior. The school board shall not publish, allow, or cause 
to be published, the names or addresses of pupils exer­
cising righst or otherwise affected by this decree. I f  offi­
cials of the school system are not able to provide sufficient 
protection, they shall seek whatever assistance is necessary 
from other appropriate officials.

Motion for Summary Judgment



14

III

P rospective S tudents

Each prospective new student shall be required to exer­
cise a choice of schools before or at the time of enrollment. 
All such students known to defendants shall be furnished 
a copy of the prescribed letter to parents, and choice form, 
by mail or in person, on the date the choice period opens 
or as soon thereafter as the school system learns that he 
plans to enroll. Where there is no pre-registration proce­
dure for newly entering students, copies of the choice forms 
shall be available at the Office of the Superintendent and 
at each school during the time the school is usually open.

IV

T ransfers

(a) Transfers for Students. Any student shall have the> 
right at the beginning of a new term to transfer to any 
school from which he was excluded or would otherwise be 
excluded on account of his race or color.

(b) Transfers for Special Needs. Any student who re­
quires a course of study not offered at the school to which 
he has been assigned may be permitted, upon his written 
application, at the beginning of any school term or semester, 
to transfer to another school which offers courses for his 
special needs.

(c) Transfers to Special Classes or Schools. I f the de­
fendants operate and maintain special classes or schools 
for physically handicapped, mentally retarded, or gifted 
children, the defendants may assign children to such schools 
or classes on a basis related to the function of the special 
class or school that is other than freedom of choice. In no

Motion for Summary Judgment



15

event shall such assignment be made on the basis of race 
or color or in a manner which tends to perpetuate a dual 
school sysetm based on race or color.

Respectfully submitted,

H oward M oore, J r .
859% Hunter Street, N.W. 
Atlanta, Georgia

J ack  G reenberg 
Charles S teph en  R alston 
H enry  M . A ronson 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Motion for Summary Judgment

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the fore­
going Motion for Summary Judgment on the defendants 
by mailing a copy of the same to their attorneys, J. Madden 
Hatcher, Esq., and A. J. Land, Esq., P. 0. Box 469, Colum­
bus, Georgia, by United States mail, postage prepaid.

Done this 30th day of January, 1967.

H oward M oore, Jr.
Attorney for Plaintiffs;



16

APPENDIX A 

Explanatory Letter

(School System Name and Office Address)

(Date Sent)
Dear Parent:

All grades in onr school system will be desegregated next 
year. Any student who will be entering one of these grades 
next year may choose to attend any school in our system, 
regardless of whether that school was formerly all-white 
or all-Negro. It does not matter which school your child 
is attending this year. You and your child may select any 
school you wish.

Every student, white and Negro, must make a choice of 
schools. If a child is entering the ninth or higher grade, or 
if the child is fifteen years old or older, he may make the 
choice himself. Otherwise a parent or other adult serving 
as parent must sign the choice form. A  child enrolling in 
the school system for the first time must make a choice of 
schools before or at the time of his enrollment.

The form on which the choice should be made is attached 
to this letter. It should be completed and returned by June 
1, 1967. You may mail it in the enclosed envelope, or de­
liver it by messenger or by hand to any school principal or 
to the Office of the Superintendent at any time between 
May 1 and June 1. No one may require you to return your 
choice form before June 1 and no preference is given for 
returning the choice form early.

No principal, teacher or other school official is permitted 
to influence anyone in making a choice or to require early 
return of the choice form. No one is permitted to favor or



17

Appendix A

penalize any student or other person because of a choice 
made. A  choice once made cannot be changed except for 
serious hardship.

No child will be denied his choice unless for reasons of 
overcrowding at the school chosen, in which case children 
living nearest the school will have preference.

Transportation will be provided, if reasonably possible, 
no matter what school is chosen. [Delete if the school sys­
tem does not provide transportation.]

Your School Board and the school staff will do every­
thing we can to see to it that the rights o f all students are 
protected and that desegregation of our schools is carried 
out successfully.

Sincerely yours, 
Superintendent



18

APPENDIX B 

Choice Form

This form is provided for you to choose a school for 
your child to attend next year. You have 30 days to make 
your choice. It does not matter which school your child 
attended last year, and does not matter whether the school 
you choose was formerly a white or Negro school. This 
form must be mailed or brought to the principal of any 
school in the system or to the office of the Superintendent, 
[address], by June 1, 1967. A  choice is required for each 
child.

Name of Child ......... .................................. .................................. ,
(Last) (First) (Middle)

A ddress................................................................

Name of Parent or other
adult serving as parent .................................

I f  child is entering first grade, date of birth

(Month) (Day) (Year)

Grade child is entering 

School attended last year



19

Appendix B

Choose one of the following schools by marking an X  beside 
the name.

Name of School Grade Location

Signature

Date

To be filled in by Superintendent:

School Assigned



2 0

Motion to Allow Appearance of Counsel

(Filed February 1, 1967)

[Caption Omitted]

H oward M oore, J r ., E sq., moves the Court for an order 
allowing his appearance as counsel for the plaintiffs in the 
above case.

This 30th day of January, 1967.

H oward M oore, J r .
8591/s Hunter St., N. W. 
Atlanta, Georgia 30314



21

Order

Upon consideration of the above and foregoing motion 
to allow appearance of counsel, the same is hereby allowed 
and ordered filed and the clerk is directed to enter the name 
of Howard Moore, Jr., as counsel of record for the plain­
tiffs.

This 1st day of February, 1967.

J . R obert E lliott 
Judge, United States District Court

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the fore­
going motion on defendants by mailing a copy of same to 
their attorney, J. Madden Hatcher, Esq., P. O. Bos 469, 
Columbus, Georgia, via United States Mail, postage pre­
paid.

This 30th day of January, 1967.

H oward M oore, Jr.



22

Notice of Motion

(Filed February 17, 1967)

(Caption Omitted)
To:

J. Madden Hatcher, Esq. and A. J. Land, Esq., P. 0. Box 
469, Columbus, Georgia, attorneys for defendant Board of 
Education of Muscogee County School District, Georgia, 
et al.

You and each of you are hereby notified that the under­
signed counsel for movants herein will bring the attached 
motion for further relief, together with the herein before 
filed motion for summary judgment, on for hearing at such 
time and place as the court shall order or, in the event no 
order for hearing is allowed, within 15 days of the receipt 
of the same, on briefs, as provided for in the “local rules of 
court” . You are invited to appear and take such part as 
you consider fit and proper.

This 15th day of February, 1967.

H oward M oore, Jr.
859% Hunter St., N. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30314 

Attorney for Movants



23

(Filed February 17, 1967)

[Caption Omitted]

Plaintiffs, by their undersigned attorneys, hereby move 
this Court for further relief in this case, and in support of 
such motion, would show the following:

1. On December 29, 1966, the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rendered its decision in the 
case of the United States of America and Linda Stout v. 
Jefferson County Board of Education, et al., No. 23345, and 
six companion school cases. In that decision the Fifth Cir­
cuit settled a number of important issues regarding the re­
quirements of plans for school desegregation in this Cir­
cuit. The plaintiffs have already filed a motion for sum­
mary judgment in this case for an order granting them a 
number of the requirements set out by the Fifth Circuit 
regarding which no taking of evidence is necessary.

2. In addition to the matters covered in plaintiffs’ motion 
for summary judgment, the Fifth Circuit also made it clear 
that all plans in this Circuit for the desegregation of schools 
are to include provisions: that will insure that services, 
facilities, activities and programs in all schools will be free 
of segregation and discrimination; that in all schools here­
tofore maintained for Negro students, the school boards 
must take prompt steps to equalize the physical facilities', 
equipment, courses of instruction, etc., if such steps are 
necessary; that the school boards are to locate any planned 
new schools wtih the objective of eradicating any vestiges 
of the former dual school system and to eliminate the ef­
fects of segregation; that the school boards are to take 
prompt steps to achieve substantial desegregation of school

Motion for Further Relief



24

faculties for the school year 1967-68; and that school boards 
are to file with the district court and serve upon plaintiffs 
comprehensive reports setting out the extent of desegrega­
tion.

3. Since the plan presently in effect in the present case 
does not fully conform to the standards set out by the Fifth 
Circuit, plaintiffs are entitled to a further order establish­
ing a plan that provides for the above-mentioned matters.

W herefore, plaintiffs pray that this Court set down this 
motion for hearing and, after such hearing, grant an order 
requiring the school board to amend to the extent necessary 
the plan presently in effect in the following particulars, as 
required by the proposed decree of the Fifth Circuit in the 
above-mentioned case (Slip Opinion, pp. 126-131):

I

S ervices, F acilities, A ctivities and P rograms

No student shall be segregated or discriminated against 
on account of race or color in any service, facility, activity, 
or program (including transportation, athletics, or other 
extra-curricular activity) that may be conducted or spon­
sored by or affiliated with the school in which he is enrolled. 
A  student attending school for the first time on a desegre­
gated basis may not be subject to any disqualification or 
waiting period for participation in activities and programs, 
including athletics, which might otherwise apply because 
he is a transfer or newly assigned student except that such 
transferees shall be subject to long-standing, non-racially 
based rules of city, county, or state athletic associations 
dealing with the eligibility of transfer students for athletic 
contests. All school use or school-sponsored use of athletic

Motion for Further Relief



25

fields, meeting rooms, and all other school related services, 
facilities, activities, and programs such as Commencement 
exercises and parent-teacher meetings which are open to 
persons other than enrolled students, shall be open to all 
persons without regard to race or color. All special educa­
tional programs conducted by the defendants shall be con­
ducted without regard to race or color.

II

S chool E qualization

(a) Inferior Schools. In schools heretofore maintained 
for Negro students, the defendants shall take prompt steps 
necessary to provide physical facilities, equipment, courses 
of instruction, and instructional materials of quality equal 
to that provided in schools previously maintained for white 
students. Conditions of overcrowding, as determined by 
pupil-teacher ratios and pupil-classroom ratios shall, to the 
extent feasible, be distributed evenly between schools for­
merly maintained for Negro students and those formerly 
maintained for white students. If for any reason it is not 
feasible to improve sufficiently any school formerly main­
tained for Negro students, where such improvement would 
otherwise be required by this subparagraph, such school 
shall be closed as soon as possible, and students enrolled in 
the school shall be reassigned on the basis of freedom of 
choice. By October of each year, defendants shall report to 
the Clerk of the Court pupil-teacher ratios, pupil-classroom 
ratios, and per-pupil expenditures both as to operating and 
capital improvement costs, and shall outline the steps to be 
taken and the time within which they shall accomplish the 
equalization of such schools.

(b) Remedial Programs. The defendants shall provide 
remedial education programs which permit students attend­

Motion for Further Belief



Motion for Further Belief

ing or who have previously attended all-Negro schools to 
overcome past inadequacies in their education.

III

N ew  C onstruction

The defendants, to the extent consistent with the proper 
operation of the school system as a whole, shall locate any 
newT school and substantially expand any existing schools 
with the objective of eradicating the vestiges of the dual 
system and of eliminating the effects of segregation.

IV

F aculty  and S taee

(a) Faculty Employment. Race or color shall not be a 
factor in the hiring, assignment, reassignment, promotion, 
demotion, or dismissal of teachers and other professional 
staff members, including student teachers, except that race 
may be taken into account for the purpose of counteracting 
or correcting the effect of the segregated assignment of 
teachers in the dual system. Teachers, principals, and staff 
members shall be assigned to schools so that the faculty and 
staff is not composed exclusively of members of one race. 
Wherever possible, teachers shall be assigned so that more 
than one teacher of the minority race (white or Negro) 
shall be on a desegregated faculty. Defendants shall take 
positive and affirmative steps to accomplish the desegrega­
tion of their school faculties and to achieve substantial de­
segregation of faculties in as many of the schools as pos­
sible for the 1967-68 school year notwithstanding that 
teacher contracts for the 1966-67 or 1967-68 school years 
may have already been signed and approved. The tenure 
of teachers in the system shall not be used as an excuse for



27

failure to comply with, this provision. The defendants shall 
establish as an objective that the pattern of teacher assign­
ment to any particular school not be identifiable as tailored 
for a heavy concentration of either Negro or white pupils 
in the school.

(b) Dismissals. Teachers and other professional staff 
members may not be discriminatorily assigned, dismissed, 
demoted, or passed over for retention, promotion, or re­
hiring, on the ground of race or color. In any instance where 
one or more teachers or other professional staff members 
are to be displaced as a result of desegregation, no staff 
vacancy in the school system shall be filled through recruit­
ment from outside the system unless no such displaced staff 
member is qualified to fill the vacancy. If, as a result of de­
segregation, there is to be a reduction in the total profes­
sional staff of the school system, the qualifications of all 
staff members in the system shall be evaluated in selecting 
the staff member to be released without consideration of 
race or color. A report containing any such proposed dis­
missals, and the reasons therefor, shall be filed with the 
Clerk of the Court, serving copies upon opposing counsel, 
within five (5) days after such dismissal, demotion, etc., as 
proposed.

(c) Past Assignments. The defendants shall take steps 
to assign and reassign teachers and other professional staff 
members to eliminate past discriminatory patterns.

V

R eports to th e  C ourt

(1) Report on Choice Period. The defendants shall serve 
upon the opposing parties and file with the Clerk of the 
Court on or before April 15, 1967, and on or before June

Motion for Further Relief



Motion for Further Belief

15, 1967, and in each subsequent year on or before June 1, 
a report tabulating by race the number of choice applica­
tions and transfer applications received for enrollment in 
each grade in each school in the system, and the number 
of choices and transfers granted and the number of denials 
in each grade of each school. The report shall also state 
any reasons relied upon in denying choice and shall 
tabulate, by school and by race of student, the number of 
choices and transfers denied for each such reason.

In addition the report shall show the percentage of 
pupils actually transferred or assigned from segregated 
grades or to schools attended predominantly by pupils of a 
race other than the race of the applicant, for attendance 
during the 1966-67 school year, with comparable data for 
the 1965-66 school year. Such additional information shall 
be included in the report served upon opposing counsel and 
filed with the Clerk of the Court.

(2) Report After School Opening. The defendants shall, 
in addition to reports elsewhere described, serve upon op­
posing counsel and file with the Clerk of the Court within 
15 days after the opening of schools for the fall semester 
of each year, a report setting forth the following informa­
tion:

(i) The name, address, grade, school of choice and 
school of present attendance of each student who has 
withdrawn or requested withdrawal of his choice of 
school or who has transferred after the start of the 
school year, together with a description of any action 
taken by the defendants on his request and the reasons 
therefor.

(ii) The number of faculty vacancies, by school, that 
have occurred or been filled by the defendants since



29

the order of this Court or the latest report submitted 
pursuant to this subparagraph. This report shall state 
the race of the teacher employed to fill each such va­
cancy and indicate whether such teacher is newly em­
ployed or was transferred from within the system. 
The tabulation of the number of transfers within the 
system shall indicate the schools from which and to 
which the transfers were made. The report shall also 
set forth the number of faculty members of each race 
assigned to each school for the current year.

(iii) The number of students by race, in each grade 
of each school.

Respectfully submitted,

H oward M oore, J r .
859]/2 Hunter Street, N.W. 
Atlanta, Georgia

J ack  Greenberg

C harles S teph en  R alston

H en ry  M . A ronson

10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Motion for Further Relief



30

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the forego­
ing Motion for Further Relief on the defendants by mail­
ing a copy of the same to their attorneys, J. Madden 
Hatcher, Esq., and A. J. Land, Esq., P. 0. Box 469, Colum­
bus, Georgia, by United States mail, postage prepaid.

Done this 15th day of February, 1967.

H ow ard  M oore , J r .
Attorney for Plaintiffs



31

Notice of Motion

(Filed May 9, 1967)

[Caption Omitted]

To:
J. Madden Hatcher, Esq. and A. J. Land, Esq., P. 0. Box 

469, Columbus, Georgia, attorneys for defendant Board of 
Education of Muscogee County School District, Georgia, 
et al.

You and each of you are hereby notified that the under­
signed counsel for movants herein will bring the attached 
motion on for hearing at such time and place as the Court 
shall order or, in the event no order for hearing is allowed, 
within fifteen days of the receipt of the same, on briefs, as 
provided for in the “Local Rules of Court” . You are in­
vited to appear and take such part as you consider fit and 
proper.

This 6th day of May, 1967.

H oward M oore, J r .
859% Hunter St., N.W. 
Atlanta, Georgia 30314 

Attorney for Movants



32

Motion for  an Order Entering a Decree on the Authority
of the U n ite d  S ta tes  o f  A m e r ic a  a n d  L in d a  S to u t  v.
J e ffe r s o n  County B o a r d  o f  E d u c a tio n , e t  a l ., or in 

the Alternative, for an immediate Hearing

(Filed May 9, 1967)

[Caption Omitted]

Plaintiffs, by their undersigned attorneys, hereby move 
this Court for an order entering a decree on the authority 
of the United States of America and Linda Stout v. Jeffer­
son County Board of Education, et al., No. 23345, decided 
December 29, 1966 in the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Fifth Circuit, or in the alternative, for an immedi­
ate hearing. In support of such motion, plaintiffs show the 
following:

1. The decision of the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Fifth Circuit on December 29, 1966 by three judges 
of said Court was affirmed by the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc. Motions for 
stays of execution and enforcement are the judgments of 
the United States District Court for the Eastern and West­
ern Districts of Louisiana entered pursuant to the man­
dates of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth 
Circuit in said cases were denied by the Supreme Court 
of the United States on April 17, 1967, sub nom. Caddo 
Paris School Board v. United States, 35 U. S. Law Week, 
3365 (1967).

2. The record, orders, judgments, decrees, and plans of 
filed in this Court in the above captioned case clearly show 
that the plan now providing for limited equal educational 
opportunities in the school system operated by the defend­
ant Board of Education of Muscogee County School Dis-



33

Motion for an Order Entering a Decree on the Authority 
of the United States of America and Linda Stout v. 
Jefferson County Board of Education, et al., or in 

the Alternative, for an immediate Hearing

trict does not satisfy the judgments and mandates of the 
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in 
the case of the United States of America, and Linda Stout 
v. Jefferson County Board of Education, et al., No. 23345.

W herefore, plaintiffs pray that this Court enter an order 
decreeing the defendant School Board to amend to the ex­
tent necessary the plan presently in effect so as to fully 
conform to the standards set out by the United States Court 
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit or, in the alternative, to 
set down their previously filed motions for summary judg­
ment and for further relief for hearing and, after such hear­
ing, grant an order requiring the school board to amend 
to the extent necessary the plan presently in effect to fully 
conform to the standards set out by the United States Court 
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

H oward M oore, J r .
859y2 Hunter St., N.W. 
Atlanta, Georgia 30314

J ack  G reenberg

C harles S teven It Alston

H enry  M . A ronson 
Suite 2030 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Plaintiffs



34

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the fore­
going motion on the defendants by filing a copy of the same 
to their attorneys, J. Madden Hatcher, Esq., and A. J. Land, 
Esq., P. 0. Box 469, Columbus, Georgia, by United States 
Mail, postage prepaid.

Done this 6th day of May, 1967.

H ow ard  M oore, J r .
Attorney for Plaintiffs



35

Response o f  Defendant to Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Order
Entering a Decree on the Authority o f the United
Slates o f America, el al. v. Jefferson County Board 

o f Education, et al.

(Filed June 6, 1967)

[Caption Omitted]

Comes now the Defendant, B oard of E ducation of th e  
M uscogee C ou nty  S chool D istrict of th e  S tate of Georgia, 
and, in response to the motion of the Plaintiffs served on 
the Defendant May 6, 1967, respectfully shows to the Court 
as follows:

1.
Defendant is informed and believes that the School Board 

defendants in the case of United States of America and 
Linda Stout v. Jefferson County Board of Education, et al., 
No. 23345, have petitioned, or will in the near future peti­
tion, for certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United 
States to have the decree entered in the above stated case 
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Cir­
cuit on December 29,1966, reviewed, reversed and remanded, 
and such petition for certiorari has not yet been granted or 
denied by the Supreme Court, and the decree of the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the above 
stated case should not be considered final until said petition 
for certiorari has been acted upon.

2.
This Defendant, prior to the filing of this suit by the 

Plaintiffs, did on September 16, 1963, adopt a plan to de­
segregate the schools of the Muscogee County School Dis­
trict, Georgia, and, since the adoption of said plan, have



36

persistently prosecuted the desegregation of said School 
System and did on December 28, 1964, an on December 20, 
1965, and on January 31, 1967, amend said plan so that said 
schools could he desegregated as rapidly as reasonably pos­
sible. In accordance with the judgment of this Court and 
the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Fifth Circuit in this case, Defendant has given the par­
ents of each student in each grade, including Kindergarten, 
the free choice to select the school which said parents desire 
for said student to attend during the next school year, and 
all choice applications have been acted upon by the Super­
intendent and his staff without reference to race or color, 
and all of said applications have been granted or acted 
upon in a manner satisfactory to said parents and students 
and there has been no appeal filed by any parent or student 
with respect to any choice application.

3.

All of the schools and grades in the Muscogee County 
School System have been accredited by the Southern Ac­
crediting Association, and Defendant is affording each and 
every child as fine an educational opportunity as the funds 
available to it will permit.

Response of Defendant to Plaintiffs’ Motion, etc.

4.

The actions of this Defendant in administering said 
schools and said plan of desegregation has met with the 
approval of the Citizens of this County.

5.

Defendant has desegregated the faculties in some of the 
classes and schools in its system.



37

6.
Defendant respectfully submits that the plan for the 

desegregation of the schools of the Muscogee County School 
District as now in effect and as now being carried out con­
forms as nearly to the standards set out in the Jefferson 
County case as is possible, consistent with the Defendant’s 
duty to furnish quality education to the school children of 
its District.

7.

To require the Muscogee County School District to 
amend its plan to include all of the requirements which 
were imposed upon the school districts in the Jefferson 
County case would deprive the Board of Education of the 
Muscogee County School District of the discretion and 
flexibility necessary to give to every person true freedom 
to attend the school of his choice and will necessarily result 
in causing many students to attend schools other than that 
of their choice.

8.
Defendant shows that imposing upon the Defendant of 

all of the requirements imposed upon the school districts 
involved in the Jefferson County case would drastically 
affect the Defendant’s opportunity to furnish quality edu­
cation to all school children in this County, and Defendant 
should not be required so to do.

9.

Defendant shows that during the month of March, 1967, 
all persons were given the opportunity to designate the 
school of their choice; that all teacher contracts and as­
signments for the coming year have been completed; that

Response of Defendant to Plaintiffs’ Motion, etc.



38

the faculties of each school have been organized; and that 
it would be extremely costly and administratively burden­
some to undertake to comply with such decree with respect 
to the coming school year.

W herefore, Defendant prays that this Court approve its 
plan of desegregation and the acts and efforts of this De­
fendant in administering the same and permit it to con­
tinue to operate the schools of this County so long as its 
efforts in good faith seek to fully comply with the Constitu­
tion of the United States and satisfy substantially all of 
the citizens of this County.

J. M adden H atcher  
A. J. L and

Attorneys for Defendant
Address:

P. 0. Box 469 
Columbus, Georgia

Columbus, Georgia

I, J. M adden H atcher , hereby certify that I am one of 
the attorneys for the Defendant in the foregoing case and 
that I have this day served the foregoing response on the 
Plaintiffs by placing true copies thereof in sealed wrappers, 
with postage prepaid, addressed to Howard Moore, Jr., 
Esquire, 859V2 Hunter St., N. W., Atlanta, Georgia 30314, 
and to Jack Greenberg, Esquire, Charles Steven Ralston, 
Esquire, and Henry M. Aronson, Esquire, Suite 2030, 10 
Columbus Circle, New York, New York 10019, the attorneys 
for Plaintiffs, and depositing the same in a United States 
mailbox.

This 5th day of June, 1967.
J. M adden H atcher

Response of Defendant to Plaintiffs’ Motion, etc.



39

Transcript of Proceedings

[Caption Omitted]

P residing

H onorable J. R obert E llio tt , 
United States District Judge 

At: Columbus, Georgia,
9:30 A. M., June 15, 1967.

A p p e a r a n c e s :

For Plaintiffs:
M r. Charles S teph en  R alston ,
10 Columbus Circle,
New York, N. Y. 10019.
M r. C. B. K ing ,
P. 0. Box 1024, Albany, Ga.

For Defendants:
H atcher , S tubbs, L and & R oth schild , 
P. O. Box 469, Columbus, Ga.,
Mr. J. M adden H atcher and 
M r. A . J. L and , of cousel.

R e p o r t e d  B y

Claude J oiner, Jr.,
Official Reporter, U. S. Court,
Middle District of Georgia,
P. O. Box 94, Macon, Ga.

— 1 —

C olum bus, Ga. 9:30 A. M. J un e  15, 1967

The Court: We have set down for hearing at this time 
motion or motions pending in Civil Action No. 991 of the



40

Columbus Division of the Court, Lockett, et al. versus 
Board of Education of Muscogee County School District, 
and so forth. Do you announce ready for the Plaintiff, Mr. 
King?

Mr. King: Your Honor pleases, we announce ready.
The Court: Allright, Mr. Hatcher, do you announce 

ready for the Defendant?
Mr. Hatcher: I f the Court pleases, in that connection, I 

would like to ask the Court and suggest that in light of the 
Jefferson case and also the decision of the Fifth Circuit in 
the Bibb County case suggest to us that the burden is on 
the respondent School Board to show why the relief 
prayed for should not be granted, and we would like to 
assume that burden, and would like to open and conclude.

The Court: AH right.
Mr. Hatcher: We are ready.
The Court: All right, you may proceed.

Dr. Wm. II. Shaw—for Defendants—Direct

Dr. W m . H. S h a w , called as witness by Defendants, being 
duly sworn, testified on

—2—
Direct Examination by Mr. Hatcher:

Q. Dr. Shaw, please your full name, your age, your 
residence and your occupation? A. I ’m W. H. Shaw, Pm 
64 years old; I reside at 2870 Cromwell Drive, and I ’m 
Superintendent of Education for the Muscogee County 
School District.

Q. How long have you been Superintendent of the schools 
in Muscogee County? A. Since September 1, 1945.

Q. Will you state just briefly what your educational qual­
ifications are? A. I have the A. B. and the Master from



41

Duke University, a sis year graduate in administration 
from Teachers College, Columbia, and the Doctorate Degree 
from Auburn University in school administration and 
supervision.

Q. Please state in a summary manner the growth of the 
schools in this County since you have come to Columbus? 
A. As you know, the County and the City were separate 
when I came here in September, ’45, but the combined en­
rollment for the two systems at that time was 19,930, with 
48 schools. They were merged on the 1st of January, 1950 
and now the enrollment as of June 2, total enrollment for 
the year was 49,384, with 64 buildings housing the pupils.

—3—
Q. What percentage of the total enrollment is Negro? 

A. Based on the figures I have just quoted you there, 27.5 
are Negro and 72.5 are white.

Q. Are all of the classes in each of the public schools in 
Muscogee County accredited? A. Yes, all of the high 
schools have been accredited beginning with Columbus 
High in 1913; and all of the junior high schools were ac­
credited—and this is by the State and by the Southern 
Association of Colleges and Schools—all of the junior high 
schools were accredited in 1965; and last November all 49 
of the elementary schools were accredited by the Southern 
Association of Colleges and Schools as a system. We didn’t 
pick out individual schools. We could have take an indi­
vidual school here and one there but the School Board 
elected to accredit the whole system, and we waited until we 
could do that.

Q. Is it rather unusual for a whole system to be accredited 
at one time in big city systems like this? A. Well, it is 
difficult to the extent that many of them just pick out certain

Dr. Wm. II. Shaw—for Defendants—Direct



42

schools and have them accredited. Some that tried to get 
the whole system accredited last November by the Southern 
Association failed to do so and then they took certain 
schools in their system. But we said from the beginning if

—4-—
we couldn’t have them all accredited, we wouldn’t have any 
accredited.

Q. What expense was incurred by the School System to 
bring the System up to the standards required for accredi­
tation! A. It is a little bit difficult but I will give you an 
example here so that you may have for your own self 
some basis for deciding that it is an expensive thing to meet 
accreditation standards.

Preparation for accrediation took place over a three year 
period, that is of the elementary schools. In ’63 the total 
budget for the School District was $10,470,020. The schools 
were accredited in November, ’66, and for the school year 
’66-67 the total budget for the Muscogee County School Dis­
trict was $15,699,296, or an increase during this three year 
period of $5,292,276. Of course, part of this increase would 
be due to the increased enrollment but a great portion of it 
was due to the increase in teacher salaries and the change 
in the number of pupils per teacher, lowering the number 
to 1 to 28 in the elementary and 1 to 25 in the junior and 
senior high schools. $300,000, as an example, $300,000 
was spent for library books, in order to conform to the one 
standard requiring 9 books per pupil.. This is just an ex­
ample of how the expense had to be increased.

— 5—
Q. Was there any school room in any school in the Mus­

cogee County School District objected to or condemned by 
the Accrediting Association as now meeting the standards

Dr. Wm. II. Shaw—for Defendants—Direct



43

of the Association-?A. No; no, we did not fail; we had to 
meet all of the criteria and we did not fail to meet any of 
the standards.

Q. When was a plan to desegregate the schools in Mus­
cogee County first adopted? A. It was adopted by the 
Board of Education on September 16, 1963.

Q. At that time had any demand been made by anyone 
or any suit filed to desegregate the schools? A. No.

Q. Under the plan of this System, as amended, state 
whether or not the parents of all school children have been 
given the opportunity to attend the school of their choice? 
A. With the exception of 16 white parents and pupils, who 
are still waiting and hoping that they can get a choice which 
was their first choice, either Daniel or Arnold, all others 
have been processed and so far as I know, they have been 
accepted. Some did take second choices but they did that 
willingly and without any complaint.

Q. When was the choice period for the school year com­
mencing in September of this year? A. It was March 1

— 6—

through March 31 and we deviated that plan because the 
Georgia Teachers and Education Association changed their 
state teachers meeing by one week and moved it back to 
Thursday and Friday, which would have interfered with 
some orderly processing of filing the applications from the 
all Negro schools; and so, we extended that through to 
April 3, so as to give all of those an opportunity to over­
come that handicap.

Q. Will you please state briefly or explain briefly the 
plan or the method by which each child was given a choice 
of schools? A. We first had a meeting of the Principals, 
I believe on the 20th of February, and explained to them 
in detail—I see some of my school principals in the audience

Dr. Wm. II. Shaw—for Defendants—Direct



44

that would know this procedure—at an integrated Princi­
pals’ meeting, and all of our Principals’ meetings have 
been integrated since 1963. We explained in detail the 
process for allowing the pupils to have these forms, to give 
each pupil a form to take home for the parent to express 
their choice of school for their child for the 1967-68 term.

We didn’t wait to anticipate how many forms would be 
needed. We prepared by mimeograph process more than 
43,000 forms and prepared them in sufficient bundles and 
made them available to the Principals, to give every child 
in their school two, a set of tw o; so that we could have a

— 7—

form and we could send a form to the parent after they 
were approved.

They were announced, in the high schools, I believe, they 
had assemblies, in home rooms they were announced; the 
Principals all have a complete list of the schools, knowing 
what grades were given in each school; and some parents 
who failed to get a form came to our office, some called and 
we mailed them to them; but in most cases we found that 
a very high percentage—I would say 99 per cent.—of the 
pupils took them home from the schools. Now, this is the 
regular way for communicating with the parents in the 
School District.

Q. What publicity was afforded through the press? A. 
Well, the press is represented here today, they gave public­
ity to the Board’s resolution providing for this complete 
desegregation of our schools, which included the kinder­
garten and grades 3, 4, 5 and 6, were the ones that had not 
been desegregated; and under the Fifth Circuit court ap­
proved plan, of the plan that had been previously approved 
here in this District Court under Judge Elliott, we had until

Dr. Wm. H. Shaw—for Defendants—Direct



45

1968. But on the 31st of January the Board voted to com­
pletely desegregate the rest of the school pupils, all grades. 
And I believe that everybody had an opportunity to know, 
not only in the paid resolution published in the newspapers, 
but also in front page stories, setting forth almost the

—8—
exact wording in the resolution adopted by the Board.

Q. What about in television and radio? A. Yes, I wit­
nessed one evening news program, in which they read prac­
tically verbatim the wording, and it was done several times, 
and all the radios. We furnished copies of the resolution 
to all of the news media, all of them.

Q. How many choice applications were received and 
acted upon by the Superintendent and his staff? A. Those 
received in our office, who were actually wanting to change 
and choose a different school from the one they were in, 
numbered 7,753; and, as I told you a moment ago, all but 
16 of those have been finalized. Now, we passed on those 
16; they are not in appeal; they are just hoping that their 
first choice could still be carried out and, if it couldn’t, then 
I ’m sure that they will accept the second choice that have 
told them that they could have.

Q. Has there been any appeal filed with the School Board 
as a result of any application? A. No.

Q. Has there been any complaint by anyone as a result 
of any application? A. No, we had some inquiries to clar­
ify a few things and they accepted it and there has been no 
—not what I would consider a complaint no.

—9—
Q. How many teachers are there in the Muscogee County 

School System? A. 1828 at the present time.
Q. How many Negro teachers are employed by such sys­

tem? A. Even 500 of those are Negroes.

Dr. Wm. H. Shaw—for Defendants—Direct



46

Q. Is there any difference in the pupil-teacher ratio in 
any class in any school caused by or resulting from— 
A. No, the same standard prevails for all of the Muscogee 
County schools, 1 to 28 in the elementary and 1 to 25 in 
the junior and senior high schools. We equalize those about 
4 or 5 times a year. But Muscogee County, being a complete 
school district, when people move— and there are certain 
times of the year when they seem to move from one part 
of the County to the other—-we find that sometimes the en­
rollments will get a little bit out of line and then we im­
mediately—we get a weekly report on every school, we im­
mediately call those Principals and tell them to adminis­
tratively shift some where they are more than the number 
should be to the nearest school adjacent to them, if the 
other school has room.

Now, we have some 8- to 9,000 pupils that are transients, 
that move in and out of our County during the year, and 
that gives us quite a bit of concern. About the time we

- 10-

get all of our enrollment equalized, here will come a great 
number to Port Benning and a great number of those people 
live in the County and, when they move into the County, 
we are subject to having to take care of them at the nearest 
school that they move to.

Q. Will all grades be desegregated in September of this 
year, right? A. Yes, and the applications have been proc­
essed to that point already.

Q. Now, state in detail the extent of faculty desegrega­
tion in the Muscogee County School System? A. When you 
use the word “detail” , Mr. Hatcher, it will take a little more 
time—

Q. Yes sir. A. It will take a little bit more time than a 
yes or no. Now, these first figures that I give you will re­

Dr. Wm. H. Shaw—for Defendants—Direct



47

late to the extent that faculty has been desegregated during 
the regular term ending on June 2, and then I have a de­
segregation of what is now going on in our schools in the 
summer programs. I will leave that to last.

There is one Negro teacher at our Reading Center that 
works with all children, regardless whether they are Negro 
or white. They are bussed in from the different schools 
according to their reading difficulty; once they have been 
diagnosed as having a reading difficulty, they are sent in

— 11—

there. And they move—this teacher has a station and when 
the children move from one teacher to the other, they are 
all processed through her part of the diagnosis, her part of 
this program, the Reading Center.

We have one Negro consultant in English. She works 
mainly with English in the elementary schools.

In the Adult Education Program there is one part time 
Negro teacher for both white and Negro students.

At Columbus Area Vocational Technical School, we have 
one full time Negro, who conducts the work in guidance. 
He works with all of the pupils who are enrolled in our 
trade school.

Now, in case the Court is not familiar, we did have two 
trade schools hut as of July, 1966, they were combined into 
one school. There are two units but they are one school. 
And there is a white teacher in Radio and TV, who is work­
ing in what was formerly the all Negro trade school; and 
another white teacher will go there on this July 1 because of 
the growth in the enrollment of the classes in Radio and TV .

At the Instructional Material Center, there is one Negro 
who works in audio-visual aids. He is not here this sum­
mer; he is on leave with us to go to North Carolina State 
at Durham, where he will improve his proficiency in work­
ing with audio-visual aids.

Dr. Wm. H. Shaw—for Defendants—Direct



Dr. Wm. H. Shaw—for Defendants—Direct

— 12—

Now, here is the insert that I had for yon: In the sum­
mer program we have a diagnostic reading center—-and 
some of the little children call this the “ dognastie”  reading 
center—we have 8 white teachers and 3 Negro teachers 
working there now. We have 4 white examiners and one 
Negro examiner. We have 4 bus drivers, 4 white bus drivers 
and 2 Negro bus drivers. We have 3 white clerks and one 
Negro clerk. And all of this group are serving 722 white 
pupils and 480 Negro pupils. The classes have been inte­
grated with no regard for race. White teachers are teach­
ing classes of all white children and white children and 
Negro children, and some all Negro children, depending on 
their reading needs according to the diagnostic tests. The 
same is true for the Negro teachers who are working in 
that Center.

Now, in our summer remedial program, that’s different 
from the diagnostic center, there are 3 white Principals 
and 2 Negro Principals. There are 38 white teachers and 
34 Negro teachers. There are 840 white pupils and 600 
Negro pupils. The pupils and teachers are distributed in 
10 buildings: Radcliff, Manly Taylor, Talbotton Road, 30th 
Avenue and Cusseta Road schools have only Negro pupils 
because of the proximity to these centers, I suppose. How­
ever, 4 Negro teachers and 5 white teachers are at 30th 
Avenue and are working under a Negro Principal.

—13—
At Manly Taylor 5 Negro and 5 white teachers are 

working under a Negro Principal.
Beallwood, Fox, East Highland, Daniel, Muscogee Ele­

mentary find both white and Negro pupils with white 
faculties.



49

At Radcliff it is supervised by a white principal, and 
that is normally a Negro Center. There are 8 Negro teach­
ers working in this Center under a white principal.

The tutoring program, which is new to us this summer, 
where it is one person teaching one pupli, the tutoring 
program employes 55 teachers. It enrolls 333 pupils at 
12 school centers. Of the 55 teachers, 27 are Negro and 
28 are white. At 3 of the 12 schools the faculties are inte­
grated. At 9 schools the faculties are not integrated.

At Spencer, Baker, East Highlands and Radcliff schools 
white teachers are tutoring Negro pupils.

Now, I have one other little part to that—I told you 
when you asked for the word “detail” it would be a little 
long, Mr. Hatcher. Beginning in September, ’63, all Prin­
cipals’ meetings in the Muscogee County School District 
were desegregated.

Beginning in June, 1966—that was a year ago—all
- 14-

general faculty meetings were desegregated. All group 
faculty meetings for the purpose of studying curriculum 
have been desegregated since September, ’66. We com­
pletely rewrote and revised our curriculum and this was 
done with integrated committees working on all subject 
levels in the high schools and junior high schools, and in 
all of the grade levels in the elementary schools.

Plans are currently underway and study has been made 
by a joint committee of the Muscogee Education Associa­
tion, the white organization, which is a private organiza­
tion, and the Muscogee Teachers and Education Associa­
tion, made up formerly of all Negro teacheis, looking to­
ward the merging of the two professional organizations 
into a single professional organization, which will become 
a unit of the Georgia Education Association and the Na­

Dr. Wm. II. Shaw—for Defendants—Direct



50

tional Education Association. And there is an article in 
today’s paper saying that those meeting on the State level 
have had some difficulty in agreeing on the details of the 
plan for merger.

Now that, sir, covers just about the extent—
Q. What about the extra-curricular activities in the 

School System at this time, the extent of desegregation, 
in athletics and other activities? A. Well, once the school 
was integrated, the pupils would have access and the priv­
ilege to participate in any activity based on their ability

—15—
to meet whatever the requirements are to get into such an 
organization by any pupil in the school.

As early as the first year that we were desegregated at 
Baker High School, Coach Ball and Principal Broyles took 
it upon themselves to petition the George High School 
Association, that controls athletics and all scholastic activi­
ties, to appeal to the Hardship Committee, because a boy 
named Noland, who had been in Spencer, was not eligible 
under Georgia High School Buies to participate on the 
football team. He wanted to play football and the Coach 
took the boy and the Principal and the three of them went 
to Thomaston and there appeared in behalf of this boy in 
front of the Hardship Committee and petitioned that, 
since he was only allowed to attend Baker this year, that 
he should not be subjected to the hardship of not being 
allowed to play. After a week’s consideration, the Georgia 
High School Association voted—I don’t know by what 
vote—but they voted and notified us that the boy would 
be allowed to participate, and he did participate on the 
Baker teams until he moved to California.

Now, if you remember, the newspaper this year carried 
a picture showing the Baker track team winning one of

Dr. Wm. H. Shaw—for Defendants—Direct



51

the important meets in Atlanta and, if yon had not known, 
you would have almost have thought it was an all-Negro

—16—
high school because all of the people in the picture, except 
Coach Roberts, and the team manager and two runners, 
were Negro. And so, if you see the band, if you go out 
and see the Baker Band or the Columbus High School 
Band, you will see that these people who are qualified and 
who are proficient in playing an instrument or participating 
in a sport are being used.

And when we had the Columbus relays here this year, 
which is an invitational thing conducted by the local school 
system, the Negro boys and the Negro citizens mingled 
and sat in the stands and ran on the teams and there was 
not a sign of any discrimination of any kind.

Q. Has there been—well, I will ask you first if  you 
can state what is the quality of education afforded the 
children in the County, in your opinion? A. Well, you’re 
trying to prod me into bragging a little and that’s not 
very hard to do, but I shall not say what I saw in that 
vein. The graduates from the—well, I want to put this in 
the record: Recently, because we are in the 100th Cele­
bration of schools in this County, I would like to tell you 
that in searching the records, the first high school was 
started in 1890, when they added two grades; and it was 
significant to me that the people who introduced this high 
school addition to the education program, which had been 
started in 1867, they said they wanted to base it on aca-

—17—
demic quality. And of the first 33 people who entered that 
first two year high school, two years later 20 of the 33 
graduated.

Dr. Wm. II. Shaw—for Defendants—Direct



52

Now, from that day down there has been emphasis on 
quality. We had more people in the first Governor’s School 
from Muscogee County than any other system and the per­
centage has continued to be the highest of any of the 
systems—the percentage, not the number. We have had 
Negro boys and girls to make the Governor’s Honor School 
each of the four years it has existed. The quality of the 
program has been sufficient that they go from here to all 
of the best institutions and succeed.

Q. In the implementation of the desegregation plan, ap­
proved by the Fifth Circuit and this Court, has there been 
any disruption of the educational process and the quality 
of education afforded? A. I would say no but I do want 
to explain that a little bit. There was some fear, when 
the Board decided voluntarily in 1963 to desegregate these 
schools, there was some fear by a considerable number of 
people that the quality would suffer, but I do not believe 
that has been the case and there is no indication from our 
academic record that that has been the case. Now, if a 
pupil is in one school and is a poor pupil and transfers 
to another one, the chances are he will maintain about the 
same kind of a record; and if a lot of those were to transfer,

—18—
that would in the end make the record in that school some­
what lower, the median record; but there’s not been enough 
of that to say that there has been any significant differ­
ence in the quality of education in our county up to this 
time.

Q. Have all of the teacher contracts and assignments 
for the ’67-68 school year been completed? A. Well, the 
word “all” is not a good word there but we would say 
that all that we can get who are qualified have signed their 
contracts and they have been assigned and our organiza­

Dr. Wm. H. Shaw—for Defendants—Direct



53

tions have been set up for next year. We still have 
vacancies.

Q. Do I understand you mean the organizations in each 
particular school? A. Each school based on the number 
of pupils who were transferred by choice from one school 
to another, their classes; they notified the personnel office, 
Mr. Carson, how many teachers were needed and then, 
based on the pupils who are in that school closest to that 
school and the number who were assigned, we notified 
them and we notified the parents and we notified the school 
from which that child was asking to leave, so that they 
would have some orderly way to make up an organization 
for September.

Now, all of those organizations have been set up and 
there are some vacancies that will have to be filled. But

— 19—
this goes on every year and up until a week before school 
opens we will have somebody getting married, somebody 
getting pregnant and somebody leaving and somebody fol­
lowing their husband because he’s transferred from Fort 
Benning and this will go on until September; and when 
school opens, it will still go right on because we lose 
about 20 teachers a month and have to refill these places 
all during the year. So, when you say “all” , it can never 
be total, Mr. Hatcher.

Q. When did the pupils terminate their school year this 
year? A. June 2. They got their report cards on June 9.

Q. In what respects has the Muscogee County School 
System anticipated and stepped ahead of the plan as ap­
proved by this Court? A. Well, of course, it’s a record 
that the Fifth Circuit told us, when they reviewed our case 
that was appealed from this Court, they told us to move 
from both ends, from the top and the bottom at the same 
time at least one grade a year, and to complete our de­

Dr. Wm. II. Shaw—for Defendants—Direct



54

segregation by 1968. The plan has been amended three 
times voluntarily by the Board and each time it has been 
in advance of what the Court had said once it had spoken 
to us about it.

There has been one desire that has predominated from 
the time the Board has made its decision in 1963 to de-

— 20—

segregate, and that was to keep the plan flexible, so that 
as the changes came about and there was no difficulty 
encountered, they would be ready for the next step; and 
that, I  think, has served as the motivating factor in caus­
ing the Board to step ahead each time when they found 
out that what they had done had been accepted by the 
citizens as a whole, not every individual because there 
have been some individuals who would not accept any­
thing that would happen in this regard, as you know.

But there has been no deterring factor; there have been 
no situations that prevented this Board from moving 
ahead each time to the next step without waiting to be 
told by the Court or someone else to do so.

And I think we should place in the record here that in 
the very beginning, the U. 8. Office of Education and the 
officials at Fort Benning and representatives of our Board 
met at Fort Benning and talked over this situation; and 
decided that the Board would begin without being forced to. 
Of course, pretty soon after we started, there was a suit 
that was brought that people have probably assumed that 
the Plaintiffs didn’t know at the time they started their 
steps that the School Board would be adopting a plan.

And I think we should put this in the record too, Mr. 
Hatcher, that the public libraries and the museums in this 
County are under the Board of Education; and there has

Dr. Wm. Ii. Shaw—for Defendants—Direct



55

Dr. Wm. II. Shaw—for Defendants—Direct

- 21-

no ugly incident at anytime with the desegregation of 
these facilities and the free use of them by all citizens. And 
that is not something to be overlooked, as I see it.

Q. With respect to the parent school organizations, the 
parent-teacher organizations, has there been any integra­
tion of those organizations in the various schools! A. 
There have been meetings of the two councils. There are 
two councils and all of you in this room know that private 
organizations don’t just fold up easily. There are certain 
personalities in them that always want theirs to be the 
one that continues to exist, and they still want to have 
the president of one, if they’re going to merge one, and 
things of that kind.

But at the school, if you go to a parent- teacher meeting, 
the schools having a goodly number or even a small num­
ber of Negro children assigned to them after they ex­
pressed a choice, you would find Negro parents in those 
meetings in those organizations. Yes, they do attend.

And at our commencement, that lasted for six nights 
recently, you found ample room and place and acceptance 
of the Negro parents who were there to see their seniors 
march across the stage from Baker High and Columbus 
High. They were the only two that had seniors graduating, 
9 at Baker and 6 at Columbus High. There was not an 
ugly incident about it and these children took their places 
normally and the parents sat scattered all over the place;

— 22—

nobody told them where to sit. There was not even a 
marked ticket or a marked section of any kind.

And I did not observe, I would like to tell you, I did 
not observe any vacant seats; where I saw Negroes, I did



56

not see any vacant seats where somebody didn’t want to 
sit next to them.

Q. Are you familiar with the plan of desegregation at­
tached as an exhibit in the Jefferson County case! A. 
Well, I ’ve read it a couple of times; I think so.

Q. What expense and difficulties and hindrances would 
result if the Muscogee County School System was re­
quired to commence this summer to have another choice 
term of one month, of mailing to each pupil a letter of 
explanation and a choice form and complying with the 
other terms of the decree with respect to the coming term 
beginning in September? A. Mr. Hatcher, you asked me 
if I read that plan and I did; and I doubt that any court, 
if they look into the careful way that we gave every child 
a choice—

Mr. King: Look into what?
The Witness: Looked into the method and the 

way that we gave every child and their parent a 
chance to make a choice of schools, and the fact 
that we chose a whole month and extended it; and 
when wTe chose that whole month, we thought that

—23—
was going to be one the Courts and the TJ. S. Office 
would select; and they did select it beginning for 
next year but somehow or another they slipped in 
a different one from May 1 to June 1. But we had 
already gone ahead with our March 1 through March 
31, which we thought was ample time. And we did 
that mainly so that we could get the schools organ­
ized and set up in an orderly way for next year.

Now, you asked me how expensive it would be: 
well, if you multiply 5 cents times 43,000, you’ll see

Dr. Wm. H. Shaw—for Defendants—Direct



57

that it would cost more than $2,000; and with the 
fluent population that we have in this County, if 
you sat down now and tried to address envelopes 
to every one of them, there would be a great num­
ber of them that would be returned and some of 
them have already left the County and the parents 
have been shipped away with one phase of the Army 
or another. And it would be great confusion and I 
don’t know how long it would take us to do it, be­
cause we’ve never had to do such a thing. W e’ve 
never communicated in that manner.

Now, the parents that asked transfer, we mailed 
their approved transfer or choice of school to them, 
so they could get it. And I would like to tell you 
that in a few cases, maybe a half a dozen, where 
the child—it turned out that the child had made 
the choice and the first the parent knew about it 
would be when the mailed approved form came, and

—24—
if they liked it, we didn’t hear from them; if they 
didn’t like it, they called us or simply wrote us a 
little handwritten note and we changed it to con­
form, unless the child was 15 years or older; and 
then we called to their attention that the Court said 
that a child 15 years old or older had the right to 
make this choice himself or herself. And we had 
maybe 2 or 3 cases that way.

Now, to tell you how much it would cost, I am not 
in a position to tell you. We would have to live 
through the chaos of trying to reorganize the School 
District with everybody making another choice all 
over, and a lot of those who made a choice would 
make a different one at this time because we are

Dr. Wm. II. Shaw—for Defendants—Direct



58

still getting requests from some of them who made 
a choice who want to change it.

Q. What about teacher desegregation! A. Well, I told 
you back there a while ago to what extent we have done 
that. The Fifth Circuit said in its review of our case that 
they would speak to that later. We had hoped that we 
could get this complete desegregation of the regular school 
classes over with this year, once and for all; and then I 
suppose we would continue with additional desegregation 
of the faculty.

Q. What difficulties would result in undertaking to com­
ply with the provision regarding faculty desegregation in 
the Jefferson decree for the school year beginning in Sep-

—25—
tember, 1967! A. Well, it would be quite a task to re­
assign and know what would happen if you started shuffling 
over 1800 teachers around, after they have had their as­
signments fixed for the year and signed their contracts 
and gone home.

Now, there is a provision in all of our teacher contracts 
that they can give us two weeks notice and quit; and they 
don’t necessarily have to give any reason. They can just 
write in and give us two weeks notice and be gone. And 
we have a difficult time getting qualified teachers in this 
County, and my guess is that we would have a lot of 
vacancies of teachers, if we start bothering with them at 
this time of the year.

Q. Is there any difference in the pay schedule in Mus­
cogee County teachers based on any race, color or creed! 
A. No, and there has not been since 1946.

Q, I ask whether or not, in your opinion, the plan of 
Muscogee County School District and the implementation 
of that plan by the administrative staff and the School

Dr. Wm. H. Shaw—for Defendants—Direct



59

Board conforms to the standards set out by the United 
States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Jefferson 
case, in your opinion? A. Well, Mr. Hatcher, there is a 
great similarity in what we’re doing and what the Court 
has directed all other school to d o ; and it’s rather unusual 
that in our anticipation and moving forward by amending

— 26—

our plan from time to time that we have found out at this 
point that we have, that we are almost in line. We have 
not done some of the things that the U. S. Office said do 
in their guidelines, and I believe the Court has tempered 
some of those guidelines, though in general they said they 
were embracing the guidelines.

And I would have to say that there is only one major 
area that we are not in what, I guess, the Court would 
call conformity to that decree; and that is in the desegre­
gation of the general classroom teachers.

Now, there’s some effort made in some school districts 
to know where to begin. The best time to begin is when 
you have some teachers, good teachers, who are willing to 
do this, and then it’s up to the Superintendent to assign 
those teachers and all other teachers in a situation where 
they can succeed. If a teacher is put in a situation be­
cause of force, because somebody is required to put them 
there, in the first place, nobody can make the teacher work; 
she doesn’t have to teach there.

Q. Dr. Shaw— A. She could retire and with a few 
weeks, with two weeks notice even during the school year.

Q. Dr. Shaw, I will ask you one final question, sir: 
Since the Muscogee County School District has adopted

— 27—

its plan of desegregation, has there been any complaints 
or conferences or communications regarding the plan be­

Dr. Wm. II. Shaw—for Defendants—Direct



60

tween you and the Health, Education and Welfare Depart­
ment or the Department of Justice? A. None.

Q. Or Fort Benning? A. Oh, we communicate with 
them just as though they might be part of our School 
System because all of the high school pupils are trans­
ported from Fort Benning by the Army to the high school 
of their choice in Muscogee County.

Q. I mean no complaint or criticism about its operation? 
A. No.

Q. About its operation? A. They would call us, if a 
parent didn’t call us and called Colonel Bouse, Colonel 
Bouse would call me and I would call the Principal and, 
if it was something that was just a routine matter, it 
would be dealt with in such a manner to the satisfaction 
of everybody concerned.

Cross Examination toy Mr. Ralston:

Q. Mr. Shaw, you say that there were approximately 
27.25 Negro pupils in the School System, is that correct? 
A. That is according to the figures on June 2 of the total 
enrolled this year.

—28—
Q. That would be by my rough calculation a little over 

13,000? A. Yes, I could give you that exact figure if it 
would help your record.

Q. Well, that’s all right but it is around 13,000? A. Yes.
Q. Of those 13,000 students how many are now attend­

ing formerly all white schools? A. You want for the 
year ending or those that have been approved for next 
year?

Q. Well, I would like to have it for both, for the year 
ending and the year coming up? A. All right, if you’ll 
give me just a second, I ’ll get that for you. . . The num-

Dr. Wm. H. Shaw—for Defendants—Cross



61

ber in white schools in November, ’66 was 316; and since 
that time some have moved in because the Fifth Circuit 
said that any child who moved into the District could go 
to the school of his choice, if there was room in that school. 
And we found that the Muscogee Elementary School, 
where we had approved and included in that 316 some 
half dozen children, there were more than 25, because their 
parents had moved into Baker Village Housing Project 
that was desegregated during the year, and they normally 
went there; they were near to it. There are approved 550 
for September, who were formerly in all Negro schools

—29—
who will be going to what was formerly all white because 
some of those had a larger number of the 316 in them.

Now, additionally, to get the whole picture, enrolled in 
the adult education and manpower classes are 1 1 2 ; the 
number enrolled in the Columbus Area Vocational Techni­
cal School and the two units of that are 275; and all of 
those together give you 1253.

Q. Let me get this straight: For this coming school 
year there will be a total of 550! A. 550 additional ones.

Q. Oh, additional! A. Yes.
Q. So, the total would be approximately 8 6 6? A. Yes. 

Well now, there will be more than that because I would 
like to explain to you : in 1963 the emphasis was on losing 
the identity of color. And we were told that we could 
make nothing on our records to show whether a pupil 
was white or colored; and so, when they once are assigned 
to the school, there’s no record of whether they are Negro 
or white. And to find out how many have moved in there 
during the year, we would have to go around and count 
them and say—if there’s a doubt and in some cases, I 
could tell you two cases where nobody knew what they were 
until they told, and they wanted to change. You would have

Dr. Wm. II. Shaw—for Defendants—Cross



62

Dr. Wm. H. Shaw—for Defendants—Cross

—30—
to go around and count noses to find out exactly how many 
have moved in during the year, because we were told in 
1963 to forget about recording anything about whether 
they were Negro or white.

Q. Well, there would be approximately a total of about 
900 this coming year? A. There would be at least that 
many or more.

By the Court:

Q. Well, what was your 1200 and something figure, what 
was that figure? A. That included the ones in the adult 
classes and in the trade school classes, Judge Elliott.

By Mr. Ralston:

Q. In your regular elementary and junior and senior 
high schools? A. It will be around a thousand, yes; and 
there will be others who will move in this summer, who 
will be entitled—now all grades will be open in September.

By the Court:

Q. What’s that thousand? Is that for the past year? Is 
that what you’re telling us? A. That will be for the 
coming year.

Q. What was your figure for the past year? A. The 
figure for the past year was something over 300. In No­
vember the last count that we had was 316.

—31—
By Mr. Ralston-.

Q. That was just in the elementary and junior and senior 
high schools? A. And high schools; that did not include 
the adult schools at that time.



63

Q, Do you have the total for those schools at that time? 
A. Not at that tme; we didn’t make that count at that 
time.

Dr. Wm. H. Shaw—for Defendants—Cross

The Court: I want the record to be clear on what 
we’re talking about now. You gentlemen can bring 
it out yourselves definitely but if you don’t, I ’ll try 
to myself. I don’t want any confusion here about it.

By Mr. Ralston:

Q. Well, maybe we had better go through these figures 
here again to clarify it: First, will you give for November, 
1966, the total Negro students attending formerly all white 
schools in the regular elementary, junior high and senior 
high schools?

The Court: You said November, 1966?
Mr. Ralston: Yes.
The Court: Why do you pick November?
Mr. Ralston: Mr. Shaw indicated that was the last 

month they had a count on it.

A. (The W itness): In November, ’66, someone I believe
—32—

from the State Office had asked us for the number of 
Negro children at that time in our formerly all white 
schools; and we asked the Principals to go around and 
make a count; and in November, 1966 that number was 
316. Now, that changed some during the year because 
children had a right to go to the school of their choice, 
if there was room, if they moved in, in any grade, according 
to the Court order. Now, I don’t know how much the 316 
would change but let that figure stand 316 for the school 
year ’66-67.



64

Q. Now, after the choice period was held— A. There 
were 550 more who were approved and they have been 
processed and approved to go to the school of their choice.

Q. So, you know that there will be at least for the 
coming school year a total of around 866? A. Well, 15 
of those 316 graduated. You see, you’ve got to get a cer­
tain date and then audit it out that day to be exact; so, 
you can say approximately and I think it will answer the 
purpose that Judge Elliott wants; is that right, Judge?

The Court: Well, what is it? You say approxi­
mately what?

The Witness: I gave the figure 316 for November, 
1966.

By the Court:

Q. Well, let me ask 2 or 3 questions here: As I under-
—3 3 -

stand it, the best information you have for the year 1966 
is, in the fall of 1966 you had the number 300 and what? 
A. 316.

Q. Then, by the end of the school year just ending, what 
had been the increase, what was the figure according to 
your best information by the end of the school year? A. 
We did not have a figure.

Q. You don’t have a figure? A. We approved a new 
group though to go in September.

Q. Now, for the coming year, 1967-68, according to pres­
ent records, considering the applications you’ve had and 
everything that’s been done, what will be the figure at 
the opening of the school year ’67-68; that is, of Negro 
children attending what were formerly white schools, all

Dr. Wm. H. Shaw—for Defendants—Cross



65

white schools? A. All right, you’ll have to take out the 15 
who graduated; I know they wouldn’t be coming hack.

Q. I just want you to give me a figure? A. 550 plus 
301, would 851, approximately.

By Mr. Ralston:

Q. That’s attending regular elementary and junior and 
senior high? A. Yes, that does not include nay adult or

—34—
any trade school.

Q. And could you again give me the figure for the adult 
school and the vocational school? A. The adult school and 
manpower program had 112 and the Columbus Area Voca­
tional Technical Schools, both units, 275.

Q. Now, looking at the choice period that was conducted 
this year, March 1 through March 31, were all students 
required to make a choice during that period? A. They 
were all given a form but there was no requirement or no 
penalty if they did not make a choice.

Q. In other words, the provisions of the Jefferson 
County decree, the mandatory choice for all students, 
white and Negro, was not a part of the plan? A. 'Well, 
if you’re a pupil in a school and you’re given a form and 
you do not express a choice because you’re in the school 
and you want to stay there, we assume you’ve made a 
choice; and I think the Jefferson plan assumed that be­
cause they said that any pupils who had not made a 
choice by a week after school open would be administra­
tively assigned.

Q. Well, what is the procedure for assignment in your 
schools of those students who do not make a choice in the 
choice period? A. If they are in that school attendance 
area and live nearest to it, they are automatically assigned

Dr. Wm. H. Shaw—for Defendants—Cross



6 6

Dr. Wm. H. Shaw—for Defendants—Cross

—35—
there until they leave or until they express a choice to go 
to another school.

Q. So, a student who is going to one school, who did 
not choose, who did not send in a choice form, but who 
lived closer to another school, would he be transferred to 
the other school? A. I f  he were in that school, he would 
not be closer to another school, because the way we have 
constructed the schools he would be attending the nearest 
school already, unless that school was overcrowded, and 
he might have been administratively assigned to that 
school.

Q. Well, let’s assume that the school is overcrowded 
and you have some students who made a choice under the 
period and other students did not make a choice, would 
any priority be given for prior attendance in that school? 
A. No; no, if he didn’t live nearer to the school than the 
one outside that was making a choice, he would not get 
priority because we are acquainted with the fact that the 
Court said that could not prevail.

Q. But you do not require one to make a choice? A. 
Well, I think you’ll find that in ‘most all of the schools 
that those choice forms are returned but to have some 
86,000 pieces of paper returned to our office where there 
was no change involved and no approval required. I am

—36—
required under the Board of Education to actually process 
all of these changes finally through my office.

Q. You have indicated that 7,753 forms for change were 
returned: how many total forms were returned? A. Well, 
they are the total forms returned to our office and proc­
essed, who indicated a change. Now, I do not have the 
figure on how many are out there in the school that indi-



67

catecl no change at all but simply filled it out and left it 
there with the principal in the school.

Q. So, the only ones that came into your office for 
processing were those indicating a change? A. Were 7,753 
and they’ve been processed.

Q. Did the Principals process in any way the other 
forms that did not request a change! A. Do they process 
them in any way?

Q. Yes, and what happens to those forms in deciding 
where to place students? A. Well, they notify the chil­
dren in that school that they will remain there for the 
next year and they include them in their organization.

Q. Do you know of any instances where children, who 
have been in a school and who have not indicated they 
want to change schools, have not exercised a choice, have 
been moved out of the school to make room for children 
who have exercised a choice? A. There’s none of that has

— 37—
been approved in my office, no.

Q. Do you contemplate that that might occur by the end 
of the school term? A. I don’t know. I would have to 
have such a request. I can tell you this, that any person 
who was refused or asked to make a second choice was 
checked carefully by a map to see who lived nearer to a 
school. In some cases we even call the Principal to have 
them check out the case to see exactly where they lived.

Q. Could you indicate why a mandatory choice was not 
required and set out in the form sent out, in view of the 
Fifth Circuit’s opinion and in view of the motions filed in 
this action? A. Well, of course, we were not under that 
decision at the time. That decision hadn’t been finalized 
until the 29th of April, I believe; and our choice and every­

Dr. Wm. II. Shaw—for Defendants—Cross



68

thing had been closed at that time, and a great number 
of them had been processed.

Q. But you have indicated that it would be a great 
burden on you to have a new choice period! A. It would 
be quite a burden; there’s no doubt about that.

Q. Well, in view of this and in view of the fact that 
before the choice period was set up, motions were filed

- 38-

in this action to have the choice period that complied with 
the Fifth Circuit, why were not the specific provisions of 
the Jefferson County decree complied with, in order to 
avoid— A. You mean about mailing out letters and so 
forth !

Q. And also about making it clear that there is to be a 
mandatory choice on the part of all pupils! A. Well, I 
think we made it clear that everybody was to make a 
choice. Now, if you are belaboring the point that they 
didn’t actually fill out one and file it and then have us 
sign it, saying that they could stay right where they were, 
that was not done, and I did not inform my Principals 
to enforce that kind of a detail.

Q. Do you have a copy of the notice and the choice form ! 
A. Yes, I  do have a copy. There’s a letter to the Princi­
pal—you can have that whole set if you like. And to at­
tach with that, Mr. Ralston, I believe you would want this 
because each Principal needed to be able to answer parents 
on what schools had certain grades in them, where they 
were located and who the Principal was.

Mr. Ralston: All right. Will you mark this as 
Plaintiff’s Exhibit! . . . Your Honor, I have had 
marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibits 1 and 2: first, Plain­
tiff’s Exhibit 1 is a list of schools that was made

Dr. Wm. H. Shaw—for Defendants—Cross



69

Dr. Wm. H. Shaw—for Defendants—Cross

—39—
available to the Principals to inform the parents; 
and Plaintiff’s Exhibit #2  is the packet, which was 
sent to the Principals to be given to parents, in­
cluding notice, choice form, etcetera. And I believe 
counsel for the Defendants have stipulated that 
they may be introduced in evidence as true copies 
of what was sent out for purposes of the choice.

The Court: All right, they are admitted without 
objection.

By Mr. Ralston:

Q. Mr. Shaw, I call your attention to this sheet, which 
is resolution to amend the plan to desegregate the schools 
of Muscogee County, Georgia: this was handed out to 
parents as part of the packet! A. Yes, each parent re­
ceived a copy of that with this letter.

Q. Now, this is an amendment to the plan! A. Yes, 
that is correct ; and previously, when the plan was first 
adopted, copies of the plan were sent to all parents; and 
each time it was amended, copies were sent. We are not 
doing this just because this was lately being required. 
We have been doing this all along.

Q. Do you have a copy which would set out the entire 
plan! A. I do not have that with me. It’s in the Court’s

—4 0 -
journals and records. I could furnish you with a copy; 
I  do not have a copy of that with me.

Q. Mr. Shaw, in view of the fact that you have indi­
cated that you have a large transient population, who 
move in and out of the County every year, how are the 
parents of those pupils made aware, not just of the 
amendment to the plan but of the entire plan to desegre­



70

gate the schools? A. Well, all Principals of our schools 
are supposed to serve, not only the parents who have been 
in their school area or neighborhood, but they are supposed 
to look out for the new ones and get them enrolled and 
inform them.

Q. Are Principals instructed to provide copies of the 
full desegregation plan to all parents who are new to the 
System? A. No, I have not specifically told them to do 
that, hut they all have copies of the full plan.

Q. The Principals have? A. Yes. We have to make 
use of those 64 key people out there to administer effi­
ciently a school system of this size, Mr. Ralston.

Q. But you don’t know whether or not they have done 
that? A. No, I do not. I do not know that.

Q. And you have not instructed them specifically to fur­
nish copies of the full desegregation plan? A. To each

—41—
new person moving in to carry them a copy? No, I have 
not instructed them to do that.

Q. Now, turning for the moment— Now, Mr. Shaw, look­
ing to the question of the new choice period for a moment, 
you estimated postage expense of $2,000 for carrying out 
such through the mails? A. Just stamps alone; just 
stamps alone.

Q. That is based on the total school population? A. 
Yes, correct.

Q. Could you give me any estimate of any other cost? 
A. We would have to witness that to know exactly. I 
think an estimate would just be a stab in the dark and 
it wouldn’t serve any purpose. Now, of course, the Court 
decision that you keep referring to so often said that this 
was not necessary if the School Board felt—I ’ve forgotten 
the words—“ not feasible or something or too costly.”

Dr. Wm. H. Shaw—for Defendants—Cross



71

Q. Would there be any other feasible method for getting 
new choice forms to parents for the coming school year? 
A. Not this time of the year, no. About the surest way 
to reach the parent is through the children. That’s the 
reason we use it extensively to reach them.

By the Court:

Q. Has it been your experience that that method is
—4 2 -

effective? A. It is an effective way; we’ve used it for 
more than 20 years here; it’s the way that we communicate 
with the parents over and over, and we deny this to any 
agency who wants to advertise to the parents, because we 
don’t want to jeapordize the sincerity of something being 
sent home from the school by the children to the parent.

By Mr. Ralston:

Q. Hid you take into consideration or possible account 
last January or February when you made this decision to 
hold the choice period the possibility that a new choice 
period might be ordered by the Court?

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

Mr. Ralston: I ’ll rephrase the question.
The Court: It’s not a matter of rephrasing it; I 

just didn’t understand it. I couldn’t understand the 
language, couldn’t understand what you were saying.

By Mr. Ralston:

Q. Last January or February you decided to hold the 
choice period from March 1 to March 31; is that correct? 
A. Yes.

Dr. Wm. H. Shaw—for Defendants—Cross



72

Q. Now, when you decided to hold the choice period in 
the way you did, did you consider the possible additional 
expense, if the Jefferson County decree was applied to

—43—
your School System, so that a new choice period might 
become necessary? A. Mr. Ralston, it’s a record and I ’m 
sure you know it that the Jefferson County case hadn’t 
even been decided at the time we were doing this.

Q. But the first Jefferson County decree had? A. That 
was January 29, I believe, if that’s your question.

Q. And motions had been filed in this case to require 
the Jefferson County decree in this action; is that correct? 
Were you aware of these motions? A. Well, the first time 
the Jefferson County case got to the Fifth Circuit and it 
looked like that it might begin to apply as a sample case 
to all other cases in court, we were well under way with 
this plan and the date March 1 to March 31 had been well 
selected. Now, in previous years we had used the month 
of February but we felt there might be some question 
about not being 30 days and we move to a whole month 
that had an extra day in it, so there wouldn’t be any one 
who would say this was not ample time. And then we did 
stretch that an extra three days, so that anybody who 
was inconvenienced because of the teachers’ meeting, that 
there would be time for that. And then, we continued to 
take those who, for one reason or another, said that some­
body misplaced it and they thought it had been sent in and

—44—
it hadn’t. So, I ’m saying I think our period for choice 
was ample.

Q. But you don’t deny that on January 30 and February 
15 motions—that is before the choice period was actually 
carried out—motions were filed in this case, which indicated

Dr. Wm. H. Shaw—for Defendants—Cross



73

that this plan in effect here would be brought up to the 
Jefferson County standards and, therefore, might require 
a different assigned choice period? A. Well, I read every­
thing of any importance that got in the papers; and from 
time to time we did discuss; and, as I told you, we tried 
to use our best judgment in amending or changing wherever 
we thought it would be proper.

Q. Then, 3-ou or your attorneys knew that motions had 
been filed before the choice period was carried out? A. 
Well, there was some change, some quick change made. 
They first said it would be, the whole thing would be in 
May or something; and then all of a sudden they changed 
to March 1 to March 31 in years following this year; but 
this year they were going to require it be May 1 to June 1. 
And there was quite a shifting behind the scenes about 
that date business, Mr. Ralston, if you’ll go back and 
check it. In the meantime, we had to get along with the 
business of giving 43,000 people a chance to make a choice 
and then making assignments and making up the school 
organization.

Q. But there was nothing to hinder you from making
—45—

it clear to all children or parents in your School System 
that every child had to make a choice and that certain pri­
orities would be set up for those who made choices in the 
choice period and those who did not make choices would 
not be given preference because of prior school attendance; 
there was nothing to hinder you in this choice period, 
March 1 to March 31, from complying with all of the 
standards of Jefferson County? A. Well, it was not clear 
to us that we had to make everybody do something at that 
time, if they were going to the school where they wanted 
to go and lived nearest to that school.

Dr. Wm. H. Shaw—for Defendants—Cross



74

Q. There was no greater burden, administrative burden, 
for doing that at that time, was there? There was no 
reason why you could not? A. No, no. I don’t know ex­
actly what you’re trying to get at but I could see no 
great burden in that. We did furnish them all with a dupli­
cate copy of the form.

Q. Now, moving to the situation of your faculty, you’ve 
indicated that for this past school year there were no Negro 
teachers teaching white pupils in regular classes; is that 
correct? A. That is correct, yes.

Q. And the only faculty integration of any sort was in 
special classes and special schools? A. That’s right.

—46—
Q. And likewise, there were no white teachers teaching 

Negro classes, is that correct? A. That is correct.
Q. What plans do you have at the present time for bring­

ing about integration of regular classroom teachers for 
this coming school year? A. Well, from time to time this 
point has been discussed with the Board members and in 
committees and different ones of us; and we felt that the 
best thing to do was to continue in an orderly way without 
disrupting the educational program, to get all of the classes 
of pupils in the school system desegregated and then we 
would begin on this faculty desegregation; and we have 
made a beginning, as I related that to you and it has been re­
corded here, I ’m sure.

Q. How many schools are there now that have entire 
Negro student bodies? A. That have what?

Q. Have entire Negro student body? A. I believe there’s 
19 Negro schools in the System and we found by the proc­
ess of mixed marriages, miscegnation cases moving in here, 
we found 2 or 3 white children in school where they had a 
white mother and a Negro father; and some of them came

Dr. Wm. H. Shaw—for Defendants—Cross



75

to us as hardships and wanted to transfer and we worked
—47—

with them. I would say—and we know that one white 
family has applied for their child to go to what was for­
merly an all-Negro school in September. That was ap­
proved. So, I think to answer you specifically, we would 
say there were 19.

Q. How many white students total are contemplated will 
he going to school next year ! A. Well now, I didn’t know 
you were going to ask that question. This is a big thing to 
answer because you’ve got to take every school.

Q. Excuse me, I ’ll change the question: How many white 
students will he going to formerly all-Negro schools? A. I 
told you one.

Q. Just one? A. Now, those in miscegnation cases, I 
don’t know until they show up and say that “we are in a 
mixed family and I ’m either a white child by a former hus­
band of my mother’s and I want to go somewhere else other 
than where my parents sent me when I came here.” Usually 
those mixed cases choose a school according to the neighbor­
hood they live in and we had one boy who came in and 
claimed a hardship, who had entered a formerly all white 
school and remained for three months, when he asked to see 
his Principal, said he had a problem and when he sat down 
in closed office and asked him what was his problem, he said 
“ I am a Negro and I have passed as a white boy ever since

—48—
I’ve been here; I ’m most unhappy; will you let me transfer 
to Spencer?” We required his parents to come to the school 
and talk to us and they said that when they moved here from 
New Jersey, the parent said that the boy wanted to go to 
Spencer and they insisted that he go to Baker. After this 
situation confronted all of us and the boy said he was very

Dr. Wm. II. Shaw—for Defendants—Cross



76

unhappy, he did not cite a single incident except he was 
unhappy, just unhappy. We asked then if they wanted to 
transfer him then under our hardship provision and they 
said yes; and we let the boy transfer; and, so far as I know, 
he got along all right.

Now, it’s hard to say how many people who are white or 
colored, when you have as much mixed race as you find in 
the American population today.

Q. But you have indicated that it is your present plan 
not to bring about desegregation of the faculty for the all 
Negro schools until there is some desegregation of those 
schools? A. Well, I think if you were listening a moment 
ago, you found out that white teachers are teaching all 
Negro children in some of these classes this summer, and 
this is a stepping-stone toward making it possible for gen­
eral desegregation of faculties.

Q. Well, how about for the next regular school year? 
A. Well, there is no plan at this time and there is no

—49—
teacher assigned at this time, no Negro teacher to teach in 
an all-white classroom situation and there is no plan to— 
well, I will wait until you finish because I ’m sure you’re 
not listening (Mr. Ralston and Mr. King conferring) . . .

Q. The summer programs, are these by and large sub­
sidy funds from the Federal Government under Title I? 
A. Yes, they are.

Q. Are these by and large—you indicated this is the 
first summer that you’ve had these programs? A. No, we 
had programs last summer. We had the reading last sum­
mer; we did not have the tutoring program last summer.

Q. Does the Federal Government require that these pro­
grams be integrated, both faculty and student body, before 
they are sponsored? A. The Federal Government has

Dr. Wm. H. Shaw—for Defendants—Cross



77

stipulated at all times that they want their Federal pro­
grams integrated, yes.

Q. So, that is the primary basis on which the faculty of 
these programs are integrated, is that correct? A. Yes, it 
is required by the Federal Government.

Q. Yon had to submit a proposal and a condition of ap­
proval of the proposal was that the faculty would be inte­
grated? A. Would be integrated, that’s right.

Q. Now, how many vacancies do you have for this coming
- 5 0 -

school year on the faculty? A. As of Monday, we had 88.
Q. These are both white and colored schools? A. Yes.
Q. Do you have any plans for filling the vacancies in a 

white school with Negro teachers and the vacancies in Ne­
gro schools with white teachers? A. No, I have no plan 
to do so at this time.

Q. When a teacher comes to you and says they want to 
work in your school system, do you tell them or do you 
contemplate as your policy to tell them that it is the policy 
of your school system that white teachers can be assigned 
to Negro schools and Negro teachers to white schools; has 
that been mentioned at all? A. No, there is a provision in 
the contract though which they read, I ’m sure, before they 
sign it, that the Superintendent may assign or reassign any 
teacher within the School District whenever it becomes 
necessary.

Q. But that doesn’t say anything about white teacher 
being assigned to Negro school? A. No, we were told in 
1963 to erase all references to race and color from our forms 
of all kinds and we did.

Q. Well, do you tell teachers who apply that you are 
desegregated and that they may be assigned to formerly all

Dr. Wm. H. Shaw—for Defendants—Cross



78

Negro schools'? A. No, we have not made any point out
— 51—

of that, Mr. Ealston.
Q. You have student teachers'? A. Yes, we do.
Q. Are any of the student teachers, white student teach­

ers placed in Negro schools? A. No but one has been ap­
proved for next September from Auburn University. They 
have asked to have one approved and we have approved it.

Q. And do any Negro student teachers practice teach in 
white schools? A. No. The only institution that has asked 
us to cooperate with them in practice teachers is Port Val­
ley State and they have selected in advance the schools they 
would like to do their work in ; and they have not requested 
to be allowed to work in a white school.

Q. Well, doesn’t your office have any say as to where 
student teachers will be placed? A. Yes, but if they re­
quest to be in a certain school, unless we have a good rea­
son not to approve it, we would let them work in that 
school.

Q. Is Port Valley State a State school? A. Yes, it is.
Q. And it is a Negro teacher college? A. Yes.

— 52—
Q. Now, you said there were 88 vacancies? A. There 

were Monday.
Q. And there are 67 schools? A. 64.
Q. 64 schools? A. There will be 65. We have been talk­

ing about 64. There will be 65 next September.
Q. Now, are these vacancies distributed pretty much 

evenly; that is, on the average approximately one vacancy 
per school? A. I didn’t check that up to see when I asked 
the Personnel Office to give the number on Monday. We 
were beginning—last June 9 we ended officially one year 
and we were headed out into a new year and I asked the

Dr. Wm. E. Shaw—for Defendants—Cross



79

Personnel Office to tell me how many vacancies existed.
Q. But these vacancies are probably distributed fairly 

evenly! A. Oh yes. There would probably be some in the 
whole school system, although we’re having more difficulty 
getting qualified teachers in subject-matter fields in the 
secondary schools than any other place.

Q. So, so far as the contracts you have signed with 
teachers in the system, there would be no administrative 
difficulty in filling vacancies in schools that exist now and 
achieving at least some faculty desegregation for this com-

—53—
ing school year, if you made the policy known to applicants? 
A. Well, you could assume ’most anything. I don’t know 
what the actual results would be.

Q. Well, this wouldn’t require any change of contracts? 
A. It would not require changing of contracts with teachers 
who are already under contract.

Q. And it would not require any reassignment of teachers 
who are now in the system because you would be filling 
vacancies with new applicants; isn’t that correct? A. I 
can’t imagine that we would just take somebody who is al­
ready assigned and say “You are ousted and we’re going to 
put a new person in your place.” We don’t do it that way.

Q. But what I ’m saying is that, because you have these 
vacancies to fill, you could bring about some faculty de­
segregation, without the necessity of reassigning teachers 
already assigned to schools in the system? A. Yes, that 
would be possible.

The Court: Let’s take a break of about 10 minutes.

Dr. Wm. H. Shaw—for Defendants— Cross



80

Dr. Wm. H. Shaw—for Defendants—Cross 

R ecesss 11:00 AM to 11:15 AM— June  15, 1967 

By Mr. Ralston-.

Q. Mr. Shaw, you have indicated in your testimony on 
direct examination that all of the schools now are accredited

—5 4 -
in the entre system; s that correct? A. Correct.

Q. And you’ve indicated that on the whole the quality 
of the facilities in the schools, at least in so far as they 
come to the standards of the accrediting institution, are 
equal, is that correct? A. That is correct.

Q. Now, are the same qualifications and certification re­
quired and applied to all teachers, both white and Negro 
that come into your system? A. Yes, no one is employed in 
grades 1 through 12 without the minimum of four year 
college degree, with a Georgia teacher’s certificate based 
on that.

Q. Are the requirements of the National teachers exam 
applied? A. We do not require the National teachers 
exam. That is required only of people in Georgia who ap­
ply for the six-year certificate. That is one of the requisites 
for the six-year certificate. We have 91 people in this 
County with 6-year certificates and one is a Negro, Mr. 
Lindsey, the new Principal of Spencer High School.

Q. Generally, the same qualifications are required for 
both white and Negro teachers? A. Well, it would be 
rather boring, I guess, to go into the details of how teachers 
are certified. They are certified on the basis of a copy of

— 55—
their college transcript; and then when they teach, they are 
supposed to teach in their field of major preparation. There 
is a requirement now in Georgia that all teachers must, to



81

get State aid on them, they must teach in their field, their 
teaching field.

Q. Now, you’ve indicated that the contracts for this com­
ing school year for teachers have been signed; isn’t that 
correct? A. Yes, all of those who are here and who have 
been recruited, yes.

Q. Have all of the teachers been assigned to their 
schools? A. All of the teachers have been assigned who 
are presently under contract, yes.

Q. Well, isn’t it true that there are some teachers who 
have not yet received their actual assignments? A. Well, 
there are 88 who haven’t been employed that haven’t re­
ceived them, Mr. Ralston.

Q. I ’m speaking of teachers under contract? A. But the 
other people have received their assignments; yes, they 
know where they’re going to be teaching.

Q. The contracts do not set out that the teachers have 
been employed only to teach in a specific school, do they? 
A. No, I  told you a moment ago that there is a phrase in

—56—
the contract, a provision in the contract that the Superin­
tendent may assign or reassign teachers.

Q. In view of the quality of the teachers and the provi­
sion in the contract, it wouldn’t in fact be an overwhelming 
administrative burden on your office to assign a certain 
number of teachers, white teachers to Negro schools and 
Negro teachers to white schools, in order to make a start 
toward desegregation of the faculties, in compliance with 
the requirements for this coming year as set out in the 
Jefferson County decree, would it? A. Mr. Ralston, the 
mechanics of that is not the biggest concern in that opera­
tion.

Dr. Wm. E. Shaw— for Defendants—Cross



82

Q. But there are administratively, the mechanics, you 
said, are not a noverwhelming burden ? A. Well, you could 
just say “ go over here and teach” and “you go over there 
and teach” , and tomorrow you might reassign 25 teachers 
that way and tomorrow morning you might get 24 or 25 
resignations.

Q. Mr. Shaw, has your office and you as Superintendent 
talked with the teachers, either collectively or singly, to try 
and find out whether there are teachers in your System 
would be willing to teach in schools predominantly not of 
their color I A. I have talked with some of them and some 
of them have talked with me; and they know my attitude 
and I know their attitude and I know some who would be 
willing to do it, if they are asked to.

Q. Well, have you asked them? A. No, I have not.
Q. How many teachers have you talked to? A. I don’t 

have any record of that, Mr. Ralston.
Q. You have indicated that there were some 1800 teach­

ers: have yo utalked to 100, would you estimate? A. Not 
on this point, no.

Q. Have you made any concerted effort to try to explore 
with your teachers and with Principals the possibility of 
who would be willing to go into a school? A. No.

Q. Have you explained to them the legal requirements? 
A. Is it permissible for me to ask you a question?

Q. Yes? A. Have you read the Fifth Circuit decision 
that was appealed from this Court up to the Fifth Circuit 
on the Muscogee County case?

Q. Yes, I have. A. Do you remember what it said about 
the desegregation of the faculty?

Q. Yes, I know what it says and I also know that it is 
indicated that in the future this would be required? A.

Dr. Wm. H. Shaw—for Defendants—Cross



83

Dr. W m. II. Shaw—for Defendants—Cross

- 5 8 -
Yes, and they told us to desegregate all classes by 1968 
and we’re moving a year ahead of that.

Q. I want to know, in view of the lannage of that decision 
as well as the language last December in the Jefferson 
County case, and in view of other court decisions wdiich 
have indicated that faculty desegregation was something 
that was going to have to be dealt with in the very near 
future, what steps have you taken to try and develop with 
your teachers and educate them and just find out which 
teachers of the total 1800 would be willing to do what the 
law requires them to do? A. Well, we could have sent out 
a questionnaire but we have not done that. I tried to build 
up here a while ago in answering in detail the questions of 
Mr. Hatcher about what he had done about desegregating 
the faculty and I tried to put in the record just what we 
have done to build an attitude in our teachers; and I think 
we could be safe in saying that those who work— (Mr. Rals­
ton conferring with Mr. King) . . .

Q. You have indicated you have tried to develop an at­
titude with the teachers to do the things you’ve outlined 
previously, but you’ve made no attempt to find out what 
is in fact the attitude of the teachers in the system? A. No, 
we have not put that in our program yet, Mr. Ralston.

— 59—
Q. So, in fact, you have not really done much of anything 

of much substance to prepare the way for desegregation of 
the regular classroom teachers in your system? A. No, 
the emphasis has been on pupils up to this point, which we 
tried to do without confusion and chaos in our schools.

Q. Do you have any plans now to do any of these things 
that I ’ve mentioned? A. No, I have none to announce at 
this time.



84

Q. Have you talked this over with the Board of Educa­
tion? A. Have I talked it over with the Board?

Q. Yes, the members of the Board? A. Yes, I ’ve talked 
it over with the Board and the Board is in perfect har­
mony and agreement with what I have done up to this 
point.

Q. Well, do they have any plans to do any of these things 
that I ’ve mentioned? A. When they have a plan, they will 
amend it, unless the Court has spoken to them and directed 
them before they amend their plan again, Mr. Ralston.

Q. But as far as you know, they have not done anything 
or made any preliminary plan to bring about regular class­
room teacher desegregation in compliance with the law?

— 60—

A. No, if they had any plan that had been finalized, it would 
be a part of this court record.

Q. And they haven’t made any preliminary plans either? 
A. Well, I think you could—what do you call all of that 
integration of the faculty in the areas before you get to the 
actual classroom situation? That seems to be the only point 
that’s bothering you.

Q. But you’ve indicated that a very large proportion of 
that, in fact the largest proportion, has been in summer pro­
grams where you have to do it as a condition of receiving 
Federal money? A. We didn’t have to have the programs, 
Mr. Ralston.

Q. But you had to desegregate the faculty in order to get 
the funds? A. Well, it was expected and we didn’t try 
to get around and not do it.

Q. Now, I would just like to come back for a moment to 
the question of the assignment of pupils under your plan 
with respect to this last term: you indicated—let me ask 
you ths, first: Did you deny any choices of persons who

Dr. Wm. II. Shaw—for Defendants—Cross



85

wished to transfer from Negro to white schools on the 
ground that the white schools were overcrowded? A. Yes, 
a few cases.

Q. I have marked here Plaintiff’s Exhibits 3, 4 and 5,
—61—

which are forms of Muscogee County School District, which 
relate to the application for transfers of Robert Louis Allen, 
a student, which was filled out by his parents, two of them, 
and returned by the School System under the signature of 
Mr. Shaw. Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 3, under date of April 
26,1967, that indicates that the application to Eastway Ele­
mentary School was denied because of overcrowding, is that 
correct? A. Yes.

Q. And this for May 2, the same child, an application to 
Edgewood Elementary School was denied for overcrowd­
ing? A. That is correct and I know this case very well.

Q. And then on May 10, application to Tillingshurst 
Elementary School was approved? A. Yes, and there was 
a telephone conversation from the father and the mother 
in between these.

Mr. Ralston: I would like to introduce these as 
Plaintiff’s Exhibits 3, 4 and 5.

Mr. Hatcher: No objection.
The Court: They are admitted without objection. 

By Mr. Ralston:

Q. Now, both of those schools in which you denied those 
applications, the first two applications, there were many 
students who did not make any choice to stay in that school

—62—
during the choice period; isn’t that correct? A. Well, I 
would have to go to the school and see whether they have

Dr. Wm. II. Shaw—for Defendants—Cross



86

on file the returned form from every one of the children 
who lived there near that school.

Q. But as far as you knew, when you said that the 
schools were overcrowded, all you had in your office were 
applications for change; is that correct? A. Well, no, I 
had the records showing what the enrollment in that school 
was of those who lived there near that school, and this 
family lives a considerable distance from all three of these 
schools.

Q. But you didn’t know how many students who had 
previously been in those schools had or had not made 
choices to remain in that school? A. Well, I knew they had 
not made a choice to get out of that school; I knew that.

Q. But you didn’t know whether they had returned choice 
forms at all, did you? A. Well, assuming that they had 
the forms and had not expressed a desire to get out, then 
they had made a choice to stay there, Mr. Ralston.

Q. But they had not necessarily returned the choice 
forms ? A. Their forms was not in my office, no.

—63—
Q. So, the effect of the way the plan was administered, at 

least in the terms of these two choices, children in the 
schools, who had not necessarily returned choice forms, 
were given priority over this child who had exercised a 
choice and submitted it to your office? A. Well, I do not 
know that their form is not there in the Principal’s office 
and there had been no indication that they would leave 
that school.

Q. But you had no indication in the way of an actual 
choice form that children, that every child in that school 
had actually exercised the choice or choice form to remain 
in that school, isn’t that correct? A. I did not have those 
forms, no.

Dr. Wm. 11. Shaw—for Defendants— Cross



87

Q. Now, did you know that the students who were in the 
school already the distances, the exact distances that each 
one of those students lived from that school with relation 
to the distance that this child lived from that school? A. 
Yes, and I had the map and I know where this one lived 
on the map and I know that this one lives farther away 
from Eastway and Edgewood than the children who are 
attending. And I informed Mr. Allen, when he called the 
first time, that Eastway—when I wrote him that that one 
was disapproved, Eastway—he asked about Edgewood and 
I said “ That is overcrowded now with the children who 
live within proximity of the school; and he said which other

—64—
one? And I told him Tillinghurst. And he said “ Oh yes, I 
know where that is ; it’s on the way that I go to work.” And 
then, later his wife called and the secretary told her that 
he had called and she said “Well, she didn’t know that he 
had talked about Tillinghurst, that they would fill that out 
and send it in.”  They did and it was approved.

Q. Now, after the first application was denied—

By the Court:
Q. Tillinghurst was formerly an all-white school? A. 

That’s right, that’s right.

By Mr. Ralston:
Q. After the first application was denied, did Mr. Lewis 

talk to you about what schools he could transfer this child 
to? A. Yes, and I told him the nearest one in that area 
was Tillinghurst, and he said “ Oh yes, I know where that 
is, it’s on my way to work.”

Q. Then, can you explain why two applications were 
made, both of which were denied because overcrowded, be-

Dr. Wm. H. Shaw—for Defendants—Cross



fore a third one was made? A. Well, I told you they were 
overcrowded.

Q. Did you tell Mr. Lewis after his first application was 
denied that Edgewood was overcrowded? A. Yes, he asked 
me that and I told him it was.

— 65—

Q. Had he already made an application to Edgewood at 
that time? A. No, he had not made one at that time. And 
then, they made the application and his wife called, when 
we sent that back disapproved, and she said she didn’t 
realize that he had talked with us or something like that, 
just one of a lot of calls that come into an office hut I do 
remember the case distinctly.

Q. Now Mr. Shaw, you’ve indicated by this testimony and 
your testimony earlier that, as a general proposition, stu­
dents attend schools nearest to their home? A. Yes.

Q. How are students initially assigned in the System? 
Do you have zones set up? A. Attendance areas, yes. It’s 
a record in this Court of our original plan for desegrega­
tion.

Q. Well, when a student first wishes to attend, how does 
he find out which school he should apply to? A. Well, it 
depends on what contact they make and in trying to find out 
and let somebody know they are in the community. We 
can’t have somebody sitting around watching to know when 
somebody moves in. But children and their parents usually 
find out from the next door neighbor where the children 
go to school. If they go to a school that is the wrong school 
or not the nearest school to them, the Principal would in-

— 66—

form them. They could call our office and say we live at 
such and such a place, what is our nearest school, and we 
would tell them.

Dr. Wm. H. Shaw—for Defendants—Cross



89

Q. And you have bus transportation in the County? A. 
Yes, we do.

Q. Is this available to all students? A. Once a child 
is integrated to the school, he rides the bus just like any­
body else.

Q. How about children who are not going to an inte­
grated school, are busses set up to transport them to Negro 
schools? A. The State Department of Education approves 
through surveys transportation routes to all schools in a 
county school system like ours.

Q. And you have busses operating in the City as well 
as those in the County, do you not? A . We have busses 
that take children in the elementary schools who live more 
that a mile from the nearest school to them; and we have 
busses operating for junior and senior high school pupils 
who live more than a mile and a half, which is state regula­
tion.

Q. Isn’t it true that Negro children are being bussed 
under the bussing system now existing past white schools to 
Negro schools? A. Yes, that is true and we also have some

—67—
who made choice to go to Columbus High School who walk 
right past or ride past, when they walk or furnish their 
transportation, past some other white high schools.

Q. And it is also true that white students are bussed 
past Negro schools to go to white schools, is that correct? 
A. Will you name one you have in mind? I would have to 
check up and see. I’m not sure that such is the case.

Q. Well, this is a possibility though? A. Oh, it might 
be a possibility, yes.

Q. And you do have white students transported distances 
to all white schools? A. Yes.

Dr. Wm. H. Shaw—for Defendants—Cross



90

Q. Now, have yon done any studies of bus transportation 
routes, with a view of changing them or altering them in 
order to encourage students to attend schools on desegre­
gated basis ? A. Mr. Ralston, once a year at the beginning 
of school, the transporation routes are studied and any 
changes are made that would be in keeping with the stan­
dards for transporting children by the State and by the 
County.

Q. You have overlapping bus routes; that is, a bus that 
will pick up a Negro child and take it to a Negro school and 
another bus that will come by the same area— A. Yes,

— 68—

there is a little of that, particularly away out in the eastern 
arm of the County; and I suppose there will be some of 
that until we completely phase out all of the integration or 
desegregation.

Q. But you do have that? A. Oh, there’s some of that 
still but not as much as there was.

Q. Now, can you state, going back to bussing white chil­
dren past Negro schools to white schools that this in fact 
does occur? A. State that again, now? It looks like you’re 
trying to—

Q. As a matter of fact, in some instances white children 
are put in busses and taken past Negro school which are 
closer to their homes and bussed to white schools, is that 
correct? A. Well, I think you must have gotten some in­
formation from a person seated in the audience there and 
you might let them tell you which school they have in mind.

Q. Well, to cite a specific example, is this in fact— A. 
Well, I told you a moment ago that I was not aware of the 
fact that any white children are bussed past a Negro school 
to go to a white one; if that’s the school of their choice, 
they would have the right to.

Dr. Win. H. Shaw—for Defendants—Cross



91

Dr. Wm. H. Slum— for Defendants—Cross

—69—
Q. You’re not aware of it but you’re not denying it? A. 

We have a Director of Transportation, who might know 
specifically the answer to what you’re saying. I still say 
that the person who furnished you the information for that 
question may have an example that he would like to have 
the Court permit him to say what it is.

Q. Now, you have indicated that the schools, white and 
Negro schools are equal insofar as they come up to accredi­
tation standards; is that correct? A. Yes. Now, maybe you 
would like to know, there was a committee of 92 people, 
educators, invited in here and a team of 3 visited every 
school for two days or maybe 2-1 /2  days and they had all 
the standards that they applied to all of these schools; and 
then they had to say whether to recommend that the school 
be accredited and whether or not it was meeting the stan­
dards. W7e didn’t have the say-so on that.

Q. I call your attention to the Dawson Drive School, are 
you familiar with that school? A. Yes, I recommended the 
purchase of that acreage and the new school there.

Q. Is it a new school? A. It is a new school, yes.
Q. Well, has there been in the past school carried on in 

a church in the neighborhood ? A. Not a church on Dawson
- 7 0 -

Drive. There is a wooden building that was left there that 
was the school when the County and the City were merged 
in 1950.

Q. Is that old building still being used? A. It could be 
used for overflow classes, yes.

Q. And isn’t it true that that old building does not have 
any in-door sanitary facilities? A. Beg your pardon?

Q. Isn’t it true that that old building does not have any 
in-door sanitary facilities? A. There was no toilet in that



when it was a school, n o ; it 'was a 3-teacher shcool when we 
merged the City and the County and it was not a church, 
Mr. Balston.

Q. But it is still being used? A. The building is still 
there.

By the Court:

Q. Is it being used as a class-room? A. I think there’s 
one class in there or was one in there last year.

By Mr. Ralston:

Q. And there will be no classes this coming year? A. 
'Well, I ’m not sure about next year now, whether there will 
be or not. And let me tell you why I ’m not sure: We have 
just put on about a half a million dollar addition at Carver 
High School, where the children from there have been

— 7 1 -
choosing to go for 7th and 8th grades; and, if there is room 
there, they may prefer to go there than to stay near home.

Q. Mr. Shaw, you indicated that extracurricular activi­
ties were integrated in the schools? A. Yes, they are.

Q. Does that include social activities as well, dances, 
et cetera? A. Yes, it does.

Q. Are there any sponsored clubs on the campus, such 
as Kiwanis Club and Eotary Club; do they carry on activi­
ties? A. There are junior clubs, yes.

Q. Are these operated on school premises? A. Yes, 
they are.

Q. Are these integrated? Are all students admitted to 
membership in them? A. Now, the membership in those 
clubs, I would not know. If they wanted to get in, it would 
be up to the student for them to get in just like any other.

Dr. Wm. H. Shaw—for Defendants—Cross



93

Q. Well, don’t you know, as a matter of fact, in this 
community, these clubs, junior clubs, Kiwanis, and Rotary, 
are segregated discriminatory according to race and Negro 
students are not allowed membership in them? A. Well,

—72—
I have not seen a Negro in one at any time that I saw the 
clubs in action.

Q. Do these clubs use school facilities? A. They meet 
in the building, yes.

Q. They meet in the building? A. Yes.
Q. Now, is there any effort made by the school to deter­

mine the membership policy of these clubs? A. I do not 
control that and I am not aware of just how they get their 
members, Mr. Ralston.

Q, But you do allow them to use the school facilities? 
A. Yes; yes, we do.

Q. You know, as a matter of fact, that the Kiwanis and 
Rotary Clubs, the parent clubs are discriminatory on the 
basis of race and there are no Negro members in those 
clubs? A. Well, I am a Rotarian and I can say there is 
not a Negro in the Columbus Rotary Club.

The Court: That wasn’t the question? That was 
not the question, as I understood.

The Witness: What was your question?
The Court: Read the question, Mr. Joiner.
The Reporter: “You know, as a matter of fact, 

that the Kiwanis and Rotary Clubs, the parent clubs,
- 7 3 - -

are discriminatory on the basis of race and there are 
no Negro members in those clubs?”

The Witness: And my answer was that I am a 
member of the Columbus Rotary Club and I know

Dr. Wm. E. Shaw—for Defendants—Cross



94

there is not a Negro in that Club, but I don’t know 
the other part of the inference.

By Mr. Ralston:

Q. Now, have you felt any obligation in your role as 
Superintendent of the Schools and as administrator of the 
school system to make sure that all are allowed use of the 
school facilities and that they not be discriminatory on 
ground of race or color? A. Frankly, I ’ve been so busy try­
ing to get the process of integration of the students carried 
out successfully, that I have had not had time to work on 
details of who gets in a certain club.

Q. But you did testify before that everything— A. 
Well, I said activities and I gave you specific examples of 
what I had in mind, the band and the athletics, I know that 
they are integrated and there has been no criticism so far 
as I know. Apparently somebody is dissatisfied or they 
would not have fed you some of this information that you 
seem to possess.

Mr. Ralston: I think that’s all. I would like to 
just put in the record Plaintiff’s Exhibits 1 and 2.

—74—
Mr. Hatcher: That’s all right.

Redirect Examination by Mr. Hatcher:

Q. Dr. Shaw, the Lewis family or the Lewis parents were 
satisfied with the handling of their choice forms? A. Well, 
apparently they were because, as I told you, I did talk with 
the father in the case, and then the mother called and talked 
with Miss Heberlin, my secretary, and we assumed that 
they were—that it had been handled satisfactorily.

Dr. Wm. H. Shaw—for Defendants—Redirect



95

Q. There was no— A. There is no written appeal in my 
office from the Tillinghurst assignment.

Q. And there has been no other communication between 
you and them? A. No, there has not been until this moment 
and I assume, if it’s Mr. Lewis, I assume that he’s the fel­
low that I met in the hall out there a moment ago.

Q. With reference to the Kindergarten, you operate a 
kindergarten in all of the schools, do you not? A. All ex­
cept Double Churches and there have not been enough chil­
dren at Double Churches last year for a kindergarten. But 
the children from Double Churches went to Nankapoo.

—75—
Q. The 831 that you speak of does not include people who 

enter the kindergarten next year, does it? A. Yes, it does.
Q. All of those that were not new pupils, have they ap­

plied? A. The Principals were instructed to canvass, with 
the aid of the PTA, all of the pre-kindergarten children, 
those who would be five years old before the 1st day of 
December; and to give them an opportunity to choose their 
school; and we have quite a number of kindergarten chil­
dren who chose a school for the first time the one nearest 
their home.

Q. Is that true also regarding the first grade, those that 
didn’t attend kindergarten? A. Oh yes. We have a few 
who will get by who do not go to kindergarten and they 
m il be choosing their school for the first time at the first 
grade level; and some of those making their first choice 
to school chose to go to a white school nearer them; and a 
very good example would be three schools: McElheney, 
Rose Hill and Beallwood, where they live much nearer to 
those three schools than they do to the closest Negro school; 
and every one of those were granted.

Q. That’s all.

Dr. Wm. II. Shaw—for Defendants—Redirect



96

The Court: Allright, you may go down, Dr. Shaw.

Mr. John R. Kinnett—for Defendants—Direct

— 76—

M r. J oh n  R. K in n e t t , called as witness in behalf of De­
fendants, duly sworn, testified on

Direct Examination by Mr. Hatcher:

Q. Mr. Kinnett, will you please state your full name, 
your age, your residence and your business ? A. My name 
is John Robinson Kinnett; I ’m 69 years old; I live at 1408 
Wildwood Avenue; and I ’m Chairman of the Board of 
Kinnett Dairies, Inc.

Q. With reference to the Muscogee County Schools, what 
connection have you had with these schools? A. Well, I am 
currently serving as President of the Board of Education 
and have for the last several years. Prior to that I was a 
member of the Board for some 20-odd years.

Q. Mr. Kinnett, you are familiar, of course, with this 
Lockett case and the case tried here in this Court and the 
appeal in the appellate court to the Fifth Circuit? A. I 
am, sir.

Q. I ask you, as a member of the Board of Education and 
as its President, whether the Muscogee County School Dis­
trict has undertaken in good faith to desegregate the schools 
of this County, in accordance with the plan aproved by the 
Court in the Lockett case? A. We certainly have, sir.

Q. I ask you if you know of any objections made by anv-
— 77-

body to the operation and the carrying out of that plan? 
A. I have heard of no opposition whatsoever.



97

Cross Examination by Mr. Ralston:

Q. I didn’t get your name, sir? A. Kinnett, K-i-n-n-e-t-t 
(spelling).

Q. Mr. Kinnett, as President of the Board of Education, 
have you and other members of the Board informally or 
formally in meeting discussed the question of faculty deseg­
regation? A. Oh naturally, we discussed it.

Q. And have you discussed making plans? A. We have 
not discussed making any plans yet because the Fifth Cir­
cuit Court indicated to us, when our case was before them, 
which was the Lockett case, that the faculty would come 
later. In fact, as I recall, hearing one of the Judges make 
the statement that they weren’t interested in faculty at 
this time. I believe that’s possibly the exact words.

Q. That was the opinion of the Fifth Circuit that you 
were referring to, was it not? A. I didn’t understand the 
question.

Q. The opinion of the Fifth Circuit that you were refer­
ring to was decided in 1965, is that correct? A. Possibly 
so, yes.

—78—
Q. And they did indicate in that opinion that faculty de­

segregation would come in the future, that that was some­
thing for the future? A. I don’t recall it just exactly 
that way. I think it was more of a negative—I think the 
question of faculty was brought up and they indicated we 
are not interested in that now, we are interested in inte­
grating the students.

Q. But you regarded the Fifth Circuit opinion as allow­
ing you not to discuss or make future plans for faculty de­
segregation? A. Well, we didn’t feel that until such time 
as we completed the integration of the children, the pupils, 
that we had an obligation to go into that.

Mr. John R. Kinnett—for Defendants— Cross



98

Q. Were yon aware of the decision of the Fifth Circuit 
last December in the Jefferson County cases: Were these 
brought to your attention? A. Frankly, I have not read 
that case there. I am aware of it.

Q. Were you aware of the motion filed by Plaintiffs in 
this case in January and February of this year, which asked 
for faculty desegregation? A. Yes, I  was aware of that.

Q. In view of those motions and in view of Jefferson 
County opinion, did you or the members of the Board 
generally feel that vou should make any plans for faculty

—7 9 -
desegregation? A. No, very frankly, we or I felt person­
ally that the time had not arrived when we were obligated 
to do it.

Q. What, sir, specifically is your personal attitude toward 
integration of the faculties in the School System? A. I 
think when the time comes and we can do it and maintain 
the quality of education, I think that will be the time.

Q. Well, how far in the future do you see this time com­
ing? A. Well, I ’m not an educator but I would say not 
any sooner than we can do it and still maintain quality edu­
cation for all children.

Q. All right, I have no further questions.

Mr. T. Hiram Stanley—for Defendants—Direct

Mb. T. H ikam  S tanley , called as witness in behalf of 
Defendants, being first duly sworn, testified on

Direct Examination by Mr. Hatcher:

Q. Mr. Stanley, would you please state your full name, 
your age, your residence and your present occupation or 
previous occupation? A. My name is T. Hiram Stanley. 
I live at 2501 Lookout Drive, Columbus, Georgia. I am 71



99

Mr. T. Hiram Stanley—for Defendants—Direct

- 8 0 -
years of age; and my employment is kind-of varied. Most 
of it is free service but I retired as Chairman of the Board 
of Royal Crown Cola Company in the year 1960.

Q. What connection have you had with the education in 
the State of Georgia and also education in Muscogee 
County ? A. I ’m a member of the Muscogee County School 
Board for 10 years and I ’m a member of the Board of 
Regents of the University System of Georgia for the last 
four years.

Q. In reference to the desegregation of the Muscogee 
County schools, have you any particular function among 
the members of the School Board? A. I ’m Chairman of 
the Committee.

Q. I ask you, has your Committee and the School Board 
have undertaken in good faith to desegregate the School 
System with all reasonable speed in accordance with the 
mandate of the Constitution of the United States and the 
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in this case and 
in the opinion of this Court in this case? A. We started 
without any direction from any court. We did it because 
we thought it was the thing to do and we proceeded to 
develop a plan, which was subsequently brought to this 
Court and to the Fifth Circuit. And periodically, our Com­
mittee has met to discuss progress, to see what the present

- S i -
situations were and looking to the future to make adjust­
ments and amendments such as would keep us ahead of what 
we were required to d o ; and I think we have done a swell 
job of keeping ahead. We have never trailed, we have 
always kept ahead and we have kept in mind quality edu­
cation for all of our people. We have never dealt with any 
segment of the population. We have dealt with the entire



100

population, and that has been our purpose and we are 
doing that now.

Mr. Hatcher: All right, he’s with you.

Cross Examination by Mr. King:

Q. Mr. Stanley, I believe your last name is: Is that 
S t a n l e y  (spelling), sir? A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Stanley, I believe that your response to the ques­
tion regarding you as a Board member abiding by the dic­
tates of the Constitution of the United States, in pursuit 
of your responsibility as a member of the Board in deseg­
regating the schools, you indicated in the affirmative, did 
you not ? A. I did.

Q. That you’ve done everything that was required by the 
Fifth Circuit and the Constitution? A. We did more than 
we were required, I think. I think we kept ahead of the

—8 2 -
plan.

Q. As a Board member, sir, you are aware that the 
Supreme Court of the United States did rule that the segre­
gation of education was in violation of the 14th Amend­
ment to the Constitution of the United States? A. Yes, sir.

Q. You are aware that that was an edict or a judgment 
of that Court as early as 1954? A. Yes, sir, and also their 
discussion and implementation of it.

Q. I see. And is it not also your testimony that some 
9 or nearly 10 years later that this Board took its first ac­
tion toward doing anything pursuant to that edict? A. 
That’s correct.

Q. Now, you answered in the affirmative, did you not, 
sir, that you had actually abided by the judgment of the

Mr. T. Hiram Stanley—for Defendants—Cross



1 0 1

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit with 
reference to this particular case, more specifically the Lock­
ett case? A. We did and we have done it,

Q. I ask you, sir, then is it your explanation as to your 
failure to do anything about teacher integration, the fact 
that the Fifth Circuit did not speak specifically to this ques­
tion? A. I think that’s one of the reasons but the main

- 83-

reason was that we, seeking to give every child the best 
education possible outlined the steps that we thought that 
our School Board should take in providing for that, and 
then we acted accordingly.

Q. I see. Now, you were present at all times when Mr. 
Shaw was testifying this morning, were you not? A. Yes.

Q. You heard his testimony to the ffect that there was 
a sameness throughout the system in the pupil-teacher 
ratio, did you not? A. Yes sir.

Q. YYu heard him testify as to the sameness of quality 
of the facilities of the school system, did you not? A. Yes 
sir.

Q. You heard him testify as to a sameness of the quali­
fications of the teachers in the System, did you not? A. 
Yes sir.

Q. Now, consonant with those pronouncements on his 
part, do you have an actual variance with those? A. No 
sir, I have no variance; I think he stated facts.

Q. Well, in light of that, is there any suggestion to you, 
sir, that violence would be done to the quality of education 
if there were teacher integration in this community? A. 
At the present time, yes.

— 84—

Q. And would you explain how, sir? A. Because edu­
cation in the transition that we’re going through requires 
acceptance by pupils, acceptance by parents, acceptance by

Mr. T. Hiram Stanley—for Defendants—Cross



1 0 2

the community and by acceptance of all of those, we as a 
school board are in a better position to keep the initiative 
and handle it than anybody else.

Q. Now, what have you done, in concrete terms, to estab­
lish and otherwise react to what is the current thinking 
regarding community, regarding students, in order to make 
that judgment that you have just testified to? A. The pro­
cedure and timing that we have followed have met the 
complete positive response in all of our people as of this 
hour.

Q. Then, you haven’t taken any survey to determine 
whether you can go faster then, have you? Than what 
you’re suggesting you have already accomplished? A. No, 
we think we are moving faster and we’ll move faster than 
we would under a court order, because we have always 
maintained the initiative in that and we think that we can 
do it; we have always acted in good faith and we’re going 
to do that, keeping in mind the best education and well 
being of every body and girl in this community.

Q. Well, would you tell me, sir, the specifics of how vio­
lence, in light of your prior testimony, would be done to

— 85—
tlie quality of education? A. I think education is a demo­
cratic process.

Q. Well, whatever do you mean by that, sir? A. I mean 
that the people should go to the school that they think they 
should go to and they’re happy in going. I think, if you put 
coercion on any child, you have instilled in that child a 
wrong concept of a good free democratic education.

Q. Doesn’t that also, doesn’t the distinction— A. And 
we’re moving in that direction; and we have not stumbled 
one step in entertaining that up to now; and if we—let us

Mr. T. Hiram Stanley—for Defendants—Cross



103

follow the schedule now—we recognize that there are more 
schedules and we’re discussing them periodically; and we’ll 
make those changes in the best interest of all of the boys 
and girls as a whole and in this community as a whole.

Q. Well, doesn’t that also, doesn’t your explanation of 
what you feel or your description of what is democratic also 
define what is anarchist; that is, you have said that you 
believe in letting the child do what he wants to do and go 
where he wants to go? A. I think that’s democratic, to 
let him express his choice and his parent’s choice and we 
have done that.

Q. I see. Well, you are familiar with this community,
- 86-

are you not, sir? A. Yes sir.
Q. You are familiar with the fact that it has a tradition 

of long protracted racial discrimination; isn’t that true? 
A. No, I wouldn’t say that. I think this community is just 
the reverse of it.

Q. I see. Are you denying that segregation has been a 
reality in this community for more than 100 years? A. No, 
I ’m not denying that, but your question before was the 
spirit of the community, and I say the spirit of this com­
munity is not on that basis.

Q. Are you denying, sir, that segregation in education 
has been a reality in this community for a period exceeding 
100 years? A. No, I ’m not denying that, but the question 
you asked me was the spirit of this community today.

Q. Then, I ask you, sir, in light of the reality that you 
acknowledge to exist, using the concepts that you do as 
you describe them as being democratic, you would never 
get an integrated, a totally integrated an unitary school 
system in this County, would you? A. I think you’re specu­
lating there because we don’t know, but look at the progress

Mr. T. Hiram Stanley—for Defendants—Cross



104

we have made since we started; and I think the progress 
itself is indicative of what’s being done.

—87—
Q. Well, would you answer this question for me, sir: 

What is your personal persuasion toward the desegregation 
or the integration of the school system in this community? 
A. I have been Chairman of the Committee that has helped 
work it out and I think that bespeaks my attitude.

Q. Well, do you believe in the integration of the races 
in education in this community? A. I ’ve supported it.

Q. Well, that doesn’t answer my question: do you be­
lieve in it? A. I think it’s all right and I think my colored 
people here and my friends believe that that’s my attitude 
and will support me in it.

Q. Have you any reluctance to give an affirmative or 
negative response demonstrative of something less than an 
affirmative belief in it? A. I have expressed it. I wouldn’t 
have supported it if I didn’t believe in it.

Q. Well, are you saying that you do believe in integra­
tion? A. I think my actions speak louder than anything 
I could say because I have brought it—we’ve brought it 
to the Board and the Board has approved what we recom­
mended.

Q. Will you explain your reluctance then to answer af­
firmatively or negatively, sir? A. I think I ’ve already

—88—
answered it.

Q. What is your specific attitude toward racial integra­
tion of faculty? A. I am not against it at the proper time.

Q. And when is that, sir? A. It’s the next step.
Q. And when is the next step, as you envision it? A. I 

would say that we will begin thinking about that very

Mr. T. Hiram Stanley—for Defendants—Cross



105

seriously—we fininsh the pupil integration this year and 
I think that will be one of the next steps for consideration 
probably in 1968.

Q. I see. And how long do you envision you will have 
to think about it, after you commence thinking about it in 
1968! A. I ’m one member of the committee, I think when 
we being to think about it, we’ll come up with some plan. 

Q. In the how distant future, sir! A. In ’68, next year. 
Q. N e x t  year you think you will! A. Yes.
Q. You will start thinking about that at that time and 

you’ll come up with something! A. Sure, I think we will. 
Q. No further questions.

Mr. Hatcher: All right, come down, sir. That’s 
all we have, sir.

Mr. Robert A. Lewis—for Plaintiffs—Direct

—89—
M r . R obebt A. L ew is , witness called b y  Plaintiffs, duly 

sworn, testified on

Direct Examination by Mr. Ralston:

Q. Mr. Lewis, would you please give your full name and 
address and occupation for the record! A. Robert A. 
Lewis, 3140 Urban Avenue, Letter carrier, United States 
Post Office.

Q. You are a resident of Columbus, Georgia! A. Colum­
bus, Georgia. I am a resident of Columbus, Georgia.

Q. Do you have school children attending school here! 
A. I do.

Q. How many! A. Three.
Q. What are their names and ages and grades they at­

tend! A. I have Gwendolyn Elaine, 14, promoted to the 
third year high school; I have Anthony Jules, 12 years old,



106

promoted to the 9th grade in high school; and I have Robert 
A., 10 years old, promoted to the 6th grade in elementary 
school.

Q. Referring to your youngest son, Robert Allen Lewis, 
did you during this year fill in a request that he be trans­
ferred from the school he had been attending1? A. I did.

—90—
Q. And what school did he request or did you request 

that he be transferred to? A. Initially, I requested East­
way.

Q. And what was the response received from the School 
Board? A. It was disapproved because it was over­
crowded.

Q. I show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 3  and is this the 
communication you received from them? A. This is it, 
along with a disapproval blank, Muscogee County form.

Q. After you received this, did you phone any one at 
the Board of Education? A. I phoned the Superintendent 
of Education of Muscogee County, Mr. Shaw, and I spoke 
to him.

Q. And what did you tell him when you spoke to him? 
A. I asked Mr. Shaw, since he had indicated that Eastway 
was overcrowded, I asked him for information as to schools 
that were not overcrowded.

Q. And what was his response? A. It was neither posi­
tive nor negative. I could not get anything but I was in­
formed to submit a second choice and at which time it would 
be acted upon.

Q. Was any suggestion made to you as to a school that 
was not overcrowded? A. There was some questions. I

-—91—
asked some questions but there was no voluntary informa­
tion given me from the office of Mr. Shaw.

Mr. Robert A. Lewis—for Plaintiffs—Direct



107

Q. Did you ask Mm about Edgewood Elementary School? 
A. Pardon?

Q. Did you ask him about Edgewood Elementary? A. 
I asked about Edgewood.

Q. What did he tell you about Edgewood? A. He said 
it was overcrowded too.

Q. Did you subsequently make application to Edgewood? 
A. I subsequently made application to Edgewood and the 
communication was returned, overcrowded.

Q. But at this first conversation with Mr. Shaw, he did 
not give you the name of a school that was not over­
crowded? A. No, he didn’t.

Q. Did you ask him for it? A. I  did.
Q. In this first conversation when you mentioned Edge- 

wood, did Mr. Shaw tell you it was overcrowded? Did Mr. 
Shaw tell you that Edgewood was overcrowded? A. He 
said it was overcrowded and he said the reason Eastway 
was overcrowded was because he was having to bus some 
other pupils from Eastway to some other school; but I was

— 92—

never given any information as to what school wasn’t. Dur­
ing this particular communication I was not given any 
indication of what schools were not overcrowded.

Q. So, then you made application to Eastwood, I mean, 
excuse me, Edgewood; and I show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 
4: could you identify that? A. Yes, this was returned to 
me from the School Board, along with another form which 
I do not have, but it indicated—it was a blank form similar 
to this one which had third choice on it and a basic letter, 
said “ Please submit your third and final choice and get a 
school that is not overcrowded.”

Q. Now, when you received ths communication, did you 
phone Mr. Shaw again? A. No, I did not; my wife did.

Mr. Robert A. Lewis—for Plaintiffs—Direct



108

Q. And, as a result of that conversation, did you make 
any application to another school! A. I  did.

Q. I show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 5, and could you identify 
that, please! A. Yes, this is the third and final applica­
tion, as indicated, by Muscogee County School Board to 
Tillinghurst School, and it is approved.

Q. Now, with regard to the relative distances of these 
three schools, which was the nearest to your home! A.

— 93—

Eastway.
Q. That was the first one you chose! A. Yes.
Q. And how about Edgewood! A. Edgewood is second 

closest but it was slightly greater than Eastway.
Q. And Tillinghurst! A. Tillinghurst was some twice 

the distance as it would be to Edgewood.
Q. Mr. Lewis, I would just like for the written record 

for you to identify your race, please! A. I am an Ameri­
can Negro.

Q. Thank you; that’s all.

Cross Examination by Mr. Land-.

Q. Where did you say you resided! Would you give us 
your address! A. 3140 Urban Avenue.

Q. And you are employed where! A. United States 
Post Office in Columbus, Georgia.

Q. Now, the Tillinghurst School, was that mentioned to 
you by anybody at the Muscogee County School District 
office! A. Not voluntarily.

Q. What do you mean by “not voluntarily” ! A. It was
— 94—

offered only to my wife upon her asking.
Q. It was communicated to you as a school which was 

not overcrowded by your wife, who received the informa­

Mr. Robert A. Lewis—for Plaintiffs—Cross



109

tion from the Muscogee County School District; is that 
your testimony? A. Well, to relate her terms, she said 
that upon her asking, some female in the County office, the 
School Board office, said Tillinghurst, “Well, Tillinghurst 
would be a white school that is not overcrowded.

Q. And that was the information that you desired, to 
have the name of a white school which was not overcrowded? 
A. I was trying to find a County school that was nearby 
my house. I  didn’t care whether it was white or crowded. 
I was not satisfied with the school that was supposedly in 
my attendance area because the quality of education did 
not suffice me, and I was not trying to find a white school or 
a Negro school, which I don’t believe there’s such a thing; 
and I wanted to find a school.

Q. And so far as you know, that information was sup­
plied your wife by the Muscogee County School District 
office at her inquiry? A. That is correct.

Q. And do you know whether or not there was a dis­
cussion between your wife and the representative of the 
Muscogee County School District about the convenience of

—95—
Tillinghurst because that was a school by which you passed 
on your way to work? A. No, I am not aware of that.

Q. Beg your pardon? A. I am not aware of that con­
versation.

Q. She didn’t tell you anything about that? A. No.
Q. But she did tell you that she had found out about the 

school from the Muscogee County School District? A. Yes.
Q. And, as a result, you made application for your child 

to enter that school? A. That is correct.
Q. And that application was passed upon and approved 

by the Board? A. That is correct.
Q. Now, where do you work? You said with the post 

office? But I wanted it specifically? A. I work at the

Mr. Robert A. Lewis—for Plaintiffs—Cross



110

Lynwood Street facility, which is on Macon—at Midtown 
Mall, right off of Macon Road.

Q. And you have worked out there for some time! A. 
At its opening; ever since it’s been opened, some year or so, 
about a year.

Q. About a year ago! A. Yes, approximately.
—96—

Q. And the Tillinghurst School would be on your way 
to work from your home! A. It’s not on direct route but 
because I get off slightly before the kid get out of school, I 
could detour by there and get my child.

Q. You would have to do very little detouring to go by 
Tillinghurst School, wouldn’t you, to get to your residence! 
A. Well, it all depends on how you look at it. It’s some two 
miles from the post office.

Q. Two miles from the post office! A. Approximately 
to Tillinghurst school.

Q. And how far is it from the post office to your home! 
A. Oh, approximately 3% or 4 miles.

Q. And two miles of that would be between the post office 
and the School! A. No, it would not be between the post 
office and the school. It would be completely off of the most 
direct route from the post office to my home, distance of 
say about a mile or maybe a mile and 8/10 either way, go­
ing completely off my route of return, and distance of some 
three miles off of round-trip off of a straight line from my 
house.

Q. And you don’t know then whether there was any dis-
—97—

cussion between your wife and the School District repre­
sentative as to the convenience of Tillinghurst, because you 
could go by there on your way to and from work! A. No. 
The only thing I know about the conversation is that my

Mr. Robert A. Lewis—for Plaintiffs—Cross



I l l

Mr. Robert A. Lewis—for Plaintiffs—Redirect

wife has made arrangements with a teacher at Carver High 
and she will take my child to school because of the proximity 
of Carver High to Tillinghnrst School; and she will take 
my child to school, because it’s very clear since my school or 
my child is not in attendance at school, is not attending a 
school in the attendance area, then the burden of trans­
portation rests upon me.

Q. Where did your child attend school last year! A. 
Forest Eoad Elementary.

Q. I think that’s all.

Dr. Shaw: Urban Avenue runs north off of Forest 
Eoad about a mile from Forest Eoad School.

By Mr. Land:

Q. How far is your home from the Forest Eoad School? 
A. Some 6/10 of a mile.

Q. How far is your home from the Eastway School? A. 
Some 2% miles.

Q. How far is your home from Edgewood School? A. 
Some 2% miles.

Q. And you said your home was how far from Tilling- 
hurst? A. Some 4 miles.

—98—
Q. 4 miles approximately? A. Approximately.
Q. That’s all.

Redirect Examination by Mr. Ralston:

Q. Mr. Lewis, I just have one question: When you called, 
after the first denial of the application, you were not told 
where a school was that was not overcrowded? A. I was 
told by a lady who became very, or rather I would gather 
from her tone of voice, that she was very irritated; and



1 1 2

she told me to go on and submit my application and they 
would act upon it upon receipt in the office.

Q. And you were not told where a school was that was 
not overcrowded? A. Pardon?

Q. I say, you were not told, you were not given the name 
of a school that was not overcrowded? A. Ho, X wasn’t.

Recross Examination by Mr. Land:

Q. Now, did I understand you to say that you did not 
talk to Dr. Shaw? A. I spoke to Dr. Shaw. I spoke to 
Dr. Shaw.

Q. And Dr. Shaw told you Tillinghurst? Didn’t he? A.
- 9 9 -

Pardon?
Q. Dr. Shaw told you Tillinghurst was not overcrowded? 

A. No, he did not tell me that Tillinghurst was not over­
crowded. He may have told my wife.

Dr. Shaw: I told him.
Mr. Land: All right, that’s all.
The Court: All right, you may go down.
Mr. Ralston: Plaintiff’s rest, Your Honor.
Mr. Hatcher: We would like to put Dr. Shaw back 

on the stand.

Mr. Robert A. Lewis—for Plaintiffs—Recross



113

Dr. W m . H. Sh a w  recalled by Defendants in rebuttal, 
testified on

Redirect Examination by Mr. Hatcher:

Q. Dr. Shaw, you have heard the witness who has just 
testified: Did he talk to you about his application for his 
child or child to attend— A. Yes, when the first one was 
returned marked “disapproved” on Eastway, he called me 
and identified himself; and he wanted to know, when I told 
him that Eastway was overcrowded, he wanted to know 
about Edgewood and I told him that was too ; and he said 
“Is there a white school”—now, he said a moment ago it 
didn’t make any difference—he said “Is there a white school

- 100-

in our side of the School District that is not overcrowded?” 
I said “ Tillinghurst.” He said “Yes, I know about that 
school, I pass there”—I understood him to say, “ I pass 
there on my way to work.”

Then, when his wife called later, when we disapproved 
Edgewood—they sent it in after we told them it was over­
crowded and we disapproved it— she called, and she asked 
the same question, “Where was there a school out there not 
overcrowded?” And I told her “ Tillinghurst” and that I 
had told her husband about that. I do not recall whether 
she said he didn’t tell her or not but I distinctly remember 
talking to both Mr. Lewis and someone who identified her­
self as his wife.

Recross Examination by Mr. King:

Q. Sir, in your position as the Superintendent of Schools 
of the System as large as Muscogee County, how many calls 
would you say that you answer in the course of a day? A.

Dr. Wm. II. Shaw—for Defendants— Recalled—Redirect
— Recross—Rebuttal



114

I ’ve never been asked to make a record of it bnt there are 
a lot of them.

Q. I didn’t ask for a record, sir! A. Well, I don’t know 
how many but there are a lot of them and I usually take 
care of all of the calls; and if some calls come in when I am 
not there, they keep a record of it and I make a habit of

- 101-

answering all of those calls even if I have to get them the 
next morning.

Q. Would you say it averages maybe 30 or 40 calls a day? 
A. Well, you mean on this subject or just calls?

Q. Just calls, sir? A. Well, I never have kept a record; 
perhaps it would be that many or more; I don’t know.

Q. That many or more? A. I know there are a lot of 
calls. Now, if they can find, if some person on the desk can 
find out what they want to talk about, if there is some other 
person in the administrative staff who would be better in­
formed to answer, the calls are shunted to them, if the per­
son will divulge what they want to talk about; so, I  would 
not get all of the calls that might originally be intended for 
me.

Q. Well, I didn’t ask you that hut I simply asked you how 
many calls do you answer a day? A. I don’t have a record 
of that.

Q. I ask you, sir, in the light of your not having an exact 
record, it is your best recollection that it may be 30 calls a 
day, is that correct?

The Court: What if it does? What if it’s 40, what 
if it’s 10? What’s that got to do here?

The Witness: It could be 100.
— 102—

The Court: What has that got to do with it?

Dr. Wm. H. Shaw—for Defendants—Recalled—Recross



Mr. King: I would submit it has everything Your 
Honor. Credibility is certainly very obvious reason 
why he was put back up.

The Court: Mr. King, if you’re trying to make the 
point that he gets a lot of telephone calls and, there­
fore, there’s some question about whether he can 
remember telephone calls; is that the point you’re 
trying to make?

Mr. King: Well, whatever it is.
The Court: Is that it, is that the point you’re try­

ing to make about it?
Mr. King: Well, it certainly goes to credibility.
The Court: Well, I say, is that the point you’re 

trying to make? All right, he’s testified he get 30 or 
40 telephone calls. Now, what’s the use in pursuing 
it further? He testifies positively that he remembers 
this conversation also. All right, anything further 
about it?

Mr. Kings: Yes sir, there is.
The Court: About the telephone conversation?
Mr. King: Sir?
The Court: About the telephone conversation. He 

was put back on the stand—
—103—

Mr. King: Yes sir, that’s what I ’m asking him, 
about the telephone conversation.

Q. Now, I believe that it is your testimony that in this 
particular conversation that you had, you say that when 
Mr. Lewis called, he asked about first one school; is that 
correct? A . He identified himself as the person who had 
requested Eastway and it was disapproved; and then he 
wanted to know about making another choice. I said, “ Yes,

Dr. Wm. / / .  Shaw—for Defendants— Recalled—Recross



116

yon have a right to make another choice.” He asked if 
he could have Edgewood, and I told him “No, Edgewood was 
overcrowded.” And he said, “Well, give me the name of 
a school on this side of town, a white school, that is not 
overcrowded?” And I said, “ Well, according to our records, 
Tillinghurst is not overcrowded.” He said “ Oh yes, I know 
about that school” and I think I remember that he said, 
“ I go by there on my way to work.” But he certainly said 
he knew about that school.

Q. And all of this took place in that conversation? A. 
Yes, and then when his wife called and she wanted to know 
about a shcool, I explained to her that before the Edgewood 
application had been sent in, that I had explained to him 
there was—let’s wait until they finish their conversation. 
(Mr. King and Mr. Ralston conferring) . . .

The Court: Yes. Now, don’t ask any questions
—104—

unless you are interested in hearing his answer, Mr. 
King.

Mr. King: I heard his anwser.
The Court: Yes, but you and Mr. Ralston were 

carrying on a private conversation there while he 
was still answering your question. Now, don’t ask 
any questions unless you’re going to accord the wit­
ness the courtesy of listening to his answer, if it’s 
a question—

Mr. King: I state to the Court—
The Court: —if it’s a question that’s important 

enough to be asked, it’s a question the answer to 
which is important enough to be heard.

Mr. King: I will state to the Court in my place

Dr. Wm. II. Shaw—for Defendants— Recalled—Recross



117

The Court: You and Mr. Ralston were carrying 
on a conversation and any statement you make to 
the contrary is contrary to my observation of the 
facts; and, if you want to ask the witness a question 
and listen to his anwser, you may do so. Now, if 
there is any further question to be asked of the 
witness, ask it. Is there any further qeustion? . . .  I 
presume there is not. All right, Mr. Shaw, you may 
go down. Anything further?

— 105—
Mr. Hatcher: That’s all for us.
The Court: Anything further?. . .  All the evidence 

is in? . . . All right.
Mr. King: No, Your Honor; I think that Mr. Ral­

ston wanted to speak to the record.
Mr. Ralston: I just wanted to say in this instance, 

Your Honor, that I did not say anything and Mr. 
King did not say anything to me.

The Reporter: I cannot hear counsel.
Mr. Ralston: Neither I nor Mr. King said any­

thing before Mr. Shaw had finished his answer.
The Court: I have made the observation that the 

Court observed, of which I had ample opportunity 
to observe; and the witness himself had to interrupt 
his answer because counsel was not paying attention 
to what was being said. That’s the record in the 
case. Anything further? Any further evidence?

Mr. Ralston: No further evidence from the Plain­
tiff.

The Court: All right, anything you gentlemen want 
to say?

Colloquy

I  sa id  noth ing  to  M r. R a lston  w hile he w as answ er­
ing.



118

Mr. Ralston: I would just very briefly like to 
state that the evidence here shows in a number of 
respects that the plan presently in effect in this 
County does not conform to Jefferson County stan­
dards.

— 106—

As to the choice period it has been shown that there 
is in fact no mandatory choice that is contemplated by 
Jefferson County, which contemplates that every 
student filll a choice form and submit it for process­
ing ; and that because of the failure of this provision, 
there is also clearly no—well, there is clear priority 
to children because of their prior school attendance ; 
and, therefore, children who are attempting to exer­
cise a choice into that school are barred and have 
been barred because of overcrowding, without look­
ing at the choices or the lack of choices of the entire 
student body of the school. For this reason we feel 
that it is essential that a new choice period be set 
up, a mandatory choice of all of the students, for the 
coming year in accordance with Jefferson County.

And we feel that the contention that the burden 
is placed on the School Board should not be deter­
minative because they were on full notice when they 
set up the choice period of the Jefferson County 
case; that they had received motions filed in this case 
for choice period conforming to Jefferson County; 
and they could have taken these into consideration 
and they could have come before this Court earlier 
to find out what their obligations would be under

— 107—

Jefferson County and set up a choice period to con­
form to Jefferson County.

Colloquy



119

On the qeustion of faculty desegregation, which I 
think is the other main question raised in this hear­
ing, I believe it’s clear that the School Board has 
no plan for regular classroom desegregation of fac­
ulty for this coming school year; and under Jeffer­
son County they have a duty to affirmatively assign 
teachers and other staff members for this coming 
school year and that, therefore, those provisions of 
the plan should be in this case and the Defendants 
ordered to make assignments, and also make reports 
set out in the Jefferson County decree to this Court 
and to counsel for the Plaintiffs of the progress of 
both teacher and pupil and faculty desegregation.

Mr. Hatcher: May it please the Court, I vTould like 
to say that the School Board of Muscogee County 
School District, I think, under this evidence has done 
its utmost to give the people of this County a very 
good educational system. They have worked without 
compensation, other than that pencil they get once 
a month, and they have an unusually good system and 
a plan of integration of this School System which 
has proceeded with as much speed and without any

—1 0 8 -
interruption or disruption of the school function, 
which is education and without any complaint, and 
with complete satisfaction, it appears, from all per­
sons in this County. And we think that the Muscogee 
County School Board can better complete the full 
desegregation and integration of this School System, 
including the faculty, better than anybody else and 
certainly under its plan can do so more quickly, 
without interruption of any school functions, than 
undertaking to comply with the straight jacket plan

Colloquy



120

set forth as an appendix to the Jefferson County 
case.

I submit we have accomplished the main thing, 
which is to get along with this job of integration, 
and we have gotten along with this jo b ; and I submit 
that the motion that the plan be amended where 
necessary to meet the standards, I submit that our 
plan meets the standards in every substantial re­
spect and that there is no need for any amendment 
of this plan, and that the motion should be denied.

The Court: All right, I ’ll let you gentlemen hear 
from me as soon as I can get to it. The Court stands 
in recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30 o’clock.

R ecessed : 12:40 P. M., J un e  15, 1967.

Colloquy



121

Certificate

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

F ob th e  M iddle D istbict oe G eorgia 

C olum bus D ivision 

Civil Action No. 991

- 1 0 9 -

J ebry L . L ockett, et. al.,

v.
Plaintiffs,

B oard of E ducation of M uscogee 
D istrict , et al.,

Cou nty  S chool

Defendants.

G eorgia B ibb C o u n t y :

Foregoing pages numbered consecutively 1 to 108, both 
inclusive, Certified to be true and correct transcript of 
proceedings of hearing in U. S. District Court at Columbus, 
Georgia, June 15, 1967, in the above case.

So Certified , this the 28 day of July, 1967.

Filed August 21, 1967

Claude Joiner
Official Reporter, U. S. Court 

Middle District of Georgia



1 2 2

(Filed August 16, 1967)

[Caption Omitted]

Historical Background

In 1963 the Board of Education of Muscogee County 
School District, Georgia, voluntarily adopted a desegre­
gation plan for the public schools within the system. No 
litigation prompted this action. The plan as adopted 
called for desegregation of certain upper grades imme­
diately with similar action to be taken with respect to 
other grades until desegregation had been completed, the 
plan being similar to plans which were being at that time 
approved by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth 
Circuit.

In January, 1964 suit was filed by the Plaintiffs ex­
pressing dissatisfaction with the plan which had been 
adopted and asking this Court to enter an order com­
pelling total immediate desegregation and asking that 
the gradual plan which had been adopted by the Board 
be disapproved. After hearing this Court denied the 
prayers for injunction.

On appeal the United States Court of Appeals for the 
Fifth Circuit approved the denial of the injunction, but 
required a modification in the plan to the extent that the 
Board was required to begin desegregating classes from 
“both ends” so that all classes would be desegregated 
by the year 1968, this being consistent with action taken 
by the Court of Appeals in some other school cases which 
recently had been decided by the Court of Appeals while 
this case was awaiting decision on appeal. Lockett, et at.

Memorandum Opinion and Order on Plaintiffs’
Motion for Further Relief



123

v. Board of Education of Musocgee County School Dis­
trict, Georgia, et al, 342 F.2d 225. Jurisdiction was re­
tained in this Court for such other and further proceed­
ings and orders as might be deemed appropriate in the 
light of developing circumstances. Since that time the 
plan as modified has been in effect and has been volun­
tarily amended from time to time by the Board.

Relying upon the decision of the Court of Appeals for 
the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Jefferson County 
Board of Education, 372 F.2d 836, Counsel for the Plain­
tiffs have now filed a motion for further relief asking in 
substance that this Court enter a blanket order in this 
case in the terms of Jefferson. A  hearing on the Plaintiffs’ 
motion was had and evidence was submitted. The Defen­
dant Board assumed the burden of demonstrating that a 
decree of the nature and in the language of Jefferson was 
neither necessary nor desirable in the circumstances.

Summary of the Evidence

A  review of the evidence shows that as of June, 1967, 
enrollment in the Muscogee County schools for the forth­
coming 1967-1968 school year will be approximately 50,000. 
Of that number approximately 37,000 are white and ap- 
primately 13,000 aj-e Negro. The pupils are housed in 
64 buildings. The entire school system is accredited by 
the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. This 
means that all of the elementary schools and all of the 
junior high schools and all of the senior high schools are 
accredited by the Association. Indeed, there is no school 
room in the entire Muscogee County system which fails 
to meet the standards of the accrediting Association. The 
system has an excellent reputation and standing which is

Memorandum Opinion and Order on Plaintiffs’
Motion for Further Relief



124

probably not exceeded by any other school system in the 
state.

As heretofore noted, the plan for desegregation which 
was approved by this Court gave the Board until 1968 
to complete the desegregation of all classes. The Board 
did better than this. In January, 1967 the Board voted 
to completely desegregate all grades at that time and at 
the beginning of the school year September, 1967 all grades, 
including kindergartens, will be desegregated under the 
plan approved by this Court and in September, 1967, ap­
proximately 1250 Negro pupils will be attending formerly 
all white schools.

Pursuant to its plan, the Board set the period of March 1 
through March 31 for the exercise of the free choice of 
schools to be attended by the pupils. Actually, the period 
was even extended beyond March 31 and forms were filed 
through April 3, 1967. In preparation for the choice period 
copies of the resolution extending this freedom of choice 
to all grades in the system were published in both of the 
local newspapers. Front page news stories likewise ap­
peared in the two newpapers and they carried verbatim 
the resolution adopted by the Board. All television and 
radio stations likewise gave the choice period publicity. 
A  meeting of all the principals in the system was held on 
February 20, 1967 and the procedure for the distribution 
of the choice forms and their processing was explained. 
Sufficient forms were supplied to the principals so that 
each child in every school was given two of the forms with 
instructions to take the forms home to the child’s parents. 
This procedure is the regular method used by the School 
District for communicating with parents and it has been 
found by the Board to be the surest way of getting in­
formation to the parents. The Board does not permit the

Memorandum Opinion and Order on Plaintiffs’
Motion for Further Relief



125

distribution of any material other than official business 
of the schools in this manner in order to preserve the 
efficiency of this means of communication. It was testified 
by the school officials that this method of communication 
provides 99% coverage and through experience has proved 
to be more effective than any other form of communication, 
including the mails. 7,753 requests for transfers were re­
ceived and with the exception of 16 of these requests, they 
have all been processed without appeal or complaint.1

To provide for another choice period at this time and 
to notify the parents to exercise another choice for the 
1967-1968 school year would in the judgment of the Super­
intendent not only be expensive but it would cause great 
confusion among the 7,753 who applied for a change and 
the remainder who chose to stay in the school presently 
attended. At this late date confusion would also result 
because of the organization of the various schools, as­
signment of teachers, plans for housing and transporta­
tion and other organization problems based upon the num­
ber of pupils expected in each class in the various schools. 
The Superintendent testified that the disorganization 
brought about by giving another choice period at this time 
would be “chaotic” . In addition to the normal organiza­
tional problems encountered by a School Board, the Mus­
cogee County Board must face those resulting from hav­
ing between 8,000 and 9,000 pupils who are transients 
and move in and out of the county during the school year. 
This results from the movement of troops at nearby Fort 
Benning.

The teaching staff of the Muscogee County School Dis­
trict is made up of approximately 1,800 teachers. Of these

Memorandum Opinion and Order on Plaintiffs’
Motion for Further Relief

1 Sixteen white parents and pupils are still waiting and hoping that 
they can get their first choice between two junior high schools.



126

1,300 are white and 500 are Negro. There is no difference 
in the pay scale or working conditions in the system. The 
teacher-pupil ratio is 1 to 28 in the elementary schools and 
1 to 25 in the junior and senior high schools. This ratio is 
equalized four or five times a year.

The desegregation plan of the Board as heretofore ap­
proved by this Court and by the Court of Appeals post­
poned the desegregation of the faculties until after the 
pupil desegregation had been completed in all grades of 
the system so that groundwork might be laid in prepara­
tion therefor. However, here again the Defendant Board 
has exceeded the requirements of the plan and has antici­
pated some of the requirements of Jefferson, because the 
evidence shows that there has already been a degree of 
desegregation in the faculties.

At the time hearing was had on this matter the schools’ 
summer program was in progress and evidence with regard 
to the summer program shows that there are 8 white teach­
ers and 3 Negro teachers working in the Diagnostic Reading 
Center which is attended by both Negro and white pupils. 
There are 4 white examiners and I Negro examiner, 4 white 
bus drivers and 2 Negro bus drivers, and 3 white clerks and 
1 Negro clerk, employed in this Center. In this school, 
which is completely integrated with teachers of each race 
teaching pupils of the other race, there are 722 white pupils 
and 480 Negro pupils.

In the summer remedial program there are 3 white prin­
cipals and 2 Negro principals. There are 38 white teachers 
and 34 Negro teachers teaching 840 white pupils and 600 
Negro pupils. At one school there are 4 Negro teachers and 
5 white teachers working under the supervision of a Negro 
principal. At another school there are 5 Negro and 5 white 
teachers working under the supervision of a Negro princi­

Memorandum Opinion and Order on Plaintiffs’
Motion for Further Relief



127

pal. At a formerly all Negro elementary school a white 
principal and 8 Negro teachers are working together.

In the tutoring program 55 teachers are employed and 
of this number 27 are Negro and 28 are white. There are 
333 pupils at 12 school centers, out of which 3 have inte­
grated faculties and at 4 schools, 2 of which were formerly 
white and 2 formerly Negro, white teachers are tutoring 
Negro pupils.

At the regular school term which ended last spring a 
Negro teacher was assigned to the Reading Center to work 
with both Negro and white pupils. A  Negro consultant in 
English was assigned to work in both the formerly white 
and formerly Negro schools. In the Adult Education Pro­
gram there is one part-time Negro teacher for both white 
and Negro students. At Columbus Area Vocational Techni­
cal School one full-time Negro works in guidance. In the 
Trade School there is a white teacher in radio and television 
who is working in what was formerly the all Negro trade 
school and another white teacher has been assigned to that 
school. At the Instructional Material Center there is one 
Negro who instructs in audio-visual aids.

Teacher contracts have been signed and assignments 
made for the 1967-1968 school year. The teachers have been 
notified of these assignments and the principals have ar­
ranged the organization of their respective schools based 
on the assignments. There are some vacancies which will 
have to be filled and this situation will continue to exist 
throughout the year. To shuffle these 1,800 teachers around 
after they have had their assignments fixed and have signed 
their contracts would in the opinion of the Superintendent 
result in a substantial number of vacancies in the teaching 
staff.

Memorandum Opinion and Order on Plaintiffs’
Motion for Further Relief



128

Obviously, the best way to bring about greater desegrega­
tion of the general classroom teachers is to find the teachers 
who are willing to accept these assignments and have the 
Superintendent place them in a situation where they can 
succeed. It was the opinion of the Superintendent that this 
could be accomplished best before the contracts are signed 
and the assignments made, rather than make involuntary 
reassignments after they have already been settled on. The 
Superintendent testified that it had been hoped that further 
desegregation of the faculties would proceed upon comple­
tion of desegregation of the regular school classes, just as 
had been planned.

The Chairman of the School Board committee testified 
that further desegregation of the faculties is the next step 
to follow desegregation of classrooms, and since desegre­
gation of the classrooms will have been completed by the 
opening of the school year next month, further progress 
will be made on desegregation of faculties in the coming 
year.

The Court’s Ruling on the Motion

The Muscogee County Board of Education has moved 
with greater speed toward the desegregation of its schools 
than that required by the orders of this Court or of the 
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. It has amended its plan 
voluntarily a number of times in order to carry out its 
stated purpose of desegregating schools as soon as reason­
ably possible consistent with meeting the educational needs 
of its pupils. Under the plan approved by this Court and 
by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals it was told to com­
plete the desegregation of its classes in 1968 and that the 
question of faculty desegregation would then be dealt with. 
The Board has completed the desegregation of its classes a

Memorandum Opinion and Order on Plaintiffs’
Motion for Further Relief



129

year early and has already made progress toward bringing 
about the desegregation of its faculties—all of this without 
being required to do so by a court order.

The Board has through the testimony of the chairman 
of the committee charged with the responsibility therefor 
stated its intention to adopt a plan for greater faculty de­
segregation during the forthcoming school year.

This Court is of the opinion that the Muscogee County 
Board of Education has given a full and fair freedom of 
choice under its plan to all pupils within its system, that 
this has been accomplished in such a manner as to effec­
tively carry out the objective, and that the efforts of the 
administrative personnel in bringing this about are com­
mendable. It is also the opinion of the Court that to con­
duct another choice period at this late date and under the 
circumstances existing would bring about confusion in the 
functioning of the schools which are already completely 
organized and ready to begin operations next month. In­
stead of benefitting the program of desegregation, it is felt 
that the confusion resulting in the minds of the parents of 
the children would hinder the accomplishment of the objec­
tive of desegregation.

The choice period in 1968 and the manner and means of 
conducting it shall be in compliance with the rules prescribed 
in Jefferson.

There remain only a few weeks before the beginning of 
the 1967-1968 school year. All teacher assignments have 
been made, contracts signed, and the schools organized on 
the basis of these assignments. As heretofore noted, there 
has already been considerable voluntary progress made by 
the School District in bringing about the desegregation of 
its faculties. With the intention of the Board expressed by 
its committee chairman being to extend the desegregation

Memorandum Opinion and Order on Plaintiffs’
Motion for Further Relief



130

of faculties in the coming school year, coupled with the fact 
that previous representations made to the courts have been 
more than fulfilled, it is felt that it is not necessary at this 
time to enter an order requiring specific action in addition 
to that which has already been accomplished by the Board. 
Of course, if the action taken by the Board in this regard 
is not consistent with that required by Jefferson and other 
cases of the Court of Appeals, it will be necessary for this 
Court to enter such other orders as are required to bring 
about such compliance.

It is deemed appropriate at this time to recall that when 
this Court denied the Plaintiffs’ request for injunction in 
1964 we commented:

“ The members of the School Board and the Superinten­
dent of Education are highly respected citizens of the 
community and this Court has complete confidence in 
their integrity and good faith. . . . There is no need 
for judicial interference.”

And when the Court of Appeals reviewed this Court’s de­
cision the Court of Appeals said:

“ The record discloses a willingness to go forward. We, 
as was the District Court, are willing to rely on the 
integrity and good faith of the members of the School 
Board where they represent, as they have here, an in­
tention to effectuate the law.”

There is no evidence in this case that suggests the neces­
sity for the entry of any further order at this time. On the 
contrary, all of the evidence indicates that the Defendant 
Board intends in good faith “to effectuate the law.” Where 
a local school board is earnestly striving to comply with

Memorandum Opinion and Order on Plaintiffs’
Motion for Further Relief



131

constitutional requirements in the operation of its schools 
and is successfully doing so, such a board should not be 
fettered with needless directions emanating from the courts. 

Except as hereinbefore set forth, the motion is denied.

I t is so ordered this 15th day of August, 1967.

J . R obert E lliott 
United States District Judge

Memorandum Opinion and Order on Plaintiffs’
Motion for Further Relief



132

Notice of Appeal to Court of Appeals

(Filed September 7, 1967)

[Caption Omitted]

Notice is hereby given that the above-captioned plaintiffs 
hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Fifth Circuit from the Memorandum Opinion and 
Order of the Honorable J. Robert Elliott, Judge of United 
States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia 
in which the latter denied injunctive relief against the 
captioned defendants for their failure to comply and 
otherwise adhere to the requirements of the decision of 
the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in United 
States v. Jefferson County, Board of Education, 372 F.2d 
836, entered in this action on August 16, 1967.

C. B. K ing

Attorney for the Plaintiff 
P. 0. Box 1024 

Albany, Georgia



133

Designation of Record on Appeal

(Filed September 15, 1967)

[Caption Omitted]

Plaintiffs, in the above case, hereby designate the fol­
lowing portions of the record in this Court to constitute 
the Record on Appeal to the United States Circuit Court 
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit:

1. The plan to desegregate the schools of Muscogee 
County School District, Georgia, dated Septem­
ber 12, 1963, and attached to the defendants’ an­
swer to plaintiffs’ complaint filed September 5, 
1964;

2. Resolution dated December 28, 1964, by the Mus­
cogee County Board of Education amending its 
desegregation plan;

3. Resolution dated May 21, 1965 to amend the plan 
to desegregate the schools of Muscogee County, 
Georgia;

4. Resolution dated January 31, 1967, to amend the 
plan to desegregate the schools in Muscogee 
County, Georgia, included in plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2 
introduced at the hearing held June 15, 1967;

5. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment filed in 
February, 1967;

6. Plaintiffs’ motion for further relief filed in Feb­
ruary, 1967;

7. Plaintiffs’ motion for an order, etc., filed May, 
1967;



134

8. Response of defendants to plaintiffs’ motion for 
an order, etc., filed June, 1967;

9. Court’s memorandum opinion and order on plain­
tiffs’ motion for further relief filed August 16, 
1967;

10. Transcript of hearing held June 15, 1967, with 
plaintiffs’ Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5;

11. Plaintiffs’ notice of appeal to Court of Appeals;

12. This designation of Record on Appeal.

Respectfully submitted,

H oward M oore

859% Hunter St., N.W. 
Atlanta, Georgia

C. B. K ing

P.O. Box 1024 
Albany, Georgia

C harles S teph en  R alston 
J ack  Greenberg

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Designation of Record on Appeal



135

Certificate of Service

I, Howard Moore, Jr., counsel for the Plaintiffs, do 
hereby certify that I have served a copy of the attached 
Designation of Record on Appeal on the attorneys for the 
defendants, J. Madden Hatcher, Esq., and A. J. Land, Esq. 
at their proper address, Post Office Box 469, Columbus, 
Georgia, by depositing a copy of same in the H. S. Mail 
with sufficient postage, prepaid.

This 14th day of September, 1967.

H oward M oore, Jr. 
Attorney for Plaintiffs



136

Clerk’s Certificate

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

M iddle D istrict of Georgia— C olumbus D ivision

U nited S tates of A merica ,
M iddle D istrict of G eorgia.

I , J o h n  P. Cow art, Clerk of the United States District 
Court for the Middle District of Georgia do hereby certify 
that the foregoing and attached 165 pages contain the origi­
nal papers, pleading, order, and transcript of record filed 
in this office in this proceeding and being all of the papers 
specified and designated in the designation of the contents 
of the record on appeal by Counsel herein, (except the 
resolutions called for in designation No. 2, and 3, said res­
olutions not being a part of the record in the Clerk’s office), 
and a certified copy of the docket entries of file in the 
Clerk’s office of the said District Court at Columbus, 
Georgia.

I n  w itness  w hereof , I have hereunto set my hand and 
the official seal of the said District Court at Macon, Georgia, 
this 28th day of September 1967.

/ s /  J ohn  P. C owart

J oh n  P. C owart, Clerk 
U. S. District Court 
Middle District of Georgia



MEILEN PRESS INC. —  N. Y. 219