Slade v Harford County BOE Brief and Appendix for the Appellees

    In The

United States Court of Appeals
For The Fourth Circuit

No. 7552

ROSLYN SLADE, EARLENE SCOTT, MONA LEISIA 
SCOTT, BERNARD BLACKSTONE, LARRY WILSON 
BLACKSTONE, ELLEN ELIZABETH BLACKSTONE, 
MAURICE L. HORSEY, III,

Appellants,
v.

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HARFORD COUNTY, 
DAVID G. HARRY, president, HOWARD S. O’NEILL, 
G. ROBERT PENNINGTON, SAMUEL W. GAL- 
BREATH, MRS. ROBERT (BLANCHE S.) FLETCHER, 
CHARLES W. WILLIS, superintendent of the schools
OF HARFORD COUNTY,

Appellees.

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the 
D istrict of Maryland (R oszel C. Thomsen,

Chief Judge)

BRIEF AND APPENDIX FOR THE APPELLEESy

Edward C. W ilson, Jr., 
W ilson K. Barnes, 

Attorneys for Appellees.

The Daily Record Co., Baltimore 3, Md.



I N D E X

Table of Contents
p a g e

Statement of the Case and Opinions Below 1

Question Involved ...................................................... 2
A ppellees Supplementary Statement of Facts 3

1. The Maryland Statutes.......................................  3
2. Actions of the Attorney General of Maryland 

and of the State Board of Education subsequent
to the Second Opinion in the Brown case 7

3. Actions by the Board of Education of Harford
County subsequent to June 22, 1955 8

4. Hearing of November 14, 1956 ..........................  14
5. Proceedings before the State Board 18
6. Action of County Board on February 6, 1957 21
7. Hearing of April 18, 1957 in the District Court 22
8. Hearing of June 11, 1957 in the District Court 23
9. Opinion of June 20, 1957 and Judgment of July

3, 1957 ................................................................... 24
Argument ....................................................................  24
Conclusion ..............................................................    44

Table of Citations 
Statutes

Annotated Code of Maryland (1951 Edition):
Article 77:

Sections 1 to 208 ............................................. 3-6
Act of 1865, Chapter 160............................................... 4
Art of 1872, Chapter 377 ............................................... 4



IX

Rules

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: 
52(a) .......................................

PAGE

24

Cases
Aaron v. Cooper,

143 F. Supp. 855 .................................................... 40
243 F. 2d 361 ......................................................31, 40, 41

Booker v. Tennessee Board of Education, 240 F. 2d
689 .......................................................................... 39,40

Briggs v. Elliott, 132 F. Supp. 776 ............................ 27, 29, 30
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (Second 

Opinion) 349 U. S. 294, 75 S. Ct. 753, 99 L. Ed.
1083 ........................................................7,8,27,28,29,30

Carson v. Board of Education of McDowell County,
227 F. 2d 789 .........................................................  27, 29

Carson v. Warlick, 238 F. 2d 724 ................................ 27, 29
Clemons v. Board of Education of Hillsboro, 228 F.

2d 853 ....................................................................  39
Hood v. Board of Trustees of Sumter County School

District No. 2, 232 F. 2d 626 ................................ 27, 29
Jackson v. Rawdon, 235 F. 2d 93 ................................ 30
Moore, et al v. Board of Education of Harford County,

et al, Civil Action No. 8615 ................................ 10
Moore, et al v. Board of Education of Harford County, 

et al,
146 F. Supp. 91 ............................................2, 24, 25
152 F. Supp. 114.......................................... 2, 24, 25

New York Life Ins. Co. v. Tobin, 177 F. 2d 176.......... 24
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 16 S. Ct. 1138, 41

L. Ed. 256 ...............................................................  31
Robinson v. Board of Education of St. Mary’s County,

143 F. Supp. 481 ..................................................  3
School Board of City of Charlottesville, Va. v. Allen,

240 F. 2d 59 30



iii

PAGE
School Board of the City of Newport News, Va. v.

Atkins, 246 F. 2d 325..............................................  30
U. S. v. National Association of Real Estate Boards,

339 U. S. 485, 70 S. Ct. 711, 94 L. Ed. 1007 24
Willis v. Walker, 136 F. Supp. 177..............................  32

Other Authorities
Opinions of Attorney General (of Maryland):

Vol. 40, page 175 ..................................................  7

Index to A ppendix
A pp.
p a g e

Hearing of November 14, 1956 ...................................  1
Testimony of:

Charles W. Willis—
Direct Examination by Mr. Greenberg.......... 1
Cross Examination by Mr. Barnes .................  9
Examination by the Court................................  16

David G. Harry—
Direct Examination by Mr. Barnes.................  21
Cross Examination by Mr. Watts..................... 23

Ernest Volkart—
Direct Examination by Mr. Barnes.................  26

Hearing of April 18,1957:
Testimony of:

Charles W. Willis—
Examination by the Court................................  28

Hearing of June 11, 1957:
Statements by Counsel ...........................................  37



A p p .
PAGE

Testimony of:
Charles W. W illis-

Direct Examination by Mr. Barnes.................  38
Examination by the Court................................ 46

Excerpts from Documentary Exhibits:
Resolution of Citizens Consultant Committee of 

February 27, 1956 ..................................................  49
Transfer Policy of County Board of June 14, 1956 50
Desegregation Policy of County Board of August 1,

1956 ........................................................................  51
Opinion of Attorney General of Maryland of June 

20, 1955 ................................................................... 53
Joint Resolution of State Board of June 22, 1955 .... 55
Extension of Desegregation Policy of County Board 

of February 6, 1957 ..............................................  58
Proceedings before State Board on February 27, 1957 59

Statement of Chairman ........................................... 60
Testimony o f:

Charles W. W illis -
Direct Examination by Mr. Barnes................  61

David G. Harry, Jr.—
Direct Examination by Mr. Barnes................  69

Opinion and Order of State Board of March 4, 1957 70
Review and Specification of Desegregation Policy by

County Board of May 1,1957 ................................  76
Letter from Mrs. Juanita Jackson Mitchell to Wilson

K. Barnes, dated May 2, 1957 ............................  78
Modification of Desegregation Policy by County 

Board in regard to High Schools during transi­
tion period of June 5, 1957 ...................................  78

iv



I n  T h e

United States Court of Appeals
For The Fourth Circuit

No. 7552

ROSLYN SLADE, EARLENE SCOTT, MONA LEISIA 
SCOTT, BERNARD BLACKSTONE, LARRY WILSON 
BLACKSTONE, ELLEN ELIZABETH BLACKSTONE, 
MAURICE L. HORSEY, III,

Appellants,
v.

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HARFORD COUNTY, 
DAVID G. HARRY, president, HOWARD S. O’NEILL, 
G. ROBERT PENNINGTON, SAMUEL W. GAL- 
BREATH, MRS. ROBERT (BLANCHE S.) FLETCHER, 
CHARLES W. WILLIS, superintendent of the schools
OF HARFORD COUNTY,

Appellees.

A ppeal from the United States D istrict Court for the 
D istrict of Maryland (R oszel C. Thomsen,

Chief Judge)

BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEES

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND  
OPINIONS BELOW

This is an Appeal by one Original infant colored Plaintiff 
and six infant Intervening colored Plaintiffs from a Judg­
ment entered on July 3, 1957 by the United States District 
Court for the District of Maryland (Thomsen, C.J.), ap­



2

proving a Plan as outlined in the Judgment for the desegre­
gation of the public schools of Harford County, Maryland. 
The Appellees (Defendants below) are the Board of Edu­
cation of Harford County; David G. Harry, President of 
that Board, Howard S. O’Neill, G. Robert Pennington, Sam­
uel W. Galbreath, Mrs. Robert (Blanche S.) Fletcher, who 
are members of the Board of Education; and, Charles W. 
Willis, Superintendent of the Schools of Harford County. 
There were three substantial hearings before the District 
Court (in addition to two pre-trial conferences), at which 
oral testimony was taken and documentary evidence of­
fered. There was also a substantial hearing before the 
Maryland State Board of Education. Judge Thomsen wrote 
two full Opinions. One was filed on November 23, 1956, 
App.1 4a to 15a, 146 F. Supp. 91. The other Opinion was 
filed on June 20, 1957, App. 16a-25a, 152 F. Supp. 114.

QUESTION INVOLVED
Were the findings by the District Court (Thomsen, C.J.) 

that the Board of Education of Harford County, Maryland 
had made a prompt and reasonable start toward the de­
segregation of the Public Schools of Harford County and 
that additional time was necessary to effectuate such de­
segregation as set forth in the District Court’s Judgment 
of July 3, 1957 clearly erroneous?

The Appellees maintain that Judge Thomsen’s findings 
were not clearly erroneous; on the contrary, they were 
clearly in accordance with the great weight of the evidence.

1 The reference “ App.” will be to the Appellants’ Appendix. The 
reference to the Appellees’ Appendix will be referred to as “ Appellees’
App............



3

APPELLEES’ STATEMENT OF THE FACTS IN 
ADDITION AND SUPPLEMENTAL TO THE 

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS OF 
THE APPELLANTS

The Statement of Facts by the Appellants omits much of 
the background of the present case and the Appellants’ 
Appendix omits much of the relevant testimony and pro­
ceedings. The Appellees deem it necessary to amplify the 
Appellants’ Statement.

1. The Maryland Statutes
Chief Judge Thomsen carefully and fully analyzed the 

applicable Maryland Statutes in regard to the Maryland 
Public School System in his Opinion in Robinson v. Board 
of Education of St. Mary’s County, 143 F. Supp. 481 (July 
9, 1956). In the Robinson case, as in the case at bar, Judge 
Thomsen indicated that the Plaintiffs must first exhaust 
their administrative remedy by appeal to the State Board 
of Education, before the District Court would proceed with 
a decision in the case. The Robinson decision was not ap­
pealed to this Court which has not had the Maryland Statu­
tory provisions in regard to the Maryland Public School 
System before it for consideration.

For the convenience of the Court and without attempt­
ing to repeat the excellent analysis by Judge Thomsen 
in the Robinson case, a brief summary of the Maryland 
Statutes is presented.

Article 77 of the Annotated Code of Maryland (1951 Edi­
tion) contains the relevant statutory provisions establish­
ing in Maryland “a general system of free public schools; 
according to the provisions of this Article” (Sec. 1).

This Article in substantially its present form providing 
for “separate but equal” schools for white and colored



4

pupils, came into the Maryland law by the Act of 1872, 
Chapter 377. The original Maryland Statute providing for 
public schools on a state-wide basis was the Act of 1865, 
Chapter 160 (passed March 24, 1865), which provided for 
separate schools for white and colored pupils, with a pro­
vision, however, that expenditures for colored schools 
should be limited to school taxes collected from colored 
taxpayers, together with such donations as might be given 
for colored school purposes. As indicated this latter pro­
vision was eliminated by the Act of 1872, Chapter 377.

Sections 2, 3 and 4 of Article 77 provide that “educational 
matters affecting the State and the general care and super­
vision of public education shall be entrusted to a State 
Department of Education, at the head of which shall be a 
State Board of Education” (Sec. 2); “educational matters 
affecting a County shall be under the control of a County 
Board of Education” (Sec. 3) and “educational matters 
affecting a school district shall be under the care of a Dis­
trict Board of School Trustees” (Sec. 4).

Sections 16 and 17 set forth the general supervisory and 
appellate powers of the State Board. These powers include:

1. The enforcement of the provisions of Article 77.

2. The determination of the educational policies of the 
State.

3. The enactment of by-laws for the administration of the 
public school system having the force of law.

4. The institution of legal proceedings if necessary to 
enforce Article 77.

5. The explaining of “the true intent and meaning of the 
law, and they shall decide, without expense to the 
parties concerned, all controversies and disputes that 
arise under it, and their decision shall be final”.



5

6. The exercise, through the State Superintendent, of 
“general control and supervision over the public 
schools and educational interest of the State” .

7. Consultation with and advice to “County boards of 
education” and other designated officials.

The State Superintendent, by Sec. 35, is charged with the 
enforcement of all provisions of Article 77 and the by-laws 
of the State Board.

Sections 46 to 71 of Article 77 contain the statutory pro­
visions in regard to the County Boards of Education. These 
County Boards are required “to maintain a uniform and ef­
fective system of public schools throughout their respective 
Counties (Sec. 48). The County Superintendent of Schools 
is made the executive officer, secretary and treasurer of 
the County Board (Sec. 50). The County Board “shall to 
the best of its ability cause the provisions of this Article, 
the by-laws, and the policies of the state board of educa­
tion to be carried into effect.” Subject to Article 77, the 
by-laws and policies of the State Board, the County Board 
“shall determine, with and on the advice of the county 
superintendent, the educational policies of the County and 
shall prescribe rules and regulations for the conduct and 
management of the schools” (Sec. 51). The County Board 
is required to “consolidate schools wherever in their judg­
ment it is practicable, and to pay, when necessary, for the 
transportation of pupils to and from such consolidated 
schools.”

The County Superintendent, as executive officer of the 
County Board, is required to “see that the laws relating to 
schools, the enacted and published by-laws of the State 
Board of Education and the rules and regulations and the 
policies of the county board of education are carried into



6

effect” (Sec. 143), and he “shall explain the true intent 
and meaning of the school laws, and of the by-laws of the 
State Board of Education. He shall decide, without expense 
to the parties concerned, all controversies and disputes in­
volving the rules and regulations of the county Board of 
education and the proper administration of the public 
school system in the county, and his decision shall be final, 
except an appeal may be had to the State Board of Edu­
cation if taken in writing within thirty days” (Sec. 144).

The statutory provisions in regard to the establishment 
of schools for white students are found in Sections 84 and 
124 which provide that elementary schools “shall be free 
to all white youths between six and twenty years of age” 
and that “All white youths between the ages of six and 
twenty-one years shall be admitted into such public schools 
of the State, the studies of which they may be able to pur­
sue; provided, that whenever there are grade schools, the 
principal and the County Superintendent shall determine 
to which schools pupils shall be admitted.”

Sections 207 and 208 provided for the establishment of 
schools for colored students. By these Sections, the duty is 
placed upon the County Board “to establish one or more 
public schools in each election district for all colored youths, 
between six and twenty years of age, to which admission 
shall be free * * *, provided, that the colored population in 
any such district shall, in the judgment of the county board 
of education, warrant the establishment of such a school or 
schools; (Sec. 207) and that “schools for colored children 
shall be subject to all the provisions of this Article” (Sec. 
208).



7

2. Actions of the Attorney General of Maryland and of the 
State Board of Education Subsequent to the 

Second Opinion in the Brown Case.
The Second Opinion in the Brown case, Brown v. Board 

of Education of Topeka, 349 U. S. 294, 75 S. Ct. 753, 99 L. Ed. 
1083, was filed on May 31, 1955.

The State Superintendent of Schools (Dr. Thomas G. 
Pullen, Jr.) very shortly after this decision requested an 
Opinion of the Attorney General of Maryland in regard to 
the effect of the Brown decision upon the provisions of the 
State Law requiring separation of the races in the public 
schools of Maryland.

On June 20, 1955, just twenty days after the filing of the 
second Opinion in the Brown case, the Attorney General of 
Maryland rendered a formal Opinion (published in the 
Daily Record of June 29,1955) in which he stated that “ * * * 
all constitutional and legislative acts of Maryland requir­
ing segregation in the public schools of the State of Mary­
land are unconstitutional and must be treated as nullities.” 
(Emphasis supplied.)

The Attorney General also stated that even though the 
State of Maryland were not a formal party to the Brown 
and companion litigation, “We do not believe that differ­
ences in the mechanics of obtaining relief can limit in any 
sense the legal compulsion presently existing on the appro­
priate school authorities of the State of Maryland to make 
‘a prompt and reasonable start’ toward the ultimate elim­
ination of racial discrimination in public education.”  Report 
and Official Opinions of the Attorney General, (of Mary­
land) Vol. 40, page 175.

The State Board did not defy or seek to evade this opinion 
of the Attorney General of Maryland.



8

On the contrary, two days later, on June 22, 1955, the 
State Board passed a Resolution, in which, after various 
recitals, it stated:

“Now that the Supreme Court has passed its man­
date and has directed compliance with its decree with 
deliberate speed and with due regard to local condi­
tions and in conformity with equitable considerations, 
the State Board of Education calls upon the local public 
school officials to commence this transition at the earli­
est practicable date, with this view of implementing 
the law of the land.” (Emphasis supplied.)

In the same resolution the Staff of the State Board is 
directed to cooperate with the local public school officials 
“to give effect * * * in the process of the transition from 
segregation to desegregation” and states that it “trusts that 
all citizens will exercise patience and tolerance to the end 
that the law of the land may be implemented in the elim­
ination of racial discrimination in the public schools of the 
State.”  (Emphasis supplied.)2

3. Actions by the Board of Education of Harford County 
Subsequent to June 22, 1955.

Eight days after the Opinion of the Attorney General of 
Maryland of June 20, 1955 and thirty days after the filing 
of the Second Opinion of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the Brown case, the Board of Education of Harford 
County (hereinafter referred to as the “County Board” ) 
on June 30,1955 selected a Citizens Consultant Committee

2 Judicial notice may be taken of the fact that there have been two 
meetings of the General Assembly of Maryland since the Opinion of 
the Attorney General was promulgated, the “ Short” Session of 1956 
and the “ Regular” Session of 1957 and that there were no Acts passed 
which attempted in any way to overrule or circumvent the Opinion 
of the Attorney General that any Maryland Constitutional or Statutory 
provisions requiring segregation in the public schools were nullities.



9

of 36 members from all sections of Harford County, 5 of 
whom were colored citizens, to consider the problem of 
desegregation of the Harford County public schools and to 
make recommendations to the County Board.

On July 27, 1955 a group of colored parents petitioned 
the County Board “to take immediate steps to reorganize 
the public schools under your jurisdiction on a non-discrim­
inating basis.”

The Citizens Consultant Committee held its first meeting 
on August 15, 1955, divided into Sub-Committees to con­
sider (1) facilities, (2) transportation and (3) social re­
lationship. A member of the Staff of the County Board 
served as a consultant to each sub-committee. These Sub­
committees met at various times during the remaining 
portion of 1955 and during January and February, 1956.

On February 27, 1956, the Citizens Consultant Committee 
held a meeting at which all of the Sub-Committees pre­
sented their final reports. None of the specific recommenda­
tions in those reports was adopted by the full Committee 
which unanimously adopted the following resolution.

“To recommend to the Board of Education for Har­
ford County that any child regardless of race may make 
individual application to the Board of Education to be 
admitted to a school other than the one attended by 
such child, and the admissions to be granted by the 
Board of Education in accordance with such rules and 
regulations as it may adopt and in accordance with the 
available facilities in such schools; effective for the 
school year beginning September, 1956.” (Emphasis 
supplied.)

The Resolution of the Citizens Consultant Committee was 
adopted by the County Board on March 7, 1956.



10

On March 9, 1956, Civil Action No. 8615, Moore, et al v. 
Board of Education of Harford County, et al, which had 
been filed on November 29, 1955, came on for hearing on 
the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. In this suit it was al­
leged that the County Board had “refused to desegregate 
the schools within its jurisdiction and had not devised a 
plan for such desegregation.” The Plaintiffs were children, 
the four infant Original Plaintiffs in the case at bar with 
17 other colored children through their parents and next 
friends. In Civil Action No. 8615 the Plaintiffs prayed (1) 
for a speedy hearing of their application for a preliminary 
and for a permanent injunction; (2) for a preliminary and 
permanent judgment that any orders, customs, practices 
and usages pursuant to which the Plaintiffs are segregated 
in their schooling because of race violate the Fourteenth 
Amendment; and (3) that the Court enter a preliminary 
injunction ordering the Defendants to promptly present a 
plan of desegregation to the Court which will expeditiously 
desegregate the Harford County schools and enjoin the De­
fendants from requiring the Plaintiffs and all other Negroes 
of public school age to attend or not to attend such public 
schools because of race.

In the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, the 
failure of the Plaintiffs to exhaust their administrative 
remedy by way of appeal to the State Board was alleged.

Counsel for the Defendants brought the Resolution of the 
County Board of March 7, 1956 to the attention of Counsel 
for the Plaintiffs and to the Court, and relying on the Reso­
lution, the Plaintiffs dismissed Civil Action No. 8615.

On June 6, 1956 the County Board adopted a “Transfer 
Policy”, (App. 8a-9a), which was duly advertised in the 
local newspapers. This “Transfer Policy” provided that if 
a child desired to attend a school other than the one in



11

which he was enrolled or registered, his parents must re­
quest a transfer between June 13 and July 15, 1956, stating 
the reason for the transfer and bearing the approval of the 
principal of the school the applicant was then attending. 
It provided that:

“While the Board has no intentions of compelling a 
pupil to attend a specific school or of denying him the 
privilege of transferring to another school the Board 
reserves the right during the period of transition to de­
lay or deny the admission of a pupil to any school, if 
it deems such action wise and necessary for any good 
and sufficient reason.”

The County Board stated in the “Transfer Policy” that it 
would finally consider the application for transfer at its 
meeting of August 1, 1956. Children whose applications 
were approved, were required to enroll on the regular sum­
mer registration date, August 24, 1956. Sixty colored stu­
dents filed applications for transfer.

On August 1, 1956, the County Board adopted a “Deseg- 
regation Policy” . This Resolution recited the appointment 
of the Citizens Consultant Committee, the recommendation 
of that Committee, the Resolution adopted by the County 
Board on March 7, 1956 and the “Transfer Policy” of June 
6, 1956. It then provided:

“The Supreme Court decision, which required de­
segregation of public schools, provided for an orderly, 
gradual transition based on the solution of varied local 
school problems. The resolution of the Harford County 
Citizens Consultant Committee is in accord with this 
principle. The report of this committee leaves the 
establishment of policies based on the assessing of local 
conditions of housing, transportation, personnel, educa­
tional standards, and social relationships to the discre­
tion of the Board of Education.



12

“The first concern of the Board of Education must 
always be that of providing the best possible school 
system for all of the children of Harford County. 
Several studies made in areas where complete desegre­
gation has been practiced have indicated a lowering of 
school standards that is detrimental to all children. 
Experience in other areas has also shown that bitter 
local opposition to desegregation in a school system not 
only prevents an orderly transition, but also adversely 
affects the whole educational program.

“With these factors in mind, the Harford County 
Board of Education has adopted a policy for a gradual, 
but orderly, program for desegregation of the schools 
of Harford County. The Board has approved applica­
tions for the transfer of Negro pupils from colored to 
white schools in the first three grades in the Edgewood 
Elementary School and the Halls Cross Roads Elemen­
tary School. Children living in these areas are already 
living in integrated housing, and the adjustments will 
not be so great as in the rural areas of the county where 
such relationships do not exist. With the exception of 
two small schools, these are the only elementary build­
ings in which space is available for additional pupils 
at the present time.

“Social problems posed by the desegregation of 
schools must be given careful consideration. These 
can be solved with the least emotionalism when 
younger children are involved. The future rate of ex­
pansion of this program depends upon the success of 
these initial steps.”

In accordance with the Desegregation Policy, 15 of the 
60 applications were granted, and 45 applications, including 
those of the 4 original infant Plaintiffs in the case at bar, 
were refused. On August 7, 1956, the County Superintend­
ent of Schools, Charles W. Willis, notified the respective 
parents of the infant Plaintiffs in writing of the adoption 
of the Desegregation Policy (enclosing a copy) and advised 
them that “under the provisions of this policy your child



13

will not be allowed to transfer from his present school”, and 
that the County Board had refused “your request for a 
transfer” (App. 11a).

No appeal to the State Board from the action by the 
County Superintendent was taken by the infant Plaintiffs 
or their parents or by any of the other applicants whose 
applications were refused.

On August 28, 1956, the complaint in the present suit, 
Civil Action No. 9105 (R. 3-8), was filed by the Original 
Plaintiffs, the infants Stephen Moore, Jr., Dennis Spriggs, 
Roslyn Slade and Patricia Garland, on behalf of them­
selves and all Negroes similarly situated, against the County 
Board and the County Superintendent of Schools. Moore 
sought transfer from Central Consolidated Elementary 
School in Hickory to the elementary school in Bel Air, 
where he resides; Spriggs from the Hickory School to the 
Junior High School in Edgewood, where he resides; Slade 
and Garland from Havre de Grace Consolidated School to 
Aberdeen High School, in the 9th and 11th grades respec­
tively. They prayed for (1) advancement of the cause on 
the docket and (2) that the Court enter preliminary and 
permanent judgments that any “orders, customs, practices 
and usages pursuant to which said plaintiffs are each of 
them, their lessees, agents and successors in office from 
denying to plaintiffs and other Negro residents of Harford 
County of the State of Maryland admission to any Public 
School operated and maintained by the Board of Education 
of Harford County, on account of race and color” (R. 8).

On September 18, 1956, the Defendants filed a Motion to 
Dismiss (R. 9-12) substantially similar to the one filed in 
Civil Action No. 8615, including the point that the Plaintiffs 
had not exhausted their administrative remedy by appeal 
to the State Board (R. 9). A pre-trial conference was held



14

by Judge Thomsen on October 2, 1956, and on October 5, 
1956, Judge Thomsen overruled the Motion to Dismiss with­
out prejudice to the Defendants to raise the same points in 
their Answer (R. 13). The Defendants answered on Octo­
ber 14, 1957, setting up the defenses in the Motion to Dis­
miss as well as answering the allegations of the Complaint 
(R. 14-24).

4. Hearing of November 14,1956.
The case was set for hearing on November 14, 1956. At 

this hearing both the Plaintiffs and Defendants offered oral 
testimony and introduced documentary exhibits.

The Sub-Committee Reports of the Sub-Committees on 
(1) Facilities (App. 40a-44a; R. 317-322), (2) Transporta­
tion (R. 337-338) and (3) Social and Recreational Aspects 
(R. 339-340) were offered in evidence by the Plaintiffs. 
These were objected to by Counsel for the Defendants on 
the grounds that they were preliminary reports of Sub- 
Committees, which were not adopted by the full Com­
mittee and were merged in the Report of the full Com­
mittee (Appellees’ App. 1-2). They were marked for iden­
tification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1-A, B, C (and D ) and were 
admitted in evidence by the District Court only for the 
limited purpose of showing “the field of study covered by 
the Sub-Committees of the General Committee” (Appellees’ 
App. 4; 8).3

3 Although none of the Reports of the Sub-Committees has any legal 
or other effect, it is interesting to note that the recommendations of 
each Sub-Committee were quite different and none was adopted either 
by the full Committee or by the County Board. The Sub-Committee 
on Facilities “ was of the opinion that provision can be made to accom­
modate such colored students as apply for admission to Harford 
County public schools for the year 1956-1957” (App. 44a: R. 322) 
without specifying the basis for such admission; the Sub-Committee 
on transportation recommended “ that integration be a planned, gradual 
procedure —  one grade a year is suggested” (R. 338); the Sub-



15

Mr. Willis testified that both he and the County Board 
were familiar with the Opinion of the Attorney General of 
Maryland of June 20, 1955, and the Resolution of the State 
Board dated June 22, 1955; they understood that their 
effect on the laws of Maryland requiring or permitting 
segregation in the Public School System of Maryland was 
to make those laws “null and void” (Appellees’ App. 10). 
He further testified that neither he nor the County Board 
had any intention not to comply with the Resolution of the 
State Board of June 22, 1955 (Appellees’ App. 10) and then 
described the selection and appointment of the Citizens 
Consultant Committee. Of the 36 members, 5 members 
were Negroes — “presidents of Parent-Teachers Associa­
tion, head of a national association for the protection of 
Colored People, people from various sections of the County, 
a Doctor from Havre de Grace * * *” (Appellees’ App. 11- 
12). Mr. Willis then described the advertising for applica­
tions for transfers and the adoption by the County Board 
of the “Desegregation Policy” of August 1, 1956. Mr. Willis 
stated that he believed that he and the County Board had 
“made a reasonable start in good faith to carry forward 
the integration of the public schools in Harford County” ; 
that the process would continue “based upon the experience 
obtained by the first year of operation under the plan” ; and, 
that he and the County Board “have made a reasonable 
start toward the complete integration of the schools of 
Harford County in a reasonable time with deliberate speed 
and that this will be accomplished in a gradual and orderly 
manner” (Appellees’ App. 15-16). He also testified that

Committee on Social and Recreational Aspects recommended that 
“ ability be considered in the grouping of all children, but that no class, 
for which children of both races are available, be of one race with the 
exception of elective courses. That the absorption of the colored pupils 
be in all schools and roughly on a 10 per cent basis, provided no hard­
ship of long transportation be placed upon any pupils” (R. 339).



16

he was not “relying on any State law, statute, order, regu­
lation, custom or usage which purports to require or permit 
continued segregation of the races in the public schools of 
Harford County” (Appellees’ App. 16).

Judge Thomsen pointed out that he “hadn’t heard Mr. 
Willis’ good faith questioned” (Appellees’ App. 16) and 
that “there is no question of inequality of facilities” (Ap­
pellees’ App. 19).

Mr. Willis described the organization of the school sys­
tem in Harford County — a six-three-three system —, that 
is, six years of elementary school, three years junior high 
school and three years of senior high school. The facilities, 
transportation problems and other factors were described 
by Mr. Willis (Appellees’ App. 16-21).

David G. Harry, President of the County Board, con­
firmed the testimony of Mr. Willis as correct, his familiarity 
and that of the County Board with the Opinion of the Attor­
ney General of June 20, 1955, the Resolution of the State 
Board of June 22, 1955, the effect of the Opinion and Resolu­
tion in making the Maryland laws requiring or permitting 
segregation in the public schools “null and void”, and the 
intention of the County Board to comply with the Resolu­
tion of the State Board of June 22, 1955 (Appellees’ App. 
21-22). He understood that in promulgating the “Transfer 
Policy” of June 6, 1956 and the Desegregation Policy” of 
August 1, 1956, he was carrying out the Resolution of the 
County Board adopted March 7, 1956 (Appellees’ App. 22). 
He also stated that he believed that the County Board had 
made a “reasonable start in good faith to carry forward 
the integration policy in the Harford County public schools, 
the plan adopted by the County Board had been “very suc­
cessful thus far” , the County Board intended to continue 
the integration of additional grades based on experience



17

obtained in the first year of operation under the Plan, and 
that the County Board has “made a reasonable start to­
ward completing the integration of the schools of Harford 
County within a reasonable time and with deliberate speed” 
and that “this will be accomplished in a gradual and orderly 
manner” (Appellees’ App. 22-23).

Ernest Volkart, United States Commissioner, and Chair­
man of the Citizens Consultant Committee, testified in re­
gard to the meeting of that Committee on February 27, 
1956 (Appellees’ App. 26). He prepared the Resolution of 
the full Committee of February 27, 1956, and stated that 
his understanding of the practical effect of that Resolution 
as the Committee and he understood it:

“ * * * was that the change which had taken place 
under the Supreme Court ruling would have to be in a 
measure gradual and that the Citizens Committee could 
not prescribe any specific pattern, and that the resolu­
tion speaks for itself in that the School Board must 
make rules and regulations to integrate the schools 
gradually and consistent with the best interests of our 
citizens of Harford County” (Appellees’ App. 27).

He stated that “the recommendations of the various Sub­
committees” were not “adopted by the full Committee” . 
He thought that the actions of the County Board in adopt­
ing the Transfer Policy of June 6, 1956, and the Desegrega­
tion Policy of August 1, 1956, were “consistent with and in 
furtherance of the resolution of the Citizens Committee 
of February 27th, 1956” (Appellees’ App. 27).

As a result of that hearing, Judge Thomsen filed an Opin­
ion on November 23, 1956 (App. 4a-15a), 146 F. Supp. 91, in 
which he concluded (1) that the appointment of the Citi­
zens Consultant Committee in the Summer of 1955, its study 
and recommendation and the Resolution of March 7, 1956,



18

were “a prompt and reasonable start” toward compliance 
with the ruling in the Brown case and (2) that the Plaintiffs 
must exhaust their administrative remedy by appeal to the 
State Board on or before December 15, 1956 (App. 15a). 
He intimated no opinion as to the sufficiency or propriety of 
the Desegregation Policy of August 1, 1956. Further pro­
ceedings in the case at bar were stayed pending the Appeal 
to the State Board.

5. Proceedings Before the Maryland State Board 
of Education.

On December 6,1956, two of the Original Infant Plaintiffs 
in the case at bar, Stephen Moore, Jr., and Dennis Spriggs, 
and 10 additional children, Robert McDaniel, Earlene Scott, 
Mona Leisia Scott, Bernard Blackstone, Larry Wilson 
Blackstone, Ellen Elizabeth Blackstone, Maurice L. Horsey, 
III, David Roland Bell, James J. Bell, Jr., and Aurelia H. 
Boose, took an appeal to the State Board from the action 
of the County Superintendent of August 7, 1956 (R. 373). 
The Appeal of Aurelia H. Boose was withdrawn as she was 
not in Maryland at the time of the hearing before the State 
Board (Appellees’ App. 61).4

At the hearing before the State Board on February 27, 
1957, both parties were represented by Counsel and elab­
orate oral testimony and documentary evidence were 
offered (R. 399-534). Alexander Harvey, Assistant Attor­

4 Of the remaining 9 additional children, 8 were permitted to inter­
vene in the case at bar (R . 51) over the objection of the Defendants 
(R . 48-50). These Intervenors were: Earlene Scott, Mona Leisia 
Scott, Robert McDaniel, David Roland Bell, Bernard Samuel Black­
stone, Ellen Elizabeth Blackstone, Larry Wilson Blackstone and 
Maurice L. Horsey, III. The present Appellants are 6 of the Inter­
venors, i.e., Earlene Scott, Mona Leisia Scott, Bernard Blackstone, 
Larry Blackstone, Ellen Elizabeth Blackstone and Maurice L. Horsey, 
III, and 1 of the Original Plaintiffs, Roslyn Slade, who did not, how­
ever, appeal to the State Board.



19

ney General of Maryland was also present to advise the 
State Board (Appellees’ App. 60). The President of the 
State Board is Wendell D. Allen, a prominent Baltimore 
Attorney. William A. Gunter, a distinguished Attorney 
from Western Maryland is a member of the State Board, as 
is also Dr. Dwight O. W. Holmes, an eminent colored edu­
cator, and President Emeritus of Morgan College (Appel­
lees’ App. 59). All of the members of the State Board par­
ticipated actively in the hearing.

The Appellants before the State Board offered the testi­
mony of parents of some of the infants involved — Mr. 
Moore (R. 400-411), Mr. Spriggs (R. 420-427), and the 
Reverend Mr. Scott (R. 430-440). Certain documents were 
introduced into evidence (R. 412-414).

Mr. Willis, on behalf of the County Board, reviewed his 
educational qualifications (Appellees’ App. 61); the prior 
history of what the County Board did in regard to the Opin­
ion of the Attorney General of June 20,1955, by the appoint­
ment of the Citizens Consultant Committee, the Resolu­
tion of the County Board of March 7, 1956, the Transfer 
Policy of June 14, 1956 and applications for transfer filed 
thereunder, and the Desegregation Policy of August 1, 1956 
(Appellees’ App. 62-63).

Mr. Willis then outlined the considerations which the 
County Board considered in formulating its Desegregation 
Policy of August 1, 1956. These were in brief: (1) the 
likelihood of successful application of the desegregation 
policy in Edgewood and Aberdeen, where there were Army 
bases, and a “desegregated” atmosphere; (2) the wisdom 
of beginning the desegregation program with the younger 
children in the lower grades (a) where social problems 
were not so great and (b) both white and colored pupils 
would have the same educational program and background



20

and could progress together from grade to grade; and (c) 
the available school facilities. In regard to this latter con­
sideration, Mr. Willis pointed out that there had been a 
100% increase in the Harford County school population in 
the past 10 years (from approximately 7,000 to 14,000) dur­
ing which period the County Board has spent approxi­
mately $14,000,000 for school construction. The County 
Board has a $3,000,000 building program projected, one-half 
for 1957 and the other half for 1958. The only elementary 
schools which had available facilities for the desegregation 
program on August 1, 1956, were Edgewood and Aberdeen, 
and Perryman, where there were no applications, and Dar­
lington, in a very rural area, where there was only one 
application (Appellees’ App. 63-66).

The County Board’s “Extension of the Desegregation 
Policy for 1957-1958” , adopted February 6, 1957, was 
brought to the State Board’s attention. This Resolution, in 
effect, extended desegregation to all of the elementary 
schools and all classes in those schools for the school year 
1957-1958 which were not more than 10% overcrowded 
as of February 1, 1957. Mr. Willis explained that schools 
which are 10% overcrowded as of February 1, 1957, would 
be from 16% to 20% overcrowded in the fall of 1957, the 
beginning of the 1957-1958 school year. The normal class 
size was based on an average of 30 pupils for each class 
room. This is in accordance with the State and National 
Standard (App. 33a). The building program would elimi­
nate all of the overcrowding in the elementary schools by 
September, 1958, if there were no unforeseen developments 
in the building program (Appellees’ App. 68). Mr. Willis 
pointed out that the new Junior College at Bel Air would 
be opened in September, 1957, on a desegregated basis 
(Appellees’ App. 68).



21

Mr. Willis stated that the County Board had moved for­
ward in the desegregation of the public schools of Harford 
County “on a reasonable basis” and “with all practicable 
and deliberate speed” (Appellees’ App. 68).

Mr. Harry, the President of the County Board, confirmed 
the testimony of Mr. Willis (Appellees’ App. 69).

On March 4, 1957, the State Board by a unanimous de­
cision dismissed the appeals, finding that (1) the County 
Board had acted within the policy established by the State 
Board, (2) the County Superintendent had acted in good 
faith within the authority set forth in the Desegregation 
Policy adopted on August 1, 1956, by the County Board;
(3) that the Desegregation Policy of August 1, 1956, was 
adopted in a bona fide attempt to make a reasonable start 
toward desegregation of the Harford County public schools;
(4) that the initial efforts had been carried out without any 
untoward incidents (Appellees’ App. 70-76).

The State Board also took cognizance of the Resolution 
of the County Board of February 6, 1957, entitled “Exten­
sion of the Desegregation Policy for 1957-1958” , (which had 
been passed by the County Board pending the appeal to 
the State Board and which will be considered below) and 
of the testimony that the proposed Harford County Junior 
College to be opened in Bel Air in the fall of 1957, would be 
opened on a desegregated basis, as well as the testimony 
that the present program of new buildings and additions 
will make further desegregation possible (Appellees’ App. 
75-76).

6. Action of the County Board on February 6, 1957.
As above pointed out, the County Board, on February 6, 

1957, passed a Resolution for “Extension of the Desegrega­
tion Policy for 1957-1958”. In effect, it extended desegre­



22

gation to all grades of all the elementary public schools in 
Harford County where space was available. It further 
provided:

“Space will be considered available in schools that 
were not more than 10% overcrowded as of February 
1, 1957. All capacities are based on the state and na­
tional standard of thirty pupils per classroom.

“Under the above provision, applications will be ac­
cepted for transfer to all elementary schools except 
Old Post Road, Forest Hill, Bel Air, Highland, Jarrets- 
ville, the sixth grade at the Edgewood High School, 
and Dublin. Such applications must be made during 
the month of May on a regular application form fur­
nished by the Board of Education, and must be ap­
proved by both the child’s classroom teacher and the 
principal of the school the child is now attending.

“AJ1 applications will be reviewed at the regular June 
meeting of the Board of Education and pupils and their 
parents will be informed of the action taken on their 
applications prior to the close of school in June, 1957.”

7. Hearing in the District Court on 
April 18, 1957.

After the decision of the State Board on March 4, 1957, 
Judge Thomsen held a second pre-trial conference on 
March 29, 1957. A hearing was held before Judge Thomsen 
on April 18, 1957. Again oral testimony was taken and 
documentary evidence offered, including the proceedings 
before the State Board.

Mr. Willis testified fully in regard to the School System 
generally in Harford County and in particular in regard 
to the individual schools — the ones which are overcrowded 
and to what extent, as well as other relevant details (Ap­
pellees’ App. 28-37).



23

8. Hearing in the District Court on June 11,1957.
Judge Thomsen had indicated that the Plan of the County 

Board was generally acceptable for elementary schools, 
but that he was doubtful about postponing desegregation 
completely in the High Schools until normally accomplished 
by the Plan’s operation in the elementary schools with pro­
motions to the High Schools in regular course. Judge 
Thomsen suggested that the parties try to agree on some 
plan for the High Schools during the transition period. This 
was attempted but Counsel for the Plaintiffs would not 
agree on any limitation of any number of colored pupils 
in the High Schools but insisted that “ the Plaintiffs and the 
class they represent should be admitted to the High Schools 
without any racial restrictions whatsoever” (Appellees’ 
App. 78).

The County Board modified its Desegregation Plan for 
the High Schools of Harford County during the interim 
period by providing for applications for transfers to High 
Schools near the applicant’s home to be approved or dis­
approved on the “basis of probability of success and adjust­
ment of each individual pupil, and the committee will 
utilize the best professional measures of both achievement 
and adjustment that can be obtained in each individual 
situation. This will include, but not be limited to, the re­
sults of both standardized intelligence and achievement 
tests, with due consideration being given to grade level 
achievements, both with respect to ability and with respect 
to the grade into which transfer is being requested” (Ap­
pellees’ App. 79).

Mr. Willis explained the practical operation of the Modi­
fication (Appellees’ App. 42-49).



24

9. Opinion of June 20, 1957 and Judgment of 
July 3, 1957.

Judge Thomsen filed his Second and final Opinion on 
June 20,1957 (App. 16a-25a). Based on that Opinion, Coun­
sel for the Plaintiffs prepared a proposed form of Judgment 
(to the form of which Counsel for the Defendants inter­
posed no objection), and this Judgment was signed and 
filed on July 3, 1957 (App. la-3a).

The Appellants noted their Appeal from the Judgment 
of July 3, 1957 on July 25, 1957 (R. 587).

ARGUMENT
The Findings by the District Court (Thomsen, C.J.) that 

the County Board had Made a Prompt and Reasonable Start 
Toward the Desegregation of the Public Schools of Harford 
County and that Additional Time was Necessary to Effec­
tuate Such Desegregation as Set Forth in the Judgment of 
July 3, 1957, Were not Clearly Erroneous.

There seems to be no contention by the Appellants that 
the District Court did not recognize and apply the appli­
cable law. They contend that the District Court erred in 
concluding that the Appellees met the burden of showing 
the necessity for limited delay incident to the Desegrega­
tion Plan set forth in the Judgment of July 3, 1957. This 
Appeal, therefore, essentially presents an alleged error in­
volving a finding of fact. It is well established by Rule 
52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and by the 
decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and 
of this Court5 that the Appellants must establish that the

5 U.S. v. National Association of Real Estate Boards, 339 U.S. 485, 
70 S. Ct. 711, 94 L. Ed. 1007 (1950 —  Douglas, J.) and see other 
Supreme Court cases cited by Mr. Justice Douglas at page 495 of 339 
U.S. 485.

New York Life Ins. Co. v. Tobin, 177 F. 2d 176 (1949 —  C.A. 4th, 
Per Curiam) and cases cited on page 177 of the Opinion.



25

findings of the District Court were “clearly erroneous” in 
order to obtain a reversal.

It would perhaps have been sufficient for the Appellees 
merely to refer to the careful and comprehensive Opinions 
of the District Court — the Opinion of November 23, 1956 
and of June 20, 1957 (App. 4a-25a) — and the Judgment 
of July 3, 1957 itself, to show that the findings of the Dis­
trict Court were not clearly erroneous, but were clearly 
in accord with the great weight of the evidence. Indeed, 
these Opinions and the facts show that the District Court 
went beyond the requirements of the applicable law with 
a view to expediting the progress of desegregation in the 
public schools of Harford County and the protection of the 
constitutional rights, not only of the colored pupils as a 
class, but also of individual plaintiffs involved in the liti­
gation.0 The public importance of the case, not only to 6

6 The Appellants properly point out in their Brief (page 2) that 
the “ estoppel” phase of the suit is not at issue in the case at bar. This 
is because the Appellees did not file a Cross-Appeal. The determina­
tion of the County Board not to file a Cross-Appeal to raise this issue 
was deliberate. The County Board does not wish to be thought to 
acquiesce in the District Court’s determination that its Desegregation 
Policy of August 1, 1956, was not in accord with and consistent with 
its Resolution of March 7, 1956. On the contrary, it was, and is, the 
position of the County Board that the intention and understanding of 
the draftsman of the Resolution, Mr. Volkart, was to leave the 
granting of any applications for transfer in the hands of the County 
Board without specific recommendations, but in accordance with the 
rules and regulations of the County Board and with available facilities. 
This was the understanding of Counsel for the County Board, the 
President of the County Board, and County Superintendent. This 
understanding is in accord with the language of the Resolution of 
March 7, 1956, itself. Then too, if the Plaintiffs in Civil No. 8615, had 
not voluntarily dismissed the Complaint, it would have been dis­
missed —  or at least postponed substantially —  because the Plaintiffs 
had not exhausted their administrative remedy by appeal to the State 
Board. There was, therefore, no real prejudice to the Plaintiffs by the 
voluntary dismissal of the Complaint in Civil No. 8615. It would not 
have been “ inequitable” to have required the Infant Plaintiffs Moore 
and Spriggs to have complied with the Plan applicable to others in



26

Harford County, but to the people of the State of Mary­
land generally, seemed to require a full consideration of 
the background, both Statutory and administrative, of the 
case and all of the applicable facts in the particular case.

The decision of this Court in this case is of more than 
passing importance. It is of particular importance to the 
entire problem of desegregation throughout the United 
States. Maryland is a border State, which from the begin­
ning of its State-wide educational system in 1865 has had 
separation of the races in the public school system. This 
continued until 1955, a period of 90 years. The system of 
“separate but equal” separate school facilities was insti­
tuted in 1872 and continued until 1955, a period of 83 years. 
There has been no defiance of the decision in the Brown 
case in Maryland. On the contrary, both the political and 
administrative officials of the State have officially acted to 
require compliance with that decision with more than 
“deliberate speed”. In the case at bar, it is conceded that 
the County Board has acted in good faith to desegregate 
the public schools in Harford County. The State Board — 
the highest administrative educational authority in the 
State — has approved the County Board’s action after a 
full and careful hearing. There has been no conflict be­

their situation, particularly as there is no question that the school 
facilities which they enjoy are equal —  if not superior —  to those 
which are provided in Paragraph 6 of the Judgment of July 3, 1957. 
The District Court indicated that if an appeal or cross-appeal were 
taken by the County Board he would not supersede the operation of 
the Judgment of July 3, 1957, pending appeal. Under these circum­
stances, the County Board decided that it would be inequitable to 
displace the infant Plaintiff Moore from the sixth grade at the Bel Air 
School and the infant Plaintiff Spriggs from the eighth grade at Edge- 
wood High School in the course of a school year even if the County 
Board were successful in a cross-appeal, particularly in view of the 
nature of the general Plan adopted by the County Board and incor­
porated in the Judgment of July 3, 1957. It was for this reason alone 
that a cross-appeal was not taken.



27

tween the Federal Courts and State officials. There has 
been no untoward incidents arising in Harford County as 
a result of the Plan. An affirmance of Judge Thomsen’s 
decision by this Court may well point the way to a rational, 
equitable and practical solution to the difficult problems 
posed in many other localities by the Brown decision.

Judge Thomsen’s decision is also of more than judicial 
importance in view of the unusual, if not unique, circum­
stance that before his appointment as District Judge, he 
was President of the Board of School Commissioners of 
Baltimore City — or as he modestly puts it — “I have had 
some experience with School Boards” (Appellees’ App. 10). 
His decision has the added value of his administrative ex­
perience as the head of the local governing body of the 
public school system of one of the largest cities in the 
United States.

The law governing the case appears in the Second Opinion 
of the Supreme Court of the United States in Brown v. 
Board of Education of Topeka, 349 U.S. 294, 75 S. Ct. 753, 
99 L. Ed. 1083 (May 31, 1955, Warren, C.J.) and in the de­
cisions of this Court in Carson v. Board of Education of 
McDowell County, 227 F. 2d 789 (1955, Per Curiam); Hood 
v. Board of Trustees of Sumter County School District No. 
2, 232 F. 2d 626 (1956, Per Curiam); Carson v. Warlick, 238 
F. 2d 724 (1956, Parker, C.J.) and of the Three-Judge Court, 
composed of Chief Judge Parker, Circuit Judge Dobie and 
District Judge Timmerman, in Briggs v. Elliott, 132 F. Supp. 
776 (1955, Per Curiam).

In their Brief, page 9, the Appellants seek to narrow 
substantially the effect of the Second Opinion in the Brown 
case. All of the language of Chief Justice Warren’s Opinion 
is important. He stated for the Supreme Court that:



28

“Full implementation of these constitutional prin­
ciples may require solution of varied local school prob­
lems. School authorities have the primary responsi­
bility for elucidating, assessing, and solving these prob­
lems; courts will have to consider whether the action 
of school authorities constitutes good faith implementa­
tion of the governing constitutional principles. Because 
of their proximity to local conditions and the possible 
need for further hearings, the courts which originally 
heard these cases can best perform this judicial ap­
praisal. Accordingly, we believe it appropriate to re­
mand the cases to those courts.” (Emphasis supplied.) 
349 U.S. at page 299.

“In fashioning and effectuating the decrees, the 
courts will be guided by equitable principles. Tradi­
tionally, equity has been characterized by a practical 
flexibility in shaping its remedies and by a facility for 
adjusting and reconciling public and private needs. 
These cases call for the exercise of these traditional 
attributes of equity power. At stake is the personal 
interest of the plaintiffs in admission to public schools 
as soon as practicable on a nondiscriminatory basis. To 
effectuate this interest may call for elimination of a 
variety of obstacles in making the transition to school 
systems operated in accordance with the constitutional 
principles set forth in our May 17,1954, decision. Courts 
of equity may properly take into account the public 
interest in the elimination of such obstacles in a syste­
matic and effective manner. But it should go without 
saying that the vitality of these constitutional prin­
ciples cannot be allowed to yield simply because of dis­
agreement with them.” (Emphasis supplied.) 349 U.S. 
at page 300.

“While giving weight to these public and private 
considerations, the courts will require that the defen­
dants make a prompt and reasonable start toward full 
compliance with our May 17, 1954, ruling. Once such 
a start has been made, the courts may find that addi­
tional time is necessary to carry out the ruling in an



29

effective manner. The burden rests upon the defen­
dants to establish that such time is necessary in the 
public interest and is consistent with good faith com­
pliance at the earliest practicable date. To that end, 
the courts may consider problems related to adminis­
tration, arising from the physical condition of the school 
plant, the school transportation system, personnel, re­
vision of school districts and attendance areas into 
compact units to achieve a system of determining ad­
mission to the public schools on a nonracial basis, and 
revision of local laws and regulations which may be 
necessary in solving the foregoing problems. They will 
also consider the adequacy of any plans the defendants 
may propose to meet these problems and to effectuate 
a transition to a racially nondiscriminatory school sys­
tem. During this period of transition, the courts will 
retain jurisdiction of these cases.” (Emphasis supplied.) 
349 U.S. at page 300.

This Court, in the Opinions mentioned, has established 
that:

1. That if a proper administrative remedy is provided 
by the State Law, the Plaintiffs in this type of case must 
exhaust that remedy and “the Courts of the United States 
will not grant injunctive relief until administrative reme­
dies have been exhausted.” 227 F. 2d at 790. (To the same 
effect 238 F. 2d at 727; 232 F. 2d at 626.)

2. “The federal courts manifestly cannot operate the 
schools.” (227 F. 2d at 790) and the Brown decision did not 
provide “that the federal courts are to take over or regu­
late the public schools of the States” (132 F. Supp. at 777).

3. Interference by injunction with the schools of a state 
is as grave a matter as interfering with its fiscal operations 
and should not be resorted to ‘where the asserted federal 
right may be preserved without it’ ” (227 F. 2d at 791).

4. Nothing in the Constitution of the United States or in 
the decision in the Brown case “ takes away from the people



30

freedom to choose the schools they attend. The Constitu­
tion, in other words, does not require integration. It merely 
forbids discrimination. It does not forbid such segregation 
as occurs as the result of voluntary action” (132 F. Supp. 
at 777).

In the Second Opinion of the Supreme Court, it is pointed 
out, in effect, that all matters and problems which affect 
the school system as a system and which result or may re­
sult from the change-over to a desegregated system, may 
be considered and evaluated by the local school authorities 
in formulating plans and in determining the time of com­
pletion so long as the local board (a) acts in good faith and 
(b) there is no attempt to resist the application of the Con­
stitutional principles involved (1) entirely or (2) for an 
unreasonable time. The Supreme Court clearly indicates 
that the judgment of the local school authorities is to be 
given great weight.

The West Virginia District Court cases on specific plans 
(cited on page 10 of the Appellants’ Brief) are not very 
helpful as the background and particular facts in each case 
are quite different. Essentially each case stands on its own 
facts so far as a specifis plan is concerned. Three of the 
cases cited by the Appellants arose in jurisdictions in which 
the State and Local authorities were actively resisting any 
desegregation of the public schools at any time, had made 
no start, reasonable or otherwise, and in which no effort 
had been made to meet the burden upon the local author­
ities to establish the need for additional time to complete 
the desegregation program.7 It is well settled, however, that

7 School Board o f the City o f Charlottesville, Va. v. Alim, 240 F. 
2d 59 (1956, CA-4 —  Parker, C.J.) c.d. 353 U.S. 910.

School Board o f the City o f Newport News, Va, v. Atkins, 246 F. 
2d 325 (1957, CA-4 —  Per Curiam).

Jackson v. Rawdon, 235 F. 2d 93 (1956, CA-5 —  Hutcheson, C.J.).



31

a gradual, grade-by-grade, method of implementing a bona 
fide desegregation plan is in accordance with the Supreme 
Court’s Second Opinion in the Brown case. Aaron v. Cooper, 
243 F. 2d 361 (CA-8,1957, Vogel, Ct. J.).

What then was the factual situation in regard to the 
public school system in Harford County?

Harford County is predominantly a rural County. There 
are two large government reservations in the southern end 
of the County — Aberdeen Proving Ground at Aberdeen 
and the Army Chemical Center at Edgewood. On the gov­
ernment reservations, the housing developments are op­
erated on a non-segregated basis.

In accordance with the Maryland law and policy prior 
to 1955, the Harford County public school system provided 
“separate but equal” school facilities for white and colored 
students as permitted by the Opinion of the Supreme Court 
of the United States in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 
16 S. Ct. 1138, 41 L. Ed. 256 (1896, Brown, J.). At the time 
of this suit, the County Board provided two large “consoli­
dated” schools for approximately 1400 colored students, 
comprising elementary, junior high and senior high school 
classes at Hickory and at Havre de Grace. This was in ac­
cord with the County Board’s 6-3-3 system, that is, 6 years 
of elementary school, 3 years of junior high school and 3 
years of senior high school. The same system was provided 
for approximately 12,600 white students. There were 18 
white elementary schools8 and 5 high schools, comprising 
junior and senior high schools, at Bel Air, Bush’s Corner 
(North Harford), Edgewood, Aberdeen and Havre de 
Grace.

8 Emmorton, Edgewood, Aberdeen, Halls Cross Roads, Perryman, 
Churchville, Youth’s Benefit, State Ridge, Darlington, Havre de 
Grace, Old Post Road, Bel Air, Highland, Forest Hill, Jarrettsville, 
Dublin, 6th grade at Aberdeen High School and sixth grade at Edge- 
wood High School.



32

It is conceded that the school facilities for the colored 
students were equal if not superior to the facilities for the 
white students. Cf. Willis v. Walker, 136 F. Supp. 177 (1955, 
W.D. Ky., Swinford, D.J.) at page 179.

The students, both white and colored, were transported 
free of charge to their schools unless they lived within walk­
ing distance of the respective schools. White students were 
required to attend the nearest white school and colored 
students the nearest colored school.

There were white teachers in the white schools and col­
ored teachers in the colored schools.

During the past 10 years, the school population has in­
creased 100% (from approximately 7,000 to 14,000) and the 
County Board has spent during that period approximately 
$14,000,000.00 for school construction. To relieve over­
crowding and care for additional students, the County 
Board has a $3,000,000.00 building program, one-half for 
1957 and the other half for 1958.

i

As pointed out in the Supplementary Statement of the 
Facts, the Attorney General of Maryland and the State 
Board moved with haste (rather than “deliberate speed” ) 
to announce the change in the long established Maryland 
policy in regard to separation of the races in the public 
schools. The County Board moved with great expedition 
to select the Citizens Consultant Committee, that is, on 
June 30, 1955, just 1 month after the filing of the Second 
Opinion in the Brown case. Although the colored students 
only amount to approximately 10% of the entire school 
population, 5 of the 36 members of the Citizens Consultant 
Committee, approximately 14% of the entire membership, 
were representative Negroes holding important positions 
or having a professional status. This Committee met



33

promptly on August 15, 1955 and subdivided into Sub-Com­
mittees which studied the problems involved. The Sub­
committees presented their final reports at a meeting of 
the full Committee on February 27, 1956; none of the recom­
mendations in the reports of the Sub-Committees was 
adopted, but the Resolution of February 27, 1956 was unani­
mously adopted by the full Committee, in effect leaving the 
granting of applications to the judgment and discretion of 
the County Board. The County Board, 8 days later, adopted 
the same Resolution.

Judge Thomsen held that these actions constituted a 
prompt and reasonable start toward compliance with the 
Supreme Court’s ruling (App. 15a). They were most cer­
tainly prompt. They were entirely reasonable. There is no 
evidence to the contrary.

Well before the beginning of the school year for 1956 
(September 1956), the County Board on June 6, 1956 
adopted its Transfer Policy, advising of the right to file 
applications for transfer to other schools, but specifically 
indicating that it reserved the right “during the period of 
transition to delay or deny the admission of a pupil to any 
school if it deems such action wise and necessary for any 
good and sufficient reason.”

The County Board adopted its “Desegregation Policy” on 
August 1, 1956, outlining its proposals for the desegregation 
of the schools in Harford County and its reasons for the 
Plan. The County Board pointed out that the Supreme 
Court’s decision “provided for an orderly, gradual transi­
tion based on the solution of varied local school problems 
and that the Resolution of the Citizens Consultant Com­
mittee was in accord with that principle and left to the 
discretion of the County Board the “establishment of poli­
cies based on the assessing of local conditions of housing,



34

transportation, personnel, educational standards and social 
relationships” . The County Board recited that studies in 
areas where complete desegregation had been practiced 
indicated a lowering of school standards that was detri­
mental to all children and that experience in other areas 
showed that bitter local opposition to desegregation in a 
school system “not only prevents an orderly transition, 
but also adversely affects the whole educational program.” 
The County Board also pointed out that its first concern 
must always be that of providing the best possible school 
system for all of the children of Harford County.” (Em­
phasis supplied.) The County Board concluded that it would 
be best to start the desegregation policy with younger chil­
dren where social problems posed by desegregation could 
be solved with the least emotionalism. It selected the first 
three grades in Edgewood Elementary School and Halls 
Cross Roads Elementary School for the approval of appli­
cations of Negro pupils from colored to white schools, point­
ing out that there were already integrated housing devel­
opments in these areas and that, with the exception of 2 
small schools, (in one of which there was one application, 
in the other, none) these were the only elementary build­
ings in which space was available at the present time. The 
County Board further stated that the future rate of ex­
pansion of the program depended upon the success of the 
initial steps.

The County Board, in accordance with the policy, ap­
proved 15 of the 60 applications for transfer received, or 
25%, and rejected 45 applications.

The program was successful and on February 6, 1957 
(again well in advance of the 1957-1958 school year begin­
ning September 1957), the County Board substantially ex­
tended its desegregation policy by adopting a Resolution



35

entitled “Extension of Desegregation Policy for 1957-58” 
(App. 19a). This, in effect, provided for the acceptance of 
applications for transfer from pupils wishing to attend all 
elementary schools in all classes in the area in which they 
lived, if space were available. Space would be considered 
available in schools not 10% overcrowded, as of February 
1,1957. All capacities were based on the State and National 
standard of 30 pupils per class room (App. 33a).

Mr. Willis, the County Superintendent, pointed out that 
in the opinion of the County Board the adjustment of pupils 
transferring from a colored to a white school could be ac­
complished more smoothly and with better results for the 
education of the pupil involved if the transfer were made 
to a school which was not substantially overcrowded. Mr. 
Willis further pointed out that a school which was 10% 
overcrowded as of February 1, 1957 would be more over­
crowded in September, 1957. In his judgment, the figures 
would be 5% to 10% higher in September, 1957 (Appellees’ 
App. 37).

Mr. Willis summarized the factual situation in regard to 
the 7 schools which were overcrowded more than 10% as of 
February 1, 1957 (Appellees’ App. 35-37), as follows:
Name o f Elementary School

Sixth grade at Edgewood
Old Post Road...................
Forest Hill .......................
Bel A ir ...............................
Jarrettsville .....................
Highland ..........................
Dublin ..............................

Percentage o f Overcrowding 
as o f February 1,1957

12 %9 
24%
17%
14%
10%
16%
14%

9 Mr. Willis pointed out that this school would be considerably 
overcrowded this year “ because we will hold every child that is there 
and will bring in another sixth grade”  (Appellees’ App. 36).



36

The overcrowding in three of these Schools, Old Post 
Road, Bel Air and Highland, will be eliminated by Septem­
ber, 1958 and the overcrowding in the remaining four 
Schools, Forest Hill, Jarrettsville, Dublin and Sixth Grade 
at Edgewood High School, will be eliminated by September 
1959 by the Building Program if there are no unforeseen 
circumstances arising in that Program. Summarizing the 
situation in the elementary schools by percentages, 61% of 
the elementary schools were desegregated in full as of Sep­
tember, 1957; 17% will be fully desegregated as of Sep­
tember, 1958; and, the remaining 22% will be fully deseg­
regated as of September, 1959. Judge Thomsen held that 
the reasons given for this policy in regard to overcrowding 
were reasonable and that although this factor would not 
justify unreasonable delay, under the circumstances of this 
case, it justified that the one or two years delay in deseg­
regating the 7 schools mentioned (App. 21a).

Judge Thomsen had indicated that although he was ten­
tatively of the opinion that the desegregation for the ele­
mentary schools was reasonable and that the County Board 
had met the burden of proof in requiring the one to two 
years delay in the desegregation of the 7 schools mentioned, 
he was tentatively of the opinion that there could be some 
acceleration in the desegregation program so far as the 
high schools were concerned. He suggested that Counsel for 
the respective parties attempt to agree upon some reason­
able plan for the interim period.10

10 It should be kept in mind that the Harford County plan for 
desegregation would have worked automatically after the elementary 
schools were desegregated, as a colored student at one of the former 
white elementary schools would automatically proceed into the same 
junior high school as a white student in the same class. The entire 
high school system would thus be desegregated automatically by 1963 
at the latest date, assuming that the County Board did nothing further 
in regard to its desegregation policy.



37

The Appellants make much of the fact that in June, 1955 
there were only 60 applications for transfer and seek to 
use this figure as the number of applications which would 
inevitably be filed. It is significant, however, to note that 
although requested by the District Court to seek to reach 
an agreement on the question of admissions during the in­
terim period, Counsel for the Appellants refused to make 
any agreement as to the number of applications during the 
interim period (Appellees’ App. 78). In other words, the 
Appellants insisted that the matter be left entirely open 
to any number of colored pupils who might apply during 
the interim period. Obviously, the County Board could 
not undertake this type of program, as it might well have 
resulted in the complete disruption of the entire school 
system if there were a substantial number of applications 
for transfer from the colored high schools to the white high 
schools during the interim period. There would obviously 
be disruption of the transportation system, the classrooms, 
the teaching staff, both in the white and colored high 
schools, as it must be remembered that the colored teachers 
and principals in the colored high schools must also be con­
sidered in the entire problem. Even more importantly, a 
transfer from a colored elementary school to a white high 
school would cause the colored child to face problems which 
do not arise if that child had normally proceeded from the 
elementary school to the junior high school in regular 
course. As pointed out by Mr. Willis and also in Judge 
Thomsen’s Opinion of June 20, 1957 (App. 22a), after a 
year or so in the high school, social groups, athletic groups 
and subject interest groups had begun to crystalize, friend­
ships and attachments have been made. A child transfer­
ring to the school from another high school does not have 
the support of the group with which he has passed through 
the elementary school. A colored pupil transferring to an



38

upper grade during the interim period would not have the 
benefit of his older brothers, sisters or cousins already in 
the school, or of his parents, relatives or friends who have 
been active in the Parent-Teacher Association. Mr. Willis 
also pointed out and the District Court found as a fact that 
high school teachers generally, with notable exceptions, 
are less pupil conscious and more subject conscious and are 
less likely than the teachers trained for elementary grades, 
to be helpful in readjustment. Judge Thomsen pointed out 
that the County Board had sound reasons for making the 
transition on a year to year basis so that most colored chil­
dren would have a normal high school experience, entering 
in the seventh grade and continuing through the same 
school.

To meet the problem posed by the interim period, so far 
as the high schools were concerned, the County Board, 
notwithstanding the inability to reach an agreement with 
Counsel for the Plaintiffs in regard to the matter, modified 
its Desegregation Policy on June 5, 1957 which would per­
mit any colored student wishing to transfer to a high school 
nearer his home, to apply between July 1 and July 15, 1957 
for transfer for the year beginning September, 1957. Such 
an application would be evaluated on an individual basis 
by a Committee consisting of the high school principals 
of the two schools involved, the Director of Instruction and 
the County Supervisors working in those schools. The 
guides and standards set up for the Committee were:

“These applications will be approved or disapproved 
on the basis of the probability of success and adjust­
ment of each individual pupil, and the committee will 
utilize the best professional measures of both achieve­
ment and adjustment that can be obtained in each in­
dividual situation. This will include, but not be limited 
to, the results of both standardized intelligence and



39

achievement tests, with due consideration being given 
to grade level achievements, both with respect to 
ability and with respect to the grade into which trans­
fer is being requested” (App. 19a-20a).

The County Board again stated that it “and its profes­
sional staff would keep this problem under constant and 
continuous observation and study”.

Judge Thomsen found that these guides and standards 
were reasonable and further that he had confidence in the 
integrity, ability and fairness of the County Superintendent, 
Mr. Willis, and of the principals, supervisors and others 
who would make the decisions under his direction. In any 
event, the District Court retained jurisdiction so that if any 
applicant or his parents thought that the plan during the 
interim period was not being equitably or properly applied, 
a prompt hearing in the District Court could be obtained.

The two cases from the Sixth Circuit, Clemons v. Board 
of Education of Hillsboro, 228 F. 2d 853 (1956, CA-6, Allen, 
Ct. J., Stewart Ct. J., concurring, Miller, Ct. J., dissenting) 
and Booker v. Tennessee Board of Education, 240 F. 2d 689 
(1957, CA-6, Allen, Ct. J., Shackelford Miller, Jr., Ct. J., 
dissenting), cited by the Appellants on page 11 of their 
Brief, are quite distinguishable from the case at bar. In 
the Clemons case, there was an attempt by the Local School 
authorities in Hillsboro, Ohio, by use of a gerrymandered 
school district to circumvent and frustrate the law of Ohio 
since 1887 prohibiting segregation in the public schools of 
that State. The District Court, however, declined an injunc­
tion and its judgment “continued for an indefinite period 
the violation of law carried out by the Board of Education” 
(228 F. 2d at 857). The Booker case involved Memphis 
State College in which it was anticipated that there would 
be an overcrowding if all persons qualified for admission 
were admitted without restriction. The Board of Education



40

provided for gradual admission of qualified negro students, 
but there was no limitation on white students, either non­
residents of Tennessee or non-residents of Memphis. There 
was no building program to take care of any anticipated 
increase. These cases are obviously quite different from 
the case at bar.

The case at bar has more similarity to the case of Aaron 
v. Cooper, 243 F. 2d 361 (1957 — CA-8, Vogel, Ct. J.), which 
involved a gradual desegregation of the public schools in 
Little Rock, Arkansas, beginning in that case, however, in 
the 10th, 11th and 12th grades, in the fall of 1957, then in 
the 7th, 8th and 9th grades and then in the 6 elementary 
grades, the entire program to be completed by 1963. Not 
only are substantially all of the administrative, pedagogical 
and other problems set forth in the District Court’s Opinion 
in that case (Aaron v. Cooper, 143 F. Supp. 855), present 
in the case at bar, but, in addition, the County Board in 
the present case had a predominantly rural county with 
transportation and other problems, which were not present 
in the metropolitan area of Little Rock. Then too, the 
County Board’s Desegregation Plan in this case provides 
for transfers (to the High Schools) during the interim 
period which was not a feature in the Little Rock plan, so 
far as the Elementary Schools were concerned in Little 
Rock during the interim period there.

Circuit Judge Vogel, after considering the Clemons and 
the Booker cases, supra, as well as Willis v. Walker, supra, 
pointed out that each case must rest on its own particular 
facts. The problems are “varied” as the Supreme Court 
pointed out in the Brown case. Judge Vogel then stated at 
page 364 of 243 F. 2d:

“ It was on the basis of such ‘varied’ school problems 
that the Supreme Court in the second Brown decision 
remanded the cases there involved to the local District 
Courts to determine whether the school authorities,



41

who possessed the primary responsibility, have acted in 
god faith, made a prompt and reasonable start, and 
whether or not additional time was necessary to ac­
complish complete desegregation. The question of 
speed was to be decided with reference to existing 
local conditions. There is here unqualified basis for the 
District Court’s conclusions that the proposed plan con­
stitutes a good-faith, prompt and reasonable start to­
ward full compliance with the Supreme Court’s man­
date. Accordingly, we cannot say, even if we were so 
minded, that the District Court’s conclusions were en­
tirely erroneous and should be set aside. Nor can we 
say that a gradual program of integration beginning at 
the high school level and ultimately encompassing all 
grades is an unreasonable one.”

The Appellees suggest that in several of the cases de­
cided in the Lower Courts, the problem of overcrowding 
has been treated not as a racial problem but as a spatial 
problem. The Appellants overlook the fact that during the 
transfer period, the racial and the spatial considerations are 
closely related in that the colored pupils already have 
“space” in the existing colored schools and there is not 
sufficient “space” during the interim period in the over­
crowded white school to permit transfer from the colored 
to the white schools. The fact that if a few white students 
whose parents moved into Harford County, applied during 
a school year for admission to the white school in their 
neighborhood during the transfer period and would be ad­
mitted, as the law requires, does not indicate any racial 
discrimination as the white pupil has “no space” to occupy, 
whereas the colored pupil has his space in the colored 
school. Counsel for the Appellants have never been willing 
to agree on a number of applications for transfer during 
the interim period. It cannot be assumed that the applica­
tions for transfer will necessarily be a small number. The



42

County Board in its Desegregation Policy has always 
sought to have the granting of the applications operate on 
an automatic or “policy” basis rather than to have each 
individual case considered specially. There are obvious 
administrative and other advantages to this type of system 
rather than to have each individual case evaluated on an 
individual basis. It adopted the individual basis procedure 
for High Schools during the interim period to take care 
of any individual case indicating a desirable transfer dur­
ing that interim period.

Not only have the Appellants not challenged the good 
faith of the County Board and the County Superintendent, 
but the facts in the case at bar indicate overwhelmingly 
that these local school officials have made a sincere, honest 
effort to establish a workable and efficient desegregation 
plan which will not disrupt the school system of Harford 
County and which will be accepted by the reasonable and 
right-thinking people of Harford County.

The Appellants have suggested that it was quite improper 
for a County Board and a County Superintendent to give 
any consideration whatever to the possibility of strenuous 
or violent opposition to a desegregation plan. The Supreme 
Court has not stated this as the law, and it is not the law. 
On the contrary, the Supreme Court itself provides for a 
gradual, rather than an immediate, change-over from a 
segregated to a desegregated school system. Obviously op­
position of a local community to such a transfer in its en­
tirety cannot be permitted to “devitalize”  the constitutional 
principles involved. The Supreme Court, however, clearly 
points out that the public interest which, of necessity, must 
include the maintenance of public order and public tran­
quility, especially in the operation of the public school 
system, must be considered by the District Court as well as



43

by the local school officials. This does not mean that there 
may be unreasonable delay, but it does mean that during 
an interim period of change from a segregated to a desegre­
gated system, the application and the timing of the desegre­
gation process may, in the good judgment of the County 
Board, be deferred or accelerated on a reasonable basis de­
pending on the chances of success of the program. As the 
County Board has stated several times, its duty is to provide 
the best public school system it can for all the students of 
Harford County regardless of their color, and at the same 
times its duty is to implement within a reasonable time and 
with deliberate speed the decision of the Supreme Court in 
regard to the constitutional rights of the parties involved. 
This has been done on a reasonable basis by the County 
Board upon pedagogical considerations for the benefit of 
the entire school system and after evaluating administra­
tive problems, personnel problems, transportation prob­
lems, and social adjustment problems involved in the situ­
ation. It is comforting to note that the plan is working well 
in the practical operation of the public schools. Local op­
position has been moderated. The parents of some of the 
Appellants have testified that the racial atmosphere in 
Harford County is good and that there is community ac­
ceptance both in the public schools and in the Parent- 
Teacher Association of the desegregated system. These 
benefits are not lightly to be discarded, particularly in view 
of Chief Justice Warren’s admonition that “the primary 
responsibility for elucidating, assessing and solving these 
problems” is upon the local school authorities, and also in 
view of the general policy of the Federal Courts not to in­
terfere with the administration by the State of its public 
functions unless such interference is absolutely necessary 
for the protection of a constitutional right guaranteed by 
the Federal Constitution.



44

A review of this record discloses that not only were Judge 
Thomsen’s findings not clearly erroneous but that they 
were clearly in accordance with the great weight of the 
evidence.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons and upon the facts stated above, this 

Court should affirm the Judgment of July 3, 1957 and re­
quire the Appellants to pay the Costs.

Respectfully submitted,

Edward C. W ilson, Jr., 
W ilson K. Barnes, 

Attorneys for Appellees.



APPENDIX



App. 1

APPENDIX TO APPELLEES’ BRIEF NO. 7552

(R. 61-73): Wednesday, November 14, 1956
(Mr. Greenberg) We would like to call Mr. Willis, Your 

Honor.

CHARLES W. WILLIS,
was called as a witness for and on behalf of the plaintiffs 
and, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testi­
fied as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION 
By Mr. Greenberg:

Q. Mr. Willis, what is your position? A. I am Superin­
tendent of Schools, Harford County.

Q. How long have you held that position? A. Since 
July 15, 1945.

Q. As Superintendent of Schools of Harford County are 
you aware of a series of reports made by a group known as 
the Citizens Consultant Committee — I believe that is the 
name — are you aware of that? A. Yes.

Q. Do you have such of those reports here with you? A. 
I have several of the sub-committee reports that were in 
fact given to the Board of Education and were distributed 
to the members of the Committee.

Q. May I see them, please? A. Yes.
(Mr. Barnes) As to the sub-committee reports of the 

Citizens Consultant Committee, I will object to the admis­
sibility of them in evidence because the final resolution of 
the Committee was the resolution of February 27, 1956, and 
it was that resolution which was presented to the members 
of the Board of Education, the one which was adopted by 
the members of the Board, so that any preliminary reports 
of sub-committees would obviously, I think, be merged into



App. 2

the final action of the Committee, and it is only the final 
action of the Committee which would be admissible in evi­
dence in this case.

(The Court) Let us get some more information about it. 
By whom was the Committee appointed?

(The Witness) The Committee was appointed by the 
Board of Education.

(The Court) Then what?
(The Witness) Well, I don’t have the minutes of the 

meeting here, Your Honor, but as I recall it there was quite 
a bit of discussion prior to the appointment of the Com­
mittee, and the Board did take action on the appointment 
of the Committee to advise them on the problems of in­
tegrating the schools of Harford County.

I recall that the meeting — do you want the names of it? 
Shall I go ahead?

(The Court) Yes. Did you meet with the Committee?
(The Witness) I was not supposed to. The Board felt 

that it would be better if I did not meet with the Commit­
tee; but they felt some member of our staff should meet 
with them and give them the information that they needed, 
but later I did, but the first one was attended by this mem­
ber of our staff, our Assistant Superintendent, and he was 
also there for the second meeting, and I did attend that, and 
I had nothing to say, but I had no influence on them, and 
on several occasions I believe I was asked for information 
which I gave; I don’t know what about.

(The Court) The Committee did this work through the 
Committees.

(The Witness) Yes.
(The Court) Was that fact reported to the School Board? 

Was that a matter of public knowledge?
(The Witness) Well, yes, I think it was public knowl­

edge, and they had several committees because our office 
did some work for the committee.



A pp. 3

(The Court) Supplied them with some information?
(The Witness) Yes, as they requested it, or asked a mem­

ber of our staff, and we gave them a member of our staff 
who could work with them, although I didn’t meet with the 
committee, I met with the chairman several times and gave 
the information on the facilities.

(The Court) Did the School Board know that you were 
working with the sub-committees?

(The Witness) I think they did, yes.
(The Court) Or your staff?
(The Witness) Yes, it was a matter of knowledge and 

were discussed at the meetings.
(The Court) Well, as I understand it these papers Mr. 

Greenberg has shown you are reports made by the sub­
committee to the general committee. Were they made at 
that meeting which you attended?

(The Witness) Yes.
(The Court) The second meeting?
(The Witness) They were made at that meeting, yes, 

but as I recall there was no formal adoption of any of these 
reports. They were simply made, and that meeting had the 
sub-committee reports and the reports were made, and then 
the chairman made a report of what had been done else­
where in the State, and the information was obtained for 
that just prior to that meeting, and as a result of these four 
things, I would say, they passed the Resolution which was 
written out and sent to the Board.

(The Court) May I see that? I haven’t seen that yet.
(Mr. Greenberg) Yes (handing document to the Court).
(The Court) Are they separate or bound together?
(Mr. Greenberg) Some are bound and there are some 

that are separate.



A pp. 4

(The Court) Well, you say that to the best of your recol­
lection they were not adopted by the Committee as a whole?

(The Witness) I don’t think so.
(The Court) At this time, Mr. Greenberg, I think that 

the papers might be marked for identification as Plaintiffs’ 
Exhibit 1-A, B, C, and D, although perhaps they might be 
received in evidence at this time in order to show the fields 
of study covered by the sub-committees of the General 
Committee.

It may be that further evidence will make them admis­
sible for other purposes, but I think that they should be 
so limited at this time.

By Mr. Greenberg:
Q. Have you read these reports? A. Yes, sir, I have.
Q. Are you familiar with the wording of the conclusion 

of the Sub-Committee on Facilities? Has that been reported 
to you in your capacity as Superintendent? A. I am aware 
of the report. It was never reported to me officially by any 
group.

Q. How did you get this? A. Our office served as secre­
tary of this committee and I served for the whole commit­
tee, and all this, we did the paper work and sent out the 
letters.

Q. You administered the work of the committees? A. 
No, we didn’t administer the work of the committees; we 
administered the secretarial work of the committee, would 
be the better way to put it.

Q. Did you personally have anything to do with this 
or some secretary in your office? A. I personally probably 
told which secretary to do it at the time. I don’t know ex­
actly. That would be the normal procedure.

I think my personal secretary did most of the typing. 
Just because we did the typing didn’t make it our report.



A pp. 5

(The Court) Secretarial work. Is that just stenographic 
service or what kind of work? Is that generally secretarial 
work?

(The Witness) I mean stenographic service. It was sent 
to us and we typed that up and mimeographed it and sent 
it back in quantities.

Q. (Mr. Greenberg) On September 22,1955 did you write 
a letter to Mr. Harold G. Baker, who was a member of the 
Citizens Consultant Committee of the Sub-Committee on 
Facilities? A. I did, yes.

Q. In this letter did you transmit the appointment to 
Mr. Baker, this assignment? A. Yes.

Q. Did you transmit the assignment as appears there in 
your capacity as Superintendent of this, of Schools? A. 
Well, this was signed I guess because my custom is usually 
to sign my letters and I usually signed them in that way.

Mr. Volkart, who was Chairman of this Committee, sent 
me the requests to send out to the various Committee mem­
bers, but since we are speaking of the matter you will no­
tice that this letter here is from Mr. Volkart which came 
to me, and then this is the covering letter, because when 
we started they had these names on it, as for instance this 
report here when it was sent to these people had these 
names here on it, and when it was sent to any committee 
they had their names on that and then Mr. Volkart sent 
this out, this one here.

Q. You signed that letter? A. The first one here is mine, 
but this one here was the covering letter.

Q. But you signed that letter “Charles W. Willis, Superin­
tendent of Schools” ? A. But this here letter was the one 
telling them they were appointed.

Q. Then on August 15, 1955 did you send a letter to Mr. 
Harold G. Baker signed “Charles W. Willis, Superintendent 
of Schools” ? A. Yes, that was normal, but do you mind 
if we go back so then I can tell you about this matter, the 
Board, when they considered accepting any names selected



App. 6

the names from people of the various parts of the County, 
various communities whom they would like to have as 
members of this Consultant Committee, and each took a 
certain number of these names, each member of the Board 
— we have seven — and each took six or seven names of 
people and asked each person to become a member of the 
Consultant Committee, and they made personal contacts.

That was in the month of July, and the meeting of the 
Board at which that occurred was held June 30th; so the 
next meeting was the first Wednesday in August, Wednes­
day, but I don’t recall the date, but between that time, be­
tween June 30th and the first Wednesday in August, the 
members of the Board asked these individuals if they would 
serve on the Sub-Committee, and before that August meet­
ing they had the names of people who had accepted mem­
bership on this Committee.

Then I wrote all these people telling them they had been 
appointed and expressing appreciation for their willing­
ness to serve, and told them when the first meeting would 
be, and I believe that is this letter that you just referred to.

Q. Was it one of your duties to execute policy decisions 
of the Board as the Superintendent of Schools? A. That is 
correct, yes.

Q. Well, how does it differ from the action you regularly 
took as Superintendent of Schools? A. I don’t see it was 
any different in this case. It was transmitting a matter that 
had been taken up by the Board of Education and the Citi­
zens Committee, and I agreed to serve with the Committee 
and wrote the letter.

Q. As Superintendent of Schools was it your duty to keep 
advised and abreast of the decisions and policies of the 
School Board so that you might properly execute them ? A 
Yes.

Q. Aren’t these policies — policy decisions communicated 
to you in the ordinary course of your business? A. That is 
correct.



App. 7

Q. And have these policy decisions been communicated 
to you in the ordinary course of your business as Superin­
tendent of Schools? A. What in particular?

Q. I am referring to Exhibits 1-A, 1-B, and 1-C.
(The Court) They are not policies of the School Board.
(The Witness) They never went to the Board of Educa­

tion.
(The Court) You say they were never transmitted to 

the Board of Education?
(The Witness) No, sir.
(The Court) I take it it was a part of his duties as Super­

intendent to be familiar with what was going on in the 
School Office in the County.

(Mr. Greenberg) Yes, sir, I understand, but as Superin­
tendent of Schools these were all transmitted to him be­
cause it was his duty to receive these things, and here is 
information obtained by an official of the School System.

(The Court) I don’t have any doubt, and I don’t think 
there is any dispute about it, about the obtaining of these 
copies whether from the members of the Sub-Committee 
or from the Committee or the members themselves, it is 
the same thing, so I might be familiar with what was going 
on in my official capacity, taking a similar instance, but that 
does not make that the action of the School Board or the 
action of the Committee other than that they were the ac­
tions of the Sub-Committee.

(Mr. Barnes) That is correct.
(Mr. Greenberg) I want to offer this to show that this 

was transmitted to him in the ordinary course of business 
as Superintendent of Schools.

(Mr. Barnes) Well, I don’t think it is and I object to 
that.

(The Court) I think Mr. Barnes is aware that certainly 
the School Board had knowledge of the fact that these steps



App. 8

had been made by the Sub-Committee, and I think they are 
admissible in evidence to show what the Sub-Committee 
had considered, and the School Board knew at the time 
that these reports had not been adopted, or so far as I know 
repudiated by the Board, and for that limited purpose I 
think they may be offered.

The question is what relevancy or materiality they may 
have.

Now, their competency in effect is that they are reports 
of the Sub-Committee, not adopted by the General Com­
mittee, and they came to the attention of the Superintendent 
of Schools in the course of duty, which presumably were 
matters of common knowledge in Harford County.

Now, I think that shows what their competency is. Now, 
whether they are relevant to any issue in this case or what 
their materiality is, is another matter, and I suppose that 
can only be determined when all of the evidence is in, so I 
think they might be received in evidence for that limited 
purpose at this time.

(The Witness) May I say something?
(The Court) Yes.
(The Witness) I don’t want to say in the record that the 

Board didn’t know about any of them. I am not sure whether 
the Board got this complete one on facilities or whether 
they just got part of it, or the data, it was probably studied 
and tied in closely with some plans we had for future con­
struction. So I do think they had part of this, but whether 
they had the whole thing, I am not certain.

(The Court) Do you know whether that report was 
available to the members of the School Board?

(The Witness) Yes, it was available. We usually route 
these at the meeting, and whether I did that with the whole 
report or part, I could not say, but the other two weren’t.

(The Court) 1-A was.
(The Witness) Yes.



App. 9

(The Court) This on facilities, which is 1-A, that was 
available to the School Board?

(The Witness) Yes.
(The Court) For a matter of discussion?
(The Witness) Yes.
(The Court) And the other reports were available to 

the School Board if they wanted to read them, but you 
don’t know whether they did or not?

(The Witness) I don’t know definitely.
(The Court) Well, they weren’t kept secret?
(The Witness) They weren’t kept secret, no.
(Mr. Barnes) The President of the School Board is here 

and we expect to offer him.
(The Court) I will draw any inferences after I have 

heard all the evidence.
Q. (Mr. Greenberg) The Sub-Committee reports made 

a detailed study on facilities in Harford County Schools? 
A. That is correct.

Q. Are you aware of the conclusion of the Sub-Com­
mittee on Facilities? A. I have read the whole report, yes.

Q. Was that conclusion reported to you? A. I don’t re­
call about the conclusion.

Q. This conclusion on page 4 of Exhibit 1-A? A. That is 
correct.

* * * * * *

(R. 83-91):
By Mr. Barnes:

Q. Now, Mr. Willis, are you familiar with the opinion of 
the Attorney General of Maryland of June 20, 1955 to Dr. 
Pullen with respect to the effect of the decision of the Su­
preme Court of the United States in Brown v. Board of 
Education of Topeka, 349 U. S. 294 on the laws of Maryland



App. 10

requiring and permitting segregation of the races in the 
public school system of Maryland? I think that appears 
as Defendants’ Exhibit 8? A. Yes, I was, I am.

Q. Are you familiar with the resolution of the State 
Board of Education and others dated June 22, 1955 which 
has been introduced as Defendants’ Exhibit 9? A. I am, 
yes.

Q. And is the Board of Education of Harford County 
familiar with both of these Defendants Exhibits 8 and 9? 
A. Yes.

Q. What do you understand was the effect of the opinion 
of the Attorney General and the Resolution of the State 
Board of Education upon the laws of Maryland requiring 
or permitting segregation of races in the Public School 
System of Maryland? A. I understand that the laws be­
came null and void.

Q. Did the Board have the same understanding? A. I 
think they did, yes.

Q. Do you or the Board have any intention not to comply 
with the resolution of the State Board of Education of June 
22, 1955? A. No, sir, we do not.

Q. Now, what actions did the Board of Education of Har­
ford County take pursuant to that resolution of the State 
Board of Education of June 22, 1955? What actions did you 
take pursuant to that resolution? Just in chronological 
order. Take June 30th, 1955. A. June 30th, 1955, the Board 
held the regular July meeting at my request.

Q. The July meeting was what? A. The regular July 
meeting it was, I had to leave to go to summer school on 
this work that I just mentioned, and I requested the Board 
to do this, you understand.

(The Court) I have had some experience with school 
boards.

(The Witness) And they did this, and that is the reason 
the July meeting was held in June, which is unusual, and 
that is the reason.



App. 11

So that my main purpose was to select, select the Citizens 
Committee to advise the Board on the problem of desegre­
gation of the schools of Harford County.

I might point out this was just eight days after the letter 
from Dr. Pullen that you just mentioned, which was June 
22d.

However, prior to this meeting I had asked the principals 
of most of our schools, at least all of the larger ones to give 
me a list of people in their communities whom they thought 
would make good members of this Committee. I had prob­
ably ten or fifteen such lists, and in addition to that I had 
a list of 247 people I usually thought of as friends of the 
schools in the different communities of our County, and I 
might say there was some duplication between the indi­
vidual lists and my lists, and we had studied this to make 
a good selection, I think for a least a couple of hours, and 
at the end of that time we decided on the size of the Com­
mittee, and each member of the Board had taken a list of 
the people in their areas whom they thought they could 
contact personally and ask to became members of this Com­
mittee, and they took the list for this purpose and they 
came back, that came back and they were given to me, 
which was the regular next meeting, after they had ac­
cepted appointment, which was done.

Then the next meeting was held August 6th, and after 
the August 6th meeting I sent a letter to all the members 
of these Committees for their acceptance.

Q. (Mr. Barnes) How many members were there on the 
Committee? A. Thirty-six.

Q. Who was appointed chairman for the Committee? A. 
Mr. Ernest Volkart.

Q. Were there any Negroes on the Committee? A. Yes, 
five.

Q. Out of the thirty-six? A. Yes. They were presidents 
of Parent-Teachers Association, head of a national associa­
tion for the Protection of Colored People, people from



various sections of the County, a Doctor from Havre de 
Grace, and I was the only one that had any official capacity.

Q. What happened next? When did this Committee re­
port? A. I might mention this that after the August 6th 
meeting letters were sent out telling them of their appoint­
ment, indicating the time of the first meeting would be 
August 15th.

They held that first meeting which I didn’t attend, and 
Mr. Harry, President of the Board was in the building, just 
inside the building, but weren’t in the meeting where they 
could see me.

Q. Was that done deliberately? You didn’t attend de­
liberately? A. I didn’t attend deliberately, nor did, Mr. 
Harry didn’t attend. We also agreed that I went up to the 
meeting, and then as a result of that meeting four Sub- 
Committees were appointed by the chairman.

These Sub-Committees were on Facilities, Transporta­
tion, Social Relationships, and Public Opinion.

The Public Opinion Committee didn’t meet, so there­
fore there is no report from that group.

Now, these Committees were directed to gather their 
evidence and inform the chairman when they were ready 
to make a report, and each Committee had a member of 
my staff, as for example Facilities, to gather information, 
and I personally served with them because I was the only 
person on my staff who was familiar with the enrollment 
problems, and that was the procedure.

Then these sub-committees apparently reported to the 
President some time — or the chairman, Mr. Volkart, some 
time in February that they were ready to report; so the 
meeting of the full Committee was held on February 22d, 
and where I mentioned the member of my staff, the member 
we had the first time was ill and in the hospital, so I went, 
I went to this meeting.

App. 12



App. 13

I didn’t offer any opinion, although I was asked for in­
formation in one or two respects. I don’t recall what they 
were.

At that meeting the Sub-Committee chairman gave the 
reports, and the chairman gave their report of what was 
being done elsewhere in the State of Maryland, and as a 
result of this plus some discussion of what had occurred 
the resolution was made, and I believe, unanimously passed. 
That was the end of the meeting.

Mr. Volkart, the chairman, sent that resolution to the 
Board of Education as the final report of the Committee, 
and that was a six-page resolution, I think, the original 
with Mr. Volkart’s signature on it.

Q. That is the one that appears as Defendants’ Exhibit 
10? A. Yes.

Q. Then what did the Board do with respect to the reso­
lution of February 27th? What did it do? A. On March 
7th at the regular meeting of the Board, the Board approved 
the adopted resolution that was passed by the Citizens Com­
mittee.

Q. What was the next step that the Board took? A. On 
June 6th the Board approved the plan for requesting trans­
fers and so advertised in all the papers in the County. I 
think you made a statement it was in the Aegis.

Q. And other papers? A. Yes. We have four papers 
and we had advertisements in all four of them.

Q. You advertised in all papers? A. Yes.
Q. That has been put in evidence as Defendants’ Exhibit 

No. 2, Your Honor.
Now, pursuant to that advertising, you had how many 

applications? Fifty-nine applications were— A. Yes.
Q. And there was one— A. One was a mistake by my 

secretary.
(Mr. Barnes) Not sixty.



App. 14

Q. (Mr. Barnes) You granted fifteen? A. Yes.
Q. And rejected forty-five? A. Yes.
Q. On August the 1st, what did the Board do? What 

happened next? A. The Board adopted the policy, the so- 
called Desegregation Policy.

Q. Which appears as Defendants’ Exhibit No. 3? A. Yes.
Q. Thereafter on August the 7th, 1956 did you write 

letters to the forty-five persons or parents of the forty-five 
applicants who had been denied, rejecting or denying those 
applications? A. That is correct, and with that letter we 
enclosed a copy of this policy.

Q. That is the Desegregation Policy of August 1st, 1956? 
A. Yes.

Q. And those letters include the four letters to Mr. and 
Mrs. Moore, Mr. and Mrs. Spriggs, Mrs. Slade, and Mr. 
Garland? A. Yes.

Q. Which were offered as Defendants’ Exhibits 4, 5, 6, 
and 7? A. Yes.

Q. Now, Mr. Willis, did you understand that in promul­
gating the transfer policy of June 6, 1956 and the Desegre­
gation policy of August 1st, 1956 you were carrying out the 
resolution of the Board adopted on March 7th, 1956? A. 
Yes, sir.

Q. And did the Board have the same understanding? 
A. Yes.

Q. Why do you say that? A. The Board in the State reso­
lution, when that first came in felt that it was so broad a 
resolution it did not give them any authority to exercise 
what they thought was their best determination in the 
case, and they wanted to do what was the best thing, and 
they wanted to work it out under the regulations that would 
work in the light of what had been going on in Delaware, 
and the Board has been very cognizant of this problem for 
about two years, and when you look over the minutes, and 
I went through them once with one of the attorneys for



A pp. 15

the plaintiff and pointed out all references to this problem 
of desegregation, the minutes of our meetings, and in our 
discussions trying to figure out a way to try to be uniform 
as to the best way to handle this problem.

* * * * * *

(R. 93-95):
Q. (Mr. Barnes) Do you believe that you and the Board 

have made a reasonable start in good faith to carry forward 
the integration of the public schools in Harford County? 
A. Yes.

Q. As far as you know, have the plaintiffs taken an ap­
peal from your decision of August 7th, 1956 to the State 
Board of Education? A. I don’t know of any.

Q. You don’t know of any such appeal? A. No.
Q. If an appeal had been taken, you would know about 

it? A. Yes, sir, I think so.
(The Court) Can it be stipulated that there has been no 

appeal to the State Board of Education?
(Mr. Dearing) No appeal has been taken to the Board, no, 

to the State Board, no.
Q. (Mr. Barnes) Has the desegregation plan been ac­

cepted generally by the citizens of Harford County? A. 
Yes, sir, and I might state for the record that some of the 
people who most rabidly were against it have complimented 
us for the beginnings that we have made.

Q. Do you intend to continue the integration of additional 
grades in the public schools of Harford County based upon 
the experience obtained by this first year of operation under 
the plan? A. Yes. It is so stated in the policy.

Q. At the present time do you see any reason why there 
should not be further integration for the school year 1957- 
1958?

(The Court) He says that it is so stated in the policy, and 
I want to know to what he is referring?



App. 16

(Mr. Barnes) That is the Desegregation Policy—
(The Witness) Of August 1st.
(The Court) Has the Board adopted any more specific 

plans of desegregation than as stated in the August 1st 
policy?

(The Witness) No, Your Honor, but we feel that for the 
next couple of months that in view of the plan that has 
been worked out and the steps taken that we have been 
successful to date.

*  *  *  *  *  *

(R. 96-97):
(Mr. Barnes) Yes.
Q. (Mr. Barnes) Do you consider that you and the Board 

of Education of Harford County have made a reasonable 
start toward the complete integration of the schools of Har­
ford County in a reasonable time and with deliberate speed 
and that this will be accomplished in a gradual and orderly 
manner? A. Yes.

(The Court) Well, I haven’t heard Mr. Willis’ good faith 
questioned.

Q. (Mr. Barnes) Are you relying on any state law, stat­
ute, order regulation, custom or usage which purports to 
require or permit continued segregation of the races in the 
public schools of Harford County? A. No, sir.

* * * * * *

(R. 100-105):
(The Court) What is the school set-up in Harford 

County?
(The Witness) It is a six-three-three system.
(The Court) This is applying for what grade?
(The Witness) He would be in the Junior High School.
(The Court) There is a Junior?



A pp. 17

(The Witness) There is a Junior and Senior High School 
there.

(The Court) His application is put under Junior-Senior 
High School for the lowest grade in that school?

(The Witness) That is correct.
(Mr. Greenberg) Rosalind Slade and Patricia Garland 

both live in Aberdeen, and they must travel six miles to 
the Hall Cross Roads School, and they desire to transfer 
to the Aberdeen High School in Aberdeen.

(The Court) What grade?
(Mr. Greenberg) That is the ninth and eleventh grades. 

They want to transfer to the Havre de Grace High School, 
rather.

(The Court) That would be the third year Junior High 
and the second year High School?

(The Witness) Yes.
Your Honor, may I make one correction?
(The Court) Yes.
(The Witness) The first one, the Moore children do not 

live fifteen miles from the school, but they live right in 
Bel Air, so it would only be three miles from the school to 
Hickory, not fifteen.

(Mr. Dearing) That is true.
(The Court) All right. Three miles, Let’s get that on the 

map. Just mark the location of the Central Consolidated 
School at Hickory.

(The Witness) Yes.
(The Court) Well, do they walk from here, or is there 

transportation?
(The Witness) There is transportation, yes (referring 

to map).



A pp. 18

(The Court) Do you provide transportation from chil­
dren living in Bel Air to the Bel Air High School?

(The Witness) No, sir, we don’t.
(The Court) Do you provide transportation from chil­

dren living in Bel Air to the Central Consolidated School 
in Hickory?

(The Witness) Yes.
(The Court) Do you provide transportation from chil­

dren living in Edgewood to the Edgewood High School?
(The Witness) Yes, some.
(The Court) And some walk?
(The Witness) Some walk, yes.
(The Court) And do you provide transportation from 

Edgewood to the Hickory Consolidated School?
(The Witness) Yes.
(The Court) And do you provide transportation from 

people living in the Chesapeake — is it?
(The Witness) Gardens.
(The Court) Chesapeake Gardens on the Aberdeen Prov­

ing Grounds to the Aberdeen High School?
(The Witness) Yes, we provide transportation.
(The Court) And you also provide transportation to the 

Havre de Grace Consolidated School?
(The Witness) Yes.
(Mr. Barnes) I just want to ask a question here.

By Mr. Barnes:
Q. Is this transportation provided free of charge? A. 

Yes, it is free.
Q. And is the transportation the same regardless of 

whether the person is white or colored? A. Yes, it’s all 
the same.



App. 19

(The Court) There is no question of inequality of facili­
ties, as I understand it.

Do I understand you to say in the high schools you con­
sider the Bel Air High Schools to be overcrowded or to 
have lack of facilities?

(The Witness) That’s right.
(The Court) Is there any restriction on white children 

attending the Bel Air High School?
(The Witness) No, sir, but we have a situation that I 

might say that in the past the children from the Edgewood 
area have gone to the Bel Air High School, and it has gotten 
so overcrowded that we several years ago built a new high 
school in Edgewood, and allowed those in the Senior High 
School to finish in Bel Air, and we are cutting those each 
year, and this year we have a senior class that will be the 
last senior class to go there, and the last one from the Edge- 
wood area to go to Bel Air, and next year the Edgewood 
School will become a full high school, and started with the 
Junior High School to let the children go there.

(The Court) Are children in Harford County required 
to attend the nearest school or are they permitted to attend 
a school of their choice, taking white children?

(The Witness) In general it is this, they are required to 
attend a school in their area, and the bus routes make some 
difference. We have a great transportation problem.

(The Court) Because of distances you normally wish 
them to attend a school in their area?

(The Witness) Yes, because bus transportation is avail­
able and you don’t make bus transportation available on an 
erratic course.

(The Court) There are some places where there is a com­
plete school where they come practically to the same point.

Are there any restrictions on a white child who wishes 
to attend the Bel Air High School, any restrictions placed 
upon such a child?



App. 20

(The Witness) Yes, we wouldn’t let him go from Havre 
de Grace to the Bel Air High School. I don’t know that we 
have had such a request.

(The Court) But it is sufficiently crowded that you do 
make some restrictions?

(The Witness) Yes.
(The Court) On white children.
(The Witness) Yes.
(The Court) Attending?
(The Witness) Yes.
(The Court) Now, what about the Edgewood High 

School? Is that the new school being built?
(The Witness) No, it has been in use. I think this is the 

third year, Your Honor.
(The Court) Are the facilities there overcrowded?
(The Witness) At the present time we are planning an 

addition to them, yes.
(The Court) Well, what restrictions, if any, are there on 

children attending the Edgewood High School?
(The Witness) I don’t know of any restrictions.
(The Court) Is the Aberdeen High School overcrowded?
(The Witness) No, sir, it is not.
(The Court) Is the Bel Air Elementary School over­

crowded?
(The Witness) It is probably the most overcrowded 

school we have. We are planning to build a twenty-four 
room Elementary School in another location in Bel Air 
next year.

*  *  *  *  *  *

(R. 111-112):
(The Court) Is the Edgewood High School any more 

overcrowded than the Hickory Consolidated School?



A pp. 21

(The Witness) I don’t think so. I think they are probably 
about the same.

(The Court) The other three were a matter of policy?
(The Witness) Yes.

By Mr. Greenberg:
Q. This standard that you have mentioned, that is a na­

tional standard? A. That is correct.
Q. What is the standard of the State of Maryland? A. 

The same.
Q. Identically the same? A. Yes.
(The Court) It is an ideal which is by no means achieved. 

I think that most of us know that we have done our best 
to achieve that, but I think the general average in Maryland 
runs considerably above that, doesn’t it?

(The Witness) Yes, especially places like Baltimore 
County and Prince George’s County, and ours to some 
extent.

* * * * * *

(R. 112-120):
DAVID G. HARRY,

was called as a witness for and on behalf of the defendants 
and, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testi­
fied as follows:

(The Clerk) State your full name.
(The Witness) David G. Harry.

DIRECT EXAMINATION 
By Mr. Barnes:

Q. What is your occupation, Mr. Harry? A. Farmer.
Q. What position do you have with the Board of Educa­

tion of Harford County? A. I am President of the Board.



App. 22

Q. Are you familiar with the opinion of the Attorney 
General of Maryland, June 20, 1955 to Dr. Thomas G. Pullen 
with regard to the effect of the decision of the Supreme 
Court of the United States in Brown v. Board of Education 
on the laws of Maryland requiring or permitting segrega­
tion of the races in the public school system of Maryland? 
A. I am.

Q. And are you familiar with the resolution of the State 
Board of Education of June 22, 1955, which is Defendants’ 
Exhibit No. 9? A. I am.

Q. And you are President of the Board of Education? 
A. Yes.

Q. What do you understand was the effect of the opinion 
of the Attorney General and the resolution of the State 
Board of Education upon the laws of Maryland requiring 
or permitting the segregation of races in the public school 
system of Maryland? A. That made the laws of Maryland 
null and void.

Q. Did the Board have the same understanding? All 
members of the Board? A. Yes.

Q. Does the Board have any intention not to comply with 
the resolution of the State Board of Education of June 22, 
1955? A. They do not.

Q. Do you understand that in promulgating the “Trans­
fer Policy” of June 6, 1956 and the “Desegregation Policy” 
of August 1st, 1956, you were carrying out the resolution 
of the Board adopted March 7th, 1956? A. I did.

Q. You heard the testimony of Mr. Willis in this case, 
have you not? A. Yes.

Q. Is his testimony as you heard it substantially correct? 
A. It is.

Q. Do you believe that the Board of Education of Harford 
County has made a reasonable start in good faith to carry 
forward the integration policy in the public schools in Har­
ford County? A. I do.



App. 23

Q. Do you consider the plan which the Board of Educa­
tion of Harford County has adopted to be successful thus 
far? A. I do, yes, very successful thus far.

Q. Does your Board intend to continue the integration 
of additional grades in the public schools of Harford County 
based upon the experience obtained by this first year of 
operation under the plan? A. That has been discussed in­
formally among the members, yes, and it will be continued 
and enlarged upon.

Q. Do you consider that the Board of Education of Har­
ford County has made a reasonable start toward completing 
the integration of the schools of Harford County within a 
reasonable time and with deliberate speed? A. I do, yes.

Q. And is it your opinion that this will be accomplished 
in a gradual and orderly manner? A. Yes, it is.

CROSS EXAMINATION 
By Mr. Watts:

Q. Mr. Harry, do you recall how many groups appeared, 
groups with respect to integration of schools in Harford 
County? A. You said what?

Q. Do you know how many groups? A. Before the 
Board?

Q. Yes. A. I would say perhaps three. That is to the 
best of my recollection, were opposed to integration at all, 
perhaps two in favor.

Q. Isn’t it also true that even as early as 1954 certain 
groups did appear before such Board asking that steps be 
taken to— A. That is correct.

Q. And isn’t it true that the School Board also refused 
to bring in the P-T-A and interested people in the com­
munity in 1954? A. That was requested, yes.

Q. You said before that this decision of August 1st was 
an attempt to carry out the resolution as adopted by the 
Board on March 7, and in that March 7th resolution it stated



A pp. 24

“any child regardless of race may make individual appli­
cation to the Board of Education to be admitted to a school 
other than the one attended by such child.” Are you telling 
His Honor and this Court that August 1st on which the 
first three grades were to be admitted was in accordance 
with the resolution of March 7th?

(Mr. Barnes) Well, Your Honor, I object to that question.
(The Court) Well, he answered your question without 

hesitation which was pretty broad.
(Mr. Barnes) Very well, sir.
Q. (Mr. Watts) Mr. Harry, are you familiar with the 

decision of this Court in the case of St. Mary’s County? 
A. I haven’t read it.

(The Court) Well, you can ask him whether he is fa­
miliar with it.

(Mr. Watts) I assume he was familiar with it.
Q. (Mr. Watts) Was the Board of Education of Harford 

County in any way influenced by the decision of Judge 
Thomsen in that case? A. They were not.

Q. That came between March 7th and August 1st? A. 
I was handed just last week a reference to this and that is 
the only way I know I am familiar with it but that in no 
way influenced any decision.

Q. It was not discussed? A. No.
Q. Was your counsel present at your August 1st meeting? 

A. He was not.
Q. Did he have any discussion with you or any member 

of the School Board from say July 24th up until— A. No.
Q. A month before the August 1st decision? A. No.
Q. Mr. Harry, Mr. Willis said your Board considered the 

difficulty that was encountered in Delaware and somewhere 
else. Did your Board also take into consideration in formu­
lating the August 1st policy the experience of places closer, 
and I have reference to, say, Montgomery County or Balti­



A pp. 25

more City or Baltimore County in which the plan was work­
ing successfully without difficulty? A. I think in our dis­
cussions that perhaps those cases were mentioned at diff­
erent times and has been a subject for the Board to con­
sider for the past year and a half or two years, and any 
instances were probably brought up, but when we actually 
discussed and formulated the policy, they were not, they 
were not a part of the discussion to my knowledge.

Q. Mr. Willis said that it was felt by the Board that the 
first three grades, which was a sensitive area in which you 
might encounter difficulty, that is what I had reference to, 
the fact that you limited it to the first three grades, did 
you consider that the reason might be you might have some 
trouble and that was the basis for it? A. You asked me how 
many groups came before the Board and I had many groups 
and many individuals came to me personally against inte­
gration. I had no one come to me for integration personally.

Q. Were you influenced by the fact that persons were 
against it in any way? A. I would say no more so than I 
was influenced by any other group that I heard of as a 
member of the Board.

Q. Most of these people were against the decision, weren’t 
they? A. A good many of them were.

Q. Mr. Willis said that in a case where the facilities were 
available and he said he felt that it was sensitive, and so 
he refused, but I just wondered, wanted to ask you whether 
any steps were taken by your Board in these rural areas 
to allay this difficulty in sensitive people? A. I don’t think 
we had time because that was in September 1956 and this 
is only November 1956 and I don’t think we have had time, 
to make sure that we are making progress to a degree where 
we could put a child in.

Q. Well, you were asked to do this and you refused to 
do it? A. We were asked to take one child in September 
1955.

Q. You were asked to bring the P-T-A together? A. 
Well, you also asked us to take one child, in September,



App. 26

and we refused because the Court had not come out with a 
decision.

Q. Didn’t we also ask you rather than wait for a decision 
because you say you didn’t have time, didn’t we ask you 
to see that certain steps were taken to bring the parties 
together? A. Yes.

* * * * * *
(R. 122-125):

ERNEST VOLKART,
was called as a witness for and on behalf of the defendants 
and, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testi­
fied as follows:

(The Clerk) Your name is Ernest Volkart?
(The Witness) Yes.

DIRECT EXAMINATION 
By Mr. Barnes:

Q. Mr. Volkart, what is your occupation? A. I am a 
lawyer.

(The Court) And he is a member of the judicial family of 
this Court.

(Mr. Barnes) Thank you.
Q. (Mr. Barnes) You are United States Commissioner, 

aren’t you? A. Yes.
Q. Were you appointed Chairman of the Citizens Con­

sultant Committee by the Board of Education of Harford 
County on August 6th, 1956? A. Yes.

Q. How many members were there on that Committee? 
A. The Citizens Committee?

Q. Yes. A. Thirty-six including myself.
Q. Were there any colored members? A. Five.
Q. And after the Citizens Committee was appointed, 

what did it do? A. At the first meeting, sub-committees



App. 27

were appointed, one on Facilities, one on Recreation, one 
on Transportation, and one to make a survey of public 
opinion.

Some members of the Committee were in touch with me 
between the time of appointment in the early part of Sep­
tember 1955 until the final meeting in February of 1956.

Q. Were there sub-chairmen of these committees ap­
pointed? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, I think you mentioned the meeting of February 
27th, 1956. Tell us what happened at that meeting, and what 
the resolution of the Board was. A. That was the meeting 
of the sub-committee. The reports were read. The Com­
mittee on Public Opinion did not make any report. After 
they were read and were discussed, the resolution that has 
been introduced was prepared by me and submitted to the 
membership of the Citizens Committee and unanimously 
adopted.

Q. What is your understanding of the practical effect of 
that resolution of February 27th, 1956, Mr. Volkart? A. 
The practical effect, as the Committee and I understood it, 
was that the change which had taken place under the Su­
preme Court ruling would have to be in a measure gradual 
and that the Citizens Committee could not prescribe any 
specific pattern, and that the resolution speaks for itself in 
that the School Board must make rules and regulations to 
integrate the schools gradually and consistent with the 
best interests of our citizens of Harford County.

Q. And were the recommendations of the various sub­
committees adopted by the full committtee? A. They were 
not.

Q. Are you familiar with the Transfer Policy of the Board 
of June 6th, 1956 and the Desegregation Policy of the Board 
of August 1st, 1956? A. I have read them in our County 
papers.

Q. Do you consider that these actions of the Board are 
consistent with and in furtherance of the resolution of the 
Citizens Committee of February 27th, 1956? A. I think so. 

* * * * * *



App. 28

(R. 140-152): Thursday, April 18, 1957
CHARLES W. WILLIS,

a witness previously called for and on behalf of the defen­
dants resumed the witness-stand and testified further as 
follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
(The Court) How many white high schools are there?
(The Witness) You counted the two Consolidated Schools.
We have one white high school at Bel Air. That’s six 

years. All of these are six years.
We have one at what we call North Harford. That is a 

consolidated area in the northern part of the county. We 
have one at Aberdeen which has the sixth grade in the 
elementary school, that is. That is, it has a sixth grade in 
addition to the regular high school grades.

(The Court) Well, I wanted to get that. Is the sixth 
grade of the Aberdeen School considered a part of that 
school or is it considered a part of the elementary school 
that you just mentioned, or is it just a temporary arrange­
ment?

(The Witness) It is just a temporary arrangement, Your 
Honor. We over-built that school, and it was easier to over­
build that than any of our elementary schools, to take 
care of those immediately, but we will need it for our high 
schools in several years, and by that time we hope to have 
another elementary school.

(The Court) But that sixth grade is administered as a 
part of the high school?

(The Witness) Yes, at the present time.
(The Court) So that children transferred to that—
(The Witness) If they transferred to that grade, it would 

be in the elementary. We consider it an elementary grade, 
yes.



App. 29

(The Court) It is a difficult problem on what is a trans­
fer and what is not.

(The Witness) Yes.
(The Court) That is one of the things I had some diffi­

culty with in understanding your plan.
(The Witness) Yes.
(The Court) I understand that if a child in the third 

grade would normally go to the fourth grade in the same 
school that he is in, but if he wants to go to another school, 
that is a transfer.

(The Witness) Yes.
(The Court) Now, do you consider going from — let’s 

take Bel Air where you don’t have this sixth grade prob­
lem — does a white child who graduates from the elemen­
tary school in Bel Air and goes to the junior high school in 
Bel Air, is that considered as a transfer or is that consid­
ered as entering a new curriculum or any intermediate 
level?

(The Witness) We never thought of it in terms of trans­
fer, no, sir.

(The Court) And what about going from the junior 
high into the senior high?

(The Witness) The same thing. In our case it’s very 
simple because they don’t even go to a different school. All 
their junior high grades are in the senior high school.

(The Court) Well, if a white child, having completed 
junior high school at Bel Air, wished for some reason, if his 
family moved, or for some other reason, to go to the North 
Harford School, for senior high or vice versa—

(The Witness) Yes.
(The Court) Would that be considered a transfer?
(The Witness) No, sir. Well, we don’t allow that be­

cause we have to keep our school facilities in line, and he 
wouldn’t be allowed to go up there unless he lived there.



App. 30

(The Court) You mean children are required to attend 
schools in the area in which they live?

(The Witness) Which has been established for them.
(The Court) Which has been established?
(The Witness) Yes.
(The Court) I think there was some testimony that you 

practically never have any request from white children 
to go to any other schools or to be transferred?

(The Witness) Maybe one or two a year; nothing to 
amount to anything because the policy has been well es­
tablished over a period of years.

(The Court) Are those transfers that you have for white 
children based upon their families having moved from one 
area to another or based upon some other reason?

(The Witness) Well, usually it would be a problem like 
this, if I may state it specifically—

(The Court) Yes, because I want to get the picture.
(The Witness) I think I can give you one case which I 

think will explain it. We have two little girls that went to 
Bel Air all their lives up to about the ninth or tenth grade, 
and their families then moved to Aberdeen.

Now, they had all their associations in Bel Air and they 
wanted to drive back and forth and go to Bel Air and con­
tinue there; but that was outside of our policy, and we 
don’t think it is proper to allow that to happen in that case, 
so they were told to go back to Aberdeen, which they did, 
and then a month or so I happened to see them and speak 
to them, and they were satisfied with things where they 
were.

(The Court) You have bus routes?
(The Witness) Yes.
(The Court) And the children are picked up on those 

bus routes and taken to a particular school?



App. 31

(The Witness) Yes.
(The Court) And you provide no transportation to any 

school other than the one—
(The Witness) That is correct.
(The Court) — covered by that route.
(The Witness) Except in some cases where the buses will 

run together, we might have a little bit of overlapping.
(The Court) There is some occasional overlapping?
(The Witness) Yes.
(The Court) But practically you have never set up any 

policy for transferring white children?
(The Witness) That is correct.
(The Court) Because it doesn’t really exist, and each 

one is treated on a separate basis?
(The Witness) Yes. If they move after the end of the 

first semester and they wish to continue in the school, we 
allow that.

(The Court) But the parents have to take care of the 
transportation?

(The Witness) They have to take care of the transpor­
tation.

(The Court) Now, tell me about the other high schools. 
Bel Air, Harford, and Aberdeen.

(The Witness) Havre de Grace High School. That is the 
sixth grade.

The other one would be the Edgewood High School, and 
this is a little bit of a different situation. We thought of 
growing into that school, and we do not have a senior year 
at the present time, and it has six grades in it. It has six 
elementary grades, seven, eight, nine, junior high school, 
and ten and eleven senior high schools. But next year it 
will be a full senior high school.



App. 32

We will have to keep the sixth grade there next year, 
but we hope to do some building that will take care of that 
in another year.

(The Court) Now, that’s the high schools.
How many elementary schools are there — and I want to 

divide them into four groups, and maybe we will have to 
subdivide them.

There are two elementary schools in which Negro chil­
dren were admitted to the first three grades this past year.

(The Witness) Yes, sir.
(The Court) Now, what schools are those?
(The Witness) They are Edgewood Elementary School 

in Edgewood, and Halls Cross Roads Elementary School, 
which is in Aberdeen, Aberdeen, near the entrance to Aber­
deen Proving Grounds.

(The Court) They are the ones, the first three grades in 
the fall of 1956?

(The Witness) That is correct.
(The Court) Now, there were two other schools which 

were not overcrowded but to which you did not admit any 
children. Which were those schools?

(The Witness) One was — Darlington was one, and I 
think the other one was Perryman near Aberdeen, a two- 
room school.

(The Court) You have no application for one of them, 
but you have one application for the other?

(The Witness) One application for Darlington, and none 
for Perryman.

Now, Judge, Your Honor, there was another school that 
we haven’t considered in this, probably inadvertently may­
be because it had no colored children living in that area at 
all, and that’s the one that caused some comment after the 
other meeting, so I would like to bring that out.



App. 33

(The Court) Which school is that?
(The Witness) That is one we call our Slate Ridge School 

up along the Pennsylvania line. Last spring — I don’t know 
about now — but there were no colored families at all in the 
school area.

(The Court) Well, there were no applications for that.
(The Witness) No applications for that, Your Honor, no, 

but that is the one that caused some comment.
(The Court) Now, of course, the child who applied for 

Darlington, with respect to that one, I understand that there 
was no administrative reason for not admitting that child to 
Darlington, but you refused to admit that child to Darling­
ton as a matter of social policy or judgment as to how fast 
the plan should be put into effect; is that right?

(The Witness) I think that’s correct.
(The Court) Or substantially that.
(The Witness) Yes.
(The Court) I haven’t read the testimony, but I don’t 

understand that any contention is made for any other rea­
son at Darlington.

Now, there are other schools which you claim were over­
crowded in 1956 but to which you proposed to admit stu­
dents in the fall of 1957.

Now, what are those elementary schools?
(The Witness) Well, one would be Emmorton.
(The Court) Emmorton?
(The Witness) Yes.
(The Court) All right.
(The Witness) Another one would be the Aberdeen Ele­

mentary School. Another one would be the Youth Benefit 
Elementary School.



App. 34

(The Court) Youth Benefit?
(The Witness) Yes, Youth Benefit School.
(The Court) Y-o-u-t-h?
(The Witness) Yes.
Churchville. Slate Ridge, of course, would be in that 

category.
(The Court) Well, I have that.
(The Witness) You have that. I don’t know whether 

anyone lives in that area or not.
(The Court) Well, let’s put Slate Ridge in there.
(The Witness) Because it really is in there.
(The Court) Let’s put it in this one and take it out of 

the other because we only talked about two last year, and 
I think we better keep those two which were the ones that 
were discussed in connection with the policy, and we will 
put Slate Ridge in one that will be in 1957. It doesn’t make 
much difference because there were no applications.

Now, what else?
(The Witness) Another one is Darlington.
(The Court) Well, Darlington is already in the non- 

overcrowded.
Do you propose to admit them to Darlington this year?
(The Witness) Yes.
(The Court) And they would be added to this list?
(The Witness) Yes.
Do you propose to admit them to Darlington this year?
(The Witness) Yes.
(The Court) And they would be added to this list?
(The Witness) Yes.



App. 35

(The Court) And these are additional ones?
(The Witness) Yes. The other one would be Havre de 

Grace, which includes a special school which is an annex 
down there.

(The Court) Is that all the schools to which they will be 
admitted?

(The Witness) How many do you have on your list?
(The Court) I have seven.
(Mr. Barnes) Seven.
(The Witness) Seven.
(The Court) I have six new ones and four old ones.
(The Witness) That would be ten.
(The Witness) That would be ten. That is, Edgewood, 

Halls Cross Roads, Darlington, Perryman. That is four.
And then Emmorton, Aberdeen, Youth Benefit, Church- 

ville, Slate Ridge and Havre de Grace.
(The Witness) The sixth grade, considering this policy 

of the Board, the Board considered all elementary grades, 
so they also included in this the sixth grade in the Aberdeen 
High School.

(The Court) The Aberdeen High School, and the sixth 
grade.

(The Witness) Yes, in the Aberdeen High School, which 
we operate as part of the Elementary School. We have a 
separate administrative set-up for it.

(The Court) All right. Aberdeen Elementary including 
the sixth grade at Aberdeen High.

(The Witness) Yes, sir. That makes one more.
(The Court) Does it include the sixth grade at the Edge- 

wood School?
(The Witness) No, sir, because that school is consider­

ably overcrowded, the building is overcrowded.



App. 36

(The Court) So that the Edgewood Elementary does not 
include the sixth grade at Edgewood High School.

Now, how many schools are you excepting from your 
plan for the fall of 1957?

(The Witness) Seven.
(The Court) What are they?
(The Witness) Old Post Road, which is twenty-four per­

cent overcrowded, over-capacity on February 1st.
(The Court) Old Post Road, twenty-four percent?
(The Witness) Yes, over-capacity on February 1st.
(The Court) Now, when you say “over-capacity” you are 

dividing what by what?
(The Witness) Well, we are taking the number of rooms 

and multiplying by thirty, the number of class rooms and 
multiplying by thirty, and that would be the capacity.

The number of children there would be the difference 
between that, or the number of children would give you the 
number of children of the percentage over.

(The Court) Old Post Road, twenty-four percent over­
crowded.

(The Witness) Yes.
(The Court) February 1957.
(The Witness) These are all February 1st figures.
The Edgewood sixth grade, which is housed in the Edge- 

wood High School, which was twelve percent overcrowded 
as of that date.

Now, that school will be considerably more overcrowded 
this year because we will hold every child that is there and 
bring in another sixth grade.

(The Court) There will be one additional grade.



App. 37

(The Witness) Yes, so that will increase the capacity 
much more than it is, increase the number of children much 
more than it is at the present time.

The next exclusion is Forest Hill, which was seventeen 
percent overcrowded at that time.

(The Court) All right.
(The Witness) Bel Air, which was fourteen percent over­

crowded; Jarrettsville which was just a little over ten per­
cent; Dublin which is sixteen percent — excuse me, that 
would be Highland which is sixteen percent. Dublin would 
be fourteen.

(The Court) All right. Dublin would be fourteen.
(The Witness) Highland would be sixteen.
That’s seven, I believe.
(The Court) That makes eighteen elementary if you in­

clude the two sixth grades.
(The Witness) Yes. That would be eleven and seven.
Your Honor, I might mention something here that you 

probably would like to know and that is in thinking of it 
last year, the Board considered the capacity on thirty 
pupils. This year they considered overcrowding as a ten 
percent overage as of a certain date and these figures would 
tend to be five to ten percent higher in September.

* * * * * *
(R. 235): Tuesday, June 11, 1957

(Mrs. Mitchell) Your Honor, there has just been received 
this last resolution, and it is the first knowledge we have 
received of any action of the Board of Education of Harford 
County, and we would like to have the opportunity to go 
over the contents of the resolution which was enacted on 
June 5, 1957, because we have not had an opportunity to 
confer about it.

(The Court) Well, a copy was given to me about five 
minutes ago; so we are in about the same situation.



App. 38

(Mr. Barnes) I may say that I called counsel yesterday 
afternoon, but unfortunately neither of them were in their 
office, and I did call Mr. Dearing this morning early to see 
if the plaintiffs had gotten a copy by mail.

* * * * * *
(R. 249-250) :

CHARLES W. WILLIS,
a witness previously called for and on behalf of the defen­
dants resumed the witness-stand and testified further as 
follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION 
By Mr. Barnes:

Q. Mr. Willis, it has already appeared in the evidence 
that you are Superintendent of Schools of Harford County? 
A. Yes.

Q. And you testified in the hearing before His Honor on 
April 18th, 1957, did you not? A. Yes.

* * * * * *
(R. 251-254):

Q. (Mr. Barnes) Now, Mr. Willis, I show you a docu­
ment entitled “Excerpt from the Minutes of the Regular 
May Meeting of the Board of Education of Harford County” 
dated May 1st, 1957. Are you familiar with that excerpt 
from the minutes? A. I am, yes.

(Mr. Barnes) I would like to offer this in evidence.
Q. (Mr. Barnes) Let me ask you this: At the time of this 

meeting, was there a quorum of the Board present? A. 
Yes, there was.

Q. And this was duly passed as a resolution of the Board 
of Education of Harford County? A. Yes.

(Mr. Barnes) I would like to offer this in evidence as 
Defendants’ Exhibit 14.

(Mr. Greenberg) I don’t believe I have a copy of it. May 
I see it?



App. 39

(Mr. Barnes) Oh, I am sorry.
(The Court) Mr. Barnes gave me a copy of all these 

things this morning and left them with my secretary before 
court.

(Mr. Barnes) Yes.
(The Court) So I have a copy of what has been offered.
(“Excerpt of Minutes of Meeting of Board May 1st, 1957” 

was marked Defendants’ Exhibit 14.)
Q. (Mr. Barnes) Now, Mr. Willis, I think the minutes 

speak for themselves, but would you explain to the Court 
the purpose of that minute? A. This minute was consid­
ered and written in this form to clarify and make specific 
the policy passed at the February meeting. This had been 
— the February 6th — this plan had been discussed before 
the State Board of Education and in this court, and this 
is no deviation from it.

Really it is not intended to be a deviation, but it is in­
tended to make specific what was considered to be some­
what vague from the original policy statement.

Q. Now, I did note that in Defendants’ Exhibit 14 that 
you did state that “In accordance with this plan, the fol­
lowing elementary schools will be open in all six grades 
for Negro pupils at the beginning of the 1957-1958 school 
year,” this year.

Why did you use the word “Negro” there? Any particular 
reason? A. None other than clarification, and to be spe­
cific, that was the purpose of this whole statement of May 
1st.

Q. Now, then, what did you do with this resolution or 
excerpt from the minutes of May 1, 1957? Did you give 
it to any official group in the Harford County School sys­
tem? A. No, because there was nothing new about this. 
We did give it to our principals.

Q. That’s what I mean. A. At their meeting a few days 
later; I believe it was May 9th.



App. 40

Once a month we have all of our principals in for a meet­
ing. We gave this to them because they were particularly 
concerned with which schools would be opened and about 
registrations.

We also gave them another statement which was similar 
to the advertisement that appeared in the paper because 
they had to accept the first grade registrations later in that 
month. I believe the date is there; I don’t have it. The 24th 
of May, I think.

Q. The date of publication? A. No, the date of regis­
tration for first grade.

Q. I think it’s the 24th. A. It’s on the advertisement.
Q. The 24th.
(Mr. Barnes) If Your Honor please, just to keep the se­

quence in order, I would like to offer in evidence the letter 
of May 2d, 1957 from Mrs. Juanita Jackson Mitchell to me, 
the letter dated, I believe I said May 2d, 1957, and received 
by me on May 3d, 1957 as Defendants’ Exhibit 15.

(Letter Mitchell to Barnes dated May 2,1957 was marked 
Defendants’ Exhibit 15.)

Q. (Mr. Barnes) Now, Mr. Willis, I think you said you 
published this notice in the papers of Harford County, the 
local papers on May 16th, 1957.

Is this a copy of that notice? A. Yes, it is.
* * * * * *

(R. 255-268):
(The Witness) May I make a statement for the record?
I am not sure that I gave out that advertisement as writ­

ten to the principals. We gave out this policy, but I am not 
sure I gave that advertisement. I am not sure I did. In 
fact, I think we talked about it on the basis, on that basis 
rather than my giving them that paper.

Q. (Mr. Barnes) Now, I show you an excerpt from the 
minutes of the regular June meeting of the Board of Edu­



A pp. 41

cation of Harford County dated June 5, 1957. Are you fa­
miliar with that, Mr. Willis? A. I am, yes.

Q. Was that passed by the Board at a meeting at which 
there was a quorum present? A. Yes, it was.

Q. And it represents the official action of the Board of 
Education of Harford County? A. That’s correct.

(Mr. Barnes) We would like to offer this in evidence as 
Defendants’ Exhibit No. 16.

(The Clerk) Defendants’ Exhibit 16.
(Excerpt from minutes of regular June meeting, Board 

of Education Harford County dated June 5th, 1957 was 
marked Defendants’ Exhibit 16.)

Q. (Mr. Barnes) Now, Mr. Willis, I would like you to 
state in your own words how this modification, I suppose 
we could call it — it’s a good word, if Your Honor please 
— the modification of the plan in regard to the high schools 
of Harford County during the interim period, how that 
will practically operate in Harford County? A. There 
were several points brought up by Mr. Greenberg that we 
had not considered. The first one was about the seventh 
grade. When this plan was passed, the Board was think­
ing in terms of transfers to all high school grades.

Now, actually the way it is written, it says, “Transfers 
will be considered for admission to the high schools of Har­
ford County.”

That was meant to include all sixth grades.
(The Court) You mean it was intended to include ad­

mission to the seventh grade?
(The Witness) Yes.
(The Court) As well as transfers to the—
(The Witness) That is correct.
(The Court) —to the eighth grade?



App. 42

(The Witness) Yes, and I believe actually it is written 
that way, that their transfers will be considered for ad­
mission to the high schools, whether you consider a trans­
fer from the sixth to the seventh as being, not being a trans­
fer, and we didn’t think of it in that way as being to all 
six grades in the high school.

The way it would work practically would be that anyone 
who wanted to request such a transfer could get the neces­
sary form from our office because the schools would be 
closed before this would become effective, and return it, 
fill it out and return it by July 15th.

It would then be considered by a committee of five people; 
the principal of the school last attended by the child, the 
principal of the school to which the child was requesting 
the transfer, the Director of Instruction, who is the head 
of our supervisory staff.

He actually would be under the heading of a supervisor, 
but we spell it out to make it specific, and the supervisors 
from our office who work in the two schools concerned, the 
sending school and the receiving school.

(The Court) Are the supervisors who work in the Negro 
schools Negro?

(The Witness) No, sir.
(The Court) Not any?
(The Witness) We did have — no, sir, we only have the 

two schools there, and the last Negro supervisor became 
principal of a larger high school, or became principal of 
the largest consolidated school that we have when we 
opened it several years ago.

(The Court) You have had Negro supervisors, but you 
have not now?

(The Witness) We had only two in my twelve years, 
but we don’t have any now.

Q. (Mr. Barnes) Now, Mr. Willis, before we leave that 
subject, why did you select or why did the Board select



App. 43

the two principals from the respective schools as part of 
the personnel making up the committee? What was the 
reason or rationale of that? A. Well, the basis of this whole 
policy would be the individual pupils’ adjustment and the 
probable success. Unfortunately high school teachers are 
subject-minded rather than children-minded.

Now, I am afraid that I am getting into a pedagogical 
statement here, but I believe some people in this room at 
least will understand what I am saying.

Elementary teachers think of the children they have and 
working with them to develop. I am afraid too many high 
school teachers think only in terms of the subject matter 
they are teaching and have a tendency to forget the chil­
dren that they are trying to teach and not the subject be­
fore them.

(The Court) Some people would maybe like to mix them 
up a little and increase the percentage in each, increase the 
percentage of the opposite in each.

(The Witness) Well, probably, but any rate, the child’s 
adjustment is more in his own hands in high school than 
it is in elementary school, and we wanted the principal of 
the school, the sending school on such a committee even if 
he weren’t there otherwise because he would have the best 
knowledge of that individual as to his personality and the 
probability of his successful adjustment.

Now, as far as the test results are concerned, we have a 
rather extensive testing program in 99 percent of the cases 
at least, and would already have that information. We might 
want to supplement it. I don’t know. That would depend 
upon the committee and its action.

Q. (Mr. Barnes) In the school heirarchy, where is the di­
rector of instruction? A. Well, in our case, the director of 
instruction is over the supervisory staff and the curricu­
lum development program. As it indicates, he is in charge 
of instruction in all levels in our school system.

Q. He is directly under you? A. Yes.



A pp. 44

Q. And then the County Supervisors, where are they in 
the school heirarchy? They direct the instructors? A. Yes, 
and they work with the teachers in the school and in some 
cases with the children.

Now, I dare say they would know the greatest problem 
cases, and the very best ones. The mass of them they would 
not know because their work is with the teachers, and in 
our case we try to keep that from about sixty to a hundred 
teachers per supervisor.

Q. Now, this plan would apply to either the white or 
colored children desiring a transfer; is that correct, Mr. 
Willis? A. It would have to, yes, because it doesn’t state 
any particular kind.

At the present time we get very few requests from white 
children. Most of them are from outside the county, such 
as those in Baltimore County who want to comeup, and 
we have had a lot of trouble in the past, and this would 
help us in that area.

Q. Well, it would apply to the white children who wish 
a transfer the same as colored children? A. It would have 
to from now on, yes.

Q. And “these applications would be approved or disap­
proved on the basis of the probability of success and ad­
justment of each individual pupil, and the committee will 
utilize the best professional measures of both achievement 
and adjustment that can be obtained in each individual 
situation.

“This will include, but not be limited to the results of 
both standardized intelligence and achievement tests, with 
due consideration being given to grade lever achievement, 
both with respect to ability and with respect to the grade 
into which transfer is being requested.”

Now, how would that operate practically, Mr. Willis? 
A. Well, I would say that as applications come in, that this 
group would get from the school, and it would be very 
easy because the principal has charge of the records at the 
school, to get the folder on that child, which has in it his



App. 45

achievements all the way through school up to that time, 
and his test record.

The only reason that might not be complete would be if 
he missed time when the regular testing program was being 
carried on or unless he were transferring into our system 
at some recent date.

And in some cases these folders would also contain anec­
dotal records of — I hate to say “problems” but I am afraid 
most of them would be that, with that child.

We try to put in other things about them, but usually it 
gets to a point where the troublesome things get it and the 
good ones don’t.

Q. Well, that’s typical of life. A. I better continue.
Q. Yes. A. Those records would then be made available 

for the full committee who should consider each individual 
case on the basis of the records involved.

Q. Now, I believe the resolution of May 1st, 1957, De­
fendants’ Exhibit 14, which clarified the elementary school 
plan, stated that:

“As a normal result of this plan sixth grade gradu­
ates will be admitted to the junior high schools for the 
first of September 1958 and proceed through high 
school to the next higher grade each year. This will 
completely desegregate all the schools of Harford 
County by September 1963.”

Now, I note that in the resolution of June 5th, 1957, De­
fendants’ Exhibit No. 16, that this plan of transfer operates 
immediately.

Now, would you explain how a child who is in the sixth 
grade at the present time would normally go into the 
seventh grade automatically; is that correct? A. You mean 
next year?

Q. Yes. A. Well, let’s suppose a child attended the sixth 
grade in the Aberdeen Elementary School next year, there



App. 46

would be no question of any transfer there because he 
would be moving along with his class.

If he were in the sixth grade of the Central Consolidated 
School, or rather if he were in the sixth grade of the Havre 
de Grace Consolidated School, which would be serving that 
same area, then I would think that he would have to make 
a request for transfer the following year so that we would 
know how to plan for his placement in the fall of that year.

(The Court) Well, that is complicated by the fact that 
the sixth grade — there is a sixth grade in the Aberdeen 
High School.

(The Witness) Yes.
(The Court) You better take a more typical example or 

case.
(The Witness) Well, it would be so, but let me look at 

my sheet.
If there were one in the Halls Cross Roads Elementary 

School, which is that same area, it would still be the same 
situation.

I didn’t mean to complicate it; I meant to simplify it.
(The Court) Well, let me get this clear. Beginning in 

1958, do I understand that your plan contemplates that a 
child graduating from the sixth grade in the Havre de 
Grace Consolidated School, and a child graduating from the 
sixth grade in some other elementary school as—

(The Witness) Well, Halls Cross Roads.
(The Court) —Halls Cross Roads Elementary School, 

which is a white school, that those two sixth graders will 
be able to go to a presently white high school on exactly 
the same basis?

(The Witness) That’s correct.
(The Court) Without any different evaluation of one 

from the other?
(The Witness) That’s correct.



A pp. 47

(The Court) And that the child who graduates from the 
sixth grade in the Consolidated School, if he happens to 
have gone there, can continue in that Consolidated School 
to the seventh grade or can go through a white school on 
the same basis, that if he would be admitted to one, he 
would be admitted to the other.

(The Witness) The only difference would be that we 
would have to know he wanted to go there.

(The Court) Well, there would be an application.
(The Witness) There wouldn’t be in the case of the white 

school because we would assume he wanted to go there.
(The Court) But there would be no further tests,—
(The Witness) That’s correct.
(The Court) —of any sort applied to any such entrant 

into a seventh grade beginning in September 1958; is that 
my understanding?

(The Witness) That’s correct.
(The Court) And that is still the plan? I mean, the modi­

fication does not change it?
(The Witness) Does not change that, no.
(The Court) Do I understand that the modification ap­

plies only during the period of transition?
(The Witness) During the interim period, yes.
(Mr. Barnes) Yes.
(The Witness) During the interim period, yes.
(The Court) This applies to the admission of the seventh 

grade only during the interim period?
(The Witness) Yes.
(The Court) Now, may I get this clear: You say that the 

plan will apply to white students as well as colored 
students?



App. 48

(The Witness) The only one I can think of would be one 
coming from another county.

(The Court) Yes.
(Mr. Greenberg) Yes.
(The Court) Well, let me get this clear: Is the June 5th, 

1957 plan or modification of the plan entirely a transition 
period plan and is expected to terminate grade by grade 
so that it will be entirely out of the picture by 1963?

(The Witness) Insofar as Negro pupils are concerned, 
but if we find that it works with these other cases that 
have been somewhat of a problem, we probably will con­
tinue it with them.

(The Court) So that it is only intended to apply to trans­
fers during the interim period?

(The Witness) That is correct.
(The Court) And that after the interim period your plan 

is that Negro students may transfer from school to school 
on the same basis as white children?

(The Witness) Yes.
(The Court) Now, there is one thing that isn’t clear to 

me: In the second paragraph of your excerpt which Mr. 
Barnes has just read, it says:

“Transfers will be considered for admission to the 
high schools of Harford County. Any student wishing 
to transfer to a school nearer his home must make ap­
plication to the Board of Education.”

Now, I want to see how that applies. Does that mean 
that a colored child who lives nearer the Hickory School 
than he does to Bel Air, let us say, must attend Hickory 
and may not transfer to Bel Air under any circumstances, 
or is this nearer his home a limitation, or is that intended 
to be a limitation?

(The Witness) Well, the reason that was put in there is 
because this is our policy in all other cases, in all other 
children, in all other high school areas.



A pp. 49

For instance, children in Edgewood must go to Edgewood 
and not to Bel Air, and we have some basic problems with­
in the County on that in the white schools.

* * * * * *

(R. 344):
EXCERPT FROM DEFENDANTS’

ANSWER EXHIBIT NO. 1
At a Meeting of the Harford County Citizens Consultant 

Committee held on Monday, February 27th, 1956, at 8 P. M. 
at Bel Air, Maryland, it was unanimously Resolved

To recommend to the Board of Education for Har­
ford County that any child regardless of race may make 
individual application to the Board of Education to be 
admitted to a school other than the one attended by 
such child, and the admissions to be granted by the 
Board of Education in accordance with such rules and 
regulations as it may adopt and in accordance with the 
available facilities in such schools; effective for the 
school year beginning September, 1956.

ERNEST VOLKART, 
Chairman.

Certified True and Correct.
/ s /  CHARLES W. WILLIS, 

Secretary-Treasurer.
copy:dh

Adopted by the Harford County Board of Education, as 
submitted, at its regular meeting on March 7, 1956.

/s /  CHARLES W. WILLIS, 
Secretary-Treasurer.

(Seal)



App. 50

(R. 346):
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER EXHIBIT NO. 2

Dated: June 14, 1956 
Board of Education of Harford County 

Bel A ir, Maryland 
Transfer Policy

If a child desires to attend a school other than the one in 
which he is enrolled or registered, it will be necessary for 
his parents to request a transfer. Applications for transfer 
are available on request. These requests should be ad­
dressed to the Board of Education, c /o  Superintendent of 
Schools, Bel Air, Maryland. Applications will be received 
by the Board of Education between June 15 and July 15, 
1956. All applications for transfer must state the reason for 
the request, and must be approved by the principal of the 
school which the pupil is now attending.

Applications for transfer will be handled through the 
usual and normal channels now operating under the juris­
diction of the Board of Education and its executive officer, 
the Superintendent of Schools.

While the Board has no intentions of compelling a pupil 
to attend a specific school or of denying him the privilege 
of transferring to another school, the Board reserves the 
right during the period of transition to delay or deny the 
admission of a pupil to any school, if it deems such action 
wise and necessary for any good and sufficient reason.

All applications for transfer, with recommendations of 
the Superintendent of Schools, will be submitted to the 
Board of Education for final consideration at the regular 
meeting of the Board on Wednesday, August 1, 1956. When 
requests for transfer are approved, parents must enroll 
their child at the school on the regular summer registra­
tion date, Friday, August 24, 1956.



App. 51

(R. 348):
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER EXHIBIT NO. 3 

Desegregation Policy

Adopted by the Harford County Board of Education

August 1, 1956

The Board of Education of Harford County appointed a 
Citizens’ Consultant Committee of thirty-five members in 
July, 1955, to study the problems involved in the desegre­
gation of Harford County schools. This committee met in 
August, 1955 and appointed subcommittees to make inten­
sive studies of several phases of this problem. The full 
committee held its final meeting on February 27,1956, heard 
subcommittee reports, discussed many aspects of the prob­
lem, and unanimously resolved:

To recommend to the Board of Education for Har­
ford County that any child regardless of race may make 
individual application to the Board of Education to be 
admitted to a school other than the one attended by 
such child, and the admissions to be granted by the 
Board of Education in accordance with such rules and 
regulations as it may adopt and in accordance with the 
available facilities in such schools; effective for the 
school year beginning September, 1956.

This resolution was adopted by the Board of Education at 
its regular March meeting.

At the regular June meeting of the Board of Education, 
a transfer policy was adopted, and procedures for request­
ing transfers were established.

The Supreme Court decision, which required desegre­
gation of public schools, provided for an orderly, gradual 
transition based on the solution of varied local school prob­
lems. The resolution of the Harford County Citizens’ Con­
sultant Committee is in accord with this principle. The re­
port of this committee leaves the establishment of policies



App. 52

based on the assessing of local conditions of housing, trans­
portation, personnel, educational standards, and social re­
lationships to the discretion of the Board of Education.

The first concern of the Board of Education must always 
be that of providing the best possible school system for 
all of the children of Harford County. Several studies made 
in areas where complete desegregation has been practiced 
have indicated a lowering of school standards that is detri­
mental to all children. Experience in other areas has also 
shown that bitter local opposition to desegregation in a 
school system not only prevents an orderly transition, but 
also adversely affects the whole educational program.

With these factors in mind, the Harford County Board 
of Education has adopted a policy for a gradual, but orderly 
program for desegregation of the schools of Harford County. 
The Board has approved applications for the transfer of 
Negro pupils from colored to white schools in the first three 
grades in the Edgewood Elementary School and the Halls 
Cross Roads Elementary School. Children living in these 
areas are already living in integrated housing, and the ad­
justments will not be so great as in the rural areas of the 
county where such relationships do not exist. With the 
exception of two small schools, these are the only elemen­
tary buildings in which space is available for additional 
pupils at the present time.

Social problems posed by the desegregation of schools 
must be given careful consideration. These can be solved 
with the least emotionalism when younger children are 
involved. The future rate of expansion of this program de­
pends upon the success of these initial steps.



App. 53

(R. 360-361):
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER EXHIBIT NO. 8 

“The Daily Record” —  W ednesday 

June 29, 1955
June 20, 1955.

Dr. Thomas G. Pullen, Jr.,
State Superintendent of Schools.

You have asked us to advise you formally of our views 
with respect to the legal effect of the decision of the Su­
preme Court, and particularly of its opinion and decree of 
May 31, 1955, in Brown et al. v. Board of Education of To­
peka et al. In that connection, you state in your letter in 
reference to our earlier oral conferences: “ * * * As I under­
stand your position, by virtue of the decree all constitu­
tional and legislative acts requiring segregation in the State 
of Maryland are a nullity, and further, it is legally incum­
bent upon the school authorities of the State and local 
school systems ‘to make a prompt and reasonable start 
toward full compliance’ with the ruling of the Supreme 
Court on May 17, 1954.”

As is obvious from your statement, the Supreme Court 
rendered its first opinion in the Brown et al. cases on May 
17, 1954, and while it then held that racial discrimination in 
public education is unconstitutional, it deferred final action 
on the cases pending further argument on certain specific 
questions having to do with the form of decree which the 
Court should enter. In its second opinion, rendered May 
31, 1955, the Court took final action on the judgments un­
der review and remanded the cases to the Courts of origin 
to take such proceedings and enter such orders and decrees 
as would be consistent with the supplemental views ex­
pressed in the May 31, 1955, opinion.

In its May 31, 1955, opinion, the Court stated at the out­
set:

“These cases were decided on May 17, 1954. The opinions 
of that date, declaring the fundamental principle that ra­
cial discrimination in public education is unconstitutional



App. 54

are incorporated herein by reference. All provisions of fed­
eral, state, or local law requiring or permitting such dis­
crimination must yield to this principle. There remains for 
consideration the manner in which relief is to be accorded.” 
(Italics supplied.)

We believe that the two opinions of the Supreme Court 
in the Brown et al. cases mean just what they say, namely, 
that “All provisions of federal, state, or local law requiring 
or permitting such discrimination! racial discrimination) 
must yield * * *” to the principle that such discrimination 
in public education is unconstitutional. It would neces­
sarily follow that, since the Constitution of the United 
States is the supreme law of the land, all constitutional and 
legislative acts of Maryland requiring segregation in the 
public schools in the State of Maryland are unconstitu­
tional, and hence must be treated as nullities.

In its opinion of May 31, 1955, the Supreme Court di­
rected the United States District Courts to require “ * * * 
that the defendants make a prompt and reasonable start 
toward full compliance with our May 17, 1954, ruling.” It 
is true that this statement was made with respect to five 
consolidated cases in which neither the State of Maryland 
nor any administrative body or officer thereof was a party, 
although the State did participate in the argument of the 
case as amicus curiae. It might be argued that since the 
State of Maryland was not technically a party, the direction 
of the Supreme Court is not yet applicable to the State of 
Maryland, and that such direction would not be applicable 
until such time as suit is filed against the State or some 
educational official and a final order making the direction 
applicable entered in such suit.

This argument to our mind confounds what is the clear 
state of the law and the nature of the relief which may be 
afforded in the event that there is not full compliance with 
the law. Obviously, in the event that there is a refusal to 
comply with the law, the mechanics of the relief might be 
different in the case of the State of Maryland from that 
granted in the case of one of the other States which was a 
defendant in one of the five consolidated cases in which



A pp. 55

the Supreme Court acted. However, the law with respect 
to public education as laid down by the Supreme Court is 
crystal clear, and we do not believe that differences in the 
mechanics of obtaining relief can limit in any sense the 
legal compulsion presently existing on the appropriate 
school authorities of the State of Maryland to make “ * * * 
a prompt and reasonable start” toward the ultimate elimi­
nation of racial discrimination in public education.

C. FERDINAND SYBERT, 
Attorney General.

HARRISON L. WINTER, 
Deputy Attorney General.

(R. 363-364):
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER EXHIBIT NO. 9

June 22, 1955
Joint Resolution of the State Board of Education of 

Maryland and the Board of Trustees of the 
State Teachers Colleges of Maryland.

(The members of the State Board of Education and the 
State Superintendent of Schools comprise the Board of 
Trustees of the State Teachers Colleges.)

W hereas, The Supreme Court of the United States passed 
its final judgment and decree on May 31, 1955, in the con­
solidated group of public school cases, determining the pro­
cedure to put into effect the Court’s opinion of May 17, 1954, 
that the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United 
States, prohibiting any State from denying to any person 
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, is no 
longer satisfied by the former doctrine of separate but 
equal public school facilities, but now, on the contrary, pro­
hibits any State from requiring or permitting racial dis­
crimination in public education; and



A pp. 56

W hereas, the Attorney General of Maryland has advised 
that the final decision of the Supreme Court is now the law 
of the land and is automatically binding upon the public 
school system of Maryland and upon the several local school 
officials throughout the State, and that the State Courts and 
the Federal Courts, should cases arise, are bound by the 
decision of the Supreme Court to recognize and give full 
force and effect thereto in the light of the equitable pro­
cedural considerations announced by the Supreme Court.

Therefore Resolved by The State Board of Education of 
Maryland and The Board of Trustees of the State Teachers 
Colleges of Maryland, in joint session, pursuant to the law 
of the land and pursuant to the procedural steps announced 
by The Supreme Court of the United States, and pursuant 
to the authority vested in these Boards by the laws of The 
State of Maryland, that the following are adopted as policies 
for guidance in the public school system of Maryland and 
in the several geographic units throughout the State of 
Maryland, namely that:

1. It is recognized that the law of the land as announced 
by The Supreme Court of the United States automatically 
has had the effect of abolishing all laws of the State of 
Maryland which raised any distinction according to race in 
the public school system of the State of Maryland and of 
its local subdivisions.

2. Segregation according to race is hereby abolished in 
all of the State Teachers Colleges of Maryland. Historically 
and under the former practice of separate but equal facili­
ties the present five State Teachers Colleges have hereto­
fore been classed into three colleges for white students and 
two colleges for colored students. That classification is now 
eliminated.

3. The Supreme Court recognized, and the State Board 
of Education recognizes, that factual conditions vary in 
different localities throughout the State, growing out of the 
formerly established principle of separate but equal facili­
ties, now declared to be unconstitutional and violative of



App. 57

the 14th Amendment. Such conditions may include public 
school building facilities, locations of the same with respect 
to population density of residential areas, transportation 
problems, teaching staffs, and other local and geographic 
conditions if applicable and pertinent to the transition from 
segregation to integration.

4. The State Board of Education by its statement of May 
26, 1954, recommended that the local public school officials 
evaluate their respective local conditions and problems in 
anticipation of the final decision of the Supreme Court. All 
of the County public school officials have made or are mak­
ing such studies. Now that The Supreme Court has passed 
its mandate and has directed compliance with its decree 
with deliberate speed and with due regard to local condi­
tions and in conformity with equitable considerations, the 
State Board of Education calls upon the local public school 
officials to commence this transition at the earliest prac­
ticable date, with the view of implementing the law of the 
land. Voluntary compliance with deliberate speed, without 
the necessity of Court compulsion, is advised on the part 
of all local public school officials throughout the State.

5. The Staff of the State Department of Education shall 
co-operate in all possible ways with local public school 
officials to give effect to the law of the land in the process 
of the transition from segregation to desegregation.

6. Traditionally the citizenry of our State has always 
accepted constitutional principles as interpreted by The 
Supreme Court of the United States, as the law of the land. 
The State Board of Education trusts that all citizens will 
exercise patience and tolerance to the end that the law of 
the land may be implemented in the elimination of racial 
discrimination in the public schools of the State.



A pp. 58

(R. 367):
DEFENDANTS’ EXHIBIT NO. 11

Excerpt from the Minutes of the Regular February 
Meeting of the Board of Education of 

Harford County.

February 6, 1957

Extension of the Desegregation Policy for 1957-1958

Applications for transfers will be accepted from pupils 
who wish to attend elementary schools in the areas where 
they live, if space is available in such schools. Space will 
be considered available in schools that were not more than 
10% overcrowded as of February 1, 1957. All capacities 
are based on the state and national standard of thirty pupils 
per classroom.

Under the above provision, applications will be accepted 
for transfer to all elementary schools except Old Post Road, 
Forest Hill, Bel Air, Highland, Jarrettsville, the sixth grade 
at the Edgewood High School, and Dublin. Such applica­
tions must be made during the month of May on a regular 
application form furnished by the Board of Education, and 
must be approved by both the child’s classroom teacher and 
the principal of the school the child is now attending.

All applications will be reviewed at the regular June 
meeting of the Board of Education and pupils and their 
parents will be informed of the action taken on their appli­
cations prior to the close of school in June, 1957.



A pp. 59

(R. 370-374):
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION 

BALTIMORE, MARYLAND

In the Matter of:
Appeal to the State Board of Education in 

Denial of Applications for Transfers in 
Harford County, Maryland.

Baltimore, Maryland

Wednesday, February 27, 1957

The above matter came on for hearing in Board Room 
No. 2, State Board of Education, Baltimore, Maryland, com­
mencing at 10:30 o’clock, a.m., Wednesday, February 27, 
1957.

Before: Wendell D. Allen, President, Jerome Frampton, 
Jr., Vice-President, Mrs. Kenneth S. Cole, Member of the 
Board, William A. Gunter, Member of the Board, Dwight 
O. W. Holmes, Member of the Board, Mrs. Richard Marcus, 
Member of the Board, George C. Rhoderick, Member of the 
Board and Thomas G. Pullen, Jr., Secretary-Treasurer.

Present A lso : Miss Drusilla Chair.
A ppearances :

Juanita Jackson, Esq., Tucker R. Dearing, Esq. and Robert 
B. Watts, Esq., on behalf of the Complainants.

Edward C. Wilson, Jr., Esq., and Wilson K. Barnes, Esq., 
on behalf of the Board of Education of Harford County.

Alexander Harvey, Esq., Assistant Attorney General of 
the State of Maryland.

Proceedings

(The Chairman) Are we ready to proceed? Are the par­
ties here represented by counsel? Who represents the 
school children?



App. 60

Mrs. Mitchell) I and my associate. I am Juanita Jack- 
son Mitchell and Mr. Deering and Marcus both are associ­
ated with me. I am waiting for Mr. Deering.

(The Chairman) Suppose we wait a few minutes until 
he arrives. Would you prefer that? You don’t think he will 
be too long?

(Mrs. Mitchell) I don t think so but I think we may pro­
ceed. F

(The Chairman) Proceed without him?
(Mrs. Mitchell) Yes.
(The Chairman) Is the Defendant ready?
(Mr. Barnes) We are ready.
(The Chairman) Will the reporter make a notation in 

the record that Mr. Alexander Harvey, Assistant Attorney 
General of Maryland is present as legal advisor of the State 
Board of Education.

Now, we have before us today, an appeal to the State 
Board of Education from the Harford County School Super­
intendent, denying applications for transfers in public 
schools in Harford County, Maryland, the Appeal being set 
forth in a letter dated December 6, 1956, addressed to the 
State Board of Education and signed by Tucker R. Dear- 
ing, Juanita Jackson Mitchell and Robert B. Watts, attor­
neys for the Appellants.

Appellants are Dennis Bernard Spriggs, age twelve; 
Stephen Presbury Moore, III, age ten; Earlene Scott, age 
seven; Mona Leisia Scott, age six; Robert McDaniel, age 
ten; David Roland Bell, age six; James J. Bell, Jr., age six; 
Bernard Samuel Blackstone, age eleven; Larry Wilson 
Blackstone, age fifteen; Ellen Elizabeth Blackstone, age 
nine; Aurelia H. Boose, age nine; Maurice L. Horsey, III, 
age seven.

Now, I ask you, Mrs. Mitchell, are they the twelve Appel­
lants? There is no change in the list of twelve Appellants?



App. 61

(Mr. Deering) I believe one has gone overseas.
(Mrs. Mitchell) That is Aurelia H. Boose.
(The Chairman) Make a notation that the Counsel for 

Appellants have eliminated the eleventh child, Aurelia H. 
Boose, for the reason that—

(Mrs. Mitchell) Her father is a Colonel in the Armed 
Services and has now been sent overseas.

* * * * * *

(R. 443-445):
CHARLES W. WILLIS,

was called as a witness by and on behalf of the County 
School Board, and being first duly sworn, was examined 
and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION 
By Mr. Barnes:

Q. Mr. Willis, will you state your full name, please? A. 
Charles W. Willis.

Q. What is your official position? A. Superintendent of 
Schools, Harford County.

Q. How long have you been in that position? A. Almost 
twelve years.

Q. What is your educational background? A. Going 
clear back, a graduate of Chestertown High School in Kent 
County in 1926; Western Maryland College in 1930; Masters 
from Columbia in 1934; and I have completed the work for 
Doctorate at Columbia, which is dependent upon my com­
pletion of a thesis.

Q. At Western Maryland, did you specialize in Educa­
tion? A. Yes, sir.

Q. You were then the Superintendent of Schools for 
Harford County in 1955, is that correct? A. That is correct.



App. 62

Q. After the opinion of the Attorney General of Mary­
land to Dr. Pullen on June 20, 1955, what did the Board of 
Education of Harford County do, just briefly? A. The 
Board of Education met on, I think it was June 30. They 
had their regular July meeting a couple of days ahead of 
time at my request. I wished to be away during that month 
at summer school, and at that session of the Board, they 
appointed an Advisory Committee to study the problem 
of integrating the schools of Harford County and asked 
them to report back to the Board of Education when they 
made a study of this problem.

That Committee consisted of thirty-five members, six 
of whom were Negroes, and the Chairman is Mr. Ernest 
Volkart, who has been previously mentioned this morning.

Q. And you were not a member of the Citizens Com­
mittee, were you? A. No, sir. The Board particularly 
wished that I not meet with them and appointed my Assist­
ant Superintendent, Mr. Benjamin S. Carroll, to meet with 
the Citizens Consultant Committee. He, however, was in 
the hospital and unable to meet with them at one of their 
meetings, and I attended that one.

Q. Well now, I direct your attention to February 27, 
1956. Do you recall that date? A. I do.

Q. That is the date that the Citizens Consultant Com­
mittee met and adopted a resolution. Are you familiar 
with that resolution? A. I am.

Q. Do you have a copy of it with you? A. Yes, I do.
Q. I would like to offer that in evidence as Defendant’s 

Exhibit No. 1.
* * * * * *

(R. 446-447):
Q. (Mr. Barnes) What action if any, did the Board of 

Education in Harford County take on that Resolution? A. 
They approved that resolution at the regular meeting in 
March.

Q. March 7, 1956. Is that correct? A. That is correct.



A pp. 63

Q. Now, I direct your attention to June 14, 1956, Mr. 
Willis, and particularly to the Transfer Policy announced 
by the Board of Education of Harford County on that date.

Do you have the Transfer Policy? A. I do.
Q. I would like to offer that in evidence as Defendant’s 

Exhibit No. 2. That was adopted by the Board of Educa­
tion, June 14, 1956.

* * * * * *
(R. 448-449):

Q. * * * did you have any application for transfers, and 
if so, what were they? A. Well, I don’t recall we had any 
in this year. It seems to me that there were one or two the 
prior summer before we had any policy — after the 1954 
opinion — but I don’t recall. It would be ’55, in the summer 
of 1955. This is 1956.

Q. I am talking about this. A. None prior to this.
Q. Subsequent to this, were there any applications? A. 

We had 60 applications as a result of this policy.
Q. Yes; and those 60 applications conformed to the re­

quirements which set forth your Transfer Policy, is that 
correct? A. That is correct.

Q. Now, Mr. Willis, what did the Board of Education do 
in regard to those applications for transfer? A. Well, they 
were considered at the August 1 meeting and at that meet­
ing, the desegregation policy of August 1 was drawn up 
and used as a basis for approving or disapproving the ap­
plication — disapproving the applications. This the Board 
considered as the first part of a desegregation plan for the 
reason set forth in it and there were several things that 
prompted that.

* * * * * *
(R. 450-454):

Q. (Mr. Barnes) Now, Mr. Willis, this Desegregation 
Policy mentions certain considerations which the County 
Board of Education formed. Will you elaborate on those 
factors? A. Well, one factor that we had in mind was that



A pp. 64

after the original case had been discussed down here, I think 
Mr. Wilson verbally at least, talked to me and said that 
the proposal, that the suggestion had been made, that we 
probably could start this program in the areas of Edge- 
wood and Aberdeen where we did have an influx of people 
and a different climate than we had in the upper part of the 
county. I don’t know if those terms were used by I think 
that was one thing.

Another thing is that we had observed a change in the 
climate of the thinking of our people on this question over 
a period of the year that they had been thinking about it. 
Right after the Supreme Court decision and especially after 
the second decision, we had one group before the Board 
protesting that we do anything, and we had a lot of private 
conversations with people and some very rabid ones, against 
any change, and we have a peculiar situation in Harford 
County, that if you don’t know the county, you would 
hardly be expected to be familiar with it, in that we have 
had a great influx of people from the south in the farming 
regions and we had a different feeling in the farming region 
from the county than we would in the built-up region 
around the Army bases. In Edgewood and Aberdeen, and 
extending down to Havre de Grace. So we do have a differ­
ent feeling that we have to take in consideration. I think 
that was probably in the mind of Judge Thomsen and our 
attorneys when they talked this over but that was one thing 
that influenced us, the difference of feeling in the different 
parts of the county and the difference in composition of it, 
with respect to backgrounds of our citizens.

Now, the other thing was a matter of school facilities. 
We are very proud of the fact in Harford County that we 
have not had double shifts or rent many buildings in re­
cent years, while we have been having 100 percent in­
crease in our school population in the last ten years. We 
had about 7,000 children ten years ago; we have 14,000 now, 
and during that time, we have housed them. We spent 
about $14 million for school construction. We are continu­
ing that. We have a $3 million program projected half for 
this year and half for next year and we are getting it under



A pp. 65

way at the present time; and we think class size is very 
important. That was taken into consideration by the orig­
inal Citizens Committee when they put the words, school 
facilities, I believe, in the Resolution, that we do something 
with respect to available facilities.

Strictly to the interpretation of available facilities, the 
two schools that we integrated plus two others, were the 
only ones that had any available facilities according to the 
projections that we could make of enrollments for the fol­
lowing year. Those other two small schools were Perryman, 
where we had no applicants, and Darlington, where we 
had one.

Now, Darlington is very much rural and I think one child 
up there may have been causing us some problems. We, 
like the people who spoke this morning, are proud of the 
fact that we do not have any racial tensions in Harford 
County and we are trying to keep it that way and some of 
us have had to sit on the lid of a few fiery individuals. We 
all have them, and they are the kind, though, that set the 
spark on and drop your whole program backward, and we 
were very cognizant of that whole problem and we felt it 
would be sounder to start with the children in the lower 
grades, where social problems are not so great, where they 
can start along with one another and continue with one 
another and not come from diverse backgrounds and di­
verse systems later on. I think those were the factors which 
influenced the passage of this policy that you just read.

Q. And pursuant to that policy, I believe fifteen of the 
applications you received were granted. Is that not cor­
rect? A. That is correct.

Q. And forty-five were refused. Is that correct? A. On 
the basis of policy. There is one other little thing worth 
mentioning. One man — I think he is the one who has 
now moved away — removed himself away from this. Sgt. 
Boose came to me after school was open, and due to a mis­
understanding, he had not gotten an application for his 
child, who was in the first grade, and we felt the misun­
derstanding was due to clerical help in our office, so we



App. 66

immediately allowed him to fill an application and put the 
child in the first grade. I think he is the man who has now 
moved away, thought, but that indicated that we were not 
trying to restrict, even after the deadline, when there was 
a reason there for admitting the child.

Q. Now, I direct your attention to January 2, 1957, Mr. 
Willis; I notice at that time, that you have an excerpt from 
the minutes of the regular January meeting of the Board 
of Education of Harford County, which we would like to 
offer as Defendant’s Exhibit No. 4.

* * * * * *
(R. 456):

Q. Now, Mr. Willis, I direct your attention to February 
6, 1957, which was a regular meeting of the State Board of 
Education for February of this year. Did the Board take 
any action in regard to its desegregation policy for the next 
year? That is, for 1957-1958? A. Yes. and that policy is 
listed as the last page of this.

Q. And I would like to offer that in evidence as Defen­
dant’s Exhibit No. 5.

* * * * * *
(R. 458-462):

Q. (Mr. Barnes) Now, would you explain more fully to 
the Board how that desegregation policy for the ensuing 
year 1957-1958 would operate, Mr. Willis? A. We have 
nineteen schools — eighteen schools — in which we have 
elementary pupils; two of these are high schools in which 
we only have the sixth grade housed at the present time. 
The others are straight elementary schools, and then, in 
addition to those, we have had two consolidated schools at 
Bel Air — the Central Consolidated — and Havre de Grace 
Consolidated, in Havre de Grace.

Now, under this provision, all elementary schools that 
are not more than ten percent overcrowded as of February 
1, would receive applications for transfers and that would 
mean that those schools would conceivably be from sixteen 
to twenty percent overcrowded next fall, because we have



App. 67

in the county from seven to ten percent increase in enroll­
ment each year. The amount of enrollment increase remains 
about constant, so the percentage is dropping a little. If 
you get my explanation, we have about one thousand to 
eleven hundred next year — and increase of one thousand 
to eleven hundred — on top of 14,000 which will be about 
a seven to eight percent increase.

Now, that is not constant at all schools in the county. It 
is spread out over the county; at some places it might be a 
ten percent increase in a school; in other places five; but 
in order to get a basis from which to operate, we discussed 
this problem and decided we better operate from a ten 
percent basis as of February 1. All schools not more than 
ten percent overcrowded, as of February 1, would receive 
applications for transfer into the elementary schools in the 
county. That would be in the first six grades, and accord­
ing to our official figures as of the end of the month of Jan­
uary, these schools listed here are more than ten percent 
overcrowded. Some of them as much as twenty-five per­
cent at the present time.

Q. Well now, would you then just for the record, com­
pare briefly the increase, you might say, or the extension 
of the desegregation policy now enunciated, over the one 
promulgated on August 1, 1956? A. That would be for 
three grades in two schools and this would be for six grades 
in nine schools.

Q. I see. A. And if you count those two high schools, it 
would be eleven, really.

Q. Don’t you have a building program? I think you testi­
fied you had a building program on foot which will relieve 
some of this overcrowding. What about that, Mr. Willis? 
A. Three of these schools will be relieved, we hope, by 
another year. We have plans to construct a four-room addi­
tion at Highland, which is one of these listed — an eight- 
room addition in Old Post Road, which is another, and 
another 24-room elementary school in Bel Air. A complete 
school that is not an addition.



App. 68

Q. So that in those three locations, the building program 
would eliminate the overcrowded condition, and automati­
cally the desegregation policy would apply. Is that not 
correct? A. By another year.

Q. By another year. A. By ’58. By September ’58, if no 
unforeseen developments come up in this building program.

Q. Yes. Then I think, you are going to operate a Junior 
College at Bel Air, are you not? A. We are planning to 
open one in September of this year.

Q. September of this year? On what basis would that 
be operated? A. On an integrated basis. Probably only 
one year in the beginning, though. One year beyond high 
school.

Q. Now, you were present at the meeting of the Board 
of Education of Harford County when these specific deseg­
regation policies were adopted, were you not, Mr. Willis? 
A. That is correct.

Q. These matters were thoroughly and fully discussed 
were they not? A. Not only at these meetings, but in prac­
tically every other meeting that led up to them.

Q. Would you say that the efforts on behalf of the Board 
of Education to integrate schools of Harford County had 
moved forward on a reasonable basis? A. I would say so. 
Yes, sir.

Q. And with all practicable and deliberate speed? A. 
I would say so. Yes.

Q. As a matter of fact, when this new extension goes 
into effect, the children in the normal course of events in 
the schools which had been integrated will move forward, 
assuming they pass their courses; right on forward, will 
they not? A. That would be the minimum movement.

Q. The minimum movement? A. Yes.
* * * * * *



A pp. 69

(R. 515-516):
DAVID G. HARRY, JR.,

was called as a witness, and being first duly sworn, was 
examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION 
By Mr. Barnes:

Q. Will you give your full name, please? A. David G. 
Harry, Jr.

Q. What is your official position? A. President of the 
Board of Education of Harford County.

Q. How long have you been in that position? A. Almost 
six years.

Q. You were there in office as President of the Board in 
1954 and 1955. Is that not correct? A. I was.

Q. You have been in this Board Room during this entire 
hearing, have you not? A. I have.

Q. You heard the testimony of Mr. Willis, the Superin­
tendent? A. I did.

Q. Was the testimony which he gave correct? A. It was.
Q. Do you have anything to add to that, or to change it? 

If so, will you now give it? A. I have nothing to add or 
change.

* * * * * *
(R. 530):

(The Chairman) Could I ask a question as to the action 
of the Citizens Consultant Committee? I understand there 
were five Negroes on that Committee and about thirty 
white members of that Committee. Was there any minority 
report of the Citizens Consultant Committee?

(Mr. Willis) No, there was not. There were six Negroes 
and I think thirty others, counting Mr. Volkart. There were 
thirty-six members, and there was no minority report sub­



A pp. 70

mitted. This was the only report officially which the Com­
mittee submitted.

(The Chairman) Did you happen to know if this was a 
unanimous report of the Committee.

(Mr. Willis) It was. That evening, it was a unanimous 
report of the Committee.

* * * * * *

(R. 567-571):
DEFENDANTS’ EXHIBIT NO. 13

Appeals

Before the State Board of Education of Maryland

Dennis Bernard Spriggs, Stephen Presbury Moore, III, 
Earlene Scott, Mona Leisia Scott, Robert McDaniel, 
David Roland Bell, James J. Bell, Jr., Bernard Samuel 
Blackstone, Larry Wilson Blackstone, Ellen Elizabeth 
Blackstone, Maurice L. Horsey, III, Minors, by their 
parents,

vs.
Charles W. Willis,

County Superintendent of Schools 
of Harford County.

Opinion and Order, March 4, 1957.
These appeals were filed by the above-named eleven 

colored children through their respective parents, to the 
State Board of Education, on December 6, 1956, from the 
refusal of the Harford County Superintendent of Schools 
to grant applications for transfer to other schools. These



App. 71

applications had been made in due course for the opening 
of school in Harford County in September, 1956. The ap- 

. peal of a twelfth child, Aurelia H. Boose, was dismissed, as 
the parents had moved from the County.

An open hearing was held on the appeals on February 
27, 1957, by the State Board of Education, the appellants 
being represented by three attorneys, Tucker R. Dearing, 
Juanita Jackson Mitchell, and Robert B. Watts. The de­
fendant County Superintendent was represented by two 
attorneys, Wilson K. Barnes and Edward C. Wilson, Jr. 
Alexander Harvey, II, Assistant Attorney General of Mary­
land, appeared as legal advisor to the State Board.

Testimony was taken and recorded, and arguments were 
heard.

Facts respecting the eleven appellants:



Grade in School to Which the
Fall of School Attended in County Superintendent

Name 1956 Fall of 1956 Disapproved Transfer

Dennis Bernard Spriggs............
Stephen Presbury Moore, III....
Earlene Scott ............................
Mona Leisia Scott.....................
Robert McDaniel.......................
David Roland Bell.....................
James J. Bell, Jr........................
Bernard Samuel Blackstone....
Larry Wilson Blackstone..........
Ellen Elizabeth Blackstone......
Maurice L. Horsey, III.............

7 Central Consolidated
5 Central Consolidated
2 Central Consolidated
1 Central Consolidated
4 Central Consolidated
1 Central Consolidated
3 Central Consolidated
6 Central Consolidated

10 Central Consolidated
5 Central Consolidated
2 Central Consolidated

Edgewood High
Bel Air Elementary
Bel Air Elementary
Bel Air Elementary
Edgewood Elementary
Youth’s Benefit Elementary
Youth’s Benefit Elementary
Bel Air Elementary
Bel Air High
Bel Air Elementary
Jarrettsville Elementary

ZL
 

«M
V



App. 73

The Harford County Board of Education adopted the fol­
lowing Desegregation Policy on August 1, 1956:

“The Board of Education of Harford County appointed a 
Citizens’ Consultant Committee of thirty-five members in 
July, 1955, to study the problems involved in the desegre­
gation of Harford County schools. This committee met in 
August, 1955 and appointed subcommittees to make inten­
sive studies of several phases of this problem. The full 
committee held its final meeting on February 27,1956, heard 
subcommittee reports, discussed many aspects of the prob­
lem, and unanimously resolved:

To recommend to the Board of Education for Harford 
County that any child regardless of race may make in­
dividual application to the Board of Education to be 
admitted to a school other than the one attended by 
such child, and the admissions to be granted by the 
Board of Education in accordance with such rules and 
regulations as it may adopt and in accordance with the 
available facilities in such schools; effective for the 
school year beginning September, 1956.

This resolution was adopted by the Board of Education at 
its regular March meeting.

“At the regular June meeting of the Board of Education, 
a transfer policy was adopted, and procedures for request­
ing transfers were established.

“The Supreme Court decision, which required desegre­
gation of public schools, provided for an orderly, gradual 
transition based on the solution of varied local school prob­
lems. The resolution of the Harford County Citizens’ Con­
sultant Committee is in accord with this principle. The re­
port of this committee leaves the establishment of policies 
based on the assessing of local conditions of housing, trans­
portation, personnel, educational standards, and social re­
lationships to the discretion of the Board of Education.

“The first concern of the Board of Education must always 
be that of providing the best possible school system for all



App. 74

of the children of Harford County. Several studies made in 
areas where complete desegregation has been practiced 
have indicated a lowering of school standards that is detri­
mental to all children. Experience in other areas has also 
shown that bitter local opposition to desegregation in a 
school system not only prevents an orderly transition, but 
also adversely affects the whole educational program.

“With these factors in mind, the Harford County Board 
of Education has adopted a policy for a gradual, but orderly, 
program for desegregation of the schools of Harford County. 
The Board has approved applications for the transfer of 
Negro pupils from colored to white schools in the first three 
grades in the Edgewood Elementary School and the Halls 
Cross Roads Elementary School. Children living in these 
areas are already living in integrated housing, and the ad­
justments will not be so great as in the rural areas of the 
county where such relationships do not exist. With the 
exception of two small schools, these are the only elemen­
tary buildings in which space is available for additional 
pupils at the present time.

“Social problems posed by the desegregation of schools 
must be given careful consideration. These can be solved 
with the least emotionalism when younger children are 
involved. The future rate of expansion of this program de­
pends upon the success of these initial steps.”

An excerpt from the Minutes of the Regular February 
Meeting of the Board of Education of Harford County, Feb­
ruary 6, 1957, entitled “Extension of the Desegregation 
Policy for 1957-1958,” is as follows:

“Applications for transfer will be accepted from pupils 
who wish to attend elementary schools in the areas where 
they live, if space is available in such schools. Space will 
be considered available in schools that were not more than 
10% overcrowded as of February 1, 1957. All capacities are 
based on the state and national standard of thirty pupils 
per classroom.

“Under the above provision, applications will be accepted 
for transfer to all elementary schools except Old Post Road,



App. 75

Forest Hill, Bel Air, Highland, Jarrettsville, the sixth grade 
at the Edgewood High School, and Dublin. Such applica­
tions must be made during the month of May on a regular 
application form furnished by the Board of Education, and 
must be approved by both the child’s classroom teacher and 
the principal of the school the child is now attending.

All applications will be reviewed at the regular June 
meeting of the Board of Education and pupils and their 
parents will be informed of the action taken on their appli­
cations prior to the close of school in June, 1957.”

Sixty colored children applied for transfers to various 
schools for the September, 1956, opening, of which fifteen 
applications were approved and forty-five disapproved. The 
disapproval of the forty-five applications, including the 
eleven appellants in these appeals, was in accordance with 
the Desegregation Policy of August 1, 1956.

The State Board finds that the Harford County Board 
acted within the policy established by the State Board in 
its Joint Resolution of June 22, 1955, on the subject of De­
segregation in the Public Schools and in the State Teachers 
Colleges of Maryland.

The State Board finds that the County Superintendent 
acted in good faith within the authority set forth in the 
August 1,1956, Desegregation Policy adopted by the County 
Board of Education. The State Board also finds that the 
Desegregation Policy was adopted in a bona fide effort to 
make a reasonable start toward actual desegregation of the 
Harford County public schools. This initial effort has been 
carried out without any untoward incidents, which is a 
credit to the citizens of Harford County, the Citizens’ Con­
sultant Committee, and the Harford County public school 
authorities.

The State Board also takes cognizance of the resolution 
of the County Board of February 6, 1957, as above men­
tioned, which sets forth an extension of desegregation to 
become effective in the fall of 1957, as well as the testimony 
to the effect that the proposed Harford County Junior Col­
lege, which is to be established in Bel Air in the fall of



App. 76

1957, will open on a desegregated basis, and also the testi­
mony to the effect that the present program of new build­
ings and additions will make further desegregation possible.

The State Board commends all parties, the witnesses, and 
counsel, in these proceedings, for the fair and dispassionate 
manner in which the facts and the arguments were pre­
sented.

For the foregoing reasons, these appeals are hereby 
dismissed.

WENDELL D. ALLEN,
President,

JEROME FRAMPTOM, JR., 
Vice-president,

ELIZABETH R. COLE,
WILLIAM A. GUNTER,
DWIGHT O. W. HOLMES,
RUTH L. MARCUS,
GEORGE C. RHODERICK, JR., 

State Board of 
Education of Maryland.

(R. 572-573):
DEFENDANTS’ EXHIBIT NO. 14

Excerpt from the M inutes of the Regular May 
Meeting of the Board of Education of 

Harford County.
May 1, 1957

The Board reviewed its desegregation policy of February 
6, 1957. In accordance with this plan, the following elemen­
tary schools will be open in all six grades to Negro pupils 
at the beginning of the 1957-1958 school year:

Emmorton Elementary School 
Edgewood Elementary School



App. 77

Aberdeen Elementary School 
Halls Cross Roads Elementary School 
Perryman Elementary School 
Churchville Elementary School 
Youth’s Benefit Elementary School 
Slate Ridge Elementary School 
Darlington Elementary School 
Havre de Grace Elementary School 
6th Grade at Aberdeen High School

Schools now under construction or contemplated for con­
struction in 1958, if no unforeseen delays occur, will auto­
matically open all elementary schools to Negro pupils by 
September, 1959. As a result of new construction, the ele­
mentary schools at Old Post Road, Bel Air, and Highland 
will accept applications for transfer of Negro pupils for 
the school year beginning in September, 1958. Forest Hill, 
Jarrettsville, Dublin and the sixth grade at the Edgewood 
High School would receive applications for the school year 
beginning in September, 1959.

As a normal result of this plant, sixth grade graduates 
will be admitted to junior high schools for the first time 
in September, 1958 and will proceed through high schools 
in the next higher grade each year. This will completely 
desegregate all schools of Harford County by September, 
1963.

The Board will continue to review this situation monthly 
and may consider earlier admittance of Negro pupils to the 
white high schools if such seems feasible. The Board re­
affirmed its support of this plan as approved by the State 
Board of Education.



App. 78

(R. 574):
DEFENDANTS’ EXHIBIT NO. 15

May 2, 1957
Wilson K. Barnes, Esq.
Maryland Trust Building 
Baltimore 2, Maryland

Re: Stephen Moore, Jr., et al
vs.

Board of Education of 
Harford County, et al,
Civil Action No. 9105.

My dear Mr. Barnes:
After conference with my co-counsel and the plaintiffs in 

the above entitled case, we have come to the conclusion that 
there is no legally valid reason why the plaintiffs and the 
class they represent should not be admitted to the high 
schools of Harford County without any racial restrictions 
whatsoever.

Kindly let us hear from you at your earliest convenience 
so that we may put the case in for further hearing and final 
disposition.

Very sincerely yours,
/s /  JUANITA JACKSON MITCHELL

(R. 575):
DEFENDANTS’ EXHIBIT NO. 16

Excerpt from the M inutes of the Regular June 
Meeting of the Board of Education of 

Harford County.
June 5, 1957

The Board reaffirmed its basic plan for the desegregation 
of Harford County schools, but agreed to the following 
modification for consideration of transfers to the high 
schools during the interim period while the plan is be­
coming fully effective.



App. 79

Beginning in September, 1957, transfers will be consid­
ered for admission to the high schools of Harford County. 
Any student wishing to transfer to a school nearer his 
home must make application to the Board of Education 
between July 1 and July 15. Such application well be evalu­
ated by a committee consisting of the high school principals 
of the two schools concerned, the Director of Instruction, 
and the county supervisors working in these schools.

These applications will be approved or disapproved on 
the basis of the probability of success and adjustment of 
each individual pupil, and the committee will utilize the 
best professional measures of both achievement and ad­
justment that can be obtained in each individual situation. 
This will include, but not be limited to, the results of both 
standardized intelligence and achievement tests, with due 
consideration being given to grade level achievements, both 
with respect to ability and with respect to the grade into 
which transfer is being requested.

The Board of Education and its professional staff will 
keep this problem under constant and continuous observa­
tion and study.