McCready v Byrd Brief and Appendix of Appellant

    In The

Court of Appeals of Maryland

October Term, 1949

N o. 139

ESTHER McCREADY, 
minor by

ELIZABETH McCREADY, 
her next friend and parent,

Appellant,
vs.

HARRY C. BYRD, President, et al.,
Appellees.

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

BRIEF AND APPENDIX OF APPELLANT

Charles H. Houston, 
Thurgood Marshall, 
Robert L. Carter,
Donald G. Murray,

Attorneys for Appellant.

The Daily Record Co., Baltimore 3, Md.



I N D E X

Table of Contents

Statement of the Case........................
Question in Controversy....................
Statement of Facts..............................
Argument ................................................
Conclusion..............................................

PAGE

1
2
2
3
9

Table of Citations 
Cases

Missouri, ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U. S. 337,
87 L. ed. 208, 59 S. Ct......................................... 5, 6, 8

Pearson v. Murray, 169 Md. 478..............................  5
Plessey v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537........................... 6
Sipuel v. University of Oklahoma, 332 U. S. 631  4
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 6 S. Ct. 1064......  6

Index to A ppendix App.
PAGE

Petition of Plaintiff...................................................  1
Answer of Respondents............................................ 5
Replication of Plaintiff.............................................  12
Opinion of the Court.................................................  32
Order of the Court..................................................... 16
Testimony:

Stipulation in Open Court................................  20
Edgar F. L o n g -

Direct ..........................................................  22
Respondents’ Exhibit D...........................................  16
Petition and Order to Appear Amicus Curiae........  41



In The

Court of Appeals of Maryland

October Term, 1949

N o. 139

ESTHER McCREADY, 
minor by

ELIZABETH McCREADY, 
her next friend and parent,

Appellant,

vs.

HARRY C. BYRD, President, et al.,
Appellees.

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

BRIEF OF APPELLANT

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from an order dated October 10, 

1949, of the Baltimore City Court dismissing a petition 
for mandamus filed by the appellant Esther McCready 
against the Board of Regents and administrative officials 
of the University of Maryland to compel them to con­
sider and act upon her application for admission to the



2

School of Nursing of the University of Maryland and to 
certify her for entrance to said school without regard to 
her race or color.

QUESTION IN CONTROVERSY
Whether Appellees’ Refusal to Admit Appellant to the 

Only School of Nursing Maintained by the State of Mary­
land solely because of Her Race and Color was a Denial 
to Her of the Equal Protection of the Laws Guaranteed 
by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of 
the United, States.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
On February 1, 1949, Esther McCready, the appellant 

in this suit filed an application to enter as a first year 
student in the School of Nursing of the University of 
Maryland. Appellant is a resident Negro citizen of the 
State of Maryland and was eighteen years old at the time 
she made her application. She has been a resident and 
citizen of the State of Maryland since her birth. The 
School of Nursing at the University of Maryland is the 
only state institution offering a nursing education in the 
State of Maryland (App. 20, 21).

After repeated requests for a statement of any action 
taken by the proper university authorities on her appli­
cation and receiving no satisfactory replies, appellant 
filed a petition for a writ of mandamus against these au­
thorities in July 1949 to compel them to act upon her 
application (App. 1-5). The opening dates in the School 
of Nursing of the University of Maryland for the first 
year class were August 8,1949 and October 3, 1949 (App. 
21) .



3

On August 13, 1949, subsequent to the filing of her suit 
appellant was offered an opportunity to pursue a course 
of nursing at Meharry Medical College, Nashville, Ten­
nessee. The basis for this offer made by appellees was 
chapter 282, Laws of 1949 enacted by the Maryland Gen­
eral Assembly and setting up a so-called regional com­
pact (App. 11, 12), and a “Contract for Training in Nurs­
ing Education” entered into by the State of Maryland and 
the Board of Control for Southern Regional Education on 
July 19, 1949 (App. 16-20). Appellant rejected this offer 
and insisted upon her right to pursue a nursing education 
at the School of Nursing of the University of Maryland 
(App. 21).

Appellees admit that appellant’s educational and moral 
qualifications are as good as, if not superior to, the educa­
tional and moral qualifications of white students ad­
mitted to the first year class of nursing whose applica­
tions were received subsequent to the date of appellant’s 
application (App. 20). Appellees also admit that they 
refused appellant admission to the School of Nursing of 
the University of Maryland solely because of her color 
(App. 29).

ARGUMENT
APPELLEES’ REFUSAL TO ADMIT APPELLANT TO THE ONLY 

SCHOOL OF NURSING MAINTAINED BY THE STATE OF MARY­
LAND SOLELY BECAUSE OF HER RACE AND COLOR WAS A 
DENIAL TO HER OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS 
GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE 
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

The facts of record are sufficiently simple as to warrant 
only the briefest restatement. It is significant that appel­
lant’s case consisted, after opening arguments of counsel 
had been concluded, of a simple stipulation agreed upon



4

by the parties and their counsel in open court. There 
it was admitted that appellant was a citizen, a Negro and 
a resident of the State of Maryland who had applied for 
admission as a first year student in the School of Nursing 
of the University of Maryland. Her qualifications and 
application were admitted to be, in all respects, as good 
as or better than those of white students applying for 
the identical course who were admitted into the school 
for such study, and as timely as or more timely than those 
of the same class of white applicants subsequently ad­
mitted to said nursing class and school,

Appellant, under this stipulation, was refused admis­
sion to the School of Nursing of the University of Mary­
land solely because of her race and color. It was agreed 
that appellant would have been admitted if she had been 
white.

In 1949 the Maryland General Assembly passed Chap­
ter 282 of the Laws of 1949 ratifying and approving a 
regional compact for education to be entered into and 
approved by other southern states. Appellees seriously 
urge that because of the existence of this so-called re­
gional compact, and a contract entered into under its 
terms (see Exhibit D, App. 18-20), they may discharge 
their responsibility under the Constitution of the United 
States to appellant, by sending her to the Meharry Medi­
cal College, School of Nursing in Nashville, Tennessee 
more than one thousand miles from her home in Mary­
land while admitting all qualified non-Negro applicants 
to the University of Maryland,

It is submitted that the writ of mandamus should have 
been issued on the basis of these agreed facts under de­
cisions of the United States Supreme Court. In Sipuel v.



5

University of Oklahoma, 332 U. S. 631, 632 (1948), the 
Court said:1

“On January 14, 1946, the petitioner, a Negro, con- 
cededly qualified to receive the professional legal 
education offered by the State, applied for admission 
to the School of Law of the University of Oklahoma, 
the only institution for legal education supported 
and maintained by the taxpayers of the State of Okla­
homa. Petitioner’s application for admission was 
denied, solely because of her color.

* * * * *  *

“The petitioner is entitled to secure legal educa­
tion afforded by a state institution. To this time, it 
has been denied her although during the same period 
many white applicants have been afforded legal edu­
cation by the State. The State must provide it for 
her in conformity with the equal protection clause 
of the Fourteenth Amendment and provide it as soon 
as it does for applicants of any other group. Missouri 
ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U. S. 337, 83 L. ed. 208, 
59 S. Ct. 232 (1938).”

Over the objection of appellant, testimony was intro­
duced by appellees showing the type of education offered 
to appellant at Meharry in Nashville, Tennessee. Appel­
lees also introduced the so-called Regional Compact of 
July 19, 1949. This was relied upon as justification for 
the refusal to admit appellant to the facilities within the 
State of Maryland for education available to all qualified 
non-Negro applicants.

The lower court adopted this position and held that 
the cases of Pearson v. Murray, 169 Md. 478 and Gaines v.

1 It should be noted that this decision was rendered four days after 
argument and the mandate was issued forthwith.



6
ganada et a l . . 305 U.S. 337 (1938). did not apply 
to this case because " it  nevertheless remains true 
that the Court has not condemned the use of scholar 
ships and the exchange o f educational fa c i l it ie s  in 
application to other fie ld s  of education other than 
the study of law"2 (App, 33)

Although this Court in the Pearson case did mention 
certain differences in education at the law school of the 
University of Maryland in stressing Maryland law the 
rationale of the opinion was that Negro applicants could 
not be excluded from state schools within the state and 
sent outside the state solely because of race and color. 
Any doubt as to the principle of law herein involved has 
been removed by decisions of the Supreme Court of the 
United States.

In Gaines v. Canada, supra, Chief Justice Hughes care­
fully considered the decision of this Court in the Pearson 
case and concluded:

“The equal protection of the laws is ‘a pledge of 
the protection of equal laws.’ Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 
118 U. S. 356, 369, 30 L. ed. 220, 226, 6 S. Ct. 1064. 
Manifestly, the obligation of the State to give the 
protection of equal laws can be performed only 
where its laws operate, that is, within its own juris­
diction. It is there that the equality of legal right 
must be maintained. That obligation is imposed by 
the Constitution upon the States severally as govern­
mental entities, — each responsible for its own laws 
establishing the rights and duties of persons within 
its borders. It is an obligation the burden of which 
cannot be cast by one State upon another, and no 
State can be excused from performance by what an­

2 It should be noted that the lower court, while refusing to apply the 
decisions concerning law schools to a nursing school, at the same time 
applied the segregation principles of segregated transportation (separate 
but equal doctrine of Flessy v. Ferguson, 163, TJ. S. 537) to collegiate 
training in nursing.



7

other State may do or fail to do. That separate re­
sponsibility of each state within its own sphere is 
of the essence of statehood maintained under our 
dual system. It seems to be implicit in respondents’ 
argument that if other States did not provide courses 
for legal education, it would nevertheless be the con­
stitutional duty of Missouri when it supplied such 
courses for white students to make equivalent pro­
vision for negroes. But that plain duty would exist 
because it rested upon the State independently of the 
action of other States. We find it impossible to con­
clude that what otherwise would be an unconstitu­
tional discrimination, with respect to the legal right 
to the enjoyment of opportunities within the State, 
can be justified by requiring resort to opportunities 
elsewhere. That resort may mitigate the inconveni­
ence of the discrimination but cannot serve to vali­
date it.”

This statement of the law was made after consideration 
of the law as applied to law schols. It is a general state­
ment of the law applicable to all public education. There 
is not a single word in the paragraph quoted which limits 
it to legal education. Succintly stated it was made clear 
that whenever a state provides education and training 
for any of its citizens within the state it must at least 
offer equal facilities to all other similarly qualified citi­
zens vjithin the state. The Sipuel case further clarified 
this ruling by adding that the education must be afforded 
“by a state institution” and “as soon as it does for appli­
cants of any other group” .

The lower court was likewise clearly in error in con­
sidering the question that appellant appeared to be the 
only Negro applicant for this type of education or that 
other individuals had agreed to be educated outside the 
state: “Here, petitioner’s right was a personal one. It was



8

as an individual that he was entitled to the equal protec­
tion of the laws, and the State was bound to furnish him 
within its borders facilities for legal education substan­
tially equal to those which the State there afforded for 
persons of the white race, whether or not other Negroes 
sought the same opportunity.” Gaines v. Canada, et al, 
supra, at p. 351.

The so-called Regional Compact did not change the 
principle of law in this case. In the first place counsel for 
the Board of Control for Southern Regional Education 
appeared as amicus curiae and made it clear that:

“It is not the purpose of the Board that the regional 
compact and the contracts for educational services 
thereunder shall serve any state as a legal defense 
for avoiding responsibilities established or defined 
under the existing State and Federal laws and court 
decisions” (App. 41, 42).

The lower court concluded that:
“ * * * I am quite ready to agree that the substi­

tute education to be offered under this Regional Pact 
is no different substantially and is no different in 
law from the substitute offered by the individual 
State under scholarships to an institution in a neigh­
boring State. I think the substitute that is offered is 
substantially the same thing and if it be true that 
the Gaines case is a precedent which condemns such 
a substitute then I am wrong in my conclusion” 
(App. 40).

It is, therefore, clear that the appellees have demon­
strated a flagrant disregard for the Constitution of the 
United States, the decisions of the Supreme Court and 
the decisions of this Court. The judgment of the lower 
court in the face of these decisions has deprived the appel­
lant of a year of training. It was this type of action which



9

caused the Supreme Court in the Sipuel case to reverse 
the courts of Oklahoma within four days after argument 
and to issue its mandate forthwith.

The University of Maryland has admitted Negroes into 
its law school since 1935. Negroes have freely attended 
the University of West Virginia since 1939. The Uni­
versity of Arkansas in 1947 admitted a Negro to its law 
school on a segregated basis. Before the term had ended, 
it had abandoned the segregation, and now Negroes are 
attending its law school and school of Medicine like other 
students. The University of Delaware is now open to 
Negroes, as is the University of Kentucky and both the 
University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma A. & M. College. 
In September 1949, a Negro was admitted into the Uni­
versity of Texas School of Medicine.3 In all instances 
there was considerable initial resistance by governmental 
officials to the abandonment of segregation. Yet in each 
instance the experiment has been beneficial and suc­
cessful.

CONCLUSION
The University of Maryland seems determined to main­

tain its policy of exclusion of qualified Negroes solely 
because of race or color without making any serious 
effort to meet even the minimum requirements of “sepa­
rate but equal” . In doing so they have removed all justifi­
cation for their action. There is only one recourse under 
the Murray decision and the Sipuel decision requiring 
immediate equality within the state —- to order appellant 
admitted to the University of Maryland forthwith.

3 Editorial Comment, “Some Progress in The Elimination of Discrimi­
nation in Higher Education in the United .States,” X IX  Journal of Negro 
Education, Winter, 1949, pp. 4-5. See also: Charles H. Thompson, “ Sepa­
rate But Not Equal, The Sweatt Case,” 33 Southwest Review 105, 111 
(1948).



10

Wherefore, it is respectfully submitted that the judg­
ment of the Baltimore City Court should be reversed.

Respectfully submitted,

Charles H. Houston, 
Thurgood Marshall,
Robert L. Carter,
Donald G. Murray,

Attorneys for Appellant.



1

APPENDIX TO' APPELLANT’S BRIEF NO. 139

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 
To the Honorable, the Judge of Said Court:

The Petition of Esther McCready, minor, by Elizabeth 
McCready her next friend and parent, respectfully 
shows:

First: Esther McCready, a Negro, is eighteen (18) 
years of age, and at all times material was and is a citizen 
and resident of the United States and the State of Mary­
land. On February 1,1949 she duly applied for admission 
as a first year student in the School of Nursing of the 
University of Maryland for the academic year beginning 
August 8, 1949. The University authorities have refused 
to pass on this application although they have appraised 
and passed on other similar applications by white 
students.

Second: Harry C. Byrd is the President and Executive 
Head of the University of Maryland, Edgar F. Long is the 
Director of Admissions of the Baltimore Schools of the 
said University, which includes the School of Nursing; 
Florence Meda Gipe is the Director of School of Nursing 
of the said University; William P. Cole, Jr., Stanford Z. 
Rothschild, J. Milton Patterson, Peter W. Chichester, 
Edward F. Holter, E. Paul Knotts, Charles P. McCormick, 
Harry H. Nuttle, Philip C. Turner, Millard E. Tydings, 
and Mrs, John L. Whitehurst constitute the Board of 
Regents of the University of Maryland.

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

Fourth: Under the acts of the Legislature of the State 
of Maryland, which form the Charter of the University 
of Maryland, as now constituted, the Board of Regents,



2

who are appointed by the Governor, by and with the con­
sent of the Senate, are vested with the powers of govern­
ing the University. The President of the University of 
Maryland, the Director of Admissions of the Baltimore 
Schools, and the Director of School of Nursing function 
as their agents under their supervision and control.

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

Sixth: The Faculty of Nursing offers a five year course 
in said School of Nursing leading to the Bachelor of 
Science degree (B. S.). The requirements for admission 
to said course are:

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

English—4 units required for all divisions of the Uni­
versity.



3

Mathematics—2 units—One unit each of algebra and 
plane geometry is desirable.

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

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

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

Eighth: The Board of Regents, the Director of Admis­
sions and the Director of School of Nursing and Faculty 
Committee of the University of Maryland have had no­
tice of this application and ample time and adequate op­
portunity to consider and act upon the Petitioner’s appli­
cation aforesaid in that the Petitioner appealed as to her 
application successively to the President and the Board 
of Regents, but has not been able to get any satisfactory 
and definite action on her appeal, and there is no other 
authority within the University of Maryland organiza­
tion to whom she can now appeal. Upon information and 
belief your Petitioner avers that her application was re­



4

fused wrongfully and arbitrarily solely because of her 
race and color and in direct contravention of the provi­
sions of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution 
of the United States, 8 U. S. C. 41, and the Supreme Court 
decisions of the United States.

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

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

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

Wherefore: Your Petitioner prays this Honorable 
Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directed to the Re­
spondents, Harry C. Byrd, President and Executive Head 
of the University of Maryland, Edgar F. Long, Director 
of Admissions of the Baltimore Schools of the University 
of Maryland, Florence Meda Gipe, Director of School 
of Nursing of the University of Maryland, and William 
P. Cole, Jr., Stanford Z. Rothschild, J. Milton Patterson, 
Peter W. Chichester, Edward F. Holter, E. Paul Knotts, 
Charles P. McCormick, Harry H. Nuttle, Philip C. 
Turner, Millard E. Tydings, and Mrs. John L. White-



5

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

DONALD G. MURRAY,
CHARLES H. HOUSTON , 

Solicitors for Petitioner.
ESTHER McCREADY.

(Affidavit attached.)

ANSWER
Harry C. Byrd, President; William P. Cole, Jr., Stan­

ford Z. Rothschild, J. Milton Patterson, Peter W. Chi­
chester, Edward F. Holter, E. Paul Knotts, Charles P. 
McCormick, Harry H. Nuttle, Philip C. Turner, Millard 
E. Tydings, Mrs. John L. Whitehurst, constituting the 
Board of Regents of the University of Maryland; Florence 
Meda Gipe, Director of School of Nursing; and Edgar F. 
Long, Director of Admissions of the University of Mary­
land, by Hall Hammond, Attorney General, and Kenneth



6

C. Proctor, Assistant Attorney General, their attorneys, 
in answer to the Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed 
against them respectfully shows unto your Honor:

(1) Answering paragraph First, the Respondents ad­
mit that Esther McCready is a Negro, eighteen (18) years 
of age and, at all times material, was and is a citizen and 
resident of the United States and the State of Maryland. 
Further answering said paragraph, the Respondents ad­
mit that, by application dated February 1, 1949 and re­
ceived by the Respondents on February 2, 1949, the Peti­
tioner applied for admission as a first year student in the 
School of Nursing of the University of Maryland for the 
academic year beginning August 8, 1949.

Further answering said paragraph, the Respondents 
say that the general policy of the State of Maryland re­
garding education has always been to segregate the 
white and Negro races; that for many years the State of 
Maryland, in the development of its secondary public 
schools and of the University of Maryland, has attempted 
to and, as herein set forth, now does provide facilities 
which are equal for both white and Negro races; that, in 
furtherance of said policy, the Governor of the State of 
Maryland entered into a Compact dated February 8,1948, 
known as “The Regional Compact” , with the Governors 
of the States of Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Alabama, 
Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas, North Carolina, South 
Carolina, Texas, Oklahoma, West Virginia and the Com­
monwealth of Virginia; that the General Assembly of 
Maryland, by Chapter 282 of the Laws of 1949, approved, 
confirmed and ratified said Compact, the Act of approval 
being effective June 1, 1949; that said Compact has been 
approved by proper legislative action by more than six 
of the aforesaid states, and is now in full force and effect; 
that The Regional Compact makes provision for education, 
in the professional, technological, scientific, literary and 
other fields, of all citizens of the several signatory States, 
regardless of race or creed, at jointly owned and operated 
regional educational institutions in the Southern States;



7

that the educational advantages and facilities contempla­
ted by and provided under The Regional Compact for 
the citizens of the several States, regardless of race or 
creed, who reside within said region fully comply with 
the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment of the 
Constitution of the United States, 8 U. S. C. 41, and of 
the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Further answering said paragraph, the Respondents 
say that on August 13, 1949, the Respondent Edgar F. 
Long wrote to the Petitioner regarding the aforesaid ap­
plication, copy of the letter is annexed hereto, marked 
“Respondents’ Exhibit A” and is prayed to be taken as 
a part hereof; that the Petitioner was advised that, in ac­
cordance with the aforesaid policy of the State of Mary­
land that the provisions of The Regional Compact, afore­
said, she is authorized to study nursing at the Meharry 
Medical College, Nashville, Tennessee, which is an insti­
tution under The Regional Compact to which the signa­
tory States will send students for medical, dental and 
nursing education; that arrangements will be made so 
that Petitioner’s total expenses, incidental to attending 
Meharry Medical .College, School of Nursing, including 
necessary travel and room and board, will not exceed 
what it would cost her to attend the University of Mary­
land; that Meharry Medical College, School of Nursing, 
affords the same kind and quality of education as the 
University of Maryland School of Nursing; that the Peti­
tioner was requested to contact the Director of Admis­
sions of the University of Maryland, who will advise her 
as to the procedure to be employed for admission to Me­
harry Medical College, School of Nursing; that it is neces­
sary, under The Regional Compact, that Petitioner’s ap­
plication be certified to Meharry Medical College by the 
Director of Admissions of the University of Maryland.

Further answering said paragraph, the Respondents 
deny that the University of Maryland authorities have 
refused to pass on Petitioner’s application, and allege that 
they have handled said application in the manner just de­
scribed. Further answering said paragraph, the Respon­



8

dents admit that, since receipt of Petitioner’s application, 
similar applications of white students have been ap­
praised and passed upon.

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

(3) Answering paragraph Fifth, the Respondents 
admit the matters and facts therein set forth, 
except that the Respondents deny that the School 
of Nursing of the University of Maryland is “a 
member of the Association of American Colleges.” 
Further answering said paragraph, the Respondents 
allege that George W. Hubbard Hospital (160 beds), 
which is the teaching laboratory for the students 
of the School of Nursing of Meharry Medical College, is 
approved in every way by the various agencies interested 
in nursing education, and that, as a result, graduates of 
the School of Nursing of Meharry Medical College have 
high standing among the nursing profession.

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

(5) Answering paragraph Seventh, the Respondents 
admit the matters and facts therein set forth.



9

(6) Answering paragraph Eighth, the Respondents ad­
mit the matters and facts set forth except as hereinafter 
noted. Further answering said paragraph, the Respon­
dents admit that the Petitioner has appealed as to her 
application successively to the President and the Board 
of Regents of the University of Maryland, but deny that 
she has not been able to get any satisfactory and definite 
action on her appeal, and allege that said application is 
being and will be handled in the manner described in 
paragraph (1) of this Answer and in Respondents’ Ex­
hibit A.

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

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



10

it fully meets the obligation of the State of Maryland to 
the Petitioner under said Amendment and decision.

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

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

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

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

And as in duty bound, etc.
/S /  HALL HAMMOND,

Attorney General.

/S /  KENNETH C. PROCTOR, 
Assistant Attorney General.

Attorneys for Respondents.

State of Maryland, Baltimore City, To wit:
I Hereby Certify that on this 23 day of August, 1949, 

before me, the subscriber, a Notary Public of the State 
of Maryland, in and for Baltimore County, personally ap­
peared Edgar F. Long, Director of Admissions of the Uni­
versity of Maryland, and made oath in due form of law 
that the matters and facts stated in the foregoing Answer 
are true to the best of his knowledge, information and be­
lief .



11

As W itness my hand and notarial seal, the day and 
year last above written.
(Notary Seal) /S /  AGNES T, CONROY,

Notary Public.

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

/S /  KENNETH C. PROCTOR,
Asst. Attorney General.

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBIT A
August 13, 1949.

Miss Esther McCready 
506 North Dallas Street 
Baltimore 5, Maryland
Dear Miss McCready:

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

The General Assembly of Maryland (Laws of 1949, 
Chapter 282), in its session last winter, authoriized the 
State of Maryland to enter into a compact with certain 
other states relating to the development and maintenance 
of regional educational services and schools in the pro­
fessional, technological, scientific, literary and other 
fields. This compact applies to both white and Negro 
students. This compact has been ratified by the requi­
site number of states and is now in effect. The State of 
Maryland has already sent to the University of Georgia, 
under this compact arrangement, ten white students to



12

study veterinary medicine. Arrangements have been 
made whereby the Meharry Medical College at Nashville, 
Tennessee, has become a compact institution to which the 
signatory states will send students for Medical,' Dental 
and Nursing education.

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

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

Very truly yours,
EDGAR F. LONG,

Director of Admissions.

REPLICATION TO RESPONDENTS’ ANSWER 
To the Honorable, the Judge of Said Court :

The Petitioner, Esther McCready, minor, by Elizabeth 
McCready, her next friend and parent, through her at­
torneys Charles H. Houston, Donald G. Murray, and R. 
L. Carter for reply to Respondents’ answers to peti­
tioner’s petition for Writ of Mandamus, respectfully 
shows unto your Honor:

First : That in reply to Respondents’ anwser paragraph 
one the State of Maryland is under an obligation to furn­
ish petitioner, in accordance with the Constitution and



13

laws of the United States and of the State of Maryland, 
facilities and opportunities for the study of nursing equal 
to those being furnished whites, and that this obligation 
must be met as soon as such facilities are made available 
to any other group, race or person who is a citizen of the 
State of Maryland.

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

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

In further reply to paragraph one and particularly the 
fourth sub-paragraph of the same of the Respondents’ 
answer the petitioner admits that her application has 
been handled in the manner “just described” but deny 
that the said manner of handling the application was in 
the true interest of the petitioner and avers that the in­
tent therein was to stop the petitioner from insisting on



14

her rights as set forth under the Fourteenth Amendment 
of the Constitution of the United States, the laws enacted 
in conformity therewith, the Constitution and laws of 
the State of Maryland and the decisions of the Court of 
Appeals of Maryland and the Supreme Court of the 
United States. In further reply to this same portion of 
the Respondents’ answer the Petitioner upon information 
and belief avers that the Respondents have not advised 
any white students with “ similar applications” to that of 
the petitioner “as to the procedure to be employed for ad­
mission to Meharry Medical College, School of Nursing” 
and petitioner avers her willingness and readiness to at­
tend the University of Maryland School of Nursing on 
the same terms and conditions as any other student white 
or otherwise.

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

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

Fourth: That the Petitioner in reply to Respondents’ 
set forth in paragraph six (6) of their answer says that 
her application was wrongfully and arbitrarily refused 
solely because of her race and color and in direct con­
travention of the provisions of the Fourteenth Amend­
ment of the Constitution of the United States. In further 
answer, the Petitioner states that provisions for her edu­
cation solely because of her race and color at the School 
of Nursing at the Meharry Medical College, Nashville, 
Tennessee is racial discrimination within the intendment



15

of the Constitution and the laws of the United States and 
of the State of Maryland, and that it will be impossible 
for her under such provision to secure an education equal 
to that being offered whites at the University of Mary­
land within the meaning of the Constitution and laws of 
the United States and of the State of Maryland and in 
accordance with decisions of the United States Supreme 
Court and the Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland.

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

A nd, as in Duty Bound, etc.
ESTHER McCREADY, 

Petitioner.
CHARLES H. HOUSTON, 
DONALD G. MURRAY,

Attorneys for Petitioner.

State of Maryland, Baltimore City, to wit:
I Hereby Certify that on this 9th day of September, 

1949, before me, the subscriber, a Notary Public of the 
State of Maryland, in and for Baltimore City aforesaid, 
personally appeared Esther McCready, and made oath in 
due form of law that the matters and facts stated in the 
foregoing Replication are true to the best of her knowl­
edge, information and belief.

As W itness my hand and notarial seal, the day and 
year first above written.

DOROTHY LEWIS,
Notary Public.



16

I Hereby Certify that copies of the within Replication 
were mailed this 9th day of September, 1949, to Hall 
Hammond, Attorney General, O’Sullivan Building, Bal­
timore, Maryland, and Kenneth C. Proctor, Assistant 
Attorney General, O’Sullivan Building, Baltimore, Mary­
land, attorneys for Respondents.

/S /  DONALD G. MURRAY,

ORDER
It is this 10th day of October, 1949, by the Baltimore 

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

above titled case be and it hereby is dismissed; and it is 
further

Ordered that the Petitioner pay the cost of these pro­
ceedings.

/S /  W. CONWELL SMITH,
Judge.

DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT NO. D
CONTRACT FOR TRAINING IN NURSING 

EDUCATION
This A greement, made and entered into this 19th day 

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

WITNESSETH:
W hereas, on the 8th day of February, 1948, the State 

of Maryland and other Southern States, through and by 
their respective governors, ̂ entered into a written com­



17

pact relative to the development and maintenance of re­
gional educational services and schools in the Southern 
States in the professional, technological, scientific, liter­
ary, and other fields, so as to provide greater educational 
advantages and facilities for the citizens of the several 
states who reside within such region; and

Whereas, the said compact has been amended in cer­
tain respects and the Compact and amendments have 
been ratified by the State of Maryland by :

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

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

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

Whereas, the Contracting Party is desirous of enroll­
ing qualified students in an accredited school of nursing 
education; and

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

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

1. The Board

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

lowing school of nursing education:
Meharry Medical College, School of Nursing, Nash­

ville, Tennessee
for first year students from the State of Maryland, to be 
selected from applicants certified by the Contracting 
Party. Said quota shall be continued through each sue-



18

eeeding college class until it applies to all years of in­
struction desired by the Contracting Party.

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

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

(d) To use monies received under this contract ex­
clusively for meeting, in part, the operating and mainten­
ance costs incurred by the named institutions in provid­
ing training under this agreement.

II. The Contracting Party

The Contracting Party covenants and agrees to do 
the following:

(a) To publish in an appropriate state publication the- 
preparatory curriculum for training in nursing educa­
tion, and state where instruction in nursing education 
will be offered and the circumstances under which it will 
be offered.

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

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

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



19

III. Duration of Contract

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

IV. Relationship of the Council to Contracting
Party

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

In W itness Whereof, the Board of Control for 
Southern Regional Education, by authority delegated 
in its duly authorized By-Laws, has approved this agree­
ment and caused its name to be signed hereto by John E. 
Ivey, Jr., its Director, and its official seal to be affixed 
hereto and attested by W. J. McGlothlin, its Associate 
Director; and the State of Maryland, by and through its 
Governor, has approved this agreement and caused its 
name to be signed hereto by His Excellency, William 
Preston Lane, Jr., its Governor, and its official seal to 
be affixed hereto and attested by Bertram L. Boone, II,



20

its Secretary of State, the day and year first above 
written.

BOARD OF CONTROL FOR SOUTHERN 
REGIONAL EDUCATION

ATTEST:

/S /  W. J. McGLOTHLIN,
Associate Director.

By /S /  JOHN E. IVEY, JR.,
Director.

STATE OF MARYLAND
By /S /  Wm. PRESTON LANE, JR.

Governor.
ATTEST:

/S /  BERTRAM L. BOONE, II,
Secretary of State.

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

sel for Plaintiff and for the Respondents in open Court 
that the minor Plaintiff, Miss Esther McCready, is a 
Negro citizen of the United States, and the State of Mary­
land, resident in the City of Baltimore, at 506 North 
Dallas Street; that she is eighteen years of age, born in 
Baltimore January 10, 1931; that she meets all of the edu­
cational and moral qualifications for admission to the 
School of Nursing of the University of Maryland; that 
on February 1, 1949 she duly made application for admis­
sion for the first year class, School of Nursing of the Uni­
versity of Maryland. The Respondents admit that her 
educational and moral qualifications are equivalent, if 
not superior to some of the educational qualifications of 
white students who have been admitted to the first year 
class of the School of Nursing, and whose applications



21

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

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

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

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

forth in our Act of Ratification, Chapter 282, has been rat­



22

ified and approved by the Legislatures of all of the sig­
natory States excepting Texas, Virginia, and West Vir­
ginia, and that the Compact is now in full force and ef­
fect, I would like to add that to the stipulation.

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

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

is no doubt they have segregated schools.
*  *  *  Jfc *  &

(Tr. pp. 70-88):
DR. EDGAR F. LONG,
4401 Holly Hill Road,
College Heights,
Hyattsville, Md.

a witness of lawful age, produced on behalf of the Peti­
tioner, having been first duly sworn according to law, 
was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION 
By Mr. Houston:

Q. State your official position, please? A. Director of 
Admissions.

Q. For the University of Maryland? A. Director of 
Admissions for the University of Maryland.

Q. Does that include—what schools does it include? 
A. The schools both at College Park and the professional 
schools in Baltimore, with the execption of the graduate 
school at College Park.

Q. Does that include all of the schools that are cov­
ered in the provisions of the Regional Compact? A. 
Yes, sir, so far as I know. I am not aware what the ar­



23

rangement is in connection with the graduate program 
I cannot state as to that.

Q. By graduate program you mean the graduate pro­
gram in arts and sciences? A. Anything beyond the 
baccalaureate degree.

Q. (Mr. Proctor) You mean leading to Master of Arts 
and Sciences, Doctor of Philosophy? A. Yes, sir.

Q. (Mr. Houston) You are familiar with it so far as 
concerning the professional courses, dentistry, medicine, 
nursing, veterinarian, music, and so forth?

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

(Mr. Houston) No, I ask you whether you are Direc­
tor of Admissions for all of the schools? A. Yes.

Q. Which are under the Regional Compact—embrac­
ing all of the Regional Compact Division? A. I answer 
that with the exception of the graduate school about 
which I do not know.

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

Q. That is the only exception you are making? A. 
Yes, sir.

Q. Now, you are admision officer of the school of 
Nursing? A. I am.

Q. You handle all of the applications for admission 
to the first year nursing class? A. I do.

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

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

tions in the School of Nursing, the first year class, you



24

received after February 1, 1949? A. I have a list of all 
here but I have not summed that list in terms of dates.

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

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

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

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

class or October class or both?
(Mr. Houston) I am really inquiring about both. I 

want the number of applications from students subse­
quently admitted whose applications were received after 
February 1, 1949 in both the August and the October 
classes? A. To answer that question specifically would 
mean going through these carefully and picking up the 
number before and those after. I can answer your ques­
tion by saying that there are numerous applications of 
accepted students in the School of Nursing received 
after the date of submission of Miss McCready’s applica­
tion.

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

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

(The Court) What was the normal time taken to ac­
cept or reject an application? A. That depends but in



25

this case an acknowledgment was made of application 
but no disposition of it was made until a later date, the 
letter indicating the date.

Q. (Mr. Houston) No, what I want to know is this—
(The Court) Mr. Houston wants to know about other 

cases, not Miss McCready. What time was required 
either to accept or reject these other applications nor­
mally? A. An indefinite answer would necessarily have 
to be given to that question. Normally we start working 
on an application as soon as we get it; whether the appli­
cant follows up promptly in supplying all of the re­
quired data or not determines how long it takes to dispose 
of the case.

Q. (Mr. Houston) The question was assuming all data 
complete how long does it normally take? A. The 
answer to that has to be indefinite for the reason that 
School of Nursing Committee on Admissions meets peri­
odically. When there is a group of applications whose 
records are complete this committee meets and makes 
selection from among those.

Q. Give us the average to the best of your ability? A. 
It would have to be a pure guess. I should say a week.

Q. Now, these records here show that this application 
was received February 2, 1949 and not acted on until 
August 13, 1949? A. Correct, so far as I know. I am 
willing to accept that.

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

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

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

Q. Why? A. The answer to that question is given in 
the answer to the suit, separate education for Negroes 
and whites in the State of Maryland.



26

Q. In other words, you purposely held that application 
solely because she was a Negro? A. Yes.

Q. Now, normally who acts on applications for admis­
sion to the School of Nursing? A. The committee I 
mentioned a while ago, of which I am chairman.

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

Q. Who is Mrs. McGovern? A. Assistant to Miss Gipe, 
present with Miss Gipe In Court,

Q. Who else? A. Mrs, Zeck.
Q. Who is Mrs. Zeck? A. She is instructor In the 

School of Nursing and assistant In education.
Q. So the committee consists of four, three persons out 

of the School of Nursing and yourself ? A. Miss Weman, 
Secretary of the school also sits in on the sessions; 
whether she is considered a voting member or not I don’t 
know. I think she is there for recording purposes.

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

Q. Did this committee ever vote upon the application 
of the Plaintiff? A. It did not.

Q. Why? A. Because we were not in position to de­
termine policy with respect to an application made by a 
member of the Negro race.

Q. By “we” you mean your committee? A. The com­
mittee including myself.

Q. When you wrote your letter of August 13, 1949, in­
troduced in evidence as Defendant’s Exhibit No. E, did 
you get all of the information contained in that letter 
from your own knowledge or were you advised? A. I 
was advised.



27

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

vice contained in your letter of August 13, 1949? A. I 
would have to have prompting on that because I don’t 
know the exact date. It was only, so far as I can recall 
the date, a few days before the letter was written, say 
two or three.

Q. Was the advice written or was it verbal? A. It 
was written.

Q. Will you produce that written advice? A. You 
have it in the letter which was sent to the Plaintiff.

Q. Will you produce for us the written advice which 
President Byrd gave you? A. That was a mistatement. 
What I meant I mean the letter which was sent to be sent 
out; it was prepared for my signature.

Q. Who prepared the letter for your signature? A. I 
have no way of knowing.

Q. From whom did you get the letter? A. From Mr. 
Proctor, isn’t that correct? That is the first time I knew 
of the existence of the letter when I got it from you.

Q. Is it normal for you to get letters which answer the 
applications of students from an Assistant Attorney 
General of the State of Maryland? A. No, quit unusual.

Q. In connection with that were there any other ap­
plications of Negro students opened in your office for ad­
mission to the University of Maryland in schools other 
than nursing that you handled in the same way that you 
handled the McCready application?

(Objected to.)
A. Yes, sir.
(Mr. Houston) On the theory of showing that this is 

not a special treatment as far as nursing and to establish 
a general policy.



28

(The Court) I think you have a right to show that. 1 
will overrule the objection.

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

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

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

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

Q. Solely because they came from Negro students? 
A. Yes,

Q. You took the same action on them?
(Mr. Proctor) As a matter of mechanics.
Q. (Mr. Houston) I ask you if all of the other appli­

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

Q. Solely because they were Negroes?
(Mr. Proctor) That is not accurate. There were three 

of them seeking admission to the College of Engineer­
ing, and the Home Economics course, of which two were 
accepted and sent to the Maryland State College at Prin­
cess Anne.



29

Q. (Mr. Houston) Let me put it this way: All of the 
applications of Negro students applying to the University 
of Maryland, except applications to the School of Law, 
were rejected so far as admisions to the Baltimore schools 
or to the schools at College Park? A. The answer is yes.

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

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

Q. That is engineering course at Princess Anne? A. 
I am in no position to answer that question.

(Mr. Proctor) I object to that.

(Mr. Houston) I am trying to find out the course of 
treatment, that is all.

(Objected to.)

(Objection overruled.)

Q. (Mr. Houston) One application was for home eco­
nomics. I understand that student was admitted and re­
ferred to Princess Anne, is that correct? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that again was solely because she was a Negro? 
A. Yes.

Q. There was applications for pharmacy. Is there a 
College of Pharmacy at the University of Maryland? A. 
There is.

Q. In 1949 after the applications of these Negroes were 
received were white students admitted to the first year 
class of the College of Pharmacy? A. They were.

Q. Were these applications from Negroes rejected 
solely because of color? A. Yes.

Q. There was an application also for dentistry?



30

(Mr. Proctor) There was one on the merits.
(Mr. Houston) A student did not measure up, you 

mean?
(Mr. Proctor) Yes.
(Mr. Houston) If that is so that is out.
Q. (Mr. Houston) There was an application in dentis­

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

Q. This student was rejected solely because of color 
and referred to Meharry? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, Dr. Long, I understand that you sent certain 
white students to the University of Georgia for vetern- 
ariary medicine? A. That is correct.

(The Court) That was under the Regional Contract.
(Mr. Houston) Yes, but the point I am making, does 

the University of Maryland have this same course in 
veternariary medicine that you sent students to the Uni­
versity of Georgia to take? A. No.

Q. (Mr. Houston) Have you sent, under the Regional 
Compact, any white student outside of the State of Mary­
land to take a course which was offered at the University 
of Maryland? A. Not to my knowledge.

O. The only students who have been sent out of the 
State—

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

students.
(Mr. Houston) They do not send them out of the 

State. They turn them down and they will go where they
please.



31

Q. (Mr. Houston) My question was: there was no 
white Maryland student who applied for admission to 
the University of Maryland who was found qualified, 
and notwithstanding sent out of the State, to study in 
any other State, courses open at the University of Mary­
land? A. No.

Q. All of the students whom the State of Maryland 
admitted sending outside of the State to study courses 
that were offered at the State University were Negro 
students? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And they were sent out solely because of race? A. 
Yes, were to be sent.

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

dent of Maryland who applied for the first year course 
in nursing was sent out of the State to study first year 
course of nursing, which was offered at the University 
of Maryland? A. No.

Q. Did you have any other white students who were 
sent—any white Maryland resident students who were 
sent out of the State under the Regional Compact except 
the students in veteranarian medicine? A. Not to my 
knowledge.

Q. Did you refer any of those white students—Mary­
land white students who wanted veternarian medicine to 
Tuskegee Institute? A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Do you have any other school under the Regional 
Compact for training of nurses except Meharry Medical 
College? A. I have no information on that question.

(Mr. Houston) That is all.
(Mr. Proctor) That is all.

(Examination concluded.)



32

(Mr. Houston) We rest, your Honor.
(The Court) I think as abundant precaution you 

ought to move to strike out all of the testimony that re­
fers to Meharry College.

(Mr. Houston) I do so move at the present time. I 
was going to do that when I started to argue but I sup­
pose now is the time. I so move.

(The Court) Motion overruled.
(Exception granted.)

«  ❖  % *  #  *

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

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

It is plain enought that the State cannot refuse the op­
portunity to study law within the State to Negroes if it 
permits white students to study law in a State college 
within the State. It is likewise clear that within the 
State, on the present decisions, a policy of segregation 
of the races in education may be maintained provided 
only that substantially equal facilities are granted, and 
that provided that substantially equal opportunities and 
facilities are provided the State is not guilty of discrimi­
nation or violation of Constitutional rights if it provides 
separate institutions to separate the races in its educa­
tion work.

In the cases of law students, the decision of the Court 
in this State in the Murray case has operated as a prece­
dent. At the time the Murray case was decided the State 
was providing for the education of Negro law students by 
sending them on scholarship to Howard University in 
Washington, which is admittedly a very fine institution 
and gave them an excellent course in law, but the Court 
here decided that that arrangement was not a satisfac­
tory discharge of the State’s obligation to Negro students 
who desired to study law, and the reasons given for it



33

were that it was doubly expensive and inconvenient to 
attend Howard University, and that a student there was 
deprived of the opportunity to study Maryland law and 
practice to the same degree that he would be permitted 
to do in attending a course at the University of Mary­
land. Somewhat related questions about the provision 
of separate but substantially equal facilities on inter­
state carriers have been decided, and I have noted with 
some interest that in a case now pending before the 
Supreme Court which involves the furnishing of dining 
facilities on an interstate railroad the Government’s brief 
will urge the Supreme Court that the segregation doc­
trine is so out-dated that it no longer deserves a place 
in our law and that the Court overrule the fifty-year old 
separate but equal facilities doctrine.

I must remind counsel that this Court feels it is bound 
by existing decisions, by what has already been decided, 
and not by any reasonable tendency rule. If something 
different is to be decided it would have to be decided by 
the Supreme Court; this Court is bound by the decisions 
already made on the subject of education and the policy 
of segregation in the State’s discharge of its obligation 
to furnish education facilities to its citizens. It is per­
fectly true that the language of the opinion of the Su­
preme Court in the Gaines case indicates that the Court, 
while referring to the Murray case, does not adopt the 
full retionale of the opinion and does not rely heavily 
on the question of the desirability of obtaining a legal 
education in the place where one proposes to practice 
his profession, but it nevertheless remains true that the 
Court has not condemned the use of scholarships and the 
exchange of educational facilities in application to other 
fields of education other than the study of law.

The Regional Compact which has been introduced in 
evidence here, and which is, according to the statements 
made to the Court, which I have no reason to question, 
actually in operation, was certainly made in good faith, 
and I have no reason to doubt that the training in nurs­



34

ing which is offered at the Meharry Medical College is in 
every respect equal to the training which is offered here­
by the University of Maryland in the University Hospital 
nursing school.

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

(Mr. Houston) May I ask what your Honor does writh. 
the express admission that the purpose of this is to main­
tain the segregation policy in the State of Maryland? 
That is one. May I ask what your Honor does with the 
proposition that no white girl is sent out of the State to 
take nursing, even though Meharry is superior to the 
University of Maryland? May I ask your Honor what 
your Honor is going to do with the facts admitted of 
record that all of the Negro students where courses were



35

not offered by the State of Maryland in the segregated in­
stitution at Princess Anne, or at the University of Mary­
land School of law, were also sent out of the State solely 
because of race, and that no white student has been sent 
out of the State to study any course which is offered to 
white students within the State of Maryland?

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Mr. Houston) No, that is not my point. I am glad 
you raised that in order that the record may be straight. 
I did not say you should abolish the policy of segregation. 
What I said was that you are permitted under existing 
decisions to have segregated schools within the State 
provided the facilities are substantially equal but that 
you cannot achieve segregation by the un-Constitutional



36

means of sending Negro students outside of the State 
solely because of race, as this record shows is the uni­
form practice, with every application to the University 
of Maryland for a course which is not offered at the seg­
regated school at Princess Anne or the law school at the 
University of Maryland, when you educate white stu­
dents here in the State of Maryland at the University, 
and I do not admit that the only reason for introducing 
the evidence as to applications of the other students 
was merely the information of the Court. I say it is ab­
solutely basic to establish the fact that the uniform ad­
ministration of the University of Maryland in the hand­
ling of applications of Negro students is to make a distinc­
tion on the ground of race, and except in the law school, 
when ever a Negro student applies to the University of 
Maryland, who is otherwise qualified and he would be 
admitted if white, is sent outside of the State of Mary­
land unless there is provision for that course in the segre­
gated institution at Princess Anne.

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



37

about it are one thing, but it does not reach the limits of 
segregation,

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

argued that the luxury of prejudice has to be abandoned; 
the wasteful and extravagant policy of conducting sep­
arate schools ought to be abandoned. I thought you meant 
by that the State’s policy of segregation and separate 
schools in education ought to be scrapped and thrown 
overboard.

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

What your Honor has said in substance is that it would 
be silly to establish a separate nursing school for this 
one girl. To that I reply “perhaps” , but neither you nor 
I represent the Legislature of the State. If the Legisla­
ture should nevertheles decide to do as they did in Mis­
souri, if they conclude to appropriate $200,000 in order to 
build a separate school of nursing—out there it was law 
—neither you nor I at this particular stage can gainsay it, 
nor have we any approval of it. We are here at the 
threshold—and that is where this case is today, this case 
is at the threshold which says one of two things, that



38

the other cases are wrong when they say the State can­
not send a Negro student outside of the State to study a 
course which is offered a white student within the State.

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

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

tutions.
(Mr. Houston) Yes, fairly large number of State med­

ical institutions, that is true. Let me explain that—I 
mean we are a little bit beyond the matter of Constitu­
tional rights now but here is the situation. A State schol- 
orship law which increases the right of Negroes, or of 
white students to go outside of the State, whereas it 
may be a discrimination against the white student in 
that case, certainly would be nothing a Negro could com­
plain about if he decided to accept it. For pecuniary- 
reasons a Negro student, let us say in Mississippi, might 
very well decide, “I would rather take the money that 
Mississippi would give and go to a first rate school than 
go to the University of Mississippi”—the same thing in 
Georgia. We are an impoverished people. A  State 
scholarship might mean the difference between a boy re­
maining a red-cap or porter, because he would not have 
the money to pay the tuitions, and becoming a profes­
sional man by going to a school for which he had a schol­
arship. That is the reason, frankly, why in so many in­
stances these Negroes have not raised the challenge. 
When we tried the Gaines case and when we tried the 
Murray case that very issue was before us and we had to 
decide it, and that issue was this: would it be better not 
to make an attack on the State scholarship laws because 
we might be effecting an entire generation of students, 
Negro students, or better to make a strict attack on the 
question of Constitutionality and let the future take



39

care of itself, and the final decision was the decision we 
made, to make the attack on the Constitutional basis and 
the Gaines case is the result. There are many students 
who are still taking State scholarships and so far as that 
is concerned that is their business. All we say is that 
the State may very well drain off a considerable part of 
its Negro problem by the Negro voluntarily taking that 
money and going, but we have said this: we have said 
that the issue as to these students who come up and want 
to study within the State, as a fundamental issue of Con­
stitutional right, cannot be compromised by the fact 
that some other students conclude to go outside of the 
State, and there we are running right into the teeth of 
the Supreme Court in the Gaines case, and the Mitchell 
case, and also in the Shelly v. Kramer case, which is a 
matter of restrictive Government decision just handed 
down, so on that basis I respectfully wish, since your 
Honor misconstrued the basis of my argument, to ask you 
to reconsider, because you are not attacking segrega­
tion, you are attacking exclusion. What Maryland does 
to its citizens inside of the State is one issue, but Mary­
land cannot under the Constitution exclude, and have 
one rule for Negroes to go outside of the State to study 
courses which are offered white students within the 
State, and the evidence it sends white students outside 
of the State for courses not offered in the State is no 
justification for Maryland sending Negro students out 
of the State for courses offered within the State, and the 
State cannot do by this, which cannot raise any Consti­
tutional authority, by Compact with any other States 
with or without the authority of Congress, and that is 
my simple argument, and it is on that basis—

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

(Mr. Houston) Yes, sir.
(The Court) As a precedent which controls where- 

ever the State attempts to furnish education to its citi­



40

zens. I do not so regard it but merely as appliciable to 
education in law. It is true that in the Gaines case a 
scholarship to a college of a neighboring State was con­
demned by the Supreme Court as an inadequate substi­
tute for the discharge of the State’s obligations to furnish 
the same education to Negroes that it furnished to whites, 
and I am quite ready to agree that the substitute educa­
tion to be offered under this Regional Pact is no different 
substantially and is no different in law from the substi­
tute offered by the individual State under scholarships 
to an institution in a neighboring State. I think the sub­
stitute that is offered is substantially the same thing and 
if it be true that the Gaines case is a precedent which 
condemns such a substitute then I am wrong in my con­
clusion.

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

(The Court) Right.
(Mr. Houston) So that the basic principal on which 

your Honor decides this case is that there is a distinc­
tion between law and nursing so far as the Constitution 
is concerned.

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



41

PETITION BY THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR 
SOUTHERN REGIONAL EDUCATION TO 

INTERVENE AS AMICUS CURIAE
To the Honorable, the Judge of Said Court:

Now comes the Board of Control for Southern Regional 
Education, a joint agency of the States of Florida, Mary­
land, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkan­
sas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama and Okla­
homa, by James A. Mackay and O. Bowie Duckett, its at­
torneys, and in order to clarify its purpose and position 
respectfully represents:

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

2. Three fields of regional service have been estab­
lished by The Board of Control, namely, human medi­
cine, dentistry and veterinary medicine.

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

4. The Board’s position is that it shall make regional 
arrangements to supplement educational facilities within 
States. It is not the purpose of the Board that the re­



42

gional compact and the contracts for educational service 
thereunder shall serve any State as a legal defense for 
avoiding responsibilities established or defined under the 
existing State and Federal laws and Court decisions.

W herefore. Petitioner prays that it be allowed to in­
tervene and may have such other and further relief as 
may be just in the premises.

JAMES A. MACKAY,
James A. Mackay,
O. BOWIE DUCKETT,
O. Bowie Duckett,

Attorneys for the Board of Control 
for Southern Regional Education*

GEORGIA 
FULTON COUNTY

Personally appeared before the undersigned officer duly 
authorized to administer oaths John E. Ivey, Jr., who be­
ing first duly sworn, deposes and says that his is the 
Director of the Board of Control for Southern Regional 
Education and that the allegations contained in the fore­
going intervention are true and correct.

JOHN E. IVEY, JR., 
John E. Ivey, Jr.

Subscribed and sworn to before me th is.... day of Octo­
ber, 1949.

ALVIN FRISCH,
(Seal) Notary Public, Georgia, State at Large.

My Commission Expires March 10,1950.



43

In the Baltimore City Court.

Esther McCready, minor 
by Elizabeth McCready her 

next friend and parent 
506 N. Dallas Street,

vs.
Harry C. Byrd, President, 

et al

ORDER
Upon the aforegoing Petition and Affidavit, the Board 

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

W. CONWELL SMITH,
Chief Judge.