Meredith v. Fair Transcript of Record Vol. I
Public Court Documents
January 1, 1962
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 December 05, 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________ ________