Glover v. Daniel Appendix

Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.
Download
By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:
For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):
Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.
LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.
If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.
NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.
Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.
I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.
If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at
Topic
- Education
Notable Person
- Jack Greenberg
Organization
- NAACP Legal and Educational Defense Fund, Inc.
Matter
- Glover v. Daniel
Case
- Glover v. Daniel
U.S. state
- Georgia
Collection
- Brief Collection
Taxonomy
Identifier
- 21534777-b39a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873
Cite this item

Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Glover v. Daniel Appendix, 1970. 21534777-b39a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/a5cf84a8-bc2b-4074-a9cc-d860070cc26a/glover-v-daniel-appendix. Accessed April 19, 2025.

Copied!
    In t h e
MnlUh BMm GInurt of Appeals

F ob the. F ifth Cibctjit 

No. 29253

D. F. Glover,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

H arold T. Daniel, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

APPEAL FBOM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA NEWNAN DIVISION

A P P E N D I X

J ack Greenberg 
Conrad K. H arper

10 Columbus Circle 
Suite 2030
New York, N.Y. 10019

P eter E. E indskopf 
H oward Moore, Jr.

Suite 1154
Citizens Trust Company 

Bank Building 
75 Piedmont Avenue, N.E. 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant



TABLE OF CONTENTS

Transcript of Proceedings of June 23, 1969 .......... .......  1

Docket Entries ................................................................ 299

Complaint ....... .............. ...................................................  301
Exhibit A Annexed to Complaint—Letter 

dated April 9, 1969 ........................ ............... 306

Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate ....... ............ ............ 308

Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of Motion to 
Consolidate................       310

Order of Consolidation .......... ............ .................. ......... 314

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction..............  315

Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for 
Preliminary Injunction .............................................   317

Order and Decision ..............    321

Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion to Vacate Temporary 
Bestraining Order ...................      330

Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Bestraining Order ..........  331

Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of Motion to Vacate 
Bestraining Order ......        333

Plaintiff’s Notice to Take Deposition............ ................  339

Answer In Case No. 890 .............................. ............. . 341

PAGE



11

Order to Show Cause ....................... ....... ...................... 345

Defendant’s Interrogatories......... ....................... .......... 346

Defendant’s Motion to Shorten Time to Answer 
Interrogatories ............. ................................. .............  348

Defendant’s Memorandum in Support of Motion to 
Shorter. Time ........................................................ .....  351

Transcript of Proceedings dated June 11, 1969 ..........  353

Plaintiff’s Answer to Interrogatories............................  377
Exhibit A Annexed to Foregoing—List of 

Names ........................................        379

Order and Decision..........................................................  382

Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion to Amend ......................... 395

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend and Supplement Findings, 
etc...................................................................................  396

Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of Motion to Amend, etc..... 401
Order Denying Motion to Amend ..... ...... ............. 406
Notice of Appeal............ ...... ...... ....... ............... ......  407
Cost Bond on Appeal ............... .............. ...............  408

Clerk’s Certificate ........       410

PAGE



T estimony

(Hearing June 23, 1969)

Plaintiff’s Witnesses: page

Dennis Glover
Direct...................................................................114, 287
Cross - ................................................................ 156
Redirect...............................................     191

Louise Batts
D irect.......................       192
Cross ........................................      198

Halley Derr
D irect...........................    199

Margaret Walls
D irect........... .....................        203
Cross ..............................................       206

Leola Parks
Direct .................         209
Cross ........................................       211
Redirect....................    215

Defendant’s Witnesses:
Paul Oxford

D irect.......................       25
Cross ....................        4

Harold T. Daniel
Direct.....................   282, 288
Cross .....................    26, 285

Sue Snipes
D irect................          216
Cross ....................        227

Ill



IV

Talmadge Lee Cook
Direct .....................     236
Cross ....... ............................... ........................... 255

Hoyt Chambers
Direct............ ..................................    267
Cross ...............        272
Redirect............................       275
Recross ______        275

Astor Riggins
Direct.........       278
Cross - ......- ...... ............................. .................... 280

PAGE



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
. FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

NEWNAN DIVISION

D. F. Glover )
)
)
)

, )

CIVIL ACTION
vs. NO. 890

HAROLD T. DANIEL, individually
and as Superintendent of )PIKE COUNTY SCHOOLS, et al )

)

Atlanta, Georgia; June 23, 1969
Before

Honorable NEWELL EDENFIELD, Judge»

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL: 
For the Plaintiff: Peter E. Rindskopf

859 1/2 Hunter Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia

For the Defendant: Johnnie Caldwell 
Thomaston, Georgia



Index

Name ____

BATTS, Louise 

CHAMBERS, Hoyt 

COOK, Talmadge Lee 

DANIEL, Harold T. 

DERR, Halley 

GLOVER, G. T. 

OXFORD, Paul 

PARKS, Mrs. Leola 

RIGGINS, Astor 

SNIPES, Sue 

WALLS, Margaret

W I T N E S S E S
Page

192

267

235

2 6, 282, 287-A 

199

114, 189, 287 

4

209

278

216

203

1



2

JUNE 23, 1969 
oOo

THE COURT: All right, gentlemen. Are we ready in
Glover versus Campbell, I believe it is?

CLERK: Daniel.
THE COURT: Daniel.
MR. RINDSKOPF: Yes, sir. Plaintiffs are ready, Your

Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. CALDWELL: Defendants are ready, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Rindskopf, let's see. If

I understand the issue here, we are going ahead and try this 
matter finally and conclusively without a jury, the sole 
issue being, as I understand it, whether or not the plaintiff, 
Mr. Glover, was discharged for racial reasons 6r for other 
justifiable reasons.

Is that correct?
MR. RINDSKOPF: That's basically correct. Your Honor.
In reviewing the pleadings, I think there are probably 

also due process and First Amendment issues, but we can always 
amend to conform to the evidence.

THE COURT: Well, that may affect the legal determination,
but it won't affect the issues to be determined this morning, 
will it?

96*4
MR. RINDSKOPF: No, sir.



3

THE COURT: All right. You may proceed, sir.
CLERK; Do you have any witnesses, gentlemen, and do you 

wish the Rule as to any witnesses?
When your name is called, will you please come forward as 

witnesses in the case of D. F. Glover versus Harold T. Daniel.
0O0

(Whereupon, the witnesses present answered to the roll call as per 
above.)

CLERK: Do you wish the Rule, gentlemen?
MR. RINDSKOPF: Yes,we do.
CLERK: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, would you please

raise your right hand?
Each of you do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall 

give in the issue joined between D. F. Glover versus Harold 
T. Daniel, individually, and as Superintendent of Pike County 
Schools, et al, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God?

Now, ladies and gentlemen, you're instructed not to dis
cuss your testimony among yourselves nor allow anyone to discuss 
it with you except counsel or either of them. You are to 
retire from the Courtroom at this time. Do not return into the 
Courtroom until called in by an officer of this Court.

You may retire to the corridor at this time, other than 
parties to the case.

THE COURT: Gentlemen, before we begin, let me make one

3



4

comment and request. As I am sure counsel are aware, I have 
recessed a jury trial which is going on in this Court to hear 
this matter. I had allowed for it, on the advice of counsel, 
a day. And I understood I was told it would require probably 
less than that.

I notice we have a great number of witnesses here. We 
want to hear the matter and hear it thoroughly. I would request 
however, that to the extent that your witnesses are merely 
cumulative, that you consider not piling up cumulative testimony 
upon cumulative testimony, to the extent that you feel like 
you can eliminate it in the interest of time.

You may proceed, Mr. Rindskopf.
MR. RINDSKOPF: Yes, sir. I expect most of our witnesses
THE COURT: All right.
MR. RINDSKOPF: •—  would be very brief.
THE COURT: All right, sir.
MR. RINDSKOPF: We call Mr. Oxford.

0O0

PAUL OXFORD,
laving first been duly sworn and called as a witness testified as 
follows:

CROSS EXAMINATION
3Y MR. RINDSKOPF:

ft Would you state your name, please?
A Paul Oxford.

4



5

Q. How old are you* Mr. Oxford?
A. Fifty-five.
0- Where do you live?
A, Near Concord, in Pike County.
0- Okay. And what is your occupation?
A■ I'm a farmer and also substitute on a rural mail route

at the Post Office.

0. Okay. Do you hold any position in regards to education 
in Pike County?

A. Yes, sir. I'm a member and Chairman of the County Board 
of Education.

0- Okay. How long have you been on the County Board of 
Education?

A. About eleven years.
Q. About eleven years?
And when did you become the Chairman?
A. The first Tuesday in January, I was elected, of this

rear.
0. How were you elected?
A. By the other members of the Board.
0. And how is the Grand Jury -- pardon me -- how is the 

: soard of Education chosen in Pike County?
A. It was elected by the voters of Pike County.
0. And when was the last election?
A. In November of last year. 5



6
0- November, 1968?
A. *68; yes, sir.
Q. To take office in January?
A. In January, first of January, '69. Yes, sir.
Q. How long is your term?
A. My term?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. Two years.
Q. Two years?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you the only member of the Board of Education who 

vas previously on the Board?
A. Yes, sir; at this time. Yes, sir.
Q, And how many members are there?
A. We have five members.
0- Now, in your duties as Chairman of the Board of 

Education and on the Board of Education generally, do you consider 
the employment of principals?

A. Yes, we do.
Q. How do you go about employing principals?
A We wait for the nomination of the Superintendent, and 

thenve consider them.
Q. Are you absolutely bound by the fact that the 

Superintendent nominates someone, or not?
A. No, sir. I think the law allows us to choose someone

6



7

not nominated. But by custom of this Board, it has always been, 
with maybe one or two exceptions, to follow the Superintendent's 
recommendations.

Q. Okay. In the eleven years you've been on the Board, 
how many times have you not followed the Superintendent's nomina
tion?

A. Only one time that I can remember.
Q. And when was that?
A. That was about three years ago.
Qi Whatvas that for?
A. That was for a nomination of a high school principal 

that we did not elect the first man that Mr. Daniel, the Superin
tendent, recommended.

Q. After you failed to recommend —  after you failed to 
elect this person, did he recommend someone else?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. He did. And was that person subsequently elected?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And after you elect people, you then sign them to 

contracts?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Now, what was the reason that you overrode his 

first recommendation?
A. One of the members of the Board knew somebody that 

lived in the town where one of the applicants lived, and he wanted
?



8

to check with that person before he voted for the recommendation 
as it was made,

Q. In other words, this person was coming from somewhere 
outside the system?

A, Yes. Outside the system.
Q. And after the member checked with his informant# he 

decided that he preferred someone else, is that what happened?
A. No, sir. The Superintendent couldn't get a majority 

vote on the one he had recommended first. So he decided to 
recommend the second, another man,

Q. I see. He withdrew --
A. Yes, sir.
Ql —  his nomination?
Is it, that a normal thipg? Does he actually make a nominatior 

or does he suggest to you?
A. He presents the name to us and says, "This is the man I 

recommend."
Q. Does he make this presentation in writing?
A. No, sir. I think not.
Q. Does he make it at a regular meeting of the Board?
A. Yes, sir. At a regular Board meeting.
£X Okay. How often do you hold your meetings?
A The regularly scheduled ones, once each month, on the 

first Tuesday.
Q. First Tuesday? 8



9

A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. When did you consider the election and 

contracting with Section 12, Administrative Personnel, for this 
year?

A. I believe it was the first part of April. I believe 
it was the first meeting in April.

Q. In your first April meeting?
A. Yes, sir. The regular April meeting.
Q. All right. And at that meeting, did the Superintendent 

make nominations?
A. Yes.
Q. Whom did he nominate?
A. I may be mistaken about him making recommendations at 

that meeting. It was about 1:30 in the morning when we finished, 
and I believe we instructed him to write us a letter making 
nominations, and we would have a special meeting on the next 
Tuesday.

Q. And did he write this letter?
A. Yes, sir; he did.
Q. And did you hold your meeting on the next Tuesday?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Well, who did he nominate in this letter?
A. He nominated by name --
Q. Yes?
A —  Mrs. Edna Miller. Mrs. Edna Miller, Mr. T. H. — -

9



10

no •—  Mr. Lee Cook, and I believe Mr. T. E. Sellars, and I 
believe Mr. Crowder.

Q. Mr. Halbert Crowder?
A. Halbert Crowder; yes sir.
Q. Was that at this time, are these principal nominations?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was Mr. Crowder nominated at this time or nominated at

a later time?
A. I cannot remember exactly. I don't believe his name 

was in the letter, no. No, sir.
Q. Okay. But he was eventually nominated?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. Did your Board approve each of these 

nominations?
A. At the regular meeting, yes,sir. I mean at the call 

meeting on the 8th.
Q. At the call meeting?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was this meeting open to the public?
A. Yes, sir.
0. Now, --
A. It was open to the public. We usually have meetings open 

to the public except when we' re considering personnel, and when 
we're considering personnel, I do not think it was open to the 
public.

1 0



11

Q. You went into executive —
A Yesf sir.
Q. —  session? All right.
Now, is it also customary in your system for someone who

has a job as a priniipal to be renominated?
A It has been? yes, sir? most of the time. Some of the 

time not.
Q. And in your eleven years on the Board, that has been 

your experience?
A
&
A

we had
Qt
A

Well, one time we did not.
All right. When was that?
That vas the same year, three years ago, when the principal 

was not nominated by the Superintendent.
Now was this the same person who failed to carry a majorit 
No, sir. It was the one who had been there two or three

Y?

years.
Q. I see. Do you know the reason why the Superintendent 

didn't renominate this person?
A No, sir? I do not.
Q. Did he ever tell the Board?
A No, sir. I don't remember him telling it; no, sir.
Q. Okay. Now, did you, as a Board, vote on these nominations

at your executive session?
A Yes? we did.
Q, And were the votes unanimous?

I I



12

A. I don’t remember whether they were unanimous or not.
0- How many members are on your Board?
A. Five.
0- There are five. All right.
Now, what are the qualifications of Mrs. Edna Miller for her

job?
A. I believe she has a master degree and A-4 certificate,

I believe, and is doing some work on her A-5 certificate.
o. Where does she have her Master Degree from?
A. I’m not sure.
o. You don't know?
A. No, sir; I don’t know.
Q Okay. How long has she been a teacher?
A. She has been a teacher a good many years -- I'm not

sure how many -- in our system.
a And how long has she been a principal?
A. This past year was her first year as principal.
Q. Her first year as principal.
And isn't it a fact that she took office in the middle of the

school year or while it was going on?
A. It was after school started, yes, sir, I think in 

September, probably.
Q. Okay. Now what school has she been elected as principal

of?
A. The former East Pike Elementary.

12



13

0- And what grades would that be under the new plan for 
next year?

A First, second and third,
Q. Okay. What about Mr. Lee Cook? What are his qualifica

tions?
A He has an A-5 and is working, I mean —  beg your pardon 

he has an A-4 certificate and if he finishes the work he’s on this 
summer, he'11 have an A-5 at the end of this summer.

Q, Do you know if he's going to school this summer?
A. I understand he is; yes, sir.
Q. Did you know at the time you elected him —
A. Yes, sir; we knew he planned to go.
Q. —  where he's going?
A I believe it's Statesboro or —
Q. — • Statesboro?
A I don't know the, the name of the college.
Q. You don't know the name of the college?
A No.
Q. Okay. How long has he been in your school system?
A Three years, I believe. Two or three. Maybe two.
Q. Did he start in with your system?
A. No, sir. I think he taught some before. 1 know he

did. He was at another school before he came to our school.
Q. Does he have any previous experience as a principal?
A I do not know whether he has or not.

1 3



Q. You regard previous experience as an important qualifica

tion?
ft. Well, we usually leave the qualifications completely up 

to the Superintendent, and I presume they, that would be a 
qualification.

o. In ether words, you don't make any independent investiga-
tion on these people?

A. No, sir, not as individuals nor as Board members.

Q■ You just take the Superintendent's word, that he wouldn't
nominate anyone who wasn't qualified?

A. Yes, sir. That's been the custom; yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Now what about Mr. Sellars, -—  oh, let me ask
you, Mr. Cook, what school was he elected for?

ft. The present Pike County Elementary, which will be Grades 
4, 5 and 6 under the plan for next year.

& Okay. Now, how abotit Mr. Sellars, —
ft. He was -—

0. — - do you know — •
ft. nominated for principal of the Pike County High

School, which will be Grades 10, 11 and 12?
Q. And do you know what his qualifications are?
ft. He has a Masters Degree and an A-5 certificate, or will

be able to get an A-5 certificate.

0- V7here does he have his Masters from?
ft. I'm not sure. I don't know.



0. Does he have any previous experience — - 
A. Yes, sir.

15

& As a principal?
A. Yes, sir. He has had. He started as principal in 1948,

I believe, at the Gordon High School in the adjoining couftty.
a Would that be the Gordon Military College at Barnesville?
A Yes, sir. The high school part of it.
Q. Okay. That’s a private school?
A. Yes, sir.
& Do you know the enrollment of that school?
A. No, sir, I do not.
a Okay.
A. I believe the private school had the pupils from the

City of Barnesville, and they also went to this school, the high 
school pupils.

& Okay. So, it was sort of a public and a private school?
A. Yes, sir. I think they had an agreement with the college.
0. Now, has Mr. Sellars accepted a position to teach or to

be a principal in Pike County next year?
A. No, sir. He has not accepted.
0. I see. Has he indicated one way or the other whether

he's going to accept?
A. He has said that it would be doubtful if he would take

it.
0. It would be doubtful?

1 5



16

ft. Yes, sir.
0- When did he tell you this?
ft. Well, in a letter he wrote to the Superintendent, I 

gathered that.
THE COURT: Is he coming there from the school at Gordon?
THE WITNESS: No, sir. It's been some time since he

was at Gordon. He went to Columbia, Tennessee, and to 
Staunton, and he's presently at Front Royal, Virginia, Randolph- 
Macon Academy. That's where he's coming —

THE COURT: Coming from?
THE WITNESS: -- from, yes, sir.

BY MR. RINDSKOPF:
Q. Do you expect him to show up?
ft. We hope so. Yes, sir.
Q. In spite of his letter that it's extremely doubtful? 
ft. Yes, sir. He’s already signed his contract.
0. I see. When did he sign his contract? Do you know?
ft. I believe it was the first part of April. I'm not sure.

THE COURT: Well, doesn't that indicate an acceptance?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Well, I understood you to say he had not

yet indicated acceptance; but on the contrary, had expressed 
some doubt about it.

How is that consistent with him having signed a contract? 
THE WITNESS: Well, he has signed a contract, but I believe

1 8



17

he indicated he might like to get out of it, if it was 
possible.

THE COURT; All right.
BY MR. RINDSKOPF;

Q. Well, is the Board waiting on him to make a final 
determination, or are you still in the market for a principal?

A. No, sir. We're still counting on him being principal.
Q. You're counting on him to honor his contract?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. Now what about Mr. Crowder? Can you tell 

me what his qualifications are?
A. He has an A-5 with a Masters Degree, I believe.
Q. Do you know where he got his Masters Degree?
A. No, sir; I do not.
q. Do you know whether he has any previous experience as a 

principal?
A. It's my understanding he's assistant principal or 

principal this year.
I don't know how many years experience he has.
Q. Where is he in the system presently?
A. At a school, I believe, in Randolph County.
Q. Do you know the name of the School?
Pi. No, sir; I do not.
Q. Do you know what grades it encompasses?
A. It's my understanding it's a high school. I could be

1 7



18

wrong.

Q. Do you know whether it’s an integrated school or an 
all-black school or what?

A. My impression is that it's an all-black school. I might 
be wrong there.

Q. Okay. Have you signed Mr. Crowder to a contract?
A. No, sir. He has not signed a contract.
0- Has he given you any indication that he intends to

respond to his election fy your Board?
A. No, sir; he has not.
Q. Isn't it a fact that he wrote you and told you he didn't

want the job?
A. Yes, sir; it is.
Q. It is. Well, so, are you in a market to get someone to

replace Mr. Crowder?
A. Yes, sir; I think so.
Q. You think so. Okay.
Have you considered anyone —
A. No, sir.
Q. —  to take his place?
A. No, sir. I believe the letter only came, I only heard abou b 

it Saturday, I believe. Yes.
Q. All right, sir. Okay. And he would be teaching or he 

would be in charge of Grades 7, 8 and 9 --
A- That' s right.

1 8



19

Q. —  for next year?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Nov;, has the Board selected anyone to be a 

principal in the system besides the persons we have discussed for 
the coming year?

A, We have a. supervising principal, yes.
Q. What is a supervising principal?
A. To assist Mr. Daniel in some of the problems we thought 

we might have in getting the schools coordinated.
Q. Okay. Who would the supervising principal be?
A. Mr. Elliston.
Q. Mr. Elliston?
A. Yes, sir. He has twenty years experience as a county 

school superintendent, and we thought maybe his experience would 
be extremely valuable to us.

Q. He's the fellow who was formerly the superintendent over 

in Taylor County?
A. Yes, sir.
g. And who was defeated at the last election?
A. That's right.
Q. Okay. Now, will he be in charge of any specific school?
A. No, sir. He will work over the whole school system,
g. I see. He will be Mr. Daniel's —
A. Yes, assistant.

—  assistant? All right.
la

0.



20

And when was he nominated?
A. I believe it was in May, sometime. I don't know the 

exact date. We had about eight or nine meetings in May, and I'm 
not sure.

Q. Okay. When was he elected?
A. Well, I would guess the first meeting in June, I believe. 
Q. That would have been the first --
A. First Tuesday.
Q. -- Tuesday of the month of June?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Has he signed his contract?
A Yes, sir.
Q. He has?
A. I believe he has. I'm sure he has.
Q. Has he indicated that he intends to show up?
A No, sir. He's working now in the summer school.
Q. Okay. You don't anticipate that he won't be there?
A. No, sir.
Q. Okay. Now is this position of supervising principal 

a brand new one?
A Yes, it is.
Q. This will be the first year that you will have such a 

thing in Pike County?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Did you consider anyone within your system for



21

this post?
A. I believe not.
Q. Now, what about the other two principalships where you 

went outside the system, did you consider anyone for them within 
your system?

A. I believe we considered one person in the system for 
one of the principalships.

Q. Who was that?
A. Mrs. Bates. She had been a principal of one of the

previous, of one of the elementary schools that we previously had.
QL And for which position did you consider her?
A. I believe she was mentioned by the superintendent for

the principal of the Junior High School, which would be the 7th,
8th and 9th.

Q. Where Mr. Crowder was elected?
A. Yes, sir.
g. Okay. Was her name placed in nomination?.
A. No, sir.
g. There wasn't a vote on the Board —
A. No, sir.
Q. —  between —
A. There was no nomination.
g. •—  between her and Mr. Crowder?
A. Sir?
g. I say there wasn't a contest between her and Mr. Crowder?

21



22

A. There was no nomination of her name.

Q- He just suggested her name?
A. That's right. Talked about her, and decided that she

wouldn't fill the bill*
Q. All right. Was anyone else suggested for any of the 

positions who didn't fill it?
A. Of any of the schools?
& Yes *
A. Yes, we interviewed three or four other men.
0- From within the system or outside?
A. From outside the system.

& Okay. How about inside
A. No, sir.

& -- the system?
A. We didn't interviewer consider anybody else from inside

the system; no, sir*
Q. Okay. Now there are one or two people who are principals 

this year who will not be next year, is that right?
A. That’s right.

Q. Now, did you consider Mr. T. H. Chambers?
A. Mr. Chambers submitted a letter of resignation before

the time for, to elect the principals.

0- So, before the April meeting?
A. Yes, sir.

0- And Mr. Chambers was the principal at the Pike County

22



23

High School this year?
A. Yes, sir.
0- So his name was never considered for a job next year?
A. That's right .
Q. Okay. Now, what about Mr. D. F. Glover? He's a 

principal this year?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was his name ever considered for a position for next

year?
A. No, sir,
0. Why not?
A. He was not nominated by the Superintendent.
0. Okay. And is that the only reason he wasn't considered 
A. Yes, sir.
0. -—  to your knowledge?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And if he had been nominated, you would have considered

it?
A. Yes, sir. We sure would have.
0. Okay. Do you have any knowledge of whether he was 

interested in continuing to work in Pike County?
A. No, sir; I do not.
Q. Okay. Do you have any knowledge either way?
A, No, sir. That's right. Either way.
0. Okay. Now, let me just identify the races of all the

2 3



24

people we're involved with here.
You are a member of the white race, Mr. Oxford?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And I believe all of the other members of the Board of 

Education are white?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have they all been white within memory?
A. Since I can remember, yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And how long have you lived in Pike County?
A. I was born and reared in Pike County, and lived there all

my life with exception of about twelve years, from 19 -- you 
want those dates?

Q. I think you told me it was
A. '37 to '49.
Q. —  '37 to ’49?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. But you've been back in the county since *49?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And what about Mrs. Elna Miller, who’s going to 

be principal, she's a member of the negro race?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Lee Cook, he's a member of the white race?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Sellars?
A. Member of the white race.

2 4



25

0. He's white.
Mr. Crowder?
A. He's a member of the black race,* yes, sir. 
Q. Okay. Mr. Elliston?
A. He's a member of the white race.
Q. All right. Mrs. Bates?
A. Mrs. Bates is a member of the white race.
0. And Mr. D. H. Chambers?
A. He's a member of the white race, too.
Q. Okay. Mr. Glover?
A. Member of the black race.
0. Okay. Mr. Oxford, thank you.

MR. RINDSKOPF: No further questions.
oOo

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. CALDWELL?

Q. Mr. Oxford, you stated a minute ago that --
THE COURT: Just a minute. This gentleman is a party,

is he not?
MR. CALDWELL: Yes, sir. But he called him as his

witness. I'm going to cross examine him.
MR. RINDSKOPF: Well, I called him for purposes of

cross examination, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, I believe, Mr. Caldwell, under the

circumstances, being an opposite party, 1hat you do not have

25



26

a right to call him for cross examination.
MR. CALDWELL: Yes, sir. He didn't say so. I assumed

he was calling him as his witness.
THE COURT: No, sir. I wouldn't let you cross examine

him. And if you wish to put him up when you come to your 
side of the case, you may do so.

MR. CALDWELL: All right, sir.
Come down, Mr. Oxford.
THE COURT: All right. You may step down.

0O0

(Whereupon, the witness was excused from the witness stand at 
10:36 a.m.)

0O0

MR. RINDSKOPFs Okay. We'll call Mr. Daniel for cross 
examination.

0O0

HAROLD T. DANIEL,
Having first been duly sworn and called as an opposite party 
testified as follows: CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. RINDSKOPF:

Q, Would you state your name, please?
A. Harold Daniel.
Ql Where do you live, Mr. Daniel?
A Zebulon, Georgia.

0. And how old are you?



21

A. Fifty-three.
0- Do you hold any position with the schools in Pike County? 
A. Yes , sir.
Q. What position is that?
A. Pike County School Superintendent.
Q. How long have you been the Superintendent?
A. Over twenty-four years.
0. Over twenty-four years?
What did you do before that?
A. I was a principal, teacher.
0. Was that in Pike County?
A. Part of it; yes, sir.
0. Okay. And how are you chosen for your position?
A. At present, by election of the Board.
Q. Elected by the Board of education?
A. Yes, sir.
0. When were you most recently elected?
A. In May.
0. In May of this year?
A. Yes, sir.
0. 1969?
A. Yes, sir.
0. How long is your term?
A. Two years.
0. Two years? Okay.



28

As Superintendent, do you make nominations to the Board 
of Education for principals?

A Yes, sir,
ft When do you do this?
A, Well, the time will vary. We generally do this job 

anywhere from February through April.
Q. From February through April?
A. And, of course, --
Q. You don’t
A

ft

A
times.

If a vacancy occurs, it could run up to May or June* 
You don't have any set time?
No, sir, because you have, you have resignations at

Q. Okay. When did you make nominations this year?
A Nominations for principals and Section 12 personnel

were made in April of this year.
Q. When you say and "Section 12 personnel," who else do you

mean?
A Section 12 personnel, composed of librarians and 

counselors, full time counselors, visiting teachers, curriculum 
directors.

Ql Now, it's customary in your system to renominate persons 
who are holding principals' jobs for the coming year if they wanted 
it, right?

A. Yes, if their work has been satisfactory, yes.
2 d



29

Q, Okay. And for this year, you renominated Mrs. 
Edna Miller?

A Yes.

& Okay. What about Mr. Lee Cook? Did you renominate him?
A Yes .
Q. He was holding a position as principal?
A Assistant principal.
& Assistant principal.
Does Mr. Cook have any previous experience as a principal? 
A He was assistant principal one year up, up until 

this year, this past year.
& So the answer is no, he doesn't have any previous 

experience as a principal?
A Yes, sir. One year prior to this past year.

& As an assistant principal?
A Yes, sir.
& There is a difference between being a principal and

being an assistant principal.
A Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. What about Mrs. Miller, how much experience does

she have as principal?
A Mrs. Miller has one year as principal.

Q. One year, and was this this past year?
A Yes, sir.

& Was that for a whole year?

2 H



30

H  Y e s ,  s i r , with exception of about two weeks?
Q. So she came on some time during this year?
A During the month of September; yes, sir.
0- Okay. Now, you didn't renominate Mr. Chambers?
A. No, sir.
& And that was because he had already said he wasn't 

coming back next year?
Yes, sir.

0- And you didn't renominate Mr. Glover?
A No, sir.
0. Now, since you have been Superintendent, how many 

times have your nominations been turned down?
A Well, the Board Chairman just spoke of one. And there 

may have been other cases in the past years. I do not recall.
I know there's been quite a few discussions about various 

personnel over the years. I just do not recall at this time.
0. Okay. Well, in your twenty-four years, you don't 

recall anything other than this one instance?
A On principalships, at this time, I don't believe I do.
Qt Okay. Now, what about teachers? Do you apply the same

renomination of teachers, as long as their work is satisfactory?
A Well, the principals recommend the teachers to the 

Superintendent.
0. I see. And do you always follow their recommendations,

or do you make an independent recommendation?



31

A Not always.
Q. You -- not always.
A Do not.
Q. For both?
A. Do not always follow the recommendation of the

principal. Usually, I do.

0. Okay. Do you always make an investigation?
A. If there are individual teachers that I feel should

be investigated, if there have been complaints that have reached 
my office, usually I will discuss these things, however, with 
the principal.

Q- Okay. How many teachers do you have in your system?
A. About eighty-five.

0. About eighty-five? And of that number, how many have
you renominated for this next year?

A All were renominated with, I believe, four exceptions.

o. Four exceptions? Why didn’t you renominate those four?
A. Let's see, — •

Q. Take them one at a time, —
A Yes, sir.

0- —  probably be easier.
A One at a time, you mean the name?

o. Yes, sir.
A Counting Mr. Glover, it would be five.

Q. Okay. Well, leave Mr. Glover aside.

31



32

A. Yes, All right.
Mrs. Marjorie Sanford was not renominated.
Q. What was the reason for that?
A. The reason for her non-nomination was the fact she

did not have a degree, and she violated her 1968-69 contract 
by not attending summer school, and it was written in her contract 
she mutt, in order to teach, she must take at least two courses 
to work towards her degree.

Q.
summer?

And this was the summer school, not this summer, but last

A. That's right. The stammer of 8 68 .
Q. The summer before she started in teaching, in her

contract?
A. That's right.
Q. So, she violated her contract?
A. Yes, sir.
& What were the other teachers you didn't renominate?
A. Mrs. Martha McCrary also was not renominated.

Qt And what were the reasons for that?
A. She only holds a three year certificate.

a A three year certificate? Does that mean she hasn't
completed college either?

A That's right.

Q. Okay. And it's a fact, is it not, that, what, beginning
in 1971, all teachers in Georgia are going to be required to have



33

Masters Degrees?
A. I read that, I don't know,
0- You don't know it any more than I do?
A. No, sir,
0- All right. Okay.
Was she also supposed to hav e gone to summer school or 

picked up her degree as part of her contract?
A. No, sir. That was not written in her contract. Mrs. 

McCrary is nearing retirement. In fact, I believe she has one 
more year. We did not write that in her contract in reference 
to her age.

Q. I see. So, if, if you renominated her, she would only 
go for one more year anyway?

A. That's right.
Q. Okay. What about the next one?
A. Mrs. Lee Cook.
Q.

f
Mrs. Lee Cook?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that the wife of Mr. Cook?
A. Yes, sir.
& The new principal?
A. Yes, sir.
Q- All right. What was the reason
A. She also did not have her degree

o. Okay.

33



34
A. But she has attended summer school for the last 

several summers.
& But hasn't picked up her degree yet?
A No, sir.
0- And that was the reason why you didn't renominate her?
A. Yes, sir.
& You're trying to upgrade the system?
A. That's right. Yes, sir.
& Okay. And who's the fourth one?
A. Well, as I said, Mr. Glover, he was not nominated.
& I thought you said he was the fifth one.
A. No, sir.
& There's only these three teachers?
A. Yes. One other teacher did not have a degree, but did

not violate her contract. Mrs. Georgia Glannon, but she did 
receive a contract , though she did not have a degree, but she was 
renominated.

& She was renominated?
A Yes.
& Did Mrs. Cook violate her contract?
A No, sir.
Q. She didn't? Was there any distinction between Mrs.

Cook and Mrs. Glannon?
A Well, Mrs. Glannon, yes, Mrs. Glannon had been going to 

summer school for a good many years, and Mrs. Glannon does hold a,



35

an old three year certificate.
You must remember, the State Department of Education does 

not offer three year certificates and hasn't for a, quite a few 
years,

Mrs. Cook is a younger lady and was never able to receive a 
three year certificate. They'll only issue a four year certificate 
at this time.

Q. Right. Okay. Could you give us the race of these three 
teachers you haven't renominated?

A Mrs. Glannon is black.
Two of them are white. Mrs. Ann Cook or Mrs. Lee Cook, and 

Mrs. Martha McCrary,
Q. All right. Mrs. Sanford is black?
A Yes.
Ql Okay. Let's go back to Mr. Cook and Mrs. Miller, What

are Mr. Cook's academic qualifications?
A Mr. Cook has an A-4 certificate, and he is in his final 

quarter at Georgia Southern College, and is to receive his Masters 
Degree this summer.

Q. Okay. He doesn't have his Masters yet?
A No.
Q. How long has he been teaching?
A I believe about six years,
Q. How long has he been in your system?
A He's just finished his second year.

35



36

Q. Just finished his second year.
Do you know where he was before that?
A. Yes, sir,
Q. Where was he?
A. Georgetown, Georgia.
Q, What position did he hold in Georgetown?
A. He was a teacher there.
Q. He was a teacher. Okay.
Now, what about Mrs. Miller? What are her qualifications?
A. Mrs. Miller has a Masters degree and an A-4 certificate, 

and she's working on her R - 5.
Q, How long has she been a teacher?
A. Mrs. Miller has been a teacher in Pike County almost 

as long as I've been there. I'd say at least twenty years.
Q. And has she had any previous administrative experience 

besides this year?
A. This year is the only administrative experience in 

Pike County.
Q. Okay. She's never been an assistant principal?
A. No, sir.
Q. Or a principal at any other school?
A. No, sir.
Q. Okay. Now what about Mr. Halbert Crowder whom you 

nominated? Have you heard from him, that he's not coming?
A. Yes, sir.

38



37

Ql You have. When did you hear?
A. I received a registered letter the other day. I have

that letter. It's here, in this Court.
& Okay.
A. I don't recall the day it was received. One day last

week.
q. All right. Now, did you discuss his nomination with 

him before you made that?
A. Yes, sir. Mr. Crowder made application for the 

position.
Q. I see. When did he make application?

THE COURT: Somehow, I'm getting teachers and principals
all mixed up here.

Mr. Crowder, now, was a proposed principal?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. Mr. Crowder, he's a black

principal.
THE COURT; All right.
MR. RINDSKOPF; Right. Okay.
THE WITNESS; He made application.

BY MR. RINDSKOPF;
Q, When did he make application?
A. I believe it was about the first of May.
Q. And when you say he made application, this was because 

he was outside the system?

37



38

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
A. I've known Mr. Crowder for many years.

ft Did he formerly teach in your system?
A Yes, sir.
ft Has he ever been a principal?
A Yes, sir. I understand he has.

ft Where?
A In Gwinnett County, is my understanding.
ft In Gwinnett County? When was that?
A I don't know the exact years. It was prior to his

leaving for Randolph County.
& Well, whenvas he last in your system?
A He was in my system about ten years ago. Eight or

ten years ago.

ft I see. Was he in your system as a teacher?
A As a teacher; yes, sir.
ft Did he have any administrative position in your system?
A No, sir. Not at that time.

ft Okay.

ft Do you know what kind of a school he was principal of
in Gwinnett County?

A To my understanding, it was elementary school.

& You don't know for a fact, -~
A No, sir.

3 a



39

& -- one way or other?
A. No, sir,
Q. Did you check with Gwinnett County before you nominated

him?
A. Yes, sir,
Q. Did they tell you what kind of school he had been 

a principal of?
A. I believe it was an elementary school, best of my 

remembrance,
& Okay. What about down in Randolph County?
A. He8 s an assistant principal at Randolph County.
Q. He was an assistant principal?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what kind of a school?
A. A high school.
Q. Assistant principal at a high school?
Do you know how big the school was?
A No, sir; I do not know. My understanding, it was a 

twelve grade school.
Q. Okay. Did you check with Randolph County before you 

nominated him?
A Yes, sir.
Q. Did they tell you how big the school was?
A I'm sure that came up, but I do not recall the figure

at this time. But I did talk to the Superintendent.

3d



40

Q. Okay,, Do you know Mr. Crowder’s academic credentials?
A Yes, sir.
Q. What are they?
A. Besides having a good many years teaching experience,

he has a Masters Degree, an A-5 certificate. His Masters 
Degree from New York University, and he has been to many seminars 
and workshops over about the last eight years, various 
universities and colleges over the country.

0. Has he picked up any degrees from these workshops?
A. I'm sure he's picked up credits from those workshops.

I wouldn't think he picked up any degrees? no, sir.
& Okay. And have we established how long he was in 

Gwinnett County? Do you know that?
A No, sir. I don't recall at this time. Several years, 

however.
Q. Several years. Okay.
Now, what about Mr. Sellars? Do you know what his qualifica

tions are?
A Yes, sir.
Q. Has he told you whether he' s coming or not?
A Mr. Sellars did accept the position. He signed his

contract; yes, sir.
Q. Do you have any knowledge about whether or not he 

intends to honor his contract?
A No, sir. I do not, although he has expressed an

40



41

interest in not doing so.
0. Did he do this by letter?
A. Yes, sir. He has not been released by the Board of

Education o
& Okay. And was he in fact a principal over at the

Gordon Military College?
A. Yes, sir*
& Do you know how long?
A. Yes, sir*
& How long?
A. Six years*
o. Six years* Do you know how big a school that is?
A, Yes, sir*
a How big?
A. Several hundred*
& Several hundred? And is that Grade 1 to 12?
A. Yes, sir*
& And has he been a principal anywhere else?
A. Yes, sir. Principal and Vice President of various

institutions, and I think Vice President position generally goes
with the principal of a high school*

Ql I see. His experience has been mostly in private 
schools?

A. Private schools and maybe a dean of the instituion 
is a title also that he would have*

41



42

THE COURT: Is that the man that originally, formerly
was at Gordon?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, Mr, Sellars,
THE COURT: Now, is he the man that was to replace

Mr. Glover?
THE WITNESS: No, sir. When Mr, Chambers resigned,

that left a vacancy as principal of Pike County High School, 
and Mr. Sellars was to replace Mr, Chambers.

THE COURT: I see.
BY MR. RINDSKOPF:

0 Mr. Glover is also principal of a high school?
A. That school just wound up as a high school, but it 

is no longer a high school. A junior high.
0. Under the new plan, -~
A. Yes, sir.
0 -- the — •
A. Under the plan which we're implementing, the Court

ordered.
0 The plant where Mr. Glover is is going to become a 

junior high?
A. Yes, sir.
0 Okay. And it was at that school that you intended Mr. 

Crowder to go?
A Yes, sir. That was the job he made application for,
0 All right. Now, do you know what Mr. Glover's

42



43

qualifications are# --
A. Yes, sir.

Q. —  academically?
A. Yes, sir.

a What are they?
A. Mr. Glover has a Masters Degree and an A-6 certificate.

Q. Where is his Masters Degree from?
A I believe Atlanta University.

ft And A-6 certificate?
A Yes, sir.

Qi How long has he been a principal?

A Mr. Glover has been principal of Pike County Consolidated

School for eight years.

Q. Did he have any previous experience as a principal?

A Yes, sir.

Qi Before that?
A Prior to that he was principal several years of East Pike

Elementary.
Q. At East Pike?
And he has been principal of those schools while they have 

been all-black?
A Yes, sir.

0. Was he a teacher before that?
A Yes, sir.
ql In Pike County?

43



44

ft. Yes,

Q. How long has he been in Pike County, total time?
A. I believe he finished nineteen years.

Q. Nineteen years. And you have renominated him to the
Board of Education every year up to this one?

A. Yes, sir; but with reluctance the last two years.
& Okay. Well, we'll come to that.
Did you renominate him with reluctance any other years but

the last two?
A. I do not recall that I did.

& You say that you didn't?
A. I do not recall at this time that I did, up until two

years ago.
Q. It would be the kind of thing you probably would 

remember, I would think, sir?
A. That's correct.

& Okay, Now, when we took your deposition, you told me
that the reason you didn't recommend Mr. Glover for this year 
was because it wasn't in the best interest of the school, right?

A. That is correct.
& And
A. And other reasons, also.

& Right. And that reason, not in the best interest of
the school, was the reason you expressed to Mr. Glover in a letter 
you wrote to him?

44



45

A I think that's correct; yes, sir.

& Okay. And as a matter of fact, until the other day,
you've never expressed any other reasons to Mr, Glover?

A No, sir, because we had been threatened with a Court

case.
& Okay. And it's a fact that before the Court case got

started, you never expressed any other reasons to Mr. Glover than

the -—
A Well, —

0. best interest of the school?
A —  it wasn't necessary for me to express any reason to

him. I'm not required by law or by the Board.
Q. I'm not interested in whether it was necessary or not. 

I want to know what you did.
You didn't tell him anything except it wasn't in the best 

interest of the school?
A Thatfs what I told him.

& Okay. You told me the other day that behind this best
interest was the idea there was a lack of cooperation, —~

A Yes, sir.

& —  right?
A Definitely.

& And then you gave me, I think, about five instances
of lack of cooperation. Let's go over those and see that I 
haven't omitted any.

45



46

First instance of lack of cooperation was that the Fire 
Marshal told you Mr. Glover didn't have a fire drill, is that 
right?

A. When Mr. Bell went to Mr. Glover's school the last of 
October, Mr. Glover admitted to him he had not had a fire drill 
during that school year.

ft During that school year?
A Yes, sir.
& This was October, 1968?
A Late October, '68. Mr. Bell asked that a fire drill be

held that day.
Q. Okay. Now, by law, or to keep you accreditation, you're 

required to have eight fire drills in a year, right?
A. No, sir.
Q. How many are you required to have?
A. The accrediting commission requirement is a fire drill 

monthly.
Q. A fire drill monthly?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
A Which would mean nine, 
ft Nine?
A And one each month, not otherwise —
Qi Right. When we took your deposition, you told me it was

eight, right?
4 8



47

A. No, sir. Well, the eight has to do with the State law,
I believe. I believe the State law calls for eight fire drills, 
but the accreditation commission calls for nine drills, or one 
each month.

Ql Okay. So, there is in fact a State law here?
A. I understand there is a State law,
Q, Okay.
A. That requires at least eight.
Ql And it requires at least eight?
Did you report what Mr. Bell, the Fire Marshal, told you to 

Mr. Glover?
A. Yes, sir.
Ql And did Mr. Glover take steps to remedy the situation?
A Well, I assume he did.
Q, You assume he did? Well, do you know or not?
A As far as I know, he did,
Ql Okay. When did you tell him about this?
A After Mr. Bell reported this to my office. Mr. Bell 

came back to the office, I was out when he came in, and he left, 
a message with my secretary, left this message with me in writing 
and, of course, later on, I received a written report from Mr,
Bell 's office stating that no fire drill had been held. That was 
one of the deficiencies, under the fire drills. It had "none,”

$ And this was in October?
A That was for the month of September and October.

4 7



48

Q. Okay. There was a school boycott down in Pike County in# 
when, September?

A. Yes, sir.
Q, And did that last most of the month of September?
A No, sir.
Q. How long did it last?
A. Lasted eight school days.
Q. Eight school days, starting at the beginning?
A. That's, I believe that's correct; yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Well, do you know if Mr. Glover had afire drill

in November?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know if he had one in December?
A. No, sir.
gt And if I go through the rest of the months of this 

school year, will your answer be the same?
A That is correct.
Q. Okay. Now, how frequently do you get reports from Mr.

Bell?
A Mr. Bell and other fire marshals asast in making 

periodic visits to Pike County, as well as the other counties, and 
they're not monthly.

Q. They're not monthly?
A No, sir. Several times a year.
q. Okay. Did they go to the schools in your syseem in

4rf



49

September?
A I don't recall. Mr. Bell has made several trips to the 

county, and then Mr. —  there's another gentleman that’works out 
of Mr. Bently's office that visits other schools, and there's some 
overlapping. I do not recall at this time.

£X Okay. Did Mr. Bell make any visits to your system after 
the month of October?

A Yes, sir.
& He did? Did he visit Mr. Glover's school?
A Yes, sir.
Q. Did he report deficiencies in fire drills?
A. I don't recall any after the month of September.
Q. You don't recall any?
A, No, sir.
Q, Okay. Do you know of any?
A I don't know of any; no, sir.
(X Okay. So, this instance of lack of cooperation was a

limited thing?
A No, sir. I consider this a very definite lack of 

cooperation. We try to maintain good working relationships with 
other State agencies. The Fire Marshal's office, they send out 
these men to check our schools, and there's a definite lack of 
cooperation if any principal does not carry out these recommendation 
of the Fire Marshal's office.

0. Okay



50

A. Whenever any school is in danger of losing its 
accreditation, then that's a sham on our county —

ft I see.
A —  and —
ft I believe the Fire Marshal also inspected the buildings

over there, is that right?
A That is correct.
ft And he found the buildings to be acceptable?
A Well, what you’re referring to, I assume, is the 

addition, the four-room addition to the building and also the 
gymnasium where the occupancy permit was lost.

ft The occupancy permit was lost? Okay. But the schools 
were safe? There wasn't any question that, that they were in good 
shape as far as their fire-worthiness was concerned?

A I don't recall any building deficiency at this timer no,
sir.

ft Okay. If there had been a building deficiency, would 
this have been a lack of cooperation by Mr. Glover?

A If it were structural, of course, that's the responsibili 
of the Board of Education.

If it's something like failure to have fire drills monthly, 
that's the principal's responsibility.

ft I see. But the buildings are the responsibility of the 
Board of Education?

ty

A The structural part of the building; that’s correct.
50



51

0. Okay. What about the, what about the rest of the 
building? Suppose there's flammable materials lying around?

A. That's the responsibility of the principal and custodial 
staff.

Q. You never got reports on anything like that?
A. I don't recall at this time if I have.
Q. And as I say, this lack of cooperation was limited, 

what I mean, there were never any other reports from the Fire 
Marshal about Mr. Glover, right?

A. Well, the day Mr. Bell came to my office, he said he
asked Mr. Glover to hold a fire drill at that time, and Mr. Glover 
said he was too busy, he had too many activities going on at the 
time, and for that reason the fire drill was not held.

I think that's a definite lack of cooperation on his part.
Q. I repeat my question to you: Did Mr. Bell tell you

any instance other than this one October visit?
A. I don't recall any at this time; no, sir.
Q. You don't. Okay. So would it be safe to assume that 

if Mr. Glover had any deficiencies, he corrected them when you 
told him about them?

A. He may have, but the Georgia Accrediting Report went in 
and, stating that fire drill® had been held monthly at Pike 
County Consolidated School, and they had not. And no fire drill 
had been held in September and up until October 28„

Q. You don't know whether he held one in the remaining

5]



52

one or two days of October, do you? 
k  No, sir,
Q. And you let this report go into the Accrediting Commission? 
k  The report was signed by Mr. Glover.
Q. It has to go through your office? 
k  Yes, sir.
Q. Did you let it go through?
k  He stated, he stated that he had held fire drills.
Q, You let it go through?
k  He stated he had held fire drills.
Q, So, do I take it you believe Mr. Glover as against Mr.

Bell?
k  I believe Mr. Glover against Mr. Glover.
Ql I don't understand your answer.
k  Yes, sir.
& Well, you did let this report go on through your

office?
k  It was sent in to Atlanta.
Q. It was. Okay.
Even though you had knowledge of what Mr. Bell had told you? 
k  Mr. Glover signed the report.
Q. Yes, but you saw the report. 
k  Yes, I saw the report.
Qi And you let it go on through?
k Yes. 52



53

(X Okay.
A But Mr. Glover signed the report.
Q. And then it went through your office and on to Atlanta?
A Yes.

Q. Okay. Do you have any knowledge of whether they had 
fire drills every month at the other schools in your system?

A. As far as I know, they did.
0- But do you have any knowledge as to whether they did 

or not?

A At least, they reported to Mr. Bell they did, because I 
had no reports on any other schools that they had not had fire 
drills.

(X Okay.

A Not only Mr. Bell, but other people working out from 
the Fire Marshal's office.

& Do you ever make any checks yourself as to whether the 
schools have their fire drills?

A No, sir. That is not one of my responsibilities.
£X You don't regard it as a responsibility of yours?
A. No, sir.
& As Superintendent?
A No, sir. It's not the responsibility of the Superintendent, 

either imposed by the State Board of Education or the County Board 
of Education.

& You don't think it's one of your responsibilities to help
53



54

schools keep up their accreditation?
A. I do that to the best of my ability; yes, sir.
Q. But that doesn’t include checking on fire drills?
A. No, sir. That wouldn't be one of my responsibilities.
Qt All right, sir. Do you have any written policy in your 

system about fire drills?
A I do not recall if there is a policy on that. There 

may be. I'm not sure at this time.
Q. It's not something you're familiar with as a Superintendent?
A, Well, that's, as I say, that's an accrediting regulation 

The principals all know it. They know they're supposed to have 
fire drills monthly. That is, that's a regulation of the Georgia 
Accrediting Commission, and they know it.

Qt But I'm asking about your school system and its regula
tions.

A I don't recall that the Board of Education -- the Board 
of Education policies say that the principal is in complete 
control of the school and that the principal is supposed to know 
his duties.

Q. Okay. The second instance of lack of cooperation you 
told me about, by Mr. Glover, was the fact they had some burglaries 
at his school. Is that right?

A Yes, sir.
g, And you attribute these burglaries to a lack of coopera-

tion by Mr. Glover?



55

A. I think it was carelessness on Mr, Glover’s part,
Q. Oh, I see. That's not the same thing as lack of

cooperation?
A. Oh yes, sir. It's lack of cooperation, definitely.

But I think it was carelessness.
Cooperation could embrace many things, many angles.
Q. That is true. With whom was it a lack of cooperation?
A. Well, I think it's a lack of cooperation with not only

the Superintendent, Board of Education, other members of his staff 
possibly.

Q.
A.

of 1968
Q.
A.

Q.

Okay. When were these burglaries?
These burglaries took place between October and December

Were there any burglaries after December, s68?
No, sir. We've had no reports of any.
No reports of any. Who did you get your reports from? 

Sheriff Riggins?
A. You're referring to October —  did he say December or —  

Q. You said you hadn't had any after December.
Now where did you get them?
A. We got the reports from Mr. Glover that some articles, 

typewriters and television sets, were missing. Air conditioner, 
adding machine.

Q.
A.

Okay. Have they ever apprehended the criminals? 
Not to my knowledge, they haven't.

55



56

Q. You don't regard Mr. Glover as having been in league 
with them, do you?

A. No, sir.
Q. Well, how was he responsible for these burglaries?
A. Mr. Glover failed in his duty of securing the building. 
Now all principals have been delegated the responsibility by 

the Board of Education, the Superintendent, to see that the 
buildings are securely locked at the end of each school day.

He has a custodial staff. We pay the required, recommended 
number of custodians for that school. We haven’t shorted him on 
personnel here for custodial help.

Every principal knows it’s his obligation to see that the 
buildings are locked at the end of the day, and the windows are 
closed, and it’s definitely a principal’s responsibility, in 
cooperation with his custodians.

But the Board and Superintendent delegate that responsibility

to the principal.
Q. Okay. How many custodians does his school have?
A. His school has three, which is the required number by the

State Department of Education.
§ All right. Is there a high turnover in custodians at

that school?
A. Yes, sir. That’s a high turnover in all schools.
Q. High turnover in all schools? High turnover in all of

is..* W

the schools? Okay.



5?

Do you pay the custodians of each of your schools
A. Yes, sir.
Q. —  the same amount?
A. Yes, sir.
0. Did you —
A. Yes, sir.
Q. —  this past year?
A. Your question again?
Q. This past year, you paid the custodians in each of 

your schools the same amount?
A. I don't believe they all receive the same amount because 

they've been working for various lengths of time.
Q. Isn't it a fact they got more money at the white school 

thaii Mr. Glover's school?
A. I don't know that that's the case. No.
0. Is it you don't know?
A. If it is, it's because the person working at that school

has been working for many years, and, naturally, we reward 
longevity in service.

Q. What is the base pay for custodians in your system?
A. The base pay would be the minimum wage.
Ql And what is that?
A. I believe for school workers it's a dollar forty an 

hour or maybe a dollar thirty an hour, I believe, for cafeteria 
workers and janitors, right now.

57



Q. Okay. Did you talk to Mr. Glover about his lack of 
cooperation in permitting his building to be burgled?

A. Yes, we discussed this. I received word from Sheriff 
Riggins and of, from time to time, about that building being 
unlocked, in his patrols.

He and his deputies go around, and they’ve been asked by my 
office to help me guard school buildings or look after them. Pike 
County Schools are outside the city limits of Concord, and we have 
no police protection.

Sheriff Riggins has reported to me on occasions that that 
building was found unlocked and, yes, that was called to Mr.
Glover1s attention.

Q. Did he report this to you after December, 868?
A. Yes.
0. When?
A. Before and after.
& When after?
A. You said after, did you say after December?

& Yes.
A. December, after, we 1ve had no reports from Sheriff

Riggins after December, '68.
We did have reports from Sheriff Riggins between October and 

December, '68, and also prior to October of '68, that the building 
had been unlocked or windows open.

Qt How many of these burglaries were there?



59
A. Three.
0. Three?
A. And --
0. And they were in October and December, is that right?
A. October through December. I'm not sure whether it

was one a month or not.
0- Okay. When did you talk to Mr. Glover about this?
A. Well, we discussed it after each burglary, and in

between times, I'm sure.
0. Okay. Now, have there been any burglaries at any other 

schools in your system this year?
A. Not this calendar year? no, sir.
0. What about this school year?
A. Yes, sir.
0- There have? Well, what other schools had burglaries?
A Pike County High School had one.
0. Pike County High School had one?
When was this?
A. This was, I believe, in December of '68.
0. In December? Okay. Were those people apprehended?
A No, sir? not to my knowledge.
0. You don’t have any knowledge whether it was the same

people at each school, do you?
A No, sir.
0. Was it the same sort of stuff that was taken?

5J



60

A Two typewriters.
0. Two typewriters? And they took things like that from 

Pike County Consolidated?
A Yes, sir. Quite a few typewriters and television sets, 

and air conditioner from the principal's office.
However, they did break in the principal's office, and Mr. 

Peterman, on one occasion at Pike County Consolidated, found a 
television set sitting outside the school house one afternoon, 
one Sunday afternoon.

Mr. Glover got after him about it, asked him what was 
he doing down at his school on Sunday afternoon.

But after we put up a chain at that school, we had no further, 
we had no further burglaries down there.

Q. After you put up a chain?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What's that?
A. In front of the school building, at the entrance, --
Q. I see.
A. — - and —

Q. You chained it, closed it with a chain?
A No, sir, the roadway leading up to the school house.

& You just blocked it off the road?
A That's right. And —

0. Did you take similar steps at Pike County High School?
A No, sir. Little impractical there. They have more than

60



61

one driveway.

Q. They have two, don’t they?
A. Yes, sir.

& You just didn't feel it was necessary at that school?

A. We had only had one burglary, and that school is in the
city limits, and we have more police protection there.

0- That didn't keep a burglary from occurring?

A. No, sir.

Q. Was this burglary at Pike County High School in the
city limits, was it due to a lack of cooperation by the principal

there?
A. Well, there could have been some carelessness, just as

in Mr. Glover’s case.

Q. Well, was there or was there rot?

A. I have no way of knowing. The only thing I want to point

out to you is that -

& Just answer my questions.

A. Yes, sir.

Q- You don't have any way of knowing

A. We found no forcible entry on any occasion at Mr.

Glover's school or Pike County High. No forcible entry.

& What conclusion do you draw from that?

A. That's very simple. The doors were either left unlocked

or windows left open,
0. Or whoever it was that robbed the building knew how to

6 !



62

get in the locks or the windows?
A. That's right.
Q. Okay. And did you answer my question as to whether this 

was due, this robber at Pike County High School was due to a lack 
of cooperation by the principal there?

A. Well, Mr. —  I discussed this with Mr. Chambers, and 
we had no other robberies there, and I'm, so I'm sure he 
cooperated.

Q. He cooperated. Okay.
And you had no other robberies at Pike County Consolidated 

after December, either?
A After December, after we, we put up a chain, and we 

also set a trap during the Christmas holidays.
Ql Did you catch anybody?
A. No, sir. We had ro other robberies.
Q. Okay.
A. Burglaries.
Q, Well, was the fact that the burglaries stopped due to 

the fact that Mr. Glover started to cooperate with you, is that 
right?

A I have no way of knowing.
Ql You don't have any way of knowing when he started to 

cooperate or whether he was not cooperating throughout?
A All I know is his buildings were not securely locked to

keep people out. There was no forcible entry, and I want to

0 2



63

emphasize that, no forcible entry was found into the buildings on 
any of the three burglaries.

Q. Or into Pike County High School?
A. No, sir.
Q. Okay. Were there any other burglaries in your system 

this school year?
A. I don't recall any at the present time.
Q, You don't recall any?
Have you had burglaries in your system in previous years?
A. Oh, occasionally, a little, someone will break in, maybe

the lunch room and get some food out of a freezer, something of that 
nature. But nothing of a serious nature, we've never had any 
typewriters stolen before that, 1 recall. We've never had any 
television sets taken ■—  I beg your pardon -- we have had one 
occasion of two television sets, years ago, being stolen. But 
not recently.

Q. Where were they stolen from on the previous occasions?
A. Two sets were stolen years ago, I believe, from this 

same school. Years ago.
Q, From this school? Was that while Glover was principal?
A. I don't recall. I don't think so. I don't recall.
Q. Well, did you regard that as a lack of cooperation by

whoever was principal?
A. At that time, also, we had no way, no way of knowing 

who the burglars were, they were never apprehended, but there was



64

no forcible entry that was found at that time, either.
Q. It didn’t prevent you renominating whoever was 

principal?
A. I don't recall. I don't remember who the principal was 
Q. Okay. If it was Mr. Glover, obviously you renominated

him?
A. Beg your pardon?

a If it was Mr. Glover who was the principal way back
when, you did renominate him?

A. Well, I'm sure they got to locking the building after 
that happened.

& You did renominate him?
A. Mr. Glover?

& Yeah.
A. What year are you speaking about?

Q. You say this happened several years ago.

A. I don't recall if Mr. Glover, Mr. Glover was principal

at that time or not.
Q. If he had been, you were the man who renominated him?

A. Yes, if he had been.

a Okay. All right. Okay.
Let me see, you gave a third instance of lack of cooperation 

by Mr. Glover. I gather you felt he didn't cooperate when he 
failed to attend some desegregation meetings, is that right?

A. Yes, sir. I think so.

64



65

Q. When were those meetings held?
A. Those meetings were held from October through May, October, 

*68, through May of 569.
Q. Okay. Did you ask, did you ever ask Mr. Glover to 

attend the meetings?
A. No, sir. But he received a letter from the University 

of Georgia, just as other principals did.
Q. How do you know that?
A. The University has all principals on its mailing list.
Q. I repeat, how do you know he received the letter?
A. Well, he didn't bring me the letter to show it to me, 

but all my other principals in the system received one.
Q. Okay. So you don't know for a fact and you didn't 

know for a fact back in April that he didn't receive the letter?
A. Mr. Glover never denied receiving a letter.
g. He never said one way or the other about the letter, I

imagine?
A. It's my understanding he received the letter. 
Q. What did you base your understanding on?
A. He received the letter, I'm sure.
Ql Would you answer my question, please?
A. Someone told me he received the letter.
Q. Who told you? Who told you?
A I don't recall right now. Maybe a member of his faculty, 
n And when were these letters sent out?

65



A. The letters were sent out in September,
Q. And when did this person tell you he received the 

letter?
A. And, incidentally, I believe, Mr. Rindskopf, if you'll 

check Mr. Glover's deposition, I believe Mr. Glover himself 
admitted receiving the letter.

Q, I'm sure he may have received the letter, but the 
question is, did you know it?

A Yes, sir.
Q. And you knew it because some person told you?
A. I figure the United States mail, I have a lot of 

confidence in it, and when you have a mailing list, I feel like 
everything on that mailing list, every person will receive a letter 
unless I'm informed otherwise,,

Q. Did this person tell you he received it, or not?
A Yes, sir. I don't recall who it was. All my other 

principals did receive the letter,
Q. You don't recall?
A No, sir.
Q. And you don' t know when?
A No, sir.
Q. Did you know back in April.
A April of '68?
Q. '69, when you recommended someone else instead of

Mr. Glover to the Board of Education?

66

6 ■>



67

A. Oh yes, sir.
Q. You did know? Okay.
Did you ever speak to Mr. Glover about his failure to attend 

these meetings?
A. No, sir.
& You didn't? When did you start attending the meetings? 

I believe I attended all of them.A.
Q.

A.
Q.

A.
&
A.

Going way back to the beginning of the year?
Yes, sir.
And you noticed Mr. Glover wasn't there?
Yes, sir.
And you never said anything to him about it?
No, sir. I took it that he wasn't interested in attending

but, it was voluntary.
0- It was voluntary? When were these meetings held?
A Where?
Q. When?
A When?
Q. Yeah, what time of day or week?
A Oh, 4;00 o'clock in the afternoon, and they went until 

about 9:00 o'clock at night, with a break up for a dinner period, 
Q. Once a month?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I see. Did teachers attend these meetings, too?
A Yes, sir.

67



Did teachers receive letters from the University ofQi Did teachers receive letters from the University of
Georgia?

A No, sir. Not to my knowledge, they didn't.
& I see. How did teachers know to attend these meetings?
A, Well, I assume they heard it from their principal, as

far as I know.

Q. Any teachers from Mr. Glover's school attend the meetings?
A. Yes, sir.

& Were you satisfied with the attendance of teachers from
his school?

A. Yes, sir.

& You were?
A. And all the schools, in fact.

& Okay. And you never mentioned to Mr. Glover at any time
during the year that you wished he would attend these meetings?

A No, sir. Neither did he discuss it with me.

& He did not discuss it with you?
A I said neither did he discuss it with me.

& I see. Okay.
You did talk with him throughout the school year?
A. Oh yes. We had* we've always carried on communication 

from my office.
Q. In fact* in running the system, you talk with him virtual 

every day?
A Well, either I or some member of my staff, most every day



69
Yes, sir *

ft And at no time during the year did you tell him that you 
wished he would attend these meetings?

A. No, sir. I didn't feel that was necessary. He received 
a letter just as I did.

ft Did you feel it was necessary for him to attend the 
meetings?

A. I felt like he should have. There certainly was a 
desirability for him to attend.

We met at these group sessions. We had talks from University 
professors on how to teach disadvantaged children. We studied 
teacher-pupil ratios. We took up the Court order that Judge 
Edenfield had issued to us, after it came out, oral order in 
November and written order in January. We discussed it thoroughly. 
We made plans for the next year, as to pupil-teacher ratios, as I 
said, and teacher transfer between schools, teacher-pupil relation
ships, and everything having to do with, with the disestablishment 
of the dual school system.

Q. why didn't you make any efforts to have Mr. Glover 
attend these meetings?

A. Mr. Glover is his own boss. He got a letter just as I 
did, and the other Pike County school principals. He should have 
been there, if he wanted to go.

Ql I see. Do I gather, then, that you didn't think these 
meetings were so crucial that he had to be there?

6 if



70

A Yes, sir. I thought they were very, as I told you 
just a moment ago, I thought it was very desirable for him to be 
there, and we discussed testing, we discussed many things that, 
especially of interest and value to the desegregation process.

Q But it --
A I felt it was a lack of interest on his part.
Q Okay. You never asked him, of course, whether he was 

interested in this?
A No^sir. He didn't ask me either.
Q And although you thought that these meetings were crucial, 

you never made any efforts to get him to attend?
A Mr. Glover, he's a principal of that school. I repeat, 

again, Mr. Rindskopf, he received a letter just as I did.
Q Principals are under your authority?
A Yes, sir. But I don't command principals to go to 

voluntary meetings.
Q But you did hold it against him when the time came to 

renew his contract?
A That was eight months of studying the Court order and the 

desegregation process. He wasn't there. I think he should have 
been there.

Q But you never told him --
A I didn't order him, no, sir, because this wasn't in his 

contract to attend.
Q You didn't even tell him, now I'm not talking about

7U



71

ordering, — ■
A. He received a letter like I did.
Q. You never asked him —

THE COURT: I think —
MR. CALDWELL: We object to arguing with the witness,
THE COURT: All right, sir. I think the facts are

pretty clear.
Go on to something else.
MR. RINDSKOPF: Okay, Fine.
THE COURT: Okay, sir.
MR. RINDSKOPF: Yes, sir. I didn't intend —
THE COURT: All right.
MR. RINDSKOPF: I didn’t intend to address the Court,

I was more or less speaking to myself,
THE COURT: All right.
MR. RINDSKOPF: Yes, sir.

BY MR. RINDSKOPF:
Q. Now, I gather also that an instance of lack of cooperation 

by Mr. Glover occurred when you attempted to test some children 
in your system, right?

A. Yes „
q. And I gather what happened was that the children in 

Mr. Glover's school didn't want to take the tests, is that right, 
or didn't take the tests?

A. They didn't take the tests. It was a total failure there.

71



2 Total failure there?
Are you referring to some notes, sir?
A Yes, sir.
2 Okay.
A Yes, sir.
2 Any time you can't remember the facts, --
A I can remember,
2 — - let us know, and you can refer to your notes.
A Go right ahead.
2 Okay. Fine.

THE COURT: Perhaps I missed something* What sort of
test was this?

MR. RINDSKOPF: I think we'll come to it in a minute,
Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right, sir.
BY MR. RINDSKOPF:

Q What was the purpose of these tests?
A These, the purpose of these tests was to test basic 

achievement, California Bureau Basic Achievement Test for Grades 3 

through 8; Metropolitan Reading Test for Grades 1 and 2.
Incidentally, at this Griffin meeting, desegregation institute, 

this was discussed.
Q When you say this was discussed, —
A The tests.
Q -- you mean — ■

72



73

A The tests.
Q, —  you discussed?
A. Yes, sir. At this meeting of black and white teachers.
Q. Including teachers from Mr. Glover's school?
A, Yes, sir.
(X Now, when these tests were given at Mr. Glover's school,

I believe you told me that the children would not take them, is 
that right?

A That is my understanding, from the counselors, the 
black and white counselors who gave these tests, that the children 
would not take them, or if they did, they would just mark them 
up, and if they put something down, they would erase it.

It was a total disaster at his school.
Qt When was this test given?
A The test was given, attempted to be given in the third 

grade, between March 18 and 25.
Q. Were they attempted to be given at any other grades?
A Not in that school, but in other schools, yes.
g. Not at that school? Okay.
How many third grades do they have at Pike County Consolidated?
A I believe two or three.
Q. Two or three?
A I'm sure of two.
Q. Now, have the teachers who taught these two grades attended

your meetings in Griffin, your desegregation meetings?

73



74

A. I'm not sure whether they did or not. I don't recall.
Mrs. Barrow, I don't know whether she was teaching third grade 

or not. Mrs. Barrow attended the meeting in Griffin.
Q. All right. And I take it that neither of these two 

teachers or three teachers were not recommended by you for employ
ment next year?

A. They were or were not?
Q. Is that correct, they were?
A They were recommended.
Q. Yes.
A Yes.
Q. In spite of this incident?
A Yes.
Q. Okay. Now was Mr. Glover in attendance during this

testing?
A Mr. Glover was in his school. I did not know whether 

he went into the school room or not, where the testing took place.
Q. Okay. Do you know whether he was told that the 

children weren't taking the tests?
A I'm sure that he was. Mr. Walker Cook, Junior, reported 

back to me that he went into Mr. Glover's office and told him that 
the, that the children were not taking the tests.

Mr. Glover had a big grin on his face.
q. Mr. Walker Cook told you Mr. Glover had a big grin on 

his face?
7 4



75

THE COURT; Who is Mr. Walker Cook?
THE WITNESS; Mr. Walker Cook is one of the counselors 

that assisted in the testing, Your Honor. We had two black 
and two white people giving the tests.

BY MR. RINDSKOPF;
Q. Which is Mr. Cook?
A. Beg your pardon?
Q. Is he black or white?
A. He's white.
Q. He's white?

THE COURT; These counselors are part of your school 
system?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Are they not?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. RINDSKOPF;
Q. When did Mr. Cook report this to you?
A. I believe, that day, that the testing took place.
Q. Sometime in March?
A. Yes, sir. Oh yes. Between March 18 and 25.
Q. Were they just at Mr. Glover's school for one day?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And did they just try the third grade at that school?
A They were doing the third grade that day.

75



Q. They didn't go back to try any other?
A. No, sir. It was a total disaster.
Q. When did these tests take place? In the morning or 

in the afternoon, or do you know?
A. They started in the morning.
Q. And were they supposed to take all day?
A. As long as required. I'm not just sure how long it would

have taken to have done the third grade.
0. Okay. Did they start in the morning at Mr. Glover's 

school?
A. I believe they did.
Q. Did you ever talk to Mr. Glover about this testing?
A. Mr. Rindskopf, a letter was sent out to all school 

principals asking for their cooperation in, when the counselors 
came around, in giving the tests. Yes, sir.

Q. Did your letter say anything besides, Please cooperate 
with the counselors?

Did it say anything else? Was it self —  did it say, Do this, 
or Do that?

A. Well, I'm sure the letter was of a general nature, in 
making the children available, preparing them for it.

Of course, the letter meant to be sure to tell the children 
to be there that day, so that there wouldn't be a lot of absentees, 
so that the testing wouldn't have to be redone.

Q. Did you ever make any attempt to redo the testing at
7 8

76



77

Mr. Glover's school?
A. No, sir.
0- You never spoke with Mr. Glover about the failure in the 

testing and set up another date?
A. No, sir.
Q. Okay. Did you ever speak with him about the failure in 

the testing at all?
A. No, sir. I don't recall having done so. Mr. Glover had 

already made himself, put himself on record as being opposed to 
standardized testing. It came in the GTEA HERALD, that he was much 
against it. He thought standardized testings were racially biased 
and later on, he made himself very clear in the Atlanta newspapers.

THE COURT: I perhaps missed it. What was the specific
purpose of these tests?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, the specific purpose to test
all children, since we were going, implementing the Court 
order, we were going into this redistribution of children, 
and we’re going to put first grades here, second and third 
grades here, fourth, fifth and sixth grades, blacks and whites 
together, so the purpose vas to, to test the children and see 
where they are now, to see what achievement level they've 
already come to.

Now the reason we selected the California Basic Test was 
that it's the newest thing out, and, for instance, in English, 
it will, this test will show where a child is in punctuation,

77



78

for instance. Show if they have a weakness or strength in 
capital letters, sentence structure. It breaks it down, and 
a teacher won’t have to keep working with a child on capital 
letters or punctuation or verbs, it'll show the different 
parts --

THE COURT: Where did you get these tests from? Are
they put out through the State Board, University system, or 
did you get them —  I mean, is it a general test that was 
given across the State, or was it peculiar to your system?

THE WITNESS: It was peculiar -- well, of course,
California Test Bureau is a national testing organization.
I believe the, I believe it's in Stanford, California. Some
where in California. But it is a very fine testing system.

We also have educational testing services in Princeton, 
New Jersey. We had these test machine scores. That's another 
value of it. It takes out any human error there. But it's 
the latest, one of the latest testing devices out, and it's 
recognized by all the educational institutions.

THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. RINDSKOPF:

0. You regard these tests as a useful educational tool?
A Yes, sir.
Q. Have you used them in your system at any time before 

you went under Court order?
A Yes, we have depended on standardized testing for years.

7>i



79

Q How about these tests?
A. How about these tests?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. We have used California, but as I told you, Mr. 

Rindskopf, this is a new test, just out. In fact, —
0- So I gather you haven't used it before?
A. No, sir.
Q. Okay.
A. This was the very latest, and it measures so many areas 

of a particular subject matter.
0- When was the last time you did testing in your system?
A. We do some testing every year.
Q. I gather this time you attempted to test the whole 

system?
A. In Grades 1 through 8; yes, sir.
0. Grades 1 through 8? When is the last time you tested 

Grades 1 through 8?
A. Well, the first grade had already undergone preliminary 

tests this last fall, using the Harcourt and World Test.
Q. Could you answer my question?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When was the last time you tested all eight grades at

once?
A. All eight grades have not been tested before, to my 

knowledge»



80

However, Grades, first, second grades and fourth and sixth 
and eighth, fourth, sixth and eighth were tested the year before, 
or should have been, in all schools. The tests were made available 
to the principals for those grades.

THE COURT: Was there any racial purpose or implication
in these tests?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, not in the least, because it's
just a basic achievement test to see where the child has 
progressed to at that point.

The purpose of the test was not to resegregate any 
children in a classroom, and it has nothing to do with any 
resegregation.

THE COURT; Well, in, in measuring the achievement of 
particular children in this particular grade, were you in 
any sense trying to find out whether there was any disparity 
between, for example, the third grade children in a previously 
negro school and in a previously white school?

THE WITNESS: No, sir. That was not the purpose. The
purpose was to see where every child was right then so that 
the teacher could look at these tests and see where to take 
them from there.

THE COURT: On an individual basis, irrespective of

race?
THE WITNESS: On an individual basis, irrespective of

race, or color.

8 U



81

And incidentally, another witness could testify later,
I don't have the figures, but it even showed that Pike
County Elementary School, where there are blacks and whites
already in the same class, that some of the blacks scored
on this test more than the whites.

THE COURT: All right, sir.
BY MR. RINDSKOPF:

Q Do you plan to group pupils by abilit3'- next year in 
your schools?

A No, sir. I don't have any plans to group by Ability-—
No, sir.

Q You're not going to have a track system in your schools?
A Well, the Pike County High School has had a general

and, general diploma, and, academic track and diploma several 
years.

Q Is that going to continue next year?
A I don't know, sir. That will be up to the new principal.

And, of course, I'm sure he would bring that before the Board of 
Education.

Q Okay.
A But I might add, the general track has been very popular

with a good many of our white studeints.
Q What about lower schools, junior high schools? You're 

going to have tracks?
A No, sir. I couldn't see the advisability of any track

8 ]



82
system in the junior high.

0- Okay. And you're not going to have separate sections 
and classes, A section and B section?

A I don't believe so. That, I don't know, sir. That would
be up to the new principal. I have no plans along that line.

Q. Okay. And you haven't told any of the principals you've 
signed to contracts they should have A sections and B sections?

A. No, sir.
Qt Now, you said you learned Mr. Glover's views on testing 

from reading of them in two publications, the Atlanta Newspaper?
A Yes, sir.
Q. When did you read about that in the Atlanta newspapers?
A I don't recall. I don't recall the dates. But it is,

my counsel does have that clipping.
0. He has the clipping?
A. And also I did read an article, someone handed me an 

article from the GTA JOURNAL, HERALD, I believe they call it, that 
very distinctly stated his views on testing.

0. I see. Did it quote from him or was it a signed article?
A It was a signdd article.
0. And when did you see this document?
A I don't recall, sir. It's been several months ago.
0. Was it after April or before April?
A. I don't recall right now. But it has been, I think it 

was before April. But I don't recall exactly.
8 ‘>



83

THE COURT: Is the article available?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT; Well, doesn't it bear a date?
THE WITNESS; I've forgotten the date, but -—
MR. RINDSKOPF: It says the Fall issue, Your Honor. It

doesn't seem to have any date on it.
BY MR. RINDSKOPF:

Q. And you don't recall when you saw it?
A. No, sir. I don't subscribe to that magazine. It was 

handed me.
Q. I see. Was this after the incident in the spring?
A. After what incident, are you talking about?
Q. Well, the incident when the children at Pike County 

Consolidated School weren1t taking a test?
A I'm sure I saw the article before that time.
0. All right, sir.
A. That was a fall issue, and I do not recall when it

was given to me.
Q. Did you ever speak to Mr. Glover about his article?
A. No, sir. I didn't discuss it with him. Those were his

views.
0. You didn’t discuss those views with him?
A. No, sir.
g. Okay.
A. Those are his views.



84

Q. Okay.
THE COURT: Who ordained this policy of testing?
THE WITNESS: The Pike County Board of Education, Your

Honor, approved this testing.
And, of course, I acted under their instructions and 

sent out the word to the principals in a letter.
THE COURT: Do you know who suggested it to them?
THE WITNESS: Well, I think it was just general concensus

and this desegregation meeting in Griffin decided on it, that 
testing would be necessary, getting all these children together.

THE COURT: Well, some educator must have recommended it
to the Board.

Did you recommend it?
THE WITNESS: Oh yes indeed, I have, sir. Yes, sir.
Other educators in our system were much in favor of 

it, too. Yes, sir. Oh yes. I was very much in favor of 
testing. You've got to test to find how far the children 
have progressed.

BY MR. RINDSKOPF:
Q. It was your recommendation that started the ball rolling?
A. Well, it was my recommendation, certainly.
Q. Okay. Now, were there any other schools in the system

where testing was less than a success?
A. Yes.
Q. Which school?

m

84



85
A. At the East Pike Elementary School.
0- At the East Pike School? That is the school that was

all-black school this year, is that right?
a. Yes, sir.
ft And who is the principal over there?
A Mrs. Edna Miller.
ft Mrs. Edna Miller? And you have recommended her for a

job for next year?
A. Yes.
& In spite of the fact the testing wasn’t successful there

either?
A. Yes, sir.
ft Okay. Now, the next example you gave of lack of

cooperation by Mr, Glover was the fact that he spoke out at a 
principals8 meeting at the beginning of this last school year, 
*68-69 school year, and opposed the election of a Mrs. Elder as 
a principal, —

A. Yes, sir.
ft —  is that, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
& And I believe you told me that he spoke for about five

minutes on that occasion?
A. Well, I’d say something like that.

a And the tenor of his remarks were that the negro
community hadn’t been consulted in the choice of this principal?

8



86

A. That was one of the statements he made. Yes, sir.
He made other statements also.
0. Okay. Well, which statements, if any, did you view as

a lack of cooperation on his part?
A. Well, he became very insensed when it was announced

that Mrs. Elder had been selected by the Board, elected by the 
Board as the principal of East Pike Elementary School.

He said I had not done right, the Board of Education had not 
done right, the negro community had not been consulted, and words 
to the effect they would not stand for it, and we would hear from 
it later.

And we did, because we had a boycott pretty soon after that.
Q. You had a boycott and you also had a lawsuit? You also 

had a lawsuit?
A. Yes, sir. But the boycott was settled prior to that.
Q. Yes, sir.
A. I don't see that those two have any, any relation.
(X Okay.

THE COURT; Is Mrs. Elder still in the system?
THE WITNESS; No, sir. She retired. They drove her

out.
THE COURT; Is she a negro or white?
THE WITNESS; She's white.

BY MR. RINDSKOPF;
This is the lady who was appointed or elected to be the



87

principal at the East Pike School?
A Yes, sir.

& And that's a school where Mrs. Edna Miller then took over?
A. That's correct.
& Okay.

THE COURT: And Mrs. Miller is colored? 
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. She's black.

BY MR. RINDSKOPF:
Q. Well, what sort of meeting were you having where Mr. 

Glover made these remarks?
A That was the initial principals' meeting of the year.

o. It was a meeting of the principals?
A. Principals and there were some other people present at

the meeting, the initial principals' meeting of the year.
Q. Well, Mr. Glover wasn't speaking out of turn, was he? He 

was free to speak?
A Oh, he had a perfect right to speak; yes, sir.

o. And he was perfectly free to express his views?
A Yes, sir. But it was the manner in which he spoke.

Q. I see. Well, what was wrong with the manner in which

he spoke?
A. Well, as I told you, Mr. Rindskopf, he appeared to be 

very insensed at the idea of the Board had elected this white lady
to be principal of that school.

Q. Would you say he was upset about it?

8 7



88

A.
&
A.

purposes,

0
A,

Yes, sir.
You say he was upset about it?
He appeared to be; yes, sir. And for all practical 
that meeting was broken up.
The meeting was broken up?
We —

Q. Well, he didn't use any abusive language, did he?
A. No, sir.
0, He didn't act in a disorderly way?
A. No, sir. I, I considered him as acting in an unprofess 

manner, because it was very embarrassing to the Superintendent, 
was very embarrassing to the other principals present at the 
meeting. They so expressed themselves to me.

0. After the meeting?
A. Oh yes, sir.
0. He didn't continue speaking after you told him to stop: 

When he finished his remarks, he was through, right?
A. He made his point.
0. He made his point? Okay.
And when did this meeting take place? Do you recall?
A. This meeting took place on August 22, the best of 

my recollection. We had already received this resignation from 
Mr. Frazier.

Q. Now, Mr. Frazier was a negro who had previously been
the head of this East Pike School?

88

ional
It



89

A. That's correct,
Q. And he resigned just before your term began?
A. Yes, sir. Very bad time of the year, on August 12th, I

believe it was.
And we were hard put to find a replacement that late in the

term.
Q. Okay. And finally, I gather that the lack of cooperation 

by Mr. Glover took place around the question of textbooks for 
your first grade, is that right?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. And I gather that, once again, Mr. Glover spoke out at 

one of your meetings, is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
0. And his remarks were that he favored using multiethnic 

textbooks as opposed to textbooks with only pictures of white 
people in them, is that right?

A. Yes, sir. That seemed to be what he was in favor of.
Q. Why did you view this as a lack of cooperation?
A Well, he had a perfect right to express his views on

this, but it was the manner in which he did this.
We had called these first grade teachers, and I understand 

some other teachers were invited too, but primarily it was a 
meeting for the first grade teachers because the Board was 
integrating the first grade for that next year.

Q. When you say the next year, you mean the '68 --

8!)



90

Q. Okay.
A. That was part of the Board's HEW compliance plans.
Q. Right.
A. And so, it was necessary to call these teachers together, 

we thought, to work out plans for integration, orderly procedure, 
and also for the selection of a first grade textbook with the 
emphasis on a first grade reader. And --

Q. When did this meeting take place?
A. That meeting took place sometime in May of '68.
Q. May of '68?
Was this after Mr. Glover had been renominated for the '68-69 

school year?
A Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And after he had signed his contract?
A I'm not sure whether he signed his contract then or not,

but he had been renominated and reelected.
Q. Okay. And so, what you objected to was the manner in 

which he spoke?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was wrong with his manner?
A I think it's unprofessional on his part because this 

textbook committee, which really was a textbook committee, first 
grade teachers, sitting as committee, they had voted in favor of 
continuing the American Book Company Reading Series.

*69 year. *

90



91
Incidentally, Miss Sue Snipes, the reading and curriculum 

consultant, Educational Services Center, had also recommended 
this book. It was a democratic process of selection. This book 
was already being used by some of the teachers, and Mr. Glover 
took the floor, and for some five, six, seven minutes, and in a 
very forceful manner, showed his displeasure.

And then, to top it all off, he violated a policy of the 
Board of Education and the Superintendent, later, by submitting 
a requisition for books which were not on the textbook list, and 
were not approved by the State, and also were not, these were not 
books selected by this Committee.

Q. Okay. Back again to the question, my question was what 
was wrong in the manner in which he spoke?

A. As I say, he was very irate.
Q. He was very irate?
A. Very irate and upset. Yes, sir. And very embarrassing.
Q. Did he use abusive language?
A. No, sir, Very embarrassing to all present.
Q. Did he cause the meeting to break up?
A. The meeting was virtually over along about that time, 

but for all practical purposes, it ended.
0. The meeting was about to end anyway?
A. I don't recall how long it went on, but he broke up the 

meeting, for all practical purposes.
THE COURT: Who usually chooses what book is used for a

91



92

grade?
THE WITNESS s Your Honor, we have textbook committees 

of teachers, composed of teachers usually from all the 
schools, black and white„

THE COURTs You say from all the schools, you mean all 
the schools in your system?

THE WITNESSs Yes, sir. It's left up to individual
THE COURT: If I'm a sixth grade teacher, and there are

a dozen sixth grade teachers, those dozen sixth grade teachers 
will meet and select which book they want to use?

THE WITNESS s Yes, sir. They recommend to the Superintend^ 
he in turn recommends to the Board and ■—

THE COURT: And the Board adopts a particular --
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: First grade reader, sixth grade speller and

ntr

what not?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. A basic reader.
There are other readers that can be used for a, supplemen

tary, but a basic reader is also selected, standardized for 
the system. And that's what we're talking about here. It was 
more economical for the Board to continue the use of the 
American Book Company reader because we had more teachers at 
that time using that reader, and they liked the book, and I 
believe four or five teachers were already using that.

Mr. Glover only had two sections of his school using a

92



93

Harper-Roe Series, and we wanted to coordinate, with everyboddy 
using the same book, building up this thing of coordination, 
cooperation, and then also the economical factor, in not 
having to throw out the American Book Company, because we 
already had a good supply of that.

BY MR. RINDSKOPF:
Q You say it would have been more economical, do you mean 

you were only going to replace some of the books in the system, 
some of the first grade books?

A Yes, we would have had to replace some of the first 
grade books, yes. Have to replace less, had we continued with the 
American Book Company Series, which as I said, was voted by the 
majority of the teachers present, to use,

Q Well, wouldn't it be an educationally good idea for a 
system that's integrating its grade, first grade, to use multi
ethnic textbooks?

A We had no objection to the use of multiethnic textbooks.
In fact, later on, we were able to get Mr. Glover a multiethnic 
textbook. American Book came out with one in the same area later, 
and we had no objection to that.

But at that time, that book was not on the State list. What 
Mr. Glover said to the committee that was present was that, well, 
there were ways to get those books, subrosa, I guess he meant, 
under the table.

Q They weren't on the State list?

93



94

A. No, sir, not on the State list, not in American Book 
Company Series.

Q. They were being used at Mr. Glover's school?
A. He had an old Harper-Roe Series, he said, that channels 

could be gone through to get those books.
Q. Harper and Roe Books at Mr. Glover's school, that he was 

using, were multiethnic, were they not?
A. The ones he was using at that time, whether or not —  

that was an old Harper-Roe Series. There was another book he 
thought could be acquired from Harper-Roe, that was multiethnic.

Q. I see. So it, it is a fact that there were some 
multiethnic textbooks that were available, right?

A. There possibly were, but not the American Book Series, 
which the majority of the teachers voted for.

THE COURT: Are you now using a multiethnic textbook?
THE WITNESS: Using some, Your Honor. As I said, that

fall, we learned that the American Book Company had come out 
with a multiethnic series, and we did get those books, best 
of my knowledge, for Mr. Glover's school. That was the only 
school that needed them at that time. His other books were 
old. That's the best of my understanding.

BY MR. RINDSKOPF:
Q. Let's go back to the teacher committee. You say there 

were seven teachers on the committee?
A, I believe seven first grade teachers, yes, sir.

94



95

Q. Okay. And since two of them were from Mr. Glover's
school, I gather two of them were black, right?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. What about the other five?
A. I don't, let's see, I believe that Mrs. we had several 

white teachers, Mrs. Walter Johnson, Miss Flossie King were white.
I don't recall right now the other teachers present.

We've had some changes in the meantime, but several were 
white, several were black.

Q. Which was in the majority?
A. I don't recall. I don't know. Could have been that the 

blacks were in majority. I'm not sure.
THE COURT; Gentlemen, we’ve been here about two hours. 

Suppose we take about five minutes recess at this time?
All right. We'll be in recess five minutes.

0O0

(Whereupon, Court was recessed at 12:00 o'clock noon.)
RECESS

(Whereupon, Court was reconvened at 12:08 p.m.)
oOo

THE COURT: All right. You may resume the stand.
All right, Mr. Rindskopf.

oOo
HAROLD T. DANIEL,

Having already been duly sworn and resuming the stand, testified

95



96

further as follows:
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued)

BY MR. RINDSKOPF:
Q. Have you had an opportunity during the break to refresh 

your memory as to the race of your first grade teachers back in 
May, s 6 8 ?

A I haven’t thought about it any more.
Q. You don't recall whether there was a majority black or

w h i t e ?

A No, sir. I don't, I don't think that is so important. 
There were both black and white teachers there at the meeting.

Q. Okay. Isn't it a fact that, that that was a meeting 
involving grades 1 through 6, not just the first grade?

A I don't, I don't recall what, what grades were invited, 
but it was basically, we were talking about primary reading and 
primary grades, 1 through 3. But our primary emphasis at that 
time was for Grade 1, because that grade was to be integrated the 
next year.

Q. So, based on what you say, from the fact you were consider 
primary reading, there probably were other people there than first 
grade teachers?

A. Yes.
Q. From other grades?
A I'm sure there were. But they did not vote on the first 

grade reader.

ing

98



97

0- Okay. And isn't it a fact that Mr. Glover spoke out at 
this meeting after Miss Snipes asked for any comments as to what 
readers they should use next year?

A. I don't recall that comments were asked for.
All I remember is Mr. Glover was very insistent and unreason

able concerning the multiethnic books.
Q. By unreasonable, you mean that he stuck to his guns?
A. By unreasonable, I meant in his tone and manner of 

speaking.
0, In tone and manner?
Okay. Isn't it a fact that there was no vote taken at this 

meeting?
A. Yes, sir. There was a vote taken. I don't think it 

was secret ballot. Didn't have to be. Yes, sir. There was a vote 
taken, a raise of hands or consensus vote. Yes, sir.

Q. What was the vote?
A. To the best of my remembrance, it was five to two.
Q. Five to two?
A. It was definitely a majority, though.
Q. Okay. And when did this vote or whatever it was become

the policy of the Board of Education?
A. This has been a policy of the Board of Education for 

many years, that a textbook collection committee would make 
recommendations to the Superintendent on the book they wish to 
use, and then the Superintendent in turn would relay that to the

9 7



98

Board of Education.
And I enunciated this policy to these teachers at this 

meeting.
I also told them that would be the books after it was decided 

they would use that book. I told them that would be the book we 
would use from then on for at least the next few years.

Q. Did you have a position on which text they should use?
A. Not necessarily, no,
Q. Would either have been acceptable to you?
A. As far as I'm concerned, either would have been.
With this, with this point right here, I want to emphasize, 

there was a matter of economy involved there. Our textbook funds 
are limited, We had to stick pretty well to an economy measure.
We had far more American Book Company books being used by first 
graders at that time than any other series. In fact, we would 
have to have thrown them away and brought in new books for seven 
teachers.

Q. Of course, you could have brought in books when the old 
ones wore —

A. Yes, when they wore out, we generally would replace them 
with a newer series. But, yes, sir, I had the interest of trying 
to coordinate, letting each teacher have those use the same book 
and also this thing of economy, having, the economy angle entered 
in and, also, that we could only spend a limited amount for these 
first graders that year.

98



99
Q. Well, did you say you could only spend so much?
A. Yes.
0- On first grade readers?
A. Yes.
Q. There wasn't really any choice, was --
A. That was after the vote. We could not use two different 

series.
Q. Okay,
A. I said, I mentioned a moment ago, I enunciated a policy 

of the Board of Education in that matter,
Q. You told them whatever books they chose would be what 

everybody would have?
A. Yes.

THE COURT: They had previously been using two types of
books, did I understand that Mr, Glover had been using a 
different type of book in his

THE WITNESS: Yes,
THE COURT: —  school?
THE WITNESS: The Harper-Roe,
THE COURT: Why was it impossible to continue that

setup?
THE WITNESS: That was an older edition, Your Honor,

that I don't think would, it would have paid. I don’t know 
whether he could have gotten that edition, could have gotten 
a new edition of Harper™Roe, and that's what he wished to do,

99



100
best I remember.

THE COURT: Had there previously been a policy which 
permitted him to use a book different from the ones that 
are used in the other schools?

THE WITNESS: No, sir. He was not supposed to have
used any other than the basic reader.

Now, of course, principals have leeway in ordering 
additional readers for supplementary use. But he was 
supposed to have used the basic book.

Now, the American Book Company book was also, was a 
newer edition. Our committee, our curriculum director and 
others that knew something about this particular book, they 
felt this was the best on the market, and they had put it 
in the new Pike County Elementary School.

BY MR. RINDSKOPF:
Q. Do you know when Mr. Glover got the books that he was 

using in his school, the Harper and Roe books?
A. No, sir. I don't fcecall. They were several years old.
Q. Had they been there before he took over as principal?
A I'm sure they were not that old.
Q. That would have been about seven years, at that time?
A. Yes.
Q. How frequently do you replace textbooks?
A About every five years. That's about the normal usage of 

textbooks.
10U



101
A Sometimes, if the children are a little rough with 

them, they won't last over four years.
Q Okay. Then, I believe you said that Mr. Glover submitted 

a requisition for multiethnic textbooks, is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you regarded this as being a violation of your

policy?
A Yes, sir, because this, we had already decided, this

committee had democratically voted, and they had decided in favor 
of the American Book Company Book. And so, for him to then come 
along and submit a requisition for a Series which I considered to 
be out of order, that was a violation of our policy.

In other words, it was really an affront to the Superintendent, 
as if to say, Well, we know what you decided on that, but I don't
care what you decided. We want this book.

Q When did he submit these requisitions?
A Late June, late summer, first of September. I don't

recall. But after this meeting was held.
9. But you don't recall?
A No, sir, because different principals submit orders at

different times. Some in June and some in July and August, and
some even in September, if they find out they need additional 
hooks.

Q Okay. And what did you do with this requisition?
A I did not honor it.

101



102
Q. You did not honor it?
A. No, sir.
Q. What does that mean?
A. I did not select,, I did not order this book that he 

requisitioned.
Q. I see. Did you order some books for his school?
Ac Yes, but a little later, after that, we found out that

American Book Company did put out a multiethnic edition, and it was 
on the State textbook list.

Yes, we got him some multiethnic textbooks, finally.
Q, So you got some multiethnic books?
K  Yes, sir. But it was in the agreed upon series.
K  Okay. Were these multiethnic books different from the

books that you were using at the other first grades?
A. Well, I'm —  I don't, I don’t know. I think they had 

some multiethnic pictures in it, if that's what you mean.
Q, Let me get this straight. There were first grades in 

two different places in Pike County this past year, right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. One was at Pike County Consolidated?
A. Yes, sir.
Q, Where Mr. Glover was?
h. Yes, sir.
Q, And those pupils were all black?
A. Yes, sir.

1 1 ) 2



103

Q, And one was that, which is it, one of the buildings of --
A East Pike Elementary, Building B.
Q. Rights And that was integrated group?
A Yes, sire
Q, Okay. And the integrated group used the older American 

Book Company books?
A. Well, it was, it was the American Book Company that we 

were then using. Yes, sir.
Q. So they were older than the ones used at Mr. Glover's 

school?
A Yes, because that edition just came out.
Q. And the ones they used in the integrated classes were not

multiethnic books?
A Not to my knowledge, they weren’t.
Q. Okay. But the ones Mr. Glover wound up with were 

multiethnic?
A Yes, sir.
a Okay. So those books were different in at least one

theyrespect than the books that/were using at the other first grades?
A I think maybe in some pictures. That's about all.
q. Have you compared the textbooks yourself?
A I did at the beginning of the term. That's the only 

difference I could find. I don't remember any other differences.
Q. Okay. So if we construe Mr. Glover's requisition as 

being for multiethnic textbooks, that's what he got?
103



104

A. Ho, sir. It was in violation of our agreed policy, that 
once a series is decided upon, if a principal sends in a requisition 
for an off-series, that's wasting the Superintendent's time. It's, 
as I say, it's against the —

THE COURT: Well, let me ask a question right here.
You voted to use the American Textbook version?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Well now, suppose, I believe you said they
later came out with a multiethnic version?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Would it still have been within the vote if 

they had chosen the multiethnic version of the American Textbook 
Company?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. At that time, —
THE COURT: In other words, you were talking about, if

American Textbooks had gone to a multiethnic version, any 
teacher would have been perfectly within their rights to have 
requisitioned multiethnic books?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: As well as any other kind, so long as they

came from the American Textbook, is that what you are saying?
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. If we had known at the

meeting in May that the American Book Company had a multi
ethnic, we would have been delighted to order those books
at that time.



105

THE COURT: You would have then lost your economy
measure again, would you not?

THE WITNESS: No, sir* We were already using the
American in several classrooms, and there is no difference in 
the wording, as to my knowledge. There may be a few different 
pictures, black, white, Chinese, yellow, I don't know what 
color was in there. That was the only difference in the book, 
best of my knowledge.

THE COURT: All right, sir.
, THE WITNESS: The wording was the same.

BY MR. RINDSKOPF:
Qt And you used Mr. Glover's requisition to learn how many 

books you should buy, is that correct?
A Oh, I don't recall about that. I'm sure we made another 

check with the school later on when the, or when American Book 
Company came out with a multiethnic edition.

Did they come out with a new edition after the school 
year started?

A We learned of the new edition. We did not know -- in 
fact, we did not have one in — *

Q. Well, you learned of it after the school year started?
A Yes, sir.
Q. When did you —
A After the school year started, maybe September, October, 

somewhere in the fall.

log



106

Q. Is this a standard education policy, to bring in new 
books in the middle of a year?

A Yes, sir, if, if the funds permit and if we can get what 
the teachers want.

We had voted for the American Book Company Book. They became 
available in the multiethnic division, that was what Mr. Glover 
wanted, and that's what Mr. Glover got.

Q. That's right.
A But he still violated a policy by sending in one of the 

off-series on his requisition.
0= Okay. So you did bring those books in during the 

school year, right?
A After the school year started, yes.
Q. What did you do with the books you were using when the 

new books arrived?
A I don ' t knov;.
Q. All right. Okay.
I believe what we have covered here this morning were all the 

instances of lack of cooperation against Mr. Glover this year, is 
that right?

A. Well, that's all that I outlined to you; yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Well, there wasn't any other reason why you didn't

recommend him for rehiring, was there?
A Well, there's one additional reason I can give you, if 

you want it.

lub



107

Qt Well, what was that additional reason?
A. Well, after that principals' meeting, I related to you, 

that a boycott ensued and there were two occasions that Mr. Glover 
did not report or did not report off during that boycott, that he 
came over to Zebulon and sat in a meeting of parents, and he left 
his job during the school hours. He did not get my permission to 
leave his job and he did engage in civil rights activities, which 
I consider, during school hours —

QL Civil rights activities during school hours?
A. Yes, sir.
Q, When you say he met with parents, who —
A, There were some parents there, yes, at the meeting.
Ql Who else was at the meeting?
A. Our Board of Education attorney.
Q. Would that be Mr. Richard Bridges?
A. Mr. Bridges.
Ql Mr. Glover met with Mr. Bridges?
A. Well, met with a group of people, some negro parents.
Ql How many times did this happen?
A. On two occasions.
Ql For how long was he in attendance at these civil rights 

meetings?
A. Well, they were —  there were meetings, I don't remember 

how long they took, but it was definitely during school time.
Q. Well, how long did they go on?

1 y V



108

A I don't recall. Maybe a couple of hours.
0, How much school time did he miss?
A 1 believe one meeting was in the afternoon, and one 

meeting was in the morning of the following day.
I would say he, I would say he lost about two hours on the 

afternoon meeting and all the morning of the next meeting.
Eor all practical purposes, that could serve no purpose at a 

school, missing that part of a morning.
0. Were there any children in attendance at his school?
A Yes, sir.
0. How many?
A Well, he has over five hundred pupils.
Now, one of those meetings, the children had walked out that 

day, that is true. But still, he was supposed to be on the job.
0, Well, which meeting had the children walked out, afternoon 

or morning?
A I believe the boycott took place on September 10 and 

that afternoon, we had a meeting. And then, the following day,
I believe, I believe those are the right dates.

Qi Were you at the meeting?
A Yes, sir.
0. Oh, I see.
A I was at both meetings.
Q. Didn't you tell Mr. Glover that his business was back at 

his school?

i u d



109

A Mr, Glover knew what his contract was for. I didn't have 
to reprimand Mr. Glover publicly.

& You didn't tell him he should be back at his school 
rather than at that meeting?

A No.
THE COURTS During the boycott,, were some students 

in and some out, or were they all out?
THE WITNESS : During the September boycott, Your Honor,

the boycott took place mostly at East Pike Elementary School 
in ZebuIon. On September 10th. All students and teachers 
walked out of Mr. Glover’s school.

They marched seven miles to Zebulon, and we lost control 
of that school that day.

THE COURT: All of them went out?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. All of them walked out apparently.

BY MR. RINDSKOPF:
Q. Mr. Glover didn't participate in this march, did he?
A I don’t think Mr. Glover was in the march.
Q. Now what about the next day? Were they back in school?
A I don't know how many. I'm sure that many of them were.

I don't recall.
Q. You don't recall.

THE COURT: Let me ask a question here.
Irrespective of the merits or demerits of Mr. Glover's 

contention, irrespective of the action or inaction of the

l U d



110

mystifying to me is why, if there is a grievance against the 
School Board, whether justified or unjustified, why take it 
out on the students?

I, if somebody has done my child or me an injustice,
I never could quite see the logic of punishing the child 
for the injustice of someone else.

1 say, I simply make that comment. It has nothing to 
do with the issue we're hearing. But it’s a little difficult, 
has been a little difficult for me to understand.

All right, sir. Go ahead.
BY MR. RINDSKOPF;

0- Did Mr. Glover play a constructive role in these meetings 
on the 10th and 11th?

A I don’t recall that he did, no.
Q. Did he play a destructive role?
A I don’t know what you would call it. He made some 

comments. I don’t recall everything that was said or done at that 
meeting.

0- All right, sir. Well, wasn't he trying to get the 
situation resolved?

A. No, sir. No, sir. I don't think, I don't remember 
him trying to get it resolved, no.

Q. What about you, were you trying to get it resolved?

Board or the Superintendent, one thing that has been rather

A
ill)

Yes, sir.



Ill

Q. Okayo Is there anything else?
A. I don’t, I don’t recall anything this school year, 

necessarily.
(X Okay. Now, do you have any standards that are in 

writing as to how you judge whether a person is fit to be hired 
or rehired?

A, No, sir. Not in writing. I'm not required to have any 
such standards.

0= And you don * t?
A No, sir.
Q. And so, you just approach these things on a case-by-case 

basis?
A. Well, of course, naturally, we have standards relating 

to certification, teachers' certificate. We have, of course, 
naturally, experience plays a part and college training; maybe 
the college they went to; and on application, we will observe the 
activities they entered into, maybe the clubs they were members 
of and professional organizations. All of those things enter in, 
naturally, into whether a new person that's going to be hired 
for a job —

Ql Okay. Well, in terms of these things, Mr. Glover is 
still fully qualified?

A. Well, yes. He's a member of organizations, I'm sure, 
and he was hired by us.

Q. And rehired?
I ' l l



112
A And rehired.
0. Each succeeding year?
A Until the last two years, as I told you this morning, he 

was recommended reluctantly the past two years.
& But, nevertheless, he was recommended.
A Yes, he showed some improvement towards the, towards the 

end of the school year. Yes, sir.
0. And what about this year? Did he show any improvement 

as the year went on?
A I can't say that he did; no, sir.
(X Okay. And what do you base this opinion on?
A Well, as I say, I carry things in my evaluation that, in

my mind. Of course, naturally, some of these items that I’ve 
mentioned to you, we keep a personnel file, they went in his file,
and definite lack of cooperation on Mr. Glover's part this year,
and I could not, 1 could not recommend him. No, sir.

Q. I see. And in every instance it was a lack of cooperatior
with you, was it not, as the Superintendent?

A Yes, sir. In these instances I've outlined this morning, 
they were.

Q. Yeah. Are there any other people in your system who are 
charged with evaluating principals?

A No, sir.
& Do you go into the schools to watch them function?
A The Board of Education holds the Superintendent responsible

112



113

fibr recommending principals, and the principal recommends teachers 
to the, to the Superintendent, and he in turn to the Board.

Ql Did you understand my question?
A  Yes, sir. I'm answering your question, yes, I go 

into the schools. I evaluate principals in their, in their 
daily jobs, when I can find the time to get to the school.

And I also observe some teachers.
I, I might add the duties of my office do not allow me 

to visit schools and sit in on classrooms as they didnany years 
ago. That's the principal's responsibility.

Q. Right. Okay. Did he discharge this responsibility?
A  As far as I know, he did.
0. As far as you know he did. Okay.
What other responsibilities does the principal have?
A  Well, the principal is in complete charge of his school. 

And that takes in a wide range of territory.
Q. Well, except for these instances you've spelled out for 

us today, Mr. Glover did a satisfactory job?
A  Well, these instances were enough to keep me from 

recommending him to the Board of Education, if that's what you are 
asking.

Q. And except for these instances, you were satisfied with 
his performance?

A  I won't say I was satisfied with his performance, no, sir.
0. You think these instances have colored your view?

113



114

A, These instances are sufficient not to gain my recommends
tion.

Q. Well, I'm just trying to find out if there's any other 
reason you didn't recommend him. It’s pretty simple.

A. These are the reasons.
Q. These are the reasons?
A. I didn't need any other premise.
Q. Okay.

MR. RINDSKOPF: No further questions of Mr. Daniel
at this time.

THE COURT: All right, sir. You may go down.
0O0

(Whereupon, the witness was excused from the witness stand at 
12:32 p.m.)

0O0

MR. RINDSKOPF: We call Mr. Glover at this time.
0O0

DENNIS GLOVER,
Having first been duly sworn and called as a witness in behalf of 
the plaintiff, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. RINDSKOPF:

Q. Would you starts your name, please?
A, Dennis Glover.
{X Okay. Are you the same D. F. Glover who is plaintiff

114



115
in this lawsuit?

& Yes«
ft Okay. Where do you live, Mr. Glover?
A. Zebulon, Georgia.
& How old are you?
A. Forty-two.
& Did you hold any position with the Pike County School

system this past year?
A. Yes.
ft What position did you hold?
A. Principal.
ft And what school were you principal?
A. Pike Consolidated School.
ft And was that an all-black school this past year?
A. Yes.
ft And you are a black person, member of the negro race?
A. Yes.
ft Could you tell us how old you are?
A. Forty™two.
ft And what about your academic training and background?
A. I hold an AB Degree, MA Degree and a six year certificate

from the State Department of Education.
ft Okay. Where did you receive your AB Degree?
A. Fort Valley State College.
ft And your Masters Degree?

115



116
A Atlanta University.
2 Okay. And when you speak of a six year certificate,

does that mean you've done work beyond your Masters Degree?
A Yes.
2 Okay. Now, how long have you had, how long have you

been a principal?
A For thirteen years.
2 For thirteen years?
A Yes, sir.
2 Where have you served in these thirteen years?
A I served five years at East Pike Elementary School in

Zebulon, and eight years at Pike Consolidated School, Concord.
2 And both of these schools were all-black schools while 

you were there?
A Yes.
2 Okay. What did you do before you became a principal

over at East Pike?
A I was teacher in the Pike County system.
2 Where were you a teacher?
A At Zebulon and at Concord.
2 Okay. What was your principal subject?
A Social science.
2 Social science. All right.
Now, since you have been a principal in the Pike County

system, what have you accomplished in regard to the schools there?

- 1 i b



117

A. When I accepted the principalship of East Pike 
Elementary School, I believe the attendance there was in the low 
eighties. It was increased to the middle nineties.

We were the first school in the system to be evaluated using 
the evaluative criteria as a guide.

THE COURT : You say the low eighties or nineties, I don't
know that I follow you.

THE WITNESS: That's average daily attendance.
THE COURT: Attendance. All right.

BY MR. RINDSKOPF:
Q. You mean the percentage?
A Right. Percentagewise. Right.
fX Okay.

THE COURT: You mean of the pupils enrolled, eighty or
ninety per cent of them were in attendance? Is that what that 
means?

THE WITNESS: Yes, or the people enrolled, on an
average, when I accepted the job, we had about eighty some 
per cent of them in attendance every day.

And when I left, we had on an average of ninety-five 
per cent.

THE COURT: All right.
THE WITNESS: In attendance every day.

BY MR. RINDSKOPF:
Ql Okay. And you were there for —

117



118

A. Five years.
Q. Five years. Okay.
What else did you accomplish while you were at East Pike?
A. We increased lunchroom attendance from about fifty per

cent to about seventy per cent.
Q. Okay. Anything else?
ft. And the self-study that we made, using the evaluative 

criteria.
Q. Okay. What was the purpose of this self-study?
A. This was to upgrade the curriculum of the school.
Q. Okay. And you say you were the first school in the 

system to do that?
JL To do this; yes.
Q. Okay. And did that have any tangible result?
A. Yes. The other schools followed, and consequently, we had 

the two high schools accredited by the Southern Association.
East Pike was not accredited because we didn't get the money 

to submit our application.
THE COURT: Now, somewhere, I kind cf slipped something.

You say you were the first school to do what, now?
THE WITNESS: To have a self-study, using the evaluative

criteria. This is for the purpose of upgrading the curriculum, 
BY MR. RINDSKOPF:

Q. Did you get these self-study criteria from some State 
Agency or how do you go about a self-study program?

116



119

A Well, this would be a group of standards got together 
by experts all over the country.

ft Okay. And you apply these against your school -- 
A Yes.
Q —  and see where you fall short?
A Yes.
Qi Okay. Fine. And then, I guess in 1961 you went over to 

Pike County Consolidated?
A Yes.
a What grades were at Pike County Consolidated when you 

started?
, A One through twelve.
0. And that's the same as it then, or, I mean this past

year?
A Yes»
0. What did you accomplish in your time at Pike County 

Consolidated?
A We did a similar thing there. The attendance at Pike 

Consolidated was in the high seventies. We increased it to the 
low nineties.

The lunchroom participation was less than fifty again, and we 
increased it to seventy per cent or more.

Q. When you say that the lunchroom participation was less 
than fifty per cent, what would that mean? That the students who 
didn't eat at the school were doing what for their lunches?

lid



120
A, They didn' t eat or they were buying things from 

concessions.
THE COURT : Do they pay for their lunches?
THE WITNESS: Some do. Those who are able and those

not ±>le are supposed to eat free.
THE COURT: Wellf now, why wouldn't all of them eat one

way or the other?
THE WITNESS: It depends on the time the lunch is served,

whether or not you have concessions, anything to attract the 
attention of the —

THE COURT: In other words, there was nothing to prevent
a hundred per cent of them from eating, either by paying, if 
they had money, or even free, if they didn't have money, 
except that maybe they didn't like the menu, maybe they had 
spinach or something and they'd rather have candy bar? Is 
that what you mean?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. That is correct.
THE COURT: And you were undertaking to discourage that

and give them a balanced meal or something?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

BY MR. RINDSKOPF:
q. What are these concessions that you were speaking about?
A. That would be selling cookies, soft drinks and things of

that nature.
Ql Okay. Did you take any steps in regard to the concession

120



121
k  Yes.
Ql What did you do? 
k  We eliminated the concession.
Qi So that if students wanted to eat at the school, they 

would have to go through the lunch line? 
k  Yes.
0. Okay. Have you accomplished anything else since you've

been at Pike County Consolidated?
k  While there, upon accepting the principalship of Pike 

Consolidated, the morale of the teachers and students was very low. 
I believe that we have increased the enthusiasm for school by 
parents, teachers and students.

Q. Do you have an active parents organization?
k  Yes.
Q. Okay. Do you meet during the year?
k  Yes.
(X How frequently?
k  Monthly.
Q. Okay. Was this in existence before you took over? 
k  There was an organization, but it was not too active.
Q. All right. Anything else you can tell us that you've

accomplished specifically while you've been there? 
k  I can't think of anything.
Q. Okay. Now, you heard Mr. Daniel speak of these instances 

of lack of cooperation that you've shown during the past year.

12l



122
Have you ever deliberately not cooperated with him?
A No.
Q. Okay. Now, let's run over them. The first one we 

talked about was the business with the Fire Marshal and the fire 
drills.

How many fire drills did you have at your school?
A We have had approximately eight fire drills.
Q. Okay.
As far as you know, were you in compliance with State

law?
A Yes.
Q, And did you have enough to keep your accreditation?
A. Yes.
Ql Okay. You didn't think there was any danger that you 

would lose your accreditation?
A No ̂

THE COURT: Did you say to Mr. Bell that you had not 
had firedrills?

THE WITNESS: I don’t recall. It's possible that I
said to Mr. Bell I had not had one within that month, somethin 
of that nature.

g

THE COURT: Were you aware of his report?
THE WITNESS: I was aware of his report when the

Superintendent called me.
I was not aware that he put that in his report, no.

122



123

THE COURT ; Prior to that time?
THE WITNESS: Prior to that time.

BY MR. RXNDSKOPF;
& Okay. Did Mr. Bell in fact ask you to have a fire drill 

when he was there?
A  No, he did not.
0= He did not. So, you never told them that you were too 

busy to have a fire drill?
A  No, not as such.
Q. Okay. Well, could you tell us what the conversation

was?
ft, Mr. Bell suggested maybe that we should have a fire drill, 

and he wanted my opinion. It was during lunchtime, and I told him 
that we did not have a fire drill during lunch period. We had 
never had one.

Of course, it is the responsibility of the Fire Marshal to 
pull the fire alarm. He's not supposed to ask the principal for 
any permission.

Qt I see. If he wanted to have a fire drill, while he was 
there, he could have just pulled the alarm?

A. ‘ Yes.
THE COURT; Well, the drill consists of marching out

of the building?
THE WITNESS; Yes, sir.
THE COURT; If it was during the lunch hour, they're

12;-i



124
already out?

THE WITNESS t They were eating.
THE COURT % They were in the building, but in the 

cafeteria?
THE WITNESS s Yes, sir.

BY MR. RINDSKOPF?
Q. Okay. Is it a standard thing to have fire drills 

during lunch time?
A. No, not with us.
Q. A t  least partly because of the confusion of leaving 

your lunch —
A. Yes.
(X —  and getting it back, I suppose?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Had he been in your building and run a fire 

drill previously, ever?
A. Most Fire Marshals do. I don't recall. Mr. Bell is new. 
Q, All right.
A. I don't recall, but most Fire Marshals do.
0. And as you said, they just come in and they pull the

bell?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Did Mr. Bell come back at any time during the

school year?
A. Yes.

124



125

2 And did he have any complaints?
A No e
2

made?
Did you hear anything about any subsequent report he

A No.
2 To Mr. Daniel?
A No.
Q Okay. And there was no reason why he couldn't have

pulled the bell if he wanted to?
A No.
2 You didn't physically prevent him?
A No.
2 Did he ask you where the bell was?
A No. He is supposed to know.
Q Okay. The second, I guess, was this business about the 

burglaries.
Is it true that your school's been burgled?
A Yes.
2 During the school year?
A Yes.
2 When was it burgled?
A Sometimes in October.
2 All right. Any other time?
A No. I believe we had three in the month of October, or

maybe first of November. I'm not certain.

125



126

0- Okay. Do you know whether they ever apprehended the 
burglars?

A. No, not to my knowledge.
Q. Do you know how they got into the school?
A. No.
& Okay. Did they break into your office?
A. Yes.
Q. How did they break into your office?
A. They forced the door.
Q. What about, what about getting into other parts of the

school? Did they break in or what?
A. They did not break in.

Q. Do you knov; how they got in?
A. No.
0. When did these burglaries take place? At night or after

school or when?
A. I would assume at night for one and it could have been 

in the day for two. I'm not certain.
& I see. Okay. How did you learn of these burglaries?
A. We missed things when we got to school the next day.

o. Okay. Mr. Daniel didn't call you up and tell you your
school had been robbed?

A. No.
Q. Now, did you have a sufficient number of janitors at

your school to make sure that the doors were locked and so on?

1 2 b



127

A. We had a sufficient number.
& Okay. How many did you have?
A. Three or five student helpers.
Q. Three or five, students help them?
A. Yes o
Q. I see. Who would have keys to the building?
A The principal, counselors, the coaches and the janitors.

Q. Did you experience any difficulty with your janitors
during the school year?

A„ Yes .
& What were those difficulties?
A. We had a terrific turnover of janitors.

Q- Why was that?
a They were insufficiently paid.

& What were they paid?
A. From a dollar fifteen to a dollar forty an hour.
& And who determines how much the janitors are to be

paid?
A. The Superintendent.

& Superintendent. Okay.
And you found, what, that you couldn't keep people at those 

wages?
A. No, I could not keep people at those wages.

& Would you think your security at the school would have
been better if you had had your janitors for longer periods?

12/



128

ft Yes.
Qt How many janitors did you go through during the whole 

school year?
a, I believe about six,
0, About six or so?

THE COURT: Mr. Rindskopf, aren't we getting a little
bit far afield?

MR.RINDSKOPF: Well, I don't know if we are or not, Your
Honor, frankly.

THE COURT: I mean, what's the turnover in janitors got
to do with what we're here to decide?

MR, RINDSKOPF: Well, the only thing, Your Honor, Mr.
Daniel, Superintendent, was holding, apparently, these thefts 
of the school against the principal.

THE COURT: Well, suppose he was, correctly or incorrectly?
How does that show whether the failure to renew this man's 
contract was on racial grounds or some other grounds.

MR. RINDSKOPF: Well, —
THE COURT: As a matter of fact, accepting what you

say at face value, it would show the contrary, wouldn't it?
Why don't you ask the man what he knows about being 

fired on racial grounds.
MR. RINDSKOPF: I'll come to that. I was trying to take

care of —
THE COURT: When you get down to his turnover in

12tJ



129

janitors, it looks like we're a little bit far afield.
MR. RINDSKOPF: All right, sir. Well, let me come to —
THE COURT; I don't mean to cut you off from asking his 

version of these other incidents, but --
MR. RINDSKOPF: Well, I would think, Your Honor, that

if the reasons are totally without foundation, --
THE COURT: Well, I don't wish to cut you off and I

didn't mean to cut you off hbout the burglaries, but when 
you go beyond burglaries and get to the turnover in janitors, 
we're a little bit —

MR. RINDSKOPF: All right.
THE COURT;--- removed.
Go ahead to the next, to the other ground of what Mr. 

Daniel says were —
MR. RINDSKOPF; Yes, sir.
THE COURT: —  failures to cooperate.
MR. RINDSKOPF: I will.
THE COURT: And let him give his version of them.
MR. RINDSKOPF: All right. Fine.

BY MR. RINDSKOPF:
(X The next one would be the desegregation meetings over in 

Griffin?
THE COURT: You say these were held in Griffin?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: What were they? I understood they were put

1 2J



130

on by the University of Georgia. Did people come from the 
University to Griffin and conduct them?

THE WITNESS: Yes , sir.
THE COURT: All right. Go ahead.

BY MR. RXNDSKOPF:
q, Okay. Is it a fact that you did not go to these meetings 
A Yes, it is.
Ql Why didn't you go?
A Well, it was my understanding from the communication 

that I got that the Superintendent was supposed to head the team, 
and he asked some of the teachers to go, but he didn't ask me. So

?

I didn 81 gOc
Q. Okay. He specifically asked teachers at your school —

A Yes.
Q. ■■■■ to go?
Okay, do you know whether he asked any of the other principals ?

A No.
Q. You don't know whether he asked Mrs. Miller, say? 

A No.
Q. Okay. And —

THE COURT: You say no, you mean No, he didn't ask her
or, no, you do not know?

THE WITNESS: I do not know.
B Y  M R .  R I N D S K O P F :

Ql Okay. And at no time did he tell you that you should be

130



131
there?

ft. Noe he did not.
Q. Now, what about this incident with the testing of 

children? Mr. Daniel said, as I recall, that they were unable to 
test the children at your school; they wouldn't take the tests.
Is that correct?

ft. That's correct.
& Did you have anything to do with that?
A. No.
Q, Did anybody ever ask you to go in and lecture the 

children to get them to take the tests?
A, No.
Q. What about this instance where one of the counselors

came in and told you about it, and you were supposed to have had 
a big smile on your face? Anything to that?

ft. I don't recall that.
Q, Okay. Do you personally have any knowledge as to why

the test didn't come off?
ft. Yes.
0- Go ahead.
ft. I think the parents had instructed their children not

to take the test.
Q. And why did the parents do that?
ft. They didn't understand the test, and they felt that the 

test was going to be used to resegregate their children under an

13 i



132

integrated setting.
THE COURT: Okay. Did —  were there any communications

to the parents from the Superintendent or the Board of 
Education?

THE WITNESS: Not to my knowledge.
THE COURT: Did you entertain that view?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir; I did.

BY MR. RINDSKOPF:
(X Do you, still?
A, Yes, I still entertain that view.
Q, Okay. Did you tell any children they shouldn't take 

the test on that account? 
ft. No, I did not.
Q. All right.

THE COURT: And the tests were supposed to test the
achievement of each child at that particular time, is that 
correct?

THE WITNESS: I think that is correct. I was not
familiarized with the test, nor the testing program.

THE COURT: You didn't, didn't see the test?
THE WITNESS: No, sir. Not as such. I did not see that

particular test.
THE COURT: Were similar tests given in the white

schools?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. It's my understanding that

U 2



133

this same test would have been given to all of the students 
in the system.

BY MR. RINDSKOPF:
ft What about the fact the children didn't take the 

test over in East Pike? Did you have anything to do with that?
ft. No.
ft Did you go over to East Pike and tell anybody they

shouldn * t take the test?
ft. No.
ft Did you communicate with Mrs. Miller, the principal

over there, about the test?
ft. No.
ft Okay. The next item would seem to be the election of

Mrs. Elder to —
THE COURT: Wait just one minute, Mr. Rindskopf.
MR. RINDSKOPF: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: When were these tests given?
THE WITNESS: That would have been between the dates of

March the 18th and 25th.

Pike

THE COURT: Of what year?
THE WITNESS: Of 1969.
THE COURT: Now, in the meantime, your first grade at 
County had already been integrated, is that correct? 
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. That's correct.
THE COURT: Well, had it been completely integrated or

J33



134

to what extent had it been integrated?
THE WITNESS: All of the children on the Zebulon side

of the county were integrated. But those children on the 
Concord side or the west side were still segregated, the 
black children, all of the white children were transported 
to the kindergarten center and all the black children on the 
Zebulon side were integrated into the kindergarten on the 
Zebulon side.

THE COURT: How did it happen to break down east and
west?

THE WITNESS: I don't know, sir. It was planned that
way.

THE COURT: Well, in the integrated part of the school,
was the integration as far as those on that side of town, 
at any rate, complete?

You say one side of town it wasn’t integrated at all. 
The other was integrated completely?

THE WITNESS: Completely. In other words, half of the
black schools were integrated with all the white first 
graders.

BY MR. RINDSKOPF:
Q So the zones through the county was only around Concord 

for the black students?
A Black students.
Q Not for white students?

134



135

ft. That1s right.
THE COURT; And you have no, no way of explaining how 

that happened? This was kindergarten and first grades.
THE WITNESS; This was first grade. All of the 

kindergarten students were integrated.
THE COURT; From all over the county?
THE WITNESS; From all over the county.
THE COURT: Completely?
THE WITNESS: Completely.
THE COURT: That’s during the school year '68-69?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And half of the first grades were integrated

completely?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: That is —  now, did that come about on the

basis of, how many, how many first grade schools or actually 
sitting, did you have? Two?

THE WITNESS: Two first grade schools, that's correct.
THE COURT: And did it come about that one of them was

completely integrated and the other was not integrated at all? 
Is this what happened?

THE WITNESS: That's correct.
THE COURT: And the effect of that was to integrate all

of the whites in the county with the blacks on one side of the 
county, is that right?

13 5



136

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And the blacks on the other side of the

county were not integrated at all?
THE WITNESS: That's correct.
THE COURT; All right.
Gentlemen, I have an engagement with Judge Smith for 

lunch at this time. So we'll recess at this point, ladies 
and gentlemen, until 1:00 o'clock. You may be at ease and 
be back, then, at 1:00 o'clock.

MR. RINDSKOPF: Two o'clock, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Two o'clock. I beg your pardon. My

appointment is at 1:00 o'clock.
oOo

(Whereupon, Court was recessed at 12:53 p.m.)
RECESS

(Whereupon, Court was reconvened at 2:04 p.m.)
oOo

THE COURT: All right, gentlemen.
oOo

DENNIS GLOVER,
Having already been duly sworn and upon resuming the witness stand,
testified further as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)

BY MR. RINDSKOPF:
Q. Let me just finish off one matter that was sort of

1 3 b



137

hanging at loose ends before we went to lunch, Mr. Glover.
Do you have any knowledge of whether the students attending 

the first grade and the kindergarten are in fact attending them 
on an integrated basis over in Zebulon?

A. They are attending the first grade and kindergarten, but 
I couldn't say it was on an integrated basis.

(X Well, how is it?
A. It is my understanding that at the first grade center, 

all of the black children, upon investigation by a parent group, 
found that all of the black children were seated on one side of 
room and all of the whites on the other side of the room.

MR. CALDWELL; Your Honor please, Mr. Glover said that 
he understands.

Now, this would be hearsay and we object to it on those 
grounds.

Now if he knows of this of his own knowledge, of course, 
we contend he's entitled to testify.

THE COURT; Well, perhaps I'm responsible for this line 
of questioning because —  but, what, happened, this is really 
what happened in '68-69, isn't it?

MR. RINDSKOPF; Yes, sir. I agree with you on both 
counts.

THE COURT; I'm the one who brought it up, and the 
reason, I don't think that's relevant except that I was 
undertaking to ascertain or had in the back of my mind in

13



138
going to the subject, what the situation was with respect to 
books and so forth among those integrated classes last year, 
and find out to what extent they were integrated.

What he's really saying, there are track systems within 
an integrated classroom or school, I judge.

Anyway, I, to answer your objection, I overrule your 
objection. Let's don't dwell on what happened last year, 
but this is nob-jury, and if I have judgment to rule on the 
objection, I have enough judgment to rule to exclude what 
is irrelevant or what is hearsay.

MR. RXNDSKOPFj Okay.
THE COURTt So, I'll let anything in in a non-jury 

hearing as long as it doesn't take too much time.
MR. RINDSKOPFj Okay.

BY MR. RINDSKOPFj
Qi Do you have any personal knowledge of this?
A No, except this was an official report made to the 

parent group.
Q. I see. And, this is a group of parents who go to your 

school, or —
A Group of parents of Pike County. This is county-wide.
Q, Okay. And what about the kindergarten?
A The kindergarten I would be a little more knowledgeable 

of. There are three, six kindergarten classes, or, three of those 
classes are placed in East Pike Elementary School which is the all-k lack

13o



139

school« Three of the classes are placed in the old Pike County, 
Zefoulon Elementary School, which was formerly all white. Now all 
black students are placed down at East Pike in these three classes, 
and in the integrated classes at the old Sebulon Elementary School 
you have, it was placed, in the beginning, at the beginning of the 
term, about two black students in each one of the classes.

It is my understanding that most of those six or eight left 
and went to East Pike.

Q. Okay. Now let's come back to the other charges against 
you by the Superintendent.

I think the next one would have been your behavior at a meeting 
where the election of Mrs. Elder was announced.

Did you speak out at such a meeting?
A. Yes, X did.
(X How did you come to speak?
A. The Superintendent stated that there had been persons 

who seemingly were interested in the appointment of the principal 
at East Pike Elementary School, and I will now make the announcement..

He made the announcement and asked for comments, and I did 
comment.

Q. Okay. And what was the nature of your remarks?
A. i told him, I said to the group that that I said to the 

Superintendent in private, that I was opposed to this, and since it 
had come up, I thought that I better make the same statement for 
the record that I was still opposed to the appointment of Mrs. Elde::

13 d



140
as principal of East Pike Elementary School.

0 Okay. Were you out of order in any way?
THE COURT: Was this racial?
THE WITNESS: This was based more racially, I would

have to say, because we had previously had a black 
principal there. We have about fifty per cent black 
students and I felt we should keep a racial balance until 
we were fully integrated.

BY MR„ RINDSKOPF:
0 Okay. Mrs. Elder was white?
A She was white.
0 And the man who resigned that she replaced was black? 
ft. Black.
0. Okay. Were you out of order in any way when you spoke? 
ft, No, I did not consider myself as being out of order.

I spoke only when the time came for people to speak.
0. All right. WEre you abusive in any way?
A No, I was not abusive in any way. I made it known that 

I had nothing personally against Mrs. Elder. I thought she was 
professionally trained.

0. Okay. And did anybody make you stop your remarks in the 
middle or anything like that?

A No. I don't recall it.
0 Okay. The Superintendent didn't tell you to sit down 

and be quiet?
140



141

A No,
ft And did the meeting continue after you finished speaking? 
A Yes,
ft Okay. Next item I guess would be the meeting of the 

teachers to choose the textbook.
Were you at such a meeting?
A, Yes.
ft Could you describe to us what the meeting was like?
A This was a meeting called for the teachers of Grade 1

through 6 , and the purpose of the meeting was to adopt a textbook, 
a series that would be used from Grade 1 through 6, in the
elementary grades.

ft Okay. How many teachers were there?
A I don't recall the number of teachers, but all the 

teachers from our school v;ere there, from 1 through 6.
ft All right. It wasn't just the first grade?
A No, it was not.
ft All right. And

THE COURT: Well, did the teachers from each grade vote
on the books for their grade?

THE WITNESS % No, sir. There was no vote taken at that
meeting.

THE COURT: Had there previously been a vote taken?
THE WITNESS: No, sir. Not in a meeting I recall.
THE COURT: Well, do you agree with the statement of

141



142

Mr. Daniel that the method of choosing or not choosing, but 
recommending a textbook for a particular grade is made by 
the vote of the teachers of that grade?

THE WITNESS: Except for this particular meeting, I would
not agree, and there was no vote taken at this meeting, so I 
could not agree.

THE COURT: It had not been the practice or custom to
allow the teachers in a particular grade to suggest the 
books to be used in that grade?

BY MR.
THE WITNESS? No, sir. 

RINDSKOPF:
Q. At least to your knowledge this hasn't been the custom?
A. To my knowledge.
Q. How have textbooks previously been chosen?
A. Each teacher has been permitted to select books from the 

State adopted list.
Ql And has there been any effort made to cut down on the 

number of different textbooks used in the system?
A. Yes. We have been told to try to stick with a single

series.
Q- Would that be at your school or in the whole system?
A. This would be at the black schools.
Q. Okay.
A. We find this not to be true at the white schools at all

times.

1 4 -a



143
0. Okaye Well, howt did you speak at this meeting, this 

meeting on the textbooks?
A Yesf I did.
0. Okay . How did you come to speak?
h  After Mrs. Snipes had given the breakdown on the number 

of books found in each school, again, comments were called for.
Q, Who is Mrs. Snipes?
A Mrs. Snipes is the reading consultant.
& She’s employed by the Board of Education?
A. Well, she works with the Educational Services Group from 

the, from the Educational Service Center, which serves Pike County 
along with four or five other counties.

0. All right. And what did you say when, when you responded?
A. We had talked among ourselves, the teachers of Pike 

Consolidated School and people at East Pike, and I said that 
we were not concerned with the series, whether it was Harper and Roe, 
or the American Book Company. We felt that all of the books listed 
in the State adopted list were good, but that we felt if we were 
going into a single series, we should get a series that was of the 
multiethnic nature.

(X In other words, you were going to use one set of books
for the entire system? Is that what you mean?

A Yes c
Qi By a single series

THE COURTt Do you save any money by sticking to one

143



144
publisherfe series, —

THE WITNESS: That's --
THE COURT: -- leaving out multiethnics or otherwise,

for example, suppose that, and do you make a contract with 
the publisher and thereby gain some advantage if you use 
nothing but his books, leaving out the ethnic consideration?

THE WITNESS: It's possible that you could gain some
consideration from the company.

THE COURT: Economic ~~
THE WITNESS: But this is not suggested nor recommended

by experts.
THE COURT: Well, I suppose as between publishers,

suppose a publisher, all of them publish multiethnic books 
and other books. I suppose you could, all other things 
being equal, you might save some money or could you, I don't 
know, by dealing exclusively in the books of one publisher 
as distinguished from another, or do you know?

THE WITNESS: I don't know, except that you might be
able to get a discount. That would be about the only thing 
I could say.

BY MR. RINDSKOPF:
Q. Did anyone ever suggest at this meeting that you could 

get a discount?
&  No.
Q, Okay. Now, did the meeting come to any resolution as to

144



which books the first grade was going to use next year?
A After I mentioned the multiethnic series, if I recall, 

the Superintendent spoke up and said, Well, we won't bother about 
his school. We'll let him use the multiethnic book in his school, 
and, of course, the other schools will use the American Book 
Company series.

0> So, in other words, he was going to maintain the status 
quo? You were going to keep on using your books and the others 
were going to use their books?

A Yes. But I objected to this.
& What do you mean when you say you objected?
A I said that the recommendation was not ipade based on one 

school, but it was made based on the school system. We felt that 
the book used by black and white students ought to show some faces 
of black and white people.

£X Okay. Well, did the Superintendent tell you at this time 
that you had to requisition one kind of book as opposed to another, 
for the next year?

A No, he did not change, he said that we would be permitted 
to use the same books we had been using, if we wanted to.

Q, Okay. What happened, then, when you came to make your
requisition?

A When the requisition was made, we had called the companies 
and at that time, the American Book Company stated that they did not 
have a book of the multiethnic series.

145

.1 L s



146
And so, we requisitioned a book from the Harper and Roe 

Company, with a statement or notation stating that if the American 
Book Company would or did in fact have a book of the multiethnic 
series, we would settle for the American Book Company’s book.

0 When you say a note, you mean you wrote something on 
your requisition or attached a piece of paper to it?

A This was attached on the note on the requisition.
Qi Who wrote the note?
A The note was written by the secretary and signed by

niB © k

Q, Okay. Do you recall when or at what time of year 
you made this requisition?

A That would have been, I believe, at the end of ‘67-68 
school year, somewhere thereabout.

0. Approximately in June?
A Yes.
Ql Okay. Did you ever hear anything further about the 

fate of your requisition?
A Yes. The secretary of the Superintendent's office

called me later and said that the American Book Company did have 
a book of the multiethnic series.

Ql And what was your response?
A My response was that we would settle for that book.
Qi Okay. And is that in fact what happened?
A Yes, that is in fact what happened.

14b



147

Qt Okay. Finally, we come to the meeting in September of 
this year when there was a boycott going on and you attended.

How did you happen to go to that meeting?
A All the students and teachers walked out, and I reported 

to the Superintendent.
He stated that the Board might and himself might want to talk 

to me and I told him that I would be to the office as soon as 
possible.

I understand a citizens group was coming and I wanted to be 
in with that group.

Q, Okay. This was on the first day of the boycott?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you say All the students and teachers walked 

out, you mean out of your school?
A Yes.
Q. There were no students left?
A No.
Q. And what about teachers?
A No teachers left.
Ql So , the school was finished, for that day, would that 

be correct?
A Yes, except for the secretary and people who work in the 

office.
Qi Okay. Well, what time did you go to this meeting?
A I don’t recall the time.

14/



148
Q. Was it in the morning or the afternoon or —
A. I think it was in the morning. I'm not certain.
Q. Okay. This was on the first day of the boycott?
A. On the first day.
0. Okay. Did you participate in this meeting?
A. At that meeting, yes. I was in the meeting. I don't 

recall having met with the Board. Something happened, I don't 
know what went wrong in that meeting.

THE COURT: What was the purpose of the boycott?
THE WITNESS: The boycott was brought about because

of the appointment of a white principal over a formerly black 
school or an all black school.

THE COURT: Did you think that a boycott by the students
was the way of redressing such a grievance or do you think —

THE WITNESS: No, I thought it should have been settled
otherwise. I thought that it could have been and should have 
been settled before the people were upset to this extent.

THE COURT: You agree with me that it's hard to conceive
of any justification for a grievance respecting teachers' 
employment which should be settled by having students boycott 
the whole educational process?

THE WITNESS: I would agree that this ought not to be
done, but when you get to a situation where you can't deal 
with the people who are responsible, it might cause this type 
of thing to happen.

140



149

THE COURT s Well, it wouldn't be the better part of 
wisdom, though, would it?

THE WITNESS; No, sir. I would not consider it as being 
the better part of wisdom.

THE COURT; All right.
BY MR. RXNDSKOPFs

(X Okay. And you went to the meeting to try and put things 
together, didn't you?

A Yes. I had hoped that I would be able to.
MR, CALDWELL; We object, he is leading his witness all 

the way around, and if he wants to coach him a little, it's 
all right. But we object to him leading him.

THE COURT; All right, sir. I overrule the objection.
Go ahead.

A (Continued) I had hoped that I would be able to be of 
some assistance in getting the students back in school.

(X Okay. Well, what did happen at the meeting?
A I can't recall the first meeting. Seemingly, the Board 

did not meet with the group as promised or something. We didn't 
have that meeting as I recall.

0, Okay. What about Mr. Daniel? Was he there?
A Yes. Mr. Daniel was there.
CX Okay. And was there a discussion with Mr. Daniel about

the situation?
A Yes. If I recall correctly, there was a discussion.

14 ii



150

Q. Okay. Fine. Now what about the second day or the 
second meeting? When was that handled?

A. That must have been the following morning.
& How did you happen to be at the second meeting?
A. Well* I was in the first meeting* and it was not completed,

and so I felt that I should follow it up until it was completed.
Q. Okay. Was school going on on that day?
A. Yes* we did have about half of the student body present 

that day.
Q. Okay. Were you at the meeting all day, or how long?
A. Again* I don't recall the length of time.
Q. Okay. Now, as a principal, is it customary for you to

be at your school all day, every day, when school is in session?
A. No.
Q. What might you do otherwise than be at your school?
A, Well, I have reasons to leave for any school business.
Ql Okay.

THE COURTS Was this a, when was this meeting? This was 
in September of 1968, during the boycott, was it?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And had the suit to desegregate the Pike

County Schools been filed at that time?
THE WITNESS: No, sir.
THE COURT: It had not been filed?
THE WITNESS: It had not. It grew out of that.

15 u



151

THE COURT: I see.
MR. RINDSKQPF: I think the suit was filed up in

October,, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. It's a matter of record. I just

didn't recall.
MR. RXNDSKOPF: Yes, sir.

BY MR. RINDSKOPF?
Qt Okay. Well, did you think you were there on school 

business?
A Yes, I did.
Q. Okay. And as a result of these meetings, did the boycott 

come to an end?
A Yes, it did.
Qt Okay. Now have you engaged in any civil rights activities 

since you've been a principal?
A Yes.
Qt What have you done?
A I have participated in voter registration drives, you 

might call this civil rights.
I was instrumental in getting the food stamp program adopted 

in the county, and things of that nature.
Qt Okay. Well, how have you participated in voter registra

tion?
A First, we see to it that students who become eighteen 

years old in our school are registered, and then we put on campaigns

15 s.



152

in the county, rallies and so forth, to make people conscious 
of their duty in voting.

0. All right. Now what about the business with the food 
stamps?

A We met as a county group. Then we sent committees to 
talk with bankers, or the two bankers, to see if we could get 
somebody to sponsor the food stamp program.

Ql When was this?
A. That must have been in the fall of *68.
0. All right. And were you successful?
A. Yes. The program was adopted in the county, I believe, 

early in *69.
0. Do you belong to any professional groups or organizations
A Yes.
0. What are those groups?
A. The Georgia Teachers and Educators Association, and the 

National Education Association.
0. Okay. What is the Georgia Teachers and Education 

Association —  Teachers and Educators Association?
A. Yes, sir.
0. What is that group?
A I don't believe I follow your question.
0. Well, what is the purpose of the Georgia Teachers and 

Educators Association?
A. The purpose of the Georgia Teachers and Educators

15?,



153

Association is to serve the needs of youth and educators in the 
State of Georgia.

THE COURT: What he's asking, I think, isn't that the
black teachers group?

THE WITNESS; We have —
THE COURT: As opposed to the GEA, and in fact, didn't

they recently merge their efforts, but wasn't that what it 
was at the start and --

THE WITNESS: It was predominantly black, but we never
had a restrictive clause.

BY MR. RINDSKOPF:
Q. Do you hold any position in that group?
A Yes, I do.
0. What position do you hold?
A I am a Director.
0i All right. How long have you been a Director?
A I have served one year as Director.
0. This past school year was your first?
A Yes.
Qt How were you chosen as a Director?
A 1 was elected.
0. By whom?
A By the teachers in sixteen school systems that make up 

Region 2.
0. I see. The State is divided up into regions?

153



154

ft. Yes.
Q. Okay. You hold any other positions with that group?
ft. No.
Ql Okay. Now, you allege in your complaint that the reason 

you weren't rehired was because of your race.
Can you explain to us why you feel that way?
ft. I feel I've given nineteen years of good service to 

Pike County. I am professionally trained. I hold next to the 
highest professional certificate, and there I was, no other reasons 
that I could consider as being given validly that could lead me to 
any other conclusion. That is, because of my race.

Q. Okay. Have there been any instances during this year 
which strengthened this conclusion?

ft. Yes.
Qt What would they be?
ft. On several occasions, the Superintendent has stated to 

me that I shouldn't talk too much in the principals' meetings, that 
are integrated, because the other principals might not appreciate 
what I had to say, or in a meeting in which the Board was to review 
my case, I believe the Board had invited black citizens and myself 
to come in and talk with the Board about middleways of that 
discussion, and three local citizens came in and literally took 
over the meeting. They asked the questions.

0. I don't understand what you mean by your last statement, 
when you said they asked —

154



155

A They asked the questions. The local citizens.
Q. All right*, sir. When you say local citizens, you mean

white citizens?
A White citizens, yes.
Q. Okay. Do you know of any other instances or examples?
A In a second meeting, one of the Board members stated that

he would not vote for me for principal because none of the white 
folks wanted me to be principal in the system.

Q. All right. Who is this Board member?
A His last name is Alexander. I don't recall the first

name.
Q. Okay. Since the Board has not re-elected you for the 

next year --
THE COURT; Now, wait just a minute.
This was at a meeting called to reconsider their 

action in not extending you a contract? It was after 
the act had been done?

THE WITNESS; Yes, sir.
BY MR. RINDSKOPF;

Q, Okay. Was that all he said?
Did he indicate when he held these views?
A No, I don't recall him having indicated when.
Q, Okay. Since you have not been elected, have you receivec 

any offers to teach in any other system?
A Yes, I've had one offer. 15 b



156

Q. Where was that and for what job?
A. That was in Monterey, California. I had an offer for 

the principalship of a high school there.
Q. Okay.

MR. RINDSKOPF: The witness is with you.
0O0

CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. CALDWELL:

Q. Mr. Glover, these two meetings -- I think the Court 
asked you a question, but I wasn't sure that I understood it -- 
these meetings where these people took over the meeting that you 
testified to, was that before or after you knew that you had not 
been recommended for the coming school year by the Superintendent?

A. That was after.
Q. All right, sir. Now, Mr. Glover, in selecting teachers,

you heard the Superintendent testify this morning that principals 
recoiamend the teachers to him, and he in turn recommends to the 
Board, is this correct?

A. That's correct.
0/ Tell me how you evaluate your teachers for recommendation?
A. I observe them during the school year.
Q, Is that the only criteria you have?
A. That's the only criteria I have, if the teacher is working 

in the school.
Ql Then her certificates or the number of years of teaching

156



157

in your school has nothing to do with your recommendation?
A. For that particular year, if the teacher has been working, 

I observe the teacher for that year.
Q. Only?
A. Only* on my recommendations.
Q. You take into consideration nothing else except your 

observation of her during that year?
A. That's all I take consideration of, that year.
Q, All right, sir. Now, if you were the Superintendent, 

it would be your duty to recommend principals, is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q. Would you make your recommendation of principals on the 

same criteria that you recommend teachers?
A. Yes.
Q. Then you feel that it was fair for Mr. Daniel to make 

his recommendation or non-recommendation as the case was, based on 
his observation of you during the year?

A. No.
Q. What’s the difference?
A. The difference would be that in, if I had been recommend

ing principals or teachers, rather, as a principal, the school would 
not have been in a transition period.

And, I would base my recommendation on that particular teacher 
for that year for reemployment.

Q. Yes, sir. But my question was, what would be the

15 i



158
difference?

You say that Mr. Daniel did not act fairly in doing the very 
same thing you have said you would have done.

What would be the difference?
A. The difference would have been he would have doing it 

based on race.
Q. Dan you prove this?
A. I believe I can prove it.
Q. Would you give us some instances?
A. The instances that I gave a few minutes ago, I believe, 

would be sufficient.
0i I don’t recall any. Would you please recite them to me?
A. My long years of service in the county, what I believe

to be good service.
My certification, and my qualification as principal, plus the 

incidents that I named, namely, in a Board meeting wherein citizens 
and myself were supposed to meet to air the non-renewal of my 
contract, and the statement made by the citizens in another Board 
meeting wherein one of the Board members stated flatly that the 
white people didn't want me to be principal.

0. But isn't it a fact that you have just stated under oath 
that were you the Superintendent, you would have considered the 
principals on the same criteria that you would consider teachers?

A. Yes c
Q But yet, you do not accord the Superintendent presently

15 ti



159

the same privilege that you would have operated under?
A One exception.
& Yes, sir.
A Race.
& Then it's your testimony that everything Mr. Daniel

did was racially motivated?
& It is my testimony that everything Mr. Daniel did was 

racially motivated.
a All of his operations have been racially motivated?
A All of the reasons he gave for idn-renewa1 of my contract

were racially motivated.
& All right, sir. Do you contend that your failure to 

show up at the meetings in Griffin showed good faith on your part 
as a principal in that system?

A Yes, sir; I do.
Q. Was it voluntary on the part of the other principals

to attend?
A Yes, it was voluntary.
& To your knowledge, did they attend?
A To my knowledge, they did. I’ll have to assume. I don't

know, because I didn't attend.
fr Do you have any reports from your teachers that did

attend?
A Yes, I do have repotts from them.
& Did the other principals attend?

15a



160

A. Yes.
Q. In your opinion,, as a school administrator, did this 

show an interest in the program by these principals?
A. Yes.
& Then your absence would show the contrary, would it not?
A. No.
& Why would it not, Mr. Glover?
A. Because it is my understanding that the Superintendent 

was the head of the team. He was supposed to ask those people to 
go to the meeting, and he did in fact call to the school and ask 
for certain teachers to attend the meeting.

He did not include me.
Q. Did you receive a notice of the neetings?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did it state the time and place?
A. Yes, it did.
Q. The purpose?
A. Yes, it did.
Q. This did not arouse any concern, on your part?
A. Yes, it did.
Q. Then what stopped you from going?
A. I didn't go because I didn't want to get into a tangle, 

because the Superintendent had said that he didn't want me to 
express my opinions, and I just don't like to attend meetings where 
I can't express my opinion.

160



161

ft Oh*, where did he tell you he didn't want you to express 
your opinion?

Ac He has told me that of different occasions.
He has told me that in his office and at our school.
0- 3.s a matter of fact, isn't it true that he told you he

didn't like for you to make outbursts in meetings? Isn’t that what 
he said?

A, No, he said "express an opinion."
Q. Was that racially motivated?
A Yes.
Q, Now, Mr. Glover, with reference to the testing that you

heard Mr. Daniel testify to here and the testing that you said that 
you opposed violently, isn’t it true that in the GTEA JOURNAL of 
last fall, you wrote a long article saying that all standardized 
tests were set up against the colored race?

A Yes o
0, Then you are opposed to any kind of testing, is this 

correct?
A I am opposed to testing if it is used incorrectly.
Q How would you go about using these tests correctly?
A You would go about using the tests correctly by testing

for a specific purpose that will be non-racial; that would be to
help the student.

Q. Well, then, Mr. Glover, tell me what is the purpose of
testing?

161



162
k  We have different kind of tests, so that the purpose of 

testing is to find out information, should be, to find out 
information that otherwise you wouldn't know about a student,

Q. Isn't it true that this type of testing has been done 
in your school before?

A. Yes.
Q. Was it not the purpose of that testing to take a child 

from whence he was found and carry him forward as far as his 
ability would allow him to go?

A. Not necessarily so.
Q. Tell me what's it for, the test you have had in your 

school?
A. The purpose of the test administered in my school was to 

find out the progress the child had made in order that we might be 
able to work with him.

Q. Did you not testify when your deposition was given in 
Zebulon that the purpose of the standardized test was to take a 
child where you found him and carry him as far as his ability would 
allow him to go?

A. I believe, if I remember correctly, I said that could 
be a purpose.

THE COURT; What was the difference in this one as
compared to the previous one?

THE WITNESS; The difference in this one as compared
with the orevious one was that the black people were not

162



brought in on the planning for the test, and we were
suspicious of the purpose.

THE COURT: Were they brought in on the planning of the
previous test?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Has a similar test been given in years gone

by?
THE WITNESS: We had had a testing program for many

years, eight or twelve years or something of that nature.
THE COURT: Achievement tests?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Of each child, to show where he was measuring

up, whether he was measuring up to the grade he was in or to 
a national standard, I assume, for that grade.

THE WITNESS: Yes. Not all grades. We selected grades,
system-wide.

THE COURT: Well, what is there or was there which led
you to believe that while that kind of testing might be 
worthwhile or might have been worthwhile in previous years, 
that for this year as distinguished from previous years it was 
racially motivated?

THE WITNESS: The type test we were using was changed.
We had a testing program. The planning for the test should 
be cooperatively done. It was not cooperatively done.

THE COURT: You mean as far as parents were concerned?

163

16 3



164

THE WITNESS: As far as teachers and parents were
concerned, and principals.

THE COURT: How ms it done? How was, how did the way
it was done this time differ from the way in which it had 
been done previously?

THE WITNESS: Previously, we had planned cooperatively
for the testing program.

In this particular test, --
THE COURT: Throughout the system?
THE WITNESS: Throughout the system.
For this particular test, we didn't know anything about 

it except I got a letter stating that the test, that the 
Board of Education had decided to go into a testing program, 
and giving the dates that the tests were supposed to have been 
given, and this letter itself made us suspicious because it 
stated that Mr. Fletcher, who is black, Mrs. Batch who is 
black, would be assisted in giving the test at Pike Consolidate 
which is black, and East Pike, which is black, by a Mrs. Bates, 
who is white.

Now we felt that it was, felt that the white counselor 
would supervise the black counselor in administering the test 
to the black students, but would not be given an opportunity 
to administer tests to the white students.

This led to some suspicion.
THE COURT; All right. Were there, the assistants, were

164



165

they, any black assistants assisting to administer the same 
tests in the white schools?

THE WITNESS: In the original letter, this was not the
intent.

However, we got a followup letter, I understand, after 
some discussion of this -- well, somebody had discussed that 
the Hack community was a little upset about this. Then we 
had a followup letter which stated that all counselors would 
administer tests at all of the schools.

THE COURT: Well, did that alleviate your suspicion?
THE WITNESS: It alleviated my suspicion, but it was too

late to do the job that we could have done with the parent,
I would think.

THE COURT: Well, did you encourage or -- what did you
do with your students to encourage them to take or not take 
the test?

THE WITNESS: I was asked to do one thing, and that was
to make the schools available for testing, and cooperate in 
any other way the counselors might request.

THE COURT: Well, did you encourage the parents or the
children to take the tests?

THE WITNESS: No, I did not.
THE COURT: Did you encourage them not to take it?
THE WITNESS: No, I did not.
THE COURT:. Did you discuss with the parents whether the

165



166

children should or should not take it?
THE WITNESS: No, I did not discuss it with them.
THE COURT: All right, sir.

BY MR. CALDWELL:
Q. When did you receive this followup letter?
A It would have been about eight or ten days or maybe more

later.
THE COURT: After the first letter?
THE WITNESS: After the first letter.
THE COURT: But still before the tests were administered?
THE WITNESS: It was before the test was administered.

BY MR. CALDWELL:
Q. Is it not a fact, Mr. Glover, that the testing began 

at Pike County Elementary?
A It is my understanding that it did begin there.
Q. And is it not also true that both white and black counselors 

administered the test -there?
A This is my understanding.
0. Isn't it also a fact that this test is graded by machine 

and not by teachers?
A This is my understanding.
Q. Then the white or black counselors would not have had 

any way of cheating on the test, would they?
A Oh yes. There are many ways you can cheat on a test.
Q. How do you go about doing it?

3 66



1$7
A. Teachers can lead students to the right answer.
If only black people were giving the test to black students, 

they can lead them to the right answer.
If only white people are giving the test to white students, 

they can lead them to the right answer.
& But in this instance, we had both?
A. We had both.
0. Did you believe with both present they did cheat?
A. No, I do not.
Q. And you had knowledge that there would be both prior to 

the time the tests were given in your school?
A. Prior to the time of the testing, yes.
0- And you still did nothing to encourage the taking of 

the tests?
A. No, I had not been asked except to cooperate with the 

counselors as they came to our school.
& Well, Mr. Glover, as principal of the school, isn't it 

your duty to do the best you can for the students there?
A. Yes, it is my duty to do the best I can for the students

there.
Q. Do you feel that you shouldn't encourage them to attend 

regularly just because the Superintendent doesn't ask you to?
A. No.
0- Well, do you fail to ask them to study and bring their 

grades up just because the Superintendent doesn't ask you to?

167



169

stamp.
Qt Is it unusual for a professional man of your calibre 

to degrade the professional standards of another citizen of the
same calibre?

A. It is unusual, because we're not always tinder oath.
MR. RINDSKOPF? I object, Your Honor. I fail to see 

the relevance and purpose of this question.
He asked him what his opinion was —
THE COURT: Well, he's already answered it, now. And

his answer may very well explain it.
MR. RINDSKOPFs All right, sir.
THE COURT? Lot of times, under oath, you have to say 

something about people you might not like to say otherwise.
I think that's what he's saying.

All right. Go ahead.
BY MR. CALDWELL?

0. Now, with reference to the principals meeting in August 
of last year, Mr. Glover, when Mrs. Elder was introduced as the 
new principal of East Pike Elementary, you made some objection, 
did you not?

A. Yes.
g. Is it a principal's duty to make selection of other 

principals?
A. No.
Q, Was it in fact any of your business or that of any of

1 S :J



170

the other principals, contractually, as to what person was 
selected for another principalship?

A. Yes, in a sense it would have been.
Q. All right, sir. Tell me in what sense.
A. In the sense that it was based on race.
Q. How was it based on race?
A. Mrs. Elder was selected to be the principal of an 

all-black school, and I had talked with the Superintendent. I 
discussed with him the possibility, that is, the plan, the Pike 
County Board of Education had with HEW, and I asked him flatly if 
the schools were consolidated, the high school at Concord and 
high school at Zebulon were consolidated, if he selected Mrs. 
Elder on the basis of her certification and qualification, would 
he do the same thing for the high school principal, would he look 
around in the county and find a person with the highest certifica 
tion and longer years of tenure and appoint him principal of that 
school.

And his answer was, No.
Q. And this was prior to Mrs. Elder's meeting?
A. That was prior to Mrs. Elder's meeting.
0. Was there in fact an opening at the high school?
A. In the plan, there was in fact an opening.

THE COURTS Well, —
BY MR. CALDWELL t

Q. Had Mr. ~

1 7 o



171

MR. CALDWELL: Excuse me, Your Honor.
THE COURTs It has nothing, perhaps, to do with the 

facts on which this case has to be decided, but wouldn't you 
say it's rather unfortunate, a rather unfortunate development 
if what you say is true, that your objection to Mrs. Elder 
was based on race and his objection to you was based on race, 
hadn't this thing degenerated into a sort of titfor tat 
proposition?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, Your HOnor. There would be a
difference. In my objection, I was objecting to the elimina
tion of the extent of black folks from the teaching profession,
and his --

THE COURT: All right. Go ahead, and then I want to
ask you another question.

THE WITNESS: And his objection would have simply been
on a, based on the fact that he didn't want a black person 
to be principal of a school where white children were attend
ing.

THE COURT: Even if your replacement was to be another
black person?

THE WITNESS: We're talking about two different schools
now.

THE COURT: Well, yes, but I say, do you concede that
your objection to Mrs. Elder was based on race? You had said 
you had no objection to her personally or to her qualifications,

17i



172

it was based solely on race.
You say that his discharge of you was based solely on 

race and this, you say, is true although a black person was 
selected tentatively at least to succeed you.

So I say, isn't it unfortunate that it appears that the 
whole situation on both sides has degenerated into a tit for 
tat proposition?

You kicked my dog, I kick your cat. And the only people 
who are suffering are the children of the county, white and 
black.

THE WITNESS: No, sir, Your Honor. I, there would be
a difference.

As I stated before, the plan, as I see it, would be to 
put a black principal over a school that would be more of a 
rubber stamp and not in fact principal of the school.

THE COURT: Well, now, we're talking here about racial -—
your evaluation of him as a rubber stamp may be correct, I 
don't know the man, of course —  but do you think that's a 
decision that you are permitted to make?

THE WITNESS: Well, from the things that happened, may I
could explain that, in March, according to a press release, 
the Board of Education hired a curriculum director and made 
this curriculum director parttime Superintendent.

This person is white and her office, this is a new office 
is supposed tote at Pike Consolidated School. She would be

1 ? 2



173

Assistant Superintendent with an office in Pike Consolidated 
School.

This,, in effect, could mean that the person who is 
principal would in fact not be principal, and I feel that it 
was felt that I couldn't be that person.

THE COURT; Now, this is the person who had been 
defeated for county school Superintendent some place else?

THE WITNESS; No, sir. This is another person, entirely.
THE COURT; Well, this job apparently has not been

mentioned before.
Is this the first time somebody has been employed for thi s

job?
THE WITNESS; This is the first time.
THE COURT; It's a new office?
THE WITNESS; It's a new office. Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And I gather a white lady was employed?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And she was to be stationed at, at your

school?
THE WITNESS; Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Which I judge you rather resented?
THE WITNESS: Well, if I had been appointed principal

of that school, I couldn't see the necessity for it.
THE COURT: Had there been, prior to the episode in

September, had there been any announced plan in Pike County at

17 3



any time;, formally or informally, toward integration of 
faculty?

Mrs. Elder was —  your colored principal or negro
principal resigned, and somewhere in the pleadings I seem to 
recall he resigned to take a job with the Government, I 
believe, did he not?

THE WITNESS; I don't know.
THE COURT; He didn't resign because he was forced to, 

did he?
THE WITNESS; You mean Mr. Frazier?
THE COURT; Yes.
THE WITNESS; Mr. Frazier took a similar job elsewhere. 
THE COURT; I mean he voluntarily resigned?
THE WITNESS; Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And Mrs, Elder was selected to replace him?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: At that time, or prior to that time, had

there been any announced policy or practice or plan to 
commence integration of faculty?

THE WITNESS; Yes, sir. We —
THE COURT; Among the races as between black and white? 
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. We had one black person who

was a fulltime teacher at the Pike County High School, which 
is predominantly white? and we had two parttime teachers at 
our school, which is predominantly black? and we had one or

174

174



175

two parttime teachers at the other predominantly black school.
THE COURT: So, there had been at least a little bit of

faculty integration?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Well, was the placing of Mrs. Elder there

in furtherance of that plan? I gather you say it was not 
in furtherance of the faculty integration, but was a part of 
the plan for eliminating a negro principal?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. That would have made three
white principals and one black principal.

THE COURT: Whereas there had been two and two?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Now, let me ask you another question, which 

was suggested by one of your answers while ago.
What has been the trend in recent years, let’s say, the 

last two years, with respect to the number of black teachers 
employed as compared to the number of white teachers employed ■

THE WITNESS: We have —
THE COURT: —  and has the number of black teachers been

on the increase or on the decrease?
THE WITNESS: The number of black teachers has been some

what, well, it decreased for some years, and then it kind of 
pared off the last few years, and it's been about the same for 
the last five years or six years.

THE COURT: Is there any trend that's discernible now, I

1 7 5



176

mean in , in recent hirings, has there been any discrimination 
or unfairness, in your opinion or observation, in the number 
of black teachers hired as compared with the number of white 
teachers hired?

THE WITNESS: If we could use this as aids, and teachers,
I would say yes, this is one of the things that happened in 
September, immediately when Mrs. Elder was made principal, 
the black community lost a black secretary, I believe about 
two black aids, and there, it is my understanding, and I don't 
know this to be a fact, but that there would have been an 
additional white teacher, a black teacher would not have been 
hired.

THE COURT: Were these formerly black persons, aids and
so forth, discharged?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And whites were hired in their place?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: That was sort of, I gather Mr. Frazier had

a staff when he was principal?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And what you're saying is, and that I

suppose was a black staff?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And what you're saying is that when Mrs.

Elder came in, she was going to bring her staff with her, and

1 7 b



177

it was a white staff?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Resulting in discharge of the black staff of

the former principal?
THE WITNESS; Yes, sir.
THE COURT; And so, it was not merely resentment over 

a new white principal, but, substituting for a black 
principal or to succeed a black principal, but the substitu
tion of a new staff?

THE WITNESS; Yes, sir. All this was part of it.
THE COURT; Well, what does the staff of a principal 

consist of?
THE WITNESS; Well, my staff would be a secretary, and 

then I have an aid which is a parttime secretary, but you 
would have other aids that would be considered as part of the 
teaching force, I would say.

THE COURT; You mean —  are aids actually teachers who 
are simply designated as aids?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. They are teachers, teachers to
aid the classroom teachers.

THE COURT; That would not be true of a secretary?
I assume she's a fulltime secretary?

THE WITNESS; Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Well, who exercised the privilege of

discharging Mr. Frazier's aids and replacing them with white

1 7 /



178

aids „

THE WITNESS : According to my information, upon talking
with the aids, the Superintendent stated to them that Mrs. 
Elder had a right to name her secretary and to name the aids
in her school.

THE COURT; Is that customarily true?
THE WITNESS; No, sir, not for a person going into a 

school that has a secretary and aids. You would assume that 
these people are already there, they are employed.

THE COURT; All right, sir.
BY MR. CALDWELL:

Q. Mr. Glover, who employs and discharges your aids?
A. I recommend the aids. They are employed by the

Superintendent.
Q. How about the secretary?
A. I recommend the secretary, but the secretary is employed 

by the Superintendent.
But if —  and when I went to Concord, we had a secretary, and 

therefore I did not recommend a secretary. We had to keep her.
Q. All right. Now, —

THE COURT; You said you had to keep her? You mean you 
had no choice in the matter?

THE WITNESS: I had no choice.
BY MR. CALDWELL:

Q. Who told you you had no choice in the matter?

1 7 d



179

k  The Superintendent told me that I had no choice in the 
matter.

Ql How about next year?
A. The next year I did have some choice in the matter.
Q, Did you make a change?
k  She left.
Ql All right. Now, isn8t it true that one of the aids of

Mr. Frazier resigned to go off to school?
A. I don't know whether this person resigned or, before or 

after Mr. Frazier left. I don't know.
Q. Which one of them was it that told you that she had been 

discharged?
k  We had a Mrs. Lewis who was not certain of her job.
Qt Now, did she tell you she had been discharged?
k  She was not certain of her job. No, she did not say she 

had been discharged as such.
Qi Well, then -- go ahead, who was the next one?
k  Then we had, I believe, an Evans and then we had a — •
Ql What did Evans state to you?
k  I don't know whether I talked with Evans or not, but it 

was my understanding that she would not have a job.
Ql From whom?
k  It was my understanding from the parents organization 

that she would not have a job.
0. Now was this brought up at a, an official parents meeting

7 3



180

and they told you they had investigated?
A This was discussed* yes.
Q. Who discussed it?
A The parents.
0. Well* which parents?
A I couldn't say which parents. This was a general

discussion.

Q. And they told you that Mrs. Lewis was not certain* and 
they didn't know about Evans* is this correct?

A That's correct.
Q. All right. Now* who was the next one?
A The next one was a Miss Stanley.
0. What happened to her?
A Miss Stanley told me that she was not, and in fact she 

did not work the first two weeks of school.
0. Was not what?

THE COURT: Now wait just a minute. We’re talking about
what you understand and what someone told you.

What actually happened* did all these people actually 
leave their jobs?

THE WITNESS: For a while, it is my understanding that
all of them lost their jobs. But I'm certain that Miss 
Stanley lost her job in the process.

THE COURT: You say for a while* you mean, what* Mrs.
Elder* I judge resigned* did she* after some time?

1 6t)



181

THE WITNESS? Yes, she resigned after about two weeks. 
THE COURT? And who replaced her?
THE WITNESS : A Mrs. Miller.
THE COURT: And did Mrs. Miller then go forward with the

staff formerly held by Mr. Frazier.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: With one exception?
THE WITNESS: Yes, with one exception, I believe.
THE COURT; So, what happened was, Mr. Frazier had a 

black staff, Mrs. Elder, did she ever actually bring in a 
white staff?

THE WITNESS: I understand, it is my understanding that
she did. I did not visit the school as such.

THE COURT: So, Mr. Frazier had a black staff, Mrs.
Elder brought in a white staff, she was replaced by Mrs. 
Miller who brought in a black staff?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I don't know how it happened, but
this is what happened.

THE COURT: Well, sort of some more tit for tat, isn't
it?

THE WITNESS: No, sir. It's not the same thing.
THE COURT: Well, what's the difference?
THE WITNESS: The difference is that these are black

people that were eliminated, and jobs were created for white 

people.

161



182

THE COURT? Then the white people resigned and the blacks 
were put back in?

THE WITNESS t Yes* The black people resigned and these 
people who had been previously hired --

THE COURT? Mr. Glover, how do you think we're ever 
going to solve the school problems of Pike County if each 
side continues this attitude?

THE WITNESS? The attitude will be overweighed, Your 
Honor, in one instance, let's say we have ten black aids and 
secretaries and we have ten whites, but when somebody comes 
over and says we're going to have fifteen whites and five 
blacks, this is elimination —

THE COURT: This isn't what happened, according to what
you said.

THE WITNESS? Yes, sir. You had white, you still •— •
THE COURT: It depended on who the principal was, whether

they were all white or all black. If you had a black principal 
with a black staff, substituted a white principal, they brought 
a white staff, for some reason, sufficient to herself, and 
then she left and was succeeded by a black principal with 
another black staff, so it looks to me like this is a pork 
barrel proposition. Whichever race gets hold of the office 
puts its people in there.

THE WITNESS: You see, this is what happeh5* You got four
schools. You still have the white staff at the two white

IH2



183

schools, but you only had, you had a white staff at one 
black school, so now you've got a white staff at three 
black schools and if you put all white folks in leadership -- 

THE COURT? You'll have to explain that a little bit.
This is, I hadn't, we haven't been into that.

We were talking about the one that Mr. Frazier, Mr. 
Frazier’s school, followed by Mrs. Elder, followed by Mrs. 
Miller, now how did this three-to-one ratio come about?

THE WITNESS: We still had two all-black schools and
two-all white schools.

We still had a —
THE COURT: I see. You say this disturbed the equilibrium

between the two.
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Instead of two and two, it was three and one?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. CALDWELL:
0. How long in fact did that stand, Mr. Glover, that ratio?

&
A It stood for about two weeks or until Mrs. Elder was 

replaced by Mrs. Miller.
0. Right. Now, you stated a minute ago that Mrs. Stanley 

was part of Mr. Frazier's staff, is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
0. Isn't it true that she was employed at your school —

1 3 3



184

A. She --
& and asked for a transfer over to that school?
A. Yes, sir. And she had been employed and accepted for 

employment.
£). But she was actually a part of your staff rather than 

Mr. Frazier's staff, isn't that true?
A. Not for the * 68-69 school term; no, sir.
0. Did she ever work over there?
A. Yes, sir.
0- When did she work over at East Pike?
A. '67-68 school year.
0. She worked at East Pike?
A. At Pike Consolidated.
Q, When did she work at East Pike?
A. She was employed to work for the term. *-6 8-6 9.
0. Did she in fact work there?
A. After two weeks, she started work and worked all of the

term.
Q. Mr. Glover, as to percentages,, what is the percentage of 

the white students as compared with the black students in Pike 
County School system, or by saying it the reverse, whichever one 
you choose to take?

A. I would say it is approximately fifty-fifty.
Q. All right, sir. Now, what is the composition as to

1 o 4
faculty?



185

h  At my last count,, it was approximately fifty-fifty.
Ql Did you not state under oath that to the best of your 

knowledge all black teachers with the exception of two that taught 
in the school system last year, had been offered contracts for the 
coming year?

A. That6 s true.
THE COURT: What happened to those two?
Do you contend race was involved in their elimination?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. Those two people would have

been Mrs. Betts and Mrs. Batts.
BY MR. CALDWELL:

Q, Now, Mr. Glover, with reference to Mrs. Batts, are you 
aware of how Mrs. Batts' salary was paid?

A. I have an idea. I'm not aware.
Qi What is your idea?
A. My idea is that she was employed as a curriculum 

director using Pike County as a base, but in cooperation with 
Taylor County, which would mean that they would share her salary 
equally, and under some setup, Pike County would pay her one year 
and Taylor County would pay her the other year.

Q. Do you know whose turn it is for the coming year?
A. She told me that it would be Taylor County's term for

the following year.
0. So, then, she would be employed by Taylor County the 

coming year?
I b 5



186

M- Nof sir.. I understand she always received her contract
from Pike County.

Q. Where did she perform her services?
A. In Pike and Taylor Counties.
Q. Where was her home?
A. Her home, I believe , is in Fort Valley.
0- Then she commuted from Fort Valley to Taylor or to Pike, 

whichever her duties called for?
A. I assume so.
Qt Then her base of operation was Fort Valley, and her 

employment was in two counties, Taylor and Pike, is this correct?
JL When you say base of operation, I don't believe I follow

you.
Q. You said a minute ago that her base of operation was 

in Pike, but she lives in, I assume you were talking about her 
residential base, and that she works fifty-fifty in two counties.

A. No, sir. I was talking about her contractual base.
0- Is that just for one year, last year?
A. No, sir. That has been the custom in the county for some 

eight or ten years.
THE COURT; Is she to still continue in her duties,

regardless of where the contract is, is she still working for
both counties just as she always has?

THE WITNESS; No, sir. It’s my understanding that a
Mrs. Lorraine Williams has been hired as curriculum director

ldb



187

and part, and Assistant Superintendent. This would be the
job that was held by Mrs. Batts.

THE COURTS This is the new job that you spoke of while
ago?

THE WITNESS : Yes, sir.
BY MR. CALDWELL:

Q. Mr. Glover, did Mrs. Batts also tell you that Taylor 
County had told her they could not pay her this year?

A She told me that Taylor County told her that the county 
was delaying her position for a year.

& Well, this would be the coming year?
A Yes.
Q. All right. Did she also tell you that Mr. Daniel had 

offered her a teaching job, fulltime?
A Yes.
Q. All right.

THE COURT; That would be in Taylor County?
MR. CALDWELL: No, Mr. Daniel, in Pike.
THE COURT: Oh, in Pike. Yes.

BY MR. CALDWELL:
0. Did she also inform you that she had stated she did not 

want a teaching job?
A Yes.
Q. And that Taylor County had told her that they would have 

to delay her contract for one year?

1 b 7



188

k Yes.

you know any more about it?
THE WITNESS: No, sir. It is not for lack of funds,

according to my understanding.
You see, from the State Department of Education, each 

county would earn so many section twelve people. Pike 
County earned a half, and Taylor County earned a half, so it 
would be possible for these two counties to exchange the use 
of a person.

THE COURT: Do you know whether for lack of funds or do

THE COURT: I see what you're saying.
Then Pike hired somebody else to do the job, which meant 

they wouldn't pay their half, and then Taylor said they couldn 
carry the whole burden.

Is that what you're saying?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. Either way. Either way. It 

would be the same thing.
THE COURT: All right. We're getting far afield, perhaps

through my own question.
MR. CALDWELL: With Your Honor's permission, I would like

to ask one or two more questions along that line.
THE COURT: All right.

BY MR.CALDWELL:

t

0. And isn't it true and didn't you just state that Pike 
County paid one year's salary and Taylor County the next year, unde::

I b t i



189

an arrangement with the State Board of Education, or Department of 
Education?

A. Yes, I would assume it was under an arrangement with the
Department of Education.

Q. And the coming school year was Taylor's year to pay the
nine thousand dollars, is that true?

A. Yes, I understand that was the arrangement.
Q. All right.

MR. CALDWELL: That's all I have.
THE COURT: All right. Anything else, Mr. Rindskopf?
MR. RINDSKOPF: You can come down.
THE COURT: All right, sir. You may step down.

0O0

(Whereupon, the witness was excused from the witness stand at 
3:24 p.m.)

0O0

THE COURT: Let me ask you one more question — ■
come back and have a seat again, Mr. Glover —

0O0

D. F. GLOVER,
Upon resuming the stand, testified further as follows:

THE COURT: What, Mr. Glover, are you seeking in this
lawsuit? Restoration of your position?

THE WITNESS: I'm seeking the restoration in my position
as principal of the Senior High School of Pike County.

I B s



190

tranquility in the Pike County schools for the year *69 and
' 70?

THE WITNESS: I think it is going to be tough. But not
without hope.

THE COURT: Do you think that the controversy over you
is going to make it easier or harder -- not that it 
necessarily has anything to do with your legal rights one way 
or the other, Mr. Glover.

THE WITNESS: I don’t think the controversy over me would
make it necessarily any harder, but I do think that the 
controversy would make it harder.

THE COURT: You mean, I don't know, I don't know that
I understand you.

You think at best it’s going to be difficult to bring 
about harmony between the races and tranquility in the school 
system?

Now I understand that this particular controversy and 
the events of the last few weeks of school, which I judge 
were precipitated by the failure to retender your contract, 
is that going to make it more difficult or less difficult?

THE WITNESS: I think it's going to make it more difficult 
It would have been better had we not had the incident.

THE COURT: All right, sir. You may step down.
MR. CALDWELL: Your Honor please, may I ask him one other

THE COURT: What do you think the prospects are for

1 9 0



191

question?

0O0

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. CALDWELL:

Q. Mr. Glover, for the best interest of any school system, 
is the cooperation between the Superintendent and his principals 
necessary?

A. Yes, sir. It is necessary.
MR. CALDWELL: Thank you.

0O0

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. RINDSKOPF:

0. At any time during this school year, did Mr. Daniel tell 
you that you were not cooperating with him?

A No, sir.
0- Did he ever tell you to cease doing something or to start 

to do something?
A. No, sir.

MR. RINDSKOPF: You can come down.
THE COURT: All right. You may step down.

oOo
(Whereupon, the witness was excused from the witness stand at 3:27 
p.m.)

oOo

THE COURT: Yes, sir.

i s i



192

MR. RINDSKOPF: Call Mrs. Louise Batts. She was not here
when the witnesses were called, Your Honor, but she has 
arrived and she has remained out of the Courtroom.

THE COURT: All right.
CLERK: Raise your right hand, please.
Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give 

in the issue joined between D. F. Glover versus Harold T. 
Daniel, et al, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, so help you God?

MRS. BATTS: I do.
CLERK: Have a seat please, ma'am.

0O0

LOUISE BATTS,
Having first been duly sworn and called as a witness in behalf of 
the plaintiff, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. RINDSKOPF:

Q. Would you state your name, please?
A. Louise Batts.
Q, Mrs. Batts, you'll have to speak louder so we —
A. Louise Batts.
0. —  can hear you back here. Okay.
Have you held a position with the Pike County Schools this 

past year?

THE COURT: All right*, Mr. Rindskopf.

1 9 2



193

Q. What was that position?
A. Parttime curriculum director.
0, All right. And were you parttime also in Taylor County?
A. Yes.
0 Okay. Who paid your salary for that past year?
A. I got paid through Pike County.
0. Did Pikd County pay it all or did they get a contribution 

from Taylor, or do you know?
A I don't know. I just got paid through Pike County.
Q. Okay. And you were a parttime curriculum director?
A. Yes.
Q. What did this job entail?
A. Well, work with the curriculum and I mostly worked with 

the elementary teachers in methods, technique, lesson plans, and I 
also tested with the, for the reading, special reading group and 
scored the tests, and evaluated the tests and the reading program.

0, Okay. What is your educational background?
What is your educational background?
A. Well, where I finished college, you mean?
Q, Yes.
A. I received a BS Degree from the Fort Valley State College

Masters Degree from Tuskegee Institute, and I did additional studies 
with Atlanta University and also with the University of Georgia.

Q. All right. Do you have any certificates?

A. Yes,

193



194

Q. All right. Any others?
A. No.
Q. And how long have you been a curriculum director?
A Six years.
Q. Have you been shared between Pike and Taylor for these 

six years?
A. Five years between Pike and Taylor Counties.
Q. Okay. And which county did you work in before that?
A. I worked in Schley, Webster and Chattahoochee County in

8 62.
0. Okay. Now, what is your status going to be next year,

'69 and '70?
A. Well, I’m in a teaching job, I’ll have a teaching 

position next year.
0. Where will you teach?
A, Taylor County.
0. In Taylor County?
A. Yes.
Q. And you live in Fort Valley, —
A. Yes.
0. -- is that right?
How long of a commute is that?
A, Well, fourteen miles from Peach County to Taylor County. 

That's Fort Valley to Taylor County.
m

A. Yes. I have a curriculum director certificate, five year



195

(X Okay. How, why aren't you going to be a curriculum
director next year?

A. Well, my job was postponed for a year.
0. What do you mean when you say it was postponed?
A. Well, 1 won't have it for next year. It will be postponed

for a year.
Q. You expect to have it again in 1970-71?
A. Well, I don't know. I was told it was postponed for a

year.
Q. And is that for both counties?
A. Well, that was the Board of Education, Board members of 

Taylor County postponed it for a year.
Q. Well, what did they do in regard to your job over in 

Pike County?
A. Well, since I was working in both counties, I just 

presume I was out for Pike County because I was shared with both 
of them, you know.

0. Okay. When did you learn this?
A. I believe it was in May I learned it, that the job was 

postponed.
Q, In May. Okay.
Had they gone ahead and gotten a new curriculum director in 

Pike County before May?
A. I think so. I saw it in the paper they had one before

May.
1 9 5



196

0. Before May?
A. Yes.
0. I see. And who was this?
A. Well, Mr. Daniel told me they had, I believe, Miss

Williams.
Q. Is she black or is she white?
A. She's a white lady.
Q, All right. And, in other words, they went ahead and they 

got a new curriculum director before you knew you weren't going to 
be it, is that right?

A. Yes, before I knew I was, you know, I didn't have a job 
in the, you know, in both counties, they had one.

0. I see. Is she a fulltime curriculum director or is she 
a parttime curriculum director?

A. I, I think Mr. Daniel told me she would be parttime.
Q. Just like you were?
A. Well, I don't know just like I was, but he told me part- 

time, and she would help in the office the other part time.
Q. I see. Did he ever offer you that kind of job?
A. No.
0. Do you make more money or less money as a teacher than 

you did as a curriculum director?
A. Less „
0. Less?
A. Less.

1 9 b



197

Q. All right. Now,, since you've been a curriculum director, 
have you had a chance to observe Mr. Glover's school?

A Yes.
Q. How frequently would you go to Mr. Glover's school?
A< I will go once, on Wednesdays, and some Fridays, because

I was, would go, in one county one Friday and the other county the 
other Friday.

And then I would get around to each school maybe about one 
Friday per month, since I was working with four schools, and, 
therefore, sometime I would be there twice a week and sometime 
once a week.

0. Okay. How long have you been in the teaching profession? 
I don't think I asked you that.

A. Twenty-six years.
Q. How does Mr. Glover's school compare with the others that 

you have seen and visited in these twenty-six years?
A. Well, his is as good as any other schools I have gone in.
Q. Is it better than some?
A. Well, about as good as the others I have gone in.
0. Okay. Have you had any interaction with Mr. Glover in

the course of your job?
A. Yes.
Q. Is he, from the standpoint of his job, capable, in your 

opinion?

19 7
A. To me he has performed it well.



198

MR. RINDSKOPF: Okay. The witness is with you.
0O0

CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. CALDWELL:

Q. Mrs. Batts, I believe you said that it would be Taylor 
County Board that postponed your job for a year?

A. That's right. Taylor. That's, the Taylor County Board.
Q. Right. Now, have you ever served as a principal? Have 

you ever served as a principal of a school?
A. No, I haven't.
Q. Have you ever served as Superintendent any place?
A. No, I haven't.
Q. Then, it has not been your duty as a principal or 

Superintendent to evaluate other teachers for their profession in 
such capacity, has it?

A. 1 didn't understand the question.
0. Has it ever, have you ever had employment that required 

you to evaluate teachers as a principal would or as a Superintendent 
would?

A. Well, I evaluate teachers. I have evaluated teachers.
I don’t know whether it was the same way the principals or the 
Superintendents did it, but I have evaluated teachers.

0. But have you done it in the same capacity as they?
A. Not the same capacity, but I have evaluated them.

MR. CALDWELL: Thank you. That's all I have.

1 9o



199

THE COURT; Did 1 understand that you were also offered 
employment as a teacher in Pike as well as in Taylor?

THE WITNESS; I have been offered —
THE COURT: For the coming year?
THE WITNESS: For a teacher, that's right.
THE COURT: And you chose Taylor?
THE WITNESS: Well, yes.
THE COURT: Is that closer to your home?
THE WITNESS: It is closer.
THE COURT: All right. You may go down.

0O0

(Whereupon, the witness was excused from the witness stand at 
3:37 p.m.)

oOo
MR. RINDSKOPF: Mr. Halley Derr.

oOo
HALLEY DERR,

Having first been duly sworn and called as a witness in behalf of 
the plaintiff, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. RINDSKOPF:

0. Would you state your name, please?
A. Halley Derr.
Q. You were sworn this morning, weren't you, Mr. Derr?
A. Yes, I was.

19 d



200

o. All right. Where do you live?
A, 1800 Memorial Drive, Southeast.
o. In Atlanta?
A. Yes it is.
0. Did you hold a position with the Pike County Board of

Education last year?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What was that position?
A. Teacher, social studies and French.
Q- And where did you do your teaching?
A.
0.

At Pike Consolidated High.
Okay. And do you have a contract to teach with them

again next year?
A. Yes, I do.
o. To teach the same subjects?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. What grades did you teach?
A. Taught tenth, eleventh and tx-zelth.
& What is your educational background?
A. I have a BS Degree with a DT4 certificate.
o. Have you done any work beyond your BS Degree?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. But you don’t have a Masters Degree yet?
A. No, I haven't.
Q. All right. How long have you taught at Pike County



201

A. Taught there for two years.
Q. And hoxv long have you been in teaching?
A. I've been in teaching for eight years.
0. Where have you taught before that?
A. Previously, I taught in McRae, Georgia.
Q. In McRae?
A. Yes.
0. What county is that?
A. Telfair County.
Q. Okay. What did you teach over there?
A. Social studies and French.
Q. All right. How does Pike County Consolidated compare with

the other schools in which you have taught?
A. Well, I would say that the Pike County Consolidated 

School could be classed as superior over the school that I worked 
in previously.

0. Okay. Have you had a chance to interact with the 
principal at Pike Connty Consolidated since you've been teaching 
there?

A. Yes, I have.
Q. And how would you describe those interactions?
A. Well, I would describe the interactions as being very

good. I would consider the principal a very good administrator.
0. School runs smoothly?
A. Yes.
— kll O 1



0. Has he had a chance to observe you at your teaching?
A. Yes, he has.
Q. Does he do this throughout the year?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And has he made suggestions to you, afterwards?
A. Yes, he has.
0. What sort of suggestions?
A. Well, he has always asked that the students be included 

as much as possible in the activities that take place in the 
classroom; that lesson plan should always be prepared prior to 
teaching a lesson.

Of course, that bulletin boards should be kept at least 
monthly and, of course, they should be tied in with the unit in 
which you're working on.

0. Have these suggestions helped you in your teaching?
A. Yes, he has.

MR. RINDSKOPF: Okay. The witness is with you.
MR. CALDWELL: No questions. You may come down.
THE COURT: During all of your tenure at Pike, have you

lived in Fulton?
THE WITNESS: No, I lived in Pike while I workdd there.
THE COURT: Are you planning to commute next year or are

you going to move back to Pike?
THE WITNESS: I plan to live there.
THE COURT: Live in Pike?

202



BY MR.

THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: I see. You may go down.

0O0

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
RINDSKOPF:

Q. You're just living up here for the summer?
A. Yes, sir.

THE COURT: That's why I didn't understand whether this
was a permanent resident.

MR. RINDSKOPF: Yes, sir.
0O0

(Whereupon, the witness was excused from the witness stand at 
3:14 p.ni.)

0O0

Having

MR. RINDSKOPF: Mrs. Margaret Walls.
0O0

MARGARET WALLS,
first been duly sworn and called as a witness in behalf of

the plaintiff, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR.
g

RINDSKOPF:
Would you state your name, please?

A.
Q.

Margaret Walls.
You'll have to speak out a little bit louder so all of

us can hear you.



204

A. Margaret Walls.
0. Were you here this morning and sworn in as a witness?
A. Yes.
& All right. Where do you live, please?
A. I live at 4 8 Atlanta Avenue, in Atlanta, Georgia.
Q. In Atlanta?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you hold a position with the Pike County Board of 

Education this past year?
A. Yes.
Q. What was that position?
A. I'm an English teacher.
0. English teacher? What grade?
A. Seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth.
Q. Where did you teach?
A. Pike County Consolidated High School.
0. And were you living in Pike County during the school year 
A. Yes.
0. Do you have a contract to teach down there next year?
A. Yes, I do.
0- Are you just living up here for the summer?
A Yes.
0. Going to school?
A. Yes.

Okay. How many Years teaching experience have you had?

2 U 4

&



A. One. That was last year.
P- This last year was your first year?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. Okay.- Did you have a chance to observe Mr. Glover during 

that year?
A. Yes.
Q. On what sort of occasion?
A. Well, he was my principal.
Q. He was your principal?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see him regularly?
A. Every day.
Q. Did he ever sit in in your class?
A. Yes.
Q. How frequently would he do that?
A. Several times .
0. Several times?
A. Yes.
p. All right. Did he give you any suggestions after he 

sat in your class?
A. Yes.
Q. What sort of suggestions?
A. Well, he told me things like, try to get more class 

participation, try to have class, have my bulletin board fixed 
according to some of the things that I was discussing in my class,

. . .  ~  2 u t i

205



206

and make sure that I had lesson plans every day, prepare my lesson
before coming to class the next day.

0- Okay. Did these suggestions help you in your work?
A. Yes, it did.
o. Did you think that Mr. Glover ran a good school?
A. Yes.
o. Would you be willing to teach under him again?
A.
Q.

Yes.
Okay.
MR. RINDSKOPP: The witness is with you.

oOo
CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR.
Q.

CALDWELL:
Is that Miss or Mrs.? I'm sorry, I didn't —

A. Miss.
Q. Miss? Where are you now in school?
A. Where am I in school?

& Yes.
A. You mean college.

Q. Didn't you just testify that you were going to school now?
A. No, I'm not going to school. I just graduated from 

college last year.
0.
A.
o.

Well, Mr. Rindskopf —
Maybe I didn't understand.
—  asked you if you were up here attending school and you0.



207

said yes.

A. Well, maybe I misunderstood him. I'm not in school now. 
I graduated last year. I'm a teacher.

0. What other principal did you evaluate Mr. Glover with
when you said he was above the average principal?

A. According to the principals that I was under when I was 
in high school, I've never taught before, so I evaluated him 
according to the principals that, the principals that I kne\\? when 
I was in high school.

0. As a student?
A. Yes.

MR. CALDWELL: Thank you. That's all we have, Your
Honor.

MR. RINDSKOPF: You may come down.
oOo

(Whereupon, the witness was excused from the witness stand at 3:45 
p.m.)

oOo
THE COURT: Mr. Rindskopf, how many more witnesses do you

have whose testimony will constitute a testimonial to the 
efficiency and helpfulness of plaintiff?

MR. RINDSKOPF: I have three or four, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, is there anything unique about their

testimony or can't it be stipulated that if called they would 
testify to the same effect as the last two witnesses?



208

MR. RINDSKOPF: I don't think there's anything particular],
unique. Some of them are teachers, some are parents.

THE COURT: What are their names?
MR. RINDSKOPF: Annie Maude Hines; Leola Barnes; Mrs.

Elora Collier; Mrs. Samanna Wall. Those would be the ones,
Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you have any objection to that, Mr.
Caldwell?

MR. CALDWELL: Stipulating that they would testify to
him operating a good school?

THE COURT: Yes.
MR. CALDWELL: No, sir. I have no objection.
THE COURT: And somewhat in the tenor of the last two

witnesses, are these teachers who served under him or under 
him?

MR. RINDSKOPF: These are mostly parents, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Parents?
MR. RINDSKOPF: Who have had a chance to observe their

children going to his school and visit the schools themselves.
THE COURT: Well, pick out one of them and we'll stipulate:

whatever they'll, we better not have parents stipulating to 
what teachers have testified.

MR. CALDWELL: I understood them to be teachers.
THE COURT: That's what I thought.
Pick out one of your parents, if you have a representative



209

MR. RINDSKOPF: All right,
THE COURT: Call that one and we'll stipulate that the

others, if they would -- that they would testify similarly? 
MR. RINDSKOPF: All right. Just a moment, Your Honor.
We call Mrs. Leola Barnes.
Have a seat, Mrs. Barnes.

0O0

MRS. LEOLA PARKS,
Having first been duly sworn and called as a witness in behalf of 
the plaintiff, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. RINDSKOPF:

0. Would you state your name, please?
A. Leola, Mrs. Leola Parks.
Q. Mrs. Barnes , —
A. Parks.
0. Parks?
A. P-a-r-k-s.
0 Okay, I had the name wrong. Pardon me.
A Yes.
Q. Were you sworn as a witness this morning?
A. Yes, sir.
0. Okay. How many children do you have, Mrs. Parks?
A. I have eight.
0. Eight? Are any of those children in school in Pike

L* u y



210

County?
A. I have two.
Q. Where do they go to school?
A,

P-
Consolidated.
Pike County Consolidated?

A. Pike County Consolidated.
o. All right. What grades are they in?
A, One is in the eighth and one is in the eleventh.
Q. What about your other children? Have they gone to school

in Pike County?
A. All; yes, sir.
Q. And are they through with school?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Which school did they go to?
A. Pike County Consolidated.
Q. Okay. Did all of your children go to school when Mr.

Glover was over there?
A. Well, they went to school some under Mr. Glover, the 

oldest one did.
Q.
A.

When he was over at East Pike?
Yes, sir. But she didn't go, see, he was at Zebulon

when she was at Concord, and when he come to Concord, the other 
one went under Mr. Glover.

Q, Okay. Have you had a chance to visit the school that he 
runs over there?

21 o



211

A Yes, sir.

Q Have you had a chance to look through it?
A Yes, sir.

Q What did you think of it?
A Well, it was real nice to me. Looked good to me.
Q Did they seem to be doing a good job?
A Yes, sir.
Q Was the school clean?
A Yes, sir.
Q Pardon me?
A Yes, sir.
Q Okay. What about your children? Did they get a good

education?
A Yes, sir.

Q
A

In that school? 
Yes, sir.

Q Did they have a lot of homework to do?
A Plenty.
Q Okay. Would you be willing to have other children of

'ours to go to school under Mr. Glover?
A Yes, sir.
Q Okay. Fine. Thank you.

0O0

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. CALDWELL;

21 i



212

& I'ro sorry, I didn't get your name. Would you give it to 
me, please?

A. Leola Parks. Mrs. Leola Parks.
Q. Mrs. Parks, what is your educational background,please?
A. The last —  where I went to school at?
Q. No, how much education do you have and from where?
A. I went to school at the old McCavey, at the, you know,

they had a little school, they hadn't integrated when I quit
school. I vent to the eighth grade.

Q. Went to the eighth grade?
A. Yes, sir.
o. All right. Nov;, six of your children have already

finished school?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, how many of them graduated from high school?
A. All of them except two.
o. Two of them stopped school?
A. No, two of them, all of them but one, one, all of them

finished school but one. Six of them finished school, one finished 
school through the eleventh grade, the older one.

Q.

A.
One through eleventh?
And they put on the twelth, and she didn't go back. Her

father got sick and she didn't go back.
The others finished through the twelth.

0- The others finished through the twelth?
2i z



213

How many of them went on to college?
A. Hone.
0- None of them?
A. No.

Q. All right. How often do you go to Pike Consolidated 
School?

A. Well, I goes, I went pretty regular, I goes to everything
they have to do, and then I visit the schools some days, some weeks

Q. When they have open house?
A. Yes, sir. And I go other days. I goes up there.
Q. Do you go in and sit in the classrooms?
A. Yes, sir.
Q, Which teachers have you sat through, please?
A. I sat with Miss Williams, and I sat with Miss Mays and 

I sat with, I can't think of that other teacher. I set with several 
teachers, with my children's teacher.

Q. What grade does Miss Williams teach?
A. At the time, she was teaching the third grade, I believe.
Q. All right. When was this?
A. It was when Patricia was in school. It was when Patricia

was in school and she finished last year.
I went all during the time that she was up there.
Q. This was when Patricia was in the third grade and she 

finished last year?
A. Yes, sir. That's when I went to her room.

‘ V J “



0- Yeah. So then, we're talking about, about nine or ten 
years ago that you were in her room?

A. Yes, when I went in her room, and when Arthur was in her 
room, my grandson, last year.

Q. You went in there last year?
A. Yes, sir.
0. With Arthur, your grandson?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When were you in Miss Mays' room?
A. Oh, I go to her room ever time I goes up there.
Q. And how often is this?
A. Well, I was up there occasionally.
Q. All right. Have you ever had any position where you had

a responsibility to evaluate school administrators?
Have you ever had any position where it was necessary or 

imcumhent upon you to evaluate school administrators?
A. Where I had to go or something?
0. No, did you ever work any place where it was your duty

to evaluate school administrators?
A. No.

MR. RINDSKOPF: We'll stipulate that she hasn't
evaluated school administrators.

MR. CALDWELL: Oh,that she has not?
MR. RINDSKOPF: Yes.
MR. CALDWELL: That's good.

214

214



215

That's all I have.
THE COURT: All right. You may step down.

0O0

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. RINDSKOPF:

Q. Let me ask you just one more question.
You said that one child only went as far as the eleventh 

grade?
A. Yes. That's my older girl.
Q. That's all the grades they had over there at that time?
A. At that time, then.
Q, Then they didn't have the twelth grade?
A. They didn't have the twelth then.

MR. RINDSKOPF: Okay.
THE COURT: As I understand, your other parents would

testify substantially to the same effect?
MR. RINDSKOPF: Yes, sir. I think that's approximately

right.
THE COURT: Do you have any objection to a stipulation

to that effect?
MR. CALDWELL: That they would testify to essentially the

same thing, both direct and cross?
THE COURT: Of course, all of them don't have the same

number of children, but, that in substanee their testimony
would be the same.

2l5



216

MR. CALDWELL: All right, sir.
THE COURT: All right.
MR.CALDWELL: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right. Read the names of those

witnesses into the record, Mr. Rindskopf.
MR.RINDSKOPF: All right. Those would be Samanna

Wall, Annie Maude Hines, and Elnora Collins.
THE COURT: All right. Do you have any other evidence?
MR. RINDSKOPF: We would rest at this time, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, Mr. Caldwell?
MR. RINDSKOPF: I do have the name of one more testimonial,

and that would be Anthony Alexander, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Anything further, Mr. Caldwell?
MR. CALDWELL: Yes, sir. We have some witnesses we would

like to call.
THE COURT: All right, sir.
MR. CALDWELL: Miss Sue Snipes, please.
Miss Snipes, come around, please. Have a seat.

0O0

SUE SNIPES,
Having first been duly sworn and called as a witness in behalf of 
the defendant, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. CALDWELL:

§ Would you state your name, please?



217

A. Sue Snipes.
0. Miss Snipes, were you sworn this morning?
A. Yes.
0- Do you hold a position, Miss Snipes, that brings you 

into the Pike County School system?
A. Yes.
0. What is that position?
A. Reading consultant with the Educational Services Center, 

which serves seven school districts in the Griffin-Spalding area.
Q. Then, are you directly or indirectly employed by Pike 

County School system?
A. Indirectly.
Q, Do they pay a part of your salary?
A. I would assume they contribute some money toward the 

operation of this whole unit.
Q. O f  the entire unit?
A. Yes.
Q. You are paid directly from the Services Center?
A. Yes. The funds come through the Griff in-Spalding

school as the employing agency.
0. Yes, ma'am. Do you recall having attended a meeting in 

Pike County, Georgia, where members of Pike County School system 
and at least part if not all of the principals discussed certain 
first grade readers?

2 1  i

A. Yes.



218

Q. Could you tell us how this meeting came about and what 
your duty was in the meeting?

A. I had been working with the East Pike School through the 
year 1967, I believe it was, and near the end of the year, Mr. 
Daniel asked me about some problems related to the operation of 
the schools next year when the East Pike, first grades of the 
East Pike School and the Pike County Elementary School would be 
integrated.

And so, he invited me to talk with him about some of the 
problems which we saw that would be an issue.

So, out of this discussion, Mr. Daniel, we felt like that one 
of the things the system needed to do was to coordinate the 
reading materials, at least for first grades.

Nov; the Pike County Elementary School was using one series 
of materials", East Pike was using another series of materials, 
and the Consolidated School was using a different series of 
materials.

So, inasmuch as the East Pike and the elementary school were 
to be integrated next year, we felt like

THE COURT: You mean the then next year or, when you
say "next year" you mean the year just past?

THE WITNESS: Yes, for the 1968-69 —
THE COURT: '68-69?
THE WITNESS: —  term.

We felt like that a problem that would ease the operation

21 o



219

would be to take a look at the basic reading materials at 
least for first grades, and get these on some basis so that 
this would not be difficult with the first grade teachers.

Mr. Daniel also was looking toward the coming year when
THE COURT: '69-70?
THE WITNESS: -- when there would be further integration,

and he felt like that whatever we did then would help to ease 
the '60-70 operation, if we coordinated the materials.

BY MR. CALDWELL:
Q. How, Miss Snipes, would it ease the situation?
Would you explain it, since we're not school people,how would 

it ease it, how would it be better on the students?
ft. Well, instead of the children in one school working out 

of one material and then the children from another school, when the 
schools were put together, if the teachers had similar materials or 
the same materials, the children would not be at a disadvantage, 
and so it would be, besides serving the children in this sort of 
way, it would also make less expense for the Board, and the Board 
could provide the instructional materials they needed, if the 
materials were coordinated instead of being completely different 
in the different schools.

So out of this problem, then, Mr. Daniel said that he felt 
like the thing to do would be to call a meeting of first grade 
teachers, perhaps to talk about this, and to decide what to do about 
it.

2Iu



220

So, Mr. Daniel decided to call the meeting. And, I don't 
know how he did this, but he did tell me that the meeting was 
scheduled for a certain day and asked me to come meet with him 
on this particular day.

And so, I went to Pike County to Zebulon, to meet with the 
teachers and Mr. Daniel to help work on this problem.

We met, and Mr. Daniel was delayed in coming to the meeting, 
and inasmuch as most of the people were present afd the time of the 
meeting was there, I took the place of leadership in helping the 
teachers to look at the problem and, well, to present the problem 
to the teachers and principals and to talk about it.

And so, we outlined the situation as we saw it, the problem 
as we saw it, stating that one of the things we needed to do was 
to try to coordinate the reading materials for first grade and to 
get this squared away so that at least where the two schools were 
to be integrated for the, that year, that this would be taken care 
of.

But, we also pointed out that it would serve a purpose for this 
coming year.

And we had prepared an inventory of the basic reading materials 
that were available in the county. We showed this to the teachers, 
and laid the problem before them as being, to make a decision, which 
would be most economically feasible, as to which material would be 
most economically feasible to buy, so in the discussion, when we 
had presented this much information, Mr. Glover asked if it would be



221
possible to secure a multiethnic materials for use in the schools.

And we explained that the State Board regulations in terms of 
acceptable textbooks did not have multiethnic materials on the list, 
And that if it were not for this, that would be perfectly feasible 
to get the multiethnic materials.

And so, we talked a great deal about this business of the 
non-availability of multiethnic materials on the program, on the 
State listing, rather, and Mr. Glover just insisted that we needed, 
he needed multiethnic materials.

Well, ve agreed that he needed multiethnic materials, but in 
terms of policies from the State Board, which state, Order 
specifically these materials and these editions, which are listed 
in the book, we tried to help Mr. Glover see that at this point 
we did not see how it would be possible to secure the multiethnic 
materials.

Q. Did he accept this?
A. No, he insi i, and really demanded that Mr. Daniel

get the multiethnic materials.
Q. Contrary to the policies set down by the State Board of 

Education?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you explain to him they were not available since 

they were not on the list?
A. Yes, we talked ±>out it repeatedly.
Q, Did you have a list showing what was available?



222

A, I suppose we had a textbook list there. I'm sure we 
must have. I don't recall this particular point coming out.

But, of the materials which were in the system, we did have 
samples there to look at, and the teachers looked at these samples 
and examined them, and talked about the advisability of one or the 
other materials.

So, in the discussion, it just, well, I sort of withdrew from 
the discussion at this point, and had to let Mr. Daniel act in 
response to Mr. Glover's demands that they provide multiethnic 
materials.

So, we finally had to say, well, it seems sensible, and since 
we do have the American Book Company in greater quantity than we 
have of any other series, that this would be the materials which 
would be most economically feasible to be bought.

And out of talking about this a right good little bit, we 
laid down two or three things that we agreed upon, that, for the 
system, the adopted series would be the American Book Company 
series.

We also said that finances would not permit buying this 
material for all the grades in the school. Therefore, we felt like 
it would be wise to begin just with first grades and if we could 
begin, get this squared away with first grades in one year, the 
next year they could add another grade, the second grade; and the 
next grade, and materials for the third grade, and we repeated these 
two or three things as what we had agreed upon in the meeting,

9  9  9/W W



223

that afternoon.
Q. Did the teachers agree to this, that were present?
K  Yes, Mr. Daniel had them talk about the different

materials and give their opinion of them, and finally, they voted 
to say, well, we think this one will be all right.

Q. Did a majority vote for the American Book Company?
A. Yes. This was the agreement.
Q. And did you recite what the agreement or repeat what the 

agreement was?
A. Yes, tried to summarise this, two or three times, so that 

we would all understand.
This is what we have agreed upon and this is the framework 

within which we will operate.
0. Was it agreed there that Mr. Glover's school would 

continue to use the book he was presently using?
A. No.
0. The agreement was that you would use American Books

only?
A. A n y new materials to be ordered would be of the 

American Book Company series.
Q. Did you later have an occasion to see an order in the 

Superintendent's office sent in by Mr. Glover?
A. Yes. During the summer, some time, Mr. Daniel called me 

one day and said, "I thought we agreed at that meeting that we 
would use the American Book Company reading series?”



I said, "Well, I thought so, too."
He said, "Well, I've had an order from the Pike County 

Consolidated School which orders another series, not the American 
Book Company series at all."

So, and he said that "This is too expensive. There's too much 
money involved in this particular operation, but I want" —  

he was asking me if he understood correctly that we had agreed that 
the American Book Company series was the thing to be ordered, and 
I assured him that as I understood it, that that was what we had 
agreed upon.

So, I, I went down to Zebulon and they showed me this order, 
which was for another publication, not the American Book Company 
series at all.

So Mr. Daniel said then that he would, he thought the thing 
that he ought to do would be to send this back to Mr. Glover and 
ask Mr. Glover to revise it in terms of what had been agreed upon 
at the meeting.

I saw the order.
0. Right. Now, during the time that you withdrew somewhat 

from the discussion and Mr. Daniel and Mr. Glover then had their 
discussion as you recited a minute ago, could you detect whether 
either of them was irate or somewhat losing their temper?

A. Well, I think Mr. Glover was pretty demanding in saying 
that he would not agree to any series unless it were a multiethnic 
series.

224

224



225

THE COURT: Does the State enforce its requirement that
only certain publications be used a: -- let me ask it another 
way.

Does any part of the money used for textbooks involve 
State money?

THE WITNESS: All of this is State money. All of the
textbooks bought on State textbook funds is State money.

THE COURT: Well, do they expend their money for a book
not on their list?

THE WITNESS: Well, that v/as one of the reasons that I
tried to explain very carefully from my past experience with 
the State Department in buying books, that they expect people 
to operate in terms of these policies.

I've had requests previous to this for multiethnic 
materials that the State did not honor, and so, I was trying 
to save Mr. Daniel the embarrassment of trying to put in an 
order for something I felt like he might not get.

THE COURT: Well, at that time, didn't Mr. Glover have
some multiethnic books from another source, Roe, or somebody?

THE WITNESS: No, what he was using was not a multiethnic
edition. He was using an old Harper-Roe series, but it was 
not a multiethnic edition.

Now what he ordered was of a new Harper-Roe series which 
does have some tinted pictures in it.

MR„ CALDWELL: Excuse me just one second.



226

THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Still later, I believe, the American Book

Company came out with a multiethnic series?
THE WITNESS: Well, they had one available at that time,

but it was not on the State list.
Now, the thing that Mr. Glover finally ordered was this 

multiethnic edition. It is not listed in the state list.
However, I suppose that the State Department did honor 

it, since this is the material which he received, but this 
is a little out of the ordinary, and I don't know why they 
honored this when they say, Do not order anything except 
that which is listed here.

THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. CALDWELL:

Q. Did I understand you to say that previously you had 
had orders turned down?

A. Yes.
0. That were not on the approved list?
A. Yes.
Q. Miss Snipes, at this particular meeting after you had

enumerated the agreement as you understood it, did Mr. Daniel 
state that this would be the procedure to be followed by the Pike 

County System?
A. Yes.

THE COURT: Is that the order that was not honored?

2 21 j



227

0, Was the people there present that were there at the 
beginning, were all the people present when he made that statement? 

A. I think so.
0. Was Mr. Glover present?
A. I think he v/as. I don't recall his leaving before the 

meeting was over.
MR. CALDWELL: Thank you, ma'am. 
You may examine her.

oOo
CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. RINDSKOPF:
& Miss Snipes, was there ever a written memorandum made

as a result of this meeting?
A. Not that I know of.
& Nothing was ever written down as to what the policy

at the Pike County Board of Education —
A, No.
0. -- was?
A.
Q.

No.
How many teachers were at this meeting?

A.
0.

I do not know. 
Could you guess?

A. I would guess around, maybe fifteen, fifteen or twenty.

0. Fifteen or twenty? Not just first grade teachers?
A. No, there were some others.

dt dj (



228

Q. Other primary grades as well? 
ft. Yes.

0. How many of the teachers participated in the voting? 
ft- I do not know.
0. Were you there during the voting?
ft- Yes. I was there.
0. What was the vote?
ft. I do not know.
0. I mean what was the score? 
ft. Beg your pardon?
Q. What was the score in the vote? What was the tally?
ft. I don't recall.
0. You don't recall? All right.
Can you tell me what the race of the first grade teachers 

who were present at the meeting was?
ft. The race?
0. Yes.
ft. White and negro.
0. Okay. How many white and how many negro?
ft. I do not know.
0. You do not know? Okay.
Now, are you familiar with the policies that the State Board

of Education has in regard to textbooks? 
ft. Yes.
0. Why don't they approve multiethnic textbooks?

22 <0



229

A. Part of the explanation, from my experience, to Mr. 
Glover, was that I felt relatively sure that when the next 
adoption for reading books comes around, that the State Board 
would approve multiethnic materials and place them on the list. 
But that would have been two, at least two more years, and I 
tried to explain to Mr. Glover that we did not have time to wait 
for that time in order to get books on the list. And that for 
the time being, it seemed we would just have to go along with 
those materials which were on the list then.

Q. I see,
A. But in 1971, they will be making adoptions in reading, 

and I feel sure by that time, although I can't guarantee what 
they will do, but I feel like they will place multiethnic books 
on -the list.

0. You don't know why, then, the State doesn't approve 
of multiethnic books?

A. No.
Q. What about you as an educator? Do you approve of them?
A. Yes.
0. Would they be useful to use when you're going into an 

integrated system?
A. Certainly.
Q. Well, the State doesn't approve of the books. How did 

Mr. Glover wind up with multiethnic books?
A. 1 do not know. „ _

9 O w«C» *j>



Q- And these are American Boole Company books?
A. Yes.
Q. They fit in with the others in the system?
A. Yes.
Q. They fit in with the others in the system?
A. Yes.
0- If he had ordered American Book Company books right 

away instead of Harper-Roe books right away, would he have wound 
up with multiethnic books?

A. I think that, as I recall, in the State textbook list, 
the copyright date for the books which are available in 1966.

Mr. Glover ordered what is called the anniversary edition.
0- What's that?
A. I do not know what the publication date is on this

edition„
Q. Is that sometimes later than '66?
A. This is the multiethnic series. I do not know what the 

publication date is.
Q. All right.
A. But he did receive the anniversary edition?
0. Well, were these new books that he received?
A. Yes.
Q. They weren't old books?
A. No.

230

2 3 oa They weren't dated?



231

A. No.
Q. They were probably newer than the '66 books, wouldn’t you

think?
A I’m not sure.

o. Well, isn’t it a fact that multiethnic books didn't
become popular until rather lately?

A Yes.
o. And I believe you said that you saw Mr. Glover's request

or requisition, is that right?
A
Q.

Yes .
And what exactly did he request on the requisition? Whicl

books?
A Harper-Roe.
o. What year?
A The Harper-Roe series.

Q. What year?
A I don't know that.

0. Was it the 1966 edition or was it later?
A I do not know.
0. You don't know.
How do you know that the books he requested were not on the

approved list if you don't know what year he requested them for.

A. Well, my concern there was that the, Mr. Daniel had
agreed that the series that the county would use was the American 
Book Company series.

(> 1 f
C m  x j  l.



232

So that was all that I was concerned about, when I supported 
him in that that was the agreement that we had worked under.

Q. Let's come back to my question.
Do you know whether the books that Mr. Glover requested were 

approved or not?
A. You mean of the Harper-Row series?
0- Yes.
A. I assume, I think they are.
0- You think they were approved?
A. I think they are on the State list.

THE COURT: Are these the ones you said were not
multiethnic?

THE WITNESS: No, this is a later, this edition that
he ordered was probably -- 

THE COURT: Yes.
THE WITNESS: —  of, probably around 1966. I’m not

real sure about this.
But this series is a newer series, and it's not the one 

that Mr. Glover had in his school at that time. He had a 
much older series, which was published in '45 or something 
like this.

THE COURT: Well, I don't know, but we're getting all
messed up here on something that may or may not be important. 

He had some old Harper and Row books?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

9 9 •>
“-i Cd



THE WITNESS: I don't think so.
THE COURT: He sought through Mr. Daniel to order a new

edition of Harper and Row?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Although the agreement had been to use

American Book Company books?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: And the Harper-Row that he sought to order,

was it a multiethnic series or not, or do you know?
THE WITNESS: I'm not real sure, but I think that it may

have some pictures in it which are slightly colored, and by 
this category, I would think that it would be considered as 
multiethnic.

THE COURT: That was the order that was rejected or
vetoed by Mr. Daniel?

THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Subsequently, he was allowed to order

some multiethnic books, but they came from the American Book 

Company?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
TIIE COURT: All right. Does that straighten out the

chronology of it, Mr. Rindskopf?
MR. RINDSKOPF: I think that's about right, Your Honor.

233

THE COURT: They were not multiethnic?

i , l> 3 M
BY MR. RINDSKOPF:



234

Q. At the time you had your meeting in the spring of ’68, 
did you know that the American Book Company was making a multi
ethnic book?

A Well, I know there are a good many companies that have 
multiethnic series.

0. Did you know the American Book Company was making one?
A I guess so.
Q. You guess so? But this multiethnic boo]; was not on the

State approved list?
A No.
0. Okay. Now, did you see the note which was attached to

Mr. Glover's requisition?
A. No.
0. The note that said he didn't care what the company was

so long as it was a multiethnic book?
A I didn't know, I don't know anything about that.
& You didn't see it? Okay.
And do you know how it was that Mr. Glover's requisition wound 

up being sent to the State Department of Education?
A No. That's done in Mr. Daniel's office. I don't know 

anything about that.
o.
A

All you saw was the one requisition, one time? 
Yes.

0-
A.

You didn't see any later requisitions? 
No.

'£  3 4



235

0. Okay. Fine.
And it's your testimony that only the first grade books 

were going to be replaced, right?
A. Well, this was the intention of the, of Mr. Daniel's 

intention, since the textbook funds just do not buy everything 
that teachers and schools want, and so we felt like if we could 
begin with the first grade, Mr. Glover would have enough money 
in his textbook funds to supply his other needs, but also to move 
into the new materials at least with first grades.

THE COURT: You're going to run it a grade a year?
THE WITNESS: This was a proposal in order to stay 

straight financially.
THE COURT: In order to anticipate future integration?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. RINDSKOPF: Okay. Nothing further.
THE COURT: You may step down.

0O0

(Whereupon, the witness was excused from the witness stand at 
4:25 p.m.)

oOo
MR. CALDWELL: Mr. Lee Cook.
Mr. Cook, come around and have a seat over there, please.

oOo
TALMADGE LEE COOK,

2 3 b



236

Having first been duly sworn and called as a witness in behalf of 
the defendant, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. CALDWELL:

0- Mr. Cook, were you sworn this morning, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. State your name for the record, please.
A. Talmadge Lee Cook.
0. By whom are you employed, Mr. Cook?
A. Pike County School Board.

Q- How long have you been employed by the Pike County
School Board?

A. Two years.

o. What position do you hold, Mr. Cook?
A. At the present, I hold Assistant Principal, Pike County

Elementary.
0. Mr. Cook, what type of grading system do you have at 

Pike County Elementary School?
A. You mean at present, sir?
o. Yes, sir.
A. At present, we have the standard grading system.
Q, Has there been any work done on the non-graded system?
A. Yes, sir. For two years I have worked toward bringing

into play a non-graded program for the Pike County Elementary 
School, of which 1 am affiliated.

2 3 b



237

0. Without me asking you questions, briefly, how does a 
non-graded system work?

A. Well, I can just hit the high points, sir.
A non-graded system is designed to more or less take a child 

where he is at present and move him along at his own rate to 
wherever he can go, to the utmost of his ability, and this is 
taking into consideration that we all know that not every one is, 
not in the sight of intelligence or intent, equal. We have people 
that are adept in one thing and maybe not in another. We have 
people that can learn easily and some that can't learn so easily, 
and we bring our children into the schools, and the first year,and 
we expect them all to be able to read by Christmas.

Well, this is just about as, makes just about as much sense 
as to expect all children to wear the same size shoe at Christmas, 
because they don't develop at the same rate.

The non-graded program in essence is to take these children 
irregardless of whether they learn fast or whether they learn 
slow, medium or what not, and take them at their own rate and teach 
them just as much as we possibly can.

Q. Now let me ask you, sir, what grades do you use this 
non-graded system in?

A. Right now, for the prospective non-graded system, it's 
not in effect yet, we have moved toward this, but it's not 
effective yet, but the grades would be four, five and six, prospect

0. Four, five and six?

23 /



238

h. Yes.
THE COURT: You're seeking to achieve a non-graded

system?
THE WITNESS: No, sir, not to achieve, we are seeking

to implement a non-graded system.
THE COURT: You want it where the child can move as fast

as ha is able to move?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Or as slow as he must move?
THE WITNESS: As slow as he must or as fast as he is

able.
THE COURT: Now, when you get that system, what is that,

a non-graded system or a graded system?
THE WITNESS: Non-graded, sir.
THE COURT: Graded system fits all feet into the same

shoe, whether it pinches or not, is that right?
THE WITNESS: Absolutely.
THE COURT: In other words, you're going to move along

together, whether they can keep up or whether they could go 
on ahead?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: That's the graded system that you are trying

to get rid of?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, where you are taking thirty

children, grabbing up thirty children and putting them in a

< \  n .



239

room and expecting all of them to be able to do third grade 
work.

We expect every one of those thirty children to learn 
that third grade work at the same rate or at the same time. 
Well, some of them can't do it, and they follow along at the 
same speed they —

THE COURT: I follow you now.
Go ahead.

BY MR. CALDWELL:
Q. If you had a fifth grade student on a non-graded basis, 

in the morning, where would that student go?
A, Into a classroom for recordkeeping of, maybe, thirty 

children.
Q. This is called the homeroom?
A, This is called the homeroom.
0. Would they be his age group?
A. Yes, sir. His age group. They would go altogether into 

a homeroom for the recordkeeping, the rolls would be called and 
then at certain periods of the day, these children would go to 
specific groups of other children that would be on his same rate of 
learning in the same area of curriculum, and there they would meet 
together, and move to another period and be together, another, and 
another, and on through the day.

THE COURT: Let me ask you, suppose he was fast in
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, —



240

THE COURT: his history, and slow in math. Would
he go from his homerooom to a fast history class and then to 
a slow math class?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir; he would.
I have the teachers in this prospective plan, to teach, 

the teacher teaches one subject only, and if they are a 
language arts teacher, they teach nothing but that, which is 
English, and I have one teaching nothing but math, I have 
one teaching nothing but science and so forth through the 
rest of the curriculum.

This child, if he is adept in math, he will take his 
WQrk group of students likewise adept at math under this 
teacher.

THE COURT: If the student was slow in French, he would
go with the slow group?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right, sir.

BY MR. CALDWELL:
Q, Well, under this system, Mr. Cook, is it possible to 

segregate as to race?
A. Yes, sir. I would say it's possible; but not very 

probable.
0. Why isn't it probable?
A. Well, you've got children of both races that are not

adept at learning.



241

We have children in the school that I have now, which is 
predominantly white, that are just as slow as any could get. 
Likewise we have some that are fast. I'm sure they have the same 
in the black schools.

0- Do you have any black students in your school?
A. Yes, sir.
0. Are any of them fast?
A. Yes, sir.
0. Any of them slow?
A. Yes, sir. Certainly.
Q. Did you participate in a meeting where there was any 

discussion as to a test to be given in Pike County schools?
A. Yes, sir.
0. Where was this meeting?
A. There were several meetings, in which we discussed the 

test to be used, but if you will allow me, I will go back to the 
first one that I call mine, now, right after the Court order, not 
Court order, I beg your pardon, sir, we knew that a Court order was 
forthcoming, and we thought we were going to have to integrate the 
schools under the system as set forth.

And I brought up the question, Mr. Chambers, who was principal 
of the high school and the elementary school about how we would 
classify the children and find out where their weaknesses and 
strengths lay, and the better method to do *diis was a test, and we 
started thinking about what type test could possibly be used to be

£  4 i



242

most beneficial to all children, not a certain group, but to all 
of them.

Q. Yes, sir.

A. And then we got notification through the mail of a new 
type test developed by the California Test Bureau which would 
judge nothing but the basic skills that a child had achieved in a 
certain length of time.

So we went to this meeting. We went to this meeting which 
was held in Griffin back in January, if I remember correctly.

Q- Who was present at that time at this meeting?

A. Mr. Chambers, myself, representatives of the county 
office, and representatives from most of the schools within this 
area, the area in which we're assigned.

Q. Was Mrs. Miller's school represented?
A. I did not see anyone there that I remember. I couldn't 

say positively.
0. All right.
A. Lot of people.
0. How about Mr. Glover? Was he present?
A. I would have to say there, too, I didn't see anyone I

recognized from either of those schools.
0. All right, sir. Go ahead.
A. Well, at this meeting, they introduced this new test and 

called it the California Test of Basic Skills.
Now this test would measure where a child actually was in all



243

phases of curriculum, and in addition to this, it would point 
out each thing that the child missed on the test, show where he 
was weak in the different phases of the curriculum.

What I really liked about this test was that it showed where 
the basic skills were, if they were adept in any, or weak in any, 
and it also did not show anything dealing with IQ, mental maturity 
or anything of this nature. It just showed exactly what that 
child had achieved in the time he had been in school.

Q. Was there any designation on the test that would describe 
this child as being black or white?

A. None whatsoever, sir. This question came up in the
meeting. One of the black members there asked would this discrimins. 
against the black community, and the representative of the test 
company said it definitely would not.

Q. Did he tell you how the test had been made up?
A. Yes, he did, sir.
Q. How?
A. He said this test had been cross-sectioned through all 

phases of our society. And it had taken into consideration the 
affluent white community, taken into consideration the, shall we 
say, poverty-stricken white, poverty-stricken black, affluent 
black community, affluent white community, all phases of our 
society were used as a cross-section to get the test, and he stated 
in there that it definitely would not discriminate against any 
ethnic group, cultural group or what not.

243



244

0* Was this test later administered in your school?
A. Beg your pardon, sir? I'm sorry.
0. WAs this test later administered in your school?

THE COURT: Mr. Marshal, get the witness a swallow of
water there. Give him this one.

THE WITNESS: Appreciate it.
BY MR. CALDWELL:

O. Was it later administered in your school?
A. Yes, sir; it was.
Thank you very much, sir.
This test, I liked it quite well. Mr. Chambers who, by the 

way, the reason I keep bringing him in here, he's my superior under 
Mr. Daniel, —

Q. Yes, sir.
A. -- Mr. Chambers and myself discussed it. We liked it 

quite well. We discussed it with Mr. Daniel, he liked the test, 
thought we were right in using it, and we decided to use this test 
for the children that would be coming to my school this following 
year.

Now that was grades 4, 5^6 of next year, present third, fourth 
and fifth grade. That's where my interest came in, students that 
would be coming into my school.

0- So, this California test was to come in, to be given to 
students only that would be coming into your school next year?

P. That was the ones I had interest in.

i- 4 4



245

0. That would be the third, fourth and fifth grades?
THE COURT: Never mind the ones you had, interest in,

were other teachers doing the same thing, those coming into 
their rooms?

THE WITNESS: Sir, I don’t know. I know the test was
given to some other than the group that were coming into my 

school.
I think the seventh and eighth grades, sixth and seventh 

and eighth grade tests were administered to those schools.
THE COURT: You are charged with third, fourth and

fifth?
THE WITNESS: Fourth, fifth and sixth. I was interested

in the present grades third, fourth and fifth.
THE COURT: And in 1969-1970, you’re going to have under

your supervision every student in the county falling in eithei 
one of those three grades?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And you wanted to measure what, where he

belonged in that strata?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Now, were you going to give that to the

students already in your room?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: You were going to give it to everybody who

^ i U

was going to be in Grades 4, 5 and 6,



246

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Irrespective of whatever his color or race

or wherever his school was?
THE WITNESS: Absolutely.
THE COURT: We were talking while ago about a third

grade test and now we've gotten to the fourth and fifth and 
sixth.

MR. CALDWELL: Maybe this will clear it up, Your Honor.
BY MR. CALDWELL:

Q. The present third grade would be your next year's fourth 
grade?

A. Yes, sir.
THE COURT: I see. It was the third grade at that time.
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: You figured it would be a year before they

got there, and then it would be the fourth?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right, sir.
Go ahead.

BY MR. CALDWELL:
0. This was administered to black and white students alike 

in your school?
A. Yes, sir.
g As a result of this test, have you, subsequent to this 

test have you received the results?

i j t)



247

A, I've received the results of the people that participated 
in the test, sir.

Now, we did not get any results from the other two schools 
concerned in the county. The only test results that I lave are 
the ones that were taken in my school.

THE COURT: Did you get any from Mr. Glover's school?
THE WITNESS: No, sir. We sent a team of counselors

over to administer the test, but I think the students refused
to take the test, and the counselors came back.

BY MR. CALDWELL:
0. When you say "we," what do you mean? How do you mean 

"we sent them over?"
A. Well, that term really should be changed to "Mr. Daniel" 

there. I said "we" in the sense that the administration, that was 
concerned in the testing of the students coming into my school,
was -—

Q, And your interest was purely because they would be in 
your school next year?

A. Yes, sir. I have no interest in how the other principals 
conduct their schools or programs, because that's not my job.
My job is to see my school has the best quality education that can 

be afforded.

o. All right, sir. Do you know whether or not the tests 
were taken in Pike County Consolidated?

A. Yes, sir. I know that they, as far as the test itself,

t j 4“ <



248

it was not taken there. The tests were made available, but I think 
the students, this is the information that came back to me, the 
students would not take the test.

0. Do you know whether or not the community was informed or 
if there was any effort made to inform them about this test?

A. Yes, sir. There was. I myself spoke at PTA meetings of 
my school, of which we have black parents that should be there,of 
course. Very few times they have been. I canwell understand 
this.

1 have spoken at other places, teachers meetings, and we 
discussed this in the integration meetings in Griffin, the 
non-graded program likewise, and I went down to East Pike School 
and attempted to speak down there.

Now, this is fuzzy in my mind, I don't know whether the 
situation had developed, whether, I think they were objecting to 
the test already before I went to East Pike, but I did go down 
there to try to explain to the parents at the East Pike School 
what the situation would be like in a non-graded system, but I 
never got a chance to talk to most of the people because they 
got up and walked out before I got a chance to speak.

0, Was Mr. Glover present at that mefeting?
A. He came in after the people had walked out. Mostly what 

was left was teachers and a few parents, and Mr. Glover did come 
in after that. Yes, sir.

Q. This was at East Pike?
d  O



249

A. This was at East Pike; yes, sir.
Q. Were you present in May at a meeting where a discussion

came up led by Mrs. Snipes with reference to first grade readers?
A. Yes, sir, I was. I was there. I think I had representa

tives from each grade in my school that were supposed to be there.
Mr. Chambers was there, and there, it was a general meeting, 

it wasn't a principals meeting. It was a general meeting to 
discuss the reading type textbooks we would adopt for the county 
for the coming year.

Q. All right, sir. Was there any discussion between Mr. 
Daniel and Mr. Glover about the type textbook to be used?

h. Yes, sir; there was. Mrs. Snipes explained to us that 
she had made a more or less summary of the books available in the 
county at that time, and that the American Book Company seemed to 
be the one that was the newer edition, and that we had more or 
less of them in use and it was put to them more or less what 
books should we adopt for the first grade because that was the one 
that was going to be integrated in the coming year, and --

THE COURT: You mean coming year, now, you mean as of
last year?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. This was prior to to '68-69
year.

THE COURT: All right.
THE WITNESS: And it was voted on, and I think the

American Book Company was the one that was voted to be



250

accepted. And Mr. Glover then started talking about multi
ethnic books, and which Miss Snipes explained to him and the
rest of us they were not on the adopted list, Georgia State
Textbook Adopted List at that time.

BY MR. CALDWELL:
Q. Do you oppose multiethnic books?
A. Not at all. No, sir.
0. Go ahead.
A. At that time, he was quite, shall we say, adamant, any 

type would be adopted would have to be multiethnic —  that it 
should be, maybe I shouldn't have said would have to be, but 
should be multiethnic.

Q. Did he raise his voice?
A. Yes, he did, sir. He raised it somewhat.
He, well, I know myself, I became uncomfortable in the 

situation there, and I'm sure others felt the same as I did.
Q. Did he appear to be mad?
A. Well, I hate to judge, but I would say, shall we say, 

a little excited.
Q. A little excited?
A. Yes.
Q. All right, sir. Now, let me ask you this. Were you 

present in September, in August, excuse me, when Mrs. Elder was 
introduced to the principals?

A. Yes, I was at the principals meeting.



251

We were there, the principals of the county were there. I 
think it was Mr. Chambers, myself, Mr. Glover and Mrs. Elder.
And we also had, if I remember correctly, possibly Miss Snipes and 
Doctor Flanders, and I think that was about all of them. And Mr. 
Daniel read a letter from Mr., what1s his name -- 

THE COURT: Frazier?
A  (Continued) -- Mr. Frazier, the principal at East Pike 

who had resigned just very shortly before that time, and he 
announced to us that Mrs. Elder had been moved up as principal of 
East Pike School.

0- What did this letter contain?
THE COURT: Wait just a minute. What do you mean, moved

up?
THE WITNESS: She was a teacher prior to this, sir, in

the system. She was a math teacher in the high school.
THE COURT: In the same school over which she was made

principal?
THE WITNESS: No, sir. She was a math teacher in

the white high school, Pike County High School.
BY MR. CALDWELL:

0. What was the contents of this letter that he read to you, 
to the meeting?

A  To the meeting, the letter stated that he was resigning 
and that he recommended two people to be principal there at East 
Pike School.

O it u  J I.



252

If I remember correctly, it was Mrs. Miller, who I think is 

principal there now, and Mrs. Glover.

0. Is that the principal's, over here, wife?

A. I have no wy of knowing, sir.

0. Was there a Mrs. Glover in the system?

A. I had never met her, but I think that she had moved, or

resigned and gone somewhere else to teach.

0. All right, sir.

THE COURT: You mean she had left the Pike County

system?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. I think that's the information

I had, sir, that she had taken a teaching position elsewhere, 

prior to this time.

THE COURT: Was she related to this Mr. Glover?

THE WITNESS: I don't know, sir. I couldn't say

positively because I never met Mrs. Glover, his wife, nor 

this Mrs. Glover either. I think that's the only Glovers in 

the county that I know7 of. Possibly was.

BY MR. CALDWELL:

Q. All right, sir. Go ahead, now. What took place after 

the letter was read?

A. After the letter was read and it was announced that 

Mrs. Elder would be the principal at East Pike Elementary School, 

Mr. Glover got pretty upset over it and said that the people, his 

people would not accept her as being principal down at that school.



253

0. Did Mrs. Elder have anything to say to Mr. Glover?

A. She asked him, "Don’t you think I could make it work," 

something to this order, "Don't you think we could work down 

there and make the school work?"

I remember him saying he had nothing whatsoever against Mrs. 

Elder as a person or qualifications or anything else, but that 

it would just not work with his people, with her being over a 

black school.

0. Let me ask you this, was his actions becoming to a man 

in the position of principal, and the Superintendent being present? 

A. I would have to form an opinion, here.

MR. RINDSKOPF: I object to that. I don't think he's

qualified.

THE COURT: That calls for a conclusion. I'm letting

everything in, and I'll let him express his opinion.

MR.CALDWELL: Your Honor, he asked his witnesses, and

one of them had an eighth grade education.

THE COURT: Yes, sir. And many of these things I'm

disregarding, them, just as I will other things.

THE WITNESS: Should I answer the question, sir?

MR. CALDWELL: I've forgotten the question.

BY MR. CALDWELL:

g. What was Mr. Glover's actions at the time he and Mr. 

Daniel were discussing Mrs. Elder with reference to tension or

madness?



A. Well, I think he became very antagonistic, to say the

least, in this.

Now, I've been around school a pretty good while and I've 

never, just never seen a principal talk to a Superintendent in a 

manner, not exactly what he said, but in the manner of which this 

was conducted. I'm just not used to that tone of voice or anything 

else, from a principal talking to a Superintendent.

Q, Let me ask you one other thing that I think I had 

overlooked. I'm about finished with you.

But, did you have an occasion to attend a meeting where Mr. 

Glover was present and testing was discussed?

A. It is very vague in my memory, but it seems right after 

this Court action was instituted in the fall, we did have a meeting 

to discuss the possibility of the transcripts coming over and 

things of this nature, and I brought the point up, we did need 

a test to determine where a child might be and that, if I'm not 

mistaken, he did say in there, or intimate in there that he was 

opposed to any testing, any standardized testing.

MR. CALDWELL: Younav inquire.

THE COURT: Did the letter that was read from Mr.

Frazier list the names of recommended successors?

THE WITNESS: As well as I remember, Your Honor, they

did. Mr. Daniel brought them out, if I'm not mistaken.

Now it was either there or at a very short time thereafte 

that I heard the name Mrs. Glover, and Mrs. Miller, mentioned



255

as possible successors. I'm pretty sure he brought it out 

in that letter. It's so fuzzy, so far back, I don't remember 

exactly.

0O0

CROSS EXAMINATION

3Y MR. RINDSKOPF:

o. How long have you been in the system, Mr. Cook?

A. Two years.

Q. And where were you before that?

A.

Q.

Georgetown High School, Georgetown, Georgia. 

Was that an integrated school?

A. It was, shall we say, tokenly integrated. We had very

few black students in that school.

Q. The majority was white?

A. The majority of our students were white, yes.

Q. Let's go back to the desegregation meeting where you 

first discussed the idea of testing these people with the California 

Test.

You say there was no one there from Mr. Glover's school?

A. That's correct, sir.

0. And no one there from Mrs. Miller's school?

A. That’s correct.

0- Yet, there were some black teachers who questioned you

about the test?

A. No.

2 5



256

Q. What school was the black teacher from?

A. No, not at the first time we discussed this test. This 

was right before.

Now there's just Mr. Daniel, the meeting I was speaking of 

took place in Mr. Chambers' office between Mr. Daniel, Mr. Chambers 

and myself.

0. So, the first meeting where you were discussing the use 

of the test was a private meeting?

A. Not necessarily. It was a meeting concerning the 

students coming to my school.

0. It wasn't a meeting that included the principals of the 

schools that the students would be coming from?

A. No.

0. I see. Okay. And that was where you decided to use 

these tests?

A. No, sir. It was not decided there.

0. Well, what did you do in this meeting?

A. We discussed the test. We later had to get an okay from 

Mr. Daniel to purchase these tests and so forth.

0. There weren't any black people at that meeting?

A. No.

0. And then you went to the meeting in Griffin and had

further discussions about the test, is that right?

A. Right.

And this is the meeting where there was no one from Mr.

25b

0.



257

Glover's school?

A. Now, sir, I did not make that statement. I said I 

recognized no one from Mr. Glover's school.

They could have been there, but I do not, did not recognize 

anyone from Mr. Glover's school. I think if you will check this 

transcript, read this transcript back, you will see that's what 

I did say.

Q, Perhaps I was left with an incorrect impression there was 

no one from his school there.

A. Well, if you thought I said that, you were under an 

incorrect impression.

Q. Do you know which school this black teacher there was

from?

A. No.

Q. Are you familiar with other black teachers in your system? 

A. No , sir; I'm not.

Q. How many black teachers were teaching in white schools

this past year?

A. Mrs. Manghum, I know, was teaching high school. And at 

the beginning of the year, Mrs. Miller was teaching at my school 

before she was elevated to acting principal at East Pike, and --

Q. That's it?

A. I think.

0. And the black person questioning these tests wasn't

either of those people, was it?



258

A. No.

Q. Oh? Who was in charge of this desegregation institute?

A. You mean the testing, where it was discussed?

0, Who was in charge of the overall program over there?

A. The California Test Bureau?

THE COURT: The meeting in Griffin,

A. That's what I'm speaking about. California Test Bureau.

Q. They were in charge?

A. Yes. They sent out the representatives and what not and 

conducted the meeting.

Q. What about the other meetings?

A. This was entirely a different matter. Doctor Reece 

Welch from the University of Georgia was in charge.of these meeting 

the integration clinics, in Griffin.

Q. Did Doctor Welch indicate he was opposed to testing all 

the people in your system?

A. He never indicated to me, sir. Not to me.

Q. Are you planning to use your ungraded system in your 

school next year?

A. I'm going to attempt to put it in, yes.

0. How far is it from the school you're going to be in 

charge of, to the Pike County Consolidated School?

A. Say approximately eight miles, give or take a few.

Q. Eight miles. Suppose a student in your ungraded system

is working faster than a sixth grade student. Will you send him

r> r~- . C  S O



259

over to that school?

A. No, sir. We have means set up to offer them an accelerate 

work program in the school where he is.

0. It's all going to be in one school?

A. The non-graded, yes, at the present.

Q. And what about the student who is doing less than third 

grade work?

A. That, too, will be offered to him in that school, to 

keep him with his age group.

Q. • How far up are you prepared to go?

A. We are prepared to go up, this is just a figure of speech, 

we're still in the planning stage. We can offer him approximately 

up to eighth grade work.

Q. And how far down?

A. Well, to the beginning, if need be.

0. Okay.

THE COURT: I didn't understand that answer.

THE WITNESS: The beginning, or readiness period, in

first grade, if need be.

THE COURT: You mean in the fourth grade you're going to

go back to start teaching somebody first grade work If you 

have to?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. If it takes that to bring this

child up to where he can learn, that's what we want to do.

BY MR. CALDWELL:

L-i O



260

Q. You're planning to put this system into effect next year? 

A We're planning to try to move it forward next year.

Now this is not something that you can just set down and say here 

it is and this is the plan and it works this way because there are 

a lot of things you will have to correct, make innovations, find 

out this is not going to work and how to change this here and 

set something up different here. This is not something you just 

sit down and say it's going to work.

0. How much are you planning to do next year?

A As much as possible.

0. As much as possible? Any specific number of grades?

A We are primarily interested in four, five and six.

0. Four, five and six?

THE COURT: Let me ask you a question.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: On your California Grading Achievement Test, 

California Achievement Test, is achievement measured against, 

is it relative to other students in the same system or is it 

measured against the standard across the country?

THE WITNESS: It's both, Your Honor. We can use these

percentages on this test, if you used the percentages, they're 

cross-sectioned to other students through the country, in a 

like situation, and it'll give you the percentages they fall 

in.

THE COURT: In other words, there is a standard for third



261

grade work across the country?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: And fourth grade work and fifth grade work?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir,

THE COURT: Nov/ this test, I judge, would measure each

student tested against that average?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. In the percentages.

THE COURT: All right. It will also, of course, give

you a comparative achievement as among those in the group, 

irrespective of the nationwide standard?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. That's right.

THE COURT: Which is going to control?

THE WITNESS: Beg your pardon?

THE COURT: Which is going to control? Which are you

going to count as achievement, relative achievement or 

percentage of achievement?

THE WITNESS: Relative achievement, Your Honor.

THE COURT: In other words, suppose everybody you got in

there falls down to level of third grade.

THE WITNESS: That's the work we would start working

on.

I would like to make this mention here, they won't know 

they're doing third grade work because we have taken and 

marked off all reference to grade from any textbook they have. 

They will not know they're down on third grade level.

26 i



262

THE COURT: Well, what do you do with promotion in that

situation?

THE WITNESS: We take a child, and he covers just as

much as he can this year, and v/hen school lets out, he will 

come back in the fall and we take him where we left off, and 

go forward,

THE COURT: Is he in the fourth or the fifth?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, third, fourth, fifth, sixth year

of school.

THE COURT; In other words, you call it years instead of 

grades?

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: And he doesn't know what grade he's in? He's

just swimming along as fast as he can?

THE WITNESS: That's right.

THE COURT: How do you know when he gets out?

THE WITNESS: We have the curriculum set up, specific

phases a child has to accomplish before he get out, and the 

teacher, he goes along and they have worked on this already, 

and they will be setting up the child's needs so that he can 

achieve so much in this level before they get out.

But when he achieves a certain amount of levels, he needs, 

he will be moved on.

THE COURT: Let me ask you something, I've had six

children in the Atlanta public schools, and they run this kind



263

of system?

THE WITNESS: In some of the schools, yes, sir. I don't

think all are, but Atlanta has several of them.

THE COURT: I always thought my children were in grades.

Maybe I 've been wrong.

THE WITNESS: Very possibly, if they were in an ungraded

school, you were.

THE COURT: All right. They did get out. Does that

mean anything?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. It does. But did they get out

with all the knowedge they should have or did they just get 

out?

THE COURT: I don't know whether I'll ever know or not.

THE WITNESS: That's what we're trying to determine.

BY MR. RINDSKOPF:

0, Where are you going to put the children who didn't take

these placement tests next year?

A. Place them on teacher recommendation, on work done prior

to this, until such time maybe that they will take the test and 

we can use it as a guide. We don't just use this test to place a 

child, only.

Q, You've never done this, I gather?

A. we've been able to group them, which is entirely differen 

from non-grading. The past two years we're trying to move in this 

system, use three major things to put a child where he can learn

c

v i-; >{ 4 13 i



264

the best, and that's achievement tests, teacher recommendation 

and past achievement, the work he's already done.

Q. So in your system, your system isn't going to fall 

because some students didn't take these tests?

A. No, sir. It would help the child a lot more if he had 

taken the test, but so far as school going on, it will not make the 

school close.

0. I take it you have a lot of familiarity with testing and 

testing procedures?

A. I do not. I'm sorry if I let that impression get through 

I became interested in major testing, this California Test of 

Basic Skills, because it shows the skills a child has got, not 

maybe an IQ or mental age and things of this nature.

I don't agree with IQ tests.

Q. You are aware there are a number of tests in use that 

have bias as against racial groups or economic groups?

A. I have heard this statement made, but as far as me being 

sure of it, I'm not.

0. You have heard that in testing circles?

A. Yes, sir. I have heard it.

0. Okay. How many people were at this meeting with Miss

Snipes?

A. You mean the textbook meeting or which one — - 

0. Textbook meeting.

A. Textbook meeting. All right. I had a representative of

v b



265

the grades I had in my school, which would be seven teachers there;
myself; Mr. Chambers; Mr. Glover; Mrs. Dorothy Dunn, who at that
time was the visiting teacher; Mrs. Snipes and Mrs. Lancaster -—
I’m calling some that I do know, that I can recollect, and there

know
were other black teachers that I did not/at the time and neither 
do I know them now.

Q. Okay. Were you present when the vote was taken on the 
textbook?

A. Yes, I was.
Q. What was the score?
A. I don't remember exactly, but I remember it was a 

majority, that American Book be adopted.
Q. A majority of the first grade teachers were also white, 

right?
A. Possibly. Possibly.
Q. Well, it’s a fact, isn't it?
A. I could not say. I don't remember that correctly.
Q. You don't remember?
A. I sure don't. Listen, I'm interested in the first grades 

of my school. They were white.
Q. Three from your school were white?
A. Right.
Q. All right. Do you know why it is that the State Board 

of Education doesn't approve multiethnic textbooks?
A. No, I do not.

2 6 5



266

In fact, I was not aware they were not approved until this 
was brought out by Miss Snipes.

0. You think using multiethnic textbooks would be a good 
idea in an integrated situation?

A. Yes, sir. I don't see how we can get away from it.
MR. RINDSKOPF: Okay, Thank you.
THE COURT: You may step down.

0O0

(Whereupon, the witness was excused from the witness stand at 
5:03 p.m.)

oOo
MR. CALDWELL: Your Honor, could I beg for about two

minutes?
THE COURT: Yes, sir. Let me ask you this, Mr.

Caldwell. How long is your presentation likely to take?
MR. CALDWELL: Exclusive of cross examination, I'd say

not over thirty minutes, Your HOnor.
TIIE COURT: All right, sir. We'd better take about a

ten minute recess at this time and let everybody get a breath 
of fresh air.

oOo
(Whereupon, Court was recessed at 5:04 p.m.)

RECESS
(Whereupon, Court was reconvened at 5:20 p.m.)

oOo

2 6 o



267

THE COURT: All right, Mr. Caldwell.
MR. CALDWELL: Mr. E. H. Chambers.
THE COURT: Mr. Marshal, I gather some of those witnesses

probably would like to be excused. I see some of them peeking 
through the door.

CLERK: Let's see, were you sworn this morning, sir?
MR. CHAMBERS: Yes, I was.
THE COURT: Is there any objection to those witnesses

being excused who have testified, other than the parties?
MR. DALDWELL: We have none, Your Honor.
MR. RINDSKOPF: No, sir.
THE COURT: Tell them, all of them who testified, may be

excused.
CLERK: All right, sir.
THE COURT: Has this witness been sxvorn?
MR. CALDWELL: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right, sir. You may proceed.

0O0

HOYT CHAMBERS,
Having first been duly sworn and called as a witness in behalf of 
the defendant, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. CALDWELL:

Q. State your name for the record, sir.
A. Hoyt Chambers.

26 /



268

Q. Mr. Chambers, during the 1968-69 school year, by whom 
were you employed?

A. Pike County Board of Education.
Q. What position did you hold?
A. Principal of Pike County High School.
Q. As a principal, were you present when the textbooks for 

the first grade were selected?
A. Yes , I was .
0. What was your understanding as to the decision made at 

this meeting?
A. Well, the decision was to stick to the textbooks that we 

were using at the present time, which was the American Book 
Company.

Q, Was there to be any difference in any of the other schools
A. The other schools were to use the one that they had been

using because of the amount of funds that were available for 
textbook use.

0, All right, sir. What about new issues, new purchases? 
What was the decision as to that?

A. There would be no new issue, new purchases. They were 
to fill in whatever book they had.

a All right, sir.
A. That they were using.
Q, At this meeting, did Mr. Glover accept this decision?
A. Yes, as far as I know he did. At least, the majority of



269

those present voted to retain the books they were then using at 
the present time.

Q. All right, sir. Mr. Glover did not object to this?
A. As to whether or not he voted yes or no, I couldn't

say.

Q. All right, sir. Were there any discussions between Mrs. 
Snipes and Mr. Glover in your presence?

A. Well, I don't recall if there was anything direct.
Mrs. Snipes was in charge of the meeting, and everyone there 

directed their comments to her as Chairman.
Q. Do you recall if there was any discussion between Mr. 

Daniel and Mr. Chambers?
A. You mean Mr. Daniel and me?
Q. Mr. Daniel and Mr. Glover. I apologize for my mistake.
A. Well, yes, there was a discussion that the textbooks that 

were being presently used would have to continue to be used because 
of the textbook allotment. They would not have, he made the 
statement to all of us, Mr. Daniel did, that the textboofe that 
were being used could not be replaced. They would have to continue 
to be used, and we would just fill in with what we had.

Q. Was there any discussion concerning multiethnic books?
A. Mr. Glover insisted that we purchase books that were

multiethnic, and the question came up as to whether or not the 
companies whose books we were using had the multiethnic books. 
Insofar as we knew, none of them did.



270
Q. All right, sir. Were you present in August at the 

principals meeting where Mrs. Elder was introduced to the other 
principals?

ft. Yes, I was.
Q. Did Hr. Glover have anything to say about Mrs. Elder?
ft- The announcement was made that Mrs. Elder would be the

principal of the East Pike School.
Mrs. Glover indicated that he did not favor that.
0- What did he say about it?
ft. He said he thought that the negro principal should not 

be replaced with a white. That they had people who were qualified 
in the negro race.

Q, Did you know Mrs. Elder's qualifications?
ft- Well, I, I know that she had been a principal for, 1 

Ttfould say some thirty-odd years. That she was principal in the 
Concord Elementary School the first year I was in Pike County, and 
then she was moved from there to the high school as a math teacher 
when that school was consolidated, so in order to be a principal, 
she would have had at least a five year certificate.

0. All right, sir. Do you know of any other positions that 
she had held?

ft. Yes. She was a teacher in a college at Bessie Tift. She 
was also Dean of Women.

Q. Was this at Bessie Tift als<P?
ft. Bessie Tift.

U



271

Q. Was that prior to the time she came to the Pike County
system?

A. Y e s , sir,
0, Prior to the time that you came to that system?
A. Yes.
0. Did Mr. Glover have anything to say about her qualifica

tions?
A. Yes, he did. He made the statement that, to Mrs. Elder, 

that he knew she was a fine lady and that she had high qualifica
tions and had been very successful as a teacher.

Mrs. Elder asked him then whether or not he would support her 
in this new task there, and he said he, no, he could not. And —

Q. During this discussion, did Mr. Glover seem to be angry 
or was he very pleasant?

A. He was very much upset. In fact, he was very irate 
about it to such an extent that the meeting from there on was 
really just a matter of course.

I don't think I've ever in all my teaching experience had 
someone to be as arrogant to one in authority as he was at that 
time.

0.
A.

mind to 
0.

Who was he arrogant to?
Principally to fir. Daniel, and anyone else who was of a 

listen.
How long have you been teaching?

A. Thirty-six years.
2 ? i



272
0. All right, sir.

MR.CALDWELL: You may examine him.
oOo

CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. RINDSKOPF:

Q. You say that Mr. Glover told Mrs. Elder he couldn't 
support her?

A Yes.
0. Do you recall his exact words?
A. Mrs. Elder just asked him whether or not he would be

willing to support her in this undertaking, and he told her, no,
that he could not.

Q. What did she say to that?
A. She said, well, she was surprised that he would take that

attitude.
Q- That was all she said?
A.
Q.

That's all I recall.
What about Mr. Daniel? What did he say to this?

A.
Q,

I don't know that he made any comment to that statement. 
Okay. Was this the same meeting where Mr. Frazier's

letter was read saying that he was resigning from the system?
A. That was the August meeting, yes.
0. And was this the same meeting in which Mr. Frazier's

recommendations were read as to who he thought should replace him or 
lon't you recall?

V 7
t-J 5 t.-)



273

A. I don't recall, I don't recall about a letter. No, sir.
Q. You don't recall Mr. Frazier's letter saying he thought

Mrs. Miller or Mrs. Glover should replace him?
A. I don ' t remember that.
Q. You don't recall. Well, who was at this meeting?
A. Well, it was a meeting for principals. I don't know 

that I could name them all. It's the responsibility of the 
principals to be there.

Q. When did this meeting occur?
A. In August.
0. Can you give us a date?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Can you give us the day of the week?
A. No.
Q, Can you give us the time?
A. No, I don't recall the time. This was just prior to 

the opening of school.
Q, Do you recall the time of the day?
A. Not with any accuracy, no.
Q. Okay. Were there any other subjects discussed at the 

meeting?
A. There was some other plans for the year discussed. ,
Q. Such as?
A. Well, one I recall was health services that we had 

available in the county. Just the usual run of principals meetings.

__ ________________  (3



274

Q. Did you have other principals meetings after that during 

the year?
A. Very few, if any. I don't, I don't recall positively, 

but, certainly not very many.
0. Not very many. Okay.
But you did have other meetings?
A. I don't recall that we did have any other meetings.

Q- Well, either you did or you didn't.
A. I can't say positively whether we had any other meetings

or not. But I know that later on in the year, we did not have
regular meetings or any meetings at all.

q. okay. Have you been in other meetings with Mr. Glover

through the years?
A.
0.

Yes .
You've had integrated meetings down there in Pike County

before this year?
K Yes.

Q. Okay. Has he conducted himself in a seemly fashion at

these other meetings?
A. At other times.
0. He has. Then how about since this meeting in August?

A. Well, I had no contact with him since the meeting,

and no reason to have had.
Q.
A,

You haven't seen him at any other meetings? 
I don't recall that I have, no.

Cd &



275

& Okay. Thank you.
MR, RINDSKOPF: Mo further questions.

0O0

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. CALDWELL:

Q. Mr. Chambers, let me ask you one other question.
Has the Superintendent, Mr. Daniel, stated to you subsequent 

to this meeting where Mrs. Elder was introduced why he had not had 
any other, called any other principals meetings?

A Yes, quite often, he called me about various things that 
principals need to know, and he has stated that it wasn't advisable 
to have any other group principals meetings because nothing could 
be accomplished by it.

Q. Did he state why he didn't think anything could be 
accomplished?

A Because of the general attitude, it was not conducive to 
transaction business.

0- On whose part?
A On the part of Mr. Glover.

MR. CALDWELL: Thank you.
0O0

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. RINDSKOPF:

0- Did you attend the desegregation workshops?

it 4
A Yes, I did.



276

Q. Over at Griffin?

Did Mr. Daniel invite you to come along with him?

Yes, he did.

MR. RINDSKOPF: Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. You may step down, sir.

Now, Mr. Caldwell, I'm going to ask you the same question 

I asked Mr. Rindskopf. How many more -- we've heard about 

these three episodes with the first grade books, the tests —  

how many more of your witnesses are cumulative?

MR.CALDWELL: Only one witness that I can recall. Let's

see. Neither of them will be about the textbook or the 

principals meeting. Neither of the remaining witnesses. I 

have three other witnesses.

THE COURT: Will their evidence be similar to testimony

by a previous witness?

MR. CALDWELL: The sheriff will testify similarly to

what Mr. Daniel testified to.

THE COURT: Well, you don't have any more school people

to testify what happened at these meetings?

MR. CALDWELL: Not at any of the meetings that have been

talked about, Your Honor. No,sir.

THE COURT: All right. All right, if you have anything

that's cumulative of something you've already established, or -

MR. CALDWELL: The only relativity, Your HOnor, would be

the sheriff's testimony about the burglaries and the sheriff

__ 2 7 1)



277

did make the investigation, and I did want to put him up 

for supporting testimony of Mr. Daniel's testimony.

THE COURT: Well, is there any dispute with that?
HR. CALDWELL: I don't know that there is a dispute.

THE COURT: Does he know anything more about the

burglaries, or who or how and we now have before us?

MR. CALDWELL: He knows that the buildings were unlocked

on a number of occasions he went by there and checked it, 

and he knows that he reported that to Mr. Daniel and on at 

least one occasion he talked to Mr. Glover, and that he did 

instruct or ask Mr. Daniel to put certain equipment in there 

so he could put some people out there as guards to try to 

apprehend the criminals.

THE COURT: Is that the trap that he talked about?

MR.CALDWELL: Yes, sir. And after that, there were no

other burglaries. That's in essence his testimony, if —

THE COURT: All right.

MR. CALDWELL: If Your Honor wants to take it into

consideration, I'll put him up, either way.

THE COURT: All right. Call him in and do it very

briefly. He's in a little different category.

If you have any in the same category as those who 

testified, let's stipulate it, and that they would testify 

the same as so and so.

2 7 (oOo



278

ASTOR RIGGINS,
Having first been duly sworn and called as witness in behalf of 
the defendant, testified as follows:
BY MR. CALDWELL:

Q. State your name for the record,
A. Astor Riggins.
0. Are you sheriff of Pike County?
A. Yes, sir.
0. Were you sworn this morning, •—
A. Yes, sir.
0. *— • Sheriff Riggins?
At the instruction of the Court, I'm going to be as brief as 

possible, so we might go home.
In your duties as sheriff, do you check the school buildings 

in the county?
A Yes, I do.
0. Have you had occasions to check the school building known 

as Consolidated down at Concord?
A Yes, sir. On numerous occasions.
Q. On any of these occasions have you found the building 

to be unlocked or windows open?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you have any idea how many occasions?
A. Oh, several. Four or five, six maybe. I reported them 

back to Mr. Daniel along with some suggestions as to what to do



279

about it.
Q. Subsequent to these notices to Mr. Daniel, did you have 

any burglaries to occur in these schools?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you investigate them?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When did these burglaries occur?
ft. We had three last fall, first one occurring the weekend, 

it was a holiday weekend beginning the 11th of October through 
the 14th, on one of the nights during that time.

There was four typewriters taken and an air conditioner from 
Professor Glover’s office.

Q. In your investigation, were you able to determine how the 
building was entered on this occasion?

A. No, sir. No forcible entry at all on this occasion, and 
two other occasions thereafter.

0, Was the same thing —
A. Same, television, typewriter, et cetera.
0. All right, sir. In your investigation, were you able to 

obtain the identity of the merchandise that was taken?
A. Yes, sir. By process of elimination. Professor Glover 

could not furnish the serial numbers. We had to take the list of 
typewriters and the air conditioners that was left into Mr. 
Daniel's office and from a process of elimination come up with 
numbers that supposedly were the ones that were stolen.

—  o 7 vt



280

Q. All right, sir. Subsequently, did you attempt to set 
up a situation so that you might apprehend burglars?

A. ?es, sir. I did. We had another burglary in November, 
another one in December, and we w e r e n ' t  getting any clues at all, 
and it w a s  worrying me.

I asked Mr. Daniel to send more typewriters, adding machines 
or any type of equipment to the Pike County Consolidated School, 
and that I would personally set up a guard myself.

Q. Did you do this?
A, I did this.
Q, Did you have any burglaries thereafter?
A. Haven't had any since December, and the December 

burglary was just prior to our moving in more equipment.
Q, All right, sir.

MR. CALDWELL: You may examine.
0O0

CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR, RINDSKOPF:

Q. Did you ever apprehend these people?
A. No, sir.
n They are still loose?
A. I haven't apprehended •them.

0- All right. Were there any burglaries
schools during the, in the system during the year?

A. Yes, sir. There was one at Pike County High

other 

School.
Z  6  u



281

Q. What did they take from over there?
A. Two typewr iters.
0. How did they get in over there?
A. We found one of the doors, the pushbar on the inside

was sprung and would not go into its place, and all you had to 
do was push the door open.

Q. Had it been sprung by the people who took the typewriters 
or was it sprung in advance or what?

A. Well, that, I wouldn't know.
Q. You don’t know. Okay.
ft. But on the Concord, Pike County Consolidated School, I 

asked Professor Glover to assign one door to a janitor, that he 
had enough janitors to go around, and maybe that would help 
stop it, to make sure the doors was locked. And he said, "Well, 
a small rock could get in behind the door and due to the rock being 
there, it wouldn1t lock."

But if the rock had been there, the janitor could have removed 
it or seen what did make it not lock.

0. But there haven't been any burglaries over there since 
December?

A. Since I had this extra equipment moved in.
Q. Is the extra equipment still there?
A. It has been removed since school's out.
g. And what about, or at the white schools? Did you have 

any burglaries over there after December?

2 o j



282

A. No, ar.
MR. RINDSKOPF: No further questions.
THE COURT: All right. You may step down, sir.

0O0

(Whereupon, the witness was excused from the witness stand at 

5:41 p.m.)
0O0

MR. CALDWELL: Call Mr. Jeff Key.
CLERK: He'll be right back. He went to get his car

out of the parking lot.
MR. CALDWELL: In his absence, could I call Mr. Daniel

to the stand, Mr. Honor?
THE COURT: Yes, sir. Try not to cover what he testi

fied before.
MR. CALDWELL: All right, sir.

0O0

HAROLD T. DANIEL,
Upon resuming the stand, testified further as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. CALDWELL:
q_ I'm going to try to make it as brief as possibly and

I'm going to try to phrase a question to you that will shorten it.
Mr. Daniel, thisnorning you testified to certain instances 

of non-coorperation on the part of Mr. Glover with you.
What part, if any, did these incidences play in your decision,

2 d 2



283

your final decision not to recommend Mr. Glover for the coming 
school year?

A. They played a very prominent part. In fact, they were 
the reasons that I did not see fit to recommend him.

I had recommended Mr. Glover the past two years reluctantly. 
The minutes of the Pike County Board of Education will so show 
this. Then, in May of 1968, I had this meeting of the first grade 
teachers and some other elementary teachers were there, and Mr. 
Glover created a scene. I saw then that I had made a mistake in 
my recommendation, but he had been elected by the Board, he had 
a contract, and then we came along until August, first principals 
meeting of the year, and again, Mr. Glover became very irate and 
insistent on a black principal for East Pike Elementary School.

Again, I saw my mistake, I should have fired him on the spot. 
Well, that was not all, of course. We went on, then, into 

the school boycott, beginning in September, and lasted some eight 
school days or about two school weeks, and Mr. Glover left his job 
for two days, parts of two days.

THE COURT: Mr. Caldwell, haven't we been through this?
MR. CALDWELL: Yes, sir. I just was trying to find out

what weight if any it had on his decision.
We have been through this particular testimony, and I 

assume that it would suffice to say Mr. Daniel's answer was, 
and I think it was a minute ago, —

Wasn't his previous explanation in answer to

2 0 ,i___

THE COURT:



284

the question of, "Why did you not renew it?"
MR. CALDWELL: Well, I asked him what part this had to

play, and I think he answered it by saying --
THE COURT: That it had all to do with it, I believe was

your answer, wasn't it?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Daniel, let me ask you a

question.
On-this occasion when Mr. Frazier resigned, did he write 

you a letter of resignation?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir; he did.
THE COURT: Did he recommend his successor?
THE WITNESS: He had a recommendation in there.
THE COURT: What was his recommendation?
THE WITNESS: Of either Mrs. D. F. Glover or Mrs. Edna

Miller.
THE COURT: Is Mrs. D. F. Glover related to the plaintiff?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. She is the wife.
THE COURT: Well, where was she teaching at that time?
THE WITNESS: She had taught with him the previous year,

that year, and the last year Mr. Frazier was at the school.
THE COURT: She had taught in one of Mr. Glover's

departments?
THE WITNESS: No, sir, she -- she had taught at East

2 t) 4

Pike Elementary.



285

THE COURT: Was, at the meeting at which the announcement
of Mrs. Elder's appointment made, was this letter appointing 
Mrs. Elder read or not?

THE WITNESS: The letter from Mr. Frazier?
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. I read the letter.
THE COURT: Were the recommendations contained in the

letter itself?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right, sir. Anything else?

0O0

CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. RINDSKOPF:

Q. Have you ever told Mr. Glover or anyone else that you 
wouldn't allow a black person to become principal of your senior 
high school?

A. No, sir.
Q. You've told no one this?
A. No.
0. Okay.

MR. RINDSKOPF: No further questions.
THE COURT: You may step down, sir.

0O0

(Whereupon, the witness was excused from the witness stand at
5:46 p.m.)



286

oOo
THE COURT: Is the other witness here now? What is,

what is it he's going to testify about, Mr. Caldwell?
MR. CALDWELL: He is in charge of adult education,

Your Honor, and he had an occasion to go into Mr. Glover's 
school in the afternoon after school was out to talk to 
teachers that teach at night for him in the adult program, 
and he would testify that while he was in the classroom talk
ing to teachers after having gotten, after having gone to the 
principal's office and the principal being absent, he went 
to talk to the teacher, and was sent word from Mr. Glover to 
come to his office after he had concluded his business with 
the teacher, and that he did go, and that Mr. Glover somewhat 
crawled on him about coming into his school and trying to take 
over, and stated that he had no business —

THE COURT: Well, apparently Mr. Daniel didn't rely on
any of this because he didn't mention it, is that correct?

MR. CALDWELL: I can't say what was in Mr. Daniel's mind,
Your IlOnor. You can say he said this and other things, and 
whether this is one of the other things or not, I don't know.

THE COURT: Well, so far as appears, Mr. Daniel didn't
even know about it.

MR. RINDSKOPF: He certainly had an opportunity to say
on what he did rely.

THE COURT: Well, I think so. Unless Mr. Daniel is the

2 d b



287

man who , or the Board finally declined to renew the contract, 
it was done as far as the evidence shows solely on Mr. 
Daniel’s recommendation, and he doesn’t indicate that he 
relied upon this incident, so suppose you just dispense with 
that.

MR. CALDWELL: All right, sir.
THE COURT: Do you have anything else?
MR. CALDWELL: No, sir. That’s all we have, Your Honor. 
THE COURT: Do you have anything else, Mr. Rindskopf?
MR. RINDSKOPF: We would like to recall M r . Glover.
THE COURT: Who is that?
MR. RINDSKOPF: Mr. Glover.
THE COURT: Oh yes. I thought you said Lovett.

0O0

D. F. GLOVER,
Upon being recalled to the witness stand, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. RINDSKOPF:

Q. Let me just briefly ask you, Mr. Glover, did you ever 
tell Mrs. Elder that you would not support her?

A. N o .

0. Okay. Did you ever create a scene at any of these 
meetings?

A. Not that I would call a scene, no.
Q. Okay. Have you ever been told by Mr. Daniel that he

2 b /



wouldn't let a negro be the principal over at the high school in 
Pike County?

ft. I was told that he would not appoint a principal for 
Pike County High, School that was black,

Q. Okay „
MR. RINDSKOPF: Nothing further.
THE COURT: All right. You nay step dov?n.

0O0

(Whereupon, the witness was excused from the witness stand at 
5:50 p.m.)

0O0

THE COURT: Is there anything else? Is that all,
gentlemen?

MR. CALDWELL: Just a second, Your Honor. I was trying
to get my thoughts together.

THE COURT: Oh -- I have one more question of Mr.
Daniel.

MR. CALDWELL: I'm going to put him up right this
minute, I think, Your Honor.

Does Your Honor want to ask him the questions first?
0O0

HAROLD T. DANIEL,
Upon being recalled to the witness stand, testified as follows: 

THE COURT: Mr. Daniel, when was the contract
tendered to Mr. Glover's successor? That is, the man, I

287/}

2 tf



288

gather, who has signed a contract but sort of indicated he 
wants to back out of it, is that --

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, if you refer to Mr. D. E.
Sellers, I believe that contract was tendered about the 
9th or 10th of April.

THE COURT: And was it tendered before or after this
suit was filed?

THE WITNESS: Now, if you'll, if you're referring to
Mr. Sellers, --

THE COURT: Well, I'm not sure. The names have gotten
lost in mists here.

THE WITNESS: Well, Mr. Sellers is not a successor to
Mr. Glover. Mr. Sellers is a successor to Mr. Chambers.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Chambers is retiring or something?
THE WITNESS: Has resigned to take a job in Habersham 

County, I believe.
THE COURT: Well, that's not the man I'm talking about,

then.
I'm talking about the man who used to be in your school 

system and went somewhere else and was, after Mr. Glover was 
not tendered a new contract, was to be appointed as his 
successor.

What's his name?
THE WITNESS: Mr. Crowder.

iw O «J

THE COURT: Mr. Crowder. When was the contract tendered



289

to Mr. Crowder?
THE WITNESS: Well, Your Honor, Mr. Crowder, a contract

has not been tendered to him. He was, he was approached by 
the Board of Education for a contract. He came down for an 
interview and was approved.

THE COURT: Well, now, do I understand that he initially
applied for the job?

THE WITNESS: Oh yes, sir. He, in fact, -—
THE COURT: And now has indicated that he does not

want it?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. I received a letter from him.
THE COURT: All right. Nov? when was he, when did he

apply and when was he approved?
THE WITNESS: Well, he first applied way last fall when

the first boycott started. He, when things were touch and 
go in the county, I don’t know whether he foresaw that Mrs. 
Elder would throw in the sponge or not, but I heard from him 
at that time, and he did keep in touch with me periodically 
after that.

We just didn't go out and seek him.
THE COURT: Well, when was he tendered the position which

Mr. Glover was not to refill?
THE WITNESS: I believe about the last of April or first

of May, somewhere in that vicinity. I don't recall the date. 
We had so many meetings along about that time, —



290

THE COURT: Was it before or after this suit was filed?
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I don't —
THE COURT: What's the date of this suit, Mr. Clerk?

Do you have it? Maybe I have it up here.
CLERK: Yes, sir. It's upthere. May the 2nd, 1969.
THE COURT: Do the miniates of the Board show his approval?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Do you have that date?
THE WITNESS: I don't.
MR. CALDWELL: We haven't got the minutes here, Your

Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
THE WITNESS: I don't have the minutes here, Your Honor.

As I say, we had so many meetings during that month on 
various subjects, problems, we had a full scale boycott going 
on at that time which lasted thirty days, twenty-nine days, 
beg your pardon.

THE COURT: Incidentally, it's not part of this suit,
but what's going to happen to those children out on boycott, 
as far as promotion is concerned, or keeping up with their 
year or grades as the case may be?

THE WITNESS: Well, Your Honor, I'm glad you asked that

question.
1 took this up with the Pike County Board of Education 

several weeks ago. I've been very worried about it, and in



291

talking with Mr. Glover, talking with the members of the 
Board, interested black and white citizens, and newspaper 
reporters, TV reporters, and that was one of the main 
questions they asked me. I kept trying to get the story 
across that unless those children got back in school that I 
did not see how the seniors could graduate or the others in 
the high school could receive unit credit.

So, I formulated a letter which I sent to Mr. Glover 
towards the last of May, and incidentally, this letter did 
have the approval of the Board of Education, and it instructed 
Mr. Glover and in turn he could instruct his faculty that 
no students could receive unit credit for that last semester 
since they had been out twenty-nine consecutive days.

Since you asked the question, I will tell you that Mr. 
Glover disregarded my order in that respect. Though I have 
seen the records, he instructed his teachers to go ahead and 
those children were given grades. I did not sign any diploma 
because they did not satisfactorily complete the work in order 
to graduate.

I did instruct them in the same letter that seniors and 
others, we're running an eight week summer school, and that it 
would be open and we will be delighted to have them, welcome 
them, and that was the suggestion I made, that we do have it, 
and incidentally, in carrying out your Court order, we have an 
integrated summer school, integrated faculty, pupils, black an!



292

white. In fact, I think we have more blacks than whites.
And it is being conducted at Pike County Elementary School 
and it's going along, I think, very well. I believe we've 
just finished about two weeks maybe, and it may be in the 
third week. It's being pretty well participated in by black 
and white children.

THE COURT: Are some of those children remedying what
they missed during May?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: What percentage of the overall boycotters

are taking remedial work during the summer?
THE WITNESS: I don't know, sir, what percentage. I

think there are around about a hundred and maybe a hundred 
and twenty-five, a hundred and fifty negro children. That's 
my best impression of how many attended this summer. And a 
lesser number of whites.

I instructed Mr. Glover also that, after checking with 
the people in the State Department of Education, accrediting 
commission, we could not give a half unit because they hadn't 
finished the final examination. But in my professional 
opinion that the pupils in Grades 1 through 8 should be given 
a conditional pass because they were not involved with unit 
credit. They could go ahead and proceed on up to the next 
grade and go in the non-graded program, and several of these 
grades that would be taken care of, that the teacher was to



293

In the same vain, I instructed him that pupils in Grades 
1 through 8 who were not passing at that time should be, if 
in the teacher's judgment they thought they would not have 
made the grade, they should be failed for that year.

THE COURT: All right, sir. That's not part of what
is before the Court today, but it has concerned the Court 
somewhat, as it bears on the success of the overall plan next 
fall.

This job has to be done. It's going to require the 
cooperation of everyone, including school board, principals, 
blacks and whites, and I've never seen a school case that 
made everybody happy or any school decision that made everybody 
happy.

And frankly, most of them are distasteful in some 
respects to both sides. And it may be a long time before there 
is one that is not somewhat distasteful to both sides.

But both sides, and I'm talking about something that's 
not before the Court at the minute, but we have some Pike 
County people here, from both sides, and let me say to you 
that with cooperation and understanding and Christian patience, 
both of you and all of you can make this thing work.

And frankly, you're going, both sides are going to have 
to swallow some things you may not like. And if you can do it
like Christian ladies and Christian gentlemen, this thing

~  ^ 
v j>

take them where they were.



294

can be worked out.
On the other hand, if you decide, or both sides get a 

chip on their shoulders, you're going to ruin your school 
system, whatever else happens. The only people who are going 
to lose are the children on both sides. And frankly, down 
that road, I see no solution.

So now, both sides can just put it in your pipe and 
smoke it. There are some things that are going to have to 
be and there are some things that both sides are going to 
have to abide and there are going to be instances that neither 
side is going to like.

But I say to you now that the Court has its duty and the 
Court will do its duty. But over and beyond whatever the 
Court does or doesn't do, the solution or the lack of 
solution of this problem is going to lie in your cooperation 
or your lack of it. And I hope that on both sides you are 
men enough and women enough to recognize your responsibility. 
That you’ll exercise patience enough, restraint enough, under
standing enough, and tolerance enough to make this thing work 
come September.

All right. You may step down.
0O0

(Whereupon, the witness was excused from the witness stand at 
6:02 p.m.)

0O0

£ :j :>



295

THE COURT: All right. Is there anything else,
gentlemen?

MR. CALDWELL: No, sir. That's all the evidence we
have, Your Honor.

MR. RINDSKOPP: No, sir.
THE COURT: All right, Let me ask you this. I'm going

to take this case under advisement. Do either of you have 
any authorities —  I have some that I, a few that I've 
collected. I frankly have not studied them except to read 
the headnotes. And it's going to be, I've got a case going 
on that's supposed to last perhaps another week. It's been 
going on for a week now, and during that time, if either 
side wishes to furnish me a memorandum of authorities, I 
would welcome it. Don't write me any elaborate brief. Frankly, 
I've got about as much reading as I can say grace over already 

Tell me what your case holds and give me the citation.
I'll read it. I mean I -- don't write me any oration. If you 
care to write me a letter and give me your citations and what 
they stand for, I not only will permit it, I will appreciate 
it.

MR. RINDSKOPF: Yes, sir.
MR. CALDWELL: We will do that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, ladies and gentlemen. We'll be

in recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30.)



297

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

If James G. Pugh, Official Court Reporter of the United 
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, 
do hereby certify that the foregoing 296 pages represent a 
true transcript of proceedings had before the said Court held 
in the City of Atlanta, Georgia, in the matter herein stated. 

In testimony whereof I .hereunto set my hand on this the 
r~'' day of ; — - ---, 1969.

‘̂ Northern District of Georgia



CIVIL DOCKET
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

890  '
Jury demand date: E L I

D. C. Forns No. SOSA Rev.

O T L 8  O F C & m ATTORXSYS

For plaintiff:

D.F. GLOVER 
VSt

Howard Moore, Jr. 
Peter E. Rindskopf 
859 h  Hunter St. N.M. 
Atlanta, Ga. 3031 ip

HAROLD T. DANIEL, Individually 
and as Superintendent of Schools 
of Pike County, Georgia and PIKE 
COUNTY BOARD OP EDUCATION,

Jack Greenberg 
Conrad K. Harper 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, N.Y. 10019

890

For defendant:

Caldwell tc Bridges 
Crawley Street 
Thomaston, Ga. 30286 
(Tel. 61+7-3909)

8-7-69 Judgment for Defts.

W A TI3TICJU , BJSCOHB COSTS HAKE omrsa
J.S. 5>naUedx 5 /2 /6 9

lJ.S. 6 mailed
Basis of Actios:i
13 th Amendment 
111 th AmendmentUis. Constitution Action arose at :

Clerk

Marshal 

Docket fee 

Witness fees 

Depositions

$15

$30

oo

Zk

FILED IN CLERK’S OFFICE 
AND A TRUE COPY CERTIFIED, THISJAN 2 6 1970
Claude L.jQoze

2'dd



%D PROCTEBBINOT D ata £>r«S#r o r 
Jgrf£m«ot Notad

May Complaint riled. Summons issued and mailed to U.S. Marshal ------
13 Marshal's return dated May 8, 1969 filed. ssg

. s s r.11+ Pltfs. MOTION To Consolidate with cert, of service filed.Brief filed
16 Pltfs. MOTION For Preliminary Injunction with Brief and cert, ofservice filed.
1? ORDER OF THE,COURT: Motion to Consolidate is granted.

Pltfs. application for a temporary restraining order is denied. 
COURTS restraining order granted shall become effective May 19,1969filed. Copys mailed to Attys. ssg

21 Pltfs. Notice of Motion, Motion to Vacate Temporary Restraining
Order and Brief in Support of Motion with cert, of service filed. ssg23 Pltfs. Notice to take deposition with cert, of service filed. S S g

8 The above Two Motions mailed to Judge Edenfield. ssgDefts. Answer with cert, of service filed. ssgJune 1| ORDER: To show cause at a hearing Monday June 23, 1969 at 10:00 AM
in Atlanta, Georgia, filed. Copys mailed to Attys. SSg

6 Defts. Interrogatories with cert, of service filed. ssg' 9 MOTION by Defts. to shorten the time to answer interrogatories and
memorandum in support with Notice of Motion filed. SSg

11 Marshal's return of Order dated May 17th filed. ssg
i Pre-Trial conference in Atlanta, Ga. this date. Court set the case! for trial on Monday June 23, 1969 at 10:00 AM Atlanta, Ga. The Court! verbally ordered that the case would be tried only as to Pltfs. case
: and would not be considered as a class Action at this time.

The Court verbally granted Motion of Defts. for prompt answer to
17 Interrogatories, Reporters Notes of hearing filed. ssg

SSCTDeposition of D.F. Glover filed.; 18 Depositions of Paul Oxford and Harold T. Daniel filed.
18 Reporters transcript of proceedings June 1 1 , 1969 filed. ssg
20 Pltfs. answer to interrogatories with cert, of service filed. ssg23 TRIAL NON-JURY Hon. Newell Edenfield presiding. At closeing of

! evidence the Court took the case under consideration. ssgAug. Jj. Transcript of proceedings June 11, 1969 filed. ssg7 ; -0RDER:-Plaintiffs petition is Denied and Ordered that plaintiffs 
former position be filled with a Negro principal filed. Copys mailed

15
to both part£@a. ssgNotice of Motion by Pltfs. filed. MOTION to amend and supplement 
findings of. fact and conclusions of law with brief in supuort and

28
certificate of service filed. ssgAbove MOTION Mailed to Judge Edenfield.

Oct. 23 •Reporter's notes of Aug. 5» 1969 filed. S8gHo t . 25 ORDER : Motion to emend is denied end filed. Copys mailed to all
Dec. 19 

1970
parties. a s g
Pltfs. Notice of Appeal filed. Copys mailed to Attya. ssg

Jan. 6
: j

i

1

Cost Bond on appeal filed.

°

ssg

I • '

FILED IN CLERK’S OFFICE 
AND A TRUE COPY CERTIFIED, THISJAN 2 6 1970
Claude L. JJoza, Cl

By:
Deputy Clerk



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

NEWNAN DIVISION

D. F. GLOVER
Plaintiff,

i
i
i

CIVIL ACTION
HAROLD T. DANIEL, Individually 
and as Superintendent of Schools 
of Fike County, Georgia and PIKE 
COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION,

NO

Defendants.

C O M P L A I N T

I

1 , jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 
U.S.C., Section 13̂ +3 (3), this being a suit in equity authorized 
by law under b2 U.3.C., Section 1983, to redress deprivation 
under color of state statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or 
usage of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Con
stitution and laws of the United States, or by any act of Con
gress providing for equal rights of citizens. Rights sought to 
be protected here are secured by the Thirteenth Amendment and
by the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 
United States Constitution, by b2 U.S.C., Section 1981 and 2000 
(d) et seq, and LJ C.F.R., Sections 80.L and 181 et seq.

2. This is a proceeding for a preliminary and permanent 
injunction enjoining the defendants from refusing to re-hire 
plaintiff as a principal in the Pike County public schools 
because of his race or color.

3d i



3« Plaintiff is a Negro adult citizen of the United 
States and of the State of Georgia, residing in Zebulon, Pike 
County, Georgia, where he is currently principal of the segre
gated Pike County Consolidated School* He sues on behalf of 
himself and all other Negro teachers and administrators, similar
ly situated, pursuant to Rule 23, F.R.C.P., which group is too 
large to be brought before this Court* Plaintiff and other mem
bers of his class share common questions of law and fact against 
the defendants, and seek a common relief. Adjudication of plain
tiff's claim will affect the rights of other members of the class 
yls a vis the defendants* Plaintiff adequately represents the 
interest of said class.

k. Defendant Daniel is a white citizen of the United 
States residing in Pike County, Georgia, where he is the Super
intendent of Schools of Pike County, and the chief administra
tive officer thereof. He holds office pursuant to the laws of 
the State of Georgia, subject to the authority and control of 
defendant Pike County Board of Education, all members of whom, 
on information and belief, are white. Daniel is sued individu
ally and in his official capacity. Defendant Pike County Board 
of Education is a governmental agency of the State of Georgia, 
charged with the supervision and control of the schools of Pike 
County.

5. The defendants were sued by Negro parents and children 
in early fall, 1968. Williams et al. v. Daniel et al.. No. 862, 
this Court. A hearing was held on November 11-12, 1968, and an 
order entered in the case of January 16, 1969* The order, to 
summarize, held that the Pike County school system is illegally 
constituted and must be reconstituted as a unitary school system. 
Under the plan adopted by the Court, all schools in the system 
will become part of one unitary system, with certain grades to

-2-
3u2



be located at each school. Defendants are to present a final 
plan to the Court no later than May 15, 1969, after which a hear
ing and further orders are contemplated.

6 . Plaintiff Glover is presently principal of the Pike 
County Consolidated School, attended solely by Negroes, and serv
ing grades 1 through 12. Plaintiff is highly qualified for his 
position. He holds a B.S. degree from Fort Valley State Teachers 
College, Fort Valley, Georgia, and an M.A. degree from Atlanta 
University, Atlanta, Georgia. He has spent his entire career in 
the Pike County schools, teaching social science (grades 8-12) 
for six years, serving as principal of East Pike elementary 
school for five years, and as principal of Pike County Consoli
dated School since 1961. He holds an A -6 certificate. In terms 
of certification and experience, plaintiff is the most qualified 
of all present teachers and principals in Pike County.

7 . The present principal of pike County High School (at 
present tokenly integrated), T. H. Chambers, a member of the 
white race, has resigned effective the end of this school year. 
Despite this vacancy in administration and the fact that he is 
best qualified in terms of certification and experience, plain
tiff was notified on April 9, 1969, that he would not be rehired 
by the Pike County schools for the coming school year. A copy 
of the letter notifying plaintiff is attached hereto as Exhibit 
•'A,'1 and incorporated herein by reference.

8. On information and belief, all of the present teachers 
and administrators in the Fike County system, save plaintiff 
Glover, Chambers, and two Negro teachers at Pike County Consoli
dated resigning from the system for personal reasons, have been 
offered contracts for the 1969-70 school year.

9. The refusal of defendants to rehire plaintiff is not

-3-
3u;-!



caused by any deficiency on his part, or by the fact that a 
person of his credentials and experience is not needed by the 
Pike County school system. Rather, defendants have refused to 
rehire plaintiff because of his race, and because defendants do 
not wish a member of the Negro race to be placed in a supervisory 
position over members of the white race. This refusal to rehire 
is illegal and unconstitutional, under the Fourteenth Amendment, 
United States Constitution, and ^2 U.S.C., Section 1981, inter 
alia, and contravenes the decisions of the United States Courts 
of Appeals for the Fifth and Fourth Circuits. It is part and 
parcel of the continuation of the dual school system in Pike 
County, Georgia.

10. Plaintiff has no other, complete, adequate, or speedy 
remedy at law.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that;
1. Process issue upon the defendants;

2. Upon filing of this complaint, the Court will advance 
the case on the docket and order a speedy hearing according to 
law;

3. This Court will issue a preliminary injunction pend
ing final disposition of this case and a permanent injunction 
upon the final determination of this cause enjoining the defen
dants from refusing to rehire plaintiff and members of his class 
because of race or color;

k. This Court further enjoin the defendants preliminar
ily and permanently from refusing to place plaintiff and members 
of his class in a position commensurate with ability and exper
ience because of his race or color;

-»♦-

3u4



5« This Court enjoin defendants from making or enforcing 
any contracts with other administrators which will have the effect 
of denying a position to plaintiff and members of his class be
cause of race or color;

6. This Court order defendants to pay the plaintiff any 
salary or future salaries of which he has been deprived by their 
illegal acts; and

7« This Court allow plaintiff his costs herein, including 
a reasonable attorney's fee and grant such other relief as is 
meet and proper in the circumstance.

HO W A.
PETER E. RINDSKGPF 
859i Hunter Street, N. W 
Atlanta, Georgia 3031*+

JACK GREENBERG 
CONRAD K. HARPER 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

-5-

3 u 5



iP^ont 5 6 J -8 4 8 9

PIKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
HAROLD T. DANIEL, Superintendent

Zebulon, Georgia 
April 9 5 1969

Mr. D. F. Glover, Principal 
Pike County Consolidated School 
Concord, Georgia
Dear Mr. Glover:

This is to inform you that at a called meeting of the 
Pike County 3oard of Education Tuesday, April 8 you were 
not reelected to serve as principal in the Pike County School 
System for the 1969-70 year. The Board thought it would be 
advisable to consider all Section 12 personnel at this meet
ing so that everyone would be notified in ample time to make 
plans and preparations for the ensuing school year.

We appreciate your past efforts in the Pike County 
School System.

Yours very truly,

Pike County Schools
HTD:msp
c.c. Pike County Board of Education

EXHIBIT "A"
3 u 0-307-



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

NEWNAN DIVISION

I
D. F. GLOVER,

Plaintiff,
I CIVIL ACTION 

NO, 890-vs- X
HAROLD T. DANIEL, Individually, 
and as Superintendent of Schools
of Pike County, Georgia, and FUEDJN CUERK'S OFFICE
PIKE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, X

Defendants, t 4  1S88

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

Comes now the plaintiff in the above-styled civil action, 
and moves the Court, pursuant to Rule 42(a), F. R. C. P., to 
consolidate his cause of action with that already pending be
fore this Court under the style of Darrell W. Williams, et al., 
v, Harold T. Daniel, et al., Civil Action No. 862, Newnan 
Division. As grounds therefor, movant shows the Court as 
follows s

(a) Such consolidation would be for the convenience of the 
Court, and result in substantial savings of time and costs;

(b) Williams, et al. v. Daniel, et al., No. 862, was a 
civil action against the same defendants as the instant action;

(c) Williams v. Daniel, supra, involved a claim that the 
defendants were operating an illegal dual school system in
Pike County, Georgia, in violation of 42 U. S. C., Section 1983, 
and the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United 
States Constitution;

(d) The instant case involves a claim that the same 
defendants, as part and parcel of the operation of their dual

308



school system,, have refused to rehire the Negro plaintiff for
the coming school year, despite the fact that he is the most
qualified principal in the defendants' system by virtue of
his certification and experience, in violation of 42 U. S, C.,Amendments
Sections 1981 and 1983, and the Thirteenth and Fourteenth^ to 
the United States Constitution?

Ce) A hearing has been held in Williams v. Daniel, supra, 
on November 11-12, 1968, and an order entered in the case 

on January 16, 1969, compelling the defendants to submit an 
acceptable plan for integration of their school system to this 
Court, Honorable Newell Edenfield, presiding, by May 15, 1969. 
At some date subsequent to May 15, 1969, a hearing is antici
pated in Williams v. Daniel, supra;

(f) This case and Williams v. Daniel, supra, involve 
common questions of law and fact, to-wit, the violation of the 
constitutional rights of Negroes by the defendants in the 
operation of the Pike County, Georgia public schools.

(g) Should the cases not be consolidated, it is antici
pated that a great deal of the matter already covered in the 
trial of Williams v. Daniel, supra, would have to be covered 
again in open court, with resulting loss of judicial time and 
convenience, and costs for all parties.

WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing, plaintiff respectfully 
moves that this Court order his case consolidated with that 
now pending sub nom., Williams v. Daniel, No. 862, Newnan
Division

PETER E. RINDSKOPF
859 1/2 Hunter St., N. W
Atlanta, Georgia 30314
JACK GREENBERG 
CONRAD K. HARPER 
Suite 2030 
10 Columbus Circle 
Atlanta, Georgia 30314
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

3ua2.



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

NEWNAN DIVISION

D. F. GLOVER,
Plaintiff,

X
l

-vs- X
HAROLD T. DANIEL, Individually, 
and as Superintendent of Schools 
of Pike County, Georgia, and 
PIKE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION,

Defendants.

X
X
X

CIVIL ACTION 
NO. 890

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

Motions to consolidate are within the discretion of the 
Court, but may be granted where there are common questions of 
law or fact. Rule 42(a), F. R. C. P. Consolidation may be 
ordered if it may tend to avoid unnecessary costs and delay.

In the instant case, the Negro plaintiff has claimed that 
his civil rights and Fourteenth Amendment rights have been 
violated by the refusal of the defendants to rehire him as a 
school principal. Plaintiff claims that he is the most qualified 
person in the system in terms of certification and experience, 
and that the failure to rehire is solely because of his race. 
Plaintiff further alleges the refusal to rehire is part and parce L 
of the dual school system defendants have been operating.

In the action with which consolidation is sought, Williams 
v, Daniel, et al.. No. 862, Newnan Division, a Negro parent, 
suing on bahalf of his two children and all others similarly 
situated, sought to enjoin the same defendants from continuing

3 1 u



to maintain a dual school system based on race. Evidence was 
heard in November 1968, and in January 1969, an order was 
entered , finding the defendants to be in violation of the law 
through their operation of a segregated school system. Defen
dants were given until May 15, 1969, to submit a plan to the 
Court providing for a unitary school system.

Under the law of this Circuit, once a school system is 
found to be segregated, the District Court must enter a decree 
along strict lines. United States v. Jefferson County Board of 
Education, 380 F. 2d 385 (5th Cir. 1967). Included in the model 
decree is the following language:

" (b) Dismissals. Teachers and other pro
fessional staff members may not be discrimina- 
torily assigned, dismissed, demoted, or passed 
over for retention, promotion, or rehiring, on 
the ground of race or color. . .If,as a result 
of desegregation, there is to be a reduction in 
the total professional staff of the school system, 
the qualifications of all staff members in the 
system shall be evaluated in selecting the staff 
member to be released without consideration of 
race or color. A report containing any such pro
posed dismissals and the reasons therefor, shall 
be filed with the Clerk of the Court, serving 
copies upon opposing counsel, within five (5) days 
after such dismissal, demotion, etc., as proposed.” 
United States v. Jefferson County Board of Educa
tion, 38b~F~ 2d, at 394.

Plaintiff's claim herein clearly falls within the ambit 
covered by the proposed decree in Jefferson, to which the same 
defendants are to be subjected upon their submission of a 
desegregation plan no later than May 15. It will be a saving 
in time and expense to consolidate this case with that already 
going on and covering the same areas of law and fact. Indeed, 
it will be far more convenient for all parties if they litigate 
matters in the same court to which they have to make reports 
under Jefferson,

-2-

3 i i



Nor will consolidation work any delay in the ongoing case. 
Evidence has already been heard and an order formulated. That 
same evidence is arguably applicable herein, and, if so con
sidered, will result in further savings of time and effort.

WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing, the motion to consolidate 
should be granted.

Respectfully submitted.

F ow^ d T w o r e  , f i C .
PETER E. RINDSKOPF
859 1/2 Hunter St., N. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30314
JACK GREENBERG 
CONRAD K. HARPER 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

-3 -

0 12



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, PETER E. RINDSKOPF, of counsel for plaintiff in
the above and foregoing motion to consolidate, hereby certify 
that I have served a copy of same upon Johnnie L. Caldwell, 
Esq,, , Caldwell and Bridges, Crawley Street, Thomas ton, Geor
gia, attorney of record for defendants, by depositing a copy 
of same in the United States mail, addressed as above, with 
adequate postage affixed thereto to mail the’ same first class,

This ' ^ P  clay 0f May, 1969.

PETER E . RINDSKOPF 
OF COUNSEL

313



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

NEWNAN DIVISION

l
D. F. GLOVER,

Plaintiff, X CIVIL ACTION NO. 890

-vs-
XHAROLD T. DANIEL, Individually, 

and as Superintendent of Schools 
of Pike County, Georgia, and 
PIKE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, 1

Defendants„
...____ __ I

O R D E R

The above and foregoing motion to consolidate having been 
read and considered,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case be and hereby is 
consolidated with Darrell Williams, et al. v. Harold T. Daniel, 
et al■, No» 862, Newnan Division.

Dated: this _______________ day of May, 1969.

"USTTE15" STATES" DISTRICT JUDGE

3 i 4



HIED IN CLERK'S OFFICE
rn Ji 1969

,L 602A, CLERK
A

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT bfouRT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
NEWNAN DIVISION

D. F. GLOVER S
I
I

Plaintiff
CIVIL ACTION

v
HAROLD T. DANIEL, Individually 
and as Superintendent of Schools 
of PIKE County, Georgia, and 
PIKE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, I

Defendants
I

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Flaintiff D. F. Glover in the above-entitled action, by 
his undersigned attorneys, for himself and the class he represents, 
moves the Court for a preliminary or permanent injunction enjoin
ing and restraining the defendants and all persons in active 
concert and participation with them from:

1. Refusing to rehire plaintiff and mambers of his class 
because of race or color?

2. Refusing to place plaintiff and members of his class 
in positions commensurate with ability and experience because 
of race or color;

3 . Making or enforcing any contracts with other adminis- 
I trators which will have the effect of denying positions to
plaintiff and members of his class because of race or color.

Plaintiff requests that an order be issued directed to 
l defendants to show cause at a full evidentiary hearing, if any 
j; they have, on a day certain, why this motion for preliminary

3 1 b



or permanent injunction should not be granted, and plaintiff 
allowed a reasonable attorney's fee as an element of his relief 
herein.

XrtcOyUrl/
HOWARD MOORE, JK.
PET p  E. RINDSKOPF 
859j Hunter Street, N.W. 
Atlanta, Georgia 3031^
JACK GREENBERG 
CONRAD K. HARPER 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

3 ib



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

NEWNAN DIVISION

0. F. GLOVER,
Plaintiff,

v.
HAROLD T. DANIEL, Individually 
and as Superintendent of Schools 
of Pike County, Georgia and 
PIKE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION,

CIVIL ACTION 
NO.

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR 
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Flaintiff alleges in his complaint that defendant Super
intendent and School Board have refused to re-hire him as a 
principal for the coming school year because of his race or color. 
Such state participation in racial discrimination is clearly 
forbidden by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
Brown v. Board of Education. 3^7 U. S. W83. Teachers are not 
exempt from protective sanctions against racial discrimination 
because of their occupation. Johnson v. Branch.36** F.2d 177 
(Wth Cir. 1966)| Shelton v. Tucker, 36^ U. S. W79. See also, 
Franklin v. County School Board. 360 F.2d 325 (^th Cir. 1966).

These views have received the official imprimateur of 
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals? "Teachers and other pro
fessional staff members may not be discriminatorily assigned, 
dismissed, demoted, or passed over for retention, promotion, or 
rehiring, on the grounds of race or color." United States v.

3 1 /



Jg££erson.County Board of Education. 380 F.2d 385, 391+ (5th Cir.
en banc 1967)(Quoting from proposed decree, emphasis added). The 
number of school desegregation and related cases in which pre
liminary and permanent injunctions have been issued are legion. 
See, e. g., Steil v, Savannah-Chatham County School Board. 3 18 

F. 2d ^25 (5th Cir. 1963)(Injunction granted pending appeal on 
the merits)„

WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing, plaintiff should be 
given a speedy hearing on his cause.

-2 -

f + n 4HOWARD MOORE, JR.
PETER E. RINDSKOPF 
859i Hunter St., N. W. 
Atlanta, Ga. 3031^
JACK GREENBERG.
CONRAD K. HARPER 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, N. Y. 10019

3'iti



CERTIFICATE OF SFRVTG1?

I, PETER E. RINDSKCPF, of counsel to plaintiff, herby
certify that I have this --- _____ day of May, 1969, served a copy

of the above and foregoing motion for preliminary and permanent 
injunction upon counsel for defendants, Johnnie L. Caldwell, 

Esq., Caldwell & Bridges, Crawley Street, Thomaston, Georgia, by 

depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, 
addressed as above.

3 i  9-320



FILED IN CLERK’S OFFICE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OP GEORGIA

NEWNAN DIVISION

DARRELL W. WILLIAMS and 
MICHAEL BRETT WILLIAMS, minors, 
by their father and next friend, 
Harold Williams, and all others 
similarly situated,

vs,
HAROLD T. DANIEL, Superintendent 
of Schools of Pike County, Georgia? 
and PIKE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

D. F„ GLOVER
vs.

HAROLD T. DANIEL, Individually and 
as Superintendent of Schools of 
Pike County, Georgia, and 
PIKE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 862

CIVIL ACTION

O R D E R

These actions began when Darrell Williams and Michael Brett 1
|

Williams, minors, through their father as next friend, filed a
Iclass action in this court (Civil Action 862) seeking to desegre- jI

gate the public schools of Pike County, Georgia. On January 16, j
1969 the court entered an order directing that, beginning in Sep
tember, 1969, the schools be desegregated tinder a plan whereby 
each dual grade in the system will be consolidated into a single 
grade, thereby completely integrating all students, faculties, and |

-1-

321



J

jj related school activities. The defendant school board was further ‘
t .. i|| °lrected to file its final plan for implementing this order by
!; ijl May 15, 1969. This has now been done.
l! '! i| In the meantime, on May 2, 1969, Civil Action No. 890 was j
! filed by D. P. Glover against the same defendants in which he al- j
leges that his civil rights have been violated in that he was and !i
is a Negro principal in on© of the schools in the Pike County School 
System and that, solely because of his race, his contract as prin- j 
eipal of said school was not renewed for the 1969-70 school year. !

|
These are the two cases. They relate to the same general 

subject matter and involve at least one common question of law and j 
fact, and for the reasons hereinafter stated they will be consoli- j 

dated.

By a further pleading in the nature of a petition for leave i 
| to file a counterclaim, or, in the alternative, to make parties,
I the defendants now recount certain events transpiring subsequent 
to and as a result of the failure of the defendants to renew the

1 Jj Glover contract and on the basis of these allegations seek a tem
porary restraining order. Defendants allege, for example, that, 
beginning on April 23, and continuously since that time, certain 
named persons, and others, as part of a protest against the failure : 
of defendants to renew the Glover contract, "began, promoted, in- i

|j etitutsd and directed a student boycott" against two presentlyliJ i  colored (or predominantly colored) schools of the Pike County sys-
jli tem. They allege that as a result of this boycott more than 90%

The same or similar events have also been widely reported in the ; 
press in recent weeks.

3 2 2



I of the students at one school (having an enrollment of 585 students) 
;j and approximately 50% of the students at the other (having an en- ji i
lj rollment of 225! have continuously absented, themselves from class | ;
and threaten to continue to do so indefinitely in the future. They
charge further that as part of this boycott certain named persons, 
including John Bascorn, Willie Bolden, Robert Curtis, John Henry 
Butler, Virginia Smith, Douglas Britt and Johnny Willis, acting ±n j 

behalf of Principal Glover have led groups of 
boycotting students onto school grounds while classes were in ses
sion, distracting students in attendance and disrupting classes? j
that the same persons, or some of them, have come onto school 
grounds before classes began for the purpose of causing students 
not to attend school; that as a result of these activities, many 
children have left school and that others, while boycotting classes; 
have stormed the school while in session through a back door, after 
which they turned over lockers, broke out windows, beat on doors, l
cursed and yelled, completely disrupting school activities. So far j

ias appears, none of the persons named have any connection with the j 
schools in question or with these actions.

I!
It is as obvious as sunshine that schools cannot operate and ii !ij courts cannot adjudicate in this atmosphere. It also appears that I

! all of the issues which the colored patrons and principals of the i
I Pike County School System wish to settle are either now before this J
i i!j court or can be brought before it in these proceedings. And if
i! !ij they are to be resolved here, it is equally apparent that they cam- ; 
j! not be resolved in the streets by intimidation and violence at the I
i: same time. It follows that, t© protect its jurisdiction and toil :
I iil I
! !I Ij i

I

3 2 3



make i t s  u l t i m a t e  ju d g m e n ts  e f f e c t i v e ,  t h i s  c o u r t  s h o u ld  t a k e  a c t i o n  

2i f  w i t h i n  i t s  p o w e r .

it CONSOLIDATION OF THE CASES

;j W h ile  som e o f  t h e  i s s u e s  a r e  d i f f e r e n t ,  t h e  tw o  c a s e s  do  i n -  j

:j v o lv e  a t  l e a s t  o n e  common and v i t a l  q u e s t i o n  o f  la w  and  f a c t :  T he i

| e l i m i n a t i o n  o f  r a c i a l  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  i n  d e s e g r e g a t i n g  t h e  f a c u l t y  :

,! o f  t h ® P ik e  C ou n ty  s c h o o l s  and  t h e  s i n c e r i t y  o f  t h e  S c h o o l  B oard
ji .
i i n  t h i s  r e g a r d  i n  s u b m it t in g  t h e  d e s e g r e g a t i o n  p l a n .  T he c o u r t  i s  ! 

;! c o n v in c e d  t h a t  e f f i c i e n c y  and  j u s t i c e  w i l l  r e s u l t  from  c o n s o l i d a -  !

'! t i o n  o f  t h e  tw o  a c t i o n s ,  s o  t h a t  a l l  o f  t h e  r e l a t e d  e v e n t s  i n  t h e  i:!
I d e s e g r e g a t io n  p r o b le m s  o f  P ik e  C ou n ty  ca n  b e  d e a l t  w i t h  a s  a  c o -  j
■ h e r e n t  w h o le ,  r a t h e r  th a n  i n  p ie c e m e a l  f a s h i o n .  S e e  R u le  4 2 (a)  o f  |

'
i; t h e  F e d e r a l  R u le s  o f  C i v i l  P r o c e d u r e .  The m o t io n  t o  c o n s o l i d a t e  i
!l . ;
! i s  t h e r e f o r e  g r a n t e d .  . I

I . !
- li Il!

A t t h i s  p o i n t ,  t h e  c o u r t  i s  c o n s t r a in e d  t o  rem ark  t h a t  i t  ca n  
s e e  n o  r e a s o n  o r  j u s t i f i c a t i o n  f o r  t h e  a c t i v i t i e s  c o m p la in e d  o f  

|l o r  t h e  r e s u l t i n g  b o y c o t t .  I t  w a s  t h e  p l a i n t i f f s  t h e m s e lv e s  who j 
in v o k e d  t h e  j u r i s d i c t i o n  o f  t h i s  c o u r t  t o  r e d r e s s  t h e i r  a l l e g e d  j 

:! g r i e v a n c e s .  I t  i s  t h e i r  c h i l d r e n  and t h e i r  r a c e  w h o , b y  t h e i r  
;; own a c t i o n ,  a r e  f o r e g o i n g  and  b e in g  d e p r iv e d  o f  t h e  e d u c a t io n

t h e y  n e e d  and w a n t . E ven  w i t h  r e s p e c t  t o  t h e  p r i n c i p a l ,  G lo v e r ,  j 
!■ n© o n e  h a s  b e e n  harm ed a s  y e t ,  w h a te v e r  r i g h t s  h e  h a s  w i l l  b e  
i; a d j u d i c a t e d  p r o m p t ly  and lo n g  b e f o r e  t h e  n e x t  s c h o o l  y e a r  b e g i n s ,
'i I n  m e a n tim e , h e  c o n t i n u e s  t o  s e r v e  a s  p r i n c i p a l  j u s t  a s  h e  

h a s  b e f o r e .  The w h o le  p a t t e r n  t h e r e f o r e  a p p e a r s  a s  an  e x e r c i s e  
i n  f u t i l i t y  b r o u g h t  on  b y  t h e  v e r y  o n e s  who h a v e  t h e  m o s t  t o  
l o s e — t h e  e d u c a t io n  o f  t h e i r  c h i l d r e n .

-4-

324



JURISDICTION OF TOE COURT

At the outset, and in the present posture of the case, the ! 
court had grave doubts of its jurisdiction to grant any of the 
injunctive relief sought by defendants, even against the most 
egregious of the alleged activities. Absent diversity of citizen- I 
ship, not here present, a United States District Court is power- j
less t© act unless a federal question is presented,- and the pre- \

jvention of disorder in a public school is a state, not a federal \I
question. Thus, for example, Georgia Code § 26-6913 prohibits 
many of the activities herein alleged by defendants:

“Any person who shall wilfully interrupt or J
disturb any public school . . .  or any assemblage

e

or meeting of such school . . . either within or 
without the place where such school is usually held, 
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."

This would seem to afford the defendants complete relief. 
However, the court has now become convinced that it has jurisdic
tion over the injunctive request. First, considering the actions

»as a consolidated suit, the defendants* motion can be considered a j
compulsory counterclaim to the main action. So considered, no !I
jurisdictional problems arise, since the main action by the plain- j 
tiffs clearly raises substantial federal questions, and the counter!
claim arises of the same transaction or occurrence— -the desegrega- I

■

tion of the Pike County School System— which is the subject matter ji
of the plaintiffs' suits. Rule 13(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil* 
Procedure. Kelly v. Page, 335 F.2d 114 (5th Cir., 1964)? Turner v,j 
Goolsby, 255 F.Supp, 724, 729-730 (S.D.Ga., 1966)(three-judge court).

“5“

325



i;

]!

ii

i
ii
i!
i
i

II
!'

h second and alternative ground upon which jurisdiction is 
premised is this court's ancillary jurisdiction. Generally, ancil-' 
lary jurisdiction is assumed to complete adjudication of issues 
raised by the main complaint, even if some of the matters could 
not otherwise be considered independently of the main claim. Also, 
however, ancillary jurisdiction will support injunctive relief on | 
issues as to which jurisdiction might otherwise be absent in order i 
to preserve the status quo pending determination of the main claim,| 
as to which the court has jurisdiction, Hiram Walker, Inc, v. Serr,j 
277 F.Supp. 3 (E.D.Pa., 1967)? Sheridan v. United Brotherhood of 
Carpenters & Joiners, Local 626. 191 F.Supp. 347, 353 (D.D e l 1961) 
as well as to effectuate and protect federal judgments. 1 Barron 
& Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure. § 23 (Rules ed.). The 
situation in Pike County is volatile. The continuance of clearly 
coercive divisive actions in the county may change the entire situ-!

Iation there and thus affect the disposition of the case or the !
judgments of the court in the pending consolidate?! action. As the j
court put it in Turner v. Goolsby, supra, "plaintiffs are seeking !|
relief in the same subject matter and complete relief cannot be 
afforded in the premises unless these hindrances to the educational 
process are removed." 255 F.Supp. at 730.

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Under Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a 
temporary restraining order may be granted if it appears that "im
mediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the 
applicant before notice can be served and a hearing held thereon."

-6-
32b



The court believes that the Pike County Board of Education, and 
hence the patrons of the Pike County School System, will be irrep
arably harmed if injunctive relief must await notice and a hearing.. 
The Board's primary function is to educate the children of Pike 
County, black and white, and to assure their orderly promotion 
through the school system. Yet, with only two weeks left in the j 
school term, these duties may irretrievably be upset, if those 
Negro children who should be and who wish to be attending classes j 
are coerced in one fashion or another not to do so. Without par- i 
ticipation in the remaining weeks of classes the whole plan of j
desegregation may be upset, particularly if such children thereby |i
became ineligible for promotion and graudation. The school system i

r
will be thrown into p! chaos &€  uncertainty, with parents and the j
school board uncertain about the status of children in the system, j

iTo wait for a hearing in such a situation would be to invite dis-
i

aster, and a balancing of the relative rights of those affected i
and their relative prospects of injury makes the situation cry out jI
for action now. See Kelly v. Page, supra at n.10. i1

The court recognizes that an ex parte temporary restraining 
order is not to be granted lightly— and it grants one here with 
heavy heart. But the rights of all citizens must be served, and 
extrajudicial coercion in any form cannot be substituted for judi- '• 
cial reason, particularly when such coercion may affect or is in- ! 
tended to affect cases pending before the court.

I
Therefore, plaintiffs, Darrell Williams and Michael Williams

iand the class they represent. Plaintiff Glover and those acting in ; 
his behalf, including Virginia Smith, and Messrs. Willie Bolden,

II

32 i



John Bascom, John Henry Butler, Robert Curtis, Douglas Britt, 
Johnny Willis, are hereby temporarily restrained and enjoined as 
follows:

(1) From directly or deliberately disrupting classes 
in progress at the Pike County High School and 
the Pike Consolidated High School. The seven 
persons last named are further restrained from 
entering upon the school premises of the Pike 
County School System for such purpose.

(2) From any act of vandalism, including th,e destruc- I
tion or damaging of property, on the premises 
of the Pike County High School or Pike Consoli
dated High School or any other school of the 
Pike County system.

(3) From inciting or inducing any parent or student, 
by threats, violence, intimidation or direct 
coercion, to violate the compulsory school at-

j
tendance laws of the State of Georgia as applied !i
to Pike County. This does not include, however, 
the individual, uncoerced decision of students

inot to attend classes or of parents not to send 
their children to school. |

Nothing in this order shall prohibit orderly inarches, as-
>semblies or demonstrations within a reasonable distance from the I

schools in question, nor shall it prevent speeches regarding the
issues involved in the Pike County school dispute, provided such !]
activities are carried on at such times and in such fashion as 
not to interfere with the operation of said schools. j

The restraining order herein granted shall become effect!vis! 
Monday, May, 19, 1969.

-8=

32o



i
The court feels that the balance we have struck between 

legitimate First Amendment rights of speech and demonstration, and '

of racial cooperation which is, in the end, our ultimate goal as

The court note* in conclusion, that in Civil Action Ho. 890 
the plaintiff, Glover, has also sought a temporary restraining order; 
and injunction as to certain issues in his case. It appears, how- J 

ever, that his status as principal is presently not affected and !
will not be until the 1969-1970 school year begins. Prior to that 

j time the court hopes to have the issues in both of these cases 
disposed of. In the meantime, any of the enumerated acts of which 
he complains which are committed pendente lite by the defendants J will be done at their peril. His application for a temporary re~

| straining order is therefore denied, but on condition that his 
! status not be changed pending further order of the court.
II!it One of these cases {No. 890) is assigned to Judge Albert J.
ji|j Henderson of this court. I am authorized to say that he concurs 
1 in this order.

t| the orderly processes of education, will benefit all segments of
i;
|j the Pike County community, white and black, and promote that spirit’

a nation. Kelly v. Page, supra.

CONCLUSION

This 17th day of May, 1969.

f filsj cl NEWELL EDENFIE^p' 1 
United States District Judge

/ 32 d



FILED IN OJERK'S OFFICE

M A Y  2 1 1 9 6 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 

NEWNAN DIVISION

DARRELL W. WILLIAMS, et al., 
Plaintiffs,

‘"VS"

X
CIVIL ACTION NO. 862X

HAROLD T. DANIEL, etc., at al.,
Defendants. X

_ — . . . . . . . .  X
D. F. GLOVER,

Plaintiff,
-V 8 -

HAROLD T. DANIEL, etc., et al., 
Defendants.

X
X
X
X

CIVIL ACTION

NOTICE OF MOTION
TO5 JOHNNIE L. CALDWELL, ESQ.

Caldwell & Bridges 
Attorneys at Law 
Crawley Street 
Thomaston, Georgia,

Attorney for defendants

You are hereby notified that the plaintiffs in the above 
civil actions intend to bring the attached motion to vacate on 
to be heard within two days from this date, or as soon there
after as they may be heard. You are invited to respond as you 
see fit.

Dated: this day of May, 1969.

HOWARD MOORE, JR. 1 [/ ~
PETER E. RINDSKOPF
859 1/2 Hunter St., N. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30314
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

33 u



1 'I

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 

NEWNAN DIVISION

DARRELL W. WILLIAMS,, et al., X
Plaintiffs, X~vs~

HAROLD T. DANIEL, etc* , at al., XDefendants.
X 
XD. F. GLOVER, XPlaintiff,

• vs» X
HAROLD T. DANIEL, etc., et al., XDefendants.

X

MOTION TO VACATE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 
ORDER _____ _

Plaintiffs in the above-consolidated civil actions move the 
Court to vacate the temporary restraining order entered herein 
without notice and hearing to plaintiffs on May 17, 1969 , on the 
grounds that:

(a) Defendants' attorney failed to certify to the Court 
their efforts, if any, to give notice, and the reasons why 
notice should not be required?

(b) Defendants failed to post a bond with their motion;

(c) The counter-claim fails to state a claim over which 
this Court has jurisdiction;

flLED IN CLERK'S OFFICE

MAY 2 1 1 9 6 9

CIVIL ACTION NO. 862

CIVIL ACTION NO. 890

33 i



J

(d) The counter-claim fails to state a claim involving 
the violation of any federal rights;

{£) The parties enjoined have not acted in active concert 
or participation with the named plaintiffs?

Cg) The temporary restraining order was never and no 
longer is necessary for the prevention of irreparable injury to 
the defendants;

(h) No hearing has been set down for a hearing on any 
preliminary injunction requested by defendants, nor was a request 
for the same made; and

(i) The injunction is impermissably vague.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that the temporary injunction be 
vacated, immediately, or, in the alternative, that they be given 
a hearing as soon as possible.

(e) The temporary restraining order entered by the Court 
is not endorsed with the time and date of issuance;

HOWA
PETExx X X. X ^ X . X ^ X X V X X - X

859 1/2 Hunter St., N. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30314
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

-2-

332



XN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

NEWNAN DIVISION

DARRELL W. WILLIAMS, et al.„ 
Plaintiffs,

“ V S ”

HAROLD T. DANIEL, etc,, et al., 
Defendants.

X 

I CIVIL ACTION NO. 890

I 
X

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE

On Thursday, May 15, 1969, the deadline for the defendants 
in these cases to file their plan of desegregation, counsel for 
plaintiffs was notified by the Court, while on another matter not 
here relevant, that defendants would be in Atlanta at about 5:30 
p. m., and requested counsel's presence to discuss certain 
matters about the Pike County situation. Counsel for defendants 
arrived, presented their plan for desegregation, and a "motion" 
asking for an injunction against certain named persons. The 
Court indicated its concern, doubts over its jurisdiction, and 
requested counsel for plaintiffs to travel to Pike County the 
next day to see what he could do about the on-going school boy
cott. Counsel did so, and reported to the Court that the 
persons with whom he talked said that they had no control over 
the boycott, but that they were willing to issue a statement the 
next day to the effect that they were against violence and

D. F. GLOVER,
Plaintiff,

“ V S™

HAROLD T. DANIEL, etc., et al.,
Defendants.

FILED IN OERK-S OFFICE

M A Y  2 1 1 9 6 9
OAUDEM.

CIVIL ACTION NO. &62



disruption; in favor of exercising their First Amendment rights; 
and, deplored the activities of certain local officials 
against members of the Negro race. The Court took the matter 
under advisement.

On Saturday, May 17, counsel for plaintiffs was informed 
by counsel for defendants that they intended to present a motion 
to the Court within twenty minutes. Counsel for plaintiffs 
arrived at the court, and in due course were served with the new 
motion styled, "Motion for leave to file counterclaim, or, in the 
alternative to add parties plaintiff." The new motion was duly 
substituted for the motion presented on May 15, and the temporary 
restraining order of the Court filed on May 17, 1969.

The temporary restraining order enjoins certain named 
persons and members of the class represented by Negro parents and 
children from disrupting or disturbing classes; from acts of 
vandalism at schools; and from inciting or inducing parents or 
students by threats, violence, intimidation or direct coercion 
from violating compulsory school attendance laws. First Amend
ment activity, within a reasonable distance from the schools in 
question, is not prohibited.

However unlawful the alleged conduct under state law of 
those sought to be restrained may be, such conduct does not 
give the defendants cause of action in a United States Court for 
injunctive relief. Those persons sought to be restrained are 
all private parties, and it is still the law that the Fourteenth 
Amendment and statutes enacted pursuant to it, including 42 
U. S. C., §1985 (Conspiracy), apply only where there is state 
action. See CORE v. Clemmons, 323 F. 2d 54 (5th Cir. 1963); 
hucom v. Atlantic National Bank of West Palm Beach, 354 F. 2d 51 
C5th Cir. 1965) .

Nor is there a federal right in city, county, or school

-2- 334



officials to be protected in performance of their duty. The 
situation is as stated in Collins v. Hardyman, 341 U. S. 651, 662

« .(Georgia] courts are open to 
• • *{defendants] and its laws offer 
redress for their injury and vindication for their rights."

And,
“Moreover, this unusual federal action 
{the counterclaim) is in an area that 
is essentially one of state responsibility - 
the preservation of public order; and there 
is no lack of breach of peace statutes in . . . 
[Georgia]." CORE v. Clemmons, supra, 323 
F. 2d, at 55. -----

The proper decision would have been to deny the counter
claim and refuse injunctive relief. This is not a decision 
where the defendants are claiming that through some state action 
their First Amendment rights are being violated. Dombrowski v. 
Pfister, 380 U. S. 479. Abstention on the counterclaim is 
more than proper; federal courts are not intended to act as 
local courts of low jurisdiction.

The content of the injunction issued by the Court, moreover, 
shows on its face that it is not designed to protect the juris
diction of the Court. The Court has merely enjoined certain 
persons from continuing State criminal acts. To say that the 
disruptive actions within Pike County must be halted to allow 
the Court's pending desegregation decree to be carried out is to 
lay all the blame on Negro citizens and ignore completely the 
fact that recent incidents were triggered by the failure of the 
white school superintendent to rehire a Negro principal. And, 
one might add parenthetically, plaintiffs requested the Court to 
exercise its affirmative jurisdiction effective as of the 
second semester of this school year, instead of waiting until 
the present time to enter a decree.

The recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in 
Carroll v .  President and Commissioners of Princess Anne, ____

-3- 335



3 * -- — . ,7 Ct. 347; has direct relevance to this pro-
seeding. In Carroll, an injunction was obtained against white 
supremacist rallies from a state court in a totally ex parte 
fashion. Counsel for Carroll were notified neither formally 
nor informally, nor was a hearing held prior to issuance of the 
injunction, in the instant case, counsel for plaintiffs was 
notified informally of the presentment of motions by the moving 
party, but never given any sort of hearing; nor, was counsel 
served with the moving petitions with any sort of advance 
notice so that counter-affidavits might be prepared. In the 
language of Carroll, there was no “opportunity to participate" 
for those against whom injunctive relief is sought. 89 S. Ct. 
at 351.

The events sought to be restrained are within the ambit of 
the First Amendment as much as those in Carroll. The speeches 
in Carroll may well have presented a clear and present danger, 
but the Court was not thereby deterred from holding that the 
speakers should have been given a chance to participate in the 
proceedings, prior to injunction. Similarly, the marching and 
speaking of which the defendants herein complain are familiar 
tools in the efforts of Southern Blacks to free themselves from 
historic oppression. The command of the injunction against 
First Amendment activity within a "reasonable distance from the 
schools," or against speeches which in and of themselves 
"interfere with the operation of said schools," is, frankly, 
Carroll all over again. There are, of course, serious vagueness 
problems with these conditions. Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 
U. S. 229.

The other points made in the motion to vacate, lettered 
as “a," "b," “e,“ and "f,“ are all specifically covered by Rule 
65(b) and (c), F. R. C. P. On the technical or general grounds, 
the temporary restraining order should be vacated forthwith.

33 o4-



Respectfully submitted

HOWA
PETER E. RINDSKOPF 
859 1/2 Hunter St., N. W Atlanta, Georgia 30314
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, PETER E. RINDSKOPF, of counsel for plaintiff in the 
above and foregoing pleadings, do hereby certify that I have, 
this day, prior to filing, served copies of the within and 
foregoing notice, motion, and memorandum in support thereof 
upon counsel of record for defendants, Johnnie L. Caldwell,
Esq., Caldwell & Bridges, Crawley Street, Thomaston, Georgia, 
by depositing copies of the same in the United States Mail, with 
adequate postage affixed thereto, addressed as above.

This ~L~t> day of May, 1969.

PEfER E. RINDSKO; 
OF COUNSEL

-5-



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

NEWNAN D IV ISIO N  F,l£D IN CLERK'S OFFICE

D. F, GLOVER,
Plaintiff,

-VS-

M A Y  2  3 1969

X
CIVIL ACTION NO. 890

HAROLD T. DANIEL, etc., et al 
Defendants X

X

NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION

TO: JOHNNIE L. CALDWELL, ESQ.
CALDWELL & BRIDGES
CRAWLEY STREET
THOMASTON, GEORGIA,

Attorney for Defendants.
Please take notice that at 3:30 o'clock, p. m., on the 

2nd day of June, 1969, at the Pike County Superior Court,
Zebulon, Georgia, the plaintiff in the above-entitled action 
will take the deposition of defendant, Harold T. Daniel, Superin
tendent of Schools, Zebulon, Georgia, upon oral examination 
pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, before a 
notary public or before some other officer authorized by law 
to administer oaths. The oral examination will continue from 
day to day until completed. You are invited to attend and exa
mine as you see fit.

Dated: this day of May, 1969.

/a t !  f i l i a l
HOWARD MOORE, /jR.' ~
PETER E. RINDSKOPF
859 1/2 Hunter St., N. W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30314
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

339



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, PETER E. RINDSKOPF, of counsel for plaintiff in the 
above case, do hereby certify that I have, this day, prior to 
filing, served a copy of the within and foregoing notice to take 
deposition upon counsel for defendant, Johnnie L, Caldwell, Esq., 
Caldwell & Bridges, Crawley Street, Thomaston, Georgia, by 
depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, with proper 
postage affixed thereto, to mail the same first class, this

day of May, 1969

34U



{

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

NEW NAN DIVISION

D A R R E L L  W, W ILLIAM S, e t  a l.  ,
P la in t if f s ,

*N CUERICS OFFICE

MAT 2 9 1969

vs CIVIL ACTION NO. 862

HAROLD T. D A N IE L , e t c . ,  e t  a l. ,
D efen d a n ts.

D . F . G LO VER,
P la in tiff ,

v s

HAROLD T. D A N IE L , e t c . ,  et a l.  ,
D efen d a n ts.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 890

ANSW ER OF D E F E N D A N T S IN CASE NO. 890  
IN THE ABO VE CONSO LIDATED CIVIL ACTIONS

FIR ST  D E F E N SE

The co m p la in t f a ils  to  s ta te  a c la im  a g a in s t  the d efen d an ts upon

w hich  r e l ie f  can be gran ted .

SECOND D E F E N S E

D efen d an ts m ove the C ourt to  d is m is s  th is  a c tio n  a s  a c la s s  a c tio n  

on the grounds that the p e r s o n s  w hom  the p la in tiff  p u rp orts to r e p r e s e n t  as a 

c la s s  do not in  fa c t  co n stitu te  a s in g le  c la s s ,  and that sa id  p e r s o n s  a r e  not 

p ro p er ly  and fa ir ly  r e p r e se n te d  b y  the p la in tiff , and that a ll  other N eg r o  te a c h e r s  

and p r in c ip a ls , in d iv id u a lly , or a s a c la s s ,  do n ot sh a re  com m on  q u e stio n s  of 

law  and fa c ts ,  nor a re  any of the p e r so n s  p urp ortin g  to  co n stitu te  the c la s s  

s im ila r ly  s itu a ted , a ll  of w h ich  a p p ea rs  on the fa ce  of p la in tif f 's  co m p la in t.

34 i



THIRD DEFENSE

L D efendants adm it the a lle g a tio n s  contained  in P aragrap h s 1 and 

2 of the com p la in t.

2 . D efendants deny the a lleg a tio n s contained  in P aragrap h  3 of the

com p la in t,

3 . D efen dan ts adm it the a lleg a tio n s contained in P aragrap h  4 and 

5 of the com p la in t,

4 . D efen dan ts e x p r e s s ly  deny the a lle g a tio n s  in  P aragrap h  6 of the 

com p la in t that p la in tiff is  p re se n tly  h ighly  q ualified  for  h is p o sitio n , o r , that 

in  te r m s  of c e r t if ic a tio n  and ex p e r ie n c e , p la in tiff is  the m o st q ualified  of a ll  

the p resen t te a c h e r s  and p r in c ip a ls  in P ik e County,

A ll other a lle g a tio n s  in sa id  P aragraph  6 are  ad m itted .

5. D efen d an ts, an sw erin g  P aragrap h  7 of the com p la in t, adm it that 

T. H. CHAMBERS has r e s ig n ed , and that p la in tiff w as n otified  on A p ril 9, 1969, 

a s  p er E xh ib it A of p la in tiff's  com p la in t, that he would not be r e -h ir e d  for the 

com in g  sch o o l y e a r .

A ll other a lle g a tio n s  contained in sa id  P aragrap h  7 a re  d en ied .

6. D efendants adm it the a lleg a tio n s in P aragraph  8 of p la in tiff's

com p la in t.

7 . D efendants deny a ll  the a lle g a tio n s  of P aragrap h  9 and 10 of p la in 

t if f 's  com p la in t.

FOURTH DEFEN SE

D efendants show  that the reco rd  in th is ca se  r e f le c ts  that at the tim e of 

the f ilin g  of p la in tiff's  com p la in t, and at a ll t im e s  su bsequ en t th ereto , m em b ers of 

the N eg ro  ra ce  have b een  in a su p e r v iso r y  cap acity  over m em b ers of the White 

ra ce  em p loyed  by and attending sa id  sch oo l sy s te m . D efendants fu rth er show that 

a m em b er of the N egro  ra ce  has been e lec te d  to s'erve as the p rin cip a l of P ike  

County C onsolidated  High S chool for the com ing sch o o l y ea r .

342



The P ike County School S ystem  c o n s is ts  of four sc h o o ls , each  having  

a p rin cip a l. At the p resen t tim e , two p rin cip a ls are m em b ers of the White ra ce , 

and two p rin cip a ls  are  m em b ers of the N egro race.

W HEREFORE, defendants dem and judgm ent that the com p lain t h ere in  

be d ism is se d  and that they have th e ir  co sts  and d isb u rsem en ts  of th is action .

Johnnie L . C aldw ell 
C aldw ell and B r id g es  
A ttorn eys for H arold T. D aniel 

and
P ik e County B oard of E d ucation .

C ald w ell and B r id ges  
A ttorn eys at Law  
C raw ley S treet  
T h om aston , G eorgia 30286.

343



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, JOHNNIE L. CALDW ELL* of c o u n se l fo r  d efen d an ts h e r e in ,

do h ereb y  c e r t ify  that I have se r v e d  a cop y of the w ith in  and fo r e g o in ganswer*
aastiea? upon the p la in tiffs  by d ep o sit in g  a cop y  of the sa m e  in the U nited  

S ta tes  M ail, a d d r esse d  to H oward M oore, J r . and P e te r  E . R indskopf,

859 1/2 Hunter S tr ee t, N . W ., A tlan ta , G e o rg ia , 30314, c o u n se l of re co r d  

for  the p la in tiff.

T h is <3 ? f f i d ay  of M ay, 1969

344



m u  IK C m ' S  CFF1CE

JUU 4 - 1969

B̂ y ozAt clerk x
UNITED STATES DISTRICT C O U R T Oeputy Clerl 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 

NEWNAN DIVISION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 890

D» F„ GLOVER 

VERSUS

HAROLD T. DANIEL, Individually 
and as Superintendent of Schools 
of Pike County, Georgia, and 
PIKE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

O R D E R

The above styled action for injunctive relief has been 

filed with the court. It appears that a full hearing will be re

quired to dispose of the important issues which have been raised 

before the court.

Therefore, the respondents are ordered to show cause
, ,, y, C X C *
before this court/?on the V 3-'**/ day of June, 1969, at

_p’clock ,M., why the relief which petitioner

requests should not be granted.

So ordered this the 4th day of June, 1969.

!ge, United States ̂ DistrictJudge, United States^District Court 
for the Northern District of Georgia

345



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

NEWNAN DIVISION FILED IN CLERK’S OfFICf

D. F . G ROVER,
P la in tiff

vs

HARO IF* T. D A N IE L , In d iv id u a lly  and 
as S u p erin ten d en t of S ch o o ls  o f P ike  
County, G e o r g ia , and PIKE COUNTY  
BOARD O F EDUCATIO N,

D efen d an ts

JUN 6-1969

INTERROGA TORIES

TO: M r, P c te r  E , R indskopf
859 1 /2  H unter S tr e e t , N . W. 
A tlan ta , G eorg ia  30514

The d efen d an ts re q u e s t  that the p la in tiff , D , F , G L O V ER , a n sw e r  under  

oath, in  a cco rd a n ce  w ith  Rule 33 of the F e d e r a l R u les  of C iv il P r o c e d u r e , the 

fo llow in g  in te r r o g a to r ie s :

L State the fa c ts  upon w h ich  you  contend th e , "defendants have r e fu se d  to  

r e -h ir e  p la in tiff b eca u se  of h is r a c e" , a s  a lle g e d  in  you r c o m p la in t.

2. G ive the n a m es and a d d r e s s e s  of a ll  p e r s o n s  having k n ow led ge of the 

a n sw ers s e t  fo r th  in In te rr o g a to r y  N o. 1 a b o v e .

3. State the fa c ts  upon w hich  you contend  that, "defendants do n ot w ish  a 

m em ber of the N eg ro  R ace to be p laced  in a s u p e r v is o r y  p o s it io n  o v e r  m e m b e r s  

of the W hite R ace

4 . State the n a m es and a d d r e s s e s  of a ll  p e r s o n s  having k now ledge of the  

a n sw ers s e t  forth  in In terro g a to ry  N o . 3.

5 . To your k now ledge, in form ation  or b e lie f ,  a r e  th e re  any "books, d o cu m en ts  

w ritin g s , or other tan g ib le  th in gs"  w hich  e v id e n c e  any fa c t  or c ir c u m sta n c e  upon  

w hich your a lle g a tio n s  s e t  fo r th  in In te r r o g a to r ie s  N o s . 1 and 3 ab ove a re  b a se d ?



6C If so , p le a se  d e sc r ib e  each  su ch  "books, d ocu m en ts, w r it in g s , or other  

tan g ib le  th in gs"  giving:

fa) The nature or fo rm  of each  su ch ." b ook s, d ocu m en ts, w r it in g s , 
or other tangib le things";

(b) S ub ject and con ten ts of each  su ch  ,rbooks, d ocu m en ts, w r it in g s ,  
or other tan g ib le things";

(c) The p re se n t  lo ca tio n  and the nam e of the p erso n  having cu stod y , 
co n tro l or p o s s e s s io n  of each  su ch  "books, d ocu m en ts, w r it in g s , or 
other tangib le th in gs" .

7 , W ill you v o lu n ta r ily  produce su ch  "books, d ocu m en ts, w r it in g s , or other  

tan g ib le th in gs"  and p erm it it  to in sp ectio n  or copying b y  the d e fe is la n ts?

T h is 5th day of June, 1969.

C a ld w ell and B r id g es  
A ttorn eys for D efendants 
C raw ley  S tr ee t  
T h om aston , G eorg ia  30286

I, JOHNNIE L. CALDW ELL, of cou n sel fo r  defendants h ere in , do h ereb y  

c e r t ify  that I have se rv e d  a cop y  of the w ithin  and fo reg o in g  in te r r o g a to r ie s  upon 

the p la in tiff by d ep o sitin g  a cop y  of the sa m e  in the United S ta tes M ail, a d d ressed  

to  M r, P e te r  E , R indskopf, 859 1 /2  H unter S tr ee t, N . W, A tlanta , G eo rg ia  30314, 

co u n se l of reco rd  for the p la in tiff.

T h is 5th day of June, 1969.

Johnnie L . C ald w ell



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

NEWNAN DIVISION

D. F . GLOVER,
P la in tiff

vs
CIVIL ACTION NO. 890

HAROLD T. DANIEL, Individually and 
as Superintendent of S ch ools of P ike  
County, G e o r g ia , and PIKE COUNTY 
BOARD OF EDUCATION,

D efendants

MOTION TO SHORTEN THE TIME TO 
ANSWER INTERROGATORIES

HIED IN CLERK'S OfFICE

J U N  9 - 1 9 6 9

The defendants h ere in  m ove the Court for  an O rder and show s to 

the Court the fo llow in g facts:

1. On the 5th day of June, 1969, defendants h ere in  serv ed  plaintiff 

w ith in te rr o g a to r ie s  pursuant to Rule 33 of the F ed er a l R ules of C iv il P roced u re , 

a copy of sa id  in te rr o g a to r ie s  is  h ereto  attached, m arked E xhib it I.

2 . D efendants further show that on the 4th day of June, 1969, they  

w ere in form ed  by telephone that the above captioned c a se  was se t  for  tr ia l on 

the 23rd day of June, 1969.

3. D efendants show that b ecau se tr ia l of th is c a se  is  im m inent, the 

tim e for  an sw ering  sa id  in te rr o g a to r ie s  should b e  sh orten ed  requiring the p l a i n t i f f  

to an sw er said  in te rr o g a to r ie s  w ithin eight (8) days fro m  the s e r v ic e  th ereo f.

W HEREFORE, defendants pray that an O rder is s u e  pursuant to Rule 33, 

F ed er a l R ules of C iv il P roced u re , requiring the p lain tiff to an sw er said  in te rr o g a 

to r ie s  so  that he m ay se rv e  an sw ers to said  in te rr o g a to r ie s  w ithin  eight (8) days  

of s e r v ic e  upon h im .

Signed:
Johnnie L. C aldw ell 
C aldw ell and B rid ges  
A ttorn eys for  D efendants 
C raw ley  S treet  
T hom aston , G eorg ia  30286

348-3Sb



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

NEWNAN DIVISION

D„ F„ GLOVER,
P la in tiff

vs
. C IVIL ACTIO N NO. 890

HAROLD T. D ANIEL, In d iv idu ally  and 
a s  S uperintendent of S ch oo ls of P ik e  
County, G eo rg ia , and PIKE COUNTY  
BOARD O F EDUCATION,

D efendants

MEMORANDUM IN SU PPO R T  OF MOTION TO SHORTEN  
THE TIME FO R ANSW ERING INTERROGATORIES

M otions to e n la r g e  or sh o rten  the tim e fo r  a n sw er in g  in te r r o g a to r ie s  are  

w ith in  the d is c r e t io n  of the C ourt and m ay  be gran ted  on m otion , n o tic e  and fo r  

good cau se  show n. Rule 33, F . R. C, P .

W here c a s e  is  about to go to tr ia l ,  the C ourt o rd er ed  a n sw e r s  (to in te r 

r o g a to r ie s )  to be se r v e d  w ith in  f iv e  (5) d a y s . W iltsop  v . B a ld w in , 1 F . R .  D . 169,

In the in sta n t c a s e , d efen dan ts w er e  a d v ised  on June 4, 1969, by the C ourt, 

that th is c a s e  w as s e t  fo r  tr ia l on the 23rd  d ay  of June, 1969, at 10:00 A. M.

U nd er the R u les , R ule 33, F , R, C, P . , p la in tiff is  a llo w ed  f if te e n  (15) d ays in w hich  

to  s e r v e  a n sw e r s  on d efen d an ts; h o w ev er , th ree  (3) d ays is  added to  the t im e  if  

s e r v ic e  on the op p osite  party  is  n ud e by m a il. Rule 6, F . R. C. P . In te r r o g a to r ie s  

w e r e  se r v e d  by m a il on the p la in tiff , by the d efen d a n ts.

D efen dan ts contend that r e sp o n s iv e  a n sw e r s  to  in te r r o g a to r ie s  w ould m ore  

c le a r ly  d efin e the is s u e s  and fa c ts  in  d isp u te , th e re b y  r e su lt in g  in su b sta n tia l  

sa v in g s  of tim e and c o s t s .

P la in tiff  w ill not be req u ired , u n le ss  the C ourt sh o r te n s  the t im e , to  a n sw er  

sa id  in te r r o g a to r ie s  b efo re  the date of tr ia l ,  and the b en e fit  of sa id  a n sw e r s  w ill  

be lo s t  to  the d efen d an ts.

W H EREFO RE, for a ll  of the fo r e g o in g , d efen d an ts r e s p e c tfu l ly  m ove that 

th is  Court o rd er  the p la in tiff to an sw er sa id  in te r r o g a to r ie s  w ith in  e ig h t (8) d ays

fr o m  the date of s e r v ic e .
R e sp e c tfu lly  su b m itted

Fohnnie L . C a ld w e ll 
'C a ld w e ll and B r id g e s  
A tto rn ey s  fo r  D efen d an ts  
C ra w le y  S tr e e t  
T h o m a sto n , G e o rg ia  30286

351 -



1
2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18
19

20

21

22
23

24

25

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 

NEWNAN DIVISION

D. F. GLOVER )
)
)VSs )
)
)

HAROLD T. DANIEL, Individually, )
and as Superintendent of )
PIKE COUNTY SCHOOLS, ET AL )

__________ )

Atlanta, Georgia;

CIVIL ACTION 
NUMBER 890

%

Q%-
1 O'A/ " QfO  , ’ 2A- "'A* '■'i /0,0-

'r
June 11, 1969

B E F O R E :

Honorable NEWELL EDENFIELD, Judge

APPEARANCES OF COUNSELS

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Peter E, Rindskopf
8592- Hunter Street, SW 
Atlanta, Georgia

FOR THE DEFENDANTS: Johnnie Caldwell
Thomaston,
Georgia

35,1



1
2

3

4

5

6
7
8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22
23

24

25

2

JUNE 11, 1969 
- 0 -

THE COURT; Well, gentlemen, I thought it might be 
well for us to sort of get together here in advance and discuss 
the disposition of this case and the Gainesville Case, which 
is at least somewhat similar.

As you probably have been advised, I think these cases, 
ought to be tried on the merits* I don't see much use during 
the summer recess for any temporary hearing. I mean, looks to 
me like we might as well go ahead and dispose of them for once 

and for all. And it should be done in time for the school 
board and everybody else to make and to know their arrangements 
for the coming school year.

As you know, these cases are, the two that are now 

before the Court, have been sort of half-way between two 
judges. The Pike County Desegregation Case which we are now 
dealing with was assigned to me. The Glover case which is now 
a matter before us is assigned to Judge Henderson. But they 
are inter-related because the decree in the —  incidentally, 
has that been, have you gotten a copy of the decree I handed 

down in your case?
MR. CALDWELL; Yes, sir.
THE COURT: It involves, of course, discrimination

in the employment or discharge of faculty members. So, any 

decision in the Glover Case would be inter-related with what

354



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22
23

24

25

1
happened in the, my case.

So, Judge Henderson and I decided we’ll just, I don’t 

think there’s any such thing as a two-judge court --
MR. RINDSKOPF: It will be my first experience with

one,
THE COURT: What's that?
MR, RINDSKOPF: It will be my first experience with

one.
THE COURT: Well, we had one in the Atlanta School

Case, Judge Sloan and Judge Hooper sat together the first time 

we ever had one. I don't remember who signed the order. I 
don't remember whether Judge Sloan signed it or whether Judge 

Hooper signed it. I don't —
CLERK: I think Judge Hooper signed it finally.
THE COURT: Anyway, we’re going to give you the benefi

of two heads instead of one, for whatever it's \srorth. Whoever 

the case is assigned to may sign it.
Now, the only time he and I can get together within 

the foreseeable future, because of other commitments, is the 
23rd and 24th of this month. And in the absence of a strong 
showing to the contrary, we're going to try these cases on 
the merits, both of them, one following the other, and enter 

a final order.
Now is there any objection to that procedure?

MR. RINDSKOPF: No. No, sir.

3 5 b



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22
23

24

25

4

MR. CALDWELL: We have no objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You had something about some discovery yoi.

wanted in advance of answer time, or something. I got a letter 

—  didn't I get a letter from you, or was it the Gainesville 
MR. CALDWELL: We sent you a copy of the motion and

the notice that we would ask for it this morning,,
There are some questions, and they're very short, but 

we have asked that you shorten the time to eight days so that 

we would have them in time.
THE COURT: To present at the hearing?

MR. CALDWELL: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: How about that, Mr. Rindskopf?
MR. RINDSKOPF: I don't object to that.

THE COURT: All right.
MR. RINDSKOPF: At the same time, I would like to --

THE COURT: All right,
MR. RINDSKOPF: —  complete our discovery.

THE COURT: All right.
MR. RINDSKOPF: By taking the deposition of the

Chairman of the Board of Education.
Maybe we could just pick a date while we’re here?
MR. CALDWELL: We have no objection, if we can just

know when it's going to be.
MR. RINDSKOPF: I know you're going to be busy.
MR. CALDWELL: This is the only thing that bothers me

3 5 b



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10

11

12

13

1 4

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22
23

24

25

5

The Legislature convenes tomorrow morning.
THE COURT: How long is it going to be there?

MR. CALDWELL: I can't answer you that.
THE COURT: It may be out day after tomorrow.

MR. CALDWELL: It very well could.

THE COURT: From what I hear.
MR. CALDWELL: I couldn’t make a statement to that.

However, --
THE COURT: I realize that. I understand that, and

that is grounds for a continuance. But I don't think these 

cases ought to be continued.
MR. CALDWELLs I don't want it continued if I can

possibly work out a —
THE COURT: Why don't you do this, you're not in

session on Saturday, why don't you plan to take his deposition 

on Saturday?
MR. RINDSKOPF: All right.
THE COURT: I know you'll be out on Saturday, Johnny.

MR. CALDWELL: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And it may be that he can get excused or

that they'll send this business to some committee that he's 
not a member of and he can, you all can get together and do it

any other time, of course, —
MR. CALDWELL: Pete, I would like to sort of see what

the sentiment is over there tomorrow, and then I really think

35 i



1
2
3

4

5
6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21

22
23

24

25

6

that if we are over there beyond next Tuesday, we'll be there 

for some several days.

MR. RINDSKOPF: All right. Well, let me check with
the

THE COURT; At any rate, --
MR. RINDSKOPF: -- with you tomorrow.

THE COURT: -- why don't you all agree you'll respond

you served him interrogatories, didn't you?
MR. CALDWELL: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right. You respond to his interrogate

by this week-end. Today's Wednesday, and take the deposition 
of the Superintendent on Saturday, if you can't do it by 

agreement before then.
MR, CALDWELL: Not of the superintendent. We've

already done that. He said Chairman of the Board.
MR. RINDSKOPF: Chairman of the Board.
THE COURT: All right. Whoever it is. I thought it

was the Superintendent.
All right. That gets that part of it out of the way.
Now, let me ask, what stipulations can be made to 

shorten the evidence in this matter, getting down to the, 
to the real issue involved, which I judge to be whether or 

not Mr. Glover was fired for racial reasons or for cause or 

for some reason other than race.
For example, let me ask you some questions. Can it



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24

25

7

be stipulated what the rules are for, for example, does Georgia 

have a tenure for teachers?

MR. RINDSKOPF: No.

MR. CALDWELL: No, sir.
MR. RINDSKOPF: Not in that county --no county.
THE COURT: All right. What criteria exist, if any

do exist, for the hiring, renewing or discharging, renewing 

of contracts or the discharging of teachers? Is there any 
writing, any criteria in writing or is there any oral policy?

MR. CALDWELL: I'm sure there's an oral policy, but

I am not at all sure, Your Honor, that it is in writing. I 
would have to go back to the minutes of way back in the system 

to check it.
I have not done so, but I could. I can tell you what 

has been stated by the ~~
THE COURT: Well, isn't that going to be a backdrop

against which this thing has to be tried, as to what the state 

criteria -- isn't that going to be something we might well be 

interested in?
MR. CALDWELL: Well, we have an order, Your Honor,

that says what the criteria will be.
THE COURT: You mean the decree I entered?

MR. CALDWELL: Yes.
THE COURT: I think in general that's what it has to

be.

l !  VJ



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24

25

8

But for example, suppose you didn't follow your own 

criteria, if you have some, I don't, I don't know whether you 

have any or not?
MR. CALDWELL: Well, I know that --
THE COURT: Another question is who, who is in charge

of hiring and firing teachers? The County Board of Education 
or the State Board, or the Superintendent, or whose function 

is it?
MR. CALDWELL: The Code Section recites that the

superintendent shall make recommendations to the Board, and 

the Board shall take such action as they see fit, based on the 

recommendation of the superintendent.

Do you agree with that, Pete?
MR. RINDSKOFF: Right. I expect the Board will turn

out to be a rubber stamp.
THE COURT: I understand that, but --
MR. RINDSKOPF: But it's at the county level.

THE COURT: At the county level?
MR. RINDSKOPF: Right.
THE COURT: Well, at least we can get that much

stipulated so we don't have to get Into who has the author tty.
I assume your suit is addressed against the county 

officials, and, therefore, there's no dispute about that.
All right. Now, how long is it going to take to try

this case?

3 6 u



1
2
3
4

5

6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24

25

9

MR. RINDSKOPF: Well, it seems to me that this is

basically a two-witness case, on the one hand, Mr. Glover: 
and on the other hand, the superintendent.

And, based on the depositions we took, we deposed 

both of them, and, in two and a half to three hours. I would 

think that the direct examinations probably wouldn't be more 

than an hour. I would think that we could probably try it in 
two-thirds of a day.

THE COURT: In a day or less?
MR. RINDSKOPF: I think so.

MR. CALDWELL: I think we could try it in a day.

MR. RINDSKOPF: No more than a day.
THE COURT: All right. Is the ultimate, basic issue

going to be, Was this man discharged, or, not re-employed 
because of race? Is that going to be the issue in the case, 
the only issue?

MR. RINDSKOPF: Well, that seems to me to be the

central issue.
There might be another issue, if it turns out that he 

was not rehired for no cause whatsoever. We may have to amend 
to bring in that. It- seems to me --

THE COURT: Well, there are some decisions in this
area. There's no question here, for example, of reduction of 
faculty, is there?

.i vj i

MR. CALDWELL: No, sir.



1
2
3

4
5

6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24

25

10

THE COURT: Many of the cases in this area have

involved a reduction in faculty.
MR. CALDWELL: I know of none.
Do you know of any, Mr. Rindskopf?
THE COURT: It's not a question of who has got to go?

MR. RINDSKOPF: No, it1s not that question.

THE COURT: There's been no reduction?

MR. CALDWELL: No, sir.
THE COURT; This is a straight question of whether 

they fired him, failed to re-employ him because of race or for 

some justifiable reason.
All right. Has his successor been chosen?
MR. CALDWELL: Been elected, and we recite that in

the answer and in the depositions, the superintendent test ifie

that he had been elected.
MR. RINDSKOPF: But not signed to a contract.

MR. CALDWELL: But not signed to a contract.
THE COURT; In other words, you've tentatively 

selected his successor, subject to the outcome of this case:
MR. CALDWELL: No, sir. He was elected at a regular

meeting of the Board of Education for that purpose, and he 
was in a school system at that time, and he requested that he 

be given until at the end of school to sign his contract.
THE COURT: Well, if he were fired for race, I would

have to enter an order re-instating the other man, wouldn't It

3 6 2



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24

25

11
MR. CALDWELL: I would have to assume you would do

that, but, Your Honor, this Board of Education cannot pass up 

the opportunity to get a qualified —

THE COURT: Well, I'm not --

MR. CALDWELL: -- principal.
THE COURT: -- criticizing what you've done, but what

I'm saying is whether he actually takes office, as far as this 

principalship is concerned, you don't need both of them?
MR. CALDWELL: No, sir. But we'd be bound by our

contract to the other man, I'm sure, under state law.
THE COURT: Well, the cases seem to be rather clear

that if he were discharged for cause, I mean for racial reasons 

he's entitled to a mandatory injunction reinstating him.
I haven't found any cases on this subject in the 

Fifth Circuit. There should be some. I haven't really resears 

it. But there were some cases from the Fourth Circuit --

MR. CALDWELL: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: -- out of the Carolinas, Tennessee and

Missouri -- that's what, the Seventh Circuit?
MR. CALDWELL: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: The Fourth and Seventh Circuit seem to

have had more of the cases than have any other circuits. Thers 
are at least a half dozen cases from those circuits. And that 

seems to be what they lay down.
But if there is a finding that he was discharged beca:

3 b 3



1
2
3

4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24
25

1 2

of race, then he's entitled to a mandatory Injunction ordering 

his reinstatement,,
All right. Is there any other preliminary matter 

that we need to thrash out?
MR. CALDWELL: Yes, sir. We have one, Your Honor,

that we contend that the pleadings on its face shows it’s not 

a class action.
THE COURT: Well, now, let's get into that, because

this is involved in both these cases.
What's the need for a class action in these suits?

MR. RINDSKOPF: Well, I think the class action

relates back to the decree that's been entered in the case 

which runs to the class of teachers.
THE COURT: Well, aren't, isn't that tweedle dee and

tweedle dum, for this reason, whether there's a decree or not, 

it's very clearly the law that to discharge somebody for 

racial reasons is unconstitutional.
It may also violate a court order.
But it can't be done, whether it's because it's 

violating a court order or because it's violating the Constitu 

So -- and you're going to have to try each one of these 
cases, if other cases arise, on their merits whether it's 
tried as a contempt under the decree or whether it's tried as 

a constitutional question, aren't you, because, all, all the 
teachers who are fired may very well not fall in the same clas

3 6 4



1
2
3
4

5
6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24

25

11

Some of them may have been, the evidence may disclose that one 

of them was fired for --
MR. RINDSKOPF: Outside of the class.
THE COURT: -- murder, kidnapping, child beating,

I don't know what all, somebody else may have been fired
patently because of race, but each would, each one of them

to .would have/stand or fall on its own bottom. And it just strik

me that in this area, I see little need for a, I don't know.
there is the question outstanding, whatever you want to call 

it, as far as the firing is concerned, its intent, and if he's 
fired for racial reasons, it'll violate the Constitution and 
it'll also violate the order. Although, of course, there 
couldn't be any contempt here because there wasn't any order 

in existence at the time the renewal or failure to renew

took place.
But it seems to me like that we are biting off an 

unnecessary chunk when we undertake to make a class action 
out of this thing. We've got one man, he was either fired 
for racial reasons or for some other justifiable reason, and 

the answer is just as plain as the palm of your hand: If he 

were fired for racial reasons, it's illegal.
If he were fired for some other reason, it's not.

And I don't see how any other people somewhere else under 
some other circumstances, under a different set of facts, are 

concerned.

365



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24

25

____________________ ________________ _ _ lb____
MR, RINDSKOPF: Well, speaking practically in this

case, the class so far is Glover. I'll certainly admit that. 

There's no doubt about that.
As far as I know, all the other cases in this area 

have gone off as class actions, in the various circuits.
THE COURT: Well, some of them have, but the only

thing they did, they didn't, or the only thing the class actio: 
did was invoke a Jefferson-type decree to prevent discriminate 

didn't it? They didn't undertake to adjudicate that every 

conceivable Negro who was displaced was thereby entitled to 

reinstatement?
MR. RINDSKOPF: No, sir.
THE COURT: Which would be one of the features of a

class action, wouldn't it?
If I had a class action, for example, in a securities 

transaction, and I enter a judgment for the Plaintiff in this 

class action, every holder of one of those securities within 
the reach of my judgment can come in and cash in on it, can't 

he?
And on the contrary, if I hold against him, he's 

barred. That's the very nature —
MR. RINDSKOPF: That's right.

THE COURT: -- of a class action.
Well, how can you enter a decree, how can I treat thi 

as a class action and enter a decree which would determine in



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24

25

15

advance whether some other person was or was not ~~ to be a 

class action, they’ve all got to be just alike.
M R . RINDSKOPF; Similar l'y situated.

THE COURT: You allege common questions of law and

fact. It seems to me like you may have some common questions 

of law, but I don't think you have any common questions of 

fact at all, necessarily.

MR. RINDSKOPF: Well, necessarily, if they don't fail
in the common question of fact, then they're not in the class, 
then.

THE COURT: Well, I say we're arguing tweedle-dum
and tweedle-dee. The outcome Is going to be the same, whatever 

you call it.
MR. RINDSKOPF; I am in agreement with the Court on

that,
THE COURT: That matter addresses itself to me, anyway

MR. RINDSKOPF: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: What we'll do, we'll try the case and I'll

determine, I'll let it proceed and treat it as a class action 

or not, and if anybody disagrees with what I rule, you can let 

the Fifth Circuit settle it.
MR. CALDWELL: Your Honor, would it not require

different evidence if it were a class action from the evidence 

that would be required if it's going to be an individual, Mr. 

Glover's case?

367



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15
16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24

25

16

TIE COURT: Well, we’re going to try Mr. Glover’s case

and that’s the very reason I don’t think there's any class 

action involved.
MR. CALDWELL: Well, it will necessitate me bringing

in a number of witnesses that I don't have to have in Mr. 
Glover's case, if we're going to say there are others similarly 

situated.
THE COURT; Well now, you mean others in the Pike 

County System?
MR. CALDWELL: Yes, sir, because I don't know whether

to expect Mr. Rindskopf to bring in twelve other teachers or 
two other teachers or nineteen other teachers, and I'll have 

to subpoena witnesses that will, that I can use in defense of 

this very thing, whereas, if we're talking about trying the 
Glover Case only, as an individual, then only the evidence that 
applies to Mr. Glover's particular situation is involved.

THE COURT: Well, I don't think Mr. Rindskopf disagree;

with that, I mean, I don’t know how you contemplate -- you 
don't have any witnesses concerning the other members of that 

class?
MR. RINDSKOPF: At the present time, there's no

evidence that other members of the class have been treated --
MR. CALDWELL: Well, we contend --
THE COURT: Well, at any rate, for this trial, we're

going to try Mr. Glover's case, and when it comes to what kind

,1b



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10

11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24

25

12
of decree we enter, I may hear you all on that.

But we're not going to try anything but Mr. Glover at 

the minute, at least, that's my present disposition. We may 

get a split in this two-bank court. I don't know.
MR. CALDWELL: Of course, Paragraph 8 of his complaint

says that all other teachers, save only three, one of them hav:.r 

resigned, the other two for personal reasons, resigning, have 

been offered contracts. All others —
THE COURT: Well, that again militates, it seems to

me, toward a holding that this is not a class action. And I'm 
not going to treat it as such for the time being. Looks to me 
like it's just like everyone of these other cases. They may 

call them class actions, or whatever you call them, but in 
North Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri, wherever the question has 

come up, certain named teachers said they were fired for 
racial reasons, and they entered a judgment, they may have 

called it a class action, it ordered them either to reinstate 

these teachers or that they didn't have to reinstate them. 
Sometimes they did have some they had to reinstate and some 

they didn't. But it didn't purport to deal with any other 
person except in general, enter a Jefferson-type decree, that 
they shall not discriminate, and that's already been done.

MR. RINDSKOPF: Right. This case is a little differed

than the ordinary teacher case.
THE COURT: All right, sir.

3 b j



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10
11
12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24

25

18
MR. RINDSKOPF: Because we just now have our decree.

THE COURT: At this hearing, at any rate, you can
forget any other members of the class.

MR. CALDV/ELL: Other than Mr. Glover?
THE COURT: That's right.

MR. CALDWELLi All right, sir.

THE COURT: All right. What else is there to be

discussed? Is there anything that would -- now, do you all 
want to put up live witnesses? I assume you do?

MR. RINDSKOPF: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. If that's going —

MR. CALDV/ELL: We've got the depositions. Pete, we've
got the depositions of both sides —

MR. RINDSKOPF; Well, --

MR. CALDV/ELL: And we111 have the interrogatories.

THE COURT: If it's not going to be too long, --
MR. CALDV/ELL: Would you rather have it live?
THE COURT: -- I rather have it oral.

MR. CALDWELL: Suits us. We have no objection to thae.
THE COURT: For the reason, something may, with all

respect to the genius of counsel involved, something may occur 

to me I want to ask them about that you all overlook, or somethi 
may come up that their deposition doesn't contain, and I, it 
slows things down if you're going to have a long trial on an 
interlocutory hearing to do it by oral testimony; but is there

r% . ‘ ,> .



1
2
3

4

5

6
7
8
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21
22
23

24

25

any objection, in the first place, that we try this thing 
finally and forever on the 23rd?

MR. RINDSKOPF: No objection.

MR. CALDWELL: We have no objection to that.
THE COURT: All right. This is a final trial, and on

the final trial you ordinarily do use oral testimony.
All right. That means -- who's going to produce thesis 

witnesses? What witnesses do you want particularly produced?
I assume you'll have Glover here?

MR. RINDSKOPF: Glover.
THE COURT: And what witnesses, what witness -- you

want to cross examine some of the Defendants?
MR. RINDSKOPF: Cross examine the superintendent,

and probably the head of the Board of Education.
THE COURT: Chairman of the Board?
All right. Can we stipulate without going to all 

this foldera of subpoenas that you'll have both of them here?
MR. CALDWELL: We'll have both of them here.
THE COURT: All right. Is there anybody you want

him to produce?
MR. CALDWELL: At this moment I don't know of anybody

other than Glover.
MR. RINDSKOPF: I probably intend to produce one or

two character witnesses.
THE COURT: That's all right. I'm not saying you

--—  -.............. ..... ..19___



1
2
3

4
5
6
7

8
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20
can't, but what I'm trying to do is to keep each one of you 

from having to run to the Clerk's office and get a marshal to 

serve subpoenas. We might as well stipulate now he will have 

the superintendent and the county chairman, and you will have 

Glover present, and if either one of you wants to bring 

somebody else, why, that's fine.
The main thing I'm interested in, each one of you 

decide which witnesses you want to bring, but do either one 
of you have any witnesses you want the other one to bring?

MR, CALDWELL: You're not saying, Your Honor, we're

precluded from subpoenaing other witnesses -- 

THE COURT: No.
MR. CALDWELL: -- if we think, when we leave here,

I don't know of any, but --
THE COURT: You want, you may bring any witnesses

who know anything about it, and so may he.
But I'm trying to save each side from subpoenaing 

witnesses from the other side.
MR. CALDWELL: At this moment, I can say I don't

know of anybody other than Glover from your side that —
THE COURT: And right at the moment he knows of

nobody, save the superintendent and the chairman of the board, 

MR. RINDSKOPF: From their side.
THE COURT: All right. And if either one finds out

the other one has somebody you want, you all notify them and



1
2
3

4
5
6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22
23

24

25

2 1

agree, or get a subpoena, whatever you want to do.
Of course, the traditional way would be the subpoena. 

Normally we would have a pretrial order and each one would 

say who he was going to have present. But we're sort of cutti. 

this short and getting to the issue in a hurry.
All right. Is there anything else we can do this

morning?
MR. RINDSKOPF: I think that's about it, Your Honor.

MR. CALDWELL; I don't know of anything else.
THE COURT; Well, all right. You all go ahead and 

get your discovery or your depositions or whatever you call 
it done by, I don't know, I said this week-end, and I said 
that primarily because I know you'll be out of the Legislature 

on Saturday.
MR. CALDWELL; Yes, sir. I will.
THE COURT; But you all work it out among yourselves, 

and if you have any trouble, so that -- I don't anticipate 
any, both of you have been very cooperative, and I'm sure you 
will continue to be -- but if you should run into any trouble, 
let me know because it's going to be awfully difficult to 

find any other date we can try these cases.
CLERK: Judge, we might just, we have set it on the

calendar, this case is first, so we might just discuss whether 

we try this one on the 23rd or the 24th. I don't see any 

other --

‘3 7 3



1
2

3

4

5
6
7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22
23

24

25

22
THE COURT: I think we ought to take them in the

order in which they were filed.
CLERK: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And this is the oldest case, isn't it?

CLERK: That's the way it was set on the calendar.
THE COURT: Doesn't make any difference, if counsel

in the cases want to agree on some other order. I have no 

other, I mean that's just a rule of thumb,
CLERK: All right, sir.
MR. CALDWELL: The only reason I would ever suggest

a different date, Your Honor, would be that if on the 23rd 
a crucial argument was coming up over in the Legislature, 
and I, of course, would like to swap days. But —

THE COURT: I assume we can work that out, everything

else being equal. Looks to me like it's a toss-up which you 
try first. And, therefore, if there's some justifiable reason 
for reversing the order, I would be inclined to do it, but 
just at the outset, it looks to me like the oldest case ought 

to be tried first.
MR. CALDWELL: I agree.
THE COURT: And if for some reason that's inconvenient

or if you all can agree to some other order of business, we'll 

do it that way.
MR. CALDWELL: Well, I could just as well be in bad

shape on the 2̂ -th at this point, over there.



1
2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21
THE COURT: Yeah.
MR. CALDWELL: I mean over there, if we're going to

be in session, --
THE COURT: You may be just as anxious to try it

the 23rd as you might be the 24th.
MR. CALDWELL: Yes, sir. If I find out somewhere

down the line there's going to be a crucial vote on the 23rd,
I would like permission to come to you and to the Court and to 

the lawyers in the other case and say, "Gentlemen," —
THE COURT: I'll try to accommodate either side as

far as those matters are concerned.
All right, gentlemen. I don't know of anything else. 

If anything does come up, let me know, and let nothing stand 

in the way of disposing of It as rapidly as we can.
MR. CALDWELL: What do you want to do about Saturday?

You want us to set it up for Saturday or wait until tomorrow, 

or what do you want?
MR. RINDSKOPF; This is off the record. I don't see 

any reason for this to be on the record.
-0-

(Whereupon, a discussion was held among Court and counsex off 

the record as per above.)
-0-

THE COURT: All right, gentlemen. Thank you for com:..

-0-
(Whereupon, the hearing was adjourned at 10:$0 A. M.)_________

C. >"/' u.3 i »)
- 0



1
2

3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2b

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
I, James G. Pugh, Official Court Reporter of the 

United States District Court for the Northern District of 

Georgia do hereby certify that the foregoing 23 pages contain 
a true transcript of proceedings had before the said court 

held in the City of Atlanta, Georgia, in the matter therein 

stated.
In testimony whereof I hereunto set my hand on this

JAMES G. PUGH /
Official Court Reporter 
Northern District of Georgia

*> t f>



MUD IN ClfRK'S OFFICE

J U N  2 0 1 9 6 9
CLAUDE/^ _

IN THE LNITED STATES DISTRICT COUftg 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 

_________NSWNAN DIVISION

Do F. GLOVER, 1

Plaintiff, I
CIVIL ACTION

V o I
NO. 890

HAROLD T. DANIEL, et al s
Defendants. I

. 1

PLAINTIFF'S ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES

Comes now D. F . GLOVER, plaintiff in the above styled civil 

action, and answers the interrogatories served upon him in 

accordance with Rule 33, F. R« C. P. as followss
«>

1. Plaintiff is highly qualified to be a principal in the 

rike County system in terms of education, experience, certifi

cation, and competence. Plaintiff is more qualified than any 

other teacher or administrator in the system save one principal 

who is retiring, and the superintendent who is not competing 

for « principal's job. There are no non-racial reasons of any 

substance for not re-hiring the plaintiff. Plaintiff has heard 

the deposition of defendant Daniel, and after hearing the same, 

believes that the reasons espoused by said defendant are so 

trivial and spurious as to be sham.
2. The most intimate knowledge of why plaintiff was not 

re-hired lies with the defendants. Plaintiff's qualifications 

are known to all in the system, and especially the Superintend

ent and those teachers who have served under him. Names of 
those especially acquainted with plaintiff are attached hereto

as Exhibit "A."

3 7 1



3- Flaintiff's qualifications are such that he ought 
rightfully have the post of principal of the high school in 
the newly integrated system. Thus, the action of the defen
dants speaks for itself. Additionally, the action of the de
fendants in replacing a blacic principal with a white one, at 
the last Pike school in the fall of the 1968-69 school year, 
until protests by the black community, is evidence of the 

views of defendants.

W. Same answer as number two.

Hone at this time,

6 and 7. Not applicable.

Dated: this day of June, 1969.

r4i\T\.U ilUUuu j w
PETER E. RINDSKCPF'
859& Hunter Street, N.W. 
Atlanta. Georgia 3031*+
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF



EXHIBIT "A"

1. Harold Williams, Zebulon, Georgia;
2. Anthony Alexander, Zebulon, Georgia;
3. Mrs. Louise Batts, Fort Valley, Georgia; 
*+. Hallie Durr, Atlanta, Georgia;
5. Mrs. Ruby Barrow, Griffin, Georgia;
6. Dr. Lawrence Boyd, Atlanta, Georgia;
7- Miss Rebecca Dairis, Atlanta, Georgia;
8. Mrs. Susie Martin, Concord, Georgia;
9. Mrs. Geneva Mangham, Zebulon, Georgia;
10. Mrs. Elnora Collins, Zebulon, Georgia.

37 j



COUNTY OF J P - Z  i-

Personally appeared before the undersigned authority duly 

authorized by law to administer oaths, D. F. GLOVER

who after being duly sworn, deposes and says that__ he

is the plaintiff ____  in the above and foregoing

answers and that the facts alleged therein are

STATE OF GEORGIA

true.

Subscribed and sworn to before me
/ U - K t  , 19 .this / day of

0

*  4

NOTARY PUBLIC



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, PETER E. RXND3K0PF, Hereby certify that I have this 
18th day of June, 1969, served a copy of the above and foregoing 
answers to interrogatories upon courfsel for defendants,
Johnnie L. Caldwell, Esq., Caldwell i. Bridges, Crawley Street, 
Thomaston, Georgia, by depositing the same in the United States 
mail, addressed as above, postage prepaid.

3 *3 I



X
FILED IN CLERK'S OFFICE

AUG?* 1968

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTfeyi 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 

NEWNAN DIVISION

D. F . GLOVER )
) CIVIL ACTION)

vs. )
))

HAROLD T. DANIEL, Individually ) 
and as Superintendent of Schools)
of Pike County, Georgia; and ) NO. 8 9 0
PIKE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION )

O R D E R

This case was tried by the court without a jury on a single 
issue; Whether the failure to rehire the plaintiff as principal 
of the Pike County schools for the 1969-70 school year was or was 
not for racial reasons in violation of his civil rights.

The court concludes that plaintiff, having the burden of 
proof, has not proved his case. The evidence, at best, shows no 
more than deep-seated suspicions on plaintiffs part, unsupported 
by the record and in some areas shown to be without foundation.
The evidence also discloses an attitude and course of conduct on 
the part of plaintiff which sufficiently demonstrates to this court 
that the recent orders of the court requiring desegregation of the 
Pike County schools can never be carried out with any hope of har
mony so long as plaintiff remains the central bone of contention 
within the Pike County system. Finally, in the opinion of the 
court, there were valid nonracial reasons justifying plaintiff's 
discharge.

- i -



In the main, plaintiff sought to prove his case by the tes
timony of the defendant Superintendent and other teachers in the 
school. In fact the only testimony he gave himself bearing directly 
on the question as to why he thought his discharge was racially 

i motivated was to the effect that he had given 19 years of good ser- 

; vice, that he was professionally trained, and that he could think 

of no other reason for his discharge other than race. He did tes

tify that the Superintendent told him he talked too much at prin

cipals' meetings and that on one occasion, after his discharge and 

when the County Board met to reconsider its action, one Board member 
said he wouldn't vote to rehire plaintiff because none of the white 

folks wanted him. At about the same time, however, the same Board 

voted to hire another Negro principal in his place.

The defendant Superintendent testified that plaintiff’s con

tract was not renewed because his continued employment was "not in 

the best interest of the school" and because of his "lack of coop
eration." He cites six instances or occurrences as justifying these 
conclusions. We will discuss them presently, after a brief history 

of the school difficulties in Pike County.

The school population and faculty of the Pike County system 

are both about evenly divided between the races. Prior to the 1968- 

69 school year the schools were operated on a segregated basis. 
Beginning with that year a rather substantial step was taken to 

integrate the first grade, but elsewhere integration was only token. 
Prior to *68-’69 the schools had four principals, two of whom were 

white and two black. At the beginning of the ’68-‘69 school year 

one of the Negro principals resigned to take a job elsewhere, and

t
-2- 3d3



when the County Board undertook to replace him with a white lady, 
the Negro students boycotted the school. As a result, the white 
lady resigned two weeks later— and was replaced by a Negro. There
after, a suit to desegregate the schools was filed in this court 
(No. 862) and after a hearing in November of 1968, the schools were 
ordered to completely desegregate by combining all grades not later 
than the '69-'70 school year. A final Jefferson-type decree was 
entered to that effect in January, 1969. In the meantime, however, 
the County Board had declined to renew plaintiff's contract as prin
cipal and the present action was filed. It thus appears that while 
the issues in this case and in the desegregation suit are not the 
same, they are completely interrelated. Against this background 
we go to the events leading up to plaintiff's discharge or, more 
precisely, to the failure to renew his contract for the '69-'70 
school year.

The defendant Superintendent relies on six occurrences as 
showing "lack of cooperation" on the part of plaintiff and as dem
onstrating that the renewal of plaintiff's contract was "not in the 
best interest of the school"s

First, defendant says that the plaintiff failed 
to cooperate by refusing to hold fire drills as re
quired by accrediting regulations and state law;

Second, that he was careless in failing to secure 
school buildings at night so that burglaries resulted;

Third, that plaintiff failed to attend a series 
of regional meetings conducted at Griffin, Georgia, 
by the State University and by a national testing

i -3- 3»4



service,, at which meeting desegregation plans were 
discussed;

Fourth, that plaintiff failed to cooperate and, 

in effect, made impossible the giving of certain 

achievement tests to be used in connection with the 

proposed desegregation;

Fifth, that plaintiff defied the Superintendent 

and the School Board in connection with their decision 

to replace a resigned Negro principal with a white 

principal, thereby causing a student boycott, and

Sixth, that plaintiff violated school regula

tions and made principals' meetings impossible by 

refusing to abide by a school decision as to the text 

boohs to be used.

In delineating the testimony about these charges, the court 

will deal with them in something like their chronological order and 

not necessarily in the order of their importance.

THE REPLACEMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL WHO RESIGNED

At the beginning of the 1968-69 school year one of the Negro 

principals in the County voluntarily resigned to take a better job 

with another system. Under the practice followed in Pike County 

the appointment of new principals was made by the School Board on 

the recommendation of the defendant County School Superintendent.

At a teachers1 meeting shortly after the resignation of the prin

cipal (Frazier), his letter of resignation was read by Defendant



Daniel. In the letter Principal Frazier not only tendered his 
resignation but recommended two persons as his successors, one of 
whom was the wife of plaintiffs The defendant, however, and later 
the County Board, did not follow this recommendation, but instead 
announced the appointment of a Mrs. Elkins as successor to Princi
pal Frazier. Mrs. Elkins was a white teacher in the system and 
though she was not then acting as a principal, she had previously 
had experience as a principal. Upon this announcement being made, 
plaintiff gained the floor at the meeting and announced that he 
"could not go along with this appointment", his reason being that 
the resigning Negro principal should be replaced by another Negro. 
According to the witnesses, the words, attitude, demeanor and tone 
of the plaintiff at the time of his announcement were intemperate, 
accusatory and demanding. As one teacher testified: "Now, I've 
been around school a pretty good while and I've never, just never 
seen a principal talk to a Superintendent in a manner, not exactly 
what he said, but in the manner of which it was conducted. I'm 
just not used to that tone of voice or anything else, from a prin
cipal talking to a Superintendent." Going back to the plaintiff's 
actual remarks, he further stated that the Negro community had not 
been consulted in the choice of this principal, that they would 
not stand for it, and that the Board would hear from them later.
The defendant and the other teachers listened to his remarks, but 
the Board nevertheless appointed Mrs. Elkins. Shortly thereafter, 
on September 10th, the Negro students in plaintiff's school absen
ted themselves from class and began a strike or boycott against 
the school which lasted for approximately eight days.1 During

1 It is of collateral interest, though perhaps not of probative 
value here, that after plaintiff's contract was not renewed 
another protest, boycott by black students ensued just before

3ob
-5-



this period, meetings were held, demands and counter-demands were 

made, and in general the situation became so bad until two weeks 
later the newly appointed white principal resigned and was replaced 
by a Negro principal. Plaintiff testified that the boycott was 
brought about, by the appointment of a white principal. In his tes
timony plaintiff does not state his connection with the boycott, 
but from all the circumstances the court is constrained to find, 
and does find, that he either instigated or encouraged it. For 
example, when interrogated by the court as to whether a boycott was 
the proper means of redressing such a grievance, plaintiff testi
fied, "I would agree that this ought not to be done, but when you 
get into a situation where you can't deal with the people who are 
responsible, it might cause this type of thing to happen." It was 
shortly after this episode that the desegregation suit was filed.

THE BURGLARIES

During October and November, 1968, plaintiff's school was 
burglarized on three occasions, and certain televisions and type
writers were taken. The school in question was in a rural area 
and from time to time before and after these burglaries the defen
dant Superintendent had been advised by the Sheriff that he had 
found the school building unlocked or the windows open on his pa

trols. Based on these circumstances, the defendant concludes that

(Cont'd.) the end of the 68-'69 school year (May, 1969) and a 
majority of the black students remained out of school for the 
final 29 days of school. (See pp. 290-293 of the record.) This 
led this court to issue an injunction against plaintiff and cer
tain others acting in his behalf against certain acts being com
mitted on or near school property.

3d/
-6-



plaintiff failed to cooperate in keeping the building secure. Plain
tiff's contention with regard to the burglaries was that they had a 
terrific turnover of janitors at the school and that this resulted 

from the fact that they were underpaid. There had been at least 

one burglary in another school during the year and conceding that 

plaintiff was careless in not making sure that the windows and doors 

of the school building were closed and locked overnight, this, stand

ing alone, would hardly justify plaintiff's discharge after 19 years 
of service.

THE FAILURE TO HOLD FIRE DRILLS

According to the testimony, state law requires eight fire 

drills in a school year, whereas the Accreditation Board requires 

one per month, or nine. During October of 1968, a Fire Marshal 

went to the plaintiff's school, at which time, according to the 

testimony of the defendant Superintendent, Mr. Glover admitted to 
the Fire Marshal that he had not had a fire drill during that school 

year. The Fire Marshal also reported to the Superintendent that 

on his visit to the plaintiff's school he asked plaintiff to hold 

a fire drill at that time, to which plaintiff responded that he was 

"too busy" and "had too many activities going on at the time", and 

for that reason the fire drill was not held. Plaintiff testified 

that he complied with the fire drill requirements but that he may 

have told the Fire Marshal that he had not had one for that month.
He denies that he ever told the Fire Marshal that he was too busy 

and says that when the Marshal asked him about holding fire drill 

that day, he pointed out to the Marshal that the students at that



time were on their lunch hour and that was not a proper time to 
hold a fire drill. Again the court finds that the plaintiff was 
guilty of some negligence or carelessness in connection with fire 
drills, but again the court does not consider this a controlling 
factor leading to the failure to renew the plaintiff's contract.

THE DESEGREGATION MEETINGS AND ACHIEVEMENT TESTS

Between October of 1968 and May of 1969 the University of 
Georgia held a series of regional meetings in anticipation of school 
desegregation. At these meetings talks were given by University 
professors on bow to teach disadvantaged children, teacher-pupil 
ratios were considered, the original desegregation order of this 
court in November and tbe final order in January were also dis
cussed, as well as teacher transfers between schools. Notices of 
these meetings were sent out by the State University to all of the 
principals in the Pike County system. The defendant did not spe
cifically direct plaintiff to attend these meetings. Plaintiff's 
teachers, however, and all the other principals did attend but 
plaintiff did not.

At these meetings one of the things being considered in fur
therance of the anticipated desegregation was the best method of 
remedial teaching for those students who were behind their grade 
in one or more subjects. In this regard one of the assistant prin
cipals, who worked with the fourth, fifth and sixth grades, proposed 
that (in his grades at least) the County go to a "non-grade" system. 
Under this system, which is apparently widely used around the coun
try, a child would not be designated as being in the "sixth grade”



but as being in the "sixth year." Upon reporting to school, all 

children in the "sixth year" would be permanently assigned to the 

same "home room" but would not necessarily be doing the same work 

in every subject. Instead, each child, as to each subject, would 

be assigned to work with a group whose skills and achievement were 

comparable to his own. Thus, as between two children in the same 

“home room" in what had formerly been the fifth grade, one child 

might be doing fourth grade work in math and sixth grade work in 

reading, while the other was doing fourth grade work in reading 

and sixth grade work in math, the object being to teach each child 

to the extent of his capacity and in keeping with his achievement 

in each subject without having to "flunk" him in the fifth grade 

for being behind in part of his work. Provision was to also be 

made for remedial teaching to bring up those who were behind. To 

institute this system it was obviously necessary to ascertain and 

establish the skill and achievement level of each student in each 

subject at the time the system was to go into effect.

The proposal was discussed at faculty meetings and with par

ents, and a series of tests were obtained from the California Test

ing Bureau to be given to the (then) third, fourth and fifth grades 

in all schools, white and black. The tests were to be given by a 

team consisting of four teachers, two black and two white, and were 

to be graded by a machine.

The colored children in the third, fourth and fifth grades 

were under the supervision of the plaintiff, and when the tests 

were sent to his school to be given to his students, the students 

made the tests impossible by refusing to complete them, mutilating

33U



the test papers,, furnishing no answers, or erasing what they had 
written. Plaintiff admits that he is opposed to tests, and when 
he was told that his students were not taking the tests he made no 
effort whatsoever to see that they were taken or to encourage his 
students to take them. He testified that he was against testing 
because he thought that standardized tests were racially biased and 
that the parents had told their children not to take them because 
they thought the tests were intended to resegregate their children. 
He also stated that he entertained the same view. As he says, 
"Black people were not brought in on the planning for the tests 
and we were suspicious of the purpose." He further testified that 
notice of the tests "also made us suspicious because white teachers 
participated in giving them in black schools." Finally, as he says 
"I decided not to do anything because I felt I had been left out of 
the total planning and maybe I shouldn't interfere . . .  1 am op
posed to testing."

The court again is constrained to find, and does find, from 
all the circumstances, that plaintiff deliberately absented himself 
from the Griffin meetings which it was important that he attend, 
and that by deliberate action or non-action he sabotaged the tests. 
The court further finds not a scintilla of evidence to support his 
suspicions that racial motives were involved and further finds that 
if he had attended the meetings he would have known better. The 
court concludes that plaintiff's attitude and conduct with respect 
to these two charges, even if they stood alone, were sufficient to 
justify the defendant and the Board in not renewing his contract.
At the time of the tests the desegregation order of this court had

- 10-



been entered and if plaintiff's suspicions had later proved correct 
he had only to bring the matter to the attention of the court.

THE SELECTION OF TEXTBOOKS

Standing alone, this charge might be just another bagatelle. 

However, it does shed light on plaintiff's contentious attitude and 

suspicious disposition. At a faculty meeting to select first grade 

textbooks for the following year the teachers voted to continue 

with a series published by the American Book Company. Apparently 

this vote was influenced in part by motives of economy since the 

system already had a number of these books on hand. Again plaintiff 

took the floor and protested this decision, insisting that the sys

tem adopt a "multi-ethnic" series in which the pictures showed 

children of both races. In Georgia the textbooks to be used are 

: selected from a list approved by the State Board of Education, and
i
at that time there were no "multi-ethnic" books on the list. This 

‘ was explained to plaintiff and assurances were given that when and 

if a "multi-ethnic" series became available they would be made 

available, at least insofar as plaintiff's students were concerned. 
Plaintiff, however, was adamant and according to defendant and some 

of the teachers, plaintiff's attitude and remarks broke up the meet

ing. In fact there was testimony that as a result no further fac

ulty meetings were held. Later in the year a "multi-ethnic" edition 

did become available in the American Book Company series and copies 

were supplied to plaintiff. The schools now use some "multi-ethnic" 

books, the defendant testified he had no objection to them, and 
one teacher testified that when the system is completely integrated 

he didn't see how they could get by without them.

-11-



CONCLUSION

In view of its findings the court might well decide this case 
on the ground that the failure to re-employ plaintiff was justified. 

The court is of this opinion. But that is not the precise question 

presented. What the court does conclude is that plaintiff has not 

shown that his discharge was for racial reasons. Nor is this con
clusion altered by the fact that plaintiff's actions and attitudes 

may have been provoked by his suspicions, sincerely entertained, 
that racial bias was being practiced elsewhere. Such practices, 

if they exist, will have to be litigated in some other proceeding, 

brought for that purpose. The question here is whether racial bias 

was practiced or shown as to him. In the opinion of the court it 

was not. In school matters and among teachers, white or black, 
the County School Superintendent is "boss"; and while a teacher 

undoubtedly has the right to disagree with the boss and even to 

tell him off, it has nothing to do with race to say that he does 

so at his peril. Unquestionably, the First Amendment gives a 

teacher the right to speak his mind; but it does not give him the 

right to disrupt a school or to choose its principals or to sabo
tage its programs. See Tinker v. Des Moines School District. 393 
U.S. 503, 507, et seq. The court concludes that it was plaintiff's 

action in these areas, and not racial bias, that brought about the 
termination of his contract.

The prayers of plaintiff's petition are therefore DENIED.
In the interest of future school and community harmony, however, 

it is ORDERED that plaintiff's former position be filled with a 

Negro principal, either by promotion within the present Negro fac-

3 3 3-12-



ulty or otherwise. FURTHER ORDERED that if no suitable Negro prin
cipal can be found for the *69— '70 school year, no white principal 
be employed for the position except on an interim basis until a 
suitable Negro principal can be-located.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

This 7th day of August, 1969.

NEWELL EDENFIEL6'  
U n i t e d  S t a t e s  D i s t r i c t  J u d g e

-13-
3 a 4



'tet

p '

AuG j 0/>
%/

b. '
IN THE U N ITED  STATES DISTRICT COURT '**

FOR THE NORTHERN- DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 

NEW NAN DIVISION

D , F , GLOVER, 1

P la in tiff , I

v. I
HAROLD T , DANIEL
e tc ,  , e t aL , , 1

D efen d an ts,
1

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 8 9 0

NOTICE OF MOTION

TO: JOHNNIE L . CALDW ELL, ESQ.
C ald w ell and B r id g es  
C raw ley  S tree t  
T h om aston , G eorg ia ,

A ttorn ey  for D efen d an ts.

You a r e  h ereb y  n o tified  that p la in tiff w ill b rin g  the attached  

m otion  to  am end on for h earin g  upon the b r ie fs  w ithin  ten  d ays of th is  

d ate , a s  provid ed  by lo c a l ru le s  o f C ourt. You a re  in v ited  to resp ond  

a s  d eem ed  ap p rop r ia te .

Dated: th is  15th day o f A ugu st, 1969 .

HOWARD MOORE, ffR. ’ 
PE T E R  E . RINDSKOPF  
859 1 /2  Hunter S tree t, N . W. 
A tlanta , G eorgia  30314

3a5



IN TH E UN ITED  S T A T E S DISTRICT COURT  

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA  

NEW NAN DIVISION *

D . F . GLOVER, 1

P la in tiff , 1

v . 1

HAROLD T . DANIEL,
e t c , , efc a l.  , 1

D efen d an ts.
1

CIVIL ACTION  

NO. 8 9 0

MOTION TO AM END AND SU P P L E M E N T  FINDINGS 
OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

P u rsu an t to  R ule 52 (b), F .R .  C .P .  , p la in tiff  m o v e s  the cou rt to  am end  

and su pp lem ent i t s  fin d in gs of fa ct, c o n c lu s io n s  of law , and jud gm ent h e r e 

to fo r e  f ile d , in  the fo llow in g  p a r tic u la r s:

I . FA C T S

P la in tiff  u r g e s  the cou rt to find ing th e fo llow in g  su p p lem en ta l fa c ts:

1« Subsequent to  the t r ia l  o f th e c a s e ,  p la in tiff  m oved  th e C ourt for  

le a v e  to am end h is  com p la in t to  co n fo rm  to  th e e v id e n c e  by adding two  

p aragrap h s, w hich p aragrap h s c la im e d  that the r e fu sa l of d efen d an ts to  r e 

h ir e  p la in tiff:(a) v io la ted  the due p r o c e s s  c la u se  of the F ou rteen th  A m en d 

m en t, in  that it w as a r b itr a r y , c a p r ic io u s , and b a sed  upon no stand ard s; and 

(b), that the r e fu sa l o f d efen dan ts to  re h ir e  p la in tiff  w as b a sed  w h o lly  or in 

p art upon the fact that he e x e r c is e d  h is  r ig h ts  o f fr e e  sp ee ch  at m e e tin g s  

c a lle d  by the d efen d an ts, w hich  r e fu sa l to re h ir e  a cc o rd in g ly  v io la te d  the 

F ir s t  A m endm ent, U nited  S ta tes C on stitu tion .

2 ,  The Court m ade no ru ling upon p la in tif f 's  m otion  for lea v e  to 

am end p rior  to is su in g  its  o rd er  of A u gu st 7 , 1969.

3db



V

3. T he in ju n ction  is s u e d  by th e C ourt during the sc h o o l b o y co tt  c o n 

t r o v e r s y  in  the S pring  o f  1969 did not run a g a in s t  p la in tif f  n or w a s an  in ju n c t

ion  sou gh t a g a in s t  h im  by th e d efen d a n ts, foo tn o te  1 to  th e  O rd er o f the  

C ourt o f  A u g u st 7, 1969, not w ith sta n d in g .

4 . D efen d a n ts ad du ced  no e v id e n c e  b e fo r e  th e C ourt in  th e c o n tr o v e r sy  

le a d in g  to  th e in ju n ction , by a ffid a v it  o r  o th e r w is e ,  to  in d ica te  that th o se  who  

w e r e  en jo in ed  fr o m  c e r ta in  a c t s  w e r e  r e q u e s te d , u rg ed , or in  any w ay e n 

co u ra g ed  by th e p la in tiff  to so  a c t , fo o tn o te  1 to  th e O rd er of th e C ourt of 

A u gu st 7, 1969, not w ith sta n d in g .

5 . The b o y co tt in S e p te m b e r , 1968 of E a s t  P ik e  E le m e n ta r y  S ch o o l 

w as e n te r e d  in to  by p u p ils  fr o m  p la in tif f 's  sc h o o l on ly  on one day; and, that 

atten d an ce  w a s  b ack  to  a p p r o x im a te ly  n o r m a l on th e n ex t and fo llo w in g  d a y s .

6 . T he stu d en ts  who did m o s t  o f th e b o y co ttin g  d uring  S ep te m b er ,

1968, w e r e  fr o m  the s c h o o l(E a s t  P ik e  E lem en ta ry ) at w h ich  the w hite  

p r in c ip a l had b een  ap p oin ted  to  r e j ia c e  the B la ck  p r in c ip a l who r e s ig n e d ,

7. W hen in te r r o g a te d  by th e  C ourt a s  to  w h eth er  su ch  a b o y co tt w ould  

be the b e tte r  p art o f w isd o m , p la in tif f  t e s t i f ie d ,  "I w ould  n ot c o n s id e r  it  

being the b e tte r  p a rt of w isd o m . "

8. D efen dan t D a n ie l d id  not h old  any o f p la in t if f 's  r e a l  or im a g in ed  

" a c tiv it ie s"  in su pp ort o r  e n co u ra g e m en t o f  th e b o y co tt in  S e p te m b e r , 1968, 

a g a in st  h im  as a r e a so n  fo r  r e fu s in g  to  re c o m m e n d  that h e b e r e h ir e d .

9. P la in tiff  m ade a s  g r e a t  an e ffo r t  to end the b o y co tt in  S ep te m b er , 

1968, a s  o th e r s  and w a s c r i t ic iz e d  by d efen d an t D a n ie l for  a tten d in g  m ee tin g s  

b etw een  p r o te s t in g  p a ren ts  and the B oard  of E d u ca tio n .

10. N e ith er  the a lle g e d  " b u r g la r ie s"  n or " lack  of f ir e  d r il ls "  a t t r i 

buted to  p la in tiff  by d efen dan t D a n ie l r e p r e s e n t  la c k  o f co o p e r a tio n .

11. N eith er  th e a lle g e d  " b u r g la r ie s"  n or " lack  of f ir e  d r il ls "  a t t r i 

buted to p la in tiff  by d efen d an t D a n ie l a r e  grou n ds upon w h ich  r e fu s a l to r e 

h ire  can  be w h o lly  or p a r t ia lly  ju s t if ie d .

-2-

397



12. P la in tiff  w as not in v ited  to attend the d ese g re g a tio n  m ee tin g s  in 

G riffin  by defendant D an ie l. H ow ever, D an iel did in v ite w hite p r in c ip a ls  to  

attend .

13. T estin g  w as a s  u n su cc ess fu l at M r s. M ille r 's  sc h o o l (E a st P ik e  

E lem en tary ) a s  at p la in tiff's , but she w as reh ired  for  the com in g y e a r .

14. M r s . M ille r  did not attend the d e se g re g a tio n  s e s s io n s  in  G riffin  

w hich p la in tiff did not attend, but she w as reh ired  for the com in g y e a r .

15. B lack  p aren ts at E a st P ik e E lem en ta ry  w alked  out of a PT A  

m eetin g  w here w hite a s s is ta n t  p rin cip a l Cook attem p ted  to con v in ce them  

of the e ff ica c y  of te s t in g . P la in tiff  did not a r r iv e  at the m eetin g  u ntil a fter  

the walkout o cc u r re d . D efendants did not show p la in tiff ca u sed  the walkout 

or in fluenced  the attitude of the p a ren ts .

16. The co n tro v e rsy  over the accep tan ce of m u ltie th n ic  textb ook s w as  

r e so lv e d  in favor of th e ir  u se  on ly at p la in tiff's  a ll  B lack  sch o o l.

1*7« P la in tiff 's  conduct in  the m u ltie th n ic  co n tro v e rsy  w as not ab u sive  

or d iso r d e r ly .

18. P la in tiff 's  conduct in  the m u ltieth n ic co n tro v e rsy  is  not a ground  

upon w hich re fu sa l to r e h ire  p la in tiff can be w holly  or p a rtia lly  ju s t if ie d .

19. in  te r m s  of ce r tif ic a tio n  and e x p er ie n c e , p la in tiff w as the m o st  

q u alified  of th o se  in the sy s te m  reh ired  for p r in c ip a lsh ip s  in  1 9 69 -70 .

20. D efendants in troduced  no te stim o n y  to show  that p la in tiff cau sed  

the S ep tem b er, 1968 b oycott.

21 . D efendants r e ly  upon p la in tiff's  sta tem en ts at a m eetin g  in A ugust, 

1968, in  w hich defendant D an iel announced the h ir in g  of M r s . E ld er  as  

p rin cip a l of E a st P ik e E lem en ta ry  w holly or p a rtia lly  as grounds for th e ir  

r e fu sa l to r e h ire  p la in tiff.

22 . P la in tiff 's  conduct at the m eetin g  in A ugust, 1968, co n s is te d  only  

of sp eech  which w as not ab u sive or d iso r d e r ly .

-3 -

338



23c D efen d an ts h a v e  no w r itte n  or e s ta b lis h e d  sta n d a rd s to d e te r m in e  

who is  to  be r e h ir e d  or n o t. E a ch  c a s e  i s  hand led  by d efen d an t D a n ie l upon  

a c o m p le te ly  ad h oc b a s is .

24 . D urin g h is  ten u r e  a s  p r in c ip a l at tw o s c h o o ls  in  th e P ik e  County  

sy s te m , p la in tif f  in c r e a s e d  a v e r a g e  d a ily  a tten d a n ce  and sc h o o l lu nch  p a r t i

c ip a tio n  s ig n if ic a n t ly .

U . CONCLUSIONS

C o n s is te n tly  w ith  th e am en d ed  fin d in g s of fa c t , th e fo llo w in g  c o n c lu s io n s  

of law  sh ould  b e reach ed :

1. D efen d a n ts' r e lia n c e  upon p la in t if f 's  sp e e c h  a s  a ground for r e f u s 

ing to  r e h ir e  h im  v io la te s  the F ir s t  A m en d m en t, U n ited  S ta te s  C on stitu tion , 

a s  m ad e a p p lica b le  to  the s ta te s  th rough  th e  F o u rteen th  A m en d m en t.

2. D efen d a n ts' r e lia n c e  upon th e p la in t if f 's  n o n -a tten d a n ce  at the  

G riffin  d e se g r e g a tio n  m e e tin g s  a s  grou n ds for  r e fu s in g  to  r e h ir e  i s  a r b itr a r y  

and c a p r ic io u s , in  that th e r e  w e r e  n u m ero u s o th er B la ck  fa cu lty  and s ta ff  

who did not a tten d . A s su ch , the a c t io n s  of the d efen d an ts v io la te  the due 

p r o c e s s  and equal p r o te c tio n  c la u s e s  o f th e F o u rteen th  A m en d m en t.

3. D efen d an ts' r e lia n c e  upon th e fa ilu r e  o f p u p ils  a t p la in t if f 's  sc h o o l  

to  p r o p e r ly  take the C a lifo rn ia  t e s t s  i s  a r b itr a r y  and c a p r ic io u s , in  that 

th e r e  w er e  o th er B lack  fa cu lty  and s ta ff  w ho w e r e  u nab le to p rod u ce  s u c c e s -  

ful te s t in g  r e s u lt s .  A s su ch , th e a c tio n s  o f the d efen d an ts v io la te  th e due 

p r o c e s s  and equal p ro tec tio n  c la u s e s  of the F o u rteen th  A m en d m en t.

III. JUDG M ENT

C o n sis te n tly  w ith  the ab ove fin d in gs of fa ct and c o n c lu s io n s  of law , 

jud gm ent sh ould  be am en d ed  a s  fo llo w s:

1. Ju dgm en t i s  h ere b y  am en d ed  in  fa v o r  o f p la in tiff , and p r a y e r s  of 

p la in tiff  sh a ll be gran ted .

-4-

399



Respectfully submitted,

HOWARD M OORE,JR ’
P E T E R  E . RINDSKOPF  
859 1 /2  H unter S tr e e t, N . W.
A tlan ta , G eorg ia  30314

ATTORNEYS FOR PL A IN T IF F

-5-

400



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FO R THE NO RTH ERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA  

NEW NAN DIVISION

D . F . GLOVER,

P la in tiff ,

HAROLD T . D A N IE L , 
e tc . , e t a l . ,

D e fen d a n ts .

CIVIL ACTION  

N O . 8 9 0

B R IE F  IN SU P P O R T  OF M OTION TO AM END  
AND S U P P L E M E N T  FINDING S OF F A C T  AND  

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

R u le 52(b), F . R . C . P .  , s p e c if ic a l ly  p r o v id e s  fo r  su ch  a m o tio n  w ith in  

ten  d ays of en try  of ju d g m en t. T he C o u r t's  o r d e r  d en y in g  p la in t if f 's  r e q u e s t  

for in ju n ctive  r e l ie f  w as e n te r e d  on A u gu st 7 . 1969 . T h is  m o tio n  is  s u b m it

ted  on A u gu st 15, 1969, and is  th e r e fo r e  t im e ly  u nd er th e R u le s .

I. FA C T S

F o r  the co n v e n ie n c e  o f the C ourt, p la in tif f  w ill  not r e in u m e r a te  ea ch  

of the fa c ts  h e w is h e s  th e C ourt to find , but w ill  s im p ly  s e t  out th e n um ber  

of the re q u este d  fa ct and the p ag in a tion  in  the r e c o r d  to  su p p ort p la in t if f 's  

con ten tion . E la b o ra tio n  w ill be m ad e on ly  w h e r e  n e c e s s a r y .

(1) and (2) P la in t if f  m a ile d  h is  m o tio n  to  am en d  the p le a d in g s  to  c o n 

form  to  the ev id e n c e  on June 24, 1 9 6 9 , sen d in g  an o r ig in a l and tw o c o p ie s

to the Court and se r v in g  a cop y  upon c o u n se l for  d e fen d a n ts . N o ru lin g  h as1/
yet been  r e c e iv e d . Cf. T r , 2.

(3) and (4) The in ju n ction  e n ter ed  by the C ourt in  the c o n tr o v e r sy  

during the Spring o f 1969 sp ea k s for  i t s e l f .  It d o e s  not run a g a in s t  the

U
T r. r e fe r s  to the tr a n sc r ip t  o f the June 23 h e a r in g .



p la in tiff  by n am e. N one of the a ffid a v its  in trodu ced  by d efen dan ts im p lica te  

the p la in tiff  in  the turbu len t e v e n ts  in P ik e  County a fter  h is  n o n -re h ir in g .

No a ctio n  w as ev e r  taken  on the m o tio n s of th o se  en jo ined  by the Court to  

hold  a h earin g  and d is s o lv e  the in junction  p r io r  to  it s  ex p ira tio n  a fter  ten  

d a y s. P la in tiff  h e r e in  did not so  m ove for h e w as not en jo in ed ,

(5) TR* 109, 147=50,

(6) TR, 109, 1 4 7 -5 0 ,

{7) TR. 149.

(8) D a n ie l w as a sk ed  for  h is  r e a so n s  on c r o s s -e x a m in a tio n  and gave 

the fo llow in g  a s  the r e a so n s  for  not reh ir in g  G lover: f ir e  d r il l s  (TR. 46); 

b u r g a la r ie s  (TR . 54); not attend ing d e se g r e g a tio n  m e e tin g s  (TR, 64); F a ilu re  

of te s t in g  at h is  sc h o o l (TR . 71); b eh av ior at m eetin g  announcing se le c tio n

of M r s . E ld er  (T R . 85); m u ltie th n ic  textbook  c o n tr o v e r sy  (TR, 89); engaging  

in  c iv il  r ig h ts  a c t iv it ie s  during sch o o l h ou rs by m ee tin g  w ith  p aren ts  and 

sc h o o l board  a ttorn ey  d uring S ep tem b er , 1968 b oycott (TR, 107). D an iel 

d ec lin ed  to  g iv e  any o ther r e a so n s . (TR. I l l ,  114)

(9) TR. 107-109; 1 4 7 -1 5 1 .

(10) and (11) Cf. T e stim o n y  of D an iel a t TR. 62, w h ere he c la im s  

that C h am b ers, a w hite p r in c ip a l, coop era ted  w ith h im  in stopping b u r g la r ie s  

at h is  sch o o l, but r e fu se s  to adm it that G lover coop era ted  in s im ila r  fash ion  

w hen the sam e b u r g a la r ie s  c e a se d  at P ik e  County C on so lid a ted . E ach  of 

th e se  grounds is  so  far rem oved  from  ju st if ic a t io n  for fa ilin g  to  r e h ire  as

to be im p ro p er ly  "accum m ulated"  a g a in st p la in tiff.

(12) TR. 65, 130, 1 6 0 -61 , 2 7 5 -6 .

(13) TR. 8 4 -5 , 247 .

(14) TR. 242.

(15) TR. 248.

(16) TR. 103, 226.

(17) TR. 91.

-2-
4 u 2



(18) The C ourt's d isp o s itio n  of th is  is s u e  d oes not find w hether p la in 

t if f 's  conduct in the m u ltie th n ic  c o n tro v e rsy  w as grounds v e l non for refusin g  

to  r e h ire , and only that the co n tro v e rsy  sh ed s som e ligh t on p la in tiff 's  a t t i

tude and d isp o s itio n  . (O rder, 11) The Court should  r e so lv e  w hether th is

i s  an is s u e  upon w hich  defendants can r e ly . P la in tiff  su bm its that re lia n ce  

upon o n e 's  attitude and d isp o s itio n  would not he co n s is te n t  w ith due p r o c e s s .

(19) TR. 2 9 -3 0 , 4 3 -4 , 115 -6 .
4,

(20) S ee  n o s . 3 , /and  8, su p ra .

(21) TR. 85, 8 7 -8 .

(22) TR. 88.

(23) TR. I l l

(24) TR. 1 1 7 -1 2 1 .

CONCLUSIONS

E ach of the co n c lu sio n s  w hich p la in tiff re q u ests  the Court draw  from  

the am ended find ings o f fa ct, and th o se  find ings that the Court h as a lread y  

m ade flow  lo g ic a lly  th e r e fr o m . The ev id en ce  is  c le a r  and con vin cin g  that, 

perh ap s out of p erso n a l antipathy, defendant D aniel applied  vague, in defin ite  

and n o n -e x is te n t  stand ard s to ce r ta in  conduct of the p la in tiff so  a s  to re fu se  

to  re h ir e  h im . But, during the sam e sch oo l y ea r , other te a c h e r s  and sta ff  

who w ere  o ffered  new  c o n tra c ts , w ere  im p lica ted  in the id en tica l a c t iv it ie s  

and fa ilu r e s  w hich  the Superintendent now c la im s  count so  h ea v ily  aga in st 

the p la in tiff.

It i s  e qually c le a r  from  the te stim o n y  that defendants r e lie d  w holly  

or in p art upon ce r ta in  pure sp eech  in w hich the p la in tiff engaged  at v ariou s  

m e e tin g s . Such r e lia n c e  upon sp eech  is  forbidden. Bond v. F loyd , 385 U. S. 

116; P ic k e r in g  v. Board of E d ucation , 391 U .S . 563. P a r tia l r e lia n ce  in 

fr e e  sp eech  a r e a s  is  a s  con stitu tion a lly  bad a s  to ta l r e lia n c e . S tree t v .

N ew  Y ork, 394 U .S . 576.

-3-

4u3



JUDGMENT for the plaintiff should accordingly follow.

/ i M y j
HOWARD M O O R E /J R . ~  

P E T E R  E . R1NDSKOPF  
859 1 /2  H unter S tr e e t , N . W. 
A tlan ta , G eo rg ia  30314

A TT O R N E Y S FO R P L A IN T IF F

-4-

404



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Is PETER E c RINDSKOPF, of counsel for the plaintiff, hereby 

certify that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing notice, 

motion and brief, upon JOHNNIE L. CALDWELL, Caldwell & Bridges, 

Crawley Street, Thomaston, Georgia, by depositing copies of same in 

the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as above.



PttKt IN CLERK'S OFFICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 

NEWNAN DIVISION Nnv 2 5 1969

D. F. GLOVER
CIVIL ACTION

HAROLD T . DANIEL, Individually ) 
and as Superintendent of Schools) 
of Pike County, Georgia; and ) 
PIKE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION )

NO. 8 9 0

O R D E R

Plaintiff Glover has filed a motion to amend and supplement 
the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment heretofore 
filed in the above-styled case. The court finds that each of the
findings proposed by plaintiff is either not supported by the rec-

1/ . ->/ord, is not relevant to the issues raised by this case, — or is
contrary to the weight of the evidence as viewed by the court. 

Accordingly, the motion to amend is DENIED.

This > 4^ day of November, 1969.

As to Proposed Facts 1 and 2, court records reveal that no 
motion for leave to amend was ever filed. As to Proposed Facts 
3 and 4, the record shows that the restraining order was entered 
in consolidated Civil Actions Nos. 862 (Williams v. Daniel) and 
890 (Glover v. Daniel) and ran against all plaintiffs.
2/” S.q., Proposed Facts 7, 8, 12, 21, and 24.

NEWELL EDENFIELD 
United States District Judge

y

4 o b



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 

NEWNAN DIVISION

D. F. GLOVER,,
Plaintiff,

„vs«

HAROLD T. DANIEL, Individually and 
as Supremitendent of Schools of 
Pike County, Georgia? and PIKE COUNTY 
BOARD OF EDUCATION,

Defendants.

NOTICE OF APPEAL

CIVIL ACTION 
NO. 890

RUD SN CIERK'S OFFICE

D E C  1 9 1 9 6 9

D. F, GLOVER, plaintiff in the above case, hereby appeals 
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 
from the order of this Court denying his request for injunctive 
relief, filed August 7, 1969, and from the order of this Court 
denying his motion to amend and supplement the findings of fact, 
conclusions of law, and judgment, filed November 25, 1969.

Let the Clerk send up the entire record in the case. 

Dated% this f f l/ t day of December, 1969.

HOWARD MOORE, JR. 1 ~
PETER E. RINDSKOPF 
859 1/2 Hunter St., N. W. 
Atlanta, Georgia 30314
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF



FIUD in  CLERK'S OFFICE

1H THE UNITED TTAIEI DISTRICT COTRT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OP GEORGIA

JAN — 1970

NEW N A N  DIVISION

COST BOND ON APPEAL
KNOT ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That «a U. t . Glover_________

as Principal and United States Fire Inc., C&>. sureties,, are held and 
firmly bound unto Clerk, United States District Court 
in the full and just sum of TWO HUNDRED FIFTY AND HOA00 DOLLARS ($250.00) 
to be paid to the said Clerk
av assigns; to which payment well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, 
our heirs, executors, and administrators, jointly and severally, by these 
presents.

Sealed with our seals and. dated this the 22nd day of December,.1969.
VHEREAS, lately at a trial in the IETITED STATES DISTRICT COIRT for 

the NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA in a proceeding pending in said Court, 
between D. F. Glover
as plaintiff and Harold T. Daniel, et al. ______ as defendants
*n -- 1 Action Mo. 890 , . a judgment was rendered
against the said plaintiff and the said plaintiff
having filed notice of appeal in the Clerk's Office of the said Court to 
reverse the said judgment in the aforesaid proceeding.

NCW THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that if the said

shall pay all costs if the appeal is dismissed or the judgment affirmed or 
such costs as the UNITED STATE'S COTRT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT may

is modified or in any other event; then this obligation to be void; otherwise 
to remain In full force and effect; waiving all homestead and exemption laws 
of the United States and of the State of Georgia and all other States.

b. F. Glover shall prosecute the said appeal to effect and

award against the said D. F. Glover if the judgment

Filed in Clerk's Office
D. F. Glover, plaintiff

4 0 8



POWER OF ATTORNEY 
U nited  S ta te s  Fire Insurance Company

Kossm o f f ic e  t n ew  yo u * . n . y

K N O W  ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
That the U nited States Fire Insurance Company, a corporation of the State of New York, by 

James J, Meyers e Sr .Vice President, and John K. Stewart , Assistant Secretary, in pur
suance of authority granted by Article IV of the By-Laws of said Corporation, which reads as follows:
Article IV. E xecution of I n s t il m e n t s . “The Chairman of the Board, President, or any Vice-President in conjunction widi the 
Secretary, or any Secretary, if more than one shall be appointed by the Board, or an Assistant Secretary, shall have power on behalf 
of the Corporation . . . . .

(a) to execute, affix the corporate seal to, acknowledge, verify and deliver any contracts, obligations, instruments and 
documents whatsoever in connection with its business including, without limiting the foregoing, any bonds, guarantees, under
takings, recognisances, stipulations, policies of insurance, deeds, leases, mortgages, releases, satisfactions and agency agree-

(b) t© appoint, in writing, m
(a), including affixing the seal of the Corporation.”

one or more persons for any or all of the purposes mentioned in the preceding paragraph

does Hereby nominate, constitute *nd appoint Harold B. Gunby of Atlanta, Georgia
its true and lawful agent and Attorney in-Fact to make, execute, rail and deliver, for, and on it* behalf
a, surety, and a. it* act and deed: Any and all bonds and undertakings

, . ,he execlltion of such bonds or undertakings in pursuance of these presents, shall be as binding upon said Corporation, as fully and amply, to all intents and purposeŝ  as if they had been duly executed and acknowledgedpurposes,' ' I offic_ ___tat issued 
August 3, 1967.

hv the regularly ejected officers of the Corporation at its office in New York City, in their own proper person*. This Power of Attorney revokes that issued to Harold B. Gurib/ of
Atlanta, Georgia, dated

The above mentioned Assistant Secretary dots hereby certify that the foregoing it a true copy of Article IV, of the By- 
Laws of said Corporation, and is now in force.

In W itness W hereof, the said Vice-President and Assistant Secretary have hereunto subscribed their names and affixed the Corporate Seal of the said U nited States Fire Insurance Company, this
9 th .. ____day o f „ _____________ , A.D. 19.69

A ss is ta n t S ec re ta ryC. Stewart
Srwfii or New York I
City or New York 1 -

On this 9 t h  day of July , A.D. 19 before the subscriber, a Notary' Puttie Of th*
State of New York, in and for the City of New York, duly commissioned and qualified, came the above-named VkO-Pneasdent 
and Assistant Secretary of the U nited States F ire I nsurance Company, to me personally known to be the individuals and 
officers described in and who executed the preceding instrument, and they each acknowledged the execution of the tame, and 
being by me duly sworn, severally and each for himself deposeth and saith. that they are the said officers of the Company afore
said and that the seal affixed to the preceding instrument is the Corporate Seal of said Company, and that the said Corporate 
Seal and their signatures as such officers were duly affixed and subscribed to the said instrument by the authority and direction 
of the said Company.

I n T estimony W hereof, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Official Seal at the City of New York, the day 
and year firat above wntten. ^  £  f j

[ s f a l j 0  ̂ johnW FALJ $t«tc d York. hVy$4-78Qjjltltfld sri King* County C«r. Filud tn Now York County
£jip«ru March 30, 197^

Notary Public

e3EP«

Ernest E. Smith Assistant
do hereby certify that the attached Power of Attorney dated------Harold B. Gunby_______________
is a true and correct copy and that same has been in full force and ef|ect__since 
the date of this certificate: and I do further certify that the said.

_an<L

Jlaoxgla- in behalf of
£ e c r e ^ r ^ o f  the U nited S tates F ixe I nsuja^ ce Com pany ,

..... A t l a n
;fiect since tbe date ....... ...James J .  Meyersthereof and is in full force and effect on

■John. K .a... S.tgWft£.fc.
who executed^he attached Power of AtS?h£y^S*Vicc-President and Assistant Secretary respectively were on the date of the 
execution of the attached Power of Attorney the duly elected Vice-Pesident and Assistant Secretary of the U nited S tates 
Fire Insurance Com pany; and I do further certify that the following resolution has been duly adopted by the Board of Direc
tors of U nited S tates F ire Insurance Company and is now in force:

Resolved, that the signature of any Secretary or Assistant Secretary of the Corporation certifying as to the execution, 
force and effect of validly executed Powers of Attorney of the Corporation, may be printed facsimile, lithographed or otherwise 
produced upon the instrument.

In T estimony W hereof. I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the corporate seai of the said Company, this
—------------------- ------- -——,—-day of—.—.—----- ------------------- - . - - . 19___

FM.20J.20.1J! 12/50
'Erne s Sift! Assistant Secretary

409



CLERK'S CERTIFICATE

UNITED STATES OP AMERICA )) ss *
NORTHERN DISTRICT OP GEORGIA )

I, Claude L. Geza, Clerk of the United States District 
Court in and for the Northern District of Georgia, do hereby 

certify that the foregoing and attached ij.09 pages contain the 
original and ©omplete record on appeal ( except depositions ) 
in the natter oft

B® F. GLOVER 
VS 5

HAROLD T. DANIEL, INDIVIDUALLY 
AND AS SUPERINTENDENT OP SCHOOLS 
OP PIKE COUNTY, GEORGIA AND THE 
PIKE COUNTY BOARD OP EDUCATION,

as filed in the Clerk's Office of the said District Court at 
Newnan, Georgia.

IN TEATIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto subscribe 
m j name and affix the seal of the said 

District Court at Nevn&n, Georgia, this 
26th day of January, 1970

Claude L. Goza, Clerk

Griffith
Deputy Clerk

4 1 0
Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.
Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.
Glover v. Daniel Appendix

Topic

Notable Person

Organization

Matter

Case

U.S. state

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in
