Buckner Jr v County School Board of Green County VA Brief on Behalf of Appellants

    BRIEF AND APPENDIX ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS

United States Court of Appeals 
for the Fourth Circuit

No. 9983

JAMES S. BUCKNER, JR., et al .,
Appellants,

v.

CO U N TY SCHOOL BOARD OF GREENE COUNTY, 
VIRGINIA, ET AL.,

Appellees.

Appeal From The United States District Court For The Western 
District of Virginia, Charlottesville Division

S W . T ucker 
H enry L. Marsh, III 

214 East Clay Street 
Richmond, Virginia 23219 

Counsel for  Appellants



TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

S t a t e m e n t  of t h e  C ase ......................................................... ...................  1

I. Proceedings Prior To The Remand On the Earlier Appeal 1

II. Proceedings Subsequent To The Remand............................  3

Q u estion s  P resented

I. Where The Evidence Shows That There Are No Admin­
istrative Obstacles To Total Desegregation, May The 
Court Permit The Continued Operation Of A  Special 
School For Negro Children? ................................................ 5

II. Where Litigation Is Necessary To Overcome The School 
Board’s Determined Refusal To Desegregate Its Schools,
Are The Plaintiffs Entitled To Reasonable Counsel Fees? 5

S t a t e m e n t  of t h e  F a c t s ................................................................................ 5

A r g u m e n t  ............................................................................................................  9

I. The School Board May Not Operate A  Separate School 
For Negro Children............................................. .........-......... 9

II. Plaintiffs Are Entitled To Reasonable Counsel Fees Where
Litigation Is Necessary To Overcome The School Board’s 
Determined Refusal To Desegregate Its Schools................ 12

C on clu sion  ............................... -.........................................................................

A pp e n d ix

TABLE OF CASES

Bell v. School Board of Powhatan County, Virginia, 321 F.2d 
494 ......................................................................................................  12

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) ; 349 U.S.
294 (1955) ........................................................................................ 10



Page

Brown v. County School Board of Frederick County, Virginia,
327 F.2d 655 (4th Cir. 1964) .................................... 3, 10, 11, 12

Buckner v. County School Board of Greene County, Virginia 332 
F.2d 452 ............................................................................................... 1

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958) ................................................. 11

Corbin v. County School Board of Pulaski County, 177 F.2d 924 
(4th Cir. 1949) ............................. -.................................................  13

Green v. Roanoke City, Virginia, 304 F.2d 118 (4th Cir. 1962) .. 12

Jones v. City of Alexandria, 278 F.2d 72 (4th Cir. 1960) .............. 12

Marsh v. Roanoke County, Virginia, 305 F.2d 94 (4th Cir. 
1962) ....................................................................................................  12

School Board of Warren County v. Kilby, 259 F.2d 497 (4th Cir. 
1958) ....................................................................................... - ......... 13



United States Court of Appeals 
for the Fourth Circuit

No. 9983

JAMES S. BUCKNER, JR., et a l .,
Appellants,

v.

CO U N TY SCHOOL BOARD OF GREENE COUNTY, 
VIRG IN IA, ET AL.,

Appellees.

Appeal From the United States District Court For The Western 
District of Virginia, Charlottesville Division

BRIEF O N  BEHALF OF APPELLANTS

S T A T E M E N T  OF TH E  CASE  

I

Proceedings Prior To The Remand On The Earlier Appeal

This is the second appeal of this case from the District 
Court. In the prior appeal, which was the subject o f the 
May 25, 1964 opinion of this Court ( Buckner v. County 
Sell. Bd. of Greene County, 332 Fed. 2d 452), the following 
facts, inter alia, were shown:

On or about the 5 th day of March 1963, the parents of 
several Negro public school children who reside in Greene



2

County requested the defendant Division Superintendent 
of Schools to permit Negro high school children to attend 
the William Monroe High School. The response of the divi­
sion superintendent was to the effect that each Negro parent 
would have to make application to the Pupil Placement 
Board that his or her child be transferred from Burley 
High School in Charlottesville to William Monroe School 
in Greene County or that such child, upon graduation from 
elementary school, be assigned to the high school located in 
said county.

On May 1, 1963, several of the Negro children and their 
parents instituted an action in the District Court, seeking 
inter alia, an injunction restraining the continued operation 
of a biracial school system and costs and reasonable at­
torney’s fees.

After the filing of the suit, the Pupil Placement Board 
granted the applications of three of the six individual plain­
tiffs for their transfer to the only high school in the county. 
Two other infant plaintiffs applied through their foster 
parents for transfer to the county high school, but the 
Pupil Placement Board rejected the applications because 
the County Welfare Department, which had placed these 
children in the custody of the foster parents, had not signed 
the applications. After the institution of the suit, the parents 
of the sixth plaintiff informed the Placement Board by letter 
that they did not desire their child to be transferred. The 
District Court, believing the case to be moot because all of 
the individual infant plaintiffs were in schools chosen by 
their parents or legal guardians, removed the case from 
the active docket.

Commenting on the action of the District Court, this 
Court observed:



3

“ In refusing to consider injunctive relief and term­
inating the suit, the District Court disregarded the 
precedents in this court and elsewhere, and indeed the 
decisions of the Supreme Court itself.

“ In light of the Supreme Court’s explicit holding 
that it is the obligation of local school authorities to 
take affirmative action to ‘make a prompt and reason­
able start toward full compliance,’ Brown v. Board of 
Education, 249 U.S. 294, 300 (1955), it would be un­
reasonable for the court to require the plaintiffs to 
formulate plans for desegregation.

* * *
“ Again the language used in last term’s Frederick 

County case is appropriate here:

‘Under these circumstances, there would seem to 
be no obstacle to the entry of an order requiring 
the abandonment of these practices not later than 
the opening of the next school year. The district 
court, of course, may desire to hear further from 
the defendants before entering any orders with 
respect either to the injunction or the request for 
counsel fees.’

“ Inasmuch as no hearing has been held we remand 
this case to the District Court for early proceedings 
not inconsistent with this opinion, upon the prayers for 
injunctive relief and for counsel fees. We, of course, 
intimate no opinion on the question of counsel fees, but 
leave this to be determined by the District Judge after 
he has heard the case.”

II

Proceedings Subsequent To The Remand

Pursuant to the opinion of this Court, a hearing was 
held in the District Court on August 14, 1964, following 
which that court rendered an opinion which was filed on



4

October 10, 1964 (A . 18). That opinion notes the school 
board’s change of procedures with respect to high school 
assignments, v iz :

“ Beginning with the 1963-64 school year colored 
pupils were admitted to the William Monroe High 
School for the first time. For that school year Negro 
high school students were still assigned to Burley High 
School in Charlottesville rather than to the now Greene 
County High School. However, they were allowed to 
attend the now Greene County High School if they 
were assigned there by the State Pupil Placement 
Board. Under a plan adopted in the spring of 1964 
this procedure was discontinued and henceforth all 
new 9th grade Negro students will automatically be 
assigned to William Monroe, and those presently in 
the tenth through the twelfth grades who have hereto­
fore been attending Burley will have the option of 
either finishing their high school education at Burley or 
transferring to the William Monroe High School.”

The only change in the school board’s procedure with 
respect to elementary schools was to afford each Negro 
parent the choice between the all-Negro Greene County 
Elementary School and the school attended by the white 
children of his district.

On January 27, 1965, the District Court entered an order 
approving the plan and procedures adopted by the School 
Board of Greene County, and refused to enter an injunction 
as sought by the plaintiffs and struck the case from the 
docket “ with a proviso that it may be reinstated without 
payment of any filing fee in the event that any of the plain­
tiffs or anyone else who would have had a right to inter­
vene in this cause had it remained on the docket shall file 
a petition for reinstatement and/or intervention stating a 
cause which would have given such plaintiff or intervener



5

a right to re-open the case or intervene had the case re­
mained upon the docket” (A , 22).

Notice of Appeal was filed on February 26, 1965 (A . 23).

Q U E STIO N S PRESENTED  

I

Where the evidence shows that there are no administra­
tive obstacles to total desegregation, may the Court permit 
the continued operation of a separate school for Negro 
children ?

II

Where litigation is necessary to overcome the School 
Board’s determined refusal to desegregate its schools, are 
the plaintiffs entitled to reasonable counsel fees ?

S T A T E M E N T  OF TH E  FACTS

The defendant school board maintains and operates a 
school system which includes four elementary schools and 
one high school. One of the elementary schools (the Greene 
County Elementary School built near the center of the 
county in 1955 or 1956 for Negro children) is staffed by 
Negro personnel and none other and is attended by all of 
the Negro elementary school children in Greene County 
(A . 3).

The three remaining elementary schools (Dyke, Ruckers- 
ville and William Monroe) are located in different sections 
of Greene County, one being situated in each of the county’s 
three magisterial districts. These schools are, and always 
have been, staffed exclusively by white personnel and at­
tended exclusively by white students (A . 3).

The school board’s new procedure with respect to ele­
mentary school assignments, which was adopted on March



6

12, 1964, is set forth in the October 2, 1964 opinion of the 
District Court, viz:

“ The county has established the following procedure 
for registering all pupils within the school system: An 
advertisement is put in the local newspaper shortly 
before the school year begins, telling the parents to 
register their children on the day that school is open. 
The elementary school parent is free to bring his child 
to any school in the district in which he lives. However, 
in the case of the colored children, the parents are also 
free to bring their children to the only elementary 
school which is predominantly attended by colored 
children and which is located in the Stanardsville dis­
trict.” (A . 19)

The facts, however, as developed in the testimony of the 
Superintendent of Schools heard on August 14, 1964, are 
that all of the Negro elementary children in Greene County 
attend the Greene County Elementary School, in which none 
but Negroes teach and that all of the white elementary 
children attend the white elementary schools located in 
their respective districts (A . 3).

With respect to the problem of segregation on school 
buses, the District Court observed:

“ The Negro children who attend the only high 
school in Greene County are brought there on a bus 
in which no white children ride; and no Negro children 
ride on the buses that the white high school children 
ride. The same system applies with respect to the ele­
mentary schools with the difference that there is no 
elementary school which is attended by both white and 
colored pupils.” (A . 19)

The school board has made no plans to eliminate the racial 
considerations from the operation of its school system (A .
7 ).



7

In response to inquiries concerning the administrative 
problems involved in effecting a non-racial school system, 
the superintendent responded in the following manner:

[ t r . p . 1 0 ]
“ Q . . .  [A]ssuming that you were directed by the 

School Board to eliminate this situation-—you had no 
choice but to eliminate it— is there an administrative 
problem that you would encounter in eliminating it that 
could not be assessed and solved within one month ?

“ A  Well whenever I am given an order I usually 
carry it out sir.

“ Q You aren’t answering my question. Is there 
an administrative problem in eliminating the racially 
discriminatory features that I have pointed out that 
could not be assessed and solved within one month ?

“A  I don’t know sir, It hasn’t been tried. I don’t 
know how to answer your question because I don’t 
know. I always try to carry out an order even in mili­
tary service.

“ Q Would it be any difficulty to you as an adminis­
trator under positive orders to get the job done di­
rect [ly] today changing your school bus routes and 
consolidating— saying bus one will pick up children in 
this area and bus two will pick up children in that area 
and so on. Would that be any difficulty?

“ A  As far as today is concerned we have already 
issued contracts for the routing of buses and jobs, etc. 
W e would have to give that some consideration and 
time.

“ Q Your contracts for routing buses?

[t r . p . 11]
“ A And the number of buses to each school and 

so forth.



8

“ Q All right you have fifteen buses. You have 
people under contract to drive those fifteen buses but 
if you want to alter the routes of any of those fifteen 
buses isn’t that your right under their contract?

“ A  When you employ a driver they like to know 
the exact route they are going to drive, the exact route. 
Sometimes we extend the routes and that creates some­
times an increase in salary.

“ Q You do change routes during the school term 
don’t you ?

“ A  No we extend sometimes.
“ Q Extend them— that’s a change isn’t it. They 

cover more territory than they had to cover before?
“A  As long as it is not too far on the same route 

we do that, probably go on a by road and pick up 
children.

“ Q How long would . . .  be necessary to eliminate 
these racially discriminatory features in the  ̂school 
system assuming you had a direct order to do it?

“ A  Are you still talking about bus routes?
“ Q I am talking about the bus routes. I am speak­

ing about the existence of the all Negro elementary 
school at Stanardsville. I am talking about both of those 
features where they have all the Negroes teaching in one 
school, all the Negro children, practically all the Negro 
children in the one school [ t r . p . 12] and three buses 
to pick up the Negro children, twelve buses to pick up 
the white children, if you were required to eliminate 
that so the children attended schools and enjoyed school 
facilities on some other factor other than race— race 
would have nothing to do with it— that teachers were 
assigned to schools on some other factor other than 
race, how long would it take you to do it ?

“ A  I just don’t know. I have never experienced 
this, relocating bus routes except for extending bus 
routes. They go on the same route—go up one road 
like 207.



9

“ Q Don’t you every day have to solve some prob­
lem at the schools ?

“ T h e  C o u r t : Mr. Tucker I think we have had 
enough. It is perfectly obvious that he can change it. 
He hasn’t said that he couldn’t and you are trying to 
pin him down as to how long it would take. It might 
take an hour and it might take a couple of days depend­
ing on how many people he is going to have to confer 
with but it makes no difference whether it is two hours 
or two days.”

The superintendent further testified that the reason for 
maintaining the system of separate buses for whites and 
Negroes was because of his apprehension or suspicion that 
disciplinary problems would result if Negro children and 
white children rode on the same buses.

ARGUMENT

I
The School Board May Not Operate A Separate 

School For Negro Children

For the purposes of elementary school assignment in 
Greene County, the County is zoned into three districts 
which are identical to the County’s three magisterial dis­
tricts. An elementary school staffed solely by white person­
nel is located in each district. Each white elementary child 
living in a given district is assigned by the school board to 
attend the school serving his district.

Greene County has approximately 110 Negro elementary 
school children. For the education of these children, the 
School Board operates the Greene County Elementary 
School. This school is staffed solely by Negro personnel and 
three special buses canvass the county to transport the 
Negro children to this school.



10

The plan of the school board which was approved by the 
District Court provides:

“ An advertisement is put in the local newspaper shortly 
before the school year begins, telling the parents to 
register their children on the day that school is to open. 
The elementary school parent is free to bring his child 
to any school in the district in which he lives. H ow­
ever, in the case o f  the colored children, the parents 
are also free to bring their children to the only elemen­
tary school which is predominantly attended by colored 
children and which is located in the Stanardsville dis­
t r i c t (Emphasis supplied)

In the context of this case, the continued operation of an 
elementary school for the education of Negro children o f­
fends the Constitution and should be enjoined. It is not dis­
puted that the Greene County Elementary School is being 
operated as a school for Negro children. Rather the District 
Court reasoned that the School Board has the right to oper­
ate its schools on a segregated basis as long as the Negro 
pupils are not compelled to attend all-Negro schools.

In refusing injunctive relief the District Court stated:

“ Under these circumstances I see no occasion for 
the issue of any injunction. The Negro pupils in both 
classes [elementary and high] of schools are privileged 
to attend either a predominantly white school or a pre­
dominantly Negro school. I do not believe that there 
is any law which would require them to go to a pre­
dominantly white school against their wishes. It is 
compulsory rather than voluntary segregation that is 
condemned by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

The decision o f the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board 
of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), means that race must 
no longer be a factor in the operation of any public school



11

system. This decision does more than confer on the parents 
of Negro children the opportunity to send their child to 
either a “ white school” or a “ Negro school.” This decision 
means that school boards must eliminate racial segregation 
from their school systems.

The fundamental question posed by this appeal is : Who 
has the duty to desegregate the Greene County Elementary 
School Board— the Greene County School Board or the 
parents of Negro children residing in Greene County? The 
answer to this question has been fully given by this Court 
in the earlier appeal of this case, v iz :

“ In light of the Supreme Court’s explicit holding 
that it is the obligation of local school authorities to 
take affirmative action to ‘make a prompt and reason­
able start toward full compliance’ Brown v. Board of 
Education, 249 U.S. 294, 300 (1955), it would be un­
reasonable for the court to require the plaintiffs to 
formulate plans for desegregation. As the Supreme 
Court said in the second Brown decision ‘The burden 
rests upon the defendants * * (Emphasis added [by 
court].) The Court has since declared in Cooper v. 
Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 7 (1958), ‘state authorities were 
thus duty bound to devote every effort toward initiating 
desegregation and bringing about the elimination of 
racial discrimination in the public school system.’ (Em­
phasis added [by court].) It is these school officials, not 
the infant plaintiffs or their parents who are familiar 
with the operation of the school system and know the 
administrative problems which may constitute the only 
legitimate ground for withholding the immediate reali­
zation of constitutionally guaranteed rights.”



12

II

Plaintiffs Are Entitled To Reasonable Counsel 
Fees Where Litigation Is Necessary To Overcome 

The School Board’s Determined Refusal To 
Desegregate Its Schools

This suit was instituted because of the school board’s 
refusal to take the initiative and desegregate its public 
schools. The requirement that the parents of individual 
Negro children follow the procedure of the (State) Pupil 
Placement Board in order to escape the racially oriented ini­
tial assignments had been condemned by this Court in the 
cases of Jones v. City of Alexandria, 278 F.2d 72 (4th Cir. 
1960) ; Green v. Roanoke City, Virginia, 304 F.2d 118 (4th 
Cir. 1962); and Marsh v. Roanoke County, Virginia, 305 
F.2d 94 (4th Cir. 1962).

In its earlier opinion in this case this Court stated:

“ Just last term, in a Per Curiam opinion we re­
manded to the District Court a case almost identical 
with this one. Brown v. Comity School Board of Frede­
rick County, Virginia, ..... F. 2 d ____ (4th Cir. 1964).
What we said there applies with equal force here:

‘Since the record discloses the existence of a bi- 
racial system of schools, we remand for considera­
tion of the plaintiffs’ prayers for an injunction and 
counsel fees in the light of this court’s opinions 
in Bradley v. School Board of the City of Rich­
mond, 317 F.2d 429 (4th Cir. 1963), and Bell v. 
School Board of Powhatan County, 321 F. 2d 494 
(4th Cir. 1963).’

“ If, as alleged in the complaint, students were initi­
ally being assigned to schools in a racially discrimina­
tory manner, ‘the School Board is actively engaged in 
perpetuating segregation.’ Bell v. School Board of



13

Powhatan County, Virginia, 321 F, 2d at 499. More­
over, this case presents discrimination in a most per­
nicious form. As early as 1949, even before the Su­
preme Court condemned the ‘separate but equal’ doc­
trine, the Fourth Circuit, speaking through Judge 
Parker, expressly disapproved the sending of Negro 
students out of the county to attend segregated schools. 
Corbin v. County School Board of Pulaski County, 177 
F. 2d 924 (4th Cir. 1949). Similarly, after the Su­
preme Court’s decisions, we held in School Board of 
Warren County v. Kilby, 259 F. 2d 497, 498 (4th Cir. 
1958), that ‘ [b ]y  any possible test, this discrimination 
is legally indefensible.’ ”

The school board’s present determination to continue to 
operate racially segregated elementary schools demonstrates 
that it is still refusing to take the initiative to desegregate 
its schools and that it is yet “ actively engaged in perpetuat­
ing segregation.”

The school board’s concession— in refusing to resist the 
earlier appeal— that there are no administrative obstacles in 
effectuating a desegregation plan was inconsistent with its 
subsequent action in refusing to eliminate the segregated 
character of its school system. Such refusal to desegregate, 
thereby necessitating this appeal, is oppressive to the (im­
pecunious) infant plaintiffs.

CO N CL U SIO N

Few, if any, cases have come to this Court in which the 
school board’s duty to eliminate racial segregation from its 
school system could be performed as easily as that shown 
by this record. Rarely, if ever, has any school board refused 
to comply with such a clear directive from an appellate 
court as has the school board here.



14

To prevent the Federal judicial process from becoming a 
meaningless exercise in legal theory and to secure to plain­
tiffs the promise of our Constitution, this Court should once 
again reverse the decision of the District Court and remand 
this case with directions to enter an order requiring the 
school board to forthwith eliminate the segregated character 
of the Greene County Elementary School and to award to 
the plaintiffs their costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.

Respectfully submitted,

S W . T ucker 
H enry L. Marsh, III 

214 East Clay Street 
Richmond, Virginia 23219 

Counsel for Appellants

Dated: May 7, 1965



A P P E N D I X



EXCER PTS F R O M  TR AN SC R IPT OF A U G U S T  14,1965  

Testimony of William H. Wetsel

D IRECT E X A M IN A T IO N

[ t r . p p . 1-17]
By M r. T ucker :

Q Will you state your name and official position?
A  My Name is William H. Wetsel. I am superinten­

dent o f school.

Q O f what county ?
A Greene and Madison.

Q This case has to do with Greene County so hence­
forth when I examine you, I will be examining you as 
Superintendent of Greene County alone. Mr. Wetsel how 
many elementary schools does Greene County have?

A  Four elementary

Q Will you give us the names?
A Greene County Elementary, Dyke, Ruckersville and 

William Monroe.
Q Where is the Greene County Elementary located? 
A  Greene County Elementary is located approximately 

a mile and a half out of Stanardsville.
Q Is that approximately in the center o f the county?
A  Well I suppose so. It is the county seat.

Q And Dyke, where is that located ?
A  Dyke is located some eight miles from Stanardsville.

Q In which general direction ?
A  The direction would be about west.



App. 2

Q And Ruckersville ?
A  Ruckersville is located approximately six miles from 

Stanardsville.

Q In which direction?
A  South.

Q William Monroe?
A  William Monroe is located approximately one half 

mile— not quite that far— quarter of a mile out of town.

Q From Stanardsville?
A  From Stanardsville west.

Q A  half mile west o f Stanardsville ?
A  Not quite about a quarter of a mile.

Q Which one o f those is what we term negro schools 
in that the faculty and students are all negroes ?

A  The Greene County Elementary.

Q And I take it that the other schools are staffed en­
tirely by a white faculty ?

A  Yes sir.
Q And do you know how many if any negro children 

attend any of them?
A  Well it is pretty much in districts. In one district we 

have no negro children whatsoever and in one we have a 
few and Ruckersville we have more. I don’t know the 
exact percentage.

Q You are saying there are negro children attending 
Ruckersville School?

A  No.
Q There are negro children living in the district of 

Ruckersville School?



App. 3

A  Yes.

Q How about the William Monroe School?
A  There are a few sir.

Q That’s right in the vicinity of Stanardsville ?
A  That’s right.

Q I take it then that no negro children are attending 
the Dyke, Ruckersville or William Monroe School?

A  No sir.

Q How many high schools do you have ?
A  One.

Q What is the name of it ?
A  William Monroe High School.

Q Are there any negroes teaching at that school?
A  No sir.
Q Are there any negroes attending that school?
A  Yes sir.

Q How many?
A  W e have approximately thirteen. I might say that 

we have a school board policy that all ninth graders must 
attend William Monroe High School regardless of the race, 
creed or color. That’s the school board policy.

T he Court : In other words after finishing elementary 
school they all must go to the William Monroe High 
School ?

A  Yes sir.
O In other words Greene County has abandoned the 

plan of sending ninth graders to Burley?
A Yes sir.



App. 4

Q So that—
A Now we had a few who did not want to attend 

William Monroe High School but that is our policy. We 
recommend that to the placement board.

Q I think if I understand your plan— those that are 
already in Burley had a choice of remaining but no new 
negro children would be assigned to Burley?

A  Yes sir.

Q Burley High School being all negro high school lo­
cated in the City of Charlottesville maintained by Char­
lottesville city and Albemarle County?

A That’s right.

Q You were sending them on a tuition basis I believe?
A That’s right.

Q How many teachers do you have at Greene ?
A  Four.

Q How many grades ?
A  We have from the first through the eighth. W e don’t 

have all of eight there, part of it.

Q At Dyke elementary school how many teachers are 
there ?

A Three.

O How many grades ?
A  That’s from the first through the fifth.

Q And Ruckersville how many teachers ?
A We have three.

Q How many grades?



App. 5

A That’s from the first through the fifth. Last year it 
was the first through the sixth. It is usually based on en­
rollment.

Q And William Monroe?
A  Elementary School ?

Q Yes?
A W e have the first through the sixth.

Q With how many teachers ?
A I believe we have approximately fifteen teachers. 

I can’t be certain on that.

Q This is in the elementary department of William 
Monroe?

A Yes sir.

Q Am I correct in assuming that you provide school 
bus service in the county ?

A Yes.

Q Do you have a special bus or special busses to pick 
up the negro children ?

A Yes sir.

Q Does that bus practically canvas the county ?
A Not all the parts of the county.

Q It does duplicate routes that busses picking up white 
children— ?

A Somewhat— not altogether.

Q Did you give me a figure as to approximately how 
many children attend the Greene Elementary School, that’s 
the negro school ?

A  Well it runs approximately 110 to 120. It was about 
110 last year I believe.



App. 6

Q Is that larger or smaller than Dyke and Ruckersville ?
A  Not much difference. Ruckersville has been a little 

larger.

Q Dyke having grades one to five— do you have an ap­
proximation as to how many children attend there?

A Last year I believe on enrollment we have, I believe, 
approximately 105, something like that.

Q Do you know how many elementary children attend 
William Monroe?

A Right now I couldn’t give you a figure.

Q How many school busses are in service in picking 
up the negro children ?

A  Three.
Q Do they also pick up the negro children that attend 

Monroe High School?
A  They have been. Some of them live within walking 

distance of the school.
Q But those children— negro children who attend Mon­

roe High School ride one of the three buses that carry negro 
children?

A Yes.
Q And white children attending Monroe High School 

in the same vicinity that these negro children who are at­
tending Monroe High School ?

A Some.

O Some ?
A  Yes.
Q But the only reason they ride different buses is 

because of color?



App. 7

A I wouldn’t say that sir. We are working out a plan. 
W e have had some disciplinary problems on our buses and 
we are trying to work it out so we won’t have any.

Q You mean the school board has decided to require 
the negro children who attend Monroe High School to ride 
on a bus different from the bus— ?

A  No we haven’t fully decided on that.

Q The problem is still open ?
A  Yes sir.
Q So far as what is going on now that’s what has 

happened ?
A  Yes.
Q Now how many buses are in the entire fleet ?
A  Oh Greene is a very small school division, approxi­

mately fifteen, some of them are small and some are large.

Q Does the school board have any plan by which it 
will eliminate these racial considerations and I will spell 
them out— that only negroes will teach at and attend Greene 
Elementary School and that you will have three buses that 
will carry negroes and twelve or so buses that will carry 
white children ? Does the School Board plan to continue that 
situation or does it plan to eliminate it ?

A W e haven’t made any definite plans.

Q You have not ?
A Made definite plans.
Q Now I ask you not as a school administrator and 

assuming you were not— and assuming the school board 
would direct you to do such, would there be any difficulty 
to you as a school administrator to eliminate the situation 
where you have three buses carrying negro children and



App. 8

twelve buses carrying white children, some of them duplicat­
ing in the bus routes and all negro children in Greene 
County and all negro teachers at the elementary school, 
would that be much difficulty for you to get rid of it?

A  You always have some problems whenever a change 
is made even when you change a school or eliminate a school 
from one district to another you are going to have some 
problems.

Q O f course is there any problem connected with this 
that you could not solve in one week if you were directed 
by authority to do it ?

A  I wouldn’t like to say that, sir. Greene is a little 
different from many of our counties. It is a small county 
and we still have right many so-called mountaineers and 
we have to be kind of careful. It’s a lot of white in those 
peoples blood.

Q In other words you are saying that would not be an 
administrative problem, that would be a police problem 
wouldn’t it?

A  I don’t like to think of a police problem and I think 
we can solve our own problem.

Q Regardless of what we like to think of—
A  I like for the teachers and the people to solve the 

problem and I think we can solve our problems.

Q I thought that sometime in the future all of these 
problems would be solved and they would be replaced by 
others but what I am talking about— assuming that you 
were directed by the School Board to eliminate this situation 
— you had no choice but to eliminate it— is there an ad­
ministrative problem that you would encounter in eliminat­
ing it that could not be assessed and solved within one 
month ?



App.9

A  Well whenever I am given an order I usually carry 
it out sir.

Q You aren’t answering my question? Is there an ad­
ministrative problem in eliminating the racially discrimina­
tory features that I have pointed out that could not be 
assessed and solved within one month ?

A  I don’t know sir. It hasn’t been tried. I don’t know 
how to answer your question because I don’t know. I always 
try to carry out an order even in military service.

Q Would it be any difficulty to you as an administrator 
under positive orders to get the job done directed today 
changing your school bus routes and consolidating saying 
bus one will pick up children in this area and bus two will 
pick up children in that area and so on. Would that be any 
difficulty ?

A  As far as today is concerned we have already issued 
contracts for the routing of buses and jobs, etc. We would 
have to give that some consideration and time.

Q Your contracts for routing buses?
A  And the number of buses to each school and so forth.

Q All right you have fifteen buses. You have people 
under contract to drive those fifteen buses but if you want 
to alter the routes of any of those fifteen buses isn’t that 
your right under their contract ?

A  When you employ a driver they like to know the 
exact route they are going to drive, the exact route. Some­
times we extend the routes and that creates sometimes an 
increase in salary.

Q You do change routes during the school term don’t 
you?



A  No we extend sometimes.

Q Extend them— that’s a change isn’t it. They cover 
more territory than they had to cover before ?

A As long as it is not too far on the same route we do 
that, probably go on a by road and pick up children.

Q How long would it be necessary to eliminate these 
racially discriminatory features in the school system as­
suming you had a direct order to do it ?

A  Are you still talking about bus routes ?

Q I am talking about the bus routes. I am speaking 
about the existence of the all negro elementary school at 
Stanardsville. I am talking about both of those features 
where they have all the negroes teaching in one school, all 
the negro children, practically all the negro children in the 
one school and three buses to pick up the negro children, 
twelve buses to pick up the white children, if you were 
required to eliminate that so the children attended schools 
and enjoyed school facilities on some other factor other than 
race— race would have nothing to do with it— that teachers 
were assigned to schools on some other factor other than 
race, how long would it take you to do it ?

A  I just don’t know. I have never experienced this, 
relocating bus routes except for extending bus routes. They 
go on the same route— go up one road like 207.

Q Don’t you every day have to solve some problem at 
the schools ?

T he Court: Mr. Tucker I think we have had enough. 
It is perfectly obvious that he can change it. He hasn’t 
said that he couldn’t and you are trying to pin him down 
as to how long it would take. It might take an hour and it 
might take a couple of days depending on how many people

App. 10



App. 11

he is going to have to confer with but it makes no difference 
whether it is two hours or two days.

M r. T ucker: It wouldn’t make any difference to me if 
it were two hours, or two days or two weeks.

T he Court : He can do it. What would be the result of 
his doing it you haven’t ask him about.

M r. T ucker: If the Court is satisfied with that I am 
satisfied with it. No further questions.

CROSS E X A M IN A T IO N

By M r. Berry :
Q Mr. Wetsel on this matter of the transition that Mr. 

Tucker has discussed, is there a disciplinary problem con­
nected with the operation of buses?

A  Yes sir.
Q And are the bus drivers people who are less able 

would you say to cope with those problems than teachers 
are?

A  Certainly.
Q In other words each bus, the bus driver is on his own 

when he leaves the school from the school to the home of 
the child is he not?

A  Yes sir.
Q Some of those buses are driven by teenagers and 

youngsters are they not ?
A  Yes sir.

Q Some by women ?
A  Yes sir.

Q Some by old men ?



App. 12

A  Yes sir.

Q And would you say that the forcing of white and 
colored children to ride on the same bus is likely or could 
create a disciplinary problem ?

M r. T ucker: Your Honor I object to the question for 
several reasons. First he is leading and now he is asking 
the witness a conclusion.

T he Court : This is your witness.

M r. T ucker: This is his client.

T he Court: It might be his client but it is your witness.

Mr. T ucker : If the witness can’t forsee things within 
his own power on direct then he can’t forsee the probabilities 
of something he has never tried either.

Q I can rephrase the question.

T he Court: I think the situation is reasonably obvious. 
I think what you have got to depend on in this case, and I 
think it has been brought out in a sense, you have got a 
problem with mountaineers up there and the question is 
whether that is sufficient to justify this segregation in view 
of the law.

Q I can ask this question in this form. Mr. Wetsel is 
the reason for the operating of duplicate bus routes one of 
discipline?

A  Yes sir.

Q In other words that has a direct relationship to the 
accomplishment and achievement o f the school system as a 
whole ?

A  It does yes sir.



App. 13

Q And is there any other reason for operating duplicate 
bus systems to your knowledge other than discipline?

A  No sir.

Q Economically you had rather operate one bus system 
would you not?

A  Yes sir.

Q Now Mr. Tucker has raised the question as to whether 
this is a police problem or not. Who actually controls and 
administers discipline in the school system ?

A The principal o f the school and the teachers.

Q Is it customary or desirable to ask the assistance of 
police officers to deal with disciplinary problems in those 
schools ?

A  We have.

Q In what sort of cases, ordinary cases or extreme 
cases?

A  It got rather extreme.

Q Would you tell the Court please when this proposal 
was adopted to assign all ninth grade students to the Greene 
County High School? You have the minutes I believe of the 
School Board Meeting— when was that action taken Mr. 
Wetsel?

A  On March 12, 1964.

Q So that is a policy of the school board and it will be 
carried into effect beginning this school year which is next 
ensuing beginning the last part of August of 1964?

A  Yes sir.
Q Now you operate a school bus which runs from 

Greene County to Jackson Burley High School do you not?
A  Yes sir.



App. 14

Q Will you continue or do you plan to continue the 
operation of that bus to carry out the commitments of those 
students who are presently enrolled in Jackson Burley High 
School?

A  Up to a certain number of years. W e can’t continue 
it. No one else will be allowed. You see we only have ap­
proximately 268 students in high school.

Q How many attend Jackson Burley out of Greene 
County ?

A  Twenty-eight.

Q You run one bus for that number of students do you 
not?

A  Yes sir.

Q Would you give a brief comparison of the offerings 
as between the Greene County High School and Jackson P. 
Burley High School with regard to curriculum vocational 
training?

A  We have a very limited vocational— we only have 
agriculture and home economics and of course we have a 
limited academic program. We must confine it to French.

Q How many students are enrolled in the Greene 
County High School approximately?

A  Approximately 168.1 mean 268.

Q Mr. Wetsel there have been students who were at­
tending Jackson P. Burley High School who are now at­
tending schools in Greene County High School aren’t they?

A  Yes.

Q Was that through some election on their part or the 
parent ?

A  The parent.



App. 15

Q Is it the policy of the School Board to recommend 
the transfer of any Jackson P. Burley High School students 
from Greene County to attend Greene County High School 
if they desire ?

A  If they apply at the proper time.

Q There is no prohibition against their changing if 
they apply at the proper time ?

A W e don’t recommend that you transfer from one 
school to another school during a semester.

*  *  *

[t r . p p . 20-22]
Q How many colored students attended William Mon­

roe High School last year in 1963?
A  Five.
Q I believe I have used the wrong year— were those 

five attending by Court order or by application on pupil 
placement form?

A  W e have never had a court order.

O In other words you have admitted those students on 
pupil placement applications?

A  That’s right.
Q How many colored students as far as you know 

will be enrolled in the William Monroe High School at the 
opening of this next session ?

A  Approximately thirteen, some eighth graders.

Q All of the ninth grade from Greene County?
A  Yes sir.
Q In addition will there be other students or could 

there be other students whose applications have been proper­
ly processed— colored students?



App. 16

A I don’t know of any others.

Q You don’t know of any others ?
A  No sir.

Q Prior to this March 5, 1963 episode did you have 
any notice whatever that anyone of these colored parents 
desired to have their children in that William Monroe High 
School ?

A  No sir.

Q The school you have described as being an all colored 
school— Greene County Elementary School— is that a fairly 
new school?

A  Yes sir.

Q When was that constructed?
A  That was constructed as well as I recall sometime 

during the year of 1955-1956.

Q Were you superintendent at that time ?
A  Yes sir I started the project.

Q And was that project based upon any survey or con­
sideration of the public feelings as to the choice of the 
location of the school?

A  We had a group of negroes to come in and they 
recommended— they had three choices. They were given 
a choice that we add an addition to what is known as the 
Stanardsville— William Monroe Elementary School or build 
it on that present site or build it down on the site that had 
been previously purchased and they elected the site down 
the road.

Q You mean you discussed with them the possibility 
of adding on to the white elementary school for their at­
tendance ?



App. 17

A  Yes sir.

Q And was there some indication of their choice?
A  That was their choice— down the road.

Q They wanted the separate school?
A  Yes.

Q In other words the alternative was provided in 1956 
then ?

A  Early 1956 or 1955, I don’t recall the exact time.

Q Now since that time has there been any expression 
on the part of the colored parents to change their viewpoint ?

A  No sir. When we got ready to register children we 
put a notice in the paper that the registration would be held 
at the various schools and it was up to them.

Witness with you Mr. Tucker.

REDIRECT E X A M IN A T IO N

B y M r . T ucker:
Q At the time this suit was filed April 26, 1963 no 

negroes attended schools in Greene County with white 
children ?

A  That’s right.

Q I understand you to say this negro school— the 
Greene school was built in 1956?

A Early 1956 sir.

Q You are certain it was after the decision of the 
United States Supreme Court on the school desegregation 
cases ?

A  Oh yes, I am certain of that.



App. 18

IN  TH E  U N IT E D  STATES D IST R IC T  C O U R T  
FOR TH E  W ESTER N  D IS T R IC T  OF V IR G IN IA  

C H A R L O T T E SV IL L E  D IV ISIO N

C. A. 103

JAMES S. BUCKNER., et  a l . 

v.

COU N TY SCHOOL BOARD OF GREENE COUNTY, 
VIRG IN IA, ET AL.

O PIN IO N

Filed October 10, 1964

A hearing was held in this case on August 14, 1964, pur­
suant to the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth 
Circuit of May 25, 1964.

It appeared from the evidence taken at that hearing that 
the County School Board of Greene County is now per­
mitting all school children in Greene County to attend 
whatever schools they wish to attend. However, three ob­
jections were pressed at the hearing by counsel for the 
complainants. These were:

First: That certain Negro high school students residing 
in Greene County who had previously been required to 
attend Burley High School in Charlottesville, Virginia, 
were continuing to do so on a voluntary basis. The plain­
tiffs took the position that these children should be forced 
to attend the William Monroe High School which is the 
only high school in Greene County;



App. 19

Second: That segregation in the bussing of students to 
the various schools was continuing. The Negro children 
who attend the only high school in Greene County are 
brought there in a bus on which no white children ride; and 
no Negro children ride on the buses that the white high 
school children ride. The same system applies with respect 
to the elementary schools with the difference that there 
is no elementary school which is attended by both white and 
colored pupils.

Third: The continuance of voluntary separation of the 
races in the elementary schools.

The three complaints can best be discussed together. The 
county has established the following procedure for register­
ing all pupils within the school system: An advertisement 
is put in the local newspaper shortly before the school year 
begins, telling the parents to register their children on the 
day that school is to open. The elementary school parent is 
free to bring his child to any school in the district in which 
he lives. However, in the case of the colored children, the 
parents are also free to bring their children to the only 
elementary school which is predominantly attended by 
colored children and which is located in the Stanardsville 
district. And, although there was, I believe, no evidence 
taken on the point, I would assume that the parents of 
white children would have the same choice. I find no dis­
crimination results from allowing the parents this choice 
in the complete absence of any evidence of coercion by 
governmental authorities.

There is only one high school in Greene County, the 
new William Monroe High School near Stanardsville. Prior 
to the advent of the segregation problem, only white children 
attended that high school and the Negro children were



App. 20

taken by bus to Burley High School in Charlottesville by 
an arrangement made between the Greene County School 
Board and the Charlottesville City and Albemarle County 
School Boards. Beginning with the 1963-64 school year 
colored pupils were admitted to the William Monroe High 
School for the first time. For that school year Negro high 
school students were still assigned to Burley High School 
in Charlottesville rather than to the new Greene County 
High School. However, they were allowed to attend the 
new Greene County High School if they were assigned there 
by the State Pupil Placement Board. Under a plan adopted 
in the spring of 1964 this procedure was discontinued and 
henceforth all new 9th grade Negro students will auto­
matically be assigned to William Monroe, and those present­
ly in the tenth through the twelfth grades who have here­
tofore been attending Burley will have the option of either 
finishing their high school education at Burley or transfer­
ring to the William Monroe High School.

Under these circumstances the only complaint before 
me with respect to high school attendance at the present 
time is that certain of the Negro children who have hereto­
fore attended Burley have the option of finishing their 
high school work at Burley and are exercising that option. 
The plaintiffs ask an injunction against this and want those 
students to be required to attend the William Monroe High 
School in Greene County.

Under these circumstances I see no occasion for the issue 
of any injunction. The Negro pupils in both classes of 
schools are privileged to attend either a predominantly white 
school or a predominantly Negro school. I do not believe 
that there is any law which would require them to go to a 
predominantly white school against their wishes. It is com­
pulsory rather than voluntary segregation that is condemned 
by the Fourteenth Amendment.



App. 21

The main thrust of the plaintiff’s argument is that the 
children who have heretofore been attending Burley High 
School in Charlottesville and prefer to finish their course 
there should not be allowed to do so. I can see no merit in 
this argument. There is certainly no discrimination against 
them involved.

The third complaint of the plaintiffs is with respect to 
the system of bussing children to schools. A separate bus 
system is provided for the Negro children and the white 
children. The Superintendent of Schools explained that 
this was done for disciplinary reasons.

Greene County is largely a mountain county and a sub­
stantial portion of the students on these buses come from 
moutain homes. The Superintendent has testified credibly 
that mountain children generally are difficult to control. 
There has been a certain amount of difficulty even on the all 
white buses from quarrels and fighting among the white 
students. The Superintendent is inclined to think that this 
situation would be greatly aggravated if a relatively small 
number of colored children were placed on these buses with 
a large number of white children, many of them from the 
mountain areas. I am very much of the opinion that this 
fear is well founded and until I am satisfied that the ad­
vantages of integrated bus riding outweigh what seem its 
obvious dangers to all the children, I will not enjoin the 
continuance of the present practices.

I have therefore come to the conclusion that the Greene 
County School Board is in compliance with the law and that 
no injunction should be issued.

It also appears to this court that the Greene County 
School Board has in general been cooperative throughout 
this litigation and is not at all in the position of the school 
board that was involved in Bell v. School Board of Powha­
tan County, 321 F.2d 494 (4th Cir. 1963), and consequently



App.22

no attorney’s fees will be 
plaintiffs.

/ s /

October 2, 1964

allowed the attorneys for the

T homas J. M ichie 
United States District Judge

O R D E R

Filed January 29, 1965

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Cir­
cuit having remanded this action to this court for further 
proceedings not inconsistent with its opinion in this case 
dated May 25, 1964, a hearing was held on August 14, 1964 
pursuant thereto; and

It appearing from the evidence taken at said hearing that 
the defendant, County School Board of Greene County, is 
permitting all school children in Greene County, Virginia 
to attend schools of their choice without regard to race or 
color and that under a plan adopted by said school board in 
the spring of 1964 all ninth grade students will automatic­
ally be assigned to William Monroe High School, the only 
high school located within Greene County, and those negro 
students presently enrolled in the tenth through the twelfth 
grades who have heretofore attended Jackson Burley High 
School in Charlottesville, Virginia will have the option of 
either completing their high school studies at Jackson Bur­
ley or transferring to William Monroe High School;

And it further appearing to the court that the defendant, 
County School Board of Greene County, is in compliance 
with the law and has in general been cooperative through­
out this litigation, it is hereby A djudged, Ordered, and 
D ecreed that the injunction sought by the plaintiffs is 
hereby denied.



App. 23

And it further appearing to the court that nothing fur­
ther remains to be accomplished in this cause and that the 
same should now be stricken from the docket, it is further 
A djudged, Ordered, and D ecreed that this case is hereby 
stricken from the docket, but with the proviso that it may 
be reinstated without payment of any filing fee in the event 
that any of the plaintiffs or anyone who would have had a 
right to intervene in this cause had it remained on the docket 
shall file a petition for reinstatement and/or intervention 
stating a cause which would have given such plaintiff or 
intervenor a right to re-open the case or intervene had the 
case remained upon the docket.

/ s /  T homas J. M ichie
United States District Judge

January 27, 1965

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Notice is hereby given that James S. Buckner, Jr., and 
Thomas W . Buckner, infants, by James S. Buckner and 
Lucille V. Buckner, their next friends; Charles Morton and 
Stanley Morton, infants, by James E. Morton and Dorothy 
Morton, their next friends and Thomas Brock and Emma 
Brock, infants, by Susie Williams, their next friend, plain­
tiffs, hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Fourth Circuit from the order entered by this Court 
on January 27, 1965, by which order the Court refused to 
grant injunctive relief as prayed and an award of attorney’s 
fees.

/ s /  H enry L. Marsh, III 
O f Counsel for Plaintiffs



Printed Letterpress by
L E W I S  P R I N T I N G  C O M P A N Y  .  R I C H M O N D ,  V I R G I N I A