State Board of Public Welfare v. Myers Record Extract

    IILIO SEP 21 I960

In The

Court of Appeals of Maryland
September Term , 1960

N o. 162

STATE BOARD OF PUBLIC WELFARE,
THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF 
MARYLAND TRAINING SCHOOL,

THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF MONTROSE SCHOOL, 
THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF 

BARRETT SCHOOL, AND
THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF BOYS’ VILLAGE,

Appellants,
v.

ROBERT MYERS,
Minor, by Mae Coleman, Etc.,

Appellee.

A ppeal from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City 
(C harles E. Moylan, Judge)

RECORD EXTRACT

C. Ferdinand Sybert, 
Attorney General,

Robert C. Murphy,
Assistant Attorney General, 

For Appellants,
Dearing and Toadvine, 
Juanita Jackson Mitchell, 
Thurgood Marshall,
Jack Greenberg,

For Appellee.

The Daily Record Co., Baltimore 3, Md.



I N D E X

PAGE

Docket Entries .............................................................  1

Bill of Complaint.........................................................  3

Demurrer and Answer..... ..........................................  13

Testimony:
For Appellee: ' ! !

Mae Coleman-
Direct ............................................    43

Alvin Thalheimer—
Direct .....................................................  47

Raymond Manella—
Direct .....................................................  59
Cross .......................................................  69

J. Martin Poland-
Direct .....................................................  72
Cross .......................................................  76

For Appellant:
Raymond Manella—

Direct .....................................................  76
Elbert Fletcher—

Direct .....................................................  89
Cross .......................................................  93

Opinion of Court .........................................................  96
Declaratory Decree.....................................................  117



11

PAGE
Exhibits:

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1: File in action in Circuit 
Court of Baltimore City, Division for Juvenile 
Causes, in the matter of Robert Myers, minor 
— Docket 65544 ..................................................... 118

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2A: Letter of October 21,
1955, from W. Thomas Kemp to Attorney
General..................................................................  18

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2B: Opinion of January 11,
1956, from Attorney General to Kemp .............. 18

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2C: Letter of June 24, 1957, 
from Clayton Dietrich to State Department of 
Public Welfare ................................................. 29

Plaintiff s Exhibit 2D: Opinion of September 10,
1959, from Attorney General to State Depart­
ment of Public W elfare............................... 30

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3: Statement of Information 
on the Educational Program at Maryland 
Training School for B oys.................................  35

Defendant’s Exhibit 1: Pamphlet entitled “Char­
acteristics of 860 committed children in the 
Maryland Training Schools on January 1, I960:

Table 1 — Ages ............................................ 122
Table 3 — Number of Commitments and

Recommitments .........................  123
Table 12 Types of Offenses Causing

Commitment ...............................  124



I n  T he

Court of Appeals of Maryland
September Term , 1960

N o. 162

STATE BOARD OF PUBLIC WELFARE,
THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF 
MARYLAND TRAINING SCHOOL,

THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF MONTROSE SCHOOL, 
THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF 

BARRETT SCHOOL, AND
THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF BOYS’ VILLAGE,

Appellants,
v.

ROBERT MYERS,
M inor, by Mae Coleman, Etc.,

Appellee.

A ppeal from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City 
(C harles E. Moylan, Judge)

RECORD EXTRACT

DOCKET ENTRIES

February 26,1960 — Bill of Complaint to declare Sections 
657, 658, 660 and 661 of Article 27 of Annotated Code of 
Maryland, 1957 Edition as Amended, are unconstitutional 
and for an Injunction (1) fd.

March 19, 1960 — App. of Defendants, State Board of 
Public Welfare, etc., by their Solrs. Ferdinand Sybert and



Robert C. Murphy and their Demurrer and Answer to Bill 
of Complaint (16) fd.

April 22, 1960 — Motion for Hearing (17) fd. Same day 
Notice of Hearing (18) issd. (Served). Same day Peti­
tion of Plaintiff for leave to take Testimony under 560th 
Rule and Order thereon authorizing same (19) issd. 
(Served).

June 2, 1960 — Defendants Summons for Witnesses (20) 
issd. (Summoned as Marked.) Same day Defendants 
summons for Witness (21) issd. (Summoned)

June 3, 1960 — Summons Plaintiff’s Witness (22) issd. 
(Tardy.) Same day Summons Plaintiff’s Witnesses (23) 
issd. (Summoned as Marked.)

July 6, 1960 — Opinion of Court (24) fd.
July 6, 1960 — Decree of Court declaring Maryland’s 

Public Training Schools are part of the public education 
system, further declaring that those parts of Sections 657 
and 659-661 of Article 27 of the Annotated Code of Mary­
land, 1957 Edition, which requires separation of Negro and 
White races in the four training schools violate both the 
equal rights and the due process clauses of the Fourteenth 
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and 
are unconstitutional, further declaring that the Court can­
not select a Training School to which a minor is to be com­
mitted on the basis of the minor’s race or color; and further, 
forever and permanently enjoining and restraining Defen­
dants, &c. from denying to Plaintiff and other Negro 
Youths, solely on account of race and color, commitment, 
admission and transfer to any Training School established, 
operated and maintained by the State of Maryland, Defen­
dants to pay costs (25) fd.

July 7, 1960 — Defendants Order for Appeal (26) fd.
July 29, 1960 — Petition of Defendants for extension of 

time for transmitting record to Court of Appeals and 
Order of Court thereon extending said time to and includ­
ing August 31, 1960 (27) fd.



E. 3

August 2, 1960 — Testimony (28) fd.
August 3, 1960 — Plaintiff’s Exhibits No. 1 (29) 2-A (30) 

2-B (31) 2-C (32) 2-D (33) 3 (34) 4 (35) 5 (36) fd. Same 
day Defendants Exhibit No. 1 for Identification (37) fd.

BILL OF COMPLAINT
To the Honorable, the Judge of said Court :

Now comes Robert Myers, by Mae Coleman, his mother 
and next friend, plaintiff herein, on behalf of himself and 
others similarly situated but too numerous to be named 
herein, by his attorneys, Tucker R. Bearing, Juanita Jack- 
son Mitchell, Thurgood Marshall and Jack Greenberg for 
his cause of action against the following:

State Board of Public Welfare, defendant, and Dr. Alvin 
Thalheimer, Chairman, Calhoun Bond, Ralph O. Dulany, 
Sam Eig, Gen. Henry C. Evans, Sanford Y. Larkey, Howard 
H. Murphy, Herbert R. O’Conor, Mrs. John L. Sanford, 
defendant members of the State Board of Public Welfare;

The Board of Managers of Barrett School for Girls, In­
corporated, defendant, and Miss Anita R. Williams, Acting 
President, Mrs. Annie Spencer, Dr. U. G. Bourne, Mrs. 
Bertha Winston, Rev. F. J. Frey, Mrs. Bernard Harris, 
Theodore W. Kess, Mrs. Lillian A. Lottier, Mrs. Charlotte 
Mebane, defendant members of the Board of Managers of 
Barrett School for Girls, Incorporated;

The Board of Managers of Boys’ Village, Incorporated, 
defendant, and Dr. William E. Henry, Jr., President, Leon­
ard W. Curtis, Mrs. Violet Hill Whyte, Charles E. Cornish, 
Dr. Robert G. McGuire, W. Carles Mosley, Joseph H. Neal, 
Garrett D. Rawlings, Clarence Anthony, defendant Board 
Members of Boys’ Village, Incorporated;

The Board of Managers of Maryland Training School, 
Incorporated, defendant, and Ralph L. Thomas, President, 
Mrs. Dorothy Falconer, Paul E. Tignor, Dr. Earl T. 
Hawkins, James J. Lacy, Jr., Dr. J. Morris Reese, Lawrason 
Riggs, Lester B. Levy, Stuart Berger, defendant Members



E. 4

of the Board of Managers of Maryland Training School, 
Incorporated;

The Board of Managers of Montrose School for Girls, 
Incorporated, defendant, and Wallace Reidt, President, 
Mrs. Martin J. Welsh, Jr., Harold Donnell, Mrs. Frank A. 
Kaufman, Mrs. Lewis H. Runford, and Mrs. Herman Moser, 
defendant, Members of the Board of Managers of Montrose 
School for Girls, Incorporated, respectfully states to this 
Honorable Court as follows:

1. This action is brought to redress the deprivation un­
der color of law, statute, regulation, custom and usage of 
the State of Maryland of the rights, privileges and immuni­
ties secured by the constitution and laws of the United 
States providing for the equal rights of the citizens of the 
United States and of all persons within the jurisdiction of 
the United States.

2. Plaintiff shows unto Your Honor that this is an action 
for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief for the 
purpose of determining a question in actual controversy 
between the parties, to wit:

(a) Whether the policy, custom, usage, and practice of 
defendants in systematically sending plaintiff Robert 
Myers, minor, and other Negro males and females simi­
larly situated exclusively to Boys’ Village and Barrett 
School is denying, solely on account of race and color, to 
plaintiff Myers and other Negroes similarly situated, rights 
and privileges to rehabilitation training, without being 
racially segregated in the use of said Training School and 
school facilities which are furnished by the State of Mary­
land for the rehabilitation of delinquent male and female 
minors in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States?

(b) Whether the facilities furnished plaintiff and the 
class he represents at Boy’s Village, Incorporated, and Bar­
rett School for Girls, Incorporated, afford plaintiff and the 
class he represents the equal protection of the law where 
the facilities set apart for the plaintiff and the members 
of the class he represents are physically inferior and psy­



E. 5

chologically stigmatize plaintiff and the members of the 
class he represents in a manner which makes it impossible 
to obtain rehabilitation training equal to that afforded 
white youths at Maryland Training School, Incorporated, 
and Montrose School for Girls, Incorporated.

3. All parties to this action are citizens of the United 
States and are domiciliaries of the State of Maryland.

4. Plaintiff alleges that this is a class action, and that 
the rights here involved are of common and general inter­
est to the members of the class represented by the plaintiff, 
namely Negro citizens and residents of the State of Mary­
land and of the United States who have been segregated 
in the use of Rehabilitation Training facilities in the Train­
ing Schools of Maryland and have been denied the use of 
training school facilities equal to those offered to white 
youths by the State of Maryland. Plaintiff avers that the 
members of the class are so numerous as to make it imprac­
tical to bring them all before the Court, and for this rea­
son, plaintiff prosecutes this action in and on behalf of the 
class which represents without specifically making all mem­
bers thereof plaintiffs.

5. Plaintiff Mae Coleman is a citizen of the United States 
and a resident and domiciliary of the State of Maryland. 
Plaintiff Mae Coleman is over the age of 21 and is a tax­
payer of the State of Maryland and of the United States. 
Minor plaintiff Robert Myers is a citizen of the United 
States and resident and domiciliary of the State of Mary­
land; this action is brought in his behalf by his parent and 
next friend, Mae Coleman. Plaintiff is classified as a Negro 
under the laws of the State of Maryland.

6. Plaintiff alleges that defendants, Members of the 
State Board of Public Welfare, Dr. Alvin Thalheimer, Cal­
houn Bond, Mrs. Ralph O. Dulany, Sam Eig, Gen. Henry 
C. Evans, Dr. Sanford V. Larkey, Howard Murphy, Herbert 
R. O’Conor, Jr., and Mrs. John L. Sanford are empowered 
under Article 88A, Sections 33 to 38 inclusive, of the Anno­
tated Code of Maryland 1957 Edition as amended, to exer­
cise supervision, direction and control over the corporate



E. 6

functions of all the other corporate defendants; that said 
defendants, State Board of Public Welfare and Members of 
said Board, through their rule making power, promulgate 
rules and regulations establishing standards of care, poli­
cies, rules of admission, conduct management, rules of 
transfer, and discharge for the aforenamed Training 
Schools, and that said defendant Board of Public Welfare 
is charged with the responsibility of developing a program 
within each training school, including provision for after­
care supervision. Defendant Thomas J. S. Waxter is Direc­
tor of the Department of Public Welfare and is Secretary 
of defendant Board of Public Welfare; he is appointed pur­
suant to the provision of Article 88A, Section 1 of the Anno­
tated Code of Maryland by defendant Board of Public Wel­
fare and devotes his whole time to directing the activities 
of the State Department of Public Welfare.

Plaintiff avers that defendants Wallace Reidt, Mrs. Mar­
tin J. Welsh, Mrs. Harold Donnell, Mrs. James H. Ferguson, 
Dr. James Earp, Mrs. Frank A. Kaufman, Mrs. Lewis H. 
Rumford, and Mrs. Herman Moser are members and con­
stitute the Board of Managers of the Montrose School for 
Girls, Incorporated; that defendant Board of Managers of 
Montrose School is appointed by the Governor pursuant to 
Article 88A and Section 34 of the Annotated Code of Mary­
land, 1957 Edition as amended, and exercises its control 
and supervision of the said Montrose School pursuant to 
the provisions of Article 88A, Sections 33 to 36 inclusive 
of the Annotated Code of Maryland, 1957 Edition as 
amended.

Plaintiff avers that defendants Dr. William E. Henry, 
Jr., Leonard W. Curlin, Mrs. Violet Hill Whyte, Charles E. 
Cornish, Dr. Robert G. McGuire, W. Carles Mosley, Joseph 
H. Neal, Garrett D. Rawlings and Clarence Anthony, con­
stitute the Board of Managers of Boys’ Village, Incorpor­
ated. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Board is appointed 
by the Governor pursuant to Article 88A, Section 34 of the 
Annotated Code of Maryland 1957 Edition, as amended and 
exercises its control and supervision of the said Boys’ Vil­
lage School pursuant to the provisions of Article 88A, Sec­



E. 7

tions 33 to 36 inclusive of the 1957 Edition of the Annotated 
Code of Maryland as amended.

Plaintiff avers that defendants Ralph L. Thomas, Mrs. 
Dorothy Falconer, Paul E. Tignor, Dr. Earle T. Hawkins, 
James L. Lacy, Dr. J. Morris Reese, Lawrason Riggs, Lester 
B. Levy and Stuart Berger, constitute the Board of Man­
agers of Maryland Training School, Incorporated. Plaintiff 
alleges that defendant Board is appointed by Governor 
pursuant to Article 88A, Section 34 of the Annotated Code 
of Maryland 1957 Edition as amended and exercises its 
supervision and control of the said Maryland Training 
School pursuant to the provision of Article 88A, Sections 
33 to 36 inclusive of the Annotated Code of Maryland 1957 
Edition as amended.

Plaintiff alleges that Miss Anita R. Williams, Mrs. Annie 
Spencer, Dr. U. G. Bourne, Mrs. Bertha Winston, Rev. F. J. 
Frey, Mrs. Bernard Harris, Theodore W. Kess, Mrs. Lillian 
A. Lottier and Mrs. Charlotte Mebane, constitute the Board 
of Managers of Barrett School for Girls, Incorporated; 
plaintiff alleges that defendant Board is appointed by the 
Governor pursuant to Article 88A, Section 34 of the Anno­
tated Code of Maryland 1957 Edition, as amended and exer­
cises its control and supervision of the said Barrett School 
pursuant to the provisions of Article 88A, Sections 33 to 
36 inclusive, Annotated Code of Maryland, 1957 Edition as 
amended; plaintiff alleges that the immediate control and 
operation of the facilities, subject to this suit, is in the 
hands of the defendants.

7. Plaintiff alleges that all defendants are being used in 
their representative and official capacities.

8. Plaintiff alleges that the defendant Board of Managers 
of Montrose School for Girls, Incorporated, and members 
of said Board, pursuant to authority set forth in Article 
27, Section 660 and Article 88A, Sections 33 to 36 inclusive, 
of the Annotated Code of Maryland 1957 Edition, as 
amended, have established and are maintaining and operat­
ing Montrose School for Girls, Incorporated, exclusively 
for the care and reformation of white girls. Plaintiff al­
leges that the defendant Board of Managers of Boys’ Vil­



E. 8

lage, Incorporated, and members of said Board, pursuant 
to authority set forth in Article 27, Section 657, and Article 
88A, Sections 33 to 36 inclusive of the Annotated Code of 
Maryland 1957 Edition as amended, have established and 
are maintaining and operating Boys’ Village, Incorporated, 
exclusively for the care and reformation of Negro Boys. 
Plaintiff alleges that the defendant Board of Managers of 
Maryland Training School, Incorporated, and members of 
said Board, pursuant to authority set forth in Article 27, 
Section 659 and Article 88A, Sections 33 to 36 both inclusive 
of the Annotated Code of Maryland 1957 Edition have 
established and are maintaining and operating said Mary­
land Training School exclusively for the care and reforma­
tion of white boys. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Board 
of Managers: of Barrett School for Girls, Incorporated, and 
members of said Board, pursuant to authority set forth in 
Article 27, Section 661 and Article 88A, Sections 33 to 36 
inclusive of the Annotated Code of Maryland 1957 Edition 
as amended, have established and are maintaining and 
operating said Barrett School for Girls exclusively for the 
care and reformation of Negro girls. Plaintiff alleges that 
the defendant State Board of Public Welfare, the members 
of said Board, and the defendant Thomas J. S. Waxter, 
pursuant to authority set forth in Article 88A, Section 1 
and Sections 33 to 36 inclusive of the Annotated Code of 
Maryland, 1957 Edition as amended, have established and 
are maintaining and operating reformation facilities for 
delinquent minors at Barrett School for Negro girls ex­
clusively, Boys’ Village for Negro boys, exclusively, Mont­
rose School for Girls for white girls exclusively and Mary­
land Training School for white boys exclusively, through 
the supervision, direction and control of the other de­
fendants.

9. The defendants herein are charged with the duty of 
maintaining, operating and supervising Boys’ Village for 
Boys, Maryland Training School, Incorporated, Montrose 
School for Girls, Incorporated, and said Barrett School for 
Girls, Incorporated, as a part of their supervisory control 
and authority. These defendants have the exclusive power



to promulgate and endorse rules and regulations with re­
spect to the use, availability and admission of minors to 
each of these Training Schools through their respective 
Boards.

10. Plaintiff further alleges that on or about April 10, 
1959, one of his attorneys, Tucker R. Dearing, filed a peti­
tion with the State Board of Public Welfare on behalf of 
a number of citizens and tax payers demanding that de­
fendants cease and desist the practice of racial segregation 
in the Training Schools of Maryland. That on August 13, 
1959, the said attorney was heard before the State Board of 
Public Welfare at 301 W. Preston Street in the City of 
Baltimore; that on or about September 22, 1959, the de­
fendant, Thomas J. S. Waxter, Director of the State De­
partment of Public Welfare and Secretary of said Board, 
advised that the requested racial desegregation was de­
nied and referred petitioners to the Legislature or to the 
Court for any change in the racial segregation policy en­
forced at the training schools.

11. Plaintiff alleges that on or about October 29, 1959, 
he was found to be a delinquent in the Circuit Court of 
Baltimore City Division for Juvenile Causes and that The 
Honorable Charles E. Moylan, Judge of said Court, stated 
that he would commit your plaintiff to a training school; 
that your minor plaintiff and adult plaintiff, through their 
attorney, Tucker R. Dearing, interposed a motion that your 
minor plaintiff be not sent to Boys’ Village but that he be 
sent to Maryland Training School which is reserved ex­
clusively for white males; that said Judge Moylan held 
said Motion Subcuria and detained your minor plaintiff 
at Boys’ Village and that the said attorney took exception 
to your Orator being retained at Boys’ Village, Incorpo­
rated, a racially segregated school.

12. That Boys’ Village, Incorporated, is a racially segre­
gated Training School by reason of which it cannot provide 
your complainant with rehabilitation and training equal 
to that provided at Maryland Training School for white 
males, because Boys’ Village, Incorporated, is racially 
segregated.



E. 10

13. That Article 27 of the Annotated Code of Maryland, 
1957 Edition, as amended, Section 659 requiring white male 
youths to be sent exclusively to the Maryland Training 
School, Incorporated, Section 660 requiring white female 
youths to be sent exclusively to Montrose School for Girls, 
Incorporated, Section 657 requiring Negro male youths to 
be exclusively sent to Boys’ Village, Incorporated, and 
Section 661 requiring Negro female minors to be sent ex­
clusively to Barrett School for Girls, Incorporated, are 
all unconstitutional insofar as said statutes deny to your 
plaintiff and other members of the class which he repre­
sents their right to enjoy non-racially segregated training 
school facilities as required by the Fourteenth Amendment 
to the Constitution of the United States,

14. That the defendants and each of them in concert 
have systematically racially segregated them and other 
youths in the training schools of Maryland.

15. Plaintiff alleges that the Circuit Court of Baltimore 
City, Division for Juvenile Causes, and the Circuit Courts 
in each County having jurisdiction for juvenile causes, 
have automatically followed the racial pattern of segrega­
tion set forth in aforesaid Sections of Article 27 of the Anno­
tated Code of Maryland 1957 Edition as amended; that no 
white youth in the history of the State of Maryland has 
ever been committed to either of the training schools 
reserved exclusively for Negro youths; it is further al­
leged that never in the history of the State of Maryland 
has any Negro youth ever been committed to either of 
the training schools reserved exclusively for white youths,

16. Plaintiff alleges that the Order of the Circuit Court 
of Baltimore City, Division for Juvenile Causes, which 
detains him at Boys’ Village, Incorporated, a racially segre­
gated training school while awaiting a determination of 
this controversy has deprived and will continue to deprive 
him of his Constitutional rights guaranteed by the Four­
teenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States.

17. That the Courts of Maryland having jurisdiction in 
Juvenile Causes and the defendants by systematically ra­



E. 11

cially segregating him and other youths who are members 
of the class represented by the plaintiff, namely, youths 
who have been detained or committed to the training 
schools of Maryland, have denied to him and other youths, 
members of the class represented by the Plaintiff, due 
process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amend­
ment of the Constitution of the United States.

18. Plaintiff alleges that these separate training and 
reformation schools constitute an inequality, in that 
colored persons are completely excluded from Maryland 
Training School and Montrose School for Girls, Incorpo­
rated, and that Boys’ Village and Barrett School for Girls, 
Incorporated, are located in different localities, thus con­
stituting physical and psychological inequality under the 
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States; that the policy, custom and usage of defendants, 
and each of them, of providing, maintaining and operating 
out of public funds said training schools on a racially 
segregated basis, and failing to admit Negro youths to all 
training facilities, wholly and solely on account of their 
race and color, is unlawful and constitutes a denial of their 
rights to the equal protection of the laws and of the 
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States.

19. That plaintiff and those similarly situated and af­
fected, on whose behalf this suit is brought are suffering 
and will suffer continuing irreparable injury, by reason of 
the acts herein complained of; plaintiff avers that he has 
no plain, adequate or complete remedy to redress the 
wrongs and illegal acts herein complained of other than 
this suit for a declaration of rights and injunction; that, 
any other remedy to which plaintiff and those similarly 
situated could be remitted would be attended by such 
uncertainties as to deny substantial relief, would involve 
multiplicity of suits, cause further irreparable injury and 
occasion damage, vexation and inconvenience, not only to 
plaintiff and those similarly situated, but to the defend­
ants as governmental agencies.



E. 12

W herefore, Plaintiff prays:
1. That proper process issue and that this cause be ad­

vanced upon the Docket.
2. That the Court adjudge, decree and declare the rights 

and legal relations of the parties to the subject matter 
here in controversy in order that such declaration shall 
have the force and effect of a final order or decree.

3. That the Court enter a Declaratory Judgment and de­
clare that any rule, policy, custom, practice and usage 
pursuant to which said defendants or any of them, their 
lessees, agents and successors in office deny to plaintiff 
and the members of the class he represents, commitment, 
admission or transfer to any of the schools of reformation 
operated and maintained by the defendants on account of 
race and color contravenes the Fourteenth Amendment to 
the Constitution of the United States.

4. That Sections 657, 658, 660 and 661 of Article 27 
of the Annotated Code of Maryland, 1957 Edition as 
amended, are unconstitutional in that the State of Mary­
land is without authority to promulgate the statute because 
it enforces a classification based upon race and color which 
is violative of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Consti­
tution of the United States.

5. That this Court issue a permanent injunction forever 
restraining the defendants and each, of them, their lessees, 
agents and successors in office from denying to the plain­
tiff and other Negro youths, solely on account of race and 
color, commitment, admission and transfer to any train­
ing school established, operated and maintained by the 
State of Maryland.

Dearing and Toadvine,
Juanita Jackson Mitchell, 
Thurgood Marshall,
Jack Greenberg,

Attorneys for Plaintiff.



E. 13

DEMURRER AND ANSWER 
To the Honorable, the Judge of said Court:

The Defendants, State Board of Public Welfare, et al., 
by C. Ferdinand Sybert, Attorney General, and Robert C. 
Murphy, Special Assistant Attorney General, demur and 
answer to the Bill of Complaint filed against them in the 
above entitled cause, and for grounds of demurrer respect­
fully say:

1. That the Bill of Complaint is bad in substance and 
insufficient as a matter of law to state a cause of action in 
that Sections 657 and 659-661 of Article 27, Annotated 
Code of Maryland (1957 Ed.), setting forth the legislative 
policy of conducting racially segregated correctional train­
ing institutions for the care and reformation of delinquent 
minors committed thereto under the laws of Maryland is 
a valid exercise of the police power of the State and, as 
such, does not deprive the Plaintiff of any rights, privileges 
or immunities secured, protected or guaranteed by the 
Constitution and laws of the United States or of the State 
of Maryland;

A nd, answering said Bill of Complaint, Defendants re­
spectfully represent:

1. That they deny the allegations in paragraph 1 of said 
Bill of Complaint.

2. That they are not required to answer the allegations 
and matters contained in paragraph 2 of said Bill.

3. That they admit the allegations in paragraph 3 of 
said Bill.

4. That they are without knowledge and therefore un­
able either to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 
4 of said Bill.

5. That they admit the allegations contained in para­
graph 5 of said Bill.

6. Answering paragraph 6 of said Bill, they admit that 
pursuant to the provisions of Sections 33-38, Article 88A, 
Annotated Code of Maryland (1957 Ed.), the State De­
partment of Public Welfare is empowered to exercise super­



E. 14

vision, direction and control over the State correctional 
training institutions for delinquent minors, namely: Mary­
land Training School for Boys, Boys’ Village, Montrose 
School for Girls and Barrett School for Girls; that each 
of these institutions is a public agency of the State of Mary­
land but are not otherwise incorporated; that the State 
Department of Public Welfare is vested with power and 
authority to promulgate rules and regulations establishing 
standards of care, policies of admission, transfer and dis­
charge, and are further empowered to order such changes 
in the policies, conduct or management of said correctional 
training institutions as to it may seem desirable; that said 
Department is empowered to develop a program within 
each of the aforesaid correctional training institutions, in­
cluding provision for after-care supervision.

Further answering, they admit that the defendant Boards 
of Managers of the aforesaid correctional institutions are 
appointed by the Governor, and each is authorized and is 
responsible for the general management of such institu­
tions, subject, however, as aforesaid, to the supervision, 
direction and control of the State Department of Public 
Welfare.

7. That they admit the allegations in paragraph 7 of 
said Bill.

8. Answering paragraph 8 of said Bill of Complaint, 
they admit that each of the aforesaid correctional training 
institutions is operated and maintained on a racially segre­
gated basis for the care and reformation of delinquent 
minors, but deny the implication implicit in said paragraph 
that the respective Boards of Managers of such institutions 
or the State Department of Public Welfare initiated the 
establishment thereof, the establishment of such institu­
tions being solely pursuant to statutory requirement and 
direction.

Further answering, they say that such schools being cor­
rectional institutions of reformation, they are primarily 
intended as places to separate erring minors from the cor­
rupting influences of improper circumstances and asso­
ciates.



E. 15

9. Answering paragraph 9 of said Bill of Complaint, 
they admit that they are charged in combination with re­
sponsibility for the management phases of the said correc­
tional training institutions, but deny that they have any 
power, either individually or in combination, to promul­
gate and enforce rules and regulations at variance with the 
statutory policy of the State of Maryland requiring the 
conduct and operation of such correctional training insti­
tutions on a racially segregated basis.

10. That they admit the allegations in paragraph 10 of 
said Bill of Complaint.

11. That they are without knowledge and therefore are 
unable either to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 
11 of said Bill.

12. Answering paragraph 12 of said Bill of Complaint, 
they admit that Boys’ Village is a racially correctional in­
stitution for delinquent minors, but deny all other allega­
tions contained in said paragraph.

13. That they are not required to answer paragraph 13 
of said Bill as the allegations therein contained present no 
new matters of fact, but are confined solely to drawing 
conclusions of law from the facts alleged.

14. That they deny the allegations in paragraph 14 of 
said Bill of Complaint and, further answering, say that op­
eration of the State’s correctional training institutions on 
a racially segregated basis is pursuant to statutory require­
ment, as aforesaid.

15. That they are without knowledge and therefore un­
able either to admit or deny the allegations contained in 
paragraph 15 of said Bill of Complaint.

16. That they are not required to answer the allegations 
and matters in paragraphs 16 and 17 of said Bill of Com­
plaint since the same set forth conclusions of law.

17. Answering paragraph 18 of said Bill of Complaint, 
they admit that said correctional training institutions are 
conducted and operated on a racially segregated basis pur­



E. 16

suant to statutory requirement, but deny all other allega­
tions contained in said paragraph.

18. That they are not required to answer the allegations 
in paragraph 19 of said Bill of Complaint.

W herefore, having fully answered said Bill of Complaint, 
the Defendants pray that the same be dismissed with costs.

C. Ferdinand Sybert..
Attorney General,

Robert C. Murphy,
Spec. Asst. Attorney General, 

Attorneys for Defendants.

PROCEEDINGS
(T. 5-179):

(Mrs. Mitchell) May it please the Court, at this time, 
by agreement of the State, we wish to stipulate and enter 
into the record as Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 1 the file of the 
action in the Juvenile Court of Baltimore City beginning 
as of October 7, 1959, Docket No. 65544, in the matter of 
Robert Myers, Minor, 13 years of age, and further, may it 
please the Court, by agreement of counsel for the State, we 
wish to stipulate at this time as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2-A a 
copy of a letter dated October 21, 1955 addressed to the 
Honorable C. Ferdinand Sybert, Attorney General of 
Maryland, from Mr. W. Thomas Kemp, Jr., Chairman of 
the State Board of Public Welfare.

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 2-A
“Hon. C. Ferdinand Sybert 
Attorney General of Maryland 
1201 Mathieson Building 
Baltimore 2, Maryland
“Dear General Sybert:

“Under Section 32 of Article 88A of the Annotated Code 
of Maryland, the Maryland Training School for Boys, the 
Montrose School for Girls, Boys’ Village of Maryland, and 
the Barrett School for Girls exercise their corporate func­



E. 17

tions under the supervision, direction and control of the 
State Department of Public Welfare.

“Two of the schools are for the care of boys and two for 
girls, one of each for white and one of each for negro. 
(Sections 742 to 748, inclusive, of Article 27 of the Annotated 
Code of Maryland.) The school for Negro girls (Barrett 
School for Girls) is an expensive operation because of the, 
small number of children in custody at any one time. The 

''State Department of Public Welfare has recommended to 
the State Planning Commission that the Montrose School 
for Girls be enlarged to permit caring for both white and 
Negro girls, provided any necessary legislation authorizing 
this be enacted. The girls at Barrett School for Girls would 
be transferred to Montrose, and Barrett would be either 
closed or used for some other purpose. This recommenda­
tion was predicated on the belief that substantial savings 
to the State would result therefrom.

“Caring for Negro girls at Montrose rather than at Bar­
rett raises the question as to what, if any, effect the recent 
decisions of the United States Supreme Court, in the pub­
lic school cases, have with respect to the Maryland State 
training schools. Specifically, do the Supreme Court cases 
invalidate the Maryland statutory requirement that the 
Montrose School for Girls limit its care to white girls duly 
committed to the school under the laws of Maryland?

“Your opinion on these questions would be helpful to 
the State Department of Public Welfare and to the training 
schools in planning for the future.

“Respectfully yours,

“W. Thomas K emp, Jr., Chairman
“State Board of Public Welfare

“WTK, Jr.: F.
“cc: Mr. Murphy 
“cc: Mr. Hunt.”



E. 18

(Mrs. Mitchell) And as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2-B a letter 
addressed to W. Thomas Kemp, Jr., Chairman of the Board 
of Public Welfare under date of January 11, 1956 from 
C. Ferdinand Sybert, Attorney General, and Norman P. 
Ramsey, Deputy Attorney General.

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 2-B
January 11, 1956

“W. Thomas Kemp, Jr., Esq.
Chairman — Board of Public Welfare 
120 West Redwood Street 
Baltimore 1, Maryland
“Dear Mr. Kemp:

“You state in your recent letter that the State Depart­
ment of Public Welfare has recommended to the State 
Planning Commission that Montrose School for Girls, which 
at present cares for white girls, be enlarged to permit care 
of both white and Negro girls. The Board of Welfare pro­
poses to have the girls at Barrett School, which at present 
cares for colored girls, transferred to Montrose, so that 
Barrett will be available for some other use. In the event 
Barrett is not required for other Department of Public 
Welfare use, it would be closed. You state that in the opin­
ion of the Department, substantial savings will result to 
the State from this consolidation of the two schools.

“You have inquired whether the legislative designation 
of these institutions as schools for white and colored girls 
prevents such a consolidation, in light of the decisions of 
the United States Supreme Court in the public education 
cases. Specifically, you inquire whether the Supreme Court 
decisions have the effect of invalidating the Maryland 
statutory provisions which confine Montrose School to the 
care of white girls and Barrett to the care of colored girls. 
Since the training schools for boys are likewise set up on 
a segregated basis your inquiry, although directed to the 
girls’ schools, is of general applicability.

“The statutory provisions with respect to the various 
Houses of Reformation in the State of Maryland are found



E. 19

in Article 27 of the Annotated Code of Maryland (1951 Ed. 
and 1955 Supp.). The particular institutions under the 
Department of Public Welfare are: Boys Village (for col­
ored boys), Maryland Training School (for white boys), 
Montrose School (for white girls), and Barrett School (for 
colored girls). Section 743 of Article 27 (1955 Supp.) deals 
with Boys Village and reads as follows:

“ ‘There shall be established in the State an insti­
tution to be known as Boys’ Village of Maryland. Said 
institution is hereby declared to be a public agency 
of said State for the care and reformation of colored 
male minors committed or transferred to its care under 
the laws of this State. The appointment and powers of 
the board of managers of said institution shall be gov­
erned by article 88A, as 32 to 35, both inclusive, of the 
Code.’ (Emphasis supplied.)

“Maryland Training School for Boys is dealt with in 
Section 746, which reads, in part, as follows:

“ ‘From and after the acquisition by the State of 
Maryland from the Maryland School for Boys, a cor­
poration of this State, of the property heretofore held, 
conducted and managed by said corporation as a re­
formatory institution for the care and training of white 
male minors committed thereto under the provisions 
of the laws of this State, the same shall continue under 
the name of the Maryland Training School for Boys 
to be conducted as a public agency of this State for 
the care and reformation of white male minors now 
committed thereto, and who may hereafter be com­
mitted thereto under the laws of this State. * * *’ (Em­
phasis supplied.)

“Montrose School for Girls is treated in Section 747, 
which reads as follows:

“ ‘From and after the acquisition by the State of 
Maryland of the property of the Maryland Industrial 
School for Girls the same shall continue as a reforma­
tory under the name of the Montrose School for Girls 
to be conducted as a public agency of this State for



E. 20

the care and reformation of white female minors now 
committed thereto, and who may hereafter be com­
mitted thereto under the laws of this State. The ap­
pointment and powers of the board of managers of 
said institution shall be governed by article 88A, §§32 
to 35, both inclusive, of the Code.’ (Emphasis sup­
plied. )

“Barrett School for Girls is covered by Section 748, 
which reads, in part, as follows:

“ ‘There shall be established in this State, an institu­
tion to be known as the Barrett School for Girls. The 
said institution is hereby declared to be a public agency 
of this State for the care and reformation of colored 
female minors committed or transferred to its care 
under the laws of this State. * * *’ (Emphasis sup­
plied. )

“Examination of these statutes shows that in each in­
stance the Code specifies whether colored or white are to 
be received by the institutions.

“By the provisions of Article 88A of the Annotated Code 
of Maryland (1951 Ed.), Sections 3 and 32, supervision, 
direction and control of the institutions above mentioned 
are committed to the Department of Public Welfare.

“The history and legal effect of the decisions of the 
Supreme Court in the Public Education cases were con­
sidered in our opinion of June 20, 1955, addressed to Dr. 
Thomas G. Pullen, Jr., State Superintendent of Schools. 
We held in that opinion that all constitutional and legisla­
tive provisions of this State which require segregation in 
the public schools are unconstitutional, and hence must be 
treated as nullities. We stated that the law laid down by 
the Supreme Court with respect to public education is 
clear, and that differences of mechanics of relief did not 
in any way limit the present existing legal compulsion on 
the school authorities to make a ‘prompt and reasonable’ 
start toward the ultimate elimination of racial discrimina­
tion in public education.



E. 21

“Since the General Assembly specified in the statutes 
creating the various training schools whether white or 
colored are to be there received, your present inquiry 
raises the issue of the constitutional validity of each of 
the several Acts of the General Assembly. Before pro­
ceeding to a detailed consideration of the problem posed, 
some statement of the basic principles which must guide 
our actions in the matter seems appropriate.

“The fundamental concept upon which the Federal Gov­
ernment and that of the States of the United States is 
based is that our State and Federal Governments depend 
for their existence upon, the will of the people expressed 
through Constitutions duly adopted. The basic theory of 
our State and Federal Constitutions is that the powers 
given by the people to the governing body break down into 
a tripartite division. The three coequal branches, execu­
tive, legislative and judicial, serve the people, and are 
themselves restrained from despotic or arbitrary exercise 
of power by the internal system, of checks and balances. 
This principle is so well established as to require little 
discussion.

“The judicial branch of the Government of the United 
States and of the State of Maryland is, under our system, 
the interpreter of the Federal and State Constitutions. 
The existence in the judiciary of this important power 
and duty is one of the most vital of the internal system 
of checks and balances protecting our people against the 
arbitrary exercise of executive or legislative authority. 
The landmark decision of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Crunch 
(U. S.) 137, 2 L.Ed. 60, stands as a monument to the judi­
cial recognition of this vital principle. Inherent in. the 
power to interpret the Constitution of the United States 
and the various States, which is vested in the judiciary, 
is the power to pass on the constitutional validity of laws 
passed by the legislative branch of the Government.

“It would be contrary to the theory of our government 
to permit the Executive Department to arrogate to itself 
this purely judicial power. Attempts to invade this ex­
clusively judicial power have been resisted by the courts



E. 22

in the past. This is as it should be. Even the theory that 
the executive’s oath to support the Constitution entitles 
such an officer to decide questions of the constitutional 
validity of statutes passed by the legislative branch has 
been rejected. 11 Am. Jur. Constitutional Law, Section 
87, pp. 712-713; 11 Am. Jur. Constitutional Law, Section 
205, p. 907.

“As a corollary to the exclusive right of the judiciary 
to determine constitutional questions, and in order prop­
erly to protect the Legislature and its prerogatives as 
against executive action nullifying legislative will, we in­
dulge in the presumption that every law found on the 
statute books is constitutional until declared otherwise by 
the courts.

“The Maryland Constitution expressly recognizes 
the doctrine of separation of powers in Article 8 of the 
Declaration of Rights, which provides:

“ ‘That the Legislative, Executive and Judicial pow­
ers of Government ought to be forever separate and 
distinct from each other; and no person exercising 
the functions of one of said Departments shall assume 
or discharge the duties of any other.’

Substantially this same provision has been found in our 
Constitution since the earliest days of Maryland. Unlike 
the Federal Constitution, where separation of powers must 
be found by reading the entire document, Maryland has 
always so provided. Niles on Maryland Constitutional Law, 
at p. 19, in commenting on this provision, made the fol­
lowing statement:

“ ‘The language of our Maryland Declaration of 
Rights * * * is clear and explicit; and our courts have 
been alert to oppose even the first steps toward usurpa­
tion by one department of the powers or duties of 
either of the others * * *.’

“Our Maryland view was clearly laid down by Judge 
Earle in the case of Crane v. Maginnis, 1 G. & J. 463, de­



E. 23

cided in 1829, where the court made the following com­
ment :

“ ‘The Constitution of this State composed of the 
Declaration of Rights, and Form of Government, is the 
immediate work of the people in their sovereign 
capacity, and contains standing evidences of their per­
manent will. It portions out supreme power, and as­
signs it to different departments, prescribing to each the 
authority it may exercise, and specifying that, from 
the exercise of which it must abstain. * * * When they 
transcend defined limits their acts are unauthorized 
and being without warrant, are necessarily to be 
viewed as nullities.’

The court then went on to point out that the judicial power 
of the court to interpret the Constitution is the check upon 
legislative excess or legislative encroachment upon the 
rights of citizens or of coequal branches.

“The office of Attorney General is created by Article V 
of the Constitution, Sections 1 through 6. The Attorney 
General is head of the Department of Law, one of the 
executive and administrative departments of this State. 
Article 41, Sections 2 and 171, Annotated Code of Mary­
land. By Article 32A, Sections 1 through 12, the general 
powers and duties of the Attorney General are set out.

“The place of the Attorney General in the constitutional 
structure of our State is such that this office must be cir­
cumspect that, as an arm of the executive, it does not 
encroach upon duties and prerogatives of the judicial or 
legislative departments. Chancellor Bland, in The Chan­
cellor’s Case, 1 Bland 595, 672, pointed out the obligation of 
the various departments one to another, when he said:

“ ‘The Declaration of Rights declares “that the 
legislative, executive, and judicial powers of govern­
ment ought to be forever separate and distinct from 
each other.” This division and separation is the pe­
culiar characteristic and great excellence of our gov­
ernment. It is the grand bulwark of all our rights,



E, 24

and every citizen has the deepest interest in its most 
sacred preservation. Each of these several departments 
should be kept, and should feel it to be its highest 
honor, to keep strictly within the constitutional 
boundaries assigned to it. The Legislature should not 
encroach upon the judiciary, nor upon the executive, 
nor should either of those departments trench upon 
each other or upon the legislative.’

“Historically, the Attorneys General of Maryland have 
observed the injunction not to encroach upon judicial or 
legislative prerogatives. In the exercise of the Attorney 
General’s duty to act as advisor to the Governor, this office 
has rendered opinions to the Governor as to the constitu­
tional validity of Acts pending for signature before the 
Governor. 20 Opinions of the Attorney General, 268; 7 
Opinions of the Attorney General, 239; 21 Opinions of the 
Attorney General, 272; 36 Opinions of the Attorney Gen­
eral, 129; 38 Opinions of the Attorney General, 150. Other 
opinions may be cited and the list here contained is not 
intended to be exhaustive. As to existing laws, however, 
after passage by the Legislature, the Attorney General 
should exercise the care to observe the division of powers. 
This office must scrupulously avoid invasion of the judi­
ciary’s powers and duties. We will always seek to give 
just and proper effect to every decision of the courts of 
this State and of the Supreme Court of the United States 
on constitutional matters. However, we are constrained 
to denounce an existing law as violative of State or Federal 
constitutional guaranties only in those situations where a 
fair interpretation of a court decision indicates a chal­
lenged law is constitutionally invalid. In the absence of 
clear indication that a decision of our courts or of the 
Supreme Court of the United States covers and invalidates 
a given statute, we must, under our constitutional re­
straints, withhold condemnation of the law.

“The inquiry then must be whether this is such a case. 
In our opinion, it is not a clear case within any decision 
of the United States Supreme Court or of the courts of 
this State, such as would warrant our expressing a view



E. 25

of the invalidity of the training school laws unless the 
matter be resolved by proper action of our judiciary or our 
Legislature. It is not our function to make policy in this 
field.

“The unique position occupied by the training schools 
here under discussion is evident from the fact that they 
are primarily intended as places to separate erring minors 
from the corrupting influence of improper circumstances 
and associates. Basically, the State is removing the indi­
viduals there confined from society for the protection and 
welfare of the individual. The theory that every minor 
should receive education as part of the process of ‘reform’ 
introduces the element of doubt. But for this aspect of 
training schools, they would be purely correctional.

“Very many of the past discussions of training schools, 
found in the reported Maryland cases and in the opinions 
of the Attorneys General, indicate the nature of the prob­
lem. For example, in an opinion of Attorney General 
Robinson, reported in 9 Opinions of the Attorney General, 
168, in discussing the Maryland Training School for Boys, 
the Attorney General said:

“ ‘As its name and position among the State Depart­
ments would seem to imply, the Maryland Training 
School for Boys was intended for the education of 
male minors along economical and practical lines.’

In the same opinion, Attorney General Robinson made 
the following comment:

* * * it (the Maryland Training School) was 
established primarily for the care and reformation of 
such white male minors, who, through misfortune, 
environment or the effects of crime, are, in the opinion 
of the Justices of the Peace or Courts of the State or 
County, better off within its walls.’ (Emphasis sup­
plied. )

Again, at page 170, the Attorney General commented:
“ ‘I realize that your institution was not intended 

to be a place of punishment. It was organized as a 
place of reformation.’ (Emphasis supplied.)



E, 26

“The Court of Appeals, in Baker v. State, 205 Md. 42, had 
before it the question of whether the Escape provisions 
of the criminal law (Article 27, Section 164, 1951 Ed. of 
the Code) applied to Boys Village. The appellants con­
tended Boys Village was not within the criminal law 
Escape statute. Judge Henderson, at page 45, said:

“ ‘The appellants further contend that Boys Village 
is not a “reformatory * * * or other place of confine­
ment” within the meaning of Section 164. This argu­
ment overlooks the fact that the statute creating Boys 
Village states that it is a place for “care and reforma­
tion” .’

“The Court held that Boys Village was a ‘reformatory’ 
within the meaning of the statute.

“Further lack of clarity is indicated by the fact that the 
statutes creating the institutions in question are codified in 
Article 27 of our Code. This Article is, of course, the 
criminal law Article. However, for many years, these 
institutions exercised their powers under the supervision 
of the State Superintendent of Schools; the instructors 
have been included in the Teachers Retirement System, 
and they have to a degree been considered ‘educational in­
stitutions’. They have not, however, in our opinion been 
included within the term ‘public education’ in the sense 
that that term has been used in the Supreme Court 
opinions.

“As heretofore set out, one of the ways in which the 
various institutions seeks to reform the inmates is by edu­
cation. However, the distinguishing characteristic of 
such institutions, to our mind, is that inmates are there 
under legal compulsion and are denied the privilege of 
leaving the school. The inmates are, in other words, con­
fined to these institutions. This is a situation different from 
that which was before the Supreme Court in the Public 
School cases, in that educational equality was the problem 
before the court. Here, desegregation of the institution, 
contrary to express legislative intent evidenced by the 
statutes creating the institutions, could have the effect of



E. 27

enforcing social as well as educational association among 
the inmates- for twenty-four hours a day.

“We are aware that compulsory school attendance laws 
make it obligatory upon parents who wish their children 
to attend the public schools to accept and abide by a system 
of public education from which racial discrimination has 
been eliminated, consistent with our opinion of June 20, 
1955, interpreting the application of the Supreme Court 
decisions to the Maryland public education scene. We be­
lieve it is important, however, to consider the freedom of 
choice which inheres in parents under our compulsory 
school attendance law. Section 223 of Article 77 of the 
Code (Public Education Article), provides, in part as fol­
lows:

“ ‘Every child residing in Baltimore City and in any 
county in the State between 7 and 16 years of age 
shall attend some day school regularly as defined in 
Section 226 of this Article * * * unless it can be shown 
that the child is elsewhere receiving regularly thorough 
instruction during said period in the studies usually 
taught in said public schools to children of the same 
age * * *.’ (Emphasis supplied.)

“It will be noted that parents are free to demonstrate 
that a child is receiving regular instruction in private 
schools. This retains the necessary element of freedom of 
choice in the field of public education and is consistent 
with the social views of the citizens of the State of Mary­
land that the elimination of discrimination in the fields of 
public action should not carry over into and destroy the 
historic view of our people that separation of the races 
in social matters is the accepted norm and has been the 
established policy and practice through the years. See 
Williams v. Zimmerman, 172 Md. 563, 567, 192 A. 353, 355.

“One further point is worthy of mention. Basically the 
argument in the public education cases turned on the issue 
of whether to retain or reject the ‘separate but equal’ 
doctrine laid down in Ple.ssy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 41 
L. Ed. 256. We are not aware of any instance in which the



E. 28

doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has been applied to the 
field of correctional institutions such as those here under 
discussion. Even though the effect of the public education 
cases is to abolish the doctrine in all fields to which it was 
heretofore applicable (which has been questioned), we do 
not believe it can be fairly said the effect would be carried 
over into still other fields of activity never heretofore in­
cluded within the doctrine.

“Judge Hammond, while Attorney General, had occasion 
to write an extended opinion on the constitutional validity 
of a personal property tax on ‘stock in business’. 37 Opin­
ions of the Attorney General 424 at 439. After he had con­
cluded that the courts of our State would probably hold 
the Act valid and constitutional, even though he had some 
doubt in his mind as to its constitutional validity, he made 
the following comment, which we believe exactly appro­
priate in the instant case:

“ ‘* * * Our doubts are not so strong as to warrant 
this office taking the extraordinary action of advising 
the State Tax Commission to ignore an Act of the 
General Assembly.’

In our opinion, the present case is not such a clear one as 
to warrant our taking the ‘extraordinary action’ of advising 
your Department to ignore the express will of the Legisla­
ture.

“Very truly yours,
“s/ C. Ferdinand Sybert, 

Attorney General,
“s / Norman P. Ram sey , 

Deputy Attorney General.
CFS: MH 
NPR”

(Mrs. Mitchell) A letter addressed to Thomas J. S. 
Waxter, Director, State Department of Public Welfare, 
under date of June 24, 1957, signed by Clayton A. Dietrich, 
Assistant Attorney General, as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2-C.



E. 29

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 2-C
“June 24,1957

“Hon. Thomas J. S. Waxter, Director 
State Dept, of Public Welfare 
120 W. Redwood Street 
Baltimore 1, Md.
“Dear Judge Waxter:

“This will acknowledge your letter to this office dated 
June 21, 1957, stating that you have received informal 
advice from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City for 
Juvenile Causes that they expected petitions to be filed 
requesting that a colored delinquent be sent to a training 
school designated for white.

“After receiving your telephone advice on Friday after­
noon to this effect, I conferred with Mr. McDermott con­
cerning the suggested procedure of having the Department 
intervene on a voluntary basis, I told Mr. McDermott 
that I did not think it was proper for us to enter the pro­
ceeding as volunteers. He tended to agree with me and 
suggested that I confer with Judge Moylan.

“I conferred with Judge Moylan and Mr. McDermott 
this morning in chambers. After advising Judge Moylan 
that I had serious doubts as to the propriety and juris­
diction of the court in the matter, I suggested that in any 
event the movants be required to file a formal petition, 
and that the Department and the school be joined as 
respondents under a show cause order. In light of the 
importance of the question and the constitutional prob­
lem involved, I do not believe that the matter can be 
handled in the somewhat summary and informal manner 
I originally contemplated. Judge Moylan has the matter 
under advisement and is aware of the fact that I will be 
out of town the balance of the week.

“I shall keep you advised of developments.
“Very truly yours,

“s / Clayton A. Dietrich, 
Asst. Attorney General.CAD:MH”



E, 30

(Mrs, Mitchell) And as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2-D a copy 
of a letter under date of September 10, 1959 addressed 
to Mr. Thomas J. S. Waxter, Director, State Department 
of Public Welfare, signed by C. Ferdinand Sybert, At­
torney General and Robert C. Murphy, Special Assistant 
Attorney General.

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 2-D
“September 10, 1959

“Mr. Thomas J. S. Waxter, Director 
State Department of Public Welfare 
State Office Building 
301 West Preston Street 
Baltimore 1, Maryland
“Dear Mr. Waxter:

“Receipt is acknowledged of your recent letter request­
ing our present view as to the constitutionality of Sections 
657 and 659-661 of Article 27, Annotated Code of Maryland 
(1957 Edition).

“These statutes relate to the State training schools, 
namely, Boys’ Village, Maryland Training School, Montrose 
School, and Barrett School, and provide that such insti­
tutions are public agencies for the care and reformation 
of minors committed thereto under the laws of this State. 
The statutes further provide that Maryland Training 
School be for white boys, Boys’ Village for colored boys, 
Montrose School for white girls, and Barrett School for 
colored girls.

“The precise constitutional issue presented in your letter 
is whether the legislative mandate requiring operation of 
Maryland’s training schools on a racially segregated basis 
violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth 
Amendment to the Federal Constitution.

“By opinion dated January 11, 1956 (41 Opinions of the 
Attorney General 120) we considered this same question 
in light of judicial decisions as of that time, particularly the



E. 31

decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in 
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 493 (1954), hold­
ing segregation of children in public schools solely on the 
basis of race to be unconstitutional. We there held, in 
pertinent substance, that a presumption of constitutionality 
attaches to each act of the Legislature and that the Office 
of Attorney General, as an arm of the executive branch 
of our government, was constrained to denounce an exist­
ing law as violative of state or federal constitutional 
guarantees only in those situations where a fair inter­
pretation of a court decision indicates that a challenged 
law in constitutionally invalid. We then noted that the 
training schools were primarily intended as places to 
separate erring minors from the corrupting influence of 
improper circumstances and associates and that these in­
stitutions were both legislatively and judicially declared 
to be reformatories. While we fully recognized that edu­
cation was a part of the process of reforming the indi­
viduals committed to the training schools, and that to a 
degree the institutions have been considered as educational 
institutions, it was our view that they did not fall within 
the purview of the term ‘public education’ in the sense 
that such term was used by the Supreme Court in the 
Brown case. Specifically we said:

. . the distinguishing characteristic of such institu­
tions (training schools), to our mind, is that inmates 
are there under legal compulsion and are denied the 
privilege of leaving the school. The inmates are, in 
other words, confined to these institutions. This is a 
situation different from that which was before the 
Supreme Court in the Public School cases, in that 
educational equality was the problem before the court. 
Here, desegregation of the institution, contrary to ex­
press legislative intent evidenced by the statutes 
creating the institutions, could have the effect of en­
forcing social as well as educational association among 
the inmates for twenty-four hours a day.’

‘One further point is worthy of mention. Basically 
the argument in the public education cases turned on



E. 32

the issue of whether to retain or reject the ‘separate 
but equal’ doctrine laid down in Plessy v. Ferguson, 
163 U.S. 537, 41 L. Ed. 256. We are not aware of any 
instance in which the doctrine of “separate but equal” 
has been applied to the field of correctional institu­
tions such as those here under discussion. Even 
though the effect of the public education cases is to 
abolish the doctrine in all fields to which it was here­
tofore applicable (which has been questioned), we do 
not believe it can be fairly said the effect would be 
carried over into still other fields of activity never 
heretofore included within the doctrine.”

“We have found nothing in the present law as it has 
developed since our opinion of January 11, 1956, which is 
at variance with our earlier views, and we consequently 
reaffirm the same, restating herein our ultimate conclusion 
in that opinion as follows:

“ . the present case is not such a clear one as to
warrant our taking the extraordinary action of ad­
vising your Department to ignore the express will of 
the Legislature.’

“We think that the opinion of the United States District 
Court in Nichols v. McGee, 169 F. Supp. 721 (N.D., Calif., 
1959) bears sufficient relationship to the present question 
to include a reference thereto in this opinion. In that case 
the petitioner, an inmate of a State prison, contended 
that his constitutional guarantee of equal protection of 
the law was denied him in that he was required to join 
an exclusively Negro line formation when proceeding to 
his assigned cellblock for daily lockup and to the prison 
dining hall, and that he was required to eat in a walled-off 
and exclusively Negro compartment in the prison dining 
hall. He contended that such systematic segregation 
caused him a loss of self-respect, thereby making it diffi­
cult for him to effect the same degree of rehabilitation 
possible for unsegregated prisoners of other races. He 
relied principally on Brown v. Board of Education, supra. 
The Court there held: ‘By no parity of reasoning can



E. 33

the rationale of Brown v. Board of Education be extended 
to state penal institutions where the inmates, and their 
control, pose difficulties not found in educational systems. 
Federal courts have long been loath to interfere in the 
administration of state prisons’.

“Very truly yours,
/ s /  C. Ferdinand Sybert,
C. Ferdinand Sybert,

Attorney General,
/ s /  Robert C. Murphy,
Robert C. Murphy,

Spec. Asst. Attorney General.
CFS
RCM/k”

(Mrs. Mitchell) Now, may it please the Court, in a brief 
opening statement, the petitioners in this proceeding advise 
you that upon hearing of the petition in the Juvenile 
Court, this Court stated he would commit the boy to a 
training school.

At that time, counsel for Robert Myers entered a motion 
that he be sent to the Maryland Training School, con­
tending that Roys’ Village was a segregated school which 
violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth 
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States,

We will show that the mother of this boy, prior to com­
ing to the city of Baltimore, had this boy attend an inte­
grated and public school in Baltimore County and wanted 
him to have an integrated rehabilitation training.

We will show further that the mother indicated that the 
distance to Boys’ Village was prohibitive and that her 
boy, while attending an integrated public school in the 
County, had never been in trouble and she felt that his 
rehabilitation would be more effective under integrated 
circumstances.



E. 34

Whereupon, the Juvenile Court of Baltimore City struck 
out the Order of Commitment and ordered said Robert 
Myers detained at the customary place in the State of 
Maryland for the detention of Negro boys, Boys’ Village, 
pending filing of a brief.

Subsequently, this present proceeding was filed in the 
Circuit Court of Baltimore City and we ask that this 
Court so decide that Section 657, 659, 660 and 661 of Article 
27 of the Annotated Code of Maryland, 1957 Edition as 
amended, are unconstitutional in that the legislature is 
without authority to promulgate a statute because it is 
violative of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution 
of the United States and, further, that the Court enter a 
declaratory judgment and declare that any rule, policy, 
custom, practice and usage pursuant to which said de­
fendants, indicating the members of the State Board of 
Public Welfare and members of the Boards of the four 
training schools of the State of Maryland, or any of them, 
their lessees, agents and successors in office by which they 
deny the plaintiff and members in office by which they 
deny the plaintiff and members of the class he represents 
commitment, admission or transfer to any of the schools of 
reformation operated and maintained by the defendants on 
account of race and color; that this contravenes the Four­
teenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

And finally we request that this Court issue a permanent 
injunction forever restraining the defendants and each of 
them, their lessees, agents and successors in office from 
denying to the plaintiff and other Negro youths, solely on 
account of race and color, commitment, admission and 
transfer to any training school established, operated and 
maintained by the State of Maryland.

There is one further stipulation, may it please the Court:
For the purpose of this proceeding, the petitioner and 

counsel for the State have entered into an agreement to 
stipulate that the physical facilities in the four training 
schools of the State are physically equal.



E. 35

(The Court) May I ask counsel if you intend to put on 
any testimony?

(Mrs, Mitchell) Yes.
(The Court) I am not rushing you but I would like to 

know about how much testimony you will have.
(Mr. Dearing) I am of the opinion that we do not need 

much testimony here. It is just a matter of the plaintiff 
testifying and some of the Department of Public Welfare 
officials and some of it could possibly be stipulated as to 
what they would testify to. If Mr. Murphy is agreeable, 
we could enter into such a stipulation.

(The Court) The Court would like to see counsel in 
chambers.

(A short recess was taken.)
(Mrs. Mitchell) May it please the Court, by agreement 

of counsel, we wish to stipulate this document as Plain­
tiff’s Exhibit 3, which is a statement of information on the 
educational program at Maryland Training School for boys,

(The Court) That was prepared by the superintendent, 
Mr. Elbert L. Fletcher in the latter months of 1959, I 
think.

(Mr. Murphy) I see the date 1959 running through it.

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 3
“ Information on the Educational Program at

“ Maryland Training School For Boys, 2400 Cub Hill 
Road, Baltimore 34, Md.

“A cademic

“Requirement: — All boys under 16 years of age must 
attend at least a half a day of academic classes. Boys over 
16 have the opportunity to attend academic classes if they 
so desire.



E. 36

“Junior School

“Here all boys are in the academic program a full day. 
These are the younger boys who live in the junior cottage 
area. The regular public school curriculum is followed. 
In addition to content subjects, these boys got three hours 
per week of physical education and three hours per week 
of arts and crafts. There are twelve regular classroom 
teachers, physical education teacher, arts and crafts teacher, 
and a building principal. All are college graduates, some 
are fully certified and licensed by the State of Maryland, 
while others are in the process of getting certified which 
will require completing certain required courses in neigh­
boring colleges.

“Boys are placed in classes according to level of reading 
ability, intelligence quotient, and previous school experi­
ences as well as physical and social maturity level. Follow­
ing is the breakdown of classes as of November 1959.

“Teacher #1  — Primary Group — Grades 1 and 2 — 8, 
9, 10, 11 years old.

“Teacher #2  — Primary Group — Grades 1, 2, and 3 —
12, 13, 14, 15 years old.

“Teacher #3  — Third grade —- Ages 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. 
“Teacher # 4  — Fourth grade — Ages 9, 10, 11, 12. 
“Teacher #5  — Fourth grade —- Ages 13, 14, 15.
“Teacher # 6  — Fifth grade — Ages 10, 11, 12, immature

13.
“Teacher # 7  — Fifth grade — Ages 13, 14, 15, immature 

16.
“Teacher # 8  — Sixth grade — Ages 12, 13, 14, and 15. 

Less aggressive.
“Teacher # 9  — Sixth grade — Ages 14, 15, immature 16. 

More aggressive.
“Teacher #10 — Seventh, eighth, ninth, etc. grades. 

Generally 13, 14, 15, and less mature 16 year olds.



E. 37

“Teacher #11 — Physical education for all grade levels.
“Teacher #12 — Arts and crafts for all grade levels.
“The average size of these classes for the Fall of 1959 

is about 15. Some days they are less and other days more, 
all according to the population. At this writing the smallest 
group is 11 and the largest is 18. However, we have known 
these groups to be never less than 18 and as high as 26 and 
27 or more.

“The building has ten classrooms, arts and crafts shop, 
administrative offices, staff lounge, staff lavatories, boiler 
room, medical and general use room, and was completed 
in April, 1957. It is within easy access of all junior cottages.

“ Senior School

“Here all boys under 16 years of age are in classes at 
least a half day. Boys of 11th and 12th grade levels attend 
all day. In addition to the content subjects all boys get 
at least three periods of physical education per week. All 
teachers are college graduates and all but two are fully 
certified, and these two will be certified by June 1960. 
Most severely retarded reading cases receive special cor­
rectional instruction.

“The program is two-fold. Boys from pre-primer through 
sixth grade (poor level) remain with the same teacher 
each day for 3V6 hours, except for physical education 
periods. The other half day they are in the vocational and 
maintenance programs.

Part
One

' “Teacher #1 — A.M. — Pre-primer, primer, 1st, 2nd and 
3rd grades.

P.M. — Fourth grade.
“Teacher #2 —- A.M. — Fifth grade

P.M. — Sixth grade. (Low Level)

“Part two is known as the Junior-Senior High School 
section where there are seven groups, each reporting to



E. 38

home rooms and rotating among five subject specialists, 
including physical education.

“ Group 1 — Advanced sixth grade '
Group 2 — Seventh grade Half day acaden
Group 3 — Eighth grade and half day
Group 4 — Advanced ninth grade vocational
Group 5 — Regular ninth grade
Group 6 — Tenth grade j

Group 7 — Eleventh and Twelfth grades — All day acaden
“ Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
Arithmetic Arithmetic Arithmetic
History Civics History
Geography Geography Geography
Language Arts Language Arts Language Arts
Science Science Science
Health Health Health
Physical Education Physical Education Physical Education

“ Groups 4 and 5 Group 6
Algebra or Gen. Math. Algebra or Gen. Math.
Citizenship Biology
Science World History
Health English
Language Arts Physical Education
Physical Education

“ Group 7
Algebra, Geometry, Trig, or General Math.
Chemistry, Physics, or Senior Science
U. S. History
English
Problems of Democratic Living 
Job Information 
Physical Education 
Study Hall

“Teacher #1  — All mathematics areas, study hall, 
teacher aid.



E. 39

“Teacher #2  — Science, health, biology, chemistry, 
physics, problems of democratic living.

“Teacher #3  — Civics, U. S. and World history, citizen­
ship, job information, geography, direction in art.

“Teacher # 4  — English, reading, spelling, literature, 
study hall.

“Teacher #5  — Physical education (for these groups as 
well as the two lower levels mentioned at top of page 2).

“Teacher #6
“In addition to these programs there is a part-time 

correction reading teacher whose classes are made up 
of boys from the academic pre-primer, primer, first, 
second, and third grade group as well as boys in the 
all-day vocational program. Classes are one hour and 
thirty-five minutes per day and meet four days per 
week.

“The average size of classes in the Senior School in the 
Fall of 1959 is about 13 to 14. At this writing the smallest 
group is 8 and the largest 16. However, we have known 
the smallest to be 16 and the largest 28.

“The boys are placed in classes according to reading level 
(based on standard achievement test results and per­
formance) and public school experiences. As much as 
possible we attempt to place them in a group somewhat 
like they would be attending in public school — providing 
their reading ability is equal to average reading level of 
the group. If a boy from a public school 7th grade reads 
on a 3rd grade level then we place him with the 3rd grade 
group and provide as much correctional and remedial work 
as possible. However, if he comes to us from a tenth grade 
in public school and can perform on a fairly good tenth 
grade level then we place him in such a group. We look 
at the I.Q. and decide whether or not he has the ability 
to progress in the grade level group to which we contem­
plate assigning him. Standard achievement tests and in­
telligence tests are guides for us but not the final determin­
ing factor in placement.



E. 40

“The senior building was first occupied in 1931. It con­
tains (academically) seven classrooms, rest rooms, and ad­
ministrative suite. Furnishings are fairly new, building 
has been re-painted several times, and general conditions 
are above average for a building 28 years old. We are 
asking to have present ceiling lighting replaced with mod­
ern fixtures. Across the corridor in the east wing are re­
cently completed library facilities (for which there is no 
librarian) and unusually adequate staff lounge area.

“Salaries

“Teachers I — Five years or more experience and college 
degree $5050 — $6050.

“Teachers II — Less than five years of experience and 
college degree $4040 — $4850.

“ Hours

“8:30 A.M. — 12 Noon and 1:00 P.M. to 4:30 P.M. Mon­
days through Fridays — September 1 through end of June. 
All legal holidays observed.

“No provision or assignments for Thanksgiving Friday, 
Christmas-to-New Years, and Easter holidays same as in 
public schools.

“Return to Public School

“At least thirty days before a boy is to return to public 
school we prepare a ‘Training School Educational Report’ 
form and send it to the Pupil Personnel Supervisor in the 
county where the boy will live. In Baltimore City the form 
goes to Mrs. Vivian Washington in the Division of Special 
Services at educational administration on 25th Street. This 
form makes recommendations, gives previous school place­
ment, current family situation, record of achievement and 
intelligence tests, transcript of work done at training school, 
scholarship record, interests, attitudes, problems which 
may affect school adjustment, and recommendation for 
placement in public school. Also, current date concerning



E. 41

physical defects, summary of adjustment, and special help 
boy received at training school.

“Public school authorities, for the most part, are quite 
cooperative and follow our recommendations wherever 
possible. In the senior high school area credits in the 
various subject areas are recognized and accepted and the 
boy can proceed for the most part without too much loss. 
Since we offer nothing in foreign languages, commercial 
subjects, and in some other elective areas there is some­
times a little difficulty in adjusting a program for the boy 
upon his return to public high school.

Vocational

“Currently, our strictly vocational shops are automobile, 
machine shop, printing, and carpentry. Vocational-main­
tenance units are general repair, sheet metal, farm build­
ing maintenance, dairying, dry cleaning, electricity, farm­
ing, garment repair, foods, laundering, masonry, painting, 
plumbing. These are housed in the senior school building 
or in outlying buildings. Strictly maintenance are build­
ing sanitation, clothing issue, disposal plant, office mes­
sengers, hospital ward work, power plant, stores, delivery 
truck, and grounds maintenance. This program involves 
only the senior size boys. Boys over 16 have the privilege 
of attending vocational or maintenance programs on an 
all-day basis.

“At the present time those boys in automobile, machine, 
carpentry, printing, general repair, sheet metal, farm build­
ing maintenance, electricity, masonry, and plumbing at­
tend ‘related subjects’ classes three hours per week under 
the instruction of a certified teacher in this field. Here 
shop history, mathematics, drawing, and spelling related to 
the particular trade are stressed. There is a second related 
subjects position vacant due to our inability to find a 
trained person to fill it. Modern and most adequate class­
rooms are available in the east wing of the senior school 
building for this instruction.



E. 42

“Most shop areas have recently been renovated in one 
manner or another. Many are as up-to-date as those in the 
best vocational schools.

“A study is now under way by the Industrial Education 
Department of the University of Maryland to show us how 
to improve our vocational program.

“Sizes of shop classes vary according to the trade. Where 
the work is mostly of a maintenance nature the groups 
are quite small, but where most of the instruction takes 
place within the shop or locale of the trade the groups range 
from 8 to 12 in size.

“Some vocational instructors have completed, or are 
now taking courses toward, certification requirements as 
licensed vocational teachers. Those who are licensed work 
a thirty-five hour week while the non-licensed are required 
to put in a forty hour week. Salaries are as follows:

“Vocational I — $4290-$5150.
“Vocational II — $3640-$4370.
“The main purposes of the vocational program are to 

provide exploratory experiences for boys. They are not at 
the training school long enough to complete a real course 
of study or become too proficient even as apprentice- 
learners. Assignments are made mostly according to the 
interests of the boys. In many cases the psychologist will 
make definite recommendations in light of his testing. 
Some boys do become fairly proficient in the elementary 
phases of various trades and are able to secure post-training 
school employment as the result of the training received 
here.

“Prepared by •—
“ Elbert L. Fletcher, Supt.”

(Mrs. Mitchell) And further by agreement of counsel we 
will stipulate at this time and introduce after the hearing 
a statement of the educational program at the other three 
training schools, Boys’ Village, Montrose and Barrett 
School for Girls.



E. 43

(The Court) All right. Mr. Murphy, I think you said 
you will have no opening statement.

(Mr. Murphy) No opening statement.
(The Court) Proceed with your first witness.
(Mr. Dearing) I would like to put on Mrs. Coleman.

MAE COLEMAN,
a witness produced on behalf of the plaintiff, having first 
been duly sworn, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
By Mr. Dearing:

Q. Mrs. Coleman, when you were down here on October 
29, 1959, do you remember that Judge Moylan indicated 
that he was going to send your boy to a training school? 
Is that correct? A. Yes, it is.

Q. And at that time did you request that he be sent to 
the Maryland Training School? A. Yes, I did.

Q. What was your reason for wanting him to go to the 
Maryland Training School at that time instead of Boys’ 
Village? A. He had been at Boys’ Village before. I thought 
if he goes to an integrated school, he would have a better 
chance of rehabilitation because he had been going to 
school with mixed groups.

Q. I show you a picture here. Can you identify this pic­
ture? A. The colored boy on the right is my son, Robert 
Myers.

Q. When was that picture taken? A. April 4, 1957.
Q. What is shown in the picture? A. An integrated 

school.
Q. Was that the integrated school you spoke of? A. This 

is the public integrated school at Essex, Maryland.



E. 44

Q. Is that a picture of the class or a picture of the school 
group? A. A picture of the class he attended.

(Mr. Bearing) I would like to have this exhibit marked 
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4.

(Mr. Murphy) Do you plan to introduce this in evidence?
(Mr. Dearing) Yes.
(Mr. Murphy) I object to it.
(The Court) Mr. Dearing, I am wondering about the 

relevancy of this picture.
(Mr. Dearing) It only shows that she said her son was in 

an elementary school, in an integrated school, and that this 
is just a picture of the class where he was in an integrated 
school, Your Honor.

(The Court) I am not too clear about the relevancy of it 
but at any rate I will overrule the objection and give 
counsel an exception for the record and admit it in evi­
dence. It was 1950 what?

(The Witness) 1957.
(The Court) And it is a class in the Baltimore County 

Public School?
(The Witness) Yes.

By Mr. Dearing:
/  Q. And while your son was there, did he get into any 
kind of difficulty?

(Mr. Murphy) I object.
(The Court) Overruled.
A. No.

By Mr. Dearing:
Q. When did he leave that school, Mrs. Coleman? A. I 

think we moved to Baltimore sometime in 1958.



E. 45

Q. Did he have occasion to enter any other school after 
that? A. I had him transferred to 116, a school that was 
closer to where 1 lived.

(The Court) School 116 in Baltimore City?
(The Witness) Yes.

By Mr. Bearing:
Q. You had him transferred there? A. When we moved 

from Essex to Baltimore City, I had him transferred to 116. 
That is the closest school to where he lived.

Q. Robert Myers is your son, is that correct? A. Yes.
Q. What year was it you had him transferred to Balti­

more City? A. Around 1958.
Q. Was that an integrated school or was it a school that 

was segregated as a practical matter?
(Mr. Murphy) I object.
(The Court) Sustained. I can’t see that it matters one 

way or another.
By Mr. Dearing:

Q. Was your boy still attending that school when he got 
involved in this difficulty? A. 116, yes.

Q. Have you had occasion to visit your son in Boys’ 
Village since he has been there? A. I think I’ve been there 
about three times.

Q. It is easy to get out there to Boys’ Village?
(Mr. Murphy) I object.
(The Court) Overruled.
A. I have no way of transportation.
(The Court) I think I might say the objection is prob­

ably well taken as to the form of the question. It seems 
it is pretty leading. You might ask how far it is and how 
she gets there.



E. 46

By Mr. Bearing:
Q. How far is it to Boys’ Village? A. It is between 48 

miles from the City by Greyhound bus because you go on 
301 and then you have to walk about two and a half miles 
after you get off the bus. You have to leave home seven 
o’clock to get there.

Q. Do you know where Maryland Training School is 
located, Mrs. Coleman? A. It is somewhere near Towson.

Q. Do you know what distance approximately it is from 
Baltimore, Maryland? A. A rough guess, I imagine around 
ten or twelve miles.

Q. So that it would be more convenient for you to visit 
your son in the Maryland Training School than at Boys’ 
Village, is that correct?

(Mr. Murphy) May I object and state the reason?
(The Court) I will sustain the objection to the question 

on form without a reason.
By Mr. Dearing:

Q. If your son were in Maryland Training School, would 
you be able to visit him as often as you are able to visit him 
at Boys’ Village? A. I would be able to visit him every 
visiting day, Sunday, they have.

Q. Do you want your son to go home today? A. I would 
like to very much because—

Q. If your son cannot go home, would you want him 
transferred to Maryland Training School where he would 
be closer to home? A. If he isn’t able to come home, I 
would rather him.

Q. Rather him to be where? A. I would rather for him 
to be home.

Q. Suppose he cannot come home today, do you want 
him transferred to Maryland Training School where it 
would be closer to home? A. I would like for him to be 
transferred if he can’t come home but I would rather for 
him to be home.



E. 47

(Mr. Bearing) That is all I have. 
(Mr. Murphy) No questions. 
(Witness excused.)

DOCTOR ALVIN THALHEIMER,
a witness produced on behalf of the petitioner, having first 
been duly sworn, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION 
By Mrs. Mitchell:

Q. Doctor Thalheimer, what is your position on the 
Board of State Welfare? A. I am Chairman.

Q. You were appointed by the Governor of the State to 
that position, weren’t you? A. Yes.

Q. What are the duties of the State Board of Public 
Welfare? A. We are to make policies of the Department. 
The Board is the official head of the Welfare Department.

Q. Among the duties of your Board, is the supervision, 
policy-making and program projections of the various four 
training schools in the State of Maryland your responsi­
bility? A. Yes.

(The Court) Mrs. Mitchell, I just mention this in pass­
ing — the Rosewood Training School, I think, is •— the 
name is the Rosewood State Training School, so you might 
say the four above-mentioned so we will know what you 
are talking about because while Rosewood is under the 
supervision of the Board of Hygiene, I think it is the Rose­
wood Training School for the Mentally Retarded. There 
is a fifth State Training School.

(Mrs. Mitchell) Thank you, Your Honor.
Q. The four training schools which are mentioned in 

these proceedings are under your direct supervision and 
control, are they not? A. Yes, they are.



E. 48

Q. You have stated that each has its own Board of 
Directors but that yours is the coordinating supervisory 
agency, is it not? A. That’s right.

Q. There has already been introduced into evidence 
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2-A, which is a letter from the Chairman 
of the State Board of Public Welfare under date of Octo­
ber 21, 1955 to the Honorable C. Ferdinand Sybert, Attor­
ney General of Maryland. Are you familiar with this? A. 
I read that letter. I was not on the Board at that time.

Q. The second paragraph of the letter states the follow­
ing:

“Two of the schools are for the care of boys and two for 
girls, one of each for white and one of each for Negro. 
(Sections 742 to 748, inclusive, of Article 27 of the Anno­
tated Code of Maryland.) The school for Negro girls (Bar­
rett School for Girls) is an expensive operation because 
of the small number of children in custody at any one time. 
The State Department of Public Welfare has recommended 
to the State Planning Commission that the Montrose School 
for Girls be enlarged to permit caring for both white and 
Negro girls, provided any necessary legislation authoriz­
ing this be enacted. The girls at Barrett School for Girls 
would be transferred to Montrose, and Barrett would be 
either closed or used for some other purpose. This recom­
mendation was predicated on the belief that substantial 
savings to the State would result therefrom.

“Caring for Negro girls at Montrose rather than at Bar­
rett raises the question as to what, if any, effect the recent 
decisions of the United States Supreme Court, in the public 
school cases, have with respect to the Maryland State 
training schools. Specifically, do the Supreme Court cases 
invalidate the Maryland statutory requirement that the 
Montrose School for Girls limit its care to white girls duly 
committed to the School under the laws of Maryland?

“Your opinion on these questions would be helpful to 
the State Department of Public Welfare and to the training 
schools in planning for the future.”



E. 49

You are familiar with the inquiry which was submitted 
by the Board? A. Yes.

Q. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2-B is the response of the Attorney 
General, C. Ferdinand Sybert, under date of January 11, 
1956 to Mr. W. Thomas Kemp, Jr., then Chairman of the 
Board of Public Welfare, and at that time it was his con­
clusion that the recent Supreme Court decision did not 
apply to the training schools. Is that correct? A. That is 
correct. He did not say “did not apply” . He said it was not 
clear enough to warrant him declaring the law invalid.

Q. Subsequent to that, I show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 
2-C, which was in response to a further inquiry to the 
Attorney General’s Office dated June 24, 1957 and this 
was addressed to the Honorable Thomas J. S. Waxter in 
response to Judge Waxter’s inquiry of June 21, 1957. This 
reply was dated June 24, 1957. At that time there was 
further inquiry of the Attorney General’s Office as to the 
procedure in having an adjudication of the matter, was 
there not? A. That was around the date when there was 
the possibility of the case being brought before this Court ; 
and the Department was particularly interested at that ! 
time that the thing should not be handled on an individual j 
basis that somehow, if that case went to trial, that it have 
a general determination.

Q. The Attorney General, through Mr. Clayton A. Diet- 
rich, Assistant Attorney General, in this Plaintiff’s Exhibit 
2-C advised the Board that “In any event the movants be 
required to file a formal petition, and that the Department 
and the school be joined as respondents under a show 
cause order. In light of the importance of the question and 
the constitutional problem involved, I do not believe that 
the matter can be handled in the somewhat summary and 
informal manner I originally contemplated.”

So far as you know that was the last information re­
ceived from the Attorney General’s Office? A. The letter 
we received, yes.

Q. I show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2-D, a copy of the 
letter addressed to Mr. Thomas J. S. Waxter, Director of



E. 50

the State Department of Public Welfare from C. Ferdinand 
Sybert, Attorney General, and Robert C. Murphy, Special 
Assistant Attorney General, under date of September 10;, 
1959 in further response to an additional inquiry from 
your Board? A. That is right. Do you want me to explain 
how that came about?

Q. Would you explain the circumstances under which 
this inquiry was made? A. It may have been this present 
case that was being thought of at that time and Mr. Dear- 
ing and others came to the Board of Public Welfare. We 
had a hearing for them in which they said—

Q. Would that be in August 1959? A. Probably; that 
further action was contemplated to have the Court de­
termine that the law segregating the schools was uncon­
stitutional and in response to that statement on their part, 
we said we would make a further inquiry of the Attorney 
General to see whether in his opinion there was any fur­
ther change in the opinion of the Attorney General as to 
the constitutionality of the statutes.

Q. As a result of that inquiry, the Attorney General 
reaffirmed his former conclusion of January 11, 1956? A. 
That’s right.

Q. And I quote “In our opinion, the present case is not 
such a clear one as to warrant our taking the ‘extraordi­
nary action’ of advising your department to ignore the 
express will of the Legislature.” Is that correct? A. That 
is correct.

Q. Dr. Thalheimer, in the administration of the train­
ing schools, will you describe briefly what the purposes of 
the training schools are and what the programs are in the 
training schools? A. When the delinquent boys and girls 
are placed by the Courts, they are placed there on inde­
terminate commitments and we have the function of trying 
to rehabilitate these boys and girls and permit them to go 
back into society as useful members of society.

Q. What, if any, educational programs are sponsored in 
these schools by the State? A. According to State law,



E. 51

everyone under 16 must attend school even when they are 
in the training schools for delinquency. We have school 
classes in each of the four training schools so that he or 
she may continue their education during the period they 
are there.

Q. What is the emphasis placed on the training school 
programs of the State? Is it punishment or is it rehabilita­
tion training? A. For rehabilitation. Our function is to 
rehabilitate these children.

Q. At any time have the training schools received any 
surplus programs from the United States Department of 
Health, Education and Welfare according to your knowl­
edge? A. Do we get any money from it? Yes, we get 
money for the children’s program, some of which is used 
at the schools. I am sure that is true.

Q. What is your understanding of the policy of the 
Federal Department of Health, Education and Welfare 
with regard to contributions to persons or correctional in­
stitutions—

(Mr. Murphy) I object.
(The Court) I sustain the objection.

By Mrs. Mitchell:
Q. Tell us, if you know, approximately how much you 

have received from the United States Department of 
Health, Education and Welfare? A. I wouldn’t know very 
definitely. The general program is purely a state program. 
It is not like an assistance program where we get 50 per­
cent from the Federal Government. It is under the De­
partment of Public Welfare. The training schools per se 
are purely a state program and the money would come 
from the services or goes as part of their children’s serv­
ices. I think that is the situation.

Q. Are you familiar with the activities of the Maryland 
Citizens’ Advisory Committee to the State Board of Public 
Welfare? A. I don’t know it by that name.



E. 52

Q. Do you have a Citizens’ Committee to supplement the 
work with the State Department? A. Perhaps a year or 
two years ago we started the Sobeloff Committee, a commit­
tee of people in the communities of the State who might 
help out in considering problems relating to delinquent 
children and the committee is still operating and many of 
the problems we have are taken up with that committee at 
the monthly meetings. Any actions, of course, by that com­
mittee has to be approved by the Court.

Q. Approximately how many citizens serve on that Ad­
visory Committee? A. I would say about twelve.

Q. Who is the Chairman of that committee? A. At the 
present time Mr. Larkins. I started as Chairman. There 
are also two other members, Mr. Smith and Mrs. Sanford.

Q. During the course of the activities of that committee, 
have they considered the problem of racial segregation in 
the training schools?

(Mr. Murphy) I object.
(The Court) Sustained.

By Mrs. Mitchell:
Q. What, if any, action has the Advisory Committee 

taken with regard to a recommendation to the Board as to 
racial segregation in the training schools?

(The Court) Is that by the Citizens’ Committee or the 
Board’s recommendation?

(Mrs. Mitchell) I am talking about the Advisory Com­
mittee’s recommendation to the State Board of Welfare, 
York Honor, Doctor Thalheimer said this group of citizens 
cooperated with the State Board of Welfare to assist in the 
promulgation of their program. I am now asking whether 
any recommendation has been made to the State Board of 
Public Welfare with regard to racial segregation in the 
training schools.

(Mr. Murphy) I now object again.
(The Court) Sustained.



E. 53

By Mrs. Mitchell:
Q. May I ask another way. What, if any, action has the 

Advisory Committee to the State Board of Public Welfare 
taken with regard to racial segregation in the training 
schools?

(Mr. Murphy) I would continue to object.
By Mrs. Mitchell:

Q. As to what action the Advisory Committee has taken 
with regard to a recommendation to the State Board of 
Public Welfare with regard to racial segregation.

(The Court) I will sustain the objection.
By Mrs. Mitchell:

Q. Has the State Board of Public Welfare received, to 
your knowledge, any recommendation from the Advisory 
Committee with regard to racial segregation in the training 
schools?

(Mr. Murphy) I object. That same question was asked 
in a different manner.

(Mrs. Mitchell) But I think the question is sound. He 
says he was a former member of the Committee.

(The Court) You are not asking what it is but whether 
he received the recommendation. I will permit that.

A. That is correct.
(The Court) They have made a recommendation to you?
(The Witness) Their recommendations have been in re­

sponse to questions that have been put to them. In fact, 
I am a member of the Advisory Committee.

By Mrs. Mitchell:
Q. You were a former Chairman of it and also a mem­

ber of the Advisory Committee.
(Mrs. Mitchell) Your Honor, it seems to me it is within 

his knowledge and it is certainly proper to ask what, if



E. 54

any, action the Advisory Committee has taken in this 
matter.

(The Court) I agree with Mr. Murphy. I sustain the 
objection. It would seem to me that while the Advisory 
group of citizens form to help and advise and collaborate 
with the State Department of Public Welfare, from your 
question I take it that it has made a recommendation. It 
may be. I am not certain. It may be that the Maryland 
Youth Commission may have made a recommendation to 
the Governor or the State Board or certain authorities but 
the question here is whether the statutes, not whether these 
groups of public spirited people, are for or against segre­
gation and whether the Maryland statutes referred to here 
are in fact constitutional or unconstitutional in the light of 
Supreme Court cases in the last several years.

(Mrs. Mitchell) I would agree that that is the core of the 
proceeding here. That is the question to be decided by this 
Court but we would take exception to your sustaining the 
objection to this question because our proffer was to show 
that independent citizens’ groups had served in an ad­
visory capacity to the State Board of Public Welfare and 
also made certain recommendations to the Board with re­
gard to racial segregation in the training schools.

(The Court) An exception is granted. This thought does 
occur to me: On the point of whether a real controversy 
exists rather than a synthetic one, I would suppose the 
action of the Circuit Court on the demurrer went into 
that.

(Mr. Murphy) I think that in our answer to the petition, 
we do not raise any question as to the lack of controversy. 
I think we can assume that we have one.

(The Court) That being true, this evidence might well 
indicate that there is a real controversy, but as long as 
that is not in the case, I stand by my ruling and will sustain 
the objection.



E. 55

By Mrs. Mitchell:
Q. Doctor Thalheimer, I show you this pamphlet. Would 

you tell His Honor what it is? A. The Department of 
Planning, at the request of or following action by the 
Legislature required each State Department to get out a 
ten-year plan, indicating primarily what the capital ex­
penditures were likely to be over the next ten years, so 
that it might be organized in a comprehensive way and 
fit in with whatever they thought was the philosophy 
of their organization.

Pursuant to that request or statute, the Department of 
Public Welfare has recently submitted to the Department 
of Planning this document, which is our ten-year plan and 
which proposes how we intend to operate over the next ten 
years.

(Mrs. Mitchell) May it please the Court, we would like 
to offer this as Petitioner’s Exhibit 5.

(Mr. Murphy) I would like to see what it is you wish 
to introduce other than the booklet itself.

(Mrs. Mitchell) We proffer by the introduction of this 
exhibit to show that in the planning of the State Board of 
Public Welfare for its program activities, there is no pro­
vision made for racial segregation in the training schools. 
That is shown on page 33 of the State Plan. My purpose 
is further to elicit from the Chairman of the State Board 
of Public Welfare the reason for the absence of racial segre­
gation in the training schools.

(Mr. Murphy) Your Honor, the issue, as you very 
clearly pointed out, is the statute. This document that the 
plaintiff wishes to introduce is a projection into the future 
and it does indicate that the State Department of Welfare 
has planned integrated facilities but the State Department 
of Welfare is not the Legislature and what we are dealing 
with here is legislative action, so I think the document in 
its entirety, from what I have seen, and particularly this 
one section now being proffered is totally irrelevant and 
without any basis.



E, 56

(Mrs. Mitchell) May it please the Court, we submit that 
the evidence of the State Board of Welfare’s own planning, 
indicating that a more effective job could be done for the 
children of the State in the Maryland training schools 
could be done without racial segregation is pertinent as 
part of the larger picture of the exercise of their adminis­
trative duties under the statute.

(The Court) I think it is a close question. The State 
Department is a party to this action and I will overrule 
the objection.

By Mrs. Mitchell:
Q. I direct your attention, Doctor Thalheimer, to page 

33 of this report. Will you tell His Honor what that plan 
shows? A. In planning for the next ten years, we have 
had the cognizance of the fact that during that period it 
was likely in our opinion that the statute may be found 
unconstitutional, so that we had to plan on what we thought 
was going to happen.

Based on that prediction or guess, we decided we would 
separate the two schools, Maryland Training School and 
Boys’ Village, on the basis of having the very youngest 
boys at Maryland Training School, for boys of intermediate 
age at Boys’ Village, both white and colored, and the senior 
boys in this group at Maryland Training School and it 
was our opinion, I might say, I don’t know how far I can
go on this going away from the question, but the State..
Department generally would welcome integration, but it 

-certainly has affeelm^fEMHtffslEe'Tf^^ State
that follows the law and we would not put this plan into 
effect. We depend for our action on the Legislature and 
the Courts.

We feel this projection of what we thought would hap­
pen over the next ten years was a very satisfactory way 
of dividing the children; that it would have certain ad­
vantages with the present division and that boys could be 
classified by age or rather the maturity of the boys, a cer­
tain age or maturity range, instead of having to follow



E. 57

the whole gamut from the very youngest to the very oldest 
boy.

By Mrs. Mitchell:
Q. Dr. Thalheimer, are you also familiar with the pro­

gram of your department as it relates to State Forestry 
Camps?

(Mr. Murphy) I object.
(The Court) I overrule the objection.
A. I am.

By Mrs. Mitchell:
Q. Would you explain when these camps were instituted 

and what the policy of the State Board is with regard to 
these camps as far as racial segregation goes? A. They 
were started in 1955, the first camp. Two camps were sub- \ 
sequently added and we now have three Forestry Camps. \ 
The total population is 80 and the statute creating them I \ .' 
did not have any words “white” or “colored” and the 
Board, under its judgment, made them integrated institu­
tions. ~~ ~~------ --------- —-— —1

TJCAre you also familiar with the work of the Maryland 
Children’s Center?

(Mr. Murphy) I would object again and rather than 
continue my objection, would like to make a general ob­
jection to this line of questions.

(The Court) I want to say on this line of questioning 
that the legislative enactment setting up the study home, 
the Maryland Children’s Center, and the Forestry Camps 
have no words in the law requiring a separation of the 
races, as is the case in the four training schools directly 
involved in this case.

The Court would not think the fact that one institution 
is not segregated, that the argument of why should another 
children’s institution be segregated is a particularly valid 
one when we decide the pure constitutional question of



E. 58

whether the Legislature had a right to pass the statute it 
did, and conversely whether that action contravenes the 
Federal Constitution and, therefore, is invalid.

I do think that on the question of whether there is and 
has been for a number of years in our State a State policy 
and a Legislative policy that the rehabilitation of im­
pressionable youngsters can be brought about better if 
the two races are kept apart makes the question on the 
Maryland Children’s Center, I think, relevant. I think on 
that question, certainly not on the point of whether the 
Legislature is inconsistent — they did that this last year —
I would think that would be going pretty far afield, but 
on the question, for instance, the Attorney General’s rul­
ings have been so alluded to here on the point that the 
Attorney General raises as to whether in Maryland there 
is a pretty much imbedded state policy in the Legislature 
that the rehabilitation of youngsters might be accomplished 
better in segregated training schools than otherwise; that 
what is happening right here in the same State over a 
period of more recent years with respect to whether chil­
dren’s facilities probably bear on that point for that reason.
I overrule the objection.

By Mrs. Mitchell:
Q. Doctor Thalheimer, would you tell His Honor when 

the Maryland Children’s Center was established and what 
its program and present operation are with regard to racial 
segregation? A. I would say it has been less than a year. 
It opened gradually and has a capacity of 56. It is .com=-. 
pletely occupied at this time. What else did you want?

(The Court) It has 56 there? A. Yes.
(The Court) That is capacity, 56 youngsters? A. Yes.

By Mrs. Mitchell:
Q. Was the Maryland Children’s Center created by 

statute also? A. It was.
Q. And that would be in Chapter 77 of the Acts of the 

State Legislature of 1958, is that correct? A. I don’t know 
the reference.



E. 59

Q. That is the statute which created the Maryland Chil­
dren’s Center. Again, Doctor Thalheimer, what, if any, 
racial designation is there in that statute? A. None. There 
is none. It is an integrated institution.

Q. If it were not for the present limitations in the 
statutes which created the four training schools which are 
the objects of this proceeding, then the operation of the 
training schools would be on an integrated basis?

(Mr. Murphy) I object.
(The Court) Do you want to be heard before I rule on 

the question?
(Mrs. Mitchell) No.
(The Court) I think the answer is right obvious from 

what he has been saying but technically I think it is ob­
jectionable and will sustain the objection.

(Mrs. Mitchell) It is a matter of argument, probably.
(The Court) Yes.
(Mrs. Mitchell) The witness is with you.
(Mr. Murphy) No questions.
(Witness excused.)

RAYMOND MANELLA,
a witness produced on behalf of the petitioner, having first 
been duly sworn, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
By Mrs. Mitchell:

Q. Mr. Manella, you are with the State Board of Public 
Welfare? A. Yes.

Q. What is your position? A. I am Chief of the Division 
of Training Schools.



E. 60

Q. Would you tell His Honor your educational back­
ground and experience with respect to your preparation 
for your present position? A. I have had in the field of 
working with delinquent and problem youngsters approxi­
mately eighteen years experience.

My special degree is in social work administration from 
Western Reserve University and I have taken advanced 
courses and I have had direct experience with working with 
delinquent youngsters in detention and commitment 
schools and for the past seven years I have been on the 
staff of the Department of Welfare responsible for the 
training schools, Forestry Camps and the Maryland 
Children’s Center.

Q. In what institutions beside the Maryland Children’s 
Center? A. I spent a period of time as Probation Officer 
in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania and while there had 
to do with the detention center which the Court operated 
and also responsibility for setting up a camp program for 
detained delinquent youngsters.

Following that, I w'as in the service and had some ex­
perience in the service supervising after-care delinquent 
boys in the Veteran’s Administration.

Following the war, I took a job as Dean of the Village 
of New York, a private school for delinquent and problem 
youngsters. There were about 170 youngsters there, and 
their activities.

Following that, I took a job superintending a small 
institution in Pennsylvania for problem youngsters, de­
linquent and defective youngsters and spent five years 
there. That was the Western Children’s Home, and I came 
to Maryland in 1952.

Q. Mr. Manella, I show you a projected plan of operation 
which your Department has already presented to the State 
Planning Commission. Will you explain to His Honor the 
reasons for this plan? A. It has been our responsibility 
for the supervision of training schools and the formulation 
of policies. The decision was made at a State level that



E. 61

the Department should be prepared for a possible racial 
integration of the training schools and acting with the 
Director and the Board, I spent quite some time with the 
superintendents of the institutions discussing the plan 
which the State could put into operation should a decision 
be made that the training schools were k> be operated on 
a racially integrated basis.

Q. Aside from the changing state of the law since 1954 
when the Supreme Court enunciated the policy of segre­
gation per se being unconstitutional in public schools, aside 
from that consideration, what, if any other consideration 
guided the thinking and planning and study by the State 
Department of Welfare for its projection of this program? 
A. I would say that the combined professional opinion 
of our own experts, the superintendents of the training 
schools, the members of the Department staff who were 
charged with this responsibility and the opinions of ex­
perts in the field — and I would say one of the primary 
sources for the departmental planning of operation was 
suggested by the Sobeloff Commission back in 1933.

The Governor organized a special commission that had 
as its responsibility an analysis or review of the organiza­
tion of the State’s services and one of these services had 
to do with delinquency control and the means of prevent­
ing and treating delinquency, and the Sobeloff Commission 
in 1953 reported to the Governor and explained that under 
the Maryland system of training schools, they were not 
doing as effective a job in the rehabilitation of delinquent 
children because of the extreme wide ranges of the 
youngsters being admitted to the four training schools in 
terms of their chronological age and physical and social 
brackets and the commission urged that we begin to di­
versify the facilities for youngsters and as a first step on 
this point for diversification, we proposed and the Gover­
nor and General Assembly accepted the Forestry Camps 
as facilities for all older boys. Subsequently the Legisla­
ture also accepted the concept of the Maryland Training 
School for the study of—



E. 62

Q. (The Court) It has been so long ago since I read 
that report when it came out, the Sobeloff Commission was 
later the Stockbridge Commission, but I was not aware 
and I am asking you did the Sobeloff Commission make any 
recommendation with regard to whether the training 
schools here should be segregated or not? A. Judge 
Moylan, there was no direct recommendation that the train­
ing schools be racially integrated.

Q. (The Court) They didn’t go into that matter. They 
said “What was wrong with the training schools?” A. 
And our conclusion was that the only possible way ad­
ministratively and legally that this could 'be brought about 
and provide for a diversified youngster program at different 
age levels and different periods in their careers and. the 
only way to accomplish this would be to classify the insti­
tutions and this was really the basis for the plan as made 
up in the ten-year development program on page 33.

By Mrs. Mitchell:
Q. Would you explain that plan to His Honor from the 

standpoint of the classification of the training schools? A. 
It is our feeling that because of the present state policy, 
youngsters ranging in age from 8 and 9 to 19, youngsters 
who range from almost complete opposite insofar as their 
delinquency patterns are concerned, youngsters at one end 
of the scale are placed1 in institutions with other youngsters 
and we feel that physically there is a large discrepancy 
between youngsters! 8 and 9 and youngsters of 17 and 18. 
Educationally, we feel that youngsters are not grouped 
as would be the case in a public school system.

In terms of a delinquency pattern, it is our feeling that 
the State schools are not operating as they could be even if 
we were able to classify the youngsters and transfer them 
to institutions set up to meet the specific needs of different 
youngsters or different levels of advancement. We feel 
this is expensive not only in terms of dollars and cents but 
expenses to the community in the field of rehabilitation 
facilities which the State operates for children.



E. 63

Q. Mr. Manella, from the standpoint of your observation 
of the State Forestry Camps, would you tell His Honor 
what has been the experience of the Department in the 
operation of these camps?

(Mr. Murphy) I object.
(The Court) Overruled.
A. It is our feeling, therefore, that the camps have really 

carried out the realistic intent simply with the Forestry 
Camps, except it transfers boys from Boys’ Village and 
Maryland Training School and do not provide a program 
which would be in accordance, as part of their rehabilita­
tion and in connection with that, the two other objectives 
of the camp, I think, it has been realized have been faced 
over the years, with the first year’s program expenses, that 
they were crowded, really dangerous overcrowding in our 
two State training schools for boys, which is the secondary 
objective of the camps, to reduce some of the crowding 
and to provide programs for older boys, boys that were 
older physically and psychologically and who were not 
concerned with pursuing the normal school program as 
such, and in our judgment and the judgment of the super­
intendents of the two training schools and on the ex­
perience of the State Forestry Camps, where we would be 
employed by the State Department in preserving the 
State’s natural resources while being guided into being 
good citizens.

Q. Where are they located? A. One in Allegheny 
County and two in Garrett County.

Q. Has there been any program in the communities in 
which the Camps are located with the program activities 
of the boys, with the citizens of the various communities? 
A. We have as an assignment — and we have with us here 
today the superintendent of one of the training schools, 
Mr. Fletcher, and one of the things we found in our ex­
perience, these programs have been merged into programs 
utilized in a number of community resources to help our 
programs in the Camps and to give you two of the illus­



E. 64

trations, our youngsters go into the neighboring towns for 
religious services and recreational activities and sometimes 
for an educational program.

(The Court) Mr. Manella, would you comment now 
on the visitation privileges of the students at the four 
training schools?

(The Witness) Over the years, as a part of the treat­
ment or rehabilitation program of training schools and the 
camps, I might say that we have encouraged the setting up 
of regular programs of visitation for youngsters which 
takes place while they are in the institutions and the pur­
pose for this is really very simple, since the youngsters 
ultimately will have to be returned to live in the com­
munity from which they were committed by the courts. 
It is the philosophy that youngsters must, as part of their 
rehabilitation, begin to take responsibility—■

(The Court) I don’t want to prolong it but youngsters 
are released and go home for a weekend periodically at 
all the training schools.

(The Witness) That is correct.
(The Court) And during the summer vacations, what 

percentage of the training school population goes1 home for 
Christmas Holidays?

(The Witness) We would have roughly at any one time 
eight hundred committed youngsters at the training schools 
and camps. During the Christmas period, we have had 
as many as four hundred youngsters in the community on 
vacations or weekends off, special days of privilege during 
the Christmas Holidays and we are very encouraged how 
many of these youngsters can take responsibility.

(The Court) They are not under guard and come back 
either alone or as parents bring them back when their va­
cation is over.

(The Witness) That is correct. This is really the test as 
to whether the program—



E. 65

(The Court) This isn’t anything new. It has been going 
on for about thirteen or fourteen years, I believe hasn’t it?

(The Witness) Easily the last ten.
(The Court) At the close of the academic school sessions, 

while the school doesn’t close down, but at the end of the 
academic classes in mid June or thereabouts, all students 
of the training schools go home for a period of a summer 
vacation, do they not?

(The Witness) All training schools have a summer va­
cation plan and they are usually in August. Youngsters 
are given a short vacation period, anything from three to 
four to ten days. That is in the program.

(The Court) Aren’t there two vacations during the 
summer? One in the early summer — I am not sure — I am 
asking for information — or has that been changed — one 
in early summer around two weeks and one before schools 
open up in the community? A. It varies from training 
school to training school but there is a policy in each school 
with a summer vacation plan usually in August.

(The Court) Either one or two?
(The Witness) It could be two.
(The Court) Where they just walk out and go home 

and come back when they are supposed to report back to 
school.

(The Witness) Yes.
By Mrs. Mitchell:

Q. What, if any, contributions are received by the De­
partment from the United States Department of Health, 
Education and Welfare? A. I know of just the two sources. 
One would be funds appropriated through the Federal De­
partment of Health, Education and Welfare for Children’s 
services, or where the Department is the beneficiary of a 
grant of roughly $200,000 and a small portion of that, I 
would say, not less than a thousand dollars and not more 
than three or four thousand dollars, is utilized by my



E. 66

division to promote with the training schools to develop 
projects. We have useful programs along this line, and in 
the second area, which would not involve a Federal pro­
gram would be the State Surplus Program for surplus real 
and personal property.

Q. Have you received such surplus real and personal 
property from the Federal Government? A. Yes.

(The Court) I think it is only fair for the record to state 
that the State, after some years of dragging its feet on 
that score, finally took a leaf out of the late lamented St. 
Mary’s Industrial School and arranged a plan of visitation 
which has been very helpful and was at St. Mary’s and I 
think you are satisfied that it would be helpful at a public 
training school.

(The Witness) It is a very important part of the teach­
ing program.

By Mrs. Mitchell:
Q. You have heard the testimony of Doctor Thalheimer 

as to the educational programs in the four training schools, 
what, if any, connection does the State Department of Edu­
cation have with that program? A. There has been a con­
sultant on the staff of the State Superintendent of Schools, 
Mr. Masson, who carries responsibility for professional 
consultation on educational matters and educational pro­
grams and we rely upon the State Superintendent of 
Schools for this aid from this consultant in connection 
with the educational programs at the training schools, the 
Forestry Camps, the Maryland Children’s Center—

Q. Are they certified? A. The State Department does 
have a certification policy for the training schools and I 
am not so sure at this point whether this policy does: not 
extend to some private schools, too.

Q. What is the extent of the educational programs: in 
the various training schools? You begin at what grade 
level and extend to what grade level and what is the type 
of educational program given? A. The age range is ex­



E. 67

tended from eight years to almost nineteen and it is the 
responsibility — and I think the superintendents can speak 
more satisfactorily on this but it is our responsibility to 
organize and administer and to operate an educational pro­
gram for all the youngsters who come into the State train­
ing schools, which is an important part of the program.

Now, so far as the grade levels are concerned, these 
youngsters represent almost a microscopic percentage of 
the total youngsters in the State and range from 10 to 18. 
If my recollection is correct as to this, there are 390,000 
youngsters in Maryland between 10 and 18, less than a 
thousand of those being at the training schools, and in 
setting up this special program for these thousand 
youngsters, we have to provide for them the educational 
opportunities which the State provides to the child, this 
being a special education and requires an educational pro­
gram which is designed to be helpful to our youngsters. 
It has to be at each level and that explains how this matter 
of special educational programs becomes important in a 
State training school.

Q. Approximately what portion of the child’s time dur­
ing each year is spent on these special program activities? 
A. It varies. In a week, thirty or thirty-five hours.

(The Court) About the same as— A. The youngsters 
think the school is too long.

(The Court) It is about the same as the elementary 
or junior grades? A. Probably a little longer than what 
a youngster would spend in public or parochial school.

By Mrs. Mitchell:
Q. It has been testified that the statute creating the four 

training schools, which is the object of this proceeding, 
call for the racial segregation of the children committed 
to them. What, if any, integration has taken place in the 
various training schools?

(Mr. Murphy) I object.
(The Court) Overruled.



E. 68

A. This is limited to training schools?
(Mrs. Mitchell) Yes.
A. We have now, subject to correction, these are ap­

proximate figures, at Barrett School, I think the whole 
staff is 49 full-time people. There are no white employees 
but there’s two white employees at Boys’ Village, one full­
time and one part-time.

At Montrose School for Girls, approximately nine or ten 
full-time Negro staff members out of a total staff of 74.

Mr. Fletcher may correct me but I believe the last time 
I discussed this matter with him, it seems, that he had about 
fifteen or twenty full-time employees out of a staff of 204.

(The Court) How about the faculty, the teachers? A. 
Only at Maryland Training School do we have full-time 
teachers.

(The Court) They have both white and colored teachers 
at Maryland Training School? A. Yes.

(The Court) But that is not true at the other three? A. 
No.

By Mrs. Mitchell:
Q. Mr. Manella, what is the emphasis in the total pro­

gram of the training schools of the State? A. Our 
philosophy, which I believe is stated real clearly in this 
document, is that the training schools and all institutions 
for delinquent children in the State are primarily rehabili­
tation or treatment and open curricula and the basis for 
this is primarily in the statutes which created the Juvenile 
Court structure here in the State of Maryland. Our 
youngsters appearing in Juvenile Court appear not as indi­
viduals charged with adult crimes but as children in need 
of direction and special treatment. The State acts in locus 
parentis and that means simply that there is no intent on 
the part of the State agency responsible for those 
youngsters to punish but to rehabilitate. The whole pur­
pose of the Juvenile Court and the training schools, 
children’s schools, is for the training of delinquent children.



E. 69

The whole purpose is directed at the special training and 
rehabilitation of the youngsters, so that they can be pre­
pared for return to the community as soon as they are 
ready. Children are not sentenced to training schools. 
They are committed. They are not found guilty. They are 
adjudicated to be delinquent.

(Mrs. Mitchell) Witness with you.

CROSS EXAMINATION 
By Mr. Murphy:

Q. Mr. Manella, what is the purpose for the training 
schools? A. I would say the rehabilitation of the child and 
the return of the child to the community as a useful citizen.

Q. Would you say the end result then is not to make 
the child a better student? A. I would say the end result is 
to make the child a better student and if being a better 
student is brought about by the total treatment plan, the 
answer would be yes.

Q. This is not an educational adjustment for the child— 
A. In a public school sense, I would say no, but in the sense 
of total education and total treatment and total rehabilita­
tion, again it is a matter of how you define the term “edu­
cation”.

Q. I am talking about formal education. A. I would say 
formal education in these institutions is a part of a battery 
or a number of programs which would include a religious 
program, a recreational program, medical, psychological, 
case work programs.

(The Court) That is true with all schools, isn’t it? The 
Baltimore City Public Schools have some types of social 
courses with all of these youngsters. A. I would say there 
is more intensity of professional services at the institutions.

By Mr. Murphy:
Q. Would you say, Mr. Manella, that the children are 

incarcerated in the schools to make a social adjustment?



E. 70

A. I would say that one of the objectives which the courts 
of the State have defined for our youngsters found de­
linquent would be the protection of the community and the 
protection of the child while this treatment or rehabilitation 
is taking place and as a part of that, then the training 
schools and courts take responsibility for bringing about 
a change in the youngster so that he can make a satisfactory 
social adjustment.

Q. Aren’t all of these children maladjusted socially? A. 
Legally, there is no question that they are maladjusted. 
Otherwise, there would not be a finding of delinquency. I 
would say socially, some of our youngsters are extremely 
well adjusted if you look only at the term “culture” in which 
they happened to live. If that culture is delinquent, that 
child can be adjusted socially and not be delinquent.

Q. Perhaps another question would bring that out. Do 
you experience much diversity in cultural patterns? Let’s 
take Maryland Training School for example, which is 
strictly for white boys. A. Yes, there is cultural diversity 
as you go through the economic social levels. You can find 
youngsters representing most of the sub-cultures in a 
Maryland community. I mean youngsters coming from 
families who have recently migrated to the State from other 
areas of America. Youngsters may follow a family pattern 
but the large majority of youngsters come from the lower 
economic strata.

Q. Is it fair or would it be fair to characterize the opera­
tion of the institutions as one intended to shake the criminal 
tendencies? A. In the cases of certain delinquents. Where 
the criminal pattern has been established, I would say yes, 
but in a large majority of cases the intent is not and the 
program is not really geared to correctional measures such 
as would be the case with prisons and reformatories or 
adult behavior in the orbit of crime and one analogy would 
be that some of our youngsters are in the training schools 
for non-criminal offenses in the adult sense, incorrigibility, 
running away and other minor transgressions which are 
strictly juvenile and not adult.



E. 71

Q. You spoke of the age diversity as being a factor. A. 
That is right. I would say in the training schools at any 
one time we have a small percentage of delinquent children 
who have taken on definite adult criminalistic patterns. 
It is a small percentage and we have considered that in 
our long-range program and we are proposing in this pro­
gram a special institution for the older boys and as part 
of that program with that institution, we would set up a 
special program for the recidivist with more criminally 
inclined emphasis and we would set up a 200 bed program 
for the older boys. That is in the future.

Q. How do the Forestry Camps differ from the training 
schools in the institutional setting? A. Again, all our 
institutions for children differ basically, not basically but 
in degree. The Forestry Camps are set up primarily for 
youngsters who are carefully screened for transfer on the 
basis of certain specific criteria which the department has 
defined. The camps are designed to help guide older boys 
who are more highly physically developed and more 
physically aggressive than other youngsters who have 
dropped out of school or were not performing well in 
school.

Q. When you say you screened them, what do you mean? 
A. We have a criteria as follows: We will consider for trans­
fer bicys of 15 and over who are interested in the camps, 
are not doing too well in school and are physically advanced 
and the superintendents of the schools and a representative 
from my staff visits the two schools regularly and inter­
views the youngsters and gives consideration to those 
whom we think should be transferred and when it is de­
termined that the youngster will benefit from that, we ar­
range for actual physical transfer to the camp.

(The Court) Mr. Manella, it is true, is it not, that the 
courts of the State, the Juvenile Courts, do not commit de­
linquent boys to the camps? A. That is correct.

(The Court) During the period of the court’s commit­
ment, the training camps are used as a final stage? A. Pre­
release.



E. 72

(The Court) In the education and training before the 
end of the court’s commitment? A. That is true.

(The Court) After some selectivity. A. Yes, it is the 
final step before the youngster is released by the court 
and under supervision returned to the community.

(Mr. Murphy) I would not further cross examine Mr. 
Manella but would like to call him as a direct witness for 
myself but not at this time.

(The Court) Very well.
(Witness withdrawn.)

J. MARTIN POLAND,
a witness produced on behalf of the Petitioner, having first 
been duly sworn, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION 
By Mrs. Mitchell:

Q. You are employed by the State Department of Public 
Welfare? A. Yes.

Q. What is your present position? A. Superintendent, 
Maryland Children’s Center.

Q. How long have you had this position? A. Since 
March 17, 1959.

Q. Would you tell His Honor your background and 
preparation and training and experience for this position? 
A. I received my undergraduate degree from Western 
Maryland College, my graduate degree from University of 
Pennsylvania and worked at the Children’s Service Bureau 
in New York. I worked for the Pennsylvania Prison So­
ciety in Philadelphia where I served as Director and in 
Social Service with the Mill School, training school, in 
Pennsylvania.

Q. It has been previously testified here that the Mary­
land Childrens Center was established as a result of the



E. 73

Acts of the Legislature, Chapter 57, Acts of 1958, pursuant 
to which the Childrens School was established or opened 
in— A. October 1959.

Q. Would you tell His Honor briefly what the program 
is? A. We are a diagnostic institution for children adjudi­
cated in Maryland and ordered to the care of the Maryland 
Childrens Center by courts of proper jurisdiction for study 
and attention.

During the maximum of thirty days that they are with 
us, we conduct many studies of the child and return the 
child to the court with the result of that study and recom­
mendation for treatment.

Q. It has also been pointed out that there is no provision 
for racial segregation in the Act which created the Mary­
land Childrens Center. What has been your experience in 
that regard?

(Mr. Murphy) I object.
(The Court) I will sustain it. May I say this with regard 

to the Maryland Childrens Center, which was mentioned 
earlier, and I believe I was not clear in my ruling. The 
Maryland training schools, the four training schools and 
three Forestry Camps are not in a real sense separate 
institutions for separate types of individuals. They are 
three facilities, a chain, a sequence of facilities which the 
Legislature has set up by and large for the Juvenile Courts 
of Maryland and they are all integral parts of a chain, 
and certainly what some separate institution is allowed to 
do by statute and what some other correctional places do, 
even in the State of Maryland, would have no bearing 
on whether the laws were taking it in or out of the Con­
stitution.

A boy is apprehended by the police tonight in Baltimore 
City for some apparently serious violation of the law. He 
would be held overnight in the Pine Street Police Station 
and when the Court opens the next morning or the follow­
ing Monday, he would appear in Court. Testimony is taken. 
If he is charged with being delinquent, and quite often



E. 74

the Judge after judging the boy to be delinquent, will de­
tain the boy in the Maryland Childrens Center, which is 
a detention home for study and recommendation to the 
court. The limit there is thirty days. They make a recom­
mendation to the court on the boy. The court may then 
place the boy on probation or commit the boy to one of 
the two public training schools for boys. During the life 
of the commitment, then if the youngster — unless there 
is something in his career which would indicate he should 
not be in a training school, would have the privilege of 
finishing up his rehabilitation education and schooling and 
discipline at one of the three training camps.

It is really a chain of services for the same boy bringing 
about the same rehabilitation training and not in any 
sense a separate education or in separate institutions, and 
it is for that reason that I am overruling the objection. I 
did not make clear that I thought your question was proper 
and that is the reason I overrule Mr. Murphy’s objection.

Now, Mrs. Mitchell, what is your question?
By Mrs. Mitchell:

Q. What has been the experience of the Maryland Chil­
drens Center with regard to the absence of segregation 
in its program there? I think the objection was made to 
that question. It has already been testified and already 
in the record and Doctor Thalheimer pointed out that the 
statute which created the center had no provision for 
racial segregation.

(The Court) That is right. I permitted that.
By Mrs. Mitchell:

Q, Mr. Manella did go into that in describing the total 
program. A. We have never had any problem in this area 
whatsoever. We have had some prejudiced youngsters of 
both races but it has not been a problem where they get 
into personal conflicts. We handle that like any other 
problem.



E. 75

(The Court) In addition to your studies, you have a 
school going on out there? A. Oh, yes. I could give ex­
amples. We may have a Negro youngster who is having 
problems with being a Negro. It is only after observing 
him in this setting that he can decide what tests to ad­
minister. The psychiatrist can determine what test he 
should be given and have some real conclusion as to the 
problem, whether it is racial, psychiatric or something 
else.

Q. Are you saying that racial segregation or other racial 
restrictions contribute in any way to the delinquency of 
some of the children who come to your school?

(Mr. Murphy) I object.
(The Court) Sustained. I think we have gone far enough 

on that. I want to say now with regard to the Maryland 
Childrens Center that the question is not what Mr. Poland 
says here as an expert. I think that would be improper 
and it is for the Court to decide whether the statute is 
constitutional or not.

(Mrs. Mitchell) Since this is my witness, Your Honor, 
I think Mr. Poland on the strength of his experience and 
training and background and preparation is certainly—

(The Court) You qualified him as an expert but I don’t 
think we are in an area where expert testimony is needed. 
I think it is a thing the chancellor has to decide.

(Mrs, Mitchell) If, on the other hand, racial segregation 
does have an effect upon a human being, a child or our­
selves—

(The Court) Your question would call for opinion evi­
dence.

(Mrs. Mitchell) As an expert.
(The Court) I will sustain the objection. Do you object?
(Mr. Murphy) I do.
(Mrs. Mitchell) No further questions.



E. 76

CROSS EXAMINATION 
By Mr. Murphy:

Q. Yours is more in the nature of a clinical facility? A. 
It might be so described, yes.

Q. A clinical facility? A. Yes.
Q. You study the children, the causes of delinquency. 

A. As related to a particular child, yes.
Q. How long do the children usually stay with you? A. 

Twenty-five to twenty-seven days but there is some varia­
tion, of course.

Q. And your institution is primarily a detention center 
as opposed to an actual training institution? A. We are 
diagnostic. We are not a rehabilitation center.

Q. You are not a psychiatrist, are you? A. No.
(Mr. Murphy) No further questions.
(Witness excused.)
(Mrs. Mitchell) I think that is the Petitioner’s case. 
(The Court) May I speak with counsel?
(Off-record discussion followed.)
(The Court) The Court will adjourn until 1:15.

1:20 p.m.
(Mr. Murphy) I would like to recall Mr. Manella.

RAYMOND MANELLA,
produced as a witness by the defendants, having previously 
been duly sworn, testified further as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION 
By Mr. Murphy:

Q. Will you please restate your name? A. Raymond 
Manella.



E, 77

Q. You are the Chief of the Division of Training Schools? 
A. That’s right.

Q. How long have you occupied that position? A. Since 
October 1952.

Q. Mr. Manella, at this time, how many inmates are 
confined in the institutions, the training school institutions? 
A. I can only give you an approximate number. There is 
about a thousand youngsters in all of the State institutions.

Q. I am thinking of the four training schools. A. At the 
last report, the population counts were something like this: 
Maryland Training School reported, I believe, 430 young­
sters; Boys’ Village 380; Barrett School reported 90; Mont­
rose School reported 126.

Q. Are all those children committed by the courts? A. 
Ninety percent are committed by the courts and about ten 
percent detained subject to further order.

(The Court) But by the courts? All are sent by the 
courts. A. Yes.

By Mr. Murphy:
Q. And all are restrained of their liberty? A. Yes,
Q. What is the average stay in the training institutions? 

A. It varies from institution to institution but the average 
say would be about nine months.

Q. Are the training schools obliged to take all who are 
committed by the courts? A. The law is very clear. Courts 
of proper jurisdiction can commit to the four State train­
ing schools until a further order of the court and the train­
ing schools are under the statute obliged to take all young­
sters for whom a legal commitment paper or detention 
order is signed by a responsible judge.

Q. I would like to have this pamphlet marked for identi­
fication.

(Pamphlet entitled “Characteristics of 860 Committed 
Children in the Maryland Training Schools on January 1, 
I960” marked Defendants’ Exhibit 1 for identification.)



E. 78

Q. (Mr. Murphy) I show you this document, which pur­
ports to be or is entitled “Characteristics of 860 Committed 
Children in the Maryland Training Schools on January 1, 
I960” and ask whether you can identify that? A. Yes, 
I can.

Q. I would refer you to table 12 in this document.
(Mr. Dearing) May I see that?
(Mr. Murphy) Yes.
Q. I show you table 12 and ask you to read the title of 

that. A. Table 12 reads “Type of Offenses of Committed 
Boys and Girls in State Training Schools, January 1, 1960.”

Q. That covers the type of offenses. Would you please 
relate them. A. Do you want me to list them?

Q. I want you to list the nature of offenses and the 
total number of children committed for that offense. A. 
On January 1st of this year, out of a total of 860 committed 
children, 8 were in the training schools for arson, 33 for 
assault, 60 for automobile theft, 126 for breaking and enter­
ing, 16 for disorderly conduct, 23 for robbery, 14 for sex 
offenses, 184 for stealing, 8 for vandalism, 113 for being 
ungovernable, 123 for being runaways, 1 for trespassing, 
85 for truancy, 12 for violation of probation, 2 for violation 
of after-care supervision and 52 other children for whom 
no offenses were reported.

(Mr. Murphy) I would like to offer this in evidence as 
Defendant’s Exhibit 1 as to Table 12.

(The Court) Is the page numbered?
(Mr. Murphy) No. It is Table 12.
(The Court) Of Defendants’ Exhibit 1.
(Mr. Murphy) I might say, if there is no objection, I 

would introduce the entire document because it relates to 
the characteristics of children and may be of some benefit to 
the Court.



E. 79

(Mr. Bearing) I enter a general objection to this whole 
thing, Your Honor, on the ground that it is irrelevant, in­
competent and immaterial.

(The Court) I will overrule the objection and give you 
an exception. The whole pamphlet is accepted in evidence.

By Mr. Murphy:
Q. Mr. Manella, what is the purpose of committing 

children to training schools rather than penal institutions? 
A. The purpose — and this is, I think defined and the 
general definition from the statute, the purpose is to bring 
about the rehabilitation and training of the child rather 
than to punish, to correct or to fine a minor as defined in the 
statute not of any criminal offense as such. That is the 
whole philosophy, intent and purpose of the Juvenile Court 
Act.

Q. Is there any purpose of physical security of these 
children while in the institution? A. We operate at the 
present time almost completely open custody type insti­
tutions, which is differentiated from a prison security run­
ning from minimum up to maximum security.

Q. Would you please describe the institutional setting 
of the training school? I mean by that how the children 
are housed and how they live? A. All of our institutions 
or rather all of our training schools are cottage-type 
institutions which means the children under care live in 
cottages approximately, I would say, two-thirds of the 
time. That is, they are in the cottage building as such, 
depending on the size of the training school. There are, 
of course, a few cottages, at Barrett we had three, the 
number of cottages increases because at the Maryland 
Training School there are 13 classes. Do you want me to 
develop that any more?

Q. I would want you to tell how the inmates are housed 
in the cottages. A. We have at all the training schools a 
combination of dormitory sleeping accommodations and 
single rooms. At the girls’ schools, we have a majority 
of children under care in single rooms and in the two boys’



E. 80

schools we have a combination of sleeping and open dormi­
tories.

Q. Do they eat within the cottages? A. At the two boys’ 
training schools all meals are taken right in the cottage 
buildings.

Q. Actually cooked there? A. No, they are prepared 
centrally in a central kitchen and transported by truck 
in vacuum containers to the cottages.

Q. What is the purpose of a cottage setting as opposed 
to a more secure setting? A. In the evolution of this Juve­
nile Court philosophy and in the evolution of the idea of 
treatment centers for children rather than correctional or 
penal type facilities, the cottage concept as such came into 
practice in the last half of the 19th Century. The first 
cottage plan institution was in Ohio.

The basis of this philosophy is that it seems that you 
won’t be able to successfully treat children for problems 
in anything approaching a penal or correctional type 
facility, so you have to reconstruct as such as you can in 
these small cottages which are meant to resemble homes, 
the family with the intimate kind of mother or father- 
child relationship which you must have in the community if 

/you are going to produce healthy kids.
/ Q. What is the degree of supervision within the cottages? 
I A. While the youngsters are in the cottages, I think we can 
i spell out that supervision as provided at all times.

Q. By whom? A. Cottage parents, cottage masters, 
primarily in the two boys’ training schools.

Q. Is it intended that the cottage parent will be symbolic 
of the child’s parents? A. The philosophy is changing. At 
one time that was the understanding, that we would 
actually try a small cottage family type group, to be as 
much as a family type community as we could get, but in 
more recent years it has been explained and commonly 
accepted that we can never really approximate true family 

J, living in a training school cottage program because first 
of all, the cottage parents are not psychologically related.

L



E. 81

We really need directional and supervisory guidance of 
these children by trained groups.

Q. Is the educational program carried on within the 
cottage? A. Only in our admission cottages is there an edu­
cational program. Each training school has its own edu­
cational department, headed by an educational director 
with subordinate employees and a teaching staff and a staff 
of vocational shop instructors. Incidentally, this program is, 
developed under the supervision of the State Department 
of education.

Q. Which program is that? A. The educational pro­
gram at the training schools.

Q. You say the children spend two-thirds of their time 
within the cottages? A. This includes sleeping and the 
afternoon and working periods. I would say roughly 50 
to 66 percent.

Q. What is the importance of the cottage setting in the 
children’s adjustment that we are trying to effect. A.
I have to agree with most of the experts. I agree that in 
any cottage training school, the hub of the training is in the 
cottage and in the cottage program as such, since the 
youngsters are exposed to most of their time in the cottage 
with the cottage life program and unless this program is 
properly managed and unless the activities program is 
properly arranged, the rehabilitation program will probably 
fail.

Q. In other words, are you saying, sir, that the formal 
education program within the institution is not the prime 
factor? A. I would not place prime emphasis on the educa­
tion phase.

Q. What, if any conduct or disciplinary problems do we , 
have within the cottage? A. I might say that jye have the> 1 
same kind of disciplinary, behavior problems, that },
youngsters present in the public schools and you find in 
any families in the community. Youngsters get involved in 
fights. Youngsters assault other youngsters and there is 
occasional property damage, many of the girls and boys,



E. 82

not too many compared to the number admitted — remem­
ber, I don’t like the word “escape” from a juvenile institu­
tion because it is not a security institution and there are 
occasional sex deviations that you can expect in a one sex 
institution, but I don’t think it is the same range of offense 
against persons and property which you expect in any open 
community.

Q. Are the children supervised 24 hours a day? A. Our 
intention, and I do believe the programs at each of the 
training schools provides for around-the-clock supervision 
and at no time, unless the youngster is really in a pre­
release trial kind of basis do we permit too much freedom 
of movement.

Q. Mr. Manella, have you had any experience working 
in or with an integrated training facility? A. With a public 
training school as such?

Q. Yes. A. No.
Q. Private? A. Private, yes, segregated detention 

school, yes; integrated detention school, yes, and, of course, 
my own experience here in Maryland with the camps and 
the Maryland Childrens Center, which are integrated. I 
might say one other thing, that the public training school 
has — a public training school, yes. I was with one in 
Allegheny County and worked with them.

Q. In Pennsylvania, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania? 
A. Yes. That is an integrated school for boys.

Q. In an integrated facility. Was that a cottage type 
facility? A. Yes.

Q. And the so-called cottage parents, of what race were 
they? A. At the institution in New York.

(Mr. Bearing) I object.
(The Court) Overruled.
(Mr. Dearing) We note an exception.
A. At a private training school in New York, in 1948, 

we had not yet employed any Negro cottage masters as



E. 83

such, but there were quite a few Negro employees on the 
staff.

At the County training school to which I referred earlier, 
it was an all-white staff, even though the school was inte­
grated racially.

At the Childrens Center, we have almost a 50-50 pro­
portion Negro and white staff members. We have 42 full­
time employees there.

(The Court) Where is that? A. Maryland Childrens 
Center.

By Mr. Murphy:
Q. You have testified that you are trying to effect a 

different type setting? A. That’s right. I would say 
rather than at this time a family setting or climate or 
atmosphere, that we want a small group atmosphere with 
a high degree of relationship so-called between the cottage 
parent as such and the youngsters in that particular cottage, 
which is a little larger than realistic family group.

Q. Within your experience and training, is it natural 
that a Negro boy for example would look upon white 
cottage parents in the proper way which you have in mind?

(Mr. Bearing) We object.
(The Court) Overruled.
(Mr. Bearing) An exception.
A. I would say that where the program or philosophy 

of the institution has provided for this, that the anxiety 
that either the white or Negro youngster has may stem from 
the anxiety which he may have brought in with him or 
the psychological differences, and that does not enter into 
the total program of the institution. That is provided for 
and there is a plan for handling it. This was my experience 
with a private training school in New York. We had 
roughly twenty percent Negro boys and the rest were 
white.



By Mr. Murphy:
Q. In the integrated facility with which you have had 

experience, is there any air of tension because of the racial 
difference? A. I would say initially some youngsters, de­
pending on their social and cultural form with reference 
to the neighborhood and the community area from which 
they came and they are brought into institutions and there 
is a lot of anxiety in those cases.

Q. You say initially? A. That is right.
Q. What do you mean by that? A. I mean some white 

youngsters will come to us from what the sociologists call 
industrial neighborhoods' and in and around Harlem and 
they came in with all sorts of ideas about the Negroes and 
the same could foe said of Puerto Rican boys from up 
in the neighborhood of 155th Street.

Q. Was this a continuing thing? A. No. I recognize 
this as one of the problems that the youngsters brought 
into the institution and one of the problems we had to 
remove if we were going to have effective rehabilitation 
of this boy.

Q. Doesn’t this tension detract from the basic purposes 
of the institution as you describe it? A. Unless the institu­
tion is properly managed and unless it operates with the 
proper reference to philosophy, it can very definitely 
destroy the rehabilitative intention of the institution, and 
that has happened.

Q. Has that happened within your experience? A. No.
Q. How do you know it has happened? A. This comes 

to me primarily out of my reading and associating with 
people in the field.

Q. Isn’t this always a factor? A. I would say as long 
as our society, as long as our culture includes a variety of 
racial and social groups, yes, but I think we have to train 
these youngsters for living in the world and in convincing 
them that a segregated world does not exist today.



E. 85

Q. Have you had any contact with the D.C. children’s 
fields? A. Yes.

Q. Would you explain what that is? A. I know a little 
bit about the District Training School, which is—

(The Court) The National Training School? A. In the 
National, which is run by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. 
Several years ago they built on the grounds of what was 
formerly the District Training School a school for the 
mentally retarded, two additional institutions, both of 
which cared for delinquent children. One of these is a 400- 
bed co-educational training school with older boys and 
girls and a smaller one with boys under 14 and this is the 
District Training School for Delinquent Children.

Q. An integrated school? A. Yes.
Q. Of your own knowledge, have there been any racial 

incidents within that institution? A. I don’t know of any 
behavior problems beyond what youngsters get into while 
under care. This is only my understanding at this point. 
By that, I don’t mean that they have no boys who are more 
highly aggressive and explodable youngsters which require 
care in what they would call a security cottage and I 
understand that many of the problems we have in our 
training schools, children committed, for example, for as­
saults against persons and property.

(The Court) What he is asking you, has there been any 
race trouble in the District School or not? A. My answer 
is, as far as race causing anything, my answer would be no.

(Mr. Dearing) I object to the question and move to strike 
out the answer.

(The Court) Do you mean the Court’s question?
(Mr. Dearing) No.
(The Court) Overruled. You say you had not been to 

that home? A. Not the District Training School.
(The Court) Any trouble attributed to the fact that 

colored boys and white boys are sent to the same integrated 
training schools?



E. 86

(Mrs. Mitchell) May we request information as to where 
the District Schools are located? A. Laurel, Maryland, 
right off the Expressway.

(Mrs. Mitchell) Located in the State of Maryland? A. 
Yes, fourteen miles out of Washington.

(The Court) Mr. Murphy asked you a very plain ques­
tion and I have been trying — you keep talking and I 
don’t have any answer to it — he has asked you in your 
experience in the training school field and all whether you 
know of any integrated schools or facilities where the 
factor of integration has in itself created abnormal or 
other problems.

(Mr. Murphy) That is the question.
(The Court) He keeps saying he read this and that. Do 

you know of any institution where there has been this 
trouble? A. I thought you limited that to the Childrens 
Center at Laurel. As far as my knowledge goes, no.

By Mr. Murphy:
Q. You say so far as you know none can be traced to 

race conflict? A. We are still with the Childrens Center?
Q. Yes. A. As far as I know and based on the facts avail­

able to me, and I am not basing this on rumor, hearsay, or 
what-not, but what I happen to know about the program, 
I would answer definitely no.

(Mrs. Mitchell) I want to object at this point. The 
Supreme Court and the various Federal Courts and State 
Courts have held where the issue has arisen that the possi­
bility of racial tension or the disturbance of the public 
peace would in no wise be a defense by the State for failure 
to comply with the constitutional guarantee. Our own Fed­
eral District Court was reversed by the Fourth Circuit Court 
of Appeals in the Recreational cases when that matter 
came before the Court, the question of swimming pools in 
Baltimore City, the Municipal Beach at Fort Smallwood and 
the State Beach at Sandy Point, the Fourth Circuit Court of 
Appeals reversed the Federal District Court of Maryland



E. 87

and ruled that the fact of the possibility of disturbance to 
the public peace and racial incidence could not possibly be 
a defense for continuing the policy of racial segregation 
and that was affirmed by the Supreme Court.

(The Court) Hasn’t the witness said that he doesn’t 
know of any trouble arising from this situation?

(Mrs. Mitchell) But we want to go on record at this 
time as stating that the Supreme Court in the School cases 
which have come before it, as well as all the other cases on 
the question have said that this is not a defense for con­
tinuing racial separation and in the matter of disturbance 
of the public peace, the Court has continuously held that 
this is not a valid defense.

By Mr. Murphy:
Q. Are you familiar with the issue of white and colored 

children in this institution, Children’s Village? A. Chil­
dren’s Village in New York?

Q. Laurel, Maryland. A. My understanding, and this 
is by hearsay, is that approximately 80 percent of the 
children under care at the Childrens Village at Laurel 
are Negro youngsters and 20 percent white.

Q. In other words, the minority race becomes the 
majority? A. That’s right.

Q. Hasn’t that within ycur experience caused racial con­
flict?

(Mr. Bearing) I object.
(The Court) Sustained.

By Mr. Murphy:
Q. What is the ratio of colored to white children in the 

training schools, the four training schools? A. Of this 
amount, roughly 52 percent white and 48 percent Negro.

Q. Have you projected these figures into the future? A. 
Yes. In our ten-year development program, we project 
through 1970 the expected population at the institutions—



E. 88

(The Court) Mr. Manella, on that last point, in answer 
to a previous question, you gave these figures, I think: 
Boys’ Village 380, Barrett School 90. That would be a 
Negro population of 470. The other two schools, Montrose 
126 and Maryland Training School 430, a total of 556, mak­
ing a total of 556 white children and 470 colored children.

A. My rough guess is 52 percent white and 48 percent 
Negro.

By Mr. Murphy:
Q. On the basis of these projections, Mr. Manella — and 

I am sure you are familiar with it — will the colored race 
ever be the majority race in the next ten years?

(Mrs. Mitchell) We object.
(The Court) I will sustain the objection.

By Mr. Murphy:
Q. Just one or two other questions. Do you recall the 

several conversations in my office aproximately one week 
ago when we talked about Childrens Village? A. Yes.

Q. Did you answer me the same way that you are now? 
A. Yes, I believe I did consistently.

Q. Did you at any time refer to assaults within the in­
stitution at Childrens Village? A. Boys fights, yes.

Q. Did you also state they were ascribed to race con­
flict?

(Mrs. Mitchell) We object.
(The Court) Sustained. I would like to say this, as long 

as the plaintiff put Mr. Manella on this morning and was 
given pretty wide range, his expert qualifications and 
his experience and all in different institutions, now, I think 
we are starting to get a little far afield. You have made 
him your own witness this afternoon, it frankly occurs to 
me that Mr. Manella, who certainly cannot be qualified as 
an expert in the Laurel institution just because he has 
been there and knows some of the people there and has



E. 89

heard gossip or talk about having a fight there or whatever 
it is, I don’t know. I do not think you can qualify him as 
an expert as having any particular knowledge about the 
operation of the District Training School located at Laurel, 
Maryland.

For those reasons, I sustain the objection.
(Mrs. Mitchell) May it please the Court, we would con­

sider that these questions are illegal under the present 
state of the law as already enunciated and in the case that 
involved our own state facilities which went to the Supreme 
Court.

(The Court) I won’t comment on that issue because I 
intend to ask the next witness a similar question. Do you 
have any further questions from Mr. Manella?

(Mr. Dearing) We have no further questions of Mr. 
Manella.

(Witness excused.)

ELBERT L. FLETCHER,
a witness produced on behalf of the Defendants, having 
been first duly sworn, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION 
By Mr. Murphy:

Q. Mr. Fletcher, what is your position? A, Superin­
tendent, Maryland Training School, 2400 Cub Hill Road.

Q. How long have you been superintendent, Mr. Fletch­
er? A. Fourteen years and about eight or nine months.

Q. And your educational background? A. Varied. A 
bachelor’s degree. A master in the field of sociology, resi­
dent and degrees at Teacher’s College, Doctor’s not com­
pleted, the philosophy of education, resident in education, 
University of Maryland, the Human Development Project, 
and additional courses at the University of Colorado and 
one or two other schools.



E. 90

Q. Have you had any other positions in the juvenile field 
prior to your present situation? A. That is all. I began 
with three years in Texas; six and a half years at Childrens 
Village and ten years at the New York State Training 
School and my experience in Maryland.

Q. W’hat is your primary responsibility as superintend­
ent of the Maryland Training School? A. We generally 
think of ourselves as the one who coordinates the resources 
of a large institution. Unfortunately, in such a large insti­
tution, we are away from boys and it is just a matter of 
supervising and controlling the entire organization.

Q. Mr. Fletcher, based on your long experience and 
study, what do you feel is the key to a successful adjust­
ment of the State’s Juvenile institutions? A. We think of 
several factors with relation to the child forming the over­
all treatment. Of course, I think most of us agree that most 
of the waking hours are spent with the cottages. In other 
words, you have nine boys for eight hours a day in the 
cottage and you have 72 positions with the school and then 
you have maybe a night watchman post of nine hours a 
day and we have thought, generally speaking, that the 
closer relationship with the boy should lie, of course, in the 
cottage people, included with the other elements of teach­
ing, school work, habits and all, and these are the main 
factors but there are other factors.

Q. Which in your opinion would have the highest influ­
ence? A. We think the most important is the cottage life 
where we think the main real adjustment takes place 
rather than in the other places.

Q. What is the role of the cottage parent? A. A counsel­
lor and a guide and in many cases they have a boy and 
father status and generally speaking they will bring their 
problems to the counsellor, for instance, if there is any 
school problem, as any parent would.

Q. Have you ever worked in an integrated training 
school? A. Yes.

Q. Where? A. New York State Training.



E. 91

Q. Public? A. Yes.
Q. Did you undergo any problems of conduct at an inte­

grated facility that you did not undergo in a segregated 
facility.

(Mr. Dearing) I object. It doesn’t make any difference 
whether or not he encounters problems in an integrated 
facility which he would not encounter in a segregated sys­
tem or vice versa. It is immaterial, irrelevant and incom­
petent as a defense for any violation of constitutional rights 
under the equal protection or due process clause of the 
Fourteenth Amendment.

(The Court) Overruled.
A. I was rather going to broaden this if I might. I rather 

had to confine this to just the question you asked but would 
like permission to broaden on it if I may.

We encounter problems now in cultural groups. The 
rural boy has different ideas than the city boys and a Jewish 
boy coming in has a big problem.

Q. Did you have any more of that in the New York State 
Training School than any other? A. Yes. Whenever you 
mix your cultures, and there it would be more than just 
mixing the Negro boy. There is there a Puerto Rican cul­
ture. We have all read of what they have done and where 
they have their gangs. They come in and create racial 
fights and it was very difficult in New York. We might 
get 14 boys out of a gang fight consisting of Puerto Rican 
or white gangs and you must consider at any time mixed 
ages in different groups. You see that they have better 
supervision and we feel, I feel this is not a matter of what 
I can do. I can handle it.

We would like to have a little more supervision and a 
little less number in a cottage. We would like to have 
twenty in place of forty and would certainly in a heterogen­
eous group want not more than twenty. It would just in­
crease it. That is part of my job. I am not worried about it 
but I feel that we could be given a start. Crowded like we



E. 92

are, I would not want to be in a situation where we would 
be dumped on a one-way proposition. As superintendent, I 
know it would not be a one-way track with integration.
I know we will have the total boy problem with integrated 
schools. We had trouble when St. Mary’s closed up and 
those boys were transferred to our place. We had hold­
overs from the two integrated institutions and anything 
that is different makes problems.

Q. You mean when St. Mary’s went out of business? A. 
Yes, we had a good deal of trouble for two or three years 
until all the St. Mary’s boys came through me. It tended 
to increase the business and there is no use saying it didn’t.

Q. Would the increase detract from the purposes of the 
institution? A. If you don’t have the facilities for handling, 
it will wreck it and break down everything you are doing. 
That is what we are fearful of but let us do the separating.

Q. Would you say you would have to surrender some 
security under such situations? A. It is more than that. 
It is security and training. It would bring in a lot of feeling. 
We are dealing with a most difficult group to handle because 
their background is a good deal different and we have to 
recognize that. We just need a little better training facili­
ties and if those things are not provided for us and if we are 
going to do any kind of a job, it would make my job under 
existing circumstances very difficult.

Q. In addition to your job being made more difficult, 
what other factors are we talking about? A. I don’t know 
of any others.

Q. How would all of this affect your institutional pro­
gram? A. It would affect us very little except that various 
areas we might have to change and then there is some 
difference in the educational level where we might need a 
different type teacher. I keep in touch with Mr. Veney 
and we talk about the educational levels. He needs more 
reading than I do and needs more in the academic end than 
I do and those are factors that we would have to consider.



E. 93

(The Court) For the record, he is the Superintendent of 
Boys’ Village.

A. Yes. He and I work pretty well together.
By Mr. Murphy:

Q. Have any of your inmates been transferred to the 
Forestry Camps? A. Yes.

Q. What is the experience within your knowledge when 
the boys are integrated at that level? A, I have never 
visited the camp. I have had some boys come back with 
some sort of story as to why they were forced to return and 
so forth and so on.

Q. Have they ever given you a reason based on racial 
conflict? A. Yes, they give that along with the others.

Q. Can you elaborate on that?
(The Court) What group do you mean by that?
A. Runaways. I’ve had some boys run away and come 

back and make these various complaints.
(The Court) Their rate of runaways isn’t as great from 

the camps as at your school where you have no Negro stu­
dents? A. Sir, in order to be fair with the Maryland Train­
ing School, they have a runaway problem but may I say 
this: They are taking the top cream of my boys, who are 
not runaways up there. They don’t want the chronic run­
away.

(Mr. Murphy) I have no further questions.

CROSS EXAMINATION 
By Mr. Bearing:

Q. Mr. Fletcher, just one or two questions. Is it true that 
when these boys are rehabilitated, they will have to come 
back into a heterogeneous society? A. I would rather you 
be a little specific. As much as we would have them run 
that way, I believe that he will go back to Negro parents



E. 94

and Negro homes and Negro culture and they may go into 
a school program, a mixed group.

Q. Isn’t it very important then that they have this 
heterogeneous experience so as to do a more effective job 
of rehabilitation? A. I don’t really know. I don’t honestly 
know. I wish I did.

Q. Isn’t it logical that if they have these race problems, 
they should be taught to live with other people under 
supervision so that they will know how to live and get 
along in an integrated world at home? A. I hope I didn’t 
leave any other impression. That should be done. I just 
want to say this: We will do the job if you wish it done.

(Mr. Dearing) I have no further questions.
(The Court) I take it that you are saying, Mr. Fletcher, 

that if the Court of Appeals of Maryland or the Supreme 
Court should rule on these or similar constitutional ques­
tions and you would be required to take both races at the 
Maryland Training School, that you don’t want it to hap­
pen again where St. Mary’s closed that quick and you had 
to take their boys without giving you proper facilities. 
You were over-populated for three years and you are still 
overcrowded of course. Isn’t that true? A. That is true 
and also I feel that when a court has the right to commit, 
the court will commit Negroes to me and no white boys 
to Mr. Veney. I hope it would be an over-all commitment 
to the Department. I could talk with Mr. Veney and we 
could get along very well on that.

(Mr. Murphy) I have nothing further, Your Honor.
(Mrs. Mitchell) No further witnesses.
(The Court) I will be glad to hear from counsel.
(Thereupon followed argument by Mr. Dearing, Mr. 

Murphy and Mrs. Mitchell.)
(The Court) You have closed your arguments but I 

would like to say to counsel on both sides, if you wish to 
comment on the points I raise now, it might be helpful to 
the Court.



E. 95

We speak of the rights of Negroes or other groups under 
the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. When 
the Government sets up public facilities, members of dif­
ferent groups are entitled to receive equality of treatment, 
but the Supreme Court, as I recall it, at the time of the 
Brown case within a matter of a week had the District of 
Columbia Schools before it. The Fourteenth Amendment 
of the Federal Constitution had no relevancy in the Dis­
trict of Columbia. That is not a State, and as I recall the 
decision, the Supreme Court virtually struck down dis­
crimination in the District of Columbia public schools and 
predicated its decision on the due process clause of the 
Federal Constitution rather than equal rights, the Fifth 
Amendment. They got the same result but through a dif­
ferent part of the Federal Constitution.

Now, with that as a premise, the position has been urged 
in this case by young citizens who say “I want to go to a 
school where education is not segregated. I want to go to 
an integrated school as a matter of right.” The Supreme 
Court has said segregated public schools are inherently 
unequal per se. Public education is a right, whereas no one 
would claim a right to go to a training school or an adult 
to a prison. We have had a few cases where youngsters 
have complained about going on the bus but by and large 
people say there is a stigma to a training school and not a 
matter of right.

Mr. Murphy — I think I get his point there, that it is a 
place for the rehabilitation of those who have offended 
and are taken out of society, but in the Fifth Amendment, 
I raise this point and then I want your comment — and it 
has no string to it but in sending a youngster to a public 
training school, we have a duty in the court to observe 
due process. In the District cases which reached the Su­
preme Court, the court said in effect that colored children 
going to a District School that is not integrated, that those 
citizens were being deprived of their liberty without due 
process of law.

They had a right to liberty and to go to integrated schools 
and there weren’t any as of that time in the District of



E. 96

Columbia; that it was a denial of due process with the 
School Board, one branch of the Government, and an ad­
ministrative branch, to say no, you go to this school. It is 
segregated but that is all that is available. If that is a 
denial of due process, we in the court have to send children 
to this school or that and we have to observe the due 
process of the people before us but they have forfeited 
their rights of due process because they are in the court.

If a Grand Jury that indicts a man is selected from 
citizens of one group or race and others are excluded from 
membership, that conviction has been stricken down. Of 
course, that would be a criminal case where one would be 
going to prison.

(Argument continues.)
(The Court) I think counsel on both sides have been 

very lawyer-like and helpful and have been fine officers of 
the Court.

The Court will hold the matter sub curia awaiting sub­
mission of respondents’ brief.

OPINION
Moylan, J.

The Plaintiff, Robert Eugene Myers, a 13-year old Negro 
boy, was on October 28, 1959 before the Circuit Court 
of Baltimore City, Division for Juvenile Causes, on an ex 
parte Petition. He was alleged to be delinquent as a result 
of stealing merchandise from two Baltimore stores. After 
the testimony, that Court adjudged the plaintiff to be de­
linquent and announced that the boy, on probation at the 
time for previous thefts, would be committed to a training 
school.

Counsel for Robert Myers thereupon made a motion 
that the boy be sent to Maryland Training School for Boys, 
contending that Boys’ Village is a racially segregated 
contending that Boys’ Village is a racially segregated 
schools in Maryland violate both the Equal Protection and



E. 97

the Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment of the 
Constitution of the United States.

The Court continued the case for further hearing on the 
constitutional question raised, invited the State Department 
of Public Welfare, the Attorney General of the State, and 
the public training schools of the. state to intervene as 
interested parties to file briefs and to appear at a further 
hearing to be scheduled for the taking of testimony and 
the arguments on the constitutional question. The de­
linquent boy was sent on an Order of Detention to Boys’ 
Village where he has remained since October 28, 1959, a 
period of eight months.

Before the scheduled re-hearing, the plaintiff filed in 
this Court the present proceeding, a class action in which 
he asks for a Declaratory Decree on the constitutional issue 
raised.

By stipulation, the parties agree that the physical and 
other tangible factors and facilities in these four State 
training schools are substantially equal.

The parties agree that a real controversy exists, that 
all proper parties are included, and that this case presents 
the sole question: Is racial segregation in the State’s train­
ing schools per se a violation of the due process or the equal 
rights clause (or both) of the Fourteenth Amendment of 
the Federal Constitution?

Sections 657 and 659-661 of Article 27, Annotated Code 
of Maryland, 1957 Edition, relate to the State’s four public 
schools for delinquent minors: •— Boys’ Village, Maryland 
Training School for Boys, Montrose School for Girls and 
Barrett School for Girls. These Sections provide that these 
schools are public agencies for “the care and reformation 
of miners committed thereto under the laws of this State,” 
and further provide that the Maryland Training School 
shall be for white male minors, Boys’ Village for colored 
male minors, Montrose School for white female minors, 
and Barrett School for colored female minors.

In Brown et al. v. Board of Education et al., 347 U.S. 
483, 74 S.C. 686, the Supreme Court of the United States



E. 98

on May 17, 1954 declared the fundamental principle that 
racial discrimination in public education is unconstitutional, 
and in its Opinion after the rehearing on implementation 
on May 31, 1955 (349 U.S. 294, 75 S.C. 753) said:

“All provisions of federal, state or local law requir­
ing or permitting such discrimination must yield to this 
principle.”

The controversy in this case revolves around the ques­
tion: Are Maryland’s public training schools a part of the 
State’s public education system? Are they within or beyond 
the orbit lof the Supreme Court decisions in the School 
Segregation Cases, and in later related cases involving 
other types of public facilities all of which are now the 
supreme law of the land?

In Brown et al. v. Board of Education, supra, the Supreme 
Court of the United States states:

“Today, education is perhaps the most important 
function of state and local governments. Compulsory 
school attendance laws and the great expenditures 
for education both demonstrate our recognition of the 
importance of education to our democratic society. It 
is required in the performance of our most basic public 
responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It 
is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is 
a principal instrument in awakening the child to cul­
tural values, in preparing him for later professional 
training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his 
environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any 
child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life 
if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an 
opportunity, where the state has undertaken to pro­
vide it, is a right which must be made available to all 
on equal terms.

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



E, 99

brought are, by reason of the segregation complained 
of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaran­
teed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition 
makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segre­
gation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Four­
teenth Amendment.”

One contention of counsel for those named herein as 
parties defendant is that the Supreme Court in the School 
Segregation Cases was dealing with conventional ele­
mentary schools whose pupils return home daily at the close 
of each school day, whereas the youths committed to train­
ing schools must remain not only during the normal school 
day but night and day throughout the terms of their com­
mitments. As a result, he contends that desegregation of 
the training schools could have the effect of enforcing 
social as well as educational association among the two 
races for twenty-four hours a day. The Supreme Court, 
itself, in a series of cases following the Brown cases, in 
which similar efforts were made to limit the scope and im­
pact of that decision, summarily rejected these contentions 
as untenable, declaring that the fundamental and sweeping 
constitutional principle it had enunciated on May 17, 1954, 
applies to all levels of public education, •— to public 
residential schools as well as to day schools. The Board of 
Trustees of University of North Carolina, et al. v. Leroy 
Benjamin Frazier, et al., 76 S. Ct. 467.

The possibility of social as well as educational contacts 
between the races is precisely the same at a public training 
school as at a State College, State University, or any other 
public residential school —■ except that these other schools 
are co-educational and Maryland’s training schools are not.

A second argument of Counsel for the Defendants is that 
the State’s training schools having been set up “for the 
care and reformation of delinquent minors,” — and educa­
tion being a part, but only a part, of the process of rehabili­
tating their young wards — these public training schools 
are something less than full-fledged schools, and do not 
fall within the scope of the term “public education” in the 
sense that such term was used by the Supreme Court in



E. 100

School Segregation Cases. This contention, the Court feels, 
is without merit.

The public education system of Maryland, in its wide 
and comprehensive scope, embraces many types of schools 
with diversified curricula and facilities. It includes not only 
■the hundreds of public schools of the usual or orthodox 
pattern where the students commute to their homes after 
the usual school day, but also includes a chain of specialized 
residential schools where the students live at the school 
campus twenty-four hours a day, — such as the State Uni­
versity five State Teachers Colleges and the Maryland 
School for the Deaf at Frederick (where the ages of the 
students range from 6 to 18 years). In all of these, follow­
ing the Supreme Court’s rulings in the School Segregation 
Cases, desegregation is already either a fait accompli 
or is in the planning stage.

The broad term “Public Education” encompasses not 
only the conventional schools, but hundreds of schools pro­
vided by the State at public expense for special groups with 
varying aptitudes, abilities, handicaps and problems.

Public Education includes in Baltimore City, for instance, 
the Bael School for the Physically Handicapped, an 
engineering preparatory school (Baltimore Polytechnic 
Institute), the Homewood Demonstration School on the 
Hopkins campus for academically talented children, the 
Montebello Public School with its accelerated courses for 
the gifted students, several vocational high schools, numer­
ous ungraded classes, shop centers, and occupational classes 
for slow-learning and feebleminded children. All of these 
schools are as much an integral part of a public educational 
system nowadays as the more typical neighborhood school; 
the lockstep curriculum for all students is a thing of the 
past.

The Baltimore City public school system includes, of 
course, the Bragg School for Boys and the Highwood School 
at Catonsville (both maintained and operated by the Balti­
more City Public Schools although located in Baltimore 
County), where boys exhibiting flagrant anti-social be­



E. 101

havior, personality distortions and emotional quirks are 
sent to be rehabilitated before they are returned by school 
authorities to their former classrooms.

These two Baltimore City public schools are set up ex­
clusively for these problem boys who are not educable in 
the more routine classrooms until their anti-social attitudes 
are re-formed and their hostility to all authority replaced 
by socially acceptable behavior. These two public schools, 
both correctional in nature, have enrolled in past years, 
hundreds of emotionally unstable students who have 
formally been adjudged delinquent by the Circuit Court of 
Baltimore City, Division for Juvenile Causes, placed on 
Probation and assigned by school authorities to these 
schools after full collaboration and exchange of opinion by 
the Court staff and school authorities. The fact that they 
have been adjudged delinquent and are forced to attend, 
both by our compulsory education statute and by the joint 
decisions of Court and school officials, in no wise alters 
the basic identity and character of these schools as schools.

The use of social case work, psychology, psychiatry, vo­
cational training and character-building recreation as 
auxiliary tools by the training school in its over-all pro­
gram of rehabilitation education parallels their widespread 
use throughout Maryland’s system of public education. 
In the Baltimore City public school system there are 116 
counsellors, 20 visiting teachers, a director of social work 
and 51 social workers, 2 psychiatrists, 12 psychologists and 
a clinical specialist. Grouped together in the Division for 
Special Services, they diagnose the problems of hundreds 
of maladjusted students with anti-social behavior patterns. 
The use of these important adjuncts and tools have become 
standard practice in all schools, including our public train­
ing schools. They do not transform either into some other 
type of institution.

Public Education is designed for all children in our com­
munities, — the normal child, the gifted child, the slow 
learner, the emotionally unstable, and the delinquent youth. 
Nothing in the diff ering curricula or specialized educational 
techniques employed in any of these various types of



E. 102

schools emasculates them as educational institutions or 
strips them of their essential identity as schools set up by 
the State of Municipal Governments at public expense.

The per capita cost to Maryland taxpayers of educating 
each of the approximately one thousand boys and girls 
in the four State training schools is $2,800 per annum. 
The per capita cost of maintaining the inmates in our 
prisons is approximately a third of that sum. It costs far 
more to secure experienced educators and trained teachers 
than prison guards and turnkeys. These figures reflect the 
true educational character of the training schools. Main­
tained by the State at public expense, they are an integral 
part of its system of public education.

The Supreme Court in the Brown cases, in defining the 
importance of public education, could hardly have more 
specifically included the public training school than by 
including among the basic aims of educating a youth “help­
ing him to adjust normally to his environment” and laying 
“the very foundation for good citizenship” . This is pre­
cisely the vernacular of training school administrators.

In decisions following closely on the heels of the School 
Segregation Cases, the Supreme Court has made clear that 
the far-reaching constitutional principles announced on 
May 17, 1954 are net limited to segregated public schools 
but must be held to apply to public facilities totally unre­
lated to public education.

In Dawson v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 350 
U.S. 877, the Supreme Court, under the principle announced 
in the School Segregation Cases, affirmed the District Court 
for the 4th Circuit in holding that segregation of the races 
in public recreational facilities (a public bathing beach), 
even though separate facilities available to both white and 
Negro races were entirely equal, violated the equal pro­
tection of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Federal District 
Court had held that segregation could not be justified1 as 
a means to preserve the public peace as no proper govern­
mental objective existed in the classification and segrega­
tion of the races in such facilities, saying:



E. 103

“ * * * if that power (State’s police power) cannot be 
invoked to sustain racial segregation in the schools, 
where attendance is compulsory and racial friction 
may be apprehended from the enforced commingling 
of the races, it cannot be sustained with respect to 
public beach and bath house facilities, use of which is 
entirely optional.”

In Gayle et al, v. Browder et al, 77 S. Ct. 145, the Supreme 
Court in a Per Curiam Order, citing in support its previous 
decisions in the School Segregation Cases, affirmed on 
November 13th, 1956 a federal district court which had 
held that state statutes requiring separation of the races 
on buses and other city transit lines in Montgomery, Ala­
bama are unconstitutional.

It could hardly be plausibly maintained that the rationale 
of the School Segregation Cases, and the fundamental con­
stitutional principles decided, do not apply to public train­
ing schools — when the Supreme Court itself cites them 
as controlling in cases involving public facilities totally 
unrelated to public education, — a public beach and public 
transportation lines.

The language of the Supreme Court in the Dawson case, 
supra, and the Gayle v. Browder case, supra, would seem 
to provide the complete answer to another contention of 
Counsel for the Defendants that the already difficult job 
of rehabilitating delinquent youths would be greatly ag­
gravated by mixing white youths and Negro youths in 
the training schools. Counsel points out that the General 
Assembly of Maryland, in enacting the segregation statutes 
regarding training schools might have had in mind this 
consideration, which could be considered as a proper gov­
ernmental objective in separating the races.

In this connection the Court, in reviewing the legislative 
history of our training schools, finds no evidence in sup­
port of such design by the General Assembly or the State 
Government. The State prisons, where the disciplinary 
problems are considerably greater, have never been segre­
gated. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in the



E, 104

School Segregation Cases, the State desegregated the Rose­
wood State Training School for feebleminded children, 
many of whom have been adjudged as both “feebleminded 
and delinquent.” Within recent years, following enabling 
statutes enacted by the General Assembly, the State has 
established the Maryland Children’s Center (a Detention 
Home for Study of boy adjudged delinquent by our juvenile 
courts), the five State Forestry camps, to which our public 
training schools send Court-committed delinquent boys for 
the last-stage of their training program, and the Esther 
Loring Richards Clinic, to which the State’s juvenile courts 
send delinquent children who have also been adjudged as 
emotionally disturbed. All of these institutions receive 
children from the juvenile courts of Maryland — without 
regard to their race or color. The judge of this Court, in his 
day to day familiarity with these institutions as the pre­
siding judge of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, Divi­
sion for Juvenile Causes, knows of no incident or trouble 
in any of them, disciplinary or otherwise, arising from the 
fact that they are operating as non-segregated institutions.

This Court, in a 17-year span of service as Judge of the 
Circuit Court of Baltimore City, Division for Juvenile 
Causes, has never known or read in the public press of any 
such troubles arising in any of the public training schools 
throughout the country, the vast majority of which are 
non-segregated. The Children’s Bureau of the United 
States Department of Health, Education and Welfare in 
1956 published the results of its Survey of Public Training 
Schools for Juvenile Delinquents (Bulletin No. 33). It 
reveals (page 8) that 67 State training schools, even before 
the Supreme Court’s decision in the Brown case, admitted 
children of all races. The Survey further reveals that 
segregation in training schools is the pattern in fourteen 
southern states (pages 8 and 39), and that non-segregated 
training schools are the pattern of all but four of the 
remaining thirty-six states (page 8). Maryland with its 
four segregated public training schools is one of these four 
states. Of the several States de-segregating their training 
school since 1954, the border States of Missouri and West 
Virginia might be mentioned. The National Training



E. 105

School for Boys and the District of Columbia training 
school located at Laurel, Maryland, are non-segregated 
schools.

In assessing the real character and basic function of a 
training school, an Opinion by Judge Alvey nearly a cen­
tury ago is in point.

In Roth and Boyle v. House of Refuge, 31 Md. 329, de­
cided July 2, 1869, the Court of Appeals, after holding that 
the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City acted within the 
jurisdiction and power it then had in reviewing and over­
ruling a decision of the Baltimore City Court which had 
declared that a 12-year old boy had been illegally com­
mitted to the House of Refuge, then a private school which 
later became the Maryland Training School for Boys, went 
on to state by way of dicta at Page 334:

“Inasmuch as a grave constitutional question has 
been fully discussed, involving the power of a Justice 
of the Peace to commit, and of the Managers of the 
House of Refuge to detain minors, charged as and 
proved to be persons of incorrigible or vicious conduct, 
so that his or her control is beyond the power of parent, 
guardian, or next friend, we deem it proper, in view 
of the great public importance of the subject, to say, 
* * *, that we are clear in the opinion that the power 
conferred upon the Justice of the Peace, as also that 
conferred upon the Managers of the House of Refuge 
by the 18th section of Art. 78, of the Code of Public 
General Laws, is in no wise in conflict with the Declara­
tion of Rights, or the Constitution of this State. And 
that we fully concur in the reason and judgment of 
the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in disposing of a 
similar question in the case of Ex parte Crouse, 4 
Whart., 9.

“In accordance with the suggestion of Judge Alvey, 
the following opinion of the Court in Ex parte Crouse, 
4 Wharton 11, is appended: Per Curiam . —£ “The 
House of Refuge- is not a prison, but a school .where 
reformation, and not punishment is the end; it may



E. 106

indeed be used as a prison for juvenile convicts who 
would else be committed to a common jail, and in 
respect to these the constitutionality of the Act which 
incorporated it, stands clear of controversy. It is only 
in respect of the application of its discipline to subjects 
admitted on the order of a Court, a magistrate, or the 
Managers of the Almshouse, that a doubt is enter­
tained. The object of the charity is reformation, by 
training its inmates to industry; by imbuing their 
minds with principles of morality and religion; by 
furnishing them with means to earn a living; and above 
all, by separating them from the corrupting influences 
of improper associates. To this end, may not the 
natural parents, when unequal to the task of educa­
tion, or unworthy of it, be superseded by the parens 
patrice, or common guardian or the community?

“It is to be remembered that the public has a, para­
mount interest in the virtue and knowledge of its 
members, and that of strict right, the business of edu­
cation belongs to it. That parents are ordinarily in­
trusted with it, is because it can seldom be put into 
better hands; but where they are incompetent or cor­
rupt, what is there to prevent the public from with­
drawing their faculties, held as they obviously are, at 
its sufferance? The right of parental control is a 
natural but not an unalienable one * * * . As to abridg­
ment of indefeasible rights by confinement of the per­
son, it is no more than what is borne, to a greater or 
less extent, in every school; * * * .”

The Roth case, supra, decided in 1869, has had a far- 
reaching impact on juvenile court statutes and the develop­
ment of training schools as schools. The first juvenile 
court in the United States was not established until thirty 
years later and the first juvenile court in Maryland not 
until thirty-three years later (1902). Some of the enabling 
statutes employ the language verbatim as initially used in 
the Crouse case and adopted in toto by the Maryland Court 
of Appeals.



E. 107

Significantly, our Court of Appeals clearly recognized in 
1869, when the House of Refuge and other training schools 
were in their infancy, and the educational courses and 
facilities provided for the young wards of our courts were 
comparatively meager and primitive, that nothing in their 
early status as “reform schools” or in the fact that the 
youths were committed to these schools by courts stripped 
the schools of their basic character as educational institu­
tions. No juvenile courts being in existence at the time, 
the majority of the State’s wards in these schools in 1869 
were committed there by the criminal courts of Maryland 
or by justices of the peace exercising criminal jurisdiction. 
At present they are sent there by Equity Courts and other 
civil courts in which they have been tried in noncriminal 
proceedings. Statutes have specifically removed these 
juvenile courts and training schools from the orbit of the 
criminal system. These delinquent youths have no crim­
inal record and lose no civil rights.

In Baker v. State, 205 Md. 42, the Court of Appeals held 
that Boys’ Village is a Reformatory within the meaning 
of our Escape Statute as amended and broadened by the 
Legislature in 1927 (Acts of 1927, Chapter 374) to include, 
in addition to penal institutions named in the old 1837 
statute, “reformatories and any other place of confine­
ment.” The Court significantly observed that:

“All along the accent has been on education and 
training rather than upon punishment.”

A careful reading of the language used by the Court of 
Appeals in the Baker case is persuasive that the decision 
was never intended to, and does not, strip the public train­
ing schools of Maryland of their basic character as schools, 
although the minors committed to them are in a sense 
restrained of their liberty. The word Reformatory must 
be placed in the context of the Court’s entire Opinion.

“A. Reformatory is an institution in which efforts are 
made either to cultivate the intellect or instruct the con­
science or improve the conduct of inmates * * * .” Black’s 
Law Dictionary, 4th Edition (1951).



E. 108

Reformatory Schools for juvenile offenders was an oft- 
used term in the English law of several decades ago, and 
the outmoded and fast disappearing term reform school 
was frequently used in America in the 1880’s and 1890’s 
as the name of early training schools.

The limited sense in which the Court of Appeals in the 
Baker case, supra, applied the term Reformatory and the 
alternate connotation oft applied to the term as a penal 
institution for younger convicted felons are two different 
things. In 1945 the State established the Reformatory for 
Males and the Reformatory for Females as the State’s 
penal institutions for younger convicts. It retained the 
training schools as schools.

The Court of Appeals in Jones v. House of Reformation, 
176 Md. at 45, noted that in 1935 “more than 400 colored 
boys were committed to Cheltenham School for Boys (since 

! re-named Boys’ Village) by courts of criminal jurisdiction.” 
Its student population in I9601 includes only five committed 
by the State’s criminal courts and 391 by the State’s juve­
nile courts (civil courts) in noncriminal proceedings. On 
June 6, 1960, the four State training schools had a total 
student population of 1,056, — 8 sentenced by criminal 
courts and 1,048 (or 99-2/10%) committed to them in 

| juvenile courts.
The very statutes which established the Maryland Train­

ing School for Boys, the Cheltenham School for Boys (since 
renamed Boys’ Village), the Montrose School for Girls and 
the Barrett School for Girls and which refer to them as 
“public agencies for the care and reformation of the in­
mates,” specifically designated these institutions as schools 
hy name. Any suggestion that a “reform school” or “Re­
formatory” cannot be at the same time a full-fledged school 
is clearly a non-sequitur. In addition, the Maryland Train­
ing School for Boys, the Montrose School for Girls and the 
Barrett School for Girls were hy statute specifically made 
a part of the general educational system of the State.

“The Maryland School for the Deaf, incorporated 
under the Acts of 1867, Chapter 247, the Maryland



E. 109

Training School for Boys, organized under the author­
ity of the Acts of 1918, Chapter 300 (Art, 27, Secs. 707- 
718), and the Montrose School for Girls organized 
under the authority of the Acts of 1918, Chapter 303 
(Art. 27, Secs, 720-728), are each on January 1, 1923 
placed in and shall thereafter exercise their functions 
as parts of the Department of Education, Each of said 
institutions shall continue under the management of 
their respective Boards * * * under the general super­
vision of the State Superintendent of Schools.” Acts 
of 1937, Article 41, Sec. 142 (Annotated Code of Mary­
land 1939). (Italics supplied.)

Chapter 70 of the Acts of 1937, which set up Cheltenham 
School for Boys did not place it or its Board of Managers 
under the supervision of any State Department, but within 
a year (in 1938-39) the State Department of Education, at 
the request of State officials, made a thorough survey of 
the educational program of Cheltenham. The State 
promptly implemented the recommendations of the State 
Department of Education, provided an enlarged program of 
education at this school be patterned after that in the other 
public schools of the State. The Court of Appeals notes in 
Jones v. House of Reformation, supra, at page 45 that the 
per capita cost in 1935 of educating boys at the Cheltenham 
School was $200 per annum. Today the per capita cost is 
$2,800, an increase of 1400%.

The prod  is overwhelming that the State established 
these public training schools as schools. They are a part 
of the State’s public education system. The Supreme 
Court’s decision in the School Segregation Cases, supra, are 
therefore controlling.

In the century-old legislative history of the State’s private 
training schools and public training schools which suc­
ceeded them, several milestone dates mark sweeping 
changes, all of which gave tremendous impact and mo­
mentum to their evolution from primitive schools to fully 
equipped, modern schools, with full staff of trained, ac­
credited school teachers:



E. 110

1869 The Maryland Court of Appeals spoke out in Roth 
v. House of Refuge, supra.

1902 First juvenile court in Maryland established, — 
three years after the first juvenile court in the 
United States was set up in Cook County, Illinois.

1943 New juvenile court law in Maryland for Baltimore 
City enacted . . .  an Equity Court succeeded old 
Magistrate’s Court with jurisdiction in juvenile 
causes.

1945 Statewide law (several counties exempted them­
selves) reintroduced juvenile courts at the Circuit 
Court level.

1948 State training schools were placed in 1943 under 
newly created Bureau of Child Welfare of the State 
Department of Public Welfare, Art. 88A, Ann. Code, 
1957. In 1948, Division of Training Schools was 
created within this Bureau. The transfer of super­
vision to this Bureau from the Department of Edu­
cation reflected no step backward in the status of 
training schools as schools. The Report of the Gov­
ernor’s Maryland Commission on Juvenile De­
linquency and its sweeping recommendations re­
sulted in this and other statutory changes. The 
reasons urged for this change were logical. The 
State Department of Public Welfare already had a 
backlog of successful experience in its broad child 
welfare program embracing dependent and ne­
glected children committed to it by juvenile courts. 
Fear was expressed that in the Department of Edu­
cation’s vast and complicated programs for 300,000 
Maryland school children, the comparative handful 
of court-committed delinquents (less than 1,000 per 
annum) could well become a “stepchild” and be 
overlooked. The change in State policy has ac­
celerated the educational program of the training 
schools, teachers salaries have doubled, appropria­
tions for needed facilities have skyrocketed and 
modern school buildings have multiplied.



E. I ll

1945 Reformatory for Males of 16 to 26 years (a penal 
institution) established. The resulting change in 
the make-up of the training school populations, with 
the siphoning off of hundreds of young criminal 
offenders, formerly committed to the training 
schools, has been a genuine metamorphosis. It has 
lessened old problems and tensions, lowered the 
average age and the size of the classes, and advanced 
the progress of these institutions as schools for 
younger, more tractable children.

The case of Nichols v. McGee, 169 F. Supp. 721, (appeal 
dismissed, 361 U.S. 6) in which segregation in state prisons 
is upheld, is rejected as wholly inapplicable. '(That case 
dealt with a state prison and not a school. There is simply 
no more resemblance between a training school and a 
prison than there is between delicate brain surgery and an 
ax murder. The Court in the Nichols case fully recognized 
this fact when it stated:

“The Brown case rationale cannot be extended to 
State penal institutions, where inmates and their con­
trol, pose difficulties not found in educational systems.”

Counsel for the Defendants contends as an alternative 
proposition that a public training school, if neither strictly 
prison nor school, is at least a hyphenated or hybrid insti­
tution combining features of both, and therefore the Su­
preme Court’s decisions in the School Segregation Cases 
are not relevant.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 3, prepared by the Superintendent 
of the Maryland Training School for Boys, provides con­
crete and convincing evidence that our four training schools 
are basically schools, and not custody-centered institutions, 
with education secondary. The well-balanced, over-all edu­
cational program at the Maryland Training School is not 
an academic facade, •— and is substantially equal to the 
instruction and courses provided at the other three State 
training schools, as the parties have stipulated.

Even the training schools’ responsibility for custody is 
discharged, and the number of runaways kept within con-



E, 112

trol, by keeping the youths usefully at work in the well- 
rounded and diversified educational program provided in 
the classrooms, the vocational workshops, the dormitories 
and cottages and on the campus. As Raymond Manella, 
Director of the Bureau of Training Schools of the Depart­
ment of Public Welfare testified, our training schools are 
“neither maximum security nor minimum security insti­
tutions. They have an open program.” None of the routine 
paraphernalia of the prison —■ locked doors, cell blocks, 
prison guards, and fences surrounding the institutions 
topped by barbed wire — is present. The Courts, repre­
senting the State as parene patrice in performing the 
parental role imposed by the juvenile statutes, do not send 
their young wards there to be placed in cold storage, but 
to be educated and trained in good citizenship. The purpose 
of such statutes is “preventive and not punitive.”

Respect for authority and for the personal and property 
rights of others, conforming to socially acceptable standards 
of behavior, good work and study habits, and the importance 
of re-forming anti-social traits and respecting all laws are 
emphasized in all phases of, and are in an ingrained part 
of, the well-rounded training school program, curricular 
and extra-curricular, just as they are in all schools. In this 
fashion the Schools rehabilitate and reform the delinquent 
youth and safeguard society from his recidivism at the 
same time. Courses in Civics, Good Citizenship and 
Problems in Democratic Living are taught in the class­
rooms. Training youths are taught to “play by the rules” 
in the school gymnasiums, cottage game rooms and ion the 
athletic fields. They are taught how to get along with other 
people in their cottages, under the supervision and instruc­
tion of trained cottage personnel. All of these activities are 
component, coordinated and complementary parts of the 
unified school program, and are not to be thought of as 
competing and separate objectives of a training school. 
Without the School and its educational program, the insti­
tution could be likened to the play without Hamlet.

The program at the Maryland Training School for Boys 
(Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 3), substantially equal to that of



E. 113

the other three state training schools, is carried on in three 
schools:

1. The Junior School with grades for the primary group 
(8, 9, 10 and 11 years old) and through the ninth 
grade for boys 12, 13 and 14 years old;

2. The Senior School; and
3. The Junior-Senior High School with grades up to the 

12th. The curriculum includes algebra, geometry, 
trigonometry, chemistry, physics, world history, 
Problems of Democratic Living, and Civics.

The school day runs from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 noon, 
and from 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Vocational shops 
are: automobile, machine shop, printing and
carpentry.

The training school curriculum is so closely patterned 
after that in other public schools that a child, committed on 
December 6th or on March 2nd, for instance, can enroll in 
and keep up with his regular class, and when his scholastic 
grades and credits are earned, can usually return to his 
former school in his neighborhood for the opening of the fall 
semester, or even in mid-semester, without academic diffi­
culty.

The public records of every juvenile court in Maryland 
contain additional convincing proof that our State training 
schools are bona fide schools. Court records reveal that 
even the responsibility for custody is met by means of the 
Schools’ coordinated educational program. The vast ma­
jority of children at our training schools are there on in­
determinate commitments. The length of stay at the 
institution (the average is about eight months) is de­
termined by the boys and girls themselves in passing their 
school work and earning their academic grades. Detailed 
and informative Progress Reports are sent regularly to the 
committing judge at the close of each of two Semesters, 
just as report cards are sent to parents periodically by other 
schools. Not only do the youths in our public training 
schools visit their homes for a week' at Christmas, and for



E. 114

several weeks during the summer vacation, but as a reward 
for good school progress and obedience to school rules of 
conduct, are allowed periodically to visit their homes for 
week-ends. This has been going on for more than ten years 
in Maryland, and the negligible number of boys and girls 
who fail to return (and have to be called for) at the end 
of their home visits is much smaller than the number who 
escaped in the old days when these schools, to prevent 
escapes, used the austere and repressive methods associated 
with standard prison life.

Counsel for the Defendants argues in his Brief that the 
equal rights guaranteed in the Fourteenth Amendment 
could hardly apply to youths in a training school because:

“It is hardly a fundamental civil right of a citizen 
as a member of society to have himself incarcerated in 
one of the State’s correctional training institutions; nor 
is it a civil right for one so incarcerated to dictate the 
terms under which he may be rehabilitated. The pur­
pose of his confinement is the antithesis of freedom 
and liberty, and while we may not view the juvenile 
offender as a criminal in the classic sense, it is clear 
that he is removed from society for the protection of 
society, and restrained of his liberty until such time as 
his fledgling criminal and antisocial tendencies can be 
checked and remedied by institutional confinement.”

In considering this contention, the Court reaches several 
conclusions:

1. The child committed to a training school loses no 
civil rights. A citizen may have no fundamental civil 
right to be confined in a public correctional school but 
the Court has no right to abridge the minor’s con­
stitutionally guaranteed right to due process at every 
stage of the Court proceeding including the Court’s 
selection of a training school.

2. The word incarcerated, defined in standard diction­
aries, is deprived from the French root word career 
which means prison. It is incorrectly applied to train­
ing schools.



E. 115

3. Although the court-committed youth cannot dictate 
to the judge the institution to which he is to be sent, 
the proper legal question or Constitutional criterion 
is, — Can the juvenile court judge, in selecting the 
institution, systematically exclude all Negro delin­
quents from the Montrose School for Girls and the 
Maryland Training School for Boys, and system­
atically exclude all white delinquents from the Bar­
rett School for Girls and Boys’ Village? The corollary 
to that question is this: Can the Maryland statutes 
which require the juvenile court judges to do that 
very thing be upheld as constitutional in the face of 
the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in Bolling v. Sharp, 347 U.S. 497, that such denial of 
a youth’s right to attend a non-segregated school is per 
se a deprivation of his liberty without due process of 
law?

If, arguendo, the Courts should hold that the Supreme 
Court’s decisions in the School Segregation Cases do not ap­
ply to training schools and that Maryland statutes requir­
ing segregation in them do not violate the Equal Rights 
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Consti­
tution, — these segregation statutes do nevertheless violate 
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,

In Bolling v. Sharp, supra, segregation in the public 
schools of the District of Columbia was held to be in viola­
tion of the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment. The 
Court there said:

“We have this day held that the Equal Protection 
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the 
states from maintaining racially segregated public 
schools. The legal problem in the District of Columbia 
is somewhat different, however. The Fifth Amend­
ment, which is applicable in the District of Columbia, 
does not contain an equal protection clause as does the 
Fourteenth Amendment which applies only to the 
states. But the concepts of equal protection and due 
process, both stemming from our American ideal of 
fairness, are not mutually exclusive. The ‘equal pro-



E. 116

tection of the laws’ is a more explicit safeguard of 
prohibited unfairness than ‘due process of law’, and 
therefore, we do not imply that the two are always 
interchangeable phrases. But, as this Court has recog­
nized, discrimination may be so unjustifiable as to be 
violative of due process * * *.

“Although the Court has not assumed to define 
‘liberty’ with any great precision, that term is not con­
fined to mere freedom from bodily restraint. Liberty 
under law extends to the full range of conduct which 
the individual is free to pursue and it cannot be re­
strictive except for a proper governmental objective. 
Segregation in public education is not reasonably re­
lated to any proper governmental objective, and thus 
it imposes on Negro children of the District of Columbia 
a burden that constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of 
their liberty in violation of the Due Process Clause.

“In view of our decision that the Constitution pro­
hibits the states from maintaining racially segregated 
public schools, it would be unthinkable that the same 
Constitution would impose a lesser duty on the Federal 
Government. We hold that racial segregation in the 
public schools of the District of Columbia is a denial 
of the due process of law guaranteed by the Fifth 
Amendment to the Constitution.”

The rationale of the Supreme Court Opinion in Bolling v, 
Sharp, supra, would apply much more forcibly to the present 
case than it did to the District of Columbia case. The Dis­
trict student’s loss of liberty without due process of law 
lay solely in the denial of his right, the Supreme Court 
decided, to attend a non-segregated school while living in 
his home and community. In this case, the Court Commit­
ment, coupled with the Maryland segregation statutes, 
not only requires his forced attendance in a segregated 
school against his will, but during several months of forced 
detention he experiences, in addition, an actual loss of his 
liberty in the conventional sense.

When a citizen’s constitutional rights are abridged he goes 
to the Courts for redress and for enforcement of those



E. 117

rights. The Courts in their proceedings are hardly under 
less obligation to observe the constitutional right to due 
process of all parties before the Court than a District 
of Columbia School Board or other administrative agency 
in pupil assignments.

For the reasons set forth, the Court holds that those parts 
of the statutes (Sections 657 and 659-661 of Article 27, An­
notated Code of Maryland, 1957 Edition) which require 
separation of the two races (Negro and white) in the four 
State training schools violate both the Equal Rights and 
the Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of 
the Constitution of the United States, and are therefore 
unconstitutional.

An Order will be entered in conformity with his Opinion.
/s /  Chas. E. Moylan,

July 1, 1960 Judge.

DECLARATORY DECREE
This matter having come on for hearing in open Court, 

testimony having been taken, counsel for the parties hav­
ing been heard, briefs submitted on their behalf having 
been considered and an opinion of the Court having been 
heretofore filed, it is this 6th day of July, I960, by the Cir­
cuit Court of Baltimore City, Adjudged, Ordered, Declared 
and Decreed that Maryland’s Public Training Schools are 
a part of the public education system of the State of Mary­
land,

A nd it is Further Adjudged, Ordered, Declared and 
Decreed, that Sections 657 and 659-661 of Article 27, An­
notated Code of Maryland establish racially segregated 
Training Schools in the State of Maryland.

A nd it is Further A djudged, Ordered, Declared and 
Decreed, that those parts of Sections 657 and 659-661 of 
Article 27 of the Annotated Code of Maryland, 1957 Edi­
tion, which require separation of the Negro and white races 
in the four Training Schools violate both the equal rights 
and the due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment



E. 118

of the Constitution of the United States, and are therefore 
unconstitutional.

A nd it is Further Adjudged, Ordered, Declared and 
D ecreed that the Court cannot select a Training School to 
which a minor is to be committed on the basis of the 
minor’s race or color.

A nd it is Further Adjudged, Ordered, Declared and 
Decreed that the Defendants and each of them, their agents 
and successors in office, be, and they are hereby, forever 
and permanently enjoined and restrained from denying to 
the Plaintiff and other Negro youths, solely on account of 
race and color, commitment, admission and transfer to 
any Training School established, operated and maintained 
by the State of Maryland.

Costs to be paid by Defendants.
/&/ Charles E. Moylan,

July 6, 1960. Judge.

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT NO. 1 
In The

Circuit Court of Baltimore City 
D ivision for Juvenile Causes 
Room No. 131, Court House

Ex Parte 

In The Matter Of

Robert Eugene Myers 
Also known as Robert Meyers

To the, Honorable, the Judge of said Court:
Offs. Peter Shaulis and Charles Huggins in the City of 

Baltimore, State of Maryland, respectfully shows that the 
following named child under the age of sixteen years is 
Delinquent; Name, Robert Eugene Myers; sex, male; race, 
colored; age, 13; living with stepfather, Alveater Coleman; 
mother, Mae Coleman; address, 713 N. Eden St.



E, 119

For the reason that on August 10, 1959 at 5:45 P.M, in 
the City aforesaid, Robert Eugene Myers, C/M/13, 713 N. 
Eden St., Ralph Nelson Spencer, C/M/13, 1105 Barclay 
St. and Frank Andrew Williams, C/M/12, 1011 Aisquith 
St., while in store of Hudson Quality Cleaners, 5003 York 
Road, took from the cash box $21.00 in U. S. currency. 
Nothing recovered.

On July 20, 1959, at 3:00 P.M., Robert Eugene Myers, 
C/M/13, 713 N. Eden St., Bernard Lamonte Brice, 
C/M/14, 1009 Valley St. and Frank Andrew Williams, Jr., 
C/M/12, 1011 Aisquith St., while in Berry’s Confectionery 
Store, 2208 Greenmount Ave., took $15.00 in U. S. currency 
from cash register. Property of Mrs. Helen Berry. Noth­
ing recovered.

W herefore, Petitioner respectfully prays that the Court 
make such finding and pass such Order or Decree as the 
law provides.

Hearing Oct. 28, 1959, 10:00 A.M.
/s /  Off. Charles R. Huggins, 

Petitioner.
Address, Eastern District.

Docket No. 65544
Ex Parte 

In The Matter Of 
Robert Myers, Col. 13 yrs.

(also known as Robert Meyers, Col. 13 yrs.)
713 N. Eden Street

Circuit Court of Baltimore City 
Division for Juvenile Causes

Petition

Date 10/28/59. Hearing before Moylan, J.
General Denial

Finding: Delinquent Child.



E. 120

Order: Detained at Boys Village, sub curia as to final 
disposition.

12/11/59 Detention extended until 1/15/60.
1/15/60 Detention extended until 2/19/60.
2/19/60 Detention extended until 4/22/60.
4/22/60 Detention extended until 6/30/60.
6/30/60 Detention extended until 7/6/60.
7/6/60 Discharged from detention and Committed to Md. 

Training School.
Filed October 7th, 1959.
Atty.: Tucker Dearing — Pea. 2-6651.
Previous Appearance: 61363—1959 Freeman.
65058—1959.

Detention Prior to Hearing

The Respondent was not detained at th e ..........................
District in the detention room
from .................................................................. -....................
to ..............................................................................................

C. R. H.
See Petition No. 65541 to 44 Incl.

Received on order of Court for Detention, Robert Meyers, 
correct name, Robert Myers, This 28th day of October, 
1959.
Docket No. 65544 Judge
Circuit Court of Baltimore City
Division of Juvenile Causes

/s /  Lawson J. V eney (V.M.W.),
Superintendent, 

Boys Village School.



E. 121

Born: 8/7/46
Maryland, SCt. I/Q: 88

To Supt.
Maryland Training School 
Baltimore 34, Maryland

Greeting:

W hereas, it has been duly adjudged after hearing before 
Charles E. Moylan, Judge of the Circuit Court of Baltimore 
City Division for Juvenile Causes that Robert Myers is a 
Delinquent child and is by reason thereof in need of care 
and treatment.

You Are, Therefore, Empowered and Directed to re­
ceive said Robert Myers to be kept and detained under 
your care and custody, subject to the further Order of 
this Court.

W itness, The Honorable Emory H. Niles, Chief Judge 
of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City, the 2nd day of 
May, 1960.

Issued the 6th day of July, 1960.

/ s /  Chas. E. Moylan, 
Judge.

DEFENDANTS’ EXHIBIT NO. 1

State of Maryland 
State Department of Public W elfare 

Characteristics of 860 Committed Children in the 
Maryland Training Schools on January 1, 1960



T able 1 —  A ges of Boys and Girls in  State T raining Schools

January 1, 1960

Barrett School Boys'Village Maryland Training Montrose School 
Age  *  Total for Girls of Maryland School for Boys for Girls

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Total .....................  860 100.0 89
8 years................ .............. — — —
9 years................ ...............  3 .3 —

10 years................ ...............  11 1.3 —
11 years................ ................  28 3.3 1
12 years................ ................  45 5.2 6
13 years.......... -.... ...............  106 12.3 9
14 years................ ...............  183 21.3 20
IS years................ . 246 28.6 28
16 years................ ...............  166 19.3 23
17 years................ ...............  63 7.3 2
18 years................ ...............  8 1.0 —
19 years................ ...............  1 .1 —

* Actual age as of January 1, 1960

100.0 331 100.0 328 100.0 112 100.0

____ 2 .6 1 .3 — . — .

— 9 2.7 2 .6 — —
1.1 22 6.7 5 1.5 — —
6.7 20 6.0 17 5.2 2 1.8

10.1 45 13.6 43 13.1 9 8.0
22.5 72 21.8 63 19.2 28 25.0
31.5 96 29.0 96 29.3 26 23.2
25.8 46 13.9 64 19.5 33 29.5
2.3 19 5.7 31 9.5 11 9.8

— — — 5 1.5 3 2.7
____ ____ _ ____„ 1 .3 ---- —



T able 3 —  Number of Commitments and R ecommitments of Boys and
G irls in  t h e  Sta te  T r a in in g  S chools 

January 1, 1960

Barrett School Boys’ Village Maryland Training Montrose School 
Commitments Total for Girls of Maryland School for Boys for Girls

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Boys and girls committed by number of commitments

Total ....................... 860 100.0 89 100.0 331 100.0 328 100.0 112 100.0
First commitments................ 638 74.2 79 88.8 233 70.4 234 71.3 92 82.1
Recommitments — Total...  222 25.8 10 11.2 98 29.6 94 28.7 20 17.9

One..................................  156 18.1 10 11.2 64 19.3 62 18.9 20 17.9
Two ...............................   52 6.1 — — 30 9.1 22 6.7
Three or more................. 14 1.6 — — 4 1.2 10 3.1 — —

L 123



T able 12_T ype of O ffenses of Committed Boys a n d  Girls in State T raining Schools

January 1, 1960
Montrose

Barrett School Boys’ Village Maryland Training School for
Type of offense T otal for Girls of Maryland School for Boys Girls

Number Number Number Number Number

Total offenses....................... ... 860 89 331 328 112

Arson .............................................. ... 8 — 3 5 —

Assault............................................ ... 33 2 20 10 1
Automobile theft............................ .... 60 — 9 51
Breaking and entering..................... ... 126 — 67 58 1
Disorderly conduct........................ ... 16 1 7 8
Narcotics ........................................ — — —

Robbery .......................................... ... 23 1 14 8
Sex offense...................................... ... 14 4 3 2 5
Stealing .......................................... ... 184 4 119 58 3
Vandalism ...................................... 8 — 1 7
Being ungovernable........................ ... 113 37 19 20 37
Runaway ........................................ ... 123 19 20 34 50
Trespassing .................................... 1 — 1
Truancy .......................................... ... 85 13 24 39 9
Violation of Probation........................ 12 5 7 — —
Violation of after care supervision... 2 — 2 — —

Other ............................................. .... 52 3 15 28 6

124