Rivers v Roadway Express Brief for Petitioners
Public Court Documents
April 30, 1993

68 pages
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Brown v. County School Board of Frederick County, Virginia Brief and Appendix for Appellants, 1963. 1e5b80a5-b69a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/99d6a3d5-2daa-457e-8b29-06947653e53a/brown-v-county-school-board-of-frederick-county-virginia-brief-and-appendix-for-appellants. Accessed August 19, 2025.
Copied!
BRIEF AND APPENDIX FOR APPELLANTS In The UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For The Fourth Circuit No. 9193 Brenda Elaine Brown, et al, Appellants, vs. County School Board o f Frederick County, Virginia, et al, Appellees. S . W . T u c k e r H e n r y L. M a r s h , III 214 East Clay Street Richmond, Virginia O t t o L. T u c k e r 901 Princess Street Alexandria, Virginia Attorneys for Appellants The Press o f Lawyers Printing Com pany, Incorporated, Richmond 7, V irg in ia JAMES. M. TA BLE OF CONTENTS Page Statement of the Case .......................... .............................. 1 Statement of the Facts ................................. ..................... 2 The Questions Involved............................................ .......... 6 Argument ........................................................................... . 7 I. The District Court, In This Case, Should Require The School Board T o Effectuate A Trans ition To A Racially Nondiscriminatory School System ............. 7 II. The Justice O f This Case Requires An Award O f Counsel Fees ...................... -................. 8 Conclusion ....................... 11 TA B LE OF CASES Bell v. School Board o f Powhatan County, 321 F 2d 494 (1963) ................... 8 Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond .... F 2d (4th Cir., May 10, 1963) ................. .................. 7 Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).... 9 Brown v. Board o f Education of Topeka, 349 U.S. 294 (1 9 5 5 ) ................................................. 7 Cleveland v. Second Nat. Bank & Tr. Co., 149 F 2d 466 (6th Cir. 1945) ....................................................... 8 Guardian Trust Co. v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., 28 F 2d 233 (8th Cir. 1928) ................................. 8 Local 149 International Union U AW , etc., v. American Brake Shoe Company, 298 F 2d 212 (1962) ........ 9 Re Schwartz, 130 F 2d 229 (7th Cir. 1942) ................ 7 Page Rolax v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 186 F 2d 743 (4th Cir. 1951) .......................... 9 Schlein v. Smith, 160 F 2d 22 (D . C. 1947) ................ 8 Vaughan v. Atkinson, 291 F 2d 813, reversed 369 U.S. 527 (1962) ...................................... 8 Watson v. City o f Memphis, 373 U.S. 526 (M ay 23, 1963) ............................................................. 8 O TH ER AU TH O R ITIE S Code o f Virginia, 1950, as amended, § 22-72 ................. 9 Constitution of Virginia, §34 ........................................ 9 Right to Counsel Fees in Federal Court, 8 L ed 2d 912 ......... 8 In The UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For The Fourth Circuit No. 9193 Brenda Elaine Brown, et al, Appellants, vs. County School Board o f Frederick County, Virginia, et al, Appellees. BRIEF OF APPELLANTS STA TE M E N T OF T H E CASE On September 18, 1962, six Negro infants and their father, all residents of Frederick County, Virginia, suing for themselves and in behalf o f others similarly situated, instituted this action seeking, inter alia, (1 ) the immediate admission o f two of the infants to the only high school maintained by their county’s school board, (2 ) an injunc tion restraining the continued operation of a bi-racial school system, and (3 ) costs and attorney’s fees in such amount as to the court may appear reasonable and proper. [A. pp. 1, 2 . ] A hearing was held on October 2, 1962 on the plaintiffs’ 2 motion for an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants forthwith from refusing to permit Julia and Julian Brown to attend the James Wood High School in said county. The court’s order entered on the same date recites, in part, v iz : “ By consent of all counsel, evidence was heard which might affect all phases o f the case, but with the understanding that. . . a further hearing for the taking of evidence would be held at a later date if any party re quested it. And the court having considered the evidence adduced DEN IED plaintiffs’ request for an interlocutory injunction.” [A. p. 17.] The defendants filed answers, denying most of the allega tions of the complaint and requesting the court to dismiss the cause from the docket. Following exchange of corre spondence between the district judge and counsel for the respective parties, the court, on July 22, 1963, and over the objection of counsel for plaintiffs [A. pp. 18-19], en tered an order striking the cause from the docket [A. pp. 20-21], Notice of appeal was filed on August 21, 1963 [A. p. 21.] STA TE M E N T OF TH E FACTS The Frederick County School Board operates fifteen elementary schools and one high school. The James E. Wood High School and fourteen of the elementary schools are the schools which white children attend. The principals, teachers and administrative assistants at these schools are white persons. The Gibson Elementary School is the only school operated by the Frederick County School Board to which Negroes are routinely assigned. It is staffed solely by Negro personnel. [A. pp. 3-4.] Each year the principals o f each o f the elementary schools pass out pupil placement forms to be filled out and signed by the parents of graduating pupils. These forms have no space provided for the designation o f a particular high school but printed on the form is a request that the “ child be placed in the public school system in [Frederick] County.” Pursuant to a policy of the Frederick County School Board, the superintendent o f schools recommends to the Pupil Placement Board that the white children graduated from elementary school attend the James Wood High School and that the Negro children similarly advanced attend Douglas High School— an all-Negro school located in the City of Winchester and operated by the School Board of the City o f Winchester. Under an agreement with the City o f Winchester which has existed since prior to 1949, the appellee School Board pays tuition to the City of Winchester, and provides transportation, to the end that Negro students living in Frederick County may attend Douglas High School [A. pp. 5-9.] There are only 26 Negro pupils attending the Douglas High School and approximately 100 Negro elementary pupils attending the Gibson School. Approximately 1500 white pupils attend the James E. W ood School. [A. p. 12] The School Board maintains a fleet of about 40 buses. Two o f the buses serve all the Negro pupils, traveling the entire length of the county except in the two districts in which no Negroes reside, carrying high school pupils into the City of Winchester and the elementary pupils to the Gibson School. The other 38 buses serve the white children. [A. pp. 15-16.] On or about August 9, 1962, Julian E, Brown requested that Julia and Julian Brown be transferred to the James Wood School and that his four younger children be trans 4 ferred to the Stonewall Elementary School. [A. p. 10.] A few days later, counsel for the plaintiffs wrote a letter to the superintendent making the same request. The su perintendent responded by requesting that the parents of the infants stop by his office to complete the necessary (pupil placement) forms. [A. p. 11.] Applications on pupil placement forms were made for the two high school pupils to attend the James W ood High School and for the four elementary pupils to attend Stonewall Elementary School for the 1962-63 session. The testimony of the Di vision Superintendent shows: “ They [the applications on pupil placement forms] were mailed on September 1st by order o f the Freder ick County School Board. A special session of the Board was held on the evening of August 31st and I was authorized by the School Board to' have them sent to the Pupil Placement Board for consideration. They were mailed then the next morning.” [Tr. p.16.] The Pupil Placement Board’s response as addressed to the father of the infant applicants and read into the record follows: “ The pupil placement board did not consider the applications for your child, Julian and Julia to be placed in Frederick County schools because of your failure to follow established procedure as outlined in our memorandum No, 34 which is as follows: The Pupil Placement Board will not consider applications for original placement in or transfer [to] a particular specified school unless such application is filed in writ ing stating reasons for preference. These applications 5 must be filed with the local division superintendent of schools prior to June 1 immediately preceding the next ensuing school session for which such placement or transfer are desired. This is of course without preju dice to your right to make applications for the school year 1963-1964 prior to June 1, 1963 if you so desire.” [Tr. p. 14.] The following excerpts from the testimony of the Su perintendent of Schools eloquently reflect the attitude of the local school officials: “ Q. Then I ask you, other than the factor o f race, is there anything that requires these Negro children to attend school outside the county or is there any obstacle preventing their attending school within the county ? “ A. We have been operating a bi-racial school system down through the years. It has been the custom. “ Q. Aside from race, is there any other obstacle? “ A. I can’t think of any. “ Q. So that if the school board wanted to eliminate this racially [discriminatory] feature of the school operation as far as the high school is concerned, it could eliminate that at any time couldn’t they ? “A. That’s possible [A. pp. 13-14.] * * * “ Q. One more question. Assuming the school board wanted to, is there any obstacle that would prevent their desegregating the entire school system within a year ? “ A. I don’t know of any. [A. pp. 14, 15.] * * * 6 “ Q. If the school board wanted to forget about race, you could then take these pupil placement forms and recommend that children attend the schools near their hqmes regardless of where they live or what their color is couldn’t you ? “ A. It could be done. “ Q. And according to your experience with the Pupil Placement Board whatever you recommend, that is what they assign— that has been the experience up to this time hasn’t it? “ A. Yes they have— the Board has followed the recommendations.” [A. p. 17.] At an earlier point, the Superintendent had testified, viz: “ Q. Well, has the School Board attempted to find some method of desegregating the schools ? “ A. W e haven’t looked for any method. W e realize that desegration will probably come in the future, but to this point we haven’t set up any organized plan to do this. “ Q. You have not taken any steps to initiate it? “ A. No sir.” [A. p. 4] T H E QUESTIONS IN VO LVED I. Should the District Court, in this case, require the school board to effectuate a transition to a racially nondiscrimina- tory school system? 7 Does the justice o f this case require an award of counsel fees? II. ARGU M EN T I. The District Court, In This Case, Should Require The School Board To Effectuate A Transition To A Racially Nondiseriminatory School System. The Supreme Court directed that “ the courts will require that the defendants make a prompt and reasonable start toward full compliance” with the May 17, 1954 ruling, taking into consideration “ the adequacy o f any plans the defendants may propose . . . to effectuate a transition to a racially nondiseriminatory school system. During this pe riod o f transition, the courts will retain jurisdiction of these cases” . Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 349 U.S. 294 (1955). In the case of Bradley v. School Board o f the City o f Richmond, F.2d , (4th Cir. May 10. 1963) this court held: “ not only are the individual infant plaintiffs entitled to relief which has been ordered but the plaintiffs are entitled, on behalf o f others of the class they represent and who are similarly situated, to an injunction against the continuation of the discriminatory system and practices which have been found to exist” . “Brown never contemplated that the concept of ‘deliberate speed’ would countenance indefinite delay in elimination of racial barriers in schools . . .” Watson v. City of Memphis, 8 373 U.S. 526 (May 23, 1963). In light o f the evidence that the entire school system can be desegregated within a year, the court’s clear duty was to require no less. II The Justice Of This Case Requires An Award Of Counsel Fees An annotation entitled “ Right to Counsel Fees in Fed eral Court” appears in 8 L ed 2d beginning at page 912. Section 9 o f that annotation deals with fraudulent, ground less, oppressive, or vexatious conduct. O f the cases from other circuits therein cited, we call attention to Cleveland v. Second Nat. Bank & Tr. Co., 149 F 2d 466 ( 6th Cir. 1945); Schlein v. Smith, 160 F 2d 22 (D.C. 1947); Re Schwarts, 130 F 2d 229 (7th Cir. 1942) and the illuminat ing discussion o f the subject afforded in Guardian Trust Co. v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., 28 F 2d 233 (8th Cir. 1928). In this jurisdiction the problem has arisen in Rolax v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 186 F 2d 743 (4th Cir. 1951); Local 149 International Union U AW , etc., v. American Brake Shoe Company, 298 F 2d 212 (1962), Vaughan v. Atkinson, 291 F 2d 813, reversed 369 U.S. 527 (1962) and, with respect to school desegregation, in Bell v. School Board ■of Powhatan County, 321 F 2d 494 (1963). “ The principle that the federal courts have inherent power to award attorney’s fees as costs in the absence o f statutory authority has been recognized where such fees were denied, relied on where they were granted. The variety of factual circumstances in which this principle has been applied indicates that ‘dominating 9 reasons of justice’ has been the guide to its applica tion.” Local 149 International Union U A W , etc., v. American Brake Shoe Company, supra. In Bell v. School Board o f Powhatan County, supra, “ dominating reasons o f justice” compelled this Court to overrule the District Judge’s discretion exercised in denial of counsel fees. Since the decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the instant school authori ties have followed “ the long continued pattern o f evasion,” including an “unyielding refusal to take any initiative, thus casting a heavy burden on the children and their parents.” (C f. Bell v. School Board o f Powhatan County, supra.) Certainly in this respect the appellee school board (as does practically every school board in the state) falls under the condemnation of the opinion in Watson v. City o f Memphis, supra, and subjects itself to the rationale expressed in Rolax v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., supra, and quoted in Local 149 International Union UAW, etc., v. American Brake Shoe Company, supra, here paraphrased, viz: Infant plaintiffs o f small means have been subjected to discriminatory and oppressive conduct by public school officials who, by their oath,1 are required to protect the interests of school children and to effectuate their present right to freedom from racial discrimination in the public school system. “ Dominating reasons of justice” would seem 1 “ I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me as . . ., according to the best of my ability, so help me God” . Constitu tion of Virginia, §34. See also, Code of Virginia, §22-72, v iz : The school board shall have the following powers and duties : * * * * (11) Other duties.— 10 to require an award of counsel fees in any such case, if the equitable remedy is to be complete. The instant case contains the further elements which, in Bell, impelled this Court to reverse the chancellor’s dis allowance of counsel fees. Here, as there, the authorities have not only refused to take the initiative toward com pliance with the governing constitutional principles, they have wilfully interposed “ a variety of administrative ob stacles to thwart the valid wishes of the plaintiffs for a desegregated education.” This record shows that the simp lest administrative procedure would be to forget race and assign elementary school children to the schools nearest their homes and high school children to James Wood High School. Rather than do this, the school board, at additional expense, causes two buses to canvass the entire county and transport all o f the Negro elementary school children to Gibson Elementary School and the Negro- high school children to Winchester's Douglas High School for at tendance at which tuition is paid by the school board— all for the purpose o f separating these children from all others solely because of race, in violation of what since 1954 has been known to be paramount law. The complaint alleges that “ prior to the commencement of the 1961-62 school session and, again, prior to the commencement of the 1962-63 school session, application was made to the de fendant school board” for the racially nondiscriminatory school assignments prayed in this suit. [R. pp. 7, 8— Com plaint, par. 12.] The frustration of these efforts, if proved to have resulted from action or inaction by those whose oath of office would require the opposite course, is such a T o perform such other duties as shall be prescribed by the State Board or as imposed by law." 11 breach o f public trust that justice cannot be achieved un less those responsible be required to pay just and reasonable fees to the plaintiffs’ attorneys. CONCLUSION Wherefore it is respectfully submitted that the District Court should be directed to restore this case to its docket and to enter such decrees as will require the defendant school board forthwith to cease its operation of a bi-racial school system and to allow as part of the costs such reason able and proper attorney’s fees as dominating reasons of justice may require. Respectfully submitted, S. W . T u c k e r H e n r y L. M a r s h , III 214 East Clay Street Richmond, Virginia O t t o L. T u c k e r 901 Princess Street Alexandria, Virginia Attorneys for Appellants APPENDIX I N D E X Page Complaint .............................................................................. 2 Excerpts from Transcript ................ -.............................. 2 Robert E. Aylor Direct ......................................-..................................... 2 Redirect........................................................................... H Order Entered October 2, 1962 ........................................ 17 Letter 20 June 1963 ..........................-....................-.......... 18 Order Entered June 22, 1963 ...........-........... -................... 20 Notice of Appeal filed August 21, 1963 .......................... 21 Appendix To Brief for Appellants CO M PLAIN T filed September 18, 1962 * * * V III W H EREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray: (A ) That the Court enter a temporary restraining order forthwith enjoining the defendants from denying Julia Brown and Julian Brown the right to attend James Wood High School in Frederick County, Virginia. (B ) That this Court enter an interlocutory and a per manent injunction restraining and enjoining defendants, and each of them, their successors in office, and their agents and employees, forthwith, from denying infant plaintiffs, or either of them, solely on account of race or color, the right to be enrolled in, to attend and to be educated in, the public schools to which they, respectively, have sought ad mission. (C ) That this Court enter a permanent injunction re straining and enjoining defendants, and each of them, their successors in office, and their agents and employees from any and all action that regulates or affects, on the basis of race or color, the initial assignment, the placement, the transfer, the admission, the enrollment or the education of any child to and in any public school. (D ) That, specifically, the defendants and each of them, their successors in office, and their agents and employees be permanently enjoined and restrained from denying the application of any Negro child for assignment in or transfer to any public school attended by white children when such denial is based solely upon requirements or criteria which do not operate to exclude white children from said school. (E ) That the defendants be perpetually restrained and enjoined from operating a biracial school system or, in the alternative, that the defendants be required to submit a plan for the reorganization of schools on a unitary nonracial basis. (F ) That the defendants pay to plaintiffs the costs of this action and attorney’s fees in such amount as to the Court may appear reasonable and proper. (G ) That plaintiffs have such other and further relief as is just. TR AN SC RIPT filed September 19, 1963 Charlottesville, Virginia October 2 ,1962 (The Court convened at 10:00 a.m.) RO BERT E. A Y LO R , called as a witness by and on behalf o f Plaintiff having been duly sworn, testified as follows: DIRECT E X A M IN A TIO N By: Mr. S. W. Tucker Q. Will you please state your name and official position? 3 A. Robert E, Aylor, Division Superintendent, Frederick County Schools. Q. How long have you been Superintendent of Frederick County Schools sir? A. Since 1949. Q. Is there any member of the School Board o f Frederick County in court at this time? A. Yes sir. Q. W ho are they or who is he? A. Charles E. Bass, Frederick County School Board. Q. He is the only School Board member present in Court now? A. That’s right. Q. How many schools are there in the Frederick County School system? A.. Sixteen. (tr. 2) Q. Will you state how many of those are high schools and how many o f them are elementary schools or junior high schools as the case may be ? A. One high school, James W ood High School and fif teen elementary schools. Q. How many of those schools and designate which ones are attended by Negroes? A. One elementary school. Q. What is the name o f that school ? A. Gibson Elementary School. Q. I assume that the teachers and the administrative personnel at the Gibson Elementary School are all Negroes? A. That’s right. 4 Q. I assume that no white children attend the Gibson Elementary School? A. That’s correct. Q. I assume that in the other schools and the administra tive personnel are all white persons ? A. Correct. Q. I assume that no Negroes attend any other schools other than the Gibson Elementary School? A. That’s right. Q. And that has been so as long as you have been Superintendent of Schools o f Frederick County? A. That’s correct. (tr. 3) Q. Does the School Board to your knowledge have in mind any plan that will change the racial pattern o f school attendance that we have just discussed? A. You mean do we have any organized plan? Q. Does the School Board— has the School Board dis cussed the requirements under the Brown decision for a desegregated school system with an idea of bringing the school system into line with what was required in the Brown decision ? A. W e haven’t discussed that particular decision, no sir. Q. Well, has the School Board attempted to find some method o f desegregating the schools ? A. W e haven’t looked for any method. W e realize that desegregation will probably come in the future, but to this point we haven’t set up any organized plan to do this. Q. You have not taken any steps to initiate it? A. No sir. 5 Q. Now you have read the complaint in this case, I assume ? A. Yes sir. Q. You are familiar with the names of the plaintiffs listed in the caption of the complaint— that is the Brown children and their father? A. Yes sir. Q. Do you know these people ? (tr. 4) A. I don’t know any of the children. I have met the father this summer for the first time. I probably have seen him at the School meetings because I attend meetings of all schools but I didn’t know him personally until this summer. Q. Can you recall what time of the summer, sir ? A. First time I met him was along about August 9, 1962, approximately that date. Q. He is a resident of Frederick County? A. That’s right. Q. And he is a Negro? A. That’s right. Q. As a matter of fact some of his children attend the Gibson Elementary School? A. That’s correct. Q. What is the practice in Frederick County with regard to Negro children who have finished Gibson Elementary School if they desire to continue their education ? A. In Frederick County— as I stated a while ago— we do not have a— we just have one high school— the James W ood High School and we have an agreement with the City of Winchester— an agreement of long standing even before I became superintendent of schools whereby Negro high 6 school students would attend the Douglas High School. O f course we pay tuition for those who attend. And through custom and down through the years as the children have completed the elementary school in Frederick County— the (tr. 5) Gibson Elementary School, the custom has been for them to attend the Douglas High School located in the city o f Winchester. W e provide the transportation and pay the tuition and keep them there as long as they desire or until they graduate. Q. Do you have any supervision over the Douglas High School in Winchester? A. No sir. Q. Does the School Board of the County of Frederick have any control or supervision over the Douglas High School in the City of Winchester? A. No sir. Q. When a white child living in Frederick County graduates from one of the fourteen elementary schools which white children of Frederick County attend, what is the procedure followed by the Board or by the child or by your office with respect to that child’s admission to high school? A. Normally they attend the James W ood High School. Those who complete the seventh grade in any of the ele mentary schools make application on forms furnished by the Pupils Placement Board and they are sent to the Pupils Placement Board and then, of course, sent on to James Wood High School. Q. This Pupil Placement Board form that the— that is filled out by the child who has completed the elementary school and is on his way to the James W ood High School does not contain the name of the school for which the child 7 (tr. 6) is applying does it— it does not does it? A. It does not. Q. So that what the child actually does or what is actually done on the Pupil Placement form is that the child or the parent makes a request that the child be placed in school is that correct? A. Yes sir. Q. The— as to the children who graduate from the Gibson Elementary School I assume that they make out a similar Pupil Placement form is that correct? A. Since they are going to the Winchester School system that is handled by the Winchester School system. Q. Where do they get the form ? A. The forms are provided by the Pupil Placement Board. Q. How does the form get to the child or to his parent ? A. W e distribute them through the principals of the schools. Q. So that the principal of the Gibson Elementary School gives to the graduating child a pupil placement form is that correct? A. Yes sir. Q. Just as the principal o f each of the other fourteen elementary schools in your county gives to the child a pupil placement form. The pupil placement form in each case is filled out and signed by the parent and returned to the principal o f the school from which it came ? (tr. 7) A. And then in turn sent to the School Board office. Q. I am just trying to see what the child’s parent has to do. The Pupil Placement Board form is filled out, 8 signed by the parent and returned to the principal o f the school from which it came is that correct? A. That’s the correct procedure. Q. So that at that stage the principals of each school have applications to the Pupil Placement Board asking that the child be placed in a school without any designation as to the name of the school is that correct ? A. That’s correct. Q. So now that it is fair to say that any child who is now attending high school and any child who resides in the County of Frederick and is now attending high school has prepared or someone has prepared for such child a Pupil Placement Form at some time or other it that correct? A. That’s correct. Q. And that Pupil Placement form was given to the principal o f the elementary school in the County of Frederick from which the child was graduated? A. That’s the procedure. Q. So that the Negro children who reside in Frederick County and are now attending the Douglas High School in Winchester they or their parents for them did the same thing that the white children who— that were done for the white children who are now attending the James Wood (tr. 8) High School in the County of Frederick? A. That’s the plan. Q. Do they fill out a Pupil Placement form and return it to the principal of the elementary school ? A. Yes sir. Q. Everything after that is done by the school board or by the Pupil Placement Board? A. That’s right. 9 Q. Now who made the first determination that these children who are graduating from the Gibson Elementary School would get an assignment by the Pupil Placement Board— on their Pupil Placement form to the Douglas High School in Winchester? A. That is done through a policy o f the Frederick County School Board. I have to sign them and recommend to the Pupil Placement Board to go to either the James Wood or Douglas. Q. And in the case o f the children graduating from the Gibson Elementary School you recommend that they go to Douglas and in the case of all the other children graduating from the other fourteen elementary schools the recommen dation that they go to James W ood? A. Yes sir. Q. And the only reason for the difference in this recom mendation is race? A. Yes sir. Q. The infant plaintiffs Julia Brown and Julian Brown (tr. 9) are attending the Douglas High School in W in chester is that correct ? A. That’s correct. Q. And they are assigned to and attending the Douglas High School in Winchester by virtue of the fact that your school board or your office recommended to the Pupil Place ment Board that they be there assigned is that correct ? A. That’s right. Q. Now is there anything required of a white child who lives in Frederick County and has graduated from one of these fourteen elementary schools in Frederick County that white children attend— is there anything required o f that child to attend James W ood High School in 10 Frederick County that has not been done by or on behalf of Julia and Julian Brown? A. I don’t understand the question. Q. Considering everything and as far as I understand the only thing that is required is the filling out of the Pupil Placement form, considering everything that a white child who has finished elementary school in Frederick County and who still lives in Frederick County, considering every thing that has been done by or on behalf of that child as a prerequisite to his attending James W ood High School-— and my question is— is there anything required o f that white child or of that white child’s parents that has not already been done by Julia and Julian Brown or their parents? (tr. 10) A. I don’t know of anything. Q. Now there have been requests made to you by or on behalf o f Julia and Julian Brown that they be permitted to attend James Wood High School have there not? A. Yes he came in and asked that they be transferred to the James Wood High School. Q. As a matter of fact he has appeared before the School Board on other occasions— on earlier occasions and made such requests has he not? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. All right you said he came in— now when did he come in to your office ? A. The first time I saw him was around August 9 or thereabouts. I am not sure of the date but I would say' around the ninth of August. Q. And on or about the 9th of August he had conversa tion with you? A. Yes sir. 11 Q. Have you received a letter in regard to this ? A. I received a letter from Attorney Otto Tucker. Q. And the purport of that letter was a request that these children be permitted to attend'— these two children— Julia and Julian be permitted to attend the James Wood High School and that the other children who are plaintiffs in this case be permitted to attend the Stonewall Elementary School is that correct? (tr. 11) A. That was the request in the letter. Q. And you replied to that letter that in their application you suggested that Mr. Brown drop into your office and complete the necesary application form and thereupon you said they would be processed upon his completing it ? A. I have a copy o f the letter back in my brief case. Your Honor to save some time I will read it in the record. It is dated August 28, 1962, Mr. Otto L. Tucker, Attorney and Counselor at Law, 901 Princess Street, Alexandria, Virginia. Dear sir: I f you will have your clients drop by my office in the Frederick County Court House Building and complete the necesary applications forms, it will be processed in the required manner. I will be pleased to assist any applicant in completing the forms, with best wishes I am, sincerely yours, Robert E. Aylor, Division Superinten dent. * * (tr. 17) By: Mr. S. W. Tucker REDIRECT E X A M IN A TIO N Q. You just said the School Board did not deny them the request made on behalf of the Browns. I suggest that 12 the School Board has not recommended that that request be granted either has it? A. No it didn’t recommend that it be granted either no. They merely stated that the forms or the applications would have to be treated in the proper manner. Q. If your Honor please there is one area of the examina tion I neglected to' go into on my original examination I would like to go into now. TH E C O U R T : That’s quite all right under the circum stances. Q. Can you tell us approximately how many Negro chil dren residing in Frederick County attend the Douglas High School in Winchester? A. Approximately 24 to 30— in that area. I would say about 26 approximately. Q. Can you approximate the number of elementary (tr. 18) school children who attend the Gibson Elementary School ? A. Approximately 100. Q. Can you tell us approximately how many children are enrolled in the James W ood High School? A. Approximately 1500. Q. Can you tell us what is the rate of capacity for James W ood High School? A. Would you repeat that question. Q. What is the school building designed to hold— what is the capacity o f James W ood High School? A. Approximately 1100 to- 1200'. Q. Would the admission of 30 additional high school 13 children— would the addition of another 30 children in James Wood High School present an insurmountable obstacle ? A. We would tend to crowd an already crowded situa tion. Q. By 30? A. Yes sir. Q. O f 1500? A. Yes sir. Q. Assume they are white children as far as overall conditions, o f James. Wood High School is concerned you could put 30 more high school children in James W ood High School and nobody would be too much aware of the fact that you made an addition? A. Well 30 in 1500 why it possibly wouldn’t be a great amount but still we are crowded and adding 30 children (tr. 19) would crowd it more. Q. It would show up on the figures but so far as the operation o f the school it wouldn’t really affect anybody one way or the other to lose 30 children in the 1500? A. No it wouldn’t affect the overall picture too much. Q. Then I ask you, other than the factor o f race is there anything that requires of these Negro children to attend school outside the county or is there any obstacle preventing their attending school within their county ? A. W e have been operating a bi-racial system down through the years. It has been the custom. Q. Aside from race is there any other obstacle? A. I can’t think of anything. Q. So that if the school board wanted to it could eliminate this racially discriminatory feature of the school operation 14 as far as the high school is concerned— it could eliminate that at any time couldn’t they ? A. That’s possible. Q. Even tomorrow? A. I wouldn’t think so tomorrow because the schedule is all set up and the school is in operation and has been in operation now about a month. It would be rather difficult to make the adjustment tomorrow. Q. Don’t high school children enroll in high school as late as even now ? (tr. 20) A. They move into the county. Q. If a white family moved into Frederick County tomorrow and had five children or three children who are in high school in the county from which they moved they could be admitted day after tomorrow in the James Wood High School couldn’t they ? A. That’s right. Q. One more question. Assuming the school board wanted to is there any obstacle that would prevent their desegregating the entire school system o f Frederick County within a year? A. MR. M ASSIE : Your Honor I am going to object to that question on the ground that it calls for a conclusion and he is not a member of the school board and this is a superintendent o f schools of the county but this calls for a decision to be made by the school board not by him and is speculatory and calls for a conclusion. MR. TU C K E R : Your Honor please he is a chief administrator o f the school board. 15 T H E C O U R T : He would be the one to call the atten tion of the School Board o f any obstacle that might exist. I f he doesn’t know it they wouldn’t know it. I think he can answer the question. MR. M ASSIE : W e make exception to the ruling of the Court. A. I am not sure that possibly all o f the Negro families (tr. 21) would want to make the transfer. TH E C O U R T : That isn’t answering the question. MR. M ASSIE : There is one other objection I would like to make your Honor. Under the laws o f the State o f Virginia that now exist the School Board as well as the superintendent who is the administrator must comply with the state law and there are certain state regulations which provide for the assignment of children such— T H E C O U R T : I don’t think the question is directed to that at all. The question was whether there was any physical or any other reason other than law— the law is what we are concerned with— whether the law is constitu tional or not. MR. M A S S IE : But what I am getting at is this ques tion calls for a— for his interpretation of the law of V ir ginia. T H E CO U RT: No it doesn’t. Disregard the law al together in answering the question, just whether there is any reason other than law. A. I don’t know of any other reason. Q. Let me ask you this— does approximately 100 ele mentary school children now attending Gibson Elementary 16 School— they are all Negroes— do they live in one part o f the county or are they scattered throughout the county? A. They are scattered somewhat. They are in about three— I would say about five areas in the county. Q. And you had separate school buses to service that (tr. 22) school? A. Yes sir. O. How many buses? A. Two. Q. How many buses are in your entire fleet? A. Forty. Q. Do your buses carry the high school children into Winchester ? A. Yes. Q. They also have to ride the two buses that service the Gibson Elementary School? A. Yes. Q. These two buses that service the Gibson Elementary School between them travels the entire length of the County ? A. No sir there are two districts in Frederick County in which no Negroes live. Q. But in the districts where Negroes live there are also white children living there too? A. That’s right. Q. So that you have in some districts o f Frederick County a bus went on to pick up colored children and an other bus went on to pick up white children. A. That’s right. Q. Now if the school board wanted to forget about race 17 you could actually eliminate some of the duplication in bus (tr. 23) transportation couldn’t you? A. That’s right. Q. If the school board wanted to forget about race you could then take these pupil placement forms and recommend that children attend the schools near their homes regard less o f where they live or what their color is couldn’t you? A. It could be done. Q. And according to your experience with the pupil placement board whatever you recommend that is what they assign— that has been the experience up to this time hasn’t it? A. Yes they have— the Board has followed the recom mendations. O RD ER entered October 2, 1962 This case came on this day to be heard upon the motion of the plaintiffs for an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from refusing to permit the plaintiffs Julia Brown and Julian Brown to attend the James Wood High School in Frederick County, Virginia. By consent o f all counsel, evidence was heard which might affect all phases o f the case but with the understanding that since it had not been contemplated that such a hearing would be held at this time, particularly since the case not been matured by the fil ing of answers, a further hearing for the taking of evidence would be held at a later date if any party requested it. And the court having considered the evidence adduced D E N I E D plaintiffs’ request for an interlocutory in junction. 18 The deputy clerk of this court will transmit a certified copy of this order to Messrs. S. W . Tucker and Henry L. Marsh, III, 214 East Clay Street, Richmond 19, Virginia; to Mr. Otto L. Tucker, 901 Princess Street, Alexandria, Virginia; to Mr. Jos. A. Massie, Jr., Winchester, Virginia; and to Mr. A. B. Scott, 1200 Travelers Building, Richmond, 19, Virginia. E N T E R : / s / Thomas J. Michie United States District Judge. 20 June, 1963 Hon. Thomas J. Michie, Judge United States District Court For the Western District o f Virginia Charlottesville, Virginia Re: Brenda Elaine Brown, et al vs. County School Board of Frederick County, et al— C.A. 642, Harri sonburg Dear Judge Michie: The draft for order enclosed with your letter o f June 17 has been endorsed “ Seen and objected to” and forwarded to Mr. Scott with a copy of this letter. W e think it appropriate to urge that the order striking the case from the docket should not be entered but that the Court should enter an order similar to that submitted with our letter of May 27 or set the cause down for hearing. 19 In Bradley vs. School Board o f the City o f Richmond, - - - - - F 2 d ........ (4th Cir., No. 8757, May 10, 1963), the District Court had ordered that all o f the individual infant plaintiffs be transferred to the schools for which they had applied. The appeal was based upon a refusal of the Court to grant further injunctive relief. The appellate court con cluded that “ it is primarily the duty o f the School Board to eliminate” the practices which serve the continued racially segregated character of the school system and H E L D : “ not only are the individual infant plaintiffs en titled to relief which has. been ordered but the plaintiffs are entitled, on behalf o f others of the class they represent and who are similarly situated, to an injunction against the continuation of the discriminatory system and practices which have been found to exist.” On remand, the District Court enjoined against refusing admission o f any pupil to any public school in the City of Richmond on the basis of race, from placing pupils in schools upon the basis o f attend ance areas previously established for white and Negro schools, from assigning pupils upon their promotion from one school to another on the basis of race, and from condi tioning the grant of a transfer requested by a pupil upon the applicant’s submission to futile, burdensome or discrimina tory administrative procedures. In the case o f Watson v. City o f Memphis, ........ U.S. ........, (M ay 23, 1963) the Supreme Court has again spoken at length regarding what was meant by the 1955 implement ing decision in the School Segregation Cases, e. g . : “ Given the extended time which has elapsed, it is far from clear that the mandate of the second Brown, decision requiring that desegregation proceed with ‘all deliberate speed’ would today be fully satisfied by types o f plans or programs for desegregation of public educational facilities which eight 20 years ago might have been deemed sufficient. Brown never contemplated that the concept o f ‘deliberate speed’ would countenance indefinite delay in elimination o f racial bar riers in schools, let alone other public facilities not involv ing the same physical problems or comparable conditions.” Very truly yours, of SW T :ews TU CKER & M ARSH cc: Clerk, United States District Court at Harrisonburg A. B. Scott, Esquire Joseph A. Massie, Jr., Esquire Otto L. Tucker, Esquire O RDER entered June 22, 1963 The court having been advised that the state Pupil Place ment Board has assigned all of the plaintiffs in this cause to the schools to which they desired to go so that the case has become moot as to all o f the plaintiffs and it therefore appearing to the court that the cause should now be stricken from the docket but with provision for its reinstatement in the event of any subsequent developments which would warrant it, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is hereby stricken from the docket but with the proviso that it may be reinstated without payment of any filing fee in the event that any o f the plaintiffs or any one who would have had a right to intervene in this cause had it remained on the docket shall file a petition for rein 21 statement and/or intervention stating a cause which would have given such plaintiff or intervenor a right to reopen the case or to intervene had the cause remained upon the docket. The deputy clerk o f this court will transmit certified copies of this order to counsel o f record. E N TER : June 22, 1963. Thomas J. Michie U.S. District Judge. N OTICE OF A P P E A L filed August 21, 1963 Notice is hereby given that Brenda Elaine Brown, Pamela Brown, Sandra Brown, Cornell Jerome Brown, Julian Brown and Julia Brown, infants, by Julian E. Brown, their father and next friend, and Julian E. Brown, plaintiffs, hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from the order o f this Court entered on July 22, 1963, by which the Court struck this cause from the docket, thereby denying the plaintiffs their costs, in cluding attorney’s fees, as sought in the prayer of the complaint designated as (F ) , and thereby also denying relief to the class represented by the plaintiffs as sought in the prayers o f the complaint designated as (C) , (D ) , (E) , and G ) .