Meredith v. Fair Transcript of Record Vol. III

    TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD

UNITED STATES
COURT of APPEALS

F I F T H  C I R C U I T

No.

JAMES H. MEREDITH,
APPELLANT

VERSUS

CHARLES DICKSON FAIR, ETC., ET AL,
APPELLEES

VOLUME m

Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the Southern District of Mississippi, 

Jackson Division



I N D E X
VOLUME III Page

TRANSCRIPT OP TESTIMONY Taken on Motion forPermanent Injunction 259
Discussion 260

Testimony of Mr. Charles Clark 510

Mr. Edward Cates 350
Dr. Earl Pite 335

Discussion 5 6 1

Testimony of Miss Catherine Ray 370
Mr. Leston Lewis Love 389

Mr. Robert J. Parley 411
Mr. W. A. Bryant 425
Mr. Paul Tiblier 431
Mr. Robert B. Ellis 453



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF 
MISSISSIPPI, JACKSON DIVISION

259

JAMES H. MEREDITH, on behalf of himself and 
others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
Vs. (Civil 3130)

CHARLES DICKSON FAIR, et al, Defendants.
Transcript of Testimony

APPEARANCES °
Hon. Constance Baker Motley, 10 Columbus Circle, 
New fork 19, New fork?Hon. Derrick A. Bell, Jr., 10 Columbus Circle, 
New fork 19, New fork;Hon. R. Jess Brown, .1105h Washington Street, 
Vicksburg, Mississippi; For Plaintiff.

Hon. Charles Clark, Special Assistant Attorney
General, State of Mississippi, Jackson, Mississippi? 

Hon. Pete Stockett, Special Assistant AttorneyGeneral, State of Mississippi, Jackson, Mississippi? 
Hon. Edward L. Cates, Assistant Attorney General,
State of Mississippi, Jackson, Mississippi?For Defendants.

BE IT REMEMBERED that on the 16th day of January, 1962, and 
subsequent days, the above entitled cause came on for hearing 
before the Honorable Sidney C. Mize, United States District 
Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi, at Jackson, 
Mississippi, in the Jackson Division, and the following 
testimony and proceedings were had.



2 6 0

BY THE COURT: I call the case of Meredith, vs. Fair.
BY MBS» MOTLEY! Plaintiffs are ready.
BY MEL SHANES S We mate the same restrictive announcement. We are 

hers.
BY THE COURT: Very well.. Gentlemen, before we proceed in this 

matter I have a certificate from Doctor Little of 
Oxford, Mississippi, advising me that one of the 
defendants, Mr. Ira L. Morgan .is suffering with a 
heart condition and that it would be detrimental 
,to his health if he were required to undergo any 
tension, and Mr. Morgan requested that he be ex­
cused. Mr. Morgan had a conversation with him when 
he brought the certificate and advised him that 
several years back he had had a heart attack that 
required him to remain in bed for twelve month's. 
Since that time he has been under constant care of 
a physician with reference to his heart condition, 
thrombosis, from which he didn*t think at that 
time he would recover, but that he did, torthe joy 
of everybody, but that he is necessarily restrict­
ing his activities and anything that would cause 
tension, even to tine extent of refusing to address 
one of the civic clubs. He consulted his doctor 
there, Doctor Little, and Doctor little advised 
him the slightest tension could be fatal to him, 
and he therefore declined the invitation. This 
certificate from Doctor Little at Oxford I will 
make a part of the record. I take judicial know-



2 6 1

BY MRS. MGTLig: 
BY THE COURT;

BY MR, SHAKOS;

BY THE COURT; 
BY MR. SHAKOS:

ledge of the fact that there are several other 
Trustees who could give substantially the same 
testimony as Mr. Morgan and I am wondering if 
counsel for the plaintiff would be willing to 
excuse him from, testifying, or do you insist 
upon his testifying?
We are willing to excuse him,
Well, that settles that problem then. So Mr.
Morgan is excused and may go home.
Very well, are there any motions other than the 
motion pending on the merits in the case?
Yes sir, there are. There are several motions to 
quash the so-called subpoena duces tecum. I have 
first, 'which I think I should take up with The 
Court» a telegram from Mr. M. M. Roberts, Attor­
ney of Hattiesburg, Mississippi, which I received 
and which I will read to The Court» the substance 
of which is that cases have been set. He is an 
attorney, as The Court knows, in Hattiesburg, and 
cases in which he is interested have been set for 
today and he sent me the wire saying for that 
reason he could not be here but he could be here 
on short notice, Kay I read The Court the telegram 
I received?
Yes sir,
( Reading ) " At 11:10 a.m. Saturday January 13,

United States Courthouse in Jackson, Mississippi,

Deputy Marshall
Daniels to appear before the federal Court in the



2G2

at 9 00  on the morning of January I6tii. The 
Circuit -Court here has cases set against me for 
today and tomorrow* The case set for tomorrow 
on January l6th was set on December 23rd. Please 
advise all parties in interest for me when the 
court convenes at 9*30 on January 16th that I 
am in the trial here* but the Circuit Judge Hall 
will probably release me so that 1 can be in court 
in 'Jackson'within two hours after being notified 
of the fact that my presence is needed, there as 
a witness or otherwise. M. M« Roberts”

BY THE COURT; . 1 might say that in addition to that telegram Mr.
Roberts 1 phoned me yesterday advising me of the 
same situation, that this case had been set for 
trial by Judge Hall, the Circuit Judge in Hatties­
burg, for trial today and, lie thought the case would 
be finished today, but in the event he was needed 
before that time he thought Judge Hall would even 
release him in the middle of the trial, and he 
asked that he be excused from being- present at 
this hour so that he could go on with' the trial of 
that case which had been set and that if he were 
needed, before that if I would have the United States 
Marshall call he could be here within two hours. So 
I excused him from appearing at 9*30 this morning 
with the understanding that just as soon as he could 
finish the trial of the case he would come up here 
and be present throughout the balance of the trial



for either party that desired to use him. So I 
excused him. from further call and I am sure that 
there will be time taken up where he will not be 
needed at this hour. Is that agreeable, Mrs. 
Motley?

BY MRS. MOTLEY; Yes air, If he can be here tomorrow morning we
will have him tomorrow morning at 9 .*30,

3Y THIS COUBT; I had another call .from somebody who had been rub-
pcanad, Mr. S. £. Smns, He said lie thought he 
could be here by I sOO o’clock today,, Before he 
received his subpoena he had accepted an invita­
tion at Biloxi as a member of a committee of some 
kind that :1s haring a convention there and he is
the pay-off man for rise convention and will ad­
journ today and be said he thought he would be 
here today by 1 100 o’clock and 1 excused him,,

BY MRS, MOTLEY; Yes sir, that is all right, Your Honor.
BY fHh 0QUxtT; Very well, Mr, Shands, I might, say this also:;

Gentlemen, as time goes on in the trial of this 
case I am not going to do a great deal of talking,
I am taking a cold or the Mflutt and it always 
affects .my throat by talking a great deal. So 
I am going to let you folks do most of the talking 
on these hearings. 1 feel like I have a little
temperature .now but I arn not going to speak out 
loudly or do any more talking than I have to,, Now, 
Mr. Shamir, I will hear you.

BI Mil. SHAFDSi lour Honor, I would like to call attention to the



264

BY THE COURTJ

BY m s ,  MOTLEYii 

BY THE COURT:

BY MR. SHANES 2

fact that the defendants here have motions to - 
quash, a purported subpoena duces tecum issued 
and served on Mr. Robert Byron Ellis,.Registrar 
of the University of Mississippi, motions to 
quash purported 'subpoenas duces tecum issued and 
served upon the Registrar of M* S. 0, ¥., a sub­
poena addressed to a man named McLendon, who is 
named in the subpoena as Registrar of Mississippi 
State College, but who,in fact was not and has not 
been for some time Registrar. The Registrar there 
1b Mr. Ferguson.
Let me make one more announcement before you pro­
ceed further. Tills is from the Tate Clinic at 
Ripley, Mississippi. “To Whom It May Concerns This 
is to certify that R. B. Smith, Jr., is sick in 
bed with. 51 flu”." That is signed by J. E. Tate, M. J3, 
That is attached to a copy of the subpoena and I 
see that Mr. Tate was summonsed on behalf of the 
plaintiff. What do you say about that?
We are willing to excuse him.
Very well.
Mr. McLendon is not the Registrar at Mississippi 
State College, but the Registrar is. a Mr. Ferguson. 
There are subpoenas_duces tecum, as I understand, 
all of which I don’t believe I have seen, on the 
Registrar of Mississippi Southern. I have seen tha 
but only this morning. I have not seen the so-callr 
subpoena served on the Registrar of Alcorn A and M.



265

I rave not aeon or bad an opportunity to see the 
subpoena duces tecum tiled and served upon 0. '£„ 
Love, Registrar ox Mississippi Vocational College 
at Itta Lena. I have lust this morning seen and 
read the subpoena duces tecum served upon Registrar 
of Delta State Teachers College* Mow the defend­
ants Dave filed a notion which we thirl, covers all 
of these subpoenas. 1 would Ilfn for the record 
to show that the motions to quash addressed to the 
subpoenas duces tecum - served upon Mr. Robert 
Byron Bills and Mr. Ferguson and Mr, Snipes speci­
fically set out tine time and place of service,
The court, 1 ssurnc, knows traditionally and of 
is:: own knowl edge that 'the weather conditions here 
in Jack son and in this area arc extremely bad. 
these subpoenas were served -- I am speaking gen­
erally of the so-called subpoenas duces tecum, 
from some time Saturday through and including 
y e s t e r 1 a y a f t o mo on a t th r 9 e o * c 1 o ok, ha oh s ub - 
ooena returnee., by the Marshal. , on which return 
has been made., will show the time, I assume, of 
service. Furthermore, these subpoenas were issued, 
as I understand it, in blank by the Clerk to one 
of the counsel for plaintiff. They filled them 
out and handed then to the Marshal , he were un­
able. to know, to see, the subpoenas,and know what 
they were prior to the service. That is the reason 
why there is not a specific motion to each one of 
the subpoenas duces tecum* There is a general



"266

motion, and these motions have all been 'filed and 
served on counsel, that applies to all subpoenas 
other than those of Ellis, Ferguson, and Snipes.
It this time I wild- like to present to She Court 
first the motion to quash the subpoena, so-called 
subpoena duces tecum, on Mr. Robert B. Bills# This 
subpoena — ■ and we move to quash it —  this sub­
poena service is purportedly made under what Is 
knom as a subpoena ticket duces tecum# The origi­
nal subpoena, as 1 understand it, was sent to 
Oxford, Mississippi,.to be served by the Marshall 
of the lorthem District. Mr. Ellis lives in,, and 
the records are- located at, Oxford, Mississippi, 
which'is more than one hundred miles from this 
courtroom. The subpoena was served on him not at 
Oxford, but -at Jackson, Mississippi, on yesterday 
afternoon, the subpoena ticket, at 3 s00 o * clock p.m. 
in Jackson. All of the records called for are in 
Oxford in the office of the Registrar. These are 
the documents that the subpoena ticket -- and, 
frankly, 1 know of no authority for a subpoena 
ticket, and In fact no subpoena daces tecum has 
been served upon him unless the subpoena ticket is 
adequate. The records requested are all records, 
including correspondence, papers and applications, 
memoranda, and all other documents and reports re­
lating to the application and admission of each 
student to the University of Mississippi liberal



ivO t

Arts undergraduate School and m v  cores the
tends and times covered 07 the records requested.* 
(A, } Second semester of tile 1960-61 school year. 
Tnat was the school year that began in September 
I960, next in the fall semester of the 1961-02 
school year, tees is the summer session of the 
1 9by school y e n . That was the summer cession
last summer, as to which records counsel nas been 
given access and ipom which sne has int/rcduced. two 
or th 130 records of two or three students on the 
hearing on the preliminary Injunction, aext, 
the second semester of the 1951-62 school year.
It is the position of hr. Ellis and the other de­
fendants in this cane that the plaintiff is not 
entitled to any ox those documents, not one. here 
are the grounds of the notion -- and copies have 
been given to the plaintiff —  (1) Said subpoena 
dueoa teem, no shown, by tne file in this court, 
was purportedly served upon him and no subpoena 
In fret has been served upon him^S) Said subpoena 
was served upon him at h*00 p.m. in uacicson, 
Mississippi, on January 15, 1962, commanding him 
to be arid tc appear before this Court at 9*30 
o'clock a.m, on tne morning of January 16, 1962, 
and purports to require that he bring with him 
the relevant and voluminous documents therein 
specified. Said subpoena was net timely issued 
or served, this cause being set for the‘above time



2 6 8

the said Ellis is purportedly required to appear,
9 s30 sum. January 16, 1062.
(3) 11 All documents mentioned in said subpoena 
were at the time of the purported service thereof, 
and are now, located in.Oxford, Mississippi, which 
is more than, one hundred miles from the place where 
this Court site, “the federal Postoffice Building, 
in Jackson, Mississippi*“
(4) !#It is utterly end totally impossible for this 
defendant to bring., said documents with him to this 
Court by the return time of said subpoena#"
(5) “Said, subpoena was Issued without a prior 
order of this Court and without plaintiff having 
shown'unto the Court good cause for the production 
of the documents therein mentioned and therefore 
same is Issued' in violation of the Federal Buies 
of Civil Procedure*w
(6) “Said documents are very numerous and volumi­
nous and would take much time and effort to collect' 
and produce and much expense will be incurred if. 
this defendant is required to produce any of such 
documents*“
(?) "Each, and every document called for by this 
subpoena is Irrelevant, inadmissible, and Immaterial 
upon the trial of this cause*"
(8) “Flaintiff does not have any application pen­
ding for admission to the University of Mississippi 

at any of the terms mentioned in this subpoena."



269

1 assume The Court would prefer that we take up 
each motion to quash rather than try to argue 
them all at one time, because there are certain
grounds that art. applicable to one or more which 
are not applicable to them all, and I. assume that 
it would Lp the pleasure of The

hi I'riE COURT; 7ery well, you may take them up separately, but
it won’t be necessary to repeat an arguement where 
an arguemant will apply to all, but you can argue 
the entire bunch generally and then specifically 
after each cue,

BY M3. SHARDS; If The Court Please, going first to the timeliness
of this isruan.cc and service., hue to weather con­
ditions I don’ t think that was a. timely Issuance 
of the subpoena. Certainly with the records in 
Oxford, Mississippi, ani the subscenes here in 
Jackson and served at 3<00 o’clock p.m. yesterday 
afternoon tie re cculcs. cervainly be no rational or 
reasonable basis for any contention that any records 
should be here this morning. And to the further 
ground that tho documents listed are more than 
a hundred miles from the place where this Court 
sits, that entails oppression and a burden to bring 
them, Expense will be entailed. How many documents 
are Involved in this and for what periods of time? 
This goes back to September I960, Plaintiff never 
even made ary lira of application at that time.
The first mo-culled application that he ‘ever made



270

was received, I believe, by the Registrar of the 
university on or about February 1, 1963., to the 
second semester. That application., as were others, 
was denied for the reason that all applications 
received after January 25th were rejected, and 
that includes this application rejected for the 
reasons shown in the record of the motion on tem­
porary injunction, which, was an overcrowded condi­
tion at the University, and other reasons shown. 
Further, upon an application being rejected, it 
is no longer a pending application. There was 
a request by this plaintiff that his application 
be considered a continuing application. Itwas an 
application specifically for the summer term*
That application was rejected by a letter hereto­
fore in e vidence* The plaintiff has not applied 
any diligence, no effort whatever, to make any 
further application. He has no application pen­
ding. In view of that, and when an application is 
rejected that is the end of it, it becomes dead 
ana the burden is upon him to make a further appli­
cation, and that he has not done, has not seen fit 
to do. That covers the school year 1960-61.

We then come to the school year 1961-62. 
Plaintiff made no further application, made no 
application whatever at the September term of the 
school year 1961-62, He has made no other appli­
cation, made no application since then. So we 
say to The Court that insofar as these records



arc concerned he is a stranger to the record., He 
has no business with the records. On the contrary 
he was given some records for the terra which was 
then under the pleadings found to be an issue and 
there has been no change to determine any different, 
additional, or ether term at Issue. So we say that 
none of the records should be given to him# If any 
snouid be given all he should be given would be 
those which he got on a. temporary injunction, 
which was the summer term of 1961 and which I 
thini his counsel have carefully gleaned and
cautiously examined.

how, what do these documents consist o f f  

Let* s start at the mos t recent and go bach. The 
September term of the school year 1961-62, the 
best estimate I have on hue nunoer ot students 
involved at that time or who have applications 
within that category are approximately uOC to 950,
As to the summer tern, going backward of 1961, 1 
think there was about approximately -̂50. For the 
second semester February 6, I960, there were about 
less than 100, For September I960, 550. So, you 
BTs there we 1.1. a,bovs one th.ousand applications.
This Court has had occasion to see how voluminous 
the documents would re as to eacu student« tfe 
thini: the subpoena is burdensome and very oppressive. 
Low, as to win t plaintiff should have, done : We
recognize Rule pf of the federal rules of Civil



Procedure. We also recognize and assume that 
this would be issued under Rule 45-B. Rule 34 
specifically and literally requires a showing of 
good cause. Plaintiff did not see fit to use 
that. Rule and they seek these documents "under 
Rule 45-B. Would The Court care to have me 
read that Rule? * I
fes9 you may.
(Counsel reads same).
This request would require the Registrar who is 
going to reach any degree of accuracy in the 
figures 1 have given to The Court, would require 
him to go through every one of those documents 
to determine exactly how many, whether a thousand 
or more or what. low, as to that Rules We re­
cognize the normal use of 34 and recognize the 
normal use of 45* I refer to Barron-Holtzoff on 
Federal Rules, Section 1002, the effect of which, 
in my judgement, is to require a showing of good 
cause to The Court before a subpoena duces tecum 
is secured against a party, mind The Court, a 
party defendant, to produce various documents.
I recognize, of course, that there are cases on 
both sides of the question* Now this is the per­
tinent part, I think, of Section 1002 of Barron- 
Holtzoff covering 45-B: MA clear distinction must
be drawn between discovery under Rule 45 and the 
issuance of a subpoena duces tecum under Rule 45.
If it is sought merely to bring documents under the



L>

control of a party for purposes of discovery for
the trial or hearing or before the taking of depo­
sitions, or for the purpose of preparing for trial, 
good cause a us t oa shown and order of The Court 
obtained under Rale ?4.'* Mark the Court, I don’t 
think that counsel for the plaintiff would be very 
happy • if on this action — . and here lies the narrow 
line of distinction between. 34 and 45 and the re­
quirement of showing good cause under 45-33• i 
don't think plaintiff would be very happy if for 
the first time that they ever saw any of these 
documents if they should get any, would be when 
the witness is on the stand. They want the docu­
ments to look at, tc glean through, to examine, 
before this man gets on the stand or before they 
put him on the stand. That throws the matter, in 
my humble judgement, under the category of Rule 34, 
lie have all made frequent use of subpoena duces, 
tecum where after having those docianents subpoenaed 
we know what * a there. We use these subpoena duces 
tecum without showing good cause, so that the 
best evidence cf the document involved, the best 
evidence rule , may be complied with. In my judgment 
they are seeking to use 45-8 here as a ,34 in ac­
tuality and from a practical standpoint. If it is 
sought merely to inspect documents under the con­
trol of the party for the purpose of discovery be­
fore the trial or nearing or before taking deposi­
tions and for the purpose of preparing for trial,



274
•f-

food CE,uoo must be shown and order of The Court 
obtained under Rule 34. i re-read that provision 
of j&rron-hcltzcff in light of the statements I 
have hast previously made,

how we go down to the heart of the matter,
"If a party desires a production of documents under 
tu-j control of tie party or witness for use at the 
trial or hearing or at the taking of depositions 
ho may obtain a subpoena, duces tecum under Rule 43 
without any showing of -'cause or without any order 
of The Court.*’ hov, here we are. Those are cases 
on the other side of this, which I mentioned there 
were carer on noth. ways. Could The Court give us 
five minutes break: at this point?

BY THE COURT; Very wall, Take a five minute recess then.
(Jhs rsapor, ike Court took a five minute recess).

BY MR. SHAHS3: {Continuing) Proceeding on with the reading of
Section 1C Of of Darron*4ioltscff, most recent de­
cision, and to thole The Court oack. up wiin wrat 
I have Jont read, speaking about the good cause 
the text announces that "On the other hand if: a 
party desires the production of documents under 
the control of the party or witness to use at the 
trial or hearing or at the taking of depositions 
he mav obtain a subpoena duces teem under Rule 43 
without an/ showing of good cause and without any 
order or The Court.1* That le the line of authority 
that I earlier announced 1 recognized. t But, in my 
considered Judgment that provision contemplates the



I

use of documents in the manner of getting the best 
evidence into court and letting the witness tes­
tify from documents from the stand, 1 think as 
a practical matter what the plaintiff is seeking 
here is the use of subpoena duces tecum with the 
same effect as a Rule 34 ruction for production. 
Proceeding on, “Nevertheless it is repeatedly 
held thee Rule 45 must be read in pari materia 
with the discovery rule, notably Rules 26 and 34s,’
34 being the Rule requiring literally the showing 
of good cause, “All the courts agree with this, 
but some disagree as to the meaning. Probably 
all would agree that the scope of production 
which may be had before the trial on a subpoena 
duces tecum or by discovery is the same, the 
controversy is whether the party seeking the 
production must establish good cause for issuance 
of the subpoena if it is challenged by a motion to 
quash, as he would la required to do if he moved 
for production of documents under Buie 34.”

There are cases which hold that such a show­
ing is not required and that the existence of good 
cause will not be considered on a motion to quash 
a subpoena. Here is the heart of the Rule from 
the practical effect as applied in this1 case in our 
judgement: “ But the great weight of authority,
and clearly the only tolerable Buie is to the 
contrary;n which means, in my judgment'-* and the 
cases cited there and the footnote 19,4 at page 285



-

requires showing of good cause. 'On the basis of •
\

that and the practical effect to which the plain­
tiff is seeking to put the Buie 45-B info operation 
here, and what I assume is her purpose, she wants 
to inspect these documents* She wants to examine 
these documents. She wants to do what she would 
normally dc under Rule 34* not have the witness 
testify from the stand as to the documents. So - 
for that reason the failure to show good cause we 
say is fatal to the subpoena.

She sixth grand of the motion of the Registrar 
of the Universityi ” Said documents are very 
voluminous and numerous and will take much time 
and effort to collect and produce and much ex­
pense will be incurred if this defendant is re­
quired to produce any of such documents.” As to 
that, all of the documents called for have been 
merged with the permanent files of the University.
They would have to be dug through, the files would 
have to be dug through, and these documents, 
letters, memoranda, applications, etc., be with­
drawn from the files. Mr* Ellis is tne man who 
is responsible for those documents. Mr. Ellis is 
the man who is a party defendant In this law suit.
Mr, Ellis is the nan who is charged with the 
serious charge, and it is a serious charge, of 
discrimination on account of race or color against 
this plaintiff James Meredith. Mr. Ellis would

278



have to be present arid would have to see that 
those documents, whatever were produced if this 
Court shpuld issue any order requiring the pro- 
duet Ion of any documents, that those produced were 
in compliance or response as best the record will 
permit in compliance with that order* Mr* Ellis 
is a party defendant to this law suit* As such 
he should be and his counsel needs him here at 
this table luring the progress cf this law suit, 
and he bar a rich': to be. He, like the other 
defendants, have lights and privileges guaranteed 
by the Constitution of the United States, orderly 
procedure and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 
due process and cal protectionof the law* Plain­
tiff is not the only person who can conch any pro­
tection., from the jaw or oho Constitution of the 
United States, amendments to the Constitution and 
law ox the State of Mississippi. Each and every 
record called for by phis subpoena Is irrelevant 
and immaterial on the trial of this cause* 1 

think that is so*. They charge that Mr. Ellis in 
his person as Registrar of the University of 
Kississippl did. what*' That he rejected the- 
app1ieat%cn af 3&me s Meredith becaus?e of Jame s 
Meredith*s race or color. Ellis has denied that in 
the temporary injunction hearing and proceeding 
and call that it had nothing to do with it.

(8) Plaintiff does not have any application 
pending for admission to the University1 of Miss-



273
O"

subpoena*11 On the temporary the record is cop­
iously .full that when an application is rejected 
it ceases to have any being, life, vitality of any 
hind* This was rejected* It is passing strange 
to me, and 'this is directly in support of this 
motion, that the plaintiff lias made no appli­
cation for admission to the University of Miss­
issippi since the rejection of his application in 
May of 1961* Wliyi X don’t know* Suddenly 
he has failed to do it or refused to do It from 
a considered and determined standpoint. To me 
that means a great deal in this law suit. What 
does it mean among other things? —  And, this is in­
directly in support of this argument, that he wants 
the matter run arid handled as he desires It to be, 
Further, the plaintiff, it must be kept in mind, 
is seeking a permanent injunction which operates 
In the future. These records deal with the past. 
Under the temporary Mr* hills' very frankly and 
candidly stated that each, and every application 
was considered on its own merits and would con­
tinue to le so, and if my recollection is correct, 
his testimony was that all persons qualified were, 
had been, and would be admitted to the University.
And that includes James Meredith*

That completes the argument under motion of 
Mr* Ellis 4



BY MS* MOTLEYi

by the ccirar i

BY MRS« MOTlBYi 

BY THE COURT:

BY MBS* MOTLEY:

BY THE COURT;

1 understood we were going to take these motions 
up one by one*
T suggested that he take up his argument . relative
or that would bo applicable orally and then take 
them up one by one in open argument* If you 
prefer to respond now you may do so on this 
P ar t i c u 1 a r o n e«
1 thought he had done that*
He has finished as to Bills,
I thought he made an argument as to all the 
others when we started*
He said no had separate arguments applicable to 
the other and nrt aprOJ cable to this one. So 
if you prefer gun mao answer this one then I
will hear him upon the next motion that he has*

BY MS* MOTLEY; With respect to the subpoena which we served upon
Mr. Ellis I would like tc point out first that 
Mr* Ellis is a party and the hundred mile rule, 
as I understand it, applies to witnesses. How 
the records which we have subpoena.! are records 
for the sooc-nd semester of the 1960-61 school 
year, which would be the term which commenced 
'February 8, 1961, then wo have subpoena! the 
records for the cummer session of 1961 school 
year. Then we have subpoena! the records for 
all the sessions of the 1961-62 school year* 
which would be J e term union commenced In Sept­
ember of lrh,j» Ye have subpoena! the records for 
the second semester of the 1961-62 school year,



280

which would 'be the semester which is about to 
commence on February 6, 1962. Now, we have 
ashed the Registrar to bring all records, in­
cluding correspondence, papers, applications, 
memoranda, and all other documents and reports 
relating .to the application and admission of 
each student to each of these terms to the 
Under-graduate school at the University of 
Mississippi, tour Honor knows that prior to 
the hearing of the motion for the preliminary 
injunction we sought to inspect all these re­
cords before the hearing by- a motion to produce 
under Rule ?4 and what I have gone over, except 
fcr the tarn which is coming up, which is Feb­
ruary of *62, we sought by the motion to in­
spect all those records. Now the Fifth Circuit, 
as Tour Honor knows, has had this case on appeal 
from the denial of the preliminary injunction, 
and in which they ruled on the question of the 
right of the plaintiffs to- see those records and 
the relevancy of those records to the issue in 
this case. As 1 understand the rulings of the . 
Fifth Circuit their ruling is that —  this is 
page 10 at paragraph ttB,f, which says, !,The 
limitation of evidence to that pertaining to the 
summer session of 196.1 is clearly erroneous. It 
is erroneous since tha policy and practice of the 
University in admissions were at issue. It is



281

erroneous because Meredith made a claim tla t his 
application for admission was intended as a con­
tinuing application to the regular term as well as 
to the summer term of the University.n STow, the 
Fifth Circuit, as 1 say, has already ruled those 
documents are relevant to the Issue in this case 
acid we want those documents produced because we 
intend to put those in evidence on the trial of 
tnia cane and because they are relevant to the 
Issues, as already ruled, 1 ’think we are entitled 
to have those produced. We are certainly agree­
able that we worenH able to get the subpoena well 
in advances as is normally the case, but this Is 
not a normal trial. We didn't know definitely that 
this case was going tc be heard today, January 
loth, until Friday afternoon, arid so there was no 
way in the world for us to serve that subpoena 
any earlier than we did. VFe did all we could 
under the circumstances and we are asking the Court 
to require now that those records be here today or 
by q ;po tomorrow morning so we can put those re­
cords in evidence for each of those terms.

BY MR. SHAKOS s Since counsel was adopting this method of argument
I will now direct my remarks in response to what 
she has to say. In my judgment lags ICy Paragraph 
,{En, is no.- a holding by the Fifth Circuit that the 
rejections of tne documents asked for by the plain­
tiff on the +rial of the preliminary, considering 
those that were given., were In error or that Para-



”3“ does not at all say she is entitled to these 
records. Mark The Court, there was not one single 
solitary assignment of error by plaintiff on the 
Appeal to the fifth Circuit concerning the 
evidentiary; ruling that this Court made that 1 
recall. That should have been assigned as error 
in the fifth Circuit if they relied on it® If 
my recollection serves me, they did not make any 
such* Now, 1 do not take these* (A),- {B)s and (0) 
as res adjudicate, by the Fifth Circuit on this 
Appeal,- on the Appeal On the Temporary Injunction, 
as applicable'to this hearing on a permanent in­
junct icn. This Is a hearing in an effort by the 
plaintiff to'get a permanent injunction. In any 
event 1 do not think that holding or that that is 
a holding of The Court or, secondly, if it is so,
I don't think it demands or holds that these re­
cords —  that the plaintiff is entitled to these 
records* It doesn’t say anything about that. In 
fact, to sustain the position I am taking, does 
The Court call them adjudication? Does The Court 
call them findings? Does The Court call them hold­
ings? No. The Court, as I am sure It did, chose 
the words carefully* They called it an’’observation 
They called it an ”observation”. I don’t think an 
“observation” rises to tae dignity either of a 
holding or res adjudicata. If It wasn’t a holding 
it had to of something. Since It wasn’t a holding 
they called it an ”observation”.



Sow as to the time of the subpoena, as I re­
call it this cause was set for the 15th .of January, 
1962. When was that setting made? To my best 
recollection it was set for the 15th of January 
in the Order issued in connection with the Tem­
porary Injunction, and that order was issued on 
December 14, 1961, I may be in error but that Is 
my best reeoDection. Sow-, if they wanted this 
why did they wait eo late? I am sura counsel for 
the plaintiff has had ample experience and has 
ample idea of the voluminousness of these docu­
ments, This subpoena was issued, I believe, the 
12th and merely served yesterday afternoon on a. 
man end his records up in Oxford, In fact, I 
stand corrected as to the date of the opionion of 
this Court, It was on December 12th, So, they 
had from December 12th to January 15th to do all 
of this, but they didnft choose to do so. We 
will give them one day to get it in the mail, 
ao that will be the 13th of December, and from 
the summer term the records, with which she is 
familiar because she hat had them produced to 
her, she has certainly had a very good idea and 
knowledge of the volumniousness of these docu­
ments. So we think her argument is unsound. * *
I will defer ruling on this until I hear argu­
ments on all of it,. You may proceed with the
other motions and X will defer ruling on this*
until I have heard all,



'BY Mas. MOSLEY: Excuse- me* Before Hr* Slmiids commences I think
that ire world like to know cow many of these people 
are actually here that lie is talking about. We
recognize that a witness who' is outside the Dis­
trict and is more than a hundred miles.fro® the 
sits of the ‘Court would not be required to attend.

BY THE CGTJB.Ti

BY MR. SHMDS: 
BY MAS. MOTLEY:
BY MR. SBA3JDS:

hew, therm ere two categories of people who have 
been eubpoenad. faare are people who are within 
the District. And 1 understand that they are 
required to be here if they are within the DSs- 
trlct. ' But, tliic one hundred mile rule applies 
to people only outside the District, so 1 think 
we ought to get clear who is hare that they are 
talking about m e  have been served and who are 
within, the District* Also, we would like' to know 
if those people are here. I donft think., that 
there is any argument that they should be here* 
Can you answer that, Mr. Shands, without having 
them called?
I will do ay bast*
V& have tue names here .and we can call them.
Do 1 understand counsel —  and tills may eliminate 
a great deal, of this —  to convey this meaning by 
your statement a moment ago* that if a wlfcness 
who in not a party has bean served the subpoena 
duces tecum that witness ana the records that you 
refer to in the subpoena are more than a hundred
miles from this sy o t



'(Interrupting}* If he is outside trie District. 
(Continuing). And outside the District that he 
is excluded?
Well, the coi.nt is that I think these people are 
here,
I think they are, some of them,
Ii’ the/ are here I don’t see how you can argue 
they ought net to he.uere, That is what I am 
getting at.
Well, Your her or, that'to me is elementary, If 
I were a witness and. I got a. Federal subpoena I 
would sure show up. I just wculdn*t sit back 
on r;y haunches and say ,?I!m over a, hundred miles 
and I ain’t gonna be there51. And, in fact, I 
think any witness subpoerad owes to the Court, 
and 1 think his counsel owes to 2ke Court, the 
duty to say, ‘’You come on down here; we will file 
a motion to quash”, and let the Court pass.on 
whether or not be ought to be here.

BY MSS, MOTIBI; I don’t understand Mr. Shands to be the attorney * 1
for these people. He Is now making the argument 
which their attorneys would make if their attor­
neys were here* I think we are entitled to know 
how many people' have responded to this Court * s 
subpoena,

-BY THE 0QUILT; Yon may find out. I know Mr. Ellis is here because
1 see him, He is the Registrar against whom the

iBY MRS. MQIL11? 
BY MR. SHARDS i

BY MRS. MOTLEY ?

BY MR, SEUDS5 
BY MRS. MOTLEYt

BY MR. SHANDSi

first mot1on ran



BY ME. SHAKESt

BY.MRS. MOTLEY;

BY ME. SHAKES :

BY LED.yEMIJSCM 
BY KBS. MOTLEY5

miles from here.,
The first witness B, W. Willoum, Registrar of 
Alcorn a and K Ooilege, Alcorn, Mississippi,
Usi laeae answered present)
The next is the Registrar of Jackson State College,
Delos Funche&, Director' of Admissions,- 
4 )‘i trees answered present)
The next is Carl KcQuage, Registrar of Mississippi
Southern,
(Witness anewered present)
She next is L. I). Ferguson, Mississippi State.
(V11 ne s e an sv e r e A p r a s an t)
The next is David S; Snipes,
Is it more than & hundred miles from here to
Starkwille v
The information I have, it is more than that,
I don’t see how that is material. The witness is 
here, If he.had not appears.a he could use that 
in response to show why Me shouldn’t be cited for 
contempt. If the witness is here I don’t under­

When you call thair name ask If they are a hundred

stand he cannot be here. I don’t understand that
kind of procedure,

Bf. IKE CODEI; What is the point on that?
31 MRS, MCThhTt That the witness is here and they are making an

objection which is not applicable. It is appli­
cable only lx he had failed to appear and this 
Court subpoenaA him to show cause why he shouldn’t



O Q ‘1 ■VO »

BY THE COURTi

vti oi ted for contempt, he cuuxc. tuen &ay xn defense 
of that, ‘"I was a hundred miles from, the District 
and not required by law to appear.M But, the man 
is here and he is net entitled to stand on that 
Rule.
You may check all of them and of course I will hear 
the argument,,

31 MRS. MOTLEY; The next one is David S, Snipes.
(¥1 trie 3s answereci p.resent)
The next one is 0. ft, Lowe.
(V i tn 9 s s an sw e r e d. p r e s en t)
The next one is the Registrar of Delta State 
College, la he here?
{¥i tn e s s an s v er e d p r a s eh. t)
¥h. a t i s y o ur n am e i 
KeRaney,
The nor so no who have (just answered. Your Honor, 
are all Registrars of the seven state institutions 
of higher 1 earning involved in this ease. The next 
group of subpoenas was served on the party defen­
dant? in this case. The first of these if Mr. Pair, 
the fresident of the Board, Are you here, Mr, Pair? 
(¥ i tn q b s an sw e r e d p re s en t}.
The next, Mr. Jobe, Executive Secretary.
(Witness answered present)
The next is Chancellor Williams.
(Witness answered present)
The next is Dean Lewis.
(Witness answered present)

3Y MRS, MOTLEY; 
BY THE WITNESS; 
31 MRS. MOTLEY;



The next is Mr. Ellis
(Witness answered present)
The next Is Mr. Izard of HazeXhurst*
(fitness anew©red present)
The next is -Mr. Lowry of Olive Branch.
(Witness answered present)
Mr. Morgan was excused by The Court. Mr. Roberts 
was excused temporarily until tomorrow morning.
Mr, Stone- of Jackson.
(Witness &eswared pre sent)
The next is Mr* Evans, who is temporarily excused 
by The Qourt.
The next is Mr. Holmes, who is a doctor in McComb. 
He asked us to call and we agreed to do eo«,
(fitness answered present)
The next ie Mr. Lipscomb of Macon,, 
fitness answered p r e eeat)

•The next is Mr,, Riddell of Quitman.
(Witne s 3 an e wer ed pre- £ err)
The next is Mr, C a r p e n te r  of Rolling fork,
( mess ?iie«;rd present)
The next is Mr. Smith of Ripley. He was excused. 
The next is Mr, fubb of Rest Point.
(Witness answered present)
The other witness was the President of Jackson 
State. College. Is he here?
(Witness answered present)-

BY MRS, MQT1BY; That coders all the witnesses.
31 THE COURT; V ery well All of them answered except those



tnat were excused. You may proceed, Mr. Shanes,
I say in response to counsel* s comment I do

not conceive it to be the proper function of a 
witness to disregard and thereby show disrespect 
for our United States District Court and the Judge
thereof, and in the showing of that respect I 
tfclnx: the witness should be present, If a witness

i

3,5 to be penalized for showing respect for both 
fhe 0curt and the Court’s processes, then to me 
uua.i, is a very odd Rule. As to whom I represent 
and -he o -her attorneys of' record ill this case re­
present, we represent the defendants as the defen­
dants, *.n the absence of showing authority to me 
to the contrary, and I say it can’t be found, a 
defendant has as much right to make a motion to 
quash, process as does the individual person who 
Is suhpoenad. Secondly, the Registrars are em­
ployees of the Board of Trustees of the institu­
tions of higher learning of the State of Mississ­
ippi, Whatever they seek to get from these Regis­
trars, if they want to sever them totally from the 
defendants in this law suit that would <ust tickle 
me to death, I’d be well pleased with that, that 
isn’t what they want to do, They want to tie them, 
to us, and in this situation I think counsel's 
argument that we have no right to speak for or in 
connection with either of the persons who were 
subpoenad, if they want to charge the 13̂ testimony 
and their actions to as, then I think we have a

289



right "to speak for them. But, if 1 be la error 
In that Rule, which I ‘think I am sot, due to 
the privity 1 think I can speak for them as 
counsel for the defendants in this law suit* 
Furthermore« so that there he no mistake, 1 'will 
not pans the state.ffi.ant of plaintiff counsel 'that 
the other institutions, the Registrars of the 
ether institutions other than Ole Miss, are in­
volved in this law suit* I eay they are not in 
tills law suit®

A& to her remarks, do I understand yon, 
counsel for the plaintiff, that as to Mr* L* 3. 
Ferguson* who is - the Registrar of Mississippi State 
'University, which is mess than, a hundred miles, 
do you. concede that subpoena is subject to being 
gust shed, or ia not sffioicaoust

BY MRS* MQTL1Yi 1 Just stated, m y position to' Tee Court-, Mr* Sh&nds.
1 don,* t think I have to repeat it* I said those 
people are hare and they can say, st¥e ought not 
to be here**»

BI.1R, SHAS2)8;s. Then 1 say the subpoena should be quashed as to the
duces tecum portion, of it and also as to their 
presence« One reason, is that it is more than a 
hundred miles and, secondly, in addition, this sub­
poena was net issued to Mr. Ferguson; it was issued 
to a man by the name of McLendon, out served upon 
Mr* Ferguson, lx, McLendon is no longer the Regis­
trar* low that subpoena was served on him at 
11:15 a,a» on yesterday. Furthermore, as to the



contents of that subpoena, the duces tecum 
portion of it, is the current catalogue of the 
university of Mississippi and application form 
to the University of Mississippi, This plaintiff 
has never had at any time any application in any 
shape, form or fashion and never mads an applir 
cation to Mississippi- State, Mississippi State 
University of anything about it is not involved 
in this law suit in any respect, however remotely 
minute. It just has no connection with it and we 
say the catalogue and the application would be 
irrelevant and immaterial and not admissible to 
the trial of this law suit and neither would the 
testimony of Mr* Ferguson, We say that he lives 
over a hundred miles and he should not be pena­
lized by having shown respect for this Court and 
its process and "the presiding Judge thereof.
Thai completes cur argument as to Mr. Ferguson, 
the Registrar of Mississippi State University.

BY THE 0QURT: Bo you want to respond to that now or do you
want Lira to proceed with all the other motions?

BY MRS. MOTLEY i I don11 understand Mr. Shands can represent all
these other people, Your Honor, these witnesses.
If he wants to say that they are parties then he 
has no argument because the Rule requires the 
parties to be here. So, as I understand his 
argument he is saying they are the same as parties, 
that they are managing agents of these parties,



BY MR. SfflMBS 8

BY THE QgRgt

BY TUB GOTO?: 

BY KB, SB,MDBS

as I understand his argument and therefore he is
repTferenting them and spasij. ng for them, In that 
case La dacsn’t hate any argument*
2 do rot say they are parties, but I say that any 
defendant is. any law suit has a right to acre to- • 
quash process on any witness subpoeri&d.
Hew many ox these motions similar to that do you 
have"’
In I '.recall, every one of ’the Registrars*
Of Ohase various —
Of the other institutions coming within that cate*
,;;oryr except not all of th.es; live more than a 
hundred miles from Jackson where this court is 
sitting now* There is the Registrar of M« S. 0* W» 
which ie at Ooltmhus, which I think is over a 
hundred alley, and Starkville, Mississippi, and 
welt ; 5! tat a leaders College at Cleveland, Kiss- 
issiyv.., I kuM that is over a hundred milts.
Xtta Beta, I'known is over a hundred miles* Jackson 

State College, is here in Jackson* Alcorn is is la 
Southern Motileu I believe there is one more* 
Mississippi Southern at Hattiesburg, 1 think the 
mileage would be ertcrouhrf close from this point to 
the Registrar* e- office at Hattiesburg* The mileage 
would be very close, out it ie in this District,
I think that covers all of them -vrt.th.ia that category 
As to some of 'the Registrars, not knowing ■who had 
been served, 1 filed a very general motion to quash 
all of them, a specific motion, of Mr. Bills, Mr.

292



Ferguson, and Mr, Snipes, They were the only cnee 
I knew had been served,

Bx TH5 COURT; what are they requested to bring with them? '
BY MR, SHARDS: They a,re requested to bring and 1 have not seen

the subpoena of seine of the persons but from
Delta State, from M, S. 0, W., from Mississippi 
State, and from Southern they are asked to bring 
two documents, one, the current catalogue of each 
of the 'Universities and Colleges and their appli­
cation forms for admission to the Institutions of 
which they be Registrars* Those arethe two things 
that they are asked to bring* Our general motion 
1 think goes to ax I of them. The only difference 
between the specific motion which is filed for 
Mr* Snipes and that which is filed on behalf of Mr. 
Ferguson is that Mr. Snipes is named, directly named 
in the subpoena. Mr. Ferguson was not even named 
in the subpoena but was issued to a man by the 
name of McLendon. We say that as 'to each and every 
university and college other than the University of 
Mississippi nothing, neither the catalogue nor the 
application, form, would be admissible here. The 
question here is, MHas there been, discrimination 
against James Meredith by the Registrar, the 
authority in connection with the University of 
Mississippi?11, end that alone.

13- THE Court* Anything further, Mrs. Motley?
BY MRS. MOTLEY: We have nothing further, 1



294

iEHB COURTS Very if ell, I st received a copy of the opinion
of fhe Court of Appeals yesterday morning.and have 
not had time to study it. 1 have barely had an 
opportunity to glance at it, so I am going to re~
servo ruling, on these motions until lil5 this 
afternoon* It is not half past eleven, so 1 thinlc 
vb will ail la bade at li!5 and the Court stands 
in racess unti1 1ji$.
(Whereupon the Court recessed until 1?15)

(Whereupon at !;!5 p.nu the hearing m e  resumed) 
TH1 OOtJRg: Gentlemen, 1 have read the opinion of The Court of

Appeals in this case very carefully at the noon, 
hour and in view of the opinion in this case I 
will overrule the motion to quash the subpoena 
duo9b tecum served on Mr* Ellis, the Registrar, 
to the extent that, as said by The Court of 
Appealsj Rfihe records of all students to that 
particular class or degree which he sought" 
were competent evidence and that they should be 
admitted in evidence. So I will require the 
production of chose records sought in the sub­
poena duces tecum for the summer session of 1961. 
As to those prior thereto I will sustain the 
motion, and not require them to 'be produced.

&b to the other motions for the Registrars 
of the other colleges I will sustain the motion 
to quash those documents for the reason that I 
eon*t. think it will be, will throw any bearing



295

upon this case, They are not within the issues
framed by this case and the Registrars on which 
these subpoenas were served are not parties' to 
this case* end I don*t think it necessary or com­
petent to go into the, what is the policy of the 
other schools, because the question here is what 
was the policy with reference to the University 
of Mississippi upon the application of the plain­
tiff to be admitted to tne University of Miss­
issippi . So that as to those subpoenas I will 
quasi, the subpoena duces tecum.

Row, certainly the method pursued here is 
not that that is contemplated by the Rules and 
I could very easily follow literally the Rule, 
simply sustaining true motion to quash for the 
reason that they dicta* t fall within the Rule*
The Circuit Court of Appeals said within this 
opinion that within proper legal bounds the 
plaintiff should be afforded a fair trial. That 
is what I intend to do as nearly as possibly as 
I am able to see if. The difference between the 
method pursued here I think is as laid down in 
Barron-Holtzoff, and that is in proper cases the 
subpoena duces tecum can issue for the production, 
rather, to bring documents along and then when the 
witness is put on the stand he can be examined 
about those documents, but without prior in­
spection, because the two Rules, 34 and 4p must 
be construed together, as said by Barron-Ho11zoff



2 0 S

in my judgment; and under Rule 34 good cause must
be shown. So, looking through the shell into the 
substance the documents sought, which I have re­
quired to be brought, are relevant and I think 
that sufficient cause is shewn throughout the 
trial of till & case in the proceedings heretofore 
that they are relevant and that they should be 
produced, for in spec tier, before use if counsel for 
plaintiff desires to Inspect them. I will require 
the ones for the fall session of 1961-62 also to 
be brought. The Court of Appeals seems to hold 
that no additional application is necessary.
Well, I  cannot agree with that holding personally, 
upon the record and issues as made by the pleadings 
here, yet Inc Court of Appeals having spoken, that 
is the law oi the case, and the Court of Appeals 
is the only one to change it if It be erroneous.
As to whether it is or is not erroneous certainly 
1 am not saying other than to say I shall follow 
and shall hold that these applications with any 
correspondence or other data pertaining to trie 
application of the students situated as this 
plaintiff is and applying for that same degree —
I don’t have the exact language here; you know 
what if is —  should be produced. Now, this 
motion, of course, should have been made several 
weeks ago when the case was set for trial upon 
January 15th. I released that oplnioq on December
12 th. It was filed on December 13th and I assume



297

reached counsel on all sides by the 13th or 14th 
of Eecamber. And, I specifically set the case for 
hearing on its merits. Of course, those motions 
should have been filed earlier, but I am not going 
to hold that that was erroneous to cause any post­
ponement c.£ the case such as is reasonably necessary 
for the Registrar to obtain those applications with 
that corresponding data. And I am Just wondering,
Mr. Ellis, if you could produce those by 2:00 
o*sleek Thursday? .

BY MR. SHAR'DS: May 1 have the privilege of conferring with Mr. Ellis
because he Is the man that is going to have to do it?

BY IKE OOSJ11T: Yea,
(After conference)

BY MR. SEMIS: lour Honor, I Just talked with Mr. Ellis and this is
what be tells me, that he will have to pull the re­
cords from approximately 500 plus 300 students from 
thousands of files, and he says they won’t be able 
to do anything else in the Registrar’s office if 
this is done by that time* He says they will have 
to work —  and I ashed him to give me a conservative 
estimate of the time at night —  work night and day. 
He says that he would have to go. You see, tills is 
Tuesday and he has got to be, got to get back to 
Oxford. He will have to work u.xi«iX ac least 12 *00 
o’clock with his entire staff every "night, and he 
says if that is what the Court orders then that they 
will do and do their best to do it. He says that 
the records for the summer term of 1961 have been



BY THE COURTt 
BY MR.. SHA&DSf 
BY THE COURT:
PY HR* SHARDS; 
BY HRS. MOTLEY:

BY SHE COURT:

BY MS, MOTLEY; 
BY BIB CO'tm X:

BY MItS, MOTLEY:

BY fill COURT;

IB M ,  SHARDS :

put into the permanent records and that is what 
causes a whole lot more work, as have also the
fall records. He says they are closing a term and
getting ready for examinations and It Just appeared
that there is so much work that has to be done.
1 donft know if that is a very intelligible
announcement or not.
I wonder if you could do it by noon Friday?
He says he will.
He can do it by noon Friday?
He says he will have it by noon Friday.
I -would like to clarify the record as to whether 
Your Honor is requiring the Registrar to produce 
the applications for February 6, 196*» texm?
For the summer term of 1961 and trie fall wexa of 

1951-62.
lifha t about the term which Is coming up?
'Produce any of the ones, the one that is coming up.

Produce any of those.
So those are three sessions, two summer sessions, 
the fall session and the February session of all 
students, not Just transfers?
Ho, the Court of Appeals held it should not be con­
fined to transfer students, but —  let me get the 
language of the Court of Appeals.

(Rea d ln g )
”Regular undergraduate transfer students for en­
rollment In tne 1961 summer session. „
Summer session, fall session of 196.1.-6c.



B L m C O U E f :

BY MR, S M P S t 

BY THE C O U R T :

BY MR. SH A M PSs

BY M RS, MOTLE Y s

BY THE CO U R T; 

B L M S » „ M O T m ;

BY THE QOURT i

SLMSUftOTLLT «

And the present session coming up in February of*
‘62.
And those’ fee has up to Pebruary?
If 'they can be produced here.
His response was that that just increases the work 
load. He will, do hie very best, Tour Honor.
Of course. Your Honor, 1 have inspected records of 
many universities before and what they have is a 
roster of the students admitted and you just pull # 
those according to those listed in the roster as 
being freshmen, sophmore, etc., the past year. It 
doesn’t take that long.
I couldn’t fell him how to do it at the University 
of Mississippi.
We would he glad to send somebody up there to do, it 
and they could have it here tomorrow at noon.
Mr. 3113s is the one responsible and I want him to 
make a thorough search so as to be able to testify 
truthfully that these are the ones, that lie says he 
couldn’t possibly do It by noon Thursday, so I will 
accept his word ter that and give him until noon 
Friday* Wow, will you. want to Inspect those before 
you proceed?
Yes, go they could be offered in orderly fashion.
Vie don’t need to take any vacation or anything like 
that. We have people who can do that for us. We 
would want to offer them in an orderly fashion at 
different points and it would be a question of 
assembling for that reason.

299



300
BY THE COURT:

BY MRS. MOTLEY;

BY THE COURT;

BY MR. SHA1DS ♦, 

BY MRS. MOTLEY;

When you resume this hearing would you want 
to adjourn Friday afternoon and Saturday and re­
sume the hearing next Monday?
My thought would be we could prc c;«-<d with, the 
otnsr witnesses we have here and then on Friday 
we could adjourn, until Monday and oner the week­
end we could inspect those records so that we 
can offer them in some kind of order.
As I understand, Mr, Stands, you wanted Mr, Ellis 
here in the courtroom throughout the entire trial? 
I do, I certainly do and I need him,
Well, 1 don11 think that is reasonable, that we 
should now adjourn this case because he has to 
do a mechanical job, That is surely a mechanical
job, taking a list of students and pulling a file. 
He doesn’t have to be there. He has people in the 
office who can do it. We are offering to send 
somebody to do that mechanical work,

BY THE COURT; He is entitled to do it himself. He is the
Registrar responsible for all these documents and 
I would not permit anybody else to do it for him 
and I would not requJte the case to proceed in his 
absence 'because his, you might say, he is the main
defendant or at least one of the main defendants,
and is entitled as a matter of law to be present
at every stage of the trial. So as of necessity 
the case must be recessed. As I stated I can’t hold 
you to blame, because this case was set by this 
opinion of mine on its merits for trial on January



301

15th* "'That S31ting wa* made on December 12, 1961.
So that all of this could hava been done with pro-”
per diligence on your part. But, I am following 
the admonition of the Court and 1 an thoroughly 
in accord with it, because I do want to dispose of 
this suit and get it to a final hearing. But, each 
side is entitled to a fair trial and that is what 
I intend to give them, so then X will recess this 
case until IHOO o’clock Friday. 1 am going to 
give them until 2:00 o1clock to produce the re­
cords. I see no necessity of taking that short 
afternoon hearing the case on Friday afternoon 
because Saturday is s holiday for the Olerfcs and 
the Marshalls and X need to transact other business 
and take up my own business, regal business, which 
I do on Saturdays. On Monday I have a habaeus 
corpus hearing which has priority over this, but 
It won’t take over a half—day to try that* ft 
occurs to me that the best procedure .would be to 
require the production of these documents by 
2*00 o* clock Friday and then recess the case until
Tuesday morning at 9*30*

BY MRS. MOTLEY: It has cost of hundreds of dollars to bring all of
these witnesses here and we have the rest of the day. 
The Registrar is here. I don’t see why ve can’t 
continue the rest of the day and put on as much of 
the case to get that over with.
For the reason X want him to get on up there and getBY THE COURT:



302

these documents.
BY KRS» MOTLEYt We are willing to'give him until Monday if that is

the case, because we have gone to a lots of truble 
to subpoena all of these people and it costs us 
Seven Hundred Dollars to bring these people. They 
are here, and the Registrar is right here. We 
could probably get through with those people by 
5*00 o’clock today.

BY MR. SHAHSS; Before going into this testimony I have not had an *
opportunity to talk with a single solitary one of 
these defendants* I have had not over fifteen 
minutes conversation with Mr. Ellis. 1 have not 
had over that amount with Doctor Jobe* The rest 
of them I have not haft a chance to have any con- 
feren.ee with them whatever. Ws have two that are 
not here. Mow, this case was set and this is not 
something that was humanly possible to have done, 
fills case was decided on the 12th —  on the 13th 
we were engaged in trying a esse* and 1 left 
Jackson on either the 12th or 1.3th to go to Charles­
ton, Mississippi, thence to Oxford, Mississippi,

■ to try a case in United States Vs. Boggart and 
the Scats of Mississippi and the Registrar of 
fellahs,tchie County* We tried that case and. we 
were, there in conference with witnesses and there 
was a motion for temporary injunction alleging a 
failure in refusal to permit negroes to pay poll 
taxes an Tallahatchie County. ?e were there through 
the 22nd of December. 1 think I. left there on the



303
23rd or the afternoon of the 22nd. The exact date 
2 wouldn‘t undertake to say, I came back to Jack- 
son and was out of the office from the 26th until 
the morning of the 2nd* We were then confronted 
with writing briefs in the Bailey Vs. Patterson. 
Counsel for plaintiff in this case sought injunc­
tion from the TJ. S. Supreme Court about getting a 
temporary injunction, on the bus suit. That all 
happened in the meantime. And then there was 
effort made, motion was made, to reduce the amount 
of tins that the defendants would have in that case 
to file their motion to dismiss or affirm in the 
Supreme Court of the United States in Bailey Vs. 
Patterson. In addition to that, since that period 
of time in coming down to this order we have had 
two -- last Friday we were before Judge Cox in a 
suit involving the Registrar of Forrest County.
Last Saturday vs spent the entire day in an argu­
ment before Judge Cox. I was required by Judge 
Cox to file a brief or put in the mail to him on 
yesterday a memorandum of authorities and documents 
in connection with thcU. S. Vs. iynd and Kennedy 
Vs. Rogers'. It started with Rogers Vs. Lynd and 
Kennedy was substituted. During that time also 
there was a game warden suit tried before Judge 
Cox what had been set months before in Vicksburg, 
The limited staff that has been working on this 
case has been absolutely snowed under find It would 
have been physically, has been physically and



304

humanly-impossible for us to have had any conferences 
with these, defendants, and the conferences I have told 
you is the total' limit. I think any procedure in 
accord with fair legal proceedings would contem­
plate under these circumstances that I would, have an 
opportunity to confer with these witnesses before 
proceeding with the testimony here, and I might say 
that Stockett, Cates, and I do not limit our work

t
hours from 8130 to 6; 30. We work night and day 
seven days a week*
I would like to say this, four Honor, 1 think that 
we will suspend our request for-production of those 
records imtiI after we have examined some of these 
witnesses to see whether we are going to need those 
records, because we don*t want this case to be post­
poned- . The fifth Circuit has pointed out there is a 
session coming up February 6th and all this means 
is that he is not g&ng to be able to get in Feb­
ruary 6th» 3o that in view of the Court’s announce­
ment wa will now withdraw our subpoena on this 
witness ana after we have examined some of the 
witnesses who are here we will then" 1st The Court 
know whether we still want those records to be put 
into evidence.
Very well than. I might say this on that. There is 
a possibility, unless we could finish it next week, 
that it might have to be set for a later data under 
that procedure, bat 1 am willing for you to go ahead 
and proceed under that procedure, I will recess this



case until 2iG0 o*clock• tomorrow and give you an 
opportunity to confer with your witnesses,
As I say,. I have not had an opportunity to confer 
with the witnesses* May! ask The Court and —- 
ana until two o1 clock tomorrow would not he a fair 
period of time —  may 1 ask at least until Thursday 
at noon or Thursday morning, because X have been at 
the office every night and there Is just a limit 
to human capabilities, and. I sincerely ask The 
Court until noon Thursday and certainly not earlier 
than Thursday morning*
We strenuously object to that. As Your Honor just 
pointed out to us, Your Honor set this case for 
trial yesterday on December 12th and lour Honor 
lias just said to us that we slioiiB have been ready 
and we should have haa those records. He is now 
saying that although be has had a month he has not 
taken the time to talk to these people. Sow that 
is not the controlling situation, however. The 
controlling situation is that 'this suit was filed 
May 31st. All of these people were made party 
defendants on May 31st, not a moment ago. So he 
had more than ample opportunity to go over this 
case with all of the defendants because that has 
been more than six months ago, and he cannot suddenly 
say, 11 l have not had time to talk to them"* And 
they are familiar with the issues because they 
were served a copy of the complaint. There is no 
unusual or difficult Issue here; all they have to



f

toll/is what they know about these applications

and tills application. So, we strenuously object 
to a'continuation to this trial on grounds the . 
counsel forthese defendants has not had a chance 
to talk to these people. All of them are State 
officials, experienced people, and it is not 
likely they wouldnH' hate any idea what the 
issues are in this ease. So that to say that he 
hasn't had an opportunity to talk to them I think; 
la not a p&ffieient ground for postponing a trial, 
which has bean postponed over and over and over 
again, Now Mr. Shands says that he'has been busy, 
lour Honor knows that we have been equally busy.
1 have been to Florida three times in December 
and to Chattanooga twice. And if I could get 
ready for this trial coming all the way down from 
Keif York now for about the seventh or eighth time, 
and Mr. Shands is right here with ail these people, 
and I don * t think it is fair for us to have to sub­
ject ourselves oo these oontinuax delays and usx&y* 
and delays. And, the Fifth Circuit has gone over 
this and pointed out all of these delays due to 
Mr® Shands scad his illnesses and upon illnesses and 
postponements and recesses and whatnot. He knew 
the case was set for today. In fact, it was set 
for yesterday. * I
Very well.
I respectfully submit to The Court I do not think



307

BY TEE COURT:

it would be fair to proceed —  fair to the defend­
ants to proceed with any testimony in this case 
until after 1 shall have had an opportunity at 
least, I thirds., until noon Thursday, Certainly, 
lit) earlier than Thursday morning* And I request 
The Court, and I am not undertaking to delay by 
this request — .
(Interrupting) Well * it is now nearly ten minutes 
until two o’clock. The Court is going•to conserve 
as much time as I can.' I want both sides to have 
a fair opportunity to present their law suit with­
out too much rush or speed, but certainly in a case 
pending as long as this one has counsel is familiar 
with the case in a general way, although he hasn’t 
refreshed his memory on the case because of heavy 
duties which The Court takes judicial knowledge of* 
that have been cast upon him for the last several 
months. Cf course, them nave been several Civil 
Eights suits filed in this State as well as other 
types of cases requiring the attention of the 
Attorney General of Mississippi and his assistants. 
So, I will not proceed now. I think by 3*00 o’clock 
tomorrow afternoon will be ample opportunity for 
counsel to confer with his witnesses. So, you 
need not take time, and it won’t be necessary, 
to draw your order upon the ruling I made with re­
ference to the subpoenas duces tecum. So you can 
leave right now and proceed with conferences and 
be. back here at 3.00 o’clock tomorrow afternoon.



All witnesses who have been subpoenad and 
who are here will remain and be hare at 
3:00 o’clock tomorrow afternoon unless 
excused by counsel who had them subpoenad.

{Whereupon the court recessed until 3:00 
P„Fu the following day.)



309

{WEDNESDAY, JAIUAHY 17» 1962, at JjOC O’clock P.M. the hearing 
was resumed and proceedings were had as a closed hearing in the 
library of the Federal Court -Building, Jackson, Mississippi, to-vrit;)

BY MR« OATSSi We hane, a motion for a reasonable con­
tinuance or postponement of the trial of the permanent injunction of 
this law suit based upon, two grounds, Qn«* is the.physical inability • 
of Mr. Dugas Shands, and Secondly, Mr, Charles Clark and myself and 
the other members of the Attorney General* s office staff are not in 
position at this moment to go forward, it was our - desire that we 
make our statement why, and if oounse3 for plaintiff desires us for 
cross-examination we would be delighted to accommodate her. Mr.
Clark, is in the middle of a trial in Kinds County Chancery Court 
at this moment and I would like for him to present his statement 
at this time to The Court sc as might 'be excused to go back to the 
continuance of his trial.

BY THE COURT; Very well, Mrs. Motley, do you want them 
sworn, as witnesses?

BY MRS. MOTLEYS les, 1 do.

(Whereupon the witnesses were sworn)•



310

KH.#... QxIAhli&A , called as a witness, having tsen first
duly sworn, testified as follows*

M W * .m m i

.81 MR, OATES t

Q« State your name,
A * Cha rl.es 0 la rk *
Q. Are you an attorney?
A, las,

St Are you presently employed in the case of Meredith Vs. 
fair, at al?

A* I have been, specially employed, as Special Assistant Attor­
ney General of the State of Mississippi* My first employ®eat was 
for the Year 1961, and when it developed that the Appeal of this 
matter was so promptly brought on after the end of the year 1 
stayed with the case, through the Appeal in the fifth Oircu it Court
°x Appeals in New Orleans, which was concluded approximately a week 
aS° I believe.

Q« too has had the basic responsibility in this law suit?
A. Mr, Dugas Shands at all times with the exception of a day 

Wil8n y°u an<i I took over at the end of the preliminary —  end of 
“be hearing on the preliminary injunction in the lower court. I 

do quite a bit of work on the preparation of the brief for the 
Pifui Circuit Court of Appeals, and 1 made one of the two arguments 
11 ^  circuit Court of Appeals, and' other than that Mr. Shads has 
-srried the yeoman*s load all by himself throughout this case.

'3» What is the nature of your practice?
* hfive a general practice of law.

you in a position to go' forward with this law suit



311

this afternoon?
A. Absolutely not*
q , Would you state to The Court why?
A, Well, it is just an entirely different lew suit, the way I 

conceive it, I hope I am basically familiar with most of the legal 
principles that would govern this particular action by virtue of 
having participated in it in the injunctive proceeding, I have read 
the record in this preliminary Injunction proceeding in order to 
assist in the preparation of the brief on appeal, and I know what 
that testimony was, but as recently as — - this is Wednesday ~~ as 
recently as Monday of this week Mr. Shands advised me that —  I 
believe it was Mr* Shands, 1 shouldn’t speculate since I am. a
witness —  told me that the Registrar and 'Officials from all of the
institutions under the Board of Trustees of the institutions of 
higher learning of Mississippi had been subpoenad as witnesses, and 
I know Mr, Shands had been making an earnest effort to this week, 
and you too I am sure, to acquaint yourselves with, these gentlemen 
and what their problems are and what their matters could be, I am 
also familiar with the fact there was a hearing in this very case
before Judge Mize sometimes this week, but 1 don't know what it is
about and I haven’t seen Bob Bills, the Registrar from Ole Miss, 
except for the instance just a minute ago when I shook his -hand in 
the corridor, since he got down off the witness stand in this court 
lack in August or September on the preliminary injunction. Frankly, 
I think It would be a disservice to- the Attorney General, 1 under­
stand from him he wants to employ me to continue on with this trua!. 
I think It would be a disservice to him and to the clients 1 would
represent for him if I tried to pick up this case as coldk as I am 
this afternoon.

talked to the Chancellor about_jfhatij^erha£Sihis



312

testimony might be?
A, You mean the Chancellor of the University of Miss­

issippi?
Q» Of the University of Mississippi.
A, No, sir.
Q. Have you talked to any of the board members?
A. No, sir*
Q* -The Board members of higher learning?
A. No, Sir. Dr. lobe and I rode back from New Orleans 

on the train last weak®
Q* I mean specifically about this lawsuit.
A. No, nothing about this lawsuit. Ve just visited.
Q* Have you talked to any of the registrars of the 

state institutions of the State of Mississippi?
A. Not only that, but I don’t even know them.
Q. Then you are not in a position to go forward with 

the lawsuit?
A. No, Sir.
Q. What in jour opinion would be a reasonable time before 

you would be prepared to go forward?
A. Mr. Cates, I hesitate to say, I know that counsel 

for plaintiff is striving to conclude this hearing because of 
a date that comes up sometime soon with regard to the spring 
quarter, February 6th. There are situations where you have to

do. I just don’t know, I will do whatever I can to do to 
get ready for the lawsuit. This is an important lawsuit and



313

the number of witnesses called would impose a physical burden , 
as well as a mental burden, on whomever undertook to prepare 
for it.

Q. When did it come to your knowledge that Mr. Shands 
would not physical^go forward with this lawsuit?

A* At sometime today* I got a. note while I was in the 
midst of this trial that was wtill going on that you wanted 
to talk to me at the noon recess, which was the first available 
time I called you, and that is when you told me he was sick.

(end of direct examination)



314

PEG S3 «-EXAM I EAT 1 DM

B'f MBS, MOTLEY'?
Q* Mr* Clark, do you know the first day of registration at 

the University of Mississippi for the second semester?
A* Ho I doiist, counsel* I was trying to recall the date* I 

know thatyou mentioned it at Hew Orleans In the Fifth Circuit. My 
vague impression is the sixth day of February* Where I got the date 
I am not sure, but I don't know what the date Is*

Q* loti are so ‘unfamiliar with this case you don't know the 
date the University opens, is that what you say?

A* I do not know when the second semester of the 1962 year 
commences at the University of Mississippi* That; is true. 1 
could not know that date®

Q» were you
A. Let me take that back, I believe that the date of the 

sixth of February was stated in the Fifth Circuit Court’s opinion, 
and I think that is also where I got it, but other than having the 
date of the sixth of February in my mind I cannot tell you under 
oath this afternoon that 1 know when it begins.

Q. When were you first employed by the State of Mississippi 
to work on this case?

A» Approximately the sixteenth of August, I960, 1 was employed - 
1961, i was employed for the year 1961 to assist Mr. Shands and Mr. 
Patterson and Mr. Catec in the Meredith situation or the Meredith 
J‘Arf suit, on the preliminary injunction features thereof, and also 
lri tile Bailey Vs, Patterson case* I think you recall when I was on 
tti8 s1:'ancl before I got confused about which set of defendants I was 
representing in which case* But, I was employed about the first of 

I can’t be specific.



315

Q. You were employ ad August 1, 1961, to work on this case and 
the Bailey vs. Patterson easel

A. Shat is right, and my employment was, as I recall it, limited 
to the Year 1961,

Q. What other cases were you employed to work on?
A. You mean by the Attorney General or the State of Mississippi?
Q# Yes.
A. lone* j
Q. Why were you employed to work on this case?
A* Because, as 1 recall,, Mr* Sbands had been taken suddenly 

and seriously ill at that time and had asked for a continuance and 
Judge Mlae said he would see fit to grant that one but that he wanted 
the Attorney General to know that this preliminary injunction was 
going to coma on to be heard properly In August and that he wanted 
the Attorney General to be prepared to proceed with that preliminary 
injunction regardless of whether Mr, Stands could recover or not* 
f°r that purpose the Attorney General employed me to be ready to 
tâ e over on the preliminary injunction, proceedings if Mr. Shards* 
health was not — ,

Q» Did he employ you to work part time or full time on these 
cages?

He employed me as a Special Assistant Attorney General and 
I v&s to devote whatever time was necessary and could be devoted to 

P^P&ration of the preliminary injunction.
you employed to work full time or part time?

A* I would say this! 1 have never worked as hard in my life 
0X1 any litigation ns I have on this. I am not a full time employee 
°f the Office of the Attorney General* X have continued my private 
Practice ever since this August 8th, In fact, 1 formed a new



316

ipartnership on the 15th of July and I have worked at many other 
matters other than these two law suits in the period since the 
15th of July, 1961,

Q. Do you have a written contract?
A. Ho.
Q. What does your oral contract core 1st of?
&» An agreement between the Attorney Geieral and myself*
Q* What are the terms of that cor.tract?
A, That I would represent the Attorney General* 3 office as 

Special Assistant Attorney General in whatever capacities and what- 
ever duties lie assigned to me or that Mr. Shards or Mr. Oates 
assigned to me in connection with the trial of the Meredith Ye.
Fair, et al, case and the Bailey Vs. Patterson case* during the 
Year 1961., And that ended our formal agreement*

Q« feat is year salary?
■lOBL:.PATTERSCM; We object to that. That has absolutely

nothing to do with the matter before The
Court,

M-THI GBfi?; Overrule the objection. It goes to the
credibility of the witness.

gg.. THE WITN'MRg»
A* salary was not fixed as a salary. I was employed on the 
that whatever time was required during the Year '1961 would 

result in a flat compensation to me of Five Thousand Dollars.
Regardless of how much time you spent? Is that what you say? 

Ae Yes, that is right,
Bow much time did you spend in 196I to earn that Five Thousand

dollars?



317

BY MR« PAffERSOYTi We object to that*
BY fKS '00'Dlla i Sustain the objection to that*

E J S U O T M I -  < Continuing)
Q. How much time .lid you spend in 1961 on the Meredith case?
BY MR* BaTimjCi;: wfc oeject %  that*
Bf SHE OOUB.D: Overrule that objection*
by the wnisas i
A. 1 can't answer the question, i
Q, Did you spend a day?
A* Oh no.
Q« Well, how long did you spend?
A. We have been in court many days. I would say 1 spent--.

Bo you want to frame this in the terms of a lawyer's seven hour 
toy or eight hour day?

Q. Yea. ’ How many days?
A, I spent mors eight hour days than there were days in the rest 

of the year,
Q» How many days will you say you spent, Hr. Clark?
A. I am going to guess seventy-fixe to one-hundred.
Q* On the Meredith case?
A. On. the Meredith case. You asked me to express that in eight-

! days,

Q* What did you do in the seventy-five days on the Meredith case? 
A. i tried best, my best to acquaint myself with the vast amount 

I*°* Principles of Constitutional law that my law practice had never 
j-Hrown me in direct contact with. Further than that, I tried to learn 
T,ue fa®ts as best I could about the case, talked to witnesses, and pre- 
?ars myself for the examination of witnesses in the court.

I



318

Q* What witnesses did you talk to, Mr. Clark?
A* I talked to Kr« Robert B, Ellis* I had a conference with 

Mr, Pair. I had a conference with Doctor Jobe. I conferred with 
Mr. Stands and Mr* Cates*

Q. What other witnesses did you talk to?
A. 1 am doing my best to remember. I am not sure now that I 

can,
Q. Did you talk to the Chairman of the Board?
A* May I answer the question?
Q. Yes,

A- There was a student who was subpoenad. I believe it was 
Carol Leonard Collins, but I am not positive.

Q» Go ahead*
A* And I talked to her. She was never placed on the stand, 

feut I did confer with her.
Q* So you talked to Hr. Ellis, number one, is that right?
A. I said that probably most of my conferences were with Mr.

Bills,

Q, And you talked to Doctor Jobe?
A. leg.
Q. Did you talk to Mr. Fair?
A« Yes sir,
Q* Did you talk to the Chancellor?
A* Ho, I don*t recall having spoken to Chancellor Williams about 

•̂As litigation, in fact 1 am sure X have not,
Q* Did you talk to Dean Lewis?
A* Ho, I never met Bean Lewis,

i



319

Q. Bid you talk to an/ members of the Board?
A. Bes, I have* I know Mr. Tally Riddell; T know M.r, Tube, who 

ilii a member of the Board; ; I know Mr. M, M. Roberts who is a member of 
[the Board.

Q. Did you malm tc both of those abalut this case?

the Meredith case with any 

cf the Board?
I even know any of the other 
y present recollection, 
g of the plaintiff’s motion 
7?
you started tills case be-

A* I don’t remember having discussed 
iof those.

Q* Bid you talk no any other member 
A. About the Meredith case, no. If 

Members of the Board, it doesn’t come to m 
Q. Did you participate in the hearln, 

for a preliminary injunction as an attorne.
A* I did in parts of it. Of course, 

fore I ever became connected with It 
Q. One day, wasn't- it?
A* i recall two or three days. My fjirst appearance was in 

meridian, Mississippi, wioh regard to the
I speared that day and there were some days in Jackson about the 
tildle of August.

Q. And you were present?
A, I was present and stayed here until the case was concluded, 
as i stated, before I actually handled the examination of the 

rast Par"ti °f the testimony in the hearing on preliminary injunction, 
as I stated before, X actually handled the examination of the last 
of the testimony in the hearing oh the preliminary injunction.

Let’s go over this again. The hearing on the preliminary 
ĵuLction started June 1.2th, do you know that?

Yes, I do. In fact, 1 war in Biloxi that day and in Judge
Size®e s Court on a report on Coulter Brothers, a corporate reorganization
:



-Meh 1 was handling.
Q. 2?hen after that the reporter transcribed that hearing?
A. That ie correct.
Q* Jknd you came into the case in August when we were trying to 

take depositions of the Registrar, Isn't ttefc right?
A. That is correct. How you said in August when you were 

trying to do that. 1 can remember X went to a hearing in. Meridian
and I cannot tell you. for sure as to the exact date of that hearing,
i
out, of course, it is a part of the court records,

Q, You know
A. Certainly, X Just don*t remember the exact date,
Q, That was a hearing on the plaintiff*s motion for a production 

and on the defendants1 objection to the taking of the JSe$ istrar*s • 
deposition, wasn't it?

A, That is true*
Q. After that the trial was .resumed of that motion for the 

preliminary injunction on August 10th, wasn't it, here in Jackson?
A. It was here In Jackson. 1 cannot testify positively it 

was i&e 10th.« The court records vrou34 of course, reflect it.
Q* Well, were you here when it was resumed? That first day?
A. Y es ,

Were you here on the second day, the 11th, when the fie'gi's- 
toar testified?

A. Yes,
Q. Were you here on the 15th when other people testified?
A, Yes sir,
. Q. You also testified on the 15th, didn* t you?
A. I don't remember the day, I remember I was called as a 

witness in the case, yes.

320



I r

Ox

QU here >'3n the 16t:h when it w,

Anu s as :I told you my reeo 11

■ the day when Mr. Shands* hea.
raced me f(j take over the rajor

ment

recall. In fac t s T am nu r f.>
Q. * Did 3rou that day?
A* That particular da;J .... Q.i. AX
Q. Aft a 3:• that hearing wa s OV-ikt T* f*1 h r*l

o ’? 0
A. On tlle brief before Jud& & O .M x z 3 Y
Q. Yes,
A. Yes, •rJL di d c
Q. Did lff y*a Shan as vet.k on th;ii X D 0f?
A. Yes. he did.
Q. Did !■ir. Oates work on iX* £
A. Y e s, to some externt. MT • Oates wa
ime to that brief because» aC: I reoal 1 j
, That took him away* If is so hard t

you worse on the brief?

ible to devote a lot

o be positive about these
;s, but dates particularly, but 1 Know tha Ir. Cates c am 0 back

from his summer camp or the array tour o X duty that he ha
to at a time when we were in the proce s s of putting cur
ge trie r and £ o renal i z ing it Into a primted brief form* and
with me for two or ihrea days at the end of the brief.

Q. Did you read ths transcript SO you could write
A. I don't recal"3 on the brief kt 0 J uag 0 ii x e e tha t

entire transcript, but X do know that'
Q. You read part 0p » u. r?I A. t i

A ir. 4* ,

Q. And you say you spent about fifteen days on the brief?
A* I would Thinkthat that would be a reasonable approximation.



322

Q. Did Mr, Stockett work on the brief?
A. Yes.
Q, Who else worked on the brief?
A, 1 would say, counsel, that I probably did more as .far as 

the number of hours concerned than anyone else, I think second to 
that that pro tab Ly Mr* Srockmt put In the greatest number of physical 
hours, and then in some degree Mr, Cates and Mr, Sfcands* And, of 
course, the Attorney General was consulted from time to time during 
the writing of the brief, but hi a duties are so varied I don’t re­
call that he spent any great time on the preparation, but it was 
principally Mr. Stocked!, Mr, Brands, Hr. Cates and myself.

Q, Kow much time did Mr. Stockett spend?
A» 1 have no idea, I recall I asked Kr, Stockett, in agreeing 

to a division of the work, if he would fake the brief that you had 
filed and would devote his principal tine to analyzing and disting­
uishing the cases you nau cited there, and I know he came back and 
reported the result of his work and research, but I don't think I 
can tell you how much time he spent.

Q. Did he do anything else?
A, You mean besides just preparing the reply to your brief?
Q. That is right.
A. Yes. Ws worked together, the four of us, when we could be

together. We were together over quite a period of time,
Q. What did Mr, Shands do?
A. On the brief itself?
Q. That is right.
A. Mr. Skands posed most of the statements of facts. He

bought me up co date on several cases. He suggested several pro-



323

positions of law that ought to be explored and ha was the guiding 
light in preparing the brief. I mean the whole 'thing, the whole 
brief, I would say was cast in the approach and under the guidance of 
Mr. Snands because he is, as you. well know, the principal attorney that
aas represented the Attorney General in this ease since it was first 
filed.

Q. What did you do then, if Mr, Shands did all of this, and 
Mr. Stoekett replied to my brief?

A. If the reporter could read my answer back. I don’t have any
m  t0 Emplify ¥h£t 1 told other than to say I was the main 
assembly point for these different points and ideas and 1 tried to
frame them in good grammar end, on re-reading the brief I was kina or

1 >ashed tnat 1 had hac aore time, wished I had done a better 
Job, but I frequently find myself in that position. But, I worked 
physically with Mr. E. A. Knight, the Stenographer who did the 
rx in mimeographing and multlgra piling the brief and assembling it, 

worked with him on last minute corrections and typographical errors 
M, if yuu recall, in our brief there were some errors we didn’t 
ten until he had dene the duplicating. I corrected those forthe 

initial copies that went out of the office.

Q* j.ou know that this case was appealed by the plaintiffs 
from the denial of the preliminary injunction, don’t you?

A* Yes, I do.

Q« Who wrote the brief on appeal for the defendant?
A* Mr. Patterson, Mr, Shands, Mr. Cates, Mr, Stoekett* and 

^self.

Q* That is all?

A* That is all i can recall at the present. ,



324

n H * Who argued th e case on
m & Mr. Shands and myself.
Q* Didn't you make th e Op
A. Yes I did.
Q. Didn't you arg'ue foi’ a-
A. I am afraid. I did.
Q. And Mr. Sharids made thu
A. That's righ.t.
Q * He argued 1ess time tin
A» That is tru.e.
Q. Did you rea,d the recor*

Appeal 9

A. And to write tae brief, too, I read the record in detail 
before I worked on the brief and I re-read parts of that record prior 
to making the oral argument. I read one thing in particular. Judge 
Wisdom asked me about the Registrar's testimony with regard to the 
credits given to the plaintiff from other schools and universities, 
and I couldn't recall anything except that I had seen it In the 
record, and it wasn’t until after the opinion came down in which he 
said that the Registrar had not detailed that that I found that he 
tad in quite some detail. I only point this out to say I read it 
and about two weeks later when we got ready to argue the case I 
re-read parts of it but not enough to bring the whole thing clearly 
back to mind.

Q. You aren't suggesting, are you, that you attempted to argue 
the case in the Court of Appeals when you hadn't read the record?

A. No. I said i had read the record and studied the record 
regard to the proposition of the brief and if I had had time 

°efore the argument I would have re-read the record again, again 
before argument, and 1 wish 1 had because I believe I could have



325

icept Judge Wisdom 'from saying in his opinion the Registrar had not 
testified to something the record disclosed he had testified to 
because, tills whole appeal procedure, as you know, was —  shall we 
say —  expedited* It was certainly the quickest and fastes appeal 
and review and decision that. I have ever been acquainted with in my 
very limited experience,

Q« And you are now retained by the Attorney General to con­
tinue on in the trial of this case?

A. Yes. I see him nod.
Q. When were you so employed?
A. Yesterday afternoon about 500 I would say that the 

Attorney General and I had a conversation, I had worked on the 
brief and 'the appeal,

Q. What are the terms of your employment?
A. Just a minute.
Q. I am sorry,
A. On Tuesday, Honda/ or Tuesday of this week, Mr. Shands told 

me that he was not feeling well at all and that he requested me at 
that time to -convey that to the Attorney General and to ask him 
whether or not he wanted me to continue in the matter in the event 
Kr. Shands was disabled. Yesterday afternoon around 5*00 or 5*30 
i went into the Attorney General*s office and asked him at that 
tine if that was his pleasure, and he said that if it. became necess­
ary that he did want me to corns back into the law suit of the 
Meredith case, We have not discussed anything with regard to em­
ployment or pay or number of hours. He Just told me he wanted me 

come back into the case and work on it again xn the event Hr, 
Stands was disabled’ and unable to carry on, and I told him I would 
do so.



Q. When this case was heard on tne motion for the preliminary 
injunction the plaintiff subpoenad all the members of the Board, 
didn’t he?

A, I am not sure, I know they were named as defendants.
Q« You don tj recall those men being subpoenad?
A. No I don’t,

Q. You didn’t see any of them at that time in the courtroom?
A, ho.

Q. You mean that you came into the hearing of the preliminary 
injunction witnouu having even consulted your clients?

A. I told you who I talked with, yes, Mr. Pair,-*-.
Q. You didn't talk to all your clients you are purported to 

represent in this court?

A. I said I talked with Mr. Pair, Doctor Jobe, and Mr. Ellis, 
but those are the only Members of the Board of Trustees of the 
Institutions of Higher Learning in the State of Mississippi that I 
recall having conferred with about this case at all.

Q* 1 am asking you, Mr. Clark, whether you are suggesting
* is Court that you came in here to try a motion for a preliminary

injunction without even having consulted with the defendants you 
were representing?

A'* Counsel, I am not suggesting it. I am.testifying to it as 
a Positive fact under oath.

Q» ihat you didn't speak to the clients youwere purported to 
rePresent?

A* That’s right, other than these I have named off to you.
BY. Mils. MOTT/sv ; I think that is all.



RE-DIRECT EXAMINATIOS

BY MR, CATES ;
■ Q. Isn*t It the truth that you haven't talked with these 

because Mr. Shands had been the principal who has talked to them?
3Y MRS, MOTLEY * That is a leading question you are asking

your own witness,
BY THE COURT; I will overrule the objection.
A. Let me say this, Mr. Cates, and I think I have said ex­

actly the same tiling to counsel; Mr, Dugas Shands who is Assistant 
Attorney General of the State of Mississippi, has for every moment 
of the time that I have been in any way connected with this law suit 
been the leading counsel. He has been the man that, if I might use 
the expression, “called the shots11. The Attorney General, of course 
is his superior. Anytime the Attorney General didn't agree with Mr. 
Shands' procedure I presume the Attorney General could have over­
ridden him, but at all times I have been connected with the law suit 
the Attorney General has seen fit to abide by his major decisions in 
the law suit. The only time I can recall that anybody else had any 
hind of control over this thing at all was that single day when he 
was physically disabled and I took over for him. On briefs, on 
motions, on procedure, everything else done in the law suit since I 
have been connected with it, Mr. Shands has made the decisions.

BY MR, GATES; No further questions.

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION

Q* How long will it take you to get ready to resume the trial 
of this case?



328

A. Mr. Oates, asxed me that question and I told you that I 
don t Know enough aoout what is involved in the way of what1 a 
different on preliminary injunction from the permanent injunction 
to know. I do Mow that I heard you make the statement in lew 
Orleans that .you expected to try the permanent injunction on the 
theory chat all colleges and institutions in the State of Mississ­
ippi were Involved, I never considered the preliminary injunction 
to involve chat* if it did, if you intended for it to, then I 
misconceived the purpose of the preliminary injunction,

Q. You read the complaint, didn't you?
A, Yes, I did.

Q. Doesn't the complaint name all the colleges under the 
jurisdiction of this Board and allege there Is a policy with re­
ference to all of them?

A. May I see it? I am not sure.
Q. Look at Paragraphs 7 and 11 of the complaint,
A. Let me say tnis, lx you say it does I am not about to dis- 

yate it. i just don't know the answer to the question, but I will 
'oe to cheok it if you care for me to.

Q. What I am trying to get at is that you have known since 
■he beginning that this case involved all the state institutions of 
higher learning, because the •complaint says so,

A. Counsel, I have not

You haven't even road the complaint so X guess the State 
is ia a bad state.

A* Well, I can't dispute that. I have read the complaint and 
* t°ii you I have read the complaint. My problem is tint I can’t 
member what’s in it. 1 know that at no time on the procedure for 
preliminary injunction did I ever have any conception that you

had Aegal rignt .or wcl­ ever. asserting a legal right to do any-



thing other than get the Court to issue a preliminary injunction 
requiring the Registrar of the University of Mississippi to take 
some action with regard to the application of James Howard Meredith 
to-the University oj? Mississippi, That is the only light 1 ever 
considered my work in at that time. And I repeat what I said here 
before a moment ago, that at the time you made the statement to 
the Fifth Circuit that the permanent injunction was going to be 
tried on the theory that the entire university system ought to be 
enjoined from doing something I was taken by surprise because I did 
not contemplate it. How, if that was part of my lack of ability as 
a lawyer, then it was what it was, but a fact is a fact and that is

Q. How long will it take you to get ready, Mr. Clark? 
A. I don’t known I cannot answer the Question.
3Y MRS. MOTLEY: That is all.
(Witness Excused.)



330

.» Assistant Attorney General of the State of
Mississippi, Counsel of Record, calls himself as a witness, having
first been duly sworn, testified as follows;

: * aa Oates, Assistant Attorney General for the
State o f M i s s is s i p p i .  I am employed by Mr. Joe T. Patterson, Attor­
ney General of the State of Mississippi, My duties with. M r. P a t te r s o n  

consist o f  d e fe n d in g  or prosecuting, as the case may be, in C o n s t i t u ­

tional m a tte rs  as pertaining to the State of Mississippi. In  addi­
tion th e re to  1 nave other duties, I, for instance, have the d u ty  

to check s e c u r i t ie s  for the State of Mississippi, I pass on cancella­
tion of s e c u r i t y  certificates of those people who are registered 
bondsmen, .security investors, and who sell stocks and bonds within 
tne State o f  Mississippi. It is my duty in that particular instance 
to a ss is t the Secretary of State of the State of Mississippi in 
whatever capacity he might desire with regard to securities. In

Edition t h e r e t o ,  I am assigned sundry and other matters by the 
Attorney G e n e ra l of the State., of Mississippi. As an example, I  was 

assigned and defended in a law suit in tire Federal Court concerning 
unlawful a r r e s t  by certain game wardens of the State of Mississippi, 
This s u it  was f o r  Forty Five Thousand Dollars, This suit, like a n y 

°tiier law s u i t ,  requires a great deal of any lawyer’s time. T h is  

laW su it was t r i e d  on the 4th and 5th of January 1962.
With regard to the suit of Meredith Vs. Fair, I am looking at 
complaint to refresh ay memory, and it was filed on May 31, I96I, 

i0r to 'tha"fc time 1 was on military duty when Mr. Shands who is 
st&nt Attorney General notified me of this law suit. Subsequent 
tiaat time> if my memory doesn’t fail me, a deposition of the 
'frthff, James Howard Meredith, was taken in Meridian, Mississippi,



331

I was there, but Mr, .Dugas Sh.an.bs handled .the deposition completely.
At this p3*ir1rfZc'UtXstx* "tiiuB s.*fc fc.n.B toivoiiriS'txoii of ttistti dBposlfioii tlis 
suit of Bailey Vs, Patterson was filed. At that particular time the 
law suit of "In Re Theron-C. Lynd" was filed in the U. S. District 
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. At that particular 
time the case of ' In Re Mrs. Walter Lewis" was filed in the Northern 
District of Mississippi Federal Court. These two cases were under 
the Civil High os Act on Noting, These cases, as I guess a lawyer 
would term, were live cases, Iney required immediate research, 
immediate concentration, along with the Meredith Vs. Fair case.
These voter suits —  if Tine Court will allow me to call them that —

3Y THE COURT; Very well.
BY THE WITNESS; (Continuing) —

—  required an extreme amount of time and effort to work' on 
them simply because this was a new field. It was a questionable 
Constitutional field which would require more effort than a normal 
damage law suit or tort law suit or one where you might say Federal 
law is somewhat settled, So these law suits were handled even then 
in the main, the voter suits, in the main by Mr. Dugas Shands,
Assistant Attorney General* Subsequent to the deposition various 
motions were filed to take the depositions of the Registrar of the 
University of Mississippi. I argued a part of that, Mr. Shands 
argued a portion of that, and Mr. Clark argued a portion of that.
Once again let me say, however, in the main, the primary responsibility 
the person who coordinated, organized 'and was responsible for these 
argUfflents was not myself nor Mr. Clark; it was Mr. Dugas Shands. 

the Attorney General1 s office we have only three people who by



n s 2

bxtj s tre to u  o f  f ile  J-Hia.gin8.tion ha \re any slight; —— if I  might be v a in  

in saying th a t  —  background or responsibility for these Civil Rights 
suits. Subsequent to these motions which we argued on the taking of 
the d e p o s it io n  of the Registrar the motions for the preliminary 
in junction  were set. On July 10th, 19 6 1, if my memory serves me 
again, Mr. Shards was again —  I shouldn’t say again —  for the first 
time was incapacitated because of a cardiac or heart condition from 
going forward with the lav/ suit. If my memory serves me, and I am 

doing th is  from memory and not from knowledge, the answer of the 
defendant was also filed. The answer appears with my name to it 
as f i le d  by Assistant Attorney General, it appears that way because 

Stands was at that time incapacitated and all of the other res- 
F e a s ib i l i t ie s ,  including these other Oivil Rights law suits, had 
become, so to  speak, my lot, ana he took the personal hand to 
prepare .the answer but it was filed in my name. Subsequent to this, 
during the pendancy of 10 August, I96I, we were also preparing 
various motions, etc., in the Bailey Vs. Patterson case. Counsel 
for plaintiff was also counsel in that law suit. Counsel for 
p la in t i f f  will recall that we ha3 the pleasure of having the basic 
responsibility to argue most of those motions together with Mr.
'■'lark, Bailey Vs. Patterson to a great extent, although the primary 
responsibility of Mr. Dugas Shands, fell to a great extent to me.
^  Piffle of the trial of the preliminary injunction, if my 
aemory serves me again correctly, I was also charged with the res­
ponsibility of preparing the basic brief in the case of Bailey Vs. 
Patterson, During that same time we had additional law suits,
-I'/il Rights law suits, At that particular time the law suit of 
United States Vs. John Q. Wood was filed, which was a pai\t six



333

voter suit. At that same time U. S. Vs. Wood, Breed Mounger, Mike 
Carr, and others, a voting suit was also filed. At that particular 
time trie law suit cf U. S. Veu Ramsey also was filed which was also 
a voting suit. Also at that particular time this law suit of United 
States Vs. Theron G. Lynd was filed, which was another voter's law 
suit. Subsequent to that time we had to argue motions in the Lynd 
case and the Ramsey case and. in the Wood case, and, in fact, right 
after the Bailey Vs. Patterson case we had to fly over to Montgomery 
to argue a case over there of the United States Vs. Wood. In sum, 
and substance, the voter suits have been, although the primary res­
ponsibility of Mr. Dugas Shands, they have together with that been 
a great responsibility of me. I prepared most of the briefs in those 
lav suits and I have done most of the arguing in those and in complete 
trial in the preliminary stage of United; States Vs. Hardy, which is 
Humber 1670 of this Southern District, I have been present at most, 
if not all, if my memory serve me, at the argument and trial, 
argument and matters in the Meredith case, although I did not appear 
at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on the Appeal of this law suit.
I have missed some days, but in all honesty I have been at most of the 
hearings. Now, I took only a small part in the preparation of the 
brief that was filed before this Court. Mr. Clark, Mr. Patterson 
a-M Mr. Shands had the primary responsibility and did this. I was 
at that time at Ft. McClellan, Alabama, on two weeks summer camp.
^ each one of these hearings, to assist The Court, as far as the 
lav in these law suits has been concerned I have argued in that res- 
êct, but as to the trial and the. interview of the witnesses that 
uas no’h been ray responsibility. That has been Mr. Shands' res- 
Possibility, Mr, Shands is by far the more capable trial lawyer 
aa<i i-t has been his responsibility to try. By try I mean the pre- 

examination, and the eliciting of evidence from the



334

•witnesses. Prior to last night 1 have had conversation, but I have 
not interviewed any witnesses forthe purposes of testimony. Sow let 
m  clarify that. I have interviewed Milton Burke, I have interviewed 
Reverend S. L. Brown, I have interviewed Lanny Meredith, all for 
possible witnesses, whey are not called by the defendants. Last 
night was the first occasion tnat I have had to talk to any of the 
witnesses for the purpose of examination. They were not discussed 
at that time for trie purposes of my eliciting any examination but 
purely for the purpose of what might possibly be asked them, not as 
if I were trying trie law suit, but what would possibly be asked of 
them on cross-examination. These people include the Board of 
Trustees and The Chancellor of the University, I have never dis­
cussed with Mr, Bob Bills for the purposes of my examining him, 
because Mr. Shands *2 fC0 Gil 0 X0 Cl * X JXSGV© GL.X SOULS S€»(i. “fcJnLX ifn
law suit, but not for the purpose of my examination of him for 
trial purposes. We have at this particular time in the office of 
the Attorney General of the State of Mississippi, if my memory 
serves me correctly, no less than twelve Civil Eights law suits. 
b° C iv i l  Eights law suit, in my humble judgment, is a simple law 
siit. Ho Civil Rights law suit has the law' settled. In the pre­
paration of any law suit it takes a great deal of time and effort, 

3Y_._TKB COURTj I am going to let Mr. Cates temporarily stand 
aside so that the Doctor may be examined be­
cause I know he is a busy man and the patients 
need his attention.
(Whereupon Mr. Cates was temporarily excused.}



DOCTOR EARL FITE was called as a witness, having first teen

335

duly sworn, testified as followss

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. CATES:
Q. State your name*
A. Earl Fite, Jr,
Q. What'is your residence?
A. Manilla Drive, Jackson, Mississippi, 4622,
Q. Are you a medical doctor?
A. Yes sir,
BY MR, CATES: Will counsel for the plaintiff stipulate he is

a qualified, medical doctor and also an expert
in the cardiac or heart field?

BY MRS, MOTLEY; We don’t know anything about the man’s quali­
fications*

BY THE COURT; Just go ahead and state your educational back­
ground and degrees and what your specialty is.

BY THE WITNESS:
A. Graduated from University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine 

in 1947, Interned at Charity Hospital in lew Orleans, Louisiana, 
took my Medical Specialty Training at the Mayo Clinic in Internal 
Medicine with a extra year in cardio-vascular disease and have been 
in the practice of medicine in Jackson for six years,

Q. Do you have a patient by the name of Dugas Shands?
A, Yes sir.
Q. Is he presently under your care?
4. Yes sir.



Q. How long has he been under your care?
A, Since approximately July of 1961.
Q. What is his particular ailment?
A* Mr. Shands has a disease known as atfceros sclerosis, which 

is an afiecto,cion of tie brood vessels, it is tne type of disease 
which leads, or can lead, to heart attacks, strokes, or other 
occlusive diseases of the blood vessels. Mr, Shands has had a heart 
at/tack in tne past, decently, specifically this morning, we saw Mr. 
Shands and he related symptoms to us which made us vary fearful of 
ta.6 possibility ox tne complications as a result of this underlying 
disease being imminent. If you wish I can elaborate on those.

Q. If you please?
A. He has had sn increased amount and increased frequency of 

ccest discomfort within the past several days, which I was not aware 
of until this morning. This, we feel, is often a premonitory symptom 
°~ aa impending noarb a ctack. That is something I cannot prove one 
m y or’ "fcfce other except in my Judgment it-is a premonitory symptom 
kat needs to be watched very carefully and very cautiously. He has 

other symptoms within the past several days which constitute 
intermittent insufficiency of circulation to portions of the brain,
Mich we felt might indicate corns very imminent difficulty. And for 
taese reasons we felt it necessary to put him in the hospital to 
wâ ch him carefully and to institute what is known as anti-coagulent 
treatment to render the blood in a less eoagulable state to try and 
Prevent difficulty.

Q* Did he ask you whether he could go forward with this law
s u it ?

Yes sir. I
Q* What was your answer?
A 7.*^_* **y answer was that 1 could not tell him what lie could or

336



337

could not do, but he certainly could not do It with my sanction; that 
our advice was that he stop now, and he go to the hospital now and 
that he submit to this treatment which we have'outlined.

Q. When did this first come to your attention?
A. This morhing.
Q.. Would it be dangerous for him to continue with this law suit?
A. 'In my opinion it would be dangerous for him to continue any 

significant activity at the present time.
*Q. How long would he be In the hospital?

A. I couldnH answer that question for him, and I could not 
answer it for you. He will be there a minimum of a week and per­
haps longer than that.

BY MR. CATES: ¥e have no further questions.

PRO SS-^EXAMIHATIOH

BY HRS. MOTLEY:

Q. Dr. Fites, when did you say Mr. Shands first became your 
patient?

A. In July of 1951.
Q. Do you remember the date?
A. I do not.
Q* Would it have been the early part of July?
A. I honestly do not remember.
Q* Was he your patient on June 27, 1961?
A. Ho he was not.
Q* How long has Mr* Shands had this illness you talk about?
A. Mr. Shands has had symptoms of this illness probably for five 

or s& years. Those symptoms have been intermittent. He hasnH had



338

symptoms constantly*. this is a disease which, is a slowly progressive 
process. The disease itself, so long as the degree of narrowness in 
the blood vessels is not sufficient to occlude an artery, the dis­
ease itself doesn't constitute the difficulty. It is simply when 
the blood supply to any organ or vital organ is compromised that the 
disease is serious,

Q. Many people have this disease?
A. Oh yes, it is quite common,
Q. It is quite common isn’t it?
A. Yes.
Q. How many times have you seen Hr. Stands since July 196.1?
A, I do not remember exactly. It is probably in the neighbor­

hood of a dozen times,
Q. Do you have any records that show that?
A, Oh Yes,
Q. Has it always been related to the same thing?
A. Yes, ill of it has been related to the same thing with the 

exception of one or two cases when I have talked with him on the 
'phone and I believe probably have seen him in the office with a bad 
cola or some minor ailment.

Q« Prior to this morning when was the last time you saw Mr, 
Stands?

I am sorry, 1 don’t have my records available, out it is 
within the past two .weeks,

Q* And you say he. is now in the hospital?
a. He is supposed to go in tns hospital this af temoon. I 

6&ve been out of contact £cr a couple of hours.



333

BY MR».. MTESi I checked before the Doctor came down. X called 
the hospital and he is in Hoorn 1025 of the Bap­
tist Hospital in this Oity.

3TMRS. MOTLEY* ( Continuing )
Q. Did you order Mr. Stands in the hospital?
A. I certainly did.
Q. When did you do that?
A. This morning. ^
Q. What time?
A. Around 9*00 O'clock.
Q« 9*GG o'clock this morning?
A. Around 9;00 O’clock this rooming.
fl. How did you happen to do that? Was he in your office?
A. He was in my office this morning.
Q. At 9s00 o'clock tills morning?
A, He was in my office from approximately 8:45 until 9:30 I

expect,

Q* If I told you that I- called Mr. Shands at 11:30 this morning 
ead they told me he had gone out for lunch would you disagree with that?

A. I have no idea what Mr. Shands did from 9*30 until approx­
imately 1:30. I called him at approximately 1:30 to tell him his 
room was available and he was at hone at that time.

Q» And you say he was in your office at 9*00 o'clock this 
horning?

I think I am correct. I may not remember the exact time, but 
St was abound 9:00 o'clock.

Sow long did he stay there?
A* Approximately 45 minutes.

When you saw him two weeks ago what was his problem?
bell&V0



340a bad cold and a sore throat,

BY i I believe that is all except we would like the
record to show the number of times Mr. Shands 
has been to see Doctor Jites since July 19 6 1,. 
and like those records produced and made a part
0f this hearing.

HR.,*.QAffBSi We object to that. I think the best evidence
is what the Poorer said.

SI.yhr OQul?,! < I will let the Boot of procure them and get a
photostatic copy and you may return them to him 
for his personal files, So, Doctor, sometime 
within the next few days, either this week or 
the early part of next week, if you will turn 
them over to Mr. Cates,

|Y_̂ [EJOfWES s« I will be glad to. We can make a photo static
copy in the office if you would like us to do 
that and send it,

BY-dSE 80UR.T? If you will do that that will take care of it 
and if counsel desires to see the originals I 
will have them brought down.

HB-BIEtSOT IXAHINATIOK

Q* Does the Imminence and pressure of a law suit precipitate 
Ais U s a b i l i t y ?

&r. Cates, you asked a question 1 cannot answer. There are
0 »any factors involved in the basic ideaology of this disease and 
ttunk that perhaps stress factors are one, spread out over a period 

It is a rather complex hormonal mechanism that comes into playof time .



341

aad we think yes.
BY TRS QOUBTi is I understand, you, Doctor, it is your opinion 

that it would probably be dangerous for him to 
participate in a hotly contested law suit?

BY TEE hlTifSoSi Yes &ir, that Is part of It, however, there
are certain changes in the symptomatology, 
which Hr. Shanes related to us this morning, 
which would have guided me to advise him to 
go to tore hospital, even if he had been leaving 
on his vacation today,

BY IKE COURT; Very well, Doctor, I believe that is all. You
nay go.
(Wi trie es exeused}.

(Whereupon Mr, Seward Oates resumes the stand 
; and hie testimony continues).

BY Ml, GATES; X had pretty well brought vs up to last night. Last 
night I had occasion to see Mr, Dhands, It is not uncommon, in fact 
it is very common, for us to work great numbers of hours at night.
% ’’Us*', 1 mean Mr. Shards, Mr. Stoclcett, and myself, vfe do this 
practically every right regardless of whether it is Sunday or what 
have you because of the great number of law suits which we have which 
require attention. Mr, Shards, to my un-medical eye, demonstrated 
ao greater than the usual amount of flushness or physical inability• 
i>J' Shards, however, for the past has complained that his physical 
edition was not that which he desired.

BY THE CQtram? i believe, Mr. Cates, you need not go into that
i

because the question before me is how much time



this matter should be postponed. Under the Doctor's 
testimony I .certainly would not require Mr. Sh&nds to 
participate la it, -■

hy MS. OATES; What I was going to do was show The Court it was 
not until this morning that when X saw Mr. Shands was there any 
knowledge of Mr. Shands* condition which would require me to start 
in the preparation of this law cult. Xn other words, I mean by 
"Preparation11, I think fine Court recognizes there is an extreme 
difference between, briefing and doing ancillary parts on a law suit * 
and having the burdensome, responsibility to cross-examination and 
go forward with the law suit-. The reason I was tailing The Court 
this is because that is the reason why we have asked, for additional 
tiie. How, how much time do we need? I am ■ somewhat like Mr. Clark.

BY 'MS COURT; I might ask you this. How familiar with.
the present statutes of the law suit and 
when is the last time you actually did 
any work on this particular law suit?

BY MR. ClTUB « The last time 1 did any work on this law 
suit was with regard to slight assistance 
with the brief which was filed on the pre- 

’ iiiuinary injunction before this Court.
I did no work whatsoever on thq brief which 
was filed before the fifth Circuit. I have 
done no work whatsoever other than to be 
present to assist in cross-examination of 
plaintiff * s witness. As far as preparing 
my own witnesses, 1 have done no work other 
than to slightly interview these people last 
night.



yi.. .COOii!!* t x believe i will let counsel for the plain­
tiff cross-examine you now*

| Cm0g3-EXCCD.:AHQIT

! BY MRS. MOTLEY?
Q. Kr. Oates* how many lawyers are on the Staff of the Attorney 

I General's office?
A. hot to evade the question, but do you mean regularly em- 

j ployed or those that might he »- *
Q. Regularly employed, specially employed or otherwise?
A, a h  right, m e Tf are sever, vno are employed in the Attorney 

General’s office as such and who are full time and who are on general 
: duty assignments. There is one was is employed specifically for the 
; Public Service Commission. .Mr,. Clark has been employed to assist in 
tbe Bailey Vs, Patterson case and in this law suit. What details of 
hi8 employment consist of* 1 am sorry I can't tell you.

Q* What is the total, number of people employed?
A. The total number of lawyers employed in.the Attorney General’s 

°££lce is eight. Of those attorneys, however, each and every one of 
^eakas what we would called special assignments. For instance, Mr. 
carper has highways and the Oil and Gas Board, specific assignments 
°f that nature which take his full time. The other ones of us In 
ie Attorney General’s office have the same assignments, the other 
Slx oi us have the same general assignments. There are only three 

âos® six or seven who have any assignments within the particular 
Iield of Oivil Rights.

Q* Who are they? four self, Mr, Shands and Mr. Stockett?
*A** That is correct.

And Mr, Clark has been specially employed?

343



■r 344
A. • Tes. But let me go back and straighten this for you, If 

[ „ou don't mind, Mr, Stockett is a Special Assistant Attorney General, 
j fe have actually only, if you want to be technical, two Assistant 
[Attorney Generals who work on Civil Rights,

Q. Hew about Mr. fnomas Watkins of Jackson, has lie been specially 
 ̂employed?

A. He has not, In any law suit that we have been engaged 
lie has been hired by the City of Jackson, Mississippi.

Q. Have any lawyers been specially employed by the Attorney 
General to work on the Bailey case?

A. Other than Mr, Clark who has been so hired as Special
■

Assistant, and Mr. Peter Stockett, who is also a Special Assistant,
so other attorneys have been so hired.

Q. Bid. you say that you didn’t work on the brief in the Fifth 
..

[Circuit in this appeal in this ease?
A. That is absolutely correct.
Q. You name appears on it,
A. It does, but I did not work on it.
Q» You mean you put your name on a brief on which you did not

work?

A. Yes, I have ray name on several other briefs in theOivil 
'Sights field on which 1 have not worked, 1 have not worked •—  I have 
seen the brief. To be honest with you, I have not even read it in 
*ts ®htirety because I was working on something else when I suggested 
certain changes which 1 don't even know have been made in the brief —  
suggested to Mr, Stands —  and whether those changes have been carried 
0,1 b l do not know.

Other than your d og having worked on the brief in the Court 
°A *ppeals, what other phase of the case have you not worked on?



345

A, I have not worked on the phase of interviewing witnesses 
for the purposes of examination., I don’t even know what witnesses 
s?e should call in this law suit. I have an idea, but I do not know 
vhat witnesses,

Q, Who has done tn-at work?
it. This trial m s  scheduled for January 15th,
Q, Who has Interviewed all the witnesses?
A, Mr. Dugas Shands. Frankly, Mr. Shands hasn’t interviewed 

them all, but Hr, Shands is the, has the basic responsibility of so 
interviewing then and whether they have or have not been interviewed 
completely by Mr* Shands I wouldn’t say, I don’t think they have. I 
know that I haven’t,

Q« Do you mean that nobody on the Attorney General’s Staff 
handling this case has up to this point interviewed the witnesses or 
defendants, rather, and the witnesses which they plan to call?

A. Let me at this time even up your question there just a 
minute if I might, Mr, Shands has interviewed Mr, Fills I feel 
confident, but this is cut of guess, and Mr. Shands has not inter- 
’dewed the Board of Trustees. lie has not interviewed the Chancellor 
i0r the purposes of examination on the trial of this law suit. He 
ks, perhaps, at best asked them isolated questions or general points, 

as to “This is what 1 am going to cover with you*1, or questions of • 
ulat is the answer to these particular questions I would like to bring 
out oa the law suit**, it Is iay best knowledge he has not so talked to 
^ea» And my conversation with these gentlemen has been solely on 
tne basis of what you might ask them on cross-examination, not what 
* ask them on examination or what you might possibly ask them 
°a ̂ tect examination, since you have them under subpoena, and not

i would think was pertinent to my end of the law suit.

!



346

Q, let's go over She last part of that. You say you have 
interviewed all the Board Members with respect- to what I might 
ask them on direct examination,

A, I have interviewed some of the Board Members.
Q. Which ones?
A. ho you have a list cf the Board?'
Q. They.are named as defendants,
A, 1 have talked to Mr. Izard, 1 have talked to Mr, Lowry.

I have talked to Mr. Stone, 1 hare talked to Mr. Evans. You 
notice I used the word "Talked". I have not interviewed them for 
the purpose of ore ss-examination.

Q. What were you talking about when you talked to them?
A, I talked to them of what, you possibly might elicit from them 

on cross-examination. Mr, Bidden I have only talked to, but not gone 
±ni° detail with him. Mr. Carpenter, also. And that is it. I have 
sot talked in detail to Mr. Tuba and the Chancellor of the University. 
li&n not talked to Mr. Tubb, to Mr. Smith, to Mr. Riddell in detail.
*aaVe talked to - Doctor Holmes in detail. I have not talked to 
ilr' M* H. Roberts in detail. I have not talked to Mr. Ira Morgan in 

i have not talked to Doctor Jobe in detail as if I were to 
^ this law suit and what 1 think should be covered or what possibly 

be brought out in the law suit, I have not talked to any of 
Aese gentlemen in detail as to what I, if 1 were counsel in this 
i&¥ sû  or leading counsel in this law suit, think should be brought 
°h in this law suit. The same thing is true with Chancellor Williams, 
D°ctor Le*is, ana Mr. Ellis, also Mr. Pair.

All these people are named as defendants In this suit, aren't



'347

A« That is absolutely true.

ft, .ini you are suggesting to The Coart that although these 
people are earned, as defendants and you have been versing on tabs 
ease since it was filed that you have never talked to any of these 
defendants vita respect to preparation for the hearing of the motion 
lor preliminary injunction or the actual hearing itself or the trial 
oi tills ease, whicn was scheduled for Monday January 15th?

A. Counsel, I am not suggesting anything. I am telling This 
Court that 1 have never talked to tnese defendants for the purpose 
of lay examination or cross-examination of these defendants.

Q« Didn’t She Court give you a recess at ten minutes of Two 
yesterday .tor the purpose of talking to these defendants?

A. The Court gave the defendants that necessary xecess in order 
that the counsel for defendant was to talk to them. Mr. Skands has 
iRthe past in every instant as- to the trial of a law suit been the 
lea<ier ln that‘ law suiti* He is the person who has talked to these 
tolividuale as to thejr testimony and, cross-examination. I think that 
uT‘ i5baads talked to some people yesterday. Who they were, whether 

were the Registrar or the Board cf Trustees, 1 am not sure. I 
Ujax perhaps that it was the Registrar, but I wasn't even present,

Q* Where were you?

Where was I? I was- preparing research and getting readyJJq
fa P°ssibility of filing a motion to affirm or dismiss In the 

of Bailey Vs. .Patterson, which is now pending before the United 
k'’8* SuPr^®e Court. In other words, I have many duties in addition 

p assist Mr. Stands, but on the other instances I have 
duties which in that particular instant, as you well know, I

itSlyg fi '1 ̂
Aed ail briefs and all points as appears before the U. S,

P̂erae Court in the Bailey Ye. Patterson case.



6?en gave ycu six months you wouldn't be ready for this trial, isn’t 
that right?

Jh No, I am, not*
Q. What are you saying?

A* 1 m  BayinS 1 'would not be prepared to go on for whatever 
time would remain this-afternoon, or i would not be tomorrow, I 
Ain! tnat, If rt Please Kis Court, the responsibility of this law 
suit, together with the Attorney General, has shifted from one in­
dividual to perhaps two other individuals, and I happen %o be one of 
teem, and in all fairness to our clients and to you and your clients
-id to xhxS ■ court i need a reasonable time to go forward with this 
law, suit*

OQb'Eli Do you have any more questions, Mrs* Motley? 
lou mentioned that you interviewed witnesses by the name of 

Swell, Keridith and Brown, is that correct?
A. Shat is correct,
Q. What witnesses are they?

Well, counsel, 1 don’t mind answering your question, but I
toinh you are getting into the question of how I would try this law 
suit.

io, I Just want you to identify your witnesses* 1 am not 
going to ash you what you are going to ash them. If Is not clear 
*° m  you are talking about.

A* These are people who have written recommendations to the 
University as to the moral character’ of the plaintiff.

In other words, you have gone down to Attala County to 
’’nuerview people who recommended Meredith to, for admission, to the 
-H ratty, but you haven* t had time to interview the defendants?



349

A, I an saying tnicu Shat the primary responsibility of tills 
law suit was in the bants of Mr. Dugas Shands. I vent at the re­
quest of Mr, Shands to talk to these people.

Q. When did you go talk to them?
By .MR*. CAiitS i juage, x non.'t see that is relevant.
BY T55 001111:1 Yes, sustain the objection.
Q. Did you write the answer in this case?

I assisted in the answer, but Mr, Stands drew the answer 
with certain assistance from me» but 'the answer was primarily pre­
pared by Mr. Shands.

Q, Wereyou present throughout the entire hearing of this case 
on the motion for preliminary injunction?

A, x tninJc, Let me answer this way. I think I was there most 
of the hearing.

Q* When were you absent?
A. i*rankly» counsel, my memory is not that good, because I 

&?e aad to miss some several parts of some several law suits in 
or<*er fake care of the other business, bow to sit down and tell 
M  specifically what date I was not present,, 1 wouldn’t .endeavor to 
•*° &or endeavor to tell you that I was not present at all of 
I tarings. 1 am telling you what my memory serves me and that is 
* 1 was absent one or perhaps two days.

Q» from the preliminary injunction hearing?
Jt* I wouldn't swear to that. I was there most of the time.
BY. THh QQtmT-; i think that is irrelevant, I know as a matter 

of fact he was present nearly all the time.
Of course the record shows all of that.

A* ~ have not read the record in this law suit as it pertains 
^ e r e Y imIna ry in j urtc t i o n.

^ __1 thirdC that i r .al 1 ------------------



350
BY. 3SE..OOUjirt Very well, did you Have any testimony you wanted 

•to offer?
BT MRS. MOxLg’Y s Ho* Your*Konor.
BY MR. OATES • I have nothing further*
BY THE COURT: Do you want to be beard on this matter, Mrs* Motley? 
BY MR3. .MQiliBTi Yes, Your Honor.

This is one of the problems we have had. 
fiti this case from the time it was filed, that we can't get a hear­
ing on .the - merits of this case because Mr. Shards has been ill. Back * 
In June, as I- understand it, Mr. Shands was ill. He was ill on July 
iota and She court at tnat time made it Quits clear to the lawyers 
ior the State that they would have to hire somebody to take Mr. Shands*
place because he was 111. low, because Mr. Shands apparently has not 
recovered, they hired Mr. Clark. They now come back and say that Mr.
| Stands carried the responsibility, although they hired a lawyer to 
tee his place at the request of The Court. 1 frankly ean*t follow 
hat line of reasoning. Either Mr. Clark was hired back in July,
*8 this- Court- suggested, to take over this case because Mr. Shands 

ill, or it dldn*t. As to that it seems to me that the lawyer,
■J* -larlt was hired for the purpose of taking over and he now suggests 
“e didn't take over* I think that it is clear he did take over and 
 ̂ it j_g ciear that Mr. Shands has been, very ill and as a re- 
tet of that illness Mr. Clark and Mr. Cares and Mr. Stockett have 
hhiei the responsibility in this case and not Mr. Shands. 1 think 
^  ig obvious in view of Mr. Shands'*. illness, and I think it is

u’51hous that it can*t be both, that Mr, Shands did all the work and 
wle he was so ill that he had to hire somebody else. More- 

^  Sr* Clark participated in the hearing of this preliminary in- 
etloa. He argued the case - bn Appeal said I don*t think any lawyer 

be permitted to say that he is unfamiliar with the Issues of



351

a case which he has just offered before a court on an appeal. Mr. 
Cates* I know, was "there every single day this case was tried on 
preliminary injunction. He participated in. the drawing of the 
(answer ox to. is case* Ha trows what the .issues are* There is only 
on3 issue ana that Is whether Meredith was denied admission solely 
bscause oi his race. ,.L; this was mi anti “"trust case or some other 
esse in/olvin^ a lon^ trial o-j, many issues of. tact 1. could see hjqies 
reason for tne continuance, out. tan issue here is very simple.
Either he was denied admission because of his race or he wasn't, 
Moreover, the Mi.f'tn Circuit has eliminated one of the issues in 
this case and that is tno applicability of the alumni certificates« 
Toe other reason they had for denying his admission was that Jackson 
State College was not. a, member of the association, and it Is now 
* member of tne association, so there is no other reason for his 
not being admitted, They don’t have a single thing to do except 
M,â  they have already done in this case. There is no other issue. 
They can’t make any new issues now. They already gave the reasons 
for excluding him. and bo to of those reasons as far as I can see have 
ueeri taken care of, and, as far as the other schools involved are 
concerned, that is no new issue in this case. That is in the com­
plaint, So they have known since Hay 51st that we alleged a policy 
48 aH  the schools, So that is not/ a new Issue for them. And 
i &ink all in all that to grant a continuance in this case in view 
°* the circumstances would not be justified, particularly since 
êy know, as we do, because ws argued it and took the appeal for 

gu*8 reason, that the next term of the University is about to begin 
ar̂  delay is highly prejudicial tc the plaintiff and a prejudice 
Pesuiting to the plaintiff cutw sighs any reason which as been given 
Qere a continuance.



1 think the fair inference from all the 
testimony in this case is that Mr* Shands 
thought that he had recovered sufficiently 
to go on with the case, because the testi­
mony snows without- conflict that. lie argued 
it m  the uourt of Appeals- and when wo 
started into the case yesterday he took the 
entire brunt of the battle on the thought 
undoubtedly* and like only inference -that 
could be drawn, that he was capable of going 
forward, Kr* Clark had not been retained 
to- proceed further with the case until it 
developed that Mr* Shands was seriously ill.
So that, I think that the case should not be 
oonti:auec.s certainly because it is definite 
now that Mr. Shands cannot go forward in -the 
case within the next three or four weeks. 
However* I think that justice requires that 
the attorneys upon whose shoulders the brunt 
of the battle will now fall should- be entitled 
to a reasonable length of time in which to 
prepare to go forward with all the testimony 
and with the other proceedings in the case.
So, I am going to grant some additional time.
1 am not going, forward with it this week be­
cause this is Wednesday afternoon and it would 
be unreasonable to requie them to proceed 
during this week. On next Monday I have a 
habeaus corpus case that was set where a 
prisoner was brought back from the penitentary



353

; and, which was set before Christmas for Monday 
on the belief that this case could be finished 
during one week’s time* In addition to that 
case set for Monday, on Wednesday of next week 
I have a three Judge Court, rather there is a 
Three Judge Court nearing which has been set 
before Judge EiVas, Judge Cox, and myself, and 
which will take at least a half a day for the 
argument, ho I think it will not be unreason­
able to grant a postponement of this hearing 
until Two O’clock next Wednesday, and that is 
what I am compelled to do under the circum­
stances. Of course it is regrettable to 
everybody, because it certainly postpones —  
not for any unreasonable length of time —  
for a few days the progress of this law suit.
So 1 will postpone the further hearing until 
Two O’clock Wednesday the 24th day of January,

3Y MAS. K0IL2Y; before you adjourn there are a number of
matters re  would like to take up, She 
first has to do with the witnesses that we 
sutpoenad to the hearing yesterday. As Your 
Honor knows we subpoenad more than twenty-five 
people at great expense and we would like to
_ like She Court to order all those people —

BY THE COURTt Yes, I am going to do that before we adjourn.
BY KBS. MOTLEYt Thu second thing is in regard to the records

in the kegistrar’s office that.we wanted to 
inspect, and v?e are now making ^ motion unde 4.



354

BY K.R* GATES!

Rale 34 for the right to Inspect those re­
cords beginning Friday at noon, 
if The Court Please, we resist and object 
to such a motion, r thin’s that no good cause 
aai; been shorn. Further, plaintiff was given 
the opportunity to check such records and
withdrew. Further, this unduly limits and 

hamstrings the Registrar. The Registrar at 
mat time set up & time to assist the plain- 
tiff to go forward with and to pull these 
records and then the plaintiff decided that it 
didrYt want to go forward or didn’t want to 
go forward with interviewing these. We 
oeiiare trap tnls, under these present cir­
cumstances, is further oppressive, harassing,
!:■ i ;idc fas pla.Lntj.fi shown good cause in our 
opinion at this time♦ I recognize there is 
good cause to see the records, but I mean good 
causa as to seeing them at this particular time 
since the plaintiff specifically stated at ■that 
time that she withdrew her motion for Rule 45 
after The Court had so ruled. So 1 don’t 
thJnm there was anything before The Court and 
1 strenuously object on behalf of the defendants 
and, even further, that I think even what he 
Court may grant should be limited to this
individual and his particular class of which 
he seeks to apply. I recognize what the Fifth 
Circuit has so ruled, but I mean all those in



355

uriOdie Particular B. A. Schools, not just 
all the records. We object for that 
reason.

* * aEi hot going to require them to be pro-
daoerf Friday. Counsel withdrew the motion 
yesterday with the right to renew it at a 
later date. Of course nobody knew at that 
time tuiis development would take place, so 
X am go._ii£ to requiB them to be produced t

at some time, and let me ask Mr. Ellis.
Mr, Ellis. I have recessed this case, post­
poned the further hearing of this case, 
until Two O'clock next Wednesday the 24th. 
lou were not here in the courtroom at the 
time, but upon that being done counsel for 
the plaintiff has renewed her motion for 
the production of the documents which I 
ruled yesterday should be produced. After 
certain developments she withdrew the motion 
with the right to renew it and she has now 
renewed it. The record in this case shows 
that the brunt of this battle is going to 
fall on you, counsel, or different counsel 
other than Mr. Shands who has handled the 
brunt of it heretofore. 1 think, as I ruled 
yesterday, that the plaintiff is entitled to 
an inspection of those records that I ruled 
upon yesterday, which were the records for 
the summer session of 1961 and the fall session



Counselof the 1961-62 and the February semester of *62, 
for the defendants here of necessity are going: to have 
to confer with a great many people and among others will 
be yourself. This is Wednesday afternoon. Could you 
produce, abstract, those records, or have the records 
abstracted ready lor production in the courtroom by 
2i00 o8 clock next Wedneso&y?

IQLiiil*.ff« JSJbiilS» You want me to bring the
original records?
BY THE COURT: Yes sir.
BY MR, ROBERT B, Shi,IS: I think so, yes sir.

0QUB.T i Very well, 1 will require you to bring 
them here and have thpahere at 2i00 o'clock Wednesday 
of this coming week,

B.Q.BB.K1 B„ ELLIS ; . The - only thing I am not clear 
on is to whether they are to be transfer undergraduates 
to the Liberal Arts or all undergraduate transfers,
II—iHi COURTi All undergraduates. Than I will have an 
order entered later on —  I will not delay you for the 
order —  because everybody needs to get to work, and 
that is what needs to be done. So you have those here 
in the Marshall * s office at 2:00 o'clock and the plaintiff 
°r representative of the plaintiff can Inspect them in 
the presence of any representative you want to appoint 
°r that counsel forthe defendant may want to have there. 
Ihen, if counsel for the plaintiff needs to inspect those 
records before she proceeds with the examination of the 
witness, 1 will give her ample opportunity to do that.



357

It may be that she can have representatives who will make
the inspection and she can proceed, but, at any rate, 
that will be the ruling of The Court.
BY MRS. MCTLaY s Judge Mize, there is one other thing.
I want to clarify the record., that that motion which we 
just, made is under Rule 34, the right to inspect the 
records before the trial, and that we wanted to inspect 
the recoras, not only chose wh3.cn you allowed yesterday, 
but the records for the February 1 9 6 1 .term, in addition.
I just wanted it to get the record clear as to what 
motion we were making.
BY ...THE COURT; I will overrule the motion as being made 
for an inspection under Rule 34 because you have not 
complied with the Rule, but I am accepting it in open 
court here, which -grants you the same result as I did 
yesterday. I looked through the shell, the substance, 
of what you were after because you entered subpoenas 
duees tecum, which, in my judgment, allows you only to 
require a witness or an officer hairing possession of 
certain documents to have them produced into court to 
be examined about on the witness stand by him. When it 
developed you wanted the inspection I looked through 
the shell, through the substance, and regarded it with 
the same effect as- if it had been made under Rule 34, 
so that is what I am doing now. The records I have 
directed to be brought here. 1 will have them here at 
2:00 0 * clock next Wednesday the 24th.
BY MB.S. MQi'hBY: Isn*t that the day the trial begins?
BY THE COURT; Y e s .



BY MBS» -MOTLEY; Is the trial at 9;00 o'clock or at 
25CO o®clock!

iiL .» 2t00 o'clock, because 1 just told you 1

had the. Three Judge Court.
ffh.jAh.S« hQ'huc ; Coaler * t he got them here at 9 ;CO 
o'clock In the morning so we could look at them?
.bf Tan COUrcl» If he tar. i will direct him to do so, 
but if he cannot, then 2 ? DC o'clock, and I will grant 
you such time an you need to inspect the records be­
fore vie go into the t r i a l  01 the case.
Bx MJI3, MOTLEY ; how the other thing, lour Honor, is that 
the reason we are making these oral motions is because 
there Is not time to unite out these motions. 
hi T.• 1 OQUHJ: i will ;ct you make there orally and, of
course, wibh.cn>.t ui e ou.er side walking any of their 
objections to tnexe motions, because I am assuming 'they 
wold object to them all, out 1 want to get this trial 
proceeded with as soon as I reasonably can with fairness 
and justice to all parties concerned, what is the next 
motion?
31 MBS. MOTLEYs he would like an order directing the 
defendants hills and all of the Board Members to appear 
for the taking of their depositions beginning tomorrow 
morning at 1.0500 cfclock.
BY Trio CQli.1T 1 I will overrule that motion. The motion 
should have been made long before the 15th of January 
and now new counsel is in the case -- Kr» Clark is new 
counsel, as to the present hearing. And the evidence

v i

has already shown chat all Mr. Oates has had to- do and

358



Ills uni ami I i a r i cy with tae present progress of the ease.
So, overrule that motion.
BY MH£. MOTLEYi I think that is all.
llJlik.5. ILLlgh 1 would, like to know if I am
to bring all the correspondence,

BY,,?HÊ .0Q1JE$ ; All the correspondence and any data per­
taining to the students,
M_M.».^OIIERT In YnhIS t The correspondence which did not
materialtae into applies'cions, ana also any rejected appl 
cations?
BY THE COURT t She wants all of those.
P*■ jV|B. < l:*uIS: f.re will bring everything we have
got.
BY 1HB COURT; If you oar doit without undue burden bring 
them here by 1.0:00 c*clock, but if not, by 2:00 o’clock.

(Whereupon The Court returned to the main courtroom and 
in open court made the following announcement)

BY 155 court ; Due to the inability of Mr. Dugas Shands, 
who has been the leading counsel in this law suit, to go 
forward further with, the law suit at this time, and it 
appearing that the burden of going forward with the law 
suit on behalf of the defendants will rest upon Mr. Oates 
and Mr. Clark and the Attorney General himself, It has 
been necessary to postpone the hearing for a sho.it time 
in order that these attorneys may familiarise themselves 
with the record and the witnesses and be ready to go 
forward when we resume* " We will resume the trial of this



360

case at 2i00 o * clock next Wednesday, January 24th, and 
all the witnesses who have been heretofore subpoenaa 
will be back without any further summons issued for 
2;00 oJclock next Wednesday the 24th of January,



Wednesday January 24th, 1962, at 2*00 PSK. the hearing was re - 

suiaed and proceedings were had as fo llow s, to-w it i )

BY TEE COURT t . Before we proceed I want to call you attention 
,o hs face ,i recexred a cer (uhicutc 1, ii,s coming,. X imagine
it is with reference to corns witness in this suit, although it 
[doesn’t say so, and it says "Oortill cate from footer Tate at 
Ripley, Mississippi1:, wnieh sayr, I:. 3 . Saith, Jr., is sick and 
[unable to be out. Respectfully, Doctor J . S, late, M. D.,f Is 
he a witness?

jOLM%» UMRK i He Is a It ember cf the Board of Trustees.
BY iiR. .BnxhL; He was excused for the same reason last week 

Y* ™  certainly would Ps willing.
BY TB.B COURT : Vsry ve1 1.
BI_g:k. OATES; One other matter' in the same category. Mr. 

t In Roberta, a Member cf the Board af Trustees of the Institu- 
tons °f Higher Learning is now in a law suit previously set and 
Parted some time before this trial. Mr. Roberts is compelled to 
-inputs that and will be unable to be here,, We make rxo point of 
6s absence if ws might proceed. He is, of course, going to come 
13 court as soon, as he can get free of the other court proceedings 
,l3 in now.

SLJBiJS COURT j Yesf k e advls ed me if his presence was desired 
Mediately that upon telephone call he could get the court to sus- 
■"‘6 that case long enough for him to come up. Is that satisfactory?

§IJRg,._ MCJLBY: Yes sir, bat I would like to clarify the
e°°rd to this extent i We excused him on the ground his lawyers 
®ould v. + seek a postponement on the ground that he did not have a



cnance to confer with him. He advised me he called hr, Cates and 
wouldn’t seek a postponement or the -round he was not here and 
fiiurht have a chance to confer with him before taking the stand.
:M said ne to. ought he would be hare tomorrow morning; or his case 
would be concluded tuiif; ax'utrn.ee.;,. and. he would bo here tomorrow 
coming, and.« if not, ne woo 1 d advise ?ue.

. faaly dr cl deli, who is a lawyer* * has a
ease that is set for trial cr> Frida/ of tic is week and ne asks 
tft£t if ne ie to be called as a ul ureas that it be done today or
tomorrow. Do jo u t h in can dc t h a t 1

.* AUxlnvj* i t'-..s,hit we can g e t  to him tomorrow.

ce,il f 'ii can be brats toicorrow. Are you

; i i  a, 1 n t i f ? & a re r  e a 1/,

Arc  you ready to p roce ed ,  h r ,  C la rk ?

f t j  Your Honor, not  b e fo re  making a p r e l i m i n a r y

ready- t o  p  ro  c  e  e  d  ?

3 1  M A S . M O Y h E

BY  m 3 C OUT! T  i

BY . M i l , C L . A H K ;

observation teat 1 believe Is necessitated by the .ruling of the 
•■dh. Circuit Court of Appeals cn the preliminary injunction in 
t£i3 3iatter* don’t know what p a r t  of t h a t  c o u r t ’ s opinion would
* Conŝ deired ay t h i s  Court  to be conclusively binding on this Court 

nearing of the r a t t e r  on the merits, but if Your Honor taken 
Question of The Fifth Circuit’s op in, on precluding four Honor 

r°“‘ Siring any cone!d e r a t i o n  to the requirement o f  The Board of 
ra-tees of the Institutions of higher L earning  of the State of 
''-Assippi that resident applicants to the schools under its juris- 
^on supply these schools with letters of recommendation firm 

g®1̂ > then we would, .resceetful 1 p o i n t  out  t h a t  Your Honor would



,0t have jurisdiction to hear and try this matter, but rather that 
the matter should he referred to a court composed of three judges 
pursuant to Sections 228l-2-3-*.4 of Title 28 of the United States 
5ode Annotated. ¥e would act want to commence this proceeding 
without bringing that matter to the attention of Your Honor which 
»e believe lies at the threshold of the jurisdiction of the court.

BY THE OOURf; It started ;u’i as a One Judge Court and I am 
going to proceed upon that same procedure and pass upon the ques­
tions as they arise.

BY MIU CLARK.* To make my record formal, I would now at this 
time move that Your Honor 'recuse yourself and request the formation 
of,a Three Judge Court with regard to the action of This Court upon 
the enforcement, operation, or execution of c. State Administrative 
Order, to-wit, the aiuni requirement promulgated by the institutions 
of higher learning. I do this so lour Honor would have a motion, 
before you that you might act or at this time. I simply made the 
other as an observation. If it is your intention to proceed I 
oppose you will overrule na, but I think it should he in the form 
0i a motion and of an order from The Court and i make suon a motion 
low.

BY TEB 0OURTi Do you want to be heard, Mrs. Motley?
BI MRS. MQTT/ffiY; Yes, Your Honor. I think tht first of all 

'h&t the fifth Circuit did was not to hold tne regulation unconsti­
tutional, but it held it unconstitutional as to apply to negroes, 

a Three Judge Court is only required where a complaint seeks 
1,0 fit join the enforcement of an order on the ground it- is unconst a- 
Clonal on its face, and the court is required to enforce that 
Elation, but that regulation Is still effective, as I understand 
^ whites and has not. been declared unconstitutional; only un- 
eo“8titutlonal as to negroes, and therefore there is no necessity



rCr a Three Judge C o u r t  i n  t h i s  c a s e .

B'i TEE C0J.iT; ft b , .[ will overrule the ’notion. Proceed.,
Z'i 1143. -■Iccnn t us would like to navc the witnesses called and. 

sworn,
M  T;..h 00Cil’j i.ot ail one witnesses who lava been sufcpoenad 

cose around.

(Whereupon e l l  w:l tnesn&s ;;pre o a l l s d  and were duly sworn),

31 EES, hCTldSY i Your : c..oi ',  1 t; e i g h t  we might ta k e  up f i r s t  

the natter  o f  th e  E x h i b i t s  : a t  reduced -on the p r e l i m i n a r y  h e a r i n g .

I have in wind trot we would introduce ail'those Exhibits again, 
Mi-bits for the plain tiff, i t: the exception of Cumber 43, which 
was the document or booklet entitled “Accredited winner Institu­
tions, I960’*« That was Identified by the Cl ere: to me as Exhibit 
iy but ny understanding is that i t -astht admitted in evidence 
because it was not aninen.ticated. Then we document authenticated 
rad introduced as Exhibit 44, jo with, the exception of 43 we would 
tow like to re~introdue6 all of whose for the purpose of saving time 

41 having to have all of those re-marked so we could use them in 
4e examination of the witnesses,

I f  THE COURT• y c r y  w e l l .

BY alt. 0.1,ARE ; 1 haVe an - u l e c t i o n  t-o the admission, o f  a l l  of
“ie3e instruments  and r.y o b j e c t i o n  goer  p a r t i c u l a r l y  and foremost  

t0 Exhibit 44, to  which c o u n s e l  J u s t  r e f e r r e d .  There wan a time 

;̂ie re c o rd  in t h i s  c a s e ,  and I r e f e r  to Page 2.6 of h r .  h i l l s ’ 

separated t e s t i m o n y  —  t h i s  was s e p a r a t e l y  numbered because I t  was 

uC?arateiy ordered, from the  C ourt  R e p o r te r  —  Page 26 o f  t h a t  t e s t i -  

SOa’  P l a i n t i f f s  were r e f o - j f a g  a t  t:..af t i r e  to E x h i b i t  43 which was 

d*tLenticated copy o f  t h i s  booh* The b o o k l e t  a t  t e a t  rune- was



<r> /-*

offered as to Page 108 o n l y .  This i s  th e  page t h a t  r e f e r s  to the 

listing t h a t  p u r p o r t s  tc  come from the S t a t e  o f  M i s s i s s i p p i ,  t h a t  

purports to he wha t  th e  a u t h o r - o f  th e  toot: o b ta in e d  from some source  

in the- S t a t e  o f  M i s s i s s i p p i  as  a r c  red?, f e d  s c h o o ls  and c o l l e g e s  In 

the State o f  M i s s i s s i p p i , and the o f f e r  was made a s  an E x h i b i t  a t  

.Page 108 o n l y ,  - l a t e r  or. In  the t e s t i m o n y ,  and I  r e f e r  now to  Page 

2)8 of the R e p o r t e r 5s t r a n s c r i p t . t h i n  e n t i r e  b o o k l e t  was handed to 

the Court R e p o r t e r  w i t h o u t  a s p e c i f i c  r e f e r e n c e  to Pago 103, and the 

offer was made E x h i b i t  lumber 14 In  e h d e n o e ,  a t  t h a t  time we made # 

objection to I t s  o f f e r  In e v id e n c e  or the b a s i s  o f  i t s  a u t h e n t i ­

cation, A p p a r e n t l y  a f t e r  r e a d i n g  the co ld  r e c o r d  or th e  n a t t e r  i t  

was c o u n s e l ' s  I n t e n t i o n  or  construed to t e  c o u n s e l 5 s in te n t io n ,  to 

offer t3ie e n t i r e  b o o k l e t .  I t  p u r p o r t s  tc r e l a t e  to  f i f t y  s t a t e s  

and te add to the  o b j e c t i o n  what we p r e v i o u s l y  osle t h a t  i f  i t  i s  

intended than a n y t h i n g  o t h e r  than Page 106 o f  t h i s  b o o k l e t  be 

offered In e v i d e n c e  t h a t  i t  i s  i r r e l e v a n t  and im m a te r ia l  to  any 

Batter involved, i n  t h i s  law s u i t ,  end by now not o b j e c t i n g  to  any 

of these v a r i o u s  E x h i b i t s  - -  and I i n c lu d e  a l l  o f  p l a i n t i f f ' s  Ex­

hibits from 1 th ro u g h  pc, which I b e l i e v e  to  he a l l  the p l a i n t i f f  

ks o f fered  —  we dc n o t  want any a c t i o n  or  l a c k  o f  a c t i o n  on our 

Part at t h i s  t im e t c  ba t a k e n  as  w ith d raw in g  i n  any way from the 

eject ions  t h a t  we o r i g i n a l l y  made to  the  adm iss ion  of. a l l  o f  t h e s e  

Instruments when t h e y  were o r i g i n a l l y  tendered In ev id e n ce  where we 

sake o b j e c t i o n s ’ . I f  the  r e c o r d  might show we make the  same 

C3ilGctlop, o t h e r  than t h i s  one I c a r e  to a m p l i f y  now, and the re~ 

also shows t h a t  re  r e s e r v e  th e  r i g h t  to f u r t h e r  examine and 

^oss-examine th e  w i t n e s s e s  who produced th e s e  in s tr u m en ts  a t  t h i s  

t,l®s or a t  anv t im e durin-'"1 th„n oe a r i f  %» then ve  do not  c a r e  to be 

f u r t h e r ,  b u t  do n o t  c o n s e n t  to c o u n s e l  o f f e r i n g  and those  

bounds s t a t e d  a r e  grounds o f  our p r i n c i p a l  o b j e c t i o n  to w i s



<n% <'-*• r-®Ot3i>

procedure *

137 SITS. GXiii? l  Ido 11, I w ill dispose of tie  objection to a l l  

of then eneept as to uxnibit 34 I.n one rulln ;~. ,As X understand i t ,  

those were introducer1 In hearing for the preliminary injunction and 

tbs objections made at that tire  scot: overruled and the,/ vere re- 

ceiled in evidence,
tyr ’. " a *.. ■ r.v.;. •? 4 ,v.□ i ; a w; .. 1 i 4. La -
BY IH3 Count;: I v i l l  adhere to: tea* ruling and overrule /our

objection witn the err vice than /on. r i l l  have a right to cross-

examine any o.f those 0 3 tils rB0 3 that su stifj ed about if, at any occa

ion, if  you e 0 & e e i re * X' J, h* ‘ e f t  ep, uhat in you. gay about the ob-

jeetiers tLere; to the or tin's boohlet or .rare you introducing on!y

rage 103 ?
~0 V 7. r . i r«-UA .hi Alii' . is OX LIT ; V; e a re rw  ro anlinn; i t  only as to rage 103.

BY fhw OGhhT : l  ory ' 11, f it :r. tit:it ciari xioaticn I w ill

o v e r r u le  t h a t  o b j e c t i o n ,

BY IE * OLA'XK.: Orly so Ion , as the entire lu o tie f does not get

os-cic into the record, da ■start only neat bo cscc-ne a part of

tie record, in th is la ;; su it .

BY T"i3 C O H " c m s  t:so'1 t r onrt os' The evxdenoe sic tmo wires, 
h-ge i o8 , seas •'nude a c a r t  o f  t h e  r e c o r d  nova r e c o i n e d  3.11 e v i d e n c e ,

1rf&s i t  not?

BY 11H, CliiKK; Tour h onor ,  this is  si point not clear in ay 

:fl*bd, and i f  Tour honor has ary questions about i t  I would, lir e  to 

s° over it,. uy point; of vies: to that oven a fter reading the re -

it  only leaves me vd.tn a doubt that there was ever any intention  

to offer i t ,  anything otror tnan f&ye 1C6.



.3O  S '

uia3 1  TE3 OOuItT s ' Tow then the 1,, o f f e r i n g  only  r a g e  10 

liithcut nahing a/. rurr i n a t i o n  and n e a r l y :  you f u l l y  a t  t h i s  time 

j-riil o v e r r u le  y o u r  o b j e c t i o n  wi ch the r i g h t  tc  you to reneu the 

objection i f  you d e s i r e  to be r e a r !  f u r t h e r  on i t  a t  a r a t e r  s t a g e  

of the p r o c e e d i n g .  I t e r . , i t  Inc so care  ruaioit numbers can oe 

considered a s  the  sane E r r  b i t  runt ors to  1:.; o f f e r o a  rn e i v i d u a u l ,/

now,
.33 , ,...r., , hu t...' 
BY E l l  O O uET i

the Exhibit o a r e  rcuriocret L! - (j. Vf' : , ucur ere C’ •.it V,V

ally given, and whs r i g  re uc c o u n s e l  eo.o i s 0 .0

witness hio has  t e s t i f i e d ©.tout 11 Cose Exhib 1 1 3

.oi v wu o tiie i o O'.. - ,
::ceo a reco rd  o f  t h a t  and

nut.ii ei"3 as o r..t ; tm 
t - r r a u l r i n g  cue 

i. i  b i  t  s w i  1 1  t > c r  e s e r v  a d t  o

urn.

b y  m ,  c i ,a:xc.

trough I an. n o t  -oci 

these instruraents  so

gh U Ets t i r e  tit a t  st rvr to o f  the  he;

, v C d Vi. 0 0 Cl n,fl eYidor.cc s 3. t  1 s a y o e s t

t X v o ,  l e t  oft ri. o. t  m s r e s e r v e d  to  ;

Uhat foe f l i c :£' could be ra t t u n e d  to

. t  e I do not  oo: : ieve tii a o L a s  rut on  c lc r

t  t h i s  t i n e 'CO t-e oude sub f e e t  to t.

E e a i s t r a r  cLoss l a v e  ar:.y o c c a s i o n  t

hies he might v i t i E r a r  then and l e a v e  - p h o to s ta t ic  coxier. .

BY Tf.'Z GCl, o h  / oat n i l 1 he yuan t e n .

3Y 1Y3 , f. C T lfh  : . r ,; .o : ocnad the u e g irre ra r  no .a , .^  001"

teiii records and vrar/tei to aneex or. v'.-.ieunex uaOso 

aihi a v a i l a b l e  f o r  our i n s p e c t  i o n .

31 Eih GOYIt f :  Gar you ausu or  t h a t ,  h r .  tiar.ru

T5v ..... ■->- .. .> t' u-' t a ore subooen.au a re  i n  tne±U. gnu, wsuiru I ns, l,.,...c  .■ *'  .......
Marshall*s o f f i c e .  I  cannot  a t  thru t i r e  s t a t u  to c o u n s e l  c r a t  t r e y  

are there f o r  h e r  i n s  root l o r .  Grey a r e  th e r e  in  response  t c  t r e



command of This Court's subpoena,
3Y MS. MOTLEY t T don't understand what he naans that they 

are not available for our inspection*
BY THE OOuKl; I know what he means, Ee neans that he objected 

before because they were snbpouu&d under artpeena luces tecum and 
they would net" have the- riant to examine them prior to the time 
the witness was produced or the witness stand to ascertain if he 
had brought them here, and be world have the r i g h t  to cross-examine 
the witness about  the records b e f o r e  they were produced. During 
the argument at that t ime I ruled,  on th e  hearing for preliminary 
injunction that 1 wo u.lC> treat in in; substance as a motion under 
Me 34 and rale that they could he brought here  for inspection.
i will adhere to that ruling in that counsel or her representative 
aaybe permitted to inspect the records, but in the presence of a 
representative of the defendants or seme representative of The 
Court,

BT ME. GLARE: X might aid one thing here to be sure the re~
j,g straight. I have riust m ixed In detail with. Mr. Ellis,

**e bought every record that the Court subpoenal him to bring with 
Be exception of the housing applications. He tried to get those 
M  the housing office has destroyed those applications and they 
®re 110 longer available at any point,. I want to widhehaw my state- 
R6nt before. He has done his best to comply with the subpoena and 
ue aas done his best tc orir.g all the subpoena required. All are 
ffesent except the housingrecords and they are not here*

SLHRS. MOTLEY 1 lou mean the housing records of people who 
‘uV® keen accepted for February 1962 have been destroyed?

SLUR. CLaA c: Let me say tI,ere appears to be some conflict



; can assure  Your Honor the w itn e s s  has done h is  b ast to answ er the 

vOaSifiud o,t the  subpoena* He i s  hero  and a v a i la b le  to t e l l ,  co u n se l 
about any p a r t  o f th e  in fo rm a t io n  th a t  happens to bo la c k in g  when 
he Is examined about i t ,

E l IK E  COURT; V e ry  f e l l ,  I t  app ears vrc w i l l  have to take  so re  
testimony or. th a t  s in c e  he i s  not on the  w itn e s s  s ta n d , 1 thought to 
safe tine I  would a sh  oour& el in s te a d  c Z a skiing the R e g is t r a r  a s  I  

aiderstand i t  from  c o u n se l th e  h euslh ,;; r e p l ic a t io n s  are ' n e t h e re , 
so you may proceed  in  any co u rse  you want so tab a ,

BY MILS, 110111 I i  H e  e c u . } ..i r a n t  the h ou sing  a p p l ic a t io n s  and. i t

nems to me th a t  the  h o u s in g  appl1 c a t io n s  f o r  a p p lic a n t s  th a t  have 

ieen accepted f o r  the to rn  to begin. Fe b ru a ry  5, 1952, would be a v a i l a ­
ble ,

BY Hid GhaJUK i He o sp e ct to ecu ..n e t making h e r o b se rv a t io n  a s  

supposition in  the  re co rd *  The f i t n e s s  i s  h e r e  i n  t h e  room* lie i s  

nan who was eo m arae d  to b r in g  be looumcitits h e re , l i e  has made 
®dea?ors to do so and he would be g lad  to ' t o l l  The C o u rt and co u n se l 

'■■aat  h is endeavors c o n s is te d  o f .
BY f i l l ;  QQlTiiT :  V e ry  w e ll*  I  w i l l  p e rm it co u n se l to c a l l  him a s

"• *i m e s a i  f  sh  e d. e s 1 r  e s „

BY HRS* K 0 1 LR Y ; We w i l l  c a l l  1 in  i t e r ,  W& c a l l  Dean. Rae a s  o u r 
‘lfst witne s s .

I I  THE qCOPT; B e fo re  we proceed  w ith  the exam in a tio n  o f the  

'Besses l e t  me a sic i f  t i e  R u le  i s  invoked  by e i t h e r  s id e  w ith  re~ 
'"•‘•en.ee to w itn e s s e s *

I I  MRS. MntT.Hrvh j  th in k  most o f th e  f i t n e s s e s  a re  p a r t ie s ,  lo u r  
Nor,



370

BY IHE COURTt well certainly the parti 3s are entitled tc remain 
jbut other witnesses, other than the parties, if the Rule in invoked 
renet permitted to remain in the courtroom.
BY HR. QMItg; lose counsel have witnesses other than the witnesses 

lied on the call of 'sritresses?
BY 1-IKE. MOThST; No, not rt the moment.
BY MR. OhAHK: nut you art unwilling to cay at this time that this

rill not be a possibility, that yon will use other witnesses.
BY MRS, MOILIST; We can * t tell what evidence will develop. a
BY MR, OMSKi I believe the defendants ask that the Rule be in- 

diced.
BY IBB COURT; Yery well, anybody not a party to me law suit that 

Meets to be called as a witness will go into the witness room. If 
t should develop that counsel on either hi do will call witnesses other 
N those p a r t ie s  to the law suit such partl.es shall advise The C o u rt 
-the presence, of those witness.

MISS CATHERINE HAS called as a witness, having first been duly 
lrai> testified as follows:

z x a x i i i m i o :; by iirs. Yioihgr

Q* Are you Dean Catherine Rae?
Yes.

Q* Are you Dean of Women at the University of Mississippi? 
Yes 1 as.

5.* How long have you bean Dean' of Women?
Since September rf 19hT,

**• Do yuu know that the plaintiff In this case James Howard 
8tedith> is a negro applicant for admission to the University of



Mississippi?
jU Only bee-ante I have been tola so, I Lavs read about it.
BY ,-IR. GlAiuI: t ?. 0 b J 8 C t t. 0 t £i e ansuer unless it Is based

upon the vatnese’s personal 'knowledge and 
we object to any farther examination or 
answers of tola witness that donH ask for 
her THu-sontj •■.mewl edge of that fact she is 
called on tc testify*

BY SiE COUET: Sustain the enaction as to what she has been
oo la.

Q, Do you know cf ycur own knowledge that the pxatntifi us 
a negro who seeks admission to it university ot MioslBsuupis 

A. No*
Q, You gay that you had user 5o„a tn&t a negro was beekî g, 

admission, to the UnlvurBity of Mississippi. fee- were xciu 
that?

BY KH. OLAiCC i rfc object to that.
BY THE CQCR2 i S u s ia in  the  o b je c t !  on ,
Q. Have you attended any meetings at the university of -

Mississippi at which time officials discussed the app .ideation. ox 
M s  plaintiff to the University of Mississippi?

A. Eg I have not*
BI MRS., MOlLMYi .¥e would like to invoke provisions ol Rule «0-v

with, respect to the question wilier. 1 asked this 
-witness previously as to who told her about 
the admission of the plaintiff, a Negro, fco 
the University of Mississippi, for the pur­
pose of showing that the Negro’s application 
was discussed by the officials with t-nis wit-



neBS other officials of the University.
: «s3 taout stopping to contend with counsel -about

tbs -truth of her assertion, I would say the 
pear-say testimony which that question called 
for would le nearly inadmissible in evidence 
on any grounds in this proceeding, . Counsel 
woj.lc. not re entitled to m&iro such a record 
una.-':i hale ^3-on I further point out to Your 
honor the.T thxs lady that is on the stand now 8 
ie loan of Women of tha School and -.Is in no way 
cc manner shown to have been connected with 
tnio man r? appiicahi.or, and. other than being 
a Member of cue Committee on Admissions. X 
con iv tuliuf mat is >?. sufficient reason for 
the exception that counsel asJcs for to make a 
record under Rule and we object to such
proceedings,

* tfha"': do you propose to show by that question?
1L-MS» KOTXihn? ¥o propose re show the application of James

ho wan Meraditn, a. Heyro, to the University 
of Mississippi was discussed with this wit­
ness and other members of the faculty and 
officials of the University of Mississippi.

S2-JSB.OOPil? i X3 this witness a defendant in this case? i
i Mo, but she Is,an agent of the defendants, 

and. as Mr, Clark Just said, a member of the 
Committee on Admissions.

M  IHB omrem* p den* i tin ink it Is admissible, I think it is 
clearly hearsay. You have stated what you pro­
posed to snow for the record a n d 1 sustain the



*3 /

objection.
Q» Isa1 t it a fact tnai you attended a meeting la,«t scrim 

on the campus of the IJmversity of Mississippi at which time the
application oi Janet u jv&rc htcreditL} s. .Negro* was discvussed*

BY HR, wTAhKi re '.hjeof to hot,
BY TR5 OOUKTt Overrule that objection,
a, to, 1 no yat recait . at reetlug at wider time Lis appli­

cation wao di scu s yeti.
Q* ,.t. want to re mi tea you,. .01 a you fairi an oath before you

test!fled hern?
A • Y e s«
Q, 1 want to art yor apain, because 1 want the record to be

clear.

A. Yes* I an ours that can no H
oa any OoBim.ittee on Admissions that 1

Q* Isn* t it a fact you attended

was his admission discussed 
ctended.
meeting: last spring at the

diversity of Ills sin e i., which the admission of Ye, gross to
tie University was discussed?

A. ho, ’
BY HR.. CLARK : in obi ecu to the question on two grounds, Again

this is a leading question posed to her own wit­

ness, Secend, it is repetitoue, The witness 
e1aarly ansverad tun que btier already, 

iCL Ynh h ihh I h i 1 let K er answer one mors time,
BY hu£, ;u,d B-. h . per whether The appi:cation of the

plair tlid was discussed. The question now is
whether' tte admission of Negroes to the Univ­
ersity of viseisaiupi was discussad.

BY T:iA TJ Overrule the objection



A* Ho, at no time in a Committee of Admissions was the appli­
cation of a Negro discussed,

Q, Let me ask you whether you attended any other meeting last 
spring at which time the admission of Negroes to the University of 
Mississippi was discussed,

31 MR. CLARK; I car.*t conceive how a question any more irrele­
vant and immaterial to the issues under son- 
sideration here at this law suit could be 
posed than that, Ke object on the ground of 
leading and object on the ground that no answer 
she cculi give would be material or relevant 
here,

BY TEE OOURT; Sustain the abjection,
BY MRS, MOTLEY; We would Ixte again to invoke Rule 43-0 to

show by this witness there was a meeting at
the University of Mississippi last spring,
at which time the admission of Negroes to the
University of Mississippi was discussed.

• BY MR. GLARE t We again object and I might add additional
grounds to the ground previously stated.
Counsel made the observation this witness was
an agent of the defendant, I believe it was*
stated, I would like to point out 'in the 
early stages of this proceeding there was a 
question raised as to whether of not the Board 
of trustees was a defendant in this law suit or 
whether it was the individual members, and it 
is niv recollects on the individual membeis of 
the Board of trustees are defendants here in 

^  addition to the other defendants. I don't



tr y ***$O  4

t e 1 .1 o v e o o nr* s e 1 * s an su pp o r t e d a e s e r t i on tba t 
tiils witness .is an agent is proper or binding 
on Tuis Court tc establish agency any more than
too unsworn declaration o f  the agent might be,
I r e s p e c t f u l l y  submit -she is not an agent of
an/ defendant in t r i o  h ’v suit and counsel 
s h o u ld  n o t  bn a b l e  to make a Rule 4 3 -C re c o r d

tt S3 y C 0 •. a £•’ W lcation.
31 THIS ChlJR X ; There is no =/rldeaoe showing she Is an agent,

out if she bau-ce any ..relevant facts I ••think
S;..i ti W 0 U.. 1. ha b ij competent to testify as a vitn ess.

But, she Las already answered she was not 
o^enent et any of these meetings, and the

Q. Were 
°l.er faculty

admission

last q.noyties way if she was ever present at 
any renting. If she was present at a meeting 
wter.i lorn, pick a-.a, Harry that has no connection 
with this law suit.

you present at a m  meeting last spring attended by 
staff and. officials of the drivers!ty, at which.time 
of bhgiw.es to tec He. Ivor si tg of Mississippi was dis-

°ussed?
BY MR..CIA3' i this is right In the face of your previous ruling.
BY THE QO'JRT: Overrule the objection.
A. So . X was not 'o rerent a t  any m eeting a t  waxen time the

P̂lication was discussed.
Q« ho, not tan application ~  at gulch time the admission of

ĝroes generally was discussed!
A. Ho, not any time when the admission of negroes generally

■̂s discussed.



py> *-**'•■$

Q. Weren’t you advised that James Howard Meredith, the 
plaintiff in this case, was qualified for admission to the 
University?

BY MR* CLARK * We object to that*
3Y TK3 GOgHf; Sustain the objection*
Q. Were you advised by any official of the University of 

Mississippi that James Howard Meredith had applied and was quali­
fied for admission?

A. Bo.
BY K5* OIARHt Wo object to that*
BY THUS COUR'I't Overrule the objection*
A. No, I was not advised by any official that James Howard

Heredith was an applicant.
Q« Were you advised by any official of the University that 

in the event that James Howard Meredith or any other Negro was 
admitted to the University that vice University would probably close? 

A* No,
3Y MR,. CLARK.; This question I think is —
BY THE COURT: Make the objection and I will:rule upon the

objection.
BY MR. CLA3K; ¥e object.
BY. THU COURT: Sustain the objection.
BY MRS. MOTLEYt Will you read the last question?
(The last question was read by the Reporter)
A. Ho, I was not so advised by any official cf the University. 
Q* Have you ever discussed with ary official of the University
P lain tiff * s application for admission?

No, I have not discussed it.
Q* Never talked to anybody?



«?“!» | »->wJ
O 4 i

k, It has net costs to <ny attention,
Q, You have .never discussed this application with any official

of tie U n ivers ity?

A. Mo.

Q. Did you aiscufeE i t  will . your lawyer?

A. Ih e a p n 1,1 ca t " c a o f  a dm i a tion ?

Q. I l l s  p l a i n t i f f  arid h is s'ih'loeicm to tue U n iv e rs ity . Did

you discuss i t  w ith / o u r  lawyer'

A. In g en era l terms ire cur.? h a v  a c. 1 s e u r s a 1 th e c a s e ,

Q. You d is cu s s e d  lay ease with whom?

&« With Mr, C ates.

Q. With Mr, Cat-cs and who el se?

if 0 Mr* Cates* arc whoever. e ls e  might Lave teen In the room.

3o you van! ais to navel Bear, lo v e  vac in  the room.

BY KR* CI.AhX; If, o b j e c t ,  'Every vitness has a right to d iscu ss  

any cane with the attorneys.
3Y MRS. MOThZY: '• c. , cur f  v o , - ,  tea  ju rt  said  she wasn’ t

an ager/t of the dei’eadar t*
BY KR. Oliilh? 1 nail a witness,
BY THE COURT; S usta in  the o b je c t i o n .

BY K53. KOTLBY* In lour Honor sustaining the objection to t h i s

witness testifying as to who she d iscu ssed  th is  

case with?
BY THE QQIIA?; You asked If she ever discussed it w ith  h er  

attorney and she answered in a gsQsrsI way.
B~Y i-htS. MCTLhi : ni r v/.'i?; a , a.;.? c • rurns tor people present wi ur

w'-'orr. she did d is cu ss  I t .  She said Bean Love.



378

Q. Was it?
A, Yes.
Q. Who elso was present?
A. Mr, Jobe was there from time to time,
Q, Who is Mr. Jobe?

A, Mr. E. R. Jobe, who is* the Executive Secretary of The Board 
3f Trustees of the Institutions of Higher Learning. And Mr, Ellis 
fas in the room for part of the time. I don’t recall any —  .
!r. Lowry was in the room for part of the time, too.

Q. Who is he?
A. Mr, Lowry I think is a member of the Board of Trustees,
Q* You don’t know the members of the Board of Trustees?
A. Yes I know them generally.
Q* ‘Who else was there9
A, , Hobody was there for any length of time. I believe Mr, 

hockett came in for a few minutec.
Q. When did this meeting take place?
A. This meeting took place yesterday morning. We were there 

Aout 8:30. The meeting began around 9:00*
Q. What was discussed at the meeting?
3Y_MH. Q MRK; We object to that.
BY,.THE COURTj Sustain the objection,

*

Q* Did you discuss this case with the people you have just 
■lamed?

BY MR. 0LA8W t We object to that. If that is not the same
question, I never heard it.

iX-THE COURT i" Sustain the objection.
We would like to invoke the provisions of
Rule 43-0 as to this question to show that at
that meeting yesterday morning the ajpLication



373

■ of this plaintiff wee discussed dp this wit­
ness ana other officials of the University 
of Mississippi«

BY IJI5 OLUllf ■■ I chirdc It so clearly appeared that the evidence 
is not a ini ssU le that I will, not require it to
b Cl 1 It V.’ tf -:i \ U; «.

Q, Have you atte n d e d  a re  . .ex,  or d iscu sse d  t h is  c a se ,  w ith,

any other o f f i c i a l s  M  op; U niversalt y  p r io r  to t h is  tim e y e s te rd a y ?  

BY Mfu C It iltK : f a  object to t h a t .
BY YHf OGUSM C/eiTuio ;s Mheotica,
A, Hot that- X wf.X, M e n the subpoena was i  ssue d i t  was

issued in my o f f i arm »u£-sm- i ĉv ® wa a subpcu?n.ad a t  th e  sane time

Our o ff ic e s  conns c r. A::o 1 did wcml e r why I was b e l a y  c a i l e d .

Q* And yet. di SOUSSOU ' l, Wit,.: Mu. a t  th a t  time?

A, Y e s .

Q* Did you d i senso  i t  w ith  a by Xthen o f f i c i a l ?

A. I don’ t re c a l l  th a t  I  did ..c - lx "M e i.' o US i 0. t iia, t we were

going to come a weed later, lean Love called roe and; told me the 
case had been, postponed, and he is the only one I neve discussed xt 
with,

Q» how, prior to that 'time aid you. ever discuss this case 
any other officiant of the University?
A* ho.
BY MR. QhArfiC. i Ke object to the question.
31 THE G O M M  Overrule the rejection.
4. x do nofa recall having, discussed It with ary other officials 

the university.
Q. i want von to thliut, faaui Rae* because it is inportant.k
4* I know it is and 1 art trying; very hard.



. 3 S 0

Q* I want to know 'if you discussed it with any officials, \ 
a case of this importance, with any officials.
■ A, I do not recall having discussed it with any officials.
Q. Have you received any written memoranda or any other writ­

ing from any official of the University regarding this applicant or 
the admission of Negroes generally to the University of Mississippi?

*

A. No. 1 have not received any kind of information like that.
Q> What ie your understanding as to the policy of the University 

in respect to the admission of Negroes?
BI ME, CLARK; To which we object,
BY THE COURTs Sustain the objection.
BI MBS. HOTLBYi Wa would like to invoke the provisions of 43-C

ns to this question, to show what the under­
standing of this witness is as to the policy 
of the University. This witness is on the 
Committee on Admissions and if anybody has any­
body has any understanding us to what the ad­
mission policy is it seems to me a member of 
the Committee on Admissions would.

• .

IX.the COURT: I -think it is so clearly irrelevant and in­
admissible that the Rule 43 is inapplicable.

Q. Have you ever seen any Negroes at the University of Missies- 
since 1957'?
4. No.
Q* Did you have any connection with the University prior to 1957?
A* Tes, I had bean employed at the University since 1952 with 

Wo |year's leave of absence in that time.
Q* Now from 1952 to 195? have you ever seen any Negro students 

at the diversity of Mississippi?



3Y>1R- CLivu.. - f-h ob.1 rot. to the cuedtion..
BY 1’iIS CCirXi: CYfcrru?e ti.e Objection,
a* Ko, I have nor seen any negro students at the University 

of Mississippi during that si an,
• Q, d id  you have  any c c u n s o t l o n  v i t h  t i e  U n i v e r s i t y  p r i o r  to 

that time?

A. As a grad U- ’-X t. W UUa. v.i -T’1 r ’?s.3 t i e r  a f o r sovera 1, summers.

Q. How many ounnere vou,3.v ;...■ t u say v

A. Three or lour. ,  Pure e eroha;" ;iy ■o '

r\H* Kory in. 1-he t h r e e  or’ £ 0 i;.r suiuRfevs y cu were  a g ra d u a te

student ;a t  the Univ a r s i t y  o.t M i via  si, op I --  t i l l s i s  pr i o r  to 1952

A, Yes.

Q. P r i o r  to 3 932 d id  yc V 5 ■ua a ;y £r? .TaUro s t u d e n t 3Y

4, do* I d id n ot  see  ur7>

Q. Did you f. a v s  any c o u r s e t io n  a i t P-, the; Un i v e r s i t y  p r i o r  to

/our being a g r a i n .ate sir,  bee.A. JV A

4, ho.

Q. Are you a member of the 43 umni A 3:y y , ht io n ?

A* Y e s .

Q. Do you. go to t i e  no. go ?

4, I go to  th e  mooting rhe'n thou a• re h e l d on th s campus»

Q. Have you e v e r  seen  any 'Hegross at Xi’l 6 Alumni . A s s o c i a t i o n

meetings S'i

BY KS, 0LA.fi,1 ? Vh; o b j e c t :• to tb a t  *

BY TKh COURT ; O v e r r u l e the o fc j e o t l OB »

A, Ko, I have rot or an any negroes at any Alumni meeting an 
ws University.

Q* Did yen- ever meet vith the Deans ox homer cf the other



A. Tec.

O'GOootf

q. The State Institutions ox Higher Learning?
A, I am a member of the,State Association. 
q. What Is the name of the State Association?
A. Mississippi Association of Women Deans and Counselors.
Qa Are these all state schools?
A. They Include Deans c£ Women at state schools and private 

schools and junior colleges.
Q. Are these all white institutions?
BY ME. QXJfUl; Ws object to the question,
BI IHB 00PET; Sustain the objection.
A, The Deans of Women —  ■—  *—•
BY- THE COURT; You need not answer. I sustain the objection.
Q. Have you ever visited any of these other institutions, 

state institutions?
A, Yes, I have,
31 ME. CLARK t I object to the question*
BY THE COURT; Sustain the objection.
BY MR. '0IARK; Ws move that that part of her answer that was 

-corded he stricken,
BY TEE OQTTffP; I will exfl.ude it.
BY MRS. MOTTiFiY: X beg your pardon.
BY THE COURT: I will exclude the- answer from consideration.
Q. Do you knot' of your own knowledge if any negroes are attend- 

8̂ these other institutions under the jurisdiction of the Institutions 
°A Higher Learning?

BY ME. CLARK-♦ We object to that.
BY THE cou rt; Sustain the objection. I am going to confine this 

to the University of Mississippi* There are su



many state- Institutions that to go out and take 
into consideration what their policy is vould be 
unduly burdensome and irrelevant aru res alios 
aotCj and X '.rt.ll confine this testimony to what ha 
bee:, dor... at the University of Mississippi, the 
institution to which this plaintiff has sought 
air! arUr:. On that ground I sustain the object- 
ioxu

31 KBS. MOTLEY t Zb that tc n is witness or as to all witnesses, * 1
because in .r&ra graph 7 and 11 ox the complaint 
v- all -ye chat: this policy of limiting these 
Institution;:; to white applies to the other 
named .rtsti Tutiour in the complaint and that 
if is is e policy a,. v.,n Board and that the 
Board has j zrisdlction of all. of 'these insti­
tutions*

BY g£g qpuRIB Wall, it :rt going to apply to all witnesses,
1 an go Lie: to confine it to the application, tor 
admin-si on to tie University of Mississippi*

BY MR, ChiLlh; 'While we are ou tro subject, did I understand 
the ruling that since this plaintiff cere is 
brine iris arrive alien for admission at an under- 
graduate student to the orx versa ty of. ;“iissis»i><vi 
that that is what this lav suit is about, to-vlt, 
undorarriduat3 students attending Lie Umversx 

of Mississipoll
BY THE COt’ET? ihat is shat this lav: suit is about, but 1 don't 

hr;ov Whether: it will control all the evidence or 

not, I will Lave to rule on the objections as



am be,
by MRS. MOTLEYS That is all the questions we have of this

witness.*-
3X the COURTi iiiy cross,examination? 

by MR. CLARK. leo sir.

I X A , J . ■-
q, lean Rae, what do you believe my name to be? . You mentioned 

the conference with. Mr. Cates. 2o y e a .  believe my name is Cates? 
i, I am sorry. Did 1 say is wrong?
q, Hell* 1 am just asking you, please Ma'am* was it your opinion

that you were attempting «
A, Clark, 1 thought,
Q, pfho did you confer with yesterday?
A. I conferred with —  •
Q. With what attorney?
A* With Charles Clark.
Q. That is the same person addressing you now?

A. Yes.
Q. 1 though a while ago you said Cates.
A. Ho, 1 did not say Oates* but Rome one did. I thought your 

aaiae was Clark, 1 am sorry,
Q. Now you testified that you had never seen any Negroes 

toe University of Mississippi. Have you seen all of tue stude 
a+j the University of Mississippi? Wtiie you wore j.n at„end«*nce
tatfag these periods you have testified. aoout?

A. I 4, not tec.., that r had scan every student at the Unlver-
of Mississippi.

-,v n i. ‘t/nii opp d © come 3.Q. Dean Rae, when does a person t.ia« y.
J '11 y o u r eyes? _______



<o* n r-'ob.)

BY MRS. H0T15I; play It Please Ihe Court, I think that !'r.
Clark ought tc be able to pronounce the 
kora l,k?gro‘h It is not Kegro (pronounced 
U-i-g-r-a); It is negro (Pronounced U~o~g-r~o),
and I "Piink you loner enough to pronounce the
unri 't.hgroi:: 'correctly%

BY 11H. OLAiuC; If It I'.'.et,;;C XI;ie Court I would like the record
to vicer that X iniend no discrimination, or to
impure anything; at all up the pronounciatlon I 
used, arm it in trie pronounciaticm I an; used to 
s.rid have heart, ell of sap life, and I object tc 
counsel1 c remark,, and 1 will not confine rty 
1>roncimoir.tIon to what ale. prefers unless this 
Court sc orders m ,

BY THE 00URT i hell, I 'understood you to say Megrcu You sight 
not have pronounced It as emphatically as she 
does, but X will let you proceed. Certainly I 
want yon to be courteous and I know you mean no 
insinuation to the negro or tc: eagre race.

I I  HR, P h i'l l  t ;.iP l.; t o ;  l a v e  one h u ? r  /uni : h :

|Y Eg OQURT; Eo, let* s proceed, General.
Q* Dean Has, consider the question asked to you and I rant *o 

"8 3Ure that X 'understand how you determine whether a person is a 
•,e&-o or a white verson, because you have testified that tnere were 
50 negroes at the University of Mississippi.

i* Perhaps I should have said that to my knowledge tnere are 
*'-eSro students at University of 1ississippl.



BY ME. OLARK:

3SG

In tiie light of that answer, If The Court Please, 
we would like to renew the objection to the 
answers that she previously aaade and now move 
that those answers be stricken.

BY IKE COURT: Overrule the motion,
Q. Dean Rae, do I understand your testimony to be that you 

cannot positively say what the ether students were, what race the 
other students were, that you did see and. did observe during these 
periods you have testified about on the Ole Miss campus?

BY MRS. MOUSY; May It Please The Court, we object to Mr.
Clark trying to change the testimony of the 
witness. The witness’ testimony is there and 
we don’t think counsel on cross-examination 
has a right to require the witness to change 
her testimony tc suit what the defendants' 
counsel 'think she should have said and we 
are going to object to that. That went on 
all the time during the preceding hearing.

BY Ills COURT; Overrule the objection.
BY MR. CLARK; I would like the record to show I am not trying 

to change the wittness’s testimony in any way, 
but I think my examination —  .

BY THE c ou rt; No, you are not trying to change the testimony.
It-is a legitimate question and no effort on your 
part to change the testimony. You nave ohe rignt 
to cross-examine her and bring out wnat sue 

actually knows.
(The last question was read.)



3S7

MRS. IIP " L I ? :  The w it n e s s  t e s t i f i e d  to her  knowledge there
■ Hero no N egroes a t  the t 'n i v e r s i t y  and ~n, don’ t  

t h i nk th a t  testim on y  ought to  be changed.

PI IhS COuIII t 1 remember th e  testim o n y  and your o b j e c t i o n  i s

o v e r r u l e ! *

Q, Can you recall the quo Utica:?
A, I * d l i k e  to  have I t  r e p e a te d .

(The l a s t  q u e s t io n  vas  read  a g a in ) ,

Perhaos 11 Siscmj ,3 r:ay in y i
he a ■■lie• at!on vrhi

my cciicorr in vi th
and I d 0 not thInk

lea l i n g  w ith  s tu d e n ts  1 do not

o f  then in  term s o f  r a c e .  

q, hould you c l e a t  a c o n s id e r  my q u e s t io n  j u s t  one more exme and 

see i f  you can g iv e  roe a more d i r e c t  answer to the q u e s t io n  x yu», 

and I would l i k e  to a s k  th e  Court 'R eporter to read i t  to  you one 

store time,

(Whereupon she l a s t  q u e s t io n  was re&a a g a in .)

A. I cannot p o s i t iv e ly  say t h a t  the ra ce  was ol s tu d e n ts  

are of s tu d e n ts  t h a t  I see  cn la c  Uul’. ' t js  . ;.,e o f  I . is a iS E lp r ii  campus, 

9. Would t h a t  sane a u s v e i  a  o ly  to a l l  o f  the v a r io u s  r e r l o d s

described f o r  co u n se l?  

x. Yes, it would apply.
3Y I-m, cl.y,.1.1. ; I..a U 13 at i.

31 THE CCLRl; iny re -dIrect?

^aRhiut.ISiAIllhkTlQf 1Y.
Q. Do you r e c a l l  aU. th e  June you have been connected w ith  the 

v a rs ity ,  Dear, R aes t h a t  you neve never seen say « e ^ O w  t**£t y o ~



.383

moK of to your own knowledge to be Negroes?
BY HH» CLAZK; ¥e object.to leading. This is counsel’s ovm

witnessi She led the witness quite a hit dur­
ing her first examination and we again object
to leading her own witness.

31 THE OOTJuT; Sustain the objection on another ground although 
she has already answered the question, I remem­
ber distinctly everything she testified to with 
reference to those questions.

BY MSS. MOTLEY; That is all the questions we have of this
witness.

BY MR. 0LA.PJC : May I ask counsel if this witness might be
'finally excused or if you want to retain her 
subject to recall. She has duties at the 
University and if you want her you can notify 
her and she would have to come bach from Ox­
ford, but do you have objection to her being 
discharged, at this time?

3Y MRS, MOTLEY; ho, not at this time.
BY THE COURT: Very well, you may be excused.■ ""Hill W f ®

(Whereupon the witness was excused.)

*



l io j

T h e  w itn e s s  LnS1QP .rM Iy ... 

g;,r0 x n , t  e s t i11. e  d «•'  ’ £ o  i .  1 c  \ t s  •

if having been f i r s t  duly

”11": If i;■ T ' 1.011,21

H * S t a t e  y o u r  f u l ;  r a r e  f o r  t h e  r e c o r d ,  

A . I s s t u n  l e w i s  S a v e .

A r e  v  c  u  :; ; . ; : . ; 3  0  t  : d  v? 11 h  f  r  oy; *
A * 
0 .

l v  e r s i  i;y o f  Ki s s i s s i on i ?

X 0 3 «

Villat nos.I nic in you I ci'ii
A, lean of the- Ifn i clan of Student Personnel and Professor 

of Education.
q. js.e loan of foe vision of Student Personnel want a.ro 

your duties?
■ t ic  student personnel 

th e r 31'i pi o u s 1 i £ e p ro - 
t.nv> +■-.•■. op^istrar and studsntl* *i,u. j '-f- •• ' ■j-'"'"" '• •

i I an tb i o ffic e :; - la  o.h t f r %  c

i c e s , which in clu d es such areau

3 Ptu fieri co v :w a lin g , . f  h T, *"'■
a- T: ii. y - uJU j - ■

UP, Flouring, liXlai. bO urn

Q. ■You arc in  char.po c f  studs'

ii « x e s * I CQ» ih d i ree t i n . h e ...ve a d irector  of housing» .. ...
who reports to no,

q. What-are your duties In connection with student .cousin,: 

A. Oenera..;. administrative duties in tr.au we cf

Student Housing reports to me.

Q, What report aces h e  rake to you*:
* .  V e i l .  b u a E 5 t r r ,  S o -  * «  **111 d i s c u s s  p o l i c y

SW ttw *. lie arc t o t :  ca a coau itte on student Su.tt.ing- 1 °= 

hi, s loan e d :1 a t c a an 1 n i  1 1 rs. t i  a r s no e r i  ° *



330

Q. You are the administrative superior of the D irector 

of Housing* is thae right?
A. That is right.
q. Hew many male students do you p r e s e n t ly  have at the 

University o f  Mississippi?
A. I can’t tell you exactly,
Q, Approximately then?
A, You mean on the Oxford campus?
Q. Yes. •
A. About Three Thousand,
Q. Male students?
A, m a l e s ,

Q. Is tint as of this date?
A. It was about that this fall* glue or rake some.
Q. That is September 1961?
A. That is right.
Q, How many matte students did you have on the Oxford campus 

in the summer?
A. I just don’t know.
Q. Approximately?
A, A Thousand, Eleven Hundred, or Twelve Hundred,
Q. How many did you have in February 19ox?
A. Twenty Five or Twenty Six Hundred. Male Students?

Q. Yes,
A. Twenty Five or Twenty Six Hundred 1 believe.
Q. How many did you have in September I960?



33Y lilt. QLAPI's : let the record chow our ob;;eottor to the
YU e .3 tilon*

BI THE DOURTy Overrule the objection,,
A, 1 will ha.'.' c to do a li ttle figuring to jet an approx­

imation, I suppose in tur neighborhood of Twenty Five Hundred.
BY Min giltfig; ae object to the unrwer and rove that it 

l 5 TO O'.;h 00 ,
SIJ£L-lur̂ ’Iiihh: Over tv in tie notion,
q . itov ore have you, been. Director of Student personnel?

Is that the ti tl e?
iu Dean of tue Died. sic...;. of Student Personnel.
Q# iiov ioiv nave you been Dean of the Division of Student 

Personnel!
A. Since Ifljn
Q„ Since 1949 leave you had to turn any male student away 

on the ground that you i.lvrit have Housing aocoifniodations for 
him at the University?

A, W& have turned way nary out oi seece orncionts, net 
exactly on the ground of bousing* vn, tout eras one ox too facwox

in turning thorn away.
Q* Did you turn any resident studsnts away? In December

i960 on the yrxurn hast you did not nave nouslug for theiaf 

A. hot beat It, not to ’the best of ray knowledge.
Q. Did you turn any students array in February 1961 on the

ground, you didrdt have hcuoitiy for tir.eiiu’
Lm Still resident students you are asking?

Q. Yes.
* hot to the best of ny hr oval, edge.k



q . Did you turn any non-resident students auay on that 

ground?
A. February of 195'If 
Q» Yes.
A. Ho, I think not,
Q* Do you know of your own knowledge that the plaintiff 

in this case is a negro who has applied for admission to the 
University Undergraduate School ?

A, Ho,
q. You don’t knew anything about the applicant in that case? 
A, I know there is an applicant. 
q „ How do you know that there is an applicant?
A, Just know that this ease Is before the court and as 

general knowledge and general discussion.
q . Have ycu discussed it with any of the other officials

of the University?
BY HR, OIALEKi We object, to that as being irrelevant and 

immaterial tc any issue in the law suit in 
the manner which it is framed, jjIg. he ever 
have any discussion”.

BY THE POURS* •Overrule the objection.
A. It depends upon how you deiine 'discusoiou •
Q. Any kind of discussion of this applicant for admiss­

ion to the University.
A. In a sense that there is the knowledge that there is

an applicant.
Q. A Negro applicant? 
A. Who is applying foi 

that this case is in court,

admissible to the University and 
It is a general topic of talk about



that p o in t .

SY ME. J?TtA.HK: Ue object to the witness talking about what
la general topic of ccnveroatior. because of 
reusoaper reports or other inf cuira tiers,

BY the oof,IT i X will ■ exclude 'that from consideration. 
q. in discussing this with otner officials, we -- •
M m. CLAIM.; f t  oo; ;ect to hie q u a i f o a .

31 fun COURT i X e £ * w- \ctt

hr e ob J e c t.

••m t ?.0 X Mill* nt1 Uj.g:.U ■; As to

o f f 10.1.1 I s

51. ..LhiisXo t h I f  t h s f X S

o: cuestion. I sustain
CiJb ,L.r̂U ‘-iitn *

d id u {t so understand the forra of the
q ■ansiion* hi eta ex* o r

t ekes i t  ou t  o i  the is;

-,Yon frame q u est ion 3 in

Bot lea d ir r; t out to as
itnape you d is c u s s e d th

i s leading;

Q. L e t  me a s f  y■on The ten■ r or not you

a p p l ic a t io n  o f th i  s pl a i n t i f f v i t a  any of

Univers i t y n

A. Ju s t to  the e x ta n t  if rat  th e r e i s

q. Ur. en d id  yen;? d is c u s s i t ?

reueral topic of conversation, itA,, j„. d on* c m  o ri ? ,) Ut
would come up.

q, Do gou Know whan he applied for admission. 

A, Soj I do not.



Q» When did you discuss this application with other 
officials?.

A. I couldn’t tell you when, within any reasonable period 
of time. I don’t know.

Q. Did you. attend any meetings with other officials at 
which the application was discussed?

A. Ho.
Q. You never attended aii y s o is x P ££ s
A. What do you mean by anestings?
Q. Of officials of Wh & rJniversi ty?

Ho, not beyond there was such an application. As far
as discussing the merits, never.

Q * But you a feta:nded a meeting at whlc.h they s.aid there
was an application?

A • That is just in general talk that comes up that there
was such an application.

q» •',-ru u 4 j* 4 til. A & Ai X U As * A Xs general talk come upr,

Jh 4t It has been over a period of time since the case came
up.

Q. How many tines would you say?
A • I don’t know» I would say a time or two or three.

BY 1!R. CLARK; I:n view of the vitness*s last aijsw&r that
these conversions had taken place since 
it came up we ash that the answer be ex­
cluded as furnishing no measure to this 
Court of any relevancy or materiality. 

BY THE C0UR2S Overrule the motion.



q. Have jo il ever disbursed this applicant at. any meetings 
ox the Board of Trustees of the State Institutions of Higher 
Learning?

A. No' sir*
qs Have you ever discussed thin applicant with the Registrar, 

Hr, m i s ?
k * Hot bey one that ft.;..re ran seu an application*

Q« ¥111 you explain. :arx.t you near. when you say, ?!Eot be
yond that there wes such an applies tioif ?

A « Eo as soussion of a.er11s of the case wnatsoever*

Q- What did you tilseali O ̂

A. Just that there erag en application and that Is all.
Q, From a He,pro?
A # Yes.

Q* What did you dlscuns about if?
4* I really can * t recall. It was fust the matter of in­

terest that there teas ax-. application, 1 reottertly I discuss
applications with the fty 1 s t ra1 o f s tu d e rut s *

. Q» Did you discuss tails appllsaticn.?
4, Hot beyond what i. lo j..o. you*
Q. That there m s an applica11on?
A. las,
a. Did you discuss this applicant*s application with Dean

Lewis?
A, 1 third;: not.
Q. Well, try to revneaoer, because It Is important*
A. If It ever was done it. was in the most casual way.



t?q  r* O-JO

, j£&f ;-t.-x/&&£s. * object now to all conversations that were
not part of the official functions of these 
officials. The only action as prescribed in 
any part of the charges in this law suit is
state or state official action of the en­
forcement of state policies, and these
answers could furnish lour honor no guide
l i n e s  whatsoever in that present form and wa 
object sc all of them for that reason.

BY THE OCURf; Overrule the objection to the last question* 
That is the one the objections were made to. 
You may answer.

Q* You say you discussed it win1 Dean Lewis?
A. I said I don’t knot; whether I did or not.
31 Mihh MOTLEY; Fill you need the last answer?

(Whereupon the. last answer was read by
the Heparter).

Q. Float do you mean by "In the most casual way8?
A. I don’t know whether I discussed it with them or not.

I meant this.* 1 never did discuss it on the merits of the cash
or anything of that sort* I know that.

Q« But you discussed the fact that a legre had applied?
*

A. I said 1 don't know whether I discussed that with Bean
Lewis or not.

Q. Did ytru over discuss this1 application of the plaintiff 
•dfch the Chancellor of the University?

A. In no more than the way I mi gilt- have discussed it with' 
Bean Lewis. .



q, What way Is that!
A„ lever on the nor i t s  of the case •
Q, But you discussed It fact tnat a Negro saa applaea?
A, Just that thars was this application.,.
Q. i'ow} I an ashlar: you vhether you discussed the fact

that a h'egro had applied I
iu Yes, t.nat was di counsel, i- :i there was an application

for a Negro.
Q* And, you discussed that wxih ons n.. un.ee--uL̂ *

A. It was jurt an item of information* not discussed.

Q. You talked to the Ohtvu.ce-lor about that?

■At ® In the most casual way.

Q. All right, what did you v in tills most casual way?

A, I real Ip Lave no idea.. : to exactly what was said I

don’t know.
Q« that dia you toil aoout* X mean the weather or what?

What did. you say to ins ( i n a n e oj

A * Just come way or other it came up that I Knew there

was an aImplication from a Negro.

Q. What else?
A, ho tiling more that 1 can .roce.ll at a7.1*

Q. What did you say scout fcha application of the Negro?

BY Kin OLAEK: X believe the witness has answered the
a west ion about th re a tines ~~ uiaybs xour * 

BY KIE 0QUEii Overrule the objection.
A* ¥hat was the lush question!
Q« hhat did you cay to the Chancellor about tue uegro

application



A. I couldnft recall at all, It wouldn't be an/ more than 
just the fact that therê -was an application. I did not discuss 
the merits of the question.

Q. what did you discuss?
A, The question whether there would be any discussion, it 

was just maybe speaking to one another or something to the 
effect there was an application from a Negro.

Q. Did you discuss the fact that there was an application , 
from a Negro with the Registrar?

A. 1 think you asked that question before and ny answer 
then stands now,, which, was to the street that yes, there was 
such an application, but as far as any diseussxon ox xt» as I 
understand the meaning of iiscusaon, there wasn*t.

q. Did you discuss with Dear; Lewis, Ike Bean of the 
College of Liberal Arte -- . Do you know who I mean?

A fSS®
Q. Dicl you discuss with Dean Lewis tnc fact that there

was an application from a Negro?
A. My answer to that would be tne same &.& i. answered 

before —  that I can.1t recall. If it did tame place it was
the most casual thing possible.

Q. Let me ask you whether you discussed with any memoer
of the Board of trustees of the Institutions Ox higher Learning 
the fact that there was an application from a Negro to die 

University of Mississippi?
A. Ho, I did not.
q . You. nevtr ialied tc ary H m U *  of tie Hoard about

thiS?
A, I did not.



Q. Have you r e c e iv e d  any written communication from the

S oc

Board concerning tee application of tills applicant?
il . 0 ®
Q. Have you ever received any written communication from 

the Board concerning the admission of .'3s, Toes generally?
A. * i! o.
Q. Lave yon evex* dir cussed with the Board the admission 

of negroes to tin IJniversii ?
A, Ho.
Q. Have yen ever discussed with any other officials of 

the university tne admission of lie gross generally?
LI HH. ChALk : impair ve oojeet unless she is to. lie lug or

specifies in the question, that 'tills would 
be au official Hi noussioa, Sws is talking 
about what happened at the bridge table or 
the faculty tea, than we object. Until 
the question is specific enough to require 
an answer based upon voire action that this 
man took in his official capacity or at an 
official meeting or that was some form of 
Statu action, ve object.

FI U S  vOIlHi i Overrule trie, o election*
it,. Hhat was tin question again?
Q. Whether you ever discussed with, any o,fiici.au of tne 

University of ilississippl the admission of negroes generally 
to the University,

A, If it was done an all it would be in casual conversation-
in he official capacity



400

In what unofficial capacity did you discuss It?
BY MB. CLARKi Ve renew our objection to this particular 

question just posed by counsel*'
El £HB 0OURS: Sustain the objection,
q . in this very casual way what did you discuss with these 

officials?
BY MR. OhAggy we renew our objection to that question also, 
BY fHE COURT: Overrule that objection.
1 , It is very difficult h r  re to recall any discussions 

that I may have had* If I had them they would be just not in 
ten® of policy, just 3n terms of general discussion that there 
might be 'the admission of this particular Negro that was Involved.

Q. You say that you discussed that there might be the dis­
cussion of this particular Negro?

A. No5 I don’t think 1 said that.
Q. ' Bo you want him to read the answer?
A, Yes, I would,
BY .MIL 0L.1HKJ Wc object to the answer and move it be

stricken from, the record on the ground it 
is irrelevant and immaterial.

BY USDS CO?JH?; Overrule tne motion.
A. I have no idea what may have been dismissed*
Q. What did you say In this general discussion you had 

with the other officials?
A. I didn’t have any general discussion. As far as I know. 

It may have come up, some casual conversation in connection with
admissions policies, but I can * t recall anything I might have
said ever.



0. what earn© up in this casual conversation with respect
to admissions policy?

31 ME. QAY'SSi no we have a running objection. as to what 
might have cone up or could have come up 
and signs have remembered that it had come up

31 TAB OOUIlft let, but it will he overruled, But any
specific question you want tc object to you 
may ra.l s e ;v our o b 1 oeti on.

A. This quern,!on was ,
Q. What car::,: up in this genera!: risoursioa. with respect 

to admission policy?
A. In tile first places I didn*t say we had this general 

discussion of the negro situation, offhand 1 have no idea. It 
would be just carnal conversation If it came up, like any ether,

Q, What is the casual convexnation?
A, 1 aon*t know, because it was so casual I don * t recall 

anything about it,
Q. How long aid you nay m u  have beer; connected with the 

University?
A, Since 1949,
Q. Since you have been at the University of Mississippi, 

do you know cf your own Knowledge any Negroes who have been 
admitted to the University?

A, Sir, I don * t know,
Q» You dorft know what V
A. Whether any negroes have been admitted or not,
Q* What does that mean - you have never observed any 

segre ee ?
A, I don * t Know,
BY IF, GATES; You are leading the witness.



4\-2

BY THE COtjBf,: Sustain the Objection.
Q, What don't you know? Explain what you don't know.
1 , I do not know whether or not any Negro has ever atten­

ds the University of Mississippi..
q# would you please explain what you mean by you don't

biow?

BY ME. CATES: I think it is self-explanatory,
BY THE COURT; Sustain the Objection.
Q» Have you ever seen any Negroes at the University Ox

lis s is s ip p i?

A. I don*t know,
Qt You don't know whether you have seen any Negroes? You 

know what Negroes are, don't you? T mean that there Is no doubt 
in your mind when, you see a Hegrot is tn«ie i

BY MR. CATES: May I have this observation, whether he has
seen any or not Is not competent to the issue. The question is 
whether or not he has seen any enrolled, because whether or not 
some o f  them have travelled across the University* Isn't neither 
in d icative ’ of whether they are enrolled or not enrolled, or 
aethers of the faculty or what they are.

BY THE COURTt Sustain the Objection to that feature of iv, 
It will be confined to whether he has ever seen one enrolled. 

q . Have you aver seen any one enrolled?
A. 1 don't know.
Q, What don't you know?
A., Whether or not a Negro has ever' been enrolled at the

University of Mississippi.
Q, Why don't you know this answer?

Because I don't know the genealogical background ofA,



every person I meet tc determine whether they 
Q. You can’t tell that by just looking 
A, Sometimes one can and sometimes one 
Q, From insfc observetion•have you seen

are Negro or white* 
at them? 
cannot*
any Iagrees enrolled

at the 'University of Mississippi?
31 MR, CATES. I object to that. He has answered and. that

i s r e p e-111 i o t s.
BY THE COURTS Overrule that objection.
A. 1 don* t know,
q . What is your understanding as to the policy of the 

University with respect to the admission of negroes to the Uni­
versity?

BY MR, CLARK; To which we object, This is the same question 
she posed to lie an. Kae and the same objection
was made.

BY THIS PC FRY; Is he named ae one of the defendants?
BY MR, CLARK: Io, s1r.
BY THE COURT; Sustain the Objection,
BY MRS* MOTLEYS We would like to invoke Rule 43-0 as to 

th is  question a.s to this witnessf who has testified that he is 
in charge of the Division of student personnel,

BY THE COURT: I will rule as 1 did before» that it clearly
appears that this evi dence is not- admissible 
on any ground and I will sustain the objectIon,

0 vi»
A,

Are you 
Mo,

an alumnus of the University of Mississippi

Q. You have been on the campus sln.ce 1949» you say?

A« Yes, 4

Q. In your pr e e e n t p o s i ti o n ?



MOTLEY; 1 think that is all the question for this
■ witness.

BY IPHB COURTi Any Gross Examination?
BY Hit, CLaJS i * .t t>u„s t in e  I nnnderec.. i f  we m ig h t - W,

neve beer: an hour and a half in this testimony 
and I wonder if we night take a five minute 
recess? X believe wo might shorten our Oross- 
Bxaaiinn nioa.

BY TEE COURT; Very va31} the Court will take a five minute 
recess*

(Whereupon the Court recessed for five minutes.) 
h.■ 1.... 1 ...Alilt., LA* u L A s k ,

Q. Lean Love, T handed you a group of papers that are 
clipped together under the- nano cf Mies Anna Marie Bs31.es.
And to the back of that application is a telegram. —  a copy 
of a telegram —* oaoed l abruary u, from. Mr. Robert 2. Bills 
the Registrar of the Unlrersity of Mississippi. I*d like to ask 
you to read that telegram. *

A* (Reading) “Fur your ~~~h
Q. Just read it to yourself.

(-Wi tn s sn read s saae)
Q, Lean Love, did you know that the RegistrarJhad sent 

such a telegram on February 1961 to applicants to the University?
BY MRS„ K0Y1SY ; ha object. Inis is not in response to any­

thing brought out in. direct testimony*
BY THIS COURT i Overrule the objection.
q „ That means you may answer the question. Bid you know 

the Registrar sent such a telegram?



A. Yes. Tour question said February. I believe it war 
January, was It not? I did know that, yes.

Q. I thought that the telegram had a date of February 4,
1961 and related to a date in January, am 1 right?

A. 1 misunderstood jour question., 1 thought you were re­
ferring to the January date. Ter* 1 knew that such telegrams were 
sent,

Q» Didn't you tell Mr. Ellis that re was to send such 
telegrams to all applicants whose appli.calions had been received 
after January 25th» 1961?

BY KR. CLARK: ¥e ob j e et.
BT THE. COURT: Overrule tine Cbjecti&n.
q . Why did you tell him to take such action?.
k, That grew out of a meeting of the division heads, at

which the problems of some late applicants, getting them boused 
and classes, etc.» were causing us difficulties and we ..lust- 
decided we would cut off the- applications.

q . At the time that this decision was made was it made 
because of race of any applicants- affected?

A, So.
Q, Was it applied only to applicants of a particular race?
A. It was applied to all applicants after that January 25th

whatever their race may have been.
q . Did you tell the Registrar to apply it only to certain 

racial groups?
A. No,
Q, Dean,, if a qualified Negro made an application to the 

school or to the University of Mississippi♦ would you ask that his 
application be rejected on account of bis race?



4$ :fr>jb

A ,* h *
w> To Kr, wills?
A., No o
Q« Have you ever given hi,iii any yuggestions to that effect
A * No.
Q. Did you ever receiv­e from your superiors any instruc-

tions er suggestions that oach vetion be taken?
A . No*
Q. No you and e r s t  -and 'that th e s e  quest; .ions I  have  posed to  

y o u , co ve r people who a p p ly  t o r  coming to  to e  U n iv e r s i t y  o f  

M is s i s s ip p i ,  e i t h e r  a s  freshm an  s tu d e n ts  o r as u nd erg rad uates, 

s tu d e n ts?
A » Y 6 8 *
Q. I s  yo u r answ er th e  same?

A » 1 e s *
Q. A tan y  t im e  when you m ight h a te  any o f  th e se  supposed

c o n v e rs a t io n s  w ith  any o f f i c i a l s  aPout any a p p l ic a t io n s  iro m  
any p e rso n s t h a t  you t e s t i f i e d  about in  d i r e c t  e x a m in a t io n , 
was the  su b stan ce  o f wL&t v<as s a id  in  any so, , it a re q u e s t  o r a 

•command on yo u r p a r t  to  any p e rso n  whom you d isc u sse d  u n is•i
m a tte r w ith  to  do o r not to  uc a n y th in g  about th e  a p p lic a t io n s

A* You got two q u e s t io n s  t h e r e .
Q*. You say  you m igh t h&Ve had some c o n v e rs a t io n  w ith  some 

o f f i c i a l ,  maybe w ith  Dean Love  o r maybe w ith  th e  c h a n c e l lo r , 
o r maybe w it h  R o b e rt E ,  3 11 1s , t u t  yo u f re  not s u re . Mow, my 
q u e s t io n  to  you i s  s t y  o f  th e s e  c o n v e rs a t io n s  d id  ta k e  p la c e , 

d id  you in  any way in  an y  p a r t  o f  th e se  c o n v e rs a t io n s  d i r e c t ,  
o r  in s t r u c t  o r re q u e s t  w hoever i t  was t h a t  you m ight have had



this conversation xrith, to do something about this application 
or not to do something about this application?

A, I did not.
Q. Did you ever suggest that to take or not take any 

action?
A. No.
Q. Is this also true with regard to the Registrar?

])o you understand him tc? Toe included in that group 1 asked you 
about?

A* That is true with respect to hiss ae to tide others * 
fes.

Q. Did Chancellor Williams ever — ■ « Rave you ever had a 
conversation with him and <iiu he tell you., request you, order you 
or suggest to you that you yourself 1 :> or not do- anything about 
these appli cat!one?

A. He did not,
Q„• Did he- ever intimate to you that he was going to suggest 

or request or instruct anybody else on the university staff to act 
in some way or to refrain from acting in some way on the applica­
tion

A. He did not,
Q, — if you ever had these conversations*
A, Right.
BY MR. CLARK: We have nothing further,

fURTHhd i\Yterli&'l!xni.IT MBS „ MOT LIT
Q. When did you fell. Hr, Kills to send out these telegrams 

you spoke about a minute ago?
A. The date I  cannot fell you exactly, well, a p p ro x im a te ly  -



408

q . fell me approximately»
A. Trior to January 25th.
q ., . How long prior to January 23th.?
A. A few days,,.
Q. A few days prior to January 25 th?
A. lee.
q » float did you tell his?
A, The  d e t a i l s  o f  the  c o n v e r s a t io n  1 can n ot r e o s . l l  a t  a l l

but it was to send out these telegrams that we -would mot admit 
students who applied alter th&t date, 

q . fas that in writing?'

A«, K o»
q . How many students were.affected by than?
A „ I don11 brow the uuiuDerv

you told him to send out the telegrams without Knowing

who was g o in g  to  be a f f e c t e d  by taem?

B Y  M R .  Q U J K .i W e  o b j e c t  v c  i c a d l a g  t h e  w i t n e s s ,
BY THE COUBf% Overrule the objection.,
A, 1 can give you an approximation.
q # Approximately how many students were affected by this? 
A. r don't know —  fifteen or twenty or twenty-five or

somewhere in there.
q . And you told h!m to send out these telegrams, because

you couldn't accept the so sfcuaen»s.
A. To send out there telegrams 'because we had been crowned

in the fall and we had problems, terrific administration problems, 
with late acceptance, housing, eoheouling their classes, an.d 
everything else, and we just decided we would do what we had



been considering doing for some time « to Just take the action 

at that time.
q . Didn't you testify previously that you didn't turn 

anybody away because oi housing in February of I96±i
BY MR. CLARK; We object to this. She can't cross-examine

her own witness.
BY IBB COURT; Sustain, the objection.
Q.. Did you know the telegram which eras being sent, would

affect the plaintiff in this case?
A. Yes,
Q» Ion knew that it would affect the plaintiff?
A, Along with others, yes.
Q. How did you know 'that?
A, I just knew that his application was one of those of

quite a few that were to oe deniea•
Q, How did you know that?
A,. I saw the applicate or..s In a casual vpy end discussed 

with Mr. Ellis the way people would be affected V  it and ocm>e 
of the problems that would arise. 1 just happened to know that

the p l a i n t i f f  was in the group.
BY MBS, MOILS!: These art all the questions we nave for

this witness,
BY ypyg COURT: You may stand aside.

(Whereupon the Witness was excused)

BY MB. CLARK W hile th e  n e x t  w i t n e s s  i s  coming in t o  the

Courtroom, Mr. Lowry is engaged in b u s in e s s  as  a farm er and it 
is v e r y  important to  t h i s  farm o p e r a t io n  that he be baefk Friday 
and we would l i k e  to  ask  p l a i n t i f f ’ s c o u n s e l  i f  I t  i s  p o s s i b l e  to 
use him e i t h e r  t h i s  a f te r n o o n  or on Thursday.



410

jlX...00134?; V ery w e ll*  co u n se l * you h e a r  the  re q u e st*
s o  i f  y o u  can use  him by •* * 

m  M05'lg * ¥e ?f:111 try, Tour Honor „



411

The Witness, ROBERT J. /PARLEY, after having Been duly sworn, 
testified as follows;

5;j- 0?i J'Y _ l ^ I E Y
Q, Please state your heme*
A, Robert J, Parley, Been of the law School*
q . How long have yea teen Bean of the law Softool?
A, Since 1946.
q . Do ycu know of your ow.i knowledge that the plaintiff

in this case, James Howard Meredith, a regno, has applied for 
admission to the undergraduate School of the University of 
Mississippi?

A, Ifo» I don’t.
Q„ Have you discussed with any official of the University 

the application of this plaintiff icr admission, go the Lniversity 
Undergr a cl uate So h o o 1 ?

BY MR, ClARK; We object to this question to Bean Parley,
unless it is shewn he would have any 
official connection of any Rind with any 
state action on this application.

BY_MRS. MOTLEY; I am asking if he discussed It with any
official♦

BY THE COURT; I will overrule that objection.
jh, j have discussed it with & number c.f Qfiicials, but 

not officially. I mean I have discussed it with numerous people 
in a casual sort of way. 1 mean I had no c onn.eecion with it.

q . i want you to name the officials with whom you discussed
It,

BY MR. CLARKt We objaoc to that as incompetent, Irrelevant 
and immaterial to any Issue in the law s u i t .



412

BY THE COURT; f<3 overrule the objection.
Q. I want to know what you mean by “discussing it”. Just 

;speaking of* it? Any discussions that you have had of this applicant 
hfith any official of the University.

A. I have spoken of it with Chancellor Williams and with 
Hr. Haywood.

Q. Who is Mr. Haywood?
A , He is the present provost.
Q. He is the provost?
A. Tee. I have talked, I suppose, to each member of the 

law faculty in a cursory way about it.
Q. Did you discuss It with Dean Lewis of the under graduate 

school?
A. I don't recall ever discussing it with him,
Q. Did you discuss it with Mr. Ellis,, the Registrar?
A. I don't think I have ever discussed it with Mr. Ellis.
Q. Did you discuss it with any member of the Board of

Institutions of Higher Learning?
A. 1 don't think that 1 have discussed it with any member 

of
BY MR. CLARK: ¥e object to this question unless it is

limited to discussions in some official 
capacity or that would have soma bearing 
on official actions even. Ve don't think that 
the question as * presently posed could in any 
conceivable way be any university action or 
state action to this law suit.

BY MR. CATES; Could we add an additional objection. Dean
Farley is Dean of the Law School. This plaintiff 
Is making application not for admission to



413

the Law School, 00, therefore, ary evidence cr 
ary testimony thereto •would rot be competent.
He is making only an application to the under­
graduate school, which would be handled as al­
ready shewn by Mr. 'Ellis* testimony, and no 
admission at this time would be handled by the 
Derr op peooi e m ilo r  11 i r  a  ̂ ^he I j x i l v c r s i t y  maw

School.
BY fHE CCIIRTd Overrule the objection,
A. ¥131 •you re-*stato the last question?

(Whereupon the last question, was read by the Reporter)
A, Again, by discussion, you mean spoken of it?
q „. I have, with Mr. Fair, 1 'believe, and with Mr. Tubbs

and 1 don't recall who was or the Board.
q , What did you disowns with them about this application

of the plaintiff?
A , I haven’t discussed — .

BY HR. OATESs ¥e object to that.
By yRE COURT; Overrule the objection,

A, — discussed the application with then. The most 
conversation I have had with anybody about ic has been such 
things as the Chancellor mentioning the fact that he was coming 
down, here to 'the hearing. I mean 1 haven't discussed the pro­
priety of the- application or anything ox thav kind.

BY h r , CLARK: In view of the witness’s present answer
about discussions he had. with the 
Chancellor about times when fee would come 
•to appear in Court, that the entire test!V
ifiony of this witness or this subject is



414

irrelevant and Immaterial in any issue in­
volved in this law suit, and a sic that the 
answer be stricken and the objection to any 
further questions as made along this line.

By THE COURT; Sustain the objection and exclude that 
from consideration.

Q. Bid you discuss witn any member of the Board this applica­
tion of a Negro for admission to the Undergraduate School?

i
BY MR. CLARK; May we have a continuing objection to all 

these questions?
BY THE COURT: X believe I would rather for you to object

to them as they arise,
BY MR, CLARK: We object to that question.
BY THE COURT: Overrule that objection as to whether he

had any conversation with any members of 
the Board of Trustees?

BY MRS. MOTLEY: That is right, lour Honor; as to his
application.

Q, As to this application, as to the application. This is 
a Begro, you understand that, don’t you?

A. Yes,
BY MR. CLARK: We object.

*

Q. I am asking you whether you discussed with any member 
of the Board for admission to the Undergraduate School?

A. Yes, 1 would say that I have, but I couldn’t tell you 
the discussion, because my discussions with people have been 
mainly in the sense of - I suppose you call it - gossip. I mean 
I haven't discussed it with any particularity about the merits 
or demerits or anything of that kind.



4.15

q . But you did
BY MR. CLARK« We, object to the word "gossip1,* and we ask 

It to be stricken and we object to the 
question,

3Y THE QQCRT: Overrule the objection,
q . Mow, moving from the Board of Trustees to the Chancellor,

Bo you understand who the C h a n c e llo r  iw?
A, Yes,
q . ’What is his name?
A. J. I). W il l ia m s .
Q. Have you ever discussed with Chancellor J. i>. Williams 

the application of this Negro for admission to the Undergraduate
School of the University of Mississippi? \

A. I haven't discussed the application as an application, 
because I had no connection with it. 1 have spoken in the interest
of late news on the situation.

Q. What did you discuss with the Chancellor?
A. I don't know that I could tell you other than just what

I said, asking what the situation was•
q . what did he say the situation was?
A. That they were having the trial and that he didn't know 

to, long he m e  golr.g to be gone. 1 didn't hare anything to do with 

this application*
q . I understand you haven't had anything to do with it, I'm 

trying to get at your conversation with the Chancellor concerning 

the Plaintiff,
BY MR, CLARKi We object to repetition,

A. I'm trying to tell you the type of conversation I've had 
with him, and if you will be more particular, I am perfectly 
willing to tell you if I can understand what it is you want,



and i f  I  can remember i t ,  As I s a i d ,  ®y c o n v e r s a t i o n  w itn  the 

C h an cellor ab o u t t h i s  had n o t  been in  a ry  o x f i e i a l  c a p a c i t y  a t  

all on i:d.s p a r t  or my p a r t ,  b u t  s im p ly  & m a t t e r  ot i n t e r e s t  &h 
a member o f  th e  p u b l ic *  so to s p e a k .  Of co u rse *  1 was a member 

of the  f a c u l t y  a t  th e  U n iver^ i t y  * but x haven* t  '«a<! any s p e c i f i c  

d is c u s s io n  o f  th e  case*

q j Hour l e d ©  move from th e  O n a n c e i lo r  to  th e  Dean o f  the  

Undergraduate S c h o o ls Dear. -u c v is . You know him*

A. Y e s ,  q u i t e  v e i l ,

Q, Have you d i s c u s s e d  t h i s  a p p ir c a M a n  o f  <'0.e p l a i n  » lx f  

with Dean Lew is?

BT MB, CATES2 We o b j e c t ,  He had a l r e a d y  t e s t i f i e d  t h a t  

he had n o th in g  to  do w ith  t h i s  a p p l i c a b l e  

w h a ts o e v e r ,  I  t h in k  t h a t  p r e c lu d e s  any 

q u e s t io n  o f  C ro ss  E xam in atio n  on b e h a l f  0 

th e  o l a i a t i f f  a r  to w hat be B ig h t  have he 

o r  m igh t n o t  have hsci d i s c u s s e d  w i t h  Dean 

Lewis*

ny T U B  OOll'Bf! O v e rru le  the o b je c t io n  and l e t  him anewe* 

A., 1 see le a n  L e v is  v a ry  in f r e q u e n t ly  and i  don’ t  recall
ever h a v in g  s a id  a word to Bean L e v ie about t h i s .  The -caw S ch o o l 

i s  over on the  o th e r s id e  o f .the c a rp u s  and exce p t f o r  g o in g  to a;r 
academic c o u n c il  m eeting  som etim es one w eek, som etim es two or th jv  
weeks, a p a r t  a re  p r a c t i c a l l y  th e  o n ly  tim es I  s e e  Lean Lew is* and 

I  don’ t  t h in k  th a t  1 have e v e r  s a id  a word to  him a b o u t i t ,  

q . 1 may have asked  you t h i s  b e fo re , but I ’ m going to  

ask you a g a in  to c l a r i f y  th e  re c o r d . Have you e v e r  d is c u s s e d  

the a p p l ic a t io n  o f  t h is  .p la in t i f f *  a Negro * f o r  ad m iss io n  to  the 

Undergraduate Schoo l o f the U n iv e r s i t y  o f  M is s is s ip p i  w ith  Mr. I l l



the Registrar?
BY MR, CLARK: lo which we object on the grounds of

repetition,
BY THE COURT; Overrule the objection.

A. I am quite sure I have never discussed it with Mr, Ellis.
I want you to understand that we have a separate registrar and that 
I have no reason to confer with Mr. Ellis about anything. I see 
him less frequently than 1 do Dean lewis.

Q. Going back to the Board of Trustees, have you every dis­
cussed with the Board of Trustees at a meeting of the Board or with 
any member of the Board the admission of Negroes generally to the 
University of Mississippi?

BY MR. CLARK: We object.
BY THE COURT: Overrule the objection.

A. Yes, I have.
Q. When did you discuss that?
A. I can’t give you the exact date, but the principal time I

have ever discussed it was a meeting of the Board, in 1952, which was
directly after an application was made by a man named Charles Dubya.

BY MR. CLAREt We now renew our objection to a 1952 appli­
cation by a man named Dubra, whom we don’t 
even know to have applied to this particular 
school of the University, Until that is de­
termined, 1 don’t know whether there are 
other grounds- for the objection, but certain­
ly we object to the question and move that 
the answer be stricken.

BY THE COURT; Yes, sustain the objection.
BY MRS. MOTLEY? We would like to invoke the provisions of

Rule 43-0 with respect to this question.

417



418
to show that this witness has discussed-'i" 
with the Board, which, is a defendant in 
this case, the policy with respect to 
admission of Hegroes to the University 
of Mississippi.

BY ‘THE COURT? 1 think it is clearly incompetent and irrele­
vant and therefore hold that Rule 43-C Is 
not applicable.

Q. Since the application of Mr. Dubra - - ~ how do you spell 
that for the benefit of the record.

A, (Spelling) D-u-b-r-a, I believe.
Q. Since that application .have you discussed with the Board 

at any meeting or with any member of the Board the admission of 
liegroes generally to the University of Mississippi?

BY MR,, OATESt I would like to reiterate our objection
previously made that, as borne out by this 

• witness, he has M s  own registration system, 
which applies solely and alone to the law 
school which is a graduate, school, and which 
this plaintiff is not seeking to enter. He 
is seeking to enter the undergraduate school.

■ Any policy or practice which might be had as 
far as the graduate or University Law School 
would not be competent to what policy or 
practice and custom, usage and acceptance 
would be as far as the undergraduate school 
to which this plaintiff is seeking entrance 
1e concerned and we object on. that ground.

BY THE COURT; Overrule it, because that is not the question 
before the Court, The question before the
Court was whether or not at any other time he



the one aboat 1.9 3 h
Trie next qu.estion. is

since the t tiiti ie <11 f

cl1 True tc• e b

BY MB . CLAIM : Your B •.r un1 6 ft :

male is ?,. t tO t.b -3
th,. + tut Q U O ,.jtion :

U".":"’ .err :'uate & t'< i cl <

BY THE 0 v irrul! the or jec

A * Have I at any time discussed wi th

H * '.Discusser wi tl the Boar-i at i\ me a

the Board,

A. I haven’t as far as 1 \oU' W .

BY MR, GATES: I chirk 'It Sii.oul d

had discussed this matter with the Board of 
Trustees, which T sustain tn* ebiectior to

,nd adhere to that ruling 

■ has he had any time 
u s i: e d 1 i wi til th e .'8 car d

/ds that the point we 
:itae cf discussion, but 
i net a ls o  limited to

Board *
BY THE COURT: 1 think

la be limited to a meeting of 

a tiler than fust a member of the

will iet hit'-, answer whether he has 
diso'oased it with ray member of the board,

A, 1 haven * t discussed it at ary meeting:, i coat dr. u asy 
Aether 1 discussed it with an 5adividual or not, individual members. 
I would assume that I have, if I act up witri the ones .... "-now, out 
I don’t have generally, except casually, any connection with the

Board of Trustees.
q, what are your instructions with respect to the admission 

of $egross?
BY MR,. CLAiiK s object to that, she is talking about

BY THE COURT; Sustain the objection,



BY MRS. MOTLEY: We would like to Invoke the Rule 43-C as
to that and show what the policy of the 
Board is.

BY THE OOURTi The same ruling I have made with reference 
to 43, I rule accordingly .here.

Q, Isn’t It a fact that you attended a meeting last spring at 
ihich time there was a discussion of the possible admission of this 
legro to the University,, and what would happen in the event he was 
ataitted?

BY MR. CLARK; I object to leading her own witness,
BY TEE OOURT: Sustain the objection.

Q. Do you know whether or not there was a meeting last spring 
at which time there was a discussion as to the possibility of a Negro 
being admitted and what would happen in the event the legro was 
adaitted,

A, No, I don’t, I haven’t attended a Board meeting that I can 
recall.

Q, Not a Board meeting, any meeting?
A. No. A meeting of whom?
Q. Of faculty and officials of the University,
A. No, I haven’t had any — . I'm not aware of having attended 

any meeting.
Q. Are you aware that there was such a meeting last spring?
A. No.
' BY MR, OATES: We object to that.

BY THE COURTi Overrule the objection, since It has been 
answered,

A. I am not aware. If you care to refresh my memory I will 

hy to remember it.
Q. Wasn’t the fact the Negro had applied published in all j
newspapers last February? /
A, Oh, yes.



How
of th e

Howy fellowing 
Univeroi ty i'acult

r,La t wasn* t there a meeting on tie Campus
y and officials as to what would, be done

i f  that ie-gro was admittedi
1.., Hot that t h a t  oomplimerLtou anybody in  t h e  Law S c h o o l .  1 

wasiift inti ted to  the meeting &s x abov» ox>. out - -
q . yiiere you aware to. at there was such a meeting

A .  Lo .
Q. How long aid yuv- say yet. has seen cemented with Lae 

University of Ills si sslaoiV
it, i‘ye been there three tines. ■ I was e part-time member 

of the Faculty in duo go 1910, ana a full-time member from 1932
to 1935, and than i came ban. in 1 9 1c ir. February and had been
there continuously si nee.

Q„. Since you, had been lucre during all of that tine, do 
you know ci your our. rnovleiy- if ~...y fegroee have ever been ad­
mitted to the University of hrssisuippl.v

A ,  h e

BY MR. CLARA ; To m iich. no object on the same grounds as we 
did tc the other witness.

BY TEE Q0UB.lt Overrule the objection.
A. The answer is no*
BY FES. MOTLEYi I think that is all the questions for this

witness.
31 Tin. COl-AT; Ar y Cross Examination, hr. Clark?
BY MR. pLARKt ho sir, re would litre to to move to exclude all

the testimony of this witness or the ground, he 
* e shown tc have no correction, whatsoever with 
any official actions taken by any of the 
responsible officials of the university of



4  22

Mississippi or the Board of Trustees or any
other group or agency of the State of 
Mississippi, or any connection, with the 
official policy-making machinery for the 
University with regard to any part of this 
testimony and with regard to this particular 
law suit,

BY THE COURT: Overrule the motion.
BY MR, 01.AM? I wonder if Dean Barley c'ould he similarly 

excused, counsel.
BY MR3 . MOTLBY: Yes.

(Whereupon the witness was excused.}



His witnecs, V*. k, BKIAiT’, after having been duly sporn, 
te s t x f i e d a s f c 11 an x t

2X.k K i l l ; X .KBS, ICCBLhh
Q» Are you come etna a r t ;  t ha University of 11s s i s s i p p i ?
hA * 4- tki;!
 ̂* hhat is your oo hi t i c  i ■:

A « Vice Charter110.0 .. •

Q* li O Vi" 10.1.1 0 V you ,o i c e  .>'• re ■ l.or?

A . k little over a year,,
Q. Did you nave any other ao nr. e o t c hi th th e University

prior to last yean
A, Y s s *
A*£ * What was it?
A,.* I was former!y Provost, frier to that tire Professor of

English *
Q. non long a pe rl.od of t in o does that cover?
A* Since 1 9 VI,
Q* Bo you hnov oX > 0IX BV 0 Vs : i hr curletige t h at the plaintiff

in. this case, a Kegro, has ay pilen e u acinission tc th e U n 1 v e r sit;
Und e r.g ra du a t e S cii o o 1 a t the toil nor s i  ty of h i s s i  s s ir . p i ?

■xk « I  have seen. - ®n| 4
BY KR« CLARK i 1 aid not catch t h e  phrase in counsel’s

question-, Koala Jo u r boner permit the Reporter 
to repeat It?

BY TEE COURT i lea.
('^hereupon tea last, rue siIon eras read by the ReporterJ 

BY MR, QLA3K: he object to the question, because it is framed 
in suer, a way it ashs several, questions at the 
same time, as long as the witness is instructed



that he has got to have personal knowledge as 
to every phase of the question and thoroughly 
understand it all, X suppose it will be all right 
Wa object to this question in its present form.

BY SHE COURT t Overrule the objection. Of course if he knows
of his own personal knowledge he can so answer.

Q. All'right,
A. I know from newspaper stories that such an applicant has 

applied .for admission to the University.
BY MR. CLARK; ¥e object to what he knows from a newspaper storjk
BY THE COURT: Sustain the objection.
BY MR. GLASS 5 ¥e move to exclude the answer.
BY THE COURT: Su s tai n the motion.
Q. What were your duties as Provost at the University?
A, To co-ordinate and serve as the Chairman of the Academic 

Division of the Institution,
Q* What are your duties as Vice Chancellor?
A. To assist the Chancellor in the Jackson operation of the 

University and do any other things I can do to be helpful to him.
Q. How long were you Provost?
A. Prom September 1953 until July 1st, i960,
Q. And you had been Vice Chancellor since July I960?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell me what you know about the application of James 

Meredith, the Negro, for admission to the University Undergraduate 
School,

BY KB. CLARK; lie object to that. The man has said the infor­
mation he has came from a newspaper report. The 
question has already been asked and we object to 
it.



425

A. BY ME, CLARK t (Continuing) And we now object cn the additions,
grounds of repetition.

BY THE COBB?i 0verru1e the obje ction.
A. My knowledge is of a general nature only.
Q* Bo you know anything about tuisf

A. Ho.
q„ You have never discussed this with the Chancellor*

A. Only in passing.
q . What did you discuss in passing?
A. The discussion of a newspaper story. I eaw.
Q. What did these newspaper stories — .
BY na. ClAX ■. -Je new renew our objection to any conversation

iia night have had in passing with the Ouanoexlor 
about a newspaper story, he aon*t think that 
it furnishes any hind of evidence for tills 
Court to accept or act upon.

BY THE DOUBT: Yes, sustain the objection.
BY KB. QhA'BIv,; I will wove to exclude the answer.
q . What did you discuss with the Chancellor concerning this

application?
BY MR. CLARK: he object to repetition.
BY THE COURT? Overrule that objection.
A. I a sited the Chancellor what the situation was. He told 

be simply that tire application was being held as any other applies

tions.
Q, What else did he tell you?
A. That was all that I renanber of the conversation. 
q . When did this conversation take place?



p
423

A. That was sometime following the first account of the 
application that I saw in the Jackson papers. 1 can't place the 

bo nth of that.
Q. Did you ever discuss this application with any member ox

tie Board of Trustees?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever discuss it with Dean Lewis of the Undergraduate 

School of the University?
*

A. Not to my memory.
Q. Did you ever discuss it with the Registrar, Mr. hills?

A . No.
Q. In. other words, you have never discussed it with anybody 

except the Chancellor? Is that your testimony?
A. That is my memory.
Q. You say you have been at the University since when?

A. 1941.
Q. Since 1941, do you know of your own knowledge of any 

Hegroes admitted to the University of Mississippi?
BY MR. CLARK: We object to that.
BY THE COURT; Overrule the objection.
A. I would say that since 1941 several tnousand students have

been enrolled to the University of Mississippi and I have not known
<&■

the background of each one of those students sufficiently to answer 

your question, yes or no.
1 Q. Have you seen any you could name as Negroes?

BY MR. OATES; We object, unless he says as to those who have 
been enrolled. Whether or not he has seen any 
Negroes at the University, is net competent.

BY THE COURTi Yes, sustain the objection, unless applied to
the enrolled students.



427

Q. Since 1941 can you name any enrolled student that you 
Jtnow of your own knowledge to be Negro?

A. I think that I would have to say that 1 have seen students 
kose appearance ran a wide range ox color and physical characteris­
tics.

Q. The question Is whether you know of your own knowledge 
:any who are Negro?

BY ME. CLARK; I think the witness answered the question 
that he couldn’t answer the question. I 
believe that is his answer.

BY THE COURT: Overrule the objection.
A. I have entertained the possibility that some students were 

'enrolled who were Negroes, but to my intimate knowledge of the 
Itndividual student, I would be put to declare Iroin the standpoint 
of anthropology as to whether a student belonged to any given racial 
group, because I*m not that familiar with the individual student and 
I*i not an expert in the field of anthropology.

Q, We understand that, but wo are asking you whether from 
your observation you did. We don* t  e x p e c t  you to ae an expert in 
the genealogy of everybody who has attended. We ask you from your 
own observation have you seen any Negroes enrolled since 1941 whom 
you can name as Negroes? That is what we are asking you, and not 
to go into the genealogy of every person there.

BY MR. CLARK: If the Court please— .
BY THE COURTS Sustain the objection.
BY MRS. MOTLEY; 1 dorlt understand what the objection is?
BY THE COURT; I sustained the objection on the ground

that he has answered twice as best he could.
k

Ana since he is your witness I don’t think 
you are entitled to cross-examine him.



428

Q. Fnat is your understanding as the vice-provost is the 
policy of the Board with respect to the admission of Negro students 
to the University of Mississippi?

BY MR. CLARK; We object to what his understanding of J

policy is.
BY THE COURTi Sustain the objection,

Q, Have you ever received any Instructions from the Board in 
writing with regard to the admission of Negroes to the University?

A. I have not.
Q. ' Have you ever received any instructions in writing from any 

official of the University with respect to the admission of Negroes?
A. I have not.
Q. Have you ever* received any memorandum or other writing 

from the Board with respect to this plaintiff's admission to the 
University?

A. I have not.
Q. Or any other official?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever received any oral instructions from the 

Board regarding the admission of Negroes or this plaintiff to the
University? /

/A. No, I have not. /
Q. Have you ever received any oral instructions from any 

other officials of the University with respect to the admission of 
Hegroes or this plaintiff?

A, No.
Q. And you have never discussed the admission of Negroes with 

anybody except the Chancellor, is that right?



429

A. 1 wouldn’t say that entirely is true.
BY MR. GATES: We object, unless he qualifies it. The way

she has worded it we think it could lead to 
all sorts of conclusions, and I think It 
should be, since it is her witness, tied 
down to proper ground, which would be in an
official capacity.

BY THE COURT: Yes, sustain the objection,
Q. Have you ever discussed in your official capacity the 

admission of Negroes to the University .with anybody other than the
Chancellor?

BY MR, CLARK: 
BY THE COURT:

BY MR. OLABK:

That question is two in one,
Yes, I will confine it to the members of 
the Board of Trustees or the Registrar,
In addition he has testified to all of his 
conversations with the Chancellor and I 
don’t believe there was but one, and that 
was casually based on what was in the nevrs- 
papers♦ He has never had any official conver­
sation with the Chancellor, and now she says: 
"Tell us about your official conversation 
with the Chancellor and others". I say she 
is putting a part of this question to the 
witness not supported by her own witness, 
and we object to the question on that ground.

BY THE COURT: I didn’t understand she was asking about
the Chancellor. I understood she asked
about any other persons. As to that I sustain
the objection. And now I will* let her ask as
to any other members of the Board of Trustees 
in an official capacity.



430

A. No.
Q. Never discussed this application?
A. No.

BY MRS. MOTLEY; 1 think: that is all of this witness. 
BY MR. CLARK *, We have no Cross Examination.

(Whereupon the Court recessed until 9?30 A.M. of the 
following morning.}



(Thursday, January 25* 1962, the hearing was resumed 
at 9:50 A.M.)

3Y THE COURT; Mr, Paul Tiblier came to see me yesterday 
afternoon and said he had been subpoenaed as a witness by subpoena 
duces tecum to bring the records of the state Times, He advised me 
that the State Times had closed up and he does not have any records 
of the organization. He has said that he has an opportunity to go 
to California this afternoon regarding the securing of a position 
out there. He formerly worked for the State Times and he was very 
anxious to get off on that flight and asked would you please call 
him this morning if you could,

BY MBS, MOTLEY; Yes, he spoke to me about it and I 
agreed to call him earlier.

The witness, MR, PAUL TIBLIER, after having teen duly sworn, 
testified as follows;

Q, State your full name for the record»
A, Paul Tiblier,
Q. Were you employed by the State Times?
A, Yes,
Q. What position did you hold?
A. I was the Executive Editor.
Q, Were you subpoenaed to bring the copies of the State 

Times for the month of February 1961 for this trial?
A. Yes, 1 was,
Q, Did you bring them?
A. Mo, I didn’t, *



Q. Why didn't you bring them?
A. Well, I don't have custody of them anymore, 
q , Who has them?
A, Mr, R. M, Hederman, Jr,
Q, Who is he?
A. He is the owner of the Mississippi Publishing Corporation. 

BY MRS, MOTLEY: This is all the questions we have of
this witness.

BY MR, OTA PIC: Ho cross examination.

(Whereupon the witness was excused.)



The witness, BCSBET 3. ELLIS, after having been duly sworn, 
testified as follows;

EXAMINATION BY MILS, MOTLEY
Q. Are you Robert 3. Allis, one of the defendants in this

case?
A , I air;,

Q. Are you the Registrar of the university of Mississippi?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. How 1ju : have you been Aegistrar of the University of 

Mississippi?
A, Since 1951, I believe.
Q. Did you have any position with the University prior to

1951?

A. Yes. X was the Assistant Registrar for a period beginning 
fitly of 194-9, former to taut I held a position as an instructor in 
Accountancy - Graduate Instructor, Prior to that, while a student, 
I held a part-time position as the pro gras director for the Ole 
Miss "I”.

Q. Hoy long a period of time would this cover?
A. fhis covers the period from the discharge from the H r  

iorce after World War Ihro until trie present tine.
Q. What was the year that you were a student there?
A, I was a student at the University from february 1946 

through the summer of 1949*
Q. What are your duties as Registrar?
A. My duties as Registrar include the admission - include 

the administration of the admissions of students to all of the 
f&dergraduate Schools of the University, the collection and main-

i

tenane'e of the permanent records of the students previously 
trolled on the University campus. Also, the administration of



such policies and regulations of the University that are my 
responsibility, advising of students concerning Veteran Training 
fields. I believe that just about covers it.

Q. Is it your duty to carry out the policies of the Board 
of Trustees of the Institutions of Higher Learning in regard to 
admissions of students?

A. It is.
Q. Do you have authority to accept and reject applications?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Mr. Bills, you testified previously in the hearing of 

the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary j.o..juactioa, did you not?
A. I am not familiar with the legal processes of that, I 

have been on the witness stand before and I testified.
Q. You-were on the witness stand here last summer, weren’t 

you, in August?
A. That is correct.
Q. Do you recall the plaintiff’s exhibit , which I now

show you, and ash you if you recall that letter?
BY MR. CLARK; We object to the witness consulting any

of the Exhibits which plaintiff has offered 
in Evidence here for all-of the grounds 
that we asserted yesterday, and we' want to 
point out to four Honor in addition to 
those that these exhibits only were offered, 
not the accompanying records which identified 
the exhibit, and specified what the exhibit 
was about, We believe that the admission of 
these exhibits yesterday was improper and we 
again renew our objection and would like to 

- have the permission of the Court to have a



13

BY MR.' CLARK; (Continuing) continuous objection to any use 
by counsel of these records without identi­
fying or accompanying their offer with the 
transcript of the record under which they 
were Introduced.

BY THIS COURT: I will overrule that objection and let you 
have a continuous objection, which you will 
not waive by failure to renew from, time to 
time. The ruling will be that it is over­
ruled and that you have objected to it.

Q, Bo you recall that letter?
A. Ye s, I do.
Q. would you explain - **.

BY THE COURT: Let me back up a minute again, there is one 
point I haven’t thought about. That is an 
exhibit that was introduced upon the motion 
for a preliminary injunction and one of your 
grounds goes to the question or point that 
the exlii bit is not admissible here unless 
the accompanying testimony, the oral testi­
mony where it was introduced, is also 
introduced. Is that the point?

BY MR, CLAM i Yes, sir. I think It standing alone would 
be insignificant and not pertinent to any 
material issue here and not helpful to this 
Court in deciding the law suit until you have 
the background facts and the other facts 
accompanying the identification of this and



BY MR. GLARES {Continuing) all the exhibits which the 
plaintiff has offered,

BY THE COURT: Yes, i think I will hack up and sustain the
objection to this particular one. Mow all 
those cards that were introduced, and soforth, 
1 will bach up or that, later, but in order 
to get on with this particular witness, at
this particular point 1 will require before 
this is introduced or any testimony about , 
it that the testimony showing its identifi­
cation when it vras introduced as an exhibit 
be introduced along with it, or else proved 
on the examination here to make it competent,

BY MR. CLARK : In view of Your Honor’s change in the ruling
will it be necessary for us to continue 
cur objections'?

BY THE COURT; Yes, until you get to a certain point
tc where it will be intelligible to what
you’re objecting to.

BY MRS. MOTLEYi
Q. You want to look at all those letters which you have in 

your hands, Mr. Ellis, which are marked Plaintiff’s Exhibits "1" 

through "27" .
(Witness does this)

Q, Do you recognize those documents?
BY MR. CLARKi Before counsel goes further with regard to 

these documents, we would like, to make the 
same objection that we made to all portions



BY MR, CLARKi (Continuing) and those records that related 
to James H. Meredith, because as jet as far 
as" this record in this hearing is concerned, 
there is no identification whatsoever of 
these documents or of the person J. H.
Meredith and no proper predicate laid for 
the introduction of any part of these docu­
ments that come from J, H« Meredith, whoever 
J. H. Meredith may 'be,

BY MRS, MOTLEY.* That is a frivolous objection. We have
been through a preliminary hearing in 
this case and everybody knows who J. H. 

Meredith is. This man is the Registrar,
He has received these letters and has 
written these letters and he knows 
exactly who we are talking about,

BI THE COURT; I know, but for the record *1 think it
raises this question I have been .wondering 
about and what the procedure would be. Of 
course the record on the application for the 
preliminary injunction shows very clearly 
who James H, Meredith is, but is that testi­
mony before this Court on a hearing for a 
final Injunction?

BI MRS, MOTLEY: Yes, that is a part of the record. We
can1t throw out a part of the record in 

the case, This is a record on the preliminar 
hearing and that means that the Court is ad­
vised who James H. Meredith is. The Registra

437

is advised of whom we are speaking and the



438

counsel for the defendant Is advised of 
whom we are speaking, so then there is no­
body here taken by surprise or asked to 
testify about exhibits which are unfamiliar 
or unknown to anybody. That is a part of 
the record i.n this case.

BY THE COURT; 1 think this is a serious question, and
unless you can point to me a rule or an

*
adjudication of some law authorizing it* * I 
would sustain the objection. This is an 
entirely different hearing from what we 
have heretofore had. This is a hearing on 
the merits* a final hearing- for relief 
sought and prayed for in the complaint.
The testimony taken before on the motion 
for a preliminary Injunction could.well be 
different, for a different purpose* from 
the one that was on the final hearing and 
unless that testimony of the former hearing 
is introduced in evidence I am very doubt­
ful that it is a part of this record on. 
the final hearing.