Jackson Municipal Separate School District v. Evers Mimeographed Record Vol. I
Public Court Documents
January 1, 1964
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Jackson Municipal Separate School District v. Evers Mimeographed Record Vol. I, 1964. a62b00d4-b89a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/affb4eb3-a1a7-4002-8896-1b168748c0d6/jackson-municipal-separate-school-district-v-evers-mimeographed-record-vol-i. Accessed April 22, 2025.
Copied!
IN THE
UNITED STATES
COURT of APPEALS
FOR THE
F I F T H C I R C U I T
No. 21851
JACKSON MUNICIPAL SEPARATE
SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL#
APPELLANTS
VERSUS
DARRELL KENYATTA EVERS, ET AL,
APPELLEES
Volume I
Appeals from fiie United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi,
Jackson Division
MIMEOGRAPHED RECORD
... x
Page
No.
Caption Page
Complaint
Motion For Preliminary Injunction
Notice of Dismissal of Action as to Party Plaintiff
Willis H. Logan
Defendant1s Motion & Affidavit For Security For Costs
Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss Complaint
Affidavit of Kirby P. Walker in Support of Defendants'
Motion To Dismiss Complaint
Order Abolishing Attendance Centers & Setting Up
Procedure For Assigning Eligible Students
Order Authorizing Superintendent to Make Temporary
Assignment of Pupils
Petition
Application For School Admission & Assignment
Pupil’s Certificate of Non-Affiliation With
Secret Societies
Order Taking Case Under Advisement for Disposition
of Motion to Dismiss
Order Overruling Defendants' Motion For Security
For Costs
Letter Opinion of The Court
Order Sustaining Motion To Dismiss
Notice of Appeal
Order of The Court of Appeals
Designation Of Contents of Record on Appeal
Judgment of Court of Appeals
Opinion of The Court of Appeals
Notice of Motion
Motion To Intervene
Motion of Defendants to Stay Proceedings Pending
Action Of Court of Appeals
Exhibit "A":Petition of Appellees For Recall
Of Mandate From The District Court
Order Granting Extension of Time in Which To Answer
Order Allowing Intervention As Defendants
Pleas And Answer Of Interveners
Order Granting Stay of Proceedings
Preliminary Injunction Order
Motion For Extension of Time Within Which to
Answer
Order Granting Extension of Time In Which To File
Answer
Order of The Court of Appeals
Answer
Interrogatories
Objection To Interrogatories
Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Objections To
Interrogatorie s
Answers To Interrogatories
Motion To Be Added As Intervenor Parties
Order Sustaining Motion To Add Intervenor Parties
1211
14
15
16
18
23
24
25
28
29
37
38
59
80
81
83
92
97
98
100
117
119
PageWo.
Transcript of Testimony 121
Testimony: SAMUEL BAILEY 128
Testimony: MYKLIE B. EVERS 142
Testimony: M S . EDNA MARIE SINGLETON 148
Testimony: ELIZABETH WHITE 153
Testimony: MRS. KATHRYN THOMAS 157
Testimony: KIRBY P. WALKER 163
Plaintiff's Exhibits 1 & 2: Interrogatories 164
Plaintiff's Exhibit j$ : Letter & Petition 203
MEMORANDUM FOR CLERK, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
APPEAL FROM THE UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI, JACKSON DIVISION
JACKSON MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL,
APPELLANTS
VERSUS
DARRELL KENYATTA EVERS, ET AL,
APPELLEES
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS:
Honorable Joe T. Patterson, Attorney General
Jackson, Mississippi
Honorable Dugas Shands, Assistant Attorney General
Jackson, Mississippi
Honorable Thomas H. Watkins, 800 Plaza Building
Jackson, Mississippi
Honorable Robert C. Cannada, 700 Petroleum Building
Jackson, Mississippi
Honorable Dan H. Shell, 340 F irst National Bank Building
Jackson, Mississippi
Honorable R. Carter Pittman, P . O. Box 89l
Dalton, Georgia
Honorable George Stephen Leonard, 1730 K, Street N.W.
Washington, D. C.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES:
Honorable Derrick A. Bell, J r . , 10 Columbus Circle
New York 19, New York
Honorable Jack Young, 1151/2 North Farish Street
Jackson, Mississippi
(R-l) 2
IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION
C O M P L A I N T
(Filed March 4, 1963 )
DARRELL KENYATTA EVERS and REENE DENISE
EVERS, minors by MED GAR W. EVERS and MRS.
MYRL3E B. EVERS, their parents and next friends,
and
SHIRLEY D. BAILEY, VERNA A. BAILEY and
THOMAS J. BAILEY, minors by SAMUEL BAILEY,
their father and next friend,
and
EARLINE THOMAS and CAROLYN THOMAS, minors
by MRS. KATHRYN THOMAS, their mother and
next friend,
and
WILLIS H. LOGAN, minor by MRS. A. M. E.
LOGAN, his mother and next friend,
and
DEREK JEROME SINGLETON, minor by MRS. EDNA
MARIE SINGLETON, his mother and next friend,
and
BRENDA LA FAYE WHITE, minor by
MRS. ELIZABETH WHITE, her mother and
next friend,
Plaintiffs,
ORIGINAL
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 3379
3
vs.
JACKSON MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICT, :
KIRBY P . WALKER, Superintendent of Jackson City
Schools; LESTER ALVIS, Chairman, C. H. KING, :
Vice-Chairman, LAMAR NOBLE, Secretary,
W. G. MIZE and J. W. UNDERWOOD, Members,
Defendants :
CR-2) x.
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to the pro
visions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 1343(3), this being a
suit in equity authorized by law, Title 42, United States Code, Section
1983, to be commenced by any citizen of the United States or other
person within the jurisdiction thereof to redress the deprivation, under
color of statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of a State,
of rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution and
laws of the United States. The rights, privileges and immunities sought
to be secured by this action are rights, privileges and immunities
secured by the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as hereinafter more
fully appears.
2.
This is a proceeding for a preliminary and permanent injunc
tion enjoining The Board of Trustees of the Jackson Municipal Separate
School District, Jackson, Mississippi, its members and the Superin
tendent of City Schools of Jackson, Mississippi, from continuing their
policy, practice, custom and usage of operating a compulsory biracial
school system in Jackson, Mississippi, and for other relief as herein
4
after more fully appears.
The plaintiffs in this case are Darrell Kenyatta Evers and
Reene Denise Evers, minors by Medgar W. Evers and Mrs. Myrlie B.
Evers, their parents and next friends; Shirley D. Bailey, Verna A.
Bailey and Thomas J. Bailey, minors by Samuel Bailey, their father
and next friend; Earline Thomas and Carolyn Thomas, minors by
Mrs. Kathryn Thomas, their mother and next friend; Willis H. Logan,
a minor by Mrs. A. M. E. Logan, his mother and next friend; Derek
Jerome Singleton, a minor by Mrs. Edna Marie Singleton, his mother
(R-3) and next friend; Brenda La Faye White, a minor by Mrs. Eliza
beth White, her mother and next friend. Plaintiffs are all members of
the Negro race and bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf
of all other Negro children and their parents in Jackson, Mississippi,
who are similarly situated and affected by the policy, practice, custom
and usage complained of herein. Plaintiffs are all citizens of the United
States and the State of Mississippi, residing in Hinds County, Missis
sippi. The minor plaintiffs and other minor Negro children similarly
situated are eligible to attend and are presently attending public schools
in Jackson, Mississippi, which are under the jurisdiction, management
and control of the defendants and which are all limited by defendants to
attendance by Negro children, pursuant to the policy, practice, custom
and usage of defendants of operating a compulsory biracial school
system. The members of the class on behalf of which plaintiff sue are
so numerous as to make it impracticable to bring them all individually
before this Court, but there are common questions of law and fact
3.
5
Involved, common grievances arising out of common wrongs, and
common relief is sought for each plaintiff and for each member of the
class. The plaintiffs fairly and adequately represent the interest of
the class.
4.
The defendants in this case are the Jackson Separate School
District, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Missis
sippi, Lester Alvis, Ghairman, G. H. King, Vice-Chairman and Lamar
Noble, Secretary of the said Jackson Separate School District, V/. G.
J. W.
Mize and 2xkx/Underwood, members of the said Jackson Separate School
District, and Kirby P. Walker, Superintendent of Schools of Jackson,
Mississippi. The defendant Board of Trustees of the Jackson Separate
School District are charged by the laws of the State of Mississippi with
the duty of operating a system of free public education in the City of
Jackson, Mississippi and said Board is presently operating public
schools in said City pursuant to said laws. Defendant Kirby P. Walker,
as the Superintendent of the Jackson Separate School District is the
chief administrative officer of said Board.
(R-4) 5.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants herein, acting under color of
the authority vested in them by the laws of the State of Mississippi have
pursued and are presently pursuing a policy, custom, practice and
usage of operating the public school system of the City of Jackson,
Mississippi, on a racially segregated basis. This racially segregated
school system came into existence pursuant to the requirements of
state law, and is presently continued, perpetuated and maintained by
6
defendants as a matter of state law, policy, custom and usage. The
Jackson public school system consists of 34 "white" schools which are
limited to attendance by white students only and which are staffed by
white teachers, white principals and other white professional personnel.
Said white schools are located in various parts of the City of Jackson,
Mississippi, and regardless of location, these schools may be attended
by white children only. The Jackson public school system also consists
of a secondary system composed of 16 "Negro" schools limited to atten
dance by Negro students. These schools are staffed by Negro teachers,
principals and other Negro professional personnel. Said Negro schools
are likewise located in various areas of the City of Jackson, Mississip
pi, and regardless of location, these schools may be attended by Negro
children only. Pursuant to state law, state policy, state custom and
state usage, attendance at any public school in Jackson, Mississippi, is
determined first upon the basis of race and color, Negro students are
required to attend schools limited to Negro students without regard to
their residences, some of whom are closer to schools designated for
white children.
6 .
The assignment of professional personnel is also determined
solely by the race and color of the children attending the particular
school and the race and color of the personnel to be assigned.
(R-5) 7.
A dual set of school zone or attendance area lines is also
maintained. One set relates to the white elementary schools; another
set relates to the Negro elementary school. These lines overlap where
7
Negro and white school children reside in the same residential area.
Certain Negro elementary schools "feed into" certain Negro junior high
schools where same are maintained in connection with Negro elementary
schools; and certain Negro junior high schools "feed into" certain Negro
high schools where same are maintained in connection with Negro junior
high schools. The same "feeder school" system is applicable In the
case of white schools.
8.
Budgets relating to school operation contain racial designations
reflecting the compulsory biracia! policy followed by defendants. All
new construction plans proposed, adopted and executed by defendants
are based upon the fact that there is in operation a compulsory biracial
system of schools. All funds appropriated and expended by defendants
are also appropriated and expended by defendants separately for Negro
schools and separately for white schools.
9.
The defendants' policies, practices, customs and usages of
racial segregation herein detailed show the determined policy of the
State of Mississippi to maintain racial segregation in the public schools,
which policy is amply reflected in the Constitution and Statutes of the
State of Mississippi requiring segregation or aiding in the maintenance
of segregation: Art. 8, 1207, Miss. Const., requires maintenance of
separate schools for white and colored children; §3841.3 Miss. Code
Annot., authorizes the attorney general to represent school officials in
suits challenging validity of school operation; §4065.3 Miss. Code
Annot., entire executive branch to prohibit by all lawful means the
8
racial integration of public (R-6) schools and other public facilities;
§6220.5 Miss. Code Annot., forbids attendance of whites with Negroes
in any public schools of high school level or lower on penalty of fine,
jail or both; I 6334-11 -- forbids enrollment of child in any school
except that to which assigned or transferred according to state statute.
10.
The plaintiffs and the class they represent have petitioned
defendants in vain to desegregate the public school system of Jackson,
Mississippi, as required by the United States Supreme Court’s decision
in 1954 holding unconstitutional racial segregation in public schools.
On or about August 15, 1962, the adult plaintiffs and other Negro parents
submitted a petition to the defendant Board of Trustees and the Superin
tendent of the Jackson Municipal Separate School District, referring to
the decisions of the United States Supreme Court concerning racial
segregation in public education, and calling on the defendants "to take
immediate steps to reorganize the public schools under (their) juris
diction on a non-discriminatory basis ." The defendants did not reply to
this petition although the names of the signers were subsequently pub
lished in local newspapers.
11.
Plaintiffs have not sought to utilize the provisions of the State
Pupil Assignment Act as adopted in 1954, Miss. Code Annot., §§ 6334-
01 to 6334-07, and submit that the exhaustion of remedies provided by
this Act would prove futile and inadequate, in view of the state policy
and the policy of the defendants, to provide the relief which plaintiffs
seek here.
9
Plaintiffs, and members of the class which they represent, are
injured by the refusal of defendants to cease operation of a compulsory
biracial school system in Jackson, Mississippi. The operation of a
compulsory biracial school system violates rights of the plaintiffs and
members of their class which are secured to them by (R-7) the due
process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the Federal Constitution. The plaintiffs, and members of their class,
are injured by the policy of assigning teachers, principals and other pro
fessional school personnel on the basis of the race and color of the chil
dren attending a particular school and the race and color of the person to
be assigned. The injury which plaintiffs and members of their class
suffer as a result of the operation of a compulsory biracial school sys
tem is irreparable and shall continue to irreparably injure plaintiffs
and their class until enjoined by this court, /my other relief to which
plaintiffs and those similarly situated could be remitted would be attend
ed by such uncertainties and delays as to deny substantial relief, would
involve a multiplicity of suits, cause further irreparable injury and
occasion damage, vexation and inconvenience, not only to the plaintiffs
and those similarly situated but to defendants as public officials.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that this court ad
vance this cause on the docket and order a speedy hearing of this action
according to law and after such hearing:
1. Enter a decree enjoining defendants, their agents, employ
ees, successors and all persons in active concert and participation with
them from operating a compulsory biracial school system in Jackson,
12.
10
Mississippi;
2. Enter a decree enjoining defendants, their agents, employ
ees, successors and all persons in active concert and participation with
them from continuing to maintain a dual scheme or pattern of school
zone lines or attendance area lines based on race and color;
3. Enter a decree enjoining defendants, their agents, employ
ees, successors and all persons in active concert and participation with
them from assigning pupils to schools in Jackson, Mississippi on the
basis of the race and color of the pubils;
4. Enter a decree enjoining defendants, their agents, employ
ees, successors and all persons in active concert and participation with
them from assigning teachers, principals and other (R-8) professional
school personnel to the schools of Jackson, Mississippi on the basis of
the race and color of the person to be assigned and the race and color
of the children attending the school to which such personnel is to be
assigned;
5. Enter a decree enjoining defendants, their agents, employ
ees, successors and all persons in active concert and participation with
them from approving budgets, mailing available funds, approving em
ployment and construction contracts, and approving policies, curricula
and programs which are designed to perpetuate or maintain or support
compulsory racially segregated schools.
In the alternative, plaintiffs pray that this court enter a decree
directing defendants to present a complete plan, within a period of time
to be determined by this court, for the reorganization of the entire
school system of the Jackson Municipal Separate School District into a
11
unitary nonracial system which shall Include a plan for the assignment
of children on a nonracial basis; the assignment of teachers, principals
and other professional school personnel on a nonracial basis; the draw
ing of school zone or attendance area lines on a nonracial basis; and
the elimination of any other discrimination In the operation of the school
system or in the school curricula which is based solely upon race and
color. Plaintiffs pray that if this court directs defendants to produce a
desegregation plan that this court will retain jurisdiction of this case
pending court approval and full and complete implementation of defend
ants' plan.
Plaintiffs pray that this court will allow them their costs herein
and grant such further, other, additional or alternative relief as may
appear to the court to be equitable and just.
/ s / lack H. Young
Jack H. Young
1151/2 N. Farish Street
Jackson, Mississippi
Jack Greenberg
Constance Baker Motley
Derrick A. Bell, Jr.
10 Columbus Circle
New York 19, New York
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
* * *
(R-9)
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
(Title omitted - Filed March 4,1963)
Plaintiffs, upon the annexed complaint, move this Court for a
preliminary injunction, pending the final disposition of this cause, and
as grounds therefor rely upon the allegations of their complaint and
12
show the following:
1. Plaintiffs continue to be assigned and forced to attend
racially segregated schools operated by the defendants pursuant to state
statutes, policy, practice, custom, and usage as set forth in the com
plaint.
2. Plaintiffs1 constitutional rights are violated by such
assignment and attendance at racially segregated schools.
3. Plaintiffs have petitioned the defendants in vain to initiate
desegregation of the public schools in compliance with the United States
Supreme Court school desegregation decision of 1954. (R-10)
4. Plaintiffs are irreparably harmed by the defendant Board's
continued failure either to desegregate the public schools under its
jurisdiction or submit a plan for the reorganization of said school sys
tem on a unitary nonracial basis.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court ad
vance this cause on the docket and order a speedy hearing of this action
according to law and after such hearing:
1. Enter a decree enjoining defendants, their agents, employ
ees, successors and all persons in active concert and participation with
them from operating a compulsory biracial school system in Jackson,
Mississippi;
2. Enter a decree enjoining defendants, their agents, employ
ees, successors and all persons in active concert and participation with
them from continuing to maintain a dual scheme or pattern of school
zone lines or attendance area lines based on race and color;
13
3. Enter a decree enjoining defendants, their agents, employ
ees, successors and all persons in active concert and participation with
them from assigning pupils to schools in Jackson, Mississippi on the
basis of the race and color of the pupils;
4. Enter a decree enjoining defendants, their agents, employ
ees, successors and all persons in active concert and participation with
them from assigning teachers, principals and other professional school
personnel to the schools of Jackson, Mississippi on the basis of the race
and color of the person to be assigned and the race and color of the
children attending the school to which such personnel is to be assigned;
5. Enter a decree enjoining defendants, their agents, employ
ees, successors and all persons in active concert and participation with
them from approving budgets, making available {R-lU funds, approving
employment and construction contracts, and approving policies, curricu
la and programs which are designed to perpetuate or maintain or support
compulsory racially segregated schools.
In the alternative, plaintiffs pray that this Court enter a
decree directing defendants to present a complete plan, within a period
of time to be determined by this Court, for the reorganization of the en
tire school system of the Jackson Municipal Separate School District into
a unitary nonracial system which shall include a plan for the assignment
of children on a nonracial basis; the assignment of teachers, principals
and other professional school personnel on a nonracial basis; the draw
ing of school zone or attendance area lines on a nonracial basis; and
the elimination of any other discrimination in the operation of the school
14
system or In the school curricula which Is based solely upon race and
color. Plaintiffs pray that if this Court directs defendants to produce
a desegregation plan that this Court will retain Jurisdiction of this case
pending court approval and full and complete implementation of defend
ants" plan.
Plaintiffs pray that this Court will allow them their costs
herein and grant such further, other additional or alternative relief as
may appear to the Court to be equitable and just.
/ s / Jack H. Young
Jack H. Young
115 1/2 N. Parish Street
Jackson, Mississippi
Jack Greenberg
Constance Baker Motley
Derrick A. Bell, Jr.
10 Columbus Circle
New York 19, New York
Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
(R-12 Notice of Motion, which is not copied here.)
* * *
(R-13 Summons, which is not copied here.)
* * *
(R-14)
NOTICE OF DISMISSAL OF ACTION
AS TO PARTY PLAINTIFF WILLIS H. LOGAN
(Title omitted-Filed ¥£arch S, 1964)
Comes now plaintiff Willis H. Logan, minor, by his mother
and next friend, Mrs. A. M. E. Logan, and advises the Court to take
notice that, no answer or motion for summary judgment having been
served in the above entitled action, this action is hereby dismissed
without prejudice as to party-plaintiff Willis H. Logan, minor by Mrs.
15
A. M.E. Logan, Ms mother and next friend, alone.
March 8, 1963.
/ s / Jack H, Young ____________
Attorney for Plaintiff
(R-15 Certificate of Service, which is not copied here.)
* * *
(R-16)
DEFENDANT’S MOTION AND AFFIDAVIT
FOR .SECURITY FOR COSTS
(Title omitted- Filed March 23, 1963 )
NOW COMES the defendant, Jackson Municipal Separate School
District, by one of its attorneys of record, and respectfully moves the
Court to require the plaintiffs in this action to give security for all costs
accrued or to accrue in this action within sixty days after an order of
the Court made for that purpose, and in support thereof would show unto
the Court the following:
That said defendant has good reason to believe and does believe
that the plaintiffs in this action cannot be made to pay the costs of this
action in case the same shall be adjudged against them; that defendant
has, as it believes, a meritorious defense, and that this motion and
affidavit are not made for delay.
WHEREFORE, said defendant respectfully moves the Court to
require the plaintiffs to give security for all costs accrued or to accrue
in this action within sixty (R-17) days after an order of the Court made
for that purpose, and that if the security be not given this action be dis
missed.
/ s / Thomas H. Watkins _________
Thomas H# Watkins, Attorney for
Defendant, Jackson Municipal., separate
School District
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
COUNTY OF HINDS
Personally appeared before me, the undersigned authority in
and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, Thomas H. Watkins, who having
been by me first duly sworn, deposes and states on oath that he is one
of the attorneys of record for the defendant, Jackson Municipal Separate
School District, and that as such he is duly authorized to make this
affidavit for and on behalf of said defendant; that the matters and facts
set out in the foregoing motion are true and correct as therein stated;
that said defendant has, as he believes, a meritorious defense and that
this motion and affidavit are not made for delay.
/ s / Thomas H. Watkins_______
Thomas H. Watkins
Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 21st day of
March, 1963.
(SEAL) / s / Mildred A. Baker _________
NOTARY PUBLIC
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
1/16/66_______________
(R-18 Notice and Certificate of Service, which are not copied here.)
* * * *
(R-19)
DEFENDANTS* MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
(Title omitted - Filed March 23, 1963)
NOW COME Jackson Municipal Separate School District,
Lester Alvis, Chairman, C. H. King, Lamar Noble, W. G. Mize, and
J. W. Underwood, members of the Board of Trustees of the Jackson
Municipal Separate School District, and Kirby P. Walker, Superintendent
16
17
of Schools, the defendants in the above styled and numbered action, by
their attorneys, and respectfully move the Court to dismiss this action
and the complaint filed herein, and as grounds therefor assign the
following:
(1) The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted.
(2) None of the plaintiffs has exhausted any of the administra
tive remedies available under Chapter 260 of the Mississippi Laws of
1954, Sections 6334-01 to 6334-07, inclusive.
(3) None of the plaintiffs has been denied any personal rights
sought and cannot assert any claim on behalf of others. (R-20)
(4) The plaintiffs lack standing to maintain this action since
they do not allege that they have legally sought and been denied any right
to which they are entitled.
(5) The plaintiffs cannot represent a class of which they are
not a part.
(6) The plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive relief for
others.
(7) This Court is without jurisdiction over the parties hereto
or the subject matter hereof.
JOE T. PATTERSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL
DUGAS SHANDS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL
ROBERT C. CANNADA, SPECIAL COUNSEL
E. W. STENNETT, SPECIAL COUNSEL
THOMAS H. WATKINS, SPECIAL COUNSEL
BY / s / Tho. H. Watkins_________________
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
18
(This instrument carries proper Notice, which is not copied here .)
(R-21 Certificate of Service, which is not copied here.)
* * *
(R-22)
AFFIDAVIT OF KIRBY P, WALKER IN SUPPORT OF
DEFEND ANTS* MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
(Title omitted-Filed March 23, 1964)
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
COUNTY OF HINDS
Personally appeared before me, the undersigned authority in
and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, ICIRBY P. WALKER, who after being
by me first duly sworn, states on oath as follows:
1. That he, the said Kirby P. Walker, is the Superintendent
of Schools, Jackson Municipal Separate School District, and has been
such Superintendent for more than twenty-five years.
2. That in addition to being Superintendent of said Schools,
Affiant has been, for a number of years, Assistant Secretary of the
Board of Trustees, Jackson Municipal Separate School District.
3. That by order adopted on the 24th day of August, 1954, the
Board of Trustees of the Jackson Municipal Separate School District
abolished all attendance areas theretofore recognized by said Board of
Trustees within said District and made provision for the individual
assignment of all eligible students within said District; that (R-23) the
certified copy of said order attached hereto is a true and correct copy
of the order of said Board of Trustees abolishing such attendance areas,
and said order is still in full force and effect and has been since its
adoption.
19
4. That by order adopted on the 24th day of August, 1954, the
Board of Trustees of the Jackson Municipal Separate School District
authorized and instructed the said Kirby P. Walker to make the neces
sary preparation for, and to actually have applications taken from all
eligible children of school age within said District, for assignment to a
school within said District; that in said order the said Kirby P. Walker
was further authorized, empowered and instructed to provide for the
temporary assignment of all applicants for assignment and to report
these temporary assignments to said Board of Trustees at the earliest
practical date, for consideration by said Board of Trustees, looking to
ward the permanent assignment of said applicants; that the certified
copy of said order attached to this affidavit is a true and correct copy of
said order and same was and has been followed by the said Kirby P.
Walker since its adoption and same is still in full force and effect.
5. That each and every year since the passage of the orders
referred to in the two preceding numbered paragraphs by the Board of
Trustees of the Jackson Municipal Separate School District, the proce
dure set forth therein has been followed in taking individual applications
for or from eligible students within said District and the assignment
thereof to schools within said District.
6. That pursuant to the authorization and instructions contained
in said orders, Affiant has each year up to and including the scholastic
year 1962-63 been responsible for the taking of applications of all stu
dents desiring to enroll in the public schools within the Jackson Munici
pal Separate School District and for making temporary assignment of
such students to the schools (R-24) of said District; that he has, each
20
year, with the assistance of the elected Principals of the schools of
said District and other personnel, discharged his responsibility, to the
best of his ability.
7. That provisions have been made and followed under which
the parent, guardian or other person having custody of any student or
applying student may make application for a change of assignment from
the school to which such student or applying student has been temporar
ily assigned. Requests for change in temporary assignment have been
received each year, some of which requests have been approved and
some of which requests have been denied.
8. That promptly upon being notified that applying students
have been temporarily assigned to a school in said District, the Board
of Trustees of the Jackson Municipal Separate School District has made
such assignments permanent.
9. That the records of the Jackson Municipal Separate School
District contain no record of Darrell Kenyatta Evers, Reene Denise
Evers or Derek Jerome Singleton ever attending the public schools of
the Jackson Municipal Separate School District or having ever made
application for enrollment or assignment to any public school in the
Jackson Municipal Separate School District in accordance with the pro
cedure established therefor; that the records of the Jackson Municipal
Separate School District contain no record of Shirley D. Bailey, Verna
A. Bailey, Thomas J. Bailey, Ear line Thomas, Carolyn Thomas or
Brenda La Faye White, either themselves or by their parents or anyone
else, ever having been denied any request for a change in assignment
21
from the school to which he or she was temporarily assigned.
10. That the records of the Jackson Municipal Separate School
District reflect that each year Shirley D. Bailey, Verna A. Bailey,
Thomas J. Bailey, Ear line Thomas, Carolyn Thomas and Brenda La
Faye (R-25) White have attended the public schools of said District
that each has been permanently assigned by the Board of Trustees of
said District to a school of said District; that no parent, guardian or
other person having custody of Shirley D. Bailey, Verna A. Bailey,
Thomas J. Bailey, Ear line Thomas, Carolyn Thomas or Brenda La
Faye "White has made any application in writing, or otherwise, to the
Board of Trustees of the Jackson Municipal Separate School District for
a review or reconsideration of such permanent assignment of any of the
above named children.
11. That during the month of August, 1962, there was received
through the United States Mail a petition addressed to the Board of
Trustees and the Superintendent of the Jackson Municipal Separate
School District, and that the copy of said petition attached to this affi
davit is a true and correct copy of said petition.
12. That if the same procedure is followed for the scholastic
year 1963-64 that has been followed by the Board of Trustees of the
Jackson Municipal Separate School District since the 1954-55 scholastic
year, then no child expecting to attend a public school of the Jackson
Municipal Separate School District will know to which school he or she
is to be assigned until after application has been made for enrollment
and assignment in accordance with the procedure prescribed therefor
and temporary assignment has been made to a school in said District;
22
that after being temporarily assigned to a school in said District any
such student will have full and complete right, acting through his or her
parent, guardian or other person having custody of such student, to .
make application for change in such temporary assignment; that, in
addition, after his or her permanent assignment by the Board of Trus
tees of said District, any such student will have full and complete right,
acting through his or her parent, guardian or other person having cus
tody of such student, to make application to said Board of Trustees for
(R-26) a review or reconsideration of such permanent assignment;
that the Board of Trustees of said District will, at each of its regular
monthly meetings, make permanent assignments of all students of the
District that are, at such time, temporarily assigned to a public school
of said District; and that the procedure outlined herein is and will be
available to all eligible students attending or applying to attend the public
schools of the Jackson Municipal Separate School District.
13. That each of the children named in this affidavit, who
have attended the public schools maintained by the Jackson Municipal
Separate School District, has, along with all other children attending
public schools of this District, either himself or herself or by his or
her parent, guardian or person having his or her custody, submitted an
application for enrollment and assignment for each scholastic year, and
that such was done prior to any temporary assignment of such child;
that the applications attached hereto of Shirley D. Bailey, Verna A.
Bailey, Thomas J. Bailey, Ear line Thomas, Carolyn Thomas and
Brenda La Faye White are true and correct copies of the applications
23
filed for or on behalf of said children for the scholastic year 1962-63,
and are in the same from used by all students applying for admission to
the public schools of the Jackson Municipal Separate School District.
Further Affiant saith not.
/ s / Kirbv P. Walker________ __ _____
Kirby P. Walker
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me, this the 21 st day of
March, 1963.
(SEAL) / s / Mrs. S. G. Cooper —
My Commission expires:
NOTARY PUBLIC
Mv Commission Expires Jan. 4, 1965
(R-27 Certificate of Service, which is not copied here.)
(R-27 A)
ORDER ABOLISHING ATTENDANCE CENTERS AND SETTING
UP PROCEDURE FOR AS,SIGNING ELIGIBLE STUDENTS
On motion duly made and seconded, all present voting "aye”,
it is ordered that all attendance areas heretofore recognized by this
Board within this District be and the same are hereby abolished. It is
further ordered that for the scholastic year 1954-55, this Board shall
make individual assignments of all eligible students within this District
to the designated school or attendance centers within this District in
accordance with House Bill No. 45 of the Regular Legislative Session,
1954.
I, the undersigned Assistant Secretary of the Board of Trustees of The
Jackson Municipal Separate School District, do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the resolution of the
Board of Trustees of said District adopted on the 24th day of August ,
24
19 54. as the same appears on record in Minute Book of said Board.
Given under my hand this the 15th day of March , 1963.. (SEAL)
/ s / Lamar Noble _______________
Assistant Secretary Board of Trustees
(R-27B)
ORDER AUTHORIZING SUPERINTENDENT TO MAKE
TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT OF PUPILS
On motion duly made and seconded, all present voting "aye",
it was ordered that K. P . Walker, Superintendent, be and he is hereby,
authorized and instructed to make the necessary preparation for, and
actually to have applications taken from all eligible children within this
District of school age, for assignment to a school within this District.
He is further authorized, empowered and instructed to provide for the
temporary assignment of all applicants for assignment, and to report
these temporary assignments to this Board at the earliest practical date,
for consideration by this Board looking toward the permanent assign
ment of said applicants.
I, the undersigned Assmstent- Secretary of the Board of Trustees of The
Jackson Municipal Separate School District, do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the resolution of the
Board of Trustees of said District adopted on the 24th day of August.
19 54 , as the same appears on record in Minute Book of said Board.
Given under my hand this the 15th day of March , 19 63 .
(SEAL)
/ s / Lamar Noble_________
iessfetast Secretary Board of Trustees
(R-28) 25
P E T I T I O N
TO: The Board of Trustees and the Superintendent of the Jackson
Municipal Separate School District:
"We, the undersigned, are the parents of children of school
age entitled to attend and attending the public elementary and secondary
schools under your jurisdiction. As you undoubtedly know, the United
States Supreme Court on May 17, 1954, ruled that the maintenance of
racially segregated public schools is a violation of the Constitution of
the United States and on May 31, 1955, re “affirmed that principle and
requires "good faith compliance at the earliest practicable date," with
the federal courts authorized to determine whether local officials are
proceeding in good faith.
"We, therefore, call upon you to take immediate steps to r e
organize the public schools under your jurisdiction on a non-discrimi-
natory basis. As we understand it, you have the responsibility to re
organize the school system under your control so that the children of
public school age attending and entitled to attend public schools cannot
be denied admission to any school or be required to attend any school
solely because of race or color.
"The May 31 decision of the Supreme Court, to us, means
that the time for delay, evasion or procrastination is past. Whatever
the difficulties in according our children their constitutional rights, it
is clear that the school board must meet and seek a solution to that
question in accordance with the law of the land. As we interpret the
decision you are duty bound to take immediate concrete steps leading to
26
early elimination of segregation in the public schools.
"We, the undersigned parents, considering the above facts,
hereby petition that our children, whose names are also attached
hereto, and other similarly situated Negro Children be admitted
immediately to the so-called "white school" nearest their residence or
within their proper district.
Parents: Address:
/ s / Medaar W. Evers 2332
/ s / Mrs* Myrlie B.Evers 2332
Children to enter: Acre Grade to enter:
1. Darrell ICenyatta Evers 9 4th
2. Reene Denise Evers 7 3rd
3.
(R-29)
Petition - page Two
Parents: Address:
/ a / Samuel Bailey 1502 Florence Ave.
Children to Enter: Acre: Grade to enter:
1. Shirley D. Bailey 16 12th
2. Verna A. Bailey 15 10th
3. Thomas J. Bailey 13 9th
Parents:
As/ Kathrvn Thomas
Address:
3638 Main
Children to Enter:
1. Earline Thomas
Aqe:
16
27
Grade to Enter:
12th
2. Carolyn Thomas 14 10"
3.
Parents: Address:
/ s / A. M. E. Logan 1142 Biloxi St.
yygr
Children to Enter A ere; Grade to Enter:
1. Willis H. Logan________ 17_____ 12th
2.
3.
Parents: Address:
/ s / Mrs. Annie Harris 3319 Redmond Ave.
Children to Enter: Aqe: Grade to Enter:
1. Joan J. Harris 14 7th
2. Ronnie R. Harris 12 7th
3. Linda Kaye 9 4th
Parents: Address:
/ s / Jessie Lee Garner 3329 Revel Ave.
Children to Enter: Aqe: Grade to Enter:
1. Jean L. Garner 14 10th.
2. .Williams S. Garner 7 2 o
3.
Petition - page Three
(R-30)
Address:
28
Parents:
/ s / Mrs. Edna Marie Singleton 183 Maple Street
Children to Enter: Age: Grade to Enter:
1. Derek Jerome Singleton 12 8th
2.
3.
Parents: Address:
/ s / Mrs. Elizabeth White 3333 Reves Ave.
Children to Enter: Age: Grade to Enter:
1, Brenda La Faye White 13 8th
2.
3.
(R-31)
JACKSON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI
APPLICATION FOR SCHOOL ADMISSION AND ASSIGNMENT
Grade 12th Age 16 Sex Female Date 9-5-62______
1. Name of Pupil Bailey Shirley Deloris_________ _
Last F irst __ Middle
2. Address of Pupil 1502 Florence Home _ ofiRig
Telephone -— .
3. Elementary school attendance area in which you live at present?
Isable
4. Do you live within the City limits of Jackson? yes Within limits
of the Jackson Municipal Separate School District? ves
29
5. With whom do you live? Parents Relationship_______ _
Father’s
6. Name Samuel Bailey Address 1502 Florence
Universal Business
Occupation Insurance Employer Life Tel. FI. 25667
Mother's maiden
7. Name Ann ) Luceal Alexander Address 1502 Florence
Business
Occupation Housewife Employer -- - Tel. — _____
Legal Guardian's
8. Name--------- ------ ------- Address --------- -------
Occupation — Employer — Business Tel. —
9. School last attended Hill _________ __ When? 6-62_____
Name Mo. Yr.
Address of school 975 Dalton ____________
10. Place of birth of pupil Jackson. Hinds ) Miss.______________
11. Date of birth of pupil 11-27-45 Is birth verified by birth
certificate ? ves
12. Number of years in school including this year 12 ________
(DO NOT WRITE BE LOW THIS LINE)
Temporary school assignment HILL JUNIOR:SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
9-5-62
Permanent school assignment by Board of Trustees HILL JUNIOR:
Date Sept. 1%, 1962 SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
17, (over)
FORM JPS-S-147
JACKSON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI
PUPIL'S CERTIFICATE OF NON-AFFILIATION WITH SECRET
SOCIETIES
Section 1 of Senate Bill No. 1504, enacted by the 1962 session
of the Mississippi Legislature, defines fraternities and sororities and
secret societies. Section 4 states the obligation of school boards
so
regarding pupils affiliated with such societies.
Section 1. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF
THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, That a public high school or
junior college fraternity, soroity or secret society, as con
templated by this Act, Is hereby defined to be any organization
composed wholly, or in part, of public high school or junior
college pupils, which seeks to perpetuate itself by taking in
additional members from the pupils enrolled in such high
school or schools on the basis of the decision of the member
ship of such fraternity, sorority or secret society, rather
than upon the free choice of any pupil in the school; provided,
however, that this does not apply to the Order of DeMolay or a
similar organization sponsored by any branch of the Masonic
Orders or like adult fraternal organization.
Section 4. That all boards of trustees of public high
schools and boards of trustees of junior colleges, shall pro
hibit fraternities, sororities, or secret societies in all high
schools and junior colleges under their respective jurisdiction;
and It shall be the duty of said boards of trustees to suspend
or expel from said high schools or junior colleges under their
control, any pupil or pupils who shall be or remain a member
of, or shall join or promise to join, or who shall become
pledged to become a member, or who shall solicit or encourage
any other person to join, promise to join, or be pledged to
become a member of, any such public high school or junior
college fraternity or sorority or secret society, as defined
31
herein.
I have read Sections 1 and 4 of SB1504, enacted by the 1952
Session of the Mississippi Legislature. In order that I may be admitted
to the Jackson public schools in good standing, I hereby certify that I am
not a member or pledged to become a member, or affiliated with a
fraternity, sorority, or secret society, as defined above, and I will not
while attending the Jackson public schools become a member, or pledge
to become a member, or to become affiliated with a fraternity, sorority
or secret society, as defined above, without immediately notifying in
writing the principal of the Jackson public school which I am attending.
Pupil's .Signature / s / ,Shirley Deloris Bailey
Date 9-5-62_________
Signed In the presence of:
/ s / Amv Daniel. Jr._______ _
(over)
(R-32)
JACKSON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI
APPLICATION FOR SCHOOL ADMISSION AND ASSIGNMENT
Grade 10 Age 15 Sex F Date 9-5-62____________
1. Name of Pupil Bailey , Verna__________ A.____________
Last F irst Home Middle
2. Address of Pupil 1502 Florence St. Telephone________ _
3. Elementary school attendance area in which you live at present?
Isable
4. Do you live within the City limits of Jackson? ves within limits
of the Jackson Municipal Separate School District? yes
32
5. With whom do you live? Parents Relationship
Father’s
6. Name Samuel Bailey________ Address same
Univ. Life Ins.
Occupation Go. St. Miss. Employer
Business
Tel. FI 25667
7.
Mother’s maiden
Name Mrs. Lucille Alexander Address same
Occupation Saleslady
Bailey
Employer Business Tel.
8.
Legal Guardian’s
Name Address
Occupation Employer Business Tel.
9. School last attended Hill When? 6 - 62
Address of school
Name
Jackson, Miss.
Mo. Yr.
10. Place of birth of pupil Hinds Co.
11. Date of birth of pupil Mar. 20, 1947 Is birth verified by birth
certificate? --------
12. Number of years in school including this year 10
(DO NOT WHITE BELOW THIS LINE)
Temporary school assignment HELL JUNIOR:SENIOR HIGH SGHOOL
9-5-62
Permanent school assignment by Board of Trustees Jim Hill______
Date Sep 17 62______
(over)
(Pupils Certificate of Non-Affiliation with Secret Societies signed but
not copied here.)
(R-32-A)
JACKSON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI
APPLICATION FOR SCHOOL ADMISSION AND ASSIGNMENT
Grade 9th Age 14 Sex M Date Sept. 5. 1962
1. Name of Pupil Bailey , Thomas James
Last F irst Middle
33Home
2. Address of Pupil .., 1502.Florence Telephone No*
3. Elementary school attendance area in which you live at present?
Isable
-Peynens-
4. Do you live within the City limits of Jackson? yes Within limits
of tie Jackson Municipal Separate School District? yes
5. With whom do you live? Parents Relationship paren ts_____
Father's
6. Name Bailey Samuel Address 1502 Florence_________
Business
Occupation Ins. Agent Employer Mm Turner Tel. FI 25667
Mother's maiden
7. Name Lucile Alexander Address 1502 Florence St.
Occupation Housewife E mployer________Business Tel.________
Legal Guardian's
8. Name___________ A d d r e s s ________________ _
Occupation Employer Business Tel.
9. School last attended Jim Hill Jr & Sr. When? 1961 - 1962
Mo. Yr.
Address of school 975 Dalton St. — City
10. Place of birth of pupil Hinds Jackson _____________
11. Date of birth of pupil 9/4/48 Is birth verified by birth
certificate? yes
12. Number of years in school including this year 9______ _
____________ (DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE) ________
Temporary school assignment HILL JUNIOR:SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
9-5-62
Permanent school assignment by Board of Trustees Jim Hill
Date Sept. 17. 1962
Cover)
(Pupils Certificate of Non-Affiliation with Secret Societies signed but
not copied here.)
(R-33)
JACKSON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI
34
APPLICATION FOR SCHOOL ADMISSION AND ASSIGNMENT
Grade 12th Age 16 .Sex F Date 9/5/62_______
1. Name of Pupil Thomas Earlene________________ ____
Last IT” F irst Middle
2. Address of PudII 3638 Main St. £t0me. EM 5-2922-------------Telephone------------------- --------------
3. Elementary school attendance area in which you live at present?
G. N. Smith______
4. Do you live within the City limits of Jackson? yes Within
limits of the Jackson Municipal Separate School District?______ __
5. With whom do you live? Mother Relationship Mother_____ ____
Father’s
6. Name.. Earl Thomas Address 1121 Rosemont St.
Occupation Barber Employer,______ Business Tel.________
Mother’s maiden
7. Name Kathrvn Orev_____ Address 3638 Main St. __________
Business
Occupation Beautician Employer .Self employed Tel. FI. 5-4231
Legal Guardian’s
8. Name Kathrvn Thomas Address 3638 Main St.___________
Business
Occupation Beautician Employer self-employed Tel. FL 5-4231
9. School last attended Brinkley_____When? 6 / 62 _________ _____
Mo. Yr.
Address of school 3655 Livingston Road__________ ______________
10. Place of birth of pupil Jackson, Mississippi_____ __________
11. Date of birth of pupil 11/3/45 Is birth verified by birth
certificate ? yes______
12. Number of years in school including this year 12__________
(DO NOT WRITE BELOV/ THIS LINE)
Temporary school assignment,_____ BRINKLEY SCHOOL
Permanent school assignment by Board of Trustees BRINKLEY
SCHOOL
35
Date Sep 17 1962
(’over)
(Pupils Certificate of Non-Affiliation with Secret Societies signed but
not copied here.)
(R-34)
JACKSON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI
APPLICATION FOR SCHOOL ADMISSION AND ASSIGNMENT
Grade 10 Age 14 Sex F Date 9/6/62__________
1. Name of Pupil Thomas , Carolyn______ _______________
Last F irst Home Middle
2. Address of Pupil 3638 Main Street Telephone Em 2-2922
3. Elementary school attendance area in which you live at present?
______J. N. Smith_________
4. Do you live within the City limits of Jackson? yes Within limits
of the Jackson Municipal Separate School District?______________
5. With whom do you live? Katherine Thomas Relationship Mother
Father's
6. Name Earl Thomas Address 1129 Rosemount __________
Business
Occupation Barber Employer Jack's Barber Shop Tel._______ _
Mother's maiden
7. Name Katherine Prey Address 3638 Main Street____________
Business
Occupation Beautician Employer Self employed Tel. FI 5-4231
Legal Guardian's
8. Name Earl Thomas Address 1129 Rosemount __________
Business
Occupation Barber E mployer Jack's Barber Shop Tel. ________
9. School last attended Brinkelv High School When? June 62
Mo. Yr.
Address of school Jackson. Mississippi ___________ _________
10. Place of birth of pupil Hinds County______________ ___________
11. Date of birth of pupil 9/10/47 Is birth verified by birth
certificate?
36
12. Number of years In school including this year 10 ________ __
(DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE)
Temporary school assignment BRINKLEY SCHOOL__________
Permanent school assignment by Board of Trustees BRINKLEY SCHOOL
Date SEP 17 1962_______ _
(over)
(Pupils Certificate of Non-Affiliation with Secret Societies signed but
not copied here.)
(R-35)
JACKSON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI
APPLICATION FOR SCHOOL ADMISSION AND ASSIGNMENT
Grade 8_____ Age 13 Sex F Date 9-18-62
1. Name of Pupil White Brenda________ La Faye_____ _
Last F irs t jjome Middle
2. Address of Pupil 3333 Revels Ave Telephone —
3. Elementary school attendance area in which you live at present?
Walton______________
4. Do you live within the City limits of Jackson? yes Within limits
of the Jackson Municipal Separate School District? yes
6.
Father's
Name James White: Address
and Father
3333 Revels
Occupation Employer
Business
Tel.
7.
Mother's maiden
Name Elizabeth (illegible) Address 3333 Revels
Occupation Cook Employer
Business
Tel.
8.
Legal Guardian's
Name Address
Occupation,__________ Employer_______ ^Business TeL
37
9. School last attended Sam M. Brinkley When? 6 - 6 2
Name Mo. Yr.
Address of school 3655 Livingston Road____________________ _
10. Place of birth of pupil Jackson College Health Center__________
11. Date of birth of pupil 7-26-49 Is birth verified by birth
certificate? ves
12. Number of years in school including this year 8
(DO NOT WRITE BE LOW THIS LINE)
Temporary school assignment BRINKLEY SCHOOL
Permanent school assignment by Board of Trustees BRINKLEY SCHOOL
Date SEP 17 1962
(over)
(Pupils Certificate of Non-Affiliation with Secret Societies signed but
not copied here.)
J(C 5(t :js
(R-36)
ORDER TAKING CASE UNDER ADVISEMENT
FOR DISPOSITION OF MOTION TO DISMISS
(Title omitted-Filed April 5, 1963)
THIS DAY this action came on for hearing on defendants' mo
tion to dismiss filed herein, and the Court having heard arguments of
counsel and having requested the submission of briefs, hereby allows
counsel for defendants fourteen (14) days within which to file a brief in
support of their motion and hereby allows counsel for plaintiffs fourteen
(14) days after receipt of defendants' brief within which to file a brief in
opposition to the motion to dismiss.
It further appearing unto the Court that the plaintiffs have
noticed a hearing on their motion for a temporary injunction for Friday,
April 12, 1963, and that all parties have agreed in open Court that the
38
hearing on the motion for a temporary injunction should be stayed and
postponed pending final disposition of defendants1 motion to dismiss,
it is hereby ordered that the hearing on plaintiffs' motion for a tempo
rary Injunction is hereby deferred and postponed until after final dis
position of defendants' motion to dismiss.
ORDERED AM) ADJUDGED, this 5th day of April, 1963.
/ s / S. G. Mize____________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
OB 1963 - P 268
* * *
(R-37)
ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANTS'
MOTION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS
(Title omitted-Filed April 5, 1963)
THIS DAY this action came on for hearing upon the motion of
the defendants that the plaintiffs be required to give security for costs,
and the Court having considered same is of the opinion that said motion
should be and the same is hereby overruled and denied.
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this 5th day of April, 1963.
/ s / 3. C, Mize__________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
OB 1963 - P 269
* * *
(R-38 & R-39 Letter to U. S. Clerk from Attorney General, which is
not copied here.)
* * *
(R-40)
LETTER OPINION OF THE COURT
(Piled June 25, 1963)
39
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Southern District of Mississippi
GULFPORT, MISSISSIPPI
Chambers of
SIDNEY C. MIZE June 24, 1963
District Judge
Mrs. Constance Baker Motley
Honorable Derrick A. Bell, Jr.
Honorable Jack H. Young
Honorable Joe T. Patterson
Honorable Tom H. Watkins
Honorable E . W. Stennett
Re: Medgar Evers, et al
v. No. 3379—Jackson
Jackson Municipal Separate
School District, et al___________
Gentlemen:
In this case, as well as in the case of Hudson, et al v. Leake
County School Board, et al, No. 3382-Jackson, I had hoped to write a
formal opinion, but due to an extremely congested amount of litigation
I will not have the time, but hope within the next thirty days to prepare
a formal opinion. However, at this time, having reached a conclusion
as to the law and the facts, I will render a decision.
I have studied the record and the briefs, have listened to the
argument of counsel, and have reached the conclusion that the com
plaint must be dismissed. Most of the authorities cited in the Hudson
case, decided this day by me, are applicable to the principles of law in
the present case.
40
In this case, as in the Hudson case, none of the individual
plaintiffs have ever requested permission to attend (R-41) any particu
lar school and had the request denied. This fact, undisputed, is shown
by the affidavit of Kirby Walker, which is part of the record herein.
The complaint shows (paragraph 11) that the plaintiffs have not sought
to utilize the provisions of the State Pupil Assignment Act as adopted
in 1954, being Sections 6334-01 to 6334-07, and state as a reason there
for that the exhaustion of remedies provided by this Act would prove
futile and inadequate. Plaintiffs are not justified in assuming this to be
a fact. It is true that prior to the Brown case Mississippi had on its
statute books laws providing for segregation of the races on railroads,
buses and public schools, but since the Brown case in 1954 these statutes
either have been repealed or declared unconstitutional, and the plaintiffs
would not be justified in assuming that the school authorities under the
law of today would reject their application because of their race. The
presumption is that the officers will do their duty and the Court cannot
take judicial notice that it would be futile to make an effort to comply
with the law. The parties of all races should now undertake to comply
with the law and it is necessary that all remedies be exhausted before
applying to the courts.
I will not repeat the authorities cited in the Hudson case, but
will attach a copy of that letter to this letter opinion and make it a part
hereof for the sake of brevity. The complaint affirmatively shows that
it has made no effort to utilize the provisions of the Mississippi Gode
and it fails to allege that any one of the plaintiffs have sought attendance
at any of the particular schools at Jackson and was denied the right of
41
entry. Moreover, it does not allege that they sought to transfer from
one school to another and that such application was denied.
Under the authorities cited in the Hudson case they are not
entitled to seek an injunction until they show that they have been denied
individual rights. They cannot bring a class action unless they belong
to the class and show that a right has been denied. As was said in the
Bailey case, 369 U. S. 31, They cannot represent a class of which they
are not a part. The complaint in this case in effect seems to seek an
order from the Court directing and requiring the School District to
desegregate the public schools without showing a denial of any right to
an individual pupil or person. Of course, it is well settled by the
authorities now that the Brown case (1954) did not hold that the states
must mix persons of different races in a school or must require them
to attend schools or deprive them of the right of choosing the schools
they attend. There is nothing illegal in the operation of separate school
facilities for the races and the issue can only be raised by one or more
persons who have made a legally sufficient effort to exercise a consti
tutional right and have been denied that right. (R-42)
For these reasons I am of the opinion that the complaint must
be dismissed and Mr. Tom Watkins may prepare an order in accord
herewith, submitting it to opposing counsel for any objections as to
form.
With best wishes to all of you, I am
Sincerely yours,
/ s / S. C. Mize
S. C. MIZE
U. S. District Judge
42
(R-43 to R-46 Inclusive - Letter Opinion in case of Dian Hudson, et al
vs. Leake County School Board, et al, is not copied here.)
* * *
(R-47)
ORDER SUSTAINING MOTION TO DISMISS
(Title omitted-Filed July 2,1963)
THIS ACTION came on for hearing on the motion to dismiss
filed herein by the defendants, and the Court having considered same,
together with arguments of counsel and briefs submitted, is of the
opinion that said motion should be and the same is hereby sustained.
It is, therefore, ordered and adjudged that this action be and
the same is hereby dismissed.
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this 29th dav of June , 1963.
/ s / S» C. Mize
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
O.B. 1963, Page 462.
* * *
(R-48 Letter to Clerk from Derrick A. Bell, which is not copied here.)
* * *
(R-49)
NOTICE OF APPEAL
(Title omitted-Filed July 15,1963)
Notice is hereby given that Darrell Keneyatta Evers and Reene
Denise Evers, minors, by Medgar W« Evers and Mrs. Myrlie B. Evers,
their parents and next friends; Shirley D. Bailey, Verna A. Bailey and
Thomas J. Bailey, minors, by Samuel Bailey, their father and next
friend; Earline Thomas and Carolyn Thomas, minors, by Mrs. Kathryn
Thomas, their mother and next friend; Willis-Hr-Leganj--minors -toy
Mixa-.-*At-M.-■&.--L&ganr Ms-mfiker-andnext-friend; Derek Jerome Single-
ton, minor, by Mrs. Edna Marie Singleton, his mother and next friend
43
and Brenda La Faye White, minor, by Mrs. Elizabeth White, her
mother and next friend, appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit from this Court's Order of June 29, 1953 granting defendants'
Motion to Dismiss.
/ s / Derrick A Bell Jr._______
Jack H. Young
115 1/2 N. Farish Street
Jack Greenberg Jackson, Mississippi
Constance Baker Motley
Derrick A. Bell, Jr.
10 Columbus Circle
New York 19, New York
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
(R-50 Certificate of Service, which is not copied here.)
* * *
(R-51)
ORDER OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
(Filed July 23, 1963)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
NO.
DARRELL DENYATTA EVERS ET AL,
Appellants
VS. Jackson Division
Civil Action
JACKSON MUNICIPAL SEPARATE No. 3379
SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL,
Appellees
DIAN HUDSON, ET AL.
Appellants
VS. Jackson Division
Civil Action
LEAKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD No. 3382
ET AL, Appellees
Gilbert R. Mason, Jr. et al,
Appellants
VS, Southern Division
Civil Action
BILOXI MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL No. 2695
DISTRICT OF BILOXI, MISSISSIPPI,
Appellees
44
On Appellants' motions for injunction pending
appeal, or, alternatively for expedited hearings
" ( July 22 19631 '
Before HUTCHESON, GAMEBON and BROWN, Circuit Judges.
By the Court:
It is ORDERED that the motions of the appellants for
injunction pending appeal or, alternatively for expedited hearings be,
and they are hereby DENIED.
A true copy
Test: EDWARD W. WADSWORTH
Clerk, U. S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
By / s / G.E Ganucheau ______ __
Deputy
New Orleans, Louisiana JUL 22 1963
O. B. 1963, Page 536.
* * *
(R-52)
DESIGNATION OF CONTENTS OF RECORD ON APPEAL
(Title omitted-Filed July 26,1963)
Appellants, pursuant to Rule 75 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, designate the following pleadings, orders, etc. in the
subject case to be contained in the record on appeal, which record
appellants are preparing in accordance with Rule 23(10) of the Fifth
Circuit Rules, to include:
1. Complaint
2. Motion for Preliminary Injunction
3. Motion to Dismiss Complaint
4. Affidavit of Kirby P. Walker in Support of Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss Complaint with Exhibits
45
5. Order of April 5, 1963
6. Letter Opinion of June 24, 1963
7. Order of June 29, 1963
8. Notice of Appeal
9. This Designation
(R-53)
STATEMENT OF POINT TO BE RELIED UPON ON APPEAL
Whether the district court erred in dismissing an action seeking
to enjoin a policy of racial segregation in public schools where adminis
trative remedies under a state pupil assignment law were not exhausted
by Plaintiffs, but the school board was placed on notice by petition that
plaintiffs desire desegregated educations for themselves and for the
class they represent.
/ s / Derrick A. Bell Jr._____________
Jack H. Young
115 1/2 N. Parish Street
Jackson, Mississippi
Jack Greenberg
Constance Baker Motley
Derrick A. Bell, Jr.
10 Columbus Circle
New York 19, New York
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
(This instrument carries proper Certificate of Service, which is not
copied here.) * * *
(R-54)
JUDGMENT OF COURT OF APPEALS
(Filed Feb. 14,1964)
46
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
October Term, 1963
No. 20824
D. C. Docket No. 3379 Civil
DARRELL KENYATTA EVERS, ET AL.,
Appellants,
versus
JACKSON MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL
DISTRICT, ET AL,
Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi.
Before HUTCHESON and BELL, Circuit Judges and BREWSTER,
District Judge.
J U D G M E N T
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record
from the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi, and was argued by counsel;
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, It is now here ordered and
adjudged by this Court that the judgment of the said District Court in
this cause be, and the same is hereby, reversed; and that this cause be,
and it is hereby remanded to the said District Court for further proceed
47
ings not inconsistent with the opinion of this Gourt.
It is further ordered and adjudged that the Appellees, Jackson
Municipal Separate School District, and others, be condemned, in
solido, to pay the costs of this cause in this Court for which execution
may be issued out of the said District Court.
Issued as Mandate: FEB 13 1964 February 13, 1964
Court Costs:
Docketing cause, e tc .. . .$25.00
A true copy
Test: EDWARD W. WADSWORTH
Clerk, U. S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
By i s / G. F. Ganucheau
(SEAL) Deputy
New Orleans, Louisiana FEB 13 1964
O B, 1964, Page 90
(R-55)
* * *
OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
(Filed Feb. 14,1964)
IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 20824 3379 Civil
DARRELL KENYATTA EVERS, ET AL,
Appellant,
versus
JACKSON MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL
DISTRICT, ET AL,
Appellee.
48
No. 20825 3382 Civil
DIAN HUDSON, ET AL,
Appellant,
versus
LEAKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, ET AL,
Appellee.
No.'"20826" 2696 Civil
GILBERT R. MASON, JR ., ET AL,
Appellant,
versus
THE BILOXI MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL
DISTRICT OF BILOXI, MISSISSIPPI, ET AL,
Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi.
(February 13, 1964.)
2 Evers, et al. v. Jackson Muni. Sep. Sch. D ist., et ah___________
Before HUTCHESON and BELL, Circuit Judges and BREWSTER,
District Judge.
BELL, Circuit Judge: These separate appeals are from orders
dismissing complaints seeking desegregation of the public school systems
of Jackson, Biloxi, and Leake County, Mississippi. The theory of the
School Boards in each case in the District Court, and here, is that
appellants had failed to utilize or exhaust available administrative rem
edies relating to the assignment of pupils to schools, and because it
appeared that no appellant had sought and been denied entrance to any
particular school, it followed that none had been denied a constitutional
right.
49
The premise for this theory is that any segregation in these
school systems is purely voluntary in light of the Mississippi Pupil As
signment Statute, Mississippi Code of 1942, Annot., § § 6334-01 et seq.,
Mississippi Laws, 1954, Chapter 260; and that appellants cannot be
heard to say to the contrary without at least applying for assignment to
schools being attended by members of the white race. This is particu
larly so, the argument goes, in view of the absence of compulsory
school attendance laws in Mississippi and the resulting necessity to
apply for admission and assignment annually. This premise is buttress
ed by a line of authorities that require exhaustion of administrative
remedies, and denial of constitutional rights to appellants individually
before relief may be granted. 3ee Footnote (2), infra.
The difficulty in sustaining this position lies in the fact of other
Mississippi laws. For example, and with CR-56) out cataloguing all of
the laws that may militate against this position, it suffices to point to
two. The Mississippi Constitution requires the maintenance of separate
schools for white and colored children. Art. 8, 9 207, Miss. Const.,
Miss. Code, Annot., § 207. Moreover, §6220.5, Miss. Code Annot.,
forbids the attendance of any member of the white race with Negro chil
dren in any public school of high school level or below on pain of fine,
imprisonment, or both. And it is precisely because of this state enforced
segregation of schools under Mississippi law that the District Court erred
in dismissing the complaints.
It is undisputed in each case that appellants sought relief from
the respective school boards prior to suit in the form of petitioning for
the activation of a practice of permitting the assignment of the minor
50
appellants and their class to public schools without regard to race.
This was an ample basis for the grant of the relief sought in the suits in
view of the prior decisions of this court, where, as is the case in these
school districts in Mississippi, the Negro appellants are not afforded a
reasonable and conscious opportunity to attend any school, for which
they are otherwise eligible, without regard to their race and color, and
to have their requests for admission thereto fairly considered
1 A careful search of the briefs filed on behalf of appellees, and of the
records fails to disclose any representation that appellants
could or would be assigned to a school now being attended by
members of the white race under any circumstances short of a
court order. This is not surprising in view of Rule 11, Fed.
R. Giv. Procedure. Counsel must, perforce, walk a judicial
tightrope to assert this defense. However, it cannot be main
tained because the judiciary cannot blind itself to the Mississip
pi law.
by the enrolling authorities. See Gibson v. Board of Public Instruction
of Dade County, Florida, 5 C ir ., 1959, 272 F. 2d 763. This holding in
Gibson was an elaboration of the holding on its prior appeal that the
petitioning of the school board for abolition of racial segregation in the
public schools obviated the necessity, where segregated schools were
required, of exhaustion of administrative remedies under the Florida
Pupil Assignment law. 245 F. 2d 913. See also Holland v. Board of
Public Instruction of Palm Beach County, Florida, 5 C ir., 1958, 258
F. 2d 730, 732; Mannings v. Board of Public Instruction of Hillsborough
County, Florida, 5 C ir., 1960, 277 F .2d 370; Augustus v. Board of
Public Instruction of Escambia County, Florida, 5 C ir., 1962, 306 F. 2d
862; Potts v. Flax, 5 C ir., 1963, 313 F. 2d 284; and Armstrong v,
Board of Education of Birmingham, 5 C ir., 1963, 323 F . 2d 333.
In reversing the District Court in Armstrong, this court made
51
the law of this circuit plain in this regard beyond peradventure. The
District Court in that case had relied on substantially the same authori
ties as the District Court here. ̂ We would add this observa-(R-57) tion
2 The District Court here did not have the benefit of the Armstrong"'
decision before entering the orders which are the subject
matter of these appeals. The authorities relied on such as
Cook v. P aris , 5 C ir., 1950, 178 F . 2d 595; and Brown v.
Board of Trustees of LaGranae Ind. School Dist. , 5 C ir.,
1951, 187 F. 2d 20, were decided prior to Brown v. Board of
Education. 1954, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873,
striking down the separate but equal doctrine in public educa
tion, and the subsequent Brown case. 1955, 349 U.S. 294,
75 S.Gt. 753, 99 L.Ed. 1083, and Cooper v. Aaron, 1958,
358 U.S. 1, 78S.Ct. 1401, 3 L .Ed.2d 5, putting an affirma-
tive duty on school boards to bring about the elimination of
racial discrimination in the public schools. This duty feature
as laid down by the Supreme Court, where the elimination of
discrimination in a school system has been requested, as
here, also distinguishes, if they can be said to be applicable,
McCabe v. Atchison & S. F. Rv. Co., 1914, 235 U.S. 151,
35 S.Ct. 69, 59 L.Ed. 169, Bailey v. Patterson, 1962, 369
U.S. 31, 82 S.Ct. 549, 7 L .Ed.2d 512; dnd Clark v. Thompson,
S.D. M iss., 1962, 206 F.supp. 539, aff. on appeal, 5 C ir .,
1963, 313 F. 2d 637.
to what the court there said. The decisions cited from North Carolina,
Maryland, and Arkansas holding that administrative remedies must be
exhausted turn on the rationale of the lav/ and custom and practice in
those states being such that applications for assignment by Negro chil
dren to white schools would be given good faith consideration, and were
possible of achievement. This was true on the face of the Alabama law.
See 'Shuttlesworth v. BirminghamBoard of Education,N.D. Ala., 1958,
162 F.Supp. 372, affirmed, 358 U.S. 101, 79 S.Ct. 221, 3 L .Ed.2d 145.
It is impossible to apply that rationale to Mississippi. And notwithstand
ing the state of the Alabama law, an injunction was granted in Armstrong
to enforce the desegregation measures to be affected by the school
board. These were regulations governing the assignment and transfer
52
of pupils in the Birmingham school system promulgated to implement
the Alabama pupil placement law. On this rationale generally, see
Jeffers v. Whitley, 4 C ir ., 1962, 309 F. 2d 621,
This is not to say that the Fourteenth Amendment commands
integration of the races in the schools, or that voluntary segregation is
not legally permissible. See Avery v. Wichita Falls Ind. School D ist.,
5 C ir., 1957, 241 F .2d 230; Hippy v. Borders, 5 C ir., 1957, 250 F ,2d
690; Cohen v. Public Housing Administration, 5 C ir., 1958, 257 F. 2d
73, cert, den., 358 U.3. 928, 79 S.Ct. 315, 3 L.Ed. 2d 302; Holland
v. Board of Public Instruction, supra; and Shuttles worth v. Birmingham
Board of Education, supra. The Supreme Court did not hold otherwise
in Brown v. Board of Education. 1954, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686,
98 L.Ed, 873. Its holding was that enforced racial segregation in the
public schools is a denial of the equal protection of the laws enjoined
by the Fourteenth Amendment. Cooper v. Aaron, 1958, 358 U. S. 1,
78 S.Ct. 1401, 3 L.Ed. 2d 5.
But, there cannot be voluntary segregation in these schools
where desegregation has been requested until inhibitions, legal and
otherwise, serving to enforce segregation have been removed to the
extent, as we said in Gibson, 272 F. 2d 763, 767, supra, that appellants
and the class they represent are "afforded a reasonable and conscious
opportunity to apply for admission to any schools for which they are
eligible without regard to their race or color, and to have that choice
fairly considered by the enrolling authorities.11
As matters now stand in Mississippi, racial segregation in the
public schools is enforced, and the rights of the appellants here under
53
the Fourteenth Amendment to equal protection of the laws are proscrib
ed. Having said that it was error for the District Court to dismiss
their complaints seeking relief from such proscription, it follows that
each of the cases must thus be reversed. Upon remand, pending dis
position of each on the merits, it will be the duty of the District Court
to give prompt consideration to the pending (R-58) motions of appell
ants for preliminary injunctions, cf. Davis v. Board of School Com
missioners of Mobile County, Ala., 5 C ir., 1963, 318 F .2d 63, and to
be guided by the scope of temporary relief accorded by this court in
Stell v. Savannah-Chatham County Board of Education, 5 C ir ., 1963,
318 F. 2d 425; Davis v. School Commissioners of Mobile County, 5 C ir.,
1963, 322 F. 2d 356; and Armstrong v. Board of Education of Birming
ham, supra. Of course, the grant of temporary relief pending a hearing
on the merits will in no wise deprive appellees of the other usual proce
dures applicable and obtaining in civil actions, including the right to
answer the complaints, and to raise and litigate issues of fact, if any
there be, regarding the merits of each of these suits.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings not incon
sistent herewith, with direction to the Clerk to issue the mandate forth
with in accordance with the rules of this court.
A true copy
Test: EDWARD W. WADSWORTH
Clerk, U. S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Gircuit
{SEAL)
By / s / G. F. Ganucheau ______
Deputy
New Orleans, Louisiana FEB 13 1964
Adm. Office, U, S. Courts--E.3. Upton Printing Co., N. O. La.
* * *
(R-59) 54
NOTICE OF MOTION
(Title omitted-FUed Feb. 18,1964)
Plaintiffs, having filed a motion for a preliminary injunction
in this action, now move this Court to set a hearing on said motion on
the earliest available date, and in support of said motion state the
following:
1. This action was filed in March, 1963, together with a
motion for preliminary injunction, but was dismissed prior to a hearing
on said motion.
2. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit on February 13, 1964, reversed this Court's order of dismissal
and in an opinion issued as and for the mandate stated:
. . . Upon remand, pending disposition of each on the
merits, it will be the duty of the District Court to
give prompt consideration to the pending motions of
appellants for preliminary Injunctions, cf. Davis v.
Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, A la.,
5 C ir., 1963, 318 F. 2d 63, and to be guided by the scope
(R-60) of temporary relief accorded by this court in Stell v.
Savannah-Chatham County Board of Education, 5 C ir .,
1963, 318 F. 2d 425; Davis v. School Commissioners of
Mobile County, 5 C ir., 1963, 322 F .2d 356; and
Armstrong v.Board of Education of Birmingham, supra.
Of course, the grant of temporary relief pending a
hearing on the merits will In no wise deprive appellees
of the other usual procedures applicable and obtaining
in civil actions, including the right to answer the
complaints, and to raise and litigate issues of fact,
if any there be, regarding the merits of each of
these suits.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings
not inconsistent herewith, with direction to the Clerk to
issue the mandate forthwith in accordance with the rules
of this court.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs respectfully
request that this Court set a hearing on plaintiffs' motion for prelimi -
55
nary injunction at the earliest available hate.
Respectfully submitted,
/ s / Derrick A. Bell Jr.
JACK GREENBERG
CONSTANCE BAKER MOTLEY
DERRICK A. BELL
10 Golumbus Circle
New York 19, New York
JACK H. YOUNG
115 1/2 North Farish Street
Jackson, Mississippi
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
(R-61 Certificate of Service, which Is not copied here.)
* * *
(R-62)
MOTION TO INTERVENE
(Title omitted-Piled Feb. 19,1964)
Jimmy Primos, Claudia Primos and Gale Primos, minors, by
Aleck Primos, their father and next friend, and Aleck Primos, individ
ually, and Billie Claude Pierce Primos, individually; and Doyle Good
man and Gayle Goodman, minors, by James Goodman, their father and
next friend, and James Goodman, individually; move for leave to inter
vene as defendants in this action in order to assert the defenses and
grounds for relief set forth in their proposed plea and answer, a copy
of which is hereto attached.
Movants respectfully show that under current court rulings
they may or will be bound by the judgment rendered by the court in this
action and there are many issues as to which the present parties defend
ant to this suit cannot afford adequate representation of the interest of
movants.
Movants respectfully aver that they have not been parties in
56
any other case involving the questions here presented and are therefore
not bound by the decision in (R-63) any other case. Nevertheless, they
will be effectively bound by the decision in this case, because the Jack-
son Municipal Separate School District Board will be bound.
Movants further show that said School District Board does not
adequately represent them, either as school children or parents, and if
said School District Board should be held to adequately represent mov
ants it would likewise adequately represent complainants and, hence,
movants are entitled to intervene if complainants are entitled to com
plain.
Movants' claim and defense and the main action have questions
of law and fact in common.
Movants bring this motion under the provisions of Title 28,
Rule 24 (a) (2) and Rule 24 (b) (2).
WHEREFORE, movants pray that this motion to intervene as
defendants in this action be allowed.
/ s / Dan H. Shell
340 F irst National Bank
Building
JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI
/ s /
DAN H. SHELL
R. Carter Pittman
P. 0. Box 891 R. CARTER PITTMAN
DALTON,GEORGIA
ZsZ_ Geo. Stephen Leonard
1730 K Street N. W. GE ORGE STEPHE N LE ONARD
WASHINGTON 6, D. G.
(R-64 to R-74 Inclusive, not copied here because executed copy
appears later in this record.)
(R-75 Notice of Motion, which is not copied here.)
(R-76 Certificate of Service, which is not copied here.)
(R-77) 57
MOTION OF DEFENDANTS TO .STAY
PROCEEDINGS PENDING ACTION
OF COURT OF APPEALS_________
(Title omitted-Filed Feb. 19, 1964 )
NOW COME the defendants in the above styled and numbered
action, by their attorneys, and respectfully move the Court to stay pro
ceedings in this Court pending action by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on defendants’ motion to recall mandate to
that Court, and in support thereof would show unto the Court the
following:
1. On February 13, 1964, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit rendered its opinion in tills case reversing the
order of this Court dismissing said action. On the same day the Clerk
of said Court issued the mandate to this Court. The Appellees in the
Court of Appeals, the defendants here, have filed a motion (R-78) in
the Court of Appeals to recall the mandate in order that they may exer
cise their right to file a petition for rehearing under Rule 29 of the
Court of Appeals, and a copy of said petition and brief is attached hereto
marked Exhibit "A".
2. Jurisdiction of this action was prematurely and improperly
placed in this Court by the immediate issuance of the mandate on the
day the case was decided by the Court of Appeals; that defendants allege
and believe that their motion to recall the mandate to the Court of Ap
peals is well taken and should be granted and that it would be prejudicial
to the rights of the defendants for this Court to proceed until the Court
of Appeals has had a reasonable opportunity to act on defendants’ petition
to recall the mandate.
58
WHEREFORE, defendants respectfully move the Court to stay
proceedings herein in this Court pending action by the Court of Appeals
on their petition to recall the mandate.
Respectfully submitted,
JOE T. PATTERSON, Attorney General
Jackson, Mississippi
DUGAS SHANDS, Assistant Attorney
General
Jackson, Mississippi
ROBERT C. CANNADA
700 Petroleum Building
Jackson, Mississippi
THOMAS H. WATKINS
800 Plaza Building
Jackson, Mississippi
BY / s / Thos. H. Watkins
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
(R-79 Notice of Hearing and Certificate of Service, which are not
copied here.)
* * *
(R-80) 59
EXHIBIT "A"
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT
NO. 20, 824.
DARRELL KENYATTA EVERS, ET AL, Appellants
vs.
JACKSON MUNICIPAL SEPARATE
SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL, Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court,
Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson Division
PETITION OF APPELLEES FOR RE GALL
OF MANDATE FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
JOE T. PATTERSON
Attorney General
Jackson, Mississippi
DUGAS SHANDS
Assistant Attorney General
Jackson, Mississippi
E. V/. STENNETT, Special Counsel
City Hall
Jackson, Mississippi
THOMAS H. WATKINS, Special Counsel
800 Plaza Building
Jackson, Mississippi
ROBERT C. CANNADA, Special Counsel
700 Petroleum Building
Jackson, Mississippi
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES
(R-81)
PETITION OF APPELLEES FOR RE GALL
OF MANDATE FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
60
NOW COME the Appellees in the above styled and numbered
action, by their attorneys, and respectfully petition the Court to recall
its mandate herein to the District Court in order that Appellees may
file a petition for rehearing and brief in support thereof pursuant to
Rule 29 of this Court, and in support thereof would show unto the Court
the following:
(1) This Court on February 13, 1964, rendered its opinion r e
versing this case and remanding same to the District Court. Said opin
ion instructed the Clerk of this Court to issue the mandate "forthwith11.
The Clerk of this Court did, on February 13, 1964, issue the mandate
to the District Court, and said mandate is now in the possession of the
District Court.
(2) Appellees desire to file a petition for rehearing and brief
in support thereof in connection with this Court's opinion of February 13,
1964, but are deprived of the right so to do by the fact that the issuance
of the mandate on the day said opinion was rendered thereby deprived
this Court of further jurisdiction, including the right to receive and pass
on Appellees' petition for rehearing.
(3) The mandate was issued to the District Court before the
Appellees or their attorneys had any knowledge of this Court's opinion of
February 13, 1964, and the issuance of the mandate on the day the opin
ion was rendered thereby deprived Appellees of their right under Rule
29 to file a petition for rehearing herein.
(4) That if Section 2071 of Title 28, Un ite d St ate s Co de,
61
authorizing the formulation of Rules by this Court, is construed to per
mit the denial to Appellees of a right to file a petition for rehearing, as
is grant- (R-82) ed to other litigants under Rule 29 of this Court, said
statute and the rules promulgated thereunder would be in violation of the
Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States as depriving
Appellees of their liberty or property without due process of law.
(5) The right of the appellees to file a petition for certiorari in
the Supreme Court of fee United States and to have same granted may be
affected by the failure of Appellees to file and present to this Court a
motion for rehearing.
WHEREFORE, Appellees respectfully petition this Court to
recall its mandate herein in order that Appellees may file a petition for
rehearing and brief in support thereof pursuant to Rule 29 of this Court.
Respectfully submitted,
JOE T. PATTERSON
Attorney General
Jackson, Mississippi
DUGAS BRANDS
Assistant Attorney General
Jackson, Mississippi
E. W. STENNETT, Special Counsel
City Hall, Jackson, Mississippi
THOMAS H. WATKINS, Special Counsel
800 Plaza Building
Jackson, Mississippi
ROBERT1 G. CMNNifDii, Special Counsel
700 Petroleum Building
Jackson, Mississippi
BY _____________________ _________ _
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES
(R-83) 62
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES’
PETITION FOR REGALL OF MANDATE
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
Rule 29 of this Court provides:
"A petition for rehearing may be presented only
within twenty-one days after entry of judgment, unless
by special leave granted by the court, or one of the
judges. Twenty copies must be filed, accompanied by
proof of service. It must be printed and must briefly
and distinctly state its grounds without argument, be
supported by certificate of counsel to the effect that it
is presented in good faith and not for delay, and if peti
tioner desires, he may file a written brief in support. The
petition will not be granted or permitted to be argued unless
a majority of the court so determines. As amended
January 19, 1956. ”
We realize that Rule 32 provides that the mandate of the Court
shall issue after twenty-one (21) days from the date of decision "unless
the time is shortened or enlarged by o rder." We submit that this neces
sarily means that in any event a reasonable time will be allowed within
which a petition for rehearing may be filed. We do not believe that
Rule 32 was intended as a means of nullifying the right to file a petition
for rehearing as permitted by Rule 29. For instance, the last sentence
of Rule 32 provides that if the petition for rehearing is denied, the man
date shall issue after seven (7) days from entry of the order denying the
petition. In other words, there is a mandatory seven-day delay in is
suance of the mandate after denial of a petition for rehearing. We sub
mit that it would be wholly unreasonable for the Court to order the man
date issued simultaneously with the rendition of the Court's decision so
as to cut off absolutely the right to file a petition for rehearing.
The moment that the mandate is issued by the Clerk this Court
is deprived of further jurisdiction, including the right to receive and
63
consider a petition for rehearing. In Meredith v. F air, U. S. G. A. 5th,
306 F. 2d 374, this Court said:
(R-84) " All of the members of this Court agree that
when a mandate has been issued, it is logically and
legally too late to stay it. Unless the Court should
recall the mandate, the Court's control over the
judgment below comes to an end after the mandate
has been issued. That is the plain meaning of Rule
32. The authorities fully support the rule. Omaha
Electric Light & Power Co. v. City of Omaha, 8
C ir., 216 F. 848, setting aside on rehearing decree
in 179 F. 455, which aff'd 172 F. 494, appeal dis
missed 230 U. S. 123, 33 S. Ct. 974, 57 L. Ed.
1419; in re Nevada-Utah Mines & Smelters Corp.,
204 F. 982, denying rehearing 2 C ir., 202 F. 126."
Rule 29 allows Appellees 21 days within which to file a petition
for rehearing. Rule 23(b) (ii) of the Supreme Gourt of the United States
requires Appellees to show in their petition for writ of certiorari the
date of any order respecting a rehearing in the Court of Appeals. The
rule-making power of this Court is derived from the statute, and it can
not modify or add to the provisions of any rule except by following the
procedure therein provided. Indiviglio v. U. S ., U.S.C. A. 5th, 249 F. 2d
549; reversed 357 U.S. 574, 2 L.Ed.2d 1547; U.S. v. Isthmian S, S.
Co., 359 U.S. 314, 3 L. Ed. 2d 845.
We respectfully submit that Court rules bind judges of the
Courts as much as litigants. Clawans v. Whiteford, 55 F. 2d 1037, cert,
den. 287 U.S. 605, 77 L.Ed. 562.
We respectfully submit that to permit other litigants the right to
file petitions for rehearing under Rule 29 and to deny said right to Appel
lees does not comply with the due process requirements of the Fifth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In 5 C. J. S ., Appeal
& Error, Section 1444, page 568, the rule is stated:
64
"A rule of court that a petition to rehear a
case decided by it may be filed within a specified
time after date of decision fixes the period within
which such court's judgment or decree shall be in
operative in the sense that it cannot be enforced
or the losing litigant deprived of any right involved,
(R-85) and the judgment or decree is not final and oper
ative during the period of time within which peti
tions for rehearing may be filed. "
We submit that justice requires that Appellees be afforded the
right to file and have considered a petition for rehearing in this case,
and this can only be accomplished by a recall of the mandate in order
to give this Gourt jurisdiction to receive and consider Appellees' peti
tion for rehearing.
Respectfully submitted,
JOE T. PATTERSON
Attorney General
Jackson, Mississippi
DUGAS SHANDS
Assistant Attorney General
Jackson, Mississippi
E. W. 3TENNETT, Special Counsel
City Hall, Jackson, Mississippi
THOMAS H. WATKINS, Special Counsel
300 Plaza Building
Jackson, Mississippi
ROBERT C. CANNADA, Special Counsel
700 Petroleum Building
Jackson, Mississippi
(R-86)
BY_________ _________________
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES
CERTIFICATE
The undersigned counsel of record for Appellees hereby
certifies that a true copy of the foregoing petition and brief in support
thereof has been this day forwarded by United States Mail, postage
65
prepaid, to the following attorneys of record for the Appellants, to-wit:
Jack H. Young
115-1/2 N. Farish street
Jackson, Mississippi
R. Jess Brown
125-1/2 N. Farish Street
Jackson, Mississippi
Jack Greenberg
Constance Baker Motley
Derrick A. Bell, Jr.
10 Columbus Circle
New York 19, Neu? York
This____ day of February, 1964.
Of Counsel for Appellees.
S({ »js 5̂
(R-87)
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME
3N WHICH TO ANSWER
(Title omitted-Filed Feb. 22, 1964}
Each Party-Defendant herein having requested a fifteen day
extension of time within which to file and serve its or his answer to the
Complaint, and it appearing to the Court that the period of time within
which such answer or answers are authorized to be filed and served
under the provisions of Rule 12, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, has
not expired, and for good cause shown,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED BY THE COURT that each Defendant
herein be and it or he is hereby granted an extension of time to and in
cluding March 1 0 , 1964, within which to file and serve its or his ansxver
to the Complaint in this cause.
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this, the 21 st day of February,
1964.
66
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this, the 21 st day of February, 1964.
/ s / S. G. Mize____________________ _
U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE IN AND FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
MISSISSIPPI
0 E 1964, Page 96
* * *
(R-88)
ORDER ALLOWING INTERVENTION
_________AS DEFENDANTS_______
(Title omitted-Filed Feb. 26,1964 }
This cause coming on to be heard on the Motion of Jimmy
Primos, Claudia Primos and Gale Primes, minors, by Aleck Primos,
their father and next friend, and Aleck Primos, individually, and Billie
Claude Pierce Primos, individually; and Doyle Goodman and Gayle
Goodman, minors, by James Goodman, their father and next friend,
and James Goodman, individually, for leave to appear as parties to and
to intervene as defendants in this action, and the Court having considered
said motion and the Pleas and Answers tendered therewith, and it ap
pearing to the Court that notice of said motion has been duly served on
all parties to this cause and that the said movants are entitled to become
parties and should be permitted to intervene as prayed, and the Court
being fully advised in the premises, it is
ORDERED, that Jimmy Primos, Claudia Primos and Gale
Primos, minors, by /deck Primos, their father and next friend, and
Aleck Primos, individually, and Billie Glaude Pierce Primos, individu
ally; and Doyle Goodman and Gayle Goodman, minors, by James Good
man, their father and next friend, and James Goodman, individually,
have (R-89) leave to intervene in this cause and are hereby made
Parties thereto, and to that end may file their said pleas and answers
67
instanter in the same manner and with like effect as if made original
parties to this cause.
/ s / S. G. Mize______________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: Feby. 26th 1964 .
OB, 1964, Pages 115 and 116
* * *
(R-90)
PLEAS AND ANSWER OF INTERVENQRS
(Title omitted-Filed Feb. 26,1964)
The petition of Jimmy Primos, Claudia Prirnos and Gale Prim-
os, minors, by Aleck Primos, their father and next friend, and Aleck
Primos, individually, and Billie Claude Pierce Primos, individually;
and Doyle Goodman and Gayle Goodman, minors, by James Goodman,
their father and next friend, and James Goodman, individually, hereafter
called "Petitioners", residents of the City of Jackson, Mississippi, In
the Jackson Municipal Separate School District, and all of whom are
presently attending and are students of schools located in said city and
district, and operated by and under the jurisdiction of the Trustees of
the Jackson Municipal Separate School District, a public body, under the
management and direction of the "defendants" named by "plaintiffs" in
the original complaint, respectfully show:
The claims and defenses for which petitioners seek intervention
axe as follows:
1 .
All of the petitioners named herein are Whites, sharing a com
mon biological origin, cultural heritage and (R-91) consciousness of
kind, and are students or parents of students attending free public
68
schools operated by the Trustees of The Jackson Municipal Separate
School District. Petitioners constitute approximately 60% of the school
population in the Jackson Municipal Separate School District.
2.
The original plaintiffs are Negro or Negroid students or parents
of students seeking admission to public schools under the supervision of
the Trustees of The Jackson Municipal Separate School District which at
the present time are attended only by White children. Plaintiffs and the
class they represent constitute approximately 40% of the school popula
tion in the Jackson Municipal Separate School District.
3.
Petitioners seek to intervene in their own behalf and on behalf
of all other White children and White parents of children in the Jackson
Municipal Separate School District who are similarly situated and who
might be similarly affected by any judgment and decree rendered in this
case. The members of the class on behalf of which petitioners seek to
intervene are so numerous as to make it impracticable to bring them
individually before this Court, but there are common questions of law
and fact involved, and petitioners fairly and adequately represent the
interest of those White children or parents of White children who desire
not to be forcibly compelled to associate with plaintiffs and others of
their ethnic group in the common schools of the Jackson Municipal Sep
arate School District.
(R-92) 4.
As part of their claim and defense these petitioners answer
each specific allegation of the original complaint as follows:
69
(a) The allegations of paragraph 1 of the complaint are denied.
(b) The allegations of paragraph 2 of the complaint are admitt
ed, except these petitioners are without knowledge or information suf
ficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment that the said
trustee defendants operate a compulsory bi-racial school system.
(c) In answer to paragraph 3 of the complaint it is admitted,
for the purpose of this intervention, that all of the complainants are
Negroes or Negroids, but it is alleged on information and belief that the
complaining children as a class are not average nor representative of
Negroes in attendance upon the public schools in the Jackson Municipal
Separate School District. Petitioners are without knowledge or informa
tion sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment that defend
ants operate a compulsory bi-racial school system.
(d) The allegations of paragraph 4 of the complaint are admitted.
(e) The allegations of paragraph 5 of the complaint are denied.
Further answering the allegations of said paragraph, petitioners affirma
tively allege that attendance at the various public schools of the Jackson
Municipal Separate School District Is not determined solely upon the
basis of race and color but such attendance is determined by a number
of other relevant factors of which racial identity is but a convenient in
dex, and which constitute a rational basis for separation of the divergent
ethnic groups, as is hereafter more fully alleged.
Petitioners deny the allegation that the assignment of profes
sional personnel is determined solely by the race and color of the chil
dren attending public schools, and they allege that there are other factors
which compel the separation of the ethnic groups Involved in order that
(R-93) 70
the school children of such groups may be efficiently and effectively ed
ucated, all of which will hereafter be more fully alleged. It is admitted
that the teachers assigned to schools for colored children are Negroes
or are Negroid. Petitioners allege that the physical facilities involved
in the educational programs for Negroes equal or exceed those afforded
to White children in the Jackson Municipal Separate School District.
(f) The allegations of paragraph 6 of the complaint are denied.
(g) The allegations of paragraph 7 of the complaint are denied.
(h) The allegations of paragraph 8 of the complaint are denied.
Cl) As to paragraph 9, it is denied that the defendants' actions,
in any sense, show any policy (determined or otherwise) of the State of
Mississippi, and It is further denied that any allegation in this para
graph is germane to the subject matter of this litigation. It is denied
that any policy, practice, custom or usage, regardless of the subject
matter to which it may relate, and as practiced by the defendants does,
or could, show any policy of the State of Mississippi as to any subject
matter. While It is admitted that the Constitution and Statutes of the
State of Mississippi exist (and generally as alleged), it is denied that
any one or more of them is relevant or germane to the subject matter
herein.
(j) The allegations of paragraph 10 are denied. A paper was
received by defendants via United States Mail. It referred to some per
sons who were not pupils in the school system known as the Jackson
Municipal Separate School District, failed to comply with administrative
requirements (R-94) of the defendants and was not a petition affecting
the subject matter of this litigation. It was non-specific, indefinite and
71
vague.
(k) It is admitted as alleged in paragraph 11 that plaintiffs have
not sought to utilize the provisions of the State Pupil Assignment Act as
adopted in 1954, Miss. Code Annot. § § 6334-01 to 6334-07. The other
allegations of paragraph 11 are denied.
(l) The allegations of paragraph 12 are denied.
(m) It is denied that plaintiffs are entitled to any of the relief
for which prayer is made on pages 7 and 8 of the Complaint.
5.
Petitioners further allege that there are such differences and
disparities between the ethnic group allegedly represented by plaintiffs
and that represented by petitioners as to form a rational basis for sep
arating such ethnic groups in the schools of the Jackson Municipal Sep
arate School District, in the following particulars, among others:
(a) The teaching programs, through a choice of elective sub
jects and teacher adaptation of state and national progress norms, are
varied to meet the different educational aptitudes of White or Negro
children in each individual school.
(b) The educational aptitudes of students in the Jackson Muni
cipal Separate School District school system have been measured over a
period of years by educationally standardized psychometric intelligence
and subject achievement tests. These show wide divergencies between
the average and median proficiency of White and Negro students, respect
ively. Petitioners allege specifically: (R-95)
(1) The median I. Q. of all Negro students averages several
Points below the median for all White students. While both groups have
72
a normal distribution of high and low individuals around this median
figure, the difference in average is such that the Negro overlap of the
median White child is a very small percentage. This compares to an
overlap of a far greater percentage which would be shown by groups of
similar learning capacity.
(2) This difference does not remain constant in the individuals
of the two races. It increases at a relatively constant rate of one year
in four, such that the grade achievement levels of Negro children which
only lag behind those of White students by an average of a half to one
year in the primary grades will increase to three years plus by the end
of the secondary grades. This rate Is independent of the intelligence
quotients (mental maturity) of the children so that Negro-White students
matched for intelligence do not thereafter remain at the same level but
separate thereafter at the rate indicated.
(3) The basic educability difference between the two groups
exists not only as to mental age and learning rate but varies by type of
subject, e .g ., the greatest difference being found in mathematical ab
straction, the least in areas of memorization.
(c) The learning pattern differences which exist in the Jackson
Municipal Separate School District students are substantially identical
to all known tests of Negro and White students whether tested in the sep-
abated schools of the South or the inter-mixed schools in the North and
st. Not only are these differences standard in all tested areas but
various studies show (R-96) and will show that they were and are inher
ent, not caused by the home or school environment of the students. Such
studies tested Negro and White groups where social and environmental
73
factors had been matched and where change of condition was shown to be
unable to change results. Only an educationally negligible proportion of
these differences between the two ethnic groups was shown to be a possi
ble result of educational or socio-economic factors.
(d) These differences in the educability of Negro and White
students are functionally related to natural physiological differences
between the two races arising from their different origins. The varia
tions in intellectual abilities are thus innate, related both quantitatively
and qualitatively not to color or race but to certain common physical
variances in the relative size, proportion and structure of the brain and
neural system. These, within scientific limitations, permit the predic
tion of differences in personality and learning capacity directly propor
tioned to the tested differences.
(e) Modern Psychological doctrine shows that a failure to main
tain the existing standards of a White or mixed class creates a serious
psychic problem of frustration on the part of the Negro child and forces
him to compensate by attention-creating anti-social behavior. In all
cities where there is a large Negro school population in mixed classes,
this situation has caused serious disciplinary problems and has thereby
deprived both Negro and White children of an effective education.
(f) An additional factor which directly affects the education of
both ethnic groups is that which results from the inter-mixture of recog
nizably different groups in a single class. The principles of that branch
Psychology known as social dynamics have shown that all individuals
identify themselves with specific groups (R-97) such as trades, nation-
Cities, sex, religion, age and race, ouch identifications are made at the
74
unconscious level in infancy and are essential to normal personality de
velopment. The strongest of all such identifications are visible physi
cal and psychological differences. Identification on the basis of visible
differences will occur whether or not the individual wishes It and is a
form of unavoidable self-identification. This reaction to physically
specific differences between people Is a universal human characteristic
and compels group identification along racial lines and racial associa
tion preferences to be formed in early pre-school years for both Negro
and White children.
(g) Contrary to common belief, group preference is strength
ened by group contacts. Where two substantial groups of students having
obvious visible group characteristics are mixed in a single classroom,
the reaction Is to increase or exacerbate, in increasing proportion to
the degree of contact involved, any existing racial preferences or hos
tilities. The attendant conflict which this situation causes diminishes
available classroom time and attention and defeats pro tanto the educa
tional opportunity of the children of both groups. It is the unconsidered
factor which in large part has led to the severe impairment of the
standing of school systems where group integration is in effect.
(h) On the basis of the tests, a Negro student able to excel in
a white class at the start of a school year would be forced to press to
keep up by its end and be overpressed in increasing degree thereafter.
Also, the difference in learning patterns invalidates a prediction as to
the educational success of the individual in a class which stresses read-
kig comprehension or mathematical (R-98) calculation.
(D A Negro student transferred to a White school would lose
75
his sense of outstanding achievement within the group with which he
identifies himself, would be inescapably conscious of the social prefer
ences of the new group and, if he tries to transfer his identity to the
White class, could readily cause himself severe psychological injury.
Cj) The adverse effects on the non-transferred Negro children
would be even more injurious. The loss of their group leaders would
substantially increase any existing presumption of racial inferiority.
Self-viewed as a rejected group, the competitive drive of those not
transferred is hurt, drop-outs become common and they fail to secure
the education which they could undertake.
(k) There is no modern psychological evidence of mental or
educational injury resulting to Negro students by education in separate
schools. Greater personality stability and a higher degree of learning
accomplishment are achieved in the divided school system.
6 .
Petitioners allege that the establishment and the maintenance
of separate specially adapted schools granting equal opportunity for de
velopment of the differing capacities and abilities of the children of the
two groups is most advantageous to all.
(R-99) 7 .
Petitioners allege that racial differences are factual differ -
ences, that neither they nor those represented by them in the Jackson
Municipal Separate School District have ever been a party or parties to
or ^presented by counsel in any cause wherein an integration decree
was entered and hence they are not bound by any decrees heretofore
rendered between other parties.
76
If the relief prayed for by the plaintiffs in this case should be
granted, petitioners and the members of the class which they represent
will be injured by the operation of a compulsory integrated school sys
tem in the Jackson Municipal Separate School District. The operation
of a compulsory integrated school system in such district will run
counter to the desires of the great majority of the people of the afore
said District and violate the rights of petitioners and members of their
class to decide for themselves fundamental questions Involving their
own basic rights, their welfare and happiness. The injuries which peti
tioners and members of their class will suffer as the result of compul
sory Integration of the school system in the Jackson Municipal Separate
School District, will be irreparable and will continue to irreparably in
jure petitioners and their class unless such forced integration is en
joined by this Court.
WHEREFORE, having fully answered, Petitioners pray:
(1) That this Court make inquiry and make findings in accord
ance with the facts and that the prayers or complaints be denied.
(2) That the Gourt enter a decree enjoining the defendants in
the original complaint, their employees, (R-lOO) successors and all
Persons in active concert with them from operating a compulsory racial
ly integrated school system in the Jackson Municipal Separate School
district, Jackson, Mississippi.
(3) That petitioners be awarded such other general and equit-
able relief as is mete and proper in the premises.
8.
77
/ s / Dan H, Shell
340 First National Bank
Building
JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI
/ s /
DAN H. SHELL
R. Carter Pittman
P. 0. Box 891 R. CARTER PITTMAN
DALTON, GEORGIA
/s / Geo. Stephen Leonard
1730 K Street, N. W. GEORGE STEPHEN LEONARD
WASHINGTON 6 , D. G.
* * *
(R-101)
ORDER GRANTING STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
(TiUe omitted-Filed Feb. 26,1964)
THIS ACTION came on for hearing on the defendants’ motion
to stay proceedings in this Court pending action by the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on defendants' petition as Appell
ees in that Court for a recall of the mandate to said Appellate Court,
and this Court, having considered same and being advised in the prem
ises, is of the opinion that said motion to stay should be granted for one
week only, pending action by the Court of Appeals.
It is, therefore, ordered and adjudged that proceedings in this
action in this Court are hereby stayed until 9:00 a,m. Wednesday,
March 4, 1964, at which time this Court will hear plaintiffs' motion for
a preliminary injunction at Jackson, Mississippi, unless the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has, prior to that time,
granted defendants' petition to recall the mandate in this action to that
Court.
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this 26th day of February, 1964.
/ s / 3. C. Mize___________________ _
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
OB, 1964, Page 117
sjs sj: sfc
(R-102) 78
PRELIMINARY IN JUNCTION
ORDER
(Title omitted-Filed March 4, 1964)
THIS ACTION came on for hearing on the plaintiffs'' motion
for a preliminary injunction, and the Court having considered same is of
the opinion that said motion should be sustained.
It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed that, until fur
ther ordered by this Court, the defendant, Jackson Municipal Separate
School District, and the other individual defendants and their agents,
servants, employees, successors in office and those in concert with
them who shall receive notice of this order, be and they are hereby
temporarily restrained and enjoined from requiring segregation of the
races in any school under their supervision, from and after such time
as may be necessary to make arrangements for admission of children
to such schools on a racially non-discriminatory basis with all deliber
ate speed, as required by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Ed
ucation of Topeka, (R-103) 349 U.3. 294, 75 S.Ct. 753, 99 L.Ed.
1083.
It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that said persons
be and they are hereby required to submit to this Court not later than
July 15, 1964, a plan under which the said defendants propose to make
sn immediate start in the desegregation of the schools of said school
district, which plan shall include a statement that the maintenance of
separate schools for the Negro and white children of said school dis
trict shall be completely ended with respect to at least one grade during
the school year commencing September, 1964, and with respect to at
icast one additional grade each school year thereafter.
79
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DEGREED at Jackson, Mississip
pi, this 4th dav of March, 1964.
/ s / S. G. Mize _____________ _
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
0 B, 1964, Page 134 & 135
* * *
(R-104)
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN
WHICH TO ANSWER_________ _
(Title omitted-Filed March 4, 1964)
Now comes each of the defendants in this cause and moves the
Court for an extension of time, to and including March 30, 1964, within
which to file their answer or answers herein and for grounds thereof,
say:
1. On February 2l, 1964, this Court granted the defendants an
extension of time to and including March 10, 1954, within which to file
their respective answer and this motion is made within said period of
time.
2. The order of this Court entered today, March 4, 1964, has
cast additional burdens upon these defendants and their counsel in con
nection with the preparation and filing of their respective answers;
and will require conferences, time, effort and research in addition to
that originally anticipated prior to the entry of said order on this date.
This motion is not made for delay but so that justice may be
done and the defendants given a fair and reasonable time within which to
prepare, serve and file their respective answer; the extension herein
requested cannot prejudice the plaintiffs herein. (R-105)
Counsel for said defendants have exercised diligence, and will
continue so to do, in and about the preparation, service and filing or
80
said answers.
WHEREFORE, defendants respectfully request the Court to
extend the time within which each may serve and file its or his answer
to and including March 30, 1964.
ALL DEFENDANTS BY:
Robert C. Cannada, Attorney,
Petroleum Building
Jackson, Mississippi
Thomas H. Watkins, Attorney,
Plaza Building
Jackson, Mississippi
Joe T. Patterson, Attorney General of
the State of Mississippi
Dugas Shands, Assistant Attorney
General of the State of Mississippi
New Capitol Building
Jackson, Mississippi
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
BY / s / Dugas Shands
DUGAS SHANDS
(This Instrument carries proper Certificate of Service, which is not
copied here.)
(R-106)
* * *
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME
IN WHICH TO FILE ANSWER
{Title omitted-Filed" March 4,19641'
All Parties-Defendant herein having filed and presented to the
Court their motion for an extension of time of twenty days after March
1964, within which to file and serve its or his answer to the com-
plaint, and it appearing to the Court that the period of time within which
such answer or answers is authorized to be filed and served under the
81
provisions of Rule 12, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, has not ex
pired, and for good cause shown,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED BY THE COURT that each defendant
herein be and it or he is hereby granted an extension of time, to and
including March 30, 1964, within which to file and serve its or his
answer to the complaint in this cause.
ORDERED AMD ADJUDGED this, the 4th day of March, 1964.
/ s / S. C. Mize___________________
U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE IN AND FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
0 B, 1964, Page 137
* * *
(R-107)
ORDER OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
(Filed March 6 , 1964)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT
NO. 20824
DARRELL KENYATTA EVERS, ET AL.,
Appellants,
versus Jackson Division
q ivxl Action
JACKSON MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL No. 3379
DISTRICT, ET AL,
Appelles.
NO. 20825
DIAN HUDSON, ET AL,
Appellants,
versus Jackson Division
Civil Action
LEAKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,ET AL, No. 3382
Appellees.
82
NO. 20826
GILBERT R. MASON, JR ., ET AL,
Appellants,
versus Southern Division
Civil Action
THE BILOXI MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL No. 2696
DISTRICT OF BILOXI,MISSISSIPPI, ET AL,
Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi.
Before HUTCHESON and BELL, Circuit Judges, and BREWSTER,
District Judge.
BY THE COURT:--
IT IS ORDERED that the Petitions of appellees in the above
entitled and numbered causes for a recall of the mandate be, and
the same are hereby DENIED.
(ORIGINAL FILED MARCH 5, 1964)
A true copy
Test: EDWARD W. WADSWORTH
Clerk, U. S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
By / s / Clara R. James
(SEAL) Deputy
New Orleans, Louisiana MAR 5 1964
0 B, 1964, Page 148
* * * *
(R- 108 and R-109 Civil Subpoenas, which are not copied here.)
(R-110)
A N S W E E
(Title omitted-Filed March SO, 1964)
S3
Gome now the defendants, Lester AMs, C. H. King, Lamar
Noble, W. G. Mize and J. W. Underwood, as Trustees and as com
prising the Board of Trustees of the Jackson Municipal Separate School
District, and Kirby P. Walker, Superintendent of Schools, Jackson
Municipal Separate School District, and for this their answer to the
complaint exhibited against them in the above styled and numbered
cause, would show unto the Court as follows;
FIRST DEFENSE
1.
Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph No. 1 of the
complaint.
2.
Defendants admit that this is a proceeding for a preliminary
and permanent injunction against the defendants; however, defendants
deny the conclusions set forth in Paragraph No. 2 of the complaint to
the effect that the defendants are operating a compulsory biracial school
system in Jackson, Mississippi, pursuant to their policy, practice,
custom and usage.
3.
Defendants admit that the plaintiffs are all members ox the
(P-111) Negro race, but defendants deny that plaintiffs have the right
to bring said action on behalf of all other Negro children and their par
ents in Jackson, Mississippi, and deny that there are other Negro chil
dren or parents in Jackson, Mississippi, for whom or on whose behalf
84-
plaintiffs are entitled to bring said suit. Defendants admit, on informa
tion and belief, that plaintiffs are aU citizens of the United states and
the State of Mississippi, residing in Hinds County, Mississippi. De
fendants deny, on information and belief, that all of the minor plaintiffs
are presently attending public schools in Jackson, Mississippi; however,
it is admitted, on information and belief, that all of said minor plain
tiffs are or were eligible to apply for enrollment in the public schools
of the Jackson Municipal Separate School District. Defendants deny
that said minor plaintiffs are limited by defendants to schools attended
by Negro children only pursuant to any policy, practice, custom and
usage of defendants of operating a compulsory biracial school system,
and deny specifically that defendants are operating a compulsory bi
racial school system. Except as herein specifically admitted, each and
every allegation and averment of Paragraph No. 3 of the complaint is
denied.
4.
Defendants admit that Lester Alvis, G. H. King, Lamar Noble,
w. G. Mize and J. W. Underwood constitute the Trustees of the Jack-
son Municipal Separate School District, and that Kirby P. 'Walker is
Superintendent of Schools, Jackson Municipal Separate School District;
that the Trustees of the Jackson Municipal Separate School District are
charged with the duty of operating public schools in said School District,
and are presently operating public schools in said District; that the
defendant Kirby P. Walker as Superintendent of the Jackson Municipal
Separate School District is the chief administrative officer of the said
Board of Trustees. Except as herein specifically admitted, each and
85
every allegation and averment of Paragraph No. 4 of the complaint is
denied.
(R-112) 5.
Defendants admit that, with respect to all schools under their
supervision and control, there are no schools attended by members of
both the White race and the Negro race, but deny that this came into
existence pursuant to the requirements of state law and is presently
continued, perpetuated and maintained by defendants as a matter of
state law, policy, custom and usage. The defendatns admit that, at the
present time, there are 35 schools for which the defendatns are respon
sible which are attended by white pupils and are staffed by white teach
ers, white principals and other white professional personnel. Defend
ants admit that there are 16 schools within the bounds of the Jackson
Municipal Separate School District for which the defendants are respon
sible which are attended by Negro pupils, and that such schools are staff
ed by Negro teachers, Negro principals and other Negro professional
personnel. Except as herein specifically admitted, each and every al
legation and averment set forth in Paragraph No. 5 of the complaint is
denied.
6.
Defendants deny each and every allegation aid averment set
forth in Paragraph No. 6 of the complaint.
7.
Defendants deny each and every allegation and averment set
forth in Paragraph No. 7 of the complaint.
06
Defendants admit that in the operation of the schools within the
bounds of the Jackson Municipal Separate School District, including the
plans in connection with the construction of additional schools, recogni
tion is made of the fact that there are schools attended by members of
the Negro race and there are schools attended by members of the White
race. Except as herein specifically admitted, each and every allegation
and averment contained in Paragraph No. 8 of the complaint is denied.
(R-113) 9.
Defendants admit the existence of the constitutional provisions
and statutes referred to in Paragraph No. 9 of the complaint, but deny
that any of them are relevant or germane to the subject matter herein.
10.
Defendants admit that during the month of August, 1962, there
was received through the United States Mail a petition addressed to the
Board of Trustees and the Superintendent of the Jackson Municipal Sep
arate School District, but deny that said petition was submitted in ac
cordance with the established procedure applicable to all pupils in the
District, and allege that said petition has no legal status whatsoever,
and that the action of defendants in not replying thereto was proper in
all respects. Except as herein specifically admitted, each and every
allegation and averment contained in Paragraph No. 10 of the complaint
is denied.
11.
Defendants admit that plaintiffs have not sought to utilize the
provisions of the State Pupil Assignment Act as adopted in 1954. De
8.
87
fendants deny all other allegations and averments set forth In Paragraph
No. 11 of the complaint.
12.
Defendants deny all allegations and averments set forth in
Paragraph No. 12 of the complaint.
13.
Defendants deny that plaintiffs are entitled to any relief sought
in said complaint.
SECOND DEFENSE
1 .
For the sake of brevity, defendants adopt by reference all a l
legations as set forth in Paragraphs 1 to 13, inclusive, in the F irst
Defense of this Answer, and the same are made apart (11-114) hereof
as though copied herein in full.
2.
Defendants would show unto the Court that in their operation of
the public schools within the bounds of the Jackson Municipal Separate
School District the defendants have, to the best of their abilities, con
ducted said schools for the best interest of all pupils of the District;
that there are no attendance areas, as such, within the bounds of the
District, and that each and every person desiring to attend a public
school within the District makes application for a temporary assignment
to a school within the District; that said temporary assignments are
made by or under the supervision of Kirby P. Walker, Superintendent of
Schools, and that same are made having in mind the best interest of each
particular applicant and the welfare of all in the operation of the public
88
schools In the District; that full and complete opportunity is given to
all applicants to protest such temporary assignments or to request a
change in assignment, and any such protest or application receives
immediate and prompt attention; that none of the minor plaintiffs nor
their parents have ever object to any temporary assignment or perma
nent assignment to any school in the District, and the defendants allege
that the assignments that have been made r/ere and are to the best inter
est of the pupils and to the operation of the public schools of the District.
THIRD DEFENSE
1 .
For the sake of brevity, defendants adopt by reference all alle
gations as set forth in Paragraphs 1 to 13, inclusive, in the F irst De
fense of this Answer, and the same are made a part hereof as though
copied herein in full.
2.
Defendants affirmatively allege that the manner and method
and procedure followed in connection with the assignment of (R-115)
applicants to attend the public schools within the bounds of the Jackson
Municipal Separate School District is fair, proper and reasonable and
is within the power and authority of the defendants in their duty and re
sponsibility for the operation of said schools; that necessarily, in the
operation of said schools, the defendants are vested with the exercise
of judgment and discretion, and that the procedures followed and the
assignments mark* are within and are a legitimate exercise of such
judgment and discretion. Defendants further allege affirmatively that
there are no statutory or constitutional provisions in the State of Miss
39
issippi requiring school attendance by those eligible to attend public
schools, and that in the exercise of their judgment and discretion in
connection with the public schools that are operated under their super
vision and control defendants are within their authority, and in fact It is
their duty, to take into consideration the discipline problem In the
schools as well as to and from the schools, the relative abilities of pu
pils, the compatibility of teachers and other members of the profession
al staff to their respective assignments, the availability of teachers and
other members of the professional staff, the welfare of the community
as well as the welfare of the pupils, the safety of the pupils, and aH
other matters and facts of similar nature that should be considered; that
the schools under their supervision and control have been operated in a
manner and method which Is within the judgment and discretion of the
defendants, and that there has been no denial of any constitutional right
to anyone in connection with the operation of said schools.
FOURTH DEFENSE
1 .
For the sake of brevity, defendants adopt by reference all
allegations as set forth in Paragraphs 1 to 13, inclusive, in the F irst
Defense of this Answer, and the same are made apart hereof (R-116)
as though copied herein in full.
2.
Defendants further allege that there are such differences and
disparities between the ethnic group allegedly represented by plaintiffs
and the Caucasian children in the District as to form a rational basis for
separating such ethnic groups in the schools of the Jackson Municipal
90
Separate School District.
3.
Defendants allege that the establishment and the maintenance
of separate specially-adapted schools granting equal opportunity for de
velopment of the differing capacities and abilities of the children of the
two groups is most advantageous to all.
4.
Defendants allege that racial differences are factual differ
ences, that neither they nor anyone responsible for the operation of the
public schools in the Jackson Municipal Separate School District have
ever been a party or parties to or represented by counsel in any cause
wherein an integration decree was entered and hence they are not bound
by any decrees heretofore rendered between other parties.
5.
If the relief prayed for by the plaintiffs In this case should be
granted, the members of both the White race and the Negro race will be
injured by the operation of a compulsory integrated school system in the
Jackson Municipal Separate School District. The operation of a com
pulsory integrated school system in such District will run counter to the
desires of the great majority of the people of the aforesaid District and
will be contrary to the welfare and best interests of members of both
races.
FIFTH DEFENSE
Defendants affirmatively allege that the preliminary injunction
Issued in this cause was wrongfully issued, was issued without (R-117)
taking any testimony and without any facts in the record to substantiate,
91
justify or authorize its issuance. Defendants further allege affirmative
ly that under the facts as set forth in this answer there is no legal author*
ity or basis to substantiate or authorize the issuance of said preliminary
injunction.
WHEREFORE, the defendants pray that the complaint exhibited
against them be dismissed, at the cost of the plaintiffs, and for such
other and further relief as may be deemed proper or appropriate by the
Court.
The defendants further move that the preliminary injunction
heretofore entered by this Court in this cause under date of March 4,
1964 be dissolved.
JOE T. PATTERSON
Attorney General
Jackson, Mississippi
DUGAS SHANDS
Assistant Attorney General
Jackson, Mississippi
E. W. STENNETT, Special Counsel
City Hall
Jackson, Mississippi
THOMAS H. WATKINS, Special Counsel
800 Plaza Building
Jackson, Mississippi
ROBERT C. GANN AD A, Special Counsel
700 Petroleum Building
Jackson, Mississippi
BY / s / Robert C. Cannada__________
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
(R-118 Certificate of Service, which is not copied here.)
* * *
(R-119)
EXHIBIT P -1
'WITNESS 'Walker
92
INTERROGATORIES
(Title omitted-Filed April 14,1964)
TO: Honorable Joe T. Patterson
Attorney General
Jackson, Mississippi
Dugas Shands, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
Jackson, Mississippi
E. W. Stennett, Esq.
City Hall
Jackson, Mississippi
Thomas H. "Watkins, Esq.
800 Plaza Building
Jackson, Mississippi
Robert C. Cannada, Esq.
700 Petroleum Building
Jackson, Mississippi
Attorneys for Defendants
Plaintiffs request that the defendants, Jackson Municipal Sepa
rate School District, Kirby P. Walker, Superintendent of Jackson City
Schools; Lester Alvis, Chairman, C. H. King, Vice-Chairman, Lamar
Noble, Secretary, W. G. Mize and John (R-120) Underwood, Members,
answer under oath in accordance with Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, the following interrogatories:
1. List for each public school in the Jackson Municipal
Separate School District:
a. Grades served by each school;
b. Number of Negro pupils in attendance as of the
beginning of the 1963-64 school year at each school;
c. Number of white pupils in attendance as of the
beginning of the 1963-64 school year at each school;
d. Number of Negro pupils in attendance as of the most
recent date for which figures are available for each
school;
e. Number of white pupils in attendance as of the most
recent date for which figures are available for each
school;
f. Number of Negro teachers and other administrative
or professional personnel employed as of the
beginning of the 1963-64 school year at each school;
g. Number of white teachers and other administrative
or professional personnel employed as of the
beginning of the 1963-64 school year at each school;
h. The planned pupil capacity of each school;
i. The number of regular classrooms available at each
school;
j. The number of teaching stations in use at each school,
i .e ., lunchrooms, libraries, auditoriums, corridors,
etc. presently being utilized as classrooms although
intended for other purposes. (R-121)
2. In his affidavit, filed in March 1963, in support of the
Board’s Motion to Dismiss, Superintendent Kirby P. Walker reported
that since August 1954, at which time all attendance areas were abol
ished, he has been authorized "to provide for the temporary assignment
of all applicants for assignment. . . " (Affidavit, par. 4). Give the
93
94
standards In detail presently employed to determine the temporary
assignment of children to a particular public school:
a. When a child enters the school system at the first
grade level;
b. When a child enters the school system at an upper
grade level;
c. When a child is promoted from elementary school to
junior high school;
d. When a child is promoted from junior high school
to high school;
e. When a child is promoted from elementary school to
high school;
f. When a child changes residence from one place within
the school district served by defendants to another
place within the district served by defendants.
3. What objective factors are used by Superintendent 'Walker
in making such assignments in "the best interest of each particular
applicant and the welfare of all in the operation of the public schools in
the D istrict." (See Answer, p. 5).
4. How are assignments affected by: (Answer, p. 6)
a. "the discipline problem in the schools as well as to
and from the schools,"
b. "the relative abilities of pupils,"
c. "the compatibility of teachers and other members of
the professional staff to their respective assignments,"
d. "the availability of teachers and other members of(R-122)
95
the professional staff";
e. "the welfare of the community as well as the welfare
of the pupils.
f. "the safety of the pupils";
g. "all other matters and facts of similar nature that
should be considered,",
5. List the differences and disparities between Negro and
white children in the District which provide the basis for separating
Negro and white groups into separate schools (Answer, p. 7).
6. State how the separate schools for Negro and white children
are specially adapted for the development of the differing capacities and
abilities of the children.
7. State to what extent the present operation of the defendants'
school system is based on the Board's belief that the "operation of a
compulsory integrated school system in such District will run counter
to the desires of the great majority of the people of the aforesaid District
and will be contrary to the welfare and best interest of members of both
races." (Answer, p.7).
8. How do present assignments differ, in result, from those
made in accordance with the assignment areas abolished in August 1954?
9. Attach or state any official announcements or resolutions
made or adopted by defendants pertaining to desegregation of the public
schools since the 1954 Supreme Court decision.
10. State what, if anything, has been done by the defendants
^ad by each of them in the way of compliance with the order of the United
States District Court of March 4, 1964, including efforts to prepare
96
students, teachers, parents and the community for the possible effectua
tion of such order in September 1964. (R-123)
11. What obstacles, if any, are there which will prevent the
complete desegregation of the school system under the jurisdiction of
defendants at the beginning of the 1964-65 school year.
12. State with respect to each of the minor plaintiffs named in
this suit and presently enrolled in the defendants’ schools, the following
information:
a. School and grade to which now assigned;
b. Nearest all-Negro school to residence serving
plaintiff's grade level;
c. Nearest all-white school to residence serving
plaintiff's grade level.
13. State any courses, programs or facilities, if any, which
are available at schools attended by whites only which are not available
at schools attended by Negroes only.
14. Using latest available figures, state the differential in the
per capita expenditures for Negro and white students above the state
minimum program. If so, state the differential involved.
15. Using latest available figures, state the differential in
scholastic achievement levels between Negro and white students in the
defendants' schools, indicating what tests were given to determine
achievement, when were such tests administered, and in which schools.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a copy of such answers must be
served upon the undersigned within fifteen (15) days after service.
Dated: April 11, 1964
(R-124) 97
/ s / Derrick A. Bell Jr.___________ _
Jack H. Young
115 1/2 1ST. Farish Street
Jackson, Mississippi
Jack Greenberg
Constance Baker Motley
Derrick A. Bell, Jr.
10 Columbus Circle
New York 19, New York
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
(This instrument carries proper Certificate of Service,, which is not
copied here.} *****
(R-125)
OBJECTION TO INTERROGATORIES
(Title omitted-Filed April 22, 1964 )
NOW COME the defendants in the above styled and numbered
action, by their attorneys, and object to certain interrogatories hereto
fore filed and served on said defendants as follows, to-wit:
(a) Said defendants object to being required to answer interrog
atory No. 10 for the reason that this Court's order of March 4, 1964,
directed said defendants to submit a plan pursuant thereto not later
than July 15, 1964, and that anything that said defendants may or may
not have done as of this date in compliance with said order is neither
material nor relevant to any issue in this action and is not within the
realm of legitimate concern of the plaintiffs as long as the defendants
comply with this Court's said order of March 4, 1964, within the time
and in the manner therein provided.
(b) Said defendants object to being required to answer interrog
atory No. 11 for the reason that this Court's preliminary injunction
order of March 4, 1964, does not require the complete desegregation
of the school system under the jurisdiction of the defendants at the be
ginning of the 1964-65 school year. Said defendants, therefore, submit
98
that the numerous and insurmountable obstacles which would prevent
the complete desegregation (R-126) of the school system at the begin
ning of the 1954-65 school year are at this time immaterial and irre le
vant to any issue before the Court.
WHEREFORE, said defendants respectfully move that they be
relieved of the obligation to answer any of the above mentioned interrog
atories.
JOE T. PATTERSON, Attorney General
Jackson, Mississippi
DUGAS SHANDS, Assistant Attorney
General
Jackson, Mississippi
E . W. Stennett, Special Counsel
Jackson, Mississippi
THOMAS H. WATKINS, Special Counsel
Jackson, Mississippi
ROBERT C. CANNADA, Special Counsel
Jackson, Mississippi
BY / s / Robert C. Gannada
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
(This instrument carries proper Notice of Hearing, which is not copied
here.)
(R-127 Certificate of Service, which is not copied here.)
* * *
(R-128)
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS'
OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES
(Title omitted-Filed April 27,1964)
1. Plaintiffs are in receipt of objections to interrogatories
No* 10 and No. 11 filed in the Evers case, Civil Action No. 3379 on
April 11, 1964, and with respect to said objections state to the Court
99
that said interrogatories No. 10 and No. 11 (R-129) are withdrawn by
plaintiffs.
2. Plaintiffs are in receipt of objections to interrogatories
Nos. 11, 12 and 13 filed on April 11, 1964 in the Mason case. Civil Ac
tion No. 2696, and with respect to said objections state to the Court that
said interrogatories, Nos. 11, 12 and 13 are withdrawn by plaintiffs.
3. While plaintiffs' counsel have not received similar object
ions to the interrogatories filed in the Hudson case, Civil Action No. 338%
plaintiffs' withdraw interrogatories Nos. 10, 11 and 12.
Respectfully submitted,
/ s / Derrick A. Bell Jr._______________
R. Jess Brown
125 1/2 N. Farish Street
Jackson, Mississippi
Jack Young
115 1/2 N. Farish Street
Jackson, Mississippi
Jack Greenberg
Constance Baker Motley
Derrick A. Bell, Jr.
10 Columbus Circle
New York 19, New York
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
(This instrument carries proper Certificate of Service - R-129 & R-130,
which is not copied here.}
* * #
(R-131)
EXHIBIT P-2
WITNESS 'Walker
100
ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES
(Title omitted-Filed April 29,1964)
Come now the defendants, Jackson Municipal School District,
acting by and through Lester Alvis; Kirby P. Walker, Superintendent of
Schools, Jackson Municipal Separate School District; Lester Alvis,
Chairman, Board of Trustees of the Jackson Municipal Separate School
District; C. H. King, Vice Chairman, Board of Trustees of the Jackson
Municipal Separate School District; Lamar Noble, Secretary, Board of
Trustees of the Jackson Municipal Separate School District; and W. G.
Mize and J. W. Underwood, Members, Board of Trustees of the Jack-
son Municipal Separate School District, and file these their answers to
the interrogatories propounded by plaintiffs, said interrogatories being
dated April 11, 1964 and having been received April 14, 1964*
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
There is attached hereto a list of all public schools in the
Jackson Municipal Separate School District, showing opposite each
school the information requested in subsections a through j, inclusive,
of Interrogatory No. 1. (R-132)
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
The standards presently employed by Kirby P. Walker in deter
mining the temporary assignment of children to a particular public
school are the distribution of pupils among the various schools within
the District, the convenience of the pupils and their parents, the pro
gram of studies to be pursued by the particular pupil, the race of the
Pupil, the race of the teachers and other professional staff at the various
101
schools, and other standards of similar nature.
The foregoing standards are applicable to Subsections a through
f, inclusive, of Interrogatory No. 2.
In the discharge of his responsibility of making arrangements
for the receiving of applications for pupil admission in the public schools
of the Jackson Municipal Separate School District and making temporary
assignments of such applicants to schools in such District, Kirby P.
Walker annually designates the time and place within the District for the
submission of applications for admission. The standards hereinabove
set forth are utilised by the said Kirby P. Walker in exercising his judg
ment and discretion and the Principals of the various schools to which
applications are submitted are given general instructions by the said
Kirby P. Walker to the effect that, except in unusual circumstances,
temporary assignments are to be made to the schools to which he has
directed the applications for admission be submitted. Such assignments
are temporary only and provisions are made each year under which the
parent, guardian or other person having custody of any pupil may make
application for a change of such assignment, which application is handled
by the staff of the Trustees of the District.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Objective factors used by the defendant Kirby P. Walker in
making temporary assignments in "the best interest of each (R-133)
particular applicant and the welfare of all in the operation of the public
schools in the District" are: The distribution of pupils and the available
teaching stations; the available transportation to and from the respective
schools; the race of the prospective pupil; the race of the teachers and
102
other professional staff of the school to which the pupil is assigned; the
desires and preferences of the prospective pupils and parents, guardian
or person having custody of the prospective pupil; the program of stud
ies elected to be followed by the prospective pupil with the approval of
his or her parents, guardian or person having custody; discipline in the
schools, as well as to and from the schools; the relative abilities of pu
pils of white and Negro races; the availability of teachers and other
members of the professional staff; the safety of the pupils; and all
other matters and facts of similar and varying nature.
Assignment of pupils to the schools is one to be accomplished
with minimum effort and maximum benefit to 'those concerned; experi
ences in discharging this function have proved generally acceptable to
all concerned in this school system. It is therefore difficult to consider
a better guide for action than the procedures which have been employed.
The program of studies offered in the various schools and
school building facilities in the District are substantially equal and the
ratio of Negro and white pupils in the schools within the District is sub
stantially the same as the ratio of the Negro and white population in the
District. It is evident that under this procedure the Jackson Municipal
Separate School District enjoys a stable and effective public school pro
gram and pupil performance in keeping with pupil ability.
It is the duty and responsibility of those administering the pub
lic schools within the District to provide, within the means available,
a program of instruction that will promote intellectual, (R-134) scien
tific and moral improvement of all children of school age within the
District. Those responsible for the administration of the public schools
103
of the District are meeting this responsibility, as shown by the public
school program of the District and the pupil performance of the pupils
enrolled therein.
The organization of schools, the classification and enrollment
of pupils and the supporting and collateral services necessary for effect
ive teaching are matters requiring the exercise of discretion and judg
ment by those responsible for the administration of public schools within
this District. Observations and investigations of other school districts
lead to the conclusion that the objective factors followed in this District
have provided and are providing a school system best for the pupils and
their educational advancement.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
It is impossible to delineate the exact effect of the various items
set forth in Interrogatory No. 4 except as same may apply to a particular
pupil. Nevertheless, without attempting to be exhaustive, some general
statements will be made in reply to said interrogatory.
Answer to Subsection 4-a:
Pupil discipline is a major influence in the learning process
carried on in the classroom. Discipline is now classified and character
ized by pupil-teacher cooperation, with emphasis upon good citizenship,
good sportsmanship and the rewards of good conduct. Discipline is un
derstood as the means of improving a pupil or a group of pupils, which
Includes the basic objectives of (1) creation and preservation of the con
ditions essential to the orderly program of the school; (2) preparation
of the pupil for effective participation In school; and (3) instilling the
fundamental lesson of self-control. To accomplish these objectives
there must be cooperation between the home and the school, there must
be common understandings and background of information, and there
must be united efforts. Where these conditions exist, as is basically
true in the Jackson Municipal Separate .School District, there is a mini
mum of discipline by corporal punishment or suspension of pupils. This
is a credit to the quality of professional services rendered in the schools
of the District and the cooperation of the parents. Tensions and antag
onisms would develop, resulting in the discipline being adversely affect
ed, if white and Negro pupils were assigned to the same schools.
In developing and maintaining necessary discipline, those
charged with the administration of this school system must and do take
into account such factors as home-school relationships, teacher-parent
attitudes, cooperation among pupils, and teacher-pupil understandings.
Answer to Subsection 4-b:
The relative abilities of pupils is a factor that evidences itself
in the records and information maintained by those responsible for the
administration of the schools in the Jackson Municipal Separate School
District. Charts and tables attached to answers to other interrogatories
demonstrate and show that the separation of Negro and white pupils is
for the best interest of the pupils. The grouping of pupils is a motter
within the discretion of those charged with the responsibility of the oper
ation of the public schools of this District.
Answer to .Subsection 4-c:
For teachers and other members of the professional staff to
Jive optimum performance, it Is essential that there be compatibility of
the school staff and the pupils assigned to such school. Thus, this factor
(R-135) 104
105
is considered in assigning pupils. Especially is this true since the total
program of education requires contact and understanding between the
teachers and the parents of the pupil, (R-136) together with an under
standing of the problems and aspirations of the pupils. Those changed
with the responsibility of the operation of the public schools of this Dis
trict# in the exercise of this responsibility and discretion, believe and
are convinced that this compatibility cannot prevail except by having
pupils assigned to schools with teachers and other members of the pro
fessional staff of their own race.
Answer to Subsection 4-d:
It is essential that qualified and dedicated teachers and other
members of the professional staff be obtained and retained. Monetary
considerations are important; however, other factors are also import
ant. Having pupils of the same race as that of the teachers and other
members of the professional staff of the particular school to which the
pupil is assigned has made available to this District qualified, experi
enced and dedicated teachers, as well as other members of the profes
sional staff. To change this practice would seriously jeopardize the
availability of such teachers and other members of the professional
staff.
Answer to Subsection 4-e:
This School District has more than seventy square miles within
its boundaries. The District's population is growing rapidly. Families
move Into and out of the District frequently and their residences are
changed within the District. It is estimated that there Is one move by
each family in the District each five years and this adds to the necessity
106
for the maintenance of a stable educational service. Changes in num
bers and differences in characteristics of the total population of the Dis
trict, aside from the ethnic composition, furnish a challenge to those
responsible for the schools. Certainly, it would be destructive and
wrong to add to these difficulties the multiplicity of problems that would
evolve by having those responsible for the operation of the schools seek
to change the natural patterns of community (R-137) living within the
District. The families of the pupils move into neighborhoods that they
believe will insure "their getting along with o thers." By the same token,
the pupils from these families should be assigned to schools where they
can “get along with others” if public schools are to make their best con
tribution to the welfare of the community and to its pupils. The schools
operated in this District have received the acceptance and support of the
citizens of the District and have served to discharge the responsibility
of offering the best educational program available within the resources
of the District. It would be educationally unwise to change or to attempt
to change the present basis for pupil assignment.
Answer to Subsection 4-f:
The safety of the pupils is a factor that is considered in the
making of temporary assignments. Separation of the Negro and white
pupils in the schools of this District is for the best Interest of the physi
cal well-being of the pupils.
Answer to Subsection 4-g:
There are other factors, including mental and physical condi
tions, that may be taken into consideration in individual assignments;
however, It is submitted that it would be impractical and not in keeping
with the intent of the interrogatories to list all such factors as they per
tain to each individual pupil.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Some of the disparities between Negro and white children of the
Jackson Municipal .Separate School District which provide the basis for
separating Negro and white pupils in the schools of this District are as
follows:
There is a disparity in readiness status for reading and number
work of incoming first graders of the Jackson Municipal Separate School
District, as demonstrated by the table marked (R-138) Table 1 attached
hereto and made a part hereof.
There is a disparity, widening with grade level, in scholastic
aptitude (readiness for future school work) between the Negro and white
pupils of the Jackson Municipal Separate School District, as demonstrat
ed by the table attached hereto and marked Table 2.
There is a disparity in performance levels in academic areas
throughout the grade levels between Negro and white pupils of the Jack-
son Municipal Separate School District, as demonstrated by tables at
tached hereto and made a part hereof and marked Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
and 8.
Some of the differences between Negro and white pupils of the
Jackson Municipal Separate School District which provide the basis for
separating Negro and white pupils into separate schools are as follows:
There are differences in the social contacts of the Negro and
white pupils of the Jackson Municipal Separate School District.
There are differences in the social and business life of the
107
parents of the Negro and of the white pupils of the Jackson Municipal
Separate School District.
There are differences in the living patterns of the Negro and
white pupils of the Jackson Municipal Separate School District.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Included in the ways the schools for Negro and white pupils are
specially adapted for the development of the differing capacities and
abilities of such pupils are:
At all grade levels instruction is geared to the pupil capacity
or ability. The disparities in achievement and scholastic ability of the
Negro and white pupils have been demonstrated in an answer to a pre
ceding interrogatory. The fact that the level of instruction is geared to
the capacity and ability of such pupils (R-139) is demonstrated by the
similarity of the grade distribution of Negro pupils throughout the secon
dary schools of this District to the grade distribution of white pupils in
the secondary schools of the District. This grade distribution in the
secondary schools of this District is set forth on Table 1 attached here
to and made a part hereof.
The schools are also specially adapted in that the teachers and
other professional staff of the respective schools are familiar with the
home environment of the pupils, mix socially with the parents of the
pupils, and understand the problems and aspirations of the pupils.
There are also courses available at the secondary level aimed
at supplying and meeting the specific needs, aspirations and desires of
particular pupils.
108
109
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
It is impossible to state the exact extent, if any, the present
operation of the school system in this District is based on the Board's
belief that the "operation of a compulsory integrated school system in
such District will run counter to the desires of the great majority of the
people of the aforesaid District and will be contrary to the welfare and
best interest of members of both races ."
The defendants are convinced that the prevailing school organi
zation is in the best interest of the members of both races and that the
operation of a compulsory integrated school system In such Distinct
would run counter to the desires of the great majority of the people of
the aforesaid District and would be contrary to the welfare and best in
terest of members of both races.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
There is no way to determine or to tell how the present assign
ments differ, in result, from those made In accordance with the assign
ment areas abolished in August, 1954. (R-140)
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
There have been no official announcements or resolutions made
or adopted by defendants pertaining to desegregation of the public schools
since the 1954 Supreme Court decision.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
This interrogatory has been withdrawn.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
This interrogatory has been withdrawal.
110
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
According to the records of the Jackson Municipal -Separate
School District, the only minor plaintiffs named in this suit who are
presently enrolled in the public schools of the Jackson Municipal Separ
ate School District, together with the other information requested in
this interrogatory, are as follows:
Nearest School
Serving
Grade, and Plaintiff's
Minor School to Which Grade Attended
Plaintiff Now Assianed b v Nearo P u d I Is
Nearest School
Serving
Plaintiff's
Grade Attended
bvWhite Pupils
Bailey, Thomas Hill High - 10 Hill High
James
1502 Florence
Provine High
Bailey, Verna A. Hill High - 11 Hill High
1502 Florence
Provine High
Thomas, Carolyn Brinkley High - 10 Brinkley High
3638 Main
Murrah High
White, Brenda Brinkley High - 9 Brinkley High
LaFaye
Bailey Junior High
3333 Revels
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
Basically, the same courses, programs and facilities are
available at schools attended by Negro pupils as are available at schools
attended by white pupils. It is the policy in the administration of the
schools of this District that the same program of studies, the same
courses, and similar facilities be made available to all pupils in each
T?ade. (R-141)
There is a common program of studies throughout the Jackson
Municipal Separate School District.
Tiie fac ilities at each grade level are basically the same.
I l l
The courses are 'the same throughout the District with the ex
ception of the variation in the secondary schools resulting from requests
for certain courses. At the present time, in the secondary schools, as
a result of requests therefor, courses in building trades, boys' home-
making, and auto mechanics are offered at a school or schools attended
by Negro pupils which are not offered at a school or schools attended by
white pupils, and there are courses in ROTC, distributive education,
and secretarial training that are offered in a school or schools attended
by white pupils that are not offered in a school or schools attended by
Negro pupils.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
Based upon the records of this District for the 1962-63 school
year, the average cost per white pupil above the state minimum program
is $135.63 and the average cost per Negro pupil above the state minimum
program is $102. 44.
Any difference in per capita expenditure for a pupil in this Dis
trict is the result of many factors. These factors include cost of main
tenance, cost of insurance, cost of transportation, pupils per teacher,
teachers' salaries, salaries of professional staff at various schools,
courses of study pursued by pupils, and costs of instructional supplies.
Thus, the per capita expenditure varies from class to class within a
school, from grade to grade, from school to school, and within a class
or school during a school year. Those responsible for the administra
tion of the schools of this District seek to furnish the best education
Possible for all pupils within the available resources and funds are ex
pended without consideration of the race of a pupil.
112
Since the schools of this District are all accredited and (R-142)
all other factors are equal, within the framework of reasonable admini
stration, there is no meaningful difference in per capita expenditure
among the pupils of this District.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
The standardized achievement tests given to all pupils in the
Jackson Municipal Separate School District are as follows:
Test Grade Levels When Given
Metropolitan Achievement 4, 5, 8, 7, 8 Fall, by Oct. 15
Form B, Revised Edition
College Qualification Test 11 Spring, by April 15
Form A
The differential in scholastic achievement level between Negro
pupils and white pupils as shown by said tests is demonstrated on
Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 attached hereto and made apart hereof.
JACKSON MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICT
BY / s / Lester Alvis ____ ___________
Lester Alvis
/ s / Kirby P. Walker__________ ___________
Kirby P. Walker
Superintendent of Schools
Jackson Municipal Separate School District
_____ / s / Lester Alvis_______
Lester Alvis, Chairman, Board of Trustees
Jackson Municipal Separate School District
/ s / C. H. King__________________________
C. H. King, Vice Chairman, Board of Trustees
Jackson Municipal Separate School District
_____ / s / Lamar Noble_____________ _________ ___
Lamar Noble, Secretary, Board of Trustees
Jackson Municipal Separate School District
113
/ s / W. G. Mize_______________________
W. G. Mize, Member Board of Trustees
Jackson Municipal Separate School District
_____ / s / J. W. Underwood ________
J. W. Underwood, Member Board of Trustees
Jackson Municipal Separate School District
(R-143)
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
COUNTY OF HINDS
This day personally appeared before me, the undersigned
authority in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, the within named LESTER
ALVIS, anting for and on behalf of the Jackson Municipal Separate School
District and as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Jackson Munic
ipal Separate School District, KIRBY P. WALKER, Superintendent of
Schools of the Jackson Municipal Separate School District, C. H. KING,
Vice Ghairman of the Board of Trustees of the Jackson Municipal Sepa
rate School District, LAMAR NOBLE, Secretary of the Board of T rust
ees of the Jackson Municipal Separate School District, W. G. MIZE and
J. W. UNDER,WOOD, Members of the Board of Trustees of the Jackson
Municipal Separate School District, who, after being by me first duly
sworn, each state on oath that the matters and tilings stated and set
forth in the above and foregoing Answers to Interrogatories are true and
correct to the best of their knowledge, information and belief.
/ s / Lester Alvis
/ s /
Lester Alvis
Kirbv P. Walker
/ s /
Kirby P. Walker
G. E. King
C. H. King
/ s / Lamar Noble
Lamar Noble
114
/ s / W. G. Mize
W. G. Mize
/ s / J. W. Underwood___________
J. W. Underwood
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me, this the 29th day
of April, 1964.
(SEAL) / s / Mrs. S. C. Cooper__________
NOTARY PUBLIC
My Commission expires:
My Commission Expires Jan. 4, 1965
(R-144 Certificate of Service, which is not copied here.)
(R-145 to R-162 Inclusive , Exhibits to Interrogatories are not copied
here because Originals will be inspected by the Court.)
* * *
CR-163)
CIVIL SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENT OR OBJECT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
Southern Dist. Miss._________
(Filed May 13, 1964)
UNITED STATES MARSHAL OFFICE OF U.S. MARSHAL
SOU. DIST. MISSISSIPPI RECEIVED
DOCKET NO, 5364 - Civ. MAY 11 1964
HICKSON, MISS.
Civil action File No.__
DARRELL EVERS, ET AL. )
)
vs. >No. 3379
>
JACKSON MUNICIPAL SEPARATE)
SCHOOL DISTRICT )
To Kirby P. Walker, Superintendent
Jackson Municipal Separate
School District
115
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear in the United, da tes
District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi
at the U. S. Courthouse in the city of Jackson, Mississippi on
the 18th day of May 1964 at 9:00 o'clock A.M. to
testify on behalf of Plaintiffs
in the above entitled action and bring with you
Petition filed with School Board by plaintiffs on or about
August 15, 1962 (original or true copy).
May 11______ , 19 64 (SEAL)
/s / Derrick A Bell Jr.
Attorney for Plaintiffs
115 1/2 N. Farish Street
Address Jackson, Miss.
LORYCE E. WHARTON
Clerk
By / s / S. Richmond ,
Deputy Clerk.
RETURN ON SERVICE
Received this subpoena at Jackson Miss on May 13, 1964
and on May 13, 1964 at Vic Jackson Miss
served it on the within named Kirby P Walker,
by delivering a copy to him and tendering to him the fee for one day's
attendance and the mileage allowed by law. (Check for $5.00)
Dated: JACK T j TUART U.S. MARSHAL________
MAY 13 ,19 64 By / s / Charlie T Sutherland_______
Service Fees CHARLIE’ T SUTHERLAND DEPUTY
Travel $
Services ___ $2.00
Total _______ .$
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a this
day of , 19 .
I
Fees and mileage need not be tendered to the witness upon service of
a subpoena issued in behalf of the United States or an officer or agency
thereof. 28 USC 1825.
NOTE. —Affidavit required only if service is made by a person other than
a United States Marshal or his deputy.
* * *
4
(R-164)
CIVIL SUBPOENA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
(TiledMay 13 1964 )
UNITED STATE S MARSHAL OFFICE OF U. S. MARS HAL
SOU. DIST. MISSISSIPPI RECEIVED
DOCKET NO. 5364-Civ. MAY 11 1964
JACKSON, MISS.
Civil Action File No. 3379
DARRELL EVERS, ET AL., )
)
vs. )
)
JACKSON MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICT )
To Lester Alvis, Chairman
Jackson Municipal Separate School District
Jackson, Mississippi
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear In the United States
District Court for the
Southern District of
at the U. S. Courthouse in the city of
on the 18th day of May , 1964
on behalf of Plaintiffs
in the above entitled action.
__ Mav 11________ , 19 64.
Mississippi ,
Jackson, Mississippi ,
at 9:00 o'clock A. M. to testify
(SEAL)
M Derrick A Bell Jr.
Attorney for Plaintiffs
115-1/2 N. Farish Street.
Address Jackson, Miss.
LORYCE E. WHARTON
Clerk.
By / s / C Thomas_______ ,
Deputy Clerk.
RETURN ON -SERVICE
Received this subpoena at Jackson Miss on May 13, 1964
and on May 13, 1964 at Vic Jackson Miss I
served it on the within named Lester Alvis,
by delivering a copy to him and tendering to him the fee for one day's
attendance and the mileage allowed by law. (Check for $5.00)
117
Dated MAY 13 , 1964.
JACK T STUART II. S. MARSHAL
Service Fees By / s / Charlie T. S u th e r la n d _____
Travel _____$ CHARLIE T SUTHERLAND DEPUTY
Services ____$2.00
Total_____.$
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a this
day of , 19
... ......... T— ■ T ■ ......... , ..........r , ........... .............- _________ . T r ..........- 9
NOTE‘.--Affidavit required only if service is made by a person other
than a United States Marshal or his Deputy.
* * *
IR-165)
MOTION TO BE ADDED AS
INTERVENOR PARTIES
(Title omitted-Filed May IS 1964)
The motion of Alex Little, J r . , minor, by Wilton Little, his
father and next friend, and Wilton Little individually, and Mrs. Wilton
Little, individually; and John Harold Spears, minor, by Mrs. Joy Spears
his mother and next friend, and Mrs. Joy Spears, individually; and Will
iam Christopher Keyes, minor, by Mrs. W. C. Keyes, his mother and
next friend, and Mrs. W. C. Keyes, individually; and Jan Carol Hills
and Parker Hills, minors, by Charles Hills, their father and next friend
and Charles Hills, individually, and Mrs. Charles Hills, individually;
and Linda Herren Errington and Howard Errington, minors, by Mrs.
James Errington, their mother and next friend and Mrs. James Erring
ton, individually; and Tom Gates, W. T. Gates, Jr. and Beverly Gates,
niinors, by W. T. Gates, their father and next friend and W. T. Gates,
individually; and Danny Gates, minor, by W. J. Gates, his father and
next friend, and W. J. Gates, individually, and Mrs. W. J. Gates, indi
vidually; ana Johnny Walker, Cathy 'Walker and Jim Walker, minors, by
118
Hiram Walker, their father and next friend, and Hiram Walker, individ
ually, and Mrs. Hiram Walker, individually; and Howard Coon and Su
san Goon, minors, by Edward Coon, their father (R-160) and next f r i
end, and Edward Coon, individually, and Mrs. Edward Coon, individual
ly; and Lynn Hutchens and Alyce Hutchens, minors, by Mrs. Marjorie
Hutchens, mother and next friend, and Mrs. Marjorie Hutchens; individ
ually; and Sammy Garrett and Betty Garrett, minors, by Howard Gar
rett, their father and next friend, and Howard Garrett, individually,
and Mrs. Howard Garrett, individually; and Lynda Payne, minor, by
Hoyt Payne, her father and next friend, and Hoyt Payne, individually,
and Mrs. Hoyt Payne, individually; and Margaret Ann Whitt and Ruth
Jimelle 'Whitt, minors, by J. A. Whitt, their father and next friend,
and J. A. Whitt, individually, and Mrs. J. A. Whitt, individually; and
Tommy Case and Frank Case, minors, by Frank Case, their father and
next friend, and Frank Case, individually, and Mrs. Frank Case, indi
vidually; and Jerry Lea Reynolds, minor, by Seab Reynolds, father and
next friend, and Seab Reynolds, individually, and firs . Seab Reynolds,
individually, is hereby filed, and these movants respectfully move the
Court to allow movants to be added as parties intervenors with the other
intervenors in this cause, movants respectfully adopting the Pleas and
Answer of Intervenors heretofore filed in this cause on order of the
Gourt heretofore entered on March 4, 1964.
Movants respectfully adopt the allegations of the Motion To In
tervene, heretofore filed in this cause by Jimmy Prirnos, et al, and
aver that no delay will be occasioned by permitting your present movants
119
to be joined as intervening parties hereto.
/ s / Dan H. Shell _______
DAN H. SHELL
340 F irst National Bank Building
Jackson, Mississippi
Attorney
CR-167 Certificate of Service, which is not copied here.)
* * *
(R-168)
ORDER SUSTAINING MOTION TO ADD INTERVENOR PARTIES
{Title omitted-Filed May 18,1964)
The motion of Alex Little, J r . , minor, by Wilton Little, his
father and next friend, and Wilton Little individually, and Mrs. Wilton
Little, individually; and John Harold Spears, minor, by Mrs. Joy Spears,
his mother and next friend, and Mrs. Joy Spears, individually; and Will
iam Christopher Keyes, minor, by Mrs. W. C. Keyes, his mother and
next friend, and Mrs. W. C. Keyes, individually; and Jan Carol Hills
and Parker Hills, minors, by Charles Hills, their father and next friend
and Charles Hills, individually, and Mrs. Charles Hills, individually;
and Linda Herren Errington and Howard Errington, minors, by Mrs.
James Errington, their mother and next friend and Mrs. James Erring
ton, individually; and Tom Gates, W. T. Gates, Jr. and Beverly Gates,
minors, by W. T. Gates, their father and next friend and W. T. Gates,
individually; and Danny Gates, minor, by V/. J. Gates, his father and
next friend, and W. J. Gates, individually, and Mrs. W. J. Gates, indi
vidually; and Johnny Walker, Cathy Walker and Jim Walker, minors, by
Hiram Walker, their father and next friend, and Hiram Walker, individ
ually, and Mrs. Hiram Walker, individually; and Howard Coon and Susan
Goon, minors, by Edward Coon, their father and next friend, and Ed
120
ward Coon, individually, and Mrs. Edward Coon, individually, and
Lynn (R-169) Hutchens and Alyce Hutchens, minors, by Mrs. Marjorie
Hutchens, mother and next friend, and Mrs. Marjorie Hutchens, indi
vidually; and Sammy Garrett and Betty Garrett, minors, by Howard
Garrett, their father and next friend, and Howard Garrett, individually,
and Mrs. Howard Garrett, individually; and Lynda Payne, minor, by
Hoyt Payne, her father and next friend, and Hoyt Payne, individually,
and Mrs. Hoyt Payne, individually; and Margaret Ann Whitt and Ruth
Jimelle Whitt, minors, by J. A. Whitt, their father and next friend,
and J. A. Whitt, individually, and Mrs. J. A. Whitt, individually; and
Tommy Case and Frank Case, minors, by Frank Gase, their father and
next friend, and Frank Gase, individually, and Mrs. Frank Case, indi
vidually; and Jerry Lea Reynolds, minor, by Seab Reynolds, father and
next friend, and Seab Reynolds, individually, and Mrs. Scab Reynolds,
individually, to allow movants to be added as parties intervenors with
the other intervenors in this cause, is hereby sustained and such mov
ants are henceforth intervenors in this cause, they having adopted the
Pleas and Answer of Intervenors heretofore filed in this cause.
The Court finds that no delay will be occasioned by permitting
such movants to be so joined as intervening parties hereto, and this
cause shall proceed.
ORDERED AND .ADJUDGED on this 18th day of May, 1964.
/ s / S. C. Mize __________
DISTRICT JUDGE
OB, 1964, Pages 288 and 289
* * *
(R-206)
TESTIMONY
(Filed July 27 1964)
121
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI, JACKSON DIVISION
DARRELL KENYATTA EVERS and REENE DENISE EVERS)
minors, by MEDGAR W. EVERS and MRS. MYRLEE
B. EVERS, their parents and next friends, )
and
SHIRLEY D. BAILEY, VERNA A. BAILEY and )
THOMAS J. BAILEY, minors, by SAMUEL BAILEY,
their father and next friend, )
and
EARLINE THOMAS and CAROLYN THOMAS, minors, by )
MRS. KATHRYN THOMAS, their mother and next
friend, )
and
WILLIS H. LOGAN, minor, by MRS. A. N. E. LOGAN, )
his mother and next friend,
and )
DEREK JEROME SINGLETON, minor, by MRS.EDNA
MARIE SINGLETON, his mother and next friend, )
and
BRENDA LA FAYE WHITE, minor, by MRS .E H Z ABE TH )
WHITE, her mother and next friend,
Plaintiffs, )
V er sus C ivil Action
No. 3379
JACKSON MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICT, i
KIRBY P. WALKER, Superintendent of Jackson
City Schools; LESTER ALVIS, Chairman; )
C. H. KING, Vice-Chairman; LAMAR NOBLE,
Secretary; W. G. MIZE and J. W. UNDERWOOD, )
Members,
Defendants, )
JIMMY PRIMOS, CLAUDIA PRIMOS and GALE PRIMOS,
minors, by ALECK PRIMOS, their father and next )
friend, and ALECK PRIMOS, individually, and
BILLIE CLAUDE PIERCE PRIMOS, individually, )
and
D. OYLE GOODMAN and GAYLE GOODMAN, minors, by )
JAMES GOODMAN, their father and next friend,
and JAMES GOODMAN, individually, )
and (R-207)
ALEX LITTLE, JR ., minor, by WILTON LITTLE, )
his father and next friend, and WILTON LITTLE,
individually, and MRS. WILTON LITTLE, individually, )
and
122
JOHN HAROLD SPEARS, minor, by MRS. JOY SPEARS, )
his mother and next friend, and MRS. JOY SPEARS,
individually, )
£UflCl
WILLIAM CHRISTOPHER KEYES, minor, by MRS. W.C. }
KEYES, his mother and next friend, and MRS.
W. C. KEYES, individually, )
and
JAN CAROL HILLS and PARKER HILLS, minors, by )
CHARLES HILLS, their father and next friend and
CHARLES HELLS, individually, and MRS. CHARLES )
HILLS, individually,
and )
LINDA HEKREN ERRINGTON and HOWARD EKRINGTON,
minors, by MRS. JAMES ERRINGTON, their mother and )
next friend and MRS. JAMES ERRINGTON, individually,
and )
TOM GATES, W. T. GATES, JR ., and BEVERLY GATES,
minors, by W. T. GATES, their father and next friend )
and W, T. GATES, individually,
and )
DANNY GATES, minor, by W. J. GATES, his father and
next friend, and W. J. GATES, individually, and MRS. )
W. J. GATES, Individually
and }
JOHNNY WALKER, CATHY WALKER and JIM WALKER,
minors, by HIRAM WALKER, their father and next friend, )
and HIRAM WALKER, individually, and MRS. HIRAM
WALKER, individually, )
and
HOWARD COON and SUSAN COON, minors, by EDWARD )
COON, their father and next friend, and EDWARD COON,
individually, and MRS. EDWARD COON, individually, }
and
LYNN HUTCHENS and ALYCE HUTCHENS, minors, by )
MRS. MARJORIE HUTCHENS, mother and next friend,
and MRS. MARJORIE HUTCHENS, individually, )
and
SAMMY GARRETT and BETTY GARRETT, minors, by )
HOWARD GARRETT, their father and next friend,
AND HOWARD GARRETT, individually, and MRS. )
HOWARD GARRETT, individually,
and (R-208) )
LINDA PAYNE, minor, by HOYT PAYNE, her father
and next friend, and HOYT PAYNE, individually, )
and MRS. HOYT PAYNE, individually,
and )
123
MARGARET ANN WHITT and RUTH JIMELLE WHITT, )
minors, by J. A. WHITT, their father and next friend,
and J. A. WHITT, individually, and MRS. J.A . WHITT, )
individually,
and )
TOMMY CASE and FRANK CASE, minors, by FRANK
CASE, their father and next friend, and FRANK CASE, )
individually, and MRS. FRANK CASE, individually,
and )
JERRY LEA REYNOLDS, minor, by SEAB REYNOLDS,
the father and next friend, and SEAB REYNOLDS, )
individually, and MRS. SEAB REYNOLDS, individually,
)
Intervenors.
APPEARANCES:
Honorable Derrick A. Bell, J r . , Attorney,
10 Columbus Circle, New York, 19, New York;
Honorable Jack Young, Attorney, 115 1/2 N. Farish
Street, Jackson, Mississippi;
For Plaintiffs.
Honorable Joe T. Patterson, Attorney General
for State of Mississippi, Jackson,
Mississippi;
Honorable Dugas Shands, Assistant Attorney General,
Jackson, Mississippi;
Honorable Thomas H. Watkins, 800 Plaza Building,
Jackson, Mississippi;
Honorable Robert G. Gannada, 700 Petroleum Building,
Jackson, Mississippi;
For Defendants.
Honorable Dan H. Shell, 340 F irst National Bank
Building, Jackson, Mississippi;
Honorable R. Garter Pittman, P. 6. Box 891,
Dalton, Georgia;
Honorable George Stephen Leonard, 1730 K Street NW,
Washington, D. C.;
For Intervenors.
(R-209, R-210 and R-211 - Index to Testimony.)
(R-212) 124
BE IT REMEMBERED that on the 18th day of May, 1964, there came
on for hearing at Jackson, Mississippi, in the Jackson Division of this
Court, before the Honorable 3. C. Mize, United States District Judge
for the Southern District of Mississippi, the above-styled and number
ed cause, and the following proceedings were had and entered of
record, to-wit:
THE COURT: I don't believe these cases have been consoli
dated, but as I recall It, it was agreed that all the evidence that is to
be taken in this case, so far as is relevant, relevant to the Issues in
the other two cases, would be considered as a part of the evidence in
each one of those cases. Is that the understanding?
MR. BELL: Yes, sir.
MR. WATKINS: Yes, sir.
MR. BELL: Yes, Your Honor. I had not understood that the
three cases had been consolidated, and were going to be heard one
after hie other, and it would be agreeable with us to have the Biloxi
case follow the Leake County case here in Jackson rather than in Biloxi.
THE COURT: And all the evidence, as far as applicable,
(R-213) then apply to all three cases.
MR. BELL: Yes, sir.
MR. WATKINS: Yes, sir, that is all right.
MR. SHELL: I would like to present two attorneys who are not
members of this bar and ask that they be permitted to participate in
this case: Mr. George Stephen Leonard of the Washington Bar, and
Mr. Carter Pittman from the Dalton, Georgia, Bar.
125
THE COURT: Very well.
MR. SHELL: I have filed a motion to add intervener parties.
It does not ask for any delay, merely names additional interveners and
requests that they be allowed to come in and adopt the answer of the
intervenors already filed in the lawsuit.
MR. BELL: We would make the same objection to this motion
as we made originally to the motion to intervene for the same reasons
we gave there.
THE COURT: I will overrule the motion and let the— overrule
the petition for additional intervenors and let it be filed.
MR* SHELL: I have the order, if Your Honor would like it now.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SHELL: It has been called to my attention that you over
ruled the motion. I think you meant overrule counsel's objection.
(R-214) THE COURT: Yes, for the same reasons I gave in overruling
the original objections.
What says the plaintiff in this case ?
MR. BELL: We should like to make a very short and brief
opening statement.
THE COURT: Are you ready?
MR. BELL: We are ready.
THE COURT: What says the defendant?
MR. WATKINS: Jackson School District and the Biloxi School
District are ready.
MR. SHELL: The intervenors are ready.
MR. J. E. SMITH: Leake County School Board is ready.
126
THE COURT: What about Biloxi?
MR. WATKINS: Biloxi Is ready.
MR. BELL: The plaintiffs feel that the coming to tria l today
of these cases is rather an historic day for Mississippi and we feel,
also, that the trial date, May 18, is also significant because It was
just ten years ago yesterday, May 17, that the United States Supreme
Court handed down its decision in Brown vs. Board of Education, which
for the very first time faced the issue: Does segregation of children
in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical
facilities and other tangible factors may be equal, deprive the children
of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? (R-215)
Faced with this question, the Supreme Court handed down the
answer: "We believe It does. We conclude that in the field of public
education the doctrine of 'separate but equal1 has no place. Separate
educational facilities are inherently unequal. "
I think the significance of today's date is not simply historical.
Since the desegregation decision in 1954 there has been a great deal of
desegregated facilities other than public schools, all of such desegre
gation coming about based upon the decision Brown versus Board of
Education. This has occurred in every state, desegregation in public
transportation, libraries, courthouses, recreational facilities, hospit
als and many others. In Mississippi, based on the Brown decision,
there has come about desegregation in the transportation facilities, at
the University of Mississippi, and in the library and recreational
facilities here in Jackson. All of this followed the repudiation of the
earlier Plessy v. Ferguson doctrine that separate could be equal, and
127
all came about under the decision in Brown v. Board of Education,
VThen we come to the fact of schools, we see also that there has
been some desegregation in every state except Mississippi. In accom
plishing this, there has been a great deal of litigation over the last ten
years. There have been at least two hundred cases all aimed at de
segregating school districts. It is no secret, I don’t think, that the
NAACP (R-216) has supplied the lawyers in virtually all of these
cases, and in the course of taking these cases through the courts we
have been faced with every possible issue involving desegregation and
every reason has been given as to why desegregation orders should not
be entered. All issues, I indicate, have been raised, including those
raised by the defendants here. Our arguments to the Court, or our
briefs, will be based on our decisions, and we promise the Court we
will give it the benefit of all the expertise we had in this field in our
arguments and briefs and presentations.
What do the plaintiffs hope to prove in this trial? We hope, of
course, to indicate and prove the allegations of our complaint, that the
plaintiffs are proper parties to bring this suit, that they are entitled to
represent not only themselves but the class they represent, of all
Negro parties and children. We hope to be able to show that the schools
in the City of Jackson and in other situations are in truth segregated
and because of this segregation the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief
which they pray for here. We in short hope to show to the Court that
the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction that they seek in the com
plaint, making final what this Court has already ordered by preliminary
injunction the defendants to do, and that is to eliminate race as a
128
criteria for pupils and (R-217) teachers in the operation of the Jack-
son schools.
Thank you, Your Honor. We are prepared to call our first
witness. We call oarnuel Bailey.
THE COURT: Let all the witnesses come around and be sworn
at one time.
(All witnesses were duly sworn)
SAMUEL BAILEY, called as a witness and having been duly sworn,
testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR* BELL:
Q. Will you state your full name, please?
A. My name is Samuel Bailey.
Q. Residence?
A. 1502 Florence Avenue.
Q. Where is that?
A. Out in West Jackson.
Q. How long have you lived in Jackson?
A. Twenty-three years.
Q« How long have you lived in Mississippi?
A. Forty years.
Q. And your race ?
A. American Negro.
Q* Where are you employed, Mr. Bailey?
A. Assistant manager for the Universal Life Insurance Company.
(R-218) 129
Q. Where is that located?
A. 1072 Lynch Street.
Q. Is that in Jackson?
A. Jackson, Mississippi.
Q. Is that a Negro insurance company?
A. Negro insurance company.
Q. Do you have any children?
A. I have three children.
Q. Are any of them presently attending the Jackson schools?
A. I have two.
Q. What are their names and ages and what grades?
A. Verna A. Bailey, 11th grade, and Thomas James Bailey, 10th
grade.
Q. Where are they attending school?
A. Jim Hill Senior High.
Q. What is that?
A. Jirn Hill High School.
Q. Is this a Negro school?
A. A Negro school.
Q. Are there any white people there, to your knowledge?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. White teachers or professional faculty there?
A. None to my knowledge.
Q. Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with this arrangement of the
school to which your children are assigned?
(R-219) 130
A. I am dissatisfied.
Q. Have you ever made any effort to contact the School Board
concerning your dissatisfaction?
A. Yes. In 1955 we filed a petition to the Jackson School Board.
Q. Who is "we”?
A. Some parents and myself and about 75 or 80 parents.
Q. AH Negro, to your knowledge ?
A. All Negroes, to my knowledge.
Q. Did you receive any response from the school board at that time?
A. Never received a reply from the school board.
Q. Do you know whether or not the Board received your petition?
A. I am positive they did. We had. a registered receipt, with a
return receipt signed.
Q. Was there any other response to your petition?
A. Not by the school board.
Q. Was there any other response by anyone?
A. Well, the newspaper picked It up, and the name and address,
where each person worked that signed the petition, and the
pressure came and a whole lot of the parents had to withdraw their
names.
MR. WATKINS: If it please the Court, we object to that. That
is a conclusion on the part of the witness, and we object to his
testifying with respect to an alleged petition. The petition would
be the best evidence. (R-220)
MR. BELL: Your Honor, we would say we are not introducing
the testimony to show the truth of the matters in the petition. The
131
only truth we are trying to indicate is that he had made an attempt to
contact the Board concerning his grievances at an early date and re
ceived no response. It has nothing to do with what was in the petition.
MB. WATKINS; Your Honor, he made the statement that pres
sure was brought on certain petitioners and they dropped their names.
That Is a conclusion on the part of this witness.
THE COURT; Yes, unless he knows of his own personal
knowledge, I would not take that into consideration.
MR. BELL: Let me rephrase the question.
MR. WATKINS: Excuse me. Gounsel has said that he is not
trying to prove the petition by this witness, and we move to exclude all
the testimony of this witness with reference to the petition.
THE COURT: I will overrule that objection. Of course, the
petition would be the best evidence of what It contained, but the fact it
was filed, and so forth, I think is competent; so I overrule the objec
tion.
Q. Are you a member of the NAACP?
MR. WATKINS: Excuse me, Counsel. Your Honor, I have
(R-221) to make another objection on this point.
There is a petition mentioned in the pleadings, but It was a
petition long after 1955. There is no petition in the pleadings involving
an alleged 1955 occurrence about which this witness is testifying, so
we strenuously object to any evidence with reference to that petition
which is not produced, neither have there been any pleadings in con
nection with it, and it is a brand new issue that Is being attempted to
be injected.
132
THE COURT: Overrule the objection. I think the issue is
whether or not there is any discrimination because of the race, and
the fact that he filed a petition with the school board is competent
evidence— that an application was made to the school board. As to
the contents of it, the document itself would be the best evidence of the
contents, but the fact that it was filed is I think competent. I adhere
to my ruling, and you may have a standing objection to any questions
along that line, and it is overruled.
Q. Were you a member of the NAACP in 1955?
A. I was.
Q. Were you an officer of the organization at that time ?
A. I was an officer.
Q. To your knowledge, were many or most of the persons who signed
this 1955 petition members of the NAAGP?
A. To my knowledge, most of them was.
Q. Now, if any of those persons received responses, was it or (R-222)
not their duty to report it to you as an officer of the NAACP?
A. That's correct.
Q. Did you receive such reports?
A. I received several reports and several came to the office to re
move their names.
MR. WATKINS: We object to that as hearsay, what this
man was told.
THE COURT: Sustain the objection to the report he
received. Anything he knows of his own knowledge he can testify
to. Anything anybody said would be hearsay.
133
MR. BELL: I think there is an exception to the hearsay
rule to the effect that as an officer of the organization he can testi
fy to the reports he received. Now, of course, that would not be
competent as to the truth of the reports, but as to the fact that he
was in this position and did receive reports, I believe the law is
fairly clear he would be able — and it would be competent to the
fact that having helped obtain the signatures, having forwarded the
petition, that he did receive reports from some of the signers, as
to what those reports were.
THE COURT: I will sustain the objection and exclude it
from consideration, but if you want to build the record on it fur
ther, you may do so. I think the reports would be hearsay and the
best evidence would be the witness who (R-223) made the reports,
so I will exclude it from consideration, but it will remain in the
record as your offer of proof.
MR. BELL: All right. We will make a simple offer un
der Rule 43 to the effect that if he had been permitted to testify his
testimony would be to the effect he did receive reports from some
of the signers and they had received phone calls and things from
their employers to the effect they should withdraw, and as a matter
of fact many did request their names be withdrawn from the petition.
That would be the testimony.
THE COURT: Very well.
Q. Now, Did you ever make any subsequent protest to the Board of
Education here in Jackson?
134
A. In 1962 in August v;e filed a petition again to the school board,
Q. What was the result of this petition?
A. Never had any reply from that petition.
Q. Are you a plaintiff in this suit?
A. I am.
Q. On whose behalf do you sue ?
A. I represent the parents of my children and all the children in the
state.
Q. What do you hope to obtain by this suit?
A. A better education for all citizens of Jackson, not only Negroes
but white too. (R-224)
Q. How is this going to be done?
A. The kids can grow up together and they'd know each other better,
and when they get grown they won't have the hatred that is building
in the state today. The kids can play in the yard together now,
five or six years old, and you never hear any race hate, but If
they grow older then the race hate will come. But by being in
school together, it would help everybody In the State of Mississippi
and America too to desegregate the public schools. They'd know
each other better. They'd be athletes, learn each other. After
they graduate they are brothers, but they wait until they're out of
college to know each other and hatred has built up so bad in the
South it makes it a bad thing.
Q* Were you ever advised by the Board of your right to request a
transfer of your child to the white school?
135
A. Never have.
Q. If you had made such a request and it had been granted, would you
then be satisfied as far as this school is concerned?
MR. WATKINS: We object to that as a hypothetical
question. There is no basis in fact. He is asking whether he
would have been satisfied if he had done something he didn't do.
THE COURT: I will overrule the objection.
Q. Go ahead.
A. No, I wouldn’t be satisfied if they just let one of my kids (R-225)
in because he would be under such pressure. The only satisfaction
would be if every American be entered into the public school of his
choice.
MR. BELL: We have no further questions.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. WATKINS:
Q. I believe you stated thatyour business was that of an insurance
company?
A. That is correct.
Q. What position do you hold with it?
A. Assistant manager for the Universal Life Insurance Company.
Q. I believe you stated it was a Negro insurance company?
A. I didn't say "Nigrah." I said "Negro insurance company. "
Q. Are all of the policy holders Negroes?
A. No, I don’t think I could make that true statement, because we are
out of California.
136
Q. Are all of the policy holders in Mississippi Negroes?
A. As far as I know of.
Q. Are all of the agents in Mississippi Negroes?
A. That is correct.
Q. Are all of the officers in Mississippi Negroes?
A. That is correct.
Q. And are all of the employees in Mississippi Negroes?
A. That is correct. (R-226)
Q. I believe you also stated that you were a member and officer of the
NAAGP?
A. That is correct.
Q. And you know of your own personal knowledge, don't you, that the
NAACP brought this lawsuit?
A. That is correct.
Q. They suggested it and financed it, didn't they?
A. They didn't suggest it. They financed it. We suggested and they
financed.
Q. What promises have they made to the parents of the students who
appear as plaintiffs in the suit?
A. Rephrase that.
Q. What promises have they made to the parents who appear as
plaintiffs in this lawsuit?
A. No promise to me.
Q. What cash remuneration have they paid to the parents of the
plaintiffs in this lawsuit?
137
A. I can speak only for myself. None to myself.
Q. Now, you seem to know a lot about what the others do and say on
other matters. Don!t you know about that?
A. I don't know about that.
Q. Just who do you represent in this lawsuit?
A. At the beginning I represented Shirley Bailey, Thomas James
Bailey, Verna A, Bailey, and all the Negroes in the Jackson School
District. (R-227)
MR. WATKINS: I believe that is all.
THE COURT: Any redirect?
MR. BELL: No, sir.
THE COURT: Any questions by any of the other
defendants?
MR. SHELL: We'd like to ask some questions.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. LEONARD:
Q. You stated the purpose of this suit was your hope to obtain a better
education for all children?
A. That is correct.
Q. And you stated that you believed that this could be accomplished by
mixing the children in schools?
A. That's correct.
Q. What is your basis for that?
A. The basis of that is in the other states it works so well. I travel
over different states, not only Mississippi.
138
Q. Where has it worked so well?
A. Worked In Tennessee; worked in Georgia; didn't work too well in
Alabama, but I think they only have eleven down there. It worked
in Missouri, it worked in Kansas; it worked——
Q. Now, when you say it "worked," what do you mean?
A. The kids, they are desegregated without any fanfare.
Q. You said a better education. What have you done to find out
whether they are getting a better education? This Is your (R-228)
statement.
A. Well, I have three kids in school, and the curriculum is just not
there.
Q. Are you complaining that the Negro schools in Jackson, Mississip
pi, then are inferior to the white schools?
A. That is right.
Q. I thought you were claiming that unless they were mixed they were
inferior. Is it simply your claim that they are a different school
and that they are inferior?
A. They are a different school.
Q. And this would be cured if you mixed the two together ?
A. Not all, but it would be approximately 95 percent better.
Q* Now, tell me, seriously: If it could be shown in this suit in this
case that your three children could be educated better in a separ
ate school, which would you want — a mixed school or a separate
school?
A. I always want a mixed school.
139
Q. You don't care whether they get a better education or not in a
separate school?
A. You can't get a better education in a separate school.
Q. Do you have any basis for making that statement? Do you have any
educational background?
A. The facts and figures show that on the average, per ratio, the
Negro kid is two or three years behind the whites. (R-229)
Q. Is that true when they start in school?
A. I don't know about the start, the first grade.
Q. Well, would you accept the figures that show that they start about
the same and that they drop back slowly, and that they do this in
mixed schools as well as separate?
MR. BELL: Your Honor, we're going to have plenty of
testimony on this. I think our witness has given his opinion as to
why he wants to desegregate, and I don't think he should be subject
ed to all the details, figures and statistics that he can't possibly
have knowledge of and that counsel for defendant certainly does.
THE COURT: Overrule the objection. He is on cross
examination.
MR. LEONARD: The door was opened by requesting his
opinion, to which no objection was made.
Q. Now, you stated the children play together until they get to be five
or six?
A. That's correct.
Q. And that after that they tend to drift apart and play separately?
140
A. That's correct.
Q. And what do you blame this on?
A. Could be on the parents, teachers.
Q. You don't think it could be on nature?
A. I don't think it's on nature. (R-230)
Q. Do you have any basis for saying that?
A. I grew up with white kids, and swam together. We was 19 or 20
and we didn't have any race difference. That was in the 30's. We
swam, boxed, fight, and the parents didn't get mad. When we had
a fight, it was all over it.
Q. That's right, but when you got up on the stand and you were asked
your race, you said you were an American Negro. Right?
A. Right.
Q. You are perfectly conscious of that. Right?
A. Right.
Q. You are not ashamed of it, are you?
A. Never will be.
Q. All right. And all that time you were playing, you were perfectly
conscious of the fact there were white boys and there were Negro
boys?
A. That's right.
Q. No one had to be better than the other. Right?
A. Oh, no. No one would be better.
Q. All right. Now, answer me then what you said that this whole
country would be improved by putting these children together. 1
just want to know why you say this if it isn't your own feeling about
141
it.
A. Well, what I said, if all the nations in the U. N ., that is the only
thing they can fight, the discrimination in the United States. When
an ambassador goes from America to foreign countries, they have
a problem on race. You say, why? What (R-231) is the reason?
The reason is because we practice discrimination against our
people. Most of the people of the age in Africa —
Q. Well, you're talking about adults. We are here talking about
children.
A. That's right.
Q. We 're not talking now about the recognition legally and politically
and otherwise of adults. We're here talking about the education of
schools. Is that your understanding of this case?
A. That's right.
Q. You are not here trying to remedy the political rights of any adult
in Mississippi?
A. No, I'm not trying to do that.
Q. You are here trying to get the best education for the children?
A. That's correct.
Q. And if I can show you during the course of this case that twenty
times as many children from southern separate schools can go to
college and succeed as go from the mixed schools in the north,
would it change your opinion?
A. No, it wouldn't change my opinion.
Q. Thank you. That is all the questions.
142
MR. BELL: No further questions, Your Honor.
(Witness excused)
(R-232)
MYRIIE B. EVERS, called as a witness and having been duly sworn,
testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. BELL:
Q. State your full name ?
A. Mrs. Myrlie B. Evers.
Q. You are a resident of Jackson?
A. I am.
Q. In the State of Mississippi?
A. Yes.
Q. How long have you been a resident of the State of Mississippi?
A. I have been a resident of this state all of my life, thirty-one years.
Q. Do you have any children?
A. I have three.
Q. Where are they attending school?
A. Two are attending school at Christ the King on Lynch Street.
Q. Is this a Catholic school?
A. It is.
Q. And it is not a part of the public school system. Is that right?
A. It is not.
Q. Under what circumstances, if any, would you be willing to send
your children to the public schools of Jackson?
A. I would be willing to send my children to the public schools of
Jackson provided they were desegregated.
(R-233) 143
Q. Have you ever made a protest to the Jackson School Board about
segregation?
A, A protest was made In the year 1962 in the form of a petition.
Q. Did you sign that petition?
A. I did.
Q. Did you receive any response from the board?
A. 1 did not,
Q. Did you receive any advice from the board that you could apply for
transfers for your children?
A. I did not.
Q. Are you a plaintiff in this suit?
A. I am.
Q. Why are you a plaintiff in this suit?
A. I am a plaintiff in this suit. I entered as a plaintiff in this suit
with my deceased husband, Medgar Evers. We are both native
Mississippians. Wre grew up and were schooled in segregated
schools. He felt and I now feel, as I have always felt that segre
gation is wrong; and since we are native Mississippians and since
the Supreme Gourt ruled that segregation was illegal we took it upon
ourselves to try to play a part in righting this wrong. We entered
this suit, not only for my children, but for all of the children in the
City of Jackson, all of the Negro children in the City of Jackson.
As I said, I feel that it is wrong. I feel that the children do not
receive die type of education that they could receive in a desegre
gated school system. I feel that they are also psychologically
(R-234) 144
damaged by attending separate schools. This, among some
others, is my reason for being a plaintiff in this suit.
MR. BELL: No further questions.
MR. WATKINS: No questions from us.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. LEONARD:
Q. Mrs. Evers, I'd just like to go to one portion of your testimony.
You say you feel the children would be better educated if
the schools were mixed.
MR, BELL: I think the statement she made was the state
ment of the other witness. It was not the use of the term "mixed,"
I don’t think the word "mixed" appears in our complaint any place,
and I think the complaint that our plaintiffs signed and the state
ments they have been mailing on the stand refer to the words
"desegregated schools."
THE COURT: Well, I will sustain the objection to this
extent: I will let him ask her what she did say.
Q. What was it you said would be the benefit you hoped to achieve by
this suit?
A. The benefit?
Q. Yes. What benefit do you really hope to achieve by this suit?
A. By this suit I hope to achieve the desegregation of schools {R-235}
here in the City of Jackson.
Q. And what advantage will that be either to yourself or to your
children?
145
A. I sincerely feel my children will have a chance at a better educa
tion.
Q. Apart from your own personal feeling, do you know of any facts
that make this so?
A. Well, I was schooled in the state through elementary school, high
school and college at segregated schools. I have the personal
knowledge of knowing that these schools did not come up to par
with the white schools. Since that time I don't feel that enough
progress has been made to equalize the schools on this separate
but equal doctrine to say that the children in the separate schools
are receiving the same kind of education. I do believe that it is
inferior.
Q. Let me ask you this, Mrs. Evers, since you have personal ex
perience with these schools: One, do you feel that they educated
you?
A. To a certain extent. I do feel I could have gotten more.
Q. How do you stand in your classes?
A. Well, I would say I was an average student. I graduated second in
in my graduating class of high school.
Q. Second in the class?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. That is a long way from average.
A. Well, it depends on how you grade average in the separate (R-236)
schools. And I was always an average student, I would say, in
college.
146
Q. Tell me something, Mrs. Evers. In the student body in those
three schools that you attended, wouldn't you say that the school
progressed Just about as fast as the student body wanted it to pro
gress?
A. I could not say that because the student body was not in control of
the school.
Q. This is true, but did your teachers deliberately hold you back?
What was it they were withholding from you?
A. I think that they were withholding, perhaps without their knowledge,
the knowledge that they could have given to us provided that they
too had been taught and educated in desegregated schools.
Q. And what knowledge is that?
A. As I said, I feel that the schools by being desegregated are inferior.
Therefore the teachers that have graduated from these schools
come out with inferior education. They in turn possibly cannot
pass on to students all of the knowledge that they perhaps were
able to achieve or to gain had they been attending desegregated
schools.
Q* Then what you are saying is that if, in the course of this case, we
can and do prove that the members of your race, people like your
self, who have attended these separate schools have indeed gotten
a better education than the people who have been in the intermixed
schools in the North, then (R-237) you would agree that the
separate school is the better?
A* I would not agree that the separate school is better.
147
Q. Isn't education the primary function of a school?
A. I would say it is.
Q. So if we could show a better education was in fact being given to
the children in separate schools, you would agree that separate
schools are better?
A. Well, I will have to disagree with you because I do not feel that
separate schools provide the same education for both races. I do
feel that the Negro schools are inferior.
Q. Eight, but that is your personal feeling.
A. That is my personal feeling.
Q. On the other hand, you would agree that if it can be proven in a
court of law that the separate education is a better education, then
separate schooling is better?
ME. BELL: We object. He is asking an argumentative
type of question not aimed at eliciting information to help the
Court; just arguing with the witness. And she has answered about
twice.
THE COURT: Overrule the objection.
Q. If you will answer ?
A. Will you state it again, please?
(The question was read by the reporter)
A. Well, I 'll have to make the same statement I made before. I do not
feel separate education is the better. (E-238)
Q» But whatever is the better education, you are for it?
A. I want a better education for my children and for all other children,
148
and I also feel that they cannot receive a better education in separ
ate schools.
Q. Thank you very much.
(Witness excused)
MRS* EDNA MARIE SINGLETON, called as a witness and having been
duly sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. BELL:
Q. State your full name, please?
A. Mrs. Edna Marie Singleton.
Q. Speak up louder.
A. Mrs. Edna Singleton.
Q. Are you a resident of the City of Jackson?
A. I am.
Q. And the State of Mississippi?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. How long have you been a resident of the State of Mississippi?
A. All my life.
Q. What is your occupation, if any?
A. I'm a beautician. (R-239)
Q. And your race ?
A. Negro.
Q* Do you have any children?
A. Yes, I have.
Q* What are their names?
149
A. Derek Jerome Singleton and Vicki Lyn Singleton.
Q. Are any of them plaintiffs in this case ?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. What are their ages and grades?
A, Derek is age 14. He is in the 9th grade.
Q. Any other child?
A. Vicki is in the first grade,
Q. And her age ?
A. Seven.
Q. Which schools are your children attending?
A. Holy Ghost Catholic School.
Q. Under what circumstance would you be willing to send them to the
public schools of the city?
A. If they are desegregated.
Q. You told me you live in the City of Jackson. Is that right?
A. That's right.
Q. What street do you live on?
A. I live on Maple Street.
Q. Can you describe the racial make-up of the neighborhood where
you live? (R-240)
A. Well, on the right side of Maple Street, which would, I assume,
continue to/the east of Wood or Bailey Avenue, is the colored
section. On the extending west side is the white section.
Q* Where do the whites and Negroes who live in this area pretty much
across the street from each other, where do the whites and Negroes
150
go to school?
A. The Negroes go to Mary G, Jones School, going west on Maple
Street. Extending east on Maple they would go to Brown, Rowan
or Holy Ghost School.
Q. Are there any white schools located In this area?
A. Yes, there is one in about three blocks from where I live; across
the street extending further out the school is about a block from
where I live.
Q. Do the white children living in your area attend these schools
located within two or three blocks?
A. Yes, they do.
Q. And Negroes attend the schools that are for Negroes?
A. That school for Negroes from where I live is eight or nine blocks
away. Of course, the families who live farther down the street
would have to go farther than the eight or nine blocks.
Q. These are the Negro families?
A. That’s right. And there's no bus facilities running in that direc
tion.
Q. In order for the Negroes living where you live to attend the (R-241)
Negro public school, do they have to cross any dangerous streets
or other hazards?
A. Bailey Avenue Is a main thorough street, main traffic street from
where I live to get to Whitfield Mill Road. And Mill Street and
railroad
the/track is the next crossing for Rowan, Beaver Brown, and
Holy Ghost school.
151
Q. Have you ever made any effort to make known to the Board of
Education In Jackson that you weren’t satisfied with the public
school?
A. We did do that.
Q. When did you do that and what did you do?
A. That was in *55.
Q. What did you do in ’55?
A. I didn’t at that time. I didn’t personally.
Q. Well, did you ever personally participate in any protest and make
known your personal protest to the Board of Education?
A. No.
Q. Was there a petition in 1962?
A. There was a petition, that’s right, at that time.
Q. Did you sign that?
A. I did.
Q. Do you know what the substance of that petition was?
A. That's right, that was to desegregate the schools.
Q. Did you receive yourself any response from the Board as to that
petition? {R-2421
A. No.
Q. Did the Board advise you that if your children were in the school
system, the public school system, they would be eligible for a
transfer to a white school that they wished to attend?
A. No.
Q. Are you a plaintiff in this suit?
152
Q, What do you hope to obtain by being a plaintiff in this suit?
A. A better education for my children and all Negro children.
Q. Do you think this education could be better obtained in a desegre
gated or segregated school system?
A. I most certainly do.
Q. Do what?
A. Think they will have a better education under a desegregated
system.
Q. Thank you. No further questions.
GROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. GANNADA:
Q. I believe youd stated that you operate a beauty parlor. Is that
correct?
/
A. That is correct.
Q. Do you mind telling us whether your employer is of the white or
Negro race?
A. I own the shop. (R-243)
Q. You own the shop yourself. Do you have any customers of the
white race?
A. No.
Q. And I gather that all of your customers are members of the Negro
race?
A. Yes.
Q. You have also stated that you have three children. Is that right?
A. Yes, I am,
153
Q. And they attend a private school, or parochial school?
A. That is right.
Q. What is the name of that?
A. Holy Ghost, Catholic school.
Q. Is that the same school that the children of Mrs. Evers, who pre
viously testified attend?
A. No, that is another school.
Q. Are all of the students of that particular Catholic school Negroes?
A. Yes.
Q. There are no white students attending that school at this time?
A. Not to my knowledge.
(Witness excused)
(R-244)
ELIZABETH WHITE, called as a witness and having been duly sworn,
testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. BELL:
Q. Would you state your full name, please?
A. Mrs. Elizabeth D. White.
Q. Are you a resident of the City of Jackson?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. State of Mississippi?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. How long have you lived in Mississippi?
A. All my life.
A. Two.
154
Q. Do you have any children?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you tell us who they are? And their ages and grades in
school?
A. Brenda La Faye White, age 14, ninth grade.
Q. You are a Negro? Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. What is your occupation?
A. I am a baker at the Veterans Hospital.
Q. Is that the federal hospital for veterans?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Where is your child Brenda attending school?
A. Brinkley Junior High School.
Q. Brinkley Junior High?
A. That is right. CR-245)
Q. Is that a white or a Negro school?
A. Negro.
Q. All students are Negro?
A. That is right.
Q. The teachers are Negroes, as far as you know?
A. That is right.
Q. Have you ever made any effort to protest to the school board con
cerning the make-up of the school where your child is assigned
to attend?
A. None other than the signing a petition in ’62.
155
Q. You did sign a petition in 1962?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you receive any response from the board concerning that
petition?
A. No.
Q. Did the board advise you that you could apply for admission of your
child to a white school?
A. No.
Q. Of course, you are a plaintiff in this suit? Is that right?
A. That’s right.
Q. Would you tell the court what you hope to obtain by being a party in
this suit?
A. I feel like it would be a better education for my child and other
children. I feel like it would be better.
Q. Better what?
A. Education, I say. (R-246)
Q. You feel l ik e -----* If the schools are desegregated —
A. If the schools are desegregated I feel that.
MR. BELL: No further questions.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. WATKINS:
Q. As I understand it, your only interest is in seeing that your child
gets the best possible education? Is that correct?
A. My child?
Q. Yes.
156
Q. And the other Negro children?
A. That is right.
Q. And if you were satisfied, or if you found from the evidence in
this case that your child and the other colored children in this
community would receive a better education in separate schools,
then that would be what you would continue to want, wouldn't it be?
A* Well, I wouldn't say. I don't know whether it would be better in
separate schools.
Q. I didn't ask you that question. I said if you were satisfied after
hearing the evidence in this case, and if the Court found the chil
dren would get better education by going to separate schools, that
is what you would want, isn't it?
MR. BELL: We object. It is arguing with the (R-247)
witness. The question posed is the very issue before this Court.
THE COURT: I will overrule this objection.
Q. What I am trying to find out is, all you want is the best education
available for your child and the other colored children?
A. Yes, I want that.
Q. Whatever will produce that, that is what you want the Court to do,
isn't it?
A. If it's what I want.
Q. Now, let me ask you this: Have you personally visited and seen
the type of education that is received in schools that have been de
segregated?
A. No, not just my child, but all children, Negro children.
157
Q. Have you visited and examined or studied the educational processes
and results in any schools that have been desegregated?
MR, BELL: We object again.
A. No, I haven't.
MR. BELL: They have gone through this kind of question
ing and there is no place in any of the cases any requirement or
prerequisite that a plaintiff in a school suit has to first, as a pre
requisite to filing the suit, go to visit desegregated schools and
have an opinion based on their visit. *
THE COURT: She is on cross examination, and I will
(R-24S) overrule the objection.
Q. I believe you answered that you had not?
A. I did.
Q. Had not visited any such school.
MR. WATKINS: I have no further questions.
(Witness excused!
MRS. KATHRYN THOMAS, called as a witness and having been duly
sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. BELL:
Q. State your full name ?
A. Mrs. Kathryn Thomas
Q. Are you a resident of the City of Jackson?
A. Yes.
A. Beg pardon?
Q. State of Mississippi?
A. Yes.
158
Q, How long have you been such?
A. 36 years.
Q. Speak up a little more.
A. 36 years.
Q. And you are a Negro? Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. What is your occupation?
A. Beautician.
Q. Do you have any children. (R-249)
A. Yes.
Q. What are their names?
A. Carolyn Ann Thomas, age 16, and Ear line, 18.
Q. Are any of them presently attending the Jackson Gity schools?
A. Yes.
Q,. Carolyn?
A. Carolyn, the Brinkley High School.
Q. What grade is she in?
A. 11.
Q. What school is she presently attending?
A. Brinkley High.
Q* Is this a Negro or white school?
A. Negro school.
Q* All the students are Negro, as far as you knov/?
159
Q. And the faculty, all Negroes, as far as you know?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you ever made any effort to protest to the school board that
you weren't satisfied with the make-up of the schools where your
children attend?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you do ?
A. I signed a petition in 1 62.
Q. Did you receive any response from the school board to this petition?
(R-250)
A. No.
Q. Speak up a little more.
A. No.
Q. Did the board ever advise you that you could make application to
have your child transferred to a white school?
A. No.
Q. If you were able to obtain such transfer, would you be satisfied?
A. Yes.
Q. You would be satisfied if your child were transferred to a white
school?
A. Yes.
MR. WATKINS: We object to arguing with the witness.
She answered his question, clearly and positively.
THE COURT: Overrule the objection.
Q* Would you give me your answer?
A. Yes.
A. Yes.
160
Q. What do you hope to accomplish by this suit?
A. Well, a better education for colored kids.
Q. Do you feel this better education can be obtained in a segregated
or desegregated school?
A. Desegregation.
MR. BELL: No further questions.
(R-251) GROSS EXAMtNATION
BY MR. CANNADA:
Q. I believe you stated you were also a beautician?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you own your own shop?
A. Yes.
Q. Where is your shop located?
A. North Farish.
Q* Do you have any white patrons at your beauty shop?
A. No.
Q. All your patrons or customers are members of the Negro race?
A. Yes.
Q. I believe you stated you have one child that does attend the public
schools of the Jackson Municipal Separate School District?
A. Yes.
Q* I believe you also stated that the only request you ever made con
cerning this child and the school which she attends was the signing
of the petition in 1962? Is that correct?
A. Yes.
161
Q. Now, if it Is a matter of fact, if it can be shown during the trial of
this case that your child is receiving a better education by attend
ing the school she now attends, is that what you want for your
child? (R-252)
A. What?
Q. A better education than would be true if she attended an integrated
school.
A. Yes.
Q. You are saying you are interested in the education of your child?
A. Yes.
Q. And if as a matter of fact it can be shown that by attending separate
schools a better education is actually received by the child, then
that is what you want?
A. Yes.
MR. CANNADA: That Is all.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. BELL:
Q. I don't know whether you understood the question counsel asked
you, and I am going to rephrase it, and listen to it before you
answer.
MR. WATKINS: This is an obvious attempt to impeach
his own witness, and get her to change the testimony. I don't
think counsel is entitled to do that.
THE COURT: I think he is entitled on redirect examina
tion to find out whether she understood the question. I will over
rule the objection.
162
ME. WATKINS: He is suggesting to her, Your Honor,
that she did give the wrong answer. CR-253)
THE COURT: Don't lead the witness.
Q* As I understand it, counsel asked you whether if It could be shown
by the trial that your child could obtain a better education in a
segregated school, then you would be satisfied and you would not
want a segregated school.
A. Well, desegregated schools is what we are asking for.
Q. Would you repeat the answer?
A. Desegregated schools are what we are asking for.
Q. Is it your belief your child can obtain — .
MR. WATKINS: We object to leading.
THE COURT: Don't lead the witness.
Q. You indicated you are a plaintiff in this suit?
A, Yes.
Q. And you do understand what this suit is intended to do? Is that
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And what is that, in your own words ?
A. A better education for the colored kid in desegregated schools.
Q. In desegregated schools?
A. Yes.
Q. And how was that? In a desegregated school?
A. Yes.
Q. In your honest opinion, or your belief, Kirs. Thomas, would you
163
be satisfied under any circumstances, regardless of the type of
education that could be provided, if your child were (R-254) to be
kept in a segregated school?
A. What was that?
Q* Would you be satisfied if under any circumstances your child would
be kept in a segregated school?
A. No.
MR. BELL: That is all.
THE COURT: Any recross?
MR. WATKINS: No, sir.
THE COURT: Any examination by the intervenors?
MR. SHELL: No, sir,
(Witness excused)
MR. BELL: I would like to call Mr. Kirby P. Walker.
KIRBY P. WALKER, called as a witness and having been duly sworn,
testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. BELL:
Q. State your full name.
A. Kirby P. Walker.
Q. You are a resident of the City of Jackson?
A. Yes.
Q. "What is your occupation?
A. Superintendent of schools.
Q . How long have you held that position?
164
Q. And you are a defendant in this suit? Is that correct? (R-255)
A. Correct.
MR. BELL: I would like at this time to have marked as
an exhibit for identification the answers tothe interrogatories
which the plaintiffs filed.
(Same was marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1 for Identification)
Q. I ask you to take a look at the answers to the interrogatories, and
these interrogatories purported to be signed by you and the mem
bers of the school board. Look it over and see if you can identify
that.
A. Yes, I identify this, and I signed it. That is marked as Exhibit
P-1.
MR, BELL: I would like to move to have those admitted
in evidence.
Counsel suggests it is probably a good idea if we will also
move to admit as a plaintiff's exhibit the interrogatories them
selves, to make it clear.
THE COURT: You are offering the interrogatories now?
MR. BELL: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Let the interrogatories be received in evi
dence as Exhibit 1, and the answers as Exhibit 2.
(Same were received and marked as Plaintiff's Exhibits No. 1 andNo. 2,
respectively.) (Exhibits are not copied because by order of the Court
the originals are to be inspected.)
(Mr. Bell continues:)
Q. If you will turn to page 2 of your answers, Mr. Walker,
A. Since 1937.
165
(R-256)
I see In the third paragraph there*.
"In the discharge of his responsibility of making arrange
ments for the receiving of applications for pupil admission in the
public schools of the Jackson Municipal Separate School District
and making temporary assignments of such applicants to schools
in such district, Kirby P. Walker annually designates the time
and place within the district for the submission of applications for
admission."
Gould you tell a little about how that is done, that is, who
receives these applications for admission each year?
A. Principals of the schools in the district actually receive them.
Q. And they receive a sufficient number of applications to pass out to
each child? Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And these applications generally are similar to those which you
attach as an exhibit to your affidavit which you filed back in March
of last year? Is that correct?
A. I don't recall what was attached at that time. If you have a copy
of it, I can tell you whether or not it is the same.
Q. I think it is part of the record, but Just to refresh your memory,
the document is entitled APPLICATION FOR SCHOOL ADMISSION
AND ASSIGNMENT.
A. That is correct.
Q. Is it also correct that the individual student fills out this
(R-257) 166
application?
A, Either he or his parent, depending upon his age.
Q,. In this application he gives the pertinent information as to his
name, address, where he is attending at the present time, and
where he lives in the City of Jackson. The information is set
forth on that form.
A. As I recall, that is correct.
Q. What happens to those applications after they are completed
either by the child or his parent?
A. The principal directs the teachers, who actually deal with the
parent or the child in assigning the child to a school temporarily.
Q. I understood under your new rules that you actually made the
temporary assignments. Does that mean that really someone
else makes them but your responsibility?
A. It is a delegated responsibility.
Q. Who actually makes the assignment? The teacher?
A. Well, at our direction, yes.
Q. And then what happens after the assignments are made by the
teacher?
A. The child or his parent understands he Is entitled to attend school
where he Is assigned temporarily.
Q, When are these temporary assignments, and by what procedure
are these temporary assignments, made permanent?
A. Following a period in which there Is an opportunity to request a
change of assignment, and those have been acted on CR-258) at
167
staff level, we so report to the board ox trustees that pupils have
been temporarily assigned, that we have acted on requests for
changes of assignments, and they are then ready to be assigned
permanently.
Q. What occurs generally then?
A. Sorry?
Q. Does the board then generally ratify?
A. The board then acts immediately, passes an order, and makes
assignments permanent.
Q. In this procedure you never actually review each of the applications
for assignment forms that are filled out by the students throughout
the school system?
A. No, sir.
Q. And the person who actually makes the temporary assignment, who
is delegated the duty of making the assignment, the teacher in this
school or class, are there any written instructions given to her as
to what criteria she should use in mailing that temporary assign
ment?
A. None.
Q. What guide lines do these teachers have?
A. The principals are instructed to assign the pupils to that school,
who have applied there and make requests for admission.
Q. After the applications are completed, those students who would be
going to grades still encompassed by that school are then assigned
by the principal to that school? Is that (R-259) correct?
168
Q. You indicate there is a period of time after these applications are
filed when they are held awaiting applications for transfer. Nov;,
where does the pupil or the parent obtain the information that he
is entitled to make this application for transfer?
A. They can be obtained at two points — the board offices on 1060
Lynch Street, or the board offices at 652 South President.
Q. That is where he could receive the form for application for trans
fer?
A. That is right.
Q. Where does he get the information that he can go to either of these
two places to obtain the form and make the applications.
A. That is in the hands of all principals and also announced publicly
through the press.
Q. That they are able to make these applications for transfer?
A. Correct.
Q. Has there ever been a specific announcement to the principals or
to the press that applications for transfer would be received even
if the applications sought transfer from a Negro school to a white
school or vice versa?
A. Not that specific designation. (R-260)
Q. As I understand it, prior to 1954, maybe a little later, the resolu
tion was adopted set forth in your affidavit, which set up the pro
cedures which you are presently following; but prior to that time,
prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in 1954 concerning segrega-
A. Correct.
169
tlon in the schools, how were the pupils assigned to the public
schools?
A. The assignment was made then on the basis of a board order and
which zones for attendance were designated, approved for each
school in the system.
Q. At that time, of course, you had the dual zones, a set of zones for
Negro schools and a set of zones for white schools? Is that right?
A. That is right.
Q. And when, as one of our witnesses testified earlier here, in a
particular neighborhood where there were Negroes and whites liv
ing on opposite sides of the street, those Negro and white school
zones would overlap?
A. That is right.
Q. With Negro children going to Negro schools and white children
going to white schools? Is that correct?
A, That is correct.
Q. You indicated the zone lines were abandoned when the new policy
took effect?
A. That is right.
Q. My question is, isn't it correct that under this new policy (R-261)
insofar as assignment to Negro or white schools is concerned,
that there is no real difference; that Negroes still are going to
Negro schools and whites are still going to white schools?
A. Negro pupils are still going to schools with other Negro pupils,
and white pupils are going to school with white pupils.
170
Q. And these schools to which they go are still designated in your
publications and elsewhere as either Negro or white schools?
Isn't that correct?
A. White or colored. I think that is the term.
Q. Do you recall at what grade level in having these applications
completed you stopped sending them home to the parents and per
mitted the child to complete the application himself?
A. Usually when a child is able to write, he makes his own applica
tion, unless he is a new resident in the district, at which time we
ask his parents to accompany him in making his first application.
Q. Then would that be about the fifth grade or the fourth grade when
the child would be able to write sufficiently well to fill out the
application himself?
A. Probably earlier. I would say probably third or fourth, grade level.
Q. Generally, in answer to Interrogatory 4 that begins on page 4 of
your answers, in that request I might say that we had (R-262)
requested information as to how are assignments affected by a
number of different factors, which you indicated you take into con
sideration in making these assignments. Now, you indicate in
answer to subsection 4-a, which begins down at the bottom and
continues over on to 5, that, "the discipline problem in the schools
as well as to and from the schools" is a factor you consider. I
should like for you to explain that sentence over on page 5 where
you indicate that "tension and antagonism would develop, "result
ing in discipline being adversely affected if white and Negro pupils
171
were assigned at the same school.
A. Do you want my comment on that?
Q. Yes.
A. Well, it has been customary for Negro children to be associated
with Negro children, and white children to be associated with white
children in this community; and in this situation any change of that
custom, in my opinion, would create tensions, feelings, and an
tagonisms.
Q. You have been in the school system for how many years?
A. 27 years.
Q. Am I correct in presuming your answers given on the basis of your
experience over this period?
A. In this community, yes.
Q. Is It also the thrust of your answer to subsection 4-b on (R-253)
on page 5 concerning '‘the relative abilities of pupils" that the
achievement ability or potential of the white pupil and the Negro
pupil is so different that it justifies keeping them in separate
schools?
A. That is my opinion.
Q. What Is that based on?
A. That they should be separate. The achievement and ability of the
two races is so distinct that they should be schooled separately.
Q. Is it your experience that in the Negro school — . Strike that.
In your opinion are schools a factor themselves in the
differing ability levels of these two groups of students?
172
Q. You think the schools are exactly the same in that that the differing
achievement are something that is inherent in the races? Is that
correct, that the whites are superior and the Negroes are in
ferior?
A. That was not my answer.
Q. That Is why I would like you to explain.
A. I think the first question was whether or not the schools affected
the ability or was a factor inthe ability of the child.
Q. That Is right.
A. I don’t think so. Your second question was, was one superior or
inferior to the other.
Q. Was the one group of children inferior to the other? (R-264)
A. With respect to achievement?
Q. With respect to achievement.
A. That is correct. The white children have a better achievement
record than do the Negro children.
Q. And this better achievement level Is attributable, you think, to
what?
A. I am not called upon to account for that. I deal with the child as
he presents himself in school.
Q. I understand in some of the later phases of your interrogatories
there are tables set forth indicating that as the Negro child pro
ceeds in the school system his achievement potential falls off
more and more. Now, as the number one administrative official,
A. No.
173
aren't you concerned about that?
A, I am concerned that his mental ability would seem to drop and his
achievement would also tend to parallel.
Q. This is not the fault of the school?
A. I don't think so.
Q. It is the fault of the child or group of children?
A. I don't know it Is the fault of the child as such. I can't account for
it.
Q. You can't account for it, but you feel the best way to cope with it is
to keep the two groups separate ?
A. I think it is best for both groups educationally.
Q. I take it that a sizeable percentage of your faculty people, Negro
and white, are residents of Mississippi and were educated in
Mississippi schools? Is that correct? CR-265)
A. I am sorry; I do not know the origin. I would assume that a large
part of them, but I am not sure.
Q. The findings you have made as to the Negro pupils and their
achievement level, and the fact they are less good than that of the
whites, in many instances, does that also hold true for your facul
ty, you find?
A. I didn't use the term "good. " I said in terms of achievement.
Now, what would be the question with respect to that?
Q* I don't know that there is any difference, but my question is:
Whether you find the same differential in achievement in the
faculty people, Negro and white, as you do in the pupils?
174
A. I don't interview the teachers. That is done by principals. They
are the people who interview them and recommend them, and
their judgment as to the individual who whould best serve the chil
dren in that school. They work within board policy to minimum
qualifications, and no teacher employed is under that qualification.
Q. Does that answer mean that you yourself do not know whether or
not the same problem in learning and achieving, as far as educa
tion is concerned, that you are cognizant of in regard to Negro
and white children — does your answer indicate you are not a-
ware whether there is a similar problem with Negro and white
faculty members?
A. No, I am not aware of that.
Q. Then it could very well exist and you just wouldn't know about it?
Is that correct?
A. Know about what? (R-266)
Q. About the differential in achievement and ability to learn existing
in the faculty, as well as In the pupils?
A. Well, they are matured individuals coming within their credentials,
which have been certified by others, and we accept them at the
face facts.
Q. In the same way, isn't it correct that the pupils, when they come
into the first grade, have certain credentials as far as residence,
age, birth certificates, and tilings of this nature, which you also
certify is sufficient to permit those children to begin school? And,
nevertheless, you understand and have had all this information
175
compiled concerning the difference in the achievement level of the
pupils, which you say is not the cause of the schools. Now, my
question to you Is whether the faculties, Negro and white, show
the same differential in ability.
A. I'd say the faculty is representative of the population, as the pupil
population.
Q. Does that mean you are or not aware of it? Does that mean there
isn't a difference in the faculty, or do you feel there is?
A. I don't know.
ME. CANNADA: We object to continuing harassment of
this —
MR. BELL: I'm not going any further. He obviously
doesn't know. (R-267)
THE COURT: I believe at this point we will take a ten
minute recess.
(Whereupon the court was recessed for ten minutes)
After Recess
MR. BELL continuing:
Q. We were speaking, Mr. Walker, about what you found to be the
differing levels of achievement in Negro schools and in the white
schools, among Negro pupils and white pupils.
Based upon examination of these tables, It would appear
that while the average white child of a certain grade level achieves
more than the average Negro, that there are exceptions at either
end of the scale, that there are Negro students whose achievement
176
is above the average for the whites and whites whose level of
achievement is below the average of the Negroes? Is that correct?
A. Which table are you referring to?
Q. Almost any of them, really. Take the first one, Interrogatory 5,
Table 1.
A. This is a readiness test.
Q. What does that mean?
A. This test is given to first grade pupils shortly after entering
school to see how ready they are to read, or to be introduced to
reading.
Q. Was this test given throughout the system, or was it confined to a
few schools? (R-268)
A. I think this includes all of the first grade pupils as of September-
October, 1963.
Q. And was given to all the students in the schools?
A. I believe so. I think that is correct.
Q. We have out at the far left, A, B, C, D, E , and 1, 2, 3, 4,5.
What does that indicate?
A. That is a scale to indicate the degree of readiness, 1 being the
lowest and 5 being the highest. The figure 3 represents what the
national average is with respect to first grade pupils’ ability for
readiness to read.
Q. This is before they have had any training in reading or anything
else? This is as they just come Into the school system?
A. Probably they have been in school a month or six weeks.
177
Q. Now, on this, as to reading and as to numbers and as to total,
which I assume is for compilation of the two, reading and number
readiness — .
A. No, this has to do only with reading.
Q, What does "number" indicate?
A. Are you referring to another table?
Q. No, it is the same table but as to the second scale on the table.
A. You are referring to the figures on the left, the perpendicular?
Q. Underneath the test, underneath the first one, there Is a designa
tion "Reading."
A. Yes. (R-269)
BY MR. SHELL: Your Honor, do you have one of these
that you might follow the testimony?
THE COURT: No, I do not.
(Same is handed to the Court)
A. I am with you now. Yes, one has to do with readiness to read and
the other is understanding or concept of numbers.
Q. And the total?
A. The total is a combined scale score for his reading and number
concepts.
Q. We see in the first column under "Reading" it has a large column
going up, and at the top the number 3.5. What does that mean?
That is the average scale score for the white pupils who took this
test in the Fall of "63.
Q. And that Indicates that the average grade for white students taking
this test was 3.5, and some white students did much better than
178
3.5, and some did much poorer? Is that correct?
A. Yes, would be some above and some below.
Q. Now, the Negro level Is 2. 3, and that would mean the same tiling
for the Negro students? Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Then it would follow, would it not, that there were some Negroes
who did much better than 3.5 and some whites that did poorer than
2.3? (R-270)
A. I don't know that it follows.
Q. Well, these figures here are averages, aren't they, what every
body did?
A. Correct, but I don't know that they overlap to that extent you indi
cated.
Q. Then if it weren't, wouldn't the 3.5 level for the whites be much
higher than 3.5?
A. Well, that is what it is.
Q. You are not willing to admit at all that there were any white stu
dents who fell below 2.3?
A. I do not know.
Q. And you don't know whether there were any Negro students who
did better than 3.5 or made the 3.5?
A. I do not know.
Q. You don't know. Did you make any examination of these test
scores to determine that?
A. These are examined by a staff member, who is more expert in
this than I.
179
Q. You didn't prepare these graphs that are attached to the Interroga
tories?
A. No, but It was done under my direction.
Q. After It was done under your direction, exactly what type of review
of this information did you make?
A. Just what you see here.
Q. You just looked over the finished tables?
A. That’s correct. (R-271)
Q. You didn't go back and review any of the materials from which
these tables were prepared?
A. I did not.
Q. You don’t know then if there were any Negroes that scored 3.5?
A, No, sir, I do not.
Q. The only action you have taken to try to correct the 2.3 or the low
er Negro scores which are below the national average, according
to this table, is to determine that it is better for Negroes to stay
in Negro schools? Is that correct?
A. Not on tliis one factor, no.
Q* But since the testss on all of these tables are similar, this helps
you reach your conclusion?
A. That is right.
Q» — your conclusion the Negroes are better off in Negro schools?
A. That is right.
Q* Without regard to these tests, have you in your own experience
come across or been informed as superintendent that there were
Negroes in the Negro schools who showed a great deal of ability,
with respect to ability to achieve in scholastic endeavor?
A. I don’t know that it has been brought to my attention that there was
a great number. I don't recall.
Q, In your 27 years, have you ever heard of one? (R-272)
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Did you ever have any concern yourself or evidence any concern to
the board about the problem of the Negro child with extra ability
being maintained in the Negro school which, according to your
tables, shows the children aren't able to achieve as much?
A. Not as an individual, because again we are looking at a number of
factors in the operation of a school and not just one person's
ability.
Q. Would one of the other factors that would tend to make you feel
that your conclusion to leave even the extra bright Negro child in
a Negro school be the factors you mentioned about the "tensions
and antagonisms" that would develop if the child were assigned?
A, That would not have been the point.
Q. Would not?
A, Not with respect to that child.
Q. What would have been some of the factors?
A. Assuming a typical — not a typical — assuming an exceptional
child at a given time, it Is quite possible he would have found him
self in a competition that would have really frustrating effects and
defeating his interest, instead of being the outstanding performer
and would have been very likely a mediocre performer.
Q. This Is if he had been transferred to a white school?
180
181
A. That is right. (R-273)
Q. Where the achievement level is higher?
A. That is right.
Q. This is your opinion?
A. That is my opinion.
Q. As far as we know, there have been no experiements of this type in
the city of Jackson?
A. No experiments in the public schools.
Q. Now, we have here on page 7 in answer to subsection 4-f of the
interrogatories where our question asks you to indicate how as
signments are affected by safety of the pupils. You indicated the
safety of the pupils was a factor in making your assignements.
You say separation of the Negro and white peoples in the schools is
in the best interest of the physical well being of the people. Gould
you explain that answer a little ?
A. Yes. I think going to and from school children go together as
groups, and when they travel together, they more or less reinforce
themselves; they are at ease; their associates are those they have
been together with regularly. I think tomodifv that would bring a
conflict that could affect the well being of the pupils.
Q. In this regard, how does that standard apply to a situation— and
I ’m sure there must be a number of them — but one we had testi
mony from, Mrs. dingle ton, early this morning, that Negro chil
dren in her neighborhood, all of whom were assigned to Negro
schools further away from their homes than (E-274) white schools,
had to cross a dangerous street and railroad tracks in order to
182
get to this school. How does the point about the safety of the pu
pils, how is that resolved when you have a situation such as you
testify to?
A. I don’t think you can eliminate all hazards in going about any com
munity.
Q. In your opinion, are there greater hazards, would they be faced
with greater hazards if assigned to the nearer white schools, even
than they are faced with when they are to cross the railroad
tracks?
A. I think there would be conflict between the groups.
Q. And there would be, in your opinion, greater hazards that way than
if continued to be assigned as they are presently assigned?
A. I think so, yes.
Q. In the next subsection, 4-g, where we ask you to indicate all other
matters and facts of similar nature that should be considered,
you mention in the answer there were other matters and factors
that should be considered. You say in your answer these would
include mental and physical conditions that you might take into con
sideration in individual assignments, but would be impractical to
list them all. Could you tell the Court now just roughly the type
of physical and mental factors that you feel would be taken into
consideration.
A. I don't remember the question. Could I see the original (R-275)
question?
Q. Yes, I was trying to read it to you. (Hands same to witness)
A. As I recall, this has been some time since this was carefully
183
considered. This statement would refer to a child who might be
mentally retarded where he would not be considered typically edu-
cable, and also would refer to a child who might have a physical
handicap.
Q. What action might be taken when you found yourself with the prob
lem of assigning such a child?
A. We would try to see if another assignment would be better for him.
Q. I take it though that all of these various factors you have considered
and which you have set forth in the interrogatories as being the
basis for assigning children, have not resulted in the board's as
signing any children to a school of the opposite race?
A. Do I understand — .
Q. Even considering all of these factors and giving whatever considera
tion you give in making the assignments, at no time have Negro
children been assigned to white schools, using these factors, or
vice versa?
A. That is right.
Q. Am I correct in my conclusion in reading through the various fac
tors you have in answer to Interrogatory 4 that race is always a
factor in making your determination based on (R-276) discipline
problems, ability of pupils, compatibility of the teachers, avail
ability of teachers, welfare of the community, safety of the pupils,
and all the other factors, is interwoven with each of these determi
nates?
A. Based on my knowledge of the characteristics of the race, that is
correct.
184
Q* I take it, based on your answer to Interrogatory 7 on Page 9, that
the factor in the determining of the board to continue its present
operation of the school system, that the factor you considered is
your belief that such operation is in accord with the great majority
of the people living within the district? Is that a correct interpre
tation to your answer ?
A, Yes, sir.
Q. Now, if you will go down to your answer to Interrogatory 13, which
begins on Page 10 and goes on to Page 11, in that interrogatory
we had asked you to indicate any courses or programs or facilities
available at schools attended by whites only which are not available
at schools attended by Negroes only. You indicated generally the
facilities and courses are similar at both Negro and white schools,
but you indicated that there are some building trades, boys* home-
making and auto mechanics offered in schools attended by Negro
pupils not offered by schools attended by white pupils. Could you
explain to the Court what is involved in a boys' homemaking
course, a buildings trade course? (R-277)
A. You mean the nature of the program?
Q. Yes.
A. In the boys' homemaking course there is an opportunity for them to
learn some skills in food preparation, household management,
which ultimately proves to be a useable skill for a number of
Negro youth.
Q. How does that work out? I Interpret it as teaching the boys how to
be housewives. Is that correct?
185
A. No. I thought I made It clear. It involves both food preparation
and household management.
Q. What is household management? Food preparation means cooking.
A. Right.
Q. What is household management?
Wiping the dishes and sweeping the floors?
A. Yes, and budgeting.
Q. And you find this Is a course helpful to Negroes but not helpful to
whites?
A. They are interested in it. They asked for It, and therefore we
offered it.
Q. Who was Interested in it?
A. The boys who attend the Negro high schools.
Q. And because they asked for it, you gave them this course in cooking
and budget making and housecleaning? Is that correct?
A. Yes. (R-278)
Q. What is this building trades course about?
A. Those trades are In carpentry, brickwork, probably plastering,
painting. These are skills that boys are interested in because it
offers an opportunity for them to use these skills for compensation.
Q. Would these be courses of such nature that boys completing them
successfully would be prepared to obtain employment in these var
ious fields?
A. I would say would be apprentices, very likely. They wouldn't be
finished craftsmen.
Q. Is it my understanding there are no courses in bricklaying and
186
carpentry In the white schools?
A. I think that is right. They are not available.
Q. White students in Jackson, Mississippi, can't learn to be carpen
ters?
A. They are not interested in it.
Q. None of these trades?
A. Not sufficient numbers to justify offering them.
Q. Is the same true of auto mechanics?
A. That Is right.
Q. There is no auto mechanics course available for white students?
A. No, sir.
Q. I take it that the white boys, for example, are interested in ROTC ?
A. That has been true.
Q. And you have never had a request from a Negro for ROTG (R-279)
training?
A. No, sir.
Q. And this ROTG training Is the type of training that can lead to com
missions in the service and enable them to get into ROTG courses
in college that would lead to commissions in the service ? Is that
correct?
A. I don’t think it would be a prerequisite.
Q. How about Distributive Education? What Is involved in that?
A. That is a program that is open to senior high school pupils, grades
11 and 12, I believe, and it is a cooperative arrangement where
there Is an employment agency willing to make a training situation
for a child, and he is in school partially and works part of the time.
187
Q. In other words, business and professional people in the community
contribute to the educational process by offering employment on a
part-time basis to persons who can later obtain employment per
haps in that particular field?
A. That is right.
Q. And a Negro chosen in the city of Jackson has no program available
to him?
A. They have no interest in it.
Q. Your answer to that and also the answer on EOTC, "no interest in
that," is that based on reports coming to you directly or based on
the fact that you have never heard of interest in these fields?
A. Principals in schools and counselors would know of pupil CR-280)
interest in programs, and the parents are close to those people
and able to express themselves. It would be my feeling if there
had been any concern, any serious expressed concern, that a prin
cipal of a school in reporting at the end of a year would have indi
cated that this service should be offered because there was a suf
ficient number of youngsters to merit the offer. It would be the
policy of the board and our position that the service would be
offered if there were sufficient number of pupils to merit it.
Q. Now, the fact that the service might be of value to the student
wouldn't be the major factor, but whether or not you considered
you had sufficient number of students that would merit providing it?
A. That is true.
Q. The same would be true of secretarial training?
A. That is correct.
188
Q. Do Negro schools offer the girls any type of secretarial skill at
aU?
A Typing and stenography, shorthand.
Q, But none of the other business skills, as far as business machines,
bookkeeping?
A, Not to my knowledge.
Q. To your knowledge, Negro parents are not interested in their chil
dren obtaining education in this area?
A. It hasn't been indicated to me. (R-281)
Q. I see. Let me get this straight, Mr. Walker. As your under
standing of your duty as the number one school administrator in
Jackson, is it your position that formed the curriculum in these
schools, based on the wishes of the students and perhaps their
parents, or do you at any time base the curriculum on what you in
your educational experience feel would be of value to those
students?
A. 1 would say some of both, plus the fact that part of the program is
prescribed by law.
Q. Are there some other courses which are not mentioned here which
you think of that are offered to one race and not offered to the
other?
A. I think this represents it. I don’t recall any others.
Q. How about languages?
A. Languages are available in all of the high schools.
Q. In the same degree? That is, if the white students are able to get
two years of a particular language, are the Negroes able to get
189
the same thing?
A. I think so. I don’t know of any difference.
Q. Does that mean there might be a difference you don't know about?
A. It might be in one school, yes. They might offer this year two
years of a language and next year offer three years of the same
language.
Q. Would the same be true of science ?
A. Gould be. I hardly think it’s likely In either case. (R-282)
Q. But the textbooks and everything that are used in both schools, to
your knowledge, are the same?
A. Provided by the State and loaned to pupils on the same basis.
Q. The facilities in the laboratories and classrooms are all the same?
A. For all practical purposes they are the same.
Q. Generally the facilities, as far as the physical facilities, in the
schools are the same, according to your information?
A. That's right.
Q. The teachers are paid according to the same salary scales?
A. I do not have my salary scales.
Q. How are the teachers paid?
A. They are paid on the basis of my recommendation to the board.
Q. Based on your recommendation to the board?
A. That's correct.
Q. Is there a minimum salary?
A. Yes, there is a minimum.
Q. And is there any kind of standard you use in recommending ad
vances according to experience?
190
A. Yes. Five factors.
Q. I see. What are they?
A. We have to take Into consideration academic and professional
preparation of a person, his teaching capacity, his administrative
ability, and his character.
Q. How do you judge these?
A. Beg pardon? (R-283)
Q. How are you able to judge these as to each teacher?
A. I have to look at their files when they are recommended and deter
mine what would be a salary that would be reasonable and ask
them if this is money in which they would be interested. If so, we
employ them.
Q. A little earlier in your testimony, you indicated you didn't hire
the teachers and didn't know anything about their ability when I
was asking about whether or not the Negro teachers showed the
same inferior ability as far as scholastic achievement is con
cerned that you had documented so completely here as to Negro
pupils. Now you say you do recommend the salary scale for these
teachers based on factors having to do with their general abilities
to teach. Can you explain the discrepancy?
A. Yes. I do not interview them. I recommend them after they have
been recommended to us by the principal of the school. We have
a record as to their background and previous compensation, and
we deal with them on an individual basis as to whether or not they
would be interested in being employed.
Q. Then In order to deal with them on this individual basis, you must
191
have a pretty good idea of the relative abilities, based on educa
tional experience and these other qualifications of leadership that
you mentioned, to give us an answer to the question we asked be
fore; namely, whether or not, in short, (R-284) the Negro teach
ers are inferior to the white teachers.
A. Salary doesn’t indicate they are necessarily inferior.
MR. CANNADA: We object to repeating the question. He
has asked the question several times.
MR. BELL: And I haven’t gotten an answer.
THE GOURT: I will overrule the objection. It is cross
examination.
Q. Again let’s go back and say that we have this complete documenta
tion showing that the Negro pupils do not achieve as well as the
white pupils; we have your general belief that most of the teachers
are residents of Mississippi and came up through the Mississippi
schools. My question to you before and my question to you now is
whether or not the Negro teachers exhibit the same shortcomings
as far as scholastic achievement and ability to grasp information
that the pupils exhibit.
A. I don’t know that.
Q. Have you made any similar type of study on the teachers as you
made on the students?
A. Sorry?
Q. Have you made any —- Do the teachers have to take tests of any
sort, as standard tests, before they are hired?
A. No.
1S2
Q. Do they take one of the national standardized teachers' tests before
they are hired?
A. No. (R-285)
Q. After they are hired?
A. No.
Q. There is no such requirement in the city school system. Well, on
the basis of their educational background, which you indicate you
take into consideration in setting the salaries, what do you find in
comparing the Negro teachers experience and preparation with the
white preparation?
A. I don't make that comparison. Yes, I think I can help you. We are
in a position to negotiate with persons on the basis of their avail
ability. We have a substantial number of applications, for more
than we can use. We have a minimum salary that we would pay
which is fixed by state law. Beyond that we are in a position to
negotiate. We use the free enterprise system in employing teach
ers, and where we have a good supply we can take advantage of the
market and buy at discount, so to speak. Where the market is slim
or supply is not so abundant, we would have to pay a better salary.
Q. I see. I think that is helpful, and we all know, of course, that there
is a great supply --- you have a much larger supply to draw from
with regard to the Negro teachers than you do for the white teach
ers. Isn't that correct?
A. I wouldn't say "much greater. " There is some difference probably.
Q. There is a noticeable difference in availability?
A. I am not impressed that that is true.
(R-286) 193
Q. Sorry?
A. I am not Impressed that that is true. It might be, but I'm not sure.
Q. Well, what are the factors that would not impress you?
A. That necessarily there are more Negro applicants than whites.
Q. You receive a certain number of applications for teaching jobs each
year from both Negroes and whites?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Gan you advise what the approximate indication of the number of
both you receive is?
A. I would say a thousand total, and of that number four hundred
Negroes and six hundred from whites.
Q. Going on the basis of the jobs to be filled at any particular time,
would you have more applications for the Negro vacancies than you
do for the whites?
A. I'm just not that close to it to answer that.
Q. You indicated a little earlier that as a matter of fact you did have
some greater number of Negro applicants for available jobs than
whites.
A. Did I say that?
Q. That was my impression earlier. Now you indicate that that is not
correct.
A. I don't remember the earlier impression.
Q. Your Impression now is that there is not a greater number?
A. Not materially, hi total supply. (R-287)
Q. Now, do you have any idea as to whether on an average the white
teachers start at a higher minimum salary than the Negroes?
194
A. No, I think they start off the same.
Q. You think they do start off the sanie?
A. That's correct.
Q. And then along with all the other things you feel generally are equal
in the school system, you would add the factor of teachers' salar
ies?
A. That's right.
Q. In view of all these answers, Mr* Walker, would you explain your
answer to Interrogatory 14 where you indicate that the records —
This is on page 11 — based upon the record of this district for
'62-*63 school year, the average cost of the white student above the
state minimum was $135.63, and the average cost per Negro pupil
above the minimum was $102.44. How does that differential be
come available if as you indicate the facilities, the programs, the
teaching materials, teaching salaries, are all the same?
A. Well, first of all, this accounting is not so precise that this would
be a true audited difference. There are just general allocations
made with respect to certain costs, and not necessarily based on
an hour or a rateable amount. It is true that the centers attended
by Negro pupils generally are larger. This would affect some*
what the per capital cost of administration and of other services,
and such factors (R-288) as insurance, maintenance of a plant,
would, apply. These differences occur within the buildings and
from grade to grade and class to class. At this particular time
there was a thirty-three dollar difference. This year it might be
less or more.
195
Q. In years earlier than 1962 and going back to '54 and earlier, there
was a much greater difference? Isn't that correct?
A. Yes, there was. That Is correct*
Q. Do you have anything else to add in explanation of why in the '62-63
year — I'm not very good at math, but It looks like a fairly size
able percentage, about a fifth more expended for the average cost
for educating the white pupil than v/as expended In educating the
Negro pupil?
A. This doesn't represent all the costs. This is only the supplemen
tal figure. I don't consider that a significant figure, difference.
Q. Now, as I understand, the other costs is the money you get from
the state for these people?
A. That's right.
Q. And that is at the present time on an equal basis, the same amount
for Negroes and whites?
A. Well, It is on the basis of a formula involving a number of factors.
It is for the support of an educational total program.
Q. Am I unfairly concluding that all of the discrepancy is the alloca
tion made by the local school board and that none of it {R-289)
comes from the state minimum program?
A. That's right.
Q. On the Interrogatories, Interrogatory Number 10, we posed the
question: "State what, if anything, has been done by the defendants
and by each of them in the way of compliance with the order of the
United States District Court of March 4, 1964, including efforts
to prepare students, teachers, parents and the community for the
196
possible effectuation of such order in September, 1964. " This
question was objected to by the defendants in the interrogatories,
and which we withdrew.
Now that we are at trial, I would like to ask you that
question at this time.
MR. WATKINS: If it please the Court, we'd like to ob
ject to that question now for the same reason we objected to the
interrogatory.
THE COURT: Sustain the objection.
MR. BELL; Your Honor, let me, if I may, state the
reason for asking that question and the one similar to it at this
time.
As the Gourt recalls, the order of March 4 required that
the board cease operating a segregated school system and required
them to bring in a plan by July 15 looking forward to the desegre
gating of one whole grade by the beginning of the ’64- '65 school
year. Now, It is our contention that that question and the answer
to that question is relevant if the order of March 4 was to have
any meaning and effect. And while we CR-290) understand that
the order is always subject to amendment or revocation by what
ever the Gourt concluded as a result of this trial, we nevertheless
felt the Gourt had something In mind when it entered the order of
March 4, and what it had in mind — at least, what we had argued
to the Court — - was that in a situation such as is here in Jackson
where segregation had gone on for a long period of time, that in
order to effectuate a meaningful change and peaceful change, that
197
preparation should be made beginning immediately. And there
fore, we felt that that was the effect and thrust of the order, to put
the board on notice so that they could begin making whatever plans
and preparations they thought necessary. That is why we feel the
question is relevant at this point, to see what preparations have
been made, because it goes both to the good faith compliance of
the order and a determination as to whether the final order entered
by the Court at this time should be broadened or altered or
changed.
THE COURT: I will adhere to my ruling. My thinking at
that time was that it was more in the nature of a declaratory judg
ment, and I allowed until July 15 in which to submit the plan, and
the proposed plan would become effective at the fall session; so I
think the question is incompetent at this time and I will adhere to
my ruling. (R-291)
Q. In your answer to Interrogatory 9, we had asked you to attach any
statement or resolutions by the defendants pertaining to desegre
gation of the public schools since the 1954 Supreme Court decision,
and you indicated and replied: "There have been no official an
nouncements or resolutions made or adopted by defendants per
taining to desegregation of the public schools since the 1954 Su
preme Court decision.11
Now, I want to ask you again whether or not — and ask
you to think about it, if you will — the board has prepared and
issued any statements or resolutions, statements to the public or
to the school teachers, to any group about desegregation of the
public schools here in Jackson.
A. There has been none.
Q. Have any bulletins come from any of the offices of the board, to
your knowledge, since the filing of this suit concerning your posi
tion and the board’s position concerning the desegregation decision
of '54 and its possible effect on the school system here?
A. I don’t recall any.
Q. When do you recall something that you signed designating it as a
"statement," and it was also signed by members of the board,
that indicated that "Darrell Evers et al have filed Civil Action
3379 in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Mississippi at Jackson. The Jackson Separate School District,
members of the Board of (R-292) Trustees of the district, and
the superintendent of the district have been named as defendants.
This case involves the operation of the public schools of the dis
trict. In the sincere belief that it is in the best interest of all the
people of the district and particularly the school children of the
district, the trustees of the district, with the full support of the
mayor and commissioners of the City of Jackson, and the super
intendent of the schools of the district take this opportunity of
assuring all citizens that they will resist and oppose this litigation
by every legal and constitutional means available. "
The statement goes on, "Thomas H. Watkins has been
employed as special counsel, along with Robert C. Cannada,
regular attorney of the trustees, to represent the defendants in
this case, and the attorney-general of the State of Mississippi has
198
199
been requested to assist these attorneys. The filing of this case
will not affect the operation of the schools of this district. All
citizens are urged to maintain a calm and lawful atmosphere,
leaving the handling of this problem to the duly constituted author
ities. Additional statements will be Issued from time to time in
order that all may be informed as to developments. "
The statement was purported to be signed by Lester Alvis,
Chairman; C. H. King, Trustee; Lamar Noble, Trustee; W. G.
Mize, Trustee; J. W. Underwood, Trustee; K. P. Walker, Su
perintendent; Alan C. Thompson, Mayor; B. L. Luckett, (R-293)
Commissioner; and Tom Marshall, Commissioner.
Do you recall that statement?
A, Yes, I do. Quite well.
Q. When did the board issue that statement?
A. I don't recall the date, but I 'would say it was shortly after the— -
Q. Was it the early part of this year ?
A. I don't recall. Do you have a date?
Q. Early In 1964?
A. It was in 1964?
Q. I'm asking you.
A. I don’t recall whether it was this year or last year.
Q. Who prepared this statement?
A. It was jointly prepared.
Q. By all the signatories? Is that right?
A. No, not all of them. Counsel for the board and I, I'm sure, had
more to do with it than anyone else.
200
Q. To whom was this statement sent?
A. It was released to the press, and copies of it were made and dis
tributed to the faculty of our schools, parents of our schools,
Parent-Teachers Associations.
Q. To all the parents?
A. No, I would say to the associations. The PTA units may have
announced it or carried it further.
Q. You meant the statement for general publication though?
A. That's right. It was released to the press first. (R-294}
Q. Was the statement posted in your schools?
A. I don't know if it was posted, but there would have been no objec*
tion to its being posted.
Q. Now, isn't this a statement having to do with the desegregation of
the public schools, that you indicate you did not make, in answer
to Interrogatory Number 9 ?
A. That is not a statement to desegregate. That is a statement rela
tive to litigation that had been filed.
Q. I think your answer here indicates that you didn't issue any state
ments pertaining to desegregation of the public schools.
A. I didn't construe that to refer to that document.
Q. Have you or the board issued any subsequent statements, as you
indicate in this one that you would?
A. I think there was another later, yes, and signed also by the board
members and by me; probably after the Court's decision here
last March, I guess it was.
Q. What was the substance of that statement, if you remember?
201
A, As I recall, It would have been somewhat a summary of the Court's
direction to be prepared for a day In court in May and to be pre
pared by July 15th, as I recall, to submit a plan for desegregation
of schools effective September, 1964. This was, I believe, re
ferred to as a temporary or preliminary order.
Q. And what distribution was made of that statement?
A. The same as made of the previous: the press, principals of schools,
faculties, parent-teacher associations. (R-295)
Q. Was there in that statement a reaffirmation of the board’s deter
mination to resist and oppose this litigation by every legal and
constitutional means available?
A. I don't recall that it was, but I would think the first statement
would have been sufficient.
Q. As a result of this second statement - - - This second statement was
issued after the Court had entered its order of March 4th, you
said?
A. I think that is right.
Q. Now, have the board or you taken any other action as a result of
the Court's order of March 4th, of a similar nature?
MR. WATKINS: We object to that. That is a question —
THE COURT: — Yes, sustain the objection, for the same
reason.
Q. Just to summarize, is it correct to state that your testimony has
indicated that during your experience with the school system there
have been no assignments, either originally or as a result of
transfer, of Negroes to white schools and whites to Negro schools?
202
A. That is correct.
Q. And that similarly as to faculties, there have been no assignments
of Negro faculty persons to white schools and no assignments of
white persons to Negro schools?
A. That is correct.
Q. And that the budgets and other administrative features of (R-296)
of vour school program have also been handled and operated on
the basis of race, with budgets and curriculum designed for Negro
schools, and all of these similar administrative aspects designed
for white schools?
A. Right.
MR. BELL: I think we have no further questions.
MR. CANNADA: We have no questions at this time,
reserving the right, if the Court please, to put him on in our
direct case.
THE COURT: Very well. You may step aside, Mr.
“Walker.
MR. BELL: — I’m very sorry, Your Honor. There
was one administrative detail, if I could have him return to the
stand? I'm sorry, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Very well.
(Witness resumes place on witness stand)
(Mr. Bell continues:)
Q. I'm sorry, Mr. Walker. I had asked you to bring with you this
morning in your subpoena a copy of the original petition that was
filed with the school board.
203
A. I have It.
Q. I think that was made an exhibit to your original affidavit last year.
ME. BELL: We'd like to have marked for identification
as Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 for Identification the letter and petition
addressed to the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, dated
August 15, 1962, and signed on behalf of the petitioners by (R-297)
Medgar W. Evers.
THE COURT: Very well. Let it be marked for identifi
cation.
(Same were marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 3 for Identification)
ME. BELL: We would move to have this admitted as
Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 3.
THE COURT: Let it be received in evidence.
(Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 3 for Identification received in evidence)
(Exhibit is not copied because by order of the Court the original is to
be inspected.)
MR. BELL: This seems to be the original. At a later
date the defendants may want to substitute a copy, and we would
have no objection to that.
THE COURT: Yes, sir. Let a copy be substituted.
MR. BELL: We have no further questions.
MR. CANNADA: May we ask one or two questions, still
with permission to put Mr. Walker back on during our direct?
THE COURT: Yes.
204
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR, CANNADA:
Q, At the conclusion of your testimony a moment ago you were asked
*
a summary question concerning the assignment of teachers, et
cetera, on the basis of race. And you answered yes, if I recall.
Did you have in mind the same thing there that you previously
testified to that you had in mind as to the characteristics of the
race, the distinctions of the race itself? (R-298)
A. I didn’t understand the question asked as you have stated it. The
question I understood was if these schools now serve white pupils
as they have heretofore and Negro pupils as they have heretofore
and if we had requests for changes one to the other, and my
answer was that the schools were still serving Negro pupils as
they had heretofore and the white children were served in schools
as they were heretofore, and we had no changes of assignment, or
had there been any made in my period of responsibility. And the
same applied to faculty. I thought that is what I answered.
Q. It may be that was your answer, but I wanted to make certain that
you were clear in your answer to;the question. With that in mind,
would the reporter read the last question he was asked before he
left the stand?
{The court reporter read the three questions and answers appearing in
this record beginning at Line 16 of Page 85 and continuing through
Line 5 of Page 86)
A. I was correct in my answer to the first two questions. I think I
see in the third question an inference that I can clear up; namely,
205
that the character of the white and colored pupils have been factors
and are factors in the operation of these schools. That has to do
with their ability and with their achievement.
MR* CANNADA: I believe that is satisfactory.
MR* BELL: Let me ask one question. (R-299)
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. BELL:
Q. Is that correct, Mr. Walker, that in making these evaluations of
the factors that all Negroes, including those few you recall who
were exceptionally bright, are assigned to Negro schools? Is
that correct?
A. They are.
Q. And all of the whites, regardless of their characteristics, abilities,
good, bad or indifferent, are assigned to white schools?
A. Are in school with other white children. That is correct.
Q. That’s right. Thank you.
(Witness excused)
THE COURT: Very well, take a recess until fifteen
minutes 'til two.
("Whereupon the court was recessed until 1:45 P, M.)