Washington State Dept of Fisheries v. United States of America Petition for Writ of Certiorari

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI 

DELTA DIVISION

REBECCA E. HENRY, ET AL,

/

X  )
/  X  )Plaintiffs, )

Xv. )
)THE CLARKSDALE MUNICIPAL SEPARATE )

SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL, )
)Defendants. )

CIVIL ACTION 
NO. DC6428

oj, p'4' / ^ } %  5"*"*
Proceedings had and evidence taken in the above- 

entitled cause on the 8th day of April, 1965, at 9 a. m., in 
the United States District Court for the Northern District 
of Mississippi, Delta Division, at Clarksdale, Mississippi, 
before the Honorable Claude F. Clayton, United States 
District Judge.



APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiffs:

Derrick A. Bell, Jr., Esquire, 
10 Columbus Circle,
Nev York, New York 10019,

and
Henry M. Aronson, Esquire, 

and
Miss Marian Wright,
538 1/2 North Farish Street, 
Jackson, Mississippi.

For the Defendants:
Semmes Luckett, Esquire,
121 Yazoo Avenue,
Clarksdale, Mississippi 38614.

For the Board of Education
of Coahoma County, Mississippi:

William H. Maynard, Esquire, 
Stevens Building,
Clarksdale, Mississippi.





Defendants1
Charles Longino

Cross Redirect Recross 
166 183 185

Plaintiffs1 Exhibits
/\ . /a %eJ *4,
2 M- ' -

Identification In Evidence

H  ^  T
/t L ik

jft

n/i31<1/
> N tlf 
2/y / , r

8
8
8
8
15
15
15
86
87
91
94
144

Defendants* Exhibits For Identification In Evidence

K 1 Through 18 
•̂ 19 Through 23 

✓/ 24
25

P U ^ V Y f U  I
iota* M

127
128 
158 
166

Recross

Ignatius 
Hudson F. Bell, 
Aaron Henry 
Reginald Neuwien



4

P R O C E E D I N G S

THE COURT: You may be seated.
Will you call all of your witnesses around and let 

them be sworn?
THE MARSHAL: All the witnesses come on inside the

bar, please. Right this way. Follow me.
MR. BELL: May I, before we swear them in, check

and see if the ones that I subpoenaed are here?
THE COURT: Yes; you may.
MR. BELL: Mayor W. S. Kincade?
MR. LUCKETT: If the Court please, Mr. Kincade is

sick in bed. He called me early this morning, and his 
secretary is here, and said he would get the certificate, 
and Dr. Levy has been sick a couple days. He has just been
put to bed with penicillin shots. I told counsel about it.

THE COURT: Are you in a position to proceed
without him?

MR. BELL: I think so, your Honor, and perhaps we
can obtain the same information from other witnesses.

THE COURT: Probably from some of the other city
officials, --

MR. BELL: Yes.



5

the city.
MR. BELL: That is correct.
Commissioner Hudson Bell?
MR. HUDSON BELL: I am here.
MR. BELL: Commissioner J. W. McKellar?
MR. McKELLAR: Here.
MR. BELL: Hymen Kantor?
MR. KANTOR: Here.
MR. BELL: A. Isaacson?
MR. ISAACSON: Here.
MR. BELL: Abe May.
MR. MAY: Here.
MR. BELL: Reginald Neuwien.
MR. NEUWIEN: Here.
MR. BELL: I assume that Dr. Wilkins and

Superintendent Tynes --
MR. LUCKETT: Yes.
MR. BELL: They're here.
We have at least two other witnesses,

Myron Lieberman, who will arrive this afternoon, and 
Aaron Henry, who is off on an errand and will be here 
shortly, and perhaps we —

THE COURT: -- tf it has to do with the affairs of



6

to the fact they have not been sworn when you offer them.
MR. BELL: All right, your Honor.
And one further witness. We think it may be 

meaningful to the case if we are able to call at the outset 
the attorney for the School Board, Mr. Luckett here, and we 
would like to have him —

MR. LUCKETT: I am present.
THE COURT: All right.

(A group of witnesses in the above-entitled 
cause was duly sworn.)

THE COURT: Do you wish the rule invoked?
MR. BELL: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
Will you show the witnesses to the witness room?
MR. BELL: Would the rule be invoked as to the

parties in your Court?
THE COURT: No; normally it is not.
MR. BELL: I would go along with your usual

procedure on it.
THE COURT: All right.
For the benefit of the record, will counsel 

announce their appearances, please?

THE COURT: All right. Call the Court's attention



7

MR. BELL: Yes.
For plaintiffs, I am Derrick Bell, and associated 

with me in the case is Henry Aronson, and we have also at 
counsel table Miss Marian Wright, although I understand she 
has not yet been sworn. We hope she will be able to be 
sworn or, if you want to defer that, have permission to 
assist here at counsel table.

THE COURT: Her certificate of current good
standing has been presented to the Court in chambers and she 
may participate in the hearing, if that is the wish --

MR. BELL: Yes. Thank you.
MR. LUCKETT: For the defendants, Gycelle Tynes,

Superintendent and member of the Board of Trustees of the 
Clarksdale Municipal Separate School District, and 
Semmes Luckett of Clarksdale.

With me at the counsel table is Mr. Porter, who is 
one of the defendants and one of the members of the Board of 
Trustees of the Clarksdale Municipal Separate School 
District, but he is not going to participate in the case.
He is a member of the bar.

THE COURT: Before we start taking testimony, are
there any preliminary matters that need attention?

MR. BELL: Yes, your Honor.



8

I think it might be well now to introduce the 
questions and responses in two sets of interrogatories filed 
on the plaintiffs in the period since our last hearing. One 
was filed —  at least the answers came in in December of 
1964, and the second set of interrogatories was answered by 
defendants, the Clarksdale City Board, in both instances, in 
March of 1965, and we would like to move to have them made 
part of the evidence in this case.

THE COURT: All right. Let these interrogatories
and responses be received in evidence.

MR. LUCKETT: If the Court please —
THE COURT: Do you have them?
MR. LUCKETT: If the Court please, part of these

interrogatories are directed to matters which we think are 
immaterial to this particular hearing, and I think there 
will be some testimony probably to supplement those 
questions and answers, and at that time, if we may, we'll 
interpose objections to that type of testimony, -~

THE COURT: All right. As you get in —
MR. LUCKETT: —  and that will take care of that

situation.
THE COURT: As you get in the area which is

affected by a specific interrogatory and the answer to it,



you may call that to the Court's attention and state your 
objection at that time.

(The interrogatories dated 
November 23, 1964 and filed 
with the Court on November 25,
1964 were marked and received 
in evidence as Plaintiffs' 
Exhibit 1; the answers to 
plaintiffs' interrogatories 
dated December 24, 1964 and 
filed with the Court on 
January 13, 1965 were marked 
and received in evidence as 
Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2; the 
interrogatories dated 
February 2, 1965 and filed 
with the Court on February 4,
1965 were marked and received 
in evidence as Plaintiffs' 
Exhibit 3; and the answers to 
plaintiffs' second set of 
interrogatories dated
March 26, 1965 and filed with



10

the Court on April 7, 1965 
were marked and received in 
evidence as Plaintiffs' 
Exhibit 4.)

MR. LUCKETT: 1 think I should call your Honor's 
attention at this time to the fact that we do have other 
defendants in the case who have not been formally dismissed 
from the case, and whether they are here or not -- the 
attorneys are not here -- I think everybody has been going 
along on the assumption they are more or less out of the 
case. That is the members of the --

THE COURT: Coahoma County —
MR. LUCKETT: —  Coahoma School Board, and

Mr. Maynard represents them.
I don't know --
MR. BELL: I hadn't come to that conclusion. I

had been serving him with, I hope, all copies of pleadings, 
including even copies of the interrogatories, although they 
weren't expected to respond.

You will recall, your Honor, that the —
THE COURT: There was some confusion because of

the joint operation —
MR. BELL: Yes.



11

MR« BELLs Yes.
The high school facilities were operated in 

accord with a joint three-year contract with the City Board 
and the County Board serving together in the operation of 
these high schools for white students as a Clarksdale- 
Coahoma County School Board, and we joined them as the 
second set of defendants in the case.

It came out on testimony last August that the 
contract under which this arrangement was made would expire 
at the end of the 1964-'65 year, or possibly would, and 
subsequently I gather that it's definitely going to expire.

Now, I would think that at least until the 
contract actually terminates that they would certainly 
remain properly --

THE COURT: Perhaps be technically necessary
parties?

MR. BELL: Right, and I think there might be some
question, though I'm not sure what the testimony is going to 
indicate on that, as to the propriety of eliminating or 
ending their contract, which I gather, and hope maybe to 
show it at a later stage, -- we have enough problems today 
-- the county was interested in continuing on with.

THE COURT: —  of the school facility.



12

I don't know whether this is something the 
plaintiffs can require or not, but I thought there were a 
few questions to be resolved on that point.

THE COURT: Do you think that is necessary for the
purpose of the hearing that we are beginning now?

Do you think the attendance of the county people 
at this hearing is required?

MR. BELL: Well, I would have thought it would
have been in their interest to be present on the thing.

1 think certainly most of the issues today concern 
the City School Board and the action they have taken in 
compliance with your order of last August 19th.

If I were the County Board, I think I would have 
been present. I don't know the direct result —

THE COURT: Well, from your standpoint, do you
need them here?

MR. BELL: I would think the answer to that is no.
THE COURT: If any of the members of the County

School Board are here in attendance, they will not be 
required to remain. You are excused and you may leave now, 
if you care to do so.

Anything else before we —
MR. BELL: Yes, your Honor.



13

On January 15, 1965 we took the deposition of the 
Chairman of the School Board, Dr. William T. Wilkins, and 
the Superintendent, Gycelle Tynes. Counsel for defendants 
took the deposition of three, X believe, of the plaintiffs, 
Mrs. Pearlie May Browner, Lillie Wilson and Mrs. Mary Ann 
Williams.

Now, subsequently, after we received the copies 
from our Court Reporter, we found that some of the 
depositions had not been well recorded. There was no 
problem as to the depositions taken by the defendants of the 
three plaintiffs, and signatures as to them were waived, and 
we would move that they be admitted into evidence, and we 
will probably save some time on that.

THE COURT: Well, of course, under the rules, that
could not be done except by stipulation, could it, Mr. Bell?

MR. BELL: Well, again I get varying
interpretations around the country. I --

THE COURT: Of course, under the rule, a
deposition is admissible only if the witness is not 
available to testify personally, and the arbitrary rule 
laid down is, I think, a hundred miles, in the rule, itself.

I think that is correct. That's my recollection
of it.



14

MR. BELL: I think you are probably correct.
THE COURT: Of course, you can use it for

contradiction --
MR. BELL: Right.
THE COURT: -- in the examination of the witness,

but we're talking about using it as a primary source of 
evidence. I doubt that that is admissible.

Do you have any objection, Mr. Luckett?
MR. LUCKETT: I think he's talking about my

depositions. I don't see how he can introduce my 
depositions, if the Court please.

THE COURT: The witnesses, these deponents, are
all locally available, aren't they, Mr. Bell?

MR. BELL: Yes; they are.
It's just a matter —  generally, they are very 

short and only give basic information as to why they're 
involved in the suit, and it's not absolutely necessary, but 
I thought it would be helpful, and I just wondered whether 
Mr. Luckett was going to permit them to go in, or if not 
we'll perhaps handle it in another fashion.

THE COURT: Do you have objection, Mr. Luckett?
MR. LUCKETT: I hadn't thought about it at this

time.



15

I really have no particular objection to them 
being in, your Honor.

THE GOURT: Well, if there is no real objection,
let them be received.

MR. BELL: Wfell, again the typing performance
wasn't the greatest. I think I'm giving pretty much —

Do you have the originals on this?
Okay. Fine.
THE COURT: Well, if you will, state for the

record which ones these are so the Reporter's notes may 
properly reflect which ones have been received.

MR. BELL: All right.
Wfe would offer the deposition taken by the 

defendants of plaintiff Mary Ann Williams, the deposition of 
Lillie Wilson and the deposition of Mrs. Pearlie May 
Browner.

THE COURT: All right. Let these three
depositions be received and marked.

THE DEPUTY CLERK: Will these be by stipulation
now or just plaintiffs' exhibits?

THE COURT: Plaintiffs' exhibits.
THE DEPUTY CLERK: Plaintiffs' exhibits.
MR. BELL: Five, 6 and 7.



(The deposition of Mary Ann 
Williams, taken on the 15th 
day of January 1965, was 
marked and received in 
evidence as Plaintiffs' 
Exhibit 5; the deposition of 
Lillie Wilson, taken on the 
15th day of January 1965, was 
marked and received in 
evidence as Plaintiffs' 
Exhibit 6; and the deposition 
of Mrs. Pearlie May Browner, 
taken on the 15th day of 
January 1965, was marked and 
received in evidence as 
Plaintiffs' Exhibit 7.)

There were only two others.
THE DEPUTY CLERK: I find only one.
MR. BELL: That's correct.
THE COURT: Just the three you are offering,

Mr. Bell?
MR. BELL: Yes, your Honor.
The fourth deposition was filed with the Court of

16



17

Dr. Wilkins.
The fifth deposition of Superintendent Tynes —  

signatures as to that deposition were not waived, and after 
reading the deposition Superintendent Tynes felt that the 
inaccuracies were so great that he just was unable to make 
sufficient corrections and, therefore, refused to sign his 
deposition.

With this understanding as to why the deposition 
was not signed, I would, nevertheless, like to file with 
the case, not as an exhibit, but just to have as part of the 
file, the original unsigned deposition of Mr. Tynes.

MR. LUCKETT: Now, if the Court please, this
deposition was taken before a Court Reporter that was 
produced by the plaintiffs in the case, and I must say to the 
Court it's the sorriest job of court reporting that I've 
ever seen in all the years I've practiced law. Even in 
these depositions that have already gone in there are quite 
a few inaccuracies, but since they are not critical 
depositions we made no particular point about that; but 
insofar as Mr. Tynes' deposition is concerned both counsel 
for the plaintiffs and I have agreed that even the questions 
are so garbled and incoherent that nobody can tell what the 
questions are, the answers are so botched up that nobody can



tell what the answers are, and It is for that reason, 
because it does not truly reflect either the questions that 
were put to Mr. Tynes or the answers given by Mr. Tynes to 
those questions, that we could not sign the deposition.

We made every effort to try to doctor up the 
deposition. I sent the deposition back to counsel for the 
plaintiffs and he tried to doctor up his questions; Mr. Tynes 
tried to doctor up his answers, but we couldn't get anywhere 
because the thing is just in a deplorable shape, and, of 
course, that being true we would certainly not want that 
sort of a document in the record in the case.

Mr. Tynes is here to answer any questions that 
were propounded to him on the deposition, and he no doubt 
will be asked the same questions, and we submit that's the 
sort of testimony that ought to be before the Court and not 
a garbled and incorrect version of what Mr. Tynes might have 
been asked or what he might have said.

THE COURT: It seems to me that counsel's
objection is well taken, Mr. Bell.

MR. BELL: I won't push the matter any further.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. BELL: I was thinking only in terms of perhaps

being able to, while not having the same effect as if you

18



19

had a legitimately signed deposition, as far as purposes of 
cross examination -- that, nevertheless, it is sufficiently 
useful to spark my own memory as to what actually occurred. 
I guess I can get the same value out of it in this sense. 

THE COURT: All right, sir.
Do you have something else, Mr. Bell?
MR. BELL: That's all preliminarily.
THE COURT: All right. You may call your first

witness.
MR. BELL: And again 1 think it might be helpful

in terms of time-saving if we were able to depart from the 
usual just a bit and call counsel for the defendants,
Mr. Luckett, as our first witness.

THE COURT: All right, sir.



20

IGNATIUS SEMMES LUCKETT,
a witness called by and in behalf of the plaintiffs, having 
been first duly sworn, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION 
By Mr. Bell:

Q Mr. Luckett, would you state your full name, 
please?

A Ignatius Semmes Luckett.
Q Your residence?
A 227 Clark Street, Clarksdale, Mississippi.
Q And your occupation?
A I'm an attorney at law.
Q Would you tell us what your relationship is to the 

Clarksdale Municipal Separate School District?
A I am the attorney for the School District in this 

particular case.
Q And how long have you been retained by the School 

District?
A Shortly after this lawsuit was filed.
Q That would be about April of 1964?
A I think the suit was filed April 22nd, 1964.
Q I ask you, Mr. Luckett, whether or not you are 

familiar at all with an ordinance passed by the Board, the



21

Mayor and City Commissioners, of the City of Clarksdale last 
July, 1964, which ordinance provided for the inclusion of 
certain new tracts of land as part of the city and the 
exclusion of other tracts of land.

A Now, if the Court please, as an attorney, I wish 
to interpose an objection to that particular inquiry, as 
attorney for the School Board, the defendants in this case.

If I may refer to the Court file, I have there
the --

The city adopted an ordinance for the inclusion of 
certain territory into the city limits of Clarksdale and 
exclusions of other territory from the city limits of 
Clarksdale.

That was done, I take it, in July from the
question.

Thereafter, as your Honor probably knows, summons 
was published for all people interested in the question and 
who might be aggrieved by the action of the city, and 
notice, as I say, was given to those people to appear at a 
time and place fixed by the court to make whatever 
objections they might have to that particular action of the 
city.

The hearing was had in August -- I think perhaps



the hearing was had after the hearing we had in August of 
1964 —  and at that time the action of the Mayor and Board 
of Commissioners was confirmed. As a matter of fact, the 
record will show that there was no objection interposed by 
any party in the City of Clarksdale, that no one considered 
himself aggrieved by that particular action, and that matter 
became final, and personally so far as the School Board is 
concerned it had nothing particularly to do with that 
annexation or deannexation, and if there is any question 
about the legality of that particular action it should have 
been raised and could have been raised in a cause in the 
state court.

MR. BELL: I would say —
THE COURT: I doubt that counsel is attacking the

legality of the action.
I think your objection is not well taken and it's

overruled.
You may answer with respect to your knowledge of 

these proceedings.
THE WITNESS: May I ask Mr. Porter to bring me

that file, sir?
Just everything in it, too, Mr. Porter, please.
Counsel asked me, as I understood it, if I was

22



familiar with the ordinance that was adopted in July of 
1964 which had to do with the changes made in the boundary 
line of the City of Clarksdale.

MR. BELL: That's correct.
THE WITNESS: The answer is that I have read that

ordinance. I read it for the first time yesterday because 
of the questions that were included in the interrogatories 
propounded by the complainants. I did know at the time that 
it happened, and I suppose most people in Clarksdale knew 
about it, too, that there was to be a change in the boundary 
line of the City of Clarksdale both by the exclusions and 
the inclusions. It was published in the newspaper and there 
was a front-page article carried by the local paper about 
that particular fact, and I think that anyone in Clarksdale 
who is familiar with what's going on knew that that was a 
matter which was in court at that particular time.

By Mr. Bell:
Q I ask you --

Well, then, I assume the answer to my question is 
yes; you are familiar with the ordinance.

A I think that's the gist of my answer.
Q I ask you, Mr. Luckett, whether or not you were

present at a meeting of the Mayor and the City Commissioners

23



24

just before the announcement or before the passage of this 
ordinance, at which meeting there was at least a newspaper 
reporter and perhaps a student whose name I believe was 
Stan Boyd, who was doing a survey of the City of Clarksdale, 
at which meeting the ordinance or the proposed ordinance was 
discussed.

A Well, I've been at City Hall on a number of 
occasions. Whether I was there at that time or not I don't 
know.

Q Let me ask you whether or not you sat in on any 
meetings or post~meetings during the month of perhaps June 
or July 1964.

A With the Mayor and Board of Commissioners?
Q That's right.
A In a meeting of the Mayor and Board of 

Commissioners?
Q Yes.
A I never sat in at any official meeting of the 

Mayor and Board of Commissioners.
Q How about unofficial meetings, perhaps meetings of 

these persons after the official meeting of the Mayor and 
City Commissioners had ended, Mr. Luckett?

A Well, I have discussed a number of things with the



25

Mayor and Board of Commissioners at unofficial meetings.
Q 1 ask you, Mr. Luckett, whether you recall 

attending, being present at, such an unofficial meeting just 
prior to the passage of this ordinance.

A As I say, I've been with the Mayor and Board of 
Commissioners on a number of occasions. I'm also and a 
very interested member of the Planning Commission of the 
City of Clarksdale and have been such, I think, since we 
have had a Planning Commission in Clarksdale, and I have 
asked the Mayor and Board of Commissioners to take many 
actions on behalf of the Planning Commission.

Q Let me ask you, then, to think back and tell me 
whether or not you did sit in on a meeting at which the 
proposed ordinance was discussed, an unofficial meeting.

A I don't know that I did, and I don't know that I 
didn't.

Q Well, this is fairly crucial to the case,
Mr. Luckett. Would you like us to give you a moment or so?

We realize you have a lot of meetings.
A I know it's crucial, but if you gave me two days I 

couldn't answer the question.
Q Well, is it your answer at this point that you 

don't know whether you did or did not sit in on a meeting



26

with the Mayor and City Commissioners, at which the proposed 
ordinance changing the boundary lines of the city was 
discussed?

A Well, I have discussed with the Mayor and Board of 
Commissioners those particular matters. 1 was very 
interested in the question as a member of the Planning 
Commission and as a citizen of Clarksdale in the development 
of Clarksdale and in the lines of the City of Clarksdale.

Q Then you did at sometime or other discuss the 
boundary situation and the ordinance that would change those 
boundaries with the Mayor and City Commissioners?

A Not the ordinance, but I will say this —  and 
never as attorney for the City School Board --

Q But you have discussed the changes in the boundary 
lines; is that right?

A As a citizen and member of the Planning Commission, 
I have; yes.

Q Did you advise the Mayor and City Commissioners as 
to the changes that could be made in the city boundary?

A Well, I think they had a lawyer to advise them. I 
didn't advise them as a lawyer, if that's what you're asking 
me.

Q Did you advise them as a member of the Planning



27

Cotnnission?
A Well, we had certain ideas as members of the 

Planning Commission. We thought certain territory should be 
included in the City of Clarksdale.

Q Did you also advise them as to the exclusion of 
certain other territories in the City of Clarksdale?

A We have been of the opinion that certain 
territories should not be in the City of Clarksdale.

Q Did you then, Mr. Luckett, at a meeting during, I 
believe, the week prior to the announcement of the passage 
of this ordinance meet with the Mayor and the City 
Commissioners, at which meeting there was at least one 
newspaper reporter present and one student doing a study of 
the City of Clarksdale whose name was Stan Boyd, and did you 
at this meeting make certain recommendations as to the 
change in the boundaries of the City of Clarksdale, as to 
Including new territory and excluding other territory, which 
recommendations were substantially incorporated in the 
ordinance which was announced as having been passed on 
July 17th?

A Not that 1 recall, and I'm sure I never discussed 
the matter of incorporation or deannexation or annexation in 
a public meeting, so far as I can remember.



28

Q This was not a public meeting as such, the 
official meeting. It was a meeting after the regular 
meeting had ended, and I again ask you the question whether 
at such an unofficial meeting, at which no minutes were 
taken, you did make certain recommendations, which 
recommendations were subsequently incorporated in the 
ordinance that they passed.

A I can't answer that question, and I will say this: 
I know --

Q Well, could you —
A I think I know the man you're talking about. I 

think I have an idea, and so far as I know I was never at a 
meeting with the Mayor and Commissioners with that 
particular young man.

Now, I think I remember him being up there in the 
City Hall at one time where he made certain statements to 
the Mayor and Commissioners. He was here. I think he said 
he was compiling a treatise on race relations in the South.

Q I believe that's correct.
A And certainly I never met unofficially with anyone 

in company with that young man, and no particular reason for 
me to do so, or with any —

Q I didn't get an answer to my last question of



29

whether you were present at an unofficial meeting at which 
these persons were present and made these recommendations.

A I don't think so.
Q You said you couldn't answer?
A I don't know, and I don't think so, and I am sure 

I wasn't.
Q Were you present at a time when these other 

persons were present and did you make recommendations that 
were subsequently incorporated in an ordinance or reflected 
in an ordinance?

A Are you talking about a newspaper reporter now?
What newspaper reporter are you talking about?

Q I'm not certain that that's particularly important 
or that I have the name of the reporter who was present, but 
ny question is just whether or not you recall such a meeting 
or such a gathering, at which you —

A You mean a meeting at which the Mayor and Board of 
Commissioners and I, myself, and this man, Boyd, --

Q Did you --
A -- and a representative of the Clarksdale Press 

were present?
Q At least these persons were present. There may 

have been other persons present, Mr. Luckett, and it was



30

following a regular meeting. There were no minutes taken. 
This was not official.

A No. I don't remember any such occasion.
Q Well, could it possibly have been that you were 

present at such an occasion and do not remember it?
A No; I wouldn't think so. I don't see why it 

should be that. After all, that happened last summer, 
didn't it?

Q That's right.
A That's not too long ago.

As I say, I remember being in the chamber at the 
City Hall at a time when that young man was present because 
I remember him getting up and making a statement. That's 
the only reason I know I was present with the Mayor and 
Board of Commissioners at a time that that young man was 
there.

Q At that time, Mr. Luckett, did you make any 
statement to the gathering or to the Mayor and the 
Commissioners concerning the city boundary?

A Not that I know of. I may have. I make 
statements about a number of things. I've been up there on 
different things, from rezoning, permits, tax questions, a 
number of different things —



31

Q Well, you —
A -- that I might appear on before the Mayor and 

Commissioners.
Q I'm sorry.

You indicated you had made recommendations about 
matters concerning zoning in the past, and is it my 
understanding your answer is you don't remember whether you 
made such a statement at this gathering some little time 
before the ordinance was enacted?

Is that correct?
Is that your statement?

A Will you please repeat that question?
Q Is it your present statement that you do not 

remember whether or not you made a statement concerning the 
changes in the city zoning at a meeting, unofficial meeting, 
at which the Mayor and City Commissioners were present and 
certain other individuals were also --

THE COURT: I think you inadvertently misstated
your question.

MR. BELL: I'm sorry.
THE COURT: You were referring to zoning. Zoning

is the classification of area within the boundaries of the 
city as we understand it in this part of the country, —



32

MR. BELL: I see.
THE COURT: —  and you're concerned with taking

some territory out and adding some more to the municipality.
That's what you're talking about, isn't it?
MR. BELL: That's correct.
Would you like for me to restate the question?
THE WITNESS: No. I think I have an idea what

you're talking about.
I will say again that as attorney for the 

Clarksdale Municipal Separate School District I never made a 
suggestion to the Mayor and Board of Commissioners insofar 
as the boundary lines of the city are concerned.

I will also add as a member of the Planning 
Commission and as a citizen of Clarksdale 1 have been 
concerned in almost everything that affects the City of 
Clarksdale and that some of the actions taken by the Mayor 
and Board of Commissioners were at least, we'll say, 
recommended by me. I have no official voice in the city.
For instance, the Tuxedo Park matter that you probably want 
to inquire about -- I have been quite interested in that 
particular feature of the matter since at least 1949.

By Mr. Bell:
Q Could you describe for the record where the Tuxedo



33

Park section is located?
A Well, the Tuxedo Park section is located -- it's 

north of the city limits. It borders the city limits. It's 
right north of the St. Elizabeth's Catholic School. It's on 
the Friars Point Road.

Q Yes.
And what recommendations did you make in any 

capacity, unofficial or official, as to what should be done 
with the Tuxedo Park area?

A Well, I fought since at least 1949 to get the slum 
area cleared out of Tuxedo Park by any means whatsoever, by 
any means available.

Q And what was your recommendation as to how this 
could be done?

A Well, that's —  I don't guess you're interested in 
my reasons for it, but I will give you the reason why I was 
very interested in getting rid of it.

Q I would appreciate it if you could just tell us 
what your recommendations were, and then if you want to add 
what your reasons for the recommendations --

A Well, as I said, I have been on the Planning 
Commission, and first we made a very determined effort to 
try to get rid of it through urban renewal. That's the way



34

I thought it should have been done, which would have 
included the incorporation of that particular territory into 
the City of Clarksdale, because we couldn't handle it 
otherwise under urban renewal. As a matter of fact, I 
finally got -- our first urban renewal proposal to Atlanta 
did not include the acquisition of the slum area down there 
known as Tuxedo Park, and I kept insisting that we do so, 
and the Commission finally agreed to go along with me, and I 
flew over to Atlanta in company with Mr. Brewer, who was 
Chairman of the Commission, and Mr. McMinn, who is with the 
Housing Authority here in Clarksdale, and we persuaded the 
people there in Atlanta to go along with us and they agreed 
to eliminate the slum area known as Tuxedo Park as part of 
the urban renewal project.

JLt happens that's very low ground down there.
Those people did not have sewer provisions down there. They 
had outdoor privies, and it was a health hazard, and being 
low ground, in any rainy season, there was a great deal of 
overflow down there. The creek would overflow and it would 
back up into the Catholic schoolyard, and I became 
particularly interested in it after 1949 because my daughter 
at that time developed a very severe attack of polio, and at 
the same time there were other children in the same school



35

that developed polio. There was a painter along that same 
road that had six children that developed polio, and I never 
got it out of my mind but that the unhealthy conditions that 
were attended by those slum houses down there might have 
contributed to the attack of polio suffered by those 
children, —

Q Now, what —
A —  and I was determined if I could do anything as 

a citizen of Clarksdale to get rid of those houses that I 
would do the best thing I could do not only for the people 
of Clarksdale, but also for the people living in those 
houses.

Q And what was your recommendation as to -- 
A My recommendation was to get rid of them any way 

they could.
Of course, I was trying to get rid of them with 

urban renewal. Urban renewal, of course, provided that 
three fourths of the cost of removal would be paid by the 
federal government and also that provisions would have to be 
made to take care of these people in public housing, that 
is, if private housing was not available, and our survey 
at that time demonstrated that private housing would not be 
available, and we had provisions made for the development of



another housing unit, units, to take care of those 
particular people who would be dispossessed by that 
particular action.

Q Now, isn't it correct, Mr. Luckett, that what 
actually was done as to this area is that a sizable area of 
county land was incorporated, but that the new lines were so 
drawn as to exclude a cluster of Negro homes in this area 
and that these homes were then also bought up by the city 
and torn down?

Isn't that correct?
A I would say that, in general, your statement is 

perfectly correct.
You must understand something about the City of 

Clarksdale. You must also understand that this is a growing 
town. You must understand that insofar as our residential 
development here in Clarksdale is concerned we were 
confronted at that time and have been confronted for some 
time with the fact that our westerly development of the town 
would have to come to an end when we hit the sixteenth 
section line.

Now, you may not be familiar with what the 
sixteenth section line means, but in Mississippi the 
sixteenth sections are school lands and you cannot get a fee



simple title. You can only get a lease on that particular 
land, and our town just within a year or so will reach that 
particular line. There's no other way in which we can 
develop the town in a westerly direction and, therefore, 
anyone who studies the needs of Clarksdale -- and that was 
the duty of the Planning Commission -- would know that we 
had to open up this territory north of Clarksdale.

Q But, as a matter of fact, —
A Wait a minute.
Q —  after this —
A Wait a minute. Let me end my answer.

Now, as a member of the Planning Commission, as a 
person interested in the development of Clarksdale -- we as 
members of the Planning Commission and I as an individual 
did everything I could to see to the development of that 
road which we call DeSoto Street Extended.

Now, again I had some additional interest in the 
thing other than that, because it happens, just like I was 
interested in the Catholic School children down there, 
because I am a Catholic -- but in the meantime the Catholic 
Church had bought 42 acres over there and was going to build 
a church there and we needed an access road, and also the 
town needed an area north of town in which to build houses.

37



38

So, I was very interested in the building and the setting up 
of DeSoto Street Extended, and when you're talking about 
going before the City Commission -- I badgered them every way 
I could to get them to complete the DeSoto Street Extended.

1 had to do the same thing with the Board of 
Supervisors, because at that time that road was partially in 
the county, but it was partially in the city. The first 30 
or 40 feet of that road, which would require the building of 
a dump, was in the city, —

Q Well, Mr. Luckett —
A —  and we had to get that built.

So, the whole thing was one picture, we were 
trying to open up a territory so that Clarksdale could grow, 
and in order to do that that particular part of the 
community had to be annexed into the town.

Insofar as this particular part you're talking 
about that was excluded is concerned, when territory is in a 
town the town is under an obligation to furnish it with 
certain public facilities. For instance, it's required to 
furnish sewer lines, and the territory up there has no sewer 
lines that you're talking about, and they are nothing but
shacks, and I have some pictures there to demonstrate to the 
Court the kind of houses that are up there. They are not



39

only substandard housing; they are not fit for human 
habitation.

Q If you will just answer my question, Mr. Luckett,
I am sure you will have opportunity to do that or in your 
own testimony that you put on cover some of these things; 
but if you could limit your responses to the questions I 
think we could get through this part of it much faster.

Now, what I'm concerned about is -- I realize 
that here as in sections all over the country there have 
been continuing problems in trying to improve the appearance 
of the city and the housing in the city and so forth, but I 
want to know —  what actually happened during a relatively 
short period last year, and I want to be able to tie into 
the record the effects of these actions with the issues in 
this case, namely, the school desegregation and the 
validity of the zone lines drawn, and in that regard I ask 
you whether or not, as a result of this city action, which 
you indicated that you had been recommending for some time, 
and I'm assuming you recoranended last year, there were areas 
in this Tuxedo Park area, which are inhabited by Negroes or 
were inhabited by Negroes, which were cut out of the city.

A No. You're entirely wrong about that, and you've 
been wrong about it ever since you have been in the lawsuit,



40

and we have tried to tell you that Tuxedo Park is not a 
part of the City of Clarksdale --

Q But what happened --
A -- and the Negroes who live in Tuxedo Park —
Q I'm sorry.
A —  had no right to attend school in the City of 

Clarksdale.
Q But what happened is that you incorporated an area 

all around this area, —
A We did not do that.
Q -- but did not incorporate the area in which these 

Negro homes were located?
A We did not incorporate the area around that 

territory.
The area south of it was incorporated; maybe the 

area west of it, but the area around Tuxedo Park was not 
incorporated.

Q Are you familiar with the Friars Point Road?
A Yes; I am. I go down it every day.
Q Were there not a cluster of Negro homes just east

of Friars Point Road, and isn't it correct that the new 
areas were just around this cluster of homes on Friars Point 
Road and also on a street called, I believe, McGuire Street



41

in that area?
A Well, I think there's a McGuire Street on the map, 

but I am sure there has never been a McGuire Street in the 
City of Clarksdale.

Q Well, that is sufficient identification so you 
can —

A You're talking about the Tuxedo Park area. That's 
what you're talking about.

Q And there were quite a good number, good size 
number, of Negro homes in that area; isn't that correct?

A We've got pictures of them.
I can show you the number on the map there on the 

urban renewal project.
Q Now, all of that property is now owned by the 

city; right?
A Owned by the City of Clarksdale.
Q That these Negro homes were located on?
A That's right.
Q And all of the homes have been removed and that 

area leveled?
A That's right.

They were never in the City of Clarksdale, and not 
in the City of Clarksdale today.



Q And this was an action taken that was in line 
with, if not in accord with, your recommendations to the 
city for getting rid of this slum area, as you call it?

42

A Getting rid of Tuxedo Park has been a dream of 10 
or 15 years' standing with me, and I think it's the finest 
thing that ever happened to the people of Clarksdale 
regardless of where they lived in the City of Clarksdale.

Q But it actually, finally occurred last year; is 
that right?

months ago.
Q Most of those houses were demolished last year, 

weren’t they, Mr. Luckett?
A 1 would think most of them were demolished in '65.
Q All right.

The other area we're concerned about is —
Let me just quote a little bit from this newspaper 

clipping from the Clarksdale Press Register on July 17,
1964. It said that:

"Two areas to be excluded are located in

A It actually, finally occurred last year.
Q Okay.
A Some of it, I guess, as late as two or three

the vicinity of the Lion Oil Company tanks on East



Second and on East Second near Planters 
Manufacturing Company. On the former" —  that's 
the Lion Oil Company tank area, I guess —  "the 
ordinance would exclude the area north of North 
Edwards from the alley between Coahoma and Quitman 
east to a point past the oil tanks. On the latter"
—  that dealing with the Planters Manufacturing 
Company -- a strip of property north of the 
Illinois Central Railroad in the northeast corner 
of the city near the incinerator would be taken 
out of the city limits."

And my question is: As to that aspect of the
ordinance, was this in line with the recommendations that 
you had made to the Mayor and City Commissioners at a 
meeting that you had with them, unofficial, in whatever 
capacity, sometime prior to the passage of the ordinance?

A I don't know that I can say that it was, but I 
would say that I would have recommended it if I thought of 
it. I certainly thought it should have been done.

Q Did you recommend it, Mr. Luckett?
A I don't recall that I did. y
Q I think you —

43

A I would say this: That we had a number of general



44

discussions about it, and there are certain houses up there 
which either had to come down, because they could not meet 
the housing code —  I thought that would have been perhaps 
a rather harsh judgment on the part of those who owned the 
houses, and I thought they should have been excluded rather 
than to have them brought down as a result of this code.

Now, you're going to a part of it that’s in the 
City of Clarksdale and the part of it, the majority part of 
which, as I was getting ready to tell you, was not served by 
even a sewer, and it's an open sore. It was an open sore 
then. It's an open sore now, and we've got pictures of 
those places, which I say are a terrible health hazard for 
the people of Clarksdale.

Q Well, does —
A They have no sewers and they have got a creek and 

it runs right back of my house and it runs right by the 
Catholic School that I have been telling you about, and all 
this raw sewage is dumped right into that particular creek --

Q I ask you --
A -- and goes right into the middle of town.
Q I ask you whether or not these persons haven't 

been from time to time, over a period of years, petitioning 
the city and pleading with the city to put a sewer line out



45

there.
A I don't know.

I doubt that is true.
Q Let me ask you this, Mr. Luckett
A I doubt that is true, but let me say the City of 

Clarksdale could not afford to put a sewer line up there to 
serve those particular houses.

If you want to see the pictures, we'll show them 
to the Court in a few minutes.

Q Mr. Luckett --
A But those houses will have to come down simply 

because people should not have to live in them. They 
wouldn't pay any taxes. They couldn't support it.

Q Mr. Luckett, does it help the health hazard by 
deannexing these areas?

A No; it doesn't.
I think the houses ought to come down.

Q I ask you, Mr. Luckett: Have you ever been out to
this area, particularly the area around, near Planters 
Manufacturing Company?

As you will recall, there is a good spot of land 
north of the railroad tracks and there’s a number of -- oh, 
perhaps up as much as a hundred -- homes built in this area



46

on the south side of East Second Street, but north of the 
Illinois Central Railroad tracks.

A No; there's not any hundred homes up there.
Q Well, it seems like a goodly gathering.

How many would you estimate?
A I never counted them, but there may be 20, I'd 

say, in that particular area that you're talking about.
You're not talking about those that are north of 

the road, itself; you're talking about those between --
Q That's right.
A -- the road and the railroad?
Q That's correct.
A If you are asking me have I ever been up there, I 

certainly have been up there.
I have been every place in Clarksdale.

Q Well, Mr. Luckett, have you been close to those 
homes?

I was there yesterday, and isn't it true that 
while some of them are in pretty deplorable condition others 
of them are comparable with the average home that the 
Negroes have here in the city?

Wouldn't you agree with that?
A Well, you made a more careful inspection of them



47

than I have.
I will agree that many of them are in deplorable

condition.
Q You are not familiar with those not in deplorable 

condition?
A I am sure some of them are in much better 

condition than others.
Q The question I am getting to is that all of this 

area was deannexed under this ordinance or at least cut out 
of the city boundaries; isn't that correct?

A I'm sure that's correct. Sure that's correct.
Q And that this action also was taken or was in line 

with recommendations that you had made in your discussions 
with the Mayor and City Commissioners?

A I say I don't know I made a recommendation. If I 
thought about it and it came up in my presence, I would have 
certainly recommended it.

Q And is it your answer also —
A I think it is a good answer.
Q -- you don't remember whether you made these 

recommendations?
A Let me say this —
Q Would you answer my question first?



48

A —  about that particular area.
Q Would you answer my question first?
A That territory —
Q Would you answer my question first, Mr. Luckett?

Do you know --
THE COURT: Let the witness answer in his own way,

and then if it is an inadequate answer we can get it cleared 
up.

THE WITNESS: That territory has been in and out
of town a number of times. This isn't the first time that 
particular territory was, as I say, deannexed from the City 
of Clarksdale, and I can remember as a citizen being 
interested in Clarksdale when it was brought back in the 
City of Clarksdale. I never thought that made any sense, 
and I was against it at that time. I never thought it 
should have been brought back in the City of Clarksdale.

I don't think you ought to tax the people when you 
can't furnish them the facilities, and certainly I know that 
those facilities cannot be furnished up there.

Now, I would say in this general discussion if 
this thing came up -- and it's bound to have come up —  that 
I said I thought it should have been done. I would say it 
should have been done.



49

By Mr. Bell:
Q Would you —
A I would say that If it came up at that time I said 

at that time to the Mayor and Commissioners, "Certainly you 
should never have brought that back in or your predecessors 
should never have brought that territory back in, and you 
should get it out of the City of Clarksdale because you 
can't furnish them with the facilities and you have no 
intention of furnishing them with the facilities."

Q Then do I understand your response to be you may 
have made such a recommendation prior to the passage of this 
ordinance?

A That's right.
Q But you're not sure?
A I've answered as well as I can. I think I've 

answered it. I --
Q Were there others --

MR. BELL: Strike that.
By Mr. Bell:

Q Mr. Luckett, it's correct, isn't it, that the 
effect of deannexing the area along northeast Second Street 
was to make ineligible the possibility that the students or 
the pupils living in that area would go to the school where



50

students living in Zone E-3-A would be assigned?
A The effect of any ordinance that would put any 

territory outside the City of Clarksdale would be to make 
the students living in that particular area ineligible to 
attend any school within the City of Clarksdale.

Q And, therefore, the pupils who would have been in 
either Grades 1 or 2 and who were living there, Negro 
pupils, and who would have been eligible to go to what had 
been a previously white school were, as a result of the 
enactment of this ordinance, rendered ineligible to attend 
such schools; isn't that correct?

A It necessarily follows, I think.
Q And do you recall how many pupils, persons in this 

area of school age, were living in the homes that were 
deannexed?

A I think the answer to the interrogatory said 72, 
didn't it?

Q Yes, but I think that that was with reference to 
another area. I wasn't too certain on that, but wasn't that 
with reference to the areas around the Courthouse or the 
County Jail that had been bought by either the city or the 
county for public uses?

A I would have to ask the gentleman who supplied me



with that figure whether it does or not. I didn't get up 
that information.

Mr. Carruth, did that —
THE COURT: Wait.
THE WITNESS: Did you —
THE COURT: Wait just a minute.
If you don't know, say you don't know.
THE WITNESS: Well, we answered —  if the Court

please, they had the interrogatory -- and the answer was 72, 
and I assumed it included all of them that you're talking 
about.

By Mr. Bell:
Q I just wondered whether you would agree that there 

were between 35 and 40 children of school age residing in 
that one area along northeast Second that was deannexed.

A That was deannexed, you say?
Q Yes.
A I don't have the slightest idea. I just know the 

houses are up there. I never counted the children. I 
didn't have anything to do with that.

Q How about the action taken by the city and county 
in purchasing property in the Tallahatchie Avenue area to be 
used as parking facilities and repair areas for cars and

51



52

other government equipment?
Did you make any recommendations to the city 

fathers or to the county personnel with reference to these 
areas, too?

A Of course, the county didn't have anything to do 
with it.

1 mean the city had nothing to do with that.
Are you talking about the property north of the

jail?
Q That's right, and across the street. I guess that 

would be east of the jail.
A Well, you're talking about two different sets of

properties.
< \
\ Q That's right.

-----
A The city purchased that across from the jail and 

the county purchased that north of the jail, as was answered 
in the original interrogatories.

We know, as a matter of fact, although the School 
Board has nothing whatsoever to do with it, that the Board 
of Supervisors of Coahoma County decided to build a two- 
hundred -thousand -do liar annex to the County Jail. That 
annex is in process of construction, and at the same time 
they decided that they needed some additional parking area



53

for the cars, and if you'll go there you'll see that" they 
do need the parking area, --

Q Did you —
A —  and that, as I understand it, was the reason 

they bought it.
Q My question —
A Now, you asked me what 1 know about it. Well, 

that sort of goes back like the answer to the other one. It 
may be that I put my nose in too much public business not 
being on the public payroll, but my father-in-law for about 
30 years before his death was attorney for the Board of 
Supervisors. My brother-in-law has been attorney for the 
Board of Supervisors for about seven or eight years, and I 
attend those meetings. I'm in those meetings almost all the 
time. I mean not officially. I don't represent anybody, 
but I go in there and I talk to them, and I talk to them 
about a number of things.

Q So, you did make recommendations --
A I knew they were going --
Q You did make recommendations that led to the 

purchase last year?
A No; I didn't make recommendations that led to the 

purchase.



54

I made recommendation, but whether it led to the 
purchase -- anybody who looked at the City of Clarksdale 
knew what the situation was, led by their own reasoning. I 
am not the only one who's got ideas in Clarksdale, but 
insofar as this whole particular complex of buildings that 
you're talking about was acquired they're all part of this 
area that was a slum area in Clarksdale that needed to be 
developed or needed to be eliminated either by urban renewal 
or some other process so the town can develop.

Now, I hope to do it by urban renewal. What 
you're talking about was supposed to have been taken down by 
urban renewal, but that was brought to a halt by the 
legislation which provided that we couldn't get any federal 
funds in order to do the job. So, we had to proceed with 
state funds, and those were limited. However, I would be in 
favor of taking out any of these particular places that were 
in the urban renewal plan, regardless of whether the county 
did it or the city did it, so that our central business 
district in Clarksdale can develop as it should develop.

Q Well, now, what you have been saying as to all of 
these things is that these changes that were made were in 
line with suggestions that you had concerning the city and 
that you have been making for a long period of time; is that



55

correct?
A Well, I'm not the only one who made it. I am just 

on the Commission.

Q Let me ask you --
A I was in favor of it.

Q But you —
A I am vocal. I am vocal and I made my position

known.

U Q And, notwithstanding the fact these were problems
that had existed for a long period of time, last year, 
during the few months after this suit was filed and before 
school opened, there was action taken that was in line with 
your recommendations and the recommendations that you made 
as to areas along northeast Second Street resulting in 
deannexation proceedings, as to areas around the County Jail 
resulting in purchases and a removal of Negro homes in that 
area and as to areas out in the Tuxedo Park area, which 
areas were not included in the general annexation proceeding 
and which homes were subsequently bought by the city and 
those Negroes removed; isn't that correct?

A Well, I would say had I been listened to and 
others listened to it would have been done five years ago, 
but a lot of the thing was dependent upon the opening up of



56

that territory north of the city limits, which was done by 
the creation of what we call the DeSoto Street Extended.

Now, you must understand that sometimes people 
might want to do something and they have to wait until funds 
are available.

We have five members of the Board of Supervisors 
of Coahoma County, just like they have five in every county, 
and so far as the member of the Board from this particular 
beat is concerned he did not have the funds available to 
build this particular road until last year and that 
particular territory couldn't have been opened up until last 
year.

I might say that insofar as this deannexation or 
annexation was concerned that nobody in the City of 
Clarksdale seemed to object one iota to it. Nobody appeared 
and objected. Nobody filed any objection. It seemed to be 
approved by everybody concerned.

Q When you say nobody filed any objection, does that 
mean that you were personally aware that all of the Negroes 
who were being moved out of these areas that were deannexed 
were satisfied or happy with it or do you mean that they did 
not feel that they were in a position to or were unwilling 
to go into court and contest it?



57

A All I know is that the law gives them the right, 
and they were invited to come in and to file whatever 
objection they had to it and no one filed any objection.

I don't think that they suffer from lack of
counsel.

Q But you're not speaking from personal knowledge
that they were all happy and satisfied with it, are you?

A You mean have I talked to each one of them 
personally —

Q That's right.
A -- and asked them if they were happy and 

satisfied?
Q That's right.
A No.

I don't suppose anybody in the world has done
that.

Q I suggest to you, Mr. Luckett, I have spoken to an 
awful lot of them in my —

A Are you going to testify?
Q No.

I want to know whether or not you have any facts 
that would indicate that 1 was incorrect in believing that 
some of those persons or quite a few of them were not happy



58

with what happened.
A Where are you talking about?
Q In each of these areas that we're talking about 

this morning.
A You mean the people who lived where these 

properties --
Q That's right.
A -- were purchased?
Q That's right.
A Well, say if a person lived in a house north of 

the jail, they might have liked that particular location; 
but I don't think they had a vested right to stay there. 
Whoever owned that particular property —  if it happened to 
be Mr. Isaacson or Mr. Kantor, he had a perfect right to 
sell that property. Whether he sold it or not, he could 
have torn the building down. They didn't have any vested 
right to stay in that particular spot.

Q I agree with you, Mr. Luckett.
I just wanted to know if you had any facts that 

indicated these persons are happy with the action taken that 
required them to move.

A Happy that they moved?
I don't know. I guess some of them are in better



59

locations than they were before. Whether they are happy or 
not, I don't know.

Q Well, could I again get a response to my earlier 
question: That, notwithstanding your concern about these
problems for many years, last year, during the period after 
this suit was filed and before schools were scheduled to 
open, these actions were taken by the city and county that 
accorded with recommendations that you had made during this 
period and it resulted in this ordinance and the purchase 
of these sites and the removal of Negroes or at least the 
rendering of ineligible of these Negroes to go to schools in 
those zones?

A No; I don't think that's right at all.
I think that that decision was made before this 

lawsuit was filed, which is shown by the fact that the city 
approved the urban renewal plan, --

Q Well —
A -- which would have brought about that particular 

thing before this lawsuit was ever thought of.
Q But that was all abandoned in 1961 or 1962, wasn't

it?
A But they did agree they wanted to do it. This 

wasn't a new thought. This wasn't brought up on account of



60

this lawsuit. This thing was there and the city had agreed 
it should have been done back before 1962, because that's 
when the law was passed which brought it to a halt, but 
prior to 1962 the City of Clarksdale, by approving the urban 
renewal plan, had provided for the elimination of these 
particular slum areas by reason of urban renewal.

Q Isn't it correct the urban renewal plan provided 
for a whole lot of things, Mr. Luckett, but isn't it correct 
that during this period that we're concerned with these were 
the actions that were actually taken?

These actions were taken by the —
A They were both approved in 1964, and some of them 

bore fruit after the beginning of this lawsuit, after the 
pendency of this lawsuit.

Q It is correct, isn't it, Mr. Luckett, there was a 
petition requesting school desegregation filed as early as 
1954?

Are you aware of that?
A My own information would be about what I read in 

the newspaper. I had no connection with the School Board.
Q But you don't deny that there was a school 

desegregation petition filed as early as 1954?
A I remember reading it. I know there was one back



61

there. As a matter of fact, I have seen it. I think I've 
got one in the file. Mow, when it was filed and what effect 
it had in connection with this lawsuit -- I would 
necessarily have had to ask Mr. Tynes for whatever data 
they had on this particular question, and I'm sure that I 
have whatever was filed back there in my file.

Q But it was in accord with your recommendations 
that this area along northeast Second was deannexed; isn't 
that right -- this area where Negroes were living on north 
Second Street?

A It wasn't done as a result of my recommendation, 
but I'm sure that I was in favor of it and I'm sure that I 
spoke in favor of it; but I didn't get it done. I didn't 
have to get it done. I'm not the one who did it.

Q And this area out in Tuxedo Park -- the action 
there that was taken was in accordance with recommendations 
that you had made?

A As I point out again, it has never been in the 
City of Clarksdale; but I begged and pleaded with the 
officials to get rid of that slum area in Tuxedo Park for 
the reason I told you. I've been trying to do that since 
1949.

Q But you also made recommendations last year to



62

this effect; isn't that right?
A I made it every year since 1949.
Q And in the same way as to the properties purchased 

around the County Jail area -- that this action that was 
taken was in line with recommendations that you had made?

A Of course, my concern with the property around the 
County Jail was very general as compared to my concern with 
the area in Tuxedo Park. It was quite specific for the 
reason I told you.

Q But it was again, as with the other situations, in 
line with recommendations that you had made?

A We wanted to get -- the Planning Commission wanted 
to get -- rid of all of the land that's included in our 
urban renewal program, which includes that particular land 
and also includes some white area, and I would like to see 
all of it taken care of.

Q But could you answer my question, Mr. Luckett:
The action taken last year was in line with recommendations 
that you made last year?

A It's in line with the recommendation I made every 
year for many years.

Q And you made these recommendations at a time after 
the lawsuit was filed, didn't you, Mr. Luckett?



63

A Well --
Q Or you continued these recommendations you had 

been making?
You made them also after the lawsuit was filed, 

didn't you?
A I didn't make them every day, if that's what 

you're asking me.
I don't know exactly when I saw them.
I didn't make a crusade, if that's what you're 

asking me about.
Q And after the lawsuit was filed the persons who —  

the fact you had been making these recommendations for a 
long period of time, finally, after the lawsuit was filed, 
action was taken as to these recommendations concerning 
Tuxedo Park and the County Jail area and northeast Second 
Street; isn't that right?

A Well, of course, the dates will speak for 
themselves. The lawsuit was filed on April 22nd. I know 
July you said was the ordinance date, and I've got it here.
I guess that's right, and the hearing was had in the case, I 
believe, after we had the hearing in Oxford, and no one 
appeared and objected, and there was no contest whatsoever.
I would say the people were quite happy. They got out of



64

city taxes.
Q Mr. Luckett, did you prepare the school zone lines 

or assist in the preparation of the school zone lines that 
are a part of the Clarksdale desegregation plan?

A I think "assist" would be the word.
Q Then you were aware when you were making the 

recommendations last year after the suit was filed that one 
effect at least of the removal of these territories from the 
city or the removal of these Negro homes from certain areas 
would have an effect on the amount of desegregation that 
would be possible under the zone lines that you were 
planning to submit to the Court; isn't that correct?

A As I have said before, any time you take territory 
outside the City of Clarksdale that makes ineligible those 
who live in that territory from attending the schools of the 
City of Clarksdale. We are bound to know that.

Q And then you were aware of it at the time that 
you were making these recommendations last year, that it 
would have an effect on the amount of desegregation that 
would be possible under the plan that you were submitting?

A I don't adopt your definition of "desegregation".
Q Well --
A You're mixing up integration and desegregation.



65

Q No, Mr. Luckett. I'm just asking you whether the 
plan, call it what you want —

I think you refer to it as a desegregation plan.
A That's what the —
Q You were submitting a desegregation plan, and I am 

asking you whether or not you were aware at the time you 
were making these recommendations last year as to these 
changes in the city boundaries and the purchase of this 
property that it would have an effect on the number of Negro 
children who would be assigned under this plan to previously 
all-white schools.

A Well, the desegregation plan requires only that 
there be no discrimination based on race, color or previous 
condition of servitude, or something like that, and national 
origin, --

Q Would you answer my question, please, sir?
A —  and a school is desegregated if everybody who 

is otherwise entitled to attend a school is permitted to 
attend a school without regard to his race. So, Insofar as 
any desegregation plan is concerned, the removal of people 
of one race or another race or what have you does not enter 
into the picture.

Q Excuse me.



66

A Insofar as a matter of integration that might be 
brought about by reason of that fact or lack of integration, 
then that's another question.

There's no question but that the answer is yes 
insofar as the integration feature of your question is 
concerned.

Q Let me ask you again, and get the "yes" or "no" at 
the outset of the answer, Mr. Luckett, whether or not when 
you were making these recommendations you were aware that it 
would have an effect on the number of Negro children who 
would be assigned to white schools.

A Well, you're putting the words in my mouth, saying 
that I'm the one who recommended it. Whether I'm one or one 
of several who recommended it or whether it came from the 
Mayor and Board of Commissioners is also in the picture, but 
I must again say that I am bound to be aware, as anybody is 
bound to be aware, that when you change the boundary line 
and those people who are thereby excluded from the town are 
rendered ineligible to attend the school of the district you 
necessarily affect the right of people to attend the 
school, —

Q All right.
A —  regardless of their race.



67

Q Were you also aware as a result of the 
recommendations that you made that not one Negro child would 
remain eligible for assignment under your plan during this 
year to a white school?

A tty recommendation did not accomplish that fact.
Now, you might say the action taken by the Mayor 

and Board of Commissioners might have had that effect, but 
my recommendation can't possibly have that effect.

Q We understand that, Mr. Luckett, --
A Well —
Q -- but I am just asking you: Were you aware when

you made the recommendations to the Board, whether they were 
going to adopt them or not —

A I didn't —
Q —  were you aware it removed the possibility of 

even one Negro living in the zone where during Grades 1 and 
2 this past year he would be assigned to a white school?

A No; I did not realize if the recommendation were 
adopted that would have the result you are speaking of.

I realize, of course, that if the City of 
Clarksdale -- if my recommendation, we'll say, that the city 
or that the Coahoma County Board of Supervisors, we'll say, 
buy the houses north of the jail for the purpose of



enlarging the jail properties —  that when they did that 
those children who were in those houses, who happened to be 
Negro children, would thereby be ineligible to attend the 
school in that particular zone.

Now, if they had moved right across the street, it 
wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference insofar 
as their right to attend the school in that zone; but just 
buying a house didn't do it. They're perfectly free to buy 
houses or live in any section of Clarksdale that they want 
to, and adopting that resolution and certainly my 
recommendation didn't do it or the adoption of my 
recommendation didn't bring it about. They didn't have to 
then move to another section of Clarksdale. They could have 
stayed in the very same section that they always lived in.

Q What do you mean by that, Mr. Luckett?
A I mean they could have moved right across the 

street if they had wanted to. They had a legal right to do 
so.

Q You're not suggesting at all that Negroes can move 
any place they want in the City of Clarksdale?

A Yes, sir.
There's not any law anywhere about it that 

requires any particular race to live in any particular spot

68



69

in Clarksdale.
Q Is it your understanding if there is no law there 

would be no other prohibitions in the City of Clarksdale on 
a Negro moving any place he wanted?

A I know of no prohibition.
Q None at all?
A What are you talking about? Legal prohibition?
Q I'm talking about any kind of prohibitions.
A You're speculating now.
Q No. I'm trying to get at what you said about the 

Negro moving across the street or down the street if he 
wanted to stay in that same area.

A I think he could have gotten a spot in that 
particular area if he could have bought it, and I don't 
think anybody would have interfered with it.

Q I'll ask you whether you made known to the 
Chairman and members of the School Board that you were 
continuing to make your recommendations which would have an 
effect on the desegregation plan that they were submitting.

A No; I did not.
Q Do you know, to your own knowledge, whether they 

were aware that you were making these recommendations?
A No; I do not.



70

Q Then they might be aware and you not know it?
Is that your answer?

A Of course, I don't know what other people are 
aware of, but I have no reason to believe that they were 
aware of it, unless they went to City Hall and heard it.

Q And it is your answer that you did not officially 
tell them that you —

A I did not officially tell them; no, sir.
Q But they might have known it on their own; is that 

right?
A I don't know why they should. I don't know that 

they should, but it's entirely possible.
I don't know of any School Board member that is a 

member of the Planning Board. Anybody that's on the 
Planning Board knew about it. It was freely discussed 
there.

Q You've indicated during your testimony this 
morning

I have only a few more questions.
You indicated during your testimony that you among 

others had made these recommendations as to this action 
taken by the city and the county, that you had made them in 
the past, and agreed that it had an effect last year. Is



there any reason you know why persons in the city would 
surmise that you were the author or the moving factor in 
getting this action taken?

Is there any reason for that that you know of?
A I don't know that they surmised it. That's a 

premise that you're -- that I don't know. I didn't know 
people surmised that.

Q Is it possible they could surmise it, and would 
there be any basis for that, Mr. Luckett, based on any 
activities of yours in the state, particularly in the city, 
during the past year?

A Which particular activity do you have in mind?
Q In connection with speeches regarding school 

desegregation, as to actions taken that would make it 
possible for individuals or groups or areas to avoid 
desegregation either permanently or over a long period of 
time.

A Well, it's no secret -- certainly I make no secret 
about it -- that I think some escape valve has got to be 
provided for the people who live in a territory or community 
such as Clarksdale, where the Negro population exceeds that 
of the whites, and that that's particularly true in those 
where the population goes up as high as 70 to 80 per cent.

71



As a matter of fact, I made a talk before the Mississippi 
Economic Council on yesterday about that, and I do think 
that some escape valve has got to be provided for those 
people.

Now, I do not think that you can make a successful 
transition to an integrated school system where the Negro 
school population becomes predominant.

Now, that's my individual, personal opinion.
Now, I have made a number of talks to a number of 

Rotary Clubs and different places, and I have tried to tell 
the people that they are going to have to have integrated 
schools.

Now, there are many people in Mississippi, believe 
it or not, even now who cannot realize the fact that when a 
lawsuit is filed that they will have to desegregate their 
school system. They simply don't know that, and that should 
be brought to their attention and they should know it. They 
should live with the facts. Everybody is trying to say that 
people should be prepared for this transition period, and 
somebody's got to tell them about it. Somebody's got to 
say: "When this lawsuit is filed, there is no defense to
it. You're going to have to desegregate your schools, and, 
so, you must realize that fact and accommodate yourself to

72



73

Chose facts."
Q What do you mean by an escape valve must be 

provided?
A Well, my personal opinion is that it's going to 

require the provision for private schools.
Q It's correct that you were the author or one of 

the key promoters of the present Mississippi tuition grant 
statute?

A That's right, and I don't see what that's got to 
do with this lawsuit, and I don't —

Q I just asked you: Isn't that correct,
Mr. Luckett?

A Yes.
Q Isn't it also correct in, I believe, this same 

meeting that you spoke to the other day you indicated with 
some pride that thus far you had been successful in 
preventing any desegregation in the Clarksdale schools?

Isn't that correct, Mr. Luckett?
A No.
Q Did you say words to that effect, Mr. Luckett?
A Not that I know of.

I've got a copy of my talk. If you want to have 
it, I'll give it to you and let you --



74

Q I believe this was in remarks made after your 
prepared talk.

A I don't know which remarks you're referring to.
Q Is that again a situation where you didn't say it 

or that you don't recall whether you said it or not?
A I don't know what statement you're talking about. 

You would have to give me the statement. I can't -- 
We had a two-hour session down there.

Q I believe that this was in response to a comment 
by Oliver Emmerich, one of the leading newspaper editors in 
the state, who had said something to the effect that:
"You're going to have to desegregate sometime."

And your response at that point was that: "Well,
we've been successful in keeping them out," or some words to 
that effect, "up to now."

A I didn't say it.
Q Do you recall that statement?
A I didn't use those words.
Q Can you recall what words you did use in response 

to that?
A I don't recall exactly, but I think I know what 

you're referring to. He was not talking about desegregation. 
Q What was he talking about?



75

A Well, I mean he was not talking about the ability 
to keep a school from being desegregated, because I know, as 
well as you know, that the Clarksdale school system must be 
desegregated, and I insist it has been desegregated. So, 
that's the whole thing about that; but insofar as the 
private schools are concerned I tried to get over the point 
to the people there that in these communities where they are 
70 and 80 per cent black and where the pupils probably will 
be 70 and 80 per cent black that the white pupils are not 
going to attend those schools, and I used as an illustration 
the fact that in Clarksdale there have been many children 
who were required to go to such schools and who refused to 
do so.

I was trying to explain to the people that the 
position or the thinking of the white people of Clarksdale 
-- of the State of Mississippi -- has got to be accommodated 
in some way during this transition period.

Q But you did indicate to him that as far as 
actually having Negroes in white schools that you had been 
successful thus far in preventing that?

A I didn't say I had been successful. I said it 
hadn't happened.

He said, "You are going to have a lot of Negroes



76

in the schools in Clarksdale."
I said, "Wte haven't had any up to now, and that's 

been a result not of the School Board lines. It hasn't been 
a result of the School Board lines. It's been a result of 
the white parents refusing to send the children to the 
public schools."

MR. BELL: We have no further questions.
THE COURT: All right.
Court is in recess until 15 minutes of eleven.

(Thereupon, at 10:23 a. m., a 22-minute 
recess was taken.)

THE COURT: You may be seated.
You may call your next witness.
MR. BELL: Commissioner Hudson Bell.



77

HUDSON F. BELL, JR.,
a witness called by and in behalf of the plaintiffs, having 
been first duly sworn, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
By Mr. Bell:

Q Would you state your full name, please?
A Hudson F. Bell, Jr.
Q Residence?
A Clarksdale.

Q Do you have any official position with the City of
Clarksdale?

A Commissioner.

Q How long have you held that position, Mr. Bell?
A Since July the 3rd, 1961.

Q I ask you: Were you subpoenaed to appear here
this morning?

A Yes.
Q And do you recall that subpoena asked you to bring 

a number of documents with you?
A Those documents were not available to me.

We didn't have but one map, —  I think you made 
some copies of it -- and I have no copies of the master 
plan.



78

Q That is, one of the points was that you were to 
bring a copy of the map of the City of Clarksdale reflecting 
changes in the city boundaries resulting from the adoption 
of an ordinance in July 1964?

A I think we have them furnished, don't we?
MR. BELL: Is there a copy of the map?
MR. LUCKETT: I might say I didn't know about this

subpoena, if your Honor please, but I do have the court file
in the proceeding whereby the boundary lines were changed

<and, as required by law, there is a map, copy of the map, 
attached as an exhibit to the petition. I guess that would 
suffice.

MR. BELL: Well, I —
THE WITNESS: The City Engineer was to prepare the

map for us. He had only one copy of the map.
MR. BELL: I see.
MR. MAYNARD: The City Engineer is here.
THE WITNESS: He's here. He has furnished the

map. Who has it I wouldn't know.
MR. BELL: Could the Deputy get —
Who is the City Engineer?
Could he --
THE WITNESS: Mr. Miller.



MR. BELL: Could he get it for us?
MR. MAYNARD: Mr. Miller is the City Engineer.
THE COURT: Will you see if he has the map?
MR. MAYNARD: Call him.
By Mr. Bell:

Q Do you have a copy of the ordinance of the City of 
Clarksdale that was adopted last July?

A I do not.
Q Do you --
A I think I can get a copy of it from Mr. McKellar. 

He took a copy off the books or the City Clerk furnished him 
with a copy.

Q How about the official minutes and the unofficial 
memoranda and correspondence and so forth concerning the 
adoption of the ordinance?

A I would have to get those books from the safe, 
from the City Clerk.

Q You didn't bring those with you this morning —
A 1 did not.
Q --in accordance with the subpoena?
A 1 did not.

79

Wasn't my subpoena and Mr. McKellar's subpoena

exactly the same?



80

Q That's right.
Did Mr. McKellar bring these other materials?

A I'm sure he did.
He has a copy of his part of the master plan,

plus —
I don't know whether he has that ordinance or not. 
We may have to send and get the book.
MR. LUCKETT: I might say there is a copy of the

ordinance in this proceeding there if he wants to use it.
MR. MAYNARD: Is this the map they're talking

about?
MR. LUCKETT: No. This is the school zone.
MR. BELL: We can use that for later, I guess.
THE COURT: This is the City Engineer here, isn't

it, standing just here in the courtroom right now?
THE WITNESS: Yes,sir.
THE COURT: Ask him about it.
MR. BELL: Do you have the map of the —
MR. MILLER: I think you have it there.
MR. BELL: Oh, it is in the pile there?
MR. MILLER: Yes.
MR. BELL: Would you come and identify it for me?
Now, could we have the Deputy also bring in these



other materials which I guess the other commissioner has 
brought —  a copy of the ordinance, a copy of the minutes 
and other memoranda having to do with the ordinance?

MR. MAYNARD: Have you identified the map?
MR. BELL: I thought —
MR. MAYNARD: If it please the Court, we represent

the City of Clarksdale. We are just interested in 
identifying these instruments as far as we are concerned.

Did Mr. Miller identify this as the map?
Did you put him on the stand and swear him?
MR. BELL: I didn*t think that would be necessary

with the Commissioner here.
MR. MAYNARD: I think it would be.
MR. LUCKETT: If the Court please, yourHonor knows

we object to this particular line of testimony because, 
after all, the only question we can see in this case is a 
question of law, and that is whether we have drawn our 
school lines with race in mind, and what the City of 
Clarksdale has done with reference to adding to or 
subtracting from the territory of the town is of no concern 
and under no control of the School Board, and there is 
nothing that we can do about it.

81

If there is any objection made to the deannexation



or annexation proceedings, it should have been brought 
forward in the case that was tried in the Chancery Court of 
Coahoma County, Mississippi.

THE COURT: Mr. Bell, what is your purpose in
pursuing this line?

MR. BELL: Well, I thought —
THE COURT: The reason for my inquiry is

Mr. Luckett has correctly stated the proposition as a matter 
of law as between the School Board and the City of 
Clarksdale, and the City of Clarksdale as such is not a 
party to this lawsuit, are they?

MR. BELL: No; they’re not, your Honor, but my -- 
THE COURT: Of course, you have as a matter of law 

two entirely separate governing bodies and two entirely 
separate legal entities.

MR. BELL: Now, it's --
Oh, I'm sorry.
THE COURT: Now, I'm just trying to decide why you

are pursuing this line when it's something the School Board 
could not control or have anything to do with.

MR. BELL: Well, I'm not so certain —
THE COURT: As a matter of law.
MR. BELL: I'm not so certain that it was quite

82



83

as fortuitous an event as it would have been made to appear 
in the testimony given in a hearing last August as to what 
the connection was between the city and the School Board in 
the drawing of these zone lines and the taking of these 
other actions.

Now, it has already been established, I think, by 
the testimony this morning that at least the School Board 
attorney who prepared or assisted in the preparation of the 
school zones also had made recommendations as to some of 
these changes which were all taken in a period after the 
school suit was filed and which, although they may have had 
other purposes, had the effect of making ineligible any 
Negroes being assigned to the white schools.

Now, the issue is this -- and I am reminded 
perhaps if we are going on with this discussion I should ask 
that the witness be excluded while we complete this 
question, but let me just say that the cases generally hold 
-- and there have been a whole series of them -- that where 
a desegregation plan is prepared in accordance with the 
court order, based on a finding that schools were operated 
in a segregated fashion, that that desegregation plan must 
bring about desegregation, and there have been several cases 
where there has been one scheme or another while innocently



84

appearing on their face actually had the effect* and in some 
cases shown this was the intention, to bring about 
desegregation as far as form was concerned, but as far as 
substance none, and these cases have been uniformly —  in 
these cases it has been uniformly held that such plans were 
bad, and it is our contention that here in Clarksdale is 
another of these situations, where a plan that may appear 
innocent on its face is, as a matter of fact, because of all 
kinds of other actions, which the Board was knowledgeable 
about and perhaps participated in -- the plan submitted was 
designed to give the appearance of desegregation when, in 
fact, it would leave the schools exactly as they are, and 
this is the basis for getting some little information as to 
this ordinance and the —

THE COURT: Well, at any rate, you would have a
right to make your record under the rule without regard to 
what disposition I made on the objection. Therefore, I 
reserve ruling on the objection.

You may proceed.
MR. MAYNARD: May it please the Court, for the

purpose of the record, on behalf of the City of Clarksdale, 
Mississippi, we do interpose a strong objection to this 
question. It appears to be more or less a collateral attack



85

on a proceeding which has been settled long ago by the 
Chancery Court o£ Coahoma County, Mississippi.

MR. BELL: We have no objection —
That's what Mr. Luckett was saying.
We have no objection to the action taken by the 

city. Our contention is it was taken in design to 
facilitate this general end of maintaining schools on a 
segregated basis, but as far as the legality of the action 
taken we have never raised any question on that.

THE COURT: This is my understanding of counsel's
purpose, Mr. Maynard. He is not in any way questioning the 
legal sufficiency of the changes in the boundary lines of 
the City of Clarksdale.

MR. MAYNARD: That is our interest, your Honor.
THE COURT: He's trying to get at it as it might

affect the school desegregation ordered by this Court.
Your objection is overruled.
You may proceed.
By Mr. Bell:

Q Commissioner Bell, do you recognize the map that 
has been placed on the bulletin board here?

care to do so to look at the map.
THE COURT: Mr. Bell, you may step down if you



86

THE WITNESS: I know very little about the map.
We leave that up to the Engineering Department.

I recognize it as a map of Clarksdale.
By Mr. Bell:

Q Do you recognize it as a map that, the red line 
outline of which, reflects the current north boundaries or 
the boundary lines of the City of Clarksdale?

A That's correct.
MR. BELL: All right. We would like to have this

map -- we move that it be admitted as Exhibit whatever the 
number is for plaintiffs.

Seven, I believe.
THE COURT: Let it be received and marked.

(The map referred to, being a 
map of the City of Clarksdale, 
Coahoma County, Mississippi, 
was marked and received in 
evidence as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit 8.)

MR. BELL: Was a copy of that ordinance brought
in?

MR. MAYNARD: It's in the petition.
MR. BELL: What petition is this?



87

MR. LUCKETT: I said in this petition that is
filed in the Chancery Court there is a map, —

MR. BELL: Oh, I see.
MR. LUCKETT: -- and there is a copy of the

ordinance made an exhibit, an exhibit to this petition.
THE DEPUTY CLERK: This is Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8.
MR. BELL: We would move that the original

petition, the petition for the ordinance, that was filed in 
the Chancery Court be made Plaintiffs' Exhibit 9, with the 
understanding that a copy of it could be made and 
substituted so that the original could be returned to the —

THE COURT: Of course, it would be your
responsibility to make that copy.

MR. BELL: I'm aware of that.
THE COURT: All right. Let it be received and

marked.
(The petition referred to, 
being a petition filed with 
the Chancery Court of Coahoma 
County, Mississippi, was 
marked and received in 
evidence as Plaintiffs' 
Exhibit 9.)



88

I assume if that's in the usual form it will have 
all of the proceedings included in that file, Mr. Bell.

MR. BELL: Let's see.
THE COURT: The ordinance is probably in there at

least three times —  once in the proof of publication, once 
in the body of the petition and once in the decree.

MR. BELL: I don't think there is a decree
attached here. I think there is just the petition.

MR. MAYNARD: No. I think you will find the
decree --

THE COURT: I think you will find the decree in
there if it's —

MR. MAYNARD: That's correct, your Honor. There
is a decree in there.

MR. LUCKETT: There is a decree.
MR. MAYNARD: Yes.
MR. LUCKETT: Everything is in there.
MR. BELL: Well, let me amend that a little bit,

to move to have as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 9 the whole file, 
which contains both the petition and the decree, excepting 
the varying tract lines, which go into quite a bit of 
detail, which I think —

THE COURT: That's part of the description of your



89

boundaries.
MR. BELL: We have no objection —
THE COURT: If you want the file in, it has

already been received completely.
MR. BELL: All right, your Honor.
MR. MAYNARD: Mr. Bell, I suggest the decree there

would contain everything without repetition. It contains 
the description of what's being taken out, brought in, and 
the new boundary lines. You can put that in without the 
petition or anything else, but that is up to you.

MR. BELL: Well, we ould want to keep the record
as small as possible.

THE COURT: You are unnecessarily encumbering it
there.

This map would show the whole thing, it seems to
me.

MR. MAYNARD: I suggest, if your Honor please, the
decree contains everything. It contains the exclusions, the 
additions, and the new boundary lines.

As I say, I am not trying to make his case for 
him, but I suggest he could lessen the record by just 
putting the decree in.

But it's up to you.



90

MR. BELL: Let me amend my —
THE COURT: With this map and with a certified

copy of the decree in the case where the City of Clarksdale 
ordinance was approved by the Chancery Court of Coahoma 
County, you have everything you need.

MR. BELL: I'm convinced.
I would like to make those parts the exhibits, the 

map as our Plaintiffs' Exhibit 8 —
Is it?
THE DEPUTY CLERK: That's correct.
MR. BELL: -- and the decree as Exhibit 9.
THE COURT: Let's do it this way: You use this

file during the course of developing the evidence in this 
case, what parts of it you need, and then you get from the 
Chancery Clerk a certified copy of the decree in that case 
and file that as your exhibit here.

MR. BELL: All right.
THE COURT: That with the map you have already

introduced will --
MR. BELL: And there is a copy of that map

attached in this file, but I —  I don't know whether I can 
have it done here, but I can have a copy of the map made.

THE COURT: You won't need a copy of the map.



91

This one has already been introduced into evidence at your 
request, the one that's on the board there.

MR. BELL: Okay.
I thought maybe that was the sole copy out of some 

office or something and I could have a copy made of that, 
but I'm willing to put that in.

THE COURT: All right.
(The decree referred to, being 
a decree of the Chancery 
Court of Coahoma County, 
Mississippi, to be supplied, 
was deemed to be marked and 
received in evidence as 
Plaintiffs' Exhibit 9 in lieu 
of the document previously 
marked and received in 
evidence as Plaintiffs' 
Exhibit 9.)

By Mr. Bell:
Q Now, the final thing is on any minutes or memos 

and things concerning the adoption of this ordinance,
Mr. Bell. Did you bring such material?

A Did they check with McKellar over there to see if



92

he had that?
THE COURT: He's asking you.
THE WITNESS: I do not have it.
I would have to get it from the Clerk.
THE COURT: The Commissioners as such, Mr. Bell,

are not the custodians of the official records of the 
city —

MR. BELL: Yes. I understand that, your Honor.
THE COURT: -- and this commissioner, unless he

had been delegated that responsibility, properly would have 
no custodial responsibility for any of these things.

MR. MAYNARD: What do you want?
MR. BELL: I want the minutes, memos and other

things —
MR. MAYNARD: The minutes —
This is off the record.
There are minutes adopting the ordinance. We'll 

get them for you.
If you tell me what you want, I'll get them for

you.
MR. BELL: Let's go to the testimony.
MR. MAYNARD: All right, and whatever you want —
Whatever he wants, your Honor, i'll be glad to get



93

from the City Clerk.
By Mr. Bell:

Q What is your occupation, Mr. Bell?
A I'm an agent for paper mills.
Q And you indicate you have been a resident of 

Clarksdale for how long?
A Forty-nine years.
Q And you were a member of the Board at the time 

this ordinance was adopted?
A Yes.
Q And you are familiar with the fact that the effect 

of this ordinance was to include new territories to the city 
and to exclude certain other territories that had been parts 
of the city, but would be no longer after the ordinance was 
passed; is that correct?

A That's right.
Q Are you also familiar with the fact that among the 

areas deannexed one was located along the northeast Second 
Street?

A Northeast --
MR. LUCKETT: Let me make this statement, if the

Court please: Mr. Miller said you've got the map. As a
matter of fact, this was a map that I asked Mr. Miller to



94

map showing the residential development in Clarksdale, 
Mississippi since the 1st of January, and this is not the 
exact map that's attached to the petition. As a matter of 
fact, it includes a new subdivision which is not in the 
town, and it may be misleading to counsel.

MR. BELL: Would you say the map that is part of
that exhibit is accurate?

MR. LUCKETT: This is the map that ought to be
used.

MR. BELL: Could I make that substitution as far
as that Exhibit 8, your Honor, -- I'm sorry for the 
confusion here, but it seems we're going to get ourselves 
straight by and by -- so that we have a map on here that 
accurately reflects the changes in the city zone line?

THE COURT: All right. That may be substituted as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit —

What is it?
THE DEPUTY CLERK: Eight.
THE COURT: Plaintiffs' Exhibit 8.

(The map referred to, being a 
map of the City of Clarksdale, 
Coahoma County, Mississippi,
was marked and received in



95

evidence as Plaintiffs' 
Exhibit 8 in lieu of the map 
previously marked and 
received in evidence as 
Plaintiffs' Exhibit 8.)

By Mr, Bell:
Q Let me ask you this question: Are you familiar,

Commissioner Bell, with the areas that were deannexed under 
this ordinance?

A Yes.
Q Would you come down from the stand and indicate by 

reference to their location so that the record will show 
where these areas are?

A Let me see now.
They're on this Lyon-Clarksdale public road.

Q And you are looking at the northeast section of 
the city?

A Looking at the —
Let's see. Is this north?

Q Yes.
MR. LUCRETT: That's right.
THE WITNESS: All right. It would be the eastern

part of North Edwards; this area right in there.



96

I believe I'm correct.
Right there.
By Mr. Bell:

Q Now, I ask you whether or not at this point you 
are referring to an area north of North Edwards Avenue from 
a point on the west along Edgefield Avenue, at the extreme 
west, going up to Coahoma Avenue and running along North 
Edwards to the east to the end of a section referred to as 
the Day Addition.

Is that correct?
A That*s correct.
Q Now, that would be one section that would be 

deannexed?
A Yeah.
Q Are you familiar with whether or not there were 

residences, whether there were houses, located in that area 
that was deannexed?

A There were some residences in here, I believe.
Q Do you know whether those residences were occupied 

by Negroes or whites?
A I know that some of them up here were occupied by 

Negroes.
Now, whether these in here were occupied by



97

whites, I do not know.
Q You don* t know one way or another?
A I know some years ago they were in this section 

occupied by whites.
Q They could be occupied by Negroes at the present 

time, though; isn't that right?
A Yeah.
Q Now, would you point to another section that was 

affected as far as deannexation was concerned by the 
passage of this ordinance last July?

A I'm not familiar with any other section that was 
deannexed, other than that one.

Q Are you familiar with an area that was annexed in 
the northern part of the city?

A Are you speaking of Florence Road?
Q Yes.
A Yes. I'm very familiar with that -- in here.

I'm familiar with the Florence Subdivision; yes.
Q Are you aware that there was an area in which 

Negro homes are located generally referred to as the Tuxedo 
Park area which was not included in this annexation, 
although located in this area?

A Well, it's beyond that area.



98

Q Could you point out generally where it's located 
on the map?

A Florence Road is right here.
Tuxedo Park is in here.

Q In other words, the new line ran out beyond a 
section identified as Section 6 in the northerly portion of 
the map and then south along Friars Point Road --

A Correct.
Q —  and then back in a northeasternly direction 

again, which line leaves out this area which you indicate is 
the Tuxedo Park area; is that correct?

A There is no sewerage or anything in that area.
Q I see.

You can take the stand.
Do you recall, Commissioner Bell, when last year 

you decided that you would enact the ordinance that is under 
discussion?

A I don't know the exact date, but this plan had 
been in effect before I was —  had been submitted by 
Michael Baker before I was elected.

Q Well, you are talking about the urban renewal 
plan, aren't you?

A Yes.



Q But it's also correct that the State of 
Mississippi enacted a statute that made it Impossible for 
you to continue on with that urban renewal; isn't that 
correct?

A Well, it didn't make it impossible. It made it 
impossible to get any government money.

Q That's right.
And that was back about 1961?

A In that -- in the neighborhood of that; 1961 or
'62.

Q Now, do you recall what it was that caused you to 
take this action on your own last year to go ahead with 
this?

A We decided to follow the master plan and go on 
with it after we passed a sales tax ordinance and provide 
our own money.

Q Now, do you recall what use was going to be or 
what the reason —

MR. BELL: Strike that.
By Mr. Bell:

Q Let me ask you whether you remember why you made 
this decision last year after sort of a hiatus, no action,

99

since 1961.



100

A Well, the conditions in those homes were so bad 
they were unfit for human habitation. Any of those houses 
were unfit to live in.

Q Well, can you —
A There wasn't a single standard house in any of the 

area that was affected.
Q Now, I ask you whether that statement refers to 

the area deannexed over in the northeast section near 
Quitman and Tunica Avenue.

A That section has no sewerage, has no -- it would 
cost the city too much money to go up in there and provide 
sewerage and provide city services to those people, and some 
of that section has been in and out of the city several 
times.

Q But what was the reason for knocking it out again 
last year?

A We would either have to provide services or we 
would have had to condemn all of the houses, and we had 
spent what we thought we could afford on the project.

Q But you had been faced up with this problem for a 
number of years, hadn't you?

A That wasn't on the Number 1, I don't believe. The 
other projects were considered more important than that.



101

Q But you did take the action of deannexing it last 
year; right?

A That is correct.
Q Well, how did that help on the health problem or 

providing these people with sewerage and so forth?
How was that helpful?

A Well, it didn't help them. It helped the City of 
Clarksdale a great deal not having to provide the sewerage.

We felt we had gone as far as we could go.
Q Well, you hadn't provided it in the past, 

Commissioner. Why did you decide --
A They have never been provided with sewerage up 

there.
Q Why last year did you decide to deannex the 

property?
A Rather than spend the additional money, we decided 

to deannex it.
Q And that's a similar reason why you indicate that 

you excluded this area in the Tuxedo Park area when you were 
annexing new land in that vicinity?

A No. The Tuxedo Park —  we did want to clear that 
area up, and we did. We bought it.

Q And took down all the homes in that area?



102

A That's correct.
They were all substandard.

Q Now, that area is just lying vacant out there now; 
isn't that correct?

A It is.
Q Did you have knowledge that a suit had been filed 

to desegregate the Clarksdale schools at the time this 
action was taken?

A I don't know exactly when that suit was filed. I 
was familiar that a suit had been filed. It was in all the 
newspapers.

Q Do you recall when the matter was under 
consideration for passing the ordinance or what action you 
should take that one of those who was making recommendations 
that the action you took should be taken was Attorney 
Luckett?

A Our recommendation came from the Planning 
Commission.

Q Well, your recommendations that you followed 
didn't come from the Planning Commission, did they, 
Commissioner?

A Yes; they did.
Q Those recommendations were made in 1961 or before?



103

A The Planning Commission acts as the body that 
makes recommendations to the Board. They all were familiar 
with the master plan and they studied it, and we put it up 
to them to give us a recommendation as to how to proceed and 
we proceeded as far as we could.

Q Was Mr. Luckett a member of the Planning
/

Commission that made these recommendations? /
A I believe so.
Q Did he make these recommendations in this 

capacity or in any other capacity last year to you?
A I would have to look at the minutes to see if 

Mr. Luckett was the one that made the recommendation to the 
Board, if he did, if he did so as a member of the Planning 
Commission.

Q Well, you don't recall right now whether he did or
not?

A I don't recall whether Mr. Luckett came before the 
Board or whether someone else on the Planning Commission, 
because there have been any number of men from the Planning 
Commission come to the Board for certain things.

Q I ask you whether there wasn't an unofficial 
meeting following one of your regular meetings last July 
just prior to the passage of this ordinance where



104

recommendations were made by Mr. Luckett as to some of these 
changes.

A I don't recall any meeting after the Board meeting 
to discuss any of those changes.

Q Could there have been a meeting and you don't 
recall it or are you saying there wasn't such a meeting?

A I don't remember discussing it with Mr. Luckett.
Q Do you remember Mr. Luckett making suggestions or 

recommendations?
A Not as such; no.

Would you —
He may have made them as a Planning Commission

Well, did he or didn't he?
I do not recall. I'd have to look at the minutes. 
Well, you were asked to bring those minutes along

Q
A

member.

Q

A

Q
with you.

A Those minutes are in the hands of the City Clerk 
and can be subpoenaed from the City Clerk.

Q Do you think it's possible for you to look at 
those minutes and refresh your memory?

A Absolutely.
Q All right.



105

I ask you, Commissioner Bell, whether or not you 
knew when the ordinance was enacted that it would have an 
effect on the number of Negroes, Negro pupils, who would be 
eligible to go to white schools under a desegregation plan.

A If I had the knowledge --
Q That's right.
A -- that it would affect it?
Q That's right.
A No.

I didn't know what the zones were going to be.
Q You didn't know --
A How would I know?
Q You didn't know anything about it?
A I had no idea what the zones would be, what the 

school zones would be.
Q I didn't ask you whether you knew what the school 

zones would be. I was asking you whether you had any 
knowledge, from official or unofficial sources, any 
information, that the action you were taking that would 
result in Negroes being moved out of certain areas or 
deannexed in certain areas would have an effect on whether 
or not those children would be eligible to go to white
schools.



106

A If I had no knowledge of the zones, how would I
know?

Q I'm asking you the question.
THE COURT: Just answer —
THE WITNESS: No; I did not.
By Mr. Bell:

Q Let me just ask you one more time to make sure you 
understand what I am saying because I think it's fairly 
serious.

I'm asking you whether you, as one of the City 
Commissioners who enacted this ordinance, had any 
information, any knowledge, that the action that you were 
taking would have an effect on the assignment of Negro 
children to white schools.

A Absolutely not.
Q That's your answer, Commissioner Bell?
A Absolutely not.
Q Okay.

But, nevertheless, you took this action last year 
after this problem had just kind of dragged along for four 
years; is that right?

A For lack of money.
Q And you took all of these --



107

A We couldn' t take the action until we had the money 
to pay, the money to spend.

Q And you took the action after the school 
desegregation suit was filed, didn't you?

A Now, I don't know whether we did or not.
"v Q The school desegregation action was filed late in 

April and this ordinance was passed in July.
A Well, then we took the action after the suit was 

filed.
Q And you also know that the action as far as the 

deannexation —  the only areas deannexed in this ordinance 
were areas where Negro children were living north of the 
Illinois Central Railroad tracks; isn't that correct?

A That's the deannexation --
Q That's right.
A --we were talking about right there?
Q That's right.
A That's the only deannexation I knew anything

about. 7
Q And you also knew when you bought this property 

for the city to use as a parking lot near the County Jail 
that that would remove Negro families from an area north of 
the Illinois Central Railroad tracks; isn't that correct?



A That's correct
Q But you deny you had any knowledge or any idea 

this would have any effect where Negroes could go to school 
under the desegregation plan?

A The zones had not been set up.
Q 1 understand that, Commissioner. I'm just asking 

you -- I just want to make the record clear --
A If the zones were going to cross, it wouldn't have 

had any effect.
Q I'm just asking you whether you had any idea 

whether it would have any effect at that point.
A I did not.
Q All right.

THE COURT: Do you have any further questions of
this witness?

MR. BELL: Just about two, your Honor.
By Mr. Bell:

Q Could you just give me an idea where this money 
came from to do these things last year that you didn't have 
the money for before?

A From the sales tax.
Q Would you explain that, please?
A From the sales tax. We had no sales tax.



109

Q Is this the city or the --
A The city sales tax.

We passed a sales tax ordinance by vote in 1962, 
and as the money accumulated -- we picked up in the 
neighborhood of $300,000 a year, and we set this money aside 
for capital improvements, and that's where the money came 
from to complete this project.

Q So that with this money now you were able to 
annex new property in the north section, which included, I 
believe, a new housing development out there; isn't that 
correct?

A May I explain how we do that?
Q Well, could you answer my question first and then 

explain?
A Yes.

They pay all their sewerage cost, lay all the 
water pipe and pay for it, put in all their streets and pay 
for it before we will annex.

Q But you had to get this money in order to deannex 
or in order to —

A Clear these slum areas.
Q -- exclude from annexation this Negro section out

there?



110

Why was it that after you got this money from the 
sales tax that you then acted in such a fashion so as to not 
bring into the city this area of Negro homes that was not 
serviced by sewage pipes and so forth?

A We can go just so far with our money.
Q But you couldn't —
A We didn't feel —
Q -- have gone that far back in 1961, could you?
A We didn't feel it would be advantageous to furnish

sewerage in that area.
Q But money didn't have anything to do with it, did

it?
A It did after it was spent. We just have so much 

money and no more.
Q You said you only have so much money, but it 

didn't cost any money to annex this area out there, did it?
A If we kept them in and brought the property up to 

standard, it would cost a great deal of money.
Q But you could have deannexed it considering the 

problem that you didn't have enough money any time since 
1961 or before; isn't that correct?

A That's correct.
Q Well, then, the fact you accumulated this money



Ill

didn't have anything to do with your decision to draw this 
line so that the Negro area was excluded from the annexed 
area last year, did it?

A We would either have had to condemn every piece of 
property up there or deannex it, one or the other.

Q Wait a minute.
A None of that property is fit to live in.
Q But it was out in the county, wasn't it?
A It is now.
Q It was before, wasn't it?

The area —
THE COURT: You're talking about one place and

he's talking about another.
By Mr. Bell:

Q The area in Tuxedo Park, Commissioner Bell --
MR. BELL: I think you're right, your Honor.
By Mr. Bell:

Q The area in Tuxedo Park has always been out in the 
county; isn't that right?

A That's correct.
Q And what you did was to annex new areas around 

that, new residential areas going up, but drew the line so 
that it would not include this Negro area; so, it's still



112

out in the county?
A It is still in the county now, and the city owns

it.
Q And the city owns it?
A And that property —  as a city official, I felt 

that it was necessary to protect the property rights of 
everyone and the property values. Clarksdale is growing in 
that direction and that blighted area had to be removed.

Q So, you bought up the land and moved the people 
out; is that right?

A And we have future use for it as a city facility.
Q Well, nothing is being done with it at the present

time, though, is it?
A Not at the present time, but we have plans for it.
Q Okay.

Now, how was it necessary or a prerequisite to 
deannexing this area over here off North Edwards Avenue 
that didn't have the sewage facilities -- why did you have 
to wait until you got money to do that when all you did was 
cut it out of the town?

A As I tried to explain, there is no facilities for 
sewage in that area. Wfe must either, if that area was in 
the city —  we have got to go to the people that own that



113

area and condemn every piece of property and have them tear 
it down or they are going to have to furnish sewage 
facilities for it and then bring the property up to standard 
before we'd even consider it.

Q Well, that's very interesting, Commissioner, but 
my question still is: Why couldn't this have been done at
any time?

Why did you indicate that you had passed this 
sales tax and after you had enough money you took this 
action, which appears to be not to have required any money?

A That area has been in and out of the city several 
times, and I think it was a mistake to bring it back in last 
time.

Q But then the sales tax and accumulation of moneys 
as a result of the sales tax didn't have anything to do with 
deannexation of this area, did it?

A I don't get that question.
Q You indicated before when I asked you why you 

waited until last year after this suit was filed to deannex 
this area along North Edwards where Negroes -- and really, 
let me say, it's south of East Second Street —  where 
Negroes had resided —  why you waited until last year to do 
this, and you said you had to wait until you got money from



114

the sales tax that had been passed in 1962 —
A No. You asked me how we continued with our urban

renewal program, where we got the money to do it with, and I 
told you we got it from sales tax.

Q All right.
But now let me ask you again why you waited until 

last year to deannex again this area along East Second,
East Second Street, that contains Negro houses.

A I would have done it the second day I was elected 
if they had gotten around to it.

Q But you didn't get around to it until last year; 
isn't that right?

A That's correct.
Q And now you are telling me, as far as you're 

concerned, your action in passing this ordinance had nothing 
to do with the school case, --

A Absolutely not.
Q -- although the areas, the only areas, deannexed 

contain Negro children who live north of the Illinois 
Central Railroad tracks, both east along East Second or in 
your other action in the Tuxedo Park area which you bought 
up and moved all the people out?

That's your answer?



115

A That's my answer.
Q And it is your answer as to the property you 

bought in the vicinity of the County Jail, which you're 
using now for parking vehicles and things of this nature and 
on which Negro homes were located, which again is north of 
the Illinois Central Railroad tracks, that this had nothing 
to do with the school situation?

A Now, the big plot we bought there —  we were 
solicited to buy it, and we're still being offered property 
in the uptown area.

Q But on this property you acted on last year after 
this school suit was filed Negroes were living; right?

A Veil, they weren't living very good.
Q Veil, as a matter of fact, as a result of those 

actions, you virtually removed all Negroes who were residing 
north of the Illinois Central Railroad tracks than run from 
Bobo to Lyon?

A As per the recommendation of Michael Baker.
Q As per the recommendation of Michael Baker?
A That's the city planners who furnished the city

plan to the Planning Commission, the City Planning 
Commission.

Q He recommended that all Negroes be removed from



116

north of the Illinois Central Railroad tracks?
A He recommended that those areas be cleaned up as 

unfit for human habitation.
Q Now, as a matter of fact, do you know what 

happened to some of those houses that the Negroes were 
living in that were removed last year, Commissioner Bell?

A Some of them were moved to other areas, but had to 
be brought up to absolute standard, and some of the people,
I believe, that have bought them have found it cost them; it 
would have been a lot cheaper to have built a new house.

Q Some of the people —
A Who have moved some of the houses and tried to 

bring them up to standard under the new code have found that 
they would have been a lot better off if they had built new 
homes, new houses, instead of moving those.

Q Have you seen any of the homes that have been 
moved and the areas in which they have been moved to?

A I have seen --
I haven't seen any completed; no.

Q Well, then you're not —
A I've seen them when they started to move them and 

started to try to bring them up to standard and I have been 
out there with the inspector, wiring inspector, --



117

Q Was inside —
A —  to see that they were brought up —
Q Was inside plumbing one of the requisites in 

bringing them up to standard?
A Absolutely.
Q Do you know whether or not some of these houses 

have Inside plumbing?
A I would have to ask the City Inspector.

They would have to have it or they can't rent
them.

Q But it's quite possible that these houses, even 
having been moved because of, you said, the health situation 
and the standard of the housing, have been moved to other 
substandard locations and are continuing as substandard 
housing?

A They are not.
Q Isn't that right?
A They are not.

If they are, then our inspector is falling down on 
his job. We are very strict on that.

Q Do you know personally, Conmissioner, whether or 
not those houses have been brought up to standard?

A The two that I saw that were being built —  they



118

were putting bathrooms in them up to standard, and the 
wiring is up to standard,

I can say that all wiring in these houses is up 
to standard.

Q Now, as a matter of fact, traditionally most of 
the Negroes, most of the Negroes in the City of Clarksdale, 
have lived south of this Illinois Central Railroad track; 
isn't that right?

A That's correct.
Q And a great majority of the white citizens of 

Clarksdale have lived north of the Illinois Central Railroad 
track?

A That's true for about the last 30 years, I'd say.
Q And again the effect on this situation as to where 

Negroes and whites live in Clarksdale, of the actions that 
we've been talking about here this morning, the passage of 
the ordinance, the purchase of the property, had the result 
of moving almost all Negroes who lived in the section north 
of the tracks down to a section that is south of the tracks 
or removing them from the city altogether; isn't that right?

A It seems so; yes.
MR. BELL: Just one second.



119

By Mr. Bell:
Q Let me ask you just one final question.

I'm sorry to prolong this.
You would agree, wouldn't you, Commissioner Bell, 

that there are many other substandard areas of housing in 
the City of Clarksdale; isn't that correct, particularly 
down in the section that is south of the Illinois Central 
Railroad tracks?

A We have a program, and we're trying to bring them 
up. We are working hard on that particular thing right now. 
We have for the last four years. I believe we've done more 
in four years than has been done in 30 years to bring 
these —

Q Was there any particular reason why last year, at 
a time after this suit was filed, you took this action in 
fairly summary fashion or fairly quick fashion as to the 
housing located north of the Illinois Central's railroad 
tracks?

A Rephrase that, please.
Q Why was it in your over-all program you decided to 

take quick action on the Negro housing that was located in 
the north section of town last year?

A That wasn't quick action. That had been in —  we



120

had been talking about that for three years.
Q But you hadn't done anything about It, had you, 

Commissloner?
A That's absolutely right.
Q And you did It all during the months after this 

suit was filed, didn't you?
A We did.

MR. LUCKETT: If the Court please, that's been
asked time and time again.

The suit was filed in April and the ordinance was 
adopted in July. It's obvious when it was done.

We object to the reiteration of the same question 
over and over again.

MR. BELL: I agree it's becoming nonproductive,
your Honor.

We have no further questions.
THE COURT: You may cross-examine.

CROSS EXAMINATION
By Mr. Luckett:

Q Mr. Bell, do you understand that when the city has 
territory within its corporate limits that it is the 
obligation of the city to furnish that particular territory 
with public facilities such as sewerage?



121

A Yes.
A, ̂  Q Do you also understand that when you deannex a

j part of the territory that the law requires that you set
forth the reasons why you deannex that particular part of 
the city?

A Yes, sir.
Q I'll ask you to come here and read part of the 

ordinance.

'

Well, I'll bring it over there, sir.
Will you read Section 5 of the ordinance to the

Court?
A Which is Section 5?
Q This one.
A Right here?
Q Right there.
A Section 5:

"That the reason for such contraction in 
the corporate limits provided for in Section 2 of 
this ordinance is that said territory is not so 
located as to allow public improvements at a 
reasonable cost, and the public convenience and 
necessity of the City of Clarksdale would be 
served by said contraction in that it will release



122

said city from the obligation of providing public
improvements for said territory.”

So, that's --
Q Now, this territory that counsel has been talking 

about, Mr. Bell, is a narrow strip of land along the north 
side of the railroad track on the easterly section of what 
was Clarksdale, is it not?

A Yes.
Q So far as the houses are concerned there, they are 

not but one row deep, or were they?
A That's correct.
Q And that's true today, is it not?
A That's right.
Q What sort of houses are those, Mr. Bell?
A They are terrible. They're unfit for people to 

live in.
Q Do they have any sewage facilities, sir?
A No sewage facilities.
Q Now, are you familiar with the houses up in that 

particular territory?
A I ride by there. I see them, and have for several

years.
Q Do you recognize that picture of a house in that



123

territory, sir?
A Yes.

THE COURT: Have you seen these pictures?
MR. BELL: No; I haven't.
By Mr. Luckett:

Q Mr. Bell, I show you or hand you a series of 
pictures here and ask you if you recognize these pictures as 
the pictures of some of the houses along that road, if 
they're not fairly typical of the houses along that road, 
showing in some instances the front of the houses and in 
some instances the back of the houses, so that the Court may 
get an idea of the sort of property that's along that 
particular road and in that particular territory that was
included in the deannexation part of the ordinance

A I recognize that first one. It's on the
hand side . I'm familiar with that house.

Q Well, do you recognize the second one?

/ A That's from the rear view, isn't it?

Q No. That's not from the rear.
A Is it the front?

Q That's the front view.
A I recognize this picture.

Also this one.



124

I'm very familiar with that.
Q Tell me if you recognize them as you see them 

because I want —
A I will not put any in the pile I do not recognize. 

I have seen these for years. I ride up the line 
on that road. This is the section.

Q Are these the houses in that section?
A These are the houses in that section.

Ve had occasion to go up to that house with the 
Police Department not long ago.

This is a store that's right across the street. 
This is the back view of that row of houses.
MR. BELL: Well, now, just one objection. If it

was right across the street, that would be not part of the 
area that was deannexed.

THE WITNESS: This was —
MR. BELL: That was already in the county, wasn't

it?
THE WITNESS: No.
MR. LUCKETT: No.
THE WITNESS: No.
MR. BELL: Across East Second Street?
THE WITNESS: This was in the city and has been



125

removed and is on the —
MR. BELL: On the north side of East Second?
THE WITNESS: North side; correct.
By Mr. Luckett:

Q Do these houses meet the Housing Code --
A None of the houses —
Q --of the City of Clarksdale?
A None of the houses in that section. None of the 

houses in that section can meet the Building Code.
Q Are they productive of revenue, tax revenue, that 

would justify the building of an expensive sewerage system 
out there to serve them?

A Absolutely not.
Q Are they built along the side of the road, with 

no front yard whatsoever in most of them?
A That's correct.

There's about five feet in front of some of the 
houses and less than that in front of some of the others.

Q If they were cleaned out, would there be any way 
other houses, satisfactory houses, could be put in that 
particular territory?

A That area is not conducive to residential at all. 
It's too small. The lots are not deep enough, and it's just



126

not suited for residential.
Q For instance, as these pictures show, the houses 

are practically on the road, are they not?
A They are on the road.

Some of those are right there one foot from the
gutter.

MR. LUCKETT: 1 offer these pictures as an exhibit
to the testimony of Mr. Bell.

THE COURT: Hand them to the Clerk, please.
MR. LUCKETT: Excuse me.
THE COURT: Let them be received and marked.
MR. LUCKETT: He didn’t identify that one, I don't

think.
By Mr. Luckett:

Q Did you say you recognize that particular picture 
or not, Mr. Bell?

A Yes; I do.
That’s on the Merritt side there.

Q That's the picture of the house in this particular 
territory --

A That'8 right.
Q -- that was deannexed?
A That's right.



127

MR. LUCKETT: Shall I proceed, your Honor?
THE COURTS You may.

(The pictures referred to, 
being 18 In number, were 
marked and received in 
evidence as Defendants' 
Exhibits 1 through 18.)

By Mr. Lucketti
Q Mr. Bell, I hand you four other pictures and -- 

THE COURT: Mr. Bell —
MR. BELL: I'm sorry.
We would waive any objection that the photographer 

isn't here or anything of that nature. He indicates those 
are the pictures. That's good enough.

THE COURT: All right.
MR. LUCKETT: Thank you.
Well, let me identify them here, Mr. Bell.
By Mr. Luckett:

Q Are these not five pictures of houses that were in 
the Tuxedo Park area?

Now we're speaking of an area different from the 
pictures we have just referred to —

A These are —



128

Q --as being deannexed.
A Yes.

1 know these pictures well because I've been 
through these pictures. These are all Tuxedo Park pictures 
right here.

Q Are they typical of the houses that were in Tuxedo 
Park which were purchased by the City of Clarksdale —

A Absolutely.
Q -- and removed?
A The reason we took these pictures -- we were 

trying to establish a value to purchase.
MR. LUCKETT: I offer these pictures as an

exhibit, with a different number, to the testimony of 
Commissioner Bell.

THE COURT: Let them be received and marked.
THE DEPUTY CLERK: I'm numbering them

individually.
MR. LUCKETT: What?
THE DEPUTY CLERK: I'm numbering them

individually.
MR. LUCKETT: All right.

(The five pictures referred to 
were marked and received in



129

evidence as Defendants' 
Exhibits 19 through 23.)

By Mr. Luckett:

Q The Tuxedo Park area, Mr. Bell -- was it ever in
the City of Clarksdale that you know of?

A No.

Q Did it have any sewage facilities out there?
A No.

Q Does it have any sewage facilities there today?
A No.

Q Did they have outdoor privies there, for instance?
A They did.

Q Is it a low area in there?
A It is a low area. It's considered to be about

four feet below normal for building out in that area.

Q Is it subject to overflow?
A It is.

Q Mr. Bell, the City of Clarksdale floated about a
million-and-a-quarter bond issue to create some sewerage 
system here in Clarksdale within the last year or so, did 
they not?

A Yes, sir.
Q Isn't it true that one of the reasons that were



130

advanced why the people should spend that much money was the 
testimony of the doctors of this unhealthy condition that 
was caused by these outdoor privies that were prevalent here 
in Clarksdale?

A That's correct.
Q That included part of this particular territory?
A That particular territory was specifically 

mentioned.
Q Well, when it overflowed there in the Tuxedo Park 

area and the water floated out, did it float that debris 
onto, we'll say, the Catholic schoolyard?

A It floated raw sewage on the Catholic schoolyard.
Q Did it not float it on what we call the Wildcat

Field, the football field that the boys played on?
A It certainly did.
Q Did that cause an abandonment of that field 

because it became unhealthy because of that condition?
A That's correct.
Q Now, when the city purchased, we'll say, the two 

houses or the two groups of houses which were across from 
the jail, were those houses or those buildings owned by 
Negroes?

A No.



131

Q When the city purchased them, did the city have 
the slightest idea where the people who were living in them 
would then go to live?

A It did not.
Q Did it have any control over where they would go 

to live?
A It had no control.

HR. BELL: Objection.
I don't know whose witness Commissioner Bell is, 

but I don't see any basis for leading the witness in this 
fashion.

THE COURT: Why, Hr. Bell, he's your witness. You
subpoenaed him and put him on the stand.

HR. BELL: Yes, but I hardly —
THE COURT: He's on cross examination. If you are

objecting, your objection is overruled.
HR. BELL: Well, we would have called him as an

adverse witness, your Honor. If he's a friendly witness to 
anybody, he's friendly to the attorney who is questioning 
him now.

THE COURT: Isn't that an assumption on your part,
Hr. Bell?

HR. BELL: No. As far as the issues in this



132

case --
THE COURT: You could not have called him as an

adverse witness. You may have developed hostility.
MR. BELL: No. We didn't.
THE COURT: All right. He's your witness. He's

on cross examination.
MR. BELL: All right.
By Mr. Luckett:

Q Mr. Bell, is the same statement true with respect 
to the other buildings that were purchased by the City of 
Clarksdale, that is, to your knowledge, as to where the 
occupants of those buildings would move to?

A We had no knowledge as to where they would move.
Q Did you have any control over them?
A Not any at all.
Q Now, there was some property up there at the tip 

end of, I guess, Edgefield Addition, next to the Goon 
Grocery Store. There were a cluster of houses in there, 
were there not?

A Yes, sir.
Q Owned by the Mayflower Investment Company?
A That's correct.
Q There were about 10 or 12 buildings on practically



133

a postage stamp; isn't that true, sir?
A A very small area and very congested.
Q What would you say as to whether that constituted 

a health hazard or a safety hazard or what-not?
A Oh, all of those houses had been condemned. They 

were condemned property.
Q Mr. Bell, does it cost money to go through a 

deannexation proceeding?
A Yes, sir.
Q Does it require the publication of an ordinance?
A It does.
Q Does it require the publication of notice to the 

people and their right to come in and object and a notice of 
the time and place of the hearing?

A Yes.
Q Are the ordinances that are adopted in connection 

with these proceedings quite lengthy?
A They are.
Q Do they require not only metes and bounds 

description of every area that's to be annexed or every 
area which is to be deannexed, but also require then a 
redescription of the boundaries of the town as a whole?

A Yes, sir.



134

Q Was there any reason why the city would have gone 
through that proceeding simply to deannex this territory or 
to wait until they had some additional reason for having an 
annexation proceeding?

A No.
Q What was the reasoning back of the actions taken 

by the city?
Was it really to bring territory in or to leave it

out?
What was the primary purpose of adopting the 

ordinance, Mr. Bell?
A Our primary purpose in adopting the ordinance was 

that we had made agreements with these subdividers that 
wanted to come into the city. They had furnished themselves 
with all necessary facilities, and we had told them that 
they would come in and we waited until it was all complete 
before going through the proceedings.

Q The year 1961 has been used by counsel for 
plaintiffs as sort of the year in which nothing further was 
done until 1964. As a matter of fact --

Well, what is that, Mr. Bell?
What am I showing you?

A That's the comprehensive city plan for the City of



135

Clarksdale prepared by Michael Baker, city planners.
THE COURT: Have you seen this?
By Mr. Luckett:

Q Will you look at that letter from Michael Baker 
and Company to Mr. Brewer as Chairman of the Clarksdale 
Planning Commission and see when that plan was submitted to 
the City of Clarksdale?

A June 8th, 1962.
Q I show you, Mr. Bell, what is described as a land 

use map prepared by Michael Baker in connection with 
Clarksdale's urban renewal project and ask you what date it 
bears.

A December 1962.
Q Does that indicate to you that as late as 

December 1962 Clarksdale was still undertaking to carry out 
the removal of this slum area, including Tuxedo Park, from 
Clarksdale —

A Absolutely.
Q -- under the urban renewal plan?
A Part of the plan.
Q So, it wasn't dropped back in 1961?
A Oh, no.

That's Tuxedo Park right there.



136

Q Does this urban renewal plan Include the Tuxedo 
Park area?

A It does.

Q Does it include the properties that were right
north of the jail?

A Yes, sir.

Q Does it include the properties that are across
from the jail?

A Yes, sir.

Q Now, in that connection, Mr. Bell, has the city
acquired other properties in that area which are not 
occupied by Negroes?

A Yes.

Q What property is that?
A We bought the American Legion property.

Q Did you buy the residence right north of the
American Legion property?

A We did.

Q Were white people residing in that residence?
A Yes, sir.

Q This urban renewal project in here -- did it
include both white people and colored people? 

A Yes, sir.



137

Q Was race a factor in the drawing of this 
particular map or was it the condition of the building?

A It was the condition of the building. To my 
knowledge, race wasn't mentioned.

Q Were you present when the hearing was had on the 
petition to add territory to the City of Clarksdale and to 
subtract territory from the City of Clarksdale?

A Yes, sir.
Q Do you know when that hearing was had, sir?
A I do not know exactly when it was held. l'd have

to refer to the Clerk for that information.
THE COURT: Wouldn't your file show that,

Mr. Luckett?
MR. LUCKETT: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
I would like to get it in the record right now.
It was held on the 20th day of August 1964.
By Mr. Luckett:

Q Did anyone appear and voice any objection to 
either the inclusion of the additional territory in the City 
of Clarksdale or the exclusion of territory from the City of 
Clarksdale?

A They did not.
Q Was testimony taken on that petition to determine



138

the reasonableness of the actions proposed to be taken in 
the ordinance?

A Absolutely.
Q And, of course, the decree was entered in the

case?
A Yes.
Q It, of course, recites the finding of the court?
A Yes, sir.

MR. LUCKETT: That's all, your Honor.
MR. BELL: Let me just ask a couple questions

about this map.
THE COURT: Mr. Bell, let me ask you: This

property that was excluded that Mr. Bell was asking you 
about and these pictures that you put in the record —  

that's the property I'm talking about now --
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: --is that or was that rental property

or was it owned by the occupant?
THE WITNESS: Rental property.
THE COURT: How about the property in Tuxedo Park?

Were those home owners or were they renters?
THE WITNESS: Some of it were renters. Most of it

were renters. There were three, four, maybe five owners.



m  4* in o fr o n t it a* k  a . I»«- I I . j r .

h ~ J  y )>*~  /  /•
<£ jpj*' J L/0 - /?(*, ^



139

owners of the property which was excluded if they had 
remained in the city and not been excluded?

What would have been required of them expense-

THE COURT: What would have been required of the

wise?
THE WITNESS: They would have had to put in

adequate sewerage. They would have had to demolish that 
entire area and rebuild it, and under our present code the 
space between the road and the railroad track does not 
permit that.

These houses are built right on the railroad track 
at the back, right on the road at the front, on one side.
On the left-hand side of the road the houses are built right 
on a little bluff and the land falls off behind it in a deep 
hill, and the lots are not but about, I'd say, 50 to 60 feet 
deep at the most, and we don't permit that to be done under 
our present Building Code. We require a lot's depth to be,
I believe, a hundred and twenty feet now or a hundred feet 
deep. I'd have to look at the code to see.

THE COURT: All right, sir.
^REDIRECT EXAMINATION ----- —

By Mr. Bell:
On the materials that Mr. Luckett showed you, the



140

copy of the City Planning Commission report -- can we refer 
to that report again and ask you to find the written 
recommendations that cover the action that you took last 
year with regard to these areas?

A I don't know whether I can find that or not. I 
guess I can.

MR. LUCKETT: We plan to develop that by somebody
else, —

MR. BELL: Well —
MR. LUCKETT: -- but if he can find it he'll be

better than I think he is.
By Mr. Bell:

Q Wtell, you indicated that the material was in this 
comprehensive city plan?

A That's correct.
THE COURT: During the noon hour see if you can

arrive at some practical way to get this part of the record 
in —

MR. BELL: That's a good idea, your Honor.
THE COURT: -- that you're asking the witness

7t now.
MR. BELL: Could I finish a few other questions

and terminate or would you like to terminate now?



141

(Thereupon, at 11:58 a. m., the Court 
recessed until 2 p. m.)

THE COURT: Court is in recess until 2 o'clock.



142

AFTERNOON SESSION /

(The Court reconvened and the hearing was 
continued at 2 p. m.)

THE COURT: You may be seated.
MR. BELL: While the witness is being brought in,

your Honor, a few preliminary matters: First, counsel for
the defendants has secured for me a copy of the ordinance 
that was admitted this morning. It isn't a

Well, there is a certificate, a copy of the 
certificate, I guess, of the original thing. It isn't 
certified, but if counsel for defendants is willing to 
stipulate that it's acceptable we would have no objection to 
it, and if it's all right with the Court, of course.

MR. LUCKETT: WO, of course, furnished him a copy,
and it is a true and correct copy of the ordinance.

THE COURT: All right. If you wish to offer it,
let it be received and marked.

MR. BELL: All right. Thank you.
MR. LUCKETT: Of course, that doesn't take the

pl*ace of the final decree which recites these things, for 
instance, like the giving of the notice and the hearing --



143

MR. LUCKETT: -- and the finding of the Court.
/

MR. BELL: We —
THE COURT: Do you plan to obtain a certified copy

of this decree and offer it?
MR. BELL: No. I think this would be acceptable,

your Honor, unless defendants had any desire.
We would be willing to stipulate that the full 

decree did provide for and did contain a copy of the notice 
and that such notice as required had been given.

I didn't want to go too far afield on something 
that isn't of primary interest.

THE COURT: What are your wishes, Mr. Luckett?
MR. LUCKETT: I think it is necessary if this area

is put in the record to have the decree in there which makes 
those jurisdictional recitations. I think that would be 
necessary.

MR. BELL: All right. We'll go ahead and make
that -- /

THE COURT: Get a certified copy of the decree
from the Chancery Clerk and file it in lieu of this jacket 
case file from that court.

MR. BELL: All right, your Honor.

THE COURT: I understand.



144

MR. LUCKETT: We can make an agreement or
stipulation about the detailed descriptions to the effect 
that the descriptions in the decree are the descriptions in 
the ordinance, and that will eliminate most of the trouble 
about copy of the decree.

MR. BELL: All right. That will be acceptable.
THE COURT: All right.
THE DEPUTY CLERK: This will be Plaintiffs’

Exhibit 10.
(The copy of the ordinance 
referred to, being a photo 
copy of Ordinance Number 567 
dated the 8th day of July 
1964, was marked and received 
in evidence as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit 10.)

THE COURT: We will proceed on that basis then.
MR. BELL: Now, as to —
THE COURT: Go right ahead.
MR. BELL: As to certain of the other witnesses

we had subpoenaed, there is a possibility that we will need 
them, but in reviewing the information that we have on the 
record there is a good likelihood that we won't. In view of



145

that and because these persons are fairly busy, I'm sure, we 
would like permission to release them at this time, subject 
to being recalled, if I can get their phone numbers, in case 
we would need them prior to the conclusion of the trial.

THE COURT: Do you have a list of those, --
MR. BELL: Yes.
THE COURT: —  or just all the rest of the

witnesses —
MR. BELL: No.
THE COURT: -- you had subpoenaed?
MR. LUCKETT: He is talking about Mr. Kantor,

Mr. Isaacson and Mr. May, I think.
MR. BELL: And Commissioner —
MR. LUCKETT: And Commissioner McKellar.
MR. BELL: —  McKellar.
THE COURT: All right. Will you release them and

tell them that they may be called back by telephone?
MR. LUCKETT: Mr. May, Mr. Isaacson, Mr. Kantor -■
THE MARSHAL: Wait just a minute. May, Isaacson ■
MR. LUCKETT: May, Isaacson, Kantor —
THE MARSHAL: Kantor.
MR. LUCKETT: —  and McKellar.

/ MR. BELL: We're ready to proceed.



146

THE COURT: All right.

HUDSON F. BELL, JR.,
a witness called by and in behalf of the plaintiffs, resumed 
the stand and, having been previously duly sworn, testified 
urther as follows:

REDIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
By Mr. Bell:

Q I believe I was asking you, Commissioner Bell: 
Isn't it true there are a number of areas in the City of 
Clarksdale located south of the main Illinois Central 
Railroad tracks in which there is housing that is just as 
dilapidated as you feel the housing was in those areas that 
we were talking about earlier that had been bought by the 
city and the houses removed or deannexed?

A In all of the cases --
I discussed that with the City Engineer.
In all of these cases where there is substandard 

housing they have either been condemned or ordered brought 
up to standard, and that is in the process of being done, 
and a lot of it has been done.

Q I wondered whether —
Are you familiar with a street that is referred to 

as the Oil -- O-i-1 -- Mill Alley, which is located behind



147

Fourth Street in the area where the First Baptist Church is 
located?

A I know that general area. I don't think that I 
could point out Oil Mill Alley, —

Q Would you agree --
A —  but I do know in that area there are some 

substandard housing which has been —
Q It's right on the street, isn't it?
A That's correct.

They have been ordered brought up to standard or
removed.

Q Mow, would the owners or the landlords be given 
this kind of order?

Is that right?
A Absolutely.
Q And what kind of time limit has been imposed on

them?
A I would have to ask the Engineer what kind of 

time limit they do have. I do not know.
Q How about an area called Commerce Street or 

Commerce Alley between Fourth and Fifth Street?
Are you familiar with the area there in which

Negroes are residing?



148

A Commerce?
I'm not.

Q It runs kind of perpendicular, I believe, to an 
Ashton Street?

A Is that in an area near the gin?
Q I don't think so.

MR. HENRY: No. It's off Fourth Street —  right
off Fourth Street.

THE WITNESS: Fourth Street.
I'm not familiar with that.
By Mr. Bell:

Q How about Harrison Alley and the housing located 
in that area?

A I'm not familiar with that area.
~Q But you would agree there are pockets of houses 

that are in a substandard condition as were the houses in 
those areas that were removed that were located north of the 
Illinois Central track; is that correct?

A Yes.
Q I think you were early this morning indicating 

that by a look at some of the minutes of the Mayor and 
Commissioners' meetings you would be able to refresh your 
memory as to certain questions I had asked. Have you had an



149

opportunity to look at those minutes?
A I have not.

MR. BELL: No further questions.
THE COURT: Anything further with this witness?
MR. LUCKETT: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: You may stand down.
May this witness be released?
MR. BELL: I think so. Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
THE COURT: You are released, Mr. Bell.
Will you call your next witness, please?
MR. BELL: Call one of the plaintiffs,

Aaron Henry.
Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Just a minute.
Let me say, your Honor, that prior to the noon 

recess counsel for defendants suggested that to tie in this 
aspect of the case concerning the significance of the
actions taken by the city and their effect and their
relevance to the School Board that he had a witness that 
would complete their part of it and suggested it might be 
worthwhile and logical if we would interrupt and permit them 
to put that witness on at this time so that while the matter



Is fresh In all of our minds we would be able to get the 
complete picture, and we were amenable to such a procedure 
if it's acceptable to the Court.

THE COURT: It's perfectly —
MR. LUCKETT: If your Honor will recall, you asked

us about the urban renewal plan and Mr. Bell wasn't able to 
answer right offhand, and this witness can make a better 
explanation about that particular feature, if your Honor 
wishes to hear about that urban renewal feature.

THE COURT: All right. It probably would be
helpful for this witness to be offered at this time —

MR. BELL: We have no objection.
THE COURT: —  out of order.
All right.
MR. LUCKETT: Mr. Longino, please.
While he is being brought in, is there another 

marshal here?
Another of our witnesses just arrived and I wanted 

to make sure he didn't come into the courtroom.

150

THE COURT: All right.



151

CHARLES LONGING,
a witness called by and in behalf of the defendants, having 
been first duly sworn, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION 
By Mr. Luckett:

Q Is this Mr. Charles Longino?
A Yes, sir.
Q Where do you reside, Mr. Longino?
A 924 Oakhurst, Clarksdale.
Q What's your occupation?
A Real estate broker.
Q Are you a member of the Clarksdale Planning 

Commission?
A Yes, sir.
Q Are you presently its Chairman?
A Yes, sir.
Q were you a member of the Commission back in May of

1959 when the contract with Michael Baker, Jr., Incorporated 
was made by the City of Clarksdale?

A I was.
Q Were you a member of the Commission back in

April of 1961 when the contract with Michael Baker was made 
by the Mississippi Agricultural and Industrial Board?



152

A Yes, sir.
Q What sort of work does Michael Baker do, among 

other things?
A Well, they're city planners and consulting 

engineers.
Q Did the contract referred to call for the 

preparation of a comprehensive city plan for the City of 
Clarksdale?

A Yes, sir.
Q Why was such a comprehensive city plan desired,

sir?
A Well, there were several reasons. Primarily for 

our use with the urban renewal programs and for the ordinary 
or orderly growth of the City of Clarksdale for a 25-year 
period.

Q Was such a comprehensive city plan prepared by 
Michael Baker?

A Yes, sir.
Q Is this a copy of the same, Mr. Longino?
A That's my copy.
Q It is a copy?
A Yes, sir.
Q When was it delivered by Michael Baker?



153

A Nineteen sixty-two?
Q What date In 1962?
A June the 8th, 1962 is the cover letter.
Q Does the cover letter refer to the dates of the

contracts as May 5, 1959 and April 1, 1961?
A Yes, sir.

City of Clarksdale —  May 5th, '59; and the 
A and I Board —  April the 1st, '61.

Q Mr. Longino, is a part of the comprehensive plan 
devoted to a study of the city housing?

A Yes, sir.
Q Does it include a study of the problem housing 

areas and a designation of those areas?
A Yes, sir.
Q Does it include a suggested housing program?
A Yes, sir.

MR. BELL: Excuse me.
I think this is Mr. Luckett's witness.
So, if you wouldn't lead the witness, we would 

appreciate it.
THE COURT: Don't lead your witness, Mr. Luckett.
By Mr. Luckett:

Q Well, we have an index to the plan, do we not?



154

A Yes, sir.
Q And under "Housing" is shown the different parts 

of it, isn’t it?
A Yes, sir.
Q Would you read those parts in the table of 

contents under the Chapter V?
A Well, Chapter V, Section II is:

"A Suggested Housing Program
"Public Understanding and 

Cooperation
"Tools of the Program —  Codes and

Ordinances
"Neighborhood Analyses for Problem

Areas
"Treatment of Substandard Housing 
"Conserving Satisfactory Housing 
"Improvements Through Urban Renewal 
"Administration of the Urban 

Renewal Program
"Housing Families Displaced by 

Urban Renewal Action."
Q Will you turn to Page 53 of the plan and tell the

Court what appears at that page of the plan?



155

A Page 53 is a map of the City of Clarksdale showing 
the priorities for neighborhood analyses.

Q Does it designate certain areas in the City of 
Clarksdale by number?

A Yes, sir.
Q Mow, if you look on Page 52, are those areas 

described?
A Yes, sir.

They are described as Areas I through XIII, I
believe.

read the paragraph that's
Problem Areasii on

A "The City should initiate a series of 
detailed studies of their problem housing areas to 
determine the cause of blighted conditions, the 
remedial steps necessary to remove existing blight 
and the course of action necessary to prevent its 
recurrence. To assist the city in preparing these 
studies, suggested priorities for neighborhood 
analyses are illustrated by Figure V-2. These 
problem areas, listed in the order of priority for 
treatment, are as follows:"



156

Q And it goes through every one, on through all the 
numbers, —

A Right.
Q —  does it not?
A Yes, sir.
Q If you will turn to Page 56, does it have a part 

there beginning with the words "Improvements Through Urban 
Renewal"?

A Yes, sir, and three or four paragraphs under that 
general head.

Q Well, the last paragraph under that heading there 
-- does that include the recommendation that was made by the 
comprehensive city planners to the City of Clarksdale or to 
the Planning Commission?

A Yes, sir.
Q What is that sentence?
A It says:

"Without question, Clarksdale badly 
needs urban renewal for the areas set forth 
previously on the 'Priorities for Neighborhood 
Analyses' map (Figure V-2)."
Q All right, sir.

Right above that does it specify what is to be



157

done under the urban renewal process?
A Yes, sir.

"The urban renewal process, where 
federal assistance is solicited, consists of the 
following general procedures" -- and lists nine of

them.
Q Well, the first one is a matter -- 

What is the first step?
A "Designation of a specific area for urban 

renewal."
Q Was thereafter that done by the City Planning 

Commission?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did that include Problem Area I and Problem 

Area II?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, let's be certain we've got that exactly 

right.
A Actually, we worked with them on both areas. We 

only got started on Area I.
Q Does it include all of Area I and part of Area II?
A I believe there is part of Area II on this; yes,

sir.



158

These are two maps drawn by Michael Baker. This 
was the land use map of the area for urban renewal, and this 
is the project conditions map of the area for urban renewal, 
showing the conditions of the dwellings and businesses and 
so forth in that area of urban renewal.

That's just the location map showing that area 
specifically.

Q Is this, what I am showing you now, a location 
map showing the location of the Clarksdale urban renewal 
project?

A Yes, sir.
MR. LUCKETT: May I introduce this in evidence,

your Honor?
MR. BELL: I have no objection.
THE OOURT: You may. Let it be received and

marked.
THE DEPUTY CLERK: This is Defendants' Exhibit 24.

(The map referred to, being a 
map bearing the legend 
"Clarksdale Urban Renewal 
Project Location Map", was 
marked and received in
evidence as Defendants'



159

Exhibit 24.)
By Mr. Luckett:

Q Now, will you refer back to the neighborhood 
analyses for problem areas -- that's the map on Page 53 and 
the listing on 52 -- and tell the Court if there is listed 
there the problem areas in the order of their priority for 
treatment?

A Yes.
^ ĵ Area I was the area that —  on the map was the 

area that we actually started work with the urban renewal 
group, and is in this, and a portion of Area II was included 
in our first urban renewal attempt.

Q Was that the area that was first recommended for 
treatment under the urban renewal program?

A Yes, sir.
And I might add that —

Q Was everything necessary to be done —  was it done 
in order to qualify for the urban renewal funds and for the 
purchase of the property in that area and the demolition of 
those houses?

A We had a complete plan.
Q Was the plan approved by the federal agency which 

has to do with urban renewal projects?



160

A Yes, sir.
Q Well, are you familiar with the property that 

we've been talking to as the Tuxedo Park area?
A Very much.
Q Was it included in the Area Number I as given as 

the most critical problem area in the City of Clarksdale?
A It was.
Q Was it included in the urban renewal project which

called for the demolition of those houses?
A It was.
Q Well, the property that's just north of the jail,

which the county has purchased in connection with the jail 
improvements -- are you familiar with the location of those 
properties?

A Yes, sir.
Q Were those properties located in Area Number I, 

the most critical area?
A Yes, sir.
Q Was it also included in the project for urban 

renewal?
A Yes, sir.
Q Are you familiar with the property across from the 

jail purchased by the city?



161

A Yes, sir.
Q Is that also included in the urban renewal 

project?
A It is.
Q That's in the Critical Area Number II, is it not?
A I believe that was in Critical Area II, but was 

included in the urban renewal project?
Q Yes, sir.

Now, there have been some purchases made by the 
city in what we call the Fairland-Edgefield section of the 
town; is that right, sir?

A Yes, sir.
Q Now, was that property in the Critical Area

Number II?
A Number II.
Q Was that included in the urban renewal project 

that was first submitted?
A No, sir.
Q Was it scheduled for submission in the second 

urban renewal project?
A Yes, sir.
Q For how long did the City Planning Commission work 

on this project, Mr. Longino?



162

A We started this work back in 1958. In fact, this 
map on Page 53 of the book was actually drawn in '59 and is 
so shown here, and we worked on it continuously until we 
were stopped.

Q You were stopped by legislation?
A By legislation.
Q All right, sir.

Was I on that Board at the same time?
A Yes, sir.
Q Was everything done that you know of that could 

have been done by the Planning Commission to bring about the 
cleaning up of these areas by urban renewal?

A Everything possible.
Q Had any lawsuit been filed against the City School 

Board at that time?
A I don't think so; no.
Q In the discussions that were had up there were any 

racial considerations given to these matters?
A No.
Q Did these areas that have been designated for 

urban renewal treatment also include white residences and 
businesses?

A Businesses; commercial; yes.



163

Q Were plans made for rehousing the people who would 
be displaced by that project?

A Very definitely.
Q What were those plans?
A There were two public housing areas in mind. I 

think the architects actually drew some plans. A group of 
realtors were employed to actually appraise and did appraise 
and even attempted to start purchasing just about the time 
the Legislature stopped us.

Q That's property on which a public housing 
development was to be --

A Built.
Q -- constructed?
A Right.
Q Outside of the Tuxedo Park area, Hr. Longino, what 

is the relationship of these properties we've been talking 
about with respect to the central business district of the 
City of Clarksdale?

A Well, other than Tuxedo Park, there was -- the 
main reason for the urban renewal program was that these 
problem areas, as we called them, were within the boundaries 
of what we would like to have used as the central business
district.



164

Q Is the location of this particular Federal 
Building here in the central business district of the town, 
Hr. Longino?

A Yes, sir.
Q Do you know about the condemnation that was 

carried out by the federal government in order to acquire 
property here for the location of this building?

A Yes, sir.
I was one of the realtors that worked on it.

Q Were a number of residences purchased and 
demolished at that time?

A Four or five, if I remember right.
Q Whites or Negroes living in them?
A All whites, I believe.
Q All right, sir.
A There may have been --

I've forgotten, but I think it was all white.
Q Within a block here don't we have a Methodist 

Educational Building?
A Yes, sir.
Q Have some buildings been bought down there and 

demolished within the last three or four years?
A I think they bought three buildings to convert



into a playground.
Q You are a member of the Baptist Church, aren't

you?
A Yes, sir.
Q Your church is in the central business district 

isn't it?
A Yes, sir.
Q Has your church bought some property in the 

central business district and is it not in the process of 
destroying the houses?

A Yes, sir, and I want to buy a couple more if I
can.

MR. LUCKETT: All right. You can take the
witness.

Excuse me before you do that.
May I introduce this urban renewal —
THE WITNESS: There are two different maps here
This is the project conditions map.
MR. LUCKETT: I would like to introduce the

project conditions map under the urban renewal project, 
which has been identified by Mr. Longino, as Exhibit 
Number 25 to defendants' testimony.

THE COURT: You've seen this, haven't you?



166

MR. BELL: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. Let it be received and

marked.
(The map referred to, being a 
map bearing the legend 
"Clarksdale Urban Renewal 
Project - Project Conditions 
Map", was marked and received 
in evidence as Defendants' 
Exhibit 25.)

THE WITNESS: Here's the other one, Mr. Luckett,
the land use map, which was the same area of different --

MR. BELL: Your Honor, Mr. Aronson will handle the
cross examination.

CROSS EXAMINATION 
By Mr. Aronson:

Q Mr, Longino, you said that -- you commented in 
part during your testimony —  you were working with them 
during your consideration of these problem areas. Who is 
the "them" you referred to?

A Michael Baker was -- they had sent a man in here 
to work with us in preparing this urban renewal program, and 
also the group from Atlanta, the Housing and Home group,



167

that were going to put this through for us.
Q When were they last here?
A I don't remember when they were last here. It has 

been a year or so ago.
Q Did they participate with your planning group in 

the deannexation of certain areas that we've talked about 
and in the purchase of properties in certain areas that we 
talked about?

A You mean did they when they were actually 
purchased?

No. The plans were made to purchase them, --
Q Did they —
A -- and we actually paid money for appraisals and 

so forth, but legislation stopped our urban renewal program.
Q Did they advise you with respect to deannexation

or --
A I don't understand your question exactly.
Q Certain parts of the city —

The city boundary was changed —
A Yes.
Q -- last July?
A Right.
Q Did this Baker group advise you with respect to



168

changing the city's boundaries?
A We discussed the fact that our city limits did 

need revising with Michael Baker; yes.
Q So, I take it that one of their manners in 

upgrading the city is just to lop off parts that they don't 
like; is that so?

A Well, I don't know --
Q They advised you to get rid of a certain part of 

the city that was substandard; so, this plan for progress 
or growth of Clarksdale in part was pursuant to a plan where 
you actually shrunk the city rather than expanded it?

Is that not true?
A Well, I don't think the city was actually shrunk. 

It was some taken in and some left out.
Q The fact remains that part of the land area of 

Coahoma County that was once the City of Clarksdale, after 
you went through the deannexation proceedings, was no longer 
a part of Clarksdale; is that right?

A Yeah, and I think you will find in the history of 
the City of Clarksdale -- I can point out several areas that 
have been in and out of the city limits on one or more than 
one occasion.

I have some property out here on Spruce Street,



169

40 acres, that has been In and out of the city limits three, 
four or five different times. We have it back in. There's 
certain times we take some out, bring some back in, for 
specific reasons.

Q What are some of the reasons that lead you to take 
it out and bring it back in?

A Oh, there are many reasons.
The fact that an area cannot be serviced 

economically by utilities would be a real reason for taking 
it out of the city limits until it could be serviced by 
utilities.

Q Well, could you briefly summarize for us the 
considerations that would lead towards knocking a part of 
the land area out of the city, then bringing it back in, —

A All right.
Q —  and then knocking it back out again?
A Let's take this piece of property over here on 

Spruce. It is undeveloped property. It lay within an area 
that should be taken into the city limits. So, the city 
took it in. The man that was farming the area fussed 
completely about the fact that it would be taxed as city 
property rather than county property. So, he finally 
prevailed on the city to either give him full utilities out



there or take him out of the city limits and get out from 
under city taxes, and that was done about three different 
times.

That's the reason for taking it in and out -- for 
taxation purposes.

Q All right. I see.
So, in effect, then, this was negotiations between 

a farmer and the city?
A That specific one was; yes.

MR. ARONSON: May I see the photographs, please?
By Mr. Aronson:

Q Does this area of the city that we are talking 
about that was owned by the farmer have a common name?

Is this the Tuxedo Park area?
A No. No.

This was an area called —  I don't know that it 
has a common name. It's property owned by the Bobo estate.
I said it was unimproved property.

Q This has always been unimproved property?
A That's right.
Q Let me now direct your attention to the area 

called Tuxedo Park.
A Tuxedo Park. Right.

170



171

Q I will show you Defendants' Exhibits Number 19,
20, 21, 22 and 23. Are those reasonably familiar to you?

A Yes. I made many trips down there. Yes.
Q Now, as I understand the history of Tuxedo Park

with respect to Clarksdale, this was an area where there was 
some testimony to the effect that there was a bad plight or
plight of polio. There was an epedemic or at least several
cases of polio in 1949 that followed from runoff of sewage. 
Are you familiar with this?

A No; I'm not familiar with that.
MR. LUCKETT: If the Court please, to keep the

record straight, I didn't say that. There has been nobody 
ever able to trace that polio to its source. I simply said 
my daughter was down there and subjected to those unhealthy 
hazards. I didn't say anybody could pinpoint it, and I was 
the only person who was interested in that particular 
feature of the matter. So, that's a peculiar personal 
reason I had in my interest in Tuxedo Park.

MR. ARONSON: I see.
Thank you.
By Mr. Aronson:

Q Would you please tell the Court the considerations 
that led to the purchase of the homes in the Tuxedo Park



172

area?
A Well, completely to get rid of the type property 

that you see there.
Q And why was Tuxedo Park chosen as opposed to other 

areas, other homes, within what is the Baker survey?
I take it this is part of the Baker survey?

A Right.
Q Area Number I?
A Number I; right.

MR. ARONSON: I wonder if we could have the map,
please, that indicates this Area Number I.

THE WITNESS: Here it is.
MR. ARONSON: I believe we have a more detailed

map, which is Defendants' Exhibit 24 or 25.
By Mr. Aronson:

Q I show you Defendants' Exhibit Number 25 and most 
particularly the area which is denominated "Urban Renewal 
Project".

A Right.
Q Now, do the lines that show on this map parallel 

exactly the lines that are shown in this survey?
A No.

Area I was designated Problem Area Number I; Area



173

II was designated Problem Area Number II, and so forth and 
so on.

Then, when we got into the actual urban renewal, 
we took, I think, all of Area I with a small portion of 
Area II to conform to this pattern.

Q Now, referring still to Area Number I, how much of 
the housing in Area Number I remains, if any?

A You mean on a percentage basis or —
Q Any basis that you're able to testify to —  number 

of homes; percentage.
A I don't even know how many houses were bought in 

the over-all deal, and there were about 31 parcels of land 
in the Tuxedo Park and six or eight parcels, a parcel being 
one ownership tract of land -- all but probably 25 per cent 
or less were bought.

Q Now, Tuxedo Park, the phrase "Tuxedo Park", and 
the phrase "Problem Area Number I" are not synonymous, are 
they?

A No.
Q So, you have just commented about 31 or 2 parcels 

in Tuxedo Park?
A Right.
Q I direct your attention to Problem Area Number I



174

as a whole, --
A Right.
Q —  and I would ask that you tell the Court what 

percentage of the total home or land area, total number of 
homes or land area, in Problem Area Number 1, including 
Tuxedo Park and including the rest —  what percentage of or 
how many homes have you purchased and what percentage 
remains unpurchased or how many homes remain unpurchased.

Put it in either terms you are best able to.
A Well, of course, you have got a difference in 

terms there, in land area and number of homes.
Some of the homes in the area were located on very 

large lots; some of the commercial properties were on large 
lots, and you take an area like Tuxedo Park -- many homes 
were on small lots.

Number of homes, I would say, purchased —  80 per 
cent or better; land area —  I don't know.

Q Now, the 20 per cent remaining homes —  are they 
still inhabited, to the best of your knowledge?

A I think some of them are. I --
Q Would they be inhabited by white persons or by 

persons of the Negro race?
A In this specific area?



175

Q Yes.
A In Problem Area Number I?

I think there's all whites.
There's just three or four houses

Q What considerations led you to select the homes 
that you did for purchase and/or to condemn them --

A Well ~
Q --as opposed to the homes that you did not 

purchase or condemn?
A Well, the difference in the condition of the 

homes.
There was one thirty-five-thousand-dollar home in 

this area that's in perfect condition.
The homes that were bought -- all were in a very 

dilapidated condition. The ones that were not bought were 
not.

Q Is it your testimony that all of the homes that 
were purchased fall into the census definition of the word 
"dilapidated"?

And I refer you to Page 48 under the heading 
"Dilapidation and Sanitary Facilities".

A I think if you look at that condition map we had 
every home that was purchased is so designated on that map.



176

You see, in the black is the deficient structures, 
and those were the homes.

Q Now, we're referring now to Defendants' Exhibit 
Number 25.

Is the area on Defendants' Exhibit Number 25 which 
is outlined by alternate dots and dashes the area we have 
been referring to as Problem Area Number I?

A No. This is urban renewal area.
There's a difference in this, as you brought out 

while ago, in this and Problem Area Number I, to a slight 
degree.

Q Which is to say it includes a very small part of 
what was Problem Area Number II?

A Right.
Q If we may talk in general terms for a moment, 

Problem Area Number I and the urban renewal tract area are 
the same for all practical purposes?

A Basically the same.
Q Okay.
A Right.
Q Now, again going to time periods, no annexation or 

deannexation and no condemnation went on prior to last July; 
is that right?



A You've got the dates better than --
I don't know that that date is exactly right.

Q Was it sometime last sunnner?
A When, you mean, the actual tearing down and so 

forth occurred?
A Or the actual transfer of property, transfer of 

the title where you purchased properties, or the actual --
A I assume that's about when it was; yes.
Q Now, referring specifically to this area and more 

particularly to the blocks which you have pointed out to me 
as being dilapidated, the legend of the map indicates 
they're deficient structures.

A Right.
Q Is that precisely synonymous with "dilapidated" 

in census terms?
A In my way of thinking.
Q And is your way of thinking the same as the 

Census Bureau?
A I don't know that.
Q I mean: If you don't know, —
A No; I don't.
Q -- just say that.
A I don't.

177



178

Q You show here where you purchased and where you 
haven't purchased?

A On this map?
No.

Q Well, you show me this as —
You show here as being deficient structures.

A Right.
Q What brought us to this map -- we were talking 

about the number of homes you had purchased and those you 
hadn't purchased —

A Right.
Q -- and what led you to purchase the ones you 

did —
A Right.
Q -- and not to purchase the ones you didn't.
A Right.
Q You indicated there is a small pocket left of 

homes and your testimony was that they were occupied by 
white persons.

Let me ask you this: How do you know they're
occupied by white persons?

A Well, my office is only one block away. I go by
it pretty regular.



179

Q And you know who lives in every house?
A I think I do in that area; yes.
Q How many homes are we talking about?
A Five or six.
Q Do they have children?
A Actually, I doubt there's a child in the ownership, 

the homes that are owned. 1 think there are some children 
in the area in probably some rental housing.

Q There are rental houses and there are owned 
houses?

A Yes.
Q Now, would you say the condition of these homes 

runs the scale from very good to rather poor?
A Well, you see, why I brought you to this map was 

the ones that are deficient structures were the ones that 
were bought; the ones that are white or standard structures 
are the ones we haven't purchased, as I understand.

Q Oh.
A See, that's why I brought you to this map. You 

asked why these were bought specifically.
Q Is every home in this area indicated by a little

box?
A Every home or business or commercial enterprise.



180

Q In other words, every structure on the land in 
this area is indicated by a box?

A That is the reason for this map.
Q I see.

Now, could you point to where the remaining pocket 
of homes is at this point, the ones that are a block from 
your office?

A Right in here.
Q This area here?
A Right.
Q Is this one of the houses?
A I think so.
Q Is this one?
A I'm not sure whether those properties have been

torn down or not, to be real honest.
Those were the small rental units that I referred

to.
Q Are some of them still there, do you think?
A I think so.
Q All right.

MR. ARONSON: Your Honor, would it be permissible
to mark on this map to show which area we're talking about, 
because it's going to become very relevant at this point?



181

THE COURT: All right.
By Mr. Aronson:

Q I redirect your attention now to an area which I 
am going to circle and mark with an X on Defendants'
Exhibit Number 25, and I specifically direct your attention, 
sir, to the homes that you say —  some of which are still 
existing and some of them are owned and some of them are 
rented, to the best of your knowledge.

A Right.
Q I further would like to ask you: Going back up

here to the more northerly part of the map, to one, two, 
three, four, five standard structures, --

A Yes.
Q -- are they all still there?
A Yes.
Q Okay.
A You see, these -- I think these are homes, and 

this is industrial and commercial.
Q All right.

Now, I direct your attention to the southern part 
of the map marked —  well, there are several markings of
H o l tC".

A That is commercial.



182

Q I take it this is commercial?
A Right.
Q And are these still all existing?
A Yes.
Q All right.

Now, I bring you further to an area which I am 
going to circle and mark with a Y, and I note from the 
legend of your map these are deficient structures.

Are these all taken down?
A Yes, sir.

That was the area for the jail.
Q I see.

Do you recall the race of the persons that 
occupied those homes?

I^t me ask you specifically: Were these homes
occupied by Negroes?

A I think all of them were. There may be —  there 
was a very mixed area there.

MR. ARONSON: Your Honor, I have no further
questions.

THE COURT: Anything further with this witness?



183

REDIRECT EXAMINATION 
By Mr. Luckett:

Q There were some additional homes on there that 
were purchased other than the Tuxedo Park purchases,
Mr. Longino.

A Were what?
Q We have referred, of course, to the Tuxedo Park 

purchases and the purchases that were made across from the 
jail and the purchases north of the jail. As a matter of 
fact, we'll say that there was a residence right there.

A Yes.
Q Do you know what we call that house?
A That's the Ada Chapman house.
Q Has that been purchased by the City of Clarksdale?
A Yes.
Q What's that particular structure right there?
A That's the American Legion Hut.
Q Has that been purchased by the City of Clarksdale?
A It has.
Q Do you know why they purchased that, Mr. Longino?
A For —  our plan is for a new bridge across here in

the future and for an approach to that bridge.
Q In other words, Court Street couldn't have gone



184

through there without the purchase of that property?
A Right.
Q So, actually, there are one, two, three residences 

that we know of left there in that particular area?
A Those three are left; yes.
Q As private ownerships?
A Right.
Q But one of these houses is occupied; isn't that

right, sir?
A Yes.
Q Is that or is it not occupied?

Is that Joe —  Joe -- 
A Bill Ellis's.
Q Does Bill Ellis live there?

He doesn't live there?
A No; he doesn't live there. That's his office.

There is a home back here.
Q Is it occupied?
A I drive by these, and I know they are.

This I don't know. It's back behind Bill's 
office. I think it is occupied. I think --

Q With that possible exception, there are not over 
three other homes there that are left that are occupied that



185

you know of?
A Three or four; yes.
Q That you are positive?
A Right.

MR. LUCKETT: That's all.
THE COURT: Anything further with this witness?

RECROSS EXAMINATION
By Mr. Aronson:

Q I redirect your attention to the area circled and 
marked "X".

Your testimony not three minutes ago was you live 
one block or work one block from these areas, --

A Right.
Q -- from this area, that you know the homes are 

presently occupied and that they're occupied by Negroes.
A No.

MR. LUCKETT: No.
THE WITNESS: No.
MR. LUCKETT: He didn't --
THE WITNESS: No, sir.
THE COURT: I didn't so understand his testimony,

Mr. Aronson.
MR. ARONSON: Excuse me. I am sorry.



186

By Mr. Aronson:
Q Would you review your testimony with respect to 

the houses that are circled and marked "X"?
A That's an area that I think --

As I said, this is the street I go down.
Q I see.
A These houses I know are occupied.

That's why I told Mr. Luckett I wasn't sure of
this.

These homes —  I think one of them has been torn 
down and the others possibly are rental units.

Q All right.
I'm going to mark the three that you're certain of

as A, B —
A Now, this property may be vacant now. The lady 

that owned it died in the last —  just a short time ago. It 
may be vacant —  part of it, anyway. It's a duplex house.

Q i'll mark that D so as not to conflict with the 
C or commercial legend.

Now, your testimony is that that house which we 
marked or which you referred to as a duplex marked "D" may 
or may not be occupied —  the person recently died; you're 
certain that the properties designated now on this map as



187

"A" and "B" -- and we're still on Defendants' Exhibit 25 -- 
are occupied and that they're occupied by white persons?

A Yes.
Q All right.

Now, this area that's circled and marked with an 
X —  what --

MR. ARONSON: I wonder if we might review. I
think the testimony was clear on this, your Honor, at the 
time. I wonder if we might ask the Reporter to go back --

THE GOURT: Ask him about it and let's see what he
says now.

MR. ARONSON: All right.
By Mr. Aronson:

Q I direct your attention to an area which is 
circled and marked "X" —

A All right.
Q —  and which, according to the legend of this map, 

shows that it has four deficient structures and two standard 
structures.

A Yes.
Q What is your present knowledge with respect to the 

occupancy of these homes?
A Well, they are occupied by whites, if they are all



occupied, and that's what I testified before.
Q And if they're occupied is it —

You have no specific knowledge. What is your best 
guess? Do you think they're occupied?

Q And do you think they have children or there are 
some children?

A Yes; I think there are.
MR. ARONSON: Your Honor, may I confer with

counsel for one short moment?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. ARONSON: Thank you.
Your Honor, we have no further questions.
THE COURT: Anything further with this witness?
MR. LUCRETT: No, sir.
THE COURT: You may stand down.
May he be excused?
MR. ARONSON: I don't envision further use of

THE COURT: Mr. Luckett?
MR. LUCKETT: No, sir.
THE COURT: You are excused, Mr. Longino.
Will you call your next witness for the

A Yes.

Mr. Longino.



189

plaintiffs?
MR. BELL: Yes.
Aaron Henry.

AARON HENRY,
a plaintiff, called by and in behalf of the plaintiffs and 
in his own behalf, having been first duly sworn, testified 
as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION 
By Mr. Bell:

Q Your name and residence?
A My name is Aaron Henry. I live at 636 Page Street, 

Clarksdale, Mississippi.
Q How long have you lived in Clarksdale?
A I've lived in Coahoma County all my life. I was 

born in Coahoma County.

Q That would be a period of how many years?
A Forty-two.

Q What line of work are you in?
A I'm a pharmacist.
Q How long?
A Since 1950.

Q Are you plaintiff in this case?
A Yes.



190

Q Are you otherwise involved in the civil rights 
movement?

A Yes.
I'm President of the local branch of NAACP and 

also President of the State Conference of NAACP.
Q Would you briefly review your efforts to 

desegregate the Clarksdale public schools?
A Yes.

At the passage of the Supreme Court decision in 
1954, in the month of May, the branch worked toward getting 
the local School Board to comply with what had become the 
law of the land. We filed a petition in August of 1954 with 
454 heads of families, and to this date the School Board has 
not answered this petition, requesting it to comply with the 
Supreme Court's decision of '54 and to begin a method of 
desegregating the public schools.

This took place in '54 and we had not heard from 
it in August of nineteen sixty —

Q Well, do you have any indication that the first 
petition was received by the Board; and, if so, what was 
that indication?

A Well, yes. They never replied to us. However, 
the fact that the petition was filed -- a story was carried



191

in the Clarksdale Press Register and the names of all of the 
persons who signed the petition were likewise carried, and 
their addresses, in the Clarksdale Press Register, notifying 
the public this had been done and these were the people who 
were doing it.

Q Was there any result or any occurrence after the 
names were printed?

A Yes.
Several of the persons who signed the petition 

found it necessary, because of various pressures and 
intimidations, to withdraw their names.

Many of the persons had their —  had credit denied 
to them at the banks because they had signed this particular 
petition.

Several persons were —
MR. LUCKETT: If the Court please, unless he knows

that of his own knowledge, I object to it.
By Mr. Bell:

Q Do you know this of your own knowledge, Dr. Henry?
A Yes; I know it of my own knowledge. People have

told me —
MR. LUCKETT: It is hearsay, if your Honor please,

and I object.



192

THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
You may testify about what you know of your own 

knowledge, not what someone else told you.
By Mr. Bell:

Q Did you make any follow-up in such a fashion on 
reports of this nature that you would have personal 
knowledge of some of these situations you're telling us 
about?

A Well, the only knowledge I would have would be 
reports that were filed in my office by persons who were so 
victimized and, of course, the Court has ruled out

Q I ask you whether, if there were such reports, 
they were made at your request as head of the branch.

A Yes; they were made at my request.
I advised any person that was intimidated in any 

way because of participating in this action to so report.
Q And did you receive such reports?
A Yes, sir.
Q Was there another immediate effort or was there 

not another immediate effort made to contact the School 
Board?

A No.
We didn't make another effort to contact the



193

School Board until close to the time of the school term in 
1963, I think it was.

Q Well, then, let me ask you whether there was a 
tendency on the part of the community to become more or less 
active as far as pushing for school desegregation after the 
first petition was printed in the newspaper.

A Yes, sir; there was.
Q Was what?
A There was less activity and action by the Negro 

citizens of the community to push for school desegregation 
after the petition was filed in 1934 and the names appeared 
in the newspaper and the experiences that people had because 
of it.

Q What did you do then?
A Well, we —
Q What was the next action that was taken?
A The next action, the next official action, that 

was taken —  we filed another petition in 1963 with the 
parents of 25 children, I believe, that were involved, and 
this was done in the form of a petition. We again 
petitioned the School Board to acquiesce to the Supreme 
Court's decision of 1954 and begin a plan of desegregation 
of the public schools, and this petition had no reply



194

either except it was —  it became a newspaper article and 
the names of the parents and the children that were involved 
here were likewise published.

Q And am I correct that then this suit was filed 
after that petition was filed?

A Well, after the petition was filed -- and we 
asked for a reply within a specific amount of time, and, as 
I recall, no reply came from the Board, and then through my 
office we petitioned the Legal Defense Fund of the National 
Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP, to 
institute a suit in our behalf to desegregate the public 
schools.

Q Well, now, in addition to your efforts to 
desegregate the public schools, have you or have you not 
been involved in any other desegregation efforts in the 
Clarksdale area; and, if so, what is the present status of 
those efforts as to other facilities?

A Well, yes. The local branch has filed suit 
against the city and the county to desegregate the 
courtrooms, to desegregate the rest rooms in the courtrooms, 
to desegregate the public parks, the playgrounds, the 
swimming pools, the hospitals, the library. That was taken 
in the name of J. D. Rayford and H. Y. Hackett, and after



195

the passage of the Supreme Court —  after the passage of the 
Civil Rights Bill of 1964, the local branch participated in 
an effort to desegregate privately owned public facilities.

Q Can you give us the current status of these 
efforts?

What has been changed, if anything?
A The motion that was filed by Hackett and Rayford 

—  this particular case has not been resolved. It's in this 
Court.

Q What case was that?
A That's Hackett and Rayford versus Coahoma --
Q I mean: Involving what?
A Involving the desegregation of the courtrooms, 

rest rooms in courtrooms, playgrounds, swimming pools, 
parks, hospitals and the library.

Q Can you tell us whether there has been any change?
Have any of these facilities been, in fact, 

desegregated?
A Yes.

The Carnegie Public Library has desegregated. Of 
course, they have taken all the chairs out.

MR. LUCKETT: If the Court please, —
MR. MAYNARD: If the Court please, —



196

MR. LUCKETT: 
MR. MAYNARD: 
MR. LUCKETT: 
MR. MAYNARD:

-- we object -- 
—  we object.
--to any testimony —
This has nothing to do with the

question --
THE COURT: Wait just a minute. One at a time,

gentlemen.
MR. MAYNARD: I thought I was first, but go ahead.
MR. LUCKETT: Go ahead.
On behalf of the City School Board, we object to 

any testimony about the desegregation or the situation with 
reference to courtrooms, either in the county or the city, 
or the library or the hospital or what-not. We don't think 
it's pertinent to this particular problem as to how we have 
drawn the school lines of the City of Clarksdale and whether 
we have taken race into consideration.

THE COURT: Mr. Bell.
MR. BELL: As you know, your Honor —
MR. MAYNARD: Wait just one moment.
MR. BELL: All right.
MR. MAYNARD: On behalf of the City of Clarksdale,

we object, your Honor, to bringing in through this person 
the city's integration question with reference to the City



197

Hall, the library and the various other city facilities. Vfe 
see that it has nothing to do with the question now before 
the Court.

THE COURT: What bearing does that have on this
case, Mr. Bell?

MR. BELL: This, your Honor: Not only are we
concerned with the aspect of the plan bearing on the zone 
lines; we are also concerned with the aspect of the plan 
concerning the speed and, as the courts have said many 
times, each case has to be decided on its own facts with 
reference to such matters as the speed at which the plan 
should continue, and in this regard generally the other 
community situation is observed to determine what kind of 
progress has been made in desegregating other facilities.

We're in an area where all public facilities have 
been desegregated except the schools. Perhaps a different 
standard as far as speed is required than in an area where 
absolutely nothing has been desegregated and the schools are 
the first thing, and for that reason I think it's helpful to 
have some background -- and I wasn't going to dwell on it -- 
as to just where we are in Clarksdale today.

THE COURT: I frankly can't see how this has any
bearing on this case.



MR. BELL: Well, the only justification for going
at a grade a year rather than desegregating the schools 
entirely is that going at this slow pace there's better able 
to be an adjustment by the community, by the schools, as to 
what is going on. We always disagree with this, but 
nevertheless we wind up with it each time.

Now, by —
THE COURT: You actually, according to that

theory, are trying to get into the record of this case 
evidence that would tend to slow down the pace of 
desegregation of schools, aren't you?

MR. BELL: Not over-all, your Honor. I think if
you will let me tie it up we'll show that the situation in 
Clarksdale is such that unless all grades are ordered 
desegregated -- the situation is such that at least all 
pupils in all grades who seek desegregated educations 
should be able to get them and, as I say, I think that very 
shortly —  >

THE COURT: What the status of these other
facilities might be or might have been with respect to 
desegregation or segregation would not, I can assure you, 
have any bearing on my disposition of this case or the speed

j '

by which the system will be required to desegregate.



199

MR. BELL: Well, I would like to, unless you're
going to sustain the objection to it, get in the record the 
facts as to the present status of desegregation, if I may.

THE COURT: You still haven't convinced me that it
has any relevance.

I'd like for you to try again, because I don't 
want to foreclose you. I want you to make a perfectly 
adequate record.

MR. BELL: Well, I think that what we're going to
try to do here is to show that the desegregation of any 
public facilities in the City of Clarksdale has not come 
easy, that those who have sought to obtain desegregation of 
these facilities have not had an easy time, and that this 
will bear on this particular plan in regards to possible 
alternatives to the plan as it is presently drawn. In other 
words, if this plan is not going to be approved and we can 
show the zone lines as drawn by the Board cannot be the 
sole basis on which desegregation is obtained, then we turn 
to the question as to how persons seeking desegregated 
educations are to obtain them, and if we follow some of the 
current precedents it would be on the basis of, "Well, we'll 
allow those in a certain number of grades to obtain 
desegregated educations upon request," and the thrust of a



200

part of this testimony that we're trying to put on now is to 
the effect that in the area of Clarksdale the number of 
such persons is likely to be very small based on (1) the 
general condition of Negroes in the community and (2) the 
pressures generally placed on those who seek to make change 
in this particular area, civil rights.

THE COURT: I frankly can't see how it has any
bearing on the issues in this case and the problems that 
will be placed in the lap of this Court when this hearing is 
concluded, but you may go ahead and develop your record.

But let's get on to —
MR. BELL: All right, your Honor.
The question you were answering was what was the 

status, which facilities are open, and I think you were 
talking about or starting to talk about the courtrooms.

THE WITNESS: Yes.
The courtrooms, both city and county, are now 

desegregated. Negroes can sit anywhere they want to in the 
courtrooms. Of course, the rest rooms in the courthouse 
are still segregated.

The —
By Mr. Bell:

Q How about the pools?



201

A The pools are closed. Nobody can use them.
Q You told us —
A The pools were closed last year. I don't know 

whether they will be open this year or not.
THE COURT: What is this you are talking about?
THE WITNESS: Public playgrounds; swimming pools.
THE COURT: Swimming pools?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
By Mr. Bell:

Q How about the hospital?
You were about to tell us something about that.

A Yes. The waiting room at the hospital has been 
desegregated, except they moved the chairs out and nobody is 
able to sit down while they are waiting in the hospital.

Q I'll ask you whether or not, Dr. Henry, you come 
in contact both in your drugstore and in your civil rights 
activity with a sizable percentage of the Negroes in the 
Clarksdale community.

A Yes, sir.
Q Are you familiar with the type of work they do, 

the type of jobs they hold?
A Yes, sir.

A great majority of the people who live, Negro



202

people who live, in the community of Clarksdale are pretty 
much agrarian employed. They're day laborers in the 
plantation, in the farm system.

A great majority of the people who live in Coahoma 
County live out in the rural area, and hence they are 
employed in the area of farming.

Q How about --
A Some are employed, however, in the industrial 

plants.
The Cooper Tire and Rubber Company has Negroes 

employed. American Hardware, Stephens-Adamson and the new 
Tarizan plant all have some Negroes employed.

But, by and large, the great majority of the 
Negroes who are employed are employed either in the service 
industry as maids, in the homes, or as laborers or as farm 
workers.

Q Tell us, if you know, from your own knowledge, the 
average salaries that these people make in these different 
lines of work.

MR. LUCKETT: If the Court please, I just submit
that's going much too far afield and I can't see why we 
should have to take --

THE COURT: I'm concerned —



203

HR. LUCRE IT: —  that sort of record on --
THE GOURT: I'm concerned, Mr. Bell, with the

length of time we are spending on this case already. The 
morning' 8 activity developed rather slowly, it seemed to me.

MR. BELL: Yes, your Honor, and there are only a
few questions along this line. I promise I'm not going to 
take a long period of time. It's just a quick summary.

THE COURT: How much more evidence do you
anticipate that you have?

MR. BELL: After this witness, -- I have only 10
or 12 more questions for him -- I have two expert witnesses, 
whose testimony would probably take perhaps 30 minutes 
apiece, and then I, of course, would have to put on the 
Superintendent again in view of the problems we had on the 
deposition and review that material, plus a few questions of 
the Chairman of the Board, and that would be our case.

THE COURT: What does the income of people have to
do --

MR. BELL: It gets back —
THE COURT: —  with whether they will be permitted

to attend a desegregated school or not?
MR. BELL: Well, the problem is that we want to

show here or to prepare here -- of course, it's not going to



204

have any relevance if this Court is going to find that the 
plan of the Board is proper and meets all of the 
requirements, and that's it --

THE COURT: I don't know what I'm going to find.
MR. BELL: That's correct, and we don't know

either, and it's for that reason that we're trying to 
prepare the record in such a way that we're able to argue to 
the Court (1) that the Clarksdale Board should be required 
to draw up a new set of zones and assign everyone according 
to those zones, but a group of fairly drawn zones, and that 
because of the status of Negroes in this community that 
providing them as an alternative to the plan that the Board 
has submitted with the type of desegregation plan which has 
been approved in other sections will not be providing them 
with a desegregation plan at all because their status in the 
community as far as the economic situation and all is 
concerned is just so poor and the opposition to 
desegregation generally is so great that there will be no 
choice and there will in all likelihood, based on everything 
we know, be no desegregation. So, while it may seem far 
afield, it's very, very vital to our case to establish —  

and we're doing this all over because of the problems that 
we have with this freedom of choice type of plan that the



courts over our objections have been approving -- that in 
many areas, particularly in a small community, -- sometimes 
in large residential, large urban communities the situation 
is a little better, but in a small community such as 
Clarksdale -- where the Negroes particularly have just come 
in from the farms, only a few of them have jobs earning any 
kind of money at all, that their status is just very, very 
tenuous and that they do not have the kind of economic or 
any other kind of background, organization or what have you 
that would enable them to, with propriety, exercise a 
freedom of choice to go to a desegregated school if this is 
the kind of desegregation plan that is approved.

So, it kind of leads into the argument that we 
would make at the end of the testimony: (1) That the Board
has maintained all along that they are opposed to transfers, 
that they want to assign people because this is the orderly 
way, and we are in agreement that this is the way it should 
be done. However, we don't think that the lines they have 
drawn here are effective either in meeting the requirements 
of the Supreme Court as far as desegregation is concerned or 
of meeting the requirements as far as educational standards 
for drawing zones are concerned.

Now, assuming we are able to convince you of this,

205



206

we are arguing that or will argue that the Board should be 
required to draw a new set of zones that do meet the 
educational standards and do meet the constitutional 
standards, and the reason we're arguing they should have to 
be required to file this new set of zones is because the 
freedom of choice type of operation that has been approved 
in other areas will not bring about desegregation here.

THE COURT: Timewise, I think we will gain by
letting you go ahead. You may do so.

MR. BELL: I was asking you, if you know, if you
could give us a little idea what Negroes actually earn per 
week or per day and some of the types of work.

THE WITNESS: Well, the salaries range greatly.
In the better paid positions of school teachers and factory 
workers, from four to $5,0 0 0 a year, and perhaps less or 
more; but the great bulk of the people employed in the 
service industries earn from fifteen to $20 a week as maids 
and as cooks and this type of thing, and the day laborers in 
actually the area of employment where a majority of our 
people are employed -- this work finds itself available only 
during cotton picking and cotton chopping. Of course, 
cotton chopping starts about perhaps themiddle of April or 
maybe the first of May and lasts maybe through June. I



207

think last year they paid two to three dollars a day for 
this particular kind of work, and, of course, all people who 
go to the fields make the same money. Cotton picking starts 
about the middle of August and perhaps lasts through 
November or to November, and they pay from two to three 
dollars per hundred for picking the cotton, and, of course, 
the average person would earn about, say, anywhere from 
three to nine dollars a day, depending on the amount he 
would pick.

By Mr. Bell:
Q Now, we've had a lot of discussion about housing 

conditions in the City of Clarksdale. Would you just give 
us a quick summary of the nature and location of Negro 
housing in the City of Clarksdale?

A Well, we have a method of designating houses a 
little bit different than the technical terms the Court has 
been using. We have an area called the upper brickyard 
where the Negroes live, the brickyard, the roundyard and 
Riverton.

Q Now, where are these locations?
A I can come down to the map and show you.

THE COURT: You may step down.



208

By Mr. Bell:
Q Now, you are looking at a copy of the map that was 

introduced in the earlier trial which shows the City of 
Clarksdale and all of the school zones on the map, and I 
point to the Illinois Central Railroad track that bisects 
the town and ask you whether Negroes live generally to the 
north of that line —

A To the south.
Q —  or to the south.
A To the south; yes.
Q Now, in terms of the various zones that are the 

elementary zones that are written in brown crayon, would you 
indicate these various locations where most of the Negroes 
live?

A Yes.
This beginning here is what we call the upper 

brickyard. Negroes live in this area.
Q Now, would that be in Zone E-l-A?
A That's in Zone E-l-A.

Also, Negroes live in what is called the brickyard
area. This is in Zone E-l-A and Zone E-l-B.

This —
Q Okay.



209

A In both.
Q Yes.
A This, the brickyard, is divided into both of these 

areas.
Q I see.
A And in what we call the roundyard area, which is 

Thirteenth —  well, really, it begins up at 61 highway and 
it takes in Eighth -- rather, it takes in Tenth, Eleventh, 
Twelfth, Thirteenth and all the way through Eighteenth 
Street, where the new Booker Washington, the new George -- 
no -- Booker T. Washington School is down here, because this 
is Zone E-2-A.

And there are Negroes who live in the Riverton 
area, which is Zone E-2-B.

Q Now, tell us a little bit about the nature of the 
housing for Negroes in all of these areas.

A Well, it ranges from very poor to pretty good.
There are several areas in what we call the 

downtown area, which is this area here, that has houses --
Of course, I'm referring to along the Ashton line. 

Of course, Commerce runs perpendicular to Ashton, just off 
Fourth Street.

Q This is in the eastern end of Zone E-2-B; is that



210

correct?
A No.

E-2-A.
Q Oh, in E-2-A.
A E-2-A.
Q I see.
A There is another area in E-2-A ~~ that's just 

behind the First Baptist Church —  that's called Oil Mill 
Alley, which is just as dilapidated as anything they have in 
Tuxedo Junction or other communities that have been 
condemned.

Q Is this the Tuxedo Park?
A Park. Yes.
Q Are you familiar with the houses located in that

area?
A Yes.
Q Are you also familiar with the houses located out 

along northeast Second that were deannexed?
A Yes.
Q Now, indicate whether or not, in your opinion, 

some of the housing in these areas that you are mentioning 
now was of equal —

A In my opinion, equally poor, the only difference



211

being that these houses have plumbing inside and the ones 
that were testified today had no inside plumbing.

Q Now, before you retake the stand, I will ask you 
if you are familiar at all with some of the areas north of 
the Illinois Central tracks which are designated here in the 
elementary zones as E-3-A, E-4-A, E-4-B and E-4-C and ask 
you whether or not you know any Negroes who are living in 
those areas at the present time.

A I don't know of any. That does not say exactly 
they are not, but I am not familiar with any Negroes living 
in those areas.

Q Do you know whether or not, looking at 
particularly Zone E-4-B and E-4-C -- do you know whether or 
not Negroes have sought to move into those areas at all?

A I doubt it. I don't know, but I feel almost 
positive no Negroes have tried to move into those areas.

Q Now, what would be the basis of that?
A Well, the mores, the customs of segregation in

housing, that whites, white people, live in one area, the 
Negroes live in another.

Q Do you know of any laws or anything that require 
Negroes to live in one section or another?

A No; I don't know of a law, of course.



212

I would feel that most of us believe that there 
are laws that would prevent Negroes from living there. I 
don't know.

Well, this is -- the segregation laws of the state 
have been of such a nature that they have kept Negroes and 
whites separated as such, so that we would feel that there 
are, if there are not.

I have heard testimony today there were not.
Maybe integrated housing will be one of our new projects of 
the NAACP.

Q Okay.
i'll ask you the basis for your own participation 

in the school desegregation suit, Dr. Henry.
A Well, my daughter, Rebecca, is growing up, and it 

is my feeling that the educational qualifications in what 
has been classified as the white school system offers 
advantages over what is the Negro school system, and I think 
that this follows through the entire segregated school 
system of the state, that the facilities for Negroes are 
inferior to those for whites.

Q I ask you also whether or not you are familiar 
with the Jackson desegregation plan, which is generally 
referred to as a freedom of choice plan.



213

A Yes; I'm familiar with it.
Q Now, based on your knowledge of the situation, 

particularly as far as Negroes are concerned in the City of 
Clarksdale, would you Indicate whether or not a similar type 
of plan would bring about a great deal or a little 
desegregation in the Clarksdale area?

A Not not; not with the present set of conditions 
under which we operate.

Q Would you explain your answer on that?
A Yes.

In the Jackson community there are factors that 
are not present here. Number 1, you have a larger 
community and a larger number of Negroes that could possibly 
participate.

You have a higher median income of the Negro 
community in Jackson than you have here.

There are these factors, too:
You have a Chamber of Commerce in Jackson 

that have appealed to the community to accept the 
desegregation of the schools, as citizens ought, 
because this is the law of the land.

We have a woman's group, who are a group
of interested citizens outside the Chamber of



Commerce, called the Save Our Schools Committee 
that is working toward acceptance of desegregation 
in public schools without difficulty.

We have none of those factors going for 
us here. The business community has not taken a 
stand as far as school desegregation is concerned 
for compliance of the law. We have no citizens 
unit organized particularly among the responsible 
white citizens to help promote an acceptance of the 
law, and these are two factors that I think would 
be very necessary before we could have any kind of 
results with a public -- rather, with a freedom of 
choice plan that is in vogue in Jackson now.

MR. BELL: Just one second, please.
No further questions.
THE COURT: Reserve your cross examination until

after the noon recess.
Court is in recess until 20 minutes of four.

(Thereupon, at 3:21 p. m., a 19-minute 
recess was taken.)

THE COURT: You may be seated.

214



215

CROSS EXAMINATION 
By Mr. Luckett:

Q Dr. Henry, I'm confused about these statements.
The last statement you made, as I understood it, was that if 
freedom of choice were given to the children of Clarksdale 
to attend any school in the school district there would be 
very few Negro children who would attend, we'll say, schools 
north of the railroad.

A Would be very few Negro children; yes.
Q That's right.

And yet you said in the beginning of your 
testimony in 1955 a petition was filed bearing five hundred 
and some odd names —

A No.
Q -- for the desegregation -- 
A Four hundred and fifty-four.
q -- 454 names for the desegregation of the school 

system.
THE COURT: I understood him to say that it was in

1954.
THE WITNESS: Fifty-four.
MR. LUCKETT: Fifty-five.
THE COURT: Fifty-four, wasn't it?



216

THE WITNESS: It might have been '54. Fifty-four

or '55.
MR. LUCKETT: I think I have a copy of it.
It was August the 1st, 1955.
By Mr. Luckett:

Q I take it those people wanted to have desegregated 
school facilities here in Clarksdale?

A Yes, but the reaction of the community was so 
adverse it caused many people to fall out.

Q And you don't think they are of the same opinion 
at this present time?

A I think they are of the same opinion, but the 
intimidations and economic reprisals we have been subjected 
to have caused many people not to continue.

Q I see.
You are, as you told the Court, the father of one 

of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit?
A Yes, sir.
Q Does your child go to a public school?
A No. She goes to a parochial school.
Q Has she always gone to a private school?

A Yes.
Q I take it, then, you don't question the right of



any parent to send his child to a private school?
MR. BELL: Well, I don't know --
What is the relevance of that?
I think —
THE COURT: Now, counsel, it is customary in this

Court if you have an objection to state it to the Court and 
not make remarks to counsel.

MR. BELL: I'm sorry, your Honor.
I was trying to say I object to the question as 

not relevant.
THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
THE WITNESS: No; I don't question that right.
By Mr. Luckett:

Q You've also told about some substandard housing 
south of the railroad track, —  I think in Commerce Alley or 
some place like that, which is substandard and probably 
unfit, really, --

A Sure.
Q -- for human habitation, is it not?
A That's true, but it's still there.
Q Don't you think it ought to be condemned and done 

away with?

217

A Yes.



218

Q So, you agree with slum clearance in theory, do 

you not?
A Yes.

I object to it when it is done to extract citizens 
of one race from one particular section of town.

Q Well, in theory, though, you do approve of the 
condemnation of unfit dwellings?

A Yes, in theory.
Q Did you —
A However, the practice —  the reason for which it 

is done many times could alter that.
Q I see.

It all depends upon where the unfit habitation is 
—  if it's in a white neighborhood, you are not in favor of 
having it condemned; but if it is in the Negro neighborhood 
you are in favor of having it condemned?

A No. That is not the issue.
The issue here appears to me to be the housing 

that was removed —
THE COURT: Now, he didn't ask you about the

issue. He asked you about your views.
THE WITNESS: There are circumstances that alter

cases, and the circumstances that are involved here would



219

cause me to think differently, one way one time and another 
way another time.
' Q Had these houses in Tuxedo Park been south of the 
railroad track, you would have had no objection whatsoever 
to their destruction?

A No.
Q Is that right?
A That's right.
Q Do you question the right of Mr. Kantor to sell 

his property to whomsoever he chooses?
THE COURT: Now, who is this, Mr. Luckett?
MR. LUCKETT: He's an owner of one of the pieces

of property and one of the witnesses summoned by the 
plaintiff.

THE WITNESS: Well —
MR. LUCKETT: I don't know which particular

property, but some particular property that was involved in 
one of these purchases that are being criticized.

THE WITNESS: I think there are times when a
person owns public property, a public business -- that there 
are situations where he may not choose his customers, that 
he must sell to anybody, that he may not be discriminatory 
in that regard.



220

By Mr. Luckett:
Q Insofar as this particular house is concerned, it 

was rented to Negro tenants in the City of Clarksdale —  and 
we have no law about open occupancy in this state that I 
know of.

Do you question Mr. Kantor's right to sell that 
property to whomsoever he chooses?

A Well, I don't know about the law you mentioned, 
whether we have an open occupancy law or not. I'm not sure.

Q But do you question his right to sell his house?
A Yes.
Q You do?
A Yes.
Q On what ground?
A On the theory that a man may not discriminate in 

disposing of property in many instances where this is legal 
and, of course, there are some instances where there is a 
moral question.

I do think in the disposition of property that one 
should not be able to discriminate because of race or color 
to whom he sells it or to whom he does not sell it. If he 
puts it on the market, he should sell it to whomsoever 
wishes to purchase it. Therefore, I do believe there are



221

times when a man may not sell his property to a person of 
his choice.

Q Well, in this particular instance it was sold to 
the City of Clarksdale.

Do you question his right to sell it to the City 

of Clarksdale?
The City of Clarksdale doesn't have a race.
MR. BELL: I don't think --
Excuse me, your Honor.
I object.
I don't think there's any testimony on direct 

regarding Dr. Henry's disagreement with the right of any 
real estate person to sell the property to the City of 
Clarksdale.

I think —  I'm a little confused, and I think the 
witness in his responses may be somewhat confused also.

THE COURT: We've opened up an awfully wide field
at your insistence.

MR. BELL: All right, your Honor.
THE COURT: Therefore, the objection is overruled.
THE WITNESS: No. I think selling it to the city

is all right.



222

By Mr. Luckett:
Q Do you think the county had the right to buy the 

property next to the jail?
A Yeah.

-- Q Suppose I told you that there were Negroes living
in this area right in here. Would you be surprised?

A What's the street designations?
Q Well, it's on School Street.

Do you know where School Street is?
A Yes. It's in the Hillcrest area.
Q You'd be surprised?
A No. I suppose there are some.

Frankly, I was surprised to see where some 
Negroes are living on Cypress Street, and I'm not too sure 
of their grade levels, but they are assigned to ttyrtle Hall 
School and Cypress is in the heart of Oakhurst.

Q Are they in the first or second grade?
A I'm not sure, but I know they are not assigned to

the school nearest their home.
Q Do you understand the plan requires any assignment 

other than the first or second graders?
A No; I don't understand the plan does.

Of course, you are speaking generally about where



223

Negroes live and I don't think the Negroes you are talking 
about are first or second graders.

Q Well, I just asked you «
You told your attorney on direct examination that 

no Negroes lived in this section of town.
A I object to your use of the word "niggers".

I didn't say "niggers". I said "Negroes".
Well, I'm sorry.
I never used that word, neither before 1954 or

Q
A

Q
since.

A

Q
did not.

Well, it sounded like you were saying "nigger". 
Well, you have put those phonetics on that. I

A All right.
Q Does that clear it up?
A Would you repeat the question?
Q I understood you to tell your attorney that no 

Negroes —
A Thank you.
Q —  lived in that section of Clarksdale.
A I didn't say definitely. I said I would be

surprised to learn if they were.
Q All right.



224

Do you know that some Negroes live in this section 
of Clarksdale known as Zone E-3-A?

A I suppose they are.
There were Negroes living in each zone in the 

first and second grade when the plan was presented to the 
Court, but by the time school opened they had all be moved 
out. So, the fact Negroes live there now has no bearing on 
where they will be when it comes down to the time to go to 
school.

Q I am talking about as of today.
Do you know Negroes do live in this particular

zone?
A There probably are, Mr. Luckett, Negroes living 

there, but what's going to be the question when the school 
desegregation plan --

THE COURT: Now, we've had enought of this. Let's
don't have any more arguments between counsel and the 
witness.

Answer the questions, and if you want to explain 
you'll be given an opportunity to.

By Mr. Luckett:
Q Now, Riverton is what we call a mixed neighborhood,

is it not?



225

A Yes.
Q At least half of the area over there is occupied 

by dwellings where white people live?
A That's right.
Q And about half of the area, although a great 

proportion, is occupied by dwellings where Negroes live?
A Yes.
Q They live there in peace and harmony, do they not?
A Well, it depends on what you mean by "peace".
Q Well, that's semantics. I thought everybody knew 

what "peace and harmony" meant.
Well, this Zone E-l-A, that is, upon the 

southeasterly part of town, is what you'd call a mixed area, 
is it not?

A What are the street designations?
Q Well, there are any number of streets in there.
A If you could name a few, I'd know the neighborhood

you are talking about.
Q Well, part of it is Cooper Tire and Rubber 

Company.
A I know where that is; yes.
Q But that is a mixed neighborhood, is it not?
A Yes.



226

Q As a matter of fact, there are mixed neighborhoods 
all throughout this southerly part of Clarksdale, are there 
not?

A To some degree. To a minor degree.
Q Is it not the position of the plaintiffs in this 

case that the key to meaningful desegregation is a 
nondiscriminatory drafting of uniracial school zone lines?

MR. BELL: Now, we object to that.
THE WITNESS: I'm not going to get trapped into

that one. I don't know.
MR. BELL: We object to that question as being a

legal issue for the Court to resolve. The witness wouldn't 
know.

THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
By Mr. Luckett:

Q Well, are you familiar with the complaint in the
case?

A I'm familiar with the complaint that the school 
system in Clarksdale is segregated and we're trying to 
desegregate it, if that's what you mean.

Q Are you familiar with the complaint that you filed 
on behalf of your child and others in this particular case 
that we're hearing today?



227

A Yes.
Q Don't you know that your prayer is for the drawing 

of these unified zone lines?
MR. BELL: Now, we make the same objection, your

Honor.
I don't think he has to be intimately familiar 

with the --
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
The Court knows, of course, that the complaint was 

drawn by the attorneys and not by this witness.
MR. LUCKETT: That's all, your Honor.
THE COURT: Anything further with this witness?
MR. BELL: No further questions, your Honor.
THE COURT: You may stand down.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
THE COURT: Will you call your next witness,

please?
MR. BELL: Reginald Neuwien.
He's in the plaintiffs' witness room.
THE COURT: How do you spell this witness's name,

Mr. Bell?
MR. BELL: I believe it's N-e-u-w-i-e-n.



228

REGINALD NEUWIEN,
a witness called by and in behalf of the plaintiffs, having 
been first duly sworn, testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION 
By Mr. Bell:

Q Would you state your full name, please?
A Reginald Neuwien.
Q Would you spell the last name?
A N-e-u-w-i-e-n.
Q Your residence, Mr. Neuwien?
A I live at 2000 East Jefferson Boulevard, South 

Bend, Indiana.
Q What is your occupation?
A My occupation is educational research.

At the .present time l'm the director of a study of 
the Catholic schools in the United States, based at the 
University of Notre Dame.

Q What is your background in education?
What experience in this field have you had -- 

jobs, other surveys and so forth?
A I've been in public education for 36 years, and 

the last 13 years of my work directly in the public schools. 
I was Superintendent of the Public Schools in



229

Stamfordf Connecticut, and following that I worked at the 
Educational Research Council of Greater Cleveland in 
Cleveland, Ohio, and I have been for three years in my 
present position.

In the Educational Research Council my work was 
Director of Administrative Research, and in a strong fashion 
I worked as adviser to school superintendents, and I 
completed 15 school system surveys of the schools in the 
northern Ohio area.

Q What did these surveys involve?
What was the nature of your work there, just

briefly?
A There were two types of surveys. The first type 

was a study of the future needs of an individual school 
system, and these in our jargon are referred to as 
projection studies. They were done for a future 10-year 
period in terms of the financing, building and staffing 
needs of the school systems, and then an expansion of that 
same kind of work is referred to as an evaluative approach 
to survey, and this was evaluating the quality of the 
educational program and the effectiveness of the school 
operation.

Q Would you indicate whether or not the work you did



230

and have just described is similar to the work that you have 
been requested by the plaintiffs to do with regard to the 
Clarksdale school system?

A I think that the same kinds of skills are 
necessary.

Q How about your current work? Would you just give 
us a brief summary of the work in which you are presently 
involved and indicate whether or not there are also 
connections between that work and the work you have been 
asked to do by the plaintiffs?

A The survey or study of Catholic education, which 
is the title of the program for which I am now the 
director at the university, is an attempt to get fundamental 
statistical data about each of the Catholic elementary and 
secondary schools in the United States.

There are approximately 13,000 elementary schools 
and some 2400 secondary schools, and they are located in 
145 diocese covering the entire country, and in this work we 
are doing a national survey which will produce a profile of 
these schools, what they are and whom they serve and who 
staffs them and the kind of training and background the 
staff people have; and then we also have done depth studies 
in 13 of the 145 diocese where we have gone in and visited



231

with the schools and conducted a large number of activities 
which are really evaluative in character.

Q Do you supervise a staff of some sort in this
work?

A Yes. I have a full-time staff, which has changed 
because I needed specialists at various times. I didn't 
need —  I had at one time four sociologists, and we didn't 
need four sociologists for three years. So, the staff has 
changed, and there have been as many as 10 full-time people, 
and then we use specialists for special problems.

Q What will be the results of this study?
Will there be a book —

A Yes.
Q --or any kind of publication?
A We're getting ready for our first publication now. 

We hope we're going to publish in the middle of June.
Q Now, would you review for the Court the background 

and the preparation that you have made as far as the 
Clarksdale school system is concerned for the testimony 
we're asking you to give today?

A Well, I was —  while I worked in Cleveland at the 
Educational Research Council one of my associates there, who 
was Director of Basic Research, is Dr. tyron Lieberman, who



232

is now at Rhode Island State College, and he approached me 
some two months ago -- more than that probably -- and 
wondered if I would be willing to consider rendering this 
kind of service here, and I was then approached by your 
organization, and I accepted the opportunity and I came here 
early in February and spent one day, which had been preceded 
by a study of the first interrogatory results, and also 
preceded by a study of the maps of the Clarksdale school 
district with school identifications and other information 
that was made available through your office, and then I 
spent a day here viewing the Clarksdale schools from the 
outside and getting some idea of the location and the 
relationships of these schools one to another, and so that 
it was not just a matter of reading about what went on, and 
then I have had the results of the second interrogatory and 
I have spent time and study on them, for about a total of 
60 work hours is my rough estimate.

Q Would you give us an idea of what familiarity you 
have developed with the Board's program, particularly as it 
relates to the school zone lines and the general 
desegregation plan that was submitted, as a result of study 
and observations that you have made?

A Well, I mean the first opportunity for a judgment



that I had was in terms of the plan which was originally 
proposed and drawn up in the form of the new district lines, 
and then also the fact that while the new district lines 
were drawn the program, in order to effect desegregation, 
was not effective, and the study also indicated that there 
would be a possibility, it seemed, from the information and 
knowledge that I have been able to gain, which has some 
limitation certainly, but nevertheless against that kind of 
a background it seemed, that some maybe rethinking of the 
redistricting or a redistricting plan might prove more 
effective in its results.

Q Well, now, in reaching these conclusions, would 
you make reference in some detail to the various facts and 
data that you reviewed with reference to zone lines, how 
they were drawn, and feeling free to come to the map where 
we have all of the school zone lines located?

A Well, I would point out that, first of all, there 
are certain general principles which I would believe, from 
my own experience and from my own activity, might have an 
effect on an original districting of any school district, 
whether it were redistricting or whether it were a 
projection into the future, and some of the basic principles 
are that in dividing the school district there would have to

233



234

be clearer and basic information, which I would assume would 
be in the hands of the School Board and the school 
administration, about the total, over-all population, what 
the kind of mobility there is existing in the community, 
movement in and out, the migration, in-migration, what the 
birth rates are and have been in the past, so projections 
could be made about how many youngsters are going to be 
available for school five years or six years from now, and 
these would be population studies.

Then some of the other basic principles are that 
in -- for example, that in the location of the school -- I 
mean such as a school located in E-2-A -- that means it's 
what I would refer to as a perimeter location, so that —

Q How would you define that?
A Well, it's on the edge of the school district, so 

that its service value has to extend a great distance away 
from a school in order to effectively use the capacity of 
the school. In other words, it does not draw from —  if we 
were to organize a district and indicate it by a complete 
circle, a school which is a perimeter school -- it would be 
on the -- cutting across the diameter of the circle.

Q Let me ask you whether or not your comments now 
are indicating that there would be additional problems in



235

drawing zone lines given the fact that the schools are 
already in definite locations and can't be moved.

A I mean this makes any kind of redistricting that 
much more difficult.

Q Could you review where the schools are presently 
located in the Clarksdale system and comment on why they 
were located there, as far as you can see, based on the 
study you have made?

A Well, no place in the study that I have made could 
I determine why the schools were actually placed where they 
were. I mean 1 could only relate them to what seems to be 
the district which they're aimed at serving, and, for 
example, the Oliver School, which is in Zone E-l-A, serves a 
district again working up away from the school, and this is 
pretty close to a perimeter school as far as the school 
district boundaries are concerned.

Q But it becomes -- is this correct -- a perimeter
school by reason of the way the zone lines are presently 
drawn?

Is that correct?
A That's correct. However, in this particular 

instance, as in the other, Booker T. Washington School, in 
2-A, they're there, and the placement of the school is on



236

the perimeter, and there isn't much that can be done about 
these isolated instances of redrawing a district line in 
order to get the school nearer to the youngsters, and, so, 
this is an accomplished fact.

Q You were telling us about, I guess, some of the 
criteria that would be involved or some of the facts that 
you would have to gather for drawing school zone lines.

Would you indicate, assuming you have all the 
information, the criteria that are generally accepted in 
determining where school zone lines should be drawn?

A I wouldn't mind doing that, but it doesn't seem to 
me this would be, you know, particularly helpful at this 
point, because I mean we have now an accomplished fact, and 
that is the location of schools.

Q Well, I'm --
A So, there might be some re-evaluation of the 

district lines to accomplish the purpose which was set out 
and attempted in this drawing of district lines.

Q I'm thinking in terms of criteria for zoning a 
system where, as here, there's a requirement that there be 
new zones and where, as here, the schools are already in 
their present locations.

A I think it would just be a review of the district



lines drawn as they are here in these new elementary 
districts and then making some attempt to minimize the 
location of the schools by redrawing lines based on good 
population studies.

Now, I don't have the background of specific 
population studies in this particular community. I mean all 
I could indicate would be that there might be some 
investigation of other district lines than these and the 
basis for that being that this redistricting didn't seem to 
effect its purpose.

Q Well, let me ask you this: Starting just from an
educational standpoint, would you tell the Court whether or 
not in your review and study of these zone lines you found 
that they did or did not meet the generally accepted 
criteria for school zone lines?

A Well, I think the criteria again would have to be 
altered within the circumstances with which you are dealing, 
and the criteria of locating schools or drawing districts 
so that the schools can best serve the pupil population, so 
that, if we're talking about general principles, the general 
principles here have not been met.

Q In what regards have they not been met?
A Well, for example, the greater number of the

237



238

youngsters going to this school are --
Q Which school zone is that?
A This is E-2-A, and that's Booker T. Washington 

School location, and the district runs from this line all 
the way down to the school, and, so, it draws its entire 
enrollment from a northerly direction.

Now, ideally, without taking into account the 
existing land usage, ideally, if this were to be the 
district, the school would be located as close to the 
center of the district as possible to make the travel time 
of youngsters as short as possible in getting to the school.

Q Would that be also true as to Zone E-l-A, for 
example, or --

A Yes. The same principle would work here.
I mean if this is an evenly -- we have a land 

usage here which is very obvious and that a school could not 
be located in that area, but if the school is to serve this 
entire area, and this is a heavily populated area, the 
school would be better placed at some place closer to the 
center of the total district as the district is designed or 
subdistrict is designed.

Q Let's go on across and look at Zones E-4-B and 
E-4-C over to the northwest part of the city.



239

A Well --
Q 1 will ask you to tell us whether you have made a 

study of those zones and indicate whether they come close to 
meeting good standards or fall —

A Yes.
Q —  far from meeting good standards.
A For example, Heidelberg is located somewhat toward 

the center of Zone E-4-B.
Kirkpatrick is slightly off center, but it's 

closer to the center than either of the two previous 
existing schools.

Q How about other criteria?
Certainly isn't it so that the location of the 

school in the zone would be one factor, but would not be the 
sole factor?

How about meeting other factors or criteria of 
school zone lines?

A Well, again we get back to the original location 
of the school, the necessity of a school being originally 
erected and it would have to serve that population. This 
would be related to the size of the school. How big does 
the school get? I mean: How is it planned? Is it an
expandable unit?



240

Q What do your facts show as to the utilization of 
the Heidelberg and Kirkpatrick Schools in relation to one 
another? Is one more or less crowded —

A No.
Q -- or are they about the same or what?
A These two schools are about equally populated.

The average class size or the average enrollment 
in each of the four schools —  Kirkpatrick and Heidelberg and 
Oakhurst and Clark come to an average enrollment in each of 
these schools per room of 25 plus, I think, one tenth.

Q Do you recall whether these were schools serving 
white children or Negro children?

A Yes. These are schools which were indicated 
originally as white schools.

Q Now, is it correct or not that you indicate the 
school in E-4-B, which is Heidelberg, I believe, and E-4-C, 
which is —

A Kirkpatrick.
Q —  Kirkpatrick, are pretty well balanced as far as 

meeting the generally accepted criteria for drawing zone 
lines between schools?

A Yes; location of school and serving a population 
and having sufficient room at the present time to



241

accommodate the youngsters within a reasonable class size.
Q Let's go back across the map to Zone E-l-C, which 

is the Eliza Clark School, and Zone E-l-B, which is the 
ftyrtle Hall School, and ask you to make a comparison of how 
well balanced those schools are one with another and whether 
that reflects to you anything concerning the propriety in 
educational terms of drawing the line in that location.

A Well, let's start with E-l-B, the Hall School. In 
terms of what I said earlier, it meets the location criteria 
well if this is to be the district.

Q And why would that be?
A Because it's located —  if this is to be the 

district served, then the school is located so it is as 
close as you could get it to the largest number of people if 
we have some even distribution of population.

Q I see.
A Now, it happens that —  whether this map is up to 

date as far as land usage is concerned I have no idea, but 
if this white area indicates that this is not used and 
occupied land, occupied by housing, then we have a small 
number of potential young people here in this part of the 
district. If this then is an expandable and potentially or 
might become occupied by housing, then this becomes even



242

more centrally located.
Q How about again the question of how well balanced 

is the Zone E-l-B with the adjoining zone, E-l-C?
A You could say almost the same thing about the 

location of the Clark School within this district as drawn 
here. It is close to the center, but off center. In other 
words, it would be concentrically located, but nevertheless 
it is a better example of school location than Booker T. 
Washington or the Oliver School.

Q Well, now, how about the balance as far as school 
utilization between the Myrtle Hall and Eliza Clark Schools?

A Well, as I remember, the Clark School has a total 
of seven existing classrooms, six of which are in operation 
and one is not in use, and the average class size there is 
close to 25. I think it’s slightly less than 25 in each of 
the six classrooms in use.

At Myrtle Hall —  there are three buildings at 
Myrtle Hall, an annex and a second building and the original 
building, numbered 1, 2 and 3, in the information that I 
have, and there are six unoccupied classrooms in that total 
building, and I don't remember whether it's 15 or a total of 
16 rooms, but it might be 18 rooms, and the total class 
size, the average class size, in Myrtle Hall is about



243

34-point-something, just slightly under 35.
Q As opposed to what average in Eliza Clark?
A Just slightly under 25 in Clark.
Q What does this tell you as you are observing or

trying to determine the validity of the school zone lines 
between those two schools?

A Well, there are certain factors, educational 
factors, facility factors, which tend to identify the 
potential level of quality education, quality instruction, 
quality outcomes from instruction, and one of these is 
related to class size, and a differentiation of as much as 
10 pupils per room between two schools would be an index 
which would indicate that there might be greater potential, 
strongly might be greater potential, in the smaller class 
size school for success with youngsters than in the school 
with large class size.

Q I ask you whether or not, Mr. Neuwien, you have 
had occasion during your on-site study here to actually see 
this eastern zone of the Eliza Clark School, the zone line 
dividing it from the fctyrtle Hall School zone, which is 
Wilson Avenue, and —

A Yes. I can —
Q -- report what you recall about that zone line and



244

your observation as to its propriety.
A Well, I mean I don't know about the propriety, but 

other than the fact that this —  there is no natural barrier 
here between the two school districts as we would have to 
some degree a natural barrier in the matter of a railroad, 
a spur line.

This is a roadway, and the youngsters who live on 
this side of the street, of the roadway, may attend this 
school and the ones who live here attend this school.

Q Now, let's —
A This is a perfectly normal situation, to have 

some boundary line which is identified by a street or 
whatever.

There are other factors in this school situation.
Q Let's go into some of those factors.

First of all, you said the children living on this 
side. Would you tell us whether or not it's correct that 
the houses located on the eastern side of Wilson Avenue are 
occupied by Negroes and the houses on the western side 
within the Clark zone are occupied by whites?

A That's true, and this is the dividing line between 
the two districts.

This is a Negro school, and this is a white



245

school.
Q Well, from a standpoint of educational 

considerations, -- well, from all standpoints —  would you 
be able to find any justification for drawing the line in 
this area, pupil population, school utilization, school 
location and what have you?

Can you find any justification for drawing this 
line with the exception of a desire to include within the 
Clark zone all white children living in this area and to 
include within the Hall School all Negro children living in 
that area?

A \- '/ I can see no advantage to be gained by the line 
being drawn at that particular point to accomplish any 
desirable educational outcome. As a matter of fact, again 
with some knowledge, but not complete knowledge, of all the 
factors that are necessary in order to effectively draw 
school boundaries, there might be consideration given after 
study, and careful study, to work away to some degree from 
these long districts that operate on a north-south axis and 
there might be some cutting across the school districts and 
redistricting the population in order to more effectively 
use the school facilities and to equalize the educational 
class load which teachers face, and this could be done in



246

terms of the actual available population, —
Q Is it —
A -- which again I don't have census data on how 

many youngsters are in this particular part of this 
particular school district, but this can be determined.

Q And is it your response, then, based on the 
information available to you and your study of this 
material, that there would be educational advantages in 
drawing some of these lines in an east-west direction 
rather than in a northerly-southerly direction as they're 
presently drawn?

A Yes.
I mean: If we want to go after this same

example, that if it were possible in this reallocation of 
the territory, if in that reallocation the school size or 
the class size could be lowered in this school and -- I 
don't believe in loading in a high class size in one 
building to equalize in the other building, but if these 
could be equalized then there would be an educational 
advantage, —

Q Now, you are probably familiar -- 
A —  plus the fact —
Q -- with the fact that --



247

A -- plus the fact that this school has six vacant 
rooms and this one has one. There's a total of seven vacant 
rooms between these two schools, and better equalization 
might be made of that space by again a redistricting.

Q Well, you will recall, I believe, that a new 
elementary school was opened just within the last few 
months in the Riverton area.

A Yes.
Q Would you discuss the site of that school with 

regard to what you have been telling us about the adjoining 
schools?

A Well, I mean this same concept might be moved 
further to the west and possibly include the Riverton 
district as well, because now Riverton is at the edge of the 
developed population area, and this is just by viewing the 
land. I mean this land is available, but it is not now 
developed for housing.

But under the present condition Riverton and Clark 
and Hall and Booker T. Washington and to some degree maybe 
Oliver may be considered in a complete reshuffle of district 
lines in order to more equitably distribute the student 
population.

Q Can I safely conclude from your testimony that it



248

is your opinion that as the lines are presently drawn they 
are poor from the standpoint of educational criteria and 
good educational —

MR. LUCKETT: I object to leading the witness and
summarizing his testimony into an argument, if the Court 
please.

THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
By Mr. Bell:

Q Let me just rephrase the question and ask you how
you would categorize the zones you have been discussing from 
the standpoint of good educational administration. Do they 
meet the standards or do they not?

A From the background that I tried to develop 
earlier, I would say I think these areas could be more 
effectively districted in order to meet, I think, better 
levels of educational opportunity.

Q I ask you whether or not —
Well, let's go into the high school zoning. Let's 

discuss the high school zoning.
J-2-A and S-2-A serve the whole of Clarksdale 

above the Illinois Central Railroad tracks.
S-l-A and J-l-A serve junior and senior high 

school students who reside in the whole of Clarksdale



249

located below the Illinois Central Railroad tracks.
Would you make some comments on the advisability 

of those zones with regard to where the schools are located 
and other applicable factors?

A Well, we have a variable in the senior high school 
location because the senior high school serving Area J-2-A 
is, as I understand it, now a temporary and terminable 
measure and will not continue. So, we’ll have to think 
about the fact of the junior high school location being 
here, which it is.

Q Now, you're pointing to the site on the map of the 
Bobo and —

A And the annex.
Q And Dorr?
A And the Dorr buildings.

And, so, this is the secondary school facility 
which would, I believe, be considered in any consideration 
of the secondary school district because the secondary 
school —  the senior high school area or senior high school 
students will have to be relocated from their present 
location in the joint city-county senior high school.

Q How about the Negro high school situation?
A It is located near the Oliver School. Higgins



250

School is located here, and again, I mean, in terms of the 
total population —  I mean the total population spreads all 
the way across here and down to here, and that population 
then must move to as far away from the center of population 
as there is within the city.

Q Well, then, would you say that the zone line that 
separates the two high school zones for the city is a valid 
and defensible line from the standpoint of education or 
educational administration or does it have failings?

A The only thing I would indicate is that the 
Higgins School is again located about as far away from the 
total population which it is designed to serve as you can 
get it, and from an administrative point of view that 
location, and the other consideration, is not effective,

Q How about —
A This school, the junior high school -- if this is 

to be the district, it is more closely related to the center 
of population because here it is; but the other school, 
which is presently being used cooperatively, is also over 
here, and it is in the same condition as Higgins as far as 
being away from the population is concerned.

Q You understand, of course, the zone line runs down 
along the Illinois Central Railroad track through its whole



251

entry of the city, and it is my understanding from time to 
time that railroad tracks are used as school zone lines.

Would there be any justification for making 
exceptions to that in this case or is that completely 
justifiable?

A I don't think that a railroad just automatically 
becomes a stated district line. I mean it might be -- if 
it's a high barrier and if there are no crossings or 
underpasses, it might be just a barrier which can't be 
penetrated and then it might become the reason for 
organizing it as a district boundary.

Q Have you actually traveled along the route of that 
railroad and does it or does it not make up this type of 
barrier -- it's not penetrable?

A With the frequency of overpasses and, you know, 
underpasses, primarily, and then marked and cared-for 
crossings -- I mean it does not seem to be a barrier, and 
then in terms of the information which was made available in 
the second interrogatory, where the total number of 
youngsters who cross the railroad tracks, either the spur 
line or the Illinois Central, is a rather high number in 
terms of the total enrollment in the total schools -- I 
can't remember —  I have on my desk, but I can't remember



252

—  the total number, but It was a large number of young 
people who cross the tracks, and I would say that it 
evidently does not seem to be a barrier, and because of the 
piercings and underpasses and/or guarded crossings, with the 
exception of this part of that spur, it would seem to me --

Q You are pointing to part of the track down at the 
bottom of the Zone E-2-A and E-l-B?

A And E-l-B, where the crossings from -- I don’t 
know what street —  about one third of the distance down 
this track there are unguarded crossings, unmarked 
crossings, but the rest of it seems to work effectively. As 
far as a hazard is concerned, it does not seem to be a 
hazard in this community.

Q Well, then, would it be possible to divide the 
zones between the Higgins School and, let us say, either the 
Clarksdale-Coahoma or the Dorr and Bobo High School 
facilities in such a way as to increase the efficiency from 
the standpoint of educational administration; and, if so, 
how could that be done?

A This is based on the actual numbers of young 
people from the elementary identified zones who live in the 
elementary identified zones, who attend secondary schools, 
who are in the secondary school level, and the total number



253

of youngsters that we started with.
The total, over-all population could be served 

by a district line coming down that way.
Q Now, let's say where.
A Well, let's not follow -- let's stay on this side 

of the river, come down this way.
Q A line that would go generally from the north to 

the south direction, --
A Diagonally.
Q -- somewhat east --
A Of the river.
Q —  of the Sunflower River?
A Sunflower.
Q It would run from the north down to the south?
A This would satisfy, according to the number of

youngsters who are now in secondary schools —  I mean this 
would give an equal segment of the population to each side 
of that dividing line.

Now, there would have to be a lot of other 
considerations made, --

Q Yes.
A —  but this would be a starting point, if this 

were to be considered, because, I mean, it does divide the



254

population.
Q And, in your opinion, would a line drawn generally 

in this direction overcome some of the handicaps that you 
discussed as regards the line as it is presently drawn?

A If we consider the occupied school, secondary 
school, the joint county-city school, yes; it would bring 
the population closer to the school service center. In 
other words, this population would be closer to this school 
and this population now is close to that school; this 
population would be closer up here than it is going across 
in this direction; this population certainly would be closer 
to Higgins than it would be to the school on the extreme 
western boundary, across the boundary.

Q In your opinion, as you observe the way the lines 
have been drawn in this plan, or is it your opinion that the 
desire to maintain as much racial segregation as possible 
was the primary consideration in drawing these lines as 
they are presently drawn?

A Well, my only observation there would be that this 
boundary would make this segregation effective.

Q Not only the east-west boundary we just discussed, 
but in view of all the boundary lines for both elementary 
and junior and senior high schools?



255

A I mean again —  I mean the railroad tracks —  

when it becomes —  when the railroad tracks become a part of 
the boundary, either of the elementary or the secondary 
boundary, by reason of the fact that this population here is 
primarily white and this population here is primarily Negro, 
I mean it certainly makes it an effective segregation of the 
population.

Q Well, then, could you answer the question fairly 
directly, and then give any further support that you would 
want to, as to in your opinion whether or not the primary 
concern in drawing the zone lines as they are presently 
drawn was to preserve a maximum amount of segregation in the 
schools?

A I would rather state that differently, and that is 
that if reconsideration were given to the district lines in 
order to promote a desegregation of the schools that it can 
be more effectively done than is exhibited here.

Q Well, are you unable to answer the question as I 
asked it, Mr. Neuwien?

A Yes, because I would have to interpret, you know, 
what the purpose was in the minds of people,

Q Well --
A I'm talking about the outcome.



256

Q Well, let me ask you this: Based on the way the
lines are drawn and the results from the way they are drawn, 
with reference to the line such as the one in Eliza Clark, 
such as the east-west line down the railroad track here, 
such as the southerly line, southern boundary line, of the 
Eliza Clark zone, would it be your opinion that one of the 
major, if not the major, factors in drawing these lines in 
this manner was to maintain segregation of schools?

A Well, I mean from my point of view I would still 
make my proposal, whether it was effective in maintaining 
segregation of the schools.

Q Your answer is that it was effective for this 
purpose, whether this was the purpose or not?

A Yes, because I don't want to interpret the 
purpose.

Q All right.
Would you return to the witness chair, please?
I have a few more questions.
I would like you to discuss just a bit:

Considering the lines as they are and having the result that 
they do, with the Negroes being contained in the Higgins 
Junior and Senior High School and the elementary schools 
being the Riverton and Booker T. Washington and Myrtle Hall



and Oliver, from an educational standpoint, the quality 
education you are speaking of, what is happening to the 
Negro pupils in the schools? What is happening to them in 
terms of pupil class average when compared with the whites, 
the teacher-pupil enrollment and some of these other 
figures?

A Well, as I said earlier, in this matter of class 
size within individual schools and within the two schools 
dealt with as groups, Negro and white, as the two separate 
groups, there is a very definite difference in what is a 
basic factor in terms of control of quality education.

In the Clark School the average class size, room 
enrollment, is 27.1 and in Heidelberg it's 24.5; in 
Kirkpatrick it's 25.5, and 23.6 in Oakhurst; in Booker T. 
Washington it's 37.0; in Oliver it's 34.3 and in Myrtle Hall 
it's 35.8; in Riverton it's 34.3.

Then the average enrollments in each of those two 
groups is 25.1 for Clark, Heidelberg and Kirkpatrick and 
Oakhurst considered as a total group, and 35.3 for 
Booker T. Washington, Oliver and Myrtle Hall and Riverton 
considered as a group.

THE COURT: I didn't quite understand that. Was
that enrollment or --

257



258

THE WITNESS: This is --
THE COURT: -- average daily attendance?
THE WITNESS: No; no. This is actual classroom

enrollment, not average attendance, because for determining 
a class size I think most of us would -- most educators 
would agree that -- I mean whether the child is present or 
not, you know, has nothing to do with how big the class is.
I mean if he's absent today that's what gets reflected in 
average daily attendance.

THE COURT: That's the reason I asked you the
question. I understood you to be talking about daily 
attendance.

THE WITNESS: No. I am sorry. I mean actual
enrollment, the number of youngsters who are registered in 
an individual classroom, and this is the way this was 
reported in the information that came in in the 
interrogatory material.

THE COURT: All right.
THE WITNESS: So, we have this as one differential

which is effective in relationship to quality education.
The second factor that is related to quality 

education is the financial factor, and the financial factor 
is made up primarily of the total salaries paid, and the



budget figures which I had the opportunity to review, I 
mean, indicated that they didn't deviate in percentage 
breakdown from normal budget distribution. Somewheres 
between 70 and 75, 78 per cent of normal budgets as 
evaluative, whether they're effective or not, with whatever 
kind of money they have, has this kind of a breakdown,
75-25, with 75 being for salaries and 25 per cent being for 
other expenditures of operation.

I'm talking about purely operational budgets.
And, so, the two factors, these two major 

breakdowns, within a budget, the amount of salaries that are 
paid and also the way in which these teachers are implemented 
for their instructions, instructional supplies and equipment 
and the kinds of lighting and all the rest of the facilities 
within a school, also affect the quality of education, and 
the example that I have used on many occasions is that a 
very good teacher can do a very good job working under very, 
very poor conditions, but then this very good teacher 
working under ideal conditions we would assume could do a 
very much better job.

So, these factors, then, enter the picture along 
with class size, and in the average per pupil expenditure 
which was in the 1964-'65 school budget, again which I had

259



260

the opportunity to review, for the four elementary schools 
which are called the Negro schools the per pupil 
expenditure, total operation, was $202.62, and then for 
salary only this was $136, —

I'll drop the cents' figure —
MR. BELL: All right.
THE WITNESS: -- out of here.

-- and the other operational costs were $66, totaling two 
hundred and two, a hundred and thirty-six per pupil for 
teacher salaries, instructional salaries.

By Mr. Bell:
Q Which schools? White or Negro?
A These are the Negro schools.

And then in the corresponding group of schools, 
the other four schools, --

Q These are the white schools?
A That's right.

-- the total operational expenditure per pupil was $295 as 
opposed to the $202 that I just indicated for the Negro 
schools, and for teacher salaries only the salary figure in 
the white schools, white children's schools, is $212 per 
pupil as opposed to $136 in the Negro schools, which is a 
difference, plus difference, of $76 per pupil on salary



261

expenditures.
The other operational costs in the elementary 

schools, white schools, is $83 as opposed to $66 in the 
Negro schools, which is a differential, plus differential, 
in favor of the white schools of $17.

Now, at the junior-senior high school level 
combined, because this is the way the budget was proposed, 
in the Negro schools the total expenditure for all 
operations per pupil was $292; for salaries only it was 
$221, and the other operational expenditures beyond salaries 
was $71.

Now, in the white secondary schools the total 
operational cost per pupil was $424 as opposed to $292 in the 
Negro schools. The salary figure in the white schools was 
$300 per pupil as opposed to $221 per pupil in the Negro 
schools, which is a differential plus in favor of the white 
schools of $79, and the other expenditures in the white 
schools $124 per pupil as opposed to seventy-one in the 
Negro schools, which is a fifty-two-dollar differential.

Q Could you tie that disparity into education?
I hear —  I had it in another school suit -- the 

statement made, "Well, sure, they paid the white teachers 
more, but they were harder to get into the school system and



262

there were plenty of Negro teachers and it was a matter of 
supply and demand and it didn't make any difference to the 
students."

Would that be true or is there a correlation in 
education or the lack of education that the Negro children 
are getting that is reflected in the disparity between the 
amount spent on Negro children per child and the amount 
spent on white children per pupil?

A Well, I mean, the example you gave in identifying 
the question is really a part of the answer actually, and 
that, however --in other words, if there is a large group 
of people eligible and available for teaching and you can 
get them easily for less money, this might be the thing to 
do; but again what's being bought for the young people is 
the opportunity not just to have a nursemaid to take care of 
them, but it's to provide an instructional program, and, so, 
you just don't go out and hire the first 10 people you meet. 
You hire them to work as classroom teachers. There comes 
the matter of selectivity, and, so, you can get lots of 
workers to do lots of kinds of things, but in order to get 
the best people you have to be willing to pay for it, and 
this is related in terms of teachers, too, and, so, if a 
quality educational program is desired, you have to pay



263

teachers at least as well as other competitive areas where 
they might have an opportunity to teach and you have to be 
in a position to attract the top that you can get with the 
kind of money you have to spend, and, so, there is a 
relationship between how much money is spent and the kind of 
education that you get for young people.

Q Would you also just briefly relate again to 
quality education the disparity in the number of pupils in 
the average class in Negro schools as compared to white 
schools and -- I think you may have said something about the 
number -- just teachers that are available in the white 
schools as compared to the Negro schools?

A Well, the, I mean, class size —  I mean the best 
example and simplest example —  not that it has to be 
simple, but the best example -- is that we hope that the 
teacher who is working in a classroom with young people has 
something to give to these children, and in order to get the 
most from a teacher we have to make it possible for that 
teacher to get through to each youngster, to be able to know 
and understand the needs of individual children, and it 
doesn't mean that there is individual instruction so that 
each teacher works individually with each child every day in 
the room, but it's getting to know the children, so that, to



264

make it ridiculous, because there is a break point, a 
teacher working with 75 in a first grade certainly could not 
be expected to promote a developmental reading program as 
effectively as an equally qualified teacher working with 30.

Q To a less extent, would it also be true that a 
teacher working with 35 would have, all things considered, 
less success than one who was working with 25 on the same 
basis?

A That's the basis upon which we operate, and we 
have enough evidence to prove that this is true.

Q Well, how --
A Now, there have been some experimental programs 

and research programs which have disagreed with this, but 
the majority of the research indicates that reasonable class 
size -- this doesn't mean you have to get down to 15, but 
reasonable class size -- promotes quality or more effective 
instruction.

Q Well, could you just summarize again your 
suggestions as to how the Clarksdale system could be zoned 
in order to balance these educational opportunities that you 
were discussing?

A I would think, starting with the elementary school 
district lines, that with all of the information that is



265

available and which can he obtained in terms of population, 
population location, what the potential of growth is and 
when it's going to come, and then locating the young people 
specifically so that they can be dealt with, that the 
districts could be completely reexamined, and my outlook 
would be that -- I mean I would not want to tinker --it 
would not be my approach to tinker -- with what exists. I 
mean I would like to start from scratch, and I would think 
this would probably be most effective, in taking the total 
population and trying to find out, with the other fixed 
factors, which are the schools, because -- I mean there's 
not much that can be done about them, and taking these 
fixed factors and the population and trying to find out how 
can the youngsters be served best with the existing 
facilities, and then also what are the future needs for 
additional school facilities, and then pretty much the same 
thing should be done or ought to be done with the secondary 
school district approach.

Q Then if these suggestions were followed and the 
zones drawn up to give a better balance, just as pupils per 
class and all of the other factors you have discussed, would 
there be the possibility of a greater amount of, well, 
desegregation than is presently possible or less?



266

What would your feeling be on that?
A Yes; I would think so, because I think if this 

were done to best serve the population, the total population, 
and if the district lines were drawn on that basis, without 
any regard for the color of the children, then I think that 
the other purpose which you mentioned -- I mean the 
desegregation of schools -- would be better accomplished.
Of course, you wouldn't -- I mean better accomplished would 
not mean very much, because this didn't accomplish any. I 
mean it came out zero for a lot of your fortuitous 
circumstances.

Q You wouldn't be drawing any zone lines purely with 
the idea of accomplishing desegregation, would you?

A No. No. I would --no. No; I don't think so, 
because I think then you would have some leaning over 
backward, too, from my point of view, because I think that 
the purposes of schools are to serve the needs of 
youngsters, all of the youngsters, and to best serve them, 
and I think this is the basis for it.

I think that if there comes to be a judgment where 
a judgment can be made one way or another and effectively 
meet the physical qualifications of closeness to the school 
for pupils and this kind of thing, and travel time and



267

hazardous conditions and so forth, and if desegregation can 
be served by making one of two judgments, then X would think 
that this would be desirable; but I don't think that this 
should be the basic purpose when we're talking about all 
kids.

Q How about the faculty being assigned on the basis 
of zones?

Do you have any opinion, particularly with regard
to what you have been saying about selection of faculty and
getting the best faculty, as to how faculties should be 
assigned in the schools to better this educational thing 
that you're talking about?

A Well, I mean it's my experience as well as my 
feeling that the atmosphere within a school, the atmosphere
within which the youngster meets the teacher and is
fostered in its educational program, is almost completely 
affected by the teachers with whom this youngster works, 
and, so, I mean I feel very strongly that these teachers 
should be the very best, not just the ones we can get very 
easily or get cheaper or so on, but they should be the best 
teachers that we can afford in whatever the situation is, 
because some communities can afford more money than others, 
but I also believe that in this success in the educational



venture that a youngster -- I mean he has to feel that he 
belongs in the situation where he is, and I would think no 
matter how effective someone effected a desegregation of 
schools, if this were the prime purpose, and if this only 
meant moving young people from one school district to 
another so that there were some white children and some 
Negro children in each of the schools or in most of the 
schools where it would be somewhat natural to be able to get 
them, and if this did not affect faculty placement, I mean,
1 would think this program would lose a great deal of its 
effectiveness, because I think that in either case —  I mean 
youngsters to some degree, and I'm thinking particularly 
about the elementary youngster, would feel somewhat out of 
place in this new and strange environment.

Q And how could you cure this problem as a part of 
the —

A I would think by some distribution of faculty as 
well as pupils.

Q Would this be on the basis of race or could you do 
it on the basis of merit and which teacher was best for the 
job?

A Well, this is the way I would try to approach it
-- on the basis we need a certain number of first grade

268



269

teachers in any system, and how can we get them best and how 
can we assign them to the situations where they can do the 
best, and, so, regardless —  I mean I wouldn't want to see 
half of the faculty, by dictum, Negro in an elementary 
school and the other half white. I think this would be 
silly, because I don't think this would affect anything; but 
I don't think they shouldn't be there in some kind of a 
situation because of their difference in color, and I’m not 
talking about the teachers' treatment. I'm talking about 
what's going to happen to the youngsters. That's my 
interest.

MR. BELL: Just a second, please.
No further questions, your Honor.
THE WITNESS: Could I just make one addition?
I mean it's a follow-up and something that I 

wanted to have the opportunity --
THE COURT: Go right ahead.
THE WITNESS: Is this all right?
THE COURT: Go right ahead.
THE WITNESS: Okay, sir.
This is something I just have as information, and 

I don't know the background, but I think it's indicative of 
this matter we're talking about, youngsters and the



270

educational program for them.
There's an additional difference, and in 

Heidelberg School, for example, there are 15 assigned 
teachers and there are only 14 occupied rooms, and in the 
Oakhurst School there are 17 assigned teachers and only 13 
occupied rooms, and in the case of the Oakhurst School —
I mean it is noted that these teachers spend part time in 
Oakhurst and part time in some other schools. Now, I don’t 
know, but I kind of surmise that these might be what I 
think of as itinerant supervisors working in the field of 
art, music or whatever, but this is not identified; but, 
nevertheless, there are these five teachers, which happens 
to be 10 per cent of the total number of teachers beyond the 
total number of classroom assigned teachers, and then also 
in the Kirkpatrick School there is a small class size of 13 
which is identified as a class for mentally retarded. Now, 
there's no comparable situation in the Negro schools.

So, this is what I mean by the attempt to serve 
the needs of all young people.

So, I mean this was the additional thing that 
seemed important to me.

THE COURT: All right.
You may reserve your cross examination until in



the morning.
Court is adjourned until 9

morning.
(Thereupon, at 4:57 p. 

adjourned until 9 a. m., Friday,

o'clock tomorrow

m., the Court 
April 9, 1965.)