Edwards v. South Carolina Transcript of Record
Public Court Documents
May 14, 1962
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Edwards v. South Carolina Transcript of Record, 1962. 58a5f99e-b09a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/96bde597-2996-445a-8cec-a1234dabe2f2/edwards-v-south-carolina-transcript-of-record. Accessed April 13, 2025.
CY
1
/U p s
TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD
Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1962
No. 86
JAMES EDWARDS, JR., ET AL., PETITIONERS,
ON W RIT OF CERTIORARI TO TH E SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED MARCH 27, 1962
CERTIORARI GRANTED MAY 14, 1962
V S .
SOUTH CAROLINA.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM, 1962
No. 86
vs.
SOUTH CAROLINA.
ON W RIT OF CERTIORARI TO TH E SUPREME COURT OF TH E
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
I N D E X
Original Print
Proceedings in the Supreme Court of the State of
South Carolina
Statement ___ \ 2
Record from the Columbia City Magistrate’s Court
of Richland County ___________________________ 2 2
Transcript of trial proceedings, March 7, 1961 .... 2 2
Appearances ____ 2 2
Colloquy between court and counsel _________ 2 2
Witnesses for the State: _____ 4 4
Testimony of Irving G. McNayr—
direct ____ 4 4
cross ------------------------- 19 16
redirect _____________ 37 30
recross ______________ 39 31
L. J. Campbell—•
direct _______________ 42 34
cross ------------------------- 47 38
redirect ______________ 55 44
R e c o r d P r e s s , P r in t e r s , N e w Y o r k , N . Y ., A u g u s t 10, 1962
INDEX
Original Print
Record from the Columbia City Magistrate’s Court
of Richland County— Continued
Transcript of trial proceedings—March 7, 1961
— Continued
Witnesses for the State :— Continued
Testimony of Dan F. Beckman—
direct ______ ________ 57 46
cross ______________ - 61 49
A. C. Shorter, Jr.—
direct .... ............... ...66 54
cross — ...... — — ------ 10 57
Defendants’ motions for dismissal of eases, etc.
and denial thereof ~~.—......—--------------- --—- 15 61
Sentence ________________ _____ _______ __ 11 *'2
Transcript of trial proceedings, March 13, 1961 81 66
Appearances --------------------------- --— ----------- 81 66
Witnesses for the State: ... - —.... - ......... -- 82 67
Testimony of Irving G. McNayr—
direct __________________ 82 67
cross ___________________ 95 77
L. J. Cam pbell-
direct _______________ 102 82
cross ________________ 106 86
redirect ______—...115 92
recross ________________ 116 93
Dan F. Beckman—
direct _________________ 117 94
cross ______________ 119 96
redirect _______________ 123 99
recross ________________ 123 99
A. C. Shorter, Jr.—
direct _________________ 124 100
cross __________________ 127 102
Defendants’ motions for dismissal of cases, etc.
and denial thereof - ------- - —- ---------- 134 108
Witnesses for Defendants: -..... - - ------- ------ 135 109
Testimony of James Jerome Kirton—
direct _________________ 135 109
cross _______________ 145 117
Sentence --------------------------------------------------— 154 124
ii
Original Print
Record from the Columbia City Magistrate’s Court
of Richland County— Continued
Transcript of trial proceedings, March 16, 1961 156 126
Appearances _______________ 156 126
Witnesses for the State: _____________________ 158 128
Testimony of Irving G. McNayr—
direct _______________ 158 128
cross ------------------------- 166 134
redirect _____________ 185 149
Joseph P. Barnett—
direct ----------------------- 186 149
cross ____________ 189 152
L, J. Cam pbell-
cross ________________ 196 157
A. C. Shorter, Jr.—-
cross ------------------------- 197 159
Dan P. Beckman—
cross ------------------------- 198 159
Defendants’ motions for dismissal of cases, etc.
and denial thereof _____.__________________ 200 161
Witnesses for Defendants: ___ 202 162
Testimony of B. J. Glover—
direct ----------------------- 202 163
cross ------------------------- 206 166
redirect _____________ 213 172
recross ______________ 213 172
Defendants’ motions for dismissal of cases, etc.
and denial thereof ________________________ 214 173
Sentence ______________ 215 173
Transcript of trial proceedings, March 27, 1961 219 178
Appearances ____ ______ 219 178
Defendants’ motions for dismissal of cases, etc.
and denial thereof ________________________ 229 185
Sentence ____ 229 186
Record from Richland County Court, Columbia,
South Carolina _ 232 188
Order of Judge Bates ................ 232 188
Exceptions ....... 240 194
Stipulation of counsel re record _______________ 241 195
Clerk’s certificate (omitted in printing) ______ 242 195
INDEX 111
IV INDEX
Original Print
Opinion, Lewis, J. _ ____ 244 197
Petition for rehearing with order of the Court de
nying same endorsed thereon __________________ 247 202
Petition for stay of remittitur ____________________ 252 204
Order staying remittitur, Lewis, J______ 255 206
Order allowing certiorari ________________________ 257 207
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF
SOUTH CAROLINA
A P P E A L FROM R IC H L A N D COU N TY
H onorable L egare B ates , J udge
T H E S T A T E , Respondent,
against
JAM ES E D W A R D S , JR., A L V E S T E R PA TE , JR., P IN C K N E Y M O SLE Y, M ELVIN
B RO W N , JR., H A R O L D EUGENE N IM M O N S, W IL L IE B O YK IN JON ES, W IL
L IA M PE R K IN S and B IL L A L V IN S U L L IV A N , Appellants.
T H E S T A T E , Respondent,
against
GEORGE C. FO STE R, JAM ES JEROM E K IR T O N , ISA A C J. C AM PBE LL, ISA A C
W A SH IN G TO N , RO N ALD J. R H A M E S, JOSEPH B. B A iL E Y , D A V IE GREEN
and CH AR LE S F. B A R R , Appellants.
T H E S T A T E , Respondent,
against
JAM ES C. W E S T , S IN C L A IR SA L T E R S, H E ZIK A H JO H N SO N , JAM ES CLYBU RN
W IL L IA M E. M O U L T R IE , D A V ID C AR TE R, BEN JAM IN J G LO VE R , SAMUEL^
S. W IL L IA M S , A R T H U R W . S T A N L E Y , JR., W E N D E L L D A IL E Y , LENN1E
W . G LO VE R , D A V ID L. P E RR E TT, JAMks A . C A R TE R , C LIFFO R D J. RICE,
D E LB ER T L. W O O D S, A L F R E D 0 . LExMON, W IL B U R H. W A L K E R , SA M U E l!
E D W A R D S , JAM ES W . C AN TY , ISA A C W . W IL L IA M S , C LIFFO R D B. BELL
W IL L IA M H. COOLEY, RO B ER T H. L aPR IN C E , F R A N K E. GORE, EARL
PE TER S, JR., H E N R Y H. H A R R IS , CH AR LE S R. M IL L E R , CH ARLES M cD E W ,
M A X IN E EPPS, H E N R Y W IL L IA M S , LE RO Y HOGANS, JIM M IE L. SM ITH
JAM ES REEDER, JR., GEORGE A. A N D ER SO N , and A N T H O N Y M cFAD D E N ,
Appellants.
TH E STA TE , Respondent,
against
CAR R IE M AE K E L L Y , QUEEN E. RU SH , H A ZE L Y. N E W B E R R Y , B E T T Y J.
L IN D S E Y , S A R A H E. M cK E N ZIE , M A T T IE T H O M A S, B E T T Y J. CAPERS,
M IN N IE D eW IT T , FLO Y D A L V IN G ILM ORE, M acA R T H U R J. BISH OP
C H ARLES FLE M M IN G , JOE L E W IS R OBIN SON , JOH N J. CAM PBELL, L
D. N EW M A N , H A RO LD FOSTER, J IM M IE xNORSE M OORE, H ORACE
N A SH , JOH N W E S L E Y M IL L E R , M A R K A. W ILLIAxMS, CLAREN CE M IS
SO U R I, CARL E D W A R D BOOK, C L A SSIE R. W A L K E R , B O BBIE JEAN
YOUNG, W IL L IE P A U L W O R T H Y , RO B ER T FERGUSON , A LBE R T ORAGE,
JOH N S A W Y E R , GLENN M AN N IN G , K EN N ED Y C L A F F L IN , JOHN FED-
E RIC K , B O B BY DO CTO R, A L B E R T IN E M. CON EY, YV O N N E T. CODLOE,
B RE N D A J. B U RTON , B A R B A R A AN N M ACK, JU D ITH D. S M IT H , E M M X
J. JONES, E V E L Y N L. R OBIN SON , W IL L IA M TH E O D O RE BOGGS, H E N R Y
E AR L T H O M A S, JAM ES E D W A R D COLEM AN, BER N AR D N A T H A N IE L
RIG G IN S, JESSIE A L F R E D IA LO C K H A R T , B A R B A R A ANN CURRING TON ,
S A R A H AN N W H A R T O N , D IA N E G W E N D O LY N B LASSIN G AM E , SO P H IA
P E A R L L E STE R , B E T T Y JEAN W ID E R M A N , W IL L IA M T. ROBINSON ,
R U B E R T H ICK M A N , H E RB E RT L A W R E N CE W IL SO N , BER N AR D H A IR E ,
LE O N AR D B RA N T, D O N A LD JEROM E SALTE R S. FRED ERICK P. PAGET.
RO B ER T LEE M cB E TH , L E W IE E IG H T Y , BOOK ER T. M cLEO D , CLAU DE
E. M OORE, JOHN I. W IT H E R SP O O N , M A T T H E W W IL L IA M S , H A RO LD
B A R D O N V IL L E , T R A V IS SIM M ON S, S H IR L E Y STRO M ON , FLOREN CE
SM A LLS, RAN L. JONES, JEA N N IE LU E D A V IS , M Y R T L E L. W A L K E R ,
JU LIU S B. M OSES, B E T T Y JEAN W IL SO N , LEN N A R D L. M cCA N TS, M ARIO
D A V IS , SAMMTE PRIN G LE, C LIN TO N W . H A ZZA R D , R O B E R T M cTEE R ,
JAM ES A. A LFO R D , G W E N D O LY N W A T SO N , FRAN CIS M cD A N IE L S, TOHN
LA N D , YV O N N E REDD, DO RIS D. W R IG H T , DEE ANN A N D ER SO N , M A R Y
N O R RIS, R H U N E T T L IN D SE Y , JU A N IT A H A LL. G ERTRU D E E VA N S, S H IR
L E Y A. GREEN, A N N IE M AE R A Y , LE O LA CLEM EN TS, G E RTRU DE SM ITH ,
C A T H E R IN E DU N CAN , TUNIUS L. REED, JAM ES K. D A V IS, ALETHTA
B RO W N , REBECCA W IL L IA M S , D O R O T H Y H. R OBIN SON , M A R Y L. ENG
L ISH , W IL L IE O. JAM ISO N , TUSTINE SIM ON S, L O V E N IE GRIGGS, TF.AN-
N ETTE BLACK, JU A N IT A W A D D E L L , LU CY S U L L IV A N . P A T R IC IA GREEN,
A M A N D A TO W N SE N D , M A R G A RE T M cCR A Y, B E T T Y E M A R SH A L L , A N
N ETTE E D W A R D S , M A T T IE G ILES, N O V EL N O W L IN , B A R B A R A E AR LE Y,
LU CY D A V IS , E D IT H TENKINS, B E TTY E T. KIN G, B IN ZER INABTNET,
K A T IE D O N A LD SO N , M A R IO N T. JOH NSON. JEA N E TTE L. H A R T W E L L ,
M A R Y E. E LLISO N , REG IN A S. A. C A L D W E L L . L aV ER N E D U R AN T,
CT-TANCTF M. D R A Y T O N , OTTTE R. TARRATT. B OBBIE T. G TLE S,' IRENE
O ’N. GILES, F E L IC IA Y. YOU NG, F O R T IA H. SIZER, KA TE LEWTS, W IT.LIE
E. G RAN T, FRAN CES E. TOHNSON. E VE LYN BING, SH IR L E Y A. KING.
L O R E T T A G. B U SH , B E T T IE J. BRO W N , G LO RIA J. JEFFERSO N , and
R O S A L IE H IN E S, Appellants.
1
[ fo l . 1 ] S t atem en t
This is an appeal from an Order of Honorable Legare
Bates, dated July 10, 1961, affirming convictions of the
Appellants in Magistrate’s Court.
The Appellants, numbering one hundred eighty-seven
persons, were charged with the crime of breach of the
peace. The charges arose out of certain activities in which
the Appellants were engaged in and about the State House
Grounds in the City of Columbia on March 3, 1961.
The right to trial by jury was waived, and the Appel
lants were tried by the Columbia City Magistrate of Rich
land County in four separate trials on the 7th, 13th, 16th
and 27th days of March, 1961. It was stipulated that all
testimony presented in the first two trials would be sub
stantially the same in subsequent trials, and such testimony
was ordered incorporated in the records of the subsequent
trials as if repeated therein. The same stipulation and
order were made as to testimony presented in the third
trial.
All Appellants were found guilty, and sentences ranging
from fines of Ten ($10.00) Dollars or service of five (5)
days to One Hundred ($100.00) Dollars or thirty (30) days
were imposed. Thereafter, by stipulation, the appeals from
the four trials were consolidated and argued as one case
before the Richland County Court. In the Order from which
appeal is taken, the judgment of the Magistrate’s Court was
affirmed. Due and timely notice of appeal from this Order
was given.
2
[fol. 2]
IN THE COLUMBIA CITY MAGISTRATE’S COURT OF
RICHLAND COUNTY
Transcript of Testimony
Before Honorable Frank Powell, Magistrate, on Tuesday,
March 7, 1961, Richland County Court House, Columbia,
South Carolina.
A p p e a r a n c e s :
For the State: J. C. Coleman, Esq., E. N. Brandon, Esq.
For the Defendants: Matthew J. Perry, Esq., Lincoln C.
Jenkins, Jr., Esq., Donald James Sampson, Esq.
Eleanor S. Mackey, Reporter.
(Court convened at 10:00 o’clock, a.m. in Circuit Court
Room, Richland County Court House.)
C o l l o q u y B e t w e e n C o u r t a n d C o u n s e l
Judge Powell: I would like to announce the rules for
this hearing. No. 1, no photographs will be taken in the
court room. No. 2, as many people who like may come
here as long as they have a seat. There will be no standing
up around the walls. There will be no outbursts in any
fashion; if there is any, you will be cited for contempt of
court.
The Court has before it a warrant charging the following-
person for breach of peace here in Richland County. A
complaint, under oath, has been made by L. J. Campbell
that at Columbia, in Richland County, South Carolina, on
March the 2nd, 1961, James Edwards, Jr., Alvester Pate,
Jr., Pinckney Moseley, Melvin Brown, Jr., Harold Eugene
Nimmons, Willie Boykin Jones, William Perkins and Bill
Alvin Sullivan did commit a breach of the peace and that
the said persons, together with others, did assemble to
impede normal traffic and they failed to disperse upon
[fol. 3] orders of the police officers. Whereas, the afore
mentioned individuals on March 2nd, 1961, on the State
3
Capitol grounds, on adjacent sidewalks and streets, did
commit a breach of the peace in that they, together with a
large group of people, did assemble and impede the normal
traffic, singing and parading with placards, failed to dis
perse upon lawful orders of police officers, all of which
tended directly to immediate violence and breach of the
peace in view of existing conditions. Signed: L. J. Camp
bell. Sworn to before me on the 2nd day March, 1961.
Frank Powell, Columbia Magistrate, Are all of the persons
named present?
Mr. Perry: Tour Honor, they are present.
The Court: Are these persons represented by an at
torney?
Mr. Perry: Yes, sir. They are represented bv three
attorneys: Mr. Lincoln C. Jenkins, Jr., Mr. Donald James
Sampson and myself, Matthew J. Perry. May it please
the Court, if I may interrupt Your Honor’s proceedings
momentarily, the defendants have not been given copies
of the warrant and I wonder if it is possible, at this time
that they might be given copies of the warrant?
The Court: Not at this time. The warrant has been
read individually to them when they were charged. Will
the defendants please stand and approach the front of the
court room as I call their names?
Mr. Perry: Just one moment, please. I don’t want to be
put in the position of interrupting the procedure. May
we approach the Bench with members of counsel for the
State?
The Court: Yes.
(Whereupon, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Brandon, Mr. Perry,
Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Sampson approached the Bench.)
[fol. 4] Mr. Perry requested warrant to examine it before
defendants were arraigned.
(Defendants arraigned before the Court.)
The Court: Are these the ones named in the warrant
charged with breach of the peace, Columbia, South Caro
lina, on March 2nd, 1961 ?
Defendants: (In unison) Yes, sir.
The Court: Were you released on bonds for appearance
in this court ?
4
Defendants: (Inunison) Yes.
The Court: How do you plead to the charge, guilty or
not guilty?
Mr. Jenkins: As counsel for the defendants, may I speak?
At this time, Your Honor, the defendants each enter a plea
of not guilty.
The Court: You will all take seats, please. Are the
defendants ready for trial?
Mr. Perry: The defendants are ready.
The Court: Is the State ready?
Mr. Coleman: The State is ready.
Whereupon, Mr. Coleman called I eving G. McNayr who,
being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
Direct examination.
By Mr. Coleman:
Q. Mr. McNayr, I believe you are the City Manager of
the City of Columbia ?
A. I am, sir.
Q. As such, do your duties require you to supervise the
activities of the Columbia City Police Department?
A. Yes, sir. I have direct supervision of the City Police
Department.
[fol. 5] Q. Do you have any personal knowledge of the
incident alleged in the warrant just read by the Judge,
which allegedly occurred in the City of Columbia, in and
around the State House grounds, on March the 2nd last
involving the defendants on trial here today?
A. Yes, sir. I was present all during the proceedings.
Q. Would you please relate to the Court in your own
words exactly what occurred with regard to any matter
about which you have personal knowledge, so far as this
charge is concerned?
A. Yes. At approximately 10:30 on the morning of March
the 2nd I was called by Chief of Police Campbell and in
formed that he had word that a meeting was to be held at
the Zion Baptist Church on lower Washington Street, and
0
that it was understood that students attending that meeting
would then proceed to the State House grounds to dem
onstrate.
Mr. Perry: We object to that testimony and moved that
it be stricken on the grounds of hearsay, under the rule of
hearsay.
Mr. Coleman: The City Manager has not testified to the
facts; he is merely relating the official information received
from his Chief of Police, which motivated his appearance.
He has not said that the march had actually started or
there would actually be one. He merely stated that it was
his information from his Chief of Police that there might
possibly be a march, merely setting out his motivation for
his actions.
The Court: We will sustain the objection. In any opin
ion, it would be hearsay which Chief Campbell said to
Mr. McNayr.
Q. Mr. McNayr, what did you actually do, without re
lating what Chief Campbell or any one might have told you!
[fol. 6] A. I asked Chief Campbell to pick me up in the
immediate future in his car and drive me to the Zion Baptist
Church. He did that and we arrived at the church at
approximately a quarter of eleven. Numerous youths were
entering the basement area of the church at the time. On
the outside was David Carter, whom I had known in the
street demonstrations here over the past months and the
past year. I talked with David Carter and asked for in
formation as to what was going on. I received a completely
evasive answer. He informed me that, they were simply
holding a meeting. I asked him—
Mr. Perry: May it please the Court, I object to this
line of testimony on the grounds that David Carter is not
among the defendants who are on trial here this morning.
The conversation with a person not on trial at this proceed
ing is likewise violation of the rule against hearsay. If
the conversation had been with one of these defendants,
I think perhaps it would be an exception to the hearsay
rule, but we respectfully urge that this particular testi
mony is in violation of the hearsay rule. We also move
6
that the testimony relating to the full conversation with
David Carter be stricken.
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, there has been
no testimony as to what David Carter said. He is merely
relating his activities on that day, which had generally
to do with the demonstration which later occurred on the
State House Grounds, out of which a charge against the
defendants arose. "We have no desire for him to relate his
conversation with David Carter.
Mr. Perry: In reply, may I say, Sir, that David Carter,
not being on trial, I believe Mr. McNayr has stated that
[fol. 7] Carter was evasive and Carter, not being on trial,
is not in position of defending himself against this state
ment.
Mr. Coleman: We will agree to strike the reference to
David Carter and the answer being in the evidence.
The Court: Objection sustained on the ground that de
fense has brought out, David Carter is not on trial here
today. Objection is sustained. Strike that.
A. Mr. Coleman, I ’m going to find it extremely difficult
to give you the chain of events if I ’m not allowed to state
the actual chain of events.
Q. Mr. McNayr, where did you go after you left Zion
Baptist Church?
A. When the group of students, apparent students, came
out of the church, Chief Campbell drove me to the entrance
of the State House Grounds. By that time, the students
had started marching in groups of anywhere from fifteen
to twenty-five, just prior to our leaving the church area.
We, then, stayed on the State House grounds and con
ferred with Mr. Harry Walker of the Governor’s Office,
awaiting the students and they soon appeared walking up
Gervais Street. When they appeared at the grounds, still
coming in groups, they were instructed to remain in those
groups as they stayed on the sidewalk, and Mr. Walker then
talked with each group and the apparent leader of each
group and instructed them, in my hearing. He first ques
tioned them as to what—
Mr. Perry: May it please the Court, again we object to
conversation with Mr. Harry Walker with the defendants
7
on the ground that it violates the hearsay rule. Mr. Walker
may perhaps testify in this proceeding himself. I respect
fully submit anything Mr. McNayr might have said himself
to these persons, by way of giving an official demand,
[fol. 8] he can say but, very respectfully, any other order
that was conveyed to the defendants by any other officer
or any other person in authority would be violation of the
hearsay rule.
The Court: Objection sustained. Strike it from the rec
ord. Go ahead.
Q. Mr. McNayr, did you, yourself, have any conversation
with these marchers, these defendants, at the time?
A. Not when they first appeared, no, sir.
Q. What was the general situation when you first got
there, so far as the crowd around the State House ?
Mr. Perry: Objection to the use of the word “ crowd”.
Q. Was there a crowd around the State House?
A. There was not what I would call a crowd when we
first arrived at the scene.
Q. Who was there?
A. Primarily, officers of the South Carolina Law Enforce
ment Division, a few State Highway Patrol officers, a num
ber of policemen, Mr. Walker, whom I mentioned briefly
just now.
Q. Did anything thereafter occur which made it incum
bent upon you, in your opinion, in your official capacity,
to take any action ?
Mr. Perry: I didn’t hear the question.
Q. Did anything occur thereafter, after your arrival
at the State House grounds, at the horseshoe?
A. Yes.
Q. Anything occur thereafter which made it incumbent
upon you, in your opinion, in your official capacity as City
Manager, to take any official action ?
A. Yes, it did.
Q. What was it that occurred?
A. The groups were allowed to go in small groups—
[fol. 9] Q. What groups?
8
A. The groups of young Negro students, within groups
to travel through the State House grounds. I did not grant
them authority to do that. This will probably be objected
to but Mr. Harry Walker granted that authority.
Mr. Perry: We do so object.
Q. What was the approximate size of the crowd of young
Negro students?
A. I estimated it, at the time, at around 200.
Q. At what time, Mr. McNayr, was it that these stu
dents first made their appearance in and about the State
House grounds !
A. They first made their appearance somewhere between
a quarter of twelve and twelve o’clock.
Q. Did you have any conversation with them at that
time or any one who made himself known to you as their
leader?
A. Yes, I did, on various occasions during the period
they were there.
Q. Did you give any official instructions to these young
Negro students at this time?
A. Yes, I did. I asked them to remain in small groups.
I asked them not to block the sidewalk or walkways or
street in any way. I told them they must remain in such
groups.
Q. What time was this approximately? Do you remem
ber?
A. This was approximately between the period of their
arrival and right around 12 o’clock, within the first fifteen
minutes of their arrival.
Q. Did I understand you to say that they were not
interfered with at that time?
A. They were not interfered with.
[fol. 10] Q. Did they proceed to walk, march, move about
in any way in and around the State House grounds?
A. Yes, they did. They proceeded to walk around the
State House grounds still in the groups.
Q. How long did this procedure continue?
A. This procedure continued for between a half and
three-quarters of an hour.
9
Q. Did anything thereafter occur which caused you to
take further official action?
A. Yes. Following their proceeding through the State
House grounds, they then started to gather on the sidewalk.
Q. “ They”-—who are you referring to?
A. I ’m referring to approximately 200 students with
the stated intention of again going through the grounds
and demonstrating. They gathered on the sidewalks and
also began to accumulate in front of the drive, the horse
shoe as you have described it.
Q. That’s where the monument stands right directly in
front of the State House steps ?
A. Yes. By this time, a large group of bystanders had
gathered, not only on the State House side or in the horse
shoe side but on the opposite side of Gervais Street, block
ing the walkways -where Main enters Gervais on both sides
of Main. It was also a tendency to block the walkways
leading from the Capitol going towards Main Street.
Q. Did you have occasion to observe these onlookers?
From where were they coming? Did you see that?
A. They were coming, as nearly as I could determine,
they were coming down Main and collecting on the other
side, near the Wade Hampton Hotel, on my left facing
Main, also down Main, I can’t remember the name of the
building. In addition to that, many State employees—this
[fol. 11] was just approximately the lunch hour, I assume,
for State employees—were coming from the State Capitol
building and from the various office buildings back of the
Capitol, moving through the horseshoe area on to Main
Street.
Q. Did it appear to you that the crowd was being at
tracted by the students?
Mr. Perry: I object to that, Your Honor. I object to
the question on the grounds that it calls for a conclusion
on the part of this wntness.
The Court: I didn’t understand the question.
Mr. Coleman: I asked did it appear to Mr. McNayr
that the activity of the students was attracting bystanders,
the onlookers.
The Court: Objection overruled.
10
A. There is no question about the fact that they were
attracting bystanders. Many, I ’m sure, were on their way
to lunch and I'm sure the activities taking place caused
them to stop and watch what was going on.
Q. Mr. McNayr, with reference to this horseshoe or
place right in front of the State House, are there side
walks on both sides leading up to the State House and
State House grounds and is there also a roadway for
vehicular traffic!
A. There is. There is a roadway used primarily for the
parking of State Capitol workers and officials.
Q. Now, at the time when you first noticed a crowd of
people—
Mr. Perry: Again we object to the use of the word
“ crowd” . I move that it be stricken. May I state to the
Court at this time, the use of the word “ crowd” seems
to imply certain unlawfulness to the manner of the as
sembly and, therefore, since Your Honor is going to be
called upon to determine the lawfulness or unlawfulness
[fob 12] of the various assemblages which occurred on this
date, the use of the word “ crowd” in counsel promulgating
the questions tends to set the stage for the particular flavor,
I think, upon which the State is relying upon. Now, I re
quest that the Court require counsel and the witness to
simply say what they saw. They saw a group of people
standing, they can say that without the use of the word
“ crowd” . That, at this particular time, carries with it an
unpleasant connotation, which we are attempting to get
around.
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, “ crowd” is a per
fectly good English word, to my knowledge, and in the defi
nition of it, I cannot see any connotation of unlawfulness
whatsoever. I ’ll admit my intonation may be susceptible
to some interpretation but not with regard to that word.
I do not mind substituting another; I think their objection
is entirely unbased.
The Court: Objection overruled.
Q. Can you estimate the number of the persons who
did gather in and around this horseshoe by the time that
11
it became apparent to you that some further official action
on your part would be necessary?
A. I would estimate the number of persons, in addition
to the student groups, to be in the neighborhood of 250
to 300 people.
Q. Now, with relation, Mr. McNayr, to the sidewalks
around the horseshoe and the lane for vehicular traffic,
how was the crowd distributed, with regard to those side
walks and roadways ?
A. Well, the conditions varied from time to time, but
at numerous times they were blocked almost completely
with probably as many as thirty or forty persons, both
on the sidewalks and in the street area.
[fol. 13] Q. Would you say or state whether or not, in
your opinion, this crowd did impede both vehicular and
pedestrian traffic along the horseshoe?
A. To the best of my knowledge, I can’t recall a vehicle
trying to get in or out of the horseshoe. If one had at
tempted to, it would have impeded the entrance and exit to
the horseshoe.
Q. Did you observe the pedestrian traffic on the walkway?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What was the condition there?
A. The condition there was that it was extremely diffi
cult for a pedestrian wanting to get through, to get through.
Many of them took to the street area, even to get through
the street area or the sidewalk.
Q. Mr. McNayr, from the time that you first appeared
on the scene at the horseshoe at the State House and
observed the young students and their activities, from
this time up until the time that you took further official
action, can you give us approximately the length of time
involved ?
A. It was approximately three-quarters of an hour.
Q. In other words, they were permitted to march in
and around and about the State House grounds for approxi
mately three-quarters of an hour without interference?
A. That’s correct.
Q. All right. After this three-quarters of an hour, did
you take further official action in regard to the young stu
dents or the crowd or anything else?
12
A. Yes, I did. As I saw the crowds gathering, the side
walks being blocked and recognizing that the lunch hour
was just starting, I was also aware of the adjacency of
the University of South Carolina and the possibility of
[fob 14] larger groups of students coming forth from there
and the accumulation of the student groups along the side
walk area, I called for Dave Carter and told him that I
felt the situation was becoming dangerous and told him
that the group would have to be dispersed, that they should
be dispersed and sent away in small groups, as they had
arrived, and told him—
Mr. Perry: May it please the Court, we now object to
this line of testimony on the ground that the same is purely
conjectural and speculative. Mr. McNayr has stated that
he realized the possibility of students from the University
of South Carolina coming and he thought of other possi
bilities and he thought of this and that and, therefore, after
sifting these various possibilities through his mind, he de
cided to take a course of action. I respectfully submit that
this testimony is purely speculative. There is no evidence
that any student from the University of South Carolina
came out and attempted to involve themselves with the
Negro students. There is no evidence, as I understand Mr.
McNayr’s testimony, of anybody else attempting to do
them violence and so Mr. McNayr testifies about the vari
ous possibilities in a purely conjectural manner and we are
not able actually to pin down the various possibilities
which he testifies about. I respectfully urge that this tes
timony is objectionable and I submit that the Court should
strike it from the record.
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, Mr. McNayr was
present on the scene as an official of the City of Columbia.
In his official capacity, he supervises and has charge of
the City Police Department. Incidents occurred in this
horseshoe which made it his duty to take some action and
Pm merely asking him to relate and he had so far related
[fol. 15] what official action he had taken and why he took it,
why he took that action. I see nothing speculative and I see
no conjecture whatsoever in it.
Mr. Perry: I think, Your Honor, there’s no question
about Mr. McNayr testifying as to what he did but when
13
he says the reason he did it was the possibility that someone
else was going to come from somewhere else and so forth,
he enters the realm of conjecture and we respectfully sub
mit that that is objectionable.
Q. Mr. McNayr, what action did you take?
A. I instructed Dave Carter to tell each of these groups,
to call them up and tell each of the groups and the group
leaders that they must disperse, they must disperse in the
manner which I have already described, that I would give
them fifteen minutes from the time of my conversation
with him to have them dispersed and, if they were not
dispersed, I would direct my Chief of Police to place them
under arrest.
Q. What then occurred?
A. Following mĵ instructions, Dave Carter did call up
each group.
Q. This was within your hearing?
A. This was within my hearing. I was standing adjacent
to him and did follow him from place to place as he moved
about. Rather than give instructions in the calm way in
which I had given them to him, he harangued each group
with a religious, chanting type of voice—
Mr. Perry: Your Honor, we object to anything on behalf
of David Carter. David Carter is not a defendant in this
case. We respectfully submit that testimony with reference
to any conversation of David Carter violates the hearsay
rule.
[fol. 16] The Court: Objection sustained.
Q. Did you give any instructions to the students who
were participating in this activity as to dispersal of the
marching groups?
A. None other than to their recognized leader, David
Carter.
Q. With regard to the student groups, which as you
have testified had marched in and attempted some dem
onstration on the State House grounds, did you hear any
unusual noise or anything which made it appear to you
that further official action should be taken?
A. Yes. We had this chanting, religious type approach
to arousing the group of students.
14
Q. On the part of you or any police officer, acting under
your direction, was there a general purpose to disperse
the entire crowd, which had gathered, or not?
A. Yes.
Q. Then, your purpose, stated briefly, in issuing this
order—
Mr. Perry: Your Honor, I respectfully submit that the
City Manager has demonstrated himself as a very able wit
ness and can make his own testimony.
The Court: Objection sustained.
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, surely the witness,
no matter how capable he is, can respond to a question.
I don’t exactly understand that objection.
Mr. Perry: My objection was that the question was lead
ing. I ’m awfully sorry.
Q. Officially, your official action, Mr. McNayr, with ref
erence to that, what was your reason for dispersing this
crowd?
A. My official reason for dispersing the crowd was to
avoid possible conflict, riot and dangers to the general
[fol. 17] public, and, of course, included in the general
public, was danger to these various students themselves.
Mr. Perry: Your Honor, may it please the Court, we
object to the answer of the witness on the ground that
the same is conjectural and speculative. It is too indefi
nite to give these defendants anything to meet in the form
of real evidence. I think to that extent the witness can say
what he did. Certainly the rules of evidence will permit
him to do so. It is for this Court, we respectfully pray,
to say whether or not what he did was proper. Now, as
to what motivated the witness, we submit that the answer
that the witness has just given is conjectural and specula
tive and we move that it be stricken.
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, the City Manager
took official action as the man in charge of using the City
Police Department at that time. Certainly he has the right
to say why he took that action. It is as simple as that.
He has not speculated on any fact. He hasn’t said anything
was going to happen. He said it appeared to him that in
those circumstances that something could happen. He is
15
really a police official. He is charged with the duty of
observing all of these circumstances and if it should appear
to him that there arises a danger to public peace, it is his
duty to take action and I can see absolutely no objection
to this witness stating why, in his official capacity, as a
man in charge of the City Police Department, he took the
drastic action of arrest.
Mr. Perry: Now, Your Honor, if he says that testimony
about a riot is not conjectural, my answer to that is there
is no testimony here that any riot took place, so that’s
conjectural, purely speculative, if anybody talks about a
[fob 18] riot at this time. There is no evidence at all in
this case concerning an inclination on the part of anybody
to commit a riot or to do violence toward anybody. I re
spectfully submit that this witness can testify as to what
he did. His reasons are his own and should not become
a part of the record in this case. There is further some
question about this witness’ official capacity to act upon
the State House grounds.
The Court: Objection overruled.
Q. Mr. McNayr, did you hear or observe anything on
the part of these students, that were there in your pres
ence, which indicated to you that there might be a possible
danger to the community ?
Mr. Perry: That question is leading.
Mr. Coleman: I haven’t said anything about any riot.
Mr. Perry: The question is leading. We object to it.
Mr. Coleman: He can state whether or not he saw or
heard anything which indicated that official action was
necessary.
The Court: Objection overruled.
A. Yes, I did.
Q. You have already testified, Mr. McNayr, I believe,
that you did order these students dispersed within fifteen
minutes ?
A. Yes.
Q. Did they disperse in accordance with your order?
A. They did not.
Q. What then occurred?
16
A. I then asked Chief of Police Campbell to direct his
men to line np the students and march them or place them
under arrest and march them to the City Jail and the
County Jail.
[fol. 19]
Q. They were placed under arrest!
A. They were placed under arrest.
Cross examination.
By Mr. Perry:
Q. How long have you served as City Manager of Co
lumbia !
A. Approximately five years.
Q. I see. As I understand it, a part of your duties as
City Manager happens to be the supervision of the Police
Department ?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Now, your duties, as City Manager of the City of
Columbia, I believe, take in the full boundaries of the
City of Columbia, do they not?
A. Yes, they do.
Q. Do they take you upon the State House grounds?
A. It is my understanding that they do.
Q. Now, maybe you and I have some difference of opin
ion concerning your jurisdiction, as I understand it. Do
your City Police police the State House grounds!
A. Yes, they have authority to police the State House
grounds.
Q. Mr. McNayr, to your own knowledge, do you know
who owns the title to the State House grounds?
A. To the best of my knowledge, the State House grounds
are owned by the State of South Carolina.
Q. And not by the City of Columbia ?
A. Not by the City of Columbia.
Q. For instance, the City of Columbia does not have the
right to tax that property?
A. If they have, they have never exercised it.
[fol. 20] Q. Mr. McNayr, perhaps the Court will make a
17
ruling some time later concerning this matter of the right
of the police to enter upon the State House grounds.
A. Let me clarify that position. You must understand
that we were there working in cooperation with the State
agencies, at the request of the State agencies. We feel that
we have a cooperative arrangement with all State and local
agencies here in the City and in this area whereby we
cooperate fully with the Sheriffs of the various counties,
with SLED, with State Highway Patrol. They were all
present and had officers present at this time and we were
cooperating fully in this action.
Q. I understand, Sir. As to who called who, that might
also be some matter of—
A. I can clarify that too.
Q. You had information first that there was a meeting
at Zion Baptist Church, didn’t you!
A. That is correct.
Q. Sir, did SLED give you that information!
A. I ’m sure that it came through the South Carolina
Law Enforcement Division because at the scene there were
officers from that group.
Q, Did they convey to you—
Mr. Coleman: That is entirely irrelevant.
Mr. Perry: We are on cross examination and we have
a right to explore this subject.
Mr. Coleman: Cross examination should stick to the
issues.
Mr. Perry: I submit that this is not irrelevant. I think
that basically we are dealing with the problem of what
motivated the police on this occasion and we are entitled to
explore it. We ask the Court to permit us wide latitude on
[fol. 21] cross examination as the Supreme Court of this
State has held repeatedly that we are entitled to that.
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, these defendants
here are charged with the specific crime of breach of the
peace. Mr. McNayr has testified as to what he did with
regard to the circumstances leading up to the charge
made against these defendants. How could it be possibly
relevant where Mr. McNayr got his information. I think
we would be going down a rabbit road to try to ferret out
18
all these possible sources of information. He may have
gotten it from fifty people. He may have gotten it over
the telephone from some unknown individual. I don’t think
it makes any difference.
Mr. Perry: May it please the Court, I think along the
broad issue of Mr. McNayr’s authority to act in a policing
capacity on this occasion is in issue and we respectfully
submit that we have the right to cross examine him.
The Court: Pertaining to the authority on the Capitol
grounds, that’s not the question before the Court.
Mr. Perry: I respectfully submit that it is and Your
Honor will be required to rule on it.
The Court: Objection overruled.
Mr. Coleman: I believe the last question was the further
questioning along the line of where this information came
from to Mr. McNayr. The objection now is to the further
questioning now of Mr. McNayr as to the source of the
information in regards to this march.
The Court: The objection is sustained. I don’t believe
it pertains to the issue in this case.
Q. As I understand it, sir, you cooperated with the
Columbia City Police Department, the Richland County
[fob 22] Sheriff Department and the South Carolina Law
Enforcement Division on this occasion!
A. On this and other occasions.
Q. I ’m talking about this occasion.
A. Yes.
Q. On this occasion you cooperated with the South Caro
lina Law Enforcement Division!
A. Yes, we did.
Q. Did the Law Enforcement Division call you or did
you call the Law Enforcement Division!
Mr. Coleman: Objection.
The Court: The Court has ruled that out, the source of
information. Rephrase your question, if you can.
Q. Now, when you went over to the State House grounds
on this occasion, how many police officers of the Columbia
City Police did you have with you!
A. I can’t give an exact number.
19
Q. Would you give us an estimate, please, sir, you are
head of the Police Department, I believe.
A. I would estimate that there were between thirty to
thirty-five officers over there.
Q. I see. Was the Chief of Columbia Police present?
A. Yes, he was.
Q. Nevertheless, you, as City Manager, were in com
mand?
A. I don’t particularly like your words “ in command”.
We were working cooperatively together.
Q. Your position is one of authority. You are over him.
A. That is correct.
Q. And in matters where both of you see fit to exercise
your duties, one of you obviously has to be in charge ?
[fol. 23] A. That’s right.
Q. And, in this particular situation then, the City Man
ager would be?
A. Normally, yes.
Q. Was the City Manager in command on this occasion?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, sir, he stated that the group of Negroes students
entered the State House grounds. Where did they first
enter? Did they enter, for instance, at the horseshoe or
down near Assembly Street or near Sumter Street?
A. The primary group entered at the horseshoe.
Q. I see. Now, you speak of the primary group, why
do you speak of them in that manner? Were they divided
into small groups ?
A. They were divided into small groups and I did ob
serve one group at the tail end of the larger group entering
the grounds from the Assembly Street corner.
Q. Approximately what was the size of the various
groups?
A. They varied in size from fifteen people to possibly
thirty.
Q. I see. Now, as they were walking along the public
streets, how were they formed? Were they single file or
in groups?
A. They were in pairs.
Q. In pairs?
A. That’s correct.
20
Q. Column of twos, in other words?
A. Column of twos.
[fol. 24] Q. And each group consisted of anywhere from
fifteen to thirty. Would you estimate the size of the first
or primary group ?
A. When I speak of primary, I ’m talking about the
larger groups that moved up towards the horseshoe, and
I would say there were probably 150 of those and about
thirty that I observed going on the State House grounds
down below, which I would term a secondary group.
Q. I ’m sorry. I don’t believe I understand your testi
mony. Did not they all enter from the same direction or
did they enter from different directions?
A. They entered originally from the same direction.
Q. Did they all enter in from the horseshoe!
A. They did not all enter by the horseshoe, according to
my observation.
Q. I see. If they did not enter all by the horseshoe,
where did another group enter?
A. I guess you would describe it as the corner of Gervais
and Assembly Streets.
Q. I see.
A. I ’m not certain of the original group movement. All
did not come forward or enter through the horseshoe. It
may have been that they did and that later on I saw a
group going back up from the corner of Assembly Street
into this area.
Q. Where were you stationed at that particular time,
Mr. McNayr?
A. I was stationed at the entrance to the horseshoe,
adjacent to Blossom Street. In other words, the western
entrance I guess you would describe it.
Q. I ’m sorry, I ’m a. little bit mixed up at the moment.
Did I understand that the State House grounds are sur-
[fol. 25] rounded by Gervais Street on one side of the horse
shoe, that we speak of enters from the Gervais Street side,
and near the Post Office you have Sumter Street, and to
the rear that is Senate Street and, then, over on the Eastern
side Assembly Street. Now, I ’m sorry but I thought I heard
you say Blossom Street?
A. If I did, I was in error. I meant Assembly Street.
21
I meant to say Assembly Street, which would be the Eastern
entrance to the horseshoe.
Q. You were at the Eastern entrance?
A. That’s correct.
Q. At the Assembly Street entrance!
A. At the entrance nearest Assembly Street on Gervais,
of course.
Q. Is that entrance down near the corner of Gervais
and Assembly?
A. No, I ’m talking about the horseshoe, which is directly
opposite Main Street with the monument in the center.
The entrance that I ’m talking about is that eastern most
part of the horseshoe, facing Main Street.
Q. Were you inside the horseshoe or were you inside
the walk or outside?
A. I was on the sidewalk, just outside or on, whichever
way you want to describe it.
Q. How many officers were in your particular group?
A. In the immediate vicinity?
Q. Yes, Sir.
A. Very few, not over two or three.
Q. Was Mr. Henry Walker of the Governor’s Office
present?
A. Yes, he was.
Q. Was your Chief of Police present?
[fol. 26] A. Yes, he was.
Q. Were a few other of your officers present?
A. Yes, they were.
Q. I believe you said that the primary group entered
by the horseshoe and walked around the State House
grounds. Did you accompany them around the State House
grounds?
A. You raised an objection previously when I tried to
tell you the chain of events leading there. I ’d be most
happy now to do it, if you’d like to hear it.
Q. My question is : did you accompany them?
A. I did not accompany them.
Q. You did not accompany them?
A. That’s right. Before the Court can get the whole
chain of events, and I ’m sure you want them to have the
chain of events, I would like very much to tell the Court
22
exactly what happened because I ’m interested in justice in
this case, too.
Q. I ’m certainly happy to know that, Mr. McNayr, and
if we can get it without undue speculation on anybody’s
part, I ’m sure that His Honor would be in a much better
position to determine his views.
A. Would you agree to my stating the chain of events?
Q. I would be most happy to have you do so.
A. When the groups approached the State House grounds
at the horseshoe, they were met by Mr. Harry Walker of
the Governor’s Office. Mr. Walker proceeded, in my pres
ence—
Q. Mr. McNayr, you will recognize that we are speaking
of a legal technicality. It is not my purpose to keep you
from telling the chain of events but it must come of your
own observation and not from—
[fol. 27] A. This is coming from my own observation and
within my hearing.
Mr. Perry: Your Honor, previously we have objected
to statements made by Mr. Walker and Your Honor has
ruled on those and I ’m afraid I must stick with my objec
tion on that particular point.
The Court: Objection sustained.
Mr. Perry: We’d be glad to have Mr. Walker come and
I might say we’ve invited Governor Hollings and we’d be
glad to have him come. I ’m sure that we want all of the
official light thrown on this ease that we could possibly have,
but we respectfully urge that Mr. McNayr can tell what
he personally saw.
A. This I did personally see and hear but you seem
to object to my speaking what I heard and saw.
Q. May I just stick with the line of questioning, Mr.
McNayr. As I understand it then, you did not personally
accompany the group around the State House grounds!
A. No, I did not.
Q. All right, Sir. Did any of your officers accompany
the group around the State House?
A. I ’m not certain that any of my officers did. I know
that there were officers, SLED people, there were State
Highway Patrol people and I believe that some of my offi
23
cers walked with them, too, around the grounds but I can’t
state that- categorically.
Q. But the group walked in columns of two on the side
walk in the horseshoe, is that correct?
A. That’s right.
Q. Are yon able, of your own knowledge, to say what
course they took as they walked around the State House
grounds?
[fol. 28] A. No, I ’m not.
Q. Did you see this group at any other time after they
might have gone around and come back again!
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Were you stationed exactly where you had been sta
tioned previously?
A. Except across the horseshoe, on the other side of
the horseshoe, on the public side.
Q. I think I understood you to say, if I ’m wrong cor
rect me, that some of the young people were carrying signs ?
A. You didn’t understand me to say that.
Q. I ’m very sorry, Sir. Were the defendants speaking
to each other ?
A. I would assume they were unless there was some
enmity between them, they were bound to be.
Q. That does not answer my question, Mr. McNayr. Of
your knowledge, did you observe them saying anything to
each other or to anybody?
A. If I may, if it please the Court, the attorney seems
to be willing to take my word for some hearsay and not
for others. He objected to what Mr. Walker had to say
but he’s not objecting to what these people had to say.
The Court: If I understand it, the defense attorney is
not asking what was said. He is asking did you hear any
words or any noises between the defendants, as I under
stand it.
A. The air was full of noises, of course. People were
talking and jabbering and carrying on.
Q. That still does not answer my question. Did the
young people, the young Negroes, make any noises among
themselves?
[fol. 29] A. Yes.
Q. What did they say?
24
The Court: The Court will have to rule out that question
of what they said. As I ruled previously, that is hearsay.
Mr. Perry: Yes, Sir.
Q. When they first entered the horseshoe area, I believe
you said that there were only a few officers present, not
many bystanders, the bystanders later came, as the walking
ensued?
A. That’s right.
Q. So that you were able to see and observe and hear
a great deal at that time, which you may not have been
able to hear when the group became larger?
A. Yes.
Q. Would that be correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Were the Negro college students or other students
well demeaned? Were they well dressed and were they
orderly?
A. Yes, they were.
Q. That was really what I was getting to. You regard
them as an orderly group of persons?
A. Yes, they were up to the point when I asked them to
disperse.
Q. I understand. I understand you perfectly. There was
nothing about their demeanor, their appearance, their dress
nor their conduct which violated any law that you have
any knowledge of, was there?
A. Now, I can’t answer specifically on that. I did not
originally state that they were carrying placards, but they
were carrying placards, whether that’s a violation of the
[fol. 30] law, I ’m not free to say but, other than that, they
were well demeaned.
Q. You did not observe any boisterous conduct on their
part ?
A. Not initially, no.
Q. Mr. McNayr, I believe you said that you had stationed
around the State House grounds approximately thirty
officers of the Columbia City Police?
A. I think it would be better to say that Chief Campbell
had stationed them around the grounds.
Q. You said that Chief Campbell had about thirty. Now,
did Chief Strom have a group of officers present?
25
A. There was a group of officers present from SLED.
Q. Would you estimate the size of Chief Strom’s group?
A. I ’d find it difficult for many of Chief Strom’s men are
not known to me personally.
Q. Then, in addition to the thirty Columbia City Police,
there were a number of South Carolina Law Enforcement
Division men?
A. That’s right.
Q. Were there also many from the Richland County
Sheriff’s Department?
A. I ’m not at all certain.
Q. I believe you previously stated that on this occasion
you were in touch with the Sheriff’s Office and the South
Carolina Law Enforcement Division?
A. I said we were cooperating. We have called them on
this and other occasions.
Q. You do not specifically recall that there were men
from the Sheriff’s Office present?
[fol. 31] A. No, there, again, I ’m not personally familiar
with the various officers in the Sheriff’s Office.
Q. Now, since this was during the noon hour or ap
proaching the noon hour, you have stated that during the
lunch hour many of the people began to congregate around
the State House grounds ?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you describe the apparent attitude of the group
that congregated as the Negro students walked around?
By that I mean, I am quite frankly asking you whether
or not they were apparently curious or was their attitude
hostile or was it otherwise?
A. My attorney is not objecting but I ’d like to inform
the Court that this is the very line of questioning which
the attorney objected to just a short time ago, conjecture
on the part of the witness.
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, I have no objec
tion to Mr. McNayr answering the question. It’s a proper
question.
The Court: The witness will answer.
A. I would say initially the crowd could be best described
as curious as to what was going on.
26
Q. Initially?
A. Initially.
Q. Are yon in a position to estimate the size of the group
of persons, on-lookers, who congregated around the State
House during the time the student group attempted to walk
around?
A. I think I have already testified to that.
Q. I ’m not sure you have.
A. I would estimate it at around 250 to 300 people and
I ’m not an authority on the size of crowds.
[fol. 32] Q. I believe you estimated about 200 Negro stu
dents walking around ?
A. Yes.
Q. I have reference to the group of on-lookers; that’s
the ones I was asking about.
A. That’s the group that I have reference to also.
Q. Where did the group of on-lookers congregate? Did
they congregate at the horseshoe or all around the State
House grounds?
A. I have previously testified this: that they may well
have been all around the State House grounds but, if they
were, they were beyond my observation, and, if there were
on-lookers on the whole area, the estimate of numbers would
probably have risen two or three times. I don’t know. The
people that I saw were congregated right around the horse
shoe area, many backed up into the driveway, into the
horseshoe area, across the sidewalk on the lawns adjacent to
the horseshoe area and across Gervais Street, on the corner
of Main and Gervais, on both corners of Main and Gervais.
Q. Did they block the street?
A. There was blocking of the sidewalks, not the streets.
Q. So, the on-lookers blocked the sidewalks?
A. There was blocking of the sidewalks—yes.
Q. Did you take any official action against the on-lookers
who were congregating on the streets?
A. I didn’t have an opportunity to, sir.
Q. You had an opportunity to say something to the
Negroes?
A. Not only to the Negroes, but to the wdiites on the side
of the street where I was located.
27
[fol. 33] Q. Now, sir, do I understand you to say that you
did take official action to have the on-lookers move on or
that you did not?
A. We took official action to have them clear the side
walks in the area adjacent to where we were standing-
yes.
Q. As far as you can determine the apperance of the
group of on-lookers, were they merely curious?
A. You’re talking about as the demonstration went on?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. It’s difficult to say. I ’m afraid that curiosity changes
and brings forth possible elements which could create diffi
culty.
Q. Did you see any of those possible elements?
A. Yes, I did, as I have on every occasion when these
groups have demonstrated.
Q. Speaking of this particular occasion, did you see the
possible elements there that day?
A. Yes.
Q. Who were those persons?
A. I can’t tell you who they were. I can tell you they
were present in the group. They were recognized as pos
sible trouble makers.
Q. Did you and your police chief do anything about
placing those people under arrest?
A. No, we had no occasion to place them under arrest.
Q. Now, sir, you have stated that there were possible
trouble makers and your whole testimony has been that,
as City Manager, as supervisor of the City Police, your
object is to preserve the peace and law and order?
[fol. 34] A. That’s right.
Q. Yet you took no official action against people who
were present and possibly might have done some harm to
these people?
A. We took no official action because there was none
to be taken. They were not creating a disturbance, those
particular people were not at that time doing anything to
make trouble but they could have been.
Q. Did you order them off the State House grounds?
A. They were not on the State House grounds, those that
I observed.
28
Q. Did you order them off the streets adjacent?
A. They ̂were on public sidewalks and we made them
clear the sidewalks so that people could get through.
Q. You don’t know who these people were but never
theless you recognized them as trouble makers?
A. I don’t know them by name—no.
Q. But the minute you spotted them, you knew they
were trouble makers?
A. I knew there was a possibility of trouble there.
Q. Yet you took no official action against them?
A. The official action I took was to get rid of the cause
of the possible difficulties.
Q. But you just said the Negro students weren’t doing
anything wrong, that is, in terms of misdemeanor?
. They were not obeying lawful orders, what I con
sider lawful orders in dispersing. They were the cause
of the group gathering. The group, the so-called trouble
makers, would never have appeared had it not been for
the demonstration taking place.
Q. Did you talk to the trouble makers?
A. No, I did not.
[fol. 35] Q. You don’t know why they appeared, do you?
A. I think it’s quite apparent why they appeared.' It’s
apparent to you and it’s apparent to me and it’s apparent
to the population of this area why they appeared.
Q. Yet, if it was so apparent that they were trouble
makers and they had come because of this situation, your
chief law enforcement official of the City of Columbia took
no official action by placing them under arrest?
. A- I took official action by moving the cause of the pos
sible difficulty.
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, I ’m hesitant to
interrupt counsel in this cross examination, however, if I
have counted correctly Air. AIcNayr has answered that same
question four times and I can’t see any point in belaboring
that point. He said he did not place them under arrest,
he said he had no reason to and I can’t see any purpose
in stretching this thing out interminably.
The Court: Objection sustained.
29
Q. Mr. McNayr, you have stated that you knew one man
whom you identified as the apparent leader of student move
ments in Columbia?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know any of the other students who were in
volved?
A. I know them only by sight.
Q. Do you know all of them by sight?
A. No, that would be impossible.
Q. Thank you, sir. Do you know the defendants in this
case by sight?
A. I don’t believe so, no.
[fol. 36] Q. So, you’re not really able to identify them as
regards their activity in any particular part or anything
that might have happened that day?
A. I think I might recognize one or two out of the group
of eight.
Q. So far as you know, did any of the officers having
any authority concurrent with yours place any of the other
persons under arrest, who were recognized as trouble
makers ?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. So, that no one, not the South Carolina Law En
forcement Division, the Columbia Sheriff’s Department,
the Columbia Police Department nor in fact the Governor’s
Office, took any action against other persons who were
recognized by you as being trouble makers on this occa
sion?
A. If I may, I think you may have misunderstood what
I said. I said they were possible trouble makers. If I may
continue, I ’m talking about what we described as the long
haired kids, who appear on the streets of Columbia on these
occasions; I ’m talking about some of our rougher element,
who tend to appear on the occasions of these demonstra
tions. I may have misused the word “ trouble makers” .
They are potential trouble. They represent to me trouble.
Q. Mr. McNayr, is it the policy of your administration,
when persons whom you recognize as potential makers—
Mr. Coleman: Objection, Your Honor. We are getting
into something that has absolutely nothing to do with the
facts in this case. The policy of the City Manager might
30
embrace a hundred factors, which would have nothing to
do CaS6' He testified as to the actions; certainly
L ol. o7J he cannot cross examine on any part he has testi
fied to only as far as the facts and what he has done on
the scene. Why get into the field of policy and why things
are done? That is ridiculous. ‘ *
Mr. Perry: I just wanted to know, Your Honor, whether
or not a gangster, here on our streets, would stop me from
walking down the streets and you’d put me in jail—why
not put the gangster in jail?
The Court: Objection sustained. We’re getting too far
out as to policy and what would happen under a given set
ot circumstances.
Q. As I understand, sir—-
Mr. Perry: Your Honor, do you take judicial notice of
the fact that the State House grounds are occupied by
the Executive Branch of the South Carolina government
e Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch, and that
during the period covered in the warrant in this matter
to w it: March the 2nd, the Legislature of South Carolina
was m sessmn. Do you take judicial notice of those facts?
Mr. Coleman: We’ll stipulate those facts.
The Court: All right.
Q. Thank you, Mr. McNayr.
Re-direct examination.
By Mr. Coleman:
Q. Just one more question, Mr. McNayr. With reference
to the Legislature being in session at the time of this
occurrence, the fact which has been stipulated by counsel
in this case, did that fact have any bearing on your ac
tions to keep down a breach of the peace or any possible
or probable circumstances which, in your opinion, might
lead to the breach? s
[fol: f 8J ,,A ‘ Yes’ { t ,djrL 1 was inf°nned soon after arriv-
mg that the House of Delegates was out of session but the
Senate was still m session, and certainly that was another
31
of many factors which entered into the decision to hold or
to stop and disperse this group.
Q. Mr. McNayr, you were asked on cross examination
as to the orderliness of the crowd. I assume that the
crowd there meant the entire group, including the students
and others. I believe you testified that up to a point the
students were orderly. Were they orderly throughout the
time of your presence at the scene?
A. No, they were not.
Q. What occurred after the orderliness ceased?
A. There was general singing, stamping of feet, tramp
ing, singing in a very loud voice, mostly hymns, I would
say. And, again, if I may use Mr. Carter’s name, Mr.
Carter’s talk to them about dispersing—
Mr. Perry: May I inquire of counsel as to whether or
not he has reference now to before the students were placed
under arrest or afterwards?
A. My testimony is before they were placed under arrest,
just before.
Q. Did you recognize any?
A. No, I didn’t.
Q. Just two more questions. With regard to the—I be
lieve you used the term possible trouble makers—were any
of those told to move on from the sidewalks?
A. Yes.
Q. Did any refuse to do so ?
A. No, they did not.
Q. I believe you have already testified that you asked the
Negro students to disperse, ordered them to?
A. I did through the recognized leader.
Q. Did they obey that order?
[fol. 39] A. No, they did not.
Re-cross examination.
By Mr. Perry:
Q. Mr. McNayr, you said they sang songs, I believe you
said some of them started songs before they were placed
under arrest?
A. Yes.
32
Q. As far as yon know, did everybody start singing be
fore they were jolaced under arrest or did only some of
them?
A. 1 could say that everyone did.
Q. You did not recognize any of the songs they were
singing?
A. No, I didn’t. In fact, I wasn’t paying particular at
tention to them. All that I know was that there was a
good deal of talk and shouting along with the singing.
Q. Did you hear them singing the Star Spangled Ban
ner?
A. Yes, I do recall them singing the Star Spangled
Banner.
Q. That’s a very pretty song, isn’t it?
A. It is, if properly sung in the right spirit but it seemed
to me it wasn’t in the right spirit on that occasion.
Q. They weren’t singing in a contemptuous manner, were
they? J
A. Not in a contemptuous manner but in a loud and very
disorderly manner.
Q. Well, Mr. McNayr, the Star Spangled Banner sounds
better when it rises so full.
A. Well, maybe I wasn’t in a position to appreciate it
then.
Q. Possibly that was the ease.
[fol. 40] The Court: I don’t think we should go into
whether or not this song was sung or in what manner
it was sung. What does that have to do with it?
Mr. Perry: My only purpose, of course, is to—counsel
asked Mr. McNayr about a point when they turned from
orderliness to boisterousness and we are now describing
the boisterousness that Mr. McNayr has in mind. Now, he
said among other things, the Star Spangled Banner and
I m at loss to see anything boisterous about the singing
of the Star Spangled Banner.
_ The Court: We’re not talking about the quality of the
singing.
Q. Mr. McNayr, did you hear them sing America?
A. I didn’t recognize it.
33
Q. Just as you were not in the mood to hear the Star
Spangled Banner, they might have sung that?
A. I said I was not in the mood to appreciate the way
they sang it. Now, you would have to be present, sir,
to understand what I ’m talking about, the difference be
tween singing something in an orderly fashion and doing
it boisterously, stamping your feet and shouting and yelling
at the same time. That is what took place.
Q. Isn’t it a fact that most of the singing took place after
the arrest was made and during the time the police were
carrying them to the Police Station?
A. There was an awful lot taking place but this took
place after David Carter harangued each group and I
mean harangued—it was a real rabble-rousing talk, “Will
you do it? Will you not do it? I ’m going to jail, will you
go to jail?”—that sort of thing.
Mr. Perry: Your Honor, you have ruled out anything
that was said by David Carter. Will you now direct that
that be stricken?
[fol. 41] Mr. Coleman: Your Honor, will you instruct
counsel not to phrase his questions so as to bring out ex
actly what he objected to here earlier?
A. If you don’t want to hear it, don’t ask the question.
The Court: The testimony given as to what David Carter
said is stricken from the record.
Q. Mr. McNayr, the real reason these people were placed
under arrest was because they walked around the State
House grounds and, after they were told not to go again,
they entered again in violation of the orders that were
given to them? That was the real reason they were placed
under arrest?
A. No, indeed. That has not been testified to in any way
by me.
Q. That is not the real reason they were arrested?
A. No.
Q. Had they simply walked past this person who told
them not to proceed again, they would not have been placed
under arrest?
A. If that person had requested that they be placed
34
under arrest, we would have cooperated, but that was not
the circumstances, so far as I was concerned. You will not
allow me to give you the circumstances, which I tried to do
and you said that was hearsay.
Q. Thank you, Mr. McNayr.
The Court: Court will recess for ten minutes. (11-50
a. m.) v
(Court reconvened.)
Ch ie f L. J. Cam pb ell[fol. 42]
Whereupon, Mr. Coleman called C h ie f L. J. Cam pb ell
who, being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
Direct examination.
By Mr. Coleman:
n 1 believe you are the Chief of Policefor the City of Columbia?
A. Yes, sir.
9 9 ‘ ,Dlf1 a1n.y? inS come to your attention on March the
nd last which caused you to make your appearance in
d around the State House in an official capacity?
A. It did. J ‘
Q._ Will you relate in your own words exactly what you
edge1?1 regard t0 any matter within your personal knowl-
A. I received information that a group of students were
gathering at the Zion Baptist Church and I later observed
it myself personally. I informed Mr. McNayr, City Man
ager, and later I picked him up and we both went to the
a A 8j PPSt Clmreh- 9 * 011 Washington Street, Washington
we fom d a ^ “
Q. Where did you go from Zion Baptist Church?
. We left Zion Baptist Church and went to the State
House, the horseshoe at the State House.
Q. Did anything occur there?
A. We arrived at the State House a short time ahead of
the marching group.
35
Q. What marching group? Would you describe them?
A. A group of Negro students.
Q. Where did they make their appearance?
A. They came up Gervais Street, from Gadsden Street
to Gervais and Gervais up to the State House.
[fol. 43] Q. Where were you at that time?
A. I was on the East corner of Gervais and the horse
shoe, Main Street.
Q. Did you talk to the group?
A. I did not talk to the group at that time.
Q. Were any official instructions given to the group at
that time ?
A. They were.
Q. What was the nature of the instructions?
A. They were instructed that they had a right, as a
citizen, to go through the State House grounds, as any
other citizen has, as long as they were peaceful.
Q. What happened then, so far as the activity of this
group of students was concerned, immediately thereafter?
A. Each group was instructed the same. Then they pro
ceeded through the State House grounds. They continued
going through the State House grounds.
Q. Did you remain in the horseshoe during this time?
A. In and around the horseshoe.
Q. For how long a period of time did the students pro
ceed in and about the State House grounds without inter
ference from you?
A. I would say approximately thirty to forty minutes
before they were given instructions from our City Manager
that they should disband and they were given fifteen min
utes to decide whether they wanted to disband or not.
Q. Chief Campbell, to your knowledge, did any police
officer or anyone else interfere with the students’ activities
during this thirty or forty minute period, which you have
just related?
A. They did not.
[fol. 44] Q. I believe about this horseshoe in front of the
State House, there are sidewalks on both sides and lanes
for vehicular traffic around the horseshoe and back out
into Gervais and Main Street?
A. That’s correct.
36
Q. At the time the students first made their appearance
there, were there numbers of other people in and about
the State House grounds?
A. When they first arrived?
Q. Yes.
A. There were a few civilians and several police officers.
Q. Did you observe this?
A. Yes.
Q. After a period of thirty or forty minutes, that you
have just stated that the students marched without inter
ference, did you observe the crowd at that time?
A. I did.
Q. Had it increased, decreased or remained the same?
A Considerably increased.
Q. Can you estimate the number of the crowd approxi
mately, including the students?
A. Across Gervais Street and also on the sidewalks and
the steps of the State House, there were 300 or 350.
Q. Now, with relation to the sidewalks on both sides of
the horseshoe, on Gervais Street adjacent to the State
House grounds and the lanes for vehicular traffic around
the horseshoe, how was the crowd situated with reference
to those sidewalks and lanes?
A. They were right crowded and, from time to time,
we had to ask the pedestrians to move on.
Q. Was the street blocked?
[fol.45] A. We had to place a traffic man at the inter
section of Gervais and Main to handle traffic and pedes
trians.
Q. Was a vehicular traffic lane blocked?
A. It was, that was in the horseshoe.
Q. After a period of thirty or forty minutes in which
these students were allowed to march without interference
of any kind, did you then take further official action?
A. As I have stated, they were given to about 1:00
o’clock, or fifteen minutes, to leave and at 1:15 they did
not leave, and then they were placed under arrest.
Q. You were there, Chief Campbell, and saw the crowd
of people, students, those who had come upon the scene
during the thirty or forty minute period, why did it appear
to you that official action was due to be taken?
37
Mr. Perry: Your Honor, we object to the question. I
respectfully submit that you have previously ruled, with
regard to the testimony of the previous witness, that he
could tell what he did, but as to his reasons, I believe that
you did not permit the witness to go too much into a
speculative area. We submit that the question may call for
the witness’ conclusions or reasons, some of which might be
speculative as to what prompted them to act. Certainly,
Chief can say what he did but as to why he did it would
be for Your Honor to determine.
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor,please, there is absolutely
no element of speculation in Chief Campbell telling why
he did what he did. He’s not speculating as to any facts.
He has made a criminal charge. He is certainly entitled to
tell why he made it.
The Court: I ’ll have to overrule the objection. In view
of his experience, the objection is overruled.
[fol. 46] A. I would say in my experience over a period
of years I felt that it was time that action should be taken.
Q. Why?
A. To keep down any type of violence or in jury to any
one.
Mr. Perry: Now, Your Honor, we object and ask that
that be stricken on the grounds that the answer is specula
tive and conjectural. Chief saĵ s to keep down any violence
and there is no testimony that any violence was about
to take place.
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, the Chief is testify
ing as an expert police officer. He has not stated that
violence would take place. He has said that drawing from
his experience as a police officer, during the factors which
were involved in this situation, it was his opinion that
there could possibly be violence and disorder arising out
of this situation. I believe he is fully entitled to testify.
The Court: Objection overruled on the same grounds as
before, his experience, my previous statement as to his
experience.
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, may I see the war
rant ?
38
The Court: I believe counsel for the defendants has it.
Would you like the Court to have some copies of that
made ?
Mr. Perry: I ’d be most grateful, Judge.
The Court: I ’ll have some made for you.
Q. Chief Campbell, I hand you a paper entitled “ Arrest
Warrant”, which is signed—the affidavit of which is signed
by one L. J. Campbell. Would you look at that and see if
you recognize your signature there?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You did sign that warrant?
[fob 47] A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you please look at the names contained in the
warrant ?
A. That is my warrant and that is my signature and
that is the names.
Q. Do you recognize that warrant as containing the
names of some of the people who were arrested on March
the 2nd?
A. I don’t remember all of the names but I would say
that is the warrant that I signed.
Q. And it contained the names of the students?
A. That’s right.
Q. You don’t recognize, of course, any of these people
personally?
A. In the whole entire group, I know eight or ten or
twelve, something like that personally.
Q. Chief Campbell, do you have any statement which
you would like to make in regard to this situation, re
garding the facts involved?
A. No, not right at the moment.
Cross examination.
By Mr. Perry:
Q. Chief Campbell, I believe you stated that as the
various groups went into the State House grounds, you
personally admonished each group that they had a right
to go in?
A. I didn’t personally.
39
Q. I ’m sorry I misunderstood you. Who did this ?
A. Mr. Walker.
Q. I see. Do you agree with Mr. McNayr’s estimate of
the size of the various groups of young people as they
walked through the grounds? I believe Mr. MeNayr stated
[fol. 48] that they numbered from fifteen to thirty persons
in each group.
A. I would say that they weren’t quite that large but
he’s approximately right.
Q. You say they weren’t quite that large?
A. I ’d say twenty to twenty-five to thirty. At times the
group was larger than others; more would get together
and some would go off to themselves in smaller groups
and in that period of time, it would vary a whole lot.
Q. I understand.
A. At times, it may have been thirty and then it would
be twelve or fifteen.
Q. Each group of students walked along in column of
twos ?
A. Sometimes two and I did see some in single-file.
Q. There was ample room for other persons going in
the same direction or the opposite direction to pass on the
same sidewalk?
A. I wouldn’t say they were blocking the sidewalk; now,
that was through the State House grounds.
Q. Their demeanor was generally good?
A. At times.
Q. Wouldn’t you say they were well-behaved?
A. At times.
Q. You stated in your affidavit, Chief Campbell, that the
young people were carrying placards?
A. They had cards.
Q. I do not believe that you have previously testified con
cerning these placards?
A. No, I haven’t mentioned the cards.
Q. But in the affidavit which you signed, before the is
suance of this warrant, you did make mention of the fact
[fol. 49] that they assembled, impeded the normal traffic
and they paraded with placards?
A. I wouldn’t say that all of them had them, but some
of them did.
40
Q. Some of them did. Of course, you do not know
whether any of the defendants on trial today had placards?
A. I couldn’t swear to that.
Q. What was the nature of the language used on the
placards ?
A. It was religious verses. I read some of them.
Q. I see. Chief Campbell, have you previously had oc
casion to deal with groups of Negro students on the streets
of Columbia in recent times?
A. I have.
Q. Are you aware of a widespread student movement
which is designed to possibly bring about a change in the
structure of racial segregation laws and custom?
A. I am.
Q. Would you regard the group, which walked through
the State House grounds on March the 2nd, as a group for
such a purpose?
A. There was a purpose, I would think.
Q. Were the signs which they carried in any way depict
that particular purpose?
A. It resembled that, yes.
Q. Did you confiscate any of those signs, Chief?
A. I did not.
Q. But it suffices to say that the signs did bespeak the
general purpose?
A. The signs were taken up but they were not taken up
by us.
[fol. 50] Q. I understand. Of course, you do not regard
the carrying of signs as breach of peace, do you?
A. Well, it might mean—as to what purpose was behind
it.
Q. Mr. McNayr has estimated that you had present some
thirty or more, or possibly a few less, police officers of
the City of Columbia?
A. That is a mistake. Mr. McNayr did not know how
many officers I had up there.
Q. How many did you have?
A. I had approximately fifteen.
Q. Were there other officers of authority?
A. There were some State Highway Patrolmen; there
were some South Carolina Law Enforcement officers pres
41
ent and I believe, I ’m not positive, I believe there were
about three Deputy Sheriffs.
Q. So there were a lot of police officers around on this
occasion. Wouldn’t you agree, Chief Campbell, that the
presence of a large number of police officers serves to
attract a lot of on-lookers, perhaps as much, if not more
so, than the Negro college students walking around the
State House?
A. The two together would create quite a bit.
Q. So, the curiosity-lookers were attracted by police
officers as well?
A. The two together would create quite a scene.
Q. Did you see, included among the on-lookers, any per
sons whom you regarded as trouble makers?
A. Well, it’s hard to pick out trouble makers all the
time, you know, with a large group of people; you don’t
know what might occur and what’s in the mind of the
people.
[fol. 51] Q. But, sir, you did, at one time, after perhaps
conferring with other officers, direct the students to dis
band; you or some other officer did. Is that correct?
A. That order came from the City Manager.
Q. I see. Was any order given to the on-lookers to dis
band?
A. They were asked to move on.
Q. Did all of them move on when they were ordered to
move on?
A. A lot of them moved on, yes.
Q. Since these young people were generally well-de
meaned, it was actually the fact that they were walking
around the State House grounds with placards in a group,
which actually caused their arrest, isn’t it?
A. Well, they were singing and right noisy at times,
particularly after the order was given to give them fifteen
minutes to disband.
Q. You said that you observed them walking around the
State House grounds for some thirty to forty minutes; did
I understand you correctly?
A. I said approximately.
Q. During this period was there any singing?
42
A. Yes. There was some singing in the horseshoe and
there was some singing on the East corner of the horseshoe.
Q. I see, and afterwards they were given some fifteen
minutes to disband and I believe that also came from the
City Manager!
A. That was approximately at 1 :00 o’clock.
Q. They were given fifteen minutes to disband!
A. Yes.
Q. Having not disbanded, you actually placed them under
arrest? Did you or some other officer?
[fol. 52] A. All of the officers. I placed some under arrest.
Other officers placed some.
Q. I have reference to what authority—did the Columbia
Chief of Police or the Director of South Carolina Law
Enforcement Division?
A. I have authority on State property under a Special
Act.
Q. You do have special authority to police the State
House?
A. Yes, sir, passed by the Legislature.
Q. As I understand you, sir, the various groups of stu
dents walked through the State House grounds, either in
single file or in columns of twos, they walked in such a
manner that it was possible for other persons, using the
same sidewalk, to pass either going in the same direction
or the opposite direction?
A. I would say so—yes.
Q. So that, therefore, the Negro students did not block
the sidewalks?
A. Not in the State House grounds. I didn’t go in the
State House grounds. I just observed that from a distance.
I stayed at the corner of Gervais and Main at the horse
shoe all during the whole period of time. I did not leave
there. I did place men over the area, back of the State
House and over the grounds.
Q. Did they not block anybody?
A. I did not go back into the grounds myself.
Q. Within your own view, did they block anything?
A. At times they blocked the sidewalk and we asked them
to move over and they did.
43
Q. They obeyed your commands on that?
A. Yes.
Q. So that nobody complained that he wanted to use the
sidewalk and he could not do it?
[fol. 53] A. I didn’t have any complaints on that.
Q. How about the vehicular traffic, either in the horseshoe
area or otherwise?
A. The horseshoe area was blocked by the heavy traffic
on Gervais.
Q. It was blocked by whom? The police?
A. Pedestrians and civilians, policemen and automobiles.
Q. I see, but not necessarily by these defendants?
A. No. At times, of course, they would block it when
they were marching across.
Q. Naturally, as they walked across but only for a rea
sonable period of time. That horseshoe area that we de
scribed, that leads up to the front of the State House build
ing, is not really a thoroughfare, is it?
A. No.
Q. It’s a limited parking area used by members of the
State House of Representatives and other officials in the
State House building?
A. I think that’s correct.
Q. It’s not your contention then that these defendants
blocked anybody’s use of that area?
A. Not to my knowledge. At times, I said, they were
asked to move and they complied with our request.
Q. Then, their crime, if we can call it a crime, seems to
be their refusal to disperse when they were given orders
to disperse?
A. That’s right and the noise.
Q. Wouldn’t you agree that it was their rfeusal to dis
perse that got them arrested?
A. Well, no, not all together. As I have stated before, as
I have testified, they were moved for reasons to avoid
trouble. We were afraid that trouble might have come,
[fol. 54] Q. I see. You were afaird trouble might occur;
from what source?
A. You can’t always tell.
Q. But, if you regarded on this occasion it was sufficiently
44
apparent to require yon to arrest them, certainly yon must
have had something in mind?
A. It is my duty to try to avoid trouble if I can, as a
police officer.
Q. I fully appreciate that. I certainly do, but I simply
asked you, where was the trouble?
A. Actually any trouble hadn’t happened but if you can
prevent trouble, it is your duty to do so.
Q. I go along with that. Are you able, sir, to say where
the trouble was?
A. I don’t know.
Q. You didn’t spot it really anywhere, did you?
A. No. We didn’t give it a chance to happen.
Q. Chief, as far as you know, is there any ordinance of
the City of Columbia regarding groups walking in concert
on the public streets of the City of Columbia?
A. With a group of over fifteen, you must have a permit.
Q. These persons weren’t charged under that ordinance?
A. We have an ordinance where you cannot block the
sidewalk.
Q. I understand you signed all of the warrants in these
cases and you signed them under the common law offense
of breach of peace?
A. Breach of the peace.
Q. You’re not charging the violation of any ordinance?
A. No.
Q. Thank you, Chief.
[fol. 55] Re-direct examination.
By Mr. Coleman:
Q. You spoke of certain orders being given by one Harry
Walker to the students, telling them to disperse and direct
ing the activities or attempting to in some way; who is
Harry Walker?
A. He is with the Governor’s Office.
Q. What is his official capacity?
A. Liaison officer, with the Governor’s Office, I think. I ’m
not sure.
Q. Did he have charge of the officers there that day?
45
A. It was my impression that day that he was substitut
ing for Chief Strom, who was out of the City. That was
my impression.
Q. I believe you stated that the behavior of the students
at times was orderly and good. Were there times when it
was not!
A. That’s right.
Q. Would you describe that, please?
A. That’s when instructions were given to the students
that they had fifteen minutes to make up their minds
whether to leave or stay.
Q. What was the nature of the activity then?
A. Hollering in a very loud voices.
Q. Did the entire group of students there, including these
defendants, appear to you to be acting in concert as a group,
as a whole?
A. I don’t get your question.
Q. The entire group of marching students, did they ap
pear to you to be acting in concert or acting together in
one common action or purpose?
A. Yes, I would say they were following their leader,
one leader, each group had a leader and, when instructions
were given by Mr. McNayr as to the fifteen minutes, they
[fol. 56] had instructions from the head of the group, which
we considered him to be the head of the group.
Q. Did it appear to you from what you saw and heard
that they were all acting together as a group ?
A. That’s right.
Q. You were questioned as to the number of officers on
the scene and the point was made that a large group of
officers might have attracted the crowd. Ordinarily, such
a group of officers are not stationed at the State House?
A. No, sir.
Q. Why were they there that day?
A. To keep order.
Q. Was they being there have any relation to the students
being there?
A. Yes. That’s why we were there.
Q. Otherwise you would not have been there?
A. No, sir.
Q. No further questions.
46
By Mr. Perry:
Q. Nevertheless, the presence of officers helped attract
the crowd, didn’t they, Chief?
A. The presence of the officers and the group of students
drew the crowd.
Q. May I ask you this, Chief? You, along with other
officers assisted in making these several arrests, didn’t you?
A. I would say I was with the group of thirty to forty,
something like that.
Q. Wouldn’t you say that all of the students submitted
peacefully to arrest?
A. When I informed them they were under arrest, they
gave no trouble.
[fol. 57] Q. I believe as a matter of fact you, along with
other officers, walked with them around with them to the
Columbia City Jail and the County Jail?
A. I lined them up and put an officer in front and in
structed them to follow him and put one on each side and
on the back. I didn’t walk with them. I rode.
Q. That’s the perogative of the Chief, I believe. These
were just young college and high school students, were
they not, obviously well-dressed, well-behaved, except for
their refusal to disperse when the officers told them to do
so?
A. I think they were all students except a few.
Q. Except a few? Thank you, Chief.
Mr. Coleman: Thank you, sir.
(Witness excused.)
Whereupon, Mr. Brandon called Mr. D an F . B e c k m a n ,
who, being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
Direct examination.
By Mr. Brandon:
Q. Will you give us your full name, Mr. Beckman?
A. Dan F. Beckman.
Q. What is your official position?
47
A. Assistant Chief, South Carolina Law Enforcement
Division.
Q. How long have you been with the Law Enforcement
Division f
A. A little over thirteen and a half years.
Q. Directing your attention to March the 2nd, the date
in question here, did you have occasion to go to the State
House grounds?
A. Yes, I did.
[fol. 58] Q. At what time did you arrive there?
A. Shortly after 12:00.
Q. After 12:00 o’clock?
A. Yes.
Q. What were the conditions existing when you got
there?
A. There were a large group of college students on
Gervais Street at the entrance to the horseshoe and, as I
got there, they started coming, they were going through
in single file or groups of twos.
Q. Going through the grounds?
A. Going through the grounds.
Q. In what direction?
A. They started down the horseshoe and I observed them
going around to the right of the building and on around
and I was informed that they were being permitted to
walk through there in a peaceful fashion.
Q. How many do you think would be your estimate were
in the group at that time, Mr. Beckman?
A. It’s hard for me to tell but I would imagine twelve
or fifteen in that first group that went through, that I had
an opportunity to see.
Q. Was there more than one group moving through?
A. At that time, I saw only one group going through.
Q. Could you see any others at any other positions around
the State House grounds ?
A. Later I did observe other groups going around the
State House.
Q. Do you know how many defendants were subsequently
arrested on that occasion?
A. That day?
48
Q. That day.
A. I believe it was 189 or 190, I ’m not certain.
[fol. 59] Q. How long did this marching continue after
you arrived there?
A. I would imagine between forty-five minutes and an
hour.
Q. Thereafter, to your knowledge, were the groups ad
vised that they had a certain period of time in which to
disperse or leave the premises?
A. Yes, sir, by Mr. McNayr. I was over facing Main
Street, that would be to the right of the horseshoe.
Q. What was the reaction of the groups of Negro stu
dents at that time, when they were infoi’med of that?
A. They started singing, hollering and shortly after that,
I imagine, they decided they didn’t want to go back to where
they came from and they started back through.
Q. What occurred when they started back through?
A. I placed a group under arrest as they started to
continue on.
Q. Other officers arrested others?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember any particular song that was sung
by those students ?
A. I believe one of them was “ I Shall Not Be Moved” .
I remember their singing the Star Spangled Banner around
on the side of the State. House; that was after they were
placed under arrest.
Q. Chief, after you had been there, did or did not any
other people or groups of people arrive?
A. Yes. I saw the groups of people over in front of the
hotel and there was a group right at the entrance of the
horseshoe. From time to time, you had to continue to ask
them to move on.
Q. Did they move on when you asked them?
A. Yes.
[fol. 60] Q. How many do you think subsequently collected
there? Give an estimate?
A. I ’d say around 250 to 300.
Q. After you had arrested this group of students, did
you learn where they had come from or do you, of your
own knowledge, know where they came from ?
49
A. Yes, I know where they came from. You mean how
they originally started from!
Q. Not particularly with reference to the marching to
the grounds, but where were they from! Where were their
homes!
A. Some of them gave their addresses from all over the
State.
Q. Did any of them come from any other schools other
than local schools here in Columbia!
A. Yes, sir. Some came from State A & M, Clafiin,
Sterner, Mathis, Benedict and some of them were high
school students. I noticed that on the arrest tickets.
Q. High school students!
A. That’s right.
Q. Any of them you know were from high schools out
of the City of Columbia!
A. No, but I recognized some from Orangeburg, students
from either one of the two schools there.
Q. The State schools over there! Chief, do you know
of any other facts in connection with this occurrence that
you would like to testify to, that you think is relevant!
A. No, sir.
Q. Answer any questions the other attorney has for
you.
[fol. 61] Cross examination.
By Mr. Sampson:
Q. Your name is Mr. Beckman, I believe!
A. That’s right.
Q. You are the Assistant Chief of SLED, is that right!
A. That’s correct.
Q. I ’d like to ask you a simple question, if I may. Who
was in charge of this arrest!
A. There was several of us that made arrests over there.
I arrested some. Chief Campbell arrested some, and other
officers arrested some.
Q. Which one of you gentlemen made the decision to
arrest these young people!
A. What!
50
Q. Which one of you gentlemen present made the deci
sion to arrest these young defendants?
A. I made my own decision.
Q. I see. It was based on your decision that the other
officers acted?
A. No.
Q. As I understand your testimony, as Assistant Chief
of SLED, you decided that some of them should be ar
rested and other officers of the City of Columbia, being-
present, independently decided that they should be arrested,
is that right ?
A. That was after Mr. McNayr asked them to disperse
and gave them fifteen minutes to disperse and all that
singing and stomping around and hollering took place, and
he asked them to leave and they didn’t leave; they continued
to go on.
Q. I see. Was it Mr. McNayr’s judgment that caused
you to arrest some of these defendants or your own judg
ment?
[fol. 62] A. What I did, I did on my own because I re
alized what possibly could take place.
Q. No conflict of authority between SLED and the City
of Columbia as to how you should arrest people for the
breach of peace ?
A. No.
Q. How long did you say that you have served as a law
enforcement officer?
A. Thirteen and a half years.
Q. Do you consider yourself an expert law enforcement
officer?
Mr. Brandon: If Your Honor please, I think the prose
cution can stipulate that Mr. Beckham is an expert law
enforcement officer.
Q. Do you, sir?
A. What is the question?
Q. Do you consider yourself an expert law enforcement
officer?
A. I consider myself a law enforcement officer based on
experience that I ’ve had.
51
Q. Had these students been students from the University
of South Carolina or similar white schools in the State of
South Carolina, would you or would not not have arrested
them based on the same conduct?
Mr. Brandon: Objection, Your Honor. We’re trying a
case of breach of peace against eight individual Negro
defendants and there’s no relevancy whatsoever as to
whether or not Chief Beckham would have arrested a white
person or a person of any color. It is presumed, of course,
that a law enforcement officer will do his duty.
The Court: I am inclined to agree with the objection but
as my policy has been, and will continue to be, to lean
[fol. 63] over backwards to see that the defendants get
justice—objection overruled.
Q. Will you proceed to answer the question ?
A. Would you repeat the question, please?
Q. I asked you, if I remember—would the reporter re
peat the question?
(Reporter repeated the question to counsel and the wit
ness.)
A. Yes, I would have. Under the same set of circum
stances, I would have. You’re exactly correct.
Q. Have you had occasion to arrest any group of white
students under the same or similar circumstances?
A. No, I haven’t.
Q. You haven’t had any in your thirteen and a half years?
A. No, I haven’t.
Q. I ask you again—I ask you this, sir: do you remember
the recent cancellation of Nixon’s speech in the City of
Columbia?
A. Recent what?
Q. The cancellation of Nixon’s speech, Vice-President
Nixon’s speech, Vice-President Nixon was running for
President and he had a speech cancelled for the State
House grounds here last fall, I believe?
A. I don’t remember the cancellation but I remember
when he spoke.
Q. You remember that?
52
A. I don’t remember when it was cancelled but I re
member when he spoke.
Q. It was postponed, I believe, from one time to another,
is that right?
A. I don’t recall that. I remember when he spoke here,
[fob 64] Q. Do you have any knowledge of whether or
not there was a demonstration on or about the State
House grounds at that time?
Mr. Brandon: If Your Honor please, I object. I object
to counsel referring to any other incident which could not
possibly have been connected with this. I think that we
are going far afield. He can probably dig up a dozen, if
he wants to. It has no bearing on this. The exclusion of
any testimony in regard to that could not possibly preju
dice these defendants. When they take such action as they
choose, they thereby elect to take the consequences and
whether or not somebody else did it or whether or not
somebody else was not arrested has no bearing on it.
Mr. Sampson: Your Honor, we withdraw the question.
Q. Mr. Beckham, can you, of your own personal knowl
edge, identify any of the particular eight defendants on
trial here this morning?
A. I didn’t get the chance to see them when they were
up here. I don’t know whether I could or not, except by
their names on the arrest tickets that we have.
Q. Let me ask you this: Mr. Beckham, since you can’t
identify them, you don’t know whether they did any of these
acts alleged in this warrant or not, do you?
A. They were part of the over-all group that were up
there—yes.
Q. Have you read this warrant ?
A. I heard the warrant read to each and every one.
Q. I asked you: have you read this warrant?
A. No, I didn’t read it but I heard it read to each one
of the defendants.
[fol. 65] Q. When you heard it read this morning, that was
the first time you had heard it read, is that right?
A. No, I had heard that warrant read before.
Q. When, sir?
53
A. When they were at the County Jail or the City Jail
and in that instance, most of these, with the exception of
probably one, were in that group. They were in the City
Jail, with the exception of probably one.
Q. Mr. Beckman, this warrant says here that traffic
was impeded. As to any of these eight defendants, can
you identify any one of them as having impeded the traffic ?
A. With the exception that they were in the over-all
group that was down there.
Q. Then, I understand you to say that these eight, if
they were apart from the group, they wouldn’t be subject
to the breach of the peace? Is that right?
A. I don’t understand that.
Q. I f these eight defendants were detached from the
group, they would not be subject to the breach of the peace,
the allegation of this warrant?
A. They were all together down there. They were all
a part of the over-all group.
Q. The truth of the matter is that you cannot identify
any of these eight defendants as to whether or not they
were singing or not, can you?
A. No, I can’t.
Q. It is also true that you cannot identify as to whether
or not they were boisterous or not? Is that right?
A. They were a part of the over-all group that were
singing and hollering.
Q. You heard these officers testify, didn’t you?
A. Part of them, yes.
[fol- 66] Q. Part of them. From what you heard, state
whether or not you recall, whether or not any of them
said anything about any profanity having been spoken
at all?
A. No, I didn’t hear any profanity at all.
Q. Mr. Beckman, state whether or not you heard any of
these defendants, these eight defendants, make any threats
to any of the officers present?
A. I didn’t hear any of them make any threats to any one.
Q. I understand that they did not act contemptuous at
all, is that right?
A. With the exception of when they were given the
54
fifteen minutes to disperse and leave and they started sing
ing and stomping their feet and shouting.
Q. I see. Ton don’t recall any of the names of the songs,
do you ?
A. One was “ I Shall Not Be Moved” . I remember that
and the Star Spangled Banner.
Q. Thank you.
(Witness excused.)
Whereupon, Mr. Coleman called Mr. A. C. S horter, J r.,
who, being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
Direct examination.
By Mr. Coleman:
Q. Mr. Shorter, do you have a physical connection with
any State Agency?
A. Yes, sir, I am Lieutenant with South Carolina Law
Enforcement Division.
[fob 67] Q. Did you have occasion on March the 2nd, last,
to be in the vicinity of the State House, in the City of Co
lumbia, on official business ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you relate in your own words anything which
might have happened, that you saw or heard or anything
of your own knowledge that occurred there that day?
A. I went to the State House, it was a little before 12:00,
and a group of young colored people came up. I don’t know
whether they were students or not. Some of them I know
to be students. They came up on Gfervais Street from
towards Assembly. I was standing by Mr. Harry Walker,
Legal Assistant to Governor Hollings, and—
Q. Just at this point, Mr. Shorter—were you working
under the direction of Mr. Walker ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Go ahead.
A. Mr. Walker told—
Mr. Perry: Your Honor, we have the same objection
to that.
The Court: Objection sustained. No hearsay.
A. It was in the presence of these defendants and the
co-defendants, Mr. Walker made certain statements. After
55
these statements were made, the students proceeded
through the State House grounds, going around the State
House to the Assembly Street side, turning left and start
ing towards Sumter Street.
Q. You are speaking of this group, this group of Negro
students, approximately 200 in number, which was previ
ously described here today!
A. This was the first part of approximately 200 group.
This group consisted of approximately twenty-five or
[fol. 68] thirty that was headed by another person, who
is not a defendant here today. On the back side of the
Capitol, I believe that’s Pendleton Street, is the State
Highway Department, the Wade Hampton Office Building
and the Calhoun Office Building, all State office buildings,
in addition to the State House being a State office building.
The people apparently were disturbed and generally dis
rupted in these buildings; they were peering from windows.
They were singing, this group, in columns of twos, and
each sidewalk that crisscrosses through the State House
grounds, they wanted to go through. Those sidewalks are
very narrow and would not allow over two people, walking-
side by side, to get through. This group of approximately
twenty-five or thirty wanted to walk through there in
columns of twos. I asked them to move on. They were very
belligerent about it but did proceed to move on down the
main sidewalk to the Sumter Street sidewalk and down
to the Gervais Street sidewalk and back to the horseshoe.
They were singing, chanting, shouting, all of this time, and
when they got there, they started back to the State House
grounds again in the same boisterous manner and I ar
rested the first group. Contrary to what was said, all of
them were not marched to the Jail, some of them were
carried in automobiles. This particular group was carried
in an automobile.
Q. Mr. Shorter, were you in the vicinity of the horseshoe
at all!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What time did you first make your appearance there ?
A. I was there when this group arrived.
[fol. 69] Q. With relations to the area of the horseshoe,
what was the appearance of the horseshoe as to persons
within that horseshoe!
56
A. When this group first arrived, there weren’t too many
bystanders, only the students stretched out down Gervais
Street. However, the longer that they stayed and paraded
around, the larger the number of bystanders got, until
approximately two, or three or four hundred—I don’t know
how many bystanders were there.
Q. How long after you first arrived did these students
march unmolested?
A. Forty-five minutes to an hour, I would say. I didn’t
time them.
Q. After this forty-five minutes to an hour period, what
was the appearance of any person who might have been
in the horseshoe then? What were the number of people
out there, so far as you were concerned?
A. In addition to the students and the police officers,
I ’d say there were two, three or four hundred bystanders
that would come by and we would immediately tell them
to move on, which most of them did.
Q. Was the street around the horseshoe, the sidewalks
around the horseshoe, were they free for traffic?
A. The horseshoe, of course, was blocked. At times, when
the students would come through, I personally told them
to not block the street and the sidewalks and the horseshoe.
Q. Did you give any personal instructions to any of the
students to disperse?
A. I did not give any personal instructions to them to
disperse.
Q. Were any official orders to disperse given to these
marchers, to these groups?
[fol. 70] A. Not in my presence, no, sir.
The Court: We will now recess for lunch. Return here
at 2 :3Q o’clock.
(Afternoon session.)
(Court reconvened at 2 :30 o’clock.)
The Court: Does the State wish to put up any more
witnesses?
Mr. Jenkins: If Your Honor please, I believe the last
witness put up by the State before lunch has not been
cross examined by the defense.
The Court: That’s correct.
57
Mr. S h o rter resumed the witness stand and testified
further as follows:
Cross examination.
By Mr. Jenkins:
Q. Mr. Shorter, I ’m not quite certain I recall the detail
of your testimony this morning, however, I do believe
that you testified that you arrested one group, didn’t you?
A. I arrested several. I said I arrested the first group.
Q. You arrested the first group that was arrested on that
day?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Now, in what area of the State House grounds were
you when the first group was arrested?
A. On the front of the State House, in front of the main
steps of the State House.
Q. Now, were the other groups in this vicinity when you
arrested this group?
A. This particular group—I do not. remember.
Q. You testified this morning, I believe on direct exam
ination, that the students that you arrested were singing?
[fol. 71] A. That’s correct.
Q. Will you state to the Court whether they were singing
prior to the arrest or whether they began singing after
your arrest ?
A. Prior to and afterwards.
_ Q- How long prior to the arrest, do you recall, did the
singing begin ?
A. I don’t remember exactly. I ’d say it had been quite
some time.
Q. Was that the first group, all of the group that you
arrested?
A. All of them that I arrested.
Q. So, it is your testimony then that these persons you
arrested that day were in the front of the State House
grounds, singing, prior to the arrest of any of them?
A. They were on the State House grounds in front of
the main steps to the State House.
58
Q. Is it your testimony that there was general singing
among the whole group prior to the arrest of any of them!
A. That is correct.
Q. I believe you testified—correction, please. Mr.
Shorter, I ’m certain you heard the testimony of Chief
Campbell and other witnesses this morning.
A. I heard part of the testimony.
Q. Did you hear testimony from these witnesses that
the persons arrested on March the 2nd had been given,
in effect, fifteen minutes in which to get off of the State
House grounds?
A. You’ll have to ask them what they said.
Q. I ’m asking you whether you heard some testimony?
[fol. 72] A. I heard part of it. I don’t recall that particu
lar part.
Q. Did you hear them testify as to that?
A. I said I did not remember that particular part of it.
Q. Do you know whether or not persons arrested on
March the 2nd had been, in effect, given fifteen minutes
to get off of the State House grounds?
A. Do you want hearsay testimony?
Q. I ’m asking you whether you know of any such limit
of time ?
A. You want me to tell you what I ’ve been told?
Mr. Jenkins: If Your Honor please, we request that the
witness be instructed to answer the question.
The Court: Answer the question.
A. Yes.
Q. The testimony of the witness for the State this morn
ing, from each of them, with the exception of yourself,
was to the effect that there was no singing prior to these
persons, who are now defendants, being given fifteen min
utes, or something to that effect, to leave the State House
grounds. Now, would you testify to that singing?
A. I do not remember such testimony.
Q. Do you recall whether or not there was any singing
on the part of the groups which you arrested, prior to their
being advised that they had fifteen minutes in which to get
off the grounds?
A. As I have testified to previously, I do not know the
exact time that they were given, the time limit to leave,
59
therefore, I cannot say whether or not they were singing
prior to their instructions to leave or not.
[fol. 73] Q. The eight defendants, who are on trial today,
can you identify them or either of them as being in either
groups that you arrested!
A. I can identify those as part of the over-all group that
was arrested at that particular time.
Q. Can you identify any of the eight on trial today as
participating in any of these specific acts alleged in the
warrant signed by Chief Campbell?
A. I can identify them as part of the groups, ail of which
were singing and causing general disturbance at the State
House.
Q. What do you base your identification of these eight
defendants on or either of them?
A. All of them were arrested and booked. They have an
swered to their names as called and, if they are telling the
truth, they are eight of the persons that were arrested that
day.
Q. Other than that, you were not able to identify either
of these defendants?
A. I doubt seriously that I could pick them out of a
crowd of three or four thousand people.
Q. Could you pick them out of a crowd of several hundred
that were on the grounds ?
A. I doubt seriously—no.
Q. Mr. Shorter, did you have any conversation with any
of the persons who were arrested on March the 2nd?
A. None other than to tell them that they were arrested,
to tell them that they could not go double file, in groups of
thirties, on the narrow sidewalks that cross the State House,
that it would block traffic and it would block the sidewalks,
and we could not have that.
Q. Did you discuss with them their purpose for being
on the grounds that day?
[fol. 74] A. I was present when the defendants had that
discussed with them. The defendants’ avowed purpose there
was to demonstrate, to walk around and around and around
the State House.
Q. Now, when you said the defendants, did you
these eight?
mean
60
A. These eight plus their co-defendants.
Q. Are you saying to the Court that you heard more
than 180 persons say to you that their purpose for being
on the grounds was as you have stated?
A. Each group had a leader. The leader was talked to
and the rest concurred by going along with their leader.
Q. Did you directly talk with either of these groups?
A. I did not directly discuss their purpose for being
there.
Q. I ’m sorry—
A. I did not directly discuss their purpose for being
there.
Q. Now, Mr. Shorter, I want to ask you another ques
tion. The groups that you arrested, stated to the Court
how many times those persons marched around the State
House?
A. I don’t remember. Several, probably. I didn’t count
them.
Q. It’s a fact that you didn’t know whether they marched
around one time or two times?
A. They had been there ample time to march around
a dozen times.
Q. Your answer is not in response to the question.
A. Would you repeat your question?
Mr. Jenkins. We move, Your Honor, that the witness’
answer to the previous question be stricken on the grounds
that it was not responsive to the question.
[fol. 75] The Court: On the basis of what?
Mr. Jenkins: The answer was not responsive to the
question that I directed to the witness.
Mr. Coleman: Strike it. It makes no difference.
The Court: Go ahead and strike it.
Q. The question was that you do not know, as a matter
of fact, whether these persons that you arrested had been
around the State House one time, two times or any number
of times ?
A. I know, to my own knowledge, that they went around
at least once; two, three, four or five, I do not know.
Q. No further questions.
(Witness excused.)
61
Mr. Coleman: The State has no further witnesses, Your
Honor.
D efen d an ts ’ M otions for D ism issal of Cases, etc .
and D e n ia l T hereof
Mr. Perry: May it please the Court, at this time, the
defendants move for a dismissal of the cases against them
upon the ground that the evidence of the State has com
pletely failed to establish the c o r p u s d e l i c t i and, since it
has not been shoAvn that any crime has been committed, the
defendants are entitled to have the cases pending against
them dismissed.
With Your Honor’s permission, I will now make a second
motion and I will make one argument as to both motions.
At this time, the defendants move for a dismissal of the
cases pending against them on the ground that the State
has completely failed to prove by competent evidence a
p r i m a f a c i e case. Now, I shall be glad to make a short
argument, off the record, unless the State has some prefer
ence in that regard.
(Arguments followed.)
The Court: The motion is denied.
[fol. 76] Mr. Perry: One further motion. At this time
the defendants move that the cases against them be dis
missed on the ground that the evidence shows that by ar
resting and prosecuting the defendants, the officers of the
State of South Carolina and of the City of Columbia were
using the police power of the State of South Carolina for
the purpose of depriving these defendants of rights secured
to them under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of
the United States Constitution. I particularly make refer
ence to freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. I shall
make no argument on that.
The Court: The motion is denied.
Mr. Perry: May it please the Court, the defendants would
like not to offer any evidence. We will have no testimony.
At this time, I would like to renew all motions for dis
62
missal, which were made at the conclusion of the State’s
case and I would ask that it be included in the record
verbatim, as if I were repeating them verbatim at this
time.
The Court: The motions are denied.
Mr. Perry: Nothing further from the defendants.
Mr. Coleman: Nothing further from the State.
The Court: The Court before reaching the verdict will
take a ten minute recess.
(Court recessed.)
(Court reconvened.)
The Court: I want to caution everyone within the court
room here that when we began this morning I made the
first rule that there would be no pictures taken. I have
information that there is a camera in here now and I want
to caution you that you will be held in contempt of court
if any pictures are taken.
Will the defendants please come before the Bench?
(Defendants arraigned before the Court.)
[fol. 77] The Court: Would the attorneys like to say any
thing before the Court renders its verdict?
Mr. Perry: Your Honor, nothing except the motions for
dismissal which we have made. I understand that Your
Honor has denied them. However, you have not yet made
your finding as to whether or not you find them guilty or
not guilty. We will reserve anything we have to say until
after you have made your finding.
S en ten ce
The Court: It’s a very hard problem that we are faced
with, all of us, white people and Negroes also. When I talk
to these eight and look upon the faces of the young, actually
they are children, some of them, and perhaps counsel
doesn’t realize—I imagine you do—that I ’ve been in office
only thirty days. Prior to that, I worked with young people,
devoted my life to helping young people, as the Juvenile
Officer of this County. I have about as many Negro friends
63
as I have white friends and I ’m proud of it, but there is
one thing that disturbs me more than anything else, that
this fight over segregation or integration has nothing to
do with children because we are the ones, me included, we
adults are the ones that have caused this problem. I don’t
think it’s up to me to tell my little baby girl, five years
old, to fight my battles for me. I don’t think it’s up to the
people; I don’t think the decent people expect it, expect
children to fight our battles. My battle, your battle, our
adults’ battles, whites, Negroes, all of us.
It’s been many a day that I have taken children home
with me, foundling children. I took off my own shoes in
my own home and gave them to a boy to go to school.
To me the greatest asset that we have or shall ever have
is our youth.
(The Court then questioned each defendant individually
as to his age, home address, school, etc.)
[fol. 78] To each of you, James Edwards, Jr., Alvester
Pate, Jr., Pinckney Mosley, Melvin Brown, Jr., Harold
Eugene Nimmons, Willie Boykin Jones, William Perkins,
Bill Alvin Sullivan, it is the finding of the Court that you
are guilty without question. No defense was put up in
your behalf and the sentence of the Court is that each of
you pay a fine of $100.00 or 30 days in the County Jail.
However, I ’m going to do something here, which the law
forbids me to do, but I make it public to each one of you
minors—how many of you are 211 (Only one, James Ed
wards, Jr., raised his hand.) To each one of you minors,
I ’m going to suspend half of that on the payment of a fine
of $50.00.
There is something else that has come to my attention
during the hearing of this testimony today. Getting back
to we adults using children and minors to fight our battles,
adults’ battles, Negroes and whites, those who would use,
misdirect, lead a child into a dangerous situation and yes,
it’s dangerous. What happened yesterday? A Negro was
stabbed right up here, one block from where we are, by a
man, a cowardly man that he was. It is a dangerous situa
tion. I would pass out if I knew my child was put in a
64
position that some violence could happen. We have fanatics
in both races, extremists.
From the evidence that has come out to me today, and
the testimony, there are indications from that sworn testi
mony of violations of another State law, contributing to
the delinquency of a minor. It is Section 16-556.1, Code of
Laws of South Carolina, 1960 Cumulative Supplement. “ It
shall be unlawful for any person over twenty-one years of
age to knowingly and wilfully encourage, aid, cause or to
do any act which would cause or influence a minor to (1)
violate any law or municipal ordinance; become and be an
[fol. 79] incorrigible, ungovernable or habitual disobedient
beyond the control of his parents, guardian or custodian or
lawful authority; become a habitual truant without just
cause and without the consent of his parents, guardian or
other custodian; repeatedly desert his home or place; en
gage in any occupation which is in violation of the law;
associate with immoral or vicious persons; frequent any
place, the existence of which is in violation of the law;
habitual use of obscene or profane language; beg or solicit
aims in any public place under any pretense or so deport
himself as to wilfully injure and endanger his morals or
health or health of others. Any person violating the provi
sions of Section 16-556.1 (which I have just read) shall
upon conviction be fined not more than $3,000.00 or im
prisoned for not more than three years, or both, at the dis
cretion of the Court.”
Chief Beckham, of the Law Enforcement Division, hold
that man under immediate arrest until I can issue a war
rant charging him with contributing to the delinquency of
a minor, which I will issue. Also, I want and request that
the State Law Enforcement Division, the City Police and
the Sheriff Department start an immediate investigation
into this whole thing, as to who, what, when, where, why
and how the adults have violated, in my opinion, this sec
tion of the law.
I do hope that each one of you, with all my heart, will
not be placed in this position again or place others in this
position.
65
Mr. Perry: May it please the Court, we have several
more motions we would like to make.
The Court: The defendants may now take their seats.
Mr. Perry: May it please the Court, the defendants
now, at this time, respectfully move for arrest of judgment
or in the alternative, for a new trial upon all grounds pre-
[fol. 80] viously noted in the several motions for dismissal.
We urge that they be repeated in the record as fully as if
I were repeating them verbatim here.
Mr. Coleman: The State opposes on the grounds set out
in the previous argument.
Mr. Perry: We renew the three motions.
The Court: All motions denied.
Mr. Perry: The defendants, at this time, give verbal
notice of appeal. We will tender written notice. We ask
that the Court at this time set an appeal bond for de
liverance.
The Court: The appeal bond for each one of the defen
dants will be $100.00.
Mr. Perry: All right, sir. With reference to defendant,
James Edwnrds, Jr., at this time, we ask that bond be
set for this young man.
The Court: In this instance, it will be $5,000.00.
Mr. Perry: Will you continue the defendants under the
appearance bonds, which have previously been posted until
we can handle the administrative problems necessary to
the substitution of the appeal bonds ?
The Court: When would that be? We will allow until
Thursday morning at 10:00 o’clock, with the exception of
the person who is 21 years old, with that one exception.
(Court adjourned.)
Reporter’s Certificate to foregoing transcript (omitted in
printing).
66
[fol. 81]
T ran script op T estim o n y
Before Honorable Frank Powell, Magistrate, on Monday,
March 13, 1961, Richland County Court House, Columbia,
South Carolina.
A p pe a r a n c e s :
For the State: J. C. Coleman, Esq.
For the Defendants: Lincoln C. Jenkins, Jr., Esq.,
Matthew J. Perry, Esq.
The Court: I would like to announce the rules of the
Court. There will be no photographs or pictures of any
type taken within this courtroom during this hearing.
Every one who wishes to attend may attend as long as
there is a seat available. There will be no standing up
around the walls, cluttering up or any outbursts what
soever.
The State of South Carolina’s court has before it a war
rant charging the following persons for breach of the
peace: George Cleveland Foster, James Jerome Kirton,
Isaac Washington, Roland Johnnie Rhames, Joseph B.
Bailey, Isaac Jerome Campbell, Davie Green, Charles Ful
ton Barr.
Are these persons present?
Mr. Jenkins: They are present, Your Honor.
The Court: Are they represented by an attorney?
Mr. Perry: They are, sir.
The Court: Will those persons, please, approach the
Bench?
(Defendants arraigned before the Court.)
The Court: Are you the persons just named charged
with breach of the peace in Columbia, South Carolina,
Richland County, on March 2nd, 1961?
Defendants: We are (in unison), yes, sir.
The Court: Take your seats.
[fol. 82] Mr. Jenkins: At this time, if Your Honor pleases,
we would like to state that these defendants plead Not
Guilty.
The Court: Is the defense ready for trial?
67
Mr, Perry: We are ready.
The Court: Is the State ready for trial!
Mr. Coleman: The State is ready.
Whereupon, Mr. Coleman called Mr. I r v i n g G. M cNayr
who, being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
Direct examination.
By Mr. Coleman:
Q. Mr. McNayr, I believe you are the City Manager of
the City of Columbia, South Carolina?
A. I am, yes, sir.
Q. As such City Manager, state whether or not the law
enforcement agency of the City of Columbia, the Columbia
City Police Department, is under your supervision?
A. The Police Department of the City of Columbia is
under my direct supervision.
Q. State whether or not anything occurred of an unusual
nature on last March 2nd, which required you to be in the
vicinity of the State House grounds?
A. On March the 2nd, at about 10:45, I received a tele
phone call from Chief Campbell informing me that he had
been informed that a meeting was being held at the Zion
Baptist Church on Washington Street, and that, following
that meeting, there would be a march and demonstration
at the State House grounds.
Q. As a result of receiving that information, what did
you do?
[fol. S3] A. I then asked Chief Campbell to pick me up at
City Hall, to take me to the Zion Baptist Church, which he
did.
Q. Where did you go from Zion Baptist Church?
A. From Zion Baptist Church, after we saw the Negro
students beginning to leave the church and forming into
groups of approximately—oh, fifteen to twenty, Chief
Campbell then drove me to what is known commonly as
the horseshoe at the State House grounds.
Q. I see. That is the area immediately in front of the
front steps of the State House, where the monument stands ?
A. Yes, sir.
6 8
Q. What time did you get there?
A. We got there at approximately 11:45—11:30 or 11:45.
Q. What did you observe at that place?
A. After about a five or ten minute wait, during which
we observed that there were police officers, those from the
City* of Columbia, from the State of South Carolina Law
Enforcement Division and some State Highway Patrol in
that vicinity. We then observed the students, the Negro
students marching up in groups, as I have described, up
Gervais Street, moving East on Gervais Street toward the
Capitol.
Q. Can you estimate the approximate number of the
Negro students you observed?
A. I estimated at that time something around 200 Negro
students.
Q. Did it appear to you that they were acting in a group
or in concert, from the physical appearance of the students?
A. There was no question in my mind but that they were
acting as a group and in concert.
[fol. 84] Q. Did you have any conversation with the stu
dents at that time ?
A. Not at that time, no, sir.
Q. What did you do, with regard to the group, at that
particular time ?
A. I did nothing in regard to the group other than chat
and stand around with Chief Campbell or other police
officers and with Mr. Harry Walker of the Governor’s
Office.
Q. You were acting as an observer at that time?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. This was what time, again, please?
A. This was approximately 11:45.
Q. What course of action, if any, did the Negro students,
to which you have just referred, take then?
A. The Negro group then formed along the sidewalk be
tween Assembly Street and the horseshoe, on the sidewalk
adjacent to the Capitol, and each group was met by Mr.
Walker and received instructions from him.
Q. Did you hear the instructions given to the students?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What was the nature of the instructions?
69
Mr. Perry: May it please the Court, we respectfully
interpose an objection at this time to any statement made
by other persons not a defendant on trial in this case on
the ground that it would be violative of the hearsay rule.
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, I have a particular
purpose for getting this testimony in but this same objec
tion was made last time when we tried a group under
similar circumstances here and I would like to clarify one
matter, so far as I am concerned and that is about the
hearsay rule. If this question is answered by Mr. McNayr,
[fob 85] he is not giving information that was passed to
him by a third party. The question was: were any in
structions given these students, which you heard yourself.
Should he testify, should he answer that question, he is
not testifying to something which was related to him by
a third person. He is testifying to something which he ac
tually was there and heard so, unless there is some other
objection, I think the question and answer are both per
missible so far as the hearsay rule goes.
Mr. Perry: May it please the Court, as I understand
the hearsay rule, I think the matters, about which Mr.
Coleman has just addressed himself, are precisely the mat
ters covered by the hearsay rule. He seeks from this wit
ness testimony which would, of necessity, repeat words
which were spoken by Mr. Walker to the individuals who
formed the procession about which Mr. McNayr is testify
ing. Obviously, the best source of information, which would
be available in that particular regard, would be the per
son who gave the instructions. To permit this witness to
testify concerning verbal instructions which were given by
someone else would deprive these defendants of the right
to cross examine that person concerning the content and
nature of the instructions and that is precisely what the
rule against hearsay evidence is predicated upon. We,
therefore, urge that the testimony, which is now sought to
be elicited, would be violative of the hearsay rule.
Mr. Coleman: I have nothing further.
The Court: Objection sustained.
Q. Mr. McNayr, what course of action did the Negro
students take after that, after you met them?
70
A. After the incident which I described, the Negro stu
dents were then allowed to walk through the State House
[fol. 86] grounds in small groups. They proceeded to do
that, many of them circling the Capitol Building, some few
moving down the sidewalk towards Assembly Street. The
great majority, however, circled through the State House
grounds and then forming in a processional line on the
sidewalk—I have my directions wrong this morning—I
think West of the horseshoe area, along Gervais Street.
Q. How long approximately, if you can testify of your
own knowledge, did this activity take!
A. Approximately three quarters of an hour.
Q. During that three quarters of an hour, did you ob
serve whether or not there was any interference with the
students during that three quarters of an hour!
A. I observed no interference. I believe many of the
groups were accompanied by police officers, either from
the City of Columbia or from SLED.
Q. Then, so far as you know, they were allowed to pro
ceed for three quarters of an hour without any interference
whatsoever?
A. Yes, they were.
Q. All right. After this period of time, what occurred?
A. During the period which they were walking through
the State House Grounds, a crowd of people were gather
ing, both within the horseshoe area on the Capitol side of
the street and also on the opposite side of Gervais, par
ticularly at the entrance to Main Street, the sidewalk area
adjacent to the Wade Hampton Hotel and I believe it’s
the Palmetto State Life Insurance Building on the other
corner. I have estimated the crowd at somewhere around
300 or 350 people, other than the students. This was dur-
[fol. 87] ing the lunch period and more and more people
were proceeding from other State office buildings, I as
sumed, through the State House Grounds, also, those per
sons coming down to lunch in the downtown area would
be gathering in the crowd.
Q. I believe, Mr. McNayr, there are sidewalks on each
side of the horseshoe?
A. Yes, there are.
71
Q. I believe, also, there are lanes for vehicular traffic
on each side of the monument on each side of the horseshoe
area f
A. Yes, sir, there are.
Q. These people, whom you have testified had just begun
to gather within this area, where were they with relation
to the sidewalks and the streets for vehicular traffic!
A. Many of them were gathering on the sidewalks, ad
jacent to these sidewalks, and into the what would normally
be the traveled way for cars parking within that horseshoe
area.
Q. So far as it appeared to you that it might or might
not have any effect on the pedestrian and vehicular traffic
along those sidewalks and along those vehicular lanes, this
crowd or number of'people, who had gathered, other than
the students, did they have any effect on that pedestrian
and vehicular traffic, so far as you could tell!
A. Yes, they did. Chief Campbell had to place an officer
in the intersection of Gervais and Main to direct traffic
because a group like that normally would slow down traffic
anyway, going on Gervais and Main, and, in addition to
that, we had on numerous occasions to order the people
[fol. 88] to move out of the pedestrian walkways so that
groups could get through.
Q. Did this crowed gather all at once or did it increase
over the period of three quarters of an hour?
A. It increased all during that period.
Q. Did it appear to you that it was increasing and would
increase further at that time?
A. Yes, it did.
Q. All right. What action then, if any, did you take?
A. When the groups, after they came through the State
Capitol Grounds and started to form on the sidewalk West
of the horseshoe area, I then got in touch wdth the recog
nized leader of the group, David Carter, who was in that
immediate vicinity and told him that because of the gather
ing of the crowd, because of the fact that the sidewalks
were being blocked, because there was always in a group
like that a chance for violence and rioting to occur, that I
felt that the students must be dispersed and asked him to
72
request each group to disperse and to go in orderly fashion
back to their cars or their campus in small groups.
Q. Do you know of your own personal knowledge whether
or not David Carter did relay this information to the
various groups'!
A. Yes, I do. I was in his presence, oh, for fifteen min
utes. I failed to add in my previous testimony that I told
him that I felt that they should have fifteen minutes in
which to disperse.
Mr. Perry; May it please the Court, I now offer a be
lated objection to any conversation with a person not on
trial in this proceeding. Now, I do recognize that the
witness has identified the person, whom he had this con
versation with, as the recognized leader of the group. We
[fob 89] hasten to add that this person is not today on
trial and any conversation, which Mr. McNavr had with
him, is irrelevant to the proceeding against the persons on
trial this morning. We, therefore, interpose an objection
on the grounds of irrelevancy of that testimony and we
move that all testimony with reference to the subject be
stricken from the record.
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, we are dealing here
with a large crowd of people. It is manifestly impossible
for Mr. McNayr or any one else, even if he had done so,
to remember giving any instructions to the particular de
fendants on trial here today. He has testified that the en
tire body of students, consisting of 200, maybe a little more
or a little less, were acting in concert as a group. These
defendants were amongst that group. He has testified that
this David Carter appeared to him and was the recognized
leader of that group. Any instructions, any information
which was conveyed by Mr. McNayr could not possibly
have been conveyed individually to each of the 200 people
there. As far as it being relevant, I should think it’s prob
ably the most relevant point in the case. The students
were allowed to demonstrate, to march for three quarters of
an hour. Mr. McNayr has testified that they were allowed
to do so entirely unmolested. Nobody bothered them.
Crowds began to gather, apparently attracted by these
demonstrations, streets were blocked, sidewalks were
73
blocked, it was up to him to give some official instructions
to this group. He couldn’t go to each one. He gave it to
the recognized leader. The leader gave it to the students
in his presence. He is not testifying to what anybody told
him. We can’t show that and it’s impossible to ever deal
[fol. 90] in that manner with any crowd of people.
Mr. Perry: By way of reply, may I say, first of all, that
there is no evidence that the eight defendants on trial
today were involved in the procession of individuals on
March the 2nd, unless Your Honor considers the fact that
they later made bond, while under arrest at the City or
County jail, as evidence of their complicity in the activities
of the day previous. I respectfully urge that the fact that
they later made bond does not show that they engaged in
any procession. That being the case, the statement made
by Mr. Coleman in that particular respect that the proffered
testimony of Mr. McNayr at this time would tend to show
that these defendants received a communication is not
borne out by the logical sequence of the events as the
evidence now relates them to be. We respectfully show
that the testimony now sought to be elicited is irrelevant
because it constitutes a conversation which occurred be
tween Mr. McNayr and the individual whom he identified
as the recognized leader of the group. It is not shown that
the conversation was with either of these defendants and
we, therefore, respectfully submit that his testimony is
irrelevant to the issues of this case today.
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, Mr. McNayr has
not testified that he and David Carter or anyone else gave
instructions to these individual defendants. The activities
of this entire group is the very body of the crime with
which they are charged and he is testifying as to official
instructions which were given to the large group, not the
individual defendants.
[fol. 91] The Court: Objection overruled. The witness
will answer the question.
Q. Mr. McNayr, will you please proceed with your testi
mony. You had just testified that you had given certain in
structions to David Carter and David Carter had relayed
that information to various groups of students in your
presence ?
74
A. Yes. 1 stayed with David. Each group was brought
up and he talked to them. He did not give the instructions
as I gave them to him. I gave them to him in much the
same manner as I am speaking at the moment—
Mr. Perry: Now, may it please the Court, we respect
fully object to testimony concerning what David Carter
may or may not have stated to other persons. We want it
included in the objection on the ground that that is in viola
tion of the rule of hearsay. Now, my previous objection
was different. My previous objection was to any conversa
tion between Mr. McNayr and David Carter. Of course,
Your Honor has overruled that objection but now the ob
jection is to the instructions, which David Carter may or
may not have communicated to the other individuals. Now,
Your Honor has previously ruled out testimony concerning
what another State official communicated to the defendants
by way of instructions. I respectfully submit that any in
structions which David Carter may have communicated
would be subject to the same objection, which we inter
posed previously, on the ground that it violates the hearsay
rule.
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, since the question
is not very important, I ’ll withdraw it.
[fol. 92] Q. Mr. McNayr, after your conversation with
David Carter, would you describe the activities of the
Negro students, after you approached them yourself, and
with David Carter!
A. There developed a singing, chanting, shouting re
sponse, such as one would get in a religious atmosphere;
loud singing, stomping and so on, on the part of each
group of students and the students as a whole.
Q. Was this audible for some distance!
A. I would guess it was audible all throughout the area.
Mr. Perry: I object to that testimony. It is speculative.
A. It is.
Q. Did the students disperse after the chanting, which
you have just described?
A. No, they did not.
Q. What was the size of the crowd of people in the horse
shoe area, Mr. McNayr, at that time, with relation to what
it had been when you first got there?
75
A. It had grown from a relatively small group of prob
ably 30 to 35 people to something in the neighborhood of
a 100 to 150 within the horseshoe area.
Q. What effect, if any, did this gathering of persons in
or about the horseshoe appear to you to have on traffic,
say on Gervais Street!
A. It was slowing up traffic on Gervais Street. Any loud
singing, stomping of the feet and so on, such as occurred,
would tend, of course, to slow down any traffic.
Mr. Perry: Objection. That testimony is speculative.
A. This is not speculative. This I observed.
[fol. 93] Mr. Coleman: The witness has testified as to
what he saw and it is not speculative.
Mr. Perry: It is not what he is testifying to in response
to Mr. Coleman’s question as to what effect it had on traffic.
If the witness is being responsive to Mr. Coleman, the wit
ness is testifying as to the effect that the singing had on
moving traffic.
Mr. Coleman: The question didn’t have anything to do
with the singing. The question was what effect did the
gathering of persons in the horseshoe appear to have on
traffic.
Mr. Perry: There again, Your Honor, I ’m sure, of course,
you are familiar with the area described as the horseshoe
in front of the State House Grounds, and the testimony, as
I understand it, is that the groups of persons were as
sembled, at least in part, within the horseshoe area. There
is no testimony that these persons extended out into the
intersection of Main and Gervais, therefore, testimony on
the part of Mr. McNayr as to the effect of an assemblage
within the horseshoe area upon traffic on Gervais Street
would of necessity be speculative. It involved the giving
of a conclusion on the part of this witness, which I feel
the Court, in the interest of the expeditious and impartial
administration of justice, should not permit. I think the
answers, which the witness is giving to prove the State’s
position, they have sought to prove it, except that we deny
that it constitutes a breach of peace. They can prove their
case without going into speculative testimony or testimony
which tends to represent the conclusions of the witness.
76
Q. Mr. McNayr, have you observed from time to time—
[fol. 94] Mr. Coleman: Pardon me, did your objection re
late to the whole testimony!
The Court: As the Court understands your objection,
it is just to the effect what Mr. McNayr saw on the traffic
that was moving on Gervais Street.
Mr. Perry: As I understood the question, that was my
objection.
The Court: Objection sustained.
Q. Mr. McNayr, are you familiar with and have you ob
served from time to time the normal flow of traffic on
Gervais Street!
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Did you observe the traffic on Gervais Street at the
time you just spoke of when the crowd of persons had
gathered in the horseshoe?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was it normal!
A. The traffic was very considerably slowed down. There
was a large volume of traffic but it had slowed down con
siderably.
Q. State whether or not there was any congestion of
traffic ?
A. Yes, there was congestion.
Q. All right, sir. What official action, if any, did you
take at that time, Mr. McNayr, after the failure of the
students, as you have testified to, to disperse?
A. I then informed Chief Campbell of my conversations
with David Carter and, after waiting the fifteen minute
period, he proceeded to arrest all of the Negro students in
the State House area, both on the sidewalk and those still
within the State House Grounds. He was aided during
this period, of course, by the South Carolina Law Enforce
ment Division officers.
[fol. 95] The Court: Court will take a 15 minute recess.
(Court reconvened.)
77
Cross examination.
By Mr. Perry:
Q. Mr. McNayr, I believe that you have stated that
you are in charge of the police activities in the City of
Columbia by virtue of your being City Manager!
A. Yes, I am.
Q. On March the 2nd, how many officers of the Columbia
City Police Department did you have assembled in the
area around the State House Grounds!
A. I think you would have to re-word your question:
how many officers were assembled there. I would guess
somewhere between twenty and thirty.
Q. I see. May I ask, sir, were they all congregated in
the area which you describe as the horseshoe or were they
all scattered around on other parts of the State House
property?
A. They were not immediately assembled there in the
horseshoe but they were largely within the horseshoe area,
yes.
Q. I see. Sir, as you observed the various groups of
Negro students approaching the State House Grounds, I
believe you have stated that they approached in groups,
which were separated from each other but obviously moving
in concert?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you describe the size of the various groups?
A. I would say they varied in size, anywhere from fifteen
to thirty.
Q. I see. Now, those various groups, which you have
described, were walking, I believe you said, upon the side
walks, first of all, adjacent to the State House property
[fol. 96] and later they entered the State House Grounds,
after having stopped and received some instructions from
a State Government official!
A. That’s correct.
Q. In what manner were they proceeding? Were they,
for instance, walking single file or walking two abreast or
would you describe the manner in which they were pro
ceeding?
78
A. When they moved to the State House originally or
after receiving instructions!
Q. May I ask you, sir, to touch upon how they were
walking originally and how they later walked?
A. Originally, they were walking in pairs, two abreast,
If I recall correctly, they continued to walk through the
Grounds two abreast,
Q. I see. Mow, as I understand, the sidewalks that are
placed on the State House Grounds are wide enough for
more than two persons to walk upon them, are they not?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. Was it possible for any persons, other than the stu
dents engaged in this procession, to walk upon the side
walks at the same time?
A. It was possible but, I would say, difficult because
I am not thoroughly familiar with all of the walks of the
State House Grounds and they may well have broken into
single file in order to let others pass.
Q. Now, sir, as you observed the procession of students
walking, as you say, in separate groups, in columns of twos,
to paraphrase what you have said, will you describe how
far apart each two students were walking behind each
other? My question really is, were they walking as far
[fol. 97] apart as arm’s length or were they walking farther
apart than that ?
A. I would say at arm length or closer.
Q. Arm’s length or closer. Now, sir, you were present
and at least in command of the Columbia City Police on
this occasion, did you receive any complaint from any per
son who complained of not having been able to use the
sidewalks or to pass?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. I see. Who was that person!
A. There were a number of persons, I can’t identify
them as such, they were mostly white ladies coming through
the State House Grounds from apparently a State Office
Building on the other side.
Q. Now, may I ask you to comment, sir, upon the nature
of the complaints that were made to you?
A. The nature generally was very general, to the effect
that they didn’t think this sort of thing should be allowed,
79
that they were having difficulty passing through the State
House Grounds going to their accustomed eating places.
Q. I see, but they obviously were successful in passing
through the State House Grounds. They were not prohib
ited by any conduct.
A . They were successful in getting as far as me. I don’t
know what happened to them.
Q. Were the persons engaged in the procession well
dressed and generally well demeaned!
A. Yes, they were.
Q. Except for the fact that at one point, about which
you have already testified, concerning the fact that they
started singing, except for the singing itself, was their con
duct generally well behaved ?
[fob 98] A. I also testified that they were not only singing
but stamping their feet, shouting, responding to a harangue.
Q. Now, at this time—
A. I would not in answer to your question call them
well behaved at that stage.
Q. Prior to that time, you will agree that they were well
behaved!
A. Yes.
Q. May I ask you, sir, when in point of time did you,
acting in your official capacity, either yourself or your
officers place the persons engaged in the procession under
arrest or directed that they be placed under arrest!
A. Which do you want to know! Do you want to know
when I gave the instructions that they be dispersed within
fifteen minutes or when they were actually placed under
arrest?
Q. My question had to do with when were they placed
under arrest?
A. I can answer this one exactly—at exactly a quarter
past one.
Q. Now, at the time the persons were placed under ar
rest, were they singing ?
A. Yes. I think I could add, singing and stomping their
feet and yelling and shouting.
Q. Now, of course, you do not know whether any of these
defendants wrnre so engaged, do you?
A. I can identify a few of them by sight. I don’t know
8 0
their names. There were at least three or four of them
I could place right there at the scene.
Q. What song or songs were they singing?
[fol. 99] A. As I testified at the last hearing, there was so
much noise and shouting and singing going on that at first
I couldn’t identify. I think you informed me and I do
recollect that they were singing the Star Spangled Banner;
then they had one of their own apparently, the hymn sort
of thing, “We will not go along” or something of that
nature.
Q. So, they were singing the Star Spangled Banner in
what you would describe as a loud tone?
A. Loud and boisterous.
Q. Now, sir, you did not say boisterous before. Let’s con
sider—what do you mean by boisterous ?
A. Again, loud, flamboyant, all of those synonyms de
scribing boisterousness, which you have made.
Q. I ’m afraid that doesn’t describe the term; perhaps
you did not use the term boisterous. I understand that
you did say they were loud, but do I understand that you
are accusing them of singing the Star Spangled Banner
in any manner other than a respectful one?
A. Yes, I am, and I meant to imply that, actually. They
were shouting; they were stomping their feet; they were
raising their hands, in a manner which I would describe as
boisterous.
Q. Were they disrespectful to you?
A. Yes, very definitely.
Q. Disrespectful in what manner, sir !
A. In the manner of not following any orderly proce
dure, continuing to shout and yell. They had been aroused
to this pitch. You did not allow me to give the testimony
of the harangue which raised them to this point but they
were aroused to a fever pitch causing this boisterousness,
this singing and stomping.
[fol. 100] Q. Did any of them use any profanity?
A. No, I heard no profanity.
Q. Did any of them act contemptuous towards you or
towards any bystanders ?
A. Only in the manner of shouting and singing as I have
described; no leering or anything like that.
81
Q. The singing of the Star Spangled Banner would not
express contempt towards you, would it1?
A. It was in contempt of my request, yes.
Q. May I ask you, Mr. McNayr, why did you direct the
arrest of the defendants or the persons involved in the
procession!
A. Because, in my judgment, the size of the crowd had
reached such proportions that I felt that it was possible
that we might have a riot or other violence in the area.
Q. Now, what led you to believe that there might be a
riot!
A. Simply by the size of the crowd, by the activities of
the students, the rousing of the interest of those persons
in the crowd to a point where they might well have rioted.
Q, Did you observe any persons among the on-lookers
who tried to do violence or to in any manner interfere with
the persons engaged in the procession!
A. I saw no actual violence. There were in the crowd,
however, types of people whom we recognize were willing,
ready and able and eager to create violence.
Q. What, if anything, did you do as the Commander-
in-Chief of the Columbia Police on this occasion to in
terfere with those potential trouble makers, other than
ordering the arrest of the persons engaged in the pro
cession!
[fob 101] A. That was the principal thing to do, to get
rid of the source of the potential trouble.
Q. You have just described the persons in the procession
as being generally well behaved up until they started sing
ing!
A. Yes.
Q. I believe that you have not sought to testify that
any of them were of a violent attitude. You said some were
boisterous but you have not said they were violent.
A. That’s correct.
Q. You have not said that any of them were potentially
trouble makers or of a violent attitude!
A. I don’t believe I ’ve said that. I don’t recognize them
as potential trouble makers other than the fact that they—
Q. You never arrested the recognized persons among
the on-lookers who were potential trouble makers!
A. No.
8 2
Q. And yet you did nothing about them?
A. There was nothing that I could do. They were not
developing any activity which could have led to their ar
rest, but the students were.
Q. But you recognized that their mere presence led you,
if I ’m quoting you correctly, to in your judgment to feel
that the situation had gone far enough?
A. That is correct.
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, counsel said that
Mr. McNayr testified that their mere presence created this
thing and I ’m quite sure if the testimony is read back, it
was not their presence but that combined with the activi-
[fol. 102] ties. I ’m not trying to testify as to what the
witness said but he is misquoting him there.
Mr. Perry: I did not intend to alter any of Mr. McNayr’s
testimony. I do apologize.
The Court: Objection sustained.
Mr. Perry: Thank you, sir. No further questions.
( Witness excused.)
Whereupon, Mr. Coleman called Chief L. J. C am pbell
who, being first duly sworn, testified as follows :
Direct examination.
By Mr. Coleman:
Q. Your full name is L. J. Campbell?
A. That’s right.
Q. Are you the Chief of Police of the City of Columbia?
A. I am.
Q. Did anything occur of an unusual nature on last
March the 2nd which caused you to be in the vicinity of
the horseshoe of the State House Grounds?
A. Yes. I had information that there would be a march
on the State House Grounds on the morning of March the
2nd.
Q. As a result of that information, did you go to the
State House Grounds?
A. I did.
83
Q. What time did you arrive there!
A. I would say about 11 ;15 or 11:30, somewhere around
there.
Q. Where exactly or in what immediate vicinity did you
station yourself!
[fol. 103] A. At the intersection of the horseshoe and
Gervais and Main.
Q. Would you state what you observed at that time!
A. When I arrived, I observed a group of students com
ing East on Gervais in the direction of the State House
from Gadsden Street.
Q. Would you describe the appearance of this group
of students!
A. Well, groups of from fifteen to twenty and there were
several groups travelling in the direction of the State
House.
Q. Were they Negro students!
A. They were.
Q. How close together, if you can tell us, Chief Campbell,
were these groups!
A. I believe they were a third of a block apart or some
thing like that.
Q. Can you estimate the size of the entire group of
students!
A. I thought there was in the neighborhood of 200, in
my opinion.
Q. What did the students do ?
A. They marched on to the corner of the horseshoe at
Gervais and Main, on the West side. They were approached
there by Mr. Walker, the legal assistant to the Governor,
and myself and Mr. McNayr, and I believe Mr. Shorter was
there ; I don’t remember whether Mr. Beckman was there
or not. Mr. Shorter was, I know.
Q. Did either of the students or anyone acting on their
behalf with them make any statement in your presence at
that time!
[fol. 104] A. Students! The only statement that was made
at that time was that they were asked by Mr. Walker, if
the student who was leading, was he in charge of their
group.
84
Q. I)o you remember who that student was?
A. No.
Q. All right. Describe the activity, if any, which the
students engaged in thereafter?
A. Well, they proceeded to go through the State House
Grounds and they were instructed that they had a right
to go through the State House Grounds but it must be
peaceful.
Q, How long did this activity continue?
A. I would say for forty-five minutes or longer, maybe
forty-five minutes.
Q. Chief Campbell, when you first arrived at the horse
shoe, were there any other people in and about the horse
shoe except the students ?
A. When we first arrived, the students had not arrived.
Q. Were there any other people in or about the horse
shoe at that time ?
A. There were some police officers in and around the
horseshoe area and a few civilians.
Q. What do you mean by a few?
A. I ’d say fifteen or twenty civilians.
Q. How long did this procedure or this marching or walk
ing around the State House Grounds continue ?
A. I ’d say approximately forty-five minutes or longer.
Q. Did you remain in the horseshoe during this period
of time ?
A. I did.
[fol. 105] Q. Describe what you observed as to whether or
not there were any people in the horseshoe after the forty-
five-minute period?
A. A large crowd had assembled.
Q. What were they doing?
A. Mingling around, talking, congesting the intersection.
Q. With relation to the sidewalks on either side of the
horseshoe, the lanes for vehicular traffic, where was this
crowd of people ?
A. Of course, they were crossing back and forth on
Gervais Street, on the sidewmlks, on the horseshoe and all
around the intersection.
Q. State whether or not this crowd appeared to you
to be impeding traffic?
85
A. They did. We placed a man at the intersection to
handle motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic.
Q. Were any of the Negro students in or about the
horseshoe at this time?
A. They would cross the horseshoe from the West to
the East and from the East to the West on the sidewalks.
Q. Do I understand you to say that they were in a
process of continual movements in and about the State
House Grounds, including the horseshoe?
A. That’s correct.
Q. All right, sir. After the forty-five minute period had
expired, what action, if any, did you take?
A. Mr. McNayr instructed David Carter, who we con
sidered the leader, whom we have dealt with for a period
of a year, that the crowd was gathering and we would like
for them to disperse within fifteen minutes.
[fol. 106] Q. Did they disperse at the end of the fifteen
minutes ?
A. They did not.
Q. What action, if any, did you then take?
A. We arrested them at 1 :15.
Q. Chief Campbell, how long have you been a police
officer?
A. Thirty-one years.
Q. All of that time in the City of Columbia !
A. Yes, sir.
Q. State whether or not the presence of these students,
that you have testified to, the presence of the increased
crowd of on-lookers, as you have testified, had any effect
on any official action that you took there that day?
A. Yes, it did. When a large group of people gather
on an occasion of that kind, you never know what’s in the
mind of people so I felt, for the safety of everybody con
cerned, that the demonstration should be discontinued.
Q. Was this the reason for your participation in the
arrest of these students?
A. That’s correct.
8 6
Cross examination.
By Mr. Jenkins:
Q. Chief Campbell, I believe your testimony is that the
persons on that day were participating in a so-called
demonstration in walking groups, is that right?
A. That’s correct.
Q. You testified as to the size of the individual groups?
A. I ’d say they ran from fifteen to twenty normally.
At times it was larger groups than that. Now, on the
[fol. 107] State House Grounds, I think probably two
groups might get together, you know, in shuffling around.
I would say there were larger groups at times.
Q. I believe you stated that the groups were approxi
mately one-third of a block apart but walking East on
Gervais Street towards the State House Grounds?
A. I would say approximately that.
Q. You were present, I believe, at the horseshoe when
the groups were stopped, the individual groups?
A. That’s right.
Q. Now, when these groups were stopped, did that tend
to make the second group move closer to the first group?
A. It did.
Q. And perhaps lose its identity as a separate group
from the first group, is that correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. That was after the group in front had been stopped,
however, isn’t it?
A. That’s correct.
Q. I believe you testified that each individual group
was stopped near the horseshoe?
A. That's correct.
Q. Then they proceeded on to the State House Grounds?
A. That is correct.
Q. I read your affidavit on the warrant and on that affi
davit you stated that some of these persons in the groups
were bearing placards, is that correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Did you examine any of these placards ?
A. I read some of the signs, religious things, words
referring to demonstration.
87
ffol. 108] Q. Words referring to what, Chief!
A. Demonstration. I ’ve forgotten what was on them;
seems like it was religious verses, for one thing. I couldn’t
say.
Q. Do you recall whether or not some placards carried
what you would call discrimination slogans!
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall that some of these placards carried
wording to the effect that they were protesting against
certain conditions!
A. I would say that was the wording. I couldn’t tell you
what it was, but I would say that was what was meant.
Q, That’s the general sense!
A. That’s right.
Q. Chief, did you form any opinion as to the purpose
of that march on that day!
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, that has utterly
nothing to do with the charge of the breach of the peace
brought here today, Chief’s opinion on what the purpose
of the march might have been. We’re getting into the
sociological question and that is not involved here. We’re
dealing here with the activities of these defendants, acting
in concert, a large group of students and their purpose
in being there is not related to the question before the
Court today.
The Court: Objection sustained.
Q. Chief, did you talk with any of these persons who
participated in the march on that day!
A. I don’t believe I did, direct, I might have talked to
Dave Carter, I think I did.
Q. Did you hear—
A, I did talk to Dave Carter, yes.
[fol. 109] Q. When these persons walked along in groups,
were they conversing among themselves !
A. Yes, some.
Q. Do you recall anything which they may have said!
A. No, I can’t,
Q, Now, when they were marching East on Gervais Street
in individual groups approaching the horseshoe, did you
8 8
observe them obstructing any traffic, vehicular or pedes
trian ?
A. Of course, when they stopped, they probably did
obstruct some traffic. They were twro abreast and probably
single file could have gotten by all right. Still, at that
time, they had not been given instructions.
Q. Prior to being stopped by you and other police
officers, they had obstructed no traffic!
A. I said they were in pairs and I would say a single file
could have gotten by all right.
Q. Now, they walked peaceably on to the State House
Grounds!
A. That’s correct.
Q. Do you recall whether or not they were carrying
placards at that time!
A. They were at the beginning.
Q. Do you recall what finally happened as far as the
placards are concerned?
A. I can’t swear but I think that Dave Carter taken
up the cards. He did take up some, I know7, but whether
he taken up all, I don’t know.
Q. Did you, Chief, walk around the State House Build
ing with any of these persons ?
A. I did not. I stayed at the horseshoe. I placed men
over the grounds.
[fol. 110] Q. Did any of your men make a report that
any of these persons were disorderly in walking around
the State House Grounds ?
A. They did not.
Q. Under normal circumstances your men would report
to you when you are at the scene?
A. They should.
Q. Is it reasonable to assume then that there wras no
disorderly conduct on the part of these persons, since you
received no report from your officers?
A. I would take that for granted, yes.
Q. Now, Chief, when these groups of persons were
stopped there at the horseshoe to be given certain instruc
tions, it tended to slow down the whole walk, did it not!
A. Slow down the walk ?
89
Q. Slow down the normal manner in which the groups
were walking, isn’t that true?
A. I couldn’t answer that.
Q. Did all of the various groups of persons go on to
the State Capitol Grounds?
A. They did.
Q. Did they ever at any one time congregate themselves
together in a massed group ?
A. I don’t know whether yon would call it massed;
I would say that I saw two or three of the groups get to
gether when they came out of the State House grounds and
hack up the sidewalk headed West, they did cross the inter
section at the horseshoe back to the West corner.
Q. Do I understand your testimony to be then that as
they marched around the State House Grounds and came
back West, when they got here at the horseshoe some of
the groups tended to come together?
[fol. I l l ] A. That’s right,
Q. Were they tending to come together because there
were other persons standing there around the horseshoe?
A. Yes, other people were standing around the horseshoe.
Q. I believe, also, you were there stationed with other
officers and, at this time, gave instructions to some of the
group as to dispersement ?
A. Mr. McNayr did.
Q. You were present?
A. That’s right.
Q. Was it not at that time, also, that these persons
tended to come together in larger numbers?
A. No, they would come together in larger numbers
waiting for the walk light in the traffic lights.
Q. They were, then, observing the traffic regulations?
A. That’s right,
Q. So that, as any normal group of persons on the street
tend to do when they come to a street where it has a red
traffic signal, he would just have to stop?
A. That’s it.
Q. That would normally mean that you would come to
gether closer?
A. That’s right.
Q. Your testimony is, Chief, that there never was at
any time any one grouping of all of these persons together ?
90
A. All? No, I wouldn’t say that.
Q. From all appearances, they were trying to keep from
creating any traffic congestion. Would you state that as
a fact?
[fol. 112] Mr. Coleman: He can’t state as a fact what
these students tended to do.
The Court: Objection sustained.
Q. Chief, you have been in law enforcement, I believe
you said for thirty-one years?
A. Yes.
Q. Chief, do you recognize any of these eight defendants
today as having been arrested by you or any of your officers ?
A. I couldn’t identify them, no.
Q. Do you recognize any of them as having participated
in any specific act on March the 2nd, which led to the
arrest of those persons?
A. The only thing I can say here is that they answered
to their names when they were called and their names are
on the arrest record and their fingerprints are on the
arrest record, but as to identifying one or picking out one,
I could not.
Q. As to identifying what any one did, while on the
State House grounds or in that vicinity, you cannot iden
tify them ?
A. I could not.
Q. Now, because of your training, Chief, what you had
observed would stick in your mind, is that not true? Very
keenly, isn’t that true ?
A. What I observed, yes.
Q. Now, your special training as a police officer would
make images that you observed stick keenly in your mind?
A. What I observed ?
Q. Yes.
A. Well, I ’d say a majority of it would, yes.
[fol. 113] Q. Because of your training, incidents which
take place in your presence would register more keenly
than with a normal person, isn’t that true?
A. Well, it could. Naturally I try to observe.
Q. If you had observed these defendants or any of them
91
breaching the peace, that would have registered with you,
would it not?
A. Well, it did register.
Q. Yet, Chief, I believe you testified that you had no
conscious impression of any of these individuals participat
ing in any act which led to their arrest! Did you not
testify to that!
A. They were with a group that carried cards; they
were with a group that were singing and they were with
a group which were very loud and boisterous.
Q. That is an assumption, which you yourself have tes
tified that you made, because down at Police Headquarters
they answered to their names, they were fingerprinted, they
were charged with the breach of the peace!
A. With a group of people, yes.
Q. Chief, do you recall any individual making a com
plaint to you that they were not able to use the sidewalks
or cross the streets because of these persons involved!
A. I had a couple of people to make the remark “ Won’t
you move these people, they are causing congestion” and
so forth. I don’t know who they were.
Q. Chief, I am reading from the official transcript of
the hearing held on Tuesday, March, the 7th, and I am
reading from your testimony. “Q. Within your view, did
they block anything! A. At times they blocked the side
walks and we asked them to move over and they did.
Q. Did they obey your commands on that! A. Yes. Q. So
[fol. 114] that nobody complained that he wanted to use
the sidewalk and he could not do it! A. I didn’t have any
complaints on that.” Do you recall that testimony, sir?
A. I don’t remember.
Q. You were here the day that that testimony was given?
A. I said that I had remarks from a couple of people
and they said “Why don’t you move these people away
from here? They are causing congestion.”
Q. But that was just in general a remark?
A. A general remark. I wouldn’t say -who it was, I
couldn’t tell you who it was.
Q. They didn’t state that they, individually, were in
convenienced?
92
A. I think I did testify that I did ask pedestrians to
move on and not block the sidewalks.
Q. I believe you did testify to that. You also testified that
they moved on at your command ?
A. That’s right.
Q, Did you arrest on that day, in that area, Chief, any
one other than the persons who are defendants before this
Court today and other persons charged with the breach of
the peace ?
A. There were 189 or 190 arrested.
Q. They were persons which you say participated in the
walk through the State House grounds ?
A. That’s correct,
Q. You made no arrest of anyone else, other than these
persons?
A. No.
Q. No persons who were a part of the on-looking group
was arrested?
A. No,
[fol. 115] Re-direct examination.
Q, Thank you. No further questions.
By Mr. Coleman:
Q. Chief , just a moment.
Mr. Coleman: May I see the warrant. Your Honor?
The Court: Yes. (Handing warrant to counsel.)
Q. Chief, I have in my hand a paper entitled “Arrest
Warrant”, State against George Cleveland Foster, James
Jerome Kirton, Isaac Washington, Roland Johnnie Rhames,
Joseph B. Bailey, Isaac Jerome Campbell, David Green and
Charles Fulton Barr. Do you recognize that paper ?
A. Yes, sir, that’s my signature.
Q. Do you recognize the persons who are named therein
as having been within the group of names of persons which
were arrested on March the 2nd and a part of the student
group about which testimony has previously been given?
A. These names ŵ ere called.
93
Mr. Jenkins: If Your Honor please, we will agree that
the record will show that these eight defendants were
charged on that warrant, they were arrested and that he
signed the arrest records and they were fingerprinted, also.
Q. Were any other persons, other than the ones brought
down to the Police Station and for which warrants were
issued and which you signed, arrested that day in and
around the State House grounds, to your knowledge?
A. Did I sign warrants against any other group ?
Q. Yes.
A. I did.
Q. Any other except the students involved in the demon
strations ?
A. No.
[fol. 116] Q. So, then, the persons named in here were a
part of the larger group which had been arrested by you
and other officers and brought to the Police Station from
the State House grounds!
A. That’s correct. The names were called that night by
the Judge and they answered to their names in my pres
ence.
Q. Chief, you were questioned on cross examination at
length about the appearance and orderliness of the student
group. Were they orderly at all times?
A. Not at the last.
Q. Would you describe the activities at the last?
A. As I have stated, they were singing and, also, when
they were getting certain instructions, they were very loud
and boisterous.
Re-cross examination.
By Mr. Jenkins:
Q. As I understand your answer to the last question
posed by counsel, you said after they were given certain
instructions they became loud and boisterous?
A. Yes.
Q. Were those the instructions, which previously have
been testified to, that they had fifteen minutes, or something
to that effect, to leave the grounds?
94
A. I believe your question is was that—
Q. Let me rephrase the question. Chief, we were talking
about certain instructions given them and after them they
became loud and boisterous f
A. That is correct.
Q. Now, were those the instructions to the effect that
they would have a certain length of time in which to leave
these grounds?
A. That is correct.
Q. Chief, I am reading again from your testimony the
other day and, in answer to a question, you said this:
[fol. 117] “Well, they were singing and right noisy at
times, particularly after the order was given to give them
fifteen minutes to disband”. Do you recall that?
A. I just testified to that.
Q. Now, when you said today, in response to question
from counsel, that they were singing and boisterous, you
meant the same “ that they were singing and right noisy at
times” ?
A. That’s right. I think they mean the same thing.
(Witness excused.)
Whereupon, Mr. Coleman called Mr. D a n B e c k m a n ,
who, being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
Direct examination.
By Mr. Coleman:
Q. Mr. Beckman, what is your occupation?
A. Assistant Chief, South Carolina Law Enforcement
Division.
Q. In your official capacity, Mr. Beckman, as a member
of the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, did you
have occasion last March, the 2nd, to be in the vicinity of
the State House grounds in the City of Columbia?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What time did you arrive that day?
A, Bight around noon, maybe a little after.
Q. Could you locate yourself upon arrival as to the front,
95
back or side of the State House! Where, were you with
relation to the horseshoe?
A. I got there shortly before noon. There were a few
officers from the Sheriff’s Department, maybe five or six
from the Sheriff’s Department, may be one of our men,
[fol. 118] and I went on around to the back of the building.
Q. What, if anything, occurred after your arrival?
A. I came around from the back of the building, that
was around on, I guess, South Main Street side, I came
back around and I did observe one or two groups of colored
people walking around the State House Building, wdiich
would be, facing Main Street, going around in this direction
(indicating to the right), and other groups followed after
that. Several police officers were around.
Q. Did this activity of the students to which you refer
continue ?
A. It continued for forty-five minutes, maybe an hour.
Q. Did you observe the area in and around the horseshoe
upon your arrival at the State House grounds ?
A. You mean when I first arrived or when the group
started going through?
Q. When you first arrived?
A. It was clear. There wasn’t anybody around there at
that time. The officers that I observed were standing up
on the State House steps. I didn’t pay any attention much
because I didn’t notice anybody around at that time.
Q. Within your personal knowledge, what occurred with
relation to persons in the horseshoe or the absence of per
sons in the horseshoe during that forty-five-minute period?
A. Well, there was a large crowd of people in that area.
It was right around lunch time and I believe I observed
Mr. Walker talking to a group. I was in the back part,
about middle-ways in there.
[fol. 119] Q. With regard to the sidewalks on either side
of the monument and the lanes for vehicular traffic on
each side of the horseshoe, where were these crowds lo
cated ?
A. They were up on the corners, the corner of Gervais
and the horseshoe, across the street; there were a group
of people gathering over there by the hotel and I noticed a
group of people across from the other corner, I think
96
that’s the Palmetto Building over there, and there were
people to the right, on the corner of Gervais and the horse
shoe, and all around up in front.
Q. Were these people included in the crowd occupying
the streets, the sidewalks ?
A. Some of them were. Some were on the sidewalks and
some were in the front of that horseshoe. I observed some
in front of the horseshoe area.
Q. Was the traffic moving in a normal manner or had it
become stationary, more or less?
A. The traffic was moving slow at that time. If anybody
had tried to get in that horseshoe, certainly they would
have been held up trying to get in or out at that time.
Cross examination.
By Mr. Perry:
Q. Lieutenant Beckman, you said if anybody had tried
to use that road around the horseshoe they would have
been blocked?
A. I ’m satisfied they would have had difficulty getting
in or out.
Q. Did anybody attempt to use that, sir ?
A. I didn’t observe anyone trying to use it, any vehicle
trying to get out of there.
Q. Thank you, Lieutenant Beckman. Lieutenant Beck
man, I understand that you, too, were present and ob-
[fol. 120] served the students as they walked around the
State House premises for some time?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Now, Chief Campbell has stated that generally the
students were well demeaned. Do you agree with that
statement?
A. To a certain extent.
Q. To a certain point?
A. That’s correct.
Q. I believe, at which time he stated that they started
singing in what he described as a noisy fashion?
A. That’s right.
Q. Now, sir, Chief Campbell also stated that as he
observed the students walking through the State House
97
grounds, they were at times, some of them, in columns
of twos and in some instances he observed them single file.
Did you observe the same thing!
A. That’s correct.
Q. Did you, sir, observe that persons who also wanted
to use the sidewalks were able to do so!
A. At times the sidewalks were blocked and they could
not have gone through unless somebody asked them to
move, I ’ll have to put it that way. The sidewalks were
blocked at times.
Q. In that regard, Chief Campbell said that some of
the persons engaged in the procession of students tended
to block the sidewalks and, when he directed them to move
on, they did. Is such your observation!
A. That’s correct.
Q. So, that even if any of the students who were en
gaged in the procession did tend at times to block the
sidewalks, whenever you or Chief Campbell or some other
[fol. 121] officer directed them to move on and not congest
the sidewalk, they generally obeyed that command!
A. I didn’t have the opportunity to have to ask any of
them to move.
Q. I believe that your testimony, just as Chief Campbell’s
is, is that their behavior was good generally until they
were told by the authorities to disperse!
A. That’s correct.
Q. Lieutenant Beckman, do you recognize any of the eight
persons on trial today as having been engaged in any par
ticular part of the procession on March the 2nd!
A. The only way that I could identify them, as part of
the over-all group, by fingerprints on their cards as being
eight of the number when they were booked at the City Jail.
Q. You cannot definitely, other than by normal police
methods of identification, identify them?
A. I think there is one, but I wouldn’t want to say. I ’m
not absolutely positive.
Q. I see. Lieutenant Beckman, were you the ranking-
official from the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division
present that day?
A. I was.
98
Q. How many other members of your staff were present?
A. Two.
Q. I believe you testified the other day that, while you
were cooperating with the other officials, nevertheless you
made your decision independently?
A. That’s correct.
Q. At what time did you decide to place any group of
persons under arrest?
[fol. 122] A. I would say approximately five minutes after
Mr. McNayr had talked with David Carter.
Q. I see. Were you present at the time that Mr. McNayr
talked with David Carter ?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you remain in the general area where Mr. McNayr
was or did you move to another area?
A. I moved over, maybe thirty feet.
Q. Did you observe any of the signs that any of the
students might have been carrying?
A. I saw their signs but I don’t recall any of the word
ing on any of them, but I remember looking at them, but
I don’t remember what they were.
Q. So far as you were able to observe, the nearly 200
persons engaged in this procession were generally orderly?
A. I would say, yes ; but from then on, no.
Q. From then on what ?
A. No, I would say they were disorderly, they were
noisy.
Q. Now, you say they were noisy? Were they talking
loud or singing loud?
A. Singing loud, hollering, clapping their hands, stomp
ing their feet and that singing continued on, even after
they had been arrested.
Q. How long did the singing go on before they were
placed under arrest?
A. I would say about five minutes after Mr. McNayr had
talked with them, about that long I ’d say.
Q. Did any of the persons involved in this procession
threaten you or any other officer with bodily harm?
A. No one threatened me.
[fol. 123] Q. I see. So far as you were able to observe,
99
did they threaten any onlooker?
A. I didn’t hear them threaten any one.
Q. Were any of them armed?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Re-direct examination.
By Mr. Coleman:
Q. Mr. Beckman, getting back just a minute to this horse
shoe immediately in front of the State House, now, at the
time the arrests were first begun, the time of the first
arrest, and immediately preceding that, say for five minutes
or longer, was that horseshoe in front .of the State House
clear, other than normal traffic, where a vehicle wishing
to use it could have used it without interference?
A. I would say maybe, at times, but it’s narrow up in
the front there; you don’t have very much room to get a
car in or out up there and, if a car had wanted to come
through, probably somebody would have to get somebody
to move out the way because there were people up in there.
Mr. Coleman: No further questions.
Re-cross examination.
By Mr. Perry:
Q. Lieutenant Beckman, the area, which has been gen
erally described here as the horseshoe area in front: of
the State House grounds, is not really a thoroughfare, is it?
A. No, it’s an entrance and exit for those having business
in the State House.
Q. Wouldn’t you describe that area as a parking area
instead of a thoroughfare?
A. I ’ve used that as a parking area and I ’ve used it to
transact business in there, at times.
[fob 124] Q. Generally speaking, whenever you have en
tered that area in your automobile, you have been there for
the purpose of parking your car ?
A. To carry on business in there, sometimes I have
parked in there.
1 0 0
Q. In other words, you just don’t normally drive in
and around that horseshoe for the purpose of using that
as a street or getting to any particular point?
A. I used it to get in the State House.
Q. You do not agree that that area is more for parking
than for a thoroughfare ?
A. It’s used as both.
Mr. Perry: That’s all.
Mr. Coleman: No further questions.
(Witness excused.)
Whereupon, Mr. Coleman called Mr. A. C. S h o rter , J r,
who, being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
Direct examination.
By Mr. Coleman:
Q. Mr. Shorter, where are you employed?
A. South Carolina Law Enforcement Division.
Q. Did you have occasion on last March the 2nd to
carry out any official duty in the vicinity of the State House
or the State House grounds in the city of Columbia?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. Mr. Shorter, have you ever before had occasion to
be on the State House grounds in your official capacity?
A. Yes, sir, I have.
[fob 125] Q. Would you relate what caused you to be
there that time?
Mr. Perry: I ’m at a loss to understand the relevancy of
Mr. Shorter’s previous business on the State House
grounds. I, therefore, interpose an objection.
Q. Mr. Shorter, when you were ordered to make an
appearance on the State House grounds on last March
the 2nd, did you do that solely for the purpose of at all
of preventing any persons from walking in or around the
State House grounds ?
A. I did not do that for any purpose of depriving any
body of the use of the State House grounds.
1 0 1
Q. Do you know whether or not, of your own personal
knowledge, any request that has been previously made
from any organization or any person for any demonstration
on the State House grounds 1
Mr. Perry: I object to that question on the ground
that I know of no law which requires any one to secure
permission to use the State House grounds, nor has it been
made to appear that, even if it is necessary to secure the
permission, that the permission of Lieutenant Shorter
should be secured. Therefore, I object to the question on
the grounds of its irrelevancy.
Q. Mr. Shorter, we will leave that without going into it.
What time did you arrive on the State House grounds last
March the 2nd?
A. Shortly before noon.
Q. Did you observe the horseshoe at that time?
A. I did, sir.
Q. Describe what you saw?
A. When I first arrived, there were several officers
there. I joined Chief Campbell, City Manager McNayr,
Mr. Harry Walker and other officers. Shortly after I
joined them, the group of Negro students, walking double
[fol. 126] file, two abreast, approached the west side of the
horseshoe from the west, on Gervais Street. After they
approached this horseshoe and, as a result of the conversa
tion there, they proceeded through the State House grounds,
around the west side of the State House to Pendleton Street
and there east, on the sidewalk of Pendleton Street. They
were two abreast and approximately thirty in number. As
they arrived at each very narrow sidewalk there, there is
only room for about two people to walk abreast; they
wanted to go through. They were in more or less zig-zag
formation. At the first sidewalk, I told them they could not
go through in that manner, that the sidewalks crisscross
and that they would block traffic, that they would also
prevent anyone from passing or meeting them and going
about their orderly business. I, also, observed the State
House, the Wade Hampton Office Building and the Calhoun
Office Building, and in each of these there were persons
at windows observing this general demonstration there on
1 0 2
the State House grounds. The leader of that group, whom
I know, was very belligerent in that he would not accept
my suggestion on each sidewalk, hut as he approached each
and every sidewalk on Pendleton, Sumter and back on
Gervais Streets, back to the horseshoe, he again said “ We
want to go through here” . He said nothing about being
single file or dispersing into smaller groups. He did get
back to the horseshoe and started back around the State
House. How many times they went around, I do not know.
They were singing, shouting, clapping their feet and hands
and, at that time, I proceeded to make some arrests.
[fob 127] Cross examination.
By Mr. Perry:
Q. Mr. Shorter, do I understand you are Lieutenant
Shorter!
A. That is correct.
Q. Are you of equal rank with Lieutenant Beckman of
the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division!
A. Would you repeat that?
Q. Are you of equal rank with Lieutenant Beckman?
A. Lieutenant Beckman is not Lieutenant Beckman. He
is the Assistant Chief Beckman.
Q. Thank you for correcting me on that. Then you are
not of equal rank with Assistant Chief Beckman?
A. I am not.
Q. Was Assistant Chief Beckman in charge of any per
sons, who might have been present from the South Carolina
Law Enforcement Division?
A. Assistant Chief Beckman was on the State House
grounds and we were not together at all times. As offi
cers, we have to make our own decisions. I made mine
and I ’m sure he made his.
Q. You mean to say you acted independently of Assistant
Chief Beckman?
A. I was not acting independently of him but working
with him.
Q. You were in cooperation with him?
A. That is correct.
103
Q. If you were acting in cooperation with him, as your
superior officer, you were taking orders from him, weren’t
you?
A. Not on each individual arrest, no.
Q. But generally speaking, you were subject to his com
mand, weren’t you?
[fob 128] A. I was subject to his command. He ordered
that I be there to keep the peace and that’s what I tried
to do.
Q. Now, sir, nobody has said anything about your being
there to protect the peace.
A. You asked the question and I answered it,
Q. You were there subject to the command of Assistant
Chief Beckman?
A. That is a large block, as you know.
Q. Did you see the same thing that he saw?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Were you always in his presence?
A, I don’t know.
Q. You should be able to know that. You know a lot
more about what happened that day.
A. I know what I did. I don’t know what he did.
Q. Were you in his presence at all times?
A. I don’t know.
Mr. Perry: I respectfully submit, Your Honor, that this
witness ought to be required to answer that.
The Court: The witness will answer the question: were
you or were you not in the presence of Assistant Chief
Beckman ?
A. Your Honor, I respectfully submit that I do not know
whether I was in the presence of Assistant Chief Beckman
at all times. I’d say this, I did not see him at all times.
Q. All right. Were you in any times in the presence of
Chief Campbell of the City Police?
A. I was at times in the presence of Chief Campbell.
Q. Were you in the presence of Mr. McNayr, the City
Manager?
A. I was at times in the presence of Mr. McNayr, the
City Manager.
[fob 129] Q. Were you in the horseshoe area, going into
104
the State House grounds, at the time the procession of
students first entered the State House grounds?
A. T believe I arrived prior to their entering the State
House grounds.
Q. Therefore, you saw the same tiling that the other
officers saw?
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, he is obviously
asking a question which he cannot answer. How can this
witness testify that he saw the same tiling as somebody
else saw? I have let counsel go pretty far along this line,
but how can a man possibly testify to any such thing?
Mr. Perry: Your Honor, I respectfully submit that I
am on cross examination and you should allow me wide
latitude with this witness. He obviously has seen more
than anybody else saw and, therefore, we want to cross
examine him.
Mr. Coleman: There’s no testimony whatsoever that this
man saw any more than any other person.
Mr. Perry: You read the record and you will see that
he says he saw more.
The Court: Objection sustained.
Q. Now, let me ask you this, Lieutenant Shorter. Mr.
Beckman says that the procession of students were orderly
in every respect until they were told to disperse. Do you
differ from Assistant Chief Beckman’s testimony in that
regard?
A. I did not hear the students when they were told to
disperse as I have testified previously. I do not know wThen
they were told to disperse.
Q. But your testimony is that when they first entered
the grounds they were singing and shouting?
[fol. 130] A. My testimony is that as they went around
the State House they were belligerent and trying to go
through and block the crisscross walkways in the State
House grounds rather than to follow my suggestions to
single file and in smaller numbers and that’s what I ’m
saying.
Q. Who were they belligerent to?
A. To me.
Q. In what manner were they belligerent to you?
105
A. By not following my suggestions that they would block
those narrow sidewalks and those crisscross sidewalks in the
State House property.
Q. Now, Chief Campbell says the group walked through,
double abreast, columns of twos and in some instances sin
gle file. Does your testimony differ from that?
* A. I ’m telling you what I saw and what I heard. Chief
Campbell will have to testify for himself.
Q. I ’m just wondering really why did you see something
that Chief Campbell did not see !
Mr. Coleman: Your Honor, I hate to keep interrupting
counsel but, as a basic principle of law, this man cannot
be put up here to witness and play off incident by incident,
testimony bv testimony, against some other witness. He
has testified as to what he saw. He may be cross exam
ined as to what he said. He may not be cross examined
as to what somebody else did.
Mr. Perry: He can say whether or not he understands
the facts as the other witnesses understood them. Your
Honor, I respectfully submit now, and before you make
your ruling, I urgently request permission to proceed to
cross examine this witness because it is quite obvious that
his testimony is varying materially from other witnesses
[fol. 131] who have testified in this proceeding and I think
that Your Honor is entitled to be made to realize in what
manner his testimony varies.
The Court: Objection sustained as to the testimony per
taining to what Chief Campbell saw. He can testify as to
what he himself saw and as to what was seen by Chief
Campbell, we will rule that out.
Q. As I understand you to say, Lieutenant Shorter, you
said that you heard people singing the first time they went
around the State House grounds'!
A. I did not testify to that.
Q. Just say yes or no.
A. I said that I did not testify to that. You asked me—-
Q. Did you understand that question? You heard them
singing when they first went around?
A. I said no.
106
Q. Now, when yon did hear them first singing, what
were they singing l
A. I don’t remember what they sang.
Q. Would you recognize the Star Spangled Banner if
you heard it!
A. If it were sung out there, I think I would recognize it.
Q. Was it sung!
A. I don’t remember hearing it.
Q. Now, did you follow the same group of persons around
the State House grounds at all times or did you station
yourself at some point on the grounds?
A. I followed one group entirely around the State House
grounds and then I walked about the State House grounds
to see that nothing took place out of order.
Q. You say you walked about the State House grounds
to see that nothing took place out of order ?
[fob 132] A. Correct.
Q. Did you become aware of the persons as they were
congregating on the streets adjacent to the State House
grounds!
A. J did observe a number of persons.
Q. Do you recognize any of the defendants before the
Court today as being a part of the procession on March
2nd ?
A. Would you ask them to stand up?
Q. Well, they are all sitting down. I believe you have
had an opportunity to observe them?
A. If you’ll ask them to stand up, I will tell you yes or
no, whether I can recognize them.
Q. You have had an opportunity to observe them.
Mr. Perry: I respectfully submit. Judge, that this man
can say whether or not he recognizes any of the group,
persons, on that day. If he does or he doesn’t, he can say!
The Court: The witness from his viewpoint can see if
he recognizes them. If he can’t, let him say so.
A. I can recognize some persons in the courtroom.
The Court: This first row here are the eight defendants.
A. No, I cannot recognize any of those eight.
Q. Did any of these defendants on trial today or did
any person threaten you in any manner?
107
A. Threaten me!
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. Did they attempt to do you bodily harm in any way
whatsoever ?
A. No.
Q. When you placed certain persons under arrest, did
they submit peaceably to that arrest?
[fol. 133] A. I don’t know how peacefully they submitted
to the arrest.
Q. Did they resist arrest?
A. They were singing and shouting and clapping their
hands and what not. I don’t consider that to be peacefully.
Mr. Perry: Your Honor, that does not respond to my
question. I move that that answer be stricken and that
the witness be directed to answer the previous question
as to whether or not any of the defendants resisted his
arrest.
Mr. Coleman: Judge, if you please, may I comment on
this? Counsel has come pretty close to arguing that this
man has got to answer the question yes or no in all eases.
I believe he has adequately described the activity, what
these people did and why they were being placed under
arrest. It’s hard to tell what resist arrest means. Cer
tainly a witness doesn’t have to answer yes or no without
any qualification or explanation to his answer.
Mr. Perry: Your Honor, he knows whether they resisted
or not.
The Court: The question of resisting arrest is not before
the Court at this time. The question is breach of the peace.
They were put under arrest and you want to know were
they peaceful?
Mr. Perry: No, sir, I was really asking whether or not
they resisted arrest or whether they submitted to the arrest
without any difficulty.
The Court: The charge is breach of the peace so we will
assume that they did not resist arrest. The Court will
assume that.
Mr. Perry: All right, sir. That’s all.
(Witness excused.)
1 0 8
[fol. 134] Mr. Coleman: We have no further witnesses.
The Court: Court is recessed until 2:00 o’clock.
(Afternoon session.)
(Court reconvened at 2:00.)
D e f e n d a n t s ’ M o t i o n s f o b D i s m i s s a l o f C a s e s , E t c .,
a n d D e n i a l T h e r e o f
Mr. Perry: May it please the Court, at this time, the
defendants move to dismiss the cases pending against them
on the grounds that the State has failed to establish the
c o r p u s d e l i c t i . We further move to dismiss the case on
the ground that the State has failed to prove a p r i m e - f a c i e
case. I will make no argument on that motion.
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, sufficient evidence
is in the record, sufficient to prove the crime and associate
the eight defendants here today with that crime, breach of
peace, and, therefore, we oppose counsel’s motion.
The Court: The motion is denied.
Mr. Perry: May it please the Court, at this time the
defendants move to dismiss the case against them on the
ground that, by arrest and prosecution of these defendants,
the police powers of the State of South Carolina are being
used to deprive the defendants of the right of freedom of
assembly and to freedom of speech guaranteed to them
by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
and further secured to them under the able protection and
due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution, the evidence conclusively show
ing that at the time of their arrest the defendants were
included in a peaceful and lawful assemblage of persons,
orderly in every respect upon the public streets of the State
of South Carolina. That is the motion and there is no
argument.
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, the State opposes
that motion on the ground that, if there ever has been a
[fol. 135] case of this nature more clearly shown, the law
enforcement officers had leaned over backward in order to
permit an orderly demonstration and did permit a dem
onstration. The evidence is clear that they were not inter
109
fered with until such time as it became, in a manner, dis
orderly. The facts show that circumstances surrounding
the whole occurrence created a breach of the peace, in lieu
of a situation which a much worse breach would have oc
curred had it not been stopped.
The Court: The motion is denied.
Whereupon, Mr. Jenkins called J a m e s J e r o m e K ir t o x ,
who, being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
Direct examination.
By Mr. Jenkins:
Q. Mr. Kirton, speak loudly enough so that we can clearly
understand you because your testimony will be reported
by the Reporter. You are one of the defendants on trial
here today?
A. That is correct.
Q. You were arrested with a group of persons on the
2nd day of March, 1961, is that correct?
A. I was.
Q. Will you relate to the Court the circumstances leading
up to your arrest that day?
A. On March the 2nd, 1961, a group of students left
Benedict College and proceeded to Zion Baptist Church;
arriving at Zion Baptist Church, we held something of a
semi-pep rally to reaffirm those things which we believe in.
We divided up into groups of fifteen to eighteen possibly
and proceeded to the State House grounds. We were
stopped near the State House grounds, I ’m not familiar
[fob 136] with the streets, and we were detained by some
official, I ’m not certain of his name either. Then we pro
ceeded on the grounds and we went around once. Then we
were detained again by an officer and we were asked to dis
perse and to depart from the area.
Q. Now, let’s go back a little bit. You met at Zion Bap
tist Church?
A. That is correct.
Q. Now. you say there were a group of students from
Benedict College?
A. Yes.
1 1 0
Q. Were there persons from other places as well?
A. I believe there were.
Q. Now, yon said that you had a meeting of some sort?
A. That is correct.
Q. Will you state the purpose of the meeting?
A. The purpose of the meeting was to reaffirm our be
liefs concerning segregation and the general principle of
discrimination in order that we may proceed from there
and go to the State House grounds.
Q. Now, you walked up the street, I believe you said,
in groups of fifteen or eighteen?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall the appropriate distance between the
groups of persons?
A. Possibly a half block. You mean between groups?
Q. Between groups?
A. Possibly a half block.
Q. Did you have any particular order or formation with
in the groups themselves!
A. Yes.
Q. Would you care to state how you were walking?
[fob 137] A. We were two abreast, walking on the appro
priate side of the street.
Q. I would imagine there was some general conversa
tion among the persons in the groups?
A. If there was, I didn’t notice it.
Q. You just walked along without talking to each other?
A. Without talking.
Q. Did you carry anything in vour hands!
A. Some of us had signs or placards.
Q. Placards?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Were you holding them in your hands or how were
you carrying them?
A. Some had them in their hands and others had them
around their necks.
Q. Did you have a placard ?
A. I did.
Q. What was on it?
A. I am proud to be a Negro.
Q. When you were walking through the streets on your
Ill
way towards the State House grounds, did you observe the
regular traffic regulations and so forth!
A. I did.
Q. Incidentally, in what group were you?
A. Second to the last.
Q. When you got to the State House grounds, other
groups had already gotten there?
A. Yes, they were.
Q. And you said your group was stopped by some person
at the State House grounds?
A. That is correct.
Q. You were allowed to go on to the grounds, is that
correct?
[fol. 138] A. We were.
Q. Would you care to state your purpose for going on
to the State House grounds?
A. The purpose was to submit a protest to the citizens
of South Carolina, along with the Legislative Bodies of
South Carolina, our feelings and our dissatisfaction with
the present condition of discriminator)' actions against
Negroes, in general, and to let them know that wTe were
dissatisfied and that we wrnuld like for the laws which
prohibited Negro privileges in this State to be removed.
Q. That was your purpose individually?
A. Individually.
Q. Had you heard a similar purpose stated to others of
your comrades?
A. That is correct.
Q. Would you care to state if that was the general pur
pose of all of you that participated in this movement ?
A. The general feeling of the group v7as that segrega
tion in South Carolina and discrimination was against the
general principles of humanity and that we would like to
see them removed.
Q. Why did you pick the State House grounds to go on?
A. Our law7 officials, our government officials are there
and they make the lav7s to represent the citizens of this
State, and I felt they should be awTare of our particular
feelings.
Q. Why did you pick this particular means of expressing
your grievance?
1 1 2
A. I hoped that this would be an effective one to let them
know that we, as citizens and as students, did not agree
with the general principles of segregation and we were
[fol. 139] there to protest in order that they might see for
themselves that we were in number and that we did not
and we still do not go along with the principles of segre
gation.
Q. Now, you stated that you had in mind portraying
your feelings to members of the State Legislature, I be
lieve you testified to that!
A. Yes.
Q. Would you state whether or not you had in mind
any other persons to impress with your feelings?
A. The Governor, the Legislature and the general pub
lic of South Carolina.
Q. At the time that you went on the State House grounds,
were you aware of the fact that it was public property?
A. I was.
Q. You have sat in court throughout the morning pro
ceedings, is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. You have listened to the testimony from the witnesses
for the State?
A. That is correct.
Q. I am certain that you heard that there was some
testimony with reference to singing!
A. I heard the testimony.
Q. By a group of people?
A. That is correct.
Q, Would you care to state for the record what you
know about the singing which was taking place?
A. Singing occurred after we were arrested. Now, as
to the boisterousness and the loudness and disrespect for
the National Anthem and other patriots, I cannot agree
with those persons who testified earlier.
[fol. 140] Q. Did you personally interfere with anybody
in the use of the sidewalks and the streets on that day?
A. By no means.
Q. Did you personally interrupt any vehicular traffic on
the streets that day?
A. I did not.
113
Q. Are you aware of any of your comrades who were
with you on that date who interfered with the use of the
streets by other citizens?
A. If they did, it was not brought to my attention.
Q. Is it true that a large number of onlookers gathered
while you were there on the State House grounds?
A. Adjacent to the State House, yes.
Q. Did you pay any particular attention to them!
A. Well, only generally. I just generally saw them.
Q. Did you hear any remarks being made by any who
may have been in the audience there?
A. No, I didn’t.
Mr. Coleman: I didn’t catch that question.
Mr. Jenkins: I asked him if he heard any remarks being
made by any other persons who were in the audience that
day. I meant by persons in the audience, the onlookers,
persons not actually engaged in the group with you.
A. If they said something, I didn’t hear it.
Q. Did you observe any overt action on their part which
would put you in fear that you would be in danger of
being injured or anything of that sort?
A. Mv composure was not hampered by any one.
Q. You mean by that, that nobody frightened you by
any action!
A. None whatsoever.
[fol. 141] Q. Did you observe any of your comrades or
persons with you who appeared to be apprehensive that
they would be attacked by any person?
A. If they felt it, they didn’t show it.
Q, By the group, I mean any of the onlookers who may
have been there?
A. No.
Q. Did you hear any of your friends or persons with you
express any opinion-—please strike that. You testified as
to what was on the placard which you carried?
A. That is correct.
Q. Do you know who prepared these placards?
A. Students prepared them.
Q. Students. Were you among the group of students that
prepared them?
A. I was.
114
Q. Do you know what was on any of the placards which
were carried?
A. I have a memory of some of the other statements. Not
all of them.
Q. Would you care to state for the record what some of
those placards there said?
A. Mine had “ I am proud to be a Negro” . Others had
statements “ Give me liberty or give me death” . “ Down
with segregation” . I can’t remember all of them.
Q. Can vou state the general expression or tone of those
placards which you were carrying?
A. The tone of all the placards were in harmony with
the antisegregation movement in this State.
Q. Do you know what became of those placards? Are
they in court today?
A. If they are, it’s not to my knowledge.
Q. Do you know what became of them?
[fol. 142] A. I do know they were taken up. Some of them
were taken up by Reverend Carter.
Q. By a member of your group on that day?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You do not now know what have become of them?
A. I do not.
Q. You are a student at Benedict College?
A. I am.
Q. How long have you been a student there?
A. This is my third year. Junior Class.
Q. Would you state whether or not you belong to any
student group?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Would you say that the persons who were associated
with you on March the 2nd of 1961, when you went on
the State House grounds, were members of the group of
which you are associated?
A. That is correct.
Q. Would you care to state the nature of your organiza
tion?
A. The general nature of the organization is non-violent
protesting against discriminatory actions against Negroes
in this State and we adhere to the principles of peaceful
resistance, and we believe that those laws which are unjust,
115
we believe in trying to find just means of having them dis
continued.
Q. Now, in trying to exert what you consider your rights,
are you conscious of the fact that other citizens may have
equal rights?
A. I believe that other citizens have equal rights.
Q. Does your organization have any teachings or prac
tices with reference to the rights, respective rights of other
citizens ?
[fol. 143] A. It is the general consensus of the organiza
tion to respect the rights of others as well as to have them
respect our particular rights.
Q. And you say that non-violence is a part of your creed?
A. It is the basis.
Q. Incidentally, where is your native State?
A. This is my native State, South Carolina.
Q. South Carolina. You have lived in South Carolina the
majority of your life?
A. All of my life.
Q. This is your third year at Benedict College ?
A. That is correct.
Q. Are you one of the officers in this particular student
organization at Benedict College?
A. I am not.
Q. Do you regularly attend the meetings?
A. I do.
Q. Do you have any regular meeting time?
A. Not a set date. We meet when we feel it is needed.
Q. Meet when?
A. We meet when we feel it is necessary.
Q. Do you meet at the call of your officers?
A. Generally, yes.
Q. As a Junior in College, what is your age?
A. I am twenty years old.
Q. Do you know generally the members of your student
organization?
A. Generally, yes.
Q. Do you know the leaders and officers of your organiza
tion?
A. Yes, sir.
116
Q. Were you in this court on Tuesday of last week!
A. I was.
[fol. 144] Q. Do you know James Edwards, Jr'!
A. I do.
Q. Is he a student at Benedict College!
A. He is a Benedict student.
Q. Will you state approximately how long you have
known him!
A. Since the latter part of January.
Q. January of what year!
A. 1961.
Q. 1961! Is that when he first came to Benedict College!
A. Yes.
Q. Is James Edwards, Jr., a member of your student
organization, the same organization you have previously
spoken of!
A. He is a member.
Q. He is!
A. He is.
Q. I believe you said you have known the officers and
leaders of the student group, is that correct !
A. I do.
Q. Is James Edwards, Jr., one of the officers or leaders
of the student group!
A. He is not.
Q. To your knowledge, is James Edwards, Jr., a leader
or officer of any student organization group on Benedict
College campus!
A. He is not.
Q. On March the 2nd, 1961, was James Edwards, Jr.,
a member of the group that went from Zion Baptist Church
to the State House grounds!
Mr. Coleman: How far does the Court want this line of
questioning to go! James Edwards, Jr., is not on trial
here today.
[fol. 145] The Court: Mr. Coleman, I certainly am in
terested in getting to getting to (sic) the bottom of this and,
in view of the fact that Edwards has been tried, for my own
personal interest and personal knowledge, I would like to
find out about Edwards, myself.
117
Mr. Jenkins: I have only a couple more questions with
reference to this line of questioning.
Q. I believe the question was: on the 2nd day of March,
1961, James Edwards, Jr., formed a member of the group
of you that went on the State House grounds ?
A. He was with us, yes.
Q. Was that as a part of your student group movement?
A. He was there as a part of the movement.
Q. To your knowledge, was James Edwards, Jr., one of
your leaders on that day?
A. He was not.
Mr. Jenkins: I have no further questions.
Cross examination.
By Mr. Coleman:
Q. The Reverend Carter, to whom you made reference
a few minutes ago, is that David Carter?
A. That is correct.
Q. Is he in the courtroom?
A. Yes, he is.
Q. Was he a leader of the student group on March 2nd?
A. He was our recognized leader.
Q. He did direct this demonstration ?
A. Yes.
Q. Isn’t it true that your student group was allowed to
proceed in and about the grounds of the State House for
approximately an hour?
[fol. 146] A. From forty to sixty minutes, yes.
Q. That was without interference from the police?
A. Without direct interference, yes.
Q. Direct? Did they give you any interference at all?
A. After a certain length of time, we were asked to dis
perse.
Q. That was after forty minutes to an hour that you have
testified to, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. No interference was put in your way prior to that
time ?
A. No.
118
Q. I believe that this demonstration, as yon call it, began
about 12:00 o’clock, is that correct!
A. In the neighborhood of 12:00.
Q. Was that designed, so far as you know, to coincide
with the convening of the Legislature that day!
A. Not to my knowledge, whether it was actually designed
to coincide with that, but certainly the Legislature, as I
previously testified, they are a part of our lawmaking body
here.
Q. It is common knowledge that the Legislature generally
convenes about eleven or twelve o’clock every day?
A. It is.
Q. You knew that?
A. Yes.
Q. Don’t you think, if the only purpose of your demon
stration that day, was to call attention to the various mem
bers of the Legislature and any other officials that may
have been in or out the State House, that two hundred or
approximately two hundred Negro students marching in
and about the grounds with placards would have had time
in an hour to sufficiently demonstrate to any of them, by
[fol. 147] person, their views or whatever views they were
expressing by demonstration or call attention to them
selves ?
A. Are you asking that we could easily have expressed
our view to one person instead of—
Q. No. I ’m asking if you don’t think an hour was long-
enough for your purpose?
A. I don’t.
Q. How long did you intend to demonstrate?
A. Until conscience told me that the demonstration had
lasted long enough.
Q. Isn’t it true that you were aware of the extraordinary
number of people who had congregated in this horseshoe in
the hour’s period during the time the demonstration had
occurred?
A. I don’t think there was such an extraordinary number.
Q. There was an unusual crowd, wasn’t it? You’re not
going to tell us it wasn’t, are you? Do you normally see
such a crowd on the horseshoe?
119
A. Normally, I don’t visit this particular place, but I
still say I don’t think it was such an unusual crowd.
Q. You don’t think that your activities there during this
hour period attracted an unusual crowd in and around the
horseshoe!
A. There were several policemen and other officials of
that nature.
Q, You’re not deliberately avoiding the question, are you !
A. By no means.
Q. Let me ask it again and see if you will answer it. Do
you think—
A. I don’t think.
Q. You don’t think what!
[fob 148] A. I don’t think, as you put it, that this crowd
was there. I don’t think it was a crowd.
Q. You don’t think there was a crowd there! Did you
estimate the number of people there!
A. I can’t because I was in the process of moving, a con
tinuous march, I wasn’t standing still.
Q. Did you hear the instructions given by the police
officials to the students to disperse!
A. They were passed along. I didn’t hear the individual
instructions.
Q. Did you know about them!
A. Yes.
Q. Why didn’t you proceed to disperse!
A. Well, mainly because the State House is public prop
erty and I thought the Law Enforcement Agency had taken
a step too far probably, when they asked us to leave.
Q. You thought they were wrong!
A. In my judgment, yes.
Q. You thought they shouldn’t have done it. Is it also
your view, your opinion, along that same line, that you
should have been allowed, you and the other students, to
continue indefinitely to this sort of concerted effort, a public
demonstration, using two hundred students, regardless of
what might have occurred as a result of those demonstra
tions !
A. When you say “what might have occurred”—I don’t
know what you mean.
Q. Regardless of the situation which might have been
1 2 0
created with regard to blocking sidewalks, blocking the
street, breaching the peace generally?
Mr. Perry: I would like to generally interpose an ob
jection to any questions which would call for this witness
to give an answer based upon speculation. I note that
[fob 149] Mr. Coleman says “ regardless of what might have
occurred” and there is no evidence that anything did occur.
I object to the question on the ground that it calls for a
speculative answer.
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, the witness has
testified and admitted that he and other students were
allowed to demonstrate for an hour. I want him to say
to what extent he thinks he should have been allowed to
go in order to carry out this demonstration, with regard
to the crowd which had developed in and around the State
House grounds in addition to the students and which, he
saw and of which lie. has heard testimony this morning.
If he does not wish to answer the question, he can so state
and that would be all.
Mr. Perry: First of all, I believe the witness has pre
viously said that he thought that he should be allowed to
go as far as conscience would allow; secondly, I should like
to note that as to how far the person engaged in the pro
cession on March 2nd should have been allowed to go would
be for Your Honor to say and not for the witness. I be
lieve that principally what we have here, that Your Honor
is being called upon to say whether or not on March the
2nd the procession of individuals had been allowed to go
on for too long a period of time, as to how far this witness
feels they had a right to continue to walk through the State
House premises, I do not believe would be a proper subject
for cross examination of this witness but rather be an issue
which counsel might address ourselves to this Court. In
other wrnrds, I believe it is within the perogative of Your
Honor to say exactly what the situation was, in the light
of all the testimony which has come out of this particular
line of cross examination and should not be allowed.
[fob 150] Mr. Coleman: I might say one other word, Your
Honor. This witness has been quite free to express in
full at least his idea of the purposes of this group. He has
1 2 1
stated why he went to the State House grounds. He has
stated why he thinks that group went, information of which
he had personal knowledge. He has admitted that he was
allowed to demonstrate for an hour there, now, if, after
setting forth all of those facts, isn’t his opinion and his
thoughts and the purposes of this group, which seems to
be at variance with what actually occurred with this per
sisting demonstration for more than an hour—I should like
to ask the witness: do you wish to answer my question!
The Court: Objection overruled. Answer the question.
Q. If you do not say so, I will not persist.
A. I think we should have continued as long as conscience
and providence said so.
Q. Night and day, if necessary !
A. If necessary to accomplish the end, yes.
Q. Then, anything that might have been short of acts
of violence on your part, you think would have been justi
fied!
A. Your question seems to mean that there were indica
tions of violence, then, I could not answer that question.
Q. I said short of violence!
A. As long as violence and the rights of other citizens
were not being harmed, it should have been continued.
Q. You didn’t see any large crowd in the horseshoe, is
that correct!
A. No large crowd.
[fol. 151] Q. No unusual crowd! Could you estimate the
number!
A. I cannot.
Q. Could you estimate it with relation to the size of the
student group!
A. There were approximately two hundred students and,
as I previously stated, we were marching, not standing still
in the horseshoe, therefore, I don’t know what happened
at the horseshoe.
Q. Didn’t you pass there from time to time!
A. As I previously stated, I was allowed to only go
around once.
Q. Did you see the horseshoe at any time during that
hour!
1 2 2
A. I did.
Q. Did you see an unusually large crowd there?
A. I didn’t.
Q. Have you been at Benedict for the three years?
A. That is correct.
Q. All three years. I believe you said that you did not
hold an office in the organization?
A. I do not.
Mr. Coleman: No further questions.
Mr. Jenkins: Unless the Court has some questions, we
have no further questions.
The Court: The Court has no questions.
(Witness excused.)
Mr. Perry: May it please the Court, at this time the
defendants would like to stipulate that, if the remaining
defendants on trial here today, were to be called to the
witness stand to testify that their testimony would be
substantially the same as was the testimony of the witness
who has just testified.
Mr. Coleman: We will agree to that.
[fob 152] Mr. Perry: The defendants have no further tes
timony or evidence.
The Court: Does the State have anything in reply?
Mr. Coleman: The State has no evidence in reply.
Mr. Perry: At this time the defendants respectfully
renew our motions for dismissal, which were urged upon
the Court at the conclusion of the State’s case and we ask
that they be repeated in the record as if I were making
them verbatim again at this time.
The Court: Any objection?
Mr. Coleman: The State opposes the motions on the
grounds heretofore set out.
The Court: Motions denied, and that will be entered in
the record.
Mr. Perry: Nothing further at this time.
Mr. Coleman: Nothing further from the State.
Mr. Perry: We will waive the making of a final argu
ment, Your Honor, and we call upon Your Honor for a
ruling based upon the evidence.
123
Mr. Coleman: Since the defense has no argument, we
reserve our rights to a final argument.
The Court: The Court will recess for five minutes.
(Court reconvened.)
The Court: I ’m going to call out the names of the fol
lowing defendants in this case. As I call them out, I would
like for them to approach the Bench, from left, to right,
as I face you.
George Cleveland Foster, James Jerome Kir ton, Isaac
Washington, Roland Johnnie Rhames, Joseph B. Bailey,
Isaac Jerome Campbell, Davie Green, Charles Fulton Barr.
The Court: George Cleveland Foster, how old are you?
George Cleveland Foster: Seventeen.
[fol. 153] The Court: You are now seventeen!
George Cleveland Foster: Yes, sir.
The Court: What school do you attend ?
George Cleveland Foster: Carver High School in
Spartanburg, South Carolina.
The Court: James Jerome Kirton.
James Jerome Kirton: Yes, sir.
The Court: I believe you stated on the witness stand
that you are twenty?
James Jerome Kirton: Yes, sir.
The Court: Isaac Washington.
Isaac Washington: I am eighteen.
The Court: Roland Johnnie Rhames.
Roland Johnnie Rhames : Benedict College. Twenty.
The Court: Joseph B. Bailey.
Joseph B. Bailey: Benedict College. I ’m twenty.
The Court: Isaac Jerome Campbell.
Isaac Jerome Campbell: Benedict College and I ’m
twenty-one.
The Court: Davie Green.
Davie Green: Benedict College and I’m eighteen.
The Court: Charles Fulton Barr.
Charles Fulton Barr: Benedict College. Twenty years
old.
The Court: Would the defense counsel like to say any
thing at this time ?
124
Mr. Perry: Your Honor, of course, by word of miti
gation, I would like to urge that Your Honor can deter
mine that these are all young men, high school and college
age, who, according to their testimony, acted as they did in
the sincere belief that they were joining together in concert
for the purpose of expressing tlieir grievances toward the
public generally. I urge for your consideration, the testi
mony of all of these officers, with the possible exception of
[fob 154] one, their conduct was orderly. It seems that the
basic complaint, which rings out in all of the testimony of
the officers is the fact that they did not disperse when
they were ordered to. Now, there is other testimony con
cerning the loud manner of their singing but I cannot
believe that the loudness of the singing was the thing which
precipitated their arrest. I think it was the fact that they
walked together in concert and refused to disperse when
directed by the officers to do so. Looking at all of the
testimony, it seems to stand out in my mind, Your Honor,
these young men are not of a criminal mind or intent and
I ask that you be lenient in sentencing them.
The Court: Would any of the defendants like to say
anything at this time ?
(No reply.)
S en ten ce
The Court: The testimony that has come out today has
certainly thrown a light, a new light, on these proceedings.
As I stated last week, the idea of adults using youths for
the purpose of violating the law is one which is a grave
concern to all of us. Irm taking your youth into considera
tion, every one of you. Prom the testimony of witnesses to
date, the actual recognized leader is, one David Carter,
and that was brought out by the State, also by the defen
dants, by one of the witnesses for the defense. I ’m taking
that into consideration. I ’m taking your youth into con
sideration, also, but I want to tell you now, if you should
ever come before me again with anything, that would indi
cate to me a flagrant violation of the law on your part, that
you had no respect for law and order and I know that
you do, I have reason to believe that you do for every
125
one of yon young men know that we have international
problems, problems of space and heaven knows what else
to worry about.
[fol. 155] To repeat the finding of the Court, I find each
and every one of you guilty, each of you now standing
before me.
The sentence of Isaac Jerome Campbell, your age was
twenty-one, $100.00 or 30 days.
As to you young men under twenty one, the sentence
of the Court will be $100.00 or 30 days, and, again, I
suspend half of that sentence upon the payment of the
fine of $50.00.
Mr. Perry: May it please the Court, at this time, the
defendants move for arrest of judgment or, in the alterna
tive, for a new trial upon all grounds previously noted
in the several motions for dismissal and we ask that they
be repeated in the record verbatim as if I were so stating
them at this time.
The Court: It shall be repeated in the record. All mo
tions are denied.
Mr. Perry: May it please the Court, at this time, we
move for arrest of judgment on the ground that the Court
erred in finding the defendants guilty, the evidence having
shown conclusively that the defendants were lawfully as
sembled with other persons upon the public streets and
property of the State of South Carolina for the purpose
of giving public expression concerning their grievances, a
right secured to them by the First and Fourteenth Amend
ment to the United States Constitution. That concludes
our motion.
The Court: Motion is denied.
Mr. Perry: At this time, may it please the Court, de
fendants give notice of intention to appeal. We will file
the written motion within the time required by Statute and
we ask that Your Honor set the appeal bond.
The Court: The appeal bond for each will be $10.00.
[fol. 156] Mr. Perry: Your Honor, it’s so late in the day,
the actual mechanics of substituting the appeal bonds for
the recognizance bonds, which are on file, as to each one
of them, it may take us a day or two.
126
The Court: The Court will be very glad to grant that
until Thursday. Court adjourned until 10:00 o’clock Thurs
day morning, March 16, 1961.
Reporter’s Certificate to foregoing transcript (omitted
in printing).
T r a n s c r i p t o p T e s t i m o n y
Before Honorable Frank Powell, Magistrate on Thurs
day, March 16, 1961, Richland County Court House, Co
lumbia, South Carolina.
A p p e a r a n c e s :
For the State: J. C. Coleman, Esq.
For the Defendants: Matthew J. Perry, Esq., Lincoln C.
Jenkins, Jr., Esq., Donald James Sampson, Esq.
The Court: I would like to announce the rules of the
Court. There will be no pictures taken within this court
room. of any type. Any one who wants to attend these
hearings may do so as long as there is a seat available,
however, we cannot permit any one standing up around
the walls.
The Court has before it warrants charging the following
persons with breach of the peace. The warrant reads in
part: State of South Carolina, County of Richland. Per
sonally appeared before me, Frank Powell, Magistrate of
the said County and the said State, L. J. Campbell, being
[fol. 157] duly sworn, says that James C. West, Sinclair
Salters, Hezikah Johnson, James Clyburn, William Erick
Moultie, David Carter, Benjamin James Glover, Samuel S.
Williams, and others, did, at Columbia, South Carolina, on
March 2nd, 1961, on the State Capitol grounds and on
adjacent sidewalks and streets did commit a breach of
the peace in that they, together with a large group of
people, did assemble, impede the normal traffic, sing and
parade with placards, failed to disperse upon lawful orders
of police officers, all of which tended to violation of the
breach of peace in view of existing conditions. The Court
will now read the persons charged on these warrants:
James C. West, Sinclair Salters, Hezikah Johnson, James
Clyburn, William Erick Moultrie, David Carter, Benjamin
127
James Glover, Samuel S. Williams, Arthur Whitfield Stan
ley, Jr., Wendell Dailey, Lennie William Glover, Samuel
Edwards, David Laurence Perrett, James Allen Carter,
Clifford James Rice, Delbert Leon Woods, Wilbur Harri
son Walker, Alfred Odell Lemon, James W. Cantey, Isaac
W. Williams, Clifford B. Bell, William H. Cooley,' Robert
Henry LaPrince, Frank E. Gore, Earl Peters, Jr., Henry
H. Harris, Charles R. Miller, Charles McDew, Maxie Epps,
Henry Williams, Leroy Hogans, Jimmy Lee Smith, James
Reeder, Jr., George Allen Anderson, Thomas D. Hornsby
and Anthony McFadden.
Are these persons present!
Mr. Jenkins: They are present in person or by counsel.
One or two persons may not be present. One is Benjamin
J. Glover and William Moultrie from Camden, also, is not
here. Those defendants, if Your Honor please, they are
represented by counsel. We would like the record to
show that counsel has agreed that, these defendants may be
[fob 158] tried in their absence and they will be bound by
whatever rules and decisions that are made by the Court.
Is that agreeable by counsel!
Mr. Coleman: Yes.
The Court: Are these persons represented by counsel?
Mr. Jenkins : Yes, they are.
The Court: As I call the names of these persons out,
will they appear before the Bench!
(The Court called the names of all defendants.)
Defendants arraigned before the Court.
The Court: Are you the persons named in this warrant
before the Court charged with the breach of the peace in
the City of Columbia, County of Richland, on March 2nd,
1961 and were you released on bond to appear before this
Court today ?
Defendants: Yes sir (in unison).
The Court: How do the defendants plead!
Mr. Jenkins: They plead not guilty.
Defendants returned to seats in courtroom.
The Court: Is the defense ready for trial?
Mr. Jenkins: Yes, Your Honor.
The Court: Is the State ready for trial?
Mr. Coleman: Yes, Your Honor.
1 2 8
Whereupon, Mr. Coleman called I r v i n g G. M c N a y r who,
being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
Direct examination.
By Mr. Coleman:
Q. Mr. McNayr, you are the City Manager of Columbia,
I believe f
A. Yes, I am.
[fol. 159] Q. As such City Manager, do you have direct
supervision of the activities of the Columbia City Police
Department!
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Did you have occasion on March the 2nd last to be
in the vicinity of the State House grounds in the City of
Columbia!
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What time did you arrive there!
A. At the State House grounds, I arrived at approxi
mately a quarter of twelve.
Q. What did you observe when you got there!
A. When we arrived there, when we first arrived, I ob
served a number of police officials, both from the City of
Columbia and the State Law Enforcement Division, pos
sibly some Deputy Sheriffs from the County, standing gen
erally around what is known as the horseshoe area.
Q. Would you describe the horseshoe area so far as
pedestrian traffic lanes and vehicular traffic lanes are con
cerned!
A. Yes. The horseshoe area is used primarily for the
parking of State official’s cars, that is, the macadam area
there. There is some passage in and out of vehicular
traffic by people entering and leaving the State Capitol
Building. In addition to that, you have the main sidewalk
areas leading into the State Capitol on either side of the
horseshoe area.
Q. Others than the persons you have just mentioned,
the police officers and yourself, were there any other per
sons in or about the horseshoe!
A. None, to my knowledge, at the time of my arrival.
There may have been a few others standing around but
I didn’t pay any particular attention to them.
129
[fol. 160] Q. What, if anything, occurred thereafter to
make you think possibly whether or not some official action
on your part should be taken?
A. We were forewarned that there would be a march
or a procession on the State Capitol and a demonstration
at that point. Soon after we arrived, we observed groups
of Negro students inarching up Gervais Street.
Q. Could you estimate the size of the group!
A. I estimated it at that time at approximately 200.
Q. Did they enter the horseshoe?
A. They moved up the sidewalk towards the horseshoe
and they were met, just before entering the grounds, by
Mr. Harry Walker of the Governor’s office.
Q. Were you present at that time?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Do you remember that any of the defendants named
today were in the group ?
A. Yes, I recognized probably three or four of those
people who are here today.
Q. Can you name one possibly?
A. I recognized the recognized leader, David Carter.
Q. Did you have any conversation with David Carter at
that time ?
A. Not at that immediate time when he arrived, no.
Q. What official position, if any, does Harry Walker have?
A. Mr. Harry Walker is the representative, the legal
representative of the Governor of South Carolina, and
was apparently in charge of the SLED officers present
at that time, and in general charge of the State House
grounds, in general control of it.
Q. State whether or not you have any personal knowl
edge of whether any official instructions from a police
[fol. 161] officer were given to any one or all of these
defendants.
Mr. Jenkins: If Your Honor please, at this time we
object on the ground that the best evidence would be
the testimony from the officer which may have given such
instructions, that is, testimony directly from this officer,
and wre object to this witness testifying as to instructions
given by anyone else.
130
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, any instructions
given to any of these defendants here, within the hearing
and presence of this witness, I think it’s admissible and,
if it’s hearsay, it’s an exception to the hearsay rule.
Mr. Jenkins: We submit, if Your Honor please, that
the best evidence would be the officers themselves, present
to testify as to what instructions they may have given.
There is no showing to be made in the court why the officers
themselves are not here to testify and we object to any
testimony along that line.
The Court: The Court feels that, in this particular in
stance, the defendants here have been identified by the
witness and, in this case, the objection is overruled.
A. Would you repeat your question!
Q. Did you, yourself, have any conversation with any
one of these particular defendants here today!
A. I did not, at the time in question. All the conversa
tion and instructions were between Mr. Walker and some
of the defendants.
Q. Did you hear Mr. Walker give any official instructions
to any particular defendant here today!
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Do you remember which defendant!
A. Well, I know Carter was one of those who received
instructions.
[fol. 162] Q. Were these instructions given in your pres
ence!
A. They were, if I may describe the manner in which
they were given I think it would be helpful to the Court.
As the groups moved forward, and these Negro students
were in groups of anywhere from fifteen on up to thirty,
Mr. Walker selected the lead student, on the left coming
up Gervais, thinking in terms of that person leading the
group, and he gave instructions directly to that person.
He first questioned him as to his name, purpose for being
there, whether or not he was leading the group and then
instructed them on the fact that he did have the privilege,
he and his small group, of going through the State House
grounds, just as any other citizens would have. He further
instructed him that there should be no demonstration, in
131
each case, in my hearing, that the State law allowed no
demonstrations. I heard the defendants, the leaders, reply
that they were there for the purpose of demonstrating and
fully intended to do so. Mr. Walker then instructed them
that they could go through the State House grounds and
they did proceed to do so. I believe he also told them they
would be allowed to go through the State House grounds
one time for purposes of observation.
Mr. Jenkins: Your Honor, at this time, I ’d. like to renew
my objection as to all of this line of questioning and the
testimony that is in answer to the question which has been
presented here and I ask that they be stricken from the
record. I am repeating my objection. That is strictly hear
say and violates the well known rule of law against hearsay
evidence on the ground that the best evidence would require
that Mr. Harry Walker, who is the person who gave the
instructions, to be present and testify for the record as to
[fol. 163] the instructions he gave. The record will show
that the witness has testified as to what he thinks the
opinion of Mr. Walker was in giving such instructions.
We renew our objection to this entire line of questioning
and we respectfully request that the answer be stricken from
the record.
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, I don’t remember
any evidence of Mr. McNayr’s opinion.
Mr. Jenkins: Mr. McNayr said that in pointing out the
person on the left, taking that person to be a leader or
something to that effect.
Mr. Coleman: We are perfectly willing, if there was
any opinion in the evidence in regard to the opinion of
Mr. Walker, that it be stricken. I don’t remember that.
The Court: The Court is under the impression that was
an opinion and that will be stricken from the record. As to
the previous objection, that is overruled.
Q. Mr. McNayr, what course of action, if any, did the
group of students then take!
A. They then proceeded to go through the State House
grounds, usually accompanied by a police officer or officers.
Q. How long did this continue ?
132
A. I would say for somewhere between fifteen—a half
hour.
Q. Where were you during this time? Were you in the
vicinity of the horseshoe or were you moving about the
State House grounds ?
A. I was not moving about the State House grounds.
I remained in the vicinity of the horseshoe, moving back
and forth, primarily between from in front of the statue,
then west to the other side of the horseshoe.
Q. Then, you were in the horseshoe all of this time?
[fob 164] A. Yes.
Q. State whether or not you noticed or saw any change
in the size of the number of persons who might or might
not have been within the horseshoe area?
A. Yes. Soon after the Negro students arrived at the
entrance to the horseshoe, crowds began to gather. This
was in the neighborhood of twelve o’clock, noon, just prior
to twelve o’clock, noon, and more and more people gathered
within that area to the point where they were blocking both
of the driveway entrances and the sidewalk area. They
had to be told to move along, not to impede the sidewalk
traffic, and it was necessary to station a policeman in the
intersection of Gervais and Main Streets in order to keep
traffic moving, because, again, a large group of persons
attracted the passers-by in automobiles.
Q. Did you note the traffic, if any, which was on Gervais
Street, immediately adjacent to the horseshoe?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Are you familiar with the normal flow of traffic on
that street?
A. Yes, I ’m quite familiar with it.
Q. Was the traffic flow at that time normal?
A. It was not normal—no, it was greatly slowed up. It
had to be kept moving by a police officer. It was greatly
slowed up, again, being attracted by the large group on the
State House grounds. Normally, the lights control the traffic
quite well.
Q. After a period of approximately a half hour or dur
ing that period, did any police officer or any one else, to
your knowledge, interfere with this group of students?
A. Not to my knowledge, no.
133
[fol. 165] Q. After the period of a half an hour, approxi
mately a half an hour, which you have just mentioned, what
action, if any was taken by you?
A. Following the students marching through or walking-
through the State House grounds, they, then, or a great
number of them, came around from the back of the State
House or the side of the State House and started to form
ing groups to come down Gtervais Street, heading each
towards the horseshoe, and by that time a great number
of people had gathered in the horseshoe area, along the
State House grounds in that immediate vicinity, partic
ularly across the street on both sides of Main Street,
facing the horseshoe area. It was, at that time—-now, I
can be exact in my time— it was just about a quarter to
one when the students began to gather there. The crowd
had reached such proportions and there were numerous
people coming through the State House grounds, appar
ently from the State Office buildings in the rear of the
Capitol itself, -who were being impeded in getting through,
a number of them stopping as a result of it, so, that, in
my judgment, 1 felt that the conditions were such that the
students, who were the main attraction to all of these peo
ple, should disperse. I, then, -was in touch with David
Carter, the recognized leader of this group, and I instructed
him that I felt that the conditions were such that the stu
dents should disperse in small groups from the area and
that I felt that the conditions were such that they should
be dispersed within the next fifteen minutes. These in
structions were given at approximately five minutes of one.
Carter, then, as each group moved forward, did not carry
out my instructions in the manner in which I gave them.
He used the occasion to harangue the students, to raise
[fol. 166] them to a fever pitch, using a chant, a religious
type method for arousing the students to stay in line, to
be arrested, if that was their chosen line.
Q. Did you hear any singing, chanting or anything of
that nature from the student group?
A. Yes.
Q. Describe that as best you can.
A. With the harangues, which I have just described,
134
witnessed frankly by everyone present and in this area,
the students began answering back with shouts. They be
came boisterous. They stomped their feet. They sang in
loud voices to the point where, again, in my judgment, a
dangerous situation was really building up.
Q. Did the students disperse after the instructions were
given to them!
A. No, they did not.
Q. What course of action was then taken by you!
A. I then instructed the Chief of Police, Chief Campbell,
to proceed to arrest all of the students. I might add that
the SLED officers were working in conjunction with and in
cooperation with the City Police officers, and they, too,
moved under those general instructions.
Q. I see. Your witness.
Cross examination.
By Mr. Jenkins:
Q. You have stated, Mr. McNayr, that you had advanced
warning that these students would move on the State House
grounds on that particular day!
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Would you. state how much advance warning you had?
A. Yes. I received a telephone call from Chief Campbell
at approximately 10:30 that morning informing me that
[fob 167] the students were then in the process of meeting
at the Zion Baptist Church and that, his information was,
that they planned to proceed from there to the State House
grounds for the purpose of demonstration.
Q. And they actually proceeded to the State House
grounds possibly how long after 10:30?
A. I would say they came out of the church at some
time between quarter past eleven and half past eleven,
then proceeded to walk.
Q. You had approximately an hour’s notice?
A. Yes.
Q. You had ample time, didn’t you, to get ample police
protection, if you thought such was needed on the State
House grounds, didn’t you?
A. Yes, we did.
135
Q. So, if there were not ample police protection there,
it was the fault of those persons in charge of the Police
Department, wasn’t it?
A. There was ample police protection there.
Q. There was ample police protection and there was no
need for the arrests which were made, isn’t that true?
A. No, that is not true.
Q. I believe that the testimony has been that you ar
rested these persons because a dangerous situation was
about to take place or something to that effect?
A. In my judgment.
Q. You also stated that, in your judgment, you had ample
police protection to handle the situation?
A. That’s correct.
Q. So it wasn’t necessary to arrest these students that
were on the Grounds?
[fol. 168] A. Yes, it was necessary to arrest them. Sim
ply because we had ample policemen there for their pro
tection and the protection of others, is no reason for not
placing them under arrest when they refused a lawful
request to move on.
Q. We are not charged with refusing an order.
A. You are charged with a breach of the peace and it
occurred during this period.
Q. Breach of peace being merely that the students came
on the grounds and there registered certain protests which
they had; that, in your mind, is a breach of the peace?
A. No. that isn’t what I testified.
Q. Now, I believe your testimony was to the effect that
no police officer interfered in any manner with the students
or something to that effect?
A. T said, to the best of my knowledge, that they did not.
You must understand that they were moving around the
State Capitol Grounds.
Q. That’s what I was getting at. You confined your
activities mostly to the horseshoe area?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And since the State House Grounds cover approxi
mately two blocks by one block—
A. Probably about two blocks square.
136
Q. There was ample opportunity for other police officers
to really interfere with these students and yon know noth
ing about it!
A. That is true.
Q. You observed the students coming eastward on Ger-
vais Street or approaching the State Capitol!
A. Yes.
[fob 169] Q. At that time, you said they were marching
in groups, small groups!
A. They were marching in groups of from fifteen, the
largest approximately thirty.
Q. They were walking two abreast or single file!
A. Two abreast.
Q. Do you recall the approximate distance between each
group ?
A. Well, as they were walking, I would say certainly
at arm’s length or possibly a greater distance. I think the
distances were varying.
Q. The distances between the groups themselves—let us
say, the first group and the second group and the second
and the third!
A. As they were marching up, they could have been five
feet or ten feet apart.
Q. I believe your testimony on previous occasions said
they were from a quarter to a third of a block apart, the
groups, do you recall that!
A. I don’t recall any testimony by me to that effect. They
may well have been, however, but it would vary as they
marched along.
Q. Now, each group was stopped, I believe you testified,
up near the horseshoe area!
A. That’s correct,
Q. They were stopped by an official of the Governor of
South Carolina?
A. That’s correct.
Q. You were also present at that time as an official of
the Citv of Columbia ?
A. Yes.
[fol. 170] Q. Was the effect of your stopping these groups
of students to make the second group, let us say, push up
into the first group or at least get nearer?
137
A. Yes, to move up.
Q. That would make the third group move up to where
the second group was?
A. Again, I think they kept a normal distance.
Q. It is a fact, is it not, that by the interference of you
and other officials you created the very situation that you
said you were trying to prevent?
A. No, that is not true.
Q. You have testified to the congestion of the area of
the horseshoe?
A. Yes.
Q. Had these students been allowed to continue in the
manner in which they had approached the horseshoe area,
this congestion would not have been there, would it ?
A. That I can’t answer because they were not allowed
to continue by Mr. Walker.
Q. So, you certainly, by your actions, contributed to
whatever congestion there may have been there in that
area ?
A. I think you misunderstood my testimony. I did not
have anything to say to tire students or instruct them in
any way at that point.
Q. When I say “you” I mean the official action by some
one, instructing these groups of students in the horseshoe
area, there would not have been this congestion?
A. Yes, there would have been congestion. A group of
students, such as this, moving in with signs and placards
[fol. 171] as they carried, would cause congestion just
naturally.
Q. There was no congestion among the groups of stu
dents themselves, was there, prior to the official action
stopping them in the horseshoe?
A. No.
Q. Now, then, your testimony here is that the groups
were allowed to walk through the area of the State House
Grounds without further molestation, as far as you are
concerned?
A. That was not a molestation; that was simply stop
ping them to give them instructions on the part of Mr.
Walker.
138
Q. Here again, we are involved in the use or the mean
ing of words—according to which side of the fence yon
are on, the meaning of it?
A. I wanted to get across my interpretation of it.
Q. Yes, sir. Now, then, they walked perhaps through
the area of the State House Grounds—did they end up
down near the area of Sumter Street?
A. Yes, as nearly as I could determine, they moved down
Sumter Street and then hack on to Gervais and down.
Q. Then started westward on Gervais back towards the
horseshoe area'?
A. Yes.
Q. Still in these relatively small groups, they started
west?
A. Yes.
Q. Once they approached the horseshoe area, as a mat
ter of fact, as they got to the horseshoe area the second
time that is when you gave instructions to arrest them?
[fob 172] A. No, that was when I informed their leader,
David Carter, that they should be dispersed, that, in my
judgment, the situation was becoming tense and then I
asked him to instruct them that they were given fifteen
minutes and then they should disperse.
Q. That’s when each group was stopped again?
A. Yes, they had moved down on the sidewalk and
stopped. .
Q. But the various groups were stopped again, that’s
the second time they were stopped as they got back to the
horseshoe area?
A. On that occasion, I wouldn’t say they were stopped.
They apparently stopped voluntarily. Now, Carter may
have stopped them. I was adjacent to him.
Q. You certainly stopped Carter in the first group that
he was leading at that time, didn’t you?
A. Carter was not leading the group. Carter was also
situated in the area where I was standing. He was moving
back in that area. To my knowledge, he did not proceed
through the State House Grounds with any group.
Q. At any rate, you gave him instructions to give to the
groups of students?
139
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And, following your instructions, lie then stopped the
groups?
A. Each group.
Q. Here, again, if there were a congestion of the stu
dents, it came about at that time, isn’t it true ?
A. Yes.
Q. So, because of your interference there was this con
gestion which you now say you were trying to prevent, is
that not right?
[fol. 173] A. That is not true. You are attempting to use
words again which are not given the true connotation. As
the lawful officer of the City of Columbia, as City Manager,
I felt it my duty to see that this situation, as created by
the students themselves, be dispersed for their safety and
for the safety of the general public of Columbia. Now, I
don’t believe the word “ interference” is at all a sound
and useful word in this ease.
Q. I have no quarrel with why you acted, no quarrel
with that at all, I ’m merely trying to get the results of
your action and you have testified that they were approach
ing in relatively small groups and, after you gave certain
instructions to be relayed to them, they were then stopped
and the end result was the various groups lost their iden
tity and commingled as one large group ?
A. No, I ’m not testifying to that at all.
Q. What are you saying?
A. I ’m saying that they retained their identity in groups
in that area, in small groups still, to the best of my knowl
edge, and then in those small groups, after being harangued,
they burst into singing, shouting and stomping and so on.
Q. They still remain in small groups?
A . Relatively small groups but more closely bunched
than in the past.
Q. Prior to the time when you gave your instructions to
David Carter, there had been no singing or loud noises
from the students, is that true?
A. Not to my knowledge. Again, these were out of ear
shot, as far as I was concerned.
140
[fol. 174] Q. Tins stomping, which you have talked about,
and shouting, prior to your giving instructions to David
Carter, there had been none of that!
A. Again, not to my knowledge.
Q. So, that, to your knowledge, the groups of students,
prior to this time, were orderly and peaceful!
A. Yes.
Q. All indications were that they would have continued
to be orderly and peaceful had they not stopped David
Carter and given him certain instructions to be relayed to
them? Was that a normal thing?
A. That’s purely conjectural on your part.
Q. Would you agree to that conjecture?
A. No. 1 have no idea whether they would have been
or not.
Q. There was no evidence to the contrary, prior to that
time, was there!
A. No evidence to the contrary in any other manner
as to how they would react.
Q. Nevertheless, they had been peaceful and quiet prior
to that time?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, would you care to state for the record what
caused anxiety on your part for the safety of these stu
dents and for the safety of the general public?
A. Yes, I ’d be quite willing to. As I observed the crowds
gathering, both in the horseshoe area, on the State House
Grounds, I would estimate that in addition to the students
there were 200 to 250 people in the general horseshoe area.
On the other side of Gervais, the two entrances to Main
coming into Gervais, I would estimate that there wTere prob
ably a like number beginning to congregate over there,
[fol. 175] Traffic was being slowed up and becoming con
gested. I observed in the group around the area what I
would describe as possible trouble making people and it
was my judgment and remains my judgment that we might
well, had the conditions been allowed to continue, were "the
students allowed to again march through the State House
Grounds, had they been allowed to remain on the sidewalk
area, we might well have had violence.
141
Q. You base that only on the fact that you saw trouble
makers in the area, potential trouble makers?
A. Not only saw trouble makers but I know that when
ever you have a large group gathering, all that is neces
sary is one minor incident or one minor spark and this
could have resulted in a real race riot in that area.
Q. Have you ever observed Armed Forces Day when
there was a parade down Main Street and the large number
of Whites and Negroes together there?
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. Did you expect any race riot then ?
A. None whatsoever.
Q. Much larger groups than you had here so it wasn’t
the fact that you had Negroes and Whites there together
that you were expecting a riot.
A. The facts were that you had these students and you
had a congestion during the parades you have discussed
when Negroes and Whites were mingling together with a
common purpose; this was not a common purpose for which
they were gathering on this day.
Q. Did you observe any placards which the students were
carrying ?
A.' I did.
[fob 176] Q. Would you care to say what the general tone
or wording on the placards was ?
A. I really can’t remember what they were.
Q. Generally, would you say that those placards ex
pressed some feelings or opinions in regards to certain
conditions that existed?
A. Yes.
Q. Those conditions were conditions of segregation and
discrimination as felt by the students!
A. As felt by the students.
Q. Is it not a fact that you feared violence because you
feared there may be persons in the group who disagreed
with the opinion expressed by those Negro students!
A. No, that wasn’t the basis for my action. My fear was
that there would be violence because of the feelings of
many of the people in the groups against the demonstra
142
tions themselves, not necessarily what they were protesting
against.
Q. Yon don’t mean that you feared there would be vio
lence because of disagreement of certain persons in the
area with the fact that there were Negro students in that
area 1
•A. In the manner in which they were there. I ’m sure
that Negro students have gone through the State House
Grounds over the years but not in this manner and not
with the intent of collecting a crowd and demonstrating.
Q. And not with the evident intent of protesting against
certain policies and practices? Would you also sav that?
A. Yes.
[fol. 177] Q. Does it not follow that each potential trouble
maker in the area perhaps also disagreed—
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, I don’t like to
object. How could Mr. McNayr possibly know what
thoughts were in the minds of the people in the crowd? We
could go on forever with this. He has already stated that,
thinking that the demonstration should be stopped after a
long period of time, and going into a continuous line of
questioning, which involves the thoughts of the people in
the crowd, is just utterly ridiculous,
Mr. Jenkins: If Your Honor pleases, this witness is on
cross examination, stating his reasons for making certain
arrests and I ’m merely questioning him as to his reasons
and trying to find out what laid the basis for these arrests.
We submit that, as an official of the government of the City
of Columbia, being in charge of the Police Department,
he has certain rights. He has the right to see that these
conditions, which he thinks may have arisen, do not arise
but certainly he cannot just form that opinion just out of
a clear blue sky, so to speak. He must base it upon some
knowledge which has come to his attention or some opinion
which he may form and we submit that on cross examination
we have a right to delve into these matters.
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, may I say one more
word? There is no objection whatever to counsel cross
examining Mr. McNayr with regard to the reasons but he
143
is now asking Mr. McNayr to go into the minds of the
crowd out there and tell us what that crowd was thinking.
It’s fantastic.
[fol. 178] The Court: The Court has previously overruled
a few minutes ago that opinions be stricken from the
record—
Mr. Jenkins: Before you rule, Your Honor, I should like
to state this, the witness on the stand has testified, both in
direct and on cross examination, that he acted to prevent
certain occurrences which he thought may take place. His
whole action was based upon thought. Now, thought based
on what? He has not testified to any overt act on anybody
in the crowd. He has testified that he acted because he
thought they may do something and certainly I am bound
to question him as to what gave him reasons to believe
that these would take place.
The Court: The Court is of opinion that you can cross
examine the witness but as to the opinions of other people,
I believe that was your objection, that is sustained.
Q. It was testified, Mr. McNayr, that on occasions such
as, the parade, I believe you were talking about, there were
persons both White and Negro acting with a common pur
pose and everything was peaceful?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you mean to state now that whenever there is a
common purpose, on the part of Negroes, that there are
some Whites around, that violence will necessarily follow?
You don’t mean to say that, do you?
A. I ’m afraid you’re trying to twist the whole thing.
Q. Certainly, I ’m not. I ’m trying to get in the record
what led to the arrest of these persons on that day and
the arrest certainly interfered with certain rights which
they had. That’s what I ’m trying to get out.
A. May I answer in my own words?
[fol. 179] Q. Certainly.
A. I think I have stated the reasons. There is in existence
in this city, in this area, at the present time, well known to
you and to these Negro students a feeling of tenseness in
the racial situation. This was known to these students prior
to their coming to town. I have discussed this with the
144
recognized leader, David Carter, on numerous occasions.
They were fully aware of these conditions. They are fully
aware of the fact that when a crowd gathers, such as
gathered on this occasion, on the basis of this demonstra
tion, that they are subjecting themselves to violence, as
well as the people in the immediate area. Mr. Attorney,
you know that as well as I do. Under these conditions, at
high noon on that day, those people moving out of the
State Offices, people going to lunch generally, the possi
bility of University students being let out at that time and
coming through that area, T acted and I think I acted
soundly and in the best interest of the citizens of Columbia
and the students, and that is the basis for my action.
Mr. Jenkins: If Your Honor please, I did not stop Mr.
McNayr when he was expressing opinions which I have and
thoughts which I had and which these students on that day
had and, in view of Your Honor’s rulings, otherwise we
respectfully submit that all of that answer should be
stricken from the record because it was based strictly on
conjecture as to what Mr. McNayr thinks and what I
thought and what he thinks and what the public thinks.
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, counsel has ex
pressed some objection to something that is a technical
[fol. 180] point. Are you objecting' to the testimony which
you drew out of the witness?
Mr. Jenkins: I still, if Your Honor please, move that the
answer be stricken.
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor pleases, this question was
not asked by me on direct examination. Counsel asked the
question. He could have objected at any time. I have never
in my life heard of any procedure in any courtroom where
counsel elicits an answer from a witness, listens to it with
out objection and then turns around and asks that the
answer be stricken. To my knowledge, there’s no such rule
of law. I ’d like to lie educated to that.
The Court: Objection overruled.
Q. Would you acknowledge that the students on that day
acted with a common purpose, the students that you ar
rested?
A. They were acting with a common purpose.
145
Q. Would you agree that their common purpose was to
protest against what thev considered racial discrimination?
A. Yes.
Q. Mr. McNayr, did you see any overt act on the part
of any of these persons in the crowd which would tend
towards violence!
A. No, I saw no overt act.
Q. Did you hear any remarks from any members of the
crowd which would lead you to believe that there may be
violence on the part of any of these students?
A. Not to my personal knowledge.
Q. Now, you have testified that you can identify some
of the present defendants as having been involved in the
[fol. 181] situation on March the 2nd, which led to the
arrest of all of them?
A. Yes.
Q. There are, I believe, thirty-six defendants before the
Court today. They are sitting generally on the first three
or four rows of this area of the courtroom. (Indicating.)
A. Yes.
Q. Would you care to point out those defendants among
this group that you recognize as having been involved in
this situation on that day?
A. I cannot identify all of them by name. I can identify
them as having seen them there.
Q. You can identify thirty odd of these defendants as
you have a conscious recollection of having seen them on
that day?
A. No, I did not testify in that manner at all. I have
testified that out of this group I recognize two or three
as having been there.
Q. I wonder if you would care to point out those two
or three in this group that you recognize as having partici
pated in the activities on the day in question?
A. Yes. I can point out David Carter, who is thoroughly
familiar to me. He is smiling now. I can pick out the very
young fellow in the back, second from the left, up there in
the fourth row and I can pick out this fellow—well, I can
pick out four or five. This young fellow sitting on the
M6
front, on the left, and also I can pick out Williams, I believe
he’s a defendant this morning.
Q. Sitting near to Reverend Carter?
A. Oh, yes, he’s sitting behind the other attorney.
[fob 182] Q. That’s about five or six. That’s about three
more than I thought you could.
A. I ’m doing very well.
Q. Now, you have testified as to the activities of David
Carter on that day. Now, would you care to testify as to
what specific acts you saw these other persons doing that
you were able to pick out?
A. The others were in these relatively small groups with
the exception of—I can’t recall whether Williams was in
a group or whether he was something of Carter’s Chief
Lieutenant, and I believe he was moving around, maybe
he was one of the Captains, I don’t know.
Q. I think you know Reverend Carter and Williams quite
well ?
A. I do. I ’ve seen a great deal of him and I ’ve also seen
Williams, too.
Q. Now, can you pick out Williams as having been sing
ing and yelling and stomping his feet and shouting?
A. I don’t think I can. Again, he was so active in carry
ing out instructions, I guess, that I can’t identify him as
being one of a group.
Q. Now, the other four or five students, can you point
out specifically any acts of shouting, screaming, yelling?
A. On the part of those individuals?
Q. Yes.
A. No, I cannot.
Q: So. then, you cannot find any of these defendants as
having done any of these specific acts which you have de
scribed, which led to the charge of breach of the peace on
March the 2nd?
[fob 183] A. Yes, I can. Carter.
Q. With the exception of Carter?
A. Very definitely, but the others I can only identify
them as being in these various groups who did this sort
of thing, but not as individuals.
Q. Insofar as the defendant Carter is concerned, the mis
conduct on his part was that he harangued, did you say?
147
A. He was a very active fellow that morning, in addition
to organizing, keeping them all in line, issuing instructions,
generally, to them upon my instructions to him, to have
the group dispersed, then he proceeded with his harangue
or whatever you wish to call it.
Q. I don’t like that word “harangue” , but I don’t know
a better word to use.
A. I think that describes it pretty well.
Q. I take no exception to that. Prior to that time, was
David Carter apparently trying to keep the peace, to keep
down confusion among the persons in his group? You say
he was generally issuing instructions?
A. Yes. Again, if I may use my own words, these people
came to the Grounds in orderly fashion—I’ve testified to
this. They were reasonably well dressed. There was no
profanity, no jeering. They had apparently been well in
structed as to how they should behave. I assume that Dave
Carter was seeing to it that they kept that way during this
parade.
Q. That was the impression he gave you? A. That was
the impression he gave me on this occasion and on previous
occasions.
Q. The situation, then, so far as he and his group were
concerned, got out of his hand after you had issued certain
instructions ?
[fob 184] A. After I had told him that in my judgment the
group must be dispersed and apparently that really set
him off.
Q. You did not identify any of these defendants as hav
ing crowded anyone else off the sidewalk or having blocked
any vehicular traffic?
A. Not as individuals, no, but on occasions they were
filing back and forth across these areas and I ’m certain
some people were blocked out.
Q. There is, then, a possibility that some of these de
fendants may have been bystanders rather than active
participants in the so-called gathering?
A. Oh, there is that possibility. Again, we have police
arrest records, identification cards on each of these people.
It would be impossible for me to identify these individuals.
148
Q. The records which you have are based only on rec
ords—in fact, they are the original records at the arrest
of these individuals when they were carried down to City
Jail?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you, on that day, in this situation, you made no
arrest of any one except these student defendants?
A. That’s right.
Q. With the exception of one young man’s name ?
A. Yes, of my own knowledge, I knew nothing of the
arrest of that boy, really, until very late in the evening.
Q. Frankly, you don’t know whether he participated in
the activities or not ?
A. No, I don’t. I never saw him, as a matter of fact.
Q. Now, with reference to some of these potential trouble
makers, there was no arrest of any of them?
A. No, there was not.
[fol. 185] Q. Of your own knowledge, do you know of any
of these Negro defendants in this group or other groups
who you would call trouble makers?
A. Not in the sense that I was using the word previously,
No.
Q. You don’t know, of your own knowledge, of any in
stance when they have participated in anv act of violence?
A. No.
Q. Do you know of any instance where they have urged
any act of violence?
A. No, I do not.
Q. I believe you are generally familiar with the overall
movement, as expressed by these defendants, throughout
the City of Columbia for the past year?
A. I am quite familiar with it.
Q. Do you know, of your own knowledge, of any violence
on the part of any of those Negro participants in those
activities ?
A. No, I do not.
Q. And would you say that these defendants are typical
of the other persons involved in the same group, in your
experience throughout the past year?
A. Yes, I would.
149
Mr. Jenkins: No further questions.
Redirect examination.
By Mr. Coleman:
Q. Counsel has very skillfully drawn from you part of
your reasoning, part of the reasons behind your action
in having to do with the arrest, which was that you feared
possible violence there, but there was other testimony that
you just gave as to the blocking of the streets and the
sidewalks. Did these factors enter into your decision to
stop the demonstration?
[fol. 186] A. Yes, they did.
Q. Materially?
A. Yes, very materially.
(Witness excused.)
The Court: We will take a five minute recess.
(Court reconvened.)
Whereupon, Mr. Coleman called J o s e p h B a b x e t t who,
being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
Direct examination.
By Mr. Coleman:
Q. Mr. Barnett, what is your full name, please ?
A. Joseph P. Barnett.
Q. Are you a resident of Columbia?
A. I am.
Q. What is your occupation ?
A. I am a Reporter for The State newspaper.
Q. Did you have occasion—
A. First, Mi’. Coleman, I ’d like to point out that I was
subpoenaed to appear here today.
Q. Yes, you were subpoenaed by the Attorney General’s
Office, by me, is that correct?
A. That is correct.
150
Q. Did you have occasion on last March the 2nd, at any
time during the day, to be in the vicinity of the State House
grounds in the City of Columbia?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. At what time did you arrive, if you remember?
A. I arrived there probably at 12:35, probably 12:33
or 12 :34 or 12:35.
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, would counsel
agree that I might refer to the group of students, here-
[fol. 187] tofore identified, about which there has been
testimony, without going into the full thing?
Mr. Jenkins: Go ahead.
Q. Did you see the group of students about which pre
vious witnesses have testified on the grounds that day?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you see any placards being carried by these stu
dents?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember what any of the placards said or
one or none at all?
A. Two of them stand out in my mind.
Q. I notice that you are using notes, Mr. Barnett, Were
those notes made by you?
A. They were made by me. I was acting as a reporter
at that time.
Q. Made by you at the time?
A. At the time. One girl, Negro girl, was carrying a
plac which got my attention and I wrote it down. It said:
“You may jail our bodies but not our souls” .
Q. Do you remember any other placards?
A. There was another placard, of which I ordered a
photograph to be taken, which said words similar to that
about going to jail for freedom and I had a photograph
of that placard made.
Q. At what point of time approximately, with reference
to the arrival of these students on the State House grounds,
did you observe the two signs, if you remember? Was
it when they first got there or afterwards?
A. I can determine that very closely from my notes be
cause my notes have times in them, and I wrote down
151
that placard “You may jail our bodies but not our souls”
[fol. 188] within two or three minutes after 1 wrote down
12:35, and 12:35 was the time that this group arrived at the
horseshoe for what ensued.
Q. AYere you in and about the horseshoe the entire period
of time in whic-h the students were on the State House
grounds!
A. I was. I left when a large group was marched off
to the City Jail. I left in an automobile at that time.
Q. Did you observe the horseshoe area itself from time
to time ?
A. I was in it, around it, all over it.
Q. AYould you describe the area with reference to the
presence or absence of any large number of persons?
A. As has been previously testified, this was near lunch
time and there were a lot of State employees there; there
were a lot of shoppers and there was this large group,
which I had previously counted down at Zion Baptist
Church as being 188 in number, but I must have miscounted,
but they were on the grounds, all in the horseshoe area, all
at one time there. They were met at the entrance to the
horseshoe as they came up from Zion Baptist Church and
there were groups of them coming up as another group was
coming around. They were all over the area there.
Q. Mr. Barnett, with regard to the presence or absence
of any other persons who did not appear to be included
in the student group, describe your observations as to them,
if there were any?
A. I noticed over on the corners by the Carolina Life
Building and by the AYade Hampton Hotel, I noticed that
there were a number of white persons beginning to con
gregate. I noticed the traffic policeman, that the City Man
ager has testified to, had been placed in the intersection,
[fol. 189] The automobiles were slowing down at the inter
section and the monument, that is in the middle of the horse
shoe, there were probably fifteen to twenty-five people
standing on the little steps that lead up to the monument
getting an overall view. There were State officials, police,
State employees in the horseshoe area. There were many
State employees up on the State House porch on both sides,
152
both the North Main Street and the South Main Street
sides.
Q. With regard to the sidewalks along each side of the
horseshoe and the lanes for vehicular traffic on each side
of the monument, would you describe any persons, if there
were any in those areas?
A. The parking lot itself was full with automobiles leav
ing very little space on the driving portion for people but
there were people congregating there. There were persons
congregating on the sidewalks themselves, just standing
by watching.
Cross examination.
By Mr. Sampson:
Q. Mr. Barnett, did you notice any other signs, other
than the two that you mentioned a moment ago?
A. I made an estimate, at the time, and I estimated that
probably in these groups, there were probably three signs
to a group of fifteen or twenty, which carried all sorts of
slogans, some were big and some were small. They were
all generally handwritten, looked like they had been made
in a hurry.
Q. Did it have anything to do with discrimination or
anything about that?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Let me ask you this, sir. Were you present when the
first case was tried on March the 7th, I believe, of this year?
[fol. 190] A. I was. The first case, I was present.
Q. Did I understand you to say that you are a newspaper
reporter?
A. Right.
Q. What paper do you work for?
A. The State newspaper.
Q. Are you familiar with the policy of The State news
paper ?
A. Generally, yes.
Q. Is it their policy generally to permit—
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, that is entirely
irrelevant and I object on that ground.
153
Q. I ’ll withdraw that. Did you or did you not write an
article for this newspaper having to do with this affair?
A. Yes.
Q. So the truth of the matter is you had abridgment
before you appeared here now as a witness, a pre-judgment?
A. I am here to testify as to what I saw and observed.
I have no pre-judgment.
Q. Isn’t it fair to say that you had a pre-judgment of
this matter because you had formed an opinion on it
before you were subpoenaed to appear here as a witness?
Isn’t that right?
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, I hate to keep
interrupting but the witness has not attempted to qualify
himself as an expert. He has given no opinion in the evi
dence. He has merely testified to the physical things that
he saw there that day. I fail to follow the questioning
on his judgment.
Mr. Sampson: May it please the Court, I understand
what Mr. Coleman is objecting to but I ’d like to remind
him that this is cross examination and I have a perfect
[fol. 191] right to ask him any question that might show
a bias or a pre-formed opinion. It’s on cross examination
and this is a reporter and he wrote about it and we had a
trial before he appeared here as a witness and I think
it’s perfectly competent to ask him whether or not he had
any pre-judgment about this case before he appeared.
The Court: The witness has answered that he did not.
Objection sustained.
Q. How long have you been a reporter in Columbia, Mr.
Barnett?
A. I started with The State in 1945.
Q. 1945?
A. I took off three years for a little Army duty.
Q. You have had numerous occasions to observe the
horseshoe area at the State House grounds, haven’t you?
A. Many times.
Q. And would it be fair to say that you are familiar with
the general traffic lights and signals in that area?
A. Yes.
154
Q. To your knowledge, they normally function perfectly,
don’t they, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. And, to your knowledge, I ask you whether or not
on this particular occasion were they functioning normally?
A. That I can’t say. To watch those lights there, you’d
have to go about five different positions to see if they
were functioning normally.
Q. You have no reason to believe that they were not
functioning normally?
A. Oh, no.
Q. You’re not a traffic expert, are you?
[fol. 192] A. No.
Q. Would it be reasonable to assume that the lights were
functioning normally at the time you observed this group
or crowd, as you say?
A. It would be reasonable.
Mr. Coleman: That calls for an assumption on the wit
ness’ part by the words of the question itself. I will stipu
late that the traffic signals were working normally.
Mr. Sampson: At the time he was judging them? Is
that right?
Mr. Coleman: Yes.
Q. I ask you again: you were present at the first trial,
is that right?
A. Eight.
Q. To the best of your recollection, did you or did you
not or do you or do you not recall any witness for the State
on that occasion saying that the traffic signals were not
observed ?
A. Were not observed by the motorist?
Q. That’s right.
A. I generally remember somebody saying that traffic
was not flowing at its normal rate, which would mean that
they were not being' observed but that’s an assumption
on my part.
Q. The lights were not observed. By the way, this was
at a lunch hour, wasn’t it? This was during their lunch
hour?
A. Right.
155
Q. This is a heavily travelled intersection, isn’t it!
A. Right.
Q. Normally, the traffic is heavier then?
A. I presume it was just as normal as any other lunch
hour.
[fol. 193] Q. Isn’t it fair to say that the traffic at that
time was normal for that particular area!
A. Probably so.
Q. Now, since you’ve been here since 1945, what is the
largest crowd that you have observed on the State House
grounds in this area?
A. I think that would be Vice-President Nixon’s rally,
if I ’m not mistaken, at which he spoke.
Q. Last year?
A. Right. Prior to the election.
Q. You didn’t have any breaches of the peace arising
out of that, did you?
A. No, I think they had the Governor’s permission to
use the State House grounds.
Q. How large would you estimate that crowd to be, sir?
A. I don’t remember exactly what it was. I flew over it
in an airplane.
Q. Would you say the traffic was under control on that
occasion,sir?
A. If I recall, the streets were blocked off at that time.
Q. Oh, I see. By the way, this parking lot which you
observed as being full, isn’t it true that that parking lot
is normally full at that time of day?
A. With automobiles, yes.
Q. Now, let me ask you this, Mr. Barnett, do you recall
having seen any of these particular defendants blocking
the traffic or the sidewalks ?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Could you identify them?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Would you care to identify them by pointing out and
having them stand up ?
[fol. 194] A. Well, I can identify Carter and his lieu
tenant or captain, Charles McDew, back there, the Reverend
Glover.
156
Q. Anymore?
A. By name, I think that’s all I can recall right now,
but by face, I think I could give you ten or twelve more.
Q. Now, I ask you, how were they blocking the sidewalks
or the traffic?
A. They were blocking the. sidewalks on two occasions
that I recall; first, when they arrived at the State House
and then after they had walked through the State House
grounds, they blocked it again just across the horseshoe on
Gervais.
Q. Did you observe any of these particular defendants
doing that?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Let me ask you this: when they arrived there, it
is my recollection of the testimony that they were given
permission to go around the State House grounds ?
A. Right. They wmre given permission—this would be
hearsay testimony but Mr. Walker told them they could
go through the State House grounds once but—this is a
direct quote from my notes—“walking around and around
is a breach of the peace. You have no right to go on these
grounds for demonstration” . He told that to Charles
McDew, who I understand is a defendant today, at 12:35.
After he had told those words to Charles McDew, McDew
then said “ May I pass?”
Q. Other than the defendants which you named a mo
ment ago, did you observe any of the others blocking
traffic ?
A. Like I say, on the two occasions when they first
arrived then after they had walked through the State
[fol. 195] House grounds, they sort of back-logged up there
on the Gervais Street end.
Q. Did you observe them they were in groups and an
officer was by each group ?
A. Well, yes, that was generally after arrest that the
officer was by them. They were still in groups, some large
and some small, after arrest.
Q. You wouldn’t say that they were blocking the traffic
then in the custody of an officer?
A. Well, I think they were all generally lined up single
157
file and single file doesn’t block the traffic of the State
House walkways.
Mr. Sampson: That’s all. Thank you.
Mr. Coleman: No further questions.
(Witness excused.)
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, the State has
three more witnesses, Mr. L. J. Campbell, Chief of Police
of the City of Columbia, Mr. Dan F. Beckman, Assistant
Chief of South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, Mr.
A. C. Shorter, Jr., who is a member of the South Carolina
Law Enforcement Division. These three men have testified
at the two previous trials arising out of this occasion and,
with Your Honor’s permission, counsel has agreed to
stipulate that their testimony here today would be substan
tially the same as their previous testimony, including testi
mony by Chief Campbell with regard to, I think, the
vacation of the warrants, the names contained in those
warrants being the names of persons arrested in the City
of Columbia on last March 2nd and who were a part of
the group of students. With Your Honor’s permission,
counsel will offer that testimony as stipulated testimony
and I will ask Chief Campbell to take the stand for one
question on cross examination.
[fol. 196] Mr. Jenkins: If it is agreeable with Your
Honor, we will so stipulate.
The Court: All right.
Whereupon, Chief L. J. Cam pbell was duly sworn and
testified as follows :
Cross examination.
By Mr. Jenkins:
Q. Chief Campbell, would you identify, if any, every one
of these particular defendants present today who com
mitted any of the acts of blocking traffic, vehicular and
pedestrian and otherwise committing a breach of the peace
on March the 2nd, 1961 ?
158
A. Of coarse, I know a couple of them very person
ally, Dave Carter and Williams. Of course, the faces are
familiar and I would say that they were in the group of
the Negro students on March the 2nd.
Q. Are these two, whom you have named, those are the
only ones that you can positively identify?
A. That I could swear that they were there, except as
their names were called on the warrants and they appeared.
Mr. Jenkins: No further questions.
(Witness excused.)
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, do you have a
copy of the warrants of the previous trials?
The Court: I can get them.
Mr. Coleman: I thought possibly we should read in the
record the trial that we had in mind. If Your Honor
please, I should like to place in the record that, with
regard to the stipulation of testimony, one of the trials
to which reference is made and in which testimony was
given by the three witnesses named was entitled The State
[fol. 197] versus George Cleveland Foster, James Jerome
Kirton, Isaac Washington, Roland Johnnie Rhames, Jo
seph B. Bailey, Isaac Jerome Campbell, David Green and
Charles Fulton Barr, the trial of which case was held in
this court room on Tuesday, March the 13th, and including
also the first trial which arose out of this matter involving
these defendants and other Negro students of the City of
Columbia on March the 2nd, 1961. Is that agreeable?
Mr. Jenkins: The first trial was held on March 7th, 1961.
Mr. Coleman: One of the trials, the first, to which
reference is made in this stipulation, was entitled The State
versus James Edwards, Jr., Alvester Pate, Jr., Pinckney
Moseley, Melvin Brown, Jr., Harold Eugene Nimmons,
Willie Boykin Jones, William Perkins, Bill Alvin Sullivan,
the trial of which was held in your court on March 7th,
1961. The State has no further evidence, Your Honor. If
Your Honor please, we did agree that the other two wit
nesses would take the stand for this same question that
was asked of Chief Campbell.
159
Whereupon, Mr. A. C. S horter , J r., was duly sworn and
testified as follows:
Cross examination.
By Mr. Jenkins:
Q. Mr. Shorter, I want to ask you if you will identify
any of the particular defendants on trial today who you
remember having taken part in the activities on March
the 2nd, 1961 and, if in the event you identify any of
these defendants, as having done any of these specific
[fol. 198] acts leading towards the charge of breach of the
peace against them, you will state that also for the record?
A. I can identify David Carter, McDew, his first name
I do not know offhand; I can pick him out if you like.
Q. These defendants are present?
A. McDew attends school in Orangeburg and he’s on
the third seat, back on the left. I can identify him as
particularly breaching the peace. He led the first group
and was very belligerent as he went around, wanting to
go through the walkways, crisscross, in double file, which
I asked him not to do. He stopped on each walkway and
insisted that he do so. I told him he could go through
single file, in smaller groups, that’s McDew.
Q. I believe you also pointed out David Carter as having
done specific acts.
A. You ask me if I knew any of them by name and
I said I knew David Carter by name. I don’t remember
any specific act that David Carter did.
Q. Then, you know of no specific act that any of the
other individual defendants did on that date?
A. I can’t pick them out.
Mr. Jenkins: I have no further questions.
Mr. Coleman: No questions.
(Witness excused.)
Whereupon, Chief D ak F. B eck m an was duly sworn and
testified as follows:
160
Cross examination.
By Mr. Jenkins:
Q. Chief Beckman, I know in the beginning you will
recognize at least two of the defendants on trial today,
[fol. 199] Now, I ask you this question, if you will point out
to the Court, each individual defendant here today that
you can identify as having participated in the activities
on March the 2nd, 1961 and state specifically what each
of those that you identify did which led towards the charge
of breach of the peace being placed against that individual?
A. Charles McDew, back there, and the young man sitting
to his left, and the one with the patch over his eye. I
recognize those three. Of course, I recognize David Carter
and Williams.
Q. Now, then, are those all that you recognize?
A. I recognize this elderly man over here. Is he one
of the defendants in here?
Q. What row?
A. In the first row, next to the end.
Q. I may be in error but I think you have reference to
Reverend Glover.
A. That’s perhaps the only one.
Q. The second part of my question was, Chief Beckman,
if you will point out to the Court, specifically, what each
of the persons you have identified did on March the 2nd
which led to the charge of breach of the peace against
him?
A. Of course, all of them were part of the overall group
that participated in the general singing and stomping of
the feet.
Q. Specifically, can you identify each of these persons
as having stomped their feet and sung?
A. I saw McDew as he was coming through the circle.
Q. Tell us what McDew did?
A. That was shortly after Mr. McNavr gave them fifteen
minutes to disperse, this group came through. I ’d say
[fol. 200] fifteen to twenty people in that group and I asked
him if he wanted to disperse his group and go back, and
161
I spoke to the entire group and I told them that if they
didn’t go back, we would have to arrest them and charge
them with breach of the peace and I had to get David—
Q. Let me ask you, did McDew go back?
A. No, he didn’t.
Q. That’s what McDew did? The fellow with the glasses
on, tell me what he did!
A. He was in the group that I saw there. He was a
party participant.
Q. Now, I believe, Captain Beckman, you have told what
Charles McDew did and you have said that you didn’t
remember anything specific that Reverend Glover had done,
you pointed out that you could recognize Anthony MeFad-
den, he’s the one who is seated immediately to the left of
Charles McDew—
A. To my right?
Q. Yes. Specifically, what do you recognize him as doing?
A. He was a part of the over-all group that was arrested
there that day.
Q. George Anderson is the man with the patch on his
eye. What specifically did he do ?
A. He was a part of the over-all group.
Mr. Jenkins: No further questions.
(Witness excused.)
Mr. Coleman: That completes the State’s testimony,
Your Honor.
D efen d an ts ’ M otions fob D ism issal of C ases, E tc .
and D en ial T hereof
Mr. Jenkins: If Your Honor please, I ’d like to make a
couple of motions. No. 1, we move that the charge against
each of these defendants be dismissed on the ground that
the State has failed to establish the c o r p u s d e l i c t i . The
[fol. 201] 2nd motion is, we move that the charge against
each of the defendants present this morning and on trial
here today be dismissed on the ground that the State has
162
failed to prove a p r i m a f a c i e case. The 3rd motion for
dismissal is upon the ground that by the arrest and pro
secution of these defendants, each of them, the police
powers of the State of South Carolina are being used to
deprive each defendant of the right of freedom of assembly
and freedom of speech guaranteed to each by the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution and further
secured to each by the equal protection and due process
clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, the evidence of the State showing that, at the
time of their arrest, these defendants were included in a
peaceful, lawful assemblage of persons, orderly in every
respect upon the public streets and properties of the State
of South Carolina. These are the three motions for dis
missal.
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor pleases, the State opposes
all three motions. Opposes, first, on the ground that there
is ample evidence establishing the crime committed. There
is ample evidence to establish the crime was committed by
these defendants. I believe that would cover all of our
objections.
The Court: All three motions denied.
Mr. Jenkins: At this time, may it please the Court, the
defendants would like, with Your Honor’s permission, for
the record to show that, if these defendants before the
Court today, were each placed on the stand, each would
testify substantially, both on direct examination and on
cross examination, the same as the witness and defendant,
James Jerome Kirton, testified during the trial here be
fore Your Honor on Tuesday of this week, Tuesday, March
the 13th, 1961.
[fol. 202] Mr. Coleman: The State is agreeable to that.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Jenkins: Further, Your Honor, on behalf of the de
fendants, we should like to place on the stand just two
witnesses, just a short examination.
163
Whereupon, Mr. Jenkins called R everend B . J. G lover,
who, being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
Direct examination.
By Mr. Jenkins:
Q. You are the Reverend Benjamin J. Glover!
A. That’s right.
Q. Reverend Glover, I know that you do not normally
speak very loudly, but today would you raise your voice
just a little bit so we can hear you clearly? You are a
defendant today?
A. That’s right, sir.
Q. Reverend Glover, will you tell to the Court, in your
own words, what you know about the cause on March 2nd,
1961, leading to the arrest of these present defendants,
your participation, if any, in the occurrence which led to
your arrest, just in your own words?
A. I came to Columbia accompanied by several students
from my area to a student meeting and, in that meeting,
the students discussed, in part, racial discrimination as
existed in South Carolina and particularly in Columbia.
They also discussed the fact that the Legislators were in
session, at that time, and decided to point out their feelings,
as it relates to segregation, by a procession to the State
Capitol. In that procession they walked orderly and peace
fully and I feel that most of these students are peaceful,
[fol. 203] to point out either a feeling of resentment or a
feeling of that relation. I followed the group—
Q. May I interrupt you? Were you a part of what you
characterized a procession?
A. I followed the group—yes, not as a student but as
a person in any advisory capacity to some of the students,
who were assigned to me as their parents permitted them
to come because of my company. Certainly I had to see
that they were protected or that they followed what I felt
was the reasonable rights and, in doing so, they proceeded
to the Capitol and, I might say, that they walked from the
place where they assembled to the Capitol with no intention
164
of being arrested or molested or of violating a law. It was
my understanding, from their discussion, that this was
public property and they had a right; in fact, they asked
me, the students that I brought with me, and I told them
that I felt that it was public property and that they had
a right, as a citizen, to move in a peaceful manner and at
no time, I can say to this Court, did these students that I
know about, were they disorderly or acting in a boisterous
manner because every one that I know are Christians. I
knew that they would behave according to certain ethical
and moral codes. The group went to the State grounds, at
least through the grounds, but in the group that I followed,
we were stopped by an officer stating his position and I
must confess that I was never able to make a second round
and many of the other who followed, and they said “ around
and around”, I ’ve heard it testified here that it was a con
tinuous situation, but the officer said that this was not the
thing to do and certainly I wouldn’t have done it, because
on that particular day, by being arrested, and I certainly
was arrested not knowing what I was arrested for,
[fol. 204] I asked the officer but I was given no particular
charge, and he repeated again “You are under arrest” , and
Your Honor, I certainly would have made arrangements
to have been able to ride back to the jail because I walked
further that day than I have in four years. I ’m not per
mitted to walk more than three blocks. I certainly would
not have gone there with the intention of being arrested
with an idea of walking that far, but I went there only
as an observer with the students, as they approached the
State Capitol, and I would like for the Court to know that,
to my knowledge, there was no singing or demonstration,
as far as overt expressions were concerned, or actions,
until after the arrest was made.
Q. Reverend Glover, did you pay any particular atten
tion to the on-lookers, who perhaps were around that area!
A. Most of them, as I observed, some faces were smiling,
perhaps a gesture of good faith, and on one occasion two
or three persons approached with an intention of shaking
hands and I believe one person was arrested on that ac
count.
165
Q. Did you observe any indication on the part of any
bystander-—
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, I ask that the
remark of the witness be stricken, the one that had refer
ence to other persons be arrested because they attempted
to shake hands.
Mr. Jenkins: We will agree, if Your Honor, please, that
that be stricken.
The Court: Strike it from the record.
Q. Reverend Glover, did you observe on the part of
any of the by-standers any act or any conduct, which to
[fol. 205] your mind, brought on a possibility of bodily
harm to you or any of those persons under your charge?
A. I did not.
Q. Did you observe any of the persons, who took part
in this expression that day, that any of these defendants
who impeded, other than the use of the sidewalks?
A. I did not.
Q. Did you observe any of them creating a bottleneck
in the vehicular traffic anywhere around where they were?
A. The only time that I noticed any obstruction of the
traffic or the slowing up of movement, was when an officer
spoke to us, either by the State or City or some person
who identified himself as an officer or he wore the uniform
of an officer, at that time, he stopped persons from saying
something to them but the officer that stopped me stated
that “You are under arrest” and, in questioning him, the
groups began to come up and, if there was a congestion—
however, in that particular instance, he stated that we
must single file and the single file was to the outer side of
the street, so, that, assuming that a person would be able
to pass, and it certainly was not the acts of the students
to violate or to hinder the traffic.
Q. You made some comment on the distance that you
had walked and you had not walked that distance for
some time. Would you state for what reason you have
not walked?
A. I ’ve been confined to the hospital with a muscular
ailment.
166
Q. Do you think of anything further that you would
like to say with regard to the incidents on that day?
[fol. 206] A. Attorney, the only thing I could possibly
say is that there was no intention in the minds of the
students—
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, I object to his stat
ing the intentions in the minds of the students.
A. There was no expression, as relates to arrest or a
violation of a law, or at least the purpose for which I
followed them was to show to the Legislators or other per
sons, with whom we might be able to converse, that there
is a deep-seated resentment on this matter of racial inequal
ities and segregation and I felt that there was no better
time or place to demonstrate it than on the Capitol, which
is the center of our total policy makers.
Mr. Jenkins: I have no further questions.
Cross examination.
By Mr. Coleman:
Q. Reverend G-lover, you walked from the Zion Baptist
Church to the State House grounds ?
A. I did.
Q. Hid you inform any police officer about any physical
disability of yourself ?
A. I did not.
Q. You were there the entire period during which these
students were on the State House grounds, with them?
A. Yes.
Q. For how long a period were they allowed to walk in
and about the State House grounds?
A. I would say that it was in the area of fifteen to thirty
minutes.
Q. Were you directing a group or did you have a super
visory capacity over them that day ?
[fol. 207] A. No, supervisor, except for the young people
I brought with me.
167
Q. You were, though, a part of the over-all group that
was conducting the demonstration? You are not a student,
I understand that, but you were a part of the group, is that
correct?
A. Yes, I became involved.
Q. Do you not think that a reasonable time was given to
you and the other students in which to express whatever
you wanted to express that day?
A. No, I feel that a person expressing a resentment or
any feeling has to be guided by his conscience.
Q. How long or do you know how long you would have
stayed there had there been no acts on the part of the
police officers?
A. That would be determined by the conscience of the
group of the individual.
Q. Then, you are saying that there would be no limit, is
that correct?
A. Conscience always has a limit, sir.
Q. What is it in your case?
A. In my case—
Q. As to the demonstration ?
A. That I am unable to tell. We did not have an oppor
tunity to let conscience be the guide.
Q. You have stated that you felt that you and the others
had the right to go upon the State House grounds. Testi
mony has shown that you were allowed to go on the State
House grounds. Did you see anything of the other factors
which the testimony has shown were involved in this case?
Such as, the gathering of a crowd of on-lookers, the imped
ing of traffic on the sidewalks, the impeding of vehicular
[fol. 208] traffic on the lanes around the horseshoe and on
G-ervais Street, did you observe any of that?
A. I did not observe any abnormal impediment until the
time that the group—it was stated that we were under
arrest and the line of the procession stopped moving because
of the statement made by the officer.
Q. Do you remember whether or not there were any or
none or many people, other than the students, in the horse
shoe when you first arrived there?
A. To be frank, sir, I did not notice any unusual number.
168
Q. At that time?
A. At that time.
Q. Did you notice any unusual number immediately prior
to the time when the arrests were made ?
A. When the officers stopped the group that I was follow
ing, there appeared to be individuals coming near, such as,
reporters or officers, as I can remember, and perhaps civil
ians but the point that I would like for the Court to re
member is that, as far as I was concerned, there was no
unusual congregation or persons until after the arrests
were made.
Q. After the arrests? All right. You have stated that
you felt and the reason you went there was that every
person has a right to walk in and about the State House
grounds and demonstrate, is that right?
A. I don’t think I used the word demonstrate.
Q. What term did you use ?
A. I said I thought every person had the right to point
out his feelings in the manner as the young people were
participating.
Q. Do you think that that right extends to a large group
of two hundred people?
[fol. 209] A. Yes, as individuals, and I believe that the
group—at least I acted as an individual because I chose to
follow them.
Q. You were acting in concert, were you not?
A. Yes.
Q. If it’s all right for a group of two hundred, would
it be all right for a group of four hundred?
A. It would be all right, if they acted under the same
circumstances under which we acted.
Q. Would it be all right for a group of ten thousand?
A. I haven’t ever assembled ten thousand.
Q. You have stated what your beliefs were as to your
rights, I ’m merely trying to reach the point where you think
something maybe could be done to control it. Is there such
a limit in your mind?
A. A limit to action ?
Q. A limit to the number of persons which might act in
concert and demonstrate on a public place ?
169
A. When you come to the truth, everybody should be
convinced of the truth.
Q. I didn’t understand you.
A. When it comes to truth, everyone should be—it is my
belief and I spend my whole life trying to advocate truth
and righteousness.
Q. I ’m in favor of truth also, but that does not answer
my question. Is it your position that any number, an un
limited number of people, acting in concert, might parade
in and about a public place for more than an hour without
any interference, for whatever reason, would that be in vio
lation of constitutional rights?
A. Would you mind my asking just one question to clar
ify an answer ?
Q. All right.
[fol. 210] A. Are you saying that the group demonstrated
more than an hour at the Capitol?
Q. Oh, no. I ’ll tie it to the exact period of time.
A. That would depend on the circumstances.
Q. What circumstances ?
A. What’s involved.
Q. You say it would depend on the circumstances? What
circumstances might be involved? Do you think congestion
of traffic might come into it, along the public streets ?
A. Oh, no.
Q. You do not? I thank you for that answer. Do you
feel that this group of students were arrested because they
were Negroes only? Do you feel that there was no other
reason for their arrest? You were one of the leaders, you
were one of the advisers, do you feel that way?
A. The only point that I could possibly see that they were
arrested, I feel that there was no violation as to their
rights. You would have to ask the person who signed the
warrants for their arrest as to the reasons we were arrested.
Q. All right. Did you know that it is a matter of common
knowledge that a group of people wishing to bring the
Evangelist Billy Graham to the State House grounds were
refused such permission?
170
Mr. Jenkins: If Your Honor please, we realize this is
cross examination, I dislike to interrupt counsel but the
question does not seem pertinent to the issue before the
Court at this time.
Mr. Coleman: Normally, I would agree that it was not
pertinent but throughout all of these trials there’s been
innuendoes, there’s been inference, there’s been direct tes
timony that these people, these students were arrested
[fob 211] because they were Negroes. I see no reason why
the State cannot show, if they can upon cross examination,
that other groups, which had no identification with the
Negro race, have been refused repeatedly the use of the
State House grounds for purposes of rallies, demonstra
tions or things of that sort.
Mr. Jenkins: If Your Honor please, the defense has ad
vanced no reason, to my recollection, as to why these defen
dants were arrested and I may further point out that in
the first trial, in the series of cases, effort was made on
behalf of the defense to question police officials with refer
ence to a rally which took place as the result of the can
cellation of the speaking engagement of Mr. Nixon and the
State vehemently opposed such questioning and Your Honor
ruled it as having nothing to do with the case at issue. I
repeat my objection and I think we are going far afield to
question this witness with respect to action taken by the
Police Department with reference to other assemblages in
or about the State House grounds.
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, I ’d like to remind
both the Court and counsel that the defense counsel brought
out from a State witness here in this trial today testimony
with regard to the Nixon speech held on the State House
grounds without my objection.
The Court: Objection overruled.
Q. If you don’t know of it, just say so. Do you want me
to repeat the question?
A. Please.
Q. Do you know that it is common knowledge that a group
of persons attempting to get permission to have the Evan
gelist Billy Graham come to Columbia and stage a rally on
the State House grounds was refused?
171
[fol. 212] A. Yes, I have that knowledge but I ’d like to add
that the student procession was not classified as a rally.
Q. Well, not by you. It was classified as a demonstration.
Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know that it’s common knowledge that an or
ganization, properly known as the Klu Klux Klan, has been
refused upon many occasions the use of the State House
grounds for purposes of a rally or a demonstration or any
thing of that nature ?
A. I believe that’s true.
Q. Then, with that information, how can you possibly
conclude that this action was taken against the people
merely because they were Negroes ?
_Mr. Jenkins: If Your Honor please, I do not believe this
witness has testified that this action was taken against him
or any other defendant because they were Negroes.
Mr. Coleman: I withdraw the question. No more ques
tion.
The Court: The Court would like to get something clari
fied in his own mind. Reverend Glover, I sympathize with
the muscular trouble that you are having, but you testified
that you were not permitted to walk but three blocks and
then you testified that you had walked from Zion Baptist
Church down to the Capitol Building. If I ’m not mistaken,
that’s about six blocks. How did that happen, if you’re not
supposed to walk but three blocks?
A. Your Honor, I would like to make this statement. I
intended to have stated that I have not walked more than
three blocks in approximately four years. I did not say—
the thing that I wanted clear was the fact that I had been
[fol. 213] advised not to over-exercise and, during that
period, I had not walked more than three blocks at any
continuous walking, at one time and, when I left Zion
Church, I really didn’t know that the State House was that
far. When I started walking, it was an opinion as to how
I felt or as to whether I would continue to walk. After
getting to the Capitol grounds and being arrested, I had
to walk whether I wanted to or not.
172
The Court: How many times have you been here in Co
lumbia, Reverend Glover?
A. Numbers of times.
The Court: You weren’t familiar with where the Capitol
Building was located with reference to Zion Church?
A. No, sir.
The Court: I see.
Redirect examination.
Mr. Jenkins: I should like to ask the witness one question.
Q. You said, Reverend Glover, that you did know some
thing about permission being refused Billy Graham to hold
a meeting here on the State House grounds?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know that the reason for that was that it
would be an integrated meeting?
A. Yes.
Recross examination.
By Mr. Coleman:
Q. I believe you answered my question with regard to
permission sought by the Klu Klux Klan for such a demon
stration, you did know that, and it’s common knowledge
that such groups have been refused permission to use the
grounds ?
“ A. Yes.
[fol. 214] Q. Would the Klu Klux Klan have been an inte
grated meeting?
A. I don’t know.
Q. It is common knowledge—you said it was common
knowledge that the Billy Graham meeting might be inte
grated?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. Would the same apply to the Klu Klux Klan meeting?
A. No, it would not.
Q. Yet they were also refused permission, is that correct?
A. Yes.
173
Mr. Coleman: Thank yon.
(Witness excused.)
The Court: The Court will recess until 2:30 o’clock for
lunch.
(Afternoon session.)
Mr. Jenkins: If Your Honor pleases, the defense does
not, at this time, propose to put any further witnesses on
the stand. We have concluded our case other than we have
a few motions, at this time, that we would like to make.
D efen d an ts ’ M otions foe D ism issal of C ases, E tc .
and D en ial T hereof
(At this time, the defendants move for a dismissal of the
charges against them, and each of them, on the same
grounds as heretofore set forth and we respectfully request
that the record would show that these three motions have
been made, as though set out word for word at this time.
The Court: It is so ordered.
(The motions are denied.)
Mr. Coleman: Nothing further from the State.
Mr. Jenkins: Nothing further from the defendants.
The Court: Any closing remarks ?
[fol. 215] Mr. Jenkins: Insofar as the defendants are con
cerned, we do not at this time care to make any argument
whatsoever, following whatever ruling Your Honor may
make with reference to the cases, we may have something
further to say then.
Mr. Coleman: The State has no argument at this time.
S en ten ce
The Court: The Court would like for all of the defendants
to stand in front of the Bench with no particular reference
as to order.
(Defendants arraigned before the Bench.)
174
The Court: The Court finds you guilty as charged for
breach of the peace. Would the attorneys like to say any
thing before I sentence them?
Mr. Jenkins: If your Honor please, we have been through
similar trials on two occasions. The same remarks, which
we have previously made, you are familiar with and I do
not believe it is for any good purpose to further delay these
proceedings, therefore, we have nothing further to say.
Mr. Coleman: Nothing further.
The Court: I would like for each of you defendants who
have not reached your 17th birthday to please raise your
hands (eight hands raised), and I want you to come over
here (indicating the left side of the court room in front of
Bench). What is your name ?
A. Delbert Leon Woods.
The Court: Next, and on down the line.
A. Isaac Williams, Alfred Odell Lemon, Robert Henry
LaPrince, Wilbur Harrison Walker, William H. Cooley,
James William Cantey, Clifford B. Bell.
The Court: How old are you, Delbert Woods ?
A. Sixteen.
The Court: Where are you from?
A. Charleston.
[fol. 216] The Court: Do you go to school?
A. Yes, sir.
The Court: What school?
A. Tenth grade.
The Court: Next one. What grade are you?
A. Tenth grade.
The Court: Where do you go to school?
A. Charleston.
The Court: Your name is what?
A. Isaac Williams.
The Court: Next?
A. I ’m sixteen, Tenth Grade, Sterling High School, Green
ville, Alfred Odell Lemon.
The Court: Next,
A. Robert LaPrince, Kirk High School, Charleston. 16
years old.
The Court: Next,
A. Sixteen, Tenth Grade, Greenville, South Carolina.
Wilbur Harrison Walker.
The Court: Next.
A. Sixteen, Eleventh Grade, Greenville, South Carolina,
William Cooley.
The Court: Next.
A. James William Cantey, Sixteen, Eleventh Grade, Co
lumbia.
The Court: Next.
A. Clifford Bell, Sixteen, Senior, Mathis Academy.
The Court: I have given considerable thought to the
matters of young people working, young people violating
the laws and I have devoted most of my life trying to help
and trying to lead them in the right direction.' Regardless
of any we may do something or why we may be led into
something is only something that you in your own heart can
justify. The Court certainly is going to take notice of the
fact that you are not just minors, but you are really ehil-
[fol. 217] dren. Some day you will grow up to be a grown
man and have problems that we, ourselves, are faced with
right now. I just hope that when you become a man that
you won’t use children to fight your battles or my battles,
as you have been used.
176
The Court fines each one of you eight the minimum
under the law, $10.00 or five days in jail. Now, if you eight
will sit down over there, we can proceed.
Next, I would like for the defendants from seventeen
up to twenty-one years old to stand over on this side. (De
fendants line up as directed.)
The Court: None of you have reached your twenty-first
birthday ?
A. No. (In unison.)
The Court: What is your name ?
A. Anthony McFadden.
The Court: Your name ?
A. Clifford James Eice.
The Court: Next—
A. Sinclair Salters.
A. Hezikah Johnson.
A. James Allen Carter.
A. Thomas D. Hornsby.
A. Henry Williams.
A. Maxine Epps.
A. Frank E. Gore.
A. George A. Anderson.
A. Arthur Whitfield Stanley, Jr.
A. Earl Peters, Jr.
A. Wendell Dailey.
The Court: To each of you thirteen defendants, the sen
tence of the Court is $100.00 or thirty days in jail. I ’m going
to suspend half of that upon payment of a $50.00 fine. Take
your seats, please.
[fol. 218] Mr. Jenkins: In his absence, William from Cam
den, 17 years of age; also James Clyburn, I do not know his
age but I understand he is less than twenty-one; he is twenty
years of age. He, also, is one of those tried in his absence.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Jenkins: I ’m just wondering whether or not the
sentence you have meted out to these others applied, as
far as these two persons are concerned, pending your check
ing their ages?
The Court: That’s right. It certainly will. For the other
thirteen defendants, the Court has absolutely no sympathy
because each one of you are grown men, who have led chil
dren to the point where now they have a record, a police
record. To get children to fight your battles and my battles
is unheard of in a decent civilization.
The Court fines each one of you $100.00 or thirty days in
County Jail.
Mr. Jenkins: If Your Honor please, at this time, on
behalf of all of the defendants, we move for arrest of judg
ment or, in the alternative, for a new trial based upon the
motions made previously for a dismissal of the actions and
we respectfully request that rather than spelling them out
word for word, at this time, that the record will show the
same as though we had repeated those motions again.
The Court: The records will show that.
(Motions denied.)
Mr. Jenkins: Now, then, at this time, if the Court pleases,
we serve notice of intention to appeal within the statutory
time. We will file with the Court written notice along with
exceptions. We would further request that the Court would
[fol. 219] set appeal bonds in each case.
The Court: The appeal bond for each one that has just
been tried and found guilty will be $100.00.
The Court would like, before we adjourn, to say, with
reference to the young people under twenty-one, it is cus
tomary with me, if they come back before me the second
time, it would show that they have a complete disregard
for the law and justice as we know it, and the Court will
not look upon their age as a factor with any future sen
tences you might have.
Mr. Jenkins: That’s all, Your Honor.
The Court: The court will be adjourned until Monday,
March the 27th, when we will try the remaining 137 defen
dants who are charged in this particular case.
(Court adjourned.)
178
Reporter’s Certificate to foregoing transcript (omitted in
printing).
Transcript of Testimony
Before Honorable Frank Powell, Magistrate, on Monday,
March 27, 1961, Court Room at Columbia Police Head
quarters, Columbia, South Carolina.
A ppearances :
For the State: J. C. Coleman, Esq.
For the Defendants: Lincoln C. Jenkins, Jr., Esq., Mat
thew J. Perry, Esq., Donald James Sampson, Esq.
The Court: I would like to announce the rules of the
Court. There will be no pictures taken within the court-
[fol. 220] room at any time, of any type. As many people
who like may attend the hearing this morning, if they have
a seat, but no one will be allowed to stand up around the
walls. Any outburst of any type will not be tolerated and
the court will take into consideration, if this happens, that
the members present will be in contempt of court.
The Court has before it a warrant charging the following-
persons with the crime of breach of the peace:
Mr. Perry: May it please the Court, I wonder if it
wouldn’t expedite matters to have the defendants stand
and indicate whether they are present as you read the
names.
The Court: Yes. As I call out the names, as each name
is called, will you stand up and indicate whether you are
here or not. Answer “Present” loud and clear when you
stand up.
Betty Jean Capers—Present.
Minnie DeWitt—Present.
Dorris D. Wright—Present.
Dee Anne Anderson—Present.
Mary Norris—Present.
Rhunett Lindsey—Present.
Juanita Hall—Present.
Bettie Jean King—Present.
Benzer Inabinett—Present.
Carrie May Kelly—Present.
179
Hazel Yvonne Newberry—Present.
Betty Jean Lindsay—Present.
Sarah Elizabeth McKenzie—Present.
Mattie Thomas—Present.
Queen Ester Rush—Present.
Choncie Mae Drayton—Present.
[fol. 221] Ottie Ruth Jarrott—Present.
Dorothy Helen Robinson—Present.
Mary Louise English—Present.
Willie Oma Jamison—Present.
Bobbie Jeane Giles—Present.
Irene O’Neal Giles—Present.
Felicia Yvonne Young—Present.
Leola Clements-—Present.
Gertrude Smith—Present.
Katherine Duncan—Present.
Marion Jeanette Johnson—Absent.
Jeanette Louise Hartwell—Present.
Mary Elizabeth Ellison—Present.
Junius Leverne Reed—Present.
James K. Davis—Present.
Leonard Lewis McCants—Present.
Mario Davis—Present.
Sammie Pringle—Present.
Clinton Warren Hazzard—Present.
Robert McTeer—Present.
James Kenneth Alford—Present.
Gwendolyn Watson—Present.
Yvonne Redd—Present.
Frances McDaniel—Present.
J ohn Land—Present.
Hallain Sizer—Present.
Kate Lewis—Present.
Willie Evelyn Grant—Present.
Frances Elizabeth Johnson—Present.
Evelyn Bing—Present.
Shirley Ann King—Present.
Alethia Brown—Present.
Rebecca Williams—Present.
Mary Doe—Present.
[fol. 222] Albertine Myrtis Coney—Present.
180
Yvonne J. Goodloe—Present.
Brenda Janet Burton—Present.
Barbara Ann Mack—Present.
Judith Delores Smith—Absent.
Emma Jean Jones—Present.
Evelyn L. Bobinson—Present.
Julius Duke Moses—Present.
Janet Louise Black—Present.
Juanita Waddell—Present.
Justine Simmons—Present.
Bettye Jean Machack—Present.
Mattie M. Giles—Present,
Annette Edwards—Present.
Betty Jean Wilson—Present.
Amanda Townsend—Present.
Novel Nowlin—Present.
Barbara Early—Present.
Louvenia Griggs—Present.
Gertrude Evans—Present,
Shirley A. Greene—Present.
Annie Mae Ray—Present.
Loretta Gertrude Bush—Present
Bettie Jean Brown—Present,
Gloria Jean Jefferson—Present.
Rosalee Hines—Present,
Edith Jenkins—Present.
Florence Smalls—Present,
Mary Lou Sullivan—Present.
Rae L. Jones—Present.
Lucy Davis—Present.
Jenny Lou Davis—Present.
Myrtle L. Walker—Present.
Patricia Green—Present.
[fol. 223] Frederick E. Hart—Absent.
Margaret A. McCray—Present,
Rupert Hickman—Present.
Herbert Lawrence Wilson—Present.
Bernard Haire—Present.
Leon Bryant—Present.
Donald Jerome Salters—Present.
1 8 1
Frederick Paul Padgett—Present.
Robert Lee McBeth—Present.
Louie Lighty—Absent.
Mr. Jenkins: Louie Lighty is the one who had to report
to his Draft Board this morning.
The Court:
Floyd Alvin Gilmore—Present.
McArthur Juke Bishop—Present.
Charlie Flemming—Present.
Joe Louis Robinson—Present.
John Josiah Campbell—Present.
I. D. Newman—Present.
Harold Foster—Absent.
Mr. Perry: Harold Foster is from Spartanburg and I
think he is on a trip from his school, either in Washington
or New York.
The Court:
Jimmy Norz Moore—Present.
Jessie Alfreda Lockhart—Present.
Barbara Ann Cureton—Present.
Sarah Ann Wharton—Present.
Dianne Gwendolyn Blassingame—Present.
Sophia Pearl Lester—Present.
Laverne Durant-—Present.
Bettye Jean Wideman—Present.
William T. Robinson—Present.
William Theodore Boggs—Present.
[fol. 224] Henry Earl Thomas—Present.
James Edward Coleman—Present.
Bernard Nathaniel Riggins—Present.
Horace Nash—Present.
John Wesley Miller—Present.
Mark A. Williams—Present.
Clarence Missouri—Present.
Carl Edward Brook—Present.
Classie R. Walker—Present.
Robbie Jean Young—Present.
Regina Shirley Ann Caldwell—Present.
Bookertee McLeod—Present.
Claude E. Moore—Present.
182
John I. Witherspoon—Present.
Matthew Williams—Present.
Harold Bardonville—Present.
Travis Simon—Present.
Shellie Stroman—Present.
Willie Paul Worthy—Present.
Robert Ferguson—Present.
Albert Orage—Present.
John Sawyer—Present.
Glenn Manning—Present.
Kennedy Claflin—Present.
John Frederick—Present.
Bobby D. Doctor—Present.
The Court: Defendants be seated. Are these persons rep
resented by counsel?
Mr. Jenkins: They are all represented by counsel.
The Court: How about Frederick Hart? Is he repre
sented by counsel?
Mr. Jenkins: He is not represented by counsel here.
The Court: (To Bailiff) Go outside and cry out his name
three time and report back to me.
[fol. 225] Mr. Jenkins: If Your Honor please, the fol
lowing defendants, while not physically present in court
this morning are present by counsel: Dee Anne Anderson,
Marion Jeanette Johnson, Judith Delores Smith, Louie
Lighty, Harold Foster, Paul Doctor, and it is agreed that
these persons, though absent, are represented by counsel
and will be bound by whatever rules and decisions are
made by the Court this morning.
The Court: Mr. Bailiff?
Bailiff: No response, Your Honor.
The Court: The Court would like to have it in the
record that attempt has been made, the Bailiff cried out
the name of Frederick Hart three times outside of the
courtroom; he is not present and is not represented by
an attorney. The Court has also written the father of
this boy last week informing him, as a courtesy, of the
hearing to be held here this morning at 10:00 o’clock, to
which the Court did not receive a reply. The Court will try
Frederick E. Hart in his absence this morning.
183
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, may we move to
sever the trial of Frederick Hart?
Mr. Jenkins: We will so agree, and we would ask that
the record show that the defendant Hart will be severed
from the other defendants in the trial this morning.
The Court: It is agreed. Without the necessity of going
back and calling out the names of each one of you, whom
I have just called out, each one of the one hundred and
thirty and some odd, who was present before me now,
you have been charged on a warrant, to-wit: “Personally
appeared before me, Frank Powell, Magistrate of the said
County and said State, L. J. Campbell who, being duly
sworn, says that Bookertee McLeod, Pauline Moore and
[fol. 226] others, before me now, at Columbia, South
Carolina, on March 2nd, 1961 on the State Capitol Grounds
and on adjacent sidewalks and streets did commit a breach
of the peace in that they, together with a large group of
people, did assemble, impede the normal traffic, sing and
parade with placards, failed to disperse upon lawful orders
of police officers, all of which tended directly to immediate
violence and breach of the peace in view of existing condi
tions. Signed, L. J. Campbell. Sworn to before me this
2nd day of March, 1961. Frank Powell, Columbia Mag
istrate.” The Court also would like it entered into the
record that each one of you on March the 2nd, when the
warrants were taken out, was read the charge individually
by me to you, including those who are absent today, Fred
erick E. Hart and others.
Are you the persons just called and were you released
on bond on a charge of the breach of the peace to appear
in court today?
Mr. Perry: The defendants will answer that question in
the affirmative by counsel.
The Court: How do you plead?
Mr. Perry: Each of the defendants pleads Not Guilty.
The Court: Is the defense ready for trial?
Mr. Perry: The defense is ready.
The Court: Is the State ready for trial?
Mr. Coleman: The State is ready. Your Honor, at this
time, I wish to announce to the Court that counsel for the
184
defendants and counsel for the State has stipulated, if it
please the Court to accept such stipulation, that the testi
mony, which would be offered here today and the witnesses
who would appear here today, are the same witnesses that
have appeared in a trial in your Court last March the
[fol. 227] 16th. If Your Honor please, may I look at the
docket!
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Coleman: That trial being entitled State against
James C. West, Sinclair Salters, Hezikah Johnson, James
Clyburn, William Moultrie, David Carter, Benjamin James
Glover, Samuel S. Williams, Arthur W. Stanley, Jr.,
Wendell Dailey, Lennie William Glover, Samuel Edwards,
David Lawrence Perrett, James Allen Carter, Clifford
James Rice, Delbert Leon Woods, Alfred Odell Lemon,
Wilbur Harrison Walker, James W. Cantev, Isaac W.
Williams, Clifford B. Bell, William H. Cooley, Robert
Henry LaPrince, Frank E. Gore, Earl Peters, Jr., Henry
H. Harris, Charles R. Miller, Charles McDew, Maxine Epps,
Henry Williams, Leroy Hogans, Jimmy Lee Smith, James
Reeder, Jr., George Allen Anderson, Thomas D. Hornsby,
Anthony McFadden, being the intention of counsel to
stipulate that the same Avitnesses for both the State and
the defense would be presented here today and that the evi
dence gi\ren by those same Avitnesses at the trial previously
identified, which took place in your court last March the
16th, Avould be substantially the same if they were pre
sented here today, including testimony by Chief Campbell,
that the names appearing on the warrants, which you have
just read, were the names given to the Police Station here
in Columbia by persons aaTlo were engaged in certain demon
strations on the State House Grounds last March the 2nd
and who were arrested on charge of breach of the peace
that day. The State is also stipulating that recognizance
bonds posted for these defendants would be offered in
evidence and will be jfiaced in evidence by stipulation,
[fol. 228] Mr. Perry: May it please the Court, the defen
dants Avill agree to the stipulation as stated by counsel for
the Stale, Avith the exception that the defendants would
like also to have the testimony, AAThich was received by
the Court in the very first trial, the date of which has
185
escaped me at this moment, wherever it is deemed ap
plicable to be considered, also as a part of this stipu
lation. In other words, I understand that we have had
three trials and where applicable the testimony which
was offered in all of the preceding trials would be included
in the stipulation, which has just been stated.
Mr. Coleman: That’s agreed.
The Court: The Court agrees and it is so ordered.
Mr. Perry: Particularly emphasizing each of the pre
ceding trial as a part of that stipulation.
Mr. Coleman: It is agreed.
Mr. Perry: At this time, may it please the Court, the
defendants respectfully move for a dismissal of the cases
pending against them upon all the grounds previously noted
in the several trials, which have been held before Your
Honor. We will omit any argument on those motions and
we ask that you consider them and make ruling on them at
this time.
Mr. Coleman: The State opposes the motions upon the
same grounds as was set forth in previous trials.
The Court: Motions denied.
Mr. Perry: At this time, may it please the Court, the
defendants offer to stipulate that if they offer evidence
in this trial, that the testimony, which was adduced in the
two previous trials, to wit: the trial on March 13th and
the trial on March 16th, which was held before Your Honor,
that the testimony, which would be presented on behalf of
the defendants, would be substantially the same as was the
[fol. 229] testimony offered in the trials of March 13 and
March 16.
Mr. Coleman: We agree.
The Court: It is so ordered.
D efen d an ts ’ M otions foe D ism issal of Cases, E tc .
and D en ial T hereof
Mr. Perry: The defendants hereupon renew all motions
for dismissal upon the same grounds as previously noted.
Mr. Coleman: The State opposes the motions upon the
same grounds.
The Court: Motions denied.
1 8 6
Mr. Perry: Your Honor, I believe you will see fit at this
time to make your findings.
The Court: The Court will have a five minute recess
and I ’d like for the State’s attorney and the defense at
torneys to come back in the Chambers.
(Recess.)
The Court: The Court finds each one of you guilty as
charged with the crime of breach of the peace.
The Court wants each person who has not as yet reached
his Seventeenth birthday to stand. Horace Nash, Judith
Smith—
Mr. Perry: She’s absent.
S entence
The Court: Emma Jean Jones, Katherine Duncan, Jessie
Lockhart, Barbara Ann Cureton, Sarah Ann Wharton,
Dianne Blasingame, Brenda Janet Burton, F. P. Padgett,
James Alford, Carl E. Brooks, Rebecca Williams, Leonard
McCants. The sentence of the Court to each of you stand
ing here and for the one absent—the Court has taken into
consideration your youth this time—and is going to fine
you the minimum under the law, $10.00 or five days in
jail. I want to caution you now, however, if you should
come back before this court again, that your youth will not
be taken into consideration. Be seated.
[fol. 230] All of those who are twenty-one years or older
stand: Patricia Green—this is those who were twenty-one
as of March 2nd of this year—Barbara Giles, John Camp
bell, DeQuincy Newman, Clarence Missouri, Albert Orage,
Mattie Thomas, Harold Bardonville, Jr., Herbert Wilson,
Rupert Hickman, Matthew Williams, John Frederick, John
Land, Shellie Stroman, Bookei’tee McLeod, Donald Jerome
Salters, Evelyn Robinson, Barbara Early, Betty Jean
Mashack, Irene O’Neal Giles. The Court will check the
ages of each one of you, the twenty, I believe, that have
just stood up. For you twenty, the Court has absolutely no
sympathy whatever. The Court sentences you to $100.00
fine or thirty days in jail. Be seated.
187
The remainder of you stand up. To each of you, the
Court sentences you to $100.00 fine or thirty days in jail.
I ’m going to suspend half of that on a payment of a fine of
$50.00. To each one of you, I repeat, that, if you should
come back before this Court on any matter, your youth
will not be taken into consideration and the Court cannot
emphasize enough the fact that once you reach twenty-one
years old, whether you intend it or not, you become a man
and a woman in the State of South Carolina and must accept
the responsibilities of a man and a woman. There’s a law
in the State of South Carolina that no person over twenty-
one can interfere whatsoever with a child or a minor, which
is under twenty-one years old, if that minor or any law
is violated. I hope that you will take this into considera
tion and realize the seriousness of how close some of you
came to getting into very serious trouble.
Mr. Perry: May it please the Court, at this time the
defendants' all move for arrest of judgment or in its
alternative for a new trial. This motion is based upon all
[fol. 231] grounds previously noted in the several motions
for dismissal in former trials. I will omit any argument
thereon.
Mr. Coleman: If Your Honor please, the State opposes
the motion upon the grounds set forth in the previous
trials.
The Court: Motion denied.
Mr. Perry: At this time, the defendants give verbal
notice of appeal. We will serve the written notice within
the time required by statute and we ask that the Court
set an appeal bond.
The Court: The appeal bond for each one that was tried
todav will be $100.00.
The Court will now go into the case of Frederick E.
Hart.
Mr. Jenkins: May it please the Court before that trial,
I should like to say to ail of the defendants here, with the
Court’s permission, will you please remain in here until we
dismiss you because you will have to sign appeal bonds. I
wonder if there could be some notation made by the Re
porter that the trial of Frederick Hart will he a separate
trial from a procedural standpoint.
%
188
The Court: The Frederick Hart case will not be included
with the other cases.
Trial of above case closed.
Reporter’s Certificate to foregoing transcript (omitted in
printing).
[fol. 232]
I n t h e R ic h lan d Co u n ty C ourt
Order—July 10,1961
This is an appeal from conviction in magistrate’s court
of the common law crime of breach of the peace. There
are almost 200 appellants, who were convicted by the mag
istrate, City of Columbia, Richland County, in four trials,
trial by jury having been waived by the appellants in each
case. By stipulation between counsel for the appellants
and the counsel for the State, the appeals will be treated
here as one since the facts and applicable law were sub
stantially the same in each case. The trial Magistrate
imposed fines upon each of the appellants ranging from
$10.00 to $100.00. Due and timely, notice of appeal from
conviction was served and oral arguments were heard
before me in open court. At my suggestion and with the
agreement of counsel for both sides, written briefs were
filed.
The appellants except to the finding of the Magistrate’s
Court and the fines imposed as a result of such finding of
guilt upon the grounds that the State by the evidence failed
to establish the c o r p u s d e l i c t i , that the State failed to prove
a p r i m , a f a c i e case, that the evidence showed that the police
powers of the State of South Carolina were used against
the appellants to deprive them of the right of freedom of
speech guaranteed by the Constitution of the United
States and the Constitution of South Carolina, and that
the evidence presented before the Magistrate showed only
that the appellants at the time of their arrests were engaged
in a peaceful and lawful assemblage of persons, orderly in
every respect upon the public streets of the State of South
Carolina.
Testimony before the Magistrate sets out the following
series of events which culminated in the arrest of the
appellants and the issuance of warrants charging them
[fol. 233] with breach of the peace. Shortly before noon
on the third day of March, 1961, the appellants, acting-
in concert and with what appeared to be a preconceived
and definite plan, proceeded on foot along public sidewalks
from Zion Baptist Church in the City of Columbia to the
State House grounds, a distance of approximately six city
blocks. They walked in groups of twelve to fifteen each,
the groups being separated by a few feet. Testimony shows
that the purpose of this assemblage and movement of stu
dents was to walk in and about the grounds of the State
House protesting, partly by the use of numerous placards,
against the segregation laws of this State. The General
Assembly was in session at the time.
Upon their approach to an area in front of and im
mediately adjacent to the State House building, known as
the “horseshoe”, the Negro students were met by police
authorities of the State and the City of Columbia. After
brief conversation between the leader of the students and
police officers, the students proceeded to walk in and about
the State House grounds displaying placards, some of
which, at least, might be termed inflammatory in nature.
There is some evidence also that a few groups of students
were singing during this period. Such activity continued
for approximately 45 minutes during which the students
met with no interference from anyone. Testimony from
city and state authorities was to the effect that during this
period of time, while the students were marching in and
about the grounds without hindrance from officers, large
numbers of onlookers, evidently attracted by the activity
of the students, had gathered in the “horseshoe” area,
entirely blocking the vehicular traffic lane and interfering
materially with the movement of pedestrian traffic on the
sidewalks in the area and on city sidewalks immediately
[fol. 234] adjacent. Testimony of city and state authorities
was that vehicular traffic on the busy downtown streets of
Gervais and Main, one running alongside the grounds and
the other “dead-ending” at the State House, was noticeably
and adversely affected by the large assemblage of students
and onlookers which had filled the “horseshoe” area and
overflowed into Gervais and Main Streets. Some testimony
disclosed that in and about the “horseshoe” area it was
190
necessary for the police to issue increasingly frequent
orders to keep pedestrian traffic moving, even at a slow
rate.
The Chief of Police of the City of Columbia and the
City Manager of the City of Columbia testified that they
recognized in the crowd of onlookers persons whom they
knew to be potential troublemakers. It was at this time
that the police authorities decided that the situation had
become potentially dangerous and that the activities of
the students should be stopped. The recognized and ad
mitted leader of the students was approached by city au
thorities and informed that the activities of the students
had created a situation which in the opinion of the officers
was potentially dangerous and that such activities should
cease in the interest of the public peace and safety. The
students were told through their leader that they must
disperse in 15 minutes. The leader of the students, ac
companied by the City Manager of Columbia, went from
one group of students to the other, informing them of the
decision and orders of the police authorities.
The City Manager testified that the leader of the stu
dents refused to instruct or advise them to desist and
disperse but that instead he “harangued” the students,
whipping them into what was described by the City Man
ager as a semi-religious fervor. He testified that the
[fol. 235] students, in response to the so-called harangue
by their leader, began to sing, clap their hands and stamp
their feet, refusing to stop the activity in which they were
engaged and refusing to disperse. After 15 minutes of
this activity the students were arrested by state and city
officers and were charged with the crime of breach of the
peace.
With regard to the position taken by the appellants that
their activities in the circumstances set forth did not con
stitute a crime, the attention of the Court has been directed
to several of our South Carolina cases upon this point,
one of them being the case of S t a t e v. L a n g s t o n , 195 S. C.
190, 11 S. E. (2d) 1. The defendant in that case was a
member of a religious sect known as Jehovah’s Witnesses.
He, with others, went on a Sunday to the homes of other
persons in the community and played records on the porches
191
announcing his religious beliefs to anyone who would listen.
He also employed a loud speaker mounted on a motor
vehicle to go about the streets for the same purpose.
Crowds of persons were attracted by this activity. No
violence of any kind occurred. Upon his refusal to obey
orders of police officers to cease such activity, the defen
dant was arrested and convicted for breach of the peace.
The Court in upholding the conviction said:
“It certainly cannot be said that there is not in this
State an absolute freedom of religion. A man may
believe what kind of religion he pleases or no religion,
and as long as he practices his belief without a breach
of the peace, he will not be disturbed.
“ In general terms, a breach of the peace is a viola
tion of public order, the disturbance of public tran
quility, by any act or conduct inciting to violence.
[fob 236] “ It is not necessary that the peace be ac
tually broken to lay the foundation of prosecution for
this offense. If what is done is unjustifiable, tending
with sufficient directness to break the peace, no more is
required.”
With further reference to the argument advanced by the
appellants that they had a constitutional right to engage
in the activities for which they were eventually charged
with the crime of breach of the peace, regardless of the
situation which was apparently created as a result of such
activities, this Court takes notice of the New York State
case of P e o p l e v. F e i n e r , 300 N. Y. 391, 91 N. E. (2d) 319.
In that case the Court of Appeals of the State of New
York wrote an exhaustive opinion in a case which arose
in that State in 1950, the factual situation being similar in
many respects to the cases presently before this Court
upon appeal.
Feiner, a University student, stationed himself upon one
of the city streets of the City of Syracuse and proceeded
to address his remarks to all those who would ilsten. The
general tenor of his talk was designed to arouse Negro
people to fight for equal rights, which he told them they
did not have. Crowds attracted by Feiner began to fill up
192
the sidewalks and overflow into the street. There was no
disorder, but in the opinion of police authorities there was
real danger of a disturbance of public order or breach of
the peace. Feiner was requested by police to desist. He
refused. The arrest was then made and Feiner was charged
and convicted of disorderly conduct.
In upholding the conviction, the New York Court quoting
from C a n t w e l l v. S t a t e o f C o n n e c t i c u t , 310 U. S. 296, 60
S. Ct. 900, 84 L. Ed. 1213, 128 A. L. R. 1352, said:
[fol. 237] “ The offense known as breach of the peace
embraces a great variety of conduct destroying or men
acing public order and tranquility. It includes not only
violent acts, but acts and words likely to produce
violence in others. No one would have the hardihood
to suggest that the principle of freedom of speech
sanctions incitement to riot or that religious liberty
connotes the privilege to exhort others to physical
attack upon those belonging to another sect. When
clear and present danger of riot, disorder, interference
with traffic upon the public streets or other immediate
threat to public safety, peace or order appears, the
power of the State to prevent or punish is obvious.”
The appellants in the present case have emphasized re
peatedly in the trials and in their arguments before the
Court and in their Brief that no one of them individually
committed any single act which was a violation of law.
It is their contention that they had a right to assemble and
act as they did so long as the}’ did no other act which was
in itself unlawful. Apparently they reject the proposition
that an act which is lawful in some circumstances might be
unlawful in others. The New York Court in answering a
similar contention made by the defendant in the F e i n e r
case said:
“ We are well aware of the caution with which the
courts should proceed in these matters. The intoler
ance of a hostile audience may not in the name of
order be permitted to silence unpopular opinions. The
Constitution does not discriminate between those whose
ideas aie popular and those whose beliefs arouse oppo
193
sition or dislike or hatred—guaranteeing the right of
freedom of speech to the former and withholding it
from the latter. We recognize, however, that the State
[fol. 238] must protect and preserve its existence and
unfortunate as it may be, the hostility and intolerance
of street audiences and the substantive evils which
may follow therefrom are practical facts of which the
Courts and the law enforcement officers of the State
must take notice. Where, as here, we have a combina
tion of an aroused audience divided into hostile camps,
an interference with traffic and a speaker who is de
liberately agitating and goading the crowd and the
police officers to action, we think a proper case has
been made out under our State and Federal Constitu
tions for punishment.”
In the present case the appellants were not prevented
from engaging in their demonstration for a period of ap
proximately an hour, nor were they hindered in any way.
After such activity had gone on for approximately 45
minutes, police officers saw that streets and sidewalks had
been blocked by a combination of students and a crowd
of 200 or 300 onlookers which had been attracted by their
activities. They recognized potential troublemakers in the
crowd of onlookers which was increasing by the minute.
State and city authorities testified that in their opinions
the situation which had been created by the students had
reached a point where it was potentially dangerous to the
peace of the community. Instead of taking precipitous
action even at this point, police authorities ordered the
students to cease their activities and disperse, giving them
the reasons for such order. The students were told that
they must cease their activities in 15 minutes. The students
refused to desist or to disperse. There is no indication
whatever in this case that the acts of the police officers
were taken as a subterfuge or excuse for the suppression
of the appellants’ views and opinions. The evidence is
[fol. 239] clear that the officers were motivated solely by
a proper concern for the preservation of order and the
protection of the general welfare in the face of an actual
194
interference with traffic and an imminently threatened dis
turbance of the peace of the community.
Petitioning through the orderly procedures of the Courts
for the protection of any rights, either invaded or denied,
has been followed by the American people for many years.
It is the proper and the correct course to pursue if one
is sincerely seeking relief from oppression or denial of
rights. While it is a constitutional right to assemble in a
hall to espouse am/ cause, no person has a right to organize
demonstrations which any ordinary and reasonable think
ing citizen knows or reasonably should know would stir
up passions and create incidents of disorder.
The State of South Carolina, the City of Columbia, and
the County of Richland in the exercise of their general
police powers of necessity have the authority to act in
situations such as are detailed in the evidence in these
eases and if the conduct of their duly appointed officers
of the law is not arbitrary, capricious and the result of
prejudice but is founded upon clear, convincing and com
mon sense reasoning, there is no denial of any right.
All exceptions of the appellants are overruled and the
convictions and sentences are affirmed.
Legare Bates, Senior Judge, Richland County Court.
Columbia, South Carolina,
July 10th, 1961.
[fol. 240] I n th e R ich lan d C o u n ty C ourt
E xceptions
1. The Court erred in refusing to hold that the State
failed to establish the c o r p u s d e l i c t i .
2. The Court erred in refusing to hold that the State
failed to prove a p r i m a f a c i e case.
3. The Court erred in refusing to hold that the evidence
shows conclusively that by the arrest and prosecution of
these appellants, the police powers of the State of South
Carolina are being used to deprive appellants of the right
of freedom of speech, and the right peaceably to assemble
195
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,
guaranteed them by Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution
of South Carolina.
4. The Court erred in refusing to hold that the evidence
shows conclusively that by the arrest and prosecution of
appellants, the police powers of the State of South Carolina
are being used to deprive appellants of the rights of free
dom of assembly and freedom of speech, guaranteed them
by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,
and further secured to them under the equal protection
and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States.
[ fo l . 241] S tipu lation
It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between counsel
for the appellants and respondent that the foregoing, when
printed, shall constitute the Transcript of Record herein
and that printed copies thereof may be filed with the
Clerk of the Supreme Court and shall constitute the Return
herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Daniel R. McLeod, Attorney General, J. C. Coleman,
Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Everett N. Bran
don, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South
Carolina, Attorneys for Respondent.
Jenkins & Perry, By Lincoln C. Jenkins, Jr., Colum
bia, South Carolina, Attorneys for Appellants.
[fol. 242] Clerk’s Certificate to foregoing transcript
(omitted in printing).
196
[fol. 243]
In the Supreme Court oe South Carolina
T h e S tate , R esp on d en t,
v.
J am es E dwards, Jr., et al., Appellants.
Certification of R ecord
I, Frances H. Smith, Clerk of the Supreme Court of the
State of South Carolina, hereby certify that the documents
hereto attached constitute the true and correct record on
which the appellants are petitioning for a writ of certiorari
from the Supreme Court of the United States:
1. Transcript of Record.
2. Opinion of the South Carolina Supreme Court, dated
December 5, 1961, which opinion is the final judgment
of this Court.
3. Petition for Rehearing with order of the Court deny
ing same endorsed thereon.
4. Petition for Stay of Remittitur.
5. Order of Associate Justice Lewis staying remittitur.
In Witness Whereof I have hereunto set my hand and
seal this 19th day of March, 1962.
Frances II. Smith, Clerk, Supreme Court of South
Carolina.
197
Case No. 4780
[fol. 244]
1st the S upreme Court of the State of South Carolina
T h e S tate , Respondent,
v.
J am es E dwards, Jr., e t al., Appellants.
Appeal From Richland County
Legare Bates, County Judge
AFFIRMED
Jenkins and Perry, of Columbia, for appellants.
Attorney General Daniel R. McLeod, and Assistant At
torneys General J. C. Coleman and Everett N. Brandon,
all of Columbia, for respondent.
O p i n i o n No. 17853—Filed December 5,1961
Lewis, A. J .: The appellants, one hundred eighty seven
in number, were convicted in the Magistrate’s Court of the
common law crime of breach of the peace. The charges
arose out of certain activities in which the appellants were
engaged in and about the State House grounds in the City
of Columbia on March 2, 1961. The only question involved
in their appeal to this Court is -whether or not the evidence
presented to the trial Court was sufficient to sustain their
conviction. Conviction was sustained by the Richland
County Court, from which this appeal comes. While the
appellants have argued that their arrest and conviction
deprived them of their constitutional rights of freedom
of speech and assembly, guaranteed to them by both the
State and Federal Constitutions, it is conceded in argument
before us that whether or not any constitutional right was
denied to them is dependent upon their guilt or innocence
of the crime charged under the facts presented to the trial
Court, If their acts constituted a breach of the peace, the
198
power of the State to punish is obvious. Feiner v. New
York, 71 S. Ct. 303, 340 U. S. 315, 95 L. Ed. 295.
It is well settled that the trial Court must be affirmed
if there is any competent evidence to sustain the charges
and, in determining such question, the evidence and the
reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom must be
viewed in the light most favorable to the State.
The testimony discloses the following events which re
sulted in the arrest of the appellants and the issuance of
warrants charging them with breach of the peace.
Shortly before noon on March 2, 1961, a group of ap
proximately 200 Negro students, after attending a meeting
at the Zion Baptist Church in the City of Columbia, walked
in groups of approximately fifteen each from the church
along public sidewalks to the State House grounds, a
distance of approximately six blocks. The purpose of the
movement of the group to the State House was to parade
about the grounds in protest to the General Assembly and
the general public against the laws and customs of the
State relative to segreg*ation of the races, such demonstra
tion to continue until, as the testimony shows, their con
science told them that the demonstration had lasted long-
enough. The General Assembly was in session at the time.
As they reached the State House grounds, the group was
met by police authorities of the State and the City of
Columbia. After a brief conference between their leader
and police officers, the group proceeded to parade about
the State House grounds. They continued to parade around
the State House for approximately forty-five minutes dur
ing which time they met with no interference. During this
forty-five minute period a crowd, evidently attracted by
the activities of the paraders, began gathering in the area
in front of the State House, known as the “horseshoe” ,
blocking the lanes for vehicular traffic through such area
and materially interfering with the movement of pedestrian
[fol. 245] traffic on the sidewalks in the area and on side
walks immediately adjacent. Vehicular traffic on the ad
jacent city streets was noticeably and adversely affected
by the large assemblage of paraders and the crowd which
had overflowed the horeslioe area into the adjacent streets.
199
The traffic situation can best be understood in relation
to the area involved. Columbia is the State Capitol. Main
and G-ervais Streets in Columbia intersect in front of the
State House. Gervais Street runs in an east-west direc
tion, along the northern side of the State House grounds.
Main Street, running north and south, intersects Gervais
Street in front of the State House, where it dead-ends.
The area referred to as the “horseshoe” is in effect a con
tinuation of Main Street into the State House grounds.
It is about 14 block in length and about the width of Main
Street. Situated at the center of the entrance to the
“horseshoe” is a monument, with space on each side for
vehicular traffic to enter and leave the area. It is reserved
for parking of vehicles and, on the occasion in question,
was filled with automobiles. It is a violation of law to
block or impede traffic in the area. Section 1-417, Cumulative
Supplement, 1952 Code of Laws. Sidewalks are located
around the area for use by pedestrians.
The intersection of Main and Gervais Streets in front
of the State House in Columbia is, by common knowledge,
one of the busiest intersections in the State of South Caro
lina, both from the standpoint of vehicular and pedestrian
traffic.
On the occasion in question, in addition to the approxi
mately 200 paraders in the area, there had gathered ap
proximately 350 onlookers and the crowd was increasing.
With the paraders and the increasingly large number of
onlookers congregated in the above area seriously affect
ing the flow of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, the officers
approached the admitted leader of the paraders and in
formed him that the situation had reached the point where
the activities of the group should cease. They were told
through their leader that they must disperse within fifteen
minutes. The parade leader, accompanied by the police
authorities, went among the paraders and informed them
of the decision and orders of the police. The leader of
the group refused to instruct or advise them to disperse
but instead began a fervent speech to the group and in
response they began to sing, shout, clap their hands and
stamp their feet, refusing to disperse. After about fifteen
minutes of this noisy demonstration, the appellants, who
2 0 0
were engaging in the demonstration, were arrested by
State and City officers and charged with the crime of breach
of the peace. Upon the trial, all of the appellants were
identified as participants in the parade and activities out
of which the charge arose.
The warrants issued against appellants charge that they
“ on March 2, 1961, on the State Capitol grounds, on ad
jacent sidewalks and streets, did commit a breach of the
peace in that they, together with a large group of people,
did assemble and impede the normal traffic, singing and
parading with placards, failed to disperse upon lawful
orders of police officers, all of which tended directly to
immediate violence and breach of the peace in view of
existing conditions.”
“Breach of the peace is a common law offense which is
not susceptible to exact definition. It is a generic term,
embracing ‘a great variety of conduct destroying or men
acing public order and tranquility’. Cantwell v. State of
Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 60 S. Ct. 900, 905, 84 L. Ed.
1213, 128 A. L. R. 1352.” State v. Randolph, 239 S. C.
79, 121 S. E. (2d) 349.
The general definition of the offense of breach of the
peace approved in our decisions is that found in 8 Am.
Jur. 834, Section 3 as follows: “ In general terms, a breach
of the peace is a violation of public order, a disturbance
of the public tranquillity, by any act or conduct inciting
to violence . . ., it includes any violation of any law en
acted to preserve peace and good order. It may consist
of an act of violence or an act likely to produce violence.
It is not necessary that the peace be actually broken to
lay the foundation for a prosecution for this offense. If
what is done is unjustifiable and unlawful, tending with
sufficient directness to break the peace, no more is required.
Nor is actual personal violence an essential element in the
offense.. . .
[fol. 246] “By ‘peace,’ as used in the law in this connec
tion, is meant the tranquillity enjoyed by citizens of a
municipality or community where good order reigns among
its members, which is the natural right of all persons in
political society.”
2 0 1
See: Soulios v. Mills Novelty Co., 198 S. C. 355, 17
S. E. (2d) 869; State v. Langston, 195 S. C. 190, 11 S. E.
(2d) 1; Childers v. Judson Mills Store, 189 S. C. 224, 200
S. E. 770; Webber v. Farmers Chevrolet Co., 186 S. C.
111. 195 S. E. 139; Lyda v. Cooper, 169 S. C. 451, 169
S. E. 236.
In determining whether the acts of the appellants con
stituted a breach of the peace, we must keep in mind that
the right of the appellants to hold a parade to give ex
pression to their views is not in question. They were not
arrested for merely holding a parade, nor were they ar
rested for the views which they held and were giving
expression. Eather, appellants were arrested because the
police authorities concluded that a breach of the peace had
been committed.
The parade was conducted upon the State House grounds
for approximately forty-five minutes. It was not until the
appellants and the crowd, attracted by their activities,
were impeding vehicular and pedestrian traffic upon the
adjacent streets and sidewalks that the officers intervened
in the interest of public order to stop the activities of the
appellants at the time and place. Notice was given to
appellants by the officers that the situation had reached
the point where they must cease their demonstration. They
were given fifteen minutes in which to disperse. The orders
of the police officers under all of the facts and circum
stances were reasonable and motivated solely by a proper
concern for the preservation of order and prevention of
further interference with traffic upon the public streets
and sidewalks. The appellants not only refused to heed
and obey the reasonable orders of the police, but engaged
in a fifteen minute noisy demonstration in defiance of such
orders.
The acts of the appellants under all the facts and cir
cumstances clearly constituted a breach of the peace.
Affirmed.
Taylor, C.J., Oxner, Legge and Moss, JJ., concur.
Clerk’s Certificate to foregoing paper (omitted in print
ing).
2 0 2
Case No. 4780
[fol. 247]
In the Supreme Court oe the State of South Carolina
T h e S tate , R esp on d en t,
against
J am es E dwards, J r ., e t a l . , Appellants.
P etitio n for R eh earing— Filed December 14,1961
To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices
of the Supreme Court of South Carolina:
Petitioners, being one hundred eighty-seven in number
and appellants in the above entitled case, respectfully sub
mit that this Court, in affirming the judgment of the Court
below, may have overlooked or misapprehended the fol
lowing points:
1. That the record before the Court is completely lacking
in evidence that any actions of petitioners breached the
peace, either by active conduct or by unlawful or un
justifiable conduct tending with sufficient directness to
break the peace and that their convictions therefore are
in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
T h o m p s o n v. C i t y o f L o u i s v i l l e , 362 U.S. 199, 80 S. Ct.
629 (1960).
2. That under the facts and circumstances as presented
by the record before the Court, the actions of petitioners
[fol. 248] were not of a nature that would give rise to the
use of the police power of the State of South Carolina to
arrest on breach of the peace charges, and their convictions
under such conditions deny to petitioners Federal and
State constitutional guarantees of freedom of assembly,
freedom of speech and freedom to petition the Government
for a redress of grievances.
203
CONCLUSION
Wherefore, petitioners respectfully urge that they be
granted a rehearing in this case.
Respectfully submitted,
Jenkins and Perry, Columbia, South Carolina, By
Lincoln C. Jenkins, Jr., Donald James Sampson,
Greenville, South Carolina, Attorneys for Peti
tioners.
Columbia, South Carolina
December 13,1961
[fol. 249]
I n th e S u prem e C ourt of th e S tate of S ou th C arolina
Case No. 4780
T h e S tate , Respondent,
against
J ames E dwards, Jr., et al., Appellants.
CERTIFICATE
I, Harold R. Boulware, hereby certify that I am a prac
ticing attorney of this Court and am in no way connected
with the within case. I further certify that I am familiar
with the record of this case and have read the opinion of
this Court which was filed December 5, 1961, and in my
opinion there is merit in the Petition for Rehearing.
Harold R. Boulware
Columbia, South Carolina
December 13,1961
Clerk’s Certificate to foregoing paper (omitted in print
ing).
204
P etitio n D enied—-December 27,1961
C. A. Taylor, C. J., G. Dewey Oxner, A. J., Lionel K.
Legge, A. J., Joseph R. Moss, A. J,, Woodrow
Lewis, A. J.
Clerk’s Certificate to foregoing paper (omitted in print
ing).
[fol. 252]
I n th e S u prem e C ourt of th e S tate op S o u th C arolina
Case No. 4780
T h e S tate , Respondent,
against
J am es E dwards, J r ., e t a t . , Appellants.
[fol. 250] [File endorsement omitted]
P etitio n for S tay of R e m it titu r—December 27, 1961
To the Honorable J. Woodrow Lewis, Associate Justice,
Supreme Court of South Carolina :
The petition of James Edwards, Jr., et al., being all one
hundred eighty-seven (187) persons, who were the appel
lants in the above-entitled cause, respectfully shows:
1 .
Petitioners have been convicted of the common law of
fense of breach of peace. Their sentences and convictions
have been affirmed by the Supreme Court of South Carolina
in an opinion which was filed on December 5, 1961.
2.
Thereafter, petitioners requested rehearing of said cause
in a petition therefor dated December 13, 1961. Rehearing
was denied on December 27, 1961.
205
[fol. 253]
3.
Petitioners are aggrieved with said decision and intend
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for a
Writ of Certiorari in order that that Court can pass upon
petitioners’ contention that their arrests and convictions
are devoid of evidentiary support and violate petitioners’
right to freedom of association and freedom of speech in
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution.
4.
Under the Rules of the United States Supreme Court,
petitioners have ninety (90) days after the rendering of
the final judgment of this Court within which to file their
petition for Writ of Certiorari. Petitioners are therefore
desirous in obtaining a stay of the sentences imposed upon
them and a Stay of Remittitur herein for a period of
ninety (90) days after the rendering of the final judgment
of this Court in order that they may have time within which
to file said Petition for Writ of Certiorari.
5.
Counsel for the State have agreed to a proposed Order,
Staying the Sentences and the Remittitur herein for the
requested period.
Wherefore, petitioners pray that execution of their
sentences be stayed and that the Remittitur in this matter
be stayed by order of this Honorable Court for a period
[fol. 254] of ninety (90) days after the final judgment of
said Court in order that they may file in the United States
Supreme Court a Petition for Writ of Certiorari.
Jenkins and Perry, Columbia, South Carolina, By
Matthew J. Perry, Donald James Sampson, Green
ville, South Carolina, Attorneys for Petitioners.
December 27,1961.
206
[fol. 255]
1st t h e S u prem e C ourt of th e S tate of S o u th C arolina
Case No. 4780
T h e S tate , Bespondent,
against
J am es E dwards, J r ., e t a l . , Appellants.
Order S tayin g B e m ittitu r
On the 5th day of December, 1961, we issued an Opinion
in the above case, affirming the judgment of the Bichland
County Court which sustained the judgment of the Magis
trate wherein appellants were convicted of the common law
offense of breach of peace.
Thereafter, appellants petitioned this Court for a re
hearing and, on December 27, 1961, we entered an Order,
denying same.
Appellants have now indicated that they desire and in
tend to tile in the Supreme Court of the United States a
Petition for Writ of Certiorari, seeking review of our judg
ment in said cause. Under the rules and decisions of the
United States Supreme Court, they have ninety (90) days
after the final judgment of this Court within which to file
their Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The final judgment of
[fol. 256 ] this Court is the Order, denying rehearing. D e
p a r t m e n t o f B a n k i n g , S t a t e o f N e b r a s k a v. P i n k , 65 S. Ct.
253, 217 U. S. 264, 87 L. Ed. 254. They desire a stay of the
Bemittitur and Sentences in this matter pending the filing
of their Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the United States
Supreme Court and thereafter until said matter has been
disposed of by that Court. It appears that the request for
stay of remittitur and sentences is proper. Now, on motion
of counsel for the appellants, by and with the consent of
counsel for the respondent.
207
It Is Ordered that the Remittitur and execution of the
sentences herein be stayed for a period of ninety (90) days
after the day of the final judgment of this Court in order
that petitioners may file with the United States Supreme
Court their Petition for Writ of Certiorari.
It Is Further Ordered that if a notice from the Clerk of
the United States Supreme Court that the Petition for
Writ of Certiorari has been filed in that Court is filed with
the Clerk of the Supreme Court of South Carolina within
the time aforesaid, the stay of remittitur and execution of
sentences herein shall continue in effect until final disposi
tion of the case by the Supreme Court of the United States.
J. Woodrow Lewis, Associate Justice.
We Consent:
Daniel R. McLeod, Attorney General; J. C. Coleman, Jr.,
Assistant Attorney General.
[fob 257]
S u prem e C ourt oe t h e U n ited S tates
No. 819—October Term, 1961
J am es E dwards, Jr., e t al., Petitioners,
vs.
S o u th C arolin a .
O rder A llo w in g C ertiorari— May 14,1962
The petition herein for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme
Court of the State of South Carolina is granted.
And it is further ordered that the duly certified copy of
the transcript of the proceedings below which accompanied
the petition shall be treated as though filed in response to
such writ.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the consideration
or decision of this application.