Meredith v. Fair Transcript of Record Vol. I

Public Court Documents
January 1, 1962

Meredith v. Fair Transcript of Record Vol. I preview

Date is approximate.

Cite this item

  • Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Meredith v. Fair Transcript of Record Vol. I, 1962. ebee9075-bd9a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/c6c4a972-fde2-4379-a5c1-6e582ab6cf57/meredith-v-fair-transcript-of-record-vol-i. Accessed July 16, 2025.

    Copied!

    TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD

UNITED STATES
COURT of APPEALS

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

No.

JAMES H. MEREDITH,
APPELLANT

VERSUS

CHARLES DICKSON FAIR, ETC., ET AL,
APPELLEES

VOLUME I

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

Jackson Division



I N D E X

Volume I - Meredith Case 
Pages 1 - 156

Caption

Complaint

Notice of Motion

Motion For Temporary Restraining Order And 
Preliminary Injunction

Motion For Order Requiring The Defendant 
Registrar To Appear For The Taking of 
His Deposition

Order To Show Cause

Notice Of Taking Depositions

Plaintiff's Objection to Taking of Deposition

Order

Order

Motion For Production
Exhibit A - Affidavit In Support of Motion 

For Production of Documents

Notice of Taking Deposition On Oral Examination

Motions of Defendant, Robert B. Ellis, Registrar 
Of The University of Mississippi, To Vacate 
Plaintiff's Notice of Taking His Deposition, And 
The Taking Thereof, and To Suspend Or Stay 
The Taking of Such Deposition.
Exhibit A - Affidavit

Motion of Defendants For Extension of Time 
Within Which to Plead 
Exhibit A - Affidavit

Order

Page No. 

1 

2

18

18

22

24

25

29

30

31

33
35

38

39 
43

47
50

53

Order 55



Motion For Preliminary Injunction 57
Notice of Motion 60
On Motions For Additional Time 61

On Dates For Filing of Answer And Arguments 79
of Motions

Notice of Taking Deposition on Oral Examination 98

Request For Amendment to Order Permitting Entry 99
Upon Property And Inspection of Records 

Notice of Motion 100
Separate Answer of Charles Dickson Fair, E .R. Jobe, 101 

The Board of Trustees of State Institutions of 
Higher Learning Of The State of Mississippi,

Volume I Page No.

Edgar Ray Izard, Leon Lowrey, Ira Lamar Morgan, 
Malcolm Mette Roberts, 'William Orlando Stone,
S. R. Evans, Verner Smith Holmes, James Napoleon 
Lipscomb, Tally D. Riddell, Harry Gordon 
Carpenter, Robert Bruce Smith H, Thomas Jefferson 
Tubb, James Davis Williams and Arthur Beverly 
Lewis

Separate Answer of Defendant, Robert B. Ellis, 104
Registrar of The University of Mississippi 
Motion of Defendant to Dismiss For Lack 131

of Jurisdiction-Immunity
Motion To Dismiss For Lack of 132

Diversity of Citizenship and Jurisdictional 
Amount

The Doctrine of Abstention 133
Exhibit A - Letter from J. H. Meredith 136
Exhibit B - Letter from Robert B. Ellis 137
Exhibit C - Letter from J. H. Meredith 138
Exhibit D - Application 139
Exhibit E - Telegram from Robert B. Ellis 140
Exhibit F - Letter from J.H. Meredith 140
Exhibit G - Letter from Robert B. Ellis 142
Exhibit H - Letter from J.H.Meredith 142
Exhibit I - Letter from J. H. Meredith 143
Exhibit J - Letter from J. H. Meredith 144
ExhibitK - Letter from J.H.Meredith 146



Vol. I Page No.

Exhibit L - Letter from Robert B. Ellis 148
Exhibit M - Letter from J, H. Meredith 150
Exhibit N - Letter from J.H. Meredith 152
Exhibit O - Letter from J.H.Meredith 153
Exhibit P - Letter from Robert B. Ellis 154
Exhibit Q - Telegram from J.H.Meredith 155
Exhibit R - Telegram from Robert B. Ellis 156



MEMORANDUM FOR CLERK, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI, JACKSON DIVISION

JAMES H. MEREDITH, On Behalf of Himself 
and Others Similarly Situated,

APPELLANT

VERSUS

CHARLES DICKSON FAIR, President of the Board 
of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher 
Learning of the State of Mississippi, ET AL,

APPELLEES

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT:

Mrs. Constance Baker Motley 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, N. Y.

Mr. Derrick A. Bell, Jr.
10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, N. Y.

Mr. R. Jess Brown
1105 1/2 Washington Street 
Vicksburg, Mississippi

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES:

Mr. Joe T, Patterson 
Attorney General

Mr. Dugas Shands and Mr. Edward L. Cates 
Assistant Attorneys General 

Mr. Charles Clark and Mr. Petter M. Stockett, Jr. 
Special Assistant Attorneys General 
State Capitol 
Jackson, Mississippi



2

C O M P  L A  IN  T 

(Filed May 31, 1961)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI 

JACKSON DIVISION

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------}

JAMES H. MEREDITH, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, )

Plaintiff, )

v. )

CHARLES DICKSON FAIR, President of the Board of )
Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning
of the State of Mississippi, Louisville, Mississippi, )

and )

EUCLID RAY JOBE, Executive Secretary of The 
Board of Trustees of State Institutions of 
Higher Learning of the State of Mississippi, 
Jackson, Mississippi,

and

)

)
CIVIL ACTION 
NO. 3130 }

)
EDGAR RAY IZARD, Hazlehurst, Mississippi;
LEON LOWREY, Olive Branch, Mississippi; )
IRA LAMAR MORGAN, Oxford, Mississippi;
MALCOLM METTE ROBERTS, Hattiesburg, Mississippi; )
WILLIAM ORLANDO STONE, Jackson, Mississippi;
S. R. EVANS, Greenwood, Mississippi; VERNER SMITH )
HOLMES, McCornb, Mississippi; JAMES NAPOLEON LIPSCOMB, 
Macon, Mississippi; TALLY D* RIDDELL, Quitman, )
Mississippi; HARRY GORDON CARPENTER, Rolling Fork, 
Mississippi; ROBERT BRUCE SMITH,H, Ripley, )
Mississippi and THOMAS JEFFERSON TUBB, West Point, 
Mississippi, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF ) 
STATE INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING,

and
)



JAMES DAVIS WILLIAMS, Chancellor of the 
University of Mississippi, Oxford, Mississippi,

3

)

)
and

ARTHUR BEVERLY LEWIS, Dean of the College of 
Liberal Arts of the University of Mississippi, 
Oxford, Mississippi,

and

ROBERT BYRON ELLIS, Registrar of the 
University of Mississippi, Oxford,
Mississippi,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

C O M P L A I N T

1. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to provi­

sions of Title 28, United States Code, p 1343(3). This is an action 

authorized by law, Title 42, United States Code, p 1983. This action 

is brought by the plaintiff to redress the deprivation, under color of 

state law, state custom, state regulation and state usage, of rights 

secured to him by the Constitution of the United States. The rights 

here sought to be secured are rights guaranteed by the due process and 

equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitu­

tion of the United States, as hereinafter more fully appears.

2. This is a proceeding for a declaratory judgment, pursuant to 

provisions of Title 28, United States Code, p 2201, for the purpose of

having this Court determine the question whether the plaintiff, and 
members of the class represented by plaintiff, as Negro citizens and



4

residents of the State of Mississippi, have a right to attend the 

University of Mississippi and other state institutions of higher learn­

ing presently limited to white students, upon the same terms and con­

ditions applicable to white citizens and residents of Mississippi.

3. This is a proceeding for a temporary restraining order with­

out notice, a preliminary and permanent injunction, enjoining the de­

fendants, and each of them, their agents, servants, employees, 

attorneys, successors, and all persons in active concert and partici­

pation with them, from:

a) refusing to consider and act expeditiously upon the 

application of the plaintiff, and members of his class, for admission 

to the University of Mississippi, and other state institutions of higher 

learning, solely because of race and color;

b) refusing to advise the plaintiff, and members of his 

class, as to the status of their applications and deficiencies with 

respect thereto, solely because of race and color;

c) refusing to admit plaintiff, and members of his class, to 

the University of Mississippi and other state institutions of higher 

learning, solely because of race and color;

d) refusing to permit plaintiff, and members of his class, 

to matriculate as students at the University of Mississippi, upon the 

same terms and conditions applicable to white students; and

e) taking any action or doing any act which interferes with, 

defeats, or thwarts the right of plaintiff, and members of his class,



5

to attend the University of Mississippi, and other state institutions of 

higher learning, upon the same terms and conditions applicable to 

white students, or which interferes with, defeats, or thwarts the law­

ful orders of this Court which are designed to secure rights of plain­

tiff, and members of his class, to attend the University of Mississippi 

and other state institutions of higher learning, upon the same terms 

and conditions applicable to white students.

4. This is a class action brought by plaintiff on behalf of him­

self and on behalf of all other Negro students in the State of M ississi­

ppi who are similarly situated and affected by the policy, practice, 

custom and usage complained of herein. Plaintiff and members of his 

class are Negro citizens and residents of the State of Mississippi who, 

by reason of their prior requisite education and citizenship status, 

have a right to apply for admission to and attend the University of 

Mississippi, and other state institutions of higher learning, upon the 

saine_.terms-and conditions applicable to white citizens similarly sit- 

uated. JI’he.members of the class are too numerous to be brought in­

dividually before this Court and are not aH known to the plaintiff, but 

there are common questions of law and fact involved, common griev­

ances arising out of a common wrong, and a common relief is sought 

for this plaintiff and all other members of the class. Plaintiff fairly 

and adequately represents the members of the class on behalf of which 

he sues.

5. The plaintiff is James Howard Meredith, an adult Negro



6

citizen of the United States and of the State of Mississippi, presently 

residing in Jackson, Mississippi. The plaintiff was born in Kosciusko, 

Attala County, Mississippi on the 25th day of June 1933. All of his 

elementary and high school education, except for the last year, was 

received in Mississippi. Plaintiff's last year of high school education 

was received at Gibbs High School, St. Petersburg, Florida, from 

which he graduated in June 1951. During the period July, 1951 to 

July, 1960, plaintiff served most of this time in the armed forces of 

the United States and was honorably discharged from the Air Force on 

July 21, 1960. In September, 1960, plaintiff entered Jackson State 

College, Jackson, Mississippi and recently completed the sophomore 

year at that institution. While in the armed service, plaintiff attended 

the University of Kansas at Lawrence, Kansas, Washburn University 

at Topeka, Kansas and the University of Maryland, Far East Division, 

and earned some college credits. Plaintiff is eligible for Immediate 

readmission to each of these institutions and his record meets the re ­

quirements of the program in the University for which he has applied.

6. The defendants are: The Board of Trustees of State Institu­

tions of Higher Learning, the members of which are: Charles Dickson 

Fair, President; Euclid Ray Jobe, Executive Secretary; Edgar Ray 

Izard, Leon Lowrey, Ira Lamar Morgan, Malcolm Mette Roberts, 

William Orlando Stone, S. R. Evans, Verner Smith Holmes, James 

Napoleon Lipscomb, Tally D. Riddell, Harry Gordon Carpenter, Robert 

Bruce Smith, H and Thomas Jefferson Tubb. The other defendants are:



7

John Davis Williams, Chancellor of the University of Mississippi; 

Arthur Beverly Lewis, Dean of The College of Liberal Arts of the 

University of Mississippi and Robert Byron Ellis, Registrar of the 

University of Mississippi.

7. Management and control of the University of Mississippi, and 

all other institutions of higher learning of the State of Mississippi are 

vested in the defendant Board of Trustees of State Institutions of High­

er Learning. The members of said Board are appointed by the Gover­

nor with the advice and consent of the Senate. Said Board has the pow­

er and authority to elect the heads of the various institutions of higher 

learning and to contract with all deans and other members of the admin­

istrative staff of the institutions under its management and control. 

(Mississippi Constitution (1956), Article 8, p 213-A; Miss. Code Ann. 

(1952), Title 24, p p 6719, 6720,6721,6722, 6723 and 6724, as amend­

ed.) The institutions of higher learning presently under the manage­

ment and control of said Board are, in addition to the University of 

Mississippi (white), Mississippi State College (white), Mississippi 

State College for Women (white), Mississippi Southern College (white) 

and Delta State Teachers College (white), Alcorn Agricultural and Me - 

chanical College (Negro), Mississippi Vocational College (Negro) and 

Jackson State College (Negro). The defendant Board is composed of 

twelve members appointed for twelve year terms in groups of four each

every four years. One member is appointed for each Congressional 

District, one for each of the three Supreme Court Districts and two



8

from the State-at-large. In addition to these twelve members, a mem­

ber is appointed from DeSoto County, who is known as the LaBauve 

trustee, to serve for the University only. There are no ex-officio 

members. The Board selects Its own president and appointed the de­

fendant Chancellor as executive head of the University, the defendant 

Dean as the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts of the University of 

Mississippi and the defendant Registrar as Registrar of the University 

of Mississippi. The Board maintains offices in the City of Jackson, 

Mississippi. The various members of the Board are all citizens of 

Mississippi residing in various districts of the State of Mississippi.

8. On January 26, 1961, the defendant Registrar sent the plain­

tiff an application form for admission to the University of Mississippi 

instructions, and a General Information Bulletin. This application 

form was duly completed by plaintiff and mailed on January 31, 1961 

to the Registrar. The application form requested information as to the 

applicant's race with which the plaintiff complied by stating that he is 

a Negro. He also advised the Registrar of his race in a letter date_ 

January 31,1961 to the Registrar which accompanied his application. 

Plaintiff sought admission to the Liberal Arts College of the University 

of Mississippi for the Second Semester of the 1960-61 school year 

which was to commence February 6, 1961. His application indicated 

that he would be a transfer student with some advance standing and also

indicated that he expected to be classified as a sophomore. The appli­
cation was received by the Registrar. Thereafter, on February 4,1961,



9

the Registrar advised the plaintiff by wire that applications for admis­

sion or registration for the Second Semester received after January 25, 

1961 were not being considered. Subsequently, on February 20, 1961, 

plaintiff wrote the Registrar advising him that he would like his appli­

cation considered a continuing application for the Summer Session be­

ginning June 8, 1961, and requested the Registrar to inform him 

whether he, the Registrar, had received all transcripts and other infor­

mation necessary to make plaintiff's application a complete one, and 

further requested immediate action on his application. The plaintiff 

did not receive a reply to this letter. Consequently, on March 18,1961, 

plaintiff again wrote the Registrar requesting that his application be 

considered a continuing one for the Summer Session and for the Fall 

Session 1961 and again requested the Registrar to advise plaintiff of 

the completeness and status of his application. Again, the plaintiff did 

not receive a reply. On March 26, 1961, the plaintiff again wrote the 

Registrar requesting that he send plaintiff an evaluation of his credits 

as a transfer student and advise him of the extent to which his credits 

would be applied toward the degree sought by plaintiff in the College of 

Liberal Arts. With this letter, the plaintiff also forwarded to the Reg­

istrar five letters from five persons, citizens and residents of M ississ­

ippi, certifying to the plaintiff's good moral character and recommend­

ing his admission to the University. In connection with his original

application, the plaintiff did furnish five such letters which did not spe­

cifically recommend his admission to the University as required by the



10

University of Mississippi Bulletin but did attest to his good moral char­

acter, Plaintiff did not receive a reply to this letter. Thereafter, on 

April 12, 1961, plaintiff wrote a letter to defendant Arthur Beverly 

Lewis, Dean of the College of Liberal Arts to which plaintiff seeks ad­

mission, reviewed the steps taken by plaintiff to secure admission to 

the University, and complained of the Registrar's failure to reply to 

his application and several letters and stated that he, plaintiff, believ­

ed the Registrar's failure to reply was based upon race and color. 

Plaintiff requested the Dean to review his case with the Registrar and 

to advise him what admission requirements, if any, he had failed to 

meet and to give him some assurance that his race and color were not 

the basis for his failure to gain admission to the University. The de­

fendant Dean did not reply to this letter. However, on May 9, 1961,the 

Registrar wrote plaintiff and advised him that he, the Registrar, had 

seen plaintiff's letter of April 12, 1961 to the Dean and advised plaintiff 

that his application had been received and would receive proper atten­

tion. The Registrar further advised plaintiff that transcripts of credits 

from the colleges listed on the plaintiff's application (the colleges pre­

viously attended by plaintiff) had been received and that each showed a 

certificate of honorable dismissal or certification of good standing in 

accordance with the admission requirements. The Registrar advised 

p laintiff, in addition, that in accordance with the standards of the Uni­

versity of Mississippi plaintiff would receive a maximum credit of forty 

eight semester hours if his application for admission as a transfer



11

student should be approved, and that Plaintiff offered a total of ninety 

semester hours credit obtained at other colleges, including Jackson 

State College, In his letter of May 9, 1961, the Registrar also request­

ed plaintiff to advise whether he desired his application "to be treated as 

a pending application. " The plaintiff replied to this letter on May 15, 

1961 and advised that he desired his application to be treated as a pend­

ing application for admission to the Summer Session# First Term, June 

1961, and requested the Registrar to advise him whether there was any­

thing further the plaintiff needed to do in order to complete his applica­

tion. Plaintiff did not receive a reply to this letter. Thereafter, on 

May 21, 1961, plaintiff again wrote the Registrar requesting information 

as to the status of his application so that he could make plans for attend­

ing the Summer Session. On May 26, 1961, plaintiff wired the Regis­

trar requesting that he be advised whether he would be admitted to the 

Summer Session. On the same date, plaintiff received a special deliv­

ery letter from the Registrar denying plaintiff’ s admission on the ground 

that plaintiff attended a non-accredited college and on the ground that he 

did not have the required citizen alumni certificates, and on other un­

disclosed grounds.

9. Applications for admission to the College of Liberal Arts of 

the University of Mississippi, to which plaintiff seeks admission, are 

submitted to the Registrar. The Bulletin of the University of Mississip­

pi requires each applicant to file with the Registrar five letters from 
responsible citizens who have known the applicant for at least two years,



12

certifying to the applicant's good moral character and recommending 

his admission to the University. An applicant who resides in M ississi­

ppi must be recommended by citizens of his county who are University 

alumni, but applicants who reside in another state may secure the nec­

essary recommendations from any five responsible citizens of his com ­

munity. Plaintiff is not able to secure recommendations by citizens of 

his county who are University alumni for the reason that plaintiff is a 

Negro citizen and resident of the State of Mississippi and there are not 

now and never have been any Negro graduates of the University of Miss­

issippi, a fact of common and historical knowledge recognized by the 

laws of Mississippi cited above establishing separate institutions of 

higher learning for Negroes. The plaintiff does not know any white 

alumni of the University of Mississippi who would recommend his ad­

mission in view of the segregation policy complained of herein and the 

State's official opposition to desegregation. Plaintiff alleges that the 

alumni certification requirement is unconstitutional as applied to him 

and other Negroes for the reason that it places a burden on Negroes 

seeking admission to the University of Mississippi which is not shared 

by white residents seeking admission to the University of Mississippi. 

The plaintiff alleges that the alumni certification requirement is uncon­

stitutional because in operation and effect it bars the admission of 

qualified Negroes to the University of Mississippi solely because they 

are Negroes.
10. Plaintiff alleges that he meets all of the requirements for



13

admission to the University of Mississippi as a transfer student; that 

he is ready, willing and able to pay all fees and tuition charges requir­

ed of all other students; and that he is ready, willing and able to abide 

by all rules and regulations of the University of Mississippi which are 

applicable to white students similarly situated.

11. Plaintiff alleges that defendants, and each of them, have 

pursued and are presently pursuing a state policy, state practice, state 

custom and state usage of maintaining and operating separate state in­

stitutions of higher learning for the White and Negro citizens of Miss­

issippi. The institutions of higher learning limited by policy practice, 

custom and usage to white students are; the University of Mississippi, 

Mississippi State College, Mississippi State College for Women, Miss­

issippi Southern College, and Delta State Teachers College. The state 

institutions of higher learning limited by defendants to Negro students 

are: Jackson State College, the college attended by plaintiff during the 

past school year, Alcorn Agricultural and Mechanical College, and 

Mississippi Vocational College. Plaintiff alleges, on information and 

belief, that pursuant to said policy, practice, custom and usage, plain­

tiff's application was not treated in the same manner as applications of 

white persons for admission to the University of Mississippi; that 

plaintiff was not advised promptly concerning the status of his applica­

tion or his ability or inability to meet requisite admission require­

ments; that plaintiff was never advised by the defendant Dean of the 

College of Liberal Arts, as requested by plaintiff, that plaintiff's race



14

and color would not be considered by the University in passing upon his 

application and would not operate to bar his admission to the University 

of Mississippi; and that an applicant for admission to the University of 

Mississippi is required to state his or her race upon the application 

blank and this information is used to prevent the unwitting admission of 

Negroes. In this case, the plaintiff in making application to the Univer­

sity plainly stated his race and stated his race in his letter to the de­

fendant Registrar which accompanied plaintiff’s application. Plaintiff 

alleges, on Information and belief, that the policy of the State of M iss­

issippi as clearly understood and interpreted by its officials and resi­

dents is that Negroes and whites are educated in separate institutions 

of higher learning. Pursuant to this policy Negroes do not generally ap­

ply for admission to the University of Mississippi or other institutions 

of higher learning maintained and operated for white persons only, al­

though many Negro citizens and residents of the State of Mississippi are 

qualified by prior requisite education, citizenship and residence for ad­

mission to such institutions. Plaintiff alleges, on information and be­

lief, that he has not been accepted as a transfer student to the University 

of Mississippi pursuant to said policy, practice, custom and usage and 

had been denied admission solely because of his race and color.

12. Plaintiff alleges that the policy, practice, custom and usage 

complained of herein has resulted and will continue to result in irrepar­

able injury to him. Plaintiff has no other adequate or speedy remedy at 

law by which his right to attend the University of Mississippi for the



15

1961 Summer Session may be secured, except by this action for de­

claratory judgment and injunction. Any other remedy to which plain­

tiff might be remitted would be attended by such uncertainties and de­

lays, in view of the state policy, practice, custom and usage complain­

ed of herein, as to result in further irreparable injury to the plaintiff 

and members of his class.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that this Court will advance this 

case on the docket and order a speedy hearing of this cause and will 

grant the following relief:

1. Issue a temporary restraining order without notice, a pre­

liminary injunction and a permanent injunction, enjoining the defend­

ants, and each of them, their agents, servants, employees, success­

ors, attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation with 

them, from:

(a) refusing to act expeditiously upon the applications of 

plaintiff and members of his class for admission to the University of 

Mississippi, or any other state institution of higher learning presently 

limited to white students;

(b) refusing to expeditiously advise plaintiff and members 

of his class of the status of their applications for admission and of the 

requirements for admission which they fail to meet;

(c) requiring plaintiff or any member of his class to furnish

certificates from alumni of the University of Mississippi?
(d) refusing to admit the plaintiff and members of his class



16

to the University of Mississippi or any other state institution of higher 

learning presently limited to white students upon the same terms and 

conditions applicable to white students;

(e) making the attendance or matriculation of plaintiff and 

members of his class at any state institution of higher learning condi­

tioned upon terms and conditions not applicable to white students sim­

ilarly situated, and

(f) interfering in any manner with the right of plaintiff and 

members of his class to register at, matriculate in, or attend the Uni­

versity of Mississippi or any other state institution of higher learning 

limited to white students;

(g) taking any action or doing any act which will impair, 

frustrate, or defeat the orders of this Court securing plaintiff's rights 

or the rights of members of his class.

2. Issue a declaratory judgment declaring the rights and other 

legal relations of the parties to this action which will have the force 

and effect of a final judgment.

3. Grant the plaintiff his costs herein, and grant him such other, 

further, additional, or alternative relief as may appear to be required 

to secure his admission to the University of Mississippi without regard 

to his race and color.

/S /  R. Jess Brown 
R. Jess Brown 
1105 1/2 Washington Street 
Vicksburg, Mississippi



17

/S /  Constance Baker Motley______ _
Constance Baker Motley 
Thurgood Marshall 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Derrick A. Bell, Jr.
Of Counsel

V E R I F I C A T I O N

State of Mississippi)
) SS.:

County of Hinds )

James Howard Meredith, being duly sworn, deposes and says 

that he resides at 1129 Maple Street, Apartment 5-D, Jackson, Miss­

issippi; that he is the plaintiff herein; that he has read the foregoing 

complaint and knows the contents thereof and that the same are true 

to the best of his knowledge and belief except as to the matters therein 

stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters 

he believes them to be true.

/S /  James H Meredith_____ __

Sworn to before me this 31

day of Mav , 1961. /S / Margaret A. Lewis ..........
Notary Public
My commission expires April 2,1962

(SEAL)
H e * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



18

NOTICE OF MOTION 
(Title omitted - Filed May 31, 1961)

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorneys for 

plaintiff will bring on for hearing before United States District Judge 

Sydney C. Mize, at the United States Court House, Biloxi, Mississippi, 

on the 12th day of June, 1961, at 9;00 o ’clock A. M ., in the forenoon 

of that day, or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, the attach­

ed motion for preliminary injunction, pursuant to the provisions of 

Rule 65 F. R. C. P.

/S /  R. Jess Brown
R. Jess Brown 
1105 1/2 Washington Street 
Vicksburg, Mississippi

/S /  Constance Baker Motley 
Constance Baker Motley 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York

Thurgood Marshall 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 
ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 
(Title Omitted - Filed May 31, 1961)

The plaintiff, upon the annexed verified complaint, moves this 

Court for a temporary restraining order without notice, and a prelim­

inary injunction, pending the final disposition of this case, and, as 

grounds therefor, relies upon the allegations of his verified complaint 

and shows the following;



19

1. The Summer Session of the College of Liberal Arts of the 

University of Mississippi commences on June 8, 1961.

2. Plaintiff has sought admission to the University of Mississip­

pi since January 31, 1961, and was not clearly denied admission by 

the Registrar of the University until May 26, 1961, the day on which 

plaintiff received a special delivery letter from the Registrar advising 

plaintiff that his admission is denied on the ground that he has attended 

a non-accredited college and on the ground that he did not furnish the 

proper certificates by citizens of Mississippi and on other undisclosed 

grounds.

3. Jackson State College, the college which plaintiff attended 

during the school year 1960 - 1961, is a state college under the juris­

diction, management and control of the defendant Board of Trustees of 

State Institutions of Higher Learning, the same as the University of 

Mississippi. The Registrar advised plaintiff by letter dated May 9, 

1961, that he would receive 48 hours credit for previous college work 

in accordance with University standards.

4. Plaintiff furnished certificates by 5 citizens of Mississippi 

attesting to his good moral character and recommending his admission 

to the University of Mississippi, but none was an alumnus of the Uni­

versity of Mississippi since plaintiff does not know any such alumni 

personally and no Negro has ever attended the University of Mississip­

pi.

5. Plaintiff has been denied admission to the University of



20

Mississippi solely because of his race and color. He has sought ad­

mission since the February 1961 term. He is duly qualified for admis­

sion as a transfer student as the letter of May 9, 1961, from the Reg­

istrar clearly indicates. He made a timely and proper application for 

admission as a transfer student. The registrar has not advised him 

that he is in any other respect unqualified for admission as a transfer 

student although the Registrar has had plaintiff’s application since 

approximately February 1, 1961, and has acknowledged that plaintiff’ s 

transcripts of credits from other accredited universities attended by 

plaintiff have been duly received by him, the Registrar, and contain the 

required certificate of honorable dismissal and eligibility for readmis­

sion.

6. There is not sufficient time in which to give the required no­

tice to each defendant before a hearing can be had on plaintiff’ s motion 

for preliminary injunction and further irreparable injury and damage 

will result to plaintiff before that time.

7. The law is well settled that state authorities cannot exclude 

qualified Negro applicants from state universities of higher learning 

solely because of race and color. This case does not raise any novel 

or unsettled questions of law or fact.

8. The Summer Session of the University of Mississippi com­

mences June 8, 1961. There is no time to appeal to higher university

officials or to exhaust any other remedy before that date. The plain­

tiff is twenty-eight years of age; has an honorable discharge from the



21

United States Air Force; is entitled to an education at the expense of 

the Federal Government because of his long years of service; and is 

attempting, in good faith, to complete his education at the earliest 

possible time and, therefore, wishes to go to college during the sum­

mer terms as well as during the regular fall and winter terms in order 

to complete his education as early as possible. Time lost now will be 

irreparable and irrevocably lost to the plaintiff unless this Court issues 

a temporary restraining order without notice and a preliminary Injunc­

tion as prayed for in the complaint.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that this Court issue a temporary 

restraining order without notice and a preliminary injunction, pending 

the final disposition of this cause, enjoining the defendants, and each of 

them, their agents, servants, employees, attorneys, successors, and 

all persons in active concert and participation with them from:

(a) refusing to admit the plaintiff to the University of Mississippi 

for the Summer Session commencing June 8, 1961, upon the same terms 

and conditions applicable to white students;

(b) making the attendance or matriculation of plaintiff condition­

ed upon terms and conditions not applicable to white students similarly 

situated, and

(c) interfering in any manner with the right of the plaintiff to reg­

ister at, matriculate in, or attend the University of Mississippi;

(d) taking any action or doing any act which will defeat, impair, 

or frustrate plaintiff’s rights as defined by this Gourt or which will



22

defeat, impair or frustrate any order of this Court securing plaintiff's 

right.

Plaintiff also prays that this Court will grant the plaintiff his 

costs herein and grant him such other, further, necessary or addition­

al relief as may appear to a court of equity to be required to secure his 

admission to the University of Mississippi without regard to his race 

and color.

/S /  R. Jess Brown______ _______
R. Jess Brown 
1105 1/2 Washington Street 
Vicksburg, Mississippi

/S /  Constance Baker Motley 
Constance Baker Motley 
Thurgood Marshall 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York

Attorneys for Plaintiff

*****

MOTION FOR ORDER REQUIRING THE 
DEFENDANT REGISTRAR TO APPEAR 
FOR THE TAKING OF HIS DEPOSITION 
( Title omitted - Filed June 5, 1961)

Comes now the plaintiff, by his undersigned attorneys, and moves 

this Court for an order pursuant to the provisions of Rule 26, Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, requiring the defendant Registrar, Robert 

Byron Ellis, to appear in Jackson, Mississippi on the 9th day of June, 

1961 at o 'clock A, M ., in the forenoon of that day for the pur­

pose of having his oral deposition taken by the plaintiff's counsel, and



23

as grounds therefor, shows the following:

1» The complaint in this action was filed on May 31, 1961 alleg­

ing, in essence, that the plaintiff has been denied admission to the Uni­

versity of Mississippi by the defendant Registrar, and others, solely 

on account of race and color.

2. With the complaint, plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary 

injunction which this Court set for hearing at Biloxi, Mississippi on 

June 12th.

3. In a letter to plaintiff, dated May 26, 1961, the Registrar ad­

vised plaintiff that he was denied admission because he has attended 

Jackson State College, a non-accredited institution, and because he did 

not have proper certificates from Mississippi citizens, and for other 

undisclosed reasons.

4. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26, provide that

a party may make pre-trial or pre-hearing discovery. The plaintiff de­

sires to discover what other reasons the Registrar has for denying 

plaintiff’ s application for admission to the University of Mississippi be­

fore the hearing on plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction on 

June 12, 1961.

5. There is not sufficient time to take the Registrar’s deposition 

without an order from this Court since 20 days from the filing of the



24

complaint have not elapsed.

/S /  R. Jess Brown 
R. Jess Brown 
1105 1/2 Washington Street 
Vicksburg, Mississippi

/S /  Constance Baker Motley 
Constance Baker Motley 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York

Thurgood Marshall 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York

Attorneys for Plaintiff

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 
(Title omitted - Filed June 5, 1961)

Upon the verified complaint filed in this case on the 31st day of 

May 1961, and the motion for preliminary injunction filed therewith, 

and the oral application this day made by the plaintiff, for authority to 

take the deposition of Robert Byron Ellis, it is:

ORDERED, that a hearing be had on the motion Meridian Miss 

at 1:00 P. M ., on the 6th day of June 1961, or as soon there­

after as counsel can be heard, to determine if an order should be is ­

sued by this Court requiring the defendant to appear in Jackson, Miss­

issippi on June 9, 1961 at the United States Court House before a duly 

authorized court reporter for the purpose of having his deposition



25

taken by the plaintiff*s counsel.

ORDERED, that service of this order to show cause, together 

with a copy of plaintiff's motion attached hereto, on the Attorney Gen 

eral of the State of Mississippi, counsel for defendant Registrar, on 

or before 6:00 P. M ., Monday, June 5, 1961 be deemed suffi­

cient service.

Issued at 2:00 P. M ., June 5th 1961.

/S / S. C. Mize_______ __
United States District Judge

O. B. 1961, Pages 226 & 227.

NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITIONS 
(Title omitted - Filed June 6, 1961)

TO: ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFF

R. Jess Brown
1105 1/2 Washington Street
Vicksburg, Mississippi

Constance Baker Motley 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York

Thurgood Marshall 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York

DEFENDANTS

Mr. Charles Dickson Fair
Louisville
Mississippi



26

Dr. Euclid Eay Jobe
Jackson
Mississippi

Mr. Edgar Ray Izard
Hazlehurst
Mississippi

Mr. Ira Lamar Morgan
Oxford
Mississippi

Mr. Malcolm Mette Roberts
Hattiesburg
Mississippi

Mr. William Orlando Stone
Jackson
Mississippi

Mr. S. R. Evans
Greenwood
Mississippi

Dr. Verner Smith Holmes
McComb
Mississippi

Mr. James Napoleon Lipscomb
Macon
Mississippi

Mr. Tally D. Riddell
Quitman
Mississippi

Mr. Harry Gordon Carpenter
Rolling Fork
Mississippi

Mr. Robert Bruce Smith, II
Ripley
Mississippi

Mr. Thomas Jefferson Tubb
West Point
Mississippi



Dr. J. D. Williams 
University of Mississippi 
Oxford, Mississippi

27

Dr. Arthur Beverly Lewis 
Dean of the College of Liberal Arts 
University of Mississippi 
Oxford, Mississippi

Mr. Robert Byron Ellis 
Registrar
University of Mississippi 
Oxford, Mississippi

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE STATE INSTITUTIONS OF 
HIGHER LEARNING

WOOLFOLK STATE OFFICE BUILDING 
JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI

You will please take notice that the Defendant, LEON LOWREY, 

Olive Branch, Mississippi, and M, M. ROBERTS of Hattiesburg, 

Mississippi will take the deposition, by oral examination, pursuant 

to the provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, of the Plain­

tiff, JAMES H. MEREDITH, in the Petit Jury Room of the Federal 

Court Building in Meridian, Mississippi, at eleven o ’clock A. M .,

8 June 1961. The deposition will be taken before an officer duly 

qualified to administer oaths.

LEON LOWREY, DEFENDANT

JOE T. PATTERSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL 
OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, DUGAS 
SHANDS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 
OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, PETER M. 
STOCKETT, JR ., SPECIAL ASSISTANT 
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF 
MISSISSIPPI, AND EDWARD L. CATES,
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE 
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, ATTORNEYS FOR



28

ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS

BY Duaas Shands________________ ___
DUGAS SHANDS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY 
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, 
ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS FOR ALL OF THE 
DEFENDANTS

ATTORNEYS' S CERTIFICATE 

I, Dugas Shands, Assistant Attorney General of the State of 

Mississippi, one of the attorneys in the above captioned matter for all 

of the Defendants and the Defendant, LEON LOWREY, do hereby cer ­

tify that I have this day served upon the Plaintiff, JAMES H.MERE^ 

DITH, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of the Taking of 

the Deposition of the Plaintiff, JAMES H. MEREDITH, by personally 

serving two copies of the said notice upon R. Jess Brown, one of the 

attorneys of record for the Plaintiff at Jackson, Mississippi, and I 

hereby further certify that I have served upon all of the other Defen­

dants true and correct copies of the foregoing Notice of the Taking of 

the Deposition of the Plaintiff, JAMES H. MEREDITH, by mailing 

postage prepaid true copies of the said Notice to all of the Defendants 

except LEON LOWREY.

Done this the 5th day of June, 1961.

/S / Duaas Shands _________
DUGAS SHANDS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY 
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI,

’ ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS FOR ALL OF THE
DEFENDANTS



29

PLAINTIFF' ,3 OBJECTION TO TAKING 
OF DEPOSITION
(Title omitted - Filed June 6* 1961)

Comes now the plaintiff, by his undersigned attorneys, and ob­

jects to the taking of his deposition pursuant to notice served upon his 

attorneys on June 5, 1961 by defendant, Leon Lowrey. Defendant,

Leon Lowrey proposes to take plaintiff’ s deposition at Meridian, M iss­

issippi, on June 8, 1961. As grounds for his objection plaintiff shows 

the following:

1. 20 days have not elasped since the filing of plaintiffs com­

plaint and pursuant to provision of R. 26, FRCP, an order of this 

court must be entered before the taking of plaintiff’ s deposition.

2. The plaintiff objects to the taking of his deposition in Merid­

ian, Mississippi and offers to have his deposition taken before a duly 

qualified reporter in Jackson, Mississippi, where he resides, on 

June 9, 1961, at 2:00 o ’clock p. m ., in the UNITED STATES COURT­

HOUSE, at the expense of defendant Lowery, before a duly sworn 

authorized court reporter.

R. Jess Brown
1105 1/2 Washington Street
Vicksburg, Mississippi

Constance Baker Motley 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York
By:
/ s /  R. Jess Brown_________
R. Jess Brown, One of the 
Attorneys for the Plaintiff



30

Thurgood Marshall 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York

Attorney's Certificate

I, Pv. Jess Brown, one of the attorneys for the Plaintiff in the 

above styled and numbered cause, do hereby certify that I have served 

upon the defendant, Leon Lowrey, a true and correct copy of the fore - 

going objection to taking deposition of plaintiff, by personally serving 

two copies of said objection upon Honorable Dugas 3hand_, one of the 

attorneys of record for said defendant and others in said cause.

R. Jess Brown_____________
R. Jess Brown, One of the 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
on behalf of himself and others 
similarly situated

O R D E R
(Title omitted - Filed June 3, 1961)

This day came on to be heard plaintiff's motion for leave or or­

der of this Court to take the deposition of Robert Byron Ellis, one of 

the defendants and Registrar of the University of Mississippi, on June 9, 

1961, at Jackson, Mississippi, and it appearing to the Court that this 

suit was filed on May 31, 1961, that the notice of the presentation of 

such motion was served upon one of the attorneys of record of said de­

fendant between the hours of 5 o'clock and 6 o'clock P. M. on Monday,



31

June 5, 1961, and the said parties plaintiff and defendant, Ellis, having 

each appeared in open Court by an attorney of record and announced 

ready on said motion, and the said Ellis opposed the granting of said 

motion, and the Court having read and considered said motion, and the 

pleadings heretofore filed, and having heard arguments of counsel, and 

being fully advised in the premises, it is considered by the Court and 

the Court doth hereby order, adjudge and decree that said motion be 

and the same is hereby denied,

Ordered, adjudged and decreed at Meridian, Mississippi, this 

the 6th day of June, 1961.

/ s /  S, C, Mize_____________
S. C. Mize, U. S. District Judge 
Southern District of Mississippi

OK as to Form:

/ s /  Constance Baker Motley 
Attorney for Plaintiff

O. B. 1961, Page 232 & 233

O R D E R
(Title omitted - Filed June 8, 1961)

This day came on to be heard plaintiff’s written objection to the 

taking of the deposition of the plaintiff, James H. Meredith, at Merid­

ian, Mississippi, at 11 o ’clock A. M. on June 8, 1961, in the petit jury 

room on the third floor of the Federal Court Building, by and on behalf 

of two of the defendants, M. M. Roberts and Leon Lowrey, and it



32

appearing to the Court that notice of the taking of said deposition was 

served by personally delivering two true copies thereof to R. Jess 

Brown, one of the attorneys of record for the said plaintiff at Jackson, 

Mississippi, between the hours of 5 o'clock and 6 o'clock P. M. on 

Monday, June 5, 1961, and said plaintiff and said defendants having 

appeared in open Court and announced ready, and the Court having read 

and considered said notice and plaintiff's written objection thereto, and 

the pleadings heretofore filed, and having heard argument of said coun­

sel thereon, and being fully advised in the premises, it is considered 

by the Court and the Court doth hereby order, adjudge and decree that 

plaintiff's objection to the taking of said deposition be and the same is 

hereby overruled, and the said deposition of said plaintiff shall be tak­

en according to said notice, but the said defendants shall pay to the said 

plaintiff mileage from Jackson, Mississippi, to Meridian, Mississippi, 

at the rate of ten cents (10$) per mile and Five Dollars ($5.00) per day 

for subsistence, and which shall be paid upon presentation by the plain­

tiff or his attorney of record of a written statement showing the amount 

of such mileage and said subsistence.

Ordered, adjudged and decreed, this the 6th day of June, 1961.

/ s /  S. C. Mize______________________
S. C. Mize, U. 8. District Judge 
Southern District of Mississippi

OK as to Form:
/ s /  Constance Baker Motley 
Attorney for Plaintiff
O.B. 1961, Page 234 & 235



33

MOTION FOR PRODUCTION 
(Title omitted - Filed June 20, 1961)

Plaintiff, James Howard Meredith, moves the Court for an order 

requiring defendants Charles Dickson Fair, et a l . :

1. To produce and to permit plaintiff's counsel or such per­

sons as plaintiff's counsel shall employ for that purpose, to inspect and 

to copy all records, including correspondence, papers, applications, 

memoranda and all other documents and reports relating to the appli­

cation and admission of each student to the University of Mississippi 

for the:

a. Second Semester of the 1960-1961 school year;

b. the Summer Sessions (First and Second) of the 1961 

school year;

c. Fall Semester of the 1961-1962 school year.

2. To permit plaintiff to enter the premises and proper 

buildings of the University of Mississippi located in Oxford, Mississip­

pi, or at any other place within the State of Mississippi, for the pur­

pose of inspecting and copying those records and documents set forth 

in Paragraph 1 above.

Defendants have the possession, custody, or control of each of 

the foregoing records and documents. Each of them constitutes or con­

tains evidence relevant and material to a matter involved in this action,



34

as is more fully shown in Exhibit A hereto attached.

/ s /  Derrick A. Bell Jr. 
Derrick A. Bell, Jr. 
Constance Baker Motley 
Thurgood Marshall 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, N. Y.

R. Jess Brown
1105 1/2 Washington Street
Vicksburg, Mississippi

Attorneys for Plaintiff

NOTICE OF MOTION

Please take notice, that the undersigned will bring the above 

motion on for hearing before this Court at the United States Court 

House, Biloxi, Mississippi, on the 2Sth day of June, 1961, at 10 o'clock 

in the forenoon of that day, or as soon thereafter as counsel can be 

heard.

/ s /  Derrick A Bell Jr. 
Attorney for Plaintiff



35

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI 

JACKSON DIVISION

1
JAMES HOWARD MEREDITH, on behalf of )
himself and others similarly situated, )

)
Plaintiff, }

) Civil Action
v* > No. 3130

CHARLES DICKSON FAIR, President of the )
Board of Trustees of State Institutions )
of Higher Learning of the State of )
Mississippi, Louisville, Mississippi, )
et a l . , )

)
Defendants. )

_______________________________________ _________________)

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS 

Exhibit A

STATE OF NEW YORK )
) ss:

COUNTY OF NEW YORK )

Constance Baker Motley, being duly sworn, deposes and

says:

1. I am one of the attorneys for the plaintiff, James Howard 

Meredith, and make this affidavit in support of a motion for discovery 

and inspection.

2. The defendants, including the Chancellor, the Registrar



36

and the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts of the University of M iss­

issippi are officers of the University and have in their possession, cus­

tody or control, all the records and documents requested in the plain­

tiff's motion for discovery.

3. The suit seeks an injunction against the defendants en­

joining them from denying to plaintiff an education at the University of 

Mississippi solely on account of race and color.

4. After receiving the plaintiff's application for admission 

to the University on or about February 1, 1961, the defendant Regis­

trar in a telegram on February 4, 1961, informed plaintiff that:

"it has been found necessary to discontinue 
consideration of all applications for 
admission or registration for the second 
semester which were received after January 
25, 1961."

5. Then on May 26, 1961, the defendant Registrar advised 

plaintiff that he was denied admission because he has attended Jackson 

State College, a non-accredited institution, and because he did not have 

proper certificates from Mississippi citizens, and for other undisclosed 

reasons.

6. It is the plaintiff's belief that plaintiff has met all consti­

tutionally required eligibility requirements for entrance to the Univer­

sity of Mississippi, that his qualifications are substantially similar to

many persons admitted to the University, and that the sole reason for 

his exclusion is race or color.

7. This case has been set for trial on July 10, 1961.



37

8. Each of the applications, letters, memoranda, books, 

records and other documents pertaining to the application of students 

to the University during the Second Semester of the 1960-1961 school 

year, and the Summer Session of the 1961 school year and Fall Session 

of the 1961-1962 school year constitutes or contains evidence relevant 

and material to one or more of the issues in this action, in that:

(a) they will enable plaintiff to determine whether any 

students were accepted by the University of the Second Semester 1960- 

1961 school year after January 25, 1961;

(b) they will enable plaintiff to determine whether all 

white students submitted certificates of recommendation from five 

alumni, and what, if any, procedures were used to help those students 

who did not know alumni who would provide such certificates;

(c) they will enable plaintiff to determine whether the 

University accepted white transfer students from white schools which 

are unaccredited.

/ s /  Constance Baker Motley 
Constance Baker Motley

Sworn to before me on this 

19th day of June . 1961.

/ s /  Marjorie H. Doswell 
Notary Public



38

Marjorie H. Doswell 
Notary Public, State Of New York 

N o.31-6082800 
Qualified in New York County 
Commission Expires March 30, 1962

(This instrument carries proper certificate of service - which is not 
copied here.)

>;<5S5s)c 4:;!i

NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION ON ORAL EXAMINATION 
(Title omitted - Filed June 23, 1961)

To the Honorable Dugas Shands, Assistant Attorney General of 

the State of Mississippi, one of the attorneys for the defendants in the 

above named action:

Please take notice that the plaintiff herein will take in the above- 

entitled action, to be used as authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, the deposition of Robert B .Ellis, Registrar of the Univer­

sity of Mississippi, whose address is the University of Mississippi, 

Oxford, Mississippi, upon oral examination, before Mr. D. Jordan, the 

Official Court Reporter for the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Mississippi, who is not of counsel or attorney for 

either of the parties to this action, nor a relative or employee of such 

counsel or attorney, nor financially interested in this cause, on the 

30th day of June, 1961, at 10:00 o ’clock in the forenoon of that day, in 

the Grand Jury Room on the third floor of the United States Courthouse 

in Biloxi, Mississippi, at which time and place you are hereby notified 

to appear and take such part in said examination as you may be advised



39

and as shall be fit and proper.

Please take further notice that the above designated party, Robert 

B. Ellis, Registrar of the University of Mississippi, is hereby requir­

ed to produce upon such examination the following records, papers and 

documents:

1. The application for admission to the University of Mississippi 

of the plaintiff, James Howard Meredith, and all papers and writings 

attached thereto.

2. All correspondence between the Registrar and the plaintiff, 

James Howard Meredith.

3. All correspondence and memoranda between the Registrar 

and other officials, faculty and employees in regard to the plaintiff.

4. All transcripts and other written documents received by the 

Registrar from colleges previously attended and presently attended by 

plaintiff.

/ s /  Constance Baker Motley 
Constance Baker Motley 
10 Columbus Circle

June 22, 1961 New York 19, New York

Attorney for Plaintiff
***>!<*

MOTIONS OF DEFENDANT, ROBERT B.ELUS, REGISTRAR 
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI, TO VACATE 
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF TAKING HIS DEPOSITION, 
AND THE TAKING THEREOF, AND TO SUSPEND OR

STAY THE TAKING OF SUCH DEPOSITION._________
(Title omitted - Filed June 27, 1961)

Now comes one of the defendants in this cause, Robert B. Ellis,



40

Registrar of the University of Mississippi, pursuant to Rule 30 A and B 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and without waiving any right, 

privilege or immunity which he has or may have in this cause and upon 

the face of the record in this cause and the matters herein set out, and 

moves the Court to (1) vacate and set aside plaintiff’s notice and the 

taking of this defendant’s deposition thereunder, in accord with which 

plaintiff proposes to take said deposition, and to set the hearing on de­

fendant’ s foregoing motion for a later date, and further moves the 

Court (2) to enter an order, as an emergency matter, suspending or 

staying the taking of said deposition on June 30, 1961, as noticed by 

plaintiff, and for grounds thereof say:

1. On June 22, 1961, plaintiff through one of his counsel mailed 

a notice addressed to Dugas Shands, Assistant Attorney General of the 

State of Mississippi, one of the attorneys for the defendants in this 

cause, that plaintiff proposed to take the deposition of said Robert B. 

Ellis at ten o ’clock A, M. on June 30, 1961, in the Grand Jury Room on 

the third floor of the United States Court House in Biloxi, Mississippi. 

Said notice was sent by airmail special delivery and received by said 

Dugas Shands on June 23, 1961.

2. This action is now in the process of being tried by this Court 

upon plaintiff’ s motion for a temporary injunction. On June 12, 1961, 

plaintiff elected to prosecute his motion for a temporary injunction by 

producing oral testimony thereon. Plaintiff had subpoenaed said Ellis 

as a witness in such prosecution and called and placed him on the stand



41

under oath as an adverse witness and proceeded to examine Mm. Upon 

certain objections being made by the defendants, which were sustained 

by the Court, plaintiff through his counsel withdrew the said Ellis from 

the stand and placed thereon the plaintiff Meredith and said counsel con­

ducted her direct examination of him, all as shown by said record. 

Dugas Shands, one of the attorneys for defendant proceeded to cross- 

examine plaintiff, and such cross-examination has not been completed 

and the said Meredith is still, proceeding-wise, on the stand in the 

course of said cross-examination. Under the circumstances reflected 

by the record, the said hearing was recessed.

3. Upon the record in this cause, the taking of the deposition of 

said Ellis is neither contemplated, permitted or authorized by the Fed­

eral Rules of Civil Procedure, and to permit same would interupt the 

orderly process of the proceeding in this cause and constitute a grave 

injustice, oppression or annoyance to said Ellis, and in fact to the 

other defendants herein.

4. Defendant is advised and believes that counsel for plaintiff is 

scheduled in attendance in deposition proceedings in another case in 

which they represent the plaintiffs in Biloxi, Mississippi, on Thursday, 

June 29, 1961, and which proceedings are now scheduled to be carried 

on June 29 and 30.

5. Attorneys for said Ellis and the other defendants have been 

and are as diligent as humanly and physically possible in and about the



42

handling and preparation of this cause and other causes in this Court 

for which they are responsible as attorneys of record.

6. Dugas Shands, Assistant Attorney General of the State of 

Mississippi, has been assigned and has been and is acting as leading 

counsel basically responsible for the actual handling and trial of this 

cause. Defendant desires that he continue to so act as said counsel 

and is advised and believes that the other defendants herein likewise 

desire that he be so continued.

Defendant is advised and believes that said attorney of record, 

Dugas Shands is physically unable to attend a taking of this defendant’ s 

deposition on said June 30, 1961, and to then and there represent this 

defendant and the other defendants interested therein; defendant is fur­

ther advised and believes that to require the said attorney of record to 

prepare for and attending said hearing would jeopardize the health of 

the said Dugas Shands, and defendant attaches hereto affidavit of said 

attorney of record in support of these motions as Exhibit A hereto. 

Should said deposition be taken on June 30, 1961, and said attorney 

Dugas Shands not be present and actively represent him and the other 

said defendants, a grave injustice would be done to this and the other 

defendants and he believes that no other of his attorneys of record could 

become properly acquainted with this cause in time to prepare for the 

said hearing.

Defendant says that these motions are not made for delay but so 
that justice may be done.



43

In view of the foregoing, defendant says that this motion presents 

an emergency matter which should be acted upon immediately by the 

Court upon presentation of these motions.

In view of the foregoing, defendant requests the Court to sustain 

the motions of this defendant hereinabove set out.

Respectfully submitted.

/ s /  Robert B. Ellis 
ROBERT B. ELLIS, Registrar of 
the University of Mississippi, 
a defendant

Joe T. Patterson, Attorney General 
of the State of Mississippi,
Peter M. Stockett, Jr., Special 
Assistant Attorney General of the 
State of Mississippi, Edward L. 
Cates and Dugas Shands, Assistant 
Attorneys General of the State 
of Mississippi

Bv / s /  Dugas Shands 
DUGAS SHANDS, Assistant 
Attorney General of the State 

****»?£ Mississippi
EXHIBIT "A"

AFFIDAVIT

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 

COUNTY OF HINDS

This day personally appeared before me the undersigned author­

ity, Dugas Shands, who after being by me first duly sworn on oath says: 

I am Assistant Attorney General for the State of Mississippi and



44

have so been for some several years and am fifty-five years of age.

I have been assigned as and have been acting as leading counsel 

basically charged with the responsibility of the handling and defense of 

the defendants in the case of Meredith v. Fair, et al, Civil Action 

No. 3130 upon the docket of this Court. I am in the same position with 

reference to other law suits insofar as this office is concerned now 

pending in this Court and one in the Northern District of Mississippi, 

all of which involve important, far-reaching and complicated questions 

of Constitutional law and fact. I have other immediately related official 

duties to perform.

I have been and intend to continue to be as diligent as humanly 

possible in and about the proper disposition, handling and progress of 

the Meredith case and the other cases and duties as I am capable of.

My duties and responsibilities have necessarily required long and 

intensive hours of work and effort, together with numerous trips out of 

town in connection with said cases.

As a result of my heavy work load and efforts to properly dis­

charge my obligations and duties in the above matters, which I am glad 

to do, my physical well-being has suffered and shortly before June 16, 

1961, I developed an elevation of blood pressure and hypertension, head­

aches and a general intense fatigue to the extent that I was forced to 

seek medical attention by my regular physician, Dr. Raymond F. Gren-

fell, m . D. of Jackson, Mississippi, and who treated me therefor. On 

Friday, June 16, 1961, he required that I enter the Baptist Hospital



45

for treatment where I remained as a patient until shortly after noon of 

June 21, 1961. While in the hospital and since then, I was and still am 

under the care of Dr. Grenfell.

I recognize the importance of the Meredith suit not only to the 

plaintiff but also the Gourt and the defendants. I understood and recog­

nize that the answer of the defendants is due to be filed not later than on 

June 28, 1961, inclusive of such motions and objections as the defen­

dants might properly have to the complaint filed against them.

I believe the defendant have valid defenses to the complaint of the 

plaintiff Meredith and desire only a reasonable opportunity that they be 

pled and presented to this Gourt.

I believe and represent to the Gourt that my physical condition is 

such that since my release from the hospital, I have been and am unable 

to properly prepare the pleadings necessary to adequately present the 

defenses of the defendants and to attend to the other matters mentioned 

in the motions of the defendant, Robert B. Ellis, as to his deposition.

I have done my best to properly prepare the pleadings for the defendants 

to file on or before June 28, but such is humanly impossible. I believe 

my physical well-being will be gravely jeopardized unless the relief r e ­

quested by the motions to which this Affidavit is attached and made an 

exhibit is granted. My said Dr. Grenfell has advised me that I am 

physically unable to do the work which I know is necessary to be done 

in order to prepare and file the answer of the defendants with proper 

motion by June 28, 1961, and that I am physically unable to attend the



46

the taking of the deposition by plaintiff from the said Ellis on June 30, 

1961, as noticed by the plaintiff and that I am physically unable to do 

the work which I know is necessary to prepare for presentation and 

present the objection of the said Ellis at the taking of his deposition on 

June 30, 1961; my said doctor has advised me that my physical health 

and well-being will be jeopardized if I be required to proceed to do the 

things and matters relieved from which is requested by the motions to 

which this Affidavit is attached unless I am given a reasonable period 

of time within which to overcome my above mentioned illness and to 

regain my strength and stamina. I am still weak and have not recover­

ed from the condition which caused me to be placed in the hospital and 

receive his care and attention.

I have done and will do my very best to accomplish as speedy a 

recovery as possible under the circumstances. I regret my physical 

condition is as it be, but I believe that neither the plaintiff nor the Cburt 

would want me to proceed without making these facts known and having 

my clients request the relief asked for in each of the motions to which 

this Affidavit is attached.

I have read the motions to which this Affidavit is attached and they 

are true and correct as written and the relief requested is necessary to 

avoid injury to and jeopardizing my health.

In the event the Court or counsel for plaintiff desire that I furnish 

a certificate from said Dr. Raymond F. Grenfell, I will be glad to do so



47

upon the request of the Court or counsel for Plaintiff.

/ s /  Dugas Shands 
Dugas Shands

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME this the 

27th day of June, 1961.

/ s /  Heber Ladner _________
SECRETARY OF STATE of the 
State of Mississippi

(SEAL) My Cbmmission Expires Jan. 1964

(This instrument carries proper certificate of service which is not 
copied here.)

MOTION OF DEFENDANTS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 
WITHIN WHICH TO PLEAD 

(Title omitted - Filed June 27, 1961)

Without waiving or intending to waive any right, privilege or im­

munity which they may have under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

now come all defendants in the above styled cause, and move the Court 

to extend to and including July 13, 1961, the time within which defend 

dants may plead to plaintiff's complaint herein filed against them just 

as validly as they would have been able to do on or before June 28,1961, 

and for grounds thereof would show:

1. In accord with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and prior 

direction of this Court the defendants were required to file their answer,

inclusive of any motions and objections thereto, on or before June 28, 
1961.



48

2. Dugas Shands, Assistant Attorney General of Mississippi, is 

the person who has been assigned as and who has been acting as leading 

counsel for these defendants in this case, with the basic responsibility 

therefor, and he and the other counsel for defendants have exercised 

all due diligence in the expeditious disposition of this cause.

3. Defendants are advised and believe that the said Dugas Shands 

is physically unable to properly prepare and file their pleadings and 

motions in this cause on or before June 28, 1961, and that he has done 

his very best so to do and that if he be required to do so in spite of his 

physical condition his health and well-being will be seriously jeopardiz­

ed as shown and reflected by the affidavit of the said Shands attached 

hereto as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof.

4. Defendants realize and recognize the importance of this suit 

not only to the plaintiff but to the Court and to these defendants, and it 

is not their desire to hinder or delay the proper disposition of this 

cause, but they are forced to make this motion for an extension of time 

because unless it is granted and the said Shands given a reasonable op­

portunity to properly represent them they will suffer grave damage and 

injustice, and they desire that he continue to handle this matter and act 

for them and represent them.

5 . That the presentation of this motion to the Court and the ac­

tion of the Court hereon constitutes an emergency matter in view of the 

physical condition of the said Shands and that die answer, together with 

the motions and objections to be properly included therein, must be



49

filed not later than tomorrow, June 28, 1961, under said Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure and prior direction of this Court.

6. That an extension of time to and including July 13, 1961, is 

not an unreasonable extension of time as it constitutes an extension of 

only fifteen (15) days.

7. No prior extension of time has been requested by or granted 

to the defendants.

WHEREFORE, defendants respectfully request that this Court 

consider and act upon this motion as an emergency matter and grant

the extension herein requested.

Respectfully submitted,

ALL DEFENDANTS

BY JOE T. PATTERSON, ATTORNEY 
GENERAL

PETER M. STOCKET, JR.
SPECIAL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY 
GENERAL
EDWARD L. CATES AND DUGAS
SHANDS

ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS GENERAL

BY / s /  Duaas Shands_________ __
Dugas Shands
Assistant Attorney General

C E R T I F I C A T E

I, Dugas Shands, do hereby certify that I have this day filed the 

original in the office of the Clerk of this Court at Jackson, Mississippi, 

This the 27th day of June, 1961.
/ s /  Dugas Shands 
11 ' Dugas Shands



50

EXHIBIT !IA»

AFFIDAVIT

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 

COUNTY OF HINDS

This day personally appeared before me the undersigned authority 

Dugas Shands, who after being by me first duly sworn on oath says:

I am Assistant Attorney General for the State of Mississippi and 

have so been for some several years and am fifty-five years of age.

I have been assigned as and have been acting as leading counsel 

basically charged with the responsibility of the handling and defense of 

the defendants in the case of Meredith v. Fair, et al, Civil Action 

No. 3130 upon the docket of this Court. I am in the same position with 

reference to other law suits insofar as this office is concerned now 

pending in this Court and one in the Northern District of Mississippi, 

all of which involve important, far-reaching and complicated questions 

of Constitutional law and fact. I have other immediately related official 

duties to perform.

I have been and intend to continue to be as diligent as humanly 

possible in and about the proper disposition, handling and progress of 

the Meredith case and the other cases and duties as I am capable of.

My duties and responsibilities have necessarily required long and 

intensive hours of work and effort, together with numerous trips out of

town in connection with said cases.
As a result of my heavy work load and efforts to properly dis­



51

charge my obligations and duties in the above matters, which I am glad 

to do, my physical well-being has suffered and shortly before June 16, 

1961, I developed an elevation of blood pressure and hypertension, head­

aches and a general intense fatigue to the extent that I was forced to 

seek medical attention by my regular physician, Dr, Raymond F.Gren­

fell, M, D. of Jackson, Mississippi, and who treated me therefor. On 

Friday, June 16, 1961, he required that I enter the Baptist Hospital for 

treatment where I remained as a patient until shortly after noon of 

June 21, 1961. While in the hospital and since then, I was and still am

under the care of Dr. Grenfell.

I recognize the importance of the Meredith suit not only to the 

plaintiff but also the Court and the defendants. I understood and recog­

nize that the answer of the defendants is due to be filed not later than on 

June 23, 1961, inclusive of such motions and objections as the defen­

dants might properly have to the complaint filed against them.

I believe the defendant have valid defenses to the complaint of the 

plaintiff Meredith and desire only a reasonable opportunity that they be 

pled and presented to this Court.

I believe and represent to the Court that my physical condition is

such that since my release from the hospital, I have been and am unable

to properly prepare the pleadings necessary to adequately present the

defenses of the defendants and to attend to the other matters mentioned

in the motions of the defendant, Robert B. Ellis, as to his deposition.
I have done my best to properly prepare the pleadings for the defendants



52

to file on or before June 28, but such is humanly impossible. I believe 

my physical well-being will be gravely jeopardized unless the relief re ­

quested by the motions to which this Affidavit is attached and made an 

exhibit is granted. My said Dr. Grenfell has advised me that I am 

physically unable to do the work which I know is necessary to be done 

in order to prepare and file the answer of the defendants with proper 

motion by June 28, 1961, and that I am physically unable to attend the 

taking of the deposition by plaintiff from the said Ellis on June 30, 1961, 

as noticed by the plaintiff and that I am physically unable to do the work 

which I know is necessary to prepare for presentation and present the 

objection of the said Ellis at the taking of his deposition on June 30,1961; 

my said doctor has advised me that my physical health and well-being 

will be jeopardized if I be required to proceed to do the things and mat­

ters relieved from which is requested by the motions to which this 

Affidavit is attached unless I am given a reasonable period of time with­

in which to overcome my above mentioned illness and to regain my 

strength and stamina. I am still weak and have not recovered from the 

condition which caused me to be placed in the hospital and receive his 

care and attention.

I have done and will do my very best to accomplish as speedy a re ­

covery as possible under the circumstances. I regret my physical con­

dition is as it be, but I believe that neither the plaintiff nor the Court 

would want me to proceed without making these facts known and having 

my clients request the relief asked for in each of the motions to which



53

this Affidavit is attached.

I have read the motions to which this Affidavit is attached and 

they are true and correct as written and the relief requested is neces­

sary to avoid injury to and jeopardizing my health.

In the event the Court or counsel for plaintiff desire that I furnish 

a certificate from said Dr. Raymond F. Grenfell, I will be glad to do 

so upon the request of the Court or counsel for Plaintiff.

/ s /  Dugas Shands. __________
DUGAS SHANDS

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME this the 27th day of

June* 1961.

/ s /  Heber Ladner________ _
SECRETARY OF STATE of the 

(SEAL) State of Mississippi

My Cbmmission Expires Jan. 1964

( This instrument carries proper certificate of service which is not 
copied here.)

*****
O R D E R

(Title omitted - Filed June 27, 1961)

This day came on to be heard the motion of all defendants in this 

cause for an extension of time within which to plead in this cause by 

filing their answer, together with all motions and objections which they 

may desire to include therein, on or before July 13, 1961, with affida­

vit of Dugas Shands, one of the attorneys for the defendants, attached 

hereto, and the Gourt having read and considered said motion and



54

affidavit, and it having been stated that this is an emergency matter as 

the answer and motions of the defendants are otherwise due to be filed 

not later that June 28, 1961, and said Shands having appeared before the 

Court and offered himself for questioning by the Court and the Court 

having observed the said Shands and the statement from him, and the 

Court having considered this matter and being fully advised in the pre­

mises, it is considered by the Court and the Gourt doth hereby order, 

adjudge and decree that defendants' motion for an extension of time does 

present an emergency matter and that the said Shands is physically un­

able to prepare and file defendants' answer, and motions to be included 

therein, and that to so require him would jeopardize his health and well­

being and , therefore, the motion for extension of time is hereby grant­

ed and the defendants are allowed to file their answer or answers, with 

such motions and objections as they desire to incorporate therein, on or 

before July 13, 1961.

Said Shands having offered to furnish the Court or plaintiff's coun­

sel with a certificate from his doctor, who is Dr. Raymond F.Grenfell, 

under whose care the said Shands now is, it is further ordered by the 

Court that if plaintiff's counsel desires such a certificate that they noti­

fy the said Shands and that he furnish them therewith. No certificate 

was requested.

ORDERED and ADJUDGED, this the 27th day of June, 1961.

/ s /  S. C. Mize 
U. S. District JudgeO. B.1961,pp.281&282



55

O R D E R
(Title omitted-Filed June 27, 1961)

This day came on to be heard the motions of Robert B. Ellis, 

Registrar of the University of Mississippi, one of the defendants herein, 

together with affidavit of Dugas Shands, one of his attorneys of record 

attached hereto as Exhibit "Al!, and which motions request the Court to 

vacate and set aside plaintiff's notice of taking the deposition of said 

Robert B. Ellis on June 30, 1961 at Biloxi, Mississippi, and the taking 

of said deposition thereunder, and to set a hearing on defendant's mo­

tion presenting his objections thereto for a later date, and the further 

request of defendant to suspend or stay the taking of said deposition on 

June 30, 1961, as notice by plaintiff, and which motions and requests 

are made to the Court as emergency matters in view of the time ele­

ment involved, and the affidavit of the said Dugas Shands representing 

that he is physically unable and there is not sufficient time to properly 

prepare and present the objections to the taking of said deposition on 

June 30, 1961, and that he is physically unable to prepare for and at­

tend the taking of said deposition on June 30, 1961, as notice by plain­

tiff, and the said Dugas Shands having appeared before the Court and 

offered himself for questioning by the Court and having made an oral 

statement, and a showing having been made that the health and well­

being of the said .Shands would be jeopardized unless the said motions 

are granted, and the Court having observed said Shands and being fully 

advised in the premises, it is considered by the Court and the Court



56

doth hereby order, adjudge and decree that an emergency exists and 

the said Shands is not physically able to properly prepare and present 

the objections of said defendants to the taking of said deposition on be 

before June 30, 1961, and is not physically able to attend and repre­

sent the said defendant in the taking of the deposition of the defendant, 

Ellis, by the plaintiff on June 30, 1961, as notice by plaintiff, and said 

motions are hereby sustained and the objection of the defendant, Ellis, 

by way of motion to vacate the notice of and the taking of the deposition 

of the said Ellis will be set for hearing in the near future at a date to be 

fixed by the judge, and the taking of the said deposition of the said Ellis 

on June 30, 1961 at Biloxi, Mississippi, is hereby suspended, stayed 

and ordered by the Court not to be taken at said time and place, and 

that it be not taken until after the Court acts upon the aforesaid objec­

tion by way of motion by the said Ellis.

The said Shands having stated that if the Court or the parties de­

sire to be furnished with a certificate of his doctor, who is Dr. Ray­

mond B. Grenfell, under whose care the said Shands now is, he will 

furnish same, and the Court doth further order that in the event plain­

tiff’ s counsel desires to be furnished with such doctor's certificate they 

notify the said Shands and he shall, upon such request, furnish them 

with such certificate. (No certificate was requested.)

ORDERED and ADJUDGED this the 27th day of June, 1961.

O.B. 1961, pp. 283,284, &285 u. 4'. District Judge



57

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 
(Title omitted - Filed June 29, 1961)

Comes now the plaintiff by his undersigned attorneys and moves 

this court for a preliminary injunction pursuant to the provisions of 

Rule 65, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, enjoining the defendants, 

and each of them, from refusing to admit him to the second summer 

session at the University of Mississippi, commencing on July 17th,

1961, solely because of his race and color and as grounds therefore 

show the following:

1. The complaint in this action was filed on May 31, 1961, with

a motion for temporary injunction which came on for hearing on June 12, 

1961.

2. On June 12, 1961, after a day of hearing the court discontin­

ued the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction and set the 

case for trial on July 10, 1961.

3. On June 12, the court also gave the defendants until June 22nd 

to file any motions directed to the complaint and until June 28, to file 

their answers, same being due under the rules on June 20th.

4. On June 27, 1961, defendants moved the court for an order ex­

tending the time in which to answer, for fifteen days, on the ground 

that one of the attorneys for the defendants has been ill. This motion 

was granted.

5. The plaintiff sought admission to the second semester of the



58

1960-1961 school year which commenced on February 8, 1961. His ad­

mission was denied on the alleged ground his application was received 

after January 25, 1961. He then requested consideration of his applica­

tion for the first summer session, beginning June 8, 1961, and was not 

denied admission to the first summer session until May 26, on which 

day he received a letter from the registrar, dated May 25, (Exhibits?. 

P i 's . ) denying his admission on the ground that he is now attending a 

non-accredited institution, Jackson State College for Negroes, a state 

institution of higher learning under the jurisdiction, management, and 

control of the defendant Board of Higher Learning of the State of M iss­

issippi, which also has jurisdiction, management, and control over the 

University of Mississippi, which is limited to white students, and on the 

ground that the plaintiff failed to furnish the necessary alumni certifica­

tes attesting to his good moral character and recommending his admis­

sion to the University as required by the catalog of the University of 

Mississippi, and on the ground of other reasons which were not disclos­

ed.

6. Upon the hearing on June 12, 1961, the testimony was uncon­

tradicted that the plaintiff meets all of the requirements for admission 

to the University of Mississippi as a transfer student in that he has at­

tended institutions of higher learning other than Jackson State College, 

for which the registrar advised he would receive 48 hours credit in a 

letter to the plaintiff dated May 9, 1961, (Exhibit 21, Plaintiff).



59

7. The racial policy of the State of Mississippi with respect to 

education for Negroes is clear from reference to the statutes of the 

State of Mississippi, of which this court takes judicial notice, specifi­

cally, Mississippi Constitution, Article S, Section 207, Title 24, Miss. 

Code Ann. (1942) p.p. 6620 .5 , 6328-03, 6694, 6703,6711, 6714, 6726.^ 

as amended, and Title 17, Miss. Code Ann. (1942), p. 4065.3, as amen­

ded.

8. The plaintiff has already lost, irretrievably, his right to at­

tend the University of Mississippi for the second semester of the 1960- 

1961 school year, for the first summer session which began June 8, 

1961, and shall forever lose the right to attend the second term of the 

summer session which begins July 17, 1961, unless this court hears 

and determines this motion for preliminary injunction.

9. The defendants have had the plaintiffs’ application for admis­

sion since February 1, 1961. They turned down his application for ad­

mission on May 25, 1961, for the reason stated in the letter of that date. 

If the State had any valid reason for excluding the plaintiff from the Uni­

versity of Mississippi, other than his race or color, the State has had 

more than sufficient time since February 1, 1961, to make that reason 

known to the plaintiff and to this court. Because the State has no valid 

reason for excluding the plaintiff, the plaintiff has a right to a prelimi­

nary injunction.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that this court will issue an order



60

enjoining the defendants and each of them from refusing to admit the 

plaintiff to the second summer session at the University of Mississip­

pi commencing on July 17, 1961, solely because of his race and color, 

and from requiring him to furnish certificates from five alumni of the 

University of Mississippi as a condition of his admission, and from r e ­

fusing to admit him on the ground that he is now attending a non- 

accredited institution.

/ s /  Constance Baker Motley 
Constance Baker Motley 
Derrick A. Bell, Jr.
Thurgood Marshall 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, N. Y.

R. Jess Brown
1105 1/2 Washington Street
Vicksburg, Mississippi

Attorneys for Plaintiff

NOTICE OF MOTION

TO: Hon. Joe T. Patterson 
Attorney General of the 
State of Mississippi 

and
Hon. Dugas Shane
Asst. Attorney General of the
State of Mississippi

Attorneys for Defendants

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorneys for plain­

tiffs will bring on the foregoing motion for preliminary injunction be­

fore the Honorable Sidney C. Mize, United States District Judge,



61

Southern District of Mississippi, at Jackson, Mississippi, at 2:00 

O'Clock P. M ., on the 11th day of July, 1961, or as soon thereafter as 

counsel can be heard.

/ s /  Constance Baker Motley 
Constance Baker Motley 
Derrick A. Bell, Jr. 

Thurgood Marshall 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, N. Y.

R. Jess Brown
1105 1/2 Washington Street
Vicksburg, Mississippi

Attorneys for Plaintiff

(This instrument carries the proper certificate of service which is not 
copied here.)

>j< :(e  s jc js  >!<

ON MOTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL TIME 
(Title omitted - Filed July 14, 1961)

APPEARANCES: Honorable R. Jess Brown, Attorney, Vicksburg, 
Mississippi,

For Plaintiff;

Honorable Dugas Shands, Assistant to Attorney - 
General, State of Mississippi, Jackson, 
Mississippi,

For Defendants.

BE IT REMEMBERED that on, to-wit, Tuesday, the 27th day of June, 

1961, at Jackson, Mississippi, in the Jackson Division, Motions for 

Additional Time were presented by the Defendants in the above-entitled

cause and heard before the Honorable Sidney C. Mize, United States 
District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi, and the follow-



62

mg proceedings were had and entered of record.

BY THE COURT: Let the record show that the Honorable Jesse Brown 

appears in behalf of the plaintiff. It is on a motion of the defendants 

for an extension of time within which to plead, and also on motion of 

the defendant Robert B. Ellis to vacate the plaintiff's notice of taking 

his deposition and to suspend or stay the taking of such deposition from 

June 23th until some later date.

BY MR. SHANDS; I believe that is June 30th.

BY THE COURT: Yes. Very well, Mr. Shands, you may briefly state 

- -  I have read the motion.

BY MR. SHANDS: I am glad the court has read the motion because, 

quite frankly, I don’t feel up to reading the motion in its entirety. 

Briefly, the motion addressed to the deposition is based upon the fact 

that I am not physically able to, first, attend the taking of the deposi­

tion, proposed taking of the deposition, of Mr. Ellis on June 30,1961. 

Also, I assert in the motion h ere --or  this defendant, Mr. Ellis, does-- 

that I am not physically able to prepare for presentation and present 

the objection that we have made under Rule 30-A and B to the taking of 

the deposition on a basic standpoint.

BY THE COURT: I believe all those facts are set out in your affidavit. 

BY MR. SHANDS: They are set out, together with a doctor’s certifi­

cate to the effect that he has advised me that I am not physically able 

to do those things, and I have asserted in the affidavit that I personally



63

believe that I am not physically able to do it. I tender myself; I be­

lieve counsel for plaintiff, Jess Brown, has been given two copies of 

each of these motions which I believe he has read, and that X offer in 

the motion with reference to Mr. Ellis* deposition, I tender myself as 

a witness to answer any questions that he cares to ask me. As to the 

motion for extension of time, the answer under the Federal Rules and 

the prior direction of the Court of all the defendants is due to be filed 

on or before tomorrow, which is the 23th. I regret very much the 

necessity of having to make these motions. The reason I make the mo­

tion for the extension of time is because there I say I am not physically 

able and have not been physically able to do the work necessary to 

properly prepare the answer and the motion of the defendants. I regret 

I havenot been able to do so. The affidavit shows that I have been in the 

hospital; it shows what my problems are --elevation of blood pressure 

and other things. My doctor says that I am not physically able to pre­

pare the answer. I believe that is so. X know from my own feeling that 

I am not. I also on that motion tender myself as a witness to answer 

any questions. I was in the hospital, I believe, from the 16th of June - - 

some time after noon of the 16th. I was released on the afternoon of 

the 21st. I recognize, of course, the due date of the answer as being 

the 23th. I had previously done and since then have done everything in 

my power to have the answer ready, rather than to be forced to ask for 

this delay. I did not receive the notice as to the deposition until, I be­

lieve, --whatever date Friday was --th e  23rd. It was signed by



64

Gonstance Motley and signed in New York on the 21st and sent to me 

air mail, special delivery. I received it Friday. We do not — - This 

is no effort to delay, as such. It is produced and the motion made sole* 

ly because of the fact of my health. I felt that the plaintiff in this case 

and his counsel and also the parties would prefer that I bring my per­

sonal situation to their attention, rather than talcing a chance on jeop­

ardizing my ability or my usefulness in the future, I will say to the 

Court that I will do everything in my power to file, prepare and file 

this answer. I think we ask for fifteen days. That is actually. In my 

judgment, a bit too short a time. I realize the importance of this case 

to the plaintiff, to the Court, and to the defendants; for that reason, I 

have, may I say, pushed myself a bit to cut the time to fifteen days. 

That would permit the filing of the answer on July 13, 1961. I have 

made the affidavit I offer to the Court and to counsel for the plaintiff.

If they have any doubt about the correctness of that affidavit and if they 

care to ask me to furnish a certificate of my doctor, I will do so. I 

will do that if the Court wishes.

BY THE COURT: Counsel, do you want to say something?

BY MR. SHANDS: — And I am here and I offer myself as a witness to 

be examined by counsel for plaintiff on the subject matter of this mo­

tion.

BY MR. BROWN: May it please the Court, I would like to ask a couple 

of questions. Mostly, the testimony I'm not going into. I notice, ac­

cording to the record here and particularly the motion of the defendants



65

for extension within which to plead, that it was respectfully submitted 

by all defendants and also shows "b y ," as I read here, "the Honorable 

Joe T. Patterson, Attorney-General; and Peter M. Stockett, J r ., 

Special Assistant to the Attorney-General; Edgar L. Cates; and Dugas 

Shands, Assistant-Attorney-Generals; by Dugas Shands, an Assistant 

Attorney-General. " Mr. Shands, that is indicative of the fact that 

there are more attorneys representing the defendants other than your­

self?

BY MR. SHANDS: Oh, yes, yes. There are three others. It so hap­

pens, as I allege in the affidavit which you have examined, that this 

case has been made my primary responsibility, and I - -  while I say 

this with modesty; I don't like to use the term, but for lack of a better 

word, I would say I have been the leading counsel, as you know and as 

Constance Motley knows and as the record reflects, since the begin­

ning of this case. In my humble judgment, it would be totally imposs­

ible for either Mr. Patterson, the Attorney-General, or Mr. Cates or 

Mr. Stockett to become as familiar with this case as am I. I know 

under the circumstances reflected by this record that counsel for the 

plaintiff would not expect that. That is my candid view.

BY MR. BROWN: I also would like to ask, do you have any other as­

sistants, other than the ones that are listed here? Are there any other 

assistants to the Attorney-General?

BY MR. SHANDS: Who are working on this?

BY MR. BROWN: Not necessarily who are working on this, but do you



66

have any other assistants that could possibly join with the others?

BY MR. SHARDS; Not that I know of.

BY MR. BROWN; How many do you have on the staff in the Attorney- 

General's office who are lawyers?

BY MR. SHANDS; Five others.

BY MR. BROWN; Five other than the ones who appear in this case ? 

BY MR. SHANDS; That is true. May I make this further description 

of their duties? None of those men have had occasion to be acquainted 

with the field of the lav/ that is involved in this lawsuit. None of them 

at any time have had any touch in any shape, form or fashion with this 

lawsuit. May I also add that the Attorney-General of Mississippi has 

many, many duties that he must perform. The reason he has assis­

tants is so as to delegate the responsibility and the duties in order to 

not himself have to be familiar with every detail of every state depart­

ment and every lawsuit and every facet of state government, which of 

course would be totally impossible. He has not had the touch with this 

case that have I or either Mr. Stockett or Mr. Cates.

BY MR. BROWN; That is all.

BY MR. SHANDS: May I ask, just for the record: Was your question­

ing of me a suggestion of your associate counsel or was that your idea? 

BY MR. BROWN: Well—

BY MR. SHANDS: - -  I withdraw the question.

BY THE COURT: Very well, Jess, what do you say in opposition to

the motion?



67

BY MR. BROWN: I think I can possibly clear up the question you just 

made. Actually, I personally did not know how many assistant attorney- 

generals were in the office other than Mr. Patterson —  I mean, other 

than Mr. Shands. The number, I knew there were others, but I didn't 

know the exact number, and I think I can also further bring out by say­

ing this: From the testimony on the questions to Mr. Shands, there 

are a total of four other assistant attorney-generals other than the ones 

- - I mean, there are four that appear here; that's the Honorable Joe

T. Patterson, Honorable Peter M. Stockett, J r ., and Honorable Ed­

ward L. Cates and Honorable Dugas Shands. That is four, and I be­

lieve you testified there were five others, approximately.

BY MR. SHANDS: I think that's right.

BY MR. BROWN: Which would be about nine. And the plaintiff takes 

the position that with as many as at least nine in all, including the 

Attorney-General and the assistant attorney-generals, and in view of 

the fact that there are four who are assisting in this case, that even 

though Mr. Shands is ill at the time, this case could very well be carr­

ied on without him, because at this particular time, so far as the dep­

osition and the matter of this answer which is due on the 28th - -  could 

be taken care of by others who are certainly able to do so.

Now, the next thing is that this is not a case that involves diffi­

cult questions. As a matter of fact, cases have already been settled on

this particular thing all the way back starting with the Gaines case on 
up until recently. So it is not too difficult to get to the questions so



68

far as the court has decided. Now, also we have filed a motion for a 

hearing for the production of records, asking for records, which that 

motion is now pending. It is filed and the hearing is pending on that.

We say that we would like to bring that motion up today, if possible, so 

that we can get a date set on that, since we are here today and we meet 

here today, to expedite the time.

Now, of course, this case was set for trial, as already brought

out, on the 28th which is tom orrow------I mean the answer was due on

the 28th. It is set for the 10th of July. The answer is due on the 28th. 

Now, according to the Rules of Civil Procedure, of course, the answer 

was due in 20 days. Now, even the answer coming in on the 28th as the 

Court set would be even beyond the 20 days, because the case was filed 

on the 31st day of May; and even if the answer should come in tomor­

row, it would be the 28th day of June, which would not only include 20 

days, but also beyond that.

Also, it is my understanding of the Rules that if you must make 

such motion as has been made here by Mr. Shands in behalf of the de­

fendants here, that such a motion should be made — must be made with­

out delay within such time. In other words, it should be made within 

the 20 days, rather than to go beyond the 20 days and then come in and 

move the Court for delay of time. If they had come in before the twen­

ty days had expired, then of course, we take the position that the Court 

could have entertained such a motion; with you coming in after the 

twenty days, we feel that the Court could not do so.



69

Now, the next thing is this: that the attorneys for plaintiff need 

time in order to get their case properly prepared. Now, if this answer 

was filed on the 28th as the Court has permitted, it would give us a 

chance to prepare our case, because we can not prepare a case ade­

quately until we receive the answer; and as long as there is a delay in 

getting the answer, it hampers us and delays us unnecessarily. And, 

of course, the fifteen days that are being sought here by the defendants' 

attorney, Mr. Shands, would exceed or be past even the date set for 

trial — that is, the hearing set on the 10th of July. Fifteen days would 

make it beyond the 10th of July, so therefore there would have to be 

another setting on it.

Now, of course, Your Honor has set this injunction hearing for 

the 10th of July, and it was our understanding that after the 10th — 

possibly on the 11th - - w e  would get through with it in a day and on the 

11th we would go into this case we are discussing here, the Meredith 

case. Therefore, we should insist on a hearing on the 11th or at any 

time right after that, after we have the hearing on the injunction case 

that is set for the 10th. Now, of course, we first started out as a pre­

liminary hearing, which was held in Biloxi - - I ’ve forgotten the exact 

date. Anyway, that preliminary hearing was discontinued. Now, if 

there is a delay, it would leave the plaintiff in no position other than to 

renew a motion for preliminary hearing, renew our motion for prelim­

inary hearing that we had originally sought before this time.

Now, as to the deposition, twenty days has passed. As you



70

remember, we filed a motion and sought to take the deposition of the 

registrar, Mr. Byron Ellis, Registrar of the University of Mississippi, 

at which time there was vigorous objection by counsel for the defen­

dants to us doing so, because he said the Rules did not permit us to 

take it until the expiration of the twenty days, and which the Court sus­

tained the position of the defendant. Now, we also need this deposition 

of Mr. Byron Ellis so that we can properly prepare this case, in like 

manner as we need the answer coming forth from the defendants’ attor­

neys. There is no question about it, as far as the deposition is con­

cerned, we are assured that they have nothing to hide and that they cer­

tainly would not unnecessarily delay us in doing so, and that there 

would be possibly other lawyers here — particularly on this record, 

on this particular set of pleadings * - who could come in 

and carry on this deposition, because it is not too difficult to carry on; 

certainly not as difficult as a hearing would be. Now, therefore, to do 

so would place us in such a position as where if the registrar could not 

appear on the date that we have given notice, it would leave us in posi­

tion to move the Court for judgment by default for not appearing. That 

is the position we take, and we feel that it would certainly have a de­

laying action. There is no question about it and I am certainly convin­

ced of Mr. Shands’ ill health, because the affidavit shows, and I don't 

want the record to show that I any way dispute or disagree with that. I 

certainly take his word for that, together with the affidavit which I cer­

tainly do not dispute. If we could only take — that is, the Court would



71

take into consideration here that there are other attorneys who are able 

and ample to carry on the deposition and also to file an answer within 

the time the Court has already specified, without any further delay. 

That is all.

BY MR. SHANDS: I have one observation to make, if it's still per­

missible for me to remain seated.

BY THE COURT: Yes, sir.

BY MR. SHANDS: As to the twenty days, I was not filing this motion 

here for extension within twenty days. Counsel for the plaintiff has 

badly overlooked these circumstances. This suit was filed on May 31sii 

process was not served upon all the defendants, and the last defendant 

who was served with summons was Mr. Fair, the President of the 

Board of Trustees, one of the defendants. The Court will recall that 

on June 12th at Biloxi during the course of the proceedings upon plain­

tiff's motion for temporary injunction, I there made the specific in­

quiry as to when the answer would be due in view of the fact that the 

last defendant was served on June 8th, 1961. Counsel for plaintiff 

Jess Brown was there; Constance Motley was there. At no time was 

there any utterance or any comment from them that that was in the ex­

tension of time; and I don't believe counsel for plaintiff here would as­

sert that this motion is not filed within the period of time set by the 

Court on June 12, 1961. Would you?

BY MR. BROWN: The position we were taking was that from the time 

it was filed, you had twenty days within which to file an answer. Of



72

course, the Gourt set the 28th, so we don’t argue about that because 

the Court set that.

BY THE COURT: I ruled there the answer would be due from the date 

the last defendant was served, so I didn’t regard that as a motion for 

an extension of time, but it was a request for construction of the rule.

So at that time I ruled the answer would be due on the 28th.

BY MR. SHAND3: May I have this further statement, Your Honor: As 

to Mr. Gates and Mr. Stockett, I might say for the advice of the Court, 

counsel and the record, both Cates and Stockett are tied up in a con­

ference this afternoon on another case in which the counsel for the 

plaintiff in the Meredith case are attorneys for the plaintiff, and rather 

than ask either of those gentlemen to come over here and present this 

and pull them away from other work in the office, I left it to myself to 

come over here and present this rather than pull them off the other 

work. And I happen to know that the Attorney-General himself is bus­

ily engaged in some related and other duties of 'die office, and for that 

reason, seeking to permit our office of the Attorney-General to engage 

in as many things, to prevent dalay , to give expeditious attention, I 

denied myself the opportunity of having Mr. Cates come here this after­

noon and present this motion instead of me doing it. Further, as to 

their motion for production of documents, which they gave notice —

I'm sorry, I don’t recall the date, but they have two motions pending 

here, and we are not ready on that and would oppose any proceeding 

into that at this time for the reasons that are assigned in both of these



73

motions.

BY THE COURT: Very well, Gentlemen. I have heard you, and I 

would not take the responsibility of personally impairing the health of a 

lawyer of the standing of Mr. Shands or any other lawyer and put my 

judgment against that of his doctor and force him into immediate hear­

ing of these matters or an immediate answer of these matters. I am 

going to sustain the motion.

I might say this: that the Court knows Mr. Cates and Mr. Stock­

ed equally well. They are bright young men but inexperienced and 

have not participated in the trial of this case other than in, apparent­

ly, research work. The Court takes judicial knowledge of the fact that 

Mr. Shands is the leading attorney in this case and is the only experi­

enced attorney in the case and only one, in my judgment, outside of 

Attorney-General Patterson himself, who is capable of handling a case 

of this importance, of this magnitude. The testimony shows here that 

General Patterson, who is the attorney-general, of course, has many 

other duties, as judicial knowledge of those laid down by statute I can 

take; and he has not actively participated in the trial of this case or 

any proceeding anywhere in this case. He has been present at times, 

at other times he has not been present. Mr. Cates has just rather re ­

cently become connected with the Attorney-General's office. He ser­

ved as a law clerk with Judge Cameron up until some six or eight mon­

ths ago - -  maybe a little longer; and Mr. Stockett has likewise, to the 

knowledge of the Court,, not been out of law school too long. So these



74

young men, while brilliant, have no trial experience and are not in my 

judgment, with due deference to them - -  because they are fine young 

men, but they axe not sufficiently capable and trained to handle a case 

of this importance. This is an important case both for the plaintiff and 

for the defendants. Also I take judicial knowledge of the heavy load 

that is being thrown upon the Attorney-General’s office at this particu­

lar time in cases of similar type here, and to force Mr. Shands into 

these hearings on the dates presently set would certainly impair his 

health. I am looking at him now, and he ought to be in the bed. A lay­

man can observe that. The Court judicially knows from his appearance 

in this court he has been heavily worked for the last year, not only in 

these civil rights cases he has pending, but also one pending in Biloxi 

for the integration of the beach down there, which is a very hotly con­

tested case and a very far-reaching case and a very complicated ques­

tion of law involved in that case. There is a question of private owner­

ship hotly contested as to whether the beach is a public beach or not.

So there are many things that I know of personally that have been in this 

court which compel me to grant some relief to a sick man. So I am go­

ing to do that, and I sustain the motion for fifteen days additional time 

in which to answer, and I will sustain the motion to vacate the notice to 

take the deposition on the 30th, and I will not set the motion for produc­

tion of documents at this moment, but very probably I will, for conven­

ience of counsel distant from here, try to set the motion for production 

of documents and taking of the deposition at the same time.



75

So therewith, coming down to the question of the trial of this 

case upon a motion for a preliminary injunction, which is set for 

July 10th, at the hearing heretofore had in that case, this Court set It 

for July 10th. Subsequent to that another case was filed which requir­

ed the hearing by a three-judge court. Judge Tuttle, the chief judge of 

the Court of Appeals, set that hearing for July 10th, and I have no in­

formation as to how long It will take, but that case is set and it was my 

thought that probably I might set this case over until the 11th or 12th of 

July, and if we finish with the three-judge court hearing, then we could 

take this case up, provided Mr. Shands has recovered from his present 

condition, and go on with the trial of the case. It is a very Important 

case, and I am going to give it a reasonably early hearing, very prob­

ably on the 11th. A s a  matter of fact, I will let it remain set for the 

11th, and if anything should develop whereby it couldn't be heard on 

that date, then I will re-set it for some date a little later. If the dep­

osition is not taken before that time and if the motion for production of 

documents cannot be heard before that time and if counsel for plaintiff 

should desire a resetting of the case for some two or three weeks in 

order to obtain these depositions and production of documents, I would 

certainly grant that. But I do want to try the case as early as it rea­

sonably can be done under all the existing circumstances and with the 

many things that are appearing before this court. There are other in­

junctions that pre-date the filing of this case which are pending in this 

court and could not be heard because the Court could not reach them.



76

I am in the middle of the trial of one case which involves an injunction 

and involves some two or three hundred thousand dollars. I ’ve been 

on it for eight weeks already. That case was recessed at the last hear­

ing some time in May until July 17th, so I don’ t know - —  and it will 

take some two or three weeks to finish it when I get back into it. So 

that is the situation of the docket in this court. Now, an additional 

judge has already been appointed and is to have a hearing for confirma­

tion before the judicial committee in Washington today. So far as I 

know, there will be no objection to his confirmation, and I assume he 

will be confirmed within a short time. I saw him yesterday, and be­

cause I am very anxious to get his assistance so I can go on in an or­

derly manner with all these things arising, I asked him how long it 

would take him to wind up his office business before he could be in­

ducted into the judiciary. He advised me it appeared it would probably 

take him until the latter part of August or the first of September, but 

perhaps, in order to help me out, he might be able to take the other by 

the 15th of August.

So, Gentlemen, that is the situation of the docket in this district.

It is no fault of mine; the bill for an additional judge in this district

has been recommended for six years by the judicial committee of the

United States. It went through the four year period of the Eisenhower

administration and was not acted upon. The Omnibus bill was not, but

it was acted on this spring, and the judge of this district has now been 
appointed; and I hope some time in the near future I can, with his



77

assistance, catch up on this docket* But X am going to give priority 

to this case just as far as it possibly can be done. I will sign these 

orders in accord with my ruling and I will not fix a date at this mo­

ment for the taking of the deposition or the motion for production of 

documents, but some time within the next week or ten days or maybe 

earlier if I can get the proper information, I will fix a date and will 

advise everyone when 1 do fix a date for the taking of the deposition.

BY MR. SHANDS: May the record show that I asked Jess if counsel 

for the plaintiff wanted a medical certificate from my doctor, and Jess 

said he did not.

BY THE COURT: Very well.

BY MR. BROWN: That is right.

BY MR. SHANDS: I would be glad to furnish it, but since they don't 

request it - -

BY MR. BROWN: I wouldn't question his affidavit.

BY THE GOURT: Very well, Gentlemen.



78

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN 

DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI, JACKSON DIVISION

JAMES A. MEREDITH,
PLAINTIFF

VS.

CHARLES DICKSON FAIR, ET AL,
DEFENDANTS

COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

I, D. B. JORDAN, Official Court Reporter for the Southern 

District of Mississippi, do hereby certify that the foregoing pages 

constitute a true and complete transcript of the proceedings had 

upon the hearing of Motions of the Defendants for Additional Time in 

the above-entitled cause before the Honorable Sidney C. Mize, United 

States District Judge, Southern District of Mississippi, at Jackson, 

Mississippi on the 27th day of June, 1961.

WITNESS MY SIGNATURE, this the 10th day of July, 1961.

/ s /  D. B. Jordan 
D. B. JORDAN



79

ON DATES FOR FILING OF ANSWER AND ARGUMENTS OF 
MOTIONS

(Title omitted - Filed July 15, 1961)

BE IT REMEMBERED that on, to-wit-, Monday, July 10, 1961, 

certain matters in connection with the above-entitled cause were pre­

sented for clarification and ruling by the Honorable Sidney G. Mize, 

United States District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi, 

at Jackson, Mississippi, and the following proceedings were had and 

entered of record.

BY MRS. MOTLEY: We filed a notice and motion for preliminary 

injunction and set it down for hearing tomorrow at two o'clock. 

We had assumed that this other hearing would be completed to­

day, or certainly tomorrow morning, and that we would bring 

on our motion for preliminary injunction. Now, the second 

session of the summer school begins on July 17th, and as Your 

Honor knows, we brought a motion for preliminary injunction to 

try to get Mr. Meredith in for the first summer session, and 

now the second summer session is coming up and we wanted to 

know whether Your Honor is going to hear that motion tomorrow 

at two o'clock in view of the postponement.

BY THE COURT: Yes, I imagined that would arise. What do you say, 

Mr. Gates? Will you be ready on that or depend on Mr.Shands? 

BY MR. CATES: We would depend on Mr. Shands. We were prepar­

ing personally for these vote suits we have right now, and we



80

are not prepared.

BY THE COURT: You would make the same showing in this case as 

was made in the case this morning?

BY MR. CATES: Yes, sir. We certainly would.

BY MRS. MOTLEY: Your Honor has already postponed that because 

Mr. Shands is ill, and required them to answer by the 13th. It 

seems to me if he is required to answer by the 13th, they should 

be prepared to go ahead on a motion for preliminary injunction 

tomorrow. If it had not already been postponed on grounds that 

Mr. Shands is ill, that would be one thing; but he can be ill for 

the next year, and certainly a man's constitutional rights can't 

be suspended because an assistant attorney-general is stated to 

be ill. A man must have some rights, and It's an immediate 

situation because he has already lost the opportunity to go to the 

February term, the first summer term; and now, because some­

body is ill, his constitutional rights can’t even be heard. We 

don't think that Is justified at all, and that this state has enough 

money to hire a special attorney if necessary to hear these cas­

es, and the man cannot be asked to forego his constitutional 

rights until somebody recovers from an illness. We are very 

sorry Mr. Shands is ill, and we are not questioning that at all, 

but we do think a case involving constitutional rights cannot be

suspended because someone is ill.
BY MR. GATES: May I make this first clarification? Does counsel



01

have reference to the motion for preliminary injunction that was 

filed on June 29, 1961 ?

BY MRS. MOTLEY: Yes, that is what we are talking about.

BY MR. CATES: I think that before we can get to that — I don’t think 

that is a proper motion to go forward with at this particular time 

for this reason: We are now right in the midst of the other mo­

tion; this is a brand new motion —  and I don’t know what to 

call it, other than that —  that the plaintiff is requesting or ask­

ing us to go forward with on the basis of the supposed discontin­

uance, as it states in the second paragraph, of the hearing. We 

assert that there has been no discontinuance, but it sets out very 

clearly in the record of this court on Page 132 on the previous 

hearing that the Court merely recessed. We already have one 

hearing which we are into now which Mr. Shands is properly 

directing. I don’t see how we can now come in with another pre­

liminary injunction. So I think that we have actually here a 

question of a hearing of two, and I don't think that we can have 

that when in fact this prior hearing has merely been recessed, 

not discontinued for the hearing of a new motion. So I think, 

candidly, that what faces the Court is a question here to deter­

mine whether or not this second motion filed on the 29th of June 

is properly filed when in fact it is now in recess from the prior 

preliminary hearing.
BY MRS. MOTLEY: Of course, the motion is not in recess. Your



82

Honor set the case for trial for July 10th so that the motion was 

in effect denied. We requested a preliminary injunction and we 

didn't get it. That means the motion is denied. The Court set 

it for trial on July 10th. It was then postponed on account of the 

hearing of this case today and also on account of their request 

for time in which to answer with reference to the trial. And we 

therefore had the right to bring on another motion for prelimi­

nary injunction with respect to the second session of the summer 

term. I don't think there is anything improper about having fil­

ed that motion, because the first motion is denied. We didn't 

get any relief. And the Court set that case for trial.

BY THE COURT: Now, no formal ruling was ever made on that.

BY MRS, MOTLEY: That is true, but the motion was denied.

BY THE COURT: It was not granted; in other words, was held in 

abeyance, as I understood it and thought it to be.

BY MRS. MOTLEY: Pardon me ?

BY THE COURT: I thought it simply was held m abeyance. While I 

didn't grant it, I didn't deny it, because we had not finished all 

the elements, as I recall.

BY MRS. MOTLEY: I think that is a denial. We asked for an injunc­

tion. We didn't get it. And in my view, of course, that is a 

denial. We didn't press that. The Court set it for trial. We 

could have appealed from the denial of the motion for prelimi­

nary injunction, but since the case was set for trial there is no



83

point in appealing. Now there is no trial date, and another ses­

sion is coming up and we have not had any relief; so we filed 

another motion for a preliminary injunction* We have to press 

our case. We can’t sit bach and say, "Well, any time f  ou gef 

ready to hear it. " If a man's bringing a constitutional case he 

has a duty to press It, and that is what we are doing. And the 

man hasn't had any determination of his rights, and this case 

has been filed since May 31st. The state has had his application 

since February 1st. Now, on that basis we think they are not 

entitled to any further continuance. If he had just filed this 

application and they hadn't had time to investigate, that would be 

one thing, but from February to July, to say that they are not 

ready in a simple case involving one applicant Is just too much 

to believe. And Mr, Gates has been at every one of these hear­

ings; the other man over there, whose name I don't recall, has 

been at every one of them. They took the plaintiff's deposition 

which the Federal Rules provide for so they can find out what the 

plaintiff's case is all about, what facts they are going to have to 

meet, and that deposition has been taken since June 8th, so they 

cannot come in now in good faith and say, "We are not prepare^ " 

because it is not a difficult and unusual case. There have been 

cases like this in every state in the South. They are reported; 

they have it available, A first year law student can try such a



84

case, and I don't believe that these two lawyers are incapable of 

defending a case involving the admission of a Negro to a law 

school, because the law books are filled with such cases.

BY THE COURT: Well, in view of what transpired this morning in the 

case pending before the three-judge court, an application for a 

stay until August 7th was granted because of the absence of Mr. 

Shands due to his illness, which did not materialize until yester­

day according to the record in that case, and in which counsel 

for plaintiff in this case was of counsel for plaintiffs in the other 

case, and I will permit Mr. Cates to file the same affidavit in 

this case or regarding the one that was filed in the other case 

as having been filed in this case, and in those circumstances 

and for the reasons indicated in that case, I think it vrould be 

wrong to force the defendant to go to trial. As was stated in 

that case this morning and as I imagine counsel for plaintiff 

knows, Mr. Shands has been the leading counsel in all of these 

cases involving civil rights; he is the first assistant to the 

attorney-general of the State of Mississippi, and this particular 

line of litigation has been assigned to him. He has participated 

in all of them, taking the leading part in all of them, and has 

prepared pleadings in all those cases; and under the circum ­

stances, I don't think a short delay would be erroneous or cause 

irreparable injury, because this is an important case, just like 

the one where the three-judge court is sitting in the case. And



85

in this particular case it has been brought to the attention of the 

Court in some of the arguments on some of the other motions 

that the defendants deny that the race issue has prevented his 

being enrolled as a student, but they have asserted other grounds 

which they intend to press. So it will involve a real trial, and, 

just as I stated this morning in the other case, it is an import­

ant case and many questions are involved in it. Ordinarily the 

law is that a litigant is entitled to an attorney of his own choice, 

and in this particular case it was Mr. Shands as the leading 

counsel. And suddenly it develops that he cannot be present, 

upon advice of the doctor; so I think the ground for postponement 

is a reasonable request and I will grant that request. 1 might 

say to the Attorney-General that if Mr. Shands does not show 

improvement so that he can be present on the date this case is 

set for hearing - -  and we will discuss that in a few minutes —  

that he would have to go to trial anyhow, and I will give him add­

itional outside counsel or assign some member of his office to 

conduct the defense. The plaintiff is certainly entitled to a trial, 

and the defense of course is entitled to defend the lawsuit and is 

entitled to a reasonable delay from circumstances that occurred 

only yesterday. So I am going to grant a postponement of it from 

tomorrow and it will not be called up tomorrow; but in response 

to counsel for plaintiff's statement that they thought the motion 

for preliminary injunction was out of order in being filed at this



86

time, I will certainly hold that you have a right to file that mo­

tion for preliminary injunction, and the entire matter will come 

on for hearing upon the motion for preliminary injunction on the 

date to be set. And the Attorney-General can make his arrange­

ments to have another attorney represent the defendant if Mr. 

Shands should not be able to be present. From the affidavit that 

has been filed and Mr. Shands' affidavit, I anticipate - - -  and also 

from my personal observation of Mr. Shands in the courtroom a 

short time ago - - -  that the main tiling he needs is a few weeks 

of rest. The record shows by the affidavit he is subject to high 

blood pressure and has been under a great deal of tension from 

all these cases he has that have been filed. And there have been 

a number of cases involving civil rights, (voting and integration 

of the beach on the Coast and this particular case and some 

three or four other voting right cases in various counties of the 

state.) All of those are in this particular court here with the 

exception of one, which is in the Northern District, or was; I 

don't know whether the judge disposed of it or not. But I know 

there are some in this district and some just filed a few days 

ago - -  three new ones, I was advised by the Clerk's office, have 

been filed within the past few days, and I have set them for hear­

ing on August 7th. Now, as I announced this mornin g in the three- 

judge court, I am going to give that case pending before the 

three judges priority, and I will be required to set the voting



87

rules case and this case following the one with the three judges, 

because it is so difficult for three judges to get together on a 

date satisfactory to all. So on this particular case, I think it 

should come ahead of those voting rights cases, and I will set it 

at some satisfactory date during the week of August 7th, after 

going off the record for a moment to discuss it with counsel, un­

less you would rather have the discussion of a date on the record. 

As I stated to you, Judge Cox, who has been appointed and con­

firmed by the Senate to be a district judge in this district, is 

expected any time, though his commission has not yet come in, 

and it is his intention to take the oath of office as soon as his 

commission comes. So I will have some relief from the other 

type of litigation. Since counsel for all parties are the same in 

these various civil rights cases, I think it would be necessary 

that I proceed with them myself; otherwise, I would assign those 

voting cases to Judge Cox to be heard by him. But under the 

present circumstances that exist now, it occurs to me that the 

voting rights cases that were filed a few days ago will go over 

possibly until the 10th of August, or approximately the 14th of 

August, and that would give the week of August 7th for hearing 

the three-judge case and for hearing this case.

Now, Counsel, how long do you think it would take to hear the

motion for preliminary injunction in the Meredith case ?

BY MRS. MOTLEY: I think it would take one day.



88

BY THE COURT; From your knowledge of it, Mr. Cates, do you 

think it could be heard in one day?

BY MR. CATES; X think possibly it could.

BY THE COURT; I think possibly the three-judge case will be dispos­

ed of on the 7th of August, one day, so what about setting this 

one for the 8th of August?

BY MRS. MOTLEY: I think the three-judge court will probably take 

more than one day. We have subpoenaed at least a dozen wit­

nesses, and I would say now that it would take two days, so I 

think it would be better to set this case for the 10th, instead of 

for the 8th.

BY THE COURT; Very well. That will be Thursday. Very well. Set 

it for Thursday the 10th at nine o'clock, and if Mr. Shands is 

not able to participate at that time, I am going to require the 

case to go ahead for trial because that will give you ample time 

to assign some other lawyer if present counsel would feel he 

would need any assistance. Of course, with reference to these 

young lawyers, they are both bright young men, to my knowledge, 

but not experienced in the trial of cases. To my knowledge, Mr. 

Shands is experienced in trial, and there is a lot of difference 

in knowing how to try a case and in knowing what the law of a 

case is. So, with deference to these two young gentlemen, I am

going to pass it until the 10th of August, but if Mr. Shands is 

not able to participate, you be prepared to go forward with the



89

trial of it.

BY MRS. MOTLEY: There are two other matters with respect to

this case. We have filed a motion to inspect the records, which 

has not been heard, and we served a notice of taking the deposi­

tion of the registrar. Now, we would like to get an order now 

permitting us to inspect the records at the University of M iss­

issippi, and we filed that motion - -  I don't have the date, but 

it’ s been quite some time. We also, as you know, attempted to 

take the registrar's deposition shortly after the suit was filed, 

and then we filed another notice and they postponed that. Now, 

we would like to take the registrar's deposition on July 24th and 

we would like to inspect the records beginning July 24th and 

continuing until we complete the inspection. And we would like 

the Court to enter an order to that effect now permitting us to 

inspect the records and to take the deposition of the registrar so 

we can be fully prepared for the hearing on August 10th.

BY MR. CATES: We of course would like to object. I didn't know — 

We are not prepared to argue those particular matters. We do 

not think offhand that the plaintiff has the right permissively or 

otherwise to inspect the documents. I am not prepared for that, 

to argue for a protective motion for Mr. Ellis under Rule 30, 

but I honestly believe we should not have this deposition taken 

as the leading counsel because, after all, it is the same thing as 

a trial for him to properly present his objections at that time.



90

If the Court would care perhaps to set this thing down for argu­

ment on whether or not we should allow, first of all, the discov­

ery of documents and the deposition at a later date, we would 

prefer that, rather than the Court making an order allowing 

them so do do at this particular time, because it is my first 

blush that they are not entitled so to such discovery.

BY MRS. MOTLEY: Obviously we are entitled to inspect the records. 

How in the world could we try a case if we can’t look at the 

records in the case? The rule provides for it, and he hasn't 

given one reason why we should not inspect the records. This 

case has been pending since May 31st and the rules provide that 

we inspect the records, and there is no reason given here why 

we should not inspect the records. If he had a reason for it, he 

ought to come out with it. How could he possibly object to our 

inspecting records involved in the lawsuit?

BY THE COURT: Counsel for the defendant is just simply raising the 

objection. He is not preparing to argue it. Of course, oppos­

ing side is entitled to object and to present his ground for the 

record and for the Court to determine whether or not you are en­

titled to inspect the records at this particular moment. So I 

think that I will set those motions for the same date as we set 

the other one. At that time Mr. Shands will either be here or

they will be heard at that time. That is on the 10th of August.
BY MR, CATES: While we are clarifying these issues, I just looked



91

at my calendar here, and I note that the answer of the defendant 

is due on the 13th, which is Thursday of this week. It is the 

defendant’ s desire to have that postponed until such time as Mr. 

Shands might properly prepare an an answer to that.

BY THE COURT: Gentlemen: I will allow you until July 19th in which 

to prepare that. If Mr. Shands is able to confer with you and 

give you his advice, he can; otherwise you or some of your 

assistants will have to draw an answer and file it by July 19th.

BY MR. CATES: Yes, sir. That is Wednesday, July 19th.

BY MRS. MOTLEY: I ’ve misunderstood. I thought August 10th was 

the date of the trial. Because the motion won’t do us any good.

We were trying to get him in the second semester, the summer 

session. That will be gone. So it seems to us the trial ought to 

be on August 10th and the whole matter disposed of, because the 

motion is moot then.

BY THE COURT: You can go as far as you can on the 10th of August 

and if you want a short postponement after 1 rule on those, I will 

grant you that and go right ahead.

BY MRS. MOTLEY: Sorry, I didn’t follow you.

BY THE COURT: I say you can go ahead as far on August 10th as you 

can get ready for trial, and at the same time also I will rule upon 

these motions; and if I should sustain the motion for an inspec­

tion of the documents, I will give you such reasonable time as 

you need and then resume the trial of the motion for the



92

preliminary injunction.

BY MRS. MOTLEY: That is what I am saying, Your Honor. We 

moved for a preliminary injunction with respect to the second 

semester of the summer term, which begins July 17th. It will 

not do us any good to press that motion on August 10th because 

the summer school will be half over and done with by then. It 

was my understanding the 10th was the date of trial, which was 

supposed to be today. If the trial was supposed to be today, I 

don't see any reason why the trial could not be on August 10th. 

That was why we were pressing now the right to inspect the r e ­

cords and take the deposition of the registrar. The motion, 

with the date being set for August 10th, would not do us any good, 

to press that motion. It would be too late.

BY THE COURT: The only reason I am postponing is because of the 

illness of Mr. Shands.

BY MRS. MOTLEY: We will withdraw that motion for a preliminary 

injunction because it won’t do us any good. The summer term 

will be over August 10th, and August 10th we are prepared to go 

ahead with the trial - -  which we were prepared to go ahead with 

today. Your Honor had set the trial for today. In view of the 

fact that you have set an early trial date — or I thought it was 

the trial date, August 10th - - w e  were not going to press a mo­

tion for July 17th which would have passed. That wouldn't make 

sense, and we don’t want a hearing on the 10th for a motion when



93

that wouldn’t do us any good.

BY THE COURT: Well, you can file a later motion if you desire at 

some future date, because this case is of such importance that 

while I regret the illness of Mr. Shands and regret that the mat­

ter had to be postponed, I do feel and I know that he is the lead­

ing lawyer in the Attorney-General's office and the only exper­

ienced trial lawyer in that office of this department; and it is 

because of that unexpected illness which has arisen that the 

postponement is caused.

BY MRS. MOTLEY: We are not questioning that. AH we are asking 

now is that Your Honor set the trial of the case for August 10th.

BY THE COURT: All right. It is set for trial on August 10th. Now, 

if you want to press your motion for inspection of the records 

and so forth on August 10th, I 'll set that for August 10th.

BY MRS. MOTLEY: No, we would like to have that heard before the 

trial. If the trial is August 10th, we would like to have the mo­

tion to inspect the records disposed of before then, and we 

would like to take the deposition of the registrar before then; and 

we will file a new notice of taking his deposition on July 25th and, 

as I understand the rules, before that time they are required to 

file their objections to that; and we wiU also file a motion to 

inspect the records on July 24th, and before that time, under the 

rules, if they have any objections they have to make them before 

that date.



94

BY THE COURT: When that is filed, if there are any objections then 

I will take them up. And for your information now, I will be on 

the Coast during the week of July 24th except on July 26th and 

27th. On that date I am to be in Meridian to hear some matters 

on a bankruptcy reorganization proceeding which I can't postpone 

because notice to creditors has gone out. Well, you might con­

tact the Clerk to find out where I will be, because I am in the 

middle of another trial at this moment which w e'll pick up again 

on the 17th of July and which will run for three weeks, but I will 

try to figure out a day, if Mr. Shands is able to appear, to hear 

any matters that may arise in this case. So you can serve the 

notices, and whatever arises I will pass upon when you call it to 

my attention. You might contact the Clerk’s office to find out 

where I will be.

BY MRS. MOTLEY: I would like to add this: We have a motion to 

inspect the records, and I don’t think it is necessary to file a 

new motion. AH we are saying is that we want to amend it to 

permit us to inspect those - -  since Your Honor is going to be 

busy on the 24th, we'H make that July 25th. And we take the 

deposition of the registrar on July 26th, and we’ll file a new no­

tice as to that, and if they have objections to that they have to put 

them in and set it for hearing on their objections. Otherwise I

assume we can go ahead on the 26th.
BY THE COURT: You may do that.



95

BY MRS. MOTLEY; There is one other matter. We have served the 

registrar twice - -  once to take his deposition in Biloxi — and 

we, I think, tendered him $64.00 which has not been returned. 

Whatever the sum is - -  I'm  not insisting that amount is correct. 

We then served him to appear tomorrow and we again tendered 

some money, I don't know the exact amount. What we want to 

do is get an agreement that we wouldn't have to put out any more 

money to get the registrar down here for his deposition or for 

the hearing on August 10th. We have already given him money 

for two occasions, and of course he hasn't appeared. We would 

like to get that straight.

BY MR. GATES; We are of course delighted to tender back any

money for witnesses who have not appeared, and I think that can 

be worked out amicably between counsel. Candidly, it is my 

understanding that the prior witness fee as tendered to M r.Ellis

has been given back. Is that c o r r e c t ? ------Yes, that is my

understanding. But, candidly, Judge, we can work that out 

where they will not have to spend any more money than has been 

thus far spent for these people not being here because this mat­

ter has not been taken up.

BY MRS. MOTLEY; Can we agree he will appear for this hearing on 

the 10th and at the time that his deposition is taken without the 

necessity of tendering any additional money?

BY MR. CATES; Without the necessity of tendering any additional



96

money, yes. That part we can agree to. But now what happens 

in the meantime, I would not want to be in a position of agreeing 

that he will be there --Period. But he will be there without the 

purposes of your having to tender any additional money for tra­

vel fee.

BY MRS. MOTLEY: We will get out an additional subpoena, but if he 

doesn't require the money, we don't have to go to the expense of 

getting the money up to the New York district as we have done on 

two occasions.

BY THE COURT: Yes, that is understood and that is an agreement.

Is there anything further?

BY MRS. MOTLEY: I think that is all.

BY THE COURT: Very well.

5}: >|< 5̂ $



97

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN 

DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI, JACKSON DIVISION

JAMES H. MEREDITH,
PLAINTIFF

Vs.

CHARLES DICKSON FAIR, ET AL,
DEFENDANT

COURT REPORTER' S CERTIFICATE

I, D. B* JORDAN, Official Court Reporter for the United 

States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, do 

hereby certify that the foregoing pages constitute a true and correct 

transcript of the proceedings had on certain matters in connection 

with the above-entitled cause at Jackson, Mississippi before the 

Honorable S. C. Mize, United States District Judge, Southern 

District of Mississippi, on the 10th day of July, 1961.

WITNESS MY SIGNATURE this the 13th day of July, 1961.

/ s /  D. B. Jordan___________
D. B. JORDAN

;j< %  J)s



98

NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION ON ORAL EXAMINATION 
(Title omitted - Filed July 15, 1961)

To the Honorable Dugas Shands, Assistant Attorney General of 

the State of Mississippi, one of the attorneys for the defendants In the 

above-named action:

Please take notice that the plaintiff herein will take in the above- 

entitled action, to be used as authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, the deposition of Robert B. Ellis, Registrar of the Univer­

sity of Mississippi, whose address is the University of Mississippi, 

Oxford, Mississippi, upon oral examination, before a properly quali­

fied reporter to be named by this Court, who is not of counsel or att­

orney for either of the parties to this action, nor a relative or employ­

ee of such counsel or attorney, nor financially interested in this 

cause, on the 26th day of July, 1961, at 10;Q0 o'clock in the forenoon 

of that day, at a place to be designated by the Court, at which time and 

place you are hereby notified to appear and take such part in said ex­

amination as you may be advised and as shall be fit and proper.

Please take further notice that the above designated party,

Robert B. Ellis, Registrar of the University of Mississippi, is hereby 

required to produce upon such examination the following records, pap­

ers and documents:

1. The application for admission to the University of Mississip­

pi of the plaintiff, James Howard Meredith, and all papers and writings 

attached thereto.



99

2. All correspondence between the Registrar and the plaintiff, 

James Howard Meredith.

3. All correspondence and memoranda between the Registrar 

and other officials, faculty and employees in regard to the plaintiff.

4. All transcripts and other written documents received by the 

Registrar from colleges previously attended and presently attended by 

plaintiff.

/ s /  Derrick A. Bell Jr. 
Derrick A. Bell, Jr.
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York

Attorney for Plaintiff

July 12, 1961

>js > '{ >j« %

REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO ORDER 
PERMITTING ENTRY UPON PROPERTY 

AND INSPECTION OF RECORDS 
(Title omitted - Filed July 15, 1961)

In view of the facts set forth by plaintiff in the accompanying 

Notice of Motion, It Is requested that paragraph (2) of plaintiff's Order 

Permitting Entry Upon Property and Inspection of Records filed with 

plaintiff's Motion for Production on June 19, 1961, be amended to read: 

(2) that the said documents be produced at the University of



100

Mississippi, Oxford, Mississippi, or at such other place as is agreed 

upon by the parties, on July 31st, 1961, from 9:00 A. M. until 5:00 

P. M. and on each day thereafter until the documents and records re ­

quested are inspected;

NOTICE OF MOTION

The undersigned attorneys for plaintiff on June 19, 1961, filed 

with this Court a Motion for Production which motion was scheduled to 

be brought on for hearing on June 28, 1961.

On June 22, 1961, the Hon. 8. C. Mize, United States District 

Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi, informed the parties 

that: "In checking my docket I find that I have a conflict for that date 

(June 23) and every day following during that week. I will not be able 

to hear that motion until July 6, at which time I will hear it in Biloxi 

at 9;00 A. M. "

But prior to this date, and on or about June 27th, the defendants 

sought and obtained from the Court additional time to both file an ans­

wer and prepare objections to plaintiff's Motion for Production.

This case is now set for trial on August 10, 1961, before which 

date plaintiff desires to carry out the discovery procedures as re ­

quested heretofore.

Therefore:

Please take notice, that the undersigned will bring the above 

lotion on for hearing before this Court on the 25th day of July, 1961,



101

at 10:00 o 'clock A. M ., of that day, or as soon thereafter as counsel 

can be heard, at a place to be determined by this Court.

/ s /  Derrick A Bell Jr.___________
Constance Baker Motley 
Derrick A. Bell, Jr.
Thurgood Marshall 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York

R. Jess Brown
1105 1 /2  Washington Street
Vicksburg, Mississippi

Attorneys for Plaintiff

(This instrument carries proper certificate of service which is not 
copied here.)

>j< >j< >|< > j: %  ♦  ♦

SEPARATE ANSWER OF CHARLES DICKSON FAIR, E. R.JOBE, 
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF STATE INSTITUTIONS OF 
HIGHER LEARNING OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, EDGAR RAY 
IZARD, LEON LOWREY, IRA LAMAR MORGAN, MALCOLM 
METTE ROBERTS, WILLIAM ORLANDO STONE, S. R . EVANS, 
VERNER SMITH HOLMES, JAMES NAPOLEON LIPSCOMB, TALLY 
D. RIDDELL, HARRY GORDON CARPENTER, ROBERT BRUCE 
SMITH H, THOMAS JEFFERSON TUBB, JAMES DAVIS WILLIAMS 
AND ARTHUR BEVERLY LEWIS___________________________________

Now come Charles Dickson Fair, President of the Board of 

Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning of the State of M iss­

issippi, Euclid Ray Jobe, Executive Secretary of The Board of Trus­

tees of State Institutions of Higher Learning of the State of Mississippi, 

The Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning of the



102

State of Mississippi, Edgar Ray Izard, Leon Lowrey, Ira Lamar 

Morgan, Malcolm Mette Roberts, William Orlando Stone, S. R. Evans, 

Vemer Smith Holmes, James Napoleon Lipscomb, Tally D. Riddell, 

Harry Gordon Carpenter, Robsrt Bruce Smith, II said Thomas Jefferson 

Tubb, as Members of the Board of Trustees of State Institutions of 

Higher Learning, James Davis Williams, Chancellor of the University 

of Mississippi, and Arthur Beverly Lewis, Dean of the College of Lib­

eral Arts of the University of Mississippi, who are made defendants in 

this cause and who constitute all of the defendants except Robert Bryon 

Ellis, and for their separate answer to the complaint herein filed 

against them by plaintiff say:

Each and every part and portion of this answer is made and should 

be taken and construed as if each defendant on whose behalf it is filed 

separately and solely assert same.

FIRST DEFENSE THROUGH AND INCLUDING THE FIFTH
DEFENSE AND MOTION FOR ABSTENTION_______________

1. Defendants say that the Board of Trustees of Institutions of 

Higher Learning of the State of Mississippi, which the complaint at 

paragraph 6 names as a defendant and which plaintiff has asserted he is 

suing as such is not a legal entity suable as such under the law of the 

State of Mississippi, but said Board of Trustees files this answer be­

cause it has been named a party defendant by the plaintiff and the point 

that such Board is not a suable entity as such is not waived.



103

Though the caption or title of this cause does not name or desig­

nate the Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning as a 

defendant said paragraph does.

2. All persons other than the Board of Trustees of Institutions 

of Higher Learning who are made defendants in this cause are sued, as 

apparent from the face of the complaint, in their respective official ca­

pacities.

The defendants filing this answer are all of the defendants exclu­

sive of Robert Byron Ellis, Registrar of the University of Mississippi, 

who files his separate answer as a separate document in this cause.

Each of the defendants filing this answer does hereby adopt in 

toto and in every respect as their answer the answer of Robert Byron 

Ellis just as if each and every allegation including, of course, all 

defenses therein set out, were alleged in this document, the answer of 

each of these defendants.

Respectfully submitted,

CHARLES DICKSON FAIR, President of 
the Board of Trustees of State Institutions 
of Higher Learning of the State of M iss­
issippi

EUCLID RAY JOBE, Executive Secretavr 
of The Board of Trustees of State Institu­
tions of Higher Learning of the State of 
Mississippi

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF STATE 
INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING 
OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI



104

EDGAR RAY IZARD, LEON LOWREY, IRA LAMAR 
MORGAN MALCOLM METTE ROBERTS, WILL­
IAM ORLANDO STONE, S. R. EVANS, VERNER 
SMITH HOLMES, JAMES NAPOLEON LIPSCOMB, 
TALLY D. RIDDELL__HARRY GORDON CARPEN­
TER, ROBERT BRUCE SMITH, II, and THOMAS 
JEFFERSON TUBB as MEMBERS OF THE BOARD 
OF TRUSTEES OF STATE INSTITUTIONS OF 
HIGHER LEARNING OF THE STATE OF 
MISSISSIPPI

JAMES DAVIS WILLIAMS, Chancellor of the 
University of Mississippi

ARTHUR BEVERLY LEWIS, Dean of the College 
of Liberal Arts of the University of Mississippi

BY JOE T. PATTERSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL 
OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

P . M. STOCKETT, JR ., SPECIAL ASSISTANT 
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF 
MISSISSIPPI

DUGAS SHANDS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY 
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

BY / s /  Edward L. Cates ____________________
EDWARD L. CATES, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY 
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

(This instrument carries proper certificate of service which is not 
copied here.)

sjc j|< %  sfc $  sjc

SEPARATE ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, ROBERT B, ELLIS, 
REGISTRAR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI 

(Title omitted - Filed July 19, 1961)

Now comes Robert B. Ellis, Registrar of the University of M iss­
issippi, one of the defendants herein, and for his separate answer to



105

the complaint herein filed against him by plaintiff says:

FIRST DEFENSE

1. Defendant denies that this Court has jurisdiction of this 

cause under Title 23, U. S. C. A . pl343(3), and that this action is 

authorized by Title 42, said Code, p i983; defendant denies that plain­

tiff has been deprived, or discriminated against under color of any 

state law, state custom, state regulation, or state usage, of or as to 

any rights granted or secured by the Constitution or laws of the United 

States; and further denies that plaintiff properly seeks to assert or has 

any rights under the circumstances alleged in the complaint which are 

secured, granted or guaranteed by the due process and equal protec­

tion clauses of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States.

2. Defendant denies that this is a proper proceeding for a de­

claratory judgment pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, U. S, C. A* 

p2201, and that plaintiff represents a class of negro citizens and res i­

dents of the State of Mississippi; defendant denies that plaintiff or a 

citizen and resident of the State of Mississippi has a right to attend 

the University of Mississippi or any other state institution of higher 

learning; defendant denies that the University of Mississippi is pre­

sently limited to white students; defendant denies that plaintiff or any 

white or colored, including negro citizens and residents, citizens and 

residents of the State of Mississippi have a right to attend the



106

University of Mississippi and other state institutuins of higher learn­

ing of the State of Mississippi; defendant avers that applications for 

admission and attendance upon or in the University of Mississippi and 

any other state institution of higher learning is a mere privilege, and 

that all applications for, admission to, and attendance in the Univer­

sity of Mississippi and any other state institution of higher learning 

must be made, gained or acquired respectively upon the terms and 

conditions made and specified by the University of Mississippi auth­

orities, and/or authorities of other institutions, and the Board of 

Trustees of Institutions of Higher Learning of the State of Mississippi 

and the members thereof acting in their official capacity; defendant 

admits or says that plaintiff's application for admission to the Uni­

versity of Mississippi must be and can only be made and acted upon on 

the same terms and conditions applicable to white citizens and resi­

dents of Mississippi, If in fact at the time plaintiff applied for admis­

sion to the University of Mississippi he was a bona fide resident of the 

State of Mississippi; defendant is Informed and believes, and there­

upon denies, that at the time of plaintiff's application for admission to 

the University of Mississippi he was a bona fide resident of the State 

of Mississippi or of the City ox Kosciusko, Attala Gounty, Mississippi, 

within the requirements of the application and as contained In the Gen­

eral Catalog then in effect with reference to the University of Miss­

issippi for the year 1960; defendant denies or says that all allegations 

with reference to any state institution of higher learning other than the



107

University of Mississippi are not pertinent to nor do they have any 

connection with this suit now pending before this Court; defendant de­

nies and says that any person who is not a bona fide resident of the 

State of Mississippi within the terms and provisions set out in said 

1960 General Catalog has any right or privilege of any kind to attend 

the said University of Mississippi; defendant denies all other allega­

tions of this paragraph.

3. As to paragraph 3 of the complaint, this appears to be mere­

ly a statement by plaintiff as to what he claims is an explanation of 

what his proceeding is and what relief he wants and the things and 

matters as to which he wants an injunction; but in order to avoid any 

waiver or admission of any kind by this defendant he denies the alle­

gations of this paragraph of the complaint, if plaintiff construes or 

seeks to construe or seeks to have the contents of said paragraph con­

strued as containing any allegation of fact or even conclusions, and 

defendant says that plaintiff is not entitled to any relief mentioned in 

said paragraph.

4. As to paragraph 4 of the complaint, defendant denies the 

allegations thereof except he admits that the plaintiff is an adult negro 

who claims to be a resident of the State of Mississippi, as shown in 

his application; defendant denies or says that the only institution of 

higher learning in the State of Mississippi to which plaintiff has applied 

for admission is the University of Mississippi, and that any and all



108

allegations in the complaint with reference to any other institution of 

higher learning of the State of Mississippi are not pertinent to this 

suit, have no application hereto, and should be stricken or disregard­

ed by the Court in the trial or hearing of this cause. Defendant admits 

or recognizes or says that plaintiff or any other negro is entitled to 

exercise the privilege to apply for admission to the University of M iss­

issippi but only upon the same terms and conditions applicable to white 

citizens, and the same privilege applies insofar as to all other state 

institutions of higher learning in Mississippi; but defendant denies or 

says that all allegations with reference to any institution of higher 

learning in the State of Mississippi other than the University of M iss­

issippi is not applicable to and should not be considered in any way in 

this cause.

5. As to paragraph 5 of the complaint, defendant admits that 

plaintiff is an adult negro citizen of the United States, but defendant 

was informed and believed and thereupon denies that on January 31, 

1961, and on February 1 and on May 25 when the first parts of his 

application were received by the University of Mississippi, and now, 

that plaintiff was or is a bona fide resident citizen of the State of M iss­

issippi, City of Kosciusko, Attala County, within the provisions of the 

said General Catalog of the University of Mississippi heretofore re ­

ferred to. Defendant admits that plaintiff was born in Kosciusko,

Attala County, Mississippi, on June 25, 1933, and that he secured his



109

high school and elementary education except for the last year in M iss­

issippi, and that his last year of high school education was received 

at Gibbs High School, St. Petersburg, Florida, from which he grad­

uated in 1951. Defendant admits that plaintiff served from July 28, 

1951, to July 27, 1955, and was discharged and that he re-enlisted on 

October 5, 1955, and served until July 21, 1960, in the armed forces 

of the United States and was honorably discharged from the Air Force 

on July 21, 1960. Defendant admits that in September, 1960, plaintiff 

applied for admission to and was admitted to Jackson State Gollege, 

Jackson, Mississippi. Defendant admits that from 1951 through 1960 

plaintiff attended the University of Kansas, Washburn University, and 

the University of Maryland - Far East Division, and that plaintiff earn­

ed some college credits, but upon information and belief denies that 

those are the only institutions he attended during said period and de­

fendant so avers that during said period plaintiff also attended Wayne 

University at Detroit, Michigan, but for only a short time. Defendant 

is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

whether plaintiff is eligible for immediate re-admission to the Univer­

sity of Kansas at Lawrence, Kansas, Washburn University at Topeka, 

Kansas, the University of Maryland - Far East Division, and Wayne 

University, and therefore defendant denies said allegation as to said 

institutions; but defendant admits that plaintiff is now enrolled in the 

summer school session at Jackson State Gollege, Jackson, Mississippi;



110

defendant denies that plaintiff’s record meets the requirements of the 

program in the University for which he has applied. Defendant denies 

a 11 other allegations of this paragraph.

6. As to the allegations of paragraph 6 of the complaint which 

merely names and designates the defendants in this suit, this defendant 

admits same but though it will be more fully covered hereinafter this 

defendant here says that he is informed and believes that the Board of 

Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning is not a suable entity 

under the Constitution and Laws of the State of Mississippi.

7. As to paragraph 7 of the complaint, defendant denies the 

allegations thereof; but says that among other things plaintiff purports 

to set out only part or a portion of the constitutional and statutory 

provisions dealing with the University of Mississippi, and the statutes 

themselves are the best evidence and statement of their contents and 

the power and authority of the Board thereunder. Defendant admits 

that the institutions of higher learning of the State of Mississippi 

which are under the management and control of the Board of Trustees 

of Institutions of Higher Learning are the University of Mississippi, 

Mississippi State College, Mississippi State College for Women, 

Mississippi Southern College, Delta State Teachers Gollege, Alcorn 

Agricultural and Mechanical College, Mississippi Vocational Gollege, 

and Jackson State College; defendant denies that any state statutes, 

constitutional provision or state regulation, state practice, state 

custom or state usage restricts applicants to the University



I l l

of Mississippi or any other institution of higher learning to any race; 

defendant denies and says that irrespective of the foregoing whether 

any other institution of higher learning than the University of Miss­

issippi is or is not restricted to any race is not relevant to, nor is it 

pertinent to this suit, and any allegations as to any other institution of 

higher learning should be stricken or not be considered by this Court 

in this case.

8. As to paragraph 8 of the complaint, defendant denies the 

allegations thereof except as he shall specifically admit in this para­

graph of the answer.

Defendant admits or avers that on January 26, 1961, he receiv­

ed an undated letter from plaintiff, a true copy of which is attached 

hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof and which accurately shows 

the contents thereof. Defendant admits that on January 26, 1961, he 

wrote a letter to plaintiff, a true copy of which is attached hereto as a 

part hereof as Exhibit B which accurately shows its contents, and that 

he enclosed forms and instructions and sent plaintiff a copy of the 

General Catalog referred to in said letter. Defendant admits that on 

January 31, 1961, plaintiff wrote a letter to him, a true copy of which 

is attached hereto as Exhibit C and made a part hereto which accurate­

ly shows the contents thereof. Said letter of January 31 contained as 

the third paragraph thereof the following:

"I will not be able to furnish you with the names of six Univer­
sity Alumni because I am a Negro and all graduates of the



112

school are White. Further, I do not know any graduate person­
ally. However, as a substitute for this requirement, I am 
submitting certificates regarding my moral character from 
Negro citizens of my State.

Defendant admits that on January 31, 1961, plaintiff filled out 

the application form as shown in the works and figures thereon appear­

ing, inclusive of the student health record a part of which document 

was prepared by plaintiff's doctor, and enclosed or attached thereto a 

$10.00 money order payable to the Registrar, University of Mississip­

pi, as a $10.00 deposit for residence hall assignment, a true copy of 

said application is attached hereto as said Exhibit D, and which appli­

cation form and the words and figures therein written upon same accu­

rately shows the contents thereof. The said application was forwarded 

by or with said letter of January 31, 1961. Defendant admits that by 

said application plaintiff sought admission to the Liberal Arts College 

of the University of Mississippi for the second semester of the 1960-61 

school year, which was to commence on February 6, 1961, and that his 

application indicated he would be a transfer student from Jackson State 

College, Jackson, Mississippi; defendant denies that the application 

indicated that plaintiff expected to be classified as a sophomore, and 

avers that the application clearly states that plaintiff asserted that he 

expected to be classified as a junior and not as a sophomore. Defendant 

admits that said letter and application was received by the Registrar on 

February 1, 1961. Defendant avers that the University of Mississippi, 

its officials and the defendant Board of Trustees of Higher Learning



113

require that before an applicant, whether he be a transfer or a person 

entering the freshman class, is entitled to consideration of his appli­

cation upon the merits for admission to the University of Mississippi, 

he must be recommended by at least five alumni in accord with said 

requirements and this requirement applies to every applicant applying 

as a resident of Mississippi to the University, white or colored in­

cluding the plaintiff, a negro, a member of the colored race. Defen­

dant avers that plaintiff failed and refused to submit said names of 

said alumni and thereby failed and refused to comply with said re ­

quirements; defendant avers that said application, among other things 

shows that plaintiff's permanent home address was Route 2, Koscius - 

ko, Mississippi, and that his present mailing address was 1129 Maple 

Street, Apartment 5-D, Jackson, Mississippi; defendant avers that 

plaintiff did not submit with said application and has never submitted 

to the University of Mississippi, or this defendant, or anyone else, a 

certificate certifying to his good moral character and recommending 

him for admission to the University of Mississippi in accord with the 

requirements of said Catalog and rules and regulations; defendant a- 

vers that plaintiff submitted with said application what purports to be 

five certificates purporting to have been signed by residents of Kos­

ciusko, Mississippi, all dated as hereinafter shown, purporting to 

certify to plaintiff's moral character but none of them recommended 

him for admission to the University of Mississippi; said purported



114

certificates are attached to the application. Defendant admits that the 

application asked for a designation of plaintiff's race but defendant a- 

vers that such is fully covered and volunteered by plaintiff in his letter 

of January 31, Exhibit C hereto, supra.

Defendant admits that on February 4, 1961, this defendant as 

Registrar of the University of Mississippi and official thereof advised 

plaintiff by wire that applications for admission for registration for 

the second semester which were received after January 25, 1961, were 

not being considered, and denies that such constituted discrimination, 

if plaintiff actually claims such to have been a discrimination, which 

is not made clear by the complaint; a true copy of such telegram is 

attached hereto as Exhibit E and made a part hereof.

Defendant admits that on February 21, 1961, he received a letter 

from plaintiff dated February 20, 1961, a true copy of which accurate­

ly shows the contents thereof is attached hereto as Exhibit F and made 

a part hereof. Defendant admits that plaintiff did not receive an im - 

mediate reply to this letter nor was such either necessary or proper. 

On February 21, 1961, defendant wrote plaintiff a letter returning to 

him the $10.00 room deposit previously forwarded with said applica­

tion, a true copy of which letter accurately shows the full contents 

thereof is attached hereto as Exhibit G and made a part hereof.

On February 25, 1961, defendant received a letter from plaintiff 

dated February 23, 1961, where among other things plaintiff acknow­

ledges receipt of defendant's letter of February 21, 1961, and returns



115

to defendant the $10.00 room deposit. Plaintiff in said letter request­

ed that his application be considered for acceptance during the summer 

session as outlined by his previous letter of February 20, 1960, which 

summer session commenced on June 6, 1961, for enrollment; a true 

copy showing the full contents of plaintiff's said letter of February 23 

is attached hereto as a part hereof as Exhibit H hereto. Defendant 

admits that plaintiff did not receive an immediate reply to his said let­

ter of 3/13/61 and says that such a reply was neither necessary nor 

indicated.

Defendant admits that on March 20, 1961, he received a letter 

from plaintiff dated March 13, 1961, a true copy of which showing the 

full contents thereof is attached hereto as Exhibit I and made a part 

hereof, in which, among other things, plaintiff asked that his applica­

tion "be considered as a continuing one for the summer session and 

the fall session 1961". Plaintiff further asked to advise him whether 

"all of my transcript from the schools listed on my application have 

been received, * * * ", revealing that he knew that he had failed to 

comply with the requirement of the University of Mississippi in its 

application for admission to list all schools or universities which he 

had attended. Defendant admits that plaintiff received no immediate 

reply to said letter of March 18, and says that such a reply was neither 

necessary nor indicated.

Defendant admits that on March 29, 1961, he received from



116

plaintiff a letter written by him on March 26, 1961, with enclosures 

therein identified which purport to appear to be five letters or state­

ments from the five persons indicated which certify to his good moral 

character and recommend him for admission to the University of M iss­

issippi; this defendant is without information sufficient to form a be­

lief as to the truthfulness or authenticity of the said five purported let­

ters or certificates and, therefore, denies same but in order to give 

a full picture hereof attaches a true copy of the said letter as Exhibit J 

hereto as a part hereof. Defendant admits that plaintiff did not receive 

an immediate reply to this letter and says that such a reply was neither 

necessary nor indicated.

Defendant admits that on April 4, 1961, in connection with or as 

a part of plaintiff’ s original application plaintiff did furnish five written 

instruments which did not recommend plaintiff’ s admission to the Uni­

versity of Mississippi as required by the University of Mississippi but 

which defendant admits, if they be valid and authentic, which defendant 

is without sufficient information to form a belief as to whether they are 

valid and, therefore, denies same, purport to attest to his good moral 

character.

Defendant admits upon information and belief that on April 12, 

1981, plaintiff wrote a letter to Dr. Arthur Beverly Lewis, Dean,

College of Liberal Arts, University of Mississippi, Oxford, Mississip­

p i which itself shows the full contents thereof and a true copy of which



117

is attached hereto as Exhibit K, and that such was received by Dr. 

Lewis on or about the 13th day of April, 1961, and several days later 

this defendant saw a copy thereof. This defendant avers that he was 

shocked, surprised and disappointed that plaintiff under the circum - 

stances with which plaintiff was or should have been acquainted, or 

which plaintiff knew or should have known, that plaintiff would so rash­

ly and so unjustifiedly conclude that he, this defendant, had failed to 

act upon plaintiff's application solely because of plaintiff's race and 

color, and thereby to make such a serious and unjustified charge again­

st this defendant, and that plaintiff would make the statement that he 

had attempted to comply with all of the admission requirements under 

the circumstances well known to him; defendant was further so sur­

prised, disappointed and amazed that plaintiff would arrogantly demand 

in view of the foregoing that Dean Lewis give plaintiff "some assurance 

that my race and color are not the basis for my failure to gain admis­

sion to the University;" all because such was uncalled for, unjustified, 

unwarranted and constitutes such an attitude, outlook and debasement 

of the University and this defendant and of Dr. Lewis, which this defen­

dant had not expected from plaintiff and had no reason to anticipate or 

expect that such an unwarranted and unjustified charge of so serious a 

nature would be so recklessly alleged by plaintiff. Defendant is advised 

and believes and thereupon avers that said defendant Dean did not reply 

to said letter and so says that no letter would have been either proper,



113

indicated or Justified. Defendant admits that on May 9, 1961, he wrote 

a letter to plaintiff which accurately shows the full contents thereof, a 

copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit L and made a part hereof. 

Defendant calls the Court’s special attention to the second sentence on 

page 7 of the complaint beginning at line 5 of the word "however", and 

continuing through line 22 thereof ending with the word "application" 

wherein plaintiff by said complaint doth propose to restate either part 

or substantially all of this defendant's letter of said May 9, 1961, and 

defendant says that upon comparison of said portion of said complaint 

with the letter itself it is apparent how incorrect is plaintiff's statement 

in the complaint and how unjustified plaintiff's charges are in connec­

tion with said letter. Defendant admits that on May 16, 1961, he r e ­

ceived from plaintiff a letter written by him on May 15, 1961, a true 

copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit M and which shows the full 

contents thereof; defendant admits that among other things in said let­

ter plaintiff asserted and demanded that plaintiff's application thereto­

fore submitted to this defendant and thereby to the University of Miss- 

issippi be "treated as a pending application for admission to the sum­

mer session beginning with the first term, June 1961. Defendant admits 

that with plaintiff's said letter of May 15, he received the enclosure 

mentioned therein, a true copy of which enclosure being a letter from 

Plaintiff to Director of Men's Housing, University of Mississippi, is 

attached hereto as Exhibit N as a part hereof, and which shows the full



119

contents of such letter. Defendant admits that plaintiff did not receive 

an immediate reply to the said letters and says that such was neither 

necessary nor indicated. The proper authorities of the University of 

Mississippi with full authority so to do established a policy that no cre ­

dits would be received or honored or recognized by the University of 

Mississippi from any institution which is not a member of a regional 

accrediting association or a recognized professional accrediting asso­

ciation.

Further, as to plaintiff's letter of May 15, 1961, addressed to 

this defendant and received by the latter on May 16, 1961, this defen­

dant was amazed and shocked that plaintiff, could in good faith, be seek­

ing to apply for entrance and gain entrance to the University of Miss­

issippi when the greatest number of credits which could be allowed, in 

any event, if his application were approved for admission, were deter­

mined to be 48 hours at which preliminary stage of the evaluation, when 

in fact plaintiff was offering for evaluation 90 hours but the greatest a- 

mount of credit which could be given should plaintiff's application be 

considered and approved, would be 33 hours, when plaintiff would be 

offering some several hours in excess of 100 hours which would mean 

that plaintiff would lose one year to one and one-half years time in at­

tending college; and from plaintiff's knowledge and acquaintance with 

the circumstances surrounding the benefits of the GI Bill as to contri­

butions to former service men, this defendant believed that such a



120

reduction in hours and such a change in course by plaintiff would cause 

plaintiff to lose all of his GI benefits and this, the defendant knew, woulc 

be quite detrimental to plaintiff.

Defendant admits that on or about May 23, 1961, he received a 

letter from plaintiff dated May 21, 1961, a true copy of which is attach­

ed hereto as Exhibit 0  and made a part hereof and which shows the full 

contents thereof. This defendant noticed and was shocked and amazed 

that plaintiff would again make so rash an assumption as set out in the 

last sentence of Paragraph 1 of said letter of May 21, 1961, in view 

of the explicit statements and contents of defendants’ letter of May 9, 

1961, addressed to and which had been received by plaintiff; defendant 

says that such assumption was thoroughly and totally unjustified and 

raised grave questions in his mind concerning plaintiff, his application 

and his efforts to gain admission to the University of Mississippi and 

his ability to conduct himself as a normal person and a harmonious 

student on the compus of the University of Mississippi.

Defendant admits that on May 25, 1961, he wrote a letter to plain­

tiff, special delivery, which this defendant admits was received by 

plaintiff on May 26, 1961, wherein defendant denied plaintiff's applica­

tion for admission to the University of Mississippi according to the 

terms of said letter, a true copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 

p and made a part hereof and which correctly shows the contents there­

of* In connection with said letter of May 25, 1961, written by defendant



121

to plaintiff, defendant draws the Court's attention to the contents to the 

Complaint, Page 7, last three lines thereof and the first two lines of 

Page 3, which constitute the last five lines of Paragraph 3 of the Com­

plaint wherein, plaintiff among other things, says that one of the grounds 

for rejecting or not approving plaintiff's application for admission to the 

University of Mississippi was that plaintiff "attended a non-accredited 

college ***" and as to that statement, defendant asks the court to com ­

pare it with the contents with his letter of May 25, 1961, to plaintiff and 

further, defendant says that the use of the words "non-accredited co ll­

ege" is not in said letter of May 25, 1961, and does not correctly state 

the contents thereof which this defendant says is very clear and definite 

and defendant says that what plaintiff should have said is that the insti­

tution which plaintiff was then and is now attending is not a member of 

the Southern Association of Golleges and Secondary Schools which is 

quite an entirely different statement which is used by the plaintiff; this 

defendant says further that he cannot understand why defendant by plain­

tiff did not correctly state such part of said letter as plaintiff chose to 

state in the said Complaint.

Defendant admits that on May 26, 1961, he received a telegram 

from plaintiff, a true copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit Q, 

which accurately shows the contents thereof.

Defendant avers that upon his receipt of plaintiff’ s above-mentioned 

telegram of May 26, 1961, defendant sent a telegram to plaintiff, a true



122

copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit R and made a part hereof 

and which accurately shows the contents thereof.

Defendant avers that all letters received by him from plaintiff 

were sent registered mail return receipt requested. Defendant further 

avers that plaintiff's application for admission to the University of M iss­

issippi was rejected because of it and his failure to meet the require­

ments as properly adopted by the University and approved by the Board 

of Trustees, and such rejection was not made because of race.

As to paragraph 9 of the complaint:

Defendant admits that all applications for admission to the 

College of Liberal Arts of the University of Mississippi to which plain­

tiff seeks admission are required to be submitted to the Registrar and 

that the Catalog of the University of Mississippi requires each applicant 

to file with the Registrar five letters from responsible citizens who have 

known the applicant for at least two years, certifying to the applicant's 

good moral character and recommending his admission to the Univer­

sity. Defendant further admits that every applicant for admission to the 

University of Mississippi who resides in or is a resident of Mississippi 

as defined by the provisions of said Catalog must be recommended by 

citizens of his county who are University alumni, but that applicants who 

reside or who are non-residents of the State of Mississippi according 

to the provisions of said Catalog of another state may secure the neces­

sary recommendations from any five responsible citizens of his



123

community. Defendant avers or admits as alleged in the complaint that 

plaintiff by his application was last enrolled in Jackson State College, 

Jackson, Mississippi, and that, as apparent from the application and the 

complaint, plaintiff applied for admission to the University of Mississip­

pi as a transfer student from Jackson State College, Jackson, Mississip­

pi*

Defendant avers that there are certain provisions of the said Cat­

alog of the University of Mississippi, General Catalog Issue No. 1960, 

which were in effect at all times mentioned in this action with reference 

to "Admission of Transfer Students: Advanced Standing" and which in 

part is as follows: "Admission of Transfer Students: Advanced Stand­

ing". Students may be admitted from other approved institutions of 

higher learning upon the presentation of official transcripts of credits 

which certify honorable dismissal and eligibility for Immediate re ­

admission. Transcripts must provide a detailed statement of prepara­

tory units (which must satisfy all requirements for admission to the 

freshman class), and a record listing all college credits and grades.

"The Registrar, under the direction of the Committee on Admis­

sions, will provide each transfer student with an evaluation of the cre­

dits acceptable to the University. The Dean of the college or the school 

to which the student is admitted will inform the student the extent to 

which his credits will apply toward the degree sought. "

Defendant avers and states that the University of Mississippi



124

Catalog draws and makes a distinction between and applicant for ad­

mission and a transfer student and that the plaintiff's was an applicant 

for admission as a transfer student to the University of Mississippi, 

which pre-requisites and requirements to transfer to the University 

were not met by the plaintiff.

Defendant avers that there are provisions of the said 1960 Catalog 

of the University of Mississippi pertaining to the admission of transfer 

students, advanced standing, and to non-resident students of which 

plaintiff knew or with which he is charged with knowledge. Defendant 

denies if plaintiff be a resident applicant of Mississippi, but which de­

fendant denies, that plaintiff is not able to secure recommendation by 

citizens of his county who are University alumni for the reason that 

plaintiff is a negro citizen and resident of the State of Mississippi, and 

denies that plaintiff had or has knowledge that there are not now and 

never has been any negro graduate of the University of Mississippi, and 

denies that such is a fact of common and historical knowledge recogniz­

ed by the laws of Mississippi cited above, and denies that the laws re - 

ferred to in the complaint establish separate institutions of higher learn­

ing as to which applications for admission to or attendance in is re ­

stricted to negroes; and defendant avers that exclusive of plaintiff's 

application, plaintiff has not designated what county in Mississippi is 

his (plaintiff's) county, and avers that this defendant does not know and 

is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of any



125

averment as to what is "his” (plaintiff's) "county" and that, therefore, 

he denies same and defendant avers that he is without knowledge or in­

formation sufficient to form a belief as to the correctness of plaintiff's 

allegations that: "* * * there are not now and never have been any 

Negro graduates of the University of Mississippi, * * *" and, there­

fore, he denies same; defendant was advised and believed and still be­

lieves and thereupon avers that on January 31, 1961, and continuously 

since then the plaintiff was not and is not an adult resident citizen of 

the City of Kosciusko County, State of Mississippi, and was so advised 

and believed on May 25, 1961, and among the things which caused him 

to so believe that plaintiff is not an adult resident citizen of Kosciusko, 

Attala Gounty, Mississippi, or the City of Jackson, Hinds County, 

Mississippi, in accord with the requirements and provisions of the said 

Catalog is that there are conflicting statements by plaintiff as between 

various provisions of the application and the contents of the credit cer­

tificates from Washburn College; this defendant's information and be­

lief has been proven correct and his suspicion verified by the occurence 

of things and matters with which the plaintiff is thoroughly familiar, 

such as his registration papers and poll tax exemption certificate which 

he created or caused to be created in and about his registration upon 

the voter rolls of Hinds County, Mississippi, City of Jackson, --plain­

tiff did not rest with merely registering in the office of the Circuit 

Clerk but also registered in the office of the City Clerk in the City Hall



126

at Jackson; and defendant denies that any laws cited in plaintiff’ s com ­

plaint establishes that it is a fact of common and historical knowledge 

that there have never been any negro graduates of the University of 

Mississippi and so denies that the laws of Mississippi so recognize.

Defendant avers that he is without knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to plaintiff’s allegation that plaintiff "does 

not know any white alumni of the University of Mississippi who would 

recommend his admission" (to the University of Mississippi) and, 

therefore, he denies said allegation; defendant denies that there is any 

policy of segregation complained of or stated in the Complaint which he 

believes would have any effect upon whether a white alumni of the Uni­

versity of Mississippi would recommend plaintiff for admission to the 

University of Mississippi; defendant avers that he is without knowledge 

or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of plaintiff's 

allegation that there is a State of Mississippi official opposition to de­

segregation and, therefore, he denies said allegation; defendant avers 

that plaintiff has not given or stated any valid and efficacious reason 

why he should not be required to meet the same requirement as to cer ­

tificates of good moral character and recommendations for admission 

to the University of Mississippi as is required of white applicants for 

admission to said University, and defendant avers that unless plaintiff 

wants and expects to receive special treatment instead of equal treat­

ment he must be required to meet all requirements for admission,



127

which are demanded of and received from other persons who apply for 

admission to said University. Defendant denies that the alumni certifi­

cation requirement is unconstitutional as applied to him and other neg­

roes for the reason that it places a burden on negroes seeking admis­

sion to the University of Mississippi which is not shared by white res i­

dents seeking admission to the University of Mississippi. Defendant 

avers that he is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of plaintiff's allegation that he is or was on Janu­

ary 31, 1961, and since then including the present an adult bona fide 

resident citizen of the State of Mississippi, Gity of Kosciusko, Attala 

County, or Hinds County, Mississippi, within the purview and require­

ments of a resident "or residence" contained in and required by the 

said General Catalog of the University of Mississippi for the year of 

1960. Defendant avers that plaintiff's application and his efforts to 

gain admission to the University of Mississippi have been made upon 

the basis or predicate that he is and has been within the purview of said 

requirements as defined in said catalog as to residence-an adult resi­

dent citizen of the State of Mississippi, Kosciusko, Attala County, Miss* 

issippi. Defendant denies that the alumni certification requirement is 

unconstitutional bacause in operation and effect it admits the better and 

higher type of student by requiring such recommendations in order that 

such prospective resident applicant procure same.

Defendant is advised and believes, and so believed on May 25,



128

1961, that plaintiff was not seeking admission to the University of Miss­

issippi in good faith for the purpose of securing an education and that 

upon all of the facts and circumstances incident to and connected with 

his application for admission, this defendant concluded that plaintiff did 

not have and would not have the proper respect for an education and the 

education process and necessary incidents thereof and thereto. This 

defendant also believed that a transfer from Jackson State College to the 

University of Mississippi with the resultant decrease in hours of credit 

would jeopardize plaintiff's future benefits under the G. I. Bill of Rights; 

defendant's attitude and outlook caused this defendant to believe and con­

vinced him that plaintiff did not have a normal, average, harmonious 

and proper regard for accuracy and consistency in statements of fact; 

defendant believed and still believes that plaintiff did not have proper re ­

gard for truth and veracity and that he was too ready and willing to make 

such statements as he thought would advance his cause which defendant 

believes was solely to become a student at the University of Mississippi 

irrespective of how he did it.

Defendant avers that plaintiff's applications was not considered 

on its merits as such, but that the reasons expressly assigned in the 

defendant's letter of May 25, 1961, either or both, are valid and proper 

reasons for rejecting plaintiff's said application; the reasons then exist­

ing which were referred to in said letter but which were not specified 

or set out, were themselves valid and sufficient for said rejection and 

this defendant refrained from specifying or setting out said unassigned



129

reasons because of his concern for the plaintiff; such reasons, assign­

ed or unassigned, as aforesaid, either one or more or all or any com ­

binations thereof, constituted in the mind of this defendant more than 

ample reason and justifications for rejecting said application without 

reaching the merits of whether the plaintiff meets the scholastic require 

ments and other considerations which would be made upon a determina­

tion of full consideration of said application.

Under established rules and regulations of the Board of Trustees 

of Institutions of Higher Learning no institution is required to accept a 

transfer student unless the previous program of the transferring college 

is acceptable to the receiving Institution, and the program of studies 

completed by the student and other considerations are acceptable to the 

receiving institution, in this instance the transferring college is Jackson 

State College and the receiving institution is the University of Mississip­

pi, and the said University acting through its officials have defined and 

determined that the previous program of Jackson State College is not 

acceptable to the University because Jackson State College is not a mem­

ber of the Southern Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, and 

which order and regulation of the Board of Trustees of Institutions of 

Higher Learning is valid and efficacious and so is that of the University 

of Mississippi acting through Its officials. As to all other allegations 

hi said paragraph of the Complaint, the defendant denies same.

10. As to the allegations of Paragraph 10 of the Complaint:



130

Defendant denies that plaintiff meets all of the requirements for 

admission to the University of Mississippi as a transfer student; defen­

dant avers that he is without knowledge or information sufficient to form 

a belief that plaintiff is ready, willing and able to pay all fees and tui­

tion charges required of all other students and, therefore, defendant 

denies said allegations of this paragraph of the Complaint; defendant a- 

vers that he does not believe that plaintiff is ready, willing and able to 

abide by all rules and regulations of the University of Mississippi which 

are applicable to all other students and, therefore, he denies said alle­

gations of this paragraph of the Complaint; as to all other allegations of 

this paragraph of the Complaint, the defendant denies same,

11. As to the allegations of Paragraph 11 of the Complaint this 

defendant denies same except defendant admits that when plaintiff filled 

out his application for admission to the University of Mississippi plain­

tiff plainly stated his race and that he stated his race in his letter to 

this defendant which was accompanied by plaintiff’s application, herein­

above referred to. Defendant denies that he understands and interprets 

the policy of the State of Mississippi as being that negroes and whites 

are educated in separate institutions of higher learning, but says that 

he is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of plaintiff's allegation insofar as other officials and residents 

may be concerned that they clearly understand and interpret that the 

policy of the State of Mississippi is that negroes and whites are educat- 

e(i in separate institutions of higher learning; this defendant further



131

says that irrespective of whatever other officials and residents of this 

State may or may not understand and interpret, and Irrespective of any 

such alleged policy of the State of Mississippi, such does not have any** 

thing to do with this lawsuit or the power and authority of the defendant 

Board of Trustees and this defendant.

12. As to paragraph 12 of the complaint, defendant denies the 

allegations thereof.

SECOND DEFENSE

MOTION OF DEFENDANT TO DISMISS FOR 
LACK OF JURISDICTION - IMMUNITY

Now comes the defendant Robert B. Ellis, Registrar of the Uni­

versity of Mississippi, and moves the Court to dismiss this action be­

cause from the face of the Complaint, it is apparent that this Court does 

not have jurisdiction of this cause in that: The plaintiff in this action 

alleges that he is an adult resident citizen of the State of Mississippi and 

that all other defendants including the Board of Trustees of State Insti­

tutions of Higher Learning are citizens of the State of Mississippi; all 

defendants are sued and complained of in their official and representa­

tive character and are immune from this suit by plaintiff; have not waiv- 

ed such immunity and this defendant asserts his immunity; the Board 

of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning of State of Mississip­

pi is an agency of said state created by the Constitution of the State of



132

Mississippi and the said state has not granted plaintiff or anyone else 

the right or authority to sue this defendant or the said Board of Trus­

tees of State Institutions of Higher Learning and he does not consent to 

this suit; this suit Is in substance and effect a suit against the State of 

Mississippi, which is immune from said suit by plaintiff and the said 

state has not granted authority to plaintiff or anyone else to sue it in 

this cause and has not, does not, and cannot consent to suit in this ac­

tion, and has not waived its immunity from this suit.

This action is in effect one for a Writ of Mandamus from this 

Court demanding this defendant as an official of the State of Mississippi 

to do or perform an affirmative act and this Court has not right to issue 

a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ comparable or which seeks or 

does reach the same result as a Writ of Mandamus thereto in this causa

THIRD DEFENSE

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF 
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP AND 

JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT

Now comes Robert B. Ellis, Registrar of the University of Miss­

issippi, one of the defendants in this cause and moves this Court to dis­

miss this action against him on the ground that if there be no Federal 

question in this action arising under the Constitution and laws of the 

United States, this Court is without jurisdiction because from the face 

of the Complaint it appears that there Is no diversity of citizenship as



133

between the person plaintiff and this defendant or any other defendant 

and that the amount, if any, in controversy does not equal Ten Thou­

sand Dollars ($10,000) exclusive of interest and cost.

FOURTH DEFENSE

Plaintiff is barred from maintaining this action because it is 

apparent that he does not come into this Court of Equity with clean 

hands.

FIFTH DEFENSE

Defendant says that plaintiff is estopped to bring this suit because 

of facts and circumstances appearing upon and from the face of the 

Complaint.

THE DOCTRINE OF ABSTENTION

This defendant asserts that the Court should apply the Doctrine 

of Abstention in this cause and abstain from any further proceedings 

herein until the Courts of the State of Mississippi have passed upon and 

acted upon questions effected and controlled by local law, in that:

Plaintiff has alleged various claims and the existence of various 

rights under the Constitution and Laws of the United States but the ex­

istence or non-existence of those alleged rights under the Constitution 

and Statutes of the United States basically depend upon questions of local



134

law and their construction of the rights, powers and duties not only of 

the plaintiff but of this defendant and other defendants in this cause, and 

these questions of local law and interpretation control and affect the 

rights, powers, and duties of the defendant.

Abstention by this Court pending authoritative decision of said 

questions of state and local law and the respective rights, duties and 

obligations of the party plaintiff and defendants in this cause by state 

courts of the State of Mississippi is the best interest of all parties here­

to and may avoid the necessity of the determination of any questions 

under the Federal Constitution and avoid any unnecessary conflict be­

tween the State and Federal Courts on many intricate questions herein.

WHEREFORE, this defendant says that neither plaintiff nor any­

one else is entitled to or should have any relief of any kind, nature or 

description upon the said complaint and that the Court should deny all 

relief hereunder and tax all costs incurred herein against the plaintiff.

Respectfully submitted,

ROBERT B. ELLIS,
REGISTRAR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF 
MISSISSIPPI

BY JOE T. PATTERSON, ATTORNEY 
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF 
MISSISSIPPI



135

P . M. STOCKETT, JR ., .SPECIAL 
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 
THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

DUGAS SHANDS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY 
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF 
MISSISSIPPI

BY / s /  Edward L. Cates...........  ....
EDWARD L. CATES, ASSISTANT 
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE 
OF MISSISSIPPI

VERIFICATION

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 

COUNTY OF HINDS

This day personally appeared before me, the undersigned auth* 

ority in and for the aforesaid State and County, Robert Byron EUis, 

who after being by me first duly sworn on oath says that he is one of 

the defendants in the foregoing cause, that he has ready the foregoing 

answer and knows the contents thereof, and that the same are true to 

the best of his knowledge and belief except as to the matters therein 

stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters 

he thoroughly believes them to be true.

/ s /  Robert B. Ellis 
ROBERT BYRON ELLIS



136

Sworn to and subscribed before me this the 19th day of July, 1961.

/ s /  Heber Ladner______
HE3ER LADNER 
SECRETARY OF STATE

My Commission Expires:

January 1964 

(SEAL)

(This instrument carries proper certificate of service which is not 
copied here.)

EXHIBIT "A"

J H MEREDITH 
1129 Maple Street 
Apartment #5 - D 
Jackson, Mississippi

REGISTRAR
University of Mississippi 
University, Mississippi

Dear Sir:

Please send me an application for admission to your school. Also, 

I would like to have a copy of your catalog and any other information 

that might be helpful to me.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

/ s /  J H Meredith
RECEIVED 
Jan 26 1961 
REGISTRAR 
Univ. of Miss.



137

EXHIBIT l!B" 

January 26, 1961

Mr. J. H. Meredith 
1129 Maple Street 
Apartment 5D 
Jackson, Mississippi

Dear Mr. Meredith:

We are very pleased to know of your interest in becoming a member 

of our student body. The enclosed forms and instructions will enable 

you to file a formal application for admission. A copy of our General 

Information Bulletin, mailed separately, will provide you with detailed 

information.

Should you desire additional information or if we can be of further help 

to you in making your enrollment plans, please let us know.

Sincerely yours,

Robert B. Ellis 
Registrar

rd

Enclosures

G IB



138

EXHIBIT "C"

J H MEREDITH 
1129 Maple Street 
Apartment 5-D 
Jackson, Mississippi 
31 January, 1961

Office of the Registrar 
The University of Mississippi 
Division of Student Personnel 
University, Mississippi

Dear Mr. R ob erts . Ellis:

I am very pleased with your letter that accompanied the application 

forms you recently sent to me. I sincerely hope that your attitude 

toward me as a potential member of your student body reflects the 

attitude of the school, and that It will not change upon learning that I 

am not a White applicant.

I am an American-Mississlppi-Negro citizen. With all of the occurring 

events regarding changes in our old educational system taking place in 

our country in this new age, I feel certain that this application does not 

come as a surprise to you. I certainly hope that this matter will be 

handled in a manner that will be complimentary to the University and to 

the State of Mississippi. Of course, I am the one that will, no doubt, 

suffer the greatest consequences of this event, therefore, I am very 

hopeful that the complications will be as few as possible.

I will not be able to furnish you with the names of six University Alumni



139

because I am a Negro and all graduates of the school are White. Further, 

I do not know any graduate personally. However, as a substitute for 

this requirement, I am submitting certificates regarding my moral 

character from Negro citizens of my State.

Except for the requirement mentioned above, my application is complete. 

All colleges previously attended have been contacted and my transcripts 

should already be in your office or on the way. I am requesting that 

immediate action be taken on my application and that I be notified of its 

status, as registration begins on February 6th, 1961, and I am hoping 

to enroll at this time.

Thank you very much. Very hopefully yours,

/ s /  JH Meredith 
J H MEREDITH 
Applicant

(Exhibit "Dn is not copied here because upon order of the Court the 
original will go up with the record .)



140

EXHIBIT "E"

WESTERN UNION 
TELEGRAM

Charge to the account of 
Registrar ** Ext. 251

To _______ ___________  Feb. 4 1961
Street and No.________ .________________________  , ....  . , ......... -
Care of or Apt. No.__________________  Destination.................. ....

For vour Information and guidance it has been found necessary 
to discontinue consideration of all applications for admission or 
registration for the second semester which were received after 
January 25. 1961. Your application was received subsequent to 
such date and thus we must advise you not to appear for 
registration.

Robert B. Ellis, Registrar Ext.' 251

EXHIBIT "F 11

J H MEREDITH 
1129 Maple Street 
Apartment 5-D 
Jackson, Mississippi 
February 20, 1961

Office of the Registrar 
The University of Mississippi 
Division of Student Personnel 
University, Mississippi

Dear Mr. Robert B. Ellis:

Reference your telegram, dated, February 4, 1961. I am very 

disappointed because it was found necessary to discontinue considera­

tion of applications for admission or registration for the second



141

semester prior to the receipt of my application. In view of this fact,

I am requesting that you consider my application for admission to your 

school a continuing application for admission during the summer sessioi 

beginning June 8, 1961.

Have you received all of the information necessary to make my 

application for admission a complete one? Did you receive transcripts 

from the University of Kansas, Washburn University, The University 

of Maryland, and Jackson State College, complete with a certificate of 

honorable dismissal or a certificate of good standing?

I am requesting that immediate action be taken on my application and 

that I be notified of its status. Again, I would like to express my 

gratitude for the respectable and humane manner in which you are 

handling this matter and I am very hopeful that this procedure will 

continue.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely yours,

/ s /  J H Meredith 
J H MEREDITH 
Applicant

RECEIVED 
Feb 21 1961 
REGISTRAR 
Univ, of Miss.



142

EXHIBIT "G" 

February 21, 1961

Mr. J. H. Meredith 
1129 Maple Street 
Apartment 5-D 
Jackson, Mississippi

Dear Mr. Meredith:

Since we were unable to accept your application for admission, I am 

returning your money order in the amount of $10 which was submitted 

as a room deposit.

Sincerely yours,

Robert B. Ellis 
Registrar 

cw

Enclosure

EXHIBIT "H"

J H MEREDITH 
1129 Maple St. Apt 5D 
Jackson, Mississippi 
23 February, 1961

Office of the Registrar 
The University of Mississippi 
Division of Student Personnel 
University, Mississippi

Dear Mr. Ellis:

Reference your letter of February 21, 1961. I am returning to you the 

money order in the amount of $10.00 for a room deposit, since I have 

requested that my application be considered for acceptance during the



143

summer session,

Sincerely yours,

/ s / J H  Meredith
J H MEREDITH 
Applicant

Enclosure RECEIVED
Feb 25 1961 
REGISTRAR 
Univ, of Miss.

EXHIBIT "I"

J. H. MEREDITH 
1129 Maple Street 
Apartment 5-D 
Jackson, Mississippi 
18 March, 1961

Mr. Robert B. Ellis 
Office of the Registrar 
The University of Mississippi 
Division of Student Personnel 
University, Mississippi

Dear Mr. Ellis:

Reference my letter of February 20, 1961, which was received by your 

office on February 21st, 1961, to date I have not received an answer.

I am requesting that my application be considered as a continuing one 

for the Summer Session and the Fall Session, 1961; also, please 

advise me as to whether all of my transcripts from the schools listed 

on my application have been received, complete with a certificate of 

honorable dismissal or a certification of good standing; further, advise 

me whether there remains any further prerequisites to admission



144

which I have not yet completed.

Please acknowledge this letter.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

/ s /  J H Meredith
J H MEREDITH 
Applicant

RECEIVED 
Mar 20 1961 
REGISTRAR 
Univ. of Miss.

EXHIBIT "J"

J H MEREDITH 
1129 Maple Street 
Apartment 5-D 
Jackson, Mississippi 
March 26, 1961

Mr. Robert B. Ellis 
Registrar
The University of Mississippi 
University, Mississippi

Dear Mr. Ellis:

Reference my application for admission to the University of Mississippi, 

dated January 31, 1961, my letter of January 31,1961, my letter of 

February 20, 1961, and my letter of March 18, 1961.

Please note the Bulletin of The University of Mississippi, General

Catalog Issue 1960, page 83, which states that "the Registrar, under 

the direction of the Committee on Admissions, will provide each



145

transfer student with an evaluation of the credits acceptable to the Uni­

versity. " Please send me a copy of my evaluation immediately.

Also, on page 83, it states that ,!the dean of the college or the school 

to which the student is admitted will inform the student to the extent 

which his credits will apply toward the degree sought." If it is approp­

riate at this time, I would like to be informed on this matter.

Note also, on page 82, under "Admission Requirements". Reference 

my letter of January 31, 1961, which contained as enclosures, five 

certificates attesting to my good moral character, but did not recom ­

mend me for admission to the University of Mississippi. Attached 

herewith is an additional letter from each of these five persons, cer­

tifying my good moral character and recommending me for admission 

to the University.

Again, I would like to take this occasion to express my sincere hope­

fulness that my application will be processed in the normal manner and 

that I be informed of its approval or disapproval. However, realizing 

that I am not a usual applicant to the University of Mississippi, and 

that some timely items might need to be considered, I certainly hope 

that the entire matter will be handled in a manner complimentary to the 

University of Mississippi.



146

Thank yon and I hope to hear from you soon.

Sincerely yours,

/ s /  J K Meredith
J H MEREDITH 
Applicant

Enclosures
1. Ltr fr Rev. S.L. Brown
2. Ltr fr Mr. L. L. Keaton
3. Ltr fr Mr. Milton Burt
4. Ltr fr Mr. Henry Newell
5. Ltr fr Mr. Lannie Meredith

P. S. Will you please send me a copy of the General Catalog Issue 
for 1961.

RECEIVED 
Mar 29 1961 
REGISTRAR 
Univ. of Miss.

EXHIBIT "K"

J. H. Meredith 
1129 Maple Street 
Apartment 5-D 
Jackson, Mississippi

April 12, 1961

Dr. Arthur Beverly Lewis 
Dean, College of Liberal Arts 
University of Mississippi 
Oxford, Mississippi

Dear Dr. Lewis:

In January 1961, I obtained an application for admission to the 

University of Mississippi from Mr. Robert B. Ellis, Registrar of the 

University and mailed same to him on January 31, 1961.



147

After my application was received by the Registrar, I received 

from him a telegram on February 4, 1961, advising me that applica­

tions for admission or registration for the Second Semester received 

after January 25, 1961, were not being considered.

On February 20, 1961, I wrote to Mr. Ellis and advised him 

that 1 would like my application to be considered a continuing applica­

tion for the Summer Session beginning June 8, 1961 *

I did not receive a reply from Mr. Ellis and, therefore, on 

March 18, 1961, I wrote him once again requesting that my application 

be considered a continuing one for the Summer Session and for the Fall 

Session 1961. I have not received a reply to my March 18th letter.

On March 26, 1961, I wrote to Mr. Ellis again regarding my 

application. Again I have not received a reply from Mr. Ellis.

When I forwarded my application to Mr. Ellis on January 31,1961, 

I stated in a letter to him and in my application that I am a Negro citi­

zen of Mississippi. Because of my failure to hear from Mr. Ellis 

since his telegram to me of February 4, 1961, I have concluded that 

Mr. Ellis has failed to act upon my application solely because of my 

race and color, especially since I have attempted to comply with all 

of the admission requirements and have not been advised of any defic­

iencies with respect to same.



148

Dr. Arthur Beverly Lewis April 12, 1961

I am, therefore, requesting you to review my case with the Reg­

istrar and advise me what admission requirements, if any, I have fail­

ed to meet, and to give me some assurance that my race and color are 

not the basis for my failure to gain admission to the University.

Sincerely yours,
/ s /  J H Meredith 
J, H. MEREDITH

EXHIBIT "L 11 

May 9, 1961

J. H. Meredith 
1129 Maple Street 
Apartment 5-D 
Jackson, Mississippi

Dear Sir:

I have seen your letter of April 12, 1961, to Dr. Arthur Beverly Lewis, 

Dean of the College of Liberal Arts. Of course, your application has 

been received and will receive proper attention.

In connection with your inquiry as to receipt of transcripts of credits 

from the colleges listed in your application, I have received the tran­

scripts each of which shows a certificate of honorable dismissal or cer­

tification of good standing.



149

As to your request for an evaluation of your offered credits, I believe 

I snould advise you at this preliminary stage that my evaluation of your 

credits indicates that under the standards of the University of M ississ­

ippi the maximum credit which could be allowed is forty-eight (48) 

semester hours if your application for admission as a transfer student 

should be approved. By your transcripts you offer a total of ninety (90) 

semester hours credit.

My evaluation of your credits is not in any way a determination or de­

cision as to whether your application for admission will be approved 

or disapproved or of its sufficiency.

In view of the foregoing, please advise if you desire your application 

to be treated as a pending application.

Yours truly,

Robert B. Ellis 
Registrar

RBE :cw



150

EXHIBIT "M"

J H MEREDITH 
1129 Maple Street 
Apartment 5-D 
Jackson, Mississippi 
May 15, 1961

Mr, Robert B, BHis 
Registrar
The University of Mississippi 
Division of Student Personnel 
University, Mississippi

Dear Sir:

I received your letter of May 9, 1961, and I am indeed pleased to know 

that my application will receive proper attention.

In answer to your question as to whether I desire to have my application 

treated as a pending application; It Is my desire that my application be 

treated as a pending application for admission to the Summer Session, 

beginning with the First Term, June 1961; and please advise me if 

there is anything further that I should do in order to complete my appli­

cation.

Also, you stated in your letter that your evaluation of my credits was 

not in any way a determination or decision as to whether my application 

for admission will be approved or disapproved or of its sufficiency. Of 

course, at this point, it is imperative that I be positively informed with 

respect to approval, disapproval, and/or sufficiency of my application, 

because I am married and will have to make appropriate arrangements



151

for my family in any event. Therefore, I will be pleased to know the 

status of my application at the earliest possible date.

It certainly would be a grand accomplishment if we could devise a 

system of education whereby all capable and desirous prospective recip­

ients could receive the desired training without having to suffer the 

consequencies of undesirable concomitant elements.

Thank you.

Yours truly,
/ s /  J H Meredith 
J H Meredith 
Applicant

Enclosure: Letter of Application to the Director of Men's Housing,

RECEIVED 
MAY 16 1961 
REGISTRAR 
IJniv. of Miss.



EXHIBIT !,N"

J H MEREDITH 
1129 Maple Street 
Apartment 5-D 
Jackson, Mississippi 
May 15, 1961

Director of Men's Housing 
The University of Mississippi 
University, Mississippi

Dear Sir:

Please regard this letter as an application for occupancy of one of the 

University apartments appropriate for my family size. I have a wife 

and one child - age one (1).

I have already on file with your office an application for housing in one 

of the Men's residence halls. If, I am admitted to the University, and 

it is at a time prior to the availability of an apartment, I would desire 

domitory accommodations until an apartment becomes available.

Enclosed is a Money Order for $25.00 as a security deposit.

Thank you.

Yours truly,
/ s /  J H Meredith 
J H MEREDITH

RECEIVED 
MAY 16 1961 
REGISTRAR 
Univ. of Miss.



153

EXHIBIT "O'1

J H MEREDITH 
1129 Maple Street 
Apartment 5-D 
Jackson, Mississippi 
May 21, 1961

Mr. Robert B. Ellis 
Registrar
The University of Mississippi 
Division of Student Personnel 
University, Mississippi

Dear Sir:

You wrote me on May 9, 1961, requesting that I inform you whether I 

still wanted my application considered as pending for admission. I 

indicated in my reply that I did wish admittance for the First Summer 

Session, beginning June 8, 1961. To date, I have not received an 

answer. I assumed by the nature of your request that my application 

was entirely complete and that I have met all of the pre-registration 

requirements of the school, and that I am otherwise qualified, and now 

all I need is a "statement of admission" from you.

Please advise me on this matter, so that I can make plans for attend­

ing the University this summer.



154

If you have already sent such instructions to me, please excuse this

letter.
Thank you.

Yours truly,
/ s /  J H Meredith
J H MEREDITH 
Applicant

EXHIBIT "P"

May 25, 1961

Mr. J. H. Meredith 
1129 Maple Street 
Apartment 5-D 
Jackson, Mississippi

Dear Mr. Meredith:

I regret to inform you, in answer to your recent letters, that your 

application for admission must be denied.

The University cannot recognize the transfer of credits from the insti­

tution which you are now attending since it is not a member of the 

Southern Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools. Our policy 

permits the transfer of credits only from member institutions of region­

al associations. Furthermore, students may not be accepted by the 

University from those institutions whose programs are not recognized.

As I am sure you realize, your application does not meet other require­

ments for admission. Your letters of recommendation are not



155

sufficient for either a resident or a nonresident applicant. I see no 

need for mentioning any other deficiencies.

four application file has been closed, and I am enclosing with this 

letter your money orders for $10.00 and $25.00 which you submitted 

to me earlier.

Sincerely yours,

Robert B. Ellis 
Registrar

RBE :cw 

Enclosures

EXHIBIT "O."

WESTERN UNION 
TELEGRAM

0X0 PD- JACKSON MISS 26 1049A C3T=“  “

ROBERT B ELLIS REGISTRARS ORZ=

PLEASE ADVISE WHETHER MY APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION FOR

THE SUMMER SESSION JUNE 8 1961 HAS BEEN APPROVED:

J H MEREDITH 1129 MAPLE ST APT 5-D JACKSON MISS:1155A:

RECEIVED 
MAY 26 1961 
REGISTRAR 
Univ. of Miss.



156

WESTERN UNION 
TELEGRAM

EXHIBIT "R"

Charge to the account of 
Registrar - Ext 251

To Mr. J« H. Meredith______________ ______  Mav 26 19 61
Street and No. 1129 Maple Streets Apt. 5-D 
Care of or

Apt. No. Destination Jackson. Mississippi

Letter advising action on vour application mailed yesterday.________

If not received advise me by wire and copy of letter will be

forwarded immediately. ..........

Robert B. E llisf Registrar________ ________

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.


Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Return to top