Byrd v McCready Transcript of Record

    TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD

Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1950

No. ^

HARRY C. BYRD, PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVER­
SITY OF MARYLAND, ET AL., PETITIONERS,

vs.

ESTHER McCREADY, A MINOR, BY ELIZABETH 
McCREADY, HER NEXT FRIEND AND PARENT

ON P E T IT IO N  FOR A W R IT  OF CERTIORARI TO T H E  COURT OF 
APPEALS OF T H E  STATE OF M A R Y L A N D

FILED



SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1950

No.

HARRY C. BYRD, PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVER­
SITY OF MARYLAND, ET AL., PETITIONERS,

vs.

ESTHER McCREADY, A MINOR, BY ELIZABETH 
McCREADY, HER NEXT FRIEND AND PARENT

ON P E T IT IO N  FOR A W R IT  OF CERTIORARI TO T H E  COURT OF 
A PPEALS OF T H E  STATE OF M A RY LA N D

INDEX
Original

Proceedings in the Court of Appeals of the State of Mary­
land .........................................................................................

Appendix to appellant’s brief ................................................
Petition for writ of mandamus........................................
Answer ................................................................................

Respondent’s exhibit “A ”— Letter dated August 
13, 1949 from Edgar F. Long, Director of Ad­
missions, to Miss Esther MeCready....................

Replication to answer........................................................
Order dismissing petition ................................................
Defendant’s Exhibit “ D”— Contract for training in

nursing education..........................................................
Statement of evidence......................................................

Stipulation ................................................................
Testimony of Dr. Edgar F. Long..........................
Colloquy between Court and counsel......................

Petition by the Board o f Control for Southern Re­
gional Education to intervene as amicus curiae. . . .  

O'rder granting leave to intervene..................................

1
1
2
6

12
13
17

17
21
21
23
33

42
44

J udd & D eitweileb ( I n o . ) ,  P rin ters , W ash in g to n , D . C., J u ly  7,

Print

i
i
i
5

10
11
14

14
17
17
19
27

35
36

1950.

— 9013



11 IN D E X

Original Print
Appendix to appellees’ brief......................................  40 g0

Excerpts from statement of evidence............................  46 30
Testimony of Dr. Maurice C. Pineoffs....................  46 33

Mrs. Verne Allen Nesbitt................  63 52
Mrs. Angela M. Shipley..................  68 57
Miss Florence M. G ipe......................  72 61
Mrs. Angela M. Shipley..................  76 64

Defendant’s Exhibit “ F” — Rating of*the Univer­
sity of Maryland School of Nursing..................  78 66

Opinion, Markell, J .......................................................... 79 i ; ~

Mandate ............................................................  gg
Clerk s certificate.............................. (omitted in printing) . 86



1

[fol. 1]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, 
OCTOBER TERM, 1949

No. 139

E s t h e r  M cC re a d y , Minor, by E l iz a b e t h  M cC read y , Her 
Next- Friend and Parent, Appellant,

vs.
H ar ry  C. B y r d , President, et al., Appellees 

Appeal from the Baltimore City Court (Smith, C.J.) 

Appendix to Appellant’s Brief

[fol. 2 ] I n  t h e  B a l tim o r e  C it y  C ourt

Brief No. 139

P e t it io n  fo r  W r it  of M a n d a m u s  

To the Honorable, the Judge of Said Court:
The Petition of Esther McCready, minor, by Elizabeth 

McCready her next friend and parent, respectfully shows:
First: Esther McCready, a Negro, is eighteen (18) 

years of age, and at all times material was and is a citizen 
and resident of the United States and the State of Mary­
land. On February 1, 1949 she duly applied for admission 
as a first year student in the School of Nursing of the 
University of Maryland for the academic year beginning 
August 8, 1949. The University authorities have refused 
to pass on this application, although they have appraised 
and passed on other similar applications by white stu­
dents.

Second: Harry C. Byrd is the President and Executive 
Head of the University of Maryland, Edgar F. Long* is the 
Director of Admissions of the Baltimore Schools of the 
said University, which includes the School of Nursing;

1—9013



2

Florence Meda Gripe is the Director of School of Nursing 
of the said University; William. P. Cole, Jr., Stanford Z. 
Rothschild, J. Milton Patterson, Peter W. Chichester, 
Edward F. Holter, E. Paul Knotts, Charles P. McCormick, 
Harry H. Nuttle, Philip C. Turner, Millard E. Tydings, 
and Mrs. John L. Whitehurst constitute the Board of 
Regents of the University of Maryland.

Third: The University of Maryland is an administra­
tive department of the State of Maryland. It is a State 
institution performing an essential governmental func­
tion.

Fourth: Under the acts of the Legislature of the State 
of Maryland, which form the Charter of the University 
of Maryland, as now constituted, the Board of Regents, 
ffol. 3] who are appointed by the Governor, by and with 
the consent of the Senate, are vested with the powers of 
governing the University. The President of the University 
of Maryland, the Director of Admissions of the Baltimore 
Schools, and the Director of School of Nursing function 
as their agents under their supervision and control.

Fifth: Under the Charter of the University of Mary­
land, the Faculty of Nursing is expressly established and 
conducts a School of Nursing of the University of Mary­
land as an integral component part of the said Univer­
sity subject to the laws and regulations governing the same. 
The aforesaid School of Nursing is the only State institu­
tion which affords a nursing education and is a member 
of the Association of American, Colleges, and is accredited 
by the Middle States Association of Colleges and Second­
ary Schools. The School of Nursing is accredited by 
the Maryland State Board of Examiners of Nurses and 
other states that reciprocate with the State of Maryland. 
The hospital, which is the teaching laboratory for the 
students of the School of Nursing, is approved by the 
American College of Surgeons, the American. Medical 
Association-Residents and Interns, the American Hospital 
Association, and the Maryland Hospital Association which 
gives it and its graduates high standing among the nursing 
profession.

Sixth: The Faculty of Nursing offers a five year course 
in said School of Nursing leading to the Bachelor of Science



3

degree (B. S.). The requirements for admission to said 
course are:

“ Graduates of accredited secondary schools will be 
admitted by certificate upon the recommendation of the 
principal. In selecting students, more emphasis will be 
placed upon good marks and other indications of probable 
success in nursing rather than upon fixed pattern of sub­
ject matter.”

English—-4 units required for all divisions of the Uni­
versity.
[fol. 4] Mathematics—2 units—One unit each of algebra 
and plane geometry is desirable.

History—1 unit, 2 units are desirable.
Foreign Language—1 unit, 2 units are desirable (Latin 

suggested).
Science :
Biology—1 unit
Chemistry—1 unit
Physics (suggested)—1 unit.
“ Applicants should be 17-35 years of age.”
Seventh: The Petitioner, Esther McCready, is a candi­

date for admission as a first year student in the School of 
Nursing of the University of Maryland and is fully quali­
fied in all lawful and proper respects for admission thereto. 
On February 1, 1949 Petitioner applied to the School of 
Nursing accompanying said application with the required 
five dollars ($5.00) investigation fee and transcript of her 
record from the schools attended by her. Said application 
blank and said accompanying transcript showed that the 
Petitioner’s moral and educational qualifications were as 
good as or better than than those admitted prior to this 
submission of application or subsequently admitted to the 
School of Nursing.

Eighth: The Board of Regents, the Director of Admis­
sions and the Director of School of Nursing and Faculty 
Committee of the University of Maryland have had no­
tice of this application and ample time and adequate op­
portunity to consider and act upon the Petitioner’s appli­
cation aforesaid in that the Petitioner appealed as to her 
application successively to the President and the Board 
of Regents, but has not been able to get any satisfactory



4

and definite action on her appeal, and there is no other 
authority within the University of Maryland organization 
to whom she can now appeal. Upon information and belief 
your Petitioner avers that her application was refused 
[fol. 5] wrongfully and arbitrarily solely because of her 
race and color and in direct contravention of the provi­
sions of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution 
of the United States, 8 U.S.C. 41, and the Supreme Court 
decisions of the United States.

Ninth: The Petitioner is ready, willing and able to per­
form any lawful requirements and pay all proper fees 
and provide herself with all the necessary facilities for 
admission as a first year student at the School of Nursing 
of the University of Maryland and so tenders herself at 
this time.

Tenth: The actions of the Respondents in refusing to 
consider the application of the Petitioner were wrong, un­
lawful and arbitrary, thereby the State of Maryland did 
deny the Petitioner, a resident and citizen of the United 
States and the State of Maryland, the equal protection of 
the laws guaranteed her under the Fourteenth Amend­
ment to the Constitution of the United States and did 
violate Title 8 U.S.C. Section 41.

Eleventh: Unless this Honorable Court, by a Writ of 
Mandamus shall secure, preserve, and enforce the rights 
of the said Esther McCready, Petitioner, she will suffer 
irreparable injury and will be without adequate remedy 
in the premises for the inception of the academic year 
for 1949 of the School of Nursing in immanent; to wit: 
August 8, 1949.

Wherefore: Your Petitioner prays this Honorable Court 
to issue a Writ of Mandamus directed to the Respondents, 
Harry C. Byrd, President and Executive Head of the Uni­
versity of Maryland, Edgar F. Long, Director of Admis­
sions of the Baltimore Schools of the University of Mary­
land, Florence Meda Gipe, Director of School of Nursing 
of the University of Maryland, and William P. Cole, Jr., 
Stanford Z. Rothschild, J. Milton Patterson, Peter W. 
Chichester, Edward F. Hotter, E. Paul Knotts, Charles 
P. McCormick, Harry H. Nuttle, Philip C. Turner, Millard 
E. Tydings, and Mrs. John L. Whitehurst, constituting the 
[fol. 6] Board of Regents of the University of Maryland



5

at their office located at 109 East Redwood Street, requir­
ing the Respondents by and through their agents Edgar 
F. Long, Director of Admissions and Florence Meda Gipe, 
Director of School of Nursing to (a) consider and act on 
Petitioner’s application of February without regards to 
creed or color and admit her to the semester beginning 
August 8, 1949 in the School of Nursing, and if her applica­
tion predates the application of any student already ad­
mitted to the School of Nursing for the current academic 
semester upon Petitioner’s complying with the uniform 
lawful requirements for admission; or (b) to certify her 
at the beginning of the next academic term when entering 
students are accepted and to certify on the same terms 
and conditions applicable to other students applying to 
the School of Nursing with regards to creed or color or 
race; and further ordering such other and further relief 
and protection to your Petitioner as aforesaid may be 
proper and necessary for the premises.

Donald G. Murray, Charles II. Houston, Solicitors 
for Petitioner.

Esther McCready. (Affidavit attached.)

I n  t h e  B al tim o r e  C it y  C o u rt  

A n s w e r

Harry C. Byrd, President; William P. Cole, Jr., Stan­
ford Z. Rothschild, J. Milton Patterson, Peter W. Chi­
chester, Edward F. Hotter, E. Paul Knotts, Charles P. 
McCormick, Harry H. Nuttle, Philip C. Turner, Millard 
E. Tydings, Mrs. John L. Whitehurst, constituting the 
Board of Regents of the University of Maryland; Florence 
Meda Gipe, Director of School of Nursing; and Edgar F. 
Long, Director of Admissions of the University of Mary­
land, by Hall Hammond, Attorney General, and Kenneth 
[fol. 7] C. Proctor, Assistant Attorney General, their at­
torneys, in answer to the Petition for Writ of Mandamus 
filed against them respectfully shows unto your Honor:

(1) Answering paragraph First, the Respondents ad­
mit that, Esther McCready is a Negro, eighteen (18) years 
of age and, at all times material, was and is a citizen and 
resident of the United States and the State of Maryland.

2—9013



6

Further answering said paragraph, the Respondents ad­
mit that, by application dated February 1, 1949 and received 
by the Respondents on February 2, 1949, the Petitioner 
applied for admission as a first year student in the School 
of Nursing of the University of Maryland for the academic 
year beginning August 8, 1949.

Further answering said paragraph, the Respondents say 
that the general policy of the State of Maryland regarding 
education has always been to segregate the white and 
Negro races; that for many years the State of Maryland, 
in the development of its secondary public schools and of 
the University of Maryland, has' attempted to and, as 
herein set forth, now does provide facilities which are equal 
for both white and Negro races; that, in furtherance of 
said policy, the Governor of the State of Maryland entered 
into a Compact dated February 8, 1948, known as “ The 
Regional Compact” , with the Governors of the States of 
Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Ten­
nessee, Arkansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, 
Oklahoma, West Virginia and the Commonwealth of Vir­
ginia ; that the General Assembly of Maryland, by Chapter 
282 of the Laws of 1949, approved, confirmed and ratified 
said Compact, the Act of approval being effective June 1, 
1949; that said Compact has been approved by proper 
legislative action by more than six of the aforesaid states, 
and is now in full force and effect; that The Regional Com­
pact makes provision for education, in the professional, 
technological, scientific, literary and other fields, of all 
citizens of the several signatory States, regardless of race 
or creed, at jointly owned and operated regional educa­
tional institutions in the Southern States; that the educa- 
[fol. 8] tional advantages and facilities contemplated by 
and provided under The Regional Compact for the citizens 
of the several States, regardless of race or creed, who 
reside within said region fully comply with the require­
ments of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution 
of the United States, 8 LT.S.C. 41, and of the decisions of 
the Supreme Court of the United States.

Further answering said paragraph, the Respondents say 
that on August 13, 1949, the Respondent Edgar F. Long 
wrote to the Petitioner regarding the aforesaid appli­
cation, copy of the letter is annexed hereto, marked 
“ Respondents’ Exhibit A ”  and is prayed to be taken as



7

a part hereof; that the Petitioner was advised that, in ac­
cordance with the aforesaid policy of the State of Mary­
land that the provisions of The Regional Compact, afore­
said, she is authorized to study nursing at the Meharry 
Medical College, Nashville, Tennessee, which is an insti­
tution under "The Regional Compact to which the signa- 
torv States will send students for medical, dental and 
nursing education; that arrangements will be made  ̂so 
that Petitioner’s total expenses, incidental to attending 
Meharry Medical College, School of Nursing, including 
necessary travel and room and board, will not exceed 
what it would cost her to attend the University of Mary­
land; that Meharry Medical College, School of Nursing, 
affords the same kind and quality of education as the 
University of Maryland School of Nursing; that the Peti­
tioner was requested to contact the Director of Admis­
sions of the University of Maryland, who will advise her 
as to the procedure to be employed for admission to Me­
harry Medical College, School of Nursing; that it is neces­
sary, under The Regional Compact, that Petitioner’s 
application be certified to Meharry Medical College by the 
Director of Admissions of the University of Maryland.

Further answering said paragraph, the Respondents 
deny that the University of Maryland authorities have 
refused to pass on Petitioner’s application, and allege that 
they have handled said application in the manner just 
described. Further answering said paragraph, the Re- 
[fol. 9] spondents admit that, since receipt of Petitioner’s 
application, similar applications of white students have been 
appraised and passed upon.

(2) Answering paragraph Second, Third and Fourth, 
the Respondents admit the matters and fast therein set 
forth.

(3) Answering paragraph Fifth, the Respondents ad­
mit the matters and facts therein set forth, except that 
the Respondents deny that the School of Nursing of the 
University of Maryland is ‘ ‘ a member of the Association of 
American Colleges.”  Further answering said paragraph, 
the Respondents allege that George W. Hubbard Hospital 
(160 beds), which is the teaching laboratory for the students 
of the School of Nursing of Meharry Medical College, is 
approved in every wTay by the various agencies interested



8

in nursing education, and that, as a result, graduates of 
the School of Nursing of Meharry Medical College, have 
high standing among the nursing profession.

(4) Answering paragraph Sixth, the Respondents ad­
mit the matters and facts therein set forth, except, that 
the faculty of nursing officers only a three year course in 
the School of Nursing leading to a certificate; that to earn 
a B. S. degree, it is necessary that the applicant success­
fully complete two years of college prior to entering the 
School of Nursinig. Further answering said paragraph, 
the Respondents admit that the allegations enclosed in 
quotation marks in said paragraph are in general the 
requirements necessary to be met by an applicant for ad­
mission to the School of Nursing of the University of 
Maryland, but deny that all persons possessing said qual­
ifications are admitted as students into said School, the 
reason therefor being that applicants to the University of 
Maryland, School of Nursing, at the present time, far ex­
ceed the capacity of such school.

(5) Answering paragraph Seventh, the Respondents 
admit the matters and facts therein set forth.
[fol. 10] _ (6) Answering paragraph Eighth, the Respond­
ents admit the matters and facts set forth except as herein­
after noted. Further answering said paragraph, the Re­
spondents admit that the Petitioner has appealed as to her 
application successively to the President and the Board 
of Regents of the University of Maryland, but, deny that 
she has not been able to get any satisfactory and definite 
action on her appeal, and allege that said application is 
being and will be handled in the manner described in 
paragraph (1) of this Answer and in Respondents’ Ex­
hibit A.

Further answering said paragraph, the Respondents 
deny that Petitioner’s application was refused wrong­
fully and arbitrarily, solely because of her race and color 
and in direct contravention of the provisions of the Four­
teenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States,
8 U. S. C. 41, and the Supreme Court decisions of the 
United States.

Further answering said paragraph, the Respondents 
allege that the provision for education of Petitioner at 
the Meharry Medical College, School of Nursing, under



9

The Regional Compact aforesaid, does not discriminate 
against the Petitioner in any way whatsoever; and the 
Respondents further allege that Meharry Medical Col­
lege, under The Regional Compact, provides facilities for 
education which are substantially equal to the facilities 
at the University of Maryland; and the Respondents fur­
ther allege that, as set forth in paragraph (1), above, the 
Petitioner’s expenses at Meharry Medical College, School 
of Nursing, will not exceed what her expenses would be 
at the University of Maryland, School of Nursing; and 
the Respondents further allege that, as the provision for 
education of citizens of the several signatory States, un­
der The Regional Compact, applies to all such citizens, 
regardless of race or creed, it fully complies with the re­
quirements of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Consti­
tution of the United States, 8 U. S. C. 41, and of the 
decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, and 
[fol. 11] it fully meets the obligation of the State of Mary­
land to the Petitioner under said Amendment and decision.

(7) Answering paragraph Ninth, the Respondents say 
that they have no personal knowledge of the matters and 
facts therein set forth and, therefore, demand strict proof 
thereof.

(8) Answering paragraph Tenth, the Respondents say 
that the matters and facts therein set forth are conclusive 
of law alleged by the Petitioner and as such, the Respond­
ents are informed and believe that they are not required to 
answer the same in this pleading.

(9) Answering paragraph Eleventh, the Respondents 
deny each and every allegation thereof, and demand strict 
proof of said allegations.

And, having fully answered the aforesaid Petition for 
Writ of Mandamus, the Respondents ask that they be dis­
missed with their proper costs.

And as in duty bound, etc.
(S.) Hall Hammond, Attorney General. Kenneth C. 

Proctor, Assistant Attorney General, Attorneys for 
Respondents.

Duly sworn to by Edgar F. Long. Jurat omitted in print­
ing.



10

[fol. 12] I hereby certify that copies of the within Answer 
were mailed this 25 day of August, 1949, to Charles H. 
Houston, Esq., 615 F Street, N. W., Washington, D. C., 
and Donald G. Murray, Esq., 1506 Pennsylvania Avenue, 
Baltimore 17, Maryland, attorneys for the Petitioner.

(S.) Kenneth C. Proctor, Asst. Attorney General.

R e s p o n d e n t s ’ E x h ib it  A  to A n s w e r

August 13, 1949.
Miss Esther McCready, 506 North Dallas Street, Baltimore

5, Maryland

D ear  M iss  M cC r e a d y :

Relative to your application for admission to the Uni­
versity of Maryland, School of Nursing, may I advise you 
as follows:

The General Assembly of Maryland (Laws of 1949, 
Chapter 282), in its session last winter, authorized the 
State of Maryland to enter into a compact with certain 
other states relating to the development and maintenance 
of regional educational services and schools in the pro­
fessional, technological, scientific, literary and other 
fields. This compact applies to both white and Negro 
students. This compact has been ratified by the requi­
site number of states and is now in effect. The State of 
Maryland has already sent to the University of Georgia, 
under this compact arrangement, ten white students to 
[fol. 13] study veterinary medicine. Arrangements have 
been made whereby the Meharry Medical College at Nash­
ville, Tennessee, has become a compact institution to which 
the signatory states will send students for Medical, Dental 
and Nursing education.

Therefore, in accordance with the State policy estab­
lished by the Legislature, you will be authorized to study 
Nursing at the Meharry Medical College. Arrangements 
will be effected so that your total expenses incident to 
attending Meharry Medical College, including necessary 
travel and room and hoard, will not exceed what it would 
cost you to attend the University of Maryland. You will,



11

of course, receive the same kind and quality of work there 
as you would receive at the University of Maryland.

If you will kindly get in touch with me, either at my 
office at College Park or Baltimore, I shall be very glad 
to advise you as to the procedure to be employed for ad­
mission to Meharry. It is necessary that your applica­
tion be certified to Meharry Medical College by the Director 
of Admissions of the University of Maryland.

Very truly yours, Edgar P. Long, Director of Admis­
sions.

I n  t h e  B al tim o r e  C it y  C ourt  

R e p lic a t io n  to R e s p o n d e n t s ’ A n sw e r

To the Honorable, the Judge of Said Court:
The Petitioner, Esther MeCready, minor, by Elizabeth 

MoCready, her next friend and parent, through her at­
torneys Charles II. Houston, Donald G. Murray, and R. 
L. Carter for reply to Respondents’ answers to petitioner’s 
petition for Writ of Mandamus, respectfully shows unto 
your Honor:

First: That in reply to Respondents’ answer paragraph 
one the State of Maryland is under an obligation to fur­
nish petitioner, in accordance with the Constitution and 
[fol. 14] laws of the United States and of the State of Mary­
land, facilities and opportunities for the study of nursing 
equal to those being furnished whites, and that this obliga­
tion must be met as soon, as such facilities are made avail­
able to any other group, race or person who is a citizen of 
the State of Maryland.

Petitioner further replies to the said paragraph of the 
Respondents’ answer by averring that the refusal of the 
Respondents to admit her to the School of Nursing of the 
University of Maryland and their offer to send her to the 
School of Nursing of Meharry Medical College, Nash­
ville, Tennessee, pursuant to a so-called Regional Com­
pact is a direct refusal of the State of Maryland to as­
sume the clear legal and constitutional obligations here­
inabove set forth and constitutes a denial to Petitioner of 
rights which the Constitution and laws of the United 
States and the State of Maryland entitle her.



12

In further reply to paragraph one of the Respondents’ 
answer, Petitioner says that any comparison between the 
kind and quality of the educational facilities offered at 
the School of Nursing of the University of Maryland with 
those at the School of Nursing of the Meharry Medical 
College, located in Nashville, Tennessee, in no wise af­
fects the petitioner’s right to be admitted to the School 
of Nursing of the University of Maryland along with 
other qualified applicants since the state cannot meet its 
obligations to furnish equal protection to all its citizens 
by offering to send Petitioner to a school outside of the 
State of Maryland because of her race and color, while at 
the same time accepting white applicants to the School 
of Nursing of the University of Maryland.

In further reply to paragraph one and particularly the 
fourth sub-paragraph of the same of the Respondents’ 
answer the petitioner admits that her application has 
been handled in the manner “ just described”  but deny 
that the said manner of handling the application was in 
the true interest of the petitioner and avers that the in­
tent therein was to stop the petitioner from insisting on 
[fol. 15] her rights as set forth under the Fourteenth Amend­
ment of the Constitution of the United States, the laws en­
acted in conformity therewith, the Constitution and laws of 
the State of Maryland and the decisions of the Court of 
Appeals of Maryland and the Supreme Court of the 
United States. In further reply to this same portion of 
the Respondents’ answer the Petitioner upon information 
and belief avers that the Respondents have not advised 
any white students with “ similar applications”  to that of 
the petitioner “ as to the procedure to be employed for ad­
mission to Meharry Medical College, School of Nursing”  
and petitioner avers her willingness and readiness to at­
tend the University of Maryland School of Nursing on 
the same terms and conditions as any other student white 
or otherwise.

Second: That this Petitioner in reply to Respondents’ 
answer in paragraph three (3) of their answer says that 
that portion of the said paragraph which refers to the 
School of Nursing of Meharry Medical College is an ex- 
ti aneous allegation and has nothing' to do with the ri°'hts 
and duties which the Petitioner is here seeking to&en­
force.



13

Third: That the Petitioner in reply to Respondents’ 
answer in paragraph four says that on information and 
belief as of the date of this replication applicants for 
admission to the School of Nursing of the University of 
Maryland are still being* accepted and that vacancies still 
exist in said school.

Fourth: That the Petitioner in reply to Respondents’ 
— set forth in paragraph six (6) of their answer says that 
her application was wrongfully and arbitrarily refused 
solely because of her race and color and. in direct con­
travention of the provisions of the Fourteenth Amend­
ment of the Constitution of the United States. In further 
answer, the Petitioner states that provisions for her edu­
cation solely because of her race and color at the School of 
Nursing at the Meharry Medical College, Nashville, Ten­
nessee is racial discrimination within the intendment of the 
[fob 16] Constitution and the laws of the United States and 
of the State of Maryland, and that it will be impossible 
for her under such provision to secure an education equal 
to that being offered whites at the University of Mary­
land within the meaning of the Constitution and laws of 
the United States, and of the State of Maryland and in 
accordance with decisions of the United States Supreme 
Court and the Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland.

Fifth: That finally, your petitioner, as to those allega­
tions of Respondents’ answer in paragraphs 1, 4, 6, and 9 
which deny allegations contained in paragraph- 1, 6, 8, and 
11 respectively of her petition, says that your petitioner 
joins issue with such allegations of the answer.

And, as in Duty Bound, etc.
Esther McCready, Petitioner.

Charles H. Houston, Donald G. Murray, Attorneys 
for Petitioner.

Duly sworn to b y -------------- . Jurat omitted in printing.

[fol. 17] I hereby certify that copies of the within Replica­
tion were mailed this 9th day of September, 1949, to Hall 
Hammond, Attorney General, O’Sullivan Building, Balti­
more, Maryland, and Kenneth C. Proctor, Assistant Attor­
ney General, O’Sullivan Building, Baltimore, Maryland, 
attorneys for Respondents.

(S.) Donald G. Murray.
3—9013



14

I n t h e  B a l tim o r e  C it y  C ourt

O rder  D ism iss in g  P e t it io n —October 10, 1949
It is tliis 10th day of October, 1949, by the Baltimore 

City Court,
. Ordered that the Petition for Mandamus filed in the above 

titled case be and it hereby is dismissed; and it is further 
Ordered that the Petitioner pay the cost of these proceed­

ings.
(S.) W. Conwell Smith, Judge.

D e f e n d a n t ’ s E x h ib it  N o. D

Contract for Training in Nursing Education
This Agreement, made and entered into this 19th day 

of July, 1949, by and between the Board of Control for 
Southern Regional Education, a public agency of the 
several Southern States, hereinafter called “ The Board,”  
party of the first part; and the State of Maryland, here­
inafter called “ Contracting Party,”  party of the second 
part;

Witnesseth:
Whereas, on the 8th day of February, 1948, the State 

of Maryland and other Southern States, through and by 
their respective governors, entered into a written compact 
[fol. 18] relative to the development and maintenance of 
regional educational services and schools in the Southern 
States in the professional, technological, scientific, literary, 
and other fields, so as to provide greater educational ad­
vantages and facilities for the citizens of the several states 
who reside within such region; and

Whereas, the said compact has been amended in certain 
respects and the Compact and amendments have been rati­
fied by the State of Maryland by :

Chapter 282—Acts of 1949 General Assembly of Mary­
land; and

Whereas, the Board is the public agency through which 
the several states are contracting for services; and

Whereas, the Board is capable of obtaining services 
for training in schools of nursing education; and



15

Whereas, the Contracting Party is desirous of enrolling 
qualified students in an accredited school of nursing educa­
tion ; and

Whereas, the Board and the Contracting Party desire 
to enter into a contract in pursuance of the aims and ob­
jectives of the Regional Compact;

Now Therefore, it is agreed by and between the Board 
and the Contracting Party as follows:

1. The Board
The Board covenants and agrees to do the following:
(a) To provide a quota of three (3) places in the follow­

ing school of nursing education:
Meharry Medical College, School of Nursing, Nashville, 

Tennessee
for first year students from the State of Maryland, to be 
selected from applicants certified by the Contracting Party, 
said quota shall be continued through each succeeding eol- 
[fol. 19] lege class until it applies to all years of instruction 
desired by the Contracting Party.

(b) To provide the Contracting Party with a statement 
of minimum, standards for admission required by the named 
institution.

(c) To inform the Contracting Party of the final action 
on applications taken by the respective institutions. The 
institution shall exercise final authority over admission of 
all applicants and shall make the final selection of students.

(d) To use monies received under this contract exclu­
sively for meeting, in part, the operating and maintenance 
costs incurred by the named institutions in providing train­
ing under this agreement.

II. The Contracting Party
The Contracting Party covenants and agrees to do the 

following:
(a) To publish in an appropriate state publication the 

preparatory curriculum for training in nursing education, 
and state where instruction in nursing education will be 
offered and the circumstances under which it will be offered.



16

(b) To certify applicants as eligible for consideration 
under this agreement for training in nursing education.

(c) To pay to The Board the sum of $500 for each student 
accepted under this contract up to the quota, upon certi­
fication by The Board of the names and numbers enrolled 
from the state of the Contracting Party.

(d) To make an annual minimum payment amounting 
to three-fourths of the charges of all students in its quota, 
whether or not it fills its quota.

[fol. 20] III. Duration of Contract
This agreement shall continue in force for two calen­

dar years from July 1, 1949, and shall be automatically 
renewed for another term of two years and so continu­
ously unless either party shall give notice in writing to 
the other of intention to terminate the agreement at least 
two calendar years prior to the date of termination; pro­
vided, however, that the continuance of this contract is 
at all times contingent upon the legislature of the Con­
tracting Party appropriating sufficient funds to enable 
the Contracting Party to comply with the agreements 
set forth.

IV. Kelationship of the Council to Contracting Party
The function of The Board is to aid in formulating, es­

tablishing and coordinating arrangements between states 
and institution, so that instructional services desired by 
states can be obtained from institutions supported by 
other states or by endowments. The Board exercises 
no control over admissions, instructional methods, cur­
ricula, or standards, except that it recommends only 
those institutions which are accredited by appropriate 
bodies or give every indication of achieving such accred­
itation within a designated period.

In Witness Whereof, the Board of Control for Southern 
Regional Education, by authority delegated in its duly 
authorized By-Laws, has approved this agreement and 
caused its name to be signed hereto by John E. Ivey, Jr., 
its Director, and its official seal to be affixed hereto and 
attested by W. J. McGlothlin, its Associate Director; 
and the State of Maryland, by and through its Governor 
has approved this agreement and caused its name to be



17

signed hereto by His Excellency, William Preston Lane, 
Jr., its Governor, and its official seal to be affixed hereto 
and attested by Bertram L. Boone, II, its Secretary of 
[fol. 21] State, the day and year first above written.

Board of Control for Southern Regional Education.
Attest: (S.) W. J. McGlothlin, Associate Director, by 

(S.) John E. Ivey, Jr., Director.
State of Maryland, by (S.) Wm, Preston Lane, Jr., 

Governor.
Attest: (S.) Bertram L. Boone, II, Secretary of State.

I n  t h e  B a l t im o r e  C it y  C o u rt

Statement of Evidence

S t ip u l a t io n

(Tr. pp. 1-6) :
Mr. Houston: It is stipulated by and between coun­

sel for Plaintiff and for the Respondents in open Court 
that the minor Plaintiff, Miss Esther McCready, is a 
Negro citizen of the United States, and the State of Mary­
land, resident in the City of Baltimore, at 506 North 
Dallas Street; that she is eighteen years of age, born in 
Baltimore January 10, 1931; that she meets all of the edu­
cational and moral qualifications for admission to the 
School of Nursing of the University of Maryland; that 
on February 1, 1949 she duly made application for admis­
sion for the first year class, School of Nursing of the Uni­
versity of Maryland. The Respondents admit that her 
educational and moral qualifications are equivalent, if 
not superior to some of the educational qualifications of 
white students who have been admitted to the first year 
class of the School of Nursing, and whose applications 
[fol. 22] were received by the University after the applica­
tion of the Plaintiff McCready was received, but the Plain­
tiff was refused admission solely because of color and 
would have been admitted if she had been white; that she 
was offered by the University a course in nursing at the 
Meharry Medical College at Nashville, Tennessee, under a



18

Regional Compact entered into between the State of 
Maryland and other Southern States ratified by the 
State of Maryland Legislature, Chapter 282, Laws of 
1949, at a total over-all cost to her, including living and 
travelling expenses, which would not exceed the cost to 
her of attending the School of Nursing at the University 
of Maryland. Admission dates for the School of Nursing, 
first year class, 1949, were August 8, 1949 and October 3, 
1949, and Plaintiff would have been eligible at either one 
of those two dates. Plaintiff rejected the course of nurs­
ing at Meharry Medical College and insists upon her 
right to attend the nursing course at the University of 
Maryland. The School of Nursing at the University of 
Maryland is the only State supported educational in­
stitution in the State of Maryland where a course in 
nursing can be obtained. Plaintiff tenders herself ready, 
able, and willing to pay all first year fees and expenses, 
ready, able, and willing to conform to all lawful uniform 
rules and regulations governing first year students at 
the School of Nursing at the University of Maryland.

May I ask, your Honor, for the record, whether that is 
satisfactory to the Defendants?

Mr. Proctor: That is stipulated by the Defendants.
Mr. Houston: With that the Plaintiff rests.
The Court: It is further admitted, is it not, that the 

University of Maryland is a State agency?
Mr. Proctor: Yes, sir.
The Court: Very well.
Mr. Proctor: The Regional Compact which is set forth 

in our Act of Ratification, Chapter 282, has been ratified 
[fob 23] and approved by the Legislatures of all of the sig­
natory States excepting Texas, Virginia, and West Vir­
ginia, and that the Compact is now in full force and effect, 
I would like to add that to the stipulation.

Mr. Houston: I do not know that but I have no doubt 
about it. I would like to say it is a fact that every State 
which has ratified the compact is a State that lias segre­
gated schools. I can establish that.

The Court: I think you can stipulate that.
Mr. Proctor: We will stipulate to that, yes, sir. It 

is no doubt they have segregated schools.



19

(Tr. pp. 70-88) :
Dr. Edgar F. Long, 4401 Holly Hill Road, College 

Heights, Hyattsville, Md., a witness of lawful age pro­
duced on behalf of the Petitioner, having been first duly 
sworn accoi’ding to law, was examined and testified as fol­
lows :

Direct examination.

By Mr. Houston:
Q. State your official position, please?
A. Director of Admissions.
Q. For the University of Maryland?
A. Director of Admissions for the University of Mary­

land. • .
Q. Does that include—what schools does it include.
A. The schools both at College Park and the professional 

schools in Baltimore, with the exception of the graduate 
school at College Park.

Q. Does that include all of the schools that are covered 
in the provisions of the Regional Compact?

A. Yes, sir, so far as I know. I am not aware what the 
[fob 24] arrangement is in connection with the graduate 
program I cannot state as to that.

Q. By graduate program you mean the graduate pro­
gram in arts and sciences?

A. Anything beyond the baccalaureate degree.
Q. Mr. Proctor: You mean leading to Master of Arts 

and Sciences, Doctor of Philosophy?
.A. Yes sir.
Q. Mr.'Houston: You are familiar with it so far as 

concerning the professional courses, dentistry, medicine, 
nursing, veterinarian, music, and so forth?

The Witness: Your question is am I Director of Ad­
missions for the schools so effected?

Mr. Houston: No, I ask you whether you are Direc­
tor of Admissions for all of the schools?

A. Yes.
Q. Which are under the Regional Compact—embrac­

ing all of the Regional Compact Division?
A. I answer that with the exception of the graduate 

school about which I do not know.



20

Q. I am trying to pin that down as Mr. Proctor says, 
those graduate courses leading to degree of Master of 
Arts and leading to the degree of Doctor of Philosophy?

A. That is correct.
Q. That is the only exception you are making?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, you are admission officer of the school of Nurs­

ing?
A. I am.
Q. You handle all of the applications for admission to 

the first year nursing class?
A. I do.
Q. Since February 1, 1949?
A. I do.
Q. Including application of the Plaintiff, Miss Esther 

McCready?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Dr. Long, can you tell us how many applica­

tions in the School of Nursing, the first year class, you 
[fol. 25] received after February 1, 1949?

A. I have a list of all here but I have not summed that list 
in terms of dates.

Q. What I want to know is this, give us approxi­
mately—

Mr. Proctor: You can refer to that list.
The Witness: I have my list back there if I may get 

it.
Mr. Houston: Sure; yes, indeed.
Mr. Proctor: My recollection is this stipulation in­

cludes a statement that the Universtiy did accept------
The Court: He wants the exact number.
Mr. Houston: Let me explain what I am driving at.
The Court: He has it.
The Witness: Are you inquiring about the August class 

or October class or both?
Mr. Houston: I am really inquiring about, both. I 

want the number of applications from students subse­
quently admitted whose applications were received after 
February 1, 1949 in both the August and the October 
classes?

A. To answer that question specifically would mean 
going through these carefully and picking up the number 
before and those after. I can answer your question by



21

saying that there are numerous applications of accepted 
students in the School of Nursing received after the date 
of submission of Miss McCready’s application.

Mr. Houston: That is sufficient.
Q. Mr. Houston: Now the next question is: Can you 

state how long after the papers of prospective students 
were complete before you gave the student an answer on 
her application?

The Court: What was the normal time taken to accept 
or reject an application?

A. That depends but in this case an acknowledgment was 
[fol. 26] made of application but no disposition of it was 
made until a later date, the letter indicating the date.

Q. Mr. Houston: No, what I want to know is this------
The Court: Mr. Houston wants to know about other 

cases, not Miss McCready. What time was required either 
to accept or reject these other applications normally?

A. An indefinite answer would necessarily have to be 
given to that question. Normally we start working on an 
application as soon as we get it; whether the applicant 
follows up promptly in supplying all of the required data 
or not determines how long it takes to dispose of the case.

Q. Mr. Houston: The question was assuming all data 
complete how long does it normally take?

A. The answer to that has to be indefinite for the reason 
that School of Nursing Committee on Admissions meets 
periodically. When there is a group of applications whose 
records are complete this committee meets and makes se­
lection from among those.

Q. Give us the average to the best of your ability?
A. It would have to be a pure guess. I should say a week.
Q. Now, these records here show that this application 

was received February 2, 1949 and not acted on until 
August 13, 1949?

A. Correct, so far as I know. I am willing to accept 
that.

Q. Finally acted on?
Mr. Proctor: That is admitted by the State. It is ad­

mitted by the State that this application was not acted 
upon until August 13, 1949.

Q. Mr. Houston: That was an unusually long time?
A. Yes, sir.

4—9013



22

Q. Why?
A. The answer to that question is given in the answer 

to the suit, separate education for Negroes and whites 
in the State of Maryland.
[fol. 27] Q. In other words, you purposely held that 

application solely because she was a Negro?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, normally who acts on applications for admis­

sion to the School of Nursing?
A. The committee I mentioned a while age, of which I 

am chairman.
Q. And the committee includes whom besides you?
A. Miss Gipe, the Director of the School, and Mrs. Mc­

Govern, Mrs. Zeck.
Q. Who is Mrs. McGovern?
A. Assistant to Miss Gipe, present with Miss Gipe in 

Court.
Q. Who else?
A. Mrs. Zeck.
Q. Who is Mrs. Zeck?
A. She is instructor in the School of Nursing and as­

sistant in education.
Q. So the committee consists of four, three persons 

out of the School of Nursing and yourself?
A. Miss Weman, Secretary of the school also sits in on 

the sessions; whether she is considered a voting member 
or not I don’t know. I think she is there for recording 
purposes.

Q. The point is that the committee that passes on ad­
missions to the School of Nursing consists of yourself 
and three other members who are members of the faculty 
of the School of Nursing?

A. Correct.
Q. Did this committee ever vote upon the application of 

the Plaintiff?
A. It did not.
Q. Why?
A. Because we were not in position to determine policy 

with respect to an application made by a member of the 
Negro race.

Q. By “ we”  you mean your committee?
A. The committee including myself.
Q. When you wrote your letter of August 13, 1949, in­

troduced in evidence as Defendant’s Exhibit No. E, did



23

you get all of the information contained in that letter 
from your own knowledge or were you advised?

A. I was advised.
[fol. 28] Q. Who advised you?

A. President Byrd.
Q. Now, when did President Byrd give you the ad­

vice contained in your letter of August 13, 1949?
A. I would have to have prompting on that because 

I don’t know the exact date. It was only, so far as I can 
recall the date, a few days before the letter was written, 
say two or three.

Q. Was the advice written or was it verbal?
A. It was written.
Q. Will you produce that written advice?
A. You have it in the letter which was sent to the Plain­

tiff.
Q. Will you produce for us the written advice which 

President Byrd gave you?
A. That was a mis-tatement. What I meant I mean the 

letter which was sent to be sent out; it was prepared for my 
signature.

Q. Who prepared the letter for your signature?
A. I have no way of knowing.
Q. From whom did you get the letter?
A. From Mr. Proctor, isn’t that correct? That is the 

first time I knew of the existence of the letter when I got 
it from you.

Q. Is it normal for you to get letters which answer the 
applications of students from an Assistant Attorney Gen­
eral of the State of Maryland?

A. No, quit- unusual.
Q. In connection with that were there any other ap­

plications of Negro students opened in your office for ad­
mission to the University of Maryland in schools other 
than nursing that you handled in the same way that you 
handled the McCready application?

Objected to.
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Houston: On the theory of showing that this is not 

a special treatment as far as nursing and to establish 
a general policy.



24

[fol. 29] The Court: I think you have a right to show that. 
I will overrule the objection.

The Witness: Yes, the answer is.
Mr. Proctor: The purpose of the objection is that it 

has been stipulated as a matter of policy this applicant 
was turned down and she was asked to go to Meharry 
Medical College; we have agreed that is the policy.

Mr. Houston: There are two things to be developed: 
one, it does not go all the way through the University 
because the School of Law has Negroes in it; and the 
second thing I want to develop is; that under the Re­
gional Compact white students are never sent out of the 
State to study courses which are offered at the University 
of Maryland.

Q. Mr. Houston: Now, Dr. Long, I think we can tele­
scope this: Dr. Long, all of the applications of Negroes for 
admission to the University of Maryland outside of the 
School of Law were handled in exactly the same way 
that you handled the McCready application, were they 
not?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Solely because they came from Negro students?
A. Yes.
Q. You took the same action on them?
Mr. Proctor: As a matter of mechanics.
Q. Mr. Houston: I ask you if all of the other appli­

cations to the University of Maryland by Negro students, 
except in the law school, were rejected so far as admis­
sion to the University of Maryland was concerned?

A. Yes.
Q. Solely because they were Negroes?
Mr. Proctor: That is not accurate. There were three 

of them seeking admission to the College of Engineering, 
and the Home Economics course, of which two were 
accepted and sent to the Maryland State College at Prin­
cess Anne.
[fol. 30] Q. Mr. Houston: Let me put it this way: All of 
the applications of Negro students applying to the Uni­
versity of Maryland, except applications to the School of 
Law, were rejected so far as admissions to the Baltimore 
schools or to the schools at College Park?



25

A. The answer is yes.
Q. Solely because they were Negroes?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, I understand there was application for en­

gineering and the student was admitted and sent to Prin­
cess Anne, which is a department of the University of 
Maryland, is that correct?

A. That is correct.
Q. That is engineering course at Princess Anne?
A. I am in no position to answer that question.
Mr. Proctor: I object to that.
Mr. Houston: I am trying to find out the course of 

treatment, that is all.
Objected to.
Objection overruled.
Q. Mr. Houston: One application was for home eco­

nomics. I understand that student was admitted and re­
ferred to Princess Anne, is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that again was solely because she was a Negro?
A. Yes.
Q. There was applications for pharmacy. Is there a 

College of Pharmacy at the University of Maryland?
A. There is.
Q. In 1949 after the applications of these Negroes were 

received were white students admitted to the first year 
class of the College of Pharmacy?

A. They were.
Q. Were these applications from Negroes rejected solely 

because of color?
A. Yes.
Q. There was an application also for dentistry?

[fol. 31] Mr. Proctor: There was one on the merits.
Mr. Houston: A student did not measure up, you mean?
Mr. Proctor: Yes.
Mr. Houston: If that is so that is out.
Q. Mr. Houston: There was an application in dentis­

try. Is there a school of dentistry at the University of 
Maryland ?

A. Yes,



26

Q. This student was rejected solely because of color 
and referred to Meharry?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, Dr. Long, I understand that you sent certain 

white students to the University of Georgia for veterinary 
medicine ?

A. That is correct.
The Court: That was under the Regional Contract.
Mr. Houston: Yes, but the point I am making, does 

the University of Maryland have this same course in 
veterinary medicine that you sent students to the Uni­
versity of Georgia to take?

A. No.
Q. Mr. Houston: Have you sent, under the Regional 

Compact, any white student outside of the State of Mary­
land to take a course which was offered at the University 
of Maryland?

A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. The only students who have been sent out of the 

State------
The Court: You mean white resident students?
Mr. Houston: Yes, sir.
The Court: They may have turned away some white 

students.
Mr. Houston: They do not send them out of the State. 

They turn them down and they will go where they please, 
[fob 32] Q. Mr. Houston: My question was: there was no 
white Maryland student who applied for admission to 
the University of Maryland who was found qualified, and 
notwithstanding sent out of the State, to study in any 
other State, courses open at the University of Maryland?

A. No.
Q. All of the students whom the State of Maryland 

admitted sending outside of the State to study courses 
that were offered at the State University were Negro 
students ?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. And they were sent out solely because of race?
A. Yes, were to be sent.
Q. Yes, were to be sent because of race?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And to be specific, no first year white student resi­

dent of Maryland who applied for the first year course



27

in nursing was sent out of the State to study first year 
course of nursing, which was ottered at the University 
of Maryland?

A. No.
Q. Did you have any other white students who were 

sent—any white Maryland resident students who were 
sent out of the State under the Regional Compact except 
the students in veterinarian medicine?

A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Did you refer any of those white students—Mary­

land white students who wanted veterinarian medicine to 
Tuskegee Institute?

A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Do you have any other school under the Regional 

Compact for training of nurses except Meharry Medical 
College?

A. I have no information on that question.
Mr. Houston: That is all.
Mr. Proctor: That is all.
Examination concluded.

[fol. 33] Mr. Houston: We rest, your Honor.
The Court: I think as abundant precaution you ought 

to move to strike out all of the testimony that refers to 
Meharry College.

Mr. Houston: I do so move at the present time. I was 
going to do that when I started to argue but I suppose 
now is the time. I so move.

The Court: Motion overruled.
Exception granted.

; C o lloqu y  B e t w e e n  C ourt  an d  C o u n sel

(Tr. pp. 96-111) :
The Court: It has been clear to me from the outset that 

this is an important case and the questions involved in it 
are not altogether easy to determine.

It is plain enough that the State cannot refuse the op­
portunity to study law within the State to Negroes if it 
permits white students to study law in a State college 
within the State. It is likewise clear that within the 
State, on the present decisions, a policy of segregation



28

of the races in education may be maintained provided 
only that substantially equal facilities are granted, and 
that provided that substantially equal opportunities and 
facilities are provided the State is not guilty of discrimi­
nation or violation of Constitutional rights if it provides 
separate institutions to separate the races in its education 
work.

In the cases of law students, the decision of the Court 
in this State in the Murray case has operated as a prece­
dent. At the time the Murray case was decided the State 
was providing for the education of Negro law students by 
sending them on scholarship to Howard University in 
Washington, which is admittedly a very line institution 
and gave them an excellent course in law, but the Court 
here decided that that arrangement was not a satisfac­
tory discharge of the State’s obligation to Negro students 
who desired to study law, and the reasons given for it 
[fol. 34] were that it was doubly expensive and inconvenient- 
to attend Howard University, and that a student there was 
deprived of the opportunity to study Maryland law and 
practice to the same degree that he would be permitted 
to do in attending a course at the University of Mary­
land. Somewhat related questions about the provision 
of separate but substantially equal facilities on inter­
state carriers have been decided, and I have noted with 
some interest that in a case now pending before the 
Supreme Court which involves the furnishing of dining 
facilities on an interstate railroad the Government’s brief 
will urge the Supreme Court that the segregation doctrine 
is so out-dated that it no longer deserves a place in our 
law and that the Court overrule the fifty-year-old separate 
but equal facilities doctrine.

I must remind counsel that this Court feels it is bound 
by existing decisions, by what has already been decided 
and not by any reasonable tendency rule. If something 
different is to be decided it would have to be decided by 
the Supreme Court; this Court is bound by the decisions 
already made on the subject of education and the policy 
of segregation in the State’s discharge of its obligation 
to furnish education facilities to its citizens. It is per­
fectly true that the language of the opinion of the Su­
preme Court in the Gaines case indicates that the Court, 
while referring to the Murray case, does not adopt the



29

full rationale of tlie opinion and does not rely heavily 
on the question of the desirability of obtaining a legal 
education in the place where one proposes to practice 
his profession, but it nevertheless remains true that the 
Court has not condemned the use of scholarships and the 
exchange of educational facilities in application to other 
fields of education other than the study of law.

The Regional Compact which has been introduced in 
evidence here, and which is, according to the statements 
made to the Court, which I have no reason to question 
actually in operation, was certainly made in good faith, 
and I have no reason to doubt that the training in nurs- 
[fol. 35] ing which is offered at the Meliarry Medical Col­
lege is in every respect equal to the training* which is off­
ered here by the University of Maryland in the University 
Hospital nursing school.

I think I might concede that if the State followed a 
policy of providing all of its white students with training 
at the expense of the State, then the State sending all 
of its colored citizens outside of the State to obtain a sub­
stantially equal education, would be a discrimination 
which ought not to be permitted, but the facts in re­
gard to training in other fields was merely admitted in 
order to give the Court a general picture of the subject. 
We are not here passing on the question of medical educa­
tion, or training in pharmacy or veterinary medicine. The 
question here is as to a training in nursing, and so far as 
that appears in this case there has been only one applica­
tion by a Negro for admission to the University Hospital’s 
School of Nursing, and the authorities at the University 
of Maryland have decided in that one case to offer as an 
adequate, and equal, substitute for the training there 
provided that she shall have the opportunity to train at 
the Meliarry School in Nashville, so on the bare facts 
that are before me in this case I conclude that the State 
in offering the training at Meharry has discharged its 
obligation in this single case and that the training there 
offered is substantially equal, if not superior, to the train­
ing at the University of Maryland School of Nursing, and 
for that reason the petition for the writ of mandamus 
should be denied.

Mr. Houston: May I ask what your Honor does with the 
express admission that the purpose of this is to main­
tain the segregation policy in the State of Maryland?

5—9013



30

That is one. May I ask what your Honor does with the 
proposition that no white girl is sent out of the State to 
take nursing, even though Meharry is superior to the 
University of Maryland? May I ask your Honor what 
your Honor is going to do with the facts admitted of 
record that all of the Negro students where courses were 
[fol. 36] not offered by the State of Maryland in the segre­
gated institution at Princess Anne, or at the University 
of Maryland School of law, were also sent out of the State 
solely because of race, and that no white student has been 
sent out of the State to study any course which is offered 
to white students within the State of Maryland!

The Court: The answer to that is that for the reason 
it appears that there were two students of medicine who 
were sent out of the State, and one in pharmacy.

Mr. Proctor: Two medical and then the white students 
who were sent down to the University of Georgia for 
Veterinary Medicine, two Negro medical students to 
Meharry.

Mr. Houston: It does not make any difference.
Mr. Proctor: I thought your Honor meant the ones 

actually gone down there, not the status pending.
The Court: I mean those who have applied. As I say, 

it is not directly in point here but that information was 
submitted only for the Court to get a picture of what is 
being done on applications of colored students in various 
fields.

This Regional Pact has about just gone into existence. 
It would obviously be silly, as you suggest and I agree, to 
establish a separate institution for only two or three 
students such as they attempted to do out in Missouri. I 
think the remedy suggested is that we abandon the policy 
of segregation in education. My answer to you on that is 
that that is a question of Legislative policy about which 
the Court has nothing to do.

Mr. Houston: No, that is not my point. I am glad 
you raised that in order that the record may be straight. 
I did not say you should abolish the policy of segregation. 
What I said was that you are permitted under existing 
decisions to have segregated schools within the State pro­
vided the facilities are substantially equal but that you 
cannot achieve segregation by the un-Constitutional means 
[fol. 37] of sending Negro students outside of the State 
solely because of race, as this record shows is the uni­



31

form practice, with every application to the University 
of Maryland for a course which is not offered at the seg­
regated school at Princess Anne or the law school at the 
University of Maryland, when you educate white students 
here in the State of Maryland at the University, and I 
do not admit that the only reason for introducing the 
evidence as to applications of the other students was 
merely the information of the Court. I say it is abso­
lutely basic to establish the fact that the uniform admin­
istration of the University of Maryland in the handling 
of applications of Negro students is to make a distinc­
tion on the ground of race, and except in the law school, 
whenever a Negro student applies to the University of 
Maryland, who is otherwise qualified and he would be 
admitted if white, is sent outside of the State of Maryland 
unless there is provision for that course in the segregated 
institution at Princess Anne.

Let me be clear: I am not here substantially attacking 
segregation. Let it be clear that your Honor’s granting 
the motion of mandamus would not reach segregation in 
the State, but an order of mandamus within the limits 
of the Pearson case, the Gaines case, the Murray case, 
and the Sipuel case, and the State of Maryland cannot 
exclude Negroes solely because of race from the entire 
State from taking courses offered to white students here; 
that the power to segregate within the State does not in­
clude the power to exclude altogether from the State, and 
that if the Constitutional protection is an individual pro­
tection this girl is not concerned with how many students 
are sent outside of the State of Maryland; she is not con­
cerned with whether this Regional Pact is one day old 
or a thousand years old. She is concerned with only one 
thing and that is to take the course of the School of Nurs­
ing which, is offered within the University of Maryland. 
We say the Regional Pact can furnish no Constitutional 
justification for the denial of that Constitutional right. 
It does not attack segregation per se. My views about it 
[fol. 38] are one thing, but it does not reach the limits of 
segregation.

The Court: I understand that.
Mr. Proctor: You said that in your brief.
Mr. Houston: I am stating it today for the record.
The Court: I misunderstood you, perhaps, when you 

argued that the luxury of prejudice has to be abandoned;



32

the wasteful and extravagant policy of conducting sep­
arate schools ought to be abandoned. I thought you meant 
by that the State’s policy of segregation and separate 
schools in education ought to be scrapped and thrown over­
board.

Mr. Houston: I still think so but I do not think that is 
the case to be decided, nor do I think your Honor would 
have power in this particular case to decide it because 
we are not asking you how this girl shall be taught. The 
only thing we are asking you to do is to say that the 
State of Maryland cannot teach white students nursing 
within the State whereas it sends this girl outside of 
the State, (one) because she is colored, and solely be­
cause she is colored, and (two) to perpetuate its system 
of segregation in education. As to that, we say that if 
you have the power to segregate then you must do as the 
Gaines case says, you must segregate by institutions estab­
lished within the State.

What your Honor has said in substance is that it would 
be silly to establish a separate nursing school for this 
one girl. To that I reply “ perhaps” , but neither you nor 
I represent the Legislature of the State. If the Legisla­
ture should nevertheless decide to do as they did in Mis­
souri, if they conclude to appropriate $200,000 in order to 
build a separate school of nursing—out there it was law 
—neither you nor I at this particular stage can gainsay it, 
nor have we any approval of it. We are here at the 
threshold—and that is where this case is today, this case 
is at the threshold which says one of two things, that 
[fol. 39] the other cases are wrong when they say the State 
cannot send a Negro student outside of the State to study a 
course which is offered a white student within the State.

The Court: Isn’t it true that a good many students 
are sent out of the State to get an education because the 
facilities do not exist within the State? Isn’t that a most 
common practice. There is no question about medical 
students.

Mr. Houston: That is quite true. I may explain that.
The Court: There are a lot of State medical institu­

tions.
Mr. Houston: Yes, fairly large number of State medical 

institutions, that is true. Let me explain that—I mean 
we are a little bit beyond the matter of Constitutional 
rights now but here is the situation. A State scholarship



33

law which increases the right of Negroes, or of white stu­
dents to go outside of the State, whereas it may be a 
discrimination against the white student in that case, cer­
tainly would be nothing a Negro could complain about if 
he decided to accept it. For pecuniary reasons a Negro 
student, let us say in Mississippi, might very well decide, 
“ I would rather take the money that Mississippi would 
give and go to a first rate school than go to the University of 
Mississippi” -—the same thing in Georgia. We are an im­
poverished people. A State scholarship might mean the 
difference between a boy remaining a red-cap or porter, 
because he would not have the money to pay the tuitions, 
and becoming a professional man by going to a school for 
which he had a scholarship. That, is the reason, frankly, 
why in so many instances these Negroes have not raised the 
challenge. When we tried the Gaines case and when we 
tried the Murray case that very issue was before us and we 
had to decide it, and that issue was this: would it be better 
not to make an attack on the State scholarship laws be­
cause we might be effecting an entire generation of students, 
Negro students, or better to make a strict attack on the 
question of Constitutionality and let the future take care 
[fol. 40] of itself, and the final decision was the decision we 
made, to make the attack on the Constitutional basis and 
the Gaines case is the result. There are many students 
who are still taking State scholarships and so far as that 
is concerned that is their business. All we say is that 
the State may very well drain off a considerable part of 
its Negro problem by the Negro voluntarily taking that 
money and going, but we have said this: we have said 
that the issue as to these students who come up and want 
to study within the State, as a fundamental issue of Con­
stitutional right, cannot be compromised by the fact that 
some other students conclude to go outside of the State, 
and there we are running right into the teeth of the Su­
preme Court in the Gaines case, and the Mitchell case, 
and also in the Shelly v. Kramer case, which is a matter 
of restrictive Government decision just handed down, so 
on that basis I respectfully wish, since your Honor mis­
construed the basis of my argument, to ask you to recon­
sider, because you are not attacking segregation, you are 
attacking exclusion. What Maryland does to its citizens 
inside of the State is one issue, but Maryland cannot under 
the Constitution exclude, and have one rule for Negroes to



34

go outside of the State to study courses which are offered 
white students within the State, and the evidence it sends 
white students outside of the State for courses not offered 
in the State is no justification for Maryland sending Negro 
students out of the State for courses offered within the 
State, and the State cannot do by this, which cannot raise 
any Constitutional authority, by Compact with any other 
States with or without the authority of Congress, and that 
is my simple argument, and it is on that basis——

The Court: That is where we disagree. You regard 
the Gaines decision as applicable to all fields of education.

Mr. Houston: Yes, sir.
The Court: As a precedent which controls wherever the 

[fol. 41] State attempts to furnish education to its citizens. 
I do not so regard it but merely as applicable to educa­
tion in law. It is true that in the Gaines case a scholarship 
to a college of a neighboring State was condemned by the 
Supreme Court as an inadequate substitute for the dis­
charge of the State’s obligations to furnish the same educa­
tion to Negroes that it furnished to whites, and I am quite 
ready to agree that the substitute education to be offered 
under this Regional Pact is no different substantially and 
is no different in law from the substitute offered by the in­
dividual State under scholarships to an institution in a 
neighboring State. I think the substitute that is offered 
is substantially the same thing and if it be true that the 
Gaines case is a precedent which condemns such a substitute 
then I am wrong in my conclusion.

Mr. Houston: May I ask this so we can narrow the issue 
down, because either way the case goes your Honor appreci­
ates the fact that undoubtedly there is going to be an appeal 
—if your Honor decided to grant the writ of mandamus 
the University will appeal and if it is denied we are going to 
appeal, because we told your Honor this is a very important 
case—then I understand your Honor to say in substance 
if this were the law your Honor would feel that the Gaines 
case would have to control the decision ?

The Court: Right.
Mr. Houston: So that the basic principle on which your 

Honor decides this case is that there is a distinction be­
tween law and nursing so far as the Constitution is con­
cerned.

The Court: Right. For those reasons I will sign an order 
dismissing the petition.



[fol. 42] In t h e  B a l tim o r e  C it y  C ourt

P e t it io n  b y  t h e  B oard of C o n tr o l  for  S o u t h e r n  R eg io n al  
E d u ca tio n  to I n t e r v e n e  as A m ic u s  C u riae

To the Honorable, the Judge of Said Court:
Now comes the Board of Control for Southern Regional 

Education, a joint_ agency of the States of Florida, Mary­
land, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas, 
North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama and Oklahoma, 
by James A. Mackay and 0. Bowie Duckett, its attorneys, 
and in order to clarify its purpose and position respectfully 
represents:

. 1- The Board of Control for Southern Regional Educa­
tion was established for the purpose of assisting States 
and institutions and agencies concerned ivith higher educa­
tion in their efforts to advance knowledge and improve 
the social and economic level of the Southern region, as will 
more fully appear from “ The Regional Compact”  con­
tained in Chapter 282 of the Acts of 1949. Said Compact 
created by the Governors and Legislatures of the several 
States enable the States to achieve together a system of 
higher education which none could hope to achieve indi­
vidually.

2. Three fields of regional service have been established 
by The Board of Control, namely, human medicine, den­
tistry and veterinary medicine.

3. That arrangements for training in nursing education 
have been entered into whereby students with proper quali­
fications from Maryland may be enrolled in the Meharry 
Medical College, School of Nursing, as a special convenience 
to the State of Maryland. Said contracts have not come 
before the Board of Control but will be presented to it for 
action at its next meeting November 21, 1949.

4. The Board’s position is that it shall make regional 
arrangements to supplement educational facilities within 
States. It is not the purpose of the Board that the regional 
[fol. 43] compact and the contracts for educational service 
thereunder shall serve any State as a legal defense for 
avoiding responsibilities established or defined under the 
existing State and Federal laws and Court decisions.

35



36

Wherefore, Petitioner prays that it he allowed to inter­
vene and may have such other and further relief as may 
be just in the premises.

James A. Mackay, 0. Bowie Duckett, Attorneys for 
the Board of Control for Southern Regional Edu­
cation.

Duly sworn to by John E. Ivey, Jr. Jurat omitted in 
printing.

[ fo ls . 44-45] 1st th e  B altimore C it y  C ourt

[Title omitted]

O rder Gra n t in g  L eave to I ntervene

Upon the aforegoing Petition and Affidavit, the Board 
of Control for the Southern Regional Education is hereby 
permitted to intervene in the above entitled cause this 
10th day of October, 1949.

W. Conwell Smith, Chief Judge.

[fol. 46] In t h e  B a l tim o r e  C it y  C ourt 

Appendix to Appellees’ Brief

E xc erpts  fr o m  S t a t e m e n t  of E v id e n ce

(St. Tr. 6-15): Dr. Maurice C. Pincoffs,
* # # # # # #
Direct Examination.

Question by Mr. Proctor:
Q. Dr. Pincoffs, you, I believe, are a medical doctor1?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I would like you to state, if you would, please, your 

educational back-ground? Where did you cover your un­
der-graduate work?

A. University of Chicago, with the degree of Bachelor of 
Science in 1910.

Q. Where did you take your medical degree?
A. At the Johns Hopkins Medical School in 1912.



37

Q. And after completion of your medical course where 
did you go for your interne ship?

A. Presbyterian Hospital in Chicago.
Q. Did you take your residency there?
A. No, in the City Hospitals of Baltimore for two years.
Q. After completion of your residency have you engaged 

in the teaching of medicine and medical subjects?
A. Yes, prior to graduation I taught anatomy in the Uni­

versity of Chicago; I taught later in research capacity in 
the Department of pharmacology at Hopkins, and later 
as assistant instructor in medicine at Hopkins. Since 1922 
I have been Professor of Medicine in the University of 
Maryland Medical School.

Q. Have you had any connection with the School of 
Nursing of the University of Maryland?

A. Yes, throughout the years that I have been chief phy­
sician at the University Hospital I have been in very close 
[fol. 47] touch with the nursing and medical service. In the 
last year and four months in which I acted as assistant to 
the President of the University for medical affairs I have 
been in policy charge of the School of Nursing, and in that 
capacity became very well acquainted with the instruction 
and the facilities of that school. Furthermore, I have been 
at various times in World War I and World War II in 
command of hospitals, which included, of course, command 
of the nursing facilities in large hospitals. I have been 
instructor of nursing schools intermittently at the Uni­
versity of Maryland and at the Mercy Hospital for the 
last 27 years.

Q. Now, you referred generally to your service in World 
War I and II. What, in general, did you do in World 
War I?

A. In connection with the nursing end in World War I, 
I commanded a Red Cross hospital for French civilians, 
which included a wide-spread nursing service throughout 
twenty-seven dispensaries, I suppose we would call them, 
over the province in Northern France.

Q. What was particularly your experience in World War 
II?

A. Well, in regard to nursing I commanded the 42nd 
General Hospital in Australia—in this country and Aus­
tralia.

Q. How large a hospital was that?
A. That was a thousand bed hospital.



38

Q. Did your duties include the supervision of nursing 
facilities in the hospital?

A. They did. Further in World War II for a period of 
time I held the position known in the Army as Chief of the 
Professional Services in the Southwest Pacific, which gave 
me supervision of the nursing corps throughout that the­
atre.

Q. Now, with what hospitals have you been connected 
or associated as of this year?

A. Well, I have been, during this last thirty years, chief 
physician of the University Hospital, of the Mercy Hospital 
[fol. 48] for a long period, and on the attending staffs of 
a great many other hospitals, Bon Secours, Church Home, 
West Baltimore, and so on.

Q. Now, are you at the present time on a committee 
under the Secretary of Defense, and if so, what is that 
committee ?

A. I have been a member of what is called the Armed 
Forces Medical Advisory Committee, which is an advisory 
Committee to the Secretary of Defense on all medical prob­
lems. Among those problems, of course, are those affecting 
nursing in all three of the armed forces, the Army, the 
Navy, and the Air Force.

Q. Are you familiar with the Meharry Medical School 
at Nashville, Tenn. ?

A. Yes, I have rather extensively studied Meharry Medi­
cal College in Nashville, Tenn., both through its published 
material and by visiting the college.

Q. Before we get into that, I would like you to sum­
marize as briefly as you can what you consider the funda­
mentals necessary to proper functioning of a school of 
nursing?

A. Well, I think that in my opinion—I think there would 
be general agreement on it—what a school of nursing can 
do for its students depends chiefly on the following factors, 
one—these are not perhaps in order of importance but they 
are all important factors—the school’s available funds, 
the character of the student body, character of the faculty, 
the facilities possessed by the school for instruction, that 
is class-rooms, laboratories, clinical facilities, equipment, 
curriculum, and the living conditions provided for the 
students. I propose on the basis of my knowledge of the 
School of Nursing at the University of Maryland and that



39

which forms a part of the Meharry Medical College to 
briefly compare those schools in these respects.

Mr. Houston: If your Honor please, for the record I 
should like to object on the ground that it is irrelevant 
to the issues which are presented in this case.
[fol. 49] The Court: Objection overruled.

Exception granted.
Q. Mr. Proctor, Will you compare first the funds that are 

available to the Meharry Medical College and the Univer­
sity of Maryland School of Nursing?

A. Yes. The Meharry Medical College was founded 
originally by a bequest from the Meharry brothers, and is 
supported at the present time by the proceeds of a Rocke­
feller endowment and yearly grants from Rockefeller, 
by grants from the Kellogg Foundation, by other gifts 
and grants not specified, and the tuition income. The 
University of Maryland School of Nursing receives with 
the budget of the University of Maryland an allocation 
of funds derived, of course, from the Legislature of the 
State of Maryland, and receives services equivalent to 
funds from the University of Maryland; those services 
are the maintenance of the nursing home, the laundry, 
the food of the nurses, matters of that kind. I was in­
formed by the Director of Medical Education at Meharry 
Medical College that they have available and budgeted 
for this year $108,000'—I give you a round figure which 
he gave me for the budget of their school of nursing. 
I had prepared by the Director of the University Hos­
pital, Mr. George Buck, an estimate of budget of the School 
of Nursing based on the actual State appropriation plus 
what will be necessary in kind from the University of 
Maryland.

Q. By “ in kind”  you mean------
A. Services.
Q. For contribution?
A. Maintenance contribution. This estimate is $218,473. 

This estimate is based on the preceding year—it is not a 
prospective budget for the coming year.

Q. Mr. Houston: Might I ask the question what the 
$108,000 is based on so I can know whether we have the 
same basis of comparison; is that for the past year or the 
prospective budget?



40

A. I believe—I am not certain—that the budget of $108,- 
[fol. 50] 000 is their current operating budget. Now, I am 
not informed as to what their fiscal year is, so there may 
be in that respect a discrepancy. However, I think I can 
show that these are comparable from the only point of 
view that it seems to me is important to our point.

Q. Mr. Proctor: May I ask one or two questions first 
before you go into this. You referred to $218,473.

A. I beg your pardon. May I correct that— no, I am 
correct, two hundred and eighteen. I thought it was 
thirteen.

Q, That you referred to as an estimated figure?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is only estimated in part; part of it is based on 

an actual budget appropriation?
A. Yes, I am sorry. Salaries of instructors, for ex­

ample, is an actual budgetary item of $40,960.
Q. The estimated portion is what you referred to such 

as maintenance contribution from the hospital?
A. That is right, maintenance of students, medical health 

program, maintenance of students including supplies, nurs­
ing home maintenance, heat and light, food and so on.

Q. Now, one further question, you do have the students 
benefiting from each of these two sums, isn’t that correct?

A. Eight.
Q. You can get a per student figure?
A. The reason I went into this with the Director at 

Meharry and our Director at the University Hospital was 
because I thought that the cost per student, the money avail­
able in each institution and spent on each student bore some 
relation to their equivalent.

(St, Tr. 16-24):
There was expenditure in round figures for Meharry 

for students as given me by the Director according to the 
number of students, say between fifteen and eighteen hun- 
[fol. 51] dred dollars. On their present enrollment of 61 
students and their budgetary item of one hundred and eight 
thousand that figures out at $1,770 per student. On this 
estimated budget of the University of Maryland, which 
was based on 164 students, that is those in residence dur­
ing this past year prior to our present class which has



41

just come in, gave Mr. Buck a figure of $1,332.15 per stu­
dent, which indicated to me that at least Meharry was 
not lacking in funds to spend on the training of its stu­
dents. The next point which I wish to take up in this 
comparison was the character of the student body. A 
very important factor, of course, in education is what 
material you have to deal with, standards of admission, 
and so on. Both schools admit two types of students, 
those who are studying* for degrees in nursing and who 
have had prior to entering the school at least two years 
of college work, and those who are studying for diplomas 
in nursing, but not a. degree, who are required to have 
had at least high-scliool education. Out of the 61 present 
students at Meharry, thirty, or almost exactly fifty per­
cent have had two years or more of college before 
entrance into that institution. That is an unusually high 
percentage of well educated young men and women 
before entering. The remaining thirty-one Meharry stu­
dents have had as a prerequisite to entrance that they 
stood in the higher third of their high-school class. 
Those are rather rigid requirements. At the University 
of Maryland, I am informed by Miss Gipe, Director of 
the School of Nursing that out of the 202—is it 202 or 204 
—202 present students since admission of the new class, 
only twenty-six, or approximately twelve and one-half 
percent have had two years of college education prior 
to entrance. We require from the others a high-school 
degree and recommendation from the principal—we do not 
require that they stand in the upper third of their high- 
school class. So that I conclude that in both schools ade­
quate admission standards are maintained, but they are 
higher at Meharry than at the University of Maryland. 
In both schools personal factors, character, morals, apti- 
[fol. 52] tude, are determined by reference, by personal in­
terview, and by aptitude tests, and in both a final require­
ment, and important one for admission, is made in passing 
a rather rigid physical examination. The character of the 
faculty: in each of the two schools of nursing the faculty 
falls into three groups, a full time faculty, made up of 
nursing teachers who are nurses, graduate nurses; a 
part-time faculty who are also nurses but give only part 
time to teaching; and what is called either lecturers or 
participating faculty—participating faculty is a better



42

term, I think; that is members of other schools in the 
university or college, who in addition to teaching, say 
medical or dental students, also give courses for nurses 
but do not belong to the faculty of the nursing school 
except in that category. Now, in Meharry for 61 students 
there are thirteen full time teachers; that is a little bet­
ter than one for five students. Of those 13, ten hold col­
legiate degrees of Bachelor or higher degrees. At the 
University there are also thirteen full time teachers this 
year for 202 students, and I regret I have not worked out 
that percentage, but it is obvious that thirteen teachers for 
202 students as opposed to thirteen for 61 students means 
less individual instruction. It may well be that at Meharry 
they are over-staffed for the number of students.

Q. How many of those thirteen full time teachers at the 
University of Maryland have degrees?

A. Eleven of the thirteen have degrees of Bachelor or 
higher. The part time teachers whom I have defined are 
those usually working in the hospital in charge of floors or 
wards who are also doing teaching to student nurses dur­
ing that part of the training when the student nurse is 
doing practical nursing on the wards or floors of the hospital. 
The participating faculty I have already defined. I think it 
would be too laborious—I find it impractical to compare 
them except to say this, I feel they are fully adequate in 
both cases. The members of the faculty of the University 
of Maryland Medical School who give time—courses and 
lectures to nurses—I think have a high standard of ability, 
[fol. 53] I met personally a large number of the faculty 
at Meharry who do similar courses and was impressed with 
them as able men. I think it is better organized, I regret 
to say, at Meharry in this sense, that is the salary of the 
part time teacher, the one who is taking charge of a ward 
and in addition does teaching, is entirely paid by the hos­
pital. She receives no salary from the training school—the 
School of Nursing for her teaching. There part of her 
salary is specifically paid by the School of Nursing for her 
teaching, and that is obviously a sounder arrangement, and 
there are similar differences between payment of participat­
ing faculty there and here. There the participating faculty 
receive pay for what they do—that is only certain ones do, a 
large part of it is a purely voluntary basis, so I conclude 
from this that while the character of the faculty is satisfac­



43

tory in both schools, as shown by their records actually, in 
its organization and in the qualifications of its members, if 
anything Meharry has the edge. I think it is fair to insert 
here, your Honor, that Meharry has been a privileged 
school, that is a school which has had back of it the 
Rockefeller foundation, and there are other foundations, 
who have tried to make it a model for the future devel­
opment of other schools of nursing. I shall not say much 
about the curriculum. The curriculum in the two schools 
is modelled on that advocated by the National League of 
Nursing Education, and is closely parallel in all respects. 
They have developed, I think, a more advanced public 
health teaching program, really an outstanding one, I 
should say. Ours is in process of improvement but is 
not up to their standard as yet. There is one significant 
difference: to a greater extent than we have been able 
to they have been able, with their larger full time teach­
ing faculty and their method of payment of participating 
faculty, to develop, especially in the basic subjects like 
anatomy and physiology and bio-chemistrv and bacteriol­
ogy, advanced courses for those who are taking their col­
legiate type of course leading to a degree, somewhat less 
advanced courses for those who are taking the diploma 
[fol. 54] course. We have not been able to make that dif­
ferentiation to the extent that they have, and I feel that 
we might work toward that. As far as living conditions 
provided for the students, we have the disadvantage, of 
course, of having grown up and serving our function in 
the slums of Baltimore. We have no campus or grounds; 
we are where we can do our work best, but the fact remains 
that as far as living conditions, because our nurses have to 
contend with that fact, which is a very tangible thing when 
it means coming home late at night through that very 
hazardous area. It means also no place for out-door 
recreation without going a considerable distance. Meharry 
moved, I think in 1926, out to the edge of Nashville; they 
have a landscaped campus of approximately 25 acres, and 
they are across the street from Fiske University, which has 
also very fine open grounds, and that in turn is next to the 
State College for agriculture and industry, I think it is 
called, which is a third Negro institution. These three con­
stitute a real educational center for Negroes and they are 
beautifully situated. In addition to this advantage in site, to



44

this very beautiful site that they have, they have a very 
handsome nurses’ home in which each student has her own 
room. They share showers, but each student has her own 
very adequate room, I think, which is modelled, I believe 
after the school at Rochester, by the same architect, and 
they have very cleverly arranged social rooms, a gym­
nasium which can serve also as a dance-hall. In addi­
tion to this the girls have out-door tennis courts on the 
campus of Fiske University and the use of a swimming 
pool a block or two away. Furthermore they have a very 
much more normal and very much more satisfactory 
social life in that big educational center, and the major­
ity of them belong to the sororities that are on the campus. 
Their health program is a general health program for 
all three institutions; it is centered in the hospital and it 
covers not only the nurses but the regular students at 
Fiske and I believe in the State College. It certainly con­
forms to usual standards. I for one will say ours which 
[fol. 55] is specially designed for nurses is a better, more 
complete program. Now, I would point out, too, that one 
has to judge a school not only by its program facilities, 
but what has it accomplished? I was privileged to see the 
otherwise secret report from the training school—the School 
of Nursing at Meharry by the State Board of Nurse Ex­
aminers.

= * # # # # * #
(St. Tr. 24-25) :

Mr. Proctor:
Q. Let me ask you this question: Is the nursing school 

at the Meharry Medical College accepted by the State 
Nursing Board in Tennessee?

A. It is. The nurses in Tennessee, in addition to being 
accepted must be registered, pass an examination. It was 
upon the results of that examination that I wish to comment.

Q. I would like to ask you one further question, and 
do not answer because Mr. Houston will wish to object 
to it : Did you examine an official report showing the 
record made by the graduates of the Meharry Medical 
College School of Nursing so far as the State Board of 
Nursing Examination was concerned?

A. I personally examined it.



45

Q. Was that an official report!
A. It was an official report.
Q. Now, don’t answer this yet: Will you please state 

what that report showed comparing the graduates of Me- 
harry with the graduates of other schools f

* * * * * * *
(St. Tr. 26-27) :

A. The examination results were stated by subject and 
the different schools were shown by the average grades 
in each subject that their graduates had obtained in these 
different subjects in the State examination. There were 
either seven or eight subjects—I am unable to remember 
exactly which. In those in all but two the Meharry gradu- 
[fol. 56] ates average examination grades were higher than 
the average examination grades of any of the approximately 
fourteen other schools of nursing in Tennessee who took 
the examination.

* * * * * * *
(St. Tr. 27-37):

Mr. Proctor :
Q. Now, Doctor, what is the National League of Nursing 

Education!
A. The National League of Nursing Education is the body 

on which are operated the schools of nursing of the country 
and it has as its mission to improve nursing education in the 
country, and has wide influence in that it advises concerning 
curriculum, it publishes books dealing with nursing edu­
cation, and it accredits schools of nursing after those schools 
of nursing have been visited by representatives of the 
League and surveyed.

Q. What is the general reputation in the nursing field 
of accreditation of a nursing school by the League?

A. It is that this is a very distinct evidence that they are 
of superior quality. That is evidenced by the fact that out 
of approximately 1,150 schools of nursing in the country 
only approximately 120 are so accredited.

Q. Is Meharry Medical College School of Nursing so 
accredited?

A. Meharry Medical College School of Nursing as re­
ported to me, as shown in printed form and the bulletin



46

of the National League of Nursing Education is so ac­
credited.

Q. Is the Nursing School of the University of Mary­
land so accredited?

A. I am informed by Miss Gipe at the present time our 
School of Nursing is not so accredited.

Q. Now, one point you have not given us comparative 
information on is the question of physical facilities in the 
two nursing schools, that is laboratories and classrooms 
and so forth?

A. They are adequate in both schools. Again I have 
[fol. 57] to give the edge to Meharry, whose buildings are 
all new; with ours only some parts are; certain laboratories 
which are used by the School of Nursing are in the old 
Grann (?) laboratory building that dates back some seventy- 
five years ago when it was built, and are passable but they 
have the edge over us in facilities of that kind, and per­
haps a slight advantage in equipment. I mean by equip­
ment microscopes and other material used in teaching, but 
both are adequate.

Q. Now, Doctor, considering the various factors that 
you have referred to in your testimony, and your knowledge 
of the two schools of nursing, have you arrived at a con­
clusion regarding the two schools?

A. I have arrived at this conclusion, that if the objective 
of the candidate is education in nursing, Meharry Medical 
College offers at least equivalent, and in my opinion, some­
what better organized instruction in nursing.

The Court:
Q. How about training for an ultimate degree in medi­

cine ?
A. Their course is better organized for that purpose. 

Both will achieve a degree, but the actual process of achiev- 
it is better organized at Meharry, as I pointed out in their 
ability to give specially advanced work for the degree 
student.

Q. Then you would say for a nursing diploma the 
course at Meharry is substantially equal to the trainin 
at the University of Maryland Nursing School, and trainin 
for a degree in nursing it is somewhat superior?

A. Yes.

bC b,0



47

Cross-examination.

Question by Mr. Houston:
Q. Doctor, bow many trips did you make to Mebarry !
A. One.
Q. How long did you stay there!
A. Four hours.
Q. When was that!
A. Last Thursday.

[fol. 58] Q. Who did you talk to t
A. I talked to the Dean of the School of Nursing, who 

was a Mrs. Anderson, and who was with me throughout the 
four hours. I talked to various of her instructors. I would 
have to refer to notes as to their names.

Q. Do you have your notes!
A. No, I don’t have them with me. I talked to the Pro­

fessor of Anatomy; I met and talked briefly to the Professor 
of Bio-chemistry. I conferred fully two hours on this solidly, 
and with the Director of Education, Dr. Brown.

Q. The School of Nursing!
A. He covers the School of Nursing and School of Medi­

cine—I am not sure whether he does with the School of 
Dentistry or not. I visited all parts of the institution, 
every floor in the hospital, with the Dean, who showed me 
her nurses at work. I went through the nursing home; 
I went through all of the laboratories of the Medical School, 
covering those used for nursing instruction, as well as many 
of their new projects, because they have grants in new 
cancer work and new heart work.

Q. Now, do you know anything about the financial situa­
tion of Meharry a year ago !

A. No, except that it was Rockefeller supported.
Q. Do you know that Meharry was in such desperate 

financial straits that it was afraid it was about to close!
A. So I was informed, except that Rockefeller came again 

to their help.
Q. Did anybody tell you whether or not there was any 

continuing payment on the part of the Rockefeller Foun­
dation to support Meharry!

A. I was told that there was. I was told that, I think 
about three years ago Rockefeller gave them an endowment 
0f—gum of $4,000,000 with the idea that annual grants 
thereafter would be discontinued, but that since then they



48

have each year given them annual grants on the demon­
strated need for such grant, and the attitude of Dr. Brown, 
who has been working with the financial aspects of the 
[fol. 59] school, was that he had every expectation of that 
continuing. He also pointed out that they were receiving- 
other considerable grants from other directions, notably 
from the Federal Government, and that if this Congress 
passes the Bill for aid to medical education and nursing- 
education, which has already been passed by the Senate, 
and is backed by the Administration, their financial situa­
tion would be on a much steadier basis.

Q. Did he give any figures outside of the four million 
dollars about his grants ?

A. I don’t believe so. If I may refer to some notes I 
have on that point—a rather brief note—no. I have no 
actual figures on the support they are getting from the 
Kellogg Foundation, nor from other sources.

Q. Can you tell us just how this $108,000 is broken 
down!

A. No. I can tell you what it covers but I cannot tell you 
how it is broken down. 1

Q. Now, Doctor, any nursing school requires a minimum 
of equipment outlay regardless of the number of students 
enrolled!

A. Right.
Q. A given set of physical facilities will accommodate a 

varied number of students, students within a given range 
of numbers, so that adding students to a physical plant, 
let us say under-manned, or it is not used to capacity, would 
not increase the per capita expenditure to students the way 
it would shoot up if there was asmall number of students 
in that same physical plant?

A. That is, of course, quite right. Even if one had only 
ten students, for sixty students it will still be adequate; 
perhaps it will he adequate for 100 students. The school 
was built there and manned with the idea of 74 students. 
They have 61. I assume that because of the fact that the 
quarters for nurses have quarters for 74 students, and 
that their faculty was evidently based on the assumption 
there would be 74. Only having 61 does increase their 
student cost, but that is not to say that when you have 
202 students with approximately the same faculty that 
[fol. 60] you cannot infer that it is not better to have more 
faculty per student. As to the individual student there is



49

an advantage in that extra time that the faculty member 
has to give to the individual.

Q. So that as to student-faculty relationship the Me­
harry Medical College School of Nursing is in a much 
superior position to the University of Maryland!

A. I would say that in my opinion they could handle a 
hundred or more students perfectly adequately, but they 
could not handle much more than that adequately. In 
other words, I think we are on the lean side as to faculty 
members; they have more than they need.

Q. That is a superior situation!
A. If you have your choice by all odds have more than too 

few.
Q. So it is a superior situation!
A. I consider it so.
Q. Now, did you go over and investigate, actually 

make a physical examination of Piske and the State A. & I. 
College that you referred to!

A. No, I drove by them merely. I had pointed out to me 
by Dr. Brown the nature of their buildings, which are very 
handsome buildings, by the way. I saw, of course, the 
campus, but I had no need of entering the buildings because 
I did not think that they bore on this topic.

Q. So far as physical conditions are concerned, and 
living conditions, you would say again Meharry is superior! 
Meharry is superior so far as the living conditions of the 
student nurses is concerned as compared to the University 
of Maryland School of Nursing!

A. Yes, sir, for the reason I gave as to site, as to single 
rooms, as to social rooms, and so on, I think it is superior.

Q. And the same thing as far as physical facilities are 
concerned including laboratories and class-rooms!

A. Well, I think both schools have adequate physical facili­
ties, but. Meharry has the edge on us.

Q. Still has the edge!
A. Has the edge on us.

[fob 61] Q. Now, Doctor, are communicable diseases pro­
vided for in Hubbard Memorial Hospital!

A. That is a difficult term to define. They have no sec­
tion for permanent care of such communicable diseases as 
diptheria and scarlet fever. They have isolation beds for 
cases that develop but they carry all other types of com­
municable diseases; for example, we saw there a ward full



50

of polio victims of the recent epidemic. They have very 
much the same lack as to diphtheria and scarlet fever just 
particularly as we have at the University of Maryland. 
We have no ward adequate for the care of those cases and 
therefore can only handle those that get in by chance.

Q. On the other hand you have arrangements whereby 
you get communicable disease nursing at Sydenham Hos­
pital here"?

A. Should we say we have at times, and we have no such 
prospective arrangements because Sydenham Hospital is, as 
we all know, closing.

* *  *  #

(St. Tr. 38-39) :
Mr. Houston:

Q. Now, what provision is there at Meharry for clinical 
experience of psychiatric nursing?

A. No more than at the University of Maryland. We 
have affiliation with Sheppard-Enoch Pratt and they have 
affiliation with Cook County Hospital.

Q. What affiliation does Meharry Medical College School 
of Nursing have?

A. With Cook County Hospital in Chicago; they send 
their psychiatric nursing up to Cook County. I think you 
will find that in the catalogue, by the way, for the School 
of Nursing at Meharry.

Q. Now, you say in the public health program training 
Meharry has superior organization to the University of 
Maryland!

A. Yes, I consider it so.
Q. Now, these hospitals that you administered, Doctor, 

one had a thousand beds; how many beds did the other one 
have, World War I?

A. I couldn’t tell you exactly. It was a hospital of 
approximately 150 beds and something like twenty-three or 
[fol. 62] four out patient departments spread over a large 
Province. The whole was operated as a unit and I was in 
charge of it.

Q. How many beds at the University of Maryland Hos­
pital?

#



51

(St. Tr. 40-49) :
A. It has 435 beds, 70 bassinets.
Q. How many beds are there in affiliated hospitals avail­

able to the School of Nursing, University of Maryland 
students?

A. I am not aware that outside of our sending nurses 
to the Sheppard-Enoch Pratt for psychiatric training that 
we send our nurses away, if I might ask Miss Gipe to 
corroborate that?

Mr. Houston: I have no objection.
The Witness: Miss Gipe, do we send nurses away for 

affiliated training except to Sheppard-Enoch Pratt?
Miss Gipe : And Sydenham.
The Witness: And to Sydenham, yes, you are right, 

Sheppard-Enoch Pratt, I cannot give you the census of 
it, it is a large institution; I would estimate it around a 
thousand, at least. Sydenham, as you know, has had a 
patient census of approximately 26 average during the 
last year. For that reason it is closing.

Mr. Houston:
Q. Well, now, do I understand that when the students 

at the University of Maryland, School of Nursing want to 
get psychiatric nursing they simply go over to these other 
hospitals in town—Enoch Pratt and Sheppard?

A. That is all one hospital. It is called Sheppard-Enoch 
Pratt Hospital. It is situated out near Towson.

(.). And the City Hospital?
A. They don’t go to the City Hospital.
Q. What was the second hospital?
A. Sydenham is a contagious disease hospital, owned 

and operated by the City, and they went there for con- 
[fol. 63] tagious disease training, but that is closing up and 
will not be available in the future. Whether any arrange­
ments can be made for such training at the City Hospital, 
which intends to take on that function, remains to be seen. 
I can say that we have no arrangement consummated at 
present,

Q. When the girls from the University of Maryland, 
School of Nursing, go to Sydenham, if Sydenham is open, 
and to Sheppard-Enoch Pratt, do they still continue their 
courses at the University of Maryland while they are do­
ing their clinical work at these hospitals?



52

A. Not to my knowledge. The distances are too great.
Q. But they are in school1? They still remain in resi­

dency?
A. They live away. They live at Sheppard-Enoeh Pratt 

during their time.
Q. Is that an assumption or is that your statement of 

fact ?
A. That is a statement of fact. I see Miss Gipe corrobo­

rates that.
Q. Now, do you see any white students at Meharry 

College!
A. No.
Q. They are all Negro students at Meharry?
Mr. Proctor: We will agree Meharry Medical College 

is a Negro college.

M b s . V ebn e  A l l e n  N e s b it t .

#  #  #  #  #  =* *

Direct examination.

By Mr. Proctor:
Q. Mrs. Nesbitt, I believe you are a registered nurse, is 

that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. Of what institution are you a graduate?
A. Vanderbilt University and University of Nashville 

Tennessee.
Q. I believe your husband is a medical doctor, is that 

correct ?
A. Yes, sir.

[fol. 64] Q. He is at present at Hopkins Hospital?
A. That is correct.
Q. Are you familiar with Meharry Medical College, School 

of Nursing?
A. I am.
Q. I believe that you taught there for a short time?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. When did you teach there?
A. In 1947. ;



53

Q. And for how long in 1947?
A. For one term. I took the place of a teacher who was 

sent away from her school to get some more training.
Q. Is it the practice at Meharry for outside teachers such 

as you are to come in there and teach part-time subjects?
A. It is a practice to replace any instructor removed away 

from your faculty for any period of time.
Q. Were there any other white instructors in the College 

during that time?
A. At the time I was there Mrs. Alma Gault was the di­

rector of the Nursing School and was white. The other 
instructors that I remember were colored.

Q. Now, can you compare, from what you observed 
while you were at Meharry, the time you were teaching 
at Meharry, can you compare the curriculum that was 
offered at Meharry with what you had at Vanderbilt 
University?

A. Vanderbilt is a collegiate school in toto. We have 
no students there who have not completed at least two years 
at college, and for the most part have already four years 
of college.

Q. So you had nothing but degree students?
A. That is correct, we have nothing but degree students 

at Vanderbilt. The curriculum at Meharry, the fact it is 
accredited by the National League of Nursing Education 
attests to the fact it is completely—a complete curriculum 
in communicable diseases, psychiatry affiliation, and all of
those things. . , . .
[fol. 65] Q. So that accreditation of itself shows that it is
a first-class nursing institution?

A. Yes, it does.
Q. Now, while you were at Meharry what was your 

observation of the students with whom you came in con­
tact? Would you class them as average students, below
average, or above average? ,

A. The only students that I have to compare them with 
would be students of my own school of which I was a part, 
which would not be quite fair. At the present time I am 
instructor in obstetrics at Sinai Hospital and have student 
nurses there, who are at the sub-college level, diploma 
students almost completely. I would say Meharry students 
are a higher caliber student than you would see m a hos­
pital school of nursing for the reason that they are better



54

prepared, and are young people who are seeking a higher 
course in nursing than the three year course.

Q. Did you have an opportunity, while you were there, 
to observe the physical facilities at Meliarry—labora­
tories and things of that kind!

A. What I taught was obstetrics so that I saw a good bit 
of the obstetric floors, the wards where the students got 
their clinical experience, the delivery rooms where they as­
sisted with the deliveries, and I was in the nurses’ home, 
which is a very fine building, which was erected in 1931, and 
I was inside of the students’ rooms, and their social rooms, 
where they entertain their guests and friends.

Q. How would you describe the nurses’ home, Mrs. 
Nesbitt?

A. They are better than Vanderbilt. WTe have a much 
older building—1925. I was a little bit jealous of them be­
cause they have one large living, and several smaller 
rooms that amount to parlors—small parlors.

Q. How would you classify the bed-rooms and toilet 
facilities?

A. They are the same as you would see at a school and 
the same at about Vanderbilt; with each room is minimal 
of furniture, a bed, dresser, desk, a closet, chair, which is 
always what you find in a nurse’s bed room. We always 
have bath-rooms on the floor, and showers which are 
[fol 66] shared. I have never been in a dormitory where 
they had anything other than that.

Q. You have heard Dr. Pincoff’s testimony that only 
one girl was assigned to a bed-room at the nurse’s home?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was that your obersvation?
A. That was my observation, yes.
Q. I believe you said that you also had an opportunity 

to observe the hospital facilities there. How would you 
compare those with that which you have at Sinai or Van­
derbilt ?

A. They were comparable. They had a nice observation 
stand in the delivery room so that the student nurses 
were able to sit in a raised position and watch the pro­
cedures that were demonstrated to them on deliveries. 
They had semi-private, and private, and ward beds on the 
floor where I did my clinical observation. As instructor



55

you meet the student in the class-room and teach her and 
then go in the wards with her and see if they apply the 
theory you have given them by actual practice on the 
scene of the sick bed.

Q. Could you add anything to what you have told us 
about the school?

A. I was impressed with their library, which in 1947 
boasted 10,000 periodicals, which is good, and their library 
is shared by the medical students and the dental students. 
I think the opportunity for social life and meeting the 
finest young people is at the optimum there. The young 
men you meet are the ones you go out with in social life, 
and are of very high caliber, young men who are going 
through the college of ministry, or medicine, or dentistry. 
The instructors were young doctors, men who have gone far 
in their field. I don’t recall any one personally except one 
physician who is quite high in the medical fields. I don’t 
recall his name but he was pointed out to me on one oc­
casion.
[fol. 67] The Witness: I have a picture here of the campus 
if any one is interested in seeing it, and the medical school.

* * * * * * *

(St. Tr. 49-50):
A. This is the hospital right here (indicating); this is 

the nurses’ dormitory (indicating). Their religious em­
phasis there is good; they have an active Y. W. C. A. on 
the campus for the nursing students; they are invited to 
join sororities, and participate in the activities of Fiske 
University. They have Sunday services that are very 
nice at Fiske Memorial Chapel, and they have the oppor­
tunity of hearing the Fiske Jubilee singers who are quite 
famous in our part of the country, which is a Negro choir, 
a fine group.

Q. What year is that?
A. 1947. That building was erected in 1931 (indicating 

on photograph.)
Q. The building in the fore-front?
A. Is the nurses’ home, which is about fifty feet from 

Hubbard Hospital.
* * * * * * *



(St. Tr. 51-58):
Cross-examination. ,

Question By Mr. Houston:
Q. At what hospitals did you have your clinical ex­

perience at Vanderbilt School of Nursing?
A. We took our psychiatric experience at Murfreesboro, 

Tennessee at a Shriners (?) hospital.
Q. Go ahead.
A. And our public health at Rutherford County Health 

Department in Tennessee.
Q. Go ahead.
A. The rest of our course is in the hospital; our com­

municable is part of Vanderbilt Hospital.
Q. How many beds in Vanderbilt Hospital?
A. Around 350.
Q. And outside of Vanderbilt Hospital any other hos­

pitals in Tennessee?
[fol. 68] The Witness: That I was familiar with?

Mr. Houston: Except Meharry Medical College?
A. No, sir. I was head nurse at the section of geriatrics 

at Baltimore City hospital for one year.
Q. Now you are at Sinai Hospital?
A. That is right, supervisor of the nursery and instructor 

in obstetrics.
Q. Sinai has how many beds?
A. I am sorry I don’t know.
Q. Baltimore City Hospital has how many beds?
A. I don’t know that—quite a lot; their infirmary and tu­

berculosis hospital are part of it, but I do not have the 
figures.

Q. Generally speaking in connection with nurses’ train­
ing a large hospital offers more clinical material for the 
student nurse to observe and work on than a small hos­
pital ?

A. If it is used.
Redirect examination.

By Mr. Proctor:
Q. Would you say the opportunity for clinical obser­

vation at Hubbard Hospital was ample for proper nurs­
ing training?

A. Yes, it is.

56



57

Mrs. A n g ela  M. S h ip l e y .

# # # *

Direct Examination.

Question By Mr. Proctor:
Q. Mrs. Shipley, I believe that you are also a registered 

nurse, is that correct?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Do you have any official position with the State 

of Maryland?
A. I am Executive Secretary of the Maryland State 

Board of Nurses Examiners.
[fob 69] Q. What do you require for registration as a 
nurse in Maryland?

A. According to the law under which we operate she 
must meet at least the mimimal requirements that are stated 
for all of the Maryland Schools of nurses.

Q. Do you register on a nurse’s certificate alone or do 
you require examination?

The Witness: Do you mean for an original registra­
tion?

Mr. Proctor: Yes.
The Witness: In Maryland?
Mr. Proctor: Yes.
A. She must write an examination for an original regis­

tration.
Q. If she has been registered in some other State you 

do or do not require it ?
A. We accept the other State’s examination.
Q. Has your Board ever had occasion to consider the 

registration of a graduate of Meharry Medical College, 
School of Nursing?

A. Yes, we did.
Q. You had one such application or more?
A. We have had one last December.
Q. What was the name of the applicant?
A. Mrs. Wilkens. I brought her papers, Mrs. Miriam 

Austin Wilkens.
Q. Was she registered by the State of Tennessee be­

fore she came here?
A. Yes, sir.



58

Q. Has your Board registered her?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know what she is doing at the present time?
A. She is Assistant Director of the School of Nursing 

at Provident Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland.
Q. Now, are you familiar with the National League of 

Nursing Education?
A. I am part of it.

[fol. 70] Q. You are part of it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you tell as briefly as you can just what that 

League does?
A. The National League is an organization of graduate 

nurses who are teachers in school nursing program, in nurs­
ing education; we go in as individual members, as members 
of our State organization or national organization.

Q. Now, does that League accredit nursing schools 
throughout the country?

A. It has a committee for accrediting schools. I think I 
should say that is on a voluntary basis, the accreditation 
and study is made at the request of the school.

Q. In other words, the League does not go out and rate 
all schools but only such schools as ask for a rating?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. For accreditation?
A. That is right.
Q. Is Meharry Medical School—Meharry Medical Col­

lege, School of Nursing accredited by the National League 
of Nursing Education?

A. It is" according to the last statement that we have in 
our office from the National League. They issue these small 
blue pamphlets.

Q. And the date of that is what?
A. I have a supplement to it ; including supplement it is 

May, 1948.
Q. May, 1948?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Now, is the University of Maryland, School of Nurs­

ing, accredited by the National League of Nursing Educa­
tion?

A. No, it is not.
Q. Now, this is a circular put out by the National League 

of Nursing Education that you have handed me is that 
correct?



59

A. That is correct.
Q. And we have a supplement that is up to May, 1948?
A. That is right.

* # # # # # #

[fol. 71] (St. Tr. 58-61) :

Mr. Proctor:

Q. Let me ask you this: What factors are considered, 
if you know7, by the National League of Nursing Education 
in accrediting an institution?

A. Basically the school is accredited on its purposes; I 
mean a hospital school receives the same consideration that 
enters into consideration of a school or collegiate program. 
The school states its purposes. The survey committee goes 
into the situation and if they feel that the school is meeting 
the stated purpose, that is one consideration. I think Dr. 
Pincoffs has given us an excellent idea of the way they pro­
ceed.

Q. You think the way he based his comparison of Meharry 
and the University of Maryland School of Nursing is about 
the same that the National League of Nursing Education 
goes into the matter ?

A. I would think so, yes, sir, except it is voluntary—vol­
untary accreditation.

Q. Accreditation by the League is a mark of distinction 
so far as a nursing school is concerned?

A. We certainly think so, definitely.
Q. Are you familiar with whether or not the University 

of Maryland School of Nursing has applied for accreditation 
to the National League of Nursing Education?

A. As far as I know they never did.

Cross-examination.

Question by Mr. Houston:
Q. Mrs. Shipley, you have this little bulletin of the Na­

tional League of Nursing Education, have you not?
A. I haven’t it in my hands.
The Court: Here is one.



60

By Mr. Houston:
Q. In the District of Columbia the only accredited schools 

of nursing is the Providence Hospital and Catholic Uni­
versity, isn’t that right?

A. That is the only one listed here.
[fol. 72] Q. That does not mean that the Providence Hos­
pital and the Catholic University School of Nursing is the 
only high class school of nursing in the District of Colum­
bia, does it?

A. No. That is the point I would like to make, it is 
voluntary accreditation and many good schools have not 
asked for it throughout the country.

Q. So without data showing that the University of Mary­
land School of Nursing had asked for accreditation and on 
examination had been refused, there would be no imputation 
from the omission of the University of Maryland School 
of Nursing from this list, would there?

A. I would think not, no. I think you are correct.
Q. Are you yourself a graduate of the University of 

Maryland School of Nursing?
A. No, sir.
Q. Your nursing school is what?
A. Johns Hopkins.

Redirect examination.
# # # # * * #

(St. Tr. 62-64) :

By Mr. Houston:
Q. Might I ask this question, as to whether your records 

will show any substantial number of graduates of Meharry 
Medical College School of Nursing who took the examina­
tion in the State of Maryland?

A. We never had one.
Q. You never had one.
A. We had this one nurse last year.
Q. She was admitted on reciprocity?
A. That is right.



61

Miss F lo ren ce  M. G ipe .

# # # # * # #

Direct examination.

Question by Mr. Proctor:
Q. Miss Gipe, you are a registered nurse, I believe?
A. I am.

[fol. 73] Q. You are Superintendent at the present time 
of the School of Nursing at the University?

A. That is my title as Director of Nursing Education and 
Nursing Service.

Q. Now, you have heard Mrs. Shipley testify that the 
University of Maryland has not asked for accreditation by 
the National League of Nursing Education. Can you state 
why, in the past, application has not been made for such 
accreditation?

A. Well, you know the University did a splendid piece 
of work on the nurses’ improvements after the war, and 
after the war and when training was made my business I 
did not think the school was built up as it should be in order 
to pass it.

Q. Is that the reason application was not made?
A. Recently—within the last year I wrote in to the League 

of Nursing Education and asked to be considered for accred­
itation or survey and they told me that there was interim 
classification of all the schools of nursing to be classified, 
and from the data submitted we would know probably—I 
would know whether we would want survey within the next 
year or so, and that would give me an idea to see where we 
stood to see if we would pass.

Cross-examination.

Question by Mr. Houston:
Q. Have you ever sent a first year white student outside 

of the State of Maryland for the purpose of first year nurs­
ing education?

A. No, I haven’t. Do you mean in the nursing school?



62

(St. Tr. 64-69) :

By Mr. Houston:
Q. Do you know of any white student of nursing who has 

been sent outside of the State of Maryland to take a first 
year nursing course which was open at the University of 
Maryland?

A. No.
Q. School of Nursing?
A. No.

[fol. 74] Q. Have you ever admitted a Negro student to 
the School of Nursing at the University of Maryland?

A. No.

By the Court:
Q. Have you had occasion to decide whether to admit 

one or not?
A. No.

By Mr. Houston:
Q. You had occasion to decide whether to admit the 

Plaintiff ?
A. I didn’t get a complete application on that.
Mr. Proctor: The University did, that is not disputed; 

Miss Gipe did not. It was detained at College Park.
Mr. Houston: The point is that the level at which it was 

determined not to admit the Plaintiff to the school was at 
a higher level than the level of the School of Nursing. 
That satisfies me.

By Mr. Proctor:
Q. I understand this application of Miss Esther Me- 

Cready is the only application that has ever been made to 
the University of Maryland School of Nursing by a colored 
person—Negro person?

A. I did not get the application. I got the request for in­
formation and sent that to her.

Q. Now, do you have any application from anyone else
of the Negro race?

A. No, I recall none. I had some inquiries.



63

By Mr. Houston:
Q. Just a minute, let’s get this clear: An inquiry that

comes in would not necessarily indicate the race of the per­
son making the inquiry, would it? It would simply be a 
letter for information, a letter of inquiry asking the School 
of Nursing for information about the courses, and would 
not necessarily indicate the race of the person making the 
inquiry?

A. No, it does not necessarily need to.
Q. So that you cannot say that no Negro girl has ever 

made inquiries about nursing at the University of Maryland 
School of Nursing except this Plaintiff?

A. No, that is right, I cannot.
[fol. 75] Q. Are there any Negro nurses in the hospital 
that the University of Maryland uses as a training hospital 
in connection with its School of Nursing?

Witness : Do you mean are there any nurses?
Mr. Houston: Registered nurses—any registered Negro

nurses ?
A. No, sir.
Q. What hospital was it that the School of Nurses uses 

for clinical training for its student nurses?
A. Other than University, do you mean? Sheppard-

Pr&tt
Q. All right, Sheppard-Pratt, Sydenham, when it was 

used, and the University of Maryland Hospital itself, is 
that correct?

A Yes.
Q. Now, do any of those hospitals so far as you know 

have Negro registered nurses on their staff?
A. I don’t think so. I don’t know.
Q. Definitely you would say the University of Maryland 

has no registered Negro nurse on the staff?
A. No. ,
Q. Does the University of Maryland have Negro nurses

aides on the staff ?
A. We employ Negro nurses’ aides.
Q. How long has that been the practice?
A. I should say roughly about two or three years.
Q. It is at the present time the practice?
A. That is correct.



64

(St. Tr. 88) :
The Court: I think as abundant precaution you ought 

to move to strike out all of the testimony that refers to 
Meharry College.

Mr. Houston: I do so move at the present time. I was 
going to do that when I started to argue but I suppose 
now is the time. I so move.

[fol. 76] (St. Tr. 89-90):
Mbs. A n g ela  M. S h ip l e y .

# # # # * * *

Direct examination.

Question by Mr. Proctor:
Q. You were asked to produce a comparative record show­

ing the comparison or record of graduates of the University 
of Maryland School of Nursing with the graduates of other 
nursing schools with the Maryland State Board of Exami­
nation. Do you have that record'?

A. I have it right here.
Q. Graduates of 45 schools?
A. No.
Q. What is that 45?
A. That means the University of Maryland had forty- 

five applicants. There were 23 schools.
Q. 23 schools?
A. Yes, sir.

(St. Tr. 89-90):

By Mr. Proctor:
Q. Now, I notice in this record, for example, anatomy and 

physiology, you have the number four?
A. That means in the examinations written in 1948 dur­

ing the calendar year in that one subject anatomy and 
physiology, the average score of University of Maryland



65

students rated them, fourth in the 23 schools in the State 
of Maryland. There were three schools above them.

Q. There were three schools above them?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That would be the number of each one of those courses 

that you have shown there?
A. That is right.
Mr. Proctor: Now, there is only one other thing the 

State would like to have in evidence and that is that there 
have been two Negro students who have been sent from 
Maryland to Meliarry Medical College under the Regional 
Compact plan. They are not nursing students, but two 
[fol. 77] medical or one medical and one dentistry—two 
students have gone down there. Do you want me to put 
Dr. Long on to prove that?

Mr. Houston: No. I think it is also stipulated that there 
were medical and engineering students and these students 
went to Meharry to take the same courses that were offered 
white students at the University of Maryland.

* # # # # # *



66

[ fo l . 78] D e fe n d a n t ’s E x h ib it  F

Office of the Maryland State Board of Examiners of Nurses

1217 Cathedral Street 
Phone: LExington 1758

Baltimore 1, October 10, 1949.

Rating of the University of Maryland School of Nursing 
based on mean scores for schools of nursing on the State 
Board Test Pool Examinations Series 747 for candidates 
tested January 1, 1948 through December 31, 1948.

Cases
45

Nutrition and 
Diet Therapy

7

Communicable 
Disease Nursing

7

Obstetric
Nursing

7

Anatomy and 
Physiology

4

Pharmacology
and

Therapeutics
6

Medical
Nursing

6.5

Psychiatric
Nursing

2

Microbiology
4

Nursing
Arts

9

Nursing of 
Children

12

Surgical
Nursing

10

Social Founda­
tions of Nurs­
ing

5



67

[foL 79] C ourt or A ppears op M aryland , O ctober T erm ,
1949

No. 139

E sther M cCready, Minor, by E lizabeth  M cCready, Her 
Next Friend and Parent

vs.
H arry C. B yrd, President, et al.

O pin io n—April 14, 1950

J udge M arkell  d e livered  the op in ion  of the Court:
This is an appeal from an order dismissing a petition 

for mandamus to require the governing board of the Uni­
versity of Maryland and 'officers of the university and its 
school of nursing to consider and act on petitioner’s appli­
cation, made on February 1, 1949, for admission as a first 
year student in the school of nursing, without regard to 
race or color, and admit her to the school upon her comply­
ing with the uniform lawful requirements for admission 
No material facts are in dispute. Petitioner is a negro. 
She has all the educational and character requirements for 
admission. She was refused admission solely because of 
her race. The school of nursing is a branch or agency of 
the state government. It has been so held as to the law 
school. University of Maryland v. Murray, 169 Md. 478, 
483.

In 1948 the State of Maryland and other southern states, 
without the consent of Congress under section 10 of Arti­
cle I of the Constitution, entered into a regional compact, 
which was subsequently amended and, as amended, is set 
out in and was ratified by Chapter 282 of the Acts of 1949, 
effective June 1,1949, relating to the development and main­
tenance of regional educational services and schools in the 
southern states in the professional, technological, scientific, 
literary and other fields, so as to provide greater educational 
[fol. 80] advantages and facilities for the citizens of the 
several states who reside within such region. By arrange­
ment pursuant to the regional compact the State of Mary­
land has sent a number of white students to study veteri­
nary medicine in a school in another state and has sent,



68

or is willing to send, negro students for the same purpose 
to a different school in another state. No instruction in 
veterinary medicine is offered by the University of Mary­
land or any other state agency in Maryland. Pursuant to 
the regional compact a contract for training in nursing edu­
cation, dated July 19, 1949, was made between the Board of 
Control for Southern Regional Education, “ a joint agency”  
created by the regional compact, and the State of Maryland, 
relating to nursing education of three first year students 
from the State of Maryland in Meharry Medical College, 
School of Nursing, at Nashville, Tennessee. Meharry Medi­
cal School and its school of nursing receive negro students 
only. In August, 1949 the University of Maryland offered 
petitioner a course in nursing at Meharry Medical College at 
a total over-all cost to her, including living and traveling 
expenses, which would not exceed the cost to her of attend­
ing the school of nursing at the University of Maryland. 
Petitioner declined the offer.

From the uncontradicted testimony, in ample detail, of 
Dr. Pincoffs, since 1922 Professor of Medicine in the Uni­
versity of Maryland Medical School and chief physician at 
the University Hospital, and other witnesses called by re­
spondents, it seems clear that in educational facilities and 
living conditions the nursing school at Meharry College 
is not only equal but superior to the University of Maryland 
nursing school. The offer to petitioner of a course in nurs­
ing at Meharry Medical College therefore included every 
advantage except the one she now insists upon, viz., educa­
tion in a state institution within the State of Maryland. 
Respondents stress the regional compact and the contract 
for training in nursing education. The terms and details 
of these agreements are not now material. Neither agree­
ment mentions race. We may assume, without deciding, that 
[fol. 81] the compact is valid without the consent of Con­
gress. Under the contract the Board are only agents—or 
ambassadors—to negotiate a contract for nursing education 
between the State of Maryland and Meharry Medical Col­
lege. Obviously no compact or contract can extend the 
territorial boundaries or the sovereignty of the State of 
Maryland to Nashville.

In University of Maryland v. Murray, supra, the court 
affirmed an order for the issue of the writ of mandamus, 
commanding the officers and governing board of the Uni­



69

versity of Maryland to admit the petitioner, a negro, as a 
student in the law school. It was contended, among other 
things, that the State had discharged its obligation to the 
petitioner by providing certain scholarships at Howard 
University in Washington. This contention was rejected 
because the petitioner had a “ rather slender chance”  of get­
ting a scholarship and, if he got one, would be subject to 
traveling or living expenses to which he would not be sub­
ject at the University of Maryland law school. The court, 
in its opinion by Chief Judge Bond, remarked, “ And as the 
petitioner points out, he could not there have the advantages 
of study of the law of this state primarily, and of attendance 
on state courts, where he intends to practice.”  Supra, 486. 
As has been indicated, this was not the ground of decision. 
In its opinion the court also said, “ Whether with aid in 
any amount it is sufficient to send the negroes outside the 
state for like education is a question never passed on by 
the Supreme Court, and we need not discuss it now. 
Supra, 487.

The statement last quoted from the opinion, by Judge 
Bond, in the Murray case left open the question whether it 
is sufficient to send negroes outside the state for education 
like that given white students in Maryland, and the remark 
first quoted left it arguable that in this respect there may 
be a difference between the study of law and the study of 
nursing. Law in Tennessee is not the same as law in Mary­
land ; presumably a sound education in nursing is the same 
in Tennessee as in Maryland. The statement last quoted 
from the Murray case was of course correct when made, but 
it would not be correct if made now. Since the Murray case 
[fol. 82] the question there left open has been “ passed on 
by the Supreme Court”  and has been foreclosed in a way 
that permits no distinction between the study of law and 
the study of nursing. _

In Missouri, ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 30o U. S. 337, the 
court reversed a judgment of the Supreme Court of Mis­
souri which denied a writ of mandamus to compel admis­
sion of a negro to the University of Missouri law school. 
One of the grounds of the decision of the state court was 
that “ adequate provision [had] been made for the legal 
education of negro students in recognized schools outside 
of this State. ’ ’ Supra 346. The court, in its opinion by Mr. 
Chief Justice Hughes, referred at some length to the Mur­
ray case, quoted the above question specifically left open



70

in that case (supra, 345), and referred to the remark first 
above quoted and to similar contentions made in the Mis­
souri case. Supra, 349. After mentioning these conten­
tions, the opinion brushed them aside and decided the ques­
tion left open in the Murray case on broad grounds which 
are no less applicable to a school of nursing than to a school 
of law.

“ We think that these matters are beside the point. The 
basic consideration is not as to what sort of opportunities 
other States provide, or whether they are as good as those 
in Missouri, but as to what opportunities Missouri itself fur­
nishes to white students and denies to negroes solely upon 
the ground of color. The admissibility of laws separating 
the races in the enjoyment of privileges afforded by the 
State rests wholly upon the equality of the privileges which 
the laws give to the separated groups within the State. The 
question here is not of a duty of the State to supply legal 
training, or of the quality of the training which it does sup­
ply, but of its duty when it provides such training to furnish 
it to the residents of the State upon the basis of an equality 
of right. By the operation of the laws of Missouri a privi­
lege has been created for white law students which is de­
nied to negroes by reason of their race. The white resident 
is afforded legal education within the State; the negro 
resident having the same qualifications is refused it there 
and must go outside the State to obtain it. That is a denial 
[fol. 83] of the equality of legal right to the enjoyment of 
the privilege which the State has set up, and the provision 
for the payment of tuition fees in another State does not 
remove the discrimination.

“ The equal protection of the laws is ‘ a pledge of the 
protection of equal laws.’ Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 IT. S. 
356, 369. Manifestly, the obligation of the State to give 
the protection of equal laws can be performed only where 
its laws operate, that is, within its own jurisdiction. It is 
there that the equality of legal right must be maintained. 
That obligation is imposed by the Constitution upon the 
States severally as governmental entities,—each respon­
sible for its own laws establishing the rights and duties of 
persons within its borders. It is an obligation the burden 
of which cannot be cast by one State upon another, and 
no State can be excused from performance by what another 
State may do or fail to do. That separate responsibility



71

of each State within its own sphere is of the essence of 
statehood maintained under our dual system. It seems to 
be implicit in respondents’ argument that if other States 
did not provide courses for legal education, it would never­
theless be the constitutional duty of Missouri when it 
supplied such courses for white students to make equivalent 
provision for negroes. But that plain duty would exist 
because it rested upon the State independently of the 
action of other States. We find it impossible to conclude 
that what otherwise would be an unconstitutional discrimi­
nation, with respect to the legal right to the enjoyment of 
opportunities within the State, can be justified by requiring 
resort to opportunities elsewhere. That resort may 
mitigate the inconvenience of the discrimination but cannot 
serve to validate it.”  Missouri, ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 
305 IT. S. 337, 349-350.

It would be bold indeed to suggest that the late Chief 
Justice ever used words without due regard for their 
meaning. His words might be subsequently overruled or 
qualified by the court. But the words quoted have not been 
overruled or qualified. On the contrary, a case from Okla­
homa, essentially the same as the Missouri case, was argued 
[fol. 84] on Thursday, January 8, 1948, and was reversed 
on the following Monday, with the following per curiam 
opinion: “ On January 14, 1946, the petitioner, a Negro, 
concededly qualified to receive the professional legal educa­
tion offered by the State, applied for admission to the 
School of Law of the University of Oklahoma, the only 
institution for legal education supported and maintained 
by the taxpayers of the State of Oklahoma. Petitioner’s 
application for admission was denied, solely because of 
her color.

“ Petitioner then made application for a writ of 
mandamus in the District Court of Cleveland County, 
Oklahoma. The writ of mandamus was refused, and the 
Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma affirmed the 
judgment of the District Court. 199 Okla. 36, 180 P. 2d 
135. We brought the case here for review.

“ The Petitioner is entitled to secure legal education 
afforded by a state institution. To this time, it has been 
denied her although during the same period many white 
applicants have been afforded legal education by the State. 
The State must provide it for her in conformity with the



72
equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 
provide it as soon as it does for applicants of any other 
group. Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 IT. S. 337 
(1938).

“ The judgment of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma is 
reversed and the cause is remanded to that court for pro­
ceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

“ The mandate shall issue forthwith.”  Sipuel v. Board 
of Regents of University of Oklahoma, 332 U. S., 631, 
632-633. We cannot subtract anything from what the 
Supreme Court has said. It would be superfluous to add 
anything.

Order Reversed, With Costs, and Case Remanded With 
Direction to Issue the Writ of Mandamus as Prayed, 
Except as to Changes Required by Lapse of Time.

Filed: April 14, 1950.

[fol. 85] C ourt of A ppeals of M aryland , O ctober T erm ,
1949

No. 139

E sther M cCready, Minor by E lizabeth  M cCready, E tc .
vs.

H arry C. B yrd, President, et al.
Appeal from the Baltimore City Court. Filed: Dec. 12, 

1949. Apr. 14, 1950, Order reversed, with costs, and 
case remanded with direction to issue the writ of 
mandamus as prayed, except as to changes required by 
lapse of time. Opinion filed. Op. Marked, J.

M andate

Appellant’s Cost in the Court of Appeals of Maryland,
Clerk’s Cost ........................ $ 10.00
Brief ..................................... $183.58
Appearance Fee .................. $ 10.00

...........................................$ xxx $203.58
Appellee’s Cost in the Court of Appeals of Maryland,

Brief ..................................... $256.05
Appearance Fee .................. $ 10.00
................................................ $ xxx 266.05 $469.63



73

S ta te  of M a r y l a n d , S e t :

I, Maurice Ogle, Clerk of the Court of Appeals of Mary­
land, do hereby certify that the foregoing is truly taken 
from the record and proceedings of the said Court of 
Appeals.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand as 
Clerk and affixed the seal of the Court of Appeals, this 
fifteenth day of May A. I). 1950.

Maurice Ogle, Clerk of the Court of Appeals of 
Maryland. (Seal.)

Costs shown on this Mandate are to be settled between 
counsel and not through this office.

[fol. 86] Clerk’s Certificate to foregoing transcript 
omitted in printing.

(9013)